MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Bart Pacekonis, Patrick Kennedy, Clifford Slicer, and Gary Bazzano
ALTERNATES PRESENT Michael Sullivan sat for Bazzano after Bazzano left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Louise Evans sat for Sue Larsen
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Wentzell opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
1. Appl 05-17P, M/S Town Line Associates, Inc. Earth Filling Permit, request for site plan approval for earth filling to create a building pad at 90 Buckland Road, GD zone
McCann read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday March 31, 2005 and Thursday April 7, 2005.
Alan Lamson, FLB Architects & Planning, representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ The parcel of land is located at the northeast corner of Buckland Road and the driveway east to Lowe’s and Target.
§ The parcel contains 5 ¾ acres.
§ The applicant is currently working on a development plan for the overall site. Users are available for an 11,000 sf building located on the southwest corner of the property. The applicant will appear before PZC with an overall plan for the site in the near future.
§ Cuts and fills will be done at the southwest corner of the property and across the frontage for site preparation.
§ Activity is located outside the wetland area.
§ Appropriate E & S measures will be provided.
§ Existing storm drainage runs to this site, flows underneath Buckland Road to a detention basin located down in the southwest corner of Evergreen walk.
§ A temporary sediment basin will be placed along Buckland Road and drain into the existing storm drainage system. The outlet structure has been changed to provide for better sedimentation control.
§ It is desired to incorporate other utilities into the site as part of this application.
§ There will be approximately 1600 net cubic yards of excess material. This will be stockpiled on site on a temporary basis until it is needed for future development on the site.
§ The anti-tracking apron has been relocated; silt fence and a CB has been added on Buckland Road per Town Engineer.
§ Stone filter berms will be added and the outlets will be revised per Town Engineer.
§ Seeding has been increased and additional hay mulch has been added to the site per Town Engineer.
§ Approval was received from IWA/CC with the following condition: ‘The client is not to start any work on the site until the American Holly tree (in front of the Edlund house) has been relocated.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
1. Purpose of a land filling permit is to conserve and preserve water storage areas by helping to maintain ground water levels and stream flow to secure safety from flood dangers and to control any fill operations that may create safety or health hazards to the public or adjacent property owners.
2. A land filling permit may be issued by your Commission for a period not to exceed one year.
3. Your land filling regulations require that the plan provide the proper drainage during and after completion and that no bank will exceed a slope of 2-1.
4. The Commission may require safety means to protect vehicular and pedestrian traffic such as pavement of access roads to relieve traffic problems.
5. Site Plan of Development will be required before any further construction is committed on this site.
6. The proposed operation will occur solely from the access road, the Lowe’s/Target access road, there will be no curb cuts or activity on Buckland Road.
7. The Town of Manchester has been notified of this pending application.
8. If this application is approved, Planning Department has no additional approval modifications to request.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
1. The street line along Buckland Road needs to be clarified. It is not shown clearly on the submitted plan.
2. Adequate snow shelf needs to be provided to allow utilities and minor improvements that are needed along Buckland Road – normally it is 10’ from the curb to the property line.
3. The site shall be cleaned up and stabilized no later than October to allow for stabilization through the winter.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of 6700 yards, final elevation, and proximity of activity to detention basin #2. 6700 yards will be cut and filled, with a net excess of about 1600 cubic yards of material. Elevation that will be brought to is 174 – a foot below the future pad elevation. Grading will occur outside the upland review area.
· Retaining existing vegetation – evergreen trees. They will be removed, since they are within the future development area; and if desired the evergreens can be replaced with new evergreens when a site plan is submitted.
· Clarification of detention basin along street. It’s a temporary sedimentation basin, not a detention basin. Under full build the area will be graded smoothly past the property line to the building line (2 acres involved).
· Reason for accomplishing this now. Lease obligations: under the lease terms, the owner is obligated to begin work within a certain time frame.
· It is desired not to store more material on the site than what will be eventually used to complete the site, excess material shall be removed. The temporary stockpile will be approximately 6’ high. It is anticipated that the remaining construction on the site will start in late summer, eliminating the stockpile.
· Clarification of sidewalks. A sidewalk will be put in along Buckland Road as part of the site development plan.
· Clarification of temporary fence for sediment basin. No fence. The slopes are 3-1 and 2-1 in some spots.
· Clarification of sediment basin. Part of the bottom will be wet because of the overflow pipe. The intent is not to create a deep pond with steep slopes.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
2. Appl 05-18P, Oulundsen’s TAE Kwon-Do, request for a special exception to 6.1.3.9 to operate a TAE Kwon-Do studio on property located at 259 Sullivan Avenue, I zone (Exhibit A)
The applicant desires to move his facility to 259 Sullivan Avenue. The part of the building involved contains approximately 6,000 sf. The area contains 2 bathrooms, changing rooms, and offices. Parking will be sufficient. A fitness center occupies the remainder of the building.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
The applicant is requesting special exception approval to Section 6.1.3.9 of the Industrial zoning regulations to relocate his existing TAEkwon-do training facility, approximately 5,600 sf, to property located at 259 Sullivan Ave, I zone. Section 6.1.3.9 allows indoor recreational activities in the industrial zone. We do note that Section 6.1.3.9 excludes uses that are primarily classroom instruction, so the Commission will have to decide whether this proposed use is considered “classroom instruction.”
The applicant has provided a narrative defining the scope of activity that will occur at this location. The intent is to provide TAEkwon-do and self-defense training and instruction to all age groups on a group and individual basis. The applicant is proposing to have small group programs (up to 20 students) offering a wide range of fitness instruction. The programs will primarily be scheduled from 4:30 PM – 8:30 PM Monday through Thursday, 5-6 PM on Friday and 8:30 –12:00 PM on Saturday. The existing site has a large gravel area to the north in the vicinity of the unbuilt building that should accommodate parking needs with no difficulty.
The special exception criteria in the industrial zone includes:
the goals and the objectives of the Town Plan of Development are met;
adverse traffic impacts are not created;
negative impacts on property values are not created;
the land is physically suited for the proposed use;
adverse environmental impacts are not created;
there is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs;
present and proposed utilities, streets drainage systems, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
historic factors are adequately protected;
the overall appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goal for the neighborhood/corridor.
The Commission’s regulation states that the indoor recreational activities must be contained inside buildings which may be readily converted to traditional industrial uses; and that the exterior of the building must remain industrial in appearance. The maximum hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m. to midnight, unless otherwise permitted by this Commission.
The Special Exception regulations allow the Commission to impose additional approval conditions in order to ensure that all criteria are satisfied.
The facility is currently an industrial building and there are no exterior changes proposed with this use. The Commission may recall that the KORE Fitness training facility was approved at this location in 2004.
If approved, the Planning Dept. has no requested modifications.
Town Engineer had no comments.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of commencing activity at 8:30 a.m. on Saturdays. Yes
· Clarification of instruction – participants sitting at desks?. No.
· Clarification of sign and location. There is an existing ‘Depot Square’ sign. Applicant will add a sign on the building.
· Participants walk in from street? No.
· Participants register for a specific length of time? Yes, and registration goes by the month.
· Business increasing? Yes
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
There was no public participation.
Historical District discussion regarding zoning regulations update (Exhibit B)
Open discussion included the following comments:
o Jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission is to deal with aesthetics and maintain the character of the District.
o All new construction or alterations within the Historic District appear before the District for approval.
o An item of concern is the development of interior lots; no prohibition in the Zoning Regulations for property located in the Historic District.
o Properties are very long and narrow with the front part of the property being located in the District.
o Jurisdiction of the District goes from the center of Main Street – 600’ back.
o Property has to be a lot of record since 1990 in order to apply for an interior lot. New subdivisions with new streets cannot be designed to include any interior lots.
o State Statute declares that the District has authority over the architectural design of structures, not density, land use, etc. Goal is to discourage people from changing the character of the district.
o If there are regulations that the District would like to present as an application, they may do so.
o The character of Main Street has changed within the last few years, e.g. materials, style, scale, and details.
o The District is requesting that PZC restrict development of interior lots and SRD’s within the District, and ideally, along the whole length of Main Street.
o The District desires to have input on applications that are located in or near the District.
o It is not desired to have a modern style house behind a historical home – both must maintain the character of the historical property. The whole length of Main Street is a unique area and has the designation of a ‘Scenic Road.’
o A joint Committee of PZC and the Historic District could be set up to address the concerns of the District.
Banach noted that when the interior lot regulations passed in 1990, it was based on the wishes of people on Main Street, so the subcommittee will need to be sensitive to both sides of the issue.
o A historic research and survey project has been funded and will be underway soon in South Windsor.
o Historic District submitted an article, ‘Taming the Teardown Trend’ (Exhibit C). People buying historic properties then tearing down the buildings to replace them with “McMansions” has become a problem in historic districts throughout the country.
2. Appl 05-16P, Stowe Kitchen and Bath, request for site plan modification for a 4,000+ sf addition on property located at 845 Sullivan Avenue, GC zone
Richard Boston, Landscape Architect and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Proposal will include an addition of 4062 square feet at the rear of the existing building, providing a total 6600 square feet of commercial space.
§ Building will include an office, display area, workshop, and warehousing.
§ The existing miniature golf and batting cages will remain along with a snack shed that is in that area.
§ Pavement coverage will be reduced; 51 parking spaces will be provided.
§ A loading area will be created in the rear.
§ Site contains 3.4 acres, impervious coverage will amount to 29%; building coverage will be approximately 4.8%.
§ This application has received approval from IWA/CC.
§ ADRC requested that additional arborvitaes be added on the property line next to the Red Onion Restaurant; this modification was incorporated into the plan.
§ Lighting has been modified by removing the existing floodlights and reducing the height of the lighting.
§ Proposed lighting is shoe-box lights, 20’ high. The front of the building will feature goose neck, decorative lighting. No light will shine off the property at night. Color of the light poles will be kelly green.
§ The Town Engineer has requested that the existing in/out lanes of the drive be combined to one large egress/ingress drive. Pavement and curbing of the drive is in good shape and large trucks will have sufficient maneuverability. Applicant requests that it remain as is, with separate entrance and exit drives, and it will be clearly marked as such.
§ The applicant will supplement the landscaping at the entrance to make it more attractive and remove the rocks. Landscaping proposed at the foundations will be new plantings.
§ The proposed sign will include the golf course and batting cages. The applicant is aware that he has to return with the final design of the sign. Under a previous ZBA approval for Dairy Queen, the applicant is allowed a sign of 91.5 square feet.
§ Existing utilities will not be changed. It is proposed to construct a new pad for the transformer. Dumpster will be fenced in.
§ A new sidewalk will be placed to separate pedestrians for the recreational activities from the showroom parking.
David Holmes, Architect and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ An egress for the basement will be placed on the easterly side of the existing building.
§ Openings for the addition will occur in the rear.
§ The proposed building will be taller than the existing building and will feature a sloped roof, synthetic stucco for 2 sides that can be seen from Sullivan Avenue. Color of the addition will be consistent with the colors of the existing building (simple and neutral).
§ Building sign will feature surface mounted letters, announcing the business, and will be lit by 4 goose neck down-lights.
§ 2 Walpak lighting fixtures will be placed in the rear of the building.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
Request for site plan approval for a 4,050 sf addition (building totaling 6,620 sf). The applicant was recently approved to relocate their existing business and showroom at 845 Sullivan Ave., GC zone. The applicant is proposing to continue the use of the existing miniature golf and batting cages at the rear of the site.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%. The plan reflects impervious coverage of 29%. Proposed height for the modified building is 18+ feet; 40 feet allowed. Lot size is 3.4 ac; minimum lot size required is 20,000 sq ft. Frontage is 200 feet; minimum required is 100 feet. Front yard setback is 81 feet, 35 feet required.
Parking requirements for the site are 27 spaces for the showroom/office. We don’t have specific requirements for the mini golf and batting cages, so the applicant has estimated 23 spaces (totaling 50 spaces); 51 have been provided.
The applicant appeared before ADRC on March 15 to review the proposed addition. The committee was pleased with the proposal, however they did request additional plantings be added along the property line abutting the shopping center next door. This modification has been shown.
The site is served by public water and sewer.
The dumpster area is proposed behind the new addition and is shown on a concrete pad and screened.
If this project is approved, the Planning Dept. has no modifications to request.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
The notes on the plot plan need to be on the topographic plan as well to make the plans clearer and easier to read.
What is in the rectangular area on the west side of the existing building by the handicap parking spaces? Will this change? This should be labeled on the site plan.
The plans should be changed to show removal of pavement and a curbed landscape area where painted cross hatching is shown on the east side of the building. Some of this pavement will have to be removed to build the addition, a curb will protect the proposed door on the east side and a landscape bed will be more attractive than pavement next to the building.
