MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Mealy, Louise Evans, Marshall Montana, Tim Wentzell, Patricia Porter, Sue Larsen, Kevin McCann
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Patrick Kennedy
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Public Hearing
Chairman Mealy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
He welcomed A. Paterna, a Professor at Manchester Community College. Professor Paterna teaches a class on “Aging in America” and he and members of his class came to hear tonight’s applications.
Two commissioners, Montana and Evans, were congratulated on their 26 and 31 respective consecutive years of service to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Evans read the Legal Notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
Kenndy sat until Montana’s arrival at 7:40 p.m.
1. Appl 00-57P, Sullivan Town Homes, Regulation Amendment to Section 4.4.4.4, multi-family residential zone to increase the maximum room count to allow one additional room for each unit type when the multi-family housing is deed restricted require that at least one resident of each unit must be 55 years or older
Attorney Len Jacobs presented the application. He explained that the current regulation does not work with the proposed luxury multi-family condo. He believes the proposed change is appropriate. He reviewed Section 4.44.4.
They would like to have the maximum room count increased by one. Attorney Jacobs explained that people who are purchasing a luxury condo would want the additional space. If the regulation is not changed, luxury multi-family homes cannot be built in this zone. If the regulation amendment is approved the “Strawberry Fields” application can go forward.
Mealy suggested that the wording in the description be modified with the word “resident” being changed to “owner”. Attorney Jacobs agreed.
Banach reviewed the Planning Department report:
Request for zoning amendment to Section 4.4.4.4 to increase the maximum permitted number of rooms in a multi-family unit when the development is restricted to seniors. Section 4.4.4.4 contains a maximum number of rooms in each unit based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. For example, a 2-bedroom unit is limited to 4 ½ rooms and a 3-bedroom unit is limited to 5 ½ rooms. The living room, dining room and kitchen together count as 2 ½ rooms. It appears that the purpose of this restriction is to ensure that additional rooms that can later be converted to bedrooms, and thus possibly result in more school children, are not included. With a senior restriction on the development, and no occupancy by persons under 21 years of age, the additional rooms do not pose the same risk.
The zoning amendment request was referred to CRCOG as required. CRCOG responded that:
If this zoning amendment is approved, the Commission must state on the record that they have found the amendment to be consistent with the plan of development.
Public participation:
Kenneth Pudeler, 201 West Rd., inquired if people 21 years of age and younger would be allowed to live in the condos?
Banach answered that that amendment is geared to people 55 and older.
If the third room does not have a closet, will it meet the fire codes?
Banach noted that all rooms would meet all building codes.
Will the deed restriction specifically state that a resident must be 55 or older to live in the unit?
Mealy informed Mr. Pudeler this is not pertinent to this application.
John Young, 97 Palmer Drive, asked if the units would be rented out to people younger than 55?
Attorney Jacobs answered that they don’t anticipate these units being rented out. We will also put in the condo documents that the premises must be “owner occupied”.
The commission had the following questions/concerns:
? If the owner is 55 and his partner is 35 and the owner dies, would the partner have to leave the unit?
Attorney Jacobs answered that his client will accept whatever terms the commission decides with respect to this.
? Do you foresee problems arising due to someone claiming age discrimination?
Attorney Jacobs replied that the Federal Government has modified the rules to 55 and over and this is the age that is now being widely used.
? It seems that the issue of requiring that one resident must be 55 or older could be addressed if the deed stated “all residents” must be 55 or older.
Attorney Jacobs answered doing so might create problems. This zone change will apply to all developments that are deed restricted.
? Why apply for this regulation change instead of applying for a zone change to the Senior Residence Development zone?
Attorney Jacobs stated that changing this regulation allows more units to be built than allowed in the SRD zone.
Peter DeMallie, Principal with Design Professionals, Inc., commented that he and Attorney Jacobs attended PZC’s March 21, 2000 meeting. At that time, they discussed the appropriateness of coming forth with a regulation change application. The overall sentiment of the commission was to proceed.
Claude Cloutier, E. Windsor, commented that people downsizing would want and need the extra room that is being proposed.
A discussion ensued on how the deed restriction would be handled. It was noted that South Windsor has not had any problems with projects of this type. Density on the parcel was also discussed. If the density were increased, PZC would like to ensure that various agencies in town are not overburdened.
The public hearing was closed on this item.
2. Appl 00-58P, Sullivan Town Homes (Strawberry Fields), resubdivision, zone change of 15+/- acres and general plan of development to create a 43 unit multi-family complex located on the westerly side of Sullivan Avenue (across from Hillsdale Road) A-20 and RR zone
Peter DeMallie, Principal and Gaylen Semproban, Engineer , both with Design Professionals, Inc., Attorney Leonard Jacobs, counsel for the applicant and Jim Bubaris, Principal with Bubaris Traffic Association presented the application.
Mr. DeMallie reviewed his narrative submitted on 1/9/01. Exhibit 1.
Attorney Jacobs reviewed site layout. The site is comprised of two parcels, 1101 and 1135 Sullivan Avenue incorporating 43 units. Approximately 12.16 acres of the parcel is frontage on West Rd., and is not a part of this application. The applicant is asking that the home at 1135 Sullivan Avenue be allowed to remain.
Attorney Jacobs cited the following reasons why this development would be benefit the town: the application meets all zoning requirements, there is more parking than required and it is not an overuse of the site.
Attorney Jacobs also indicated that the driveway could be relocated onto the Mitchell property. The barn on site could be saved if the entrance to the site is moved. Mr. Jacobs informed the commission that if this does happen, approximately 28 acres would be donated to the town as open space. Exhibit 2.
Barry Guliano, Town Attorney, has reviewed this proposal and suggested that it be cleared by Department of Environmental Protection.
Gaylen Semproban, Engineering with Design Professionals, Inc., reviewed utilities at the site. A fully designed water system is in place. The Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the application. WPCA has reviewed on a conceptual basis, and they have received approval for sanitary sewers. Concrete sidewalks will run along the interior of the site. Both the water and gas companies see no problems associated with the project.
Rosemary Aldridge, Landscape Architect with Planemetrics, reviewed the lighting and landscaping plans. Native plants, especially in the outlining areas, are proposed. An existing tree line along the northern portion of the property will be kept. Sugar maples are planned for the southern portion of the site and staff has suggested additional plantings along open space. Evergreens and a mixture of large shrubs will be incorporated along Sullivan Avenue. The applicant is addressing comments made by staff and the Architectural Design Review Committee.
Lighting proposed will be very low, full cut off type on traditional black metal 12ft. poles.
Jim Bubaris, Principal with Bubaris Traffic Associates, reviewed the traffic at the site. See traffic report in file. Mr. Bubaris commented that the traffic impact would be minimal. An encroachment permit will be needed by the State of Connecticut before site drives can be built. Mr. Bubaris feels the by-pass area is not needed.
Jeff Bianco, Architect for Bianco Architects reviewed the building design. Mr. Bianco stated that there would be three building types. Twenty-two, 1700 sq. ft. townhouses with a variety of colors are planned.
M. Banach reviewed the Planning Department report:
Request for zone change from A-20 and RR zones to Multi-family and general plan of development approval to construct 43 units of adult housing on property located at 1101/1135 Sullivan Avenue. The multi-family development would be constructed on 15.5 acres fronting on Sullivan Avenue. The project would include preservation of an existing single-family house that will continue to be used as a single-family house.
The change in zoning of a property to multi-family requires a 2-step process. The first step is the zone change and general plan application. The purpose of the general plan is to allow the Commission to approve a conceptual layout prior to the large expenditure of time and funds required to complete a detailed site plan. If the zone change and general plan are approved, then the applicant must complete the site plans and return for a special exception approval. At that time, if the site plan conforms to the approved general plan, then site plan/special exception approval should be forthcoming.
Application for zone change is the time when the commission can consider all of the possible impacts such a zone change could result in, such as traffic and density. The multi-family zone contains specific criteria to be considered before approving a zone change to multi-family, including:
The purposes of zoning;
The goals and objectives of the Plan of Development;
The supply of land available in the present and proposed zone;
Traffic impact;
Impact on property values;
The physical suitability of the land for the proposed zone;
Environmental impacts;
Protection of historic factors;
Neighborhood acceptance weighed against community needs;
Impact on the surrounding area;
Changes that have taken place in the rate and pattern of development and land use within the Town and adjoining communities;
The health and general welfare of the community;
Impacts on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage system, sidewalks, and other improvements; and
Whether said site either is or will be within reasonable pedestrian proximity to shopping, services, and institutions, as are routinely required by future residents of said development, or is or will be located along a route providing regular public transportation service between said shopping services and institutions.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development depicts this area along Sullivan Avenue as Residential, with the middle portion and the West Road frontage as Rural Preserve. The Plan notes that the majority of future residential growth should occur in the Residential category. The principal features of the Residential area are : its variety of residential uses and densities; proximity to public utilities and transportation systems; desirable developable land; and open spaces within and adjacent to development. As development occurs, interior streets are to be actively encouraged, with limited curb cuts along existing collector or arterial streets. The Plan also notes that MF zones might be limited to those areas having direct access to state routes or where they serve to buffer less dense residential developments from
commercial developments.
