|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPT OF PH#2419
DECEMBER 18, 2003
PRESENT: Nicles Lefakis (Acting Chairman)
Anthony DiPace
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
Secretary Karen Krebs: PH#2419 - Application for a request for change of zoning district from Industrial 1 (I-1) to multi-family residence (RM-20), Map 64, Lots 69 and 70, K&K Developers, LLC. Applicant/Galaxy Management, Thomas J. Henshon & Norman Fine, Trustees, Owners. (Must close by December 18).
Attorney Thomas Fahey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Attorney Thomas Fahey representing the applicant. The applicant is K&K Developers LLC which is a subsidiary of Garden Homes. Present with me this evening is Mr. Eli Pechtold. He's the principal of K&K Developers and Dan Kleinman, the General Counsel, Denton Hopper, land planner, and Todd Pennie from Fuss & O'Neil.
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed zone change. As you know, we have just, in the previous public hearing, discussed a proposal for amending the zoning regulations to create an RM-20 zone. The RM-20 zone will permit multi-family housing. The developer, K&K Developers, has obtained an option for two parcels of land which are located in Enfield at what I call the triangle forming the intersection of Shaker, Elm and George Washington. Excuse me -
Todd, if you wouldn't mind outlining the two parcels that are the subject of the zone change.
Mr. Pennie: The first parcel is bounded by Shaker Road, Elm Street and George Washington. The second parcel is at Shaker Road and Elm Street.
Attorney Fahey: The two parcels contain approximately thirty-seven acres and the frontage - there's approximately 1,400' of frontage on Shaker Road and Elm Street and approximately 660' of frontage on George Washington. Of that thirty-seven acres, there's only approximately twenty-five developable acres. And Todd, I'd like you, if you will, first, would you mind showing the Commission and the public moving in a west/east direction from Elm Street, the zoning districts that are around the parcel and then if you would be more specific and go to the other map and show the wetlands delineation.
Mr. Pennie: Todd Pennie, Senior Project Engineer with Fuss & O'Neil. We are consulting engineers out of Manchester, Connecticut. To answer Tom's question, zoning in the proximity of our parcel starting on Elm Street to the west - on the south side of Elm Street, there is the BL zone. Continuing in the easterly direction on Elm Street south is an R-44 zone. Part of that R-44 zone continues north on the westerly side of George Washington Road. Starting now from Elm Street changing into Shaker, we start off at an R-33 zone and continue on the northerly side of Shaker Road with an R-44, a small piece that is zoned BL and then continuing on in an R-33 zone. On the westerly side of George Washington, there is a small piece zoned R-44 and then to the east of George Washington is the I-1 zone.
As Attorney Fahey had indicated, the site is about thirty-seven acres. The wetlands were flagged on the site and comprise approximately nine acres of actual wetland soils. Considering the town's regulated upland areas, that consists of another 11.8 acres. As you can tell, there's quite a pocket of wetlands that is located to the north central of the property that works its way down to the south of the parcel and extends along. It divides the piece up into three upland areas - this area that is central and north of the piece, this piece down here that is south and west, and a small piece of upland that is to the south and east and a small piece that is to the west.
Attorney Fahey: The wetlands that are shown there are in the dark green - is that correct?
Todd Pennie: Right.
Attorney Fahey: And they were they flagged by a certified soil scientist from the State of Connecticut.
Todd Pennie: That's correct.
Attorney Fahey: Then the flagging that the soil scientist did - you then used that line and actually depicted the flags by the survey.
Todd Pennie: That's correct.
Attorney Fahey: And the light green represents what they call the buffer area that's required by the Inland Wetlands.
Now, the site itself is zoned industrial and available for industrial development for quite some time. It hasn't attracted many activities because it is still available. And, obviously, from looking at that map, you can see from an industrial perspective for a meaningfully sized industrial development, you have some significant wetland impacts. And, the Economic Development Director was one of the individuals on staff that we saw - early on we told him about the parcel and our interest in the parcel and sought his report which you customarily get anyway when you hear staff reviews and we do have his report.
Mr. Giner: They already have it for the record. They have that letter on the record already.
Attorney Fahey: The Commissioners all have a copy of his report. In his report, he indicates that he typically tries to preserve all of the industrial land that he can in the town to encourage the diversity of development that was designed into your Plan of Development. He recognizes that there are certain sites that are so constrained with wetlands that they are not likely to be developed as such. As he says, his previous position is weighted toward saving land for industry but it is not an absolutist position. In this case, he says "be advised I do not object to the change in the I-1 zone. The wetland delineations I have seen would likely preclude development of this land for industrial purposes. Modern industrial buildings are one-story facilities that require a considerable amount of contiguous developable land for building, movement of material by truck and for adequate land for parking and water storage. My observation of this site and knowledge of development regulations leads me to believe that this land is unlikely to be developed for industry." And that was the reason that he did not object to this change of zone application. And I think he indicates that.
What are the possible uses for this site? The developer or the applicant is a developer of apartment buildings and looked at the site. Despite its configuration, with appropriate planning, they can, in fact, locate a development of multi-family homes there in such a way that the site can be used in a very efficient and safe manner. Todd, I think you've got a conceptual layout of a multi-family development with several buildings preserving to the maximum extent possible any wetland impact. Would you show that?
Todd Pennie: That's correct. What we have done conceptually and, again, anything that would come before you again would be a fully engineered site plan but conceptually what we've done is taken and dispersed - typically with a warehouse or an office space, you're going to have a larger footprint for the building. With this kind of use, we were able to make the footprints smaller and more multiple. So we have seven units here that have footprints and, as you can see, we have minimized - not eliminated but minimized - wetland impacts where most of our impacts are going to be in the upland review area. The site has an access drive off Shaker Road. We also have an additional access off George Washington and there's a singular unit that would be, if you will, isolated from the others off Elm Street. In total, there are 252 units and the parking supporting those units.
Attorney Fahey: Shaker Road is State Route 220 and, therefore, in addition to the review that this Commission would have with respect to traffic conditions, that would also require a state review for the entry encroachment. Now, did you also at my request do for purposes of comparing this particular proposed use to a use that could be theoretically done on this site under the Industrial-1 zone for purposes of comparing the traffic impact?
Todd Pennie: That's correct. In terms of traffic, and what I'll do really quick, is put a conceptual (pause) - We compared the site based on these impacts environmentally. We developed a site using an office use that would have a similar impact. That resulted in a 135,000 square foot office use. We have done a trip generation. We have done two uses and it should be noted that this use, as permitted now, will have a significant increase in traffic based on the residential use. There is nearly a double trip generation in the a.m. peak for the office and a nearly fifty percent increase in traffic in the p.m. peak. Therefore, we feel that this would have less traffic than is currently allowed in the regulations.
Attorney Fahey: Todd, what you're saying is the 135,000 square foot office - what you're trying to do is design something in terms of its similar impact on wetlands?
Todd Pennie: That's right.
Attorney Fahey: Okay. And in doing so, you had to locate the building in that location and put in that kind of parking. That use, comparatively speaking, would generate much more traffic in the a.m. and p.m. than would the 250 units of multi-family. The office use is the highest and best use that would be permitted under the existing Industrial-1 zone.
Todd Pennie: That's correct.
Commissioner DiPace: A question - did you use the proper industrial regulations when you did that conceptual plan? Did you use the regulations with the buffer of 150' if I'm not mistaken, Jose.
Mr. Giner: I believe they are 100' across -
Commissioner DiPace: Versus your proposal which was 10'?
Attorney Fahey: I think what you're asking is in the Residential unit -
Commissioner DiPace: See how you have this corner of the parking lot - if that is to scale, it is roughly 10' off the property line - that residential house. If it is used for industrial, there's a 100-foot buffer there that has to be put in place which means those buildings really can't fit there. You have to have smaller buildings.
Todd Pennie: There is room to shift the buildings and bring this building into the middle. There is room to bring this up into here and still have the adequate parking.
Commissioner DiPace: And still have the parking lot 100' away?
Mr. Giner: It's 150' away from those houses on the eastern border. The regulations say no industrial use of any parcel within the industrial districts included but not limited to accessory uses such as parking and loading shall be permitted within 150' of any abutting residential district and 50' from the right of way abutting so it would be 50' from the bottom and 150' for those directly abutting the industrial zone.
Attorney Fahey: Which building are you referring to?
Commissioner DiPace: Both of those on the east side.
Mr. Giner: These are residential districts that directly abut. Any uses here would have to be 150' away from it if it were zoned Industrial.
Todd Pennie: That parking could be shifted over.
Commissioner DiPace: You have to move it 150'.
Todd Pennie: If that part of the building right here is brought over into this area - 150' is here. We can shift that that way 10' and swap that parking into here.
Commissioner DiPace: What about the other one down in the lower corner?
Todd Pennie: Again, we would have to shift that over - 25' here and 50' from the right of way and we could put that parking into here.
Commissioner Hickey: I have a question. Currently, there is an option to purchase the site. You have done an analysis that looks at the potential what you referred to as the highest and best use as currently zoned to be shown on the right. Then, you did an analysis showing a change to residential to support multi-family. Was there any analysis done looking at what could be developed for the R-44 that actually intrudes into the lot if the parcel was rezoned R-44.
Attorney Fahey: The R-44 is, I believe, the single-family zone and the economics of the cost of the land and the development constraints which would limit the number of units that you could put there under R-44 - it didn't make any economic sense. Thank you, Todd.
