What’s next for Saugatuck?
The Planning & Zoning Commission held its first hearing yesterday on the new Spinnaker project. “06880” reporter John Palmer writes:
The Planning & Zoning Commission and members of the public got their first look last night at the latest development proposal for Saugatuck since the Hamlet was rendered dead.
Representatives for Norwalk-based Spinnaker presented a pre-application –a first look at the developer’s plans, and a chance for any last-minute concerns to be discussed before a formal application is submitted.
The Architectural Review Board discusses the pre-application at their meeting tonight (Tuesday, 7:30 p.m., Town Hall Room 201; click here for materials).
“We know this property has a long and at times, frustrating history for the neighborhood,” said Matthew Edvardsen, principal at Spinnaker, who added he lives in town with his wife.
“We want this to be a project the neighborhood enjoys and is genuinely happy to be a part of.”
One view of the proposed Spinnaker development. Riverside Avenue is on the left, Charles Street on the right.
Spinnaker, which has developed properties in Norwalk, New Canaan, Darien, Fairfield and New Haven, bought 606 Riverside Avenue for $12.795 million, and 96 Franklin Street for $3.25 million. The rectangle parcel is anchored by Minute Man Cleaners.
“This is not the Hamlet,” said Adam Blank, an attorney with Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky, acting as land use counsel for Spinnaker. “We can assure you the project will comply with all town engineering standards.”
He added that the developers have already met with the Fire department, businesses and other town officials, as well as the state Department of Transportation. Spinnaker has also created a project website.
Unlike Hamlet, which involved a complicated mix of several properties, Spinnaker’s proposal calls for 175 mixed units within 1 block of property. Eighteen — or about 10 percent — would be considered affordable, less than the 20% that town regulations require for similar developments.
Seelan Pather, managing principal for Beinfield Architecture, which will handle design for the proposed development, said the intent is to create a “New England Village” that provides a walkable environment.
A view looking at Railroad Place (left) and Riverside Avenue.
Rather than providing a development with many amenities, he said the idea is to create a “symbiotic relationship” with downtown Westport, which he said would be the draw for people to visit.
“We are familiar with Westport, and we are trying to achieve some of that wonderful Westport energy that exists,” he said. “We will pay attention to detail. Needless to say we’ve done this before, and we know how to get it right.”
The parcel to be developed would be bordered by Charles and Franklin Streets, Riverside Avenue and Railroad Place.
Designers plan to preserve the historical feel of Saugatuck by retaining buildings such as the post office to provide a hint of nostalgia.
Along Charles Street and Riverside Avenue, street level buildings would be limited to 4 stories to avoid an urban “canyon effect,” and would feature townhouse-like apartments with stoops, as well as street-level retail and entertainment space.
A 5-foot setback from 13-foot sidewalks would help shield sightlines of a larger, 6-story structure that would house 2 levels of above-grade parking, and 4 levels of apartments that would surround a common plaza area for residents.
“You’d have to be on I-95 to see most of what’s going on there,” Pather said of the higher building.
A key feature of the new development, which differs from Hamlet, is 283 parking spaces. Most are on 2 levels that would be located at grade or on the second level, with entrances that would be hidden within the façade of the street level façade.
By comparison, Hamlet proposed 2 underground parking garages that would feature “stackers” employed to accommodate more vehicles. It would have also eliminated most on-street parking.
Spinnaker’s street-level parking plan.
Spinnaker’s version will provide 49 off-street parking spaces plus 10 on-street spaces on Charles Street, in addition to the 283 contained garage spaces.
According to Marissa Tarrallo, a traffic expert with AKRF, studies were done at 11 intersections in the area from March through May, collecting 3 days of turning movement counts as well as 9-day traffic recorder counts.
The project as currently planned would generate 57 more weekday morning trips, 88 more in the afternoon, and 129 more on Saturdays.
She said that Spinnaker’s development will generate about 80% fewer vehicle trips than the Hamlet would have generated, and almost no traffic delays more than 10 seconds at all intersections with Saugatuck Avenue.
Planning commissioners largely viewed the proposal positively, but several expressed concerns that the developers provide only 10 percent of affordable housing, when town regulations require 20 percent.
“It would be very difficult to approve something that is substantially lower than what we require of other developers in town,” said Bre Injeski, adding that a text amendment would likely need to be approved to allow a change in regulations.
“That would be a sticking point for me. I like that you have sufficient parking and the traffic numbers are not going to make traffic significantly worse.”
The current site of the Spinnaker property. Riverside Avenue is at the bottom of the photo; Charles Street is on the right.
“This is a massive development in an area that is already congested,” noted Michael Calise. “We just don’t have the infrastructure.”
Chairman Paul Lebowitz said that he’d like to see more setbacks integrated into the streetscape, to allow for opportunities to enjoy the environment.
