Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Midpoint Development Retail Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers propose about 4,600 sq. ft. of retail in Midpoint project during Architectural Design Review Committee review
Summary
At an informal review before the Town of Farmington Architectural Design Review Committee, the Midpoint Development team proposed converting the lower-level garages in Building 1 into roughly 4,600 square feet of street‑facing retail to meet mixed‑use intent; the committee pressed them on parking, visibility and phasing with adjacent parcels.
Developers for the Midpoint Development District told the Town of FarmingtonArchitectural Design Review Committee they are considering converting the lower floor of Building 1 from garage bays into roughly 4,600 square feet of commercial space to provide visible street‑front retail.
"We may be interested in taking the portion of the lower floor of our Building Number 1 and turning that into about 4,600 square feet of commercial space," said Phil Doyle, the land planner and landscape architect for the project, describing a corner retail unit and larger storefront fenestration to replace garage doors.
The committee and the project team framed the change as a refinement to previously approved plans (site plan, special permit and master plan). Shannon Rutherford, the town planner, told the group that whether the reduced retail footprint satisfies the Midpoint zones mixed‑use requirement will be decided by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will weigh the proposal against the towns Plan of Conservation and Development and the regulation language that requires a "live‑work‑play" component.
The presentation included updated elevations and a plan flip that moves the retail to the street side. Sal Talamo, the project architect, said elevations would remove garage doors and add larger retail fenestration so the building would read as storefront at street level while maintaining the approved massing on upper floors.
Committee members pressed the developers on the economic viability and visibility of retail located at the end of an internal drive. "If the other project goes, would you be able to turn this back?" one member asked, exploring whether the ground floor could be converted back to garages if retail did not lease. Newton Brainard, a development executive on the team, said beginning residential construction could "unlock" adjacent parcels and increase the market viability of nearby commercial uses: "Once we invest $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 one of two things happen ... it unlocks the entire thing," he said.
Parking, stormwater and utilities were key operational concerns. Rutherford noted the towns standard allows deferring up to 25% of required parking if future spaces are shown on the plan and that, if the town directs installation, the developer typically must add required stalls within six months. She also described utility stubs and two interconnected stormwater basins that will involve grading on adjacent property and said the developers contracts include bonding/reimbursement mechanisms to allow the team to construct trail connections and be reimbursed.
Developers said coordination with neighboring property owners (referred to in the meeting as the owners of the adjacent parcel) will be necessary for access, easements and to place any deferred parking. The team said a traffic consultant (SLR) will review driveway adequacy and that, until neighboring construction occurs, the project may have a single access with a temporary binder course and a temporary gate to control construction traffic.
Several committee members recommended increasing visible retail along Route 4 by adding retail to Building 3 or changing landscaping to improve visibility, while others warned that excess, hard‑to‑see retail risks long vacancies. The team suggested options such as keeping storefronts that could revert to garages if market conditions require; Rutherford cautioned unit counts and land‑area calculations already constrain adding units.
The developers also reviewed the Macallum building program (ground‑floor restaurant/retail, second‑floor studio/office and upper storage/office), circulation, and site details including easements and cross‑access agreements. The project team asked the ADRC for informal feedback on materials and possible design preferences prior to formal application to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The meeting concluded with administrative business: the committee approved minutes from a prior meeting (a member was recorded abstaining because of a potential product conflict) and the group completed its organization meeting, confirming the chair and vice‑chair for the committee.
Votes at a glance: - Chair (nomination): Tim Eagles nominated and approved by voice vote (nomination recorded in the meeting). - Vice chair (nomination): Jack Kemper nominated and approved by voice vote. - Approval of minutes: Motion made and seconded; vote recorded as passing with at least one abstention noted (Jack Kemper).
What happens next: the project team will prepare a formal application and return to Planning and Zoning for official review; the ADRC offered informal design feedback on storefronts, landscaping and the proposed ventilation/mechanical refinements so those items can be addressed in the application package.
