MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Clifford Slicer, Gary Bazzano, Bart Pacekonis, Michael Sullivan, Louise Evans and Suzanne Choate
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski and Chris Lariviere
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Bazzano read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Friday, December 29, 2005 and
Thursday, January 5, 2006.
1. Appl 05-68P, Adventure Quest – request for Special Exception to Section 6.1.3.9 of the
Zoning Regulations and Site Plan of Development for the renovation of an industrial building
located on property at 100 Bidwell Road, I zone (Exhibit A, B, C)
Becky Meyer, Project engineer from Design Professionals presented the application and her comments were as follows:
· Summarized application: The Site plan, special exception application pertains to two lots on a cul de sac of Bidwell Road which is an industrial cul de sac accessing route 5 between Governors Highway and South Satellite Road. Both lots are zoned industrial with residential adjacent to the south. There are no wetlands on either property. Assessors map 59 lot 38, which is the left portion; contain a 60,000 sq. ft. industrial building with associated parking. The right lot assessors map 59 lot 37, contains an adjoined parking lot with 175 spaces. Combined using 37 and 38 there are a total of 299 existing parking spaces.
· Lot 38, the left one with the 60,000 sq. ft. building also contains an industrial building with the address, 90 Bidwell Road, and is currently used by UTC. The UTC building and parking are not involved in this application. It is separate use and it will remain separate.
· The applicant has received a zoning regulations amendment dated October 25, 2005, related to the site plan; which allows indoor recreational activities inside buildings; which may be readily converted to permitted industrial uses.
· The zoning amendment and the project have also been endorsed by the economic development commission as well as numerous other supporters.
· Ms. Meyer has compiled a packet of support letters. (Exhibit A)
· The proposed development consists of the renovation of the 60,000 sq. ft. building with minor improvements to the existing parking areas.
· Building renovations include the interior conversion to house an indoor family recreational facility with a restaurant, basketball courts (for this areas own AAU basketball association, “The Connecticut Wave”), arcade games, bumper cars, bowling and laser tag.
· Exterior improvements are shown on the architectural elevations and Richard Boston will go over those in detail.
· The building is already connected to public water, sewer and gas and so no additional utilities connections are proposed.
· We have worked with town staff to address concerns regarding interior landscaping requirements and impervious coverage limits.
· Improvements to the parking area include the saw cutting and removal of portions of the pavement in order to create landscaped islands.
· Interior landscaping requirements require 5% of the parking area and one tree for every ten spaces.
· In order to bring the parking lots to code we proposed: 11 new landscaped islands, 15 additional trees, and the re-strapping of some portions to provide the necessary handicap spaces.
· A total of 328 spaces are required for the facility including the restaurant and the indoor gaming facility.
· Lot 38 provides 113 spaces and lot 37 provides 169 spaces after the addition of these landscaped islands.
· Under section 13.2, lot 37 is an off site parking facility within 600 feet from the building, which is subject to the approval of the commission.
· The two lots serving the building are adjoining and are designed for the use as a single parking area, showing the same means of access via two entrance drives off of the cul de sac.
· The total spaces provided, on both of the lots when used together is 282.
· We are requesting a waiver for 46 parking spaces and we’ve shown an overflow area on lot 4 of the industrial park, (assessor map 59 Lot 43) which is to the north of the site which is in question.
· A concept layout shows 65 spaces. This lot is also within 600 feet of the building served and it subject to the approval of the commission.
· Other improvements include a 5 foot connecting sidewalk between the smaller lot in the front of the building, (which is mostly the restaurant) and the large lot to the east; as well as emergency egress sidewalks in the rear of the building.
· Some existing pavement markings will be removed and curb stops will be installed at the northern portion of the parking lot to separate existing pedestrian walks from the parked cars.
· As part of the building renovation the existing overhead doors on the north side of the building will be removed and converted into pedestrian doors.
· Handicapped accessible ramps are proposed at these exit doors.
· The loading area (which currently exists because of the overhead doors) will be primarily for the UTC building as the exits will be only for emergency egress.
· Because a residential zone is located directly to the south, a buffer is required.
· The existing building does not conform to the required buffer setback, however screening is already in place and we’ve shown a cross section on the landscaping plan.
· The existing buffer meets the design requirements with both an 8 foot stockade fence, and an existing mix of oaks, cherries and black locusts.
· Additional plantings have been proposed within the buffer area to fill in any gaps, and we’ve proposed lawn renovation around the edges of the parking area.
· The existing parking lot light poles are full cut-off, shoebox type, and no additional parking lot lighting is proposed.
· Down lighting in the facade of the building, and an LSI 50 watt medal halide horizontal flood light with louvers to illuminate the proposed sign, are the only proposed light fixtures.
· The existing drainage includes: a storm water detention basin that discharges to a catch basin adjacent to Route 5, with an existing drainage easement over lot 37.
· There are no significant increases in impervious coverage, so we expect that the existing storm water management system will be sufficient.
A traffic report was submitted with the application. Ms. Meyers summarized the report as follows:
· A previous traffic study was completed in November of 2000 for the previous owner and user of the building, which is the ONSI Corporation, (that had 300 parking spaces).
· The report indicated there would be a total of 900 daily trips, with 131 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 144 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
· In analyzing the projected trip generation for the facility the proposed use of the site was carefully analyzed.
· Different land uses contained in the institute of transportation engineer’s trip generation manual were reviewed. Similar land uses included multipurpose recreational facility, (which is more outdoor types of facilities) and a recreational community center which is more community based facilities.
· The trip generation for the two uses are calculated per 1000 sq. ft. of building area for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. We did not analyze the weekend peek traffic rates because Route 5 has significantly lower traffic volume during the weekends.
· The facility will not be open during the a.m. peak hour. The use is expected to generate more traffic than the recreational community center and less than the multi purpose recreational facilities.
· The facility will be open during the p.m. peak hour, with the majority of customers in the evenings and throughout Saturday and Sunday.
· A portion of the patrons coming during the p.m. peak hour would be expect to be pass by trips coming from work and stopping on the way home.
· The projected trip generation for the facility during the p.m. peak hours expects to be between 98 and 200 one vehicle trips.
· The Adventure Quest facility is expected to have a trip generation close to the previously permitted trip generation.
· We received 3 engineering comments from the town which we addressed in our plans.
-There is an existing sidewalk along Bidwell Road and the handicap ramps that were installed. We added those to the plans.
-We were requested to add the existing outlet structure in the detention basin and indicate the top of frame and elevation. We did.
-Addressed concerns about the existing cross hatching at the northern portion of the parking lot. We have proposed curb stops to separate that walkway from the parked cars.
Richard Boston, Director of Landscape architecture from Design Professionals reported on the building façade and the proposed landscaping.
· Proposing to supplement existing honey locust trees with a flowering Pear tree that will bring out the coloring of the building.
· The proposed interior landscaping is beyond the 5% required. It’s 5.49% for one lot and 6.49% for the other.
· At the base of the free standing sign we propose to put perennials, ornamental grass and low lying rhododendrons.
· There is a reasonable foundation planting already there that is complementary to the building and we hope to maintain that as part of the renovation.
· From the parking area you cannot see any of the residential buildings. It’s heavily wooded and there is also a stockade fence and linear length of hemlocks. We will infill where the hemlocks are missing. White pines will be added to create a thicker buffer by the detention basin.
· Architecturally the majority of the process is the renovation of the interior of the 60,000 sq. ft. building.
· On the exterior, it’s proposed to renovate and restore the façade on two sidest The front side, as you see it from Route 5, and the other side (the proposed restaurant side) or the side you will be facing as you come around the Bidwell cul de sac. It would be changed over to an EFIS type system on the outside.
· The existing windows would stay the same. Framework would be painted crimson red.
· The walls will be two-tone, taupe on the lower portion and a beige color on top.
· (Referring to the sign on the plans) The sign that will be in the center portion will be black, with some raised letters. The canopy above the main entrance way will have lighting sconces that will shine down onto the sign. There will be no up-lights at all. There are some proposed sconces in between the windows. They will be shining down for a building wash.
· Awnings as well as entrance covers (for the proposed restaurant) will be dark crimson.
Peter DeMallie, President of Design Professionals made comments as follows:
· In October this commission reviewed, approved and modified some zoning amendments to allow an indoor recreational type of use and a multi-faceted use, such as the one we are prosing at Adventure Quest.
· This portion of the building, approximately 1.5 acre in size, has been vacant for some time. It was renovated recently for office space plus a warehouse.
· The renovation of this building will enrich the quality of life our area. It will give a destination for people who come to the area for business, the new Convention Center or are traveling.
· Mr. DeMallie referred to Exhibit A, giving an explanation for each section.
· A restaurant/lounge will be on the north side of the building. Will include a full service sit down family restaurant and pub. Large screen televisions throughout, large stage, live music, theatre and comedy.
· There will be 4 basketball courts. Tournaments will take place which will benefit the economy.
· Mr. DeMallie referred to Exhibit B, regarding the parking.
· A request will be made to surrounding businesses that in the event additional parking spaces are needed, arrangements will be made with other parking facilities in the area where we can shuttle back and forth.
· Conversion of use back into office space is possible. Manufacturing will be more difficult, but possible.
· Hours of operation: Initially 8 a.m. to midnight, that won’t be every night. It will start sometimes later in the morning and shut down earlier many evenings, depending on the demand. The greatest demand will be on weekends and certain times of year will be busier than others.
· Some events may take place starting at 7 a.m.
· There could be events under lockdown that take place all night, such as high school graduation party.
· PC gaming will be available for players to enjoy computer games networked to other players.
· We will be going to the State Traffic Commission and have been in contact with them.
Patrick Kennedy made the comment that the letters submitted with Exhibit A, refer to the previous Zoning Regulation Amendment. It’s fair to submit them but not necessary to read them into the record.
Marcia Banach provided the following planning report:
Request for special exception and site plan approval for a 60,000 sq ft indoor recreation facility to be known as “Adventure Quest” in an existing building on property located at 100 Bidwell Road, I zone. The building is shared with another industrial user which occupies the west side of the building at 90 Bidwell Rd.
The site plan shows the proposed site as two separate lots, with one lot (lot 38) housing the building and some of the parking, and the remaining lot (lot 37) housing just parking. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%; lot 38 shows impervious coverage of 64.3%, lot 37 has 39% impervious coverage. Proposed building height is 30 feet; 40 feet allowed. Principal Lot size is 8.7 acres; minimum lot size allowed is 20,000. This building is located approximately 800 ft from Route 5, and can only be accessed by Bidwell Road.
This application is being proposed under the new indoor recreation regulation that was adopted by this Commission in 11/04. The applicant has provided the required items, including a floor plan of proposed uses, and a narrative detailing various aspects of the business and hours of operation.
The special exception criteria in the industrial zone include:
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.
There is one additional special exception criteria that applies specifically to this use: the hours of operation of the accessory uses shall not exceed the hours of the primary indoor recreation facility by more than two hours.
Route 5 has the capacity to handle the traffic expected to be generated from this application. A State Traffic Commission approval was previously granted in 2000 for ONSI Corp; the applicant has indicated that he is checking with STC to determine whether a permit revision is needed for this use. We do note that the existing median cut in Route 5 is a challenging left-turn from Bidwell Road onto Rt 5 northbound, with very little vehicle storage space within the median. This median cut would be a good one to eliminate.
The parking requirement for recreation uses is one space per 250 sq ft of gross floor area, and restaurant uses is one space per 50 sq ft, for a total requirement of 328 spaces. The existing parking lot has 281 spaces. The zoning data table indicates that the applicant is requesting a waiver of 47 spaces, but the site plan shows reserve parking on Lot 4 to the north.
Each side of the building is served by a separate parking lot with separate access, so the Adventure Quest patrons will not be intermixed with the UTC employees and clients. The front façade of the Adventure Quest building will face directly into the parking lot. We note that the applicant is proposing the use of off-site parking, on lot 37 and lot 4 if needed, to meet the requirement. Section 13.2 of the zoning regulations gives the Commission the ability to approve required parking facilities on a lot within 600 feet from the building that the spaces serve.
There is a shared loading area for both buildings, which is not separated from the small front parking lot for Adventure Quest. The Commission may want to consider requiring separation of loading areas for 90 Bidwell Road so there is no possibility of intermixing Adventure Quest passenger vehicles with truck loading activities.
The Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this proposal on January 6 and was pleased with the design as presented.
There is no new parking lot lighting proposed. Existing light fixtures are full cutoff fixtures.
The parking lot requires 5% interior landscaping and one tree per every ten spaces. This requirement has been satisfied.
A new building sign is proposed facing Route 5. The plans also indicate that a free-standing sign will be installed at the main entrance on Bidwell Rd.
There is a buffer requirement as this property abuts residential properties on Newberry Road. The building is nonconforming to the buffer requirement, which was different when the building was constructed around 1965. The parking lot is subject to the 50’ buffer. There is an existing stockade fence behind the building, and a row of hemlocks along most of the parking lot. Existing gaps in the hemlock hedge will be supplemented with new plantings. Buffering along the parking lot is also aided by a fairly sizeable elevation change between the parking lot and the neighboring dwelling units.
There are regulated wetlands on the property, however there is no new activity shown within the regulated areas, so no wetlands permit is required.
Public water and sewer are provided. Water Pollution Control Authority approval
There is an existing screened dumpster area shown on the side of the building, within the common loading area.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept requests no additional approval modifications.
There was not a report from the Engineering Department.
Patrick Kennedy turned the meeting to the members of the public and asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application.
Kevin McCann, 170 Lisa Drive, South Windsor had the following comments:
· The most recent testing on school children in South Windsor public schools has resulted in 29% of our children who have passed the standardized state wide testing for physical fitness. Seventy-one percent did not meet the required level.
· Anything the town can do to encourage kids to become more physically fit and physically active is a benefit to the entire town.
· The South Windsor Park and Recreation Commission undertook a study and came up with a master plan for parks and recreational facilities in town. It was found that we have not built a full size gymnasium in South Windsor for decades. Even when Timothy Edwards was rebuilt, the only additional gymnasium space that was built there is a very small gymnasium suitable for volleyball.
· There is a real shortage of indoor recreational facilities in South Windsor. The ones that we have are taxed to the limit. They’re used well into the night until 10 o’clock, 11 o’clock.
· Building a facility like this helps to serve a crying need in the town for additional indoor facilities.
· It is an adaptive re-use of an existing building.
· It brings in dozens of teams for tournaments for a long weekend. Those teams come in from 100’s of miles away to play basketball. They go to restaurants, stay nearby and increase the commerce of the town.
Michael Alves, Enfield, CT, President of the CT Wave Basketball Association had the following comments:
· We started with 1 basketball team and we now have 14 girls and boys basketball teams with 10 and 12 athletes per team. We have 2 special need teams with children that are mentally and physically handicapped. Our organization struggles year after year to get gym space.
· If you run a good tournament, a lot of teams want to come and play. Last year we ran a tournament at the University of Connecticut using 10 gyms. We had over 90 teams come in from PA to Maine. 45 teams had to get rooms and eat. The entertainment offered with this venue will provide things for the teams to do during down times.
· There is tremendous opportunity for youths in this state that play sports throughout the year. I have been approached by Special Olympics who have been looking for a site in this area for a large special event.
Kathy Maura, 165 Judy Lane, South Windsor had comments that were as follows:
· My family has a business here for over 50 years. We support this.
· I have three kids, I am president of the boys Lacrosse team. We went to a hockey tournament in Lake Placid that had an indoor recreational facility. The kids had a great time.
· We don’t get hockey tournaments to South Windsor because they say there isn’t anything to do in South Windsor.
· I think that the live comedy clubs would be nice because I don’t feel comfortable going into Hartford anymore. I feel more comfortable staying in my own town for the safety reasons. I think it’s a great idea.
Ray Favreau, Director of Recreation
· I want to applaud the commission for your foresight and your decision to amend your regulations to allow recreation facilities in an industrial zone.
· It certainly provides a nice option for vacant commercial space in town. It paves the way for a business like Adventure Quest.
· We consider them a partner along with the folks like the South Windsor soccer club, the SW Little league, lacrosse clubs and the model plane flyers club.
· Adventure Quest is going to help us provide new youth activities and entertainment, during a period of time with an increase in obesity and inactivity. The business will also help create activities and entertainment for adults.
· Obesity and inactivity is even higher in adults. 65% percent of the American population is considered obese, in the adult age group.
· A facility like this will provide opportunities for families. It can offer fund raising activities for civic groups that go beyond the standard sales of product or fund raising efforts.
· We also know it’s going to create associated economic impact along Route 5 and South Windsor.
Mr. Favreau made a list of advantages Adventure Quest has for the recreation department:
· Will provide supplemental gymnasium space. We use every minute of every gym made available to us in South Windsor. We start sometimes at 7am and may end at midnight.
· A venue offering programs the recreation department can’t offer.
· Alternative trip program for camps.
· The recreation department cannot possibly provide absolutely every recreational opportunity or facility that the public desires. We need partners.
· We support and welcome new leisure service providers, like Adventure Quest, to the recreation cause.
Patrick Kennedy asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the application.
Helena Vargas, 26 Colony Road, spoke against the application and her comments were as follows:
· Our house is adjacent to the parking lot of Adventure Quest.
· From the parking lot you can see the houses, there are no buffers. You can literally walk from the back of our yard over to the parking lot.
· The wooded area is to the side, not to the back.
· My concern is the hours of operation. We have small young girls. This facility will be open until midnight with 2 hours thereafter. It also says there is an all night use of the facility. We feel that is an intrusion to our peace and to the safety for our family. Live concerts, the pub, the televised sports, lingering in the parking lots.
· Most likely there will be drinking so we are concerned about what will occur in the parking lots after hours.
Dennis Cussen, 50 Colony Road had the following concerns:
· A bar open until 2 o’clock in the morning, in our backyard.
· The buffer is a fence that the previous owner put up. The woods are pricker bushes.
· More needs to be addressed to our safety, our quietness.
· We have elderly people who are on our road for 50 years, they are literally going to hear car doors slamming, breakfast people, night people.
· Our homes are going to be noisy all day.
· Property value decrease.
· People are going to be staying overnight for tournaments in Manchester, not South Windsor. They are going to go to Buckland for lunch and dinner.
· I want to make sure the town is going to use it, it’s not going to be a big place for other people to come in and use it. Is this going to help South Windsor? Are our children going to use this facility to help their sports, or is it going to be like he said, one hour a week.
Joe Wilcox, 80 Colony Road had the following concerns:
· All of our backyards are on this parking lot.
· Mr. Wilcox noted that he is 20 feet away from the back of that building.
· Gas fumes, diesel fumes, busses running all night, a bar until 2 o’clock in the morning.
· People will be peeking through the fence at my girls in the swimming pool.
· The bar holds 200 people, they will be out in the parking lot after they’re drunk throwing beer bottles over my fence.
· The 8 foot stockade fence ends before my neighbor’s house.
· You can see the houses from the parking lot.
· The traffic at the end of our street is already bad, so how will we be able to get out.
· On page 6 regarding to the hours of operation, it says they will be open until 2 a.m.
· I listened to the traffic report and we don’t even understand it. Let us know how much traffic there is going to be.
· The quality of life is a major concern.
· Would you want this in your back yards?
Larry DeCarle, 41 Colony Road had the following concerns:
· Concerned about privacy and the noise.
· I live on the South side of Colony. I can see the building.
· 4 houses can be seen from the parking lot.
· 8 foot fence will not be adequate.
Nick Vargas, 26 Colony Road had the following concerns:
· Sport is a very small piece of the entire complex. It may have been added as an addition to be a selling point to the Town of South Windsor.
· Teenagers drink and will be at a facility that serves alcohol. This may be a place for them to hide from their parents.
· There wasn’t mention of protection or security.
· Property value.
· How close to private property is to the driveway of the facility?
· Hours of operation not being specific enough in the application.
· Statements made concerning that minor improvements to the outside of the building, doesn’t seem possible they would only be minor.
· Consideration for people living on Colony Road.
Paula Holmes, 92 Colony Road, had the following concerns:
· Her peaceful backyard will have much fallout from this application
· Feels another place may be more suitable that may not have residential abutters.
· Found her backyard as a retreat during her recovery from cancer treatments, and this will be gone.
Susan Aitner, 19 Eva Drive, had the following comments:
· What is an accessory use as opposed to primary use.
· Bar seems to be primary use not accessory use.
· Have noise levels been studied in similar places?
· What historical factors are going to be considered?
· The public is the enforcement officer for the public regulations, how do we know we are being heard?
·
Erin Holmes, 63 Colony Road, had the following comments:
· Concerned about the bar. There is nothing to separate the residents and their homes from the people coming out.
· Bedroom windows of houses are visible.
· I have been in this neighborhood almost 20 years and I saw an arcade go in. There were kids walking through our neighborhood. People would park on our street and walk over.
· Who is going to regulate this?
· How late are the busses going to be running and where are they going to park?
· Who will decide what age groups will be going in? What type of music and what kind of comedians?
· Nothing was mentioned about noise buffers on the inside.
· If noise isn’t considered, we won’t be able to sleep until 2 a.m. some nights and have to work the next day.
Kennedy requested input from the commission:
Slicer made the following comments:
· Hard to not pay attention to the abutting land owners and their impact in regard to this application.
· Is what’s being proposed there compatible with the town’s plan of development and also consistent with neighbors’ rights to privacy and the impact on their personal existence.
· There is some relief in the regulations to limit the activities in that facility.
Lariviere made the following comments:
· He likes the project and the idea but has a problem with having it abut this neighborhood. There are a lot of other vacant buildings in this town in an industrial zone that don’t border residential neighborhoods.
· Security and sound barriers are a major concern.
· The bar is another issue. This is something you can use without participating in any of the sporting events that occur there. No membership required to get into the bar.
Evans made the following comments: (Responses are in italic)
· What can the applicant do to address the concern about noise? We anticipated this and did a sound study. We used an air horn and a stereo. 95-100 decibels for the stereo inside, dropping to 65-70 decibels outside the window, at the fence line it was 55-60 decimals. Just background noise (birds, etc.) was measured at 55 decibels. We feel this will drop even more when it reaches the houses. This is the area the proposed laser tag is going to be and the window will be blocked out, additional insulation can be put in. Laser tag is on the opposite side of the restaurant.
· Noise that is constant will be bothersome, not the occasional outburst.
· Is there any kind of insulation you will be proposing? It can easily be done.
· What kind of control will the applicant have over the noise and security ? Additional security will be brought in including police in order to make sure that everything is patrolled properly. On staff, they will have their own security people.
· What kind of sign will be on Route 5? At this time there will be no sign on Route 5.
· Is there anything that we can do to improve the buffering? Mr. Boston has proposed certain trees on the buffering. At the present time, it is a very mature buffer. It is and it isn’t, you can get through it. There is one area we are proposing to put evergreens. There is one area where residential housing is visible, we are proposing to fill in the gap.
· Is the Adventure Quest any sort of a franchise? It is locally owned and operated.
· Can you tell me where is the nearest facility of this kind that is located near a residential zone? There is a facility called Fun Station. I can’t tell you if it’s directly adjacent to a residential area.
· Will there be emergency generators there? I wondered if there were any chance to use this for emergency need. Intention is not to have this for an emergency use. There are so many other criteria we would have to meet in order to use it for an emergency facility.
Bazzano made the following comments:
· Likes the idea of the plan but has some of the same concerns as the neighbors in the area.
· The public hearing to stay open and have you come back to us with a plan for the buffer area that would accommodate the neighbors.
· Can you tell me about the hill that separates these two pieces of property. According to the topographic elevations, it’s almost a 12-14 foot grade change. Mr. Boston referred to the site plans and went over the slope and the buffering area and explained what the entire buffer consisted of currently.
· There are concerns regarding the restaurant, can you go over the hours. When the main facility is open, the restaurant will be open 2 hours later, according to your regulations. If there isn’t enough demand to keep the facility open during the week, it will close earlier, and the restaurant will close 2 hours later.
· Is the restaurant part of the existing building proposal. It’s all the existing vacant building.
· Please address bus parking. We expect there will be buses, we can address where they park and that they are not close to the residential area.
· Security needs to be addressed.
· Will the cafeteria be serving alcohol? No.
· Please discuss a checkpoint for alcohol. Children (under 21) will not be able to go into the alcohol area without an adult. We will have billiards for over 21 (family) and one for children.
Choate made the following comments:
· Also concerned about bus parking and security outside.
· Elaborate more specifically on the hours and when you will be open late.
· How important is the sale of alcohol? It’s critical to the economics of the facility.
· A pub type restaurant gives a different impression than a family restaurant.
· The softball team that has their after-party in the parking lot is a concern. There will be security working on that, it will be prohibited and not tolerated.
· Closing the median cut on Route 5. This would be problematic and, it will be addressed more specifically with the State Traffic Commission. We are not expecting any more traffic than what was approved in the prior certificate and the median is well used by other area businesses.
· My concern is safety, not traffic volume. It would be enlightening to see an accident report for this area. If the State doesn’t think it is safe, we would consider a change.
· Separate the loading area from the parking area? We will look at that for next time.
· Elaborate on added insulation for noise. The section of the building nearest the residents, we can look at what we can do to control and minimize it. The idea is to have nothing objectionable to the Colony Road residents.
Pacekonis had the following comments:
· Quality of life has not been addressed by the applicant vs. buffer concerns. Adding a tree or a bush won’t help their concerns.
· The negative impacts on property value have not been addressed by the applicant. We will look at that. We are utilizing an existing parking lot and existing building. This vacant building and lot was used before and noise was generated, but we will address that.
Sullivan had the following comments:
· Accessory uses, hours of operation: would like to see a breakdown. Also concerned that the alcohol sale and restaurant are critical to the project, yet are supposedly an accessory use.
· Decibel level maximum per zoning regulations in an industrial zone is 55-61 decibels during the day; nighttime limit is 51 for industrial/residential boundary. Will there be noise violation issues?
· Traffic study does not make clear what the peak hour is.
· Would the applicants be willing to close the larger parking when the main facility is closed and only keep the restaurant parking lot open?
· How is alcohol segregated from the rest of the facility?
Kennedy had the following comments:
· Hours of operation is rather undefined. All night events will be controlled and will be internal only.
· Set maximum hours with specifics in proposal.
· Do we really need to keep the bar open until 2 a.m.? It has to be something that will support the facility.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments: Replies will be in Italics.
· Is the applicant going to be the permittee for the restaurant? We are going to keep it in the organization.
