|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 5, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 5, 2005 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman James Hickey, Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
STAFF REPORTS
a. Discussion of CIP Budget with Town Manager
Town Manager Scott Shanley reported the Town Council has received the proposed CIP budget but has not yet voted on it. He briefly reviewed each line item in the CIP budget which may or may not be approved by the Town Council and may or may not come back to this Commission as an 8-24.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the CIP budget as presented. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. Town Attorney (in writing)
c. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)
Commissioner Duren noted the memo received by the Commission tonight regarding a cease and desist issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
d. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner informed the Commission the hearing date for the Leete Stevens application will be June 23, 2005 during a special meeting that will commence at 7:30 p.m. Chairman DiPace requested an email reminder to the Commission for this meeting. Some discussion followed on whether to begin this meeting at 7:00 p.m. but the final consensus was to keep it at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Giner reported he will be meeting with Attorney Landolina on Monday regarding the Pappas appeal.
Mr. Giner discussed some recent legislative issues for the Commission’s information. A bill is being proposed that will impose some conditions on Commission members. It will require anyone that has business before the Commission to register as lobbyists. Mr. Giner noted passage of this bill may impact the way towns do business. If anything does pass, Mr. Giner will provide the Commission with copies of it and schedule a session for the Commission with the Town Attorney.
Commissioner Duren asked about Laughlin Road. Mr. Giner stated he is trying to set a date for this and it is tentatively scheduled for June 19, 2005. This would not be a hearing but only a vote. Mr. Giner is drafting conditions so that the applicant will not have any objection. The item of contention is the work that is being shown on the plans in the Town right of way. The Town’s Attorney is saying the Commission cannot approve work in the right of way when it is the Council’s prerogative to do that. The attorneys are presently working to address that with specific language.
Mr. Giner stated he will be presenting the Commission with some proposed changes to the Town’s grading and filling regulations. He does not think the Town regulates fill as much as excavation and there have been questions about depositing and storing fill on certain lots. He saw a need for better control. These changes will be presented to the Commission for their review at the June meeting. At that meeting, Mr. Giner stated he will also present a draft of a regulation on personal storage devices.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence includes the following:
A memo from Ray Warren to Jose Giner regarding a review of the use and the conditions for allowing apartment units.
Commissioner Duren noted many of these units previously built as apartments became condominiums and the Commission did not have control over them. Mr. Giner stated the American Inn representative raised this question because Enfield presently only allows single-family homes. The Town has received proposals and Mr. Warren’s position is maybe it is time the Commission had a workshop and looked at their multi-family regulations. Chairman DiPace was amenable to such a workshop but noted he thinks the way the regulations are currently written is working for the Town of Enfield but he would be willing to consider a change. Mr. Giner noted the many requests presently being received. He will present something for the Commission to consider at a later date and he will schedule it for a discussion.
A letter from Jose Giner to David DiPiero regarding relocation of a handicap ramp at 18 Shaker Road.
Landmark, the newsletter of the Northern Connecticut Land Trust.
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Notice of Action dated April 19, 2005
Historic District Commission Notice of Action dated April 27, 2005.
A letter from the Northern Connecticut Land Trust regarding the Scantic River Watershed Association.
A memo on Transportation requesting people to contact the Governor.
Commissioner Duren noted the Historic District refers to 45-47 Bigelow Avenue where there was exterior work done. He asked why the Enfield Revitalization Committee was not involved. The Historic District Commission found the situation very disturbing and an indication about the lack of protection of historic resources. Mr. Giner confirmed this property is not in the area under the Enfield Revitalization Committee’s purview. The Committee has stated they are looking forward to final design guidelines for the TV Village zone. Mr. Alsbaugh has been working with a consultant regarding expansion of this zone.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from April 21, 2005 Meeting
- PH#2496 – Special Use Permit to convert a 3-unit residential building to a 4-unit residential building at 148 Pearl Street, zoned R-33, Map 21, Lot 54, Michael T. Sirois, Applicant/Owner (Must close by May 5.)
Mr. Giner reported there is a need to table this application while the applicant works on providing a survey as required by the Town Engineer.
Commissioner Duren requested that proper documentation be provided to the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Giner will make sure such documentation regarding ownership of the property is received prior to re-opening this hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to keep PH#2496 open and approve an extension for this application. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. This application will be scheduled for June 2, 2005.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2501 – Zone Change from R-33 to BL with Enfield Street Design District Overlay for properties located at 5 Elm Street (Map 26, Lot 24), 7 Elm Street, (Map 26, Lot 25), 9 Elm Street (Map 26, Lot 26) and 11 Elm Street (Map 26, Lot 27) and a portion of property east of 841 Enfield Street (Map 26, Lot 21), Frank Troiano, Applicant; A & L Troiano Family, LLC, Owner. (Must close by June 2.)
Frank Troiano, representing himself and his father, Anthony Troiano, Jr., and Dave Ziaks, the engineer for the project, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Also present were the developers, Anthony and James Georgio.
Frank Troiano stated the property is located at 5, 7, 9 and 11 Elm Street for a change of zone from R-33 to Business Local along with the Enfield Street Design District Overlay. In addition, a portion of the property east of 841 Enfield Street is included in the proposed zone change. This property is immediately to the east of the Enfield Federal project under construction on the corner of Enfield and Elm Street.
Frank Troiano presented the concept drawing for this area as well as a 500’ radius map. Mr. Giner also distributed a GIS drawing showing the area but without the CVS building since it is a 1991 map. Mr. Giner stated the subject parcels are the four lots outlined and a portion of the other lot on Enfield Street.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the intent is to have an office building. Frank Troiano stated the intention is to have a medical offices at this location.
Dave Ziaks from F. A. Hesketh Associates stated they prepared the plans before the Commission. Mr. Ziaks stated the property that is the subject of the zone change includes the four lots shown on the vicinity map plus a 35-foot strip of the lot that abuts to the north. The reason for that is to provide the required 35-foot buffer area between Residential and Business Local. The land to the north is all zoned Residential and is currently undeveloped. The center portion of it is pretty much wetlands making development difficult. Along the northerly boundary line from the four lots, Mr. Ziaks noted there is a very pronounced difference in the environment. There is mowed grass right up to the back of the boundary line and after that you get into totally undeveloped and wetland areas. Rather than putting the 35’ buffer area on to a developable portion of the site which is now uplands and mowed grass, in working with staff a decision was made to provide that 35’ buffer in the more natural area. Mr. Ziaks stated this is being done to meet the zoning requirements but from a practical point of view, it is going to be very difficult for any kind of residential development to encroach back toward the BL development on this parcel.
Mr. Ziaks pointed out the bank under construction and noted there is one driveway cut on to Enfield Street and one driveway cut proposed on to Elm Street for this bank. The concept would be to marry all these parcels together to create one common development and maintain the single driveway to Elm Street. With this development, they will be able to move the driveway further to the east so that it lines up directly with the CVS driveway. The driveway to Enfield Street would stay the same and there would be no other driveways on the Elm Street. They will provide the full 35’ buffer between the next residential property. The idea would be to blend it with common development themes and landscaping making it one large development.
Mr. Ziaks stated the entire parcel including the bank which is 1.3 acres would be approximately three acres. The zone change land presently before the Commission is approximately 1.7 acres. The family’s intent is to continue with the same development scheme and the same architectural treatment.
Mr. Ziaks stated the next application before the Commission references back to this one.
Commissioner Lefakis asked about the proposed driveway for the bank shown on the plans. Mr. Ziaks stated they are hoping to move ahead fast enough so that they can prevent building that driveway later this year.
Commissioner Lefakis asked about the properties. Mr. Ziaks stated for the last property on Elm Street there is a home located on the property at this time. That home would be gone with this development.
Commissioner Hickey stated the proposal is a fairly significant change to the character of the street. He asked if there are tenants ready to go for this proposed medical building. Dr. Georgio stated he is part of the development team representing the Broad Brook Group. They have been working with the Troiano family for approximately six months. They represent a major health care facility, St. Francis Care, who already has a presence in Enfield and wishes to expand their presence in Enfield. It is dependent on being able to move forward with the extension of the Overlay Zone and to get the appropriate approvals. They are prepared to move forward should this Commission approve this application. The intended use is a full service facility with radiology, MRI and private physicians’ offices.
Mr. Ziaks stated this is a two-step type of zone change. They are requesting the BL zone but also the Overlay District for King Street and Enfield Street to be extended down along this property. This will give the Commission the comfort that the development that will come before them will be consistent with the purpose of the Enfield Street Overlay District which is high quality type development that is compatible with the area.
Mr. Giner stated the proposed extension of the Overlay Zone would allow for the parking to be put in the back. If they had to maintain the full setback required in a BL zone, this would mean another parking lot in front of the street. With this proposal, the building is able to be pushed forward. This will be part of the site plan review where they will be requesting a waiver to allow parking in the back rather than in the front.
Chairman DiPace opened this application to the public.
Timothy Basely, 6 Nonatuck Street, stated his only question is whether this is the only way the needs of the St. Francis Group can be met by building another structure in Enfield. He has lived in Enfield his entire life and has seen a lot of businesses come and go. He sees a lot of buildings built and then unused. He has a concern that this will be bringing business into the area but it will mean the loss of homes and the loss of the character of the neighborhood. He sees a lot of wasted industrial structures in Enfield and he questioned the logic of building a brand new structure, particularly in this tightly populated location when he sees a lot of buildings in the town that are not being used to their full potential. His concern is that the Commission use prudence and look at what is available right now and what the specific needs of the St. Francis Group are. This will allow the question to be answered as to whether rearranging another neighborhood is the easiest and most effective way to accomplish this. Mr. Basely stated he is not specifically against this project but he noted in the past the town has gone ahead with things which in hindsight could have been done a better way. As a resident that owns a house close by, Mr. Basely stated his concern is the change to the character of the neighborhood and the additional traffic to the area.
Charles Sylvester, 2 Charles Street, questioned if this is the best location for a medical building. He cited the residential homes in the area and noted there are business lots already in Enfield that are not being utilized. His primary concern is changing more lots from residential to business.
Debbie Stafaniak , Washington Road, stated her concern is this will generate more traffic and add more structures in a residential area. She agrees with the previous speaker that there are several buildings that have been vacant in town and it seems like many of the companies want their own individual structures when there are existing ones. She hopes the Commission takes into consideration the fact that the change may not be a great one by taking residential and moving it over to business.
Chairman DiPace asked if the proposed building is going to be a state of the art project. Dr. Georgio stated about eight years ago they brought St. Francis Care to Enfield on Cranbrook Boulevard. They took an older building and retrofitted it to accommodate physicians’ offices. The response from this community has been overwhelming and very supportive. The physicians and the hospital lab have expanded and the demand in this community for more medical services and current new technology is overwhelming. While he empathizes with the concern about moving from one building to another, the reality is that this will double their space and as it stands right now will be virtually filled. From a new technology point of view, the cardiologists will be using new gamma ray types of technology, radiologists will be using different types of CAT scans and state of the art MRI facilities. The medical field is changing rapidly and physicians are responding by trying to have the state of the art equipment and in turn, patients expect it. One of the realities is that the population is maturing and there are more people moving beyond thirty than approaching thirty. The opportunity to provide state of the art medical services to this community is something that they welcomed almost a decade ago and would like to continue to do.
Dr. Georgio stated not all physicians have agreed to move from their present location. Also, as the technology changes, a panel will be removed from the building so that the new technology can come in. You cannot do that in old buildings. You can’t retrofit an industrial building with the plumbing and electrical services needed to service this kind of medical equipment.
Dr. Georgio stated while he cannot address the traffic issue, he has noticed what has been done in the community already with the bank and across the street. It seems to him that the opportunity to bring this value to the community is going to increase for those living in the area and for those coming to the area. Dr. Georgio noted that things become obsolete and when this occurs, they need to be dealt with or changed. In this case, the Town has a wonderful opportunity to allow for an important change to this community which they are prepared to support.
Frank Troiano stated in regard to the location, one of the main issues for the hospital locating here is ease of use and ease of access. The state of the art facility will be located right off the highway and right off Route 5.
Dr. Georgio stated he spent close to a year looking at other properties in Enfield. It did not make any sense to retrofit old buildings which brought him to the Troiano family.
Commissioner Krebs asked if the other building owned by St. Francis Care will be closed. Dr. Georgio stated he didn’t say that at all. The way this works, the hospital will be a major tenant in the building just as it is in the other building. The hospital’s presence will expand in the new building which it cannot do in the old building because of the constraints. The physicians, however, while they have privileges with St. Francis and with Johnson Memorial and others, are independent contractors and they can elect to move or to not move. Feedback received from many of them indicate they would be very interested. Radiology will be a major expansion. Dr. Georgio could not confirm that every physician presently located on Cranbrook is going to move. What will happen is the overall amount of medical services in this community will increase.
Mr. Giner stated there have been ART meetings and the opportunity to move the driveway farther back off the intersection will be a plus for traffic safety. He further cautioned the Commission that this is a concept plan and the Commission cannot condition a zone change on anything.
Chairman DiPace reopened this hearing to the public.
Timothy Basely, 6 Nonatuck Street, stated he is well aware that the medical field is a large and growing industry. If that is the case, maybe it would be more prudent to build elsewhere. If they get ninety percent occupancy initially, medical campuses do grow and there would already be finite constraints to this one being built where it is. If double digit growth is expected, maybe the Commission should look at locating a health campus in the Enfield Industrial Park which is also very accessible from I-91. Chairman DiPace stated the Industrial Park is full. Also, you need to be a manufacturer to be in the Industrial Park.
Mr. Basely stated this Commission has the power to make the adjustments to the zoning ordinance. If the Commission wanted to go strictly from manufacturing and make an exception for this kind of an investment in this community, that is something he would be willing to back. Mr. Basely reiterated that it doesn’t sound prudent to build a facility on land with a finite capacity.
Commissioner Duren stated this is a building that will be for both offices and medical equipment. He doesn’t see this increasing the traffic that is there. This will be decreasing entrance ways which may or may not have two or more cars from five down to one. Commissioner Duren questioned what the frequency would be for a hospital facility of this type. It will not be an in and out type of use like a bank or a pharmacy and he doesn’t see it creating that much more of a problem. Also, the entrance and circulation will be within the property. Commissioner Duren suggested signing to indicate no left turn on to Elm Street.
Mr. Giner stated the bank was approved with a full left turn. The one on Enfield Street is restricted turns and currently the driveway approved will take advantage of the light and encourage people to not go out on to Enfield Street with the full turn allowed on Elm. The main concern with the corner lot was that it would be very difficult to get a safe left hand turn so close to the light and it was restricted to right hand turns only. Presently the driveways are offset and with the new plan, they would be aligned resulting in a safer configuration.
Commissioner Duren stated this proposal would bring a medical center to one of the populated areas of the town and it would also bring people to the Thompsonville area.
Commissioner Hickey stated any time we are looking at changing a residential district to business, there is a need to proceed carefully. However, he thinks the bank and the construction on the corner has been a dynamic and positive change to the area. This new proposal makes a lot of sense and with the drug store across the street, this is a positive direction and he would be in favor of this zone change.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve a zone change from R-33 to Business Local with the Enfield Street Design District Overlay for properties located at 5, 7, 9 and 11 Elm Street and a portion of property east of 841 Enfield Street as heard in Public Hearing #2501 with an effective date of May 23, 2005.
