P&Z: Spinnaker’s Saugatuck Project Heading In Right Direction

“06880” political correspondent John H. Palmer reports:

Representatives of Norwalk’s Spinnaker — looking to build a new development in the heart of Saugatuck — convinced members of the Planning & Zoning Commission Monday last night that the project is heading in the right direction.

At least, aesthetically.

But as has been the case all along, affordable housing continues to be a major sticking point, as the development gets debated.

The latest iteration of the proposed Saugatuck development is still in the “pre-application” phase. A project in progress is presented to the planning board, with the intent of gathering information and advice from town officials — as well as public sentiment — before the official application is filed with the town.

The Spinnaker proposal is the latest development bid since ROAN Ventures gave up their attempt last year to build the “Hamlet” in Saugatuck.

Unlike Hamlet — which involved a complicated mix of several properties — Spinnaker’s proposal had until Monday evening called for 175 mixed units within 1 block of property, as well as 1 retail space at sidewalk level.

Eighteen of the apartments — about 10 percent — would be considered affordable. That’s less than the 20% town regulations require for similar developments.

Street-facing apartments would be less high than ones behind them.

Last night’s meeting — held via Zoom — was the latest look at the proposal since the developers went before the Architectural Review Board on July 28.

At that meeting, representatives for both Spinnaker and Beinfield Architects discussed changes to the design, including 6th-floor lofts for apartments on the floor beneath it, rather than more residences.

The building’s 2 garage levels have been lowered by 2 feet each, and sidewalk setbacks have been deepened. Also, the Riverside Avenue façade will receive a “factory-style” look, with brickwork to blend in with neighboring buildings and pay homage to Saugatuck’s heritage.

As it stands, the proposed development provides for 10% of the planned units to be considered affordable. Spinnaker has been working to meet Westport’s requirement of 20%, one of the region’s most stringent.

To meet this requirement, Spinnaker came back to the table with 2 potential scenarios. According to Adam Blank, land use attorney for Spinnaker, the 20% requirement could be met by reducing the number of total units in the development to 158, limiting 26 units to 80% of the state median income (SMI), while 132 would be market price.

Another scenario would involve providing 140 total units. 10% of the units would rent at 80% SMI, and another 10% at a “workforce income” (110% of area median income, or AMI).

This would mean that 117 units would be at market price and 23 considered affordable.

The potential drawback: Instead of a mixed development of smaller and larger units, there would be likely be a higher density of smaller studios and 1-bedroom apartments.

“This is a way for us to make it work at 20%,” Blank said.

 

The property Spinnaker hopes to develop is outlined in yellow. Riverside Avenue is at right; Railroad Place and the train tracks at bottom; Charles Street at top.

One sticking point around how many units would be built, Blank said, is the outcome of a state brownfield grant the developer will seek to mitigate contamination on the site. Part of the site sits within a flood zone. Blank was hopeful that the state might make an exemption, and provide funding for the mitigation.

“Millions of dollars on remediation can make a project not viable,” he said. “If we have to pay the remediation, smaller units let us do that.”

Commissioner Bre Injeski made it clear she wasn’t interested in a development that would amount to a bunch of studio apartments, to make it affordable to the developer.

“For me, it’s not a concrete plan,” she said. “In the end, we could end up with almost 100% residential, and it will only be smaller units. For me, it doesn’t add up. The 20% could be discouraging, but that’s where we are.”

Commissioner Craig Schiavone agreed, though she said she was happy with the design.

“We really don’t know what this project will look like until we know about brownfield,” she said. “For me, it’s difficult to reach a comfort level until those numbers are all in. I like the reduction of until count, but you’re not reducing the size of the building. The economics do change, but we don’t know what we as a town are getting.”

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, and contains a parking lot, locksmith and a white residential building.

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 through brick architecture.

Brick “industrial”-style facade (right) along Charles Street. The existing 21 Charles Street office building is at far right. Buildings facing Riverside Avenue are on the left.

The pre-app also includes a plan to create a new zone of development — a Transit-Oriented Development sub-area, or TOD — to allow residential development on lots near the Saugatuck train station.

