Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpec Ex/Site Plan of Development (8) TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM Application No: 04-33p Official Receipt Date: 4 J104 RECEIVE® Receipt No: APR 2 2 2004 APPLICANT: Corner Meadow, L.L.C. SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT NAME: River Walk Senior Residence Development ,ADDRESS: 1235 S u l l i van Avenue John J. Mitchell 40 Windy Hill Drive, South Windsor,CT OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: Corner Meadow � L � y 4.n Windy Ni 1 1 L1riui- ADDRESS: South windsor, CT COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 1235 Sullivan Ave. , and partially 1209 Sullivan Avenue ASSESSOR'S MAP# 88 PARCEL# 7 ZONE RR & A20 88 6 (partial) NAME, ADDRESS, TEL 86 FAX# OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: Karen Isherwood, P.E. , DPI, 165 S. Satellite Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 291-8755 fax: 291-8757 THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): ❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing required and Certified letter to abutters required) ❑ Subdivision/Re subdivision ❑ 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 4.3.11 ❑ 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 Commission. 01 Signature of Applicant Signature of Property weer afi "- 444 PZC Application 04-33P DENIED RIVER WALK SRD (ITEMS FOR 04-74P SHOULD NOT BE FILED IN THIS FOLDER x 4- C 1�6-22-04 12:01wa Fram- T-060 P.41AI F-384 CILE DECKER ASSOCIATES South Windsor, CT 06074 OW4W"101 To Whom it May Concern: As you know, the success of Senior Residential Developments and Active Adult Communities in South Windsor is evident. Since the firms project was completed in the mid to late nineties,Wyrxemete Court, many builders have acknoMed"d the need and have successfully taker~advantage Of the opportunity to fulfill that need_ Thwe have been few"resales" of these properties. Due to ONtir SAMM popularity, days on the market have been few and seller► have realized very good profits. In some cases Realtors have not been involved in the transactions because owns have been approached dirty by potential buyers who went to be made aware if and when their property should become avallable. This is an obvious indication that the construction of these projcs has been, and continues to be, of interest to a lame number of buyers who are anxious to take advantage of what they we as a fulfilling and satislYing lifestyle. Cecile M. Decker, Broker Cite Decker Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for RIVER WALK A SENIOR RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR SULLIVAN AVENUE at PIERCE ROAD in SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT Prepared By Traffic Engineering Solutions 193 Lexington Road Glastonbury, Connecticut (860) 657-3579 April 2004 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................1 Introduction .............................................................................................................2 ExistingConditions.................................................................................................3 Existing Traffic Volumes......................................................................................4 Accidents.............................................................................................................5 Project Generated Traffic.......................................................................................5 CapacityAnalyses...................................................................................................7 SiteAccess..............................................................................................................9 Conclusions...........................................................................................................10 List of Tables i Table 1 Trip Generation - Senior Adult Housing (18 Attached Units..................6 Table 2 Trip Generation - Residential CondominiumlTownhouse (18 Units). ..................................................................................................6 Table 3 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses ..... ° 8 Table 4 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses..........................................8 C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOW\REPORT.DOC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Corner Meadow, LLC. proposes to construct River Walk, a Senior Residence Development with 18 condominium units on 11.91 acres located at the northwest corner of Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) and Pierce Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. 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 Senior Adult Housing-Attached as well as information for Residential Condominiums/Townhouses with no age restrictions. Because the trips generated by Senior Adult Housing-Attached are less than the trips generated by standard condominium developments, and many people continue to work beyond their fifty-fifth birthday, the traffic impact from the River Walk Senior Residence Development was determined by using the trip generation information for residential Condominium/Townhouse developments. This provides a conservative approach for evaluating the impact from the proposed River Walk. The study assumed that the Senior Residence Development would be constructed over a period of three years from the time of the traffic counts. Capacity analyses were done for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road for the 2003 existing conditions, 2006 No-Build conditions and 2006 Build conditions. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the 2006 Build conditions for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at the site access road. The signalized intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road presently operates at Level of Service (LOS) C during the morning peak hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour and will continue to operate at the same Levels of Service during both peak hours for the 2006 No-Build and 2006 Build conditions. Left turns from Sullivan Avenue onto the site access drive will operate at Level of Service (LOS)A during the morning peak hour and LOS B during the afternoon peak hour and the site access drive approach to Sullivan Avenue will operate at LOS D during the morning peak hour and LOS F during the afternoon peak hour for the 2006 Build conditions when the 18 senior residence condominiums in the River Walk development are completed and fully occupied. It is not unusual for low- volume side streets and site drives at their intersection with a heavily traveled State road to operate at LOS F during the morning or afternoon peak hour, as the delays which define the Level of Service are a function of the available gaps in traffic on the State road and not the volume of traffic leaving the side street or site drive. The capacity analyses also provide the 95th percentile queues (there is a 95 percent statistical probability that this queue will not be exceeded) for the vehicles turning left from Sullivan Avenue and on the site drive approach. The Wh percentile queues on Sullivan Avenue are negligible and the queue on the site access drive will be less than one vehicle during the morning peak hour and just over one vehicle during the afternoon peak hour. Residents of River Walk will be able to adjust their trips to avoid turning left from the site drive during the C:\BUSINESS\COR NERMEADOWRE PORT.DOC afternoon peak hour to avoid the lengthy delays they will encounter when entering Sullivan Avenue. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from the access drive onto Sullivan Avenue (more than 1,000 feet) is greater than the 1SD of 489 feet presented in the ConnDOT guidelines for the 85�h percentile speed of 44 mph in the southbound direction. The Intersection Sight Distance available to drivers looking right from the site access road (525 feet) is also greater than the ISD (478 feet) presented in the ConnDOT guidelines for vehicles approaching from the south at the 85fh percentile speed of 43 mph. The available sight distance for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic (more than 1,000 feet) is far greater than the 357 feet required by the ConnDOT guidelines. Finally, the available Stopping Sight Distance (more than 400 feet) is greater than the required Stopping Sight Distance of 377 feet presented in the ConnDOT reference. A left turn by-pass will be needed to allow traffic traveling in the northbound direction on Sullivan Avenue to continue with minimal impact while vehicles wait to turn left onto the River Walk site. To provide this by-pass, the road will need to be widened by approximately three feet to provide a twenty foot half section from the double yellow centerline to the east edge of the road. In summary, the Level of Service at the signalized intersection of Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road will not be changed by the addition of trips associated with the River Walk Senior Residence Development. Left turns from Sullivan Avenue onto the site drive will operate at very good Levels of Service and drivers leaving the site during all times except the afternoon peak period will experience LOS D or better operations. Since most residents of River Walk will have the flexibility to come and go as they please, they will be able to adjust their travel to avoid the afternoon peak hour when leaving the site. Adequate sight distances will be available to allow drivers to safely enter and exit the development. A northbound left turn by-pass will be needed to allow through traffic on Sullivan Avenue to continue past vehicles waiting to turn left onto the site. No other offsite improvements are suggested by this study as a result of the added trips associated with the River Walk Senior Residence Development. INTRODUCTION Corner Meadow, LLC. proposes to construct a Senior Residence Development with 18 condominium units on 11.91 acres located at the northwest corner of Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) and Pierce Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. The condominium 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 Residence Development. The following scope of work was included in this study: C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOw1REPORT.DOC 2 r r ■ 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: U Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) at Pierce Road; ■ Making 24-hour directional machine counts on Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) in the vicinity of the access drive. The count included a directional speed study to determine the 85th percentile speed of travel in each direction on Sullivan Avenue (85th percentile speed was used to determine the intersection and stopping sight distances needed for vehicles entering and leaving the site). ■ Obtaining from ConnDOT traffic accident data for the latest three year period for Sullivan Avenue in the vicinity of the site and at the intersection with Pierce Road. ■ Obtaining from ConnDOT a copy of the traffic signal plan for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road. ■ Making visual observations of roadways and land use conditions along Sullivan Avenue in the vicinity of the site. ■ Field measuring the sight distances (looking left and right) available for drivers entering and leaving the site access drive and comparing these distances with the Connecticut DOT Guidelines for Intersection Sight Distances for the 8Vh percentile speeds determined from the speed study made for Sullivan Avenue. ■ Determining the number of trips expected to be added to the roadway system by the proposed 18 Senior Condominium Units. ■ Completing morning and afternoon peak period capacity analyses for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road 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 Condominium Units. Also, completing capacity analyses for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at the site access drive for the traffic volumes anticipated upon completion of the Senior Residential Condominium Units. r EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed River Walk development is a Senior Residence Development with 18 attached (condominium) homes. The development is proposed for 11.97 acres located at the northwest comer of Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) and Pierce Road in South Windsor. River Walk will have direct access to Sullivan Avenue just south of the southerly drive to Mitchell Fuel Company. The existing southerly Mitchell Fuel Company drive will be abandoned and a connection will be made between the River Walk drive and the Mitchell Fuel Company parking lot and the existing drive to the single family home on the site will be abandoned. Visual observations were made for Sullivan Avenue and traffic counts were made at the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road and along Sullivan Avenue in the vicinity of the site access road. r C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOw\REPORT.DOC 3 Sullivan Avenue runs from Route 30 (Ellington Road and Oakland Road) at its south end to Route 5 (John Fitch Boulevard)at its northerly end. The road runs from south to north for a distance of about one and one-quarter miles where it turns to the west-northwest and continues for another two plus miles to Route 5. The site is located at the northwest comer of Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road, about 4,500 feet north of Route 30. In the vicinity of the site Sullivan Avenue is 32 feet wide with a single 12 foot travel lane in the southbound direction and a 14 foot travel lane in the northbound direction. A double yellow center line separates the two directions of travel and solid white edge lines delineate three-foot shoulders along both sides of the road. Sullivan Avenue is straight north of the site and curves to the left as it travels southerly through the Pierce Road intersection. The posted speed limit on Sullivan Avenue is 40 miles per hour(mph). Land use along Sullivan Avenue near the site is predominantly residential including the Collins Hill Active Adult homes and Sunrise Lane residential subdivision with access along Collins Crossing and the Strawberry Fields Luxury Active Adult homes. Directly opposite the site is the Treasure Trunk Antique and Folk Art Shop and directly north of the site are the Mitchell Fuel Company and the Maj. Michael Donnelly Land Preserve. The proposed site access drive will intersect Sullivan Avenue from the west about 350 feet north of Pierce Road. Existing Traffic Volumes Twenty-four hour automatic traffic recorder(ATR) counts were obtained from the Connecticut DOT for Sullivan Avenue in the vicinity of the site. The ConnDOT counts, made during May 2001, were supplemented by traffic counts made for this study. Weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak period turning movement counts were made on June 26, 2003 at the intersection of Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road. Additionally, a 24-hour directional traffic count and speed study was done on June 12 and 13, 2003 for Sullivan Avenue along the site frontage. According to the ConnDOT counts, the 2001 average daily traffic(ADT) on Sullivan Avenue was 18,500 vehicles per day (vpd). The actual 24-hour count during May 2001 was 20,317 vehicles. According to the ConnDOT machine count the traffic volume during the morning peak hour on Sullivan Avenue was 1,313 vehicles per hour(vph) and during the afternoon peak hour was 1,730 vph. The machine count made for this study found that the daily traffic volume was 16,657 vehicles. The turning movement counts indicate that the morning peak hour occurred from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM when 1,286 vehicles traveled Sullivan Avenue along the site frontage (661 vehicles traveled northbound and 625 vehicles traveled southbound). The afternoon peak hour occurred from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM when 2,056 vehicles traveled Sullivan Avenue along the site frontage (1,049 northbound and 1,007 southbound). The June 2003 turning movement counts and 24-hour machine count/speed study are included in the Appendix to this report. C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOw\REPORT.DOC 4 Accidents The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) Bureau of Planning and Research compiles records of accident data reported by investigating police authorities. Accidents which result in death, injury, or property damage in excess of$1,000 are required to be reported. Accident data was obtained for Sullivan Avenue from 500 feet south of Pierce Road to 500 feet north of Mitchell Fuel Company (located at the north property line of the site). The accident data covered the latest three-year period for which records are available, January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001. During the three years covered by the ConnDOT accident data a total of 13 accidents were reported along this 1,500-foot section of Sullivan Avenue. Nearly all the accidents (11 of the 13) were rear end collisions. Nine of the reported accidents occurred at the signalized intersection with Pierce Road. The ConnDOT Bureau of Planning and Research also assembles the reported accidents on State roadways and compiles the accidents in a report entitled Traffic Accident Surveillance Report(TASR). The TASR is used to prioritize accident sites statewide. A second list, the Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSSS), is a listing of locations which offer the greatest promise of accident reduction resulting from implementation of corrective action. The most recent TASR cover the period from 1998 to 2000. The section of Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) in the vicinity of the site is not included in the TASR as having an accident rate greater than should be expected for that type of roadway. PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC New trips to the roadway system generated by the proposed 18 condominium units in the River Walk Senior Residence Development 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 18 Senior Residence condominiums are being developed for "Seniors"who are at least 55 years old. The ITE reference provides trip generation information for"Senior Adult Housing—Attached" and for standard condominiums under"Residential Condominium/Townhouse". The trips generated by the 18 condominium units were calculated for Senior Adult Housing and Standard Housing to provide a comparison of the number of trips Senior and Standard condominiums would generate. The trip generation was based on Land Use Code 252- "Senior Adult Housing— Attached" for the 18 condominium units and Land Use Code 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 Senior Trip Generation Seventh Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 C:1BUSINESStCORNERMEADOWREPORT.DOC 5 Residence homes and by a similar size standard residential development. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Senior Adult Housing—Attached (18 Homes) Average Weekday Trips 3.48 Trips per Unit Morning Peak Hour 0.08 Trips per Unit Afternoon Peak Hour 0.11 Trips per Unit Residential Condominium/Townhouse Average Weekday Trips Ln(T) = 0.85 Ln(X) + 2.55 Morning Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 0.26 Afternoon Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.32 where T is the number of trips and X the number of units ' Table 1 - Trip Generation - Senior Adult Housing (18 Attached Units) Trips Entering Trips Leaving �I Daily 31 31 Morning Peak Hour 1 1 Afternoon Peak Hour 1 1 Table 2-Trip Generation — Residential Condominium/Townhouse (18 Units) Trips Entering Trips Leaving Daily 75 75 ' Morning Peak Hour 2 11 Afternoon Peak Hour 10 5 Tables 1 and 2 show that the number of trips generated during the 9 g peak hours is less for Senior Housing than for the same size condominium development with no age restrictions. Because many people continue working well past their fifty-fifth birthday, and since the trip generation information for the residential use with no age restrictions is higher(more conservative), the Trip Generation estimates presented in Table 2 were used for the proposed 18 condominium units in the River Walk Senior Residence Development. 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. C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOW\REPORT.DOC g r r CAPACITY ANALYSES Capacity Analyses were done to determine the existing and anticipated quality of traffic operations at intersections and roadways surrounding the site. 