MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Bart Pacekonis, Patrick Kennedy, and Clifford Slicer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Michael Sullivan sat for Sue Larsen until Larsen arrived at the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Louise Evans sat for Gary Bazzano
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
McCann read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on June 30 and July 7, 2005.
1. Appl 05-37P, Colonial Point Christian Church, request for special exception to article 4.1.8.b and site plan of development for the construction of a Church complex located on the southerly side of Chapel Road, across from Betty Drive, RO32 Chapel Road, RR and RR/O zone (continued from 6-28-05)
Attorney Dave Barry, representing the applicant, had the following comments in his presentation:
o Referred to a memo from the Town Assessor to the Assistant Director of Planning, dated July 6, 2005, with a topic of residential property values as related to places of worship. (Exhibit A)
Bob Stewart of Stewart Appraisal Services and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation: (Exhibit B)
o Addressed South Windsor Zoning Regulation 4.1.8 – Special Exception, “uses will be allowed only when the Commission has determined that there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area; surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted, etc.”
o Professional methodology used in determining the impact was to examine similar situations, address the values and compare that situation to the subject situation.
o Analysis concluded that the proposed church building, including the open air chapel and associated parking for both phases, will not have any adverse effects on the area’s existing uses or property values and will not disrupt the neighborhood.
Carla Tillery, Traffic Engineer representing the applicant, had the following comments in her presentation:
(Exhibit C)
o Field observations were done regarding the worship services.
o The total amount of parking spaces provided will be adequate to meet the parking demand of the facility (220 spaces).
o Traffic generated by the proposed facility for non-service activities will be accommodated by the existing roadway network.
o Study also involved use of the ball field which will be closed before dusk because it will not be a lighted field.
Pastor David Johnson had the following comments:
o Use of the chapel pavilion will require amplification due to the ambient noise from I-291, e.g., for a wedding.
o Ball fields are the property of the Church and are intended for uses and activities for the children and adults within the Church.
o The Church has reached out to the Town to offer some recreational use of the field, with the understanding that the property will be controlled by the Church.
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals and representing the applicant, had the following comments:
o Galen Semprebon, Engineer from Design Professionals performed a study of sound impact from I-291 (Exhibit D):
§ A Sper Scientific sound meter 840005 was used for the study.
§ Seven locations were measured, and it was found that the decibel readings taken did not vary significantly from location to location.
§ Vehicles traveling along Chapel Road are the predominant noise source during periods when the vehicles are in the vicinity of the neighborhood. Modified cars, pick up trucks and delivery trucks starting from as far away as the intersection of Long Hill Road and Chapel Road typically exceed 80 decibels.
§ There was no discernable impact on the noise levels along the sidewalk across from the site due to the existing vegetation on the site.
§ Highway noise can easily rise over vegetation, and the highway is pervasive along this area
o Approval has been received from IWA/CC.
o Regarding lighting, the applicant will seek counsel from the Police Department regarding is recommended.
o Photos of the signage proposed for west and east entrances were submitted for the record.
o Without amplification in the chapel, it will be difficult to hear the Pastor because of noise from adjoining streets.
o The applicant requests that they not be required to plant additional trees along the southerly property line; Church desires an unobstructed view from I-291.
o Sidewalks are proposed along the frontage to Betty Drive ending in a crosswalk at that point.
o It should be noted that the proposed ball field will not meet Little League standards.
o Use of the ball field will be limited.
Richard Boston, Landscape Architect representing the applicant, had the following comments:
o Minor changes to the landscape plans include additional landscape berms that will be added adjacent to the parking area.
o A split rail fence (36” high – 2 rails) lined with black chain link will be placed in a zigzag fashion along the west side of the property to avoid disturbing the large oak trees.
o Phase I lighting will include two styles of light; street lights will be the same light that is used in Evergreen Walk, and bollards are being proposed in the ‘Village Green.’ The bollards will be 36” high, LSI bollards, 75 watt ceramic metal halide lights – efficient and low level; these will be not be on after hours.
o Lights will be used for security at both entranceways.
o Phase II will include a minimal additional 15’ high full cut off light.
o Signage (Exhibit E); signs have been changed; signs will be placed at both entrance ways. An architectural relief panel on the front of the Church building will be lighted. There will be a building sign on the rear of the Church building, with backlit letters.
Banach stated she had nothing to add except for the Assessor’s report that was distributed. (Exhibit A).
Doolittle provided the following report:
1. Plans were revised and many of the Town Engineer’s comments have been addressed.
2. There’s still the issue of sidewalks to the west of Betty Drive.
3. There are details that need to be clarified on the plan in regard to the sewage construction system; details are needed potential sewage ejector pumps that will be used in the basement of the building.
4. WPCA approval is required.
5. One of the conditions from IWA/CC involved infiltration of roof runoff which needs to be addressed on the plans.
Wentzell requested input from the public.
Doug Curtis, 906 Mill Pond Drive, spoke in favor of this application.
Tam Malone, 795 Chapel Road, spoke in favor of this application; however, she does not want a sidewalk in front of her property.
Pam Mitchell, 2083 Ellington Road, spoke in favor of the application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns:
· Clarification of the berm height. The berm will be at a variable height; it is intended to create a 4:1 side slope for accessibility of a lawn mower.
· Height of vegetation on berm. 9’ (most headlights are between 2 and 2 1/2’ from the ground).
· Clarification of amplification. Speakers will be inside the pavilion; a solid wall separates Chapel Road from I-291; speakers will be directed toward I-291; the concern is that the people inside the structure hear what is being said; it is acceptable to have the speakers turned away from the neighborhood.
· Trees and the physiological effect on sound. It is agreed that the effect of vegetation is psychological, not actual.
· Clarification of noise barriers. Barriers should be placed right next to the receptor or right next to the source for effectiveness.
· Clarification of changes in the use of neighboring properties in regard to sidewalks. Adjacent properties on Chapel Road are fully developed; there is still some vacant property next to I-291 on the overlay zone (behind the houses). Changes of use would occur if the Commission rezoned the properties – frontage properties are all residential.
· It is desired to have the proposed sound system designed by a professional for assurance that the sound be focused.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
2. Appl 05-40P, William Mangino, request for a renewal of the two-year temporary and conditional permit to allow two apartments on property located at 272 Pierce Road, RR zone
Slicer recused himself from hearing or debating on this application.
Mangino stated that he has had the temporary and conditional permit for 13 years.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
1. Request for a renewal of a two-year temporary and conditional permit for two in-law apartments at 272 Pierce Road, RR zone. The apartments were originally created through a temporary and conditional permit granted by the ZBA in 1989 and have been renewed faithfully every two years since then.
2. The wording of the Temporary and Conditional permit regulations is that “Temporary and conditional permits may be granted by the Commission for use which is not specified elsewhere in these regulations for a period not to exceed two years. Such approval may be given after a Public Hearing if, in the judgment of the Commission, the public convenience and welfare with substantially served, and the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured, and traffic and other hazards will not result from such use”.
3. The RR zone allows for both accessory apartments and in-law apartments. However, the regulations do not allow for the creation of more than one accessory/in-law apartment. In addition, there are no provisions in our regulations for multiple apartments in single-family zones.
If this application is approved, the Planning Department has no modifications to request. We would recommend that the standard approval conditions apply:
This approval is for two in-law apartments for a family member/relative only. When the in-law apartments are no longer occupied by a relative of the family, the apartments cannot be treated as a second dwelling unit. Instead, the kitchens must be removed and the living areas must be converted into other living space for the main dwelling.
This permit will expire in two years, on July 12, 2007, and will have to be renewed at that time if the use is to be continued. Owner(s) of the property must reside in the apartment or the main dwelling unit. Reaffirmation of occupancy by owner will be required every two years. This will be done via a letter from the Planning Department requesting the reaffirmation of occupancy.
There was no engineering report.
