MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Mealy, Marshall Montana, Louise Evans, Sue Larsen, Tim Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Patricia Porter
ALTERNATES PRESENT:Doug Manion sat until Sue Larsen’s arrival, Roger Cottle
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Public Hearing
Chairman Mealy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Larsen read the Legal Notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
1. Appl 99-85P, Horseshoe Lane, zone change from RR zone to A-30 zone for approximately 21.9 acres located on the southeasterly side of Windsorville Rd.
Peter DeMallie, Principal with Design Professionals, Inc. and Bob Urso, representative for Horseshoe Lane LLC, were present. Mr. DeMallie reviewed the application. The applicant is proposing a subdivision of 18 luxury single family homes situated on ¾ acre lots on a 22-acre parcel. All homes will have 120-ft. frontage and a of minimum 30,000 sq. ft. lot size. The main subdivision street will connect to Windsorville Rd. with an interconnection to Gordon Drive.
At present no sanitary sewers are located in this area and sewers would be required on lots of ¾ acre or less. The applicant is proposing extending sewers up into the subdivision and is requesting the town split the cost with them. WPCA and town staff are checking on the feasibility of this. A zone change to an A-30 zone is dependent on sewers. Public water is located in the area.
Mr. DeMallie briefly reviewed his client’s proposal:
A fee in lieu of open space
Storm water detention to be located on a residential lot instead of on town owned land, making the homeowner responsible for its maintenance. The town would still have an easement for storm water access.
A sewer extension into the subdivision with Horseshoe Lane LLC being wholly responsible for it.
A zone change request to A-30. An alternative proposal is not to extend the sewers into the subdivision and have septic and public water for each house lot. Mr. DeMallie commented that many of the residents on June, Wendy and Gordon have replaced their leaching fields. Mr. DeMallie doesn’t feel this is the best plan for the subdivision.
M. Banach reviewed the Planning Department report:
Request for a zone change from RR to A-30 on 21.9 acres on the eastside of Windsorville Road north of June Drive. The subject property is bounded by A-20 zone on the south and by RR zone on the north and across Windsorville Road to the west. The golf course is immediately to the east.
Under current zoning, the applicant can construct a conventional subdivision with minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet and 175 feet minimum frontage. If the zone change to A-30 is granted, minimum lot size for a conventional subdivision would be 30,000 square feet, with 120 feet minimum frontage required.
There are no regulated wetlands shown on the site on the Town’s wetlands map, however there is a watercourse traversing the property on the eastern portion of this site. The site slopes steeply in the vicinity of the watercourse, so that eastern portion of the site is effectively unbuildable. The southwest part of the stream is within the 100-year floodplain.
There is one vacant property to the north of this site, and an existing A-20 residential subdivision to the south. There are two roads that were constructed with temporary cul-de-sacs in the late 50’s/early 60’s to provide future access to the subject property. Ideally, whether the zone change is granted or not, the road system for these vacant properties should be discussed during this application to ensure appropriate interconnections with existing roadways and minimal new street intersections with Windsorville Road.
A zone change request is the time to discuss external impacts that could be created as a result of the zone change, such as increased traffic, school children, impacts on infrastructure and the environment. Once a property is zoned, property owners are entitled to subdivide the property in accordance with the requirements for that zone. All other things being equal, a zone change from RR to A-30 could be expected to generate approximately twenty-five percent more lots. For the subject application, it could mean an increase of 4 or 5 lots.
Public water is available. Sewers are located approximately 1900 feet from the site. The Supt. of Pollution Control has indicated that the WPCA is not interested in cost sharing with the applicant for the extension of sewers along Windsorville Road at this time. WPCA does entertain applications for developer’s agreements in similar circumstances where a developer extends a sewer that existing properties then connect to. Under a developer’s agreement, the developer receives a portion of the connection fee each time an existing property owner connects to the new sewer. Commissioners should be aware that if the zone is changed to A-30 and sewers are not extended, the applicant could submit a request for subdivision with septic systems.
