Skip Navigation
 
This table is used for column layout.
 
PZC Minutes 05-27-2008

MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chairman Patrick Kennedy, David Sorenson, Bart Pacekonis, Timothy Moriarty, Louise Evans and Mike Sullivan

ALTERNATES PRESENT:  Dan Van Horn and Daniel Jeski

STAFF PRESENT:  Michele Lipe Assistant Director of Planning
        Jeff Doolittle Town Engineer

PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS

  • Appl. 08-21P, Cohen Minor Subdivision – request for a three lot subdivision 13.3 acres to create two new lots, located on the westerly side of Main Street, 575+/- feet northerly of the East Hartford town line (99 Main Street), A-40 and FP zone
The above mentioned item was postponed to June 10, 2008.

REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Patrick Kennedy called the meeting to order.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:

  • South Windsor Football League –Discussion regarding advertising on scoreboard.
Darren DiMartino a board member with the South Windsor Football League presented the proposal as follows.  The South Windsor Football League has been working with the Town to put up a new electronic score board at Rye Street Park. Rockville Bank has offered to cover a portion of the cost and has inquired if they could install a small attachment with the name of the bank on the bottom of the score board.  The attachment with the name of the bank would be up for 3 years, and then it could be replaced
Commissioners had comments and questions.  Responses will be in italics.
  • How big will the sign be?  The attachment is a 1ft. long.  
  • Will that part be illuminated? The sign will not be illuminated.  
Commissioners agreed on the scoreboard by consensus.
  • Appl. 08-17P, 5 & Diner Restaurant - request for site plan approval for a 3,826 sf restaurant located on 11 +/- acres located at 274 Buckland Road, Buckland Gateway Development Zone.
Joseph Caposseal Esq. of Kerensky & Caposseal LLP representing the applicant gave an overview of the application as follows.  The applicant is requesting for a plan approval for a restaurant on an 11 acre parcel.  The applicant has met with staff on numerous occasions to discuss the details of this application. The applicant has come before ADRC and received approval for the design of the restaurant.  The applicant also has received approval from the Inland Wetlands Agency.  All conditions and changes received from ADRC and IWA/CC will be addressed on the final plans.  

Al Carpenter, Professional Engineers, with CPH Engineers Inc. discussed the site in detail.  The applicant is proposing to the driveway directly across from L.A. Fitness.  There is some existing vegetation on site.  The trees on the eastern side of the property will be preserved to provide a buffer.  There will be a conservation easement along the east side to the property.  There are significant wetlands that go through the property that was already addressed with the IWA/CC.  The current site plan will have minimal impact on the wetlands.  The parking was originally proposed for the front of the restaurant and after discussing it with Town staff; the applicant revised the plans and moved the parking lot to the rear of the building.  Landscaping will be provided to the front of the property and a seating area to the front of the property.  A 20 ft utility easement was provided for WPCA.  The applicant is proposing to place a conservation area on the northeast portion of the property.  The applicant is proposing to park vintage vehicles in the front of the building to be viewed as art, therefore he is requesting for a waiver of section 4.2.8 D.  The applicant is also requesting for a waiver to table 6.4.6.A to allow parking lot perimeter screening to 5 feet rather than 10 feet.  

The drainage on the site runs down to the basin and drains westerly into the Town drainage system to the back of LA. Fitness.  There is no increase in peak flows.  The drainage on the site meets the minimal DEP requirements.  The applicant is providing culvert pipes through the center of the property.  

Architectural Design and Review Committee suggested that the proposed sign be moved further south and that the sign should be shortened.  The requested changes will be made accordingly.  All Engineering comments will be addressed and the final plan will reflect those changes.  
Commissioners had questions and concerns.  Replies will be in italics.
  • Why was the parking relocated to the rear of the building?
The applicant responded that the regulations limit the parking in the front of the building and Town staff discouraged parking in the front therefore the parking was relocated to the rear of the building.  The concept was to put the building closer to the road for better visibility from the road.  

Lipe gave the following planning report.
Request for site plan approval to construct a 3800 sq ft restaurant at 274 Buckland Road, GD zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%, 9.5% proposed. Proposed building height is 22.6 feet; 30 feet allowed. Lot size is 11 acres; minimum lot size allowed is 3 acres. Frontage is 467 feet; minimum required is 200 feet. Front yard setback is 65 feet, 65 feet required.
The subject site completes the fourth leg of the traffic light at Cedar Avenue (L.A. Fitness) and Buckland Road. The traffic report indicates that the southbound left-turn lane on Buckland Road will need to be lengthened. The plan shows access easements to both the north and south as required. If this application is approved, the applicant will need to file our standard access management easement on the land records. Any development that occurs directly north or south of this site will enter and exit via the 5 and Diner Restaurant driveway at the traffic light.
The parking requirement for the proposed use is 79 spaces; 79 spaces are provided.  None of the parking is located between the building and Buckland Road, thereby fully embracing the Gateway Zone concepts of pedestrian-orientation and the building as the principal feature of the site rather than the parking lot. The applicant proposes to use turf block pavers for the vintage car display pad. To accommodate this, the applicant is requesting a waiver to Section 4.2.8D to allow the display of this car in the front yard setback.
A sidewalk is shown along Buckland Road as required. There is no connection shown between the Buckland Road sidewalk and the restaurant sidewalk. Staff recommend a sidewalk interconnection so that pedestrians along Buckland Rd will not have to enter through the site driveway and cross the entire parking lot.
Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this proposal on May 5. ADRC recommend that the sign be moved further south on the site closer to the entrance drive and suggested the sign be shorter (rather than the allowed 10’). They also requested an additional landscape island be added to the front parking area in conformance with Section 4.2.11.D of the zoning regulations; and that the required buffer be added to the plans along the residential property boundary.
The free-standing sign might be more aesthetically pleasing if the pole is encased in a more decorative manner. The sign material is not specified, so the applicant needs to be aware that plastic cabinet-type signs are not allowed in the Gateway Zone.
There is no rooftop mechanical equipment showing above the roofline on the architectural elevations submitted with the application. The photograph also shows no rooftop equipment. Staff want to be sure the applicant understands that rooftop units need to be screened so they are not visible from the road.
Proposed lighting is full cut off modified shoebox fixtures on 25’ poles. Staff do note that there are few poles, and light levels directly under the poles are bright compared to light levels elsewhere in the parking lot. This situation can create several perceptions:
  • “Dark” spots in the parking lot between lights;
  • External perception of bright lights; and
  • Reduction of drivers’ ability to see well when entering the relatively dark Buckland Road after being under the bright lights.
A solution is to add more light poles and reduce the light output from each fixture to provide a more even lighting throughout the site.
Parking lot landscaping requirements have been met with 12% landscaping in the parking area. The applicant is requesting a waiver to Table 6.4.6.A to allow parking lot perimeter screening of 5 feet rather than the required 10 feet.
Detention basins and stormwater quality structures are located across the property frontage along Buckland Road. All basins located between the building and Buckland Road must have side slopes at 4:1 or less and must be attractively designed and landscaped. Sheet E-1 includes the landscaping plan for the detention basins.
There is a required buffer along the east property boundary where the site abuts residentially-zoned land. The buffer has been shown on the landscaping plan for the property to the east, but has not addressed the property line to the northeast.  
There are regulated wetlands on the site. The applicant received approval from IWA/CC on May 21 with a $10,000 erosion & sediment control bond, a$25,000 wetlands mitigation bond, and a $10,000 bond for stormwater structures. There is also a conservation easement of about ½ acre along the east boundary of the diner lease line, and a 50’ no-till area east of the conservation easement (see sheet CE-1).
Public water and sewer will be provided. The sewer line will be extended north from 240 Buckland Road. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plan and has no issues.
Dumpsters are shown on a concrete pad with an enclosure. There doesn’t appear to be a detail for the dumpster enclosure, so we will need that added to the plans.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests that the above-noted items be addressed and that the zoning data table provide actual distances rather than “exceeds requirements.”

Doolittle gave the following engineering report.
  • The three proposed storm drainage outfalls along the front of the property (S-18, S-21 and S-22) need to be pulled back and relocated out of or on the edge of the sewer easement area.  This can be done by moving these to the east on the edge of the wetlands, and should result in less wetlands disturbance.  
  • The existing storm drainage inlet by Buckland Road needs to be extended out to the east to achieve 4H:1V slopes from the sidewalk into the detention/wetlands area.  A concrete headwall may be necessary on the inlet end of this pipe to achieve the proper grading.  
  • Show grading of 4H:1V slopes from the sidewalk down into the detention/wetlands area in the center of the site.  
  • The sanitary sewer and storm drainage will be difficult to construct without impacting the wetlands near the road.  There needs to be clear notes on the plan about minimizing impacts to wetlands in this area during construction and restoring any wetlands impacted after construction.  
  • In the Stormwater Design Report there is a Pre-Development Drainage Map but not a Post-Development Drainage Map (Section II, Fig. 6).  Please provide this.
  • The Stormwater Design Report and the plans are not clear on the volume and flow pattern of the runoff from the east that is to be bypassed through the site.  The bypass volume would appear to include flow from beyond the drainage areas shown on the Pre-Development Map.  In particular it is not clear in the Stormwater Report what Link BNDY NW: (Sheet Flow)” and “Link BNDY W:(Pipe Flow)” refer to.  On the Site Grading and Drainage Plan there is no description of the method to bypass the runoff other than a notation for riprap pointing to a long liner area with varying direction and width.
  • Where will the surface runoff go that comes down the hill from the east toward this site?   It appears that this stormwater may flow into the parking lot in some places and may pond at the toe of the slope in other places.  
  • A 4” diameter detention outlet will clog with a trash grate that has 4” by 8” openings as shown on Storm Water Details sheet.  Revise the detail accordingly.  
  • In both detention basins provide an emergency overflow spillway directing storm water to the Town drainage system in the event that the drainage structures, including the overflow grate, are clogged.  Also include a detail for this.
  • Buckland Road does not need to be cut to install this driveway.  The edge of pavement may be cut at the curb line or just into the site if necessary to provide a clean straight edge to match the driveway pavement.  Change note 16 and the detail accordingly.  
  • The pedestrian crosswalk across Buckland Road needs to be moved to the north side of the driveway so it crosses to an existing sidewalk on the west side.  
  • The directional white traffic arrows and double yellow line are not needed in the parking lot.  These are only needed in the driveway by the traffic signal.  
  • Provide a detail for the combined headwall and segmental block retaining wall at the inlet and outlet to the large stormwater bypass pipe.  
  • I did not see the retaining wall that goes with note 13.  
  • Why is there a painted island in the parking lot close to the building.  This should be a curbed island with landscaping, similar to the other islands.  
  • Provide a revised traffic signal plan showing this driveway at the intersection with new signal heads and pedestrian push buttons at all ends of crosswalks.  This needs to be submitted to the STC after Town review.   
  • The landscaping, irrigation and signs in the south end of the island in Buckland Road to be removed by the driveway needs to be relocated and adjusted.  
  • The north arrow on sheet C-6A is not correct.  
  • There are two notes for a “Proposed 8’ Berm” along the front of the site on sheet C-7.  The grading does not show this berm and there are notdetails for this berm.  What is this berm and where are the grading details for it?  
  • Why is there modified rip rap proposed along the eastern side of the driveway and parking lot?  Why isn’t this a grass area?
  • Why is elliptical RCP being proposed?  This is very expensive pipe (the town had to use it to cross Buckland Road further north).  I suggest 24” diameter pipe be used instead.  
  • Change the two 8” outlet pipes (from both detention basins) to 12” diameter pipes for ease of maintenance.  
  • Add a sidewalk easement to the Town of South Windsor to the easement table.
  • The sanitary sewer main along Buckland Road needs to be revised to 0.5% slope for the entire length.  This is so the sewer can be extended further north to pick up other properties in the future.  
  • The lateral connections for this restaurant and the existing houses at both 240 and 252 Buckland Road should have chimney connections so they do not have to be as deep as the main.  These laterals need to have at least 2% slope.  
  • Check the location of the existing septic system and well for the houses at 240 and 252 Buckland Road.  These laterals need to be placed so they are at least 25 feet and preferable 75 feet from existing wells.  They also need to be located close to the existing septic systems.  
  • It will be very difficult to install the sewer main so close to the house at 240 Buckland Road.  Provide detailed notes for the installation of this sewer.  
  • It looks like SMH #1 could be eliminated and SMH 2 moved 20 feet south.  
  • Fix the TF elevations on the sewer schedule and profile for SMH 3 and SMH 4.  
  • Add an 8” pipe stub to the northern property line from SMH 4 at 0.5% slope.  This needs to be capped and marked.  
Commissioners had questions and concerns.  Replies will be in italics.

  • Commissioners questioned what type of truck could enter the site and be able to circulate north and south..
The applicant responded that a wb50 truck has entered the site and was able to circulate.  If turning southerly a truck might need a bigger radius for the turning motion.  
  • Commissioners had concerns with the amount of metal being used and wanted to know the percentage of metal on the building since the Gateway regulations require that there can’t be a predominance of metal on the building exterior.  
The applicant responded that the metal exterior for the four sides of the building is about 40%.    
  • Commissioners had concerns with the roof top mechanicals and if they would be visible from the street.
The applicant responded that the parapet was extended to go around the building in order to screen any roof top mechanicals; therefore the units will not be visible from any point.  

Lipe mentioned that the roof top mechanicals were already addressed at the ADRC meeting and the applicant assured the committee that there would be no roof top mechanicals visible from a town street.  

  • Commissioners questioned what the finished look of the rear of the building would look like?
The applicant responded that the rear of the building will be made of stucco material.
  • Commissioners asked if the parking was adequate for the restaurant and where will the overflow of vehicles be able to park.
Attorney Capossela responded that the applicant is restricted due to the wetlands on the property and arrangements will be made in the future if overflow of parking is needed.
  • Commissioners questioned the use of neon lights in the Gateway Zone.  
Kevin Ralph, a developer with project responded that the franchise has discontinued the use of neon signs and the applicant will use LED signs in place of the neon signs.  The LED has a softer light than the neon.  

Bruce Hilson, traffic engineering from Traffic Engineering Solutions, P.C. discussed the traffic report.
The traffic study was conducted with information that was gathered about existing conditions on site.  The number of trips that the 5 & Diner Restaurant could generate and the level of service of traffic operations with the existing traffic light was determined.  The data included turning movement counts from vehicles that are turning into and out of LA Fitness and vehicles that are traveling north and south on Buckland Road.  The traffic engineer had a meeting with Town Staff to gather information about the traffic signal as well as other developments.  All this information was used to determine the traffic counts.  The signalized traffic light at the intersection operates at the best level of service A.  When the traffic volumes from Evergreen Walk and Tuscan Hills are added the intersection becomes a level of service B.  After adding the trips that are associated with the restaurant the location will operate at a level of service C in the afternoon.  These levels of service are considered acceptable.  The accident information found that there were eight accidents that occurred in this general area.  Four of them were rear end accidents 3 accidents involved a single vehicle going off the road.  The last accident involved a turning movement to a private driveway to the south.  The traffic engineer had the following three recommendations; that the drive be signalized, prohibit right turns on red leaving the driveway and the left turn lane should be extended to about 75 ft.
There was public participation.  
Anna Mae Davis, resident, spoke in favor of this application; she mentioned that an access road in the future will be a problem since it is all wetlands.  

Commissioners had comments and questions.  Responses will be in italics.

  • Is the no turn on red really needed?  Even though the site distance is present the applicant suggest that the no turn on red be placed to ensure that drivers will be able to safely enter the traffic into Buckland Road.  This is something that will be addressed with Town Staff.  
Pacekonis made a motion to approve the above mentioned application 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 bonds in the amount of $10,000 erosion and sedimentation control bond, $25,000 wetlands mitigation bond and $10,000 stormwater structure bond.
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.
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.
If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until the certificate has been issued (per CGS §14-311).
A waiver to Table 6.4.6.A has been granted to allow parking lot perimeter screening to 5 feet rather than 10 feet required.
A more even lighting level must be established through the parking area.
Buffer requirement for property to the northeast must be addressed.
Pedestrian access (sidewalk) must be provided linking the sidewalk along Buckland Road to the restaurant.
Dumpster detail must be added to the plans.
Zoning data table must be revised to provide actual distances rather than “exceeds minimum”.
A waiver has been granted to 4.2.8.D to allow a vintage car to be displayed in front of the 65 foot setback area.
Engineering comments dated 5/27/08 must be addressed to the town engineer’s satisfaction.
Increase radius for access drive to the south.  
Delineate sidewalk along the eastern side of the building.
Moriarty seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

  • Craig Zimmerman-Preliminary discussion regarding the in door batting – pitching facility at Nevers Road Park.  
Matt Galligan discussed the proposal for the indoor-batting - pitching facility.  The Town Council is committed to the project for $50,000 for the construction of an indoor batting facility.  The batting cage will be used by all youth which includes girl’s softball and baseball. The building will be located behind the community center and will not be visible from the road.  One of the trees on the site will have to be relocated to another location.  There is a proposal to locate stairs that would lead to the community center building and to put a bathroom in.  A site plan will be submitted to Planning and Zoning.

Commissioners had questions and concerns.
  • Could the additional cars parking and the noise become an issue?
Zimmerman responded that there is an outdoor batting cage at that location currently and the proposal is to use the batting cage from 9 AM – 9PM instead of doing it outdoor it will be done in-door.  Therefore it should be less noise than the current operation.  

