By Kerri Williams
WESTPORT – The Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday got its first look at a new vision for 606 Riverside Ave. – the same site as a portion of the controversial Hamlet Development they denied last year.
In a pre-application, or non-binding discussion, Spinnaker Real Estate Partners of South Norwalk presented a plan for a development with 175 residential units along with 283 parking spaces on 1.54 acres. The proposal differs from the Hamlet in that it is not directly on the waterfront and does not include a large retail component.
“I do live in town,” said Spinnaker owner Matthew Edvardsen, as he addressed the commission for the first time. “I have a personal stake in getting it right.”
But, for many of the commissioners, the elephant in the room was that Spinnaker has proposed for 10 percent of units on site to be deed restricted as affordable, instead of the 20 percent that is required.
The first question following Spinnaker’s presentation by commissioner Breanne Injeski was about the reasoning behind the 10 percent affordable number. Edvardsen responded that the 10 percent number made the project “feasible for us” economically.
But Injeski and several other board members said they would have a hard time approving a project where the affordable component is lower than “every development in town.”
“This just doesn’t work,” said commissioner Michael Calise, adding that the 10 percent number is the overall goal for affordable housing across town. “Their contribution is net zero.”
Later in the meeting, Chairman Paul Lebowitz asked Spinnaker representatives what a development would look like that was economically viable and met the 20 percent number. Edvardsen responded that Spinnaker would come back in another pre-app with some “different scenarios,” adding that the team got the message that the 10 percent figure was “not palatable.”
While the state has incentives for developments with 30 percent affordable units, those do not exist for 20 percent, Edvardsen said.
Commissioners also questioned the height of the buildings and whether the parking would be adequate for the number of tenants. The façade along Riverside Avenue will have a scale of 3 ½ stories, with additional height stepped back into the site so it is less visible from the street, according to Seelan Pather, of Beinfield Architecture.
Lebowitz said he had driven around looking at some of the other Spinnaker properties, including one in Norwalk that he felt was particularly tall. His concern is that the Saugatuck project would also be tall, although he added that the height was “way better than what we were presented with in the past.”
Pather said that the architecture is meant to have the look of a New England village and that the people living there should “feel like this is their home.” He added that there will be “a great attention” to detail.
“We’ve done this before,” he said, referencing other developments in Darien, New Canaan, Fairfield and Norwalk. “We know we can get it right here.”
Marissa Tarallo, of AKRF in Stamford, also delivered a preliminary traffic study for the plan. The study examines the 11 intersections that would be impacted by the project, with extensive data collection of the current traffic counts. A housing development on the site would create less traffic than adding retail to the area, she said.
But Lebowitz and other commissioners still questioned the effects of the development on traffic that is already congested. “People don’t drive through good numbers,” Lebowitz said. “They drive through those streets.”
Also brought up was the issue of environmental concerns, which were also a big part of the Hamlet proposal. “We are aware of it,” Edvardsen said, adding that they will work with the town and regulating agencies. “Every site has some kind of issue that you have to address.”
Overall, Lebowitz added that he liked the “tone and tenor” of the discussion, which he said was “way better than what we ended up with a year ago.”
Another issue is that the commission has been questioning the zoning for the property, which is in the General Business District/Saugatuck Marina, created by the commission in 2022. Spinnaker representatives referred to the district as the “Roan Zone,” referring to the company that proposed the Hamlet, and saying it won’t work for their project.
Instead, Spinnaker is asking for a district designation as General Business Saugatuck, which would be the same zone as the nearby Gault properties. However, even that zone would not work exactly for the project, and they would need a special sub-area that they are calling transit-oriented development, or TOD.
Kerri Williams
Kerri Williams is an award-winning writer and journalist. She has worked as a reporter at the Norwalk Hour, as Living editor at the Darien News-Review, and managing editor for the Norwalk Citizen-News. For Westport Journal, she is a reporter as well as a gardening columnist, writing “Cultivating with Kerri.” She recently published her first children’s book – “Mabel’s Big Move,” based on her daughter with special needs.