· Are there going to be bleachers for spectators? On the plans there is 198 feet from the North wall to the South wall. There will be 4 court lengths. A court regulation is 80-85 feet. You will have room on each end zone for portable bleachers.
Choate made a motion to continue the public hearing for application 05-68P, Adventure Quest until February 14, 2006. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Extension of Meeting
Kennedy made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. Choate seconded the motion. The motion
carried, and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 05-76P, New England School of Gymnastics, LLC – request for Special Exception to Article 6.1.3.9 of the Zoning Regulations to establish a gymnastics school on property located at 40 Sandra Drive, I zone
Jacqueline Lavoy-Alaimo presented the application. She noted that the business is instructional gymnastics for ages 2-16. Ms. Lavoy-Alaimo reviewed classes and the hours of operations. (See exhibit D), and indicated that her business will help with the need for town space regarding gymnastics.
Marcia Banach provided the following planning report:
The applicant is requesting special exception approval to Section 6.1.3.9 of the Industrial zoning regulations for an indoor gymnastics facility, approximately 3,600 sf, located at 40 Sandra Drive, I zone. Section 6.1.3.9 allows indoor recreational activities in the industrial zone.
The applicant has provided a narrative defining the scope of activity that will occur at this location. The applicant is proposing to have small instructional classes (6 to 8 children) for a wide range of age groups. The hours of operation will be from 9 am to 9 pm on Monday through Friday and Saturday 9am – 12:30 pm. There will also be personal training services available to clients. They anticipate needing parking for 10 cars. The existing site parking on site that should accommodate parking needs. The applicant has obtained a letter from Andre’s Furniture, the abutting property owner, to allow for overflow parking if necessary.
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 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.
If approved, the Planning Dept. has no requested modifications.
There was no engineering report.
Kennedy requested public input.
Ray Favreau, Director of Recreation, noted that his department is supportive of the new gymnastic school. South Windsor High School is the only facility available to accommodate the Recreation Department’s Sunday gymnastics program. He is looking into partnering with the owner to free the high school on Sundays.
No one spoke against this application.
Bazzano read a letter regarding parking for application. (See exhibit F)
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
· Will children and their parents have a safe egress from the parking lot? Is there a sidewalk? Probably not a sidewalk. It is a cul de sac.
· Do you see a lot of conflict with vehicle rates filling the parking lot? How many spaces do you expect to be using? I will probably use about 10 out of the 25 existing.
· What is your expected class size? Usually the class size is between 6 and 8 students.
· Classes changing will be the concern. Parents car pool or just drop off.
· Is there time between classes for drop off and pick up? It’s possible they will cross paths.
· What else is in this building? There is no reason any one else there needs parking.
Kennedy closed public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
Chairman Kennedy called meeting to order at 10:25 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
Choate made a motion to suspend rules and vote on Appl 05-76P, New England School of Gymnastics, LLC. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
1. Appl 05-76P, New England School of Gymnastics, LLC – request for Special Exception to Article 6.1.3.9 of the Zoning Regulations to establish a gymnastics school on property located at 40 Sandra Drive, I zone
Pacekonis made a motion to approve Appl 05-76P, New England School of Gymnastics, LLC. with standard approval conditions. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 05-63P, DBB Management, LLC – request for site plan approval for property located at 59 & 67 McGuire Road, GC zone
Kennedy stated the application will be taken up another night.
3. Appl 05-74P, R & B Auto Sales – request for Used Car Dealer license and Site Plan approval for property located at 713 John Fitch Boulevard, GC zone
Leonard M. Treglia presented the application and indicated that he is re-licensing his automobile sales business at 713 John Fitch Blvd.
Banach gave the following report:
Request for site plan approval and used car dealer license for property located at 713 John Fitch Boulevard, GC zone. This site has previously been used for motor vehicle sales, however the most recent use of the site has been the storage of vehicles; and the site has generally been in violation of its former approved site plan. This new applicant is now requesting to reutilize the site for car sales and to bring the site into compliance with the existing site plan.
The existing site plan, prepared in 1976, shows parking spaces for 24 vehicles for sale. The gas pumps shown on the plan are no longer there. A variance was granted in 1981 to Route 5 motor cars, the previous tenant, to allow 15 cars to be parked in front of the building line. The existing site plan does not reflect this in the 24 vehicle parking spaces shown. The Commission should clarify with the applicant whether he intends to use that variance and place vehicles in front of the building line; if so, does that mean there will be more than 24 vehicles offered for sale?