The site itself we feel is locationally appropriate for a zone change because it does provide, as you saw earlier, a transition from the more intensive to the less intensive uses. There are a number of different uses - industrial, business - transitioning into residential. Across the street on Shaker Road, obviously, is the Henry Barnard School and there's also the Brown Funeral Home which are business uses. The area itself also has the Fox Hill Apartments which are on Elm Street and I think Georgetown is near there as well.
In terms of neighborhood impact, we feel that the less intensive use of the residential will be more beneficial to the neighborhood. We feel that if it is developed under the present zoning - you just heard the comment on much more traffic based upon the use as a professional office. If it's industrial, which Mr. Warren doesn't think would happen there, but if it was and you did have an industrial proposal, you would have to deal with not only the parking and traffic but also a different type of traffic - much more trucks and perhaps with warehouses you tend to get trucks traveling at night and with the backing up and the beepers going off as they load and unload.
The existing road network - you're all aware that in the last few years, there were some changes made to Shaker - the intersection there at Shaker and Elm Street. I'm not exactly sure what year that was but I believe somewhere in the year 2000 range. That has - from what we gather - did you get any information on that, Todd, regarding accident history?
Todd Pennie: We had contacted the Enfield Police Department. They had not called us back but we checked with DOT. They have a two-year accident record for Route 220. From October, 1999 to September, 2002, there were, in that three year period, thirty accidents located at this intersection, 10 accidents located at Ganny and an additional 16 accidents within the stretch between Ganny and George Washington and 14 accidents at George Washington and Shaker. Those amounts do not deem this area as a hazardous area. That is based on the fact that this section of the road is not on DOT's suggested list of surveillance study sites.
Attorney Fahey: The developer, obviously, is sensitive to having a successful project so he wants to make sure that they place the entrances and exits to the site in a place that is the safest. That, of course, is something that has to be studied in detail and will be and submitted in the form of a traffic study both to you and to the STC.
The developer intends to build two-bedroom units, two baths, 1,100 to 1,150 square feet, nine-foot ceilings, ceramic tile, private balconies with a floor patio, modern appliances including washer and dryer, fully sprinklered. There would be secure access, central air conditioning, sound insulation, New England facades, ample parking for guests, professional landscaping, on-site emergency maintenance. The private roads would be maintained by the property owner, the developer, as well as the landscaping, on-site maintenance and private refuse pickup. The expected revenue to the Town for taxes is in excess of a half a million dollars based upon a concept example of 250 units and a build out of approximately $25 million.
We feel the use is less intensive than the industrial. Regarding public facility impact, we have checked with the Connecticut Water Company. They indicated to us that they have plenty of water available to serve the private sewer capacities available. We would have to check into any issues that exist with the sewer system and have to design it and have your town staff approve the design.
There is another issue - a site constraint - and that is that there is a very high water table on the property. That's why one of the provisions in the text provides for these units will be built on a slab. There won't be basements. They're experienced in doing that and also, I think, it is really mandated by the site itself because of the water table. Obviously, they would have to make provisions for storage which I believe they have already taken into consideration.
As far as impact on the public schools, as I said in the previous hearing, Bigelow has approximately 476 units and their manager indicated that they have approximately thirty children who reside there and take the bus to school daily. This is consistent with our own data from projects that the developer has in Hamden and Manchester where they generate on the average of one school resident per ten units. That would produce an estimated twenty-eight school children and the cost to the town of providing school service for those children would be significantly outweighed by the increase in tax revenue. Provisions would be made, whether they would be required by the town or by the state, with respect to the entry way on Shaker Road. Obviously, with a school across the street, there would be sensitivity to that.
I would like to introduce for the record again, and I know I did this in the last hearing, but I think to keep the record straight, I need to do it again - the letter from Mr. Alaimo.
Commissioner DiPace: Nick, if you want, as long as it is acceptable to him, you can incorporate everything from the last hearing into this hearing provided it is acceptable.
Attorney Fahey: Is that acceptable to staff?
Commissioner DiPace: No, is it acceptable to you?
Attorney Fahey: You're okay with that. If we're going to do that, then I would like to have all the exhibits and you might as well have the comments themselves to the extent that they relate to them. You might as well incorporate everything in addition to what I'm saying here and make that part of the record for the zone change hearing as well. That would include the realtor's letter and the appraisal from Mr. Burke. If you look at the comments from Mr. Burke, he comments specifically on his experience in Enfield and his familiarity with the surrounding area. His conclusion was there wouldn't be any negative impact and there would be an increase in value based upon the build out of this apartment complex.
With that, I think I will reserve my comments for rebuttal so the public can have an opportunity to address the Commission.