Traffic impacts from 4 or 5 lots would be minimal. Single family houses generate an average of ten trips per day; a trip is a one-way drive to or from a destination. For example, a visit to the grocery store and back home constitutes two trips. Windsorville Road is classified as a minor collector road. Minor collectors are generally expected to carry between 1000 and 3000 vehicle trips per day.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development depicts this property as Residential, and indicates that the majority of future residential growth should occur within this category. The Plan notes that as development occurs, interior streets are to be actively encouraged, with limited curb cuts along existing collector or arterial streets. CGS Section 8-3a requires that, if the Commission approves this zone change, it shall state on the record its findings on consistency with the plan of development of the municipality.
Notification of this application was sent to CRCOG because it is within 500 feet of the Town of East Windsor.
There are no engineering department comments regarding this application.
Public participation:
Karl Reichle, 151 Windsorville Rd., stated he was opposed to the zone change. Mr. Reichle indicated that he and his neighbors do not wish to pay to have sewers extended when their septic systems are operating very well. He submitted a petition of residents living in the area who are opposed to the project. Exhibit 1.
Deborah Fine, 113 Gordon Dr., concerns focused on traffic in the area, in particular, on Gordon Dr. Ms. Fine stated that Gordon Dr. is in very poor shape, is of substandard width and would not be able to accommodate the additional traffic. Gordon Dr. also floods on a consistent basis and the sight line turning left onto Griffin Rd. is poor.
Harvey Fine, no address given, stated he would like to see Gordon Dr. kept closed.
Marie Masioveccchio, no address given, questioned if she would be responsible for a sewer fee if the proposed sewers go in?
Banach answered yes.
The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
Montana inquired as to how the town would ensure that the sewers are installed after the subdivision is completed.
Mr. DeMallie replied that his client has committed to installing sewers in the A-30 zone and would uphold this commitment.
Is there a right of way along the rear of the property?
Mr. DeMallie replied yes.
Will any trees be left on the lots?
Mr. DeMallie answered yes. His client believes that trees being left on the lots would be a valuable asset.
Will the proposed detention basin help with the existing flooding on Windsorville Rd.?
Bob Arsenault responded no it wouldn’t help with the existing flooding problem but it would help with future water run off.
Commissioner McCann inquired how the installation of sewers will be paid for?
Mr. DeMallie answered that those fees would be determined at a later date. His client didn’t want to influence the commission at this point and time. The developer would pay for the installation and design of the sewers and then over a period of years (to be determined) the developer would receive a portion (50%) of the money he initially put into having the sewers installed back from the town.
No negotiations have taken place as of this point although it has been presented to Fred Shaw, of WPCA. Mr. DeMallie answered this money would come from sewer connection fees.
Would your client consider withdrawing the application until the zone is changed?
Mr. DeMallie replied that his client believes something will happen in the near future.
Mr. Urso, representative for Horsehshoe Lane LLC, commented that there are time constraints that need to be considered.
The applicant has stated that this plan cannot go forward without the proposed zone change; could you please clarify?
Mr. DeMallie clarified that his client has time constraints to consider, so they are proceeding with the requested zone change. His client is concerned that if the sewers are not approved these luxury homes will be harder to market.
Cottle asked how many lots on Windsorville Rd. the sewers would service if they were installed?
Mr. DeMallie answered approximately 15 – 16 homes.
Evans asked if tobacco was ever grown at this site and, if so, would this affect the quality of well water in the subdivision?
Mr. DeMallie answered that tobacco has been grown in this area in the past.
Wentzell suggested holding the public hearing open so questions regarding water and sewers can be addressed.
Larsen asked Banach if it was possible to have staff look at Gordon Dr. to see if is up to town standards.
Banach answered yes.
McCann asked if the design for today’s septic systems has been changed so they last longer?
Mr. DeMallie answered yes.
Mealy inquired to the status of agreement between the developer and the town. He also suggested the applicant might want to have an agreement with the town in place before proceeding with the application.
Mr. DeMallie responded that his client is receptive to continuing the hearing.
Motion to continue the public hearing until 3/21/00 was made by Commissioner Wentzell and seconded by Commissioner Montana. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Commissioner Larsen arrived at 7:45 p.m.