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 with the least delay per vehicle and LOS F the worst with greater delay per vehicle. The Level of Service is determined differently for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections with multi-way STOP, and unsignalized intersections with STOP control on the minor street approaches. For signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections with multi-way STOP control, the analysis considers the operation of all traffic entering the intersection and the LOS is determined for the overall conditions at the ' intersection. For unsignalized intersections with STOP control on the minor street, the analysis assumes that through and right-turning traffic on the major street is not affected by traffic on the side streets. Hence, the LOS is determined for the movements on the side street and the left-turn movement from the major street onto the side street. Levels of Service are defined by the average delay per vehicle as indicated below. Signalized intersections Level of Service Avg. Delay/Vehicle (in Seconds) LOS A < 10.0 LOS B > 10.0 and <20.0 LOS C > 20.0 and < 35.0 LOS D > 35.0 and < 55.0 LOS E > 55.0 and < 80.0 LOS F > 80.0 rUnsignalized intersections Level of Service Avg. Delay/Vehicle (in Seconds) LOS A < 10.0 LOSB > 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 the 2003 existing traffic volumes, 2006 No-Build, and the 2006 Build conditions for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road and for the 2006 Build conditions for the site drive intersection with Sullivan Avenue. The 2006 No Build traffic volumes were determined by increasing the 2003 traffic volumes ' by a two percent annual growth factor(106.12% total growth) to account for growth that may occur in the Town of South Windsor. The year 2006 analyses assume a two year buildout from the date of application for the River Walk Senior Residence Development. The generated trips were C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOMREPORT.DOC 7 r assigned to the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at the site access road assuming that two-thirds of the new trips would travel to and from the north and two-thirds would travel to and from the south. All the trips traveling to and from the south were assumed to continue on Sullivan Avenue through the Pierce Road intersection. This provides a conservative estimate of the site impact by adding 133% of the anticipated new trips to the surrounding roadway system. The results of the analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3: Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2003 Existing 2006 2006 Conditions No-Build Build Location Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Sullivan Avenue AM Peak 21.0 C 23.2 C 23.8 C at Pierce Road PM Peak 55.4 E 70.0 E 70.6 E NOTES: Delay= Average delay, in seconds, to all vehicles entering the intersection. LOS = Level of Service Table 3 indicates that the signalized intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road presently operates at Level of Service (LOS) C during the morning peak hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour and will continue to operate at the same Levels of Service during both peak hours for the 2006 No-Build and 2006 Build conditions. Table 4: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2006 Build 9 Peak 5TH Location Hour Delay LOS Percentile Queue Sullivan Avenue at the Site Access Road N-Bd Left Turn AM 9.1 A 0.01 E-Bd Site Access Road Peak 29.5 D 0.32 N-Bd Left Turn PM 11.2 B 0.04 E-Bd Site Access Road Peak 475.6 F 1.17 Delay= Average stopped delay, in seconds, to all vehicles entering the intersection or to vehicles making the specified turn. The results shown in Table 4 are based on the conservative number of generated trips shown in Table 2 for condominiums with no age restrictions, and the conservative distribution of these trips. Table 4 indicates that the left turns from Sullivan Avenue onto the site access road will operate at Level of Service (LOS)A during the morning peak hour and LOS B during the afternoon peak hour and the site access drive approach to Sullivan C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOw\REPORT.DOC 8 Avenue will operate at LOS D during the morning peak hour and LOS F during the afternoon peak hour for the 2006 Build conditions when the 18 senior residence condominiums in the River Walk development are completed and fully occupied. It is not unusual for low-volume side streets and site drives at their intersection with a heavily traveled State road to operate at LOS F during the morning or afternoon peak hour, as the delays which define the Level of Service are a function of the available gaps in traffic on the State road and not the volume of traffic leaving the side street or site drive. Residents of River Walk will be able to adjust their trips to avoid turning left from the site drive during the afternoon peak hour to avoid the lengthy delays they will encounter when entering Sullivan Avenue. For instance, residents of River Walk could turn right onto Sullivan Road, proceed to Sand Hill Road where they could turn left at the signalized intersection at that location and left again onto Nevers Road which would lead to Collins Crossing and back to Sullivan Avenue along the opposite site of the road. The capacity analyses also provide the 95th percentile queues (there is a 95 percent statistical probability that this queue will not be exceeded)for the vehicles turning left from Sullivan Avenue and on the site drive approach. The 95'' percentile queues on Sullivan Avenue are negligible and the queue on the drive will be less than one vehicle during the morning peak hour and just over one vehicle during the afternoon peak hour. SITE ACCESS The access drive to the River Walk Senior Residence Development will be located along the west side of Sullivan Avenue about 350 feet north of Pierce Road. Visual observations and sight distance measurements were made in 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 15 feet off the edge of travel way(about 12 feet off the edge of road)with a 3.5 foot height of eye and height of object. The sight distance available to drivers leaving the site access drive will be greater than 1,000 feet looking toward the left(north) and 525 feet looking to the right(south). R The Intersection Sight Distance for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic is greater than 1,000 feet. The posted speed limit on Sullivan Avenue is 40 miles per hour(mph). The speed stud done for Sullivan Avenue along the site frontage indicates that the 85° percentile speed (the speed at which 85 percent of drivers travel at or less than) in the northbound direction is 43 mph and the 8Vh percentile speed in the Isouthbound direction is 44 mph. The Connecticut DOT presents intersection sight distances (ISD) in their December 2003 Highway Design Manual. Figure 11-2C of the ConnDOT Guidelines presents ISD information for each 5 mph increment for speeds between 20 and 70 mph. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from the access drive onto Sullivan Avenue (more than 1,000 feet) is greater than the 489 feet presented in the ConnDOT guidelines for c:\BUSINESS\coRNERMEAQow\REPORT.Dac 9 ' the 85" percentile speed of 44 mph in the southbound direction. The Intersection Sight Distance available to drivers looking right from the site ' access road (525 feet) is also greater than the ISD of 478 feet presented in the ConnDOT guidelines for vehicles approaching from the south at the 85rn percentile speed of 43 mph. A second sight distance measured for this study is for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic. According to Figure 11-2J of the ConnDOT Guidelines, vehicles turning left from Sullivan Avenue onto the site access road should be able to see 357 feet when initiating the turn. The existing sight distance of more than 1,000 feet is far greater than the required 357 feet. The Stopping Sight Distance for vehicles approaching from the rear of the vehicle turning left onto the site should be able to see 377 feet. Drivers approaching from the south will have a Stopping Sight Distance of at least 400 feet, greater than the required distance for the 85`n percentile speed of travel. The Connecticut DOT refers to Highway Research Record Number 211 published by the Highway Research Board in 1967 when determining if a left turn lane or by-pass lane is needed to allow through traffic to pass vehicles waiting to turn left at an intersection or at a commercial drive. This publication includes a number of charts that allow the need for a left turn lane or by-pass to be determined based on the prevailing speeds (85'n percentile speeds), traffic volumes and percent of the left turning vehicles. The speed study indicates that the 85'' percentile speeds of travel on Sullivan Avenue are 43 mph in the northbound direction and 44 mph in the southbound direction. Using the charts from the Highway Research Record report, the traffic volumes on Sullivan Avenue combined with the volume of traffic turning left onto the River Walk site, the threshold that warrants a left turn lane is exceeded during the morning and afternoon peak hours. A left ' turn by-pass is needed to allow traffic traveling in the northbound direction on Sullivan Avenue to continue with minimal impact while vehicles wait to turn left onto the River Walk site. To provide this by-pass, the road will need to be widened by approximately three feet to provide a twenty foot half section from the double yellow centerline to the east edge of the road. CONCLUSIONS Corner Meadow, LLC. proposes to construct River Walk, a Senior Residence Development with 18 condominium units on 11.91 acres located at the northwest corner of Sullivan Avenue (Route 194) and Pierce Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. 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 Senior Adult Housing-Attached as well as information for Residential CondominiumstTownhouses with no age restrictions. Because the trips generated by Senior Adult Housing-Attached are less than the trips generated by standard condominium developments, and many people C:\BUSINESS\COR NERMEADOW\RE PORT.DOC 10 ' continue to work beyond their fifty-fifth birthday, the traffic impact from the River Walk Senior Residence Development was determined by using the trip generation information for residential Condom inium/Townhouse developments. This provides a conservative approach for evaluating the impact from the proposed River Walk. The study assumed that the Senior Residence Development would be constructed over a period of three years from the time of the traffic counts. ' Capacity analyses were done for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road for the 2003 existing conditions, 2006 No-Build conditions and 2006 Build conditions. Additionally, capacity analyses were completed for the 2006 Build conditions for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at the site access road. The signalized intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road presently operates at Level of Service (LOS) C during the morning peak hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour and will continue to operate at the same Levels of Service during both peak hours for the 2006 No-Build and 2006 Build conditions. Left turns from Sullivan Avenue onto the site access drive will operate at Level of Service (LOS)A during the morning peak hour and LOS B during the afternoon peak hour and the site access drive approach to Sullivan Avenue will operate at LOS D during the morning peak hour and LOS F during the afternoon peak hour for the 2006 Build ' conditions when the 18 senior residence condominiums in the River Walk development are completed and fully occupied. It is not unusual for low- volume side streets and site drives at their intersection with a heavily traveled State road to operate at LOS F during the morning or afternoon peak hour, as the delays which define the Level of Service are a function of the available gaps in traffic on the State road and not the volume of traffic leaving the side street or site drive. The capacity analyses also provide the 95th percentile queues (there is a 95 percent statistical probability that this queue will not be exceeded) for the vehicles turning left from Sullivan Avenue and on the site drive approach. The 95ih percentile queues on Sullivan Avenue are negligible and the queue on the site access drive will be less than one vehicle during the morning peak hour and just over one vehicle during the afternoon peak hour. Residents of River Walk will be able to adjust their trips to avoid turning left from the site drive during the afternoon peak hour to avoid the lengthy delays they will encounter when entering Sullivan Avenue. The intersection sight distance available to drivers looking left from the access drive onto Sullivan Avenue (more than 1,000 feet) is greater than the ISD of 489 feet presented in the ConnDOT guidelines for the 85th percentile speed of 44 mph in the southbound direction. The Intersection Sight Distance available to drivers looking fight from the site access road (525 ' feet) is also greater than the ISD (478 feet) presented in the ConnDOT guidelines for vehicles approaching from the south at the 85th percentile speed of 43 mph. The available sight distance for Stopped Vehicle Turning Left Across Oncoming Traffic(more than 1,000 feet) is far greater than the 357 feet required by the ConnDOT guidelines. Finally, the available Stopping Sight Distance (more than 400 feet) is greater than the required Stopping Sight Distance of 377 feet presented in the ConnDOT reference. C:\BUSINESS\CORNERMEADOw1REPORT.DOC 11 A left turn by-pass will be needed to allow traffic traveling in the northbound direction on Sullivan Avenue to continue with minimal impact while vehicles ' wait to turn left onto the River Walk site. To provide this by-pass, the road will need to be widened by approximately three feet to provide a twenty foot half section from the double yellow centerline to the east edge of the road. In summary, the Level of Service at the signalized intersection of Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road will not be changed by the addition of trips associated with the River Walk Senior Residence Development. Left turns from Sullivan Avenue onto the site drive will operate at very good Levels of Service and drivers leaving the site during all times except the afternoon peak period will experience LOS D or better operations. Since most residents of River Walk will have the flexibility to come and go as they please, they will be able to adjust their travel to avoid the afternoon peak hour when leaving the site. Adequate sight distances will be available to allow drivers to safely enter and exit the development. A northbound left turn by-pass will be needed to allow through traffic on Sullivan Avenue to continue past vehicles waiting to turn left onto the site. No other offsite improvements are suggested by this study as a result of the added trips associated with the River Walk Senior Residence Development. I C:\BUSINESS\CO RNERMEADOW\REPORT.DOC 12 x z uj 0. ' EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 1 CONNECTICUT COUNTS INC. KENSINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06037 kullivan Avenue at Peierce Street (860) 828-1693 File Name : 2748 outh Windsor, Connecticut Site Code : 00002748 Start Date : 06/26/2003 ' Page No : 2 Sullivan Avenue Pierce Street Sullivan Avenue From North From East From South From West Start Rig Thr Fed App. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr 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 eak Hour From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti 08:00 AM on Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 565 57 0 622 48 0 96 0 144 73 552 0 0 625 1391 ' Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.8 9.2 0.0 33.3 0.0 66� 11. 88.0.0 7 3 0.0 0.0 08m Volumee 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 15 0 176 17 0 40 0 57 19 180 0 0 199 432 ' Peak 0.805 Factor High Int. 6:45:00 AM 08:45 AM 08:45 AM 08:45 AM Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 15 0 176 17 0 40 0 57I 19 180 0 0 199 Peak 0.88 0.63 0.78 Factor 4 2 5 3 F North wC c n < n _rn 26/2003 8:00:00 AM v, N 03 26/20 8:45:00 AM -4 N m 7 W C 3 ' Oc0 Unshited 4. CDp ON, N � r Left Ri ht Peds 96 48 0 130 144 274 Out in Total Pierce Street ' CONNECTICUT COUNTS INC. KENSINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06037 kullivan Avenue at Pierce Street (860) 828-1693 File Name : 2749 outh Windsor, Connecticut Site Code : 00002749 Start Date : 06/26/2003 ' Page No : 2 Sullivan Avenue Pierce Street Sullivan Avenue From North From East From South From West Start Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr Ped App. Rig Thr 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 eak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti 04:30 PM on Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 858 51 0 909 92 0 191 0 283 110 897 0 0 1007 2199 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.4 5.6 0.0 32.5 0.0 67. 10. 89.0.0 9 1 0.0 0.0 05:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 14 0 256 37 0 56 0 93 26 217 0 0 243 592 Volume ' Peak 10.929 Factor High Int. 3:45:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:15 PM 04:45 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 14 0 256 37 0 56 0 93 31 241 0 0 272 ' Peak { 0.88 0.76 0.92 Factor 8 1 6 *a2) N i T W O Co Ji 0 North —� � w c M 2612003 4:30:00 PM ' 26120035:15:00 PM v $ Unshifted a Oo d wo �o od 00— Left Ri ht Peds ' 191 92 0 161 283 Out In Total Pierce Street M MRECMT CWS IIFF KENSINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06037 Sullivan Avenue North of Pierce Road (860) 828-1693 Site Code: 244 South Windsor, Connecticut Station ID: Northbound Latitude: 0' 0.000 Undefined Start 0 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 85th 95th Time 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 9999 Total Percent Percent 06/12/03 01:00 * * w * * * * * w * * w 02:00 * * * * w W W W * W W W W w W W w 03:00 * * * * * w * * * * W W * w 04:00 * w * W w * * w W W w * W * W W W 05:00 06:00 w * * w * W W * * * * w W W w w W 07:00 * * * * * w 08:00 w W W * * * w w * * w w w * w w W 09:00 W * * w * * * w w * W 10:00 * * W * W * * W w W W W 11:00 8 2 19 65 142 191 60 14 5 1 2 6 0 0 515 41 46 12 PM 22 6 24 81 148 155 69 20 4 3 0 1 1 0 534 42 46 13:00 33 31 45 72 124 148 51 16 3 0 1 2 2 0 528 40 45 14:00 15 3 56 114 162 170 59 20 2 3 1 3 2 0 610 40 45 15:00 22 7 41 60 154 128 80 21 3 7 0 2 2 0 527 43 47 16:00 16 16 47 123 195 170 81 20 2 5 4 2 3 0 684 41 46 17:00 15 11 64 153 191 193 72 12 1 2 5 2 0 0 721 40 44 18:00 13 5 15 37 139 204 98 20 0 1 1 2 1 0 536 43 45 19:00 16 1 13 27 102 144 117 21 2 0 1 1 2 0 447 44 46 20:00 9 0 4 10 94 138 97 21 5 2 0 0 0 0 380 44 47 21:00 1 1 2 13 54 135 86 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 308 44 46 22:00 2 0 0 2 11 40 38 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 114 46 49 23:00 1 0 0 4 4 46 35 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 101 45 50 Total 173 83 330 761 1520 1862 943 226 33 24 16 21 13 0 6005 Percent _2.9%_ 1.4% _5.5% _ 12.7% 25.3% 31.0% 15.7% 3.8%_ 0.5% _ 0.4% _0.3% _ 0.3% 0.2% 0.0_% AM Peak 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 8 2 19 _ 65 142 _ 191 60 14 5 1 2 6 515 PM Peak 13:00 13:00 17:00 17:00 16:00 18:00 19:00 15`:00 20:00 15:00 17:00 14:00 16:00 17:00 Volume 33 31 64 153 195 204 117 21 5 7 5 3 3 721 Page 1 IMECMT CWS IFN M M M M M M M KENSINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06037 Sullivan Avenue North of Pierce Road (860) 828-1693 Site Code: 244 South Windsor, Connecticut Station ID: Northbound Latitude: 0' 0.000 Undefined Start 0 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 85th 95th Time 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 9999 Total Percent Percent 06/13/03 0 1 0 0 5 12 16 9 4 1 1 0 0 0 49 49 54 01:00 1 0 1 0 0 7 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 45 47 02:00 0 0 0 1 3 4 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 45 48 03:00 1 2 0 0 2 8 16 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 34 45 48 04:00 0 0 0 0 3 13 29 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 54 46 51 05:00 1 0 0 0 9 36 48 26 7 0 1 0 0 0 128 48 51 06:00 7 0 3 11 44 130 110 29 8 0 0 0 0 0 342 45 49 07:00 12 3 22 47 137 170 81 13 1 2 1 1 1 0 491 42 45 08:00 9 1 7 28 109 163 78 19 2 1 1 0 2 0 420 43 46 09:00 15 3 24 38 97 139 91 27 2 1 2 1 0 0 440 44 47 10:00 7 5 31 69 98 117 81 25 2 2 1 0 0 0 438 43 47 11:00 * w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 12 PM w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 13:00 w w w w w w w w w w * w w w w w w 14:00 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 15:00 16:00 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 17:00 w w w w w w * w * w w w w w w w w 18:00 * w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 19:00 w w * w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 20:00 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 21:00 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 22:00 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 23:00 w w * w w w w w * w w w w w w w w Total 53 15 88 194 507 799 580 163 29 9 7 3 3 0 2450 Percent 2.2% 0.6% 3.6% 7.9% 20.7% 32.6% 23.7% 6.7% 1.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% _ AM Peak 09:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 07:00 07:00 06:00 06:00 06:00 07:00 09:00 04:00 08:00 07:00 Volume 15 5 31 69 137 170 110 29 8 2 2 1 2 491 PM Peak Volume -,- Grand 226 98 418 955 2027 2661 1523 389 62 33 23 24 16 0 8455 Total Percent 2.7% 1.2% 4.9% 11.3% 24.0% 31.5% 18.0% 4.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 15th Percentile: 28 MPH 50th Percentile: 36 MPH 85th Percentile: 43 MPH 95th Percentile: 47 MPH Statistics 10 MPH Pace Speed: 31-40 MPH Number in Pace: 4688 Percent in Pace: 55.4% Number of Vehicles>40 MPH: 2070 Percent of Vehicles>40 MPH: 24.5% Mean Speed(Average): 36 MPH Statistics Mean Speed(Average): 36 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed: 31-40 MPH Number in Pace: 4688 Percent in Pace: 55.4% Page 2 r MECRWr CRWS AM M M i M M M i KENSINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06037 44 Sullivan Avenue North of Pierce Road (860) 828-1693 Site Code: 2 South Windsor, Connecticut Station ID: S_outhbound Latitude: 0'0.000 Undefined Start 0 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 85th 95th Time 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 9999 Total Percent Percent 06/1203 01/00 * * * w * w * w 02:00 * * w * W * W W * w W W * * W 03:00 w * w * * * * * * w 04:00 * W * w * w w W w W * * * W W 05:00 * * * * * * w * * * * W * * * * w 06:00 w * * W * W * * W * w w W * * w w 07:00 * * * W * * W * * * * * * * * * w 08:00 w * W * W * W W * * w W * * w w W 09:00 * w * * * * * * * * * * W 10.00 W * W * * W * W W * * W W 11:00 17 7 20 26 66 177 105 9 2 1 1 1 1 0 432 43 45 12 PM 15 5 16 28 84 217 165 32 0 0 0 2 1 0 565 44 46 13:00 16 6 17 40 84 187 95 16 0 2 4 0 0 0 467 43 45 14:00 19 5 7 27 77 176 146 38 6 4 0 1 0 0 506 45 48 15:00 17 4 9 26 73 179 148 24 3 0 1 1 2 0 487 44 47 16:00 26 10 14 18 85 200 185 31 1 1 3 3 1 0 578 44 47 17:00 28 3 15 40 79 191 134 40 2 3 3 2 3 0 543 44 49 18:00 17 2 4 20 29 193 161 37 3 3 1 2 2 0 474 45 49 19:00 10 1 5 10 44 246 173 20 3 2 1 1 1 0 517 44 46 20:00 5 1 2 4 41 177 116 19 3 1 2 0 1 0 372 44 47 21:00 6 2 1 3 16 96 62 27 5 0 0 0 1 0 219 45 49 22:00 0 2 2 2 5 45 50 20 3 0 0 1 0 0 130 46 50 23:00 0 0 0 0 2 18 32 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 73 48 50 Total 176 48 112 243 685 2102 1572 332 33 17 16 14 13 0 5363 Percent 3.3% 0.9% 2.1% _ 4.5% _12.8% 39.2% 29.3% 6.2%_ 0.6%_ 0.3% _0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 _ 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume _ 17 7 20 25 _ _66 177 105 9 2 _ 1 _ 1 1 1 432 PM Peak 17:00 16:00 13:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 16:00 17:00 14:00 14:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 16:00 Volume 28 10 17 40 85 246 185 40 6 4 4 3 3 578 Page 4 KENSINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06037 Sullivan Avenue North of Pierce Road (860) 828-1693 Site Code:244 South Windsor, Connecticut Station ID: Southbound Latitude: 0' 0.000 Undefined Start 0 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 85th 95th Time 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 _55 60 65 70 75 9999 Total Percent Percent 06/13/03 0 0 0 1 4 9 22 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 46 49 01:00 0 0 0 0 5 14 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 45 47 02:00 0 0 0 0 1 5 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 21 47 51 03:00 0 0 0 0 1 7 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 45 48 04:00 0 0 1 0 4 7 20 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 43 48 50 05:00 2 0 6 4 3 46 87 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 179 46 49 06:00 10 3 15 16 56 154 141 27 6 1 1 1 0 0 431 44 48 07:00 10 8 27 46 98 213 127 21 2 3 2 3 2 0 562 43 46 08:00 11 5 6 32 102 232 121 17 2 1 2 1 1 0 533 43 45 09:00 7 2 9 11 71 184 169 20 3 1 0 0 2 0 469 44 46 10:00 7 1 9 16 82 217 142 16 2 1 0 2 1 0 496 44 45 12 PM 14:00 * * * * * * 15:00 16:00 * * * * * * * 17:00 18:00 * * * 19:00 21:00 * * * 23:00 * * Total 47 19 73 126 427 1088 854 158 22 7 5 7 6 0 2839 Percent_ 1.7% 0.7% 2.6% 4.4% 15.0% 38.3% 30.1% 5.6% 0.8%_ 0.2% 0.2% _ 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% AM Peak 08:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 08:00 08:00 09:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 Volume 11 8 27 46 102 232 159 28 6 3 2 3 2 562 PM Peak Volume -- Grand 223 67 185 369 1112 3190 2426 490 55 24 21 21 19 0 8202 Total Percent 2.7% 0.8% 2.3% 4.5% 13.6% 38.9% 29.6% 6.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% - 15th Percentile: 32 MPH 50th Percentile: 39 MPH 85th Percentile: 44 MPH 95th Percentile: 48 MPH Statistics 10 MPH Pace Speed: 36-45 MPH Number in Pace: 5616 Percent in Pace: 68.5% Number of Vehicles>40 MPH: 3056 Percent of Vehicles>40 MPH: 37.3% Mean Speed(Average): 38 MPH Statistics Mean Speed(Average): 38 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed: 36-45 MPH Number in Pace: 5616 Percent in Pace: 68.5% Page 5 f � SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2003 EXISTING CONDITIONS N Detailed Report Page I of I HCS2000-DETAILED REPORT General information Site Informayon Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at lNerve Road Agency or Co. Traffic Engweenng Solutions Area Type All other areas Date Performed 3114104 Jurisdiction South Iffindsor Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2003 Emsfing Conc9tions Project ID Comer Meadow Active Adult Community Volume and Timing In E8 WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes,N, 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group I L R L T TR Volume,V(vph) 96 48E 1 57 565 552 73 %Heavy vehicles,%HV 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2- Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.78 0.78 Pretimied(P)or actuated(A) A A A P P I P Start-u2 lost time,1, 2.0 ZO 2.0 2.0 ZO Extension of effective green,e 2-0 2.0 2,0 zo 2-0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension,UE 10 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 Filtering/metering,1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1-000 I-NO 1.000 Initial unmet demand,Qb 0-0 &0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Ped I Bike f RTOR volumes 0 a 0 0 0 Lane width 11.0 141.0 12-0 16.0 16.0 Parking 1 Grade I Parking N 3 - N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers,N I I I Buses stopping,NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 _Min.time for pedestrians,Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 i G= 23.0 G G= G= G= 10.0 G= X9 G= G= Timing I Y= 4.4 1 Y= Y= Y= Y= 3.6 Y= 5.1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis,T=0.25 Cycle Length,C= 85.0 Lane Group Capacity Con&ot Decay,and LOS Detennihadon EB WB NB SB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate,v 152 76 65 642 802 Lane group capacity,c 4,5%6 409 353 1304 951 v/c ratio,-X �,N07.33 0.19 10.16 049 0.84 Total green ratio,g/C 0.27 1 0.27 1 0.62 0.62 0.46 Uniform delay,d, 24.9 23.8 10,3 8_9 20.4 Progression factor,PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration,k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 Incremental delay,d2 0-4 02 0.3 1.3 9.0 Initial queue delay,d3 I I Control delay 25,3 24.0 10.5 10.3 29.4�: Lane group LOS C C B B C Approach delay 24.9 10.3 29.4 Approach LOS C a C Intersection delay 21.0 X,=0-62 Intersection LOS C HCS2000-. Copyright®2000Unwmity of Florida,All Rights Resened Version 4.16 file://C:','ATNDOWS\TEMP\s2kE379.TMP 3/14/04 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS2000-DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road Agency or Co. Traffic Engineering Solutions Area Type All other areas Date Performed 3fl4f04 Jurisdiction South Wtndsor Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2003 Existing Conditions Project ID Comer Meadow Active Adult Community Volume and Timing In u$ EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes,N, 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume,V(vph) 191 92 51 856 897 110 %Heavy vehicles,%HV 2 2 2 2 2 12 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.76 0.76 0.88 0,88 0,92 0.92 Pretimed(P)or actuated(A) A A A P P P Start-ue lost time,1, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green,a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type.AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension,UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering,1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand,Qb 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 Ped i Bike I RTOR volumes 4 it 1 4 0 0 Lane width 11.0 11.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 Parking I Grade/Parking rd 3 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers;N Buses stopping,Ns 0 0 0 0 0 Min.time for pedestrians,Gp 1 3,2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 0e NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 36.9 G= G= Timing Y= 4.4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 3.6 Y= 5.1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis,T=0.25 Cycle Length,C= 85.0 Lane Group Capacity,Control Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB _77LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate,v 251 121 58 975 1095 Lane group capacity,c 456 408 295 1304 952 vic ratio,X 0.55 0.30 0.20 0.75 1.15 Total green ratio,giC 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 1 0.46 Uniform delay,d, 26,6 24.6 12.6 11.5 23.1 Progression factor,PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration,k 0,15 0.11 0.11 0,50 0.50 Incremental delay,d2 1.4 0.4 0.3 4.0 79.9 Initial queue delay,d3 Control delay 28.0 25.0 12.9 15.5 102,9 Lane group LOS G C B B F Approach delay 27.0 15.4 102.9 �I Approach LOS C S F Intersection delay 55.4 X�=0.86 Intersection LOS E iICSiDGT Copy,#)xt F2ondt All%ght-Reserve^ V.inn 4.tC lie:l'/'C:'\WlrN OWS\ 1=,v is2k2' B.TrV1P 31/N/ 4 � SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION � CAPACITY ANALYSES 2006 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS Retailed Report Page 1 of 1 i HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road Agency or Co. Traffic Engineering Solutions Area Type All other areas Date Performed 3114104 Jurisdiction South ndsor Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2006 No-Build Conditions Project ID Comer Meadow Active Adult Communi Volume and Timing input EB VVB NB S8 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes,N, 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume,V(vph) 102 51 60 600 586 77 %Heavy vehicles,%HV 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0,78 0.78 Pretimed(P)or actuated(A) A A A P P P Start-ue lost time,I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green,a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 Unit extension,UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, € 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand,Ob 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped f Bike f RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 11.0 11.0 12.0 16.0 1 16.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 3 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers,Nm Buses stopping,NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min.time for pedestrians,Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 38.9 G= G= Timing Y= 4.4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 3.6 Y= 5.1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis,T=0,25 Cycle Length,C= 85.0 Lane Group Capacity,Control Delay,and LOS Determ►natlon EB VVB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate,v 162 81 68 682 850 Lane group capacity,c 456 408 338 1304 951 v/c ratio,X 0.36 0.20 0.20 0,52 0.89 Total green ratio,gfC 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.46 Uniform delay,dt 25.0 23.9 10.7 9.2 21.2 Progression factor,PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration,k 0,11 0.11 0.11 0,50 0.50 Incremental delay,d2 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.5 12.6 Initial queue delay,d3 Control delay 25.5 24.1 11.0 10.7 33.8 Lane group LOS C C B S C Approach delay 25.0 v 10.7 33.8 Approach LOS C B C Intersection delay 23.2 X-0,66 Intersection LOS C HCS2000W Copyright @ 20W 10niversily of Plonda,All Rights Reserved tl colon 4.1 d file://C:\W WS\T _MP\s212iR . 3/14/04 Detailed Report Wage 1 of 1 i HCS2000• DETAILED REPORT General information Site tnfsannafion Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road Agency or Co. Traffic Engineeting Solutions Area Type All other areas Date Performed 3114104 Jurisdiction South K4ndsor Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2006 No-Build Conditions Project ID Comer Meadow Active Adult Community Volume and Timm In f EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume,V(vph) 203 98 54 911 957 117 %Heavy vehicles,%HV 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.76 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 Pretimed(P)or actuated(A) A A A P P P Start-up lost time,1, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green,a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension,UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand,Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pad I Bike I RTOR volumes fl 1 0 0 4 0 Lane width 11.0 11.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 Parking I Grade I Parking N 3 N N N N 0 N N 0 1 N Parking maneuvers,N, Buses stopping,NB 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min.time for pedestrians,Gp 3,2 3.2 3,2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only N5 Perm 07 08 G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 38.9 G= G= Timing Y= 4.4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 3.6 Y= 5.1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis,T=0.25 Cycle Length,C= 85.0 Lane Group Capacity,Control Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB 1 NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate,v 267 129 61 1035 1167 Lane group opacity,c 456 408 295 1304 952 v/c ratio,X 0.59 0.32 021 0.79 1.23 Total green ratio,9IC 0.27 0.27 1 0.62 10.62 0.46 Uniform delay,d9 26.9 24.7 13.1 12.2 23.1 Progression factor,PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration,k 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 Incremental delay,d2 20 0.4 0.3 5.0 111.0 Initial queue delay,d3 Control delay 28.8 25.2 13.5 17.2 134.1 Lane group LOS C C B B F Approach delay 27.6 17.0 134.1 ,Approach LOS C B F intersection data Y 70.0 X =0,91 Intersection LOS E HCS2000, Copyright�D 2000101dwisity oY Plondu,All Right Reserved 'Yeision 4.ld file://C-.\WINDOWS\TEMP\s2k2O36.TMP 3/14/04 � SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2006 BUILD CONDITIONS N Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road Agency or Co. Traffic Engineering Solutions Area Type Ali other areas Date Performed 3114104 Jurisdiction South Windsor Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2006 Build Conditions Project ID Comer Meadow Active Adult Community !Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume,V(vph) 102 51 60 602 593 77 %Heavy vehicles,%HV 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.78 0.78 Pretimed(P)or actuated(A) A A A P P P Start-up lost time,1, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green,a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 Unit extension,UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 Initial unmet demand,Ob 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped t Bike t RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 11.0 11.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 3 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers,Nm Buses stopping,NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min.time for pedestrians,Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 38.9 G= G= Timing Y= 4.4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 3.6 Y= 5.1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis,T=0.25 Cycle Length,C= 85.0 Lane Group Capacity,Control Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LTK21.3 RT Adjusted flow rate,v 162 81 68 684 Lane group capacity,c 456 408 335 1304 v/c ratio,X 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.52 Total green ratio,gtC 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 Uniform delay,d, 25.0 23.9 10.8 9.2 Progression factor,PF 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration,k 0,11 0.11 0.11 0.50 Incremental delay,dz 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.5 . Initial queue delay,d3 Control delay 25.5 24.1 EB 10.7 34.8 Lane group LOS C C B I C Approach delay 25.0 10.7 34,8 Approach LOS C B C Intersection delay 23,8 XG=0.66 Intersection LOS C HCSZ000- Copyright Q 3800 Universit}•o£PSorida,.4fl Rights Resen=e8 V ersfOn 4.id file://C:\WTI'dDOWS\TEMP\s2k127B.TiN4P 3/14/04 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road Agency or Co. Traffic Engineering Solutions Area Type All other areas Date Performed 3114104 Jurisdiction South Windsor Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2006 Build Conditions Project ID Comer Meadow Active Adult Community Volume and Timing en of EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume,V(vph) 203 98 54 918 960 117 %Heavy vehicles,%HV 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0,76 0.76 0.86 0,88 0.92 0,92 Pretimed(P)or actuated(A) A A A P P P Start-up lost time,1, 2.0 2,0 1 2.0 2.0 2,0 Extension of effective green,a 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension,UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1.000 Initial unmet demand,Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike I RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 11.0 11.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 Parking/Grade 1 Parking N 3 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers,Nrr, Buses stopping,NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min.time for pedestrians,Gp 1 3.2 13.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 38.9 G= G= Timing Y= 4.4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 3.6 Y= 5.1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis,T=0.25 Cycle Length, C= 85.0 Lane Group Capacity,Control Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate,v 267 129 61 1043 1170 Lane group capacity,c 456 408 295 1304 952 v/c ratio,X 0,59 0.32 1 0.21 0,80 1.23 Total green ratio,g/C 0.27 0.27 0,62 0.62 1 0.46 Uniform delay,d, 26.9 24.7 13.2 12.3 23.1 Progression factor,PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration,k 0,18 0,11 0.11 0.50 0.50 Incremental delay,dz 2.0 0.4 0.3 5.2 112.4 Initial queue delay,d3 Control delay 28,8 25.2 13,5 17.5 135.4 Lane group LOS C C B B F Approach delay 27.6 17.3 135.4 Approach LOS C B F Intersection delay 70.6 X�=0.91 Intersection LOS E HC121100 x Copyright S 2000 L`nivenity of Florida,All Rights Reserved V eision 4.ld file-//C:\WINDOWS\TRIP\s2k00EB.TMP 3/14/04 M 1 r � UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION � CAPACITY ANALYSES � 2006 BUILD CONDITIONS Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at Site Drive gency/Co. Traffic Engineering Solutions urisdiction South Wndsor Date Performed 3t14/04 nalysis Year 2006 Build Conditions Anal s€s Time Period AM Peak Elect Description Comer Meadow Active Adult Communi East/West Street: Site Access Drive north/South Street: Sullivan Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South L$Iudy Period hrs: 0.25 pa hicle Volumes and Ad'ustmentsor Street Northbound Southbound ement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 2 702 0 0 663 2 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Floe Rate,HFR 2 1 780 0 0 736 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 1 0 Minor Street VItlestbound Eastbound ovement 7 a 9 112 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 7 0 7 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.80 Hourly Flow mate,HFR 0 0 0 8 0 8 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 I I LR ela• Queue LenM and Lech of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 2 16 C(m)(vph; 877 163 /c 0.00 0.10 %queue length 0.01 0.32 Control Delay 9.1 29.5 LOS A D Approach Delay `- — 29.5 pproach LOS D Rip-his Reserved HCS2000- Copyight 0 2003 L4 ersity of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Ver io.4-Id file:HC:\V► IN-DO S\`I'EW\u2kE145.TMP 3/14/04 Two-Way Stop Control l Page I of I r ' TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BAH Intersection Sullivan Avenue at Site Drive Agency/Go. Traffic Engineering Solutions Jurisdiction South Windsor Date Performed 3114104 Analysis Year 2006 Build Conditions Analysis Time Period PAR Peak Pro'ectDescription Comer Meadow Acbve Adult Communi East/West Street: Site Access Drive North/South Street: Sullivan Avenue rInterse Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs: 0.25 siumes and Ad astments tl�Iortttbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 911 0 0 1074 7 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 7 1012 0 €3 1193 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Um ivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR r' U stream Signal 1 0 Minor Street astb ound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 N L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 3 0 3 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 3 0 3 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 [ety, nfiguration LR Queue Le and Level of Service proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 7 6 (m)(vph) 589 12 lc 0.01 0.50 5%queue length 0.04 1.17 Control Delay 11.2 475.6 LOS B F Approach Delay — — 475.6 pproach LOS F Riplits Re-sen ed ' HCS2000- Copyright 0 20W,University of Flo rich All Rights,Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d file://C-.\ rNDO TS\TEM \u2kE030.TI 3/I4/04 DWELL I NG UN I T5 R 11ER NALK HOUS 1 N(9 DEVELOPMENT COLOR UNIT # TYPE 5Q. FT. H.G. WALK-OUT SCHEME SUMMER UNIT I DI IclIO WHEAT UNIT 2 51 1720 Y UNIT 3 DI 1110 WOODLAND UNIT 4 G 1,710 Y MI5T UNIT 5 D IQ86 SUMMER UNIT 6 B 17C1 4 Y WHEAT UNIT 7 D I I g I O UNIT 5 A 1311:4 Y 5AND5TONE UNIT 1� A 131ct Y BEIGE UNIT 10 A Bala Y UNIT II A 13qct Y WOODLAND UNIT 12 A 13cIQ MIST UNIT 13 A 131a SUMMER UNIT 14 D I cl86 Y WHEAT UNIT 15 D Ict86 Y UNIT 16 B 171-14 Y SANDSTONE UNIT 17 G 1710 Y BEIGE UNIT I8 5 1714 Y FV COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS NAME TOWN UNIT SQ FT ATTACH B/R BATH GARAGE SgLt-I"G SQ FT COMMEN DETACH P. ::w SELL PRICE Village @ Ferger. Vernon Attached 2 2 2 217,000 sold out Quail Hollow Vernon 1400-2300 detached 2 &3 2 &3 1 &2 230,000-360,000 $164.00 4th expan Watercress Ellington 1200 aft 2 2.5 1 180,000 $150.00 Hillside Farms E. Windsor 1386-1560 det 2 &3 2 &3 1 &2 $182,400 $131.00 Summetw od S.W indsor Windsor 1400-2000 det 2 &3 2 2 $255,000-$290,000 $182.00 Village @ Coleman E. Windso 1411 aft/ 2 &3 2 2 267 $ 500 $1 89.60 some left 1832 det 2 &3 2.5 2 $295,000 $161.00 Strawberry Fields S.Windsor 1885-2300 aft 2 &3 2 & 3 1 &2 $310,000 $164.00 adding 2085 aft 3 2.5 2 $350,000 $167.87 pods Chasseral Ellington 1318-1787 det 2 &3 2 &3 2 $210,000-$300,000 $152-$168 some left 1350 $230,000 Pgduf*,, a S.Windsor 1400-1800 det 2 2 2 $230,000 $164.00 building Shady c S.Windsor 1399-2000 det $233,000-$366,000 $169-$207 building Griswald Village Windsor most sold l-bq Ca BkA 7-7 f 19 �,,�Z�xa ( � ,f Par Lh i -TI � ' t Y t r --�42I k" '��N•1_9����.- _ IVGt✓Jsr`��_ '�_.-_k Ll� rt ,... —....� ``#.3 "�..�f :�-"�—_-3._,.a.- .�--- i �( .3 L ` ' d ` `i .f.74. l _ a j[ ItANto r t..t_ r.. Jk et* 4 r C i t - 1 G f II t I � y z S ` V r Ci �-,lv ` � L} -_-- _- 4qA,, sL it4om; d 1J a ell sf '4 i j F� t< 1' r Appl # 04-33P, River Walk Senior Residence Development Public Hearing 6-11-04 Planning Dept Report (�)2. 1. Requ for ial ept' d s"ate p ap val to onst tan -u 'tSe 'or iden,e ev 1 e'nt on 1 �c - d-on� orn P celad d Sull' nA u RR a A-20 zone .The site is bounded by Mitchell Fue and the Town-owned Major Michael Donnelly Preserve on the north side; open land to the west and south, with a few single-family homes along Pierce Road and across Sullivan Avenue to the east. i i e ti � t b' • medtal-p-onstraints- u o "i6ske quaMi ityLf.wdlau 3. All ro sed u rt' area ached ts. unit uld v i size a�rd�g to ee or�iula, jtfi 6 nos at s ft un'ts 660 ft�d-5 uBit's aft..... �... _ Sc._: 4. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include: 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 aci sties 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 I � I ' � I 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 profit . TtiU U d �� ���l f� cv� s 5. � c � rua � �� ac_ crr The proposed d�sity is 3.4 units per net buildable acre; maximum 4 units per net buildable acre are allowed. One of the conditions contributing to the tightness of the site is the location of some of the buildable land. A portion of the buildable land on the western part of the site is isolated and inaccessible from the remainder of the property, yet still can be applied toward the net buildable land calculation. This results in the units being located on an area that is actually smaller than the net buildable land area and causes the project to appear denser than the density calculation indicates. We note that residents 3-7 will have a drainage swale adjacent to their back doors; and units 14-18 have yards that are very close to regulated wetlands. 6. Proposed impervious coverage is 15%; 60% allowed. R uir p king 's 1.. c n, al n , 0 7 e ; p ' A 6 s oe nsie r 7. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to 223. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is currently capped at 250. 8. The site is right at the corner of Pierce Road and Sullivan Avenue, with the result that there is not substantial frontage along either street and access from either frontage is a concern due to proximity to the signalized intersection. The shared driveway with Mitchell Fuel was designed to partially address that concern. The applicant's traffic report indicates that the peak hours will present difficulties for motorists attempting to turn left to exit the development. -fl s. _ dui pe�.� left < h�it�-wil-�perat�=�t�-OS�]C �,rinLz-the-.p - bypdsg - 10 cqa�tl ass-line=enJh*wan-A-v-pW�.�LThe traffic engineer d in his report that residents of River Walk will be able to adjust their trips to avoid turning left from the site drive during the afternoon peak hour to avoid the lengthy delays they will encounter. He noted as an example that -- Hill Road, turn left onto Sand Hill Road at the signal, left again onto Nevers 2 Road, left again onto Collins Crossing and back to Sullivan Avenue to proceed northbound. Sgt. Rich Bond of the South Windsor Police Dept has reviewed this application and submitted a memo: **ATTACHED** 9. a id al sh o t ut 'd o st of 'I� p jMcAnt tSs'tha 1 e 'a cs b m tal-�)Dn-orlly-6nc�s e-oof-tfie ftet-to-allo-w-tom_ 't 1,ILL p t oto e-fartheraway-fronvWetlands. Staff suggested that a sidewalk on Sullivan Avenue to Donnelly property might be a good trade-off in lieu of sidewalks on both sides of the new street) tJ p. fire-c. A l c e6v- � Y z J 0;' r v�•-- 10. There are regulated wetlands on this site (a little over half of the site is wetlands). IWA/CC is in the midst of their application process now. 11.Public water and sewer are available to the site. WPCA approval is required for the sewer extension. 12.The applicant is showing a combined side yard and buffer of 25 feet for the first 200 feet (alongside units 1-7); then the buffer and side yard widen to 35 feet. There are more than 50 large evergreen trees (15' height) proposed for the reduced buffer areas. The closest residence is just south of unit#7, which will be about 45 feet away from thotesidence. 13.The Architecture and Design Review�Board reviewed the plans on May 6. ADRC submitted a report for your consideration: **ADRC REPORT** 14.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. 15.If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests that the applicant verify that all units have the required 20' separating distance. 3 v4 ' -M E M O RA N D RECEIVED UM Town of MAY 17 2004 TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Plannning SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEpT. South FROM:.Sgt. Rich Bond Traffic.Manager SWPD Windsor DATE: 17-May-04 Police Services SUBJECT: River Walk Marcia, As we discussed, I have reviewed the proposal as well as the Traffic Impact Study.regarding the proposed River Walk senior residence development. I have several concems regarding the placement of the driveway on Sullivan Ave. 1. Placement is in such proximity to Pierce Rd that any delay at the light southbound will result in stopped traffic on the Avenue at the entrance River Walk driveway. Residents leaving River Walk are likely to encounter lengthy waits. Absent that, a resident may be waved out from the driveway by a good-hearted southbound motorist only to try and enter the northbound lane with little or w visibility. The green for northbound does activate before the southbound signal if left(west)turn traffic is present. 2. The traffic study clearly reports that the Pierce/Sullivan intersection is at level C during the AM peak and at level E during the PM-peak. Waits of this length to exit a private drive, often generate.rapid attempts to move.into traffic or a slow,.easing movement into the traffic lane until a motorist"yields". 3. The Traffic Impact,Study also predipts levels of D and F for left entry into the River Walk drive at the AM-and PM-peaks respectively. While admittedly many private drives - experience this level of service during:peak hours, I do not feel that starting.at this-level with no where to go but down is prudent. 4. The proposal includes construction;of a bypass lane on the northbound side of Route 194. This bypass would presumably be very close to the right (east) bank along Sullivan Ave. I have some line of sight concerns for northbound traffic, which is already moved to right due to the turn lane at Pierce Rd. Significant excavation of the bank or a similar measure would have to be taken to ensure that northbound motorists rounding the curve from the Pierce Rd intersection would not be surprised by the slowed bypass lane traffic. Further, this bypass lane would be especially vulnerable to slowing with cars turning into the Collins Lane development. -e-ra is mpac_ to y-both show- --- that nearly 85% of the collisions in this area are "rear-end"type collisions. Many of these occur in the southpound lane of Route 194, north of Pierce, when that lane begins to back up during peak hours. { Please feel free to contact me at any time with any questions. I have discussed my review of these materials with Chief Tyler and he has concurred with these findings. Respectively S t. Rich B nd Manager-Traffic Unit South Windsor Police Services co /,j q�,� _re f _�e b rf ,2 di 6_ � )-tf L C-7T-Cu,tiY (d 6,-11 4 V /d'jtt_xy- wt IJJ -(Alll 14'rUc - /,o A,� 6- t /to C'o I(eJ 112 (JI d L tj � r,C-fvjc o4u p jja_j � ,l d_C'&/ , _4,le (C'f cio-Ai t4 tv , DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers ♦ planners ♦ surveyors RECEIVE® gis ♦ gps ♦ landscape architects APR 2 2 2004 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNfNG DEPT. Transmitted via certified mail Dear Current Abutting Property Owner April 21, 2004 Re: River Walk SRD DPI Project No. 02-1687 1235 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut In accordance with regulations of the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Planning& Zoning Commission, we are required to notify you that applications have been filed on the property abutting yours and are subject to a hearing or meeting by the Planning&Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Agency. 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(s)will be heard, please contact Kelli Koehler, Recording Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644- 2511, ext. 253, 252, or 229, respectively. Thank you. Sincerely, DESIGN WOFESSIONALS, INC. J By: Peter R. DeMallie Principal cc: Corner Meadow, L.L.C. Ralph Alexander, Esq. Karen M. Isherwood, P.E. Richard L. Boston, R.L.A. Jeffrey Folger Marcia Banach 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor,Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860)291-8755•Fax: (860)291-8757 Email:dpicivil@aol.com RECEIVED Direct Abutters List APR Z 2 2004 River Walk SRD Sullivan Avenue SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. South Windsor, Connecticut DPI Project No. 02-1687 My/Lot No. PropgKq Owner Mai9in Address 88/1 Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue 88/6 John J. Mitchell 1209 Sullivan Avenue 88/9 Marilyn M. Morrison 259 Pierce Road 88/18 William E. &Martha M. Aman 878 Strong Road RECEIVED APR 2 2 2004 Legal Description—River Walk SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNfNG DEPT. DPI Project No. 02-1687 Beginning at an iron pipe at the southeasterly corner of the property herein described, said pipe also being on the westerly street line of Pierce Road; thence N 20' 03' 18" E, along the westerly street line of Pierce Road, a distance of 171.08 feet to an I.P.;thence going northerly, along a curve to the right having a central angle of 4° 19' 53" and a radius of 466.00 feet, along the westerly highway line of Sullivan Avenue, a distance of 3 5.23 feet to a monument said curve is further described by a chord of direction N 02' 24' 05"W and a distance of 35.22 feet;thence N 00' 18' 07"E, along the westerly highway line of Sullivan Avenue, a distance of 260.61 feet to a point;thence S 87' 48' 05"W, along property now or formerly of John J. Mitchell, a distance of 23 7.5 1 feet to a point;thence,N 67' 54' 47" W, along property now or formerly of John J. Mitchell, a distance of 3.64 feet to a point; thence N 67' 33' 54" W, along property now or formerly of the Town of South Windsor, a distance of 539.41 feet to a point, thence N 67' 51' 23"W a distance of 255.28 feet along property now or formerly of the Town of South Windsor to an I.P.; thence S 22' 21' 55" W, along property now or formerly of William E. Aman and Martha M. Aman, a distance of 500.00 feet to an I.P. set; thence S 67'40' 48"E, along property now or formerly of William E. Aman and Martha M. Aman, a distance of 359.48 feet to an I.P.; thence S 67' 36' 20"E, along property of William E. Aman and Martha M. Aman, a distance of 435.92 feet to an I.P.; thence N 65' 58' 29"E, along property now or formerly of David R. Schmedding and Margaret E. Schmedding and Jennie A. Milliken, a distance of 201.06 feet to a point; thence S 70' 12' 4 1"E, along property now or formerly of Marilyn M. Morrison, a distance of 200.00 feet to an iron pipe, said iron pipe being the point and place of beginning. Stormwater Management Plan River Walk Senior Residence Development South Windsor, Connecticut RECEIVED APR 2 2 2004 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 DPI Project No. 04-1687 Np��e®eereeo zCOo.4r ®•eta •Q 11 0- April 21,2004 °: ` Table of Contents: Page# Introduction 1 Proposed Development 1 Off-Site Analysis 1 Peak Runoff control 1 Nonstructural Drainage System 1 Riparian Buffers 1 Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems 1 Conveyance System 2 Discharge at the Natural Location 2 Maintenance and Operation 2 Topographic Contour Maps 2 Floodplain Boundaries 2 Drainage Design 2 Water Quality 4 On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations 4 Conclusions 4 Appendices Site Location Map A TR-55 Existing Conditions B TR-55 Developed Conditions C Detention/Infiltration Basin Design D Detention/Infiltration Basin Routings E Storm Sewer Calculations F Introduction: The proposed River Walk Senior Residence Development consists of two adjacent sites located on the west side of Sullivan Avenue in South Windsor, Connecticut. The site consists of 11.91 acres of land presently owned by Corner Meadow, L.L.C. and will also include an additional 0.29 acres to be purchased from the abutting property owner to the north, John Mitchell. The site presently contains a vacant single family home. The site is traversed by the Podunk River, and has substantial wetland and floodplain areas associated with the Podunk River. Appendix A contains a site location map. Proposed Development: The proposed development of the site includes the construction of 18 units of senior housing contained within 7 buildings. As part of the development, an access roadway and driveways will be constructed with residences 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 and a piped storm drainage system. The drainage discharge from the development will be to a detention/infiltration basin which will discharge to the Podunk River. Oil-Site Analysis: The site presently drains southwest directly to the Podunk River via overland flow. The Podunk River traverses the site from north to south. Peak Runoff Control: The intent of the design is to provide sufficient detention/infiltration on site to provide post development peak discharges at or below existing peak discharges. Nonstructural Drainage Systems: The site will make use of an Infiltration/Detention basin to help control the runoff on the site, and help treat the runoff prior to discharge. Riparian Buffers: Buffer areas will be maintained between the Podunk River and the proposed development. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems: An extensive erosion/sedimentation control plan has been developed as part of the site 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 temporary sediment basins during construction. 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. Conveyance System: The on-site conveyance system consists of a piped stormwater system discharging to the infiltration/detention basin. The piped drainage system has been designed to accommodate the runoff from a 10 yr. design storm. Discharge at the Natural Location: The site presently drains to the Podunk River, and will continue to under developed conditions. Maintenance and Operation: The following maintenance operations will be required to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the Storm Water System and Infiltration/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 pavement areas shall be swept at a minimum of once per year, in the spring shortly after the end of the snow season. Infiltration/Detention Water Quality Basin: The water quality basin shall be Q tY q Y inspected twice yearly. All large wood growth that may affect the flow of water p Y Y g woody Y or the stability of the basins or swale 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. Any erosion or other problems that may affect the proper operation of the water quality basin shall be repaired promptly. Topographic Contour Maps: A topographic contour map showing the drainage area at a scale of 1"=40' is included in the rear of this report. F000dplain Boundaries: There are 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/Infiltration 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 then provides the routing of the hydrograph through the basin, and provides peak discharge and storage information. The existing site was modeled using the TR-55 computer program. Only the portion of the site that will be developed as part of the proposed development was included in the calculations. Approximately 0.35 ac. of the developed site will not be routed through the basin, and therefore this area was treated separately under both existing and proposed conditions. The TR-55 calculations for existing conditions on the site are included in appendix B. The site was analyzed under developed conditions using the TR-55 computer program. Under developed conditions, there will be an increase in peak runoff from the site. The results of the TR-55 analysis are included in appendix C, and a summary of the existing and developed peak discharges (in cubic feet per second) follows: Storm Freq. Exist. Peak Discharge Developed Peak Disch. 2 0+ 1 1 0+ 6 6 10 0 + 3 3 1 + 11 12 25 0 +4 4 1 + 13 14 50 1 +6 7 1 + 15 16 100 1 + 7 8 2 + 18 20 The site will continue to discharge to the Podunk River. In order to mitigate for the peak flows, a detention/infiltration basin is proposed. The basin has been sized to provide sufficient detention for the 2-100 year storm events. The basin was sized to provide peak flows at or below existing conditions. The results are summarized below: Storm Freq. Exist. Peak Disch. Dev. Peak Disch. Dev. Peak Disch. Combined Dev. (Bypassing Basin) (Det. Basin) Peak Discharge 2 1 0 0.63 0.6 10 3 1 1.23 2.2 25 4 1 3.04 4.0 50 7 1 4.41 5.4 100 8 2 5.15 7.1 The proposed detention basin was modeled using the Hydrograph Hydroflo computer program. The basin design is included in appendix D. The Routing of the storm flows under developed conditions for the 2-100 year storm events were prepared, and are included in appendix E. As can be seen from the detention basin design,the discharge for the 2-100 year storm events is generally less than the existing peak discharge into the Podunk River. Water Quality: The infiltration/detention basin has been designed with a volume below the outlet discharge pipe that will provide capacity for the initial flush from the site. This volume exceeds the volume of runoff from the site for a 1.0"rainfall event. On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations: The storm sewer calculations for the storm piping within the proposed private roadways 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 infiltration/detention basin will mitigate any potential water quality and quantity impacts from the development of the site. APPENDIX A f •17 • , 0 r , 1,0 250 10 r 1T Poo ... :J •Sb.�N_ ^�- �_���_._J��' � �'k �`.-. � \ ��. 1. �S/ \_/' ���'\��-���� 40Z �.o •• .moo--I-�� , n ' o- - 77 :C U � 11 r p �� 1 � �a"� � ♦ /�\�-/ /`_'� db0 i r / \ ,,/ 1'�� \ � \ / ��' � ` /��. " :��� � -:.� ,, ,, I - `�,�) �1")\ter• _ , ; `� 1,-Fi� 1��: ;:.l_ \ \,;O ; � d •� `�.\� • �l 0 J M ° :� •'• / /�� �._�� Jam\, _ �/ �I'' � i �� ��\ \N ���.. ,.i d� �' °�"� \�� �\._../ a �i �I' ,��' ���� .:� �'� .fN•% o �` ' ..J \l��� © o b� � ��` I I �I �I I=�' d J 1 . d' � .'�••'. . ,,�/ t� I JI �I / `♦ \ \ �i \ SOP •, ,� .�I I,I 9i� � a .� T /�06 � ):�..; /. � I Y� t� •! `� I �' O � � '01; ��� 'li I `^�If �{,'t :i,����) /• w W �uir4�.. w �f `���'y� r�.: •,{JQO /I" �� A J /l �� � � �� (I ��I�I .�I � © ��o°j 11,�I� � �1 dl �I � A'{II • �F,1 � '�� \t I'. // 1 1 I1) I I �. I� � Q ,II I ''!)�• :'s '4'w ,�*� t�' n �� � • ��) q ::.I � f \ .III':{I ° j � '` �1i! /,'• )', , ll * �y;� « F 1:: 1 '�f'. /f /0 m� , p I. \\\\--.. / I f''III f '' 1 �1 .� ��{w•� ! p0j,• - ••�/ llp 4 \,� °•� 0 )LII II )'gll I O �I I ��� I. � 'il r I O .y ���•�-\ r 7p\e =j-\il 0 ��� /�/j � \ a � ` y /I, I� � '-JI� F�yw*�''„�1 �„ '••� � � _ o — ` ���� 1�./, .a'�� �� �o I, � ��, a ,}� ; Ns • � __- . - ,, \ � AAA. _ .,:�/! I_��{I� I'�'�I � 11 .� .`�/1 � n .,,.F/'� ',.,i:p,.^;. ,,::��1� l •_•���-. •�••.,r' �� �0�•. APPENDIX B RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS Subarea : EXIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .06(98) - - OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Pasture, grassland or range good - 3.71 (61) - - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3.77 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: EXIST TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 3.77 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 62* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 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 .20 F 0.054 Sheet 250 .06 F 0.319 Shallow Concent'd 280 .06 U 0.020 Time of Concentration = 0.39* --- 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 : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS Data: Drainage Area 3.77 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 62 * Time of Concentration: 0.39 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- i Storm Number 1 1 1 2 I 3 1 4 1 5 1 1----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 Frequency (yrs) 1 2 1 10 1 25 1 50 1 100 1 I I I I I I I 1 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.2 1 4.7 i 5.5 1 6.2 1 6.9 1 I I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.38 1 0.26 1 0.22 1 0.20 1 0.18 1 I I I I I I I Runoff (in) ► 0.48 i 1.26 1 1.76 1 2.23 1 2.73 1 I I I I I I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.494 10.620 10.641 10.655 10.666 1 (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 I 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I 1----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 1 Peak Discharge (cfs) ( 1 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 7 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS - AREA BYPASS BASIN Subarea : EXIST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Pasture, grassland or range good - 0.35(61) - - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: EXIST TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .35 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 61* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS - AREA BYPASS BASIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3.2 150 .06 F 0.212 Time of Concentration = 0.21* --- 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 : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITIONS - AREA BYPASS BASIN Data: Drainage Area .35 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 61 * Time of Concentration: 0.21 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 1----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 1 Frequency (yrs) 1 2 1 10 1 25 1 50 1 100 1 I I I i I I I 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.2 1 4.7 1 5.5 1 6.2 1 6.9 1 I I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.40 1 0.27 1 0.23 1 0.21 1 0.19 1 I I I I I I I I Runoff (in) 1 0.44 1 1.19 l 1.68 1 2.14 1 2.63 1 I I I I I I I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.584 10.769 10.792 10.808 10.820 1 I (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 I 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I i----------------------1------I------1------1------1------1 1 Peak Discharge (cfs) ( 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX C RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BASIN Subarea : PROP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Fair condition; grass cover 50% to 75% - 1.49(69) - - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - 2.28 (98) - - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3.77 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: PROP. TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 3.77 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 87* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BASIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 .20 E 0.037 Sheet 100 .02 E 0.163 Shallow Concent'd 60 .01 P 0.008 Time of Concentration = 0.21* --- 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 : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BASIN Data: Drainage Area 3.77 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 87 * Time of Concentration: 0.21 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- I Storm Number I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 1 ----------------------1------1------1------1------1------1 i Frequency (yrs) I 2 1 10 i 25 1 50 1 100 1 I I I I I I I 1 24-Hr Rainfall (in) i 3.2 1 4.7 1 5.5 1 6.2 l 6.9 1 I 1 I I I I I Ia/P Ratio 10.09 10.06 10.05 1 0.05 1 0.04 1 I I I I I I I I Used i 0.10 1 0.10 1 0.10 10.10 i 0.10 1 I I I I I I I I Runoff (in) 1 1.91 l 3.29 i 4.04 1 4.71 l 5.38 l I I I I I I I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.871 10.871 10.871 10.871 10.871 1 1 (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I h I I I I I I I 1 Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I 1----------------------1 ------1------1------I------i------1 1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 6 1 11 1 13 I 15 i 18 I ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2.00 Project RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - AREA BYPASS BASIN Subarea : PROP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Fair condition; grass cover 50% to 75% - .20(69) - - Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - .15(98) - - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: PROP. TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: .35 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 81* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00 Project : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - AREA BYPASS BASIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 .06 E 0.105 Sheet 60 .20 E 0.043 Time of Concentration = 0.15* --- 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 : RIVER WALK User: KMI Date: 03-31-04 County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date: Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - AREA BYPASS BASIN Data: Drainage Area .35 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 81 * Time of Concentration: 0.15 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Storm Number I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 i ----------------------i------I------I------I------1------1 Frequency (yrs) l 2 1 10 I 25 I 50 I 100 I I I I I I I I l 24-Hr Rainfall (in) I 3.2 i 4.7 i 5.5 1 6.2 l 6.9 I I I I I I I Ia/P Ratio ( 0.15 10.10 10.09 10.08 10.07 I I I I I I I I Used 10.15 10.10 10.10 10.10 l 0.10 1 I I I I I I i I Runoff (in) 11.47 l 2.72 l 3.43 14.07 14.71 i I I I I I I I I Unit Peak Discharge 10.924 10.951 10.951 10.951 10.951 1 1 (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pond and Swamp Factorl 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 i 0.0% Ponds Used I I I I I I 1----------------------I------I------1------1------I ------I I Peak Discharge (cfs) I 0 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines APPENDIX D Reservoir Report Page 1 Reservoir No. 3 - 2.5:1 POND Hydraflow Hydrographs by IntelisoNe Pond Data Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used. Stage/Storage Table Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sgft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cult) 0.00 71.40 9,542 0 0 1.00 72.00 10,220 9,881 9,881 3.00 74.00 12,590 22,810 32,691 5.00 76.00 15,120 27,710 60,401 Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise in = 12.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Crest Len ft = 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span in = 12.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Crest El.ft = 73.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 0.00 0.00 Invert El.ft = 71.40 71.40 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect - - - Length ft = 20.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Multi-Stage = Yes No No No Slope% = 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 N-Value = .013 .013 .000 .000 Orif.Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a Yes No No Exfiltration 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 Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Total It cuft ft cis cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cis cis 0.00 0 71.40 0.00 0.00 -- --- 0.00 -- -- --- -- 0.00 1.00 9,881 72.00 0.61 0.37 --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.37 3.00 32,691 74.00 5.37 0.27 - - 5.11 - - - - 5.37 5.00 60,401 76.00 7.65 0.09 - - 7.53 -- - - - 7,62 APPENDIX E Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 6.30 1 729 23,626 -- ----- PROP.STORM THRU BASIN 2 Reservoir 0.63 1 1122 20,346 1 72.30 12,413 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Proj. file: 1687-DRAINAGE.gpw Return Period: 2 yr Run date: 04-20-2004 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 11.00 1 729 41,571 -- --- -- PROP.STORM THRU BASIN 2 Reservoir 1.23 1 785 33,276 1 73.06 22,017 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Proj. file: 1687-DRAINAGE.gpw Return Period: 10 yr Run date: 04-20-2004 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 13.54 1 729 51,538 -- -- PROP.STORM THRU BASIN 2 Reservoir 3.04 1 757 41,838 1 73.34 25,157 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Proj. file: 1687-DRAINAGE.gpw Return Period: 25 yr Run date: 04-20-2004 Hydrallow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Page Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 15.77 1 729 60,396 — -- PROP.STORM THRU BASIN 2 Reservoir 4.41 1 753 50,143 1 73.58 27,881 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Proj. file: 1687-DRAINAGE.gpw Return Period: 50 yr Run date: 04-20-2004 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Page Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 18.00 1 729 69,349 -- -- PROP.STORM THRU BASIN 2 Reservoir 5.15 1 752 58,553 1 73.87 31,189 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Proj. file: 1687-DRAINAGE.gpw Return Period: 100 yr Run date: 04-20-2004 Hydrallow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.63 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = 2.5:1 POND Max. Elevation = 72.30 ft Max. Storage = 12,413 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=20,M cult 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 12.25 5.17 72.24 0.60 0.59 - - - - - - - 0.59 12.27 4.88 72.27 0.62 0.61 -- -- - - ---- - - 0.61 12.28 4.59 72.29 0.64 0.62 ----- --- ----- --- --- - -- 0.62 18.63 0.15 72.24 0.61 0.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 18.65 0.15 72.26 0.62 0.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 18.67 0.15 72.27 0.63 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 18.68 0.15 72.28 0.64 0.62 --- - - - - - - 0.62 18.70 0.15 72.30<< 0.65 0.63 -- ---- -- - -- - - 0.63<< 18.72 0.15 72.30 0.65 0.63 ---- ___ ____ -_ ____ - ____ 0.63 18.73 0.15 72.29 0.64 0.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.62 18.75 0.15 72.29 0.64 0.