APPLICATION OF SUMMIT SAUGATUCK LLC TO WESTPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENT, REZONING, SITE PLAN, AND COASTAL SITE PLAN, HIAWATHA LANE AND HIAWATHA LANE EXTENSION
Applicant's Third Supplemental Materials March 18, 2019
Timothy S. Hollister William L. Kenny, PWS, PLA Andrew V. Tung, AStA, LEED AP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Shipman & Goodwin LLP William Kenny Associates LLC Mark J. Shogren, P.E. One Constitution Plaza 195 Tunxis Hill Cutoff South mshogren@di vneytungschwalbe.com Hartford, CT 06103-1919 Fairfield, CT 06825 Divney Tung Schwalbe (860) 251-5000 (203) 366-0588 One North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 428-0010
David R. Ginter, P.E. Michael A. Galante David Ball, AIA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Redniss & Mead, Inc. Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. The Monroe Partnership 22 First Street 41 Ruane Street 8 Knight Street Stamford, CT 06905 Fairfield, CT 06824 Suite 204 (203) 327-0500 (203) 255-3100 Norwalk, CT 06851 (203) 957-3900
Felix Charney Philip R. Sherman, P.E. [email protected] [email protected] Jake Grossman 444 Wilmot Center Road [email protected] P. 0 . Box 216 Summit Saugatuck LLC Elkins, NH 03233-0216 55 Station Street (603) 526-6190 Southport, CT 06890 (203) 354-1500
7442907 TABLE OF CONTENTS March 18, 2019
1. Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission in response to questions from February 28 and March 7, 2019
2. Documents from Norwalk and Westport files (2006-12) regarding emergency access across Aval on East Norwalk
3. Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission regarding affordable unit designation
4. Copies of deeds showing Summit Saugatuck LLC ownership of Hiawatha Lane
5. Parking: support for proposed ratios
6. Revised Saugatuck Village District regulation (redline and clean copy), March 2019 (summary of revisions at Tab 1)
7. Letter from M. Galante, F. P. Clark Associates, March 15, 2019, regarding accident data and traffic analysis without TOD credit
8. Figures prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe, March 15, 2019, showing exiting vehicle sight lines and refuse truck turning movements (responses to CDM Smith, March 7, 2019)
9. Site plans showing four homes on Avalon East Norwalk property
10. Survey showing access point to DOT site
11. Illustration/ calculation of passive recreation space, prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe, March 14, 2019
12. Updated Lot Coverage Worksheet and illustration, prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe, March 15, 2019
MEMORANDUM
TO: Westport Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Summit Saugatuck LLC
DATE: March 18, 2019
RE: Response to Questions and Comments from February 28 and March 7, 2019
1. Fire Response
To date, Summit as applicant has agreed to requests of Mr. Kingsbury and Fire Marshal Gibbons as follows:
•. full NFPA 13R sprinkler system;
• Type II-A non combustible construction;
• relocation of courtyard light poles shown on November 2018 plans;
• relocation underground of utility wires proposed along west/ northwest side of Hiawatha Lane;
• grades where firefighting operations may be conducted not to exceed five percent;
• mountable curbs in the courtyard;
• shift of Building E to provide ladder access;
• standpipes in stairwells;
• garage ventilation;
• height reduction;
• repair of culvert at Davenport Avenue/ Hiawatha Lane to ensure load bearing capacity for emergency vehicles;
• load-bearding capacity for outriggers within the courtyard, and on perimeter access, and sidewalks;
7442907 I s3 • snow removal plan;
• minimum 20 foot wide access around building perimeter and within courtyard; and
• looped water system to ensure and increase supply and pressure.
A third emergency access on land in Norwalk is being reviewed with the management of Avalon East Norwalk, and the Norwalk Conservation and Zoning Commissions and Fire Department (background documents at Tab 2); Fire Marshal Gibbons has agreed that he does not have jurisdiction in Norwalk.
It is important to note that the access in Norwalk is not necessary for safe occupancy of Summit's proposed development. The Saugatuck neighborhood consists of more than 70 structures that have existed for decades, and the Westport Fire Department has served the neighborhood based on the existing access at Ferry Lane. In addition, once Ferry Lane is accessed, there are two routes to the Summit property - Davenport A venue and Hiawatha Lane. Thus, the improvements in Norwalk constitute a third potential access. Summit is pursuing this access in an effort to accommodate the request of Westport fire officials, but not as a necessity.
Water supply is being reviewed with Aquarion:
2. Parking
The SV District regulation amendment proposes 1.4 spaces per one bedroom / studio, and 2.0 spaces per two bedroom unit. The ITE standard for parking spaces in low/ midrise apartment developments is 1.23 spaces per one or two bedroom unit. In addition, at Tab 5 are parking survey data collected by Milone & MacBroom at multi-family developments in New Haven and Fairfield Counties which indicate demand in the range of 1.3 spaces per unit. Finally, at Tab 5, is a recent article from Planning magazine regarding excessive parking requirements.
3. Revised SV District Regulation
Based on comments from the Town Planner, we have made the following revisions (Tab 6) to the November 2018 Submission Draft of the proposed SV District regulation:
• narrow eligible acreage for SV District to seven to ten acres;
• lower maximum height by 10 feet, to 52 feet maximum;
• lower maximum stories to four;
• reduce maximum total coverage to 55 percent;
2 • reduce maximum building coverage to 32 percent;
• increase setbacks to align with current site plan and add retaining wall exemption; ·
• clarify that§ 31-15.1 is not applicable to an SV District;
• clarify the term "private road";
• clarify signage requirements;
• clarify lighting standards;
• clarify storm drainage standards;
• delete sentence referring to outdoor trash receptacles;
• delete reference I exception to§ 44-1.7; and
• fix typo, "Dispersed" to "Dispersal."
4. TOD Credit I Sight Lines
The applicant's traffic analysis takes a 10 percent trip generation credit based on the proximity of the subject property to the Saugatuck train station. Connecticut DOT agrees with this credit, see Tab 7. However, it is important to understand that at the peak hours, this credit only involves six to eight trips per hour. As a result, the applicant asked Mr. Galante to re-run his trip generation and Level of Service calculation without the TOD credit. The difference is inconsequential. If the Commission wishes to disregard the TOD credit, it may do so. Tab 8 contains sight line illustrations requested by CDM Smith.
5. Building Height
In the SV District regulation, maximum building height has been lowered 10 feet and stories have been clarified. See Tab 6.
6. Four Homes At Avalon East Norwalk
The site plan at Tab 9 shows the location of four single-family homes approved at the east end of what is now the Avalon East Norwalk site. These homes, obviously, have not been built, nor have utilities been installed, and the approval for them is nearing expiration.
3 7. Access To DOT Retained Land
A question has been asked about access to DOT land after development. Access will be available along Hiawatha Lane at the southeast corner of the DOT parcel. See Tab 10.
8. Rock Removal
Summit's geotechnical engineers have confirmed that no rock removal will be necessary for building foundations.
9. Calculation Of Children
The applicant respectfully disagrees with the calculation submitted by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. ("MMI"). First, since the 2006 Rutgers study that MMI refers to, the school aged population in almost every Connecticut town has declined, yet MMI uses a multiplier ten times higher than the Rutgers study. Second, MMI's calculation is based on "multi-family" development with no additional information as to bedrooms or monthly rent (as the Rutgers study uses). It is well-documented that units with more than two bedrooms have more children living in them than one and two bedroom units, but one and two bedroom units generally have very few. It is unstated what bedroom mix the "MMI multiplier" is based on, and whether MMI recognizes that the Summit Saugatuck proposal contains only one bedroom, studios, and two bedroom units. MMI's calculation is not supported.
10. Coverage Calculations
Divney Tung Schwalbe has reviewed its coverage calculations (Tab 12) and as a result, in the SV District regulation (Tab 6),Total Impervious Coverage has been reduced from 60 percent to 55 percent and total building coverage has been reduced to 32 percent.
Divney Tung Schwalbe has provided these notes about its calculations:
Gross Lot Area: 384,057 square feet; includes ten south parcels plus bounded section of Hiawatha Lane (Lot 1: 351,567 square feet) and two north parcels (Lot 2: 32,490 square feet) as shown on attached Lewis Associates "Lot Merger Plan" (1/19/17).
Deductions: 80 percent of areas of steep slopes (25+ percent) and wetlands.
Building Coverage: includes five buildings plus "green roof' above parking level plus emergency generator.
Total Coverage: includes Building Coverage plus driveways and parking; excludes walks, pedestrian ways, and terraces/ patios less than three feet above adjacent grade.
4 2 -,
•• WESTPORT CONNECTICUT PLANNING & ZONING TOWN HALL, 110 MYRTLE AVENUE • WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT 0688.0 . (203) 341-1030 • (203) 341-1079 RECEIVED (203) 454-6145 - fax JUL 3 t 2009 Cl1Y OF NORWALK July 28, 2009 PLANNING & ZONING Mr. Michael Greene Norwalk Planning & Zoning 125 East Avenue Norwalk, CT 06856
RE: Norden Place: Application to the Norwalk Zoning Commission for proposed amendments to Section 118-711 to permit multifamily and single family housing by Special Permit in a Restricted Industrial zone and a special permit application for 240 multifamily units, 4 single family residences (25 units to designated as workforce housing units) and related recreational facilities
Dear Mr. Greene:
On July 9, 2009, the Westport Planning & Zoning Cori:nhlssioi:J. held' aprtbfic meeting to discuss the above referenced proj eet and to receive coimnertts Jrom Westport residents. Richard Redniss from Redniss & Mead made abriefpresentatioirto the Westport P&Z abouftliis project'which·was · .. - followed by questions and conni:J.ents from Commi_ssiori·members and comments were also made on the record by members ofthe public. The following is a summary of the questions raised and · comments received:
Westport P&Z Commission
1.. Will there be a permanent deed restriction on the undeveloped portions of the property? Members of the Westport P&Z would like .to see the undeveloped portions of the property deed restricted as open space 2. Can assurances be provided that aside from the 4 single family homes indicated on the proposed site plan that no additional residences will be . constructed on the "Westport side" of the property? 3. Will there be a permanent restriction that precludes access except for emergency vehicles from multifamily and commercial portions of the site from crossing into Hiawatha Lane in Westport? The Westport P&Z takes the position lliat such a·restricti6n •is needed given the potential impact to the ··Hiawatha Lane-neighborhood. .-· .. . · ',: ·.-. -.-· · -... -.•·.. ·. -·.: ;,., · · 4. · . Who will provide·emergency services·to the 4 single fami!y.hi:mses i:hafare · accessed from Hiawatha Lane? · 5. How wili construction access be provided for the 4 single family houses? The Commission would prefer that this construction access come from Norwalk. If access is from Westport the applicant should at a minimum be required to repave Hiawatha Lane Extension (private portion) and be . responsible for any damage to the public portions of the road. - .. )
,, . RECEIVED Page 2 of3 JUL 31 2009 CITY OF NORWALK PLANNING & ZONING
6. Norwalk should verify that the applicant has the right to access Hiawatha Lane Extension in Westport. Those who have ownership rights need to grant access for this project. 7.- The need for the deed restrictions to be in favor of the residents of Hiawatha Lane and the Town of Westport for a) development on .the Westport side of property is limited to the 4 proposed single unit buildings, b) perpetual conservation easement restricting development on the center portion of the property, c) gated (both ends) access for emergency and utility maintenance vehicles only on gravel road running through conservation area, and d)restriction on extending sewer to any property in the Town of Westport.
Public Comments
I. Questions were raised as to who will enforce any restrictions or requirements of the project should the developer fail to comply with regulations and conditions of approval? 2. Will there be a cap or restriction on the number of units that can be built on this site in the future? 3. There should be assurances that the area with the 4 single family houses is not further developed in the future. 4. Gates should be installed at both the east and west ends of the proposed gravel road that connects the 4-single family houses to the multifamily portion of the site. These gates should only be accessed by emergency or service vehicles. 5. Will the gravel road allow residents of the multifamily building pedestrian access to the Westport train station? 6. Consideration should be given to requiring the 4 single family houses to be on septic systems instead of a sewer line from Norwalk. This could possibly eliminate the need for the east-west gravel road. It was also mentioned that by extending the sewer line there was a potential for sewer connections to Westport properties which could lead to increased development. 7. The gravel road ifrequired should be turf block so it can remain green. 8. If transit service is provided to the site it should go to the East Norwalk station and not the Westport train station. 9 The access mad from Wemport shmlld he curved to allow for better screening ofthe. site. 10. The developer should consider allowing Westport residents access to the proposed walking trails on the property as an offsetting amenity to using Hiawatha Lane as an access into the site.
G:\Pnz_off\LARRY B\Ltr to Norwalk on Norden Place.doc • ·1 RECEIVED .. ' Page 3 of3 JUL 3 1 2009 CllY OF NORWALK PLANNING & ZONING
11. The turn around area at the end of Hiawatha Lane in Westport should be reduced so as to reduce impervious surfaces and a new turn around be installed in the Norwalk part of the road. 12. The buffer trees on the Westport side of the property should be preserved and maintained.
In general, the Commission felt that this proposal was an improvement over the previous application and that as designed was much more sensitive to the needs and concerns of Westport citizens.
The W~stport Planning and Zoning Co~ssion hopes that these comment~ are helpful and can be incorporated into the final approvals for the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely, ·~~J.. Laurence Br~~ey,-1cP Planning and Zoning Director
Cc Gordon F. Joselofl: First Selectman Floyd Lapp, South Western Regional Planning Association AliciaMozian, Conservation Director Richard Redniss, Redniss & Mead Westport Planning & Zoning Commission.
G:\Pnz_off\LARRY B\Ltr to Norwalk on Norden Place.doc MEMORANDUM
To: Michael Greene Norwalk Planning and Zoning VIA: Email on September 16, 2009 From: BrianStobbie -/42[ Norden Place LLJ tf, Date: September l ·Re: Application #7-09R/#7-09SP- Westport Planning and Z.Oning letter dated July 28, 2009 Please find our response to Westport's Planning and Zoning letter to Mr. Michael Greene, Norwalk Planning and Zoning dated July 28, 2009. I have reiterated their questions or comments for convenience. Westport P & Z Commission 1. Will there be a permanent deed restriction on the undeveloped portions of the property? Members of the Westport P&Z would like to see the undeveloped portions of the property deed restricted as open space. Response: Yes. A conservation easement in acceptable form and with language reviewed by Norwalk's Conservation and Zoning Commissions, respective staff and the City's corporation counsel is to be {!Xecuted and recorded on the Norwalk Land records. 2. Can assurances be provided that aside from the 4 single family homes indicated on the proposed site plan that no additional residences will be constructed on the "Westport side" of the property? Response: The site plan application is for four lots only on the 'Westport side' ofthe property. Norden Place LLC c/o Spinnaker RearEstate·Partners, LLC • 2:0 Marshall°street Suite 106 • South Norwalk, CT 06854 Phone 203-354-1550 • Fax 203•354-1551 3. Will there be a pennanent restriction that precludes access except for emergency vehicles from multifamily and commercial portions of the site from crossing into Hiawatha Lane in Westport? The Westport P&Z takes the position that such a restriction is needed given the potential impact to the Hiawatha Lane neighborhood. Response: There will be no vehicular access/egress from multifamily via Hiawatha Land. The site plan contains restricted use ofa gravel path between the west and east portions of the site. In addition to the site plan, the conservation easement contains specific language regarding restrictions through the conservation area. 4. Who will provide emergency service to the 4 single family homes that are accessed from Hiawatha Lane? Response: This portion of the site will likely be serviced consistent to other border properties or developments on the Norwalk/Westport line and are serviced by either Norwalk or Westport responders. According to Norwalk and Westport fire department officials, in an emergency situation the closer department will respond. 5. How will construction access be provided for the 4 single family houses? The Commission would prefer that this construction access come from Norwalk. If access is from Westport that applicant should at a minimum be required to repave Hiawatha Lane Extension (private portion) and be responsible for any damage to the, public portions of the road. Response: Construction access for the 1, single family homes will be through Hiawatha Lane. While constructing the 4 single family homes, the developer is willing to undertake a pre construction, intermediate and post construction survey of the conditions of the road, If road damage is incurred by the constntction vehicles for the 4 single family homes, then the developer is responsible to repair the portions of the private road that the contractor damaged. The developer would be willing to Norden Place LLC c/o Spinnaker Real Estate Partners, LLC • 20 Marshall Street Suite 106 • South Norwalk, CT 06854 Phone 203·354-1550 • Fax 203·354-1551 participate pro-rata in repaving as well as maintenance program of the private portions ofHiawatha Lane. 6. Norwalk should verify that the applicant has the right to access Hiawatha Lane Extension in Westport. Those who have ownership rights need to grant ·access for this project. Response: We have verified the access pursuant to a Deed dated September 30, 1959 from Julia Bradley to United Aircraft Company which states that there is a right to use Hiawatha Lane, a privately owned road located in Westport. 7. The need for the deed restrictions to be in favor of the residents of Hiawatha Lane and the Town of Westport for a) development on the Westport side of property is limited to the 4 proposed single unit buildings, b) perpetual conservation easement restricting development on the center portion of the property, c) gated (both ends) access for emergency and utility maintenance vehicles only on gravel road running through conservation area, and d) restriction on extending sewer to any property in the Town of Westport. Response: Item a) see response o question 2 above. Item b) Yes, the conservation easement restricts such development, Item c) gates, although unnecessary for the pedestrian path will be provided if the Norwalk's Planning and Zoning and Inland Wetland agencies approve such gates. Item d) Westport properties adjacent to the proposed development has rights to request sewer service through the property subject to all state, local and municipal approvals. Public Comments I. Questions were raised as to who will enforce any restrictions or requirements of the project should the developer fail to comply with regulations and conditions of a roval? Norden Place LLC c/o Spinnaker Real Estate Partners, LLC • 20 Marshall Street Suite 106 • South Norwalk, CT 06854 Phone 203-354·1550 • Fax 203-354-1551 Response: Restrictions are enforced according to state statutes by local officials -, specifically Norwalk's Zoning Enforcement Officer. They are granted the authority to issue: fines, corrective work, stop work order etc. should the pr-0ject not comply with permits. 2. Will there be a cap or restriction on the number of units that can be built on this site in the future? Response: Yes, see question 2 under Westport P & Z comments. 3. There should be assurances that the area with the 4 single family houses is not further developed in the future. Response: See above. 4. Gates should be installed at both the east and west ends of the proposed gravel road that connects the 4-single family houses to the multifamily portion of the site. These gates should only be accessed by emergency or service vehicles. Response: See above. 5. Will the gravel road allow residents of the multifamily building pedestrian access to the Westport train station? Response: Yes, the gravel pathway can be used as a pedestrian pathway. 6. Consideration should be given to requiring the 4 single family houses to be on septic systems instead of a sewer line from Norwalk .. This could possibly eliminate the need . for the east -west gravel road. It was also mentioned that by extending the sewer Hne there was a potential for sewer connections to Westport properties which could lead. · to increased development. Norden Place LLC c/o Spinnaker Real Estate Partners, LLC • 20 Marshall Street suite 106 • South Norwalk, CT 06854 Phone 203-354-1550 • Fax 203-354-1551 Response: The sewer for the 4 single.family homes will be a by a force main that will tie-in to the pump station for the multi-family project and eventually to the.Norwalk waste water treatment facility. 7. The gravel road if required should be turf block so it can remain green. Response: No. Path will be gravel; vegetation will likely grow on and over path. 8. If transit service is provided to the site it should go to the East Norwalk train station and not the Westport train station. Response: Norwalk Transit which currently services the 10 Norden Place has not yet determined the future service schedule for our site. 9. The access road from Westport should be curved. to allow for better screening of the site. Response: The 4 single family homes are about 400 feet from Hiawatha Lane, the access road curves south and we are planting over twenty trees in a mix of red oaks and white pines. 