Notch one mark in the ‘win’ column for economic development in Wilton.
That’s the likely reaction from supporters of easing Wilton’s zoning regulations to make commercial development here more appealing and easier, now that the Planning & Zoning Commission approved changing one town regulation to pave the way for a four-story hotel in the I-Park business complex in South Wilton.
At the Monday, June 13 meeting of the P&Z Commission, Casey Healy, the attorney representing I-Park, addressed the commission regarding a proposed regulation amendment that would raise the height limit on buildings from 39 ft. to 55 ft. and from three to four stories.
The proposal had initially been submitted at the May 23rd meeting of P&Z. However, responding to concerns from some of the commissioners, as well as suggestions from town planner Bob Nerney and assistant town planner Daphne White, Healy submitted new language that would maintain the height limit to the current three stories/39 ft., except on lots that conform with minimum acreage requirements in the DE-5 and DE-10 zones (meaning a minimum of five acres for DE-5 and 10 acres for DE-10).
Healy told the commission that the new language would limit the number of possible Wilton locations to which the regulation would apply.
“There’s a total of 50 such properties located in DE-5 and DE-10 districts, but only eight that satisfy the minimum 5-acre or 10-acre requirements. So only eight theoretically could apply under the proposed regulation amendment,” Healy told the commissioners.
Healy also addressed how the applicant would handle parking, noting that any parking questions would have to be addressed at a later time, as the current application didn’t legally notice the question.
As far as how the 55 ft. limit was set, Healy pointed to industry standards.
“Industry standard for buildings these days, a lot of them have a 15-ft first floor lobby/community area, and then 8-12 ft. for floors above that, so we’ve reduced our request to 51-55 ft., to accommodate the 15-ft. lobby and then three additional floors at 12 ft. high. The 8-12 is based on what you do with HVAC and mechanicals, and where they’re placed,” he said.
Nerney confirmed that his own research supported Healy’s assertion, adding that in addition to taking into account mechanical equipment, higher ceilings allow more light to come in and improves air circulation. Healy noted that with businesses now favoring open plan offices, where more people are accommodated in smaller spaces, higher ceilings help give the feeling of more space.
David Schiff, a planner who spoke on behalf of I-Park said that having the option of a taller building meets market demand.
“Office space has changed, there’s more common space, and bigger spaces that companies want to have. So it’s a question of what can we do to satisfy the market, while staying within the concerns the town has to make sure we’re not encroaching on surrounding areas.”
Commissioner Rick Tomasetti agreed, saying that 55 ft. would work better from an architectural standpoint, noting that a foot can make a big difference in design, giving designers flexibility for common space areas on floors above the first, including conference rooms or meeting rooms.
“You typically will want to have those center core spaces or board rooms and conference rooms to have bigger, more elegant, grander space. As designers we’re always trying to work around duct work and mechanicals. Believe it or not, 6-inches or a foot can make a big difference on how we design an HVAC system.”
Tomasetti also felt that the perspective from the ground would not be significantly different between 39 ft. and 55 ft., especially on larger parcels where such structures would be built.
Healy addressed a concern from commissioner Frank Wong, who questioned the impact that taller buildings might have on fire safety, and whether the town’s fire trucks would be able to access a higher story.
“The fire truck ladder has at least a 100-ft. reach, maybe 110. It isn’t the ladder reach, it’s whether you can get the ladder on the residential property and get it positioned properly. That’s more of a residential issue, not commercial,” Healy explained.
Two commissioners were concerned that the proposed zoning modification were written with one specific property in mind. However, that didn’t seem to be an issue for the other commissioners as they passed the regulation amendment by a vote of 5-2.