No one from the public spoke for or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics:
· It is understood that both apartments are occupied by members of the family. Yes, that is correct.
· Clarification of Regulations pertaining to in-law apartments. The Commission has never interpreted the Regulations as to allowing more than one in-law or accessory apartment. When the applicant appeared before ZBA many years ago the Commission was not interpreting as allowing more than one.
· Is there a reason why the apartments cannot be covered by the in-law apartment regulations? Each apartment contains 1250 sq ft; regulations allow maximum 900 sq ft.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
3. Appl 05-43P, Juknis Interior Lot, request for special exception to 4.6.1 and resubdivision to create one new building lot on property located at 477 Foster Street, AA-30 zone
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals and representing the applicant, had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Proposal is to create one interior lot of approximately 2.35 acres with access from Foster Street.
§ Proposal will include an access drive along the northerly limits of the newly proposed interior lot to the house location, which will be in the rear of the lot.
§ Circular area of gravel proposed in the front of the house has been required by the Fire Marshal for emergency vehicles.
§ Land is zoned AA-30.
§ Heavy vegetation exists on the site; abundant tree removal is not required for this plan.
§ The property is heavily screened from the property on the north and most of the trees are on the abutters’ property.
§ Sight lines are adequate for the entrance drive.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
Request for approval of a Special Exception to article 4.6 and resubdivision approval to create one interior lot on a 3.4+ acre property located at 477 Foster Street, AA-30 zone. There is an existing house which is proposed to remain with a 1+ acre conventional lot. The new lot is proposed to be approximately 2.3 ac.
The requirements for the interior lot in the AA-30 zone include 60,000 square feet minimum lot size and 225 feet minimum lot width. The proposed interior lot appears to conform to these requirements. The existing lot would retain 229 feet of frontage; the new interior lot would have 30 feet of frontage on Foster Street for access.
The criteria for approval of interior lots include:
the subject area’s boundary configurations, topography, soils or other natural resource characteristics;
proximity to neighboring properties and dwelling units;
restriction of existing views;
proposed buffering/screening;
potential drainage, traffic & environmental impacts
driveway locations, slopes & sight lines
utility service capabilities
property value impacts; and
future land use alternatives.
Access to the interior lot is proposed to be a 12’ wide paved drive north of the existing driveway. The driveways would be approximately 120 feet apart. It appears the new driveway may require the removal of existing trees along the property line. The Commission may want to consider having the applicant add some evergreen screening along the new drive.
It appears that other zoning requirements have been met.
The interior lots will be serviced by town sewers and public water. WPCA approval is required.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed this lot and is satisfied with the driveway as proposed.
There are no regulated wetlands on the new lot; therefore no wetlands application is required. There is no 100-year floodplain.
There is no screening proposed between the proposed lot and the property to the north other than the existing hardwood vegetation on this site and the adjacent site. If this application is approved, the Commission may want to consider the addition of plantings between the new house and the house to the north.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests that the note under the zoning table which indicates “the proposed house and driveway are representative of what could be provided…” be removed as this is a site plan approval. In the event the applicant wants to relocate either the drive or the house, a modification would need to be approved by this Commission.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
Check the information for this lot on the plot plan and site plan. The lot area and lot number do not agree with the Town’s information.
Check the sanitary sewer lateral elevation where it crosses the 18” storm drainage pipe in the street. It appears there may be a conflict here and the sanitary sewer lateral may need to be lowered.
The foundation drain needs to be piped to the storm drain in the street or ended in a dry well about where shown or downhill of this location so there is no increase in surface runoff on neighboring properties. There should be clean-outs installed in the foundation drain line because of its length.
Will the main driveway be bituminous concrete or gravel? There needs to be a bituminous concrete paved apron at least 20 feet back from the gutter line of Foster Street.
WPCA review and approval is needed for this application.
Wentzell requested input from the public.
Robert Nowak, 64 Birch Hill Drive, had a concern with livestock being allowed on the property.
Paul Aitner, 19 Deepwood Drive, had concerns with lights, snowmelt from the plowing of the driveway, and the disturbance of wildlife.
Mike Lyons, 29 Deepwood Drive, had concerns with disturbance of the wildlife and adequate screening for the neighbors; and a larger house being built than footprint shows on the plans.
Nancy Camocelli, 497 Foster Street, had concerns with property lines, buffering, length and drainage of the proposed driveway; in the winter the area drains onto her property.
Terry Hart, 459 Foster Street, had concerns with placement and size of future house.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics:
· Extra screening is desired between 19 and 29 Deepwood Drive. There is no problem with that as a condition of approval, but it would be done after the driveway and house are constructed.
· Driveway turnoff. Standards require a turn off if the driveway is graded more than 10% (to allow parking off the road when slippery conditions exist); the proposed driveway is not that steep.
· Clarification of driveway and drainage. Drainage calculations have not been done – grading can be done to assure that drainage goes down the driveway and has no effect on the neighbors.
· Length of driveway. 400’; proposed as a gravel driveway.
· If footprint exceeds 50% of what is shown on the plans then the applicant must return to the Commission.
· Distance between proposed driveway and existing house. 5’from the proposed driveway to the lot line.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 9:08 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Discussion with Alan Lamson from FLB Architecture regarding building elevation 500C in Evergreen Walk.
Alan Lamson, Architect and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
Ø Building D is the approved Highland Park Market.
Ø 500D is located on the southwest corner of the market.
Ø All materials for 500D will match Highland Park Market, stone base will be continued on the piers; oversized concrete brick will be used on the piers, as well as inside.
Ø Scoring in the EIFS not shown on elevation, but will be done– similar to Highland Park Market.
Ø The side of the building on Evergreen Way may end up with a glass storefront; if this is done, a Staff approval request will be made.
Ø Roof top equipment will be placed toward Highland Park Market, 5’ below top of corners – no visibility of equipment.
Ø The Highland Park Market will feature a glass pyramid skylight 5’ above the proposed roof line to also shield the equipment from Buckland Road.
Ø Building will contain approximately 4000 square feet.-
There was no Staff report.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Tenants. Blue Tulip Gift Store and possibly an upscale wine shop.
· Proximity to Buckland Road and view. There is vegetation toward the rear of Highland Park Market, and the grade is more level with Buckland Road, so rooftops should not be visible.
· Clarification of the EIFS cornice and parapet wall. It does return back on top of the wall that Highland Park Market is building (approximately 20’); the roof of the Market is higher than the roof of Building 500D; the parapet wall will not be seen.
· Outstanding commitments to the Commission that have not been satisfied by Poag & McEwen. Yes, roof screening and landscaping, and dumpster enclosures; there is a proposal from Carol Johnson & Associates to review and resolve rooftop screening.
Kennedy made a motion to approve the elevations presented for the proposed Building 500D with the provision that if the rear of the building is changed to glass then approval by Staff is required. McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 05-38P, The Grillo Family Limited Partnership, request for site plan approval for the construction of 3,158 square feet dentist office on property located at 498 Buckland Road, GD zone
Becky Meyer, Project Engineer representing the applicant, had the following comments in her presentation:
v Site is located approximately 700’ from the Route 30 intersection and is north of Floral Expressions.
v Site contains 1.1 acre lot, which is undersized for the Buckland Gateway Development Zone, and contains an abandoned house.
v The rear property consists of brush and wood, and Plum Gulley Brook.
v Wetlands on the site were delineated by John Ianni in March of 2004; wetlands delineated are approximately 2300 square feet.
v The front portion of the site currently drains to Buckland Road; the remainder runs to the south approximately 200’ where it enters Plum Gulley Brook.
v Proposed development includes the renovation of the existing building and an addition of 1,580 square feet to accommodate a dental office.
v 22 parking spaces will be provided, including a handicap space at the end of a 24’ access drive.
v A 4’ sidewalk is proposed along Buckland Road; there is a request from the applicant to bond the sidewalk rather than build at this time because there are no other sidewalks in the area.
