West Haven planning commission recommends economic development plan with neighborhood-commercial frontage option

The West Haven Planning Commission voted at its meeting to recommend adoption of an Economic Development Strategic Plan that identifies areas for potential neighborhood commercial growth along 2550 South while preserving adjacent residential areas — with one substantive change requested by commissioners.

Planning staff presented two interpretation maps showing alternative mixes of neighborhood commercial and residential around the 2550 S / 2700 W intersection and emphasized that the EDSP is an advisory strategy, not a zoning change. Staff said the blue area on the map signals opportunity for future economic development and that the maps "do not necessarily dictate the future land use of the underlying parcels but may serve as a guide for land use plans and eventual zoning of the properties," according to Stephen, the staff presenter.

The hearing drew multiple nearby residents and property owners. Cindy Combi (2877 W, 2550 S) told the commission that Jordan Valley Service District staff told her they currently have no plans to sell additional property beyond parcels already surplused for a road widening, and she urged the commission to avoid heavy commercial uses at the busy corner, saying such development could make an already dangerous intersection worse: "somebody would get killed." Ross Baldwin, participating online as a trustee of the Baldwin estate, said the trustees support a careful plan that allows neighborhood commercial to grow the city's sales-tax base while not forcing land owners to sell. "It doesn't change the zoning. This is just putting a plan together and it therefore gives the city something to sell," he said.

After public comment and extended discussion over whether the maps designate too much commercial land, a commissioner moved to recommend adoption of the EDSP with Interpretation Two as the preferred option; that initial motion failed for lack of a second. The commission then approved an amended motion to recommend adoption of the EDSP with the following changes: (1) change the northeast/front quarter of the Cap/Baldwin parcel from residential to a combined neighborhood-commercial and/or residential designation (i.e., allow the front-quarter at the intersection to be considered for neighborhood commercial); and (2) add the staff'recommended "massing and location" guidance language to the plan. The motion was seconded and passed; multiple commissioners voted "I" in favor and at least one "nay" was recorded.

Staff made several clarifications during the meeting: Jordan Valley has not formally surplused parcels but, based on recent discussions, may have roughly 20 acres that could be considered for other uses and has been in dialogue with the city about potential agreements. Stephen also explained that the EDSP itself is not a zoning action and that actual zoning changes would follow separate processes; he noted that the city's neighborhood-commercial C1 zone includes maximum building-height standards (generally 35 feet, but 25 feet where adjacent to residential) and use controls intended to keep commercial activity localized and limited in intensity.

Why it matters: commissioners must balance longstanding residents' concerns about traffic, wetlands and views with the city's stated interest in diversifying its tax base through neighborhood-scale commercial uses that local residents might use. Several speakers stressed infrastructure concerns (parking and road capacity during community events), wetlands permitting issues on the Baldwin property, and the multi-decade horizon for development, with staff saying some changes could play out over a 10'15-year period.

Next steps: the recommended EDSP, as amended by the commission, will be forwarded to the City Council as the planning commission's recommendation. Staff said the EDSP will inform but not automatically change the general plan or zoning maps; formal general-plan and rezoning processes will follow as needed. The commission proceeded to review proposed R3 zoning changes and a draft landscape ordinance later in the meeting.

Notes: The public-hearing rules cited in the session were read under the resolution referenced in the transcript as "resolution 28-2021" (transcript also includes an inconsistent citation "2821").