MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Mealy, Marshall Montana arrived at 7:45 p.m., Louise Evans, Tim Wentzell, Kevin
McCann, Sue Larsen, Patricia Porter
ALTERNATES PRESENT:Roger Cottle, Patrick Kennedy, Doug Manion
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. Commissioner Evans read the Legal Notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
Cottle sat until Montana’s arrival. Manion arrived at 7:40 p.m.
Appl 00-55P, Carla’s Pasta, Resubdivision and site plan for a 46,150 sq. ft. manufacturing building, located at the southerly end of Talbot Lane (formerly Connecticut Avenue off Governor’s Highway) easterly of Nutmeg Rd. South, I zone
This application was postponed.
Appl 00-53P, Watson Farm, Special Exception to Article 4.1.11 and site plan for 72 unit adult housing northerly side of Deming St. and easterly of Foster St., RR zone
Ed Lassman, counsel for Metro Realty, referenced the brochure and traffic report the commission received. See file.
Jeff Sager, for Metro Realty, read letter into the record, which overviewed Metro’s proposal and intent. Exhibit 1. Mr. Sager informed the commission that Metro Realty has won honors for their adult housing design in several area towns.
Peter DeMallie, Principal with Design Professionals, Inc., reviewed the application. The site is located in the RR zone next to the Porter Share senior residence complex. The proposal is for seniors 62 years of age and older. The proposal does meet all requirements of the regulations. The South Windsor Housing Authority has endorsed the project. Mr. DeMallie informed the commission that revised plans were submitted in November, which addressed staff comments regarding moving the driveway further away from Porter Share.
Four buildings are proposed and will be situated in a circular design. Parking for the entire complex consists of 90 parking spaces which allows for one per unit. A 1500 sq. ft. community center, which is required by CHFA, is planned for the center of the complex. A small parking area with 5 spaces will be located adjacent to it. The community room is located 42 ft. from the property line adjacent to Porters Share.
Five and one half acres of the site will be purchased from the South Windsor Housing Authority and another two acres will be purchased from the Smiths.
This is a net revenue generated project for the town, which will provide affordable housing to the elderly. No children will be allowed, hence the burden for town services is less.
The applicant’s design is modeled after the Whispering Pines project located in Avon. Each building will have two floors; each floor will house nine units. The buildings are set into the slopes such that the upper 9 units enter at grade, and the lower 9 units enter at grade on the opposite side of the building. Two thirds of the units are two bedroom with the remaining third being one bedroom, with rents in the $600-$700 range for one and two bedroom respectively. The Housing Authority currently has a 3-year waiting list for housing of this type.
Landscaping will provide for a 25 ft. buffer along the easterly and northerly property lines, which should shield residents from other residents. Mr. DeMallie noted that the buffer for the abutting Porters Share is ineffective, and the applicant has offered to supplement Porters Share buffer with more plantings. There are also several large specimen trees along the north property boundary; these will be protected by use of a retaining wall along the northern section of the driveway. Impervious coverage is at 35%.
There is a deadline of January 2001 for CHFA application and Mr. DeMallie asked for the commissioner’s consideration with respect to the strict timeframe the applicant is working under. If the project is approved, construction will start in the fall of 2001. The application will be heard by the IWA/CC on December 6, 2000, and the applicant is requesting they act on that date.
Karen Isherwood, Project Engineer for Design Professionals, Inc., presented the engineering aspects of the plan. She explained this is an 8.78 acre parcel, wooded at the rear and front portions of the site. Four buildings enclosing 18 units each for a total of 72 units are planned. Public water and sewers are available as well as all utilities.
Bituminous concrete sidewalks are planned to loop around the site. Eleven catch basins and a one detention basin will take care of runoff and provide for a 2-100 year storm.
Ray Jefferson, Ray Jefferson Landscape Architect, Chester, CT., reviewed the proposed landscaping. Various trees and shrubs will be incorporated into the planting scheme: red maple, evergreens including rhododendron, mountain laurel, andromeda, other deciduous trees, and perennials. Pear trees will line the access drive. The existing tree line in the buffer zone will be supplemented with spruce and white pine trees. All dumpsters will be screened by arborvitaes.
Lighting will be full cutoff and located on concrete poles that look like wood.
Peter Dunn, Principal with Metro Realty, explained Metro wanted the complex to have a Victorian flair to it. New England arches, gables, wide corner boards, mantles, peaks and shutters were incorporated into the design. The units will all have white picket fences with perennials adjacent to them. The units are designed to accommodate the elderly. The units will all have self-cleaning ovens, garbage disposal, washer, dryers, extra large windows and 9 ft. ceilings, bathroom sinks that are higher, and other senior-specific amenities. All are handicapped-accessible.
Mark Vertucci, Traffic Consultant with Fuss & O’Neill, reviewed traffic at the site. Mr. Vertucci commented that developments of this type generally are very low traffic generators. Traffic counters have been used to count motorists during peak hours. Approximately 15 cars are expected to exit the drive during the morning peak hour and approximately 16 vehicles are expected to exit during the afternoon peak hour. The level of service at the site drive is “C” during peak hours. Grading needs to be done to improve the sight line. Mr. Vertucci stated that this project poses no significant negative impacts to the location or surrounding vicinity.
M. Banach reviewed the Planning Department report:
1. Request for Special Exception to Article 4.1.11 and Site Plan of Development approval to construct 72 units of senior housing on the north side of Deming Street, RR zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 40%, 35.5% proposed. Proposed building height is 24 feet; 30 feet allowed. Lot size is 8.7 acres; minimum lot size allowed is 2 acres. Frontage is 350 feet; minimum allowed is 200 feet. Front yard setback is 105 feet, 50 feet minimum required. Maximum allowed density is 10 units per net buildable acre; under that formula, 77 units would be allowed.
2. This application is a joint application between the Metro Realty Group and the South Windsor Housing Authority, as required in the recently-amended Section 4.1.11. The purpose of this regulation is to provide housing particularly suited to the needs of the elderly citizens. Housing must be located in reasonable proximity to such shopping and services as are required by elderly persons, and the development is to be designed to provide a pleasant environment for habitation. Also, the use must be in conformity with the general framework and intent of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
Special Exception criteria include:
Traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
There will be minimal adverse impacts on existing uses in the area;
Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
Impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, sidewalks and other infrastructure;
The land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created; and
Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
3. The Town Plan depicts this area as Residential, a category that includes medium-high density residential. The Plan notes, for example, that medium-high density residential developments might be limited to those areas having direct access to state routes or where they serve to buffer less dense residential developments from commercial development. In addition, the Housing Element includes goals that are relevant to this application, including:
Develop housing to meet the needs of the entire community, including but not limited to: small families, large families, the elderly, single adult households, various income levels…., and
Develop a full range of housing styles, types, sizes, densities, affordability, and forms of ownership in order to meet the housing needs of the community.
4. The Plan also states that the Commission notes a general lack of understanding on the part of the public concerning exactly what affordable housing programs are or should be; and to that end the Commission should explore avenues of communication so that increased understanding of the concept occurs.
5. The development is subject to restrictive covenants to both the Housing Authority and the CT Housing Finance Authority. The covenants to the Housing Authority govern appearance and maintenance, and are required by the recently-adopted amendment to apply as long as the property is zoned residential. The covenants to the CHFA govern the property for 70 years. That covenant limits the income of persons living at the property to 60% of the Hartford Area annual income as determined annually by HUD. It also restricts rents based on an imputed rent schedule, where a person or family earning 60% of the Hartford median income would spend no more than 30% of income for rent and utilities. I have copies of both restrictive covenants for the file.
6. The traffic report indicates that the average daily traffic on Route 30 at the site is about 13,000 vehicles, and the 85th percentile speed is 43 miles per hour. We have requested that the traffic report’s author be identified, and that traffic accident data be included in the report. We would also like to know how the Saturday peak hour traffic compares with the weekday a.m. peak hour traffic, as other traffic reports in the vicinity of the Buckland Hills developments have been using Saturday peak hour and weekday p.m. peak hour as the largest traffic periods.
7. Pedestrian access via bituminous sidewalks has been provided throughout the site.
8. Minimum parking required is 1 space per 4 units, or 18 spaces; the Commission can increase the required parking to one space per unit. The applicant is providing 97 spaces for 72 units. Staff note that the parking spaces in close proximity to the entrance could cause vehicle conflicts and we recommend that these spaces be either relocated or removed.
9. Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this application on November 16 and was generally satisfied with the project design. ADRC noted that lighting will need to have full cutoff fixtures. The committee also suggested placing decorative grills over the wall condenser units; and noted that they would prefer concrete sidewalks rather than bituminous.
10.A buffer is required between the proposed development and the existing Porters Share SRD to the east. The applicants are proposing a 25’ combined side yard and buffer, which the Commission may allow if site conditions support such (for example, the site is contiguous to open space, permanent buffers and/or mature vegetation), and large trees are saved or planted within the buffer. Large pine trees are proposed within the buffer. We do note/agree that the Porter’s Share buffer is not very effective, and it appears that the buffer relied on the subject site remaining wooded. In order to create an effective buffer between the two developments, additional plantings on both the subject site and within Porter’s Share buffer area, as suggested by the applicant, will help to overcome the buffer deficit.
