By John H. Palmer
WESTPORT — The Planning and Zoning Commission, in one of what will almost certainly be many review sessions of the proposed Hamlet development in Saugatuck, met Monday night to primarily discuss the project’s traffic and parking issues.
The 4.5-hour Zoom meeting drew some 65 people, which in addition to P&Z members, consisted of the public and other town boards, who heard from representatives of consultants that completed traffic, parking and environmental remediation peer reviews of the plan by ROAN Development Ventures.
As it stands, the “Hamlet at Saugatuck” will consist of a multi-use development of 11 buildings, including retail, hotel and residential buildings between the Saugatuck River, Charles Street, Franklin Street and Railroad Place.
The developer also has agreed to provide 14 off-site affordable housing units under the plan.
Seven properties are currently under contract to be purchased if the application is approved: 601, 606 and 609 Riverside Ave., 2 and 16 Railroad Place, and 91 and 96 Franklin St. Not included at this point are: 21 Charles St., 40 Railroad Place, 36 Railroad Place and 611 Riverside Ave. Underground parking garages with 258 spaces are planned.
While largely a work session meant for P&Z members to get more information from consultants hired to scrutinize and analyze the developer’s site plans, the meeting also drew a very spirited public comment debate toward the end of the meeting.
“Saugatuck needs a facelift, and I say let’s make it a nice project,” said Jimmy Izzo, a District 3 member of the Representative Town Meeting.
Some 18 members of the P&Z, RTM and representatives of the developers, plus a handful of citizens, toured the properties during a field trip Monday to inspect the site and buildings.
The development has been going through intense scrutiny since the commission got a first look at the developer’s plans on March 11. The developers have promised to work with zoning officials and citizens to create what they say will be a “welcoming, lively, sustainable and vibrant place along the Saugatuck Marina where people want to live, work, visit and explore.”
The Architectural Review Board met March 18 to review planned aesthetics of the project, and so far, a good deal of discussion among town officials revolves around a huge neon sign with the word “Saugatuck” that would face the riverfront, as well as traffic concerns in an already congested area near the train station that frequently sees traffic jams during busy rush hours.
New traffic lights and updated traffic patterns on local surface roads are being planned to mitigate traffic concerns.
Traffic, parking top commission concerns
Sharat Kalluri, a senior traffic engineer with CDM Smith traffic consultants, went over a traffic study of 11 intersections surrounding the development.
“The concern is the queuing effect that would result as there is congestion in the intersection of Charles and Franklin streets,” he said, adding that without proper streetlight timing at some of the busier intersections, there will tend to be a “rippling” effect, especially at busy times such as rush hour when cars are leaving driveways and parking lots in the area as railroad commuter traffic tries to leave the area.
At the same time, residents of the Hamlet would be coming home from work and entering the two planned garages, while visitors to the restaurants, public areas and event spaces would also be flooding the area looking for parking.
It’s estimated that at peak levels between 5 and 6 p.m. weekdays and any time on weekends, the garages could see around 280 cars entering and 234 cars leaving.
Without further commitment to work with the state Department of Transportation to better time traffic signals, he said traffic could become a nightmare and pedestrian crossings could be hazardous, but that the applicants are working to mitigate the traffic effects using strategic lane improvements including dedicated turning lanes on Riverside Avenue, as well as Franklin and Charles Streets.
Hamlet planners have apparently presented updated plans that include narrowing areas of Riverside Avenue by up to 25 percent to create a more pedestrian-friendly and intimate feel, while at the same time calming traffic density and speed through the area.
Stony Point Road resident Rick Smilow said he thinks that “is being done for the new residents of the village and not for the current residents.”
He added that he’s concerned about local roads becoming choked with slow-moving and large delivery vehicles. “I would think it would mean that passage through there would be slower. I can picture bigger trucks and vans on a two-way street that is narrower,” he said.
Parking difficulty, ending free on-street parking debated
Much of the evening’s discussion centered around parking concerns surrounding the project. Parking is already a major problem in Westport, especially downtown, and town officials are hesitant to create another parking nightmare in an area of town already congested with commuter traffic and visitors to the area’s many shops and restaurants.
