MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Louise Evans, Michael Sullivan, Bart Pacekonis, Mark Abrahamson, David Sorenson, and Tim Moriarty
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Viney Wilson, Dan Van Horn and Elizabeth Kuehnel
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. Appl. 09-34P, M & S Paving and Sealing, Inc. – request for special exception to table 4.1.1A and site plan modification for a indoor recreational facility, approximately 7,000 sf in size, on property located at 97 and 111 Commerce Way, I zone
Tim Wentzel, Consultant representing the applicant presented the above mentioned application.
Stephanie Weistein discussed the hours of operation and went over the floor plan. The applicant is proposing two party rooms with a lobby and office area. The birthday parties will be held on weekends, 15-20 kids. The applicant mentioned that in her experience children car pool with other parents to arrive at the birthday parties therefore 30 parking spaces should be sufficient.
Lipe gave a Planning report as follows.
1. Request for special exception and site plan approval for a 7,500 sq ft indoor recreation facility to be known as “Bounce Town” in an existing building (under construction) on property located at 97 Commerce Way, I zone. The building is proposed to be shared with M & S Paving Company who will occupy the eastern portion of the building and the rear parking area.
2. The site plan shows the proposed site as two separate lots; however the applicant is intending to combine the lots totaling 2.3 acres. Once combines, impervious coverage will be 40%; 65% maximum impervious coverage allowed.
3. This application is being proposed under Section 7.13 Indoor recreation regulation. The applicant has provided the required items, including a floor plan of proposed uses, and a narrative detailing various aspects of the business and hours of operation. You should have received a copy of the narrative with your agenda’s.
4. It is the applicant’s intent to have some week day hours, with the primary hours being on Saturday and Sunday from 10-8PM.
5. The special exception criteria in the industrial zone include:
1. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
2. The application has met the requirements of the zoning regulations.
3. The land is physically suited to the proposed use.
4. Minimal, if any, adverse environmental impacts are created.
5. No traffic or other hazards will be created.
6. The impacts on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage systems, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure will be minimal.
7. There will be minimal or no adverse effects on existing uses in the area.
8. Surrounding property values will be conserved.
9. The character of the neighborhood will be maintained or minimally disrupted.
10. The general welfare of the community will be served.
11. There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs.
12. Historic factors are adequately protected; or due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
13. The overall physical appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the neighborhood/corridor.
14. The architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and blends well into the surrounding area.
6. The parking requirement for recreation uses are one space per 250 sq ft of gross floor area requiring 30 spaces, the industrial use requires 3 and office use require 7, for a total requirement of 40 spaces.
7. A new drive is being added to allow for a separate entrance to the rear of the site to minimize conflicts between the two uses. Staff’s concern is that the vehicles used in the paving business do not conflict with vehicles dropping off children for the facility.
8. There is no new parking lot lighting proposed. Existing light fixtures are full cutoff fixtures.
9. The parking lot requires 5% interior landscaping and one tree per every ten spaces. This requirement has been satisfied.
10. The plans do not show a free-standing sign, however the regulations would allow a 24 sf sign, maximum height of five feet as well as building signage. The applicant would need to obtain a permit for any sign is erected.
11. The applicant intends to add two additional maple trees along the Commerce Way frontage and some additional shrubs around the parking area.
12. There are no regulated wetlands on the property so a wetlands permit is not required.
13. Public water and sewer are provided. Water Pollution Control Authority approval has been previously granted to this property. The applicant has been working with the Fire Marshal and Public Health Department on meeting health and safety requirements on the interior space.
14. There is a proposed dumpster area shown to the rear of the site. Will this be adequate for the two uses?
Doolittle had an Engineering report as follows.
1. The new proposed gravel driveway needs to be moved east a few feet so there is 50 feet between this and the main driveway, at the property line.
2. The new proposed gravel driveway needs to have a paved apron that is at least 20 feet long.
3. The new proposed 15 foot wide gravel driveway is too narrow for 2-way traffic and may be too narrow for heavy trucks, especially with trailers. It should be 22-24 feet wide for trucks and 2-way traffic.
4. The Bounce Town narrative suggests they may have 50 or more children at one time. This level of use could require more parking than is currently shown. I suggest provisions be made to add 20-30 overflow parking spaces along the proposed gravel driveway to be used in the event the main parking lot is filled.
5. I am concerned about the possibility of storm water runoff from the proposed driveway flowing out onto Commerce Way. Show the drainage area and expected flows from this lot. I estimate about 13,000 square feet of area could be draining toward Commerce Way. Another CB may be needed at the end of this proposed driveway to catch this flow. This could
• Commissioners had questions and concerns. Responses will be in italics.
• Commissioners had reservations about the parking; they felt it may not be enough for the number of children and adults that will be using the facility.
Mr. Wentzel mentioned that there is room for more parking on the land near the access drive that can be shown as reserve parking on the site plan.
• Commissioners had concerns with the number of bathrooms proposed for the facility
The applicant responded that the Engineer who drew up the plan recommended two bathrooms
• Commissioners asked when employees are working in the industrial building where would they park.
Mr. Wentzel responded that the industrial building employees will park in the back of the building.
The applicant agreed to make all the changes that were recommended by Town staff in the revised site plan.
