Skip Navigation
 
This table is used for column layout.
 
PZC Minutes 01-24-2012
MEMBERS PRESENT:        Patrick Kennedy, Elizabeth Kuehnel, William Carroll, Mario Marrero, Kevin Foley and Viney Wilson
ALTERNATES PRESENT:  None
STAFF PRESENT:          Michele Lipe, Town Planner
                Bob Grillo, Town Engineer
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLYRECEIVED:
Appl. 12-02P, Mitchell Professional Building – request for a special exception to Section 5.3 (Office Conversion Overlay) and site plan of development for conversion of existing residence into professional offices, for property located at 1199 Sullivan Ave., A-20 zone
PUBLIC HEARING/COUNCIL CHAMBERS

  • Appl. 11-40P, Nutmeg Village – Request for a zone change of 49.5+ acres from industrial zone (I) to Multi-family AA zone (MF-AA) and zone change .32 acres of industrial zone (I) to Residential A-20 zone (A-20) and general plan of development to create a 155 unit multi-family complex, on properties identified as R003 Nutmeg Road, L023 Pleasant Valley Road, 388 Pleasant Valley Road and a portion of 438 Pleasant Valley Road, located on the northerly side of Pleasant Valley Road, southerly of South Satellite Road and easterly of Nutmeg Road South
Peter DeMallie, Principal of Design Professionals Inc. reviewed the history of the application and gave an overview of the site.  An earlier application by Horseshoe Lane Associates that proposed access only from South Satellite Road through the industrial area was denied on May 11, 2010.  When the previous application was presented many industrial neighbors opposed it.  The strong message sent to the applicant was to abandon the proposed access from South Satellite Road and to investigate access to Pleasant Valley Road. The applicant returned to the PZC with a preliminary plan showing an access from Pleasant Valley Road, including a public cul de sac and a six-unit at the entrance drive. The PZC looked more favorably upn that proposal and the applicant proceeded to prepare the application.

The applicant’s proposal includes the following:  The total number of homes is now 155.  A bus shelter has been added along the entrance drive.  The addition of the Eggleston property to the west of the site has allowed for 200 feet of frontage as required.  The applicant proposes three single-family homes at the beginning of the development.  The applicant has added 388 Pleasant Valley Road as a separate reconfigured conforming lot with a driveway connecting to the new street.  The prior six unit multi-family dwelling at the beginning of the development has been eliminated.  Six unit multi-family buildings have been added to facilitate more handicap accessible units.  A strip of property to the east of the entrance drive at 438 Pleasant Valley Road has been added to the zone change, in order to reduce the buffer on the neighbor’s lot 100 feet to 25 ft.  This will be also eliminating the necessity for a buffer on a lot in front of 438 Pleasant Valley Road.  The public cul-de-sac street was removed and was replaced by a boulevard entrance; all proposed streets will be private.  Additional parking has been added to supplement garage and driveway parking.  A phasing plan was added to the application.  Phase I will begin at the entrance and incorporate most of the easterly side of the development to the northeast corner.  Phase II will include many of the units in the central area. Phase III will include the area west of the site center.  Phase IV will include the westerly cul-de-sac area.  

This project has a two step application approval process.  The first step is for the zone change and general plan of development.  The second step is for a site plan of development and special exception for the Nutmeg Village residential community along with a resubdivision application to create the six industrial building lots.

The applicant has retained Connecticut Planning & Development, LLC to conduct a fiscal impact analysis
to project public school enrollment as a result of this development. A landscape architectural design of Nutmeg Village has been completed to ensure proper buffer requirement.  A detailed stormwater plan will be competed for the next application.  A comprehensive traffic impact analysis has been completed.  The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the Plan of Conservation & Development. (Attachment V)

Ben Wheeler, Landscape Architect with Design Professionals Inc. reviewed the site.  The access was switched to Pleasant Valley Road through the Shepard property which currently has 62 ft of frontage.  Mr. Urso has an agreement in place to purchase the Eggleston property that has allowed for the minimum frontage of 200 ft required.  The house on the Eggleston lot will remain and will become a new lot at the subdivision stage.  Three singly family units are proposed along the entrance drive and can become model units.  The residential mail boxes will be located on the right hand side of the complex so residents can get their mail when they drive in. A bus shelter is provided.  

The unit break down is 15 single family units, 6 duplex building for a total of 12 units. Along Shepard Way the applicant is proposing 6 duplex buildings for a total of 12 units and five four unit buildings and 18 six unit buildings.  There are no 1 bedroom units or efficiency apartments proposed for this site. The type 2 buildings have been incorporated more into the plan to allow for more units that are handicap accessible.   The applicant plans to complete the project in four phases, approximately one year per phase subject to change.  

The applicant is currently in discussion with property owners on Nutmeg Road South to meet the requirements from the Police and Fire Chief to provide an emergency access road.  The area that will remain industrial is a swath of land, 250 feet, along the South Satellite frontage. The applicant’s intent is to subdivide this property into 6 industrial lots.  

Sidewalks are proposed on one side of all roadways and across the brook to the south that will connect to the club house as well as the mail area to allow for residents to walk to the bus shelter.  A four foot wide stone path is proposed totaling 1 mile.  The path has been included as part of the recreation area for the site plan and in addition there are two separate open space recreation areas.  The total recreation area will be 2.91 acres to meet the requirements of the regulations.   

Each unit has at least 1 car garage and the single family units have a 2 car garage.  In addition to that, each driveway has room to park an additional car, meeting the parking regulations.  An additional 31 parking spaces were added to accommodate visitors and 10 additional parking spaces at the clubhouse.

Sanitary sewer is available in both Pleasant Valley Road and South Satellite Road.  There is a sufficient toom to outlet storm water at the southeast corner of the site in the general area of the brook. In the previous application the applicant submitted letters from the utility companies stating that they had sufficient capacity to serve the site that is still the case for this application.  Detailed drainage analysis will be submitted at the site plan stage as well as details related to utility connections.

The applicant is proposing a boulevard entrance with an identification sign and landscaped area.  Typical plantings are proposed for this area and a more detailed plan will be submitted at the next stage.  Trees are proposed for the entrance and a mixture of trees to separate the buildings.  There is a significant wooded area that will be left in tact in the southern part of the property to provide buffer. The intent is to provide full cut –off lighting in conformance with the regulations. A full lighting plan will be submitted at the next phase.  

Andrew Krar, Traffic Engineer with Design Professionals gave an overview of the Traffic Study.  Town staff had asked for a review of the speeds on Pleasant Valley Road in the general vicinity of the entrance drive.  On January 19th a speed timing study was completed and found that the average speed on Pleasant Valley Road is 33 miles and hour and the 85 percentile speed is 42 miles per hour.  The site distance of the driveway when looking left (west) was found to be adequate.  The traffic capacity analysis for the new driveway reflected a level of service of A with less than a ten second delay for each vehicle leaving the proposed site.  A study was conducted of 10 intersections in both industrial and residential areas.  The analysis found that there were five movements where the level service dropped and the maximum delay was 5 seconds or less.  All 10 intersections will still operate less than full capacity after adding all the site generated traffic from this project.

David Holmes, Architect with Capitol Studio Architects reviewed the architectural design of the buildings.  
The buildings were design not to look like entry level housing.  The theme is traditional architectural features which include a mix of intersecting gable roofs, a variety of window types, shallow arches, mixed of clad board and columns along the entrance.  The two story buildings are handicap accessible.  All the single family dwellings will have a basement; the interior for all units will have finished amenities, such as granite counter tops and laminate floors.  The community building will be 1500 sq ft and includes a kitchen, storage and mechanical spaces.  
 
Peter DeMallie, Principal of Design Professionals Inc. mentioned that the proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives for the Multi-Family zoning district, the zoning regulations and the zone change review criteria (Attachment V, p.5, 6).  

Lipe had the following planning report.

