Lamson addressed pedestrian and vehicular circulation on
Steve Mitchell, Traffic Engineer from Hesketh & Associates, addressed the distribution of traffic on Deming Street. He noted that there will probably be a small amount of traffic using Deming Street and Oakland Road, but noted that when a traffic study is done, traffic flow of the whole area is modeled and judgement calls are made in order to analyze a worst-case scenario. By assigning the largest quantity of traffic to the major roads, the critical intersections can be reviewed for capacity and operation. Once that is done, then the anticipated small amount of traffic can be assigned to Deming Street.
Secretary Evans read into the record the following letters:
Letter from Paul and Victoria Margiott of 32 Sele Drive, South Windsor dated July 31, 2001 and received August 7, 2001 (exhibit A).
Letter to the Town Manager, Matthew B. Galligan and signed by Patricia R. Brown, Clerk of the Council, dated July 5, 2001 (exhibit B).
Mealy requested input from the public. He asked for those opposed to the application to speak first.
Scott Leonard, property owner on Buckland Road, wondered at what period during the course of the application would he receive a registered letter. Banach replied that according to the Zoning Regulations registered letters are required for a zone change or a special exception. Registered letters are not required for a site plan of development or a general plan.
Leo A. Gauthier of 395 Smith Street read a letter into record (exhibit C).
Jean Marc Jacques of 626 Ellington Road had concerns centered on traffic and proposed berms.
Victoria Margiott, of 32 Sele Drive had concerns centering around Buckland Road, traffic and its volumes, parallel parking, past performance of presenting developer, landscaping, lighting requirements, adequate water management, clearcutting of trees, outdoor storage, and wildlife. She is very concerned about future phases on this site.
Annamae S. Davis, of 9 Ridge Road, had many of the same concerns as Margiott as well as the traffic on Deming Street. Her other concern was the proposed height of the buildings and the size of the proposal.
A gentleman on Henry Road spoke against the proposal.
Bill Krawski, 130 Buckland Road, had concerns about the access to the proposed project, traffic, sewers, height of the proposed buildings, and possible flooding. He agrees that the proposal is needed in South Windsor, he just wants all issues explored thoroughly.
Mealy asked the audience for those in favor of the application to speak.
Sylvia Georgeadis, of 105 Greenfield Drive, spoke in favor of the application. She noted that the Town needs a more commercial base for tax purposes.
Joel Gordon, of 101 Windy Hill Drive, spoke in favor of the application and his reason reflected the overburdened taxpayers paying approximately 82% of the cost of living in South Windsor.
Scott Andrusis, of 58 Ridgefield Drive and representing the South Windsor Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the Town of South Windsor needs to diversify its tax base relieving the residents and the small businesses in Town with the burden of supporting the grand list. He suggested that the Town increase its reliance on the commercial tax base, promote the growth of commercial real estate, and take a proactive role in the development of commercial projects. The Town cannot afford to turn away future commercial development.
Barbara Barbour, of 5 Old Parish Drive, spoke in favor of the application.
Alex Georgeadis, of 105 Greenfield Drive, spoke in favor of this application.
Sia Dowlatshahi, of 223 Brookfield Street, spoke in favor of this application.
Peter DeMallie, of 35 Petersen Way, spoke in favor of this application. He noted that abutters would be notified when the IWA/CC application is submitted for this application. DeMallie suggested that the easterly side of Smith Street be considered for other zoning, possibly a zone that would aid existing homeowners in the resale of their homes because they are surrounded by commercial development.
Mark Lillis of 667 Griffin Road spoke in favor of this application. He strongly suggested that the Commissioners work with the developers.
John. J. Mitchell, of 40 Windy Hill Drive, spoke in favor of this application. He emphasized the importance of the new opportunity that is being proposed for South Windsor.
Craig Zimmerman, of 5A Amato Drive, spoke in favor of this application. He had concern over the lack of indoor recreational facilities in South Windsor.
Mealy requested an 8-minute recess.
Mealy continued the meeting by asking if there was any further input from the public or more questions about this application.
Linda Cutler, of 58 Sele Drive, had concerns centering on future phases, traffic, lighting, the possibility of providing a nature park/outdoor recreation for the Town, proposed residences, and taxes.
Banach provided an update to the Commission: She noted that she had spoken with Steven Weitz, Traffic Engineer for West Hartford and received the following information:
In W Htfd, there are three different arrangements with on-street parking: 4 lanes with angle parking; 2 lanes with angle parking and median; and 2 lanes with parallel parking and median.
There is a trade-off for the convenience of on-street parking . The merchants and shoppers want the on-street parking, but the trade-off is accidents.
W Htfd has the worst experiences with angle on-street parking; the parallel parking is somewhat better.
Two frequent problems they encounter are u-turns, when drivers spot a parking space on the other side of the street; and jay-walking, with pedestrians crossing mid-block, from between parked cars. The u-turn problem is resolved with a median; they have not found a solution to the jaywalking problem.
We also note that there is a larger traffic volume on the West Hartford streets. The closest comparison is Farmington Avenue, which has parallel parking and a median, and carries a volume approximately equal to Buckland Road.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns:
Height of proposed buildings and does this include a hotel;
Will the individual portions of the site be interconnected in the first phase?
Growing trees on berms so they will stand up in a wind storm;
Screening equipment on roofs of proposed buildings;
Concept plan for potential uses and traffic movement for the remainder of the site;
Traffic and safety on Deming Street; one spot in the road is very narrow at the last curve before Buckland Road;
Will the proposed project sewerage plan be adequate to accommodate the east side of Buckland Road;
Drainage must be properly managed;
Is an archaeological study planned;
Whether storm drainage from this project will impact Smith Street residences;
Six-story hotel may not be compatible in height with the rest of the development;
Preserving existing street trees along Buckland Road to help screen roofs and roof hardware;
More access management so third traffic light not needed;
Traffic flow through site: can truck traffic be kept off the main street;
Main Street could be more pedestrian-oriented Multi level parking (2 level); very little green open space with surface parking as proposed;
Plum Gulley Brook is highly erodable and will need to be carefully addressed;
Will there be sidewalks along boulevard;
Is there adequate open space visible from public streets;
Preservation of the large maple located across from Lowe's entrance;
Whether there will be proposed features added/done to Plum Gulley Brook (such as walking trails);
Are there provisions for the expansion of accesses in the future;
Is the sidewalk width adequate for sidewalk cafes and other activities;
What are the time frames for each component;
Smith Street berm and the affect it will have on the stormwater runoff;
The adequacy (queueing length) of the existing right turn lane on Buckland Road southbound at Pleasant Valley Road.
Replies to the above comments and concerns:
Six stories are being requested for the proposed hotel;
The individual portions of the site will be interconnected with phase 1;
Side slopes on the Smith Street berm are being proposed at 3 to 1, this will provide ample width for trees to be securely anchored;
Appropriate screening will be provided for the equipment located on the roofs of proposed buildings;
Traffic studies did not demonstrate a high traffic rate on Deming Street; dialogue should continue as to how to solve the problem;
Sewers will be provided to service the east side of Buckland Road; appropriate easements will be provided;
Stormwater flow from Evergreen Walk will not go back toward Smith Street, it is directed to Plum Gulley Brook, so there should be no impact on the Smith Street residents;
Trucks can be kept completely off There will be sidewalks along the boulevard on the east side; a bikeway on west side of the principal boulevard street.
Lamson requested that the public hearing be left open to allow Evergreen Walk an opportunity to address all of the Commission
ITEM: Adjournment
Wentzell made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Porter seconded the motion. The motion passed and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary
