Wilton Center’s latest mixed use apartment complex hit a speed bump this week when a last-minute design change got the project sent back to the Town’s design board for an updated review.
The discussion Tuesday evening, May 27, was the first opportunity the Planning and Zoning Commission — or the public — had to weigh in on the overhauled design for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., which the applicant team said was inspired by feedback from the commission and the public. The new drawings were submitted just last week, two months after the formal public review had begun and nearly a year since the project started its pre-application process.
The proposed redevelopment of the property into a four-story, 20-unit building with ground floor retail has elicited an unusual level of public comment since its hearings began in March. As of publication, 78 letters of public comment have been submitted electronically, in additional to more than 20 residents speaking at P&Z meetings. The project has been under review in one way or another by P&Z and its advisory boards since last July, but according to P&Z rules, public comment was only permitted as of Apr. 14 of this year.
The requests for changes and proposals for new analysis and design elements came not just from the public but from P&Z commissioners as well.
Chair Rick Tomasetti asked the applicant to explore juliet balconies to add texture to the building, reconsider transom windows on the second floor rather than the first, and bring the third floor gable out to the façade rather than leaving the top floor recessed.
Commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo asked whether there was a feasible space for electric vehicle charging somewhere on the site, while acknowledging that flood conditions on the site might make it impossible. Commissioner Ken Hoffman reiterated questions about how flooding of the site’s parking lot might contaminate the Norwalk River and asked for more detail about the flood plain and projected water totals.
Vice Chair Melissa-Jean Rotini expressed concern that the commission might be out of compliance if the project were changed so significantly without a new review by the Village District Design Advisory Committee. Tomasetti and others seemed to agree that returning to VDDAC was probably wise.
This places the applicant on a tight timeline. VDDAC meets next week on Thursday, June 5. In order for the project to be heard that night, a new application explaining the changes will need to be submitted by the end of this week. VDDAC will also have to turn around an approval for the project quickly, in time for P&Z to reconvene on Wednesday, June 9. Should the process be drawn out further, VDDAC would have to call a special meeting and P&Z would have to review, close the public hearing, deliberate, and vote on June 23, its final scheduled meeting before the deadline for reviewing the application runs out in early July.
Liz Suchy, attorney for the applicant, sounded exasperated in her closing comments, listing the suggestions made that evening as, “requests to do additional analysis, to consider alternatives or changes to the architecture, to go back to the Village District Design Advisory Committee with the most recent iteration, and… additional requests for explanations of items that are truthfully not part of either site plan review or special permit.”
Earlier in the evening, one member of the public had stated that she was “disappointed and frustrated” with the P&Z review process, which blocks public comment until the final moments of a project being presented.
“I imagine that it’s absolutely exhausting for the architect and the developer to be at the finish line and have a flood of comments with everyone voicing their opinion about how it should be changed,” Christine Wachter said. “I really urge the commission to look at the structure of things and provide an opportunity for the public to weigh in sooner.”
The main architectural change that the applicant submitted ahead of this meeting is the removal of a large tower facing Old Ridgefield Rd. Both commissioners and members of the public had criticized the feature for being too large and imposing. The applicant had argued that once the rest of Old Ridgefield Rd. is built out to the heights allowed by P&Z’s new Wilton Center zoning regulations, the tower and façade would not seem especially large.
There is some irony in the project returning to VDDAC with the tower removed, because the size and position of the tower feature was increased based on feedback the applicant received from VDDAC and P&Z during pre-application hearings with both entities last fall. The smaller, setback tower that the applicant originally submitted is pictured below. Architect Ken Anderson explained at the time that the original tower design was inspired by the Town Gazebo across the street from the site.
An additional change is aimed at reducing P&Z’s discretion over how many parking spaces the town can require the project to provide. The original application had requested a 25% reduction in the number of required spaces, asking that P&Z extend a version of the parking reduction it designed specifically for Kimco’s unusually large lot to mid-size lots in Wilton Center. By reducing the amount of retail space at the ground level, the applicant is now only requesting a 20% reduction in parking, which is allowed by the town’s underlying zoning regulations. The number of spaces remains as originally designed: 29 spaces for 20 apartments and two retail sites.
During public comment, several people pointed to flooding on the site as an environmental threat to the river. Barbara Dubiel asked the commission to be “forward-looking” about the rising threat of floods, and William Moreno said he was “taken aback” by engineer Craig Flaherty’s response to Hoffman earlier in the night that he had not analyzed last August’s flood impacts in planning for the building.
Flaherty had touted the drainage improvements being made on site and argued that the year-round water management would be improved even if the site flooded during significant rainfalls.
Looking Ahead
The project will now return to the Village District Design Advisory Committee on Thursday, June 5 for further architectural review. If successful, it will be back at P&Z on Monday, June 9, where public comment will once again be allowed. A vote will need to happen shortly after, as the legally-set review timeline for the project expires in early July.
CORRECTION: The article previously stated that the applicant for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. originally sought a 30% reduction in parking requirement. The text amendment submitted earlier this year was for a 25% reduction for this and any sites in Wilton Center between half an acre and one acre. The applicant is now asking for a 20% reduction, in line with underlying zoning in town.
This is an ugly, bland building with no character. How is it possible that Darien, Westport and New Canaan can have a great mix of old and new buildings infused with character and New England charm while our Planning and Zoning can barely manage to approve any development, but when they do, it a large, generic and unimaginative? This town deserves better.
lol the people of Darien would disagree with your characterization of new buildings there.
Frankly, the tower was a compelling design and broke up the monolithic feel to a building so close to the sidewalk.
That’s fair! I do like them, but imagine they’re not to everyone’s taste. And I agree with you, the tower wasn’t bad at all. My comment was regarding the latest iteration.
For the second time, the design of another proposed residential behemoth in Wilton Center is devolving with each iteration. The idealistic sketches presented to Village District Design Advisory Committee (VDDAC) have morphed into a looming pastiche of elements under the review of Planning and Zoning Commission, while the public’s input has been sidelined as too little and too late.
Evidence of this pattern of development stands loud and proud on Hubbard Road, where every promised ‘upscale design feature’ of the original building design has somehow withered on the actual finished product. Time and again, P&Z steps into the architectural review role, muddling VDDAC recommendations while developers leave the promise of the initial renderings further and further behind. By the time the hearings open to the public voice, the building design has congealed into a nearly immutable form, like the camel that’s a horse designed by a committee.
This result might not have occurred if the VDDAC was properly empowered to do its job. The VDDAC was originally conceived as an architectural design-focused review committee, to allow P&Z to focus on critical zoning decisions regarding density, scale, and site design. This was a hard-learned result of recent building projects which earned widespread derision for lack of scale, context, and shall I say grace.
The current development approval process seems to lead to less and less cohesive character for our town, and more dissatisfaction among residents. There must be a better way to encourage and execute reconstruction of our town center than this. Start by listening to the public.
Thank you Mr. Anderson – well stated!
How is the current design better than the original drawings??? The original design has an aesthetic much more aligned with our town than the large square box up for approval. I completely agree with rob sanders comment
Wilton (once again) clarifies why there is an unbelievable housing shortage in CT.