It is not clear where existing pavement is being cut and removed and new pavement added. The topographic plan needs to clearly show where existing pavement is being cut and removed and where new pavement and curb is being installed. More notes or shading of areas would help.
The water and sanitary sewer lines from the existing building to the existing food and beverage building in the south part of the site run under the proposed building addition. These will have to be moved, sleeved or otherwise protected as part of the construction of the new building. There is a note on the utility plan about this; however, I think more details are needed. The proposed fence enclosure around the dumpster pad conflicts with the existing water line.
One or both of the catch basins near the driveways will need to be rebuilt or have new type CL tops set so they do not conflict with the new curb line.
The two driveways are very close together and are not necessary with this site use. One center driveway can serve the site. The west driveway should be removed and the eastern drive widened to accommodate trucks turning into the site. One additional parking space can be added in the northwest corner of the lot
No one from the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· The former Dairy Queen functioned well with one way in and one way out driveway.
· Maneuverability of trucks. Truck traffic (for the site) will generally be coming east on Sullivan Avenue, will make a right hand turn into the site, and after unloading will continue around the building and out of the site via the second driveway. Minor modifications to the pavement will take place for efficient maneuverability. There are several utility poles that would have to be moved if the Commission desired one wide driveway. The applicant would pay $30,000 to move one pole.
· Lighting for the golf course. No lighting is being proposed for the recreational activities.
· One entrance and one exit to the property are more beneficial than one wide driveway. Appropriate signage should be maintained.
· Elevations of the addition. The east side is screened by large existing plantings. Addition is a neutral backdrop to the existing building. The existing building will feature gabled roofs, columns, and new windows. Intent is not to call attention to the addition; emphasis is placed on the new architectural features to be added to the existing building as part of Phase I..
· Texture and depth is desired for the addition. Flowering crabs will be planted along the addition and will reach a height of 20’ and 20’ wide. These trees will create relief, even during the winter months.
· View to the east. There are large existing trees on the property line to screen the parking lot for the Red Onion; the screening will be supplanted with arborvitae. The property line has a 3’ grade change.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-16P, Stowe Kitchen and Bath with the following modifications:
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
A landscape bond in the amount of $3,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
The building street number must be included on the final plan.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
Slicer seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Appl 05-19P, Nutmeg Recycling, LLC dba Hudson Baylor Corporation, request for site plan modification for property located at 300 Rye Street, I zone
Galen Semprebon, Professional Engineer representing the applicant, had the following comments in his presentation:
Recycling has been previously approved on the site.
New driveway from Rye Street has been constructed.
A vortechnic unit is proposed for treatment of the storm water.
The applicant requests to utilize the south end of the building for the recycling operation because access to the rail siding is warranted.
The applicant will rent the north side of the building.
An office area, with associated parking, will be established on the south side of the building – this will separate the office from the trucking portion.
The intent is to create an entry to the office that does not require driving through the parking lot.
The driveway and parking area will be eliminated resulting in a new entrance road that is up to standards.
It is proposed to construct a water quality class detention basin which will receive flow from the pavement areas and for detention.
Approval was received from IWA/CC.
Discharge will be piped into an existing culvert to avoid discharging on the steeper slopes of the site and restoration of existing eroded areas will be take place.
Comments from the Town Engineer are being addressed, e.g. providing a direct connection to the outlet pipe; a deep CB with a hood to catch the small surface areas for treatment.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
1. Request for site plan modification for parking and circulation revisions at Hudson Baylor, 300 Rye Street, I zone. This site plan was previously approved for beverage container recycling in May 2003; and an approval for a rail spur was granted in 2004. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%, 31% shown, however, this appears to be the exact same impervious coverage figure shown on the previous modification and needs to be updated. The impervious coverage figure should include reserve parking.
2. There are two areas of reserve parking shown. Staff is comfortable with not constructing unnecessary pavement, and this site is very adequate in size to handle additional parking needs.
3. There is a 50’ buffer requirement along the Troy Road frontage. The buffer is completely adequate as it exists on the ground, and there are no implications to the buffer as a result of the modifications, with the possible exception of the area of the new drainage pipe installation. The buffer hasn’t yet been shown on a site plan. It should be tracked on the site plan so that it doesn’t get lost over time.
