|
| |
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
For copies
of the previous minutes please contact Sally Johnson at
Phone: 203-854-7810 x 6778 or Email sjohnson@norwalkct.org
CITY OF NORWALK
PLANNING COMMITTEE
JULY 6, 2006
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Miklave, Chair; Douglas Hempstead; Nicholas Kydes
STAFF: Timothy Sheehan, Executive Director; Jack Burritt, Assistant Executive Director; Munro Johnson
Mr. Miklave opened the meeting at 7:54 p.m. and noted that they did not have a quorum.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Tony Doumlele who has lived in Norwalk for over 20 years commented on the hotel study. He said that he believed that the study needed to be strengthened regarding the room rate per night. He also talked about the Reed-Putnam study and asked for clarification about the number of office vacancies.
Attorney John Louisa, representing two property owners on Wall Street spoke about their concerns with eminent domain. He said that eminent domain is an awesome power and should be used as a last result. He said that he was begging on behalf of the property owners, whose properties are on the list to allow them to work with the Committee during this process. He asked the Committee to be open to creative ideas and that those folks be properly compensated for their property.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 1, 2006 – Regular Meeting
June 19, 2006
Due to a lack of a quorum, no action was taken on this item.
BUSINESS
URBAN RENEWAL PLAN WASHINGTON SOUTH MAIN STREET. IMPROVEMENT AREA II – PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Proposed Amendment to Urban Renewal Plan (Advance to the Common Council)
Mr. Miklave reiterated that they did not have a quorum, but said that he would
like to hear the presentation.
Mr. Burritt had an aerial map showing the area and pointed out the boundaries. He reviewed the history and said that when the project area was created, the Norwalk Company was designated within the Industrial Use zone. Over the last few years, the tenant has relocated and the building is now vacant.
The building, being located where it is, across from The Maritime Aquarium and SoNo is a particularly difficult location for tourists and pedestrians to transit between SoNo and The Maritime Aquarium. The proposal is to develop a mixed use project.
The amendment document has been before other Commissions and is now before this Committee tonight. Since the last meeting there have been two developments. The Planning Commission recommended including an amendment provision for affordable housing. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency met and voted unanimously to include the affordable housing amendment.
Several of the amendments to the plan are there to bring the plan into compliance with today’s laws.
The developer requested additional height on the building to deal with the economical feasibility of the project. The amenity bonus will allow an additional story.
Mr. Burritt stressed that only the amendment was before the Committee for consideration tonight. If the amendment is approved, the project would have to go back through the normal approval process.
Mr. Kydes said that he has issues about the addition of affordable housing to the amendment. He said that he understands that Norwalk meets or exceeds the affordable housing requirements.
Mr. Kydes asked for a definition of a work class scale. He asked if property owners are over subsidizing work force housing requirements. Mr. Kydes said that he has not heard any answers except that more affordable housing is needed. Mr. Kydes asked what affordable housing was and what work force housing was. He suggested putting more pressure on the surrounding towns in providing affordable housing.
Mr. Burritt reviewed the general terms of what represents affordable housing in the eyes of the State. He said that it is geared to the State of Connecticut median income, which identifies a number for a household of four people. The median income requirement changes each year, but households should spend no more than 30% of their income on housing.
Norwalk is above the 10% threshold, but the degree to which it is above is 10 – 12%. Mr. Kydes said that a couple earning $100,000 should not be overlooked when it comes to being able to take advantage of affordable housing.
Mr. Kydes said that he was concerned about putting a larger burden on the taxpayers.
He said that an in-depth benefit analysis should be done to determine if the
taxpayers should shoulder the tax burden. He asked why Norwalk has to subsidize
affordable housing when we have exceeded the quota. The residents are having
a hard enough time paying their taxes.
Mr. Hempstead asked if this was the only location that the proposed amendment
would apply to. Mr. Burritt said that it could apply to the old Connecticut
National Bank/Amberjacks site. The amendment has a geographical component that
changes the land use category.