Request for a zone change from Industrial to Multi-family AA for 49.5+/- acres of property located on the north side of Pleasant Valley Road and southerly of South Satellite Road, and General Plan of Development for 155 housing units. The MF zone requires a minimum of 15 acres.  This proposal also includes the rezoning of a small strip of land, .32 acres, from Industrial to A-20 on the residential lot at 438 Pleasant Valley Road.
Section 8.3 includes criteria for zone change, including but not limited to:
  • The goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Plan of Conservation and Development;
  • The purposes of zoning and of these regulations;
  • Changes that have taken place in the rate and pattern of development and land use within the Town and adjoining communities;
  • The supply of land available in the present and proposed zone;
  • The physical suitability of the land for the proposed zone;
  • The impact on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, and other improvements;
  • The general character and zoning of the neighborhood;
  • Impacts on the surrounding area;
  • Traffic congestion impacts;
  • The impact on surrounding property values;
  • The environmental impacts;
  • The health and general welfare of the community;
  • Neighborhood acceptance weighed against community needs; and
  • The protection of historic factors.
  • The Town Plan “Future Land Use Map” indicates that the land along Route 5 should remain as Economic Development land. The subject site is surrounded by Industrially-zoned land to the north and west.  The land to the south is zoned industrially, however currently has a few existing residences. The land to the east is residentially-zoned.
  • The Housing Element of the Town Plan of Conservation includes goals that are relevant to this application, including:
  • Develop housing to meet the needs of the entire community, including but not limited to: small families, large families, the elderly, single adult households, various income levels, and
  • Develop a full range of housing styles, types, sizes, densities, affordability, and forms of ownership in order to meet the housing needs of the community.
  • The possible uses in the MF zone are limited strictly to dwelling units; no other primary uses are allowed. Potential uses in the Industrial zone include:
  • automobile sales, service and repair;
  • sales of building and landscaping materials;
  • manufacture of bricks, cement products, tile and terra cotta;
  • manufacture, processing, packaging and assembly of components or goods;
  • offices - professional, commercial, corporate and business;
  • plumbing, heating, electrical, mechanical industrial and general contracting establishments;
  • printing and publishing, graphic arts processes, sign shop painting;
  • solid waste, recycling, transfer station facilities;
  • truck and freight terminals; and
  • warehouses and distribution centers.
The purpose of the general plan is to show the planned use and layout of the property if the zone change is approved, including the general layout of utilities, drainage, open space and recreation areas. The information depicted in the General Plan is meant to be viewed as general information, with engineering details to be provided at the site plan stage. This two-step method provides the opportunity for the Commission to determine whether the multi-family use is appropriate for this site, and to make meaningful revisions if appropriate, prior to the applicant spending a substantial amount of money on full engineering. Special exception and site plan of development approval would be required prior to any construction on this site.
A zone change is the appropriate time to discuss traffic impacts. The applicant’s traffic report indicates that the area roadway network is generally sufficient to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development.  Staff has expressed some traffic concerns to the applicant.  The town engineer’s report will get more into the specific intersections of concern.
There is a 25’ buffer requirement along all property boundaries except the street frontage. The buffer plantings must be designed by a licensed landscape architect and must obscure most of the view between the residential and non-residential zones within 5 years, and substantially block the view at maturity.  The applicant is proposing to meet this requirement along the easterly property boundary at the access drive by rezoning a 25 strip of the adjacent property owner’s property and placing that area under a buffer easement.
The survey shows that there are numerous encroachments by adjoining property onto the subject site. As these encroachments occur within the required buffer area, the applicant will need to reclaim these areas for buffer planting. We also note that along the lower west property boundary, there is a drainage easement and a drainage pipe that is not quite in the easement. This would be a good time to correct the easement to encompass the actual drainage pipe since the drainage easement is within the required buffer area.
Proposed impervious coverage is about 13.5%, 60% allowed. Maximum proposed building height is about 30.5 feet, 35 feet allowed.  The applicant has provided a breakdown of unit types, open space requirements, parking requirements in accordance with the multi-family requirements.
There are regulated wetlands on this site. The quantity and distribution of the wetlands have most likely contributed to the general lack of interest in this property for industrial uses. IWA/CC approval is not required for the general plan; if PZC approves this application, then the applicant will need IWA/CC approval for the site plan.
Public water and sewer are available. The applicant’s engineer has indicated that the utilities have adequate capacity to support this development.
The MF zone requires 600 sq ft of developed recreation area per unit which equates to just over 2 acres. The applicant has designated open field/lawn areas and a walking trail for developed recreation. The walking trail as shown is 4’ wide with stone dust. Town staff, including the SW Police Dept, recommends that the path be wider to facilitate both active recreation and police patrols.
There are several single-family units within about 15’ of the side yard setback line. The applicant should be aware that placement of decks, pools and sheds will be very limited for these units.
Trash disposal will be handled through the use of individual containers.  The applicant may have to create some common areas for these containers (e.g. in the area of the duplexes).  Staff requests if these concrete pads are going to be created, that they be shown on the general plan rather than being designed as an after thought.   
The site is more than 500 feet from a Town boundary, so no referral to CRCOG was required.
If this zone change is approved, the Commission must state on the record that you have found the zone change to be consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
Lipe read the letter from Chief Reed, South Windsor Police for the record (Exhibit A).
Grillo had the following engineering report.  
  • A complete analysis of the drainage system proposed for this development and a complete inspection and analysis of the existing drainage system from the proposed development on this parcel all the way down to the Podunk River must be completed.  This includes existing drainage swales, channels, ponds, pipes, etc.  The analysis must show sufficient capacity and headwater in all parts of the system for the proposed discharges for all storm events from the 2 year to the 100 year.  The Town will witness all inspections of the existing drainage system and review the analysis.  The developer will be responsible for any drainage improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development.  
  • The drainage system should be designed to reduce the peak stormwater flow off this site and to intercept groundwater flowing off this site to any neighboring properties.  
  • Peak sewer flows expected from this proposed development must be submitted to the Town for the determination as to whether there is sufficient reserve capacity in the sewer system downstream of this proposed development.  
  • Consider moving the sewer pump station closer to Pleasant Valley Road with a shorter force main to the gravity sewer in Pleasant Valley Road.  
  • Provide gravel access roads to any detention basin and water quality basins inlets and outlets for inspection and maintenance.  
  • The plan should consider discharging some cleaner runoff toward wetland areas via water quality swales and basins.  The stormwater management plan must include treatment/control of mosquitoes and other undesirable critters as well as litter/debris pick-up and the usual stormwater basin maintenance requirements.  
  • Any existing drainage channels and swales on this property that are to be used should be cleaned out, defined and stabilized prior to use.  
  • The front and rear yards of the proposed units must have enough pitch to drain to the storm drain system in the street or to open space with provisions to accommodate this stormwater.  There should not be stormwater ponding near residential units.  
  • Soils information from borings and/or test pits should be provided for this site.  
  • The recreational paths through and around this proposed development should have a good gravel base and a firm, low maintenance surface such as bituminous pavement or compacted stone dust.  This will allow pedestrians, bikes, handicap persons, and emergency vehicles to use these paths and reduce the maintenance required.  
  • This development should be designed and constructed to South Windsor Town Standards.   
  • The sight line analysis needs to be based on the 85% speeds on Pleasant Valley Road at the proposed driveway location.  
  • The traffic analysis shows a degredation in the Level of Service for parts or all of the intersection of South Satellite Road and Route 5, the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Route 5 and the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Route 30.  The LOS for afternoon peak hour westbound movements at the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Route 5 is reduced from a D to an E.  The overall LOS of the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Route 30 is reduced from a B to a C in both the morning and afternoon peak hours.  The Developer should contact the Connecticut DOT to inquire about adjusting the signal timing at these intersections, providing bypass lanes and making other minor modifications needed to maintain the current LOS at these intersections.  The applicant needs to check on requirements for a STC certificate for this development.  
There was public participation in favor and in opposition to the application as follows.

