Commission hears technical presentation on 89‑unit 55+ project at 74 Todd Road; public hearing continued

The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission heard a detailed site and architectural presentation for application 25‑01, a proposed 89‑unit, 55‑and‑older multifamily Planned Development District (PDD) at 74 Todd Road, and voted to continue the public hearing to allow further review of engineering comments.

Attorney Ben Proto, representing J and L Enterprises, described the project history and said the parcel is roughly 1.774 acres and is currently zoned IA‑3. Engineer James (Jim) Swift walked the commission through grading, stormwater conveyance to a culvert under Bridgeport Avenue, and retaining‑wall concepts needed to accommodate the steep grades. Swift said the design includes a parking garage under the building with 52 garage spaces and 62 surface spaces (about 1.25 spaces per one‑bedroom unit, with two spaces for two‑bedroom units). He described a proposed 12.5‑foot precast retaining wall and terraced site sections to manage grade changes and stormwater.

Architect Patrick Rose presented floor plans and elevations for the four‑story residential building over one level of parking. The proposal would include mostly one‑bedroom units (61 one‑bedrooms, 12 studios, 12 one‑bedroom plus den and four two‑bedrooms), a ground‑floor clubhouse and fitness room, and a limited number of balconies on the top floor. The team said the garage is two‑way and the site will include an internal pedestrian connection to the adjacent school property, which the applicant said shares common ownership for access and circulation.

Commissioners asked technical questions about retaining‑wall height, ventilation and ventilation requirements for the parking structure, trash collection and site access. The city engineer’s letter posted to the record raised the absence of detailed storm drainage design and other engineering specifics; the applicant said the design is at the conceptual level and that a detailed engineered stormwater plan will be submitted after further review. Commissioner questions also focused on parking adequacy given the senior population and whether additional accessible spaces should be added.

At the conclusion of the presentation and public commentary, the commission voted 6‑0 to continue the public hearing to a future meeting, citing the need to allow staff to review the city engineer’s comments and for the applicant to provide more detailed engineering documents.

The commission did not take a final vote on land‑use approvals at the April 9 meeting; the hearing remains open pending submittal of detailed stormwater calculations, retaining‑wall design and other engineering materials.