MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Suzanne Choate, Louise Evans, Bart Pacekonis, Clifford Slicer and Michael Sullivan
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski and David Sorenson
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning and Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Kennedy called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Appl 06-42P, Evergreen Walk, LLC, request for zoning amendment to Section 5.8 to add multi-family residential use as a Special Exception use under certain conditions in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone, (continued from 9/12/06).
The application for Evergreen Walk, LLC was presented by Alan Lamson from FLB Architecture & Planning, Inc. and Stephen Mitchell of F.A. Hesketh & Associates.
Mr. Lamson reviewed the concerns of the application that were brought up at the public hearing on September 12, 2006. Similar projects in neighboring towns were discussed. (See exhibit A)
Mr. Mitchell reviewed the Traffic report. (See exhibit B and C)
Marcia Banach, Director of Planning gave the following planning report:
1. There are three vacant parcels in the Gateway zone, all on the east side of Buckland Road, that are 10 acres or larger in size.
2. Traffic statement: There may be a misconception regarding the applicant’s traffic statement and its conclusion. There is already a concept plan approval from this Commission, plus a State Traffic Commission permit, for a large amount of development, hence a large amount of traffic on Buckland Road. The proposed residential development would use up some of the capacity already approved by the STC and the Commission. At this time, there are about 30,000 sq ft of unallocated indoor recreation; 550,000 sq ft of unallocated office space; and 130,000 sq ft of unallocated hotel space. All future construction will be proportionally subtracted from the remaining
space allocations, no matter what type of construction it is. The original traffic report for the Evergreen Walk general plan estimated that about 21,000 trips would be generated by the total approved development, and that the peak hour traffic on Buckland Road would be approximately doubled. There is no change in that presumption; instead, the buildout square footage of various uses could change.
3. The attorney’s proposed revisions are simply wording clarifications and do not modify any of the provisions of the regulation.
Members of the public spoke in favor of the application:
Jan Murtha, 102 Beelzebub Road: There has been support of this application with the idea that the number of possible apartments would be brought down.
Edwina Futtner, 203 Sandstone Drive: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Upscale rental apartments in town are needed for young professionals. Support was given at the Economic Development Review Committee. Issues raised in opposition to this project have been regarding a change in the town, apartments being “scary” and traffic. We need to put our trust in our town officials. Please support this project.
Audrey Wasik, 29 Carmen Road: My business is Government Relations. The village concept is tied to the concept of mixed used zoning. Examples of this use in other states were given as well as quotes from developers and planners who have taken part of projects such as this. This type of development has been around for about 20 years so there have been lessons to be learned for developers and municipalities to draw on. Not all educated and financially solvent people want to live in mansions. They want options and this project will give them that. I hope South Windsor will look favorably on this application.
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc.: The changes made in the plans for this application are headed in the right direction. I support the amendments.
Craig Kohanski, 15 Grandview Terrace: I am in favor of this application. Driving down Buckland Road and Sullivan Avenue and having a visual of residential mixed with commercial would be more pleasing that what is there now. Please approve this zoning amendment.
Craig Stevenson, Econimic Development Coordinator: I support this zoning amendment and voted through the Economic Development Commission in favor of it.
Kathryn O’Hale, 54 Orchard Hill Drive: I support good mixed use development. I have concerns about the drafting of the zoning amendment. The focus has been on Evergreen Walk and how this zoning amendment will affect that area. The focus needs to also be on the language of the proposed zoning amendment and what it provides as a minimum. Once this language is adopted, anything that exceeds the minimum in this language must be approved. Although it’s been said that there will be a 400 unit maximum, but the language in #3, page 1 (read into the record) does not confirm this and does not make this clear. Other examples such as this were given where the language does not guarantee minimum standards and quality development. I am in opposition to the
zoning amendment as it is written.
Tom Delnicki, 130 Felt Road: I am in opposition of this proposal and if it is approved, there will be more to come. There is nothing in the wording of this application that prevents more than 400 units to be in a development. I ask that South Windsor not be used as an experiment for new urbanism. Respect the thought and the vision when rules and regulations of the Gateway zone were designed.
Robert Benson, 15 West Road: I have been in town for 50 years and have seen many changes, the good ones and the “blunders.” The general population has been asking for tax relief. Evergreen Walk was development in hopes that this would happen. The new proposal will add more traffic, more children and more housing without much more revenue. Is this an easy way to flood this area with homes? I would like to see more commercial in this area than housing.
Bill Aman, 878 Strong Road: We are making a mistake mixing commercial with apartments. I have read about Bristol having issues with this same mixed use. We looked at the 250 acres at Evergreen Walk as a salvation of our tax problems. Now we are putting apartments on a good portion of it. This is not what the intention was. This is a poor concept that will cost tax payers more in the long run. I urge you to not let apartments into the Gateway zone.
A letter written to Tom Delnicki dated 9/25/06 and signed by John Tencza, 141 Beelzebub Road was read into the record regarding the zoning amendment of Evergreen Walk (see exhibit D).
Discussion ensued among the commissioners. (Responses are in italics)
Sorenson wanted clarification on the comparisons of existing apartments with the proposed application. Alan Lamson: Deer Valley units range up to 1900 sf., I will have to look up sizes of others.
Jeski: The term “upscale” is used but nothing in the plan specifies what this would mean. This issue has been struggled with. Zoning can’t regulate materials used inside. What was accomplished at Evergreen Walk shows quality under the same concerns.
Slicer: In regulation 5.8.5, Prohibited use does not prohibit multi family housing in the gateway zone. Regulation 5.8.6.c.1 was read into the record. This regulation includes the wording “village.” In the dictionary, the word village is defined as, “a small group of dwellings in a rural area ranking between the size of a hamlet and a town.” It was never the intent of the regulation to exclude residential. Some concerns of the quality can be addressed by controlling the exterior building materials and the size of the development. I went through the Manchester Parkade to see the apartments referred to by Mr. Aman as being the reason the parkade went out of business. The apartments have been welled cared for. The commercial site
was never kept up or dressed up. The owners of the property allowed it to deteriorate. Evergreen walk is nice, but after the sun sets, there isn’t anyone there. It lacks people and this project may bring them in.
Evans: Could people on the east side rely on the retail on the west side? Lamson: 4 to 1 ratio was inserted due to this concern. The ratio and acreage was clarified along with the size of the apartments and development. The commission does not have control over the size of the apartments. The ratio of the retail limits the square feet, in total. The last page of the proposed regulations has wording regarding residential uses that should be clarified.
An on site manager should be required. I am still concerned that there isn’t wording stating “owner occupied” for some of the units.
Bazzano: Clarified information on Exhibit B regarding the numbers of commercial and residential.
Choate: Lowering the 225 number to 200 was recommended by Jeski and Evans mentioned on site management. Please respond. A village is trying to be created and much research has been done to come up with the numbers. Someone from the management team usually lives on site.
Pacekonis: Opened discussion regarding parking. Page 4B of the proposal, was read into the record. Building materials and their use were discussed and clarified.
Sullivan: Clarified with the applicant the acreage and the numbers of units allowed in this proposal and also the financial analysis and how it applies to the revised application.
Kennedy: Questions raised regarding cost analysis and the aging of the development during the public hearing on September 12 were discussed again applying the answers to the revised application. If there are 400 units in the zone, that would be 56 children. Would Orchard Hill School be required to redistrict? It is possible, some decisions would have to be made. Have the apartment complexes mentioned maintained their rental prices over time? If management maintains the properties, quality should hold firm.
Evans: The live/work units raise a concern regarding parking and how it is managed.
Alan Lamson responded to comments regarding the 400 units ceiling. The intent is to be no project approved by this commission can have units over 400. If there are 399 units, only 1 can be added. Item 5, paragraph 2 states required improvements to be by the applicant.
Bazzano: Hawthorn Ridge was not as upscale (on the inside) as expected. What is the definition of upscale. It starts with the design and trying to create a community that includes pleasantries that make living there enjoyable. The entire town needs to adopt the village feel. Materials used would then need to be chosen and designed with care. Upscale may be a word that can’t be used. Upscale does not always mean most expensive. The regulation amendment places the burden on the commission to ensure the future applications under this proposed amendment adhere to the “upscale” requirements.
The public hearing was closed 9:50 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
Chairman Kennedy called meeting to order at 9:55 p.m.
1. Appl 06-44P, Quality Paving – request for site plan approval for approximately 2,520 sf facility on property located on the northerly side of Strong Road, and westerly of John Fitch Boulevard (L008 Strong Road), I zone.
The application for Quality Paving, Inc. was presented by Karen Isherwood from Design Professionals, Inc.:
The conditions of the site and it’s surroundings were described. The proposed building will be for storage and will have 2-12 ft. overhead doors. Quality Paving currently has 8 employees and the hours of operation are 7a.m.-4:30p.m. There isn’t signage proposed because no public will be entering the site. Electricity is the only public utilities on site and there are no facilities.
