|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 2, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, September 2, 2004 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Anthony DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Samuel McGill, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of July 22, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing)
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)
Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Bickley was working on a street by street report for the Commission regarding in-home businesses. Mr. Giner will check on the status of this report.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner requested the addition of an item to tonight's agenda regarding measurement of distances. He noticed there is a discrepancy in the way distances between uses are measured. One method of measuring is used for liquor establishments, another for gas stations and, by reference, also commercial recreation facilities. This item will be discussed further at the end of tonight's agenda.
Mr. Giner asked about the application for 117 Elm Street for a dormer. His intention was to approve this application administratively for Steve Travali. The Commission confirmed that it had been previously discussed and Mr. Giner was instructed to approve this item administratively.
Mr. Giner reported he approved a concrete pad for an emergency generator at the waste water treatment plant on Parsons Road. It is to be located behind the building right next to a settlement tank and will not be visible. This item is also included in "applications to be received" later in tonight's agenda. Reference is made to a letter dated September 1, 2004 from Mr. Giner to Daniel R. Murphy regarding this matter.
Mr. Giner reported he received a packet of material from the American Planning Institute regarding personal pods or storage devices. Included were some model regulations adopted by other towns. Chairman DiPace stated he has noticed quite a few of these appearing in town. Mr. Giner stated these are not supposed to be installed without permits and he asked that Commission members inform him of any new ones. Chairman DiPace stated there is one on Enfield Street as you come off the highway and head toward Moore Rug Company. Commissioner Duren brought up hoop garages. Mr. Giner stated these are considered accessory structures or sheds. They can be installed in the back of the property and have to meet the regulations regarding sheds.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace stated he received a letter dated July 24, 2004 regarding the denial of the Enfield Shade Tobacco heliport. Because the letter was anonymous, he stated the Commission will not investigate any of the items cited.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter dated August 2, 2004 from Neil Angus regarding a conservation easement modification request. Also included in Correspondence was a letter from Neil Angus to Dave Fredrick dated August 4, 2004 regarding the Post Road sidewalks, a letter from Deborah A. Caronna, North Central District Health Department to Mr. Daniel Poggie dated August 9, 2004 regarding the proposed Danny's Pizza, a report from Raymond Warren, Director of Economic Development to the Enfield Town Council, various zoning publications and Notices of Action from Inland Wetlands & Watercouses, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Historic District Commission.
Chairman DiPace stated he received a phone call regarding Stop & Shop. Their approval expired in August after a one-year extension. Mr. Giner stated they will have to reapply. If it is the same application, he will legal notice the application and include it on the next agenda under the same conditions.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from July 22, 2004 meeting
a. PH#2457 - Application for Special Use Permit to unmerge two lots of record to create one new building lot at 138 Windsor Street, zoned R-33, Map 30, Lot 19, Bob Alaimo, Applicant/Ron Chmura, Owner. (Must close by October 7.)
Bob Alaimo appeared before the Commission with a request to unmerge two lots at 138 Windsor Street to create one new building lot. He cited a memo sent today stating they have met all the criteria with the exception of the median lot area. Mr. Alaimo reported the square footage of the new lot is 6,560 square feet. The median on the street is 6, 650 which would mean he is just short of the median. Mr. Alaimo noted the regulations stated the Commission can allow approval of anything within ten percent of the median lot coverage.
Commissioner Duren asked if the area where the shed is located will be with the new house. Mr. Alaimo confirmed that to be the case and also stated the lot will be the same depth as the lot on the east. Mr. Alaimo noted that approval for connection to the storm sewer is pending.
Commissioner Duren noted there is a steep slope on the site. Mr. Alaimo stated the slope is really further in the back. This lot actually looks a lot bigger than it is because it is located on a corner with a lot of town land to the north. It is in the area of the access road to the back of the Enfield Housing Authority. The main driveway would just go straight through.
Chairman DiPace stated this property was purchased as two separate lots and taxes have been paid on two separate lots for many years.
Mr. Giner stated there were some issues with setbacks on the original plan and the applicant had to give a little more frontage to the existing lot. Mr. Giner further confirmed that the lot is 90 square feet less than what the median lot is. The existing house is at the 19.97% building coverage and another shed could not be installed on that property.
Commissioner Duren stated since the original map had some problems, it was redrawn. Mr. Giner stated the map cited is the revised map dated August 27, 2004.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH #2457 - Application for Special Use Permit to unmerge two lots of record to create one new building lot at 138 Windsor Street, Zoned R-33, Map 30, Lot 19, Bob Alaimo, Applicant/Ron Chmura, Owner. In the Commission's findings, they are approving the 10% variation of the median lot coverage. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Plot Plan Windsor Street Prepared for Robert Alaimo, Enfield, Conn." Scale: 1"=20', by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 6-1-04 and revised to 8-27-04.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The Applicant shall present written permission from the Enfield Housing Authority to allow a connection to the existing double catch basins off the northwest corner of the property.
2. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. One set of mylars and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for signature of the Commission.
5. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
6. A More detailed plot plan will be required for staff review prior to permit approval.
7. If deemed necessary, an Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
8. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
9. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
10. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
11. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
12. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained within a year of the effective date of this approval or the permit shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with Section 9.20.3 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
13. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates McGill and Sarno voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2462 - Application for Special Use Permit under Section 3.40 of the zoning regulations to allow a change from a non-conforming use to a more conforming use for the construction of a new bank with administrative offices at 851 and 867 Enfield Street, zoned BL, with an Enfield Street Design District Overlay, Map 26, Lots 22, 23, Troiano Professional Center, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by October 7)
Frank Troiano and Anthony Troiano, Jr. appeared before the Commission representing the owner/applicant, Troiano Professional Center LLC. They are requesting a special use permit for 851 and 867 Enfield Street to change a nonconforming use to a more conforming use for the construction of a new bank with administrative offices for Enfield Federal Savings. Enfield Federal Savings is represented tonight by David O'Connor, John Parda and Greg Stroiney. Also present were the design architect, Chuck Snell, along with Scott Snow, Brian O'Donnell, the lead architect for the project, and Guy Hesketh from Hesketh and Associates.
Mr. Snell stated their firm has been retained by the Troiano family and Enfield Federal Savings to provide design build services as it relates to the proposed Enfield Federal main office. For the past thirty years, they have specialized in financial institutions, restorations and sensitive renovations of buildings of this character.
Guy Hesketh of F. A. Hesketh Associates, 6 Creamery Brook, East Granby discussed the site development involved in the proposed application by Troiano Professional Center LLC. He presented a copy of the landscape plan showing the main features of the site.
Mr. Hesketh stated the site is located right across the street from the Town Hall on the northeast corner of Enfield Street and Elm Street. It is comprised of lots #22 and #23 and the two combined lots total 1.33 acres. The site previously had three homes. They are proposing an 18,000 square foot building to house a bank and the bank's administrative offices. Located to the north side of the bank, four drive-through partitions are proposed. Two of those will be full service teller and two will be ATM machines. The site is located in the Business Local zone. They have designed their site to comply with the requirements of the Enfield Zoning Ordinance except for a few items which will be discussed specifically.
Mr. Hesketh stated in the Business Local zone a maximum of twenty percent is allowed for building coverage. They propose coverage of less than fourteen percent for this site. The lot coverage is under sixty-five percent where a maximum of sixty-six percent is allowed. The front yard setback in the BL zone is 60'; however, in the design overlay district, it is within the purview of this Commission to reduce that by half. They are requesting that the front setback be 30' which is shown on the plans. That includes the front yard setback to both Elm Street and Enfield Street. The rear and side yards are in conformance with over 80' on the proposed side yard.
Mr. Hesketh stated they have done an analysis regarding the parking requirements. They are required to have 67 parking spaces and they are providing 67 spaces. There are a number of design elements they have incorporated to meet the Enfield Street overlay district regulations. These include a front door with New England architectural design although customers will primarily enter the bank from the rear. The landscape elements include a number of different species of trees and other vegetation. They will also incorporate fencing and screening that will add to the site.
Mr. Hesketh stated they are proposing a pedestal clock and a flagpole in front of the building. Access to the site will be from Elm Street and also from Enfield Street. In working with staff and the local traffic authority and after doing a traffic analysis, they are providing safe ingress and egress from the site. There are adequate site distances on both of the intersections they are proposing. As you exit on Enfield Street, it would be a right turn out only. The reason for this is because of the queuing distances that occur on Enfield Street.
Mr. Hesketh stated there is a larger parking field adjacent to the existing building which is located on Enfield Street. They are proposing parking in the rear with handicapped accessibility close to the door to meet the building code requirements. On the adjacent property to the east they are providing screening with the installation of a six-foot fence.
Mr. Hesketh stated one design modification they are requesting under Section 3.40 of the ordinance regarding nonconformities is a reduction of the Type C buffer of 34' wide. They are proposing a 16' landscaped area. The landscaped area will be bermed and include a fence. They believe an adequate buffer will be provided by these additional features. There is a requirement to have the parking set back 25' from the right of way. They are proposing one small area where the parking is reduced to six feet and another small area where the parking is reduced to eight feet. The reason for this is they need to have the minimum number of parking spaces required for operational reasons and to meet the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Hesketh stated the other modification they are requesting under Section 3.40 is the actual building height. The regulations have a maximum of 24'. They are requesting 35' 8". The reason for this is to meet the intent of the design elements that are specified in the Enfield Street Overlay District and to maintain the architectural integrity of the building.
Chairman DiPace stated a white vinyl fence is included on the back of the property. The plans also show a four-foot fence on the side where the roof top units are but the color is not confirmed. Chairman DiPace asked if that fence will also be white. Mr. Hesketh stated the details of that have to be worked out with the architect to make sure the integrity is maintained. Their intent is to have something that is aesthetically pleasing. Chairman DiPace saw a need for the color of this fence to be identified prior to the vote on this application. Mr. Hesketh stated their intent is to provide a resolution this evening.
Mr. Hesketh stated regarding the grading and drainage of the site, there are three points of discharge to the storm water management. They have one point of discharge which is an intermittent water course located on the northeast portion of the property. There are two other points of discharge to the storm drainage system and those are located on Elm Street and Enfield Street. The storm water management consists of storm water catch basins, manholes, underground culverts and separator structures. They have also incorporated a unique feature which is a storm tech ground water infiltration storage system. These are galleys similar to what is installed for a septic system. The clean runoff from the site is directed into an underground containment system made of heavy duty plastic with crushed stone on the outside. There is an overflow system attached which serves to mitigate peak discharge runoff from the impervious areas. Mr. Giner confirmed this is similar to what was done on High Street for the after-school day care.
Mr. Hesketh stated regarding utilities, they have water connections proposed off Enfield Street for fire protection and domestic water service, telephone and electric. In addition, there is a sanitary sewer service that will connect to the sanitary sewer on Enfield Street.
Regarding sedimentation and erosion control, Mr. Hesketh noted the plan includes a silt fence with oak stakes and fabric to capture any sediment and keep the contractors from going off the property. In addition, around each of the catch basins they have included a hay bale erosion check to further capture sediments. As mandated by the Connecticut Soil Erosion Guidelines, there is a construction exit with anti-tracking pads to avoid the material escaping on to the street.
Mr. Hesketh stated they are proposing a separator structure approved by the Connecticut Department of Transportation and he elaborated on the effectiveness of this structure.
Mr. Hesketh stated they have submitted a traffic analysis indicating that there are no adverse impacts to traffic. The town staff has also indicated there are no outstanding concerns regarding the drainage analysis.
Chuck Snell introduced Brian O'Donnell, a key member of their design build team, to discuss the elevations and the drive-through area. He added part of the design on the exterior is by Peter Whitman, a historical architectural consultant.
Brian O'Donnell presented two aspects of the project, the interior and exterior. Regarding the interior, the building is a steel framed structure with a brick veneer exterior. It has a square footage of approximately 18,000 square feet not including a small attic that houses the mechanical equipment. The first level is approximately 5,000 square feet and the structure includes a full basement of 5,000 square feet. The basement contains an employee lounge, some restrooms, a book vault, and the majority is storage.
Mr. O'Donnell discussed the interior layout of the building which includes an elevator. The majority of the people will be entering the bank from the rear parking lot. They will enter into the main public lobby of the bank where there are six tellers located. There are also two customer service representatives in this public area of the bank. There are some semi-public areas of the bank which include the loan officers' areas. There are two conference rooms and an investment office at the rear of the building. This is organized so that people can come in after hours and use the investment office without having to enter the bank proper. There are four drive-through lanes, two teller lanes and two ATM lanes. There are also some restrooms on this floor along with the branch manager's office which has a good view of both the public lobby and the teller area.
Mr. O'Donnell stated the upstairs of the building includes an executive wing over the drive-through area and general office space toward Elm Street. Both areas share bathroom facilities, a kitchenette and a copy/fax area. On this floor there are seven loan work spaces, six retail banking work spaces, and six accounting spaces. In the executive area, the President's office is located in the corner and there are six other executive offices and two administrative areas. There is also a board room which seats fourteen people around the table.
Mr. O'Donnell identified on the plans the small stairway that goes up to the small attic area which houses the mechanical equipment.
Mr. O'Donnell stated they met with town officials on June 9 and they received comments from staff. They have fine tuned the elevations and building materials since that time. He clarified that it was not their intent to try to replicate any specific historical period. They are trying to develop a traditional building that complements the town and works well with the intersection of Elm Street and Enfield Street. They felt this building would be a nice counter point to the Town Hall.
Mr. O'Donnell stated the major materials of this building are brick and cast stone. The brick they are proposing is a red/brown brick and the mortar is proposed to be the same color of the brick to give a monolithic appearance to the building. The cast stone will be cast stone coins in a brownstone color which stylistically would put this building more in the latter part of the nineteenth century. They initially had dormers but they have since been made taller to give them a stronger appearance. The windows in the building were made wider and more uniform in size from the first floor to the second floor but they still have a special more decorative treatment on the first level with the cast stone headers. The reason for that is to express the important function of the retail banking that takes place on the first floor of the building.
Mr. O'Donnell stated one feature of the design is the cast stone band that separates the first and second floor and is also carried through to the drive-through to unify the building. On the main portico they have increased the size of the brick on either side and increased the height of the arch to emphasize the chandelier on the upper and lower levels. They have used soldier course that will match the soldier course along the cornice to tie the elements together.
Mr. O'Donnell stated the rear elevation includes a formal entry with some columns to emphasize that this is the main entry to the building.
Mr. O'Donnell stated it was their intent to design a building that works for the needs of the bank, present and future, and a building that will fit in well with Enfield and improve the character of this focal area of the town.
Mr. Snell showed Commission members some of the materials that will be used on the building. They are planning a three-tiered chandelier and they have boxed out the ceiling in a conference room to get the necessary height. They have a floor running through from the first to the second. What they have done is in the waiting area on the first floor, they raised the ceiling as high as they can. There is another chandelier creating the image of a five-tier chandelier. In the evening, they would have the lights on with a timer that would go off at approximately twelve o'clock.
Mr. Snell stated around the perimeter of the parking lot, they propose acorn lighting with light control similar to the lighting in the Town Hall parking lot. They have a period clock approximately fifteen and a half feet in height, 3' in diameter which is reminiscent of the type of architecture seen in the nineteenth century. Mr. Snell then presented the various exterior samples to the Commission.
Mr. Snell stated they propose to use a red brick, either water struck or sand cast, with a colored mortar. He presented samples of the color of the cut stone and noted they plan to set up test panels to determine the final color. They invite members of the Commission to visit the site at the appropriate time.
Mr. Snell stated the roof material is an architectural grade forty-year shingle that will simulate slate at the proposed elevation. They have designed this building to have almost zero maintenance and Mr. Snell elaborated on the use of wood like materials that need to be painted only once. They plan to use fiberglass or extruded aluminum in some areas which will look like wood. It is their intent to have the maintenance costs kept as low as possible.
Mr. Frank Troiano requested comments from the Commission and requested a timely conclusion to this application. They are hoping to get into the ground in the fall.
Chairman DiPace stated earlier he asked about the proposed fencing on the roof top. The plans state four-foot high Westbrook PVC ornamental fence or equal. Chairman DiPace would like the specific materials and colors defined.
Mr. Snell stated they will come up with a sketch tonight showing brick piers with stone casts at the four corners and with a close wrought iron type fencing in black picket. This design will hide the condensing units, allow them to breathe appropriately and fit in with the style of architecture. Mr. Snell stated they would have brick pier at five feet with a stone cap and then wrought iron with three horizontal members and vertical pickets. Between the center point of eight feet, at four feet, they would have a larger wrought iron vertical member.
Mr. Snell presented the sketch showing the vertical brick piers with a brown stone cap with the wrought iron in between. They would then have landscaping to infill. The order would be landscaping, then the fence and then the condenser unit on the other side.
Mr. Hesketh noted there have been some changes to the building since their initial plan and he corrected that the building height is now 44' 7 and one-half inches. Mr. O'Donnell confirmed the ordinance says the 24' maximum is measured to the mid point of the gable and that distance is 35' 10" but to the top of the roof is 44'7 and one-half inches.
Commissioner Duren asked about the specifics of the traffic study submitted. Mr. Hesketh stated the DOT measurements were 16,100 vehicles on Route 5 with 1,412 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour. The 1,412 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour include 709 vehicles in the north bound direction and 703 vehicles in the south bound direction. In the west bound and east bound directions on Route 220, there are 1,260 vehicles at the p.m. peak hour, 474 vehicles in the west bound direction and 593 vehicles in the east bound direction. These numbers are 2001 generation numbers and in order to use them, they supplemented the state counts of manual turning movements at the intersection of Route 220 and Route 5. Those counts were done on June 15 and 19, 2004. The counts were performed during the p.m. peak commuter and shopping hours and also the Saturday shopping hours.
Mr. Hesketh stated they weighted the 2001 volumes assuming a two percent growth factor to reflect the state's typical standard and applied that. They also applied the Institute of Traffic Engineer trip generation numbers for the facility. In their analysis, the result was the signalized intersection at Route 5 and Route 220 will operate at a level of service "C" or better at all times. At the site drive on Route 5, south bound vehicles excluding the left turn into the site will have a minimal delay and a level of service "A." The same level of service "A" will be provided to vehicles turning left and entering the site from Route 220. The south bound exiting movements will have a level of service "D" with delays up to 33.9 seconds during the p.m. peak hour and a level of service "C" with delays up to 20.3 seconds during Saturday peak hours. Mr. Hesketh stated these levels of service are typical delays that you would have with any driveway along Route 220. They found there would be acceptable levels of service at the intersection of Route 220 and Route 5. While it is easier to get into the site than to leave the site, the levels of service are acceptable. The traffic report further indicates that there are adequate site distances available in the driveways and they are in excess of 600' in each direction which meets the state guidelines for highway design speed of fifty miles per hour.
Commissioner Egan asked if this project has received State Traffic Control certification. Mr. Hesketh stated at this time they have not but they have had preliminary conversations with the analysts who have indicated they do not see any issues with the proposal as presented. The DOT will not allow construction of the curb cuts until such time as they do their review and will not issue an encroachment permit until everything is complete. Mr. Hesketh noted the STC cannot officially act until this Commission makes a determination.
Commissioner Egan suggested a condition be added regarding the STC approval. He noted that traffic control is one of the Commission's criteria and there was a concern about traffic. There is the public health and safety issue involved in the Commission's evaluation of this permit. Commissioner Egan suggested a condition so they would have to come back before this Commission if the curb cuts are not granted by the state. Mr. Hesketh stated they would have to do so because if the STC indicates something will significantly vary from what they are proposing with the driveway cuts, it would require a site plan modification.
Mr. Giner clarified the process and stated the state won't review the project in detail until the Commission acts. What occurs is the building permit cannot be issued until the STC certificate is received. Mr. Giner noted there will be no building permit issued and should the STC require any changes, this applicant would have to come back and get either an administrative approval for minor changes or Commission approval if there is a major redesign of the site. Any alteration to the driveway would have to come back to the Commission for approval.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the Troiano's will be retaining ownership of the property and Frank Troiano confirmed they will. It is a build to suit and Enfield Federal is the sole tenant of the property.
Commissioner Egan stated the engineer said there should be some type of permit or release by the property owner for the rip rap and the drainage. Inland Wetlands has indicated they received an approval from the neighbor making the application. Frank Troiano stated the question did come up at the first meeting they had with the Wetlands Commission in June. On the second review two weeks later, they had a review by the Assistant Town Attorney Maria Stavropolous to make sure they had proper authority. They are also in the process of pursuing purchase of that property. They have a legal option for that property and are in the process of executing that option to purchase the property. By the time this project is completed, they will own that property which will solve the problem. Mr. Giner stated it is included in the conditions that that be clarified.
Mr. Giner stated town staff meetings with the applicant prior to tonight. Staff would have preferred that the driveways line up at the intersection but this is physically impossible. Given the intersection that is existing, the layout of the driveway is probably the safest that could be achieved there.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience for their comments.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He stated with what they are asking for regarding a setback and the way they are doing their driveways, the result will be a crowded situation. He reminded the Commission there was a death right next door to this site because of traffic. This will increase traffic and he questioned if the town will incur a liability if they permit this to happen and someone else is killed. This applicant has been before the Wetlands Commission and it is Mr. Woods' understanding that the land in the back is wetlands. He questioned if the state has been asked to change a wetlands situation. Mr. Woods asked if there is an environmental impact study with this application. He stated the Commission should know if this project is going to lower the water table out there resulting in a loss of wetlands for the town.
Mr. Woods stated as he looks at the plans with the request for a 30' setback, there will be a loss of the openness of this intersection. The Town Hall and CVS are both set way back and Mr. Woods felt this building should be also. He felt the proposed lighting will also be a distraction in a major intersection.
Mr. Woods stated he feels there will be a big traffic problem and the Commission should ask for a redesign. Regarding the height of the building, Mr. Woods did not feel the town should approve a building that is higher than the Town Hall. It will start to overpower the intersection being that close to the road and will change the character of the intersection. The town will lose what they have now which is a very pretty area.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, complimented the appearance of the proposed building. However, he questioned how the reduced setback will affect Route 5 and if it would be better if the building were set back further. He noted the town has requirements for a reason and he questioned the proposal to make the setback half of what is required. In his opinion, that reduced setback is a problem.
Chairman DiPace stated having talked with town staff members regarding the setback of the building, part of the reason why the setback was changed is normally the building would be set further back with parking in the front by the sidewalk. What the town tried to create here was a building where there would be no parking in the front.
Mr. Giner stated that is correct. The Enfield Design Overlay Zone does allow the Commission to approve setbacks of 30' and not have parking in the front. The whole purpose was to avoid strip shopping centers and provide a pedestrian friendly facade. Mr. Giner further pointed out that the setback is measured to the front property line. At the Enfield Street side, the actual setback to the pavement would be about 50' at its closest point and it widens out to 60 plus feet at its northern part. Along southern Elm Street, the setback is about 45'.
Commissioner Lefakis asked about the setback for the house formerly located on this property. If the house was closer to the street, this would actually be an improvement to what was located there previously.
Commissioner Hickey stated the whole concept today is to encourage street scapes and to encourage no parking in the front of the building in order to make it more pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Hickey noted this building is attempting to do just that and a 30' setback is not insignificant.
Mr. Giner stated in places like Hazardville Village there is a maximum setback of 20'. In the Thompsonville Village Center, zero is allowed and a maximum of ten-foot setbacks. While this is not a village center, the design intent for the overlay district was to avoid strip centers in new construction.
Commissioner Duren questioned if this setback meets all the rest of the setbacks all the way up on that side of Enfield Street. Mr. Giner stated with the day care center, a good portion of their parking is in the state right of way. The proposed building has the same setback as the Nuger building where the day care is located. While this building does line up with the building housing the day care, it won't appear to because there will be parking in front of the day care building.
Mr. Hesketh commented that this application will be reviewed in detail by the State Traffic Commission and representatives of DOT. They will not permit this project unless they believe there is adequate protection for public health and safety.
Mr. Snell stated he would like the Commission to consider the sketch submitted with the brick piers at 8' on center with the stone cap and the black wrought iron fence for the screening of the condensing units at the side of the building. They will then landscape the area to create a total screen.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission will add a condition to the motion that the plans be modified to reflect the condenser screening prior to construction.
Frank Troiano stated they did not place this building closer then the former house located on the corner. In every respect, it is farther away from the intersection. The recommendation from Town staff was to make sure that the building was in the front of the parking. Mr. Troiano noted this building was meant to complement the Town Hall but it is by far not as high as the Town Hall.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public for a second time.
Charles Woods asked that the Commission think about the buildings that were there before, what the regulations were at the time and how wide the roads in town were. The road widths have been increased. As far as parking in the front, this Commission gave CVS a very hard time about their building and they have parking in the front. In that case, it was permitted and the building was set way back. He thought that the Commission should be consistent with the approval of applications in this town.
Commissioner Duren referenced Inland Wetlands Hearing #418 which should be made part of the record of this hearing. Commissioner Duren stated a Wetlands permit was issued by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote of that agency.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2462 - Application for Special Use Permit under Section 3.40 of the zoning regulations to allow a change from a non-conforming use to a more conforming use for the construction of a new bank with administrative offices at 851 and 867 Enfield Street, zoned BL with an Enfield Street Design District Overlay, Map 26, Lots 22, 23, Troiano Professional Center, LLC, Applicant/Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Layout Plan Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet LA-1; Scale 1" =20'; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Landscape Plan Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet LS-1; Scale 1" =20'; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Grading and Erosion Control Plan Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet GR-1; Scale 1" =20'; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Utility Plan Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet UT-1; Scale 1" =20'; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Details Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet SD-1; Scale: "As Noted"; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Details Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet SD-2; Scale: "As Noted"; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Details Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet SD-3; Scale: "As Noted"; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Details Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet SD-5; Scale: "As Noted"; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 06-30-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Notes Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet NT-1; Scale: "As Noted"; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 07-14-04 and revised to 08-23-04.
"Property Survey Prepared for Troiano Professional Center, LLC, 851 & 867 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet PS-1; Scale: 1" =40'; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 04-20-04 and revised to 06-21-04.
"Drawing Title: West Elevation, Proposed: Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Enfield, CT" Drawing Number: A401; Scale: "As Noted"; by New England Design Associates, Inc." dated 8/23/04.
"Drawing Title: North Elevation, Proposed: Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Enfield, CT" Drawing Number: A402; Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" by New England Design Associates, Inc." dated 8/23/04.
"Drawing Title: South Elevation, Proposed: Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Enfield, CT" Drawing Number: A403; Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" by New England Design Associates, Inc." dated 8/23/04.
"Drawing Title: East Elevation, Proposed: Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Enfield, CT" Drawing Number: A404; Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" by New England Design Associates, Inc." dated 8/23/04.
"Drawing Title: Basement Furniture Plan, Proposed: Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Enfield, CT" Drawing Number: F200; Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" by New England Design Associates, Inc." dated 8/23/04.
"Drawing Title: First Floor Furniture Plan, Proposed: Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Enfield, CT" Drawing Number: F201; Scale: 1/4"=1'-0" by New England Design Associates, Inc." dated 8/23/04.
"Drawing Title: Second Floor Furniture Plan, Proposed: Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Enfield, CT" Drawing Number: F202; Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" by New England Design Associates, Inc." dated 8/23/04.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The Applicant shall present written permission from the property owner for the proposed rip-rap work along the north side of the parcel.
2. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
3. A schedule and description of responsibility for maintenance of the storm water system shall be on the mylars.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. One set of mylars and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for signature of the Commission.
6. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
7. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
8. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
9. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
10. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
11. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
12. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
13. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
14. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
15. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained within a year of the effective date of this approval or the permit shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with Section 9.20.3 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
16. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
17. The mylars shall reflect the screening of the condenser units consisting of brick piers and black wrought iron fencing and the appropriate landscaping per the drawing submitted by the applicant's architect on September 2, 2004.
Commissioner Duren requested that the record include that the Commission received clarification from the Town Engineer on some of the questions he had raised in his memo dated September 2, 2004. Mr. Giner stated that is covered in Condition #1.
Commissioner Duren cited a memo from Neil Angus dated September 1, 2004 concerning a wetlands issue that was approved administratively.
Commissioner Duren noted the lack of a report from the Traffic Safety Officer. There is also no report from the Fire Marshal but the applicant cannot receive a building permit without such a report. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner resend the letter to the Fire Marshal regarding the need for reports on applications with a note that if there is no response on a particular application that the Commission will determine there are no Fire Marshal related problems with that application.
Chairman DiPace, Commissioner Duren and Commissioner Egan made comments in favor of this proposal.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates McGill and Sarno voting.
a. PH#2466 - Special Use Permit and modification of plans previously approved to construct a 42 feet x 22 feet wash bay addition, modify landscape islands, provide pedestrian access to adjacent Nissan dealership at 20 Palomba Drive, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 335, LIA Auto Group, Applicant. (Must close by October 7).
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing and requested input from the public. At the applicant's request included in a letter to Jose Giner dated August 23, 2004 from Dana Steele of J. R. Russo and Associates, this hearing was continued to September 16, 2004.
OLD BUSINESS
a. PH#2394 - Request for modification of previously approved condition for Red Robin Restaurant at 25 Hazard Avenue.
Mr. Giner stated in the initial approval of PH#2394, old approval language was used but the regulations had changed. Prior to the change, the language was a date certain after the hearing. When the regulations were redone, special permits now include the language "should be expiring according to our regulations within a year from the effective date." By State Law, the definition of the effective date is when it is filed on the land records. When they approved the condition, PH#2394 did not comply with the current regulations with respect to the expiration date. The date came and went and now the applicant is requesting that rather than come back for a new approval, that the Commission modify the original approval and that condition to make it consistent with the current regulations. Red Robin Restaurant is already under construction and they have begun the site work.
Attorney Hays stated what happened is the special permit that was signed and recorded stated the building permit had to be issued by July 24, 2004. At the time when the Commission approved this, the regulations had changed. It should have said that the permit will expire if construction has not commenced within one year of the effective date of the permit. This is what the regulations required at the time of approval. Attorney Hays stated what probably happened is the old standard conditions were used. She asked that this be corrected and clarified so that in the future there won't be any issue if somebody goes back. The special permit would be correctly on the land records. They received a building permit and they are under construction with the building. They would like to correct this so that in the future there are no questions regarding the expiration date.
Chairman DiPace confirmed that a building permit was applied for by Red Robin in May so they have made every effort to try to get this building permit on time.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to accept the following modifications as proposed by the applicant:
"Special Permit PH#2394, approved by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission on July 24, 2003 and recorded in Volume 1749 at Page 298 of the Enfield Land Records, is modified by eliminating Condition 16 and replacing it with the following:
"16. Construction of facilities as approved must commence by within one year of the effective date of this Special Permit and be completed within five (5) years of the effective date of this Special Permit or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
"The Condition 16 in the original approval was a scrivener's error and not in compliance with the Zoning Regulations at the time of approval and the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission acknowledged and corrected such error at its September 2, 2004 meeting."
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1279 - Site Plan Review application to finish siding house 53-57 College Street, zoned TVCZ, Map 27, Lot 103, Kenneth Swart, Applicant/Owner.
Kenneth Swart appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Swart discussed some of the improvements he has made at 53-57 College Street. He was going to install a piece of dental mold over the front cornice. However, after meeting with the Enfield Revitalization Committee, they told him he could bend some aluminum and put it back the way it was in a crown molding shape.
Mr. Swart stated the original windows had the old storm windows and were broken. Commissioner Duren noted the building was affected by a fire. Mr. Swart stated the fire was in the back part of the building. The building was run down and needed repairs. He installed a bow window in the front to get the property up and going. He understands that it doesn't match both sides with this type of window.
Chairman DiPace asked if the front of the building is near to the sidewalk. Mr. Swart stated the sidewalk is a wider sidewalk than all of the surrounding areas. The sidewalk is extended to meet the building. Chairman DiPace stated this was always the case and the building used to be a barber shop.
Commissioner Duren stated there is much more to do to this building and with this application, the Commission would be doing approvals in a piecemeal approach. He also noted there are windows that have to be done and there is no fire escape. Commissioner Duren questioned how this building received a c.o.
Chairman DiPace stated this is a three-family home and he questioned if it has received approval from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Swart stated it has not. Mr. Giner stated this application is not a request for a change of use.
Mr. Swart stated when he came in initially, he said the building was a four-family. It was a mistake because there are four meter sockets. He does not intend to change the number of units.
Chairman DiPace stated the violation was that this building was converted from a three-family to a four-family without the proper permits. Mr. Swart stated he assumed the home was a four-family because of the four meters but it is a three-family with a mixed use. The first floor is all one unit and is commercial and residential. The former barber shop is an office for his home improvement business. Mr. Swart stated he lives downstairs in the back apartment and the store front to the right hand side. One side is an office and one sides he lives in.
Mr. Giner stated there has been no change. It was a three-family and it is staying a three-family. Mr. Swart was cited because he included in his building permit application that this home was a four-family.
Commissioner Duren stated the building needs to be cleaned up.
Mr. Swart stated he was issued the building permit and he began the construction and then he received a cease and desist. Chairman DiPace stated the building permit was issued September 11, 2003. Mr. Swart stated he was granted permission to do the interior work by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Chairman DiPace asked if Mr. Swart has any drawings to present to the Commission. Also, pictures of what the building looked like previously and what it looks like now would be acceptable. Mr. Swart stated he is planning to put the building back to the way it was.
Further discussion followed led by Chairman DiPace about the need for a drawing so the Commission knows what they are approving. Commissioner Duren saw a need for someone on town staff to help this applicant.
Mr. Swart discussed some of the improvements he would like to make. These include adding another slider on the other side because the building no longer has store fronts. Commissioner Lefakis cited the record supply store on the corner of High Street that had store front windows and when it was converted, the result was an attractive building. Chairman DiPace asked that the applicant look at that building.
Mr. Swart stated the Revitalization Committee was trying to keep the appearance of the building. Mr. Giner will have Mr. Swart meet with Mr. Alsbaugh prior to coming back to the Commission at their next meeting with a drawing.
Mr. Giner cited a need for an extension of this application for five days in order to reach the September 16, 1004 meeting. Mr. Swart agreed to such an extension.
Following additional discussion on various aspects of the building, Chairman DiPace asked that the applicant return to the next meeting with a drawing showing what he proposes to do. Chairman DiPace also noted receipt of information from the Enfield Revitalization Committee showing some good ideas. Mr. Giner will send this information to all Commission members.
This application was continued to September 16, 2004 pending submittal of drawings from the applicant. This applicant also agreed to a five-day extension of the application.