Chairman DiPace stated technology is changing and it makes it difficult for people in the medical field to stay on top. Everyone wants to be taken care of in the best possible manner. Chairman DiPace saw the difficulty in placing some of this medical equipment in older buildings. He felt this proposal will be a great asset if designed properly. It will be a gateway into Thompsonville and it is something that Thompsonville needs to revitalize the area.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
a. PH#2502 – Zoning Text Change to add subsection 8.60(G) allowing Commission to waive maximum height of buildings in the Enfield Design District Overlay Zone by Special Permit, Frank Troiano, Applicant (Must close by June 2).
Frank Troiano and Dave Ziaks appeared before the Commission regarding this zoning text change.
Mr. Ziaks stated this is a proposed amendment to Section 8.60 of the ordinance which would add a new sub section with the letter g. The reason they are here for this is they have had a couple of meetings with town staff. The intent would be to come in with an office building designed very much like the bank on the corner of Route 5 and Elm Street. Their proposal is to construct a three-story building. Their site plan when presented will confirm that it’s really a two-story building that is elevated to allow parking underneath. The reason for this is to meet the parking requirements for the building and also provide covered parking for all the handicapped spaces and medical vehicles.
Mr. Ziaks stated in order to accommodate the program of the building, they would like to build a three-story building. There is a height restriction in the BL zone which could not accommodate a three-story building. They did not feel a zoning variance would be the route to take. They also did not feel a change to the BL zone was appropriate because it would affect a lot of land in the town. Mr. Ziaks stated they thought rather than dealing with the height of the building in the Overlay Zone, that they would limit it to the number of stories, three, that the Commission could consider and allow the architecture of the building to dictate how tall that three-story building actually gets. It is their intent to come in with a colonial style building with pitched roofs and the actual elevation could vary. Rather than trying to nail down an exact height elevation, their proposal is for a three-story limitation. This would be a waiver that the Commission would have to approve and an applicant would come before the Commission from anywhere in the Overlay Zone and follow the criteria in place.
Mr. Ziaks stated in working with Mr. Giner, they copied pretty much the Section in 8.6 that talks about the Commission’s ability to waive setback distances. There are the same criteria in that section and those were used in approving the bank. The proposed paragraph would follow this same protocol but allows the Commission to waive the height of the building while not allowing more than three stories.
Mr. Ziaks stated the only thing changed was the word “setback” to the height of the building. The Commission would have to judge that it permits a more functional use of the site relative to the overall site design and meets the purposes of this unique district. It would provide for the preservation of existing site features such as wetlands and water courses, specimen trees and other plantings. It would allow for superior building design to meet the purposes of the district. No building could be taller than three stories regardless of how many feet an applicant would propose. A waiver would require a special permit application.
Mr. Ziaks felt the Commission has all the authority to review any application and make a judgment call as to whether the architecture is superior and fits the site properly. There would also be setbacks and buffers and related items that the Commission would consider.
Mr. Ziaks stated in working with staff they felt the Overlay District was the place to put this. It gives the Commission some discretion only in the Overlay District to review the application and make a decision.
Commissioner Duren stated this is being requested because of the garage proposed for the medical building. He questioned if the garage could be put below ground level. Mr. Ziaks stated they really don’t want to do that particularly on this site given the soil conditions. A great deal of expense has gone into the bank. There is also the grading to consider because it would slope down into the garage resulting in steep ramps. They are looking at having a flat site where you drive in underneath the building very easily with handicapped accessible parking spaces and get into an elevator to enter the main part of the building. They really do not want to start introducing ramps down into a basement situation. Mr. Ziaks noted the footprint of the proposed building is not that big and accommodating such ramps would begin to take up large amounts of the footprint of the building.
Commissioner Lefakis asked how Mr. Ziaks would define the Town Hall building. Mr. Ziaks stated he would rate this building as a three-story building since it is at least fifty percent three stories. Mr. Giner noted it actually has four levels.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission would be limiting the height of buildings more so than is currently in place. The regulations allow up to 48’ in height but to get that 48’ you have to set the building back farther than the minimum. It goes against what is being attempted in the Overlay Zone by requiring applicants to push buildings farther off the road to get more height. Mr. Giner felt it made a lot more sense to encourage people to maintain a street scape without front parking. Without this amendment, 48’ buildings would still be allowed in this zone because for every five feet a building is set back, you get an additional 24’. This would mean you could easily have a four-story building under the current regulations but the building would have to be pushed back.
Mr. Giner stated this proposed amendment was sent to CRCOG and they reported back that there was no conflict with regional plans or policies.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to approve a zoning text change to add subsection 8.60(G) allowing the Commission to waive the maximum height of buildings in the Enfield Design District Overlay Zone by Special Permit with an effective date of May 23, 2005.
Commissioner Hickey felt this amendment makes a lot of sense.
Commissioner Duren stated this gives the Commission good control over the buildings without ruining the setbacks of the district.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. PH#2503 – Subdivision for division of property into two lots at 2 Shaker Road, zoned BL and I-1, Map 64, Lot 70, Galaxy Development Group, LLC, Applicant/Galaxy Management, LLC, Owner (Must close by June 2.)
Attorney Susan Hays appeared before the Commission on behalf of Galaxy Management LLC and Galaxy Development Group, LLC. They have two applications before the Commission tonight. The first one is a two-lot subdivision of property located at 2 Shaker Road. Attorney Hays noted this is the property that they sought a zone change for from Industrial to Business Local. At that time, they had discussed that they would be coming in for a subdivision and taking the back portion of the property and deeding that as open space to the Town if the Town chose to accept it or otherwise dedicating it as open space.
Attorney Hays stated they created two lots and the lot line runs through the middle of the property. She pointed out the parcel that would be developed along with the back portion that would be deeded for open space. The open space dedication is a part of this subdivision application.
Attorney Hays stated one other thing which is not part of this subdivision is another line shown on the map. They are not looking for that subdivision at this time. They also talked about the fact that they would be willing to design the facility and reserve the front parcel should in the future there is the opportunity to redesign the intersection. They have shown that line on all of their plans but are not asking for a subdivision at this time. They want to keep the property part of the development because they want to be able to maintain it. Attorney Hays stated they plan to demolish the buildings and put in grass and landscaping so that it is an attractive area. The line is shown to let the Commission know they did not forget about the possible change to the intersection.
Commissioner Duren asked if later on the Town wishes to change the intersection, is this included in the deeds. Attorney Hays stated it is on the plan that was submitted and it is also in the deed. They specifically state on the plans property to be deeded to the Town of Enfield. They can also put this notation on the subdivision plan that gets recorded.
Attorney Hays stated their proposed design was done so that when the land is transferred to the Town of Enfield, they would still comply with zoning.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Samuel McGill, Jr., stated he is in favor of the subdivision. He questioned the entrance on Shaker Road and asked if there would be a possibility of aligning that with the light across from Barnard School. It would traverse behind the two homes there now. He noted the road is pretty heavily used and once they went to four lanes, the traffic opens up quite a bit. Mr. McGill noted there are two areas on Elm Street where there are no left turns but it is not enforced causing accidents and near accidents. Mr. McGill reiterated he is in favor of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Giner stated the application is a straightforward two-lot subdivision. The only conditions are if the Commission would like to add a reference to the next application. If the Commission approves the next application, then the special use permit would be filed on the land records. Regarding any open space parcels, the deed should be submitted prior to signing of the mylars for Town Attorney review and approval. Attorney Hays asked if this would have to come back to the Commission with an 8-24. Commissioner Duren stated if the Town accepts it, he would think so. Mr. Giner stated it will come back as a referral but there would not be a hearing. When the deeds are submitted, they will be given to the Town Council for acceptance.
Chairman DiPace stated he heard the concern of Mr. McGill. One of Chairman DiPace’s concerns is if the driveway is moved farther down, it is in the area of the day care center recently approved. With Mr. McGill’s proposal, the traffic would be going around the back of the day care center.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve a subdivision for the division of property into two lots at 2 Shaker Road, zoned BL and I-1, subject to the following conditions:
1. The reference to the future land to be deeded shall be placed on the final mylars.
2. All deeds for open space and necessary easements shall be submitted prior to the signing of the mylars.
Commissioner Duren stated approval of this application will allow for the construction of buildings and give a good parcel of land to the Town.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
c. PH#2504 – Special Use Permit for proposed pharmacy and bank building with drive-through windows at 2 Shaker Road, zoned BL, Map 64, Lot 70, Galaxy Development Group, LLC, Applicant/Galaxy Management, LLC, Owner. (Must close by June 2.)
Attorney Susan Hays appeared before the Commission on behalf of Galaxy Management, LLC. Pat Doherty and Fahid Karin from the design firm were also present. She stated the use of the property at 2 Shaker Road is to be a pharmacy and a bank on property zoned Business Local.
Attorney Hays stated the proposed pharmacy and bank are uses permitted as of right with site plan approval in the BL zone. However, both of those uses will be having drive-through facilities necessitating the requirement for a special permit. They are seeking special permit approval for the drive-through facilities and site plan approval for the proposed plans.
Patrick Doherty, the engineer for the project, reviewed the design of the site. The application previously divided the property into two lots. They are now talking about Lot #1 which is 3.67 acres in size. The western portion of the lot right at the intersection would be dedicated to the Town. That area is approximately 15,000 square feet making the site 3.3 acres after this dedication.
Mr. Doherty stated the existing site contains two buildings, a residential building and a barn and there are two curb cuts, one on Shaker Road and one on Elm Street. There is a wetlands system in the southern portion of the site that connects to a larger wetland system to the east of the project area. The site is relatively flat with approximately three feet of grade. The property was formerly used for agricultural purposes.
There are two adjacent properties to the site that have a sanitary sewer that runs through the site. Mr. Doherty noted part of the development would include routing that sanitary sewer through an easement that would connect with the project sanitary sewer. Also located on the site is an easement to the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation for drainage purposes.
Mr. Doherty stated they are proposing to construct two buildings. The larger building on the north would be a 14,820 square foot pharmacy. The pharmacy would have two drive-through lanes associated with it for prescription pickup and drop off only. Other items that are sold in the pharmacy would not be available for purchase through the drive-through. Vehicles would not be allowed to wait at the pickup window while the prescription is filled. They would drop off the prescription, circulate out and return for the prescription. Mr. Doherty stated the outside lane would be a pneumatic tube for people to drop off prescriptions.
Mr. Doherty stated the second building on the southeastern portion of the site is a proposed bank 4,500 square feet in size. There would be three drive-through lanes and it is anticipated that one of them would be designated for an ATM. The parking lot would be constructed with 98 spaces which conforms to the zoning requirements. They would also construct two curb cuts, one on to Elm Street. Both curb cuts would allow vehicles to circulate to either use. All the parking spaces on the east side of the building would allow for two-way circulation so that vehicles entering Elm Street will be able to park in front of the bank, turn around and go up either Elm Street or Shaker Road. Vehicles that are turning into Shaker Road would be able to come in and park at the pharmacy or the bank. Vehicles that are entering the drive-through for the pharmacy can circulate to the curb cut and drive between the two buildings. Vehicles entering the drive-through from the proposed bank would circulate in front of the bank and to the rear of the bank where there would begin a one-way circulation. The area on the east side of both buildings would be a one-way circulation toward Shaker Road. Vehicles that wanted to go back to Elm Street could circulate back through the parking lot to Elm Street.
Mr. Doherty stated they have designed the site to meet all the dimensional requirements of the zoning district. The area that is required in the BL zone is 30,000 square feet and they are at 3.6 acres or 160,000 square feet. Lot frontage requirements are 350’ and they have over 500’. Front yard setbacks are 80’. The reason that they are calling for an 80’ building setback is for the proposed height of the Walgreen’s. The building height they are proposing is 28’ which would require that increased setback. The rear yard setback requirement is 20’ and the side yard setback requirement is 24’. They have a 25’ setback at its minimum and that would be at the bank canopy.