4. There are regulated wetlands in the vicinity of the modifications. IWA/CC approved the plan on April 6 with a $10,000 bond for erosion & sediment control and a $10,000 bond for establishment of storm water structures.
5. If this application is approved, the Planning Dept requests that the plot plan be modified to conform with the site plan submittal requirements prior to filing in the Town Clerk’s office.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
Include a demolition plan showing all the existing structures, pavement, utilities, etc to be removed.
What will happen to all the monitoring wells along the east side of the building?
Some of the labels on the plan do not seem to be in the correct location. For example, on sheet 4 there are two places where there is a D for existing pervious area to remain over what appears to be proposed as new pavement. Please double check the labels.
The plan needs to clearly show where there will be new pavement and where existing pavement will remain on the site.
The new driveway from the north side of the building around to the east side should tie into existing pavement between the parking spaces, not at the parking spaces.
The small open connection between the proposed drainage pipe from the detention basin and the existing pipe under Troy Road needs to be closed for ease of maintenance and to prevent clogging with debris and possible flooding of the road. Connect the drainage pipe from the proposed detention basin directly to the existing drainage pipe that crosses Troy Road at a new manhole or catch basin. Include an inlet pipe to the side of this structure from the existing wetlands at the bottom of the slope. There needs to be a plunge pool to trap sediment at the inlet to this pipe.
What is the box with a door on each side that is across from the truck door to the building? This needs to be labeled and should be pushed east about 7-8 feet to line up with the parking space s and pavement on both sides.
Why is storm water from CB1 and CB2 bypassing the detention basin? This storm water will not be treated for storm water quality and it looks like some of it comes from the drive, parking areas, and railroad siding loading area as well as the roof.
The storm water calculations include a CB4 and MH2 that I could not find on the plans. These calculations may need to be updated.
Will there be any process wastewater or wash water from the operations at this site? If so the Superintendent of Pollution Control needs to be contacted.
No one from the public had input regarding this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of front parking. Parking has been provided for the front portion of the building in other areas on site. Parking will be provided for each component use, and there is also plenty of reserve parking shown on the site plan that can be constructed in the future if it turns out to be necessary.
· Clarification of gravel parking area. That is part of the reserve parking area. The temporary stockpile is part of the construction. Intent was to eliminate the clearing of trees.
· Clarification of street ROW lines. 25’ has been provided for the right-of-way per approval letter of 3/29/04.
· Landscaping for the detention basin. Plantings have been indicated within the basin – basin will be a dry basin. Basin will have a clay liner and an underdrain to assure that no water will stand. Adjacent area is a picnic area for the employees.
· Clarification of rental situation. A tenant for the northern portion of the building has not been identified yet.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-19P, Nutmeg Recycling, LLC with the following modifications:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including 2 bonds in the amount of $10,000 each for erosion and sediment control and for establishment of storm water structures.
4. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
6. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
7. If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until the certificate has been issued (per CGS §14-311).
8. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
9. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
10. Plot plan must be modified to conform with site plan requirements prior to filing in the Town Clerk’s office.
11. The required 50’ buffer must be shown.
12. Town Engineer’s review comments, dated April 6, 2005 must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Wentzell called for five-minute break.
4. Appl 05-21P, Four Seasons Painters, request for site plan for the construction of an office building and garage on property located at 435 Chapel Road, RC zone (Exhibit D)
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc. and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
v Existing building formerly housed the Bradley TV Repair facility.
v Modification will include the renovation of the existing building, adding a second floor and converting to an office building (3722 sf); it will feature a gambrel roof, cream colored vinyl siding with white trim, brown architectural shingles on the roof, four dormers across the front and four dormers across the back.
v 29 parking spaces will be provided.
v Applicant has 4 commercial vehicles, 1 clerical employee, 3 part time employees (seasonal employees can be 6-8 if warranted);
v Proposal is to add on 2 garage bays – commercial vehicles need to be parked inside at night for security; the third bay will be used for personal use (collects classic cars).
v The front office building will be rented out; back building will be used for office space for the painting business (2800 sf); the opportunity may arise to rent out some of this office space.
v Completed office space will be approximately 9041 sf.
v No vehicles will be parking outside at night.
v No storage of paint will occur – paint is delivered per job.
v Painting equipment will be kept in the garage area.
v Site is surrounded by Restricted Commercial Zone and $4500 will be paid in property taxes.
v Landscaping will include maples, flowering pear, shadblow, holly, rhododendron, (approximately 40 shrubs and 4 trees).