Maximum allowed density is 4.5 units per gross acre; 3.6 units per acre are proposed.
As noted by the applicant, a shared driveway between this site and the Town-owned Mitchell property is being pursued by the applicant. The shared access would be consistent with access management recommendations and staff would like to see this option pursued. Public transportation is likely to be provided on Sullivan Avenue in the near future, so a bus shelter should be provided.
Staff requested that the applicant examine the feasibility of providing a sidewalk along Sullivan Avenue to the shopping plaza. The applicant has indicated that due to grades along Sullivan Avenue, sidewalks are not feasible. A pathway through the rear of this site into the side of the shopping center is probably feasible from a construction perspective but probably not an attractive alternative to the residents of the development. Sgt. Tom Field of the SWPD Traffic Unit has requested sidewalks along Sullivan Avenue in front of the Mitchell property connecting to this site, as well as sidewalks on both sides of the private street.
Multi-family developments are required to provide at least 600 square feet of developed recreation area per unit; 25,800 square feet of developed recreation area is needed for this development. That area has been provided in the community clubhouse and the walking trail. Open space and/or conservation areas are required to conserve sensitive or exceptional features of the site; this requirement is accomplished by the provision of the 28 acres of open space, the majority of which consists of wetlands.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%; 27% provided. Proposed building height is 22 feet; 35 feet allowed. Lot size is 15.5 acres ; minimum lot size allowed is 15 acres. Frontage is 473 feet; minimum allowed is 200 feet. Front yard setback is 100 feet, 75 feet minimum required.
Parking requirements are 2 spaces per dwelling unit, and spaces may be 9’ x 18’. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans, provided locations for fire hydrants, and indicated that he is satisfied with the internal circulation.
Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this application on January 4 and had the following comments:
Fill in the gaps in the buffer line along Sullivan Avenue with groups of shrubs.
The sign design and colors of materials need to be reviewed by ADRC when finalized.
Street lighting would be desirable along the interior unnamed driveway.
A typical detail for individual unit landscaping is needed.
Lighting pole heights are approximately 12 feet to the bottom of the fixture. The fixtures are full cutoff fixtures.
There are no detention basins, however there are three water quality basins, whose purpose is to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. The large wetlands area to the west will handle site detention.
A 25’ buffer is required around the perimeter of a multi-family zone. The buffer requirement for multi-family abutting lower-density residential is slightly different from the usual buffer in that the field of vision has to be substantially reduced but not necessarily obscured.
There are regulated wetlands on the site. IWA/CC granted approval on January 3, with a $30,000 bond for the construction and establishment of the water quality basins and a $20,000 E & S bond, plus other wetlands-related approval conditions.
South Windsor Police Department has reviewed this application and noted that they would like to know whether there would be any impact on Hillsdale Rd. Sgt. Field notes that a shared driveway relocated onto the Mitchell property would be a better alternative. SWPD also recommends a left-turn bypass on Sullivan Avenue. This request is subject to ConnDOT approval.
Public water and sewer are available. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required. The Superintendent of Pollution Control has indicated that sufficient reserve capacity is available in the sanitary sewer system to serve this development.
Solid waste removal is proposed to be individual trash containers with curbside pickup. We do note that Section 4.4.4.5 of the zoning regulations requires that solid waste removal services shall be provided by the owners of the development, with all costs thereof incurred by same. The Town Council now reimburses multi-family developments for solid waste disposal costs; and two of the DRZ developments have curbside pickup of all trash. Recyclables pickup is done at curbside by the Town for all developments. This development proposes to have all solid waste removal services provided by the Town of South Windsor.
If the project is to be phased, phasing lines will need to be shown on the plot plan and the plans will have to demonstrate that the first phase can stand alone and is not dependent upon construction of the second phase.
If this application is approved, Planning Dept. requests the following approval modifications:
Adjust landscaping plans to relocate plantings currently located on walkways or drainage structures;
Show phasing line on plot plan if project is to be phased;
Increase buffer plantings; fill in gaps along Sullivan Avenue;
Add lighting to the interior unnamed driveway
Banach reviewed the Engineering report in J. Iazzetta’s absence:
The Town has identified the “S” curve on West Road as a geometric problem that needs to be corrected. This would entail straightening this area and would require some land on “Parcel C” as shown on the Key Map. We ask that a portion of this parcel be deeded to the Town at the time of subdivision.
