MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCann, Marshall Montana, Louise Evans, Patrick Kennedy, Sue Larsen, Tim Wentzell, Suzanne Choate
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gary Bazzano
Roger Cottle
Bart Pacekonis
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman McCann called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Evans read the legal notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
Appl 03-03P, Stage Door Hair Design, request for renewal of a 5-year major home occupation for a beauty salon at 84 Ronda Drive, A-20 zone
Josephine Rogoz, owner of Stage Door Hair Design made a presentation to the Commission requesting a renewal of a 5-year major home occupation. Rogoz indicated she is the only operator, there have been no changes to the salon, and she would like to continue with a renewal of the permit.
Banach reviewed the Planning Report:
This is a request for a renewal of an existing 5-year major home occupation permit to operate a hair salon, for property located at 84 Rhonda Drive, A-20 zone. The original 5-year permit was granted in July 1997, at which time the applicant added a new garage and remodeled the existing garage for the salon.
The original approval conditions included: the hours of operation five days a week, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. except for Thursdays when the hours were extended to 7:00 p.m.; retail sales of hair products were restricted to incidental sales to hair care customers; and operation of the salon was restricted to the present owner.
The reasons for requiring PZC renewal are to ensure that the home occupation remains clearly secondary to the use of the building for dwelling purposes and remains compatible with other permitted residential uses in the residential district. Our office has received no complaints regarding operation of the salon.
The applicant is allowed a two square foot sign, however has not had a sign in the past and is not proposing a sign at this time.
If this application is approved, the applicant will be required to return to this Commission for renewal upon expiration of the 5-year permit renewal period.
There was no public participation. The Commission had no questions or concerns. The public hearing on this application closed.
Appl 02-59P, Evergreen Walk--Expo Design Center, request for site plan of development approval for a 90,250 sq ft retail building located on the west side of Buckland Road, north of Smith Street, GD zone (Continued from January 14, 2003)
Alan Lamson was present and indicated he would be presenting new information generated from questions and comments from the previous meeting of January 14, 2003. Lamson responded to the Director of Planning, Marcia Banach’s request to have the impervious coverage calculated on each plan and also to keep a running total for the overall parcel that is zoned Gateway Development. The approval of this site would result in an impervious coverage of 3% of the whole Evergreen Walk Development.
Robert Sonnichsen, President of DELTA Environmental Services, reviewed his qualifications in hydrologic and hydraulic computer modeling and stormwater analysis and management. Sonnichsen submitted to the Commission a photo of a rain garden from Branford, CT.
Sonnichsen noted that the stormwater quality in the proposed Expo Design Center project is protected by a number of different systems. The Connecticut erosion & sediment control guidelines will be used during construction.
Catch basins with deep sumps are the first feature that removes 20-25% of the total suspended solids in stormwater runoff.
Infiltration features will help replicate existing hydrology: rain gardens and roof infiltration.
A 650 foot vegetated swale will remove up to 40% of the total suspended solids.
The storm water detention basin will have the capacity to retain the first inch of runoff but would only need to hold the first ½ inch of runoff to effectively remove 80% of the total suspended solids from the waste water stream. The goal in Connecticut is 80% removal of the total suspended solids. The Expo Design Center will exceed this goal.
After the project is completed an application will be filed for a storm water general permit for commercial activity. This will require the development of a pollution prevention plan establishing a maintenance schedule, maintenance of overall water quality from parking lots, and street sweeping.
The combined systems exceed the state’s goal of 80% total suspended solids removal and will do an excellent job of protecting the water quality downstream.
Lamson noted that Expo has responded to comments of the Commission and input from town staff regarding architecture.Rick Johnson, project architect with Greenberg Farrow, Inc., has made some significant modifications to the elevations. Lamson submitted a new sample board for the materials being proposed currently.
Lamson described the modifications to the building as follows:
The front entry to the Expo building has been redesigned for compatibility with the Lifestyle Center in the design and elevations.
The height of the structure in the center has been decreased by 4 1/2 feet.
