MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Mealy, Marshall Montana, Louise Evans, Sue Larsen, Tim Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Patricia Porter
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Doug Manion, Roger Cottle
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer
Public Hearing
Chairman Mealy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and Commissioner Evans read the Legal Notice as published in the Journal Inquirer. Commissioner Manion sat until Commissioner McCann’s arrival at 7:42 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
Peter DeMallie, Principal with Design Professionals, presented the application. This is a 12-acre site on the easterly side of Buckland Rd. located opposite land owned by the Catholic Archdiocese. The applicant is proposing a $6 million project of two contemporary style office buildings on two lots on Buckland Road, and a third lot behind the two front lots. The two buildings will be 3 stories and be set back 150 ft. There is no site development planned on Lot 3 as yet.
A waiver is needed for the 200 parking spaces planned. Northeast and southeast sections of the parking lot will house dumpsters. A common entrance drive to the site will serve both buildings. An additional drop off drive, which will serve visitors and couriers, is also planned. The northeast and southeast sections of the parking will house dumpsters. Sidewalks are required on Buckland Rd. and will be incorporated. The applicant suggested that sidewalks should not be constructed until such time as development is proposed on adjacent sites, or until the current site approval (if granted) nears expiration, to ensure sidewalks that serve all sites.
Bob Arsenault, Engineer with Design Professionals, reviewed the engineering portion of the proposed application. The lack of a sanitary sewer line on Buckland Rd. will need to be resolved before the application can go forward. A sewer extension to service the western portion of this site needs to be incorporated. Mr. Arsenault suggested that WPCA would need to resolve the issue of where sewer lines should be run on this section of Buckland Rd.
A traffic signal is planned and has concept approval from the Department of Transportation. The applicant is planning on widening this section of road from 52 ft. to 64 ft. A traffic island for the transition of traffic through the area will be incorporated. An additional right of way is also needed and will be provided along the applicant’s frontage. However, the applicant does not have control of frontage beyond their own property.
Public water is available to the site. The site slopes from east to west and drains the same. A 24” culvert drains down to the west. A storm water detention basin will be needed along the northern portion of the site to keep the culvert from being overtaxed. Two items need to be addressed: sedimentation control and pollutant control. The Town Engineer’s comments have been or are in the process of being addressed.
Rosemary Aldridge, for Planimetrics, Avon, CT., reviewed the proposed landscaping plans. The eastern portion has wetland plantings, and they would like to provide a habitat to enhance these plantings. Proposed shrubbery consists of elderberry, blueberry, winterberry, horsechestnuts and a variety of ornamental plantings.
A 75 ft. buffer along the eastern property line will be provided and enhanced with eastern white pines. Proposed lighting is full cut off fixtures.
The architect from Bianoco, Giloitto and Weston, Middletown, reviewed building design. A sleek, contemporary design is proposed. The buildings are glass with a green ribbon flowing around each building. The buildings will literally reflect the surroundings through the mirror glass windows.
Mr. DeMallie reviewed traffic issues to the site. A traffic signal will be needed at the entrance to this site. The Department of Transportation has preliminarily approved the traffic signal, but no permit has been issued yet. The sight line to the north is extensive. Sight line to the south is 530ft. and does meet roadway standards. Level of service would be “A” during both a.m. and p.m. hours. This project does need a traffic signal in place to go forward.
Peter concluded his presentation by stating that he believes this project is what the PZC would like to see in the Buckland Gateway Zone. This is a high quality project which will set a precedent for other developers to follow.
M. Banach reviewed the Planning Department report:
Request for resubdivision to create three lots and site plan approval to construct two office buildings at 250 and 280 Buckland Road, Gateway Development zone.
Minimum lot size in the Gateway zone is three acres; minimum width is 200 feet. The parcel area is about 12 acres, to be divided into two 3-acre lots and one 5.5-acre lot. Each lot has just over 200 feet of frontage. The building area on Lot 3 is at the base of and into the ridgeline at the eastern side of the site.
Access to all three lots is proposed via a common driveway on Lot 3, with access easements to Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 has the words “future access road” midway up the lot, for a future interconnection to property to the south. We are aware that the applicant is also diligently working with the property owner to the north to allow future access. In order to satisfy the access management requirements of the Gateway Zone regulations, we would like to see the access rights both north and south more definitively included on the subdivision plan that will be filed in the Town Clerk’s office. A general easement area and note such as that used on Lowe’s subdivision plan would satisfy this requirement without committing Buckland Corporate Center to exact locations at this time.
The site plan application requests approval for a 30,000 square foot office building on Lot 1 and a 25,000 square foot office building on Lot 2. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%. Proposed impervious coverage on Lot 1 is 35%; 29% proposed on Lot 2. Proposed building height is 3 stories, about 36 feet. The maximum height allowed is 2 stories/30 feet at a 65-foot front yard setback, or maximum 4 stories, 60 feet with a 125-foot front yard setback. Both buildings are set back. at least 125 feet.
The Purpose section of the Gateway Zone notes that 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. Access management will be an integral part of site planning, with interior service drives and limited curb cuts to facilitate traffic flow and safety….”
The common drive will be serviced by a new traffic signal, which has received concept approval from the State Traffic Commission. The request for STC approval of the traffic light at this location was submitted by the Town last summer, since the proposed traffic light conformed to the Access Management Plan and furthers our access management goals. The selected location for the traffic light will also serve the Catholic Cemeteries property on the west side of Buckland Road. State Traffic Commission has indicated that an STC Certificate is not required.
For the purposes of calculating required parking, the applicant has combined the floor area of the two buildings. This results in a lesser parking requirement of 4 spaces per thousand square feet of building, vs. 4.5 spaces per thousand square feet if calculated separately. We don’t agree with the combining of the two buildings, since it is highly unlikely that someone would park in one lot and cross the boulevard driveway to access the other building. We do note that the proposal to combine parking with the Messiah Lutheran Church next door would be extremely beneficial to both sites, and is exactly the type of shared access and parking envisioned by the access management program. This arrangement would also improve the parking ratio. At this time, a waiver to the number of spaces is needed. (39 space waiver if calculated at 4.5 per
thousand; 14 space waiver if calculated at 4 per thousand.)
Landscaping is required for 10% of the interior of a parking lot. The parking lots as designed have no interior, thus no interior landscaping requirement. Landscaping is shown in the islands at the corners of the buildings.
Public water and sewer are provided. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
There are no loading docks proposed. Each building has a dumpster on a concrete pad with an 8’ stockade fence enclosure.
The Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed the application on January 6 and generally felt the buildings are well designed and would be an attractive addition to the Buckland Gateway zone. One member, however, had concerns that the elevations facing Buckland Road have long expanses of wall that should be broken up.
The Committee provided the following input:
pedestrian access throughout the site should be addressed;
dumpster area should be evaluated for size adequacy and the stockade fence screening upgraded to a more aesthetic fencing;
details of the mechanical screening to be provided back to ADRC;,
ADRC recommends that the signage be internally lit, with light letters on an opaque background; and,
sign location must be shown on the plans.
The Site Appearance Requirements note that the Wapping Center street trees and landscaping theme shall generally be incorporated into landscaping plans. I do see some London plane trees, but there does not appear to be much else incorporated from the Wapping Center theme. The Commission might want to suggest incorporating small entrance drive stone walls, cherry trees, zelkova trees, Scarlet Meidiland roses and/or daylilies, all of which are strong themes of Wapping Center.
A 75-foot buffer is required along the rear of Lot 3 where it abuts the residential zone. Lot 3 building area is roughly adjacent to the Sele Drive area. The area is currently wooded; but a walk through the site shows that there is little mature tree growth along the property perimeter. There are some mature hemlocks, but they appear to be infested with adelgid and are therefore unreliable as future buffer trees. I recommend that Commissioners arrange a site walk to view this site prior to the continuation of the public hearing.
Also, in the Gateway zone, buffers may be incorporated into required yard setbacks, provided that the applicant demonstrates that the buffer provided meets all performance standards set forth for buffers in Section 10.4. We suggest at this time that the yards be shown outside the buffer on the subdivision and site plans. At such time as development is proposed on Lot 3, and the applicant can demonstrate that the buffer meets all performance standards, then the yards could be moved into the buffer if appropriate.
There are large areas of regulated wetlands on this site, and a fairly extensive wetlands crossing is needed to access the proposed Lot 3. The application is pending with IWA/CC and a public hearing was held on January 5.
Staff had a concern regarding the appearance of the proposed detention basin located between Buckland Road and the parking lot on Lot 2. The basin is long and narrow, thus rather ditch-shaped. The basin bottom is likely to be soggy due to high ground water, thus preventing maintenance in a neatly mowed manner. Staff’s concern is that a ditch-like detention basin could appear weedy and be a trash collector over time, thus detracting from the appearance of the proposed Class A office buildings.
Sidewalks on Buckland Road frontage are required and will need to be shown on plans. The applicant might also want to consider internal walkways connecting the sites.
The site plan shows a future accessway to the south across Lot 1. The accessway would be constructed at such time as the southerly site is developed. Similarly, there needs to be some sort of acknowledgment on the site plan that there will be site interconnection between Lot 2 and the property to the north.
Signage design has not been provided as yet. Signage is subject to approval of the Commission at such time as it is designed.
Approval conditions:
Access is restricted to one driveway cut on Buckland Road for all three lots
Revise data table to show correct maximum building height; show on plot plan the required 125’ setback for the 3-story building
Provide a construction protection plan for existing trees to remain
J. Iazzetta reviewed the two Engineering reports of 12/1/99 and 1/10/00 respectively:
We have reviewed the drawings dated November 5, 1999 and traffic analysis for the proposed Buckland Corporate Center Site Plan/Resubdivision and have the following comments:
Sheet 3 – Resubdivision Plot Plan
Monuments are required along the proposed streetline. Coordinates should be provided.
A “DROW in favor of the Town of South Windsor” is shown.
Is this existing or proposed.
Easement must be identified completely with distances, bearings and a distance from an established point.
An iron pin is required at intersection of N 80 08’ 07” W and S 09 35’ 15” W.
Note “Original Lot Lines” shown with arrows pointing to proposed lines.
Sheet 4 – Resubdivision Topographic Plan
The symbol for regulated area should be changed as it looks like an existing 10-foot contour line.
Wetland line should be made darker; it is difficult to see.
The note “N/F Mark D. and Gloria B. Ruben” and apparent property line is shown on Lot 1, however these are not shown on the Resubdivision Plot Plan. Please have applicant’s consultant clarify.
Sheet 5 – Plot Plan
Several SNET poles are indicated to be moved. However they are not shown.
Why does the entrance driveway center island block left turns into Lot #2? If this was the intent then the island should be made longer (toward Buckland) to avoid vehicles trying to cut in front of the island.
A “Future Access Road” is shown on Lot #1. There should also be a “Future Access Road” shown across Lots 3 and 2 to provide for access to properties to the north.
“Access easement in favor of Lot 1 and 2” is indicated. However it is not identified as to distances and bearings.
Part of the proposed streetline is not identified with distance and bearing.
It is apparent that an easement for the detention basin and rights to drain are required between lots. The detention basin is on Lots 2 and 3 and all lots drain into the basin.
Sidewalks are not shown along the frontage.
It appears that turning lanes are proposed, however none are noted (see comments for Sheet 8).
The proposed traffic light is not indicated
Sheet 6 – Grading & Utilities Plan
Symbol for regulated area should be changed, as it looks the same as a proposed contour line.
Wetland line should be shown darker.
Legend does not indicate what spot grades are existing or are proposed.
It appears that the storm pipe between EW3 and CB13 may have a clearance problem under the “Future Access Road”. Please have applicant address.
The pipe between the detention basin outlet structure and existing CB in Buckland is not identified.
CB12 information is placed over property line information and neither can be read clearly.
The detention outlet structure should be moved north to provide for a longer run from EW #1.
Roof leaders are not addressed.
Test pit or boring data is required for this site especially in the area of the detention basin as this area is very wet.
Intersection sight distance not indicated.
Catch basins should be placed on both side of driveways at intersection of drive with Buckland Road
Sheet 7 – Improvement Location Map
“Taking Line” is shown in several places. Is this the existing streetline that was taken as part of Buckland Road reconstruction?
“Proposed Easement for Sewer” is shown – however the easement is not identified as to ownership, distance and bearings.
Existing drainage should be shown darker.
Buildings and trees are shown in Buckland Road. These do not exist.
Why is the sanitary sewer run on the west side of Buckland? This requires crossing the road twice – once at Deming and once at the site driveway.
Sheet 8 – Improvement Location Map
This drawing is titled “New Turning Lane”, however there is no information as to lengths, widths, etc. – only some lines. There is no indication as to widening of Buckland Road nor is the extent identified. If the road is to be widened beyond the frontage of Lots 1, 2 and 3, either additional rights of way are to be obtained or a snow shelf easement is required. Also the traffic study does not address any turning lane.
Storm drainage information should not be on this sheet.
Much information on the site is shown upside down.
A note “9” clay storm drain” is shown on a building to the north of this side. What is this in reference to?
Sheet 9 – Sewer Profile Plan
Profile indicates that a drop inlet is proposed at MH #3. This should be an outside drop and a detail provided.
Sheet 14 – Details
Typical roadway section shown is for a town road and does not match the information on the plan sheets.
Permanent pavement and temporary pavement patch details do not match the pavement section in Buckland Road. Subbase is a minimum of 12” with a minimum of 4” of bituminous concrete.
Sheet L1
Trees are shown planted on the detention basin slopes. This is not acceptable.
It is recommended that the applicant revise these drawings and submit them with sufficient time for a review prior to the public hearing.
On December 27, 1999 at our request, Messrs. Peter DeMallie, Bob Arsenault, and Rich Adams of Design Professionals met with members of the Town staff (Denise Whitford, Fred Shaw, Jeff Folger, you and I) to discuss some of the concerns we had about the proposed Buckland Corporate Center applications. The concerns discussed were:
The width and length of the proposed widening of Buckland Road were not clearly indicated or defined on the plans.
The proposed left turn lane on Buckland Road was not clearly defined on the plans. Also the need for a left turn lane was not indicated in the traffic report.
The Town right of way for the proposed widening was not addressed the entire length of the widening. There must be sufficient right of way for a snow shelf and sidewalk (i.e. a minimum of 13 feet from edge of pavement).
Location of the sanitary sewer main. The plans show this on the west side of Buckland while the proposed site is on the east side and at an elevation that would not allow service for some properties to the south of the proposed site.
The size, location and need for the detention basin.
Provision of access to the curb cut and traffic light on Buckland from properties to the north of the site.
Wetland impact issues.
My December 1, 1999 memo.
At the completion of the meeting most of these issues were left unresolved. Town staff asked that these issues be resolved and addressed in revised drawings before the scheduled public hearing on January 11, 2000. It was indicated by Design Professionals that they would try. To date these have not been resolved.
Mr. Bruce Hillson’s letter of January 3, 2000 indicated that the plans were revised during the week of January 3, 2000 to address these issues, however we have not received any revised drawings. In a verbal conversation with Mr. DeMallie on January 6, 2000, Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning was advised that we would not be receiving revised drawings before the January 11, 2000 meeting.
We understand that this January 11, 2000 Public Hearing will be continued. It is our opinion that these outstanding issues should be resolved prior to reconvening the public hearing of this application as they are of significant importance to the design of any infrastructure improvements on Buckland and involves future usage of properties to the south of this site.
Public participation:
A letter from the Messiah Evangelical Lutheran Church, 300 Buckland Rd., was submitted. Exhibit 1.
Joel Gordon, 101 Windy Hill Drive, and President of the South Windsor Chamber of Commerce, commented he is pleased with the proposed development in the Buckland Gateway zone.
Vicki Margiott, 32 Sele Dr., has concerns with the buildings being placed so near the wetlands and any building on lot 3.
The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Montana inquired if anything else could be done to address drainage besides putting a linear detention basin in the front of the site?
Bob Arsenault answered that detention is required due to the limitations of the existing culvert and the drainage out onto the Catholic Cemeteries property across the street. High groundwater precludes underground detention. However, they will explore ways to enhance the basin’s appearance.
Commissioner Cottle asked the depth of the detention basin?
Bob Arsenault responded the depth would be 6ft. with the maximum water level 4ft. deep during a storm.
Commissioner Cottle suggested that widening the detention basin from the
35ft. x 250ft. dimensions might enhance its appearance.
Mr. Arsenault responded this size was used to save trees located to the south of the basin, but they would consider changing if asked.
Commissioner Cottle asked why sanitary sewers are crisscrossed across Buckland Rd.?
Mr. Arsenault responded that only one easement is needed on the west side of Buckland Rd., but the east side needs numerous easements since there are more property owners, hence the crisscross.
Commissioner Cottle inquired as to the height of the proposed lighting?
Rosemary Aldridge responded 18ft. light poles would be used in the parking area and 12ft. light poles would be installed near drop off areas.
Commissioner Cottle asked how many more traffic signals are planned for Buckland Rd.?
Banach commented that this should be the last traffic signal on Buckland Rd., if all goes in accordance with the access management plan.
Commissioner Larsen asked if she could obtain a copy of ADRC’s comments for this application?
Banach answered yes.
Commissioner Evans inquired what the length of the buildings facing Buckland Rd. are?
Mr. DeMallie answered the buildings range from 110ft. to 145ft. and 70ft. wide. The applicant’s goal is to build a very upscale, modern office center and these dimensions were deliberate to that end. The architect for the project informed the commissioners that the building is composed of brick and glass and will have a highly reflective quality.
Commissioner Evans asked if the air conditioners would be screened?
DeMallie answered yes.
Commissioner Evans also asked if the driveway would need to be extended down through lot 3?
Mr. DeMallie replied yes.
Commissioner Porter inquired where the proposed wooded area is located?
Rosemary Aldridge answered the wooded area will be located to the east of lots 1 and 2.
Commissioner Wentzell suggested that sidewalks be shown on the plans even if they are not installed until a later date.
Commissioner Manion inquired how the mutual drive was determined, and what the future traffic flow would be?
Mr. DeMallie responded the driveway was located here in order to serve both this site and the Catholic Cemeteries property across Buckland Road. The traffic engineer has determined the driveway will have low traffic volume for the two office buildings, but other areas such as the Catholic Cemeteries property in the future may have a higher volume.
Commissioner Manion asked how many lanes the driveway would have?
DeMallie answered one incoming, two exiting.
Commissioner McCann wondered if the intersection to the site would adequately serve traffic flow?
DeMallie answered that he has met with both the town staff and the traffic engineer, and it was agreed that future traffic could adequately be handled.
Commissioner McCann wanted to know if there was any attempt to keep the architectural design of the buildings in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Is the contemporary design appropriate for this area?
The architect answered that the building design accurately reflects the look the applicant wants to project. The design is intended to be unique and special for South Windsor.
Do the 9ft. parking meet the requirements for the Buckland Gateway zone?
Banach answered yes.
Commissioner Wentzell suggested the applicant might want to come up with a plan showing the view of the buildings from Buckland Rd. with the landscaping being incorporated. He believes concerns may be alleviated if people could actually see what the site would look like from this view.
Commissioner Montana inquired as to sewer depth on Buckland Rd.
Mr. Arsenault answered he wasn’t sure of the exact depth, but did state that there is a maximum depth beyond which sewers cannot be installed, and at this location on Buckland Road we are just about at that depth.
Motion to continue the public hearing until February 22, 2000 was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Larsen. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
The public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
ITEM: Miscellaneous
Motion to extend the meeting past 10 p.m. was made by Commissioner Montana and seconded by Commissioner McCann. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: NEW BUSINESS
1. Appl 99-07P, Lowes, sign review
Chairman Mealy read a letter from Lowes, dated 1/5/00, into the record. Exhibit 2.
M. Banach requested interpretation of signage calculations. The proposed Lowe’s sign appears to use part of its logo outside the calculated area of their sign; and sign regulations prohibit this. The commissioner agreed with the interpretation. The sign design was acceptable to the Commission.
Appl 99-58P, Northern Hills II, (Target), review of architectural elevations and site plan
Jay Giles, of Fuss & O’Neill, informed the commission that items 12, 14, 21, 25, 28 and 29 of the approval letter dated 12/3/99 have been addressed.
Mike Hilly and Jim Connor were present to address item 19 of the 12/3/99 approval letter. Mr. Connor submitted proposed wording for item 19 that he requested be used. Exhibit 3.
Motion to approve the applicant’s revision to the wording in condition #19 of the 12/3/99 approval letter, as amended by Commissioner Manion and subject to approval by the Town Attorney was made by Commissioner McCann and seconded by Commissioner Montana. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Motion to approve the final plans since the applicant has met all conditions on the 12/3/99, approval letter was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner McCann.
The motion passed, and the vote was as follows: 6 -1 Mealy, McCann, Porter, Evans, Wentzell and Montana – aye; Larsen – nay
ITEM: Extensions
1. Deming Hill Estates, Section 3
Motion to approve request for second 90-day extension to file mylars was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Montana. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Bonds
Appl 96-41P, Cutler Ridge Subdivision Phase I and Phase II
Motion to reduce the subdivision bond for Phase I from $126,000 to $70,000 and for Phase II from $172,000 to $55,000 was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Montana. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 94-19P, Summer Meadow Subdivision
Motion to reduce the subdivision bond from $83,000 to $36,000 maintenance bond was made by Commissioner Montana and seconded by Commissioner Porter. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Letter of Credit
Appl 96-09P, Fairfield Homes Letter of Credit
Motion to initiate the calling of the Letter of Credit was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Wentzell. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Committee Updates
1. Buckland Gateway
Commissioner Larsen stated this committee has been meeting weekly, but will not meet again until after the January 22, 2000, bus trip Woodbury Commons, N.Y. A committee report is scheduled for the January 25 PZC meeting.
2. Redevelopment Agency
Commissioner Montana stated the only meeting scheduled had been cancelled.
3. Impervious Coverage and Setbacks
Commissioner Evans informed the commission that the small items have been addressed, but they are still working on the larger items.
4. Internal walkways re Town Center
Chairman Mealy stated the internal walkways connecting Town Center with adjacent facilities is in the planning stages and moving forward.
ITEM: Miscellaneous
1. Appl 99-47P, Town of South Windsor Vehicle Wash - discussion of proposed changes to site plan for the truck washing facility
Motion to approve modifications to the original plans with the only changes being to the building location and the landscaping plans was made by Commissioner Evans
and seconded by Commissioner Porter. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Commissioner McCann abstained.
Appoint of CRCOG representative and alternate
The commissioner agreed by consensus to appoint Commissioner Larsen as CRCOG representative and Commissioner McCann as the CRCOG alternate.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. was made by Commissioner McCann and seconded by Commissioner Porter. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deborah Lynn Wark
Recording Secretary
| 