Karen Isherwood, Professional Engineer representing the applicant, had the following comments in her presentation:
v Existing parking lot and pavement extends beyond the property line in the front; curb stops in front of building.
v Curb stops will be placed along the parking area and curbing will be added before the street.
v Main access drive will be relocated further west.
v Existing grass swales convey drainage to the southerly portion of the site.
v A yard drain will be added for infiltration drainage in the winter.
Pacekonis made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
v The current leaching field will be abandoned with the building construction. WPCA approval will be required for the sewer hookup.
v Dumpster will be placed on a pad and screened appropriately.
v Applicant will return to ADRC with lighting plan and to show the location of mechanicals.
v Lighting includes Walpaks, full cut off fixtures.
Banach provided the following report:
1. Request for site plan approval for the construction of a 1900 sf 2nd story addition to the existing 1800 sq ft building, and a 4-bay addition to the existing 2-bay garage, with 2,800 sf of office above the garage, on property located at 435 Chapel Road, RC zone.
2. The commission may recall that the applicant appeared before us about a year ago to discuss the proposed use because of staff’s concern about whether this use is permitted in a Restricted Commercial zone. The stated uses in the RC zone are offices & financial institutions, retail stores, restaurants, personal service shops and hotels, not contractors. General contractor establishments are expressly included as a permitted use in the industrial zone. At the time of the preliminary discussion, the applicant had indicated that he would have 2 vans parked inside the existing garage, as well as materials to be stored such as ladders, power washers, and spray equipment. According to the correspondence submitted by the applicant at that time, his intent was to utilize the
existing garage on site. Planning Dept wants to go on record again as still being very concerned that this is not a use permitted in the RC zone, and with the tripling of the size of the garage, I am even more concerned that this will be an industrial operation, not a restricted commercial operation.
3. The applicant has indicated that it is his intent to operate his residential house painting business from the rear garage and office space above, and the front building will be leased for office space.
4. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%, 58% proposed. Proposed building height is 14 feet; 25 feet allowed. Lot size is 36,282 sf; minimum lot size allowed is 30,000. Frontage is 150 ft; minimum allowed is 150 ft. Front yard setback is 66.2 feet, 65 feet minimum permitted.
5. There is no outdoor storage proposed on site. All storage of materials is proposed to be conducted within the garage building.
6. Parking requirement for the office use is 29 spaces; 29 have been provided. Parking for the garage area has not been specifically addressed. The applicant has indicated to staff that the garage area would be constructed so that it could easily be converted into office space. However, the Commission should be aware that if that were done additional parking would be required, yet the current proposal is right on top of the maximum impervious coverage allowed so that additional parking would be a bit of a challenge.
7. The applicant appeared in front of the ADRC on March 24th. Overall the committee was pleased with the appearance, however they did have the following comments:
Cut sheet of full cut-off wall pak fixtures as well as a photometric diagram for proposed lighting must be submitted.
A mechanical area behind the building must be shown on the plans and screened.
Windows along the front of the building should match in size.
The applicant has revised the plans to show the mechanical area. The other two items are outstanding.
8. There is a 5% interior parking lot landscaping requirement. The applicant is exceeding this requirement with proposed landscaping.
9. The applicant has not proposed any free standing signage at this time.
10. There are no regulated wetlands on site and there will not be 20,000 sf of disturbance, so no IWA/CC permit is required.
11. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
12. There is a dumpster behind the building, shown on a concrete pad and screened.
13. If this application is approved, the planning department requests the key map should be modified to show the proposed additions as required by the site plan regulations.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
The new driveway and front parking area should be curbed to eliminate the concrete curb stops and better define the entrance and eastern edge of the parking area.
Show more spot elevations or contours in the front parking area so it can be graded to drain properly.
I did not see a water line to the existing building. Will one be provided?
Where will the roof leaders for these buildings be discharged?
Provide a leak-off and grass swale from the pavement to the detention area in the back for stormwater conveyance and treatment.
I suggest regrading the area behind the existing building to eliminate the yard drain.
Label the rectangular box with an x on the east side of the site between the buildings.