10. The developer should consider allowing Westport residents access to the proposed walking trails on the property as an offsetting amenity to using Hiawatha Lane as an access into the site. Response: The Conservation Easement allows for public access. 11. The turn around area at the end of Hiawatha Lane in Westport should be reduced so as to reduce impervious surfaces and a new turn around be installed in the Norwalk part of the road. Response: We will investigate with Westport authorities. Norden Place LLC c/o Spinnaker Real Estate Partners, LLC • 20 Marsha fl Street Suite 106 • South Norwalk, CT 06854 Phone 203-354-1550 • fax 203-354-1551 . . • 12. The buffer trees on the Westport side of the property should b.e preserved and maintained. Response: Yes, subject to the driveway access. . ..,.,,~ Norden Place LLC c/o Spinnaker Rea! Estate Partners, LLC • 20 Marshall street Suite 106 • South Norwalk, CT 068S4 Phone 203-354-1550 • Fax 203-354·1551 Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Minutes (Final) CITY OF NORWALK ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2009 PRESENT: Jackie Lightfield, Chair; Bob Keyes; Andrea Light; Larry Bentley; James . White; Michael Mushak; Bob Hard; Adam Blank STAFF: Mike Greene; Brenda H11anek OTHERS: Atty. Liz Suchy; Mike Galante; Jenny Welden; Carlos Piros; Charles Mercheson; William Skidd; Margaret Skidd; Kathy Porter I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Lightfield called the meeting to orcler at 7:30: · II. ROLL CALL · Mr. Greene took the roll 'call. ·· III. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. #9-09SP/#2 l-09C1~ --,•4£2/lClf/,.pad~!IlY--) & 7f\~;d.;iny Street-' Elerj)entary school in the Carver buildinff . . '•• j :/\?"' · •. '. ••··•. •.. ····•·· '.', · : · ' Ms. Lightfield,opi:,11~d ttie pJblic hearing: ..··. Atty. Liz Suchy ttihledin the.gre~ii~~ds ifud gavi bi~kgio~zid ~~£iitAnchorXcad~my and about the Carver building. She explained that the school had approximately 40 students, with six to twelve students per grade. ·, Mr. Mike Galante summarized traffic and!'6a Ms. Lightfield opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Jenny Welden, 40 Taylor Avenue, expressed concern that neighbors had not been properly notified of the public hearing. · Ms. Lightfielcl asked what address the certified letter had been sent to. Ms. Welden clarified that it had been sent to 11 Academy Street. Mr. Carlos Piros, 224 Chapel Street, stated that he supported Anchor Academy, but that he was concerned about the possibility of students trespassing onto his property to retrieve lost equipment and so forth, Mr. Piros added that he also had not received a letter about the proposal. Mr. Mushak confirmed that letters were sent to property owners themselves, explaining that some owners.may have.different mailing addresses. Zoning Commiss_ion November 18, 2009 Page I ,, Mr. Charles Mercheson, 11 Academy Street, expressed concern about parking in the area of the school. He described problems with buses and other vehicles blocking driveways during pickup and drop-off. He added that his mother's property had recently been damaged by students he believed to be associated with the Carver building. · A neighborhood resident asked who was being accommodated by Anchor Academy. Mr. William Skidd, 44 Fox Run Road, stated that there were Norwaik children, including his own, who attended the school. Mr. Atkins also stated that he had not seen buses at the school and that he drove his own child there. He added that the new fence on Chapel Street and Academy Street would prevent balls and other equipment from ending up on adjacent properties. Ms. Christy McDonald, an employee of the Carver Center, said that the facility had not received any written complaints and that the proposal would allow for us~ of the building during an otherwise dormant time. Atty. Suchy addressed the concerns a]::,out beerj cards{conjjqning tJ;,at the City always followed guidelines about giving no,tk!l off41:Jli?_hearings. 'she said t~~f Mr. Rir9s' father had in fact received the Jetter. Atty. Stichy,clarified that·any after-school progrfuns ne1lfby involved the Carver Center, rather thap. Anchor Academy. She added that students were'not bussed to Anchor Academy and pointed out)ha!._there were 30 pa,rking sp~ces o~Jhe ~iti whi]e 01,1Iy 8 to 10 were required. She stated thatpapiiits:rieeded to be sensi!ive to.neighbors' priVate,property. :_: '-~-'._ .. _·_- /<~'.;/--:~•t·(:.'·~- ·":··,···<·: .... "'.. : :. ---r--<:Y, .. ~:_C~::_::-_.-.:/~::. '" ·.,.-_:_\=/'_• ·,,. Atty. Suchy clarified,th"althe sttidents who hail set Jeiivehm fire.and damag~g'prdperty in the •. -•-,,,~--•,~ ~--··-.. ,,._.~····· ·,:\:-''·'~• ' .' .. !'. ./' ,,._:;,,· ., ·~•/!, ... ,,:,. . • ' area were not m fact frq/)'i 1:1:te C:arver Ce_nter/ She added that mos_! f~1111hes wh.~~e children • . attended Ancl]or Academy were from Norwalk or Stamford. She pomted out that the proposal met all Special Permit requifemegts and r"iterated.that the)roject di<:l pot involye a rebuilding. _, ..< ' . ·; Mr. White asked ifschool staff would be stationed outside during dismissal. He requested that a person be appointed to bversee parking at dis_111is~·a1 time. ' " . . . . . '. ·,. Ms. Maragret Skidd, a parent of an Ancho(A~~4~111y student, agreed t9 arrange for an appointed person to monitor the <:lis111issal Pr?cess. :i?t'. :''.\\ . · . '• :. · Mr. Mushak asked about'tl:te overlap ofui~ Mllie aft~riloon. _Ms. Skld~ cie~cribed the drop-off and pickup activity at the. schoql:· · · · · ·" Ms. Lightfield asked for clarificaiibn ~fthe\iop.fus!odbetJ~eh the Carver building and Anchor Academy. Atty. Suchy reiterated that Anch9r'A,~adfmy was·_a separate, private institution and was an independent tenant, not an adjunct-or a·sub.sidiary. Ms. Kathy Porter, an architect, addressed the building size and showed floor _plans for Anchor Academy. Mr. Hard asked about how trespassing concerns would be addressed. Atty. Suchy said that students were inside most of the day and outside during recess but would not be permitted on adjacent properties. Ms. Porter pointed out that the parcel of land between the basketball court and the Carver_ Center was owned by the City. Atty. Suchy reiterated that the proposal involved a beneficial use for the Carver Center and was a good mixed use overall, adding that there were no zoning violations on the property. Ms. Lightfield closed the public hearing. Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page2 b. #9-09R - Zoning Commission - Proposed amendment to Section I 18-1220 regarding the use of municipal parking lots in Norwalk Center Ms. Lightfield opened the public hearing. Ms. Light read referrals from the Planning Commission and State CAM office. Mr. Greene described the proposal, pointing out that the amendment did not need to be renewed if the· area turned out to be bustling two years from now. Ms. Lightfield closed the public· hearing. IV. REPORT OF PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE, JAMES WHITE, CHAIR a. Action on Item III a. Ms. Lightfield said that a letter wou_ld be sent to. Par_ks '& Recreation regarding safety issues and liability and also with regard to signage. •. ·. ' · ' · · The Commission agreed to add ac;ndition concerning then~rriber cif students at the site. It agreed that the appli9ant would Il!)ed to come before the Commissio'n'agairi, i,f enrollment at the school reached 60 students:; . . .. ' . ' ,, .. , ., .. 1. That a complete signage package be submitted f~r review and appr!)val when final complying signage is determined_; and 2. That any changes to the ending hour Jr'schooi.will require review by the Commission; and · ., , .>·:>\:((\) '. ·· · · • - ... ·· -·:.''t.,.·. / BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ptop~salcomplies with th~ applicable sections of the Norwalk Building Zo~e ;R~gi!l~tions, sp~~irj~?!ly SecJions_ll8-3l>O;'"D" residential and 118-1450, Special Permit; and· · · · ·· ·· · BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ~roposaico.iipiies~ith the applicable coastal resource and use policies; and · · · .. · BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this approval shall be November 27,2009. " ** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED. ** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. #l6-08SP-AG Phase.I -Jefferson/W. Main Sts -32 units-Request for extension of approval time - Report & recommendation ** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that application #16-0SSP-AG Phase I, LLC for the construction of a 32 unit multifamily on Summer Street/ West Main be granted a one year extension of the approval time; and Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the new deadline is December_ 26, 2010. ** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED. ** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. c. #8-07SPR - Norwalk Center, LLC - IO Norden Place - 154,691 sq. ft. office building - Request for extension of approval time - Report & recommendation ** MR.. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that the request for an exten.sion of approval time for site plan #8-07SPR-Norwalk Center, LLC-10 Norden Place--New 4 story 154,691 sq. ft. office building in an existing industrial development park as shown on various plans by Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C., Tighe & Bond and LandTech Consultants Inc., and dated as revised to October 24, 2007, be A,PPROVED, subject to the following conditions: i. That the original conditions of approval remain in effect; and · 2. That the ~ew approval deai!line f i>~ o~tain_ing pe~\llit~ will be November 24, 2010; and BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED thatthe e.ffective date ofthis·actionbe.November 27, 2009. I ', '/ • , ,. • • ,, •• ** MR. HARD S¥C.<>NDED .. ** MOTION PASSED.UNANIMOUSLY. ,· ;,. _., ;-.::\ ' '~ . d. #4-09SPR/#l {09cN-4i$i,~w£•sLa.wns-,-. IS Gl)ai:ieiSt'-' Propcis,~ cdriti~ctor's storage yard - Request for ex\ensiop. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this approval shall be November 27, 2009. ** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED. ** MOTION PAS~ED UNANIMOl,JSL¥.. · e. #4-98SP/#28-96SP ~ Norw~lkH~spital-, Mapfe St/Elm crest '.(:eriace -·Hemoc\ialysis building & addition to Emergency Dept .!,.Reqtiest for re.)eas~ ·of.s,ur~\y •Jlepqrt & recommendation ;. :, ,. -: ;; ' '. ·, .'(, ... . '' ,••, ,•, ' ,,, ** MR. WHITE MOVED: . RESOI,VE]) that J~e surety held Special Permit application #28-96SP Norwalk Hospital Association for emergency department renovations/addition, relocated helicopter landing site and revised internal circulation plan as shown on a certain set of plans entitled "Emergency Department Norwalk Hospital Site Layout Plan" by Robert Wendler, Architect and AN Consulting Engineers, dated revised to January 3, 1997, be.released, as all the required improvements have been installed and are in satisfactory condition; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the surety held for Special Permit application #4-98SP; Norwalk Hospital Association, for the construction of 10,000 sq ft hemodialysis building and revised circulation and parking plans for the Elm crest Terrace, parking lot as shown on a certain set of plans entitled "Hemodialysis Center, Norwalk Hospital by Robert Wendler, Architect and various plans by Grumman Engineering Assoc, dated as revised to June 9, 1998, be released, as all the required improvements have been installed and are in satisfactory condition; and · Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page4 · BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this action be November 27, 2009. ** MS. LIGHT SECONDED. ** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. f. #2-90SPR - Harwill Homes, Inc. - 330 Connecticut Ave - 14,932 sfretail building (Rickels) - Request for release of surety- Report & recommendation ** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that the maintenance surety be RELEASED on #2-90SPR-Harwill Homes, Inc.-330 Connecticut Av-14,932 sf retail building (Rickels)-Request for release of surety; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this approval shall be November 27, 2009. ** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED. ** MOTION PASSED UNAl'lIMOUSI,}'. g. #4-07SP - CT Friends Scl}ool ',; 440 Newtown Ave~ El,e$e111a~ ~chool - Request to phase & modify plans - Report & recommeni:!aiion . . . . . ** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED by the .NJrwalkZ!~;:i, C~mmission that application #4-07SP...::..co'n#~~tjcut Frie[!dS School cclr~< ~~o Ne'l:'fl)wn_A~~nue/78 ·. Cranbury Roaf for,, K-~~gt~~~~ch°"<>J !f11J!.rel#t~i1Jnipr9v~/iie,!1ts;be'.~Ji~wed to phase in . '< ••' ,,,•,.,-.,~-• ,.,, •• ,,. •,. ~ '"' •••_ ,. ,.t,., o••a•.t'O,:,,,_ .,;i ' ( .;f' •!•' ,. "' the proiect0 hyrecons.tru~tiiigJhe'theatre:and allownig it to b'euseil as'dassroom space until 0 the main buil4ing'ircoii'stf~'cf~d and al$1i''tiln1t'.ldify thisit~ jiIMt~ssb:o~'ii'11 aset of plans " ~-- ..... , }·., ---·-. ,!·'-~-, . -,'\.~•--''"• .. ,• -- .. ' .. ' ':·'JI."'"' ' dated 3/14/08; rel!j~~d, fo 09/29/2009,'by James G. Rogers Architects, No~alk,pT; and ·~··- . " ·•· ~ " ' ~~i:,.::.:c·:--.):~ :· .. ;· ;:: .. ff:'"/.:~· .. :··:,·\\·.',_· i-:·i'.;,1·1:·i)/~i f,~:;:~:.;-~ 5' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all conditions of approval remain_ in' full effect and force; and · . . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that tile eff,~~tiye (jate of this approy~I shall b~ November ~w~ . .. . ** ** h. #24-09 CAM - Jill Hanan-'- 8 V~lley _Rp~i:1-Additions' \9 a -~irigle-fainily residence - Report & recommendation · · ·· · · .. · · · · ' · .... ** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that application #24-09CAM, construction of an addition to a single-family residence for the property 8 Valley Road and as showD' 011 the site plan by Ryan and Faulds, Land Surveyors, Wilton, CT, dated September 25, 2009 and architectural drawing by Evolve Design Group, LLC, New Milford, CT dated September 10, 2009 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That all required soil sedimentation and erosion controls are in place prior to the start of any construction; and ' 2. That any additional needed soil sedimentation and erosion controls be installed at the direction of the Staff; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this proposal complies with all applicable coastal resource and use policies. Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this approval shall be November 27, 2009. ** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED. ** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. i. DEP/USACE Referral -32 Yarmouth Road-Install new pier, ramp, and float for recreational boating use · ** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that the staff be directed to contact the Connecticut DEP and Army Corp of Engineers with the following comments regarding #200701764-KB - 32 Yarmouth Road~ Install a new pier, ramp, and floating dock; and That the Commission supports water-dependent uses, such as the construction of.docks, in tidal, coastal, or navigable waters of the state; and . BE IT FURTHER RESOLV:ED ih;t ~~i{prqp~~al is'c~~sistent .vith coastal resource and usepolices. ..'_'· ... ··. '-:,· ... '.' ,, ,:: .\rt,· . •, ** MS. LIGHT SECONDED. ** MOTION.PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. . .:_'::·,_;.":"i:,/,... " ' '". ·.,_.· .. ,. . ' '·, ,: .:· . ,_ j. DEP/USACE Referral -:"<;:L.~:f'.'NPJFalk sub~tatip'n ':-Ncirwa!JsRiyer ;.Re,storation & rip-rap of embankment _. '.' ./. ·.. '.:.. •:•,r · · · .: · .- ./, ·.. ,' .: , '.·. ·." _ · ....,/· .{·;.:;:"_·' . ,, . .· "' -. . ' ,. ** MR. WlQJJ: MOVED: RESOLVED that the sfaff be. directed tp contact the Connecticut DJ!;f)i11d Army Corp ofEnginee~s:witbthe foHo.ving conime.nt~ regarding #SCEL-200902i89-DEP/USACE Referral_;CL&P Nonvalk'substation"-'-cNorwalk River-Rest~ration & rip:rap of embankmei* and ...... That the Commission supports the stabilization and rip-rap armoring o_f stream banks in order to eliminate the threat of any existfog or future erosion of real property in Norwalk that abuts a watercourse; and .'(<', ';:i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that tliis'ptoposal is consistent with coastal resource and use ()cilicies. ' • ·. .· •· · · · · ' · _ ·· ·,-. . ·· ** ** ·--, V. REPORT OF ZONING COMMITTEE, ROBERT KEYES, CHAffi · a. Action on Item III. b. *-* MR. KEYES MOVED: RESOLVED that the proposed amendment to the Building Zone Regulations as shown on a certain document entitled "#9-09R-Zoning Commission Proposed amendments to Section 118-1220 regarding the use of municipal parking lots in Norwalk Center" and dated August 28, 2009, be APPROVED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reason for this action is: 1) To implement the Plan of Conservation & Development goal to "Encourage centralized parking in the Norwalk and South Norwalk downtowns which allows shared parking by uses with complementary demands in both daytime and evenings" (E.5.1.3 p. 39) Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page6 2) To implement the Plan of Conservation & Development goal to "Support economic growth in the city with appropriate parking strategies" (E.5.1, p.39) 3) To promote new businesses to locate in existing vacant space in Norwalk Center; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this action be November 27, 2009. ** MS. LIGHT SECONDED. ** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. #8-09R- Norwalk Board of Education -Proposed amendments to Article 121 regarding signs at public high schools in residential zones - Report & ·recommendation Note: Action on zoning amendment must precede action on special permit. Mr. Blank rectised himself and left the room. ** MR. KEYES MOVED: RESQ.LVED that the nroposed amendment to the Building Zone Regulations as shown on a cerfain docume11,t entitled "#8-09R-Norwalk Board of Education-Proposed amendnients' to Ai'ticle 12i ~iiga~iimg iign~ at public high schools in residential zones" anddaied'Maf-21; 2oofaiid' as in:odifiid·tci'November 12, 2009 to allow a changeable copy (automatic}"gr~und s'fg~ on the pre1nis'es ~fa 6ubiic high school, be APPROVED;' . .· . . . · ;,• ·• ' ·'" . ' .. ** MS. LIGHT SECONDED. . ** (MOTION CARRIED 5-2, LIGH'I',F'I)fa:,D AND WH_ITE OPPOS:[NG; BLANK ABSTAINING). ' ~-·., ' . ' .,;\:\(:;J; ..f:t\ . . ·: .. ,, c. #8-09SP -Norwalk Bg¥d ofEducatio1i;,;:23 Calyiri-Murphy Dr/Strawberry Hill Ave - New changeable copy (autgnf~tic) ground sig;r{~tNbfwalkHig;h School:... Report & recommendation . ,, . •' . . -~ ** MR. KEYES MOVED! RESClLVED thatsp~cial p~rJil;ta.pplication #8-09SP to permit an automatic changeabl~ fopygrifui!,dcsign'afN'&f-\valk.High School as shown on a drawing entitled "NHS Marquee a{revlsid(tq ,liily 1.3, 2009" and on a site plan entitled "Additions and alterations to Norwaik High School" by Fletcher Thompson and dated December 2, 2005 as revised with a sketch showing proposed sign location dated May 21, 2009, be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a certificate of special permit and the approved site plan be filed on the Norwalk Land Records; and 2. That the plans be revised to provide additional landscaping; and 3. That the sign be modified to add text identifying the site as "Norwalk High School"; and 4. That the applicant submit information identifying the person responsible for the sign and two back-up persons including phone numbers and e-mail addresses for the above persons; and 5. That all other signs, including all handmade signs, are prohibited; and 6. That a final illumination report be provided to the Zoning Committee within three (3) months after the sign begins operating; and Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page? 7. That the sign be nsed only for text (no graphics) relating to on-site high school events; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application complies with Section 118-1221 Sign Regulation, as amended, and with the applicable sections of the Building Zone Regulations for the City of Norwalk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this action be November 27, 2009. ** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED. ** MOTION CARRIED 5-2, (LIGHTFIELD AND WHITE OPPOSING, BLANK ABSTAINING). Mr. Greene took the roll again in order to clarify the vote. Ms. Light confirmed that a condition had been added about landscaping . . . ., ... ,, .. ,_, ,,·, .. -~ '.•·· . ,. .,. Mr. Keyes stated that the hours ofoperatio.n ne~decl to )ie el;(plicitly stated in the resolution . . ' . ,·' ·;:,. ' '. '; <. ' .'.. . t .. ··•,,. Ms. Lightfield said thatth~ name 6fthe school needed to ~e preseqt.dr the_sign. :.. ,,-,,. ,, ' ,'' ·,·· :. . ,, Mr. White said that no ad;erti_sing should be permitted, except for that in':'ol~ing school events. Ms. Lightfield re~d aloud th~:language clariryjilg a~vedls'ipg ~n the sign} . . --. - . ·· '.'·:; _/}t/t\??ih:-.>·,..._ ·._ · .-. __:~.:_::. ·;· t·}L/:rtt·.:.: .... :,-::·· ... ·. ~.. --,<\---. -. Mr. White aske_d f d. #7-09R- Norden Place, LLC - Proposed amendments to Section 118-711 to pef111il multifamily and single family dwellings by special pel'J\l_it in Restricted Industrial zone - Report & recommendation · · An audience member·~sk.ed the Cornmissio~i~cl~fywhiit item_wiis.being;pied on. Mr. Keyes clarified the item. __.. · · · " · · -- - -· - ' · · ' --- Mr. Mushak read aloud frOf!], ai_n!fbn stat~lllent he h~d.prepateq; H~ said that he ha.d listened to the neighbors' concerns at thepu~lic hearJng <111d ijd{r~~d tfft~e information concerning the proposal. He said that he had been amazed _bythe I~vefof cofo.munity concern. Mr. Mushak said that he would vote for the project, but that his 'decisi~n had been an especially challenging one. He said that he understood that some residents did not want any development on the property, but that it was important to control the inevitable growth at the site. Mr. Mushak emphasized that it would be far worse to preserve the property as industrial than to allow this residential use. He addressed the traffic impact, citing the actual traffic counts on Strawberry Hill Avenue-and pointing out that there would be 86% more traffic, if the site were industrial. Mr. Mushak asserted that many of the people who had signed the petition opposing the project had not in fact been told the full story. He discussed the duty of public officials to speak truthfully about such projects and to be held to a· higher standard than an ordinary person spea[cjng at a public hearing. Ms. Lightfield said that the text amendment was not to remove the Restricted Industrial use, but to add a residential use, pointing out that from a traffic standpoint; residential uses had the least impact.