The columns on the façade have been redesigned and distributed across the front of the building to give the elevations more scale and definition.
The end walls on the entry have been changed to a split face CMU that is shown on the sample board submitted to the Commission.
The cart storage area was redesigned.
The roof and all roof slopes have been change to a synthetic dark gray slate shingle as shown on the sample board.
The base building corner has been enhanced with cove shaped corners that is more traditional and something one might find in New England
The brick wainscot has been changed from four feet in height to eleven feet. The brick now ties in with the horizontal lines in the front canopy structure and the top of the windows.
Split face block is being proposed up to the cornice.
Faux windows with awnings are being added to the façade of the building.
Loading area is being screened and is all brick to tie in with the base of the building.
The northeast corner of the building has been redesigned incorporating a cupola with a sign band that compliments the colonial detailing and will also serve as a screen for the rooftop.
The southeast corner has been modified with a hip roof.
Lamson explained that the facility will be a regional draw and there is concern with customers accessing the site from a southerly direction being able to find the store. The signage is being focused in that direction.
Rosland Holderfield, Collins Signs, Inc., submitted to the Commission the proposed building signage for the site on the entrance of the building, the east elevation on the cupola, and the free-standing sign on Buckland Road. There will be a five-foot tall EXPO box sign with only the letters illuminated, and another 4’ box sign facing Buckland Road. The total square footage of signage is 378.57. There will be a freestanding monument sign 4’ x 8’, 10’ in height designed with the same architectural features proposed at the intersection for northbound traffic so they can make the necessary turn into the site.
Lamson indicated EXPO feels strongly regarding the signage for the site and has suggested several options for the signage:
1. Keep the stone wall along Buckland Road and incorporate the sign on the wall, use the corner building elements to effectively screen the roof top and building from visibility from Buckland Road.
2. Eliminate the stone screen wall along Buckland Road and add additional landscaping along Buckland Road, leaving the sign on Buckland Road. Group the landscaping and add screening structures to the roof.
3. The applicant will be willing to discuss putting the signage at the southeast corner (Smith Street), without the stone wall; screen around the roof equipment and add landscaping along Buckland Road.
Rosemary Aldridge, landscape architect, InSite, responded to the comments at the last public hearing about the preservation of trees along Buckland Road. She indicated it is a difficult proposition and noted there is a large slope. The quality of a tree will determine if a tree can be saved. Aldridge indicated at the north side of the site there is a large maple tree that will be saved. With the stone screen wall in place there will be a very narrow planting area with small plants. If the stone screen wall is eliminated it would give more room for more substantial plantings. Aldridge has concerns with planting large plant material on such a steep slope. It is difficult to get machinery in to dig and it could cause additional erosion.
Aldridge described the keystone retaining walls with two plant beds on the current plan. The first bed would be 100’in length and the other 150’ in length, 10’ to 19’ in width. There will be a variety of plantings in this area which will allow for selective views of the building.
Lamson submitted an extension letter to February 19, 2003, to continue the public hearing. Lamson stated the Expo site is unique in that the elevations are below the view of Buckland Road and thus would not set a precedent along the rest of Buckland Road regarding the signage.
Marcia Banach, Director of Planning, indicated she had no further comments at this time.
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer, reviewed the engineering comments, stating the majority of the engineering concerns have been addressed. On the plans there are some details that do have to be addressed regarding the traffic signal and the pavement markings. On the access drive to the site there is a sidewalk to the right with a two-foot snow shelf between the sidewalk and the pavement. Doolittle suggested the snow shelf be constructed of brick pavers or concrete. There is also a concern regarding the slope on the access drive that should be addressed.