Staff comments have been addressed. A tractor trailer is to remain on site for storage. The parking area will be gravel and paving. Spaces: 8 in front, 2 in the rear. Storm water management which includes drainage plans have been revised as staff requested. Curb cuts would be 15 feet wide to allow easy access for two way traffic for larger vehicles. Traffic volume expects to be 695-871 vehicles per day on Strong Road. Two driveway entrances are proposed for safety reasons.
Erosion control and the landscaping plan were discussed. Site lighting, trees and wetland plantings are proposed in the site plan.
Evans made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Banach gave a planning report:
Request for site plan approval for the construction of a 2,520 sf storage building on property located on the northerly side of Strong Road, westerly of Route 5, I zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%; 49% proposed. Proposed building height is 25 feet; 40 feet allowed. Lot size is 1.2 acres; minimum lot size allowed is 20,000 sf. Frontage is 276 feet; minimum allowed is 100 feet. Front yard setback is 98.3 feet, 35feet required.
The applicant’s narrative dated October 10 indicates that the building will be used for equipment, tool and/or vehicle storage. The plan shows an area in the rear for storage of crushed stone stockpiles. There is an existing tractor-trailer box on site; the applicant plans to keep the tractor trailer on site for additional storage of equipment. We have indicated to the applicant that if the Commission agrees to let the trailer remain, the trailer must be placed in a conforming location to zoning setbacks. The applicant has responded that since the trailer box is mobile, it does not need to meet setback requirements. We note that the trailer shows up on our 2004 and 2005 aerial photos, and a site visit shows a crushed stone ramp constructed to the rear trailer doors,
with stuff stored underneath the trailer and no registration, so the trailer box has clearly not been mobile for a while. Whether it is mobile or not, if the commission allows the trailer to remain as a storage container, it must meet setback requirements.
There is a fair amount of equipment being stored on the site now, much of which appears to be unuseable, along with other parts, junk, and piles of wood. The site is very much in need of clean-up
There are two driveway cuts shown on Strong Road. Typically we do not allow two driveway cuts on collector streets, so staff requested current traffic data to determine whether the amount of traffic on Strong Road is low enough for staff to feel comfortable with two driveway cuts. Strong Road is classified as a minor collector street, with expected traffic volumes of between 1000 and 3000 vehicles per day. However, the new traffic counts show that Strong Road does not meet the minimum traffic volume generally associated with minor collector streets, which reduces our concern about the second driveway.
The parking requirement for this use is 2 spaces for the warehouse component and 1 space for each employee, totaling 10 spaces. The applicant has provided 10 spaces on the plans. It is our understanding that the applicant plans to park the trucks and trailers overnight behind the building.
Architectural and Design Review Committee was scheduled to review this application on Oct. 19, however the meeting was cancelled due to a notice error. The applicant has included a cut sheet of the colors proposed as well as a brochure depicting the various versions of the Morton building.
The only lighting proposed is building lighting. The applicant must provide a cut sheet demonstrating that the fixtures are full cut-off as required by the regulations.
There is no signage proposed at this time. The applicant is entitled to a 24 sf free standing sign, maximum of 10 feet in height, as well as a building sign.
There is a buffer required along Strong Road frontage because there is A-40 zoned residential property to the south. The applicant is proposing to keep the existing vegetation as well as screen the front of the property with a 6 foot high stockade fence. The existing vegetation is primarily deciduous, so the fence will be instrumental in creating the buffer and must be well-maintained.
There are regulated wetlands on the property. The applicant received IWA/CC approval on 10/4/06 with the following conditions: a bond in the amount of $2,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control measures and a bond in the amount of $3,000 to ensure establishment of the stormwater system; and a condition requiring an operation and maintenance schedule to be revised on the plans to state there will be monthly inspections of the sump area and cleaning when necessary.
There is currently no provision for either water or sewer to be brought onto the site as the applicant has indicated that this building is intended for cold storage only. However, if employees are going to work inside the building, there may be code issues regarding sanitary facilities. The use of the building has to remain in conformance with the approved site and building permit plans.
There is a dumpster pad proposed on the northerly side of the building. This area must be screened or enclosed to ensure trash containment.
If this application is approved, the planning staff requests that the items already mentioned be included as approval conditions.