BOND RELEASES
a. SPR#1176 - Request for landscape bond release in the amount of $11,150 for Scitico Plaza Car Wash
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the bond release for Scitico Plaza Car Wash in the amount of $11,150. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates McGill and Sarno voting.
b. PH#2151/2158 - Request for landscape bond release in the amount of $6,900 for Riverview Estates (off Old King Street).
Commissioner Duren cited a memo from Neil Angus dated July 19, 2004 regarding the size of the trees installed.
This bond release was tabled.
b. PH#2265 - Request for Erosion and Sediment bond release in the amount of $4,700 and Engineering Bond in the amount of $116,500 for Tennis Club at 226 Shaker Road.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a memo dated August 23, 2004 from John Cabbibo discussing items that have not been completed.
This bond release was tabled.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. PH#1804-1806 - Discussion regarding May 18, 2004 letter for minor modification to subdivision landscaping plan at 1 Strawberry lane.
Mr. Giner stated the conservation easement for this application at 1 Strawberry Lane assigns the authority to approve any changes to the landscape buffer to the Enfield Town Council. He will approve the landscaping changes administratively. However, regarding physical changes to the berm, it was Mr. Giner's recommendation that this request needs to be scheduled on the next Conservation Commission agenda.
c. Regulations Regarding Distances
Mr. Giner stated someone came in and proposed an ice skating rink in an industrial park. In a review of the regulations, he noticed there was a reference to commercial recreational uses, Section 6.30. It states: "The minimum separating distance between each commercial recreation use approved under this section is 2,500 feet. Such distance is measured as set forth in Section 7-2."
Mr. Giner stated there is a problem with the regulations. Section 7-2 is about erosion and sediment control. He did some research and Section 7-2 in the old regulations refers to the section regarding the distance between gas stations. The distances for gas stations are measured from property line to property line. The town's liquor regulations have a 1,000 feet separating distance and it is measured from front door to front door. What will occur is if a recreational facility is proposed on a large lot set way back, the distance would be less than 1,000 feet from property line to property line but over 3,000 feet if it was measured from front door to front door.
Mr. Giner stated there are now two ways of measuring separating distances in the regulations. The question he posed to the Commission is whether they would be amenable to having a unified way of measuring distances door to door. Otherwise, the possible commercial recreation use would not apply.
During the discussion that followed, Mr. Giner gave an example of where the distances would be with the door to door measurement and the property line to property line measurement. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner submit a proposal to the Commission for their review.
Mr. Giner stated it was his understanding that the commercial recreation regulation evolved and it was meant to avoid the possibility of having two stadiums next to each other.
Chairman DiPace stated his opinion is the line should be drawn from the front door out to the road for measurement purposes. He would not have a problem with the recreation use if they wanted to reduce the distance to 1,500'.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman DiPace saw a need for a review of the regulations regarding helipads. He discussed the possibility of a moratorium while the Commission is reviewing them. Chairman DiPace felt there should be a minimum acreage included if a helipad is requested. Mr. Giner stated there is a minimum acreage in the Business Regional zone but not in Industrial.
Discussion followed regarding the various helipads in town.
Mr. Giner stated the American Inn applicant that received approval previously would like to come in for a discussion. Chairman DiPace reported the sidewalk on that site has never been cleared of snow in the winter. Mr. Giner stated someone wants to purchase this property and reconfigure the plans to avoid the moth area. This discussion will be scheduled on an upcoming agenda.
a. Applications to be accepted
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH#2393.05 - Application for modification of approved application (Costco's and Dick's) to change facade portion (former Ames store) for Dollar Tree Store at 130-136 Elm, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 329, SEA Enfield Stateline Plaza, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for October 7, 2004.
PH#2467 - Application for special use permit to use property for a church and church school (kindergarten to third grade) with a temporary parsonage use on the main level as space requirements demand at 177 Elm Street, zoned R-33, Map 57, Lot 266, Steven E. MacCormack, Applicant/Lily Yeh Kalk and Renee Yeh, Owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled for either October 7, 2004 or October 21, 2004.
PH#2468 - Application for a special use permit for a child care center and site plan for parking lot, playground at 18 Shaker Road, zoned I-1, Map 64, Lot 105, David DiPiero, Applicant/Dian Saia, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for October 7, 2004. Commissioner Duren had concerns regarding parking on the site.
PH#2469 - Application for a special use permit for rear lot behind 1655 and 1657 King Street, zoned R-33, Map 16, Lot 145, Chris Clark, Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for October 7, 2004.
PH#2470 - Application for one new building lot and to reconfigure two existing lots at property located behind 1655 King Street, zoned R-33, Map 16, Lot 3, Chris Clark, Applicant/Nicolas Duray and Tammy Sorensen-Duray, Owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled for October 7, 2004.
SPR#1285 - Application for emergency generator installation at 90 Parsons Road, zoned R-33, Map 11, Lot 20, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner.
This application was approved administratively by Director of Planning Jose Giner.
SPR#1286 - Application for site plan review to close off a section of driveway located at 105 Raffia Road, zoned BG, Map 67, Lot 4, Gary Raffia, Applicant, Geo Raffia &Sons, Inc., Owners.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr |
|