Matt Galligan, Town Manager, addressed the Commission with his concerns and the importance of this project to the Town of South Windsor. Galligan indicated he is pleased to see the Planning and Zoning Commission is taking care with this application so it is done right. He noted that we have witnessed first hand the mall’s (Pavilion at Buckland Hills) concerns for the environment during the mall construction in Manchester. Galligan responded to the flyers that have been sent out to South Windsor residents from General Growth indicating the impacts that this development would have on traffic issues, wildlife, and the environment when these were not issues when the Pavilion at Buckland Hills was developing. Galligan indicated the Pavilion at Buckland Hills had the ideal location with a view of
the Hartford area which you can see from your vehicle but cannot see from inside the big boxes they chose to develop. There are many issues being raised in the development of this project in South Windsor that were not issues when Manchester was developing the Buckland Hills Mall. Galligan submitted an article from the Hartford Courant (Exhibit B). Galligan stated he hopes the Commission does what’s best for the town by approving Evergreen Walk.
The following was public participation in favor of the application:
Sylvia Georgeadis, 105 Greenfield Drive, spoke in favor the application and feels it is in the best interest of the town to approve this application. It was stated we saw first hand the concerns for the environment when Manchester developed the Buckland Hills Mall. Georgeadis requested that the Commission work with the developers to give South Windsor the much needed tax relief and an alternative to the shops at Buckland Hills.
Marge Anthony, Economic Development Commission Chair, agrees with Matt Galligan and feels this is a first class development on the property and the revenue that will be generated from this project would be a good source of income for the town.
The following was public participation in opposition to the application:
Attorney John King, Updike, Kelley,and Spellacy representing the Pavilion of Buckland Hills, LLC. King indicated he would be filing a petition and the remarks and testimony that will be presented is related entirely to the environment. King stated if they are denied the right to intervene they would like the opportunity to make a presentation as a member of the public. He also requested the Chairman’s permission to combine his intervenor presentation with his “member of the public” presentation rather than having to make separate presentations and separate out the issues.
Chairman McCann responded to King indicating that only environmental issues would be allowable under Section 22a.19 but any member of the public can present their concerns to the Commission on an application. McCann indicated to King that now would be the time to submit a petition to intervene. King responded by submitting to the Commission a petition to intervene (Exhibit B). The Commission took a few minutes to review the petition to intervene.
Chairman McCann addressed the Commission indicating he reviewed the petition and met with the Town Attorney, who has made a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning that they accept the intervenor petition.
Motion to accept the intervenor petition for application 02-59P, Expo Design Center, was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy.
Chairman McCann suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to restrict the acceptance of the petition to the matters that are stated within the petition that are within the purview of Section 22a-19 of the Connecticut General Statutes and within the purview of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The friendly amendment was accepted by the motion maker and seconder. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Attorney King gave a brief overview referencing the Connecticut General Statutes and the Town of South Windsor Regulations regarding storm drainage (Sections 5.8.6.d.2) and pollution emissions (Section 5.8.6.e.4). King submitted exhibits to the Commission that he would be referencing in his presentation as follows:
Exhibit C, dated February 4, 2003, to the Commission outlining the concerns the intervenor has related to the groundwater and pollution.
Exhibit D, dated December 30, 2002, to the US Army Corp of Engineers regarding the trunk sewer line and the sanitary sewer.
Exhibit E, the resume of Dennis J. Lowry of ENSR International who will be presenting at the hearing.
Exhibit F, dated January 3, 2003, a letter from Dennis J. Lowry to the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Exhibit G, dated January 31, 2003, a letter from Fuss & O’Neill to Zina Cassulo-Henerson of the Regulatory Division.
Exhibit H, dated January 30, 2003, a letter from Mathew Kennedy of ENSR International to Attorney John King with Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. regarding storm water issues.
Exhibit I, dated February 4, 2003, letter to Attorney John King from Jay Ahman, Principal Traffic Engineer, with Close, Jensen and Miller, P.C., regarding the traffic impacts associated with Evergreen Walk.
Exhibit J, the resume of Jay Ahmad, Principal Traffic Engineer with Close, Jensen and Miller, P.C.
Exhibit K, resume of Mitchell M. Wurmbrand, CCM, from Environmental Risk Limited.
Exhibit L, dated December 2, 2002, a letter from Mitchell Wurmbrand to Attorney John King regarding a review of the traffic reports and roadway improvements plan.
Exhibit M, the resume of Cory Garro, Project Engineer with Close, Jensen and Miller, P.C.
Exhibit N, a letter dated January 31, 2003 from Cory Garro, Close, Jensen and Miller, P.C., to Attorney John King regarding the review of the project plans, specifically the requirements of Section VIII – Site Development Plan and the South Windsor checklist.
Exhibit O, dated November 7, 2002, a letter from Steven Werbner, General Manager at the Town of Manchester, to Joseph Santaniello, CT Department of Transportation, regarding roadway improvements.
King continued his presentation and stated the Planning & Zoning Commission’s lack of jurisdiction regarding this application because the site plan application involves a regulated activity within a wetland.
Chairman McCann addressed King indicating he would first like to hear evidence or witnesses to testify regarding the environmental issues covered by the statute.
King responded the exhibits submitted are the evidence the intervenor will be presenting to the Commission and he would like the opportunity to summarize their comments.
Chairman McCann stated he would like to hear the testimony from the witnesses pertaining to the environmental issues covered by the statue.
Jay Ahmad, Traffic Engineer with Close, Jensen, and Miller, P.C., gave an overview of his qualifications (Exhibit J). Ahmad stated he reviewed the traffic report submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission prepared by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc. dated October 4, 2002, for the Expo Design Center; traffic report dated April 18, 2001, for Evergreen Walk that evaluated the impact for the 1.23 million square feet of mixed development; and the additional traffic supplements of August 2001, all of the documents that have been submitted to the STC and the roadway improvement plans submitted for the Evergreen Walk Project as well as the plans submitted for the Expo Design Center.
Chairman McCann commented to Ahmad that he would like the comments to be addressed to the Expo Design Center only.
Ahman reviewed his findings with the Commission:
He agreed with the traffic conditions and counts presented by the applicant.
Traffic is projected for 2004, and the Expo Design Center may or may not be built by that time. He indicated the need to refer to the traffic analysis previously done for the Evergreen Walk General Plan of Development.
The analysis of the 90, 250 square feet was conducted at only two intersections, it did not include the exit ramps at I84 that would be impacted.
The trip generation as presented was acceptable.
The distribution of site traffic assigned 35 % of site traffic from the area south of Pleasant Valley Road from the Manchester area. This distribution is contrary to the A-1 Gravity Model that was prepared for this project earlier in the process. Ahman indicated there would be 45-50% of site traffic from the south.
Based on the data provided Amhad feels the analysis is low and traffic analysis is incomplete:
Capacity analysis should extend beyond the two intersections.
Has not done a traffic analysis for this site; it was taken from the previous traffic reports.
The level of service D is low and the intersection will function at level of service F with Saturday combined traffic.
The roadway improvements prepared for the Expo store show only improvements on Buckland Road in the vicinity of the site drive prior to the construction. The approval granted by STC stipulated 18 conditions prior to construction and the applicant will need to modify the STC approval prior to construction.
John Mallin, with Cummings and Lockwood, representing the applicant indicated Ahmad was not addressing the environmental issues and objected to the testimony being presented.
Chairman McCann commented he is in agreement with Mallin, but McCann would allow Ahmad to continue in hope that he would tie his testimony into the environmental issues.
King stated he has a report and will explain the traffic congestion and its relation to traffic pollution.
Chairman McCann indicated testimony should pertain to environmental issues of the Expo Design Center application only. McCann stated he has been waiting for some evidence regarding the environmental issues and Ahmad is only giving his opinion of the traffic analyses that have been submitted by the applicant. In fairness to all parties it is suggested to present testimony regarding the public trust and environmental issues.
Mallin addressed the Commission indicating the record in this matter is crossing back and forth from this application and the Evergreen Walk General Plan of Development, and from intervenor to a member of the public. He noted it may be difficult to review the record and understand what information is being presented for the intervention. The intervenor is in control of their presentation and can present their case in a manner where the record can be preserved.
Chairman McCann indicated if the intervenor has information regarding environmental issues, the Commission would like to hear the testimony and would ask the presenter to get to the point of the matter.
King responded if the testimony is addressing an issue that is within the purview of the Zoning Commission the record will not be jeopardized.
There was discussion by several parties. It was determined by Chairman McCann that the traffic report accuracy or inaccuracies may continue only if related solely to issues of the environment.
Ahmad stated he reviewed the traffic reports and his findings have been submitted to the Commission (Exhibit I) and Attorney King may tie this report into the environmental issues at a later date.
King submitted a resume for Mitchell Wurmbrand (Exhibit K) and correspondence (Exhibit L) in response to the testimony of Jay Ahmad. Wurmbrand was not present and King presented his comments indicating there will be hazardous environmental air quality issues that will impact the Buckland Road area.
McCann stated the report refers to the Evergreen Walk Development throughout. King is presenting to the Commission his opinion that the applicant should provide an additional report on air quality.
King responded that the reviewer of the traffic report believes there is an environmental impact and air pollution and it has been demonstrated regarding this application.
King continued his presentation, referencing the trunk sewer line. He noted that with this application there will be regulated activity on the wetlands. He also noted that he believes the parcel needs to be subdivided. There are many legal reasons and environmental reasons why this application should not be before the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Chairman McCann and Attorney King engaged in a discussion regarding the entire 232-acre site vs. the Expo site and the information being presented within this application.
King continued to address the Commission with the information an intervenor must provide to the Commission and referred to a recent case in Connecticut. King believes that this application has not followed the legislation and regulations and is unreasonable.
Chairman McCann address Attorney Mallin inquiring if he has a response to the comments of the intervenor. Mallin indicated he would like Mr. Mitchell to address those comments.
Steven Mitchell addressed the points to clarify for the record some items that were misleading in the record.
The existing traffic counts were reviewed by Jay Ahmad, Traffic Engineer.
They are in agreement that a design year of 2004 is reasonable.
The gravity model referred to by the intervenor was submitted for the use in the Evergreen Walk General Plan of Development as a result of staff comments for Deming Street only, and was being used out of context by the intervenor.
Mallin responded to the sewer trunk line issues and the lack of the connection. That application is being submitted by another party, the Town of South Windsor. The intervenor has an appeal in place and that is why the applicant has not been able to finalize plans for the trunk sewer.
Mallin indicated no testimony has been brought forth indicating actual environment issues regarding this application.
Charles Fay, Cummings and Lockwood, representing the applicant, responded to Mr. King’s comments about the results of intervention litigation. Fay noted that the litigation referred to by Mr. King had been overturned by the CT Supreme Court.
King reviewed the legal points:
The sewer connection will have far more than a de minimis impact.
The application for the trunk sewer line has not been submitted to IWA/CC.
Significant evidence has been established that there will be an impact.
McCann addressed King regarding the appeal with WPCA trunk sewer line. McCann commented that the intervenor is arguing both sides. King gave a summary of the reason for appeal.
Cory Garro, Project Manager, with Close, Jensen, and Miller, submitted a letter along with his resume (Exhibits M and N) regarding the site development checklist.
King added to the record a letter dated November 7, 2002 from the Town of Manchester (Exhibit O) regarding the roadway improvements in Manchester.
Chairman McCann stated the petition to intervene has been granted and indicated the intervenor and applicant are to provide to each other any submissions submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission pertaining to this application.
Lamson stated the application before the Commission is for site plan approval. The plans and documents as modified conform to the regulations. The project architecture has been modified improving the building significantly. Lamson indicated this is a regional store and stated the site is considerably lower compared to the abutting road and that creates some difficulty with the identification of the site by motorists. The drainage concerns by staff have been addressed and the plan as shown is sensitive to the downstream effects.
