Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZONE CHANGE TO MF-AA 1269 (DENIED)
a • CONNECTICUT t `,>�:��. TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM � . App. No. Date Receive : IMPORTANT: `-gig C0„.;,,- Action or Public Hearing By: planning and Engineering Department i4r_1f require 14 days to determine applicatioi�l0,7 Receipt No. completeness. To ensure receipt of a complete application by PZC, it is strongly recommended that the application be submitted 14 days prior to the Regular Meeting at which it will be received. APPLICA T: Bradgate Associates ADDRESS: 135 Neipsic Road, Glastonbury , CT TELEPHONE: 659-2183 OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: Faith Tabernacle of Glastonbury 0 ohn Fitch Blvd . , S . Windsor , CT ADDRESS: George Batulevitz , 25 Scantic Rd . , S . Windsor CT . COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: East side of Rt . 5 (John Fitch Blvd . ) on Scantic Rd . in vicinity of East Windsor Town linp ZONE: AA-RR-FP- 1 NAME ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: John W. Netherton Brad ate Associates 135 Neipsic Road , Glastonbury , TELEPHONE: 659-2138 THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check one of the following) 1. Zone Change to MF-AA (public hearing required) 2. Subdivision 3. Open Space Subdivision (public hearing required) 4. Resubdivision (public hearing required) 5. Special Exception to Article (public hearing required) 6. Site Plan of Development 7 . Earth Filling (Section 10 ) and/or Earth Removal (Section 9 ) (public hearing required) / 8. General Plan of Development 9. Regulation Amendment: Zoning Subdivision 10. Other (-explain in detail) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE WITH SIX SETS OF THE MAPS (7 if public hearing jpps equired) END OTHER DOCUMENTS (see page 2 ) w"A—A6 LAiLtdaefzza lit7- -ner scant Owner 1/14/87 (se reverse side) TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM This application is complete and ready for Planning & Zoning Commission rec ipt only upon submission of all required documentation, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following items. Not all items are required with every application. See applicable sections of the South Windsor zoning and subdivision regulations for specific requirements. APPLICATION CHECKLIST 1. Key Map 2. Architectural Elevations/Floor Plans 3. Completed application form (in triplicate) 4. Required fees 5. Zone Change, Site Plan, Subdivision, Open Space Improve- ment, and/or General Plan of Development maps , in accordance with regulations. (Six sets - seven if public hearing required.: 6. Plans & Profiles/Drainage Calculations 7 . Conservation Plan 8 . Landscaping Plan 9 . Traffic Engineering Report 10 . Narrative. Statement 11. Sanitary Report 12. Copy of agreement to purchase land (if not the owner) 13 . Other ALL PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS ARE URGED TO CONFER WITH TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING BUREAU STAFF PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION. CONSULT PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FEE SCHEDULE. • 1 i11 !R7 JAMESTOWN VILLAGE Route 5 and Scantic Road South Windsor, Connecticut D_e_ve_lo_per: Bradgat� Associates 135 Neipsic Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 E_n_gineers: Moffittf and Duffey, Inc. 178 Oakwood Drive Glastonbury, CT ,06033 Site Planners: Landscape Architectural Design Associates ------------- P.O. Box 183, 100B Main Street Collinsville, CT' 06022 Site and_Zoning_Data Site Size: 73.98+/- acres 72.52+ acres Town of South Windsor 1 .38+/- acres Town of East Windsor Existing Zoning: Town of South Windsor RR 30.42+/- acres A20 1 .9 +!- acres FP _ 35.2 +!- acres I _5_.0 +1- acres 72.52+/- acres Proposed Zoning: Town of South Windsor MFAA 37.32+/- acres FP 35_2 72.52+/- acres Existing Zoning: Town of East Windsor A-1 1 .38+/- acres Proposed Zoning: Town of East Windsor A-1 1 .38+/- ,acres JAMESTOWN VILLAGE Page 2 Propoaed_Develoomemt Density Calculations: Total Site Size for Calculations: 72.52+/- acres Deduct: Slopes over 15%: 5.84+/- acres Utility Easements: .70+/- acre *Flood Plain: 35.2 +/- acres *Wetlands: 3.6 +/- acres Net Buildable Land: 27.18+/- acres *Total on-site wetlands within South Windsor, 30+/- acres, 26.4+/- acres are within flood plain with 3.6+/- acres beyond flood area. 27.18+/- acre new buildable land ® 8 unita/acre = 217.44 -units maximum Density Proposed: 217 units possible 148 units proposed (68% of possible - 5.5 units/ acre) Unit Type: A 20 2 Bedrooms B 7 3 Bedr000ms C 10 3 Bedrooms D 9 2 Bedrooms F 4 3 Bedrooms G 10 1 Bedroom H 88 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom: 10 - 6.5% (40% max. allowed) 2 Bedrooms: 117 - 79.5% 3 Bedrooms: 21 - 14.0% (30% max. allowed) Developed Recreational Land: Required: 148 units 0 600 s.f./ unit 88,800 a.f. Proposed: 90,000 +/- a.f. 1 . ) Tennis courts and open recreational area: 47,000 s.f. 2. ) Pool and recreation center: 18,000 s.f. 3. ) Jogging trail : 2,500 1.f. ® 10 ft. width 25,000 s.f. 2S,000 s.f. Proposed Phasing: Phase I : 52 units Principal drive, pool and recreation center Phase II: 48 units Phase III : 24 units Tennis courts and open recreational area Phase IV: 24 units - ■ JAMESTOWN VILLAGE Page 3 Zoning Requirements: Minimum lot width: 200 feet Minimum site size: 15 acres Maximum building height: 35 ft./ 2 stories Maximum lot coverage: 60% Proposed lot Coverage: 13x Yard Requirements: Front yard: 75 feet Side yard: 35 feet Rear yard: 25 feet *Buffers: 25 feet (side and rear) *Buffer area shall be planted with rows of evergreens 15 feet o.c. , minimum height 5 feet. Minimum Setbacks: Minimum setback between dwelling units e 2 stories: 30 feet Minimum setback between facing walls of dwelling units ® 2 stories, with both walla containing at least one :window: 50 feet. --Minimum setback of dwelling unit or other building from center line of principal street: 40 feet --Minimum setback of garage from centerline of principal street: 25 feet --Minimum setback between any unenclosed parking space and dwelling units: 15 feet Parking Requirements: Parking Required: 2 per unit Parking Provided: 315 spaces --148 unit& 0 2/unit - 296 parking spaces 148 locking garages 148 unencloaed spaces --19 parking spaces at recreation facility (including 3 handicap spaces) Size of Parking Space: 9 ft. x 18 ft. Width of Aisle and Principal Drive: 26 ft. Parking Setbacks: --25 ft. from enclosed parking apace to centerline of principal street --50 ft. from unencloaed parking space to property line --15 ft. from unencloaed parking apace to dwelling unit JAMESTOWN VILLAGE Page 4 Landscaping Requirements: Sections should contain no more than 25 cars, landscape strips and planted areas to be provided. Lighting Provided: Standard - 250 watt metallic halide Bollard - 3 ft. 6 in. height, used in walk areas Handicap access provided to all recreational facilities s c i Asa resident and neighbor in the area of the proposed zone change to MF-AA for Jamestown Village in South Windsor, I support the concept for this area as proposed by Bradgate Associates . NAME,` SIGNATTURE DATE ADDRESS S� / �� V /72 �f 0 C L� �� �C�• l �:�.o-L;_ �'..c.�{� �1 i '7A'7 ,Bon n e 0 tic R. cld"ZAZ c 014- r 2— 1-7 - R 7 8' 14-en ry 1P)d , con AL IcL. ft')D A. 4Lt.Fa1 �Le�� 9—►-7-97 /}PT 5-al r41tLPvND RD Bpallo W Ro0 k c As a resident and neighbor in the area of the proposed zone change to MF-AA for Jamestown Village in South Windsor , I support the concept for this area as proposed by Bradgate Associates. NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS 4a Lei vtdSo� l ust F--oorni-t 3� q-a Ktlt �6 �soc PURCHASE Ati I: ?' ! :�;� �1�j•� � AGREEMENT made this 3 r d day of February 1987, by and between George A. Ratulevitz o1 25 Scant is Road , St)uth Windsor, Nart ford County , Cr;nnc,,t i Cut ( t h(I "So 11 or�� ) anti te Pr-()per-ties, Inc. ()4 74 N,)r-thea,,I.t rr, Rc)u1t!vard , Nay;hua , Hillsborough County , New N<>Im}��;h : ` l t h , "}pia;,,.•-" ) . i ,I l ')�)V• '.'� WF1il;t'1 1 attached ho- 1 I,,,t , 1 i n n i x t r.l r'.` .I � I J•`,. r t l i.7.,t � i I t�! t m 1 c i`.. u t + is •' 1 t � 1i II . NC,1% i:! !';:�r�};},, 1n c+_)�i,; I (I the mutual prernis,_-:-• and c,)vcnaw -,ot F art h , t 'i•` parties herot ) ha\.,.,, agr(-od and h(21- 5y agroc at, fol lc)w , : S_,�ct lCM 1 . PrOpertyr Lc 1) Sol l�+" Promi .;k,•, a•, it terms and c,)n,lit i ->n•• hor,2inaftPr -,et f-+rth . f IN WITNESS :THEREOF, Buyer and Seller have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and date first above-written . a' WITNESS : FAI'PH TABERNACLE OF GLASTONBURY (SFr A,E-R) B RADGAT'E P ROPE R-j 1.ES , I N1 r BY (g�JYER) Then personally appeared before me the above named and acknowledged the foregoing to be nis free act and deed before me Justice of the Peace/Notary Public My Commission Expires : GLASTPNS/PNS7/IDD I . it 06/03/86 MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: 7 BY: A►S , PROJECT 5±p SHEET_ OF�, DATE- CHKD BY: SUBJECT JOB NO. �eue� o�M� 6 � - s 2S• q- c ' S - _?-st j eoe_6 6 - - CK Fla je- e-I of"ke-J , actf t i t � � f —- <' � e ►� -#'��t . cat. -. etiV e ' i t H-7 1 ' + a , + , MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: z ? BY: -rA-ss PROJECT S! lei +_? SHEET OF J DATE• CH KD BY: SUBJECTS a ���� J� ____.�,�JOB NO. A c-lets _- I j f ' 1 ! 3q� �--� i _ � �__ �___- (- ._____._.--•-- v i 5 t X L 1 3 3 � - MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: BY: A-S, PROJECT ej JG�1 4 SHEET , OF DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT Iye,,JOB NO. ----- -- i 3 c�aVaI_ - - - -. , F i F ! ! 3 r t j j { - _ f i i o , .. 03� � q 9 o a ato . 8as�n rtt � � .•r Q t 6 er (dater �aed a ,. •. Na. :• s✓Pe i't1notf� Ilaid Par zone /n F/off Cad f t} /e% 4/eV, 1.�, calawr A !, 14 r, �. < n q6 3 z 1� 6•N� �8 2� /D �•s � y z0 QP S = �a goo d . • CBOT Ora��i6e /l�la�va/ leloci7y or` �Ger�an� �'vnor�ir' charf ° • • = . ��� f � JJam . .T oy 0 00T Orqir� e �l���rio/ !�/i'n la// /r71el7sl/' a C/O a a basin ,�ia% Rv u r k.L Laufer /oc� S/ e ��r�orf`� F/a�� fear zone /non- Fo a `a N. ; a fey :• /eV, L ye%c. TirnQ vtolrt Sf ,�asih I r Cu 'e5) (Qs CM-5L), eAtf%) ( `. 6/0) �e • hi . ic c�y N°• ' I • S ' Zn _ 3 • zl 3 10 Ic' { s 69 • 3,{(GO .z x ' tr Arm .0d T Orai a e A179,11 �I/loci7� w �hcr/an A'� orsg y d o r`' char} ot. A;I� DOT Ur e A l i �r lS'a h o �nns oliQrl •' '' -If �1Cx.T i RAe, d, S &,orIA V,- T U• �r LdulQr �o�J S✓o e �'�notf` F/a�J yar , � �� done /nf&7- noel /��. AEI" 2 . 2Y P �' •. / ✓ �/ !� Olo c. Time vforht 54 f� In P (ij&IF3) C1W5Z),, eA1YSG � `, l°o �i� • h1/�. %c�i C�.S 6 Z 0 i i i t C� 46-= Am C CL Iti- Old O DOT Oran a e Alantial ~Oeloc;�p of aG rand' APOffll charl J 4;1�?, 00T Ur�ino e 11/al ria/ 111fainlo// /nf��rr f „ . � s y . Arl MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: Z ;- BY: PROJECT J cd'; C_. a/1'SD c , SHEET, OF DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT ��. -- �•-D��' JOB NO. A,0q site Z . -T-„`�. ��- �n o ��to �cn.ec� c��:�.�� b�•K � S�rt e -- - ti.. _-Q''Lam�•n�. M.2t�___S ZZ• S a Ch2 c� o- ---�-__- 3 f i � [ #- i € } - r W U7 (q) T �o) • . A ' C ,9C �u r Ql S rra� V,- r Q • Qsln �i?t a. ,� l� �r Loaler �ocJ S✓o e Anof flats Pea r zone Imen- ao� Ca 1 t •. No. /ey :• �12V, L�Q l/e/o c, Tirne Slam rq F CM5L �r3�f5L ° � . h1�n. C�.S /V o. Fyn _ be- 2 S va 19.6 8© :o W 7 C • � S = �a •� Alold :o 46mP&A-fil7tigeRantlal "Velo�;'�p of �Ge�•an AMrs d r`' charf . • .T �ro�� D0T Ortl!& e illynati/ li'nin�a// f:. _.._� . fl U3 7 9 0 Ae, yu S76elra� U- 8alln I • er Zoaier ir/otJ $,'z e . Rvr�olf` F/a�J yar zone ' No. /e✓. �eY, lt� P F/off Ca�c,� c f / 1/i/o c. 7i*z vfar/n s f� A13117 Pi s, 41 051) Q' I" /Vo. i • ,� se bo -j i A x :y o C c �r Old . • '�, �trz, �rorn_ j�OT Ora��a � /Llanva/ "I/�dci�` of C��r/anr� �'vnorrr' "g charf r�b • .T �ro�� DOT �lo��rio/ fi'aI�{o y Allar MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • VEHICLE VOLUME, f40141 01461?-ft�� INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS Sv/xi lFACy Location _ �� .� � �x.4/1Ir/C 9D - S, V1/AJ4s62 Date 21 S s m�+lN 5Time j4M PE,4/< /-f OV1t Weather Surface Condition N r Traffic Control J \ � 0�► Method of Count aQ Compiled by Total Volume s/ s Time Period 7- 9 A M 61 re f q-35 100, Coan T SATE t 3P 4- 997 ly m M Notes and Comments S yrrt E7 yd'GL1 Aj4 N0Ajrj ON 4?E S' s Tg EWre-41 soyrff- OF SCAiv T/G 9-0 �}SSu»► AL z Tip-A70-F/C a2, VEL1aw/6 SDV tt4- QA,1 4 T E-.� fro&3 ro S1 6 f�-T �✓tEX_s yob�! Ski✓T/C �,� ,��4s-vs LEFT T 1 ,v--y 1/Vrp Tl� SOUrtY ENTi�.vP1VCC Ae-E 1'5e0,Y/B17-&-P NTi�Ri✓G� El 2/8 6 MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • VEHICLE VOLUME INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS Svmm.�.e y Location � C'04/?/>/G .20 - .S,`I/A/o f D0 Date L F Time a Weather Surface Condition "4 Traffic Control Method of Count t Compiled by Total Volume q cf63 1406 Time Period COv.vT iS-t 77 a Notes and Comments E1 2/86 04OFFITT AND DtTFFY, INC. o- VESICLE VOLUMz COUNT INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS Location ' `� s '� ` 'G �°� Date A4-5 6�-A &Ait 4 Time Weather C P7f?-?fe, Surface Condition Od Traffic Control 60 :fie thod •o f Count M arti crz c- • 'Comci led by Total- Vo luace 3� Time Period 7 0o � �• Q D 2 26� Notes and Comments FIGURE II-8 :iOFFITT AND DUrZY, INC. •_VESICLE VOLUHZ COQNT INTERSECTION TC?.NZNG MOVEXE.NTS Location Date Time Fr d6tq Weather C(� Surface Condition We-� Traffic Co n tro 1 L►��j k t- N ri :fie thod .o f Count r Compiled by IC -� Total Volume A n ' /g Time Period 4 9 of V 12 /32 f Notes and Comments FIGURE II-8 ,4OFFITT AND DLyrry, INC. • VESICLE VOLUMc. coaux INTERSECTION TMtNING MOVEMENTS Locat ott r'0.1 • ��' �'� ��• Date i . / s�h�� utlwk, Time Fri, etc,,, Weather Surface Condition wCT Traffic Control OL method .of Count � �t�crok •Comci led by Total Vo lume 39 Time Period 2 7 - 3 Notes and Comments - i • FIGURE II•a %1OFFITT AND DCJFFY, INC. • VESZCLE VOLLTMZ COUNT INTERSECTION TURNING HOVEXENTS Location PC( . Date F-7 Time Weather Surface Condition L-f- Traffic Control . wL N o Method ,o f Co un t Pk Compiled by Total Volume Time Period 3 Z Notes and Comments FIGURE II.B MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. * CONSULTING ENGINEERS PROJECT -1" •^�nT< SHEET - • DATE: 1�-z o-AS BY: - DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT —T JOB NO.A=; '"'^ ,Qy P A •W K: AY :--- ENDS_ -•- • I I l0 I I I i JF<<--use 4 - 4) y J. � I � I � i I I t ( l r ► , I f I ' � -T0t�1�S'• i I ( I I I '' o I l f I l I I ► I ! i gill t � � O { I I I l I I r I _..Ll Background traffic data are based on information obtained from Connecticut Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Research (666-7223) . -- Data was obtained at a point north of Sullivan Avenue and Route 5 intersection in 1983 — _ Generated data are based on information obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generated report, third edition, - July, 1984. Copies of data used are attached. . MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: 11-7.n-RSBY:. A . !;- PROJECT 6RAo �'-ATE. SHEET ' OF�to DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT JOB NO. alliD I f , I I ILIS I I I _ ( _ ( I I � I I !! 2i�ht �t r _ o oi^I '• I I I j � ! i 1 1 � • ! i t !, I l l l i l { ' o , -— - ._. .-—• ------2-�-- --�.Lor��.Ya�.,l.ec��.�t-er5�.c.-tion_�.�.lf�t�.5 �1 , �i �1 Uf1r I I--- +a • 1 I ( j l I I I I I I i ! 112 IKAPUP; P�4CAN'id �► I I � I I l i i ' I • .�. I • I- ! I I I I I I I l I l E l i f ►. i t ..� 10LJ I ( I I I i I I f I I . i i I E ► I - - _.- - Background traffic data are based on information obtained from Connecticut Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Research (666-7223) . Data was obtained at a point north of Sullivan Avenue and Route 5 intersection, in 1983 . Generated data are based on information obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generated report, third edition, - July, 1984. Copies of data used are attached. _ MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: - O- BY• S PROJECT L32A�err-rf- - SHE ET�OF/� • SUBJECT - A�;e g��ernt o� JOB NO. DATE: CHKD BY: 12 - -PEAK ,P-M LJO UR) (4 ! . ` j I i i I I I�Jlsf��tg'I �iycn=�Jc �' = I ' ' __4 p %., �-�-ta t-4►t_OuaUr�_t-�a► .iC. I I IS., b n r wt t IT t t l I I i 1 �L t I I ! } ( f { ! Yr..16 �— I \t t• � t � f { I I l i i , � I III III III - t I ` • ; I l i i i l i l l ! i � ! I i .tt gapI ' ! I , i Background traffic data are based on information obtained from Connecticut. Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Research (666-7223) . Data was obtained at a point north of Sullivan Avenue and Route 5 intersection in 1983 . Generated data are based on information obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generated report, third edition, - ' July, 1984. Copies of data used are attached. • � � IIIlI iliii ! SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Building Type Apartment ITE Land Use Code ??� "'• Independent Variable--Trips per Dwell Ing Unj:t Average Number Average Size of Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variable/Study Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 6 . 1 1 Peak A.M. Enter n . i 0 . 1- /t Hour Between Exit of 7 and 9 Total ti PiA Adjacent P.M. Enter ti ti Street Between Exit Traffic 4 and 6 Total o17. Peak A.M. Enter 0 . 1 0 Hour Exit 0 . 4 '�'• of Total Generator P.M. Enter Exit Total Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Enter Hour of Exit i Generator Total Ila 2o Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Enter Hour of Exit Generator _ Total , Source Numbers ITE Technical Committee 6A-6—Trip Generation Rates Date: =e•—1975 , Rev. 1982 M h 1 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Building Type Single—Family Detached HousinsrlTE Land Use Code 210 Independent Variable—Trips per Dwelling U Average Number Average Size of Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variable/Study Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak A.M. Enter Hour Between Exit of 7 and 9 Total Adjacent P.M. Enter Street Between Exit 0 . 17 1.2 0. 1 Traffic 4 and 6 Total 1. 00 3.0 0. 4 Peak A.M. Enter 0 .21 0.6 0.1 70 229 Hour Exit 0 .99 r of Total Generator P.M. Enter Exit Total U Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends 4 It Peak Enter h Hour of Exit Generator Total - 11ll Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Enter to o n P it Hour of Exit Generator Total Source Numbers 11 4 0 21 19 26 ' 108 , 11 L 13. 1 ITE Technical Committee 6A-6—Trip Generation Rates Date:June 4, 1975, 1979 . Rev. 1982 MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 178 OAKWOOD DRIVE RICHARD L.MOFFITT,P.E. GLASTONBURY,CONNECTICUT 06033 AREA CODE 203 JOHN B.DUFFY,P.E. 633-0201 May 15, 1987 Mr. William Stoeckert Executive Director State of Connecticut Traffic Commission Department of Transportation 24 Wolcott Hill Road P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, CT 06109 Re: Bradgate Development (File #132-8612-03) 109-3 Dear Mr. Stockert: Enclosed are revisions and traffic data requested by your office for your continuing review. The package is respectfully submitted in behalf of our client Bradgate Associates, Inc. , of Glastonbury, Connecticut. Please feel free to contact me if any questions or comments arise. Very truly yours, Stephen E. Blenus SEB:wmr cc: Jack Duffy John Netherton RECEIVItD MAY 18 1987 -IV STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS Commissioner of Transportation TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Public Safety Department of Transportation Commissioner of Motor Vehicles 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 May 27, 1987 Mr. Stephen E. Blenus Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. 178 Oakwood Drive Glastonbury, Ct. 06033 Re: STC# 132-8612-03 Dear Mr. Blenus : Subject: Bradgate U.S. Route 5 Town of South Windsor The additional data submitted with your May 15 letter will be forwarded to the Bureau of Highways ' Division of Traffic to be incorporated into the ongoing review. You will be advised by this office if any additional_ information is required. Very truly yours, 1X . cf�� William W. Stoeckert Executive Director cc: Chief William R. Ryan/ Mr. Thomas D'Auria z Faith Tabernacle of Glastonbury, Inc. Phone: 566-5228 L PURCHASE AND SALE AG EMENT AGREEMENT made this day of June 1986, by and between Faith Taternacle of Glastonbury , 1970 John Fitch ' Boulevard of South Windsor , Hartford County , Connecticut ( the "Seller" ) , and B: 3dgate Properties , Inc . of 74 Northeastern Boulevard , Nashua , Hillsborough County , New Hampshire ( the Buyer ) WHEREAS , t-- -- Sell-r is- t.ie owner A a Cert,Iin tract of land , containing Sixty-Two (62) Acres , more oc lest , :situated on John r itch Boulevard , South Win-Isar , ;iartford County , Connecticut , and -is more particularly described on Exhibit "A a copy of which attached hereto ( the " Premises3" ) . WHEREAS , S7iler desires to sell the Premises to Buyer at the price and can she terms set forth herein ; and WHEREAS, B.:yer desires to purchase the Premises at the price and on the terms set forth herein . NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants herainafter set forth , the parties hereto have agreed and hereby agree as follows : Section 1. Property to be Sold . Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to purchase the Premises as set Forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, which property contains Fifty-Eight ( 58) acres , more or less . The Buyer recognizes that there are an additional four (4) , plus or minus, acres which are not part of this transfer . The dwelling which is located on the property will be transferred along with the Fifty-Eight ( 58) , plus or minus , acres to the Buyer . i' pow M sE,4 T-aa �s � ?d- 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 f�oSOR.co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 11 , 1987 Mr . John Netherton Bradgate Associates 135 Neipsic Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 RE: Jamestown - Zone Change and General Plan of Development Dear Mr . Netherton: Due to the increase work load and the upcoming August recess , the Planning and Zoning Commission is requesting a 45 day extension for the above mentioned application. All intentions will be made to do this before then, but we will need your letter of extension no later then June 30, 1987 . We appreciate your cooperation during this extremely busy time . Very truly yours, XOut4-'L' C- Louise C . Evans Chairman jsg F ADGATE BRADGATE ASSOCIATES, INC. CIATES, INC. 14 NORTHBRIDGE BUSINESS CENTER,74 NORTHEASTERN BOULEVARD NASHUA,NEW HAMPSHIRE 03062• (603)882-1122 Glastonbury Office : 135 Nei psi c Road Glastonbury , CT 06033 June 17 , 1987 4fo� Ms . Louise C . Evans , Chairman Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor , CT 06074 Re : Jamestown Village : Zone Change/Plan of Development Dear Ms . Evans : I am in receipt of your letter of June 11 , 1987 concerning an extension for holding the public hearing on the above-referenced proposal . With this letter , Bradgate Associates agrees to a 45-day extension for our Zone Change and General Plan of Development Public Hearing as requested . Please call me if you need additional information concerning this matter . Sincerely yours , �)- /V /Oktz- ohn W. Netherton Project Manager JWN/ec �/ C � D� t, � Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. , 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4 One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd.) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME — ADDRESS —-- - ----___- -- __-- -- Y Petitioner Solicitor: „�,,� «3--7___ - Comments: 's Mob STATE OF CONNECTICUT• MEMBERS _ Commissioner of Transportation TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of.Public Safety Department of Transportation Commissioner of Motor Vehicles 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer!A " Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 August .3, 1987 Mr. Stephen E. Blenus Moffit and Duffy, Inc. 178 Oakwood Drive Glastonbury, Ct. 06033 Re: STC# 132-8612-03 Dear Mr. Blenus: Subject: Bradgate U.S. Route 5 Town of South Windsor This is to acknowledge receipt'of your July 23 letter and to confirm that this proposed project is not subject to any town moratorium. However, it is our understanding that there are concerns with the project at the local level . Therefore, no further action will be taken on the Application for Certificate until receipt of notification of approval from the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission. Very truly yours , CIA , Aiv Z. ufi�_ William W. Stoeckert Executive Director cc: Chief William R. Rya r� Mr. Thomas D'Auria Faith Tabernacle of Glastonbury, Inc. Phone: George Bancroft 1985 Rt. 5 East Windsor Hill, Conn. 06028 August 7, 1987 Mr. William Stoeckert , Director Traffic CommissionAM 11. 87 °f Room r#204 Connecticut Dent. of Transportation, 24 :'Wolcott Hill Rd. Wethersfield, Ct. 06109 Dear Sir: Bradgate Associates, Inc. of Nashua, New Hampshire has approached our town with plans to build a 1 L.8 unit condominium complex right across the highway from our farm. This will require a zone charge. ate along ��rith the Majority of our neighborj plan to fight this zone change. In the event that we are unsuccessful, and 148 condos are built, I feel that the Dept. of Trans- portation (DOT) may feel it necessary to close off the opening in the median by my front driveway for safety reasons. Our farm has been a productive f`rn since my father bought i t in 1912. o shut o f f this median would be a great inconvenience to its continual o-peration as large farm tractors with trailered eau-, come and go to nearby farms. Anorthbound departure would reauire going south first, and making danger- ous and difficult turn around at the .Sullivan Avenue signal light. ':Wherefore, I am requesting that the DOT loot[ into this matter as soon as possible ';rith the idea that the Leveloner be required to InSt"l � `�Gl yC sic-nal i� ,rht, �-ti.n-1 0 at this -nedi an open---ng operated by vehicle tr-J -p-ers in bot1i t1ze entra,:nce to Jamesto<<rn and my farm, Your attention to this matter will be gre-a tiv appreciated, Very trul;r ;yours, Ge rge croft Cor�T to ;s. 7Ia.rci�. 3<na:ch 1'o'.rn ,1 :)=,I line so r C/'COg Ln CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 221 MAIN STREET — HARTFORD, CT 06106 o Tel. (203) 522-2217 �NMENTf DANA S.HANSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT ON ZONING REFERRAL #87/90 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR August 8, 1987 Commissioners: Receipt is acknowledged of the above-numbered referral . Notice of this proposal was transmitted to the Planning Division of the Capitol Region Council of Governments under the provisions of Section 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended. The referral involves proposed zone change from RR, A-20, Floodplain, Industrial , to MF-AA, Multi-Family, containing 72.52 acres located on the east side of Rt. 5 (John Fitch Blvd.) on Scantic Road, within 500' of the East Windsor Town Line. Comments: The staff of the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of Govern- ments has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies. The plot is "located just within the Regional Plan's qeneralized urban area on both the existing and proposed Regional Plan of Development. The generalized urban area runs along the East Windsor and South Windsor Town Lines). The Regional Pan classifies the area in South Windsor (the area where the project is proposed) as suburban, meaning that the area has broad land use potential - primarily residential , commercial , industrial and agriculture with residential densities ranging from 1 to 7 families per acre. The regional plan classifies the land in East Windsor as Rural - low density residential develop- ment at one or less families per acre. The developer proposed to offer 10% of the dwelling units constructed at prices affordable to people of moderate income levels. The costs indicated, $65,000 for a one bedroom unit, are well below current market rates for the area.* The proposal also indicates that these units would be identical in construction and size to the market rate units and evenly dispersed throughout the development. The developer's proposal if approved by the local commission, supports the housing goals of the Regional Plan of Development which seeks to increase the range of choices in housing for persons of all incomes and all ages, as well as the numerical housing goals unanimously approved by CRCOG's governing body in June of the year, which instituted numerical housing goals for the increase of affordable dwelling units on a Town by Town basis over a ten year period. As such, CRCOG staff finds the voluntary inclusion of affordable units within the development as an innovative and timely initiative on the part of the project developer. A VOLUNTARY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FORMED TO INITIATE AND IMPLEMENT REGIONAL PROGRAMS OF BENEFIT TO THE TOWNS AND THE REGION. August 10, 1987 To Whom it may concern: We understand that there are plans to develop a condiminium complex which may border the property at 67 Schanck Road, East Windsor. We are hereby stating that at this time we as the owners of this property, have no objections to the construction of this complex, nor do we foresee any objection at any time in the future. Sincerly, Dennis Smith Andrew Whitehead L E O E c zo r4 ad IN �f":� George Bancroft 1985 Rt. #5 East Windsor Hill, Ct. 06028 August 13, 1987 South Windsor Zoning Commission Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, Ct. 06074 Attention: Mrs. Louise Evans, Chairman Accompaning this letter are 18 pages of a petition signed by approximately 200 persons who object to a zone change which allow the building of condominiums on Route #5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown". It should be noted that in accordance with Connecticut Plan- ning and Zoning Statutes section 8-3 sub paragraph (b) we have 22 signatures of lot owners who come within five hundred feet of the proposed change. These signatures are noted by an asterisk on the petition. By using the map as required by the Town of South Windsor Zoning Regulations, Section 11 .2.3 Sub paragraph (c) and with accurate scaling, we determined that there are a total of 48 lots within the 500 foot distance of the proposed change. The 22 asterisk signatures represent 25 lot owners. In accordance with the above mentioned Connec- ticut General ,Statutes, the 22 owners of 25 lots more than meets the requirements, that to be approved, the requested zone change will require a two-thirds majority vote of all the commission members. If we are not correct in this matter, please advise the under- signed immediately. Very truly yours, Georg Wcroft Enclosures: 18 pages of petition Copy to Marsha Banach, Director of Planning Town of So. Windsor, Ct. 060?4 zonlrg �,O;rtlF1561 'JOIN aU T-0���,� e � 014C S-aum �. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1987 THURSDAY, AUGUST 209 1987 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public"hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday, August 25, 1987, at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, to consider the following: 1. Application of Bradgate Associates for a zone change on 73.98 acres to MF-AA, currently zoned AA, RR, FP and I, and a General Plan of Development of Jamestown Village, consisting of148 units, located on the east side of Route 5 , south side of Scantic Road. 2. Application of Ralph A. Saunders for a zone change from A-20, RR to RO for 4.25 acres of land located on the east side of Route 5, south of Scantic Road. Copies of these applications and maps more clearly defining the properties are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of South Windsor. At this hearing, interested persons may appear and be heard and written recommendations will be received. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Louise C. Evans, Chairman David H. Sorenson, Secretary TRAFFIC STUDY OF JAMESTOWN VILLAGE FOR SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION r- DEVELOPER: BRADGATE ASSOCIATES AUGUST 14, 1987 r- MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 178 OAKWOOD DRIVE RICHARD L.MOFFITT.P.E. GLASTONBURY,CONNECTICUT 06033 AREA CODE 203 JOHN B.DUFFY,P.E. 633-0201 August 14, 1987 Ms. Louise Evans Chairman of Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Traffic Study on Scantic Road 109-3 Dear Ms. Evans: This report presents the results of a traffic study done on Scantic Road and Route 5. The study was made in order to determine the impact of the Jamestown Village, a 148 unit condominium complex being planned by Bradgate Associates. The major flow of traffic relating to the project in the AM will be the traffic exiting the project onto Scantic Road westbound and then southbound onto Route 5. In the PM, the traffic will enter the project directly from the south entrance on Route 5. Only the AM presents a traffic concern which should be addressed in detail. On April 24, 1987, our firm did traffic counts at the intersection of Route 5 and Scantic Road during the period of 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM. The highest counts were recorded between 7: 00 AM and 8 : 00 AM, for the AM and between 4: 00 PM and 5: 00 PM for the PM. The generated traffic by the complex was computed utilizing the Trip Generation Manual, 3rd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. After a review of approved but not yet built projects in East Windsor with the East Windsor Town Planner, Ms. Maureen Westbrook, it was determined that two condominium developments, Scantic Glen and Stoughton Ridge, would affect traffic patterns at the intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5. Stoughton Ridge development is located on Stoughton Road near Route 5. It was judged that all southbound traffic generated by the Stoughton Ridge development will travel via Stoughton Road to Route 5 without affecting westbound traffic on Scantic Road. Therefore, only the Scantic Glen condominium complex will affect traffic patterns on Scantic Road near our project. It was estimated in the traffic study for Scantic Glen by Storch Engineers that 18% of the traffic Mr. Louise Evans Chairman Town of South Windsor -2- August 14, 1987 generated would pass our project site on Scantic Road. We have estimated that 95% of that traffic would travel south on Route 5. — This figure has been added to background traffic on Route 5. Levels of service at the AM peak hour were determined for the 1) existing traffic condition, 2) existing plus traffic generated by both the Scantic Glen and Stoughton Ridge Developments and 3) existing plus the Scantic Glen, Stoughton Ridge, and Jamestown Village condominium developments added together. Resultant levels of service and times of delay at the Route 5/Scantic Road intersection are as follows: Existing & Existing & 1) Scantic Glen 1) Scantic Glen 2) Stoughton Ridge Existing 2) Stoughton Ridge 3) Jamestown Village Level of Delay Level of Delay Level of Delay Service Time Service Time Service Time Westbound B 14.75 C 15. 83 B 10.48 Northbound B 5. 38 B 5. 38 B 5. 38 Southbound B 6. 35 B 6. 75 B 6. 75 Before any of the projects are constructed, the levels of service are all B for the three directions of traffic at the intersection. With the Scantic Glen and Stoughton Ridge projects in place, the westbound level drops one service grade while the — other levels remain the same. However, with the addition of Jamestown Village and subsequent addition of a left turn only lane on Scantic Road, the westbound level rises back to level B. Also, the additional traffic lane will reduce the delay time from an existing 14 .75 seconds to 10. 48 seconds, a significant improvement. The most difficult traffic movements directly at the project — site would be exiting the project by a left turn onto Scantic Road westbound. A capacity analysis of this intersection reveals an A level of service, which is judged to be excellent. — Another concern would be the stacking distance on Scantic Road, possibly preventing egress from the project site. On August 41 1987, a representative from our firm checked the actual stacking — conditions on Scantic Road westbound at Route 5 and found that the MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Louise Evans Chairman Town of South Windsor -3- August 14, 1987 average stacking during peak AM hours was between 5 and 6 vehicles or 125 ' to 150 ' and the maximum stacking was 14 vehicles or 3501 . By having a second westbound lane on Scantic, the average peak hour stacking distance will be reduced to 1001 . As the distance from the intersection to the project entrance is 6001 , stacking is not - anticipated to be a problem. From the above analysis, we find that the project will have no significant impact on the traffic in the area and on that basis, we recommend that the layout as presented be accepted. Very truly yours, /John B. Duffy JBD:wmr cc: John Netherton, Bradgate Maureen Westbrook, East Windsor Town Planner MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDICES 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS BY ROUTE 5; SCANTIC ROAD 2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, EXISTING BY ROUTE 5; SCANTIC ROAD 3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, EXISTING & GENERATED BY 1) SCANTIC GLEN 2) STOUGHTON RIDGE 4 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, EXISTING & GENERATED BY 1) SCANTIC GLEN 2) STOUGHTON RIDGE 3) JAMESTOWN VILLAGE 5 STACKING DISTANCE, WB, SCANTIC ROAD 6 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, PROJECT ENTRANCE AT SCANTIC ROAD APPENDIX 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS BY ROUTE 5; SCANTIC ROAD MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • VEHICLE VOLUME. COUNT INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEi�.NTS — Location S cz,, �,' Date "7 $ Time � M, :P � R r. Weather — r�J `v n Surface Condition � V Traffic Control N Method of Count N N Compiled by Total Volume i J35 33 �y Time Period a, ►rn Z Z� � 3 a 7 FZ -7 c `o \J0 Ilj — No es and Comments ��, 5�,,�P ct, J41 f\ r/ 1^.1 F+ 7 ✓\G�^ r ��/ C \1 P , i t ri d ll t� ~ +� `II nP pn,-A;b;fL-J , y El 2/s 6 J !✓� CA. ��tyt�C �CJ ,s; . MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • VEHICLE VOLUME, COUNT + INTERSECTION TURNING MOVE2�•NTS - Location Date Time �'�c , rY1, i� a1�_ H �, Weather Surface Condition � S ZT Traffic Control R M _ Method of Count Compiled by v Total Volume 3s G '�✓� ti v Time Period 7- 0 a2 J x Taw\e �11�e N ZZ - Stow 2 - SGItDO1 Q A&e- O T - Notes and Comments --r�v,a ^-�� -f-�,- rr -G��, ,,�)1►h� IJo�+I� o� �� -f-h Q tA 'Lc14ri +, e 1 p I h yy, So LA41n cm e4. y -f'V1u-f �t b 'tom Toc m• -, �v� ✓ ct a P +�� a-te Pr-pV1����e�• (?SS Nm aA 11 oN t bouv�du -'tom Scr .�;L e Y.t-t_v�C-+Q.. o -to fit• 5 tJ�G. El 2/8 6 SGo.✓.}: c, eA .} _ _ MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • VEHICLE VOLUML COUNT INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS Location SGuri't�c.. 2�• S• Ste- Date �Jy 12 Time r. Weather N Surface Condition `D Traffic Control Method of Count \0 Compiled by x Total Volume Z t.7 S v ,�ti Time Period y --5- �• nn AA t-��. J S can���. (�'fie,,,, (>e�!'• . 7� x �\ c•. 27 A 2 - So�w�P S-tv lla9e L x i T /-/D X ' 1 B M Notes and Comments E1 2/8, MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEZK.NTS Location k Date G c Rt 15 Time Weather Surface Condition . Traffic Control — Method of Count Compiled by — Total Volume 3 Time Period _fir, w. . ;3 S T+a � IB i L�O Lj — Notes and Comments J El 2/86 5oF 17 :iOF'FZTT AND DUFF-'• INC. VEHICLE VOLUAZ COUNT' 1 INTERSECTION TC NING MOVE:iE'iT5 to D a Loca do tz Time Weather Surface Condition Traffic Comtrol L;•3�.�- 6o Method .0f Count ,•. �Comciled byu To tzl. Vo lume 7v 33 Time Period r-1 o �v K n1 . V r A Notes and Comments FIGURE ZI.B ;SOFFZTT AIZD OQFFY, ZNC. ,VESICLE LTris.VOL COQNT INTERSECTION TURNING MOVE:iE:iTS .� � �'C2�fi G ��xd � Date Location Time F' dgtV Yv� • C(� br; 1-e- Weather L . Surface Condition We-� Traffic Control L►�qk jMethod .of Count K�L • Comciled by Cv'- To tz1 Volume �g Time Period. Ob I J r c -/- / 37 Notes and Comments FIGURE Z I 8 • 4 .. ;iOFFZTT AMD DU'FFY, INC. �' VESICLE VOLUMZ CO K� 1 INTERS EG'rION TURNING HaVI:='iZHTS Pd • Date Locativrz �� � � Weather Suridce Condition Traffic Control. Ol Idethod ,of Co=t: Compiled by To tal Vo lume Time period J 3 - IA Notes and Comments FI CURE I I.8 %IOFFZTT AND DUFF'Y, INC. o. VESICLE VOLUMZ COUNT INTERSECTION TU?.NZ iG HOVE:iENTS Location _57- �'� G Date F7 IL = Time Ft- Weatlhez Ae� Surface Condition ct - Traffic Coatzol *, Method ,of Count -Comoiled by Total Volume _ } Time Period ro 3 Lj Notes and Continents FIGURE 11-8 MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: BY: ,C PROJECT _ a-`Mc�'�'� •n J `� 1��,� P SHEET-OF DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT JOB NO. ne -El -- --- - - -- — --- Z-% -c�•{ -rota v_ut�a _c.�,- �. c____ _ -- - ---- -- -- -___ - use . S� ��-t_-�.h ce--©�►�12.E��-.' -- -s- - - - -so K+h . h ttu vi c12- ( 3� N��+• 9 S f s- �-• ) 1 LA 01, s 0 Cpv�-�iC Background traffic data are based on information obtained from Connecticut Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Research (666-7223) . Data was obtained at a point north of - Sullivan Avenue and Route 5 intersection in 1983 . Generated data are based on information obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generated report, third edition, - July, 1984 . Copies of data used are attached. MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: r BY: A ,S. PROJECT Qwgoc-- \k'n r,P SHEET--IQ-OF DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT '"�--tea ,c>v�on�;� �.,.� JOB NO. q s QTC_ -s-- S ,o Iv L.C) - - } --— 1 CM it .� P. M. hOuw.0 MIT - ---111 l qg u X ' 18 YLA Background traffic data are based on information obtained from Connecticut Department of Transpor•ta Lion Office of Planning and Research (666-7223) : - Data was obtained at a point north of Sullivan Avenue- and_ Route 5 intersection in 1983 . �--' Generated data are based on information obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generated report, third edition, - - July, 1984 . Copies of data used are attached. MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: BY: A`S, PROJECT TayNAp%.-t'o,0,^ >J Ao,,c3'P SHEET 1.,L_-OF-/-== DATE• CH KD BY: SUBJECT L O P nPn C*i CU= JOB NO. 04 -- ' CA QO VA+_L %0% -77621 lap U TZ, < n i L o Jb0Lk�c� Background traffic data are based on information obtained from Connecticut Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Research (666-7223) : • Data was obtained at a point north of Sullivan Avenue and Route 5 intersection in 1983 . Generated data are based on information obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generated report, third edition, - July, 1984 . Copies of data used are attached. SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Building Type Residential Condominium ITE Land Use Code ?fin Independent Variable Trips per Unit — Average Number Average Size of Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variable/Study — Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak A.M. Enter Hour Between Exit of 7 and 9 Total Adjacent P.M. Enter Street Between Exit Traffic 4 and 6 Total Peak A.M. Enter �,. Hour Exit of Total Generator P.M. Enter Exit — Total Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Enter Hour of Exit 291 Generator Total Sunday V hicle Trip Ends Peak Enter Hour of Exit Generator I Total Source Numbers 11 .7 92 o)! a io.i n�i I ' ITE Technical Committee 6A-6—Trip Generation Rates Date: 1 975 ., _1979.,—Rom- I o R 2 APPENDIX 2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, EXISTING BY ROUTE 5; SCANTIC ROAD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-75 INPUT WORKSHEET X 1�71 Q G Intersect Date: Analyst: S ' Time Period Analyzed: — Area Type: ❑CBD ❑Other Project No.: /(� C�► 3 City/State: - VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS Z+' 6 _ 78.7, N/S STREET SB TOTAL 2�Z — I � Z WB TOTAL O NORTH IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM: 1_Volumes ell E/W STREET 2. Lones, lone widths O t 3.Movements by lane 4. Parking(PKG)locations S. Bay storage lengths Z 6. Islands(physical or pointed) EB TOTAL NB TOTAL 7. Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS Grade Ad Pkg.Lane Buses PHF Conf.Peds. Pedestrian Button Arr. Approach (9'0) %HV Y or N N,n (Ns) (peds./hr) Y or N Min.Timin Type EB WB 1 % o 7d '9 NB v 8 ! I SB Grade:+up,—down N.: buses stopping/hr Min.Timing: min. green for HV. veh. with more than 4 wheels PHF:peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing Nam,:pkg. maneuvers/hr Conf. Peds: Conflicting peels./hr Arr.Type:Type 1-5 PHASING D I A M :y� sz6 G= Timing G= qd G= Zz- G= G= G= G= G= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R=7 Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Pretimed or Actuated I _1 Protected turns __� Permitted turns I -------Pedestrian Cycle Length—Sec L"T z 9-76 URBAN srxE= VOLUME ADJUSTIM= WORKSHEET O O O O O © O O p ® O ppr. Mvt Mvt Peak Flow Lane Flow rate Number Lane Adj. Prop_ Volume Hour Rate Group in Lane of Lanes Utilization Flow of (vph) Factor vp Group N Factor v LT or RT PHF (vpn) v: U (vph) Pu or P,r 30 =- Q ( -ph) Table 9-4 Q X 0 LT EB TH RT LT �6s WB TH 0 LT NB TH 6 3 9 710 fi 7117 Z 'OJ 78� RT 33 . � 37 •a� LT I Z 879 Z OS ��13 o6Z SB TH 785 7Z RT O SIGNALIZED IN==RSECTIONS 9-77 SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET LANE GROUPS AD STMENT FACTORS p p OO O OO © O ®- O9 ® O 0 Adj.Sat Appr. Lane Ideal Na of Lane Heavy Grade Pkg. Bus Area Right Left Flow Group Sat. Lanes Width Veh� Blockage Tvpe Turn Turn Rate Movements Flow f- f W V f f f sb F, f RT f,T S (pcphgpl) N Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table (vphg) 9-5 9-6 9 7 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-11 9-12 EB oo • 93 I 1 I � 1 � •96 16�7 WB � ,�-> lBod Z I •�6 1 � I I � I 3956 SB .�..���+.1��� ���ST�1-'7fCC��1��!M'1.��r���.r���-••r.�`��.TT�T�7!��•.r���ri�T=r.•��... .. .. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-79 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LANE GROUP CD qD Adj. Ad)'.Sat Flow Green Lane v/c Criti^al ® Flow Flow Ratio Rai Capacity Ratio ? Rate g/ C X Lane Appr. Lane Group R Ste O / O (vph) 0 _ 0 Group Movements (vph) (vphg) C x 0 EB 16o 7 • / 7 ,3S 5-6 Z • s y WB q5/,T 78� 3HII . 23 , 6 aos'3 •3� - NB yS 7S q I g 3ys6 . Z7 . , 6 aoTq 1141 SB Cycle Length,C sec I(v/s)c;_ ' Lost Tune Per Cycle,L sec �(v/s)� X C x _ C—L = . 9-90 URBAN STREETS LEVEIrOF-SERVICE WORKSHEET Lane Group First Term Delay Second Term Delay Total Delay&LOS - O O O © O © O © O Appr. Lane v/c Green Cycle Delay Lane Delay Progression Lane Lane Approach Appr. Group Ratio Ratio Length d, Group d2 Factor Group Group Delay LOS Move- X g/C C (sec/veh) Capacity (sec/veh) PF Delay LOS (sec/veh) Table ments (sec) c Table 9-13 (sec/veh) Table 9-1 (vph) (0-f-e)X& 9-1 EB -- .,� �.35 7,� I Ll F75 5 Z 5-63 •72. 1 .7J 3 WB • 3 S • t6 o53 I S6 •7z .s•3g NB �1-1 H '6 ?S �•Zo 267y Z •6Z -71 6.3s 6 SB Intersection Delay sec/veh Intersection LOS (Table 9-1) APPENDIX 3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, EXISTING & GENERATED BY 1) SCANTIC GLEN 2) STOUGHTON RIDGE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - 9-75 INPUT WORKSHEET t Z 5C-ham- Cy-d Intersection: S C-�``n}'G P'i Date: Analyst: Time Period Analyzed: Area Type: ❑CBD ❑Other Project No.: City/State: VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS N/S STREET 8! D SB TOTAL I �. 2 WB TOTAL 0 NORTH S L Gt.��• L IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM: 1 6 E/W STREET .Volum s 2. Lanes. lone widths �3.Movements by lane —� t /+ 4. Parking(PKG) locations S. Bay storage lengths —� G 7 6. Islands(physical or painted) 7. Bus stops EB TOTAL NB TOTAL TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS Grade Ad'.Pkg.Lane Buses PHF Conf.Peels. Pedestrian Button Arr. Approach (9'0) 9'o HV Y or N N.. (Ne) (peds./hr) Y or N Min.Timm Type EB D W8 NB SB _ Grade: +up,—down N.: buses stopping/hr Min.Timing: rein. green for HV: veh. with more than 4 wheels PHF: peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing Nam,:pkg. maneuvers/hr Conf.Peds: Conflicting peels./hr Arr.Type:Type 1-5 PHASING D A I- G A M s?b Tinting G= YO G= ZZ G= G= G= G= G= G— Y+R= 7 Y+R Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Pretim d r Actuated _1 Protected turns __� Permitted turns --------Pedestrian Cycle Length_____Sec LT: 2 9-76 URBAN STREETS VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET -- O O O O O © O O O ® 4 ppr. Mvt Mvt Peak Flow Lane Flow rate Number Lane Adj. Prop. Volume Hour Rate Group in Lane of Lanes Utilization Flow of (vph) Factor vpp Group N Factor v LT or RT PHF (vph) v= U (vph) PLT or P,r Q = Q (vph) Table 9-4 (D X Q LT EB TH RT LT 2.60 3 1 1 WB TH _ RT g m3 LT 0 1 _ NB TH 639 -� d T ,� 7441 z I -oe 706 RT 3s 3 , Dy 9 LT 0�3 ( -Oj �vo3 3 9 z 9�5 SB TH 607 697 RT ti. ....—..w w...•..r1..wTvti —wr—..•wy. is7a —a.. wi .. .ter _... ..w SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-77 SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSH= �. LANE GROUPS ADTIJSTMENT FACTORS Q (D G) (D (D © (D ® (D ® 1 0 '® Adj.Sat Appr- Lane Ideal Na of Lane Heavy Grade Pkx. Bus Area Right Left Flow Group Sat. Lanes Width Veh� Blockage T Turn Turn Rate Movements Flow f- f H%r f f f bb �a f RT f LT s (pcphgpl) N Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table (vph8) 9-5 9-6 9 7 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-11 9-12 EB /8av •9 3 1 I I I •`� I b o1 t WB NB 3y.7?6 SB �..-• l•77•-"'�:a.-t.i'ti�'����%��"•�w....i.��!��.-.�7��r�,_.-.rY���tl7+sw11!�:."S''�!�;".-i-{`�!�^*�� ..Y^• - . .r SIGNALLZED INTERSECTIONS 9-79 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LANE GROUP ® ® ® ® Lane v c Critical Adj. Adj.Sat Flaw Green Groin Ratio ? Flow Flow Ratio Ratio Capacity O ® Rate Rate v/S g/C c X Lane Appr. Lane Group v s G) _ O (vph) 0 - Group Movements (vph) (vphg) aC x EB Z6/7S ' -- 3 1 6o-1 WB FT NB yS 7S 2o7y ' �6 - SB Cycle Length,C sec I(v/s)ci= Lost Time Per Cycle,L sec 7,(v/s)ri x C X, _ - _ C—L -- - - — 9-80 URBAN STREETS LEVEIrOF-SERVICE WORKSHEET Lane Group First Term Delay Second Term Delay Total Delay&LOS J A Lane v/c Green Cycle Delay Lane Delay Progression Lane Lane Approach Appr. �• Factor Group Group Delay LOS Group Ratio Ratio Length dl Group d2— Move- X g/C C (sec/veh) Capacity (sec/veh) PF Delay LOS (sec/veh) Table ments (sue) c Table 9_13 (sec/veh) Table 9-1(vph) (&+IV)X G 9-1 . EB • •3S 7s 1500� rj6Z 6�9s 077- 15,83 G WB r. • 6 2,53 I 56 •7Z 5 .3$ L� NB ,7 -5 � SB _ Intersection Delay sec/veh Intersection LOS (Table 9-1) MOFFITT AND DUFFY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. E: BY; PROJECT _ SHEET OF CNKD BY: SUBJECT JOB NO. vc ) -- �2 1 Cc5-) -57- � C cis . 33 ( t 3 3 � F 33 c4z 17 3= 4-2. APPENDIX 4 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, EXISTING & GENERATED BY - 1) SCANTIC GLEN 2) STOUGHTON RIDGE 3) JAMESTOWN VILLAGE I- ,]a m es-try Qln v 1�u,te - 5y • 2— Scan+;(. Cs1en STONALIZED INTERSECTIONS 3-S-tou9 h t70h- Q;J9 e INPUT WORKSI3EET Intersection: S�-�- t <�. �}• —Date: Analyst: �� �� • Time Period Analyzed: Area Type: ❑ CBD ❑Other , Project Na:��g City/State:- S Sow VOLUME AND GEOM=ICS S ' N/S STREET SB TOTAL o I �-. � WB TOTAL 80 _ D NOR-1 H IDENTIFY IN DIAGRANL- 1. volumes � —E/W STREET 2. Lanes. lane widths 3.Movements by lane Q 3 A. Parking(PKG) locations 5. Boy storage lengths / -� 7.5 ` b. Islands (physical or painted) 7. Bus stops EB TOTAL NB TOTAL TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS Approach Grade qa HV Ad'.Pkg.Lane Buses P):iF Conf.Peels. Pedestrian Button pro (g'o) Y or N N,,, (Ng) (peels./hr) Y or N Min.Tuning Type EB WB 1 �'o 0 70 • NB SB 17 Grade:+up,—down Ne: buses stopping/hr Min. Timing: min. green for HV: veh. with more than 4 wheels PHF:peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing N,,,:pkg. maneuvers/hr Conf.Peds: Conflicting peds./hr Arr.Type:Type 1-5 PHASING I _I I A R A M .1'r-7 TT s2-6 Timing G= L40 G= zz C,= G= G= G= G= G= IY+R==7 , Y+R=6 Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Y+R= Pretimed or Actuated _—.�` Protected turns Permitted turns I -------Pedestrian Cycie Length Sec 9-76 URBAN STREETS VOLUME ADJTJSTiM= WORKSHEE 1 _ O O O O O © 4 (D O ppr. Mvt Mvt Peak Flow Lane Flow rate Number Lane Adj. Prop. Volume Hour Rate Group in Lane of Lanes Utilization Flow of (vph) Factor v� Group N Factor v LT or RT PHF (vph) v= U (vph) P,,or Prr a 0 _ ( -ph) Table 9-40 X 9Q LT EB TH RT LT 331 . 9 370 38 2 2 V.o-S qo1 17 WB TH v RT I LT d - NB TH �90 71 I ' 75 o RT z � LT ! �pZ Z �.05 W ,do SB TH 807 8 7 T Kr _ - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-77 SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET LANE GROUPS AD STMENT FA=RS CD0 Q O Q © O O O ® O Adj.Sat Appr. Lane Ideal No.of Lane Heavy Grade Pkg. Bus Area Right Left Flow Group Sat. Lanes Width Veh� Blockage Type Turn Turn Rate Movements Flow f- fmV f f f5e f, fRT fLT s (pcphgpl) N Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table (Vphg) 9-5 9-6 9 7 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-11 9-12 EB 8cm ! Z 1 1 I I WB - � � ���'° z 1 96 � 1 1 I •99 • 1 3�22 � I SB Y...r;d� s—��t`:i ti' xz•r��t+'��.�w.0 ;•��.--r�r .s•��r�.++s arT•�!7�!�'r7-7 "-;� r.�.•+e�.+ ,,r^. •. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS _ 9-79 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LANE GROUP ® ® m ® Lane Adj. Add.Sat �o�''r Green Group Ratio Critical Flow Flow Ratio Ratio as Ca AO Lane Group Rate Rate v/S g/C p ty X 7 Lane P'Pr. Movements � 4� (vph) ( 0 Group (vph) ("Phg) C x EB 26/7S' �" 1.�p � 3�S 6 • I Z •3S ) 21 � •33 WB 799� -3 60 �� 7S ti�r7s 3y 94 . -2-7 .,6 711 -H6 SB Cycle Length, C sec 7,(v/s)c;_ — ; Lost Tune Per Cycle,L sec 7,(v/s)ci X C X` — C—L — 9-80 URBAN STREETS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE WORKSHEET Lane GroupFirst Term Delay Second Term Delay Total Delay&LOS y y y 0 0 ® o o © o ® o ® © ® 0 Appr. Lane v/c Green Cycle Delay Lane Delay Progression Lane Lane Approach Appr. Group Ratio Ratio Length dl Group d2 Factor Group Group Delay LOS Move- X g/C C (sec/veh) Capacity (sec/veh) PF Delay LOS (sec/veh) Table ments (sec) c Table 9-13 (sec/veh) Table 9-1 (vph) (%H+*)X(M 9-1 EB .33 •3S -7s 13-61 1ztn .9S )O-Li8 WB �` ' •38 6 7s 5-9 1 20,5-3 1 - 56 -7 Z- �•38 C� _ rrB -7s G .3o zo7H 3 .00 7z 6 . 75 3 SB Intersection Delay sec/veh Intersection LOS (Table 9-1) APPENDIX 5 STACKING DISTANCE, WB, SCANTIC ROAD MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: ZZI tj1 BY: PROJECT &�-6owv\ cJ�`�l u.P SHEET OF DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT r 'c' JOB NO. d m A.yv1 V c hlc�3 rJ�h r L P�erl sc. 11�c 3}jexvAej Aoktr V+Ilgje C G e- \e►nr��1n 7E s tc.. �les��y c G\eS APPENDIX 6 CAPACITY ANALYSIS, PROJECT ENTRANCE AT SCANTIC ROAD WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T INTERSECTIONS S, 4�; nr�Son -�+ NAME: ..'ia -tbn 1) I 1 as,2 HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH - . Major Street- S cc---4 C.. �� N — 2 4 y V — Grade — V2 V4-'- _ V —% — V3 N-= 3 —� V V V7 V9 7 Date of Counts: ( 9 STOP Time Period:--1 - o` — — 0 YIELD Average Running Sr. N= J ' Minor Street: PHF: Grade _°'o 1 VOLUME ADJU Movement No. 2 3 4 S 7 9 Volume(vph) % .-7 7 51.1 Q Vol.(pcph),see Table 101 STEP 1:RT from Minor Street r.-V9 `lonflicting Flow,VC 1/2 V3+V2-- + -— vph(Vcq) Critical Gap,TC,and Potential Capacity,cp TC= sec(Table 10-2)cp,=/ffn-b pcph(Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, ca, 4n9=cP_ pcph STEP 2:LT From Major Street { V4 Conflicting Flow,VC V3+V2= + 3 5 = 6 vph(VC4) Critical Gap,TC,and Potential Capacity,cp TC= E sec(Table 10-2)cp4= -11MO pcph(Fig. 10-3) Percent of cp Utilized and hnpedance Factor(Fig. 10-5) (v4/cp4)X 100= _P4=�— Actual Capacity, c.. Ca+4=cp4=�g=pcph STEP 3:LT From Minor Street. V7 Conflicting Flow,VC 1/2 V3+V2+VS+V4 = +a.1+721 + O = vph('c7) Critical Gap,TC,and Potential Capacity,cp TC= sec(Table 10-2)c'7 pcph(Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, cT„ c,,i7:cp7 X P4= ZO X Q pcph SI ARED-LANE CAPACTLY -� v7+v9 SH= if lane is shared . (V7/C..')+(V9/Cm9) Movement Na v( h) c,(pcph) (pcph) cq DOS 4 n- pow N aE,q< t� �v 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 a-co�'� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 August 14 , 1987 Mr . George Bancroft 1985 Route #5 East Windsor Hill , Ct 06028 Dear Mr . Bancroft : This letter will serve as acknowledgement of receipt of your letter dated August 13 , 1987 , and accompanying 18-page petition regarding the proposed "Jamestown" multi-family zone change application (Bradgate Associates) . The petition will be entered into the record at the scheduled public hearing on the above application on August 25, 1987. Very truly yours , Marcia A. Banach Director of Planning MAB: dlb August 15 , 1987 Louise Evans , Chairwoman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave . South Windsor Ct . 06074 Dear Commission Members ; Recently the South Windsor Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Commission was invited by JMJ Construction to examine a proposed plan for the development of their Dart Hill Rd . (North) property . A sizeable allotment of open space has been provided for in this proposal . In accordance with our previous recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this valuable agricultural resource , we wish to reaffirm that the open space provided for be preserved 4permantly as active farmland . The soil characteristics , location of the farmland in relation to the developed area, and the proximity to water for irrigation all combine to justify the preservation of this highly valuable farmland resource . We will gladly work cooperatively with the Planning and Zoning Commission , JMJ Construction, and the Town Planner Marsha Banach , to achieve a favorable outcome for South Windsor ' s farmland preservation efforts . Sincerely , Frank Niederwerfer , Chair an South Windsor Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Commission e ,�jg�� Of EAST Ich WINDSOR ® T) 248 SOUTH MAIN ST. ME EAST WINDSOR, CONN. 08088 w�c,c (203)623-2466 (203)289-6483 (413)736.8334 August 19, 1987 Louise Evans, Chairman Planning and Zonig Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor, Ct. 06074 Dear Ms. Evans; As owners of property adjacent to the proposed Jamestown Village zone change. we have no objections to the zone change whatsoever. We believe that the proposed Jamestown Village will be a multi-faceted asset to the town and the region. We have done research on the development company, and their prior construction and been both well planned and very well executed. Sincerely, Monica T. Balch MTB:ja k � 0 4 ESTABLISHED 1935-NEVER KNOWINGLY UNDERSOLD Frank Shonosky 299 S . Main Street East Windsor , CT 06088 August 19 , 1987 Ms . Louise Evans Chairman South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission South Windsor , CT 06074 Dear Ms . Evans , As owner of property directly opposite the proposed zone change on Scantic Road , I have no objections to this change. Sincerely , Frank Shonosky �- r Julia Shonosky �SpC so AUG 1987 Mrs . Rae Sazinski 374 Scantic Road E . Windsor , CT 06088 August 20 , 1987 Ms . Louise Evans , Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor , CT 06074 Dear Ms . Evans : My property is directly opposite the proposed zone change for Jamestown Village and feel that this will be an asset to this area and support this application . Sincerely yours , Rae Sazinski A J. M �tJ Y `y 4 r r Mr.. William B. Kowalczyk Mrs. Patricia E. Kowalczyk 2039 John Fitch Blvd. South Windsor, CT 06088 August 20, 1987 Ms. Louise Evans, Chairman Town of South Windsor South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Evans: My house is on Route 5 directly opposite the zone change for Jamestown Village Condominiums. We have lived here a long time and feel that condominiums are a logical choice for the property and fully support this application. We feel it will benefit our property as well as the Town of South Windsor as a whole. Sincerely yours, William B. Kowalczyk W. 19- - ? Patricia E. Kowalczyk � 1 4 August 20 , 1987 Carl and Betty Sellers 376 Scantic Road East Windsor , CT 06088 Ms . Louise Evans , Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor , CT 06074 Dear Ms . Evans : We own property on Scantic Road directly opposite the proposed zone change for Jamestown Village condominiums . We feel that this zone change will be a benefit to this area and support this project. Thank you , Carl 11ers Betty Sellers C J� Qt\%N SALES REPRESENTATIVES NOWAY TOBACCO COMPANY The A HOME OF CONNECTICUT BROADLEAF TOBACCO GROWER AND PACKER P. O. BOX 415 _ EAST WINDSOR HILL, CONN. 06028 August 21st, 1987 Mrs. Louise Evans, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor, Conn. 06074 Re: Scantic River/Rt. 5, Condominium Complex Dear Louise: In view of the effort expended to preserve the aesthetic value of the Scantic River area, and findings of the Meeting for Tomorrow, which clearly stated that rural atmosphere preservation is a priority, I feel a zone change for the proposal is completely unacceptable. Sincerel�rs, Tim Shepard 585 Main Street South Windsor, Conn. 06074 CO .Z s:cpd''4 .49 7 pa !} C0 C TOWN OF -EAST WINDSOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TOWN -HAU, 11 RYE STREET P. 0. BOX 366, BROAD BROUX, CT 06016 03)`623- h August 21, 1987 S Mrs. Louise Evans South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission ���� South Windsor Town Hall Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mrs. Evans: The East Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission has received the plans for the proposed Jamestown Village condominium project on the South Windsor/East Windsor line. Representatives for the developer have met with our commission and staff to discuss the proposal. Despite their presentations and reports, however, the Planning & Zoning Commission still has concerns about the potential impacts of the the project on the surrounding area and opposes the requested zone change and development. The town's principal concerns involve the additional traffic generated from the site onto Scantic Road and Route 5. While the traffic studies indicate that there should not be an appreciable difference in the level of service it would appear that since the Scantic Road driveway will be a principal acess/egress point that there would be a noticable difference in the volume of traffic on that largely rural/residential road. Further, while the East Windsor Plan of Development identifies the area for high density development in the future, the present land use in the area is largely single family residential or agricultural and would not really be compatible with high density development. The present zoning of the portion of the property in East Windsor is agricultural and it would not seem in keeping with that zoning to have a driveway for high density residential development located in that area. We appreciate that there are numerous other considerations that your Commission must address in reviewing this application, but felt it was our responsibility as the town's planning commission to express our concerns on the proposal for your consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, William C. Grace Chairman, Planning & Zoning cc: Town Planner j F I Associat s, Inc. P.O. sox 1061 South Windsor, CT 06074 ahamm (203) 289-7662 August 24, 1987 Ms. Louise C. Evans, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Cr 06074 RE: Jamestown Condominium Application Dear Ms. Evans: As an abutting property owner, we were asked to review the Jamestown plan of development. We are not opposed to this application. Very truly yours, f Ilk r/Joseph F. Luz z i President JFL/iba F 1 ? sor South 01nd ommissio1 3 niog & �,°n'n� � OaD August 24 , 1987 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave . South Windsor Ct . 06074 Dear Commission Members ; Thank you for the opportunity to express my opini6ns , and observations regarding the proposal before you this evening . I would prefer to present these comments in person, but prior commitments preclude my doing so . I am opposed to the proposed zone change application and the development of the site for the following reasons . As a member of the Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Commission , we are greatly concerned about the loss of a substantial parcel of high quality farmland , which is located on the site . The loss of this vital resource forever to development is staggering . Also , as Chairman of the South Windsor Wildlife Sanctuary Committee , the destruction of sensitive wildlife habitat , as the upland area and floodplain en- compasses , would severely impact wildlife which inhabit the area . Deer , Bald Eagle , coyote , and numerous other species have been observed in these natural environs . Fish and plant species would also suffer by the surface runoff of road salts , oils , and chemicals involved in the maintenance and use of the site as aresidential area . The Scantic River Watershed is one of the most important natural resource areas we treasure in South Windsor . This area represents one of the last undisturbed natural areas remaining in our town . The vanishing of such beautiful open space , and the negative impact on fish and wildlife resources would be a tremendous loss to the present and future residents of South Windsor . .Ar ¢$ Sincerely , F°• A� I Robert E. Marigliani 475 Abby Rd . Ext . South Windsor , Ct . 06074 Q O �• South O&djor .fandownen Protective C4jjodation SOUTH WINDSOR. CONNECTICUT J • August 24, 1987 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission : Because of the fact that I am an adjoining landowner of the proposed "Jamestown" project the following expressed feel— ings represent those of our organization , the South Windsor Landowners Protective Association . The South Windsor Landowners Protective Association is a group of sportsman whose main concern is the preservation of natural resources and conservation , and our group has been active in South Windsor for nearly 50 years . We the membership of the South Windsor Landowners Protect— ive Association vehemently oppose the "Jamestown" project for the following reasons : ( 1 . ) The Scantic River Watershed Association , along with the cooperation of the State of Connecticut , has been diligently working in an effort to maintain and upgrade the cleanliness and quality of the Scantic River. ( 2. ) I have personally consulted with various members of the D. E. P. and they have concluded that within a short ' period of time the Scantic River will be inundated with sediment , silt and pollution if "Jamestown" is built . This will destroy all previous efforts of the Scantic River Watershed Association who have tried for a number of years , with much success , to clean up the river. This type of pollution will affect all types of angling in the area and in particular the annual "shad run" . ( 3. ) Also of much concern to our clubs membership is the elimination of wildlife and natural beauty of the area, the increase of pollution and environmental problems , and the elimination of one of South Windsors last remaining Soulk OAdjor .landowners Protective 05socia&)z SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 1 natural resources , the Scantic River. In conclusion , "Is it so important as to what we do today , or is is it more important as to what we preserve for our children , grand—children and future generations to come?" I am deeply -sorry that I cannot attend this meeting becaus'e of illness . Sincerely yours , Jo n P. Malin resident , Emeritus South Windsor Landowners Protective Association %, ��"2w "pi:`�'.» •"1n" ., `'�. �zfi•� '°'T"e.r.�-.— ^�, �y,�,t„� � „ - - . ?A.'�° '� ;�. 5aI#- S'a --_ 3 - ,'�,� =i- � .i'�^r., ,.ra,.r'1`—_ ;fai; y'{ ;'r,,., ,.. F^,? � •��,..' z� �' - z _.=� , ,r-'. .,.t{ ,p�`Yi. l^" ��_- �- - - = nt y 5 } i y Statement By Bradgate, Inc. to the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission In The Matter Of Its Application For A Changle Of Zone From Rural Residential (RR) , Industrial (I) and Residential A-20 (A-20) to Multi-family (MF-AA) August 25, 1987 Dwight H. Merriam Robinson & Cole One Commercial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 r Statement By Bradgate, Inc. to the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission In The Matter Of Its Application For A Change Of Zone From Rural Residential (RR) , Industrial (I) and Residential A-20 (A-20) to Multi-family (MF-AA) August 25F 1987 Dwight H. Merriam Robinson & Cole One Commercial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 Table of Contents PAGE I . Introduction 1 A. Existing Land Use 1 B. Proposed Zone Change 2 C. Proposed Jamestown Village 3 1 . Density 3 2 . Buffering 3 3 . Affordable Housing 3 4. Scantic River Linear Park 3 5 . Off-site improvements 4 II . Information Required by the Zoning Regulations 4 A. Zone Change Requirements 4 1 . Section 11 . 2 . 3el - Comparison with Plan of Development 4 2. Section 11. 2 . 3e2 - Security of Land from Flooding 11 3 . Section 11. 2 . 3e3 - Security of Upstream and Downstream Land from Flooding 11 4 . Section 11. 2 . 3e4 - Utility Services 11 5 . Section 11. 2 . 3e5 - Effects on Wetlands 11 B. Multi-family Zone Requirements 12 1 . Section 4 . 6 . 1 - Factors to be Considered by the Commission a. Purposes of zoning 12 b. Plan of development goals and objectives 12 C. Supply of land in present and proposed zones 12 d. Traffic impact 13 e. Property value impact 13 f. Site suitability 13 - i - PAGE g. Environmental impacts 13 h. Protection of historic factors 14 i . Sedimentation and erosion control 14 j . Community needs and neighborhood acceptance 14 k. Impact on the surrounding area 15 1. Rate and pattern of develop- ment 15 M. Health and general welfare 15 n. Impacts on utilities and -- infrastructure 15 o. Proximity to services or public transportation 16 2 . Section 4 . 6 . 4 .9B General Plan of Development - Accompanying Documents a. Traffic impact report 16 b. Feasibility of proposed improvements 16 C. Impact on municipal and state services l� III . Referral to CRCOG 18 IV. Summary 19 - ii - I. INTRODUCTION A. Existing Land Use. The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5. The East Windsor town line crosses the northerly portion of the site which consists of 72 . 52 acres in South Windsor and 1. 38 acres in East Windsor . It is composed of two parcels: the northerly piece, with frontage on Scantic Road, is presently used for pasture and small scale farming; on the southerly piece is the residence of 'Reverend Saunders, pastor of the Faith Tabernacle Church. The adjacent land consists of a mix of uses: East Side of Route 5 - North of Sullivan Avenue there are several single family dwellings, the Batulevitz farm at the Scantic Road intersection, two single family homes, "Dari-Delite" (a seasonal fast food establish- ment) , the Harken' s Market and Garden Center , and the Eatery Restaurant. West Side of Route 5 - North of Sullivan Avenue are several single family homes , one of which ( 2045 John Fitch Boulevard) advertises office space. The Rovic Company, at 2019 John Fitch Boulevard, advertises industrial space. North of the Scantic Road intersection are single family residences and a mobile home park. North side of Sullivan Avenue - From the Rye Street intersection going west , there is the South Windsor fire station, the John Fitch Industrial Center and a single family residence on the corner of Route 5. North Side of Scantic Road - There are two single family homes, a mobile home park, more single family homes and the East Windsor Sport Shop. South Side of Scantic Road - From Route 5 going east , there is a farm and several single family residences . _ Farther east, on Schank Road, is South Windsor Used Auto Parts. The Plan of Development map of existing uses ( included as Exhibit 1) identifies existing land use in this area as agricultural, single-family residential, commercial, industrial, and vacant . This is not strictly a residential or agricultural area, but blends diverse uses and intensities of development. B. Proposed Zone Change. The proposed zone change would transfer approximately 37 acres out of a total of 72. 5 acres in South Windsor from Rural Residential (RR) , Residential A-20 (A-20) and Industrial ( I ) Zones to the Multi-family (MF-AA) Zone. The MF-AA designation would enable Bradgate Associates , Inc. to develop Jamestown Village, a common interest ownership community maximum of 148 one, two and three bedroom townhouses and two bedroom garden style dwelling units with private entrances. This community would be identical in construction materials and style to Bradgate ' s Georgetown Village on Neipsic Road in Glastonbury. Bradgate Associates , Inc. is a team of companies with extensive residential development experience that will carry the proposed Jamestown Village through to occupancy. The group has a national reputation for quality residential construction and is committed to a standard of excellence in the many Connecticut 2 - communities where Bradgate Associates, Inc. is building single-family as well as multi-family residences. (See Exhibit 2) . C. Proposed Jamestown Village. The proposed density of Jamestown Village is approximately five dwelling units per acre of net buildable land, far below the maximum of eight presently allowed in the MF-AA zone. Wetlands and floodplain land provide an extensive natural buffer along the southern and eastern perimeter of the site. Existing vegetation and trees along the boundary will be augmented with the appropriate wetlands plantings or evergreens, and a berm will be constructed along the Scantic Road entrance, providing an attractive and effective visual buffer . Recognizing the importance of affordable housing in a community with accelerating housing prices, Bradgate Associates, Inc. is committed to offering ten percent of the dwelling units at affordable prices : $65, 000 for one-bedroom townhouses and $80 ,000 for two-bedroom garden style "flat" units. These are well below the present CHFA qualifying price of $149,000 . These reserved units would be distributed throughout the project and would be identical in construction and appearance to the market price units. A large portion of the open space will be offered to the South Windsor Land Trust , the town, or to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ( the DEP) to extend 3 - the Scantic River Linear Park. Donation of this piece to the DEP would be particularly beneficial since no acquisition funds have been authorized for DEP purchases in South Windsor . Off-site improvements along Scantic Road, to be constructed at the applicant ' s sole expense, would greatly benefit both South Windsor and East Windsor residents. The proposed addition of a left-turn only lane on Scantic Road at the intersection with Route 5 will decrease the existing delay time at this intersection and maintain the current level of- service "B" . Installation of catch basins will improve drainage on Scantic Road, which presently has no stormwater control facilities and, according to reports by residents, experiences flooding and icing in the winter . II. INFOR14ATION REQUIRED BY THE ZONING REGULATIONS A. Zone Chancre Requirements. 1. Comparison with the Plan of Development . The proposed Plan of Development designates the subject property as a suburban residential ( SR) zone which allows multi-family homes at a density of one to four and one half units per acre ( "modified MF-AA" ) , and at a density of one to _ eight units per acre ( "MF-A" ) . Jamestown Village, at a density of approximately five units per net acre, is consistent with this proposed zone. 4 - The proposed zone change meets the goals and objectives of the plan of development as follows: Housing Element Goals 1 and 2 - "Housing types and densities should be evenly distributed throughout the community. . . [and] avoid undue concentration of housing types and densities in any area of South Windsor. " The MF-A and MF-AA zones have been concentrated in the southern half of town, and have not been applied to the northern portion, as illustrated by the current zoning map. Goal 3 - Not applicable. Goal 4 - "Housing should be developed to meet the housing needs of the entire community. . . " Bradgate, Inc. proposes a mix of one, two and three bedroom homes in both townhouse and garden "flat" styles. This mix will serve the needs of a variety of household types, and is distinct in offering more choice in home size and style then other multi-family developments in town. 5 - Goal 5 - ". . . [A] variety of housing styles, types, sizes, densities, and forms of ownership should be developed . . . " Jamestown Village would provide two styles of housing unit, townhouse and garden style "flat" , with three unit sizes and seven townhouse models in a common interest ownership community. This proposal affords a diversity of housing choices . Goal 6 and 7 - "Housing should generally be located in a progression by density and/or general value. . . [and] where residential zones are to abut industrial or commercial zones/uses, such residential zones should be buffers, such as the MF or DA-15 zones. . . " The prescribed progression of density is multi- family/DA-15/A-20/A-30/AA-30/RR-40, RR-60. The proposed zone change would result in a pattern that more closely conforms to the recommended progression, with MF-AA abutting Industrial and A- 20 zones, providing a transition from the Route 5 commercial and industrial traffic to the less dense residential uses to the east . Goal 8 - Not applicable. Goal 9 - Not applicable. Goal 10 - Not applicable. - 6 - Goal 11 - "Densities within [the new "Residential"] category would be determined by criteria, e.g. a criterion for multi- family residential might be pedestrian proximity to shopping, schools, or parks. The alternative is to predesignate specific densities within the Residential category. . . " This goal does not prescribe criteria; it only suggests two possible options. The difficulty with locating multi-family development in areas where shopping, schools and parks are within walking distance is that those areas are often already developed as single-family residential areas. This is the case in South Windsor , as illustrated in the town' s sidewalk plan (See Exhibit 3) , in which existing and approved sidewalks primarily conform to residential subdivision streets. The Jamestown Village proposal includes recreational amenities and direct access via Route 5 to shopping and employment along Route 5 and Sullivan Avenue, without disruption of existing neighborhoods . The Harkens Market is within walking distance of the Scantic Road intersection and offers groceries and convenience items. Goal 12 - " . . . [T]o improve integration of multi-family housing within existing residential neighborhoods, the MF-AA Zone should be modified to: reduce maximum allowable density from 8 to 4.5 dwelling units per acre; reduce the minimum allowance tract from 15 to 5 acres; increase minimum living area, to 1,250 square feet for a one-bedroom development, to 1,300 square feet for a two-bedroom flat, to 1,400 square feet for a two-bedroom townhouse, and to 1,550 square feet for a three-bedroom unit; . . . " 7 - The proposed zone change wouldn' t enable development that is disruptive to existing residential neighborhoods. The surrounding land, as noted above, includes a range of uses. The Jamestown Village homes have been designed to meet and, in fact, most units actually exceed, current MF-AA square foot requirements. The two bedroom townhouse units will meet or exceed the plan goal , and the remaining two- and three-bedroom units are closer to the goal than are the existing zoning regulations. Goal 13 - "Street pattern within residential developments should be designated to foster a coordinated street network, so as to afford efficient and convenient access to property, including emergency vehicle access, and to encourage a fair distribution of traffic over all streets, rather than over- burdening existing or proposed through streets." The Jamestown Village proposal provides two access points and is designed to ensure the safe flow of traffic entering and leaving the site without undue burden on existing streets. Goal 14 - Not applicable. Goal 15 - "Over the long-term, the desired ratio of single- family units: two-family units: multi-family units is 75%: 5%: 20%. " 8 - This goal does not create an annual cap on approvals. The existing ratio, as of April 1, 1987 , (according to data provided by the town' s Planning Department) is 74%: 3%: 23%, not substantially different from the goal . Addition of the 148 Jamestown Village units, without accounting for increases during the next few years in the other two categories, produces a ratio of 73% : 2% : 25%, also not substantially different from the goal . Sanitary Sewers Element The site lies within waste shed 15, Route 5 North of Pleasant Valley Road, as identified in the proposed plan of development . This waste shed was determined to have excess capacity. Goal 1 - "Sanitary sewer lines should be required to serve areas of future growth, including . . . John Fitch Boulevard north of Sullivan Avenue, i.e. sanitary sewer waste shed No. 15." The zone change proposal meets this goal by extending the sanitary sewer along Route 5, with capacity for future development. Goal 2 - Not applicable. Goal 3 - Not applicable. Goal 4 - Not applicable. Goal 5 - "Gravity flow sewer systems should be favored over systems dependent on pump stations and force mains. . . " 9 - A gravity system is proposed for the site, with a pump station to force flow from the low point to the Sullivan Avenue line. Goal 6 - Not applicable. Goal 7 - Not applicable. Goal 8 - Not applicable. Goal 9 - Not applicable. Goal 10 - Not applicable. Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste & Sludge Disposal - No goal is specifically applicable to this proposal . Public Water Goal 15 - Not applicable. Goal 16 - "Water lines should be extended to areas of future growth. . . " The proposed zone change would extend the public water line to the site. Goal 17 - Not applicable. Goal 18 - "Ground and surface water resources should be protected . . . " The Jamestown Village plans will meet the town' s concerns for soil erosion and sedimentation control and wetlands and watercourses protection. - 10 - Goal 19 - "Where water lines are to be extended, water pressure sufficient to provide adequate fire protection should be ensured. " The Connecticut Water Company has confirmed that water service adequate for domestic consumption and fire protection can be supplied. (See Exhibit 4) . 2 . & 3 . Security from Flooding. Stormwater management and drainage calculations are discussed in Exhibit 5 by the project engineers , Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. On- and off-site stormwater will be controlled by installation of catch basins and, at the southern end of the site, the existing pattern of drainage into the Scantic River will be maintained. On Scantic Road, which has no catch basins now, drainage will be substantially improved by installation of catch basins and storm drains to direct water away from Scantic Road into a detention pond on other property of Bradgate Associates, Inc. . 4. Utility Services. Letters documenting availability of water , sewer , gas, electric, and telephone services are attached in Exhibit 4 . All utilities that are required are available. 5. Effects on Wetlands. Michael Klein, has evaluated the effect of the proposed development on the wetlands and finds that the project involves a minimal encroachment in wetlands areas, with - 11 - impacts confined to "the up-gradient ends of small wetland ' fingers ' , and the grazed wet meadow. " His recommendations for installation of wild life-attractive trees and shrubs and for careful erosion control measures have been followed. (See Exhibit 6. ) B. Multi-family Zone Requirements l.a. Purposes of Zoning: Clustering of housing units as permitted in the multi-family zone allows greater flexibility in designing housing and preserves a greater proportion of open space. Consistent with C.G.S. §8-2, the MF-AA Zone "encourage(s ] the development of housing opportunities for all citizens of the municipality consistent with soil types, terrain and infrastructure capacity. " The Jamestown Village concept furthers this purpose. l .b. Plan of Development : The conformance of this proposal with the Plan of Development is described in Section I . A-1 above. Approval of the multi-family zone in this location is supported by the proposed Plan of Development . l .c. Supply of Land: The multi-family zone is a "floating zone, " which in South Windsor is applied only in connection with approval of a particular development proposal . The town planning department supplied 1983 data (See Exhibit 7 ) , which indicate that, at that time, the MF-A and MF-AA Zones accounted for 1 . 17 percent , or 215 acres, of the town area; the RR-Zone accounted for 37 .8 percent , or 6,717 acres; the I-Zone accounted for 12. 14 percent or 2 , 217 12 - a acres; and the A-20 zone accounted for 11. 44 percent, or 2,090 acres. Although these numbers are outdated, they indicate that the removal of 30 . 42 acres of RR, 5 acres of I . and 1.9 acres of A-20 zoned land is insignificant relative to the overall supply. l .d. Traffic Impact: The analysis of traffic generated and the impact on street and intersection capacities was performed by Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. ( see Exhibit 8) . The report concludes that a left-turn only lane for westbound traffic on Scantic Road should be provided. Addition of the turning lane would maintain an existing level of service "B, " would counteract the effects of new developments in East Windsor, and would reduce the current delay time. l .e. Property Value Impact: The analysis of anticipated sales values and the effect on surrounding property values performed by John Leary, MAI ( see Exhibit 9) concludes that Jamestown Village would have only a positive effect on property values in the area of the site. l . f. Site Suitability: Soil types on the "buildable portions" of the site, as described in Exhibit 10 , the soil reports prepared for Bradgate Associates, Inc. by Northeast Soils, are suitable for the proposed development . l.g. Environmental Impacts: A full scale environmental impact analysis for the project is not within the scope of this application. However , we refer the commission to the conclusions of Michael Klein ' s report that the wetlands 13 - impacts have been minimized, and to the fact that public water and sewer service availability limits concern over groundwater quality effects. l.h. Protection of Historic Factors: Bradgate Associates, Inc. is not aware of any features of historic value on the site. l. i . Sedimentation and Erosion Control: The proposed development will be constructed in phases and will use adequate erosion and sedimentation control measures as described on sheets L-4. 1 to 4 . 3 of the General Plan for Jamestown Village l. j . Community Needs and Neighborhood Acceptance: The Plan of Development indicates a need for diversity in housing types. In addition, the accelerating price of housing in the region and in South Windsor has become an increasingly important issue. The average price of a newly constructed detached single-family house in town, according to the Assessor ' s Office, is approximately $180,000. The MF-AA zone permits construction of slightly less costly and more varied units, which will range in price from $120 ,000 to $160 ,000 . "Affordable" units would be priced at $65,000 for one bedroom and $80 , 000 for two bedrooms. The project meets identified community needs. Neighborhood acceptance of the Jamestown Village proposal is evident from the letters of support included in Exhibit 11 . Opposition is not based on the individual merits of this application, but on a generalized reaction to 14 - condominiums. Bradgate Associates, Inc. has attempted to accommodate community concern with the visual impact of multi-family development by providing landscape plantings far in excess of the requirements to ensure that surrounding properties are effectively screened. l.k. Impact on the Surrounding Area: The zone change would create no negative impacts on the surrounding area. The visual effects will be aesthetically pleasing, and the traffic and stormwater effects will produce significant improvements benefitting area residents. 1. 1-. Rate and Pattern of Development: There has been no multi-family development in this area. The location is appropriate because of its proximity to a major arterial road, the mix of surrounding land uses, and the natural isolation of the site afforded by Route 5 on the west side, wetlands to the northeast and the Scantic River on the southern side. l .m. Health and General Welfare: The proposed zone change would have no negative impact on the health and general welfare of town residents. off-site improvements would actually benefit traffic flow and drainage on Scantic Road and bring public sewers to the area. l .n. Impacts on Utilities and Infrastructure: The Connecticut Water Company, Southern New England Telephone Company, Connecticut Light and Power , and Water Pollution Control Authority (as represented by Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Sanitation) have indicated adequate 15 - capacity to serve the project. (See Exhibit 4) . Bradgate Associates, Inc. is solely responsible for the capital costs associated with provision of these services. Interior roads will be privately maintained. l.o. Proximity to Community Services or Public Transportation: Connecticut Transit bus route H provides service to Hartford. The closest Route H bus stop is at Old Main Street and Sullivan Avenue. There is no "park-and-ride" lot in town. The Jamestown Village proposal includes provision of recreational facilities - tennis courts, a clubhouse, an outdoor and an indoor pool and jogging trails which make the project self-sufficient for amenities. The Wapping Elementary School and Community Center and the South Windsor High School are directly accessible via Sullivan Avenue. Shopping centers are located at convenient distances on Route 5 and Sullivan Avenue. 2 .a. Traffic Impact Report: The traffic impact report prepared by Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. is attached as Exhibit 8. It indicates no reduction in level of service at the key intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5 , with the proposed addition of a turning lane. 2.b. Feasibility of Proposed Improvements: The impact of the proposed zone change on streets is addressed by the Moffitt and Duffy Traffic Report . (Exhibit 8) . Stormwater drainage impacts are negligible and are controlled by facilities connecting to the South Windsor storm drainage system which are approved in concept by the Town Engineer . A 16 - narrative of the drainage provisions is included as Exhibit 5. Utilities are available. The Jamestown Village project is therefore a feasible development. 2.c. Impact on Municipal and State Services: The projected revenues and expected service costs for the town associated with development of Jamestown Village are evaluated in a report by Robinson & Cole, attached as Exhibit 12. Our analysis indicates that comparable condominium developments already occupied in South Windsor generate 0 . 04 school age children per dwelling unit. Our projection for Jamestown Village employed factors higher than this to account for the three bedroom units and to make a most conservative ( i .e. highest number ) estimate. A comparison of per capita general budget costs and expenses per school child with property tax revenues indicates that the entire project will generate a net annual excess tax revenue of $11, 470 , based on current assessment and mill rates, property values and town expenses. Calculating specific additional costs and impacts on town services and personnel attributable to development of Jamestown Village was not possible, due to lack of data. However , the Fire Chief, Police Chief, Recreation Director , Assessor , and Public Works Director were interviewed to determine what impacts could be expected. The results of the interviews are included as Exhibit 13 . In summary, no impact was identified for multi-family development in general or Jamestown Village specifically, with the exception of the - 17 - Public Works Director ' s identification of the pump station as a maintenance responsibility. He could not estimate whether that facility would generate a need for additional staff in his department. _ Everyone interviewed agreed that any new development increases demand for services, but there was no difference between the proposed project and other new residential construction. In fact, condominium residences create less demand than single family subdivisions for South Windsor ' s educational and road maintenance services. The proportion of school children is far lower than in single-family subdivisions . Internal roads and other common area improvements are the maintenance responsibility of the homeowners association. We conclude that the proposed Jamestown Village places a negligible additional burden on the town' s services and facilities, and that additional tax revenues will exceed the added tax expenditures . At the state level, the most obvious impact is traffic onto State Route 5. Application has been made to the State Traffic Commission for a Certificate of operation. 18 - III . REFERRAL TO CAPITAL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS _ (CRCOG) Pursuant to CGS § 8-3b, CRCOG, the regional planning agency, has reviewed this proposed zone change, and found no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies. (a copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 14) . IV. SUMMARY We recommend this zone change to the Commission as the most appropriate location for the multi-family zone. At a reduced density consistent with the plan of development goals, the Bradgate Associates, Inc. proposal provides attractive housing alternatives in an area of town where such choices are absent. There are no negative impacts on the neighborhood or on the town. In fact, the proposed off-site improvements will rectify existing traffic and stormwater drainage problems on Scantic Road. Jamestown Village is a quality project affording a greater range of housing opportunities and prices than is currently available, and has been designed to create an attractive living environment that will only enhance the value of surrounding properties . Dwight H. Merriam Robinson & Cole 19 - LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. South Windsor Plan of Development - Existing Land Use Map 2. Bradgate Associates, Inc. 3. South Windsor Sidewalk Plan 4. Documentation of Utility Services to Site 5. Stormwater Drainage and Feasibility Report Prepared by Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. 6 . Wetlands Impacts Report Prepared by Michael Klein 7. Town Plan Update - Total Land Area by Zoning Districts 8. Traffic Study of Jamestown Village Prepared by Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. 9. Property Value Impact Report Prepared by John Leary, MAI 10 . Soils Reports Prepared by Northeast Soils 11. Neighbors ' Statements of Support 12. Analysis of Tax Revenues and Costs Prepared by Robinson & Cole 13 . Interviews with Town Department Directors 14 . CRCOG Review Letter - 20 - A - I - . O -I E -f — — ` I O - I M ! A 6 T W I N O S O R lil y - � •°�"' ✓'/ 't'���;Jk tee;= �' 1 _ _ tl o N �I lu a ;-_ ;. �`=11 � �� its'• ,,1�„�,,`�1 �;� _3 � � � 31 al- - L--- ,a .z G,_ ( r l��r fit,•, �/ _ -- I -- ��- � %• 1, �t � r -� aum 1 _ l _- - _ -- - v-rl y.z, —_ � /• - -- - �. i/ � = r �„Q,t, f,�, /�'*!Jr/,� C ,1 EXISTING LAND USE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 1 i• IESDMTYIL,SMLE FYLY �I.1ITIAK FESDEMTYL,ILLTI F11Lr I YACJMT LEIO 0 IESOUIKE E%IRALfEW HART FORD COUNTY, CO NNE CTIGUT E A y T M A R T F O R O {i-- i Eii'•j PESOEMTNL,IORE MOIE rr.sau 6pyEME/IT IYM i COIIMRCU1L I:.`.;'�f PAC SOOOLS o kALE T - ELECTIYC TRMBlYW COMPOWN ��" MISTRIAL -P1aC GKPI 9MCf ..w,.�r..•.. w r �/ UmITIES I•�:•�] P6TITUTICMiLL A I 9 I C O I E IF i i� sit _r /jam//////���' ,• ''�'c�.:7��.'��'���•,�.:'�.�i� �� � _ `� � ` •r'»�•.� :1,,.•,NI6 -� � � •I `��fir- ,—_,1 r„I • �111111 .f'i •� 3 •.� �� Ow s JA ! / OF �• 'III• � • •� UmIA WAR o- ♦ -:•�/�11„1 •',••rI 'Sv.// .•_:4�• ••� �� • , •, ), ja S 1 . • r/ 1 •• 1u"WIbl To v „v IrIf • ' • - , ll 401 / �• C,"� �' Q•ti'/��/ll/'rr•. ������:�If'� �, •�\�. �� ty , �. •• ,/��_•'�l, ;,MI I',11Wq. // •.1 ' ';�,. 'I,,Yii�HH SY i.. r � •y/•�I' r ; ,.-'��•♦•• -i_j Z w•.f. • / JAW • ■ I�'�/��.�IIIIt`r,,I�.i,��•y,�Jl••.., ,���.:♦r 7 �I ♦ I�� �,•�y7.,31�� •� ' 1•... •.,.,.� / � • ���:/ill ��- �h, '••.fir ��� .- a �I •n1`i� ; AVA US Pit • ..• .rr f •. 1 f i • J 11■I NOItTMEAST UTILITIES . P.O.Box 450 THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY EN F I ELD,CON N ECTI CUT 06082-0450 WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY HOLYOKE WATER POWER COMPANY (203)623-2421 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEARENERGY COMPANY GEORGE W.RUSSELL DISTRICT MANAGER August 7, 1987 Mr. John Netherton Bradgate Associates Inc. 135 Neipsic Rd. Glastonbury, CT 06033 _ Dear Mr. Netherton, This letter is to confirm the adequacy of electric and natrual gas utilities located near Bradgate's proposed condominium site in South Windsor, CT. The Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P) will be able to serve the proposed condominiums for the site located South of Scantic Rd. and East of Route 5. Please contact me if you have any questions. _ Sincerely, oal . Carmin Lattell Energy Consultant CL/lm 1.108 THE CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY k NORTHERN DIVISION: 25 NORTH ROAD )I- US EAST WINDSOR. CONNECTICUT 06088-0100 TEL 203-623-3354 A SUBSIDIARY OF CONNECTICUT WATER SERVICE, INC. MENOW August 39 1987 Moffitt and Duffy Consulting Engineers 178 Oakwood Dr. Glastonbury, Ct. 0603 Attention: Mr. Ahmed Sulieman Rw: Water availability to the Jamestown Village Condos, South Windsor , Ct. Dear Mr. Sulieman: I have completed my review of the project plans for the Jamestown Village Condominiums dated April 28, 1987 and find that with a properly engineered water main extension, water will be available to this project for both fire protection and domestic use. If you have any further questions concerning this project please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Billy Ballard Engineering Associate Connecticut Water Company STORMWATER DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL AND WATER/WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY/IMPACT REPORT FOR JAMESTOWN VILLAGE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT STORMWATER DRAINAGE The project site consists of approximately 74 acres. The entire site is within the Scantic River drainage basin. Because of a ridge line through the site, it breaks into two separate sub-basins.- The southerly portion of the site has been defined as site 1 on the map which was attached with drainage calculations. The area contains approximately 54 acres and drains directly into the Scantic River. Post development stormwater drainage will maintain the pattern. Because of close proximity of the site to the Scantic River, no detention pond is planned for this area for increased runoff. During our discussion of this matter with the South Windsor Town Engineer, Mr. Rick Martel, on July 30, 1987, he recommended that no detention pond be provided for this area. The northerly portion of site is indicated as site 2 on the map. It contains approximately 20 acres and drains along Scantic Road into the Route 5 drainage system which eventually drains into the Scantic River. Post development stormwater drainage will hold this pattern. However, all drainage from this area will drain into a proposed detention pond located along Scantic Road on additional property of Bradgate, Inc. , to the west of the site. This parcel is within the A-20 zone. From the detention pond, drainage water, controlled to the limit of existing runoff, will be carried through pipeline along Scantic Road into the Route 5 drainage system. As a result of the proposed on site drainage system, runoff from the site which currently drains onto Scantic Road will be intercepted. In addition to this, two drainage inlets are proposed on Scantic Road. These measures will reduce significantly the drainage and icing problems which are currently being experienced on Scantic Road. There is no offsite drainage draining onto this site and, therefore, no upstream properties are affected. It is also obvious from the above drainage plan that there will be no adverse effect on adjacent and/or downstream properties. SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL Erosion and sediment control shall conform to the "Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control - Connecticut" published by the Connecticut Council on Soil and Water Conservation, January 1985, and to the Town of South Windsor requirements. Erosion/sediment control measures are identified on sheets L-4 . 1 r through L-4 . 3 . -2- WATER/WASTEWATER Water for this project will be supplied from the existing Connecticut Water Company' s 16" water main located on Route 5 by the site. Plans for this project were reviewed by the Connecticut Water Company and they have issued us a letter indicating that sufficient water is available for both domestic and fire protection use. Our wastewater system will be divided along the ridgeline into two separate onsite collection lines. Flow from the northerly portion of the site (Site 2) will be collected and brought into a manhole near the intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5. From the manhole, flow will be carried along Route 5 into a proposed pumping station which will be located along Route 5 at the southwest corner of the site. Flow from the southerly portion of the site (Site 1) will also be brought into the pumping station. From the pumping station flow will be carried through a force main along Route 5 into an existing 30" wastewater line located at the intersection of Route 5 and Sullivan Avenue. The force main and pumping station both will be sized at sufficient capacity to allow connections from nearby properties. We have discussed this plan with Mr. Fred Shaw, Supt. of Sanitation for the Town of South Windsor, and he had indicated to us that the existing 30" pipe line has enough reserve capacity to accommodate our flow. The proposed force main along Route 5 will cross Scantic River along Route 5 bridge. This had been done in the past and the D.O.T. has indicated to us that a permit could be granted to us pending a review of our plans. _ s SO � ICI,I 1 J\;.\• `\\ I It _ i 1, a I S4 � III � ��I' - �"�i,�% •% �'/" ,� ,�1 �%I� �i�'/' � � * � /// I ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES WETLAND EVALUATION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT JAMESTOWN VILLAGE SOUTH WINDSOR, CT Prepared for : Bradgate Associates August 21 , 1987 WEST HILL ROAD RR 2 BOX 417 NEW HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06057 (203) 379-1722 INTRODUCTION _ This report has been prepared at the request of 8radgate Associates, prospective developers of a parcel of land in South Windoor . EPS was retained to examine the wetlands, classify them accoridng to their biology, and evaluate their functional significance. Project plans were reviewed , and an impact assessment prepared on the basis of this evaluation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a multi-family condominium to be called Jamestown Village. 148 19 2, and 3 bedroom units in 21 seperate buildings are planned , along with 296 garage parking spaces and a clubhouse, swimming pool , tennis courts and a jogging trail . SITE DESCRIPTION Location The 73.98 acre site is located on the South Windsor/East Windsor town line, and includes 1 .38 acres in East Windsor . The property is east of Rte. 51 south of Scantic Road , and north of Sullivan Avenue. A zone change will be required to accommodate the proposed use. Geology/Soils The principal unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock are approximately 100-150' thick in this area, and consist of (working upward from the bedrock surface) glacial till or ground contact moraine, lake deposits, and terrace deposits. The till is non-sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand , pebbles, cobbles and boulders generally about 20' thick and approximately 30-100' below grade. The lake deposits are layered or varved silt and clay, up to 150' thick . The terrace deposits are sell-sorted sand , silt and clay, with pebbles locally . The Scantic River meanders through the southern portion of the site, in a broad floodplain which has been eroded through the terrace and lake deposits. The River has laid down about 20' of fine-grained alluvium ( laminated silt and sand ) . The lake deposits are exposed on the side slopes of this valley . The northern portion of the site also contains post-glacial , windblown (eolian) sand dunes. The project site has been examined by a soil scientist, and the limit of regulated wetland soils flagged and located by survey . The wetlands consist of both floodplain/alluvial soils along the Scantic River , and poorly-drained upland soils north of the Scantic River . WETLAND CLASSIFICATION The Scantic River has a watershed well over 100 sq . mi . at this point , and an extensive floodplain. The wetlands flagged at the site include those on the main stem of the Scantic , as well as those associated with several intermittent watercourses draining to the Scantic . _2._ The Scantic River floodplain wetlands (approx . 26.4 acres) support a typical floodplain forest plant community of red and silver maples, white ashes, and various shrubs. The herbaceous layer was obscured by snow cover at the time of the site visit . There are numerous meanders and ponded areas. This wetland is considered to be of high value for all wetland functions, with the exception of pollutant renovation and groundwater recharge. No activity is planned in this area. The wetlands along the small swales west of the Scantic and east of the proposed access road consist of slender shrub swamp and wet meadow vegetation. Common plant species include: Red maple Acer rubrum Alder Alnus ruoosa Silky dogwood Cornus ammomum Winterberry Ilex, .:erticillata Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis Sedges Carex spp . Jewelweed Impatiens capensis The wetland west of the access road is a wooded swamp dominated by pole to standard size red maple. It is lies on both sides of a small intermittent watercourse, and contains typical hardwood swamp and streambank species, such as: Red maple A. rubrum White pine Pinus strobus Red cedar Juniperus virginiana Elm Ulmus americana Black cherry Prunus serotina Alder A. rugosa -3- Brambles Rhibes spp . Highbush blueberry Vaccinum corymbosum Silky dogwood C. ammomum Goldenrods Solidago spp . Tussock sedge Carex stricta This wooded swamp is about 3 acres in size. Considered in isolation, it provides moderate quality wildlife habitat , and low to moderate quality hdrologic functions. Its visual , recreational and educational values are also low to moderate. However , its values are enhanced due to its hydrologic and biologic connection to the Scantic River system. There are also two isolated wetlands in the northern portion of the site. One is a 0.44 acre disturbed wet meadow that is presently fenced and used for pasturing animals. It has a high disturbed and heavily grazed flora, with an eroded channel in the center . Along the edges, some wetland herbs and shrubs were found, including : Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum Joe-pye weed E. maculatum Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis Smartweed Polygonum sp . Sedges Carex spp . Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Asters Aster spp . The second is a 1 .97 acre wet meadow, most of which is actually in East Windsor . Part of this wetland has been mowed , and in addition to those species noted above, includes: -4- Cattail Typha latifolia Goldenrods Solidago spp . Clovers Trifolium spp . The small grazed area presently provides very limited wetland values. Its function is limited to a minor drainageway. There is a significant erosion hazard, and due to this and soil compaction, recovery of this area would be lenghty, if grazing were discontinued. The 2 acre wet meadow, although partially mowed, does have some minor aesthetic , drainage, and habitat functions. IMPACT ASSESSMENT The project presently is designed to minimize encroachment into the wetland areas. With the exception a minor fill to expand the existing entrance road, the impacts are confined to the up-gradient ends of small wetland "fingers" , and the grazed wet meadow. It is my opinion that such limited encroachments, totalling about 0.6 acres, would not have a significant adverse impact . The Scantic River floodplain and the wooded swamp will not be disturbed . In order- to mitigate the small loss of habitat , I would recommend installation of wildlife-attractive trees and shrubs along the Rte. 5 entry drive in the vicinty of the stream crossing . In addition, I would also recommend their use adjacent to the remaining wet meadow area, which should be mowed periodically (every year or every other year ) to prevent shrub growth, as well as on fill slopes adjacent to wetlands. -5- The primary wetland-associated concern is not the direct impact , but potential indirect impact due to erosion or slope failure along the Scantic River . Both the terrace and the lake bottom soils are fine-grained and easily eroded . In addition, the steep escarpemnts are prone to slippage. I would therefore recommend careful control of runoff in these areas, and the use of temporary mulches and erosion control fabric to hold soils in place until final stabilization. Respectfully submitted , f Michael S. Klein Principal -6- ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES RR 2, Box 407 West Hill Road New Hartford, CT 06057 203-379-1722 Environmental Planning Services was formed to provide consulting services in the areas of environmental impact assessment and mitigation planning to public agencies and private clients; including design professionals, attorneys, prospective site developers, municipalities, and public interest groups. In addition to identification, description and classification of natural resources, the firm also provides functional evaluations of biological systems; guidelines for mitigation of potential adverse impacts; and permit support through expert testimony and public representation. Services provided revolve around the impact of human activities on terres- trial , aquatic, and marine resources, with qualified staff consultants available in such diverse fields as civil engineering, landscape architec- ture, computer modeling, and traffic engineering. Michael S. Klein is the founder and principal of Environmental Planning Services. He has eight years of experience providing environmental consult- ing services to a wide range of clients; including the US EPA, US DOE, Army Corps of Engineers, CT DEP, many municipalities, and a variety of private clients. He has a broad background in the environmental sciences, and has studied the impact of development proposals on upland, wetland, riverine, estuarine, and marine ecosystems. In addition to such site specific evaluations and permit applications, he has extensive experience in national policy analysis, environmental law, energy technologies, and waste management issues. Environmental Planning Services acts as a consultant in the following areas: RESEARCH Literature review and summary Air and water quality modeling Terrestrial and marine sampling Regulatory review RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION Inland and tidal wetlands Biological evaluations Coastal areas Wildlife habitat Natural resource mapping and interpretation RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SITE PLANNING Lake and watershed management Sediment and erosion control Coastal site plan review Impact assessment Mitigation planning Solid and hazardous waste management CLIENT REPRESENTATION AND INFORMATION TRANSFER Permit applications Expert testimony Seminars and public education Public relations support These services have been provided to public agencies and private interests, including: CLIENTS Town of Colchester York Wastewater Consultants City of Groton Arnold Peck Realty Spath-Bjorklund Associates Peter Gisolfi & Assoc. Turnpike Properties, Northeast Fuss & O'Neill , Inc. Cragin Associates MRE the dock, inc. Weisman & Lubell , P.C. Connecticut Coal Company FIP Corporation bbc corporation John M. Hart & Associates Beck and Pagano,' P.C. Landscape Architectural Design Associates Russell , Gibson, von Dohlen Strawberry Hills Development Corporation Clatter Valley Road Society Housing Services, Inc. Cosmicoat, Inc. Associated Development Corporation Farmington River Watershed Steinberg Enterprises Association Don Hammerburg Associates Fairfield Beach Road Association Swig, Weiler & Arnow Cohen & Wolf, P.C. F.A. Hesketh & Associates Town of Westport Town of Canton Emhart Corporation American Red Cross Hyman, Harding, Sparge & Droney, P.C. Della Construction Company Catrambone Development Corporation Michael S. Klein, Principal Professinal Experience Project Manager for development of a Resource Protection and Recreation Management Plan of a 30 acre undeveloped island in Long Island Sound. Prepared an implementation plan which balanced recreational demands with the carrying capacity of a sensitive environment. Analyzed impacts of commercial landfill for CT municipality. Supervised water quality sampling and reviewed proposed remedial program and closure plan. Inspected operations and acted as liaison with CT DEP regulatory and enforcement personnel . Key participant in siting and feasbility study for commercial hazardous waste treatment plant and secure landfill . Developed siting criteria and screened potential sites. Responsibilities also included regulatory analysis and public representation. Identified, classified and evaluated natural resources, including inland and tidal wetlands, coastal resources, uplands, lakes, and streams, for development proposals ranging from corporate headquarters to multifamily highrise to conventional single family subdivisions. Assessed potential impacts, developed mitigation plans and provided expert testimony. Prepared environmental and economic impact evaluation for proposed commun- ity college. Analyzed several potential siting alternatives, including construction on undeveloped site; facility sharing; rehabilitation of existing urban facility; and expansion/rehabilitation at nearby urban sites. Served as project manager for entrophication study of man-made lakes in CT. Analyzed watershed and developed nutrient budget. Developed recommendations for short-term treatment and long range management, consistent with goals and resources of lake associations. Acted as consultant to civil engineer in development of an environmentally sound plan for development of a residential lake and single family homes on a 300 acre parcel . Developed design criteria for maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat in lake and relocated watercourse. Supported permitting activities at state and federal level . Employment Environmental Planning Services-Principal , 1983-present Management of Resources and the Environment - Senior Environmental Analyst, 1978-1983 Comsis Environmental Services - Ecologist, 1977-1978. Education B.A. University of Connecticut, 1973, Biology M.S. State University of New York, 1976, Marine Environmental Sciences Continuing professional education in environmental regulations, hazardous/ — solid waste management, hydrogeology and sedimentation and erosion control . r N '�M IJ;�J TOTAL LAND AREA BY ZONING DISTRICTSI Percent of Zone Total Land Designation Zone Name Square Feet Acres in South Windsor RR Rural Residential 2929614,400 69717.33 36.78 AA-30 Limited Residential 63 9046 9400 11,447.31 7.93 A-40 Residential 50,1889800 19152.15 6.31 A-30 Residential 29,990,400 688.47 3.77 A-20 Residential 919020,800 29089.50 11.44 RC Residential Commercial 494033,200 101.08 0.55 GC General Commercial 1194499600 262.84 1.44 MF-A Multi-Family 8,7020400 199.78 1.09 MF-AA Multi-Family 6539400 15.0 0.08 I Industrial 96,5769000 29217.02 12.14 IP Industrial Park 9,4019600 215.83 1.18 RO Restricted Office 194499100 33.27 0.18 FP Flood Plain 13226789400 39045.80 16.66 Unclassified 39321,600 76.25 0.42 TOTAL 795,476,1002 18,261.632 100.003 1. As of May 1, 1983, determined by polar planimeter (except MF zones) . 2. Total land area is 28.5 square miles. 3. Due to rounding, figures do not add up to 100 percent. TOWN PLAN South Windsor Planning Department, July 1983 Town Plan Update, Land Use Element �"°�• �''r� Updated: October, 1983 � TRAFFIC STUDY OF JAMESTOWN VILLAGE FOR SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION r r DEVELOPER: BRADGATE ASSOCIATES AUGUST 14� 1987 r �r �r I MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 178 OAKWOOD DRIVE RICHARD L.MOFFITT.P.E. GLASTONBURY.CONNECTICUT 06= AREA CODE 203 JOMN B.OUFFY,P.E. 633-Ml August 14, 1987 Ms. Louise Evans Chairman of Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor r Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 . Re. Traffic Study on Scantic Road 109-3 Dear Ms. Evans: This report presents the results of a traffic study done on .� Scantic Road and Route 5. The study was made in order to determine the impact of the Jamestown Village, a 148 unit condominium complex being planned by Bradgate Associates. The major flow of traffic relating to the project i th 7 g P 7 n AM will be the traffic exiting the project onto Scantic Road westbound and then southbound onto Route 5. In the PM, the traffic will enter the project directly from the south entrance on Route 5. Only the AM presents a traffic concern which should be addressed in detail. On April 24, 1987, our firm did traffic counts at the intersection of Route 5 and Scantic Road during the period of 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM. The highest counts were recorded between 7: 00 AM and 8 : 00 AM. for the AM and between 4 : 00 PM and 5: 00 PM for the PM. _ The generated traffic by the complex was computed utilizing the Trip Generation Manual, 3rd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. After a review of approved but not yet built projects in East Windsor with the East Windsor Town Planner, Ms. Maureen Westbrook, it was determined that two condominium developments, Scantic Glen and Stoughton Ridge, would affect traffic patterns at the intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5. Stoughton Ridge development is located on Stoughton Road near Route 5. It was judged that all southbound traffic generated by the Stoughton Ridge development will travel via Stoughton Road to Route 5 without affecting westbound traffic on Scantic Road. Therefore, only the -� Scantic Glen condominium complex will affect traffic patterns, on Scantic Road near our project. It was estimated in the traffic study for Scantic Glen by Storch Engineers that 18% of the traffic Louis Evans Chairman _2_ August 14, 1987 Town of South Windsor generated would pass our project site on Scantic -Road. We have estimated that 95% of that traffic would travel south on Route 5. This figure has been added to background traffic on Levels of service at the AM peak hour were determined for the existingplus traffic generated by both the Scantic G1 1) existing traffic coenland nStoughton Ridge Developments and 3) existing plus the Scantic Glen, Stoughton Ridge, and Jamestown Village condominium developments added together. Resultant levels of service and times of delay at the Route 5/Scantic Road intersection are as follows.. Existing & Existing & 1) Scantic Glen 1) Scantic Glen 2) Stoughton Ridge Existing 2) Stoughton Ridge 3) Jamestown Villas Level of Delay Level of Delay Level of Delay Service Time Service Time Service Time Westbound B 14 .75 C 15. 83 B 10. 48 B 5. 38 B 5.38 5.38 Northbound B - . - Southbound B 6. 35 B 6.75 B 6.75 Before any of the projects are constructed, the lev els of service are all B for the three directions of traffic at the- intersection. With the Scantic Glen and Stoughton Ridge projecec one service grade the in place, the westbound level drops other levels remain the same. However, with tehe addition nft turn oof lane on Scantic , Jamestown Village and subsequenaddition risesoback to level B. Also, Road the westbound level the additional traffic lane will reduce the delay time from an existing 14 . 75 seconds to 10. 48 seconds, a significant improvement. -� directlyat the project The most difficult trafficctobemanieftturn nto Scantic Road site would be exiting the project y westbound. A capacity analysis of this intersection reveals an A judged to be excellent.ud level of service, which is j g Another concern would be the stacking distance on Scantic ntAugust Road possibly preventing egress from the project ual stacking 41 1987 , a representative from our firm checked the act conditions on Scantic Road westbound at Route 5 and found that the MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS r _ Mr. Louise Evans Chairman 3 August 14, 1987 Town of South Windsor _ average stacking during peak AM hours was between 5and 6 vehicles or 125 ' to 150 ' and the maximum stacking was 14vehicles opeak01 . By having a second westbound lane on Scants , the'n distance w hour ill be reduced to 100 ' ; As the distance from stacking the intersection to the project entrance is 600 . , stacking is not anticipated to be a problem. the project will have no From the above analysis, we find that P 7 significant impact on the traffic in the area and on that basis, we recommend that the layout as presented be accepted. Very truly yours, John B. Duffy,OeA • JBD:wmr cc : John Netherton, Bradgate Maureen Westbrook, East Windsor Town Planner MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS John J Lea�Y� N1A1 Real Property Analysis, Consulting and Valuation August 25, 1987 Ms. Linnea McCaffrey Robinson & Cole One Commercial Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3597 RE: Proposed Jamestown Village Development John Fitch Boulevard (U.S. Route 5) and Scantic Road South Windsor, Connecticut Value Impact on Surrounding Properties Dear Ms. McCaffrey: At your request, I have inspected the site for the above captioned development, studied existing neighborhood conditions, reviewed plans for the proposed development, and investigated the market for the purpose of analyzing the value impact of the proposed development on surrounding properties. The proposed development consists of 148 condominium dwellings to be marketed in the $135 , 000 . to $165 , 000 . price range on a 72 . 52 acre site , resulting in an overall project density of 2 . 0 dwellings per acre. Sizes of the dwellings will range from 824 sq.ft. (one-bedroom) up to 1 , 720 sq. ft . ( three-bedroom with finished loft) . The developer has a similar offering in Glastonbury known as Georgetown Village, and this analysis included an inspection of the Georgetown Village dwellings and site to assist in envisioning the character of the subject. The immediate area is in the extreme northwest corner of South Windsor , well removed from existing areas of condominium development in the south central sector of Town. The site is naturally buffered from most surrounding properties. To the north is Scantic Road and the Town of East Windsor . The principal neighboring improvements are a mobile home park and a variety of older dwellings ranging in size from 550 sq.ft. to 1,500 sq.ft. To the east are undeveloped lands along the Scantic River . The developing John Fitch Industrial Center (Commerce Drive) borders the subject on the south and marks the north end of a major industrial zone extending along the east side of John Fitch Boulevard throughout most of South Windsor. In the immediate area, this zone extends about one mile east of John Fitch Boulevard along Sullivan Avenue and Rye Street. One West Main Street Meriden, Connecticut 06450 (203) 634-3883 Ms. Linnea McCaffrey (continued) Page 2 To the west , across the four-lane John Fitch Boulevard (U.S. Route 5) are several older dwellings , at least two of which contain office uses , and a small industrial property with a shop building behind an older dwelling used as an office. The subject site also extends around three, single-family residences on the east side of John Fitch Boulevard. Two were built in 1979 and contain 1,232 and 1,296 sq.ft. and one dates back to 1940 and contains 1,545 sq.ft. The nearest concentrated area of single-family residential development is over one-half mile to the east of the subject off Rye Street , Farnham Estates/McGrath Estates. This area features a predominance of ranch-style homes (1,000-1,300 sq.ft. ) built in the mid-to-late 1950's and early 1960 ' s . The current price range in this area is $115,000. .� to $140,000. After reviewing the proposed subject and its environs in detail, it is my conclusion that the value impact of the proposed Jamestown Village Development on surrounding properties will be positive, since the character and price range of the subject dwellings will tend to uplift surrounding property values. The attached table outlines recent sales activity for single-family dwellings in the area proximate to the subject . This abbreviated report of findings is intended to accompany an oral presentation to the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission. I certify that I have no interest , present or contemplated, in the property or parties involved in the proposed development and that the conclusions of this analysis are my professional and unbiased conclusions based on the data researched. Lynn K. Hazard assisted wi th research and analysis. R e u y submitted, JohnJ. ary MAI JJL oLcg cc: Mr. John Netherton Bradgate, Inc. John J. Leary, MAI Real Property Analysis, Consulting and Valuation RE: Proposed Jamestown Village Development A-1 John Fitch Boulevard (U.S. Route 5) and Scantic Road South Windsor, Connecticut Value Impact on Surrounding Properties Summary of Proximate Residential Sales Living Lot _ Area Area Year Location (Sq.Ft. ) (Acres) Built Sale Date Sale Price Area North of Subject Scantic Road, East Windsor 364 Scantic Road 10,091 0.16+ 1943 11-26-86 $ 82,000. 323 Scantic Road 858 0.72+ 1955 05-07-86 $ 52,500. Area West of Subject John Fitch Boulevard, South Windsor 1747 John Fitch Blvd. 2,159 0.70+ 1960 06-30-86 $116,000. 2092 John Fitch Blvd. 1,051 0.39+ 1946 05-30-86 $ 90,000. Area One-Half Mile East of Subject Farnham Estates/McGrath Estates, South Windsor 10 Merge Road 1,291 0.44+ 1958 05-19-87 $138,956. 44 High Tower Drive 1,046 0.54+ 1958 05-14-87 $118,500. 18 Dower Road 1,005 0.46+ 1957 05-01-87 $117,500. 74 Farnham Road 1,005 0.45+ 1958 04-29-87 $118,000. 170 Scantic Meadow Rd. 1,005 0.53+ 1958 04-29-87 $120,000. 50 Allison Drive 1,017 0.45+ 1958 01-29-87 $117,000 . 81 Farnham Road 1,005 0.45+ 1958 12-22-86 $ 92,500. 100 Scantic Meadow Rd. 1,291 0.49+ 1958 12-16-86 $125,000. 60 Scantic Meadow Rd. 1,046 0.80+ 1958 10-20-86 $100,000. John J. Leary, MAI Real Property Analysis, Consulting and Valuation ,� 11 ���due���`?► r � • I A-3 APPRAISAL AND CONSULTING QUALIFICATIONS: JOHN J. LEARY, MAI Education Boston College, A.B. Degree: 1970 Specific course work on Introductory and Advanced Topics in Real Estate Appraisal Theory: 1971-1976. Graduate course work in Business Administration at the University of Connecticut: 1977-1979. Various seminars and conferences on Real Estate Analysis and Valuation Topics: 1973-Present. Professional Designations MAI No. 5789, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. President, Connecticut Chapter No. 19: 1985 and 1986 Chairman, National Appraisal Standards Board: 1986 and 1987 Mr . Leary is certified under the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers voluntary program of continuing education through September 15, 1987. Professional Organizations Associate Member, The Urban Land Institute. Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers. Greater Hartford Board of Realtors (Institute Affiliate) . Greater New Haven Board of Realtors (Non-Resident) . Real Estate Appraisal and Consulting Experience Mr . Leary has been involved in the analysis and valuation of real estate on a full-time basis since 1970. He directed the Appraisal and Research Division of Billings & Co. , Inc./Advest from October, 1977 through January, 1985 and established his own practice by acquiring the Billings/Advest files in February, 1985. Appraisal assignments have included : single and multi-family dwellings ; vacant sites in various zone classifications; apartment and condominium complexes ; retail commercial and office buildings ; industrial buildings; convalescent homes; hotels and motels; and as is valuations and/or rehabilitation conversions of mills, schools and municipal buildings . Mr . Leary has appeared in Connecticut and Massachusetts courts as an expert witness on real estate value. Consulting assignments have included : highest and best use , marketability , and/or feasibility analyses ; risk analyses of properties as collateral for mortgage financing; analyses of the contribution of real property to the overall financial standing of a corporation seeking venture capital ; due diligence analysis for real estate syndications ; and the review and critique of real estate appraisal reports for various decision-making purposes. Related Experience Faculty, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: 1983-Present. Faculty, Society of Real Estate Appraisers: 1980-1982. Developed and instructed seminars on the proper use of the FNMA/FHLMC Residential Appraisal Forms: 1974-1984 . Member of Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Hamden, Connecticut, from June, 1981 to January, 1983. John J. Leary, MAI Real Property Analysis, Consulting and Valuation NORTHEAST SOILS ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTS INLAND WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION 26 FERNWOOD LANE CHESHIRE,CONNECTICUT 06410 TELEPHONE(203) 272-1100 May 29, 1986 Jc:.h No . -J-86-70-S.W I tJ BradgatE- _ Johri Nc.-th -rtc-ri 1.351 Nei.psic Rd . G1astonbuc y . C-f 06033 PROJECT LOCATION: Ft=v . f=:-=tiph SEWndc-rs. 197() John Fitch B1�c1 . , :�cc_►Ft-r Wii-idsoi . Connecticut . SOIL REPORT 1(i coriductiiIg the field investigatioin.- marry soil bocings wei-e taken in which the soil scic-nt3st notes many i.mportal-It sail prc1per+ies . They are as follows; the -,F_.-asocial so.i. ] mc.lsturF condition or the prase ice of free water arid its r1lepth . For hor ]. on In the soil profile, thlci 1iess. ccrloi- , and tF' •:tU're a'r'e al<__o rioted . The ct'i ear shown ci i'i the 5c,1 1 mz-p are called S01 1 fflaf'' Uni tS . Some mctp UY-O tS Are n,Eid&_' LIP o*f �'1 r;d c_�f soil , others, ai-e made ccp of two or more I.:.inds of sc-ll . ai-id & few ha-.Ye little or rc, soil mcatcrlc-il at z:,11 . The 3C,fai._mation lrr this report is based c_,n ecaminatl-on and interpi -tonic of sr...ils to a ma ;imitm depth of abaLct 6(--) inches. The cloassificatiarr of the N&at a curial Cooperative Soil Survey , USDA, Soil Co-iiser-vation Sei vice arid the:, Cc.-ui ity Soil Legend were used in this invest i.gat i on. Inspection Date: May 27 29, 1986 Map: Proper-ty 11irf f<iari Scale: r f-i c-i Contour: 8 Size of project: oppro-.: . 6C-) Fier- v-s Wetland soils field marked for- aL.crvey: YES. Nonwetland soils field identified arid sketched : YES =,o i 1 cc.:-nd i.t ions at the time of Survey: tvio i S'r 11-1roperty lines field =_c(rveyed at the t7.r(ie�of soil N/F) Pi-opE_r-ty I ines identifii=tble: YES Vegetation type wetlands---: Red Maple Vegetation type nonwetlands: Red Maple, mi;:ed hardwoods. open fi.F---lds, NORTHEAST SOILS �L Ecruce C. Laskey Soil Scientist c 2 PROJECT: Gaunders; , John Fitch Blvcl ., , 5ot_cth Wi-i-Ids lr , CT Marking sequence of wetland boundaries Orrl,-iye 1 th)-c_1 j(-) 51 thrcc 1.29 12 9 thru 122 - 1921 th-Irc.c 1,94 195 t1-irk_i 252 Soil Type -! Depth To ; Depth To : Depth To Seasonal % Bedrock Wetland Soils _ Mottl ing_. „ Bedrock ,_High Water Table in Soil Unit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I ( Bf ) D] d d e f c,r d i c, 1 , )11 i .6t')11 ()—()`,11 N(--,v-May i I ICI I'IE" 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 11 i ��1 �:)—{-)611 Nov—Mcty i nc, c:: 1 , 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 c 11 1 ' 11 i 1 61) 1 ,.)- 1 �'I I Nov-May 1-1c17-Ic:" 1 , 1 NONWETLAND SOILS 1 1 1 l_� :t CI 1 I b..11 / 1 1 2+- ,_, Nov- fiFl a. 1 1 ncl��� , 1 I 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 ;�) E 1.r,vjc,c�d 1 1 �_: O Nov-April I none 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 W''y W11.1d. o r_ ' ��•t)11 b()11 i :']2'1 i 1-ICI I ie ) 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I i 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I , , I , , 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Comments: Norio Soil descriptions begin on page 3. - � ' 3 - SOIL DESCRIPTIONS WETLAND SOILS _ Thzs so-Ll series cons.1sts o1 very poorly d, �zoed s� ] ty sozls that have developed zn grayish glac �ulacustrzne silt and cl Typically, the surface layer is blac| silt loam 10 Inches thzc|' . T|/e subsoxl is mottled dar} yellowish brown silty clay loxim 18 inches `� ` c | ' The substr+tum z� mottled sz ] ty clay lo�m. _ U_m)_'This :-:oil serze� consists of poorly drained so` ls of flood p laz ns that have developed from sediment derived mainly from srh�s+ and gneiss. Typzcally, the sor1'ace layer is very day-If grayish brnw.. - silt luam with fine mottles 8 inches thick . The substratum is mottled qravi�h b/'own si ] t loam' F��ll Thi� soil se, `. � cons�=ts of pno. ly d/'ained that hpve developed on glar ` olacus+r ] '`e szlt and clay . Typically . the - �'`/'face layer 15 ver v dar| g/-ayish brnwn s / 1 6 znches th ick . The s,`bsozl � s �ottled d�, \ gra> si ] t� c lay loam 18 �nches thzck . Mottling ger.e'ally occi,rs wz+hzn 10 ` nches nf the The substratum is dark bro^'o sil +v clay loam th�t very firm. - ' _ - / - Ir 4 j SOIL DESCRIPTIONS NONWETLAND SOILS 1:cu,:ton s11t _1c,��m_ H,: ) 'i*hic C.r_+1 1 sev"LE S COVI is of moderately well. drained sails that havoc- cic�velopc:,d ort glacial lol-,e �'L 1 t a-rid clay. Typically, the surface layF,r 3s d&arE gi''r►yi.sh brown silt loan 6 inches thief . The subsoil 1r, t'he L(pper r;i.74i i <- darl' vE1lr_+wis-_,h b) c'+w►, silt loam gradi►-ig to a mottled 11 qht. brovjn-ish q►- i 1 t `. c 14,y lc+ti(i► 1 ri �hr- 1c+we,- part . Mottle (--+ccur at: vary 1►"►g de t;hs, hi.► C,t less th,kn 2() 1 i-iches. The EUt'i' t IF ;it►_lm 1 s d�-ark- redd1st", p i 7.4 v,c-t►- c.,l:j silty clay loam. Elmwood sandy l .!am (Ero 1-h3.< soil c►_ vis-i1rtJ-- c+f mod(�:-rate1Y well drained outwash sails . Thev developed o' er glacial lal::e silt j-+nd clay which is at: d►2pt.hs o-f ?�'i + c, 48 inches.. 'T,,•p ].cally , the surface laver 1s d_+r1•- grayish brc+wri sandy loam 6 i.richc•: The s,►bK=a11 =,Lr_,i.(t 20 inch(_-•=_ thick . Thc-. ►lpp(:?r part is a brow*,, loam while the part 1 mottled d,:ir{ gI a\%1sh brown 1oaMy T 1 i-iE �r+nd . Mc+t't,'lcz-s genera11 � c+CCur w 1 t t I i n 2(,) i V-►c h c�- C,f -t h F:, f;i r e. T h r�. i.1 b t i a t'(.l m i s +_+3 .'e g i F�y 'v a r v e d c_,] 3 t W7 r,dro'I""' I C+ci(Ti'7_ f_1 i,(:: r'>c=+.'1ci 4 W`r I his s(_+11 cor►s1st;r ol drainc-ed gIac:1 _►1 -_+ufvii=++sti so-L1.s. Typlca13y , the surface 1.ayer is dal k yel. l.owish bi cwr, 3oamy fi►-ie send 8 i►ichG�=- thick . The subsoil is strong b,-c+w►-) f ] r,�n -knd lh i ►ichF-s thlc-l: . _fh ,ubsytr<<t'(_(m is grayish 1_+'r'oW►ri n d ., N )RTHEAST SOL-S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS INLAND WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION 26 FERNWOOD LANE CHESHIRE,CONNECTICUT 06410 TELEPHONE(203) 272-1100 Nov. 9. 1986 Jab No . io-86-288-S.WIND Bradgate Associates. Inc . Jahn Netherton 135 Neipsic Rd . Glastonbury, CT (--)6033 PROJECT LOCATION: gataluvitz . Rte 5 Scantic fed . . South Windsor , Connecticut . SOIL REPORT In conducting the field investigation. many sail borings were taken in which the sail scientist notes many important sail properties. They are as follows: the seasonal soil moisture condition or the presence of free water and its depth . For each hori-an in the sail profile. thickness. color . and texture are also noted . The areas shown on the sail map are called sail map units. Some map units are made up of one kind of sail , others are made up of two or more kinds -' of soilq and a few have little or no sail material at all . The information in this report is based on examination and interpretation of sails to a maximum depth of about 60 inches. The classification of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA. Sail Conservation Service and the County Sail Legend were used in this investigation. Inspection Date: Nov. 7. 1986 Map: Tax assessors map Scale: 10(--) Contour: None Size of project: Approx . 18 acres Wetland sails field marked for survey: YES Nonwetland soils field identified and sketched: YES Sail conditions at the time of survey: MOIST Property lines field surveyed at the time of sail inspection: YES Property lines identifiable: YES Vegetation type wetlands---: Pasture grasses Vegetation type nonwetlands: Pasture grasses. Mixed hardwoods NORTHEAST SOILS 0� Bruce C. Laskey Soil Scientist 2 PROJECT: eataluvitz , Rte 5 u Scantic Fed . , South Windsor . CT . Marking sequence of wetland boundaries Orange flagging 1 thru 5 6 thru 17 18 thru 29 Soil Type Depth To : Depth To Depth To Seasonal % Bedrock Wetland Soils Mottling Bedrock High Water Table _ : in Soil Unit (Ma-W) Made variable >60" variable none Land ,, Wet (Sc ) Scantic :.•6( (.1-18 Nov-May Wane NONWETLAND SOILS (Af) Agawam i :4(�1" ::•6i1" :.72" i none (En) Elmwood 18-39" .'60 18-36" Nov-May none (Ma) Made land ! variable 1•6011 variable none (Nn) Ninigret 18-39" b�)" 18-42" Nov-April 1 none (Wv) Windsor i •4()" >60" %.72" i none , , , , , , , , , , Comments: None Soil descriptions begin on page 3. l 3 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS WETLAND SOILS Made land wet (Ma-W)�This sail series consists of poorly to very poorly drained sails that have been disturbed . Typically the sail profile has been disturbed to such an extent that the original sail cannot be identified . The disturbance could have been through leveling , filling or excavating . If filling has taken place generally 2 feet or less of fill is present over the original soil . The sail has a high water table that is capable of supporting wetland vegetation. Scantic silt loam (Sc ) This sail series consists of poorly drained sails that have developed on glaciolacustrine silt and clay. Typicallyq the surface layer is very dare, grayish brown silt loam b inches thick . The subsoil is mottled dare:: gray silty clay loam 18 inches thick . Mottling generally occurs within 10 inches of the surface. The substratum is dark: brawn silty clay loam that is very firm. 4 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS NONWETLAND SOILS Agawam fine sandy loam (Af) This well drained sail farmed in a loamy mantle over stratified sand and gravel derived mainly from gneiss and schist. Typically, the surface layer is darte brawn fine sandy loam 9 inches thick: . The subsoil is yellowish brawn fine sandy loam 20 inches thick . The sub- stratum is light yellowish brawn and pale alive sand to a depth of 6(--) inches or more. Permeability ranges from moderately rapid in the surf ace layer and subsoil and rapid in the substratum. Agawam sails are on outwash plains and terraces in stream valleys. Elmwood sandy loam (En) This sail series consists of moderately well drained autwash sails. They developed over glacial lat::e silt and clay which is at depths of 24 to 48 inches. Typically, the surface layer is darte grayish brawn sandy loam 6 inches thict:: . The subsoil is about 20 inches thick . The upper part is a brawn sandy loam while the lower part is mottled dark grayish brawn loamy fine sand . Mottles generally occur within 20 inches of the surface. The substratum is olive gray varved silt and silty clay loam. Made land (Ma) This sail series consists of well to moderately well drained sails that have been disturbed . Typically the sail profile has been disturbed to such an extent that the original soil cannot be identified . The disturbance could have been through leveling , excavating or filling . Ninigret fine sandy loam (Nn) This soil series consists of moderately well drained sails that farmed in a loamy mantle over stratified sand and gravel derived mainly from gneiss and schist . Typically, the surface layer is darn grayish brawn fine sandy loam 6 inches thictr. . The subsoil is yellowish brawn fine sandy loam 20 inches thick . Mottles generally occur in the lower part of the subsoil usually within 20 inches of the surface. The substratum is mottled gray fine sand . 5 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS NONWETLAND SOILS Windsor loamy fine sand (Wv) This sail series consists of e ;cessi•vely drained glacial outwash sails. Typically, the surface layer is dark: yellowish brawn loamy fine sand 8 inches thick . The subsoil is strong brawn loamy fine sand 16 inches thick . The substratum is grayish brawn sand . August 20 , 1987 Carl and Betty Sellers 376 Scantic Road East Windsor , CT 06088 Ms . Louise Evans , Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor , CT 06074 Dear Ms . Evans : We own property on Scantic Road directly opposite the proposed zone change for Jamestown Village condominiums . We feel that this zone change will be a benefit to this area and support this project. Thank you , Carl llers Betty Sellers 46-111-t RVI." NO �\til Z►-f t�V V�..� IRNU r -- - r .IL So �--i J / 1 cc/ -- --- I / ` W i/vim S J-4- X - q r � nr t r, _a-� � s - 1t •� 'S- _ � _ �. •:•''� Cam' _- __ :fr! -- ���•c�• i- � �.; ��.,•�►•*. •`f - � � tit •... �:�, "' y • r _ ,. John Dingess 278 South Main Street East Windsor, CT 06088 August 20, 1987 Ms. Louise Evans, Chairman Town of South Windsor South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Evans: As owner of land and a house on Rt 5 near Jamestown Village, I feel that the application for a zone change for condominiums is a good use for the area and fully support the application. Sincerely yours, John Dinge a, a � ti �� Mr. William B. Kowalczyk Mrs. Patricia E. Kowalczyk 2039 John Fitch Blvd. South Windsor, CT 06088 August 20, 1987 Ms. Louise Evans, Chairman Town of South Windsor South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Evans: My house is on Route 5 directly opposite the zone change for Jamestown Village Condominiums. We have lived here a long time and feel that condominiums are a logical choice for the property and fully support this application. We feel it will benefit our property as well as the Town of South Windsor as a whole. Sincerely yours, William B.� Kowalczyk WvL jg- K 4 ' Patricia E. Kowalczyk c r31 C August 10, 1987 To Whom it may concern: We understand that there are plans to develop a condiminium complex which may border the property at 67 Schanck Road, East Windsor. We are hereby stating that at this time we as the owners of this property, have no objections to the construction of this complex, nor do we foresee any objection at any time in the future. } Sincerly, M Dennis Smith elerie�wWhitehead ".0//40 •c - o �`�• -C V „. t Q no q .f William Ulcinskas Evelyn Ul-cinskas 267 Scantic Rd. East Windsor, CT 06088 August 21 , 1987 Ms. Louise Evans, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Evans: As owner of adjacent land in South Windsor to George Batulevitz, I am supporting the application of Bradgate Associates to rezone the area for the Jamestown Village Condominiums. I have seen the plans and feel that this proposal will benefit this area very much. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, William Ulcinskas 1 - Evelyn Ulcinskas •G C� O _•r S � ;f� G O. � B1 h E AST WIN DSOR 240 SOUTH MAIN ST. Fo f EAST WINDSOR. CONN.06066 aWca (203)623.2406 (203)2*6M (413)7364334 August 19, 1987 Louise Evans, Chairman Planning and Zonig Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor, Ct. 06074 Dear Ms. Evans; As owners of property adjacent to the proposed _ Jamestown Village zone change. we have no objections to the zone change whatsoever. We believe that the proposed Jamestown Village will be a multi-faceted asset to the town and the region. We have done research on the development company, and their prior construction and been both well planned and very well executed. Sincerely, Monica T. Balch MTB:ja CJP r ESTABLISHED 1935-NEVER KNOWINGLY UNDERSOLD c Ronald Giannamore 53 Newbery Rd. East Windsor , CT 06088 August 18, 1987 Ms . Louise Evans , Chairman South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission South Windsor , CT 06074 Dear Ms . Evans : As owner of property in South Windsor , near the proposed zone change for Jamestown Village, I have no objections to this change for condominiums . Sincerely yours , 99;06001 ..'0 *& Ronald Giannamore Irk g3 G _ h �N in�sor •sstoa tau Zoning Mrs . Rae Sazinski 374 Scantic Road E . Windsor , CT 06088 August 20 , 1987 Ms . Louise Evans , Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor , CT 06074 Dear Ms . Evans : My property is directly opposite the proposed zone change for Jamestown Village and feel that this will be an asset to this area and support this application . Sincerely yours , Rae Sazinski `' l i I � i ; I ------------------- ---- --------- - --- ---- -------------- -------------- I �`� - "�yr�i�'i�- Try=�-1'►'�P-- S- - ------- - -------- _ I ' if ii la 071 go - ---- ---------- --- CPZ _T, f i � i E� JAMESTOWN VILLAGE Analysis of Tax Revenues and Costs to the Town of South Windsor Prepared by Robinson & Cole August 17, 1987 Jamestown Village Financial Impact Estimated Tax Expenditures: General Budget Expenses 414 Residents x $629 .71 = $260,700 School Child Cost 23 Children x $4,945.75 = 113,752 Total Tax Expenditures $340 ,072 Estimated Tax Revenues: Real Estate Taxes $324,858 Motor Vehicle Taxes 26,686 Total Tax Revenues $351, 544 Excess Revenue $ 11, 470 Population Projections Total Population* 20,850 as of 7/1/86 Total Dwelling Units** : as of 4/1/87 7 ,663 as of 1985 6,997 interpolated for 1986 7,330 Percent Distribution of Dwelling Units: Single-Family 5,689 74% as of 4/l/87** Multi-family 1,781 23% Two-Family 193 3% Total 7 ,663 100% Estimated Persons Per Dwelling Unit: 20,850 - 7, 330 = 2.8 as of 1986 Jamestown Village Estimated Residents: 148 Units x 2 .8 = 414 * Source: Connecticut Department of Health Services ** Source: South Windsor Planning Department Proiected Tax Revenues ( In 1987 Dollars) Real Estate Tax Revenue: Estimated Unit No. of Estimated Assessed Type Units Current Prices Values ( 44% of Price) 3 BR Townhouse 21 $160, 000 $1,478,400 2 BR Townhouse 29 145 , 000 1,850 , 200 1 BR Townhouse 9 130 , 000 514,800 1 BR Townhouse 1 65 , 000 65, 000 2 BR "Flat" 74 120 ,000 3,907 , 200 2 BR "Flat" 14 80, 000 492,800 Total 148 -- -- -- $8, 308, 400 TOTAL REAL ESTATE TAX REVENUE _ $324,858 (Assessed Value x 0 .0391 Mill Rate) Motor Vehicle Tax Revenue* 148 units x 1 . 32 vehicles/unit = 195. 36 vehicles, say 195 195 vehicles x $3,500 average assessed value = $682, 500 assessed value $682, 500 x 0 . 0391 mill rate = $26,686 motor vehicle tax revenue Proiected Tax Expenditures 87-88 General Budget Expenditures Per Capita** $ 629 . 71 ($13,129 , 545 divided by 20,850 1986 est ' d.pop. ) 87-88 Expenditure Per Pupil*** $4,931 . 51 ($18 million divided by 3,650 projected enrollment) *Source: 1986 Grandlist and Population Estimates of this Report **Source: 1987-88 South Windsor Budget ***Source: South Windsor School Board School Child Projections Existing Condominium Data: # of # of Location Children* Units factor Plum Ridge 7 48** . 146 Bryrewood and Mill River Meadow 10 378 . 026 Strawbridge 11 252*** . 044 Total 28 678 . 04 * Number of Children enrolled in South Windsor Schools as of 7/20/87 ( Source-Assistant Superintendent , South Windsor Board of Education) ** CO' s issued as of 12/30/86 ***Excluding Phases IV & V. not yet completed (Source-South Windsor Building Inspector ) Estimate for Jamestown Village: 21 3 BR units X . 25 = 5. 25 118 2 BR units X . 15 = 17 .70 10 1 BR units X . 02 = . 20 Total 23 . 15 f Jam stown Village Bradgate, Inc. Zone Change Application Impact Analysis Questions Date: July 22, 1987 Person Interviewed: Gary Tyler, Chief Department: Police Department 1 . What are the services and facilities managed by your department that would be involved in the development of Jamestown Village or used by its residents? Dispatch EMS plus police service. 2. What impacts would this project have on your department? No quantifiable impact - any new development increases the number of calls. 3. Can you quantify the dollar value of those impacts and the anticipated use of services and facilities? No. 4. Uo you have any conwient5 un Lfte ui the development? Concern of lighting in parking areas. How well are units secured? Details like security locks for sliding glass doors. Would like lighted unit numbers and placed in same location on each unit. Use landscaping to discourage thieves. Jamestown Village Bradgate, Inc. Zone Change Application Impact Analysis Questions Date: 7/22/87 Person Interviewed: Chief Lanning Department: Fire 1 . What are the services and facilities managed by your department that would be involved in the development of Jamestown Village or used by its residents? Volunteer fire dept.; fires insignificant with new construction - no measurable impact now. Condos comparable to single family dwellings for fire incidence 2. What impacts would this project have on your department? None. 3. Can you quantify the dollar value of those impacts and the anticipated use of services and facilities? 4. uo you have any comments on Lhe cite5ign of Lhe development? If units in townhouse split at story level - must restricts use of barbecue on decks; don't store "l .p" gas (for grills) in basement in multifamily dwellings. Water Co. does layout of water service (will know what fire dept. is looking for). J.V. requires more hydrants than average (500' ) because of loops off main road. Who will maintain fire hydrants? Water Co. tests & lubricates, provides annual maintenance. Don't allow plantings around hydrants. Snow removal - town hires contractor to remove from hydrants - condo assoc. would have to do (no ordinance requiring this of property owners. ) $5.50/hydrant. Jam stown Village Bradgate, Inc. Zone Change Application Impact Analysis Questions Date: 8/18/87 Person Interviewed:Michael Gantick, Director Department: Public Works 1 . What are the services and facilities managed by your department that would be involved in the development of Jamestown Village or used by its residents? - off-site drainage - negligible for this project. - sanitary sewers - would be responsible if WPCA accepts pump station - requires weekly; inspections, test, checking stand-by power; chemicals & cleaning. Force-line check. - Construction inspections. 2. What impacts would this project have on your department? Possible increase of staff - would have to be evaluated (need flow data and work related to pump station) 3. Can you quantify the dollar value of those impacts and the anticipated use of services and facilities? No. 4. Do you have any comments an the desiyii of the- development? Engineering would have to review. d Jam stown Village Bradgate, Inc. Zone Change Application Impact Analysis Questions Date: July 22, 1987 Person Interviewed: James Snow, Director Department: Recreation 1 . What are the services and facilities managed by your department that would be involved in the development of Jam stown Village or used by its residents? 3BR units will have children - more participants - programs. Closest park-Rye St. - has tennis courts, 2 softball fields residents could participate in softball teams. Winter sports at Eli Terey School on Griffin Road. 2. What impacts would this project have on your department? No great impact - town's only outdoor swimming pool is at capacity, but this project provides two pools, and adequate recreation for its residents. 3. Can you quantify the dollar value of those impacts and the anticipated use of services and facilities? No. 4. Do you have any comments on the debign of Lhe developzent? Declining interest in tennis. Other condos - provide tennis courts Some have installed playscapes Recommends outdoor basketball court, our jogging design is good if a playing field is added it should be a minimum of 250' square Jamestown Village Bradgate, Inc. Zone Change Application Impact Analysis Questions Date: July 22, 1987 Person Interviewed: Gary Tyler, Chief Department: Police Department _ 1 . What are the services and facilities managed by your department that would be involved in the development of Jamestown Village or used by its residents? Dispatch EMS plus police service. 2. What impacts would this project have on your department? No quantifiable impact - any new development increases the number of calls. 3. Can you quantify the dollar value of those impacts and the anticipated use of services and facilities? No. 4. Uo you have any cvmnients un Lhe uCS gii ui the development? Concern of lighting in parking areas. How well are units secured? Details like security locks for sliding glass doors. Would like lighted unit numbers and placed in same location on each unit. Use landscaping to discourage thieves. crco� CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS - 0 221 MAIN STREET —HARTFORD, CT 06106 ♦o Tel. (203) 522-2217 MEMTf OANA S.HANSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT ON ZONING REFERRAL #87/90 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR July 13, 1987 Commissioners: Receipt is acknowledged of the above-numbered referral . Notice of this proposal was transmitted to the Planning Division of the Capitol Region Council of Governments under the provisions of Section 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended. The referral involves proposed zone change from RR, A-20, Floodplain, Industrial to MF-AA, Multi-Family, containing 72.52 acres located on the east side of Rt. 5 (John Fitch Boulevard) on Scantic Road, within 500' of the East Windsor Town Line. Comments: The staff of the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of Governments hRs reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies. the plot is located just within the Regional Plan's generalized urban area on both the existing and proposed Regional Plan of Development. a generalized urban area runs along the East Windsor and South Windsor Town Lines). The Regional Plan c ass> >es the area in South Windsor (the area where the-project is proposed) as suburban, meaning that the area has broad land use potential - primarily residential , commercia , industrial and agriculture with residential densities ranging from 1 to 7 families per acre. The regional plan classifies the land in East Windsor as Rural - low density residential development at one or less families per acre. East Windsor's future land use plan proposes an extensive area easterly of the proposed project and northerly of Scantic Road for hgih density development so at some future time the developments and land use on both sides of the town lines should be somewhat compatable. However, because the area within East Windsor is presently zoned for low density development (Agl .) any concerns which officials may have concerning the p Jor ects impact, etc. should be carefully weighed to provide for a future land use pattern across town lines which is harmonious and promotes the land use proposals in both town plans as well as the Regional Plan of Development. Questions concerning this referral should be directed to Wil Maxwell . In accordance with our procedures this letter will constitute final CRCOG action on this referral . The public hearing date is scheduled for 7/14/87: A VOLUNTARY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FORMED TO INITIATE AND IMPLEMENT REGIONAL PROGRAMS OF BENEFIT TO THE TOWNS AND THE REGION. • (2) DISTRIBUTION: - Respectfully submitted, Planner: South Windsor, E. Windsor Theodore Brindamour„Chairman Frank Dzurenda, Vice-Chairman Regional Planning Commission Kelly Ostergren Clearinghouse Representative t _; August 25 , 1987 297 S . Main E . Windsor , CT Ms . Louise Evans , Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor , CT Dear Ms . Evans : My property is on Route 5 within 500 feet of the proposed Jamestown Village proposed by Bradgate Associates . I have reviewed the plans and feel that this will be a positive addition to this area , and have no objection to the proposed zone change . Sincerely yours , Paul J . Ianni A. Emilio Parente 287 S . Main Street E . Windsor , CT 06088 August 25 , 1987 Ms . Louise Evans , Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor , CT 06074 Dear Ms . Evans , As owner of property on Route 5 within 500 feet of the proposed Jamestown Village condominiums , I support the plan for this area . I have reviewed the plans and feel it will be an asset to both South Windsor and East Windsor and recommend approval of the zone change and plans . Sincerely , �. Emi io Parente Q 103� VO v t 0 Q� tow" SEA t� y Y 7�0 07je Saum V&U&10.t o C U �v 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR•CON AREA CODE 203/644-2511 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday, August 25 , 1987 at 8: 00 PM in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall , 1540 Sullivan Avenue , South Windsor , to consider the following : 1 . Application of Bradgate Associates for a zone change on 37 . 32 acres to MF-AA , currently zoned A-20, RR , FP , and I , and a General Plan of Development of Jamestown Village , consisting of 148 units , located on the east side of Route 5 , south of Scantic Road . 2 . Application of Ralph A Saunder for a zone change from A-20, RR to RO for 4. 25 acres of land located on the east side of Route 5 , south of Scantic Road. Copies of these applications and maps more clearly defining the properties are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of South Windsor . At this hearing interested persons may appear and be heard and written recommendations will be received . PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Louise C. Evans, Chairman David H. Sorenson , Secretary This hearing will be continued on Tuesday, September 8, 1987 at 8: 00 PM in Room A of South Windsor Town Hall . AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING 8: 00 p.m. Council Chambers (Please call Mrs . Evans, 289-7837 , or the Planning Dept. , 644-2511 , if you will be absent . ) PUBLIC HEARING - Legal Notice Attached 1 . Application of Bradgate Associates for a zone change on 73 . 98 acre to MF-AA, currently zoned AA, RR , FP and I, and a General Plan of Development of Jamestown Village, consisting of 148 units , located on the east- side of Route 5, south side of Scantic Road. 2. Application of Ralph A . Saunders for a zone change from A-20, RR to RO for 4. 25 acres of land located on the east side of Route 5, south of Scantic Road. OLD BUSINESS 1. Pending Applications which do not require IWA action prior to PZC action : a. Ridgefield III (Krawski ) subdiv . Action by 9/25## (PH 6/9) b . Partridge Meadow, subdiv . Action by 9/24 , (PH 7/21) C. Burger King Rest . resubdiv . PH 6/30 , Action by 9/26## d . Burger King Rest . site PH 6/30, Action by 9/12## e . JFI Assoc . Phase III zone change PH 6/30, Action by 11/6* f . Jamestown Vil. zone chg/gen. plan PH on 8/25, ## Action by 10/29 g . Ralph Saunders zone change PH on 8/25 ,*# Action by 10/29 h Shepard T & C Permit i . Atlantic Plywood Site Action by 10/10## j . JMJ Const . Headqtrs . Site Action by 10/30* k. Graham Village DA-15 zone PH by 10/29* PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -2- 2 . Pending Applications which require IWA action prior to PZC action : IWA Acted a . Mt . View Estates Subdiv-Ph . VI Action by 9/4* (PH 4/21) NO b . Charbonneau , Resubdiv . Action by 8/5 , (PH 6/2) NO C . R. Milkie , Spec . Exception Action by 9/25* , (PH 5/19) NO d . JFI Assoc . Subdiv . - Phase II Action by 11/6*, (PH 6/30) NO e . Michael Bell resubdiv . Action by 9/24 , (PH 7/21) NO f . Nutmeg Comm. Ctr . Ind . subdiv . Action by 9/11*# NO g . Nutmeg Comm. Ctr . Ind . site Action by 9/11#* NO h. Coven Mt . subdiv . Action by 9/24 ( 7/21) NO i . Seventh Day Adventist Site&spec .PH by 10/29 NO j . SW Heights Resub PH by 8/26 NO k . Maneeley Hall Site Action by 8/26, NO 1 . Spinners Est . Subdiv . Action by 10/29* NO M. Bayer Resubdivision PH by 10/29* NO n . Covensky ' s Ind . Site Action by 10/29* NO Minutes - April 7 , 21 , 28, May 5 , 12 , 19 , 26 , June 2 , 16, 23 , & 30 , July 7 , 14 , 21 , 28 . Adjournment LETTERS OF CREDIT (as of 8/18/87) APPLICANT BANK AMOUNT EXP .DATE FOLLOW UP J . F. I . Assoc . CBT $259000 3/31/88 12/31/87 Mountainview I CBT $409000 9/2/88 7/2/88** II CBT $130, 000 2/7/88 12/7/87 III CBT $2959000 6/ 12/87 4/12/87** IV CBT $209000 10/27/87 8/27/87 IV CB $3809000 10/27/87 8/27/87 Stonefield SWB&T $509000 7/30/87 5/l/87** P1 .Hill Condo. I CNB $709000 6/ 1/88 4/l/88 it 29394 CNB $609000 12/31/87 8/1/87 Countryview, Ill Colonial $609000 5/18/88 3/18/88 it IV Colonial $130, 000 2/27/88 10/27/88 Chapel Hill Condo CNB $309000 6/l/88 4/1/88 P . V . Homes, 6, 7, 8 CBT $902000 3/25/88 1/25/88 Windshire , 1 , 2, 4, 5 SWB&T $759000 1/24/88 10/l/87 it 6 SWB&T $1009000 6/27/88 4/27/88 if 6 SWB&T $59000 6/27/88 4/27/88 PV Homes II , 1 CNB $1309000 5/23/88 3/23/88 it 2 CNB $2409000 12/6/87 9/6/87 Plum Ridge Society $1009000 6/25/88 4/25/88 it " Society $209000 6/25/87 4/25/87** Plum Ridge 3 Society $3259000 3/31/88 1/1/89 Forest Village CBT $459000 7/10/88 5/10/88 Lakewood Society $1759000 4/16/88 02/16/88 Rainbow Hills SWB&T $159000 10/18/87 8/18/87** ►' it SWB&T $1219000 2/27/88 12/27/87 Wapping Shop . SWB&T $59, 000 4/22/88 02/22/88 " it SWB&T $59000 4/22/88 02/22/88 Morgan Farms SWB&T $20, 000 5/28/88 2/28/88 " '► SWB&T $1659000 8/6/87 6/6/87** " it SWB&T $25 , 000 C/D Traffic Light Strawbridge Suffield $359000 C/D Traffic Light Samsel Peerless $5 , 000 Sidewalks Col .Cornere SWB&T $59000 10/9/87 8/9/87** Woodpond SWB&T $79000 11/6/87 1 yr . maintenance Abbe Rd .Est . SWB&T $709000 11/19/87 9/19/87 Beechwood Farms II CNB $3909000 03/24/88 01/01/88 Abbe Rd .Est . SWB&T $109000 11/19/87 9/19/87 Govenors Square CNB 909000 2/24/88 12/24/87 Cambridge Estates CNB $3059000 3/10/88 1/10/88 Woodmar II Tolland $80, 000 4/22/88 2/1/88 Victorian Woods Society $3609000 5/21/88 3/1/88 Brookside Condo CBT $5009000 6/05/88 4/05/88 C&C Realty SWB&T $59000 7/13/88 5/01/88 *With Expiration Dates Chopstix Chinese, Foods - Western Surety Co. , $3 , 000 IWA EXP . 12/8/87 ** Follow-up letters have been sent . PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -2- 8/25/87 TEMPORARY & CONDITIONAL PERMITS ectro- et o s, yrs . 67307138 Grigorian , S .W.Arena ,Motocross , 5/ 12/89 Shepard , Sand & Gravel removal 5/19/89 United Technologies , Modular Office , 7/ 1/88 9/1 Special Meeting- JFI Assoc . , Nutmeg Commercial Center 9/8 Regular Meeting 9/15 Special Meeting 9/22 Regular Meeting George Bancroft 1985 Rt. #5 East Windsor Hill, Ct. 06028 August 29, 1987 South Windsor Zoning Commission Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, Ct. 06074 Attention: Mrs. Louise Evans, Chairman Yesterday I received a telephone call from Mrs. Rae Sazinski of 374 Scantic Roads East Windsor, Ct. She called to apologize for not attending the August 25th public hearing on the "Jamestown" proposal. I told her that I was confused as I heard a letter read from her at the meeting that indicated she was in favor of the plan. She said that was not true and that when the letter was presented to her for signature, she was under sedation due to her mother being very ill. She said she thought the letter was against the zone change. As a result of her call, I have had her sign a currently dated copy of our petition to the Commission to set the records clear. Very truly yours, Georg Bancroft Ida ,y of/ 0-61001 � 17 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow th building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 1. The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. , 3. Thp location of the proposed "Jamestown" does -riot meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plane i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4e One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd.) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME _ ADDRESSL.AUaAk _ _--__------ __-- ----- ----- APO- r ---- ti1 .Q11 (a A L 4V --s - Petitiom Solicito —.��� _ -- ✓ -------- --- --..- Comments: _ _- - - ---- - -------- - - - - ----- ------ --- - -- - - - Presentation of BRADGATE ASSOCIATES, INC. in support of its application for Change of Zone from Rural Residence (RR) , Industrial ( I ) and Residential A20 (A20 ) to Multi-family (MF-AA) Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission August 25, 1987 Bradgate Associates, Inc. .135 Neipsic Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 BRADGATE ASSOCIATES, INC. List of Speakers Lawyer : 275-8228 Dwight H. Merriam Robinson & Cole One Commercial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Applicant : 659-2138 John Netherton Bradgate Associates, Inc. 135 Neipsic Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 Landscape Architect, Site Designer : 693-2085 Phil Doyle L.A.D.A. Landscape Architectural Design Associates P.O. Box 183 Collinsville, CT 06022 Engineer : 633-0201 Jack Duffy, P.E. Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. Consulting Engineers 178 Oakwood Drive Glastonbury, CT 06033 Environmental Scientist : Michael Klien Environmental Planning Services RR2 Box 417 New Hartford, CT 06057 Appraiser : 634-3883 John J. Leary, MAI 1 West Street Meriden, CT 06450 Available to Answer uestions Linnea McCaffrey Land Use Analyst Robinson & Cole Mahesh Naik Engineer Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. BRADGATE ASSOCIATES, INC. Outline of Presentation D. Merriam ✓ I . Introduction J. Netherton f II . Overview of Proposed Jamestown Village /A. Bradgate Associates , Inc. /B. Architecture / C. Affordable Housing P. Doyle , III . Site Design for Jamestown Village ( Section 4 . 6 . 1 and 4 .6 . 4 .9 ) A. Topography and Building Layout ., B. Landscape Buffers / C. Recreational Amenities iD. Phasing / E. Erosion And Sedimentation Control /F. Floodplain Elevations J. Duffy IV. Site Engineering A. Stormwater Drainage Controls (Section 4.6.1) JB. Utilities (Section 4 . 6 . 1) J. Duffy V. Traffic Impacts (Sections 4 . 6 . 1 and 4 . 6 . 4 . 9B) M. Klein VI . Wetlands Impacts (Sections 11 . 1 . 3e5) J. Leary VII . Property Value Impact ( Section 4 . 6 . 1) D. Merriam VIII . Compliance with the South Windsor Zoning Regulations A. Plan of Development Supports MF-AA Zone in this location ( Sections 11 . 2 . 3el and 4 .6.1) B. Adequate Utility Services Are Available (Sections 11. 2 . 3e4 , 4 . 6 . 1 , and 4 . 6 . 9B) C. Supply of Land in RR, A20 and I Zones Not Depleted (Section 4 . 6 . 1) D. Impact on Municipal and State Services (Section 4.6.1) - Net Tax Revenues - STC Permit E. Other Considerations : - Purposes of Zoning - Site Suitability Town of South Windsor August 31, 1987 Page 2 Other evergreen plantings throughout the prd3ect -are composed of the following: low White Pine 32 Austrian Pine 6 Scots Pine 10 Norway Spruce 5 Canadian Hemlock 20 Larch 4 total ?7 *White Pines compose 48% of the evergreen screen plantings and 40% +1- of all coniferous trees to be planted on site. White pine is commonly used in screen plantings because it is probably the most versatile of all conifers, It is quick -growing; it grow& very thick through many years so that it continues to screen; it is adaptable to many soil typeEa; it is widely grown by nurseries and therefore is available and less expensive than more exotic plants; it is a native plant and looks correct in the New England environment. Other plants lack some component of white pines assets. Most other plants are more soil, wind or moisture sensitive. Hemlock are difficult to transplant. Scotch Pine Are very attractive but, after many years are more ornamental in value and provide less screening. Austrian pine are difficult to obtain in large quantities and are not native but, are a good choice, if available. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES August 319 1987 h1r . John Netherton Bradgate Associates 135 Neipsic Road Glatonbury, CT 06033 Dear John: I am writing to address the concern of the South Windsor- Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the potential contamination of the Scantic River by stormwater from the Jamestown Village project . The Scantic River is a Class B stream, designated for recreational use; fish and wildlife habitat ; agricultural and industrial supply and other legitimate uses including navigation. Discharges permitted into Class B streams include treated backwash from drini- ing water treatment systems, other clean water- discharges• major cooling water discharges, and major discharges from municipal and industrial wastewater treament systems. The DEP considers most stormwater discharges under the catagory Of "other clean water discharges" • and in fact does not typically require a permit . There has been a considerable body of research conducted on stormwater discharges from various roadways and land uses. While the absolute concentrations measured has varied widely, there are several general conclusions that can be drawn. The most important is that other factors being equal , roadway generated pollutants are proportional to the 0 WEST HILL ROAD RR 2 BOX 417 NEW HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06057 (203) 379-1722 traffic volumes on the roadway in question. Another is that the residential development generates lower pollutant loadings than commercial or industrial uses. Average daily traffic on Rte. 5 in the vicinity of the site is approximately 169200 vehicles/day. Site-generated traffic is estimated at 770 vehicles/day . This is only 5% of the background. To fully assess the incremental impact , one must compare the site-generated traffic to the traffic _ on all roads in the 100 + square mile Scantic River watershed . As a Class 8 stream, the Scantic also receives wastewater discharges. The impact of the project is negligible. The impact of the discharge would be further mitigated by overland flow in the floodplain area. Wetlands act to renovate water quality by 'a variety of chemical , physical and biological processes. Stormwater has been discharged to wetlands specifically to provide treatment prior to reaching a watercourse. In these cases, a 1982 US EPA study found consistent reductions in HOD, suspended solids, and heavy metals. Recommended practices include direction of runoff over flow retardants such as turf, ground cover or forest litter (The Use of Wetlands for Water Pollution Control , US EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab . 1982) . . Therefore, it is my opinion that the project will have an insignificant impact on the quality of the Scantic River . Sincerely, Michael S. Kein Principal • ffre cc . L. McCa y September 1, 1987 South windsor Town Plan and Zoning Commission South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Ct. Dear South Windsor Town Plan and Zoning Commission: I would like to voice my opposition to a planned development of condominiums to be located off Route 5 just north of the Scantic River. Presently there is a large tudor house on this sixty (60) acre parcel of land. The acreage presently is zoned single family residence and I think that would be appropriate for deve l Foment. Route 5 is an extremely heavily travelled highway and this traffic will only get heavier and worse in the future. I know. My house overlooks Route 5 at the upper end of Old Main Street. My property abutts the Scantic River. A condominium cluster development at this location along Route 5 will only add to the congestion of traffic and accidents around the Route 5/ Sullivan Avenue interchange. Whereas single family homes would be appropriate and might enhance the value of property in the Scantic Route 5 area, condominiums would not be appropriate and would increase traffic, noise, congestion and accidents. Getting on and off high speed Route 5 above the Scantic River would be tricky and dangerous for the people living in the cindominiums. I also have heard that a sewer trap and pumping station would have to be located at the Route 5- Scantic River bridge. This would be underground to prevent freezing in winter. During the spring floods the Scantic River rises 10 to 20 feet and the volume and force of the water causes significant soil erosion along the river banks. I would hate to see the Scantic River watershed area polluted from cracked or broken sewer pipes or an eroded punpind station. The Scantic River banks have been a wildlife sanctuary for many years. Deer, possum, raccoons, mallard ducks, wood ducks and even mollusks live in and along the banks. The noise, congestion and pollution caused by a large number of condominiums in what is now farmland would ruin all that, not only for the wildlife and plant life along the Scantic River, but also ruin it for the people like myself, my family and neighbors who appreciate walking, hiking and camping along the Scantic River banks. It is one of the few relatively untouched and unspoiled wildlike sanctuaries left in South Windsor. The noise, congestion, people traffic, cars, children and pollution generated by high density condominium housing so close to the Scantic River would probably drive away what little wildlife there is left in its natural state. My concerns regarding traffic congestion and destruction of a natural wildlife sanctuary may seem trivial to a builder or developer bent on satisfying the housing needs of our new baby boon and yuppie generations corning along. All I am saying is that I think the yuppies needs and the needs of an older generation of long-term STATE 0 174 CONNECTICUT I)PIPARTMI-N't ter M VIRO NMPNIAL PROI ,("I'loN 'A Septembet I , 1957 t+1s. I,��tt.i.^,e T:v:�tis, Chairt�Arso►� South Wi.►trlsor Fl•innitig and Zoning Commission 1.678 Main Street Fast Windsor Ili!A , Connecticut 06028 near Ms. FvAns! Recently I, and members of the Department of Environmental Protection staff, had the opportunity to meet with I,1nnea McCaffrey and John Netherton to dt.sctass and rAvtew, on site, a proposed development on the Scantic River in south wtndror. At that time, dedication of the flood plain land to the i' r, or t 1►c South Windsor. Lincl Trust was proposed. vpAivati.on of this land would be beneficial to DEP's acquisition pr_ogrnm along tl►e Scantic River. To dater the DEF has protected approximately 325 acrams along the river. These acTfl.si.ti_ons have occort+ed in Enfield, nomcrs, attcl East Windsor. EvPntt.tall.y, wn hope to acquire lands along the ant.i r- 1 3 mi 1 e 1 Angt.h of. the river. to create a linear park. Dcd i crt t-i.on o f the flood pls i.n and the right of public access, through eascmcttt of Lransf.er of t.i.tic, would be beneficial to DEF to further our efforts along the Scantic Ri.ver. N-dication of the flood plain would Also he h(-tie f i c i.a 1_ to South rai ndsnr, by protesting a portion of the river and &]_].owing piibl is .riccr�ss to this local natural. resource. The sttb lest. property is of particular interest to the DEF because of Its t,rox.imi_ty to Route 5. This area would provide canoeists, fishermen, hikers and o0if-r potenti_Zl park users a convenient opportunity to leAve the ScAntic River before it enters the Cotinectirut River or to enter the park if t ravol i.iiq in a northerly direction. 1 unrinrstand that a 7-one change proposal has been brought before your c'ommi_ss i on. T ask that you constdf r the above information in your review of t'11,1v Proposal.. Sincerely, Charled eed, Director Land Acquisition and Management CJR:mm CC! R. Clifford L. McCaffrey G. Gibson 566-2904 IRt Unpitnl Avrnne • Ilsittfnrd, Vnnnclicut 06106 An Fgrrnl 011pfirmni►r• /-.*P?P+le rr TE OF CONNECTI� _ IT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION w�,. � '•_ September 3, 1987 Louise C. Evans, Chairman South Windsor Planning & zoning 1678 Main Street ;.r East Windsor Hill,, CT 06028 Ms. Evans, Monday, August 31, I reviewed the proposed zone change for Jamestown Village (applicant, Bradgate Associates) with Linnea McCaffrey of Robinson & Cole. The proposed development is in an area addressed by the Scantic River State Park. The original plan (1968) was composed of two parts: proposed open space for Scantic River floodplain and proposed recreational development for the Enfield area. Since 1968 the state has acquired over 300 _ acres for open space. I am coordinating revision of the . - recreational development part of the master plan Dedication of floodplain, to the state, by the developer is welcomed. This, however, _is not meant to be an endorsement by the state of Jamestown Village. Our designated contact with the city is Marcia Banach. July 9th I met with Marcia and other town department representatives to solicit their input for recreational development along the Scantic. It was understood �` . that this would be only the first round of input and that the town would not be held to anything said. At that time the town indicated they preferred passive recreation (nature trail, wildlife preserve) upstream of Route 5 and more active development (mowed turf, picnic tables, restrooms) on the downstream side, culminating in a marina on the Connecticut River. In summary the state would welcome dedication of the floodplain for open space. The input, to date, from the town favors passive recreation upstream from Route 5, which is the area proposed for Jamestown Village. RPbertA"Clapper Recreation Resource Specialist cc: Linnea McCaffrey, Robinson & Cole Marcia Banach, Town of South Windsor Joseph Voboril, Jr. , DEP-Land Acquisition & Management Phone: 566-2304 165 Capitol Avenue • Hartford, Connecticut 06106 An Equal Opportunity Employer MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 178 OAKWOOD DRIVE RICHARD L.MOFFITT.P.E. GLASTONBURY,CONNECTICUT 06033 AREA CODE 203 JOHN B.DUFFY.P.E. =-0201 September 3, 1987 Ms. Louise Evans Chairman of Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor `- Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Jamestown Village Application for Zone Change M&D Project #109-2 Dear Ms. Evans: At the Public Hearing on August 25, 1987, on the Jamestown Village project, a number of questions were raised by the Commission and the public on traffic and drainage. This letter will provide additional data on these topics. Peak Hour of Traffic The State of Connecticut DOT does periodic traffic counts on the major arteries in the state. The counts on Route 5 were taken over a twenty four hour period and reveal that the 7 : 00 AM to 8 : 00 AM hour handles the peak AM traffic and the 4 : 00 PM to 5: 00 PM hour accommodates the peak PM traffic flow. Source of Background Traffic Data All existing traffic data was developed from actual counts in the field by either the Connecticut DOT or by the Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. , engineering staff. Turning Movements Comments were made at the meeting indicating that our emphasis on the traffic from the project heading south was too high. After reviewing the traffic patterns, we found this is to be a reasonable position and revised our ratios so that 40% of the generated traffic would head north instead of south. Level of service computations based on these new ratios for the proposed development are as follows: Level of Service Delay Time Westbound B 10.44 Northbound B 5. 40 Southbound B 6.70 Ms. Louise Evans Chairman of Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor -2- September 3 , 1987 The level of service remains at B for all three movements as presented in our August 14, 1987, traffic study. The delay time for the westbound vehicles is actually slightly reduced with the greater balance between left and right turns from Scantic Road to Route 5. Revised computations are included with this letter. Narrowing of Route 5 On September 2 , 1987, an Engineer was sent to Route 5, north of Scantic, to observe stacking conditions caused by the narrowing during the peak AM hour. It was found that there was a reduction in speed by about 10 miles per hour, but that there was no stacking during the time period observed. In addition, based on the traffic ratios presented under "Turning Movements", it was found that the increase in traffic northbound would be 1.5% due to the project. This is considered low enough that there would be no effect on the Route 5 level of service. Effect of School Buses On the day that the traffic counts were taken, April 24, 1987, school was not in session. Contact was made with the East Windsor Board of Education bus scheduler, Ms. Linda Joseph, and it was found that two school buses travel west on Scantic Road to Route 5 between 7: 00 AM and 8: 00 AM. These figures were included in our August 14, 1987, report. Flooding All drainage outlets are designed to discharge outside the 100-year flood plain limits. Concurrently, the invert elevation of the outlet pipes are all above the 100-year flood elevation (elevation 32 . 00) . As a result, a 100-year flood will not cause any backwater effect on the onsite drainage system. No construction activities are proposed within the 100-year flood plain limits. The areas proposed for development are all above the 100-year flood elevation and, therefore, will not be subject to flooding. For the southern portion of the site (site 1) which drains directly into the Scantic River, no detention pond is proposed. _ The basic reason for not providing detention is that it will take several hours before the Scantic River at this location will reach MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ms. Louise Evans _ Chairman of Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor -3- September 3 , 1987 peak flood levels and runoff from this site will have already passed downstream. Thus, the elimination of detention will slightly decrease the peak flood level reached for any given storm. Sediment and Floating Debris sediment from stormwater will be removed with the use of sedimentation chambers before it reaches the outlets. Floating debris will be removed with the use of an inverted pipe device at the outlet within the sedimentation chamber. Final location and design of the above will be closely coordinated with the town Engineering department and will be subject to the Town Engineer's approval. East Windsor Drainage There is only a very small amount of East Windsor runoff which will be captured by the project's storm drainage system. The drainage will be discharged after detention directly into the state highway drainage system. Therefore, this offsite drainage from East Windsor will not have any direct impact on the South Windsor drainage system. East Windsor - Sanitary Sewer The proposed gravity main, pump station and force main will be sized at sufficient capacity to allow connections from adjacent properties. Final sizing and ownership will be coordinated with and will be subject to South Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority approval. We will be at the continued hearing on September 8, 1987, to answer any additional questions. Very truly yours, 1 John B. Duffy, JBD:wmr cc: John Netherton, Bradgate (with enclosures) Linnea MacCaffery, Robinson & Cole (with enclosures) MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: �" r7. BY: )�Q PROJECT DATE: CHKD BY:_ SUBJECT 7rr,IS '���-F�� SHEET_ OF - .-_ JOB NO. Tk jFprf TP-4� too -Prc o iL R f. _ o _ No�-4( Gt�e �o�-t _ e MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING U,4GINEERS _ DATE: BY: PROJECT '� SHEET .0 -- DATE: CHKD BY: SUBJECT Z" 7 J 0� ' OB NO7 Z fLL- 7M-Tor C. -777LN 014 o L4 4� i;-k+,7 77- �0- - - ---r- -- ---- r t e =ZZ ; t i c IL - E Ili lip Background traffic data are based on information obtained from Connecticut Department of Transportation office of Planning and Research (666-7223) . Data was obtained at a point north of Sullivan Avenue and Route 5 intersection in 1983 . Generated data are based on information obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generated report, third edition, July, 1984. Copies of data used are attached. %IOFFITT MID DCTF'FY, INC. e- VI:EICLE VOLLTKZ COOW-r ' INTERS EC'ION TORNING MOVE=iEYTS _ Location � � Date 3� • Time - 5 Wea.trher _ a SurAace Condition Q�- - _ Traffic Control M p Method ,of Count • M Compiled by �Y To tzl Volume -TE Time Period �� Q 3 77 Notes and Comments: Assume all traffic traveling north on Route 5 that goes to Jamestown Villa e site enters south of Scantic Road. Assume all traffic traveling south on Route 5 that goes to Jamestown Villa a enter s from Scantic Road because left turns into the south entrance are Prohibited. Assume all outbounds from Scantic Road entrance o to Route 5 via Scantic Road. ' nxP UT WORKSr�.T Dat � g 7 Arulvzr Time P=od A alvzrd:�_8� �� • _ .Z Area Tvvc Q Q D, .a thL. Prof ec-.N r State. VOLUME�YD cc-o fETZICS j 5B TOTAL • ? c=.C� ID�7'7.N DLAG��IL• . Z..t +.z rare.••.:dths \ =i w 11 Z.Mow-wo on= br(an• �S� _ A.?'Qrkinq(PKG) locations J_Scy sroeQg.longrhs f 3 6.is/ar+o3(PhYsicw or pairrrovI • 7:Bus stops TU—l-A L _ -- NB 1 ' Truer r.0 3.ND ROADWAY CONDIi IONS - Au=ach I Grads IC12) d�r:V Adi. Pkz-Lane Bu3� I P.... Cant Feds. Y or v I N.. (N-) (peciz. hr) Y cr sY I M'LrL Tia-.ate I Tom= I I I I I • WE — � I • I • I I Na. I I I I _ �� Its-o i g I �• _ I I � . I I I I down NI: b•c•_se3 stc=-*ir --�fc:• vesz•with=tare than Y whe-tiz PL pez.k hcw_-ac.:.•r .Pe^.:� .z e-.�s::.� N,,:�k3•^.anet:ve-s/h= C.^r.�Fern Corn c .-:�re"-s- A:=ivve:TV-ce I-3 A G R •_ , A .. - . m r Tf • z- Gam. G= 2i J G= ,. _ _ _ am Y-'•-R'- Y�-R I Y+R�- I 'Y R� I Y-I-R�. G�- Y=R= Y-�'R' • �a�.d ar I Y R I _ .+►ca.i.a� I I I I I I � -`.,'' P:otece--i tzzw-.3 I � Pam--.it�rd tzars I nest�t C I .. vocc,rtE woivsn�vr wonrcsHt . Dan F M M 0 w [v� Fln.wLnrt N�.a�nc `awes 0 P � Hu �P Gmuo � N tl Fa'.a. Flw LTm FR. t' LT (vh) PY lwnl fwnl P 0 - 0 fwhl Tame 9-t OkCr xr LT XT O"y LT 7q,� I_ ICIcT- McNAL n rrrmmzc—IoNS SATURAa ION FLOW ADJU 11 WORZKSrj� L PIrm GROU?S A D 1US i IE s'—L F.kCTCRS . O O O O © a O O ® p © 4 -� Appr_ Lsne Ideal Na of Lane Heavv Grade PkS. Bus Area R.ig�t �!t Adi__a C.roun Sat Lanes Width Veil B10CJ=� Type TurZ Tura Flow Mave�ent= Flow C_ C C. !_ '� Cr. Rate (pcphg�!) N Taoie Tame Tacle Tacie Tacit f 9 co facie C'T 9-5 19-6 19-7 I 9-8 19-9 + 19-11 I 9-72 (vph 8j T2 i� Na `� C 8� Z l Q, ,ev d,g ' �G.v�►L2Zta �ClIOlrs �; • CAPACrrY ANA.L'YbI WORXSI= LANE CROUP 0 CD OD AL Adf.Sst Flow Crem Cr� �/c ' C.-iciest Flow Ratio Rico RAri j m Row Rite v/s b✓C G C X Lane App� Lane Croup fit` s Q _ Q (vph) G _ Q croup Mavemrna (,rPh) �Ph� E x� 34 ( 3 ?4-7 231 sa - Z Cy le L=Vh.C sec Last Time Per Cyce,L 44 sec C (�►/s)a • Y = C— s - LEVEZror-SERVICE WOR 'sa r-1 Gcc�, Fsrst Ter--.,Del2v I Second Te_--•,De11v I ToW Delay do LOS a © o 0 0 0 0 (D 0 ® o a.opL Lane �►/c Gcrcn Cyde Dday Lane Delay v=3r=sicn Line Lane ApQtoach Aom C�uso Ratio Ratio Len3th d, C=v d; Fac:or Gcouv Ccoun Delay LOS Move- X. s/C C (sec/veh) Cipacty (sec/veil) FF Delay LCS (sec/yea) Tide mazb (sue) Tsble 9-1.3 (sec/vch) Table 9-1 c 0.3,7 6 31 N f c 0�' I WB � � / o , � fir. �� � • � d •7z �� �o Qj s-�d �. - �3 3•o-� o �z 6'..7 � � �• / Int=e�an LOS--- C •ie 9-1) • Intcsec an Detav sec/veh _ C (797 74q-7 STATE OF CONNECTICUT J DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION September 31 1987 RECEIVED Louise C. Evans, Chairman South Windsor Planning & Zoning SEP lg87 1678 Main Street East Windsor Hill, CT 06028 SO. WINDSOR PLANNING DE% ' 1 e Ms. Evans, Monday, August 31, I reviewed the proposed zone ates)change foi - Jamestown village (applicant, Bradgate McCaffrey of Robinson & Cole. The proposed development is in an area addressed by the Scantic River State Park. The original plan (1968) was composed of two parts: proposed open space for Scantic River floodplain and proposed recreational acquired ev development rt300 for the Enfield area. Since 1968 the state acres for -open space. I am coordinating revision of the r creational development part of the master plan Dedication of floodplain, to the state, by the developer is welcomed. This, however, is not meant to be an endorsement by the state of Jamestown Village. Our designated contact other with the town city is Marcia Banach. July 9th I met with Marcia department representatives to solicit their input for recreational development along the Scantic. It was understood that this would be only the first round ofAinput and that the town town would not be held to anything said. indicated they preferred passive recreation (nature trail, wildlife preserve) upstream of Route 5 and more active development (mowed turf, picnic tables, restrooms) on the downstream side, culminating in a marina on the Connecticut River. In summary the state would welcome dedication of the floodplain for open space. The input, to date, from the town favors passive recreation upstream from Route 5, which is the area proposed for Jamestown Village. Pbert . Clappe Recreation Resource Specialist cc: Linnea McCaffrey, Robinson & Cole Marcia Banach, Town of South Windsor Joseph Voboril, Jr. , DEP-Land Acquisition & Management Phone: 566-2304 165 Capitol Avenue • Hartford, Connecticut 06106 An Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM To: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission From: Gurdon H. Buck, Esgtld Date: September 8, 1987 Re: Responses to Questions and Concerns raised at the August 25 Public Hearing of Bradgate Associates, Inc. Zone Change Application The following summary of questions and our responses is provided for your reference when reviewing the additional material submitted since August 25 . Town Engineer 1 . Question/Comment Show sanitary and stormwater flows. Response - Sanitary and stormwater flows were prepared on a separate map sheet and submitted to the town planner before the hearing opened. 2. Question/Comment Provide flowage rights for public sewers over private land. Response - The main sewer lines can be relocated to the public roads abutting the property, or easements can be granted to the town. 3. Ouestion/Comment Provide A-2 survey certification on map sheets L 3.1 through L 3. 3 Response - Separate certifications of the A-2 surveys for the two parcels subject to the proposed zone change were submitted to the town planner with the application. 4. Ouestions/Comments The potential for odor problems from the pump station during construction low-flow period will have to be addressed. Response - Proposed Phase I contains 52 units, a number likely to produce adequate flow. However, calculations of the volumes of flow and the capacity of the pump would be prepared for the site plan and special permit application, and adjustment of the phasing, additional maintenance or other appropriate measures would be considered at that time. 5. Ouestion/Comment The soil erosion and sedimentation control plan needs a professional engineer ' s seal. Response - The plans are conceptual and not for construction purposes. However, the plans can be stamped by the professional engineer . Opposition Statements Mr . Bancroft: 1. Comment - Closing the Route 5 media will have a negative economic impact because the tenant farmer will be unable to turn north to return to East Windsor with his equipment . Response - There are alternative routes to East Windsor , via Sullivan Avenue and Rye Street. 2. Comment Peak hour traffic on Route 5 already makes egress from his driveway difficult. Response - Heavy traffic on a main state road is inevitable, and presents an argument against locating single family development with multiple driveways along Route 5 . The additional traffic generated by Jamestown Village would be a negligible percentage increase over the existing Route 5 volume. 3. Comment Headlights from the Jamestown Village Route 5 drive would point directly into the windows of his home. Response - The house is not directly across from the proposed road access to Route 5. A cross-section prepared by L.A.D.A. illustrates that headlights would not shine onto the Bancroft house. 4. Comment The subject property is the only open space along Route 5 and it should not be spoiled. Response - The proposed development does not encroach on 35+ acres of floodplain and will place a conservation easement on the five acres zoned I-industrial. The extensive landscaping and recreation and open spaces provided for the proposed MP-AA zone will preserve more of the existing vegetation and open land than cutting the parcel into single family lots. Mr. Malin 1. Comment Closing the Route 5 median would require him to make a U-turn at the Sullivan Avenue intersection to reach his house when travelling southbound on Route 5. The Sullivan Avenue intersection is hazardous because motorists entering Route 5 do not stop before making the right turn from Sullivan Avenue. r Response - Any problems with traffic movement on Route 5 will be addressed by the State Traffic Commission in reviewing the application for a certificate of operation for Jamestown village. Motorists ' behavior on Route 5 is a law enforcement, and not a zoning, issue. 2. Comment Route 5 is a "speedway" below Scantic Road because frustrated motorists speed up when the road expands to four lanes. Response - Excessive speed in this location is also a law enforcement issue. Actual traffic conditions were observed by Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. on September 2 and are described in their September 3 letter to the Commission. 3. Comment Peak hours are actually earlier than reported because of Pratt & Whitney' s hours. Response - Actual counts by the Connecticut Department of. Transportation do not support this assertion (see September 3 letter of Moffitt & Duffy, Inc. ) 4. Comment What about the Pratt & Whitney and Southern Auto Exchange planned expansions? Response - The traffic analysis by Moffitt & Duffy, Inc. included all approved projects in the vicinity, based on information provided by the East Windsor town planner . We are not aware of either of these proposals being approved. 5. Comment The proposed development will strain town services Response - No significant impact on town services was identified. 6. Comment School buses on Route 5 will be in jeopardy because no one stops for them. Response - Again, failure of motorists to obey traffic laws is an enforcement issue. 7 . Comment The Scantic River will be polluted and cows downstream will die. Response - The letter by Moffitt & Duffy, Inc. of September 3 indicates that sedimentation chambers and inverted pipes in the catch basins will be used to remove oil and floating debris from stormwater . Michael Klein in his letter of August 31, discusses the classification by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (the "DEP" ) of residential stormwater discharges as "other clean water discharges" which are in effect not regulated. His letter also indicates that as a Class B stream, the Scantic River receives wastewater discharges and, at this point, collects water from over a 100 square mile watershed. These factors, combined with the wetlands ' ability to filter runoff before it reaches the river , do not support this allegation. South Windsor Land Owners Protective Association Comment The DEP staff have concluded that Jamestown Village will "pollute and sediment" the Scantic River . Response - Mr . Steven Tessitore of the DEP Water Resources Unit has indicated in a phone conversation that the DEP does not make evaluative comments about development proposals which are not under review for DEP permit approval. He also indicated that DEP does not respond to allegations made by citizens regarding its position on a project. There is no evidence to support Mr . Malin ' s assertions. Comment The Jamestown Village will affect fishing and eliminate wildlife and then habitats. Response - The valuable wetlands and floodplain along the Scantic River will remain as they are. Michael Klein' s report (Exhibit 6 in the statement package) indicated that the fragmented wetlands in the uplands area of the site do not have significant habitat value. Members of the Commission Mrs. Rossi : 1. Question/Comment Traffic for industrial facilities in the area begins at 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. , so the peak hours could not be from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. Response - The actual counts performed by Conn. DOT indicate that the peak hour is from 7 : 00 to 8:00 a.m. (see Moffitt & Duffy, Inc. letter of September 3. ) 2. Ouestion/Comment White pines exclusively should not be relied upon for buffering purposes. Response - The proportion of white pines has been reduced, with the caveat that other species have limitations as well ( see L.A.D.A. letter of August 30) . 3. Ouestion/Comment - No parking for visitors appears to have been provided. Two spaces per dwelling unit is inadequate. Response - The original plan provided approximately 10 percent more spaces than required. Revised plans submitted to the town planner on September 2 demonstrate potential locations for 19 additional visitor parking spaces. (see sheets L 5.1 through L 5.3) Mr . Castro: Question/Comment Correspondence from Robert Clapper of the DEP dated 1/26/87 was read indicating that the state ' s plan for a park along the Scantic River should be incorporated in the town' s plan of development. Response - The applicant ' s representatives have met with Mr . Clapper and Mr . Reed of the DEP to review the proposed dedication of either land or access along the floodplain to either DEP, the town or the South Windsor Land Trust. Letters documenting their review of this project have been forwarded to the Chairman of the Commission. Ms. Montana: Question/Comment What is the potential for polluting the river with oils and chemicals during spring flood conditions. Response - Both Michael Klein' s letter of August 30 and Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. ' s responses dated September 3 address this concern and indicate that the pollution effects of the proposed development would be negligible. Ms. Klenke: Question/Comment Will the built upon land be flooded in spring flood conditions? Response - As indicated in Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. ' s letter of September 3, all of the construction is above the 100-year flood level and would therefore not be subject to flooding. The drainage outlets are located above the 100 year floodplain and therefore would not back-up during flood conditions. Mr . Conde: Question/Comment What mechanism would be used to maintain the moderate price of 10 percent of the units? Response - Examples of a mechanism which have been used by other municipalities is attached. Bradgate Associates, Inc. will work with the town to develop an agreement and restrictions which satisfy the town' s concerns. It would be appropriate to do this during the special permit application process. Concerns that are addressed are: how long the restrictions apply to the units; to what factor (s) the future sales prices will be tied; who will be eligible. Deed restrictions and an agreement between the applicant and the town should be adequate to meet these concerns. Ms. Evans: Question/Comment What is the town' s obligation for handling stormwater and sewage from East Windsor? Response - The Moffitt & Duffy, Inc. letter of September 3 answers this question technically. Question/Comment What school would resident children attend? Response - Assistant Superintendent of Schools Steven Wlodarczyk has indicated that either Eli Terry or Pleasant Valley Elementary School would accept children from Jamestown Village. Question/Comment The traffic report does not adequately address Route 5 narrowing north of Scantic Road. Response - Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. made further observations and have provided additional information on this question (see letter of September 3) . Their conclusion is that the projected traffic would not have an impact on the northbound traffic. Question/Comment What would the applicant do that is positive for the Scantic River? Response - The park planner at DEP, Rob Clapper , has indicated that passive recreational use of the portion of the river within this site has been recommended by both East Windsor and South Windsor . Provision of walking paths would be the extent of desired improvements. Memorandum From G. H. Duck Robinson & Cole Attorneys For Bradgate Associates To; Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor Re: Mechanism for Provision of Moderate Priced Housing, Jamestown Project, Route 5 and Scant i c Road, South Windsor. Iric1usionary zoning requirements, mandating the provision of housing for low and moderate income families as a condition of zoning approval are a common method of development control in the country. Bradgate Associates is offering to provide such restrictions on a voluntary basis. The mechanism for such a control usually takes the form of a right of first refusal to a particular municipal body, providing that body with a fixed repurchase price, if a home gyres on the market. Bradgate Associates will provide such a mechanism in a declaration of covenants running in favor of an appropriate body of the Town that can receive and resell interests in real property. The right of first refusal will extend for twenty -;one yearsi, and provide the town with the right to purchase a restricted unit for a price that will be based upon a starting price established to provide housing opportunity for the target income group. This price will be allowed to rise in accordance with the Dept. of Labor, all items, cost of living Index. This index represents the level of affordability that the income for the target group would be expected to rise, so that the housing price will remain a fixed fraiction of the general cost of 1 iving. An owner wishing to sell will be required to offer the property for sale, for a price that will not be greater than the ceiling price established plus the index, plus approved capital improvement casts, also indexed. If a purchaser buys the unit, at or less than the indexed sale price, no action is taken. If the seller attempts to sell the unit at a price in excess of the sale price as established, the 1 Twenty one years is the maximum period permitted by the Rule against Perpetuities. If this rule is violated, the restriction may be unenforceable. 1 Town, or its appropriate agent, will have an option far a substantial period, up to six months, to purchase the unit at the indexed price, during which it will have the opportunity to resell the unit for the indexed price. The restriction is enforceable as a covenant on the land records, and will have the sanction, in addition to the usual remedies of the Town being able to void any sale that does riot occur with a sign off statement, in the form of a recordable certificate of waiver of the right of first refusal, or a consent to the sale, also recorded at the t irile of the sale. Exceptions involving transfers from spouse to spouse, or by death or devise will be inserted. In addition the mortgagee protection provisions mandated by the Federal National Mortgage Association will also be inserted. These protection provisions are essential to permit the home to be financed by any lender accepting the FNMA standards as its basis for underwriting. This includes most conventional mortgage underwriters. A copy of the draft guidelines, recently promulgated by FNMA are attached. At present, FNMA does not recognize or permit inclusionary zoning restrictions. These will be recognized and permitted in the near future. L CONNECTICUT - . MEMBERS STATE OF Commissioner of Transportation TRAFFIC COMMISSION _ commissioner of Public safety Commissioner of Motor Vehicles _ Department of Transportation 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A Cr.�rye Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 -,j We �wiNosaR PLAM WIG DEPT41 Septmeber 141, 1987 Mr. George Bancroft 1985 Route 5 East Windsor Hill , Ct. 06028 Re: STC# 131-8612-03 Dear Mr. Bancroft: Subject: Bradgate Town of South Windsor A copy of your August 7 letter is being forwardedrtb the Bureau of Highways ' Division of Traffic for inclusion in their review of the subject facility. Very truly yours, G%U . William W. Stoeckert Executive Director cc: Chief Gary K. Tyler Mr. Thomas D'Auria Ms. Marcia Banach ✓ Phone: 566-5228 ROBINSON & CO LE LAW OFFICES ONE COMMERCIAL PLAZA HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-3597 203-275-8200 FINANCIAL CENTRE RECEIVED POST OFFICE BOX 10305 DWIGHT H.MERRIAM STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 0 904-2305 HARTFORD ,td JL'0 1987 203-964-1200 203-275-8228 j� September 15, 1987 TELECOPIER HARTFORD 203-275-8299 3. WINDSOR PLANNING DEM TELECOPIER STAMFORD 203-359- 576 TELEX BOTH OFFICES 99-4407 PLEASE REPLY TO HARTFORO Ms. Marsha Banach Town Planner Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Bradgate Associates, Inc. Zone Change Application Dear Ms. Banach: On behalf of Bradgate Associates, Inc. I am forwarding the enclosed revised map sheet L-2 dated September 10, 1987 . The area within 500 feet of the proposed MF-AA multi-family zone boundary has been redrawn. The existing I industrial and A-20 residential portions of the parcel south of the FP floodplain zone are now excluded from the proposed zone change. The area within 500 feet of the property as defined by CGS §8-3(b) is now determined by the proposed MF-AA boundary, and not by the property line as previously shown. I have also enclosed the Park Regional Corporation case, copies of which were distributed to the commission during our hearing as a reference for the court' s interpretation of what C.G.S. §8-3(b) requires. It is our opinion that the minimum of 20 percent of the area of the lots within 500 feet of the property included in the zone change has not been achieved by the opposition petition, and therefore a two-thirds vote of all the members of the commission is not required. However, we ask that you forward the enclosed map and copy of this letter to the attorney for the planning and zoning commission before the commission votes on this application. Very trul yours, 044. Dwight H. Merriam cc: John Netherton, Bradgate Associates, Inc. 9 144 Conn 677 DECEMBER, 1957 677 Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission able for his death,in the absence of other dependents. See 2 Harper & James, Torts, § 25.14, p. 1330. There is no error. In this opinion the other judges concurred. THE PARK REGIONAL CORPORATION ET AL. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE ; TOWN OF WINDSOR Wyx,,m, C. J., BALDwIN, DALY, KING and MuRPHY, Js. I The 1955 zoning regulations of the town of Windsor are permissive rather than prohibitory. That is, instead of allowing all uses except those expressly prohibited, they allow only the uses affirmatively listed. Under such regulations, the legislative intent, in classifying an area as temporarily unzoned and then listing no permissible uses for it, is to make the area unusable for any purpose until a use is authorized by appropriate action. By a special act governing zoning in Windsor, if a protest against a proposed change of zone is made "by the owners of twenty per centum or more of the area of the lots . . . immediately adjacent in the rear [of the property in question] extending one hundred feet therefrom," the change cannot become effective except by unanimous vote of the commission. The phrase "immediately adjacent in the rear" modifies "area,'' not "lots." To make a unanimous vote necessary, a protest by the owners of 20 per cent of certain areas, rather than of 20 1 per cent of certain lots, must be Sled. Prior to the adoption of new regulations in 1955, the plaintiffs' land had been zoned for residential uses. Under a compre- hensive plan of development prepared before the adoption of the regulations, the plaintiffs' land was designated as an "area dedicated for a regional shopping center under special eon- ditions." In the new regulations, it was classified as "temporar[il]y unzoned" and labeled "NZ." The regulations included no permissible uses for an NZ area. The plaintiffs applied for "a determination of zone, for an area formerly zoned Residential,to Business II (Regional Shopping Center)." The usual procedure for a change of zone was followed. A •678 DECEMBER, 1957 144 Conn 677 144 Conn 677 DECEMBER, 1957 679 Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission protest was filed by the owners of some of the lots at the i Frank J. Monchun,with whom was Harry Cooper, rear, or south, of the plaintiffs' land. The determination ,for the appellee (defendant). whether the protesting owners held enough of the area in the rear to make a unanimous vote by the commission necessary depended upon the method of calculating the entire rear area, KING, J. This is an appeal from the action of and this in turn depended upon whether a lot located at the ,the defendant commission in denying the plaintiffs' plaintiffs' southeast corner would be included. Apart of this corner lot was adjacent to the plaintiffs' rear line but a sub- stantial part was not. The plaintiffs, conceding that the rear construction of a regional shopping center on their area held by the protesting owners would exceed 20 per cent land. of the total rear area unless substantially' all of the corner lot, to the required depth, was included in the computation, Prior to April 6, 1955, the plaintiffs, land appar- contended that all of the corner lot for a distance of 100 feet -ently had been zoned for residence purposes. The back of the plaintiffs' land should be included because it was plaintiffs make no claim that its zone status, prior adjacent in part. The commission took the position that none to that date, permitted the erection of the proposed of the lot could be included since part of it was not adjacent. It voted three to two in favor of granting the plaintiffs' .shopping center. On that day the defendant, after application but denied it on the ground that the vote had to a duly advertised public hearing, adopted a so-called be unanimous. geld: comprehensive plan of development embodied in a 1. The plaintiff could not, consistently with the zoning regulations, use their property as a shopping center until the commission resolution and a set of maps, one of which included took appropriate action. the plaintiffs' land. That land, on the map, is 2 The action requested by the plaintiffs amounted to a change of designated «RS,» which the accompanying legend zone within the meaning of the special act. describes as "area dedicated for a regional shopping 3. Since only so much of the corner lot as was actually in the rear of the plaintiffs' land could be included in the computa- center under special conditions." In paragraph tion, a proper calculation would indicate that the protesting seven of the resolution, it was provided "that a owners held enough area to make a unanimous vote by the portion of town be reserved for a Regional Shopping membership of the commission necessary. 4. Since the vote was not unanimous, the application was properly Center, the effective date of any rezoning approved denied. After duly publicized public hearings to be simul- Argued November 6—decided December 10, 1957 taneous with the start of construction."In paragraph nine, the defendant approved the generalized Plan Appeal from the action of the defendant in re- of Development" set forth in the resolution. There- fusingafter,to make a zone determination to permit the -series of public hearings preparatory to the adoption "plaintiffs to construct a regional shopping center, .of a new set of zoning regulations and maps, in- brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford eluding a map showing the plaintiffs' land. After County and tried to the court, B�ogdanski, J.; judg- .a public hearing on July 29, 1955, the defendant went dismissing the appeal,from which the plaintiffs approved proposed new zoning regulations for the appealed to this court. No error. town and a new zoning map, the whole to be pre- •sented to the town council for adoption as an Ralph C. Dixon, for the appellants (plaintiffs). ordinance. On August 22, 1955, the town council 680 DECEM, BER, 1957 144 Conn 677 144 Conn 677 D E CEMBER, 1957 681 Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission approved and legally adopted the new zoning regu- on March 14, 1956, it was voted to correct the lations and map, to become effective on September minutes of the meeting on March 7 to read "zone % 1955. determination" in place of "zone change." On one sheet of the zoning map, the plaintiffs' By application dated 1llarch 29, 1956, the plaintiffs land appears uncolored and unlabeled, and the applied for "a determination of zone, for an area spaces so treated on the map are explained in the formerly zoned Residential, to Business II (Regional legend on another sheet as "Public & semi-public Shopping Center)" and stated that they were "now land not subject to zoning. Temporar[il]y unzoned." ready to meet all the conditions set forth for the On "Plan of Development" or "Zoning Maps" issued establishment of a business zone at the Park Re- as of December 20, 1955, and, in revised form, as of gional Shopping Center." At the public hearing on June 12, 1956, the plaintiffs' land is marked "NZ," the application on April 30, 1956, they requested that which, according to the applicable legend is land their land, "presently classed as NZ, . . . be changed "not subject to zoning and special zone reserves to B-2." They referred to the action sought as "a according to general plan." On one sheet of the change of this zone to a B-2 zone." Both the plain- general zoning map there is a schedule of certain tiffs and the defendant followed the usual procedure zoning regulations applicable in seven residential for a change of zone, including the filing of petitions zones, two business zones and two industrial zones. and presentation of speakers for and against the By the zoning regulations and map, areas were proposed change and the introduction of documen- zoned for business use and so marked, but the plain- tary evidence purporting to show its desirability. tiffs' land was not placed in any business zone. It The petitions filed in support of the plaintiffs'appli- was marked as aforesaid. The zoning regulations cation recited that the signers were in favor of a contained no provisions governing the use of land B-2 zoning designation for the plaintiffs' land. At not zoned or temporarily unzoned. They affirma- an executive session on May 9, 1956, the defendant tively listed the uses permitted in the respective approved the plaintiffs' application by a three to zones but did not list any uses for an "NZ" area. two vote of its membership, but denied the applica- On March 7, 1956, the defendant, at an executive tion on the ground that it could be granted only by _meeting, set forth the conditions for the establish- a unanimous vote because of the provisions of the ment of a business zone at the Park Regional Shop- special act, enacted in 1931, authorizing zoning in ping Center,which was the plaintiffs' land. Included the town of 'Windsor. 21 Spec. Laws 277, §5. in these conditions were the following: `15. Planning The basic claims of the plaintiffs are twofold. In Commission to advertise a public hearing for the the first place, they claim that they needed no change purpose of establishing a business zone. 6. Tentative of zone nor determination of zone because the classi- zone change (if granted) subject to the start of build- fication of their property made by the defendant in ing construction within specified time and in accord- July of 1955 and approved by the town council effec- ance with plans approved by the Commission." Sub- tive September 9, 1955, gave them the right to use sequently, at an executive meeting of the defendant their land for any purpose whatsoever. This claim,if 682 DECEMBER, 1957 144 Conn 677 144 Conn 677 DECEMBER, 1957 683 Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & 'Zoning Commission Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission I sustained, would of course be decisive of this appeal. tiffs' claim that their property was open to any use Secondly, they claim that if their first contention is i they might see fit to make of it would have been well not sustained, the defendant was in error in con- founded had the property been wholly omitted from struing the special act as requiring, under the facts the zoning regulations and map covering the entire of this case, a unanimous vote of the defendant's town, we have no occasion to consider, since that entire membership. was not the case. The plaintiffs' property was in- The establishment of zones in a community by a eluded, and unmistakably included, in the zoning duly authorized body is basically a legislative proc- regulations, but there was a failure to classify it as ess, although local in its scope. In the interpretation to zone or permissible uses. Since in Windsor a of the language of a legislative enactment, the property may be used only in conformity with the question is as to the expressed intention, that is, the zoning regulations, and since,admittedly,valid regu- intention of the legislative body "as found from the lations were generally in effect as of September 9, words employed to make it manifest." Lee Bros. 1955,covering the plaintiffs'land, a failure to include Furniture Co. v. Cram, 63 Conn. 433, 4389 28 A. 540. in those regulations permissible uses for this land The actual intent, as a state of mind, of the members rendered it unusable for any purpose until some use of a legislative body is immaterial, even if it were was authorized by appropriate action. The first ascertainable. Ibid.; State ex rel. Pettigrew v. claim of the plaintiffs, therefore, is decided ad- Thompson, 135 Conn. 228, 233, 63 A.2d 154; Mad versely to them. River Co. v. Wolcott, 137 Conn. 680, 6889 81 A.2d 119. Actually, the plaintiffs, in their application and The zoning regulations and accompanying map in their statements at the hearing on it, seem to have apparently covered all of the property in the town. construed the NZ classification of their property At least they covered that of the plaintiffs and all correctly, since they sought, and on May 9, 1956, other property in the same general area. Since on obtained, approval of a business 2 classification for the zoning map the plaintiffs'property was indicated it. Whether the phrase "change of zone" or "de- to be temporarily unzoned, the effect was that the termination of zone" was the more appropriate to zoning authority had established, for the time being, describe the action sought is immaterial here. The no regulations for the use of this property. The approval of the application, but for the provisions finding that the "entire scheme of the Windsor zon- of the special act (21 Spec. Laws 277, 4 5), changed ing regulations is permissive in contrast to the the plaintiffs' property from one having no permis- prohibiting type of zoning ordinance which allows give uses into one having the permissive uses all uses, except those expressly prohibited," is un- .accorded property within a business 2 zone. This attacked, as is the finding that the zoning regulations was a change of zone within the meaning of the affirmatively list uses permissible in various zones. special act. It follows that no uses were permissible upon the It now becomes necessary to consider the plain- plaintiffs' land and none would be until it had been tiffs' second basic claim, that it was not necessary, so zoned as to authorize them. Whether the plain- on the facts of this case, to obtain a unanimous vote 684 DECEMBER, 1957 144 Conn 677 j 144 Conn 677 DECEMBER, 1957 685 Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission , Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission g• P g of the nienibers of the defendant under the applicable might not be either "immediately adjacent" to or "in provisions of the special act.' Here again the only the rear" of the lots included in the change of zone. question is one of law as to the meaning of those But if part of it was, then that part would constitute provisions. Lee Bros. Fur)iiture Co. v. Cram, 63 an area "immediately adjacent in the rear" of the Conn. 433, 438, 28 A. 540; Mad River Co. v. Wolcott, lots included in the zone change. This makes it 137 Conn. 680, 6889 81 A.2d 119. The defendant's clear that we are to consider that area of the interpretation of them is of no importance except Valente lot which is "immediately adjacent in the as it conforms to a legal interpretation. There is rear" of the plaintiffs' property, that is, of the south no room for, nor any question as to, tile exercise of line of the plaintiffs' property. It remains to deter- any discretion on the part of the defendant in its mine what that area is. interpretation of this statute. One of the neaps shows that the Valente lot fronts While some question was made at the trial as to -on the westerly side of Grove Street and that the i which was the rear line of the plaintiffs' property, westerly line of the lot is substantially parallel with we understand the plaintiffs' brief to concede that the westerly line of Grove Street. The same is true the rear line was the south line. The real dispute -of the westerly lines of the other lots in the nearby as to the interpretation of the relevant provisions area west of Grove Street, as shown on one of the of the special act, obviously taken from §425 of the maps in evidence. Therefore, in determining the Revision of 1930 (now Public Acts 1957, No. 662), area of the Valente lot which is "immediately ad- centers on whether the phrase"immediately adjacent jacent" to the south line of the plaintiffs' property in the rear" modifies "area" or "lots." Ordinarily, as distinguished from the area which is"immediately an owner of a lot would be the owner of the area of adjacent" to property of the town of Windsor which that lot. The only rational explanation of the- abuts the Valente lot on the north for a distance of language used is that the General Assembly was not some forty-five feet measured westerly from Grove thinking of owners of lots but of owners of areas. Street, the division line should run parallel to the What is required is a protest filed by the owners westerly line of Grove Street. The north end of this (whether one owner or many owners) of at least 20 line should be at the southwest corner of the lot per cent of certain areas. It is not the owners of 20 'belonging to the town of Windsor. The portion per cent of the lots with whom we are concerned but of the Valente lot which is west of a line so drawn the owners of 20 per cent of certain areas of lots. and not more than one hundred feet southerly of the An entire lot, as in the case of the Valente lot here, south line of the plaintiffs' property should be taken into account as the area (of that lot) "immediately "'(Spec. Acts 1931, No. 305] Sec. 5. . . . If a protest shall be filed with the zoning commission against any . . . proposed change adjacent in the rear" of the plaintiffs' property and {of zone] signed by the owners of twenty per centum or more of '"extending one hundred feet therefrom." In ex- the area of the lots . . . immediately adjacent in the rear [of the .eluding the entire Valente lot from consideration lots included in the proposed change] . . . extending one hundred' 'because part of it abutted land of the town of feet therefrom, such change shall not become effective except by unanimous vote of the zoning commission.,, Windsor instead of the rear of the plaintiffs' I i 686 DECEMBER, 1957 144 Conn 686; 144 Conn 686 DECEMBER, 1957 687 Glennallo v. Mazzacane Gennallo v. Mazzacane property, the court was in error. As we understand, Action to recover damages for personal injuries, it, however, the plaintiffs conceded during the ar- alleged to have been caused by the negligence of gument in this court that unless substantially all of' the defendant's decedent, brought to the Superior the Valente lot is included in the computation area, Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury more than the required 20 per cent objected to the. before Shapiro, J., verdict and judgment for the zone change. As pointed out, a substantial part, defendant and appeal by the plaintiffs. No error. g even though not all, of the Valente lot is not so { included. It follows that a unanimous vote of the Bernard J. Virshup, with whom,on the brief, were defendant's membership was required under the Edwin H. Hall, Thomas P. Hackett and Philip Bar- terms of the special act. off, for the appellants (plaintiffs). +� What has been said sufficiently disposes of the- claims for correction of the finding so far as they John E. McNerney, with whom, on the brief, were are material. Francis J. Moran and Albert R. Moquet, for the i There is no error. appellee (defendant). In this opinion the other judges concurred. � DAI..Y,J. The named plaintiff,hereinafter referred ! to as the plaintiff, brought this action against Ray- ANTONIO GENNALLO ET AL. 17. RAYIVSOND D. MAZZACANE, Ray- mond D. Mazzacane, administrator of the estate of ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF RICHARD MAZZACANE) Richard Mazzacane, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused on December 29, WYNNE, C. J., BALDWIN, DAI.Y, KING and MuRPHY, Js. 1953, by the negligence of Richard Mazzacane, who The verdict of a jury prevails unless it is unsupported by the died three days later and is hereinafter referred to 1 evidence or is so palpably against the evidence as to indicate as the decedent. The Connecticut Company, the prejudice, partiality, corruption, confusion or lack of under- plaintiff's employer, intervened as coplaintiff. In standing of the issues by the jury. his answer, the defendant denied the plaintiff's al- The plaintiff bus driver was injured when the car driven by the legation that the decedent Was negligent and that defendant's decedent collided head on with the bus. There was evidence that the road was slippery and that the bus his negligence was a proximate cause of the plain- did not change its course or speed as the car started to slide tiff's injuries. The defendant alleged, also, that the into its path. It could not be said that as a matter of law the plaintiff was gililty of contributory negligence which decedent was negligent or the plaintiff free from contributory negligence. The verdict for the defendant, therefore, could was a proximate cause of his injuries. The case not be disturbed. was tried to the jury, who returned a verdict in Being general, the verdict imported that the issues of the de- favor of the defendant. The court refused to set it cedent's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence were both resolved in favor of the defendant. Consequently, aside and the plaintiff has appealed from the judg- there was no occasion to consider claimed errors in the charge ment. which related only to the decedent's negligence. In his first assignment of error the plaintiff claims Argued October 8—decided December 17, 1957 that the court erred in denying his motion to set the • t �M s�,� ae Tio o-P S ?d&id4at ��� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 �O ,�o� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Attorney Rittenband a - From: Marcia A . Banac.h , Director of Planning " RE: Bradgates Assoc . Inc . , Zone Change Application DATE: September 21 , 1987 An application is currently pending with PZC for a zone change and general plan of development for 148 condominium units ( to be known as "Jamestown" ) . Abutting property owners (and others) presented a petition to PZC opposing the zone change . Attached is a letter from Dwight Merriam on behalf of the applicant, requesting a determination of whether the petitioners have signatures from 20% of the area of the lots within 500 feet of the requested zone change . Per CGS 8-3( b) the abutters are hoping to force PZC to a 2/3 vote to approve rather than a simple majority. The application heard at the public hearing contained about 72 acres of the site included in the request . PZC indicated at the public hearing that much of the site should not be considered as part of the zone change request because of floodplain . Bradgate Assoc. subsequently submitted a revised map reflecting a zone change request for a smaller area outside the floodplain. The petitioners obtained signatures of abutters based on the original submission . The modified zone change request includes less abutting property , since Bradgate itself now owns a good part of the property outside the zone change request . Both maps are attached , with property owners who have signed the petition indicated . My questions are: 1 . Which map should we be using in determining whether the abutters have obtained signatures of owners of 20% of area within 500 feet? To: Attorney Rittenband Re: Bradgates Assoc . Inc . , Zone Change September 21 , 1987 Page 2 2 . Whose responsibility is it to determine that property owners have or have not met the requirement under CGS 8-3(b) -- as this is a time-consuming process , are we able to take the opinion of the applicant ' s attorney? The public hearing was concluded on September 8; the workshop session is tentatively scheduled for October 6. If you would like to meet on this , please let me know. 'Alm at Tla o-P s ?d&&,kA �f • • �� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 it EIPLY TO: D 1734 ELLINGTON ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 0 AIO ocT S. 1987 T9.1 . 644-2456 October 1, 1987 South Windsor Planning & toning Commission Ms. Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Bradgates Associates, Inc. Zone Change Application Dear Marcia: This is in response to your memorandum of September 21, 1987 regard- ing the above matter. To answer your second question first, it is the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine whether or not the 20% requirement has been met. The P&Z is mandated by statute to a two-thirds vote of approval, if there is going to be an approval, if a 20% requirement has been met. I don't think you can take the opinion of the applicant's attorney or engineer or the protestors' attorney or engineer. If it becomes necessary to retain an outside engineer, I think that is what would have to be done. As to the more complex issue raised in your first question, it seems to me that the second map is a significant change in the application. If it were to be considered an amended application, which I do not recommend, there would have to be another public hearing on the application as amended, and the 20% would be based upon the new map with the protestors being given an opportunity to provide the 20% signatures prior to that public hearing. However, it seems to me the change is sufficiently significant that it should not be considered an amended application. Therefore, it seems to me that the Planning and Zoning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Have the applicant withdraw the application, and submit a new one based upon the new map. 2. Act upon the original application, which means the original map, but before granting any approval, the P&Z should make a deter- mination of whether or not the 20% was achieved on the basis of the original map, in which case approval would have to be by a two-thirds vote. If there is anything further, please let me know. Thank you. Very tr y ichard M. Rittenband RMR:mwd Town Attorney l ROBINSON & COLFR [ C [ IVED LAW OFFICES ONE COMMERCIAL PLAZA T (iQ7 HARTFORD.CONNECTICUT 0 610 3-3 5 97 n l JC l ;1 17v 1 203-275-8200 SO. WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. FINANCIAL CENTRE POST OFFICE BOX 10305 DWIGHT H. MERRIAM STAMFORD.CONNECTICUT 06904-2305 HARTFORD 203-964-1200 203.275.8228 TELECOPIER HARTFORD 203-275-82 9 TELECOPIER STAMFORD 203-359-8576 TELEX BOTH OFFICES 99-4407 PLEASE REPLY TO HARTFORD October 14, 1987 Richard Rittenband, Esq. 1734 Ellington Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Bradgate Associates, Inc. Rezone Application Dear Attorney Rittenband: We have been advised by Marsha Banach of your decision not to allow the revisions to the zone boundaryimap submitted bthe Bradgate Associates, Inc. I am writing Y ou revisions were made at the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission during the hearing on this application. The original, proposed boundary line included rezoning to Multifamily (MF-AA) the portions of the site south of the flood plain, currently designated Residential (A-20 ) and Industria (wh. Citing Section 4.6 .4 .1A of the zoning regulations (a copy of the Commission stated that the provision: "the entire site shall be located in the MF district" should be interpreted in this case to mean the land south of the flood plain zone be included because the flood plain zone boundary interrupted the multi-family zone boundary. I have reviewed the regulations and find the Commission' s interpretation is not consistent with Section 4.6.4.1 C, which recognizes that flood plain land may be to cated the multi-family zone and describes how it shall be treated. I therefore believe our original proposal was correct. I respectfully request that you further consider this matter, which affects not only the 20 percent determination under C.G.S.§8-3 (b) for the opposition petition, but is crucial in ROBINSON & COLE Richard Rittenband, Esq. October 14, 1987 Page 2 establishing the correct site area for calculating density. The Commission is scheduled to discuss this application October 20th, next Tuesday. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Dwight H. Merriam DHM/sww cc: J. Netherton, Bradgate Associates, Inc. M. Banach, Town Planner MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (cont'd.) 4.6.3.2 (cont'd.) the development in its entirety. Each such applicati n and map shall c nform t and include the information required in the appr ved General Plan. Every phase shall be capable _f independent existence without the completion of additional phases. The site development plan shall include the following: The percentage of impervious lot coverage; all yards and buffers; all bus shelters; the location and dimensions of all fire lanes; location of all fire hydrants (on the topographic plan); the size and location of storage areas and the identification of the dwelling units being assigned said storage area shall be shown on the floor plans; off street parking elements as indicated -in . Section 4.6.4.5 F; and landscaping elements as indicated in Section 4.6.4.6 B. No approved Special Exception, whether for an individual phase or the development in its entirety, shall take effect until the requirements of Sections 8-3c and 8-3d of the Connecticut General Statutes have been met, and the approved Site Development Plan map has been stamped and signed by the Commission and filed by the applicant in the Office of the Town Clerk. 4.6.4 Multi-Family Residential Development. General Requirements 4.6.4.1 Area and Density Requirements A. Site Size: Minimum site size shall be fifteen (15) contiguous acres not divided by a public street. The entire site shall be located in the MF district. B. Ownership: The applicant shall present evidence that all land within the proposed multi-family residential development or phase is controlled or owned by the applicant. C. Flood Plain Land: Land contained within the Flood Plain District may not apply toward the minimum site size, however, may be dedicated for open space uses subject to the requirements of the Flood Plain District. D. Density: The overall density of the development shall not exceed eight (8) dwelling units per acre of "gross acreage". Gross acreage shall exclude the Flood Plain District or any 100 Year Flood Plain area. For the purposes of determining allowable density, the combined areas of regulated inland wetlands and watercourses, waterbodies, detention areas, utility easements, rights-of-way, or areas with slopes at or in excess of fifteen per cent (15%) shall not compose more than twenty-five percent (25i:) if the gross acreage. Computations for allowable density and gross acreage shall appear on the General Plan of Development and the Site Develop- ment Plan. 4.6.4.2 Dimensional Requirements A. Building Height: No structure in a multi-family residential development shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. Buildings shall not exceed two (2) stories in height. Habitable attics are permitted, however, such habitable attic shall not count as an -46- 12/15/86 �O'd sE� ° fe, 7-0 o-Ps ?d&"41at C � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 l��soR-ca AREA CODE 203/644-2511 TO BE PUBLISHED IN .THE JOURNAL INQUIRER SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1987 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ,f t PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (/ At the October 21, 1987 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to take the following action: - 1. Deny the application of Bradgate As,sdciates for a Zone Change on 73.98 acres to MF-AA, currently zoned A-20, RR, FP, and I, and a General Plan of Development of amestown Village, consisting of 148 units, located on the east ide of Route 5, south side of Scant is Road. 2. Deny the application of Ralph A. Saunders for a Zone Change from A-20, RR to RO for 4.25 acres of land located on the east side of Route 5, south of Scantic Road. 3. Approve, with modifications, the application of Robert D. Milkie of Admiral Self-Stor, for an Amended Site Plan of Development on the north side of Sullivan Ave. , GC Zone. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 22nd day of October, 1987. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Louise C. Evans, Chairman David H. Sorenson, Secretary 011 M 8 E, o IF, -TOUAtj 0140C 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 R•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 3, 1987 Mr. John W. Netherton Bradgate Associates 135 Neipsic Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 re: Application #1269 - Bradgate Associates Zone Change to MF-AA Dear Sir: Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on October 21, 1987 to deny the above-referenced application for a Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development for 74 acres on the east side of John Fitch Boulevard. Very truly yours, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION By: Louise C. Evans Chairman :rt cc:. M. Gantick, Director of Public Works F. Shaw, W. P. C. A. T. D'Auria, Building Official E. Belleville, Assessor W. Lanning, Fire Marshal M. Banach, Director of Planning IWA/CC Engineering PZC File Louse Evans Chairman of the Planning Board Town of South Windsor We understand that 10% of the units of the proposed Jamestctm village Condomirnmnn Complex by Bradgate Associates, should be available to moderate and low income families. As a resident and employee of the South Windsor area, we feel that this is our obligation as a ccnmL pity to aid those in search of affordable housing. Tina Weldon Ri�� 4;t 1,, ,,,//// J04� � a�✓l i Getw 7 ►:"r :Y • t F . f � � ., gyp• 1• i _ 5 10 40 LLI d • , 217,44 i TL t� Iv I I T--A6t +-A PlInnigg JAMESTOWN VILLAGE PUBLIC HEARING 8/25/88 Call the meeting to order please and I would like our secretary :jVv-11" to read the public notice as it appeared in the paper. The legal CkA,va*nnotice . Notice is hereby given that there will be a public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, August 25 , of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, to consider the following. 1) Application of Bradgate Associates for a zone change on 73.98 acres to MF, AA - currently zoned AA, RR, FP and I - and a general plan of development of Jamestown Village consisting of 148 units located on the east side of Route 5 , south side of Scantic Road. 2) Application of Ralph A. Saunders for a zone change from A20 RR to RO for 4.25 acres of land located on the east side of Route 5 , south of Scantic Road. Copies of these applications and maps more clearly defining the properties are on file in the office of the town clerk of the Town of South Windsor. At this hearing, interested persons may appear and be heard and written recommendations will be received. Okay, since I do not see David Sorenson here this evening, I would like to point Bernie Hart to sit in his place. The order of the business tonight will be to hear from the applicant and following the applicant ' s presentation we will hear from the Town Plan Department staff and from the Engineering Department staff. Then I have some letters at that point to read into the record that have been written by people. Then we will hear from those people in the audience who are in favor of the application and then those people who are opposed to the application or who have questions concerning the application and then we will hear questions from the Commission . members . We will take the applications I assume one at a time . So if you are ready to procedure , you can start in on the first one. Be sure you speak into the microphone for us so that we can record it . They do pick up and you can carry them around if you want . Dwl(q, t Thank you and good evening. My name is Dwight Merriam and I am a lawyer with the firm of Robinson & Cole in Hartford and we represent the applicant for the zone changes this evening, Bradgate Associates , Inc . With me this evening and assisting me will be Linnea McCaffrey, one of our analysts , and also another lawyer, Leonard Hamel . I have some exhibits and handouts for you that will guide the presen- tation, an outline of our presentation and a narrative. In the interest of moving the presentation along, I can assure you that we are not going to cover all of the material in the narrative, which I will give you momentarily. This first document is an outline of our presentation and begins under the cover page with a list of the speakers and expert witnesses and also is available to answer -2- questions . Then the third - the third page is an outline of our presentation and if you could refer to that I will tell you what we are going to do this evening. I am going to give you - I was going to say a brief overview but never trust a lawyer who begins with brief. I will given you an overview of the rezoning proposal and then John Heatherton, who is a representative of the applicant , Bradgate- Associates , will talk generally about the project . Then we will move right into an analysis of the site and then a discussion of the site engineering, traffic impacts, wet land impacts , testimony from an appraiser on property values and then I am going to discuss more briefly then the outline suggests compliance with your regulations and summarize. We would expect to take an hour to an hour and a half for our presentation. The blue-covered document that I have just given you is a discussion of this application in some detail. I would hope that you each have an opportunity to read that prior to deliberating and making your decision on this application. We have been very careful to discuss all of the site characteristics, its neighborhood, the impacts of this proposal and more importantly for you, the members of the Commission, a detailed discussion on compliance of this proposal with the plan and the regulations . I would also like to give you, not included in that blue binder, a copy of an article from yesterday' s Hartford Courant pointing out the need for all towns in the region to do something about the affordable housing problem, which I thought was quite on point with part of this proposal , and also a decision regarding the computation of the area around the zoning proposal in connection with the petition. Now I understand that the petition has been submitted opposing the zone amendments and it will be necessary for this Commission with its staff to determine prior to its vote whether that petition represents 20% or more of the land area within 500 feet of the boundaries of the proposed rezoning. Because if it does , then for the rezoning proposal defense it will require a 2/3 ' s vote . We will talk more about that later but not much. Let me tell you where the site is , you are probably already familiar with it . I see that copies of the plans have been made available to most if not all of the Commissioners This is at the southeast corner of Scantic Road and Route 5 . The site is 74 acres , all but Ik acres is in South Windsor, there is a little corner in East Windsor. This first panel that we have displayed here indicates the existing zoning. Let me point out to you what the rezoning proposal is . There is presently about 302 acres of RR, about 2 acres of A20, 5 acres of industrial and 35 acres of flood plain. This proposal would rezone the 302 acres of RR, the 2 acres of A20 and the 5 acres of industrial to 37 acres of MF AA. That would then lead the applicant to a position where it would be able to apply for and have approved a project which we propose as a 148 units . These 148 homes will almost all be 2 bedrooms, 117 of them, but there will some 1 bedroom and 3 bedroom homes as well . There is a ratio in your plan which is not an annual cap but suggests a long-term objective and in the discussion of the blue binder that I have for you, you will find that in fact we need that long-term planning objective for ratios of unit types . -3- If you take - let me show you the panel below so you see what is happening. Principally the RR area and the small amount of A20 and small industrial zoned area here - we have rezoned it AA, it is shown as brown on that second panel . If you look at the entire site proposed as part of this new neighborhood, the overall density is 2 dwelling units per acre. But if you take those portions of the site-, which we will describe in more detail later during our presentation, as buildable, the density becomes 5 .4 dwelling units per acre. Your regulations allow 8 in the MF AA district . The type of architecture, which you will see momentarily, will follow that of a very successful development by Bradgate Associates in Glastonbury known as Georgetown Village . You will hear more about the applicant. A first class, New England wide developer who has had tremendous successes in many similar developments of this type. In fact, their senior vice president , Bernie LaPlant , is here this evening. Now I know, and this is a large turnout for one of your meetings , that there are some concerns among the neighbors. Some of them have submitted letters and some have signed a petition and I suspect that there are some concerns among the Commission members. There are also letters and people here this evening in support , people who are buying property who know that this will be a great asset for the community and for the neighborhood. All I am asking all of you this evening to do is to listen carefully to our presen- tation, a tremendous amount of work has gone into this . It is always hard starting a hearing trying to communicate to the people there the many months and hundreds, even thousands of hours that have gone into bringing a project of this type to a public hearing. But in order to make this rezoning proposal , we had to start almost at the other end of the continuum. We had to know that 148 units could be appropriately developed on this property; therefore, you are going to see a great deal of detail about what the site plan will look like in its ultimate final form. In summary of the project , what struck me today is I went back through, spent the entire day going all back through the many months of work we have done. What struck me about the proposal is 6 aspects and let me quickly mention them to you. First of all the site plan. It would have been possible to get more units on this particular site had we pushed it but this is a large site. It gave the site planners a tremendous opportunity to fit the buildings into the landscape. In fact , the site designers told us it was a rather easy job to meet all of your dimensional requirements - to get the homes on this particular parcel. The site has tremendous opportunities for site planners. In addition, you will hear testimony this evening that this project corrects an existing drainage problem. There is a going to be retention facility that is going to solve some existing problems in the neighbor- hood. The second of the 6 aspects of the project which impress me is the amount of buffering. There is a large amount of existing vegetation, trees , understoring that affectively screens the site of surrounding properties . In addition, you hear this evening a discussion of the types of additional landscaping which will be provided to further buffer the site . The third is the design aspects . -4- As I said, we are modeling this after the highly successful Georgetown project . I think you will be as impressed as we are happy with the type of design for these homes . Fourthly - this is an important but perhaps not all encompassing aspect of this proposal - the afford- ability of the homes. Given the opportunities provided by this site for design, the developer is able to provide 10% of the units at below market rates . That is why I gave you that Hartford Courant article, it provides a discussion of how difficult it is for even middle management people, people in the $25 ,000 to $35 ,000 a year, buying good housing in the region. And part of this proposal , just as it has been done by the developer in other projects, is to provide some of the units at below market rates . I have got to tell you that it is a personal interest of mine, I was very happy to be involved in it - I had the pleasure last year of working with a couple of other people in publishing this book on exclusionary zoning and worked with the Capitol Region Council of Governments on a study several years ago on how towns like yours could assist in providing more affordable housing. I am not talking about low income housing, we are talking about moderate income housing, reaching a part of the market that presently cannot afford it . It is an impressive part of the proposal . The fifth of the 6 points that is very interesting and somewhat unusual for a project is the positive economic impact . Now I sometimes represent groups and I know that they are concerned that will this adversely affect my property values, will this hurt me in the pocketbook. The answer is no, no on two fronts . Given the value of the units to the market with this particular proposal, we believe and our appraiser will testify to this that there will be a positive impact on property values. That is , it will tend to push up property values in the neighborhood. And secondly, in that blue binder I have given you an analysis of the fiscal impact. What we like to do with these projects is to determine at the outset whether we believe our projects will have an adverse impact on your local fiscal resources. In this particular case given the mix of unit types , the number of school children that we expect , there will be a positive net fiscal impact . In other words, this will be a revenue producer. Finally, and I think on the planner ' s perspective is the tremendous amount of open space and recreational land which is preserved in this way. In fact , this particular application provides for square feet of recreational land with tennis courts, swimming pools and jogging trails . But also a very large amount of open space . Not just open space left for future develop- ment , that is not the developer ' s intention here, but open space that will be preserved forever, preserved forever by deed restrictions conveyed to whomever this Commission should determine is an appropriate recipient of those restrictions. Whether it be a land trust for the town itself or perhaps the homeowners assocation. So that overview is my view of this particular proposal . At this stage it is still rezoning only with a preliminary site plan. In order to demonstrate the feasibility of this proposal , we have gone into some extensive detail on the site planning issue . Now I would like John Heatherton of Bradgate Associates to talk about the architecture of the units -5- and then we will switch over to our site planner who will tell you more about the site and the area where it is located. John. My name is John Heatherton for the record. I am project manager with Bradgate Associates. Bradgate is based in Nashua, New Hampshire although we have a Connecticut Office in Glastonbury. We build houses , -condominiums and commercial projects all over the northeast . We have several projects in Connecticut. As Dwight mentioned, we have Georgetown Village in Glastonbury, a very successful project in which the architecture is very similar to what we are proposing here in South Windsor. We are also building in Suffield, Enfield and Hamden, Connecticut and have several other projects under consider- ation at this time. So , we are a local builder as well as a regional builder. We have had over 30 years of experience building houses and condominiums and are very proud of all of our projects. We invite you right now to visit our projects, any one of them, specific- ally Georgetown Village to show you the quality of our construction and the aesthetic value of our units. I think you would be very impressed with it . I would like to talk to you a little bit about the architecture . The architecture is visual New England, particularly the landscaping. The units are cape style and also we have another type of unit . All together we are proposing 7 different types of units. This unit here is actually an 8 unit building, garden style flats, all with private entrances and New England architecture characteristics. The units will be very spacious and will be served by of course underground utilities and serviced by natural gas. The regulations allow us 12 unit buildings, the most we have here are 8 unit buildings and clusters of 6 unit buildings , so we are not maximizing the building units in a building. The units range from 1 to 3 bedrooms. The flats are all 2 bedrooms and the townhouses are 1 , 2 and 3 bedrooms. All the units will have garages, everyone will. Again, they all have the colonial flavor to them such as what I am referring to right here . The exteriors on the buildings are all cedar clapboards and to break up the appearance of the buildings , we also have the brick-faced units and are layed out in an L shape pattern to make a more intimate setting. I would like to talk about the affordability of the units . These units will be selling at a market price of anywhere from $120,000 to $160,000. Part of this proposal , as Dwight mentioned, we are proposing to provide 10% of these units as affordably priced units. What ' s afforded in the price? In doing a project as this and enabling us to cluster them, we can provide the 10% without great difficulty. priced, we are setting the price on these at this time at $65 ,000 to $80,000. If you come down to our Georgetown Village project , where we also provide 10% of our units as affordably priced, I would challenge you to tell me which ones are the affordably priced units . They are identical in exterior and interior quality, materials, workmenship and finished work and appliances . There is no difference. We have had members of the Town- Council of Glastonbury come visit the units and were very much impressed with them and they thought they were way underpriced. We have a waiting list of 125 people -6- that we have who want to obtain these units. So I think there certainly is a need for , if you pick up the paper any day a week, I think you will see that there is a prime need, not only in the capitol region, but specifically South Windsor as well . The income limits of the units, the income limits of the participants of these units are under CHFI guidelines. The maximum income for a family of 1 to 3 people is $42,000. I think you can recognize that $42,000 is a fairly good salary these days and there is still people that cannot afford to purchase new housing or any housing or get into the housing market at the current prices . I just want to emphasize that that part of the project - I think we have a very exciting project here and look forward to building here in South Windsor. Dwight Thank you John. Our next speaker is Phil Doyle, our landscape Merriam architect and site designer. Phil . Phil Doyle I am Phil Doyle from Parker and Landscape Architectural Design Systems . Our office is in Canton. I called the regarding the resume just to put on the records . I am a licensed landscape architect . Our firm practices in four states - Connecticut , Massachusetts , Rhode Island and New York. We are also town planners . We are sitting in your position on the other side of the table. In this instance , we are being paid by a developer to develop plans for this property. As our firm approaches projects like this , we try to develop as much information as possible so that though we are working for the developer, we would like to process this as smoothly as possible through the Commission. To that end, we have developed some relatively detailed site plans and I would like to go through those with you tonight and explain the property so that you understand and you can make a reasonable decision. To start that , I think that if we take a look at perhaps the cover sheet set in orange. We are in an application for a zone change. In the zone change we are granted - the developer needs a special permit in the site plan application and sections 4-6, which deals with the general plan of development , and 4-13 which is site plan regulations and 11 b-d also deals with general plan of development necessary to Those b drawings comprise all of those . . . the would comprise of an application for site planning, special permit and for a zone change and the regulations within the town limits , the zoning regulations for site planning are detailed and really required us to provide a tremendous amount of information just for the zone change. So we took it to further steps so that you could understand it all . There is an asterisk on the cover sheet that indicates which plans To locate the site, what I have got .maybe I could pass these around and then people. . . Evans We would like an opportunity to see all this . So if you could do that , that would be fine. Doyle I will start down at this end of the table. -7- z� Okay, why don' t you do that . �VO J To locate the site. . . You will have to hold it up higher though, okay. ` I ' ll start with each photograph and then I will pass it down. This is a view of the site looking southeast from the air across Route 5 . This shows some of the neighbor ' s properties on the east , excuse me, on the west side of Route 5 . The site itself is all of this land in the back - the existing house is on the property. That ' s the house you see as you are driving south on Route 5 , it ' s just after Scantic Road and that is the house that we will be turning into the, supposed to be turning into the clubhouse, recreational facility or an indoor pool in the house. So it will be used. This is another view generally looking south or southeast a little bit further down, a little bit further south on Route 5 . Again, looking - actually a little bit further north on Route 5 - you can just pick up the intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5 . Part of the property is wooded, part of it is a field. The fields just start to show in this area and woods are throughout that portion. This is a view south, it is a view taken from East Windsor looking across Scantic Road. This is the driveway entrance to the mobile home park that is across the street and part of one of our interests . was it would be directly opposite that driveway. Now this is a view down Route 5 looking south. This photograph shows the lights at the intersection of Scantic Road - this area right in here. This is a photograph looking across at the intersection - the traffic section of the presentation, perhaps the Commission might want to have this for reference. This is a photograph looking in at the fields, again looking south or southeast , this is the driveway coming in from across the street . Our entrance drive - we go through these fields - these are some existing homes and barns that are currently on the property. Are you putting these down below here so the public can at least �Vor see that they exist? Right , okay. We will have a break after their presentation so that all of us will have an ample opportunity to see these things. We have worked with John Our office has prepared plans for John for developments in Glastonbury, Enfield and Canton. I have known John since he was an assistant town planner in the town of Simsbury. So John' s approach to these projects is I believe one of sensitivity. When John approached us with the project , he had been told or had to guess at how many units could be on the site plan of the land and he asked me to take a quick look at it and to validate that number or not . When we evaluated reg- ulations and then produced a site plan, he told us that the numbers -8- of units that he thought were going to fit on the site were not quite as high as he expected in that we, my office determined the level of density for the property and we did it really again trying to define the concept of the property and trying to plight all the regulations. We gave ourselves a little bit of room because there is always a situation where people are going to make suggestions how things can be changed, whether it is the owner or the town. We wanted to have some freedom to move the portions of the develop- ment around so that other interests could be served. The drawing L-2 , which is the second sheet , puts the entire development in its context. The drawing shows a perimeter line The property is somewhat isolated from the body of South Windsor. If the town lines were being defined today, perhaps the town line might not bisect the portion of the property in a straight line but it might be set up to follow a stream or natural lumber. The property is 72 acres of land and there is a very large buffer, it ' s about 35 acres or so, plus or minus , something in that area. RouteThat 5really separates us from the rest of the towns in south. is a major thru road in the town, to some degree separates from properties to the west of the road. The East Windsor town line, the East Windsor/South Windsor town line bisects a small portion of the property, it ' s about 1 . 3 acres that is in the town of East Windsor . The only road in the town of South Windsor that has access to our site coming from some other location is really Route 5 . Scantic Road has an intersection with Route 5 just to the west of our property about 400 feet , 400 or 500 feet down and then immediately runs into the town of East Windsor. So the site to gain access if you are from South Windsor, most likely, other than having to go through East Windsor in a round about way, would have to come up Route 5 •and have Now have number of boards. We have taken the site plans pasted them together so that you can see them and you don' t have to flip through all the drawings. The site plans are done in such a way that there are mash lines . . . �nu5 ' You are missing the microphone. You will have to pick it up, otherwise spa you are not going to get recorded properly. I feel like Johnny Cash. I didn' t know what it was they were. . .thank you. The plan is the most rapid but it generally illustrates the concept of the design. We have noted all of the plans that are in the We have the layout plans , the planting plans , the erosion control plans and the draining and drainage plans . The site is supposed to have two points of access. The regulations indicate that two points may be required. The property if you gain access from Route 5 and move through the site, exiting the site or entering the site from Scantic Road. The East Windsor/ -9- South Windsor town line goes right through here . North is generally in this direction on all the plans. It is towards you on this map. The Scantic River flood plain lies throughout this area and the concept that we undertook to develop on the site was to create ,a series of small neighborhoods where all of the clustered buildings would form those neighborhoods and where there would be no - you would have a thru road connecting the site and there would be no development directly on that thru road and no parking on that thru road. The thru road would act as a greenbelt and could be used for hiking or walking. The site has two vegetative areas. There is an area of open fields, the north part of the site area is woods and the south part of the site. Within the wooded area, John asked us to use the type of building that we have labeled on the plans, I believe the layout plans , on each of the buildings show three different numbers or letters. One number is the number of the building. There are 21 buildings that are proposed for the property. The other number is the number of units within the building and the letter indicates an a, b This type of unit - there are a units that are flat-type units and the rest Within the wooded area what we have done is have taken the h units which are eight units per building - all of the buildings are smaller than the town regulations which is a maximum of 12 units per building and we have tried to develop clusters where the parking is interior to the cluster with a neighborhood feeling. In the open fields - the reason we did that is because there is a door on both sides of the unit , a series of doors on one side and a series of doors on the other. When that happens , it is hard to take a lot of these units without covering a big piece of land that ' s around the parking lot . All of our parking lots are built on very small clusters. Parking is provided for two cars per unit; one within a garage and one not within a garage. We have extra parking spaces for pool and rec facilities and there is room, which the Commission would like, for extra parking spaces for boats or things like that , which the Commission has the right to request . In the open field, we chose a different type of building. The buildings have different varying roof levels and the units can be put together in a narrowing building as a townhouse-looking development and the buildings form a L. When you are able to do that in an area of openness, you can enclose your parking and completely keep it surrounded. So from the outside, all you can see are the buildings, the parking is all concentrated in the interior. What we also took a look at and our first thought was when we were looking at the Scantic Road end of the development was that while entering the property we thought it would be appropriate not for the neighbors to see headlights and the area is so open. So we have suggested that a berm be built along the road so that if one drives into the site, the berms are about four or five feet in height , the cars are lost down behind the berm. So after the first 100 feet of the road when you come in along the boulevard, all of the people on the interior of the site would be seeing planting and grass around them and- on the exterior of the site someone would see the -10- car driving and then it would disappear. Our concern was privacy for the people within the development and also privacy for people who are surrounding the property. Excuse me. When you say road, are you referring to Scantic Road? Are you referring to Scantic Road. . . LJ ,4y Peg, your mic is not on. . . 3 Within the property we are going to put a berm along our interior road. We will not put a berm along Scantic Road. Scantic Road has some drainage problems and a berm might not help the drainage problem. The property, the development is broken up into four phases . The first phase - we have shown the phases in red. The first phase will be 52 units. Each unit will be built so the eight units are flat and some of the townhouses will be built in here and the pool/rec facility will be built and the road to the property. The second phase will be 48 units and they will be these two clusters of buildings. The third phase will be 24 units and that will be these two clusters of buildings plus the tennis courts . The fourth phase will be this group of buildings here with 24 buildings. So the property will be developed generally towards Scantic Road. But the first phase will have some units towards Scantic Road and that is basically for parking purposes to provide an entire range of units on the site. We have shown on the planting plan the recreation area. We are proposing a pool we are constructing with prime use of the existing house. There is already a pool in that house that we will be using directly for the residents of the community during the wintertime . There will be a jogging trail with exercise stations built on the property, two tennis courts and a large lawn area for lawn games provided to the northern end of the property. All of that also will be combined within the site so it will not be visible from the exterior of the site. On the planting plan we have shown a detailed enlargement of what might happen clusters . One of the questions that was asked of us by the town planner was visibility. What you see from the outside looking in. I have described what our intentions were quite graphically We have drawn three sections , graphic sections through the properties so the Commission could see that . The first section we have labeled A is northbound on Route 5 looking into the site. It is basically taken if you were somewhere on the overpass right over the Scantic River looking into the property from here. The lightest of vege- tation in the woods that surround the site, the lightest amount of vegetation is right in this part here. You probably saw that on the photographs. These woods have been greatly thinned out , everywhere else it is thick. The second section or B section is drawn across from in effect the front yard of the closest neighbor directly across the street on Route 5 to the north into the property. I know that and I have heard that there is some concern in this area of headlights and their impact and the last , final section is drawn from Scantic Road across ,down the field into the property. -11- We have drawn these sections at the horizontal scale But on section A looking in from Route 5 , you are looking across the light woods . We are proposing a buffer of trees be planted on the west of the homes at that point . The buffer required into the regulations will be a double row of pine trees planted. We have drawn all of these, whenever we have shown a- buffer here, we have drawn it in three sections . Initially they are going to be five to six feet tall but within five years they are going to about 12 feet tall and beyond that , I would say another five years - when a pine starts to grow, the branches take off so that a screen within a few years becomes extraordinarily effective. What we have done in this area is what I mentioned earlier. I talked about all the parking being to the interior of the site so that there will be no parking visible on the exterior which helps in terms screening. The second section is drawn as I mentioned from the neighbor ' s house across on the north side of Route 5 . It looks in, it would be looking across the entrance driveway from the Boulevard area up towards a group of units and there will be screening placed in front of those units. The third section is looking across from Scantic Road in across the fields , that are fields now, it will cross to the tennis courts and then winding through some of the units and you can see that there is berm, the cars being lower than the berm, will be placed on top of the berm as the town planner has requested. The tennis courts , garages and only the second story of the units will be visible. Behind those units as you continue further down we have another screening to the property line. This is the erosion control plan. The site has 30 or so acres of wet land. We are proposing a surface of . 6, 6/10 ' s of an acre of wet land and the erosion control plan is - we have colored in blue the edges of the wet land areas , the wet lands along the Scantic River . There are some wet lands from the Scantic River that come in between us and the properties that are existing on Route 5 on our side of the road. So there is good buffer of wet land over the space in there between us and the rear of those properties . There is a section of wet land that comes down through along the East Windsor/ South Windsor town line. There is also an area of about 3/10 or 4/10 ' s of an acre of seep, wet soil, that is part of a cow pasture at the moment and it ' s located right in this area. We are proposing on the erosion control plan silt fences , hay bale barriers and on any of the slopes - the biologist took a look at- the soil types that we have here and they are a silty, sandy, terrace soil and he has recommended that we stabilize any of the slopes that are above the wet land areas , they are shaded in green, with an erosion control fabric . Therefore, there is no chance of soil erosion in those areas . That is a recommendation we have followed. The layout plan indicates the width of the roads, the width of the driveways , the horizontal locations in space of all of the units . The regulations that the town has for developing multi-family property are very comprehensive. In our working with a number of different communities either as town planner or as a design consultant , I -12- don' t think we have ever seen regulations as comprehensive. The regulations seem to be intended to cover as many possible occurrences as possible and we spent a great deal of time analyzing and I hope we have used them to our best advantage. I think if you were a good designer you would do that and I think what we have come up with is again a series a neighborhoods clustered unto themselves and I believe they meet all of the dimensional requirements of the regulations. All of the drives would be 26 feet wide. We show lighting throughout the property and on all of the buildings, there is again an indication of a' s, b ' s and c' s . Those indicate the type of unit that particular area is. All of the garages are shown and the numbers of the buildings. The building numbering starts to the north, I believe on building 1 which is here, and ends in the south on building 21 in that area. The site data table that I have handed out covers most of the points of horizontal layout and unit development . Dwight had mentioned earlier the number of units that we have. We went through the calculations. The site has 72. 52 acres of land. About 1 .388 of land I believe is in the town of East Windsor that we had to discount , we did not include that anywhere within our calculations. We have also discounted slopes over 15%, that ' s 5 .84 acres of land that slopes over 15%. Seven tenths of an acre of land of utility - there is an unused, it ' s not abandoned but there is an unused oil pipeline that onced serviced Hartford that runs north and south through the site right through the middle of the property. So we have to - we not only have to avoid putting units over that but we have to discount There are flood plains on 5 .2 acres and 3.6 acres of wet lands . Now there is an asterisk next to both of those numbers within site data table and the asterisk - follow down just a line or two below that says the total on site wet lands in South Windsor are 30+ acres , 26.4 of those acres are also within flood plain. So they are in the same area An extra 3.6 acres of wet land beyond the flood plain that we have discounted in calculations. This leaves us when we get through up 7 .188 acres of buildable land, of net land and that ' s how we generate the 217.44 units . You could never really put 217 units on the site design. I don' t know. Marsha, are there chairs that are available that could be pulled out of Council Chambers or something? I am concerned that some people are having stand. We will see if there is something we can do for them. I think some people are using the floor which is nice but not as comfortable. PJ � No, it ' s not . �Ov Okay, so go ahead. ° 'pry f The actual lot coverage proposed by coverage is 13%. I would suggest that if you have any questions or if you have a second to go down the site table to get you all up to date on. . -13- Loi No , I don' t think you need to o through each one of them no. Y g g p� j� Lk The last thing I wanted to bring out just so you 'can see it - we have an air photo of the site. This is something that I think the viewing public would have to look at a little bit closer, perhaps later. . . w' ve I hope we have room to store all these things. This is an air photo of the entire property. We have cut out little paper dolls the entire development and pasted it on so that you can see it really in context of the entire neighborhood. You can see to the south, this is the Scantic River flood plain and the blue line is the East Windsor/South Windsor town line. You can see how the development swings right through the property. It starts in the wooded area and ends in the fields up above. So with that I will end my presentation. I thank you very much. a. Thank you. Did any of you find out where lys. Banick went? Did you find the chairs? I think she is over in the caucus room looking. Our next speaker is Jack Duffy, a professional engineer with Moffet and Duffy, who will discuss the site engineering and traffic impacts. LJJ`� ;"'u"Nou will need a microphone before you really begin. My name is Jack Duffy. I am with the engineering firm of Moffet , �. and Duffy. The first thing that I have for you tonight are our qualification statements. We are site and environmental engineers located in Glastonbury, Connecticut . The first area that I would like to cover tonight would be the area of water, the basic utilities that you have on the site. At this point , we are telling you how that site and the specifics will be served. L°�'"X Pick up the mic, take it right off the top- and then you can walk -VOA", away. It 's convenient . Jc Now this is another view of the site itself. You can see in purple W44� the basic units and roadways themselves. The first area that I would like to cover is the water system. The water system is shown by this orange/amber type color and there is an existing water main, a 16 inch water main, along Route 5 . What we are planning on doing would be to run through and that is the best way. . . Excuse me. I don' t think any of the Commission can see. That L,4Ct is much better . Thank you. J acAL The water system would have - this basic blue - would service the particular units that you have and could handle both the residential use plus fire protection. It is very adequate , very applicable -14- for fire protection once you put a loop into the system. We have had check points with the Connecticut Water Company and they have stated to us in writing, which I have the letter with me tonight , stating that the pressures and quanities that we would need in terms of water could be very adequately serviced by their system. The second item that you see is the sewer system. Now the sewer system -is shown in red. The first item and I think it was mentioned earlier in discussion tonight is that there is a ridge line going through the site and basically the sewer system washes that ridge line and will fall from the ridge line down on either side . As you can see, coming from either facility, you have major sewer system going by gravity on the north side of the site, aligning here at Scantic Road running down Route 5 and connecting to a point right here to this green dot that I will explain in a minute. Then on the other side of the ridge, you also have another sewer system servicing the southern portion of the site and it comes to the same point , the green dot , which is the pumping station. From the pumping station it goes by force main to an existing line and there is a 30 inch sewer line here at the intersection of Route 5 and Sullivan Avenue and ties in at that particular point. Now the sewer system itself,* the gravity line, the force main and the pumping station, would all be sized not only for the site itself - whenever you are doing something like this , if you are servicing , what you would do is service the entire drainage area. So this system will be sized to handle the immediate adjoining owners, the basic immediate drainage area for the system itself. One of the complications that we would have is in the force main. They will be crossing over a bridge, the bridge that is for the Scantic River . We have discussions with the DOT in that regard and they have advised us to do it - you would carry the pipe on the bridge, on the side of the bridge . They said this could be done and the details would have to be worked out together. Finally, once we do make a connection down here - we have been in touch with Mr. Fred Shaw, the Superintendent for sanitation for South Windsor, and he has advised us that the capacity of the sewer system is adequate to handle the flows coming from our site. That ' s the first one. Next I would like to discuss with you the drainage plans for the area. I mentioned before about that ridge line, especially when it comes to drainage. Literally the site is broken up into two halfs; you have got the northern drainage section and your southern drainage section. One of the things I would like to go over for a minute is what is happening right now and some of this came to me in discussions that we had one night at the East Windsor Town Hall. We had a meeting there t expat lain our project and one of the things that theynoted hey are concerned about some freezing problems and drainage problems up along Scantic Road and right near Route 5 in that area. Looking over the site if you take a look at it , what you have is all the run off from this area - this is basically coming down n in this particular direction and heading for Route 5 . There basins along Scantic Road. As a matter of fact , the first one -15- that you will see is this one - you won' t be able to see perhaps too easily right now - but there is one on Route 5 itself and most of the flow will eventually collect at that point . In order to do it though, it goes through a significant amount of ponding on the road. Of course, it will cause a great problem. Now we are proposing at this part of the site a normal drain system within here and that drainage system in itself will pick up all the run off that you have within the site itself. We collect it at a given point down near Scantic Road itself. As a matter of fact , we have a catch basin right at Scantic Road which would even include bringing flows coming down Scantic Road itself. It would eventually bring the flow to what we show here. Now the detention time would allow the flow to bleed out slowly and you end up having the same water coming out into your existing system right here. So everything else would work but the difference would be that you would no longer have ponding at the street . Instead, the ponding is occurring right where you want it to, into the control of the detention pond itself. On the other side of the site, the run off is going currently to the Scantic River and we are to some degree controlling that flow but in essence really keeping the same basic concept. If you take a look, you will see red lines over here and the red lines indicate outlets to the spring rather than collecting it all at one particular point for which there is really no reason to do. Instead, we outleted it wherever feasible, wherever appropriate with the for proper environmental protection into the Scantic River. It was judged appropriate that new detention basins, like you have over here, be used down in this area because you are so near to the River itself and it is felt that you want to take the run off from this area and quickly get it into the River and pass it down stream before the up stream peaking factors tend to take place and build up the levels in the River. One of the items that you see here, again shown in the orange/amber, is a 100 year flood line and the 100 year flood line is an evaluation of 32 . I think the one thing that I can say about it tonight is that the basements we have in here , the lowest basement that we have is currently 34 . So we expect to be in very good shape in terms of the" flood limit with respect to basements and the construction work that we are doing is all well above the flood limit line. The next area I would like to cover would be traffic . Phil I think has given you a basic outline in terms of the overall site so I am just going to go' a little bit more quickly but you can always slow me down if you want any more detail . The traffic conditions themselves - now there is basically two traffic patterns on this site. One is the morning traffic pattern. I am talking about when you might have peak conditions, conditions for which an engineer is expected to design. You have the morning peak hour traffic and that peak hour traffic as far as the pattern of the site itself would tend to - with this loop road coming through the site, the traffic would tend for the most part to be going up Scantic Road, making a left turn, going down to the light and making a left turn and going down to Hartford. That would be the primary in the morning. -16- In the evening, it would be the reverse of course. To be coming up, you have a deceleration lane coming into the site and you would come immediately to the site if you lived in here. You would not have to worry about going on to the intersection. Now as far as the p.m. is concerned, there is no problem. Actually, it is a very easy site from that point of view. The concern points would really be in the a.m. What are the conditions that are going to happen? What type of conditions will you have when this project is in there? Now in doing the analysis that we did in terms of that work, first thing we did back in April of 1987 was to perform traffic counts in that area just to see what the basic traffic pattern was at the various locations - primarily around this inter- section. We did it during peak hours , we wanted to see what the conditions were. As I am sure most of you probably know that the peak hours are from 7 :00 to 8:00 in the morning and also from 4 :00 to 5 :00 in the afternoon but that ' s not really critical for us . The morning hours are really the critical ones . So that is the one that we basically circled around, concentrated on in developing our analysis work. Part of what I would like to present at this point , because it is going to tie in with the analysis that I am going to show you the results of in one minute - it would be on the next chart - the next chart shows truly in a very simplified form that intersection of Route 5 and this is without the Jamestown project . What it is indicating here - of course you uScave two lanes , well four lanes on Route 5 totally and two lanes on one lane of course in the westbound direction and in that one lane obviously you would make a left turn or right turn from s that position. Now what we are recommending and really need to dis tle bit with town personnel also is - we are partially recommending that once we head into the Jamestown Village project , instead of having those two lanes , we will expand it out to three lanes . The expansion of this site would take place to the south and the developer himself has options with respect to the land itself, so it can be done very feasibly in terms of that direction. And the two lanes that we would have would would actually be a left or on the left side and the right side right turn. Again, remember, our prime concentration of traffic is going to be going south so you want to give that an additional flavor . Basically, the plan has been set up along When you do your traffic counts out in the field, what you are counting is the traffic that is really there but you are not counting the traffic of those projects which have been approved by the town, by the towns (East Windsor/South Windsor) - have been approved but not yet constructed. Obviously that is traffic you are going to have, we know it already but we just don' t have it yet . So what we did is we made an estimate based on discussions , e of an ally in this case with the East Windsor town planner , in t y development up there that had been approved yet not built or was just about completed with construction but there really was no traffic generated and we took into account that particular information. It -17- So that is included within the analysis that we are going to be presenting in a minute. With that information, with that under- standing of that project , we took all the information, developed certain what they call "trip generation charts" , developed compu- tations in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers - you have a very methodical set method in which you are supposed to do this type of thing. So it ' s all in a manner that I think any other engineer or perhaps you could take a look at and either agree or disagree with that one specific point . From that information, - we developed our next chart which is the levels of service and again these are levels of service primarily around the intersection itself. The level of service is basically a measure of the speed with which an average vehicle according to the hour can take a particular movement within the intersection. For instance, if you want to take a right turn let ' s say at this particular inter- section and you are doing it during the peak hour and you are the average vehicle - if you are doing it in under five seconds , the level of service is an A; if you are doing it in over 60 seconds , your level of service is an F and I don' t know if F constitutes as failure as it might in school but it certainly is suggesting a rather low rating and of course B, C, D and E are all part of the graduation going down. Let ' s take the levels of service that we have got here and the prime concentration really should be the westbound conditions and what we see here are - in the existing condition that you have out there right now, your level of service is B for westbound - westbound of course means westbound on Scantic Road, obviously north and south would be Route 5 . Now I put an extra column in here. The second column is existing and other approved projects. In other words, if they never built Jamestown Village, what is your situation going to be based upon what has already been approved. In other words , nothing else changes,, While those projects are adding their own traffic pattern, what ' s going to happen is you have some drop in the level of service here , you will drop from a B to a C. Now, you add and I just didn' t add in the traffic alone and leave it at that , I added in also the improvements that we plan. In other words, opening up Scantic Road to three lanes instead of two and we find that it hops back up to a B level of service. On the northbound and southbound they are all B' s straight across under all conditions. The next item is time of delay. Now time of delay is very well correlated with really the level of service. Time of delay is really based upon the level of service . So we will be happier westbound - again that ' s the major emphasis - it ' s 14. 75 seconds an average vehicle. It goes up somewhat , 15 .83 seconds, when you add in those other improvements. What happens when you add in Jamestown improvements , you drop to 10.48 seconds. One of the things to point out there is it became B again up here. This is a B. We have got very distinct advantages , you are definitely improving the site itself in terms of the traffic patterns in the westbound zone. If you take a look again at northbound/ southbound you will see some differences but relatively minor. -18- That is basically telling us that the levels of service are suitable. Another item - if I could just drop back to another drawing for one minute - is the concern point that was raised. The question is "how about taking a left turn at tWelproject itsee did a lf on of Scantic Road. , can you do that effectively. service -analysis on that and we find again for the peak hours an A rating so there is no particular problem on that. Another point is sacking the left turn, when you crank it out here and make a left turn you have too many cars back there and you' ll have trouble in getting out. What we did was an additional stacking test rather recently just to double check our figures and it did confirm the results we got before. But basically, and especially now that we are able to do the stacking during the peak hours the average vehicle should be going back about a hundred feet. The location of our project is six-hundred feet back from that intersection so from that point of view, stacking is not a problem. But then if you look at that overall situation, what have you got? Have you got levels of service? No, there are no ctitical movements in terms of a particular turn you have to concern yourself with - it's the traffic. Water is available, sewer systems are available and the drainage is workable. From that I would recommend to you tonite the project from all these different points of view is workable. r gar Our next expert witness is Michael Klein, our envioronmentalist and ° scientist who will talk of inland wetlands on the site. Yes, thank you. What is unusual about this project is first that an M existing storm-water run off can probably be corrected, and second, an existing potential level of service C probably will be corrected and brought up to level B. Can't hear Michael Klein. . . . Still unable to understand Michael Klein. . . Due to his moving to back of auditorium he is inaudible. Possibly refer to stenographer for Michael Klein report. -19- vi Institute ftek0lbur last witness is John Leary, a member of the Appraisal ��� who will talk about the prpoerty value impact of this proposal. jot r� I 've been in the real estate appraisal for 17 years and I 've been � asked to look at the proposal development and it's impact on surroun- L� ding property values. In the previous report I described in the first paragraph what I did and other short paragraphs about reviewing plans and investigating the market and studying neighborhood ready conditions. I would like to talk about what we did. The idea is to look at these paragraphs and make some judgments on how we initially did detailed takeoffs on town assessment records and all surrounding streets as well as the subject developments. In addition, because this is a proposed and developed common dwelling we look at size and price range. One of the things we are fortunate to have here is the existing Georgetown development in Glastonbury. It is difficult to get prints and depict what they look like when the 'yre up here. You have to go there and vision what the units look like. The other thing concluded is that the existing town may need new developments mostly in the South central section but really don't have a lot to do with this particular development. it is isolated in a different area and based on size and density our study proved that the position is . . • • This is the first time an appraiser has been hired in any development estimate so we look at that in relation to the other condo development in both towns. And in looking at the area - we bisected it and I that will show you that we looked at not only the Fo history second the particular . . . border us but also the price ranges. one of the things, to the south and east there is . . . from natural causes and one is the river, of course, and its wetlands. The coming is to the south of us and is a complete extension of the . . • right up on . . . and to the John Fitch Industrial Center which is starting to develop along Sullivan Ave. , so there is no real chance for a negative . . . of the industrial center. The other vital step we took was to look for the nearest concentration which is the . • I described that in my report as being a half mile - it' s really about a mile driving if you scale it on the map. That is to say a mile from the rear end of this development or the E property lineAs you can see again the property value for the sizes of the dwells and how this . . . I can state fairly comfortably that the property development has it' s character in it' s price range and will most likely have a positive effect on the surrounding property value. Now if you could please look on with me under section roman numeral eight of our outline I will not go into detail on compliance of this proposal with your regulations and plans because hits at gdetaradiled in simply . the bound volume I gave you.forWOThe tell pickedyou the sites carefully. wonderful developer to work Y -21- (Can' t hear) -22- Lt AtY5 Read Next to the Jamestown Village, zone change application and I fully support the plan for this area. Ray Syzinsky, my property is directly opposite the proposed zone change for Jamestown 2-,V%c Village and feel that this will be an asset to this area and support this application. Ronald Gionomore, as owner of a s I property in South Windsor and of the proposed zone change for Jamestown Village I have no objections to this change for condominiums. From Monica Balsch, as owners of property adjacent to the proposed Jamestown Village zone change we have no objections to the zone change whatsoever. We believe that the proposed Jamestown Village will be a multi-fasceted asset to the town and the region. We have done research on the development company and their prior construction and been both well planned, (means has been both well planned) and very well executed. Frank b Julia Schnowski , as owner of property directly opposite the proposed zone change on Scanic Road, I have no objections to this change. I guess that's it. Those are letters. Are there others? What are these. Okay, I think I can just summarize them because these are, I'm sure, you haven't been given by the developer, they' re all with no objection. There' s one from Robert Caravello, and Paul Yanne and from Tina Weldon. They comment on the 10% of the units being available for moderate and low-income families and feel that this is our obligation as a community to aid those in search of affordable housing and then we have a petition as a resident and neighbor in the area the proposed zone change to MFAA for Jamestown Village in South Windsor I support the concept for this area as proposed by Bradgate Associates and its signed by people on Kelley Rd. , Oak St. , Hoper Drive in Windsor Locks, and some people from East Windsor, Enfield and Broadbrook. We have some more. From the town planner in East Windsor, William Grace, no relation I assume to our former chairman here, the East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission has received the plans for the proposed Jamestown Village condominium project on the South Windsor/East Windsor line. Representatives for the developer have met with our commission and staff to discuss the proposal . Despite their presentations and reports, however, the planning and zoning commission still has concerns about the potential impacts of the project on the surrounding area and opposes the request of zone change and development. The town's principle concerns involve the additional traffic generated from the site onto Scantic Road and Route 5. While the traffic studies indicate that there should not be an appreciable difference in the level of service, it would appear that since the Scantic Road driveway would be a principle access/egress point, that there would be a noticeable difference in the volume of traffic on that largely rural residential road. Further, while the East Windsor plan of development identifies the area for high density development in the future, the present land use in the area is largely single family, residential or agricultural and would not really be compatible with high density development. The present zoning of -23- the portion of the property in East Windsor is agricultural and it would not seem in keeping with that zoning to have a driveway for high density residential development located in that area. We appreciate that there are numerous other considerations that your commission must address in reviewing this application but felt that it was our responsibility as a town's planning commission to express our concerns on the proposal for your consideration. Thank you. From Robert Margliani , in South Windsor, thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions and observations regarding the proposal before you this evening. I would prefer to present these comments in person but prior commitments preclude my doing so. I am opposed to the proposed zone change applications and the development of the sites for the following reasons: as a member of the agricultural land preservation advisory commission we are greatly concerned about the loss of the substantial parcel of high quality farm land which is located on the site. The loss of this vital resource forever to development is staggering. Also, as chairman of the South Windsor wildlife sanctuary committee, the destriction of sensitive wildlife habitat as the upland area and flood plain encompases would severely impact wildlife which inhabit the area; deer, bald eagle, coyote and numerous other species have been observed in this natural environments. Fish and plant species would also suffer by the surface runoff of roadsalts, oil and chemicals involved in the maintenance and use of the site as a residential area. The Scantic River watershed is one of the most important natural resource areas we treasure in South Windsor. This area represents one of the last undisturbed natural areas remaining in our town. The vanishing of such beautiful open space and the negative impact on fish and wildlife resources would be a tremendous loss to the present and future residents of South Windsor. From Tim Shephard, in review of the effort expended to preserve the aesthetic value of this Scantic River area and findings of the meeting for tomorrow which clearly stated that rural atmosphere preservation as a priority, I feel a zone change for the proposal is completely unacceptable. And then I have a petition from George Bancroft, and I'll just read the letter. Accompanying this letter are 18 pages of a petition signed by approximately 200 persons who object to a zone change which allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates Inc. and called Jamestown. It should be noted that in accordance with Connecticut Planning and Zoning Statutes Section 8-3 subparagraph b, we have 22 signatures of lot owners who come within 500' of the proposed change. These signatures are noted by an asterisk on the petition. By using the map as required by the town of South Windsor zoning regulations Section 11239 subparagraph c, and with accurate scaling e di o determine that there are a total of 48 lots within the 500' f the proposed change. The 22 asterisk signatures represent 25 lot owners. In accordance with the above mentioned General -24— Statutes, the 22 owners of 25 lots more than meets the requirements, that to be approved the requested zone change will require 2/3 majority vote of all the commission members. If we are not correct in this matter, please advise us on this immediately, and the accompanying pages area here. I note also that although I don't have it as a separate memo, it was included by the applicant, I believe, in his report, the CROG report which we are required by law to go to the Capital Region Council of Governments for advisory report, and in their comments they say that they've reviewed it and they find no apparent conflicts with regional plans and policies. The plot is located just within the regional plans generalized urban area on both the existing and proposed regional plan of development. The generalized urban area runs along the East Windsor and South Windsor town lines. The regional plan classifies the area in South Windsor, the area where the project is proposed, as suburban, meaning that the area has broad land use potential , primarily residential , commercial , industrial and agriculture, with residential density ranging from 1 to 7 families per acre. The regional plan. classifies the land in East Windsor as rural , low density, residential development of 1 or less families per acre. East Windsor's future land use plan proposes an extensive area easterly of the proposed project and northerly of Scanti c Road for high density development so at some future time the developments and land use on both sides of the town line should be somewhat compatible. However, because the area within East Windsor is presently zoned for low density development and agriculture, I think that that is what that means, AGO, any concerns which officials may have concerning the project's impact, etc. should be carefully weighed to provide for future land use powder across town lines which is harmoneous and promotes the land use proposals in both town plans as well as the regional plan of development. I think that that takes care, I hope of all the letters. I 've had my talking, I guess for the evening. So now we would start with those people in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the application. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor. Okay, is there anyone who has questions or would like to speak in opposition, I would ask you, if you wish to do so, to come up to the microphone and give your name and address. Mr. Bancroft. jar Bancroft Mrs. Evans, members of the zoning commission, ladies and gentlemen, my name is George Bancroft, I live at 1985 Route 5, East Windsor Hill , which is part of the town of South Windsor and Route 5, of course, is John Fitch Boulevard. Several of us in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed zone change object to this change and several of us have gone out and got a petition signed by approximately 277 people that are appropriate to signing the petition. The reason I state that is some of the people that have signed it live in the town of East Windsor and part of my letter to you Mrs. Evans has to do with the lot owners within the 500' perimeter of the zone change and -25- that goes into the town of East Windsor. Would you like me to read the petition? Chair I read the letter, that wasn't the petition was it? Bancroft It will only take a second. Chair You better read the statements on your petition. Bancroft The petition states as follows: As petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor, we the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates Inc. and called Jamestown. Our objections are based on the following: the ratio of condominium building vs. single houses is currently much greater than that recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and should be corrected. Item 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of the Town of South Windsor. 3. The location of the proposed Jamestown does not meet the criterion for multi-family residence as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. That is, it is not near shopping, schools, or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled 4 land highway. 4. One hundred and forty eight additional families entering an exiting Route 5/John Fitch Boulevard where Route 5 converges from a 4 lane divided highway into 2 lanes at East Windsor/South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. Mrs. Evans, I would like to give you additional sheets that go with the petition. Chair Oh, to go with this petition, you've given us already. Okay. Bancroft The petition speaks for many people. Now I would like to speak to the commission as a resident across the street, so I am speaking for George Bancroft, not for the petition signers at this point. Chair That will raise, I feel that you are having to stoop while you read it. Bancroft I feel a lot better too, thank you. I personally object to this zone change to condominiums for reasons outlined in the petition that has been present to the commission. In addition, I object for the following reasons: Our farm has been an active farm since my father moved here in 1912. I am retired and currently renting my farm to other farmers. I feel because of traffic considerations the State of Connecticut will find it necessary to close off the medium of John Fitch Boulevard right in my front driveway. Now Marcia has stated that she is also going to recommend that the medium be closed off. Now you've got to picture yourself driving down Route 5 going north from Sullivan Avenue to the Town of East Windsor, there is only one opening in -26- that divided highway for all the residents that live up and down that street, including myself. If they close that .off, it will seriously impact my ability to be able to rent to the current farmer who is up the street several miles that rents 20 acres of our corn land. When he comes out and has to go up to Sullivan Avenue, get in the left turn lane and turn 180° to go back towards East Windsor with a big tractor and a 12' wide wheelhouse, he may not be able to make that turn. So I feel that that's a very serious consideration for the health and welfare of my being able to rent my farm. My next concern is the noise that will result from the cars entering and exiting the street right across from my front driveway. To get on and off Route 5 out of my front drive is quite an experience at the high traffic time, I mean you've really got to be pretty good. What you do is you wait for the signal light to change up on Scantic Road and stop the traffic coming south and is about 15 seconds before the Scantic Road traffic comes zooming out and comes down by me. So we do have a chance to break in there, but wheels squeek and tires roar and all that good stuff and I think that when you magnify that.by 200 additional cars coming in and out across the street from us, it is of serious concern. Lastly, six months out of the year we will have headlights pointing directly into our bedrooms as cars exit from across the street. Now the people who presented a real nice plan here and they talk about buffers, but when the people come out of that street and come onto Route 5 there's no buffers left. They' re coming out, their lights are pointed right at my house and they are going to wait until they can come out into that traffic. So, there you are. We've got another situation that I'm concerned about. If you drive through John Fitch Boulevard, from one end of the town to the other, we are in the only area of all of John Fitch Boulevard where you can get the feeling of open space as you drive by the Scantic River. You see cows grazing in our pasture and in George Badolovages and with that I'll close. Don't spoil this zone by allowing a high density development. Thank you very much. Chair Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Yes. 4on My name is Robert Mayon, 2010 Route 5 right across from George. There are several problems here that bother both me and my family and my neighbors. Number 1 , someone just mentioned that they would like to close the divider off directly opposite George's house. I live on the east side of the highway and the condos are going to be built directly behind me. Now if I leave my driveway and go north and try to come back to my house, I'm going to have to go all the way to Sullivan Avenue like George and make 180° turn to head back north on Sullivan Avenue to attempt to get into my driveway. Number 1 , if any, I think it has been brought before this commission once before that we did have a problem, the problem was trying to resolve with Commerce Way, the industrial development right close to Sullivan Avenue -27- there, as to where the traffic was going to enter and exit and this created quite a problem. Well this is only going to create more of a problem for two reasons. Number 1 , during peak rush hour traffic, if you go south on Route 5 and get in that left hand lane to go up Sullivan Avenue, it is backed up so far that it is backed up into the actual left hand lane of the highway southbound and we are due for a very serious accident there. Not only that, when I go to make that left hand turn, which is virtually a U turn to head back north toward my house, 90% of the people, and you can go down there and park your car any time of day, night or week, will ignore that right hand turn heading north where they are supposed to stop on a red before they proceed through it. Now if anybody is familiar with the area, go up there and stop and you'll see. Continuing the problems with Route 5. I want to emphasize one thing about Route 5. If anybody would like to come and sit in my front yard on any Saturday afternoon or you pick the day of the week, believe me, southbound or northbound, we can call one side of the highway Daytona and the other Indianapolis Speedway, because traffic coming from the north heading south on Route 5 with their frustrations being built up by the slow moving traffic through the town of East Windsor, once they hit that 4 lane highway, divided highway, they think they're at Daytona. And, during your peak traffic hours, and your peak traffic hours, I mean to disagree with the gentlemen over here, are not from 5:00 on, they area from 3:00 on when Pratt & Whitney gets on to well after 7:00 at night. If you have to stop at the junction of Sullivan Avenue and Route 5 and head north, well boy they are trying to set Indi speed limits, because they know they are headed for a 2 lane highway. They are headed right down that straight away for a mile, a mile and a half, and they are actually racing eachother to see who can get to that 2 lane highway first. And along with this problem, I have almost forbid my parents, because it has almost happened to me so many times, that when I do go down Route 5 headed north to my house from Sullivan Avenue, there is a very dangerous situation. When I put on my right hand signal to pull into my driveway which is almost opposite George Bankroft's house, people think my right hand signal is on to go out Scantic Road and more times I've had very near rear end collisions and my parents have had them and everybody gets mad at us and they give us the old one finger salute as satisfaction. Also, on Friday nights during the so-called non peak traffic hours, I invite every one of you commission members to come to my house for lobster dinner and steak dinner on me, because the traffic is so bogged up from traffic heading northbound to either vacation areas or whatever their destinations are I don't know, coming up is the Eastern States, will be a good example. I cannot get in my driveway or if I am lucky enough to be in my driveway, I cannot get out of my driveway because the traffic is pretty near backed up to the Scanti c River Bridge. Also, we have heard proposals from the gentleman on my left here tonight that most of this traffic out -28- of these condos are going to be going southbound. Is there any verification of this that it's all going to be going southbound? What other traffic is going to be coming from the north? I understand that Hamilton Standard is going to be building a big project up there in East Windsor. This will affect traffic on Route 5. Souther Auto Exchange up there, they plan to double their size and one other thing that I think that everybody has overlooked in all of this ladies and gentlemen, is the impact on Route 5, not only on our area, I don't know how many of you people drive Route 5 everyday, but we have not even begun, not even begun to feel the impact of the traffic from Interstate 91 once they start reconstructing from the Windsor Locks to the Hartford area. We some of it now, we residents of Route 5, but we haven't even begun to see it, when they start making parts of southbound 91 one lane traffic, and people are rushing now to get in. As far as the traffic on Scantic Road, some mornings I leave my house 5:30, some days 6:00, some days 7:00. I see lined cars lined up 14, 15, 16 deep and get so frustrated coming out of Scantic Road right now that they completely ignore the light. To the best of my recollection in the last 7 to 10 years and I am not exaggerating at all , I can count most of them on my hands, between Sullivan Avenue and Scantic Road, there have been 7 to 10 people who have lost their lives because of automobile accidents and because of speeding. I think I have touch pretty much the problem with Route 5. Number 2, I think the location of this whole proposal is very poor. It's going to add to our already strained town services. In what way? It is directly or indirectly going to place an additional strain on the human services department, visiting nurses, senior citizens, and rec department. And the town doesn't even have a permanent area for these departments yet. This problem, here we're building, building, building and we haven't even solved our town problems yet. It is also going to add a very additional strain to our most valuable voluntary organizations that this town has and that is the volunteer ambulance corps and our volunteer fire department. I think these two things have to be considered. It's going to add additional strain to our educational system. In what way? We are going to have more students in school . People on Route 5 don't stop for stop lights now, how do you expect them to stop for busses picking up kids. I see one or two busses come down my way once in a while, they don't even stop and it is probably known to you people more than it is to me, but I checked with the department of public works here in town. There are over 300 streets in this town now and I've checked with the police department and we have only 4 cruisers on most shifts. That means divide 4 cruisers into over 300 almost 320 streets, you have pretty near one cruiser covering 80 streets in this town and I think, I'm not berating the police department at all , but we've built them a brand new police station and the police station is undermaned. And I can give you a prime example of this last year. Right directly across from George Bankroft's house, on one icy night, just misty ice -29- out. I don't know if you people remember there were accidents all over town. I happened to be out in my driveway and this fellow got cut off he told me, he cracked the pole and he knocked off the cab of his pickup and I ran out there with a bunch of flares. I think Mr. Saunders will back me up on this if he'd like to. I stood out there in that rain and sleet. Number one I called the police department, because there was a big flash from the light pole, I though we had down wires and I stood out there, Mr. Saunders came by and he offered to call the police department. I take it for his word he did. I ran back to my house and got more flares. I stood out there for almost 2-1/2 hours with this gentleman and finally I said, I just can't stand out here any more. Finally, he did find a policeman and he stopped back about an hour and a half later and he thanked me for staying out there with him. Now I 'm not degrading the police department any under any condition, I just think that we are straining our town services (tape ends here) -30- The score board that comes off of Route 5 and has the scores, and also just looking at this small portion of Scantic River watershed which is an acre, there is some kind of industrial facility here, maybe a junkyard or something perhaps. You see a major residential sub-divisions here and you see other, we are down at the bottom end of this watershed which has a lot of uses, so you just don't see any water quality intact in this project in this area. I have done some specific analyses of the impacts of residential projects on small streams, very very small streams, you can usually jump across and it takes an awful lot of cards to create any kind of significant impact. With a I-c7Ji54, stream of this type of drain of 100 sq. mile at this point. f,VQ0z Chair I guess I did have one other question. Person And the others were fine. Chair Oh, right. Person What was referring to was the wetlands that are away from the Scantic River on the flood plain, those are not in likely of any significant The Scantic River flood plain is obviously a significant resource and and you can see it graphically here that we've got the whole flood plain and so there won't be any impact on the wildlife moving before it reaches. Chair Just one other question. How much of the recreational open space area that you have is actually usable or buildable and is not actually flood plain which you couldn't build on anyway. This may be, I know you've given us a lot of information and it may be somewhere in the figures. Person It shows on the plans. There is no recreational area in the flood plains. Chair I know, I 'm saying how much. Usually we ask the land that's given as, it should be, a lot of times it's land that is buildable land. What's the percentage right now that you have for recreational land vs. your land that you are actually building the buildings on. And putting pavement on, etc. Person I 'm not exactly sure I'm,following the question. Person She's asking, I believe, is the land that's being reserved for recreation buildable land. -31- Person Almost entirely 100% is all development land, but we went through these density calculations that eliminated wetlands, steep sloops and that type of thing. The land that was left over gave us our net buildable and it's on that land that the equipment will be used for parking and recreational basis. Chair Well I said about what percentage of it was? Person There is no percentage. Chair I think 100% would be the answer to your question from what he is saying. Person Person I would just like a clarification on Commissioner Montanta's question. I think what she wants to know is, say 89% of this is going to be developed into roads, buildings, etc. , what percentage is going to be developed as recreational area, be it a building, be it a ball park, be it a whatever, I think that was her question. Person It is on this. Person It is? Okay. 20%, we just got the answer 27%. Good. Person Your question on our statement about I would agree with your philosophy. When you take a look at the plan here, when you are looking at it in detail , there are, we have identified with symbols on all of the plants, different identifications. The buffers have in them large blue spruce, Norway spruce, there are white pine, there is another pine. Does Canadian hemlock that's spruce. So there are four different types of plants here, within the buffer. Chair Your percentage of white pines was extremely high compared to what your percentage of others. Person We can certainly modify that. We do agree that the buffer should be there. One of our concerns is that if you do have a large infestations of gypsy moths. Your trees can be descimated in one shot. Chair Barbara. -32— Barb. Just something that Mrs. Montanta brought up that I would like Y to pursue for one moment and ask a further question. In the spring when you have a flood plain or a flooding situation in that area and you are depending on that ground to have the water run off and all , will you create a flooding situation on the now built upon land if the water has no place to go. Is there enough of a leeway in your catch basins that allows that runoff or are you going to add in a very extreme flood not have any place to drain it to. — Person I think the key there was used normally would be the various setting for the flood insurance that it will qualify the entire river and tell you where the flood elevations go to and the flood elevations that you mentioned before are 5.2, so you get elevation 32 and .34. Any difference, I think, any kind of any change of any sort here affects something, but the amount would be very miniscule. So the overall effect would really be and have no increase in the water level , whatever is stated as the part of the federal level , flood insurance would basically remain. We are dealing with a 32 elevation and you are still dealing with a 32 plus or minus maybe a tenth of a foot. Cftf-r So what you are saying is that during the peak flood stage you Kt should have a 6" rainfall or something like that, the water is going to have a place to go down those catch basins. Person That's right. One of the things that you can do in terms of design, you normally design for a 25 year storm, and during that period of 25 years you happen to have a drainage system that totally, functions from start to finish. In otherwords, you have including your catch basins would be so low and your piping so low that you ended up flooding back into your road in a 25 year storm and that would be an unacceptable sign and unacceptable by the town engineer and a professional engineer. Everything is designed to catch at the storm drain system itself, the storm drainage system is a 25 year storm and you do have a complete allowance. Leo yw z4ari'r I do have one other question. I wonder if it has to do with lC � Scanti c Road itself. Could you explain again exactly what the improvements are that are planned for Scantic Road and the distance that that would cover?. Perm- What we could be doing with Scantit Road is and I guess if you could get a hold of a particular chart it shows, it only shows a systematic flooring. The intent would be to run a third lane, second lane less down fully for 100' showing that, and that would be sufficient for any concerns, as a matter of fact that -33- You would go back 100' in terms of the actual full third, both lane on Scantic and then you would go back another 100' taper bringing you back to a two lane road. &A o% Oep ai r Is there any plan to do any reconstruction on Scanti c Road? etc ?graeyr It would include what we would be mainly doing is working on the south side of the road itself and there definitely would be a certain degree, and we would certainly have to rework the crown on the road at that particular point, and it really, I think, would be perhaps dealing primarily with the town engineer in terms of establishing what are the necessary details to make it a road fully workable. Sc(e6pra, Chair Because it is a typical country road at this point, and ) Jf"A�C- certainly not suitable r the even fore of thattshort so you c that distavice, e considering putting on it do have a plan that that extra lane is going to be on your property on the southerly side. 7 a c K Person Yes it would be the property of the developer at this point in Dv("- time and will be turned over. r That's all I have right now. Ray. Ray I would like to address the legal advertisement in the paper and ,Q I�oj your agenda. The advertisement in the paper was for a zone change of 73.9 acres to MFAA currently zoned AARFP&I. Your agenda is asking for 37.32 acres to be changed to MFAA from RR, A-20 & I. Could somebody tell me if either one of those is what the application was for? I don't know what the application read. What did you request of the commission. Is the legal advertisement correct or is your agenda correct, or is neither correct. � - Person The legal advertisement refers to a larger area than what is proposed for rezoning. The parcel size is just over 70 acres, but the flood plain is not being rezoned and therefore any discrepancy between the legal advertisement and the proposal before you this evening is only in the direction of a smaller area to be rezoned and, therefore, is not in my judgment a notice problem. Ray So you are only asking for a zone change of 37.32 acres to 4 k Ion. :,,, MFAA. Is that correct? Person Yes, that is correct. ,r Ray Then if that is correct, the I zone which is 5 acres that you � R are asking to change to MFAA does not conform to our zoning regulations. It doesn't meet a 15 acre minimum size and it is not contiguous to another MFAA zone. Would you like to comment -34- on that. .,Person No in conformance with your regulations in what respect? Ray It is not 15 acres and it is not contiguous to another MFAA zone. Person Well , there are really two responses to this and since the hearing is going to be continued perhaps I can address it more fully, but first of all it was not our understanding that it had to be contiguous to the other land and second, frankly, we don't need it. If you don't want to rezone that high area, there is no development going to occur in there, we just thought as a housekeeping function it was appropriate to have the zone lines follow the property lines. But it is not necessary for density purposes or any other purposes. Ray A few years ago we added the word contiguous because of a H-0-k d ' situation like this where the property, the subsequent 5 acres went under other ownership and then, because it was under other ownership, and it was in a MFAA zone the courts ruled that we had to let them develop it as a 5 acre complex when our regulations required 15. So if you can see. �tiN ►c h PCA erson I now understand. Racy Why the word contiguous is in there. ��ti . ,, �,.� , Person I defer to your planner but as I said it is not necessary to Ow 15 h ,�t4kVV° rezone that and in fact the area that is later to be discussed to be subjected to restrictions could include that area so that it would not subject the town to that problem. Ray Okay, at the next session that we have, the remaining acreage Y f o b,ZM which would be somewhere around 32.32 acres at this point maybe i we could take that exact acreage in the RR n the A-20 zone and then subtract from it the slopes, wetlands and other things that are required to be subtracted in our regulations and come back with a recalculated density. Person We will do that. Ray 4,) Thank you. �k°r Person it is not upon the record but I did that ;:F ► today in my office and it is 17 units that is buildable, so that ��,, when we come back with the recalculation I expect that the calculation would show 217 it is possible if you subtract the I zone. The I zone is a function to the steep slopes so that a development potential for the property -35— The I zone was going to be a rear lot. It is on the other side of the flood plain, backs up to existing industrial buildings and we thought that rather than leave that I We would rezone that and use that as a buffer between the industrial and the wetland. Chair Bernie, do you have questions. Bernie Yes, one fast question. On the approximately 10% of the units } that you are considering leaving in affordable housing, I was wondering when you do come back if you're aware of any vehicles to maintain them as affordable housing, you couldn't make us aware of them. There have been problems in other towns and it's a good idea, and I would like to see them still be affordable housing in 10 years from now and not just be turned over and sell for $130,000. Person There are many mechanisms. VV,'�( , Bernie If you could make me aware of a few of them I 'd appreciate it 4ay+- very much. Person I would point out for members of the commission that I believe that you said you wanted to continue to September 8. Mr. Kline is not going to be available on that evening and will not be able to return for any further examination or questions if that's the date you're going to continue to. C h a i r That would be the best date for us, that was. I wanted to indicate a couple of areas that I would like to talk about more at our next meeting and perhaps just indicate them now. When we are talking about the drainage and the sewerage and so on, the drainage area being that that extends into East Windsor, I wanted to know what our future obligations in South Windsor would be to handle drainage and perhaps sewerage from East Windsor or if we have such obligations planned and I wanted to know more about just some of the other commission members haven't mentioned. If you have talked to the Board of Education or to some other or to the school administration in some respect and if you have an idea where students would be going to school because it is my understanding, that students who live there presently attend Pleasant Valley School which is, despite the fact that this is a rather different geographical site, is nonetheless the same school district site as the majority of our present condominiums, so- I thought that maybe you could let us know about that, and what you had found out. And I notice that the traffic counts were taken on April 24th. I don't remember when Easter was this last year, our school vacation, that was -36— the week after? There was no school vacation anywhere in the area? I can look into that. Ai)eeewRerson April 24 was a Friday following Easter. _Chtrir Right, but some people did have that week following Easter, I 1 ov,st Era.A.S know that South Windsor did not, but some school districts do have different vacations. tl Person There was that question brought up at the East Windsor meeting " and indeed and maybe it was only in East Windsor, but school was out on that particular day. We had it originally August 4 and it was changed to August 14 and we did on that particular check it with the school system to verify the number of busses that would be used in that time period. I a a c t Chair On August 14th? Person Oh, I'm sorry, that's the date of our report. Okay, because a lot of school systems vary especially on the spring vacations �5 and I thought also on the 'traffic, I don't think that you've adequately addressed the Route 5 narrowing down into a single lane and what affect that has on everything. At least I didn't find in reading the traffic report that I felt that you had adequately addressed that, so I'd like further comment on that. Also I wondered if there was anything you were planning to do, there were a lot of comments made about how you would do nothing to the Scantic River. I wondered if there was anything positive you could do to the Scantic River that would help the Scantic River Park, or whatever, along. If there weren't things that might be done that way, that would be maybe more misdeclined. Okay, those were areas that occurred to me. I think that if we, recessing is a good idea for us because it will give us a chance to read through this to become familiar with the maps and so on too. And, really in the course of one evening there is not that much time because you have had a very lengthy presentation. Could I have a motion to recess this meeting until September. Person Recess to a L o ujw Chair I think we need to set the date. Yes, the date has to be set. IOYNS It has to be within 35 days of this hearing. He mentioned that one of their people couldn't be here but, vAA�i\A- Person I am just pointing out that if we have some specific questions McYrko for him as a matter of convenience, you can't schedule around our schedules. vonXhai r No, I don't think we can. I think Person -37- L-a,)f,t Chai r All right, can I have a second to that? Okay. All those in. Is there any discussion? All those in favor. Opposed or obstentions. Okay, then this portion of the public hearing will be recessed until September 8th at 8:00 at which time the commission will continue with questions of the applicant. Now we have a second item on the agenda tonight and I know that Mr. Saunders is here, I don't know if he is making the presentation or are you people making the presentation? Q w►�� ' Person We don't have anything to do with that application. Vea6rv, Chair So could we have the applicant for that presentation please. ae,-1-s Person Could we have a couple minutes recess? Lp j, � Chair Sure. I think you've made them part of the record, I think you should do that. (tape ends) (there is nothing on 2nd side of this tape) Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing - Reg. Mtg. 9/8/87 Chair I think that the best way to do this is to have the continuation varsS of the Jamestown item that was recessed before because that seems to be, unless people have a problem with that on the commission. Does that make sense to you all? Okay, because we were recessed from them and so I guess, I 've never done a recess to a public hearing before, but I guess we don't have to read the legal notice until we get to that part of it. It would seem to me that that would be, so where we were at was the public had had opportunity to speak although there may be people- here tonight who weren't here the other night and who wish to speak or who will wish to speak when they hear a little more about it and the commission was in the process of asking their questions. I will say first of all that we received numerous communications from the Alpha account over the course of the last two weeks and I think it should be noted in some fashion that these are here so that they could be viewed by the public if they so wished. There were even some, I think, that the entire commission did not get, I'm not certain. There was, well this came which was the some response to the questions that we had, the preliminary questions that we raised. Also coming was the revised computation and some additional environmental planning service information and then I received two letters in the mail that I 'm not certain went to everybody else. I don't think it did. One was a letter addressed to Dr. Lodarchick of the schools and I just make note of that because that would be, that could be copies made to give to commission members at a later date and also a letter from the Department of Environmental Protection, naming their position and management people and I don't think that the commission received those either one of those, so why don't I give those to you so that copies can be made for the commission members so they'll have something that will be part of the record, and then of course all these other things that I mentioned will be part of the record as well . One other thing that I'm not sure everybody else got which is the last day of our extentional design associates comments on revision proposed that they would. . .Did you get copies of that? Oh, okay. I forgot you got them. I wasn't sure. �Aa V-c R We were supposed to get a letter from t4ttrd that was supposed to be over today. -L a+r- I read the letter from, another letter from C.l..a.u.d, that came ,� S today? Okay, fine. That we'll need to have copies made for the commission members too then, if there is something that we need to be aware of, I would. .�® __Mai-6 Was it read into the minutes? C, ek. Lou'3rChair Well I did read the.. ..the new one is it full of advisory rd vf comments? t4o e,(f Person Yes. Chair Do you want me to read it or do you? Okay, I can read it. This v� is the one. This isn't what I want. These are the DVP ones which I could read but I 'm not sure that we read everything else into the minutes. I will say the one that Dr. Labelle talked about the location of the store, where the kids would go to school , we okay. Commissioners, receipt is acknowledged.. .I thought this had already been read. Person You read the first part the comments, the last two paragraphs ►, s are new. Chair Well , I 'm not sure I should read the whole thing then, let's tons see. Does it start with the regional planning commission's reviewed this before, it tells where the plot is located and refers to the regional plan development, that I know I read, the 10% of the dwelling units, constructed at prices affordable for moderate income levels, the comps indicated $65,000 for one bedroom unit are well below current market rates for the area. The proposal also indicates that these units would be identical in construction and size to the market rate units and evenly disbursed throughout the development. The developer's proposal if approved of all commissions supports the housing goals of the regional planning development which seeks to increase the range of choices in housing for persons of all incomes and all ages as well as the numerical housing goals unanimously approved by Forbes governing body in June of the year which instituted numerical housing goals for the increase of affordable dwelling units in a town by town basis over a ten year period. As such, Clockstell finds a voluntary inclusion of affordable units within the development as an innovative and timely initiative on the part of the project's developer. Forbes transportation planning device also reviewed the topic and staff on the project utilizing the existing project study. Staff is of the opinion that the addition of an exclusive left turn lane on Scenic Road at the Scenic Road, Route 5 intersection will elleviate and improve any foreseeable left turn traffic problems. Therefore, at this time no significant traffic impact was found for this project, Jamestown Village. East Windsor's future proposes an extensive area easterly of the proposed project and northerly of Scenic Road for high density development, so at some future time the developments and land use on both sides of the town lines should be somewhat compatible. However, because the area within East Windsor is presently zoned (this part I think I read too) for low density development, Agricultural I. (I guess it is) any concerns which officials may have concerning the project's impact, etc. should be carefully weighed to provide for future land use problems across town lines which is - 2 - harmoneous and promotes a land use proposals of both town plans as well as regional planned development (I did read that). Note: This is a note that is asterisked back to the $65,000 price for the one bedroom unit. Any approval should carry a caveat that these plots, number of units, etc. be guaranteed by the developer prior to any local approval . Questions concerning this referral should be directed to Carolyn Pernel . In accordance with our procedures this letter will account to final action on this referral to public date is scheduled for 9/8/87. You don't usually revise their, I mean it's fine. I mean they just wanted to revise it? V ilk erson The applicant wanted to be a candidate. Chair So I guess we're ready for, what was this about revisions to the plans too? Were there revisions to the plans? Maybe we could have the officer tell us about it before we start asking questions about revisions to the plans we're talking about. &CAIC. Zf-fi-cer If I may, my name is Gordon Duets, I'm an attorney with Robinson b Cole in Hartford, Connecticut. I 'm here today representing Bradgate Associates, Inc. , substituting for Dwight Merriam who was here the last time around. I 'm taller than Dwight. 1-0,J i`•t v15Chai r I think you've been around longer too. -Duets There were a substantanti al number of questions and concerns at 4 M, oc- the August 25th public hearing and what we'd like to do is address those particular concerns. We have some specific answers to the specific questions, but I would like to have you Chair I know, what bothers me is we had a very lengthy public hearing before. We want to be sure we have a chance to ask our questions. Perhaps we'll be asking, I mean we are being inundated by paper and it would take all week to get through all these various books as it was and maybe we should reask some of our questions and so you can have the answers put on the record? Or maybe you can do it extremely briefly. -PuttT Certainly, as a matter of order, what we did is' we went through Suck- the record of the hearing and we took all the questions that we could find and we've attempted to answer them specifically in the supplemental materials we've submitted. We feel that in fact we have answered almost all the questions that we could answer. Some we feel we disagree. LVV!W Or you have answers to them. �Vet Ducts We have answers to them, that's correct. Chair Because I have questions about some of the answers. k* jjuetir Good. rvaos . *rrr That's really what we are saying that we might need to ask. s We've listed several questions that were raised by the crowd in here, by Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Whalen, and Mrs. Rossi, Mr. Castro, Miss Pl.alyKe, Mr. CowW. K le A IC C- C.0 0% � p erson They've avoided mine. �au3 -Chair First of all , unless you people prefer sitting in the dark, because the spotlights seem to be enough. There is a light switch someplace back there which you could turn on. We can't see who's there, but that may be better, I don't know, who knows. Person We'd like to hear what's going on. ,Chair Right, okay, I think that's obviously the most important point. Okay. Duets- So we have a list of questions and answers, which we have . �, attempted to answer and I'm sure that you will have questions for our answer we also have Mr. Doyle over there, Mr. NtA , Mr. who will also answer the technical questions that will occur. If we put the questions in some order, it might be a method of going through them seeing if our characterizing. Lou)v 6 40\e% C h a i r This is in other words in addition to all of these. D*ets We have recently put these as a memorandum so that in fact we can answer the questions occurred. 1a4\-J1 .Chatr I don't think since you've given us these in writing that you 6Y0(n3 would need to go through and tell us verbally each one of them because some of them are very technical and we promise to read all this. Why don't you confine any statement you make to those that you consider the most important or, I don't know what your criteria might be, but you want to direct our attention to it. ztmts I want to direct your attention to one particular area which was a question which was raised concerning a mechanism of ' �- restricting the income for the 10% of the property. I have in the back of the materials I have handed to you a memorandum that I would also like to supplement that with some materials from the Federal National Mortgage Association who would be providing most of the mortgages on the property or there will be some banks who will be using (perhaps I should pass this out) the Federal National Mortgage Association's standard but as a supplement for this particular proposal . The way the mechanism works is that if the town or an agent of the town if the town feels it is not so inclined, would receive a right of first - 4 - refusal for the property which would be triggered by a sale of one of these units for a price in excess of the base price increased by a CPI index. If a person wished to sell the property, they would submit the sale price to the appropriate official . If the sale price was lower than the base unit would issue a waiver or consent for the sale and the sale would go through. If in fact the sale was in excess of the base price plus the CPI index, then the town would have a six month period to sell at the base price. In reality the way this would work, you would very seldom in fact have to exercise the right of first refusal because there is a natural vamp in there about first getting back the force supervision for exercising the right of first refusal with the effect it keeps the price at the level increased by the CPI. Chair In order to purchase something that costs over $25,000 you would G to V1 have to have a public hearing. �'tc s Yes, that's why we proposed that there be a mutually negotiated designated agency. In other towns it has been redevelopment agencies or development authorities who have more flexibility in purchase and sale of units or real estate or it would be some agent or trustee the town can establish, a bank or something of that nature which would authorize the process. The reason for the six months right of first refusal were that if in the final analysis the town could not sell the property to a purchaser, so in fact the town would not buy, more likely or not the right to buy would be sold or assigned to a purchaser. If that in final analysis there would be sufficient time to go through the necessary process to buy the unit. It's an option which the town need not exercise as well , so that if in fact the town decided for whatever reason it did not want to exercise the option at that price, they could reject. So basically the alternatives are available or appear to keep the ceiling on the sale price. This is an outline of the details and would obviously be placed in very appropriate legal language with all the whereas'es and futurefores which they seem to like and approved by your town attorney, but this mechanism using a right of first refusal will work. The appropriate mortgage protection clauses which are attached are those that are required by the standard institutional mortgage lender and developed as very very recent standards by the Federal National Mortgage Association and were only announced this summer effective on January 1st. What this means is that the standard institutional mortgage lender can provide mortgages to these particular units which are subject to the restriction. Up until now that restriction by lowering the purchase price would limit the mortgage availability. The Federal National Mortgage Association has accepted this as a legitimate concept. It's being used all over the country and because it is being used they came up with standards of making the mortgage acceptable. Those standards were supplied to mortgage lenders. So the - 5 - process of limiting the price is outlined in my memorandum under mechanism. The price limits would be for 21 years. That happens to be the length the maximum length of time that you can satisfy and secure legal concept called the rule against perpetities which law students wrestled with for months in the first year of real property. A right to another person to purchase property cannot exist for more than 21 years. So we are proposing that the maximum amount would be the amount that's in there. If in fact the owners own the property after the end of the 21 years, there would be propetual windfall . But at that point these people would have been living there for a long time and would have accrued which they could look forward to and we could possibly start folks in a lower moderate income. level into the round of home ownership and potential appreciation. So that's basically the mechanism that we are proposing. We have, we think, in memorandum answered all the questions that we could come up with. It looks like you've got everybody thrown in here. Why don't you...we it take a look at those and let us, would you tell us ' what things that you changed on the plan. I think that we should be aware of that. I don't know how you can change them in the middle. That's what I 'm unsure of. ,rB Ts Basically, there are a few areas in order to satisfy the concerns that we would like to submit to the commission as a potential condition of their approval . When you condition an approval , you often add conditions and you become specific in the conditions by showing sketches or ` P"r't-r The ones you want as opposed to the ones we want? Duets We'll submit the ones we want. We would like to submit the ones that we would like to suggest and those are the only ones that we are really interested in and we've attempted to satisfy your Chair I don't have any knowledge of really of the legality of this, . but I mean, normally in a public hearing that was not recessed, you would not have the opportunity to go home in the middle of it and revise your plans and come back. And, I don't understand in what way how you can, the plans it seems to me that we would act on and approve or not approve are those that you submitted to us and which were advertised and outside the town clerk's office as part of the public hearing. I mean if something wants to be proposed as a possible way of altering those plans, okay, but why don't you, maybe what we should be doing then is asking our questions first and then letting you respond perhaps to some of those questions by showing us in ways in which you would alter them, because I think that we need to be sure we get a chance to ask our questions tonight. Since we had another public hearing item scheduled anyway, I think we don't want to spend until midnight on this. I don't know where we want to - 6 - start, I guess we'll start down here. Anybody who has a question, any of you who have a question, why don't you, Ray, you probably have several , so why don't we start with you. Ray Basically my first question I guess is on the information we �aWI-14 received, some in the mail with our agenda and one was a Jamestown Village thing, I really don't know the date that belongs on it or who originated it, but it was sent to us. Maybe someone can identify this. Person Site Data Table. It came out of our office, Doyle Landscape Architect. I think that came out of my office and Ray Is there an appropriate date and signature? -Chair He also provided this. Lcv)` (4 LO 1 This letter here? — Chair Yes. Person What I would do is put old and new on mine because I wasn't going to be sure as time went on that I'd be able to distinguish ' between the two. Ray This letter is not signed, so we don't know what individual it h 0 wttj came from, but down here under number 2 the question at the beginning of the hearing was that we were looking for revised data on the site and zoning data. What you've given us in #2 is not comparable with what you gave us initially, so if you'd interpret it, it's like apples and grapes. You' re not telling us how many acres remain in the project. -Wu G K- _-Dvrct-S You don't have the same data. Ray I don't know why you aren't using a revised chart for site and zoning data. It' s sort of a one paragraph thing here that does not contain the same information. Here's the letter here. That's the original data there as near as I can figure. Dohs Let me see. What you are looking at was the proposed zoning, it should be correct. a It is the original . It is not the revised correct. a a �b.ari-r I have the old and the new, see this was the first and the veck second. It should be, the first page looks the same to me. Chair It's not though. There are some changes in what is being zoned L-0 what. What the existing zoning is and what is going to here on ,J( ri - 7 - the proposed zone, see they have different ones down here. I didn't understand it because the new one would indicate that they were asking for industrial May 20, that's not what they are asking for so obviously it's confused. 13U C4r- -Batts~ Perhaps our terminology was before and after instead of existing and proposed. L o u1 -Cbai_r Well proposed to me means afterwards, I mean what you are proposing would be afterwards, right. Qu4t-s' And afterwards we would not be intending to change either the industrial , if that is what the commission desires, nor would we t?ucK be changing almost 3/10 of an acre A-20 land. It was basically based on your comment, the question at that point was the land on the other side of the flood plain, what was it zoned. And my response at that point was that it was zoned industrial . In fact in taking a close look at it, the present flood plain walks around through there. There is 3/10 of an acre piece that is actually zoned A-20 so if the commission desired not to rezone that, it would be, I think-it would be 4.71 acres of I zone and .29 acres of A-20 that would remain, so the proposal and future zoning of this property, that zoning would stay in place with no change. FOAJ � Person That's in violation of i n zoningregulations to rezone the I zone, because it is separated by an FP zone from the gjwtT So the proposal may be an inappropriate word but it would remain the same, it would not be changed, so that the density calculations would now be taken based on the land, everything but that. That then is removed from the density calculations and you end up with a potential developable on the site of 191 or 193. Luo1 X -ZMrr They changed the numbers, the potential units in the subtraction. Ray That's over in this? DVAI Yes, the two were meant to run, I 'm sorry I didn't put a date on it. The two were meant to run together. Ray We have another one without a date on it too. So as a net result you are proposing an MFAA for 33.3. ;, ••c r�,�es That' s right. Ray And the density based on this letter would, the total permitted would decrease by 25.52 units because of that. Quets That's right. There is a great deal of steep sloops in there also. - 8 - Ray I guess the other question I had is, I'm sure you're aware of alo�P our proposed our new comprehensive plan of development and proposed density changes and one that is on a hearing agenda tonight of 4.5 units per acre. Do you have a problem with that in this particular site, or would you have a problem with that on this site? { �L Person I have to admit I am not aware of the change, and I didn't pick up your number. �V,4ay 4.5 C-htlr Notes are in the book, whoever wrote the book would be aware of C VVI VI.s it. Linca .RerstM' the zoning regulations on the agenda.. . Ray Over the past two-years and I think it was as long as maybe a Aowdl couple of years ago when we had our work session on this particular session, they proposed to change the regulations to 4.5 units per acre, because of the public's concern of the overcrowding of sensitive land because a lot of sensitive land such as this was being proposed for MFA or MFAA and tonight on our hearing that begins after this is proposed changing the zoning regulations to 4.5. My question is do you have a problem with that density with this site? DmetT It wo ld be very close to our proposed list. It is somewhere fromJ4 41t units somewhere in that area. It may mean a reduction of the total density. It may mean a reduction of 3 units. Person 3.2 acres or 148 units or whatever. / (kerson So it really woul dn't, seriously affect the development, is that what you are saying? It would have some effect on the development but I don't think it is serious. It would have a greater effect on L � , t Chair Yes, I think so, because if I read you correctly, in this new statistics that you gave us, the density proposed would be 6.17 units per acre. L-61 1j, Ducts That's correct, so it would be 22 net acres. I was looking at the total acreage. The net acrage that you'll find on the 2nd page would be 22. something acres. So you take 23.99 acres and multiply that by and that would give us our total would be 108. Chair And his question to you was, would that give you a problem? L - 9 - �tzts As site planner, it wouldn't give the site planner a problem at all , because I have a lot more room to deal with. So I'm the wrong person to ask that question. The person to ask that question would be perhaps John Mafrajer. O (1st of tape ends) ° Person- All of our calculations and so forth that have cost us and the special low amount of income units based on the higher number using the way units as the significant impact having the availability to do that because the number high development costs associated to do this, particularly bringing the sewer line up to this property, the off site improvement to Scenic Road to that intersection and provision upon Those are significant costs. Those costs have to be spread out over much more of the units. C h a i r Do you have questions? Person How much would it cost you to bring the sewer in? ti �'`j `�" Person A lot.moo e4rs on r Well they have to connect something. vil, *eAon They propose to hook in. / Person I was just wondering the cost of bringing the sewer up to the Person I was concerned about in your response to questions proposed that Mr. Ma lin had made about if the medium was Your response, any problems with traffic movement on Route 5 will be addressed by the State Traffic Commission, and also motorist's behavior on Route 5 is a law inforcement not a zoning issue. All of these problems of traffic are still things that we have to consider when we are considering your application and it may or may not be, it may be a enforcement matter, but what happens with the traffic and the traffic flow and the safety of the citizens in this area certainly is a matter that the zoning commission considers when we are discussing your application. The other question I have is, this is the environmental planning services? On the second page, the second paragraph, to fully assess the incremental impact one must compare the site generated traffic to the traffic on all roads in the 100+ square mile area? That seems like a rather large, is that what you are saying? Person Or is it only in the Scantic River water shed area? Or are you IVI only speaking s eaki n of east of the river. Person They did mean a 100 sq. mile water shed area at one point. '� - 10 - e M,M6h+6"A Person How far would a 100 sq. mile go in the water shed area? f y � Dads It's a 10 by 10 mile square. 1V ft� It's a very rural area and I just wanted to ask you, only one 41?)? t�1?C - major road on that side of the river. All the rest are farm roads, so you only really have one road that can carry traffic down through that. P_ Psn Can you tell me about the water and all the different uses that would be upstream for 100 sq. miles and Person The Scantic River begins up in Hamden, Massachusetts and comes rr�r� down through farms. Person But he is combining the two comments, everything that flows into L,nt 6- a� = that river and then and you are saying how many other roads are �t there. Person There is only in this immediate area, I mean, there is only ��i°her`�°' Route 5 is the major traffic corridor, everything else is not even secondary. They are just slightly improved farm roads. Man What she is approaching is the roadway generator pollutants. �✓ And roadway generator pollutants occur obviously throughout the proversia and you get to assess the additional 5% of the vehicles that are going to be by this particular project. You have to prepare all the traffic at the site plus all the traffic in the general watershed to determine what the increment increase or effect of the roadway generated pollutants would be at this particular site. Person That is what scares us is whether there are any other areas where they are heavily affected by roadways and obviously in East Windsor they're not, I don't know how far up the road it goes, but. Duffy Excuse me, if I may answer it even though I'm not the one who generated it. I'm Jack Duffy, Martin & Duffy. Part of I think what he is suggesting is that if you do have 100 sq. mile area, you have a tremendous amount of runoff that' s being developed by that area and even if there are no roads in that area specifically, with that amount of flow and given the relatively small amount of traffic addition, I think his point is that the water quality differential would be negligible, by quality standards itself. � )114� Person I have a question. Can anybody answer a couple of things. When Route 5 was built, the year if anybody knows, what it was designed for traffic and what is the capacity, is it 16,000 vehicles per day? Is that at capacity right now? - ll - Person I think that the extension on Route 5 was built probably around 4�11 1942, 1943 when the road was expanded to two lanes from one lane. The overall capacity of Route 5, to be honest, we did certain studies but not that specific one, let's say an involved study of Route 5. One of the things that I mentioned at our last meeting was our primary purpose was to leave the lighting alone at Route 5 and with our impact of traffic was mainly coming in Scantic Road on Route 5, coming up Route 5 and coming right into the development, we were primarily concerned at right at the intersection itself. So one of the studies that we did do was the narrowing, if I may, of Route 5, and that was one of the items we specifically addressed and we found out that with our project would increase the traffic on the peak hour by 1 .5% and judged that the differential , if you will , level of service based on that would be quite minimal . It would not change the level of service. If I may just further, on the narrowing, we did send an engineer after the commentary at the last discussion out to the site to observe it during the peak hour and did find that although the traffic slowed down, does slow, coming from the two lanes to the one lane, the estimate, and to be honest with you, it is subjective, that somebody is standing there watching the traffic go past then slows down about 10 mph but that during at least the peak hour in the morning 7-8 it does not intend to stack. It might do that moreso at night, but frankly that is not part of the project in since there, because people in the project coming from the south are turning off before reaching that point. So for our purposes here tonight we could address that aspect of the issue. Person What I am getting around to is that we know that I-91 can carry huge volumes of traffic at 55 mph. What I am getting around to is what's the volume that Route 5 is carrying now. Is it capable of handling that type of traffic at the divided highway in towards Hartford and where it ends in East Windsor at the East Windsor line. Person To be honest that's a fairly complex question because a lot of it ties in and say the major issue there would be the signalization of routine all up and down Route 5 and that would be something that DOT perhaps would be best capable of answering. It is just a little bit too comprehensive a general question. Person With the widening of I-91 from the Dexter Coffin Bridge into Hartford coming up over the next 4 or 5 years, I guess is the figure, did you take into consideration any overflow or any traffic rerouting down Route 5 because- of the construction? Person In terms of adding that to the background traffic? The answer would be no. We did our specific counts based on given days of evidence and that's the basis upon which the computation. - 12 - Person I would just want to tell you about an observation. It's funny use--rr� the reason that I brought it up was they had a couple of accidents on the highway just last week. One was a tractor trailer, a Hartford town truck and a small van, and the traffic in South Windsor, the traffic on Route 5 was backed up from Hartford all the way into East Windsor, almost bumber to bumper and if that's any indication of what's going to happen when the highway is closed down into one lane, I think we' re going to have a problem even if it's only 1 .5%. t)J Person I can understand the concern. Just generally. Female I have several questions regarding the traffic at this point. You elluded to the fact that, you talk about the narrowing of L0U �� �f Route 5 that you concerned yourself only with the AM traffic and not the PM traffic. The part that it narrows down though as you go north just as you enter East Windsor causes as you say a slow down, I would think, I don't see why that doesn't affect it, because what people do is race to try to get ahead of each other and pay little concern to the traffic that they go by right then. Their idea is to be' as far ahead as possible when it gets down to a single lane. Since they are going to be, some of these people are going to be turning off to get into this development, I would think that they would be at risk in doing so, as suddenly slowing down as everyone else is speeding up. Person One of the items that we have, I can appreciate that concern. You do have a deceleration lane on Route 5 going into the project itself. I guess the major thought that was really getting at there and the reason that we especially emphasize the AM is that if you're coming back let's say from Hartford at night and you're coming into the project which certainly should be the traffic that we should be concerned about, you are turning off before you reach that point of impact. And if you're coming from the north, coming down south, it is certainly open enough at that particular point. So before sending an engineer out, and we sent him out in the morning, but as far as the evening was concerned from the point of view of the traffic in the project, we felt that the project traffic would not be an added amount of traffic to the point where it is starting to congest. In otherwords that traffic has already left the picture by that particular time. I know that some people might experience it, maybe, for instance, we studied in detail the morning. I especially want to bring up that we studied it during the time of the peak hour, but there might be people might be aware, but oh at night it might be worse. I don't know that. We didn't send an engineer for that particular purpose. But that would not be related to the traffic body generated by the project. Person But I have to deal with how the Southern Auto Sales having something going on and the traffic is backed up no matter what. - 13 - They are way up in East Windsor, buy they have an effect way back up into South Windsor. Your answer to, it's traffic related again, your answer to my question about the date when it was done, when your traffic studies were done, you missed my point and you talked earlier about school busses and how there are only two school busses. It was not school busses I was concerned about, but the lack of some traffic because people do go on vacation during school holidays and so on, and I thought that that might influence the traffic counts that you've got. That was my reason for asking that specific question. Dt��-� Person I can appreciate what you're saying. It wasn't included in our choice. If there was a point there, it would be missed in terms of that particular traffic pattern. One of the things that we did do was we sent out people to check stacking distances, about a month or two months later, probably two months after this initial work was done and you can check stacking distances or you can compute stacking distances. It was interesting because the traffic count that we did the first time, we computed the stacking distance. It almost completely rivalled the actual count of the stacking distances that we did two months later. What that would seem to indicate to me is the count, roughly speaking, I 'm using my thumb right now, would be in the same ball park two months later after the count was done. It is only a rough check. I'm not trying to make a major point, but just to give you a feel that seemingly the information was in proper order. Indeed in doing it two months later, computations coming from a little bit different direction helped to present the same basic information. Person I have another question that relates to the school children that might be generated from this, what was the answer on that question. Lo UN Se Person What you sent to Dr. Woods, I guess you sent it to Dr. Woods V72A rx.5 indicated that the children might got to either place of high school , Eli Carry School , when would he make up his mind to where they went? Person I don't know. I spoke to him this afternoon to see if he had t � any questions about the numbers, and the reason I sent you a copy of the letter to him was I understood that he was very busy and it would be difficult for me to reach him during the summer and I didn't ask him. Person Because it was on the boundary of the school district that he would make a determination. Person I suppose not wanting to get into how they determine school bus t4 t C owl - 14 - routes, there is no obligation for the kids to go to one school as opposed to the other Lou)v Person My concern express was that this was purported to be a development that would impact a different area of town from the present multi-family developments that we have, and my comment was to the fact that as far as school children went it didn't necessarily do that, the way that it is set up at the moment, a child living on that part of Route 5 is scheduled to go to Pleasant Valley School . I understand that sometimes on the edges of developments they do make the determination to send the children to the edges of school zones. Let me put it correctly, the edges of school districts. They did make a determination at Summer School children from a particular development to a different district. Further than that though, I don't know how he reacted to your comments as to the number of children and so on, but I would like you to back track a little bit for me and tell me, do you in the, it's Georgetown is it the one in Glastonbury, do you know how many three bedroom units there are there and how many school children they have there? Do you have that type of information? �f Person I have approximately the same distribution as there would be at Jamestown Village. I was there at Georgetown this morning. The school bus, the children were out there waiting for the school bus and there were 7 children. Loup 5x, Person But I 'm sure there were, I 'm sure they do in Glastonbury, three ev-G vl separate school busses, one for elementary, one for middle and one for high school . �e,,,' , iv-person elementary school ages. L(Yui V Person Well , you apparently based this on the, what is the prevalent , v , rate of children in our existing AFAA developments, the ones in South Windsor, is that what you do? Live o_ Person I wanted to say that discovered in reading a report that had given his opinion on which /t4c locates every child in the school system, so we looked at that map and came up with the ones who are in particular condominium projects and then I went out and checked the records, he realized that there were only elementary children, so you might want to change the numbers. There's not a big difference by adding the middle school or high school children. He didn't have them on the pin map and I didn't understand that. It brings the total up to 40. That makes it a factor of .06 instead L-0 U1 C-e Chair It was a matter of 3 bedroom units, I guess I have a lot of trouble conceiving of someone purchasing a 3 bedroom unit who - 15 - doesn't have a child, or expect to have a child. Now maybe you have statistics that show otherwise? Maybe Plumridge or Tarps, oh I never get his name right, Tarpisar. I always want to call it west. I know, it's confusing, I can't get it straight. I don't know of the number of 3 bedroom offhand, I don't know the number of 3 bedroom units there, and how that compares with this, but what are you going to conceive the 3 bedroom home owners do not have children. A-4- Person I think I can add. Lou)V Chair They can't afford them. e � 3 Person worked with almost hundreds of � 1. condominium projects in the state. The 3 bedroom units are used to sell to people who have had their children move out. They don't want to get rid of any furniture and they will buy a 3 bedroom unit, put one bedroom as a study, or as an extra room and another bedroom as a guest room, and because of the maintenance that is provided, because of the security, and because of the other items, they are looking for an out that their children have left, the empty nest are so called, will ask for a minimum of 2 and often 3 bedrooms so that in fact the amount of furniture that they have would fit. This seems to be the trend. The people who buy in condominiums generally as a rule don't have a lot of children, because they aren't looking for that kind of a lifestyle. If they have a lot of children, they are going to buy a single family detached house, where they can put golden retriever, tear up the lawn with the extra cars and do the other things that are necessary as I can testify from personal experience, if you have a pile of children. Today my last went off to college. LoOtV Person I mean one moment you are telling us one thing, you are talking . ate that way, and then the next moment you are talking to us about affordable housing and one minute it is affordable only for people who have kids who've grown up and don't have golden retrievers, but the next moment there is affordable housing associated with this, and I know it's 10% but some of those units are 3 bedroom units, some are 2 and some are 1 . You have a breakdown of that. IVe*k e A Person We indicated that the 10% affordable units would only be 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom. Low y- Chair Oh, I 'm sorry, I think that I misread that, because I thought it was distributed between all three. I guess I would like some hard facts as to how you develop your rationale as to the number of school children, now that you've moved it up from 28 was what it was to 40, it begins to sound a little bit more realistic. Person It still gives you a factor of .06 child per household. Me�� ��� - 16 - lzytAt 5,e Chair Well I know we don't have many per unit in our multi-family S housing throughout town. Person It is just taking .06 then I just more than tripled it for the 3 bedroom units, by using .25 and that was just a way to fudge it up because I couldn't find � c Chair So one out of every four 3 bedroom unit people would have a gvw child? Person And that's not based on any Experience right now with Briarwood, Nollwood Meadows, Strawbridge. Of, , t, e r s o n Less than 6% of the units you are saying would have children. Out of 678 dwellin units ou would have 40 children which J.Pn'& e_e*(41rson No. g y is .06 child and to project for Jamestown Village I took a slightly lower factor for .02 for 1 bedroom unit. I took a higher factor for the 2 bedroom and the highest, I came up with higher numbers than that which you already had L-eu Chair Which ones did you use as comparisons? t, Person Fundridge, which was described to me as being comperable in quality and price as to what I described. e V n 3 Chair As to what you are going to build is comperable in price and quality? Person Right. Well , I don't know about quality. I talked to Dr. r McGarchick and he explained to me, and he talked to me about �- $120,000 to $150,000 price range, he said it sounds like what we are talking about. Briarwood, and Strawbridge. The other one was Lakewood on W-i'se Road and I didn't ,t i t It isn't part of a development. L,' Person No he said a lot of older people are moving in there and they {t-rv� don't have many children. Chair They don't have children in that development, but it is a 1 and 2 family, some 2 family, but it is mostly 1 family, single family homes. - 17 - L►nnfo, C CeA�4.t. Person He said that woul d't be ideal , just to look at a few of the projects. �-mf« uu ,Chair Is there any reason why you excluded the other ones? L Cq*04i son I was just told that these would be similar to what we Chair Is it similar to the one in Glastonbury that this one is similar 1-6W S< t to? Is Jamestown similar to Georgetown as far as the spread of units, and they have, you don't have any figures on the number of children they have in those? N)e4t.74w- ki Person I don't. I mentioned I was out there this morning. _ Chair Because I noticed that on page 17, what is interesting because you told us as if it were some great wonderful thing of this $10,000 or $11 ,000 tax excess created and I guess there are people in this room that pay at least 1/3 of that in their annual taxes a year, and that really doesn't seem like that much. You wouldn't really have to have too many children there before that big surplus was disappeared. Too many children different, would make it different. (tape ends) - 18 - Person and the net after the total cost per child - would be town expenditures versus the town revenues. Chair Is that per unit you mean. No couldn't have been. --Female No I 'm saying taking the factor and coming up with I forget how ` many kids, 23 children. � Chair But you are tempted to put some other services into it too. M Female Right the capital cost for everything outside the school is expensive and allocated to a number of people. Then I took school costs per child per capita and then came up with a higher cost per, it shows you what it costs the town for the children in that town. Chair So that $11 ,000 I forget the exact amount was conservative. L Asn (A Female Was conservative Chair Yes but what does that represent exactly? What was left over when you subtracted the cost of services from the cost from the amount of taxes taken in. L,n rvt v, Female I 'm saying that the costs are very high because the total cost of educating each child from the project stays with the project rather than what happens in the town. Vs. single family, the costs are paid per capita. It's not a very important point, but it's just L,Ot Chair Well it seems that there wasn't very much left over. _ Female I mean, is this clear what I am saying, I kept the expenses as Nk high as they could be giving the total cost instead of saying per capita so and so cost and per capita etc. Ma le It's irrelevant. , Chair Okay I can figure it out, somethings missing here but I can Ar? figure it out on my own. I have some questions here but I not sure where they are now. I think that that was my major question. (Can't find them) I have no other questions. Does anyone in the public here that didn't have the opportunity to attend last week have a question that they wanted to ask through the chair of the applicant? Male Yes I do. fwv,-,fhair Do you want to state your name here? Male , 1640 Main Street, South Windsor, CT On this North Bound traffic lane the side lane. - 19 - Chair The deceleration lane they were talking about. Male It is actually going to unload this traffic. How long is this lane I man, when does the traffic start to back up into the main traffic. "chair Okay could you tell us. Male Yes, we are working on this now. Male There isn't very much room for very much of a lane. r At,,..Chai r You mean between after you cross the Scanti c River and before you get to. OuffAq Male I would say between or after the first year of course tapering in to go to that particular point, but once you have it tapered and you now you have a full lane next to it I would estimate a nice 125 feet which would be approximately with - as many as five cars, it probably wouldn't be that many. In reality probably only one or two cars at a time that are actually in it. Lets say you do have a hundred plus feet outside of Route 5, a full lane coming down to the project. Male If you' re going 50 - 55 you probably will be slowing down a little bit before entering it. It' s not like a full highway access. I think the important thing here is when you' re really slowing down to 10 mph that your not getting clipped from behind and at that particular point you are out of the main traffic path. �''" � -A,,{{X 1 �lal e It is still subject to DOT approval . Chair Right. The Department of Transportation has to give any kind of approval on how that or any lane on Route 5 would be. Do you want to tell unless someone has additional questions at this time, do you want to tell us briefly what proposals you wanted to make in the way of changes that were, or who was it that was going to tell us. Male The changes to the plan were only informational . There was a question about additional parking spaces. So we added to all the plans where another 10% of additional parking spaces could be added. Chair So you are showing us where parking could be increased without any concern. - 20 - Male And the other question had to do with pine trees. We responded to that and we indicated where all those trees would be. We have it listed in symbol form and then we keyed those out so that you would know. Chair (�o where you put the Male Where the Scotch Pine and the Austrian Pine, the Norway Spruce, very Scandinavian group. Where they would all be. Those are the two changes. Chair Okay, anything from anybody else. Okay then I declare this public hearing closed. M le This portion of the public hearing closed. Female Yes, this portion of the public hearing closed, we still have another item remaining from last week to hear and that was the Saunders zone change request which is, and he's here I hope. (much talking and moving around) Wood My name is Howard Wood, I 'm a lawyer with the firm of in Manchester and I represent Ralph Saunders who is tonight requesting for a portion of his land. This land is approximately 4.25 acres and is bounded on the north by the land of Mr. and Mrs. Mallan and Drage; east by Drage Development; south by the access road of the boulevard into the Drage property from Route 5 and on the west by John Fitch Boulevard and has 260 feet of frontage on John Fitch Boulevard. It's approximately 1 .85 acres in the A-20 zone along Route 5, and 2.4 acres of rural residence zone just behind that and we are requesting that that 4.25 acres be changed to restricted office zone in accordance with section 4.9 of your zoning code. There is running through the property a designated wetlands limit but that's predominitely on the back piece, the rural residence piece and a small portion of the A-20 piece. Any development will be on the portion that they claim outside of that designated wetlands limit. Mr. Saunders was going to develop the area and put a family house there and according to a real estate salesman and to the Economic • Department Development of the town, he was convinced that that is not an appropriate use for the property and was encouraged by the town to put in or apply for business and professional offices and to get a zone change for the restricted office zone and that's what we are doing here tonight. I think that the land is appropriate for that, it is on a major artery and that of course is John Fitch Boulevard on Route 5. There is water there and there is public utilities but part of your zoning code, part of your restricted office requires sewers so that what we are doing is coat-tailing the Draggi proposal and that is the Draggi if they are approved they said they are going to - 21 - wN SEA t < C � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 ��osoR•co`�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 3, 1987 Mr. John W. Netherton Bradgate Associates 135 Neipsic Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 re: Application #1269 - Bradgate Associates Zone Change to MF-AA Dear Sir: Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on October 21, 1987 to deny the above-referenced application for a Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development for 74 acres on the east side of John Fitch Boulevard. Very truly yours, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION By: Louise C. Evans Chairman lic Works al ning EOMN 8'r4 y Ole ?d&U&10�t 0 a w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 OR-co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 TO BE PUBLISHED IN .THE JOURNAL INQUIRER SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1987 LEGAL NOTICE / TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION At the October 21, 1987 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to take the following action: 1. Deny the application of Bradgate As sates for a Zone Ch4ftge on 73.98 acres to MF-AA, currently oned A-20, RR, FP, and„ I, and a General Plan of Development of Jamestown Village,�eTT-sisting of 148 units, located on the east s o "Route 5, south side of Scantic Road. 2. Deny the application of Ralph A. Saunders for a Zone Change from A-20, RR to RO for 4.25 acres of land located on the east side of Route 5, south of Scantic Road. 3. Approve, with modifications, the application of Robert D. Milkie of Admiral Self-Stor, for an Amended Site Plan of Development on the north side of Sullivan Ave. , GC Zone. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 22nd day of October, 1987. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Louise C. Evans, Chairman David H. Sorenson, Secretary TRAFFIC CAPABILITIES MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 178 OAKWOOD DRIVE RICHARD L MOFFITT,P.E. GLASTONBURY,CONNECTICUT 06033 AREA CODE 203 JOHN B.DUFFY,P.E 633-0201 DESCRIPTION OF FIRM Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. , is a medium-sized engineering firm located in Glastonbury, Connecticut, that provides professional services in civil and environmental engineering and surveying. Many of the firm's projects involve site planning and design, traffic studies, public works projects (water supply, sanitary sewers, storm drainage and roadway design) and environmental engineering projects such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment and groundwater contamination studies. The firm has completed a number of traffic studies on a vari ty of projects - a shopping mall in Vernon, a commercial development in Mansfield and an expanded shopping complex in Vernon. They are also involved in a road use study in Marlborough and in traffic analysis work on two adjoining developments in Glastonbury. The professional staff includes eleven (11) civil engineers. Eight (8) have advanced degrees; four (4) are registered Professional Engineers in Connecticut; and the total combined exp rience is more than 200 man-years. Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. , has three complete Survey parties quipped with "state-of-the-art" instruments. This capability allows the firm to offer complete "in-house" civil engineering services quickly and efficiently. -2- All project planning and review and all client meetings are by senior people at the Project Engineer level or above. Yet, each project task is assigned to the appropriate staff level. In this way, the firm provides quality services at economical cost with close, personal attention to client requirements. On most projects, Moffitt and Duffy, Inc. , provides the initial feasibility and financial studies, preliminary and final d sign and inspection, as needed, of the final construction. The firm has the necessary expertise in both the technical and regulatory aspects of each assignment to bring a project to successful completion. The firm consists of the Principals, Senior Staff Professionals, Survey Manager, Project Engineers, Engineers, Draftspersons, Survey Crews, Construction Inspectors, Survey Technicians, Technical Aides and Administrative Assistants. MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 178 OAKWOOD DRIVE RICHARD L.MOFFITT,P.E. GLASTONBURY,CONNECTICUT 06033 AREA CODE 203 633-Ml JOHN B.DUFFY,P.E. RESUME JOHN B. DUFFY P.E. - CHIEF ENGINEER EXPERIENCE Mr. Duffy has more than 22 years He was responsible for the of experience in the site and development of two major tracts for civil engineering fields. He has regional treatment plants. He was handled total responsibility for in charge of all planning, design the concept, design, and and construction services for all construction services on a number site work. He has been involved in of large and complex engineering the site planning and design of assignments. thirty parcels for regional and townwide pumping stations. In his diverse projects, Mr. Duffy has handled the design of roads, Mr. Duffy was in charge of the drainage, water systems from local design work for restoration of a arteries to distribution system canal one mile in length in analyses and treatment, sewer Torrington, Connecticut. He has systems from on-site to regional been involved in recreational treatment, and major erosion planning, site-related aspects of control systems. He has also dam evaluation and dredging. handled a number of traffic studies for the firm. PROFESSIONAL DATA He has been in overall responsible charge of commercial developments in Vernon, Mansfield and Avon, Manhattan College, BCE Connecticut and of residential developments in Glastonbury, New York University, MSCE Marlborough, Rocky Hill, Hebron and Columbia. Registered Professional Engineer: Connecticut, Florida, Mr. Duffy completed for the City Massachusetts, New Hampshire, of Hartford an extensive study of New Jersey, New York the drainage problems in five separate areas ranging in size Water Pollution Control Federation from 29 to 116 acres. He was the Project Engineer/Manager American Water Works Association responsible for all site work at what was intended to be the largest shooting range in the State of Connecticut. JOHN B. DUFFY, P.E. Page 2 (continued) REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS subdivision. Project involves the Traffic Study study of traffic impacts to various Vernon, Connecticut intersections within the Town of Marlborough as a result of Project Manager responsible for -increased truck traffic due to the the evaluation of the traffic development of a sixty-five lot impact due to the construction of subdivision. Furthermore, this an 80, 000 square foot shopping study requires the engineering center. The intersection was one evaluation of the integrity of of the busiest in a rapidly existing roadways for handling developing town. Analyses increased truck traffic. including traffic counts, trip generations and levels of service for both the intersection and nine Residential Site Development adjacent intersections. A Columbia, Connecticut detailed report was prepared discussing results and Chief Engineer on the design of tWo improvements recommended. site parcels of 43 and 23 lots around and near Mono Pond in Traffic Study Columbia. Major concerns have been Mansfield, Connecticut the handling of erosion sediment in a manner to avoid upsetting pond In overall charge of traffic water quality and site access engineering analysis of several through wetlands areas. existing intersections and roads for potential impacts due to the Commercial Site Development construction of a 145, 000 square Vernon, Connecticut foot shopping center. Results of the engineering analysis Chief Engineer on the design of a identified the need for 70, 000 square foot commercial signalizing two existing development along the Hockanum non-signalized intersections and River. Design requirements maximum green times for various included the meximization of phases of the existing signalized parking facilities with good access intersections. from two major arteries. One town road and bridge were widened for Road Use Study about 1500 feet to satisfy Town Marlborough, Connecticut requirements. The project entailed extensive traffic studies to Responsible for an engineering analyze and alleviate potential traffic evaluation and road impact traffic conflicts between traffic. 83 study resulting from the and shopping center construction of a 65 lot MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOHN B. DUFFY, P.E. Page 3 (continued) REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS (continued) (continued) River Relocation and Pond placed on determining the Development suitability of on-site wastewater Marlborough, Connecticut disposal necessitating extensive test pitting, perc tests and Project Manager on the relocation permeability analysis. Work of 3 , 200 feet of the Blackledge included roadways, drainage, lot River while creating a 26 acre geometry and erosion control. pond. Extensive hydrologic and hydraulic studies were done to Commercial Site Development insure optimum design of both pond Mansfield, Connecticut and river. Special pond features included retention of natural In overall charge of the design of shoreline, development of a fish a 150, 000 square foot commercial habitat zone and formation of development in Mansfield. Water, wildlife cover. River features sewer and drainage lines were included salmon spawning zones and routed to serve the complex. The flow and depth control to allow entrance road was sited off a salmon upstream access. Erosion secondary State Highway to control detailing was extensive to alleviate Town concerns about insure protection of the impacting local roads with shopping downstream river. center traffic. An extensive traffic study was a major part of Drainage Study and Design the project. Hartford, Connecticut " Erosion Control Design Project Engineer responsible for Middlefield, Connecticut the evaluation of five areas with drainage problems in Hartford, In responsible charge of the Connecticut. Improvements conceptual development and recommended included the construction plans for an extensive installation of drainage trenches erosion control system at a major utilizing perforated pipe to lower nursery. Included in the design ground water table and relieve were four unusually large trapped water. Supervised design sedimentation basins with a of first phase of improvements uniquely designed pervious recommended. embankment, the reworking of the drainage approach at the 24 acre Residential Site Development site, and the construction of a Marlborough, Connecticut holding basin and irrigation pumping facilities to optimize Chief Engineer on the design of an water withdrawal from the 18 lot subdivision covering 40 Cogenchaug River. acres. Special emphasis was MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOHN B. DUFFY,' P.E. Page 4 (continued) REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS (continued) (continued) Site Design Site Design Plymouth, Connecticut Hartford, Connecticut Project Engineer/Manager Project Manager on a parking lot responsible for the site work on a design for 350 cars at a congested 40 acre shooting range. The site state college. An evaluation of work included 4 professional field conditions was made and a ranges of different types, an number of alternative approaches extensive boring program assessing for layout, regarding and the use of the toe of a mountain resurfacing the parking areas were as the barrier end of the long evaluated. The final design range, the running of a major approach increased the number of brook under the range, and the spaces to 350, while relocating the design of a one mile access road. Flatbush access for improved safety. The entire parking area Drainage Design was to be regraded and additional Jewett City, Connecticut subbase and base material was required before final overlay work. Responsible for the design of two phases of a storm/sanitary sewer Commercial Site Development separation project. Work included Avon, Connecticut placement of a new storm sewer on one of the most heavily congested In responsible charge of a project streets in the city. In locations to expand a commercial development where the combined sewer proved from 68, 000 square feet to 95, 000 adequate for storm drainage, a new square feet. Work included sanitary sewer was placed. complete access and parking redesign to obtain maximum parking Residential Site Development capability while meeting town Marlborough, Connecticut requirements. Overall responsibility for a 65 Dredging Plan lot subdivision in Marlborough. Columbia, Connecticut Included were roadway layout, drainage, lot plots and erosion In responsible charge of a dredging control. Two river crossings were plan for removal of peat and the part of the design as well as a restoration of a 100 acre pond. site layout for a future yachting Work includes formulation of facility. construction plan, restoration of wetland habitat, mitigating activities and securing of all local, state and federal permits. MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOHN B. DUFFY, P.E. Page 5 (continued) REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS (continued) (continued) Canal Restoration Phase II Dam Evaluation Torrington, Connecticut Westbrook, Connecticut Project Engineer/Manager for the Project Manager responsible for the restoration of this one mile long evaluation of two major state owned canal off the Naugatuck River. dams in south-central Connecticut. Design included full specification Work included a detailed hydraulics details on construction methods to and hydrology study, a geotechnical be used which protected the lush evaluation of dam stability, an habitat and allowed for an Operations and Maintenance Manual, effective, economical approach to an Emergency Operations Plan, and the project. Construction was site modification planning completed in 1983 . including an access road. Site Development Site Planning and Design Rocky Hill, Connecticut Berkeley Township, New Jersey Chief Engineer on the design of Responsible for the site design of the roadway, drainage, utility and this central regional wastewater lot geometrics for a unique treatment plant comprising 35 development in a rock quarry. acres. In direct technical charge Included in the project were 27 of all roadways, drainage, single family home parcels and 450 topography and utilities in the condominium units in 15 design and construction phases. structures. Value of site work at this plant was over $2, 000, 000. Recreation Field Site Plan Voluntown, Connecticut Site Planning and Design Manahawkin Township, New Jersey Responsible for the planning and design of recreational facilities Project Manager for all site work in a southeastern Connecticut at this regional wastewater town. Project included a baseball treatment. Responsible for the field, soccer field, tennis courts design of all roadways, walkways, and a physical fitness exercise storm drainage, water and area at an estimated cost of wastewater systems and for the $200, 000. coordination with all process and other utility piping. Cost of site work at this plant was estimated at over $2,500, 000. Followed project from concept to completion of construction. MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOHN B. DUFFY, P.E. Page 6 (continued) REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS (continued) (continued) Site Parcel Design Sewer System Redesign and Ocean County, New Jersey Construction Montville, Connecticut Provided complete site design for twenty separate parcels of land Responsible for the redesign and ranging from 1/2 to 3 acres in construction administration and size. Each parcel was to contain inspection of over 60, 000 LF of a regional wastewater pump or lift sewer interceptors and force mains station. Site work was designed on three contracts. Work included for ease of access and parking and cuts up to 30 ' deep, stream yet be aesthetically pleasing to crossings and multiple crossings of surrounding communities. a state highway. Most work was in Construction value of the site urban areas with multiple work for all twenty sites was utilities. close to $1, 000, 000. Water System Design Phase II Dam Evaluation Montville, Connecticut Columbia, Connecticut Design of two phases of a water In responsible charge of the distribution system for an area of evaluation of a dam confining 400 the town with a serious well acre-feet. Work included contamination problem. Design hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, included 16" and 24" transmission a geotechnical investigation of piping as well as 6" and 8" the earthen dam and an evaluation distribution lines. of the spillway and downstream effects of various alternative improvements. Wastewater Pump Stations Montville, Connecticut Responsible for the redesign and inspection of nine pump stations in a town-wide system. All stations contained two priority level alarms, bypass pumping capability and portable or on-site standby generators. MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS VERNON, CONNECTICUT An engineering evaluation and study of traffic impacts due to the construction of an 80, 000 square foot shopping center. CLIENT: Konover Development Company West Hartford, Connecticut Project involved the study of traffic impacts to the intersection of the major north and southbound throughway and the major east and westbound throughway within the Town of Vernon, Connecticut. Project involved the evaluation of existing and projected traffic volumes and the impacts resulting from the anticipated upgrading of this major intersection. Engineering evaluations consisted of twenty-four hour traffic counts and peak hour turning movements for existing traffic volumes. Projected traffic counts and turning movements were estimated upon the consideration of additional population growth within the Town and additional generated traffic volumes resulting from the construction of an 80, 000 square foot shopping center at the above referenced intersection. Capacity analysis were performed on the intersection of Route 83 and Dart Hill Road to determine the level of services that would be provided by the existing intersection and also the proposed upgraded intersection planned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The existing intersection is controlled by a pre-timed signal, which allows a lead and lag movement for the northbound and southbound traffic; and subsequent combined eastbound and westbound traffic movement. The proposed upgrading of this signalized intersection would consist of the replacement of the pre-time signal system to an actuated signalized system. Results of the engineering analysis identified the need for geometric changes to the intersection and maximum green times for various phases of the signalization sequence. REFERENCE: John Larson Vice-President Konover Development Company West Hartford, Connecticut MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MANSFIELD, CONNECTICUT Traffic engineering analysis of several existing intersections and roads for potential impacts due to the construction of a 145, 000 square foot shopping center. CLIENT: Konover Development Company West Hartford, Connecticut Project involved the study impacts to the intersections of two major north and southbound throughways and the major east and westbound interstate highway within the Town of Mansfield, Connecticut. The project further involved the evaluation of existing and projected traffic volumes and the impacts resulting from the anticipated development of a major 145, 000 square foot shopping center. Engineering evaluations consisted of twenty-four hour traffic counts and peak hour turning movements for existing traffic volumes. Projected traffic counts and turning movements were estimated based upon the consideration of additional population growth within the region and additional generated traffic volumes resulting from the construction of a 145, 000 square foot shopping center, located within the junction of Routes 6 and 195 and Mansfield Center Road. Capacity analysis were performed on five intersections surrounding the proposed shopping center site, to determine the level of services that would be provided by the existing intersections. These existing intersections were comprised of both signalized controlled and stop-sign controlled systems. Results of the engineering analysis identified the need for signalizing two existing non-signalized intersections and maximum green times for various phases of the existing signalized intersections. REFERENCE: John Larson Vice-President Konover Development Company West Hartford, Connecticut MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ROAD USE STUDY MARLBOROUGH, CONNECTICUT Engineering traffic evaluation and road impact study resulting from the construction of a 65 lot subdivision. CLIENT: MacClain Trucking Company Glastonbury, Connecticut Project involves the study of traffic. impacts to various intersections within the Town of Marlborough as a result of increased truck traffic due to the development of a sixty-five lot subdivision. Furthermore, this study requires the engineering evaluation of the integrity of existing roadways for handling increased truck traffic. Engineering evaluations are being performed on existing traffic conditions along two state highways, Route 94 and Route 2 ; and along three Town roads, West Road, Jones Hollow Road and Marlborough Road. Trench traffic would access the subdivision site directly from Jones Hollow Road. Intersection capacities are to be determined and potential impacts are to be accessed for the resulting additional traffic anticipated during construction and subsequently the occupation of the subdivision. In addition, a field survey of existing road conditions is being undertaken to determine potential impacts resulting from the gravel truck hauling operations during construction. Existing road conditions are to be evaluated and methods to reduce adverse influence are to be suggested. Appropriate rescheduling of Town planned roadwork will be evaluated to coincide with the Blackledge project construction period. Findings of the study and evaluation will be presented at zoning board meetings and public hearings to provide information and data relative to .traffic and road impacts. REFERENCE: Dave MacClain MacClain Trucking Co. Glastonbury, Connecticut MOFFITT AND DUFFY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS r- F)7CI)7o F4 EN117C frilp v in Connectlon With Zone Change Application forProperty on SCantic Road South Windsor, ConnectlCUt Prepaid fora JMJ CONS TRUCT/ONCO/MPAN) INC South Windsor, Connecticut in Cooperation With � � � r4 Remo E. llyyppa andAssociates Glastonbury; ConneCticut io STORCIIA SSOC/A TES /March, 1989 ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS STORCH PLANNERS SOIL SCIENTISTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS STORCH ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY in Connection with Zone Change Application for Property on Scantic Road in South Windsor, Connecticut Prepared for J.M.J. Construction Company, Inc. South Windsor, Connecticut in Cooperation With Reino E. Hyyppa and Associates Glastonbury, Connecticut Prepared by STORCH ASSOCIATES 100 Old Forge Road Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 March, 1989 STORCH ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 1 - Area Location Plan Figure 2 - Site Location Plan III. TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR ZONE CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 APPENDIX 1. ConnDOT Counts - Route 5 2. Storch ATR Counts Route 5 NB - S. of Scantic Road Route 5 SB - N. of Scantic Road Scantic Road EB Scantic Road WB 3. Storch Turning Movement Counts Route 5 & Scantic Road AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours 4. Capacity Calculations Route 5 & Scantic Road AM - Existing AM - With Development PM - Existing PM - With Development Scantic Road & Proposed Driveway AM PM 5. Accident Data Route 5 Scantic Road STORCH ASSOCIATES I. INTRODUCTION Storch Associates has been commissioned by JMJ Construction Company to make a traffic engineering study in connection with a proposed Zone Change Application to the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission. The property involved is on the south side of Scantic Road. It starts at a point approximately 200 feet east of Route 5 in South Windsor and extends 300 feet along Scantic Road and then continues along Scantic Road for a distance of approximately 350 feet in East Windsor. The location of the site is delineated in Figure 1, the area map, and Figure 2, the location plan. The acreage of the property in South Windsor is approximately 15.9 acres and the parcel in East Windsor is approximately 1.38 acres. The study and analysis included the following: 1. The making of an on-site reviews of the area; 2. The making of observations of traffic on Scantic Road and on Route 5 during both a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods: 3 . The obtaining from the Connecticut Department of Transportation Statistical Section available traffic volume data for Route 5 in the area extending north and south of Scantic Road to the nearest major intersections; 4. The obtaining from the same agency of traffic accident data for both Scantic Road and Route 5; 1 ITS;t.-zv- Amami JL- IL gr qW Pp OF ado 9-0 ol Ilk -dim�MMM mom 3k itmom AREA LOCATION PLAN �q, ram+�►, :i���''�1 ..r I + M � i � s • P� S� SITE EAST WINDSOR _ - -_ _ ----- ------- -- -- - ----- --t� SOUTH WINDSOR P S1y� v • s v 4 w Nw' Wp 0 J.M. J. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. r SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT • WALE: SITE LOCATION PLAN ~' War STORCH 1 O OLD FOR" wwo •3�a9 ASSOCIATES ROCKY MILL,CT.OWG7 F16URE NO. 2 STORCH ASSOCIATES 5. The holding of a meeting with Town Planner, Marcia Banach, to ascertain any problems which the Town Planning Department might foresee in connection with the proposed development; 6. The holding of a meeting with Sgt. Thomas Hart, the Police Department Safety Officer, concerning any safety considerations; 7. The making of directional automatic traffic recorder counts on both Route 5 and Scantic Road in the immediate area of the project; 8. The making of manual turning counts during peak hours at the intersection of Route 5 and Scantic Road; Following the data collection, capacity and levels of service analyses were made for the intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5 and for Scantic Road and the proposed site driveway. In order to clarify the meaning of certain specialized traffic engineering terms which may be used in this report, the following definitions are offered: Trip is a one-way movement to or from a site. One car entering and leaving a site constitutes two trips. Traffic Generation is the actual number of vehicle movements which may reasonably be expected to be attracted by a specific development. Usually, traffic generation is expressed as a number of trips. 2 STORCH ASSOCIATES Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the total traffic generation of a development on a typical working weekday. It should be noted that since ADT counts are also one-way movements the actual number of vehicles is half the ADT generated. Peak Hour Generation is the maximum traffic generation which may be anticipated during the highest volume hour for the particular land use. This analysis parameter may vary as to the time of day, depending on the type of facility proposed. Commercial development normally generates peak volume rates which coincide with the peak volume rates of the surrounding roadway network. Trip Distribution is the process of determining the proportions of the generated trips that can be expected to originate or terminate at any location. Traffic Assignment is the process of assigning the trips which have been distributed from the various points of origin to the roadway system which would provide the most direct route between the points of origin and destination. Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) are terms utilized to describe the ability of a roadway intersection to handle its traffic assignment. Levels of service at unsignalized intersections such as the intersection of the proposed driveway and Scantic Road are defined in terms of reserve capacity. Definitions of the reserve capacity are given in Table 10-3 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report No. 209) as shown below: 3 STORCH ASSOCIATES LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to (PCPH) * Service Minor Street Traffic >400 A Little or no delay. 300-399 B Short traffic delays. 200-299 C Average traffic delays. 100-199 D Long traffic delays. 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays. *Passenger cars per hour. Reserve Capacity is the difference between the maximum available volume and the demand volume. Level of service for signalized intersections such as Route 5 at Scantic Road is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-of-service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-min analysis period. The criteria are given in Table 9-1. Delay may be measured in the field, or may be estimated using procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) . Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green to cycle length ratio, and the volume/capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. TABLE 9-1. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stopped Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (sec) A < 5.0 B 5. 1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F > 60.0 4 STORCH ASSOCIATES Level of service "A" describes operations with very low delay, i.e. , less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of service "B" describes operations with delay in the range of 5. 1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS "A", causing higher levels of average delay. Level of service "C" describes operations with delay in the range of 15. 1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level of service "D" describes operations with delay in the range of 25. 1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle. At level "D", the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of service "E" describes operations with delay in the range of 40. 1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 5 STORCH ASSOCIATES Level of service "F" describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e. , when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 6 STORCH ASSOCIATES II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Scantic Road is a two lane bituminous road which begins at Route 5 in South Windsor, extends approximately 500 feet in South Windsor and then crosses the Town line into East Windsor. It then continues in a northeasterly direction and becomes Route 191 at the Phelps Road/Cemetery Road intersection in the Scantic area of East Windsor. Continuing to the northeast it extends to the bridge crossing the Scantic River where it becomes Mill Street in the Broad Brook area of East Windsor. Much of the passenger car traffic which comes south on Route 191, rather than turning right at Scantic and using Route 191, (Phelps Road) to Route 5, continues on Scantic Road to Route 5. Scantic Road is a generally well maintained secondary road with moderate curves and grades for its entire distance following, as it does, the general alignment of the Scantic River Valley. It forms a "T" with Route 5 and this intersection is signalized. The traffic signals on Route 5, for the entire distance from East Hartford to the junction of I-91 in East Windsor, are part of a computerized traffic signal control system which results in relatively smooth and generally uninterrupted traffic flow throughout the entire distance. The signal at the _ intersection of Route 5 with Scantic Road is controlled by a semi-actuated traffic signal controller with detectors on Scantic Road. The cycle length, offset and split at this intersection are under control of the central computer. Route 5 southerly of the Scantic Road intersection is a four lane divided highway. North of the area of the intersection of Scantic Road, Route 5 becomes a two lane undivided roadway. Traffic volumes, as taken by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) for Route 5, and traffic volumes taken by Storch Associates on both Route 5 and Scantic Road are shown in the Appendix. The ConnDOT volumes on Route 5 are hourly, 7 STORCH ASSOCIATES bi-directional north of Scantic Road and directional south of Scantic Road whereas the Storch volumes are all directional with 15 minute intervals. Land use along Route 5 is quite diversified. At the corner of Scantic Road and Route 5 both southeast and northeast corners are open land. The west side of Route 5 includes commercial and residential use in both East Windsor and South Windsor. Route 5 carries very heavy peak commuting volumes in both directions and moderate traffic volumes during the rest of the day. Morning peak hour southbound between 7: 00 a.m. and 8: 00 a.m. is approximately 1000 vph. This volume falls to under 500 between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 and then rises to over 1000 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Northbound, morning peak hour traffic also reaches its peak between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. at between 700 and 800, while the 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. peak is over 1300. Scantic Road traffic volumes are even more commuter peaked than Route 5 with 48% of the total westbound traffic in the two morning hours and 47% of the eastbound traffic in the two afternoon peak hours. These very high percentages are evidently the result of two factors, first the very high percentage of commuter traffic on Route 5 and second, the use of Scantic Road as a bypass road for Route 191 to avoid the two lane section of Route 5 north of Scantic Road during periods when traffic in that area of Route 5 is essentially saturated and subject to delay. The property proposed for the present zone change has been agricultural. The terrain is rolling with wetlands on the East Windsor side of the property and a higher hilly area in the center. The proposed driveway to the property will be located approximately 320 feet east of the edge of the property on Scantic Road. 8 STORCH ASSOCIATES Level of service at the intersection of Scantic Road with Route 5 was calculated to be "B" in the morning and "B" in the aft rnoon peak period. However, because of the relatively long traffic signal cycle in effect during peak traffic hours (90 seconds) average delays to vehicles arriving at the intersection during the a.m. 15 minute peak period exceeds 60 seconds and level of service is thus calculated as "F" . Visual observations indicated, however, that amny arriving vehicles clear on the first green after arival, indicating reasonably satisfactory operation. 9 STORCH ASSOCIATES III. TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR ` ZONE CHANGE The development of the subject property as a result of the proposed zone change will result in an increase in traffic on Scantic Road. This section of the report will analyze the impact of such traffic increase on the level of service (LOS) of traffic operations at the intersection of Scantic Road and Route 5. Present plans call for the development of the property with 58 housing units. This number of units will be in conformity with the "MFA" zoning of the land and make full use possible under that zoning. The proposed square footage per unit is 1300, indicating two bedroom units. The peak hour a.m. traffic generation can be expected to be approximately 0.45 trips per unit* with 84% departing and 16% arriving. During the peak p.m. hour the comparable figures anticipated would be 0.56 trips per unit with 33% departing and 67% arriving. Multiplying these f at s by 58 units results in peak hour departure and arrivals as z+ shown in the following table. Since the great majority of traffic on Scantic Road is westbound during the morning peak hour ' h (93%) and eastbound during the evening (83%) a worse case condition will be assumed with all generated traffic going west to Route 5 in the morning and coming from Route 5 at the p.m. peak. The following table indicates the anticipated effect of the development of the subject property on traffic volumes on Scantic Road and hence on the intersection of Scantic Road with Route 5. TABLE I - PEAK HOUR FLOWS - BEFORE AND AFTER AM Westbound PM Westbound Present - 306 63 From Proposed Development 58(0.45 x 0.84)= 22 58 (0.56 x 0.33)= 11 Total With Development 328 74 *All data from 1985 Edition of "Trip Generation", published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 10 STORCH ASSOCIATES It is to be noted from the manual turning movement counts made at the intersection of Route 5 and Scantic Road that nearly 100% of the traffic westbound on Scantic Road turns left and that a similar percentage of traffic going east onto Scantic Road is northbound on Route 5 and turning right into Scantic Road. The effect of the increases in traffic volume at Route 5 and Scantic Road as a result of the proposed use of the subject property was determined by calculating L.O.S. for both Before and After conditions as depicted in Table I above. Levels of service on Scantic Road were calculated as follows: Present AM F With Development AM F Present PM B With Development PM B These levels of service were all calculated using the 27 seconds of Scantic Road green time as presently set. Adjusting the signal split to balance delays on Route 5 and Scantic Road would bring the Scantic Road approach to a level of service licit while retaining a level of service "Bit on Route 5. - The level of service at the junction of the proposed driveway and Scantic Road was also calculated for both a.m. and peak p.m. periods. It will be "A" for both periods with large reserves of capacity. The location of the drive is sufficient distance on Scantic Road from the Route 5 signal so that back up from that signal should not reach the driveway at peak-peak periods. From the above it is to be noted that level of service at the junction of Scantic Road will not change with the added traffic of the development of the subject property to the maximum degree 11 STORCH ASSOCIATES possible under proposed zoning. The a.m. level of service on Scantic Road is presently "F", which means an average delay to westbound vehicles in the morning highest peak will be in excess of 60 seconds. Since the signal cycle is 90 seconds, an average delay of something over 60 seconds is not unexpected and observations indicate that almost all vehicles in the queue on Scantic Road clear on the next green period with few having to wait through two changes of the signal. However, as with existing conditions a slight change in split would increase the level of service to "C" with the level of service on Route 5 remaining "B". Since the use of Scantic Road is almost exclusively by regular commuters, the continued use of Scantic Road by these commuters depends upon its being the fastest route to use as compared to following 191 to Route 5 and then south on Route 5. Two other routes are available in addition to the Scantic Road and Route 5 route - the first using Scantic Road to Stoughton Road and Stoughton Road to the signalized intersection of Route 5 and the second Scantic Road to Abbe Road and Abbe Road to the signalized intersection of Route 5. The existance of these three alternatives to the Scantic Road to Route 5 route assures that if future traffic increases result in increased traffic flow on Scantic Road from Broad Brook it will probably divide in such manner as to keep delays relatively constant among the four routes and prevent any large increase in delay at any one of the locations. No major changes in queue length and delay time is anticipated, therefore, at Scantic Road and Route 5. 12 STORCH ASSOCIATES IV. SUMMARY AND CONSLUSIONS The proposed zone change to allow up to 62 housing units on the subject site will result in an increase in traffic flow on Scantic Road and Route 5. The only significant effect will be during the peak period in the morning at which time commuters use this portion of Scantic Road to bypass the section of Route 191 between the Scantic area of East Windsor and Route 5. Vehicles using Scantic Road presently find delays of an average of more than 60 seconds at the Route 5 intersection. The addition of the 23 vehicles (about one every 3 minutes) from the development should not appreciably affect the delay time at this intersection. The driveway entrance into Scantic Road will operate at level of service "A" during both peak periods. We conclude, therefore, that the development under the proposed zone change will not have a signifigant negative impact on area traffic flow. 13 lU3LUH.24VAilAi(AY RCJ'1'E 5SCUT'I rrV�ND30R SOU .H. O. SCANTIC RCA- NORTHBOUND HOUR ---- QUARTER HIOUR ---- HOUR EACH * REPRESENTS 46 VEHILCLES OF DAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL, A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 23 ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ --------------------------------- 12 AM 58 70 19 16 163 1 AM 7 12 5 15 39 2 AM 8 10 10 8 36 3 AM 2 9 v LL - 4 AM 26 16 2_ 0 63 5 AM 29 36 5 59 17: 6 AEI 70 110 159 141 480 7 AM 185 203 250 200 838 8 AM 200 193 151 171 715 9 AM 4 137 129 110 380 10 AM 100 134 123 134 496 11 AM 122 114 138 146 520 12 PM 140 138 128 139 545 1 PM 132 126 127 136 521 *********** 2 PM 136 132 178 172 618 ************* 3 PM 159 218 288 292 957 4 PM 323 282 327 313 1245 5 PM 346 310 272 _85 1113 6 PM 172 128 118 125 543 7 PM 103 83 84 63 333 ******* 8 PM 54 52 72 61 239 ***** 9 PM 61 63 69 56 249 ***** 10 PM 37 46 42 39 164 **** 11 PM 32 39 30 20 121 *** TOTAL VOLUME IS 10, 577 VEHICLES . PEAK HOURS : MORNING PEAR HOU'_? VOLl.'M. 0R 853 BE'GINS A= ? : 15 AM 8 o', 'EVENING PLA.. +:vvR VJyJ;v'� u� 1 , 296 3_G_NS AT 30 -"1! 12 :/: DATA COLLECTION BLGA_V AT 9AM ON MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1989 . ROUTE 5 SCUTH W'-NDSCR SOUTH OF SCANTIC ROAD NORTHBOUND HOUR ---- QUARTER HOUR ---- HOUR EACH * REPRESENTS 48 VEHICLES OF JAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 24 ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ --------------------------------- 12 AM 53 56 23 24 156 *** 1 AM 6 11 8 35 :k 2 A_`- 7 7 4 3 2: - 3 A`� 7 13 2 15 52 k 4 AM 9 12 14 21 56 ='= 5 AM 20 34 44 55 153 :k 6 AM 73 112 151 159 495 7 AM 204 184 218 215 821 8 AM 198 165 150 144 657 9 AM 129 132 137 122 520 10 AM 138 131 105 131 505 ********** k 11 AM 109 135 144 129 517 12 PM 147 115 123 128 513 *********** 1 PM 130 138 115 121 504 *********** 2 PM 130 139 152 186 607 ************* 3 PM 187 200 289 266 942 4 PM 319 309 317 385 1330 5 PM 321 279 303 200 1203 6 PM 187 144 139 120 590 ************ 7 PM 117 128 86 82 413 ********* 8 PM 75 63 54 58 250 ***** 9 PM 63 63 123 0 249 ***** _ 10 PM 50 45 36 41 172 **** 11 PM 35 34 26 28 123 *** TOTAL VOLUME IS 10, 784 VEH-CLqS . PEAK HOURS : MO RNING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 322. BEG1'NS AT 7 : CC AM ( 8 EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 1 , 332 BEGINS AT 4 : 15 PM ; 12 �) DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 9AM ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7 , 1989 . RCUT2 5 SO WINDSOR SOUTH OF SCANTIC ROAD NORTHBOUND HOUR ---- QUARTER HOUR ---- HOUR EACH * REPRESENTS 50 VEHICLES OF DAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL A DASH MEANS HOUR VOLUME < 25 ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ -------------------------------- 12 AM 55 65 22 8 150 *** 1 AM 13 7 10 14 44 k 2 AM 12 6 8 6 32 a= 3 AM 3 5 14 33 4 AM 17 12 18 25 72 -k 5 AM 2E 43 54 54 177 6 AM 75 113 148 162 498 ********** 7 AM 187 223 213 198 821 '+°*.k***** k:k:k:k k:k is 8 AM 178 165 137 127 607 ************ r 9 AM 140 155 145 167 607 ************ 10 AM 157 160 157 162 636 ************* 11 AM 172 138 153 161 624 ************ 12 PM 166 139 127 121 553 *********** 1 PM 123 171 135 122 551 *********** 2 PM 145 146 200 162 653 ************* 3 PM 175 207 322 336 1040 4 PM 365 295 338 340 1338 5 PM 365 348 271 214 1198 6 PM 182 178 148 105 613 ************ 7 PM 113 119 86 102 420 ******** 8 PM 84 61 63 56 264 ***** 9 PM 78 84 76 52 290 ****** 10 PM 44 50 36 39 169 *** 11 PM 48 45 28 21 142 *** TOTAL VOLUME IS 11 , 532 VEHICLES . PEAK HOURS : M0'—%NIINTC PEAKS HOUR V0LU`Ew OF' 321 3EG1.NS A 7 : CC AM ; 7 0; . - EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF 11391 BEGINS AT 4 : 30 PM ( 12 %K) DATA COLLECTION BEGAN AT 9AM ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8 , 1989 . MACHINE COUNT SUMMARY STORCH ENGINEERS Location: Town: F, Wtolisrrr Tape # dom Date: f/y- IS� fRB'r _ W Direction: '500-t,b o uvk d Project ;: y93 Counter # g^ MONDAY TUESDAY THMSDAY FR10AY TURDAY SUNDAY DATE , 12— 1 . Aft 7 . 1-2 AM ^ 7 a 2- 3 AM 4-0 3--4 AM 4-5 AM 5 r s-6 .AM 230 6-7 AM C3 p f 7-8 AM I oI& 8-9 AM �7 9—10 AM 10-11 AM q(�S" 11'-12 AM l 12- 1' PM 1 - 2 PM � � 2-3 PM 3-4 PM ►�-� 4 -3 PM3 S-6 PM 7q 6-7 PM (,7 • 7-8 PM 290 e -9 PM 3 (o 9 -10 PM gso, 10-11. PM • ,53 11-01D 100 HG 4 /p COMMENT: I IIIJACHIWE COUNT SUMMARY LOCATIolil e rt J41n LOCATION N09 tA 12 12:15 GAM - 6:15 12NOON- 12:15 - Gem - 6015 1215 - 1230. _ _ _ 6:15 - 6:30, 1215 1230. _ 6:15 - 6:30 `z3 12:30 -- 1245 _ 12:30 --. IN - 6:30 - G:4-5 a I E:4 5 - 7.00 12745 - 1:00 ... 645 -- 7:00 HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 97 1:00 - 1:15 - 7:00 - 7:I 5 1:00 I"15 7'00 - 7:15 7 I: 15 -_ .1:30 P15 - 730 I: 15 -' _!:30 _ 7%15 - 730 / 130 — .1:45 7•30 _ 7,45 .130 - J:45 't:30 - 7:45 I: 45 2:00 - 7:�;•5 - $:Ob 1:45 - 2:00 _ 7:45 - 8:010 6 HOURLY TOTAL . _ HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL ._._ HOURLY TOTAL b 2.00 - 2:15 -- 8:00 - 8:15 2,00 2:15 80-00- 8:15 3 2:15 - 2:30 _ 8:15 - 8:30 2:15 -- _ 2:30 _ 8:15 - Q:30 5� 230 - 2:115 _ �i 230 - 2:45 2.4 5 3:00 _ _ 8:45 - S:00 2:45 -- 3:00 _ 8:45 - S:00 q HOURLY 70TAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 7q � 300 - 3:15 - 9:00 - 9:1 5 300 - 3.15 9:00 - 9:15 v 3:15 - .3.30 - --- 9:15 -- 930 3615 --.330 . - 9:15 - 930 3:3 - 3:4 9:30 - 9:45 3=30 -- 3.45 1_-1 9:30 -- 9,45 145 - 4,00 9:45 - 10:00 3:45 - 4100. b. ... 9:45 - 10:00 TOTAL 'r;0URLY TOTAL HQVRLY TOTAL M .. HOURLY Ta`1�L 4 0-0 -- 4,15 10:0 0 - 10: 15 4:00 - 4:1 S 10:0 0 -- 10: 15 �-- 4:1 5 - 4 O 10:15 - 10:30 4.15 -, 4:30 �$. 10:15 - 10:30 4,30 - 445 103 0" -• 10:45 43 0 - 4:4 5 103 0 - 10:3 1 4�t 5 -- 1100 10:45 — 11 :00 4 5 — soo 3 10:•'15 - I I :co �► Z 14OURLY TOV 1•-10URLY TOTAL HOURLY TOT !LAn HOURLY TOTAL ' 3 rj�� z ``' 5:00 - �:15 11:00 - 11:15 5:00 - :15 1I:00 - 11-15 3 w u 5:15 - 530 11:1 5 - 11:30 5:15 - 5z30 °1 11:1 5 -- 11:30 o N U 5:30 - 545 :30 " 11:45 5:30 '- 5%45 N7 :30 - 11 *45 545 - 6:00 11:45 -12NOOM 5:45 - 6.00 qq 11:45 -1?Mi<t), �,- V NOUMLY TOTAL L��OURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL N;OURLY TOTAL � 0 HIGH' HR _ _ _ [GRAND TOTiI w24 HRTOTAG __ f 1 , MACHINE COUNT SUMMARY LO CAT IOI~d S.Gz G -' W LOCATION NO# z Date 31 t1, Kj- 12 12:15 6 A M - 6:16 3 12NOM- 12:15 6 PM - G:15 12:1 5 - 1230.12:30 -- 12:45 I2:l 5 - (230. 1 P _. s:15 — 6�0. - 6:15 — 6:30, � . • 3 -. 1 N 5 - IC0 Q G30 - G4.5 0 - 1 � f G 30 - G-64.5 1N HOURLY TOTAL 1 12:3 6:45 - 7.00 5 1 5 . 6:45 - 7:00 Ii0URLY TOTAL 6 HOURLY TOTAL -1 HOURLY TOTAL �S 1:00 - 1:15 _ 1:00 7:00 - 7:15 - _ _ I I.'S j:OO "' 7:1 5 O 1: 15 -_ .1:30 10•- ?:15 - 7 30 (� 1: 15 - _1?307s.15 13 0 — .J:45 - 7 30 6 ` �;� _ 7.�,5 .130 - .1:45 r:?p - 7;45 /d • I: 4 5 - 2:00 _.4_ 7:4 5 _ S:Od I'45 - 2:00 .�.Q. 7.46 - g HOURLY TOTAL Z!_. HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY `TOTAL 'I�( 200 - 2:15 - 8:00 - 8:15 2:00 - 2:15 _ 8:00 - 8:15 2:15 - 2:30 8:15 - Q:30 10 2:15 -- _ 2:30 3e 8:15 - 0:30 S 230 - 2:415 .0 a;gip _ 8:4 230 - 2:45 8.3f0 - 0:45 245 - 3:00 _0. 8:4 5 - S:00 2:4 5 - 3:00 8:4 5 - S:00 -1 HOURLY TOTAL D HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY T s�L Iy i 3;00 - 3:I 5 -0 - 9:U0 - 9:1 5 3:00 - 3 IS •a..- 9:00 - 9:1 3 3:15 -•-�30 - 1-- 9:15 _930 1 3:15 ---3ZO 3_ 9:1 5 - 930 9 3:30 - . 3:4 3 - 3:30 . 3.4 5 9• 9:30 S:45 _ J:30 -- ,,•4 5 3:4 5 - 4-'00 9:4 5 - 10:00 3:4 5 - 4-00. 9:45 - 10:00 QVR[Y TOTAL `� HOURLY TOTAL a TOTAL lq I.., HOURLY TOTAL I 4� - 4:15 d . . '10:00 -- 10: 15 400 - 4:15 .0-- 10:00 - 10: 15 4:1 5 - 4-W 10:15 - 10:30 8� 4:15 -_. 430 10.-~' 10:15 -- i0:30 � 430 - 445 D IOZV - 10:45 4ZO - 4:45 B.�• IO30 - 10:43 4�t 5 -- 500 .0 10:45 -- 11 :00 44 5 - SW � 10:4:i - I I :CO 3 z HOURLY T 0 TAQ HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOT V i HOURLY TOTAL 3 r.2:15 11:15 : 0 -5:00 - II:00 1I:l: 5:15 — 530 l I:1 5 — I I:SO l y 5:15 — 530 11:1 5 O N 5�30 5%45 n 5:30 -' 545 . : w 0 - 11:45 :30 - I I :�i5 545 - 600 11:4 5 -1?-N 00?d 5:4 5 - 600 3 11:4 5 -1?_i.,11), V HOURLY TOTAL SOURLY `TOl-AL +� HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 1.3 H GHQ HR 1. GR�ND .-TO-TAU_ _ __ TOUL 1 7 GRAND TOTAL , r,R,_,�tD TO T.I,11 24HR,TOTAI. ♦ j . ,L�1•a.,• I • `wIACHINE COUNT SUMMARY .. D Lfr '�L3 ff. LOCATIONS � � wA-�I. LOCATIOSV PLO. Date IR 12NMN- 12:15 G PM `" G•I 5 -GAM G=I 5 � � 12:15 - 1230. _ � ; _ • 6:15 6:30, •6 I5 6.30 12:30 IZ-45 . 12:30 "- IN :- ;,•r 12�4 5 -- 1 .• G:3 0 i" G:4 5 r b 30-. G I J 1Z45. - I�0 G:45 - 7:00 I4JRLY TOTAL .p. 6:45 - 7:U0 : •, . . . � . I.10UitLY TOTAL f G HOURLY TOTAL ..- . HOURLY TOTAL 1:0 0 " 1:1 5 .,11:1._ 1:O 0 -� 1:1.5 r © T00 ` 7�I5 - 1:00 7�IJ I: 15 .l:30 .D f.15 = 7:30 1: 15 - -1 30 ' ' %15 - 7 30 . 130 - .1:45 _ � . . . M 7:30 - 7;45 .130 •.1:45 t'30 7:45 I: 45 2: 745 G:OU IV 1:45 - 2:00 7=4.5 - 8:00 HOURLY TOTAL .: ... HOURLY orOIAL p HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY T0TAL 2.00 -- 2:15 - 0:00- 0:15 .2:00 2-:1 5 _ 01.00 - O:I:i 2:15 - 2:30 ...f}... 0:15 - 0.'30 2:15 -.. 2:30 0:15 -- 0:;S0 230 -- 2:45. p 0.Z.100 — 0:4 5 14 230 — 2:45 :'3n e 2 A 5 - 3:00 _4-. G:&15 — �•:oO 2:4 5 — _ 3:00 8:4 5 = oo J IOURLY 70TAL HOURLY TOTAL 1 HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL I 300 `- 3:I.S •�.�- 9:00 9.1 5 3:00 -' • 3:15 9:00 - 9:1 5 3•I •.330 9:15 -- 930 3:15 -_.3zo 9:1 3 - 9i0 :0 -- 3:11 3 .. 9:30 9:4 5 1 % 3:34 3 A 9: 0 - c J`:4 5 .. 3'er 5 — 400 . .I.• 9:�f5 - 10:00 �+ 3:45 -- 400. ... 5:45 (O:OO IQ RLY TOTAL 3'' 'riJUi2L�' TOTAL Q TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL tr 00 `- 4:1 3 0 '10:0 0 — 10: 15 4 00 — 4:15 10:0 0 10: 15 er:l 5 44,W 10:15 -- 10:30'; 4:15 430 10,15 -- i0:30 -W U -- 5 ' I -, 1 G;5 0 - 10:45 : IK5 0 -- Vr 5 I GO 0 - I U:=�5 . 4-�eT 5 -- 500 3• 10:4 5 — 11 :C0; 4:4 5 — 500 10:4 5 -- 11 :co .. 'OURLY TOTAL S. HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 5:00 I- - 45 I I:00 III 5 5 40 -- '":15 11:00 - 1 1sI 5 w 5:15 - 530 5:15 --- 530 I I=I 5 . - 11:30 o ' U 5 30 -' S,45 d :30 - I I:MI5 5:30 -• 545 JO _ 11 :�15 —• J�r J Gco I 1 I:4 J -12I4 00?J f 5�5 - 6co :1 I:4 5 -'1?_M,1 l), 1 AV G � p 10URLY TOTAL 1•IOUrRLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL]__ �IOURLY TOTALFI GH. NR _j ,RAND TOTA -roVi Ll I D TOTAO I 1 (;R����,�t� 'r0"i�, (mil 24 HR.TOTAI MACHINE COUNT SUMMARY LOCAT1014 sca07tc 'Rc(, S. 1johdson 'kJ8 LOCATION NOS .Date 31/s /4 e1 --We 12:15 12NOOON 12:15 6 p� - 6:15 5 l21 5 - 1230. _ 6 AFC - 6:15 - . 6:15 - 630, 1215 1230. _ 6:15 630, t 3 12:3 0 - 124 5 _ 12:3 0 124 5 - 6:30 - G:4.5 15 [ la45 _— 1-00 6:4 5 - 7:00 1Z4 5 - I CO 6:4 5 -- 7:00 1 HOURLY TOTAL li0URLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL -- . HOURLY TOTAL q 9 1:00 - 1:15 - 7:00 - 7:15 1:00 - _ 1_:1.5 7:00 - 7:15 d 1: 15 -_ .1:30 P15 - 7�30 1: 15 -_-I:30 T:l 5 7 30 13 0 — .1:45 7.30 - 7:45 13 0 - .1:45 7:30 - 7:45 7 I: 45 - 2:00 7:45 _ 6:d0 I:45 - 2:00 7.46 - 8:00 HOURLY TOTAL . _ HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 32 2-00 -- 2:15 - 8:00 - 8:15 2-00 2:15 _ 8:00- BIB 2:15 -- 2:3 0 - 8:15 - 8:30 2:15 - . 2:3 0 _ 8:15 -- 8:30 k 230 `- 2-.45 0;30 _ 6:4.5 230 -- 2:45 - 0:4 5 2 2:4 5 --- 3*0 _ _ 8:4 5 - 9:00 245 -- 3:00 _ fJ:,1.5 - 9:00 HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 3:00 - 3:15 9:00 - 9:1 5 3:00 - 3=15 171 9:00 - 9:1 3 3.15 -'..Zzo - - - 9:15 - 930 3:15 -__3:30 :L 9:15 - 9 i0 3:30 9,30 -- 9:45 3:30 - _ 345 9:30 -- 9:45 3,45 - 4- 0 9:45 -- 1000 3:45 - 400. 9:45 - 10:00 C U R L.Y TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL TOTAL b HOUR LY TOTAL 400 -- 4:15 IO:O 0 -- 10: 15 4:00 4:15 17.- 10:0 0 - 10: 15 4:15 - 4-:0 10:15 — 10:30 4:15 4:30 v.. 10:15 — i0:30 3 43 0 - 4:4 5 10z 0" - 10:45 `Z 0 " 445 1q_. 1050 - 10:45 N 41r 5 -- 500 10:45 -- 11 :00 4:45 - SW A 10:40" - 11 :CO Z HOURLY TOT I' HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL6 I HOURLY TOTAL � W U 5:00 - 115 11:00 - 1 1:15 5100 - :15 1 I:OU -- I I:I 5 0 5:16 - 530 11:1 5 - 11:30 5:15 - 5z0 �2' 1I:1 5 - 11:30 3 o ° U � 5:3 0 - 545 g:30 - 54S 8 I I :45 545 "' 600 1 1:45 -2-NOO d � 5:45 6100 S' 1 1i4:J "12 Vi l la, v g HOURLY TOTAL I<OURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL '7$ HOURLY TOT�aL � H G ' HR GR�fID TOTAL GR�,�(?__ ' Of �l. [_GFA_ND TOTd C,Pi.;iN;1) '�OTA1. (�� 24HR.TOTA © 4`tlg3q MACHINE COUNT SUMMARY. 1 5��2-� � �,{' ,3 LO CAT 10N 1 LOCATION NO# .Defe M" I b WC 61. 12� 12:15 0 12NOON— 12:15 6 PM — 6:15 r3 12 15 — 1230. 3 -- 6 AFC — 6:15 Z3 7— — . f:15 — 6:30, 1Z.15 1230. 6:15 — 6:30, ' (0 12:30 - 1245 3 12:30 -. IN5 1W_ 6:30 - 64•5 � 6 6:30 - G:�1.5 1 9 1 Z•4 5 — 1 CO .0 r 12'�4 5 — 1�0 ..9 6:4 5 — 7:00 3 6-4� — 7:b0 [ - ' !HOURLY TOTAL 6 HOURLY TOTAL (, HOUR-LY TOTAL S4 HOURLY TOTAL b 1 1:00 - 1:15 - 7:00 - 7:15 1:00 -- - 1:1.5 A- 7:00 - 7:15 10 1: 1 5 - .I:30 1 . P.15 - 7 30 �3�, 1: 15 -- _1:30 _ Q- 76-15 -- 7 SO 6' 1 .13 0 — -J:45 t:30 — 7.45 13 0 —. .1:45 ?:30 — 7�45 6 ' '" 1: 45 — 2:00 CO- 7:4•5 — 8:00 1'45 — 2`00 745 — b:00 � HOURLY TOTAL 2.._. HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL . .�-. HOURLY TOTAL 3z- 2-00 — 2:15 8:00 — 8:15 2-00 — 2:15 8:00 — 8:15 �f• 2:15 — 2:30 ..L 9:15 — 8:30 2:15 — . 2:30 ..I a 8:15 — 0:30 N 230 — 2:115 .O 0;;;p — 0:4 5 230 — 2:45 .n.. W-20D — 0:4 5 245 -- 3:00 J.-. 8:4 5 — 5:00 0 245 3:00 J...$' 6:4 5 — S:00 3 HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL b HOURLY TOTAL I y 300 — 3:1.5 4 -- 9:00 — 9:1 5 300 — 3.15 9:00 — 9:1 3 3:15 — ••3Z-3 -2,-- 9:15 — 930 ► 3:15 --ZZO _ 9:15 — 9ZO a 3:30 — .3:45 9:30 — 9:45 0 3:30 — 3r45 1_ 9:30 — 9:45 3 3-45 --- 4-00 0.- .. 9:45 — 10:00 3-45 — 400. 9:45 — 10:00 3 HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL HOVRLY TOTAL G HOURLY TOIA%L 13 ,'►00 - 415 •10:00 - 10: 15 400 - 415 6_ 10:00 - 10: 15 4:1 5 - 4w .0 10:15 - 10:30 17 4:15 430 1 .. 10:15 - 10:30 4Z 0 - 445 103 0" - 10:45 4Z 0 - 44 5 10Z 0 - 10 s3 -L N 41T 5 500 10:45 — 11 :00 1 b 4:45 — SW g 10:40" — 11 :CO Z HOURLY TO Tl' HOURLY TOTAL 3 HOURLY TOT 63 HOURLY TOTAL w W 5:00 — �:15 1 11:00 -- 1 l:I 5 f b 5:00 — :15 11. 11:00 -- J 1:15 W cc 5:15 - 5:3;0 1 11:1 5 - 11:30 1 5:15 - 5:30 1 I I:1 5 -- f J:3D o N 5:30 -' 545 :30 - 11:45 I 3:30 '- 5%45 �' :30 - 11 :45 1 545 - 6:00 11:45 -0400?4 545 - &CO 11-45 -12 inii), 3 AVGg FiOUnLY TOTAL 1`10URLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL Q AHOU TOTAL H GNP HR GRAND TOTA 0 GnA. ,jp -roviL �� GRAND TOTALI I , GR ism:�11) TOT-1,I. �`I 24HRTOTA • MACHINE COUNT SUMMARY -� 0�'3 LOCATIONS-0. (ima a e b o� aQ rSN 3 .sur. - �c H �� �;� LOCATION PlO. i � •Date 3 1�7 aq 12:15 O 12NMN— I2:15 121 5 '— 1230. _ GAM -- Gil 5 2�, , 12:15 -- 1230. .G•PM — G:15 12:30 1245 Z . . 6:15 G:30, �3 - 6.15 G•30 / . 6:30 - 6u1-5 6q � 12:30 - 1�45 _ b•30-. - 12�45. 100 G:4 5 - 7:00 ' dOURLY TOTAL .� G 4 5 - 7:00 v 1:00 - I 1 J 110URLY TOTAL �,3 HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 1:0 0 �' . I,J j;00 — r ' 3� 7:00. ` 7:15 S�- .- 1= - 7:1 J I. 15 .1:30 70-15 = 7:30 1016 1: 15 — .1:30 115 — 730 13 0 = .1:45 ! 7:30 — 7:45 '1 •13 0 J:45 7:30 .-- 7:45 I• 4 J 2.00 7:4.5 8:00 105 1. 45 2.00 7•46 - 9:00 HOURLY TOTAL hourLY 'ro`1AL o HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY `ro`rINL . 2-00 -- 2:15 -J--- C:00— 0:15 61 .2:00 2:15 —._ 0=00 — O:I;i 2:15 — 2:3 0 .. 0:15 — 0!3_U 3 2:15 — 2:3 0 0:15 0..30 ? 0 — 2:ci5_. ._: — 0=4 5 230 — 2:45 b;3p — O:e,J' 2:4 5 -- 3:00 = 0:115 — 5:00 2 4 5 — - 3:00 E1:/}5 — s-:00 .- J IOURLY TOTAL 3 . HOURLY TOTAL 63 HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TOTAL 300 3:15 •U 9:00 9:1 5 j q' 300 - 3:1:5 9:00 - 9:1 5 1 3:1 S -'..-330 .Q 9:15 -- 30 .3:15 7...3ZO 9:13 - 9:30 30 -- 3:i15 ..A:. 9:30 — 9:45• 3:30 3t15 / 9:30 — 9:45 .. 3,Ir 5 — 4-00 .Q..'... 9:45 — 10••30� 3:45 -- 4.00. 9:115 — 10:30 iPzQRL.Y TOTAL H'0LlRLY. TO-1'AL j . TOTAL ' '. HOURLY 'f0li,\L :0 4:15 '10:0 0 --- 10: 16 e'r 00 -- 4:1 S 10:0 0 10: 15 �r 1 J _ •y 10:15 — IU:30 4:15 -- 430 10:15 — f 0:30 two 5 IMT I • � 11Z0 -- 4sr 5 _ IWO - 10:=15 4!r,5 -- 500 3 10:4.5 - 11 :Co; 4:115 --- 500 10:4 i - If :CO IOURLY TO TM IR HOURLY TOTAL HOURLY TO Ttl HOURLY TOTAL 5:00 - '':15 11:00 1 I:I5 5:00 - 215 1 I:00 - 1 I:I5 w 5:15 - 5 0 q 1 I:1 5 - 11.30 5:15 -- 5:30 � � - - 1 1:3 0 5:30 - 5A•S 3:30 545 II :f15 6:4 J GOO 1I:45 -121JOO1J 5�5 - GCO I:45 -I? i�io/ GFOUR HQ• RHOURLY TOTAL _ { ` N 1i Lr_MA NO TOTAL rR►'�In -roveIj rRt%1i D TOTAL nrm, o m 'f 0i,1,1 (�� 24 HR,TCTAI S'^FC ASSCC:AT=S -��ti:YG v0VE.4c.Y" 5-,te Code Y-S STREET: ROU" F_W STRE-F: SCAVIC ROAC WEATHER . COLD CLEAR Dr.;mary Movements: Veh—fc'es SATE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEAK �ERICD ANALYS:S FOR -4E DER?CC: S:3C AM DIRECT:Jh S-Al- DEAK uR .. V^':.... ........ D=RCEN- ----------------------------------------------------JJ------------------------------------------- 11Cr ^ 7: AM 0.92 • •JIC J ,07J J %,vv N East 7:OC .AM C.84 8 C 394 4C2 2 C 98 Sout 7:00 AM 0.95 20 878 'S 31) 2 96 2 West 7:00 AM C.00 C C C C C Ent;^e :^tersect on ` North 7:00 AM 0.91 0 1055 0 1056 C %100 0 East 0.84 8 0 394 402 2 0 98 South 0.95 20 878 15 9113 2 96 2 West 0.00 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 ROUTE 5 N r: W ' E ri 0 1056 0 - - - - 1056 i 8 - SCANTIC ROAD 402 0 "s== 0 L 394 0 0 SCANT I C ROAD 913 :•:•:- 15 878 20 •• 1 4 g0IF • .-. T1 l�TTT 71 r_ ASSCC:.a-=5 :'2W_VG MC'r='AE.N- V Sate Coce )AG:: V-S STREE-. ROUTE 5 :_=. SCAN7=70 -W STREET: SCANTIC ROAD WEATHER COLD CLEAR )^'mary Movements: Veh=c'es DATE: 2/28/89 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "ime ',:,,cm North "cm East F^cm Scut". =rcm +Vest Veh'c'e Becir RT THR;' R' - THRL' RT -wR! !' R- THR„' _ Tcta' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6:3C cz '2- r F. 4C2 J J 7:00 AM J 239 v 32 7.15 C 260 2 C "7 S 22Y 5 L V to s.. 7:30 0 29' J J 0 98 229 2 J J 524 7:45 C 266 0 2 0 97 5 233 3 C C C 606 ;HR TOTAL 0 156 0 3 0 394 20 878 45 0 0 0 2371 8:00 AM 1 258 0 4 0 56 5 190 2 0 0 0 515 8:15 0 174 0 3 0 38 1 175 0 0 0 0 391 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )AY TOTAL 1977 0 0 33' 32 '53' 2C 0 0 0 4179 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Ric"t Thru Left Tcta' Richt Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 7:15 AM 0.92 1 1075 C 1075 0 �'CC C East 7:C0 AM9.94 3 0 39d iD2 2 0 98 SoutF 7:0C ,AN 0.95 2C 878 912 2 96 2 .Y� �L. 7,r1� 1 ' C C`mn 1 VorY„ ABM J.9 0JS '05;. o,ww J East 0.84 8 0 394 402 2 0 98 South 0.95 20 878 '5 9113 2 96 2 West 0.00 0 0 0 C 0 0 570K= AsscC.A-ss T.l��T4G MevswEN- Site Code )AGE: V-S STREET: .RCU-_ 5 =.'_�• SCAVS� E_W STREET: SCAN I:C RC _. WEATHER MODERATE �r=mary Movements: Ve 'c'es ,ATE: 2�2o�og ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y i V ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vGr,+� 1 J•?s ?71 V L r 17 Vast 4.,00w ?N 0.79 7 46 ,,v "? C 8. Scuth !:30 DM 0.97 32V '24S 0 '355 59 77 0 West 4:3C �►� C.CV C ^ C C 0 C 0 Entire Intersection North 4:30 ?M 0,87 2 771 14 787 C 98 2 East 0.77 d 0 33 37 1 4 0 99 South 0.97 320 '04E C '355 23 77 C west 0.00 0 0 0 r ROUTE 5 _ ' � N W ' E -+080 II -'== - - - - - - - - - - - -- 787 4 : : 3:•: -: N.-0 ::5 •:-: -:-:•:•:-: SCANTIC RD 37 0 iSZE 1 - i 0 33 0 0 SCANTIC RD 0 1366 0 1046 320 - �804 ? '� r�T T^ 7; tr n r 1; 1— sTOR'- asso,,.a �s �Rk. ��v_ �tiT ���n Site Cade )AGE: ' N-S STREET: ROUTE 5 1:TI ': SCAN5PM �-W STREET: SCAN IT RD WEATHER MODERATE Dr.-* mary vcvements: Ven c'es ;A-E: 2/28/99 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T-me ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S I o G 4 4:3C C 198 T = C ? 5 2?9 2 2 5v7 4:45 ^ 167 1 J 12 95 255 r J 0 J HR TOTAL 0 772 '9 7 C 46 22C 'C43 C C C C 2'Sc 5:00 PM 0 186 2 0 0 5 39 244 3 0 C 0 525 5:15 2 220V 4 2 C 8 69 255 C C 0 573 5:30 0 185 2 1 0 1' 67 232 0 0 0 0 499 5:45 0 147 1 2 C 13 30 184 0 C C 0 377 HR TOTAL 2 738 9 5 0 37 255 929 0 0 0 0 '97" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAY TOTAL 2 1510 27 12 0 33 535 197' 0 0 0 0 4'40 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4.00 PM - 6:00 PM JIRECTICN START PEAK HR ........ VOL:MES ........ ?ERCEYTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR R'ght T^^u 'e`t To}a' R;Z,: Tiru .eLt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nort� 4:00 PM C.85 C 772 '° 79C 2 9315 East 4 ? F L:30 32^ '045 = '35� 2 '4es: E^tire Tnte^sec;"o„, .4ort h 4:30 PM 0.87 2 771 '4 787 98 2 East 0.77 4 0 33 37 C 89 South 0.97 320 '016 0 '366 23 77 C Wes: V.w 0 C C 0 C C I 00 0000 1 fir] r C? •1' 00 1 1 I ffl C4 N N N N I a+ 1 U ;+; 00 1 U I I U) ri 1 ri ri ri r-i i E+ 1 Ol n+ 1 0 I I I (T) c+) m (*) I I Or [fl P-) I •• 1 I R; I II I (l, I U I cO 00 1 0+ I I I I E 0 0 1 I x I I I C) O, I I U) I E If) In I s', I 1 0 Y 1 0c> 0000 I I F11 N CV N N N N I •ri ri r i I CJ 0 0 1 �' 1 ri .-i r i DI I • . 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 ;+; 0 O 1 [T] CO U +n I I U n+ 1 n • • • I I f'I I ;�+ I u to co I r- I I Fri j I U 1 0 1Lf) U O 1 A, 1 x Uri 1 1 F+; ll) d' I 1 (') 000000 1 I n+ 1 I II I . . • • I U) 0 0 0 CJ I I 1 I f� N N N N N N I C1 I I I U : r i ,1 rA r-i ri r-i 1 U) rTl I I U) I `-1 1 U Era f 4 171 I ;? I E+ I + 1I + f1: f,, ►-I [ + R; R+ lo 1 U I I E+ I U I [rl a 1 Et I I �A I P:C ITI 0000 1 (t) DI a l �• 1 I IT+ ;+; 0) 0 O O) 1 U (tl m rrl I R: U) U 'J+ I W I N I I E+ 0000 I F-i I to >+ w U is) I OU 0000 I I E+ I I I jr, F•1 cO tD (S) I U " ' I fr1Nc"tN N N N 1 I [Tl 1 0Gl0 1 N f rl r i r i r-+ ri ri ri I E+ i/) I U) `1+ O O 1 U) + 1 I I U) W .00 000 1 1 • . l a I 1 F) U) . i E+ x �) C) I a I I C+ I ►1 I N I N cv I N W !� C�+ I •• •• •• •• •• •• •• I U I~ 0 0 0 0 1 U) 0) 00 1 U r+ N N I U) Y [�+ I I I I I t*) tD Qo 1 R; '� Cl rC I m 0 ,s, 00 1 04 I 1.4 00 1 C7 I II W Pi I W L0 I I n. 1 000 1 E4 U f+ I U 1 ►) ;� 7 i W. I ri I n `-zzz I I 1 � I I CV O O 1 0) ri1.0 1 N n '< F I n,; r� F I I m 0 00 0 to I I I I U � C� I [+1 E+ R, I r+l [+ 1 (1) F, tr N I I ;► 00 1 1 tJ 'F F; [T1 ! (1+ U) I [rl co I 0000 1 Of I ' I I > --O 00 O 1 1 r+ U 0 1 �_ �C U) dl�; c: �t: rTl I �1 I -N N N N 1 I I • 1 0mVl0co -1p I 1 ri UO 1 I Fi �• O :� s, I N 1 I :1� Cy "q 1 R; I T (nA.+ Y O I I [r] 0000 1 f)+ N I UR; R-4 1 d Wd` Fi I I n 0 000 I I EiHE+ 1 t-i I �C aP I 1 f�l �� a ►�1 I Ei m0000 I ry� v0000 1 1 I U U ✓+ :; (Y. dE U) F + U) i; I I I E+ ;+; k:+ n E+ :", E+ 3 I ►] I U) i! R; :+ r•1 I I I l E i lr: n+ a E i (4 R-+ �P- O 1 I R: I X PC,± OD E-+ P 1 C + >C; E11 Ol R; ;r r[; 1 1 U 1 E i :ill E i r]; I m m pn m I F0 Irl tx W I rn m M 1 Z r i u) c4 f l F+ 6 1 a E a D� a I W i z (f) 1 1*1 v? U J-+ I ► I U) 1; :x: 1 ►C G) m t1 1 W Ud W I M �a w Ui I tb W w w I �u t-3 M H 1 0 1 c y. '., W r * Cl W H I 1 0It] 1=1t3 o) t� I I t-+ t4 11 > Ili ;d I 1 0 '� `d �av3k1tU It31 `1 d >f � 3 ►ii 13 U ► I ;r; t ! I I 11 r n 13 (f) C) I I 1 OOO O^ � { O 000UI I ILI H 1 t 1 t1 t1 tr] I I - • . • e '> 1 I FA I t] t3H I 1 0000__ u I 1 Fi rs] 0 1 ;d ',d 17 1 N to 1 0000 t=] 1 I O x td to .. I �d I JC �; ✓C 1 1 I C 1 ;� w G) I 1 00 t I 1 yP C)) O •4 W O I . • • • • • x t 3 ;Z ti I Ld ;;l o (D ,b o`e .1; 1 C; I I ;,i t! 0 L 1 1 U U t-� 1 1 000 0-- C I X I I I + ;1; F-i (J 1 000 0 I 0) t� l w '., ,1 t�] f x U I csl a�. O 1 00 r; 1 1 to ^.] tol U) I + ] 1.1 1 I'd t 3 x L=1 C7 I U1wNa I • • I I 1 0) CP (n0Ui I la 's �„ I u (D 1 0) (yI Iv 1 U 1 1 _ _ C) E I I I tC ►'b I I O 1 :c; O H 1 0 0 0 I 'U I I (.31 i-n iI 1 - G) 1 OO ;I; I (J 1 OOrnOLu I + ! U ;O 1 0) CS) w (n 1 1".) a 1 00 w V) I 00000 (,) I ILI ► 1 n� r� I I H I 1 0 f3 I • 1 tL1 I 'r I IJJ l j I I t J t 3 VA C; C-t I 1 l•J l•] O I Lii 1 00 1 + I 1; C) c; 1 I R ^ I t 1 I - • 1 1 0 0 0 0 U- t►] (1) 1 I f,) c31 (n U) I CJ 1 0 0 1 (1) t! I t, N N F-h I.A L=] I W dl (D 1 (31 L=] O 1 1 ;C 1 N n.) N N IV N t1d 1 :r; ;1 0 1 c)) (31 w 1 1 t tj I t] I 1�1 I . . • . . . t LA] C I csi cn O I<; (n I 1 1 I 0000 J 1 (D I t=] I tC G7 (n '� I - 'd I I ►! `3' I •a I LAI w I t! 1 l 1 n I O O (D cD ;I♦ "I I I L•1 � I C I t1 L=] (n 1 O CID 0) O t11 :v I t i I U I 1 1 I L1 Cj] 1 0 1 1,3 1 > I c� 1 O V. to :•v 1 11 I.1 '(I F 1 L i I t3 I I k1W 11: Ut3 ;+.; t! I1 1 1 13 l O I C I U! W ILI U 1 CZ I I I U I NNNN NNW I t�! I I 1 0000 (f) I fI 1� I I I I (T r V I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 1 0 [L] I x O 1 I X ✓C ;w ; ; ,•; I I I O I r • I 'U 1 0 0 t I tC i I ►.1 I t U I I Z t4 �4 t4 \ t Cl I t 3 t1 I=] I x t-3 t 3 I ►� 1 0) (r W I tC I I r tl I I - • - U I 'd 0 1 I CP (D (0 I'll 1 00 I L 1 I • • I l=] I irl to I t ► t F I= t I I �y 1 0 0 h7 I F C; 1 N N N N N N to I 11 1 0 0 0 O �j ►1 I I r I 1 1-] 1 - I o00000) I .. 0 1 1 1 ooc� ot3 I i U) I I 'd G) I I I 1 00 1 'U 1 0 0 cat 1 w I d I I I I I I I Cd UJ14 1 I WwW W I I I k1 l �V t9 I ! I F� ►+ F� N t-• t ',n I I C7 1 0 000 1 I 00 0000 I PIrl I C 'h 00 1 I I . • . • • . 1 0: I I . • I U) I I III N (N NNNN { 1+ 1 C) ;i; 00 1 U I I U) rl ti .i r-i ri ri I E+ 1 0) O, I I C'7 (M (T) (1) I I rn I I I I i 1 1 I I [Y, I II 1 A, 1 pU I E i 1 [► I 00 00 1 0, I I I I 11 I F , 0: C) O 1 I I I 1 U 0! I 1 U) I i EILOLnLOif) I I; I 1 0 L I c) 00000 1 . . . . I IT] I 1 a y I I E r: -t, -41 ,n +n 11 I t > i I [f1c�lcvNNCN; N I : Ir-irI 1 c•1 00 1 I { r i r 1 ri ri ri r-I I r"l F. ( I•I I • I :1; 00 1 01 COM O 1 1 0 ("1 I 1 I (Y %4 [h 0 1 0) I E i E+ rY, I r*i I C! I r i r i 1 v1 I [=1 o In x 1 ( x>,; f �+ I r+ 0 0 1 0-11 I C`) 000000 1 I 0, LO I I II I . • • • • • 1 (n OODU 1 I I [n N C\1 N N N N 1 r-) I I I U r i r i r i ri r-1 r i I U) r*! ( 1 (n I \ t 1 P; 0+ I 1 Urn t71 tY1 t 1 1 0 I E+ ;r; I + F) E+ :+: Ei n 3 1 [*1 ►.a I I E+ I 1 { r r►; fn, i.-:1 E i P; Pa ;i,, 0 I U I I F+ I () I 111 a 1 1-1 I I K4Ili 0000 1 (n I I M :+; 0) Is O 0) 1 U (71 prl fY, [Il 1 P: I .c4 U) C7 �+ I �) I N y 1 I E+ 0000 1 FI I (n :>+ (") rn 1 0 1 (n 1 000000 1 1 E+ I r4 • • • I -,- Do I I • • • • • • I 1 E+ 1 P a 1-I1 -p h L) O 1 U X; I rYl N N N N N N I >: I [*1 I O 41 r i ri 1 I-) I Ill r 1 r I ri ri r-1 ri I E+ (li I U) ••I' 0 0 1 U I N Ui x 11) ►7 I I U) Fri .D 0000 1 I • • I 1-a I �- U 1 1 p U) � 1 �1 7. Ill 0 '� 51 5 I I F) I < 0 O O I > 1 C[) E i C) 1 a I I (9 11 1 00 U 'E U 1 1 1 1 I F i { r I Cv C\i N 1 [11 '� P� [T, I •• •• •• •• •• •• I C') f: 0000 1 U) c�� O O 1 U ri N Cv N 1 En s 1 I I 1.1e. z I I I • • 1 Ch cD co (D 1 PY 'R nQ: I ril - r 1 0 0 1 01 1 ;i; O O 1 U 1 11 [la r►; I U) -i r- I I 0, 1 0 0 0 0 1 E-i 1 0 F+ I M 1 1) z I I I >1 f1; I I n `. z z ;; I I I Rf C\I O O 1 CJ cD to M I (D C i it F 1 r1 r1: 1 1 I Ill 0 w 00 1 I 1 • • 1 U O 0) CI tr I C) C.I OD 1 I :i. O O 1 r1 CD Y i h I N ~t, rJl C11 f) (n I [*1 U (•) 1 O C) O O 1 01 I ',� • • . • I 1`i r.1 Ii I X ri I 5 -0000 1 I 00 0 O 1 vI I >: 1 ',3 I p; cam° • • 1 I 1 iF U? O P"; Ca ri, [*1 I �-7 N N N N I I I 7EiI' 1 0Ul (') 0 " N I I r1 00 1 (� P, I > 3 (Y) I I 1 >4 x x • . I ►i C) I I I I a: tr I W. I z U3 Pa i< o I I I'll 00 00 1 0, N I U P; ry. 1 0 DI " I-i t I Cn —00 00 1 1 Ei Ei I H .. P; x E+ • . . . I I [TI a a E a F, I E-+ >: i< U 0� I [il O O O O I P; �O 000 1 U 41 I U I I I ril ;): fY (nF1 (n ! I I I E+ �i; F1 [1E+ :7: HA 3 1 ►1 I [n rY ;>1 I-l E 1 r►; 0+ a E-A Q', Aa z 0 1 1 P1 In [=aK4 ►-1rIIll ; I 1 I ryl �-7 I I w 00 E i Alt I+ X I i 1 W 1-1 1 1 E+ p) a PY, f < 1-I O I Ei x E-i 04 I m rn Pn r n I rn 3 U a•, I 3 z U) I z rich ►-� � � rn F+ U I aEi0� I w 3 z U) I [7a 1 000 C) OC, 1 1•1 1 0 -1 00 1 I • • • • • 1 n r I • I • • I (n I I n1 NCjN NCVN 1 >t 1 0 ;.; 00 1 0 I I U) r l r l r l r i 1 0) P I 1 1 1 I I I (T) CC) (•) (") I 1 + I I I R; I 11 I 04 l al I E O O I P r I O O 1 1 y i I I C) 1) 1 1 U) I f C+ 00 CO Cy) (7) 1 I 1 U 1 000 000 I ;6 I 1 11 r, CT) 0) 00 M 10 I fn CV CJ N N N N 1 •r i r l r-i i hl 0 0 1 '1 I '!, r i r i r i r i ri r i I Ffl 1: I [rl I • I I l I oU 1 171 -r OOl 1 'f I ;✓i 1 I C) n l I Cl I --r CO 0) 1 OD I E+ E+ Po I F*1 F. rt 1 If) 0 0 1 pt I I 01 I 1 (1) 000 000 1 1 n+ U) I I it . • . . • . I U) 0000 1 I I l=r I f'fl N N N hl N N I Cl I I I C) r l r i T-i r( I U) [,1 I + U3 I �r I I W, n, I 1 Ummmm I FTt I p, t I +7 11Et+ P: I" till P, A? O 1 U I f I a i G r U o 0 0 1 U? fil 1-7 I > I Y r ! 1 I W ti, a) rn rn C) 1 U rf) rr} (r [=a I a; I .s; f + I l nr I F: f; Ir1 CD J+ I M I (V Fr I I E+ 0000 1 t-i I cj,) -P C) it 0 1 'J P; 1 000000 1 1 E+ I • • • I FYI I I [�1 I F + I G t l -tCO c0 C.) I C) m C! CV N N N N 1 y: 1 l•I ! n [i1 r l , 1 1 (1) [•] I P1 ri r t r i ri r1 r-1 I E-+ W I [/) 'r° O O I U) U) U) [31J) 0o00 1 t-1 I 00 U U ti; I I I h t I = 1 N N car I F�1 (; I .. .. .. .. •. .. I (') 1; 0000 1 U) (n 00 1 0 = 1hIhIC.1 1 U) >� �� I ( ;• f I I I c�) lO (U (_n I r. Y m r+ 1 17i co r+ 0 0 1 n, 1 n; 00 1 u • • • • I 11 F*1 < t i I U) r i th I I ILL 1 U 00 0 1 �? '' + ., U I h t �] i, I I I �+ rr, I I A ' . ;i% Z ;F� Z I I I N nF 1 c .r� t + I in CJ d) I (' O 0 1 M If) I + C-) I • I UN Uif) t— I A [*1 E-a 0; I l I F + I [n F, %Ir M 00 I I f+'. o o I `, r i tom+ CV r• I Z F=1 C a 11, G'1 1 1=1 O Ch 1 0000 1 P+ I > . • . • I ti < I; Ci t-i I z: ri I > --o000 1 1 0000 1 V1 t) E+ f i > i i I U) C) R: Nf) NNNN 1 I I E+f 1 001r10 (GM { 1 r-i 00 1 I C7 R:•� I � 3 III I I I ��; �; � I P+ I .. ►i C) I F-4 U) (l, O I I F]1 0000 1 nl 03 I C} fYP; 1 U tsl H i • I I n ---0 0 o o i I E+ E� I H .. Fy EA 17*1 X " ID Of I M Ooo o I fY, --0000 1 I I U t) >-I G-1 E+ r i I w I U 1 Gi R;'1 U) E+ (p I 1 I r+ ,la I + ri E+ ai E+ A :r. 1 0 1 U) 0 IY, :>+ . [*1 I I I ►-1 r fir t-a E+ n. 04 ;4 O 1 1 rY � X [il0:4 1r.lX I I I Wa I I M OD ;Y E+ G1 E+ >: X I I I W a I I E+ O> ;?; r4 �14 t1c� I EiW. H (: I mrnrnm I rn al aW t mmP1 I x r i U)* H a' rt; n E E (Y. a I [=a 3 z U) I r�1 '3. C7 'J+ 1 3 z U) I H i[[�� ��.^+ r v'k, T/�''++1�r r r T^r'+"1 +T r r,Y r+ -r rn T n 7� 9v5 ..v.,�.. V.Y �4-`Lia..-.:�..�..J «..,+err S�C1rV.`S *:►:1:1: .1::}: T-%'^"�,T--I-V v T'1T/"' T1'-;+n n\T ?EAY _OUR 7 A C., R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� VAE'S'k j%./v NAME' O- T JE EAST WES l S^RE'Er.. . . . . . . . . SCAN .CAD NAME OF THE NORTH/SCUT.H STREET. . . . . . . SITE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RR DATE CF '�' E ANALYSTS ;-�M%dd/yy; . . . . . . 1-1 09 TIM: PERIOD A.TA:?EED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM PEA OTHER INFORMATION. . . . T1►TmrY,�S w CmTnT�T TYPE AND nn+vmRnr TYPE e t,dV. it V.._ '- --------------------------------------------------------------------- TNT s"Tr,y i0N 1 Ja\ J V m4111.7 V7. v7 R�.—._ Jam_--.� �lJ_, —AV •...J� !�n.�.M1�n�• ..-�/.�'_ _ram.�T+_�� �,_+-_-"' C.'"'�,1'� ._-.�.�1T TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WB NB S B ---- ---- ---- ---- r m n n 2. A E i L' V .J Ru 2 1551 3 0 f 0 -- ETC 7 -- NU'.V,BER OF LAN_-j --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB N3 SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LAN = = -- ADJUST'�'ENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- `�:'✓ :�'17 ^,T I "'T i /"+T- •7 j�+1 T...� / �'3- /-+!�^r r+r T n 1. r �7^ _ ERC.�_A- _,.�__ -7 � _ , - " , A'C„-.-ERA__ -A_� ✓E _l ,i EA- SOUTvBOT"\:D ----- --- --- - VEHICLE COMPOS+TICN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % CO_MB '_`:A+TON AND RV' S VEHICLES o _`�'0":"ORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EA3TBOL':: 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 N0RTsB0UND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ INClR . TC.^C NB 5 . 50 5 . 50 0 . 00 5 . 50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5 . 00 5 . 00 0 . 00 5 . 00 '.MINOR :.EFTS' �TB 6 . 50 5 . 50 0 . 00 6 . 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET. . . . . . SCANT-:C ROAD NAME 0�' ��. ,�O-�",v�SCrT�v S'"R��"". S7—t;, -,�•rVy DATE AND TIME O F THE ANA ,YS I S . . . . . 3-2 2-8 9 ; AM PEA? OTHER INFORMATION. . . . CA?AC-- Y A":D �-LVE.-L 0_-SE:?V=C'-z' Ra g e-0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A C .l� _..- ..•�- _-4 _- - J._ _ � _ � - .a... -..tom.- - _ r/�- - _. - - - 1 S.. J is -------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- i:c CR S'r'R.vE r ND r -,7rr 25 609 609 > 609 > 584 > A > 609 > 584 >A RIGHT 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > A MAJOR STRUT W3 yyF^_ IDFNT+FYTNG TNFORMA'T+ON ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NA:�F OF THE V.AST,'W.-Sr." STRIZE'. . . . . . SCWAN'-'rC ROAD NA\/f"^ r'1 T ^ T rT''J n'.n ..rZ w'y•,'�^r-i `+`7 n T � . 4 CIF _sE '_`,OR__�, S��_. S__ . . . . �_ .-R_V� DAT A'T�' TI,,rE 0= ==- ABTA=`Y'S_ . . . . . . ^-2 2-8 9 AM ??�; „- 1985 T?CM: UNSICNAIIZEO INTERSECTIONS Rage-1 _J. N T__ _I_Y G 1_, C. X A_iV_Y -------------------------------------------- ------------------ PEA =:C =ACTOR. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AREA RC'_'=A==CST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'VA OF TvE EAST,'WEST . . . . . . . . . SCA_`TmIC ?OAS NAME OF THE NORTH,'SOJr-"H STREET. . . . . . . SITE DRIVE' NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RR OA'T'E CF THE ANA�.YS=S ;::.:.,'dd,'y a . . . . . . 3-24-39 mT : 7r.•:04D ANA1-;2ZZ'� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .). ? _Hh. OTHER INFORMA.ION. . . . +NTERSECT.�CN TYPE A% vCNiRvi: --------------------------------------------------------------------- T T I"1'J /1 T T ..ti r ER S E _ TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- E3 WB NB S3 ---- ---- ---- ---- TT?RU 369 684. v -- NU'.',!BE R OF LANE S ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E3 W3 NB S3 ------- ------- ------- ------- TT 7 CZ ADJ"STME'J"' FACTORS Page-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIG T TURN CU'3 RADIUS t ACCELERATION LANE A:E . . —_ V -r n--w-^ n 71T_l (1 t,i� - ._ Ij S0UT_-T3CuND ----- --- --- COmPOS-TIC'S --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV' S VEHICLE'S % MOTORCYCLES _ ----------- ------------- ------------- EAS 7'3nL'':D 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SCUT'3OUNAra' --- --- --- CRITICAL GARS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- „n—'T ti [ n-�— -- --- —,— --- — -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ M �TV:�n 1 �..`J i RIG� NB 5 . 50 5 . 50 0 . 00 5 . 50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5 . 00 � . 00 0 . 00 5 . 00 MI":CR LEFTS N3 6 . 50 6 . 5C 0 . 00 6 . 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME CF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . SCANTIC ROAD NAME OF TuE NORTH,-SOUTH STREET. . . . SITE' DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS . . . . . 3-22-89 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 17 X X CI I U l 1 I-,] Lr1 [xi I `r w O W O 1 1 I o o l I fAJ IAJ I I AlilJ IA H Lr] Cn : ; I 3 tJ I ►� F1J t� n �rJ E3 + J I +4' ;tl I Ll t11 I G) F-3 I U • � � ��. � 1 �� I� 1 '�s I I r • l►] o (n I H I I U • c.� t� I F� 1 �•� ► i ' U] ;l] Cri ;.tl L•1 I c� N N I '�S i + I I I I v) L 1 I I I L-IJ • I I I I O ►� r\�) I 'tS �� I•l I I IIC] ! I ' S IIIJIi I N � 1 � I I ;;• + � ' ; I � L•1 --�, I I � � + 1 I (n U I I I v v v I I to • ; w I Cn I (n [Al U I I '(S :c' :11 I1J N) • I , 00 -] I v v v I I I O I I Cn U) ca N Cn ! I III I I O ►� I I 1 I C.� OD 0 I �; I 'tj 1 I I I`J I v v v I (D I I C) I I STORCH ASSOCIATES 5. Accidents - Route 5 There were eleven accidents in the period from October 1, 1985, through September 30, 1988, at the intersection of Route 5 and Scantic Road Four were rear end collisions on Route 5 _ involving drivers following too close, one involved a signal violation, two involved vehicles striking fixed objects or stopped vehicles, two involved improper lane changing on Route 5 and two, one a fatality, involved southbound vehicles on Route 5 making a left turn into Scantic Road being struck by a northbound vehicle on Route 5. Assuming that the average ADT over the three-year period has been 15,000 (it is presently over 21,000) the accident rate is 0.8, a generally acceptable accident rate. Accidents - Scantic Road There were no accidents reported on the section of Scantic Road in South Windsor between January 1, 1985, and March 31, 1988. During the same period there were two accidents on Scantic Road in East Windsor, both in the vicinity of Abbe Road. One of these involved a vehicle turning left into a driveway and the second was a skidding accident on an icy road. r" r r'" I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.C. is an established independent site planning and environmental planning professional organization. The firm provides a full complement of services encompassing master planning, environmental review, site analysis, site design, specification development and field supervision. Landscape Architectural Design Associates, P.C. (LADA) has proven experience in office, light industrial , housing, residential, municipal and recreational projects. As professionally registered Landscape Architects, LADA can provide site planning and design services on local, regional and national levels. One of two principal partners of LADA always coordinates and controls each project and is fully responsible for the quality of all site design work. On the following pages we offer a professional profile of key personnel, along with a representative listing of projects completed by LADA to date. KEY PERSONNEL Steven H. Selger _ College of Environmental Science at Syracuse University B.S. in Landscape Architecture With Maine and Associates ten years, five years as an associate and two years as vice president and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Six years as Principal of Landscape Architectural Design Associates, P.C. Licensed Landscape Architect in Connecticut and Registered Landscape Architect in Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island. Philip E. Doyle College of Architecture, Cornell University Master of Landscape Architecture Rutgers University Masters in City and Req_ ional Planning Boston College Bachelor of Arts With Westchester County Community Development Program, Urban Designer for two years. With Maine and Associates three years, Member of the Board of Directors for two years. Six years as Principal of Landscape Architectural Desiq_n Associates, P.C. Liscensed Landscape Architect in Connecticut and Registered Landscape Architect. in Massachusetts and New York. Charles W. Wilhelm The University of Massachusetts B.S. in Landscape Architecture With Maine and Associates for fifteen years as Associate. With Edward Cape Associates as an Assoicate for six years and Cape/Wilhelm Associates as Partner for two years. Now with -' Landscape Architectural Design Associates, P.C. as Associate. Liscensed Landscape Architect in Connecticut and Registered Landscape Architect in Massachusetts. HOUSING PROJECTS PROJECT LOCATION Warrenton Mill Apartment& Torrington, Connecticut Country Living Condominiums Torrington, Connecticut France Street Subdivision Rocky Hill, Connecticut Fern Street Condominiums West Hartford, Connecticut Old Forge Condominiums Rocky Hill, Connecticut Brigandi Subdivision Simsbury, Connecticut Pomperaug Woods Southbury, Connecticut Midland Avenue Condominiums Rye, New York Kent Subdivision Kent, New York Hayes Landing (Elderly Housing) Simsbury, Connecticut LaCasa Elderly Housing Hartford, Connecticut Hallview Subdivision Simsbury, Connecticut Orchard Hill Estates Farmington, Connecticut Black Walnut Estates Burlington, Connecticut Copper Mine Road (Open Space) Farmington, Connecticut Berlin Housing for the Elderly Berlin, Connecticut Mount Ebo Condominiums Southeast, New York Mountain Crest Subdivision Bloomfield, Connecticut Deer Run Subdivision West Hartford, Connecticut South Windsor Condominiums South Windsor, Connecticut Tony Apartments - Hill Site Patterson, New York New Hartford Subdivision New Hartford, Connecticut Pizzitola Housing Project Farmington, Connecticut Riverview Condominiums Canton, Connecticut Stamford Housing Stamford, Connecticut PUBLIC PROJECTS PROJECT LOCATION Yorktown Maintenance Facility Yorktown, New York Avon Town Hall Planting Avon, Connecticut Farmington Garden Club Farmington, Connecticut Berlin Library Berlin, Connecticut West End Library Farmington, Connecticut New Britain School Studies New Britain, Connecticut Kent Memorial Library Suffield, Connecticut Berlin Community Center Berlin, Connecticut Town Hall Complex Southeast, New York PARK AND RECREATION PROJECTS PROJECT LOCATION Westchester Country Club Beach Facility Rye, New York Golf Club of Avon Tennis Court Facility Driving Range Swimming Pool Complex Avon, Connecticut Cliffaide Country Club Play Areas Simsbury, Connecticut New Rochelle Marina New Rochelle, New York OFFICE BUILDINGS PROJECT LOCATION Siemens Corporate Headquarters Iselin, New Jersey Texas Instruments Burlington, Massachusetts Medway I and II Meriden, Connecticut Farmington Mountain Office Park Farmington, Connecticut Corporate Funding Group Wallingford, Connecticut Westwood I, II and III Avon, Connecticut Security Insurance Buildings Avon, Connecticut Crest, Inc. Farmington, Connecticut New Britain Avenue Office Building West Hartford, Connecticut Pizzitola Office Building Farmington, Connecticut Day Hill Corporate Center I and II Windsor, Connecticut TCI Facility Sudbury, Massachusetts HRW Building (Goldfarb) Farmington, Connecticut Scientific Leasing Headquarters Farmington, Connecticut Spectra Office Building Southeast, New York Colt 84 Office Building Farmington, Connecticut Macri Office Building Simsbury, Connecticut Ensign Bickford Realty Simsbury, Connecticut Windsor Operations Center Windsor, Connecticut Waterbury Medical Building Waterbury, Connecticut Clock View Tower Office Complex Southeast, New York _ INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS PROJECT LOCATION R & R Manufacturing Seymour, Connecticut Sterling Paper Seymour, Connecticut Grogan/Flounders Norwalk, Connecticut XRE Corporation I and II Littleton, Massachusetts Jay-Miller Enterprises Farmington, Connecticut Atcor Engineered Systems Avon, Connecticut Unholtz-Dicks Wallingford, Connecticut Trumpf America I and II Farmington, Connecticut Gorham Silversmiths Providence, Rhode Island Nice Pak, Inc. Orangeburg, New York Erickson Metals Cheshire, Connecticut Sherri Cup Industries Berlin, Connecticut Dynamed Southeast, New York Eifea Buildings I and II Farmington, Connecticut NYSEG Facility Southeast, New York Allegheny Ludlum Facility Wallingford, Connecticut Bloomingdale's Regional Distribution Center Cheshire, Connecticut Ferguson Electric Plainville, Connecticut -" RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS PROJECT LOCATION Sichler Residence Simsbury, Connecticut Goldberg Residence Avon, Connecticut Rothchild House West Windaor, Vermont Gross Residence Canton, Connecticut Konover Residence Avon, Connecticut Blotner Residence Avon, Connecticut Sly Residence West Hartford, Connecticut Kravitz Residence Canton, Connecticut MacNaughton Residence Granby, Connecticut Hughes Residence Canton, Connecticut Miner Residence Canton, Connecticut Jacobson Residence Rye, New York Abrahms Residence West Hartford, Connecticut Handler Residence West Hartford, Connecticut Carazzo Residence West Hartford, Connecticut Jurima Residence West Hartford, Connecticut Ratner Residence Avon, Connecticut Lepler Residence Southeast, New York Hopta House Carmel, New York Legeyt Residence Canton, Connecticut Timme Residence Avon, Connecticut Lockwood Residence Avon, Connecticut CORPORATE/INDUSTRIAL PARKS PROJECT LOCATION Farmington Mountain Office Park Farmington, Connecticut Mount Ebo Corporate Center Southeast, New York Pawling Corporate/Industrial Center Pawling, New York Terraveat International Corporate Center Brewster, New York Eisenhower Corporate Office Park Brewster, New York Westfield Corporate/Industrial Complex Westfield, Massachusetts Robin Hill Industrial Park Patterson, New York Brewster Highlands Corporate Park Brewster, New York Canton Business Park Canton, Connecticut Bloomfield Technology Park Bloomfield, Connecticut Hyde Road Office Park Farmington, Connecticut MISCELANEOUS PROJECTS PROJECT LOCATION Travelers Motor Lodge Southington, Connecticut Miner Lumber Facility Canton, Connecticut Marriott Courtyard Hotel Windsor, Connecticut Collinsville Savings Society Canton, Connecticut North Salem Hotel North Salem, New York Mount Sinai Hospital Parking Hartford, Connecticut Suffield Self Storage Facility Suffield, Connecticut Residence Inn Shelton, Connecticut Frost Day Care Facility Farmington, Connecticut Stork Club Day Care Facility Farmington, Connecticut TOWN GREEN ' MEDICAL ENTRANCE �•• u woods ' Q .- moods •. —-- PROSPECT NEIGHBORHOOD Z �� ©oe , )ENTRANCE 7Q '° t -I \ �V, `,� - • ;� } ' COMMUNITY COMMUNITY �' ✓ ENTRANCE r GARDENS \• •�. tALCOTT NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRANCE _ ALK/NATURE TRAIL ° �� \ ` • �,..,./►� ( POND C� C� / • -wetland O � n -open field GILLETTE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRANCE O 1 �� ;: I I ,• (00 West Parking East Parking t, / O South Park ing ®Gr nhouse � i .� Q Servic -00 % u n woods Q R creation Area ' f (0 Site Overlook (R Screening Mound Q Neighborhood Courts i Terraces Reis d Handicapped Gardens (Q Wildilow r M ad w +} 1 SITE PLAN „ ,, i f i � � � ► i f f f f � ! i � � f � ltt0 � �' ' •` GLEN FO `►4... ` •ems+__ POND VFkW DRIVE WEST p1, �"•-,�_ I a _ '� 'mot ceti n Map _ y Ab vp `4.. :.N,vtF.•f mow»• . \ �_/ / • I --- � 1� •.a� • •� `vim t.-ter.� vJ�- � l �'. •, } ere 0 Alp AO M f L► \ ._ In. �T]u►Nw•c,Ma Apr•/�•Mlsaw•AIa wn�rw�MM fir+ 1 - AAA�MRCT N•T W lry1M V fI•/ggOl ^�'� \\ r" ��p F •• M!%�vll.•.1 OSM&VAbW atly wa a+err.•r•... t • 'f '� r •A•f.I...r�y.wer...r13 MM.i. .b•..•. �..• I 1 `t �) `/ `• arw.- '�o..�..,-.,mowww�.i/�.aw�Av► • • 1l f ' aI I�i►'' - ••� - .L 'r c--1 400PAC WIL.1..1,i.a•�'f•w.dre•r•.uA..Y,.•.. LINDGREN -- - -- - /" " - L t 1••• • C/r.n..n«n.m+1/11e.....«u.AH/.er n. ARCHTECTS � • cwolAwl.•�,rs w►r. i a•rr.ac.,1a•/I.Ar� TM . 1 a•1•,•IICr�.. - '� 1 •" 1•.•M In CaI-mime1►61.•IMP Q1 W I411I46 OPI11!•ir1 M,M - �.wr'.r �.r•AI�Ir`I _ It \ • r ' •M N.i er1 ii..r w•��'.» yrr t►.i a de covt/IJt R+W"mm64&ew AMr►Mws.Mor v4p-M-wOftaIL�C i • ,' .r Ap.�Ap�m ovem T.�wv7f0.►�RMti.MtCwalr Ot SOW W. \�••r'•1�•.. y /ti "1 - - �o►/a*y �wi 091112"Ww"+.�Is.�+srncw r�u.or 1YA./1•SOMCA m f�RIa�Yi•6�+MN�.1.1{.M 9rMaIL•c_ wfM*VW // •I �- `' »► ,r► - .•.6 Top Q A\WO AK WrM11 A r,»M.G. I .•I' .W.wL 1NNy,T 5 qMd AIYiT , .� Poo •LAyo W&M slwr1011 PIcA.vr+R.o1w...r.rr A 1\Ia.w,ri e+•.e•wr rrwl L 1"w0 Air •»I.N.. M .�J .r.7N K1ia-f»AA.i iVl r' ww.b �"�p ce.JCM FWS �+•� .•.Its(/,.VrA�,�17 .,a.rrawrs+n►. � w � rulrrl.m .+411 wvor++T .ci.T w urw aar r.•wri.rrw. SITE GRAD�10 / M.1+ '♦ ^�. • sn"Wrw PYW44 !w.n M °"'+N.'•'S.na.,•1►r.ra.+.' �,�w..� ... *+o.r r PLAN 2:-. /•' A S11111KPWTS* Lj= KJ6*v 00044M a.Amm.."T •rT! n►Ile.rw/o.1�y Iles .... rows.�,...w/i...,1 RETENTION POND ♦ A•+.r 14. �� ?,�.* _ w v »s.r•..•F. ►1•.rMf L Ia it.Q r tlw r..tic�+ `�� - 11 w1• I•►w w/Cr•r 11.Our..etl r•1 it .,•o , W rr •r►d _ _ u.r. OY.yr L�` 1k91L R'MO AL.MI • y.J.f LM.T rl•+•F•J� or► •m •.I ;♦ Zy M rar1lw 11 �a•� 1•7 Alrs'n�) .�A►M.++f�w .•S rl .rn.e.»n 4•. InIM r.rl• 11 ».a.is rt Mwr r '�� N W .�.•.•. N �� Uw..s/Cr•i.11•fn.»netlevt � �R1we1�MAC � -M1r•.w. •.r•. is.raft ►.� "' AU�'0i•(�Y PAIII�� Mrs• wrrr•r►. - ••'r. 141 Ar7ri.WIC VV7K. I*& i 1 r � ,!►s� ��• .fir r >� � •ll�,�� �F.1ln � •���r i .ems TM dq l r# AIR I PM 4-01 am 0L. Wo AL Dip t ,► s n* .. h I, ]' DEVELOPER 131880 ASSOCIATES .•] MASTER CONDOMINIUMS ARCHITECT . SOUTHEAST, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES •- I I I I I ► ! I I I I l � � 1 I ( I i Pr"CT 21! CATE-4-St-66 NEWSKM oM G�Ty a� R� *4vT%,,. PLAM - 13 u r~ w.r rM - u Q M.""o d.w. Jo -_. Sfff----t=T)Oft PLAN_ U � Z VL c� Cl I R� •f�T I�. -r Z ore ""'�aor�',�"���I�� ICI ,w. � - � «�` ---�- '�• -- i� Z .Q 1�Jy` Cl J _ r.�a.�-��r�. � - rr�.�LY••t �Y�-Z EXISTING- -LAND'USE - EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED LAND USE PRELIMINARY SITE CONTEXT PLAN - '�'�www. P.�~� P 1 I i s I Alf N 41 46 `y i ST `yy lay n, T I � ' f ' it �* f� • � �• Z � — i Y' � + n . x y •. I MIDLAND A`/EVUE �, .... — -- ——_--�► 2 / I, • r c R A CC 3 Iv ►1 N O° L �� �1 ;• a� G � a � N< L A s MIDLAND AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS p—n NNE N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL c a MIDLANWAVENUE RYE.NY. DESIGN ASSOCIATES SM /LANKNO �;�y u w -: ���y/i. .� �`��� .�=� •ice MIDLAND AVENUE ;,� �: ,, � dam, �,!l►.:,. i A i w Y l� 1 'CONDOMINIUMS MIDLAND AvENUE RYE.NYQ r } Data Tabb W+ f o1,.... _ I f -- Nq.M OAO � V-w- ,Tn , R V LOT br•feM. Tot,..7 i/ar Mlie`dtb r t •t' .- s•r.+afew.•.n revue ++OTMt Oa wrwiwne '71 y' .. """�•-� � „.�..,,... " '' ems" w:: ::N":.i i w,•t•t►er e•..,enr lewt7tyr N 'y 1 'f fly i ► 4D.•CT\IL s.e•et'aL aAQ•+tr�l # - r�/IA ] �"'' � rwtt�.rr.+eev .w-PMW..s...ww+r.wusftal I+ It. . -r-- w.,l,t'"",+y ; •..(J„A•1 Ofl►L'.K cOt�p'!fo� � .N10ri~ dx � ' frape,o .10 • .e.e /' !1y •e.ap s�a w!L'Lj�to aKl w ` � ~ N• �f , r.• 3 �.~ri • e.• r •' 1161 M A!.!L.I f/tl/Ot'i 'ea a --y C � r - *•^ ` "�� sf+A,l•i.v,9t1tY1� vet Mire ,N •. t e►1 .0• U •1 !'� rw m"Q H•M�.,r••.••h.s•1<y a�st '~ ,i�• ' ®1 "y.'1® y p ,.. Y;'•' w p t\ r.M[e1.••M•••wra_.'r•,I A/ ,a.M'K♦•tal• �.fm•4 4 6! .ee • A t �• 1 /• Aege -w.>��.ae.wf+. +ice..'`,r.r s.to�r•i p.1/..t►rr•ae.. •, i •.M• '' 0.40 • },• • / . L ',t i\ 1 ,'�+6A=�.�• +fie• .�++�.._• -tlfy, :e.art4 �"K. ti O ,'; • w �.�^ C\ ��p� e -� - °'� ty i i �i� +' .tr :+,, - •+ y..., I ice` rs.&n Ov a p • T Of! „e. s•fa . 11 teA,• G• rv1 Mrw�Notes Al MR/M;��-Mw9rTf � � .e IR, r \ w�T ✓ taa '�.. iS 'L e-,•mot%..tr•:tw 4k/f7 211111!•WL14mb.~A71 if,4A.e Ow. h . .► , ti - .e{ (('' L-_ hL�••7R.�Mf�•i"A—,e?[';•e.L 4?110,Y��.A�,� '/y \7 I t el. � •e r n .� ,r� •.�w -.,� .. _.�-ve•c,W...-'�^rr•e./)t11,.fer bcvtl•+e•+• � . � •'� to mom • T 4 � �� i t .•. •.`.---tnftee+r ae*•.,U- r•k ,t•/wfw•ea d �• O . j /.M.P •ar.ltJ� •--•f—•—•-•rbrIAMIK-her j .A IF /O E%,.Vwy.NTi♦1,• ..._,.� rr I.et � .J.- \ I /J t 6 S 7 U \ Air l e, CA of location plan F ." j 7l'• A/,1 wemprtoep oou1RY -ll. �o •�• M r1�! .,� ..+ O� v RE.M1 t'EIV : w • ' `ti , POr V a --�— ��I 11 Ir:�i s �4 �^ • � .� �j T,n� w•t .�.� � + I• 1 � t 1 ) % { f IV 170 • •� ! •1 .w t j._. •* T+ ' FA re. .T.� .,,,•�S,�' �is t' .t �•: l � I W i 10 01. rrf. �d I a.70 It t e ''- ,. •, {t,I ��, .. spw +'��. 00 fat.crap•ar1I1 d, �i�„"" \: - '. � auc•..fea anA1�o t �'t+�►w d� . \l Ii'��ir •tr.Ir - _ _ - .�--" Mi -- �• � � - lad Mo%wAad �M+-�Knr_n*1 �u, •.• 1_r 1��" 4p _ p i 9+Mt'1M•tPMt. �' m o 6n 1 a R _ �f 1=wI'Mrii f' - •JO �I.I W.��- r•Ia• p +1• . �be1110it es __�,/► IL'tb O•y,TM Mle�K dM�.ate ��µ ss�� -.ur T���� t j� M•�,r.t�e yM�, - � �� )el...� _�M"�, OA W,M,e•1 Yfe e.J!a0 I �l ~+ �T•relltre� t J� �� `-` ►+•.t.•Si.. L 2 t �r AIJ �! OM Op �` ail' � '� �����bT♦�`�� � 'fir � .. goo Arm IF. AT •��� II r "T••/' �`�' i't ,� ►9 ►rid L �sr"' � 64 LOO OV Mir �Zlq WL tKi 90. • �,�• S ��� -- �� 1. •� pia `• !A • • �• • ► � I ! i I �� I ► I '. I 'i '� I � I � I DESCRIPTIVE MASTER PLAN IM'R.f1,�ff.fl,T(fTTO•/M11 ..�'.� lO�N•a!Y oae•Orvnzo �`1 q -•-- 'NCT<MS7 MG ectllA '� .— LWIMWTI" W, ��` � EJECT SITE DESCRIPTION TABLE --- lb ^R:vATC 00tr4C CPUT"M - 1 �- +� r� SITE SIZE, 65.809.t. O • T tw�oss •• / own rO,n 1 \, A �/ t� '1 t CLUSTERED UNITS ALLOM r 01 -_J eliXIFN 60TM+9/C '�f •`� •itc4mlm MEYps 0F7M �a �. -!T j` •.u10111. iMtRl. FRONT -A SIDE YARot- !!' .// cpbmw w `- ' j_,� 1 .�. TAROS •oJoNVA. A Me" to E..E OF ►AVI MtRT • t ' 1O IARr I �� � r 7 T �( / �� ^� 1' ( •- -- .F.R FNnA►!Dams :r rafmNi%w" r •: • ..,,. _ '' `- �-�� n\ ` `�`' }��J '� •�j�' i i)"' COMIY6WrY OPEN SPACE: 43x.*(66%1) y Ar �d Q. �I_O--Jy-^K• •`, -�`````\ `/>�' �<�lf.��) ,E '�..r.._l.-'.,__ _J �'1� MJSF ''� - ' .. 46 ~ _y _l•1 .�PN�►C.L' '. SCALE 1%100' SITE MASTER PLAN �-- -�-�-� COPPER MINE ROAD OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT DATE,I-wa FAPENOTM, couw TK.i .r"IM i +`'`�'"'�•. �.�,� "'�� zmv 1 R STICH ASSOCIATES- DEVELOPERS �`� LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCATES: SITE PIANNER3 �} QLAND IZATW F WWWT EIK•T r us= qqm vAX)WN� 84 Ac._ { LAW PC" Ra►as s o Ac.s usee ICA vomm s.:Ae.s SOUTµ 8 WIM-swws Me Ac-t VVW4 s"044. s4. Ae.: 10 UrlIJ 7PM1Ct x ","CAL) I r ,3 17 16 ` ( I • 12� � 20 19 14 POND - ,.� WftTL �S SCHEMATIC SITE SIUL COPPER NI INE RDAD -SUED I V IS 1 ON ' .......... op&4 -ww m (-�c-u-) -� �° ASSOCIATES i DEVELOPERS SCALE I-Icd A4TE: JUNQ 2`lI'Ib0 1 tip oil ,� �' � �\��� �` •� OLD ',��r}° \�~ii i�� � �����,�� Ali � % w, y ��� 1� tp .� .ate � �t .�„w�`-. '�!.+�"'t, � I�1•� � Ar � lb OW IL rift low I PAID kin ma a %•� - -�� ��� � � r�_��.,� , Sim � VL _�. - --�ra'�!;�, ►,V, 14 Sa y, �'3i ., --� �" a4Wd - +. •���,,� ii���,4WldLlL�� ,,,�,,�� ��� �►�� ,��• -may n,�� �J�- ._ '�• � 6" Vi I 1 I Ive.� : - / - - I I . . �� �,-• fir, I - r I � \ I i I PAWLING_VRU_DEVELOPMENT The following sequence of drawings show the development of a condominium site plan from an analysis of developable site areas. Included are: Sails Map Slope Analysis Vegetation Map Composite Analysis These studies directed the placing of units and roads in the most attractive and developable portions of the site. see the Erosion Control Plan and Planting Plan. Alternative site use was also evaluated for the Owners; these studies included single family development and rezoning to accomodate industrial subdivision. A similar type of analysis and consideration of options may be valuable on your large tract in West Hartford. Date: P422. I 7 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor P/ We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jam stown" Oar objections are based on the following: 1. The ,ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windscr.. a The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lAne highway. 49 One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME ADDRESS --- ADDRESS ------ -- - ----- - . It ^AM kA- e , - _ Olt Okof A" ,, a •• �Z�%r_,crx� G�vrna0 0a )e&�- W14 2 �d ;&0 2.q 7t;� d -------- -- --- ------- ,PETITION SOLICITOR: / � - -- --- ------ PETIT COMMENTS: --- ------------------ ---------------------- ---- ---� Date: 7 k 17 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scant.ic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: I. - The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor, 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It' is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering a�nd exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Rou 'e 5 converges from a four lane divided highway i to two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious trAffic s fety problems. `Z� NAME ADDRESS.1j,/W,4 ICA h � Petition Solicitor:-__-__ - _____ _1_ e--- Date: Petition to the Planning and Zoning 3 Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown". iOur objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio lof condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected.; 20 . This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It, is not near shoppingg schools or parks and is accessed y a heavy traveled four lane highway. �+• One Hundr d and forty-eight additional families entering end exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd* ) where Roue 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious tr',affic Sa.fety problems. NAME ADDRESS _ I' -- -------------- - ------- - ---- --- ---- Petition Solici -- -- --- -------------- - --------- ---- ---- ------------- ---- - ---- Date- a zs 19 r7 e ti do n to the Planning and Zoning ommission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building condominiums on Route and S ant' a g o� 5 Sc antic s Road being propose by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown". 10ur objections are based on the following: 1. The .ratio of condom1nium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. j 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4o One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. v _ NAME _ ` ADDRESS c �► [tie�""�SOW 166 43 -- -- —- - - -------- =- ----------- --sue- -- ------ ------- ----------------------��- ���� - �`�'� - --- - - - -- -��--- ------- - --- 5 C4- - -- r - Date: Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 16 The ,ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 39 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan, i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4* One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME ADDRESS 5 ,- 67 - J7 &Z VA 47�i ��#4- --de. 01 T � v CL - 5'• w - 4QLA�._ _ J ' �' -- --- ---------l�fir- --- 6 S'. .�,✓ - - W/42 PETITION SOLICITOR: COMMENTS:---49— --- - ----- ___ - _ ��! •�- - - - Date: 1!;7 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of .South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. W 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. - 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled fourr lime highway. r - 4 d One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South • Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. '. ADDRESS /77 �� TAME 4. _42- w � E' �i o(o ♦°n'1 �VLo . _ -- -Peti tin COO Date: �r 1gy� Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown" Our objections are based on the following: 1. The ,ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does..not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shoppingg schools or parks and is accessed by a. heavy traveled four Pane highway. fit• One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME ----- --- ADDRESS —--------- NY 77 0 - =_-� ' -- ----- - T PETITION_SOLICITOR: _ ------ --- - - COMMENTS: 6 . Date• 7_2 P 7 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 1. The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4• One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME ADDRESS o - t - --- _-- LL. I� - -- ------- ------ - ------ v C C' d � - --- - PETITION SOLICITOR - - - ---- _ __ 1_ _d Da e: Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates9 Inc. and called IIJamestownil. Our objections are based on the following: 1. The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan, i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) wbP=a P.oute 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. .,NAME - ADDRESS - f —----- - -- ------------------ -- -- _ PETITION_SOLICITOR:COMMENTS: -- - - - - Date: 7_2 2-� Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town o f South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Poad being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown" Our objections are based on the following: 1. The ,ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi,-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4• One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Pitch Blvd.) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious ffic safety problems. AO/ Ski N E ADDRESS - P-�02�3 ✓ 3 -�- ---- --- °------- qo&lL&� R049 F-&F C I'd 0/ -57 ----- - --------- - - r �Li;�l. X Petition Solicito1Y -_ ----- 7 --------- ------------ -- -- --- - Dat : 7 ls� Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1� We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road b ing proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and calked "Jamestown" Our objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3 The location of the proposed 'Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near slopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four Pane highway. 4• One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd.) where Route 5 converge;-3 from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. ' NAME ADDRESS _---- --— ----- t .10 C _ Z vvrl _r _ �--_�L ---)Vo, ix) . -k __-_-_-- St --- ----�� F�®v�b�a_ _----- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- - ------- PETITION SOLI TOR: -- -- ---------- ---- --------- ------ ---- - - ------ COMMENTS: Date: Z 2• ;07 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown" Our objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3 The location of the proposed 'Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shoppingg schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane high " 1�. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) Where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South r Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. y NAME ADDRESS CAL 0'.",ic. ez PE ITION -SOLICITOR• ----- - - - -- - ---- --- --- ------- ------------ COMMENTS: Date: Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1 We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown" Our objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 1�. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd.) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME ___._-- ADDRESS ---- MW -- _ - ' - ='-�- -_ --- --- -- P-U,1___ - - - --- - - `' --- PETITION SOLICITOR: - -- - _ --- - - --- -- it OMMENTS. •'-'�' '� - Date: Z3 /9F7 409P� 00 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor �y We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 1. The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME _ ------ ADDRESS ------------------ --- - ------- - fir" & 7jT _ - - 11A. nol r Petition Solicitor:-_ --- comments: Date: Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor f✓`� We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown" Our objections are based on the following: 1. The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3. The location of the proposed 'Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended, in tap newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 1�. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. / NAME. ADDRESS - ---- PETITION--SD-LI-C-ITOR:--'------- --� - - - - ---- - ------ -- --' ---- COMMENTS: - - - -- Date: 01 /f Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Towm of South Windsor We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called IIJamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 1 The ,ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four l-ane highway. 4 One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. -� NAME __----- - --.----_-.---ADDRESS --- -- ---- --- - --- ----__ JP A01 04 -- All • --- - - 7� 60019 (F. 0,, G N Petition Solicitor ----- --- __ __-------j�_ -- ----- --- -- - ----- ------ - - ate: 3� �► .� l Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windso.� We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road • being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jamestown". Our objections are based on the following: 1. The ,ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor,, 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not Me 6 V Lite G-i i tI G�d.0 u 1 V i •u�Ll N1'r��w,sl J' �..i IJ.L.,�4 r;I•• -•-•p li V 1rI %Aid recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway.' 4 One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME ----- ----ADDRESS --- - - - ----- -- ---- - - -- -- Petition Solicitor Petition to the Planning and Zoning j f Commission Town of South Windsor ) l � undersigned object to a zone char l We the g a which would allow� g the building of condominiums on Rout 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown"* Our objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. , 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does -mot meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME _ ADDRESS _ IS _40 T - d Petition. Solicitor: -- Comments: -- -- - -- ---- ---------- ------ - - - ----- -------- - -- - - Date: 7 7--2. 7 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor W the undersigned object to a zone chang which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road • being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc. and called "Jam stown". Our ob j ctions are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does - not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Pitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME _--------- -- -- ADDRESS -- -- ----- ----- - - -- - ------- - - - ----- - N AV_- -� - ---- -- -- ----- -- - 11111111111 If IF 71 - a L1tJ AN -4-t L-we 1 ____T1 _ XZ c ---_---_ a20 - _-' 73 f, Cf-, -__ 'JIM ------------ ----- -��z� w S -- ----- -- Vr --------- ---- - ----- !-a Div -��_�-5-- 'Petition Solicitor: _ ------- -- - ---�---- — - ----� --_ ----------- ----- ------- Eomments: Date: 72 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town o f South Windsor 2� W the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown" Our objections are bas d on the following: 1 , The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South i Windsor. 30 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan, i.e. It is not near shoppingg schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems, NAME ----- ADDRESS --------- --- -i----- ---- ---- --- --- --� 01 _LAIC Jk 47 �-- -- -� 00 i0o) VCC_ia_e _ - 14V /6 r_.._ �-- « -- 100/000 0/��,d KW:00� .0 AA- F lip, _ -- Al -------- -- --- - �d �� �: w. -- Vetition Solicitor.___---- --_ -_- Comments: --- -- - ----- - _ Date: 7_Zz---,X,' Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor r We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road y being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown% Our objections are based on the following: 1 , The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2. This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3. The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not ueet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the ne,%rly proposed town plan. i.e. it is not near shoppings schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4,e One Hundred and ::orty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, '(John Fitch Blvd. ) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor tr;wn line would be cause for serious traffic �fety problems. ADDRESS-- ----------- - --- ----_ —__�_------ — r 6 c -- _ 4-A-C47-l", �----- - _ _ � Id 'Petition Solicitor. comment s: _-_ - -- -- ---- Date: Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 90 W th undersigned obj ct to a zon chang which would allow the building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road • being proposed by Bradgate Associates, Inc and called "Jamestown" Our objections are based on the following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor, 3 The location of the proposed "Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shopping, schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4 , One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd.) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME ,-- ADDRESS ---- i --,--- - - 'Petition Solicitor• ------ ---------- --- ---------------------- Domments: -- -- - Date: 7 Petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 3 We the undersigned object to a zone change which would allow th building of condominiums on Route 5 and Scantic Road being proposed by Bradgate Associates,j Inc and called "Jamestown" Our objections ar based on th following: 1 The .ratio of condominium building versus single houses is currently much greater than recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and should be corrected. 2 This development would tend to destroy the last remaining rural atmosphere in this area of South Windsor. 3. The location of the proposed 'Jamestown" does not meet the criterion for multi-family residents as recommended in the newly proposed town plan. i.e. It is not near shoppingg schools or parks and is accessed by a heavy traveled four lane highway. 4. One Hundred and forty-eight additional families entering and exiting Route 5, (John Fitch Blvd*) where Route 5 converges from a four lane divided highway into two lanes at the East- Windsor - South Windsor town line would be cause for serious traffic safety problems. NAME —_- ADDRESS —— --- -- - ------ ______- __ �_ � s � ,k- 4 40, $4, &L�Z��r ka_ �i - --- -� petition Solicit r:_. _— ----- �— --- -------- -- - ------ -- — Domment s: i ` 1 ' o • I ■■ aaaa■r a a aaa■a=a s aaaa�a a■aaa�s a •■�r a■ ■a modow ■SWOON■ Fl • `" \ \ ■ It ------ --- aw idi - - - .K ' go dop �./ IN Ann + aaa�aaa�aa��La as as iaataaaa aPaaiopo I h I OILS .711 a;*" � Cd�l9YlETLfJTS• ' y D I RAf�DOIPH W.IAURENT. P.E.. VRD DEVELOPMENT W KwYow T — — 11W06CAPE a�rrECTu� CESON Assoc: q MAP -SE R I E S 4.2 �,� CTICUT $ r�ns�ocas� a x I If IL CL 1 • 1 + ' ` it � /1 'C 1 -� • \ gool It ' N LAI ' 1 L ' 1 ,• LLl Q d 7.7 10, lA'F SCALE 3•I•fly �•-�o'-� ;R_WIC,,NOOK it ;nor op Ol I IIIIIII` oil 1 1. wassommas MUI _ ! _ 11 It I � _ IN •i W 09 ui i LLJ •A. _ __ ___ j._t�y1_ , ,_ 1 1 �/�■ mw___Ti�ilx - r -'' -�-/ I_'i-� � '' , _/ •_ --•____-_ _. - _-� �`M`\`iL �- •�,� t.'i _.\_�..�_ ♦1�.��_ .-_ -___ .�.. _. t_ �� ;JI I � -7 �� Q t. SCALE :/.•/�a�•eEa Li . 1 1 It \ ' �' /. / \ .♦ \ 1 `�\ `I t, , , \ ♦ \ \\t, \\ \\ \ ♦ \` Of lit 10, ' r `�\ ` 1 \ , / 1 \ 1 , \ \ 1 -\ \ \ \\,.\ \ \ 1 \ 1 1 \ i Ir 11\ ••; -TTR 1 \ ` ,` ` 1 \ • \` I / 1, \, •` __- / � / , �- -�-� ' - i 1 1 /�'i' r, r / / ,•, \, ��/' I it _ - 1 _ ; . IF I UJ LLJ ,40 IX I LJ 7.1 lit 400 N1 I 1 1 \ f I \1 1l`1' \1 I 1 ' I `'`\`- . -T 1�__,i r , •_. _-__-.-- T_- __ _fir -,`` - - _ °+, :-'��-_ fir-, ->•=----� �\wl ► R ,�- "�" - • r� 1� � DATE SCALE . ltVIS10M� {��jJ1 r I 1t Ll r'bd•r,� O 1 i r( ` ♦ 1 it It 1 1 I / ♦Z \I ; --`�i ��/�/' ��! .' is ''�i'i.��b'f+ � � ' i % 1 / A' - 1�1• \ �♦ \I ``` \\ 1 1 1 t�jl / Z del ' I i� ' i� �' i ♦ 1 1 1 \ \ \\ ` 1 l 11 �N �y�1 /'�'�'ri' ' -'i • i1 •� � /' _ _ 1� ` R �♦ \ `,1 � ; 111\\1\ 1\� \\1�111.E ��� . 1� 1, III I 1 (/ / • '• _ ' 1 ~ � 11 I \ �I\11,`1�\ `,`�i 1 i 1 t I� i '`a IIDII pV It it kol rl 1 , - L 1•• 1 1 � ---- , _� fib, ..► ` � • � i ;" .Mo � `. ��..�� 't o • \ T /-ram'1�, ` �R t 1 - - �• � - ,'•4 �t 1 , 1 is , I� rA /1:� ���, -� , t O ol it op 2 J Wy joz CIO�,AG' ._ TJC'L. •$4`G>GILP1 CaA_pl RJ��," _v ft uO*P DATE' SCALE tiNl-t I�Of- ON � fo1�, tt.0410h1 CO►�+'("I~Ol. �. I�X IO'3� ORAWWG In1 WR .2 iS U T S _. i j r f� Z �b - N 1 1 � N. Y. S. ROUTE SS ►+ PLANTING PLAN «,mot.:-.,,•-� PAWLING VRD wwwwfww. mw vm - W*AX §%W.IALMNT. P.E: DEVELOPMENT _ - ' law VIM PAIN LING NEW YOi�K ---_ + OEM!/ISOG: . - Kur 0 I 1 11 MEL- ' \ 1 \ \ \ , 1 \ ♦ \1 1 \ Jim to Tf fill/// ■ 1 1, 1 ` , l ' �♦ � ` t t\�\ ` I �1 ` ` \;,,•� �`\`�`�` � `\1; \/'1'� 1'1 1\ it 11 , � II �, \ \ t t�• - Z lio , cm Lh STR 17 :; 1' �`-� , I 1 1, 1 , •\`, ,t \ \ , i`\ `` ,/ -i �� r ; '1 All Ld cr O-7' SCALE YG wpMER A n M � u� �vlii0i�1 NO IL ILi t It / /,';fr'' ' , .',/,,r ,, I I,, ; ,'; / ; 1�• +• `\\ \`\. \\ `♦ \ \\ \ I,l 1 ` \, ► 1 1111{ 1 11 1It It It It N. lot it it •• 1 I I 1 f , 1 `., 1` \ \ \ \ \ \ ___ , \ \ \`.\``, \ t \` \ \ 1 I f t t f 1 Ing It �• \ tt 101, t 1 01 It It It Ld AN ,1/i_ t -- `` ``I`\ \ 1 i/ 1 1 I I 1,, 11 1,,'♦ `, � ; r / \ ` \ ` LLJ . jI it I - ��/ ,� _- -� 'I j '%�' ,^ __ _ ��\'`� -__ ''''I`,i 1 1 1 1 \ `` �1 1 \I ,,'t -T _- •. . �I 1 l�-/' 10 IL It DATE: SCALE ,V'; vul-J 7'�j 1•-�o'-ar DRAM"WA1MER• INDUSTRIAL SUS DIVISION ---� �ra t'Irle.v�K ' YtiaMr:-►alen�sl4H Hd�+L.�w�R.11-1i�`R:M�L/y..oN4 i�W1J01 rx�►0 ` fulc[,r-ow-d l It-•11�otcn�AL. hl.a►lart,w,�, �oG.�C�1rN �ANT1+-+G, . • R1 OK'`��Y w S46*"-LAW"riRM17 I r F�T��1-AhtT1NGM1 ! NWT Nd AR1.�►1t pl..dt-ITlt-�G� C] � t-�Is�oiZ1G aiz� 0 1�-ITIEM��/ti�{RAT N WAX • • �O �ANo TOOK t- rpW41af.VWJ^L. N r i; z 1 •��/L Q ' , w.e., l f+a tau." ow TaW04. 6z;:3 0 r] L-imbnoNa _ .... / 4 pjtftW^i.W. O 4 D � Ntb4l,' pt.ar�T1�.1G► �,�`IGr��,T1oNS: >'t.e�-+n►a4 aNu Siocwca.lc � 4"AA--Di -v4LA.: 'ro�65PC[.T NANItAI-CAR1RIiR'L 1n,dp1.1�AV.e{.L•wR.'1�e+W iso o.w GW..v.!lv.n, &AXA K wstt.^40., AaLOp" Adb 4TRrlTT Twuwb-*A~L 00*646L•r n••.�.►..►....+�+ +.Sa_w.Atiw. ANC Rota gyre-"luSa µ za)lty casC-oFi-kW TV490%W*4A IN Go"T%M.J o AMA,. . ava.cAlua.+ti: �N LIKtoKIL brsTxK.T to R.Ierl WAX uwtONC. , bWrlK-T TNSMa W/^SW w,�ITf.TN!, [,ANJ►D1I•N N��l.oc1� �s�►tV r1r 4MCso1NCA,-%;r-41V9fL,C.*PAa^Cr MTZS&.117hi►l1L,►.J.M.r��OpoyFj•I7Re1� aJrw%%vA rr,.r 44,aw^RP:ATAk&&+-1 b. •&-TmW&A c HOxY t�LAH MAT1e�V AL It-1'�H �A�C . &'%.QW*w4Hw -,Xavou &-f lb*/Id e.N%It- oP�.KiYa�tvN+�s =Vlw>< *6~Ssr-+il Cs,As.►�Vl..a, �,d+�G,a«T GRI.e+Jvu., ,Ta wcwo. ' sal ew ��l.rrlN _ ..moo ��Ic.•,�.•«o • oA � o .o.A" 4T�T AT Ir(� jr,•46 Irk -..-. -_• .-. -� •;•�.-.ram OI1TE3 06CEtisslt ags+a eou-�.KD I �w�•6YL mriLaT••0f& R+Mwo wAkLR—T lt2:We. y(/�NCal.ltp/ . �4H cql, :O SALT OOI.L OR PZ.'JW4h1AN S ! V T-f ,.A6LJT-o" WIL _1441 c�T►MW Ray ' STREETSCAPE SECTION SHOWING LIGHTING OPTIONS ASTER Ho.u><o�t.� s . + ••.... 1-.� LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESM ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CMLWS%nLLE•CT POD - Z 44 / C7 11� r q., nvHAdWOd ............ ..... ........ i • 70I' 11 � �'Y• �,, ma's �,e .`�/,�� �i,�� * '�, a f, T.V, r,. • =� ,n N s• zo' I fII I 'l p��Mo!�it 4LRa�b v�,1tT'aTlvl•-I � I wmoo E POW •' C'� � Ixb owl�fi� �' � 'r � l \ \ bt d • � •eyQob GNIP SURFA�.E •� � -�� - .�i� � 0 ILL 1 . TIC-I�ytM .. I •- ►.a.f`►r n�rlttt_ / �; LL F\. F' F Pk\n A13r,9LTM;V6 - A th H [A - Cbt�iR�N►N 7rcIV M►f. CoM M- .fa'Amo4�.�SCTE n°iR� i4� pr1t.�S: �,.-1 �i,L�,L:�.L-7 ,�;_7,�-8,L'1•�.:�o �:11 �/�• A.F.O. �"�1+ f�v P2)L H M I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL Q D cT. DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.C. L P.C. COLLINSVILLE CONNECTICUT • GEODETIC AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY 1, ' (Sheet 461) 187.000E 188.000E 72•30'10•• 10.800E 49 ' I It 70 eil �e if se / �-- Jf 00 �J 1, \ Q \ 2 y \ 40 l 01 WA / ♦ 7 - I _ 1• �. III � �- 1 j; z f 7 I . IT of 16 ✓" 16 It so j/'j%''� � '`'�.•\ \,l�f+l��' f ,�i'�\.. ,� Zo 1',i1 � \ __-`1��� � „\\•.�� 1,� 1 _ I._ �� r ,\ �,1, I 14 ILS 18 - a?z� NG �1N17 D.VN I'�S — — 1t#.v pvt:,4T PIe. ►a�wtas ' Air — ' O ' - •--- •2 x l0 b F1•�-AID • - „ w Uzi Kro IL �- ll A - TGLia'�_ r-- tN.oc►.umer AT Axd I SCJL&.�j�1"�'... � �xil_aw:t•y 1 0'.. - -Z�C1.2:5 ttatltfl� � •.:�� �- e-ahnAc�, CV Nv / Zx10 �aa��s'-o• _l.x4 TV • /o=o' fie. _D -�-2i •�,L _._. . -- •3. t4u.�toAQ ';'l�fs I �w►.AGG1lp`i`�"L7.i� . i I �.l L� s _ Y''�,T�, IL UAW An. Mn FK\fl rr.---. •, r.'�r ram_ _ --- FM SCAPE ARCHITECTURAL VN ASSOCIATES, P.C. • OOlLN%ILLE, CONWCTICUT