Parking plans in the Hamlet call for most of the spaces in the garages to be used by tenants of the residential units. Parking “stacker” machines that physically lift cars up and away from traffic areas will be used to make best use of limited spaces. Valets will be on hand 24/7 to help monitor and keep traffic flowing as needed.
Signs will direct overflow traffic into railroad lots that, theoretically, will be empty by the time they are needed and provide plenty of parking for visitors to the area.
“I can assure you that during peak times those lots are not full and there is plenty of parking to be utilized,” according to Eric Bernheim, the developers’ lawyer.
But many commission members expressed doubts about the feasibility of that system, especially because there will be a queuing system that will have up to five cars at a time waiting for a parking space while others are trying to retrieve their cars.
“Demand will be intense, but we expect people to avail themselves of the free parking in the railroad lots, and relieve the pressure,” said Will Rhodin, senior parking consultant for Walker Consultants, the firm designing a parking plan for the development.
Not everyone was buying it. Several commission members that live in the Saugatuck area not only had concerns about the traffic and availability of parking, but also said they didn’t agree with a plan to do away with on-street free parking along Railroad Place that visitors to that area have come to rely on.
“People don’t walk to Saugatuck; they drive there, and they enjoy and take advantage of free parking space,” said commissioner Michael Calise. “We are talking a substantial number of spaces literally on top of establishments that exist, and you’re taking them away. It’s going to force people to walk longer, or go into the parking garages and pay for parking.”
Commissioner Patrizia Zucaro agreed, and said that taking away free parking in the area will actually be a detriment to the Hamlet.
“Just because we want people to walk more doesn’t mean they will,” she said. “I think if you don’t have sufficient parking they won’t come. You’re taking away parking that is designated to the public and then forcing them to park in the railroad parking lots.”
Town officials will continue to debate the Hamlet plan, and the Planning and Zoning Commission tentatively plans the first public hearing on the development next Monday night, March 31.
John Palmer is editor of the Westport Journal, and has covered community news in Fairfield County and Massachusetts for over 30 years. He can be contacted at jpalmer@westportjournal.com.
I was so confused by many aspects of last nights zoom call.
It was a lot of me, me, me and gimme, gimme, gimme.
Almost like we are being done a favor here.
As a Saugatuck resident, we are being done no favors.
This is a land grab imho, coupled with a railroad parking grab.
It was great to see several of the commissioners weigh in on parking,
The removal of parking, the attempt to lease parking( a big no no under state contract) the general message from the developer was the parking is not all utilized… well that would have been even more relevant back in Covid days BUT no one knows when required parking by commuters will be back at overwhelming demand.
It is to be assumed this goes without saying.
Back in 2022/23 during the passing of this text ammendment, there were many conversations and heated ones about parking.
One of the biggest ones in the record was about “100”
Parking spots “supposedly”
Available for the hamlet to use at the train station.
I myself wrote a letter about this to the commissioners.
I had heard that the hamlet was being promised/assured/offered these parking spots.
I challenged it and in fact myself and the person I got this information from were labeled liars at a public meeting.
We the public and the rtm, were ASSURED that no railroad parking was being given to the hamlet.
And of course that stance was correct since they are not commuters and not entitled to it.
YET
just last night attorney bernheim on several occasions referred to the text ammendment stating it was agreed with the promise of that railroad parking !
YES- the very same railroad parking I brought up 2 years ago and the promise I’d heard and then I was called a liar.
I was told there was NO promise of commuter parking for this development.
So when the vote was taken 2 years ago with publicly recorded assurances that there was no allowance for railroad parking included in it, was that vote taken in good faith ?
Now it seems perhaps NOT , and it doesn’t take a genius to know what that means. It means we were misled and on purpose.
The railroad parking is for commuters… it’s not for a private development. Especially one which wants to over build and under park with the expectation they can use CTDOT parking as their private lot.
I say to the developers build in parking as any normal development has to.
This development is NOT a TOD, despite their best attempts to show it is.
It cannot expect to rely on public commuter parking.
Once they sell/rent condos those people will then be able to ( with a couple utility bills etc) put their name on the waitlist for a parking permit.
Until then they cannot apply for parking permits.
And they can wait, like the rest of us did during the 2000’s, sometimes for 4 years to get a permit.
It cannot be assumed more parking will not be required for additional commuters especially with all the growth in Norwalk and surrounding towns. They are all entitled to use our railroad and get permits.
The co-ordination of traffic lights is going to do NOTHING to fix the sheer volume of traffic in this area.
No doubt they will attempt to justify having longer time where it suits them for their line into the parking garage only to enormously and adversely affect residents trying to get home.
The line is just going to end up someone else’s line.. and a 3 minute wait at a traffic light for someone else.
It’s not like we can make cars disappear or go poof.
So there’s no alleviating of traffic going on when adding 600 plus more cars all looking for parking at peak time.
It is going to be a s*** show.
I believe a vast majority of westporters do NOT want this project.
Do not see it as feasible and do not support it.
I’m sure the hundreds of investors and their buddies and the many rtm’ers who have been in their ear for 5 YEARS, yes long before we heard the word hamlet the rtm was being “worked”/lobbied with meetings going on behind the public’s back.
Many investors are known to us.. many not, probably too embarrassed to admit they are going to destroy saugatuck for a few dollars.
But whatever it is, there ARE rules… and while this town tends to turn a blind eye to the RULES, this time is not one of those times.
There’s too much at stake that will be irreversible.
The public meetings for this text ammendment change A-S-S-U-R-E-D us, and, under , at times heated debate too, that no railroad parking was being offered.
So if that text ammendment is to withstand legal scrutiny/challenge then there can be no railroad parking included.
As for narrower roads and wider pavements, if we were to make our roads narrower it should be with a view to a nice bicycle lane on both sides of the road and the wider pavements ( they want for their project) can come from this developments land as pointed out so perfectly by Commissioner Calise, with other commissioners agreeing.
I do not understand the FAR ! At 1000 sf to 1 parking spot?
A 3,000 sf restaurant would get 3 parking spots but seat 200 customers plus 30 staff !
Why do we not know how many restaurants and retail they are planning ?
There are 40 spaces dedicated to non residential all on the ground floor.
How does that work when the 19 existing restaurants and several retail stores, need all the parking in the area and they were there first.
Surely their existence gets taken into account ?
It just seems like all sense has gone out the window on this project and most especially the allowances for required parking are totally out of whack.
This project needs 1500-2000 parking spots for customers and staff.
Again this was debated at publicly recorded meetings when petitioners sought to overturn the text ammendment.
It’s all public record.
Hello John,
This “Hamlet” project is the most destructive, and I would say demonic, project for our way of life. When I moved here in the 60’s, I was only one years old. But I remember every moment like it was yesterday; graduating from Burr Farms, everything, and now, for the train station area to be taken over, boggles the mind.
250 added parking spots? Am I reading that clearly? OMG this is an outrage. We need to call in the feds to see if federal zoning laws have been broken.
Let me give example:
Suppose you buy a building or invest your hard earned money in a building in Westport. You play by the rules. Then, they change the rules…WTF upholding zoning rules is sacred.
The town is basically screwing you over.
I see this more and more — downtown — but this … this is criminally parallel.
My friends, the town can buy the land and create a green waterfront park. This would attract more money to Wetspot than the ugly buildings.
One must think outside the box. If you have open green space it will be beautiful. If you have a small city it will be ugly.
And another thing. One must start with a use case
There is no use case for saugatuck where these buildings fit. There is a use case for payoffs where these buildings work but not as our transpo hub.
This is not an upgrade, this is a take over
I am writing to follow up and expound upon the comments attributed to me in the article above, regarding The Westport P&Z Commission’s public meeting the night of March 24th.
To begin with, I’m not against develop in Saugatuck or progress. But I object to the size, density, parking issues and traffic ramifications of Roan Development’s current application. The proposed plan is larger and more dense, than the conceptual plan they offered two years ago, that served as a basis for the zoning change made at their request. A role model for “what would be better” is easy to identify. That is the Gault development further up Riverside Avenue.
