Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SITE PLAN (DENIED) (4)
•• .+vu �il w1 �UJUK , (,UNNECTICUT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION _ APPLICATION FORM .Ca�� Application No. : _�Z;V)d Date Received: , Action/Public ring by 1:r Receipt No. : JUN 1989 John G. Samsel, Jr. South Windsor APPLICANT: Ptannin 152 Deming Street, Smith Windsor, 06074 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 644-1157 • John G. Samse]. OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: Jr.,,Jr. Richard L. Mahoney &'Mvyn B. Marks ADDRESS: c/o Clark Corners Associates, 152 Deming Street, South Windsor Cr 06074 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Southeast corner of Ellington Road and Clark Street intersection; see "Location Map"- on drawing No: 1 of site plan RC ZONE: NAME, ADDRESS, & TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: John G. Samsel, Jr. 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, Cr 06074 TELEPHONE: 644-1157 THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check one of the following) 1 . Zone Change to (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 101 and/or Earth Removal [Section 9} - (Public Hearing Required), 8. General Plaa' of Development. 9. Regulation Amendment: Zoning Subdivision _10. Other (explain in detail) : CONSULT PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FEE SCHEDULE. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE WITH ALL MA AND DOCUMENTS REQUIR D ON ATTACHED HECKLIST o ti App ica t Ownt/john John G. Samsel, Jr. G. Samsel, Jr. CHECKLIST REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE PLANS This checklist must be signed by plan preparer (P.E. /L.S . ) declaring that atll required information is provided. Items 1-7 are required for all applications ; items 8-11 required where ,appropriate. Check mark for each item supplies. 1. On each sheet for plans or maps, title block with the following information: _ a. Name , address and telephone of applicant. b. Name , address and telephone number of Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. C. Name of Development. d. Date when drawings were made. 2. Key Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet, which can be used as an overlay on Metropolitan District Maps. This map will show the overall design of the Development and surrounding property within 500 feet. a. Data block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of lot coverage, acr tract number of apartment units, park' requirements, etc. 0 b. Layout of buildings JUN 12 1989 c. Layout of streets and parking. South Windsor Planninh-Woning Commission d. Lines indicating proposed drainage system direction arrows. e. _Lines indicating sanitary sewer system with direction arrows. f . Names of surrounding property owners. Xg. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas. �C h. Drivewaycuts on surrounding properties. _ 3. Architectural Elevations: Plans of the proposed buildings drawn to a scale of 1/8" = V - 0" showing the elevations of all sides of the proposed buildings in sufficient detail to show architectural styling. Architect' s seal on elevations for b_uildings in excess of 5000 square feet (per CGS Chap�1er 390) . r 1 Page 2 •(Site Plans) 5WVtj I/afr _ 4. Plot Plan: A layout map of the proposed site drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet on either of the following size sheets: ( 1) 24" X 36" with a 3/4" ruled margin; (2) 18" X 24" with a, 1/2" ruled margin, containing the following datia: t: a. Distance and bearings oflall boundary lines and 1 lacreage of site. Iron pins required at all property angle points and shown on map. b. Proposed streets and street lines with center line stations, curve data, and p-arking spaces. J c. Building lines in accordance with zoning regulations. d. Proposed buildings and other structures, including signs, outside lighting, and dumpsters (on concrete pad and screened) e. Easements, noting grantors , grantees, and purpose. f. Names of abutting property owners. V g. Monuments will be indicated at corners and angles of a ll streets and at all points of curvature a tangency. In areas accessible to Metropolitan District Commission points , or other coordinated points, the monumented points within proposed site shall be coordinated. These coordinates shall appear in tabular form on the plot plan. The - accessibility of these MDC points shall be determined by the Town Engineer. h. � All open space or other common .or public land uses shall be indicated. A-2 certification; P.E. /L.S. Seal. . £iros�inn Ciyf�•� j�or 5. Topographic Map: A map drawn to a scale of 1 inch to 40 feet on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins shall in addition to the requirements of the plot plans show the following: a. All existing and proposed buildings. . b. Curb lines and pavement width, sidewalks. c. Existing and proposed sanitary sewers. d. Existing and proposed water systems. e. Present wooded area indicated by foliage lines. Any ,individual trees to be saved should be shown. r • 1 d8C J 9,J A.L-V • +aA•.-0� 1 _ f . Existing and proposed contours shall be shown in not less than two-foo-t intervals , but in cases of relatively level land, the contours shall be one-foot intervals and spot elevations . g . Regulated wetlands and 100-year floodplain or note that none are present. _ h. Proposed storm drainage system, showing all catch basins, end4alls, manholes, lengths and sizes of pipes. (M*(imum distance between catch basins shall be 300 feet and minimum size of storm drain lines shall be 15 inches. ) _ i. Connections of •all springs into proposed storm drainage system as needed. j. Location and indications of existing brook channels, and 100-year flood limits. k. A-2 Certification; P.E./L.S, Seal. 6. Landscaping plan. _ 7. Drainage calculations - Zero Runoff Increase per attached guidelines. . _ 8. Traffic report. 9. Plans and Profiles: ' A plan and profile of the proposed streets drawn on plan/profile paper of scales 1 inch to- FwATE 40 feet horizontally, and 1 inch to 4 f eet vertically on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches , including ruled margins and containing the following: a a. Layout of streets in tections coordinated by stations with the profile. b. Street plan showing roadways and drainage. c.•• Sight line at driveway & street intersections. d. Profile of roadway showing existing and finished grades. Roadway profile will show all tangent grade and all vertical curve information. e. Profile will show all catch basins and all drainage lines between catch basins with all invert and top of frame elevations. Drainage lines will be shown and described as to material. f: Where any storm drainage line discharges into an existing brook sufficient profile of this brook will be shown to determine conditions. g. Metropolitan District Commission datum shall be used - on all sites accessible to these controls. The Town Engineer shall, based on standard engineering practices, determ'ine the accessibility of these controls. ` Vdge 4 (bite rlans) - i h. Profiles shall show all sanitary sewer lines and manholes, including elevations , sizes, lengths , and slopes of pipes: Top of foundation elevations for building shall be shown. 10. Open Space Site Improvement Plans: For siites which ! require or include a provision for open spaces, a plan which contains data for site improvement 'may be required. This ma,p shall be' drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet. 11 . Sanitary Report: Where individual sanitary sewage disposal systems are proposed, the final plans shall include a Sanitary Report certified by a Professional Engineer. The report shall demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed individual systems; the report should deal with the area as a whole, discussing the following points: a. General nature and development of surrounding area. b. Topography and natural drainage pattern. C. Subsurface conditions as shown- by subsurface investigation, -including soil absorption characteristics, ground water level conditions, ledge rock, and general nature of soil. d. General description of type of development contemplated. e. Detailed description of proposed sanitary sewage disposal facilities, indicating sizes for various ground conditions, materials to be used, and the general layout pattern to be used, etc. f. Special precautions that may be necessary to provide propef functioning of the proposed disposal systems. g: Map of general area with locations of all tests shown on proposed layout. h. Flood heights of any nearby streams, brooks, or rivers. i. Test results and engineering evaluation per Section 4.13.5. All information required above is included in this application at the time of submission. 6 l PLAN EP RER P.E. L. . November, 1987 � r 1 i O `s` _ 7� -0 °Q LA -� W r N N SE J O = p v J U1 Line Segment Ul �-A S U �U1 J IUA Ira Time to Inlet CP 9- -yam — ii► �t —��— �, w Time in Pipe - N J _ J- J J w Acc=ulated Time -'P St, = 9l, Q o p AI Enter rg Catch £' 0 Z Sv -P s 91 on "' Basin o+ Sun of Al in System -P — o0 6• — W Z — O -9 Rs v1 I� -� vt (� -P,.p -�- !-P IN Rainfall Intensity C o CO N N O � W [� Om Q in System ►.N:. -P u1 -P l� ca \-o ?ix Size 9 w _ w �, -� -- �: •_ �, .a .�, `q -J�' -"- N Length of WWOO -OU! OZ-INUlaQ6t( 6i o G p C oe -P o 6 G, O O -Q O !1 - - jospui Nnr �I �oS s1 � _ o � - � ' (� Average Ve N N o N �' oe r► (e- il� Capacity c Headwater C L 4 G o o o 16- 16 4 p l!t lJti IU1 lS� 131r j dn Ofl Zva�$ .4q PanaaqO a YD� �9-OI -S 2sVa HQ..4 A4 pau9;saQ avJoO s��� �wnC. aCosd Z L r � � a � � Inlet� � N = o -Daa —j � t� -Pw � — Station and Offset Id W �L IO0 ,� IJ N Time to Inlet + Area in Acres CA J9 0 °OLP th °Q °Q o° -° -° O0 j:J. o° 1:4 '� Runoff Coefficient I I 4 i j I I ► 1 l I I I I 1C, Sum of AI I �,,► I: -� I N 10f— i iL3N lb+ I � �' Total AI to � -p, (� �? N 6� W V1 -�► 6� V1 N tl1 6� to �11 IR, � e. I J I� �. Rainfall Intensity I d O Q to Inlet G 6 S C4 .e R =� C13 -� �j =v o Grade of Gutter ti 0 O p O O CO 0 p p o 0 o Crosslope of w LA Shoulder `e 0 w _ N _ N c _ �, N Depth of Flow y U N p 1 -� W u' o° at Gutter IN N N N d N W �, N -� °_° c' �' Width of Flow =v N -U :t) _ -C1 -� :-� T� V1 :T) O y^ Q Bypassing inlet vn AI Bypassing Inlet O O N — c� d O Al Entering Catch N! — �" J -o W s — `F 6` Basin � N nq Pa�paq:o) ?aN p + +. a-j+ n J L8-0I-S H.LVG N4j A pauz-;saQ a'JJCT� a oia Y • fl — 0o kA W Line Segment D > ro Time to Inlet Time in Pipe " • (�, o O Uti Accumulated :'ime ..p C, p AI Enter rg Catch Ln J Ln 0 Basin r � Sun of + o � N LA LP � �. N• � AI in System • V1 J J N N I N �, �� Rainfall Intensity c CO Q in System N U1 LA (A IVA Ut \.o Pipe Size 9 tl o� (_p -P C° p o CP o cA 0 Length of Pipe - _ AD. O C o 0 0� o o Slope' ' U► N Ul Ul CD INAry �Average Velocity �'1 N � o N l�► tJl � y1 1-+ Capacity G N O N N Headwater C� Vl CA' M V1 111 V► lT1 t �'n, t ojl zoagg S aa� n 3ZFIQ Aq paus;saQ swA �&ApY -FA%%OLS '320 X-Car o S,m M A R Y YAfE Trr.•r - r-Cf' p _ r 1 =r+ -s.T 'A" - -- - _ rT�-a!C t1. �,- `�•.rC� !'T-nk 7 ^DA .'1. CT 7 y.nri.nC f 4v1 .1'v:iih- d� -:ry t -- rl ', - - y 36 XSECTIQN s .84 X`U 3:37 SAw;C:*=L �-y 0- - - 'tB i SUMMARY D n•• -G= (nr XH7:n.- n+1::n r.r-� r(�i .1 f+Tryri�r` xifl ' 11 A7 vim' •�t'r �/ t A�L_ Z _ L-J1- 1'( _ li�l�� r .l�L•�'a Ji'r• v 'i'._�� ,�+Li 1 t _� v _� �i�a! '�LT�i� 'l:-� XSECTIGN/ DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AREA STORI NUMBERS.......... .� . 11 P. 99 STRUC'URE ? A TrRNA`•T- 1 L, 4 .,,vK „s.� �.,�-{+ 4.SS O v AA +U�t P'_TYRN `_ .', _ 'Y,�� LQ��_ 60 1 4c -r`•qn �� is f r j } I , � / r--------� Htk �• I 0°1 _"— 1b I I I $ I I f Cin Blk I I 1f II I ---------------- -----ff- -- ---- -- �— — ---- ------ O— --CLINGY -- 115' ----- -- f M 2 Aw I Rkf>ns � i _,v— f I 1 1 Seed t 1 ' \ / f d-` �� I � � I it 26 O tics \ � , / f �. / / O / II \� ,�` I 90 -'IF, 74' r4 rt S 4 `54 ft 05 1 r, 1`66 7 --7 1) 1 3 Piz 114 0.ISO 0.155 0.1163 c i89 0.1199 0.2110 0.222 0.235 ' rrI 2 5 61 774 3t .. 1 0,790 71 r.l. 79 Of, 62' 0.829 01.Lolls 0.64555 0.674 60 ME( 995 0.903 Q lot '7 JJ 957 9 9 62' 0.965 1.967 . 0,972 0.974 0.976 0.978 0.983 0.985 0,987 10.969 0 991 0.993 6.995 0.997 0.990 4 1 n 12.0 0.0 0.0 t, 73.0 112 .573 6 74.0 6.5 2.068 76.0 1-0.8 7.781 T q., An 70.0 .5 1 1 6RUNOF ! . 6 R E 9 v In.R 201 6 72.0 E ND A T A -1 001 01 0 0 1.0 0', J Ov 7 Tj MIP Y 7 t.s 110 LL 1 2 01 ,14 4 6.15 C n 7 v, _ X:._ tea. 4 +.a_ _ _ _ _1•._ �. _ _ _ __ _ t_"_ >:I�i _ PA.S a RED} PC 09183(,2) FACE i t: 7TfW ^� M M-A`.1 T`4: Pr-,•r rn n nk, 1,C:7 _ T-n - n•f TVC 7. . T!1 S'�K. k Tay_ - ..%��i `'�" '� _•__ "�'•�' - ': - -�. ;�:', _ '�_.- _ � �'}i.•T. _rND i 1. v' �� _ T - �.�- 1. :-1a_� c �i N, � - A=Ti 1`uTr i5:a- _ rl ^t kl,- ?PERATTION RUNOFF CROSS SECTION 1 OUTPUT HYDROGRAPH= 6 PEAS: TIMEMS) PEAK PEAS 'LEVAT:0:1Ni__='l 12.42 ^ r,n a a •prr a_4,v %'•C: . n c m _ 7= --r--,*-r- ' -- nPCrrP;. ^`M'•tip 00tr Ti npcRA 1u, RESVCi ST^ tTuRE s r iRPLiT �YDR4GrcA"3= 6 ULI?PIiT `}u't l'PiAr'= f SURFACE E!EVATION= 72.00 PEAK ,I!''E(!- PEAS. D111SCgARSt'!17S; 13.54 3100 77. nn ' r. n I ♦ a t(Hrc�1 �?RST PYunnOGRAPH POINT _ ,00 Hu�1R� TIME NCREMENT = ,iU 'M-URS DRAINAGE AREA i1.00 DISCRS .00 .00 .00 t o .00 .0(11 .00 ,01 .02 .05 11.00 ELEV 72.00 7?.00 72,0G 72.0E 7^,Gr 72aGG i2.G0 72t00 72,01 72,02 12.00 DISW .13 ,28 .54 .92 1.37 .,SZ 2.22 2.52 2.74 2.E5 12.00 ELEV 72,05 72.10 72.19 '2.33 72,49 72,6, 72.79 72,90 72.9E 73.01 :3.00 DISCHS 2.90 2.94 2.95 2.9E 2,q9 3.00 2,99 2.99 2,98 2.97 13,00 ELEV 73,03 73.04 73.:,� "Mr, 73.G` 73.05 ?3.175 73.05 73.05 MAC 14a"0 DIS4H 2.96 1,95 _.93 2:92 i.,7(/ t 4,86 2.84 118L- L,SO 14,OG ELEV 73.t;4 i3,{;4 '3,::'4 7',G� 7 7.:-3 73a 12 ,3.02 73.��: 73.G1 ?3.G0 1.,,a' :ra�Ln-qr?7 2,7i 2, 6_ .64 L,SG �.L� .5? L.49 �.45 2, 15.00 EsrV 72,99 72t97 72.95 (2.94 72,93 =72,92 �2.90 72,89 72.S^ 72.86 0f. nT�,l♦� n 83 n 3)L n n r.-, +� r,T = ^ rl ri L ^. 1 3 r'I S71 7 �it 15,►:%� ir_vl/•�E "30 :.,•)4 Ca•__� L.,�.� t.,L: !:L�' L,iG Laav .a.♦ a.sYiJ v� � L 7') 77 ^ 17r l2,741` iL,Sc:ivi - e04 ,i7.t;G CTSC a 2.�J3 1a99 :,9; '_,9i >.S7 _.76 17t00 ELEV 72,72 72,7: 7",0 72.6E 2,17 72.5E -2,64 72,63 'L.61 72.60 18.00 D:SCE a.65 1a6: 4.,58 :a_` _.5` :,4y a.46 :,�3 '_,40 1.38 ir% Y 72. .9r •. ^[,�_ '`,CL Ci18.00 `Ltv , ^e r 1..��1' �LEV 7L:4J rL,47 ra,46 7".46 71,45 ;is44 2,4.} ,7,4t 72.41 72.41 20.0E DISCq 11,12 1.1 :.09 i.Oil1.GL 1.03 iaG. :,GO .99 .97 20.00 ELEV 72,40 72.40 72,39 7t.3S 72.38 72.37 72,36 72.36 72.35 72.35 2i.00 DISCH6 .95 .94 ,92 ,9L .90 .86 ,97 .96 .85 .83 K-i f a M,!-z 1 7 n Cl 7 46 'U'PI -Jr. 77,7 4 72. 72 34 72.33 fz. -j - V 4 -j Cl'-V -?Q IQ 72,19 7 10 s 771:-7 7) �I I.-I '71 '7 4 a.117 1%..) Z; 72 24 t ir .54 E!Cv '77 11' 7- 6 -46 3 5 7� ij 26.00 [LEE 72.114 72 13 IL 1 72.12 27.00 IS C 14.5 .26 .25 .24 .23 r) ig -V 71), "1 A 7 29.00 -Lt L -7? 4 a 7 fj 4 t ^Fc V-1 i'M.-- ABOVE FAS-F!OW Slj A T R SHE S ROL 2='RATTqU\ n r M 0 m P U A IGNS lCOYD, ;r t� 1`'1~, n�-.._-rJ r' __ __ C�1C''L _+.� ' r- Cr= r,_p" .,_�S•r1C �I%� C'�CC � i REV fiC 49'03:. ! i PASS C'�IIT.V-f f1� T,��: flr�'n�T.�1�•. r++l;? I# :•C=rT.tSk, rR t'IT-.I,RT•�rF r`�n�1 r Tnn RrJ�nTe�InL,AT T,i v-� '- L �1 _ •�,` T;,_q-rTn no Rp T�. TI r k.� aTA�c;.'�L _ ,w ' •tJ '� �- .r:IJ �?'�a . .__t . .:. Al T_1�AT_ NCI' . `-r Ry -7 V__\ 'W= -r-Z:-_VC' T = I(I �' C I h� I T10 �• a ,IT�,T• r.RRR�r•, AREA_ T.N T , R- V • .. TT4: _-, rnNC ! C 11 R ♦NTr I�i NAL �YDRID,.RI APri SMC f.t1 JKC CIIX 1 t)U 1 rl�L.L ?gin•: _It- -_ _ _, _.. {{ AT-ry •--`TI 117 IC RUNOFF VCLUrE ABODE EAE=FLOW _ :.F: WA__ SwEL :}�;YE:; u?.69 "C::RS, 4.35 ACRE-FEET; BASEFLOW _ .00 CFS ; +,, . .. ;; fir.- t S"RCnnr'�: I Z"-!TTMN= n` h,' PE- T►�M1;C_IRnS,r P-A:, nTaufi r„ iS HAkELEVATION r E QjICNrEC r 13.60 f1,73 73,87 24.3� 1.61 72.5I rt �'n�' R C,' r.r.,y r _ !1 '11tvC '!dC T 11 - + _ , raRST r,VDF JRA r DUCT- ,'.v T_.c �NCAREmEN' - .'0 'QtiRS DRAiNA6E AREA .`4 . . 10.00 DISCH6 .00 .00 loci .O1 .01 .02 ,03 .04 .06 .08 10.00 E EV 72,"0 12.00 ," ai, 72.0v 7i 72.01 72.0i 72.0IL 72.02 72.03 11.00 DISCHS 11i .i4 ,17 .�a .26 .32 .39 .48 .60 .?$ 11.00 ELEU 72,04 72.05 72,0 72.02 72.09 72.12 72.14 72.17 72.21 72.26 12.00 DI SC'H6 1.08 1.60 2.39 3.412 3.71 4.29 4,79 5.17 5.44 5,64 12.00 ELEU 72.39 72.57 72.3` 73,09 73.25 73.40 73.54 73.64 73.71 73.77 .3.00 DISCH6 5.77 `.87 'i %J 6.01 6.03 6.=03 6.03 6.02 6.00 13.00 ELEU 73.60 73.33 ?'a8�1 73.86 73.87 73.87 73.87 73.87 73.87 73.86 14.00 "uiSvHS 5.98 5. `,7L 5,90 5.86 5.83 5.79 5.76 5.72 5.68 14100 E:.EU ??.Sti '3,85 �',t4 ,3,84 73183 73.82 7-13 73.80 73.79 73.78 t C.fti� •nn;., 4 c c c rzc r r(1 c j S,41 5 ( S 33 5 �� ')4 L u,K"r 'DT"miG .+a 6L u,u•9 _,Ali .JIu: 5.1., v ,� J. .'2 1J,a. 15.00 ELEU 73,77 73.75 731'4 7(3.73 73.72 73.71 73.b9 73.68 73.67 73.66 f C y 1"` C y '• r• r1 :6.0C� D T.S •,� ..1.;9 ._ 5,4.. JI"5 5.00 4.96 4,91 4.,8b 4.Sc 4.7 :c.0I E�EF' 73.F5 i?v,�3 T?.L- ",6'_ 73.64 ?3,58 73.57 73.56 73.55 73,5? rf L ! �1 a JI JJ :'.Y:• D�Lv�i] 44.7an-. 41v7 .`a'-�) G,4/4 4, � 4,.�d 4.2v �.23 LI,VJ} E.-Ej� 7 5a-i ��e ,� '?1/`f 77.4 T's146 rt.44 73.43 r3.42 13.40 t3•�Y aL1vv Li_.7_,ni:11 -,`.!. M •_,, i 31 3.82 •1.77 v.l n I• ?- �-� - 7 -,. •i Rc t8.0.f ELEr' 73..1; � '6 ,.1 3.33 :3.32 r3.30 t3.29 ra.28 73,Z6 7...�_ 19101`/ u:SC ti 3.bv 3.0•} 3.Lc 3.5µ 3.49 3.45 3.40 3.3b 3.32 3.28 9.10 ELEU 73,24 73.22 �3,2z f3120 73.19 73.17 73.1b 73.15 73.14 73.13 2v.00 aiSC+{u 3.24 3,20 3,16 3.12 3,08 3.04 3.01 2.97 2.93 2,90 20.00 Er'EV 73, 2 73111 t'.1 '73.09 13.08 73.07 73.06 73.05 73.04 73.03 21.00 DISCHS 2.86 2.93 2.76 2171 2.65 ?.59 2.53 2.4E 2.42 2.36 1 KFv cC 09/53;.'i I nn i r'r`(� 7 r T S "'�n nn �r `,n -_ t'G �n -,� �n nS -,n r. Tn II]]( - n _1.0D t_t _a .. �_rL': ra.. , _. '7 t_. a. %•: .=..76 _sty - aa..VG , `.r` nn nr - - 7 -- -r -•fR ZG -� �n �_ �n �, �R n LL.•f'v __CV rv� a,__ �. _ L_f� _. , •_ i�a//L _at(j ". .,^y _ems _,la_ ,a = .. a,?e.. !..'`'i�: ssOL' :r.7J aaC� 1• 1 _,[q alt i't i1lENS a,'t _.t� 19c s,4 26.00 7.t �� t ^C LC L ..1.:�� �• aiJ' .L. a i ,( . •6 .65 .63 26.00 ELEV 72.32 72.3 72.3t f:t23 72.L7 72.26 +72.25 72.24 72.23 72.22 27.00 D!SwH6 a60 3 :4t .44 .47 .45 .44 .42 7 rte l: � CZ " a 33 'A- ,'y ^� 1Cj�r(4►►(4�� u.S�:•(j .32 t_. .29 Ls7.VV Fi.�Y 72.14 ''1.:4 � a:,l' a:.,�i i? ,r ^ 7 !Il '72 !i r ..�� r2.11 �.,: ,2.10 i...v 29.00 OISCHG .4 .26 t22 ,21 .20 .19 .i9 29, E; ;?, A 72.07 72.-i7E Ey { _ . 72.Go 2.0 R"U'NOF` YOU_J�L f�1�_ BALE '11W - Lt��� �1.'�T_^•�7"_a ay rt _•`� 'j.:. •_�` ��aJj 4t\4 ACRE rhh�} i�t(�I�ri�W - a}AA 1. rii.J _htnl[ IVt .:iNTR`L FFnA 1 J - 4nnv: n,1mc -Lk i r�•c r`r't` --^� Cy L LA n [4 't. f r � • _`- . ,{_ rn�n�s r r TnT n C- � n n s rr n rr,c n=V r.n a77 n• _ 1 nM n n7,• TR-F. V _1 k' i l:i STRI,GT1_=F,E 1 �t-"-•t 'hF� _ �5-�• it-'-•� _ C R} T!n { r7' TABLE I = A n-y- -ak (R J�.h'A IV ..V RA:'v TABLE N31. 3 4l^. '710- _ I,=L_ 1ii! -4 s ULIIS •�.�^:A^ ^•: fin- r RLy .F ISM :�. _:i7 0 t,Jl l•C:1!F1A:iL = t,ly, v�'.v E;NAI HYDRuSRAPF TIME iuGRE14E i= .0667 HOURS Av C" 2.60 (RUNOFF) I:j ?CP VC=!lwF ABOVE BASEFUOr� = 2.36 WATERSHED INCHES, 65.15 GFS-'r?RS, 5.38 ACRE-FEET, SASEF1�'W HYDR9Sr^•.A-u= 6 2`I?�'L'T FY��;CS AP,'y- 7 I ?.I!E;-+K;, I C. DiSG ARSEdGFS) °EA!; E!FVA'iO4`iFEE;7 .3.69 6.77 14.13 -.3C 2,17 72.77 ni ltiLrlA- Ul,! - `�"-. .N t 1 - IJt1� ii.,.•a ❑ F?.0 = !I . 5 v.L!U- ■i` sIL t 9,'('• y 1 SNG .00 .00 .00 ,U0 ■00 .00 .00 ■00 .01, 2.c Jl :.l__!• Si■ 7! �• L■ !L. . f ■ 7 !■7l1 .00 ,00 f 72 41.t iff+ �;S"-1 ,t;2 ■03 .04 .05 .07 .09 ■12 .14 10.0e EL-V ��.01 72■01 72.01 72.02 72.02 72.03 72.04 72.05 72.06 7%,03 11,00 DISL, .26 .30 .36 .42 .49 .58 .68 .80 .96 :,20 11.^:^, �._V fL09 1 11 72.13 72.15 72.18 72.21 72.24 72.29 72.34 72.43 12.Orl Ll L w-r :.60 2,27 3.04 3.71 4.46 5.19 5.80 6.27 6,5? 6.61 2:00 E{r,,. 7"57 72,81 ►3.G7 73,25 73.45 73.64 7 3.$1 73,94 74■01 74■0v '?,^t: O�SG � b,=c b,?1 6,74 6.74 b.76 6.7? b.77 b.77 6,77 6, E;_Y 74:(7 74,i!= 14.1.111 74,1. 74.' 74.12 74.13 74.13 74.'3 7�.:2 I4 1`• 6■' ■6 6 7� �. = 6 74 6,73 b, . L 4e =72 6 7' 6.69 68 ,67 t L ?�.t'f _ EF'v' 74:17 7�,'2 74.': 74.11 74.'L1 71-,10 74.10 74.09 74.00 7�,�15 ti„ R-nntin n . = Cn C^ C 15t.i? ,._u� C 6.65 b.6 6.6_ 6.61, 6.J9 6.5 6.55 6.54 6.JL 6t_r! :5,f,�' _:'v ?c.^, 7�. 7c,"6 74. 5 74.04 74.03 74, 74.02 74.01 f 74,00 ul 2 0 `4 r�: 4 4 V J��1 v,ti_ _,_i Je•,. be b.is •_ , �v 6. '•''! c_=f -'-g; ",T 7,9u 73,9� 73,92 73.90 73.89 7?.57 73tr` ,',C� {fir, �''1.L c % r- 7, - = c4 4 = �` c �c 4 nn � I L ■:• LaLL•� •L tit J.• Yt J L,LL , J{ ,•t,5 Vt LV vt L_ ,Gi f• ,1•, �J:'i i•_.76 73 .7.E f3.{.� ;�.�a f•_,� tt7 .,6v .. n �•■{ Lv.�� J.cj' .r11U 5,01 4.95 4.9,_ 4■76 4,7'•.0 �.64 4..3 }r!s n -i n n -1 C 'A� C C,C -1 C C,! ? C! Aj.c.r E!t +3rb: f3t6i f3,60 r. t,; f.3.s6 .r1>l r3.JL ►3,�ta t`_.4 •9.`Cl, I'P" r, 4 _L 4T 6 1A � z= 4 29 4.23 4.17 1 12 4.07 4.02 9.00 E_EJ i3,4' 73■45 73,43 73.4E 73.40 73.39 73.37 73.3b 7-.3 73,33 =0,00 u1SVNE '.97 3.92 3.67 3.82 3.77 -3.73 3.b8 3.63 3.`9 1. 3.54 r 1 REV 5`C 09/93(.211 6 -Z -T -7 0 '71 2 M c 0.TO E--v -Z -2 73.71 4 'fitr T -Z 7 7 7 -7 7 3 -c? 19 1 7 73.10 mr) n 'I T -,q .7 ♦c 8. 4 V 7 71 77, v 2.67, 7 a.a27.6 7 7' T) v v 77 C-1 c .3 T qP= 7 4 sx q 6 24,00 It L. I L V 14.00 1:V 7' i. (Q. i f 25.1,10 DTSrq 4• 4 7- f I , -Z -j -47 1.,31 6 f 1 .72 c ELEV 72.64 7 2.62 v5 .48 72.47 72.45 26, DISCHG i 1 12 0 i I 1 15, 194 .91 .87 .84 26 0117 2.4-11 'is? "0 77 11 1 U L2 a L.�, L.." 5-6 t f L 4- f 72 '14 72 1 26 72,22 72,20 27.00 'LEY 72.29 q 72. DTSr r%4 Q 29.00 A �j .511 .4? ..L .40 .39 .37 72 1118.00 v 7., 6 .14 i9 le i4 .1 4 1 jL I 77 11419.00 i154 .36 27 2 6 29.,jA -V -1 4, -7,1. Vv �3 4,. I-V In W!"ljm-� Alnv-r A=:::11W 4. ^nm ATT'UINIO rq EXECUTIVE CONTROL OPERATION EMCMP COMPUT L -1 a -',fj'R PASS 3 RECORD TD �'•:" i':.n ` ="%-Tl l K�_ -� n =f n i� nne•, n+� +;'fir• t'; REV PV 09/E3l,2i { -.rn,;r T,yr CnKTRMJ. n1_RPT+j'�• nL �,•.- V ,i L+ nr•+na, a nTplynr{,rr t rn nn en Cry'-eil '�� - r,• __Ta _ f ;u - �,.� T.rys' i (`ft ti3` TAB! �t = AMT f�{{1-TCT fata.A'n_ . _ �1 t:i� .L 5- Le ;• .s ,AB_= iRaJ, _ n�s�. '{l.i•1!, - _ i ARct, a i4 r_ i l'It C= �I,t11== ;", Ti"E a�Ii i+,u"NCENTRA,T.ON= ,50 "Ut.ESS :NT.ERNA; :%w nc'lE.N?= .0667 HOURS 24.20 3.09 (RUNOFF) RUN I ' n - FT- t n C 7 n r SE ! - - RUN .r V0'LU RE.Rt1= SHS�r__� - �.�;, �c�'.t�S~ '1C�E�, Ei.4f CFS-HRH, 6,73 ACRE-FEET; AA�tF;.O# - .00 W a r.n - r "ir ?EAR. TT_ E( RS) PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION(FEET) 13.90 7.36 74,40 FIRST POINT OF FLAT PEAK TI!'4E( r,.n�) rT;Dn�r Y'Z.t-n«rnti??r r.i T - . rI�t- ► U rNZ r M;:NT' .10 HOURSDRAINAGE AREA .04 5n . '_, 9.00 D I S C H 6 .00 . .00 .01 .01 .02 .03 .04 .06 .C:7 9.00 +'t'v -?, :;' 72.00 72.00 7nc.00 72.00 72.01 72.01 72.01 72.02 72.03 i0.00 DISCH6 aCty .12 ,L4 ,17 .21 .24 - .33 .38 .44 10.00 FLEV 72.Ct3 -2.04 72.05 72.06 72.07 72.09 72.10 72.12 72.14 72.1E 11.00 DISCHI ,51 ,5S .66 .75 .85 .97 1.11 1.28 1.49 1.81 11.00 tLEV 72,18 72.21 72.24 72.27 72.30 72.35 72.40 72.46 72.53 72.65 12.00 DiSCHS 2,34 3.01 3.67 4.53 5.48 6.39 6.70 6.88 7.01 7.1'. 12.00 E EV 7'?.r4 7-T 7'.24 73.47 73.72 73.97 14.09 74.18 74.24 74.28 13.00 DISC�6 ?I t' 7,24 7.27 7.30 7.33 7.34 7.35 7.36 7.36 7.36 13.00 E''-EV 74.32 74.114 74,116 74.37 74.38 74.39 74.40 74.40 74.40 ?4.40 14.0t: DISC�16 7.3h 7.?6 7.36 7.M 7.34 7,34 7.33 7.32 7,31 7,29 14. " t__V + .4 0 r4.4., f4 0 74.39 r4.39 74.33 4.3 74.37 74 37 15a003 SCH6 7,2? .27 7.25 %.24 7.22 7.21 7,19 7.17 7.1b 7.14 ay.iyl -_rY �iia•.b r4.•�{``. { 135 74.v, r . av "74. . L r . r.,• • 74.30 16.00 DFSC- , 2 '..; ,t�E ,.06 .04 7,02 7.01 6,99 6.96 6.94 1y, - -.[. �.n � 2{ jf4 ^IT.n r 4,11 --:0 41 21 74a7r 1. ; n4 2 . i. 17,0:� DISCI= 6.92 6,9t10 :�.3� 6.44 6,92 b.79 5.7h b.74 5.71 6.65 1 r { •••1 1- 1 ' i l A y ;c. 1ti __t` ?L,C" -4.._ {4._. '�.{� 4.1 .1- r .1, r ..is 4.,4 .�� 6. 6.5r� J^ a .. 6,� 6.i0is. 10 1'. 6.67 b6 < P / I c .Cj� '�' S)L 7Q rt� 4 4 R'� 7 It �� �� l� 9� ice. b "4 r ,au ? .0 7 .02 .4.f11 r.f 99 73. f,.. 1.7L 19.000 SC 3 6.1L 6.C:3 5.9v 5.87 5.78 5.70 5.62 5.55 5.47 It :9.00 cLEV 73.9`.{ 73.c- 73.85 73.83 73.61 23.7$ 73.7b 73.74 73.72 73,70 20.00 D11S,�S 5.33 5,2b 5.19 5.12 5.05 4.98 4.91 4.8It 4.78 4,72 20.00 E_EV - 73.69 73.66 73.65 73.63 73.61 73.59 73.57 73.55 73.54 1. r { 'L Z T 21.00 D 4.66 4.`_9 4. p 4.47 4.41 4.36 4,24 4.17 13 7 1 7' 44 4 4 3.8 3 P j 14 A 17 7 -Z ^7 77 ')c 0 1. n c il 3.A6 47 3,38 3.'1 01 4 3. -.j Q, I/ -7- 7�, 6 'I c 0 7. 77,, 3 06 73.10, 73.04^4.Ocl f 3 73.'%9 ^1Z In r% r-c 5 4 2.t4 n34 72 -'7 4 72.71 .4-91 .87 72.64 7C -,-z '126.01' D S[".-i 6 67 SO 1.46 1 c v .J#7 76.00 9---L- 72.62, 721.66 7-2.63 -117.60 72.58 (L '.0ZZ 6 72,54 72.51 72.49 72.47 .3:1 '17 7 4^j 1 7 .37 .34 72. 26.010 D 16 C;i G ,SE .79 ,75 .73 -.70 .67 .64 .62 .59 29.00 EILEV 72.30 72.29 72.28 72.27 72.26 72.25 72.24 72.23 72.22 72.21 L-7 c t� C-,� -zo 'IQ .--i .46 .46 .45 43 .41 - (110 .41) i f 7--,�r, 19 .18 11.17 17 72 - Z 72c72 16 1 R NOV� m LBVP T tA r;c-HR, C EET; " SEE71 ju jv - j 6.6 RE-F LA ,-Xi:ri!7TVr PnkTR�l llnw,--H7a7-lk .-.'W1"ED FOOR PASS 4 OIPERATTlk Er-,T' M- w }r.. .L r� v!Alli�ti r4 JT Q ��� ter. rti,,z, i 'A"E 9 i ..11,] b`a TTCI t 1 CTPj!rTjlD C^^'`r C 1- Vrf -T1�.■ = r TN nrn TW _ r ��l eYr DU A7 GA1_ t p% ANT, �n.=r r5� _ n • V ■.j�i :\rtl� M fL:'t 9r� L`F i�1'��+ /.i:1'i•- :eel!. ZrLi ANT, 4 _C . L NT'= 2 rA+l_ +r,.= . rLM �'•r=7y ATk 1 Qr �`�C6'r�f? = r_�' ~L�:rs•`_ f 1,"•� nn t "IT 1 FIF 'U r t n yh �!_ `'4 �� �; �I�r �_ 7t1 TTi�C OF 60 ��,p�T-n�= r•� Ni���C _. ,l` .,�t .. �SJ � tfU�V_ :�I,L. L!� 4,11 ,. �«• „1�_ iNTERN'AL HYDROGRAPH TIME INCREMENT= .Ob67 HOURS L I IJ i L'1 _5 L •./S V 1 i• __I 1 J, _ I Q 4.1 [ h•.� `1 2».20 3.59 (RUNOFF) + �- n I T + INCHES, C 1, rrrT n "`s�<O, V'�i E ABOVE SAS ELiN - _,5? I�A;_RSFIEO (Wc,H�S, 98.44 CFS-HR j 6.:? ACRE-etc i S?cE�_u _ .00 c"' _RA._V I+LRavll R T RL•v T URE i I PUT "YDR?GRAPH= 6 ii�TFJ, ;�YLF,2GRA^F�= 7 PEAL TIME(HRS) PEAT; DISCHARGE(CFS) PEAK ELEVATION FEET; 14.10 8.004 14.70 FIRST POINT OF r-^T PEAK 7I E(uo;a FIRST HY ROGRAPH POINT = .00 HOURS TIME ?NCREME�T = ,10 r?�;RS Rt'�AGE A^.A = .04 SO.Mi. 9.00 DISCH6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .001 ,00 ,11)01 S.i1C ELEV 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.0!' �2.O 72.00 9.00 DIIR, .02 .03 .04 .05 .07 .09 .11 .13 ,16 .':9 9.00 E•_EV 72.01 72.011 72.01 72.02 72.02 72.03 ?2.04 72.v 12.06 72.07 I1.00 DISCHG .23 .26 .30 .35 .40 .45 .51 .SG ,65 .73 10.00 E EV 72.08 72.09 72.11 72.12 72.14 72.16 72.18 71 Z' 72.23 72.26 11.00 DISC'riG .82 .92 1.03 1.14 1.28 1.43 1.61 1.82 2.10 2.50 ?I.00 ELEV 72.29 72.33 72.37 72.41 72.46 l2.51 72.`7 72.65 72.75 72.89 I2rr►^ JISCti6 2.99 3.54 4.36 5.41 6.52 6,66 7.14 7,37 7.53 7.65 s2.00 E�Ev ?3.05 73,20 73.�2 73a71 74.0. 74.17 ?4.'0 ,4.40 'f,48 74.5E 7,74 '7.81 7.86 7.90 7.93 7.96 7,y s' 7.99 7.99 8.00 r4, ? 74.61 74,63 74.65 74.67 r4.68 74,69 <<.b9 '4.6- r4.711 nT-r!E 8.0? 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.99 7.99 7.96 7.97 1.96 7.95 �!': E_=V ?�.7': 74.70 74.70 r4.70 74,69 74.69 74.6.9 '4.bE 74.68 74.68 '� JTC'w� 4 f 1 , i fi{i L� zr�b 4^ vt 1 ri.`0 11.vv � '[9 a i,91 .90 7.,19 ,LI r. ' � f r � +J.1 i:. i•�. -4 7+.rn .6E.b6 f4f66 1-1 .b r4r6E 74.64 ,61 uI 1 16.00 0T.IS 7.79 7,77 7,75 ?.73 7.71 7.69 7.67 7.65 7.63 ?..61 r( .h •- r' 1 6� -4 r 74.59 74.vZ 74.56 74.=.( �-� ��,�L��. 'P r \ 4.!? •n f•n .1••C n•,n 9 -y 7 C •� n ! -1 i n 1 7 { i.5? ',56 7..:3 r,SI .4G 7.�� f.4 f,37 f.36 17.00 E_EV 74.51 74.49 ?4.46 74.47 74f45 ?4.44 74.43 74.42 74.4n 74f39 J;SC;+F 7.31 7.28 7.25 7.22 7.19 7,16 7,'3 7.10 7.IV 7 7,04 r_.;r '4.3r 14.36 74.35 74.33 74..2 74.3. 74.29 74.29 'z,27 74.25 .5,0!? D:S,.6 7.01 6.98 6.96 6.93 6.89 6.86 6.83 6.81 6.78 6.75 19.00 ELEV 74.24 74.23 74.21 -74.20 74.18 74.17 7M.6 - 74.14 74.13 74.12 r 'k T C r q f: 5- 6.55 6.52 6.47 6.39 E.67 6.66 6.63 6.611 6. 7' 7-7 I A." T f Lq 5,61, Tj 77 C-7 77 U7 77 -1Z '73.76 C 'Z C: c i 41 c 1 7 4.?6 4,89 4: -'-7 -7 LC Tz 3 5 C. 73.57 A 62? C 4 6 AV 4.1 71 t 3.2 77 7 Ez, 7 3 5 A 7'?.4c -77, 7.4P 40 I ill !--, ..j 3.46 1-j 11-cr A.i Aq -Te cq 'A 4. r 2:4.0 '73.3c '714.r) '71.I'S -'-7, 7"z 6 35 -3.34 73.33 73.31, L9 .3 251.00a D 1 -AJ-.qrw!-- 3.67 1 01 3.53 3.46 0.39 3.32 3,25 49 3.12 3.06 0, -7-7 -77, 73.'S 73.16 71.14 7 3.12) 71,10 73,09 73.0( -7 -7 7-7 -7 - 2 ,OA '7. 17 16. 0 1 S C 031 2.,4 1., 1.97 11.89 i.82 1.75 11.68 1.61 1.JJ 1.49 1 '27.00 ELEN 72-76 72.73 72.70 72.68 72.65 72.62 72.60 72.58 72.55 72.53 'Ll 2.of", n.:r,-,Cpc- 1.43 1.377 11.32 1,26 1.21 1.17 1.12 1.08 1.03 .99 I 71.4- '72,47 72 45 72 7 40 I . .41 72.41 1 38 72,37 1, 1 i 1 1. 2. Is" .72 .75 s72 .69 .6L 71, j.0 Z d-o fZ.zt 7L 'L6 72.2L-c -4 C TN "7q -9 ^FS-HRc, BACULOW 00 r,^ 96.( li 6.00 ACRE ?'t-1 ut T t I.- VE CONTR-011- OF-7PATTIN, 'NDr'14P "MPHTATIOM rOM p.ETED "OR PASS 5 RECORD w Lt- t RECORrl TD ZX"CU TV"t r.GNTRr.!'- OUPERA-MN END,30'"D C F7 CXTnr n: rnn1_�n Uln L Ln12VA yy~rp 0 5 417-89 _ 1� 9 IS7 546 .,Jh i REV PC 09i331%.2) F ^r . f �t 1� I: ;J M b,„R V T ^-L a _ SELECTED RE-7J LTaC ^C STANDARD GYY _X'L:i,JUV _ - NT.n~nLi- • V a..Va��V _ _ _iii._ _ -jv�-.i A. "A�R i AFT:" T:trL ^PLA. ,.. _.. I-A.TF- !Ari.._v_a - TOO r n1,. OP- TrI 1 '� rnr T �E A L H i.' NMARK!,?! %.I INDICATEI A HYDROGRAa, W7T4 -_4i:, AS LAST rnT !1 T �Lir.tryn r rn rf , r-- - - _v a Iti � S i fr'I.i 11h R.J FAIN �+h!t.. A: i, .._a _ rT_U (+r KIT Thi 3++r Tyr,C M^'CT TT l.: --------------L__--_-_- - i r`� -------------------------------------- :D OPERATION AREA # n lND •i nu.PC- S�-s. A�y.i Ln1U A-T_ok A 7_�1 c-1 E t+�Tn T T r= }A TC� nn,Tr C^ p iJ 1!,� `ii ..%'' `l1 l_�I, i`T� l 47 ALTERNATE 1 STORM 2 tS_L;LU• s iC77 f' 3 L. .15f • Ja_:. 2~: +TLef I^TI,:,, a �=Ji�nn ijS ALTERNATE 1 STORE! 10 ;SECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 3 2 .10 .0 4.80 24.00 1.91 --- 12.39 33.74 790.3 2TRUCTURE I RESVOR .04 3 .1Ct .+' 4.uk: _4.'.- _,� ;3.L� t �3 , ,3,60 6.. _4L.a TO�n M �C ALTERNATE: v.a1fl.� �.i (SECTION i RUNOWF` .04 3 2 .10 `.40 24.100 42.10 985.9 TRU;TURE 1 RESVOR .04 3 2 .lU .;i 5.40 24.i�r: 2a.ie %4a;_ :3.64 6.7i7 158.6 ALTERNATE I STORM 50 (SECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 3 2 .10 .0 6.L� 24.100 2.76 --_ 12.38 52.96 11240.2 STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .04 3 2 .10 .0 6.15 24.00 2.92 74.40 7.36* 172.5 ALTERNATE 1 STORM 99 (SECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 3 2 .10 .0 6.90 24.00 3-a57 --- 12.3E 64.16 1502.5 STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .04 3 2 .10 .0 6.90 24.00 3.GL 74.70 14.10* 8.00} 187.4 STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION APPLICATION CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT- May 19, 1989 O� CON&�'��'' ��►r��N f MirC• h �• 2 ,o' #13321- ti xf rrrrr�i���� Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, Connecticut 06040 87-546 - o FVSS&OINEILL consulting engineers May 19, 1989 Mr. William Stoeckert Executive Director State of Connecticut Traffic Commission 24 Wolcott Hill Road P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Re: Clark Corners - Clark Street South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Mr. Stoeckert: For your review, we are submitting eight (8) copies of the Certificate Application for the construction of Clark Corners on Clark Street in the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut. The application is being made pursuant to State Statute 14-311, since the proposed development has over 200 parking spaces and abuts Connecticut Route 30. Clark Corners was originally planned as a 73,000 S.F. development in 9 buildings. Our traffic impact study is based on this design. In order to comply with requirements of the South Windsor Wetlands Commission, changes have been made which have reduced the final design to 71,000 S.F. in 8 buildings. These changes have no significant effect on the traffic generation of the site. Therefore, our impact study has not been changed, however, trip generation tables for each scenario have been included in the report. The following items have been included for your use in conducting this review. 1 . Application for Certificate ( 5-17-89 ) 2. Traffic Impact Study ( 5-17-89 ) 3. Plot Plan ( 5-17-89 ) 4. Topographic Map ( 5-17-89 ) 5. Roadway Plan ( 5-10-89 ) _ 6. Buckland/Ellington/Clark/Deming Block ( 5-17-89 ) 146 HARTFORD ROAD / MANCHESTER, CONN. 06040 / TEL. (203) 646-2469, FAX. EXT. 307 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT•WASTE WATER SYSTEMS•E;OS,ON CONTROL•WATTP SYSTEMS•HYDROLOGY ana DRAINAGE SYSTEMS•SITE PLANNING HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES• SURVEYING•L-%DSCAPE ;PCHiTECIuRE • TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC•PuBbC WORKS MANAGEMENT•HYDROGEOLOGY v -- FZJSS&CrML.L Mr. William Stoeckert May 19, 1989 Page -2- If you require any additional information, please contact us at any time. Very truly yours, /O L Daniel W. O'Neill 2Steen F. Mitchell, P.E. Transportation Engineer Associate Director of Traffic Engineering DWO:SFM:gnh - cc: J. Samsel, Jr. M. Banach G. Tyler J. Ford 87-546 0512ADWO. 1 • 1 STATE OF C O N N E C T I C U T C „m ftw MEMBERS of T x;,,,,o,44644 COMMISSION M ISS ION co,wwan..,"t of r".ac sac. s t TRAFFIC c.m ..„Ma et U«W Department of Transportati � on �. 24 Wolcott Hill Road 0 P.O. Dnwcr A Wahasficld. CondMicut 06109 Date May 19, 1989 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE In accordance with Section 14-311 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, as revised, and State Traffic Commission regulations-, - a Certificate is hereby- requested for: _ Name of Facility: Clark Corners Location: Clark Street Town and Zip Number: South Windsor. Connerti nt nan7a -- Square Feet of. Gross Floor Area:- 71,000 Number of- Parking` Spaces: 292 Start of Construction (Date) ring 1989 -- Opening Date: Spring1990 lInitial g) Owner`s Name.- _ John G Samc�1 Tr - Owner's Address: 152 Digni ng Strut - - Town, State & Zip Number South Windsor Connent i( . QAn74 - Authorized Representative, to be contacted during review of application. Name: Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. - Mr. Daniel O'Neill Address: 146 HU-t—ford Road Town, State & Zip Number: _ Manchester, CT OR04 Phone: (203) 646-2469 Enclosed are eight (8) sets of the proposed development showing th inf ormation 'required. (see attached) SITE PLAN REQUIRE I NTS checklist to be included with application. Owner's G MA 9 TRAFFIC GENERATOR MTG-1 - . T SUBMISSION QUI)E TNES A A completed check list should accompany the application form and other P materials submitted to the Canidssion. Items which are not submitted - C P should be identified along.with an explanation why they are not applicable. F L F I At the time of application eight sets of the information deemed C a to to the development should be submitted to the Commission, with S S A an additional set of the information being forwarded by the developer to I I 'B the irmolved minicipality(s) Legal Traffic Authority(s). T T L E E E Review of a proposed development may not begin until all of the applicable. information is received. 1" - 40' Scale Roadway Plan (nominally 2' X 3' ) showing development • frontage plus 500' in each direction and all roadways where improvements are proposed shoring: (Noce: Plans showing improvements should indicate sufficient distance of approach roadway in order that the proposed ovement- can be evaluated in regard to the overall roadway. Fx_] ❑ F-1 A. Property lines on both sides of roadway. M ❑ 0 B._ Rig�-of-waY lines - existing and proposed. Fx_] ❑ ❑ C. Curb lines - existing and proposed. ❑ ❑ a D. Sidewalkcs - existing and proposed. L�J Fl. ❑ E. Driveways. Fx] ❑ D F. Intersect' roads (with street lines). ❑ Fl El G. Significant trees and shrubs. Fx-1 1-1 R H. Drainage Structures - existing and proposed (catch basins, culverts, etc.) D ❑ ❑ I. Utilities - poles by number, water gates, fire hydrants, etc. ❑ ❑ IT1 J. Typical and critical sections of roadway i.nprovements (include surface cross slopes, treatment to existing ground, and metal beam railing location where required). ❑ F-1 ' Fx] K. Slope limits for improvements. ' a ❑ M L. Intersectional sight lines in accordance with Department of Transportation criteria for existing drives, proposed drives, any intersection t.mt has proposed improvements as a result of the development, and any existing drives and/or roadways where traffic is being s'nif;ed closer to the existing curb line. A profile of the final ground surface along the sight line may be needed•for verification. D ❑ El M. Signs - existing (and proposed if no signs and markings plan). rW 1'llt�2- - W a ❑ ❑ El N. Guide rail and fencing - existing and proposed. aEl El 0. Pavement markings - existing (and proposed if a signs And markings plan.is not submitted). ❑ El FX-] P. Illumination appurtenances ❑ ❑ Fx II. 1" = 40' brims:al 1" - 4' Vertical Scale Profile of all Drives which are in excess o percent within oF edge of roadway EUTor have approach grades in,excess of 8 percert at any point. ❑ El Fx-]--II. 1" = 40' Scale Pavement Marking and Si&2LnS Plan (Nominally 2' X 3' ) of proposed roadway it existing roadway alterations are significant) showing. ❑ ❑ a A. Edge of Road - proposed. ❑ ❑ a B. R.O.W. Lines - proposed. ❑ F-1 ❑ C. Drives - proposed. 7i—] ❑ Ej- D. Mtersec-i roads (with R.O.W. lines) FF] FX—] E Signal « vement diagram and interconnec4.ion proposal if not adequately described in the submitted capacity analysis. (Detailed layout and design is not required at time of application unless unusual conditions exist). . ❑ 11-1 El F. Utility poles by number. ❑ ❑ Fx] G. Drainage structures ❑ ❑ H. Fire Hydrants - ❑ F-1 F-x] I. 'I i of f is signs - proposed (dimensioned) . ❑ 1-1 Fx� J. Pavement markkings - proposed (dimensioned) aLi IV. Site Plan s',K)wi aEl A. Contours - existing and finished El ❑ B. Existing and proposed. drainage for roadways and site El1-1 C. Parking spaces - number provided, number required by town, (show layout and indicate any designated for handicapped, internal si*.gning, pavement markings, etc.). �❑ ❑ D. Driveways and existing roads. U ❑ V. Site Location Plan showlp& State Idighways and major intersecting Town roads in the vicinity ot the site. a - MIG7-3- o x F I VI. Traffic Information rX I El A. Site generated traffic should reflect a successful day for the development. Values less t'mn those suggested by the ITE Trip Generation Report (current edition) should be substantiated. El ❑ 1. Morning peak hour of the roadway providing access to the site. rx-i !__J 2. Afternoon peak hour of the roadway providing access to the site. ❑ FX] 3. Morning and afternoon peak hour of the generator if different than the morning and afternoon peak hour of the adjacent-highway. ❑ ❑ 4. Omer peak hours of the generator (weekday, midday, evening, weekend). Fx] n 5: Identify the hours of day, day of week and the reason the hours and days used in Items VI-A.1 through 4 were chosen_ -- ❑ 6. Percent distribution of generated traffic, by direction, for each major road leading to the area and at the access points, for the same peak hours as in Items VIA-1 through 4. Fx ❑ 7. Flow diagrams for Items VI A.1 tnrough 4 and VI-A.6. N71.E• For shopping centers, projected traffic volumes as described in Items -- N VI-A.1 thru 7 should have two submittals - one for Fridays and the--other for O Saturdays - and should reflect a successful Friday and Saturday shopping day T outside t1he Thanksgiving and Christmas shopping days; the gross floor area S should be broken down by major tenants, and the mall area should be provided U A (if applicable). If a restaurant is proposed, provide size and location and B P indicate whether it is a fast-food or sit-down restaurant. If a bank is M P proposed, provide size and location and-indicate absence or presence of a I L drive-in facility. T I T C For apartments, condominiums, hotels and motels, the number of 1, 2 and E A 3 bedroom units, and the square foot area of each type of unit should be - D B noted. L E For other types of major traffic generators, contact the Bureau of Planning - Office of Transportation Forecasting and Inventory (566-5719) for the appropriate traffic volume data to be submitted. FX] F I B. Existing Traffic L,'J ❑ 1. Flow diagrams showing existing traffic for the same peak hours as in VI-A.1 through 4, above. - FX1 ❑ C. Background Traffic (should be seasonally adjusted to reflect the backgroundtrattic for the month that cardies the heaviest ADT on the subject roadway when the development will be occupied - should not reflect an average annual daily traffic). Inquiries regarding seasonal adjustments factors may be directed to the Planning Inventory and Data Section (666-2309). . MIG-li- - ❑ ❑ 1. Background traffic for the same peak hour's as in VI-A.1 through 4 above, in tie year the development is scheduled to be fully OXoccupied. ❑ 2. Identify the other developments whose traffic is included in back ground traffic. © El 3. Identify the seasonal and arQuial growth factors applied to existing traffic and justify their selection.' U ❑ '4. Flow diagrams for VI-C.1 above. j�.J ❑ D. Combined Traffic (Background plus site generated) ❑ LJ 1. Combined traffic for the same peak hours as in VI-A.1 through 4, above. FX_] ❑ 2. Flow diagrams for VI D.1 above. U E. Capacity Analysis, including all input data; supportive computation sheets and/or charts. When analysis indicates improvements are - necessary, recommended improvement plans in accordance with Items I, HE and III should be submitted. Analysis should be provided for intersections, interchanges, or expressways that'are significantly affected by the generated traffic for the following time periods and traffic conditions: i❑ ❑ 1. Background Traffic © D a. Morning peak hour of the adjacent highway. Fx_1 F-1 b. Afternoon peak hour of the adjacent highway. F-1 ❑ c. Morning and afternoon peak hour of the generator, if different than the morning and afternoon peak hour of the adjacent highway. FX]U F 1 2. Combined Traffic OX ❑ a. Morning peak hour of the adjacent highway. ❑ b. Afternoon hour of the adjacent highway. ® � � -- ❑ FX I c. Morning and afternoon peak-hour of the generator, if different than the morning and afternoon peak hour of the adjacent highway. The format for the submitted analysis should be in accordance with Transportation Research Board Special Report 209 (1985 Highway Capacity PManual). aInquiries about the format of the analysis may be directed to the =3 o¢`' Division of Traffic (566-5113). MIG-5- ❑ ® F. Storage/Queue Analysis The submission of a Storage and/or Queue analysis supporting the background and combined traffic capacity analysis provided under Sections VI E.1 and VI E.2 is usually necessary under the following --- conditions: aa 1. U-en exclusive turning lanes exist or are proposed. FI Fx-1 2. When there is a potential for vehicular backups between adjacent intersections and/or major drives. - ❑ X 3. When limited stopping sight distance will exist on a signalized approach. ❑ 4. Off-ramp approaches to signalized intersections. Other conditions may be ide tiff tiffedd by the engineer or the Division of Traffic in which a Storage/Queue analysis is necessary. RX G. :Aecident Analysis Accident problem areas (if any) in the vicinity of the si�e or off site - impacted locations, should be identified. i7x M VII Drainage Con potations Drainage carputations must be submitted much indicate that no flooding H or damage to the State highway facilities will be caused by a storm 0 having a 10-year frequency for surface run-off and a 50-year frequency - S T for watercourses, except for those watercourses located within flood U plains, delineated on the flood insurance maps issued by the Federal B A Emergency Management Agency. For those flood plain watercourses, the M P des'"an shall be for a 100- " year period. Detention basins are o be I P designed for a 50-year frequency and analyzed for a 100-year frequency. T L T I Development sites that slope away from the State higihiways and will not E C affect the Sate highway drainage system will require a verification of D A such in lieu of submitting drainage calculations for the site. B L Inquiries about data required for drainage items may be directed to the E District Office involved. -1 F k I VIiI Planning and Zoning Approval - p p r o v a l by the South A statement indicating whether the proposed facility and/or expansion w i n d s o r Planning & required local Planning and Zoning approval should be supplied. If such Zo n i n g Commission is approval has been granted, the date(s) which the approval(s) has been obtained should be indicated. If approval is required and has not been xp e c t e d following granted, a statement indicating the anticipated schedule for obtaining n e March 14 , 1989 Planning and Zoning approval should be supplied. Public Hearing. IX Supplemental Data During the course of the certificate review process, certain matters may cane to the attention of the reviewer that will necessitate additional data be submitted by the developer at a later date for still further review. Revise June. 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A. INTRODUCTION 1 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 C. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 3 D. DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 4 E. ANALYSES 4 F. CONCLUSIONS 10 APPENDIX A - TABLES lA HOURLY TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES - GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING ~ 1B HOURLY TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES - RETAIL, GENERAL MERCHANDISE 1C HOURLY TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES - DRIVE-IN BANK 1D HOURLY TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES - TOTAL 2. TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY APPENDIX B - FIGURES 1. SITE LOCATION MAP 2. TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS 3. 1991 A.M. PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4. 1991 P.M. PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5. ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE DISTRIBUTION 6. A.M. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 7. P.M. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 8. 1991 A.M. PEAK HOUR COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 . 1991 P.M. PEAK HOUR COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPENDIX C - A.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX D - P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX E - DRAINAGE COMPUTATIONS A. INTRODUCTION John G. Samsel, Jr. has proposed the construction of a mixed use development in the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut. The development is located on Clark Street between Deming Street and Ellington Road (Route 30) as shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B. The main drive will be on Clark Street and the development will be interconnected with the Town Shopping Center. This interconnection will provide access to Ellington Road via the Town Shopping Center Drive and to Buckland Road via the Terry Office Park Drive. The development will consist of 60, 600 S.F. of office development, 8, 000 S.F. of retail development and a 41r400 S.F. banking facility. Parking for 300 vehicles will be provided. Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. has been retained to study the impacts of this development on adjacent street traffic, and this report documents the findings of the study. This report is being submitted, along with the supplemental information listed in the Table of Contents, to the State Traffic Commission (STC) , pursuant to Statute 14-311, as a major traffic generator. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS In the vicinity of the proposed development, Clark Street is a lightly traveled town road currently servicing a farm and a residence. It forms an unsignalized "T" intersection with Ellington Road (Route 30) to the north of the site driveway, and an unsignalized three leg intersection with -1- Deming Street to the south. It is approximately 21 feet in width and provides one lane in each direction. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. The Town of South Windsor is in the preliminary design phase of improvements to Clark Street. At the present time, the improvements include widening Clark Street to 30 feet and reconstructing the Clark Street/Ellington Road intersection. There is no funding in place for these improvements at this time, and the plans have not been finalized. In order to determine the impact of the proposed development on adjacent street traffic, traffic count data from Fuss & O'Neill ' s files for the intersections in the vicinity of the site was utilized. The turning movement counts were projected to the 1991 design year using a 1 - 1/2 percent growth factor to account for normal growth in the area. Traffic from the following other developments was also added to the background volumes. 1. Buckland Hills 2. Lakewood Condominiums* 3 . Heartland/Rickel' s Home Center* 4. J.C. Penny* 5. Town Shopping Center 6. Victorian Woods 7. Plum Ridge* 8. Firehouse/Office 9. Colonial Corner 10. Wapping Shopping Center 11. Buckland Hills Mixed Use Development 12. Gerber Scientific 13. John Fitch Industrial Park 14. Rye Business Park -2- These facilities have been completed and are now operating. However, since they were placed in operation after the counts were completed, their calculated generated volumes were added to the projected count data to produce the peak hour external traffic volumes. - The addition of traffic generated by these other developments to the projected 1991 turning movement counts produces the peak hour external traffic volumes, which represent design year traffic which does not have the site as its origin or destination. Figure Nos. 3 and 4 of Appendix B show the design year external peak hour traffic volumes. The greatest traffic impact on the roadway network will -- occur during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, the periods when commuter trips are at their highest levels. Traffic counts indicate that the A.M. peak hour is 7:00 to 8:00 A.M. and that the P.M. peak hour is 4:30 to 5:30 P.M. Therefore, these hours were subsequently analyzed. C. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Estimates of the amount of traffic generated by the -- development were made using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' 1987 publication "Trip Generation" . This publication is a compilation of trip generation data for similar facilities and gives data for entering and exiting traffic during the A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour, relative to the size of development. Using the number of square feet of development proposed, the calculations yield the number of vehicles which can be expected to enter and exit the site during the peak hours and on a daily basis. - These generation volumes are summarized in Table No. ' s lA, 1B, 1C and 1D of Appendix A. -3- D. DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC The regional arrival/departure distribution to and from the proposed development is shown in Figure No. 5. This distribution was derived from existing traffic patterns. Due to the geometry of the internal driveways, 25% of the generated traffic will use the Town Shopping Center Drive and 75% will use the proposed drive to Clark Street. An insignificant number of generated vehicles will utilize the Terry Office Park drive, since it will be easier to use Deming Street to access the site. The site generated traffic was assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the arrival/departure distribution to produce the site-generated traffic volumes shown in Figure Nos. 6 and 7 of Appendix B. The site-generated traffic was then added to the 1991 external traffic volumes to produce the 1991 combined traffic volumes, presented in Figure Nos. 8 and 9 of Appendix B. E. ANALYSES 1 . Capacity Analyses In discussing intersection capacity analyses, two terms are used to discuss the operating condition of the road or intersection. These two terms are volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and level of service. The volume to capacity ratio (v/c) is a ratio of the volume of traffic using an intersection to the total capacity of the intersection (the maximum number of vehicles that can utilize the intersection during an -- -4- hour) . The v/c ratio can be used to describe the percentage of capacity utilized by a single intersection movement, a combination of movements, an entire intersection approach, or the intersection as a whole. As the v/c ratio approaches 1, the intersection nears capacity and it may become impossible to accommodate all the vehicles attempting to travel through the intersection. Level of service is a measure of the delay experienced by stopped vehicles at the intersection. Level of service is rated on a scale from A to F, with A describing a condition of very low delay, and F describing a condition where average delays will exceed 60 seconds per vehicle. Delay is defined as a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel - consumption, and lost travel time. Therefore, intersections with longer delay times are less acceptable to most drivers. Level of service is generally used to describe the operation (based on delay time) of both signalized and unsignalized intersections, while v/c ratio is applied to signalized capacity analyses only. The definitions for conducting signalized and unsignalized intersection capacity analyses are taken from the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report No. 209 ) , published by the Transportation Research Board in 1985. The results of the analyses (summarized in Table No. 3 of Appendix A) are as follows: -5- a. Buckland Street and Deming Street Analyses of the 1991 External Traffic Volumes conditions indicate that acceptable levels of service will be experienced by Buckland Road traffic while Deming Street traffic will experience Levels of Service of E and F. Under -- 1991 Combined Traffic Volume conditions, the level of service on Buckland Road will change from C to D during the A.M. peak hour but all other levels of service remain the same. b. Deming Street and Clark Street While the 1985 HCM does not provide a specific methodology to determine levels of service for 3-way stop sign controlled intersections, an examination of Table 10-7 in the HCM would indicate that this intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak hours. .c. Clark Corners Drive and Clark Street Capacity analyses indicate that a Level of Service "A" will be provided for all movements - at this driveway during both peak hours. -- d. Ellington Road and Clark Street Capacity analyses indicate that acceptable levels of service will be experienced by Ellington Road traffic during both peak hours at this intersection. Left turning traffic from Clark Street onto Ellington Road will experience -6- fairly long delays during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (Level of Service F) . However, the analysis does not take into account the close proximity of the signal located at the Town Shopping Center drive. This signal will create gaps in traffic on Ellington Road that will allow this movement to operate at a better level -- of service than shown in the analysis. The addition of site-generated traffic will have -- little effect on the delays to turning traffic from Clark Street. Clark Street currently has a triangular island in the center of the intersection, allowing channelized right turns and left turns in both directions at this intersection. This -- represents a potential for confusion and side-swipe accidents as traffic merges or diverges on either side of the island. To further complicate matters, a utility pole is located in the center of the island which could be easily struck by motorists travelling in either direction on Clark Street, or turning from Ellington Road. Improvements, therefore, are recommended at Clark Street to improve the geometrics at this -- intersection and to remove the dangerous fixed object from the island. The roadway plan which accompanies this study shows the revised layout for Clark Street, and provides for a 15 foot lane for traffic entering Clark Street, and separate left and right turn lanes for traffic approaching Ellington Road. The triangular island has been removed, and the pole has been -7- relocated. This should greatly reduce the chance of severe accidents at this intersection. The town' s preliminary design for the reconstruction of this intersection is essentially the same as our proposed improvement. The developer would like to wait -- until the town has finalized it's plans before doing any work at this intersection. He will - then either contribute to the town' s project or improve the intersect-ion according to the town's plans. This- will ensure that the intersection will not be rebuilt twice, once by the developer and then again by the town. Certificate No. 802 for the Town Shopping Center calls for a traffic signal to be installed on Ellington Road at either the Town Shopping -- Center drive or Clark Street. It is presently planned to be installed at the Town Shopping Center Drive. The signal should be installed as planned, as there will be a greater volume of cars using this intersection than using the intersection with Clark Street. e. Ellington Road and the Town Shopping Center Drive This signalized intersection is presently under construction as part of the Town Shopping Center development. A roadway plan for this drive was submitted by Storch Associates for their Application for Certification (Certificate No. 802) . Under 1991 external traffic conditions, -8- it will operate at Level of Service A (v/c 0.57) during the A.M. peak hour and Level of Service B (v/c 0.82) during the P.M. peak hour. Under 1991 combined traffic conditions the levels of service will remain the same while the v/c ratios will change to 0. 62 and 0.91 respectively. f. Wapping Five Corners The Wapping Five Corners intersection is currently over capacity during the A.M. peak hour and the P.M. peak hour. The continued growth in the area has increased the overburden on this intersection. There is no realistic possibility of capacity improvements, due to right-of-way constraints and the location of historically significant properties. With the increase in traffic due to the Clark Corners development, this condition will continue. Under 1991 external traffic conditions, this intersection will operate at Level of Service F during both peak hours with a v/c of 1.68 during the A.M. peak hour and a v/c of 1.74 during the P.M. peak hour. Under 1991 combined traffic conditions, the level of service will remain the same, but the volume to capacity ratios will change to 1 .75 during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. 2. Sight Distance Analysis The existing sight distance, at the proposed site driveway, of 450' to the north will be maintained. -9- This is in excess of of the 365 ' minimum sight distance required by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) for a 40 mile per hour 85th percentile speed. A sight distance through to the intersection of Deming Street and Clark Street will be provided and maintained to the south. This will allow a driver exiting the site to see this intersection which is controlled by stop signs on all three legs. 3. Accident History The South Windsor Police Department was contacted regarding the accident experience on Clark Street in the vicinity of the site. No significant accident patterns were demonstrated. Therefore, the addition -- of site generated traffic should not cause any appreciable change in the accident frequencies. F. CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing analyses, it is the professional opinion of Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. that the introduction of traffic generated by the Clark Corners Development will not disrupt the continuity of traffic flow on the adjacent -- roadway system and that the roadway conditions, with the aforementioned modifications, will be sufficient to provide safe and efficient travel for the traffic in the area. 0217ATIS. 12 -10- r APPENDIX A TABLE NO lA Hourly Trip Generation Volumes Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut General Office Building ( ITE Land Use Code 710) S.F. *Weekday *A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit 4,000 123 11 2 2 12 10, 000 244 24 4 5 24 5, 000 145 13 2 3 13 14, 400 322 33 5 6 34 8, 400 214 21 3 4 21 6, 000 166 16 2 3 16 8, 000 206 20 3 4 20 4, 800 143 13 2 3 13 60, 600 .1563 151 23 30 153 * Calculated using methodology described in "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) in 1987. 0217ATRF. 12 i TABLE NO lA (Final Design) Hourly Trip Generation Volumes* Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut General Office Building -- (ITE Land Use Code 710) S.F. Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit 14,000 314 32 5 6 32 5,000 145 13 2 3 13 14,400 322 33 5 6 33 8,400 214 21 3 4 21 5, 500 156 15 2 3 15 5, 200 149 14 2 3 14 5, 500 156 15 2 3 15 58,000 1456 143 21 28 143 * Calculated using methodology described in "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) in 1987. 0512ADWO. 1 TABLE NO. 1B Hourly Trip Generation Volumes Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Retail, General Merchandise ( ITE Land Use Code 810) 8,000 S.F. *A.M. PEAK HOUR *P.M. PEAK HOUR Enter 0 19 Exit 0 19 Total 0 38 * Calculated using methodology described in "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) in 1987. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 326 0217ATRF. 12 i -- TABLE NO. 1B (Final Design) Hourly Trip Generation Volumes* Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Retail, General Merchandise -- ( ITE Land Use Code 810) 8,000 S.F. A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR Enter 0 19 Exit 0 19 Total 0 38 * Calculated using methodology described in "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 1987. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 326 0512ADWO.1 L_ 1_ TABLE NO. 1C Hourly Trip Generation Volumes Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Drive-In Bank ( ITE Land Use Code 912) 4,400 S.F. *A.M. PEAK HOUR *P.M. PEAK HOUR Enter 7 16 Exit 6 16 Total 13 32 * Calculated using methodology described in "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) in 1987. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 1, 281 0217ATRF. 12 TABLE NO. 1C (Final Design) Hourly Trip Generation Volumes* Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Drive-In Bank ( ITE Land Use Code 912) 5,000 .S.F. A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR Enter 8 18 Exit 6 18 Total 14 36 * Calculated using methodology described in "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 1987. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 1,456 0512ADWO. 1 TABLE NO. 1D Hourly Trip Generation Volumes Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Total *A.M. PEAK HOUR *P.M. PEAK HOUR Enter 158 65 Exit 29 188 Total 187 253 * Calculated using methodology described in "Trip Generation" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) in 1987. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 3, 170 -- 0217ATRF. 12 TABLE NO. 1D (Final Design) Hourly Trip Generation Volumes* Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Total A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR Enter 151 65 Exit 27 180 Total 178 245 * Calculated using methodology described in Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 1987. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 3,238 _- 0512ADWO.1 4 t F i' 1L3t J'9 - GROWTH RATE A i _ 1.^•' GROWTH FACT =1.06136 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*+ * * A.M. PEAK HOUR +� if ?� ENTER = 18 ** ** * *4 * EXIT = 29 * * * #{ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#* * ** 1987 # STPER * 1991 * SITE GENERATED -RAFFIC if 1991 ** * TRAFFIC #* EXISTING * DEVELOP- * Er'ERNAL *--------------+------------*--------#+ °:CMBINEJ ** � + —r rr'+ —�i-r n rT ,ern: * MOYEFEN ** -RAFFIZ * PENT # F 2 * _NEE ING t E � ..NG * Ot-L * ----------## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#* * if 70 * 2 * 76 * 18 E8 + ,^, ) * :3 {# L0; +* * ** .340 * 324 * 6a5 * 0 0 :; # ;, if ,8S *# ,J* 4 1#'i* 4i9 f ,26 * 771 * 12 28 t 1) rr * 9 #y* '99 T _5 ++ 25 * * i7 * 0 0 + l 1 * 0 *+ 27 TT 6 ## 36 * 3 * 40 * 2 3 3 0 * 3 *# 43 ** * g ** 91 + 3 + 18 * 3 + ,) * ? # y1 *# * 10 ** 703 * 261 1007 * 0 7 + 0 0 ** 1307 ** * 12 ** 711 * 26. + 1016 * 0 0 0 # ;) ** 1016 #* * 13 *+ 2 * ;) { 2 * 0 ;) + r) ;) * 1) ** 2 ** if 0 + 15 29 * 0 * 31 # 0 0 + 18 5, * `: ** 36 #+ + 16 ** 31 * 0 * 33 * 0 0 + 20 6 + 6 ** 39 *+ * 117 ** 37 + 1 * 40 * C 3 + 0 01 * 3 *+ 43 ++ # 19 ++ 40 # 1 * 43 2 3 0 ,) # 3 17 ++ * 21 ** 92 * 4 * 102 * 20 32 32 ** 133 #+ * 22 #* 107 * 4 * 113 * 20 32 + 0 0 * 32 #+ :49 if * 23 ** 28 * 0 * 30 * 0 + 20 6 + 4 *+ 36 ++ * 24 if 48 * 0 3 i 2 1 * 1 ++ 52 #+ * 26 ++ 129 # 5 * 142 r 0 0 ` _ * ++ :42 *+ # 27 +* 0 + 0 * ' * 22 35 0 0 * 35 #* 35 ** + 28 ** 129 * 5 * :42 * 22 5 + 0 0 * 35 177 if * 29 it 0 * 0 * 0 + 0 0 + 22 6 * 6 ++ 6 ** - +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+* r i J -;OjE:T NO. J i 546 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** #4 Ul I PEAK '0"UR t� ------------------------------------------------------------------- * �* 1997 * 7THER * i991 # SITE 3ENERATED TRAFFIC 1991 * TRAFFIC EXISTING * DEVELOP- * EXTERNAL *--------------+------------f--------*f COMBINED MDVEIENT ** TRAFFIC _ IENT * 7RAF:IC * EN-ERING + EXITING * TOTAL TRAFFIC {f * 7RAFFIC It * a :L + S VOL * VOL f ----------4f ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- -y----------- - #f 53 15 15 # 1 ** i) * ;} * if 015 is * 22 22 ## 32 ** 0 * 0 * 0 53 94 t 0 0 IF 94 ** 04 ** { 33 ** 76 * 0 f 31 { ' 0 t `: 0 f D a1 - * '4 * 76 * 0 * 81 * 53 94 ; 0 0 * 94 ** 164 ** } 35 108 # a 119 ,` 0 t 10 3 it 3 122 �* * 37 4* too # 127 * 9277 # 33 + 0 0 * gip) f* 327 # 4: *$ 3yt) * 127 f 959 # 43 69 - 4 . * ba *f 927 $♦ 41 *.+ 212 * 144 IF 369 * ;} ') t ;) 0 * 1) ** 369 # 42 f* 46 4 :) * y9 * .0 16 + ;) * .b +4 65 *# + 43 ** 2H { 4.44 * 41a * 10 16 ; 0 f 16 ** 434 #* * 44 ## 233 * - 91 # 339 * 0 + 43 17 * 12 #* 351 ** + KJ ** �, * r _. * 53 + r ", 0 i) + -j v3 ** * 46 ** C33 + - i44 * 391 # 1 0 43 tC # :i f* 404 {f f 48 #* # 47 * $7 * :i 25 # i #* 54 *f * J6 f* a * 4 * 1: { j + ') 0 * 0 ** 12 ** 4 57 ** 356 * 277 655 4 :' 1) + J 0 * f* 555 ff f 60 #* 267 ; 101 * '24 f ) :) } ** 364 +t* It 61 f* ',L # ;1 { ;6 # } ;) t ) :} * i} f* 16 ** IF JC +* -=C { 193 f 159 :7 43 ) 5 f 43 #f :002 *f f b4 H 270 * 35 f 322 * 0 0 t 0 ;1 f s) #* 322 r* 4--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------{* - & 0 PRO;,ECT NO. 37-546 }--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�F} } } ;0. PEAK HOUR }{ } }} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�} } }} 1987 } ?THEIR } 1991 } SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC, }} 1991 } TRAFFIC }} EX1STING } DEVELLP- } EXTERNAL }--------------+------------}--------}} 1OMBITNED *} } MOVEMENT }} TRAFFIC } MENT } TRAFFIC } ENTERIU6 + EXITING } TOTAL }} 7RAFt=IC }� } }} } 7RAFFII } } N. VIDL + 5 Vni } VOL }} }} ----------## ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}} } 65 *} C,3S } 41 } 29-j # in '? ^ 7 } 31`2 } 6 } 511 } 8 } 6Z�: } ?; 321 652 }� n r. ., 'Ij * 1J� # t� '74 1 }� 17 } 76 #} 39 f 4� + 53 # ,j �; yp3 �} } " }} �:� } .�u } �i66 } 0 0 * 6J �'; x cal }} 386 #; }----------------------—--------------------------------------------------------------------------}} -- }--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------tt PEAK HOER }} t tt #} t ## # }# }} t # # ENTER = 55 + }# } } E L = 1?8 # t# }} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------## # # 1987 OTHER # 1991 f S.TE SENERATED TYAFF,C 1991 # } TRAFFIC }} EA:JTLkdE } DEVELOP— # EXTERNAL #--------------t------------ LOMBINED �} 1OVEMSEN7: TP,AF;1C # 'SENT # - AFF:. + =`�Tc(1 G + =X1'1,la # TCTAL +# 'RAFFA, #� }# # TRAFFIC } # S '1OL + VOL } VOL }# t# # ----------## -----------------------------------------]-------------------------------------------#� # i 1t 71 '� J { 'J # .J 4C '} #} 1794 4?1 :n" n 1265 + # ## t i; + 0 # #t L1 #t } 6 } 7 #} 'v t # �; # i ,1 ;� 0 #t # 8 #} 54 { r + 53 * C 1 D 54 ## 0 AA # .3 tt i J '�' G # L L # J I, + •1 t it }# .1 } t 15 } SE # 3 # -;a # + 18 34 # 34 ## g? #t 84 # 4 t 93 0 0 + C7\ 3$ # 38 4# 131 ## } L7 ## 51 # U # v'► } i . + CCZ } 1g }} 65 t 7t 69t ? 1 + 0 10t 0tt 53 :3 + ' 13 + 66 +# # �.L4j #t 93 # 4 } .^3 # 'i 1 �� �1 t 41 �'# 1144 ## #----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.._--#{ +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------++ P.M. PEAK MUR f+ + ++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------++ + ++ 1997 + OTHER } 1991 + SITE 9ENERATEO 7RAFFIC ++ 1991 }+ + 7RAF :3 #+ =X:9TIM + OEVEL9P- + EXTERNAL #--------------t---- ^u --------+--------++ w3"b:NE t+ -- # MEMENT ## TRAFF:C * ONT # 7RAFFIC # ZNTERIN9 { EXITING # TuTk #� RAF:Z if # ++ + TRA`FIC f VOL + h VOL # YOL }} if ----------++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+# # '1 if ;i # } IJ # 1 0 * 5 141 + 141 if Al if # 33 + ?3 # 4 # 1;,3 # - ;� ;) # ++ 103 ++ f 34 If 93 + 4 # l? { =3 34 + 0 0 # 34 If 137 #} IS ;; ++ 44 + # 47 # 0 1 10 :9 + �a ++ Q, #+ # 38 if U # + 34 # 43 28 * 0 # 28 42 ## 40 if 326 # 245 f 591 + 43 28 t 0 0 + 29 it 619 *+ { *: if t 91 f :19 # 1048 { 0 0 0 :i + 0 if 1048 +�t + a2 if 63 + 2 + 69 + :0 7 t _ 1 # 7 75 #+ IF 43 if 344 f ct 1 + 1117 f 10 7 + 0 'j + r it 1123 }+ e 3� 165 345 n 3 F 1 s [ `a4 ff ut9 # !Ju � a•i 4J t v 1 � +•J .a � a �� ai:.6 +f f 46 ++ 829 # :19 + :099 # 0 1 43 31 f 21 1:80 if + 47 ## + Zvi f 102 f 0 0 - 0 0 # 0 +t 102 if + 40 ++ 0 + 173 + 173 # 0 0 35 47 + 47 #+ 220 ++ # 49 {+ j IF 275 f 275 1 0 25 47 + 477 if 322 +*+ 50 #+ 0 139 139 + 25 16 t 0 0 + 16 it 155 ++ + 51 +f 326 + 03 + 489 f 43 29 0 0 Z9 +f 517 e ! ++ 672 f 53 if 25 + 74 * 101 + J 0 + 0 0 + ; ++ 101 if -- e c �+� c ti n n l rn + �4 ++ 405 # t20 + 650 + :� :, :) + ., ++ 65, if 55 ++ 26; + 60 343 * .i , ti + if 343 ++ + 56 ff 53 # 9 + 64 f ; `i 0 0 + 3 ## b4 #+ + 55 7 f# 0 f 762 + 1158 { 0 3 + j 3 0ff 1158 ## + 58 #+ 18 IS 9 + 28 # 1 ', 0 0 # ; ++ 8 #+ :9 +# 205 + 113 + 331 { LI 0 * 0 is 340 + ;o +t 202 ++ 39 if 253 f 9 0 0 L# 0 if 253 if + ]a 0 :5 { y 29 { ry ' 1� ,r T I *+ y'? *S if 45 { 163 # 041 f 27 19 _ j + 18 if 650 #+ * 43 f# 42 + 0 + 45 # 0 0 0 ++ 45 #+ — + 64 f+ 38 + 48 f 141 + 0 0 ,; + 0 if :11 ++ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ++ t 0 'R01]EC' 10. 37-546 $--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}} } }} P.M. PEAK HOUR }} } }} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$$ } }} 1987 $ BOTHER $ 1991, } SITE 3ENERATED TRAFFIC }} 1991 }} TRAFFIC *$ EXISTING $ DEVELOP- # EXTERNAL }--------------t------------}--------}} COMBINED }} r r n r r r r n EXITING r + �• r^ } MOVEMENT �} :RAFclC } IEN $ TRAFFIC } ENTERING ; EXI ING # TOTAL �} K , IZ }} # }} $ TRAFFIC # } : VCL + S VOL $ VOL }} }$ $ ----------#$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}} $ 65 $} °7 $ 105 $ 7 13 1 11 { 13 }} :13 }} } 67 $} 1?0 + 93 } :9E } :> 13 # :3 #} 308 }# } 69 #} 213 $ 87 } 334 $ 0 1) t }} 314 }} -— } 79 $} Ws + 277 } 696 # 0 0 + 5 696 $+ - # ?3 #* :f * +�a _^` f J } �i s9 # :9 $} ;:7 }} + 74 +$ 265 # 71 $ 752 # 0 + :0 38 $ 38 #} 39 +$ } 75 +} 497 } :38 { 66Z } r t 27 } '? {$ 327 # 338 } ic:h } 0 t 69 :28 } :.8 #$ :344 #$ $--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------{$ & O FROJEC7 NO. 37-546 TABLE NO. 3 Level of Service Summary 1991 A.M. 1991 P.M. Intersection External Combined External Combined 1. Buckland Rd. & Deming St. C/F D/F D/E D/E 2. Deming St. & Clark St. A A A A 3. Clark Corners Dr. & Clark St. - A - A 4. Ellington Rd. & Clark St. A/F A/F C/D C/D 5. Ellington Rd. & Town Shopping -- Center Drive A/. 57 A/. 62 B/.82 B/. 91 6. Wapping Five Corners F/1. 67 F/1.75 F/1.74 F/1 .75 __ 0217ATRF. 12 APPENDIX B ► rI , 0� ♦ fe J4 �♦ • 17i►' �Y.f ••v !#r •• \ t V M4 etil art A to +� •of+, ► 1� i .• IS` few • +°� •1 rtt� �' '•° •° o�31O '+y+ •rereJ •r•• tr�f�1• tr I V acc co N Z •e + 't� +• • ' Yal sewtrre •r i LLP W-1 ' Y �r•elp♦ °i♦ V O• �!�► °• e• a ♦ej a � fir\ • � •rYY 1 = z z � u ♦ r, ►r b O,y� y t O W� •7 i ,fir ttlr rirrre o eO•� o' '4t ♦0i �V J 0 • OV, Z � o ♦ ra1 •�• /•c' �'!b►�°♦ .Y ?C7 n°' E `� � �. vea , S f�, V us 1 ♦ 1 W Q VI of ir/r �i/ •.�o �. eee•ie♦er, ° p O r• V ilr all e°♦ + ••� °•d Lr ♦�'•♦y ••r r� '��, N Irr rw of �•}yy F .i0 Z 3- ;�' ir4 Yr � � Or ♦d �e • d �i :i ,�� ♦1•ir � a Y it r i rtr YO •� •�i•1 r!♦ •1 • • ratI ` rielr ° it M•r O = 0 v cc �dJ r. i eY lY � • a O�r p Op / v Ow i•r# e a p U) IL I to e `s 1/ +• 7 �' all t rrtl L i t tr r #rMY °• � •�r �l�eMM r IYr# �#1�+• r � .� #e �•,1•wl#`�M � f r•tr n 4 e Is 1 J e ■•r e►♦ t • tr1 � • 1 •� L a O •J au`i t e` �•` ICre .►/• ,•t �Lr , 70 #r • No 5m(a� i4 ti fit ■ � st' _ • 'Yr� rY '•. K ♦° �' �d kj 3 tro�il r L 99 of 9 liri" 1J► °SAG v{ rlw°t°All — cr N O b A ,, cr e W �� t •�tr/ eY I 4 ^� U1 +O1 � � �� �O�i Y00#1 ��1 1� � v •r + 4♦ ♦. ♦•a . e . �C .. • • e fQLZCI _ROUTE 94 (SULLIVAN AVE.) N1 1 (ELLINGTON ~39 � -r�+ � �665 'l6 .30 ROA D) ROUTE 43-♦ 41 40 4`51 rob ROUTE 74 42-1 j /* 46'* 44-► #-50 1*-52 (ELLINGTON RD.) 1 t °' 90 .� ; TOWH M SH II yG k' o 62 f 3p CENT SH 1� 1 r ER DRIVE OPP/ G h h h 3I tr N N N ~ h ROUTE 30 1 coPCOPOO (OAKLAND RD.) C LA R K N N COR eR STREET CR/VE S rrERR), ING PgRK pR V�E , F � '6-- a \41 1 Z-c l � s I r DEM I NG STREET � r FIGURE NO. 2 r Rc FUSS&O'NEILL � o Q MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT -- 2 Q o TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS J �' -- m CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT cm PROD NO- 87-546 DATE FEB.1989 CHECKED 8y:Tpvj0 JOSEPH MERRITT 3 CO ROUTE 94 (SULLIVAN AVE.) o 62 (ELL1N(;TON ROAD) 3 - 0(17'E 30 418y 369-► 32 859 V-834 ROUTE 74 49 h 391y 338y f- 93 ~927 (ELLINGTON RD) 53 *7 1* as a v. 366 38 i` 30 1 � r r E ,'3 �. 29_ co p TOWIyXISTIIyG _i 1�r 9s9 O CENTERNpPPIIyG � �O � DRIVE he N 0 t/* h ROUTE 30 r PCOPOSED `O (OAKLAND R�) CLARK i M cORNF� STREET OR/vE S A 0 �► �� tea'V3 TER�k/STING a3 P4 F? oFFI�E DRIVE Al - � o � 1 ^ °� .� ee r DEM I NG STREET FIGURE NO.3 FMS&o'tvaLL Q MIANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT 2 ^ 1991 A.M. PEAK HOUR m EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES - CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT - PRW•ND- 87-546 DATE•FEB.1989 CHECKED ei-4 w • JOSEPH MERRITT 6 CO ROUTE 94 - o (SULLIVAN AVE.) co OD 1 95 f ELLINMN lb .l 2 1 ROAD ~557 CPO R/ �05 -- ROVE f� 34 � •�.� ��� 1117y1048 91 V`489 �5 ROUTE 74 y 69 r1099ti 1445—► f- 139~628 (ELLINGTON RD.) M d`40 54�i � 29 O N M � 2$ 1 r 'o /2I6� 3 352� � z8 M r 665 0 0 N EwN sI Ho" 7 �r 64, 1 ~ 0-0 O NTER DRI/AG p OM 0 gv r% tr r o co ROUTE 30 co PCOPoSED (OAKLAND RD.) ao- as BARK CLARK N^ CORNERS STREET � � �RI vE J► 5 '0 y rERR I S rI NG 69 �► PARK OR VE E A - �L4 O � 1 -10 ip o m� �S3 1 r DEMING STREET FIGURE NO.4 r f' FUSS&O NEILL Q MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT - Z 'IVr Q ' 1991 P.M. PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT N PROJ NO 87-546 DATE FE8.1989 CHECKED BY:D1A1b JOSEPH MERRITT&CO ROUTE 94 (SULLIVAN AVE.) 'pro 210/0 o0 10 (EL.LINGTON RpA D) 43% 21 / Z -- ROUTE 30 ftqfl 68% ROUTE 74 ♦``10/0 (ELLINGTON RD) o , 43% 00 --- Zp S3 5v. 25� 25�0 68�0 ?� TowN s rI#VG CENT HOPp ER aRJ ,E G 0 22 Pffo ROUTE 30 c�po. (OAKLAND RD.) CLARK o CORNEA STREET 2 OR Ve 0 PERRyJ or. zoa bolo qRk �RJVF f 2 2el ��y /89, ?% DEMING STREET 0 FIGURE NO. 5 .�� FUSS&O'NEILL W c T I C U T o r Q ARRIVAL / DEPARTURE 7 DISTRIBUTION -- m CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT PROD NO 87-546 DATE FE8.1989 CHECKED M IDWO JOSEPH ME►RRITT 6 CO ROUTE 94 — (SULLIVAN AVE.) -y'L (ELLIN � N R/ROAD) ~ w 0-0 ROUTE Isy Asa .� —► s8 ROUTE 74 16 �j /* 12y 12y 40 slog (ELLINGTON RD) M ev !� �� • 1 � r 20 3 � a,. TpWFX/ST/NG8 y 43 ctoCE " Sho z �r 1 �► �15 LATER SIR/�Es 7 ~22 -- t r r h M ROUTE 30 r P�C�SF° (OAKLAND FAO.) ro LARK CLARK �° CCRNEK STREET ► � � TFRRY/STING 3 pA K pfVl E R -- s � 1 ~3 J DEM i NG STR EET ti� r FIGURE NO.6 FUSS&UNBLL Q �y MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT — Z r Q A.M. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT N FR0.1•NO- 87-546 OATS•FEB.1989 CHECKED BY-PP/0 JOSEPH MERRITT&CO ROUTE 94 — (SULLIVAN -AVE.) �11 i ��3 (ELLINGTON ROAD) — — �\.y _ ROUTS � 2s ~28 � � �,► T—► y 28 ROUTE 74 �� •� h e1� 81y #I is 10-44 (ELLINGTON RD) 1 r '28-► 3e�. - M o a TowN XIST/NG' / CEIy?-ERHoppjNG# �r � 4� � OR/VE /4/ -- t r r a ROUTE 30 �( r pcopoSEo (OAKLAND RD.) ARK CLARK �'�' CORNERS STREET oR/vE `�► � TERRy'ST�Nc - �u, pAR!( OR/�ECE >�2 � � 1 3? VJ 1� 94.1/ 1 DEM I NG STR EET FIGURE NO.7 j f'� FUSS&UNBLL Q MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT _ 2 � o P.M. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC - m CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT PROJ NO ST-546 DATE FEB.1989 CHECKED BY:uwr • JOSEPH MERRITT 3 CO ROUTE 94 (SULLIVAN AVE.) 0 l - 6g2 rn �2N 3Z2 ROUTE OV � ROAD) � loop � �EL.L1NN 30 434 * 369y 92� �'902 +� �`�' a ROUTE T4 65 r 404 y 351 y f- 133 *-1035 (ELLI NGTON RD) (v 53 *7 N� 386. 4�} A3 18'8,,. 29 � ,� rowExlsrlro ate' '� 1 lobe t/5 cEl y Ek p IVG 0 v. �I�'� r/* r co h ROUTE 30 - 1 PROPOSED co (OAKLANO RD.) ARK CLARK �, M ORRNERs STREET I vE v TERRxISTING A? W PARK DRIVE CE E S 169 1 A. -8 Z �9/ oh P DEM I NG STREET 0 o FIGURE NO.8 r �0 FUSs&0l\0u. Q MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT 2 1991 A.M. PEAK HOUR COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES m CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT - PROD.00. 97-rJ4F> DATE FEB.I989 CHECKED ":prilb • JOSEPH MERRITT 6 CO. ROUTE 94 - (SULLIVAN AVE.) 0 N1 i O$ (ELLIN GTON ROAD) — 2 ROUTE 30 1123 48 y 10 6 �619 ~517 �`b -i ROUTE 74 75 1180 1126y f- 155 4-672 (ELLINGTON RD.) to tv faf Np • M ON 13�ti 3127� �s---. 2a •� "V6 ,I CE wN kSHON G 11 S�'r Z 1�0 LATER ORPI bG p h of vE coM co ROUTE 30 1 r PYopos (OAKLAND RD.) co Cl-ARK ICLARK = DRIVERS STREET E 55 s o Ex/S �5 TERRY T1NG -- ?O W\a, PARK �E E � t� ORI �A�ti A p�o6 vj �2? 1 r DEM I NG STREET h co V6� V6 FIGURE NO.9 r 1'O FUSS&oWBIL . Q h MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT Y 1991 P.M. PEAK HOUR c COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES m CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICwU.T� n PROJ NO- 87-546 DATE.FEB.1989 CHECKED QYCD1�O JOSEPH MERRITT&CO APPENDIX C 19$5 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U I MAVE AGE FN ` F , J!JR E ■.:. . . _, t-1 C'•. H C'..11 1 A t t C)R a a a . r v . v . . ■ . s ■ ■ . . . . . a ?I AREA Jfi=JL . _31 N. ■ . . . . ■ . . . ■ . ■ . . . . . . . . . 1�•.. _ _ _ NAME r!= THE 'AS' "WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . DEMING ST. NAME OF THE NORTH/S0t1TH STREET. . . . . . . BUCKLAND FAD. NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. - DWO DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ((Tim/do/yy ) . . . . . . '?-9--=�� T I ME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1991 AM HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iNTERSECTIO TYRE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EEC WEB NB SD ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT ,6 7 THRU t i 40 680 1�=}�:)T RIGHT 31 21 ju NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WEB NEB SD ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 J. LANE USAGE L + R LTR ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASI-BOUND c�, CiCi 90 X. N WESTBOUND C r, cii 90 20 N NORTHBOUND c=i■ c_i�i 90 Lc7 N SOUTHBOUND C i, c�iC� 9C i t:i N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS l COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- `ft'TT WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 0 SOUTHBOUN-D CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 1 o-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF' -------------- --------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS t 90 5. 90 1 ■ '00 6. ?0 WB 5. 90 5. 90 00 5. 90 MAJOR LEFTS S B 5. 20 5. s.2 c t_i, f_J c_i 5. 0 NB 5. 2Ci 5. �ci c_i. c:ici 5. C1 MINOR THROUGHS cB 6. 60 6. 60 c i. c aCi 6. 60 WB 6. 60 i 6. 60 Ci, C is i 6. 60 i MINOR LEFTS D i i WB 7. 10 7. 10 o r'. 1ti IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . DEMING ST. TAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . BUCKLAND RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 2-9-88 ; 1991 AM FEAR:: HOUR TION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES OTHER INFOFIMA CAPACITY AND LEVEL—OF—SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN— ACTUAL FLOW— TIAL MOVEMENT SHAFTED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcpri) c = c — v LOS p M SH R SH ------- --------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EEC LEFT 3t:� :> 3t:� 3i yT 27 E THROUGH 91 71 ii 71 E MINOR STREE; i. "1• :7HT i5 4�_ 4�r,_ 4s 22 3 r 6 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT S 494 494 494 485 A T 92 325 3r15 3rI5 22 3 4 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . DEMING ST. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . E{UCr'*:LAND RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 2-9-8g ; 1991 AM PEAT,:: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADJUSTMENT FACTOR'S Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND . c yc_7 N WESTBOUND {. 00 90 40 N NORTHBOUND 0. c c i 9c i t7 N SOUTHBOUND 0. 0o qi Cia N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMESINATION AND RV`S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND S-rD ,r. ;%JORTHED'O ND TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Tab 1 e 1(.:-2) VAL(JE ADJUSTMENT CR I T I CAL GAF' MINOR RIGHTS EEC 5. 9(-? 5. 90 i . 0(a 6. 9(i WB 5. 9 5. 9i a 5. 9c? MAJOR LEFTS SEA 5. ^(=) 5. is. c i�i 5. :.'Z)(' MINOR THROUGHS E B 6. 60 6. 6 c_a o. (:)t i 6. 60 WB 6. 60 6. 60 Q. 0i 3 6. 60 MINOR LEFTS WB 7. 1C) 7. 10 0. 00 r'. lo IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . DEMING ST. NAME OF THE NOR T H/SOUTH STREET. . . . BUCI(LAND RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . �-9'-88 ; 1991 AM DEAF::: HOUR —' OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED ,"r�i�FF I C VOLUMES 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 F'EA[::: HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 {) NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . CLARF::: CORNERS DR. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . CLARF-," ST. NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & O`NEILL, INC. DATE OF THE ANALYSIS mm/dd/vv) . . . . . . C—�?—S'3 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM PEAS--:: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1991 COMBINED TRAFFIC INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------.------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------_._------------------------------------------------------------- EEC WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT -- 6 0 84 T HR'U -- c) 14 81 RIGHT -- 15 35 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EEC WB NEB SEA -------- ------- ------- ------- LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURES RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS _—________._ ---------------- ----------__------ EASTBOUND ------- ---- ---- — WESTBOUND c i. 00 90 ^i) N NORTHBOUND 0. ()s) 90 ^c_i N SOUTHBOUND c.). 00 90 i; N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------•--------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ar MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- -------------- EASTBOUND __— --_ --- WESTBOUND C) NORTHBOUND i) c i SOUTHDOUND t_) CR I T I CAL GAPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 1 c i-'X2) VALUE_ ADJUSTMENT CR I T I CAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS WEB 5. 50 5. 5c i 0. 00 5. c i MAJOR LEFTS SD 5. oO 5. 00 o. oo 5. (_)0 MINOR LEFTS WB 6. 5C) 6. 5C-) (). i)o 6. 5o IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------_----------___-----------_-_------__--__-------------- h -5 -i- T - T u . . -': ', C O ��jE R L-� ji NAME OF i 1-E ; :� � FiEE . . _�hF: ��F..I iEFi_a ,i;. f 1 r i ?1 rn i r,� } i`1�1!ti F . H E i��1 11 I 1 i", S'�,�..i _T DATE ANZ r i ME 71HP r=NALYS I-7* . . . . . -'--'y--act All �,_�►�:: 1-�:3-UR y Li HER 1 NF0R1 AT 1 OON. . . . 491 Cr-i B II NED : r.AFr u CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF--SERVICE Page-3; -----------------------------------...--------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ ----- MINOR STREET WEB LEFT i 617 58� ,=,8 ' 575 A RIGHT 17 933 933 933 916 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT '-� 988 988 988 396 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . CLARk:: CORNERS DR. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . , CLARF:: ST. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . —9--88 AM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1991 COMBINED TRAFP I C 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 4o PEAF-:: HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 15()(:)()i NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . ELLINGTON RD. (RTE 3(-)) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . CLAR}-:: ST. NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & 0';:fE I LL, INC. - DWC; DATE OF THE ANALYS I S (mm/d d/yy) . . . . . . ^--9--88 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1991 AM PEAK* HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SLR ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT C-) 119 -- THRU 369 -- R I GHT 49 ^3 -- NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB -SB -------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 y -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LADE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND o. (--) y 90 2c i N WESTBOUND 0. 00 i 90t i N NORTHBOUND i), 00 90 �i y N SOUTHBOUND ----- ---- --- - VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCK'S % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- A S T D 0 U N D t_i WESTBOUND { i NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND --- --- --_ CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 1 -^) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF' M I 1J OR �EFT S MA wB 5. �tt) J. �5 �_�• '_ t_•` Jai. MINOR LIEF TS NB 7. 10 7. 10 uo T. 10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELL I NGTON RD. (RTE 't?) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARF-:' ST. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . .^-9-88 ; 1991 AM PEAk�: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH -------- -------- --------- ------------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET NEB LEFT 131 1�6 -9 F RIGHT ^S 642 64'2� 642 61 r' A MAJOR STREET WEB EFT ?J 7 4 74 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELL I NGT ON RIB. (RTE 3()) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARf:: ST DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . -'?-SS q 1991 AM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAF=rr--iC VOLUMES 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15cisi(:) r NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . ELLINGTON RD. (RTE 3ia) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . CLARK ST. NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUGS) a, O`NEI INC. — DWO DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . �-9-58 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1991 AM PEA[- HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT c) 100 0 1 THRU 369 827 t)RIGHT 65 0 :3.6 -- NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------....----------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 17) -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ----------------7-------------------_---------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURES RADIUS (+t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND sj. 0 i 9�; ?ci N WESTBOUND 0. c_,o 90 ;�c_� N - NORTHBOUND c i, c_)c_ 90 2c i N SOUTHBOUND ----- --- --- — VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUC�::.*S % COMBINATION ANDR t e S—• i�IE f r r-•i a� �,f-, ,,—, - r• WESI7 E-:+OUND NCRT BOUND SOUTHBOUND ---- ---- --- CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------------------------------------.---------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- --------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS NB 5. 90 5. 90 i i_). oc_l 5. 90 MAJOR LEFTS W B 5. c=� 5. c,x c;�,i c i 5. A i 7 MINOR LEFTS NB 7. 10 i. 1ci 0. 0c:) r. 1c_y IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EH%ST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELL I NG T ON�S RD. (r TE 'i)) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOLJTH STREET. . . . CLARK.' ST. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . —9-85 ; 1991 AM PEAk' HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES CAPACITY AND LEVEL—OF—SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN— ACTUAL FLOW— TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE FATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) • c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c — v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET NEB LEFT 134 113 1 c_)1 101 --:713 F R I OHT 40 635 6-35 6 59-j A MAJOR STREET WD LEFT t L r. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELLINGTON RD. (RTE �iy) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARF::' ST. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 4,-9-55 y 1991 AM PEAk:: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1985 HCM; SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. . ELLINGTON RD. RTE 30/TOWN SHOPPING CTR DR AREA TYPE. . . . . OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. — DWO DATE. . . . . . . . . . ^-10-89 TIME. . . . . . . . . . AM PEAK HOUR COMMENT. . . . . . . 1991 EXTERNAL TRAFFIC -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB ; EB WEB NB SD LT c,} 93 o ; T 127. o 1�. o 1 X- c:} TH 338 834 c i f=} R 12. 0 T 1�. 0 R a i 1^ 0 1^ r y i ■ 1 . to 1 . �� 1^ T ,�.� �.? 4� { i a r . 12. 0 12. -} ■ Cl i1i■ }} 12. 0 1is 0 1..■ �� 1is �� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV A D J �� BUSESr'HF F'EDS ;='ED. DUT. �Itt.i'la r` ± E 3 i_l, l l 0 .-, C_}c_l i� a_} �! }■ 9 C; l i` "" a 'i",•i ��L� �_�, �_}t_l 4, !_}3 N } l_} {_�, 9 J {} NB 4a iail 'N ;x i} ci. 9s� i} N 14 S B c,}. 00 4. 00 N 0 0 (). 9(-} c_} N -------------------------------------------------------------------------- S I GNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = '110. 0 F'H-1 H—^ PH—� PH-4 F:H-1 F'H—C F'1—I r=".--I-4 EB LT NL-; LT X TH X TH . RT X RT 1( PD PD WB LT X X SEA LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. WC G/C DELAY LOS APF'a DELAY APP. L 3 S EB T Qp ��■ i�JO (_)■ r 8i. is 5 A �_i■ � R t i. 048 0. 732 C. . A WB L c i, 04 7 0. 909 4 A -1 . 6 A T (). , (-a 0. 813 s . A NB L i}. 170 (_). 1(-)9 33. 9 D8. D i3 t l. 14 r' �_}. -2 3 6 D —--------—----------------------------------------------------- ---=-------- O H SINTERSECTION: Delay J 198C Hrm u S I SNAL I i ED I NTE SE CT i Gh S SUMMARY REPORT _ I INTERSECTION. . ELL I NGTON RD. FATE 30/TOWN SHOPPING CTR DR AREA TYPE. . . . . OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. — DWO DATE. . . . . . . . . . 2-1;z-89 TIME. . . . . . . . . . AM PEAF::' HOUR COMMENT. . . . . . . 1991 COMBINED TRAFFIC -------------------------------------.-------------------------------------- VCLUMES . GEOMETRY ELF WEB NB SB : EB WB NEB SB LT _ - - — 14 - I i - i� 1 C i, T 1: . ;� ��. t� C� 1 . c� 1 . �x _ 1 i 1 51 9;'2 �� �� : R 1i■ �� fit- 1i■ �� R 12.0 12. 0 RT )3 i) 54 0 1�. o 114-1. 0 1�. 0 RR 0 r j c-) t i 12. 0 12. 1 XL. 1�. i . it i 1 . 0i In, 0 1 1. 0 --------------------------..----------- - _ --- ---------------•�----------------- ADJUST MEN I I AC T ORS GRAD Er HV AL' IF'F:`G BL. IFLiF WEDS -=D. !�''-. ARR. TYPE Y/1\1 Nm Nb Y/N fn3.n T E B (i. c_�o 4. oO N 0 0 �_a. 75 i� N 8.C 3 w B i;, i 4. E�i_� N c_) i y c=). 9 C y N 9.5 C i\11B i;. c;c_a 4. ci�� N is Ci t?. 90 0 N 14. 5 SB . t_a o 4. i y , N C) 9 c i C i N 14. 5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- S I GNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH PH-1 P H—^ F'H-3 PH-4 PH--1 PH-22 PH-3 ='H--�; EB LT NB L�- x TH x TH RT x R , x PD r- WB LT x x SB LT - TH x x TH RT RT PD PD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL ��F SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. L0S EB T . 268 0. r 8� '22. 5 A 2. 5 A R o. o48 ). T8C . 1 A W B L o. 04-7 0. 909 c i. 4 A 1 . 8 A T 0. 658 O. 818 ,:. A NB L 0. 1�r () 0. 109 3�. D 1418. 1 D � l�■ i 6� C . i 36 4 -------------------•-'----..-.---------'-•---...------------------------------------ INTERSECTION: Delay = . 4 (sec/veh) V/C 0. 6 4 LOS = i A FU �` NE1L1: PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. Q consulting engineers BY BY zwo L114f/y 87- S4( SUBJECT: L&&r°Prn`j �o �N�rYldSar• I q9I Am Ex4ex- qo J, SHEETNO. F Ye Coc-ne�-s a.k Ax /r-a.4 Ti G 1 of 3 J LANE -T X =AoSvtTitu Yow►�E L M F�.o tv Sue-�r vmv Ave' Assn+ -7 4(i .9 / 5/ 9 4 4 / 514 •9/ A400 5!0 5 ELrt.,Nt+TDN z 'Rb,)rS 74 q4 .qt /03 9 s 4� - 9 �,W - �o/ - - - ti�ti. go � i 2TS 30 Jw Q4GC.rrNi7 �. t I z5zo •9/ /3''" NT C { �4D /,00 � /0 p� p �-�- •9� -- -= - - - .--- - --- -- - - ' � LLJ 6 � � ssq .ql - f•� 1 � 3�cKt,w� Sr Z. Se. X X TvsY-TOW %• T3 ��V. ys".Y-+Q- y1tLT Y-;,.T ! s %Kravmom SATURAnON FLOW ADJUSIMENT WORKSHEET F L off/ LANE GROUPS AD FACTORS O O O 0 O 4 0 O (D ® ® ® Ad®at. App,r_ Lire Ideal Na o! Lane -Heavy Grade Pk& Bus Area Rial+c heft GcoWSat Lane* Width �+ieh Type Tum Turn Rat Mo Flow t I I t I ( f f (pcphapq N TableTable Table Table (vpb8) 9•S 94 9-7 94 9.9 9-10 9-11 9-12 .93 •98 %� to is .o /.0 — — NB /800 ! •93 •98 /C.o Ito !o /,0 /.o 1.0 /�f41 �-' /9 00 1 1 .93 1, 1 /0 /o M .92V I&oq 4 1600 1 ko .9g /.D 110 /.C7 40 .4p 0 1747 B l� ipoo 47 .98 10 1 /0 /,0 10 /,0 A5 / Z( - /600 ! .9'I .95 10 1.0 to /.0 -- — .�' /eoo .93 .98 !0 I c) JD Av I.0 .q5 /5�8 l/. 10 .98 1.0 /o l.0 /.0 .qS1 /.0 I idle W9 ./ 0 !0 ql4- /•0 1753 -dr lgov I ,9� Ae k0 i.� i�� I U l��• I TT-7� INF JLLPREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. corm.�tjng et-K nec" BY BY rvo Z-/3-69 SUBJECT: &/6tlolO17 j l Rq 1 Ms _Xf� �'�-r SHEET NO. jrwc Go�er7S ,.�.�t VJndsoT I•J:,j r- Tr"a 'I L Z,of 3 s _ 3'GP. 1 T FL v�/ CRincAL LANE Y ' •-- "- AKsK LANE AsE ADI: SA • U U k"P �- CWROuP FL.oW FLOW RA-nl> r- `ws /C "'APAc,,T /C . ....' - t 4 �o,$ / I 3 Z r �- 4 io3 /(ooi •ap4- • 2oCo 331 .311 let 4MOC look .3;4. loal 1748 >' , 3 . Z 90 50(o I• l88 ' _ `_: 1 . 4 3 230 / zG . 141 ✓ .064- )37 1.(aR px= 1'36 Z . -♦ �' + 4 4 Xt .30 /.(.7(0 5 �a� 54 4�� 2 -3 4-07 1.(o73C - - TE1z.S[GT1d►.r< -� ► Z oat /(,078 •o DECAY= ' �bq . Z(�o -&44 s3 ,z 1 1 Los = 4.lE�rc V Fkd lkm Mw Second o f Sscv�t Secotd& TOW &LOS O © © O LAM c� � Der LAM oar P on Lam Lam Ash � Guxtf Ratio Rita L %th , cop d2 Factor Ccoup CroV Delay LOS Move- X a/C C (sic/v+eh) Capacity (sa/veh) PF Delay LOS (sec/v+dt) Tibk a>tec>t!s (sec) c Table9-13 (sec/veh) Tabk 9-1 (vph) X 94 t J6,7�- •Lf /Zu 7, �•O I / 331 Zc& zv 3o•-7Z 0,,$ /.a 30,go G14�� F l,l�S .2qo Izo 35D7 Selo 111.83 /•° /46.•1v F SEi3 �.. I•(P t .084 ►U 4 .s4 /37 7Z6 4'j /•0 77/.03 F 31 q. swa 1,03 .w3 IZO 44,Z3 407 F 7/8-84- t= _bo 1.110 61 44 q9' 7 Z 730-Z• I'a gz S Z3 F _ _ t z v l•D Z70.9� 1' -"Iw •(044 •w0 /aO Z .9 3& ►Zb /.0 3 Z,Z 'D `s- I-14,7 IS, lto 5-7 1 I,a4.90 10 F w8 �-- J.&70 .7,15 ��8 li7/.�q10 71- 3 F 47(� �' LEFT TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR WORKSHEET WAPPIN6 FIVE CORNERS - A.M. EXTERNAL TRAFFIC tt--------------------------------------------------------------------------------tt ** TN?UT VARIABLES * NORTHBOUND t Swu.n"THBOUND * EASTBOUND * WESTBOUND ** tt---------------------,----------------------------------------------------------- *t *t CYCLE LENGTH C t t * t 120,00 *t *t EFFECTIVE SREEN g t t t t 28.^^ tt *t N!UM3ER CF -ANES V * } * t 1.10 ** WC-AL APP. FLCW ?ATE v(a) * * 614.00 ** :':W RATE v(t) * * t * 614, **LEFT 7JRS11 FL:14 rr?T; v(L') f + # * 11.30 *t f* ?RCPORTION CF LT P(LT) * * } * 0.05 ** ** OPPOSING LANES N(0) t t t t 1.00 tt tt OPPOSING FLOW RAT-7 v(0) t * * t 151.00 tt tt PROP L7 :N OPP VOL P(LTI! * * * * 0.00 tt tt--------------------------------------------------------------------------------tt tt--------------------------------------------------------------------------------tt -- ** COMPUTATIONS * NORTHBOUND * SOUTHBOU'ND t _ASTBOUND * WESTBOUND tt *t--------------------------------------------------------------------------------tt ** SAT FLOW RATE, 'OPP S(op) * 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 * 1800.00 t* tt FLOW RATIO, OPP Y(o) * #DIV/01 * #DIV/0: * #DIV/01 * 0.08 *t **p/o Rai NDT BL OCKE g(u) * #DIV/01 * #DIV/01 * #DIV/01. * 19.79 ** tt LEr? TURN SAT FAC' *(s) * 0.88 * 0,88 * 0.88 * 0.'r8 ** ** p/o LT ;'4 SNARE :V ?(L) * #DIV/0! * #DIV/0' * #DIV/0! * 0.05 ** , ** p/o SRN BLOCKED g(q) * #DIV/01 * #DIV10! * #DIV/O! t 8.41 *t tt p/o TH IN SNARE LN ?(T) * #DIV/01 * #DIV/01 t #DIV/0.' * 0.75 ** ** I g(f) * #DIV/0! * #DIV/0'Po . * #DIV/01 * 7.37 ** tt ?H EQUIVALENT E(L) * 1.29 * 1.29 * 1.29 * 1.44 ** ** LT FACTOR, SHARED f(m) * #DIV/O! * #DIV/6v' * #DIV/0' * 1.00 ** tt LT FACTOR f(L'.) * #DIV/01 * #DIV/01 * #DIV/01 * 1.00 tt tt--------------------------------------------------------------------------------tt F & 0 PROJECT NUMBER 87-546 SHEET 3 OF 3 Fu 'Nat..t='` PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. consulting engineers BY go b t,,wo SUBJECT: 1n/a/�,o,n �o �vend s of-' J 9q 1 AM —Ira SHEET NO. F Ye Corrte�S c +r l raX1 c, ` of 3 Awew M,E LAN X ` Ave. Yo �A ME 9 —7 - /.oo s 51 700 SZ•S L c.t�.iNb�oN Z� by ' RboTtr 74- 9 4 .q t.ooAj �o 3 1 00 v 1 q! . � . 9 G 37 ,Z- y �to ��Tj �/ y *--384 �- . ��9 EtLiPvG7a^!?-'b 12, io' � 0,4�D CO- . ' J /Z Z /,vo 13 l�- 12, 83•-y { 4co , q 1 •/.oo -. 440 10. - �00� . 9� /Old �0 610 r va ,3vcK�wu� S Sst�wano►� SAMUnON FLOW ADJUS'TNONT WORKSHELT FLO%q LANE GROUPS AD FACIX)RS 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 Adj t Appe. Line Weal No of Lane Eieavy Cade Pkg. Bus Area Right Left - E1Ow Sat Lines Width Wh Type Turn Turn Rate movements Flow ( I fmv f f f fT f (P~) N Table Tablea (rvhs) 9-5 9-6 9 7 9-8 9-9 9-10 1 9-11 9-12 /900 1 -93 .98 lo 10 /0 ko - I/6 /800 1 •93 .9B /,o l 0 /0 /,o 11.0 1.0 col • /4600 quo /0 l 0 /.0 .qeJ /600 140 ,q9 40 /0 /0 ,983 40 1 73 4- l.V 1600 1 ,97 ,q8 /.0 I C a to 110 LID 1b z U /eoo J .97 ,98 t c) 10 /.0 to L0 — SWa /moo 1 /oS •98 t 0 / -�' /600 .98 /•D /..0 j.D I•0 , S0 is5 Ea --V4 /8ov •9-3 ,9g /0 /•0 /0 /0 /.0 yy ,98 40 /o .qq¢, /•0 /15 3 -�-- /goo I .97 .9� l� �• �` i�� �.a. 1 0 l�/l 'Na� PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. ra OOY1Sl,itting eng1�Y5 BY BY bwo Z-i3-89 87 — 54� SUBJECT: IAJaIOI°ir7� 1q.91 llAM 6c&I 4 I n ccd SHEET NO. eve- Gor-►-ei-S t!� �r r��k h ,j z,of 3 1 i 3.CAP. LA N E ADS: SAT. FLD v1/ CRITICAL Q c�Po uu P y r - ---;-- l L1fSI$ URo�P Pl�AsE FLOW FLOW RATId. R-OWS VV/C A- ic`.!T /C 4 eo v 4- .l 317 z� .IAVt�CCA10�! �fe 1.75 3a4• &37 1734 •14.z� .278 48Z 1.32Z on L. 3 Z-30 l60z .141 ,/ 1061 /3Z 1,74Z ' j= I.4Z� -: - -.► `- 7/60 S41 .4(0:S l -t&& 410 4- /34 ems? .010 �1 Z rs�s6�noat I Z Zq0 /6/f6/ .090 .Z(�8 �Sj 3 DES-I1�= S�IS,d9 2440 475,3 -3 es7 ±:37 LO $. 38-7 / .Z 7 4.l�vEt, GcowFont Mnt smomd Too DebyIt LOS ssv� O © O O . O © O 4 O Appc Lme v/c, Creep Cyde Delay Lane Delay Progression Lane Lane Approa& ApM Croup Ratio Ratio Length d, Croup d2 Factor Croup Croup Delay LOS Mover X g/C C (sec/veh) Capadty (sec/veh) PF Delay LOS (sec/veh) Table >me%ts (set) c Table 9-I3 (sec/veh) 'able 94 (vph) (0+4D)X M 9-1 .3ZS ./97 IZv 44.87 17 ,ZZ i•0 31.&3 D 739.98 F A /13zz .Z715 Izo 3748 45Z Z6,5'o l-v ZSl'09 r 5ES 74-Z .v8 U 44,04 13Z 847.7Z' 1.0 6qZ,Szo F 4Z/•-z6 F SW(3 1,74to .Z(.(i Izo 4-10 810•Va 556.13 F e5?;./3 -U' /,787 .o47 tw 45,Z '71) 987.40 �.a /0 3Z-�P I F 62 --r;6 1-40 3J.7/ c> 348.03 F -5* -&43 •Z(a8 1 zv Z9. 451 Z-� i.o •� /. i37 .711 3 4•ZO 38.7 8g 00 /•0 /7-4.110 F W,8 •ZZ Izv 3G.9G 37� gz2.os t: v 5&7. 9 F 570-$4' LEFT TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR WORKSHEET WAPPING FIVE CORNERS A,M-COMBINED TRAFFIC t*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------tf tt INPUT VARIABLES * NORTHBOUND f SOUTHBOUND f EASTBOUND * WESTBOUND *f **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ft ff CYCLE LENGTH C f t t f 120.00 tt ** EFFECTIVE GREEN y t t 28.20 ft ff NUMBER OF LANES N f f * f 1.00 ff **TOTAL APP. FLOW RATE via} f f * f 662.00 ff tt MAINLINE FLOW RATE v(m) f f * t 662.00 ff **LEFT TURN FLOW RATE v(LT) f f f t 32.00 *f ff PROPORTICN OF LT P(LT) f f * f 0.05 tf tt OPPOSING LANES N(G) f f f f 1.40 ff *t OPPOSING FLOW RATE Y(0) f t t f 151.00 ff tt PROP LT IN OPP VOL P(LT") f # * f 0.00 tt ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------f* f*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------tt ** COMPUTATIONS f NORTHBOUND f SOUTHBOUND f EASTBOUND f WESTBOUND ff ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff ** SAT FLOW RATE, GPP S(w-p} f 0.00 f 0.00 f 0.00 * 1800.00 ff ff FLOW RATIO} OPP Y(a) * #DIV/01 * #DIV/01 f #DIV/0! f 0.08 *f ffp/o GRN NOT BLOCKED g(u) f #DIV/01 * #DIV/0 f #DIV/0! f 19.19 ff ff LEFT TURN SAT FACT f(s) f 0.38 f 0.88 f 0.88 f 0.i8 *f ff P/-- LT IN STARE LN P(_} * #DIV/01 f #DIV/0! f #DIV/0' f 0.351 it ** p/o GRN BLUKIKED #DIV/01 * #DIV/O! * #DIV/0' t 3.41 ff tf a/o TH IN SHARE '�N P(T) * #DI'i/;! f #DIV/t: f #DIV/0' 0.95 ff *t INITIAL p/o GRN g(f) * #DIV/^! f #DIV/0! * #DIV/0' * 7.41 ft tt ETH EQUIVALENT f . 9 * 1.49 f 1.29 f 1.44 ff ** LT FACTOR, SHARED f(m) * #DIY/0' * #DiV/0! * #DIU/0'. * 1.00 ff tf LT FACTCR f(LT} * #DIJ10! * #DIV/0! f #DIV/0: * 1.00 ff *f--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff f APPENDIX D 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STR'EET. . 4c} PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15()ii rc i NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . DEMING ST. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . BUCk::LAND RD. - NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. — DWO DATE OF 'THE ANALYSIS) (mm/dd"yy) . . . . . . C-9-88 T I ME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1991 PM i E!A�,: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I NTERSECT I�;N TYPE: 4—!_EG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN --- CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- ELF WEB NEB Sig LEFT i1 21 37-41 06 , THRU -74 11 1176 1()18 RIGHT 58 1 45 to NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WEB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 LANE USAGE LT + R LTR ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURES RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND ca. t ac i 90 c i N — WESTBOUND o. 00 90 2 i N NORTHBOUND 7. 00 9c i c_1 N SGUTHLOUND c }{ 9( c r N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBCUND C' { WESTBOUND c_a c"_� 0 NORTHBOUND c a i y i t SOUTHBOUND (l t_l I) GRIT-CAL GAPS ----------------------------------------------------------------------_ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Tan 1 e i i r--^) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR I T I CAL GAF' -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS - a. 5. 9�% . 90 1 r oc 6. 90 WB O. 9r) _5. 90 t . 00 5. 9i y - MAJOR LEFTS SB J. '.':_'O 5. 20 o. oo 5. 42 1 �j 5. MINOR THROUGHS EB 6. 6c i 6. 60 i c_J, 00 6. 6(--) WB 6. 60 6. 60 i i y,00 6. 60 MINOR LEFTS -- WB 10 f . 1iy ci. 71. 1() IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME O THE FAST i WE—T T REE T. . . . . . DEM I NG }T_ DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . —9-88 OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES _ _ CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 13 72 43 > 56 43 > 14 30 >E E THROUGH 29 91 66 > 66 > 37 > E RIGHT 70 166 166 166 96 E - MINOR STREET WB LEFT 25 72 26 > 26 > 0 > E _ THROU8H 13 91 66 > 48 66 > -16 53 >F E RIGHT 25 184 184 > 184 > 159 > D MAJOR STREET _ SB LEFT 68 240 240 240 172 D NB LEFT 40 316 316 316 277 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . DEMING ST. — NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . BUCKLAND RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 2-9-88 ; 1991 PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES _ - '- 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 40 PEAR-:: HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15O()00 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . DEMING ST. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . , . . DUCKLAND RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. - DWO DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . --9-88 TIME r'ERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1991 PM PEAP.* HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I INTI ERSECT I ON TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN -- CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EEC WEB ND SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 1i1 45 56 THRU ^8 i L 1176 IC- le RIGHT 91 45 1� NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- A 1 f: H J E _r r: r-: ADJ,_jSTMENI i 1 A 7CIRS - i.ge-.,_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND t . sii i qi y ^c_a N -- WESTBOUND 0. 00 90 N NORTHBOUND c7. 00 90 2s a N SOUTHBOUND c_J, Oc i qic_� N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- %- SU TRUCKS % COMES I NAT ION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND c-) WESTBOUND ) NORTHBOUND 0 SOUTHBOUND — CRITICAL GAPS ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------- _ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST. r=I NAL ;Tau I e 1 i)-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR I T I CAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS -- ELF 5. 90 5. 90 1 , c_y0 6. 90 i WEB 5. 90 5. 90 y 0. 90 MAJOR LEFTS SH 5. 20 5. '0 NB s. �t i 0 MINOR THROUGHS ELF 6. 6c? 6. 6c� :y, i yi 6. 6�i WEB 6. 60 i 6. 6(-i ;i r 00 6. 60 i MINOR LEFTS EEC T. 1t:� T. J. r J.0 3 . 1�_� 1�, f_��_� (■ 1{ W B ( � IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . DEMING cal . NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . r . BUCKLAND RD. DATE AND TIME F THE ANALYSIS. . . . . ., —88 9 1991 PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN-- ACTUAL FLOW— TIAL MOVEMENT SHAFTED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c -- v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------- --- MINOR STREET ES LEFT 13 41 55 41 8 C, E E - THRDUGH4 91 6 6 ^9 E RIGHT 111 166 i66 166 55 E MINOR STREET WB ; rFT 275 �^r1 •1 /1 L i� � i .L'"1' 1 1 _ THROUGH i 5 91 63 —35 49 RIGHTS 184 184 184 159 D MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 68 �40 40 24C) 1 D N9 LEFT 54 ;1-:5 16 3.16 '26"-:2 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION( ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . DEMING ST. :,TAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . BUCF'LAND RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . ^-9--88 1991 FM READ-:: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFrIC VOLUMES 1485 HCM; UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 -- PEArk' HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5j C-)C-)L NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . CLARK' CORNERS DR. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . CLARP:: ST. NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS O'NEILL, INC. -- DATE OF THE ANALYSIS :mm.'dd/�YY . . . . - - ,5 TIME PE R I OD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM PEAk:: HOUR -- TRAFFIC OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1991 COMBINED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T—I N-'ER SE C T I ON MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/S0UT1i CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND; STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NEB SEA ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT -- = 1 i ?4 THRU -- i 3 qg j tTj RIGHT -- 10C 14 {'y NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------•-------------------- _ ES WB SL1 LANES -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 -------------------------------------•-------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LAME GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND ----- --- WESTBOUND O() 9c"1 20 N NORTHBOUND c i. (Do 9i) 20 N SOUTHBOUND (io 9i) is i N VEHICLE COMPOSITION -- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES T MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- —____--------- EASTBOUND ___ __— --- WESTBOUND c i 0 0 NORTHBOUND i f i SOUTHBOUND cj } �y CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Tatrl e 1 c a—'?) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF' -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ -- M I NOR RIGHTS WB 5. 5) 5. 50 �a. c_?O 5. 5o MAJOR LEFTS S B 5. 00 5. (DO i c a.c.i c- 5. )o M I N 0 R LE FTS T i T !'�\/T h ^ T i it'�!•q 1 IDEN , Tl r NL:j sill= R.; A% NAf'''1E OF HE ;=A�-i 'hiE'� �''. EF . . . . z C__r+� NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARK ST. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 2-9-88 ; PM PE}:: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1991 COMBINED TRAFFIC CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHAPED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET WEB LEFT 45 684 669 669 6224 A RIGHT 110 990 990 990 88 y A MAJOR STREET S8 LEFT 3T 99S 998 998 961 'A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------"---------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . CLARk:: CORNERS DR. -- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARK ST. DATE AND T I ME OF THE ANALY S I S. . . . . -9-GG 4 F'M F'EAf: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1991 COMBINED TRAFFIC 1980 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION! --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 40 PEAS-:: HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 0 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . ELLINGTON RD. (RTE 30) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STR'EET. . . . . . . CLAR�::: ST. NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. - DWO DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm,f'dd/yy) . . . . . . �'--9-8 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1991. PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTIONS MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EEC WB NB SEA . LEFT 7—To4 471 -- T HRU 1048 15 C? RIGHT 69 rj NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EEC WEB NB SEA ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 i -- - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page- --------------------------------------------------------------------- _ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ----------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND i). 0o 90 2 i N WESTBOUND (-). ()i 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0. t;r() 9c i yc_r N SOUTHBOUND ---------- ---- --- VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCK's % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND - NORTHBOUND i t SO iTHBOUND ---- --- --- T^LDi...LAR. ,Y AL!JLS 1-DD". S3TED' J.r H"r D I ST. �i1"•I�..— • j T 1 r r1 1 9� �S"r I—ti -- •'I`i l''*'T r5/a. rt -------------- --------- ------------ ------------- - MINOR RIGHTS NEB 5. 90 5. 90 o. c_rci 5. 90 MAJOR LEFTS Wit 5. Lc i 5. 21c i 0 ist4 5. 210 Y, MINOR LEFTS B i i •' 7. IDENTIFYING i NFORMAT.i ON _---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELL'INGTON 'D. (R'TE NAME OF THE NORT[A/SOUT•H STREET. . . . !Cl LARK'. ST. _ DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . �-9-88 ; 1991 PM PEAF::: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c. (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT O^ T^ 67 6 15 E RIGHT 156 204 ^54 �54 19$3 D MAJOR STREET I,)D LEFT 37 3222 ��,., 372� ^84 1. ii ii. �ii IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELLINGTON RD. (RTE 3{;) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARK ST. DATE_ AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . �-9-88 ; 1991 PM FEAR:. HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EX TE�;NAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page --------------------------------------------------------------------- _ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0. c�c y 9�i 20 N WESTBOUND -90 20 N NORTHBOUND (). •_�(_' 9 �t_) ! N =iCUTHBOUND ----- --- --- — VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - % SU TRUCE::S % COMBINATION AND RV"S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND {) C) { WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND t:) i) {? SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS NB 5. 90 5. 9(:) t i. .00 5. 90 MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS NB i'. i ) i. 10 o. tic:) . 1 o IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELL T NG-70N RD. :R:TE 31':)) NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARk:: S T. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . -9-S3 1991 PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW-- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH -- ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET NEB LEFT i 61 61 -1 a F RIGHT 145 53 253 2253 108 D MAJOR STREET W2, Fr 68 319 319 9 �J 1 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ELLINGTON RD. (RTE 30) -` NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . CLARk:: ST. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . .2-9-88 1991 PM PEAk' HOUR OTHER INFORMATION. . . . COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES _ 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. . ELL I NGTON RD. FATE 30/TOWN SHOF'F' LNG CTR DR AREA TYPE. . . . . OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. •— DWO DATE. . . . . . . . . . �-1 o—•89 TIME. . . . . . . . . . PM PEAK HOUR COMMENT. . . . . . . 1991 EXTERNAL TRAFFIC -------.------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SEA LT t�� 139 1t=7� 0 : T 1^. 0 L 1�. o L 1^. �-) 1^, o TH 1045 489 c_y c i : R 11. T 12.0 R 11. 0 1. . o R'T� 54) �+y 173 0 : 12. t:� 12. 0 1^. i_� 1^ �o . RR l r! t {-� �! : 1 ■ 0 1 i.() 12. 0 1X2,a 0 a 1^ 1.r. �? 1�. �_� 1�. �.a .2. 0 122■ 0 12. 0 12■ 0 1.�. -...-------.- ------------------------------------------------..--------....-.-------- AD,7USTMENT FACTORS GRADE. ^V A J F'i:::G BUSES F'HF WEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min E B i , (DO 4. i, N i s c i. 95 0 N 8. 5 3 WB c:f, 00 4. 00 N C) j 0. 95 0 N 8. 5 5 NB 0. 00 4. 00 N 0 0. 90 0 N '1.4. 5 3 se c_x. (j a 4. i}0 N 0, 90 t i N 14. 15 --------------------------------------------------•--------------•------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 110. C-) PH-1 F'l-i— F'l-i—�' PH-4PH-1F`H-- F'H— PH-4 EB LT NB LT x TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WEB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE .v LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DECAY APP. LOS EEC T o. 7 98 s). 7S62- B ,:'4 B R O. o48 0. i 82) �. 1 A WB L 0. 047 G. 909 (=). 4 A A T o. 357 (-). c318 +--). 3 A NB L 0. 693 i)a 1ii9 43. 3 E 74. T D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _ _ _ _ �E ((''}}1�� Q 1 I,a i L i�i �+T 1 O 1 til: Del a`�/� �• ! s ... �r'i._: ���/ ' _- '_ _�s .-.y i_.- v "' �� -- 1995 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT I INTERSECTION. . ELL I NGT0N RD. RTE 30/TOWN SHOPPING CTF' DR AREA TYPE. . . . . OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . . FUSS & O`NEILL, INC. - DWO DATE. . . . . . . . . . �-1 o-89 TIME. . . . . . . . . . PM PEAK' !-TOUR COMMENT. . . . . . . 1991 COMBINED TRAFFIC ------------------------------------------------.---------------------------- VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EFL WB NB SB LT C-) 1 5 1017 0 : T 11221. 0 L 12, 0 L 1"'2. 0 12. 0 TH 11226 517 o : R 12. o T 12. o R 12. 0 12. t_i R T 54 t i ;'i) 0 : 1�. 0 1 . c_) 12. 0 1'X2. 0 RR (_) t_) 0 tom) : 1 i■ t_) 12. o 1 i. o 12. 0 1i■ 0 12. o ii■ 0 t_) : 12. 0 14:.■ 0 12. 12. o `-----_...-------------_.-------------•---------------.------.._._---------.---_---- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ r'`:.0 BUSES i'�-iF ;='ED`S r En. BUT. AFRRI. Tyrr-,S W 4. t�)i) t i C) tj. . ... S B 0. 00 4. 00 N 0 0 t_i.9(=) t=) N 14. 5 :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 11t_i. o PH-1 PH-�'X-2 PH-3 PHI-4 PH--1 F'H- =�H—; ��H-- EB LT NEB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X x SEA LT TH X K TH RT RT PD PD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE ` "�� LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DEJ-AY APP. L 0 S EEC T o. 859 ;?. i 8C 1 t). 1 B 9:'8 B Fi 1782 y. 1 A WEB L t:). 047 ti, 9(-)9 t_i. A t:). 8 A T t_). 3-„ t:). 818 t). 9 A NEB L 693 tj. 1 i9 43. 3 E 36. 4 D R {_). 69(i t , 2`36 33. 0 --------------------------------------------------.-------_.-------------------- I NTERSECT I ON: Delay = 11 . 1 (sec:/veh) V/C = t:). '?t=)T LO S = B I �` DATE CHECKED DATE O. ��� PREPARED CKED TE PROJECT N consU tang engineers •BY BY `3:> •�0 2-4-89 s-k 87'574(a SUBJECT': LAAROW7df �ov-F�V�ir�Sor- 1��1, pv� 45K4ew-e a. SHEEP NO. F,Yee Goy-"rs T- ak fkv- r raxlc. f E 3 1, Lew E 0 x Aosiezrom tc�7 IV 'Riory 7¢. 97 z utq - G4/ H Ecc, 6-0t La RL rz� Z q 4- ,R� •i.o� 3c73 � 30. �- lot a J -:�] (ZO07* 10 n 68--s. 1� �, 3sz� �� I f' - { Z 8 Z - —y �•00 --- --- �° /o /0, �c�GKLAND Sr.: SATUMMON FLOW ADJUSMENT WORKSHEET LANE GROUPS AD FACTORS 0 0 o © 0 0 0 0- 0 0 ® Adi� Appc Lane ideal Na of 'Lam Heavy Cade Pkg. Bus Ares Right Leff Flow Larks Width � Hype Turn Tura Rate Flow t t t t f f fe, f a N (rPbgl 9 S 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-4 9-10 9-11 9-12 /8� .93 •98 •%� 10 /-a .o �o .�s � NB /800 •93 •98 /to 10 10 40 Ito bo 101 �-' moo ! .93 . 8 /.0 /.0 /.0 .a .qIr- �� 1 ko .98 to /.0 /0 /.a .q 10 1145 B L. /boo ! '?1 .94 I.0 to 0 w /.p •qs 1(pzro air A900 ! .97 .98 to to 1.0 /D lo] — — 6w8 -74� Moo 1 /oS -98 10* 10 10 /.0 .8sv r /800 i .93 .915 /.o /.0 . 10 /o /.0 1 — `' ' /edo / /. 0 .98 to z o /.0 /.0 W *L— /,Sao / /•D .98 /0 10 /,0 /.0 ,996 /.0 0`6 '� /8ov I ,9� .98 /0 /•o /D /.vI/to. .5� 9�v i i i - i 'NLL PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. 2 OOt'1St,I�tCIC�ef'1C�Ir1C'S BY BY 'two 2_IQ_ r P7 —=54(v SUBJECT: Vi�n�.tor' l qQ! SHEET NO. PNASi 1)4 i : s..r .__ -+_ . . . . . .. • • . ♦ t . 3-CAP. LAN E APT SAT. Flow/ CRmc�- LA N E V . S p Flows C URoup /C ;-+- :- ---t-- + + s� / c�Rou PµAsE FLOW FLOW R4T1 _.- -- - &0* .73 -S .75 4 ?.� 60l .uZ .234 37S 1�I?.07�- 3s4- 774 /74S iw ..33J OC /•3Z3 43 5 3c;,3. t Z 4 ✓ 17 3 �, �no 1417 = 1, 744 o ,l q . Ill 17' "22,5 Zz(,o -)43 FD;eLAY%-- 14z /7Z? ZS .zio . 3Lro Co3Z 1.�4 �J$,!s173 .l 7 . Z21 . 7: 2 370 desI ✓ 1 4,21 1 Zr2 S Fftd Scomd ZbW DdayiciAS o f S4,tw4° O @ O O _ O O O O ® F=DeUy tam v/c G eat 44& Delay Eame Delay � Low Fans �Rsbo ;° Lengtha, c d= > c c L05 ice- x a/c C (sec/veh) cap aty (sec/veh) PF Delay SAS (w/vdQ UAW agents (set c Table 9-13 (sec/veh) Table 94 ( ) X 9-1 r1 Sz34 1210 3 * ,�4z •z 4 .►-7 F F y- I.�ZO .z 34 I ZO 3G•Z4v ;jZ F : 1.323 35 1" 34, 58S zi1,31 /.o S3 F ► l/v 4 3-7. I 4«G� SrvB 1-TV IZO 44.73 3 SSv-Z? i.o B ,ol F qqS.oj j: /,'743 ,j 4S Izo ,U/ ZZ(0 �ZZ.�I� /.0 SG7.a77 F E� -ter 01 ,Zzl lzo 3Z.Z4 3�4 5,�9 io -5ix3 D zZ► )zv 1�01e,.off Z I-Z Z9 40 74,0 f- 's 44 F LEFT TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR WORKSHEET WAPPING FIVE CORNERS PM EXTERNAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff ff INPUT VARIABLES f NORTHBOUND f SOUTHBOUND f EASTBOUND f WESTBOUND ff }f--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff } CYCLE LEN6TH C 120.00 { f 120.00 �{ # EFFECTIVE GREEN g 32.40 } 17.90 � ff ?NUMBER OF LANES N 1.00 1.00 �} **TOTAL APP. FLOW RATE v(a) f 1133.00 370.00 �} ff MAINLINE FLOW RATE v(a) f i089.00 f f } 370.00 }} ffLEFT TURN FLOW RATE v(LT) f 44.00 f f f 29.00 ff ff PROPORTION OF LT P(LT) f 1.00 f f f 0.08 ff ff OPPOSING LANES N(0) f 1.00 f f f 1.00 ff ff OPPOSING FLOW RATE v(0) f 468.00 f f f 362.00 ff ff PROP LT IN OPP VOL P(LTO) f 0.00 f f f 0.Q0 ff ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff ff COMPUTATIONS f !NORTHBOUND f SORTHBOUND f EASTBOUND f WESTBOUND ff ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff ff SAT FLOW RATE, OPP S(op) f 1800.00 f f f 1800.00 ff ff FLOW RATIO, OPP Y(o) f 0.26 f f f 0.20 ff ffp/o GRN NOT BLOCKED g(u) f 1.62 f f f -7.80 ff ff LEFT TURN SAT FACT f(s) f 0.58 f f f 0.65 ff ff p/o LT IN SHARE LN ?(L) f .,00 f f f 0.08 ff ff p/o 6RN BLOCKED g(q) f 30.973 f f f 25.70 ff ff p/o TH IN SHARE LN P(T) f 0.00 f f f 0.92 ff ff INITIAL p/: SRN g(f) f 0.00 f f f 15.32 ff ff TH EOU HLENT E(L) f 1.93 f f f 1.73 ff ff LT FACTOR, SHARED f(m) f 0.15 f f f 0.56 ff ff LT FACTOR T(LT) f 0.i5 f f f 0.56 ff ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ff F & O PROJECT NUMBER 87-546 S*;-T3OF3 ' PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. � FUSS&OIVEILL 2 consulting engineers BY BY Z-14•-55 S•�s z/e/S 87- S4(o SUBJECT: �iD1' doh VYin�$o✓— . i SHEET NO. F Ye C.o-ner-s of 3 -- A Yow.•uE A ME x =AnsLANE � Sv"IVA M AVE ,94/.0 /o 70 c, ,►.,��N z� o^ RborE 74. .97 /.oo Z-o a w ,Z IV zzq 1 3�0 /•00 9 BAN l •-� .- o e 3 .97 3 t�C. i4�t r ,rze (� E�.LIAII27D J ZD � ,2, -3 7 (O /D' !r oaCc-.�N 41) .97 /,0 5 3 3 12' � �zri a v /L7 -s- 310 97 37(0 .97 / 3� ��cxt�ni� Sr•. W X-T� t v y ". )Ta. axx X- LT = s s�cr� N SATURAMON nOW-ADJUMIENT WORKS EET LAN%GROUPS AD FACTORS O O O O 4 O O O 4 ® ® ® Ad®.t Appr. Lane ideal Na►Of Line Heavy Grade Pk& bus Area Right Lift Rat Tum Tian Group movements FlowLanes Width � f f � frT f s (pq*WA) N mjbw Table Table -T&Ke Table (vph8) 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-II 9-12 1goo 1 .93 •98 .1,0 10 /10 .D /.0 ./3 013 M6 /800 -93 .98 /,0 /.0 / /,o /.0 1.0 /10/ �- /800 f .93 0 /.? I.v /.o v6 J.o l&o l .A4 /6O0 /.0 .98 1. 0 l o /o I.0 .qa(o -�� 1739 II L-2w /600 1 ,97 .98 /.0 r.0 /,0 /,o /,0 •9S I Gz(i 1 1 a5 .98 C) 1. /.0 .84 .993 1558 -..�' /8cv 1 193 1 .98 1.0 /r% l0 /0 /-0 q5 j55 3 E'a /0 /,v 0 /0 I t? ,g8 r� o /ra ,q6o I.o )7z9 W9 ``!— i,goo / /0 10 /o 6 ,98,5 I•o /73 7 -z— 11gov I ,97 .98 /.0 /C% /v 0. 1&4 Fl1SS&O'NFJ PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. consulting engineers BY BY 87 S4fo �D -8 ,#, 0 Z-14Q SUBJECT: LAJaP10 ir? l qQ I P/A Cam!��rr e� SHEET NO. r�/c Gor-►7 er5 +�V�i,dS oT FP �k P�j r- of 3 t t LANE 3.CJAP, AST . FLv V1/ CRiT1GgL Q U IZO v p v/C r 4-- LANE •. ---f-- �IstS oup �NASE FL.DW FLOW RAnl) �-ow5 VV/C Arc,,- - �— GrR .z s o •8 lot o rt c .. ✓ .z z I.75 -r �- 4 *710 /1.001 .2(&z . Z3.3 313 1,12(v 3;4 7�9 739 IT�z78 . 333 s7q 1,31oZ �- �` 4-h on 3 28C� l(o Z(o •l7 t'v ./Lid /�3 1, 5 5 = .42 -: - 4- ( _Ito l Q4 •__ ,5,3 s53 ,zD 3 , . l��D l81 1,74�0 G G d2•$ l /50 .So4 .173 Z-70 17SZ �# .._ TE{�s6GTTON 1 Z135 7 DECAY= •� —� cos = z 1 73� .l � .1 3 Z .190 ZZ 11,75(0 �mmm Second� a�aa�a Appf. LAm Y/C Green �.�ICIe Delay L,a>ne Delay P t1 I.aM Ss�G LaneAQ� Croup Ratio Ratio Length d, Group d2 Factor Group Group Delay LOS Move- X g/C C (sec/veh) Capacky (sec/vch) PF Delay LOS (sec/veh) Table c Table 9-13 (W/veh) Table 94 (rph) (Vf•�X® 94 $ b t /-7S-4 Z33 / '37 30 Z7.7 /o ,/Z� o3G & F NL6 /•/Z� .-Z 33 1 Zv 3�.37 �3 83.Za i.0 9;�7 �.(O 1.3&Z .333 1" 3-7.12 579 04718 1.o Z Slo F SEI3 L.. /.755 60 /10 SG/•38 �.0 =A87- . F eOZ.75 F- /•7 SZ ./73 1 w 4,73 070 833.17 _�r,� _ z v l Z7$•43 F 491,GS 3s7 ..30 1 t ,47 670 17,P-9(0 /,0 '*-L- •$eZ . 190 I?-1 5,94 330 7.1 /.0 sz./o 33,7,3 W8 41r' /7S(o , /9v /zJ 44fo ZZ I g."•/8 LEFT TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR WORKSHEET NAPPING FIVE CORNERS pM COMBINED # --------------------------------------------------------------------------------*f �} INPUT VARIABLES * NORTHBOUND * SOUTHBOUND f EASTBOUND * WESTBOUND }� ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------f* CYCLE LENGTH C } 120.00 } 120.00 ** ff EFFECTIVE GREEN g 32.40 f f f 17.90 ff ff NUMBER OF LANES N 1.00 f } 1.00 }{ **TOTAL APP. FLOW RATE v(a) * 1133.00 f * 388.00 ff *f ''MAINLINE FLOW RATE v(i) 1089.00 * 388.00 ff **LEFT TURN FLOW RATE v(LT) f 44.00 f * f 29,00 ff ff PROPORTION OF LT P(LT) f 1,00 * * f 0.08 ff *f OPPOSING LANES N(0) f 1.00 * * * 1,00 ** ff OPPOSIN6 FLOW RATE v(0) f 483.00 f f f 327.00 f* ** PROP LT IN OPP VOL P(LTO) f 0.00 * * * 0.00 ** *f----------------------------------------------------------------------���---*f i*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------f* * N4•'{ °?0UN., # _�.!j +;.�.CLYD -------------------------------------------- ff rLtiW RATLJ, JPP I.C� * Jts I # # f i..3 f# *f0/0 GRN NOT BLOCKED g(u) f 0.27 * * * -4.717 ff ff LEFT-TURN SAT FACT f(s) f 0.57 f * f 0.67 ff f* p/o LT 'IN SHARE LN P(L) f 1.00 f f f 0,A8 ff ** p'o GRN BLOCKED g(g) f 32.13 f # * 27,67 ff f* p/o TH IN SHARE LN ?(T) f 0.00 f f f 0.93 *f *f INI?:AL p/o ERN g(�! f 0.00 * f * ;4,47 ff ** TH EgUIVALENT =(L; f 1.96 * f f 1,68 ff ff LT FACTOR, SHARED j(a; f 0.13 f # * 0.68 ff f* LT FACTOR f,_') f 01173 f f I * 0.68 ** ff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** F & 0 ?RQJECT -"I E6 87-546 S"HEET 3 OF 3 V APPENDIX E STORMWATER DETENTION AT CLARK CORNERS r Presently, there is. a natural detention basin on the property that discharges through a 15 inch pipe at Ellington Road to the north. At the Town Shopping Center, a detention basin was designed with a 15 inch outfall pipe and a weir structure, both of which discharge to a piped system in Ellington Road as required by the Town of South Windsor. This detention basin will limit the peak flows to the present level for 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year frequency storms. r, It has been proposed to connect the Clark Corners project to the Town Shopping Center project with a drive paralleling Ellington Road to ease internal traffic circulation. This drive would pass through the Town Shopping Center detention basin, reducing the available storage. To compensate for this it would be necessary to modify the outlet structure. The 15 inch pipe to Ellington Road would be modified with a 12"orifice plate and new 12 inch pipe would be constructed in the connector drive and would discharge into the detention basin at Clark Corners. This basin would be enlarged slightly and the outlet would be restricted by placing a steel plate with an 11 inch round opening over the existing 15 inch outlet pipe. This proposed construction would maintain peak flows at the present level for 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year frequency storms. Attached is a summary of peak flows at Clark Corners, both existing and proposed. Also attached is a summary of peak flows from Town Shopping Center, including proposed to Ellington Road, proposed to Clark Corners and existing to Ellington Road. V-546 Corres. 1214ABSBAK . O FUSS&O'NEILL PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO. consulting engineers /+�Y. ��!3 BY 7�5 (0 Sl�lc►'�15 C L M�t C d 2 N V M Alt)( SHEET NO. of sm - �-� f- � 2. Y�•f_ o �__ �__._--- ram._� -�,�o.�.._1_�0..Yle � D hT 3 .1 G- S (0.3S- b.q i FO-#110 J ' ..ra� FUSS&O NEILL PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO consulting engineers BY BY $s_y S q 6--sm 5 o P P f tv A P,F:-4 SHEET NO. of �.._ .+ +_--.T---+- -- _�_--�.--�_ - �-_._ - `fit--•-- I - _ LOU AZ-- I--2 p i t G � WElk .. r PREPARED BY: DATE: f' FUSS&0'NEILL SN.N0. OF Z YANCHESTER. C NNECTICUT CHECKED BY. DATE: G TNt -Z -8 g PROD.N0. 2 7 -546 GUTTER FLOW ANALYSIS Corner--) TOWN 60U+ (y Al Entering Catch 0- N N1 Basin O O Al Bypassing Inlet 0 6ypass i ng Inlet f' � a Width of Flow ni N Depth of Flow at utter Cross Slope of- 4- Shoulder 0 0 0 0 `\ 3 oo + Grade of Gutter a a O N J O 0� 0 to Inlet Qo s ,N _ + N Rainfall Intensity N9 r � Vil 1 1 Total Al = — v- o 0 • Sum of Al - Al Runoff Coefficienta off- 40 � r � Area in Acres + O - y Time t Inlet o Lf) n l t Numb r htr..HLU dY: UAI t: $ _-30_ SH. NO q- > FUSS&4'NE�LL o a��> YANCHESTEq. CONNECTICUT - CHECKED BY: DATE: c'ROJ.NO. STORM SEWER SYSTEM TOWN DESIGN C la r K Cor rye r-5 Schrl l t� nc�so r /NO Q O Q Q O HEADIIATER FULL CAPACITY + - N N a- a- S f< AVERAGE VELOCITY � N �u� �n°) f� �n � SLOPE o 0 0 o O O LENGTH OF PIPE - d- r r-L PIPE SIZE N k N in 0 t N SYSTEt! O RAINFALL I NTEUS t Y SU1: OF All tN o cr c — _ SYSTEll _ M Al ENTERING - CATCH CAS1N ACCUMULATED TINE TIt:E IN PIPE T I VE TO 114 LET L 11IE SEGHE NT \9 V) be _ I . PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT N( FUSS&O NEILL Ono Irma BY q BY� consulting engineers �zo� y� g TT4 lcWINlt!�:eI;Z SHEET NO. of - �' l o S -4a C = =-70 -z�%t�Ac -7 0 ta�t Zo3v G Z5Y�- s•y� .S-p r 100 Yk ls�L>c.P _ 1-^ W FO-#110 r, FUSS&O'NEILL PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO consulting engineers BY C/, BY SHEET NO. Z> of k _-------- L E7�Vr V ex. 'To'r�4L V Q L. -7 Lf 1 • ��S' Z •o�og -1 1541 -f-.- A.� - - Z,0-7'9 FO-#110 ' '` PREPARED DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT NO FUSS&O NEILL- BY �z BY consulting engineers _ b Cyr SA+4.5 SHEET NO. of no - ----� -`-k•0 -- -- 24 —•--.� t 3 _—•---•__• •—_ a _.�__ _ ..._._ _..—_ .�_. .__—__ J'—_____—. .__—. ._-- . ~� FO-3/110 :fffffffffffffffff80-80 LIST OF INPUT DATA FOR TR-20 HYDROLO6Yffffffffffffffffff OB TR-20 FULLPRINT SUMMARY NOPLOTS ITLE 001 SAMSEL EXIST 9 87 546 CLARi CORNERS 3 STRUCT 01 -B 72.0 0.0 01.0 8 73.0 2.8 .573 8 74.0 6.5 2.068 -B 76.0 10.8 7.781 9 ENDTBL 6 RUNOFF 1 001 6 .0427 70.0 .5 1 1 1 6 RESVOR 2 01 6 7 72.0 1 1 1 1 ENDATA 7 INCREM 6 .10 7 COMPUT 7 001 01 0.0 3.15 1.0 2 2 01 02 ENDCMP 1 7 COMPUT 7 001 01 0.0 4.8 1.0 2 2 01 10 ENDCMP 1 __7 COMPUT 7 001 01 0.0 5.4 1.0 2 2 01 25 ENDCMP 1 7 COMPUT 7 001 01 0.0 6.15 1.0 2 2 01 50 ENDCMP 1 7 COMPUT 7 001 01 0.0 6.9 1.0 2 2 O1 99 ENDCMP 1 ENDJOB 2 f�f�fffff�fffft�ffiffffff#ff+END OF 80-80 LISTffffffffffff+*ftffff++*-fff*fffff t r, X�ST iR20 XEQ 12-09-88 12:36 SAMSEL EXIST 9 87 546 CLARK CORNERS JOB 1 SUMMARY REV PC 09/83(.2) PAGE 12 r --UMMARY TABLE 1 - SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS IN THE ORDER:PERFORMED (A STAR(*) AFTER THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) VALUES INDICATES A FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH A QUESTION MARK(7) INDICATES A HYDROGRAPH WITH PEAK AS LAST POINT.) ECTION/ STANDARD RAIN ANTEC MAIN PRECIPITATION PEAK DISCHARGE aTRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE TABLE MOIST TIME ------------------------- RUNOFF -------------------------------------- ID OPERATION AREA # COND INCREM BEGIN AMOUNT iDURATION AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE (SQ MI) (HR) (HR) (IN) (HR) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM) ALTERNATE 1 STORM 2 SECTION i RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 3.15 24.00 .80 --- 12.23 16.17 378.7 STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .04 2 2 .10 .0 3.15 24.00 .79 73.07 13.28 3.08 72.0 ALTERNATE 1 STORM 10 „SECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .110 .0 4.90 24.00 1.89 --- 12.21 42.10 985.9 STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .04 2 2 .10 .0 4.80 24.00 1.87 73.93 13.33 6.25 146.3 ALTERNATE 1 STORM 25 XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 5.40 24.00 2.34 --- 12.20 52.66 1233.3 --rTRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .04 2 2- .10 .0 5.40 24.00 2.32 74.17 13.40* 6.86* 160.7 ALTERNATE 1 STORM 50 XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 6.15 24.00 2.92 --- 12.20 66.40 1555.1 TRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .04- 2 ? .10 .0 6.15 24.00 2.89 74.46 13.57 7.48 175.1 ALTERNATE 1 STORM 99 SECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 6.90 24.00 3.53 --- 12.20 80.59 1887.4 TRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .04 2 2 .10 .0 6.90 _ 24.00 3.48 74.76 13.68 8.13 190.5 TR20 XEQ 12-09-88 12:36 SAMSEL EXIST Q 87 546 CLARK CORNERS JOB 1 SUMMARY REV PC 09/83(.2) PASE. 13 --SUMMARY TABLE 3 - DISCHARGE (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES-FOR ALL STORMS AND ALTERNATES XSECTION/ DRAINAGE -STRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS.......... ID (SQ MI) 2 10 25 50 99 STRUCTURE 1 .04 ALTERNATE 1 3.08 6.25 6.86 7.48 8.13 _. XSECTION 1 .04 ALTERNATE 1 16.17 42.10 52.66 66.40 80.59 fffffffffffffffff*B0-80 LIST OF INPUT DATA FOR TR-20 HYDROLOGYfff*ff*fffffffffff r B TR-20 FULLPRINT SUMMARY NOPLOTS TITLE 001 KELLY SAMSEL DRIVE IN DETENT RUN 2 85 489 87 546 STRUCT 01 - 72.0 0.0 0.0 B 73.0 2.3 .972 Q 74.0 3.9 2.782 76.0 6.00 8.702 ENDTBL 6 RUNOFF 1 001 6 .0428 74.0 ADDHYD 4 002 1 6 7 1 1 1 RESVOR 2 01 7 6 72.0 I l i i ENDATA INCREM 6 .10 READHD 8 1 7 READHD 9 0.0 .10 .0429 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 0.0- 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 : 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 __a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 .25 .45 .45 .45 .45' .45 .45 .45 .45 - 1 .55 .6 .6 .65 .7 8 .85 1.15 1.95 3.35 4.05 1 4.9 5.35 5.7 5.85 5.95 1 5.95 5.9 5.8 5.65 5.5 8 5.35 5.2 5.05 4.7 4.4 _8 4.1 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.45 i ! 1.95 1.65 1.4 1.25 1.15 / J 1.1 1.0 1.0 .95r 19 -- -, 9 ENDTBL z/lam r� TR20 XEQ 12-13-88 13:33 KELLY SAMSEL DRIVE IN DETENT RUN 2 85 489 87 546 JOB 1 SUMMARY REV PC 09/83(.7) PAGE 9 i JMMARY TABLE 1 - SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS IN THE ORDER PERFORMED (A STAR(*) AFTER THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) VALUES INDICATES A FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH -- A QUESTION MARK(?) INDICATES A HYDROGRAPH WITH PEAK AS LAST POINT.) .►ZtTION/ STANDARD RAIN ANTEC MAIN PRECIPITATION PEAK DISCHARGE _STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE TABLE MOIST TIME ------------------------- RUNOFF -------------------------------------- iD OPERATION AREA # COND INCREM BEGIN AMOUNT DURATION AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE (SQ MI) (HR) (HR) (IN) (HR) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CS") ALTERNATE 1 STORM 2 XSECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 3.15 24.00 1.00 --- 12.22 21.65 505.9 XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .09 2 2 .10 .0 3.15 24.00 .74 --- 12.22 27.39 320.0 TRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .09 2 2 .10 .0 3.15 24.00 .68 73.56 14.30* 3.19} 37.2 ALTERNATE 2 STORM 10 SECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 4.80 24.00 2.20 --- 12.20 50.07 1169.9 SECTION 2 ADDHYD .09 2 2 .10 .0 4.80 24.00 1.50 --- 12.20 57.58 672.6 STRUCTURE I RESVOR .09 2 2 .10 .0 4.80 24.00 1.25 74.57 14.95 4.50 52.5 i y 2 TR20 XEQ 12-13-88 -13:33 KELLY SAMSEL DRIVE IN DETENT RUN 2 85 489 87 546 JOB 1 SUMMARY REV PC 09/83(f2) PAGE 10 i JMMARY TABLE 3 - DISCHARGE (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL STORMS AND ALTERNATES SECTION/ DRAINAGE fRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS.......... ID (So MI) 2 10 STRUCTURE 1 .09 ALTERNATE 1 3.19 .00 ALTERNATE 2 .00 4.50 rSECT I ON 1 .04 ALTERNATE 1 21.65 .00 ALTERNATE 2 .00 50.07 XSECTION 2 .09 ALTERNATE 1 27.39 .00 ALTERNATE 2 .00 57.58 y YA ffffffffffffffffff80-80 LIST OF INPUT DATA FOR TR-20 HYDROL86Yffffffffffffffffff r OB TR-20 FULLPRINT SUMMARY NOPLOTS TITLE 001 KELLY SAMSEL RUN 3 85 489 87 546 -3 STRUCT 01 8 72.0 0.0 O.Q. 8 73.0 2.3 .972 $ 74.0 3.9 2.782 8 76.0 6.0 8.702 9 ENDTBL 6 RUNOFF 1 001 6 .0428 74.0 .5 ,-.1 1 1 6 ADDHYD 4 002 1 6 7 1 1 1 6 RESVOR 2 01 7 6 72.0 1 1 1 1 1 ENDATA --7 INCREM 6 .1 7 READHD 8 1 7 READHD 9 0.0 .1 .0428 0.0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 - 8 .0 .0 .0 - .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 B .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 - 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 g .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 _8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 $ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .a .a 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .a 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 -8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 $ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .55 .7 .8 .85 .85 8 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 8 .95 1.0 1.05 1.15 1.25 8 1.45 1.75 2.4 3.5 4.5 j -8 5.55 6.5 7.3 7.7 7.9 8 7.95 7.95 7.9 71.85 7.8 8 7.7 7.6 1.4 7.35 7.3 8 7.2 7.0 6.85 6.65 6.5 i 8 6.3 6.1 5.95 5.75 5.55 8 5.35 4.7 -- 4.4 $ 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 z s�so�i oo TR20 XEQ 12-13-98 14:28 KELLY SAMSEL RUN 3 85 489 87 546 JOB 1 SUMMARY = REV PC 09/83(.2) PAGE 13 1MMARY TABLE 1 - SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS IN THE ORDER PERFORMED (A STAR(*) AFTER THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) VALUES INDICATES A FLAT TOP HYDR06RAPH A QUESTION MARK(?) INDICATES A HYDROGRAPH WITH PEAK AS LAST POINT.) ..ACTION/ STANDARD RAIN ANTEC MAIN PRECIPITATION PEAK DISCHARGE STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINA6E TABLE MOIST TIME ------------------------- RUNOFF -------------------------------------- ID OPERATION AREA # COND iNCREM BEGIN AMOUNT DURATION AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE (SQ MI) (HR) (HR) (IN) (HR) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM) ALTERNATE 1 STORM 25 xSECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 5.40 24.00 2.68 --- 12.20 61.32 1432.7 JSECTION 2 ADDHYD .09 2 2 .10 .0 5.4A 24.00 1.79 --- 12.20 60.63 801.8 TRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .09 2 2 .10 .0 5,40 24.00 1.39 74.89 15.46 4.84 56.5 ALTERNATE 2 STORM 50 SECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .i0 .0 6.15 24.00 3.31 --- 12.20 75.78 1770.5 SECTION 2 ADDHYD .09 2 2 .10 .0 6.15 24.00 2.09 --- 12.20 83.47 975.1 STRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .09 2 2 .10 .0 6.15 24.00 1.53 75.23 15.00 5.20 60.7 ALTERNATE 3 STORM 99 ASECTION 1 RUNOFF .04 2 2 .10 .0 6.90 24.00 3.95 --- 12.19 90.55 2115.7 XSECTION 2 ADDHYD .09 2 2 .10 .0 6.90 24.00 2.47 --- 12.20 98.48 1150.5 TRUCTURE 1 RESVOR .09 2 2 .10 .0 6.90 24.00 1.68 75.67 15.49 5.66 66.1 1 y S yz TR20 XE4 12-13-88 14:28 KELLY SAMSEL RUN 3 85 489 87 546 JOB SUMMARY - REV PC 09/83(.2) PAGE 14 �JMMARY TABLE 3 --DISCHARGE (CrS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL STORMS AND ALTERNATES XSECTION/ DRAINAGE �TRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS.......... ID (So MI) 25 50 99 r, iTRUCTURE 1 .09 ALTERNATE 1 4.84 .00 .00 ALTERNATE 2 .00 5.20 .00 ALTERNATE 3 .00 .00 5.66 XSECTION 1 .04 ALTERNATE 1 61.32 .00 .00 - ALTERNATE 2 .00 75.78 .00 ALTERNATE 3 .00 .00 90.55 SECTION 2 .09 ALTERNATE 1 68.63 .00 .00 ALTERNATE 2 .00 83.47 .00 ALTERNATE 3 .00 .00 98.48 S N ��oMN st,t� s � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 R•c0 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 21, 1989 Denise Conklin Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District 1101 Kennedy Road - Windsor, CT 06095 re: Application #89-50P - Clark Corners Dear Denise: After a meeting with the Chairman of the South Windsor- Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, a request was made to forward the above noted plans to your office for your review and input. The Commission would like input with regard to the affect this project will have on the wetlands and drainage in the area. The following documents have been forward for your review: plans titled, "Clark Corners" dated January, 1989 with the latest revision date of 5/17/89 ; Statement of Purpose; soil report form Soil Science and Environmental Services, Inc. , dated 1/6/89; Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Analysis by Priscilla W. Baillie, Ph.D. ; and drainage computations by Fuss and O'Neill dated 5/10/89 . If You should have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact the-'Planning Department, •644-2511 Ext. 253. Very truly yours, .. John E. McCahill Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer JEM/pmm Enclosures cc: Wetland File John G. Samsel, Jr. , 152 Deming Street, South Windsor I I t United Stat s Soil ' ;! 1101 Kennedy Road Room 105B Department of Conservation , Agriculture Service Windsor, CT 06095 Phone: 688-7725 January 26, 1989 _ a '3 JiR JAN nn 1989 T0: Denise Conkling, District Manager South Windsor Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation Service(NSA" ANoSAGENCYJ CONSER;iAfICN Commissich. FRCM: J. Eric Scherer, District Conservationist USDA-Soil Conservation Service FOR: John E. Mc Cahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer Town of South Windsor, CT BE: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR "C LARK C01WM" - ELLINGTM ROAD, CLAM SKEET, DEMING MEET, SOUPS `ii MWR, CT. On January 26, 1989 a site plan review of the above referenced proposal was made. Sheet 2 of 9 (dated August 300, 1988 and revised 12-5-88) , Sheets 3 and 4 of 9 (dated 9-13-88 and revised 12-5-88) , Sheets 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of 9 (dated 9-13-88) were reviewed. Also reviewed were a soils report from Soil Science Services (dated 12/4/86) and a hydrology report by Fuss & O'Neill (dated 9-20-88 and 12-13-88) . The`following information is,offered for consideration: Approximately 50% of the site is considered regulated (inland wetland) area under state statute. Of this, over (7) acres will be directly impacted through fill and/or excavation. The remaining wetlands will receive indirect impact from the proposed development. Aerial photos show that this wetland system is part of a larger more extensive system. Land use changes within this system will consequently impact downstream wetlands. The site plans submitted do not include a detailed inventory of existing conditions nor does it detail or analyze current" wetland functions. There appears to be no attempt at mitigation for wetland functions except for the creation_of-stormueter management devices. It is apparent that the plans have been developed and are sensitive to planning and zoning requirements but they do not appear to address the ' natural resource concerns in total. It does appear that prudent ad feasible alternative to the proposed layout exists at this site and . that these should be explored before the Inland Wetland Agency if not done already. n The Sod conservatinn Service SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR "CLARK CORNERS"•- EI-T NGI'ON ROAD, CIAI;K SIFT, DE MING STREET, SOUrd WINDSOR, CT. . - The plans do not address major water quality issues relative to storm runoff. The direct discharge into the watercourse system of parking lot runoff is inappropriate. - The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is not definitive enough in description of what will happen and when. The option to install sediment barriers does not reflect specifications in the CT "Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control". There is a need for additional control measures including traffic barriers along public . rights-of-,way. A more detailed phasing sequence is needed as well as a construction check list (see enclosed) . - The proposed crossing downstream of the existing pond is questionable. -as to it's purpose and need for disturbing this wetland area. enclosure r PLANNING DEPARTIUM IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Karl Reichle, Mike Gantick, Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, Richard J. Sartor, Gary Tyler, Fire Marshall Lanning, Jim Snow FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project:# `1 - L Zone - Acreage Subdivision Site Plan Residential No. of Lots/units Commercial_ X Industrial Location: fir- �i-- �' ) �; yr ��� .CGL►r� t ;�� i fog .• _'VLI. -JC.I_� �.L J11.1.J `. Lt,'li. 1 t,.. Project Description: u� �.\..�. ► t J�r',i;, ,�i�;_t ,� ��t��+ - � '��- , I Future Town-owned property involved? Yes No ` (a)new streets (existing frontage also) (b)new open space/recreation area active passive (c)new detention area Planning Department comments Please let me know bye if you will have comments on this application so that I can follow up with your department when I do a Planning Department report. PLANNING DEPARTMENT +r� IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORK +1v TO: Karl Reichle, Mike Gantick, Mel Stead Fred Shaw Richard J. Sartori Gary Tyler, Fire Mar Lanning, Jim Snow FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project:# Zone n - Acreage Subdivision Site Plan Residential No. of Lots/units Commercial_ Industrial Location: �1' �u Uru r C �� ' 'Ur. ��4 S ., Lv lr i�o� z ---� J t I Project Description: r, Future Town-owned property involved? Yes No (a)new streets (existing frontage also) (b)new open space/recreation area active passive (c)new detention area Planning Department comments Please let me know by if you will have comments on this application so that I can follow up with your department when I dCo/a Planning Department/ report. / �� r. a ( .. l' rl.�d'"��! / ? '�_rQ-a.. '�.� ' `4- r �-"L r✓C l 'lr���� �, "� {° =��,. 4�'a -• r I,r.� j i.'� F S�,�yt.._r`t'[—C/ ,.,_.�✓�.�'Z.. "�- ���v`� °� / -�r:r �, -l.y�,L fr- �G.i/�—,- f��""���_.-e r� � T l� _�!t i9������� � �� � � L. Cam., "�E�.''"`✓"u�G'�...)��� �.,�d',l c..r"_�� �v'`. Alt � /y tit 4 //J (1�'. r LQ. z k!� .��7 � G� •�r .7"t r. , ,�„ �,-]�?L V�� a._�J�•._�_f'�, (�.>,..+�• C -fi "fig V.Q., �,� Ca•,, it"I r\l_t, .� � ,:� a. ` r _n-'. •J� r. .. �w .n.tt P R''�r^"7A,/ � j`-y '=., (�_ ���ll'�•'�..,.. `?i 72, 14 VA,t I\,,-I a'A-- t-,-L �'-- C,> JI, ' I ROBINSON COLE LAW OFFICES ONE COMMERCIAL PLAZA HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-3597 203-275-8200 FINANCIAL CENTRE POST OFFICE BOX 10305 CYNTHIA J.GURRIERI STAMFORD,CONNECTICUT 0 6 904-23 0 5 HARTFORD 203-964-1200 LAND USE ANALYST TELECOPIER HARTFORD 203-275-8299 TELECOPIER STAMFORD 203-359-8576 TELEX BOTH OFFICES 99-4407 PLEASE REPLY TO HARTFORD June 22, 1989 Marsha Banach, Town Planner RECEIVED Town of South Windsor JUN 23 1989 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 SO. WINDSOR PLANNING VEpT,, Re: Clark Corners-Inland Wetland and Site Plan Application Dear Ms. Banach: In accordance with Connecticut General Statute Section 1-21c, would you send to our office any notices, agendas and staff reports in connection with Mr. Samsel's inland wetland and site plan application which were submitted to the town on June 12, 1989. Envelopes have been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Cynthia J. Gurrieri CJG:sjm Enclosures cc: John & Terry Samsel 1 w I w~ sE4 C � G s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 �f��soR•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 29, 1989 John J. Samsel 152 Deming Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear John: Re: Application 89-50P, Clark Corners Site Plan Due to the number of pending applications and the upcoming August recess, the Planning & Zoning Commission is asking all the applicants received on June 27, 1989 to request a 65 day extension on the time to act on their applications. We have enclosed a standard form for your convenience. Please send us this request by July 11, 1989 . We appreciate your cooperation. Vey Truly Yours, / Raymond F. Hallowell, Jr Chairman of Planning and Zoning Commission i Date: Raymond F. Hallowell, Chairman '' , Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue JUL 16- r9" South Windsor, CT 06074 SOL" Mntfsor Manning & ZcKitib'� �m.missi�i Dear Chairman Hallowell: RE: Application #8q-SaP Name C LCOr L C>3rn&-r s P LCQ K. The applicant, S�� �,- , hereby requests a 65 day extension of the action date with respect to the above referenced application. Very Truly Yours, O FUSS-&O'NEILL July 6, 1989 consultan engineers REC, EIVED JUL 10 1989 Mr. William w. Stoeckert SO. WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Executive Director State of, Connecticut Traffic Commission 24 Wolcott Hill Road P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 v Re. I Clark Street South Windsor, Connecticut i Dear Mr. Stoeckert: We have discovered an error in the trip generation calculation for the subject Traffic Impact Study which was submitted to you on May 19, 1989. We met with Mr. John Curtis of the Bureau of Planning and discussed the error and the methods used to correct it. As a result of the meeting, 8 copies of this letter and the attached tables and diagrams are being submitted to replace the corresponding materials in the May 19, 1989 study. Terry Office Park, Town Shopping Center and Clark Corners are all developments currently being built or expanded. These developments will be interconnected with common internal drives. Therefore, the traffic that will be generated by Clark Corners has been estimated as a portion of the traffic that will be generated by all three developments operating at once. The three developments will provide 149, 592 S.F. of office space, 80, 280 S.F. of retail space and 10,038 S.F. of bank space (contained in three separate banks) . Since this configuration of uses does not match any of the ITE' s land uses, traffic was generated using three different methods for comparison purposes. Method 1 - The bank space was added to the office space and the total was analyzed as an "Office Park" , because banks are included in the ITE's description of an "Office Park" . The retail space was analyzed as a "Shopping Center" . Method 2 - The bank space was added to the retail space and the total was analyzed as a "Shopping Center" because banks are included in the ITE' s description of a "Shopping Center" . The office space was analyzed as an "Office Park" . 146 HARTFORD ROAD / MANCHESTER, CONN. 06040 / TEL. (203) 646-2469, FAX. EXT. 307 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT•WASTE WATER SYSTEMS•EROSION CONTROL•WATER SYSTEMS•HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS•SITE PLANNING HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES•SURVEYING 9 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC 9 PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT•HYDROGEOLOGY v FUSSUMBL U Mr. William W. Stoeckert July 6, 1989 Page -2- Method 3 - The office space was analyzed as an "Office Park" , the retail space was analyzed as a "Shopping Center" , and the bank space in Clark Corners was analyzed as a separate "Drive-In Bank" . Site generated traffic was calculated for the entire "development" using each method. Trip generation rates were then calculated in order to determine the traffic that will be generated by the Clark Corners portion. (Shown in Table No. 1A) i The rates in Table No. lA were used to determine the total number of vehicle trips that will be generated on the internal roadways of the site by Clark Corners. These numbers are shown in Table No. 1B. In order to determine the number of generated trips that will utilize the site driveways onto Clark Street and Ellington Road, the total number of generated trips was reduced by multi-use factors as .described in ITE' s "Trip Generation" . "Trip Generation" indicates that approximately 16% of retail traffic and 9% of bank traffic (in Method 3 ) can be attributed to vehicles traveling from the offices on internal roadways. Table 1C indicates the vehicle trips that will utilize the two site driveways. In order to determine the number of generated trips that will be added to the surrounding roadway network, the total generation was also reduced by the percentages of generated traffic that will be pass-by trips. The shopping center traffic was reduced by 20% as prescribed by the Bureau of Planning. The bank traffic was reduced by 85% as suggested in "Trip Generation" . The resultant figures are shown in Table No. 1D. As Table No. 1D indicates, the three methods produce very similar results, which reinforces the accuracy of the trip generation techniques presented in "Trip Generation" . In our opinion, Method No. 3 best represents the volumes of traffic that will be generated by the Clark Corners portion of the entire area. We feel that Method No. 3 specifically addresses the trip generation of each land use and as such presents a more accurate picture of what the total generation will be. i ■ USSUMBLU Mr. William W. Stoeckert July 6, 1989 Page -3- The volumes projected by Method No. 3 were broken down into entering and exiting volumes and are shown in Table No. 1E. Figure Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the original study have been revised accordingly and are also attached. The generated traffic volumes presented in the attached tables and figures are all lower than the traffic volumes analyzed in the original study, except for the volumes entering the site driveways during the P.M. peak hour. This volume is only 27 trips higher than originally projected and is divided between the two driveways. We therefore feel that our recommendations for mitigating the ,traffic that will be generated by Clark Corners are still valid, - and we are making no changes to the conclusions reached in our original Traffic Impact Study,. However, we will be happy to provide further analysis of the affected intersections at your request. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate' to contact us. Very truly o s, 4:7- Daniel W. O'Neil Ste en F. Mitchell, P.E. Transportation Engineer Associate Director of Traffic Engineering /smc Attachments cc: J. Samsel Jr. M. Banach G. Tyler J. Ford 87-546 0629ADWO.1 s TABLE NO. IA Trip Generation Clark Corners/Town Shopping Center/Terry Office Park South Windsor, Connecticut Derived Rates A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Peak Peak Peak Peak Lan d Use S.F. ITE Code Weekday Hour Hour Weekday_ Hour Hour Office Par k 149,592 750 1821 320 261 12.17 2.14 1.74 (Office Only) • Park 159,630 750 1933 338 274 12.11 2.12 1.72 office Pa (Office and Banks) ' Center 80, 280 820 6442 _ _ 153 556 80.24 1.91 6.93 Shopping (Retail Only) Shopping Ce nter 90.318 820 6955 164 591 77.01 1.82 6.54 (Retail and Bank) TABLE NO. 1B Trip Generation Methodology Comparison Internal Trips Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Method No. 1 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 63,000 763 134 108 (including Banks) Shopping Center 8,000 642 15 55 (Retail only) Total Volume 1405 149 163 Method No. 2 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 58,000 706 124 101 (office only) Shopping Center 13,000 1001 24 85 (including Banks) Total Volume 1707 148 186 Method No. 3 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 58,000 706 124 101 (Office only) Shopping Center 8,000 642 15 55 (Retail only) Drive-In Bank 5, 000 829 18 125 Total Volume 2177 157 281 f TABLE NO. 1C Trip Generation Methodology; Comparison Trips at Driveways Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Method No. 1 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 63,000 763 134 108 (including Banks,) Shopping Center 8, 000 *540 13 4 (Retail only) Total Volume 1303 147 154 Method No. 2 A..M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 58,000 706 124 101 (office only) Shopping Center 13,000 *841 *20 71 (including Banks) 144 172 Total Volume 1547 Method No. 3 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 58,000 706 124 101 (office only) Shopping Center 8,000 *540 *13 *46 (Retail only) Drive-In Bank 5, 000 **754, **16 **11,4 Total Volume 2000 153 261 * Shopping Center - 16% multi-use reduction of internal trips **Bank - 9% multi-use reduction of internal trips i TABLE NO. 1D Trip Generation Methodology Comparison Trips Added to Roadways Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Method No. 1 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 63,000 763 134 108 (including Banks) Shopping Center 8,000 *411 *10 *35 (Retail only) Total Volume 1174 144 143 Method No. 2 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 58,000 , 706 124 101 (Office only) Shopping Center 13,000 *641 *15 *54 ( including Banks) Total Volume 1347 139 155 Method No. 3 A.M. P.M. Land Use S.F. , Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Office Park 58,000 706 124 101 (Office only) Shopping Center 8,000 *411 *10 *35 (Retail only) Drive-In Bank 5,000 ** 50 ** 5 ** 8 Total Volume 1167 139 144 * Shopping Center - 16% multi-use + 20% pass-by = 36% reduction of internal trips **Bank - 9% multi-ust + 85% pass-by = 94% reduction of internal trips i i TABLE NO. lE Trip Generation Clark Corners South Windsor, Connecticut Trips at Driveways A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour Weekday Enter Exit Enter E*it Office Park 706 110 14 13 � 88 Shopping Center 540 9 4 23 23 Drive-In Bank 754 9 7 56 58 Total 2000 128 25 92 169 Trips Added to Roadways A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour Weekday Enter Exit Enter Exit Office Park 706 110 14 13 88 Shopping Center 411 7 3 17 18 Drive-In Bank 50 3 2 4 4 Total 1167 120 19 34 110 Cif,,r =L 4- — .~. ' ----------------_--------------------------------------------------------_-_------------__-_--------------------------------- # A.M. `'EA — --------------------------------------------- -' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------# OTHER � 1 1 # SI E ��,iE�sr Ey ram, —rr. �_ _ EG ,hF 1� a.7IL #� nr-..-_: , _ EXTERNAL ----- ------- ---- riJ.ri rn, ------------- -_-_ —�;r=�__ '"_'' TRA.FiC EtirER,iNG `:r� L �rA� + ^°3—=r -FlTfl- 4 .ram` F + E, # r4 % VOL1 x — -----}} ----••---------------------------------------------------------------•---------------------------------------------- L 1] ## yr 1 � ¢d - _�..• 7f i ,. � 1� ia_ + - � _- �- - _ Lc -�_ •t yyid T---- -- . . --------------- ------------------------- I j i I a Ya l i --__--- __ -- ++ y i r'/t-Ct r n'1.i C 'k."• -1-r„ - --- - - --r; --+---- }+ •'{CIF. IC # _ lER% 5 + _�: _ + ti'_ + � + �' $ -,-- ! ----------#+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$# V(�y} + `J 7f 30 * 0 fl + a..' � � �. �• i � # i# ## 76 # Q $ 81 0 0 + xx J 142 Li 26 + �•' i) # �: # i + ii $ i *# 14� ## 7L, Q1 # c-7 b4 + .+ _ �r { 6 4- { $ 1 Jr # a:ip # 4 1 42 11L 7L' L J L .: �'L7p Af _ :7 _r'? 1,44 47 ,._ _—_____--_--________________._____—__—___—__---_--_—__.--_—_._____-_________--_—_____..___________ ------ - -- -- ----- -------- -- --------------------------------------- # + - --------------•------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- +- E� # 1'7: # .?C ==�4_-ti =� Ti' ## --..-..� ++ + —X?�FNA! i,--------------, -----------4--------�----------+-------Y--------#� T A =irrRT Ir' ��y x '1-r # -------------------------------------#fit 4 L; 514 0 384 :, 1 •i -1 + (; + - + (� i# ?�4 is # 4. }+ iL� * .71 # 7J7 97" $# 1_ ;k# L.tJ # 4t L7:1 L� L4 + L i 4 # ., +� _.a + 1— 1L'., L`l Ly y - # Lµ , .. _ r� •l 1# tL4 v1 is — L_ __ �` — # _ , -• + +# _ +` +-------------------------------------------------------------- ----.----------------�------.--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------} 1+ 4-4 }!. Liar - .. d �'•,r- _ *:L Y,F •} }} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iT;i_i � 177i # C•j?F �•C`�TCi• ' *# i�vyi 4# D=t:E_C".D- EXTERNAL --------------t------------#--------T---------•-------#--------±�� TRAFFTC [►:r�r.T r a* ►:rt , + C T' rn—u i Tyr xx I t Lly'h:l. ❑ } E,._ .I,IS J h_ # �t'C• y q YVL q JL V%.7L '+ ----------n'i• -----------------------------------------------------------------'-------'---------------------------------------## # v YY $ ii i1 it + , # {i # } # i; ## 4L #+ }� ## ^2 # 4gfj $ ir�i4 $ Ij � + �1 ir'_J ## 1084 ) # I� }• ## i1 #�{ — 14 + ## Jw # G7 _--------------------- ---------------------•------- ---------•--------- Y: #---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------+#� nCA h1, rtt �+ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ {� n i / rrT r�r7C�.r,�t'n -0A-� I'1!'L�� Tnr.rr•.� a 09. YT .64 T=,%`—^tv ## -� �; N: # r__ ER N q x______________+—_____—___—_{--____—_x___—_— T ��rr� k_ T p T �1t'T rTAif' ''V'�TP T�',r x 'I," L ' x T�T� x -f $# f # �J # :I�TQ� x -.11ERailt7 t L1%. _1i� # 'rL C� �� + t�. r_ * T�—`Ft� ## # ----------#- -----(—{----------------------------Q--------------------------------------—— { L.9 { •1 i �' i { 98 i /7' + iJ t lY• �i t �j x{. j A C L i # 24 # Ci a u IF [ #��F 1•; #�E { j yy{•C' •' yyF I7 71� 0 �Y7(� V ❑QJ J J•J YF V•J !! yl` T# �� 7C 7E it T �•: 1J ij if { iC + lt� + 3.1 99 * n r + ,_, �� t 34 x 4' 1Id { : _ Al / t . 5911 * + + /, 5 1 I - _ - t - - - i 3# -ter t i 4 i �k 9 LL4y x4 �^ 1, - + r ++ -• - ----•---------------------------------------•------------- i � #-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------n. '�{ = + P.M. FEAT; F J_ . '" +x - + + ----------------------------------------------------------------------1-------------------- r T Tr•� -T;' - TCn TntiCCTI IOr4 ?� + 987 OTHER � 1991 � GITE GENERATES NnFI ,.1 � E VtR,LLB .R _ �� l:,i + -- �'^- ++ �XI5'I�JG * D7VL'GP— * EXTERNAL t--------------+------------�--------#---------+-------*-------- CG?"RI;aEu *+ —„ — # J E�L�gT ++ T��FF:u # MENT * TRAFFIC * ENTERING + Ek'Li + TUTAIL + ENTER + E}IT + ?UTAL x# TR'fiFFd. IC v AVOL J_ 't� L 4� 4uL ---------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E �E# t;i� # i 11 33i i? 9 + 9 + { i9 253 + (1 ;j r: + Ij + r; + C' fit# 29 L 43 # 141 C' 74. 4: # L� +� Ji �►J # 11+J L�� 7 + # + 3 * P it + �J 1•, �.' Ij 1 Y Y 7 }4 + ++ :9 { 9? Y 29J 21r1 7 �I + ( t• + y p L'1 yy -c + 1:C { , + + r { •.it t. ------ ------------------------------------._____-_____- .__----___-_-___---__--___-.-___-_--'�. i ROUTE 94 (SULLIVAN AVE.) �N ROq p 2) a �a � �(2 js2 � �1 �-/ �G � '2y 2-2'y � �12 ROUTE 74 (2)- /* s� ey �(2)304.- (ELLINGTON RD) f► b � � 1 i r /3~ 4 7 33 Pas a 33 y CEw" SM P G L'�sho � PlNG #,N)4 �6Ji4 DERIVE r/ 1 1 a N a i ROUTE 30 1 r PVopc"Eo (OAKLAND RD.) a LARK CLARK CORNejvs STREET DRIVE Z� PARK OF�E �p ORJVE S�F � 1 VJ l � ? '-2 1 r DEM I NG STREET a XXX - PRIMARY TRIPS FIGURE NO. 6 t ;�O (XXX) - PASS BY TRIPS MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT p a Z a Q o A.M. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC J � CIO CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT REVISED 6-26-89 rRoi.N 87-546 DATE:FEB.1989 CHECKED BY: JOSEPH MERFUIT E CO. ROUTE 94 (SULLIVAN AVE.) s z �(EL.LINN ,� � �—t-24� �i ROA D) 30 �r24113 4,11 �►i /�► ��3 �—t-la)lS � � �a � 3(s / , ROUTE 74 4T—► 4Ty * 15)e ~23 i (ELLINGTON RD) r a a 'ro X/S�./NG� CEN S �/ Z /se TERMp qR/AEG �(s/24~r59192 tr � a m ROUTE 30 r PCpAEp (OAKLAND RD.) CLARK a N CoRHE k ft STREET pR/� PERRk/��M� gRIC pR/ /CE VE as A � 1 o � 1r DEM I NG STR EET XXX - PRIMARY TRIPS FIGURE NO 7 (XXX) - PASS 8Y TRIPS }}} Q t �v MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT 2 Q o P.M. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT REVISED 6-26-89 rnw.Na 87-546 SATE:FEB.1989 Cw=w sir: JCX;U H MERRfTT i CO. ROUTE 94 (SULLIVAN AVE.) co �N O 6 a� .� CWRAre Ogp 825 �o N Iv 3��2 �43 � � 86 �g// �- L� ~ 32 a o—► 367—� 884 ,� ROUTE 74 63 f►3g9 f- 125 y 34g y loos {ELLINGTON RDA h MN 53Z h � �� / s / ti 379 2 or"- se 3 6 2 qi A? ^ TO EXlSTI I�g y 9 �992 CEN ESHo"P,83Z 3�r � � 5 R DR/vic co a 20 h h V6 r co � V6. ROUTE 30 PR? `° (OAKLAND RD.) co ZED CLARK G M c4 E� STREET OR/VE 6� � �� ��� TERRYISTING 4 \ P4 RK p FF�E .a o 1 , o O A, � 2T 1 r 0) DEM I NG STREET ho r c FIGURE NO. 8 / MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT Z � 1991 A.M. PEAK HOUR J� COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES c' CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT REVISED 6-26-89 rRGd.NO. 87-546 DATE:FE9.1989 CHECK" 8T: s JOs1PH MEFWAW&CO. i _ ROUTE 94 a (SULLIVAN AVE.) Arol • o� �w 3 � ROgp, g33 N N 11 301120y1042' � 72 �645 �4 ��� T8 � ROUTE 174 Zi /*1146-►/o92y f- /s3''652 �*1 (ELLINGTON RDA h o)o 5 4 a k�,` 29 1 /2gD`►3lll� 3 03 6,95 4`� 28 � � CE I N XSH�I NG 1l p~� S sso 1 (+ /�l NTER OPP/NG o r 30 RIVE co tr A 400 r N N 1 PRoI�S h ROUTE 30 1' o o F4 &D (OAKLAND RD.) IC CLARK a �R/yEf STREET oRlvE 5 � r o O� 5 5� � TERRYIST/IyG P4 RK p FFI CE o RIVE � 1 Cb p co 40 l'�o 4 1 r DEMING STREET A. h FIGURE NO. 9 r �o Q go MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT fD r Q v 1991 P.M. PEAK HOUR COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES CLARK CORNERS SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT REVISED 6-26-89. PRoi.NO. 87-546 DATE:FEB.1989 cmcKEO BY:- W31FIn r a Co. July 7, 1989 To. Commissioners of Inland Wetlands South Windsor, Connecticut From! Sherwood Waldron 863 Clark Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Clark Corners Property 1 want to emphasize my remarks made several months ago at a public hearing. 1 want to have it understood that I am not opposed to having this property developed. I have often thought for years that there could be better use made of this property other than commercial so our community can be served in a better way, and so traffic does not become such a problem. The growth of the entire area of Buckland, Deming, Clark and Ellington Roads is much different today than when the zone was changed. Why do developers have to get this much density on this small parcel of land? Water supply is a concern in the whole area. Density of buildings and parking lots affect this water supply and will forever, once this property is developed. Under a recent court ruling, if there is an alternate way to develop wetlands, the law says the developer must take that alternative. We all know there are alternate ways to develop the land if you want to go by the law. When someone buys property they should know the past history of it. When the present developers bought the property, they knew the past history of it. They bought it knowing the problems, and created their own hardships--the Town didn't, nor did the former owners. I am opposed not only to developing the wetlands, but also to the idea of a crossing for cars that are going to use this for a by-pass road from Butkland to Ellington Road through Clark Street. You can see this traffic pattern just by watching cars at different times of the day. Properties should connect for people using them not for by-pass roads. Another thing I want to ask is, why do the plans call for sewer and water to be on provate property? Why are they not put in Clark Street like everywhere else in Town? We farmed this property for years. There are only two parcels of this whole acreage we could ever farm because of the wetland soils. We made the ditch to dry up the land. This didn't do away with the wetlands. What happens when we cover it with buildings and black top? A good look at the north side of Ellington Road (the former Williams property) would tell you what the south side would look like without the ditch we put in--a wetland. I hope you will take my remarks under consideration. Other people might feel like I do but don't say anything. I like this community and have a feeling for the residential people in my neighborhood, but still realize the Town is going to be developed. cc: Commissioners of Planning and Zoning PLANNING DEPARTl39NT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Karl Reichle, Mike Gantick, Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, XxR&ak&rdx1xxXLxr=wcx Gary Tyler, Fire Marshall Lanning, Jim Snow, JEAN ZURGRIGEN, FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project:# qq- ciop Zone -K C_ Acreage j 5 2 °►' <<.z Subdivision Site Plan Residential No. of Lots/units Commercial_ Industrial Location: a .34,dj L,v r!ovx ki o � (La t L Project Description: ,?, �- (� . " Future Town-owned involved? Yes No property (a)new streets (existing frontage also) (b)new open space/recreation area active passive (c)new detention area Planning Department comments r / JA,,X L �4 G P1 ase let me know by z/ ` if you will have comments on this application so that I can follow up with your d partm nt when I do a Planning Departm nt report. PLANNING DEPAR73CM IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORT[ TO: Karl Reichle, Mike Gantick, Mel Stead Fred Sha xx Gary Tyler, Fire Mar Lanning, Jim Snow, JEAN ZURGRIGEN, FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following pro ject: C I 1� I - Zone �-- Acreage Subdivision Site Plan ✓ Residential No. of Lots/units Commercial_ Industrial Location: , 7 . Project Description: Future Town-owned property involved? Yes No (a)new streets (existing frontage also) (b)new open space/recreation area active passive (c)new detention area Planning Department comments P1 ase let me know by 7 z/ �� if you will have comments on this application so that I can follow up with your d fartm nt when I do a Planning D partm nt report, PLANNING DEPARTMMU IN-HOUSE RBFERRAL FORK TO: Karl Reichle, Mike Gantick, Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, x Gary Tyler, Fire Marshall Lanning, Jim Snow, JEAN ZURGRIGEN, FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project:# C�jt;P Zone �� �-- Acreage j 3. 2 Subdivision Site Plan ✓ Residential No. of Lots/units Commercial_ Industrial Location: �. Project Description: J Future Town-owned involved? Yes No ✓ property (a)new streets (existing frontage also) (b)new open space/recreation area active passive (c)new detention area Planning Department comments ;� �c.t E., f,;,-1l�1���fit•, �, !�'��!�'� , ✓ �tl,�/ /� l l(J' k' / ,�i I i'L�L lt'1 `'�'1 Ci c�4'�ic'_%�� XL i is Please let me know by 7�Z/%ram `'> if you will have comments on this application so that I can follow up with your d par nt wh n I o a Planning D partm nt r port. �/v STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation Department of Transportation Commissioner of Public Safety 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A Commissioner of Motor Vehicles '""`- Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Phone : 566-5228 r July 10, 1989 Mr. Daniel O'Neill Fuss & O'Neill , Inc 146 Hartford Road Manchester CT 06040 Re: STC# 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. O'Neill: Subject: Town of South Windsor As a result of receiving the revised traffic volumes with your July 6 letter, we are forwarding copies to the Bureau of Highways' Office of Traffic Engineering and to the Bureau of Planning for their review. The revised traffic volumes replaces the following sheets in the original submission as follows: Table IA through lE replaces Table lA through 1D, Table 2 (6 sheets) replaces Table 2 (6 sheets) , and Figure No. 6 through 9 replaces Figure No. 6 through 9. We will advise you if any additional data will be needed. Very truly yours, William W. Stoeckert Executive Director r cc: Chief Gary K. Tyler/ Mr. Thomas D'Auri a/ Ms. Marcia Banach Mr. John G. Samsel, Jr. An Equal Opportunity Employer t � o r T-o Ole s (�• e � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 OR-co AREA AREA CODE 203/644-2511 r• August 1, 1989 Mr. John G. Samsel, Jr. 152 Deming Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Application #89-50, Site Plan of Development, Clark Corners Dear Mr. Samsel: Attached is a copy of comments from the Planning and Engineering rti Departments regarding the above-referenced application. Please make the necessary revisions to the plans and submit 6 complete sets (including architectural elevations, landscaping plans, etc. ) to the Planning Department. If you have any questions regarding the comments or the procedure, please contact me. Very truly yours, Marcia A. Banach Director of Planning cc: Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer CLARK CORNERS - PLANNING DEPT. REVIEW COMMENTS Key Map Parking formula (required spaces) should reflect retail and office uses (retail = 1 space per 100 sq. ft. ) Plot Plan - Crosswalks required wherever sidewalk crosses roadway Architectural Elevations Need at least one typical side and rear elevation � wNst4 U 7-0 01 �1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 ��'►oSOR•c0 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 July 5, 1989 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer RE: Clark Corners We have reviewed the plans, sheets 1 to 10 dated 5-17-89 for the proposed Clark Corners project and have the following comments: General 1 . A drawing showing drainage areas utilized in drainage computations is needed to facilitate the checking of the computations . 2. There are several outflow of storm water into the existing wetlands area and their impact, if any, is unknown at this time. Key Map 1 . Not all of the drainage nor sanitary flows are shown. 2 . Detention basin on town Shopping property that connector drive divides should be shown. Plot Plan 1 . Width of "Drive-in-Teller" driveway not shown. 2 . Width of entrance driveway beyond entrance island not defined. 3 . Handicap ramps not indicated. Also no detail for same. Topographic Map 1 . Buildings should be numbered to make references to any questions and/or information easier. 2 . Sanitary manhole near bank building shows an 88, - 6" sanitary lateral flowing into this new manhole. Where is this lateral coming from? Marcia A. Banach Page 2. July 5, 1989 3 . Sanitary lateral from 5500 S.F. Office building does not show any inverts on plan. Please provide. 4 . Ellington Road - the existing catch basin at edge of new pond indicates " 15" out 71. 96" . Where is this pipe? 5 . Structures #11 & #14 are shown as "LI" . What is an "LI" and where �s a detail for the structure? 6 . The note for the new connector drive indicates that the existing detention basin is to be modified and refers to a "sheet SD4 Town Shopping Center" . In order for us to review the proposed modification we need to have the referenced sheet attached as part of this application or the modification reproduced on this sheet. We also will require the calculations for this . Also who will be doing the actual work on this modification - this applicant or Town Shopping? 7 . Structure #19 - the endwall for the new pond is shown much larger than the detail defines and also indicates a wing wall which is not shown in details. Please clarify as to what this structure will look like. B . Catch basins will be needed at the entrance driveway on Clark Street. 9 . There are several locations in parking areas that critical elevations will be needed. Please provide this information. 10 . Note indicates "Existing 15" outlet pipe to be modified with 11" outlet plate" . For ease of construction and for clarity, a detail should be provided. 11 . The grading in the back of the 8400 S.F. office building must be a little more defined so that it will not cause problems later, (i .e. several more spot elevations shown) . 12 . Consideration should be given to providing guardrail in parking areas adjacent to new pond. Marcia A. Banach Page 3. July 5, 1989 Erosion Control Details 1 . Details are required for "Riprap at outfall" shown on outlet section/biofilter detail. Also 4 to 1 slope is recommended instead of 3 to 1 slope shown on this detail. 2 . Energy dissipator detail needs to be designed for reverse filter. Also where is this located - it is not shown on plan. Utility & Pavement Details 1 . Detail for cove walk shows 6" processed gravel - town standards are concrete 8" minimum. 2 . Pavement Section Detail - the proposed pavement design should consider the existing soils, site conditions and usage. The present proposal doesn't appear to be sufficient, therefore please provide the pavement design computations for the proposed design. 3 . Pipe installation in trench detail has note "gravel fill to be placed only if ordered by Engineer" . This should be eliminated as the Town Standards require this fill. Drainage Details 1 . Riprap ditch detail shown - where is this located on plans? JCl/Jsv cc: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works c " wlliam R. fanning ' ` Fire Chief oR•co Fire Marshal Fire Department D AUG 10 1989 TO: Raymond F. Hallowell, Jr. , Chairman Soutil Vw'indsor Planning and Zoning Commission Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: William R. Lanning Fire Marshal DATE: August 8, 1989 SUBJECT: Clark Corners - 87-546 I have reviewed the water main for fire hydrant layout for the above project and find it to be adequate from a fire protection stand point. Sincerely, gz,e William R. Lanning Chief cc/John Samsel 1175 Ellington Road South Windsor, Connecticut 06074•(203) 644-8547 RECEIVED �, ��:S8c0'NEILL consulting engineers August 21, 19 89 AUG 24 1989 Mr. William W. Stoeckert SO. WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Executive Director State of Connecticut Traffic Commission 24 Wolcott Hill Road P.O. -,Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Re: Town of South Windsor Dear Mr. Stoeckert: On May 19, 1989, we submitted a Traffic Impact Study for the Clark Corners Development in South Windsor. We subsequently sent a letter, dated July 6, 19894, with revised traffic volumes to .be used instead of the traffic volumes submitted in the original study. - We have since learned that the Bureau of Planning has approved the traffic volumes submitted in the original study. We discussed this in a telephone conversation with Mr. Anthony Pittari of the Bureau of Planning on August 14; 1989. We agree that the originally submitted volumes are suitable for analysis due to the fact they are very close to the traffic. volumes submitted in the July 6, 1989 letter. - I This letter is to confirm the telephone conversation and to emphasize the fact that the original volumes are appropriate for analysis even though an error was made in their calculation. If You require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, D Daniel W. O'Neill Transportation Engineer cc: J. Samsel Jr. M. Banach G. Tyler J. Ford 87-546 082189ADWO 146 HARTFORD ROAD / MANCHESTER, CONN. 06040 / TEL. (203) 646-2469, FAX. EXT. 307 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.WAS�E WATER SYSTEMS•EROSION CONTROL•WATER SYSTEMS HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SITE PLANNING HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES•SURVEYING 0 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC a PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT HYDROGEOLOGY Dgay SEP 18 1989 September 11, 1989 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSIOM Chairman and Members Inland Wetlands and Conservati-om-Commission �C `V. Town of South Windsor / 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, .Connecticut 06074 9A4 R6 " C,04-XV�- C.ORN62 S Dear Chairman and Members, I am the property owner of the property on 859 Clark Street im- mediately across the street from the land owned by John Samsel, Jr. and his partners. I believe an application is pending before your commission on what is to be Clark Corners. ' Recently, everyone in authority in the Town ,of South Windsor has considered Wapping Center to be the commercial center of South Windsor. The master plan adopted by the town and reaffirmed repeatedly shows that site as being considered ideally suited for commercial use. I agree 100% that the property should be developed on that basis. I can conceive of no reason in the world what there will be any problem so long as commercial water and sewer are available for its development. I farmed that land for years, the water drains naturally, and reasonable safeguards for the elimination of excess water should not-prohibit the development of that land. About the year 1946, my brother and I, blasted the present man-made swale to better drain what was then a swamp near Clark Street. Again, with the approval of the State Soil Conservation Service, about 1976, I established a pond and improved the drainage swale to Ellington Road with a drag line. Thus, the man-made pond and swale. The wetlands map adopted by the Town of South Windsor was ,not truly a wetlands map. A large percentage of that soil conservation map covered an area that was not truly wetlands. Everyone who bought property surrounding that tract, was well aware of the fact that they had bought adjacent to future commercial use. They should have no complaints with its development. The additional revenue to the Town of South Windsor in the form of additional taxes, services to be provided, and ,the--us-e of _the land according .to its maximum capabilities, would be in the best interest of the town and its taxpayers, Unreasonable restrictions, and denial of reasonable plans based upon professional advice, makes me wonder what is happening. I am in favor of and strongly urge you to approve the plans submitted. Sincerely, Stanl y Waldron P-iC 'yu "ROM Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District 627 RIVER STREET WINDSOR, CT 06095 688-7725 D September 7, 1989 TV SEP I t 1989 South Windsor �NLMD WETLMM AG / COWARVArlaft coft * TO: John E. Mc Cahill, ZoninWVetlands Enforcement Officer Town of South Windsor, CT F": Denise Conkling, District Manager Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District RE: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR "CLAW COFOERS" - F11, NGTON ROAD, CUM STREET, DEMM STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. Revised 5-17-89 Sheets 1 through 10 of 10 I have reviewed the above mentioned proposed development plans and offer the following comments for your consideration: - In general, the plans as presented have not changed substantially from the plans previously denied. Impact to the wetlands has been reduced somewhat by the reduction in parking area and the relocation of buildings, however, there is still much activity in the wetlands. - The proposed pond is being presented as a wetland creation area. This area is already a wetland area. The proposal does not create a wetland but rather substitutes an open water wetland habitat for a field wetland habitat. There is an existing open water habitat on the property. Unless the commission determines that more open water habitat is needed, it is recommended to leave the field wetland as is. USDA-Soil Conservation Service and District do not recommend placing detention ponds in wetlands. - The road crossing and parking lots proposed for the northern section of the development will leave the most direct impact on the wetlands. The design seems to be sensitive to planning and zoning considerations but not inland wetlands. The state legislature clearly indicated that wetlands considerations are important by mandating that land use applications be reviewed by inland wetlands agencies prior to planning and zoning agencies. The District encourages cooperation between the two agencies to achieve sound land use planning. It also recognized that inland wetland considerations should not always give way to planning and zoning needs. SEP 18 1989 South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission September 11, 1989 Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Dear Chairman and Members, I am the property owner of the property on 859 Clark Street im- mediately across the .street from the land owned by John Samsel, Jr. and his partners . I believe an application is pending before your commission on what is to be Clark Corners . Recently, everyone in authority in the Town of South Windsor has considered Wapping Center to be the commercial center of South Windsor. The master plan adopted by the town and reaffirmed repeatedly shows that site as being considered ideally suited for commercial use. I agree 100% that the property should be developed on that basis. I can conceive of no reason in the world why there will be any problem so long as commercial water and sewer are available for its development. I farmed that land for years, the water drains naturally, and reasonable safeguards for the elimination of excess water should not prohibit the development of that land. About the year 1946, my brother and I, blasted the present man-made swale to bet'Cer drain what was then a swamp near Clark Street. Again, with the approval of the State Soil Conservation Service, about 1976 , I established a pond and improved the drainage swale to Ellington Road with a drag line. Thus, the man-made pond and Swale. The wetlands map adopted by the Town of South Windsor was not truly a wetlands map. A large percentage of the soil conservation map covered an area that was not truly wetlands . Everyone who bought property surronding that tract, was well aware of the fact that they had bought adjacent to future commercial use. They should have no complaints with its development. The additional revenue to the Town of South Windsor in the form of additional taxes, services to be provided, and the use of the land according to its maximum capabliities, would be in the best interest of the town 2 - and its taxpayers. Unreasonable restriction, and denial of reasonable plans based upon professional advice, makes me wonder what is happening. I am in favor of and strongly urge you to approve the plans submitted. Sincerely, vV Stanl y Waldron ,�o'M" °t4 co 0 r T_awn 0-/?s ?d&z� e � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 R•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 September 18, 1989 Ms. Denise Conkling, District Manager Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District 627 River Street Windsor, CT 06095 Dear Ms. Conkling: I am in receipt of a site plan review addressed to John McCahill, from you, dated September 7, 1989, regarding "Clark Corners" proposed development. I have serious concerns about the comments which you provided, with regard to both content and form of presentation. My first concern involves the nature of the property. Was an on- site visit part of this review? The site is primarily cultivated; your recommendation to "leave the field wetland as is" appears to suggest that the site's cultivation was not considered. I am also curious regarding the rationale behind USDA-SCS's recommendation that detention ponds should not be placed in wetlands, as it is my understanding that two of wetlands' natural functions include flood storage and pollutant filtration (within reason) . My second concern relates to your comments regarding Planning and Zoning considerations . We are certainly well aware that inland wetlands considerations should not "always give way to planning and zoning needs"--so much so that I have not previously seen a single request from either our Planning and Zoning Commission or our Planning Department staff to the Inland Wetlands Agency to do as you seem to suggest is routinely done. Clearly, the state legislature indicated that wetlands considerations are important--however, so are issues of public safety. The State Statutes indicate that, "a permit shall not be issued unless . . .a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist" . In this particular situation, the alternative to the proposed road crossing of the wetlands involves rerouting vehicular traffic back out into an intersection which is severly congested and has the highest accident rate in South Windsor. These vehicles logically should not have to enter this highly conjested intersection area to move among adjacent shopping areas . Vehicles which are idling in stopped traffic also will contribute more pollutants to the wetlands then will vehicles which can move quickly out of the area. It is for these public safety and environmental reasons that we are attempting to do exactly as you suggested in your review--encourage cooperation between the two agencies (Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission and Planning & Zoning Commission) to achieve sound land use planning. A review such as yours makes it much more difficult to achieve a sensitive, sensible balance between natural resource concerns and land use development. The professional staff employed in the Planning Department always attempt to balance the seemingly mutually opposing interests of development and natural resource protection--a balance that I believe is usually achievable, often by compromise. We have always respected and appreciated the reviews generated by the District Conservationists . We have generally found them to be objective and helpful in examining alternatives and mitigating measures . I trust that future reviews will continue to reflect the level of professionalism which we have come to associate with the Soil Conservation Service reviews. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss these concerns . Please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Marcia A. Banach Director of Planning MAB/pmm cc: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer John Shemo, Economic Development Coordinator Jean E. Zurbrigen, Acting Town Manager Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission - .. ,. ... — .:..ryr. .Aa'.1`• s,re:L�aS.7c.aCt -�.-,eJ•.e:a.7�i►<rr. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY TOWN STAFF CLARK CORNERS PROJECT 87-546 PLANNING DEPARTMENT L COMMENT ## RESPONSE 1. Parking formula has been revised to reflect retail and office use requirements. 2. Plot plan has been revised to indicate crosswalks where necessary. 3. Side and rear architectural elevations will be supplied. TOWN ENGINEER JULY 5, 1989 GENERAL 1. Drainage area map is being forwarded. 2. Drainage outfall areas are protected in all cases by biofilters or energy dissipator so as to minimize wetlands impact. KEYMAP 1. Additional drainage and sanitary flow indications are now shown on keymap. 2. Detention base on Town Shopping Center property is now shown. PLOTPLAN 1. Width the drive-in teller driveway is now shown. 2. Width of the entrance beyond the entrance island is now clarified. 3. Handicap ramps are now labeled in typical locations and details included on the detail sheets. SEP 25 1989 South Win �cnission Planning & Zoning TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 1. Buildings are now labeled for easier reference. 2. Sanitary lateral entering manhole near the bank building is being installed up to Clark Street for the purpose of serving the house across Clark Street from this property. The desire to tie in their sanitary line has been expressed. 3. Sanitary lateral from the 5,500 square foot building has been revised to extend to the manhole to the intersection of Clark and Deming at which an invert is provided. 4. Pipe inverts at the Ellington Road catch basin had been clarified. 5. The term "LI" refers to Lawn Inlet, A detail is now shown indicating this. 6. Sheet SD4 from the Town Shopping Center plans is now being submitted with these revisions showing the note indicating the proposed modification of the detention basin upon roadway connections to the Clark Corner' s parcel. 7. A detail showing wing wall design is now included in the plans. 8. Since the entrance to this site from Clark Street is approximately 80, feet from the high point of the street we do not believe catch basins are necessary to collect the minimal amount of drainage that will run past the entrance down Clark Street. 9. Additional spot elevations have been added to plans to clarify grading in critical areas. • 10. A detail for the 11 inch outlet plate is now provided. 11. Additional spot elevations had been provided to the rear of the 8,400 square building to clarify the grading in that area. 12. Guardrails are now provided along all parking areas adjacent to the new wetlands creation area. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 1. Riprap detail is now shown as part of the biofilter detail and slope has been revised to indicate 3:1 slope 2. Detail is now provided for the energy dissipator and the addition of the filter fabric to the detail is shown to prevent the infiltration of fine materials of the supporting ground. UTILITY AND PAVEMENT DETAILS 1. Sidewalk detail has been revised to indicate 8" of process gravel. 2. Pavement design will be conducted and results forwarded as soon as available. 3. The note regarding gravel fill in the trench detail has been eliminated. DRAINAGE DETAILS 1. Riprap ditch detail has been removed from the plans. /jjl 87-546 Corresp. 0920a89cosl �1 Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District 627 RIVER STREET • WINDSOR, CT 06095 688-7725 September 27, 1989 So. WiNgRRhP9PNTG DEPT. Marcia Sanach, Town Planner INLAND WETLANDS AGOENCY/ ZbWn of South Windsor CONSERVATION COMMISS101* 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Banach, On September 25, 1989 I met with John McCahill, Zoning Enforcement Officer and you at the town hall and we made an on site visit to "Clark Corners" proposed development prcyperty. At that time, we discussed reports fr L my office and your correspondence to me, dated September 18, 1989 voicing your concerns with my report dated September 7, 1989. This letter addresses those concerns. Your first concern involves the nature of the site and questions whether an on-site visit was made. An on-site visit was made in August 1989. Because of our involvement with many agricultural operations in the area throughout the years, we are very familiar with this and many other agricultural lands in South Windsor. In my report I recatmended leaving the field wetland as is. As I explained during our meeting, f azmland that has been cultivated, or as in this case, mowed for hay has not been altered.hydrologically. As evidenced by todays forests in Connecticut, farmland if left alone will quickly enter into a succession fran pasture to field to forest. The drainage swale has been modified but follows the original drainage pattern of the area. Drainage swales that are not maintained often revert back to original drainage patterns. These farming activities have not permanently altered the wetland system and therefore do not lessen the potential wetland value of the area. The plan proposed to replace the existing wetland system with a detention pond. On the plans this was referred to as a wetland creation area. As I discussed, this is not a wetland creation area. A wetland already exists. Wetlands regulatory agencies including DEP and US Army Corp of Engineers do not reccanend placing detention ponds in wetland areas. The District and Soil Conservation Service also take that position. As you point out, wetland functions include flood storage and pollution attenuation. Since the wetland is already serving these functions why replace it with an artificial system? A detention pond may increase flood storage but because it is an open water habitat it will not support the level of wetland vegetation associated with pollution attenuation. Other wetland values that are not easily understood including the hydrology and micro-biotic functions will be disturbed and cannot be easily replicated. If more flood storage is needed, a detention pond placed in upland soils adjacent to the wetland area would be more appropriate. At a conference I recently attended, Dr. Robert Kortmann, consulting ecologist, gave a presentation on stornwater management and water quality and supported this position. The second concern raised in your correspondence is in regards to carments about planning and zoning cosideraticros versus inland wetland • considerations. I apologize if I indicated that your department did not eZleourage cooperation between the agencies. My catments center around recent legislative changes that requires inland wetlands and watercourse agencies to address their responsibilities first and foremost and it is with their decision that planning and zoning regulations will be addressed. However, it is my experience that because planning and zoning agencies have been in existence longer than inland wetlands agencies, it is difficult for many inland wetlands commissions to assert themselves even though they now legally have the right to do so. I am very involved in training inland wetland ccRmissioners and in this case I was informing the ccamission of its responsibilities and jurisdiction under Connecticut Inland Wetlands law. My letter also encouraged interagency cooperation. As we discussed, this is an area where it is appropriate for staff to discuss the issues with the agencies and work out appropriate conpranises for land use. This is the second review performed by our agency on the property. Generally, the layout and size of the proposal did not change substantially and this is what I addressed in my report. As we discussed in the field, if there are specific items on the proposal that you would like us to comment on, please let me know. I understand the challenge town planning staff faces trying to coordinate sound land use planning within a town. As we discussed, I would be more than happy to meet with your inland wetlands commission to discuss the role our agency plays in assisting with this effort. Sincerely, Denise Ccnkling District Manager cc: John McCahill, Zoning Enforcement Officer John Shemo, Econanic Development Director ,Jean E. Zu=brigen, 'Down Manager ,/Inland Wetland Agency/Conservation Cam fission N 1 t, O G V 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 f'►'osoR-CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 28 September 1989 _ Mr. John G. Samsel, Jr. 152 Deming St. South Windsor, CT 06074 Gentlemen: re: Appl. #89-50P, Clark Corners Site Plan Clark St./Ellington Rd. Intersection (Southeasterly Corner) As discussed with Theresa Samsel today, the public hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 1989 at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue. Signs advertising the hearing must be posted for 10 consecutive days prior to the hearing, and must be clearly visible from the road. Please have them posted by Friday, September 29, 1989 . One sign should be placed on the easterly side of Clark Street, and a second signion the southerly side of Ellington Road. Signs can be purchased in the Town Hall for $5.00 each. Very truly yours, PNI G AND ZONING COMMISSION /R7ozope Recording Secretary cc: PZC File Applicant Engineer M. Banach, Dir. of Planning wN aa,` U Tiawn apS ?d&U&Ot C � • � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203 644-2511 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER SEPT. .39! 1989 THURSDAY, OCT. 5, 1989 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 1989 at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall to consider the following: 1• Appl4outheastnrt7 -50P ohn G. Samsel, Jr. , for a Site Plan of Deve or property to be known as Clark Corners at the y corner of Ellington Road and Clark Street intersection, RC Zone. 2• Appl. #89-55P, Jeffrey Musumano, for a Zoning Regulations Amendment to add a new Section 4.21 to create a Designed Residence Zone (DRZ) . This zone would allow for a development to have single, duplex, and multi-family units. [Public Hearing of this matter continued from Sept. 12, 1989] . 3. Appl. #89-66P, William F. Myette, for a Resubdivision of property on the northerly side of Sullivan Avenue (northerly of Gasland Inc. and Anderson Bros. Realty and ma's southerly of Culbro Corp. ) , I Zone. Copies of the application are on file in the office of the Town Clerk and/or the Planning Department of the Town of South Windsor. At this hearing, interested persons may appear and be heard, and written recommendations will be received. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Raymond F. Hallowell, Jr. , Chairman -----Marshall Montana, Secretary �0,41 C � U 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 Olt-co�'� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 6, 1989 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer RE: Clark Corners - Site Plan We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 9/18/89 and "Response to comments by Town Staff" and have the following comments: Topographic Map 1 . Sanitary lateral from bank building to Clark Street needs to be shown to the proposed connection to the house or to a manhole in street. It cannot be shown just ending in street without proper connection (old comment #2) . 2 . Invert at building (5500 sq. ft. bldg. ) is needed for sanitary lateral. Also do all pipes at that manhole have same invert? (Old comment #3) 3. To clarify my comment (#4) - there is no 15" pipe out of the catch basin, only a 15" pipe into the catch basin., The note should state " 15" in 71.96" . 4 . Guardrails are showy graphically on plot plan. However, there is no note stating what this is. Also . detail of guardrail is needed. (Old comment #12) 5 . The response to comments states "pavement design will be conducted and results forwarded as soon as available" . To date we have not received this . (Old comment #2 - Utility & Pavement Details) JCl/jsv cc: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works APPLICATION OF JOHNG. SAMSEL, JR., ET AL. CLARK CORNERS (ELLINGTONROAD, CLARK STREET, DEMING ROAD) to the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission October 10, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS - LIST OF EXHIBITS Introduction Exhibit 1 List of Speakers and Resumes Exhibit 2 Copy of Application Exhibit 3 Copy of Letter Granting 65-Day Extension Exhibit 4 Copy of Variance Granted Exhibit 5 outline Demonstrating Compliance with South Windsor Zoning Regulations Exhibit 6 Conclusion Exhibit 7 Plans/Maps - Exhibits to be submitted at Public Hearing. Overall Plan - Kelly/Samsel Site Plan Office, Retail , Banking Center Exhibit A Plot Plan Exhibit B Topographic Map Exhibit C (colored ) Clark Corners (Rendering) Exhibit D (colored ) Potential Detention Basin Modification Scheme A Exhibit E Scheme B Exhibit F Architectural Elevations and Rendering Exhibit G (colored ) INTRODUCTION Since South Windsor was a country town, consisting of tobacco and potato fields, one of its three political centers lay at Wapping, at the intersection of the farmers ' arterial roads of Clark Street, Buckland Road, Sullivan Avenue ( formerly Wapping Road ) and Oakland Street, where they intersected with the major east/west highway of the town, Ellington Road just as it turned to the northeast. Here were the Congregational and Methodist/Episcopal churches and their parsonages and church yards , the post office, the high school, and a number of stores . Through the nineteenth century, the Stoughtons , the Clarks , the Grants , Sextons and Carters owned land in and around Wapping and ran the small businesses and shops of the center. As the town developed, the high school and the town hall, municipal government center became to be also located at the Five Corners of Wapping. Because Clark Street did not intersect Ellington Road directly at Five Corners, the stretch of Ellington Road from Clark Street to Five Corners became a locus of the small businesses and stores that served the town. virtually all traffic from the southwest and west would pass those locations . Thus, when, in 1972 , at the instance of Mr. Waldron and Five Corners Shopping Center, the owners of land making up much of the southwest quadrant of five corners , surrounded by Ellington Road, Buckland Street, Deming Street, and Clark Street, the Zoning Commission properly rezoned the entire quadrant to RC Restricted Commercial Zone, in anticipation of the planned growth of the western highlands of the town. Since that time, a number of commercial developments have been approved in the quadrant. The last major vacant portion of the quadrant consists of an over fifteen acre parcel of land lying along the easterly street line of Clark Road from Deming Street to Ellington Road , and is characterized by a rolling, wooded, and meadowed tract, divided by wetlands along a farm pond built in 1976 as approved by the Soils Conservation Service, and a brook flowing northerly to and crossing Ellington Road . Tonight John Samsel, Jr. and Clark Corners Associates, the owners of the subject parcel, are applying for zoning approval for a cluster of eight federal/colonial style buildings containing 71 ,000 square feet of mixed retail and office uses clustered at the outside edges of the parcels, around the wetlands and the pond . The meadow, the pond, a new pond, and the woodlands will form a significant site amenity, and most will be dedicated as open space under a conservation restriction. The character of the neighborhood, the plan of development of the town, the intersection of the arterial highways, the environmentally sensitive character of the site, all require a careful, sympathetic, low scale business development of the site, in accordance with the requirements of sound planning and good zoning practice. You will see that all of these strictures have been satisfied or exceeded . LIST OF SPEAKERS Attorney: Gurdon H. Buck, Esq. , Certified Planner - Robinson & Cole Consultants : Betsy Kaemmerlen, A.S.L.A. , Landscape Architect, Fuss & O'Neill Christopher Stone P.E. , Fuss & O'Neill Civil Engineer William vliet P.E. , Fuss & O'Neill Traffic Engineer Thomas Bazzano AIA, Architect Applicant/Owner: John G. Samsel Jr. EDUCATION: B.S./B.L.A., SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Off-Campus Semester, Kyoto, Japan— Independent Study of Japanese Gardens LICENSES/MEMBERSHIPS/HONORS: Licensed Landscape Architect—Connecticut Member, American Society of Landscape Architects Member, Sigma Lambda Alpha Honor Society A.S.L.A. Certificate of Merit 1980 4 EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE: - 1977 Moore &Salsbury Architects, BETSY A. KAEMMERLEN Drafting 1978-1986 CR3 Inc., Landscape Architecture 1986-Present Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Ms. Kaemmerien has performed site design services for many projects throughout the Northeast. Her expertise is in presentation graphics and construction drawings. but she also has a talent for balancing a client's program with site constraints and town requirements. The scope of her experience is apparent in the following partial project list: - Avon Public Library; Brookfield Town Hall, Senior Center& Linear Park; Wickham Park Improvements, Manchester; New Horizons Village(Handicap), Farmington; Meadowridge(Elderly),Swansea, Massachusetts;Subaru Corporate Headquarters, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Nate Whipple Medical Offices,Cumberland, Rhode Island; Inn at Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut Other diverse skills include writing reports,environmental sculpture, sign and amenity details, calligraphy, and perennial garden design. EDUCATION: B.S.E. Civil and Urban Engineering, University of Pennsylvania Licensed Professional Engineer - CT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Mr. Stone joined Fuss & O'Neill in 1982. His involvement in a broad spectrum of civil and environmental engineering applications has contributed to his primary expertise in the area of site design. His responsibilities cover the entire range of project design and management from conceptual drawings to final approvals and construction. Examples of his experience encompassing these qualities include: Site utility and roadway design for industrial CHRISTOPHER 0.STONE, P.E. and residential subdivisions, including stormwater managment, parking design, grading, water, sewer, and utility layouts. Also construction cost, estimates, specifications, and administration; • Specialized designs and presentations of soil erosion and sediment control plans for subdivisions, excavation sites, landfills, roadways, and flood hazard zones for review by Soil and Water Conservation District staff. Participated in special workshop on soil erosion and sediment control conducted by the Connecticut Council on Soil and Water Conservation; • Designs, specifications, cost estimates, and detailed reports for rehabilitation of roadway networks and fuel transport facilities at U.S. Naval Stations at Newport and Melville, Rhode Island, South Weymouth, Massachusetts, and Casco Bay, Maine. Prepared for Federal review and approval. Received special commendation for excellence. • All aspects of municipal, state, and federal site-oriented applications, including local zoning, subdivision, and wetlands application processes as well as Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection discharge and diversion permits and Federal Emergency Management Agency flood boundary permits; • Preparation and presentation of site-oriented reports for private clients, attorneys, developers, local commissions, and government review, including comprehensive public presentations before citizens and representative bodies. FUSS &VNEILL Resume of Thomas Bazzano AIA to be submitted at Public Hearing I4L TOWN OF SOUTH `wINDSOR , CO,NSECTIC--T PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION� APPLICATION FORMso�•co�` Application No. : Date Received : Action/Public Hearing by: Receipt No . : APPLICANT: John G. samsel, ,Tr, ADDRESS : 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, CT 06074 TELEPHONE: 644-1157 OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS : John G. Samsel, Jr-, Richard L. Mahone &�uatc of ADDRESS: C/O Clark Corners Associates, 152 Derain Street' Mel B ��1ar: ? South Windsor CT 06074 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Southeast corner of Ellin gton Road and Clark Street intersection; see "Location Map" on drawing No. 1 of site plan ZONE: RC NAME, ADDRESS, A TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES QUIRIES SHOULD BE John G. Samsel, Jr. _ 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, C-I' 06074 TELEPHONE. 644-1157 THIS APPLICATION IS FOR : (Check one of the following) I . Zone Change to (Public Hearing required) , 2 . Subdivision . __ 3. Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing required) . q ) . 4• Resubdivision (Public Hearing required) . 5• Special Exception to Article (Public Hearing Required) . =_ 6. Site Plan of Development. 7. Earth Filling [Section 101 and/or Earth Removal Sect(Public Hearing Required) . ion 91 8. General Plan of Development. 9. Regulation Amendment : Zoning Subdivision 10. Other (explain in detail) : CONSULT PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FEE SCHEDULE. THIS APPLICATIO MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED TRIPLICATE WITH ALL MA AND DOCUMENTS REQUIR D ON ATT IN ACHED HECLLIST� App ica t Ownt,!,Ao,n John G. Samsel, Jr. G. Samsel, Jr. CHECKLIST REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE PLANS This checklist Faust be signed by plan preparer (P.E./L.S.) declaring that all... require information is provided. Items 1-7 are required for all applications: items 8--11 required where appropriate. Check mark for each item supplies . 1. On each sheet for plans or maps. title block with the following information: W a. Name, address and telephone of applicant. �i( ^ b_ Name, address and telephone number of Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. c. Name of Development. d. Date When drawings were made. 2. fey Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet , which Gan be used as an overlay on Metropolitan District Maps. This map will show the overall design: of the Development and surrounding property within 500 feet. a. Data block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of lot coverage, acreage of tract, number of apartment units, parking requirements, etc. b. Layout of buildings c. Layout of streets and parking. d. Lines indicating proposed drainage system with direction arrows. e. Lines indicating sanitary serer system with direction arrows. • `X f. Dames of surrounding property owners. _ X S. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas. h. Driveway cuts on surrounding properties. ` 3. Architectural Elevations: Plane of the proposed buildings drawn to a scale of 1/8" I' 0" showing the elevations of all sides of the proposed buildings in sufficient detail to show architectural styling. Architect' s seal on elevations for buildings in excess of 5000 squ r f et (per CGS Chapter 390) . l Page 2 (Site Plans) 4. P1'ot Plan: A Layout map of the proposed sit drawn to a seal of 1 inch equals 44 feet on either of the following size sh ts: ( 1) 24" X 36" with a 3/4" ruled margin; (2) 18" X 24" with a 1/2" ruled maroin, containing the following data: a. Distance and bearings of all boundary lines and acre*ge of site. Iron pins required at all property angle points and shown, on map. -� b. Proposed streets and street lines With center line stations, curve data, and parking spaces. c. Building lines in accordance witbt zoning regulations. d. Proposed buildings and other structures, including signs, outside lighting, and dumpsters (on concrete pad and screened) e. Easements, noting grantors, grantees, and purpose. f. Names of abuttiag property owners. S. Monuments will be indicated at corners and angles of all streets and at all points of curvature and tangency. In areas accessible to Metropolitan District Commission points , or other coordinated points, the monumented points within proposed site shall be coordinated. 'these coordinates shall appear in tabular form on the plot plan. The accessibility of these MDC points shall be determined by the Town Engineer. h. All open space, or other common .or public land uses shell be indicated. i. A-2 certification; P.E. /L.S. Seal. &s;w► 4"*%1 i/er To o ra hic Ms : A map drawn to a scale of 1 inch to 40 feet on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins shall in addition to the requirements of the plot plans show the following: a. All existing and proposed buildings. b. Curb lines and pavement width, sidewalks. C. Existing and proposed sanitary sewers. _ d. Existing and proposed water systems. e. Present wooded area indicated by foliage lines. Any individual trees to be saved should be shown. .i (51Le r'lau5) f . Existing and proposed contours shall be shown in not less than two-foot intervals, but in cases of relatively level land, the contours shall b one-foot intervals and spot elevations. g . Regulated Wetlands and 100-year floodplain or note that none are present. h. Proposed storm drainage system, showing all catch basins, endvalls, manholes, lengths and sizes of pipes. (MoAgimum distance between catch basins shall be 300 feet and minimum size of storm drain lines shall be 15 inches.) i. Connections of 'all springs into proposed storm drainage system as needed. j. Location and indications of existing brook channels, and 100-yeas flood limits. k. A-2 Certification; P.E./L.S, seal. 6. Landscaping plan. 7. Drainage calculations - Zero Runoff Increase per attached guidelines. . 8. Traffic report. �► 9. planes and Profiles: A plan and profile of the proposed streets drawn on Ilan/profile paper of. scales 1 inch to- PX1VAYe 40 feet horizontally, and 1 inch to 4 feet vertically pV sab on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins and containing the following! a. Layout of streets in sections coordinated by stations with the profile. b. Street plan showing roadways and drainage. c. Sight line at driveway & street intersections. d. Profile ofroadway showing existing and finished grades . Roadway profile will show all tangent grade and all vertical curve information. e. Profile will show all catch basins and all drainage lines between catch basins with all invert and top of franc elevations. Drainage lines will be shown and described as to material. f: Where any storm drainage line discharges into an existing brook sufficient profile of this brook will be shorn to determine conditions. g. Metropolitan District Commission datum shall be used • on all sites accessible to these controls. The Town Engineer shall, based on standard engine ring practices, det rmine the acc ssibility of these controls. .. w (Site Plans ) h. Profiles shall show all sanitary sewer lines and manholes , including elevations, sites, lengths, and slopes of pipes.- Top of foundation elevations for building shall be sh wn. 10. open Space Site Im rovement Plans: For sites which require or include a provision for open spaces, a plan vhieh contains data for site improvement may be required. This map shall be drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet. 11 . Sanitary Report: Where individual sanitary sewage disposal systems are proposed, the final plans shall include a Sanitary Report certified by a Professional Engineer. The report shall demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed individual systems; the report should deal with the area as a whole, discussing the following points: e. General nature and development of surrounding area. b. Topography and natural drainage pattern. c. Subaiirface conditions as shown by subsurface investigation, 'i.ncluding soil absorption Characteristics, ground water level conditions, ledge rock, end general nature of soil. d. Geaeral description of type of development _ contemplated. a. Detailed description of proposed sanitary sewage disposal facilities, indicating sizes for various ground conditions, materials to be used, and the general layout pattern to be used, etc. f. Special precautions that may be necessary to provide proper functioning of the proposed disposal systems. g. flap of general area with locations of all tests shown on proposed layout . h: Flood heights of any nearby streams, brooks, or rivers . i. Test results and engineering evaluation per Section 4. 1.3.5. All information required above is included in this application at the time of submission. - JA"R- Nov mber, 1987 r Date: �"'TVA RaqMond F. Hallowell, Chairman Plinnnin and Zoning Commission Town of southWindsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue J'�' �•' � � South Windsor, CT 06074 P P-r'rZ 4 Zorir� =^mmiss�rn D ar Chairman Hallowell: RE: Application #8,q•Say'Name C`G.Y L :QrrDe-f-!; � 1,L .�_ The applicant, f hereby requests a 65 day extension o e action ate wi respect to the above referenced application. V ry Truly Yours, aVov 4#41 O-P sio�um T)&&� it If1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 o�,`o�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 4, 1988 Clark Corners Associates 152 Denning Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Reference: Application #1886-88 Ger.t 1 emen: At the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on November 3, 1988, a variance to Section 5.4 of the buffer regulations was granted as follows: 1) Allowed not to adhere to the 50' buffer requirement along entire length of Ellington Road and Clark Street. 2) Allowed not to adhere to the 30' buffer requirement along Deming Street from the intersection of Clark Street to the boundary line of the open space as shown on the plot plan. The variance granted is conditional upon site plan approval from the Planning Department. Also, the "intent of buffer" should be complied with. This action is effective November 18, 1988, and upon your filing of the en- closed form in the Town Clerk's office at your own expense. Very truly yours, Z�.� ,..I � - & Richard H. Erikson Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals RHE:mr Enclosure: P.3 f•, it i�•It,r r�l I I. 1 r i h ,ern, l:hn i rrn:rn � of the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals, hereby certify that on November 3, 1988 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted to Clark Corner Associates, 152 Deming Street, S. Windsor, CT a variance to Section S.4 of Che Zoning Regulations to he allowed not to adhere to the 50' buffer requirem nt nlonR entire length of Ellington Rd. 6 Clark Street, to be allowed not to adhere to the 501 puffer requirement along Deming St. , from the intersection of Clark St. to the boundary line of the open space as shown on the blot plan, conditional c.e--012.11 'Infent. or Dulter on premises located at corner of Clark Street and EI I inottnn ad,_ _ Wi deer and more particularly bounded and described as follows: SCE A17ACHED SCHEDULE OWNER OF RECORD:_ John G. Samsel_ r_ _ It shard _ LWinne)i A-MaLXZL R- �*•�� Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut ,�,r day of NQyPm far 19-JUL. ic PUBLIC ACT # 75-317 R r Record this �S- day o f - CZ+•.6c V 19 Received f• c y ---�--- a t I I ' 3 G A. ���. 5+t5 ATTEST: ••..�,--T•• - . . Atl.�t IV" • J Site Plan Application of John B. Samsel, Jr. et al . - Clark Corners Statement of Conformance with Applicable Zoning Regulations Section of Regulations Required Comment 2 .0 General Requirements Plans conform to General Requirements . 3 . 9 Corner visibility On a corner lot, no wall, fence or No obstructions to view other structure shall be erected will occur . and no hedge, shrub, tree or other growth shall be maintained between the building line and street line, if the same creates a traffic hazard by obstructing the view. 4 . 4 RC-Restricted Commercial 4 . 4 . 2 . 1 Commercial and professional Proposed mixed and offices, financial institutions uses are permitted , 4 . 4 . 2 . 2 and agencies , retail stores, are applicant proposes permitted uses . ( 8,000 sf retail 63 ,000 sf office) 4 . 4 . 3 One sign on premises advertising Sign details to be business or product; if not affixed described at Public to building not to exceed 12 Hearing square feet in area. 4 . 4 . 4 Site development plan required in Provided and complete. accordance with Section 4 . 13 . 4 . 13 Form and Content of Final Site Complete-Town Staff Development Plans requirements have been addressed . 5 . 2 Schedule of Areas , Yards and Height Requirements Min. lot area 30 ,000 sf 15 . 28 acres Min. lot width 150 sf 530 ft Min. lot depth 150 sf 1 , 150 ft Max . stories 3 2 Max. height 45 ft 35 ft Max . lot coverage 25% 5 . 71% Min. front yard 65 ft 65 ft Min. rear yard 25 ft 25 ft N/A Min. side yard 10 ft 10 ft 5 . 4 Buffer 50 feet buffer from residential variance obtained 11/3/88 . zone. 8 .0 Off Street Parking and Loading 8 . 3 Parking space shall be no less Provided than 10 feet by 20 feet. 8 . 4 8 spaces per 1000 sf of gross 4 per 1000 sf office space for business offices office provided. and financial institutions . 10 spaces per 1 ,000 sf of gross 5 per 1 ,000 sf floor area for Retail Stores and provided . personal service shops. 8 . 4 . 1 Modification of Minimum Required Parking Spaces 568 parking spaces required Propose 292 parking spaces . Allowed to minimize change in 50% reduction topography, loss of desirable requested . trees or plants, or increase in stormwater runoff. 8 . 5 In the case of more than one use Computed in accordance with of a building or lot, required Section 8 . 5, however, parking facilities shall be request reduction in construed to be the sum of the accordance with Section requirements for all uses computed 8 .4 . 1 . separately according to the Schedule in 8 . 4 . 8 . 6 Off-Street Loading Requirements a. Loading space shall a not One loading space required . less than 10x25x14; b. Every building or block of buildings containing more than 5000 sf gross floor area of retail trade requires one loading space. 8 . 7 . 3 Lighting of parking areas and This will be achieved . access driveways shall have the light source shaded from residential districts and public streets . - 2 - CONCLUSION The proposal before you tonight has been the result of the careful analysis and study of the site and its environs, and is made by a local businessman whose previous developments have been a credit to the character and image of the town of South Windsor. The buildings are small in scale, and provide a transition from the business of five corners to the open residential and rural character of the town to the southwest. As special permitted uses in the RC zone, if the applicant demonstrates conformity with the standards of the application, the proposal is permitted . Each and every element of the RC zone standards has been met or exceeded . The consultants and Mr. Samsel have checked off each item, and have proven without question the standards are fulfilled . Mr. Samsel and his design and engineering team have demonstrated that the proposed design is the inevitable solution to the problems of the site, the culmination of the opportunities that the site offers, and the finest design resolution of the strictures of zoning, planning and character requirements of orderly and well-planned development of South Windsor in the last part of the twentieth century. We commend this application for your favorable consideration. OCT 10 '89 .3:3'_ FUSS & 0'14EILL P.21-2 EDUCATION: B.S.C.E. University of Hartford SPECIALIZED TRAINING Traffic Signal Design Institute of Transportation Engineers Federal Highway Administration Traffic Control Devices Handbook Federal Highway Administration Highway Safety Evaluation Federal Highway Administration Work Area Traffic Control International Municipal Signal Association WILLIAM A.VLIET,P.E. Special Problems in Accident Reconstruction University of North Florida Institute of Police Traffic Management Accident Investigation The Police Academy of Passaic County, New Jersey EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE: 1982- 1983 County of Passaic, New Jersey 1983- 19W Township of Wayne. New Jersey 1986 • Present Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Mr. Vliet accepted as his first poet-graduate affiliation a position with the County of Passaic. At the County of Passaic, Mr. Viiet prepared quantity and cost estimates, contract bid documents and participated in the engineering review process of applications before the county planning board. At the Township of Wayne, Mr. Vliet specialized in traffic engineering. His duties included the review of applications before the township planning and zoning boards as well as being project manager for numerous transportation improvement projects. In addition, Mr. Vliet performed traffic signal design and arterial signal coordination design for roadway Improvement projects. Since joining Fuss & O'Neill, Inc., Mr. Vliet has become an Integral part of the traffic engineering section. He has prepared traffic impact studies, including engineering anaiy3e3, for Connecticut State Traffic Commission certificate applications and for local town planning and zoning commissions. He also has performed traffic signal and geometric design for roadway improvement projects. FUSS&OINEILL CLARK CORKERS ASSOCIATES 1<idiard L. Mahoney 152 Deming Street Melvyn B. Marks - Estate Of South Windsor, CT 06074 .John Samsel, Jr. (203) 644-1157 FAX: (203) 644-5992 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 RE: Sherwood Waldron Opposition Letter Dated July 7, 1989 1. Mr. Waldron writes a letter saying, "he 'is not opposed to having this property developed" , however, states his opposition at a time of the public hearing that calls for those opposed to the application. 2 . In the same letter, he states, "I have often thought for years that there could be better use made of this property other than com- mercial so our community can be served in a better way" . On February 22, 1972, Mr, Waldron was a co-applicant with the Five Corners Shopping Plaza the South Windsor Town Hall Planning and Zoning records show. At that time, part of Ellington Road and a corner of Buckland Road were zoned R./C. His application was re- questing a zone change of his 17 acres on Buckland Road and Deming Street to R./C. so he could divide his 17 acres into three COMMERCIAL lots . The Planning and Zoning Commission in its ' wisdom saw fit to rezone the remainder of the block, Buckland Road, Deming Street, Clark Street and Ellington Road as a result of that application. Mr. Waldron then sold his three commercial lots for commercial development. At that same hearing, records show several neighbors were opposed to Mr. Waldrons zone change for commercial development citing traffic as a problem. His Attorney, Ed Kuhen argued suces- sfully on Mr. Waldrons ' behalf stateing traffic in this com- mercial area would not be any problem. All the years that I have lived in South Windsor, I have always considered Sherwood Waldron the father of getting this entire block rezoned Restricted Comm, 3 . In the same letter, Mr. Waldron states, "why do developers have to get this much density on this small parcel of land"? Present R/C requlations I beleive do allow up to 25% coverage. On May 13, 1986, a public hearing was held on an application from Mr. Kelley for the present Town Shopping Center. At that time, the application also included a facility for a Burger King on Buckland Road. The Planning and Zoning records show Mr. Waldron spoke in favor of that application which the Plannig and Zoning Commission denied., T T_ (L-1 CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES I?ichard L. Mahoney 152 Deming Street Melvyn B. Marks - Estate Of South Windsor, CT 06074 John Samsel, Jr. (203) 644-1157 FAX: (203) 644-5992 (2) The same application that Mr. Waldron spoke in favor of, now consists of an average of 5,, 716 Sq. Ft. of commercial building per acre of land owned. That development also has room for additional buildings . This is still well below the present regulations. Clark Corners with its ' present application has only 4, 643 Sq. Ft. per acre of land. This is 1,073 Sq. Ft. less per acre than Town Shopping Center, which Mr. Waldron supported. Now he is very concerned with density. The Clark Corners ap- plication is requesting 6% less automobile parking area than the application Mr. Waldron supported, 4 . In Mr. Waldrons ' letter, he states, "when someone buys property, they should know the past history of it. When the present developers bought the property, they knew the past history of it Yes, we did know the past history of it. It had been actively farmed for over fifty years. We knew that Mr. Waldron was instrumental in the rezoning of that land to R/C. Mr. Waldron states in his letter, "we made the ditch dry up the land. Mr. Waldron attended at least three meetings with other neighbors at Mr. Samsels ' office and never voiced any concerns or opposition about the development. We also knew Mr. Waldron supported other similar commercial development on the same block by his recorded remarks . Also, our stormwater would flow to the same area as the project that Mr. Waldron supported. I question where this man is coming from. Respectively, John Samsel, Jr. pow ' t� �- 0-ye . 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 4��4soIII C AREA CODE 203 644-2511 November 2, 1989 CERT John G. Samsel, Jr. 152 Deming ' • g Street s. South Windsor, CT 06074 NO Dear Mr. Samsel: plann'ng & z',7;j� Re.• Application #89-50P, Clark Corners g Conimissi®n At the October 30, 1989 meeting of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, Application #89-50P, Clark Corners was denied. The concerns expressed by the Agency are: 1 • In accordance with Connecticut State Statutes the Commission feels there is a viable alternative to crossing the wetlands. 2 . The impact on the downstream wetlands. 3 . The creation of wetlands in a wetland. Very truly yours., James A. Lombardi, Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission JAL/pmm cc: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works John R. Collins, Chief Building Official Planning & Zoning Commission Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer Cynthia J. Gurrieri, Robinson & Cole, One Commercial PlazaHartford, CT 06103-3597 Fuss & O'Neill, Consulting Engineers, 146 Hartford Road, Manchester, CT 06040 "Te F - i f ASSISTANT TOWN CLE NOV 21 1989 RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26, 1989 ASSOCIATES ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN VS. AT HARTFORD INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ i CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR NOVEMBER 22, 1989 i CITATION TO ANY PROPER OFFICER: By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to summon the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission of the Town of South Windsor to appear before the Superior Court within and for the Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford on December 26, 1989, said appearance to be made by filing a written statement of appearance with the Clerk of said Court, whose address is 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, on or before the second day following the return date, then and there to answer the attached Appeal of CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES, a Connecticut general i i partnership with its principal place of business at 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074; John G. Samsel, Jr. , 99 Ridge Road, South Windsor Connecticut 06074 ; Richard L. Mahoney, � 82 Stoner Drive, West Hartford, Connecticut 06117; and the Estate of Melvyn B. Marks, Jane B. Marks, Executrix, 129 Hyde Road, West Hartford, CT 06117; by leaving with or at the usual place of abode of the Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, James A. Lombardi, 60 Woodland Drive, South Windsor, Connecticut; and with the Town Clerk of the Town of South i Windsor, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 , i I and with Leslie Carothers, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, Room 113, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, a true and attested copy of the attached Appeal and of this Citation at least twelve (12) days before the Return Date. John G. Samsel, Jr. , 99 Ridge Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074, as Principal, and Richard T. O'Brien, 10 Trout Drive, Granby, Connecticut 06035, as Surety, are recognized in the amount of $250.00 to prosecute this appeal to effect and comply with all orders and decrees of this Court. 2 i i �I HEREOF FAIL NOT, but of this writ with your doings thereon, make due service and return. Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 22nd day of November, 1989. i i i Brian R. Smith Commissioner of the Superior Court j I I I I i I I i i a� ,� � 1c � Go I Iwo 40 ell I 3 - i i RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26, 1989 CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN VS. AT HARTFORD INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR NOVEMBER 22, 1989 APPEAL 1. The plaintiff, Clark Corners Associates is a Connecticut general partnership with its principal place of business at 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut, 06074. 2 . The plaintiff, John G. Samsel, Jr. , is a partner in Clark I Corners Associates and resides at 99 Ridge Street, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074. 3 . The plaintiff, Richard L. Mahoney, is a partner in Clark Corners Associates and resides at 82 Stoner Drive, West I Hartford, Connecticut 06117. i i i i i I i I i I 4 . The plaintiff, Estate of Melvyn B. Marks, Jane B. Marks, ' Executrix, is a partner in Clark Corners Associates. The Executrix, Jane B. Marks resides at 129 Hyde Road, West Hartford, Connecticut 06117. 5. The defendant is the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission of the Town of South Windsor and is empowered to regulate inland wetlands and watercourses within the Town of South Windsor pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-36 et seg. and the Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations. 6. An application was submitted by the plaintiff, John G. Samsel, Jr. , on behalf of Clark Corners Associates on t June 12, 1989 to the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency. The i subject property referred to in the application is located i at the southeast corner of the Ellington Road, Clark Street intersection and along Deming Street in the Town of South i Windsor. 7. This application was submitted in order to conduct certain j regulated activities within wetlands and wetland buffer areas as part of an approximately 73,000 sq. ft. office and commercial development. i i I 2 - i i 8 . The land area of the subject property is approximately 15.29 acres and is in the Restricted Commercial (RC) zone. 9. The application was accepted by the Inland Wetlands Agency on July 10, 1989. 10. A public hearing on the subject application was held before the defendant on September 25, 1989. 11. The public hearing was closed that same night, however, the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency requested that the applicant provide additional information concerning other alternatives that it had examined in order to demonstrate that the proposed application was the most prudent and feasible. i i 12 . The applicant submitted the requested information on or i about October 16, 1989 to the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency. 13 . On October 30, 1989, the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency held a public meeting at which it received additional technical information from the applicant and his consultants. 3 - i I ' i I I i i I 14. On October 30, 1989, a member of the Inland Wetlands Agency asked if the applicant, John G. Samsel, Jr. , was willing to I i provide a conservation easement for that portion of the subject property designated as open space on a map submitted I with the application. I 15. The applicant responded that he would provide such a conservation easement and also volunteered to grant a conservation easement for the swale area that runs in a northerly direction from the designated open space to Ellington Road. I 16. A member of the Inland Wetlands Agency also asked the i applicant, John G. Samsel, Jr. , if he would be willing to leave the wetland area nearest to Ellington Road undisturbed and not make it an enlarged pond as proposed. Mr. Samsel indicated that he would agree not to disturb it. 17. That same night, a motion was made and seconded by the i defendant Inland Wetlands Agency to approve the application with conditions. 18. The motion to approve did not carry inasmuch as the vote was 3 in favor and 5 against. 4 i i 19. No motion to deny or further action on the part of the Inland Wetlands Agency was taken with respect to this application. i 20. Legal notice of the decision was published in the Journal Inquirer on November 7, 1989. j 21. A letter was prepared by the chairman of the Inland Wetlands Agency, James A. Lombardi, dated November 2, 1989, stating i that the defendant had denied the application and listed the following concerns: i i A. In accordance with Connecticut State statutes, the Commission feels there is a viable alternative to crossing the wetlands. B. The impact on the downstream wetlands. C. The creation of wetlands in a wetland. 22. This letter (see copy of letter attached as Exhibit A) was not sent b certified mail as required but was hand f Y � i delivered to John G. Samsel, Jr. on November 13, 1989, at the South Windsor Town Hall. 23 . The action taken by the Inland Wetlands Agency was arbitrary, capricious and illegal in the following respects: A. The applicant demonstrated that the proposed use was the most prudent and feasible alternative that was available. During the course of deliberations on 5 - i i i I I I October 30, 1989, however, the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency stated that a more prudent and feasible j alternative was to bring in a road from the east across another private property so as not to cross a man-made swale. �I B. Requiring the applicant to obtain access across another private piece of property cannot be characterized as a more prudent and feasible alternative as a matter of law. I C. The applicant, John G. Samsel, Jr. , stated on the record that the proposed creation of a wetland pond within an area already considered a wetland need not be done and he would be willing to accept a permit without that activity being conducted. D. A previous wetland application was submitted by the same applicant by application referred to as I Application No. 89-03P-Clark Corners and dated February 11 1989. The defendant Inland Wetlands Agency denied that application, without prejudice, on March 13 1989 . I 6 I I I i I I I E. In this second application, the applicant addressed all concerns of the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency i i resulting from that first denial. F. Nonetheless, the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency improperly failed to approve this application even though it was demonstrated that no other prudent and feasible alternatives could be made to utilize the property in an economically feasible manner. G. The defendant Inland Wetlands Agency never voted to deny the application but merely voted not to approve the application. H. The legal notice is defective in that it stated that the application was denied when no motion to deny the f application was made. I. Upon information and belief, at some point after the I application was filed, a neighbor, Sherwood Waldron, approached several members of the defendant Inland i Wetlands Agency without notice to the public or the t applicant. i I 7 J. The ex parte communication by Mr. Waldron with members of the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency is a violation of the plaintiffs' rights to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article First, Section 8, of the Connecticut Constitution. K. The refusal of the defendant to approve this application has resulted in a taking of the plaintiffs' property 'in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article First, Section 11 of the Connecticut Constitution because no reasonably viable economic use of the property may be made. L. The defendant's refusal to approve this application has an adverse financial effect on the plaintiffs which outweighs the benefits such an action has on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 8 - 'I A � 1 I I M. Thus, the economic impact of the defendant's action in applying its regulations has an adverse effect on the i investment-backed expectations of the plaintiffs, j resulting in a loss of nearly all the economic value for any permitted use of the subject property. N. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiffs' property 'I has been taken in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and ! Article First, Section 11 of the Connecticut Constitution. i 24. The plaintiffs herein are aggrieved by the action of the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency as they are the owners of the subject property of the wetland permit application. 25. This action is brought pursuant to Section 22a-43 of the Connecticut General Statutes. i I I 9 - i I II WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that: i 1. The court sustain their appeal. I 2 . The court find that the decision of the defendant was arbitrary and capricious and reverse the action of the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency. 3 . The Court find that a taking has occurred and overturn the decision of the defendant Inland Wetlands Agency and order that the wetland permit be granted. 4 . The Court find that a due process violation has occurred and either reverse the decision or remand the application to the Inland Wetlands Agency for reconsideration of the application. 5. Such other remedies as the court may deem appropriate. Dated this 22nd day of November, 1989, at Hartford, Connecticut. PLAINTIFFS CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES JOHN G. SAMSEL, JR. RICHARD L. MAHONEY I ESTATE OF MELVYN' B. MARKS, JANE B. MARKS, EXECUTRIX By . � f . �1Z Bryan R. Smith Robinson & Cole One Commercial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-3597 (203) 275-8200 PRdfffl �5�• N ' Go 10 - S1 G�'1P N�Rtf MAR 6 1990 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ -CONSERVATION COMMISS*N NO. CV 90 0371658 S SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ VS. NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR : MARCH 2, 1990 ANSWER AND RETUF14 • IA N S W E R 1-4. The Defendant neither admits nor denies Paragraphs 1-4 of the Complaint, and leaves the plaintiff to its proof. 5-6. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Complaint are admitted. 6-8. The Defendant neither admits nor denies Paragraphs 7 and 8 and leaves the plaintiff to its proof. 9-10. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are admitted. 11. The Defendant neither admits nor denies Paragraph 11 and leaves the Plaintiff to its proof. 12. Paragraph 12 is admitted. 13-16. The Defendant neither admits nor denies Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16, and leaves the plaintiff to its proof. 17. Paragraph 17 is admitted except that the date of publication was LAW OFFMS December 16, 1989 instead of December 19, 1989. +RD M.RITTENB" IELLWGTONROAD 18. Paragraph 18 is admitted. {MMISOP,CT 06074 19. Paragraph 19 is denied. (2W)6442456 20-21. The Defendant neither admits nor denies Paragraphs 20 and 21 and �URIsNOUM12 leaves the plaintiff to its proof. I i } R E T U R N i Returned herewith and made a part hereof are copies of the papers and documents which served as the basis of the Defendant's action: 1. Application 89-50P received at the Office of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 12, 1989, with attachments thereto submitted by the appli- cant. . 2. Letter dated June 29, 1989 from Chairman of Defendant to applicant asking him to request a 65 day extension of time. 3. Memorandum dated July 7, 1989 to the Inland Wetlands Commission with a copy to the Defendant from Sherwood Waldron. 4. Letter to the Defendant from Clark Corners Associates responding to Sherwood Waldron's letter of July 7, 1989. 5. Copy of legal notice published in the newspaper for the October 10, 1989 hearing. 6. Letter from Stanley Waldron to the Defendant dated September 11, 1989. 7. Letter from the recording Secretary dated 28 September 1989 to John G. Samsel advising of the public hearing on October 10, 1989. 8. Letter dated June 22, 1989 from Robinson and Cole to the Town Planner asking for copies of Inland Wetlands and site plan application of this appli- cant. LAW OFFICES =M.RITTENBAND 9. Letter dated February 13, 1989 from South Windsor Police Department 0EwNGTONRM concerning Clark Corners. � i ti wlr�osofl,CT oso» I 10. Planning Department in-house referral form from Director of Planning (203)64+-2456 to various Town officials. JUflIS NO 50412 11. State Traffic Commission application of the applicant dated May 19, 19899 with maps enclosed in the original. 12. Photographs of the subject site submitted by applicant. i 13. Application of John G. Samsel, Jr. et al, Clark Corners to the Defendant dated October 10, 1989, the•date of the public hearing, labelled as Exhibit#l. 14. Letter dated July 6, 1989 from applicant to Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a 65 day extension. 15. Letter of November 2, 1989 from the Conservation Commission Inland Wetlands Agency to applicant. notifying him of the denial of his application for subject property before that Agency/Commission. 16. Letter dated "December 22, 1989 to applicant from the Defendant advising of the denial of his application with copies of certified mail stub:;. 17. Copy of legal notice published in the Journal Inquirer on Saturday, December 16, 1989 notifying of denial of application. 18. A transcript of the October 10, 1989 public hearing. 19. A transcript of the December 12, 1989 Special Meeting at which the decision was made by the Commission. 20. Town of South Windsor Zoning Regulations. 21. Town of South Windsor Subdivision.Regulations. 22. Planning and Zoning Commission by-laws. 23. Town of South Windsor Plan of Development. 24. Town of South Windsor Zoning Map. LAW OFFICES RD M.PUT oENS" DEFENDANT i ELLWMN ROAD i VIANDS A CT M74 - (M3)644-2456 By* Juws No sa12 Richard M. Rittenband J Its Attorney CERTIFICATION Service certified to all counsel of record and pro se parties this_ '-- day of March, 1990. I Richard A. Rittenband Attorney at Law i �t0r1N St,�� c � ap Sau� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 'f'psOe.Cpc� 1 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 M E M O R A N D U M TO: John Samsel FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning DATE: July 11, 1991 RE: Submission of Mylars, Clark Corners As we discussed, the site plan approval letter requirement that mylars must be submitted within 30 days is directory rather than mandatory. As there is no statutory filing time requirement for site plans, our inclusion of a 30 days mylar submission time reflects our efforts to obtain mylars within a reasonable time period. If you have any further questions, please call . IWAIr �=, NC. Bu Idersers 1744 Ellington Road December 12, 1989 Property South Windsor, CT 06074 Managers Tel: 203-644-8761 / 644-8140 Planning Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Ct. 06074 Re: Clark Associates Site Plan Dear Chairwoman and Commissioners: I want to make a written statement regarding Clark Associates site plan. I have made similar verbal statements at prior public hearings of various Town commissions, and yet as of this date I have had absolutely no response from the applicant. At Town Center we have attempted to listen to commissioners and Town staff. It is our understanding there was a desire for a road system between complexes on Buckland Road and Ellington Road so vehicles and persons could travel from one to the other without exiting onto public streets. Consequently, a road system providing access to adjoining properties, Town Center and Terry Office Park, was mutually designed and constructed by the two developers to accommodate existing buildings and individual desires. I suggest this same method has to be used between Town Center and the "Waldron property" . I am presently designing a site plan for the remaining land around the Bank of South Windsor building and including the former Kuehn office building. This could also provide a prudent and feasible way to link the "Waldron property" . When we get a tentative design from the engineers I fully intend to attempt a meeting with the adjoining developer, Mr. Samsel and his associates. We again will be cooperative as to individual needs and those desired by the Town and commissioners. It is my opinion a careful analysis should be given as to what the entire area of Buckland, Ellington, Clark and Deming should look like and how best to service the area. We will do everything we can to cooperate with abutting property owners and share responsibility in costs, land use, and interior design to meet a well-planned, fair to all, road system. We are proud of how the area is developing. We want to be a part of it's progress. It is going to be with us for a long time. Sin ely, j, l� Richard S. Kelley cc: John Samsel, Clark Associates Marcia Banach, Director of Planning We Build Our Reputation ~ V/ SaaMV&zd44-0t e a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 ��psoR•co�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER SATURDAY, DEC. 16, 1989 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION At its Dec. 12, 1989 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to take the following action: 1 . Deny Appl. °#89-50P John G. Samsel, Jr./Clark Corners, Site Plan, sou t ly- corner of Ellington Road and Clark Street, RC zone. 2. Approve, with modifications, Appl. -#89-88P, Rick Tonucci, Site Plan, 75 Ellington Road, GC zone. 3 . Approve, with modifications, Appl. #89-81P, Highlift, Inc. , Site Plan, westerly side of John Fitch Blvd, I zone. 4 . Approve Appl. #89-90P, Pleasant Hills Condominium Association, Site Plan, Arthur Dr. & Foncine Lane, MF-A zone. 5 . Initiate the calling of certain bonds. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 13th day of December, 1989 . ,PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Louise C. Evans, Chairman Bernard Hart, Secretary w~ aft �- s � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 OR-C AREA CODE 203/644-2511 22 December 1989 - ----- _ Mr. John G. -Samsel 152 Deming Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Samsel: Appl. #89-50P, Clark Corners Site Plan Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on December 12, 1989 to deny the above-referenced application for a Site Plan of Development. The reasons for denial include: 1 . Internal circulation generally does not provide adequate through movements within parking areas . 2 . Location of easterly building adjacent to Town Shopping Center precludes necessary flexibility to ensure interconnection to Town Shopping Center. 3 . The layout of the site and parking is too crowded on the front of the site due to dedication of open space area yet using that open space area in calcula;.ion of allowable impervious coverage. 4 . The concerns expressed in the Inland wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission denial. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Louise C. Evans Chairman :rt cc: M. Banach, Director of Planning Applicant P-625 092 504 ,;EC--,PT FOR CEP'TIF!, L, li E I A i L N`, E CNtO-, .,-13V NTERNhTiC-,,-,, N!A,, Pevc-;�o. to L9 70 14 fV' IN lC Sveu!a,,-1,4o 0- F C) Stq,e a(,, 11 Code Postage cer',,fied S�X-:a!FT(- very Fr-e ups',clan Celtv+.:fk Fee HOxi�j!�-how,ng w"-om a-d Da:,2 Doi,.,e(c-ci co .1 W]','A44be5b of C-elivery CJ F,'0!;iWark of bale E U- 2.)0- 4 and 2 Wim addit1wiM awvk" we and 4. deeltreC a" o0wo""110nis 3 Nut Y"?address In the"FMIURN TO"Opme o"the MVOM side. Failure to do this wil card from being returned to you. ThIll rourn roalpt fft I prevent*k did ad to-nil dab Of Fo -- ULWA IRrovidd, you the mmo of or ees r additional TO"the follwing sery ic es erg wall postmasterno check box es) )for additional 9MICO(s)roqueso . WWII* 11. 0 Show to whom delivered,data,and addressee's address. 2. 0 Restricted Delivery t(EX tm charge)t t 3o Addressed to:. Article (Extm!g"O 4. Article Number IkJA To ffn/ 61 p&;(r Type Of Service: eF 11V&7 !)_/ 0�Xistered 0 Insured RCOrtifled 0 COD GO c Express Mail &T &-407Y " Always obtain signature of addressee I_7ddressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED.' Sii -'r 1-T 8. Addressee's Address(ONL Y if X I requested and fee paid)t S- Signature—Agent x 7. Date of Delive 7Y? PI Form 3811, Mar.1987 tLS.(LPO.1967-IM208 D0ME8TI eRETU1W RUXIpT Mrs. Louise Evans Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Clark Corners Dear Louise*. -*,a_A�L F_E In regard to our meeting today in which I wish to discuss possible changes in my application or a new application to be submitted concerning the above project which might be acceptable to the Commission, I under- stand and agree as follows: 1. This is an informal meeting for discussion purposes only. 2. This is not a meeting of the Commission and you are not speaking on behalf of the Commission. 3. Anything you say at this meeting shall not be construed as a commitment or a binding representation by you or the Commission; and 4. I will not rely upon any statements made or any part of the discussion. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this C77' day of ' Y A-1-J 19 7 1 John Samsel.�,�. 2 January 1990 Mrs . Louise Evans, Chairman P 6'VI,q-a 1/, C-. Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mrs . Evans : re With reference to our'meet}ngion — during which we plan to discuss possible changes in the Aove-referenced application, or the filing of a new application with the Planning and Zoning Commission, I understand and agree as follows : 1 . This is an informal meeting for discussion purposes only. 2 . This is not a meeting of the Commission and you are not speaking on behalf of the Commission. 3 . Anything you say at this meeting shall not be construed as a commitment or a binding re"resentation by you or the Commission; and _ 4 4 . I will not rely upon any statements made or any part of the discussj-on. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this Z�" day of 19�. Sig 2 January 1990 Mrs . Louise Evans, Chairman �` a'S�d, l °���' a V- C.. Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mrs . Evans : ir With reference to our meeting on I o O during which we plan to discuss possible changes i th above-referenced application, or the filing of a new application with the Planning and Zoning Commission, I understand and agree as follows : 1 . This is an informal meeting for discussion purposes only. 2 . This is not a meeting of the Commission and you are not speaking on behalf of the Commission. 3 . Anything you say at this meeting shall not be construed as a commitment or a binding representation by you or the Commission; and 4 . I will not rely upon any statements made or any part of the discussion. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this day of 7 Oiv- Signed * �r c4s o C4: nN) • c � VIZ C- A 2 1990 TOWN CLERK RETURN DATE: JANUARY 24, 1990 CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT j OF HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN VS. AT HARTFORD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR DECEMBER 29, 1989 APPEAL 1 . The plaintiff, Clark Corners Associates, is a Connecticut general partnership with its principal place of business at 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut, 06074 . 2 . The plaintiff, John G. Samsel, Jr. , is a partner in Clark Corners Associates and resides at 99 Ridge Street, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 . 3 . The plaintiff, Richard L. Mahoney, is a partner in Clark Corners Associates and resides at 82 Stoner Drive, West Hartford, Connecticut 06117 . 4 . The plaintiff, Estate of Melvyn B. Marks, Jane B. Marks, Executrix, is a partner in Clark Corners Associates. The Executrix, Jane B. Marks resides at 129 Hyde Road, West Hartford, Connecticut 06117 . i i 5 . The defendant is the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor and is empowered to consider and act i i on site plan applications within the Town of South Windsor i I pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-1 et seq. and the Town of South Windsor Zoning Regulations . 6 . An application was submitted by the plaintiff, John G. Samsel, Jr. , on behalf of Clark Corners Associates on June 12 , 1989 to the defendant Planning and Zoning I Commission. The subject property referred to in the , application is located at the southeast corner of the Ellington Road, Clark Street intersection and along Deming Street in the Town of South Windsor. 7 . This site plan application was submitted in order to develop an approximately 73 ,000 sq. ft. office and commercial ` i development. 8 . The subject property is located in the Restricted Commercial (RC) zone pursuant to the South Windsor Zoning Regulations and official Zoning Map. The land area of the subject property is approximately 15 . 29 acres. i 9 . The application was received by the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission on June 27 , 1989 . 1 i 2 _ I • I I I 10 . A public hearing on the subject application was held before the defendant on October 10 , 1989 . 11 . The public hearing was closed that same night. 12 . On December 12, 1989 , the Planning and Zoning Commission i held a public meeting and deliberated whether to approve or j deny the proposed site plan application. I 13 . That same night, a motion was made and seconded by the I defendant Planning & zoning Commission to deny the application. i i i 14 . The motion to deny received two voice votes in its favor. i 15 . No member of the Commission voted against the motion to deny i or to abstain. i i 16 . Except for two members, no members of the Commission voted on the application. 17 . Legal notice of the decision denying the site plan application was published in the Journal Inquirer on December 19 , 1989 . i 18 . A letter was prepared by the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Louise C. Evans, dated December 22 , 1989 , i i stating that the defendant had denied the application and listed the following reasons : i 3 _ i i A. Internal circulation generally does not provide adequate through movements within parking areas . B. Location of easterly building adjacent to Town Shopping Center precludes necessary flexibility to ensure interconnection to Town Shopping Center. C. The layout of the site and parking is too crowded on the front of the site due to dedication of open space area yet using that open space area in calculation of allowable impervious coverage. D. The concerns expressed in the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission denial . (See copy of letter attached as Exhibit A. ) 19 . The action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission was arbitrary and capricious in the following respects : A. The applicant demonstrated that the proposed use met the criteria of the zone and proposed traffic flow was I I the best available. , B. The Planning and Zoning Commission prejudged the i application based on the adverse decision of the Inland i Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission rather than i giving "due consideration" as is mandated in Conn. Gen. Stat . §8-3 (g) . i i - 4 - i I C. The reliance of the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission upon the Inland wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission action was misplaced since the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission denial was not supported by its own record . The plaintiffs herein have brought an action to overturn that decision in Clark Corners Associates et al. v. Inland Wetlands i Agency/Conservation Commission, J.D. of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Return Date December 26 , 1989 , Docket No. CV-89-0370542S . D. The defendant ' s assertion that the dedication of the ► open space area should not be used in calculation of allowable impervious coverage is in contravention of its zoning regulations . E. The Planning and Zoning Commission members admitted that they desired an internal road network but made statements about the site plan such as "I just don' t P J 1 1 like it" or words to that effect. F. The basis for the denial by defendant Planning and Zoning Commission is not supported by the record . i I i 5 - i G. The motion to deny the application failed because only two members actually voted on the motion and two votes did not constitute a majority of those members present at the meeting that night. H. The legal notice of the denial is ineffective because the motion to deny the application did not receive a majority vote of those members present. 20 . The plaintiffs herein are aggrieved by the action of the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission as they are the owners of the subject property of the site plan application. 21 . This action is brought pursuant to Section 8-8 of the Connecticut General Statutes . i i i 6 _ i i WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that: i i 1 . The court sustain their appeal . 2 . The court find that the decision of the defendant was arbitrary and capricious, reverse its decision and order the i site plan application be granted . i i 3 . The court, in the alternative, find that a due process violation has occurred because the notice of decision is ineffective and either reverse the decision or remand the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for reconsideration. 4 . Such other remedies as the court may deem appropriate. i Dated this 29th day of December, 1989 , at Hartford , Connecticut. i PLAINTIFFS CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES i JOHN G. SAMSEL, JR. RICHARD L. MAHONEY ESTATE OF MELVYN B. MARKS, JANE B. MARKS, EXECUTRIX By 4i � Brian R. Robinson & Cole One Commercial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-3597 ( 203 ) 275-8200 I i e� f - 7 - I I i I I i I Please enter the appearance of Robinson & Cole, One Commercial Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06103- i 3597 , ( 203 ) 275-8200 , Juris No. 50604 . ' I Y Brian R. smith I I i i I i i i I I _ I I I i i I i I i I I I - g - r i I I RETURN DATE: JANUARY 24 , 1990 I CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN VS. AT HARTFORD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR DECEMBER 29, 1989 i i CITATION i TO ANY PROPER OFFICER: i By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to summon the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor to appear before the Superior Court within i i - i and for the Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford on January 24, 1990 , said appearance to be made by filing a i written statement of appearance with the Clerk of said Court, I whose address is 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106 , on or before the second day following the return date, i then and there to answer the attached Appeal of CLARK CORNERS i i ASSOCIATES, a Connecticut general partnership with its principal I place of business at 152 Deming Street, South Windsor, I I I i I Connecticut 06074; John G. Samsel, Jr. , 99 Ridge Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074; Richard L. Mahoney, 82 Stoner Drive, West Hartford, Connecticut 06117; and the Estate of Melvyn B. Marks, Jane B. Marks, Executrix, 129 Hyde Road, West Hartford, CT 06117; by leaving with or at the usual place of abode of the i Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Louise C. Evans , 1678 Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074; and with the Town Clerk of the Town of South Windsor, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, i South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 , a true and attested copy of the attached Appeal and of this Citation at least twelve ( 12 ) days I before the Return Date. The plaintiffs herein as Principals, and Richard T. O'Brien, 10 Trout Drive, Granby, Connecticut 06035, as Surety, are recognized in the amount of $250 .00 to prosecute this appeal to effect and comply with all orders and decrees of this Court. i i _ I i I i i I i i i I 2 - i i HEREOF FAIL NOT, but of this writ with your doings thereon, make due service and return. Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 29th day of December, 1989 . Brian R. Smith Commissioner of the Superior Court l 3 - t0ai sC4 Q w r T-au� V/ so� ?O&U&ot C „{ U w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 soe•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 3, 1990 Mr. John G. Samsel, Jr. 152 Deming Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Samsel: re: Buckland Road Widening As you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed during its September 12, 1989 meeting to allow the Buc;kland Road widening associated with both Terry Office Park and the Town Shopping Center to be accomplished at the same time the Town constructs interim improvements to 5-Corners. A condition of that concurrence was the posting of a cash bond equivalent to the cost of construction prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for your new buildings. To date, such bond has not been posted with the Town. This could create a difficult situation for all of us when certificates of occupancy are requested. Please contact me when you receive this letter so we can discuss the fulfillment of the bond requirement. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Marcia A. Banach Director of Planning :rt cc: M. Gantick, Director of Public Works J. Iazzetta, Town Engineer, ,.;. Collins, Chief Building Official t Jra O FUSS&OINBLL consulting engineers January 9, 1990 RECEIVED Mr. William W. Stoeckert Executive Director - JAN 11 Wn State of Connecticut Traffic Commission SO. Wi1iDSOR PLANNING DES'. 24 Wolcott Hill Road P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Re: Clark Corners South Windsor, CT STC No. 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. Stoeckert: We have prepared this letter in response to your comments of September 11, 1989. Our responses follow the numbering of your comments. 1 . The developer is willing to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 30 and Clark Street as described. Any widening necessary for the 100' westbound left turn lane will be done on the south side of Route 30 (as requested by the Town) . 2. The developer is willing to extend the two lane eastbound approach to the Route 30/Town Shopping Center Drive intersection as described. 3. If the developer deeds sufficient property to provide a 15 ' R.O.W. to the State, the development will not conform to zoning restrictions. Therefore, the developer will grant an easement for highway purposes to the State that will provide a 15' R.O.W. on Route 30. 4. The developer is willing to grant an easement to the Town as described above. The lane use signing will be placed appropriately. 5. The appropriate drainage computations and maps are attached. 146 HARTFORD ROAD / MANCHESTER, CONN. 06040 / TEL. (203) 646-2469, FAX. EXT. 307 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT•WASTE WATER SYSTEMS•EROSION CONTROL•WATER SYSTEMS•HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS•SITE PLANNING HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES* SURVEYING•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC•PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT•HYDROGEOLOGY FUSSUMBL U Mr. William W. Stoeckert January 9, 1990 Page -2- We trust that the information included herein is sufficient for you to conclude your review. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, AXA-WA)l 4Y-4ft-� Daniel W. O'Neill Transportation Engineer /smcl cc: J. Samsel M. Banach G. Tyler J. Ford 87-546 1017ADWO.1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation Department of Transportation Commissioner of Public Safety Sol 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A Commissioner of Motor Vehicles r•M"k' Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Phone : 566-5228 January 12, 1990 Mr. Daniel W. O'Neill Fuss & O'Neill , Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester CT 06040 Re: STC# 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. O'Neill : Subject: Clark Corners Town of South Windsor The additional data submitted with your January 9, 1990 letter will be forwarded to the Bureau of Highways ' Office of Traffic Engineering to be incorporated into the ongoing review. You will be advised by this office if any additional information is required. Very truly yours , William W. Stoeckert Executive Director cc: Chief Gary K. Tyler Mr. Thomas D'Aurii Mr. John G. Samsel , Jr. An Equal Opportunity Employer O FUSS MBLL consulting engineers March 1, 1990 Mr. William W. Stoeckert Executive Director State of Connecticut Traffic Commission 24 Wolcott Hill Road P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Re: Clark Corners South Windsor, CT STC No. 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. Stoeckert: We have prepared this letter in response to your comments of January 31, 1990. Our responses follow the numbering of your comments. 1. The pavement markings have been dimensioned. 2. The R.O.W. on the north side of Route 30 has been indicated on Sheet 1 of 2 of the Roadway Plans. 3. A 365 foot taper has been provided on Route 30 for the eastbound approach to Clark Street. 4. While we agree that the removal of the island would provide a simpler traffic operation, we do not feel that the island presents a safety hazard. The island is desirable from a landscaping point of view and we therefore would prefer to retain it in accordance with Planning & Zoning approval. 5. The proposed easement to the Town of South Windsor on the- east side of Clark Street has been dimensioned. 6. Typical dimensions for skip lines have been provided. 7. It has been indicated on Sheet 2 of 2 of the Roadway Plan: that SNET 223 will be relocated 8. The existing 30 MPH speed limit sign on Clark Street has been relocated off the new edge of road. 146 HARTFORD ROAD / MANCHESTER, CONN. 06040 / TEL. (203) 646-2469, FAX. EXT. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT•WASTE WATER SYSTEMS•EROSION CONTROL•WATER SYSTEMS•HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS•SITE PLI HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES•SURVEYING•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC•PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT 0 HYDROGI FUSSM Mr. William W. Stoeckert March 1, 1990 Page -2- 9. A 150 foot taper has been provided for the northbound Clark Street right turn lane. 10. The lane use signs have been located as requested. We trust that the information included herein is sufficient for , you to conclude your review. If you require any additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, jvax,� &). 6' Daniel W. O'Neill Transportation Engineer DWO:smcl cc: J. Samsel M. Banach G. Tyler J. Ford 87-546 0215A90DWO1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation PAM Department of Transportation commissioner of Public Safety Commissioner of Motor Vehicles 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Phone : 566-5228 March 8, 1990 Mr. Daniel W. O'Neill Fuss & O'Neill 146 Hartford Road Manchester CT 06040 Re: STC## 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. O'Neill : Subject: Clark Corners Town of South Windsor The additional data submitted with your March 1 , 1990 letter will be forwarded to the Bureau of Highways ' Office of Traffic Engineering to be incorporated into the ongoing review. You will be advised by this office if any additional information is required. Very truly Xours ,� a William W. Stoeckert Executive Director cc: Chief Gary K.K Tyler y Mr. Thomas D'Auria Mr. John G. Samsel , Jr. An Equal Opportunity Employer AV� STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Transportation Department of Transportation Commissioner of Public Safety Commissioner of Motor Vehicles 24 Wolcott Hill Road 0 P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 Phone : 566-5228 March 21 , 1990 Mr. Daniel W. O'Neill Fuss & O'Neill , Inc. 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040 Re: STC# 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. O'Neill : Subject: Clark Corners Town of South Windsor The enclosed Traffic Investigation Report has been submitted to this office. However, it is our understanding that this development has not re- ceived Planning and Zoning Commission or Wetlands Commission approval and that an appeal has been filed on those decisions. Accordingly, prior to our scheduling this report for presentation to the State Traffic Commission, it is necessary that information be provided that demonstrates that an application has been filed with and approved by these local agencies. Very truly yours, liam W. Stoeckert & Executive Director cc: Chief Gary K. Tyler/ Mr. Thomas D'Auria Mr. John G. Samsel , Jr. An Equal Opportunity Employer IHA-1U MMV 11101 Richard chard J. Haight STATE OFCONNECnCUT S.T.C.No. 132-8906-01 Report By DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date 1/90 _ TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION Loc,No. REPORT TO THE Checked By Anthony ,Ward - Date to S.T.C. STATE TRAFFIC COMMISSION= .,. Date - South Windsor . __ ,._____Received_By S.T.C. _- LOCATION Date 19 1990 _ - --- - Route 30 at Clark Street Approved By S.T.C. REQUESTED BY Date S.M.No. John G. Samsel , Jr. See Previous S.T.C. Report HOW REQUESTED Certificate Application .No. DATE 5/19/89 Executive Secretary Recommendations In accordance with Section 14-311 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as revised, it is recommended that the State Traffic Commission issue a certificate to Mr. John G. Samsel , Jr. , for Clark Corners, stating that the operation thereof will. not imperil the safety of the public. This recommendation is referenced to plans prepared by Fuss & O'Neill , Inc. titled and dated as follows: "Roadway Plan - Clark Corners-South Windsor, Connecticut," sheet No. 1 of 2 and 2 of 2, dated February 1, 1989 and revised February 90. This recommendation is based on the following conditions: 1. That the proposed drive on Clark Street be located and constructed, as shown on the above-referenced plans. 2. 'That illumination be provided at the intersection of the proposed drive and Clark Street. 3. That an internal connection be made between the proposed development and the abutting Town Shopping Center. BY Office of Traffic Engineering BUREAU OF HIGHWAYS STC No. 132-8906-01 -2- Town of South Windsor 4. That the developer widen the south side of Route 30 to provide a 100' left-turn lane westbound on Route 30 at its intersection with Clark Street, as indicated on the above-referenced plans. 5. That the developer widen Clark Street at its intersection with Route 30 to provide a two-lane approach, as indicated on the above-referenced plans. 6. That the developer install a traffic control signal at the intersection of Route 30 and Clark Street and that it be interconnected with the traffic control signals at the Town shopping center drive and the Wapping Five Corners intersections to the east. A separate State Traffic Commission report will be submitted for approval of the instal- lation. 7. That the developer extend the two-lane eastbound approach to the Route 30/Town Shopping Center drive intersection, as indicated on the above-referenced plans. 8. That the developer grant a 15' easement from the new edge of road on Route 30 to the State of Connecticut for highway purposes along the development's frontage, as indicated on the above-referenced plans. 9. That the developer grant an easement to the Town of South Windsor for highway purposes along Clark Street, as indicated on the above- referenced plans. 10. That the developer install signs and markings on Route 30, Clark Street, and the site drive to Clark Street, as indicated on the above- referenced plans and that all signs and markings conform to standards contained in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways," latest edition. 11. That the pavement markings to be installed on Route 30 by the developer be of plastic or epoxy material or of a material as directed by the Department of Transportation. 12. Where utilities are to be relocated or where traffic is moved closer to an existing utility, the utilities shall be moved in compliance with current Department of Transportation practices and at no cost to the State. 13. That all work on roadways that are owned and maintained by the Town of South Windsor be performed in conformance to the standards and specifications of the Town of South Windsor. STC No. 132-8906-01 -3- Town of South Windsor 14. That all drainage requirements be completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation 's District I -Office prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit. 16. That all roadway improvements within the State's right-of-way be subject to review by the Department of Transportation and all their requirements satisfied prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit by the Department's District I Office. 16. That within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the certificate, a copy thereof together with this report be recorded on the municipal land records in accordance with the attached procedure. 17. That the applicant overlay Route 30 within the limits of the widening. The extent of the overlay is to be determined by the Department's District I Maintenance Office. 18. That a minimum sight line of 450' to the north and 355' to the south be provided at the site drive, taken from a point 20' off the edge of Clark Street, as shown on the above-referenced plans. 19. That the developer equitably participate in funding for future improve- ments at the intersectionof Routes 30, 74, 194 and Buckland Road to the extent necessary to adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposed development. 20. That the State Traffic Commission reserves the right to require additional improvements or changes, as deemed necessary, due to the development's traffic in the future. The cost of any additional improvements or changes shall be borne by the owner of the development. Sergeant Thomas Hart, speaking in behalf of the Legal Traffic Authority for the Town of South Windsor, concurred on March 15, 1990. Mr. Daniel W. O'Neill , of Fuss & O'Neill , Inc. , the applicants authorized representative, was in agreement with the above recommendations, except No. 20, when contacted on March 16, 1990. Report of Findings Town of South Windsor Clark Corners Clark Street at Ellington Road (Route 30) Site Description: Clark Corners is to be a 71,000 Sq. ft. mixed use development to be located on Clark Street between Deming Street and Ellington Road (Route 30) . The development will consist of 48,000 sq. ft. of office use, 8,000 sq. ft. of retail use and 5,000 sq. ft. of bank use. Three hundred (300) parking spaces are to be provided. The development will have access via the main site drive on,Clark Street, approximately 650' south of Ellington Road, and via a connection to the Town Shopping Center development to the east. This connection will provide access to Ellington Road via the signalized intersection at the Town Shopping Center drive and to Buckland Road via the Terry Office Park drive. Site Generated Traffic: The Clark Corners development will generate approximately 3,238 vehicle trips per day with 178 vehicles during the a.m. peak (151 entering, 27 exiting) and 245 vehicles during the p.m. peak (65 entering, 180 exiting). The distribution of the site-generated traffic will be approximately as follows: 22% to and from the south on Clark Street, Deming Street and Buckland Road via the site drive on Clark Street, 10% to and from the west on Ellington Road via the site drive on Clark Street, 43% to and from the east and north on Ellington Road, Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) and Oakland Road (Route 30) via the site drive on Clark Street, and 25% to and from the east and north on Ellington Road, Sullivan Avenue and Oakland Road via the Town Shopping Center drive. An insignificant number of site generated vehicles are anticipated to utilize the Terry Office Park. Area Roadways: Clark Street: In the vicinity of the proposed development, Clark Street is a two-lane bidirectional north/south bituminous concrete roadway, approximately 21' in width. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Clark Street forms a three-way stop intersection with Deming Street approximately 300' to the south of the site driveway, and a "T" intersection with Ellington Road to the north of the site driveway. Clark Street currently has a triangular island in the center of the intersection with Ellington Road, allowing channelized right turns and left turns in both directions at the intersection. A utility pole is also located in the center of the island. Report of Findings Continued -2- Town of South Windsor Ellington Road (Route 30): In the vicinity of the proposed development, Ellington Road is a two-lane bidirectional east/west bituminous concrete roadway varying in width between 22 and 30' . The posted speed limit is 40 mph in the vicinity of Clark Street and 35 mph .8 miles to the east. The developer of Town Shopping Center recently installed a traffic control signal at the Town Shopping Center drive intersection, approximately 950' to the east of Clark Street, and widened Ellington Road to provide a two lane eastbound approach to the intersection. Accident Experience: There were only two recorded accidents in the three-year period ending December 31, 1988 at the intersection of Route 30 and Clark Street. Proposed Project by the Department of Transportation: Construction Projects No. 132-111 and 132-112 are scheduled to begin this construction season and to be completed during the 1991 fall season. These projects will provide additional turning lanes at the Five Corners intersection and will widen Route 194 from the intersection ncrtherly to the new intersection of Route 194 and Route 74. The Route 74 approach will be removed from the Five Corners intersection and converted into a cul-de-sac. Developer's Recommended Improvements; 1. 'That an access drive be constructed on Clark Street. 2. That an internal drive be constructed between this proposed development and the abutting Town Shopping Center. 3. That the island on Clark Street be removed at the intersection of Route 30 and a two lane egress be constructed in its place. Department of Transportation Recommend Improvements: 1. That a traffic signal be installed on Route 30 at the intersection of Clark Street and that it be interconnected with the two signals to the east. 2. That an exclusive left-turn lane on westbound Route 30 be constructed at the intersection of Clark Street. 3. That right-of-way be provided to the State of Connecticut on the south side of Route 30. 4. That right-of-way be provided to the Town of South Windsor on the east side of Clark Street. RECEIVED SAMSEL PROPERTIES N 23 00 152 DEMING STREET JU SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 (203) 644-1 157 SO. WINDSOR PLANNING DUT. TERRY OFFICE PARK BUCKLAND PROFESSIONAL CENTER June 25, 1990 South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 c/o Atty. Richard Rittenband, Town Attorney RE: Clark Corners Application Dear Commission Members, Listed below are three items that we have agreed to change on our site plans as a result of informal meetings with members of your commission. 1. To combine two and if possible, three buildings into one at the intersection of Clark Street and Deming Street. 2. To incorporate 50% or more brick into the exterior construction of all buildings. 3. To move the connector road to Town Center to the South approximately forty feet, however, no closer than fifty feet from the North East corner of the proposed building. Note of explaination: Item 1. size of described larger building to be dertermined by cost of handicap access to the second floor. Item 2. all buildings should show more than 50% brick, however, a couple will be entirely brick. Item 3. the connector road can be adjusted with the assistance of both parties and common engineer but should not be placed so close to a building as to create typical office distractions such as noise and visability. We have also met with the Inland Wetland Agency/ Conservation Commission and made several proposals to relieve impact to some wetlands, bridge the swale and not to expand the pond immediately South of Ellington. We hope that all these proposals will ultimately result in the settlement of the penalty litigation SincerelC , John Samsel, Jr. CC: M. Banach Mrs . Louise Evans, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mrs. Evans: re: C lovk C�hev s v, sov-A WiJs'sv P2C With reference to our meeting on oZ during which we plan to discuss possible changes in tea ove-referenced application, or the filing of a new application with the Planning and Zoning Commission, I understand and agree as follows: 1 . This is an informal meeting for discussion purposes only. 2. This is not a meeting of the Commission and you are not speaking on behalf of the Commission. 3. Anything you say at this meeting shall not be construed as a commitment or a binding representation by you or the Commission; and 4. I will not rely upon any statements made or any part of the discussion. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this day of vh 19 qz) . Signe /his a7{v-eil SAMS E L PROPERTIES 152 DEMING STREET SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 (203) 644-1 157 TERRY OFFICE PARK BUCKLAND PROFESSIONAL CENTER _• J I�i t r r r 1 SEP 17 September 13, 1990 Mr. Chris Stone Fuss and O'Neil 146 Hartford Road Manchester, Gainnecticut .06074 RE: Clark Corners Dear Chris, I am sending you an up-date on progress for the Clark Corners project in South Windsor. To date, we have been meeting with Town Staff, Planing and Zonning Commission and Inland Wetlands_.__.) Commission, conc6rning modified plans. Our concerns will not increase any square footage. I will be in touch with you soon, concerning any minor changes. Sincerely, 0000-1 John Samsel, Jr. r10 FUSS&aNEILL consulting engineers September 25, 1990 Mr. William W. Stoeckert Executive Director ,State of Connecticut Traffic Commission _ 24 Wolcott Hill Road P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, CT 06109 Re: Clark Corners Town of South Windsor STC No. 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. Stoeckert: In response to your recent phone call regarding the subject project, I checked with the developer concerning the project's status with the Town of South Windsor. He assured me that this project is alive and well and he has been meeting with the Town staff to resolve any outstanding issues. I am enclosing a letter from the developer to our project engineer, dated September 13, 1990, which indicates that progress is being made with this project. I would request that this project be kept "on the books" at the State Traffic Commission as it appears that resolution ofoutstanding concerns will be reached with the Town in the near future. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Daniel W. O'Neill, P.E. Transportation Engineer DWO/jd RECBVr-Lj cc: J. Samsel Jr. State Traffic �niss'c' 87-546 0920A90DWO1 146 HARTFORD RD. / MANCHESTER, CT 06040 /TEL: (203) 646-2469, FAX: (203) 643-6313 SOLD WASTE MANAGEMENT•'HASTE WATER SYSTEMS•ERCS ON CON nOL •'WATER SYSTEMS•HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS•SITE PLANNING HIGHWAYS and BRIDGE SURVEYI'�G • ANCSC�PE aFCN1 EC"'.;RE s -P,AN ?ORTATIDN end TRAFFIC s �UBL C rVORKS MANAGEMENT•HYDROGEOLOGY RECYCLED PAPER MEMBERS STATE OF CONNECTICUT Commissioner of Transportation TRAFFIC COMMISSION Y, Commissioner of Public Safety Department Of Tra11Sportar10/1 Commissioner of Motor Vehicles OU/ �St\M, .q"M57``/r 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield. Connecticut 06 1 09-080 1 Phone: 566-5228 October 4, 1990 Mr. Daniel W. O'Neill Transportation Engineer Fuss & O'Neill , Inc. 146 Hartford Raod Manchester CT 06040 Re: STC# 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. O'Neill: Subject: Clark Corners Town of South Windsor With regard to your September 25, 1990 letter, the Traffic Investigation Report previously submitted will be retained for another sixty (60) days. At that time, if the local issues have not been resolved, this file will be closed. Very trul yours, Wil iam W. Stoeckert Executive Director cc: Chief Gary K. Tyler; Mr. Thomas D'Auriaf Mr. John Samsel , Jr. An Equal Opportunav Emplorc/r Pruutd,,n rti tt led(,r ru o\crcd paper NO. CV-90-0371658-S : SUPERIOR COURT CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES, ET AL : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ NEW BRITAIN V. : AT HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION : NOVEMBER 13 1990 DEFENDANT' S BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS : On June 12, 1989, the plaintiffs filed an application with the defendant, Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Comm- ission") , for approval of a site plan of development for an office and retail/commercial complex on property at the southeast corner of Ellington Road (State Route 30) and Clark Street in South Windsor. The property is bounded on the north by Ellington Road, on the west by Clark Street, on the south by Deming Street and on the east by land of Richard S. Kelley which contains the Town Shopping Center and the Bank of South Windsor. The new' '' complex would contain eight buildings, parking areas, roads, etc . on 15.29 acres of which 8.8 acres (57 .5%) is wetlands . The prop- LAW OFMCES erty is in a Restricted .Commercial zone and the uses proposed , faD wnEN are Dermitted uses in that zone. EU-INGTON ROAD ri*WDSOR,CT06074 A public hearing was held on October 10, 1989. Testimony was 56 presented by one of the plaintiffs, John G. Samsel, Jr., and var- JURIS NO 5 O540412 ious experts of the plaintiffs . Reports of The Hartford County RtS Soil Conservation Service to the Inland/Wetlands Agency (herein- after "IWA") regarding wetlands problems were presented at the Public Hearing, made part of the record and attached to the trans- - 1 - cript of the public hearing (Return of Record Item 18) . Commission members/alternate members expressed concern about the wetlands. Commissioner Montana wanted to hear from the IWA (pg. 30) ; Alter- nate member Fitzgerald expressed concern (pg. 40) about the road crossing as it relates to the wetlands and internal traffic . Commissioner Conde felt the internal traffic would be a mess (pg. 35) . In November, the Commission received notice from the IWA by its letter dated November 2 , 1989 to the applicant of the denial of its IWA application. (ROR 15) (See Exhibit A attached hereto.) At its December 12 , 1989 meeting the Commission denied the subject application by a unanimous vote. (Transcript of meeting, ROR 19 at page 36: "Evans : All those in favor of the motion. All commission members said I _ . Opposed? Okay." From said decision of the Commission plaintiffs appealed to this Court . ARGUMENT 1. The reason given by the Commission in itd letter of denial (ROR 16 - Exhibit b attached hereto) •"4. The concerns expressed in the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission denial ." was L"OFFICES alone sufficient to den e application. ;RO M.RITTENBMD Section 8-3 (g) of the General Statutes concerning site plans .i�. ,'j ELLINGTON ROAD AWINDSOR,CT 06074 states, inter alia, that " . In making its decision the zoning commission shall give due consideration to the report of the in- ,203)644-24% JURiSNO50412 land wetlands agency. A site plan may be modified or denied only if it fails to comply with requirements already set forth in the zoning or inland wetlands regulations . " - 2 - _1 r It is clear that the members of the commission did give due consideration to the report of the IWA. As stated in the State- 4 ment of Facts, the members all had as part of the record of the Public Hearing the Soil Conservation Service reports on which the IWA decision was at least in part made. Further, it is evident from the Public Hearing as noted in the Statement of Facts that at least two of the Commissioners expressed concern about the wetlands and what the Inland Wetlands Agency would do. In the meeting of the Commission on December 12 , ,.1989 , it is clear that the members of the commission were concerned about the IWA report which they had received long before the December 12 , 1989 meeting and which the applicants had received long before the December 12 , 1989 meeting. In addition to the reasons given by the IWA in its November 23, 1989 letter of denial, it is clear from the transcript of the December 12 , 1989 meeting (RnR 19) that the commissioners were aware of the IWA concerns . On page 13 Commissioner Evans stated "IW said we don't want them going over the top of the wet- lands. " On the same page, Commissioner Murrin said that the IW objected to the fill . On page 27 , Commissioner Montana stated: "That' s what was turned down by the Wetlands. That roadway going across there. " On page 28 , Commissioner Montana also stated: LAW OFFICES 40U.PoTTENBMD "The wetlands throws a clinker. . . I would make a motion to �5 EWNGTON ROAD approve it without these-.two buildings over here" ; she was clearly -i WINDSOR,CT OW74 agreeing with the IWA that there is a viable alternative. On page )644.2456 34, Commissioner Conde stated that : "the parking would be in the JURiSNO50412 wetlands" and on page 35, in the motion to deny the site plan application, both Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Montana referred to the IWA denial. 3 - Further, the reasons given by the IWA in its letter of denial , of November 2 , 1989 showed that the site plan failed to comply with requirements already set forth in the Inland Wetlands Regu- lations. Section 10. 2 of the IWA Regulations , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, refers to Sec. 22a-41 of the General Statutes based upon which it is stated in said Section 10. 2 some of the relevant facts and circumstances the IWA shall take into consideration in considering whether or not to deny a permit. These include_ "b. The alternatives to the proposed action•' which is the first reason set forth in the IWA letter of November 2, 1989; namely, that there is a viable alternative to crossing the wetlands . Some of the other provisions of Sec . 10.2 include "a. The environmental impact of the proposed action;" "e. The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health or the reasonable use of Droperty which is caused or threatened; " and "f. The suitability or unsuitability of such activity to the area for which it is proposed." , all of which the IWA considered when it determined to deny the application because of the second and third reasons in its letter of denial, namely, "2. The impact on the downstream wetlands" and "3 . The creation of LAW OFFICES wetlands in a wetland, " There were additional reasons-in—the AD M.RTTENBAND record of the UJA on which it based its decision of denial of �ELLINGTONROAD November 2, 1989 which showed violation of the Inland Wetlands WINOSOR,CT 06074 Agency Regulations . These are elaborated upon in defendants ' .t I203)644245G brief in the IWA appeal presently pending, Case ;� CV-89-0370542-S, JJRiS NO 50412 Clark Corners Associates et al v. Inland Wetlands Agency/Conserva- tion Commission of the Town of South Windsor, et al which brief is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 4 - r Plaintiffs , in their brief in this case, argue that because the IWA decision is on appeal it should not have been a reason for the Planning and Zoning Commission to turn down the site development plan application. However, the applicable statute, Sec. 8-3(;) does not say that the Agency' s decision must not be considered until all appeals have been exhausted; it merely states that the IWA Agency decision shall be considered, and it was considered. Further, based upon the IWA decision, the Commission found that the site plan application had failed to comply with requirements set forth in the Inland Wetlands Regulations . It wouldn't make sense for the Commission to wait until all appeals of the IWA decision had been exhausted before following the statute Sec. 8-3(g) . Further, if the Commission were to approve the appli- cation and then the IWA appeal was denied, the Commission-would have approved without any consideration of the IWA decision, l which is clearly in conflict with the provisions of Sec. 8-3(g) of the General Statutes. It is, therefore, clear that the Planning -and Zoning Commission did give due consideration to the report of the IWA as provided by statute, and that the site plan failed to comply with the requirements (Sec. 10.2) „already set forth in the Inland Wet an s LAM OFFICES ADM.PJMN&wD Regulations. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission had aELLINGTDNROAD no choice under the provisions of Sec. 8-3(g) to deny the site -i WINDSOR,CT 06074 plan application. (n3)644.2456 Further, it is well sett-led law that if even one of the Comm- JUR,SNC504,2 ission' s reasons are supported by the record, the Commission' s decision must be sustalf.ned. Huck v. Inland Wetlands and Water- courses Agency, 203 Conn. 525 (1987) ; Primerica v. Plannin; and a a 5 - a Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 23, 26 (1977) ; Goldberg V. Zoning 0 Commission, 173 Conn. 23, 26 (1977) . 2. There was sufficient additional evidence in the record to sport the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The reasons given by the Commission are clear and sufficient , but if not, the Court should search the record anyway to determine if there is sufficient basis for the Commission' s action. the reviewing court may ' search the record for reasons to support the Agency' s decision. '- Kaeser v. Conservation Commission, 20 Conn. App. 309, 311 (1989) citing Norwich v. Norwich Firefighters 173 Conn. 210, 214 (1977) and Huck v. Inland Wetlands and Water- courses Agency, supra. a) Sec. 4. 13 . 1 of the Site Development Plan Zoning Regulations (page 109 ROR 20) states, inter alia, that "All watercourses should remain in as natural a state as possible" and "Due regard shall be given to the preservation of potential enhancement of natural features, . . . and other assets of the community nature." The Commission gave as one of its reasons for denial "The concerns expressed in the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission denial" and was aware of the IWA denial which expressed negative LAW OFFICES reaction to "The impact on the downstream wetlands" and "The ,RD11A.FUTTENBMD creation of wetlands in a wetland. ". With that information before 0 ELLINGTON ROAD -i WINDSOR,CT 06074 it, it is logical to conclude that the Commission was concerned about the violation of the aforementioned provisions of Sec. 4.13 .1 X3)W-2456 - of the Site Development Plan Regulations . JLAtS NO 5(Al2 � b) Section 4. 13. 1*-also sets forth• the requirement that "The Conservation Commission of the Town shall be consulted for a report on the ecological effects of the proposed development." 1 _ 6 _ J In South Windsor, the IWA and the Conservation Commission are a combined agency and under Section 4.13 .1 as well as the General Statutes the Planningand Zoning Commission was required to take g q into account the report of the IWA/Conservation Commission which it did by considering its report of November 2, 1989. c) Reasons 1, 2, and 3 in the Planning and Zoning letter of denial of December 22 , 1989 are all covered under sections 4.13.2. 3 and 4. 13. 2 .4 of the Site Development Plan Regulations which re- i quire plans showing the -layout of the str&ets , buildings, parking, - etc. which the Planning and Zoning Commission is then to review and determine whether these plans should be approved. The members of the Commission clearly found them to be inadequate in these areas as evidenced not only by the first three reasons set forth in the letter of denial but also in comments expressed both at the Public Hearing and at the meeting of December 12, 1989 at which the decision was made. At the Public Hearing, Commissioner Conde (page 35 of the transcript) (ROR 18) stated that the internal traffic would be a mess . On page 40, alternate member Fitzgerald expressed concern about the internal traffic, and the following comments were made LAW OFFICES at the December 12 , 1989 meeting (see transcript ROR 19) AD M.HTTENBAND 1. On page 5, Commissioner Montana stated that a viable traffic D ELLINGTON ROAD a WWDSOR,GTON A Pattern had not been set up . 2. On page 10, Commissioner Evans said: "I have to be con- c2o3)6°42456 cerned about this circuitous windy way that we are going through JUHiS NO 50412 from these places. 3. On page 10, Commissioner Montana stated that she was also concerned about traffic from Buckland Road cutting through the 4 i a 7 r t '.i g1 A (60 M subject area to get to Clark Street or Ellington Road. 4. On page '14, Commissioner Montana noted that the site was very crowded. 5. On page 14, C��. ..��sicrer s Montana and Murrin found the density unacceptable. 6. On page 16 , Commissioner Castro stated that to add 71,000 square feet of office space on a very sensitive area is probably committing suicide traffic-wise. a real heavy impact to that area. " 7. Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Conde on page 16 ' stated respectively that"there would be a lot of traffic"and"it' s going to be pretty crowded. " 8. On page 17 , both Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Montana complained about the density, the number of buildings on the site. 9. Page 18, Commissioners Evans and Conde refer to the dan- gerous situation with the building fronting on the parking lots. 10. On page 19, Commissioner Castro said, he was not satisfied with the internal road system, and on page 20, he expressed the opinion that there were too many buildings . 11. On page 21, Commissioners Conde, Castro and Montana ex- LAW OFFICES ,FiDdLwTTEN6AND pressed a desire to consolidate the buildings. ' ELLINGTONAW 12. On page 26, Staff member Lipe and Commissioner Montana Wlnlosoa,cT 06074 both indicated that "you don't have room to put the parking down X3)644 2456 there." �AiSNO50412 13. On page 29 , Commissioner Montana stated "I am not very �s happy with the proposed traffic system as it exists" and on pg. x 33 she stated "I still think he' s. got too many buildings on his property." Commissioner Conde agreed. 8 r a' - t �1 �i 14. On page 34, Commissioner Montana' s motion was based in part upon the internal flow of traffic and the amount of square footage of the buildings ; that there were too many buildings . . 15. On page ' 35 , Commissioner Montana felt that the parking still looks too crowded.. �u 16. On page 36, Commissioner Montana said that a better inter- nal circulation of traffic is needed and Commissioner Murrin state that he was unhappy with the internal road system. All of these comments in the record support the reasons given A. in the letter of denial, namely, reasons 1, 2 and 3. It is clear also from the transcripts that the members of the Commission were thoroughly familiar with the area of the subject application. They are all long-time residents of the Town and many of them have been members of the Planning and Zoning Commission for several years . Therefore, they were able to take into account their own personal knowledge of the area in arriving at their decision. "Knowledge ob*ained through personal observa- tions of the locus may properly be considered by the agency in arriving at reasons given for its denial. " Kaeser v. Conservation Commission, supra, citing Huck v. Inland Wetlands , supra. Also, LAW DFf10ES see Huck, supra and Manor Development Corporation v. Conservation AD M.RITTENBMD Commission, 180 Conn. 692, 697 (1980) to the effect that agency %ELLINGTONROAD members are not required to believe the experts , particularly IwINDsoR,cT o6074 as to opinion. In Kaeser v. Conservation Commission, supra, and t }� (203)644.24% Central Bank for Savings v. P l ann ing and Zoning Commission, 13 Juuis NO 50412 9 Conn. App. 448, 454 (1988) , the Court stated that "we do not agree . that, in technically complex matters , expert testimony is the only acceptable substantial evidence. " w� 9 - , CONCLUSION It is clear that a review of the reasons given by the Planning and Zoning Commission for its denial and the record on which the denial was based support the Commission' s denial. It is well settled law in Connecticut that courts do not and should not substitute their judgment for that of the 1o�a4- --- ity. If an agency or commission has made a decision honestly and fairly exercised, that decision should be sustained. Raybestos v. Planning 442 A.2nd 65 , 67 (1982) ; Hall v. Planning and Zoning, 153 Conn. 574, 577 (1966) ; Torsiello v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 3 Conn. App. 47 , 49 (1984) ; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Westport, 155 Conn. 236, 251 (1967) ; Toffolon v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 155 Conn. 558, 560 (1967) . Based upon the above, the plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of proving that the defendant Commission acted arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion. Accordingly, plaintiffs ' appeal should be dismissed. DEFENDANT: SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LAW OFFICES -AD M FGTTENBAND -" ELLINGTON ROAD By: -i WINDSOR,CT 06374 Richard •M. Rittenban Its Attorney 03)644.2456 JJRtS NO 50412 CERTIFICATION Service certified' to counsel and pro se par s of record this 13th day of November, 1990. 'RI c ar M. Ritten an Attorney at Law -- 10 - CLARK CORNERS ASSOCIATES Richard L. Mahoney 152 Deming Street Melvyn B. Marks South Windsor, CT 06074 John Samsel, Jr. (203) 644-1157 FAX: (203) 644-5992 December 14, 1990 Mr. William W. Stoeckert Executive Director State of Connecticut Traffic Commission Department of Transportation 24 Wolcott Hill P. 0. Drawer A Wethersfield,, Connecticut 0 610 9-0 8 01 RE: STC# 132-8906-01 Dear Mr. Stoeckert Please be advised that, Clark Corners Associates, is in the process of reapplying to both Inland/Westlands Commission and Planning and Zoning for development of property located at the corner of Ellington, Road, Clark Street and Deming Street. Clark Corners Associates would like to have the above file number kept open. We realize that there will be changes in traffic data and analysis. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you should have any 'questions, please call. Sincerely, John Samsel, Jr. For Clark Corners Associates RECEIVED cc. Chief Gary K. Tyler DEC 171990 Mr. Thomas D'Auria Mr. Daniel W. O'Neil State Traffic Commissicn STATE OF CONNECTICUT MEMBERS i Commissioner of Transportation TRAFFIC COMMISSION Commissioner of Public Safety om S��.� Department of'Transportation Commissioner of Motor Vehicles r""M5' r 24 Wolcott Hill Road • P.O. Drawer A Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109-0801 Phone: 566-5228 December 27, 1990 Mr. John Samsel , Jr. Clark Corners Associates 152 Deming Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Samsel : Subject: Clark Corners Town of South Windsor As stated in my December 6, 1990, letter, and confirmed in your December 14, 1990, letter, any new submission of an Application for Certificate will require revised traffic volume data and analyses. Therefore, the old file remains closed and future submissions will be accepted as a new application. Very truly yours, William W. Stoeckert Executive Director cc: Chief Gary K. Tylev Mr. Thomas D'Auria Mr. Daniel W. O'Neill An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on ret w led or ret ucered paper South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Me ting - Dec tuber 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------7------------ Evan : Um, okay our first application is um 89-50, the John Sams 1 Clark Corner site plan . This was taken to public hearing on October loth. And um, I know, I hope everybody's familiarized themselves with it . I know went, I was not at that public hearing. I went in and listen to the tapes and that sorta thing. So um, Michele would you give us a brief highlights Lipe : Okay. Evans : of the public hearing to refresh eveyones memory. Lipe : Okay, this is , there 's eight buildings totally 58, 000 square feet . 8, 000 retail, 5,000 (unintell) facility. Ah, the 15 . 3 acres site, impervious coverage is proposed at 28 . 7 percent . It does occur to me that all of our dimensional requirements with the exception of the buffer requirement which they received a variance for . Evans : And what was that variance? How much was that variance? Several people talking at the same time . Lipe : Water and sewer are available . Water Pollution Control Authority is not required . The (unintell) confert, configuration of sewers allow the Waldron and Finch property on the west side of Clark Street, (unintell) superintendent of Pollution Control has indicated that there should be a sewer line extension in Clark Street from the existing manhole at the intersection of Deming and Clark Street with a new manhole and the Bank and the Finch Property should be serviced from the new extension . As proposed on this plan the lateral for the finch property will pass from private to public to private again and maintenance responsibilities would be unclear. Ah, that would be something in the approval when this is granted . Um, the fire marshall has indicated that the water line and fire hydrant layout is satisfactory to him. And one of the issues was the parking formula. They are requesting a waiver of 278 spaces . The requested parking waivers 49 percent reduction in required spaces . The Town Shopping Center had 43 percent reduction . But had, this project has a much smaller percentage of retail than the Town Shopping Center did . Evans : And how much was their reduction on their existing development on the Samsel development that 's been, do you know that . I think in the minutes of the hearing it stated that (unintell) . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Lipe : (unint 11) Montana: Of the new one you mean . They wanted a waiver of 276 spaces. Evans : No that was on this new one but I meant this existing one here . Montana: Oh, on the old one, oh, okay. Lipe : I think it was I wanta say in the fifties (unintell) . Evans : Okay. Lipe : STC approval is required for this development and they had submitted to STC . Um, in addition to any of the STC improvements that were alluded to, the town staff is also recommending that improvements to Clark Street frontage on the Adkins property from the intersection of Clark Street , Route 30, to the proposed Clark Corners entrance in conformance with the towns design for the reconstruction of Clark Street . Um, as is mentioned in the public hearing, this is under preliminary designs for the reconstruction of the entire length of Clark Street and the preliminary engineering has been complete but no funding source for the construction has been identified as of yet . Um, since the public hearing this application was denied by the Wetlands Commission . And um, copy of the denial letter which I will (unintell) . Evans : While she 's looking for that let me just state that the reason we ' re hearing , the reason we 're acting on this, some of you may be questioning that since Inland Wetlands denied it but because the applicant chose to continue the application and not withdraw it or something at that point . If we were not to act on it and they were to , to overturn the the Inland Wetlands opposition to it, then it would go in as it was exactly proposed rather than with any modifications that we might want to add to it . Conde : I thought that was always the case, Louise . I guess I was always concerned about once we had Inland and Wetlands we didn 't act on it until that happened . Evans : Well, no that 's alright when Inland Wetlands Approves something Conde : (unintell) no no no, I 'm talking about Evans : then we have 35 days beyond the time if we , our time is expired South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conde : Yeah. Montana: What Bob 's is saying is when they deny something. Conde : No, no . We 've been doing this all the time Louise . Evans : Oh, oh. Conde : Why change our method unless it had Inland & Wetlands approval we sorta put it on the back burner . Evans : Because the applicant has taken the Inland & Wetland denial to court . Conde : I guess, I guess I 'm questioning our procedure . Evans : Well they've taken . Conde : We 're always in this same bind . Evans : I don 't think that they had taken, that other applicants have taken the Inland Wetlands to court : Conde : We ' re always in the same bind if you had the same suit and circumstances Louise . You always had the potential of having the same problem we have now. Evans : Ah huh. Conde : If would just be blocked out . But I , I always Evans : You mean because Conde : had concerns about that Evans : Even if they didn ' t take it to court, your saying. Montana: Well what you 're saying is you want to discuss this tonight anyway, right, because otherwise you, you, so you 've had a problem with all along right . Conde : Inlands & Wetlands has not approved it under, you can 't act on it . Montana: (Unintell ) Evans : No, that 's not the way the legislation is worded, that, if the legislation simply says until after action by the Inland Wetlands . Lipe : Your suppose to take their consideration, their action into your decision making process, and I have read the list of three concerns from the denial letter . In South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lipe : accordance with Connecticut Stat Statutes, the commission feels there 's a viable alternative to crossing the wetlands . Number two, the impact on the downstream wetlands and number three the creation of wetlands in a wetlands . Those are the denial reasons . Montana: What does that mean . Evans : Creation of wetlands in a wetlands . Montana: They were creating a new pond or something aren 't they. Lipe : Right . Montana: Okay, alright . Lipe : (unintell) Evans : A new area of wetlands . Okay, ah, Lipe : A couple more items I 'd Evans : Ah let 's, you know, let 's speak oh, there 's more things that Michele has to tell us okay. Lipe : Just to refresh your memories, the sidewalks along Ellington Road frontage and Clark Street frontage . There 's a connection through the Town Shopping Center shown on the plans um, for vehicles for which (unintell) both shopping areas . Um, in accordance with standard policy, there 's no parking spaces directly adjacent to the principal access road . There was some concern about site lighting from the residences in the area. We 'd like some assurance that the lighting will not be disruptive to these residences . Five phases were proposed and just a comment as there is residences in close proximity, care should be taken during construction to minimize disruption . If construction is to extend over any significant length of times, street trees should go in early in the construction sequence . And as far as engineering comments, there were just a few details really that need to be cleaned up . Evans : Okay. Um, does someone want to start some discussion of this or talk about the overall plan . Montana: Well, I , I , I know I was one of the advocates, I don 't know how many years ago it was but it um, Terry Office Park about having the all it 's development in this big chunk of land trying to work out some kind of coordinating um inter-road structure and I think an attempt has been made to do that . I can 't say I 'm very South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - Decemb r 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: excited about what has been done . Um , as it stands right now all of the connecting road is on th adjoining property owners . Which is, which, instead of being on ah, sorta you know shared equally, one would have to assume that this particular, that what ever was, that a road be put into , interconnect with the equally ownerest to both of them, to both properties owners . And I don ' t see that happening. Because of the fact that those, there are those two buildings over to the east side that are 10 feet from the property line, ah, they really, I mean I think, to me those buildings have been put there instead of some kind of a viable traffic pattern being set up . Um, I know, I mean I read all the figures on, they only have I think it 's 28 percent is impervious coverage . It doesn ' t look that way. I mean I know this, because there 's a lot of(unintell) old thing on (unintell) condominium and everybody's is getting (unintell) acre, and you put the actual one acre (unintell) on top of the condo, on top of it you could have seven or eight units just in that one acre lot . And I think this is what 's happening here because of the ah, this site layout and the maximizing of the, the existing really truly buildable area, it it just looks extremely crowded to me . I 'm just not very happy with the site plan the way it looks . I , I I feel that those those two buildings that are over on the other side of the wetlands are just not in the right place . Ah, aside from the fact that their parking lots are in the wetlands but ah. I just had hoped to see something of a little more imposing stature to go into this particular piece of property. Ah, I I know the concern, I know John did cause, cause of the second proposal he 's made , and I think he 's he 's you know he 's making certainly making an effort to try to make as many people happy as possible . Um, we never saw the first proposal which was turned down by wetlands which had several much larger buildings . I know that he said that that, at the public hearing that the reason that he had not put larger buildings in was because he was concerned about the residence in the area. There 's gotta be some kind Evans : Eight buildings right (unintell) . Montana: of, that , I just think, I don 't see that there ar too many buildings on on the piece of property. Um, it just Evans : looks (unintell) Montana: looks like a lot more coverage there, I mean I would prefer to see fewer buildings with one or two of them a , a larger then, then they are right now. South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Evans: Marcia, why don 't we take a look at these thing one at a time maybe . Montana: Okay, we ' ll I 'm just Evans: and take, and let 's, let 's look at traffic pattern through out the site because that, that is a concern I think of everybodys and that certainly a reason a reason why there were certain modifications and so on done . And see as to what page is that, um. Condo : (unintell) . Evans : Well page 3 is for development, (unintell) in the back of the traffic plan there are the roads that they Montana: Yeah, there 's one that showed the whole, (unintell) packet of information (unintell) . Evans : Well , in the traffic plans there was a good one . Montana: There was one (unintell) . Evans : That, that doesn 't show everything else . I don ' t know if there 's anything in this that shows enough of the different things . Montana: But actually (unintell) Several people talking at the same time along with the map being dragged over the microphone . Evans : And this is the whole piece of property. Montana: (unintell . due to the maps going over the microphone) . Evans : The entrance, the entrance here on Clark Street . Montana: Right . Evans : Okay, and clustered on Clark Street are, no there are , there are six houses there, six buildings . Montana: On this map, the property line as I recall the proposed . (unintell) . Montana: Like this . Just, right, right in back of this building. Evans : Yeah, Yeah, that 's gonna, that 's gonna, Okay and so South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: Actually it 's it 's much closer (unintell) . Conde : Much closer, yeap . Montana: Like that . Three people talking at the same time . Evans : So you come in like this . Montana: I mean to me this, I mean this the road that we pushed to get in here, to get to get this, this one and over here . These other, this whole thing would work. Now this is all theoretical here because who knows, I mean, some, dif, everyone , everyone owns one of these lots . I mean , who knows what 's gonna happen here . But I (unintell . because Evans talking at the same time) . Evans : (unintell) . Montana: it 's quite obvious that somethings gonna happen one of these times . I , I just don 't see , I mean, why, why can 't this road come so that both of these property owners are sharing it up up through this area. So that then, then (unintell) . Evans : Rather than have it be Montana: Well, I just , I don ' t know who paying for this road . Um, to me this this road is here so that these two buildings can get squashed in there because the ten feet, because you know it is right against the ten feet from the property line . Evans : Is it two buildings . Montana: (unintell) well actually this is really one, this one over here . I 'm (unintell) happy with the configuration of that one but this , this one right here I would say is the one that is really um in the way of where to me a road should go . Conde : You mean this road here basically (unintell ) . Montana: Right . Evans : She, yeah what 's Marshall saying is that the road comes in here and and the proposed traffic layout for the piece of land shows a substantial portion of the road on someone elses property which it would have to be partially because you can 't get a site of many owners without going on , what she 's saying is if the road were to go closer to here and maybe be shared by South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners page 8 -------------------------------------------------------- Evans : these two property owners of something which would of course, place that building in jeopardy. Conde : And then would you still have it connect over here Marshall? Evans : I think you 'd Montana: Well, that, well I mean, this is a problem I think with the wetlands . Conde : (unintell) just come in here Montana: Um, if they can ' t go across the wetlands of course, then, that is, that area that is the problem. I mean , I think when we had, we from, when we started thinking about this, I think we were thinking of it all interconnecting in some way. Ah, if the wetlands commission says they can 't do it then they, then they can 't go in that way. Conde : Then that 's done . Montana: Right . I mean as, at at at the moment it is done . They can 't they can ' t get in that way period . Conde : Okay, so let 's say it 's done . Say, let 's (unintell) it out . Evans : What would you do instead in other words . Conde : I guess that 's that 's what you really got to do . I mean, I mean the things in the air . So if this was "x"d out , ah Montana: I mean, if those (unintell) eliminated because of wetlands constrictions, Conde : Right . Montana: John may very well want to change the nature of the buildings that are in the existing property instead of the one on the other side there . He may have to to make it financially ah, to make it work financially. Conde : To make it work (unintell) . Evans : Well , just for Conde : There 's a road here (unintell) Evans : Go ahead . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Castro : Was there any. I don 't have any problems, was there any road improvements that were part in parcel to this application on Clark and Deming. Montana: Clark Street intersection . Evans : Clark Street, yeah. Montana: The intersection . And also they were going to bring ah improve the road from Ellington Road to Clark Street connecting up to the town shopping center . Evans : And sidewalks and all that . Montana: And sidewalks, so that whole thing would be, that whole part of Ellington Road would be improved and done . Castro : Well I mean from Clark to Deming, then Deming to Montana: I don 't remember anything on Deming. Evans : (unintell)(talking at the same time as Montana) Castro : I don ' t either that 's why (unintell) . Montana: That 's just as another Murrin : Close to this is abutting. Montana: Yeah, (unintell) just as a totally other side . Murrin : (unintell) man made improvements on abutting roads right . Montana: (unintell) they can 't do the intersection with the island (unintell) . Lipe : That was expected to be part of the STC approval . Montana: The island being left in . Castro : yeah but what I 'm saying I don 't recall . Lipe : No, not (unintell ) . Montana: Why not . I mean it macadamized , why wouldn 't it be, why couldn ' t they leave the island in there . Mr . Castro is talking in the background, apparently having another conversation with another member . Can ' t pick up what 's being said . Lipe : (unintell) they want exclusive left hand and right hand South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: Well, it 's just something I think, I see a very charming thing that 's when there for years and, I know Evans : Frank, could we you know, have the benefit of everything , all of us . Montana: Ah, so I mean that, there was also some problems , well I don 't know who 's problem this is . This is with, with where that road went . There was some discussion that maybe it had to go this way, or have to go this way, you know, it was going to have to come around here anyway I think. Wasn ' t it . Evans : Well , I think you know, I think we have to make a decision as to whether or not we want to have the connected roads with the whole thing even if it 's in violation of inland wetlands . I mean it conceptually we could do that, we could say well we want to continue a connected road through and then we could decide maybe where it should best go if it should not be the way the applicants propose . But you know, Montana: Well, Louise Evans : We have to take our concern into consideration from traffic and they have to inland wetlands has to take their concerns and if one precludes the other then so be it . But Montana: Well instead of six to one half a dozen of another, you know I mean do we, do wanta have this work as far as traffic flow. Do you wanta have people coming up Buckland Road and cutting through here . Evans : Ah huh. Well Montana: to get out . Evans : I must say Montana: so, I , I can perceive that happening. Evans : Yeah, I must say I have to be concerned about this circuitous winding ways that we are going through from these places . I think that what we were being concerned about and wanting the connector, road through was that people shopping or having business in one part of the subdivision , the commercial subdivision could go to another part of it without have to exit onto Ellington Road or Buckland Road before they came back into the other one . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: Well, (unintell) yes . Evans : So that they could stay internally. So many times shopping centers are separate from each other and even though it 's real close you have to get in your car go around, I mean it 's okay to get in your car if you don 't wanta walk (unintell) make left turns . Evans : but you don 't wanta get onto the main streets and go and come back in again . Conde : But the main reason for this one I believe Castro : What . Conde : (unintell) does this and so you can come in here do some shopping, you could go there, Evans : Right . Conde : you could come in (unintell) Evans : And you wouldn 't have to go through the Five Corners intersection again . Conde : But this, this road, this connector, I don 't know what that has to offer any, any type of traffic pattern within this town center . Evans : Ah huh. Montana: So what your (unintell) Murrin : It saves you from having to get out on Clark Street, Ellington Road Evans : Sure, and come back in again . Murrin : Buckland, and come back in here . Bob . Conde : Well these , I understand that . But this this is the shopping center . Those are offices . Montana: There 's one retail there was one retail , or there is one retail . Conde : The main shopping center is here . Ah. Evans : Never the less, there 's a bank involved . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conde : (unintell) office, office building. Several people talking at the same time . Evans : Yeah but there 'd be traffic because all those buildings are just not for, you know, insurance companies that you go through all the irregularly office buildings could be for all kinds of professionals office that you might want to go to on a more regular basis . Um, now I , I think there 's benefits to having it, I would have to (unintell) that there 's benefits from having a traffic pattern internally through out the whole thing. Conde : This road right here then . Evans : I don 't know necessarily that road, but I mean I think there 's benefits there to internally be Montana: Well unfortunately this piece of property they got to go (unintell) . Montana, Conde & Evans talking at the same time . Conde : (unintell) gotta go from here to here Louise, gotta go across the pond , down there, here, here, here . I mean Mr . Conde and Mrs . Evans are talking at the same time . Unable to hear what 's being said . Evans : No I think you do have to cross at some place . Conde : (Unintell) going across Wetlands . Evans : I think you have to cross at some place . Castro : Is Evans : If you 're gonna have you know a development over here (unintell) . Go ahead . Murrin : As far as placement of that building. Evans : This building. Murrin : This one . Is it legitimate for us to say that the placement of that building um, makes it difficult to equitably share an internal road . Evans : That 's what Marshall (unintell because Murrin talking at the same time) . I think that 's what she 's saying. Murrin : Is that what we 'd would say in, in a comment . I don ' t think we 're a in powered to dictate where to on two South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Murrin : separate property owners your gonna put a common road between there . Evans : No, that 's true . Murrin : There pieces . Conde : No that 's a private agreement . Murrin : Yeah. March: Well having people zipping through there, couldn 't ya have you know some places used effectively nice annoying speed bumps and stuff like that then that Evans : Yeah we 've done some things like that . March: some of the things down Evans : I think one of the things we 're wrestler with Tom is the idea that Inland Wetlands said, gee we don 't want them going over the top of the wetlands . March: Yeah. Evans : And how strongly do we feel that going near the internal (unintell) or I think people are saying that they feel that it 's important to have some kind of a pattern within it . Someone talking at the same time as Evans : Evans : No you don 't think so . Murrin : Inland Wetlands objected to the fill . Might they not go for a bridge . Evans : I don 't know. Murrin : It seems like if we have a legitimate reason for wanting that kind of access that inspite of the fact that we know Inland Wetlands doesn ' t like it, we outta say .it 's right . Evans : That would be the kind of thing, right . From a planning stand point , we need to say what 's right . Murrin : Exactly. Evans : Right . Exactly. March: Well the safety, you know South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- March: th safety is what 's going on inside of there . Evans : Ah huh. March: (unintell) Evans : I think it 's beneficial not to have to get out on the main street again when you 're going in a large area like that . Montana: Well, well I , I mean I feel that the site is very crowded myself . And as I said Evans : Okay, now that, that 's a whole other thing. I mean, well, let 's, let 's just finish up on the traffic part . Montana: Okay. Evans : Do you feel that it should be as Tom was stating, Tom Murrin that it, it equitably, maybe (unintell) shared between the two or more developers . Montana: Well , I , I think the commission, I think what we ' ll have to say that we would prefer to go, to have the road as, you know, this road going across this, getting from here to here in some way. Evans : Ah huh. Montana: However, that is not to say that this thing, this side of it could not exist with it only came in this way. Evans : Ah huh. Montana: So , I mean I don 't know quite quite how we state that because certainly if this area over here gets turned down by wet wetlands, that 's not to say that this area right in here can can certainly exist by itself . I mean it 's just um, there 's nothing wrong with that . I mean that , I 'm sure that one of the only reasons they, they put the road in there is because we asked them to . Evans : Yeah, sure, sure . Murrin : Not to that density for me though. The thing that supports that density, that supports the density on that piece is that it 's internally connected to the rest of the development . To the, to the area. Montana: Oh I see, so what you 're saying that, that that density would not be acceptable to you . Well that 's what I 'm get, that 's where I South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Murrin : If that works (unintell) Montana: See that 's what I was saying though, that if they're sorta, if as it turns out wetlands does prevail in this they may very well want to come back to, come back with a revised site plan, I would assume that they would to make sure it works properly. Murrin : Ah huh. Montana: Because if you lose these two buildings here I don ' t think these other six buildings will support the piece, I mean at least from what they were saying at the public hearing. Evans : Frank , do you, do you have comments to make on this that would help us . Castro : Well, yeah. I , I question some 71 , 000, well this is strictly , a different approach but I question Evans : Okay. Castro : 71, 000 feet of office space on a very sensitive area already. I think the traffic, nobody hasn 't even begun ( tape turned over) the shopping area hasn ' t opened yet . To add 71 , 000 more square feet to that area at this time is probably a committing suicide, really. Traffic wise . It 's a, it 's a real , it 's gonna create a real heavy impact to that area (unintell) . Add , add more impact . Castro : And I think that 's a concern . Evans : Okay and Tom. March: Well what did they say at the public hearing that they would be adding a, a light there someday Montana: Yes . Evans : Yeah, at Clark and Ellington . Castro : It 's not so much the light Tom. It 's the ah, it 's the traffic . Montana: How long you sit at the light . March: Oh, well I know. You 're gonna have a light here, you 're gonna have a light down here then you 're gonna have another light, I mean, we might have to South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Castro : You 'r talking a very narrow crown, old tobacco road with ah probably thousands of cars on it . March: Yeah, yeah, that 's Evans : Well , you know we, we do have a traffic report on this whole site that would tell us, I think for the year of 91 was that it or something that would gave, gave us um with as if the whole thing were built . I mean as if there 's some of the shopping center part were built so I think we have to you know use those figures too and not speculate too much beyond those figures that were given to us . Um Conde : But the thing Evans : Nevertheless, there would be a lot of traffic . Conde : But the things that would really change our minds Louise, really give us a ah better understanding of how much traffic would , that you 're really going to have is Evans : Ah huh. Conde : ah, will we in fact eventually have a by-pass road that comes down (unintell) road , skoots across that, what 's goes in there Evans : Ah huh. Conde : That would alleviate Five Corners quite a bit . Evans : Yeah but I think that Conde : And, what, what is the effect of 291 going to have ah. At one time we had thought about coming across the bird sanctuary and going down through Clark and having a ah another parallel road along with Buckland . Evans : Yeah. All those things though Conde : If it stays the way it is it 's gonna be pretty crowded . Evans : Yeah, I was gonna say I don ' t think you can approve or not approve the site plan based upon some things that might happen . Conde : No but you have the Mall (unintell) . Evans : Right five years down the road because those just weren ' t South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: But looking at these traffic figures they have right her . I assume this would, this 1991 PM peak traffic external traffic volumes . Ah, I don 't think it 's allowing really for people who are gonna be cutting off down Buckland down off of Buckland down Deming Street and zipping , if particularly if there is a light ther at the corn, intersection of Ellington and Clark Street . I mean right now you 'd, you 'd be crazy to do that if you wanted to make, to go down to Ellington Road . But if there 's a light there there certainly will be a possibility will certainly exist to go down there Evans : You mean Deming, Deming Clark. Montana: Deming Clark, right . And then you 'd be able to get out onto Ellington Road . Right now you wouldn 't get out of there in a (unintell ) . Evans : Oh, I think, although it 's not applicable specifically to this . That 's what the applicant was saying tonight . That people do that , some already. Montana: Oh, yeah. you see quite a (unintell) . Evans : (unintell) . Conde : You take your life in your hands at Deming and Buckland . Montana: Right . Just coming, coming out, not going in . But I , but I , so I think that ah those figures Evans : Well I 'm not getting a real real clear consensus though on on the traffic . I mean do you think you want internal roads . Or do you think, well maybe you don 't want any, maybe you don 't want it period I don 't know. But let 's talk for on another aspect of it for a few minutes on, on the amount of development that is being proposed and the placement of that other building that Marshall was talking about by the sideyard line which is within the confines of the zoning regulations but do we want this, this much density on the , and in this many buildings on this site or do , you know they're within the zoning requirements but we still have as far as site plan approval decision that we can make about whether of not we want a see that many buildings and that . Montana: Yeah, well I , as I said that, that concerns me . The number of I mean I , I , I thinks it 's going to it has a potential to be somewhat similar to the way that Terry Office Park is South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: which I think in certain sections is very is crowded up in the back. Evans : (unintell) some of the circuitous roads in there of making it difficult to Montana: Well you 're not, you 're not aware of it because a lot of it is off, is off the road but this it 's setback from Buckland Road . This is going to be right on Clark Street . Evans : Ah huh. Conde : Right now Louise, you know the ah (unintell) A zone, when we went through our both (unintell) and we changed the regulations Evans : Ah huh. Conde : So we didn ' t have buildings off of a parking lot . Evans : Right . Conde : And you 've got three buildings off of a parking lot . Evans : Okay, I , no I agree . Conde : I mean there is no street . Now I can see why (unintell) not enough room, now, now maybe some other thought has been given but you 've got ah 55, 10, 15, Castro : 71, 000 . Conde : 15 . 7 serviced by ah (unintell) Evans : So your saying that there 's a road, the buildings really are fronting on the streets that are being proposed in there . They're fronting more on the parking lots . You go through the parking lot to get to the building. Conde : Right, we changed the regulations, we changed the regulations (unintell) you 've got a very dangerous situation . Evans : Right . Conde : You 'd be driving through a parking lot to get somewhere . Evans : Ah huh, Right . Conde : We changed it so we 'd have a road, then you have access roads that went to the parking lots and then to the South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conde : buildings . Ah it is very crowded on this plan here . Evans : Yeah but do you think that is part of the, or that was a problem over on one other building, I know specifically. On the other part of the Terry Office Park. (unintell) as far as going through a parking lot to the building, because that became part of the thru road that was being proposed Montana: Yes . Evans : there which (unintell) concern . Conde : (unintell ) 8400 s . f . building off of a road . This 14 , 000 s . f . building is basically off of a road . Evans : Right . Conde : The roads going this way and you go into it . But this is dangerous . Montana: I think actually Bob they do have all of their parking off the road itself . There are very strips there . Conde : Right . Castro : Except for right in here . Montana: Except for right there . Right, were the bank (unintell) . Conde : No , I 'm talking about the ah (unintell) . Evans : Well that . Murrin : Yeah, yeah. It 's a, it 's a long parking lot . Several people talking at the same time . Castro : I think the internal road work is Evans : (Unintell) Go ahead . Castro : I thing the internal work is a, is a necessity. But not necessarily the way, the way this particular application presented it now. Or , the build, the building configuration off the road network is not (unintell) . Murrin is talking with Montana in the background . Unintelligible . Evans : You ' re saying that ah South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conde : Okay, when you even look at your bank, Louise, as your driving through a parking lot Evans : Right . Conde : after you drive in teller . Evans : And then do you leave that, you go out through the other parking lot, this, yeah. Conde : Yes . Evans : That 's a good point . Conde : They're trying to jam an awful lot into that little area there . Castro : Maybe clustered is (unintell) . How much impervious (unintell) . Evans : Then maybe a the problem having like two 5, 000 s . f . or three 5, 000 s . f . buildings all in a row that, go ahead Frank. Castro : How much impervious coverage is on the site now. Evans : Oh, it 's about 28, 28 percent Montana: (unintell) small percentage Evans : It 's not that but part of that is because of the large Montana: Right (unintell) Evans : Open space area. Castro : Right . Montana: Cause of the pond area there . Castro : Well, would it, is it possible to cut one of those buildings down and maybe move one into the other and make the building twice the size and eliminate three into one or, I don 't know if I 'm saying it right . Evans : Ah huh. Castro : Eliminate one completely and move the amount of square footage into one unit . Montana: So I 'd go on the other side of the pond or the river you mean . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- March: (Unintell) . Montana: As it is, is it were . The existing brook. March: No, no . (unintell ) . Castro : Instead of having three 5, 000 square foot buildings Evans : No, these are the ones over on Clark Street he 's referring to . Castro : Yeah (unintell) . Evans : The bank and the other two buildings, the proposed bank. Montana: Oh, oh, okay. Conde : The attempt though was to try , to try to stay with the nature of of the neighborhood . Castro : Yes . Conde : Single buildings . Evans : Yeah, in fact that comment was made . Murrin : Three small buildings really came from input from the neighborhood Conde : Right . Murrin : That didn ' t want one big building right next to the other . Conde : So that 's where that came from. Evans : That was the reason for it . Conde : The only thing you could do, you could put a building, you 'd have to build this way and you had a wing on it and stuff so looking this way you 'd think there 's one building, looking this way there was one . From a plane you 'd only see the, all of them. Castro : Right . Conde : But I know what you want to do . You want to consolidate it so you just come to what Castro : Right . Montana: Right . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conde : That 's it . Castro: Right . Evans : An "L" shaped building. Castro : Possibly. March: It 's kitty corner, well it 's cornered . To me that 's not a bad idea. Conde : "L" with a , with a "T" on it . Montana: How much, how many actual feet is being, is on the development (unintell) open space area. Lipe : I 'm sorry, I don ' t understand . Montana: Alright , (unintell) excluding , excluding this and um, I just , how many, I just want get what the actual density and amount of square feet there putting on the part of the property that they are developing. Mr . Conde is talking at the same time as Montana. Lipe : Okay, so the whole (unintell) , the whole um is 15 acres right . (unintell) 15 . 8 so you 're looking at roughly a little bit over 10 acres that 's being developed . Right . Castro : (unintell) pond in there (unintell) . Lipe : And their putting on 58, 000 square feet of office, 8, 000 square feet of retail, and 5 . 000 of bank facilities, which is 73 . But this is the whole, the whole site . Montana: Yeah, yeah, I know, that I understand . Evans : Yeah. Lipe : But as far as (unintell) Murrin : Yeah. Lipe : This area here Murrin : This ih here, you sorta lump with the 4 . 8 . That might be another two or three acres . Evans : Yeah. Right . Lipe : Then maybe you ' re looking at probably eight or seven i South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lipe : acres . Murrin : Yeah. Montana: (unintell) . Evans : Like (unintell) . Montana: (unintell) hear it is . 8 acres of wetlands with 4 . 8 acres of open space . Is that possible . Conde : (unintell) . Montana: It says 8 . 8 acres all together . Murrin : Yeah. That 's all . That 's all together the whole wetlands . Evans : Yeah, I think so because the open space was 4 . (unintell) . Lipe : (unintell) . Montana: So it 's like actually it like 7 point something acres that the development is (unintell) . March: Between 7 & 8 acres . Lipe : Yeah, 73, 000 square feet . Evans : Well, the impression that you get from working at the site plan definitely is that it is the part that is being developed is, is very full and it 's interesting that you get that impression when the arguing (unintell) waiving of the parking Montana: (unintell) like there 's so much when (unintell) Evans : and what it actually is is that they've (unintell) because of the buffer requirements and so on . Montana: Well that 's been reduced thou . Evans : Yeah that one 's been reduced . Murrin : It 's not eliminated . Evans : Well, along Clark it 's been reduced Murrin : Yeah, but even along Clark Evans : But South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Murrin : that 's still a lot of, there 's still a lot of ah space taken . Evans : That 's where the open space is . The depth is back from the street, and , and in some cases it 's because of the required buffer and other cases it 's because it wouldn 't look right if it were but yes . Montana: Well maybe because of the fifty foot setback on the street . Conde : Show me the study of the ah the parking in town, what did ah Marcia bring the study to try to Lipe : We, we . Conde : to try to come up with something Lipe : Yeah. Conde : that is to ah how far off are we on the ah parking regulations . Lipe : Yeah, we ' re, we were concentrating mainly on industrial but um, we did look in some of the standards for office and we right now at 1 per 125 square feet . Generally five per thousand is, is what you see in other communities as oppose to eight . Evans : This is for four and (unintell) . Lipe : This is, his is about four per thousand . Um and in his retail is about five per thousand . Evans : And I think that five per thousand is about what the shopping center has too . Lipe : The Town Shopping Center next door has five per thousand, yes . And they had four per thousand for office . Conde : And that 's (unintell) . Evans : Oh they did . Okay. Lipe : Yeah, yes so this Evans : So actually the parking that they 're showing here is probably , if the others were (unintell) . Conde : (unintell) but I know that Marcia said that she was gonna look into it and ah South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lipe : Yeah, (unintell) we concentrate on industrial . Conde : Yeah. Lipe : Industrial, condominiums . We have other standards for the office Conde : Yeah, yeah, but the Lipe : that we looked at . Evans : That one of the reasons Conde : But we still (unintell) Lipe : We are, yes definitely. Evans : I think one of the reasons that the parking is adequate is because at the ratio is, because of the small size of the buildings . In other words I think that when they cluster Conde : Oh I 'm not questioning the addition, Louise Evans : less parking around a smaller building, yeah. Conde : because I think we ' re too high to start with. And a lot of this parking is in motion so once your in motion ah, you know, making a moving target (unintell) . Evans : Yeah, no the amount of parking seems appropriate . Yeah. Montana: What would it do to the parking if those two buildings over here were not there and Evans : Which , which two (unintell) Montana: The one on the, the ones that the wetlands (unintell) really. Evans : alright . Montana: And, and, the larger building or so was constructed on the other side of the wetlands area Ah would this still , would that still work. Um. Murrin : This lot doesn 't seem to be quite um, five per thousand . Montana: Well, she said that they had five per thousand . This is their only retail one here . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 26 ------------------------------------------------------,------------- Murrin : Yeah, but I think this is about 50 . Lipe : four, four per thousand for the office . Murrin : This is about 50 places for 14 (unintell) . Five per thousand, you 'd only have 10, 000 square feet here . Evans : Is the bank considered office or retail . Office? Montana: I mean would that be feasible . Would they still end up area to park. Lipe : I , I think you 're gonna find that they are gonna run out of , you ' ll gonna have a lot more asphalt over here . Right over here . I really don ' t think that you ' ll find that to be workable . Conde : People aren ' t gonna park here (unintell) Lipe : Not if you not, if they're not going to be able to cross over and use here . Montana: I was saying, no you misunderstood what I said . If these two buildings were not here Lipe : But you 're gonna increase square footages over here . Montana: (unintell) so you 'd have to end up with some parking over here anyway. Well you wouldn 't be able to get over there anyway (unintell) . Lipe : Exactly, as the, you don 't have room to put the parking down there . Montana: Good point . Right . Conde : You can 't cross a wetland and that makes this area in here maybe not workable Montana: I know. But here again, we have to make a decision on this because Evans : That 's right we don 't have a decision as far Montana: because we if if we don ' t, if we leave it as it is, if the wetlands decision is over turned then it, what you see is what you get . And I 'm not to crazy about what I see . So . March: Is that, is that a roadway over, that 's just or is that a walk ramp . Montana: It 's a roadway. South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special M eting - D cember 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Pag 27 ---------------------------------------------------- Evans : It 's a roadway. Montana: (Unintell) . March: Well, wouldn 't , yeah, well I mean, Montana: That 's what was turned down by the Wetlands . That roadway going across there . March: Yeah, well how about, about if that were a walkway, you know and then people walking over there . Evans : The you very definitely would need to park next to each building which means (unintell) . March: Well, can a business come around here, around this, this, isn 't this a road around the wetlands (unintell) Montana: No it goes right across it . Evans : It goes across, yeah. March: I 'm talking about for Evans : this one, (unintell) . March: in this corner right here . Montana: Oh, alright well Lipe : The connector road (unintell) Evans : The connector road you mean March: The connector road (unintell) Evans : that isn 't being built at this time . March: Well, (unintell) where are we . Okay, this, this, this is a roadway we can make that a walkway but isn 't this a roadway up here that Montana: Yes . Evans : Yeah. Right . March: And that goes into this parking lot here . Why do we need this at all (unintell) Conde : What, what 's this . This is the road here . March: That 's the road there and what 's, what 's this . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: Well that 's just something extraneous . Conde : That 's what ever, but this is the road . March: Yeah, that 's the road . Looks like a road . That 's what I was asking. Montana: Oh, no . March: Is it a road . Montana: I think it might be, they might have proposed a walkway across there . Conde : Probably a walkway with (unintell) that 's what that looks like . Murrin : Yeah, it 's a pedestrian bridge over here . Lipe : well, there are walkway to that (unintell) Evans : But there are, one of the nice things about this whole shopping center thing is that there are good pedestrian or decent pedestrian walkways through out it . March: They, re very sensitive t'o the ah, they seem to be trying to be sensitive of the wetlands . Evans : And I think they're doing the same thing here from a pedestrians stand point . (unintell) . Murrin : Louise, could we take a couple of minutes and explain our options here. How far can we go and um and request a change Evans : We can modify a site plan. Murrin : Yeap . Evans : And approve it that way. And we can um, as long as the modification is something within the power of the applicant to do . In other words we can 't base it upon something that 's off the property. Ah, we can improve it with just, show all kinds of modifications or we can deny it . Murrin : Ah huh. Montana: The thing, I just don 't understand exactly where the whole thing is that this wetlands, this wetlands, well he throws a clinker into the whole thing. Um, the thing is, if, I mean, I would , I would make a motion to approve it without these two buildings over here . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: Now I don ' t know whether that would requir them to do such xtensive modifications that they would almost have to (unintell) Evans : You would approve it with the road layout as it is now. Montana: Well, (unintell) modifications we know some of the things that some of the members (unintell) I think we need to have ah. Evans : Well, let 's, let 's take a look at it then why Montana: Maybe I don 't know, is it is it six of one half a dozen of another to ask them to come back with, ah things that we 've discussed ah. Evans : I don 't think they can just plain come back with them. I think you have to approve or as I say approve or deny. I mean, since we took it to public hearing if the problems don ' t, haven 't gone to public hearing, that they were just presenting it to us know we could negotiate . Montana: Ah huh. Evans : On the spot but um as it stands now you either tell them what you want, well you tell them what you want . Montana: Well I 'm not, I , I mean, we had as I said initially, I am not very happy with the proposed traffic system as, as it exist . Evans : Alright, you would like it to be Montana: Even though we can ' t say that it should be shared however, I am Evans : Well, Montana: This, this is something that (unintell) Evans: Couldn 't you say that, I mean I would think that Montana: I mean this is something that that we had , I mean, gosh it was about two year ago that, I think I brought this up initially when we were working up this corner over here and I 'm not very happy with the (unintell) Evans : You can, you can tell the applicant that you want the road to go in a different location, I don 't see why you can 't tell that . Montana: (unintell) get 's modified . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - Decemb r 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: I am not happy with what has b en propos d so . Evans : So where do you want it to go instead . Montana: I don 't have the, I 'm not sure what the typography is right in here but I Evans : But where, but what would you like to connect . Montana: Well initially , well there was a problem as I recall, there was discussion over whether this road was gonna go straight through here to begin with anyway. Because of ah, because of the detention basin . Evans : detention basin, yeah, the bank was right, right . Montana: (unintell) the other piece of property. So there was Evans : (unintell) Montana: some discussion as to where that road was, the road was obviously, well I don 't know, we 've never put a road through a detention basin before . There 's always a first time . Evans : No . Montana: But, it doesn 't seem like a very intelligent thing to do . Evans : (Unintell) . Murrin : Right after the rain storm (unintell ) that idea. Montana: (Unintell) planned another way, I mean, it 's not . Evans : It 's not like we 'd have a ferry. Montana: I guess the thing that bothers me is that this, this is not like this one section that was built 25 years ago and we 're trying to accommodate things Evans : No, we, it was raw land in other words is what you 're saying and it could be connected in some other way Montana: (unintell) that 's, that 's, Evans : than the way that it 's proposed . Montana: I mean this is all being sorta planned within a year or two of each other and I just don 't understand why it 's not going together better than it seems to be . South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Sp cial Meeting - D cemb r 12, 1989 - Clark Corn rs Page 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Castro: It doesn 't s em to be, it doesn 't seem to be any continuity. Montana: And it 's like we 're pulling teeth to get this thing to work. Cond (unintell) road, Marshall . It doesn 't have to be within it to accomplish the same think. Montana: Ah huh. Conde : It could be along here and things could be set back in there . Ah, Montana: (unintell) March: (unintell) Conde : And and in here they also talk about a road in here . If, if we really feel that we need within the development there 's no reason why you can ' t (unintell) along the edge (unintell) be . You 'd go this way and each building , all this, would just go back, this road would go over here, through this . They also discussed at the public hearing about putting t-he road into this area in here . Castro : Parking lots behind the building. Conde : And that what you brought up . We could come down here Evans : Have the road there and the parking lot behind the building. Conde : down here and we could connect ah Montana: That 's an interesting idea. Conde : And connect down in here . That would be negotiated of course . Montana: They get, (unintell) Conde : Nothing says the road has to be here . You could have a road here . Montana: That 's true . Conde : It could come down (unintell) Montana: (unintell) Conde : and grab it, it could come down, because this would be South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Me ting - D c mber 12, 1989 - Clark Corn rs Pag 32 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conde : part of the application , so you come down and grab it this road right here. Murrin: (Unintell) Conde : Yeah, okay. But you could somehow come down her (unintell) Several people talking at the same time along with the maps being dragged over the microphone . Conde: (Unintell) this way, I would think, then (unint 11) that 's our problem. Evans : You mean get through it and so that you wouldn 't, well you 'd still be crossing wetlands at some point . Conde : Very very little . Evans : Ah huh. Conde : very little. March: It would be along the frontage, right . Conde : I 'd be almost, almost next to the road . March: Right . Conde : I mean as Tom said, I 'd be Clark Street . Evans : And then you 'd come in again, where do you come in again away from Ellington Road . Conde : Down on the shopping center area. Evans : Oh, not until you get all the way down there so we 'd go all the way, okay. Conde : Where ever is the best spot to bring it there . Evans: It would connect here, is what you 're saying. Conde : Where ever you can come in Louise . Evans : Okay. Montana: How would you, that, that, how would you go into that and connect in there with the bank. Evans : I don 't know, I don 't think (unintell) Montana: Because you can 't, you can 't, you 'd have to do it South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - Dec mber 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 33 -------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: before you go to th bank I would (unintell) . Conde: Yeah, before. Okay. Murrin : Yeah, almost have to come back in here . Montana: Here we are creating another problem if you wants connect into the, what ever the Kuehn 's, I assum somethings gonna be done with that . Conde: Well we can 't really, it 's Montana: I 'm just saying that, here again we 're running, you 're go back to the Conde: And actually this road could, Ah no, you don 't wanta get too close to this section . Montana: No, no, no . Conde : It would be here . Ah. I would do that (unintell) . Montana: should of had you go to the meeting when they discussed it . Evans : You 're talking about major changes in this, but I think it comes a point when you can 't make Conde : We 're talking about changes that are beyond modifications . Evans : Yeah, beyond modifications . Conde : That are reasonable . Evans : There are such things as the Tom Murrin, because, because that you can get further (unintell) so much Murrin : Yeah, Yeah. Conde: That would probably get am outta the inland wetlands problem too . I would suspect . Montana: I still think he 's got too many buildings on his property. Conde : Oh, in here . Yeah. Montana: No I mean down over there . Conde : Well , in getting the road going dawn . Montana: Well, these, those buildings when you look at it, Bob, South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Sp cial Meeting - December 12, 1989 - Clark Corn rs Page 34 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: they are still, the parking lots are still in th w t, all in wetlands. And part of, and I am not to crazy about this development (unintell) . Murrin : Too many buildings that faces on Buckland. Montana: Just on the overall, the way the whole thing looks, (unintell) . Murrin : (unintell) larger buildings be acceptable . Montana: (unintell) it would depend on the configuration of the building. I just think there 's a lot (unintell) , I just think there 's a lot of (unintell) Conde : For this parking in wetlands, they'd still be parking in wetlands . If you ended up with the same number of square footage and this parking in wetlands down you would still have parking. Montana: Well possibly then , possibly you 'd have to have some (unintell) . I mean, you know, when you look, when you look at over here and you have the Terry Office Park were you have these , you have five buildings and in some areas that feels crowded but there still is this some open areas in there . In some ways this is gonna be, this is almost gonna look more crowded than that I think because of the amount of parking going in there . It 's necessitated for the number, the amount of square footage . I think that the amount of(tape turned over) Well I wish that everybody would feel, (unintell ) extensive modifications, modifications beyond Conde : What 's reasonable . Montana: Changes by indications beyond reasonability for a (unintell) Evans : Anyone with a motion . Montana: Alright, I ' ll make a motion to deny this based on the ah (unintell) the traffic flow, ah the proposed, the way, the way the road system has been set up, right at the moment, the ah, the internal traffic flow. I am concerned about the amount of coverage, I guess the amount of square footage of the buildings actually, of the amount of square footage of the buildings . Evans : In what way. Do you think they were too Montana: too many buildings . I would rather see fewer buildings . I think they can accomplish fewer buildings South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting - Dec mb r 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 35 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: with maybe a few buildings with maybe of a larger size. I think they can int r spurs it . You can hav some small, some larger . But I just did not very happy right now with the way it 's layout . Um, I just think, the parking seems to be a (unintell) point since it seems to be something that 's Evans : Comprable (unintell) Montana: comprable to what is working out across, out across the street . I just, I guess the thing that bothers me is the with the waiver of the 276 spaces it still looks , it still Conde: Well we gotta check the regulations (unintell) Montana: it still looks too crowded (unintell) but what you 're say, what they're saying though is with the waiver of the 276 spaces it 's all coming into conformance with what you 're proposing. Is that correct . Lipe : Ah huh. Right . What I gave you, yes . Montana: Of what you 're sorta thinking of proposing. But it still Evans : So that that, still, so Montana: but it still has, there 's still looks like a lot of parking there . Evans : Okay, Marshall so on the motion, what you 're doing now is giving reasons and you 're, I guess that you 've covered all the reasons you wanta give . The Inland Wetland denial maybe, I don 't know Montana: The Inland Wet, well that certainly has some bearing on this as to whether the, the, the whole project is going to, the traffic, certainly that is a great deal of bearing on what the traffic flow is going to work. March: I think , I think we have to make sure we 're, you know, that regulations are, you know, traffic are (unintell) Evans : Alright, well let 's before we have a large discussion on it, let 's have a second to the motion . Conde : I ' ll second it . Evans : Okay. And then we can give continue to give our reasons if you want . Montana: I would, I would like to see, I would like to see a South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Sp cial Me ting - Decemb r 12, 1989 - Clark Corners Page 36 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Montana: plan showing a better inward circulation of the ah, of traffic. I 'm not, I 'm not pl as d with that at all . Evans: Internal circulation of traffic . Montana: Internal, I stated that the internal circulation . Murrin: I 'd like to get something on that eastern building. The one that moves the internal road, the last section of the internal road, far to the east . I think that makes it less likely that that road will ever get built because the cost will have to be (unintell) by a single land owner . Evans: Ah huh. That 's a very good point . Are there any others, discussion . Okay. All those in favor of the motion . All commission members said I . Evans : Opposed? Okay. Montana: Michele, is, when , when they are back again with this, I mean this sounds sorta (unintell) , but is there any way they, they get back into this inte-r section on Clark you could ask them if they could Lipe : Okay, as far as the saving the island there . Montana: (unintell) having something (unintell) , I mean you drive down to the mall area, I mean, the whole area is all macadamized . I mean , it 's just, it 's just appalling. And it 's, this is not suppose to be clean Murrin : like a tracker (unintell) . Montana: Well they, Mr . Waldron had planted flowers there for years and has, it certainly is attractive when you drive down there, drive down, I don 't see why this kind of, I mean maybe they could even have a landscaped area on the corner of Clark Street which maybe would suffice. Lipe: Ah huh. Montana: When their doing their landscaping plan . But I certain think that (unintell) eliminating all the buffer areas, as natural now, they all macadamize . One hundred percent and I think, and I think it 's hitious . (unintell)