v Public utilities, gas, sewer, and water will be connected appropriately.
v Variances have been received from ZBA because the building is non-conforming; also there have been multiple takings for the widening of Buckland Road.
v On-site drainage system has been designed to provide no increase in runoff.
v An on-site water quality treatment basin will also act as a detention basin – designed for 2- to 100-year storm events.
v Engineering comments have been addressed.
v Retaining wall will aid in grading the site without going on the adjacent property; 5% maximum slope will be maintained.
v Proposed design will disturb approximately 4676 square feet of upland review area and approximately 39,000 square feet total disturbances.
v E & S measures are appropriate, e.g. anti tracking pad, silt fences, stockpiles, etc.
v Applicant received approval from IWA/CC.
v Traffic report has been addressed along with complying with the access management plan to connect to abutting properties to the south and the north.
v Parking cannot be further expanded because there are standards that have to be met regarding on site retention, plus no parking is allowed in the front yard or off any of the access drives. When shared access is implemented with the abutting properties, then parking lots can be shared.
Richard Boston, Landscape Architect representing the applicant, had the following comments in his presentation:
v Foundation plantings are proposed on four sides of the existing building and addition.
v Remaining trees will be a maple and 3 large oaks.
v Trees within the parking area will be ornamental pears.
v Screening of the adjacent properties will be accomplished with evergreen shrubs, holly, and herbaceous plantings in the basin as accepted by IWA/CC.
v Lighting on the site will include 6 architectural-style hunter green lighting poles, 14 high; full cutoff fixtures, 175 watt metal halide bulbs – coverage necessary for a commercial area; house shields to keep off-site lighting at 0.25 foot candles at the property line.
v Signage will not be placed on the building; a free standing sign will be trimmed in hunter green with appropriate lettering.
Dr. Grillo had the following comments on the architecture:
v Intent was to incorporate the aura of South Windsor and Evergreen Walk.
v The applicant was before ADRC and received acceptance.
v The finished structure will feature dark hunter green architectural shingles and lemon color vinyl siding with green trim.
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, had the following comments in his presentation:
v Dr. Grillo has been operating with 9 parking spaces (albeit with difficulty) at his facility on Burnside Avenue.
v It is not intended to have another practicing dentist on the site.
v Parking should be more than adequate for this particular facility thus the request for the waiver.
v This small site cannot be developed without variances, which were justified because of two takings by the State.
v Natural conversion of the building would be to an office building, then the parking requirements would be met.
v The applicant is convinced that there is adequate parking. If the Town finds that the parking is deficient then the applicant will reduce the number of his treatment rooms or reduce the number of employees to meet the zoning requirement.
v Composite siding can be utilized in place of vinyl.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
Request for site plan approval to convert an existing residence into a dental office at 498 Buckland Road, Gateway zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%, 35% proposed. Proposed building height is 18 feet; 30 feet allowed. Lot size is 48,300 sq ft; minimum lot size allowed is 3 acres. The Gateway zone specifically acknowledges existing undersized lots and notes that they are legally nonconformng. Frontage is 184 feet; minimum allowed is 200 feet. Front yard setback is 41.6 feet, 65 feet required.
Several variances have been granted on this property. In April 2004, ZBA granted 3 variances to allow expansion of a nonconforming structure; to allow a 12’ side yard rather than the 25’ required in the gateway zone; and to allow a 56’ front yard setback for the proposed addition (65’ required). In May 2004, ZBA granted another variance to allow the front yard setback to remain at the existing 37.9 feet.
This application is subject to the requirements of Section 3A, access management, as well as the access management requirements of Gateway Zone section 5.8.2.e, which states: “Access management will be required on all sites, in order to reduce the number of driveway cuts onto Buckland Road and mitigate the deterioration of traffic flow generally caused by driveways on arterial streets. Access management techniques will include shared driveways (or provisions for future shared driveways for the first site in an area); interior service drives; and other techniques included in South Windsor’s access management program.”
Access management is absolutely critical in this area for several reasons, including the proximity to the traffic light, the number of lanes in the street in this area, the small lot size, and the number of other small lots that have existing driveways. At this time, since neither property abutting this site has been subject to access management, there are no access management features in place at this location. We note that there is a shared driveway to the north for the Crandall & Daughter store, plus major access management features across the street at CVS and Town Shopping Center/Terry Office Park including no left turns from the CVS driveway.
It is critical that provisions be made for interconnections to both the north and south properties so that in the future, these properties can be interconnected and share a single driveway. The site plan reflects this provision by showing an area of future connection to the north and south. If this application is approved, there needs to be an approval condition requiring that this site be interconnected with the two abutting properties when the properties receive site plan approval in the future.
The Police Department strongly recommends that a shared driveway be utilized to serve the subject site and abutting sites. Sgt. Bond also reminds us of the left-turn prohibition at CVS and suggests that full access be granted only if a common driveway is established.
A sidewalk has been shown along the Buckland Road frontage as required by the Gateway Zone regulations. Staff note that sidewalks are being introduced along Buckland Road at each opportunity; e.g., a sidewalk for Berry Patch senior housing is coming down to Buckland Road and will travel along Buckland Road frontage to cross at the Stop & Shop/Terry Office Park traffic light.
The parking requirement for this use is 30 spaces. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow 22 spaces. The Commission will want to consider whether you agree that 22 spaces are adequate now and in the future, since there is no room for expansion of the parking lot. We do note that future interconnection to the sites north and south could provide possibilities for shared parking in the future—yet another excellent reason to require site interconnection.
Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this application on June 16. They were satisfied with the architecture and landscaping. ADRC was concerned that a sidewalk is being required because there are no sidewalks to the immediate north or south at present, and ADRC thought the sidewalk was too close to Buckland Road for safety.
Proposed lighting includes decorative, full cutoff fixtures on 14-foot poles.
There is a retaining wall along the south boundary that will need to be reconfigured in the future when the interconnection to the south is constructed.
The proposed sign is a very tasteful 4’ high illuminated monument sign. We do remind the applicant that when lighting the monument sign, care will be needed to ensure that the lighting conforms to zoning requirements.
There is no buffer required because the surrounding property is also zoned commercial.
There are regulated wetlands on the site. IWA/CC approved the application on July 6 with no unusual approval conditions and two $5,000 bonds for erosion and sediment control, and for detention basin establishment.
Public water and sewer are available. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
There is a dumpster shown on a concrete pad with screening.
If this application is approved, staff requests an approval modification requiring the driveway interconnections at such time as site plans are approved and construction occurs on the abutting sites.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
1. Show the existing and proposed septic system/sanitary sewer connection for the building.
2. Show a foundation drain from the proposed building.
3. The sidewalk needs to continue on the north side of the driveway to the property line.
4. Extend the grass swale from the detention basin all the way to the paved leak-off.
5. I suggest the paved leak-off be squared off so it is easier to maintain in the winter
6. The detention basin outlet needs to include the elevation for a 6” orifice outlet.
7. Will the transformer and HVAC units be screened with a fence or wall? If so this needs to be on the topographic plan and labeled.
8. Add details for the detention basin outlet, a catch basin, and the storm drain pipe and trench.
9. The Stormwater Management Plan needs to be updated to reflect the latest plans. This needs to include information on the catch basin and discharge pipe. The area draining to Buckland Road is increasing by more than a factor of two. Show the difference in runoff to the road due to this change.
10. The traffic report needs to be updated. It is dated July 16, 2004 and includes traffic counts and estimations made before Evergreen Walk opened.
11. WPCA review and approval is needed for this application.
Wentzell read into the record the following letters regarding parking requirements for the above referenced application: letter dated May 27, 2005, from Gary C. Morris, Project Engineer and letter dated March 9, 2004 from Mark A. Plancon, Equipment Specialist. (Exhibit F) These letters state that 1 ½ parking spaces per treatment room for 6 treatment rooms is more than adequate.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Concern about granting a waiver of 8 parking spaces; 6 treatment rooms require 30 spaces; tight site; no justification for reducing parking spaces for a dental office building.
