Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNutmeg Village Zone Change rA"wu, 1�1 :DEC 13 all OWN CLERK PLANNING OF SOUTH WINDSOR & ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM Application No; i. .� , �uAl Official Receipt Date: Receipt No: SOUTH WINIIi #PLANNING))Ef�.= APPLICANT: Horseshoe Lane Associates, L.L.C.; CIO Robert Urso PROJECT NAME: Nutmeg Village ADDRESS: See attached OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: See attached ADDRESS: See attached COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: See attached See ASSESSOR'S MAP # attached PARCEL# Seeattached ZONE See attached NAME, ADDRESS, TEL& FAX #OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: Peter R. DeMallie, Design Professionals Inc 425 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor CT 06074 (860) 291-8755-phone (860) 291-8757-fax Estimated presentation time: 60 min. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): ❑ Zone Change to MF-AA (Public Hearing required and Certificate of Mailing) ❑ Subdivision/Resubdivision ❑ Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Minor❑ Major ❑ Conditional Approval ❑ Special Exception to Article (Public Hearing, Certificate of Mailing) ❑ Site Plan of Development ❑✓ General Plan of Development- State Hearing per Section 14-55 for Multi-family development ❑ Earth Filling(Sec. 15) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 14 - Public Hearing Required) ❑ Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision -Attach proposed amendment (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit for(Public Hearing Required) ❑ In Law apartment/Accessory Apartment(Public Hearing Required) ❑ Major Home Occupation for(Public Hearing Required) ❑ 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. See attached Signature of Applicant� pp /� /�2� Signature of Property Owner Traffic Impact Report Nutmeg Village Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, Connecticut of C + 2 062 Prepared by: �''•S�oNAI�,ENb`�`� Design Professionals, Inc. 425 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 @SIgn December 12, 2011 rOSSi01'1�IS Table of Contents Section Page 1 Introduction 1 2 Traffic Study Area 1 3 Roadway Network 2 4 Existing Traffic 4 5 Background Traffic 7 6 Site-Generated Traffic&Distribution 11 7 Combined Traffic 18 8 Traffic Operations Analysis 21 9 Sight Line Analysis 23 10 Conclusion 23 List of Figures 1 Existing Conditions (A.M.) 5 2 Existing Conditions (P.M.) 6 3 Background Conditions (A.M.) 9 4 Background Conditions (P.M.) 10 5 Distribution of Site Generated Traffic Residential 14 6 Distribution of Site Generated Traffic Industrial 15 7 Site Generated Traffic(A.M.) 16 8 Site Generated Traffic (P.M.) 17 9 Combined Traffic (A.M.) 19 10 Combined Traffic (P.M.) 20 Appendices A Site Vicinity Map 24 B Traffic Count Data 26 C Trip Generation Computations 76 D Gravity Model 85 E Synchro 92 Background A.M. 93 Background P.M. 113 Combined A.M. 133 Combined P.M. 154 F Level of Service Summary 175 1. Introduction Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC is proposing to develop a 61.5 acre parcel of property located on Pleasant Valley Road in South Windsor. The site is fronted by South Satellite Road to the north, Pleasant Valley Road to the south, and is located east of Nutmeg Road South, and west of Hilton Drive. Refer to the site vicinity map provided as Appendix A. The residential development(Nutmeg Village) will include construction of 15 single family homes, and 140 townhouses. The townhouses will be multi family buildings each ranging in size from four to six units. In addition to the residential buildings, a 1,000 square foot community building is proposed. The residential development will comprise of 50.5 acres. The remaining 11 acres of land, adjacent to South Satellite Road, will remain as industrial property to be developed by others. Refer to the "Zone Change— General Plan of Development"drawings, dated December 12, 2011,prepared by our office accompanying this report for information regarding the proposed property development. One driveway is proposed to provide vehicular access to Nutmeg Village. The driveway will have a boulevard style entrance and connect with Pleasant Valley Road approximately 930 feet to the east of Nutmeg Road South and 900 feet west of Hilton Drive. A network of paved roadways will accommodate traffic interior of the site. Each residential unit will include its own driveway and enclosed garage. Ten parking stalls will serve the community building, and an additional 30 roadside parking stalls distributed throughout the development are proposed. This report documents the findings of a traffic study related to the proposed land development described above, as required for Planning and Zoning Commission site plan approval. It is intended for submission to local authorities for land use only and- shall not be used for any other purpose. 2. Traffic Study Area The boundaries for this study were determined based on projected traffic impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway network. The following intersections with intermittent roadway links were evaluated: Pleasant Valley Road with the proposed Nutmeg Village site drive South Satellite Road with Nutmeg Road South South Satellite Road with Route 5 Governors Highway with Route 5 Governors Highway with Route 30 Nutmeg Road South with Pleasant Valley Road Pleasant Valley Road with Route 5 Pleasant Valley Road with Hilton Drive Pleasant Valley Road with Route 30 Pleasant Valley Road with Long Hill Road 1 See Appendix A for site vicinity map. 3. Roadway Network Major roadways: John Fitch Boulevard(State Route 5)is a state maintained highway that originates in New Haven and traverses north to Canada. It is generally paralleled with Interstate 91. In the vicinity of the study area,Route 5 provides two lanes of thru traffic in each direction with a posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour. Signalized intersections serve the major cross streets.Existing development along Route 5 near the study area is primarily industrial and commercial. The Nutmeg Village driveway with Pleasant Valley Road intersection is approximately 1,500 feet east of Route 5. Pleasant Valley Road is locally maintained,begins at Main Street, and traverses easterly past the South Windsor/Manchester town line. In the vicinity of the study area,Pleasant Valley Road provides two travel lanes in each direction divided by a double yellow centerline. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. In close proximity to Route 5, land uses are industrial in nature. The remaining land uses along Pleasant Valley Road are generally residential. Ellington Road(State Route 30)is a state maintained highway. In South Windsor, Route 30 originates as Oakland Road in the southeastern part of town at the Manchester town line and traverses westerly with its terminus at the Routes 291 and 5 interchange. In the study area vicinity between Governors Highway and Pleasant Valley Road, Route 30 (Ellington Road)provides two travel lanes in each direction divided by a double yellow centerline. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Land uses adjacent to Ellington Road are primarily residential. The Nutmeg Village driveway with Pleasant Valley Road is approximately 3,600 feet west of Ellington Road. Governor's Highway is locally maintained and originates at Main Street then extends easterly to its terminus at Ellington Road(Rte. 30). In the vicinity of Talbot Lane where primary access to Carla's Pasta is available, Governor's Highway provides one lane of travel in each direction with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour west of Talbot Lane, and 25 miles per hour to the east. Per Town of South Windsor ordinance, trucks are not permitted to travel on Governor's Highway east of Talbot Lane. A double yellow centerline is painted throughout the roadway prohibiting passing maneuvers.Uses along Governor's Highway are mainly industrial west of Talbot Lane and residential to the east. Intersections: Pleasant Valley Road with proposed Nutmeg Village site drive: The proposed site driveway is boulevard style forming the north approach. It will have single 16 foot wide lanes in each direction divided by an 8 foot landscaped median. The 2 Pleasant Valley Road approaches are 12 foot lanes that operate as free flow. Egress from the site driveway will operate under stop sign control. South Satellite Road with Nutmeg Road South: Nutmeg Road South forms the north-south leg, and South Satellite Road forms the east- west leg. All four approaches are single lanes, at least 12 feet wide, and operate under stop sign control. The South Satellite eastbound and Nutmeg Road South northbound approaches include a painted pedestrian crosswalk. South Satellite Road with Route 5: Intersection is three-way and signalized. Route 5 traverses north-south, South Satellite Road begins at Route 5 and extends east. The Route 5 northbound approach is three lanes, with a right turn, and two through lane arrangement. The Route 5 southbound approach is three lanes, a left turn and two through lane arrangement. The South Satellite Road westbound approach is one lane which serves both the right and left turn maneuvers to Route 5. The ConnDOT signal plan depicts the approach as two lanes. For purposes of conservative analyses, the assumption made is that there exists only a single lane approach. Governors Highway with Route 5: Intersection is four-way and signalized. Route 5 is aligned north-south and Governors Highway east-west. The Route 5 northbound approach is four lanes, with one left turn, two through, and a right turn lane. The Route 5 southbound approach is three lanes with a dedicated left turn lane, a through, and one shared through/right turn lane. The Governors Highway east- and westbound approaches are single lanes. Governors Highway with Route 30: Intersection is four-way and signalized. Route 30 runs east-west, Governors Highway approaches from the north, and Podunk Circle approaches from the south. The Route 30 eastbound approach is a single lane. The westbound approach consists of a dedicated right turn lane, and a through/left turn lane. The Governors Highway and Podunk Circle approaches are single lanes. Nutmeg Road South with Pleasant Valley Road: Pleasant Valley Road traverses east-west, with Nutmeg Road South beginning here and extending north. A private driveway forms the south approach to this four-way intersection. Pleasant Valley Road is free flow while the Nutmeg Road South and private driveway approaches operate under stop sign control. All approaches are single lane. 3 Pleasant Valley Road with Route S: Intersection is a four-way and signalized intersection. Route 5 traverses north-south and Pleasant Valley Road runs in east-west. The Route 5 northbound approach is four lanes, with a left turn lane,two through lanes, and one right turn lane. The Route 5 southbound approach is three lanes with a left turn lane, a dedicated through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane. The Pleasant Valley Road approaches are each single lane. Pleasant Valley Road with Hilton Drive: Intersection is three-way with Pleasant Valley Road traversing east-west, and Hilton Drive beginning here and extending north. The Hilton Drive connection is boulevard style, with its travel lanes separated by a 35 foot grass median. All approaches are single lane and operate under stop sign control.,though Hilton Drive has a wide center island separating the northbound and southbound lane. Pleasant Valley Road with Route 30: Intersection is four-way and signalized. Route 30 traverses north-south and Pleasant Valley Road east-west.All approaches are single lanes. Pleasant Valley Road with Long Hill Road: Intersection is four-way with Pleasant Valley Road forming the east-west legs, and Long Hill Road forming the north-south legs. The north leg of the intersection is one-way with traffic flow directed north. All three approaches of the intersection are single lanes and operate under stop sign control. 4. Existing Traffic The Nutmeg Village site is surrounded by residential properties to the east and south, and industrial uses to the west and north. Peak traffic associated with the surrounding area generally occurs during commuting hours.Existing traffic was counted during the weekday periods between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 P. Traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections'on December 8th& 10th, 2009� by Connecticut Counts Inc. Traffic count data is included as Appendix B. Figures 1 and 2 summarize the existing traffic volumes for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours at each intersection. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS (A.M.) (TRAFFIC COUNTED 12/8/2009 thru 12/10/2009) z 0 0 w z 0 11 /PODU��NK �Irna L 58 —I rnI 000I t-2 �Lno2 .1 � 10 J L� 2 t l� �414GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY LRCLE 12 f I 199 —�� 79 I I 70 f r —► 12 MnoO 26 0� �NOf 4 any In W 0 0 D: a M 0: Z r = O ON N90� C 4 12 25 w L 41 J 5 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD wf I 60—�� is a EnSITE 3 �� a h 0 p v N Z ^vrn� o L 30 r9io0 14 rn oo� �3 z L 56 1}` I78 13 98 120 7 �- 165 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD �48 0 8 6 30 —�► 7 f 1 77 1 I 6 34 42� f I 0 f 12 a�cli 0 000 65 —► 33� ^O)� 84 NNN T.I. 860•291.6737 NUTMEG VILLAGE ra® ®nals PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD FIGURE 1 civil Cr traffic engineers•surveyors 425 Sullivan Avanua,P.O.Box 1187,south N7n09or,Cannae9cut 06D71 v a Yi EXISTING CONDITIONS (P.M.) (TRAFFIC COUNTED 12/8/2009 thru 12/10/2009) 0 Z 0 0 W D Z v 0 m� � °^ alacly �n � 21 12 235 1 +• � 031 /PODINK� 0 11 � r GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY CIRCLE 67 f r 2 y 193� f I 191 f r 47 Vim^ 14� ^N 7 a0N 'i tclj D D O G 0 0 M 0= �l Z O O 0 OD III N N 25 28 L. F— 50 L 69 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD �S w 0 f �- 2o � F /��79 134 ^"'a0 le " � �W0or0 rnoN 14 34 26 z � 115 27 ��'— 120 I,� i— 158 �— 0 �— 105 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD 39 27 f 1410 f 27 133 f 180—�� f I 69 29 171 --► 3 14 vonom 0 N1o� �o� co 45� n gn F- a*D:29;:97s NUTMEG VILLAGE emonme PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD dvil 8 traffic ongtnoon•surveyors FIGURE 2 londseopo orchitoets•plamers•�b•cpo � � �� vV1�i�8Yi�lLB�iYlT 44b Sullivan A-,P.O.Box 1167.South Windsor,Connaotlout 06074 5.Background Traffic Background traffic is defined as the traffic conditions on an existing roadway network that would exist at the time of a proposed facility's opening even if such facility was never built. At this time, Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC anticipates Nutmeg Village to be complete and fully occupied by 2016. It is assumed that the remaining 11 acres of industrial land adjacent to South Satellite Road will also be fully developed by the same time. The State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT)maintains a system of automated traffic counters on state highways and other selected roadways. Our office obtained traffic count data for three locations in the vicinity of Nutmeg Commons to help evaluate the historical growth in traffic over the past 12 years. The locations are as follows: • Route 5, south of Governor's Highway(north- &southbound) • Route 5,north of Interstate 291 Westbound ramp (southbound) • Route 30, northeast of Chapel Road The ConnDOT data reveals that traffic growth over the past 12 years has been stagnant. The data for each of the locations are reduced and presented below as tables: ConnDOT Traffic Recorder Data State Route 5 south of Governor's Highway Count Station 132-0095 Rt.5 Southbound 24-hour Count A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Year (Vehicles) Vehicles/hour) (Vehicles/hour 1998 9973 1118 841 �) ' 2007 10112 1183 771 U 24-hour average yearly growth - 0.2% A.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - 0.6% P.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - -0.9% Rt.5 Northbound 24-hour Count A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Year Vehicles Vehicles/hour Vehicles/hour 1998 9590 694 898 2007 9216 571 920 24-hour average yearly growth- -0.4% A.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - -2.0% P.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - 0.3% 7 ConnDOT Traffic Recorder Data State Route 5 north of 1-291 WB on ramp Count Station 132-0002 Rt.5 Southbound 24-hour Count A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Year Vehicles Vehicles/hour Vehicles/hour 1998 14223 1450 1142 2007 14960 1508 1188 24-hour average yearly growth - 0.6% A.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - 0.4% P.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - 0.4% ConnDOT Traffic Recorder Data State Route 30 northeast of Chapel Road Count Station 132-0002 Rt.5 Southbound 24-hour Count A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Year Vehicles Vehicles/hour) (Vehicles/hour 1998 7238 772 688 2007 7305 710 701 24-hour average yearly growth- 0.1% A.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - -0.9% P.M. Peak Hour Average yearly growth - 0.2% The ConnDOT count data is included as Appendix B. Despite the negligible traffic growth, an annual increase of traffic at 1% was selected to be sufficient in conservatively forecasting future traffic for this project. Since traffic counting efforts were conducted in 2009, and completion of Nutmeg Village(and remaining 11 acre industrial land)is anticipated in 2016, the existing traffic counts as shown in Figures 1 and 2, were increased by 7% to account for modest growth. Additionally,the Connecticut Studios project proposed between Route 5 and Route 30 south of Chapel Road was identified as a future traffic generator. The traffic study for this project(prepared by VHB and partially included as Appendix B)was obtained. The projected traffic from Connecticut Studios was accounted for in determining background traffic. Figures 3 and 4 summarize the background traffic volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours at each of the study intersections. 8 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 2016 0 A.M. PEAK HOUR z 0 D z n 1 62 0 000 �2 r°�0XPODUNK 2 119 L t—'6 I L f—g49 I L4 r _•1 + GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY �J + CIRCLE 13 213 85 75 4 0 � 13 MNnO 28---1 �2N 4 a0� M Of to M m 00 K z 1�M NO,� 4 13 1 L 44 L 57 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD 2 W in r ' r � 64- i /L--3 0 i.� 10� 0 0^� to DO COtto�zn ui 32 -In 0 Ec 15 N °I° n tom1 14 605L► 08 J `� 177 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD 1 L �L 9 4 32 82 —�► I 6 45—36 0 13 Ntoc 0 000 70~ 35-1 �N0 90 mao N NN �g�lonals F- es:29;:m NUTMEG VILLAGE civil fl traffic onglnoors.surveyors PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD FIGURE 3 Isndsespo srehi1187. •h Windsor. 80UM WINMn CO C*T 425 Sulttvon Awnw,P.O.Box 1167,South M7ndwr,Connecticut 08074 W/v i Y7L 7�i•,i/�7rJA v 8 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 2016 P.M. PEAK HOUR Z 0 0 w W Z :2'r1Q Lon nn 0 45 � rn v It N 0 t2 N M .�0 22 L 20 —1 L► �'-252 - 1 L 146 L F 1 GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY PODUNK CIRCLE 59 72 r 77 2007 r f r 201 r f r 50� oleo 15� ^N 7 N�m a� m LO 0 0 0 M w O W IIr Z_ 30 M(027 3 _.—66 o w 54 I L► 20 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD o o f r 2 J 4 /;f�:�-20 & 43 rn o N �15 -�Jnot coo LL► 69 � Z �-0 3 22PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD L 42 31 rf r 151 rf r 29� 142 � f r 193y � f 0� no - 183 - 3� ^^� 48� mom g� TM' 860:291 67877 NUTMEG VILLA GE PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD FIGURE 4 civil 8 traffic engineers•surveyors tyty���r�y�l�t landscape architects 11 7, •h tanners•g tkut so LL i st ii SOP. CONNEMICU a 425 Suptren Avenw,PA BoK 1187,SaulA Winewr,Conmetteu!06074 V LL ii 6. Site Generated Traffic &Distribution: Volumes The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)publishes trip generation data that has over the years,been voluntarily submitted by various state and local governmental agencies, consulting firms, university and colleges, developers, etc. The compilation of the data is published in their Trip Generation report. This document provides traffic engineers and planning officials a guide to help determine vehicular trip generation rates for numerous proposed building types and land uses. The seventh edition of Trip Generation was consulted in this traffic study. Trip Generation uses statistical regression equations to compute 2-way, 24-hour traffic volumes and peak hour volumes produced by a given building type or land use. These traffic volumes are then split by ratios that represent entering and existing traffic. The two proposed land uses at Nutmeg Village will include 15 detached single family homes and 140 condominiums.The remaining 11 acres of land to be developed by others is assumed herein as an industrial land use. Table 1 summarizes the proposed development by component with assigned uses as reported by Trip Generation. TABLE 1 Dwelling Units Trip Generation (No.) Land Use 15 Single-Family Detached Housing 140 Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse Acres 10.99 General Light Industrial The traffic generated by building components was computed and totals added together. Refer to Appendix C for Trip Generation computations. Table 2 below summarizes the proposed site generated traffic. 11 TABLE 2 A.M.Weekday P.M.Weekday Land Use Dwelling Peak Hour(vehicles) Peak Hour(vehicles) Component Units Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single-Family Detached Housing 15 5 13 18 12 7 19 Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse 140 14 64 78 41 34 75 Acres General Light Industrial 11 74 13 87 29 67 96 Total 166 93 90 183 82 108 190 '-Distribution: The site generated traffic distribution patterns were developed based on labor force statistics published by the Connecticut Economic Resource Center, Inc. These statistics were the basis for determining the proportion of Nutmeg Village's residents that will use each of several primary routes driving to and from work. This information was analyzed by use of the gravity model to develop the relative percentage of vehicles traveling in the following principal directions: 1. Route 5 northbound via Pleasant Valley Road 2. Route 5 southbound via Pleasant Valley Road 3. Route 5 southbound via Pleasant Valley Road&Route 30 4. Interstate 291 eastbound via Pleasant Valley Road&Route 30 5. Interstate 291 westbound via Pleasant Valley Road&Route 5 southbound 6. Route 30 eastbound via Pleasant Valley Road 7. Pleasant Valley Road eastbound To address the question of which route is quicker for vehicles to travel south from Nutmeg Commons,to Route 5 southbound and to Interstate 291 eastbound, a time study was conducted. The two alternates are as follows: • Turn left from the site, turn right on Route 30 to Route 5 • Right from the site, left onto Route 5 The study was conducted during the morning peak hours on February 17, 2011, while the weather was clear. Seven time trials for each route were made. The results indicated that it would consume 4 seconds less time to turn left from the site driveway and travel via Route 30 to reach Route 5, than it would be to turn right from the site and turn left onto Route 5 to reach the Route 5/Route 30 intersection. Due to the negligible difference in 12 time, the traffic oriented toward East Hartford, and traffic destined to Interstate 291 eastbound was distributed approximately equally for both alternatives. Similar to the residential component, the determination of traffic distribution for the remaining 11 acres of industrial land (adjacent to South Satellite Road)was also derived from labor statistics published by the Connecticut Economic Resource Center, Inc. These statistics were used to develop a separate gravity model. The gravity model analysis with accompanying trip distribution output is included as Appendix D. Figures 5 and 6 presents the directional distribution of the site generated traffic. The site generated traffic volumes were then applied to the roadway network following the distribution patterns presented in Figure 5 and 6. Figures 7 and 8 summarize the site generated traffic for both the A.M. and P.M.peak hours. 13 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT EXITING & (ENTERING) O Z 0 Q 0 W Z GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY XPODUNKCIRCLE U) w o: a M ZZ0 D rn 1 j 0 2 L' F— -� — i— SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD o W N SITE a �2 m Z W � �. M n 44% 1 �Z ~ 53% N r� 4► _.— �1 I �—(10%) 1 r (47%) PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD l F (539�� � f r (53%)� `—(47%) � 70%-��- � f r 10% 47%—y 26%---i 8755 �gn Fox 880.291.8757 NUTMEG VILLAGE civil t traffic engineers.surveyors PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD landscape •planners•Sb•lips FIGURE 5 425 SulBa Anuc P.O.Sox 1167.South Wtntlwr,Connecticut 08074 SOUN WNM®R CONNZ MT DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT EXITING & (ENTERING) 0 Z C. 0 Z J L J L J L cgs%) v1 i- GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY 1 PODUNK CIRCLE 29%--J � fr N � N u7 H _ O G � Q M 0! O � � F N Z l S 9% 39% y-11 1 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD 2 o a f r (60%) IA� m N 0Z?' yam— J L I —(„%) 11 I (71%) PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD n �gn T N 2 1:875; NUTMEG VILLAGE o loftP LiEASANT VALLEY ROAD dull S traffic architect*.planners..on,.yw. FIGURE 6 landscape arox 11 7.S.hYwr.C bout SOT SOR CO C LL 425 SulBvan Avonue.P.0.Box 1187,South Windwr,Conmelkul 06074 v aJIY tI u�lV SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR 0 Z 0 0 W Z _ N N GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY XPODUNKCIRCLE a � 0 � o Nco K Z N 4 8 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD o w 5 o fr 45 J o y� pP D nN � SITE 3 a'�o2 o �'`' 0 WCo ION O 7 .— —8 a M N N Z y-- 34 �Z 41 J J L (-17 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD ,o o t� 10 L., I fr 8 � 9101 0OD37 2 O.Wagn ZM NUTMEG VILLAGE Is civil 8 truffle engineers .surveyors ]P]PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD landscape architects.planners.ste-Spa Q *�1lvgy ��g �,p /�,'�� 1/�q� FIGURE 7 425 SuIINon Avwnus.P.O.Bm 1187.Sw%Windsor.Connecticut 08074 BO LL y� �yN1717®R, CONNW y uC y SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 0 P.M. PEAK HOUR Z 0 0 W Z to 0 GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY XPODUNKCIRCLE 19-� � fr LO 0 a M M w O 1— (7 loco m 19 14 l ►—41 Q w L F—27 J 1 L F—7 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD o �- ofrJ 18� � � fr �� oe m v^ n SITE 3 0� g L) a`' & �vJ J N n Oq �4 n N I� 2 �18 1 �Z 22 I �25 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD 1 S o F 5 �1f r 28-�► � fr 28� �25 „� N 26 :. OW:z9;:67 gn ; NUTMEG VILLAGE PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD FIGURE 8 civil 6 traffic anglnaars.murvayore landscape architects67. •h V n sor.0 ts•=ps BOUH �R CO ^UT 4u Sue. „iwa,Avanw,P.O.Box 11a7,sow,MnnMor,conn.ovouc oem4 vv �u1�JlJrIV �,r 7. Combined Traffic The combined traffic volumes consist of adding the background and site generated traffic. Figures 9 and 10 represent the weekday a.m. and p.m.peak hour combined traffic volumes. 18 COMBINED TRAFFIC 2016 A.M. PEAK HOUR 0 Z 0 0 W Z o oI I 56 oZPODUNKCIRCLE 2 } (� ' GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY 13 —�-► I 213 y 5—��- 79 } r 0 13 MMno 26� ^ate 4 y a00 to Of co 0 _ O rn NTM w Z L- �- 3 �' 16 I � 35 49 � L► 6 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD o } (� 36 /L-3 ,09= C4 10 0o^N co V) SITE 3 0 000NLJ 1 � toz n m o 39 ro o n L 23 I n in I� 014 - 6 9 D09J `� L 194 PLEASANT VALLEY ROADJ 1 L 934 y �4 6 � g2 232 � I 92 13 D 107 55 90 NNU-) : I I N DD� �gn rm. eee•2G/•85755 767 NUTMEG VILLAGE PLEASANT VALLEY ]I8®AD FIGURE 9 civil @ traffic engineers •surveyors landscape architects. 425 SuIMn Avenue,P.O.[lox 1167,South Wfrxfwr,Connecticut 06074 COMBINED TRAFFIC 2016 P.M. PEAK HOUR z 0 0 ot W Z ^Co kn o 0 ' t '252 1 L 228 LXPODUNK 0 GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY CIRCLE 72—► f r 77— 20 -► 07� f r 221—�► I f r 50 t2 rw 15 �o � v 7 � •1'�N tC W� F O O cc M � LJ Z F O 1 O g a°io o L 46 �' z M N O) 44 �107 w �- 61 L 27 SOUTH SATELLITE ROAD w f r 21 32— f r A, pQ� oo " 4 N^ SITE y3 OJT o`er U Q > ZC Z V' N u7 2 alnwroo �47 rnon 15 N N coo In 1 z �36 �-28 z 145 I 29 _ ::1 of—133 187 j 0 j `� 137 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD F-20 42 39 y f 1 2--1 f r 165 1 25 2909 78 153� f r 204 f r 15� amp 0� now 2 —► 14� P;;: 48� soar Co gn F- 8000.22%875 NUTMEG VILLA GE PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD FIGURE 10 civil 5 traffic engineers.surveyors londocopo P.O.Sm 1 seto•h Wn mr,Con lo•out SOUM ^u MSOR CONNE CM 425 SulOvan Awnue .Banc 1167,South Wlndwr,Conmotlout 00074 8.Traffic Operations Analysis In order to determine traffic impacts of the proposed development at Nutmeg Village and remaining 11 acres of industrially zoned land, capacity analyses were conducted for the background and combined traffic conditions. The analyses uses techniques presented in the"2010 Highway Capacity Manual", (HCM)published by the Transportation Research Board. The analyses were conducted to determine the operational effectiveness of each studied intersection. The total capacity of a signalized intersection is computed on a movement by movement basis. This represents the maximum number of vehicles that can utilize an intersection during an hour. A comparison with the total number vehicles attempting to use the intersection yields the volume to capacity ratio, which is equivalent to the ratio of capacity utilized with capacity available during the peak hour. An intersection nears its capacity as the volume to capacity ratio approaches one. Level of Service(LOS) was determined for each intersection. LOS is rated on a scale from A to F, with LOS A representing a delay less than 10 seconds per vehicle, and LOS F, a delay more than 80 seconds. The LOS criteria for un-signalized intersections are different from that for signalized intersections. The reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from different types of transportation facilities (ie. a traffic light versus a stop sign). The LOS criteria with respect to delay for both un-signalized and signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Intersection Type Signalized Un-signalized Average Delay Average Delay Level of Service Sec./vehicle Sec./vehicle A 0- 10 0- 10 B >10-20 >10- 15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 Analyses were conducted using SYNCHRO(Version 7)computer software, which uses the same analysis techniques outlined in the HCM. The software is used to analyze intersections on a system wide basis. The results from Synchro are included as Appendix E. A partial summary of Synchro's output is tabulated as the `Level of Service Summary' included as Appendix F. 21 The overall intersection LOS during the morning and afternoon,peak periods for all the study intersections remained the same with the exception of the following: South Satellite Road with Route 5 (A.M.)—Route 5 northbound approach The LOS was reduced from an A to B with a corresponding increased delay of 1.3 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 36 vehicles (7 through&29 right turning)during the peak hour. South Satellite Road with Route 5 (A.M.)—Route 5 southbound approach The LOS was reduced from an A to B with a corresponding increased delay of 1.0 second. Increased delay was a result of an additional 18 vehicles (2 through& 16 left turning)during the peak hour. Pleasant Valley Road with Route 5 (A.M.)—Route 5 southbound a rUu oach The LOS was reduced from B to C with corresponding increased delay of 2.3 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 7 vehicles (5 through&2 left turning) during the peak hour. Pleasant Valley Road with Route 5 (P.M.)—Pleasant Valley Road westbound 4p roach The LOS was reduced from D to E with corresponding increased delay of 4.0 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 22 vehicles (18 left turning&4 right turning) during the peak hour. The anticipated 95% queue length at this approach is expected to increase from 230 feet to 278 feet. Pleasant Valley Road with Route 30 (A.M.)—Pleasant Valley Road westbound an rp oach The LOS was reduced from C to D with corresponding increased delay of 2.7 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 10 through vehicles during the peak hour.. Pleasant Valley Road with Route 30 (A.M.)—Route 30 southbound ap rp oach The LOS was reduced from B to C with corresponding increased delay of 2.3 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 2 vehicles turning right onto Pleasant Valley Road. Pleasant Valley Road with Route 30 (A.M.)—Overall intersection The LOS was reduced from B to C with corresponding increased delay of 3.2 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 54 vehicles using the intersection, with the most impact being eastbound site generated traffic. Pleasant Valley Road with Route 30 (P.M.)—Route 30 northbound ap rp oach The LOS was reduced from B to C with corresponding increased delay of 4.9 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 14 vehicles turning left onto Pleasant Valley Road. The anticipated 95% queue length at this approach is expected to increase from 488 feet to 557 feet. 22 Pleasant Valley Road with Route 30 (P.M.)—Overall intersection The LOS was reduced from B to C with corresponding increased delay of 3.2 seconds. Increased delay was a result of an additional 51 vehicles using the intersection, with the most impact being northbound site generated traffic. 9. Sight Line Analysis Driveways: The sight lines at the proposed Nutmeg Village driveway were reviewed. Looking left, sightline for motorists turning right onto Pleasant Valley Road is clear to Hilton Drive, or approximately 820 feet. Looking right, sightline for left turning motorists is 390 feet. AASHTO's Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets provides guidelines for acceptable sightline distances for vehicles turning from a stopped condition onto a major roadway. The analysis indicates that sight line distances will be adequate for passenger vehicles exiting Nutmeg Commons. Table 4 below provides a summary of the sight line analyses. TABLE 4 Intersection Sightline Analysis- Nutmeg Commons Driveway (Passenger Vehicle -30 mile per hour designspeed) Manuever Required Sight Line Provided Sight Line Feet Feet Turning Left(Looking right) 335 390 Turning Right(Looking left) 290 820 11. Conclusion: The findings of this traffic impact study reveal no indication that the operational effectiveness and safety of the surrounding roadway network will be significantly compromised as a result of the proposed development at Nutmeg Village and remaining 11 acre property to remain as industrially zoned land. 23 �� " PLANNING DEPARMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM DATE: 12/13/11 TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw,Michael Gantick, Rich Bond,Walter Summers, Jeff Doolittle Ray Favreau, Karl Reichle,Mark Owens, Chris Dougan, Sherry McGann, Ron Asselin, John Caldwell, Dennis Sheridan FROM: Michele Lipe, AICP, Town Planner The Planning&Engineering Departments have received plans for the following projects: Appl 11-40P,Nutmeg Village Zone Change and General Plan Northerly side of Pleasant Valley Rd(access proposed), southerly of So Satellite Rd, Location: easterly of Nutmeg Rd ❑ Site Plan ❑ Subdivision No. Acres 49+ Zone I I ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ® Residential No. Lots/Units 155 Water: ® Public ❑ Private Well Sewerage: ® Public ❑ Septic System Project Description: Zone change request to Multi Family zoning to develop 155 units Future Town-owned property involved? ❑ Yes ®No ❑ new street(s) ❑ new detention area ❑ new open space/recreation area ❑ active ❑passive Planning Department notes: General plan and supporting documentation in our office(traffic study,narrative, etc.) Please comment by 1/3/12 and return to the Planning Department. Appl #11-40P, Nutmeg Commons-Nutmeg Village Zone Change, I to MF-AA Public Hearing 1-24-12 Planning Department Report 1. Request for a zone change from Industrial to Multi-family AA for 49.5+/- acres of property located on the north side of Pleasant Valley Road and southerly of South Satellite Road, and General Plan of Development for 155 housing units. The MF zone requires a minimum of 15 acres. This proposal also includes the rezoning of a small strip of land, .32 acres, from Industrial to A-20 on the residential lot at 438 Pleasant Valley Road. 2. Section 8.?includes criteria for zone change, including but not limited to: a. The goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Plan of Conservation and Development; b. The purposes of zoning and of these regulations; c. Changes that have taken place in the rate and pattern of development and land use within the Town and adjoining communities; d. The supply of land available in the present and proposed zone; e. The physical suitability of the land for the proposed zone; f. The impact on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, and other improvements; g. The general character and zoning of the neighborhood; h. Impacts on the surrounding area; i. Traffic congestion impacts; j. The impact on surrounding property values; k. The environmental impacts; 1. The health and general welfare of the community; m. Neighborhood acceptance weighed against community needs; and n. The protection of historic factors. i The Town Plan "Future Land Use Map" indicates that the land along Route 5 should remain as Economic Development land. The subject site is surrounded by Industrially-zoned land to the north and west. The land to the south is zoned industrially, however currently has a few existing residences. The land to the east is residentially-zoned. The Housing Element of the Town Plan of Conservation includes goals that are relevant to this application, including: • Develop housing to meet the needs of the entire community, including but not limited to: small families, large families, the elderly, single adult households, various income levels, and • Develop a full range of housing styles, types, sizes, densities, affordability, and forms of ownership in order to meet the housing needs of the community. 3. The possible uses in the MF zone are limited strictly to dwelling units; no other primary uses are allowed. Potential uses in the Industrial zone include: • automobile sales, service and repair; • sales of building and landscaping materials; • manufacture of bricks, cement products, tile and terra cotta; • manufacture, processing, packaging and assembly of components or goods; • offices - professional, commercial, corporate and business; • plumbing, heating, electrical, mechanical industrial and general contracting establishments; • printing and publishing, graphic arts processes, sign shop painting; • solid waste, recycling, transfer station facilities; • truck and freight terminals; and • warehouses and distribution centers. 4. The purpose of the general plan is to show the planned use and layout of the property if the zone change is approved, including the general layout of utilities, drainage, open space and recreation areas. The information depicted in the General Plan is meant to be viewed as general information, with engineering details to be provided at the site plan stage. This two-step method provides the opportunity for the Commission to determine whether the multi-family use is appropriate for this site, and to make meaningful revisions if appropriate, prior to the applicant spending a 2 substantial amount of money on full engineering. Special exception and site plan of development approval would be required prior to any construction on this site. 5. A zone change is the appropriate time to discuss traffic impacts. The applicant's traffic report indicates that the area roadway network is generally sufficient to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development. Staff has expressed some traffic concerns to the applicant. The town engineer's report will get more into the specific intersections of concern. 6. There is a 25' buffer requirement along all property boundaries except the street frontage. The buffer plantings must be designed by a licensed landscape architect and must obscure most of the view between the residential and non-residential zones within 5 years, and substantially block the view at maturity. The-applicant-is proposing to meet this,regtur-emeAt.along=-theeast�ly=Property--bou a t the access-drive by rezoning a 25 strip of-the-adjacent property owner's property and placing-that:area under a--buffer:easement. The survey shows that there are numerous encroachments by adjoining property onto the subject site. As these encroachments occur within the required buffer area, the applicant will need to reclaim these areas for buffer planting. We also note that along the lower west property boundary, there is a drainage easement and a drainage pipe that is not quite in the easement. This would be a good time to correct the easement to encompass the actual drainage pipe since the drainage easement is within the required buffer area. 7. Proposed impervious coverage is about 13.5%, 60% allowed. Maximum proposed building height is about 30.5 feet, 35 feet allowed. The applicant has provided a breakdown of unit types, open space requirements, parking requirements in accordance with the multi-family requirements. 8. There are regulated wetlands on this site. The quantity and distribution of the wetlands have most likely contributed to the general lack of interest in this property for industrial uses. IWA/CC approval is not required for the general plan; if PZC approves this application, then the applicant will need IWA/CC approval for the site plan. 9. Public water and sewer are available. The applicant's engineer has indicated that the utilities have adequate capacity to support this development. 10.The MF zone requires 600 sq ft of developed recreation area per unit which equates to just over 2 acres. The applicant has designated open field/lawn areas and a walking trail for developed recreation. The walking trail as shown is 4' wide with 3 stone dust. Town staff, including the SW Police Dept, recommends that the path be wider to facilitate both active recreation and police patrols. 11.There are several single-family units within about 15' of the side yard setback line. The applicant should be aware that placement of decks, pools and sheds will be very limited for these units. 12.Trash disposal will be handled through the use of individual containers. The applicant may have to create some common areas for these containers (e.g. in the area of the duplexes). Staff requests if these concrete pads are going to be created, that they be shown on the general plan rather than being designed as an after thought. B.The site is more than 500 feet from a Town boundary, so no referral to CRCOG was required. 14.If this zone change is approved, the Commission must state on the record that you have found the zone change to be consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. 4 SOUTH W I N D S O R qp Matthew D.Reed,Esq. Chief of Police POLICE 151 Sand Hill Road South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 860-644-2551 • Fax 860-644-0515 Monday, January 23, 2012 CE'V' 34N 4 2011 Michele Lipe SOUTH WIND60R PLANNING DEPT. Town Planner Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Michele: I have reviewed the plans for the proposed NUTMEG VILLAGE development. I am not satisfied with the single point of access to the development. It is my opinion that there must be an alternate route of access to the development. Ideally, the development would be accessible by at least two access roads at all times. However, I would settle for at least one full time access road and one "emergency' access roadway that could be easily opened and have a suitable surface for alternate vehicle accessibility during"emergency" conditions. This past year's storms demonstrated how easily a neighborhood can become isolated and inaccessible for emergency traffic. For the safety and security of the development's residents, it is in everyone's best interest to provide alternate access to the site. I would recommend that the alternate access road be constructed as soon as practicable but not later than a point in time in which the construction of homes is substantially complete. Regards, Ma hew D. Reed Chie of Police South • • Planning Depart Mellm To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members From: Michele R. Lipe,AICP, Town Planner Date: February 3, 2012 Re: Appl 11-40P, Nutmeg Village PZC Application—Opposition Petition Results The Nutmeg Village PZC application public hearing was held Tuesday January 24, 2012. The opponents submitted a protest petition comprised of signatures of property owners within 500 feet of the proposed zone change. Staff has reviewed the petition to determine the validity of the signatures to determine whether the statutory 20%of land area within 500 feet has been attained. Based on the following analysis, it is staffs position that they have NOT met the threshold to require a super majority vote to approve the zone change. Two separate analyses were completed. The first look only at property owner signatures and what percent of the land area they represented. Total land area within 500 feet: 83.51 acres Acreage of signatures obtained: 11.02 acres Percent of total: 13.2% The second analysis looked at property ownership and determined if the required signatures of the property were obtained and what percent of the land area they represented. Seven properties were disqualified as only one owner signed the petition. Total land area within 500 feet: 83.51 acres Acreage of signatures obtained that were listed on the deed: 5.961 acres Percent of total: 7.14% In both cases, the signatures fell short of the 20% required. 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 860-644-2511 ext 252 Fax 860-644-2780 Email michele.lipe@southwindsor.org SOW N St C �. 70� ?d s � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR•co`' TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL 70081300 00014578 4426 February 17,2012 Design Professionals Inc. Peter DeMallie 425 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor CT 06074 Dear Mr.DeMallie: Re: Appl. 11-40P,Nutmeg Village Zone Change&General Plan We are pleased to advise you that at its February 14,2012 regular meeting,the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve your request for a zone change of 49.5+acres from industrial zone:(I)to Multi-family AA zone(MF-AA)and zone change.32 acres of industrial zone(I)to Residential A-20 zone(A-20)and general plan of development to create a 155 unit multi-family complex,on properties identified as R003 Nutmeg Road, L023 Pleasant Valley Road, 388 Pleasant Valley Road and a portion of 438 Pleasant Valley Road,located on.the northerly side of Pleasant Valley Road, southerly of South Satellite Road and easterly of Nutmeg Road South. The Planning and Zoning Commission has found that the zone change is in conformance with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. This approval is subject to the following: 1. Special Exception and Site Plan of Development approval are required prior to construction, in accordance with Section 8.4 and 8.5 of the zoning regulations. If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until the certificate has been issued(per CGS §14-311). 2. The site plan application is subject to the approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission and the WPCA. 3. The Commission notes that this approval is for a General Plan of Development, which does not address all engineering and site design details. The applicant must submit an application for a Special Exception and site plan of development approval, at which time the Commission will review all specific details of the project, including but not limited to the following concerns raised during the Zone Change/General Plan application process: • Potential effect on drainage on nearby properties;must be addressed. • Emergency access from the development shall be provided on the site plan. 4. Town Engineer's review comments dated January 17,2012,must be incorporated into the site plan. 5. The buffer plantings must be increased to more effectively screen the development. 6. If the development is to be phased,phase lines should be included on the Site Plan P P � of Development. Within ninety days, a zone change map(1"=40')with an A-2 certification must be filed, showing all boundary lines and the acreage of the land where the zone change was granted. The map shall be drawn in accordance with the rules and regulations of the State Board of Registration for Professionals Engineers and Land Surveyors and shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Land Surveyor. The zone change map must be submitted on black and white mylars, with this approval letter thereon, together with three blueprint copies of the Zone Change. Black and white mylars of sheet # CP01 of the General Plan must also be submitted. After the mylars have been stamped and signed by the Commission,they will be returned to you for filing in the Town Clerk's office. The effective date of the Zone Change is the date the mylar is filed in the Town Clerk's office. Sincerely, Patrick Kennedy, Chairman Planning&Zoning Commission PK/ma • P.O.BOX 1167 425 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 PHONE: 860.291.8755 ■�� FAX: 860.291.8757 r0 011aIS 25 t"Anniversary 1986-2011 www.designprofessionalsinc.com CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS / PLANNERS /SURVEYORS / GIS ANALYSTS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5erving Connecticut, Massachusetts, E Rhode Is/and • • January 23, 2012 • Ms. Michele Lipe Town Planner LIAN `2 "S : Town of South Windsor • 1540 Sullivan Avenue LIRECEIVED WIND6M PLA South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Nutmeg Village Zone Change/General Plan Application Dear Ms. Lipe: We have received the planning and engineering comments from the Town and offer the following response: • Planning Department Comments (1/12/2012): 1. We are currently attempting to secure emergency vehicle access through one of two properties along Nutmeg Road South. Because of liability reasons,the applicant cannot be expected to provide a pedestrian access through private property that will not be under the control of the Association. However,we have contacted CT Transit about the possibility of rerouting the bus line along Pleasant Valley Road, but we have not heard a response as of the writing of this letter. 2. There are not any RV/boat trailer storage areas proposed on the site and the outdoor storage of these items will be restricted in the Association documents. 3. Existing and proposed tree lines have been added to the plans. The proposed landscaping near the easterly side of the property has been moved out of the swale. 4. Buffer plantings will be placed in areas where existing vegetation to remain will not be sufficient to meet the buffer requirements or where existing vegetation does not exist. For example, the wetlands area in the southwest corner of the large parcel is heavily wooded, therefore the intent is to not supplement this area with additional buffer plantings. • A proposed 25' buffer easement is shown on the property located at 438 Pleasant Valley Road that will grant the Association rights to enter and maintain the buffer on this adjacent property to the east of the entrance. • The Applicant will work with each individual property owner where an encroachment occurs to address the encroachment while still meeting the buffer requirements in these • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Lipe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc areas. The solutions will be detailed at the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. Buffer cross sections will be provided as a part of the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. Proposed street trees are shown on the landscape plan from Pleasant Valley Road up to the • proposed clubhouse. From that point the intent is to utilize the existing mature trees or the unit landscaping to provide the landscaping effect from the roadway. Street trees are also proposed on the street for the single family and duplex units. • 5. The unit breakdown has been further defined on the cover sheet. Please note the number of bedrooms in the single family and duplex units will depend on the choice of the initial buyer. • 6. The extents of the primary access road has been shown on sheet CP-01. 7. Proposed road names have been added to sheet CP-01. 8. The proposed path will have a stone dust surface. The Applicant believes the proposed 4' width is sufficient for the intended purposed of the path. 9. The sight line triangle has been added to sheet CG-02. • 10. We have received accident data from Lt. Rich Bond of the South Windsor Police Department for the last three years on Pleasant Valley Road between Nutmeg Road South and Hilton Drive. There have been a total of seven incidents between January 1, 2009 and January 1,2012,which Lt. Bond states that he"would not consider this a`significant' history for the area of the proposed new intersection." His summary sheet is included as an attachment. A speed study was conducted the morning of January 19,2012 at our proposed entrance : road when the pavement conditions were dry. Based on this study,the 85th percentile speed is 42.0 miles per hour in the area of our entrance road. Based on this,the required intersection sight distance per the AASHTO formula is 463 feet. Our initial evaluation of % the sight distance looking west was 390 feet. However,this was conducted in the fall after storm Alfred when there was a debris/leaf pile along Pleasant Valley Road which limited the sight distance. Since the pile has been removed,we re-evaluated the sight distance and determined that it is approximately 470 feet, limited by a slight crest in the roadway. Therefore,we believe the intersection sight distance is adequate in both directions based on the observed 85th percentile speed in this area. 11. A fiscal impact analysis for the proposed development was submitted last week. STAFF Comments When the drainage study is completed at the site plan application stage, assuming the zone change and general plan of development are approved,we will analyze and maintain the hydrology of the wetlands, likely through the discharge of clean runoff from roof leaders in these areas. • esign • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Upe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc : : The applicant will work with the WPCA to satisfy their comments regarding easements and ability to maintain the private sewer through the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. Engineering Department Comments (1/17/12): • 1. The complete stormwater analysis for the development will be completed for the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. At that time,the applicant will work with the Town to mitigate the impact from the proposed development down to the Podunk River. • 2. When the drainage system is completely design and analyzed,we will reduce the peak stormwater flow off of the site. and will attempt to intercept groundwater flowing off this site onto neighboring properties. • 3. Using calculations from the Connecticut Public Health Code,we anticipate the residential portion of the development will generate sewer flows of approximately 50,550 GPD and the industrial portion will generate approximately 8,400 GPD. • 4. We will consider moving the sewer pump station closer to Pleasant Valley Road with a shorter force main to the gravity sewer in Pleasant Valley Road after more detailed analysis in the site plan application stage. 5. Gravel maintenance roads to detention basin and water quality basin inlets and outlets will be provided where practical, and will be shown at the site plan application stage. 6. Cleaner runoff from roof leaders may be directed toward wetland areas. The stormwater management plan will address the treatment of mosquitoes. These items will be addressed in the site plan application stage. 7. Any existing drainage channels and swales on this property that are to be used for stormwater discharge of this development will be cleaned, defined, and stabilized prior to use, and will be so noted in the site plan application stage. 8. The more detailed grading plan for the site plan application stage will ensure there will be no ponding near residential units. 9. Soils information from test pits will be provided for the site plan application stage. 10. The proposed recreational paths will have a gravel base and a compacted stone dust surface, and will be further detailed at the site plan application stage. 11. The development will be designed and constructed to South Windsor Town Standards and will be further detailed at the site plan application stage, with the exception of road widths, which will be 24 feet. 12. A speed study has been conducted in the area of our proposed driveway and was detailed above in response to Planning Department Comments#10. s� • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Lipe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc ; : 13. Even though the LOS definition for the mentioned intersections is expected to change,the additional delay caused by traffic generated from this development is minimal. Therefore, the impact of the additional traffic is minimal even though the LOS,by definition,may : drop in certain circumstances. Nonetheless,the Connecticut DOT has been contacted regarding a review of the proposed traffic impacts and the potential need for a STC Certificate. We hope to have answers from the DOT in time for the site plan application stage. • Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. : Benjamin P. Wheeler,RLA Director of Operations Cc: Mr. Robert Urso Atty. Ralph Alexander Mr. Peter R. DeMallie • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Upe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc P.O. BOX 1 167 12 [ 425 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 SOUTH V lv�-,oR PLANNING DEPT, PHONE: 860.291.8755 th �` FAX: 860.291.8757 OI'Ia�S 25 Anniversary -2011 www.designprofessionalsinc.com CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS / GIS ANALYSTS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5erving Connecticut, Massachusetts, *Rhode Wand Narrative Statement Nutmeg Village Zone Change/General Plan Application Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, Connecticut DPI Proj.No. 1308 December 12, 2011 Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC of South Windsor has applied to the South Windsor Planning& Zoning Commission for a zone change to the Multi-Family(MF-AA)residential zone and General Plan of Development approval for a 49.93 acre tract on Pleasant Valley Road. The applicant is proposing an exceptional residential common interest ownership community primarily designed to attract and retain Metro Hartford's young middle class workforce. Nutmeg Village will have fifteen detached single family homes (capes, ranches and colonials), one of each style situated at the development's entrance, and another twelve on a cul-de-sac street in the easterly portion of the property. Twelve attached duplex homes will also be located on that street. The central and westerly areas of Nutmeg Village will contain 128 attached townhouse residences, four or six homes to a building. The entire development will thus transition from single-family to multi-family, with increasing densities, going from east to west(i.e., away from existing abutting residential areas), and will have a total of 155 units. All streets will be private and maintained by the Nutmeg Village association. • All residences will have, as standard amenities, granite countertops in the kitchen,tile floors in the bathrooms, an exterior deck, an energy star rating, an attached garage, and a private driveway in front of the garage. Exterior design features include clapboard and shingle siding, arched eyebrow windows, steep pitched roofs, architectural trim and columns. All single family homes will offer an attached two car garage. All other homes will have an attached one car garage. The ranch style (one floor living) single-family residences will offer two bedrooms, and the other single-family homes will have two or three bedrooms (buyer's choice). Single-family residences will have a variety of sizes and sale prices. The ranch style will have approximately 1,420 square feet. The cape will have approximately 1,364 square feet, and the colonial will have approximately 1,504 square feet. Single family homes will have a building height(zoning definition)ranging from 16 : feet to 26 feet. All duplex units will have approximately 1,474 square feet and two or three bedrooms (buyer's choice), and a height of approximately 26 feet. All 82 interior townhouse units and 28 townhouse end units will have two floors of living space over a basement and garage, 1,174 square feet of living space, 1 1/2 bathrooms,two bedrooms and a maximum building height of 30 feet, six inches, which is well below that which is allowed in the Multi-Family Zone. Eighteen of the two-story end units will have approximately 1,479 sq. ft.,two bedrooms and 2 1/2 bathrooms. • Anticipated sales prices are $189,900 for the 82 interior townhouse units, $199,900 for 28 of the townhouse end units, $219,900 for the 18 two-story end unit townhouses, $234,900 for the duplex units, $259,900 for the Cape style single-family home, $274,900 for the Colonial style single family home, and $289,900 for the ranch style single family home. Accordingly, some 110(70%) • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc : : of the Nutmeg Village residences will be attractively priced at under$200,000.00. This should bode well for the goal of retaining and attracting young middle class professionals for employers in South Windsor and surrounding communities. • The applicant has been planning for this new and innovative residential community for approximately three years. Part of this process was to assemble a team of leading consulting firms. These firms and their respective assignments are: 1)Willard&Alexander(legal); 2)Design Professionals, Inc. (civil &traffic engineering, land planning, land surveying, landscape architecture and assistance in fiscal and school impact analyses); 3) Capital Studio Architects (architecture); 4) Connecticut Planning&Development/Donald Poland(fiscal& school impact analyses); 5) GEI Consultants (environmental studies); 6) Highland Soils (soil scientist); 7) William Moorhead(botanist); and 8) Shipman& Goodwin(initial legal analyses). Team members and the applicant have conferred with numerous Town and regional officials during this planning : period. An earlier application by Horseshoe Lane Associates, known as Nutmeg Commons&Nutmeg Estates,had proposed a 202 unit residential condominium entirely on a 55.47 acre tract fronting on South Satellite Road, and with access only from South Satellite Road through an industrial area. At several public hearings, industrial neighbors expressed strong concerns. That application was ultimately denied by the Planning&Zoning Commission on May 11, 2010. The strong message to the applicant and his design team was to abandon any notion of access from South Satellite Road, and to investigate access from the south(through properties owned by others)to Pleasant Valley Road. • In the intervening 19 month period,the applicant and his consultants worked to overcome the objections to the original proposal. The first major task was to analyze the feasibility of an access drive from Pleasant Valley Road to serve a new residential community. The team immediately focused on a 4.75 acre undeveloped parcel owned by a local firm,the J.E. Shepard Company. It was the only option. Unfortunately,that parcel had considerably less frontage on a public street than required for a Multi-Family zone change. Regardless, the design team then proceeded to develop a conceptual layout for a new residential community which had its sole access point at Pleasant Valley Road and which incorporated all of the Shepard property, and only a portion of the original property owned by M. G. Realty. Perhaps equally as important, was the retention of industrial zoning on the south side of South Satellite Road, and no vehicular or pedestrian access thereto. The second important task was to meet with the two industrial neighbors on South Satellite Road who had objected to our original application and had been represented by legal counsel, for without their consent, the applicant had determined he would not proceed with another application. The industrial neighbors graciously agreed to host such a meeting in Hartford in August of 2010, at Day Pitney's offices, and were favorably disposed toward the new concept plan. They particularly liked that the opposite side of South Satellite Road from their operations would remain industrial and contain six proposed industrial building lots, and that all access to the residential community would be via Pleasant Valley Road. The next task was to secure approval from J.E. Shepard to flag the site's wetlands and to prepare boundary and topographic surveys. With that completed, an advanced concept layout was prepared and shown to the Planning&Zoning Commission's Chairman and Vice-Chairman at an informal meeting. They then recommended that the 60 acre mixed use schematic plan be informal • esign • ro iouals • G:\jobs\1308\dots\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-201 l.doc : presented to the entire Commission,which occurred in January of 2011. The plan depicted a new public entrance road from Pleasant Valley,terminating at a cul-de-sac, which gave the development the required 200 feet of road frontage. Off the cul-de-sac was a proposed six unit multi-family building. A new private roadway then proceeded back into the development. : The residential layout had some similar characteristics with the original development, albeit with considerably fewer residences (158, down from 202). While all sitting commissioners expressed that they favored the new conceptual industrial and residential plan, concerns were made with respect to the proposed Town road, need for a bus shelter,traffic, desire to show more surface parking, and that they preferred a clubhouse and recreation area at the beginning of the development rather than a six unit residential building. Of note is that the meeting was also attended by representatives from Unitex and Connecticut Packaging Materials, who expressed their support for the new plan. That was also favorably received by the Commissioners. Subsequent to that meeting, there were numerous sessions with Town staff(planning, wetlands, : engineering, sewer, fire,police and building),to be sure we identified any major concerns and that they were approving of the proposed street and building layout. During that process, some Town staff also expressed concern about the proposed public street. The applicant and design team then focused on two issues: 1)The proposed public street; and 2) Ambiguous language in the zoning regulations with respect to the definition of basement, and the absence of any definitions for habitable space and story. The latter matter was first addressed with a zoning amendment application,the language of which was modified and approved by the Commission. The former matter was also addressed with a zoning amendment application, which, if approved,would have allowed reduced street frontage in the MF zone if the development were set way back from the public street. The matter became moot when an abutter and the Nutmeg Village developer agreed to initial terms on adding the property at 388 Pleasant Valley Road to the development, which, in conjunction with the Shepard property, would provide the 200 feet of required frontage, and the entire Nutmeg Village development could be served by private roads. The amendment was then withdrawn before commission action, even though it may have had sufficient support for approval. • The design before the Commission with this application embraces a number of changes of note from the layout discussed informally in January of 2011. First is that the total number of homes is : now at 155, or three fewer from the January plan, and 47 fewer than the May,2010 plan. Second is that a bus shelter has been added. Third is that the entrance drive has been adjusted horizontally and vertically to maximize sight line at Pleasant Valley Road. Fourth is that with the addition of the Eggleston property(single-family home and acreage),we have 200 feet of frontage, and have placed three single-family homes (one of each style) at the beginning of the development. Fifth is that the house at 388 Pleasant Valley Road will remain on a reconfigured conforming lot, separate from Nutmeg Village, and with a new improved driveway access over to our new street,which eliminates the old driveway curb cut on Pleasant Valley Road in furtherance of access management principles. Sixth is that the prior six unit multi--family dwelling at the beginning of the development has been eliminated, in favor of a recreation area and a 1,120 square feet clubhouse with associated parking. Seventh is that an active recreation area has been eliminated in : one section at the north side of Nutmeg Village in favor of preserving a woodland area. Eighth is that more of the six unit multi-family buildings with the stepped down end units have been added in order to facilitate more handicap accessible units, as may be required.Ninth is that the duplex building design has been improved. Tenth is that we have added a strip of property to the east of our entrance drive at 438 Pleasant Valley Road(Taylor)to the zone change, in order to Aduce the &=anals • G:`jobs\1308\docs\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc : Industrial Zone buffer on that neighbor's lot from a full 100 feet(50 for I, 50 for A-20), down to the 25 feet associated with the MF zone (I Zone no longer in play there). It will also eliminate the necessity for a buffer on a part of a lot in front of 438 Pleasant Valley Road(new home is presently under construction on that lot). Eleventh is that the public cul-de-sac street is now gone, has been replaced with a boulevard entrance, and all proposed streets will be private. Twelfth is that we have added more surface parking spaces throughout the development, in order to : supplement garage and driveway parking. And the final modification was to add a phasing plan(4 phases). Phase I will begin at the site's entrance and incorporate most of the easterly development up to the northeast corner. Phase II will include many of the units in the central area. Phase III will move on to the area west of the site center. Phase IV will include the westerly cul de sac area. We believe these changes have made this a better plan from that informally presented to the Commission and staff in early 2011. The zoning regulations provide for a two-application approval process. The first application is for the zone change and general plan of development only for the residential development(even though the industrial zone for the six proposed lots will remain). The second application is for a site plan of development and a special exception for the Nutmeg Village residential community, along with a resubdivision application in order to create the six industrial building lots,to create the Nutmeg Village parcel, and to create the new conforming lot for the existing house westerly of the new entrance road. • In order to understand the potential fiscal and school impacts of Nutmeg Village and of the adjoining six lot industrial park,the applicant engaged Connecticut Planning&Development, LLC and Design Professionals, Inc. to undertake a study of all of South Windsor's existing non age- restricted planned residential communities, to project public school enrollment at the subject site, and to look at taxes and fees with respect to this residential development,the six lot industrial park, and development if the site were to remain in the industrial zone and built out with manufacturing, warehousing and other allowed industrial uses. The results of this study will be submitted under separate cover well in advance of the PZC public hearing. The landscape architectural design of Nutmeg Village has been undertaken to ensure appropriate buffer treatments on the parcel's periphery, much of which will incorporate existing trees and shrubs to be complemented by interplanted nursery stock to fill in any gaps in key areas. Water : quality basins will incorporate plantings to not only clean stormwater runoff, but to add to the site's beauty. Many acres of the property will remain undisturbed habitat. The entrance drive will have a low level masonry entrance sign(maximum of six feet in height) located in a center median landscaped with perennials, as well as evergreen and flowering shrubs for a beautiful boulevard effect. Walking/jogging trails and active recreational lawn areas are provided. Exterior lighting systems will be of residential scale and will have full cut off luminaires such that light will not emit off-site and to ensure dark sky compliance. A landscaped area adjacent to the entrance drive with a vehicular pull-off is being provided for a central mail delivery system. The stormwater conveyance system consists of a mostly piped system leading two one of two : detention basins; a smaller basin for the area south of the brook and a larger one north of the brook. Both basins will discharge to the brook near the southeastern corner of the large parcel, near where the natural drainage currently leaves the site. While the detailed design and analysis will be completed for the next application, it is fully expected that the post-development peak discharge rates will be at or below the pre-development rates. • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Appl!cations 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc : Similar to the stormwater system, services for other utilities will be split by the brook. Based on the previous application, the existing utilities have sufficient capacity to support the development. Sanitary sewers for the area south of the brook will gravity flow to the existing sewer in Pleasant Valley Road. The remainder of the development will gravity flow to a pump station, which will : pump to the end of the single-family cul-de-sac where it will gravity flow under the land to remain industrially zoned into the existing sewer in South Satellite Road. • Design Professionals, Inc. has prepared a comprehensive traffic impact analysis of the subject development and of the surrounding street network, including numerous intersections,the most important of which is the signalized intersection of Route 5 and Pleasant Valley Road. This analysis concludes that the proposed development and projected vehicular traffic will not adversely impact the operations of the street network, and that the street network has the capacity to readily accommodate all site-generated traffic.Nutmeg Village will not congest the public roadways. This site is uniquely positioned such that all vehicles will ingress and egress via : collector streets (Pleasant Valley Road and Routes 5 and 30) and not through adjoining residential neighborhoods, such as the Hilton Drive area immediately to the east. • The subject 49.93 acre parcel is in fact a transitional parcel, situated between a large residential area to the northeast, east, south and west(although the residential area to the south and west is technically in the industrial zone), and an industrial area to the north, west and southwest. The South Windsor Plan of Conservation and Development states—"Wherever residential uses abut industrial and commercial uses, incompatibilities tend to occur. To mitigate this effect,transitional uses are encouraged along zone boundaries. Zone changes to expand industrial/commercial areas, or zone changes to expand residential areas, would occur primarily in the transition areas along : existing zone boundaries."Nutmeg Village is a transitional residential use along the zone boundaries separating single-family residential and industrial uses. We are proposing a transition : within the development, starting with single-family residences adjoining the abutting single family residences on adjoining properties,then moving into duplexes, and then finally multi-family uses farthest away from the existing neighborhoods. Accordingly,the proposed zone change is consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the community's Plan of Conservation&Development. The proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Multi-Family zoning : district,the zoning regulations, and of the zone change review criteria. In addition to that discussed above, and that which will be presented in other documents and at the public hearing, we offer the following comments: 1) The concentration of recent residential development patterns favoring McMansions and age-restricted communities has had an appreciable adverse impact on our young workforce and their unmet housing needs. It has contributed to the graying of our workforce and communities. This development will begin to address that problem within South Windsor and the region, and will aid in attracting and retaining younger households. 2) The supply of land within the Multi-Family zone is such that there are no vacant MF zoned tracts in the community. This zone change will help with that problem. On the other hand,there is considerable vacant industrial land in South Windsor. Indeed,the subject property has been marketed for over 30 years for : industrial development,to no avail. That speaks volumes. We are proposing to create six frontage industrial lots, which should have a greater marketability. 3) The subject property, containing 38 acres of uplands (non-wetlands), free of federal flood plain, and gently sloping, is physically suited for the proposed residential development/zone. 4) The site will be appropriately served by public sewers, public water, storm drainage, natural gas,power, cable and other utility services which have capacity to support the development. 5) Given that traffic will be separate from the djoining eslan • A G:\Jobs\1308\docs\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc : neighborhood, and our traffic engineer has concluded this development will not adversely impact traffic, and that the subject development has been well planned and meets or exceeds the setback and buffering provisions of the zoning regulations, we believe Nutmeg Village will not impact the surrounding area. 6) We believe industrial development of the subject property(proposed MF zone)would have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential area and potentially on property values. 7) The applicant and design team have conferred with our environmental consultants, as well as local and state experts. The resulting development will thus not have an adverse impact on the environment beyond that normally associated with land development. Measures have been taken to preserve habitat, and undisturbed natural areas in bulk. We have also designed our stormwater runoff and erosion control systems to preserve water quality, e.g., we have utilized water quality basins and swales. 8) We are unaware of any historic factors affecting this application. 9) We are anticipating that the neighborhood will prefer our proposal over that of industrial development/zoning, and that the unmet housing needs of the young workforce within our Town and the region justify this application. In conclusion,Nutmeg Village is an appropriately designed and well suited location for a 155 unit planned residential community addressing the housing needs of South Windsor's and Metro Hartford's young middle class professional workforce. Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood are negligible. They are far better than the impacts from industrial development, should the zone remain unchanged.No appreciable traffic congestion will result from this proposal. The economic benefits to the Town are considerable, and the studies prepared by our team of consultants has this well documented. We thank you for your consideration • r• G:\jobs\1308\dots\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc ofesswwds �I J I =c; YYa South Windsor Police Services Traffic Unit Mr. Andrew Krar P.E., LEED AP Design Professionals 425 Sullivan Ave South Windsor, CT 06074 Enclosed please find the accident history for Pleasant Valley Road between Nutmeg Road South and Hilton Drive. The data includes accidents at the intersections. The time frame used was 01/01/09 through 01/01/12. Seven accidents were found in the area in question. The cursory breakdown is as follows: 1. 2 "rear end"type collisions. 2. 2 turning violations (one in each intersection) 3. 2 vehicles left the roadway due to speed or loss of control 4. 1 vehicle left the road due to heavy snow. I would not consider this a "significant" history for the area of the proposed new intersection. Please let me know if you need anything else. Personal information has NOT been redacted from the enclosed copies and the informatio is-for statistical and professional use only. l Lt. ich Bond Commander-Special Services Unit South Windsor Police Department 860-628-6211 T P.O.BOX 1167 425 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 PHONE:860.291.8755 ' FAX:860.291.8757 th 1'�O'��'.SS1011a�S 25 Anniversary 1986-2011 www.designprofessionalsinc.com CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS/ PLANNERS/SURVEYORS/ GIS ANALYSTS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Serving Connecticut, Massachusetts, C Rhode Island Narrative Statement Nutmeg Village Zone Change/General Plan Application Pleasant Valley Road South Windsor, Connecticut - - DPI Proj.No. 1308 December 12, 2011 Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC of South Windsor has applied to the South Windsor Planning& Zoning Commission for a zone change to the Multi-Family(MF-AA)residential zone and General Plan of Development approval for a 49.93 acre tract on Pleasant Valley Road. The applicant is proposing an exceptional residential common interest ownership community primarily designed to attract and retain Metro Hartford's young middle class workforce. Nutmeg Village will have fifteen detached single family homes(capes,ranches and colonials), one of each style situated at the development's entrance, and another twelve on a cul-de-sac street in the easterly portion of the property. Twelve attached duplex homes will also be located on that street.The central and westerly areas of Nutmeg Village will contain 128 attached townhouse residences,four or six homes to a building. The entire development will thus transition from single-family to multi-family, with increasing densities,going from east to west(i.e., away from existing abutting residential areas),and will have a total of 155 units. All streets will be private and maintained by the Nutmeg Village association. All residences will have; as standard amenities,granite countertops in the kitchen,tile floors in the bathrooms,an exterior deck, an energy star rating, an attached garage, and a private driveway in front of the garage..Exterior..design_features.include clapboard and shingle siding,arched eyebrow windows, steep pitched roofs, architectural trim and columns.All single family homes will offer an attached two car garage. All other homes will have an attached one car garage. The ranch style (one floor living) single-family residences will offer two bedrooms, and the other single-family homes will have two or three bedrooms (buyer's choice). Single-family residences will have a variety of sizes and sale prices. The ranch style will have approximately 1,420 square feet. The cape will have approximately 1,364 square feet, and the colonial will have approximately 1,504 square feet. Single family homes will have a building height(zoning definition)ranging from 16 feet to 26-feet.All duplex units will have approximately 1,474 square feet.and two or three - - ------Bedrooms-(buyer-s-choice), arid-a height-of approximately-26-feet.Ai182 interior-townhouse-units - -- - and 28 townhouse end units will have two floors of living space over a basement and garage, 1,174 square feet of living space, 1 1h bathrooms,two bedrooms and a maximum building height of 30 feet, six inches, which is well below that which is allowed in the Multi-Family Zone. Eighteen of the two-story end units will have approximately 1,479 sq. ft.,two bedrooms and 2 1/2 bathrooms. • Anticipated sales prices are$189,900 for the 82 interior townhouse units, $199,900 for 28 of the ---- townhouse endunits—$21900 for the-I8-two=story end-unit townhouses, 234�900-for tYie duplex --- - - -units-$259;900 for the-C-ape-style-single-family home,-$274,900 for the Colonial-style single- -- - - - - family home, and$289,900 for the ranch style single family home. Accordingly, some 110(70%) • G:\jobs\1308\docs\App1ications 201 1\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12 2011.doc of the Nutmeg Village residences will be attractively priced at under$200,000.00. This should bode well for the goal of retaining and attracting young middle class professionals for employers in South Windsor and surrounding communities. • The applicant has been planning for this new and innovative residential community for approximately three years. Part of this process was to assemble a team of leading consulting firms. These firms and their respective assignments are: 1) Willard&Alexander(legal);2) Design Professionals, Inc. (civil&traffic engineering, land planning, land surveying,landscape architecture and assistance in fiscal and school impact analyses); 3) Capital Studio Architects (architecture); 4) Connecticut Planning&Development/Donald Poland(fiscal&school impact analyses); 5) GEI Consultants(environmental studies); 6)Highland Soils(soil scientist); 7) William Moorhead(botanist); and 8)Shipman& Goodwin(initial legal analyses). Team members and the applicant have conferred with numerous Town and regional officials during this planning period. An earlier application by Horseshoe Lane Associates,known as Nutmeg Commons&Nutmeg : Estates,had proposed a 202 unit.residential condominium entirely on a 55.47 acre tract fronting on South Satellite Road, and with access only from South Satellite Road through an industrial area. At several public hearings,industrial neighbors expressed strong concerns. That application was ultimately denied by the Planning&Zoning Commission on May 11,2010. The strong message to the applicant and his design team was to abandon any notion of access from South Satellite Road, and to investigate access from the south(through properties owned by others)to Pleasant Valley Road. : In the intervening 19 month period,the applicant and his consultants worked to overcome the objections to the original proposal. The first major task was to analyze the feasibility of an access : drive from Pleasant Valley Road to serve a new residential community. The team immediately focused on a 4.75 acre undeveloped parcel owned by a local firm,the J.E. Shepard Company.It was the only option. Unfortunately,that parcel had considerably less frontage on a public street than required for a Multi-Family zone change. Regardless,the design team then proceeded to develop a conceptual layout for a new residential community which had its sole access point at Pleasant Valley Road and which incorporated all of the Shepard property, and only a portion of the original property owned by M. G. Realty. Perhaps equally as important,was the retention of industrial zoning on the south side of South Satellite Road, and no vehicular or pedestrian access : thereto. The second important task was to meet with the two industrial neighbors on South Satellite Road who had objected to our original application and had been represented by legal counsel, for • without their consent,the applicant had determined he would not proceed with another application. - --- ihe-industrial-neighbors graciously-agreed to host such a meeting in Hartford in August of 2010 at - - Day Pitney's offices, and were favorably disposed toward the new concept plan. They particularly liked that the opposite side of South Satellite Road from their operations would remain industrial and contain six proposed industrial building lots, and that all access to the residential community would be via Pleasant Valley Road. • The next task was to secure approval from J.E. Shepard to flag the site's wetlands and to prepare • boundaryand topographic surveys. With that completed, an advanced concept layout was prepared - and--shown Planning&Zoning-Commission's Chairman and Vice-Chairman at an informal meeting. They then recommended that the 60 acre mixed use schematic plan be informal • es4n • G:\jobs\1308\dots\App1icat1ons 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc • presented to the entire Commission,which occurred in January of 2011. The plan depicted a new public entrance road from Pleasant Valley,terminating at a cul-de-sac, which gave the development the required 200 feet of road frontage. Off the cul-de-sac was a proposed six unit multi-family building.A new private roadway then proceeded back into the development. : The residential layout had some similar characteristics with the original development, albeit with considerably fewer residences (158,down from 202). While all sitting commissioners expressed that they favored the new conceptual industrial and residential plan, concerns were made with respect to the proposed Town road,need for a bus shelter,traffic, desire to show more surface parking, and that they preferred a clubhouse and recreation area at the beginning of the development rather than a six unit residential building. Of note is that the meeting was also attended by representatives from Unitex and Connecticut Packaging Materials,who expressed their support for the new plan. That was also favorably received by the Commissioners. Subsequent to that meeting,there were numerous sessions with Town staff(planning,wetlands, : engineering, sewer, fire,police and building),to be sure we identified any major concerns and that they were approving of the proposed street and building layout. During that process, some Town staff also expressed concern about the proposed public street. The applicant and design team then focused on two issues: 1) The proposed public street;and 2) Ambiguous language in the zoning regulations with respect to the definition of basement,and the absence of any definitions for habitable space and story. The latter matter was first addressed with a zoning amendment application,the language of which was modified and approved by the Commission. The former matter was also addressed with a zoning amendment application,which, if approved,would have allowed reduced street frontage in the MF zone if the development were : set way back from the public street. The matter became moot when an abutter and the Nutmeg Village developer agreed to initial terms on adding the property at 388 Pleasant Valley Road to the development,which, in conjunction with the Shepard property, would provide the 200 feet of required frontage, and the entire Nutmeg Village development could be served by private roads. The amendment was then withdrawn before commission action,even though it may have had sufficient support for approval. : The design before the Commission with this application embraces a number of changes of note from the layout discussed informally in January of 2011. First is that the total number of homes is now at 155, or three fewer from the January plan, and 47 fewer than the May,2010 plan. Second is that a bus shelter has been added. Third is that the entrance drive has been adjusted horizontally and vertically to maximize sight line at Pleasant Valley Road. Fourth is that with the addition of the Eggleston property(single-family home and acreage), we have 200 feet of frontage,and have placed three single-family homes(one of each style)at the beginning of the development. Fifth is -that the house at 388 Pleasant Valley Road will remain on a reconfigured conforming lot,separate ----from-Nutmeg-Village,and with anew improved driveway access over to our new street;which - eliminates the old driveway curb cut on Pleasant Valley Road in furtherance of access : management principles. Sixth is that the prior six unit multi-.family dwelling at the beginning of the development has been eliminated,in favor of a recreation area and a 1,120 square feet clubhouse with associated parking. Seventh is that an active recreation area has been eliminated in one section at the north side of Nutmeg Village in favor of preserving a woodland area. Eighth is that more of the six unit multi-family buildings with the stepped down end unit_s have been added - in order to facilitate more handicap accessible units, as may be required. Ninth is that the duplex -- ---building design has been improved: Tenth is that we-have added a strip of property to-the east of our entrance drive at 438 Pleasant Valley Road(Taylor)to the zone change, in order to r uce the • esi�n • G:Uobs\1308\docs\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 1 2-1 2 2011.doc : Industrial Zone buffer on that neighbor's lot from a full 100 feet(50 for I, 50 for A-20), down to • the 25 feet associated with the MF zone(I Zone no longer in play there). It will also eliminate the necessity for a buffer on a part of a lot in front of 438 Pleasant Valley Road(new home is presently under construction on that lot). Eleventh is that the public cul-de-sac street is now gone, has been replaced with a boulevard entrance, and all proposed streets will be private. Twelfth is that we have added more surface parking spaces throughout the development, in order to : supplement garage and driveway parking.And the final modification was to add a phasing plan(4 : phases). Phase I will begin at the site's entrance and incorporate most of the easterly development up to the northeast corner. Phase II will include many of the units in the central area. Phase III will : move on to the area west of the site center. Phase IV will include the westerly cul de sac area. We believe these changes have made this a better plan from that informally presented to the Commission and staff in early 2011. The zoning regulations provide for a two-application approval process. The first application is for the zone change and general plan of development only for the residential development(even though the industrial zone for the six proposed lots will remain). The second application is for a : site plan of development and a special exception for the Nutmeg Village residential community, along with a resubdivision application in order to create the six industrial building lots,to create the Nutmeg Village parcel,and to create the new conforming lot for the existing house westerly of the new entrance road. • In order to understand the potential fiscal and school impacts of Nutmeg Village and of the adjoining six lot industrial park,the applicant engaged Connecticut Planning&Development, LLC and Design Professionals, Inc. to undertake a study of all of South Windsor's existing non age- restricted planned residential communities,to project public school enrollment at the subject site, and to look at taxes and fees with respect to this residential development,the six lot industrial park, : and development if the site were to remain in the industrial zone and built out with manufacturing, warehousing and other allowed industrial uses. The results of this study will be submitted under separate cover well in advance of the PZC public hearing. The landscape architectural design of Nutmeg Village has been undertaken to ensure appropriate buffer treatments on the parcel's periphery, much of which will incorporate existing trees and shrubs to be complemented by interplanted nursery stock to fill in any gaps in key areas. Water quality basins will incorporate plantings to not only clean stormwater runoff, but to add to the : site's beauty. Many acres of the property will remain undisturbed habitat. The entrance drive will have a low level masonry entrance sign(maximum of six feet in height)located in a center median landscaped with perennials, as well as evergreen and flowering shrubs for a beautiful boulevard effect. Walking/jogging trails and active recreational lawn areas are provided. Exterior lighting systems will be of residential scale and will have full cut off luminaires such that light will not - ----emit-off=site-and-ta ensure-dark sky-compliance.A-1-andscaped area-adjacent to the entrance drive - : with a vehicular pull-off is being provided for a central mail delivery system. • The stormwater conveyance system consists of a mostly piped system leading two one of two detention basins; a smaller basin for the area south of the brook and a larger one north of the : brook. Both basins will discharge to the brook near the southeastern corner of the large parcel, near where the natural drainage currently leaves the site. While the detailed design and analysis - - : will-be completed for the next application, it is fully expected that the post-development peak -- ----discharge-rates will be at-or below-the pre=development rates: - - - esign • G:Vobs\1308\docs\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc : : Similar to the stormwater system, services for other utilities will be split by the brook. Based on the previous application,the existing utilities have sufficient capacity to support the development. Sanitary sewers for the area south of the brook will gravity flow to the existing sewer in Pleasant Valley Road. The remainder of the development will gravity flow to a pump station, which will : pump to the end of the single-family cul-de-sac where it will gravity flow under the land to remain industrially zoned into the existing sewer in South Satellite Road. • Design Professionals, Inc. has prepared a comprehensive traffic impact analysis of the subject development and of the surrounding street network,including numerous intersections,the most important of which is the signalized intersection of Route 5 and Pleasant Valley Road. This : analysis concludes that the proposed development and projected vehicular traffic will not adversely impact the operations of the street network,and that the street network has the capacity to readily accommodate all site-generated traffic. Nutmeg Village will not congest the public roadways. This site is uniquely positioned such that all vehicles will ingress and egress via • collector streets(Pleasant Valley Road and Routes 5 and 30)and not through adjoining residential neighborhoods, such as the Hilton Drive area immediately to the east. • The subject 49.93 acre parcel is in fact a transitional parcel, situated between a large residential area to the northeast, east, south and west(although the residential area to the south and west is technically in the industrial zone), and an industrial area to the north, west and southwest. The South Windsor Plan of Conservation and Development states—"Wherever residential uses abut industrial and commercial uses, incompatibilities tend to occur. To mitigate this effect,transitional uses are encouraged along zone boundaries. Zone changes to expand industrial/commercial areas, or-zone changes to expand residential areas, would occur primarily in the transition areas along existing zone boundaries."Nutmeg Village is a transitional residential use along the zone boundaries separating single-family residential and industrial uses. We are proposing a transition within the development, starting with single-family residences adjoining the abutting single family residences on adjoining properties,then moving into duplexes,and then finally multi-family uses farthest away from the existing neighborhoods.Accordingly,the proposed zone change is consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the community's Plan of Conservation&Development. The proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Multi-Family zoning district,the zoning regulations,and of the zone change review criteria. In addition to that discussed above, and that which will be presented in other documents and at the public hearing,we offer the following comments: 1) The concentration of recent residential development patterns favoring McMansions and age-restricted communities has had an appreciable adverse impact on our young workforce and their unmet housing needs. It has contributed to the graying of our workforce and communities. This development will begin to address that problem within South Windsor and the - --; - --- -re 'on, nd-will-aid in attractingand-retainin� g g younger households -2)-The supply of land within- -- the Multi-Family zone is such that there are no vacant MF zoned tracts in the community. This : zone change will help with that problem. On the other hand,there is considerable vacant industrial land in South Windsor. Indeed,the subject property-.has been marketed for.over 30 years for industrial development,to no avail. That speaks volumes. We are proposing to create six frontage industrial lots, which should have a greater marketability. 3) The subject property, containing 38 acres of uplands (non-wetlands),free of federal flood plain, and gently sloping, is physically suited for the proposed residential development/zone. 4) The site will be appropriately served by public — - ---sewers,public-water;storm drainage,natural-gas--power;cable and-other utility services which-- have capacity to support the development. 5) Given that traffic will be separate from the djoining • esign • G:\jobs\1308Xdocs\App11cations 201 1\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc : neighborhood,and our traffic engineer has concluded this development will not adversely impact traffic, and that the subject development has been well planned and meets or exceeds the setback and buffering provisions of the zoning regulations, we believe Nutmeg Village will not impact the surrounding area. 6) We believe industrial development of the subject property(proposed MF : zone)would have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential area and potentially on property values. 7) The applicant and design team have conferred with our environmental consultants, as well as local and state experts. The resulting development will thus not have an adverse impact on the environment beyond that normally associated with land development. Measures have been taken to preserve habitat, and undisturbed natural areas in bulk. We have also designed our stormwater runoff and erosion control systems to preserve water quality, e.g., we have utilized water quality basins and swales. 8)We are unaware of any historic factors affecting this application. 9) We are anticipating that the neighborhood will prefer our proposal over that of industrial development/zoning, and that the unmet housing needs of the young workforce within our Town and the region justify this application. In conclusion,Nutmeg Village is an appropriately designed and well suited location for a 155 unit planned residential community addressing the housing needs of South Windsor's and Metro Hartford's young middle class professional workforce. Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood are negligible. They are far better than the impacts from industrial development, should the zone remain unchanged.No appreciable traffic congestion will result from this proposal. The economic benefits to the Town are considerable,and the studies prepared by our team of consultants has this well documented. We thank you for your consideration • G:\jobs`]308\docs\Applications 2011\1308 PZC Narrative 12-12-2011.doc Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Ave. TOWN OF • • South Windsor,CT 06074 TOWN MANAGER'SOFFICE Phone: (860)644-2511 ext.200 Fax: (860)644-3781 NEFJKXtANMM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager DATE: January 24, 2012 RE: Nutmeg Village Project Unfortunately, I may not be able to attend the public hearing tonight due to conflicting meetings. Therefore, I have put in writing my support for Nutmeg Village and the zoning changes being proposed by Mr. Urso for this economic development project. I know this project has previously come before the Commission, but I think the plan changes, reducing the number of units, and having identified lots for commercial development will allow the Town to maximize this piece of property to bring revenue and economic development to South Windsor. I know that there will be a Planning report given to the Commission that I think speaks for itself. There will not only be economic benefit to the Town, but it will help the Town in areas that are lacking as indicated recently in our preliminary report from Planimetrics concerning the Plan of Conservation and Development. Page 2 of the report on Demographics has three key findings. Growth has moderated, which is most likely due to the economy. Our population trends show that we have more seniors, but we are losing the empty nesters to other communities. More importantly, we are losing young adults, who will be the backbone for our labor force for any type of future economic development. As I have stated many times before the Commission, we spend a lot of money educating our children and sending them off to the finest schools in the country. However, we do not have adequate housing for them to come back, find employment, and become a part of our community again. We lose our most talented people to other towns, and we deteriorate the close bonds between families. Our young adults are the key to keeping our economy going, and as we grow to be seniors, there will be people who will continue to work and support the community as we know it today. As indicated in the report that you will see tonight by the developer, the effect on school children is minimal. I think this has been pointed out by other developments in the region. In spite of that, on page 9 of the Planimetrics report, enrollment of school children has been declining since 2006. At the same time, we have not laid off any teachers or reduced staff due to our education program. These reductions are spread over grammar, middle, and high schools. Therefore, we do not have the ability to reduce cost. In any event, it is a silver lining, because the community will grow with this project and in our single family homes. There will be room for children to be part of the community and educated without having drastic financial impacts on our education system. All these trends are alarming because they are telling us that we are losing our young families who provide much-needed labor to keep our local economy going. It is not only jobs, but also goods and services that they buy throughout the Town of South Windsor. In the recent Money Magazine poll, South Windsor was ranked 38 out of 100 as one of the best places to live and work, right behind Tolland and before Simsbury, Cheshire, and Portland. One of the most attractive items was having a housing stock that was very affordable. As your own Planimetrics representative has pointed out on page 11, we are at risk of losing affordable units. This affordability allows our children to come back and live in Town. The last item I would like to bring to the Commission's attention is that during your Plan of Conservation and Development, you were looking at the Route 5 corridor, which is a very important gateway to the Town of South Windsor. This project will help that revitalization as there will be a population base to support any type of commercial or restricted commercial retail in that area as well as companies that may come to our Industrial Park looking for space. They would have access to a labor force at a close proximity to their facility. As the 1-291 area is developed in the next year and a half, there will be a lot of interest in the Route 5 area. The demographics from this project will surely help those interested in coming to the Route 5 corridor, as these industries will be looking for a residential base to support their products and services. I'd like to thank the Commission for allowing me to share my comments with you. I also thank you for your years of support and making the Town of South Windsor the 38t' best community in the Country to live in. We should all be proud of this, as you have worked tirelessly to make that happen. Respectfully submitted, Matthew B. Galligan Town Manager [ -T .C- IJA N 18 201,7 Connecticut Planning & Development, LLC. Planning Report Fiscal Impacts of Residential Development and School Age Children Town of South Windsor, Connecticut For Nutmeg Village January 18, 2012 Prepared by: Donald J.Poland;AICP 35 Putnam Heights Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860-655-6897 E-mail: don@donaldpoland.com Web: www.donaldpoland.com In Association With: Design Professionals,Inc. 425 Sullivan Avenue P.O. Box 1167 South Windsor,CT_ 06074 Phone: 860-291-8755 Web:www.designprofessionalsinc.com t ' P.O. BOX 1167 425 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 PHONE: 860.291.8755 th FAX: 860.291.8757 1011a�S 25 Anniversary 1986-2011 www.designprofessionalsinc.com CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS / PLANNERS /SURVEYORS / GIS ANALYSTS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5ervrog Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Wand • January 23, 2012 • Ms. Michele Lipe Town Planner Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Nutmeg Village Zone Change/General Plan Application Dear Ms. Lipe: We have received the planning and engineering comments from the Town and offer the following response: Planning_Department Comments(1/12/2012): 1. We are currently attempting to secure emergency vehicle access through one of two properties along Nutmeg Road South. Because of liability reasons,the applicant cannot be expected to provide a pedestrian access through private property that will not be under the control of the Association. However,we have contacted CT Transit about the possibility of rerouting the bus line along Pleasant Valley Road, but we have not heard a response as of the writing of this letter. 2. There are not any RV/boat trailer storage areas proposed on the site and the outdoor storage of these items will be restricted in the Association documents. 3. Existing and proposed tree lines have been added to the plans. The proposed landscaping near the easterly side of the property has been moved out of the swale. 4. Buffer plantings will be placed in areas where existing vegetation to remain will not be sufficient to meet the buffer requirements or where existing vegetation does not exist. For example,the wetlands area in the southwest corner of the large parcel is heavily wooded, therefore the intent is to not supplement this area with additional buffer plantings. • A proposed 25' buffer easement is shown on the property located at 438 Pleasant Valley Road that will grant the Association rights to enter and maintain the buffer on this adjacent property to the east of the entrance. The Applicant will work with each individual property owner where an encroachment occurs to address the encroachment while still meeting the buffer requirements in these • G:Uobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Lipe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc : areas. The solutions will be detailed at the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. Buffer cross sections will be provided as a part of the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. Proposed street trees are shown on the landscape plan from Pleasant Valley Road up to the proposed clubhouse. From that point the intent is to utilize the existing mature trees or the : unit landscaping to provide the landscaping effect from the roadway. Street trees are also proposed on the street for the single family and duplex units. 5. The unit breakdown has been further defined on the cover sheet. Please note the number of bedrooms in the single family and duplex units will depend on the choice of the initial buyer. • 6. The extents of the primary access road has been shown on sheet CP-01. 7. Proposed road names have been added to sheet CP-01. 8. The proposed path will have a stone dust surface. The Applicant believes the proposed 4' : width is sufficient for the intended purposed of the path. 9. The sight line triangle has been added to sheet CG-02. 10. We have received accident data from Lt. Rich Bond of the South Windsor Police Department for the last three years on Pleasant Valley Road between Nutmeg Road South and Hilton Drive. There have been a total of seven incidents between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2012, which Lt. Bond states that he"would not consider this a `significant' history for the area of the proposed new intersection." His summary sheet is included as an attachment. A speed study was conducted the morning of January 19, 2012 at our proposed entrance : road when the pavement conditions were dry. Based on this study,the 85`h percentile speed is 42.0 miles per hour in the area of our entrance road. Based on this,the required intersection sight distance per the AASHTO formula is 463 feet. Our initial evaluation of the sight distance looking west was 390 feet. However,this was conducted in the fall after storm Alfred when there was a debris/leaf pile along Pleasant Valley Road which limited the sight distance. Since the pile has been removed,we re-evaluated the sight distance and determined that it is approximately 470 feet, limited by a slight crest in the roadway. Therefore, we believe the intersection sight distance is adequate in both directions based on the observed 85th percentile speed in this area. 11. A fiscal impact analysis for the proposed development was submitted last week. STAFF Comments When the drainage study is completed at the site plan application stage, assuming the zone change and general plan of development are approved,we will analyze and maintain the hydrology of the wetlands, likely through the discharge of clean runoff from roof leaders in these areas. • esign • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Lipe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc : The applicant will work with the WPCA to satisfy their comments regarding easements and ability to maintain the private sewer through the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. Engineering Department Comments (1/17/12- • 1. The complete stormwater analysis for the development will be completed for the site plan application stage if the zone change and general plan of development are approved. At that time,the applicant will work with the Town to mitigate the impact from the proposed development down to the Podunk River. • 2. When the drainage system is completely design and analyzed, we will reduce the peak stormwater flow off of the site. and will attempt to intercept groundwater flowing off this site onto neighboring properties. • 3. Using calculations from the Connecticut Public Health Code, we anticipate the residential portion of the development will generate sewer flows of approximately 50,550 GPD and the industrial portion will generate approximately 8,400 GPD. • 4. We will consider moving the sewer pump station closer to Pleasant Valley Road with a shorter force main to the gravity sewer in Pleasant Valley Road after more detailed analysis in the site plan application stage. • 5. Gravel maintenance roads to detention basin and water quality basin inlets and outlets will be provided where practical, and will be shown at the site plan application stage. 6. Cleaner runoff from roof leaders may be directed toward wetland areas. The stormwater management plan will address the treatment of mosquitoes. These items will be addressed in the site plan application stage. 7. Any existing drainage channels and swales on this property that are to be used for : stormwater discharge of this development will be cleaned, defined, and stabilized prior to use, and will be so noted in the site plan application stage. 8. The more detailed grading plan for the site plan application stage will ensure there will be no ponding near residential units. 9. Soils information from test pits will be provided for the site plan application stage. 10. The proposed recreational paths will have a gravel base and a compacted stone dust surface, and will be further detailed at the site plan application stage. : 11. The development will be designed and constructed to South Windsor Town Standards and will be further detailed at the site plan application stage,with the exception of road widths, which will be 24 feet. 12. A speed study has been conducted in the area of our proposed driveway and was detailed above in response to Planning Department Comments#10. e� • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Lipe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc : 13. Even though the LOS definition for the mentioned intersections is expected to change,the additional delay caused by traffic generated from this development is minimal. Therefore, the impact of the additional traffic is minimal even though the LOS, by definition,may drop in certain circumstances. Nonetheless,the Connecticut DOT has been contacted regarding a review of the proposed traffic impacts and the potential need for a STC Certificate. We hope to have answers from the DOT in time for the site plan application stage. • Please contact me if you have any questions. • Sincerely, DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. Benjamin P. Wheeler, RLA Director of Operations Cc: Mr. Robert Urso Atty. Ralph Alexander Mr. Peter R. DeMallie • of mama • G:\jobs\1308\docs\Correspondence\1308 Upe response to comments 2012-01-23.doc Page 1 of 2 Lipe, Michele From: Philip Crombie [PCrombie@southwindsorilre.org] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:45 PM To: Lipe, Michele Cc: Summers, Walter Subject: RE: Nutmeg Village Michele: I'm fine with the arrangement. At the Gerber complex and Fedex it was easy to get an emergency access since the properties border other roads. In those cases I think it is a good recommendation to the developer. Here it looks to be much more difficult given the rear of the property is "land locked". We have many of the multi family complexes and rather single family areas like Cornerstone Drive and my neighborhood with only a single access route. Phil Philip E. Crombie, Jr. Fire Chief South Windsor Volunteer Fire Department P.O. Box 698 South Windsor, CT 06074 (860)644-8547 From: Lipe, Michele [mailto:Michele.Lipe@southwindsor.org] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:20 PM To: Philip Crombie Subject: FW: Nutmeg Village Attached is the latest concept plan. I appreciate your input! Thanks, Michele -Vichefe R. Lipe,AID Town Planner Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 (860) 644-2511, ext. 252 From: Ben Wheeler [mailto:BWheeler@designprofessionalsinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:25 PM To: Lipe, Michele Subject: Nutmeg Village Michele, Per your request, attached is a PDF of the plan that we presented last night. Let me know if you need anything else. Ben 2/8/2011 ---- 1 ' R. u x 'INDUSTRIAL a> " INDUSTRIAL 5 O LOT 0i LOT 02 LOT 09 LOT Y4 LOT ar6 LOT 08 $ aF 1.52 AC 1.40 AC 1 AO AC I. 7.40 AC 1.6®AC rid --3.58 AC — -- —� 6j, �� '�� 3Y Liti s MrIM ' ID�RY� " LT. _7r lY: It ''....... saw Prepared rar Horseshoe Lone AslaClnles.LLC +w•uw,rr 1 Mr�rll�,r,r�6e O fN WYrf/��O(O ...ANIYIWra.n Wl.r..r 1 1 .11....wo.l..r..,.l..l..,.11lr.r... rr,,.a.lurru.wss t I j \ January 2011 r 1 111 J 1 1 1 1 r 1 t 1 1 I 1 VALLsyROAo g V a 9-�-- u t m ei I I e 1 --�-- I 100 South Salel ite Road South Windsor, Connccticut 1_- 1zlc1 - 9LCos. v a,K B3 •�/3S _ � K 38 l"7o y ,00l „ ,Na tJ.©•.i .N - aS - 39 3a -------------- /1 _ 13. F PROTEST PETITION -ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change -Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS MAP/LOT �20 Signature Print �i ature L Print Si rcature q VI(Z- J A4 >` Print 361-6 � Signature Print1 )36 j / 3I N PROTEST PETITION —ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change —Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS MAP/LOT _1 3 Cy r r0,t; T IR Signature C GOtL-,-,A I- Print Signature ,�/e,Q fio'ri 1 Print Signature Print Ong S'�X" O Signature ANT IA otjy Print -� PROTEST PETITION —ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change —Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS MAP/LOT f 7 o ffw Nye -� Signkure- V(fainuS 1yk56Ne Print 3 Signature (Yic_: C4e Print f I `S1gnature bs lo, J®E 0e 1,71 /C) Print o f n o �`Signature Print PROTEST PETITION —ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change —Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20.percent or more of the area of the lots located within 600 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS MAP/LOT l, i n _t re --T.71; Print i nature Print RM c 1) r 3 3 Signature t Print qr Signature 4 Print PROTEST PETITION —ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change —Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located within 600 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS MAP/LOT 1 Signature Print 04�� 1 Signature ,,A Print Signature Print Si re 1 Di'e Print PROTEST PETITION —ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change —Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. PR NER ADDRESS MAP/LOT Si ture �j,n-,jsv - o(, 4 Print Signature Print Signature Print Signature Print PROTEST PETITION —ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change—Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located_within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. ROPERTY O NER ADDRESS MAP/LOT '3yk Signature S ,01 ti4so r Print QC� n" �lh G'S � �CU�n-e Signat Prk(WWA�A xh-�IaL �11.3 P1BLca,4VY-11#0ed 33b / f�nnp. NT)v-ak S cQ Q-(A (Jc&-9U� Print Signature Print Signature Print PROTEST PETITION —ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change—Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. PROPERTY O NER (ADDRESS MAP/LOT 33 Sig ature A/m- CZ/669 7,, Print Signature vl _J2A �t1 Print blv L c C Est- I Signature Print Signature Print PROTEST PETITION -ZONING REGULATION CHANGE TO: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Zone Change -Application of Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC for Zone Change to MF-AA and General Plan of Development Approval - Application #11-40P We, the undersigned. being the owners of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots located within 500 feet in all directions of the property included in the above referenced proposed zone change, hereby protest the proposed zone change pursuant to § 8-3(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed change. / PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS MAP/LOT ✓ K q 3-A. 441 g • 33-17 Signature W i nature L5 (, moo Print Signatu je ems- CAII Print tanature Print t L South Windsor Planning Department Memo To: Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc. From: Michele R. Lipe,Town Planner Date: 1/12/2012 Re: Application#11-40P, Nutmeg Village Zone Change/General Plan Planning Department review comments for Nutmeg Village General Comments 1. A secondary means of access for emergency vehicles must be provided to South Satellite Road with consideration of a pedestrian access since the only public buses in the area are at the intersection of South Satellite Road and Nutmeg Road 2. RV/boat trailer storage area proposed?Or will they be restricted? 3. Landscaping: Any existing trees on site? Tree line is not shown. It appears some landscaping is proposed to be located in drainage swales on the easterly side of the property. 4. Buffer is inadequate or not addressed. • Development must be fully screened on all sides, including open space sides. The 25-foot buffer is required at the boundary and must be part of the lot of the development or under the developer's control(via easement). • The survey shows that there are numerous encroachments by adjoining property onto the subject site, such as a playscape, shed, lawn areas, and debris dumping. As these encroachments occur within the required buffer area, the applicant will need to reclaim these areas for buffer planting. • Buffer must meet 5-year and maturity visibility screening requirements in all buffer areas. Required buffer cross sections should be shown at the site plan stage and should be shown through most sparse areas of buffer. • Also suggest lining entrance drive with trees, as was done quite successfully in other multi- family developments. 5. Unit Mix—A breakdown per Section 3.4.5.A should be addressed 6. Section 3.4.7.E states parking areas are not allowed the primary access. Could you please delineate on the plan what is considered the primary access? 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 860-644-2511,ext.252 Fax 860-644-7280 e-mail michele.lipe(a)southwindsor.org 0 Page 1 7. The road network should be named. 8. The walking trail as shown is 4' wide with bark mulch. Town staff, recommend that the path be wider and constructed with a more permanent material such as stone dust to facilitate both active recreation and police patrols. 9. Site line triangle should be reflected on the plan. 10. Traffic Study comments • No traffic accidents have been included in the report. Was accident data reviewed? • Has the 8e percentile of speed in the vicinity of the access drive been determined? Staff wants to ensure that there is adequate site line(particularly looking to the west). The driveway should be staked out to check adequate site lines 11. Information related to impact on the schools has not bee provided. STAFF Comments Wetlands comments The hydrology to the wetlands must be maintained to keep them viable. This must demonstrated through the drainage study. WPCA comments Necessary easements will be required Association budget for private sewer must be submitted — demonstrating how they will provide for routine maintenance Any questions please call. 0 Page 2 Connecticut Planning & Development, LLC. Planning Report Fiscal Impacts of Residential Development and School Age Children Town of South Windsor, Connecticut For Nutmeg Village January 18, 2012 Prepared by: Donald J. Poland,AICP 35 Putnam Heights Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860-655-6897 E-mail: don@donaldpoland.com Web: www.donaldpoland.com In Association With: Design Professionals, Inc. 425 Sullivan Avenue P.O. Box 1167 South Windsor, CT 06074 Phone: 860-291-8755 Web: www.designprofessionalsinc.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach Unit Mix and the Number of School Age Children —Rutgers Study While the number of school-age children generated by a development may be a reasonable consideration for a planning and zoning commission,the assumptions made related to the number of public school-age children generated by residential development(single or multi- family) are often significantly over-inflated. Many individuals and commissions,when making assumptions on the number of school-age children, think in terms of traditional households that include two parents and two, three, or even more children. However,the traditional households of the past have been declining in numbers for many decades and have given way to the non- traditional households of today. Increase in divorce and single parent households,young people waiting longer to marry,married couples choosing to not have children, smaller family size, and other non-traditional households have greatly influenced household size and the number of school-age children generated by a residential development. Therefore, it is critical that policy decisions related to residential development and public school-age children are based in factual data,not general assumptions or perceptions. A comprehensive review and analysis of the Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research "Residential Demographic Multipliers for Connecticut" (the Rutgers Study)was conducted to demonstrate both how the general assumptions based on perceptions of traditional households often over-inflate the number of school age children generated by a development because of the failure to recognize the impact that non-traditional households have in today's housing market. In addition,the Rutgers Multipliers are used to demonstrate that the unit mix(as proposed) of this development with 15 single family detached housing units, 12 attached duplex units, and 128 semi-attached multi-family housing units(a total of 155 housing units)will generate very few public school age children and the development will generate significantly more tax revenue than the cost of educating the public school age children. The Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research "Residential Demographic Multipliers- Connecticut" are derived from the 2000 U.S. Census and has not been updated with data from the 2010 U.S. Census to our knowledge. The demographic fields, differentiated by housing type,housing size, housing price, and housing tenure,have been found by Rutgers University to be associated with statistically significant differences in Household Size, School- Age Children, and Public School-Age Children. The multipliers are calculated for new housing, defined as units enumerated in the 2000 Census and built from 1990-2000. The analysis of the Residential Demographic Multipliers for Connecticut revealed a number of common themes exist across all of the housing categories,tenure, household size, and school age children. These common themes are: • Single family units with less than 5 bedrooms generate fewer than one public school-age child per unit. • Single family units tend to generate higher numbers for persons per unit(i.e. household size) and school age children per unit than multi-family (5+Units) structures. • Multi-family(5+units)rental units tend to generate more persons and school age children per unit than owner occupied multi-family units. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 2 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning-A Rational Approach • As the value of units increases,the number of persons per unit and the number of school- age children per unit tend to decrease. • There is little difference between the number of school-age children between one and two bedroom units. Three bedroom units produce on average less than one public school-age child per unit. In general,the Residential Demographic Multipliers for Connecticut reveals that new housing units,regardless of type and tenure, generate far fewer total persons, school-age children, and public school-age children per housing unit than is commonly assumed. The following table provides a summary of single family detached and attached units for total persons per unit, school-age children per unit, and public school-age children per unit. In addition,the number of public school-age children per 10, 20, 30, and 50 unit new subdivisions is provided. Connecticut - All Persons, School Age Children (SAC), and Public School Age Children (PSAC) in Units New Subdivision Structure Type Total SAC PSAC 10 20 30 50 Bedrooms Persons Units Units Units Units Value 2005 PSAC PSAC PSAC PSAC Single Family Detached,2 BR All Values 2.14 0.21 0.20 2.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Less than$218,000 2.17 0.27 0.25 2.5 5.0 7.5 12.5 $218,000 to$356,500 2.13 0.20 0.19 1.9 3.8 5.7 9.5 More than$356,500 2.11 0.17 0.17 1.7 3.4 5.1 8.5 Single Family Detached,3 BR All Values 3.10 0.66 0.59 5.9 11.8 17.7 29.5 Less than$257,500 3.29 0.78 0.69 6.9 13.8 20.7 34.5 $257,500 to$356,500 3.13 0.65 0.59 5.9 11.8 17.7 29.5 More than$356,500 2.90 0.58 0.51 5.1 10.2 15.3 25.5 Single Family Detached,4 BR All Values 3.64 1.07 0.94 9.4 18.8 28.2 47.0 Less than$435,500 3.70 1.03 0.94 9.4 18.8 28.2 47.0 $435,500 to$554,500 3.61 1.06 0.94 9.4 18.8 28.2 47.0 More than$554,500 3.63 1.11 0.95 9.5 19 28.5 47.5 Single Family Detached,5 BR All Values 4.37 1.66 1.38 13.8 27.6 41.4 69.0 Less than$554,500 4.42 1.65 1.48 14.8 29.6 44.4 74.0 $554,500 to$1,386,500 4.43 1.68 1.51 15.1 30.2 45.3 75.5 More than$1,386,500 4.22 1.64 1 1.04 1 10.4 20.8 31.2 52.0 Source:Residential Demographic Multipliers-Connecticut by Rutgers University,Center for Urban Policy Research The table demonstrates that single family detached housing units with less than 4 bedrooms generate less than one school age and public school age child per household. The units are highlighted that are similar to the proposed development. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP-35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 3 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail: don@donaldpoland.com-www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning-A Rational Approach The following table provides the total number of school age children generated by multi-family owner occupied units. For buildings with five or more units attached, one bedroom units do not generate any school age children and two bedroom units generate seven school age children per 100 units. For buildings with two to four units attached, two bedroom units generate 40 school age children per 100 units, while three bedroom units generate 95 school age children per 100 units. Connecticut(2-1)All School Children: School A e Children (SAC) Structure Type Total K-2 3-6 7-9 10-12 Gr.9 Bedrooms SAC Only Value 2005 5+Units-Own,1 BR All Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Less than$119,000 IS IS IS IS IS IS $119,000 to$257,500 IS IS IS IS IS IS More than$257,500 IS IS IS IS IS IS 5+Units-Own,2 BR All Values 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 Less than$150,500 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.00 $150,500 to$218,000 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 More than$218,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-4 Units-Own,2 BR All Values 0.40 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.02 Less than$150,500 0.49 0.19 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.00 $150,500 to$218,000 0.54 0.12 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.05 More than$218,000 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.01 2-4 Units-Own,3 BR All Values 0.95 0.17 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.13 Less than$150,500 1.50 0.34 0.38 0.43 0.35 0.23 $150,500 to$218,000 1 0.83 0.14 0.36 0.17 1 0.16 0.04 More than$218,000 1 0.57 0.03 0.17 0.21 1 0.15 0.14 Source:Residential Demographic Multipliers-Connecticut by Rutgers University,Center for Urban Policy Research IS=insufficient sample The following table provides the total number of public school age children generated by multi- family owner occupied units. For buildings with five or more units attached, one bedroom units do not generate any school age children and two bedroom units generate five public school age children per 100 units. For buildings with two to four units attached,two bedroom units generate 39 public school age children per 100 units, while three bedroom units generate 91 public school age children per 100 units. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP-35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 4 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com-www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning-A Rational Approach Connecticut(3-1)All Public School Children: School A e Children in Public School PSAC) Structure Type Total K-2 3-6 7-9 10-12 Gr.9 Bedrooms PSAC Only Value 2005 5+Units-Own,1 BR All Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Less than$119,000 IS IS IS IS IS Is $119,000 to$257,500 IS IS IS IS IS IS More than$257,500 IS IS IS IS IS IS 5+Units-Own,2 BR All Values 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Less than$150,500 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.00 $150,500 to$218,000 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 More than$218,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-4 Units-Own,2 BR All Values 0.39 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.02 Less than$150,500 0.46 0.16 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.00 $150,500 to$218,000 0.52 0.12 0.18 0.14 0.07 0.05 More than$218,000 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.01 2-4 Units-Own,3 BR All Values 0.91 0.15 0.30 0.25 0.21 0.13 Less than$150,500 1.44 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.35 0.21 $150,500 to$218,000 1 0.83 0.14 0.36 0.17 0.16 0.04 More than$218,000 1 0.50 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.12 0.14 Source:Residential Demographic Multipliers-Connecticut by Rutgers University,Center for Urban Policy Research IS=insufficient sample Multi-family(5+Units) Owner-Occupied with three bedrooms or more were not included in the table above because of insufficient data sample,meaning there were too few existing units for a statistically accurate sample. It must be noted that in the general finding above, rental units across all categories of units generated more school age children and public school age children than owner-occupied units like those in the proposed development. Utilizing the Rutgers Demographic Multipliers based on the potential units mix and the listing and sales prices of the units in the proposed development,the following table provides the estimated demographic make up of the development including total persons,total school age children, and total public school age children at the time the development is completed. For the purposes of this report, we have assumed all of the single family and duplex units will be three bedroom units even though each unit buyer will have the option of a two or three bedroom unit. This is a conservative approach, as the Rutgers Study shows that three bedroom units tend to generate more public school age children. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP-35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 5 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com-www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach The Proposed Residential Development Total Persons - School Age Children SAC - Public School Age Children PSAC Multipliers Proposed Develo ment Unit Total Total Total Total Totals Structure Type by Bedrooms/Value 2005 Persons SAC PSAC Persons SAC PSAC Single-Family Detached Units-3 Bedrooms 15 $257,500 to$356,500 3.13 0.65 0.59 46.95 9.75 8.85 2-4 Multi-Family Units/Bldg.-3 Bedrooms 12 More than$168,500 3.31 0.57 0.50 39.72 6.84 6 2-4 Multi-Family Units/Bldg.-2 Bedrooms 20 More than$166,000 2.10 0.18 0.18 42 3.6 3.6 5+Multi-Family Units/Bldg.-2 Bedrooms 90 $150,500 to$218,000 1.81 0.07 0.03 162.9 6.3 2.7 5+Multi-Family Units/Bldg.-2 Bedrooms 18 More than$218,000 1.59 0.00 0.00 28.62 0 0 155 Totals 1 320.19 26.49 21.15 02012-Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC,Donald Poland,AICP,&Design Professionals,Inc. Multipliers Source:Residential Demographic Multipliers—Connecticut by Rutgers University,Center for Urban Policy Research Based on the unit mix in the above table and the multipliers from the Rutgers Study,the proposed residential development would generate a total 21.15 public school age children at full build-out. South Windsor—Public School Age Children in Existing Developments The following table provides a summary of the public school age children generated from existing developments (common interest communities)in South Windsor. The first 11 properties are multi-family attached developments. The following 10 properties are single family detached developments. This data is provided to support the projections for public school age children from the proposed development. Existing Residential Developments Total Units and Public School Age Children Multi-Family Complex Units High School Middle School Grammar Total PSAC/Unit Burr Meadow/Suffield 138 5 3 0 8 0.058 Pleasant Hills 130 7 0 11 18 0.138 Brookside 71 8 5 7 20 0.282 Westage 142 10 11 14 35 0.246 Cinnamon Springs 102 3 5 3 11 0.108 Plum Ride 91 5 7 9 21 0.231 Parkview South 106 6 9 13 28 0.264 Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 6 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail: don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach Chapel Hill 163 22 12 19 53 0.325 Strawbridge 259 22 12 19 53 0.205 CandlewoodBryrewood 278 15 11 30 56 0.201 Pleasant Valley 128 7 6 13 26 0.203 Multi-Family Totals 1608 110 81 138 329 Single-Family Complex Units High School Middle School Grammar Total PSAC/Unit Redfield 103 19 11 39 69 0.670 Avery Meadow 22 5 3 4 12 0.545 Victorian Woods 55 6 5 3 14 0.255 Lakewood 100 11 7 11 29 0.290 Fitch Meadow 32 6 1 8 15 0.469 Peach Brook 38 10 6 17 33 0.868 The Neighborhood 51 9 8 9 26 0.510 Oak Meadow 11 0 0 3 3 0.273 Single-Family Totals 412 66 41 94 201 Combined Totals 2020 176 122 232 530 Source:First Student Bus Company(2010),the Town of South Windsor,and a field inspection ©2012-Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC,Donald Poland,AICP,&Design Professionals,Inc. Local South Windsor Calculations—Public School Age Children The above table demonstrates that the 2020 housing units in these 21 developments generate a total of 530 public school age children or 0.26 public school age children per unit. The multi- family attached units total 1608 and generate 329 public school age children or 0.205 public school age children per unit. The single family attached units total 412 and generate 201 public school age children or 0.488 public school age children per unit. Based on the variation of the total public school age children per each development and total units, it is evident the number of bedrooms per each unit/development is driving the number of public school age children in these mature developments. Recalculation Based on Local Numbers The table below shows a recalculation of the projected public school age children generated by the development in 20 years based on the number of PSAC generated by similar existing,mature developments in South Windsor. The Proposed Residential Development South Windsor Mature Developments Experience Projected Public School Age Children-20 years +/-out Unit PSAC per Totals Structure Type by Bedrooms Unit Total PSAC 140 Multi-Family Units-2 or 3 Bedrooms 0.205 28.64 15 Single-F ily Detached Units-2 or 3 Bedrooms 0.488 7.32 155 Total 35.96 02012-Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC,Donald Poland,AICP,&Design Professionals,Inc. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 7 Phone:860-655-6897-E-mail: don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach This local data supports the findings of the Rutgers Study and demonstrates that our calculations based on the unit mix, number of bedrooms, and value of units provide a reasonable projection of the number of public school age children to be generated by the proposed development at maturity,which is dominated by 2 bedroom units. The following chart illustrates the projected number of PSAC generated by the development for each of the first 20 years. The number of PSAC generated at full build-out in year four is determined from the Rutgers Study of new housing developments in Connecticut, with an evenly distributed increase in years one through three. The number of PSAC children generated in year 20 is determined from the research into similar existing,mature South Windsor developments as shown in the table above, with an evenly distributed increase in years five through 19. Projected Public School Children Year 1 to Year 20 40.00 �1 35.00 30.00 25.00 a _ 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 14 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 19 20 Total PSAC 5.19 10.51 15.83 21.15 22.08 23.00 23.93 24.85 25.78 26.70 27.63 28.56 29.48 30.41 31.33 32.26 33.18 34.11 35.03 35.96 Year The Fiscal Impact of the Proposed Development The following provides a general fiscal impact for the proposed development. It is intended to provide the Commission with a general look at the fiscal impacts related to increases in tax revenue and public school age children. Note that all figures shown are based on net present value and do not account for inflation or changes in tax rates. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 8 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning-A Rational Approach Proposed Residential Development Annual Taxes Generated by Type of Units Assumed Market Assessed Total Value per Value per Mill Taxes Quantity Structure Type by Bedrooms Unit Unit Rate Generated 5 Ranch Style Single Family Detached,2 Bedrooms $289,900 $202,930 28.78 $29,202 5 Colonial Style Single Family Detached,2 or 3 Bedrooms $274,900 $192,430 28.78 $27,691 5 Cape Style Single Family Detached,2 or 3 Bedrooms $259,900 $181,930 28.78 $26,180 12 Duplex Units,2 or 3 Bedrooms $234,900 $164,430 28.78 $56,788 18 2-story End Unit Townhouse, 2 Bedrooms $219,900 $153,930 28.78 $79,742 28 3-story End Unit Townhouse,2 Bedrooms $199,900 $139,930 28.78 $112,761 82 Interior Townhouse,2 bedrooms $189,900 $132,930 28.78 $313,709 155 Sub-Total Real Estate Taxes $32,069,500 $22,448,650 $533,310 310 Motor Vehicle Taxes $10,000 $7,000 28.78 $62,453 Grand Total ©2012-Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC,Donald Poland,AICP,&Design Professionals,Inc. Equation: (Assumed Market Value x 0.70 Assessment=Assessed Value x 0.02878 mill rate x total number of units by type=Total Taxes Generated) Personal Property-Automobiles The South Windsor Zoning Regulations require and assume 2 cars per housing unit. Therefore, we will assume that the proposed development will generate a minimum of 310 cars. We will assume that each vehicle is valued at$10,000 and assessed at$7,000 (this is probably a low assumption based on the price of cars today). Multiply 310 cars by$7,000 for a total of $2,170,000. Then multiply the $2,170,000 by the mill rate(0.02878) for a total of$62,453 taxes generated by personal property tax from the motor vehicles in the proposed residential development. The $62,453 can be added to the$533,310 generated in real property tax for a total of$595,763 in annual taxes at full build-out. Other Revenue Sources In addition to the projected real estate and personal property tax revenue generated by the proposed residential development,there will be additional one-time fees generated for the Town from building permit and sewer hook-up fees. Based on conversations with the appropriate Town departments,the following table illustrates the approximate fees that will be generated through the course of construction. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP-35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 9 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com-www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach Building Permit & Sewer Hook-up Fees Building Permit Fees (approximate): $17 per one thousand in value X$100,000 value+ $10=$1,710 per unit 155 units+ 1 clubhouse X$1,710 per unit= $266,760 Source:Design Professionals,Inc.and South Windsor Building Department(2012) Sewer Hook-up Fees: 155 units+ 1 clubhouse X$1,092 per unit=$170,352 Source:Design Professionals,Inc.,South Windsor Collector of Revenue,and South Windsor Engineering Department(2012) Total Town Building Permit Fees& Sewer Hook-up Fees: $437,112 Revenue from Proposed Industrial Lots Based on a study prepared by R.F. Hagerty&Associates on October 23, 2007 for the development formerly known as The Hillstead on Kelly Road, industrial land in South Windsor generates an average of$6,829 in annual real estate taxes per acre. This does not account for motor vehicle or personal property tax generated by industrial properties. Proposed Industrial Lots Annual Real Estate Taxes Generated Acres of Proposed Annual Real Estate Industrial Lots Average Annual Real Estate Taxes per Acre Taxes Generated 10.98 $6,829.00 $74,982 Source:R.F.Hagerty&Associates;October 23,2007(The Hillstead)Impact Study&Market Analysis 02012-Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC,Donald Poland,AICP,&Design Professionals, Inc. As indicated in the table above,the proposed six industrial lots will generate approximately $74,982 in annual real estate taxes once fully developed. Revenue generated from personal property and motor vehicle taxes will be in addition to this amount, but given the wide variety of uses that may purchase the lots, it is difficult to predict the revenue that will be generated from these sources. This equates to $2,605,351 in assessed real estate value for the industrial lots based on the current mill rate. South Windsor—2010 Grand List The following table provides the top ten tax payers on the 2010 grand list. The proposed development has been inserted in its ranked location if it were considered cumulatively,to demonstrate that the proposed development will provide a positive fiscal impact to the South Windsor grand list. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 10 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach Town of South Windsor Top Ten Taxpayers 2010 Grand List Assessments Personal Motor Name Real Estate Property Vehicle Grand Total 1 CT Light&Power $1,903,970 $52,817,510 $54,721,480 Evergreen Walk Lifestyle Ctr (Promenade at Evergreen 2 Walk) $37,844,660 $37,844,660 Proposed Development $25,054,001 $2,170,000 $27,224,001 Federated Retail Holdings 3 (Macy's Warehouse) $13,421,500 $7,079,440 $59,290 $20,560,230 4 Town Center of SW $16,099,020 $16,099,020 5 Evergreen Walk LLC $13,744,680 $13,744,680 6 DST Realty $11,644,040 $535,750 $12,179,790 Benchmark GPT Windsor 7 LLC $10,990,000 $643,500 $11,633,500 8 Target Corp $10,920,000 $523,200 $11,443,200 Ventas Realty,LP(1715 9 Ellington Road) $11,140,010 $66,650 $11,206,660 10 Lowes Home Centers Inc. $10,108,000 $936,950 $11,044,950 ©2012-Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC,Donald Poland,AICP,&Design Professionals, Inc. Cost of Education According to the South Windsor Schools website,the Town of South Windsor has a local budget of$64,000,027 for the 2011-2012 school year,not including money received from state and federal sources. A total of 4,288 children are enrolled in the public school system for the same year. This reflects a 4%drop in enrollment from the previous school year. Furthermore, it is projected that enrollment will continue to drop through the 2019-2020 school year, when an enrollment of 3,564 students is projects. Based on the budget and enrollment for the current school year,the local cost of education per student equals $14,925. Multiply$14,925 by 21.15 (PSAC generated by the proposed development at full build-out) and the total added cost of education to the Town of South Windsor is $315,664 when the project is completed. Based on the projected number of students generated by the development in year 20 (35.96),the total added cost of education will be $536,703. Roadway Maintenance Reimbursements The Town of South Windsor provides a yearly reimbursement to private associations for snow removal. The private associations contract for this service and pay for the service on their own. The Town reimburses according to how much the Town spends during the season and divides the total expense by the length of town maintained roads (139 miles). These payments are intended to offset the cost differential between taxes paid by these developments and services not provided by the Town to these developments. For the fiscal year 2009/2010 the Town of South Windsor budgeted $25,000 for such reimbursements. The Director of Public Works informed us that the calculation for snow Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 11 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning-A Rational Approach removal reimbursement is$2,363.89 per mile of roadway. Our plan proposes 4,060 linear feet of private roadway. Therefore, the reimbursement would total $1,817.69 per year for snow removal. This number will vary from year-to-year based on the number of snow falls and amount of snow per event. Street Lighting Cost and Reimbursement The Town of South Windsor provides monthly reimbursements to private associations for roadway lighting costs. These payments are intended to offset the cost differential between taxes paid by these developments and services not provided by the Town to these developments. The Town of South Windsor estimates a cost of$10 per month per light pole. Our development assumes 29 light poles for the 0.77 miles of roadway. This equals $290 per month and $3,480 per year in reimbursements from the town to the association. ($3,480 x 20 years= $69,600) Refuse and Recycling Costs The Town of South Windsor provides refuse and recycling removal for private associations. Therefore,there is no cost to the residents of private associations and the service is paid for by tax revenues generated by the development. The existing contract for refuse and recycling runs from July 2009 to June 30, 2016. The contract is fixed for years 2, 4, 6, and 7. Increases may occur in years 3 and 5 based on the Consumer Price Index for inflation, but shall not exceed 3% for each increase. Therefore,we assumed a maximum of 3%increases in years 3 and 5. In addition,the recycling rate is set to increase in 2011 and is accounted for in the projections. The following table provides the estimated costs based on the existing contract and assumes the same contract structure, including increases, beyond year seven. Refuse-Recycling-Bulky Waste Cost Per Unit Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 Refuse $5.99 $6.17 $6.17 $6.17 $6.36 $6.36 $6.55 Recycling $3.80 $3.92 $3.92 $3.92 $4.03 $4.03 $4.15 Bulky Waste $0.44 $0.46 $0.46 $0.46 $0.48 $0.48 $0.50 Total Cost/Unit $10.23 $10.55 $10.55 $10.55 $10.87 $10.87 $11.20 Annual Cost(155 units) $4,788 $9,748 $14,686 $19,623 $20,218 $20,218 $20,832 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 Refuse $6.55 $6.75 $6.75 $6.75 $6.95 $6.95 $7.16 Recycling $4.15 $4.28 $4.28 $4.28 $4.41 $4.41 $4.55 Bulky Waste $0.50 $0.52 $0.52 $0.52 $0.54 $0.54 $0.56 Total Cost/Unit $11.20 $11.55 $11.55 $11.55 $11.90 $11.90 $12.27 Annual Cost(155 units) $20,832 $21,483 $21,483 $21,483 22134 22134 $22,822 Year Year Year Year Year Year Total 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30131 31/32 Refuse $7.16 $7.38 $7.38 $7.60 $7.60 $7.60 --- Recycling $4.55 $4.69 $4.69 $4.83 $4.83 $4.83 --- Bulky Waste $0.56 $0.58 $0.58 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60 --- Total Cost/Unit $12.27 $12.65 $12.65 $13.03 L--$13.03 $13.03 --- Annual Cost(155 units) $22,822 $23,529 $23,529 $24,236 $24,236 $24,236 1 $405,072 Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP-35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 12 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com-www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach Police Department Staffing As part of our research for the previous application on this property, we contacted then Acting Chief of Police, now Chief Matthew Reed,to determine if the housing units proposed in that development would have any impacts on the service and staffing level of the Police Department. The following is the correspondence we received from Chief Reed back in 2010. "While I would expect a development of this type to generate some additional calls for service, I do not anticipate that increase to require the hiring of additional police personnel. Our authorized strength is 43 sworn officers. The Town Council temporarily reduced that number to 41 beginning with the 2009/10 fiscal year. According to an FBI published report,the rate of full-time law enforcement personnel in the New England region for a community with our population(est. 25,000)is 2.3 officers per 1,000 inhabitants. According to that measure, we should have at least 57 sworn officers. In South Windsor,we have 1.6 officers per 1,000 inhabitants. In summary, I do not expect the addition of 204 units to increase the demand on police services." Since the number of units has been greatly reduced from the previous application, we do not anticipate the development to require the hiring of additional police personnel for this application as well. Revenue vs. Costs(net present value) Below is a table outlining the summary of revenue generated from the proposed development versus the potential costs in today's dollars as presented previously in this report. Note that the revenues do not include the initial sewer assessment for the residential portion(accurate data unavailable at the time of writing) Y,nor do the include motor vehicle or personal property taxes for the industrial lots. The revenue the Town receives from these items will further benefit the Town. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 13 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning-A Rational Approach Annual Town Costs - Year 1 to year 20 (net present value) Compared to Taxes and Fees Generated Year 1 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 Totals Residential Real Estate Taxes $133,328 $533,310 $533,310 $533,310 $533,310 $9,866,235 Residential Motor Vehicle Taxes $15,613 $62,453 $62,453 $62,453 $62,453 $1,155,373 Residential Building Permit Fees $66,690 $66,690 $0 $0 $0 $266,760 Residential Sewer Hookup Fees $42,588 $42,588 $0 $0 $0 $170,352 Industrial Real Estate Taxes $12,497 $49,988 $62,485 $74,982 $74,982 $1,312,185 Industrial Building Permit Fees $13,577 $13,577 $13,577 $0 $0 $81,464 Industrial Sewer Hookup Fees $6,579 $6,579 $6,579 $0 $0 $39,473 Industrial Sewer Assessment $21,540 $21,540 $21,540 $0 $0 $129,240 Total Annual Revenue $312,412 $796,725 $699,944 $670,745 $670,745 $13,021,082 Total PSAC 5.19 21.15 22.08 26.70 35.96 Cost per PSAC $14,925 $14,925 $14,925 $14,925 $14,925 Sub-Total Education Cost $77,389 $315,664 $329,479 $398,553 $536,703 $7,715,558 Roadway Reimbursement $455 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $1,818 $33,633 Street Lighting Reimbursement $870 $3,480 $3,480 $3,480 $3,480 $64,380 Refuse&Recycling Reimbursement $4,757 $19,028 $19,028 $19,028 $19,028 1 $352,018 Total Annual Cost $83,470 $339,990 $353,805 $422,879 $561,029 $8,165,589 Revenue-Cost 1 $228,942 1 $456,735 1 $346,139 1 $247,865 $109.716 ©2012-Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC,Donald Poland,AICP,&Design Professionals,Inc. Annual Revenue/Cost Comparison for South Windsor $900,000 ------- -------------- $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 -4-Total Annual Revenue --f-Total Annual Cost / Revenue-Cost $30Q,000 $200,000 - $100,000 $0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Year Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP-35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 14 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com-www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach Although the total cost is trending to surpass the revenue generated past year 20, based on our review of the existing developments in South Windsor,we do not anticipate the number of PSAC generated to be higher than 36.96, as previously calculated, and indeed we expect it to be less than that. Since the annual cost is related to the number of PSAC, it should not surpass what is projected in year 20. Therefore,the annual revenue generated should exceed the annual cost for the development in perpetuity. The Fiscal Impact of the Proposed Development Based on the projected revenue and cost to the Town of South Windsor,the expectation is that the proposed Nutmeg Village development and the adjacent six industrial lots will be a fiscal positive for the Town. Respectfully Submitted, Donald J. Poland,AICP Peter R. DeMallie, President Planning Consultant Design Professionals, Inc. [This Planning Report was prepared by Donald J.Poland,AICP of Connecticut Planning and Development,LLC,in association with Design Professionals, Inc. The findings and recommendations presented here are based on sound planning principles and the professional expertise of Mr.Poland and DPI.The information and opinions provided in this report are specific to the proposed application and should not be interpreted to apply to any other applications, locations,and/or projects.] Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 15 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com Don Poland Consulting&Connecticut Planning&Development,LLC Urban Geography&Planning—A Rational Approach DONALD J. POLAND, MS, AICP COMMUNITY STRATEGY-PLANNING—URBAN GEOGRAPHY PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHY Mr. Poland is a professional planner and urban geographer with fifteen years' experience in land use planning, neighborhood redevelopment, and executive level management. He has worked in public, private, and non-profit sectors as a municipal planning director, planning and development consultant, and as executive director/CEO of a non-profit neighborhood reinvestment corporation. As Executive Director/CEO for The Neighborhoods of Hartford, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, Mr. Poland had the exciting challenge of building a successful neighborhood reinvestment organization and implementing a "Healthy Neighborhoods" strategy. He is recognized as a leader and expert on neighborhood and housing issues. Mr. Poland is currently a consultant for St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, assisting with post-Katrina redevelopment and land use strategies. Mr. Poland previously held the position of Director of Planning and Development for the Town of East Windsor. As Director, he reorganized the planning, zoning, wetlands, building, and economic development departments into one agency, facilitated the creation of the Town's Plan of Conservation&Development and drafted a comprehensive rewrite of the zoning regulations. As a dedicated professional and leader, Mr. Poland is past President of the CT Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA) and past Chairman of the CCAPA Government Relations Committee. Mr. Poland is a founding member, Secretary, and Executive Director for the Connecticut Partnership for Balanced Growth. He also serves on the Board of Trustees for the CT Trust for Historic Preservation. Mr. Poland has established himself as a leader in planning and public policy. As Government Relations Chair for CCAPA he assisted the Legislature's Planning and Development Committee with bill screening and drafting legislation. Mr. Poland worked on APA's development of a smart growth policy guide and was a member of the National Delegates Assembly that adopted the APA Smart Growth Policy Guide. He also presented a lecture titled "Steering States Towards Smart Growth" at the APA national conference in Denver. Mr. Poland earned a Bachelor of Arts degree majoring in both Geography and Psychology, from Central Connecticut State University and studied at Bolton University in Bolton, England. He earned a Master of Science degree in Geography, concentrating in Planning, from CCSU and is a certified member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He is currently working on his PhD in urban geography at University College London, London, England. Mr. Poland has taught world regional geography as an adjunct lecturer at Saint Joseph College and teaches an introduction to geography and urban geography at Manchester Community College. Mr. Poland also teaches an introduction to planning at CCSU. He was awarded the Connecticut Homebuilders 2003 Outstanding Land Use Official Award and was recognized by the Hartford Business Journal as one of Hartford's Forty Under Forty business and community leaders. Mr. Poland is a licensed private pilot and lives in the city of Hartford. Copyright 2012 CPD,LLC.&Donald Poland,AICP—35 Putnam Heights,Hartford,CT 06106 16 Phone: 860-655-6897-E-mail:don@donaldpoland.com—www.donaldpoland.com I