  • How much will it cost to heat the facility?
It will not cost the Town anything to heat the facility; arrangements will be made to cover the cost.  The police department or the recreation department will have a key and whoever uses the facility will have to turn the keys in and the time will be recorded to indicate how long the facility was used in order to bill them properly.

Craig Zimmerman went over the architectural design.  There is enough room for a waiting area with a bench to accommodate people who are waiting their turn to use the batting cage. It will have 2 double 3 ft doors, their will be windows in the opposite side of the batting cage.  The building will be heated with electric baseboard heating.  The building will have a separate bathroom.  The total height of the building will be maximum 18 ft and it will not be visible from a Town road.  

Doolittle, Town Engineer mentioned that this would have to go before the WPCA because of the bathroom connection.

Commissioners were satisfied with the proposal.

  • Appl. 07-69P, Mannarino Builders Subdivision - Request to build two model homes at Dzen Tree Farm.  
Evans made a motion to approve the above mentioned request with standard conditions for model homes.  Sullivan seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.   

  • CGS8-24- Town Council referral regarding the temporary and permanent easement rights for parcels 1 and 2 to Evergreen Walk Lifestyle Center, LLC and Evergreen Walk Master Association, Inc.
Lipe discussed the above mentioned Town Council referrals.  This is the result of the on going lawsuits against Evergreen Walk related to the easements that the Town granted at the beginning of the project.  This commission previously entertained a CGS referral before the easement was granted, however the court ruled that the Town did not follow the proper procedure for granting of easements.  The Towns legal council wants the referral to come before this commission again and then it will go back to Town Council for referendum.  An appraisal will be done on the easements, according to the Town charter if the value is over $25,000 dollars it requires a referendum if the value is under $25,000 dollars then it requires a public hearing.  It is anticipated that it will go to referendum in the fall and the referral is the first step in this process.

Commissioners had questions and comments.  Responses will be in italics.
  • Is this referral the same as the last one?
Lipe responded that the referral is more specific about the different utilities and roadway access that have been improved in Evergreen Walk.

  • Should this process be done after the appraisals are completed?
  • If the estimate is under the threshold amount then it would not have to go to referendum? Does it still have to come to PZC as a referral?  
Lipe responded that this process is still required, any time the Town is given an interest in Town property the statute requires that PZC opinion be sought.  If PZC does not make a favorable recommendation about the referral it would go back to Town Council and they would have to override it with a 2/3 majority vote.

  • Has Council been given a value for these parcels?
Lipe responded that an appraisal has not been completed at this time.

  • Is the PZC supposed to take into account the value of the land before making a decision?
Lipe mentioned that PZC would be looking at it from a planning perspective.

  • This is an administrative or procedural issue because the PZC does not have the legal ability to suggest what these parcel would be worth.
Pacekonis made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 PM. Sullivan seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

Sullivan made a motion to approve the above mentioned resolution.  Pacekonis seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

  • CGS8-24- Town Council referral regarding the temporary and permanent easement rights for parcel 3 to Evergreen Walk Lifestyle Center, LLC and Evergreen Walk Master Association, Inc.
Lipe mentioned that parcel three is further north in front of the new ECHN building.

Sullivan made a motion to approve the above mentioned resolution.  Pacekonis seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

A letter from Attorney Vincent Purnhagen regarding Appl.08-05P, G & S Scrap Metal was read into the record.
Commissioner’s had questions and comments regarding the letter.  

  • Commissioners needed clarification about what the applicant was requesting in the letter.
Doolittle responded that the STC will look at the subdivision based on the number of lots, will determine the amount of traffic generated and will require certain improvements.  The previous owner did not want to do the improvements and Mr. Smith doesn’t want to do the improvement, he just wants to build his approved site plan.  

Lipe mentioned that a mylar was filed and a bond was posted by Mr. Brown for the improvements.

Kennedy mentioned that in the past another applicant came before the PZC and subdivided one lot then decided to combine them back at a later time. This applicant was required to come before planning again to subdivide it once again.  Mr. Smith can re-combine the land with the understanding that if in the future he wants to re-subdivide again we would have to go through the whole subdivision processes all over again.  A letter can be sent to the applicant indicating our understanding regarding the combining of lots.

BONDS:  None

MINUTES:  
2/5/08, 2/26/08, 3/11/08, 4/8/08 and 4/22/08
The minutes were accepted with consensus.
ADJOURNMENT:
Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting. Moriarty seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

The regular meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.

_____________________
D. Maria Acevedo
Recording Secretary