Mallin addressed the intervention petition and noted that the purpose of the intervention is to allow a party that has valid environmental concerns to present them. There have been questions raised and no proof has been presented. The actions by the Manchester mall are clearly more related to their economic concerns. If you look at the petition on page 2, items A-J, the only issues addressed at the hearing by the intervenor was item G. The question is whether an unreasonable impact is reasonably likely. The Supreme Court was very clear in what is expected. The petition purpose in this case was to delay. We request that the Commission find the application as presented is not reasonably likely to cause unreasonable pollution.
King stated the application is incomplete and the application is not presenting what is actually going to happen. He said that the petition addressed more of the items than what Mallin indicated.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Bazzano asked Mitchell if the traffic gravity model as presented by the intervenor indicated a 45% site traffic generator and it was presented at 35% by the applicant? Mitchell responded the gravity model is one of several methods. The method used is a very good estimate of the traffic.
Commissioner Bazzano asked for clarification regarding the wall on Buckland Road? Aldridge responded there are two alternatives along Buckland Road:
A low three-foot high stone screen wall to screen the view of the building from Buckland Road at the top of the slope. This will create a very narrow planting area.
The screen wall could be eliminated and allow for views into the site with the change in the elevations. This would allow for a wider planting area for more substantial groupings with more variety.
Commissioner Larsen has concerns with the being proposed sign of Buckland Road identifying the Expo Design Center. The regulations are clear in that only a sign identifying the overall site is allowed on Buckland Road.
Lamson responded there were three options that we presented and the applicant would be willing to work with the Commission regarding the signage on Buckland Road.
Commissioner Montana asked if it would it be feasible to incorporate other businesses on the sign? Lamson responded they would like Expo Design Center only. The sign would be too large with other businesses. Commissioner Montana asked for more information on the synthetic slate that is being proposed for the roofing material. Johnson responded it is made of recycled tires and has a 50-year limited warranty. Lamson noted that it is manufactured in Canada.
Commissioner Evans commented about locating the sign at Smith Street and asked what the landscaping would look like? Lamson responded it would be the landscaping Aldridge proposed. Commissioner Evans inquired if the sign were placed further back to the parking lot would it be able to be seen and meet the zoning regulations. Holderfield indicated you would not see the sign because the elevations drop down too low.
Commissioner Evans questioned if the traffic light would be designed to be incorporated into the system? Mitchell indicated the traffic signal has been addressed to the satisfaction of the town. Doolittle explained there is a system in place that will tie in all of the traffic signals.
Commissioner Choate asked Banach if she had any alternatives for the sign on Buckland Road? Banach indicated there are no additional suggestions.
Commissioner Kennedy inquired if the intervenor petition signatory, Scott Miller, were present. It was indicated he was not.
Commissioner Kennedy commented on the intervenor testimony regarding the traffic report #11 submitted by Ahmad regarding adequate parking for the site and inquired how many studies Ahmad conducted at other Expo Design Centers. Ahmad responded that he has not studied any other Expo sites but that he visited an Expo store while in Chicago because he wanted to see what an Expo Center looks like. He noted that it was on Thanksgiving and the store was not open. Ahmad stated the applicant should provide documentation to justify that 305 parking spaces are adequate for the site.
Commissioner Kennedy inquired what the rationale would be for allowing Expo’s sign on Buckland Road but no other signs? Lamson responded due to the lack of visibility of this site, which does not occur for any other site on Buckland Road. Commissioner Kennedy commented the Expo Design Center is a destination location and a road sign should not be critical. Lamson commented the bulk of the traffic is coming from the south and signage is necessary.
Commissioner Wentzell commented he is in favor of the stone wall and commented on the roof top screening and the views a pedestrian might see. Lamson responded the screening is for vehicles traveling on Buckland Road.
Commissioner Wentzell commented on the sign that is being proposed and inquired if it will be in the gateway zone. Lamson responded the whole site is in the gateway development zone. Banach indicated if the sign were approved at the corner of Buckland Road and Smith Street, the applicant could provide a deed restriction along the remainder of the property frontage on Buckland Road to the Town of South Windsor and the Commission would be assured there would be no other signs along Buckland Road.