Mr. Hempstead suggested adding the words “not to exceed” to the amendment. Mr. Burritt suggested that it could be re-written “that each project will be reviewed”. Mr. Hempstead said that it is very arbitrary as it is written. He asked if there is a “fee in lieu of”. Mr. Hempstead said that there is no timeline for this approval and wants to see more restrictions.
Mr. Hempstead said that he wants assurances that there will be no double counting of units. He asked for more description in the language in the amendment. He said that he is looking for a “fee in lieu of” which would take away some of the uncertainties. Mr. Hempstead asked for a 10 ft. setback above 60 ft. and an additional 10 ft. setback which would create a tiered view from the street.
Mr. Bruce Beinfield presented renderings of the project showing tiered setbacks on the buildings. Mr. Hempstead said that he wanted assurance that the setback language will be included in the amendment. In addition, any building with 100ft. width would have to be broken up with architectural designs.
Mr. Miklave asked what the maximum height allowance would be if the developers does not seek the amendment bonus. He was told it would be 45 feet. Mr. Miklave asked if the City would spend any funds on this project if the amendment is adopted. Mr. Burritt replied that if the plan is adopted and the developer seeks the amenity bonus and adds affordable housing, it would not cost the City anything. Mr. Sheehan added that the units will not cost the City anything, but there could be a cost for the services that will be provided.
Mr. Miklave said that once the Common Council approves this change, it will not come back before the Common Council. This will give the Redevelopment Agency the authority to approve affordable housing. He said that he was concerned about not enough affordable housing being included in the amendment.
Mr. Miklave said that you can not be an employer in the City of Norwalk without recognizing that housing for working families is a significant issue facing the City. He said that the City only has 10% when you take into account the housing for the developmentally disabled, the half way houses, senior citizen housing and jail cells.
Mr. Miklave said that over the last five years, he has had an opportunity to speak with people about the need for workforce housing. He said Norwalk employers have employees who commute to Norwalk because they can’t afford to live in Norwalk. Mr. Miklave said that they are building a city where the only people who will be able to afford to live here will be the very wealthy who commute into New York City.
Mr. Miklave said that the absence of affordable housing is one of the biggest threats to the economic development in Norwalk. He said that he cannot figure out any way to make the surrounding communities increase their affordable housing base. Mr. Miklave said that he was committed to providing affordable housing for working families.
Mr. Miklave said that they need to have a meaningful “fee in lieu of”. He said that he truly believes that there is a need for housing for working folks so that they do not have to commute into Norwalk. He said that Norwalk is a better community when the people who serve the community live in the community.
Mr. Miklave said that he rejects the idea that what is good enough for us is not good enough for our kids.
Mr. Hempstead said that the zone change is the right thing to do. Mr. Miklave said that he believed that they all agreed that the zone change makes sense.
Mr. Hempstead asked how many residential units were planned. Mr. Clay Fowler said that they are proposing 120 units.
Mr. Hempstead said that there will be a tax subsidy with affordable housing. There are methods for forcing other communities to build affordable housing. He said that he realizes that they can’t vote tonight, but has no problem moving this to the Common Council.
Mr. Miklave said that he has the authority to place this item on the Common Council agenda, but will not exercise that right tonight. He said that he will poll the rest of the members and try for the second meeting in July. Mr. Miklave said that he does not plan to hold a Committee meeting in August. Mr. Fowler said that he would be prepared to give a presentation to the Common Council.
Mr. Miklave said that the following items were not insignificant and suggested calling the meeting. Mr. Hempstead suggested offering the Wall Street item an opportunity to give a presentation to the full Common Council.
Mr. Miklave said that he would be prepared to hold a special meeting of the Planning Committee to discuss the interplay between the project on a Saturday or Sunday, with refreshments.
WALL STREET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Presentation Parcel 3 (No Action)
This item was not discussed.
REED PUTNAM URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
Review and discussion of Retail, Residential, Hotel and Office Market Studies
(No Action)
This item was not discussed.
HOUSING FOR WORKING FAMILIES
This item was not discussed.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was no further business and the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemarie Lombardi
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |