MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Patrick Kennedy, Louise Evans, Bart Pacekonis, Michael Sullivan, Gary Bazzano, Cliff Slicer, and Suzanne Choate (left the meeting at 9:50 p.m.)
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski sat for Choate after she left the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Viney Wilson
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Public Hearing – Council Chambers
1. Appl 06-54P, Deming Plaza, LLC, request for resubdivision to create one new lot and site plan approval for the construction of a shopping center (24,500 sf) on 4.6 acres of land located on the northeasterly corner of Buckland Road and Deming Street, GD zone
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals and representing the applicant, submitted a report from Stuart Popper, planning consultant for the applicant. The report centered on Section 5.8.6.1c of the Zoning Regulations. Conclusion of Popper’s report is that Popper agrees the design of the site regarding parking around buildings conforms to the regulation. DeMallie stated that this proposal meets all regulations. He noted that the landscape design includes colors for year-round appreciation; also achieves many things functionally and aesthetically. The design allows emergency vehicles, including fire apparatus, to enter and exit the site.
Karen Isherwood, Engineer, Design Professionals, representing the Applicant, had the following comments addressing revisions to the plan and response to comments from the last hearing:
o Site is located within the Gateway Zone.
o Proposal will feature three buildings: retail building (16,000 sf), a bank (4000 sf), and restaurant (4500 sf).
o Proposed are 178 parking spaces.
o Widening of radius of the intersection with Deming Street involved a 50’ widening to accommodate delivery trucks turning right out of the Plaza and entering Deming Street.
o The width of the entrance drive was increased from 24’ to 26’ (allows a 45’ turning radius and provides two independent 11’ travel lanes).
o Interior maneuvering for delivery vehicles within the site was revised by removing one parking space and creating a 25’ turning radius.
o Appropriate signage to direct trucks is shown on the submitted plans.
o There will be a circumferential loop going counter clockwise within the Plaza accommodating all vehicles.
o Stop signs and stop bars have been added on the site.
o Elevations of the retaining walls have been clarified.
o The retaining wall located to the west, along Buckland Road, will be eliminated.
o The location of guide rails to be used on site has been clarified and shown.
o Additional wooden guide rails along the entrance drive (2:1 grade sloping down to the retaining wall) will be installed.
o A separate topographic plan for grading and utility plan have been submitted along with an additional sheet to show the widening on Deming Street.
o Grading to the northeast has been clarified; this involves a gentle swale traveling northerly allowing flow to enter a CB; diverting the clean runoff before it enters the site.
o Plans also include a table of proposed easements on the plot plan sheet.
o Walkways have been added as requested.
o Building heights have been submitted and all criteria have been met.
o The bank is at a height of 29’ 9”; restaurant is at 34’ and retail building is at 39¼’.
o After review of the plans the SWPD concurred they have no concerns.
o Additional traffic counts have been submitted as requested.
o It is requested that parking generally be distributed around the buildings per Section 5.8.6.1c; parking is shown on three sides of all buildings.
o Design of the parking; including maneuverability and circulation within, uses good sound engineering practice; also included is pedestrian safety by using appropriate access aisles.
o Density requirements and lot coverage is not included in the Gateway zone regulations; impervious coverage is included (which is at 59.3% - 60%, allowable).
o Photos of sites, already approved, were shown to show density, parking, and lot sizes – comparison exhibit.
o Bulk requirements are met – 4.61 acres; lot width is 240’, lot depth is 390’, front yard is 84’, side yard is 25.7’, parking lot landscaping is provided at 12.6%, behind the buildings is 10.5 %, 25 shade trees are provided for car stalls.
o The dumpster pad was rearranged 90º– angled for maneuverability of the dumpster truck.
o Screening will consist of 6’ high wooden screening.
o Garbage pickup has been arranged between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
o Snow storage will not happen east of the parking, it is located south of the retail building (retaining wall) and the islands in the entrance drive.
David Holmes, Architect, representing the applicant, had the following comments:
o Screening of the roof mechanicals will be accomplished by using a roof screen (12’8” above roof line) or by utilizing penthouses.
o Deming Street elevations will feature hip roofs, neutral panels, and masonry piers.
o Design includes implementation of the connected five buildings rather than one box, smaller pieces, to bring human scale into the design.
o The Northeast corner of the site contains a similar type of treatment – hip roof, architectural cornice including a graceful arch and synthetic stucco, masonry piers – this establishes a horizontal datum which is carried throughout the design.
o A cement board material which mimics cedar shakes will be used.
o Materials used on the front of the buildings will be used on the back also.
o Samples shown represent a cement board siding, different colors or can be painted, no maintenance, non-combustible material, features grain and texture; also a wood siding material made out of recycled materials, no maintenance, can be painted and mitered, dimensionally stable, won’t shrink, and joints will not open up; synthetic stucco products appear to last longer with lighter colors than darker colors; two textures were shown, pebble finish (smoother); slope roofs will feature asphalt shingles; restaurant will have a metal roof (silver).
Attorney Harold Cummings, representing the applicant, indicated that at this juncture no tenants have been chosen for the Plaza.
Banach provided the following planning report:
1. The Architect has done a lot of work on the back of the main retail building, adding additional architectural features so that it does look less like the back of a building. And since every vehicle has to go by it to get into the Plaza, it is important that it does not look like the back of a building. It is left up to the Commission as to whether or not there was an adequate job done on that or not.
2. Parking lot design has not changed. It is still offered to the Commission that 5.8.6.d 1 does not appear to be satisfied. Evergreen Walk, as one of their examples, is a whole entity. Evergreen Walk itself has never tried to assign individual parking areas to individual buildings because they are not assigned with individual buildings. It is viewed as an integrated whole just as this site is viewed is an integrated whole. When this is viewed as an integrated whole that it is the majority of the parking is behind the back side of Evergreen Walk. You cannot separate it out building by building and start putting a percentage on each piece of the parking and then say 87% of the parking is between the building and Evergreen, or be built between the building and Buckland
Road. It’s an integrated whole, each development that has been approved is an integrated whole. None of these developments in the Gateway Zone were ever intended to have their parking counted and assigned building by building. None of these highlighted by Design Professionals has the appearance of a conventional strip shopping center. To compare Deming Plaza to portions of Evergreen Walk, Phase 3, and say, ‘it’s amazing how much our site looks like a piece of Phase 3’, if you drop off a building or two. This could be turned around and say “well if you lop off some parts of the Plaza of Buckland Hills, which is a strip commercial shopping center; it’s amazing how much this design looks like the Plaza at Buckland Hills.” It’s disingenuous to make that comparison, i.e. leaving parts of it out. Comparison could be made and be less favorably but just as easily with other developments.
3. Section 5.8.6.D.c (Gateway Regulations, p.116), has intent of off street parking in the first paragraph. “It is the intent of this regulation to create off street parking that is creative and to achieve attractive, innovative parking layouts that will accent and highlight building and features of the Buckland Gateway Zone”. That was PZC’s intention. It’s an awkward exercise to attempt to isolate each building in an integrated development to try to justify having, in this case, about 75% of the parking in front of the building. The Commission’s past practice has been effectively to draw a straight line across the side of the building that faces Buckland Road. Everything in front of the line is in front of the building; everything behind the
line is not in front of the building. LA Fitness is a perfect example. Buildings that have no parking in front of the building, such as Evergreen Walk and Dr. Grillo’s site, fully comply with the stated intention to create innovative attractive parking that enhances the development. To say that because they do not have parking on all sides they don’t meet the regulations pretends that the intention paragraph is not there. The bottom line is that the Commission, itself, has the final interpretation of their own regulations. The Commission has not, to date, considered that a strip commercial center parking arrangement meets the regulations. The Commission will have to decide whether or not this proposal meets the regulations and whether the Commission would be comfortable having more of this development with this type of parking, where the majority of the parking is in front, in the Buckland Gateway Zone.
Doolittle provided the following engineering report:
1. Many of the previous engineering comments have been satisfied.
2. Handicap ramps shall be placed in all places where the sidewalks meet the driveway or parking lot at crosswalks for pedestrian accessibility.
3. It is requested that a scale profile for the retaining wall be submitted to allow review how the wall is developed in several steps. Any wall over 4’ high needs to be submitted with fine stamped plans for permits.
4. The guide rail needs to be extended south along the left hand side of the entrance drive to wrap around the top of the slope.
5. A stop sign and stop bar is required at the end of the main driveway at Deming Street.
6. The painted crosswalk (on Deming Street) at the entrance needs to be eliminated.
7. The sidewalk near the corner of Deming and Buckland Road has been moved and it appears to miss all the utilities; however it is desired to have a note that the final location of this is to be set in the field with approval from the Engineering Department to assure it avoids all existing utilities and all other complex.
8. The handicap ramp at the intersection of Buckland and Deming needs to be shifted to cross the Deming Street. There was a comment raised about this crossing on the opposite corners from this development, where Woodcock’s building is and the vacant parcel. There is not enough room in the right of way presently to put a handicap ramp. Unfortunately those radiuses were widened with Evergreen Walk and there’s no more room for a handicap ramp; given the current right of way. At the time those developments are changed to propose, assurance of a handicap ramp is made. It’s not available now.
9. More elevations are required to clarify grading of the swale to the northeast corner of the site.
10. The external grease trap for the restaurant needs to be clarified.
11. The twin 12” pipes on the northwest corner of the site should be inspected and cleaned to make sure they are functioning since they are tying into existing lead offs from the site. It is not known who installed the lead offs, the current owner or the current owner of the adjacent property. But they share two properties.
12. The entrance to the detention basin requires a flared end and a rip rap dissipater.
13. The slope of the sanitary sewers should be 2%. If it’s less than 2% then property velocity should be shown.
14. The storm water management plan should include mowing of the vegetated side slopes at least twice yearly.
15. The long term maintenance and operation plans are required to be on the plan before the Engineer, storm water report.
16. The storm water calculations need to be upgraded to agree with the final site layout plan. Revised calculations have been given to the Engineering Department – not yet reviewed.
17. The clearing limits on Deming Street require clarification – it is believed they are within the right-of-way.
18. The road widening plan still needs to be cleaned up to show all the details and notes necessary.
19. Checking of the drainage of Deming Street has to be accomplished.
20. Details on the road widening plan should conform to the Town Standards.
21. The striping plan requires to be clarified again with note of dimensions; indicating signage and pavement markings.
22. The applicant is proposing a painted island on Deming Street just to the east of their driveway (between their driveway and the Calvary Church driveway). It is suggested that this be a raised island constructed with curbing, bituminous curbing and/or stamped concrete. It could have landscaping which would make an attractive entrance to the residential zone to the east; it would also effectively control traffic (this has been done on other places in Buckland Road – Lowe’s & Target driveway). It will control traffic coming down the hill and get an effective separation between the traffic coming downhill and the traffic turning left into the driveway.
23. There should be details of guide rails, the pavement section detail; the emergency spillway detail needs to be clarified.
24. WPCA will review and approval as required.
25. There are some pipe conflicts that require adjustment.
Public input was requested.
William Bovril, representing the Calvary Church, spoke in favor of this application.
Vicky Margiott, 32 Sele Drive, spoke against this application. Her concerns centered on the proposal not meeting Section 5 of the Regulations, e.g. proximity to residential property, bank, buffers, loading docks, visibility of truck parking, trash collection, design of the parking lot, adequate snow removal for the site, location of the drive, noise, lighting, and pollution and emissions.
Synth Anthony, 33 Sele Drive, spoke against this application. His concerns centered on aesthetics, traffic, noise, and pollution.
Mike Adams, Cardinal Way, spoke against this application. His concerns centered on misrepresentation of intent of the property and over development of land (commercial) - negative impact to residential area.
Ann Burgess, 373 Deming Street, spoke against this application. Her concerns centered on pre-existing downhill traffic issues on Deming Street; and accidents.
Bazzano read into the record a letter dated 3/13/2007 from Carolyn Mirek, 48 Sele Drive.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Relocation of parking spaces. 1 parking space was relocated to allow for a larger radius.
· Width of drive behind the building. That remains 24’ wide; as it comes to the north it is 26’ wide.
· Clarification of buffer from north to south showing a driveway. The drive that is shown going to the buffer was done with the approval of a 3-lot subdivision (Grandview Heights).
· Additional traffic counts. They were submitted to the Planning Department, counts were done April, 2006.
· Church building within buffer. There’s no alternative, the building exists, and the zone is where it’s at; unless someone chooses to relocate the church building; resubdivision being requested is on the zone line.
Banach indicated that the church is a legal non-conforming use into the buffer. There is nothing to do except to work around it. Having said that the applicant has shown a combined buffer and side yard and it is up to the Commission as to whether or not it’s acceptable.
· Delivery trucks/unloading process. Intent is for trucks to use the 24’ aisle with ability to back in or line up; signs will prohibit parking of trucks on the access drive plus there will be a retaining wall placed there.
· It is not desired to have people walk past delivery trucks.
· Elevations. The restaurant will not be constructed until there is a tenant; it could happen before the main building; if there is a change in any elevation shown then the applicant would have to return to PZC.
· Sidewalks. Sidewalks are shown on Deming Street along the frontage of the site; sidewalk easements will be in place and an appropriate snow shelf will be provided.
· Basin visibility. The basin will not be visible because the contours were brought around the basin then brought up, providing a berm effect; approaching lanes from the south will see 65’ of lawn that contains a depressed area inside for storm water quality.
Answering a concern regarding drive in bays, Banach replied that when the Regulations were written the intention was to prohibit any business that featured only drive throughs, not businesses that have a drive-in window as an accessory part of the main functions of the business. The drive through prohibition was never meant to apply to business that has the window as an accessory use, such as a bank or pharmacy.
· Clarification of proposed island in Deming Street. Design engineers disagree with a raised island with curbs; traffic calming methods are done for pedestrian safety; sidewalks are being provided; it is not appropriate in a commercial zone; use of the painted island for the widening that will occur along frontage of the site – limited in its length; the applicant has agreed to brick pavers.
Doolittle stated that the suggestion for the island median is partially for traffic calming; it could not be placed further up the hill because of geometric problems. It would be low and not interfere with sight lines. Aesthetically it would provide a ‘gateway’ to the residential area to the east of the site. The island would separate through traffic from traffic turning left, similar to Lowe’s drive. Design could incorporate a partial island then stamped concrete at each end.
Kennedy closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Kennedy called the meeting to order. Jeski was appointed for Choate who left the meeting.
Evans made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Public Participation
None
New Business
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
2. Appl 06-54P, Deming Plaza, LLC, request for resubdivision to create one new lot and site plan approval for the construction of a shopping center (24,500 sf) on 4.6 acres of land located on the northeasterly corner of Buckland Road and Deming Street, GD zone
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns:
· Internal truck traffic.
· Town Engineer’s comments regarding traffic calming measures should be adhered to.
· Distribution of delivery vehicles on site resulting in conflict with pedestrians/customers.
· Density of site is not desired.
· Location of detention pond not desired.
· In many respects this proposal meets the Regulations.
· Concerns should be in approval.
· Control size of delivery trucks.
· Absence of Traffic Engineer at this meeting.
· Raised concrete is excellent for traffic calming measures.
· Confusion over off street parking should be reviewed.
Evans made a motion to approve application 06-54P, Deming Plaza, LLC with the following modifications:
Resubdivision conditions:
This approval is for 2 lots, numbered parcels A and B.
Concrete sidewalks, built to Town specifications, shall be installed on one side of Deming Street and Buckland Road.
Drainage and construction for this subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
All lots shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor sanitary sewer system and are subject to the approval of the Water Pollution Control Authority.
Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by public water
Trees within the street trees easement and any other trees on land that is currently or will in the future become Town-owned land are to be planted in accordance with the enclosed Tree Planting Specifications.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
All easements for conservation purposes, drainage or utilities, that may be required in connection with the approval of this subdivision, must be submitted on standard Town easement form where appropriate, to this Commission prior to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits. All deeds for open space, public improvements and roadways must be submitted prior to request for Town acceptance; all deeds must be in accordance with the policy for accepting deeds and must be approved by the Engineering Department and Town Attorney.
Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer (on the enclosed form) for the purpose of determining subdivision bonding. All bonds shall conform to the enclosed bond policy and shall be posted prior to filing the final plans in the Town Clerk’s office.
If the developer chooses to submit a Letter of Credit for a one year term, said Letter of Credit must be renewed on a yearly basis until completion of the development. If a new Letter of Credit has not been received within 30 days before the expiration date, the Commission may, at its option, call the Letter it is holding.
A drainage assessment fee in the amount of $50 shall be submitted to this Commission.
Site plan approval conditions:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $25,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation measures, and a bond in the amount of $25,000 to ensure establishment of the stormwater structure.
A landscape bond in the amount of $10,000 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.
This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
The building street number must be included on the final plan.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
The Town Engineer’s review comments dated March 13, 2007, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
Rooftop units shall not be visible from within the site or from off-site roadways or properties. Applications for building permits must include actual rooftop unit locations on the plans. No building permit nor certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any building or tenant space if rooftop units are not fully screened.
Parking lot/building lighting must be reduced by 50% within one hour after the close of business. The developer shall submit a lighting reduction plan to Town staff demonstrating how the 50% reduction will occur.
A coordinated signage plan is required for the buildings.
The development identification sign must be located at the driveway entrance on Deming Street, in accordance with Section 17.8.5.b of the zoning regulations. The development identification sign shown on the approved architectural elevations must have an opaque background with lighted letters if the sign is internally lit.
The Commission hereby grants approval for the combined buffer/side yard.
A raised island in Deming Street is required in place of the proposed striped island and must be designed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was 4-3 with Evans, Bazzano, Slicer, and Jeski voting for the motion. Kennedy, Pacekonis, and Sullivan voted against the motion.
2. Connecticut General Statute, 8-24 Referral from Town Council regarding the proposed acquisition of the Avery Heights Water District properties
Doolittle presented the Town Council’s referral to the Commission the acquisition of property located on Avery Street currently owned by the Avery Heights Water District. Two parcels are involved. One small parcel contains a pump station and well house; the other parcel contains the Town’s sewer pump station and has a pond on it. Property does have good access.
Evans made a motion to approve above referral. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Appl 07-03P, Nicholson Interior Lot – requests 2 consecutive 90-day extensions from the original filing date for recording mylars
Sullivan made a motion to grant 2 90-day extensions for Appl 07-30P. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Appl 07-05P, Graham Road Estates – requests two consecutive 90-day extensions from the original filing date for recording mylars
Sullivan made a motion to grant 2 consecutive 90-day extensions. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
5. Appointment of a CRCOG Representative
Kennedy will continue to serve as a CRCOG Representative with Slicer as an alternate.
6. Minutes
The minutes of 1/23/2007 and 2/13/2007 were accepted by consensus of the Commission.
Adjournment
Evans made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
___________________ Respectfully submitted,
Date Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary
| 
