|
| |
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
SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2007
ATTENDANCE: Matt Miklave, Chair; Phyllis Bolden, Douglas Hempstead; Carvin Hilliard;
William Krummel;
STAFF: Redevelopment Agency: Timothy Sheehan, Munro Johnson, John L. Burritt, Paul L. Jones,
OTHER: Steve Cecil; The Cecil Group, Inc.; Robert Koch, The Hour ; David Stergas, Redevelopment Agency Counsel; Kevin F. Gremse, National Development Council; Paul L. Jones; Mayor Richard A. Moccia
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mr. Miklave.
I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mayor Moccia said he hoped that any questions the Committee Members had about the Wall Street Redevelopment Plan would be answered tonight so that it could be moved forward and that this was an integral part of Norwalk’s overall redevelopment and something that they could all be proud of.
Mr. Jones said that he wished to echo the Mayor’s comments with regard to the importance of this project as well as the other redevelopment projects in Norwalk to further the economic base of the City and he thanked the members of the Committee for their hard work and time.
Public Participation was closed at 6:34 p.m.
II. BUSINESS
A. WALL STREET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. POKO Land Disposition Agreement and Conceptual Master Site Plan
Mr. Miklave noted that the Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) was a lengthy and complicated document but was one of the best presentations that the Committee had seen in his six years on the Council. He commended the staff for the amount of information that they’d provided to the Committee and thanked them for all their efforts.
Mr. Hempstead agreed, saying that a lot of questions were answered by this document in a short amount of time. He thanked the staff for the great detail and format of the document. He said that he did have some follow up questions, and referred to the answer to Question 1 on the Memorandum from David W. Stergas to the Planning Committee Re: POKO – IWSR Land Disposition and Development Agreement dated September 11th, 2007 where it said “Therefore the City will have the ability to look to the Redeveloper’s equity in these portions of the project if the Redeveloper fails to pay”. Mr. Hempstead asked if that would be done through liens.
Atty. Stergas said that in this case, a judgment lien would be put on the developer’s equity
Mr. Hempstead asked if there was anything in the document that prohibited the City from going forward in that particular manor.
Atty. Stergas answered that there was not.
Mr. Hempstead asked if there was anything that protected the City’s interest if within the phasing of the project the developer failed to finish the parking lot and if that area that was left that still had surface parking on it would revert back to the City.
Atty. Stergas said that it would revert back to the City in a process called revesting.
Mr. Hempstead then referred to the answer to Question 2, last paragraph where it said “Section 3.2 requires the Redeveloper to submit construction plans for phase I of the project within 60 days after the LDA is executed” and asked if that referred to full construction documents.
Mr. Sheehan said that they were not what Mr. Hempstead would consider the full construction documents, adding that some of the definitions of terms in this document were different from what was used in the construction trade.
Mr. Munro said that the working drawings would be given a 240 day window beyond the zoning approval.
Mr. Hempstead referred to the section of the document which talked about the Globe Theatre and said that he was glad to see that the City would be granted first right of refusal and asked if there was anything that predetermined the City’s use of eminent domain. He said that he knew technically it all had to come back for an individual vote but wanted to make sure there was nothing in the document that bound the City to taking the property.
Mr. Sheehan answered that there was nothing that required the city to take the property.
Mr. Hempstead asked if there was any penalty if the City did not initiate the right of eminent domain.
Mr. Sheehan said that there was not other than a reduction in public parking.
Mr. Johnson added that there was a kind of a built-in economic penalty associated with the number of parking units being reduced as a result of having less area because of the density calculations under zoning.
Mr. Miklave asked if it was correct, for clarity’s sake that if the Globe Theatre was not taken by eminent domain as part of the project, which could only be done after the developer presented the City with the economic justification to show that it would be a viable contributor to the economic success of the plan, then the number of public parking spaces would get reduced and that would impact on the overall size and density of the project.
Mr. Johnson said that this was correct.
Mr. Hempstead asked if the parking that POKO maintained as ownership would be taxable or if the City would exempt them from taxes in any way.
Mr. Johnson said that all components of the project were included within one or another of the provisions in the tax phase-in and that the parking would fall under the 7 year phase-in and start at 40%, working up to 100%.
Mr. Sheehan said that it was ultimately considered taxable.
Mr. Hempstead asked if this included the surface parking that would be considered public parking.
Mr. Sheehan said it did.
Mr. Hempstead asked if the vacancy rate of 5% on the residential rental units that were assumed for the tax issue would be a norm over a ten year period.
Mr. Gremse said that the residential rental vacancy rate was estimated to be 5% for both the affordable and the market level units. He said that 5% was a very reasonable assumption for the affordable units and that the underwriters would probably assume a rate of 5-10% for the market level units. He said that on a combined basis, 7.5% might be considered a better vacancy rate, but 5% was considered by the developer.