Mr. Doherty stated other coverage requirements have also been met. The zone allows for a maximum of 66% impervious coverage and they would propose 53% impervious coverage on the site. After the 15,000 square feet is deducted for the dedication, they would also meet that requirement and it would be at 58%. The interior parking lot landscaping is at 15%.
Mr. Doherty stated they have designed a storm water management system with a lot of input from Inland Wetlands and Town staff. They will separate the roof runoff from the parking lot runoff which will allow improvement of the quality of the storm water as it leaves the site. They are providing a primary and secondary treatment device. All the runoff from the parking lots will be collected into catch basins. From there, it would be discharged into a dry detention pond. The detention pond would have some secondary treatment capacity as well as provide detention. The roof runoff would be collected independently and run through a drainage line that connects both buildings. The roof runoff would be considered clean runoff. Other utilities are in place for public water connecting into the water main existing on Elm Street. They would connect to the public sanitary sewer on Elm Street. The two homes currently have their sanitary sewer come through the site and run pretty much through the center of the parcel. They propose to re-route their services and combine them with the service for the commercial development and connect to that same point on the lateral for Elm Street.
Mr. Doherty stated they have received comments from Water Pollution Control and they will be providing sanitary service in that manner. They would be connecting to electric and telephone. They would go underground to a transformer which would be distributed to both buildings. Telephone would also go underground for the two buildings. They have submitted a proposed lighting plan.
Commissioner Duren asked if the lights are high density. Mr. Doherty stated they have lowered the pole height realizing that they are abutting residential. The plans present a safe level of lighting that is not as bright as the tenant initially requested. The lights will be shielded and this is shown on the photometric plan. The light will not spill over the property line with one exception. Along Shaker Road there will be some negligible light spill over. About five feet off the property line, it goes back to zero and it is only the area on the property line where the spill over will occur.
Mr. Doherty stated the zoning district line runs down Shaker Road towards the west with residential across Shaker Road and directly across from the proposed pharmacy it becomes R-44. The property is entirely BL and BL is located across the street. R-44 is to the south of the property. The Town’s regulations define buffer requirements when residential uses abut development. They have found with developments that have less than 100 parking spaces, the required buffer is 25’. The plan submitted meets the requirements of that provision. They have concentrated the buffer between the parking lot and the building.
Mr. Doherty discussed landscaping and stated they have provided the same type of screening and buffer on the Elm Street side of the development with larger canopy trees and under story trees in between. There are a substantial amount of plantings on the south side of the bank which will provide a buffer for the south side wetland.
Mr. Doherty stated the building elevations have been submitted. He does not have the actual colors with him but the proposed pharmacy will be a brick building. He distributed a small rendering of the pharmacy. Chairman DiPace stated this hearing will need to be continued pending receipt of the color samples. Because of the nearness to residential neighborhoods, the Commission requires that the actual colors be submitted.
Mr. Doherty stated they are not requesting approval for the signage at this time. The signage shown in the rendering distributed is not necessarily what will be placed on this building. Mr. Doherty stated the main body of the pharmacy building will be a standard face brick. In the area accenting the entrance there will be split faced block. The columns supporting the canopy will be smooth faced limestone as well as the line above the windows. The colors are as represented in the rendering submitted. There will be a standing metal seam awning that wraps the front and the awning will be green.
Mr. Doherty stated they have submitted the elevation plan for the proposed bank. They have noted in their plans that they would be using similar materials and colors to accent the Walgreen’s building.
Commissioner Duren asked about the location of the mechanicals. Mr. Doherty stated they have submitted a roof plan. The roof top units are four feet back and there is a four foot parapet. Regarding the bank, he is not sure what is proposed regarding roof top units. Commissioner Duren asked when the applicant returns that they show the screening and how far away the roof top units will be visible.
Commissioner Krebs asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Doherty stated 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. They plan to be open seven days a week with an 8:00 a.m. opening on weekends. The bank will be typical of banking hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on most days and one evening until 7:00 p.m.
|