Gary Bazzano, 53 Spinners Way, also a member or the Town Council spoke in favor of the application mentioning that as a homeowner he would not like an industrial user next to his home.  Bazzano asked if the deed could show that the land is adjacent to an industrially zoned property so that the purchaser would be informed of that at the time of the purchase.

Lipe mentioned that it was done with the Chase Orchards Development which abuts up to an Economic Development zone in Vernon.

Vincent Prestlio, 140 Lake Street spoke in favor of this application mentioning that his children did not come back to South Windsor after they finished school because of the lack of affordable housing.  

Attorney Steven Basche, 2389 Main Street, Glastonbury representing Eric and Kristen Eggleston’s from 388 Pleasant Valley Road. Mr. Basche spoke in favor of the application stating that it would improve the overall quality of life and tax base for the Town.  

Cindy Beaulieu, 19 Cody Circle spoke in favor of the application.  Ms. Beaulieu had concerns in the past about the impact to the neighborhood when the first application came before the commission.  When looking at the revised plan, she feels that it fits the Town since it has better access coming off of Pleasant Valley Road.  

A petition was submitted for the record signed by 25 residents opposing the application. (Exhibit 1)  

Jeremy E. Baver, 389 Pleasant Valley Road submitted a rebuttal memorandum for the record (Attachment II)
A protest petition was also submitted for the record signed by 25 residents within the 500 ft zone change area.  A second petition will be submitted at a later point. (Exhibit 1)  

Tony Sansone, 87 Hilton Drive spoke in opposition to the application.  His concerns centered on the high water table on the property that borders the area where the single family homes are proposed. He mentioned an underground drainage system that the Town no longer maintains.  The soil should be tested before the homes are built.  He is concerned with the environmental impact on his property and surrounding properties.  

