|
| |
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
OCTOBER 5, 2006
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Miklave, Chair; Rev. Phyllis Bolden;
Douglas Hempstead; Carvin Hilliard; Nicholas Kydes
STAFF: Timothy Sheehan, Executive Director; Jack Burritt, Assistant Executive Director; Munro Johnson, Senior Project Manager for Development
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Miklave called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Nick Pacello, a business owner in South Norwalk spoke in favor of moving the 95/7 project forward.
Mr. Jim DelGreco, of Elmwood Avenue, representing the Golden Hill Association spoke in favor of moving the 95/7 project forward.
Letters in support for the 95/7 project were submitted by Donna Schlegel, Director, Volunteer & Community Services, The Maritime Aquarium and Edward Musante, President & CEO, Greater Norwalk Chamber of Commerce.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 7, 2006
** MR. KYDES MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES
The following correction was made to the fifth paragraph, last sentence: Mr. Burritt told Rev. Bolden that he understood the points she made about the process.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
BUSINESS
A. REED PUTNAM URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
1. Fiscal Impact Study/Redevelopment Agency Recommendations
Mr. Burritt said that there would be a presentation by RKG on the Fiscal Impact Analysis. He said that the information was contained in the handout. Mr. Sheehan said that he would like a sense of where the Committee was at the end of the presentation.
Mr. Burritt provided an overview of the presentation and said at the last meeting the staff provided a presentation outlining the proposed recommendations regarding an alternative development program for Parcels 1, 2 & 4 within the Reed Putnam project area. The staff recommendations were prepared in response to a request from the Redevelopment Agency commissioners in June to review the office, hotel, retail and residential market studies that had been prepared over the past 6-8 months, and from that information to suggest a development program that incorporated not only supportable ranges of development for each of the uses, but also reflected the stated planning goals in the Urban Renewal plan.
Those recommendations were discussed at some length at the September 7th Planning Committee meeting and once again at the Redevelopment Agency’s meeting on September 13th.
From the original presentation to the Agency in August and to the Planning Committee, there were several questions raised concerning the potential fiscal impact of making changes to the approved office development programs for Parcels 1, 2 & 4.
In anticipation of, and in response to, those questions, staff had previously commissioned RKG Associates to prepare a fiscal impact study looking at 3 distinct development scenarios including: the approved development plan, the proposal by 95/7 Ventures and the staff recommendations. A copy of the complete RKG fiscal impact study is included in the packages.
Mr. Burritt said that they requested RKG to present its findings to the Planning Committee for the purpose of responding to the fiscal impact questions raised at the last meeting. He said that RKG was to examine the alternative development scenarios based on the results and findings in the prior market studies. As indicated in the market studies, each of the several types of land use comes on line at different rates. Rather than comparing one completed project to another assuming that each is a finished project, RKG has examined absorption rates by use type over the next 10 years, making adjustments and allowances based on market conditions and findings. Mr. Burritt said that they believe this is critical to assessing the relative impacts of the alternatives.
Mr. Burritt introduced Mr. Darren Moccerie.
Mr. Burritt said that as a result of the fiscal analysis the market studies and consideration of the stated goals of the Reed Putnam Urban Renewal plan, the Redevelopment Agency has modified the staff recommendations. The development program recommended by the Redevelopment Agency is also described in the transmittal memo. He said that at the end of this fiscal impact presentation and committee discussion, he would like to return to the recommendations for proposed uses on Parcels 1, 2 & 4.
2. Market Study Updates
Mr. Moccerie gave a market study update presentation to the Committee.
3. Response to Committee Members Questions
Mr. Hempstead asked if a percentage of the people working there with that income level will allow them to work there. Mr. Burritt said that it depended upon what type of job they held or if they are single or a couple. The proposal recommends that the affordable housing units be tiered.
Mr. Kydes said that what the plan does is increase the ability for people to live in the area and this approach does not disallow people based on their income.
Mr. Hilliard said that he applauded the efforts of the Redevelopment Agency staff. He said that this is a good thing for the Fire, Police and Teachers.
Rev. Bolden said that she could not understand how someone earning six figures could not afford to live here. Mr. Sheehan said that the goal is for people not to have to spend more than 30% of their salary for housing.
Mr. Hempstead commended the staff for the report and said that it would help them formulate the plan.