Commissioner Wentzell inquired if the landscaping in the truck loading area had changed. Aldridge responded the trees proposed in this location are 6 to 7 feet tall and the commission may want taller trees at the time of planting. Commissioner Wentzell asked for clarification regarding whether the cross sections that were presented in the architectural elevations show height at planting. Aldridge responded yes and indicated the height at five years was also shown.
Commissioner Cottle stated with the turret signs visible to the east and south on Buckland Road could they substitute for the monument sign being proposed on Buckland Road? Lamson responded the turret signs are only visible from the westerly direction on Buckland. The monument sign would be visible down Buckland Road.
Commissioner Cottle addressed Attorney King inquiring if the owner of the Buckland Hills Mall were the owner of the proposed parcel for the Expo Design Center would they be so concerned with the environmental issues. King responded if that were the case, the application would not be presented in the way this application has been presented to the various agencies in a piece-meal approach.
Commissioner Cottle commented on the traffic that is generated on Avery Street due to the Town of Manchester and the Buckland Hills Mall and other parties. He stated he agrees with the comments of Matt Galligan, Town Manager, regarding the reasons for the intervenor interests in this application.
Commissioner Pacekonis questioned the pavers being proposed and inquired where they will be terminated? Doolittle responded they would terminate at the sidewalk ramp on Buckland Road.
Commissioner Pacekonis stated he did not see the 30” maple tree that is to be saved on the landscaping plan. It seems as if it has been omitted. Aldridge indicated the plan would be corrected. Commissioner Pacekonis inquired as to why the larger trees on the slope would not be saved? Aldridge responded that they are second growth trees. At the top of the slope along the roadway there are mostly autumn olives that are invasive shrubs.
Commissioner Pacekonis commented the cupola is now 15 feet higher than the previous plan and is that adequate signage for Buckland Road. Lamson indicated from an easterly direction you cannot see the cupola sign from Buckland Road.
Chairman McCann commented on the architectural elevations and was pleased with the revisions. The signage still seems to be an issue. The applicant wants to have the cupola signage and the monument sign on Buckland Road. The signage on Buckland Road is in violation of the zoning regulations.
The grading from the sidewalk down to the parking lot is a very steep slope. The sidewalk along the top of the graded area will create an unreasonable hazard for pedestrians and vehicles and needs to be addressed. A suggestion would be to flatten out the area by terracing with retaining walls and creating additional planting areas at the top of the slope. It was also suggested to have a traffic barrier or guardrail to prevent a hazardous situation. Lamson responded it is expensive to terrace and it will extend into the parking lot eliminating parking spaces. Giles stated they could have a partial chain link fence on the slope and it was discussed to have a guardrail near the road.
Steve Mitchell stated a stone wall barrier 3 feet in height should not require an additional fence. Chairman McCann indicated the slope is the same degree of slope as the Lowe’s site and he would not feel comfortable approving without the appropriate protection at this slope.
Chairman McCann commented on the intervenor making their presentation without disrupting the proceedings, and stated that the Commission can take into account that the intervenor is a competitor with a competitive interest in this application.
Chairman McCann addressed Banach inquiring if the hearing for this application should remain open. Banach indicated the IWA/CC report has not been provided yet since IWA/CC has not taken action; and if the Commission would like the applicant to address the concerns presented at the public hearing, it should be continued.
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the public hearing to February 18, 2003.
Commissioner Wentzell inquired if the continuation of the public hearing was to only address to IWA/CC report and the concerns presented from the Commissioners? Chairman McCann responded yes.
Attorney King addressed the Chair inquiring if the intervenor would be able to present additional concerns regarding the application at the continued public hearing. Chairman McCann stated he does not want to keep the public hearing open-ended and the Commission would take into consideration the intervenor’s concerns when they arise.
The public hearing adjourned at 12:35 a.m..
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli Holmes
Recording Secretary
| 