The public hearing was closed at 7:55 pm.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
1. CGS8-24 Referral regarding the following:
1. The acceptance, by the Town of South Windsor, of 1.985 acres adjacent to Ellington Road from the State of Connecticut.
2. The conveyance, by the Town of South Windsor, of 1.985 acres adjacent to Ellington Road to the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency.
3. The conveyance, by the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency, of 1.985 acres adjacent to Ellington Road to Connecticut Studios, LLC or its designee for the intended purpose of creating economic development in the form of constructing movie studios and related development, and is subject to cancellation or re-conveyance to the Town of South Windsor or the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency if the intended purpose is not realized.
4. The acceptance, by the Town of South Windsor, of approximately 14.8 acres of land known as Lot R008 John Fitch Boulevard from the State of Connecticut.
5. The conveyance of approximately 14.8 acres of land known as Lot R008 John Fitch Boulevard by the Town of South Windsor to the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency.
6. The conveyance of approximately 14.8 acres of land known as Lot R008 John Fitch Boulevard by the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency to Connecticut Studios, LLC or its designee for the intended purpose of creating economic development in the form of constructing movie studios and related development, and is subject to cancellation or re-conveyance to the Town of South Windsor or the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency if the intended purpose is not realized.
7. The acceptance, by the Town of South Windsor, of approximately 5.9 acres of land known as 240 Ellington Road from the State of Connecticut.
8. The conveyance of approximately 5.9 acres of land known as 240 Ellington Road by the Town of South Windsor to the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency.
9. The conveyance of approximately 5.9 acres of land known as 240 Ellington Road by the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency to Connecticut Studios, LLC or its designee for the intended purpose of creating economic development in the form of constructing movie studios and related development, and is subject to cancellation or re-conveyance to the Town of South Windsor or the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency if the intended purpose is not realized.
10. The conveyance of approximately 1.0 acres of land, being part of land known as 240 Ellington Road, by the South Windsor Redevelopment Agency to Cass Enterprises, LLC
Thomas C. Blatchley, Attorney with Halloran & Sage LLP representing the Town, discussed the CGS8-24 referral process as defined in State Statutes. Under the statute the Planning & Zoning Commission has the power to review 8-24 referrals and make favorable or unfavorable recommendations to Town Council. The recommendation to Town Council should be guided from a planning perspective and conform with the Towns goals. The Commission has 35 days to render a report if no report is rendered by Planning and Zoning then the referral is rendered favorable.
Craig Stevenson the Towns Economic Development Consultant gave a summary of the events that lead to the referrals that are before the commission for recommendation. Mr. Stevenson discussed the proposal from Connecticut Studios and how it would benefit the I-291 corridor. (See Exhibit A)
Commissioners had questions and concerns.
• Commissioners questioned why the CGS 8-24 referrals were coming before the Planning & Zoning Commission at this point instead of when Town Council first took action?.
Stevenson responded that the Towns current legal council has advised the Town as to the proper procedure that should be taken in respect to the CGS 8-34 referrals and recommended that the referrals be brought before Planning and Zoning (PZC) for a recommendation in accordance with State statue.
• The Commissioners expressed the following concerns and questions; they did not receive a map of the properties that are mentioned in the 8-34 referrals and felt that more information is needed regarding the 8-34 referrals that come from Town Council in order to make better decisions
• What would happen if the Commission decided to give an unfavorable recommendation?
Attorney Blatchley responded that Town Council can override Planning and Zoning’s decision by a 2/3 vote or a majority vote.
• Commissioners asked if the land was already transferred to Connecticut Studios
Stevenson responded that the transfer of land between the Town and Connecticut Studios has not occurred yet.
Kennedy mentioned that Planning and Zoning (PZC) is in an advisory position when reviewing CGS 8-34 referral, the Chair does not see any policy issues that would prevent PZC from giving a favorable recommendation to the Town Council.
• Commissioners felt that the Connecticut Studios is a good project for the Town and the 8-34 referrals is a necessary step in moving the project forward.
Moriarty made a favorable recommendation to the above mentioned CGS-24 referrals listed 1-10. Evans seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES:
OTHER BUSINESS:
06-18P Teaberry Estates Buffer Planting Change order
Ben Wheeler, landscape architect for Design Professionals presented the proposed replacement plantings for the above mentioned site.
Lipe mentioned that the buffer trees on the Teaberry Estates property have been a chronic problem over the years. A letter of credit in the amount of $50,000 is being held by the Town. The Town is anxious to get this problem resolved.
There was public participation as follows.
Bruce Miller, 119 Quarry Brook Drive mentioned that the buffer was supposed to mitigate the trees that were removed by JMJ. The resident mentioned that the Town flagged 1 tree and he would like the 2 trees replaced that are visible from his property.
Ben Wheeler responded that the trees are not dead they are just not thriving due to lack of sunlight, in his opinion there is no ideal plant for this location.
The Commission approved the change order as submitted.
ADJOURNMENT:
Sorenson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Abrahamson seconded the motion the motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
The meeting ended at 9:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted
__________________ 11-24-2009
D. Maria Acevedo Date Approved
Recording Secretary
| 