Ugly comes to mind.
Also, maxx’d – d’out.
I shouldn’t say ugly, more of a largely uninspired bland vision.
Looks like Stamford apartment row. Needs to glamorized and more parking.
Imagine you are designing for the most beautiful town in America. This is like an Ayn Rand movie. Once you become a parody of yourself it’s over…Westport ain’t over yet
You wanna talk about ugly? Drive around town and look what has become of Saugatuck for years. Take a look at the dump of an old motel they call a golf shop or the lip stick they keep putting on the pig next door. A bunch of elected officials just continuing to voice their demanding, negative opinions while never helping the situation. They always know everything, meanwhile half the buildings in our town are falling over. And ooh, as long as 20-30% of the units get to free load off the tax payers in the town they will be happy. What a joke, go live somewhere you can afford.
What a horrible attitude.
What’s so horrible about reality? Why should I pay for your housing? Do you want to help me pay for mine, happy to send you a Venmo request? There’s a reason I don’t live in Monaco….I sure like it there but I don’t expect anyone else to subsidize my expensive taste. I settle for falling over infrastructure in Westport while I’m taxed to death on everything I buy, own and even don’t own.
Thank you, Mr. Bold, “Go live where you can afford”. That should be the only definition of affordable housing. Changing the representation we send to Hartford is the only way to get back to common sense. If you take such nonsense to its logical conclusion, we should all be subsidized by those with higher incomes to live where we want. Eventually they will have no money either and that is, after all, the goal…..the equal distribution of misery.
The difference between the proposed Hamlet project and the proposed Spinnaker is the same a D- grade compared with an A+ grade, quite dramatic.
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 (we) fought vehemently against the Hamlet, not because I was anti-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 no doubt Spinnaker will execute their 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 jump on board that sinking ship when our group brought this issue to you for an overturn vote.
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.
Classic case of TDS, irrelevant to the topic but just can’t stop thinking about him. Typical narcissist.
I have no idea how Trump had anything to do with the Hamlet. You really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to come up with that connection. The bottom line is that the Hamlet failed and a new plan is in the works. The rendering looks much better and more appropriate to the area. Let’s just rationally assess the new proposal and let the elected officials do their jobs.
It’s interesting that the lead photo features the 2 story pre-existing Steam Coffee and then fades to the 3/1/2 story building. Why not show what 90% of Westport will see, the 5+ story proposed building.
My earlier “ugly” begs qualifiers.
Am I getting over that now Westport allows apartment complexes, the scale as yet unseen? I’m not sure when this zoning change occurred. Or if the zoning is yet to be designated? In itself odd — the zoning vagueness.
The actual rub comes from my emotional attachment to a kind of realism, that for the last 60 years I have been hanging around, emanating from Saugatuck and Westport generally. The train station area has never been for show, it’s a place to get a job done—the business of travel. In this way, the structures have a certain utility, a utilitarian nature that emanates from the tracks and the highway bridge, the Black Duck and Mario’s row, the old ticket building and the classic steampunk bridge. Saugatuck is not unlike traveling back in time, or adding a permanence to daily life. The one-way loop around the this proposed new building is very specific in function, so specific that it shouldn’t be hard to imagine zoning for such loop, namely for Westport home owners to drop off and pick up family members traveling to and from the city at the center of the world.
So when I see a building, a massive apartment complex, with a facade that is made up to look like different buildings, cheezy looking fake attempts at hiding the actual nature of the building, trying to make it look like many buildings— 4 things come to mind : 1 this is the cheapest way to cram as many possible units into the drop off loop. 2 it’s one big building designed as many, kind a cheap deception in the design aesthetic. 3 taking away parking and adding 174 living units add density to where we least need it.4 there is no vision from planning and zoning— this could be a major mistake
This is what I find ugly more than just the cheezy design aesthetic but the whole vision is a complete diversion from the history and actual usage of our transportation hub.
However, I have an open mind and embrace change, I would live there…