MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Michael Sullivan, Suzanne Choate, Bart Pacekonis and Louise Evans
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski, David Sorenson (Jeski sat in for Slicer)
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning and Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Public Hearing
Patrick Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Bazzano read the Legal Notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
1. Appl 06-45P, Chinese Baptist Church of Greater Hartford – request for a special exception to article 4.1.8 and site plan approval for approval of a 35,000 sf church (full build out) on 12.6 acres for property located at R025 King Street, RR zone
The application for the Chinese Baptist church was presented by Jeffrey Scala, P.E., Project Engineer of GARG Consulting Services, Inc.
Attorney David Barry reviewed the location of the Church and the size of the property. ADRC has acted favorably towards the design and have received approval from IWA/CC. The church is currently located in West Hartford sharing space with the First Baptist Church.
The schedule of the church was discussed: on Friday night there is a bible study and children’s program. Sunday morning the main services take place.
Jeff Scala continued with review of the site plans and all that surrounds it. East Hartford is an abutting town. Scala also reviewed the areas on the site plan and what they represent: Footprint of the building, parking, drainage, setbacks, lighting and wetland findings.
The development will be built in stages and the timeline of the construction will depend on the money flow. Comments from town staff regarding parking were addressed and zoning requirements have all been met.
Landscaping is planned to supersede the zoning requirements. Trees, islands and the buffer on the site plan were reviewed in detail by Scala.
Steve McCallister, architect with Clark and Green Associates presented the architectural plans for the site and has assisted in the design of about 30 churches throughout Connecticut. The design phases were presented as a slide show and gave a visual of the different levels of the building starting with the outside, into the basement and up to the roof. A 3-D image of the exterior of the building was reviewed which included the materials and colors as well as design of the façade.
The environment surrounding the building site has been taken into consideration while designing the church.
Pastor Timothy West stated that the church is open to all people and is happy to feel welcome in South Windsor. Many people of the congregation attended the public hearing in support of this application.
Lipe gave a planning report:
1. Request for Special Exception and site plan approval to construct a new church on King Street at the East Hartford Town line, RR zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 50%, 29.2% proposed. Proposed building height is 30 feet; 30 feet allowed. Lot size is 9.6 acres; minimum lot size allowed is 1 acre. Frontage is 319 feet; minimum allowed is 175 feet. Front yard setback is 50 feet, 50 feet required.
2. This church is proposed to be constructed in four phases, with the first phase consisting of a multipurpose room, foyer and classrooms, plus about half of the parking. The second phase will add classrooms and the remaining parking; and the third phase will add the sanctuary itself.
Special Exception criteria include:
· Traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
· 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;
· Impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, sidewalks, and other infrastructure;
· The land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created; and,
· Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
The Special Exception regulation also allows the Commission to impose additional conditions on the application if needed.
3. The applicant has submitted a traffic report. According to the report, sight lines are adequate and levels of service are at the A and B level.
4. The proposed plan currently includes 199 parking spaces, using our formula of 1 space per 3 sanctuary seats. We note that there is the possibility for a much greater utilization of the building, particularly after all phases are constructed. The applicant has indicated that they will be showing reserve parking; and the site is large enough to accommodate additional parking areas if needed in the future. We also note that when the number of parking spaces reaches 200 or more, then State Traffic Commission approval is required.
5. Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed Phase I of this application on 9-7-06. They were generally satisfied with the proposal but did have four comments:
· The dumpster must be screened (also a staff comment to the applicant);
· Sign size must conform to zoning requirements;
· Mechanical units must be screened when their location is determined; and
· The applicant must return to ADRC for review of the future phases prior to construction
6. Proposed lighting is full cut off, with pole heights varying between 8 and 20 feet.
a. Parking lot landscaping requirement is for 5% of the parking lot to be landscaped; the applicant has provided 9.5% landscaping.
b. There are two detention basins, both located at the rear of the site so they should not be visible from the street.
7. The applicant is allowed one free-standing sign, 32 square feet. The sign depicted on sheet 2 appears to meet this requirement.
8. There is no buffer requirement. The church property is heavily screened along the west and north boundaries by a wooded wetlands area. The closest existing single family houses are directly across King Street; in East Hartford to the south, and an existing house to the northeast (see aerial photo). The Commission may want to consider screening along the East Hartford Town boundary.
9. There are no regulated wetlands on site. IWA/CC approved the conservation plan on September 6, 2006, with a $3,000 bond for erosion & sediment control and no unusual approval conditions.
10. There is an existing barn on the southern property line (literally). The applicant has indicated that they are unsure what their future plans are for this barn.
11. South Windsor Police Department had no comments on the proposal.
12. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal and has requested a new fire hydrant on King Street and a 6” water main. The applicant will need to contact the Fire Marshal if this project is approved.
13. Public water and sewer are available. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
14. There is a dumpster shown on a concrete pad. It will need to be screened, and the applicant is aware of that requirement.
15. The Town of East Hartford has been notified of this pending application as required by State statute.
16. If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests that the above-noted items be addressed.
Doolittle reviewed the engineering comments:
Sheet 2 Overall Site Plan
1. The sidewalk needs to be a minimum of six feet wide where the sidewalk is adjacent to a parking area that does not have curb stops. Extend the sidewalk along the south side of the building to connect the pieces shown near the handicap spaces on the south and west sides of the building. Include a detail for the handicap sidewalk ramps.
2. The curb should be six inches high, not 4 inches high.
3. The landscaped islands in the parking areas away from the buildings appear to be flush with the pavement to be incorporated into the drainage system. A note on this sheet and the Planting Plan would clarify this feature.
Sheet 3 Sedimentation Control Plan
4. The detention/water quality basins, the swales and temporary dikes should have descriptive labels on the plan with references to the appropriated details.
5. The detail for a swale needs to be labeled. The detail shown is for section A-A but the plan does not show a section location. The detail information is not clear. Additional information is needed, particularly for identifying the dimensions, materials and components of the swale. The Profile needs to be labeled better and the location shown on the plan.
6. Add to the Site Development construction sequence that the detention/sedimentation basins and the outlet from the site should be formed to final grade and stabilized sufficiently to act as temporary sediment basins before other construction on the site.
Sheet 4 Drainage and Utility Plan
7. The text for some notations, particularly along pipes, is not clear. A finer font and/or larger type should be used to avoid misreading information.
8. Additional descriptions and/or labels need to be added for the basins, all proposed contours, each drainage and sanitary structure, the details for the basins and weirs.
9. The minimum size of drainage pipe used on this site should be 12” diameter.
10. The perimeter grading of the southern basin is not clearly described on the plan. The basin detail shows a ten foot wide level perimeter but no elevations. Both the plan and the detail should have more information. The detail for the basin weirs does not show sufficient dimensions.
11. The downstream flow path from the northern detention basin has about 13% slope and the stability of this area after development should be addressed to determine if downstream improvements are needed.
12. The riprap pap dimensions have labels described only in the Drainage Analysis. A detail should be added for the rip rap pads. The Town standard detail should be used.
13. The catch basin detail should show four foot sumps and delete brick as an acceptable material. The Town standard details should be used.
14. The Town’s standard details for storm drain trenches, sanitary sewer trenches, sanitary manholes should be used.
15. The concrete curb detail does not conform to the Town’s detail, particularly for depth, reveal and base. When installed with sidewalk an expansion joint must be installed between the precast concrete curb and the sidewalk. Integral concrete curb and sidewalk works well.
16. The sanitary manhole inverts and the slope of the sanitary pipe conflict with each other. Sanitary laterals are to have a minimum slope of 2%. Also check for conflicts where the sanitary lateral crosses the storm drain pipe.
17. The Drainage Analysis report calls for the following features that are not shown on the plan. These need to be shown on the plans.
Hoods on the final catch basins before the outlets.
Four foot deep catch basin sumps.
Four rain gardens and two pre-treatment swales.
Dry wells for some of the roof drainage.
The roof drains are not shown on the plan.
18. Drainage Analysis:
With the exception of the Site Description, the report narrative is fairly general. The Calculation Summary contains only two small tables with no explanatory text. The bulk of the report consist of the appendices with the computer print outs of the calculations but no accompanying descriptions. The appendices should supplement the report rather than provide the primary information. The main narrative of the report should summarize all the findings of the analysis with more descriptive text and tables. References to particular information in the appendices are fine, provided that information can be readily read. Since all the runoff from the site is directed to one outfall area that includes a downstream slope of about 13%, this outfall area should be
particularly addressed in the narrative for flow rates and velocities to verify stable conditions for each of the design storms. The report should also include the hydrographs for the basins for each of the design storms, so that storage volumes, flow rates and pool elevations are clearly presented. The drainage area maps are at a reduced scale and difficult to read. The report states that infiltration of storm water will occur in rain gardens, infiltration basin and dry wells. The infiltration volumes should be summarized for each type of facility for each design storm.
Members of the public spoke in favor of the application:
Peter Tay of South Windsor appreciates the opportunity to having the Chinese Baptist Church come to South Windsor.
Lily Chong, resident of Wethersfield: staff has been supportive in helping us through the process with this application. We have been made to feel welcome.
Yih Keen Tsuei of Rocky Hill discussed his experiences as a bus driver which has given him the opportunity to see South Windsor as a beautiful and quiet town.
Lei Chen of South Windsor: the church is becoming more diverse and has created a children’s program. She and her family are looking forward to the church coming to town.
Annette Fong of South Windsor has been driving to the First Baptist Church in West Hartford for the past 29 years. This will make it possible to stay in South Windsor and feel more of a part of the church. Sharing the church has not allowed our congregation to have a feeling of belonging. This will allow them to have more control over our events and bring more people into the congregation.
Commissioners had questions and comments: (replies will be in italics)
Jeski clarified with the applicant what the time table might be from start to finish. Pastor West mentioned that once the application is approved, fund raising will begin and the parish hopes to start building within two years.
Evans wanted clarification of what the view would be from the street of the church. Jeff Scala: The building is going to sit slightly lower than the road. The upper ½ of the building will show and shade trees will be added to break up the building. The highest point of the building will be 30 feet plus the steeple. The barn on the property is being negotiated and will be resolved before possession of the property is taken. There will not be any ball fields proposed at this point.
