Four hours into the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, a group of men in suits huddled in a circle outside of the Constitution Plaza conference room, the solemn exit quite different from the swagger with which they entered the building earlier Tuesday evening.

The infamous “done deal” did not get rubber-stamped by the PZC.

City Council can override Planning & Zoning’s absence of a favorable vote on the transfer of 1214 Main Street and 271-273 Windsor Street to DoNo Hartford, LLC; the lease of various parcels to DoNo Hartford, LLC and acceptance of 150 Windsor Street in lieu of taxes from DoNo Hartford, LLC; and the sublease of 1214 Main Street and 271-273 Windsor Street to Connecticut Double Play, LLC.

 

A Stadium Possible in Downtown

This vote came after one that passed — an amendment to a text amendment which would allow for a stadium to be constructed in B-1 zones, which is most of Downtown. Currently, stadiums are allowed in P and I-2 zones.

The text amendment was not meant to approve the specific stadium plan that has been public since June, but to make it possible for a stadium to be built.

Valerio Giadone of the PZC said the definition of a stadium was “quite broad.”

The definition given: “a place or venue for outdoor sports, concerts, or other events and consists of a field or stage either partly or completely surrounded by a structure designed to allow spectators to stand or sit and view the event. A stadium may be open air or covered by either a fixed or retractable roof.”

In deciding whether or not this was an appropriate move, Sara Bronin, Chair of the PZC, asked to look at how a stadium fits with the plans the City has already adopted, like One City, One Plan, Hartford’s Plan of Conservation and Development.

Giadone said that a stadium would not operate 24/7, and asked what would happen when games were not taking place. He was concerned that the space would become a “dead zone.” When Thomas Deller, the Director of Development Services, said that “right now we have dead zones at night,” referring to parking lots, Bronin reminded him that the public hearing was over and that Deller’s role was only to take questions at this stage. Giadone did not get his question answered.

Besides a stadium not adding to the 24/7 vibrancy called upon in One City, One Plan, Giadone suggested that it “would become an impediment” to bringing people into the area, an obstacle between Downtown and north neighborhoods. “Creating a barrier” goes against the plan’s goal of improving pedestrian connections.

Allowing a stadium would allow for the creation of a “super block,” something that Bronin said people complain about constantly because these spaces are “imposing.” Blatt said that Wrigley Field and Fenway Park — both Major League Baseball stadiums in large cities — fit into the “urban fabric” well.

After some back and forth, this text amendment passed through with all six present voting in favor.

But…A Red Light on Current Stadium Proposal

As the commission began to discuss the actions specific for Downtown North before an unusually large crowd, it could not be ignored that there was some divide between commissioners who believe that plans should be followed and commissioners who think plans are suggestions. Still, most had questions.

Blatt asked if it would be possible to get the other components of the Downtown North re-development without the stadium. Khara Dodds, the Planning Division Director, said that “it is in tandem.”

The Thomas Hooker Brewing Company, one of the potential tenants in the Downtown North re-development, had been considering a move to the former Hartford Times building. That was before the Rock Cats’ announcement was made.

As the PZC asked questions of City employees, few others were definitively answered.

It had been decided that walkable meant a five-minute walk from venue to parking lot, but, Blatt said, the rendering provided to the commission showed what looked like a ten-minute walk.

That would be looked at later, the City said.

Bronin asked if there would be a cap on the rent.

Deller said this would be discussed later.

The commission asked how the proposal could be reconciled when the City does not yet own all parcels. They asked if the land would be sold to private entities. Would there be land use restrictions placed on such a sale? Shouldn’t that have come to the PZC as an ordinance first?

Nobody seemed to know the status on the last question, but maybe, they thought, the City Council’s attorney would know.

Were any resolutions being publicly heard part of the package?

Another issue the PZC had was that the Downtown North proposal had been through several amendments already.

What happens if the stadium prevents other development?

The City indicated that the “general notion” was that the land would “revert to the City,” but Lisa Silvestri said she has not “seen all the documents.”

Bronin wanted to know what the Redevelopment Agency has said about the plan. According to Deller, there has been no formal comment from them yet.

The PZC wanted to know what the time frame would be for the different pieces of the re-development. Deller said the first phase — the stadium — would need to be completed in early 2016. This deadline is based on the needs of the baseball team, as the Rock Cats’ lease in New Britain expires after the 2015 season ends.

The second phase would wrap up in November 2016. After that, deadlines were nebulous. Deller was unsure when the third phase would begin, the following was expected to start in November 2018, and the last would break ground in Spring 2020.

Though no public comment was allowed for the text amendment, the floor was opened for those having anything to say on the Downtown North re-development. Each person* who spoke was against this for reasons ranging from the absence of affordable housing that could promote gentrification, to the breakneck speed of the plan, to a conflict of interest. Alyssa Peterson called this “falsely derived” federally-funded plan to be in conflict with the secret competing plan that Deller and Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee Borges participated in. A written piece of testimony submitted by Denise Best was read: she said she believes the development will “segregate” the north neighborhoods from Downtown.

More Discussion

After several months of this ongoing conversation some might wonder what is left to say. Blatt said the “stadium is something that was dropped on us” but that Hartford needs “to be able to seize the opportunity.”

Sandra Bobowski, also on the PZC, shared an anecdote about when Blue Back Square was mired in controversy during its development. She thought that the area could be developed by individuals, resulting in a “hodge podge,” or, there could be one plan. “We want a cohesive plan to develop this area,” she said.

Ultimately, there were more questions than support, even from those who said they would personally enjoy a stadium. Bronin described the whole process as “slapdash.” Anthony Koos from the PZC wondered how the City could lease land and sell land when there is no clear plan yet.

That all public comment was against the measure did not go unnoticed.

The vote was 4-2, with Blatt and Bobowski opposing the rejection of the staff report.

The City Council’s Operations, Management, Budget, & Legislative Affairs Committee will meet on September 25 at 4p.m. to discuss the authorization for the City to transfer two parcels of land to DoNo Hartford LLC for construction of a Ballpark and approval for the City to lease the Ballpark back from DoNo Hartford, among other agenda items. This meeting will take place in Council Chambers. An additional public hearing on Downtown North is expected to be scheduled for early October.

—

*I asked a question during public comment hoping for clarification of Deller’s idea of what should go in Downtown North, as a stadium seemed to contradict an earlier message from him that had called for dense, mixed use development. This question was neither for nor against anything except eradicating confusion. Though there were individuals present who favored this development, none opted to exercise their right to speak during public comment.