Jessica Vogelgesang, 79 Hilton Drive, spoke in opposition to the application, had concerns with the traffic study that does not address the proposed traffic from the CREC school, the CT Studios project, or FedEx and how that would impact the traffic on Rte. 5.  She is concerned with the number of school children if the units become rental occupied.  She mentioned that this development is not consistent with the current Plan of Conservation and Development that addresses open space and bike trails.  The Town is currently updating the Plan of Conservation and Development and she would like to see the new plan update before this type of development is approved.  

Richard Ferota, 95 Hilton Drive spoke in opposition to the application and submitted the other part of the protest petition from surrounding neighbors.  

Roger Merrill, 109 Hilton Drive spoke in opposition to the application.  He mentioned that in the past the land was used for farming and that the land to the north was sold off because it was flooding and no longer suitable for farming.  He feels that the land is not suitable for building homes on it due to the extensive water problems.

Maryland Novak, 413 Pleasant Valley Road, spoke in opposition to the application her concerns centered on traffic issues and safety issues for children walking to the park.  

Virginia Macro, 1828 Main Street, Chair of the Historic District Commission mentioned that the house at 389 Pleasant Valley Road, directly across from the proposed development, is a unique structure in South Windsor.  The Historic District has conducted a survey and listed the home as a unique structure that was built in 1925 and could be proposed for listing on the national register of historic places.  It’s a craftsman’s style design and it shows strong evidence of Asian influences making it a unique home in Connecticut.  Ms. Macro is also concerned with the traffic and the left turn out of the development and is opposed to this application.

Correspondence was read into the record. (Exhibit B-H)  

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

  • Commissioners asked about the phasing of the project
Ben Wheeler, Design Professionals, responded that the utilities and the road ways would be done in phase I and then they would move on to phase 2.  

  • Commissioners asked what phase the walking trails will be completed in.  
Wheeler responded that the walking trails will be developed in phases also from phase 1-phase 4.

  • Commissioners had concerns with the driveway radius and if a fire truck could make it around
Wheeler mentioned that the fire truck is able to access all areas of the development. Shepard Way cul-de-sac is designed to Town standards which will allow a fire truck sufficient room to  turn around..  

  • Commissioners asked if there was a drainage easement behind the Hilton Drive neighborhood.
Grillo, Town Engineer, the town does not currently maintain the drainage on this site.  

Lipe mentioned that their was a drainage system that the Town did some maintenance on at one point in the past; however there is no drainage easement or any rights to maintain it, nor does the town plan to maintain it.  

  • Commissioners asked where the secondary access would be located.
Wheeler mentioned that the properties that the applicant is considering for the secondary entrance are on Nutmeg Road South to the west of the property.  The emergency access is proposed to connect into the site off of the long driveway on Pepin Place in phase 4.  

  • Commissioners asked about affordable housing.
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals mentioned that in the past the Town set up an affordable housing program and the town has since abandoned that program.  The applicant is proposing units that will be affordably priced for young adults in the work force.  

Attorney Ralph Alexander mentioned that he did a few affordable housing projects in the 80’s and 90’s.  The program is set up under State Statute and derive purchase prices based on median household income levels.  The problem was that when the people bought into them and decided to sell them, they were restricted on the price that they could sell it for making it difficult to get mortgage financing for them.  They are not proposing any such units within this development.

  • Commissioners asked how the drainage issues on the site would be addressed
Wheeler responded that if the application is approved the next step would be to submit a more detailed analysis of the area and some remediation.  Mr. Urso has developed other sites like the Summerwood development where the drainage has worked to remediate the drainage issues on that site.  

  • Commissioners asked if the stopping distance was safe.  
The stopping distance is adequate.

  • Commissioners had concerns with the timing of intersection traffic lights.
  • Commissioners asked if it was snowing the day the traffic counts were taken for this site.
Andrew Krar, Traffic Engineer, responded that traffic studies are not typically taken during snowy conditions.

  • Commissioners questioned why the 7th Edition manual was used for the traffic study instead of the 8th editions.
Krar, responded that the 8th Edition was not available and the 7th Edition is not obsolete and is still acceptable.  

The public hearing for Appl. 11-40P, Nutmeg Village was closed.

REGULAR MEETING-MADDEN ROOM
CALL TO ORDER:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATON:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
BONDS:
Wilson made a motion to reduce the $ 5,000 E & S bond for Appl.09-34P, M & S paving to a balance of -0-. Kuehnel seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  
MINUTES:  
OTHER BUSINESS:
CORRESPONDENCE/REPORTS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Wilson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

Respectfully Submitted:

Maria Acevedo
Recording Secretary