· · ** MR. KEYES MOVED: RESOLVED tp.at the proposed amendment to the Building Zoning Commission November !8,' 2009 Page 8 • Zone Regulations as shown on a certain document entitled #7-09R-Norden Place LLC Proposed amendments to Section 118-711 Restricted Industrial Zone to permit multifamily dwellings on parcels of25 acres or more by special permit" and dated as revised to September 24; 2009 to allow multifamily residential development with 10% affordable, be APPROVED; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this· action are: 1. · To implement the Plan of Conservation & Development goal to "Allow a wide range of housing opportunities to ensure that the housing needs of all segments of the labor force are met (A.1.2.3, p. 10); and 2. To implement the Plan of Conservation & Development goal to "Encourage a balance between new jobs and housing opportunities (A.1.1_.7, p. 10); and 3. To implement the Plan of Conservation & Development goal to "Preserve and protect open space for natural resource management and to preserve neighborhood character (C.2.1, p. 25); and ...... 4. To implement the Plan of Conseiv11tj ** MR. KEYES MOVED: RES()L'VED that special permit #7-09SP-Norden Place, LLC-8 Norden Place--240 unit m1;1ltif~ljl.}h' d.~Y.~1-~p!)lent an_d 4_sjp.glll family residences with 25 affordable worlfforce J,i.ousing units at NotdeilPa~kiridustrJal qevelopment park as shown on various archite'ctur~l pl~.iis by ~".i,:ilieMArchife~ts.and sit~ ilnd engineering plans by Tighe & Bond ConsultirikEpgihfrrs apd E.:m;iro!)merital J;jatid Solutions and others, dated May 21, 2009 as revised to Oct~!Jer•20,:200~; be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: ·· · · · · 1. That a certificate of special permit, conservation easement and the approved site plan be filed on the Norwalk Land Records; and 2. That a public access easement be filed on the Norwalk Land Records granting the public the right to access the walking trail and that the plans be revised to provide a sidewalk along the entry drive providing pedestriaq access to/from Norden Pla_ce; and · 3. That the plans be revised to extend the sidewalk along the north side of Norden Place from the site driveway to the intersection of Strawberry Hill Avenue; and 4. That the plans be revised to extend the "specialty pavement program" on the landscape plan to include the area located at the courtyard/driveway intersection; and 5. That the workforce housing deed restriction document with the sale price restrictions be filed on the Norwalk Land Records to implement the workforce housing restrictions as shown on a certain document entitled "Norden Place LLC Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page9 , Multifamily Affordability Plan" dated September 28, 2009; and 6. That all required CEAC signoffs be submitted, including the required permit from the State Traffic Commission, prior to the issuance of a zoning permit; and 7. That all proposed traffic improvements, including a new traffic light at the intersection of Strawberry Hill Avenue and Beacon Street, be installed prior to the issuance ofa certificate of zoning compliance; and 8. That the request for a waiver of 86 parking spaces for multifamily parking requirements be granted subject to the submittal of a surety for a period of2 years to confirm that 325 parking spaces are sufficient for the use; and 9. That the owner be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the storm water system as described in the storm water management plan submitted to the Commission; and · 10. That a follow-up traffic study be conducted within six (6) months of the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance and presented to the Zoning Commission; and 11. That as surety, in an amount to be determined by staff, be submitted to guarantee the installation of required improvements; and . 12. That all soil and erosioncontrols):1; 1n°pface··and ve_rified by an inspection by staff prior to the start of ljµy'wo,\"k on:'.th~ ~it4;:1n4· thl!t,;uiy ai!ditional needed soil and sedimentation-controls J:?tiitstalled'at the direc¢ionofth(staffand that all required long term soil _erosirifr and sedimentation controis be-proil~rly maintained; and 13. That any graffiti on the site, now or in the future, be ren\oyed immediately; and 14. That any modificitions to the approved plan,;yvhich requires a substantial change to these pla_ris be subwitteil to the Zoning Comriiis~ion°for review'~11d approval; and . ..-:,:>,,.,:.•. : ,. " :r ,,. .. ,,": .. :~._,~,:, . " ,,; ~:-,._, ,,·._·,: '. .,:.· •' >, -::, ·_-- ,, ', ,,, ,!, . _·:.?,, •· ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application complies with applicable sections of :, ":,~·':f•t ... ·,-:~---+'·. -"~--•',.-. ·,· : • ~--· ,-:1~---· '•,',· ' ... "!.-· ~ the Norwalk 13uilding ZoneJlegulations;_iilcluding se·ctions q8,711 Restricted Industrial zone, as amerid~d, imd°ii8-1450, Special Permits. . ,_.. '• ' . -r, -,, -- ;:.. '.f ..• '· . . , • '· . , ,, . . 7 \. .• ... BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the effective date of this action be November 27, 2009. ** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED. ** MOTION CAlUUED (LIGHT ABSTAINING). VI. APPROVAL, OF MINUTES: Octobei',21,2009 . .,"'·•• ·•-";--.:••·., . r:;<.', ** MR. BENTLEYMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. ** MR. WHITE SECONDED. . , . ** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. VII. COMMENTS OF DIREcfbi· ; · Mr. Greene announced that there was a budgetreqtiest for a new sound system. VIII. COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS There were none tonight. IX. ADJOURNMENT ** MR. MUSHAK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ** MR. WHITE SECONDED. ** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 pm. Respectfully submitted by Charlene Smith Zoning Commission November 18, 2009 Page JO .,_ toNING COMMISSION 125 East Avenue Norwalk, Con)lecticut 06851 · MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 18, 2009 TO: Zoning Commission, Jackie Lightfield, Chair FROM: Zoning Committee, Robert_ Keyes, Chair RE: #7-09SP - Norden Place, LLC - 8 Norden Place- 240 unit multifamily development and 4 single farnilyresidences with 25 workforce housing units at NordenPark industrial development park APPLICANT: Norden :Place, LLC ADDRESS: 8 Norden Place (Districts 3 & 5, Bloc!<; 17, Lot 144) 8 NORDEN PLACE: REVISED LOT #1: 38.37 acres (1,671,397 sq ft) ZONING DESIGNATIONS: 37.03 acres Restricted Industrial zone 1.34 acres Research & Development PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION: Restricted Industrial EXISTING USES: The proposed development will be located on the undeveloped parcel of38.37 acres in size located to the rear of 10 Norden Place and known as Revised Lot # 1. The property is located .within and part of an Industrial Development park with 663,350 sq. ft. ofindustrial, college & office space in three existing buildings. In 2007, the Commission approved an arnendment allowing 60% of the gross floor area (398,010 sq ft) as office use including up to 80,000 square feet as college use to allow for a new office building to be builtto the rear of the existing building. This new office building has been approved but has not been constructed. Easements from the owners of 10 Norden Place (the front parcel) are needed to access and make improvements to utilities and site driveways and are filed in the Norwalk Land Records. In 2006, the Commission denied a similar application for a 328 unit multifamily development with 50 affordable units restricted to households earning either 60% or 80% of the State median income. PROPOSED USE: In accordance with the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations, the applicant is proposing to construct a new 269,400 square foot, 4 story structure measuring 54 feet 10" to the midpoint, with a total of240 multifamily dwelling units and 4 separate single family residences at 8 Norden Place. A total of 419 parking spaces are required; however the applicant has requested a waiver of a portion of the multifamily parking requirements and is proposing to construct 325 parking spaces, 32 of which will be provided in garages below the residenti'al units. If the parking is waived, the reserve parking area will be used for a community garden space and a recreation field. Proposed recreation facilities include a swimming pool, bocce court, 11 picnic tables, 7 grills, numerous benches and a 10 foot wide gravel walking trail with 2 exercise stations to provide outdoorrecreation activities for residents. The unit mix in the multifamily building includes: 30 studios, 108 one bedroom, 90 two bedroom and 12 three bedroom units. The draft affordabilityplan indicates that 10% ofthe units (25 units) will be affordable to households earning'no more than 80% of the state median income. The plan complies with the proposed amendment which establishes new criteria for multifamily development in a Restricted Industrial zone (see proposed Residential Schedule Part 2). Portions of the property are located in flood zone A6-Elevation 11 (on south side of parcel along railroad tracks), however the proposed buildings will not require flood certification documents as all structures will be located in Flood zone C. CONSERVATION EASEMENT: The applicant has agreed to set aside 11.5446 acres of the site as conservation area that will be left undisturbed except for the removal of invasive species. The text of the draft easement is currently under review. TRAFFIC & DRAINAGE REPORTS: The traffic report indicates that the proposed 244 units will generate 118 new trips in the AM peak and 149 new trips in the PM and Saturday peak. This is compared with 219 new trips (AM & PM) for a permitted 300,000 sq ft manufacturing use. The report indicates that when the traffic from the proposed residential units is added to the trips from full occupancy ofthe existing building, the result would be 5 86 trips in the AM peak and 663 trips in the PM peak. Currently, 10 Norden Place buildings are not fully leased with 89,000 sq ft of vacant space. The report recommends that a traffic light be installed at Beacon St & Strawberry Hill Avenue which will iniprove the resulting LOS in the PM peak from LOS D to LOS B. The proposed development will result in a LOS B for Strawberry Hill Ave & Norden Place with LOS C for certain turning movements with a similar LOS for Triangle St/Route 136. Environmental and drainage reports wen; also submitted, indicating that a number of storm water treatment devices will be installed as part of a best management practices program. A stormwatermamtenance plan committmg the owne1s to tire long tenn mai:11te11mrce uflhe same will be required. The Conservation Commission hired Environmental Planning Services to review the stormwaterplans and various modifications have been made to bring the plan into compliance with the criteria in the Connecticut Stormwater Manual. The project will be served by public water, sanitary sewer, telephone and electric, as indicated on the proposed plans. APPLICAP:ON STATUS: The application was referred to the Fire, Health, DPW, Conservation, First District Water.and the WPCA; all but Conservation have issued sign-offs (see file). The Fire Marshal sent correspondence regarding agreements with the Westport Police & Fire Departments to provide emergency services for the 4 single family residences accessed from Hiawatha Lane. The Conservation Commission approved the proposed development with conditions at its meeting on November 10, 2009. The Zoning Commission has 35 days from the date that the Conservation Commission acts, to render its_ decision. -2~ ' . Your committee has reviewed the proposal and recommends the following resolution: *DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE* BE IT· RESOLVED that special permit #7-09SP -Norden Place, LLC- 8 Norden Piace-240 unit.multifamily development and 4 single familyresidences with 25 affordable workforce housing units atNordenParkindustrial development-park as shown on a various architectural plans by Beinfield Architects and site and engineering plans by Tighe & Bond Consulting Engineers and Environmental Land Solutions and others, d?,tedMay21, 2009 as revised to October 20, 2009, be approved, subject to the following conditions-: 1. That a certificate of special permit, conservation easement and the approved site plan be filed on the Norwalk Land Records; and 2. That a public access easement be filed on the Norwalk Land Records granting the public the right to access the walking trail and that the plans be revised to provide a sidewalk along the entry drive providing pedestrian access to/from Norden Place; and . 3. That the plans be revised to extend the sidewalk along the north side ofNorden Place from the site driveway to the intersection of Strawberry _Hill Avenue; and 4. That the plans be revised to extend the "specialty pavement pattern" on the landscape plan to include the area located at the courtyard/driveway intersection; and 5. That the workfor6e housing deed r6striction document with the sale price restrictions be filed on the Norwalk Land Records to implement the workforce housing restrictions as shown on a certain document entitled ''Norden Place LLC Multifamily Affordability Plan" dated September 28, 2009; and . 6. That all required CEAC signoffs be submitted, including the required permit from the State Traffic Commission,prior to the issuance of a zoning permit; and · 7, That all proposed traffic improvements, including a new traffic light at the intersection of Strawberry Hill A venue and Beacon Street, be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance; and . 8. That the request for a waiver of 86 parking spaces formultifainjlyparking requirements be granted subject to the submittal of a surety for a period of2 years to confirm that 325 parking spaces are sufficient for the use; and 9. That the owner be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the storm water system as described in the storm water management plan submitted to the Commission; and 10. That a follow-up traffic study be conducted within six (6) months of the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance and presented to the Zoning Commission; and 11. That a surety, in an amount to be determined by staff, be submitted to guarantee the installation of required improvements; and 12. That all soil and erosion controls be in place and verified by an inspection by staffprior to the start ofany work on the site and that any additional needed soil and sedimentation controls be installed at the direction of the staffand that all required long term soil erosion an¢ sedimentation controls be properly maintained; and 13. That any graffiti on the site, now or in the future, be removed immediately; and 14. That any modifications to the approved plan which requires a.substantial change to these plans be submitted to the Zoning Commission for review and approval; and 15. 16. 17. BE IT FURTHER 'RESOLVED that the applicavon complies with applicable sections of the Norwalk Building Zone Regulations, including Sections 118-711 Restricted Industrial zone, as amended, and 118-1_450, Special Permits. BE Tl' ])'Okl'HEk RESOLVED that the effective date of this action be November 2 , 111111111111111 It 1111111111 IIIO Ill E1111111111 ml 11111 11111 INSTR I 2011008859 VOL 07424 PG 0133 RECORDED 07/20/2011 ·08:51:10 AM . Return to: ANDREWS, GARFUNKEL Geoffrey Fay TOWN CLERK NORWALK CT Pullman & Comely LLC ZERO.CONVEYANCE TAK i 07 Elni Street Four Stamford Plaz.a Stamford, CT 06902 CONSERVATION PUBLIC ACCESS.EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that NORDEN PLACE, LLC, owner of property known as 8 Norden Place located in the City of Norwalk, County of Fairfield and State of Connecticut (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner" or "Grantor''), in consideration of One Dollar ($ 1.00) and other good and valuable consideration received to its full satisfaction of the CITY OF NORWALK, a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut (hereinafter refereed to as the "City"), and the CO_NSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORWALK (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), does hereby grant unto the said City and the said COMMISSION, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right and easement, as a "Conservation Easement", for the preservation of land in its predominately natural and open condition for the protection of natural resources with limited public access therein as more fully described herein; to _provide a well-balanced and functioning landscape with improved wetland function and values with management through the· creation of 18,750+\ sq.ft. of wet meadow for mitigation for the loss of wetlands 2 and 3; through effective management of invasive plant species; through the enhancement of riparian habitat associated with surface water flows within wetland !; through increased production export and enhancement of site biodiversity; · to provide long-term soil and watercourse stabilization of onsite watercourses (wetlands !, 4 and 5) impacted by runoff from 1~95 through protection ofregulated areas by the placement .of an 11.5446 ± 1;1cre conservation easement over core wetlands; through enhanced ·passive recreation for future residents; to improve visual/aesthetics and passive recreational opportunities, all in accordance with approvals granted in 2009 as may be amended by the Commission over, under and across all those certain pieces, parcels and tracts of land more specifically ·delineated as the "Conservation Easement 11.5446 ± Acres"· on the a certain map entitled "Zoning Location· Survey Depicting Conservation Easement Prepared for Norden Place, LLC 8 Norden P_lace Norwalk, Connecticut Scale: l" = 80', dated November 2, 2006; last revised July 8, 2011 ", prepared by William W. Seymour & Associates, P.C. Land Suryeyors Darien, Conn., recorded with the Norwalk Town Clerk as Map Number 13364 (the "Map'') and; WHEREAS, the Owner represents to the City and the Commission that it is presently the Owner in fee simple of certain premises (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") shown and designated as. Tax Lot 144, Block.17,. of the Third and Fifth Taxing District, 8 Norden Place, said Property also being shown and described as "Revised Lot 1, 38.368 ± ACRES, (# 8 Norden Park)," on the Map. WHEREAS, a certain area on the Map is designated as the "Co.nservation Easement 11.544_6 ± Acres" (hereinafter referred to as "Conservation Area"). · BY THE DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GRANT, the parties agree as between them and their successors and assigns, that said parties shall do or refrain from doing on or within the Property the acts hereinafter set forth: 1. Except as otherwise pennitted under Paragraph 11 below, or as may be pennitted or required under the "Declaration of Easements, Covenants & Restrictions" dated December 2, 2005, recorded on the Norwalk Land -2- Records in Volume 6051, Page ·J, et seq (the ''Declaration"), no walking trails shall be relocated as described in Section V. B. of the Declaration, nor shall any structures of any kind, including without limitation, sewage disposal systems or we!1s (with the exception of irrigation, which will be necessary during wetlands creation), be placed or erected upon or within the Conservation Area until .an application therefore (with -plans and specifications of such structures, together with a statement of the purpose for which such structures, such as sound barriers,. will' be ·used) has been filed with, and prior written approval obtained from the Commission, or its successor agencies. Fences required by the Department of Environmental Protection shall be permitted. 2. That no advertising of any kind or nature shall be located on or within the Conservation Area. 3. All new plantings within the-Conservation Area shall be confined to native plants characteristic of the region, together with flowers, berries, and fruiting trees and shrubs that are consistent with the indigenous character of the existing vegetation. 4. That the general topography or the landscape of the Conservation Area shall be maintained in its present_ condition (subject to the construction or maintenance activities permitted in a6cordance with any appropriate Commission permit, oi other work required by permit or obligation imposed by any other local, state or federal agency with jurisdiction over the Property), and no topographic changes shall be made without the prior written approval of the Commission. Topographic changes shall include, without limitation; filling, excavating, removing topsoil, removing sand and gravel, removing rocks or minerals, building roads, or altering natural or existing watercourses or drainage. Notwit):istanding the foregoing, it is understood and agreed by the parties that the Granter, its successors ·and assigns, propose to install various utilitjes within a portion of the Conservation Area as depicted on the Map as "Utility Area". The installation, mainten~ce and repair of said utilities in accordance with said Map, -3- • including but not limited to sewer, water and gas, telephone and telecommunication lines, shall be among the additional activities pemritted within the Conservation Area and niay cause minor. topographic changes to create reasonable grades for such installation maintenance and repair. 5. The .Grantor, or its successors and _assigns, proposes to create, construct, maintain and repair a ten (10')-foot wide, gravel nature path, as depicted on the ·Map, as "10 Gravel Path. The Grantor herein retains for itself, its successors and assigns and any tenants of the Property, the perpetual right to pass and repass by foot or bicycle, over and on said gravel nature path in accordance with said Map. · 6. No use of the Conservation Area that, in the opinion and judgment of the Conunission, will or .does materially alter the landscape or other attractive scenic features of said area, shall be done or suffered without the prior written approval of the Commission. 7. The Conservation Easement granted· herein is .limited and shall permit the · Grantor, and the owner 6f the property shown as Revised Lot 2 on file Map, and their respective tenants, assigns, successors, invitees and the general public to pass and repass by foot and bicycle only, over a_nd upon the gravel path within the Conservation Area and make reasonable use of same. only during the time period · commencing one (1) hour before sunrise and concluding one.