Bazzano: What is the acreage and how many members are in the congregation? There is 9.6 acres and there are 180 regular members with attendance climbing to 270 people.
Bazzano had the applicant clarify what type of barn was on the property line and its condition.
Chaote: Where there any problems with the engineering comments? As an engineer, we feel that 4 inch curbs are adequate instead of 6 inch curbs. All other comments we are in agreement.
Choate expressed concern regarding erosion in the swale on the site plan and confirmed with town staff that all engineering comments have been responded to and agreed upon.
The traffic study was reviewed briefly by Scala as well as the Fire Marshal’s comments regarding the fire hydrant. The final plans will reflect improvements in the design of the long outside wall to break up the blankness of it. Also, the screening on the East Hartford town line will be considered.
Pacekonis: It is nice to have people here who are happy to be here. There are concerns with the design of the islands in the parking lot and if large trucks will be able to maneuver through. This will be considered in the final plans.
Sullivan: How is building height determined? Lipe: The average grade along with the average of the roof. Steeples are separate. Regulation section 3.6, Height limitations, was read into the record by Lipe.
Sullivan: Concerns with future parking were reviewed with the applicant as well as screening and buffers.
The public hearing was closed 8:45 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Kennedy called meeting to order at 8:55 p.m.
ITEM: New Business
Bazzano made a motion to suspend the rules and discuss Appl. 06-45P, Chinese Baptist Church of Greater Hartford. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
1. Appl 06-45P, Chinese Baptist Church of Greater Hartford – request for a special exception to article 4.1.8 and site plan approval for approval of a 35,000 sf church (full build out) on 12.6 acres for property located at R025 King Street, RR zone.
Bazzano made a motion to approve with the following modifications Appl. 06-45P, Chinese Baptist Church:
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 $3,000.
A landscape bond in the amount of $5,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
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.
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.
All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected. Sign size must conform to zoning requirements.
Engineering comments dated 9/26/06 must e addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
The dumpster must be screened.
Mechanical units must be screened when their location is determined.
The applicant must return to ADRC for review of the future phases prior to construction.
Applicant to provide architectural relief along the east building elevation to be approved by town staff.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Preliminary discussion regarding Kilkenny Heights Subdivision
Skip Alford opened the discussion and went over the draft of the proposed development of land which is east of Abbe Road. It is proposed to be a conventional subdivision with open space consisting of 6 acres with 1 lot to be retained for the property owner. An eastement owned by CL&P runs along the south side of the proposed development.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners:
Evans wanted clarification of the lots and how the layout is proposed on the subdivision plan. The property owner wants to maintain the property that surrounds the subdivision. Choate was concerned with the cul-de-sac and it not going all the way to the property line.
It was determined by the commission that the applicant needs to satisfy the commissions concerns regarding a temporary cul-de-sac and the future of the property surrounding the proposed subdivision.
3. Appl 06-31P, Copper Ridge Subdivision – Request for two consecutive 90 day extensions and the approval for Morra Associates to perform an appraisal to determine the fee in lieu of open space.
Evans made a motion to approve two consecutive 90 day extensions for Appl. 06-31P, Copper Ridge Subdivision as mentioned above as well as approval for Morra Associates to perform an appraisal to determine the fee in lieu of open space. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Site Bonds and IWA/CC Bonds
Appl. 00-07P, Pleasant Meadows site bond of $80,990 with a recommended reduction in the amount of $44,890 leaving a balance of $36,100 and an IWA/CC bond of $3,000 with a recommended reduction of $3,000 leaving a balance of $0.
Evans made a motion to approve the recommendations to reduce bonds for Appl. 00-07P, Pleasant Meadows. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl. 04-21P, ECHN IWA/CC bond of $20,000 with a recommended reduction in the amount of $20,000 leaving a balance of $0.
Evans made a motion to approve the recommendations to reduce the bond for Appl. 04-21P, ECHN as mentioned above. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES: May 23, 2006; June 13, 2006; June 27, 2006, July 11, 2006 July 25, 3006, August 10, 2006, September 12, 2006. The minutes were adopted by consensus.
.
OTHER
The following items were discussed:
Lipe presented a change order from Redland Brick requesting an outdoor display of bricks. The commission approved by consensus.
Pacekonis inquired about Strawberry Fields time tables. Doolittle clarified that CO’s have not been issued. Sidewalks, trails, stop signs, lights and the club house are not abiding to the time tables given but are still in progress.
Sullivan inquired about the gate on Nutmeg Road South at the Filene’s warehouse. There is an empty box truck parked outside the gate which means the gate is not operational. Lipe: staff will give the owner a call.
The appearance of Lowe’s on the Manchester-South Windsor line was discussed. As managers change the appearance seems to deteriorate. Staff will have the Zoning Enforcement Officer look into this.
Bazzano: The new VIP’s will be in Manchester. Can we prohibit them from coming into town. Lipe: We can not prohibit them. They must meet the regulations requirements.
ADJOURNMENT:
Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45p.m. Jeski seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara M. Messino
Recording Secretary
| 