· Absence of pre-application meeting with applicant; the extent of variances granted for this site is a concern.
· Vinyl siding is not one of the allowable materials in the Buckland Gateway Development Zone.
· Number of employees on the site and the need for 6 treatment rooms. Presently the applicant works with 4 treatment rooms, 5 full time and 2 part time staff; design of the building is specifically for a general dentist’s office – cannot be used by other medical personnel.
· Groundwater problems. There are not any known groundwater problems; this site was designed according to DEP regulations; research can be done in under pavement drainage (no research in New England).
Pacekonis made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
· Regarding the existing 40” oak tree and elimination if access management comes into play. Yes, the tree would be eliminated.
· It is recommended to table this application at this meeting and allow the applicant to go back and evaluate the situation.
Kennedy made a motion to table the above referenced application. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Application 05-44P, Town of South Windsor Recreation Department, request for site plan of development for the creation of a boundless playground to be known as “My Friend’s Place” on property located at 150 Nevers Road, RR zone (Exhibit G)
Ray Favreau, Director of Recreation for South Windsor, had the following comments in his presentation:
ü The Boundless Playground concept derived from the idea of accessibility to all, no matter the ability or disability, and is privately funded.
ü The concept has been in the planning stages for approximately 3-4 years with a mission to provide a safe and exciting place for children with varying levels of social, physical, and developmental abilities to have fun, interact, and foster friendships in a natural and playful setting.
ü Goals were that it be centrally located and minimally 70% accessible to all children,
ü It is designed with terraces; two-thirds of it is one level, drops down to a second elevation for the older children’s section of the playscape.
ü It is desired to open the playground spring of 2006.
ü Design was a joint effort involving local children and parents, general public, manufacturers, Boundless Playground personnel, and Design Professionals.
ü Playground is developed into 3 quadrants, Alpha (2-5 yrs) Beta (2-5 yrs), and Gamma (5-12 yrs. – more challenging)
Richard Boston, Landscape Architect had the following comments in his report:
ü Site is located southerly of the Community Center on Nevers Road and will contain approximately 20,000 square feet.
ü Additional parking area will accommodate 4 handicap spaces.
ü The sidewalk to the Community Center along with an existing pin oak will remain.
ü Drainage from the parking area will flow to the existing catch basin and storm drainage will take into account the existing water sheet flow from the area between Field #1 and Field #2.
ü Grades (2% cross slope) for the playground will require a 36” retaining wall with a 42” high railing.
ü Landscaping will include a row of pin oaks which will tie in the parking area with the playground (providing an avenue).
ü An evergreen screen will be provided to supplement existing screening to the south.
ü Two stone dust paths will connect to the existing exercise trails then connect back into the road to Field #2.
ü Approximately 2 acres will be disturbed.
ü Landscape perimeters will be provided. A fence will enhance and encapsulate the entrance sculpture and fencing will be provided for the Alpha and Beta areas.
ü Landscaping will include evergreen trees, shrubs, and perennials.
ü A 4” under drainage perforated pipe will be utilized to control drainage from the wood chips and sand.
ü Sidewalk will be 5’ wide concrete, main spine will be concrete accented with paver bricks.
ü Shoebox lighting fixtures (2) with full cut-off fixtures will be added to the existing system.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
1. Request for site plan of development for the boundless playground at 150 Nevers Road, RR zone. The playground will be located south of the existing Community Center in an existing open area.
2. In addition to the construction of the playground, the site plan calls for the extension of the existing parking area to accommodate some additional handicap parking spaces. They also intend to restripe the parking lot to 9’X18’ spaces and add two stone dust paths to connect this area with two existing trails on site.