According to the drainage analysis approximately 58% of the site will be impervious surface under the proposed plan. This needs to be shown in the Data Block.
The drainage analysis shows an increase in stormwater flow from this development. However, it does not appear that the depressed area in the southwest corner of the site is large enough to detain the increased flows for all storm events so that there is no increase in runoff from the development. This needs to be further analyzed and clarified. Infiltrators need to be provided if there is no way to connect this site to the drainage system in the ROW or a natural drainage channel. A stormwater management plan needs to be submitted for this site.
The anti-tracking apron needs to be at least 50 feet long.
WPCA review and approval is needed for this site plan.
There was no input from the public.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of permitted use for the buildings involved and referral to Section 5.1.2.1; and Section 5.1.2.5. Under ‘permitted uses’ commercial and professional offices are allowed. The front building will contain a commercial and professional office and the back will contain a commercial area and professional office on the top floor. The only purpose for the bottom is the storage of vehicles and to assure security of them; they are inside all night. It is not proposed to have a production type activity in the garage area. Most of the building in the rear will not be visible from the street.
· Garage use has always been on the property; proposal is for a 3 bays, not just use of the original single bay as envisioned.
· PZC could grant a waiver.
· Communication with neighbors. Yes
· Alternative is to hold public hearing for a special exception to assure all neighbors are aware.
· Applicant must conform to the prior approval (no outside storage), yet there is a trailer parked outside currently. Trailer is parked behind the building presently because the size of the garage will not allow for storage of the trailer inside.
· Clarification of the outside stairway to the second floor on the rear building. The Building Department will dictate whether or not it should be covered with a canopy.
· Unenclosed stairway is not desired by the Commission.
· Clarification of handicap access. This would not apply for either of the buildings.
· Clarification of parking spaces. The applicant meets the zoning requirements.
· Steben Glass keeps vehicles outside.
· – Site has already been approved by the Commission for the painting contractor use; not appropriate for the Commission to change that decision now
· The proposal is a nice improvement over what exists.
· The proposal is compatible with surrounding areas.
· A goal in the Town Plan of Development and Conservation is to reuse existing buildings.
Banach noted that the precedent set by allowing the contractor use would be applicable to all RC-zoned areas in South Windsor, including the center of Town, and asked the Commission if they are comfortable with a proposal for this type of use/building in the center of Town. Commissioners responded that any proposal for any RC zone would need to be context-sensitive, thus would be carefully reviewed to ensure that any application was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The subject application involves existing buildings in an existing neighborhood with very similar uses, thus is appropriate here.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-21P, Four Seasons Painters with the following conditions:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
A landscape bond in the amount of $2,000.00 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
The building street number must be included on the final plan.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
Key map must be modified to show the proposal.
Cut sheet of full cut-off wall pak fixtures as well as a photometric diagram for proposed lighting must be submitted.
Windows along the front of the building should match in size.
The Town Engineers review comments dated March 29, 2005, must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
All commercial vehicles and equipment must be stored inside the garage overnight. On site storage is prohibited.
The exterior stairway shown on the plans shall be enclosed.
Final plans of the enclosed stairway and the lighting plan shall return to ADRC.
McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was 6-1 with Wentzell, McCann, Kennedy, Slicer, Sullivan, and Evans voting for the motion. Pacekonis voted against the motion.
5. Lots & More request for a mobile food concession business on property located at 770 Sullivan Avenue, GC zone (Exhibit E)
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Banach noted that the above referenced facility is requesting an opinion from PZC as to whether or not he needs to come before them with a Site Plan of Development.
· The size of the trailer makes this more than a hot dog stand, more like a mobile restaurant.
· Does not meet the definition of restaurant adequately, as permitted restaurants are not mobile.
· If a food cart (similar to a typical hot dog wagon) is desired and it comes to the site in the morning and leaves in the evening, that could be acceptable.
· Vehicle involved is too large for the request.
After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that it would not be a permitted use.
ITEM: MINUTES:
The amended minutes of March 15, 2005 and March 22, 2005 were accepted by consensus of the Commission.
ITEM: Applications to Be Officially Received:
1. Appl 05-24P, Dealer Appearance Repair, LLC, request for site plan modification to operate an automotive repair facility on property located at 280-302 Sullivan Avenue, I zone.
ITEM: Adjournment
Kennedy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary
| 