11.There are several large specimen trees on the north boundary of this site, directly in the area shown to be graded on the easternmost road loop. Staff recommend that a retaining wall be used along the roadway to minimize grading and thus minimize damage to those large existing trees. Also, we recommend that the applicant and staff work together during actual construction to make any necessary field changes to make sure the large trees are protected.
12.The site contains regulated wetlands. This application is pending with IWA/CC.
13.Sgt. Field of South Windsor Police Services has requested that the entrance remain 200 feet away from the Porters Share driveway, and a left-turn bypass on Route 30.
14.Public water and sewer are provided. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
15.Dumpsters are shown on concrete pad and are screened with arborvitaes.
16.If this application is approved, we suggest that above-noted items be incorporated as approval conditions, as the applicant has indicated their agreement with the staff recommendations.
J. Iazzetta reviewed the Engineering report:
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated November 22, 2000 for the proposed Watson Farms Site Plan of Development and have the following comments:
Drainage Calculations
Pre-development drainage area map is required.
Gutter flow analysis was not provided.
Key Map – Sheet 1
Note “142’+ to intersection” should be revised to reflect correct distance.
Perimeter Survey – Sheet 2
The A-2 certification should indicate which year standards are utilized.
Plot Plan – Sheet 3
Width of entrance driveway cannot be read as it is over other information.
Widths of Thompson Circle pavement and both sides of Watson Circle should be shown.
The A-2 certification should indicate which year standards are utilized.
Grading and Utilities Plan – Sheet 4
The State Dept. of Transportation may require a bypass lane for eastbound traffic.
Have test pits or borings been taken? If so, please have the data forwarded. If not, these should be done in detention basin area and along the road.
Depending on the existing soil condition, roof leaders should drain into the ground where possible.
Retaining wall in detention basin should be labeled.
Top of frame elevation for MH2 and MH4 – there is a conflict between the schedule and grading plan.
The existing well should be shown to be capped.
EXSHM1 is shown to be relocated to SMH1. This should be removed and a new manhole structure placed at SMH1.
Profiles of each road should be provided and centerline data shown.
The inlet into the detention basin does not have any energy dissipater at the end. This should be provided.
The Riprap pad shown at the detention basin outlet pipe is not identified, nor is a detail provided.
Sheets 5 to 7
These sheets are missing from the set submitted.
Detail Sheet – Sheet 9
Details are required for manhole frame and cover, stone wall, and retaining wall
Detail of sidewalk is incomplete – the length of slabs between expansion joints is not identified.
Detention basin outlet structure top frame should be shown to be bolted down.
Detail Sheet 10
Detail for handicap ramp should be labeled.
The commission recessed from 8:50 p.m. – 9 p.m.
Public participation in favor of the application:
Janet Pryor, Director of the South Windsor Housing Authority, informed the commission that South Windsor is in dire need of affordable senior housing. They currently have a 3 year waiting list; 56 of those could be placed in this residence. Sixty-seven people have been placed on the waiting list since hearing of the application.
Edward Smith, Deming St., who will sell 2 acres to Metro for this project, informed the commission that he is pleased with the project.
Christine Nassau, property manager for Metro Realty, addressed the positive points of the application; however, Chairman Mealy informed Ms. Nassau that this portion of the meeting was for the public rather than Metro staff.
Joe Mongeon, 229 Old Farms Rd., a realtor in South Windsor, commented that affordable senior housing is needed in South Windsor.
Public participation opposed to the application:
Lillian Haugh, 209 Deming St., concerns focused on traffic, especially problems that may be associated with entering and exiting the site.
Joan Cummings, 59 Shares Lane and President of Porters Share Association, stated they are not against senior residence developments per se but are opposed to this plan on principle. She commented that 72 units on 8 acres is extremely dense. She asked that the plan be scaled down.
Margaret Tedone, 29 Shares Lane, also believes the plan is too dense for the site. She asked that the public hearing be continued to give more time to question and review the plans. She noted that many residents of Porter Share are elsewhere for the winter and are not able to speak to the application. She also stated that the buffer area is totally unacceptable and traffic is already a problem in the area.
Jim Mester, 35 Shares Lane, suggested that the buildings should be single story structures, as seniors have difficulty climbing stairs. Chairman Mealy explained that although the units appear to be two story, the units are actually one level.
Dorothy Vandale, 709 Deming St., stated she is not against elderly housing, but she is against the driveway onto Deming St. She suggested moving the driveway to Foster St. She commented that with the Manchester assisted living facility going in across the street the traffic is going to worsen in the area.
Lorraine Kameau, 25 Shares Lane, stated that the proposed clubhouse will be very close to her patio. She asked that it be moved. She also believes the buffer is inadequate.
Amelia Baily, 33 Shares Lane, stated she is concerned with traffic, the number of units on the parcel and the buffer.
The commission had the following questions/concerns:
Montana commented that the buffer is very inadequate.
Banach noted that the combined side yard and set back provisions, combined with the allowance for views out and the reliance on the existing tree line resulted in the inadequate buffer.
Could the clubhouse be moved elsewhere on site?
Mr. DeMallie explained that this isn’t possible since there are wetlands. He did say that there are things that could be done to mitigate it. The parking lot could be placed at an angle; or the clubhouse size could be reduced.
Cottle questioned if any of the buildings could be moved?
Mr. DeMallie answered the only spot that could be modified is community hall area because of wetlands on the remainder of the site. CHFA does want a community hall on the premises, but the size could be reduced.
Are any pets allowed?
No.
What materials are used for construction of the sidewalks?
Bituminous concrete.
Traffic is very heavy especially if one is making a left turn out of the site.
Mr. DeSantos responded that 43 mph is not the average speed but 85% of cars traveling are going 43 mph or less. The sight line for cars making a left turn lane is 660ft.
Cottle stated he didn’t think noise would be a problem in the complex since the residents of Watson Farm are also seniors. Any parties they might have will probably be during the daytime hours and very low key events.
Larsen inquired as to the impervious coverage of Porter Share?
M. Banach did not have that information available.
Evans suggested that the sidewalks be connected to the community building.
Porter complimented the Landscape Architect on his landscaping plan, noting it was the nicest plan she has seen in a long time. She also commented that within 5 years the residents of Porter Share won’t be able to see this development.
Kennedy asked if Foster St. could be accessed through the adjacent parcel?
Mr. DeMallie answered no since there are major wetlands that would restrict this.
What is the width of the buffer on the Porter Share side?
25ft.
Wentzell inquired why Metro plans on renting these subsidized units for approximately the same rent as non-subsidized apartments?
Mr. Sager answered the their one bedroom units will rent for approximately $600 and two bedroom will rent for approximately $685. He suggested that similar rents for market rate units are not for new construction nor for apartments within apartment buildings, but would generally be for older, isolated units probably within condominium developments. He also stated that rents for non-subsidized apartments have increased significantly in the last few years.
Wentzell inquired if the applicant would agree to have the landscaping done before any certificates of occupancy are issued. Regulations state the applicant has 5 years to complete their landscaping plan. Wentzell wants to ensure that landscaping is done promptly.
Mr. Sager inquired if they could post a bond instead.
Wentzell informed Mr. Sager that even if a bond is posted the applicant would still have 5 years to complete the landscaping.
Mr. Sager stated that Metro Realty did not have a problem with a few certificates of occupancy being held back or bonding for the landscaping.
What type of screening is proposed for the dumpsters?
Mr. Jefferson answered arborvitae.
McCann inquired if the Public Housing Authority has had a chance to review these plans and, if so, are they in full support of the project?
Janet Pryor, Director of the Housing Authority answered yes.
McCann further inquired whether this is application is being brought jointly with the Housing Authority of South Windsor and the applicant?
Janet Pryor answered yes.
Can the clubhouse be moved?
Ray Jefferson answered that the clubhouse could be moved, but the parking area would also have to be moved. Revised plans incorporating this will be submitted before the next hearing.
Has full consideration been given to access for emergency vehicles?
Mr. DeMallie replied yes.
Has the deed restriction that would apply to this property been reviewed to ensure it matches language in our newly-adopted regulation?
Attorney Lassman commented that this would be taken care of.
Jerry Iazzetta suggested the public hearing be kept open to give him adequate time to review the plan profiles that were submitted late 12/5/00.
Wentzell commented that there are other issues to consider and agreed that the public hearing should be kept open.
A motion to hold the public hearing open was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Cottle. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 00-56P, Kebalo T&C, request for a 2 year temporary and conditional permit for construction of offices at Kebalo Electric, 176 Smith St., A-20 zone
Attorney Hal Cummings, counsel for the applicant, presented the application. The applicant is requesting permission to use existing office space at Kebalo Electric as the sales office and construction administration office for the Wheeler Estates project. There are no modifications planned for the building.
There was no public participation.
A question was raised by the Commission regarding whether this request included storage for heavy equipment. Attorney Cummings said it did not.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion adjourn was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Porter. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah L. Favreau
Recording Secretary
| 