3. The landscaping plan has been reviewed by Karl Reichle, Sup’t of Parks and Grounds, and his comments have been forward to Dick Boston at Design Professionals. One of his primary concerns is that he be involved in the selection of plant material to be used so that he can be ensured of the quality of the plant material.
Town staff will be working closely with recreation department to address any concerns as they arise.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering comments:
1. Clarification of the plans to be as clear as possible, e.g. grading and drainage.
John Pelkey, Deputy Mayor of South Windsor and Fund Raising Chairmen for the playground, noted that South Windsor has obtained a grant for the Boundless Playground if the playground is certified by October 31, 2005.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of handicap parking spots. Experience shows that after the newness of the park wears off there will be no need for more handicap parking spots than provided.
· Clarification of the utilization of pin oaks. Parks Department requested them.
· Sufficient lighting. Yes, because the park is open from dawn to dusk, not after dark.
· Location. There is not sufficient room in any other location for this proposal – the choice was done because of proximity to Nevers Road Park.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-44P, Town of South Windsor Recreation Department with the following conditions:
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.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
All landscaping materials must be approved by the Superintendent of Parks and Grounds.
Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Appl 05-34P, Evergreen Run, request for site plan approval for 11,220 square feet and 16, 530 square feet retail buildings on property located at 90 Buckland Road, Buckland Gateway Development zone (continued from June 28)
Alan Lamson, representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
Ø Applicant has received approval from IWA/CC.
Ø An access easement, going to the north, has been shown on the plans along with a sewer easement/agreement to the west as stipulated by WPCA, and an easement for the traffic controller at the corner of Buckland Road and this site; also the new plans will reflect the comments of the Town Engineer.
Steve Mitchell, Traffic Engineer, and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation regarding sight lines.
Ø Sight line to the left is approximately 225’ and to the right sight line is to the intersection (for cars exiting the site). The sight line is approximately 190’ for cars entering the site. These sight lines are sufficient for operating speeds of 20-22 mph. The 85th percentile speed that vehicles are actually traveling in that vicinity is 29-30 mph.
Ø As a condition to the approval it is requested that a sign be posted prior to the driveway for intersection warning signs of 20 mph.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns; Replies will be in Italics.
· Signs will not slow down vehicles. Speed was measured and vehicles are traveling 29 mph.
· Removing parts of the Lowe’s parking area and regrade the curve will provide an appropriate sight line. This applicant does not control Lowe’s property.
· Widening the curve. Wetlands and a retaining wall are located in that area.
· Rotating the buildings on the site. The queuing of cars to the intersection cannot be disturbed.
· Use of traffic calming techniques, e.g. narrowing the road by installing an island.
Kennedy made a motion to table this application so that the applicant can explore options to resolve the sight line issue. Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
5. Appl 05-37P, Colonial Point Christian Church, request for special exception to article 4.1.8.b and site plan of development for the construction of a Church complex located on the southerly side of Chapel Road, across from Betty Drive, RO32 Chapel Road, RR and RR/O Zone
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-37P, Colonial Point Christian Church with the following conditions:
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.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
Footing drains are required if the building has a basement.
A landscape bond in the amount of $5,000 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.
If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until the certificate has been issued (per CGS §14-311).
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.
Outdoor pavilion speakers must be directed toward the south (toward I -291) and away from Chapel Road. Sound system must be designed by a professional sound engineer.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED
1. Appl 05-45P, Strawberry Fields, request for a site plan of development modification for changes to the clubhouse associated with the Strawberry Fields Condominiums on property located at 1135 Sullivan Avenue, MF-AA zone
2. Appl 05-46P, Executive Court – request for a resubdivision of 38+ acres of property to create 17 lots located on the easterly side of Nutmeg Road North and Northerly side of Governor’s Highway, I zone
3. Appl 05-47P, Goldblatt Horse Arena – request for site plan approval for the construction of an indoor riding arena and the keeping of horses for personal use on property located to the rear of 1116 Main Street, A-40 zone.
ADJOURNMENT:
Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
________________________________ respectfully submitted
Date Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary.
| 