Commissioner Lefakis: At this time - yes, Commissioner
Commissioner DiPace: Are you going to grant an extension for this one also or are we going to close this one and hold off and see if this zone actually gets created or not before we have a vote on this.
Attorney Fahey: I would think you would want to continue this as well.
Commissioner DiPace: Seeing as that is what we're going to do, my next question is you talked about comparing this to two other sites where they've built these types of units - perhaps you could bring along, if you don't have with you now, some pictures showing what they look like, what they potentially would look like. I know it's conceptual but you compared it on several occasions.
Attorney Fahey: We would be happy to do that.
Commissioner Egan: Just a follow-up on some of the things that you said that you had or documentation that you might have on the impact analysis. You mentioned the traffic studies done that did a complete analysis that you could provide in writing to the Commission - the comparison of both the industrial use and the residential use as far as traffic and the impact both on Washington Road and on Shaker Road and Elm Street.
Attorney Fahey: We were in the process of preparing - what we thought would make the most sense was to take the use that we thought would be the best use for the site under the current zoning and we're preparing exactly that - a trip generation analysis with data and we can put that into a short report form.
Todd Pennie: What are you looking for? What we have done is based upon accepted practices using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' trip generation. What we have identified in the counts or I have identified today in terms of increases at peak hour were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' generation manual. Are you looking for that information specifically?
Commissioner Egan: Whatever documentation that you have to back up the statements that you made for the record.
Todd Pennie: Okay.
Commissioner Egan: I was looking to see what you've done and if that's how you based your testimony on that, then that would be what I'm looking for.
Attorney Fahey: We'll supply you with that. Just keep in mind that this site has not been fully designed in terms of the actual site plan of the apartments. We've shown a conceptual sketch and, obviously, it has to be modified in terms of tweaking buildings and landscaping.
Commissioner Egan: And I suspect Wetlands is going to have a whole lot to say about your intrusion into the regulated area. I thing that's a pretty liberal assumption on your part that you're going to get all those approvals from Wetlands to go through all the regulated areas and roads. These are hypothetical but they are not even realistic hypothetical.
Attorney Fahey: Well, there is a small crossing but we have tried to actually stay away from not only the wetlands but also the wetland buffers. What you're seeing is in most cases everything is in the uplands but there are some buffer intrusions that would absolutely have to be approved by Wetlands.
Commissioner Egan: Sure and the parking lots, the drainage and the snow removal - those are all going to be issues. This is a pretty liberal indication of what you can do there. The other thing is you made some references to school costs and financial and fiscal impact upon the town. Do you have a study or do you have any documentation to back up?
Attorney Fahey: I can tell you the tax analysis was simple - $25 million for the build out- 75% of that is $17.5 million. That would be the appraised value. We're just talking conceptually but that's what we're estimating it to be.
Commissioner Egan: Did you go into the fire and police and the additional costs and services - the true financial impact? We always like to talk about the revenue or the generation of revenue but there are costs involved and we don't hear a whole lot about those. Sometimes developers will do a fiscal impact on the project, both revenues and costs, and I guess you've made some statements and it sounded to me like you might have gone in that direction and I just wanted to see if we could see that.
Attorney Fahey: We typically do that full thing when we are doing single-family housing because then the town has to maintain the roads and all the rest of the stuff. With this type, since the roads are private and the refuse is handled privately, and the sprinklers and what not, it's a little more difficult to do but we could certainly look into that and try to come up with something. I just did it strictly from a tax standpoint and the school standpoint and the numbers were so dramatically different. As I said, 28 students and the change versus the $500,000 in tax revenue from the 28 student cost was a dramatic difference. Obviously, if there is a way to determine the impact with respect to police services and fire, we will look into that and try to get that data to you.
Commissioner Lefakis: Any other Commissioners? This is the opportunity for the public to speak either in favor or against. Is there anyone who would like to speak?
Mary Lou Strom: Mary Lou Strom, 17 Matthewson Avenue, Enfield, Connecticut. Before I make comments for myself, I would like your consideration in reading a letter from Margaret Perry who lives at 281 Washington Road. "Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Please accept my apology for not being able to address you in person as a long-planned family vacation prevents me from attending your meeting tonight. I'm very concerned with the request for a change of zone from Industrial-1 to multi-family residential with the creation of a new RM-20 zone designation by K&K Developers for property located between Shaker Road and Elm Street. First, let me state that I am in no way opposed to the development of this parcel. I would prefer to see light industrial such as the Pearson Way buildings across the street from my house or single-family residential. However, the proposal for high density residential housing raises some major concerns. The first is the high water table and wetlands on this property. When Pearson Way was developed and the firm moved to this applicant's parcel, my basement along with those of my neighbors experienced major flooding. My sump pump ran twenty-four hours a day and still did not keep it d |