The Roan team made a statement in the March 24th meeting that “we are going to create a village – it will be a massive improvement.” Well, village is a misnomer. Seems to me and others that The Hamlet is like a small, new city. They plan stacked car park racks, and an underground garage with concierge parking. Is that what you find in a village? They talk as if they are doing “their town” a favor. But the reality is, that only one of the Roan principals lives in Westport. Let’s be clear – this project’s core is to make profit from real estate development in Westport. Profit is fine, but the P&Z and RTM needs to weigh a developer’s profit vs. the “cost of consequences” for the rest of Westport.
It would be easier to appreciate – and understand – Roan’s plans if they had built a quality, scale model of the development. That is what other developers like Vornado, Related and Brookfield do to market and create excitement, and buy-in for large, new developments. Roan has had more than two years to do this, but they have skipped this step. It leads one to conclude that they are scared to produce a real model, because they are scared of what the public reaction would be.
Personally, I think Westport’s P&Z should ask for such a model, let the public see it, and not vote on the building permit application until after that important process.
I also object to the characterization of the site of the current Roan plans as an “eyesore”, or “uninviting” or an “ugly gateway to Westport”. Would it win design or urban planning awards? – of course not. But I grew up in Westport, raised my family here, and have lived in that particular area of town for ten years. I estimate I have driven back and forth on Riverside Avenue and under the two railroad underpasses there 3000 times. Never once have I thought to myself…the quality of life for me and my neighbors would be better if the Saugatuck area south of I-95 looked nicer, or, had 11 new buildings and 150,000 square feet of development.
To move from the macro to the micro, let’s talk about Riverside Avenue. Roan wants to reduce the width of that major access street by 25% from 32.5 feet, to 25.5 feet, in the segment between Railroad Place and Charles Street. Their representative from Landtech said this was being done to make that section more “pedestrian friendly”.
But I’d point out that the main pedestrians there will be guests in their newly built hotel, and residents of their newly built luxury condos. Meanwhile, for the several thousand Westport residents who live south of the Metro north tracks (Saugatuck Shores, Hiawatha Lane, Stony Point, Route 136), or use the railroad parking lot there, a narrowing of Riverside Avenue will clearly slow down the time it takes to pass thru that area. Westport is clearly a commuter town and narrowing Riverside Avenue will make commuting harder. The solution to this for Roan is quite simple- don’t ask our town to REDUCE the width of Riverside Avenue. Instead, to quote P&Z Commission members Michael Calise and Patrizia Zucaro, “You have enough land to shrink your project to make sidewalks, don’t take public land to do that”.
Regards,
Rick Smilow, Westport
PS – In the forthcoming P&Z meetings, there will eventually be more time for public questions and comments. It’s important that the meeting leader ask every speaker, whether or not they have a financial interest in the Hamlet project.
Thank you, Mr. Smilow. Yes: People with a financial interest in the Scamlet should say as much before they speak.
It might also save time if everyone stipulated from the get-go that we ALL understand Saugatuck needs a refresh. It also (even now) needs more parking — we were there dining out there in the dead of last winter and struggled to find a spot.
Given the need for a Saugatuck refresh as well as Westport’s long history of failed hotels, I would encourage both the planners and our P&Z commissioners to rethink the placement of the three luxury hotels.
The developer’s aerial view of the three buildings places them near the bank of the Saugatuck River facing East. Presumably the plan is to give guests a river view. However an expanded aerial photo reveals that guests looking out from all east facing balconies, terraces, and windows will enjoy a view dominated by Westport’s quarter mile large Sewage Plant framed by I-95 and the tracks of the New Haven railroad. The effluent from the sewage plant empties into the river where The Hamlet sites its marina.
Needless to say, these luxury hotels will not likely be able to deliver breathtaking views of “the timeless beauty and rich history of Connecticut’s coastal lifestyle.” (https://thehamletatsaugatuck.com/residences.)
Because the developers seem to be building in the hotel’s failure, I urge both them and Planning and Zoning to guarantee this project will not eventually devolve into what the zoning change sold to the town a few years ago promised to protect against.