Sustainable is traditional for some
I was looking thru a box of photos and came across this photo I took in Denmark:
As I was looking at it... recalling that this was a traditional-style house... I started thinking about the mall.
Seriously... why not? I know a lot of you are laughing right now or just scratching your head, but... my point is simple... America is gonna have to come to grips with all of our development at some point. And considering that the Town is bending over backwards... why shouldn't the developer bend over backwards too?
According to google, an acre = 43,560 sq ft. So a footprint of 500,000 sq ft would be about 11 or 12 acres. And (ignoring residential) that probably includes, say, 15 acres of parking. So how about making the retail two stories high (higher than that would defeat the "main street" concept) and making the parking three stories high?
25 acres of development becomes 10 acres of development. Then cover the third floor parking with a roof... and cover the roof with grass... as demonstrated above. Then put PVs (solar panels) on the grass. I bet some birds would absolutely love to nest there. And do the same on the retail... or hey... put the parking on top of the retail and reduce the impervious surfaces to 5 acres... this would also help ensure that the PZC is fulfilling its mandate that states the "Separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic is maintained to the greatest extent possible" because people would walk across no more than 3 or 4 acres of parking lot... rather than 10 or 15 acres of parking.
But then, I'm not positive that's the PZCs mandate. Although it is what Cindy is reporting over at Underground Town Hall.
Assuming this project continues moving forward, I hope thoughtful people like Lou Todisco and Andy Maye exert their influence on the process and have their voices heard.
Tim White
12 comments:
I'm copying this from a Jan 07 post ("Lifestyle Center I"). As you can see, the post was only done a few days ago... but probably inadvertently as many newcomers often are unaware that comments to posts a year old will likely never be seen...
Tim,
I have concerns about the plan. To begin, I don't see how we can overlook major enterprise, commercial construction projects that are happening all over the state.
Let’s take a look at recent development projects beginning right in our own back yard. ESPN has recently leased temp space in Cheshire and is looking for more. Met life in Bloom field - over 100 Million dollar project, the Hartford in Windsor with a 150 million dollar project. If you just Google a few of the G500 companies located in CT, you'll find that many have expanded, and are expanding this year. Also that Many are located not far from the interchange zone.
To me, I find it hard to believe that the interchange zone is not marketable. After 5 minutes of googling, I can come up with viable leads that fit much closer to the original intent of the plan. I have to ask, how has it been marketed? I don't know. Digging a bit deeper, I wonder, is the property public or privately owned? In who’s best interest is this proposal?
Our state charter places sole authority to change the planning and zoning laws on the PZC. I thought that sole authority was a term used to describe kings and queens. I simply have to question this authority. How is the PZC qualified to make this decision? If I were a member of the PZC, I would have extreme difficulty with that type of authority. I'd say to my self, hey, this is a volunteer post and I’m not an expert in creating law. I thought my job was to help uphold the existing codes and regulations not make new ones. I would hope that other functions of the town committee had the authority to back up my decision. This would help me to ensure that the decision was based on cross functional consent from the right type of social and economic expert officials and based less on opinion.
Ok. Speaking of opinions I have some, you have some, your mom has some, my mom too. We all have an opinion that’s the beauty of America we all get to share our opinions. I'll say again, that in my opinion there are good qualities of the plan that appeal to me. But that's just my opinion. I am more concerned about the checks and balances that are in place that have allowed the PZC to change the law and let us get this far to me, the changes have been made based on opinions alone, Sorry bro, that’s a Scary thought.
To conclude, I am in the business of development so I’d like to see something happen in my back yard. I also live in town so I’d also like to see the best possible choices made. Choices that have been scrutinized by the right authorities. In my opinion, we have an opportunity here to enhance our great town so let’s make that enhancement! Here are a few things to keep in mind:
1. Currently, the lack of retail in town presents a clear differentiator from all neighboring towns. If we allow major corporate retail in town, we will loose that differentiator, for bettor or worse. Let me take this a step further. What would be the difference between someone buying a house in Cheshire or Hamden? Will the lack of a differentiator help me sell my house in Cheshire when I’m 95 or not?—Tuff question, One that I’m not sure the PZC has expertise to answer confidently, I’m not sure that we elect PZC members to analyze property value, but we do so for some of the town management… do you see where I’m going here?
2. What is the cost benefit? At the last meeting that I attended, the town manager said that Cheshire would receive between 1 and 2 % annual revenue increase. Brother, I would change my job for less than a 10% increase in pay, not unless I was UN happy. Is the town really that unhappy with our current economic situation? What is the benefit to me 1% is 50 bucks off my taxes.
3. Let’s ensure that renewable energy is part of the plan.
4. We are the customer, not the developer!
5. Let’s ensure that Local trades perform the work during construction.
6. Let’s ensure that this project achieves the highest leed / Green credits available. That means the use of locally manufactured building supplies where possible, renewable energy systems to be installed, and the use of highly efficient construction designs.
7. We should consider changing the state’s by laws so that the authority to change zoning laws can be spread across a more than one body of town government authority.
-Mike Weed
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:26:00 AM
Neat photo.
If they went with two stories, why not just put a roof over the walkway and call it a traditional mall?
First of all your math is wrong. They will be paving or roofing over a minimum of 37 acres, equivalent to a road 25 feet wide and 12.21 miles long. How much more land will have to be disturbed in the process is anyone's guess.