Mr. Miklave said that this was the most sophisticated analysis he has seen on this project.
Mr. Burritt said that the Redevelopment Agency felt strongly that this s the City’s largest economic redevelopment project and it is situated in the center of the community. As a result they felt that it should have a public cultural facility. Mr. Hempstead said that he agreed. Mr. Kydes said that it was a well thought out plan. Mr. Hilliard said that a lot went into the plan and that he was comfortable moving forward.
Mr. Sheehan asked for development guidance for the staff.
Mr. Miklave asked for a caucus at 8:45 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 8:53 p.m.
Mr. Miklave said that the sense of the Committee is that they overwhelmingly
support the concept. He said that he wanted to put forth an advisory for the
Common Council to approve the plan in principle and change the LDA to reflect
the recommendations of the Committee.
Mr. Miklave asked Mr. Sheehan to look at the appropriate mechanism with respect to the change.
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE THE RANGES OF DEVELOPMENT AS PRESENTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Mr. Hempstead suggested holding a 7:30 p.m. presentation before the next Common Council meeting to give the Council members an opportunity to examine the information they will receive at the meeting. Mr. Miklave asked Mr. Burritt to write a summary memo.
Rev. Bolden suggested that a student art gallery would be beautiful.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
4. Tighe & Bond Contract Amendment (Referred Back to Committee)
Mr. Hilliard left the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Mr. Burritt explained that this item had been refereed back to Committee on September 12th.
Mr. Burritt presented the site plans and said that Tighe & Bond have been the traffic engineers for this project dating back to 1999. He said that the reason this went to the Public Works Committee is outline in the memo included in the packet.
The contract is an amendment to the existing contract and was negotiated down from the original proposed fee. Mr. Sheehan asked the Committee if they would be comfortable, if prior to this going to DPW that this committee would be apprised that this will be heard by the Public Works Committee. Mr. Miklave said that if it relates to a Redevelopment project, he would prefer that this Committee be advised.
** MR. KYDES MOVED TO THE FULL COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES AND BUDGET AS DESCRIBED IN REED PUTNAM ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL FOR CONTRACTS AMENDMENT #8 DATED AUGUST 24, 2006, TO AMEND THE EXISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORWALK AND TIGHE & BOND CONSULTING ENGINEERS (FUNDING SOURCE: SPECIAL ACT GRANT 01-02-SEC. 9 (d)(2) – DESIGN CONSULTANT ENGINEER
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, RICHARD A. MOCCIA TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
TO EFFECT THE AMENDMENT OF THE EXISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND TIGHE
& BOND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, AS DESCRIBED IN REED PUTNAM ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSAL FOR CONTRACT AMENDMENT #8 DATED AUGUST 24, 2006
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
5. DECD Grant – Semi-annual Status Reports
** REV. BOLDEN MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
B. WALL STREET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. Option Agreement for Agency Purchase of High Street Municipal Parking Lot
Mr. Johnson said that he had prepared a memo and asked if anyone had any questions. Mr. Sheehan said that this solidifies the plan. The plan has been approved by the Parking Authority and by the Redevelopment Agency. The Parking Authority added a few requirements to the plan.
Mr. Johnson said that this item will re-surface during the land disposition agreement. Mr. Kydes asked if they would include the components of the development.
Mr. Hempstead said that he is concerned that the developer is dependent upon using other people’s money. He said that if the property isn’t used, that he would like it to go back to the City.
** MR. KYDES MOVED THE FOLLOWING APPROVAL TO THE COMMON COUNCIL TO APPROVE
THE OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE
OF THE HIGH STREET MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT;
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, RICHARD A. MOCCIA TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT TO ADD THE OPTION OF A FIVE YEAR PERIOD
** MOTION AS AMENDMENT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
C. WEST AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. Discuss Process for Designating Master Developer
Mr. Kydes said that the developer owns 60% of the land in that area and recommended
starting discussions with that developer. He said that the quicker they start,
the better it will be for the City.
Mr. Hempstead said that he has concerns about leaving others out.
Mr. Miklave said that the developer owns 60% of the property and that he can’t think of anyone else who deserves the opportunity to give LDA.
Mr. Hempstead asked the Chair if he would add this item to the next agenda as an action item.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business discussed.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
** REV. BOLDEN MOVED TO ADJOURN
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
There was no further business and the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemarie Lombardi
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |