Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummerwood Resub/Spec Ex/Site Plan TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ,, � PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM ` Application No: 00 alaoP RECEIV F 7, Official Receipt Date: AUG Of 2 Receipt No: MTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, APPLICANT: Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC, c% Robert Urso ADDRESS: 18-3 Arthur Drive, South Windsor, CT 06074 Tel 644-9603 OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: -MG Realty IJmit?4 Partnc-rship, c-/o Arnold Greenberg ADDRESS: F1 Snu-h Main fit_ f4nita 711 , nest- llari-fnr , C"P 06107, TP1 521-6 Og, Fax 5 1 670 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: South of Sharon Drive ASSESSOR'S MAP # 34 PARCEL # 22 ZONE A-20 NAME, ADDRESS, TEL& FAX # OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: Peter R. DeMLallie, Principal, Design Professionals, Inc. , 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, CT 06074, Tel 291-8755, Fax 291-8757, Emil dpicivil@aol.com THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): ❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing required and Certified letter to abutters required) ❑ Subdivision/Resubdivision ❑ Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor ❑ Major ® Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Minor ® Major ❑ Conditional Approval ® Special Exception to Article 4.1.12 (Public Hearing, Certified letter to abutters required) ® Site Plan of Development . ❑ General Plan of Development ❑ Earth Filling (Sec. 15) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 14 - Public Hearing required) ❑ Regulation Amendment: ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision (Attach proposed amendment) Temporary and Conditional Permit for ❑ Major Home Occupation for ❑ Other (explain in detail) An Application Pending sign is required to be posted on the property for all applications ten (10) days prior to being heard by the C mmission. Si a ure of Applicant Signature of ope ty O er (See reverse side for additional information) Direct Abutting Property Owners AUG 62002 DPI Project No. 01-1 Sharon 668 orrses hoe Lane Assoc.,LLC SOUTH WjNDSOR PLAN ING Drive Map/Lot Abutting Property Owner(s) Mailing Address 33/12 Dynamic Realty,LLC 306 Main St., Suite 400 Worcester,MA 01615-0034 33/13 Dynamic Realty, LLC 306 Main St., Suite 400 Worcester,MA 01615-0034 33/14 John R. DeMattia 265 Bic Drive Milford, CT 06460 33/19 J.E. Shepard Co. P.O. Box 415 East Windsor Hill, CT 06028 34/1 Gene &Kathlyn M. DePietro 450 Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, CT 06074 34/2 Gene A. DePietro 450 Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, CT 06074 34/6 Dora Reis 43 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/7 Michael&Ursula Giroux 53 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/8 Joseph B. Couture 61 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/9 Nelida A. Picard P.O. Box 755 South Windsor, CT 06074 34/10 Robert Link, Jr. 79 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/11 Anthony J. Sansone 87 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/12 Andrew Manzi 46 Billow Road East Lyme, CT 06357 34/13 Donald J. & Catherine A. Padegimas 101 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/14 Roger R. &Evelyn G. (Surv) Merrill 109 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/15 Michael J. &Patricia A. Godin 115 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/16 Bernard O. &Francine L. Hebert 123 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/17 Dolores S. Baribauh 131 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/18 Joanne T.Normandin 139 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/19 Thomas J. &Patricia J. Bartomeli 147 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Y Ili 34/20 Thomas C. Jr. &Pamela J. Brown 155 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/21 Horseshoe Lane Associates 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/23 Sawa G. &Karen L. Savvides 187 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/24 James D. &Barbara Caine 195 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/25 William F. M. Donlin 205 Hilton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/27 Edith Adrienne Allen, Trustee 15 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/28 Christopher J. &Laura G. Lacy 25 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/29 James R. III&Renee G. Hollis 35 Sharon Drive South Windsor,CT 06074 34/30 Andrew L. &Karen J. Fisher 51 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/31 Hung P. &Hoang Nhi T Le 57 Sharon Drive South Windsor,CT 06074 34/32 John Kopek 65 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 34/33 Linda G. Convertino 75 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 46/20 Gerber Systems Corporation 30 South Satellite Road South Windsor,CT 06074 46/21 G&R Realty 61 South Main Street Farmington, CT 06032 46/22 Scarborough Holdings, LLC 21 Schoolhouse Lane Simsbury, CT 06070 47/115 Tri-State Industrial Laundries 1634 Lincoln Avenue Utica,NY 13504 47/116 229 South Satellite Road, LLC 229 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 47/122 Anthony M. &Anne M. (Surv)Hoffman 77 Sharon Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 47-123 M.G. Realty Limited Partnership 61 South Main St., Suite 211 West Hartford,CT 06107 J Summerwood Senior Residence Development Planning Department Review Comments 1. The subdivision plan needs to stand on its own, and thus should include all of the subdivision plan requirements for the plot plan and topographic plan. 2. Site plan(plot plan): • Acreage for the SRD cannot include the street ROW; lot size and density must be recalculated without the ROW area. • Proposed detention basin is partially located within the required buffer area,however the basin cannot be used for buffering. It must be located outside the buffer area. The basin configuration seems awkward(deep and narrow). There will most likely be additional staff/engineering dept. comments regarding the basin design. • The driveway arrangement for units 1-5 is awkward&would entail difficult turning movements for vehicles entering/exiting; also the addresses of those units is unclear. Suggest a single shared driveway for units 1-3 and a single shared driveway for units 4-5, both driveways exiting directly onto the Day Drive cul-de-sac. • The new sidewalk on Day Drive is shown encroaching onto private property on both sides of Day Drive at its intersection with Sharon Drive. • Since the plot plan does not specify the size of each unit on the plan, the applicant will be responsible at the building permit stage for accurately tracking all unit sizes constructed to date, and for showing that information on each successive building permit application. 3. Landscaping plan • Buffer cross-sections required per 10.4.c. • Adequacy of proposed buffer? What exists now in the wooded areas proposed to be used as buffer? 4. Architectural elevations • Single family units do not have much architectural detailing,particularly sides and rear of units, compared to the multi-family unit designs. • Multi-family units are dominated by garage doors on front elevations. PETITION We the residence of Hilton Drive and Sharon Drive hereby oppose The building of senior citizen condo's on Summerwood Lane for The following reasons: The impact it will have on traffic in our area. The problem with our drainage system if those Homes were to be built. The Architectural design is not low profile. The disturbance of the wetlands. We definitely will lose all our privacy. We strongly urge not to develop this property in the future. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. �?6 0 - a - f 860 - 6/D- O 16 6965 n loop ,� SA a. row IV, 5�� 06, t t E a N - s 62, bL s9d-7y17 of OF le i r _ - x -07 w n _4 ----------- -Al Ll tol S.3 C/ f 9 e 1 -rC_ _ - - - - � ray 77 1-7 -?- �j- TT ' - -- -- +� f Imo} --N (.Tate h2. -(�Pt� - - --- -- - -- aG i �= 70r. E n • per. fq . Cr 17 A @ on u n - - _ - - - -- , N:r- C Qon j*,r a 3$"37 0 _ - fa - - 20 aQ aql-903 ---- -LADY- Z.=shomi—br� _ u_. 7Ty .NvS � i �6 - L ! ,J _--G2 Q v N__ 4i_i To,.A.1_- .�7.2c io t 44nd Mc ' v - - _ F�urrn S� / • -- - - - F b n r F A d F f i d I i . .4 1 r1 64A. . thGuJ 5(-IWA,A. ,,iave - fLu �- - - - ark , z � i I - i 6 � i i Stormwater Management Plan Summerwood South Windsor, Connecticut RECEIVED A U rt 0 "'(102 ZOUTH WINDSDP PL,"411tNG DEPT. Prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 DPI Project No. 01-1468 December 6, 2001 Table of Contents: Page# Introduction 1 Proposed Development 1 Off-Site Analysis 1 Peak Runoff control 1 Nonstructural Drainage System 1 Riparian Buffers 2 Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems 2 Storm-water Runoff Quality 2 Conveyance System 2 Discharge at the Natural Location 2 Maintenance and Operation 2 Topographic Contour Maps 3 Floodplain Boundaries 3 Drainage Design 3 On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations 4 Conclusions 4 Appendices TR-55 Existing Conditions A TR-55 Developed Conditions- to basin B TR-55 Developed Conditions-bypass basin C Detention Basin Design D Detention Basin Routings E Storm Sewer Calculations F Introduction: The site is located to the north of Hilton Drive, and to the south of Sharon Drive in South Windsor, Connecticut, and consists of a single parcel totaling 6.4 Acres. The site is bordered on the north, south, and east by single-family lots, and on the west by vacant land. The site is generally fairly flat with a wetland area on the western end of the site. Proposed Development: The proposed development of the site includes the construction of 20 elderly housing units contained within 12 buildings. As part of the development, access roadways, parking, and driveways will be constructed. The site will be serviced by public sanitary sewer and water. The Storm drainage system proposed for the development includes the installation of storm-sewers within the proposed access street, vegetated drainage swales, a piped storm drainage system, and a Water Quality/Detention basin. Soil testing was conducted on the site to determine the feasibility of infiltration of storm runoff from the site. Due to the shallow level of mottling(which is an indication of peak groundwater elevation)in the soils, infiltration on this site is not practical. Due to the potential for tripping hazards, the site has been designed without the use of curbs within the private roadway areas. The grades from the houses to the streets have been designed to be at a minimum of 2%thereby insuring adequate surface drainage to the street. A Water Quality/Detention basin has been included in the design to provide additional water quality treatment. The Water Quality basin has been sized to provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall on the site, and to provide short-term detention for up to the 100-year design storm. The extended detention of the first 1.25" of runoff from the site, and the short-term detention of runoff from storms up to the 100-year frequency, will provide ample mitigation for water quality and detention of the developed site. Off-Site Analysis: The site presently drains to a catch basin via a swale on properties to the south of the site. Under developed conditions, the site will continue to drain to the existing catch basin. The intent of the design is to provide detention on site such that the peak runoff to the catch basin under developed conditions will be less than or equal to the peak runoff under existing conditions. With the proposed detention basin, there are no impacts off site anticipated due to this proposed development. Peak Runoff Control: The proposed detention basin will provide mitigation for peak runoff from the site under developed conditions such that there are no impacts off site anticipated due to the runoff from the proposed development. Nonstructural Drainage Systems: The site will make use of a number of nonstructural measures to help maintain the natural drainage patterns. The Water quality/Detention basin, which will provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall, will be constructed. Riparian Buffers: As part of the development of the site, a portion of the existing vegetation on site will be maintained within a buffer adjacent to the existing single- family residences. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems: An extensive erosion/sedimentation control plan has been developed as part of the site plan design. These measures include the following: 1. Installation of silt fence down-slope of disturbed areas. 2. Installation of silt fence around stockpiled materials. 3. Installation of silt fence around catch basins. 4. Use of the water quality/Detention basin during construction as a sediment basin. 5. Seeding and mulching disturbed areas as soon as practical during construction. 6. Limiting the areas of disturbance during construction. 7. Installation of construction entrance pads, and sweeping of roadways as needed. 8. Maintenance of the above measures. Stormwater Runoff Quality: A number of water quality measures have been integrated into the site design to provide for treatment of the stormwater runoff from the site. These include the water quality/Detention basin that will provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall on the site. In addition the swales will provide additional water quality enhancement Conveyance System: The on-site conveyance system consists of a piped stormwater system discharging to the water quality/Detention basin. The piped drainage system has been designed to accommodate the runoff from a 10 Yr design storm. The water quality/Detention basin has been designed to provide extended detention for the first 1.25" of rainfall on the site. Larger storm events will be detained for a shorter period of time. Discharge at the Natural Location: The site presently discharges to the swale on the properties to the south of the site which then drains to an existing catch basin. Under developed conditions, the site will continue to drain to the existing catch basin directly. Maintenance and Operation: The following maintenance operations will be required to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the Storm Water System, and Water Quality/Detention Basin. The following maintenance schedule is intended to be a minimum guide, and additional inspections and maintenance measures may be required following large storm events that could cause the deposition of excess debris in the system. Pipe Outlet Locations: The pipe outlets and associated riprap shall be inspected annually and cleaned of silt and or debris. The riprap shall be re-shaped and replenished as required. Catch Basins: The catch Basins within each lot shall be inspected annually. The sumps shall be cleaned when the depth of material within the sumps reaches 1'. Pavement Sweeping: The parking lots within each lot shall be swept at a minimum of twice per year. Once in the spring shortly after the end of the snow season, and once in the fall after the leaves have fallen. Basin Spillway: The stone spillway shall be inspected twice yearly. All large woody growth that may affect the flow of water or the stability of the spillway shall be removed. The spillway shall also be inspected after any flow passes through it. The riprap shall be re-arranged and added to as required to maintain the design as per the design plans. Topographic Contour Maps: Topographic contour maps have been provided showing the drainage areas for the site at a scale of 1"=40'. The maps showing the existing and developed conditions are included in the rear of this report. Floodplain Boundaries: There are no floodplain boundaries on the site. Drainage Design: The drainage design of the site has been completed utilizing a number of computer programs and generally accepted design methods. The runoff from the site under existing and developed conditions was developed utilizing the TR-55 computer program. The drainage piping on site was designed using the rational formula. The detention basin was sized using a computer program by Hydrographs called Hydroflow. The program allows for the development of hydrographs representing the developed flows into the basin, and the modeling of the basin with elevation/storage/discharge curves to represent the basin. The program than provides the routing of the hydrograph through the basin, and provides peak discharge and storage information. Under existing and developed conditions, the site drains to the south to the swale that runs along the properties south of the site. The swale drains to the southeast to an existing catch basin located on Lot 21 located at the southeast corner of the site. The developer of this site has obtained a drainage easement and rights to discharge directly to this catch basin. The TR-55 calculations for the existing runoff from the upland area to the catch basin are contained in appendix A. The total area draining to the catch basin under existing conditions is 12.8 AC. There is a low area on site that presently does not appear to drain to any location, and ponds water. Under developed conditions, 14.35 acres drains to the catch basin. This consists of two separate components. Undeveloped areas that drain to the catch basin, and proposed developed areas draining to the catch basin. The TR-55 analysis for the developed discharge to the catch basin is contained in appendix B. The TR-55 analysis for the undeveloped areas draining directly to the catch basin via the detention basin is contained in appendix C. The design of the detention basin is based on sizing of the detention basin to provide a discharge rate that when combined with the proposed undeveloped drainage is less than the existing discharge to the catch basin. A summary of the detention basin including the stage storage and storage discharge tables is included in appendix D. The routings for the 2-100 year storm events through the detention basin are included in appendix E. A summary of the results follows: Storm Peak Flow Peak flow Peak flow Peak Total Flow Existing Prop. Undeveloped Detention Out Devel. Conditions 2 1 0 0.79 0.79 10 6 1 1.51 2.51 25 10 2 3.31 5.31 50 13 3 6.45 9.45 100 17 5 9.71 14.71 The water quality/Detention basin has been designed to provide a volume of permanent retention equal to the volume of runoff from a 1.25" rainfall event. On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations: The storm sewer calculations for the storm piping within the proposed private roadway are included in appendix F. The storm sewer has been designed for a 10-year design storm utilizing the rational formula. Conclusions: The on-site stormwater system with the associated water quality/Detention basin will mitigate any potential water quality and quantity impacts from the development of the site. APPENDIX A RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/12/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS Subarea : 12.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% 2.98 (39) .14 (61) 2.98 (74) - OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Woods fair 3.27 (36) .16(60) 3.27(73) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 6.25 .3 6.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 12.8 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 12.8 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 56* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL, TIME Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/12/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3.2 50 .044 H 0.150 Shallow Concent'd 443 .0113 U 0.072 Open Channel 492 .7 0.195 Time of Concentration = 0.42* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/12/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS Data: Drainage Area 12.8 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 56 * Time of Concentration: 0.42 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE J Storm Number J 1 J 2 1 3 i 4 J 5 1 (----------------------{------{------{------{------{------{ ! Frequency (yrs) J 2 J 10 1 25 J 50 J 100 J I I I I ! I I J 24-Hr Rainfall (in) { 3.2 ► 4.7 1 5.5 1 6.2 J 6.9 1 I I I I I I I J Ia/P Ratio J 0.49 1 0.33 J 0.29 J 0.25 J 0.23 I l I I I I i 1 Runoff (in) J 0.28 J 0.89 ( 1.31 1 1.72 J 2.15 J I i I I I I I J Unit Peak Discharge 10.326 10.542 10.589 10.606 10. 620 1 I (cfslacretin) I ) I I I I I { Pond and Swamp Factor) 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 { 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I 1----------------------(------(------{------{------(------( I Peak Discharge (cfs) ► 1 ► 6 J 10 I 13 J 17 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX B RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - DEVELOPED Subarea : 8.05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% 2.25 (39) .13 (61) 3.58 (74) - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways .28 (98) - 1.81 (98) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 2.53 .13 5.39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 8.05 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.05 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 70* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - DEVELOPED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3.2 40 .01 H 0.227 Shallow Concent'd 28 .01 P 0.004 Open Channel 150 1.5 0.028 Open Channel 635 5.2 0.034 Time of Concentration = 0.29* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 ?, Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: SEE Date: 11/13/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - DEVELOPED Data: Drainage Area 8.05 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 70 * Time of Concentration: 0.29 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ! Storm Number ! 1 ( 2 ( 3 ! 4 ! 5 ! !----------------------i------!------!------!------►------{ ! Frequency (yrs) ( 2 ! 10 ! 25 ! 50 ! 100 ! I I ( I I I ! ( 24-Hr Rainfall (in) ! 3.2 I 4.7 ! 5.5 ! 6.2 ! 6.9 I I ! I ! ! ! ! Ia/P Ratio 10.27 ! 0.18 ! 0.16 ! 0.14 ! 0.12 ! I I I I I I I ! Runoff (in) ! 0.83 ! 1.82 ! 2.41 12.96 ! 3.54 ! I ! I ! I ! I { Unit Peak Discharge 10.690 10.740 10.755 10.765 10.774 { ( (cfs/acre/in) { ! { ! ! ! ! I I I ! I I { Pond and Swamp Factor( 1.00 { 1.00 1 1.00 { 1.00 ( 1.00 I ! 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I ►----------------------(------{------!------!------{------I ! Peak Discharge (cfs) ! 5 I 11 ! 15 I 18 ( 22 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX C RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - UNDEVELOPED Subarea : 6.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% 4.43 (39) .23(61) - - OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Woods fair - - 1.64 (73) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 4.43 .23 1.64 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: 6.3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 6.3 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 49* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION - UNDEVELOPED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3.2 100 .009 H 0.493 Shallow Concer_t'd 215 .005 U 0.052 Shallow Concent'd 60 .043 U 0.005 Open Channel 675 1.5 0.125 Time of Concentration ® 0.67* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- C Cultivated <. 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 s Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method r GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 Project : URSO - SHARON DRIVE User: BEE Date: 11/13/85 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITION —UNDEVELOPED Data: Drainage Area 6.3 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 49 * Time of Concentration: 0.67 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number ! 1 ► 2 1 3 ! 4 -- 5--� !----------------------!------I------!------!------i------I Frequency (yrs) I 2 [ 10 [ 25 ! 50 [ 100 ! 124-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.2 ! 4.7 ► 5.5 ! 6.2 ! 6.9 ! I Ia/P Ratio ! 0.65 ! 0.44 i 0.38 10.34 ! 0.30 ! ! I I I I I ! I Used ! 0.50 ! 0.44 1 0.38 ) 0.34 ! 0.30 ! ! ! I ! I I I Runoff (in) 10.11 ! 0.53 ( 0.85 ! 1.17 ( 1.52 ! ! I I I ► I ! Unit Peak Discharge 10.271 10.332 10.400 10.441 10.472 1 I (cfs/acre/in) ! ! ! I ! ! Pond and Swamp Factor! 1.00 1 1.00 ! 1.00 ! 1.00 ! 1.00 ! 1 0.0% Ponds Used I I ! I I I ----------------------I------!------!------!------!------I Peak Discharge (cfs) ! 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 [ * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX D Reservoir Report Page 1 Reservoir No. 1 - basin 1 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Pond Data Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Conic method used. Stage i Storage Table Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sgft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cult) 0.00 65.00 8,225 0 0 1.00 66.00 10,010 9,102 9,102 2.00 67.00 11,885 10,933 20,035 3.00 68.00 13,830 12,844 32,879 4.00 69.00 15,940 14,871 47,750 5.00 70.00 18,110 17,012 64,762 Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise in = 15.0 6.0 15.0 0.0 Crest Len ft = 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span in = 15.0 6.0 15.0 0.0 Crest El.ft = 67.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 1 1 1 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El.It = 64.00 65.00 67.00 0.00 Weir Type = Riser --- --- --- Length ft = 60.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Multi-Stage = Yes No No No Slope% = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .013 .000 Orif.Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a Yes Yes No ExHItration Rate = 0.00 in/hr/sgft Tailwater Elev.= 0.00 ft Note:All outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Stage/Storage/Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Civ A Civ B Civ C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D ExHI Total ft cuft ft cfs cis cfs cis cis cfs eft cfs cfs cis 0.00 0 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 -- - -- - 0.00 1.00 9,102 66.00 3.62 0.82 0.00 -- 0.00 --- --- -- 0.82 2.00 20,035 67.00 3.62 1.25 0.00 - 0.00 --- - --- - 1.25 3.00 32,879 68.00 6.60 1.35 3.62 - 1.62 -- -- --- - 6.60 4.00 47,750 69.00 11.89 0.36 2.28 - 9.24 -- - - -- 11.89 5.00 64,762 70.00 13.35 0.21 1.32 - 11.81 - - - -- 13.34 APPENDIX E Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.79 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 65.94 ft Max. Storage = 8,597 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=22,685 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Civ C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cis cis cfs cfs cfs cfs cis cfs cfs cfs 11.90 0.90 65.05 1.84 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.02 12.00 1.97 65.11 3.62 0.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.04 12.10 3.76 65.22 3.62 0.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.13 12.20 4.79<< 65.38 3.62 0.34 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.34 12.30 4.48 65.54 3.62 0.51 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.51 12.40 3.64 65.68 3.62 0.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.62 12.50 2.70 65.78 3.62 0.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.69 12.60 2.01 65.85 3.62 0.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.73 12.70 1.49 65.89 3.62 0.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.75 12.80 1.21 65.91 3.62 0.77 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.77 12.90 1.07 65.92 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.78 13.00 0.98 65.93 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 0.78 13.10 0.90 65.94 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.78 13.20 0.84 65.94 3.62 0.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.79 13.30 0.80 65.94 3.62 0.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.79<< 13.40 0.77 65.94 3.62 0.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.79 13.50 0.75 65.94 3.62 0.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.79 13.60 0.73 65.94 3.62 0.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.79 13.70 0.71 65.94 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.78 13.80 0.68 65.94 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.78 13.90 0.66 65.93 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.78 14.00 0.64 65.93 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.78 14.10 0.61 65.92 3.62 0.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.77 14.20 0.59 65.91 3.62 0.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.77 14.30 0.58 65.91 3.62 0.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.77 14.40 0.57 65.90 3.62 0.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.76 14.50 0.55 65.89 3.62 0.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.76 14.60 0.54 65.88 3.62 0.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.75 14.70 0.53 65.87 3.62 0.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.75 14.80 0.52 65.87 3.62 0.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.74 14.90 0.51 65.86 3.62 0.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.74 15.00 0.49 65.85 3.62 0.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.73 15.10 0.48 65.84 3.62 0.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.72 15.20 0.47 65.83 3.62 0.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.72 15.30 0.46 65.82 3.62 0.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.71 15.40 0.44 65.81 3.62 0.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.71 15.50 0.43 65.80 3.62 0.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.70 15.60 0.42 65.79 3.62 0.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.69 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hire) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 15.70 0.40 65.78 3.62 0.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.68 15.80 0.39 65.76 3.62 0.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.68 15.90 0.38 65.75 3.62 0.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.67 16.00 0.36 65.74 3.62 0.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.66 16.10 0.35 65.73 3.62 0.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.65 16.20 0.34 65.72 3.62 0.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.65 16.30 0.33 65.71 3.62 0.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.64 16.40 0.32 65.69 3.62 0.63 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.63 16.50 0.32 65.68 3.62 0.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.62 16.60 0.31 65.67 3.62 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 16.70 0.31 65.66 3.62 0.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 16.80 0.30 65.65 3.62 0.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.59 16.90 0.29 65.63 3.62 0.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.58 17.00 0.29 65.62 3.62 0.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- 0.58 17.10 0.28 65.61 3.62 0.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.57 17.20 0.28 65.60 3.62 0.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.56 17.30 0.27 65.59 3.62 0.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.55 17.40 0.26 65.58 3.62 0.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0•54 17.50 0.26 65.57 3.62 0.53 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.53 17.60 0.25 65.56 3.62 0.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.52 17.70 0.25 65.55 3.62 0.51 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.51 17.80 0.24 65.54 3.62 0.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.50 17.90 0.23 65.53 3.62 0.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.49 18.00 0.23 65.51 3.62 0.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.49 18.10 0.22 65.50 3.62 0.48 ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- 0.48 18.20 0.22 65.49 3.62 0.47 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.47 18.30 0.21 65.48 3.62 0.46 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.46 18.40 0.21 65.48 3.62 0.45 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.45 18.50 0.21 65.47 3.62 0.44 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.44 18.60 0.21 65.46 3.62 0.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.43 18.70 0.21 65.45 3.62 0.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.42 18.80 0.20 65.44 3.62 0.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.41 18.90 0.20 65.43 3.62 0.40 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.40 19.00 0.20 65.42 3.62 0.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.39 19.10 0.20 65.42 3.62 0.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.38 19.20 0.20 65.41 3.62 0.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.38 19.30 0.19 65.40 3.62 0.37 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.37 19.40 0.19 65.40 3.62 0.36 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.36 19.50 0.19 65.39 3.62 0.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.35 19.60 0.19 65.38 3.62 0.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.35 19.70 0.19 65.38 3.62 0.34 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.34 19.80 0.19 65.37 3.62 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.33 19.90 0.18 65.37 3.62 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.32 20.00 0.18 65.36 3.62 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.32 20.10 0.18 65.36 3.62 0.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.31 20.20 0.18 65.35 3.62 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.30 20.30 0.18 65.35 3.62 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.30 20.40 0.17 65.34 3.62 0.29 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.29 20.50 0.17 65.34 3.62 0.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.28 20.60 0.17 65.33 3.62 0.28 ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.28 20.70 0.17 65.33 3.62 0.27 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.27 Continues on next page... Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 2 Yr -Op = 0.79 cfs - First Routing 5 4 3 Cat 2 1 0 0.0 4.6 9.1 13.7 18.3 22.9 27.4 32.0 36.6 41.1 45.7 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.51 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 67.20 ft Max. Storage = 22,582 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=49,770 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Civ C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs eft cfs cfs cfs 11.10 0.32 65.05 1.96 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.02 11.20 0.38 65.07 2.43 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.02 11.30 0.46 65.08 2.99 0.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.03 11.40 0.55 65.10 3.62 0.03 ---- ----- --_ _____ _____ _____ ----- 0.03 11.50 0.67 65.12 3.62 0.05 -- ----- ----- -- _____ _____ _____ 0.05 11.60 0.86 65.15 3.62 0.07 ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- ---- 0.07 11.70 1.30 65.19 3.62 0.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.10 11.80 2.09 65.25 3.62 0.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.18 11.90 3.26 65.35 3.62 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.30 12.00 5.81 65.51 3.62 0.48 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.48 12.10 9.71 65.80 3.62 0.70 ----- --- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.70 12.20 11.44 << 66.15 3.62 0.90 ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.90 12.30 10.14 66.47 3.62 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 12.40 7.86 66.73 3.62 1.15 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.15 12.50 5.65 66.92 3.62 1.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.22 12.60 4.15 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.28 12.70 3.04 67.10 3.62 1.28 0.05 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.34 12.80 2.44 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.40 12.90 2.15 67.16 3.62 1.31 0.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.44 13.00 1.97 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.47 13.10 1.79 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.49 13.20 1.66 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.19 ----- ----- -___ _____ _____ _____ 1.50 13.30 1.58 67.20 3.62 1.32 0.19 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 1.51 13.40 1.52 67.20 << 3.62 1.32 0.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -- -- 1.51 << 13.50 1.48 67.20 3.62 1.32 0.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.51 13.60 1.43 67.20 3.62 1.32 0.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.51 13.70 1.38 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.50 13.80 1.33 67.19 3.62 1.32 0.18 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 1.50 13.90 1.28 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.17 ---- ____ _____ ___- ----- ----- 1.49 14.00 1.23 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.16 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.48 14.10 1.18 67.17 3.62 1.31 0.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.46 14.20 1.14 67.16 3.62 1.31 0.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.45 14.30 1.11 67.15 3.62 1.30 0.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.43 14.40 1.09 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.42 14.50 1.06 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.40 14.60 1.04 67.13 3.62 1.29 0.09 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ..... 1.38 14.70 1.02 67.12 3.62 1.29 0.08 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.37 14.80 0.99 67.11 3.62 1.29 0.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.35 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 14.90 0.97 67.10 3.62 1.28 0.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.34 15.00 0.94 67.09 3.62 1.28 0.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.33 15.10 0.92 67.07 3.62 1.28 0.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.32 15.20 0.89 67.06 3.62 1.27 0.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.31 15.30 0.87 67.05 3.62 1.27 0.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.30 15.40 0.84 67.04 3.62 1.26 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.29 15.50 0.82 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.27 15.60 0.79 67.01 3.62 1.26 0.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.26 15.70 0.76 67.00 3.62 1.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.25 15.80 0.74 66.98 3.62 1.24 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- 1.24 15.90 0.71 66.97 3.62 1.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.24 16.00 0.68 66.95 3.62 1.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 16.10 0.66 66.93 3.62 1.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 16.20 0.64 66.91 3.62 1.22 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.22 16.30 0.62 66.89 3.62 1.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.21 16.40 0.61 66.87 3.62 1.20 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 16.50 0.60 66.85 3.62 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 16.60 0.59 66.83 3.62 1.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.19 16.70 0.57 66.81 3.62 1.18 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 16.80 0.56 66.79 3.62 1.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.17 16.90 0.55 66.77 3.62 1.17 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.17 17.00 0.54 66.75 3.62 1.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.16 17.10 0.53 66.73 3.62 1.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.15 17.20 0.52 66.71 3.62 1.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.14 17.30 0.50 66.69 3.62 1.13 ----- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.13 17.40 0.49 66.67 3.62 1.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.13 17.50 0.48 66.65 3.62 1.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.12 17.60 0.47 66.63 3.62 1.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 17.70 0.46 66.61 3.62 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 17.80 0.45 66.59 3.62 1.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.09 17.90 0.43 66.56 3.62 1.08 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.08 18.00 0.42 66.54 3.62 1.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.07 18.10 0.41 66.52 3.62 1.07 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.07 18.20 0.40 66.50 3.62 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.06 18.30 0.40 66.48 3.62 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 18.40 0.39 66.46 3.62 1.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.04 18.50 0.39 66.44 3.62 1.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.03 18.60 0.38 66.41 3.62 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 18.70 0.38 66.39 3.62 1.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.01 18.80 0.38 66.37 3.62 1.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.00 18.90 0.37 66.35 3.62 0.99 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.99 19.00 0.37 66.33 3.62 0.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.98 19.10 0.37 66.31 3.62 0.97 ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.97 19.20 0.36 66.29 3.62 0.97 ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.97 19.30 0.36 66.27 3.62 0.96 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.96 19.40 0.36 66.25 3.62 0.95 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.95 19.50 0.35 66.23 3.62 0.94 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0•94 19.60 0.35 66.21 3.62 0.93 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 0.93 19.70 0.35 66.20 3.62 0.92 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.92 19.80 0.34 66.18 3.62 0.91 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.91 19.90 0.34 66.16 3.62 0.90 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- 0.90 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 3 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Civ C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 20.00 0.34 66.14 3.62 0.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.89 20.10 0.33 66.12 3.62 0.88 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.88 20.20 0.33 66.10 3.62 0.87 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.87 20.30 0.32 66.09 3.62 0.86 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.86 20.40 0.32 66.07 3.62 0.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.85 20.50 0.32 66.05 3.62 0.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.85 20.60 0.31 66.03 3.62 0.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.84 20.70 0.31 66.02 3.62 0.83 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.83 20.80 0.31 66.00 3.62 0.82 ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.82 20.90 0.30 65.98 3.62 0.81 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.81 21.00 0.30 65.96 3.62 0.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.80 21.10 0.30 65.94 3.62 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.78 21.20 0.29 65.92 3.62 0.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- 0.77 21.30 0.29 65.90 3.62 0.76 --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.76 21.40 0.28 65.88 3.62 0.75 ----- --- ----- --- ----- ----- ----- 0.75 21.50 0.28 65.87 3.62 0.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.74 21.60 0.28 65.85 3.62 0.73 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.73 21.70 0.27 65.83 3.62 0.72 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.72 21.80 0.27 65.81 3.62 0.71 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.71 21.90 0.27 65.79 3.62 0.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.70 22.00 0.26 65.78 3.62 0.69 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.69 22.10 0.30 65.76 3.62 0.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.68 22.20 0.34 65.75 3.62 0.67 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- 0.67 22.30 0.32 65.74 3.62 0.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.66 22.40 0.29 65.72 3.62 0.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.65 22.50 0.27 65.71 3.62 0.64 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.64 22.60 0.26 65.69 3.62 0.63 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.63 22.70 0.26 65.68 3.62 0.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.62 22.80 0.26 65.66 3.62 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 22.90 0.26 65.65 3.62 0.60 ----- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 23.00 0.25 65.64 3.62 0.59 ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.59 23.10 0.25 65.62 3.62 0.58 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.58 23.20 0.25 65.61 3.62 0.57 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.57 23.30 0.24 65.60 3.62 0.56 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.56 23.40 0.24 65.59 3.62 0.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.55 23.50 0.24 65.57 3.62 0.54 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.54 23.60 0.24 65.56 3.62 0.53 ----- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.53 23.70 0.23 65.55 3.62 0.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 0.52 23.80 0.23 65.54 3.62 0.51 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.51 23.90 0.23 65.53 3.62 0.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.50 24.00 0.22 65.52 3.62 0.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.49 24.10 0.18 65.51 3.62 0.48 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.48 24.20 0.09 65.49 3.62 0.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.47 24.30 0.03 65.48 3.62 0.45 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.45 24.40 0.00 65.46 3.62 0.43 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- 0.43 24.50 0.00 65.45 3.62 0.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 0.41 24.60 0.00 65.43 3.62 0.40 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.40 24.70 0.00 65.41 3.62 0.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.38 24.80 0.00 65.40 3.62 0.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.37 24.90 0.00 65.38 3.62 0.35 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.35 25.00 0.00 65.37 3.62 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.33 Continues on next page... Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 10 Yr - Qp = 1.51 cfs - First Routing 15 1 C1 0 0.0 4.3 8.5 12.8 17.0 21.3 25.6 26.8 34.1 38.3 42.6 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.31 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 67.66 ft Max. Storage = 28,451 cuft Storage Indication method used. outflow hydrograph volume=66,139 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C CIv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfll Outflow (hm) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 10.90 0.46 65.10 3.62 0.03 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.03 11.00 0.52 65.12 3.62 0.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.05 11.10 0.58 65.14 3.62 0.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.06 11.20 0.67 65.16 3.62 0.08 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- 0.08 11.30 0.78 65.19 3.62 0.10 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.10 11.40 0.93 65.22 3.62 0.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.13 11.50 1.09 65.25 3.62 0.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.17 11.60 1.37 65.29 3.62 0.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.23 11.70 2.00 65.35 3.62 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.30 11.80 3.13 65.43 3.62 0.40 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.40 11.90 4.75 65.57 3.62 0.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.53 12.00 8.18 65.80 3.62 0.70 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.70 12.10 13.30 66.16 3.62 0.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.90 12.20 15.39 << 66.60 3.62 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 12.30 13.46 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.28 12.40 10.31 67.32 3.62 1.36 0.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.89 12.50 7.35 67.51 3.62 1.42 1.14 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.56 12.60 5.37 67.61 3.62 1.45 1.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.03 12.70 3.92 67.65 3.62 1.46 1.81 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.27 12.80 3.13 67.66 3.62 1.47 1.85 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.31 << 12.90 2.76 67.65 3.62 1.46 1.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.26 13.00 2.52 67.63 3.62 1.46 1.70 ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.16 13.10 2.30 67.61 3.62 1.45 1.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.05 13.20 2.13 67.59 3.62 1.45 1.49 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.93 13.30 2.02 67.57 3.62 1.44 1.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.83 13.40 1.94 67.54 3.62 1.43 1.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 2.73 13.50 1.88 67.52 3.62 1.42 1.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.63 13.60 1.82 67.50 3.62 1.42 1.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2•54 13.70 1.76 67.48 3.62 1.41 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.46 13.80 1.70 67.46 3.62 1.41 0.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.38 13.90 1.63 67.44 3.62 1.40 0.91 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.31 14.00 1.57 67.42 3.62 1.39 0.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.23 14.10 1.50 67.41 3.62 1.39 0.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.16 14.20 1.45 67.39 3.62 1.38 0.71 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.10 14.30 1.41 67.37 3.62 1.38 0.66 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2•04 14.40 1.38 67.35 3.62 1.37 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.98 14.50 1.35 67.34 3.62 1.37 0.57 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.93 14.60 1.32 67.32 3.62 1.36 0.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.88 Continues on next page... First Routing Page 2 Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 14.70 1.29 67.30 3.62 1.35 0.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.83 14.80 1.26 67.29 3.62 1.35 0.43 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.78 14.90 1.22 67.27 3.62 1.35 0.39 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.74 15.00 1.19 67.26 3.62 1.34 0.36 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- 1.70 15.10 1.16 67.25 3.62 1.34 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.65 15.20 1.13 67.23 3.62 1.33 0.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ..... 1.61 15.30 1.09 67.22 3.62 1.33 0.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.57 15.40 1.06 67.21 3.62 1.32 0.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.53 15.50 1.03 67.19 . 3.62 1.32 0.18 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.50 15.60 1.00 67.18 3.62 1.31 0.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.48 15.70 0.96 67.17 3.62 1.31 0.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.45 15.80 0.93 67.15 3.62 1.30 0.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.43 15.90 0.89 67.14 3.62 1.30 0.11 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.41 16.00 0.86 67.12 3.62 1.29 0.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.38 16.10 0.83 67.11 3.62 1.29 0.07 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.35 16.20 0.80 67.09 3.62 1.28 0.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.33 16.30 0.78 67.08 3.62 1.28 0.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.32 16.40 0.77 67.06 3.62 1.27 0.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.31 16.50 0.75 67.05 3.62 1.27 0.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.29 16.60 0.74 67.03 3.62 1.26 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.28 16.70 0.72 67.02 3.62 1.26 0.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.27 16.80 0.71 67.00 3.62 1.25 0.00 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.25 16.90 0.69 66.99 3.62 1.25 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.25 17.00 0.68 66.97 3.62 1.24 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.24 17.10 0.66 66.95 3.62 1.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 17.20 0.65 66.93 3.62 1.23 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 17.30 0.63 66.91 3.62 1.22 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.22 17.40 0.62 66.89 3.62 1.21 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.21 17.50 0.60 66.87 3.62 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 17.60 0.59 66.85 3.62 1.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 17.70 0.57 66.83 3.62 1.19 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.19 17.80 0.56 66.81 3.62 1.18 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 17.90 0.54 66.79 3.62 1.17 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.17 18.00 0.53 66.77 3.62 1.17 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.17 18.10 0.51 66.75 3.62 1.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.16 18.20 0.50 66.73 3.62 1.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.15 18.30 0.50 66.71 3.62 1.14 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.14 18.40 0.49 66.69 3.62 1.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.13 18.50 0.49 66.66 3.62 1.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.12 18.60 0.48 66.64 3.62 1.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.12 18.70 0.48 66.62 3.62 1.11 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.11 18.80 0.47 66.60 3.62 1.10 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 18.90 0.47 66.58 3.62 1.09 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.09 19.00 0.46 66.56 3.62 1.08 ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.08 19.10 0.46 66.54 3.62 1.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.07 19.20 0.46 66.52 3.62 1.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.07 19.30 0.45 66.50 3.62 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.06 19.40 0.45 66.48 3.62 1.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.05 19.50 0.44 66.46 3.62 1.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.04 19.60 0.44 66.44 3.62 1.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.03 19.70 0.43 66.42 3.62 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 Continues on next page... Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir- 25 Yr -Qp = 3.31 cfs - First Routing 2 15 CY 1 5 0 0.0 3.7 7.4 11.1 14.8 18.5 22.3 26.0 29.7 33.4 37.1 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 6.45 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 67.99 ft Max. Storage = 32,730 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=81,219 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Civ A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.30 16.48 67.48 3.62 1.41 1.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.43 12.40 12.51 67.79 4.19 1.51 2.54 ----- 0.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.17 12.50 8.87 67.95 5.92 1.41 3.34 ----- 1.16 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.92 12.60 6.46 67.99<< 6.45 1.37 3.56 ---- 1.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.45<< 12.70 4.71 67.97 6.19 1.39 3.45 ----- 1.34 ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.19 12.80 3.76 67.92 5.59 1.44 3.20 ----- 0.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.59 12.90 3.30 67.87 5.02 1.48 2.95 ----- 0.58 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.01 13.00 3.02 67.83 4.54 1.50 2.72 ---- 0.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.53 13.10 2.74 67.79 4.17 1.51 2.52 ----- 0.12 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.15 13.20 2.54 67.75 3.93 1.49 2.33 ----- 0.07 ---- ----- ----- ----- 3.89 13.30 2.41 67.71 3.69 1.48 2.15 ---- 0.02 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.65 13.40 2.32 67.68 3.62 1.47 1.97 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- 3•44 13.50 2.25 67.65 3.62 1.46 1.80 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.27 13.60 2.17 67.62 3.62 1.46 1.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.11 13.70 2.10 67.59 3.62 1.45 1.52 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.96 13.80 2.02 67.57 3.62 1.44 1.41 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- 2.85 13.90 1.94 67.55 3.62 1.43 1.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 2.75 14.00 1.86 67.53 3.62 1.43 1.22 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.65 14.10 1.79 67.50 3.62 1.42 1.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.55 14.20 1.73 67.48 3.62 1.41 1.05 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.46 14.30 1.68 67.46 3.62 1.41 0.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.38 14.40 1.64 67.44 3.62 1.40 0.91 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.31 14.50 1.60 67.43 3.62 1.39 0.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.24 14.60 1.56 67.41 3.62 1.39 0.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.17 14.70 1.53 67.39 3.62 1.38 0.73 ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.11 14.80 1.49 67.38 3.62 1.38 0.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.06 14.90 1.45 67.36 3.62 1.37 0.63 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.01 15.00 1.41 67.34 3.62 1.37 0.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.96 15.10 1.37 67.33 3.62 1.36 0.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.91 15.20 1.34 67.31 3.62 1.36 0.50 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.86 15.30 1.30 67.30 3.62 1.35 0.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.81 15.40 1.26 67.29 3.62 1.35 0.42 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.77 15.50 1.22 67.27 3.62 1.34 0.38 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.73 15.60 1.18 67.26 3.62 1.34 0.35 --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.68 15.70 1.14 67.24 3.62 1.33 0.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.64 ...End Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 50 Yr - Qp = 6.45 cfs - First Routing 2 15 U � 1 5 0 0.0 3.2 6.5 9.7 13.0 16.2 19.4 22.7 25.9 29.2 32.4 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2 Hydrograph Report Page Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 First Routing Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 9.71 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 6 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = basin 1 Max. Elevation = 68.24 ft Max. Storage = 36,439 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=96,854 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Civ A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.30 19.56 67.90 5.31 1.47 3.09 ----- 0.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.31 12.40 14.75 68.16 8.78 1.03 4.34 ----- 3.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.78 12.50 10.41 68.24 9.71 0.83 4.43 ----- 4.46 ----- ----- ----- ----- 9.71 « 12.60 7.57 68.22 9.57 0.86 4.46 ---- 4.24 ----- ----- ---- ----- 9.57 12.70 5.50 68.16 8.79 1.03 4.34 ---- 3.42 ---- ----- ----- ----- 8.79 12.80 4.39 68.08 7.68 1.22 3.99 ----- 2.47 ----- ----- ----- ----- 7.68 12.90 3.86 68.01 6.68 1.35 3.65 ----- 1.68 ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.68 13.00 3.52 67.94 5.77 1.43 3.28 ----- 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.77 13.10 3.20 67.88 5.08 1.48 2.98 ----- 0.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.07 13.20 2.96 67.83 4.57 1.50 2.74 ----- 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.56 13.30 2.80 67.79 4.18 1.51 2.53 ----- 0.13 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.16 13.40 2.70 67.75 3.95 1.49 2.35 ----- 0.07 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.92 13.50 2.61 67.72 3.74 1.49 2.19 ----- 0.03 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.70 13.60 2.52 67.69 3.62 1.48 2.04 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.51 13.70 2.43 67.66 3.62 1.47 1.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.36 13.80 2.34 67.64 3.62 1.46 1.75 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.21 13.90 2.25 67.61 3.62 1.45 1.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.07 14.00 2.16 67.59 3.62 1.45 1.50 ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 2.95 14.10 2.07 67.57 3.62 1.44 1.41 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.85 14.20 2.00 67.55 3.62 1.43 1.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.75 14.30 1.95 67.53 3.62 1.43 1.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.66 14.40 1.90 67.51 3.62 1.42 1.15 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.57 14.50 1.86 67.49 3.62 1.41 1.08 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.49 ...End Hyd. No. 2 - Reservoir - 100 Yr - Qp = 9.71 cfs - First Routing 25 2 N 15 14. 0 1 5 0 0.0 3.2 6.3 9.5 12.6 15.8 19.0 22.1 25.3 28.4 31.6 Time (hrs) / Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2 APPENDIX F �T I + n 0 C A i I r Inlet . , { ry Time to Inlet { o O O O Area in Acres I � j i i I O Runoff Coefficient i I I i C) W AI 1 { Sum of AI i oZ9 --4 Total AI au Rainfall Intensity O 1 \ Q to Inlet , I I ( o Grade of Gutter y I I I £ Cross Slope of n r Shoulder p a; Depth of Flow ^' at Gutter �( ' 0 Width of Flow H Q Bypassing Inlet { b 1 c AI Bypassing Inlet i I � s F. AI Entering Catch Basin *ON I-aa4S q paxoag3 a,4nog ell 's' uMoy C . S' `� Aq paueleaa q.oapojd P� _ GT- �oT F_Tt-cdd>. e c., by_ s/n�F�►�� $( ��; ,�; ��-� _ �4' � - � ��� _ ors `rn �_X, � t�� �_a _LO �6� _ �__ �`�"/1`-r -_ c s�s,� g fa.�P - �'► 4 sr �!as� ,.�_ ,� ' ---c.Q f-- It _F.o f_ a. fir^ cS C? �x. [Co� ��[r_-- Icw c).r 1 31 _ c.Fs_ _ LINE SEGMENT 1�1111111111���11�00� AI ENTERING CATCH BASIN 1111111111�1l����1��0TIME TO INLET ACCUMULATED TIME RAINFALL INTENSIT 0 IN SYSTEM LENGTH OF PIPE 111111111111���11�10� AVERAGE 'VELOCITY FULL CAPACITY HEADWATER IIIIIIIIIIII���i1��9 111111111111����1��9� Dee 06 01 10: 01a 660-201-6757 p. 2 RECEIVED December 6,2001 kj lr, 52002 To Whom It May Concern: SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, Please be advised that Peter R.DeMallie and Design Profisssionals,.Inc. is hereby authorized to sign any and all applications associated with the development of the M G Realty Limited Partnership's property off Sharon Drive in South Windsor,Connecticut. I further authorize the submission of land use applications associated with the development of this property. Sincerely, M G Realty Limited Partnership B Arnold Greenberg M G Realty Limited Partnership 61 South Main Street,Suite 211 West Hartford,CT 06107 Telephone:(860)521-6208 cc: Peter R.DeMallie Robert Urso David Murdock TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for SUMMERWOOD SENIOR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PROPOSED FOR SHARON LANE in SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT Prepared By Traffic Engineering Solutions 193 Lexington Road Glastonbury, Connecticut (860) 657-3579 August 2002 Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................1 Introduction .............................................................................................................2 ExistingConditions.................................................................................................2 Existing Traffic Volumes......................................................................................3 Accidents............................................................................................ ...........4 Project Generated Traffic.......................................................................................4 CapacityAnalyses...................................................................................................6 SiteAccess..............................................................................................................7 Conclusions.............................................................................................................8 List of Tables Table 1 Trip Generation - Senior Housing (8 Detached and 12 Attached Homes)............................... ................5 Table 2 Trip Generation - Standard Housing (8 Detached and 12 Attached Homes)..................................................................................5 Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses..........................................7 CABUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summerwood, a Senior Residential Community with 20 homes (8 detached homes and 12 attached homes) is proposed for a 6.37-acre site located along the southerly side of Sharon Lane about 175 feet westerly of Judy Lane in South Windsor. The development is proposed to provide housing for Seniors who wish to move from a larger single family home to a new home with lower maintenance requirements. The trip generation information included in the ITE Trip Generation reference contains information for Retirement Communities and Elderly Housing developments, as well as information for residential developments with no age restrictions. Because the trips generated by Senior Housing are less than the trips generated by standard residential developments, and many people continue to work beyond their fifty-fifth birthday, the traffic impact from Summerwood was determined by using the trip generation information for Single-Family Detached Housing and Residential Condominium/Townhouse developments. This provides a conservative approach for evaluating the impact from the proposed Summerwood. The study assumed that the Senior Residential Community would be constructed over a period of two years. Capacity analyses were done for the intersection of Hilton Drive at Sharon Drive for the existing conditions, 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane for the year 2003 Build conditions. Levels of Service (LOS) are presently LOS A for all movements at the Hilton Drive and Sharon Drive intersection during the morning and afternoon peak hours. This intersection will continue at the same excellent Levels of Service for the 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. The new intersection of Sharon Drive and Summerwood r Lane will operate at LOS A during both peak periods when the proposed �1 Summerwood is completed. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (430 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling southeasterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of 35 mph (10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit) and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 43 mph. The ISD available to drivers looking right from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (480 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling northwesterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of nearly 38 mph and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 45 mph. Additionally, the available sight distance exceeds the Sight Distance requirements for Stopped Vehicles Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic for design speeds of 50 mph (more than double the assumed speed limit on Sharon Drive). Traffic operations are expected to be Level of Service A during the morning and afternoon peak hours at the intersections of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane and Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive, and the sight distances meet or exceed the upper criteria established by ConnDOT for travel speeds at least 10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit of 25 C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 1 mph and meet or exceed the minimum criteria for travel speeds at least 18 mph greater than the assumed speed limit; hence, no offsite improvements are suggested as a result of the added traffic generated by the proposed Summerwood with 20 Senior Residential Homes. INTRODUCTION Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC. proposes to construct Summerwood, a Senior Residential Development with 8 single unit detached homes and 12 multi-unit condominiums on 6.37 acres located along the southerly side of Sharon Drive approximately 175 feet west of Judy Lane in the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut. The homes (single and multi-units)will be occupied by"Seniors"who are at least 55 years old and remain able to care for themselves, but are seeking a home with lower maintenance requirements. This report was prepared by Traffic Engineering Solutions to address the traffic impact on roadways surrounding this Senior Residential Community. The following scope of work was included in this study: ■ Making turning movement counts during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods at the following location: 0 Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive; ■ Requesting from the South Windsor Police Department traffic accident data for the latest three year period for Sharon Drive for its entire length. ■ Making visual observations of roadways and land use conditions along Sharon Drive and Hilton Drive in the vicinity of the site. ■ Estimating the number of trips expected to be added to the roadway system by the proposed 20 Senior residential units. ■ Completing morning and afternoon peak period capacity analyses for the intersection of Hilton Drive at Sharon Drive to determine the operating Levels of Service (LOS)for the existing traffic volumes and LOS for the future traffic volumes anticipated upon completion of the Senior Residential Units. Also, complete capacity analyses for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane, the site access road, for the traffic volumes anticipated upon completion of Summerwood. ■ Field measure the sight distances (looking left and right) available for drivers entering and leaving Summerwood Lane and compare these distances with the Connecticut DOT Guidelines for Intersection Sight Distances for travel speeds of 25, 30 and 35 mph on Sharon Drive. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Summerwood is a Senior Residential Community with 20 homes (8 detached homes and 12 attached homes). The development is proposed for 6.37 acres located along the south side of Sharon Drive in C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 2 South Windsor. The site is situated behind the existing homes along the southerly side of Sharon Drive and has access to Sharon Drive along a 50- foot Town Right of Way. Access to Summerwood will be provided by Summerwood Lane, a 25 foot cul d sac road within this 50-foot right of way. Summerwood Lane will be located approximately 175 feet west of Judy Lane. Visual observations were made for Sharon Drive and Hilton Drive; and traffic counts were made at the intersection of these two roadways. Sharon Drive runs from the southeast to northwest with one lane of travel in each direction. The road begins at Hilton Drive at its southeasterly end and proceeds northwesterly for approximately 950 feet where it ends as a cul d sac. Judy Lane intersects Sharon Drive from the northeast approximately 330 feet from Hilton Drive. Sharon Drive is 30 feet wide and has no pavement markings (i.e. no double yellow center line or STOP bars at intersections). There is no posted speed limit on Sharon Drive, but other streets in the area are posted at 25 miles per hour(mph). Land use along Sharon Drive is single family residential. The Sharon Drive approach to Hilton Drive is YIELD controlled. Summerwood Lane, the proposed site access road,will intersect Sharon Drive from the southwest about 175 feet northwesterly of Judy Lane and about 500 feet northwesterly of Hilton Drive Hilton Drive generally runs in the southwest to northeast direction beginning at Pleasant Valley Road and continuing for approximately 0.9 mile to Beldon Road. In the vicinity of Sharon Drive, Hilton Drive is 30 feet wide with a single lane of travel in each direction. A double yellow center line separates the two directions of travel. The roadway is straight for more than 500 feet both directions from Sharon Drive. The two directions of travel on Hilton Drive are separated by a 40-foot median as it approaches Pleasant Valley Road. Hilton Drive is STOP controlled at its intersection with Beldon Road and the intersection with Pleasant Valley Road is STOP controlled on all approaches. Land use along Hilton Drive is residential. The posted speed limit on Hilton Drive is 25 miles per hour. Existing Traffic Volumes Turning movement traffic counts were made on December 18, 2001 during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods at the intersection of Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive. The turning movement counts indicate that the morning peak hour occurred between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM when 39 vehicles traveled Hilton Drive (10 vehicles traveled toward the northeast and 29 vehicles traveled toward the southwest)just south of Sharon Drive, and 19 vehicles traveled Sharon Drive (14 vehicles traveled toward the southeast—toward Hilton Drive and 5 vehicles traveled toward the northwest)at its intersection with Hilton Drive. The afternoon peak hour occurred between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM when 68 vehicles traveled Hilton Drive (46 vehicles traveled toward the northeast and 22 vehicles traveled toward the southwest)just south of Sharon Drive, and 43 vehicles traveled Sharon Drive (14 vehicles traveled toward the southeast and 29 vehicles traveled toward the northwest) at its intersection with Hilton Drive. Copies of the turning movement counts are included in the Appendix to this report. C:\BUSINESS\DP1-URS0\REP0RT.D0C 3 Accidents The South Windsor Police Department was contacted to provide accident information for Sharon Drive. According to their records there have been no reported accidents along the length of Sharon Drive during the past three years. PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC New trips to the roadway system generated by the proposed Summerwood were determined from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) reference, Trip Generation'. The ITE reference has established mathematical relationships based on studies of various land uses to determine their trip generation rates. These trip generation relationships have been standardized and published in the Trip Generation reference. The proposed 20 Senior Residential Homes are being developed for "Seniors"who are at least 55 years old. The ITE reference provides trip generation information for several related land uses for senior housing including: "Retirement Community", "Elderly Housing—Attached" and "Elderly Housing—Detached". The ITE reference also provides trip generation information for standard housing including Residential Condominium/Townhouse" and "Single-Family Detached Housing". The trips generated by the 8 Detached Homes and 12 Multi-Unit Homes were calculated for Senior Housing and Standard Housing to provide a comparison of the number of trips Senior and Standard housing would generate. The trip generation was based on Land Use Codes 251 -"Elderly Housing— Detached", 253- "Elderly Housing—Attached", 210- "Single Family Detached Housing" and 230—"Residential Condominium /Townhouse". The following trip generation relationships were used to determine the number of daily, and morning and afternoon peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed Summerwood Senior Residential Community and by a similar size standard residential development. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Senior Housing Elderly Housing— Detached (8 Homes) Average Weekday Trips Not Available Morning Peak Hour 0.21 Trips per Unit 36/64 Afternoon Peak Hour 0.23 Trips per Unit 64/36 where T is the number of trips and X the number of detached homes Trip Generation Sixth Edition published by the institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997 C:\BUSINESS\DPl-URSO\REPORT.DOC 4 Elderly Housing—Attached (12 Units) Average Weekday Trips 3.48 Trips per Unit Morning Peak Hour 0.07 Trips per Unit 63/37 Afternoon Peak Hour 0.10 Trips per Unit 59/41 Standard Housing Single-Family Detached Housing (8 Homes) Average Weekday Trips Ln(T)= 0.920 Ln(X) + 2.707 Morning Peak Hour T=0.700 00 + 9.477 25/75 Afternoon Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.901 Ln(X) + 0.527 64/36 where T is the number of trips and X the number of detached homes Residential Condominium/Townhouse (12 Units) Average Weekday Trips Ln(T) = 0.850 Ln(X) +2.564 Morning Peak Hour Ln(T)= 0.790 Ln(X) + 0.298 17/83 Afternoon Peak Hour LnM = 0.827 Ln(X) + 0.309 67/33 where T is the number of trips and X the number of condominium units Table 1 -Trip Generation - Senior Housing f Trips Entering Trips Leaving 8 Units 12 Units Total 8 Units 12 Units Total Detached Attached Detached Attached Daily2 14 21 35 14 21 35 Morning Peak 1 1 2 1 0 1 Hour Afternoon Peak 1 1 2 1 1 2 Hour Table 2 -Trip Generation -Standard Housing Trips Entering Trips Leaving P 9 p 9 8 Units 12 Units 8 Units 12 Units Detached Attached Total Detached Attached Total Daily 51 54 105 51 54 105 Morning Peak 4 2 6 11 8 19 Hour Afternoon Peak 7 7 14 4 4 8 Hour 2 Detached Housing assumed the same trip generation as attached housing. C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 5 Tables 1 and 2 show that the number of trips generated on a daily basis and during the peak hours is considerably less for Senior Housing than for the same size residential community with no age restrictions. Because many people continue working well past their fifty-fifth birthday, and since the trip generation information for residential uses with no age restrictions is higher (more conservative), the Trip Generation estimates for standard housing were used for the proposed 20 Summerwood Senior Residential Community. The capacity analyses completed for this study used the higher number of generated trips present in Table 2 to provide a conservative (worst case) evaluation of the operating Levels of Service. CAPACITY ANALYSES Capacity Analyses were done to determine the anticipated quality of traffic operations at the intersections of Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive and Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane, the site access road. Letter designations from A to F are used to represent the Levels of Service (LOS)for the traffic operation at each intersection or roadway, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Typically, LOS D is considered acceptable by ConnDOT for design peak hour conditions. The Level of Service for unsignalized intersections with STOP control on the minor street assumes that through and right-turning traffic on the main street is not affected by traffic on the side street(s). Thus, the LOS designation is for the movements on the side street and the left-turn movement from the main street onto the side street. Levels of Service are defined by the average delay per vehicle as indicated below. Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Avg. DelayNehicle (in Seconds) LOS A < 10.0 LOS B > 10.0 and < 15.0 LOS C > 15.0 and <25.0 LOS D >25.0 and < 35.0 LOS E > 35.0 and < 50.0 LOS F > 50.0 Level-of-service capacity analyses were completed for existing conditions, 2003 No-Build conditions, and 2003 Build conditions for Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the 2003 Build conditions for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane. The 2003 No guild traffic volumes were determined by applying a two percent growth factor to the 2001 traffic volumes to account for growth that may occur in the area, though background growth is not likely because of the surrounding roadway system is relatively isolated from through traffic that does not originate within the neighborhood. The year 2003 analyses assume a two year buildout for the Summerwood Senior Residential Community. The generated trips were assigned to the intersection of Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive assuming that all the new trips would travel to C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 6 and from the south and one-third of the new trips would travel to and from the north. This provides a conservative estimate of the site impact by adding 133% of the anticipated new trips to the surrounding roadway system. All site trips will travel to and from the southeast on Sharon Drive since the northwesterly end of this road is a cut d sac. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2001 2003 No Build 2003 Build Location Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Hour Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive N-Bd Left Turn AM 7.2 A 7.2 A 7.3 A E-Bd Sharon Drive Peak 8.4 A 8.4 A 8.6 A N-Bd Left Turn PM 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A E-Bd Sharon Drive Peak 8.8 A 8.9 A 9.0 A y Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane W-Bd Left Turn AM 7.3 A N-Bd Summerwood Ln Peak N/A N/A NIA N/A 8.4 A W-Bd Left Turn PM 7.2 A N-Bd Summerwood Ln Peak N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.4 A RNMR-0 OWNS ,'7 _- r Delay= Average stopped delay, in seconds, to all vehicles entering the intersection or to vehicles making the specified turn. The results shown in Table 3 are based on the conservative number of generated trips shown in Table 2 for housing with no age restrictions, and the conservative distribution of these trips. Table 3 indicates that the left turns from Hilton Drive onto Sharon Drive and the Sharon Drive approach to the intersection presently operate at Level of Service A. The same excellent LOS will continue for the year 2003 No-Build and Build conditions. Left turns from Sharon Drive onto the new Summerwood Lane and the Summerwood Lane approach to Sharon Drive will operate at LOS A when Summerwood is completed and fully occupied. SITE ACCESS The proposed access road to Summerwood will be located along the southerly side of Sharon Drive 175 feet westerly of Judy Lane. It is important that adequate intersection sight distance (1SD) is available for vehicles turning to and from the access drive at its intersection with Trumbull Lane. Visual observations and sight distance measurements were made in C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 7 accordance with ConnDOT standards for measuring Intersection Sight Distances and for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic. Intersection Sight Distances from the site drive were measured at a distance of 10 feet off the edge of road with a 3.5 foot height of eye and height of object. The sight distances were measured within the existing street line so that easements across other properties would not be required. The sight distance available to drivers leaving the drive will be 430 feet(to the end of the cul d sac) looking toward the left(northwesterly) and 480 feet looking to the right(southeast),just short of the intersection with Hilton Drive. The Intersection Sight Distance for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic is 430 feet. The Connecticut DOT presents minimum and upper standards for intersection sight distances (ISD) in their January 1999 Highway Design Manual. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (430 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling southeasterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of 35 mph (10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit) and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 43 mph. The ISD available to drivers looking right from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (480 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling northwesterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of nearly 38 mph and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 45 mph. The ConnDOT Guidelines for Highway Design also provides Sight Distance requirements for Stopped Vehicles Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic. The available sight distance (430 feet) for drivers turning left from Sharon Drive onto Summerwood Lane were compared with the sight distances presented in Figure 11-217 of the ConnDOT Highway Design Manual. The available 430 foot sight distance is adequate for travel speeds on Sharon Lane of more than 50 mph, more than double the assumed speed limit. CONCLUSIONS Summerwood, a Senior Residential Community with 20 homes (8 detached homes and 12 attached homes) is proposed for a 6.37-acre site located along the southerly side of Sharon Lane about 175 feet westerly of Judy Lane in South Windsor. The development is proposed to provide housing for Seniors who wish to move from a larger single family home to a new home with lower maintenance requirements. The trip generation information included in the ITE Trip Generation reference contains information for Retirement Communities and Elderly Housing developments, as well as information for residential developments with no age restrictions. Because the trips generated by Senior Housing are less than the trips generated by standard residential developments, and many people continue to work beyond their fifty-fifth birthday, the traffic impact from Summerwood was determined by using the trip generation information for Single-Family Detached Housing and Residential Condominium/Townhouse C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 8 developments. This provides a conservative approach for evaluating the impact from the proposed Summerwood. The study assumed that the Senior Residential Community would be constructed over a period of two years. Capacity analyses were done for the intersection of Hilton Drive at Sharon Drive for the existing conditions, 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the intersection of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane for the year 2003 Build conditions. Levels of Service (LOS) are presently LOS A for all movements at the Hilton Drive and Sharon Drive intersection during the morning and afternoon peak hours. This intersection will continue at the same excellent Levels of Service for the 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions. The new intersection of Sharon Drive and Summerwood Lane will operate at LOS A during both peak periods when the proposed Summerwood is completed. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (430 feet) meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling southeasterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of 35 mph (10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit) and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 43 mph. The ISD available to drivers looking right from Summerwood Lane onto Sharon Drive (480 feet) 1 meets the Upper ISD presented in the ConnDOT reference for vehicles traveling northwesterly on Sharon Drive at speeds of nearly 38 mph and meets the Minimum ISD for speeds of 45 mph. Additionally, the available sight distance exceeds the Sight Distance requirements for Stopped Vehicles Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic for design speeds of 50 mph (more than double the assumed speed limit on Sharon Drive). Traffic operations are expected to be Level of Service A during the morning and afternoon peak hours at the intersections of Sharon Drive at Summerwood Lane and Sharon Drive at Hilton Drive, and the sight distances meet or exceed the upper criteria established by ConnDOT for travel speeds at least 10 mph greater than the assumed speed limit of 25 mph and meet or exceed the minimum criteria for travel speeds at least 18 mph greater than the assumed speed limit; hence, no offsite improvements are suggested as a result of the added traffic generated by the proposed Summerwood with 20 Senior Residential Homes. C:\BUSINESS\DPI-URSO\REPORT.DOC 9 CONNECTICUT COUNTS INC NEWINGTON, CT 06111 (860) 523-4750 File Name : 1840 Site Code : 00001840 Start Date : 12/20/200 Page No : 2 Hilton Drive Sharon Drive Hilton Drive Sharon Drive From North From East From South Fnxn West Start Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr Ped App. I Rig I Thr I Ped App. Int. Time ht u Left s Total ht u Left s Total ht u Left s Total ht u Left s Total Total k Hour From 07:00 AM to 08.45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 ersectio 08:00 AM Volume 3 15 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 10l 14 0 0 0 14 42 Percent 16. 83.7 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80. 20. 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 08:15 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 12 Volume 0.875 tPeak Factor igh Int. 08:00 AM 6.45:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:45 AM Volume 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5I Peak 0.900 0.833 I 0.700 Factor Hilton Drive Out in Total 26 ® 18-- 3- 15T 0] �M Tttiv Peds 1 s� C3 T tVorll, Ffl o vzavzaol s:a000 AM m 2f20J20D1 8:45M Ann o� a urrnittea o 41 T Left Ttxu Peds 21 8 0 9 10 Out In Tatai Hitt.Drive CONNECTICUT COUNTS INC NEWINGTON, CT 06111 (860) 523-4750 File Name : 1841 Site Code : 00001841 Start Date : 12/20/200 Page No : 2 Hilton Drive Hilton Drive Sharon Drive From North From East From South From West Start Rig �Thr �Pe�dApp. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig ThrTime htal ht u Left s Total ht u Left s Total ht u Left s Total Total k Hour From 04.00 PM to 05.45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 ersectio 04:00 PM Volume 8 15 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 21 0 46I 7 0 7 0 14 83 34. 65. 54. 45. 50. 50. Percent 8 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 7 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 04me 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 15 2 0 1 0 3 26 Volume Peak 0.798 g Factor i h Int. 04:30 PM 3:45:00 PM 104:30 PM 04:00 PM Volume 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 15 3 0 2 0 5 Peak 0.719 0.767( 0.700 Factor Mon Drive Out In Trial 0 A23 8 15 0 RIgM Ttuu Peds 6 �� � T �s m J ttA C eF n a-. Q �� 12/20/2001 4:00:00 PM 12(2D/20014:45:00 PM O N =N N UnshMed o a i � T Left Ttvu Peds 211 251 0 ® 46 Out In Tofal Hilton Drive i 1 ' 1 ' UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION � CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2001 EXISTING CONDITIONS N Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Hilton Drive at Sharon gency/Co. Traffic Engineering Drive Solutions Jurisdiction South K4ndsor Date Performed 12/21/2001 Analysis Year 2001 Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential ast/West Street: Sharon DriveNorth/South Street: Hilton Drive Intersection Orientation: North-South ISWdy Period rs : 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments �ovement ajor Street Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 2 8 0 0 15 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 9 0 0 16 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 r,rovinor liguration LT TR ' ream Signal 0 0 Street Westbound Eastbound ement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 14 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 ___r0.80 0.70 0.80 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 0 0 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach H N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Dela ,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 20 C(m) (vph) 1611 1066 /c 0.00 0.02 5%queue length 0.00 0.06 Control Delay 7.2 8.4 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.4 pproach LOS — — A > file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k9201.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Hilton Drive at Sharon gency/Co. Traffic Engineering Drive Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor Date Performed 12/21/2001 nalysis Year 2001 Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential East/West Street: Sharon Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 'ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 21 25 0 0 15 a Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 32 0 0 20 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U tream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 7 0 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 10 1 0 1 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 ' Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co nfiguration LR RDela ,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 27 20 C (m) (vph) 1595 957 lc 0.02 0.02 5% queue length 0.05 0.06 Control Delay 7.3 8.8 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.8 pproach LOS — — A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k82B5.TMP 12/21/2001 � UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2003 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Hilton Drive at Sharon gency/Co. Traffic Engineering Intersection Drive Solutions Jurisdiction South Vthndsor Date Performed 12/21/2001 nalysis Year 2003 No-Build Conditions ' Analysis Time Period AM Peak 1A Project Description Summenwood Senior Residential East/West Street: Sharon Drive orthiSouth Street: Hilton Drive Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 eh6cle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 2 8 0 0 16 3 ' Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 9 0 0 17 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ' Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ' Delay,Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 21 C (m) (vph) 1609 1066 Ic 0.00 0.02 5%queue length 0.00 0.06 Control Delay 7.2 8.4 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.4 pproach LOS — — A > ' file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k8033.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ' Analyst BAH Intersection Hilton Drive at Sharon Agency/Co. Traffic Engineering Drive Solutions Jurisdiction South IMndsor Date Performed 1221/2001 nalysis Year 2003 No-Build Conditions ' Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential East/West Street: Sharon Drive orthfSouth Street: Hilton Drive Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a"or Street Northbound Southbound ' ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 22 26 0 0 16 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 1 33 1 0 0 1 22 i11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 '- -- edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ' ..onfiguration LT TR U tream Signal 0 i 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ' ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 7 0 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 10 1 0 1 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Co nfiguration tionlay,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 28 20 ' C (m) (vph) 1592 952 lc 0.02 0.02 5% queue length 0.05 0.06 Control Delay 7.3 8.9 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.9 pproach LOS — — A > ' file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k7l61.TMP 12/21/2001 � UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ' CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2003 BUILD CONDITIONS Two-Way Stop Control Page I of L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Hilton Drive at Sharon gency/Co. Traffic Engineering Drive Solutions Judsdicton South Windsor Date Performed 1212112001 nalysis Year 2003 Build Conditions ' Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Surnmerwood Senior Residential East/West Street: Sharron Drive orth/South Street: Hilton Drive Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Eavement 'or Street Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R, L T R Volume 8 8 0 0 16 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 ' Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 9 0 0 17 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 Median Type Undivided FT Channelized 0 0 es 0 1 0 0 1 0 o �figuratian LT TR q5 tream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ' ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 7 0 34 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.70 ' Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 10 1 0 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 D 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Len th and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configurafion LT LR (vph) 9 56 ' C (m) (vph) 1607 1045 lc 0.01 0.06 5%queue length 0.02 0.18 ' Control Delay 7.3 8.6 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 8.6 pproach LOS — — A file://C:\WINDOWS\TENP\u2k62C5.TMP 12/21/2001 i� - Two-Way Stop Control rage t or TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH ntersection Hilton Drive at Sharon Agency/Go. Traffic Engineering Drive Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor Date Performed 1W 1/2001 nalysis Year 2003 Build Conditions ' nalysis Time Period PM Peak 1A iin roject Descri tion Summerwood Senior Residenfial ast/West Street: Sharon Drive North/South Street: Hilton Drive tersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Ad`ustments ajor Street Northbound Souhbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 36 26 0 0 16 13 ' Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 46 1 33 0 0 22 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ' Configuration LT TR U tream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 10 0 15 ' Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 1 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 14 0 121 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 ' RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfi uration LR ' Dela Queue Len at and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 46 35 C (m) (vph) 1583 941 /c 0.03 0.04 95%queue length 0.09 0.12 Control Delay 7.3 9.0 LOS A A Approach Delay — — 9.0 pproach LOS — — A ' file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k1250.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of L ' TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ' Analyst BAH Intersection Sharon Dr. at Traffic Engineering Summerwood Ln. Agency/Co. eons udnsdiction South lAindsor Nnalysis ate Performed 12121/2001 na sis Year 003 Build Conditions ' Time Period IPM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residenfiai East/West Street: Sharon Drive North/South Street: Summerwood Lane ' Intersection Orientation: East-West ud Period hrs : 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 10 0 14 10 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0J0 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 14 0 20 14 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ' Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ' ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Eo lume 0 0 8 0 0 0 ak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 11 0 10 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ' Configuration LR Delay,Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach ES WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 20 11 (m) (vph) 1617 1072 /c 0.01 0.01 95%queue length 0.04 0.03 Control Delay 7.3 8.4 LOS A A pproach Delay = = 8.4 pproach LOS A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kF125.TMP 12/21/2001 Two-Way Stop Control rage i of L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information ' Analyst BAH Intersection Sharon Dr. at Traffic Engineering Summerwood Ln. Agency/Co. Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor ate Performed 12/21/2001 knalysis Year 2003 Build Conditions nal sis Time Period JAM Peak Project Description Summerwood Senior Residential EastNVest Street: Sharon Drive North/South Street: Summerwood Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period rs : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 10 0 6 10 0 ^- rean-Flour Factor, PHF 0.70 i 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 14 0 8 14 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 19 D 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 27 D 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 8 27 ' C (m) (vph) 1617 1072 /c 0.00 0.03 5% queue length 0.01 0.08 Control Delay 7.2 8.4 LOS A A ' Approach Delay — = 8.4 pproach LOS A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP�u2kA181.TMP 12/21/2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE: /2 /n TO: l l�l� lac suJPr� . WE ARE SENDING YOU: O PZC initial plans O Drainage computations O PZC revised plans (3 . Bond estimate request O PZC Final plans for review O Bond reduction request O PZC Final plans for filing O Correspondence O IWA/CC plans '1�(-Other NO.OF COPIES APPLICATION NUMBER PROJEC V"PLICANT — 1J THESE ITEMS ARE TRANSMITTED: For review and comment - O For your files O For your use O As requested O Other PLEASE RETURN/COMMENT BY: 642 COMMENTS: AL t -2 'R,LA I4,2Y il LL2 � E Copy to: From: kd.r-L i (� Planning Department- 10/98 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers• planners • surveyors • gis Transmitted via certified mail August 5, 2002 Dear Current Abutting Property Owner Re: Senior Residence Development DPI Project No. 01-1468 Sharon Drive South Windsor, Connecticut In accordance with regulations of the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Planning &Zoning Commission, we are required to notify you that an application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing(s)by the Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning &Zoning Commission. The applications and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department in the Town Hall. As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearing(s)to ask questions and/or give comments, however, you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments regarding the application(s)prior to the meeting if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific date this application will be heard, please contact Kelli Holmes, Administrative Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeffrey Folger, Environmental Planner, at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253, 252 or 229,respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, DESIGN OFESSIONALS, INC. By: Peter R. De allie Principal cc: Jeffrey Folger Marcia Banach Robert Urso 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 Telephone(860)291-8755 Fax(860)291-8757 PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw, Michael Gantick, Thomas Field, Bill Lanning, Kris Lindstrom, Ray Favreau, Karl Reichle, Mel Stead, John Collins 06AJeff Doolittle FROM: Marcia A. Banach, AICP, Director of Planning The Planning &Engineering Departments have received.plans for the following project: Location: Site Plan ASubdivision No. Acres 6, Zone O Industrial O Commercial O Residential No. f Lots/Units Water. 7OPublic O Private Well Sewerage: Public O Septic system(s) Project Description: 0 f f"s J e41 Future Town-owned property involved? XYes 0 No new street(s) O new detention area ,�V Dfe'k ` � 1 O new open space/recreation area O active O passive Planning Department notes: Please comment by ->s and return to the Planning Department. In-House Development Review Meeting 8-27-02 Present: Banach,Reichle,Folger,Doolittle, Shaw, Gantick, Stead,Drabek Summerwood SRD Westview Office Parking DBB zone change,Maguire Rd Construction Updates Cutler Ridge/Stone Crossing subdivisions: Tennis court/mowing 1. Summerwood SRD a. Tight site,where will snow be plowed to? b. Detention basin: • design difficult to build • does not provide stormwater quality functions • is located within buffer c. DEP permit needed for dam structure? d. Numerous drainage concerns, as there are existing drainage issues in that area(see Town Engineer's review for further details): • Does drainage impact the existing systems (private yard drains and stormwater system in the street)? • Water table?Test pits? e. WPCA approval needed for sewerage, as well as the enter&hold harmless agreements for refuse collection/recycling. 2. Westview Office Park a. Possibility of eliminating existing drywell (now connected into Sullivan Ave/Ayers Rd system)? 3. DBB Zone Change: No staff input 4. Construction updates: No new major issues on ongoing construction projects 5. Cutler Ridge/Stone Crossing questions: a. Can the residents mow/maintain the Town open space along the roadway(Butler Drive)?Karl would like to see that happen;how best to accomplish that? Suggested that the residents can approach the Council under the Application Process for Modification or Expansion of Use of Town-Owned Subdivision Open Space, and request item B: Modification of existing/current Town maintenance/cultural practices. b. Can the(4) owners of the island in the large cul-de-sac erect a tennis court in the island? (Question asked by resident Mike Lanza.) Staff discussed the issues of snow removal and sight lines, and agreed that this is worth considering. The residents can submit a detailed plan showing how the tennis court would be built; fence poles must stay at least five feet from the curb, and no arborvitaes can be placed close to the street.The Town would also need a hold harmless agreement. MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer AUG 2 7 2002 Date: 8/27/02 SOUTH VVINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. RE: App 02-48P, Summerwood SRD Application I have reviewed the Site Plan for a the Summerwood SRD and have the following comments: 1. The cul-de-sac at the end of Day Drive needs to conform to the Town Standard Detail. It appears that the sidewalks need to be moved closer to the ROW line and the Town Standard for sidewalks is 4 feet wide. This is to provide a larger snow shelf. 2. The parallel access drive at the end of the cul-de-sac on Day Drive appears to make it more difficult to access the driveways and will be extra pavement to install and maintain. This should be eliminated and the driveways to the five units combined into two driveways that open directly onto the cul-de-sac. 3. Revise the size and shape of the detention basin. The northern part will be difficult to build and will probably not be very effective 4. Check the invert elevation of OLT1. As shown water will flow in from the existing catch basin on Paholski property 5. Where is the overflow spillway from the detention basin? 6. The Town will need a Right to Drain or Drainage Easement to drain water from the Town road to the detention basin 7. Additional information is needed to show this development will not have any deleterious impacts on the downstream drainage systems in both Sharon Drive and Hilton Drive. This should include the hydraulic capacity of the existing system, hydraulic profiles to the outlet points, survey of the condition of the existing system including the swale and drains in the back yards of southern bordering properties on Hilton Drive. 8. Additional yard drains should be added on the south side of this property to capture any surface runoff before it reaches the adjoining properties to the south. 9. Show foundation drains for all buildings. 10. Revise profile slightly so there is at least 100 feet between grade changes. The first high point should be move back about 20 or 30 feet. 11. Will the pavement cross section be used for the Town road and cul-de-sac as well as the private road? If not a pavement detail is needed for the Town road. 12. Soil boring information including ground water elevation should be on these plans. 13. WPCA review and approval is required for this site. k. Please call me (x 245) if you have any questions. NATURE SAVER T" FAX MEMO 01616 Date pages To %'/ l 7a��1 From A e Co./Dept. Co. Phone# Phone# i I V-A5) r Fax# , 7 Fax# 1 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 644-2511 ext 253 Fax 644-7280 South • • Planning Department Fcix To: Peter DeMallie, DPI From: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Fax: Pages: 1 Phone: Date: 08/29/02 Re: Summerwood,Westview CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑Please Reply ❑Please Recycle Review comments generated at monthly in-house staff meeting, for Summerwood SRD and Westview Office Park. 1. Summerwood SRD a. Tight site, where will snow be plowed to? b. Detention basin: • design difficult to build • does not provide stormwater quality functions • is located within buffer c. DEP permit needed for dam structure? d. Numerous drainage concerns, as there are existing drainage issues in that area (see Town Engineer's review for further details): • Does drainage impact the existing systems (private yard drains and stormwater system in the street)? • Water table? Test pits? e. WPCA approval needed for sewerage, as well as the enter& hold harmless agreements for refuse collection/recycling. 2. Westview Office Park a. Possibility of eliminating existing drywell (now connected into Sullivan Ave/Ayers Rd system)? DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers -planners-surveyors -gis MEMORANDUM To: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning RECEIVED From: Karen Isherwood,P.E. S E P 13 20,02 Date: September 13, 2002 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, Re: App 0248p, Summerwood SRD Application We are submitting revised sets of plans for the Summerwood SRD. The plans have been revised to address several Town Staff comments. The following are like numbered responses to a memorandum dated 8/27/02 from Jeffrey Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer: 1. A larger snow shelf has been provided by proposing a 4' conc. sidewalk per the Town Standards. This sidewalk is to be located 2' from the R.O.W. in order to provide required grading within the R.O.W. 2. The parallel access drive at the end of the cul-de-sac on Day Drive has been widened to 20' to enhance the movement of traffic. Alternatives discussed with Town Staff . provided more pavement to install and maintain(longer cul-de-sac)and less conformance to Town Specifications(3 access drives within a cul-de-sac). 3. The detention basin has been revised(revised drainage report provided). 4. The invert elevation for OLTI has been revised. - 5. The top of frame for the detention basin outlet(OLTI)has been set at 69.55 which is 1' above the elevation of the 100-yr storm. 6. A note has been added to the topographic site plan indicating a"Right To Drain" is required. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor,Cr 06074 Tel(860)291-8755 Fax(860)291-8757 \\Serveri\g\DOCS\1468\Response-townlettez091302.doc DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers •planners•surveyors •gis 7. Storm drainage is designed to accommodate 10-year design storm flows. The analysis of our proposed detention basin indicates a reduction of flow into the downstream drainage systems(Sharon Dr./Hilton Dr.)to 28%of current runoff. 8. Two yard drains are provided, replacing the previously proposed drainage manholes. 9. Foundation drains have been shown. 10. Profile has been revised. 11. Two pavement cross-sections have been provided in the detail sheets. 12. Soil information will be provided under separate cover(by soil scientist),this information will then be incorporated onto the erosion and sedimentation control plan (sheet 9). 13. We acknowledge that WPCA approval is required. Please let me know if you have an additional questions/comments regarding these revisions. Y Y q g g cc: Jeff Folger(w/4 sets of plans) Galen Semprebon, P.E. Robert Urso 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor,Cr 06074 Tel(860)291-8755 Fax(860)291-8757 \1Seiverl*UDOCS\1468\Response-townletterO91302.doc 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 644-2511 ext 253 Fax 644-7280 , South • • Planning Department Fcaix To: Peter DeMallie, DPI From: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Fax: Pages: 1 Phone: Date: 09/16/02 Re: Summerwood CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑Please Comment ❑Please Reply ❑Please Recycle The following items have not been addressed with the revised plans (from my August 7 fax with Planning Dept comments): • 2. Site plan : Acreage for the SRD cannot include the street ROW; lot size and density must be recalculated without the ROW area. • 3. Landscaping plan:Adequacy of proposed buffer? (I have since been out to the site and see that it is almost entirely deciduous trees, not even very thick in some places, and will need a lot of supplementary evergreen plantings without gaps.) Please give me a call with the corrected density calculation, as my report includes this information & I don't have it as yet....Thanks. September 1-6,2M RECEIVED 1 SEP 16 2002 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION - &abe-th-A.Wwren Wetlands-Chakrnan C/oTow Hall-South-Windsor 4540 Sullivan-Avenue South-Windsor,"074 Enclosed=is a-cow a#ref Reti - _ e-buj_q the --condominiums-know-as SumrnerNood-tane,Aetween+jUton and--Straron fDriv4,.-i-vM—prosant-lhe-original-Ve-ition-on-S% iber --24 at#heannin pl g-andzoning-boa -meeting 7-he peftorr-is,not fete, --I'm Rt��nni on collectlg snore ugaturess t would -,Wroctate_y_our_cons4 ter-atio*-Inems_ra ter. _�inoere�y, P A • %tricf&A._Goldin - a,�5-ktilto�rr._Drave J -Sout- - Windsor,-M . 074 _Pbona#o._ # _ 313 r ti DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis September 20, 2002 Town of South Windsor R 4- 1540 Sullivan Ave. i'� � South Windsor, Ct 06074 SEP 2 0 2002 Attn: Mr. Jeff Doolittle SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, Town Engineer Re: Summerwood Dear Jeff At the Inland Wetlands Hearing, there was considerable concern on the part of the neighbors regarding the storm drainage and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the site. We discussed the drainage concerns previously. As part of this concern, we have designed the detention basin to over-detain for the various design storms to significantly reduce the peak runoff volumes from the site. You previously requested that we investigate the existing storm drainage piping leading from the site to the discharge point across Hilton Drive. We have prepared this analysis using the rational method for pipe capacity, and then prepared a backwater analysis of the pipe runs from the culvert end to the catch basin that we will be discharging into with the detention basin. We made some assumptions in order to model the detention basin outflow. The detention basin peaks at 15.8 hours. The basin would therefore peak long after the other areas draining directly would. We took a peak time of 40 minutes therefore in order to be more conservative. At that time,the basin would be discharging approximately 90% of peak flow. We added the peak flow from the basin directly(0.73 CFS), and then back-calculated using the acreage of the site (8.05 AC)to determine a runoff coefficient to represent the site taking into account the detention basin. The calculated runoff coefficient is 0.09. This low runoff coefficient makes sense because with the detention basin under developed conditions, the peak runoff from the site is much less than under existing conditions with a wooded site (runoff coefficient of 0.15-0.25). Based on the analysis, under proposed conditions, the system can handle the runoff from the site and surrounding areas for a 10-year design storm. The water depth in the catch basin in the rear of the property(indicated as E) would be only 0.35' below the grate. We did not perform an analysis under existing conditions. With only 0.35' of depth, we would assume that under existing conditions, the catch basin at the rear of the property probably would not handle the flows for a ten year design storm without surcharging. During a review of the catch basin in the rear of the property(E), the catch basin was found to be full of silt and other debris. We will revise our plans to provide a new catch basin in this location 4 1 with a 4' sump. Every effort should be made to help insure that the existing piping leading from the neighbors yards to this structure is kept clear, and that the structures on the neighbors properties are kept clear of debris. Please review the enclosed, and call with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Galen Semprebon, P.E. CC: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner Enclosures: 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 •Fax: (860) 291-8757 sus" aie�a��� � � � STA. STA. OFFSET o 7 OFFSET STRUCTURE TYPE 8 TOP OF GRATE ELEV. e g OUTLET STA. .L DESIGN W.S. ELEV R' OUTLET T.W. EL.�_ i ��c Z OUTLET EL LENGTH b i Q LENGTH SLOPE SLOPE— INLET cc s SIZE INLET OUTLET CONTROL HW. H+ho-LSo �; SIZE Rat. OUTLET CONTROL HW= H+he-LSO D CONTROL TYPE e W HW H d TW ho LS HW TYPE n HW ko, H Oo * TW he LS MW rn l ;S lc=i 17 J I A ........... • STA. STA. OFFSET OFFSET STRUCTURE TYPE rn TOP OF GRATE ELEV. A g JL °o DESIGN W.S. ELEV. EL Z Z LENGTH LENGTH SLOPE_ 1 S'�� SLOPE SIZE CONTROL OUTLET CONTROL HW• 04 t A LS SIZE INLET o— o OL OUTLET CONTROL HW= TEE a H1N Ko H do t �TW LS HW TYPE n � HW Ko H t TW h LS• MW e � 00G O'l Ia 3 2 a.. G -o� RECE/VeD CEP 2 3 2002 ol C r sourH wwDsoR PLA NNING DEP1; 73 , /17A� RECEIVED MEMORANDUM SEP 2 4 2002 To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Date: 9/23/02 RE: App 02-48P, Summerwood SRD Application I have reviewed the Revised Site Plan for a the Summerwood SRD and have the following comments: 1. Show the current owner of Lot 21 Hilton Drive. The owner shown does not agree with Town records. 2. The parallel access drive at the end of the cul-de-sac on Day Drive appears to make it more difficult to access the driveways and will be extra pavement to install and maintain. This should be eliminated and the driveways to the five units combined into two driveways that open directly onto the cul-de-sac. 3. The detention basin needs to have an overflow spillway. 4. Why is the top of the outlet structure set 1 foot above the 100 year flood elevation? The top of the berm appears to be at elevation 70. There should be at least 1 foot of freeboard between the top outlet elevation and the top of the berm. Therefore, the top of the outlet structure should be lowered. Suggest this be set at the 100 year flood elevation. 5. What materials and methods will be used to stabilize the berm around the detention basin to prevent erosion and seepage? This needs special attention due to the soils and close proximity of surrounding homes 6. 1 still have questions about he drainage analysis provided. Additional information is needed to show this development will not have any deleterious impacts on the downstream drainage systems in Hilton Drive. This should include a survey of the condition of the existing system including the swale and drains in the back yards of southern bordering properties on Hilton Drive. 6a. Did the analysis of the detention basin take into account any groundwater volume in the basin? The soils information provided indicates a possible high groundwater table and there could be 1 foot of groundwater in the detention basin. Has any possible recharging of groundwater from the detention basin been considered and the effects this may have on neighboring properties? 6b. The supplemental drainage information provided on the existing system indicates the 12" pipe under Hilton Drive will not handle the 10 year flows. It also shows the headwater elevation within 0.27 feet of the top of the catch basin frame on the upstream side of this existing 12" cross pipe. This information needs to be checked and this pipe may need to be replaced with a larger pipe. 6c. What is the condition of the 15" pipe from the yard drain behind number 171 Hilton Drive to the catch basin in the street? This needs to be inspected and cleaned and/or repaired as necessary. 7. How will the detention basin inlet and outlet, and other drainage structures behind units be accessed for maintenance? 8. The buildings on this site are very close together, making everything more difficult to construct. Suggest the buildings be moved apart and farther back from the driveway. 9. Revise the water and sewer lines to each unit so they are located at least 10 feet apart in accordance with the Connecticut Public Health Code. 10. Include a detail for the outlet structure in the detention basin. 11. The pavement section for the Town Road should be at least as thick as that for the private road. Please provide a copy of the Clarence Welti Report referenced. Please call me(x 245) if you have any questions. Memorandum To: Kevin McCann, Chair- South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission CC: IWA/CC, Town Engineer From: Elizabeth A. Warren - Chair, South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission Date: September 23, 2002 Re: Appl. 02-48P, Summerwood SRD. As you are aware, detailed soils investigation by the applicants consultants and town staff has determined that the wetland area originally shown in the southwestern portion of the parcel does not exist. This has the potential of providing more area within the parcel for development. Currently the positioning of the dwelling units is still arraigned so that the southwest portion of the site remains open. There was much discussion among the Conservation -Commission members that this configuration remain unchanged, so that there is an area of open space left on the parcel. We realize that there may be a wish to "spread" the buildings farther apart, however the concept and design of a cluster development is supposed to promote the conservation of open space. We feel that the current configuration does just that. This site and the parcel to the west comprise significant wildlife habitat that will diminish when this site and eventually the parcel to the west is developed. Planning a viable corridor at this time will result in an area that can be utilized by area wildlife while still providing reasonable development in the area. 1 Memorandum To: Kevin McCann, Chair- South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission CC: IWA/CC, Town Engineer From: Elizabeth A. Warren - Chair, South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission Date: September 23, 2002 Re: Appl. 02-48P, Summerwood SRD. As you are aware, detailed soils investigations by the applicant's consultants and town staff have determined that the wetland area originally shown in the southwestern portion of the parcel does not exist. This has the potential of providing more area within the parcel for development. Currently the positioning of the dwelling units is still arranged so that the southwest portion of the site remains open. There was much discussion among the Conservation Commission members that this configuration remain unchanged, so that there is an area of open space left on the parcel. We realize that there may be a wish to "spread" the buildings farther apart, however the concept and design of a cluster development is supposed to promote the conservation of open space. We feel that the current configuration does just that. This site and the parcel to the west comprise significant wildlife habitat that will diminish when this site and eventually the parcel to the west is developed. Planning a viable corridor at this time will result in an area that can be utilized by area wildlife while still providing reasonable development in the area. 1 Appl # 02-48P, Summerwood Senior Residence Development Public Hearing 9-24-02 Planning Dept Report 1. Request for resubdivision, Special Exception and site plan approval to construct a 20-unit Senior Residence Development on property located north of Hilton Dr, south of Sharon Dr. The resubdivision will create a 6-acre lot in the A-20 zone, leaving the remainder of the property in the Industrial zone. The application includes construction of a new Town street within an existing Town right-of-way, from which the 6-acre lot will attain its required frontage of 200 feet for the Senior Residence Development. With the provision of the new street, the lot appears to meet zoning and subdivision requirements for a residential lot. 2. Sidewalks are shown on both sides of the new street. There will not be a street trees easement, as the right-of-way is exactly 50 feet wide, and the street trees easement would be located outside of that 50' right-of-way. 3. The new lot is surrounded by single family homes on three sides, Industrial- zoned land to the west. There are two existing houses on either side of the new street that will become corner lots. One of the two houses was constructed as if it was on a corner lot, the other was not. There are a number of existing non- conforming outbuildings on the single-family lots surrounding the new SRD lot; they are generally located too close to their rear property boundaries. A large quantity of yard wastes that appears to be generated by the single-family residents has been dumped all along the perimeter of the subject property. 4. The applicant is requesting SRD approval for 20 units, consisting of 8 single units and 12 units in four buildings of 3 units each. The units would vary in size according to the newly-adopted formula, with 6 units under 1400 sq ft, 6 units about 2000 sq ft, and the remaining units between 1400 and 1800 sq ft. 5. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include: • traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood; • there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area; • surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted; ii • impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure; • the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created; • the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development; • the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South Windsor; • the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open space land; • the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped residents or visitors; • the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile 6. The proposed density is 3.4 units per net buildable acre; maximum 4 units per net buildable acre are allowed. Proposed impervious coverage is 31.5%; 60% allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or 30 spaces; the applicant has provided 76 spaces, or 3.8 spaces per unit. 7. It has recently been determined that there are no regulated wetlands on this site. The plans in front of you do not reflect this. The net buildable acreage calculation will change as a result of this, and the density will become lower. IWA/CC heard the application on September 18 but has not made a decision; they also do not have the updated wetlands mapping yet. 8. The proposed driveway design includes a section in front of units 1-5 that will result in awkward vehicle maneuvering for the unit occupants. Since the frontage drive entrance to the west is not at a 90' angle to the main driveway, exiting from the smaller drive into the larger drive will be an awkward maneuver. Also, entering units 2 & 3 will be an awkward maneuver from the eastern end of the small driveway. It would be preferable to use two shared driveways exiting directly onto the cul-de-sac to serve these five units. It seems unfair to future occupants to design a brand-new development with marginally- acceptable accessways. Since it has now been determined that there are no regulated wetlands on this site, there is room available to spread out the units, and the awkward driveway design for units 1-5 should be addressed. 9. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to 158. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is currently capped at 250. 10. Public water and sewer are available to the site. WPCA approval is required for the sewer extension. 11. The subject property is at a higher elevation than the land to the south and east, with a rather abrupt drop-off between the subject lot and the existing houses. The detention basin is located about 20 feet from several units and is about nine feet deep at the deepest part. It will be a wet basin. The east wall of the basin is effectively a berm, as the land will slope on both sides of the detention basin in that area. 12. The site is wooded, with predominantly deciduous trees. The applicant is showing a combined yard and buffer of 35 feet. Since the existing vegetation is predominantly deciduous, evergreen interplanting is necessary to provide adequate screening. The buffer plan as proposed leaves many areas that will have visibility between the SRD units and the surrounding single family homes in the winter. While the regulations do have a provision for separations between the buffer trees in order to preserve vistas for unit occupants, this doesn't seem like a site to which that provision should apply, as the "vistas" would be other people's back yards. 13. The applicant submitted a traffic study which indicates that there will be little impact to the existing roadway network. There are no site line issues on either side of the new street. 14. The Architecture and Design Review Board reviewed the plans on August 15. They recommended that the PZC place an approval condition requiring review of the buffer for adequacy after planting. They also had several other recommendations: • Mechanical units in the rear of the building must be placed under decks and/or screened. • Some treatment must be placed on the concrete foundation— either some kind of finish or the addition of foundation plantings. • The final colors and any signage proposed must return to the ADRC once they have been determined. • Once the transformer units have been located, screening of these units must be provided. • All the garage doors should look the same; and • The walls of the single family units should be broken up with either windows and/or foundation plantings. We note that garages are the principal architectural feature of both the single- family and multi-family units. The garages dominate the front fagade of the multi-family units, and the garages protrude out in front of the single-family units. With additional room to spread the units out, the predominance of front garage doors can be addressed. Spreading out the units may enable the use of some side-load garages with shared driveways instead. 15. A hold harmless agreement and permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the refuse & recycling vehicles to enter the site. We recommend that the public hearing remain open until the plans can be modified to reflect the most recent wetlands information, the Inland Wetlands Commission has rendered a decision and drainage, buffer and other issues are further addressed. (If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests the following additional approval conditions: • Upgrade the buffer so that there are no winter gaps in vegetation • Revise the driveway design in front of units 1-5) DATE: 09/24/102 TIME: 12:52 PM TO: Town Of South Windsor PZC H 6447280 PAGE: 002-002 T. M. Burgess Insurance Vincent Prestileo Serving The Community For Over 30 Yem President September 24, 2002 Planning&Zoning Commission SEp 2 4 2002 Town of South Windsor South N indsor,CT SOUTH ENDSOH PLANNING DCPT, Re: Summenvood Project Dear TMembers: As a life long resident of South Windsor and a business owner that is concerned about the hiture of our town,I would like to encourage you to approve the application for the Summervood project presented by Robert Urso. I feel strongly that this proposal offers the residents of South XXindsor an option that is presently unavailable here in town. Xfy father, a former town council member and developer here in South Windsor since 1956 recently returned to town after over 20 years as a resident of Florida. Wl-iat he and my mother wanted was elderly housing with a spacious, spread out design. `'hat he found was a very limited selection of properties, none of which suited what he had become accustomed to in Florida. After spending a lifetime here in South Windsor,active in the community, raising three children,two of whom still reside here,he was very disappointed with the options he was left with,settling for a condominium at Plum Ridge. It seams like when it comes to d-le youth of this town,we bend over backwards to offer facilities second to none. Sports complexes,newly renovated schools, swimming pool upgrades are commonplace here. Yet the elderly in town find their options severely limited. TMr. Urso offers our seniors something that no one yet has and I would urge the members of this commission to welcome this to town and offer it to our elderly residents as another reason to return and stay in South Windsor. They were the ones who have worked hard, paid the taxes and brought the town as tar as it has come. We should do everything we can to offer them every opportunity, to stay here. Very truly yours, Vincent Prestileo 828 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor, CT. 06074 Phone: (860) 644-2534 Fax: (860) 644-8500 Email: vpreslileo�r)timbuMssinsxom www.trnburgessins.com SEP-24-02 TUE 04 :06 PM PETER- GRAHAM 860 289 1541 P. 01 September 24, 2002 SLP 2 4 2002 Planning and Zoning SOUTH ININDSOR PUiNNING DEP r. Town of South Windsor South Windsor, CT Re: Subdivision Sumimerwood Sharon Drive, South Windsor, Ct Dear Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of this subdivision. My wife and I have been a resident of the Town of South Windsor, CT for the past 25 years. We are reaching the point in our lives when our home is too large and we would like to down size. With the approval of this subdivision we would have one more option to stay in the Town of South Windsor. We have looked at other areas and have placed this Subdivision at the top of our list. Sincerely yours, eter�Rraharn 204 T umblebrook Drive South Windsor, CT In-House Development Review Meeting 9-24-02 Present: Banach,Reichle,Folger,Doolittle, ,Gantick, Stead, Summerwood SRD revisions Parksite Plunkett-Webster Industrial Building, Sullivan Avenue 1. Summerwood SRD Revisions to the plans were reviewed. It has been determined that there are no regulated wetlands on the property, so staff will work with the applicant to revise the plans to spread the units out.There is a question regarding whether the 12"pipe under Hilton Drive should be upgraded; and if so,whether that creates downstream drainage issues.There may be a perforated pipe added to the trench that will carry yard drains on the south side of the property.An O&M plan for the detention basin is needed for the association's use. 2. Parksite Plunkett-Webster, Sullivan Avenue.New industrial building, 105,000 sq ft for a distributor of building products. a. Detention basin: into water table. Will need to coordinate peaks with SW Technology Center. Will need barrier for flotables near outlet. b. Should be using existing driveway across from Kennedy Road for entire site. • W /JY !o21 G Appl # 02-48P, Summerwood Senior Residence Development Public Hearing 9-24-025��� s P2_ c�t� v Planning Dept ReWrt t^ rWL�les� G r� a - Flo � '� � `� �S+Sld . R f res �dr lslon, Special�Excepti and site plan a rova yJ- s ni esidence De e on property olate�i orth f ilt r' so th Sharo Dr.. Tile resubdiv'sio will create a 6-nacre lot m tie YO �- A- o e, Ravi,g,#ie r • ain' r of the pr pe in the Industrial zone, The ap ation i cl d co of ne strXadi it n exi ti to �, T A of , f c t -a e o w' a =e,ui en e � q g 0� or t ni ce eve o t. With the/rovision-of the -new street,--the lot appeats to-meet zoning and subdivision requirements-fof x residential lot. 2. t e t. There will wt be a street trees easement, as the right-of-way is exactly 50 feet wide, and 449 street trees easementsweuc located outside of that 50' right-of-way. A)o Lie c- CI I fs l�vr1 �I " t c (c��i ��� AO tt ktva(lt� �w �� ► '��� �,� 3. The new lot is s�irrounded by single family homes on three sides, Industrial- zoned land to the west. There are two existing houses on either side of the new street that will become corner lots. One of the two houses was constructed as if it was on a corner lot, the other was not. There are a number of existing non- conforming outbuildings on the single-family lots surrounding the new SRD lot; they are generally located too close to their rear property boundaries. A large quantity of yard wastes that appears to be generated by the single-family residents has been dumped all along the perimeter of the subject property. 4. applic t is r que ng S approv for 20 its, co isting 8 si le is nd un' in o r b '1 ngs o its c Th its w d v i si ce r n t t e wl -a opte fo ul , wit 6 it u er 0 , 6 u it u 00 q ft, d the ainin nits between 1 0 an 1800 s ft. 5. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include: • traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood; • there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area; • surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted; • impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure; • the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created; • the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development; • the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South Windsor; • the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open space land; • the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped residents or visitors; av,--d • the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile 6. The proposed density is 3.4 u its per net buildable acre; maximum 4 units per net buildable acre are allowed. Proposed impervious coverage is 31.5%; 60% allowed.' � dip rl i sa e S-peg,-\L .e-appli-cant p?Qyid ,,d,76_�pa6 s 3 lad&&- .er-un t.- 7. It has recently been determined that there are no regulated wetlands on this site. The plans in front of you do not reflect this. The net buildable acreage calculation will change as a result of this, and the density will become lower. IWA/CC heard the application on September 18 but has not made a decision;, t . 8. The proposed driveway design includes a section in front of units 1-5 that will result in awkward vehicle maneuvering for the unit occupants. Since the frontage drive entrance to the west is not at a 90' angle to the main driveway, exiting from the smaller drive into the larger drive will be an awkward maneuver. Also, entering units 2 & 3 will be an awkward maneuver from the eastern end of the small driveway.[ kj "irf b-le.to�u tr osh (! V(¢ LS' ��lg`d1C`ldlt'd t1e(�Z�1� eEsc'�© ere tieeie�urfis^.�It seems unfair to future occupants to design a brand-new development with marginally- acceptable accessways. Since it has now been determined that there are no regulated wetlands on this site, there is room available to spread out the units, and the awkward driveway design for units 1-5 should be addressed. 9. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved V to 158. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is currently capped at 250. t s e ��. o s st, t o dbj'e c_tA'6iad Vxi—siin�,ouse The detention basin is located about 20 feet from several units and is about ijine feet deep at the deepest part. It will be a wet basin. A n 1 t s' o e i 12. The site is wooded, with predominantly deciduous trees. The applicant is showing a combined yard and buffer of 35 feet. Since the existing vegetation is predominantly deciduous, evergreen interplanting is necessary to provide adequate screening. The buffer plan as proposed leaves many areas that will have visibility between the SRD units and the surrounding single family homes in the winter. While the regulations do have a provision for separations between the buffer trees in order to preserve vistas for unit occupants, this doesn't seem like a site to which that provision should apply, as the "vistas" would be other people's back yards. 13. The applicant submitted a traffic study which indicates that there will be little impact to the existing roadway network. There are no site line issues on either side of the new street. S Lo 10 h� �-+�►1s '^^� G 14. The Architecture and Design Review Board reviewed the plans on August 15. They recommended that the PZC place an approval condition requiring review of the buffer for adequacy after planting. They also had several other recommendations: • Mechanical units in the rear of the building must be placed under decks and/or screened. • Some treatment must be placed on the concrete foundation— either some kind of finish or the addition of foundation plantings. • The final colors and any signage proposed must return to the ADRC once they have been determined. • Once the transformer units have been located, screening of these units must be provided. • All the garage doors should look the same; and • The walls of the single family units should be broken up with either windows and/or foundation plantings. We note that garages are the principal architectural feature of both the single- family and multi-family units. The garages dominate the front fagade of the multi-family units, and the garages protrude out in front of the single-family units. With addi, Tonal room to spread the units out, the predominance of front garage doors e addressed. Spreading out the units may enable the use of some side-load garages with shared driveways instead. 15. A hold harmless agreement and permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the refuse & recycling vehicles to enter the site. We recommend that the public hearing remain open until the plans can be modified to reflect the most recent wetlands information, the Inland Wetlands Commission has rendered a decision and drainage, buffer and other issues are further addressed. (If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests the following additional approval conditions: • Upgrade the buffer so that there are no winter gaps in vegetation • Revise the driveway design in front of units 1-5) Tby' �1 1 / �' f' V a�t t/ 11 l GOV y 'I rr of r4 (Q' cite ulcer „P OIVA CDC Media Relations-West Nile Virus Case Count Ex {� ; b , t r Page 1 of 2 ozA c z-4-aP # #i'® OFFICE �# C#MMUIHiC.i►T!#N MEDIA RIELAT ION Media Home Page I Contact Us West Nile Virus Update �� Apr �. , C,� mW Hu Current Case Caunt Local Content • Email Us Laboratory- Positive. • On-Line Hum Publications ack State Cases Deathst • Image Library • Press Kit Alabama 39 3 • Press Releases Arkansas 11 • MMWR Summaries California 1 • Telebriefing Colorado 5 Transcripts • Rumors/Hoaxes I • Timeline District of Columbia 6 1 • 20th Century Florida 10 Health Georgia 19 5 Quick Jumps • Health Statistics Illinois 640 36 • Health Topics A-Z Indiana 157 • "Centers"at CDC Iowa 30 1 • Global Health Kentucky 44 5 Odyssey • Mobile Examination Louisiana 293 14 Center Maryland 12 1 Massachusetts 16 2 Michigan 379 28 Minnesota 31 Mississippi 168 8 Missouri 137 3 Nebraska 80 4 New Jersey 6 New York 51 3 North Carolina 2 North Dakota 15 2 Ohio 313 14 Oklahoma 4 Pennsylvania 35 4 http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/wncount.httn 10/8/2002 CDC Media Relations -West Nile Virus Case Count Page 2 of 2 au Rhode Island 1 South Carolina 1 South Dakota 33 Tennessee 40 5 Texas 101 2 Virginia 19 2 West Virginia 2 1 Wisconsin 28 2 Totals 2736 146 Also see Daily Case Count Archive for history of case counts. For more information,visit this CDC West Nile Virus site. "As:of October 7,2002 these are the human case totals for 2002 that have been reported'to'COC[Arbonet orcompitedin,directcommunication wWwe*ktwsrn&locarheaith officiars. Arbonet is the national, electronic surveillance system established by CDC to assist states in tracking West Nile and other mosquito-borne viruses. CDC currently has field teams deployed to Louisiana and Mississippi. Case counts are updated Monday-Friday. Media Home Page I Accessibility I Privacy Policy I Contact Us CDC Home I Search I Health Topics A-Z This page last updated October 7,2002 URL:http:!lwww.cdc.gov/odloc/media/vmcount.htm United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Communication Division of Media Relations http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/wncount.htm 10/8/2002 tow M aE4 ~ Tiown (.mil slotdj-z' vzqdlg� IS •. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 OR*.CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL x November 15, 2002 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl 02-48P, Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC, request for Resubdivision on property located southerly of Sharon Drive, northwesterly of Hilton Drive, A-20 zone Dear Mr. Urso: We are pleased to advise you that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted on November 12, 2002, to approve with modifications application #02-48P, Resubdivision on 6 acres to create 1 lot to be known as Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC on property located southerly of Sharon Drive, northwesterly of Hilton Drive, A-20 Zone as shown on plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc., project # 1468 and dated October 10, 2002, as revised. This approval is subject to the following modifications: 1. This approval is for 1 lot. 2. Drainage and construction for this subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. 3. The lot shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor sanitary sewer system and is subject to the approval of the Water Pollution Control Authority. 4. Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by public water. 5. Street lighting shall be installed on streets, at intersections, and on cul-de-sacs in accordance with the policy established by the Chief of Police. Street lighting is to be coordinated with the Chief of Police (copy enclosed). 6. Street names and locations of fire hydrants are subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal of the Town of South Windsor. Street names and supporting posts shall be installed by the developer in conformance with the standards of the Town of South Windsor, at no expense to the Town. 7. A liability insurance policy shall be submitted to this Commission naming the Town of South Windsor as an insured, with a combined single limit for bodily injury and/or property damage in the amount of$1,000,000.00. 8. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the4nland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of$10,000.00 to ensure erosion and sediment control measures. 9. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff. 10. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor. 11. All easements for conservation purposes, drainage or utilities, that may be required in connection with the approval of this subdivision,must be submitted on standard Town easement form where appropriate, to this Commission prior to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits. All deeds for open space,public improvements and roadways must be submitted prior to request for Town acceptance; all deeds must be in accordance with the policy for accepting deeds and must be approved by the Engineering Department and Town Attorney. 12. Footing drains are required for each house. Prior to the building of any structure on a lot, a topographic map, drawn to a scale of 1"=40', shall be submitted for each lot in the subdivision, showing proposed contours, elevations and the location of the footing drains. No building permits will be issued until the proposed contours, floor elevations and location of footing drains have been approved by the Town Engineer. 13. If, for any reason, finished grading and other individual lot site work is not completed,the Town Engineer shall determine the amount of a cash bond to ensure final grading and site work. This cash bond must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer(on the enclosed form) for the purpose of determining subdivision bonding. All bonds shall conform to the enclosed bond policy and shall be posted prior to filing the final plans in the Town Clerk's office. If the developer chooses to submit a Letter of Credit for a one year term, said Letter of Credit must be renewed on a yearly basis until completion of the development. If a new Letter of Credit has not been received within 30 days before the expiration date, the Commission may, at its option, call the Letter it is holding. 15. A drainage assessment fee in the amount of$50.00 shall be submitted to this Commission. PF 16. No building permits will be issued until all modifications have been complied with, and the final plans have been filed in the Town Clerk's office. Black and white transparent mylars of Sheets#4 with the above modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set of plans (including architectural elevations) must be submitted to this Commission within 30 days to be stamped and signed. The letters of approval of this Commission, as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, must be reproduced on the mylars. After mylars have been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the Town Clerk by February 25, 2001. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to the Planning Department. Sincerely, 44,�/V acm,-"� Kevin McCann, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission KMcC/kah cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal Peter DeMallie Own sf+ 4 � C ;) .0 -P SotdA ?di�� Q 7 Wn 0 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 '�OSOR-c° TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 October 7,2003 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, Inc. 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: App102-48P, Summerwood SRD Site Bond Dear Mr. Urso: This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on September 9, 2003,to set the subdivision improvements(Day Drive)bond associated with Appl 02-48P, Summerwood SRD in the amount of$241,700.00. A bond or letter of credit in this amount must be posted prior to the filing of mylars and issuance of building permits. Sincerely, ez,t� Kevin McCann, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission KMcC/kah cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Enforcement Officer Peter DeMallie Prevention: Questions and Answers About WestNiJe Virus -CDC Division of Vector-Bo... Page 1 of 3 �. �_5 West Nile Virus General West Nile Virus Home > FAQ Index > Prevention Information Tell Mosquitoes ►FAQ: Index Questions and Answers to Bug offs Hot Questions: Updated 08/29/02 Get the buzz on ►Prevent Infection preventing West ► Use Repellent Safely Nile virus In ►Who's at Risk new PSA ►symptoms Please use the menu below to jump to a topic: ►Case Count West Nile Virus Topics: Professional Information ►Statistics/Surveillance Prevention ►Clinical Guidance ►Laboratory Guidance 0.What can I do to reduce my risk of becoming infected with West ►Background Nile virus? ►Ecology/Virology ►Education/Training A Kw&wetpreven*wmeasures tha*ylowaneLylourfamity eatvtakw f Other PhAsety aumelfltorrnmsquite bites:w ►Press Resources ►Publications ►Conferences « AW*WAz*repe4tan#paringIy to exposed skin.The more DEET a ►Links: repellent contains the longer time it can protect you from mosquito ►State and Local bites.A higher percentage of DEET in a repellent does not mean that Government Sites your protection is better just that it will last longer. DEET i Other Related Sites concentrations higher than 50%do not increase the length of Guidelines for protection. Choose a repellent that provides protection for the Surveillance, amount of time that you will be outdoors. Prevention,and o Repellents may irritate the eyes and mouth,so avoid applying Control P©F(286 KB, 111 repellent to the hands of children. a es o Whenever you use an insecticide or insect repellent, be sure Estap6oina en Espanol to read and follow the manufacturer's DIRECTIONS FOR USE, as printed on the product. o For detailed information about using repellents,see the Insect Repellent Use and Safety questions. Public Inquiries English: Spray dlothirlg.vlith repellentsontaining permethrin or DEET since (888)246-2675 mosquitoes may bite through thin clothing. Do not apply repellents Espafiol: containing permethrin directly to exposed skin. If you spray your (888)246-2857 clothing,there is no need to spray repellent containing DEET on the (866) 874-2646 skin under your clothing. • When possible,wear,lan"sevedtshiftandlong.pan whenever Mon-Fri 8am-11pm EST Sat-Sun 10am-8pm EST you are outdoors. • Place mosquito rAftillimmwinbritcagderewhen you are outdoors with infants. 0I C.-Gn$Wal id&l makdawm,dusk,-an&in the early eveida which are peak mosquito biting times. • Install or repair window and door screens so that mosquitoes cannot get indoors. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/ga/prevention.htm 10/8/2002 Prevention: Questions and Answers About West Nile Virus - CDC Division of Vector-Bo... Page 2 of 3 Help reduce the number of mosquitoes in areas-outdoors where you work or play,by draining..sources of standing water. to this way,you reduce the number-of places mosquitoes can lay their eggs and breed. • At least once or twice a wee ty water from flower pota pet.food x aq water dishes, birdbaths, mrng pooVeovers, buckets, barrels, and runs. • Check for clogged rain gutters and clean them out. • Remove discarded'tires,and other Rams that could collect water.: • 8 suta tiac�as fay it artrasllt ' scesat may be hard to see,such as under bushes or underyaur home: Note:Vitamin B and "ultrasonic"devices are NOT effective in preventing mosquito bites. Newl Kids can learn how to protect themselves from mosquito bites on "The Buzz-z-z-z on West Nile Virus" (on BAMI,the CDC site for kids). Q.What can be done to prevent outbreaks of West Nile virus? A. Prevention and control of West Nile virus and other arboviral diseases is most effectively accomplished through integrated vector management programs. These programs should include surveillance for West Nile virus activity in mosquito vectors, birds, horses, other animals, and humans, and implementation of appropriate mosquito control measures to reduce mosquito populations when necessary.Additionally, when virus activity is detected in an area, residents should be alerted and advised to increase measures to reduce contact with mosquitoes. Details about effective prevention and control of West Nile virus can be found in CDC's Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control J.-(286 KB, 111 pages). a�vaccin�againsli`<1 :ryt��s� M I tseveral companies are working towards developing a vaccine. Where can I get information about the use of pesticide sprays that are being used for mosquito control? A.The federal agency responsible for pesticide evaluation is the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). See the EPA Web site*for detailed answers to the questions about pesticides used for mosquito control. IOU Retum to top of page Some documents are available here in Adobe Acrobat Reader format (PDF). To view or print them,you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader (version 3.0 or higher) installed on your computer. If you do not have the reader, you can obtain it free from Adobe Corporation. Click on the icon below to download the program from their Web site. fV Note: These sites are not CDC sites and will be opened in a new browser window. CDC is not responsible for the content of Web pages found at these links. Links to nonfederal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. These links do not indicate an endorsement of these organizations by CDC or the federal government. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/ga/prevention.htm 10/8/2002 Prevention: Questions and Answers About West Nile Virus -CDC Division of Vector-Bo... Page 3 of 3 CDC Home I Search I Health Topics A-Z I This page last reviewed August 29, 2002 Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases 1 National Center for Infectious Diseases l 1,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention P.O. Box 2087 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 1 CDC Privacy Policy I Accessibility `Yi.3 �i,+4h,'i.ti C"s3 s�fi':. '3.i',!t"iilC ,l+;`:'Fl4i��.v;?.:751e1�`,�.rt;ii.�g{•U!'t';1"1�?31 �tie-rq i�`;,C;/�'.;i�'`. CDC Media Relations-West Nile Virus Case Count Page 1 of 2 t f .1 V 1"FIC OF COMMUNICATION MEDI VMCKan Fh,kV D24 Marrt%G,MM-Ph."MMM FAX 40HX7 Media Home Page Contact Us t✓� Z �J West Nile Virus Update W nd H si Current Case Count* Local Content • Email Us Laboratory- • On-Line Poshlve x:;s Publications lli�rttaA:' State Cases Deaths • Image Library • Press Kit Alabama 41 3 • Press Releases Arkansas 21 • MMWR Summaries California 1 • Telebriefing Colorado 5 Transcripts • Rumors i Hoaxes G01 eNtUll • Timeline District of Columbia 14 2 • 20th Century Florida 13 Health Georgia 25 5 Quick Jumps Illinois 691 43 • Health Statistics • Health Topics A-2 Indiana 204 • "Centers"at CDC Iowa 44 2 • Global Health Kansas 6 Odyssey • Mobile Examination Kentucky 59 5 Center Louisiana 310 16 Maryland 23 1 Massachusetts 21 3 Michigan 455 33 Minnesota 39 Mississippi 178 9 Missouri 156 4 Nebraska 114 4 New Jersey 10 New York 68 4 North Carolina 2 North Dakota 17 2 Ohio 371 17 Oklahoma 8 http://www.edc.gov/od/oc/media/wneount.htm 10/22/2002 CDC Media Relations -West Nile Virus Case Count Page 2 of 2 10 Pennsylvania 47 6 Rhode Island 1 South Carolina 1 South Dakota 37 Tennessee 44 6 Texas 137 6 Vermont 1 Virginia 24 2 West Virginia 2 1 Wisconsin 37 2 Wyoming 1 Totals 3242 176 Also see Daily Case Count Archive for history of case counts. For more information,visit this CDC West Nile Virus site. t► 1@ttt the human case totals for 2002 that Mr.wheerereported to CDC/Arbonet or compiled in direct communication with state and local health officials. Arbonet is the national, electronic surveillance system established by CDC to assist states in tracking West Nile and other mosquito-borne viruses. CDC currently has field teams deployed to Louisiana and Mississippi. Case counts are updated Monday-Friday. Media Home Pane I Accessibility I Privacy Policy I Contact Us CDC Home I Search I Health Topics A Z This page last updated October 22,2002 URL:http://wvwv.cdc.gov/od/oc/rnedlatwncount.htm United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Communication Division of Media Relations http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/wncount.htm 10/22/2002 G-o oUr,_ No. —and NO, 2 Show--the-area-were-their- fi or- - =wed Day-Road).right=between- a sjrn fanAy home ith children. - - No. land .-4 Thesaare=theL SRD-cc __ _at- ` vs-ain r, -a yo an sew in=the- _ =f w -moo s�thy- - ng hors: [+fo- _-Sand-Uio--A - These- ptetures--are--of-Pte _ -=Condo's p# nt Vattey R :- Anyone rmtft=l thr`s=area=ors th eet has-many condo-dwelJhigs. These--SRC Bond'-sr --if--fly. TtEis is-Wyndamere-C on-M s R = o Tim of the comptex-Us the Senior-C ter-- --the= -of-it is a-small homes and across the--e# t =thee sow#.- -No4mpact. -8 - Porter Share on oaktand Roa _a boa r ctt use from-Sullfven Ave. ther-e'er an- en= d-=ate-des across the street, and-home&=dor -tt�---r-oa f--ronrlhe Condos'--Stiff minimarxr=imp-wt-owt surrounding neighborhoo i KFa. Wan -Na. a 0 #R#EM CM. uctiotr s= —.ietd.s-o -SmIftyan Avenue. The give to--enter-is~-# een=z= r-sery. and a-s it farm h use. Thosee -am-set do" i n a va(ey not cUsturbfing-artysurroundft homes. i -V H_- wNm,24 These-are-�#Wres ofeAck_ X_ -nelghbors on Mton-an -b =Driee: -=te a ean-see-WAhe pictures :are ont _ _ ' _# �—o h <b 0- PR�Ucrs Nu-Gro Corporation Inc. g�pF�gsrpNPRI�f 10 Craig Street,Brantford,Ontario,N3R 7J1 TEL(519)757-0077 FAX(519)757-0080 J))�) / u-gr0 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET PRODUCT: Malathion ULV Insecticide SECTION 1-PRODUCT INFORMATION P.C.P.Act Registration No.: 14597 Code: 11400 Chemical Name:Malathion:0,0-dimethyl-S-(1,2(di(ethoxycarbonyl)-ethyl)phosphorodithioate Synonyms:Fyfanon Chemical Family:Organophosphate Product Use: Insecticide TDG Classification: Environmentally Hazardous Substance, Liquid, n.o.s. (Malathion Solution)„6iass 9.2, U 82, PG III _ / SECTION 2-HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS HA ��.1SIN(?t3tE.fst'I"3 _ W�tl3�i'4(� 'C,�S REf3�# tJ)�41(tn�llCg) ': 't tAf�i. T i,� Malathion 95.0 121-75-5 Oral,rat 1375 LC50 1.6 mg1L Dertnal,rat 4400 Calculated LD50 for mixture 1448 SECTION 3-PHYSICAL DATA Physical State:Liquid Appearance\Odour. Pale yellow liquid with slightly Specific Gravity: 1.23 aromatic odour Boiling Point: 156-157°C pH:No Data Vapour Pressure:3.410-6 mm Hg @ 25°C Freezing/Melting Point:Approx.3°C %Volatiles: Negligible Vapour Density: 11.4(air=1) Solubility in Water: 148.2 mg/L Evaporation Rate:Negligible SECTION 4-FIRE AND EXPLOSION Flash Point: 163°C Pensky Martens Autoignition Temperature:No Data Lower Explosion Limit%:No Data Upper Explosion Limit%:No Data Fire Extinguishing Media:Foam,Carbon Dioxide,Dry Chemical,Water Fog Fire Fighting Procedures:Wear self-contained Breathing Apparatus and impervious clothing. Minimize the amount of water used and contain the run-off. Other Fire or Explosion Hazards: Malathion should never be heated above 55°C. SECTION 5-REACTMTY DATA Stability:Stable Hazardous Polymerization:Will Not Occur Conditions to Avoid:Elevated temperatures,will decompose at 100°C and above. Incompatibility(Materials to Avoid):Strong alkalies and oxidizers. Hazardous Decomposition Products: Thermal decomposition may produce dimethylsulfide, Sulphur oxides, carbon oxides,phosphoropentoxide,hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen oxides. Page 1 of 2 Malathion ULV Insecticide SECTION 6-HEALTH HAZARD DATA Acute Effects of Overexposure: May cause headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, weakness, blurred vision,pin-point pupils,tightness in chest,laboured breathing,sweating,muscle spasms and coma. Effects of Chronic Exposure: Prolonged exposure may cause dermatitis. Other Health Effects:Malathion is a cholinesterase inhibitor. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN:The antidote is atropine. Large doses at 2 to 4 mg intravenously or intramuscularly as soon cyanosis is overcome. Repeat at 5 to 10 minute intervals until signs of atropinization appear. SECTION 7-FIRST AID PROCEDURES Inhalation:Move victim to fresh air and restore breathing if required. OBTAIN MEDICAL ADVICE. Skin Contact: Flush skin with running water and thoroughly wash with soap and water. If irritation persists seek medical attention. Ingestion:Give 1 to 2 glasses water(200 to 500 ml)to dilute material. Do Not Induce Vomiting. OBTAIN MEDICAL ADVICE. . If spontaneous vomiting occurs, lean victim forward with head down to avoid breathing of vomitus, rinse mouth and administer more water. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Eye Contact: Flush eyes with running water for 20 minutes. Hold eyelids open during flushing. If irritation persists seek Medical Attention. SECTION 8-PREVENTIVE MEASURES Respiratory Protection:NIOSH/MSHA approved respirator. Eye Protection:Chemical safety glasses. Skin Protection:Chemical resistant gloves. Other Personal Protective Equipment:Coveralls. Engineering Controls:Local exhaust or ventilation. Handling Procedures and Equipment: Avoid breathing vapour:, contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Wash thoroughly after use. Storage Requirements:Store in cool,dry,ventilated area. Keep out of reach of children and pets. Storage Temperature:Min:5°C Max: 40°C SECTION 9-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DATA Spill and Leak Procedures: Stop leak, contain spill by diking and absorb with suitable absorbent and transfer into waste container for disposal. Clean area with detergent and water, absorb wash and place in waste container. Remove any contaminated soil for proper disposal. Waste Disposal: Dispose of empty container in household garbage. Dispose of waste product in accordance with Local, Provincial or Federal government regulations. Environmental Effects:Do not contaminate local water supplies or environments. The information contained herein is considered accurate and offered only as a guide to the handling of this specific material. This information, does not relate to its use with any other material or product or in any process. No warranty,expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy of the data or the performance of the material by Nu- Gro Corporation Inc. This Material Safety Data Sheet is valid for three Years from Issue Date. Prepared by:Technical Department Issue Date:March 31,2000 Page 2 of 2 Malathion Web Page Page 1 of 3 Malathion and Pesticide Information The Complete chemical name for malathion is "Dimethoxy Phosphino Thioyl Thio Butanedioic Acid Diethyl Ester (C10 H19 06 P S2)". It is classified as a organophosphate chemical, and Cholinesterase inhibitor. It is a non-specific agent (meaning it can kill things other than mosquitos) and kills mosquitos by disrupting their nervous system. If it were dispersed in a gaseous state, it could be called a "Nerve Gas", but it is an atomized liquid, therefore it should more accurately be called a "Nerve Fog". It affects the nervous system of all organisms that it comes in contact with, to varying degrees. Malathion proponents believe this toxin is filtered out of the regularly healthy adult human body by a fully functional immune system. But what about the others? Please read on... For the Material Safety Data Sheet of the formulation of technical grade malathion used in Winnipeg see the MSDS. Why are some people so concerned? Every summer, hundreds of people in Winnipeg request exemption from the City's insect control programs. Fogging trucks and chemical sprayers are required to maintain spray-free buffer zones around such properties in most cases. That's distressing to people who feel that fogging provides relief from all those annoying mosquitoes. But many others say they simply want to protect their children from harm caused by pesticides. Isn't malathion used in fogging completely safe? Malathion fogging can be hazardous to human health. Malathion has been connected to numerous health problems. Some studies have raised specific concerns about developmental disorders, gastrointestinal problems, neurological effects, and endocrine disruption associated with malathion. Given the lack of knowledge about the long-term effects of pesticides, no one is in a position to issue a guarantee about their safety, especially with regard.to the health of children, pets, elderly people, and people with breathing difficulties and weakened immune systems. Why are children especially at risk? Kids crawl around and put things in their mouth, providing ready pathways for pesticide exposure. Children also have a larger skin surface, breathe more air, and drink more fluids in proportion to body weight than do adults. Don't we need to spray to protect against West Nile Virus? West Nile Virus has arrived inbird populations in Manitoba, for more info, see our West Nile Update. Spraying dangerous chemicals to control mosquitoes that may carry the virus is ineffective, expensive and hazardous. And those most at risk from West Nile virus - young children, the elderly and those with chronic disease - are also the people most at risk from pesticide spraying. New City, where seven West Nile cases (but no fatalities) occurred in 2001, stopped fogging with Malathion for adult mosquitoes in 1999 because it doesn't work, isn't needed, and presents an unacceptable risk to public health. Do we just have to put up with all the mosquitoes? There are lots of things people can do to reduce the number of mosquitoes and protect against bites. Non-toxic measures include draining standing water to eliminate breeding sites for http://members.shaw.ca/nomalathionplease/info.htm 10/22/2002 Malathion Web Page Page 2 of 3 mosquitoes, wearing long sleeves, avoiding shady areas and, if necessary, applying a safe repellent. What about other Animals? It can take weeks for an animal's nervous system to return to normal after exposure to malathion, and repeated exposures can compound these effects. Long term effects are even seen in subsequent generations. Non-specific chemicals like Malathion do not only effect the target species, but their effects are far reaching. Effects on the Environment Whenever we attempt to control insect populations (a nice phrase for genocide), we are affecting the delicate balance that nature provides. Mosquitoes are a natural part of the Manitoban ecosytem, and our attempts at mosquito genocide put many other species at risk, including frogs, bees, dragonflies, moths, butterflies, and countless others. Understanding pesticide concerns Many parents and health care professionals are concerned about the dangers of chemical pesticides, especially when children are exposed. There is increasing scientific research to back them up. The following questions and answers outline some of the major issues. On the back is a list of sources for more information. How real are the health concerns? Studies of health effects associated with chronic, low-level exposure to chemical pesticides point to risks including respiratory diseases (such as asthma), immune system disorders, endocrine disruption, developmental disorders, and cancer. Pesticides are poisons, after all. And they are so widespread that residues have turned up in the oceans, in groundwater, and even in human breast milk in the high Arctic. Haven't pesticides been used for years without harmful effects? With over 3,000 pesticide products registered for use in Canada, there are many gaps in our knowledge of pesticide effects. Some impacts may take years to appear. Studies of endocrine disruption and immune system suppression linked to pesticide exposure in amphibians have been reported in the past year. Now researchers are wondering if a decline in human fertility is also associated with pesticides in the environment. Isn't it enough to follow label directions when pesticides are applied? No. Label directions are intended to prevent acute poisoning of the person who is applying the pesticides. But they don't address the impacts of chronic and low-level exposures to pesticides. In March 2002, the federal government announced a plan to tighten up the registration process for pesticides and to update information on chemicals that were first approved for use 15 or more years ago. Want to read more about malathion and the other chemicals used to control insects, please visit our links. Contact Information http://members.shaw.ca/nomalathionplease/info.htm 10/22/2002 West Nile Virus and mosquito spraying Cambridge Massachusetts Page 1 of 2 Alewife Study Group>government>Jan 312001, Health Department notice I Search West Nile Virus and mosquito spraying Community forum Cambridge Public Health Dept. 806 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge Senior Center (across from City Hall) Wed. Jan. 31 2001, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm This e updated January 27 2001 p� p �Y The following information is from Sam Lipson,of the Cambridge Public Health Department,in an email sent on January 8, 2001. "West Nile Virus Public Forum Set for Jan.31 West Nile Virus will very likely be present in Eastern Massachusetts again this year.In preparation for this occurrence,a community forum will be held on Wednesday,January 31,from 7 p.m.-9 p.m.,at the Cambridge Senior Center,806 Massachusetts Avenue.This forum will provide an opportunity for residents to share concerns about spraying pesticides and effective control of mosquitoes.The information from the forum will be used to help develop the City's plan for the 2001 season. The City's response to West Nile Virus last summer raised many issues for residents.There were concerns about effectiveness and safety of spraying,as well as communication strategies to inform the community.We want to hear about these and other West Nile Virus issues that concern Cambridge residents." The following information is from Cambridge Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides,excerpted from an email sent on January 8,2001. "Here are some notes from the meeting... at the Cambridge Health Department on the proposed Jan.31 meeting. ... There will be a short overview of the issues by Harold Cox and Henrietta Davis. Most of the time will be devoted to hearing citizens from Cambridge speak about their experiences of the spraying last summer or their views about[West Nile Virus]spraying. There will be some wrap-up of events with a description of the process that the Health Commissioner will go through to develop the final plan.Another public meeting in late March will present a draft plan for this year's [West Nile Virus]." The following information is from Cambridge Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides,from an email sent on January 27, 2001. "Children are more vulnerable to pesticides than adults,"said Sheldon Krimsky,Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy at Tufts University in his presentation"Ten Myths About Pesticides,"last year in New York. "The rapidly developing brain and nervous system of infants make them much more sensitive to neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors than adults."Last year,trucks sprayed all streets in Cambridge with a fog of neurotoxic,endocrine-disruptive pesticides in an attempt to stop the spread of West Nile Virus(WNV). Widespread street spraying of pesticides will likely occur again this year,since WNV is expected to be seen in the region as the weather warms. "Even•w xlw Vic® ' about 25%of the pesticide acbaMy reaches the target organism,"said David Pimentel,Professor of Insect Ecology at Cornell University. "In the ho://www.alewife.org/government/2001_1_31_publichealthdepartment westnilevirus.htj... 10/22/2002 .West Nile Virus and mosquito spraying Cambridge Massachusetts Page 2 of 2 case of New York's spraying,"which also used street spraying as in Cambridge, "it could be less than one percent.The rest goes off into the environment where it can have a detrimental effect on public health and ecosystems."In attempt to kill the most mosquitoes,which stay largely in our backyards and parks,the city tried to leave a lingering pesticide mist in our streets,which entered numerous homes through front windows left open because of the summer heat.West Nile Virus is a cause for concern because it can cause serious illness and in some cases even death.However,the vast majority of people who become infected experience flu-like symptoms,if any at all.The first outbreak in New York caused seven deaths of elderly people, compared to the flu which caused 2200 deaths.No people in Massachusetts have been diagnosed with the illness.The current generation of pesticides is less hazardous than the previous ones,which had also been approved as"safe for use"before being banned,but they have not yet been studied as intensively.In Stamford, Conn.,four dozen Medical Doctors signed a statement calling for"an immediate halt to any further widespread spraying of pesticides to handle the concern of WNV."They"believe that the current spraying of pesticides poses a significant health hazard to humans."The City of Cambridge is currently considering how it will address the concerns over WNV.The Cambridge Public Health Dept.is holding a forum to discuss the city plans for WNV and to listen to residents'concerns about spraying pesticides and effective control of mosquitoes.Methods other than widespread spraying have been shown to be more effective and less hazardous.The Cambridge Senior Center is in Central Square,across from City Hall on Mass. Ave.For more information about concerns over pesticide spraying,call Craig Kelley at 354-8353. http://www.cambridgegreen.orglcambfdgepesticides.html For more information&research Cambridge Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides(www.cambridgegreen.orgicambridgepesticides.html) is not affiliated with the Alewife Study Group Contact the Alewife Study Group,North Cambridge Massachusetts,by email at info alewife.ora http://www.alewife.org/government/2001_1_31_publichealthdepartment westnilevirus.hti... 10/22/2002 at!' venue, , oerat from- er's Fu- Danbury;-and oi�nson,a 10-terra. irigslutionsfrom ington Republican from J Tew Britain,are Zdonczyk said he wool p is in competing in the new 5th District :, the state to get more of its dol,, The debate, sponsored by the ck from,Washington."For Greater Waterbury Chamber of every dollar we send,we get back Commerce and held at the South 67 cents,"hesaid. ee Mile turday �xh c:��. tand u f West Nile Diagnosis Is 14& He was ed A Greenwich woman in her 50s not and An-An- disappear until the state has lio. Mr. was infected by the West Nile vi- experienced several hard frosts. d Presi- rus,the 14th Person in Connecti "We continue to urge Connecti- , s Auto. cut to test positive for the mosqui- cut residents to:take the neces-; t of St. to-borne: disease, state health g Besides saryprecautionstoavoitimosqu esason, officialsamouncedMohday. to bites through the end of the ington; The woman dotnj)l#W of few- mosquito season,,,saidpr.Joxel ,stall of ver,headache and nit*le aches Garcia,the state health;commis- ; r Trema=" in early September. She was sioner. three never hospitalized and has recce Evidence of West Nile virus in io,An- "c vered. Blood tests conducted b birds mosquitoes m and 1 People has ere a the Connecticut Department of bee Lght ' a all of public Health were positive for ties of Connecticut~ chews. WestNile. ThemedianalOWtheni8epeo- Y,at 8 While cold weather has dra ple hospitalized',the state with ; neral mahCally reduced the number o West Nitle is 69. A ury to mosquitoes that can transmit the for a virus,state officials say the risk of fected 3,174 people this year, io ry Ce- contracting West Nile virus will eluding 173 fatally. ' 4 t { Ft E A E 1 V E ED OCT 17 2002 10 J.. P & Z Commission As %6 resiAjen*15 n-f Win(J,:,(:-)r- -For 42 years and raising our 4 sons An town we have owned 3 homes the Last one being a Condo which we live in n,w. It is so much easier now that we are getting older- We have been reading about the proposed 20 unit complex For 55 and older by developer Robert Urso an 6. 37 acres off Pleasant Valley Rd. On Sept. 24, 2002 1 attended LK P & Z meeting to hear more about it and was hoping to speak. I had to leave early due to a previous appointment. The next day seeing the article in the J. 1. that it is going to be an the Oct. 22, 2002 agenda. We will not he abJe to qlpetinn so we have chosen to write an editorial and send a (:-d;: 1` & Z to be read at this meetinu. We think it is great that developers are thinking of us seniors and buiJding them. Uur is has a large number of seniors, not just-.. because my husband and I are now in that group are we for this an(J others ones proposed within reason. Two years ago when we sold our 200 year old home we were looking for a Condo Complex or a Senior Residential Development so we no longer had the work or - headaches that goes with a home. At our age we don' t bring children into the community that G,C)LILd building another school, not that we are against families moving here after all we raised our 4 sons here and choice to remain (:,if': 'Live in town they say our taxes are out a-F site.. 11(:)w Lji--t(l could traffic be from 20 units? We don' t Feel it could be that bad. Most of us Seniors watch out for kids playing in the streets or in there yards. Remember we are parents and grandparents ourselves.. As far as mixing homes and condo units, what could that do to your area. Also how could new homes or condo bring your values down, please W real. When we lived an Rye St. we had a Gulf Course near- our and also a factory at the beginning of our street they didn' t bring our value down. Most Condo Complex' s are maintained By the way all communitys are family communiLys whether they are single homes or Condos. Thanks to developers like Robert Ursa for thinking of us Seniors, who no longer want the maintance that goes with a single home. We have been in our Condo Complex for the last 2 years and are sorry we didn' t make tho move 5 years earlier., I' m sure the members of P & Z will take into consideration th(*-a new complex beinq near single homes and requiring larger buffers then normal and trees that are large. V a.. & Warren W & I W a--1 ot at O/V T. M. Burgess Insurance Vincent Prestileo Senrnmg The Commtmity For Over 30 Yem President September 24, 2002 Planning ck,Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor South INindsor,CT L....., Re: Summenvood Project Dear Members: As a life long resident of South Windsor and a business owner that is concerned about the hiture of our town,I would like to encourage you to approve the application for the Summenvood project presented by Robert Urso. I feel strongly that this proposal otters the residents of South Windsor an option that is presently unavailable here in town. My father,a former town council member and developer here in South XX-`indsor since 1956 recently returned to town after over 20 years as a resident of Florida. W-1at he and my mother wanted«-pis elderly housing with a spacious, spread out design. W.`hat he found was a very limited selection of properties, none of which suited what he had become accustomed to in Florida. After spending a lifetime here in South Windsor,active in the community, raising three children,two of whom still reside here,he was very disappointed with the options hew-,as left with, settling for a condominium at Plum Ridge. It seams like when it comes to the south of this town,we bend over backwards to offer facilities second to none. Sports complexes,newly renovated schools, swimming pool upgrades are commonplace here. Yet the elderly in town find their options severely limited. Mr. Urso offers our seniors something that no one yet has and I would urge the members of this commission to welcome this to town and offer it to our elderly residents as another reason to return and stay in South Windsor. They were the ones who have worked hard, paid the taxes and brought the town as far as it has come. �Y'e should do everything we can to offer them every opportunity to stay here. Very truly yours, Vincent Prestileo 828 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor, CT. 06074 Phone: (860) 644-2534 Tax: (860) 644-8500 Email: yprestileo(a4mbumessins.com www.tmburgessins.com rcto -_2002... Town-of_-South'Whidsor. Rann Zonft mmis$ion South-for Tlali -4540 Stun Aver South for,CL-40074 Attn: KavIwJAcCann;A0hakjnan and 'the -members As stated In the amendments to senior-mddenw de of ado SRD shouldhave.minkhal impacConsurnr,U tcfictg pro . _This SltlY.-i ac not Y g prop+-#xrt:Me_vAWe- rhood. only the-seventeen abutting - - Ws like their trying to sandwich these condos between two streets. i can see the homes on Sharon Drive when the leaves have fallen. That shows you how close the two streets are located near each other. The architectural;design.shouldbe ompa t arcl acture n+vu ing neighborhood. Tier-:�ctures I hay.*� abbwyou,.tW'mimes In7ffiWarea are single fan yranch or- lit levee T#ts deli ffoor of##re dominl ssa<. questionare three:unit.town houses,-not at 1ornpatr'E Ahe ne oc _ They are tg4ng to squeeze twenty vntt on s C-37- cre oftand'-betweert�vbvaft-ond just thhty4lve feet away from our property dies. The traffic Impacts-wilf not be deftirAei1#1 la-Vie e d ai°characterx ig o d. lbeg ._.. to r,just om more carpi --nei od=fs-nnesar to rnaW:W6 iava ren walking-to:and from-the bus sty- very moind W�n. Maven the neighborhood ride s bicycles-through meets. : _. Hilton is a cut across from Ellington Road to route five, some of my neighbors have said it takes them five minutes to get out of their driveways to go to work in the morning. The condos will create extra traffic with lawn service, maintenances people, trash removable, bus service for the elderly and etc. The zoning map i purchased from-town half-'On S pteember 41002 sEtsttws tha#t ece of pro party-iis zoned as=A-20, which means:Iry ane fo -siin -family located on acre of-Und. Wesfo=not want fiie::wning lkwl6be wed. It doesn't seem right to the people in the neighborhood that the zoning law should be changed to accommodate two people, the owner of the property Mr. Greenberg and the realtor Mr. Urso. There is something said to the effect that you cannot create your own hardship I I I I The zoning laws are there to protect the majority of the people, that's why we have them. Why was the right of way granted to the realtor?This property should be left as open space. Tha promise of buffers'is all weff--and gg�d�but t#u -sae=enoughcif=a=boffrAw.. na taro pdiracy?�-#t*ta#ces a-good ten:yearw tmO b=rearh- sty. Pi=a sa:-: . our. rY condo 35 feetfrom your-property t # end ancrinvitatim to all thwboard Viers b�=#��Y g per is tse as to- -the back-Y ardg-nf the a seeiit in pion. lwain Ten years is too long to wait for a buffer, I'm sure you all agree? A staff member of the condo's association even admitted to a reporter that there wasn't enough of a buffer. Drainage has-beena:problem with-our bomes-s' -t _havo.bsen bu1FL-:--V%whavV drainage pipesnmWngahrouglteur:backits.--VAth -d urbance s-.prc rty, removal of tree$.-this could ,avrprnblerxr-imback yards-`iat-vimuld be::4one for thetesidence of the:homeaffut are:-now inmdatence. The catch basin they're planning is just another breeding ground for mosquitoes. With mosquitoes in abundance more each year and the West Nile Virus, we are concern on who will monitor the owner of the property to see that the catch basin is properly sprayed or what ever needs to be done to kill the mosquito population? Will they have to report to a town official? if not, how can we be sure that it's being properly taken care of? Thank--you lbryow:iconsideratJon. -fspers, . o _f�ia_A #�din 115- E wer . :mouth 1 t M Phone-'140a )MOP13 a Appl # 02-48P, Summerwood Senior Residence Development Public Hearing 9-24-02; continued 10-22-02 Planning Dept Report (Revised) 1. Request for resubdivision, Special Exception and site plan approval to construct a 20-unit Senior Residence Development on property located north of Hilton Dr, south of Sharon Dr. The resubdivision will create a 6-acre lot in the A-20 zone, leaving the remainder of the property in the Industrial zone. The application includes construction of a new Town street within an existing Town right-of-way, from which the 6-acre lot will attain its required frontage of 200 feet for the Senior Residence Development. With the provision of the new street, the lot appears to meet zoning and subdivision requirements for a residential lot. 2. There will not be a street trees easement on the new street, as the right-of-way is exactly 50 feet wide, and the street trees easement would be located outside of that 50' right-of-way. There are no sidewalks shown, as there are no sidewalks in this neighborhood, there will be no children needing a place to wait for a school bus, and the sidewalks would impact two existing houses. No sidewalks are shown for several reasons: (1) there are no existing sidewalks in the neighborhood, (2) new sidewalks will impact the two existing houses that will now be corner lots; and (3) there are no school children needing sidewalks to access school bus stops. 3. The new lot is surrounded by single family homes on three sides, Industrial- zoned land to the west. There are two existing houses on either side of the new street that will become corner lots. One of the two houses was constructed as if it was on a corner lot, the other was not. There are a number of existing non- conforming outbuildings on the single-family lots surrounding the new SRD lot; the outbuildings are generally located too close to their rear property boundaries. A large quantity of yard wastes that appears to be generated by the single-family residents has been dumped all along the perimeter of the subject property. 4. The applicant is requesting SRD approval for 20 units, consisting of 8 single units and 12 units in four buildings of 3 units each. The units would vary in size according to the newly-adopted formula, with 6 units under 1400 sq ft,"6 units about 2000 sq ft, and the remaining units between 1400 and 1800 sq ft. 5. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include: 14-4 ItAA 46 4 ct yLy 4t t4 C(4aVI A-A f a. traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood; b. there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area; c. surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted; d. impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure; e. the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created; f. the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development; g. the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South Windsor; h. the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open space land; i. the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped residents or visitors; and j. the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile. 6. The proposed density is 3.25 units per net buildable acre; maximum 4 units per net buildable acre are allowed. Proposed impervious coverage is 31.5%; 60% allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or 30 spaces; the applicant has provided 76 spaces, or 3.8 spaces per unit. 7. There are no regulated wetlands on this site. IWA/CC approved this application on October 2 with two bonds, one in the amount of$10,000 to ensure Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures, one for $20,000 to ensure establishment of the basin. Also, mosquito controls in the form of a larvicide must be applied to the detention basin. In accordance with accepted recommendations and proof of application be sent to the Environmental Planner or Director of Public Health. a 8. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to 158. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is currently capped at 250. 9. Public water and sewer are available to the site. WPCA approval is required for the sewer extension. 10.The subject property is at a higher elevation than the land to the south and east, with a rather abrupt drop-off between the subject lot and the existing houses. The detention basin is located about 20 feet from several units and is about nine feet deep at the deepest part. It will be a wet basin. The east wall of the basin is effectively a berm, as the land will slope on both sides of the detention basin in that area. 1 l.The site is wooded, with predominantly deciduous trees. The applicant is showing a combined yard and buffer of 35 feet. Since the existing vegetation is predominantly deciduous, evergreen interplanting is necessary to provide adequate screening. The buffer plan as proposed shows a fairly solid buffer planting at the inner edge of the cleared area, leaving the majority of the existing trees in the buffer area undisturbed. 12.The applicant submitted a traffic study which indicates that there will be little impact to the existing roadway network. There are no site line issues on either side of the new street. 13.The Architecture and Design Review Board reviewed the plans on August 15. They recommended that the PZC place an approval condition requiring review of the buffer for adequacy after planting. They also had several other recommendations: a. Mechanical units in the rear of the building must be placed under decks and/or screened. b. Some treatment must be placed on the concrete foundation— either some kind of finish or the addition of foundation plantings. c. The final colors and any signage proposed must return to the ADRC once they have been determined. d. Once the transformer units have been located, screening of these units must be provided. e. All the garage doors should look the same; and f. The walls of the single family units should be broken up with either windows and/or foundation plantings. e 14.We note at garages are e rincipal architec ral feature of b th e single- in and multi-family its. The garages nate the front a ade of the m 1-family units, the garages protru ut in front of t ingle-family its. Staff suggest .d'that at the least, the garage doors inc orate architectural features such as vifindows. 15.A hold harmless agreement and permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the refuse & recycling vehicles to enter the site. 16.If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests no additional approval conditions. t q � a co �- - i j,v'jL 4-,w MEMORANDUM ° � To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer Date: 10/22/02 RE: App 02-48P, Summerwood SRD Application I have reviewed the Revised Site Plan for a the Summerwood SRD dated October 10, 2002. 1 appreciate that most of my previous comments have been addressed. I have the following comments: 1. Suggest the turn-around in the driveway for unit 4 be moved closer to the house. 2. An application must be submitted to the WPCA for their review and approval. Please call me (x 245) if you have any questions. MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN CLERK FROM: SUBJECT: DISQUALIFICATION DATE: j C f Z.Z L L�.2 BY MEANS OF THIS MEMORANDUM,I AM DISQUALIFYING MYSELF FROMANY/ALL PARTICIPATION IN MATTERS CONCERNING: APPLICATION NO. (i —-' � P NAME OF PROJECT S i tit'Y7/l� w' � - f1Z►'S S G C L�j'� .�(�-S CL[GCS REASON FOR DISQUALIFICATIONb� C� SIGNATURE OF COMbIISSIONER rA MEMORANDUM NV 62002 To: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, Town Engineer From: Robert Deptula, Environmental Health Officer Date: November 6, 2002 Re: Town of South Windsor Mosquito Larvicide Program The Town has been involved in a mosquito control larvicide program for the past three years. A product called Vectolex CG has been applied to all catch basins several timesti-) per"Mosquito Season"at the rate of approximately one teaspoon per basin. This is a granular product and is applied manually. It contains a biological organism called Bacillus Sphaericus which is an effective larvicide specific to mosquito and black fly larvae. Based on the decreased number of mosquito complaints to date this seems to be an effective program. Additionally, on several occasions over the past two years an aduiticide (Resmythrin)Cs4MN� has been used at Town parks to decrease the mosquito population. This product is effective and quickly (within four hours) breaks down upon exposure to light, especially sunlight. The mosquito control section of the DEP Wildlife Division has indicated that, to date, there has been no correlation with any mosquito control product and lobster deaths. In fact, the scientific community has not found any mosquito products in the water or lobsters. RD/cm S� ci u �' • 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 ��OsoR.CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL November 15, 2002 7002 0510 0001 2314 4390 Mr. Robert Urso Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC 18-3 Arthur Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl #Appl 02-48P, Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC, request for Special Exception to 4.1.12 and Site Plan of Development for a 20 unit Senior Residence Development to be known as "Summerwood", on property located southerly of Sharon Drive, northwesterly of Hilton Drive, A-20 zone Dear Mr. Urso: We regret to advise you that on November 12, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny without prejudice the above-referenced application for Special Exception to 4.1.12 and Site Plan of Development. The denial reasons cited by the Commission related to the architectural design of the units not being aesthetically pleasing and not in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, Kevin McCann, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission KMcC/kah cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal Peter DeMallie DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers ♦ planners ♦ surveyors ��� gis ♦ gps ♦ landscape architects f( November 26, 2002 Marcia Banach, Planning Director Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Subdivision DPI Project No. 01-1468 Sharon Drive South Windsor, Connecticut On behalf of our clients, Robert Urso of Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC and Arnold Greenberg of MG Realty Limited Partnership, I hereby request a 90-day extension from the original filing date for recording the subdivision mylars in the office of the Town Clerk. Thank you. DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. By: R. DeMallie Principal cc: Robert Urso Karen M. Isherwood, P.E. Arnold Greenberg David Murdock 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860)291-8755 •Fax: (860)291-8757 Email:dpicivil@aol.com CADocuments and Settings\galen\My Documents\FORMS\LETTERS\1468Urso.doc DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers ♦ planners ♦ surveyors gis ♦ gps ♦ landscape architects December 5, 2002 Marcia Banach, Planning Director Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Subdivision DPI Project No. 01-1468 Sharon Drive South Windsor, Connecticut On behalf of our clients, Robert Urso of Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC and Arnold Greenberg of MG Realty Limited Partnership, I hereby request a second 90-day extension from the original filing date for recording the subdivision mylars in the office of the Town Clerk. Thank you. ��fj VA l rJ DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. By: //,& , ,,�/ — Peter R. DeMallie Principal cc: Robert Urso Karen M. Isherwood,P.E. Arnold Greenberg David Murdock 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor,Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860)291-8755 •Fax: (860)291-8757 Email:dpicivil@aol.com CADocuments and Settings\galen\My Documents\FORMS\LETTERS\1468Urso.doe /40% af4 ca ~ 70-Wt L 07 9 � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 ~OSOR.co�'�� TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 x December 16, 2002 Mr. Peter DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. DeMallie: Re: Appl#02-48P, Summerwood Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on December 10, 2002, to grant a second 90-day extension to file mylars for the above-referenced subdivision in the Town Clerk's office. The new filing deadline is September 24, 2003. This extension is the final extension permitted under Connecticut General § 8-25. Sincerely, Kevin McCann Planning&Zoning Commission KMcC/kah /towN s�, c ~ Tiowt, OP S a u 4�' 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 °soR.CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 Y December 16, 2002 Mr. Peter DeMallie Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. DeMallie: Re: Appl #02-48P, Summerwood Please be advised that the Planning &Zoning Commission voted on December 10, 2002, to grant a 90-day extension for filing subdivision plans for the above-referenced subdivision in the Town Clerk's office. The original filing deadline was February 25, 2003, the new filing deadline is June 26, 2003. State statutes authorize one additional 90-day filing extension. If you wish to request an additional extension,please request in writing prior to that date. Sincerely, Kevin McCann Planning&Zoning Commission KMcC/kah 'I \ \/ I T / I / / �._-i 1 / I 7 / 1-n /72.7 , 7 e 77.4 //dooft 72.6OF - x 77.7 / �- i • sy Rom.. 72-3 '�90 \X77.2 l 72.5 POOL O k t x I x 74. x / / O x + 1 x72.5 727 / • 69.9x 72.5 + 69.2 x \ / CBS 72-1 x x 69.7 71.4 \ 74.2 70.4 \ x O �O <, CD .2 / 73.0 x x x 67.9 �� \ 67.3 x 71.3 70.7 x / x 67. c s 70.6 70.1 �O 6 x RI-QG x 73.3 71.3 74.7 5 SO ?P)w L _ 40.2 7Cdf9 � � _ !� 70.e _ 69. 65.9, *4t - �c �. 1 t yam" POOL x 65.0 l t fF TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON 5�� .W[Y . Phone No. AddressDPL /WS SSAT5t t-m5 kjl Site Name 5,jM(1164G(JWn) P&Z No. (�� - ►� Owner, 8Z L&)E; A lsocC . Phone No. Contractor koN Signature of Owner Date: Signature of Design Engrg:' Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and n ture of�'change. Include Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. S W Uhl S # { * Reason for Change: (Why is change required) v P ti u i . X APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning r Date: 1 4 Town Engineer Date: ) Dir. of Public Work4 Date: Other: Date: STAFF COMMENTS: f White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod —Engineering Department 0 �� s� �• a C U s ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786 w AREA CODE 860/644-2511,EXTENSION 279 rNdSOR•co FAX 860/644-3781 BARRY D. GULIANO Town Attorney VIA FACSIMILE 8v FIRST CLASS MAIL MAR 2 7 2003 SOD rli WINDSOR P�AMMG DEpr March 25, 2003 Robert F. Peters, Esq. Devlin, Peters & Tarpey 11 South Road Somers, CT 06071 Re: Summerwood Senior Residence Development - Future Street (Day Drive) Dear Attorney Peters: To follow up on our recent telephone conversations, this letter is to advise you that it is the Town's position that the strip of land providing access to 6.37 acres currently under development plans by Horseshoe Lane Associates, L.L:C. as a senior residence development is a public road or highway created by dedication and acceptance pursuant to -Section 13a-48 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The Town's position is based upon the following documentation, copies of which are attached: 1. Subdivision map entitled "Proposed Subdivision Section III A. Pleasant Valley Estates by Primus 8y Welt, Engineers" dated February, 1959 and recorded in the South Windsor Land Records on June 19, 1959. This map was recorded by the owner of the . property and is evidence of the owner's- intent to dedicate the property in question to the public for use as a future street. The property in question contains the- notation "Easement for Future Street" on said map. 2. Resolution of the South Windsor Town Council dated September 8, 1970, which is evidence of the Town's intent to accept this property as a public roadway (see Right-of-Way Number 1). Robert F. Peters, Esq. Page 2 March 25,. 2003 3. Notice recorded October 8, 1970 at Volume 133, Page 623 of the South Windsor Land Records entitled "Memorandum Regarding Rights-of-Way Road Stubs" further evidencing the intent of the Town to accept the road stub identified as "Right-of-Way Number 1," which is the property in question herein. Based upon the above documentation, it is the Town's position that the property in question constitutes a public right-of-way or highway created by dedication and acceptance pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §13a-48. It is also the Town's position that Horseshoe Lane Associates, L.L.C., its successors, assigns, agents and contractors, shall have the legal right to enter said public road area to construct a public road thereon to be known as "Day Drive" pursuant to the approval by the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission of the application to construct a senior residence development. Very truly yours, Bar iano To n tto ney BDG/mpg Enclosures bcc: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning w/o enc. o • 9 � 4'~O30R CON�6