(!) hour after sunset. The Conservation Area may not be used for eating, drinking, picnicking, loitering, sports activities, sleeping or other recreational activities or _than passive recreation. No condition imposed ·on the use of the Conservation Area by the general public described herein, shall . . act as a limitation or restriction on 1he use of the Conservation Area by the· Grantor, its successors or assigns, or by the. owner of the property shown as Revised Lot 2 on the Map, and its tenants, assigns, successors as permitted under the Declaration. Access to the Conservation Area by the Grantor, its tenants, successors, assigns,- invitees, licensees or the general public, shall -4- be across land owned by the Grantor at 8 Norden Place, Norwalk, Connecticut, and not across land located at 10 Norden Place, Norwalk, Connecticut. 8. No changes shall be made to the Conservation Area by the Grantor, its successors, assigns, tenants, the City or any member of the general public without the prior express written approval of the Commission. 9. The Grantor, its successors and assigns, shall have _the· right (but not any obligation) to supervise the Conservation Area and to exclude any member of the general public misusing same, creating a disturbance thereon, doing damage thereto, or violating any local ordinance, state or federal law or statute, or not conducting himself or herself in accordance with commonly accepted standards or· decency and good conduct. The City, by accepting arid recording this easement, agrees for itself and its successors, assigns, . invitees, licensees and the general public;to reasonably assist t)l.e Grantor in any of the Grantor's activities or efforts to enforce the above-described restrictions on the public. I 0. •The Grantor does not hereby (I) make any representation that the Conservation Area is safe for any purpose; (2) owe a duty of care to any person or persons who enter. upon or use the Conservation Area and does not confer upon any such person or persons the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care. is owed; ·and (3) assume responsibility for or incur· liability for any injury to person or property caused by the use of the Conservation Area,-or caused by any act or omission of the City. 11. The Grantor shall have the right to use the Conservation Area or any portion .thereof for any purposes that do not interfere on a permanent basis with the City's, and general public's, limited use(s) set forth herein. 12. No ashes, . trash, sawdust, or any unsightly or offensive material shall be dumped within or placed in or tipon the Conservation Area -5- 13. No trees or shrubs shall be cut, removed or destroyed, excluding ordinary annual mliintenance as defined by the Long Term Management Plan, dated May 21, 2009,.revised on revised September 10, 2009,-and.revised again on April 28, ··-··. - -~ -- • -· .• ·••.,-. - ·- ~· ·•-- •. --·•·--·•------·- ·-- --- .•• - _,p ------· 2011, and prepared by Land-Tech Consu!iants, Inc., conducted by the Grru1tor and at the Grantor's. discretion, within the Conservation Area without the prior written approval of the Commission and in concert with the long-term management plan, which may be amended in response to the management needs of the area, upon approval by the Commission. The use of chemical herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers and other agents must be limited to prevent any demonstrable adverse effect on wildjife, waters, and other important conservation interests to be protected by this Conservation Easement.· This limitation shall not be construed to prevent judicious use, in the activities permitted hereby, of chemical herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, _fertilizers and other agents consistent with best management practices and with the terms of this Conservation Ea_sement and purposes hereof. 14. The Owner grants to the Commission, its agents and employees, the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times for the limited purpose of inspecting the Conservation Area, and performing such work therein, consistent with the provisions hereof, as the Commission deem appropriate. 15. If the Commission deems it appropriate to perform any work within the Conservation Area in furtherance of the purposes of this Conservation Easement, which work is not mandatory under the terms of this Conservation Easement, it may do so at n_o _cost to the Owner, provided that it has afforded the Owner not less than thirty (30) days prior. written notice of its intention to do so. The Owner may elect to perform such proposed work itself, at its expense, in which event the Commission shall not perform such work. -6· 16. The rights and obligations established under this Conservation Easement shall in no way grl!llt to the general public the right to enter the Conservation Area for any other purpose, or the right to enter any other land of the Grantor. 17. The Owner hereby agrees and represents that this Conservation Easement s_hall be recorded on the Norwalk Land Records at the Owner's expense, prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, permanent or temporary, for any buildings proposed on the site or any transfer of title (whether in whole or in part) or of any interest therein. 18. The Owner agrees not to contest the validity of this instrument. 19. The Owner agrees that nothing herein shall be construed to be a limitation upon the rights of the City and/or the Commission to assert and enforce any rights it may have under federal, state, or municipal statute,. ordinance or regulation. 20. The Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns, represents and covenants that it is well seized of the Property containing the Conservation Area as a good and indefeasible estate in fee simple, subject to all encwnbrances of title recorded on the Norwalk Land Records, and it has good right to enter into this Easement in the manner and form as is above written, and it will ·obtain, at its sole cost and expense, any documents necessary to effectuate the tenns and provisions of this Easement. This representation and all other representations made· by the Owner he.rein are representations upon which the City and the Commission are relying upon with regard to this Conservation Easement, and this Conservation Easement constitutes a material element in the issuance of Commission's approval of the ()woer's Application. The Owner does, by these presents, bind itself, its successors and assigns forever to WARRANT AND DEFEND the above-granted and bargained easement to the City and the Commission, its successors and assigns, against all claims and demands whatsoever, except as aforesaid. -7- 21. The duties, obligations, benefits and burdens imposed in accordance with this Easement. on the Owner shall bind the Owner, its successors and assigns, but only during· their respective period of ownership of the Property, and shall ··-·--·------· ··-· --·-- --•----·-·-·· run with the land in perpetuity. 22. Wh':never the context of this instrument so requires, the singular number shall include the plural and the mascufine gender shall in.elude the feminine or be consistent withwhatevertype of entity said context so requires. 23. Any individual traversing the Conservation Area pursuant to this Conservation:Easement shall do so at such individual's sole risk, and shall be considered to have agreed to indemnify, defend and hold the Owner, the City of Norwalk and the Commission harmless from and against ·claims, liability and expense arising from any use of, or entran9e upon, the Property or Conservation Area. 24. Nothing herein set forth shall be construed to impose on the City of Norwalk any responsibility or liability for the.maintenance or repair of the gravel path, which responsibility and liability shall rest with Owner. 25. In the event that there is any. erection. of structures or changes in uses with respect .· to the Conservation Area that requires the prior · written approval of the Commission (such as described in paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 8 and/or 13 above), a notice of the proposed construction or ch_ange in use, along with a copy of requests for approval from the Commi~sion, shall be sent by ilie Own~r. to the Department of Environmental Protection, or its successor agency, as follows: Director, Remediation Division Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106 With a copy to: -8- Commissioner Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106 In making such notification, acopy of the application to the Commission, as well as a copy of this Conservation and Public Access Easement shall be forwarded to the Department of Environmental Protection by the Owner. 26. Subordination. By its acceptance hereof, City .and Commission each acknowledge and agree, on behalf of themselves and the general public, that any interests created in this Conservation and Public Access Easement and that such parties may hold in the Property shall be automatically and irrevocaMy subordinate to any environmental use restriction under C.G.S. Sections 22a-133n to 22a-133s, inclusive, approved ·by the Conunissioner of Environmental Protection or a Licensed Environmental Professional in accordance with the . requirements ofC.G.S. Sections 22a-133n to 22a-133s, R,C.S.A Sections 22a- 133k-1 through 3 inclusive, R.C.S.A Section 22a-133q-1 when such environmental use restriction is executed and recorded on the Land Records of the City of Norwalk. -9- • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner l1as hereunto executed this Conservation Easement and set their hands and seals to this Conservation Easement this ..tQ_ day of July, 201 I. ·- Signed, Sealed and .. Delivered in the presence of: NORDEN PLACE, LLC, . aDela~~ By: Barry P. Marcus Its: Senior Vice President, duly authorized STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ) ss: South Norwalk , 201 J COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD ) On this __Jf_ day of July, 2011 before me, the undersigned . Barry P. Marcus, appeared, and is known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the Senior Vice President ofNorden Place, LLC, the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same, as such officer ofNorden Place LLC for the purposes therein contained, as· his free act and deed and as the free act and deed of Norden Place, LLC. Jennifer Montanaro Notary Pubilc. Fairfield Cty. CT My Commission Expires 5-31-13 ACTNE/69440.19/GF AY /252 l 743vl IHEREBY CERTIFYTHATTHIS IS ATRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED FOR ~ECORD , INTHE OFACE OFTHETOWN CLERK OF THE CllY .. OFNORWALK . 'Q· 5 )AM " ~. LEGEND: - PI\OP05f0 MINOR COtmll/11 -----iffi}-- •PRO~fO/ol.lJORCOrtrllUR - PRO~EO SPOT fl.tVATION corv ,....,.5:,- TJ cu T T'...JF?NPlk."_ --N-- - EXISTING COHTOUR ROUTEQ +ns0 - EXISTING SPOT a!NATION ... - &VIUl!NG ENnY POIITT ------ .,--- Perkins Eastman •22 Summe, SlrHI Slalnford, CT06901 203.251.7•00 STRUCT\l~ ENGINEER; c.tuE,,p,oerlng,Ud 7500!rllnSMl.lnt,$Lh209 G.. ,_.. VA 201S5 MEPENG...uF!; Co1,r:t..O.S911Associ1t.s '6FIMrsidoAVI Wfftor!,CT06HO Cl\ll ENGINEER: T\gh11ndBond lOOOBrld!lelJ0,1Aven111 Shll1C!n,CT05"84 LAAOSCAPEARCHITECT; "i En'lh,M!ental Land So1"11on1 LLC 8KnighlSlrHlSlilt2!13 "'(.) Nonnl<,CT064$1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TrlmnEnwnnm,ntal.b:. t:i 385dlurdlStrH! Slh201 w ~CT06Q7 I "'w z ::::; gI /~ PROJECT TITLE: AVAf.ON EAST NORWALK Norwalk, CT I NORDEN PLACE NORWALK.CTO&S:54 TIGHE&BONOPRQ.!l:CTNO; A~!Hi8 ·----- OAA'MNGTITLE: ·--- - ...;;_.)_1_L--~-i-.1.. •...;_~_..1:...--:r::c..1..::::!:=f-:---r::r::J:::i-::::r=r::r.=c.:c:t::J::::L.--::cr.::r~.r.=r=--.c.1:::r.:J=~--:r.:::1.----!-7-7-:c:r...:c:t::1.--.:z=r.:::1~c:L-----c-,::__-:...=cx::!-.J::J , 1.:::i=r.:r.:::._-r.:::i.-·r=::r=r::,--r-i=t::t:J=-r:::t:::r:-..:cr:::r:::t::r::1:::c.r:: t-7" , ! 11 • • r. , , •..:r:::c1- GRADING PLAN . ' -:J.=-~' .---~~~---:-·:-;i-~·~~·--,::t-:r .. -::r__~--::::Jl_-=~-·-r-r--r-:-r-7·-1 • .:.-~~~ _ 1 _ l , l _ L:I:::I=""CC.C:t:T---1::J.::::t=t:::i.....J__"-----IL---·__ -• _:z=r::r___c:t::!-l-1-.:...._j____t:::r:"""-!--t!--.:r::::!L:f=21-1..~ "---!_.;_4---;.._:._.. ;._•_1..... J ...... !..--!--·'-J...... ;i.::::l • , __ L..J._,__, . '·--·'-" ._. __ ,, _, _, __ ._ __ , ' ,_, ', ____ ., __ •-J._ ,_' • ....., ____~.__, ._.. , '·' , ___ , )l ·--.i-.-l-' . ___ •___ J '--~" ---1- ·~ • _, __,J::-_, ___ J__!_,_, ·------.l..-l...... __:.,._~1----4.._J._, __ ~..1... r.r..:1:::1=r..:z:::z---r-r.-:.:o=r-_c.:.J.:J::r---..T.:"_r::r:=c:.:w-:::r.::1:._.1-::=w...... J_..r:::r.::r...--r=J:-:-.J::i--:1_._._.::r.:__r-:i::-..-:t::J=--r....--c:L--:-..::::t::1:::r..:..1:::r::r.:::::r.....:.-c.r:::t . ..c:_.1_1.::r-! .1:::cr..:J:::t:::t::::r:::r:::::::-.J:::cr __ , r-r-r· , :::LJ.::cc:c.c:c:i:::!...... ,. __r:r PENN CENTRAL HAILHOAD COKNECTJ( L;T DEPAHT\11:NT OF THANSPOHT,\T C3.3 ,, ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION. ~, .. ,. . --- JUNE 1,2012 - IIO.D<1E- "" Perkins Eastman 422 S1Jmmer Strael S!amfon!, CT OS901 .... 203.251.7~00 1000BrldifPGIIA.. -·-Shelton,CT054114 t.EPEHGIHEER: CchdMI Dt19!Anodo1!1 "61wfflid1Aw W1J1port,CTO&e8D CM.. ENGINEER: TlghnndBood 1000Mlgepor1Ann"" Sllllillll,CT 011484 l.»IOSCAP!AACHfTECT: Elllffl\lllonlal Laod SoMons lLC B!Wght Slrtel Si.itl 203 11-.croSM1 ENVIRONMENTAi. CONSULT AMT TlllonWoolmtMat,lnc. 3~5 duoh She! Sufto 201 Gli!fonj,CTOM,37 /~ PROJECTllllE: AVALON EAST NORWALK Norwalk, CT SNORDEN Pl.ACE NORWAI..K,CTD6854 TIGHE&. BOND PROJECTNOJ ... , ORAWINGllll.E: ··--- .. -·-· ,_ tL'•-·..... :. ,_....._._..,___,______,____ , ·~· ~ GRADING PLAN LEGEND: -.-,------~------r---;--;---,--1-.-,-- ...... ~~-~1-,, • FAOPOS~O MINOR CDITTQIJR ~--.l.-J--.;,._,...l-- ' .I------· -..J.-~1- ' .....t ...... l..- '"""""""-"' ~X {?2Jl • FROPl:ISfD SPOT fl,SVATION --,o-- •EXISTING CO)!TOU!l C3.4 + n.so • EXISTING SPOT =AllON ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION. ... • ~VIIDING ENTII.Y POINT A!NE 1,2012 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Westport Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Summit Saugatuck LLC DATE: March 18, 2019 RE: Designation oflndividual Affordable Units 'The applicant's Affordability Plan, Tab 25 / Schedule A of the November 2018 application binder, agrees to dispersal of the affordable units throughout the five proposed buildings; and equal distribution among the one and two bedroom units, and among floors. After site plan approval, a final unit-by-unit designation will be prepared for PZC review and approval. It should be noted that, after initial leasing, the designation of units will change over time, as part of ensuring that the overall development stays in compliance with the 30 percent minimum set aside of§ 8-30g. · 7442907 I s4 4 ·C 6h-e,n + \"1 o 1-f, r i ~~1~~~~111~~111~~~I~~:~]!~!ll~J~~l)i 1~~1~1111 I 3:20 fb:->-l vd hi File# 2105 . I \,) {l S-1 po,+, C.1 Ole i80 iCrlh~: GI<. 5 QUIT CLAIM DEED TO ALL l'EOPLE TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING: KNOW YE, That GAU, BRADLEY, of, 40 Amos Landing Road, j\fashpee, MA 02649, herein•designated as the Releaser, for ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR aod oilier valuable consideration, received to Releaser's :t\111 satisfaction from · SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, of 55 Station Street, Fairfield, Connecticut 06824, herein designated as the Reliasee, does by these presents remise, release aod forever ,Quit-Claim unto the said Releasee and to the Releasee•~ heits, suCC'e:Ssors and assigns ;forever, All the ,ight, title, interest, olaim and demand whatsoever as the said Reieasor has or ought to have in or to a)l that certain piece or pare~] ofland, situated in the Town ofWestport; County ofFairfield and State of Connecticut, being shown and designated as ''Hiawatha Lene" on ~ certain map entitled, "Map of.Property Prepared for Tho Estate ofE. Louise Bradley, Gersboni Bradley, Adm. Jeanette Hughes, Adm., We,stport a11d Norwalk, Conn., Deb. 6, i954, Scale l" 60' ", Cortified SubstantWly Correct, Martin J. Capasso, Surveyor, whjch map i~ I>!' file ·w the Office of the · Town Clerk ofthe·Towo of Westport as Map No. 3802. Reference thereto being heteby made for a more particular description. ·· TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the premises hereby relnised, released and quit-claiiµed with all the appurtenances unto the said Releasee and to the Releasee1s heirs, successors and assigfis f,orever, so that neither the Releaser nor the · Releasor's heirs. successors or assigns nor _any other person claiming Uhder or through the Releaser shall hereafter havd any claim, right or title in or to.the premises or any part thereof, buttherefrom the Releaser and they are by these presents, for"ever barred and ex:cluded . .(In all refcrenqes heryin ~ any parties, persons, entitic.s or corporations ;e use of any particular gender or the plural or singuinr number is Jntend~d to include tlle- appropriate gender or number o.s the text of the within instrument may require.) . . . ~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Releaser bas signed 'llld sealed this instrument this L day of October, 2014. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the pres~nce of: ~, U&i~f:::J; :{~·~~ StQ..fe., CONVEYANCE TAX r (witness) My Commission Expires: (Y-'- 2-/ 2.D/ (, . '--t- J Received for Record at Westport, CT on 10/23/2014At 4:21:31 pm ~;..t•'.i.:.s~r~-=.. :4C@c1 .. r-i ~ IIIIIIII IIIIII Ill lllll lllll ~II lllll lllll lllll lill llil 111111111111111111111 C'Ohtn 1 \✓ DI-( PC Doc ID: 003421390001 Type: _LAN Book 3562 Page 113 .3 ;2 0 POS-J f2...d 1.J File# 2106 W-es• por-1, c1 01os-s-o a,.+f-v1 : GtZ-B QUIT CLAIM DEED '_I'O ALL PEOPLE TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING! KNOW YE, That CRAIG BRADLEY, of, 1820 N. Bissell Sn-eet, Unit,!., Chicago, IL 60614, herein designated o.s the Releasor, for ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR.and other valuable consideration1 received to Releasor's full satisfaction from SUM.MIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, of 55 Station Street, Fairfield, Connecticut 06824, herein designated as the Releasee, doos by the.~e presents rcmise, release and forever Quit•Claim unto the said Releasee and to the· ReJeas~e 1s heirs, successors nnd assigns forever,· All the right, title, Jntere.~t, claim a11d demand whatsoever as the said ReJeasorhas or ought to have b1 or to all that certnln piece or pa1·cel of land, situated in the TOwn of Westport, Counl)' of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, beillg shown and designated as 11Hiawatha Lane" on a certain mnp entitled, "Map of Property Prepared for The Estate ofE. Louise Bradley, Gershom Bradley, Adm. Jeanette Hugh~, Adm., Westport and Norwalk, Conn., Dec, 6, 1954, Scale I 11 60' .,, Certified Substantially Correct, Martin J. Capasse, Surveyor, which map is on file iri the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Westport ns Map No, 3802, Reference thereto belng hereby made for a more paiticuJar description. TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the premises hereby ren1ised, t·eleo.sed and quit~claimed with all the appurteuance., unto tho said· Roleasee nnd to the Releasee's heirs, successors and assigus forever, so that neither the Relensor nor the Releasor's heinl1 successors· or assigns nor any other person ola.hning under or throtigh the Releasor shall hereafter have any claim, rlght or titlo in or to the premises or ally part thereof, but therefrom the Releaser and they are by these presents, forever barred and excluded. (In an reJcrenccs herein to Bny 11arlles, ~ersons, ,:ntltlc.s or corporutfons tho use of any ptutlcu/ar gender or The plural or slngulnrnumbcr ir intended to Include the nppropri111c gender or irnmbcr IIS !ho text ofthu within instrument mny require.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theReleas.or has signed and sealed this instnm1ent this~day of October, 2014. Signed, •Sealed and Delivered in the presence of. ~di-~ ~~1t8f-o.Je.. CONVEYAN.;~ l'/\11 'f / YJ,7',5 r.) COLLECTED · ~ (witness\_ ~== '/OW() v~}I-~ STATE OFJLLINOJS . ) 1$/.JJ, -J:) TOWN :!( OF WESTPORT ) ss: COUNTY OF COOK ) The foregoing in;h:ument was ackuowledgCd ?,efore me this Z... day of October, 2014, by Craig Bradley, as his free act and deed. · ,...... , .... .:-· ' ' -:~ ' .• - - - - - ..- 1:·- OfFICl~L ·seAt< ; ' JOSEPH L DAVENP.CRT "Notary Pubnc • State ol llllnois ' · ' I My CommlssloWE,~1,.s May 19, 201! , ' Illlllll llllll Ill lllll llllllllll lill llllllllll lllll llil 111111111 lllllllll lill · c__ohen ~ \-Joi+' PL Doo ID: 003421400001 Type: LAN Book 3562 Page 114 ' 3 :1 O 'Po.sl 'i?ol \-J File# 2107 Wts-l po(-\ , c.:r 01oi%O Q_,-frn : G kb QUIT CLAIM DEED TO ALL PEOPLE TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING: KNOW YE, That LAURA LAKEY, of 6225 Avalon Woods Drive, McKinney, TX 75070, herein designated as the Releasor, for ONE (SI ,00) DOLLAR and other valuable consideration, received to Releaser's full satisfaction fi-om SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, of 55 Station Street, Fairfield, Conoecticut 06824, herein designated as the Releasee, does by these presents remise, release and forever Quit-Claim nnto the said Releasee and to ihe Releasee's heirs, successors and assigns forever1 All the right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever as 1he said Releaser has or ought to have-ln or to all that certain piece or parcel of lend, situated in the Town ofWestp01t1 County of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, being shown and designated as ~1Biawatha Lane'~ on a.certain map entitled, 11Map of Property Prepared for The Estate ofE. Louise Bradley, Gershom Bradley, Adm. Jeanette Hughes, Adm.J Westport and Nonvalk, Conn., Dec. 6, 19541 Scale I" 60' ", Certified Substantially Correct, Martin J. Capasso, Surveyor, which map is on file in the Office ofthe Town Clerk of the Town of Westport as Map No. 3802. Reference thereto being hereby made for a more particular description. TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the premises hereby remised, released and quit-claimed with all the appurtenances unto the said Releas·ee and to the Releasee's h"eirs, successors and assigns forever, so that neither the Releaser nor the Releaser's heirs, successors or assigns nor any other person claiming under or through the Releaser shall hereafter . have.any claim, right or title in or to the premises or any part thereof, but tl,erefrom the Releaser and they are by these presents; forever barred and excluded. · (In all references herein to any parties, persons, entitiea or corporations the use of any particular gender or the plural or singular number is intended to include lhe appropriate gender or number as the text of the within instrument may require.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Releaser has signod and sealed this instroment this h day of Uctober, 2014_. Signed, Sealed and Delivered 27~---(witness) c (witness) WILLIAM EARL JOKIISON Notary Public STATE OF TEXAS STATE OF TEXAS ) My Comm. Exp. 04--20-15 coUNTYoFCol[:A ~ ·.. "' TI1e foregoh1g ins~1Unent~~s a~knowl~d~efbefore me thisl day of October, 2014, by Laura Lakey, asherfreeactanddeed. . '. ;-;vk~ 6-Jev-!