You suggest stacking the complex and putting solar electric on the roofs. Is that all there is to making this a good thing? Why would the developers bother to do that, they can do almost anything they want. A little solar electric can never replace the positive environmental benefits that 37 acres of trees create and they provide real nesting places for birds and animals and they are sustainable and add to the beauty of Cheshire.
On the 16th, a lawyer for the town, basically told the commission that W/S can do anything they want with the residential, apartments or condos and you can be sure it will be apartments. Earlier in the process, The commission had been told by Voelker that they had complete control, now we are finding out differently.
Had we had a lawyer present for all the meetings, we would have found out what is really going to happen earlier. Patty Harris said a lawyer was not needed although the applicant never attended without Fazone. Thanks Patty.
Special praise to Art Hostage who is the only person so far that has had the guts to say he was wrong about voting for this sprawl that will forever change Cheshire's character and future.
Read the leaked draft of the P&Z's approval document that was written before the Jan 16 meeting was held.
To view the leaked draft, copy and paste the following address
http://leversandpulleys.com/cheshiretownpost/
First of all your math is wrong. They will be paving or roofing over a minimum of 37 acres
This post was getting at the retail part and ignoring the residential. I just estimated that the retail would be 25 acres and the residential would be 12 acres... based on the retail space est. of 500,000 sq ft / 43,560 sq ft ratio... then added parking.
Why would the developers bother to do that
I'm assuming they would do that if the PZC tells them to do that.
As for not having a lawyer at last year's PZC meeting... I'm still not sure why that was so... and mentioned it during a Council meeting... my comment related to the fact that a major energy (and environment) bill passed the legislature last year... and therefore, it's insufficient to have town staff opining on fairly complex law that was just coming into being... and would likely have regulatory interpretations to follow.
Mr Weed your on the right track if it wasn't for this new state law this would not be possible. The law probaly had good intention but like all laws some people (developers) find all the loopholes. As soon as this law was born there were numerous requests for changes to towns Plans and Conservation. Communities such as Madison, Canton, Old Saybrook, Guilford, Watertown, Simsbury, Durham, Portland, etc. etc. This was the best thing since sliced bread. The law does take away the towns protection once the changes are made. We should contact our legislators and voice our opinions but the damage has been done. One could only hope that this process would be reviewed by our Attorney Generals office. The question you raised on the commission (P&Z) making legislative decisions is valid because I believe they are way over their heads as was evidenced by the Jan. 16th meeting. We should not stop questioning or fighting.
Maybe when they take the grass off the football field they can move it to the mall roof. HAHA.
Hartford Courant 1-18-08
Farmington residents voted 80% in favor of purchasing 90 acres at a cost of over $6 million to keep it out of developers' hands. And that developer wanted to put 55+ housing in (1500 units.)
Woody Dawson at the Jan 16th P&Z meeting went out of his way to help the boys. There is a town regulation that limits excavating to no more than 5 acres at a time, followed by stabilization of the area. Woody kept insisting it was a special zone and that it would be hard on the developer with this limitation when there is such a large area, over 37 acres, to be excavated. He didn't feel that the developer should limited. Finally the town lawyer set him straight in that, since the developer did not ask for the exemption at a public meeting P&Z would be in dangerous territory to allow an exemption. However, the lawyer said W/S could come forward with another application for an exemption where the public would have a chance to comment and a vote would have take special vote on it would be necessary.
The 5 acre rule is a good one and the developer should be held to it, especially because all the excavation is close to the Ten Mile river and its wetlands. This rule was made to protect the environment.
It is said that, in Canton, W/S bulldozed huge areas and then threatened to pull out if they didn't get some more concessions from the town.
The big question is: why is Woody Dawson so concerned that it would be difficult for the developer. I would expect him to take the interests of the town in protecting the environment.
This was another instance where the town lawyer clarified another important point.
Another time a P&Z member (MC) even came up his own design of a clover leaf solution to the traffic problem. He forgot one small item which was the design included land that didn't belong to state or the applicant. I wonder how he is going to vote?
I for one am amazed that the lawyer was not there for all the previous meetings. He set them straight a few times this past meeting. To late now! I wonder if he was kept away for a reason?
We were in uncharted waters with no legal representation. This is how our Town Manager, Towm Council and Planning and Zoning chose to work, how irresponsible.
Who wrote it?
The following is an excerpt from a leaked draft copy of the Planning and Zoning's document approving the Mall. It certainly looks like the work of W/S and their lawyer, with additional help from Voelker. You can readily see that the commission had no part in producing it. Many parts of it are the very same words that W/S used and it is clearly written to persuade the public that this is a good thing.
How can any commission member be a party to this deceptive document?
Click to view the entire approval draft
-------------Excerpt ------------
Based upon the discussion above, as well as upon the positive fiscal impact of the development, the Commission concludes that the overall project is, in fact, in the best interest of the town.
After due consideration of the entire record, the Commision finds that the applicant’s proposed Zone Map Change, Interchange Special Development District Project Plan, and Aquifer Protection Application are not reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, imparing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Cheshire Planning and zoning Commission that this application meets all of the standards laid out in Section 45.B6 of the Zoning Regulations, and that it may, therefore, be approved by the Commission.
--------- end of excerpt ----------
Do you think that a biased document such as this should be given to the commission before they deliberate? It is criminal.
Post a Comment