Resubdivision Plan – Sheet 6
An A-2 map of the entire resubdivision should be provided showing “Parcel C” and all of proposed Open Space.
All property corners should be pinned and/or monumented as appropriate.
The proposed open space should be monumented and coordinates provided.
Plot Plan – Sheet 7
A large truck, especially a WB-50, cannot traverse the unnamed street in front of units 38 to 43.
Roadway in front of units 38 to 43 should be named.
Centerline data for Strawberry Lane should be provided.
This project is to be phased. The roadways should have temporary cul-de-sacs provided at phase lines.
Evans read into the record letters submitted. Exhibits 3-10.
Public participation in favor of the application:
Paul Oates, 44 West Rd., reviewed his handout. Exhibit 11.
Ken Pudeler, 201 West Rd., suggested that the curve on West Rd. adjacent to the site be straightened. He agreed with the proposed land swap.
Robert Benson, 15 West Rd., suggested that the town should take the open space being offered by the applicant.
John Mitchell, 40 Windy Hill Rd., commended the application.
Dave Rizzo, voiced support.
Joel Gordon, Windy Hill Rd., also voiced support.
John Goiangos, 1125-1127 Sullivan Avenue, stated that his back yard is very close the project. He inquired what his recourse would be if damage occurs to his septic system due to the project.
Mr. DeMallie informed Mr. Goiangas that if any problems occurred to his septic system due to the project he would be able to tie into the sewer and water lines at the applicant’s expense
Marilyn Dzen, owner of Dzen Realty, commented that housing for seniors in the upper income bracket is needed in South Windsor.
Mealy asked Ms. Dzen what major amenity the seniors are requesting in housing.
Ms. Dzen responded they would like to have housing with adequate storage and living space.
Public participation not in favor:
Michael Iacovelli, 1156 Sullivan Avenue, reviewed his handout. He also submitted a letter from Wallace Tustin Realty. Exhibits 11-12.
Nila Ambach, 1148 Sullivan Avenue, voiced concerns with traffic and losing the turnaround she shares with 1156 Sullivan Avenue. If the turnaround is lost, she believes it would be impossible to enter onto Sullivan Avenue safely.
Cathy Iacovelli, 1156 Sullivan Avenue, also voiced traffic concerns.
Chris Ambach, agrees with the other speakers who voiced opposition.
The commission had the following questions/concerns:
? If the land swap does not go through, what will happen to the land?
Attorney Jacobs answered that it will remain in the RR zone.
? If the driveway were moved, would the traffic situation deteriorate?
Mr. Bubaris answered no.
? You have projected traffic counts to the year 2001. Do you see the need for a by-pass in the future?
Mr. Bubaris answered yes as traffic needs increase the by-pass will be needed.
? If the State does give you access to the Mitchell property, will the piece in the back be returned?
Attorney Jacobs answered yes.
? Could the Juknis drive and the proposed drive come out at the same location?
Mr. DeMallie responded the drive would come out where Juknis now grows his chrysanthemums.
? Would the existing oak trees be removed?
The trees are within the State right of way and will be saved.
? It was suggested that the buffer on Sullivan Avenue be enhanced to keep lights from shining on neighboring properties.
Rosemary Aldrige responded that the new site plan addresses this.
? Is there any buffering around the units placed at the center of the site?
Ms. Aldrige responded that there are only small groups of shrubs between the units.
It was suggested that additional buffering would be desirable between the units.
? Will sidewalks be placed along the interior streets?
We have not proposed sidewalks since there are only six units on the interior streets.
? Do all the garages face the street?
Yes, most do face the street.
? Have you attempted turning the garages so they are not the dominant feature of the homes?
Architect answered this would only be possible with the end units.
? Will there be adequate time to act on this since a response from DEP is needed?
Banach answered that the commission has 35 days to close the public hearing and 65 days to act on the application.
Attorney Jacobs stated that if approval from the State is not granted, the application still needs to be considered.
? It was suggested that a letter to the DEP be written asking them if they might act in a swift manner. Banach agreed.
? It was noted that there is some disparity between yard size. The interior yard units appear smaller than the yards of the end units.
? Why does the drive need to be on the Mitchell property?
Attorney Jacobs responded that people who would want to walk on the Mitchell property will need a place to park their vehicles and will need a driveway to do so.
? Will there be any negative impacts to 1156 and 1148 Sullivan Avenue’s septic systems? Mr. DeMallie answered if there are any septic problems at 1156 and 1148 due to the project they could connect to the sewer line.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11 p.m. was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner McCann. The motion passed, and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah L. Favreau
Recording Secretary
| 