Mr. Johnson added that the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Study that was done every few years for HUD measured vacancy in the rental and ownership markets in every community and Norwalk’s vacancy was around 1% at the time the last study was conducted.
Mr. Hempstead asked if all of these assumptions were based on today’s dollars.
Mr. Gremse said they were.
Mr. Krummel expressed his concern with regard to the Academy Street Extension. He said that he’d raised the issue before and recognized the response that Mr. Johnson had given but also wanted to point out a couple of concerns he had with this extension. He said that he’d noted reference that the Academy Street Extension along with Academy Street itself would provide a means of relieving the congestion along West Avenue. He said that it was unfavorable to have a residential or storefront retail area to be seen as a bypass for a congested area on West Avenue and particularly in this development where there was already an excellent bypass through West Avenue congestion and that was the Butler, Harbor, and Commerce Street route which was a circle entirely around the area in question and would provide the means to avoid any congestion on West Avenue. Mr. Krummel said that he wanted to avoid as much as possible any unnecessary expense to the City and he saw the Academy Street Extension as an unnecessary expense in terms of the infrastructure that would have to be provided for it. He said that if the goal was connectivity between the West Avenue corridor and the POKO Development then an emphasis on pedestrian access should be encouraged and in that case, the Academy Street Extension would be best as a pedestrian thoroughfare and not a rather limited two way street as was being proposed. He concluded, noting that he hadn’t read in the Tie and Bond Report that the Academy Street Extension was a vital or essential part of the street configuration
Mr. Hilliard said that he was very comfortable with this project and with POKO.
Rev. Bolden said that she was also very happy with POKO. She said that she’d
had time to read bout them and all the wonderful work they were doing in New
York City and Bridgeport and was happy that Norwalk was a part of their great
work. She said that she was pleased to see that affordable or workforce housing
would be included within the development and also hoped that the Academy Street
Extension would be more of a pedestrian thoroughfare.
Mr. Miklave said that he was very happy that the Committee finally had an opportunity to vote on this plan. He said that since 2003 when the prior administration made a focused effort on redeveloping Wall Street which was carried on by this administration the City was very careful with regard to the selection of the developer and the designation of the unit of development. He said that there was a lot of thought put into what the City wanted to build in its urban core and that Wall Street had been overlooked and underutilized for far too long. He stressed that no development project was perfect and that some people would look at this development and say that it was too large, not affordable enough or not pedestrian friendly enough but there was no such thing as perfection. He said that the City’s team of officials, leaders, staff and stakeholders had come together in a very collaborative effort and put forward a vision that they could all be proud of when it was completed. He said that they would be building a mixed use development that was consistent with the City’s goals. He said that it had retail, residential and office space and focused on using space to create areas where people could live and work. He said that they would be giving people a choice and when people were given a choice, the community and its citizens would be empowered and a stronger community would be built. Mr. Miklave said that there was a substantial housing for working families component and it was assured that this was housing for working families, as opposed to 50 single bedroom units. He said that this would be multiple family units, and multiple bedroom units which would give more people the opportunity to live in the City. Mr. Miklave said that he’d been working and focusing on housing for working families since he’d been on the council and every time he looked at the issues facing the city, it continued to support his belief that housing for working families was an intergenerational commitment and that his commitment to his family and his community was to build a community where following generations would have the choice to live and work in Norwalk and that meant giving them housing opportunities, and job opportunities, not service job opportunities but lots of different opportunities where they could earn good wages and have a good life. He went on, saying that the design and concept of this project was breathtaking and could foresee it being the envy of other cities throughout the United States upon its completion. He said that this project would integrate 21st century technology into urban planning and harmonize the City’s development with its economy and its ecology. He said that the concept of being able to be actually off the grid for a certain number of months a year or to be able to produce power from this facility and put it back on the grid were revolutionary concepts and maybe not doable but it was tremendous to just try. Mr. Miklave said that he proudly supported this project, recognizing that it had some flaws and no project was perfect and recognizing that there may be changes necessary down the road.
** MR. MIKLAVE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE POKO LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT AND CONCEPTUAL MASTER SITE PLAN AND MOVE IT ONTO COUNCIL.
Atty. Stergas asked to make one drafting comment before the item was voted on, saying that Exhibit E was a list of seven parcels of redeveloper property, three of which had comments attached for informational purposed that would be deleted from the final agreement presented to the Common Council.
Mr. Hempstead asked if the road improvements were set in stone.
Mr. Sheehan said that they were not.
Mr. Hempstead said that he hoped that construction on this project would be underway in the coming few years.
Mr. Miklave thanked the members of the Committee, saying that they’d done a tremendous amount of work across party lines with no nonsense and he really appreciated the questions, the intensity, and the respectful approach they all had throughout the process.
** MR. MIKLAVE CALLED THE QUESTION.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
III. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Schroder
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |