MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Mealy, Louise Evans, Marshall Montana, Sue Larsen, Tim Wentzell, Patricia Porter, Kevin McCann
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Roger Cottle, Doug Manion
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer
SPECIAL MEETING
The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. There was no public participation for items not on the agenda.
ITEM: NEW BUSINESS
Appl 00-61P, Richard S. Kelley and The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, site plan for a 57,946 sq. ft. building at the Town Center, westerly side of Buckland Rd. and southerly side of Ellington Rd., RC zone – (Action by 2/20
Banach provided an outline of items and concerns that had been raised or discussed at the public hearings and suggested that might be an organized way to discuss the application. The Commission agreed.
Site Access:
Commissioner Cottle asked if this application would comply with our regulations if the 2.99 acres located at the southwest corner of the site wasn’t added.
M. Banach answered probably not, but the 2.99 acres are part of the application.
He is in favor of the right turn only in and out at the CVS drive but stated he has concerns with a left turn into the site.
Chairman Mealy stated he doesn’t think an extra left turn lane is necessary.
Montana stated that a right-turn out of the CVS drive has a lot of problems.
Larsen commented that she is in favor of closing the CVS drive under 3.8.1 of the regulations, which gives us the criteria to do so. Our access management plan suggests fewer driveways, and Larsen stated that we should be closing any unnecessary driveways.
She also commented that the right out from the CVS drive is such that a driver really needs to strain to see oncoming traffic when making a right turn from the site.
Evans stated the exit drive should be closed off but not the entrance.
Mealy quoted from the February 13, 2001, transcript Stop & Shop hearing, page 140 re Mr. Wagner’s statement on this issue.
Manion stated that both our Town Engineer and staff traffic consultant have recommend that closing off the CVS driveway would be their first recommendation. If the driveway stays open, there are things that should be done to make it safer.
Cottle stated left-hand turns should not be allowed from this drive.
McCann noted that we do have experts to make suggestions and assumptions. We do not have any data showing traffic accidents at this site. There is no evidence of it being dangerous. He agreed with Mealy on this issue and thinks we should be taking advantage of the improvements being offered here.
Mealy again quoted from the February 13, 2001 transcript, pg. 142, re accidents occurring at this intersection.
Wentzell inquired if 16 accidents should be considered too few or too much?
Jim Bubaris, Principal with Bubaris Associates and staff consultant, answered that for the amount of traffic traveling on Buckland Rd., 16 would not be considered a large number of accidents. He suggested the CVS drive should be modified to prevent more accidents in one of the following ways: close the drive, a right turn in only and no exit from the drive or a right turn in and right turn out only.
Porter commented that the statement16 accidents are not too many is a statement that is “up for grabs”. Traffic is going to increase dramatically with the development of the Buckland Gateway zone.
Manion stated that is why we should be relying on our experts’ opinions, and we should use their first recommendation.
Evans commented that closing the drive might no be fair to the other businesses in the area.
Porter asked if any changes could be made to the drive in the future if the application is approved?
Banach answered no, if there are to be any changes, they need to be done now.
Larsen stated that curbing at the Terry Office Park drive is not going to stop trucks from entering.
Wentzell commented that two lanes should be kept at the Ellington Rd. driveway.
McCann asked if Ellington Rd. going from two lanes to one lane was done in response to Mr. Bubabris’ suggestion?
Mr. Bubaris answered yes; we tried to minimize pavement since it isn’t really needed.
Wentzell stated he wasn’t suggesting Ellington Rd. should be widened but kept as a two-lane road.
J. Iazzetta informed the commission that Ellington Rd. is a State road, and the State will have the final say.
Manion noted that one lane is not going to accommodate the traffic in this area.
Mr. Bubaris answered that a lengthy left turn lane into Town Center is not needed; the left turn capacity is needed for the Sullivan Avenue left turn.
The number of conflicts is going to increase in this area.
McCann noted that the State Traffic Commission would determine where the lanes should be.
Banach asked if there would be room for cars to by-pass vehicles turning left into the cleaners, etc. on the Terry Office Park drive?
Mr. Bubaris replied no, at 18 ft. there wouldn’t be enough room.
Banach informed the commission that if the queue backs up on this drive it could create problems for vehicles trying to enter or exit from the existing driveways at Terry Office Park.
Mr. Bubaris commented that the inbound lane would need to be at least 20 ft. wide to accommodate a by-pass lane.
It was suggested that signage should be posted stating that tractor trailer trucks not be allowed to use the Terry Office Park entrance and also at the Ellington Rd. entrance which would state no trucks be allowed to use the service drive between the retail building and Summerville Assisted Living facility between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Parking:
Wentzell commented that cars are getting larger and granting the 9 x 18 ft. parking waiver might mean a very tight fit for vehicles.
J. Iazzetta informed the commission that the 10th edition of Architectural Graphic Standards states that this use would use the level of service to determine the module size. Level “A”, 62ft. would be what is recommended for this type of parking lot.
Cottle asked what the size parking spaces are at Geissler’s supermarket?
Iazzetta responded he didn’t have that data available.
McCann commented that the applicant is requesting a parking waiver for smaller spaces. If we require 10 x 20 ft. parking spaces, green space is going to be lost especially in the gazebo area.
Mealy commented the double striping method used for parking is extremely effective.
Larsen suggested relocating the areas in which the reserved parking is planned.
Wentzell noted that the green space seems to be somewhat ambiguous in the parking area. The gazebo is included in the parking area landscaping calculations. The regulation is somewhat vague with respect to this.
Building Design:
Montana believes the building is too big. The entire building is 113,000 sq. ft., which is monstrous in the center of town. She stated that she couldn’t condone a store of this size in the center of town, in this zone or for our community.
Mealy recommended she suggest a building size and not just state that the store is too big.
Montana answered she would like to see a store somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 sq. ft.
Mealy stated that we approved a 60,000 sq. ft. building ten years ago.
Montana answered that approval was some years ago, and this is a whole different ball game.
Mealy stated if the space is available in this zone, you can’t say a building is too large.
Larsen disagreed. The individual stores are a much smaller footprint. The zone is designed for a smaller scale business. Stop & Shop is not small scale. Stop & Shop is not in keeping with the RC zone.
Mealy stated that the impervious coverage is more specific.
Evans agreed with Mealy saying when you have a large piece of land zoned a particular way, you can’t restrict the size.
Manion quoted section 9.1.2 (b) 4 of the Architecture & Design Review regulations, which requires compatibility with the Town Plan of Development. He also commented that this proposal is neither a small-scale development nor a small retail environment.
Evans stated that Manion was quoting from the Town Plan of Development not the Zoning Regulations.
Wentzell commented that our Zoning Regulations evoke our Town Plan of Development.
It was noted that the impervious coverage that was presented with the Target application was questionable impervious coverage. The piece of land at the back of the Target site is not part of the site and not contiguous with the site. It doesn’t meet the intent of our regulations.
Signs that are uplit do not fit in well the Town Center nor do flat facers. This store looks like a conventional Stop & Shop store.
Evans commented the signs vary in size and they could be done more aesthetically.
Cottle questioned whether the supplemental signs are in conformance with our sign regulations?
Banach replied yes.
McCann added we should keep signs consistent with the signage as it now stands in Town Center. He also noted that no one at the public hearing gave the definition of what a small scale supermarket would be, so we have no basis to say this is not small scale supermarket.
Larsen countered that she gave several examples of small-scale supermarkets at the public hearing. At that time, she asked the applicant if they would accept 25,000 sq. ft. store at this site. M. Montana also asked if the applicant would agree to a 40,000 sq. ft. store, and the applicant answered no to both questions. Larsen stated an anchor store does not need to be 60,000 sq. ft.
McCann asked where in the regulations small scaled is defined?
Larsen answered that small scale is not defined in the regulations to give us flexibility.
The commission recessed from 9:20 p.m. until 9:30 p.m.
Banach noted that she suggests replacing the existing Town Center columns with the new columns for consistency.
Site Lighting:
Larsen commented that per the regulations the only area that should be lit is the main entrance. She suggested eliminating the remaining four floodlights lighting the front of the building.
Staff would like the applicant to come back for a final review of lighting plans.
It was suggested that lights not integral to the 24-hour operation should be dimmed.
Larsen commented that then you are going to have dark spots and light spots and she wasn’t sure this was a good idea, as that makes it difficult for drivers to see into the dark spots.
Evans stated she has concerns with pedestrian access.
Chairman Mealy asked the commissioners if they would like to vote on each area of contention. The commissioners agreed.
Motion to allow a right entrance turn only at the CVS drive was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Montana. The motion failed. The vote was as follows: 4-3: Evans, Montana, Wentzell, aye; Porter, Larsen, McCann, Mealy, nay.
Motion to grant the 9 x 18ft. parking waiver request was made by Commissioner McCann and
seconded by Commissioner Evans. The motion passed, and the vote was as follows: 5-2: Porter, Evans, Montana, McCann, Mealy aye; Larsen, Wentzell, nay.
Motion to close the CVS driveway was made by Commissioner Larsen and seconded by Commissioner Porter. The motion passed, and the vote was as follows: 5-2: Porter, Larsen, Evans, Montana, Wentzell, aye, McCann, Mealy, nay.
Motion to deny Appl 00-61P, Richard S. Kelley and The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company
was made by Commissioner Porter and seconded by Commissioner Larsen. The motion passed and the vote was as follows: 4-3: Porter, Larsen, Montana, Wentzell aye; Evans, McCann, Mealy, nay.
ITEM: Bonds
Appl 00-32P, Evergreen Estates
Motion to reduce the bond to $178,000 was made by Commissioner Wentzell and seconded by Commissioner Evans. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Extend Meeting
Motion to extend the meeting past 10 p.m. was made by Commissioner Larsen and seconded by Commissioner Wentzell. The motion failed, and the vote was Wentzell, Porter, Larsen, Evans, Mealy, Montana, aye; McCann, nay.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10 p.m. was made by Commissioner Porter and seconded by Commissioner Larsen. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deborah Favreau
Recording Secretary
| 