-e.. CON~i~~NC~ TAX. , . N~v~ ~---- •ifs. Jy;,15 ~»~ ..My Commission Expires: ,c)Wf1 TOWN CLERK o'F WESTPORT° ReceJve J TO ALL PEOPLE TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING: KNOW YE, That SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, of, 55 Station Street, Southport, Connecticut 06890, herein designated as the Releaser, for ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR and other valuable consideration, received \o Releaser's full satisfaction from SUMMIT SAUGATUCK, LLC, of 55 Station Street, Southport, Connecticut 06890, herein designated as the Releasee, does by these presents remise, reieas~ and forever Quit~Claim unto the said Releasee and to the Releasee's heirs, successors and assigns forever, . . All the righ'ti title; interes~ clahn and demand whatsoever as the said Releaser has or ought to have in or to all that certain piece or parcel of land, situated in the Town of Westport, Couoty of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, being . shown and designated as '.'Hiawatha Lane'1 on a certain map entitled, "Map of Property Prepared for The Estate ofE . . Louise Bradley, Gershom Bradley, Adm. Jeanette Hughes, Adm., Westport and Norwalk, Conn., Dec. 6, 1954, Scale · I" 60' ", Certified Substantially Correct, Martin J, Capasse, Surveyor, which map is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Westport as Map No. 3802. Reference thereto being hereby made for a more particular description. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises hereby remised, released and quit-claimed with all the appurtenances unto the said Releasee and to the Releasee's heirs, successors and assigns forever, so that neither the Releaser nor the Releasor 1s heirs, successors or "assigns nor any other person claiming i.mdcr or through the Releaser shall hereafter have any claim, righ~ or title ln or to the premises or any part thereof, but therefrom the Releaser and they are by these presents, forever barred and excluded. (In iill references l1ercin to any parties, persons, entities or corporations the use of any particular gender or the plural or singular number is intended to include the appropriate gender or nwnbcr as the text of the within instrument may require.) rn WITNESS WHEREOF, the Releaser has signed and sealed this instrument this "-~Y of October, 2014. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the presence of: · SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC By: Felix Charney Its: Managing Director CONVE A E r.) COLLECTED , .. ·--~., ·_.... v~»~ STATE OF CONNECTICUT .·). TOWN CLERK OF WESTPORT ) ss: · w.._..,.,.,_ \ao.... '- coUNTY OFFAIRFIELD ) . . •"·• ,,_~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me _tl1is ~ day of October, 2014, by Felix Charney, as his free act and deed. · Notary My Commission Expires: . RANDALLN. BECKER . Received far Record at Westport, CT NoTARY PUBLIC• CONNECTICUT My Commission EXQlret on 10/2312014At 4:23:2Dpm October 31, 2016 ~e'i:., J 1,/. ~ • •••drl a---,~- Strauss. own Clark. 5 ~~~ Memorandum TO: Timothy S. Hollister, Esq. FROM: Dave Sullivan, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. W... ~ · RECEIVED AT DATE: May 19, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING MAY 1 9 ZU15 RE: Residential Parking Assessment Wheelers Woods Residential Community MILFORD Milford, Connecticut P &Z BOARD MMI #4962-01-21 It is proposed that the Wheelers Woods Residential Community development provide an on-site parking supply based on 1.8 parking spaces for all one-bedroom units and 2.0 parking spaces for all two bedroom and three-bedroom units. The City of Milford parking requirement, however, is 2.0 parking spaces for efficiency and one-bedroom units and 3.0 parking spaces for two-bedroom and three bedroom units. Nevertheless, based on our research of parking at residential multifamily developments, the proposed parking supply at Wheelers Woods Residential Community is expected to be adequate. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) has undertaken extensive study of residential parking in Connecticut over the years, finding that overall parking usage at residential apartment and condominium developments is consistently less than 2.0 parked vehicles per dwelling unit. The proposed Wheelers Woods Residential Community is to have 180 dwelling units: 62 one-bedroom units, 100 two-bedroom units, and 18 three-bedroom units. Overall, there will be 1.76 bedrooms per unit at the proposed residential development. A total of 352 parking spaces is proposed based on the aforementioned ratios, which equates to an aggregate on-site parking supply of 1.96 spaces per unit. Attached to this memo· is a spreadsheet containing empirical data on parking usage collected at various residential developments in Fairfield and New Haven Counties from 1998 to the current day. Each of the 59 individual observations found a parking demand ratio of less than 2.0 occupied parking spaces per unit. The majority of observations found the residential parking at less than 1.5 parked vehicles per unit. Only one of the 59 observations yielded a ratio near what Wheelers Woods Residential Community is proposing. This was at Harbour Woods in Stratford, a 36-unit luxury development with all two bedroom units and no one-bedroom units. Review was also made of national data on parking use published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers {ITE).1 ITE contains parking data for numerous different land uses. For "Low/Mid-Rise Apartments," the average peak-period parking demand was found to be 1.23 vehicles per dwelling unit, with a 95% confidence level of 1,37 parked vehicles per unit. For "Rental Townhouses," the average peak parking derriand was 1.62:vehicles per unit. For "Rental Condominium/Townhouses," the average peak parking demand was 1.38. vehicles per unit. Based on all of this data, we believe that typical parking use at the.Wheelers Woods Residential Community will be less than 2.0 parked vehicles per unit. If we assume a parking demand of around say 1 Parking Generation -4th Editio~. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010 5'-/ MiloneandMacBroom.com ~l~ MILONE &MACBROOM' Residential Parking Assessment- Wheelers Woods Residential Community May 19,2015 2 1.5 vehicles per unit, for example, the 180 proposed units would generate 270 parked ve.hicles. With a total of 352 parking spaces proposed, this would leave around 80 empty parking spaces on the site under typical peak conditions. During atypical times such as holidays, parties, and events at the community clubhouse, we believe that the on-site supply of 352 spaces will still be adequate to accommodate any temporarily heightened parking demands. Enclosure 4962-01-21-m1915-memo ff/ MiloneandMacBroom.com ~l~ MILONE &MACBROOM" RESIDENTIAL PARKING COUNT DATA Site Location Count Date Number of Units Number Bedrooms Parked Vehicles er Unit er Unit Avalon Haven North Haven Tue, 7/10/01 128 1.77 1.43 Avalon Haven North Haven Wed, 10/10/01 128 1.77 1.05 Avalon Haven North Haven Wed, 10/10/01 128 1.77 1.52 Avalon Haven North Haven Sal, 10/13/01 128 1.77 1.20 Avalon Haven North Haven Sat, 10/13/01 128 1.77 1.40 Avalon Sprin9s WIiton Wed, 11/17/99 102 2.30 1.69 Avalon Walk East Hamden Thu, 12/3/98 334 1.42 1.16 Avalon WarkW~t .Hamden Thu; 12/3/98 430 1.73 1.43 Foxbridge Village Branford Thu, 11/18/99 140 2.00 1.84 Golden HHI Apts. Milford Tue, 7/10/01 80 2.00 0.60 Harbour Woods Stratford Thu, 6/28/01 36 2.00 1.97 Hawley Glen Stratford Thu, 6/28/01 40 1.35 1.75 Hickory Woods Stratford Thu, 6/28/01 42 1.62 1.84 Milford Apartments Milford Mon, 719/01 22 1.00 1.27 Milford Chase Milford Mon, 7/9/01 20 1.00 1.05 Milford Hunt Milford Mon, 7/9/01 32 1.00 1.03 Southwick Milford Tue, 7/10/01 . 27 2.00 1.48 SL John Common North Haven Thu, 12/3/98 70 2.00 1.54 SL John Common North Haven Wed, 12/11/98 70 2.00 1.31 The Stratford Arms Stratford Thu, 6/28/01 94 1.37 0.71 Tide Harbor Stratford Thu, 6/28/01 128 1.13 1.10 Woodland HIiis Branford Thu, 11/18/99 97 2.60 1.82 ResldenUal Community In Milford Thur, 2/14/08 246 1.25 1.26 Resrdentlal Community In MIiford Sat, 2/16/08 246 1.25 1.19 Residential Community In MIiford Sun, 2/17/08 246 1.25 1.22 Resldenlial Community In Hari1den Thur, 2/14/08 784 1.59 1.09 Resldenlial Community In Hamden Sat, 2/16/08 764 1.59 1.23 Resfdentlal Community In Hamden Sun, 2/17/08 764 1.59 1.31 Resldentlal Community in Orange Thur, 5/1/08 168 1.50 1.13 Residential Community In Orange Sat, 5/3/08 168 1.50 1.09 Resldentlal Community In Orange Sun, 5/4/08 168 1.50 1.15 ResfdenUal Community In Danbury Thur, 2/14/08 268 1.71 1.31 Resldentlal Community In Danbury Sat, 2/16/08 268 1.71 1.34 Residential Community In Danbury Sun, 2/17/08 268 1.71 1.38 Res!denUal Community In New Canaan Wed, 4/16/08 104 2.10 1.84 Resldentlal Community In New Canaan Sat, 4/12/08 104 2.10 1.60 Residential Community In New Canaan Sun, 4/13/08 104 2.10 1.58 Resldentlal Community In Stamford Thur, 5/29/08 323 1.48 1.14 Residential Community In Stamford Sat, 5/31/08 323 1.48 1.04 Residential Community In Stamford Sun, 6/1/08 323 1.48 1.04 The Fairfield Apartments Stamford Thur, 4/24/14 258 1.47 1.11 The Fairfield Apartments Stamford Fri, 4/25114 258 1.47 1.00 The Fairfield Apartments Stamford Sun, 5/4/14 258 1.47 1.00 The Fa/rfield Apartments Stamford Tue, 5/6/14 258 1.47 0.98 Eastslde Common$ Stamford Tue, 7/12/11 108 2.14 1.39 Glenview House Apts Stamford Tue, 7/12/11 135 2.22 1.33 Glenview House Apts Stamford Tue, 6/12/12 135 2.22 1.33 Glenview House Apts Stamford Wed, 7/11/12 135 2.22 1.26 Glenview House Apts Stamford Thur, 7/12/12 135 2.22 1.30 Glenview House Apts Stamford Thur, 8/23/12 . 135 2.22 1,32 Glenvlew House Apts Stamford Wed, 8/29/12 135 2.22 1.36 Glenview House Apts Stamford Thur, 9/6/12 135 2.22 1.18 Glenvlew House Apts Stamford Fri, 9fl/12 135 2.22 1.23 Avalon (on Woodmont) Milford Thur, 5/14/15 246 1.25 1.33 Avalon (on Woodmont) Milford Sal, 5/16/15 246 1.25 1.30 Avalon {on Woodmont) Milford Sun, 5/17/15 246 1.25 1.30 1060 New Haven Ave Milford Thur, 5/14/15 138 1.57 1.44 1060 New Haven Ave Milford Sat, 5/16/15 138 1.57 1.38 1060 New Haven Ave MIiford Sun, 5/17/15 138 1.57 1.41 PROPOSED WHEELERS WOODS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY .___ 1.:.:8::,0 __--1... __ -'1"'.7..::6 ___ Proposed Number of Parking Spaces per Unit: 1.96 ~~~ MILONE & MACBROOM Releasinp the Parking Brake on Economic .Development Cities flourish with reduced parking requirements. By BRIAN CANEPA and JOSHUA KARLIN-RESNICK THE COST JS INVISIBLE TO CONSUMERS AND POLICY MAKERS, but every developer knows ,. just how much parking requirements figure into any pro fonna. !tThe minimum ~ requirements in place in most municipalities-one to two spaces per residential ' # unit-add an estimated six to 16 percent to per-unit costs through a combination /. of construction expenses and the opportunity costs of using a limited development I ,,t,4/;; envelope on car storage rather than revenue-generating living space. !tRequire ' '/. ., ments for retail uses are often much higher. A recent study by the Transportation Research Board found that parking was oversupplied in mixed use districts by an average of 65 percent, meaning that between four and 10 percent of the added costs-likely much more for nonresidential uses-are pure waste. !fDevelopers and planners in Petaluma, California, can attest to the power of eliminating this form of forced waste. Fifteen years ago, Petalumas Theatre District was marked by surface parking, vacant lots, and derelict industrial buildings. Planners considered it a prime opportunity to extend and reinvigorate its downtown with a mixed use district anchored by a multiscreen cinema. In the end, easing parking requirements in the area became crucial to making that vision a reality. !tlnstead of forcing the developer, Basin Street Properties, to provide as much as one space per 50 or 100 square feet of bar or restaurant, the city allowed the company to determine how much parking was reasonable. Consider ing the on-street parking supply in the area and how the project's different uses might have different periods of peak parking demand, the developer settled on one space per 300 square feet across the project. American Planning Association 'S,J Vin Smith, a planning consultant who represented Basin Street The same study estimated that if the amount of land dedicated in the planning and entitlement process, says the project would to surface parking had stayed the same as it was in 1950, the an "absolutely not" have penciled out without the city's flexibility on nual loss to government coffers would equal nearly $22 million in parking. "We easily saved a floor or two of parking garage co~ Hartford, $6.5 million in nearby New Haven, and $3 million in struction:' Smith says. At a price tag of roughly $20,000 per space, Arlington, Virgi1:1,ia. , that means the reduced parking requirements saved as rp.uch as $3 The story is doubtless the same in many cities across the coun - million. try, and the lost economic activity. is all the more damaging in an Little more. than a decade later, it's obvious that the now built era of tight municipal budgets. Even as the economy recovers from out Theatre District provides a compelling argument for that kind the 2008 financial crisis, every underused parcel in a city's down of flexibility. The area is alive on Friday night: Residents are arriv town represents a costly missed opportunity. ing home from work, office workers are heading to happy hour, Economic development is a central charge of local elected of and people are walking to catch a movie at the 12-screen Boule ficials and their appointees, and their strategies often take the forffi vard Cinemas, a meal at Bistro 100, or to find something sweet at of tax breaks for companies that promise a shorMerm infusion of Mo Yo's Frozen Yogurt Lounge. Smith, who lives in the area, says jobs. Getting parking right might be a more dependable and longer the parking supply is well used but not overloaded, lasting form of economic development. Consider the examples of Ann Arbor, Michigan; Golumbus, In A critical time diana; and Sacramento, California. '.These three cities-of different For the last century or so, cities have been struggling with the par sizes, with different development contexts, and in different parts of adox of parking: Cars need large amounts of space, but making the country-have each reduced or eliminated off-street parking room for them comes at a direct cost to the vibrancy that makes the requirements downtown and in mixed use areas, yielding a range people in the cars want to come in the first place. of benefits. A 2013 study called "The Effects of Urban Fabric Changes on In some places, lifting onerous parking requirements has made Real Estate Property Tax;' by researchers at the University of Con infill development more financially viable, opening the door to necticut, estimated that Hartford dedicates 15 percent of CBD land projects that renew derelict buildings or activate what were previ area-more than 7.5 million square feet-to parking. If each office ously inactive hardscapes or garbage-strewn lots. For others, it has worker needs 250 squar~ feet of building space (a conservative es simplified the development process, speeding the pace of revital timate), that means the city could accommodate 30,000 additional ization. sorely needed jobs if that land were dedicated to one-story office In no cases have the reduced requirements led to the parking buildings rather than car-storage space. shortages or economic losses that are frequently feared . • •2-1 Planning May 2015 ' ,~:. . '~ Sacramento's sea change nia state capitol. Heller says it has 55,000 square feet Developer Michael Heller says that for years, Sacra of retail and office space, which means the parking mento was a large central city with lofty, progressive regulations required roughly 150 dedicated parking ideals but conservative parking practices that more spaces on a parcel that was already built lot line to lot or less matched those in the suburbs, where land line, with no room to add vehicle storage. was plentiful enough to make it easy to surround a Heller cobbled together agreements with five building with a sea of parking at a reasonable cost. small lots near the building to account for some of Where land was much scarcer, the requirements led that parking and had to go to the planning commis to either scaled down ambitions or time-consuming, sion to waive the rest of the requirement. The pro costly, and highly political efforts to waive parking cess was "a lot of work" and ultimately delayed the requirements and make projects viable. project by several months, he says. "On one side of their mouths, everyone at the Today, Heller is moving forward on another \~•--;~::' city was espousing green principles and encourag '.\•''i- adaptive reuse project about a mile to the southwest, ing transit-oriented development, but on the de next to alight-rail station, called the Ice Blocks. With velopment-application processing side, you had to -,:·_~ .;f t~f 60,000 square feet of office space, 50,000 square feet deal with this antiquated code;• Heller says. "You got of retail, and 150 housing units, the project would pulled in two directions:' have required more than 500 parking spaces under All that changed in 2012. The city eliminated the old regulations. Instead, Heller is providing two parking minimums in its Central Business and Arts spots for every three residential units and minimal and Entertainment districts, reduced minimums in parking for the office and retail space, and he will some other parts of the city, and allowed develop be implementing a robust transportation demand ers to reduce those already lower requirements with management program to encourage people to come programs and facilities that encouraged access by to the site by other modes. The project is moving non-auto ~odes. The changes were rooted in a study forward quickly, spared the expense and delays that that found that even at peak times, between 40 and had been a part of the previous process. 65 percent of spaces were unoccupied in five focus "The city really listened to us on this topic and areas in central Sacramento. took bold measures to embrace true green prin The reforms have led to a sea change in the de ciples in the new parking code;' Heller says. "I tip velopment process. Under the old regime, most de my hat to staff on this because the city is now teed velopers found they simply did not have the land to up for real growth with a framework for progressive, build all the required parking and would instead ap thoughtful infill projects:' ply for a waiver. Processing it would take anywhere Sacramento's development market is still stuck from four to eight months and often ended up being in a post-economic-crisis slump, having built just a "lose-lose situation:• says Greg Sandlund, an asso 200 housing units last year, but Sandlund says that ciate planner for the city who played a key role in the sparing developers from building millions of dollars' city's parking-requirement overhaul. worth of unneeded parking has helped move more The planning commission and city council de projects into the pipeline. "I don't think there's been nied just one parking ratio waiver between 2000 an explosion of development, but if anything, at least and 2010, which meant that "the community got the parking code isn't getting in the way of develop worked up and the development was delayed," even ment," Sandlund adds. though the parking that was ultimately provided was There is evidence that larger economic impacts far lower than the code required. "It became a game are right around the corner. One proposal that en• that only the sophisticated knew how to play:' Heller tered the pipeline last year was the ilS project, a says. "It wasn't a genuine process and it took a lot of proposed eight-story mixed use development with time and money." 96 residential units, more than 5,000 square feet of Today, the city's parking code aligns with the vi ground-floor retail, and zero on-site parking. The sions espoused in th~ general plan, allowing plan regulatory changes have also had a major impact ners to simply enter "no planning issties" (that is, no on things like tenant improvements. Whereas trans planning problems) on applications for projects that '..1-;• forming a retail space into one suitable for a restau are looking to build the amount of parking develop rant, with higher parking requirements, would have ers think is needed to compete in the marketplace. required a lengthy trip through the waiver process, Heller points to two developments to explain how such improvements can be made by right today. the code update changed his business. In the mid-2000s, his company built the Mid Columbus kicks the rules to the curb town Art Retail Restaurant Scene, a bloCk-long, Those unfamiliar with Columbus, Indiana (pop. mixed use, adaptive-reuse development in a thriving 45,000), have no reason to suspect this small city neighborhood just a few blocks east of the Califor- would be on the cutting edge of parking policy. But American Planning Association ·62s I • The i15 multifamily project, now in Sacramento, California's development pipeline, would never have been proposed for a small infill site if on-site parking had been required. Instead, residents with cars will use an adjacent existing public lot: those without cars will have access to Zlpcars two blocks away and public transit just a block away. in 2008, it eliminated parking requirements in its downtown district. The change was part of a larger effort to revitalize the area, and its imple mentation amounted to a "non-event;' rooted in a "shared understanding of where downtown was going:• says planning director Jeff Bergman, AICP. "There was a feeling at the time that the lo cal government, through the zoning ordinance, didn't have nor really could have enough infor mation to accurately regulate parking down town, not wit~out potentially causing some sort of negative consequence;' he says. Without reli able metrics, the city decided to leave these deci sions to the market. Bergman notes that the change has allowed developers and planners to focus on other as pects of projects, instead of getting hung up on whether a project was going to meet its parking requirements. 'This Ann Arbor at the forefront has led to better developments that reflect the true vision of devel- Although it is near the epicenter of the auto industry, Ann Arbor opers and the needs of their tenants. · was an early trendsetter in minimizing the role of parking in the As an example, Bergman points to a regional headquarters for development equation; it eliminated most of its downtown parking the First Financial Bank, in the southwest.corner of downtown. requirements in the 1960s. Coupled with a long-standing commit 'The coml;,ined bank branch and office building development ment to building publicly owned and managed structured park opened in 2014 with 62 surface parking spaces, built to accom ing and pricing it at market rates, the lack of requirements laid modate the anticipated needs of employees traveling to the office the groundwork for what is one of Michigan's most vibrant down for regular meetings. towns. Ann Arbor boasts retail occupancy rates that are among the Parking was a non-issue during the development approval pro highest in the state and a mere three percent residential vacancy cess. And the limited parking approach has been successful from· rate. the developer's perspective. According to the city's zoning code, downtown projects that ad The Cole, a four-story mixed use residential building across here to the letter of the code are not required to provide any park the street, is another development that has gone up since the ing, and those that exceed floor-area limits are required to provide regulatory change. The project wrapped around a r~development just one space per 1,000 square feet of additional floor area, far authority-sponsored parking garage that was already going up on lower than typical requirements. the same block, and the developer was .able to negotiate with the Susan Pollay, executive director of the <:ity's Downtown De authority to reserve 200 spaces for use by the 146 residential units velopment Authority, says the low requirements have had a direct in the new building. impact on the city's development environment. "There has been a Developer Matt Griffin, who led the effort for the Buckingham strategy that from the beginning [eliminated] parking at the heart Companies, says the Cole shows that eliminating parking require of our zoning, so we've been able to build a strong downtown core;' ments does not mean developers will stint on parking. In the case she says. of the Cole and infill projects in other places, it has simply meant Over the years, developers have steadily gobbled up surface he has had the flexibility" to provide only the amount of parking parking lots for projects. Of late, the focus has been in the area that his company thought was truly needed for the developments around East Washington and South Division streets. On that cor to succeed. ner, Pollay says, a small building surrounded by surface parking "Most jurisdictions are coming around to the point that at least was recently replaced by a 10-story residential building with a gro for multifamily projects, it's our business, and if we underpark our cery store and fast-food restaurant on the ground floor and far less selves, we're going to destroy our primary cash flow:' Griffin says. parking than zoning codes typically require. 26 Planning May 2015 · ·. t.:, ~ ,_) ''People walked around downtown and saw all this surface parking that is ample and underpriced and said, ,, ... ,.,. ... ,.,,,. 1-0,,I,··,·"" n!wl,,,.,,,.,,1,..., 1,,-,,,,,r 1,1.-,,.,,,,.,1 l.ln,•,,.,,.,1,,, ,,I Hu!I,,•,, Next door, another residential high rise went up on a lot with quirements citywide, in hopes of spurring development on some of a low building and surface parking lot. Across Washington, the its many surface parking lots. McKinley Towne Center filled in its driveway with a new retail The change was part of a zoning code update that was foCused building to create a steady, active street front along East Liberty on revitalizing the city's downtown, which today contains two Street. parking spaces for every job. City officials saw those parking spaces Across downtown, at the corner of Huron and Ashley str~ets, a as a massive opportunity. recently built mixed use residential high rise with minimal park "People walked around downtown and saw all this surface ing will soon be joined by a new hotel that will provide no parking, parking that is ample and underpriced and said, 'We want develop replacing another low-density development surrounded by a sea of ment here, we want buildings here:'' says Daniel Hess, an associate asphalt. There is plenty of parking in a city-owned parking garage professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Buf. down the block. falo who has studied the city's zoning code reform process. The University of Michigan's tens of thousands of students, That a Ru.st Belt city like Buffalo has eliminated parking mini faculty, staff, and supporters provide a sizable and steady market mums is evidence that we have come a long way in how we think for Ann Arbor businesses, which are located close to the campus. about downtown development. The idea that providing ample But the city shows that the fears that drive policy makers to err on parking was the key to economic success has begun to give way to the side of oversupplying parking are largely unfounded. If a tight the realization that too much parking can cause economic stagna parking supply really limited an area's economic potential, Ann tion. Sacramento, Columbus, Ann Arbor, and, soon, Buffalo are Arbor businesses would be struggling, university or not. Instead, leading examples of how much economic development potential is despite high parking prices and long wait lists for garage permits, sitting right under many cities' tires. • the development market could scarcely be hotter. Brian Canepa Is a principal and chief growth officer at Nelson\Nygaard Consulting "Apartments are filled to the brim," Pollay says. "If parking was Associates. Joshua Karlin-Resnick is an associate there. They worked on the the driving factor, that wouldn't be the case because none of them Sacramento zoning code update and on Petaluma's Theatre District development. are providing parking at the rates that would typically be required." An idea spreads Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, by the Buffalo, New York, may soon become the next example-and the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute: vtpi.org/park·hou.pdf. biggest to date-of what can happen when a city takes parking Parking in Mixed-Use Districts, by Rachel Weinberger and Joshua Karlln•Resnick, presented at the 94th annual Transportation out of the development•review process. At press time, the city was Research Board meeting in .2015. about to become the first in the country to eliminate parking re• 51 ------+--- American Planning Association 27 Putting a Cap · on Parking ~equirements A way to make cities function better. By DONALD SHOUP, FA1cP Suppose the automobile and oil industries subsidy intended for affordable housing. have asked you to devise planning policies Minimum parking requirements resemble an Affordable Park ing Act. They make parking more affordable by raising the cost of that will increase the demand for cars and housing and everything else. Using d~ta on the cost of constructing fuel. Consider three policies that will make parking spaces and shopping centers, I estimated that the parking cars essential for most trips. First, segregating requirement of four spaces per 1,000 square feet for a shopping center in Los Angeles increases the cost of building a shopping land uses (housing here, jobs there, shopping center by 93 percent if the parking is underground and by 67 per- somewhere else) will increase travel demand. cent if the parking is in an aboveground structure. · Second, limiting density will spread the city This cost increase is passed on to all shoppers. Parking require ments raise the price of food for people who are too poor to own and increase travel demand. Third, minimum a car to ensure th_at richer people can park free when they drive to parking requirements will ensure ample free a grocery store. parking almost everywhere, making cars the The'median' ls the message default way to travel. A single parking space can cost far more than the entire net worth of many American families. In recent research, I estimated that the American cities have unwisely embraced each of these car-friendly average cost per space for parking structures in the U.S. is about policies, luring people into cars for 87 percent of all their daily $24,000 for aboveground parking and $34,000 for underground trips. Zoning ordinances that segregate land uses, limit density, and parking. We can compare the cost of a parking space with the net require lots of parking create drivable cities but prohibit walkable worth of U.S. households (the value of all assets minus all debts). neighborhoods, Urban historians often say that cars have changed In 2011 1 this median net worth was $68,828 for all U.S."households, the city, but public policies have also changed the city to favor cars. $7,683 for Hispanic households and $6,314 for black households. Minimum parking requirements are particularly ill-advised. Tims one underground parking space can cost five times more In my book The High Cost of Free Parking, I argued that parking than the median net worth for all black households in the country. requirements subsidize cars, increase traffic congestion and car Nevertheless, cities require several parking spaces (at home, work, bon emissions, pollute the air and water, encourage sprawl, raise shopping, recreation, churches, schdols, and many other places) housing costs, degrade urban design, reduce walkability, exclude for every household. poor people, and damage the economy. To my knowledge, no one Many families have a negative net worth because their debts has argued that parking requirements do not have, these harmful exceed the!r assets. Eighteen percent of all households, 29 percent effects. Instead, a flood of recent research has shown that parking of Hispanic households, and 33 percent of black houselrolds had requirements do have these effects. zero or_ negative net worth in 2011. The only way these families can take advantage of all the parking cities require is to go further into The high cost debt to buy a car, which they must then support, often by financing Planners are put in a difficult position when asked to set parking it at a high subprime interest rate on a car loan. requirements in zoning ordinances, largely because they do not In other words, cities require parking for every building with know the parking demand at every site1 or how much the parking out noticing the high cost of the required spaces or the burden spaces cost, or how the requirements increase the cost of devel placed on families who have little or no wealth. opment. Nevertheless, cities have managed to set parking require ments for hundreds of land uses in thousands of cities-the Ten Time forreform Thousand Commandments for off-street parking. Perhaps because of the growing dou?ts about minimum parking Not knowing how much required parking spaces cost, plan requirements, a few cities have begun to backpedal, at least in their ners cannot know how much the parking requirements increase downtowns. They recognize that parking requirements prevent in the cost of housing. Small, spartan apartments cost much less to fill redevelopment on small lots, where it is difficult and costly to build than large, luxury apartments, but their parking spaces cost· fit both a new building and the required parking. And they see that the same. Because many cities require the same number of spaces parking requirements prevent new uses when older buildings lack 1 ~ for all housing, the cost of required parking can consume the entire the parking spaces required for those new uses. \ ...... 28 Planning May 2015 ,•, 'A city can be friendly to people or it can be friendly to cars, but it can't be both.' -ENRIQUE PENALOSA, FORMER MAYOR OF BOGOTA. COLOMBIA According to recent newspaper articles, many cities have re Parking inequity duced or removed their parking requirements. Some of the rea The cost of one·structured parking space far exceeds the median sons: "to promote the creation of downtown apartments" (Green net worth of minority households. field, Massachusetts), "to see more affordable housing" (Miami), "to meet the needs of smaller businesses" (Muskegon, Michigan), $34,000 "to give business owners more flexibility while creating a vibrant • underground space downtown" (Sandpoint, Idaho), and "to prevent ugly, auto-orient ed townhouses'' (Seattle). Given this policy momentum, I thought the time to reform parking requirements in California had arrived when the legis . lature considered Assembly Bill 904 (the Sustainable Minimum Parking Requirements Act of2012). AB 904 would have set an up per limit on how much parking cities can require in transit-rich • districts: no more than one space per dwelling unit or two spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. The bill defined these districts as areas within a quarter-mile of transit lines that run ev ery 15 minutes or better. AB 904 would limit how much parking cities can require, but it would not limit the parking supply. Developers could provide more than the required parking if they though~ the· demand justi $24,000 aboveground space fied the cost. Why would a state want to adopt this policy? Federal and state governments give cities billions of dollars every year to build and operate mass transit systems, yet most cities require ample parking on the assumption that almost everyone V.:m drive almost every SOURCES: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, NET WORTH AND ASSET OWNERSHIP, 2011; DONALD where, even where public transit is available. SHOUP, IN PARKING: ISSUES AND POLICIES, 2014. GRAPHIC BY JOAN CAIRNEY Twenty public transit lines serve the UCLA campus in West wood, with 119 buses per hour arriving during the morning peak ment and compels people to drive. Limits on the parking require (7 to 9 a.m.). Nevertheless, across the street from campus, Los An ments in transit-rich neighborhoods can reduce this blight by geles requires 3.5 parking spaces for every apartment that contains making redevelopment more feasible near transit stations. more than four rooms. How will reducing off-street parking requirements affect devel Los Angeles is building its Subway to the Sea under Wilshire opment? Zhan Guo and Shuai Ren at New York University studied . ·Boulevard, which already boasts the city's most frequent bus ser the results when in 2004 London shifted from minimum parking vice. Nevertheless, along parts of Wilshire the city requires at least requirements with no maximum to maximum parking limits with 2.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, regardless of the number no minimum. Comparing developments completed before and af of rooms. ter the reform, they found that the parking supplied after the re Also on Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills requires 22 parking form was only 68 percent of the maximum allowed and only 52 spaces per 1,000 square feet for restaurants, which means the park percent of the previous minimum required. ing lot is seven times larger than the restaurant. Public transit iff This result implies that the previous parking minimum was al this parking environment resembles a rowboat in the desert. most double the number of parking spaces that developers would have voluntarily provided. The researchers concluded that remov Why limit parking requirements? ing the parking minimum caused 98 percent of the reduction in The rationale for a limit on parking requirements in transit-rich parking spac~s, while imposing the maximum caused only two districts is the same as the rationale for most city planning: The percent of the reduction. Removing the minimum was far more uncoordinated actions of many individuals can add up to a collec important than imposing a maximum. tive result that most people dislike. In this case, minimum parking Cities usually require or restrict parking without considering requirements create an asphalt wasteland that blights the environ- the middle ground of neither a minimum nor a maximum. This ·OJ American Planning Association · 29 - -' s ' I behavior recalls a Soviet maxim: "What is not required must be p.rohibited:' AB 904, however, was something new. It did not re strict parki9g but simply imposed a cap on minimum parking re quirements, a far milder reform. Aided by lobbying from the California Chapter of APA, op ponents succeeded in defeating AB 904 in the legislature, but it has sin~e been resurrected and revised, and will be reintroduced as a new bill in the next session. There have been precedents for statewide limits on parking re quirements. Oregon's Transportation Systems Plan requires local governments to amend their land-use and subdivision regulations to achieve a 10 percent reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita. The United Kingdom's transport policy guidelines for local planning specify that "plans should state maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development. ... There should be no minimum standards for development, other than parking for dis~ abled people:' These attempts to take state and national concerns into account suggest that, when left to their own devices, local governments re~ quire too much parking. An arranged marriage Many people believe that America freely chose its love affair with the car, but I think there was an arranged marriage. By recom~ mending minimum parki~g requirements in zoning ordinances, the planning profession was both a matchmaker and a leading member of the wedding party. Unfortt\nately, no one provided a good prenuptial agreement. Planners can now become marriage counselors or divorce lawyers where the relationship between people and cars no longer works we~l. Putting a cap on parking requirements is a good place to start. • Donald Shoup is a distinguished professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of The High Cost of Free Parking, published in paperback by APA's Planners Press in 2011. He will retire later this year, and UCLA Is launching a scholarship in his name. Details are at shoupista.com. FROM APA The High Cost of Free Parking, by Donald Shoup, APA Planners Press, 2011 (paperback). MORE California Assvmbly Bil! 904, The Sustainable Minimum Parking Requirements Act of 2012: shoup.bol.ucla.edu/AssemblyBill904.pdf. Zhan Guo and Shuai Ren, 2013. "From Minimum to Maximum: Impact of the London Parking Reform on Residential Purking Supply from 2004 to 2010." Urban Studies 50(6): 1183-1200. Letters <1bout AB 904 from mayors, planning academicS, planning practitioners, and the California Chapter of APA are availt1ble here; shoup,bol.ucla.mlu/LettersAboutAssemblyBlll904.pdf. Donald Shoup. "The High Cost of Minimum Parking Requirements," pp. 87~113 in Parking: Issues and Policies, Stephen Ison and Corinne Mulley (eds,). Emerald Group Publlshing. 2014. shoup.bol.ucla .edu/HighCost.pdf. Jessica Silver~Greenberg and Michael Corkery. "Rise in Loans Linked to Cars Is Hurting Poor," New York Times, December 25, 2014: idealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/dipping-lnto-auto-equity -devastates-many-borrowers. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highway Statistics. 2015. National Household Travel Survey Daily Travel Quick Facts: rlta.dot.gov/bts/sites/rlta.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/national _household_travel_survey/daily _travel.html. 30 Planning May 2015 6 PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 19C: SAUGATUCK VILLAGE DISTRICT ("SV DISTRICT") Submission Draft November 2018 - Revised March 15. 2019 - Submitted by Summit Saugatuck, LLC to the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission 6463782_x2 § 19C SAUGATUCK VILLAGE DISTRICT [NEW] J 9C-1 Purpose The purpose of the Saugatuck Village District ("SV District") is to allow the development of multi-family rental apartment units that will meet the needs of both households that can afford market-rate rents and those that can afford rents that are restricted in accordance with § 8-30g of the General Statutes. The regulation is intended to promote housing choice and economic diversity within the Town of Westport. 19C-2 Parcels Eligible for Rezoning to SV District Parcels ofland, not required to be contiguous but required to be less than two hundred (200) feet apart; comprised of at least SHE:seven (61) but less than eleventen (-l+lQ) acres, such area being inclusive of private rights-of-way; and with a total of at least one hundred ( 100) feet of frontage on Hiawatha Lane or Hiawatha Lane Extension, may be zoned as SV District. J 9C-3 Uses Permitted By Site Plan Approval In an SV District, no land, building, or structure shall be used, and no building shall be hereafter erected, altered, or added to, except as provided in these regulations, and only for one or more of the following uses: 19C-3. l Principal Use Multi-family dwellings in buildings that provide studio units, one (1) bedroom units, and two (2) bedroom units, and in which at least 30 percent (30%) of the units are subject to long-term maximum household income and rent or sales price restrictions compliant with General Statutes§ 8-30g, and administered through an Affordability Plan that is compliant with § 8-30g. 19C-3.2. Accessory Buildings, Structures, and Uses 19C-3 .2.1 Below grade parking. 19C-3 .2.2 Outdoor recreational uses, including patios, a central green, play areas, adult gym areas, and picnic areas. 19C-3 .2.3 Manager's Office and amenity spaces including community room, exercise room, and shared spaces within a principal building. 19C-3 .2.4 Other buildings, structures, and uses not listed above, customarily accessory to multi-family residential use, including lobbies, stairs, corridors, and storage areas. 6463782_y2 19C-3 .2.5 Equipment, such as a generator and control panel, adjunct to operation and maintenance of a sewer force main. 19C-4 Maximum Density and Bedrooms 19C-4.1 Maximum Number of Units The total number of dwelling units in an SV District development shall not exceed twenty-two (22.0) per gross acre. 19C-4.2 Bedrooms 19C-4.2.1 No dwelling unit in an SV District development shall contain more than two (2) bedrooms. 19C-4.2.2. The maximum percentage two (2) bedroom dwelling units on an SV District shall be fifty percent (50%). J9C-5 Building Height and Stories The maximum building height of a principal building in an SV District, measured in compliance with the "Building Height" definition in § 5 of the Westport Zoning Regulations, shall be ~ -two ( ~~ feet, excluding chimneys, cupolas, and similar architectural features that are not occupiable and rooftop mechanicals, not to exceed six (6) additional feet. No building shall exceed twefour (~~ stories, as defined in "Story" § 5, of these Regulations, provided that only a building located above underground parking may mrneed four (4) stories. J 9C-6 Coverage 19C-6.1 Maximum Total Coverage Total impervious coverage for development within an SV District shall not exceed SHH-yfifty-five percent (e{}.5..5.%). 19C-6.2 Maximum Building Coverage Building coverage within an SV District shall not exceed thirty-€-vetwo percent (~ 32%). J 9C-7 Building Setbacks 19C-7.1 Setback From Existing Roadways All buildings in an SV District shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from any perimeter street line existing at the date ofrezoning to SV District. 2 19C-7 .2 Setback From Property Lines No principal building, structure, accessory structure, or use shall extend closer than twenty (20) feet from any street line, seven and one half (7 1/ 2ten (l 0) feet from any side lot line, or ten ( l 0) feet from any rear lot Iine . No accessory building or structure shall extend closer than fifteen (15) feet from a street line and seven and one half (7 1/2) feet from the side line and ten (10) feet from thefifteen (15) feet from any rear lot line. Entry stairs, balconies, patios, platforms, and open porches necessary for ingress and egress shall be permitted within such setbacks, provided that in no case may such structures be less than five (5) feet from any property line. Retaining walls no taller than three (3) feet shall also be permitted within such setbacks. 19C-7.3 Setback From Single-Family Home No building or edge of parking area in an SV District shall extend closer than ten (10) feet from a lot that, at the time ofrezoning to SV District, contains a single-family home. 19C-8 Usable Open Space Any land 1.vithin an SV District that is set aside as recreation area or usable open spooeln an SV District, at least one hundred twenty-five 025) square feet per unit of land suitable for passive recreation shall be provided. Such land shall be laid out, graded, screened, and landscaped for its intended recreational purpose. 19C-9 Parking, Circulation, and Loading 19C-9.1 Parking Notwithstanding the requirements of§ 34 of these Regulations: 19C-9. l.1 The minimum number of parking spaces per dwelling unit in an SV District shall be: Per studio or one (1) bedroom dwelling unit: one and four tenths (1.4) parking spaces. Per two (2) bedroom dwelling unit: two (~:2_,.Q) parking spaces. 19C-9.l.2 Parking within an SV District may be on grade, or below grade within a building. 19C-9.1.3 Section 31.15 .1 of these Regulations shall not be applicable to an SV District. 3 19C-9.2 Private Roads When any private road is proposed, or proposed to be maintained, in an SV District, it shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Town of Westport for municipal roads. "PrivateThe term "private road" shall not include parking lot aisles or connectors, or emergency only access. 19C-10 Signage All signageSignage shall comply with t-3-3-the General Requirements of§ 33.2 of these Regulations7 and shall meet the following standards, consistent with § 33.6: l 9C-l 0.1 The followingsigns are pennitted in an SV District: 19C-l 0.1.1 Identification signs, provided the aggregate area of the signs shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet. Only one free standing sign is permitted. The free-standing sign must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line and shall include the street address number at 1east four (4) inches in size. l 9C-10.1.2 A marker not to exceed two (2) square feet identifying an historic building or use. 19C-10.1.3 Directional sign necessary for public safety or convenience not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. 19C-10.1.4 Public convenience signs advertising hours of operation not to exceed one (1) sign of two (2) square feet in area. 19C-l1 Exterior Lighting Exterior lighting shall be provided and maintained by the property owner at all access points to streets, parking areas, building entrances, and elsewhere for the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. All exterior lighting shall be low-level except for required street lights and lighting for pedestrian safety. and 0-foot candles shall be achieved at the perimeter of the SY District development. The glare from light sources shall be shielded from roads and abutting properties. J9C-l 2 Landscape, Screening, Sidewalks, and Buffer Areas 19C-12.1 Landscaping, screening, and buffering Landscaping, screening, and buffering shall comply with§ 35 of the Regulations, except that the minimum required front landscape area described in§ 35-2.2.1 shall be fifteen (15) feet, exclusive of loading spaces, porches, patios, balconies, and similar features. 4 l 9C-l 2.2 Sidewalks Sidewalks shall be provided throughout a SV District development. All sidewalks within a public right-of-way shall conform to Town or State Standards. All other sidewalks shall have driveway ramps and shall have a minimum width of three (3) feet. 19C-13 Utilities l 9C-13 .1 Water and Sewer Public water and sewer must be available for the development either directly or by extension and connection to existing sewer and water lines, and all units must be connected to the sewer and water lines. l 9C-l 3 .2 Zoning Certificate No Zoning Certificate of Compliance shall be issued for any dwelling unit unless and until such unit has been connected to a public water supply, suitable power supply, and a public sanitary sewer line. 19C-13.3 Storm Drainage Storm-drainage facilities shall be provided and shall be designed to achieve a zero impact run-off based on a twenty-five (25) year storm flow and, at the discretion of the Commission, may mitigate only the net increase in runoff, subject to the approval of the Tovm Engineer. Street culverts and bridges shall be designed for a hundred (100) year storm flow, if required by the Town Engineer. 19C-14 Fire Department Access Access for Fire Department motorized vehicles shall be provided to ensure the safety of all occupants. Such access shall include Fire Lanes and/or other locations kept clear and readily accessible for fire apparatus at all times. Turning radii, road widths, and grade changes shall comply with applicable Fire Codes. J9C-J 5 Earth Materials Excavation Earth materials excavation, stockpiling of earth products, or filling of land with earth products, shall comply with§ 32-8 of these Regulations, provided that a separate Special Permit shall not be required; and as long as the excavation, stockpiling, processing, or filling otherwise complies with the Standards of§ 32-8.3, site plan approval shall constitute approval of the excavation, stockpiling, processing, or filling necessary to carry out the approved site plan, even if the depth, slope, man-made earth slopes, grading within five (5) feet of a lot line or quantity exceed the limits stated in §§ 32-8.2.1 through 32-8.2.3; § 32-8.2.6; or§ 32-8.3.2. 5 19C-16 Amenities 19C-16.1 Refuse Area Refuse collection areas shall be provided and conveniently located for all units.~ collection areas shall be properly screened and supplied ·.vith covered receptacles. 19C-16.2 Mail Boxes Mail boxes shall be provided and conveniently located for all units, as determined by the U.S. Postal Service. 19C-17 Affordability Plan Compliant With General Statutes§ 8-30g The purpose of the SV District is to facilitate a residential community comprised of rental units with household income and monthly rent limits in compliance with General Statutes§ 8-30g and will be administered as stated in an Affordability Plan prepared in compliance with General Statutes § 8-30g. 19C-18 Site Plan Documents Required to be Submitted Information and documents required by § 44-1 of these Regulations, except comparison maps required by§ 44 1.7, are required to be submitted with an application filed pursuant to this § 19C, except as otherwise provided in this § 19C. J 9C-J 9 Application Requirements 19C-l 9 .1 Rezoning Petition to rezone, as provided by these Zoning Regulations. 19C-19.2 Site Plan Application for site plan, with those documents provided by § 19C-17 being required as part of the application. An application for site plan approval submitted pursuant to this § 19C is not subject to the inclusionary zoning requirements of§ 32-12. 19C-19.3 Multi-Family Unit Cap Exemption An application for site plan approval submitted pursuant to§ 19C shall not be subject to the multi-family housing restrictions of§ 4-5, or any other regulatory prohibition of multi-family housing units. 6 19C-20 Requirements for SV District Units The following requirements shall apply to the dwelling units in an SV District development that are identified initially in the Affordability Plan, or administered subsequently as, § 8-30g compliant units: l 9C-20. l Comparable Quality SV District Units shall be of a construction quality that is comparable to market-rate units within the development, and minimum construction, materials, finishes, and amenities for§ 8-30g compliant units shall be stated as a Schedule in the Affordability Plan. l 9C-20.2 DisrefseaDispersal SV District Units subject to § 8-30g restriction shall be dispersed throughout the development and built and offered for rent on a pro rata basis as construction and leasing proceed. 19C-20.3 Affordability Plan The "Affordability Plan" required by§ 8-30g of the General Statutes shall describe how the regulations regarding affordability will be administered. The Plan shall include provisions for administration of and compliance with this section; notice procedures to the general public of the availability of affordable units; identification of the method for designating affordable units; procedures for verification and periodic confirmation of unit occupancy income; and compliance with affordability requirements. l 9C-20.4 Enforcement A violation of the regulations contained in this section shall not result in a forfeiture or reversion of title, but the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Westport or its designated agent shall otherwise retain all enforcement powers granted by the General Statutes, including§ 8-12. 7 PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 19C: SAUGATUCK VILLAGE DISTRICT ("SV DISTRICT") Submission Draft November 2018 -Revised March 15, 2019- Submitted by Summit Saugatuck, LLC to the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission 6463782 v2 § 19C SAUGATUCK VILLAGE DISTRICT [NEW] 19C-J Purpose The purpose of the Saugatuck Village District ("SV District") is to allow the development of multi-family rental apartment units that will meet the needs of both households that can afford market-rate rents and those that can afford rents that are restricted in accordance with§ 8-30g of the General Statutes. The regulation is intended to promote housing choice and economic diversity within the Town of Westport. l 9C-2 Parcels Eligible for Rezoning to SV District Parcels of land, not required to be contiguous but required to be less than two hundred (200) feet apart; comprised of at least seven (7) but less than ten (10) acres, such area being inclusive of private rights-of-way; and with a total of at least one hundred (100) feet of frontage on Hiawatha Lane or Hiawatha Lane Extension, may be zoned as SV District. J 9C-3 Uses Permitted By Site Plan Approval In an SV District, no land, building, or structure shall be used, and no building shall be hereafter erected, altered, or added to, except as provided in these regulations, and only for one or more of the following uses: l 9C-3. l Principal Use Multi-family dwellings in buildings that provide studio units, one (1) bedroom units, and two (2) bedroom units, and in which at least 30 percent (30%) of the units are subject to long-term maximum household income and rent or sales price restrictions compliant with General Statutes § 8-30g, and administered through an Affordability Plan that is compliant with§ 8-30g. 19C-3.2. Accessory Buildings, Structures, and Uses 19C-3 .2.1 Below grade parking. 19C-3.2.2 Outdoor recreational uses, including patios, a central green, play areas, adult gym areas, and picnic areas. 19C-3.2.3 Manager's Office and amenity spaces including community room, exercise room, and shared spaces within a principal building. l 9C-3.2.4 Other buildings, structures, and uses not listed above, customarily accessory to multi-family residential use, including lobbies, stairs, corridors, and storage areas. 6463782 v2 J 9C-3.2.5 Equipment, such as a generator and control panel, adjunct to operation and maintenance of a sewer force main. I9C-4 Maximum Density and Bedrooms 19C-4. l Maximum Number of Units The total number of dwelling units in an SV District development shall not exceed twenty-two (22.0) per gross acre. · 19C-4.2 Bedrooms 19C-4.2.J No dwelling unit in an SV District development shall contain more than two (2) bedrooms. 19C-4.2.2. The maximum percentage two (2) bedroom dwelling units on an SV District shall be fifty percent (50%). 19C-5 Building Height and Stories The maximum building height of a principal building in an SV District, measured in compliance with the "Building Height" definition in § 5 of the Westport Zoning Regulations, shall be fifty-two (52) feet, excluding chimneys and rooftop mechanicals, not to exceed six ( 6) additi,onal feet. No building shall exceed four (4) stories, as defined in "Story"§ 5, of these Regulations. 19C-6 Coverage l 9C-6.1 Maximum Total Coverage Total impervious coverage for development within an SV District shall not exceed fifty-five percent (55%). 19C-6.2 Maximum Building Coverage Building coverage within an SV District shall not exceed thirty-two percent (32%). 19C-7 Building Setbacks J 9C-7. I Setback From Existing Roadways All buildings in an SV District shall be set back a minimum of fifteen ( 15) feet from any perimeter street line existing at the date of rezoning to SV District. 2 19C-7.2 Setback From Property Lines No principal building, structure, accessory structure, or use shall extend closer than twenty (20) feet from any street line, ten (10) feet from any side lot line, or fifteen (15) feet from any rear lot line. Entry stairs, balconies, patios, platforms, and open porches necessary for ingress and egress shall be permitted within such setbacks, provided that in no case may such structures be less than five (5) feet from any property line. Retaining walls no taller than three (3) feet shall also be permitted within such setbacks. 19C-7.3 Setback From Single-Family Home No building or edge of parking area in an SV District shall extend closer than ten (10) feet from a lot that, at the time ofrezoning to SV District, contains a single-family home. J9C-8 Usable Open Space In an SV District, at least one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet per unit ofland suitable for passive recreation shall be provided. Such land shall be laid out, graded, screened, and landscaped for its intended recreational purpose. 19C-9 Parking, Circulation, and Loading 19C-9 .I Parking Notwithstanding the requirements of§ 34 of these Regulations: 19C-9.l.1 The minimum number of parking spaces per dwelling unit in an SV District shall be: · Per studio or one ( 1) bedroom dwelling unit: one and four tenths (1.4) parking spaces. Per two (2) bedroom dwelling unit: two (2.0) parking spaces. 19C-9.l.2 Parking within an SV District may be on grade, or below grade within a building. 19C-9.l.3 Section 31.15 .1 of these Regulations shall not be applicable to an SV District. 19C-9.2 Private Roads When any private road is proposed, or proposed to be maintained, in an SV District, it shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Town of Westport for municipal roads. The term "private road" shall not include parking lot aisles or connectors, or emergency only access. ' 3 19C-10 Signage Signage shall comply with the General Requirements of§ 33.2 of these Regulations and shall meet the following standards, consistent with§ 33.6: 19C-10.1 The following signs are permitted in an SV District: !9C-10.1.1 Identification signs, provided the aggregate area of the signs shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet. Only one free standing sign is permitted. The free-standing sign must be at least ten (10) feet from any property lihe and shall include the street address number at least four (4) inches in size. 19C-l 0.1.2 A marker not to exceed two (2) square feet identifying an historic building or use. 19C-10.1.3 Directional sign necessary for public safety or convenience not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. l 9C-l 0.1.4 Public convenience signs advertising hours of operation not to exceed one (I) sign of two (2) square feet in area. l 9C-l l Exterior Lighting Exterior lighting shall be provided and maintained bythe property owner at all access points to streets, parking areas, building entrances, and elsewhere for the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. All exterior lighting shall be low-level except for required street lights and lighting for pedestrian safety, and 0-foot candles shall be achieved at the perimeter of the SV District development. The glare from light sources shall be shielded from roads and abutting properties. J 9C-l 2 Landscape, Screening, Sidewalks, and Buffer Areas 19C-12.l Landscaping, screening, and buffering Landscaping, screening, and buffering shall comply with§ 35 of the Regulations, except that the minimum required front landscape area described in§ 35-2.2.1 shall be fifteen (15) feet, exclusive ofloading spaces, porches, patios, balconies, and similar features. · 19C-12.2 Sidewalks Sidewalks shall be provided throughout a SV District development. All sidewalks within a public right-of-way shall conform to Town or State Standards. All other sidewalks shall have driveway ramps and shall have a minimum width of three (3) feet. 4 19C-l 3 Utilities 19C-13.1 Water and Sewer Public water and sewer must be available for the development either directly or by extension and connection to exi.sting sewer and water lines, and all units must be connected to the sewer and water lines. 19C-13 .2 Zoning Certificate No Zoning Certificate of Compliance shall be issued for any dwelling unit unless and until such unit has been connected to a public water supply, suitable power supply, and a public sanitary sewer line. 19C-13 .3 Storm Drainage Storm-drainage facilities shall be provided and shall be designed to achieve a.Zero impact run-off based on a twenty-five (25) year storm flow. Street culverts and bridges shall be designed for a hundred (I 00) year storm flow, ifrequired by the Town Engineer. 19C-14 Fire Department Access Access for Fire Department motorized vehicles shall be provided to ensure the safety of all occupants. Such access shall include Fire Lanes and/or other locations kept clear . and readily accessible for fire apparatus at all times. Turning radii, road widths, and grade changes shall comply with applicable Fire Codes. 19C-J 5 Earth Materials Excavation Earth materials excavation, stockpiling of earth products, or filling of land with earth products, shall comply with § 32-8 of these Regulations, provided that a separate Special Permit shall not be required; and as long as the excavation, stockpiling, processing, or filling otherwise complies with the Standards of§ 32-8.3, site plan approval shall constitute approval of the excavation, stockpiling, processing, or filling necessary to carry out the approved site plan, even if the depth, slope, man-made earth slopes, grading within five (5) feet of a lot line or quantity exceed the limits stated in §§ 32-8.2.1 through 32-8.2.3; § 32-8.2.6; or§ 32-8.3.2. 19C-J 6 Amenities 19C-16.1 Refuse Area Refuse collection areas shall be provided and conveniently located for all units. 5 19C-16.2 Mail Boxes Mail boxes shall be provided and conveniently located for all units, as determined by the U.S. Postal Service. I 9C-17 Affordability Plan Compliant With General Statutes§ 8-30g The purpose of the SV District is to facilitate a residential community comprised of rental units with household income and monthly rent limits in compliance with General · Statutes § 8-3 Og and will be administered as stated in an Affordability Plan prepared in compliance with General Statutes § 8-3 Og. 19C-18 Site Plan Documents Requ.ired to be Submitted Information and documents required by§ 44-1 of these Regulations are required to be submitted with an application filed pursuant to this § 19C, except as otherwise provided in this § l 9C. I 9C-l 9 Application Requirements 19C-19.l Rezoning Petition to rezone, as provided by these Zoning Regulations. 19C-19.2 Site Plan Application for site plan, with those documents provided by § l 9C-17 being required as part of the application. An application for site plan approval submitted pursuant to this § 19C is not subject to the inclusionary zoning requirements of§ 32-12. 19C-19.3 Multi-Family Unit Cap Exemption An application for site plan approval submitted pursuant to§ 19C shall not be subject to the multi-family housing restrictions of§ 4-5, or any other regulatory prohibition of multi-family housing units. J9C-20 Requirements for SV District Units The following requirements shall apply to the dwelling units in an SV District development that are identified initially in the Affordability Plan, or administered subsequently as, § 8-30g compliant units: l 9C-20. l Comparable Quality SV District Units shall be of a construction quality that is comparable to market-rate units within the development, and minimum construction, materials, finishes, and 6 amenities for § 8-30g compliant units shall be stated as a Schedule in the Affordability Plan. 19C-20.2 Dispersal SV District Units subject to § 8-30g restriction shall be dispersed throughout the development and built and offered for rent on a pro rata basis as construction and leasing proceed. !9C-20.3 Affordability Plan The "Affordability Plan" required by§ 8-30g of the General Statutes shall describe how the regulations regarding affordability will be administered. The Plan shall include provisions for administration of and compliance with this section; notice procedures to the general public of the availability of affordable units; identification of the method for designating affordable units; procedures for verification and periodic confirmation of unit occupancy income; and compliance with affordability requirements. 19C-20.4 Enforcement A violation of the regulations contained in this section shall not result in a forfeiture or reversion oftitle, but the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Westport or its designated agent shall otherwise retain all enforcement powers granted by the General Statutes, including § 8-12. 