Appl 99-76P, Buckland Corporate Center, resubdivision and site plan of development for office buildings, approximately 50,000+ sq. ft. at 250 and 280 Buckland Rd., Buckland Gateway Zone
Mr. DeMallie, Principal with Design Professionals, Inc., presented the application. This hearing was continued from 1/11/00.
Bob Arsenault, Engineer with Design Professionals, Inc., stated that as requested the detention basin appearance has been improved. The design is more curvilinear with additional plantings to be incorporated.
WPCA has requested that the sewer line be installed on the easterly side of Buckland Rd. Easements will be needed to accomplish this.
There was no public participation.
The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
Wentzell asked if the future sidewalk construction is shown on the current plans?
Mr. DeMallie answered that sheet no. 6 of the plans does show sidewalks.
Evans asked if the money to be used for sidewalks would be put into an escrow account?
Mr. DeMallie replied that there will be a bond set for site improvements to cover this.
Why does the detention basin need to be located at the front of the site?
Bob Arsenault answered because this is the low end of the site.
Is there an agreement worked out with the adjacent church as far as parking is concerned?
The Project Engineer for Design Professionals, Inc., stated that the church is receptive to an agreement for parking, but an agreement has not yet been put in writing.
Mr. DeMallie interjected that this project is tenant driven and will not go forward unless the applicant has tenants.
Cottle inquired as to the time frame for the project?
Mr. DeMallie answered that he couldn’t commit to a time frame at this time.
Porter stated that the abutting neighbors are concerned with the third lot. This is a steep lot and would it need to be excavated?
Mr. DeMallie answered excavating isn’t necessarily the only way; there are different ways to develop a site i.e. regrading.
McCann voiced his concern about the appearance of the building, in particular, the long uninterrupted design.
Mr. DeMallie replied that the design has gone before the ADRC and only one member was not in support of the building design.
The architect stated that this is the design the applicant requested.
What kind of traffic flow would go through the parking area to the north?
Peter DeMallie replied there are approximately 100 added parking spaces to accommodate.
Commissioner Montana inquired if the building glass was reflective?
The architect answered he would be using a non-reflective tinted glass on the building.
Could the sidewalk be moved in from Buckland Rd.?
Mr. DeMallie answered that a sidewalk design is in place that meets the standards set forth by the town, and they would like to stay with this.
Motion to continue the public hearing until 3/21/00 was made by Commissioner Porter and seconded by Commissioner Montana. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 99-87P, Northern Hills resubdivision for 5 lots on approximately 35 acres located on the easterly side of Buckland Rd. at the Manchester town line, Buckland Gateway zone
Jay Giles, Vice President with Fuss & O’Neill, was in attendance to answer questions from the commission. This is a resubdivision of 2 lots into a 5-lot parcel. No improvements are planned at this time. Two of the lots, where the Lowes and Target stores are under construction, were previously approved. Water and sewers are available.
There are no plans for lots 2, 3 or 5 at this time but the two will probably be designed as one lot. Lot 4 will house the Target store.
Banach reviewed the Planning Department report:
Request for site plan approval to construct a 165,000 square foot retail shopping facility on property located on the east side of Buckland Road at the Manchester town line, Gateway Development zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%; with a 5% bonus for consolidated parcels & 5% for no parking between the building & Buckland Road. Proposed building height is 21 feet; 30 feet allowed. Front yard setback is 65 feet, for the purpose of providing large open spaces between the front of buildings and Buckland Road.
The Gateway zone includes a statement of purpose and general concepts that must be met for any use to be a permitted use in this zone. The purpose of the Gateway zone is “to create an attractive entrance to South Windsor. This zone should foster high-quality development…with careful attention to the appearance of buildings and surrounding site, parking that is located to the rear of buildings to the maximum extent possible, and professional landscaping.” The general concepts include:
Sites developed under this zone are intended to be carefully planned, both within the site’s own boundaries and in relation to surrounding properties and the entire zone;
Smaller sites are encouraged to combine with other sites in order to provide larger-scale sites and developments. This site has combined two existing single-family house lots into the larger parcel, thus earning a 5% impervious coverage bonus;
Access management will be required on all sites, in order to reduce the number of driveway cuts onto Buckland Road and mitigate the deterioration of traffic flow generally caused by driveways on arterial streets; and,
On sites where stormwater detention will be accomplished via surface detention basins, provisions shall be made for shared detention basins to the maximum extent feasible.