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.62 18.77 0.15 72.29 0.64 0.62 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.62 18.78 0.15 72.29 0.64 0.62 - - - - - - - 0.62 18.80 0.15 72.28 0.63 0.62 ----- - - ----- -- - - 0.62 18.82 0.15 72.28 0.63 0.62 ----- ----- ____ -_ _____ -__ ____ 0.62 18.83 0.15 72.28 0.63 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 18.85 0.15 72.27 0.63 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 18.87 0.15 72.27 0.63 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 18.88 0.15 72.27 0.62 0.61 - - - - - - - 0.61 18.90 0.15 72.27 0.62 0.61 - - - - - - - 0.61 18.92 0.15 72.26 0.62 0.61 --- --- ----- ___ ___ ___ _____ 0.61 18.93 0.15 72.26 0.62 0.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.61 18.95 0.15 72.26 0.62 0.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 18.97 0.15 72.26 0.61 0.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 18.98 0.15 72.25 0.61 0.60 - - -- - - - - 0.60 19.00 0.15 72.25 0.61 0.60 - - - -- -- ----- - 0.60 19.02 0.15 72.25 0.61 0.60 ----- -- --- ---- --- --- --- 0.60 19.03 0.15 72.24 0.61 0.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 19.05 0.15 72.24 0.60 0.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.60 ...End Hydrograph Report Page 1 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.23 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = 2.5:1 POND Max. Elevation = 73.06 ft Max. Storage = 22,017 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=33,276 cult 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 12.85 1.53 73.05 1.17 0.90 -- - 0.27 - - - - 1.17 12.87 1.51 73.05 1.18 0.90 - - 0.28 - - - - 1.18 12.88 1.49 73.06 1.19 0.90 -- -- 0.29 - - __--- --- 1.19 12.90 1.47 73.06 1.20 0.90 ----- ----- 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.19 12.92 1.44 73.06 1.20 0.90 ----- ----- 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 12.93 1.42 73.06 1.21 0.90 ----- ----- 0.31 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.21 12.95 1.40 73.06 1.21 0.90 - - 0.31 - - - - 1.21 12.97 1.38 73.06 1.22 0.90 - - 0.32 - - - - 1.22 12.98 1.35 73.06 1.22 0.90 -- -- 0.32 - -- ---- -- 1.22 13.00 1.33 73.06 1.22 0.89 ----- ----- 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.22 13.02 1.31 73.06 1.23 0.89 ----- ----- 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ---- 1.22 13.03 1.29 73.06 1.23 0.89 ----- ----- 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 13.05 1.26 73.06 1.23 0.89 - - 0.33 - - - - 1.23 13.07 1.24 73.06 1.23 0.89 -- - 0.33 - - - - 1.23 13.08 1.22 73.06<< 1.23 0.89 - - 0.33 ----- --- - -- 1.23<< 13.10 1.20 73.06 1.23 0.89 ----- ----- 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 13.12 1.18 73.06 1.23 0.89 ----- ----- 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 13.13 1.17 73.06 1.23 0.89 ----- ----- 0.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.23 13.15 1.15 73.06 1.23 0.89 - -- 0.33 - - - - 1.22 13.17 1.14 73.06 1.22 0.89 - - 0.33 - - - - 1.22 13.18 1.13 73.06 1.22 0.89 --- ----- 0.32 --- - -- - 1.22 13.20 1.12 73.06 1.22 0.90 ----- ----- 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.22 13.22 1.11 73.06 1.22 0.90 ----- ----- 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.21 13.23 1.10 73.06 1.21 0.90 ----- ----- 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.21 13.25 1.09 73.06 1.21 0.90 - - 0.31 - - - - 1.21 13.27 1.08 73.06 1.21 0.90 -- -- 0.31 - --- - - 1.21 13.28 1.08 73.06 1.21 0.90 - -- 0.31 ---- - -- -- 1.20 13.30 1.07 73.06 1.20 0.90 ----- ----- 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 13.32 1.06 73.06 1.20 0.90 ----- ----- 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 13.33 1.06 73.06 1.20 0.90 ----- ----- 0.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.19 13.35 1.05 73.06 1.19 0.90 - - 0.29 - - - - 1.19 13.37 1.05 73.06 1.19 0.90 - -- 0.29 - -- -- - 1.19 13.38 1.04 73.05 1.19 0.90 ---- ----- 0.28 - -- ----- -- 1.18 13.40 1.03 73.05 1.18 0.90 ----- ----- 0.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 13.42 1.03 73.05 1.18 0.90 ----- ----- 0.28 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.18 13.43 1.02 73.05 1.18 0.90 ----- ----- 0.27 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.17 13.45 1.02 73.05 1.17 0.90 --- - 0.27 - --- --- - 1.17 ...End Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.04 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = 2.5:1 POND Max. Elevation = 73.34 ft Max. Storage = 25,157 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=41,838 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAl Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.53 4.07 73.33 2.94 0.68 - - 2.25 - - - - 2.94 12.55 3.82 73.33 2.98 0.68 - - 2.30 - -- - ----- 2.98 12.57 3.58 73.34 3.01 0.67 ----- - 2.34 - ----- ---_ ----- 3.01 12.58 3.35 73.34 3.03 0.67 ----- ----- 2.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.03 12.60 3.14 73.34 3.04 0.67 ----- ----- 2.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.04 12.62 2.95 73.34<< 3.04 0.67 ----- ----- 2.37 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.04 << 12.63 2.77 73.34 3.03 0.67 - - 2.36 - - -- - 3.03 12.65 2.62 73.34 3.02 0.67 - - 2.35 - - - - 3.02 12.67 2.49 73.33 3.00 0.68 - --- 2.32 --- - - ---- 3.00 12.68 2.37 73.33 2.97 0.68 ----- ----- 2.30 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.97 12.70 2.28 73.33 2.95 0.68 ----- ----- 2.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.94 12.72 2.19 73.32 2.91 0.68 ----- ----- 2.23 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.91 ...End Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 4.41 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = 2.5:1 POND Max. Elevation = 73.58 ft Max. Storage = 27,881 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=50,143 cuft Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation Civ A Civ B Civ C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Outflow (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 12.43 6.47 73.54 4.22 0.49 - - 3.73 - - - -- 4.22 12.45 6.18 73.55 4.27 0.48 - - 3.79 - - - -- 4.27 12.47 5.88 73.56 4.32 0.47 - ---- 3.84 ----- ----_ --- --- 4.32 12.48 5.58 73.57 4.35 0.47 ----- ----- 3.89 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.35 12.50 5.28 73.57 4.38 0.46 ----- ----- 3.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.38 12.52 4.98 73.58 4.40 0.46 ----- ----- 3.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.40 12.53 4.69 73.58 4.41 0.46 - -- 3.95 - -- --- -- 4.41 12.55 4.40 73.58 << 4.41 0.45 - - 3.96 - -- -- - 4.41 << 12.57 4.12 73.58 4.41 0.46 - --- 3.95 --- ---__ - -- 4.41 12.58 3.86 73.58 4.40 0.46 ----- ----- 3.94 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.40 12.60 3.62 73.57 4.38 0.46 ----- ----- 3.92 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.38 12.62 3.39 73.57 4.36 0.46 ----- ----- 3.90 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.36 12.63 3.19 73.56 4.33 0.47 - -- 3.86 ----- ---- ---- ---- 4.33 12.65 3.02 73.56 4.30 0.47 - -- 3.83 ----- - - ----- 4.30 12.67 2.86 73.55 4.27 0.48 - ---- 3.79 4.27 12.68 2.73 73.54 4.23 0.49 ----- ----- 3.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.23 12.70 2.62 73.53 4.19 0.50 ----- ----- 3.70 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.19 ...End Hydrograph Report Pagel Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hyd. No. 2 THRU 2.5:1 BASIN Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 5.15 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = 2.5:1 POND Max. Elevation = 73.87 ft Max. Storage = 31,189 cuft Storage Indication method used. Outflow hydrograph volume=58,553 cuft 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 12.37 8.93 73.77 4.95 0.35 - --- 4.60 -- --- - ---- 4.95 12.38 8.46 73.79 5.00 0.34 ---- - 4.66 -- - -- -- 5.00 12.40 8.05 73.80 5.04 0.33 ----- ---- 4.71 -__ _- ____ ----- 5.04 12.42 7.68 73.82 5.07 0.33 ----- ----- 4.74 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.07 12.43 7.33 73.83 5.09 0.32 ----- ----- 4.76 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.09 12.45 7.00 73.84 5.11 0.32 ----- ----- 4.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.11 12.47 6.66 73.85 5.12 0.32 --- ---- 4.80 --- --- ----- ---- 5.12 12.48 6.32 73.86 5.13 0.32 ----- - 4.82 - ----- -- - 5.13 12.50 5.98 73.86 5.14 0.31 ---- -- 4.83 ---- ----- ---- --- 5.14 12.52 5.64 73.87 5.15 0.31 ----- ----- 4.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.15 12.53 5.31 73.87<< 5.15 0.31 ----- ----- 4.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.15 << 12.55 4.98 73.87 5.15 0.31 ----- ----- 4.84 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.15 12.57 4.67 73.87 5.15 0.31 -- ----- 4.84 ---- ---- ---- ----- 5.15 12.58 4.37 73.86 5.14 0.31 -- - 4.83 -- ----- - ---- 5.14 12.60 4.09 73.86 5.14 0.31 - ----- 4.82 ----- --- ----- --- 5.13 12.62 3.84 73.85 5.13 0.32 ----- ----- 4.81 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.12 12.63 3.61 73.84 5.11 0.32 ----- ----- 4.79 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.11 12.65 3.41 73.84 5.10 0.32 ----- ----- 4.78 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.10 12.67 3.24 73.83 5.08 0.33 ----- ----- 4.76 ----- ---- --- --- 5.08 12.68 3.09 73.82 5.07 0.33 -- -- 4.74 --- ----- -- -- 5.07 12.70 2.96 73.81 5.05 0.33 - --- 4.72 --- --- ----- -- 5.05 12.72 2.85 73.80 5.02 0.34 ----- ----- 4.69 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.02 12.73 2.76 73.78 4.99 0.34 ----- ----- 4.65 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.99 12.75 2.68 73.77 4.96 0.35 ----- ----- 4.61 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.96 12.77 2.62 73.76 4.93 0.35 --- - 4.58 ----- --- - --- 4.93 12.78 2.57 73.75 4.90 0.36 --- ----- 4.54 ---- -- ---- ---- 4.90 ...End APPENDIX F C0-- TowN OF SOUTH WINDSOR COMPLAINT FORM Date: , S Complaint In tion,, Name: Gt t /En _..�_ Address: /�S'k A/V l Phone Number: Location/Address of Complaint:f�(,�Z�1 C L T e�Z 6-7 L?c- / fb1111 i�#V/`� Description: _ Signature C� t For offlbe use on/v Action taken: Y Zoning Enforcement Officer Paul P. Roulier Town of South Windsor 1180 Strong Rd. South Windsor, CT 06074 This complaint is filed for three major reasons: 1. The activities at Mitchell Fuel Co., 1209 Sullivan Ave.,have been in noncompliance with Appeal No. 1121-76, dated September 7, 1976, which allowed a nonconforming use to the A-20 Zone. The nonconforming use allowed for"a small fuel business"to "...garage not more than two fuel delivery trucks and not more than two service vehicles..." The decision also noted that "[t]here are to be no fuel oil storage tanks located on the premises." 2. Over the past 20+years, there has been a significant change of use to the property beyond heating oils sales to include retail sales of gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, propane and anthracite. 3. The property is located within the aquifer recharge area of the Kupchunos Wellfield. Activities at the site appear to be in noncompliance with EPA Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan requirements, DEP Land Use Regulations and local Aquifer Protection Commission rules. Such activities pose a significant threat of groundwater contamination to the aquifer and surrounding properties, including the nearby land preserve. Daily observations since October 2003 indicate that an average of four fuel delivery trucks are found on the premises nightly and on weekends, varying from two to three being garaged and the remaining one to two being parked outside. Service vehicle parked on the premises, and not garaged, average three to four service trucks,one step van and a pickup truck. Building permits indicate the following additional tank activity on the premises: • 4/6/81 —2000 gal. gasoline storage tank with pump was installed—retail sales, change of use. At the Jan. 8, 2004 ZBA meeting, Mr. Mitchell admitted to selling gasoline at retail and submitted documents indicating such activity. Ct. Dept. of Consumer Protection records indicate that Mitchell Fuel is not licensed to sell-gasoline. Various federal and state statutes and regulations require testing and monitoring and that the results are to be kept on the premises. None have been provided and it believed no such testing and monitoring was conducted. • 4/23/84—Install wire and conduit for 1000 gal. Propane tank—retail sales, change of use. • 5/17/88—Install 1000 gal. Kerosene tank- retail sales, change of use. Y w y 4 • 12/22/98—Remove 2000 gal. U/G tank; install 2000 gal. Stip. 3 tank. The CT Water Company was not notified of the tank removal as required in an aquifer recharge area. Ct. Dept. of Environmental Protection records indicate that Mitchell Fuel did not give notification of the tank removal as required along with evidence of proper testing of ground soil, etc. • 3/30/99—Remove 500 gal. U/G gasoline tank. The CT Water Company was not notified of the tank removal as required in an aquifer recharge area. Ct. Dept. of Environmental Protection records indicate that Mitchell Fuel did not give notification of the tank removal as required along with evidence of proper testing of ground soil, etc.. Outside storage of other chemicals in 55-gal. drums has been witnessed on a continual basis until recently. This is not an allowable use of the property. What was stored? Has hazardous material seeped into the aquifer recharge area? All of the activities listed above are regulated. Various federal and state statutes and regulations require testing and monitoring and that the results are to be kept on the premises. None have been provided and it believed no such testing and monitoring were conducted. Statutory and Related Cites: Conn. General Statutes Section 8-3i Planning and Zoning Conn. General Statutes Section 22a-42f Inland Wetlands Conn. General Statutes Sections 14-319, 320, 322, 327b Consumer Protection Underground Fuel Storage Board,tank removal testing and monitoring requirements >SiTerely, Paul P. Rouher Phone: 860 644-0686 C: Dept. of Consumer Protection r Dept. of Environmental Protection S. W. Inland Wetland Commission d DYVELLIN& UNIT5 RIVEPMALK HOU51N& DEVELOPMENT COLOR UNIT # TYPE 50. FT. H.G. WALK-OUT SCHEME SUMMER UNIT I DI IglO GMA WHEAT UNIT 2 BI 1720 Y LEGEND Y- YES UNIT 3 DI ICIIO GMA A- ADAPTABLE WOODLAND UNIT 4 G 17g0 Y M15T GMA- CAN BE MADE UNIT 5 D Ig86 GMA ADAPTABLE PRIOR TO INSTALLING PLUMBING SUMMER UNIT (v B 17014 Y FIXTURES- THE MASTER WHEAT UNIT 7 DI ICIIO GMA BATH A5 SHOWN 15 NOT EASILY ADAPTABLE UNIT 5 A I3gq Y SANDSTONE UNIT q A 15gq Y BEIGE UNIT 10 A 13gq Y UNIT 11 A 13gq Y WOODLAND UNIT 12 A 13gg MIST UNIT 13 A 13gq SUMMER UNIT 14 B 17g4 A Y WHEAT UNIT 15 DI ICIIO GMA Y UNIT Ib B 17g4 A Y SANDSTONE ' BEIGE UNIT 1-70 17g0 A Y . UNIT 15 B 17g4 A Y 50 % MIN. ( 1400 S.F. MAX. ) (b) UNITS- 1341q S.F. 50 % MAX. ( 1400- 2000 S.F. ) (5) UNITS BALANCE ( LESS THAN 1500 S.F. (1) UNITS- I5gq S.F. i� Ij I 1 O � B LEI '1 1; jI A< � 1? I( k B , ;3 B 3 OPTION I - a 5GREEN I N6 DECK DE51 Gil 3 O 5QUARE BALLU5TER5- 5FA CED 4" BETWEEN 3 3 B I x 4 5LAT5, OFFSET (FRI VA<TE BUT VENTILATED) <0W N St+ O a v • w° 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 OR•CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 February 10, 2004 CERTIFIED#70020510000081151379 Design Professionals, Inc. Attn: Peter DeMallie 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl. #2596-03—John J. Mitchell, 1199/1209 Sullivan Avenue, A-20 zone Dear Mr. DeMallie: At the meeting of the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals held on February 5, 2004, the Board made the following motions for property at 1199/1209 Sullivan Avenue, A-20 zone. Approve modifications to prior conditions of a variance dated 9/2176 to allow: 5 fuel delivery trucks; 7 service trucks and a 4 bay garage addition (with conditions). The Board concluded the hardships on the property related to the modifications of the prior variance to be as follows: Five fuel delivery trucks Changes in Federal regulations governing the subject business rendered the conditions set as unreasonable and unenforceable. Seven service trucks Reasonable expansion of the business. A four bay garage extension Homeland Security requirements stipulate how said trucks must be stored, which caused the 1976 conditions to be unreasonable and unattainable with the current three bay garage. The condition placed on this approval is as follows: Approval is contingent upon site plan approval by the Planning &Zoning Commission. Approve with conditions a variance to section 3.A.2 (a) (1)to allow 2 driveways on subject property. The hardship identified was the layout of the current commercial use and the existing house creates a need for the second driveway. The second driveway will separate the commercial traffic from residential traffic. r Appl. #2596-03—John J. Mitchell February 10, 2004 Page 2 The condition placed on this approval is as follows: Approval is contingent upon site plan approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Deny without prejudice the request to modify the condition regarding the number of fuel oil storage tanks. The applicant failed to show a hardship related to the property. The use of these tanks should be reviewed with the Town Attorney and Zoning Enforcement Officer to ensure that their continued use complies with regulations as varied. Deny without prejudice a 50' variance to section 4.3.10 to eliminate buffer. The Board concluded that a buffer is not required by the zoning regulations. Deny without prejudice a variance to section 4.3 to allow a second house. The applicant failed to show a hardship on the property which was not self imposed. Any new building, or alteration/additions to existing buildings, requires a building permit prior to start of construction. These actions are effective upon your filing the enclosed form in the Town Clerk's Office at your own expense. Very truly yours, Stephen Wagner, Chai erson Zoning Board of Appeals SW:dr cc: Building Department John J. Mitchell RECEIVED MAY 0 5 2004 April 22, 2004 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Peter R. DeMallie and Design Professionals, Inc. is hereby authorized to sign any and all applications associated with the development of my property at 1209 Sullivan Avenue in South Windsor, Connecticut. I further authorize the submission of land use applications associated with the development of this property for the River Walk SRD. Sincerely, (1'Vw J By: fo�n J. Mitc ell 40 Windy Hi11 Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Tel. 860-644-2561 Cc: Peter R. DeMallie Marcia Banach Jeffrey Folger RECEIVED il 7er CWd& APR 2 3 2004 SOLIM Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY Active It?i. C�+ it CONSERVATION COMMISSION ��r6t..4fY� Ivf�i.'iA` isi36�iidttli tl G.� 1235 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor, CT 06074 April 24, 2004 Mr. & Mrs. Paul Roulier 1180 Strong Road South Windsor, CT. 06074 Re: River Walk SRD 1235 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Roulier, At the request of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning & Zoning Commission, we wish to notify you that we have filed applications on the above noted property. We will be subject to a hearing or meeting by both agencies in the near future. The applications and plans are now on file with the South Windsor Planning Department at our Town Hall. As a neighboring property owner, we are pleased to invite you to the hearing(s) And ask any questions, or give comments, although you're not required to attend. You may also submit any written comments regarding our application(s) prior to the meeting, if you desire. Della and John Mitchell and Barbara (me) and Paul Barbour are the owners of this property. We would be very pleased to show you our plans for River Walk and elicit any ideas you mqy have to make this project one all of us will be proud of. Please feel free to call me (282-1751) to arrange a meeting. I will be out of town until the 5th of May, but really look forward to meeting with you both and any other homeowners in our area. In the meantime, for further information regarding the specific date this application(s) will be heard, please contact Kelli Koehler, Recording Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner at our Planning Department in South Windsor, 644-2511, ext. 253, 252, 229, respectively. Sincerely, Barbara Barbour, partner Corner Meadow, Ilc Cc: Marcia Banach Jeff Folger (3Q117er CWd& RECEIVED An Acts v a AduIt C ��, APR 2 3 2004 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY 1235 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, CT 06074 CO SERVATON COMMISSION April 24, 2004 Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Millward 1200 Strong Road South Windsor, CT. 06074 Re: River Walk SRD 1235 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Millward, At the request of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning & Zoning Commission, we wish to notify you that we have filed applications on the above noted property. We will be subject to a hearing or meeting by both agencies in the near future. The applications and plans are now on file with the South Windsor Planning Department at our Town Hall. As a neighboring property owner, we are pleased to invite you to the hearing(s) And ask any questions, or give comments, although you're not required to attend. You may also submit any written comments regarding our application(s) prior to the meeting, if you desire. Della and John Mitchell and Barbara (me) and Paul Barbour are the owners of this property. We would be very pleased to show you our plans for River Walk and elicit any ideas you may have to make this project one all of us will be proud of. Please feel free to call me (282-1751) to arrange a meeting. I will be out of town until the 5th of May, but really look forward to meeting with you both and any other homeowners in our area. In the meantime, for further information regarding the specific date this application(s) will be heard, please contact Kelli Koehler, Recording Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner at our Planning Department in South Windsor, 644-2511, ext. 253, 252, 229, respectively. Sincerely, Barbara Barbour, partner Corner Meadow, Ilc Cc: Marcia Banach Jeff Folger Giver Cwd& RECEIVED A- ACtiv . "oYiiiit"y«. n Mull-raa APR I 2 3 2004 1235 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, CT 06074 south Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION April 24, 2004 Ms. Jennie Milliken 237 Pierce Road South Windsor, CT. 06074 Re: River Walk SRD 1235 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT. Dear Ms. Milliken, At the request of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning & Zoning Commission, we wish to notify you that we have filed applications on the above noted property. We will be subject to a hearing or meeting by both agencies in the near future. The applications and plans are now on file with the South Windsor Planning Department at our Town Hall. As a neighboring property owner, we are pleased to invite you to the hearing(s) And ask any questions, or give comments, although you're not required to attend. You may also submit any written comments regarding our application(s) prior to the meeting, if you desire. Della and John Mitchell and Barbara (me) and Paul Barbour are the owners of this property. We would be very pleased to show you our plans for River Walk and elicit any ideas you may have to make this project one all of us will be proud of. Please feel free to call me (282-1751) to arrange a meeting. I will be out of town until the 5th of May, but really look forward to meeting with you both and any other homeowners in our area. In the meantime, for further information regarding the specific date this application(s) will be heard, please contact Kelli Koehler, Recording Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner at our Planning Department in South Windsor, 644-2511, ext. 253, 252, 229, respectively. Sincerely, Barbara Barbour, partner Corner Meadow, Ile Cc: Marcia Banach Jeff Folger RECEIVED Qil 7er CWd& APR 2 3 2004 An Active Adult Corr'i.munity South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1235 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, CT 06074 April 24, 2004 Mr. and Mrs. David Schmedding 237 Pierce Road South Windsor, CT. 06074 Re. River Walk SRD 1235 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schmedding, At the request of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning & Zoning Commission, we wish to notify you that we have filed applications on the above noted property. We will be subject to a hearing or meeting by both agencies in the near future. The applications and plans are now on file with the South Windsor Planning Department at our Town Hall. As a neighboring property owner, we are pleased to invite you to the hearing(s) And ask any questions, or give comments, although you're not required to attend. You may also submit any written comments regarding our application(s) prior to the meeting, if you desire. Della and John Mitchell and Barbara (me) and Paul Barbour are the owners of this property. We would be very pleased to show you our plans for River Walk and elicit any ideas you may have to make this project one all of us will be proud of. Please feel free to call me (282-1751) to arrange a 1 w meeting. I will be out of town until the 5th of May, but really look forward to meeting with you both and any other homeowners in our area. In the meantime, for further information regarding the specific date this application(s) will be heard, please contact Kelli Koehler, Recording Secretary, Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director, or Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner at our Planning Department in South Windsor, 644-2511, ext. 253, 252, 229, respectively. Sincerely, Barbara Barbour, partner Corner Meadow, Ilc Cc: Marcia Banach Jeff Folger 4 Public Water Supply Aquifer Area Project Notification Form Requirement: All applicants before a municipal Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetland Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals for any project located within a public water supply aquifer area are required by Sections 8-3i of the CT General Statutes to notify the affected water utility by certified mail within 7 days of the date of the application. General Information: 1. Location map of the project site(please show enough information to locate site). 2. Site plans including soil erosion and sediment control plan which have been submitted to the town commission for review. 3. Projectaddress 12-35 Sulloickn �VeYlL1�}SOUfih 11�i1i'1C�SDY_ C_T 4. Total acreage of project site 1 a-d C) O-C . ' 5_ Existing land use — S i t eYY1 l I tb LkSt -6. Project description(include propose uses) Ct7Y1S�(U�C�tDY� QT Owl Z1 LlY1[� �2a'1.LOr �C�r1p elf Q `�Q�i •`F`�YY1.�1�� C 1YCU�C�f►•OY1 C,��(tV�� r _ AWa S -�iC 1 h 7. Acreage of are to be disturbed including structures, additions,paving, and soil disturbance 4.b4 «C 8. Type of sanitary system(circle one)-septic system/ ublic sewe /other/none 9. Number of existing or proposed floor rain and their point of discharge e.g. sanitary sewer,holding tank, or ground • T 10. Water accessed by(circle one)-private wel ublic Ovate /other/none; If other,please specify 11.Distance of site disturbance to nearest watercourse or wetland c-Ct I T WOV&41�D ftA66-1 tJ 6- 12. Brief description of existing or proposed stormwater management system,including roof drainage,paved areas etc., and discharge points e.g.municipal sewers, drywells, streams,vegetated areas, detention basins etc. 47 f s, Yunr' �o tluxr e IntoIOQSInS mu to -1b 6-LS ate J in � ��-�-�.tion �u�1n o�nsk- �efDre er�.l-�xin mar: 13. Type of heat for facility br 14.List of existing and proposed under ound or above-ground storage tanks including age,capacity and contents 15. List of potentially harmful chemicals stored or used on property(existing and proposed)and typical onsite volumes, including but not limited to petroleum products, Iubricants,solvents,detergents and pesticides f}� C 1i 16.Describe any wastes generated and their means of disposal GYl T�Jr� Se,W e111,116MAwilt) 10 bschwN ti) CPul�r 17.Date application will be heard by planning and Zoning Commission --------------- 18. Date application will be heard by Zoning Board of-Appeals 19.Date application will be heard by Inland Wetlands Commission_ 20. Name, address and telephone number of contact person for the project ►r�iS Y CT O(0m Name of p rson comp eting form i ature � Date Kelli,Koehler-RE 04-33P River Walk Senior Residence Development Page 1 From: "William Lanning"<WLanning@southwindsorfire.org> To: "Kelli Koehler"<koehle@southwindsor.org> Date: 5/7/04 3:28PM Subject: RE: 04-33P, River Walk Senior Residence Development -----Original Message----- From: Kelli Koehler[mailto:koehle@southwindsor.org] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:38 PM To: Bob Deptula;Jeff Doolittle; Chris Dougan; Ray Favreau; Matt Galligan; Mike Gantick; Kristian Lindstrom; Sgt. Rich Bond; Karl Reichle; Fred Shaw; Dennis Sheridan; Melvin Stead; William Lanning Subject: 04-33P, River Walk Senior Residence Development Please respond with comments. Thanks-Kelli Kelli Koehler Administriative Secretary I looked at the plans Friday AM 5-7-04. Looks OK at this time. I will take care of water main and hydrant locations with Ct. Water. Wm. R. Lanning 05/17/2004 MON 15:35 FAX 860 644 7280 South Windsor Town Hall ********************* *** FAX TX REPORT *** ********************* TRANSMISSION OK JOB NO. 1667 DESTINATION ADDRESS 92918757 PSWD/SUBADDRESS DESTINATION ID ST. TIME 05/17 15:34 USAGE T 01' 27 PGS. 2 RESULT OK 'MEMORANDUM RED vED Town of MAY 17 2004 TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Plannning SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEpf South FROM: Sgt. Rich Bond Traffic Manager SWPD Windsor DATE: 17-May-04 .R1 a ry i r-am Post-it°Fax Note 7671 oale 5), #per►a SUBJECT: River Walk To 1st w F 11-1 t& cojmpt. Co. I Phone# Phone# Marcia, Fax#2.1 I' .�S Fax# t As we discussed, I have reviewed the proposal as well as the Traffic Impact Study regarding the proposed River Walk senior residence development. I have several concerns regarding the placement of the driveway on Sullivan Ave. 1. Placement is in such proximity to Pierce Rd that any delay at the light southbound will result in stopped traffic on the Avenue at the entrance River Walk driveway. Residents leaving River Walk are likely to encounter lengthy waits. Absent that, a resident may be waved out from the driveway by a good-hearted southbound motorist only to try and enter the northbound lane with little or no visibility. The green for northbound does activate before the southbound signal if left(west)turn traffic is present. 2. The traffic study clearly reports that the Pierce/Sullivan intersection is at level C during the AM peak and at level E during the PM peak. Waits of this length to exit a private drive often generate rapid attempts to move into traffic or a slow, easing movement into the traffic lane until a motorist"yields" 3. The Traffic Impact Study also predicts levels of D and F for left entry into the River Walk drive at the AM and PM peaks respectively. While admittedly many private drives experience this level of service during peak hours, I do not feel that starting at this level with no where to go but down is prudent. 4. The proposal includes construction,of a bypass lane on the northbound side o€Route 194. This bypass would presumably be very close to the right(east) bank along Sullivan Ave. I have some line of sight concerns for northbound traffic,which is already moved to right due to the turn lane at Pierce Rd. Significant excavation of the bank or a similar measurF. would have to be taken to ensure that northbound motorists roundina the curve fro— " RECEIVED 5... MAY 1 9 2004 I SU2 AW gaud 0%lue SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, souta wutdoan, eg V6U74 .Mach IS, 2004 Wanning& Zoning Conuniooian gown of Sou&Windim 154C Suffivan ("mw SoutA Windaan, C5'. V6C74 Re: a vatu.Mea&w P-M appP cation fan JUvu WdA 9 wn= J tiue on.Mice J and Dove and often d uve 6#w iew ffw planned 9hu m Walk active aduet candoo aye apptcyingc to yom QSencV An appwo d. Ym in fawn of tOU6 d'eadopment ao J thine it io neeeooanV to Rave mane ieni"aduet ftomw in Seath Windjo,%. J fieV ace uoingc t6b eared in a ueW wpom!6&waif, eeauurg the 6.ack pantian f"eue%Vone'o ui mwgc enjoyment ao we&ao pwewing eta natuxae otate. X.peftW#ycm comunWion wig give ito appwvae. �- J you. Sinceneey, yu& `J wwa South • • Planning Department Memo To: Karen Isherwood, P.E., Design Professionals From: Michele Lipe,Assistant Director of Planning Date: 5/20/2004 Re: River Walk SRD Review Comments Following are review comments from the Planning Department. Please make appropriate revisions and submit seven complete sets (including landscaping and architectural elevations)to the Planning Department at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing (scheduled for June 8). Traffic comments from Sgt. Bond have been sent previously. Engineering comments will be forthcoming. If you have any questions, please call. 1. The zoning data table has some errors that should be corrected: Lot width required for a SRD is 200 feet and an accurate"Provided"figure should be given. The"Provided"front yard setback is incorrect. Proposed Model sizes/number section does not correctly reference the units. 2. Yard setbacks and buffer have been reversed; yard goes inside, buffer goes along property boundaries 3. Staff has a concern with the combination of the buffer and the side yard. We recommend they not be combined as there is a single family home to the south and an existing business to the north. It does not appear to meet the criteria for a coterminous buffer/side yard (see Section 4.1.12.g). 4. It appears that units 3, 4 and 5 only have about 19' of driveway before the sidewalk. We have requested a minimum of 20 feet in all other SRD's. (If it is intended to be 20', a dimension should be shown on the plans.) 5. Note#2 should reflect that the zone is RR and A-20 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 860-644-2511,ext.253 Fax 860-644-7280 e-mail Iipp(cDsouthwi ndsor.org 0 Page 1 6. Traffic study — The study should examine the entrance options, including combined driveways with the Mitchell Fuel site. 7. Is there a cross travel easement to be provided to John J Mitchell to the north? Easements chart has not been provided (off-site sanitary sewer, cross travel easements should be shown is easement chart—see updated site plan checklist) 8. As indicated to Design Professionals on several occasions, it is very difficult to evaluate the traffic patterns and distances between drives between this site and the adjacent Mitchell Fuel site without that application submitted (as well as the zoning implications of reducing the lot size and parking on the Mitchell Fuel site). In addition, the key map reflects changes to the Mitchell Fuel site which have not been approved by the PZC. Note: The ZBA variances granted to the access management regulations to allow two driveways to remain on the Mitchell Fuel site were contingent on site plan approval by the PZC. 9. Existing conditions plan should be provided—specifically addressing the deposition of the existing structure and driveways on the existing property. 10. Connecticut Water notification of this application must be provided. ADRC Requested modifications 1. Applicant is to explore the replacement of louvers on the side of the building with ridge vents. 2. Committee requested that some screening be placed on the back side of the units to provide privacy between units. 0 Page 2 L v-cy I ' 111 t&rckv f f ab tD r- Soutkv Wiv>t 4or, Cr 06074 May 18, 2004 RECEIVED MAY 2 12004 row vv of Smidv W ai4w SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. K Er .Zoe C raww}falL 1540 SuU, va vAven"& SctakW nd or, Cr 06074 Re: River W aUv Develop wi evi t 1235 SuRi vavvAven"& soudv wald4or, cr Dear scrs- Th&protect caUed/Rwer Walk(4-before./ymw at"thikV vn& I wi4 71/to voice./my approves ,ta- a tow th4-deve7,opvne t to-be/b it t ak pZa4AAed. It wall the./ hoo&vvUhaut deatroyi+�any of the/beaua'-gW/areal beh,�n&the./homea: The/present hou4./i4,avv eyewe./an&hav%vu*new homek wUhout ad d,irw vux.L sc;wov co-sty will help car taxe* Thank yaw. SU�.cerely, Lucy lgvw4nil t MEMORANDUM To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning RECEIVED Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner MAY 2 12004 From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer \-(2 Date: 5/21/04 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. RE: App 04-08P, River Walk SRD Application I have reviewed the revised Site Plan for the River Walk SRD dated May 14, 2004 and I have the following comments: 1. Include a plan showing the existing conditions and all planned demolition on the site. 2. A DOT permit is required for the new driveway. Based on the issues raised in the report by Seargent Rich Bond of the South Windsor Police Services a bypass lane on Sullivan Avenue northbound may be necessary. 3. Include a standard street name sign at Sullivan Avenue. There also needs to be some traffic control signage where Wildlife Trail comes to a"T'intersection with itself. I suggest a yield sign. 4. The proposed sidewalk should end in a handicap ramp at Sullivan Avenue. There also needs to be handicap ramps and a crosswalk to cross the"T'intersection of Wildlife Trail. 5. Include the sight line distance from the proposed private road both ways on Sullivan Avenue 6. The sign and landscaping at the "T' intersection of Wildlife Trail appears to interfere with sight distance at this intersection and needs to be relocated. 7. There needs to be at least 20 feet of driveway between the sidewalk and the garages of these units. This does not appear to be the case for units 3 and 4 and possibly others. Please check all units and correct as needed. 8. Provide more contours or spot elevations behind units 1-4 and behind units 12-13 to show that surface water will easily drain from these areas. It looks flat on the grading plan in these areas. Additional yard drains might be necessary. 9. What is the distance from the curb to the sidewalk across the snow shelf? It appears to be 3 feet which is too small. The show shelf needs to be at least 4-5 feet wide to provide storage space for snow or the sidewalk should be widened to the curb so it can be plowed off into the road. 10. There are several locations where the sanitary sewer mains and storm drainage main lines are too close to the buildings. This includes building 11, 12, 13 and 18. These will be extremely difficult to construct and maintain without adversely impacting the buildings or the pipes. Relocate the pipes at least 15-20 feet from the buildings to allow room for equipment to install and maintain these pipes without damaging the buildings. 11. Roof leaders need to be shown on the plan. 12. Provide a detail of the cross walk shown on the plans 13. The retaining wall behind unit 16 is too close to the building. 14. There will be additional impact on the wetlands during construction of the nearby buildings that is not shown on the plans. 15. Provide a concrete leakoff from the low point in the sidewalk to CB 7 to allow water to drain from the sidewalk. 16. Is the road to be curbed? I did not see the curbing labeled. 17. Provide soils information from borings or test pits on this site. 18. The water and sewer service laterals need to be separated by at least 10 feet where the run from the main lines to the units. Many do not meet this requirement and need to be adjusted. 19. Show a gravel access road to the detention basin inlet and outlet for maintenance access on the grading plan. This appears to be on the landscape plan but it is not labeled. 20. Include an emergency overflow spillway from the detention basin. 21. 1 will call the design engineer with additional comments on the drainage analysis 22. How will the gazebo be installed or constructed without further impacting the wetlands? Where do the proposed mowed paths go? 23. Provide a gravel access road for maintenance access to sanitary manholes 1 &2 from roads. 24. Wildlife Trail has three sharp comers with very small radi and this road is steep (8%) for about 250 feet from Sullivan Avenue. This road will be difficult to negotiate when it is wet or slippery due to ice or snow. The flat area(landing)at Sullivan Avenue is only long enough for 1 car which is not enough. Also the driveway to the property to the north is off this steep part and it may be difficult for vehicles to safely negotiate this turn. The grade of this road needs to be reduced and the landing at Sullivan Avenue lengthened. 25. The plans need to show where the energy dissipator(detail included)will be located. 26. Revise the sidewalk detail to include that the sidewalk must be 8" thick with wire reinforcing where it crosses any driveways, according to the Town standard. 27. The manholes and detention basin outlet structure must have galvanized frames and grates. 28. There is a detail for a concrete wall that does not appear to match the wall shown on the plans. Please clarify where this wall will be and details for its construction. 29. Because of the small size of this site there appear to be many conflicts between utilities, structures, landscaping and lighting. Show the sewer line storm drainage, water line and street light locations on the landscape plans so these conflicts can be mitigated by relocating these items as necessary. 30. It appears that the proposed construction on this site is too dense. The utilities and buildings are very close together and will be extremely difficult to construct and maintain. The road is steep and has tight curves. There are conflicts as mentioned above. This will add extra cost and time to the project construction and maintenance budgets. I calculate that 35% of the buildable area on this lot will be covered by buildings or pavement (impervious surface) as shown. This is higher than other recently approved SRD's. The calculated density of 3.4 on the data table is also higher than other recently approved SRD's. 31. Sanitary manholes 1 & 2 are to have watertight manhole frames and covers. Please label the plans accordingly and include the applicable details. 32. Show clay stops along the cross country line at each end of the wetlands crossing and at 100 foot intervals between. Label the clay stop detail accordingly 33. The Public Improvement specifications require that sewers in low areas have at least 4 feet of cover. This is not what is shown by manhole 1. Adjust the plans accordingly. 34. Show that the sewer main with low slopes(0.5%)will have minimum cleansing velocity 35. It appears that a sanitary sewer lateral is shown for the property to the north. This needs to be labeled. The WPCA may require a separate monitoring manhole be installed on the lateral from the commercial/industrial use on the property from the north. In this case an easement would have to be granted to the Town of South Windsor to allow access to this manhole for inspection. 36. An application must be submitted to the WPCA for review and approval of this project. I will let you know if I have any other thoughts or comments on this project. Please call me (x 245) if you have any questions. 0W N Seq Cfi �- �s� �� y � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR.CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 RECEIVED MAY 14 2004 May 11, 2004 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Ms. Marcia Banach Department of Planning Town of South Windsor Dear Ms. Banach, At the most recent meeting of the Historic District Commission on May 4th, the senior housing development proposed by John Mitchell and Mr. and Mrs. Paul Barbour, on Sullivan and Pierce Road,was discussed. Though not in the Historic District, Commissioners expressed their hope that the house that is currently standing on the property be thoroughly researched as to its age, and preserved. It is possible that adaptive reuse of the building as an office or community center for the project would be appropriate. Within the coming year the State Historic Commission will be conducting the final, formal Historic Resources Survey for the town of South Windsor. At its completion,we look forward to it being a helpful planning tool for the town, especially when new development impacts historic sites. I would be grateful if you would share this note with the Planning and Zoning Commission. With many thanks, Va1, 3f`. - W� Virginia Macro, Chair Historic District Commission RECEIVED Lucy I MAY 2 4 2004 r' South Windsor NLAND WETLANDS AGENCY Scutt V YV�)CVlaw, Cr 060740 SER AT ON COMMISSION May 18, 2004 7-ow vv of Soutly W 6nd4ar I nta4,iL W AgR4, --y T'oivrvHa 1 1540 SuUi[va i/Ave*i South.W(4�, CT 06074 Rem ROver Wa kDevelopnwnt 1235 Su&va,i/Avena& SmWv W%vuWrr, C7r tDe w Strs- rh&praj'e caue&Rvvefr W ally 4-be foy'e your at-th kt'u- n&. I wt4k to-vo-ic&my approves /to- atlow thi-develop MAP nt to-be&Mat ak pla A4-Led. It IV a the neZghborhoo&wURo t destroy6nq,a,vy of the bea iti fia/areal beh�4�the/hoaw k. The/pre4evit hou&ik avv eyesore an&hav bvio,new howne.S wUjUnit addirwywa,sciv) D co--w aihole2p our taxes Thaw yotiv. Rncerely, Lucy lgvwgv l .�o.NN SC -2, O-P S-0� ?d&U&Ot O s � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 sox.co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL 7002 1746p pppy 9744 3197 May 25,2004 Mrs. Karen Isherwood Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Appl 04-33P,River Walk Dear Mrs. Isherwood: Please be advised that the Regular Meeting of the Planning&Zoning Commission in the above referenced matter has been scheduled for Tuesday,June 8, 2004, at 7:30 in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue. Someone must be present at the hearing to represent the application. Two signs advertising the hearing must be posted on the property for ten(10) consecutive days prior to the hearing and must be clearly visible from a town street. Please have one sign posted at Sullivan Avenue and one sign posted on Pierce Road by Saturday, May 29,2004. Signs can be obtained in the Planning Department. Sincerely, /�W; Kelli Koehler Administrative Secretary DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. civil engineers .planners • surveyors . gis May 28,2004 RECEIVED Town of South Windsor MAY 2 8 2004 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor,Ct 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Attn:Ms.Marcia Banach Senior Planner Re:River Walk Dear Marcia We have revised the plans to address comments made by Michele Lipe dated 5/20/04,Jeffrey Doolittle dated 5/21/04,and Jeffrey Folger dated 5/25/04. Our like numbered replies are as follows: Michele Lipe's comments dated 5/20/04 1. The zoning data table has been revised accordingly. 2. The yard setbacks and buffer lines have been revised accordingly. 3. The proposed site design has been completed to take into account the coterminous buffer and side yard as proposed. The units 6 and 7 close to the southern property line are lower in elevation than the abutting property by approximately 2-6'. This will significantly reduce visibility to the neighbor. In addition, landscaping in accordance with the town requirements will be installed in this area. On the northern side of the site,the 25' coterminous side-yard and buffer is proposed in coordination with the proposed development on the Mitchell fuel site. 4. The design has been adjusted to insure that there is a minimum of 20' between the garage and the sidewalks on each unit. 5. Note 2 has been revised accordingly. 6. A traffic study has been submitted as part of the proposed development. The connection to the Mitchell Fuel site is being provided as a second access to this site. This will allow for easier maneuvering within the Mitchell Fuel site for large delivery trucks. The normal Mitchell fuel delivery truck and vehicle traffic into and out of the Mitchell Fuel site is expected to continue to use the Mitchell Fuel site curb cut directly onto Sullivan Avenue. As such,the traffic impact of having the Mitchell curb cut onto the site entrance road will be insignificant. 7. An easement chart has been added to the plans. There is a proposed cross travel easement and sanitary easement to be granted to John J.Mitchell. 8. A site plan application for the Mitchell fuel site will be submitted on 5/28/04. 9. A demolition plan has been added to the plans. 10. Connecticut Water notification has been completed,and a copy of the notification is enclosed. ADRC Requested modifications. 1. Applicant is exploring the replacement of louvers on the side of the building with ridge vents. 2. Some additional screening has been added to the plans to provide privacy between units in the rear of the units. Jeffrey Doolittle's comments dated 5/21/04 1. A demolition plan has been added to the set of plans. 2. A bypass lane on the northbound lane of Sullivan Avenue is proposed,(see sheet 7). 3. A street sign has been shown at the proposed intersection on Sullivan Avenue. We have also added stop sign control within the site. 4. The plans have been revised accordingly. 5. The plans have been revised accordingly. 6. The sign at the tee intersection has been relocated. 7. A minimum of 20'has been provided between the garages and the sidewalks. 8. Additional grading details have been included on the plans. 9. There are no specific requirements for snow shelf width on private roadways. The 3' wide minimum grass shelf between the sidewalk and curb has been provided for both as a snow shelf and for aesthetics. The snow clearing and maintenance of the internal roadway and sidewalks will be the responsibility of a private contractor. We would expect during snow events,that the snow would be cleared from the roadway first,and then from the sidewalks. 10. The storm and sanitary pipes have been adjusted to provide sufficient clearance in our opinion to allow for construction and maintenance of these facilities. 11. A note has been added to the plans indicating that the roof leaders will discharge to splash pads. 12. The cross-walk will be striped in accordance with the latest standards at time of construction. 13. The wall behind unit 16 is not a retaining wall. It is simply a 2'high stone wall to provide a barrier to help prevent encroachment into the wooded areas immediately adjacent. 14. Construction depending upon the care and techniques employed can generally be limited from areas of particular concern. Barriers such as silt fence,construction fencing etc. can be erected to help define limits of construction,and to help prevent undesired incursions. 15. In reviewing sidewalk construction throughout the town of South Windsor,and in particular at low points in sidewalks,we have not observed installation of leak-offs as being a common practice. We see no need for the installation as requested. 16. Labels for proposed curbing have been added to the plans. 17. No borings or test-pits have been conducted on the site at this time. Soil information based on the soil survey has been added to the plans. 18. The plans have been revised accordingly. 19. The plans have been revised accordingly. 20. The plans have been revised accordingly. 21. No comment. 22. Typically,the gazebos are pre-constructed units that are delivered to the site and slid off the trailer into place. Beyond the operation to accomplish this,we would not anticipate any further disturbance. 23. The plans have been revised accordingly. 24. The Wildlife trail roadway is a local access to the proposed units and the adjacent Mitchell fuel site. As such,the traffic volumes on this roadway are very low. The travel speed within the complex on the roadways will also be very low. Due to the low speeds,and working with the terrain of the land,the proposed profile has been optimized to provide access to the site,and minimize disturbance to the land in particular adjacent to the wetland areas. 25. The plans have been revised accordingly. 26. The plans have been revised accordingly. 27. The catch basin and outlet detail have been revised to show galvanized frames and grates. The manhole detail has not been changed to show a galvanized frame and grate. 28. The plans have been revised accordingly. 29. The plans have been revised accordingly. 30. The site has been designed to meet the town regulations regarding density,net buildable acreage, impervious coverage,lot coverage,and any other related density requirements. It is irrelevant what other recently approved developments had for density. In any development,construction practices must be adapted for the site conditions. Construction practices in city centers are different than in rural areas,and the contractor will need to adapt his construction practices to meet the site requirements. 31. The plans have been revised accordingly. 32. The plans have been revised accordingly. 33. The plans have been revised accordingly. 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860)291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757 34. The proposed sanitary sewer is proposed to be 0.5%minimum. 35. A sanitary sewer lateral is being provided for the property to the north(Mitchell Fuel site). A corresponding easement is being provided. Any manhole installation or easement for inspection of the manhole will need to be on the Mitchell Fuel site,and would not be part of this application. 36. An application to the WPCA will be made once all other local approvals are obtained. Jeffrey Folger's Comments dated 5/25/04. 1. Typically,the gazebos are pre-constructed units that are delivered to the site and slid off the trailer into place. Beyond the operation to accomplish this,we would not anticipate any further disturbance. 2. The project as designed is expected to have an insignificant impact on the groundwater contribution to the neighboring wetlands. The adjacent wetlands are part of a large wetland that is associated with the Podunk River. The site through the installation of foundation drains will result in localized dewatering of the subsurface. Typically the impact of foundation drains extend only approximately 10-20' from the foundation to any appreciable degree. With the installation of the proposed water quality basin with the permanent pool,much of the water removed from the ground via the foundation drains will be replaced. The roof runoff from the units will be discharged to splash pads,and therefore will have the ability to infiltrate as the site soils allow. Runoff from east sides of the upper units(units 1-7)in addition to the rear roof leaders will be directed via a swale to drain directly to the small wetland finger located between units 7 and 14. No subsurface soil testing has occurred on the site at this time. We expect that the site is similar to the Strawberry Fields site located just north of this site. 3. Additional information will be presented regarding addressing the feasible and prudent alternatives. 4. The intent of the construction of units 14-18 is to limit the impacts to that shown on the plans. We do not anticipate any compaction of wetland soils beyond the permitted extent. Should the contractor need to expand the limit of impact,temporary measures such as the creation of a stone pad on a geo-textile could be considered. Once the work is complete,the stone and fabric would be removed,and the vegetation replaced. We are not proposing any measures for additional impact to the wetlands as being required. The contractor will need to make the necessary adjustments to their methods of construction to prevent further impacts beyond the proposed. In general we would believe that compaction of the wetland soils if it were to occur in locations would be a short term impact. The natural processes would tend to mitigate any impact to the soils,and the soils would tend to expand once the source of compaction is removed. Please review the enclosed,and feel free to call with any questions or comments. a Sincerely, Karen I herwood,P.E. Enclosures: 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel: (860) 291-8755 •Fax: (860) 291-8757 Ralph Mosher 308 Sandstone Dr. S. Windsor, CT 06074 May 18,2004 100T8 w/NOso�p 2004 IAIVNINGD6Pr South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Application of River Walk Dear Commissioners: The Corner Meadow, LLC application for River Walk is now before your Agency. I wholeheartedly support this over 55 adult condominium project. The Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road site is an ideal transition from single family homes'to the Mitchell Fuel business. There are far two few places in South Windsor for those wanting to downsize. The project size fits well in the meadow area and offers outstanding vistas to the future owners. As the back land wouldn't be disturbed,that portion will also provide added value to the Major Donnelly Preserve and the neighboring homes overlooking the Podunk River. The owners have hired architects,planners,traffic consultants and others to insure their project will be built properly and meet the town regulations. This is a responsible,well thought out and nicely designed addition to our town. Ralph Mosher Robert Ignagni 307 Sandstone Dr. South Windsor, CT 06074 Ilk, Nos 01) May 18, 2004 Oko South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor,CT 06074 Re: Application of River Walk Dear Commissioners: I wish to support the above named proposal for the adult condominium project called River Walk to be built at the comer of Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road. I have studied their plans and find the project to be well thought out and very eye appealing. The project size fits the area and will blend in well with the character of the neighborhood. The owners have retained soil scientists,design planners,architects and other professionals to insure they m_ininize any disturbance of the wetlands. Very few locations in South Windsor offer this natural picturesque environment. Sincerel4y, Rob rt I z✓ IV tl ® Mrs. Porter Collins 1007811111 1R 2004 8 Collins Lane 1A1411VO FpT South Windsor, CT 06074 May 10, 2004 Planning &Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Gentlemen: I live on Collins Lane, close to where the planned River Walk active adult condos are going to be built. I'm in favor of this development as I think it is necessary to provide for more adult communities in South Windsor. Hopefully your commission will give its approval. Sincerely, Mrs. Porter Collins Robert Fleet 21 Appletree Lane South Windsor, CT 06074 "ECE'VEFD May 18,2004 JUN 0 2 2004TNDSpRpCANPJIN GDDp SO(/ryW South Windsor Planning& Zoning Commission 1. 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor,CT 06074 Re: River Walk Condominium Application Gentlemen: I recently reviewed the above application and wish to voice my approval of this project. They have made every effort to maintain the ecological balance while providing a most beautiful vista for the future owners. This development will reinforce the neighborhood's residential character, and not leave raw land open to possible commercial use in the future. The owners are residents of South Windsor and I believe will build a quality project. Thank you. Sincerely, Bob Fleet RECEIVED Ms. Jennifer Dolan JUN 0 2 2004 307 Sandstone Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. May 18, 2004 South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Application of River Walk Dear Commissioners: I'm in favor of the River Walk proposal for the active senior condominium project to be built at the corner of Pierce Road and Sullivan Avenue in South Windsor. I've seen their plans and feel they are creating an appealing neighborhood of 18 units that will not impact the wetlands. The homes fit the area well and they have left more than half of the acreage undisturbed. The owners are using professionals in the fields of soil science, design and traffic to insure they minimize any disturbance of the wetlands as well as negative impact to the general area. Very few locations in South Windsor offer this natural picturesque environment. Yours truly, Jennifer Dolan Lawrence M Murphy 133 Greenwood Drive RFC'E��J"® South Windsor, CT. 06074 JU 0 2 2004 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT May 19, 2004 South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT. 06074 Gentlemen: I am in favor of the River Walk Senior Condo project planned for the corner of Pierce Road and Sullivan Avenue. I feel that this type of housing offers the seniors in this town another option to a quality low maintenance living alternative, without leaving the borders of their existing community. This type of growth is not only needed, but is desirable as a means to balance the needs of the town without putting further demands on our schools. Thank you for your time and consideration for this project. Sincerely, Lawrence by Dan Rys, Jr. RECEIVED to Joseph Lane JUN 0 2 2004 South-windsor, Conn. o6o74 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, May 16, 2004 SoutivWLruLaor Pla� Er Za ivi,o� C 1540 Sa&vavv Ave vu South,Wivw4ov, CT 06074 Re,, Rt ver Wad (Dear C k, The,above,Me4tt'-o-necl' projecttknow befo' re,yowfor a pprova�/ I w(4kto-vote-my wppott for th,k endeavor a4,I believe,it wat,be w,6tth&area awl/provide,ho�for ou4- active/ adu.ltk that want to-rema.+,w t tv South,W u d aor bum ca*v� co-�ma&to-take care,of their prw+it ho-wte4, A4,c-, the, appUza -Xk have,made every effort W-creatPi a*v attra ct'we,a4, well a4,fiAACtlUmaV"Cytq,evwt Yonne qtt for U-k future,&w nark Please.accept th*propow ty~k, DawRy South Windsor PlanningDepartment Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Architectural and Design Review Committee Date: 06/08/04 Re: Appl 04-33P, River Walk Senior Residence Development The ADRC reviewed the plans for the above referenced Senior Residence Development on Thursday May 6, 2004. The majority of the committee was satisfied with the layout shown and the architectural style proposed for the townhouses. There was a general concern expressed about the location of the access drive for residents getting in and out of Sullivan Ave. The committee had the following specific comments regarding this application: 1. Applicant should explore the replacement of louvers on the side of the building with ridge vents. 2. Additional screening should be provided on the backside of the units to provide privacy between units. It should be noted that one member expressed serious reservations about the overall design of the project. Concerns related to the lineal layout of the buildings and that all the uses had front loaded garages. Uri , s 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 860-644-2511,ext.253 Fax 860-644-7280 e-mail lipe@southwindsor.org 0 Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN CLERK FROM: ZLC ? y SUBJECT: DISQUALIFICATION// DATE: BY MEANS OF THIS MEMORANDUM,I AM DISQUALIFYING MYSELF FROM ANY/ALL PARTICIPATION IN MATTERS CONCERNING. APPLICATIONNO. 0. NAME OF PROJECT Ql VL-� REASON FOR DISQUAIMCATION_ SIGNATURE OF COMMISSIO pp- ,F Keith Yagaloff ATTORNEY AT LAW PO BOX 1158 PHONE(880)822-0789 255 SULLIVAN AVE,UNIT B FAX (880)822-0790 SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 08074 KEITH@YAGALOFF.COM June 15,2004 South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RECEIVED Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 JUN 1 7 2004 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Re: Application 04-33P, Corner Meadow LLC Dear Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of Marilyn Morrison who resides at 259 Pierce Road, and who is an abutter to the above proposed development. Ms. Morrison objects to the development and has many concerns that she wishes to bring to the attention of the Commission. 1. The high density subdivision will likely disturb wildlife and wetlands on both the subdivision property as well as along the Podunk River and the nature preserve. 2. The tree buffers planted across the rear of the Morrison property will grow to 45- 60 feet when mature, according to the landscaping planner, and will completely block her views of the open spaces and vistas. 3. The development, including tree buffers,will obscure the view of open spaces and vistas from Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road. The public's view of the open spaces along those roads will be greatly diminished. 4. Any alternative plan concerning a curb cut and driveway on Pierce Road should be rejected: a. cars are often speeding as they come from Sullivan Avenue onto Pierce Road; b. the intersection involves a tight curve with poor sight lines; C. any proposed curb cut would be very close to the intersection d. the increased traffic and noise and decrease of privacy would do harm to Ms.Morrison's use and enjoyment of her property; e. the cut may not be lawful in that it may not be an approved cut. 5. The density of homes in the proposed subdivision is excessive and is not in keeping with the residential character of the area,nor with the public's expectation concerning the preservation of wildlife and a natural environment in the adjacent open space. The increase in noise and traffic from such a high density development will negatively impact the public's enjoyment of a serene and peaceful setting at the nature preserve. Views from within the preserve towards the intersection of Pierce Road and Sullivan Avenue will consist of a high density cluster of homes built down to and practically within the wetlands areas. pp- 6. The buffer adjacent to the Morrison property is not sufficient. If the proposal was for a single family home,the buffer would barely meet zoning requirements. Since the proposal is for a multiunit subdivision,the buffer should be wider than usually required for a single home. Likewise,the buffer between the rear of the Morrison property and the subdivision road is not sufficient. Ms. Morrison will be subjected to continuous traffic flow directly adjacent to her rear yard. The traffic will consist of service and delivery vehicles,resident and guest vehicles, all moving in and out of the development without restriction. A proposal to have the entrance along Pierce Road would increase the extent to which traffic would interfere with Ms. Morrison's use and enjoyment of her of her property. 7. The intersection at Pierce Road and Sullivan Avenue has always been dangerous. Despite the road realignment, the increase in traffic along Sullivan Avenue, coupled with an increasing amount of traffic using Pierce Road to cut to and from Ellington Road,has combined to make the intersection unsafe. Traffic approaching the intersection easterly along Pierce Road has the additional problem of looking back toward the Strong Road stop sign. Essentially the area consists of a stop coming easterly on.Pierce(by the duck pond), a stop coming easterly from Strong, and the traffic light intersection a few hundred feet from each of the stop intersections. Additional traffic from visitors to the duck pond and park increase the complexity of traffic flow at that location. As such,traffic from the proposed high density subdivision will have the effect of further increasing the danger at the intersection. Concerns about children playing at the duck pond and park should also be addressed. 8. The town will not benefit from the proposed expensive adult living units. Existing expensive adult living units are not being sold at the anticipated rate. 9. The subdivision will generate waste, grease, oil and antifreeze contamination (from vehicles that travel the subdivision road and park at the subdivision units, and waste from resident's property), grass pesticide and fertilizer contamination, rodent and termite chemical treatment contamination, building contamination (during and after construction from asphalt shingles,pressure treated wood, ( g ) p g impact formaldehyde treated lumber,etc.) There is likely to be an pact from waste and chemical contamination running from the storm sewers to the water retention basin and then directly into the wetlands and the Podunk river. As there is no way to control, limit or restrict the waste and contamination once the subdivision has been built,the project should be scaled back at the approval stage. This is the only way to protect one of South Windsor most important natural resources and the Podunk river. Sincerely, Keith Yagaloff,Esq. June 21, 2004 Certified# Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Appl. #04-33P—River Walk Senior Residence Development,RR Rural Residential zone Dear Mr. DeMallie: At the June 16, 2004 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved application#04-33P—River Walk Senior Residence Development— 1235 Sullivan Avenue, Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application for the construction of an 18-unit Senior Residence Development on 12.2 acres,private drive, stormwater structures, and associated improvements on property located westerly of Sullivan venue and northerly of Pierce Road. RR Rural Residential zone. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon,must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning&Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The application shall indemnify and,hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on June 16, 2009. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s)responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 5. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. River Walk Senior Residence Development June 21, 2004 Page 2 6. Prior to any application of fertilizers or pesticides, a management plan shall be approved by the Environmental Planner. This plan shall be included on the mylars and condominium by-laws documentation. 7. An annual soil test shall be performed on the site to determine the need for fertilizers in the planting year. 8. The applicant and/or condominium association shall provide a copy of the annual chemical application reports to the Town. The reports will also indicate when the recommendations for the turn management plan will be implemented. 9. Wetlands that are disturbed during construction will be roto-tilled and replanted as offered by the applicant. 10. The growing medium for the detention basin should have a higher organic content. 11. Prior to construction, the applicant will install a temporary chained link fence and the clearing limits in the vicinity of units 14 to 18 prior to construction. 12. Roof drains will be modified in accordance with the requirements of the Town Engineer. 13. 14. A three-year maintenance plan for the created wetlands shall be established and shall include prevention of invasive species. 15. The detail and design of the created wetland area to be added to the plans an approved by Town Staff. 16. Revision of the planting plan to be approved by Town Staff and added to the plans. 17. We recommend a bond in the amount of$15,000 be submitted to the Planning&Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures. 18. We recommend a bond in the amount of$10,000 be submitted to the Planning&Zoning Commission to ensure creation of the stormwater structure and created wetlands area. The bond shall be held for three growing seasons to ensure proper establishment. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairperson EW:dr cc: Chief Building Official Planning Department River Walk Senior Residence Development Cl - D C'0'\J eot e&J �'y 0 9 -ef s. � rL Jc • Developers 1744 Ellington Road • Builders • Property South Windsor, CT 06074 Managers Tel: 860-644-8761 /644-8140 Fax: 860-644-5650 June 22 , 2004 Mr. John Mitchell 40 Windy Hill Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Podunk Ridge Active Adult Community Per our conversation I am happy to provide you with the statistics regarding the sale of units at the above Senior Development: Total Number Approved for sale: 21 Total Number Sold and Closed: 11 Total Sold to close prior to Aug. 15: 5 Total not under contract: 5 If there is further information you would like, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Carol S. K ley Corp. Secretary e/JJM We Build Our Reputation LAW OFFICES BRADY, WILLARD &ALEXANDER 67 BURNSIDE AVENUE EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06108-3408 GERALD W.BRADY (860)289-5477 OF COUNSEL RALPH J.ALEXANDER FAX(860)291-9282 RICHARD C.WILLARD E-MAIL:bwa@snet.net June 22, 2004 Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Attention: Timothy H. Wentzell, Chairman, South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission Re: Corner Meadow, LLC—Application 04-33P - Request for Special Exception to Article 4.1.12 and 4.3.11 and Site Plan of Development for approval of 18 units senior residence development—"River Walk". Dear Mr. Wentzell: I am writing on behalf of my client, Corner Meadow LLC, regarding certain aspects of the development and ultimate ownership p s p of the above referenced project presently pending before you. This project is an SRD development,restricted to 55 years and older, consistent with all other SRD developments in town. The project will be developed as a common interest community, which will own and/or control all of the common elements and amenities of the project, exclusive, however, of exclusive use areas. The project will be controlled by a declaration which will be recorded on the Town of South Windsor land records, as well as by bylaws and rules, all of which shall be drafted in accordance with requirements of the Common Interest Ownership Act under Chapter 828 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Incorporated into the declaration will be the requirement by the association for its compliance with all aspects of article 4.1.12 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations. The declaration shall also provide for compliance by the association's management company with all the requirements set forth in the Town's Wetlands Commission Approval for the project. The declaration shall also require compliance by the association with the requirements of"best management practices" grounds and landscape management principals, as reviewed with the Inland Wetlands Agency. The declaration shall further provide that,prior to the commencement of each mowing year, the June 22, 2004 Letter to Timothy H. Wentzell, Chairman Page 2 of 2 association's landscaping firm shall meet with the Town's Environmental Planner to review all chemicals to be applied during the landscaping season. In order to accommodate access from the public right-of-way to the project, upon obtaining all approvals, the applicant will be acquiring title to the triangular piece of land on the north side of the project at the access point at Sullivan Avenue from the Mitchell property as shown on the applicants' plan. The applicant will also be acquiring a 10 foot buffering easement on the Mitchell property as shown on the applicants' plan. Regarding sewer access, upon obtaining all approvals, the applicant will be acquiring access to the public sewers in Strong Road by way of a sewer easement over the Aman property as shown on the applicants' plan. Hopefully this information will assist you in your review of this application for approval. Thank you for yo ssis a in this matter. Very trul ours, R ph J. Alexander, Esquire RJA/sc P.C. Marcia Banach, Director of Planning / II MEMORANDUM To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer Date: 6/22/04 RE: App 04-08P, River Walk SRD Application I have reviewed the revised Site Plan for the River Walk SRD received on June 18, 2004 and I have the following comments: 1. Show more contours or spot elevations behind units 12-13 to show the high point and grades to indicate that surface water will easily drain from these areas. The yard drains need to be extended past the rear corners of the building to catch the water before it runs around the sides of the building and does not pond here. 2. The swale behind and along side units 5, 6 and 7 could result in areas where water ponds and will be difficult to construct and maintain. It appears to have only a 1% slope and up to a 33% cross pitch. A drainage pipe needs to be installed in this area. It should start with a yard drain behind unit 5 and run south behind units 6 and 7(with yard drains behind unit 6 and at the corner of 7) and turn to the west along side unit 7 with another yard drain by the front of this unit. This pipe could discharge into the wetlands between units 7 and 14. 3. The area to the north of unit 2 appears to be flat. Where will water from the slope and wall weep holes that ends up here drain to? Show a yard drain and/or swale with spot elevations to drain this water. 4. Roof leaders from the backs of units 1-13 need to be tied directly into the storm drainage system so minimize the amount of surface runoff going into the small grass areas behind these units. There have been complaints from other similar developments about wet, unusable back yards. 5. The snowshelf of 3 feet is too small to hold the snow that will fall in a "normal year" and will be difficult to maintain as grass. The show shelf needs to be at least 4-5 feet wide to provide storage space for snow or the sidewalk should be widened to at least 6 feet and extended to the curb so snow can be plowed off into the road and there is no small grass strip to maintain. 6. The water service lines and sanitary sewer laterals still appear to be closer than 10 feet for units 17, 4 and 11, and 3 and 10. This needs to be rechecked and adjusted as necessary. 7. Show a concrete leakoff from the low point in the sidewalk to CB 7 to allow water to drain from the sidewalk toward the road or show the sidewalk sloped toward the wetlands to allow the water to drain there. 8. 1 suggest the sidewalk be extending to the north of this site along Sullivan Avenue to connect with the sidewalk at the entrance to the Strawberry Field development. This needs to be shown on a plan with elevations and details as necessary. This sidewalk would be a substitute for the sidewalk around the loop of Wildlife Trail that was eliminated. r r 9. This site needs to have a minimum 6 inches of topsoil because water will not drain well into the underlying clay and silty sand soils. 10. There are several locations where the sanitary sewer mains and storm drainage main lines are still close to the buildings. This includes building 11, 13 and 18. These will be difficult to construct and maintain without adversely impacting the buildings or the pipes 11. The drainage analysis and report need to be completed for this site. This needs to include a pipe analysis, gutterflow analysis and headwater analysis. 12. Type CL catch bains need to have Galvanized frames and grates as well as the others 13. Show some elevations of the top and bottom of the wall along Wildlife Trail by the entrance to this development. 14. The landing where Wildlife Trail meets Sullivan Avenue has been extended about 25 feet to store another car. This road still is steep (8%) for about 250 feet from Sullivan Avenue and may be difficult to negotiate when it is wet or slippery due to ice or snow. 15. There still appear to be conflicts between utilities, landscaping and lighting. Show the street light locations on the landscape plans and check these conflicts. Relocate items as necessary to eliminate any conflicts. 16. It appears that the proposed construction on this site is very dense. Approximately 35% of the buildable area on this lot will be covered by buildings or pavement (impervious surface) as shown. This is higher than other recently approved SRD's. The utilities and buildings are close together and will be difficult to construct and maintain. The road is steep and has tight curves. There are conflicts as mentioned above. This will add extrp cost and time to the project construction and maintenance budgets. The residents who live in this development will have very small front and back yards and no common space except for the area around the gazebo, detention basin and wetlands. 17. The Public Improvement specifications require that sewers in low areas have at least 4 feet of cover. Will the area around PSMH-1 have 4 feet of cover or have less cover with an insulated pipe? 18. Show that the sewer main with low slopes(0.5%)will have minimum cleansing velocity 19. It appears that a sanitary sewer lateral is shown for the property to the north. This needs to be labeled. The WPCA may require a separate monitoring manhole be installed on the lateral from the commercial/industrial use on the property from the north. In this case an easement would have to be granted to the Town of South Windsor to allow access to this manhole for inspection. 20. An application must be submitted to the WPCA for review and approval of this project. I will let you know if I have any other thoughts or comments on this project. Please call me (x 245) if you have any questions. Jul 09 04 12: 101p Design Professionals 860-291-8757 p. 2 From Tra ng. o utionsJto at E123/04 8:20 AM Uvz/;�u� Traffic Engineering Solutionsq PAS • Lexington Glastonbury, RECEIVED L - 9 2004 M E M O R A N D U M SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DER DATE: June 23, 2004 TO: Karen Isherwood -Design Professionals, Inc. FROM: Bruce Hillson-Traffic Engineering Solutions, P.C. RE: Riverwalk Senior Residence Karen, Traffic Engineering Solutions has reviewed the Planni•rg Commission's comments re: left turns leaving the Riverwalk site rind offer the following recommendations to enhance the safety for these I aft turns as well as left turns from Sullivan Avenue onto the site. ■ Install a"Do Not Block Driveway"sign on s:ruthbound Sullivan Avenue just north of the access drove to Riverwalk. This will provide gaps for - - - left turns from northbound Sullivan-Avenue onto the site and will afford better opportunity for vehicles to turn lef:when leaving the site. ■ Install a"No Left Turn 4-6 PM"sign on&a access road to prohibit left turns during the afternoon peak period. ■ Monitor activity at the site drive to deter min a if the signage provides the opportunity for residents to safely enter ano leave the site or if further considerations may be needed (i.e. ext(:nding the hours during which left turns are not allowed). These recommendations were presented to the P aniting Commission at the June 21,2004 Public Hearing. If you have any giaes-:ions, please call me at (860) 657-3579. Bruce v SOWN SE4 m � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 July 1, 2004 Certified #70001670000775519898 Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Appl. #04-3313—River Walk Senior Residence Development, RR Rural Residential zone Dear Mr. DeMallie: At the June 16, 2004 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved application#04-33P—River Walk Senior Residence Development— 1235 Sullivan Avenue, Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application for the construction of an 18-unit Senior Residence Development on 12.2 acres, private drive, stormwater structures, and associated improvements on property located westerly of Sullivan venue and northerly of Pierce Road. RR Rural Residential zone. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning &Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on June 16, 2009. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 5. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. 6. Prior to any application of fertilizers or pesticides, a management plan shall be approved by the Environmental Planner. This plan shall be included on the mylars and condominium by- laws documentation. 7. An annual soil test shall be performed on the site to determine the need for fertiliers in the planting year. River Walk Senior Residence Development July 1, 2004 Page 2 8. The applicant and/or condominium association shall provide a copy of the annual chemical application reports to the Town. The reports will also indicate when the recommendations for the turf management plan will be implemented. 9. Wetlands that are disturbed during construction will be roto-tilled and replanted as offered by the applicant. a 10. The growing medium for the detention basin should have a higher organic content. 11. Prior to construction, the applicant will install a temporary chained link fence at the limits of clearing in the vicinity of units 14 to 18. 12. Roof drains will be modified in accordance with the requirements of the Town Engineer. 13. Accept the offer of a conservation easement based on revisions made during the June 16, 2004 meeting. Mitigation area creation and maintenance of wetland vegetation will be allowed in conservation area, the easement documents shall reflect this. 14. A three-year maintenance plan for the created wetlands shall be established and shall include prevention of invasive species. 15. The detail and design of the created wetland area to be added to the plans as approved by Town Staff. 16. Revision of the planting plan to be approved by Town Staff and added to the plans. 17. We recommend a bond in the amount of$15,000 be submitted to the Planning &Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures. 18. We recommend a bond in the amount of$10,000 be submitted to the Planning &Zoning Commission to ensure creation of the stormwater structure and created wetlands area. The bond shall be held for three growing seasons to ensure proper establishment. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION /) - &�Ie"4x-'g7 Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairperson EW:dr cc: Chief Building Official Planning Department River Walk Senior Residence Development MEMORANDUM .Town of TO: Marcia A. Banach Director of Planning South FROM: Sgt. R. Bond Windsor DATE: 12-Jul-04 Police Services SUBJECT: Riverwalk Marcia, I have reviewed the Memorandum from Traffic Engineering Solutions to Design Professionals dated June 23, 2004. This review was conducted with Chief Tyler. There area three recommendations included in that text in order to "enhance the safety" of vehicles making left turns in and out of the complex. Our response as an Agency to the recommendations: 1. The effectiveness of a "Do Not Block Driveway" sign is highly questionable. The sign would presumably face southbound. Even if a southbound vehicle were to honor the sign, residents attempting the left turn out of the complex would have a very limited view of northbound traffic. Further, there is a significant risk a resident would creep into the southbound lane in the gap and then be faced with the prospect of no such gap in northbound traffic. The result would be a complete blockage of the southbound lane and a very dangerous,situation. 2. Chief Tyler is opposed to any type of time regulated "No Left Turn" signage. It is difficult enough to attempt enforcement of"No Left Turns" that are in effect at all times. We still have issues with both the CVS exit, which is posted and guided by roadway design, and the Town Hall driveway onto Rt. 194, which is posted far above and signage proposed on the Riverwalk access road. 3. Monitoring activity does nothing to address the concerns expressed by our Agency in a memo to you dated 17MaY 04. Said concerns are still in effect. Please feel free to contact me at any time with questions. I will be out of State for training from 18 to 31Jul 04. Respective Sgt. Rich Bo d Manager-Traffic Unit...' South Windsor Police Services. RECEIVED LAW OFFICES BRADY, WILLARD & ALEXANDER J U L 16 2004 67 BURNSIDE AVENUE EAST HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06108-3408 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, GERALD W.BRADY (860)289-5477 OF COUNSEL RALPH I.ALEXANDER FAX(860)291-9282 RICHARD C.WILLARD E-MAIL:bwa@snet.net 16, 2004 Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Attention: Timothy H. Wentzell, Chairman, South Windsor Planning &Zoning Commission Re: Corner Meadow, LLC—Application 04-33P Request for Reconsideration of Vote to Deny Without Prejudice Action taken at July 13, 2004 Meeting Dear Mr. Wentzell: I am writing on behalf of my client, Corner Meadow LLC, the applicant in the above referenced zoning application,to respectfully request that the Commission reconsider its vote to deny said application without prejudice. We feel this action is warranted because of two mistaken conclusions of fact that the commission members were relying on in their deliberations preceding their decision at last Tuesday's meeting. More specifically, several of the commission members repeatedly expressed concern that the twenty-five foot coterminous buffer proposed next to an existing residence would set a precedent for an action that the Commission had never allowed before. The applicant submits that this is not the case, and that such a buffer layout has in fact been approved in at least two other instances, namely for the Porter Share project and for the Wheel Estates project. In addition, several of the commission members also recounted, mistakenly, that the applicant had not indicated that the number of units for the project in question was critical to the project from an economic standpoint. On the contrary, Barbara Barbour, one of the principals of the applicant, had testified at the public hearing, in no uncertain terms, that the number of units at 18 was the breaking point for the project economically. She had also testified in some detail how the project had been painstakingly pared down over the last year, from 20 units to 18 units, in order to address the concerns of both the staff and the Commission. Consequently, the applicant feels that the Commission would benefit greatly from the above clarifications of fact, that a reconsideration of its action on this application would ,SOW N Sf4 zd Town o-P SotdA ?d& 4ot 9 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 sox•co AREA CODE 860/644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL 70p4 1160 p002 1059 9465 July 26, 2004 (tsu�k k0 40 7004 1160 0002 1059 9489 Mrs. Barbara Barbour Corner Meadow, LLC 1235 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: 04-3 3P,.Comer Meadow LLC,request for special exception to Article 4.1.12 and 4.3.11 and site plan of development for approval of an 18 unit senior residence development, to be known as "River Walk", on 11.91 acres located on the northwesterly corner of Sullivan Ave. and Pierce Road, RR zone Dear Mrs. Barbour: We regret to advise you that on July 13, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny without prejudice the above-referenced application for Special Exception to 4.1.12 and 4.3.11 and Site Plan of Development. The application does not meet the SRD requirements, specifically that traffic hazards are not created;and the Commission has determined that a coterminous buffer is not sufficient. Sincerely, Pam 'CAI, Timothy H. Wentzell, Chairman`' A&- Planning and Zoning Commission THW/kak cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal Karen Isherwood Fxom Traf. Eng. Solutions to 291-8757 r 02 .. at 8,f13J04 10:55 AM 00;;'j002 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 13, 2004 TO: Karen Isherwood- Design Professionals, Inc. FROM: Bruce Hillson-Traffic Engineering Solutions, P,C. RE: Riverwalk Senior Residence Karen, As requested we have completed capacity and queuing analyses for the intersection of Sullivan Avenue at Pierce Road will- access to Riverwalk along Pierce Road. The analyses which were completed using the Synchro 6.0 Software found that left turns from Pierce Road onto the site drive will operate at LOS A during the morning and afternoon peak hours and the site driva access road approach to Pierce Road will operate at LOS B during both pea(hours. The 95t'percentile queue along Pierce Road from the signalized intersection with Sullivan Avenue will be 91 feet during the morning peak hour and 170 feet during the afternoon peak hour. The analyses also indicate that the que jes will be completely dissipated each time the traffic signal indication tunes green for Pierce Road. If during review of this memorandum you have any questions, please call me at (860)657-3579. Bruce f r INV-101.77 C�' 35.22' tj rR=466.00 422149'0' S53 'W y 5.23 =17.62 0 "Vh IP En 0 O 0 ul h N � r rt ; Ex. ce ' TF-105.80 r61 1724 S.F.UMT SNET INV IN 5 24 50 r INV IN N(24" 9 0 ' 95 INV OUT=99.5 (LAND FF: 94.17 3 i AND CAR: 92.75 TRAFFIC )-A ' +� EX. CB ROLE I ; p� TF=106.44 107.61 W � r .� Nj INV IN=97.73 INV=97.92 S 0 �Q ^ O/ INV OUT=97.6 1910 S.F.UNIT l� m @UF 2 r Lft r 0 yy� s�?°Q 00' V IA r a��2 4'MF ell. MARILYN M. MORRISON INV 'IN S � r �. co :NV IN W � ' IP 94ET INV OUT: 0 , SNET p+ I 3409 o IU (D ' EX. CB EX. MH TF-110.16 NV TF=188.9 00.26$ INv=105.36 Ln J r C) r � •� CO e. r r COMPILATION PLAN PREPARED FOR: SHEET EP7 LAYOU7 No. a _ tY rr+z-s ,.Wr s V' =r o n%,A `i ivt s. ► �1 LZ>� ti RLB DRAW ..•MHA CHECKED.• RLB RRSI/RZ09 S UJ IL11 U 1 AN AVENUE r : 1667 DA 7tr..• J-3—04 Z ) ' rn Ain . 4--o'71"A nr y1�ll! It U I 1 1�+�L�T�TTL�f'1r11�1F d 1Tf TrU% r i RECEIVED �G'1l COLD p1401Rr514 (S�s) hoc.. c© "I AUG 1 3 2004 SOUTH WINDS OR ENG INEERING EERING DEPT. f /27 RECEIVED AUG 13 2004 SOUTH WINDSOR ENGINEERING DEPT. Y i 1 • Y, y .. S .V: Y ��.s'f.'',' Y, :tit ,3�`�'w'lb���r�4���- _,i.. �' •,ti.`�f--t^";�s,�t.'!i :. t. } a 4l ' Texture fAap3 s J .00 Y t : t� Save pattern t� 3k tern o, r® n I�carn ,thF�Lit fe.4OL4r+Y nap• ' ®R 7:60 y t eT y�- ter r �� �...t F �T ,. S R s t A- f a r � g i { , + r d� h It , ... AM, g Eagan Mauna •. IMauna �rmmHg ME ME -- cc mm . �--, �■!■ �" I[It�Qll81{ ■.Ma■ moan. C.....I f I m��1====1�► MENEM mosom MENEM mast-=_ � �► ■.... Rl \/r-RNALK UNIT5 1 4 � 2 ONE, I 0 u u ! E I� ► , li � I 0 ri 0 •� ■ - � ■ I� IIIira III Immin KID 111F 111 ,1 - 1 [MimNIN i•, tin i- �. •■■ ,. Ililll ■ .M.._.. ;I ® NMI tl► 0 It I. _milli RIVE"ALK UNIT5 51 4, 4 5 � o fllllllill11f1�11! I�u{I�1ID�I�1�1��', - - � r co i I�p(II�fIiI�IfIIfINVI G \�� - Sulan an an -._III. 1��1�11�1�III woman woman . . D [ : .::. r ,.� — —— I� I 1111 �{ ■.■ ���� IWInIIINIUII ' '� 11 „j �) manE. man an �© nown man IN Rom IN .....:woman ..... mom 1: Now I w - - umwl====11► I WIIINI:__:III Iry�' � •' I, �� � MM 1�1 --- NUWUIIHtWW� Mame: I► IIII�I�(�f III�IIIIII�IIIII I o ,, lll�lll� rZZ_ If�111111 � �I uu■ nus t "NEW I r 4 I r` r u am�81 mm�munrnnn r ll (II s r mm►mm►m ► ®� I � ■�■ 11111111�(a ... .►��b li0 EEs3eE • ., 11�II� m, O r I�II�IIIIIIII�III t �� ' i II��■I � �jirr III J ■ I _��� 1� �I - --s •' 11 II ll�lal�lllllllltl� N.; i��E� � 111 �;1 ••• ����■� � V I� .1` — EE3EEE � l�lt�►�IIIII� � !i��� ilk l 4 "nIIIINIIIII ��I�III r ��• .: � I��IIII €NN I II f, NMIII; , ,..►�s .� E3EE5E ; I) .in I l�llllllllJ11111lI1 �I�fll� III ,1 � , -- -- „ —_ .� 111 -;1 ,ICI■) err IIIIU11Alllllld nlffl�lflllllll a EE�� Ir O = 11 --- 111"I li—il 111 ;1 II■ I =��� 1� �I M1 Ell IIIID�f�llllll �II(IlUilllf c , Imo- O __ � ',,0 ��III►�II�II►II� �::: �I �` III'�;1 � � II-- -- � rr sE�EE� III '■■■! r �3Q � Rl \/PfZY4.ALK UN I-T5 � mom►►mm ►m►m�m►m � , � + ■—� I;� ■��■ i 1 . 10 4 1 - � Q t'hth b K �lll�ll�l�llll�llll 11191fI�IlU ■ - MW ■� - •. ■ r pr71i� • Him t.Jillum Ll I� ►�,� ---� }1 Zz 1 i ..... _. � — —--- - ill 'l IIlll�llll�llll i ,____,u� Imuaimmll ! �IlCl�lll�lhlll I s� �.�� ■�■ ■ MW K*7"� 1— seem■ • .. � r ■uaa '1 +� � III��CI i 8 __ �■ m ■■© � -- r. -- --s-- -- u Fri OEM c ® b[� ■�■ IIhI � Illdll�l ::::: �— Nows :moons ��InnIffIIII nnnnlnnI��InnI''InnIII ..... - �I�tlW�luI1W FE-4.7nn '• - - - �o o IfNllIlBlll� ill�8181� ! uu�l=__=I��• � ' � ! .--� ���� I�Il��llll�l�l�llll�ll��al� Nm e I L Rl\/r="ALK II a III flIU III a I 0 sue■ �� , . , • ��I(Il>fllll�llll I IIII� -. _, �o0 ►n ��►►�►tl ICI _' ., •� _ �_ _ - . ail NNNNNINNNN � II ®© _ i�11�11{INIIII :::: ��II � i I� � •.■ aa's�"sa •':: �IIII►''' I � � mronunnnn • � ` -- -- • [=I■ � _ lul�luunl mlmmllml� � I® 6 —= --- IIU s - „ - ►I i. oa - __ __ � 111.E � IIII�� IIII I mtmtmmnn • I P.d: WE ■ — �■ 1111IN uI�IN�I# Ilnn....11lll�llffll nllnllinnnf ! ===) f • i911111(III(N(l((II �I�IIII q� � �IIIIIINIIIN811 ' �� �� T �I I r.°© bd = a set I nminnmtmtr. n • [_I■ L _ ���IIII[<Il�l(Ila Npip III ;I f — —— WIN ... �� ■— � ®18,.•. IIII(Illf� ill ,l . ROD- ..... I I mmmmtmn • oil a8' C INI(ININ �INiINNiNI III ���i=-°ill �► �,. mmnml� I►�mm�m►I[ ' I ( „�,====,1, i 11 ��� I��IIIIIIIII�IifflNla(Illifl>IIII ( NfNI11NN1NI�� � ■- a.SEEM ���•. �oo �I a IlAllllllllllli r. IN(NNNI — h I�- � o C [Nlllllll