As is common with Route 5 sites, the ROW for Route 5 is very wide, and the applicant’s property line is about 50 feet away from the edge of Route 5. If vehicles are parked in front of the building line, they need to at least be on the applicant’s property, not the State ROW.
The existing building is nonconforming to current zoning regulations, with a 33’ setback, 50’ required under today’s regulations. There are no building additions or modifications proposed with this application.
Site size is just over a half acre. We note that, while the site plan shows delineated parking spaces, the majority of the site actually is gravel, and the areas in which vehicles are to be parked are for the most part indistinguishable from the remainder of the site.
This site is currently not landscaped. The applicant has proposed to clean up the site – paint the light poles and add shrubbery around the building and planters around the site. There are notes on the plan indicating these items.
One major issue we tend to have with car dealerships is noncompliant lighting and use of spotlights. One of the site photographs shows the spotlights and up-tilted lighting. This would be an opportunity for the Commission to upgrade the lighting to conform with zoning requirements for full cutoff lights and no spotlights.
The new sign regulations allow both a building sign and a freestanding sign. The building sign would be allowed to be about 60 square feet, and the freestanding sign would be allowed to be 24 square feet.
There currently is no dumpster on site. The applicant is proposing to eliminate one of the parking spaces shown on the southerly side of the building to place a dumpster. The applicant should be advised that it must be placed on a concrete pad and screened.
There is no 100-year floodplain on this site. There are no regulated wetlands on site.
Public water and sewer currently service the site. WPCA approval is not required.
If this application is approved, the Planning Department has no other requested modifications.
Discussion ensued among the Commission with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in italics.
· Clarification of current working light poles. Light poles on site plan do not work. The only existing lighting is on building facing down. Spotlights on street poles were put up by CL&P for the property owners.
· Would it be detrimental to the business to turn the CL&P spotlights off? No, it’s a plus for the whole area. Sometimes an officer stays there for speeders.
· Question for CL&P might be, what can you replace them with that will meet our full cut-off fixtures requirement.
· All proposed parking spaces on site plan need to be identified, to scale.
· Plan is a 1976 site plan. A genuine update would require a new survey. A new survey isn’t necessary. Clean up the existing site plan and show only what is there and label working and non working lights.
· What kinds of shrubs are proposed? In the front of each bay, there will a flower pot on each side of the building and in the middle of the bays. On the island, there will be another flower pot. Shrubs written on the site plan was a misprint. It’s all concrete, no place for shrubs.
Action will not be taken on this application tonight.
4. Appl 02-74P, Battiston’s Cleaners – request for site change to add a service driveway on Troy Road
Benny Zaino, owner of Battiston’s Cleaners on Sullivan Avenue, appeared before the Commission to request permission to keep a new, unauthorized driveway he constructed onto Troy Road. He noted that it is a small driveway only to be utilized by company drivers, used once or twice a day. It is not a public driveway, only 18-24 feet, very simple.
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer had the following comments:
· This application came about because there was a driveway that Mr. Zaino and a contractor put in that wasn’t on the original approved site plan. A change order was needed but it also needs to go in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
· It was put in without our knowledge. We thought they were repairing the original driveway, and they put in a new one.
Zaino continued with his comments, noting that he was having a problem with his neighbor about using their driveway, even though Zaino has a right-of-way over that driveway. He indicated that he brought in a contractor to add this driveway and specifically told the contractor to get a permit from the town. The permit did say driveway, but there was a misunderstanding. Jeff Doolittle noted that the town did give the permit, but the application stated it was for repair.
Kennedy asked why this wasn’t on the additional site plan. Zaino said he did not need it at the time because the original owner next door did not have a problem with Battiston’s using his driveway. Then the driveway was blocked off a couple of times, and Zaino did not want to resort to legal avenues.
Doolittle recommended a condition with approval that if the use changes or the site plan gets revised, staff re-evaluate the driveway at that time.
Bazzano made a motion to approve Appl 02-74P, Battison’s Cleaners, with standard approval conditions. Slicer seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
5. Buckland Hills Imaging – request placement of temporary 48x8’ MRI trailer unit at 497 Buckland Road parking area.
This request was withdrawn by the applicant.
CORRESPONDENCE/REPORT:
1. Appl 05-59P, Woodwright Homes, LLC zone change – request two consecutive 90-day extensions from the original filing date for recording mylars
Evans made a motion to approve extension request for Appl 05-59P, Woodwright Homes, LLC. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES: 11/1/2005, 11/15/2005, 12/6/2005, Approved by consensus
ADJOURNMENT:
Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
Barbara M. Messino
Recording Secretary
| 