7 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT March 15, 2019 MICHAEL A. GALANTE MANAGING PRINCIPAL DAVID H. STOLMAN AlCP, PP, PRINCIPAL Timothy Hollister, Esq. 41 RUANE STREET FAIRFIELD Shipman & Goodwin, LLP CONNECTICUT 06824 One Constitution Plaza 203 255-3100 FAX; 203 254-2139 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 RYE, NEW YORK 914 967-6540 Subject: Accident Experience Summary and Response to Transit Credit Comments - Residential Development - Hiawatha Lane, HUDSON VALLEY Westport, Connecticut 845 297-6056 LONG ISLAND Dear Tim: 516 364-4544 www.fpclarlc.com In reference to our Updated Traffic Access & Impact Study, dated February 2019, for [email protected] the proposed residential development on Hiawatha Lane, attached please find accident data obtained from the Town of Westport Police Department for a period beginning January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018. This data is specifically for Ferry Lane West, Hiawatha Lane, Indian Hill Road and Davenport Avenue. In addition we have included a response to comments regarding the use of the Transit Friendly Development (TFD) credit. Accident Experience As noted above, the latest available accident data was obtained from the Town of Westport Police Department for a period beginning January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018. This data is specifically for Ferry Lane West, Hiawatha Lane, Indian Hill Road and Davenport Avenue. The data indicates that for a three-year period there were no reported accidents on Ferry Lane West between State Route 136 and Hiawatha Lane/Indian Hill Road. At the intersection of Ferry Lane West and Hiawatha Lane/Indian Hill Road, there was one reported accident. This accident was limited to property damage and was a backing collision with a contributing factor of unsafe backing. It occurred during daylight hours and on dry road conditions. For the section of Hiawatha Lane, between Ferry Lane West and Davenport Avenue, there were five reported accidents. Data indicates that all of the accidents were limited to property damage. The collision types were 60 percent with a fixed object and 20 percent for sideswipe in the same direction and an angle collision. FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMDIT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT Timothy Hollister, Esq. Page 2 March 15, 2019 The contributing factors were 40 percent for ran off road and 20 percent for failure to keep proper lane, improper passing and operator inattenfion. It was found that 60 percent of the accidents occurred during daylight hours and on dry road conditions. There were no recorded accidents during this three-year period for Hiawatha Lane from the intersection of Davenport Avenue to the end of road. There were no recorded accidents during this three-year period on Indian Hill Road and Davenport Avenue. The attached Table 3 provides a summary of the accident data noted above. TFD Credit In response to comments by both the Town and the Town Traffic Consultant, we have prepared a comparison of the build conditions intersection total volumes with and without the site traffic's TFD credit. The results of this comparison indicate that with the addition of the 6 vehicles that were removed due to the TFD credit during the weekday morning peak hour will result in a total intersection volume increase of at most 0.40 percent on State Route 33/136 and 6.32 percent on the local neighborhood streets. During the weekday afternoon, the addition of the 8 vehicles that were removed due to the TFD credit will result in a total intersection volume increase of at most 0.74 percent on State Route 33/136 and 7.92 percent on the local neighborhood streets. Table A-1 provides more details of this comparison for all Study Area intersections. The increase of the 6 and 8 vehicles will not change any of the capacity results or findings provided in our Updated Traffic Study. Also, to be conservative the Updated Traffic Study did not take any credit for the traffic generated by the exiting homes that will be removed as part of this development. Therefore, the results and findings in the Updated Traffic Study is sufficient for the proposed residential development with and without a TFD credit. Sincerely, /WI aA ~ L.~ ..Mr-_ Michael A. Galante Managing Principal Enclosure cc: Felix Charney g:1820.300 residential hiawatha lane\wOldlsus19-002.stc.docx Table 3 ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE SUMMARY -FERRY LANE WEST/HIAWATHA LANE/INDIAN HILL ROAD/DAVENPORT AVENUE Residenlial Development Hiawatha Lane Westport, Connecticut I FERRY LANE WEST HIAWATHA LANE INDIAN HILL ROAD DAVENPORT AVENUE Between State Route Al Between At Between Between I At Between 136 and Hiawatha Hiawatha Lane/ Ferry Lane West and Davenport Davenport Avenue Ferry Lane West and I Davenport Indian Hill Road and Lane/Indian Hill Road I Indian Hill Road Davenport Avenue Avenue and end of Road Dav~ rt Avenue Avenue Hiawatha Lane ACCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS Total 1 Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent , Tot£ Percent Total Percent Year I I • 2016 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 2017 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 • 2018 I 0 0 1 100 2 40 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 • Total 0 0 1 100 100 I 5 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 Accident Severity I • Property Damage 0 0 1 100 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 ~ n~!t_ ~- 0 - ~ __Q__ - 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Collision Type I l I I ·- • Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 3 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Sideswipe-Same Dir. 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Backing 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-Angle - 1 20 ._Q__ ,_Q_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Contributing Factor 1 I -- • Unsafe Backing 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Ran Off Road 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 • Failure to Keep Proper Lane 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 • Improper Passing 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Ooerator Inattention 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Light Condition • Daylight 0 0 1 100 3 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Dark-Lit 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface Condition • Ory 0 0 1 100 3 I 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Wet 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Ice/Frost 0 0 0 0 I 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weather Conditions • Clear 0 0 1 100 3 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Snow 0 0 0 0 I 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 • Freezino Rain/Drizzle 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Westport Police Department Notes: January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018 is the latest three full years o/ accident data available. Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. G.\UI.X:0~1-itwrN t.an.~ IO Commeri U1 2-1 1-19'.Wonf fieJlcus1 9-003.ak:.doc llS/19 Table A-1 2020 BUILD CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON - PEAK HOURS Residential Development Hiawatha Lane Westport, Connecticut VEH ICLES Weekday Morning Weekday Afternoon Build With Site Traffic Build With Site Traffic Transit Transit Build Without Percent Transit Transit Build Without Percent LOCATION Credit Credit Transit Credit Increase Credit Credit Transit Credit Increase State Route 33 (Saugatuck Avenue) 2,055 4 2,059 0,19 1,833 at 1-95 Southbound Ramps 3 1,836 0.16 State Route 33 (Saugatuck Avenue 1,755 4 1,759 0.23 1,221 3 at Charles StreeU Park and Ride Lot) 1,224 0.16 State Route 33/136 (Saugatuck Avenue) at 1-95 Northbound 2,315 6 2,321 0.26 1,835 7 1,842 0.38 Ramps/State Route 136 (Park Street) State Route 136 (Saugatuck Avenue)' 1,484 6 1,490 0.40 1,079 8 at Ferry Lane West 1,087 0.74 Ferry Lane West/Hiawatha Lane at 157 6 163 3.82 140 8 Indian Hill Road 148 5.71 Hiawatha Lane at Davenport Avenue 95 6 101 6.32 101 8 109 7.92 Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. G:1820.300 Residential Hiawatha l.ane\Response to Comments 2-11-19\Word Files\Table A-1.docx 3/13/19 • H611ister, Timothy From: Michael Galante < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 12:36 PM To: Hollister, Timothy; Felix Charney ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Transit Credit, Westport Tim See DOT response for 10% TOD credit. Should I forward to Mary Young or will you tonight? Michael A. Galante Managing Principal Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. 41 Ruane Street Fairfield, Connecticut 203-255-3100 203-394-3815 - Cell 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 914-967-6540 From: Sojka, Gary J Steve, Everything looks good. Gary J. Sojka Transportation Supervising Planner Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy and Planning 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06111 Email: [email protected] telephone: (860) 594-2025 fax: (860) 594-2056 1 ' Froln: Steven Cipolla Good Morning Gary, We are conducting a Traffic Study for a residential development comprising 187 units of Multi-Family Mid-Rise in Westport near the Train Station (See attached map). The site is approximately½ mile from the Westport Train Station. We utilized a 10 percent transit credit for residents who may walk to the train station, as per CTDOT standards we have used on other similar projects near a train station. Please confirm if this is an appropriate traffic generation adjustment for the proposed project? I have attached our site traffic generation and adjustment volumes. The baseline volumes and growth rate were reviewed and provided by your office previously. Thank you for your assistance, Steve Steven T. Cipolla, EIT Senior Associate/Transportation Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, NY 10580 Tele-(914) 967-6540 Fax-(914) 967-6615 41 Ruane Street Fairfield, CT 06824 Tele - (203) 255-3100 Fax- (203) 254-2139 2 Fitzgerald, Erin From: Hollister, Timothy Sent: · Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:13 AM To: Fitzgerald, Erin Subject: FW: Re: Westport Train Station Distances Hiawatha Attachments: Westport Train Station Distances.docx pp From: Michael Galante Mary As discussed last week attached please find the distance from the front of the main site location to the RR platform. When we sent our trip generation data to CTDOT we indicated that the site was approximately 0.50 miles to the RR. This confirms our reference. As you know we applied a reasonable 10 percent credit for residents walking to the RR. Michael A. Galante Managing Principal Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. 41 Ruane Stre!;!t Fairfield, Connecticut 203-255-3100 203-394-3815 - Cell 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 914-967-6540 From: Steven Cipolla . Steven T. Cipollci, EH Senior Associate/Transportation Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, NY 10580 Tele- (914) 967-6540 Fax-(914) 967-6615 41 Ruane Street Fairfield, CT 06824 Tele - (203) 255-3100 Fax- (203) 254'.2139 Line Path Polygon Circle 30 path 30 polygon Measure the distance between multiple points on the ground Length: 0,52 [ Miles Southbound Track Polygon Cirde 3D path 30 polygon Measure the distance between multiple points on the ground Length: 0.59 ! Miles Northbound Track 8 PLOTTED BY• DIVNEY TUNG SCHWALBE, LLP SHOGREN, MN!K J/15/2019 1'11 PM L•\664 HIAWATHA LANE • SUMMIT MISC\HIAWATHA LANE\664 8JOG SIGHT LINES FIG.OWG - __j - -- - - ~ ------;G ------ 0 0 40 80 EXITING VEH ICLE SIGH T LI NES THE VILLAGE AT SAUGATUCK FIGURE NO. SL-1 DIVNEY • Tl.NG •...... SoiwALBE .,,. WESTPORT, CONNECTIC UT MARCH 15, 2019 PLOTTED BY, OIVNEY TUNG SCHWALBE, LLP KEPKE, S..,.,ANTHA 3/15/2019 12,55 PM U\664 ttAWATHA LANE • SUM ..T MISC\HIAWATHA LANE\664 830G AUT0TURN REFUSE FIG.0WG - _j / I I 4.87 18.67 Heil DuraPack 7000 feel Width 8.00 Track 8.00 ...... Lock to Lock Time 6.0 / - -- Steering Angle 45.0 ------ He! OuroPock 7000 OTY - REFUSE ,L'!.1.------F T 0 HEIL DURAPACK 7000 80 REFUSE TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENTS THE VI LLAGE AT SAUGATUCK FIGURE NO. TM-1 DIVNEY • Tl.NG • SoiwAI.BE .....,.,_ .... WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT MARCH 14, 201 9 9 : ,:,,.,c. ·- ~.,., ,",, ,,,,, f .; •• Tlghe&Bond Consul~ng En~lneers 1000 Brldgepor!Avenue Sulte320 \' {,) r! Shelton, CT 06484 / (203) 712-1100 ~rm• ~~.,~_.,.-,i ~r.,... ;·--- i ' ' ~i• -- .. -·~--'· / / ' / ; . ' ; '/'/ ,f' I I f1 "",. KEY MAP SCAI.E: 1• • 150' GENERAL SITE NOTES: LEGEND ABBRE\llA 11ONS BOUNDARY Sl,JIIV[y ANO TOPOOR.offlC Sl,JR;'a(y WA$ P£RrORl<.O BY I\IWAM 'II, SE'!WOOR lie AS50C,A1U O!I NQ,tM8Ell 2. 2005 AND S>!O\\N ON PLAN 0A1[0 IIAV }I, ~QOD. 1111 - PRoPOSEO SlOfU,I IIANH0L.£ BOTTOII OF' CV~~ D - PRO/IOSED CATCH BASIN 1Yl"E C BACK bF WALK / 80TTOI.I ClF WALL 2. 'll)l>«ltlPHIC SURVEY WAS PWORll.0 av ... WAIi 'II. S...-WO\/ft I< Ass«iMts 0N NO,O,BCll 2. :roCMI A~O ,s BASED ON VERTlCAL OAT\,111 N.a.v.o. ,ga AND SHO~ 0N PLAN OATtD IIAY 21. .." •-- Cl - PROPOSED CATCH BASIN T'!1'E C-~ ~ CATCH BASIN 3. 1HE lOCATION or DCISTINC Um.JTits AS SHDY,1,1 ARE rROW Ill.PS Df' UTIUlY COI.IP/,Ntts, nM Sl,JR',f;l'S,. ANO TI SCAL~ AS N01t0 Il l NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C1.0 ft,______.L ______J PLAN REFERENCE: Tighe&Bc •rROi'OSEO AROll'l'ECTl,IJW,.Sffi: Pl,O.N•, AVALON AT NORDEN Pl.ACE, NORWA!.K, CT, SHUT ConsuJtU\g Ell!;< ... AII01·1ANIOA001-IS.Sl;A1£: ru•-1•-o·. OATEOJULY 5, 2011, AS PREPAAEO SYl'tllKINS E-'STMAN, 1000 BridijePQrlAvenue Sulte320 l. 'GltO.O!NGPV.N•, & NOROEN Pl.ACE, NOR WAI.I(, CT, SHEE'TSCl.O, C2.1,C2.l, Cl.ll,,ANO Cl.I, SCALE: i--~o•, DATl:O MAY :11, lll09 REVISED TO OCfOBER 2, 2009, /45 PREPARED ev TIGHE ll Shelton, CT 06484 BONO, 1NC. (203) 712-1100 111111,\igt,~t,,,r-,i.v,,,, J. -~e, MAP, GE~EltO,L NOTES, AND LEGEND", 8 NORDEN ~. NOAWAU(, CT', 5HE8' c1.0, SCAlE: t•• ISO", OATEO MAY ll, W09, ~EVISEO TO 0CTC8ER l, 2009, AS MEPAR.!O BY TIGHE ll BCNO, 4. ·~-CITY OF NORWAIX ZONrnG SUBMISSION SPEC!Al PERr Tl • PROl'OSEO 51'01' ELEVATION -~10- • EXISTING COl'fTOUR + 72,50 • EX!!.TlNG SPOT El.EVATION ... • ~UIL.b[NG fN'Tl';YPOl~ ,:,,...... ,., .-;;- N N () 15 .c: :I ~ Cl)" ·~-.__ I , .. / :5" .c: .8 ::;;"' / ! i ,,,r, ,..,,,, .. , ,,..,,,,_,,,,, ....,."'' ,n ,,,,~, e,,,-., .. .,...,, ...,, •~•M s1cc.mm .... l •l'M 5tc Comm"'" .,,M,,,,..,.,.re..,.,.,,..,. •'""""""''" ,.,,,., ,.~ ...... ,. , ""'" ...... _,.,,., .,,.,.,..,.,...... ,..,,,,.,..,,,. ""'" 3 weSTl'ORt';;. Cil-$107'-0t.d•I i --:;,~,_uct( ,. '""-...:.....~.,,,-:::-- - ' 8 Norden Place f Norwalk, Connecticut ~ ; May 21, 2009 / f I Grading Plan l ------~-- r ( ! WESTPORT FIRE TRUCK TIJRNING MOVEMENT DIA.GRAM ' &<01.L1•1•• ... I SCALE: 1"•40' • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C2.3 ! Tighe&Bond CQnsulting Engineers 1000 Bridgeport Avenue Suite 320 Shelton, CT 06484 1203)712-1100 'NWW.llgheClvnO.com / .. -._r ·------1- ; ' l "" "·"'.,.,,, ...... ,..,~, ,., """"' 10 ""'" c... .., ...... ,u.. ' I >N,,. .-n:: tomm ..11 ,,,~, sn: """""""" 1/ll/lo ,.., D,0~1«11 ...,,.,,~, "'"'''"'-"MMO SIC SUOm~,.,,, .,,,,..~""" ...... ·-" _,..;, .,,,,,, ...... ,..i,,,,,, . ,:~ ,,,,,,, ..... An •••...,,,,, M... - """l>t"" ..O..,:tt N(>. "10'1 UT-$1071-0, .... .,...... 110$ 0<[0<£0, 8 Norden Place Norwalk, Connecticut rl 000 ZC.'.'i: AG !:L[V: 12 May 21, 2009 NOTE: Cll•SI. C&-J2ANO CB·llSl!AU. ~VE DROP FlLTeR INSTAil.ED, SEE SHH ET C6.0 fOR OtTAIIS Dralnaga And Utility Plan SCAlE: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C4.3 DOT land access (yellow highlight) ...... ~ h _,,,,,,.,,. ~ --...... , ,,/ ."- ~, l'Rll!81l!L'IIT I - VS NORTH90Ui!D LO / / '- ~.,,,,.,,.,,✓ '··,"-, ~'t";+..~.... --- ~~ruw ~o'f"'?c;; ""'1.or ( ',._"- //~- ~r---- ,,;. --...... ~ ~-"'"'-''"''"''---- • ~~ f!!!!!:t.cc!!!. t!.' ~~'f A!.!!...... '--, .:~~~ '--.. / . ,!!e,I!:'!!. :.~,~ '-," .1.44.tACREs] iii ,; _,~-,,:1 1ii I X ,,. , \~ --~t"'\·; ... I I ,,_, ,::;t,.,UCK ltC \..:::...u:·/ .....~'- "'· I .7 --~=~.:~.:-':::;-:.,,,, , STATr 0, CONN«:na/1' I ; arArr a, ~- 1.oun, ~ff' CUtTVJGtn!O,~r,o,,,'""""'" , ______tl'_UIOlll!!llf"" 1,Q..J.Jl..ff;.*' J~ • l•IH I mu«-= COIIIPILATION ..LAN ~-·,,,.--,,, , TOWN OF WESTPORT ·--~------___ ~~=-..,,.,----- MAP SHOWING LAND RELEASED TO ~~E~=:::;;-----~--...n - -#11 ...... --.u.,,w,o- 11,ff l'IAIJl-.u'~-- .. .. - .,, ,,#;Al ,!d THE STATE OF" CONNECTICUT :;t,o~~~=-==~"'!-19'A ,.u,~,..YMlflllfll.- WSl&nT1011UC,t0,.-UM AMSION ~,t __ l°"nl lug.av!::":"'™;:••---.. , ,.,,~,.._,,,_,.,., Dt::PAATMEHT Of ~ATION _____, .. ,U _ _.. ____ _ "(W!T/ !!"!P!i '(t'. __,_...,,_,,UWSPQ ____ .. ,,...... ,...,.. 1-95 0 NORWALK TOWN LINE ..._ -•..!'...... - I I I 13°~~ ·:: niOMASA.. ~.,.f . F,.,,8~, -0,-- '" ----~•--- .i~ al ; i ~ ~ I ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 ll I ll I ~ ~ I I ·~1,§ I I I ! s I 1aH • ~ • ~ I f i "ll i "ll "ll i, I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~-.-~ I § ~ I i '(•.._: ~ I i, ~ }j I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! I ! ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~"' I •! :. :. :. ~~" J I I I i PLOTTED ev, OIVNEY TUNG SCHWALBE , LLP KEPKE, SMIANTHA .3/15/2019 2,14 PM L'\664 tlAWATHA LANE • SUt,e,ttl MISC\tlAWATHA LANE\664 8.30G POS rlG.OWG / ------ / / \ / I f ?- ':::::. \ ( f '0\ / I \~. I; '~ 0 40 80 USABLE OPEN SPACE THE VILLAGE AT SAUGATUCK FIGURE NO. UOS-1 DlvNev • TLK:o ....,.....,• SoiwAlBE ... WESTPORT. CONNECTICUT MARCH 14, 2019 12 Town of Westport Zoning Regulations Appendix D Lot Calculations Revised I 0-14-03 LOT AREA COVERAGE WORKSHEET BASE LOT CALCULATION (All entries in square feet-do not write in shaded areas) 1. GROSS LOT AREA = 384,057 2. Above-Ground Utility Easements + 3. Streets and Roads + 4. Other Exclusive Surface Easements + 5. TOTAL EASEMENTS AND ROADS (Sum of lines 2, 3 and 4) = 384,057 6. Wetland area 117,436 + 7. Steep Slopes of 25% or greater 3,300 + 8. TOTAL WETLAND AND STEEP SLOPES (Sum of lines 6 & 7) = 120,736 9. Wetlands/Slopes reduction 0.80 x line 8 = 96,589 10. BASE LOT AREA = Lines 1, minus line 5 and line 9) 287,468 MAXIMUM LOT AREA COVERAGE CALCULATION 11 . BASE LOT AREA (Copied from line 10, above) 287,468 12. Square feet of Total Coverage 156,300 13. Line 12 divided by line 11 for a percentage - 54.4% 14. Square feet of Building Coverage 90,500 - - - 15. Line 14 divided by line 11 for a percentage 31.5% IF LINE 13 and LINE 15 ARE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE PERCENTAGE FOR MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING AND/OR TOTAL COVERAGE WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT, THE COVERAGE COMPLIES Appendix D-5 3/15/19 PLOTTED BY: OIVNEY TUNC SCHWALBE, LLP SHOGREN, MARK 3/15/2019 1:12 PM L:\664 HAWATHA LANE • SUMMIT MISC\HIAWATHA LANE\664 830G LOT COVERAGE f'IG.OWG sf sf sf sf Building E sf 10,200 sf Parkino and Drivewa s 55,600 sf Parkin and Drivewa s 135,200 sf Slo es over 25% 3,300 sf Wetland Area 117,436 sf ~ ~ KEY • BUILDING • GREEN ROOF ABOVE PARKING LEVEL • PARKING & DRIVEWAYS WETLAND D SLOPES > 25% 90,500 sf 156,300 sf 0 100 200 LOT AREA COVERAGE DIAGRAM THE VILLAGE AT SAUGATUCK FIGURE NO. LC-1 DIVNEY • TUNG • ScHWALBE WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT 3/15/19 lnlellfilenl Lind Ute • C.0.0.T. ROUT£ I 95 CONNECTICUT TURNPIK£ I.AND OF c.S. \ STATE OF CONNE"Cncur (ROUTE 1-95 CONNE"CTICUT TURNPIK£) M • _,.,J.5t' TO - ew, RICHARD D HE"ISE" RIGHTS TO E"SrASUSH TURN AROIJNO FOR HIAWAT/i4 LANE LOCATION MAP NORWALK ~. 52.J PG. .JI SCALE": I",. 800' WCSTPORT ~. 170 PG. 464 "'~.... l£GEND P/fOl'C/fT'r UN£ ~ MM7r"Sffllr0ff =sr,,,= S1 MAP RE"FERE"NCE"S: 1 z:~.';,:: ~187.d~J~l1oi~~;~10,w~~f:ts~~~~ ;;~,:, ~'TBB, 4.JI.J, 428.J, 4171, 4064, ond .J802 also Nor,,olk Town Cl,rk /,lap Numbtrs: 1268/A, 126818, 1266.JA, and AVALON NOR~ Pl.ACE" LLC 1266.JS olso Co11nec/i'cu/ Deporlme11/ of Tronspor/ot,'011 Bureau al H,'ghwoys Ri9hl of Way Map Tow11 of Westport shed I of I I project 110. 158-1 I dol11d Aug, 25, 1982, Connec//'cu/ Depor/m1111/ of Transpor/alio11 Bureau of Mghwo_ys Ri9hl of Way Mop Tow11 of Wfllport shH/ 10 of 10 project 110, 102-11 dated Mart:h 7, 1980, N/f" N11w York New Hov1111 and Hor/ford Roi/rood Co, R,.gh/ of Woy and AD£LE" 1,1, CAZZE"W Track /,lop, Town of W11slporl. J7 HIAWAl'H,4 I.AN£ NOTES: I. Thjs surwy and mop hos been pr11pat11d in ot:r:ordant:11 with Set:tions 20-.JOOb- 1 /hn, 20-.JOOb-20 of the R11guh;Jflons of Conn11cti'cut Sto/11 Ag11nt:i11s - 'Minimum standards for Surveys and Mops in /he State of Conn11cli'cut" as adopllld by t/111 Conn11cUt:ul Assodolion of Land Surwyars, Inc. Th, Boundary Det11rmino/ion is o Oepend11nl RHurwy r:onforming to Hor/zontol At:eu,a,:y C1t;,u A-2. PROP£Rrt' SUSJE"CT TO A 10 WIDE" 2. Properly subject lo rHlri'clions and agrHmtn/ p11r Vol. 128 pg• .J84. FE"E"T DRAINAG£ £4SE"UE"Nr .J. Prop1rly subj11cf lo rHlri'ctions and ogr1111m11n/ per Vol. I.JI pg. 226. TO THE" PONO PE"R 1-0l.. 1"6 PG. 125 4. All proper/Ills subj11t:I fa o Gron/ in favor of Bridgeport Hydroulit: Company per Vol. 129 Pg. 254, and Vol. 127 pg. 454. 5. All proper/ii/fl subject lo on Easement in fo',!Qr of Th,: Conn11t:fit:uf Hght and Po'lll/r Company per Vol. 128 Pg• .Jg4. 6. All prop11r/i111 subject to on E"osem11nl in fol'Ot of Th• Conn11t:fit:uf Hgh/ and Pow,r Company per 451 Pg. 99 Norwalk Town Cl,rks. Vol. --554·if1.J"w-- 7. Hiowotho Lone is o privo/11 road and subject to ri1Jhls of oth11rs. 6J4.61' 8. Property subject lo o lrlu/uo/ RHlrit:liVII CoV11nont Vol. 27.J8 Pg. 29.J N5rt04'47"w W111tporl /ond r11t:0rds and v.,J, 6J64 Pg. 25.J Norwalk h;,nd r11t:Ords. 15.51' 9 IIIOIJu"F® Irr ~c~r ® 9. W11/londs d~in11a(ed by Pl11tro11 E"nrironmen/ol Croup, LLC CONN£CTICUT 0£PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION METRO NORTH RAltROAD (A/K/A NEW YORK NEW HAV£N AND HARFORo'HfvLROAD) Thomos Pietras, Soil St:i11ntisl on .J-B-2016 and Iii/Id Locat,d by Lewis Assot:io/11. fffi iiiii iilli I 10. Utih'tills token from ond by others end require mops m110surem11nfs PROPE"Rrt' SUBJE"CT TO field urifit:a/ion by 1h11 lnd,'viduol utility t:ampon,'es prior lo any na:TRIC E"ASE"ME"Nr IN r;onslruction, oil u/ii,'/111.s may not be sho•n. utilize "CALL BE"FORE" YOU FAVOR OF THE CONNE"CTICUT DIG" lo mark und11rground n••rs and util,lills prior to any LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY constructio11 or design by other porliH. PE"R VOL. 2.J5 PG, 557 I I. Ro,7rood /in,: r11pr11s11nts a b111/ fit •ilh Westport To•n C/Nlr. Mop No. 9767. Roi/rood monuments sho•n on railroad l'Oluolkm s~ls rt:fer11nt:lld obo..e not found. 12. Flood lint: token from Flood lnsuront:11 Rot11 Mop (FIR/,/) Folrfield County, Connectit:ut Pan1I 5J2 of APPROVED BY TH£ DIR£CTOR or HEAl TH 626, Map Na. ogoo1t:05J2G mop revised lo July 8, 201.J by 11111 F~erol E"rr111rg11nt:y Mono91mtnt Ag11ncy (F.£1,1.A,). LOT MERGER PLAN 1.J. Prop11rly d~s no/ lit: ln an Aquifer Prot11t:Uon DAT£ REVISIONS Ano. NO, DATE DESC~ll'TIO)I SUBDIVISION MAP 14. linH artt 15.0 fHI side and rear and APPROV£0 BY TH£ WATER POllUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY itt"/Hf'J:0~~~ OF PROPERTIES LOCATED 0:-1 15. E"rror of C/osur11 is b11/111r than 1;5000. HIAWATHA LANE 16. lmpro..ements on properly to bl/ remov-ed in conjunc/lon ..,·,11 WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT 1-\9-2017 opproV#ld Si/11 Pion. DATE PREPARED FOR This mop is no/ ~lid un/,ss ii hos o li..e WORK COMPLETION OAT£: ______signature and 11mbo.ss11d seal of rnxy H. h•is. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION To my knowledge and bl/lief, SUMMIT SAUGATUCK LLC this mop is subslonliolly t:O"llt:I OS ~Ollld hllfllOn. 2016-017 SUBDIVISION APPROVAL DAT£; ______€) Lewis Associates OAT[ Land Surveyln• and Civil Engineering 260 Main Strut - /,lgn,011, CT 06468 TRACY H, LEWIS L.L.S. CT. UC. NO, 151&0 ,,,.,..., 101-za,-11.. ra: 2ru-z,n--