Doolittle reviewed engineering comments:
1. The outlet structure from the water quality basin needs a trash rack over the opening.
2. The rip rap energy dissipater should be constructed on this property.
3. Add a note to the plans that the grass swale is to be mowed at least twice a season to keep the weeds and woody growth down.
4. No water or sanitary sewer service is shown for this site. How will the site be used without these utilities and what provisions will be made for future service by these utilities? Will there be any floor drains in the building? If so where will they lead to? WPCA approval is needed for a new connection from this site to the Town’s sanitary sewer system.
5. Usually, a site of this size and use would have only one 24 foot wide driveway. Why are two driveways requested for this site and how will they be used?
6. What is the sight line from the proposed driveway(s) looking both ways along Strong Road and does it meet the standards? Show any clearing or easements necessary
7. Provide a quit-claim deed to the Town for a 25 foot ROW along the front of this site from the center of Strong Road toward this site.
8. No dumpster pad is shown on the site plan. Industrial sites must provide dumpsters for their own trash removal.
9. I did not see any lighting called out on the plan. How will the site be lit?
10. I believe at least one handicap parking space must be shown with the appropriate sign on this site.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners: (Responses will be in italics)
Evans clarified that the exit will be widened and somewhat re positioned and that the vehicles parked outside will be on pavement. The only storage outside will be stone aggregate.
Choate: Clarified that outdoor storage in Industrial zones must be screened and that there is an assurance that storage will not be seen from the road. Plantings will be used for screening and will be revised to be more substantial on the site plan. The fence will be submitted as a change order to meet approval of commission.
Sullivan: Issues could arise with the driveways being one way. The western driveway would be exit only. The eastern driveway would be an entrance. The driveway will be a non issue, and this configuration of the driveway will be safer.
Choate: Two driveways do not seem necessary. Closing one of the driveways and providing more of a buffer for the residents across the street seems to be more of a need.
Sullivan: Screening for the gravel stored outside would be required according to the regulations. The stone will be enclosed using barriers. This will not screen the gravel but only hold it together.
Jeski: What is the consensus of the trailer? Sullivan: It has to go. The building is being built for storage purposes.
Bazzano made a motion to approve Appl. 06-44P, Quality Paving – for site plan approval for approximately 2,520 sf facility on property located on the northerly side of Strong Road, and westerly of John Fitch Boulevard (L008 Strong Road), I zone 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 $2,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control measures and a bond in the amount of $3,000 to ensure establishment of the stormwater system.
A landscape bond in the amount of $2,000 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.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
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.
This approval is for a cold storage building only. If in the future the use of the building changes such that water and sanitary facilities are required, they must be provided. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required for any sewer installation.
The Town Engineer’s review comments dated October 6, 2006, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
Dumpster pad must be screened or enclosed to ensure adequate containment of trash.
Storage trailer disposition must be removed from the site.
All site lighting must have full cutoff fixtures. A cut sheet showing the proposed wall fixtures must be submitted to the Planning Department.
The inoperable machinery and junk must be cleaned up and properly disposed of prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
The eastern driveway is limited to entrance only; the west driveway is limited to exit only.
Additional buffer plantings must be added in the southeast corner of the site to screen outdoor storage.
The stockade fence must be vinyl or equivalent subject to staff approval.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was as follows: 6 to 1 with Commissioners Bazzano, Choate, Kennedy, Pacekonis, Slicer and Sullivan all in favor of the motion and Commissioner Evans in opposition of the motion.
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Site Bonds, Landscaping Bonds and IWA/CC Bonds
Appl. 03-08P, Eagle Run SRD, site bond of $58,000 with a recommended reduction in the amount of $3,500, leaving a balance of $54,500 (maintenance level) a landscaping bond of $20,000 with a recommended reduction in the amount of $20,000, leaving a balance of $0; and an IWA/CC bond of $20,000 with a recommended reduction of $15,000 leaving a balance of $5,000.
Choate made a motion to approve the recommendations to reduce bonds for Appl. 03-08P, Eagle Run SRD. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl. 00-07P, Pleasant Meadows IWA/CC bond of $5,000 with a recommended reduction in the amount of $5,000 leaving a balance of $0.
Choate made a motion to approve the recommendations to reduce the bond for Appl. 00-07P, Pleasant Meadows. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES:
The minutes of October 10, 2006 were adopted by consensus of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:54 p.m. Sorenson seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
Recording Secretary
| 