“When I go to Saugatuck it’s for the experience of the places there, like eating ice cream and sitting on a nice evening,” he said. “I’d like to see more of that integrated into the sidewalks.
“It’s night and day from what we were presented with previously. I will be drawn to the negative space that will make Charles Street look like something it hasn’t looked like in many years.”
(Since our founding in 2009, “06880” has covered Saugatuck from every angle: real estate, business, transportation, history and more. Please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
“….the traffic numbers are not going to make the traffic significantly worse.” Right.
I think Morley’s skepticism is warranted.
It looks out of proportion for the area, a case where less is more. The area by the Whelk style fits in well with Westport.
rename the project “CONGESTION”😁🇺🇸
Enjoyed seeing the presentation last night. A fundamental question that I think is on the minds of many Westporters. Does this development address the needs and wants of those of us who are recently empty nesters who want to downsize in Westport?
The difference between the proposed Hamlet project and the proposed Spinnaker is the same a D- grade compared with an A+ grade.
The Spinnaker project, proposed by a well established, highly professional development team, with a very talented local architectural firm at the helm, is the exact design parti I proposed to Pete Romano for this site, 25 years ago.
So yes, I am partial to this design solution.
While you can argue about the design of the facades, its colors and shapes, yada, yada, yada, Spinnaker is spot on with their overall design parti; parking located on the site in the interior of the property with commercial storefronts on Charles and Riverside, adding pedestrian life to those streets, with market rate residential apartments above and with affordable units located onsite.
This is the most appropriate and economically feasible design solution for Saugatuck.
This is exactly what I had hoped the Hamlet folks would bring to the table. I fought vehemently against the Hamlet, not because I was ant-development (I am an affordable housing architect and developer) but because I felt their design parti was so ill conceived and proposed by a group that never completed a single project as a development entity. I thought the Hamlet’s concept of a “playground for the rich” was ridiculous and insulting, with no serious residential component, offsite parking, and offsite affordable units, yet with some pie in the sky ferry concept and $750/night hotel, theatre and private club that sounded vaudevillian, aristocratic and right out of the roaring 20’s.
Spinnaker realizes, rental housing that includes on-site affordable units, with some retail with onsite parking at the train station is exactly what this town needs.
You will see far less traffic from this solution than you would have in the Hamlet’s proposal, that’s a fact.
Upon approval by P&Z, I have little doubt Spinnaker will fail to execute this vision. I wish them much luck and success on this exciting venture.
This is a win for Westport !
Final look back at recent Westport history; Let’s not forget how the former brilliant P&Z members rammed the Hamlet rezoning down our throats, using the fear of an uncontrollable 8-30g project, very Trumpian and very distasteful.
Oh, and all you RTM members without backbones, you couldn’t wait to jumped on board that sinking ship when our group brought this issue to you for an overturn.
Sal Liccione was the only RTM member, one vote, with the courage to stand up against that tidal wave, then you ostracized him and pushed him out of office.
Remember, we are never as smart as we like to think we are.
~ Joseph Vallone, A.I.A.
It’s a cookie-cutter “Universal Studios” streetscape with 175 units, a Massive jump from the 19 units per acre previously approved by P+Z—this IS 8-30g level density. It offers nothing to Westport residents except a rush hour traffic dump and a Starbucks.
The area from the 95 exits to the River needs a well-planned, proper scale, mix use integrated zoning or we’ll see more of the same Disney style apt buildings popping up on every remaining lot. IF approved the next decade will be filled with nonstop construction, stacking up to 500+ units, not even counting the state-owned parking lots, which are prime for state-controlled TOD. Good luck finding a restaurant table.
Why this level of concentration? Why not 1/2 the size? Don’t we need a new traffic study for all the surrounding roads and detailed plans for appropriate traffic mitigation measures? George Judd
Take a ride by the cemetery street development in East Norwalk to get a glimpse into what this will look like. 77 units jammed into a tiny lot with zero retail and they took city land including a lane of roadway and frontage. This developer will do the same in Westport. They will promise the world, and you will be very shocked with the results. They gave the same promises in East Norwalk and it’s been a nightmare ever since. “Traffic won’t be a problem”. Is that a joke? It’s already a problem in Saugatauk. The scale in which they build is the biggest problem. The East Norwalk development should’ve been half the size and I think the proposed development is too big for the space in Westport also.
The fact that this is even in front of us is absurd, Cemetery st. is Horrible! What should also be noted is the applicants reference to 8-30g density as the guide/threat used in this pre-app and the audacity to even suggest only 10% affordable. In the next app, when they increase to the regulation of 20/30%, will it be looked at as a concession?
If this is passed, its directly the Alliance to blame, a travesty and disservice will have taken place, identical to 21 Charles street… a black eye on Saugatuck that we will suffer with…..Forever!