The plans include a new traffic light at the main entrance on Buckland Road, with some road widening on Buckland to accommodate a left-turn lane. State Traffic Commission approval is required. During the Access Management study, it was determined that optimal signal spacing would be achieved by the addition of no more than two new signals on Buckland Road between Deming Street and the Manchester town line. The proposed signal is located within one of those optimal areas identified in the access management report.
All business must be done within completely enclosed buildings. The retail facility includes a garden center. The Commission recently approved an amendment that allows garden centers without a roof, within ventilated walls that are similar in appearance to the rest of the building. The applicant should be aware that outdoor storage of any type is prohibited; this includes items typically associated with garden centers such as plants, bags of topsoil, fertilizer, etc.
South Windsor requires 4.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of building area, with 562 spaces required and 514 spaces provided. The applicant is requesting a waiver from South Windsor for reduction of 48 spaces.
There are a total of 670 parking spaces proposed for the whole site. Manchester requires 4 spaces per thousand, compared to our 4.5 spaces per thousand. The average number of spaces provided is 4.1 spaces per thousand.
Loading docks are located on the northwest corner of the building, at the rear of the garden center closest to Buckland Road. The Gateway zone regulations require that loading docks generally not be visible from Buckland Road. The site topography plus the screening planting shown on the landscaping plan should render the loading docks not visible. The applicant should be aware that the determination of the adequacy of the screen will be determined after actual planting. If the loading docks are visible through the screening, additional planting will need to be added. Staff recommend that this be incorporated into approval modifications if this application is approved.
The Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed the application on March 6 and again on March 18. The Committee was generally satisfied with the building and landscaping, but notes that without the presence of the site landscape architect, it was difficult to adequately review proposed landscaping. ADRC has asked for reduction in the site lighting down to not more than 3-4 footcandles average. In response to requests from ADRC, the applicant is now proposing light poles reduced from 37 feet to 25 feet for the driveway around the back of the building alongside Buckland Road; and reduced wattage from 1000 watts to 400 watts on those poles. The remainder of the light poles are proposed to be 37 feet high.
Landscaping is required for 10% of the interior parking lot, and perimeter landscaping does not count toward this interior landscaping requirement. We note that, on the plan that staff reviewed, virtually all of the “interior” landscaping is on the perimeter of the parking bays, leaving very large expanses of non-landscaped interior parking lots. This does not meet the intention of the regulation, which is to break up the “sea of pavement” often associated with large developments. Also, several of the landscaped islands have light poles in them, thus precluding trees. The Commission may want to request that parking lot landscaping be revisited.
The retaining wall on Buckland Road will be terraced, with landscaping on each terrace to soften the appearance of the wall. The applicant has proposed versa-lok walls (similar to the wall in front of Pier One, not Home Depot). In keeping with the zoning requirement that the landscaping theme from Wapping Center be incorporated into sites, the applicant has suggested that the lowest section of wall along Buckland Road could be fieldstone. The plans also note that a color option for the versa-lok walls is to match the area red rock. If the Commission would like to see the fieldstone lower wall and red rock color on the upper walls, this should be an approval condition. On each of the terraces, a variety of shrubs, including vibernium, winterberry and blue rug juniper, are proposed. Staff recommend that the majority of the blue rug junipers
be replaced with taller, upright shrubs to soften the vertical walls. Other cascading plants over the walls, such as English ivy and creeping phlox, would improve the aesthetics. Since the back of the building faces Buckland Road, screening at the top of the terraced walls would be appropriate.
Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Parks and Grounds, and Jeff Folger, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer, offer the following suggestions regarding site landscaping: See Karl Reichel’s memo and Jeff Folger’s memo of
Signage in the Gateway Zone is limited to one building sign with one square foot of signage allowed for each linear foot of building frontage; and one 24-square-foot freestanding sign not more than ten feet tall. Staff will need to see sign details to determine conformance with regulations.