Spinnaker representatives intend to create a “New England Village,” providing a walkable environment and a “symbiotic relationship” with downtown Westport, to help draw visitors to the area.

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 version will provide 49 off-street parking spaces plus 10 on-street spaces on Charles Street, in addition to the 283 contained garage spaces.

Spinnaker reps on Monday evening presented new details of the project to address concerns from the ARB, including lower roof heights to 30 to 35 feet that allows more natural light to filter through, along with a plan to build 2 outdoor plazas instead of 1. They would utilize space occupied by an existing house at 16 Railroad Place, a property used for storage that Spinnaker now owns.

The new plan would “move it backwards and create a plaza that bookends our façade and creates an extension of the activity on Railroad Place,” said Seelan Pather, managing principal with Beinfield Architecture.

Artist’s rendering of the view from Riverside Avenue, with Railroad Place at left. An existing white house (center) would be moved back from its current location closer to Riverside, creating a plaza.

“I like this plan better than what is already there,” said commissioner Nicole Laskin.

Chairman Paul Lebowitz echoed the sentiment. “Obviously you heard us the last time, and I like the direction that you guys are heading,” he said.

“It looks you’re getting serious about the streetscape, and I want to know more about what it looks like to the people on the ground, how much retail you can put in there and make it a truly viable part of the community.”

3 responses to “P&Z: Spinnaker’s Saugatuck Project Heading In Right Direction

  1. Matthew Mandell

    Ahhh movement. After what had been a game of chicken when it came to the number of affordable units Spinnaker would supply in their project they finally decided to make the first move. In the first two pre-ap meetings Spinnaker was holding firm at 10%. “Norwalk only requires 10%” they said. Our P&Z was also firm, this is Westport and 20% is our requirement.

    This time the applicant, to their credit, came with a decrease in the total number of units and two concepts that moved them off the 10%. Movement yes, but acceptable to P&Z not there yet. Math is a funny thing and can be used to say one thing, but really be another. They were offering their percentage based on the number of market rate units, not the standard practice of total units, 158 (down from 175). Their 20% was really 16+%. Our P&Z flagged it and said, nope not quite right.

    The second concept of fewer total units, 140, came in with less than 10% fully affordable and 10% of what is called workforce (units that teachers, fire fighters and other town employees could fit financially into). This is a formula that Greenwich has been working with, but has not taken hold here. There is a reason, we don’t get enough real affordable and the workforce units, while of great value, don’t get us points against 8-30g. Somewhere in here we might find the right mix, but this first napkin drawing needs improvement.

    There was another rub. Environmental clean up costs might impact affordability. Spinnaker is seeking a grant for clean up, if they don’t get it they said the only affordable units would be studios and one bedrooms. P&Z again flagged it. Affordable units must be an equal cross section of all units, it can’t be only smaller units.

    So let’s talk about this grant. The failed Hamlet project requested a grant of $12 million and received $8 million. This money was to be held and/or funneled through WestCOG and the Town for this future use. So where is it? Seems to me, if the State would grant it once for this exact piece of property, cleaning up the mess under the Minutemen Cleaners, then it should again. I fully expect to see this money appear and remove this shadow over affordability.

    The next step is once again Spinnaker’s. Come back once more to get a feel, or come fully with a text amendment and application. P&Z still has flexibility. Even if X% and mix of affordable is proposed the P&Z is allowed to constrain and require more. Meaning negotiation can still occur and nothing is set in stone. 8-30g is of course the nuclear option, but no one on either side wants that. This so far has been good exercise and one I believe will continue in that vein.

    More to come on this for sure.

    Matthew Mandell
    RTM D1

  2. Developers and development destroying towns one by one. Go look at the rubbish (in my opinion) they built in other towns. They strong arming now trying to do only 10% instead of 20% affordable. The town should tell them to kick rocks. Get some billboard trucks in front of the developers houses to protest. Not all the blame on them though, thank legislators, and local town reps that allow this crap by way of law/regulation.

What do you think? Please comment! Remember: All commenters must use full, real names!