A portion of the east boundary of the site abuts a residential zone. There will be a 75-foot buffer required when that portion of the site is developed. That area is currently entirely wooded. It might be advantageous for the applicant to begin establishing the required buffer at this early stage so that when development is proposed for the remainder of site, the buffer is already established.
There are regulated wetlands on site, so wetlands approval is required. IWA/CC heard this application at a March 17 public hearing, which has been continued to April 7.
South Windsor Police Department has reviewed the plans. Sgt. Field expressed concern regarding the sight line to the south due to the grade, curve, signs, and poles. He also requested that, in addition to the required sidewalks on Buckland Road, there be some consideration to providing internal walkways on the site. Sgt. Field also wants to review actual data regarding traffic speeds on Buckland Road, as SWPD’s experience is that 85th percentile traffic speeds may be higher than 45 mph.
Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required, as well as Manchester Sewer Authority approval.
The Gateway zone regulations specifically require access management techniques, including such items as shared access between two adjacent lots; consolidated access for contiguous lots; alternative access via side streets; and frontage roads. The Lowes plan as submitted does appear to meet the criteria. At this stage of development there is no proximity to the property boundary with potential interconnection to another site We note that there is likely to be additional development on this site in the future. At the time of additional development that borders other Gateway Zone property, the applicant may need to address site interconnection.
This application is also pending in the Town of Manchester. Manchester has provided review comments, which we will submit, for the record. Some of the highlights include:
The driveway into the site across from the main entrance to the Mall has a sharp curve into the site with no tangent (straight) section first, resulting in effect in an “S” curve into the site. Manchester recommends that this driveway be redesigned to provide a tangent section.
Due to the deterioration of traffic flow that Manchester observes will result at the main mall entrance signal light, Manchester staff will recommend to their PZC and to the State Traffic Commission that only this parcel be allowed to exit onto Buckland Hills Drive at this intersection (i.e., no additional properties interconnected from within South Windsor).
The plans propose a right-in/right-out only driveway onto Buckland Hills Drive across from Home Depot. Manchester staff does not see the value of the right-in only entrance drive since westbound traffic must pass the major, signalized entrance to the site before arriving at the right-in only. South Windsor staff agree with this assessment. Manchester staff will seek to eliminate the right-in driveway; and may require that the right-out can only remain if a median is extended up Buckland Hills Drive to preclude Home Depot exiting traffic from taking a left turn onto Buckland Hills Drive
.
Planning Department staff would like the public hearing to remain open in order to receive and review revised plans. At the continued public hearing we may recommend additional approval modifications.
Public participation:
Bill Krawski, 130 Buckland Rd., voiced concern about a 1ft. strip between lots 1 and 4 and access management to the site.
The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Montana stated she would rather not see lots connected by a 1ft. strip and questioned the legality of such.
A discussion ensued on the 1ft. strip between parcels, how they are connected and access management to this site.
Is there another alternative to connecting the two pieces of lot 5?
Mr. Giles replied no.
Could the Commission designate the smaller part of the separated lot 5 as non-buildable? Is the lot as proposed legal?
Banach replied that she would discuss this with the town attorney and respond back to the commission.
Commissioner Larsen asked if we must approve this application the way it is proposed?
Banach answered that the commission has the ability to approve, modify and approve, or deny the application and then approve it.
Commissioner Montana commented that it would be nice to see the whole parcel at once instead of being presented with each piece as they go along.
Are there any wetlands on lot 5?
Mr. Giles responded, no.
Motion to continue the public hearing until 3/21/00 was made by Commissioner Montana and seconded by Commissioner Larsen. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
REGULAR MEETING
ITEM: MISCELLANEOUS
1. Extend Meeting
Motion to extend the meeting past 10 p.m. was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Porter. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Minutes
The Commission approved by consensus the PZC Minutes of 12/14/99, 1/11/00 and 1/18/00.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 was made by Commissioner Evans and
Seconded by Commissioner Porter. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deborah Lynn Wark
Recording Secretary
| 
