TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 7:00 P.M. 494 Main Street AGENDA

Transcription

1 TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 17, 2018 Lincoln Center Hearing Room 7:00 P.M. 494 Main Street AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: 1. REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD Request a special exception per Art. II, Sec for a place of worship use at 73 Summit Street. Special Exception ( ) NEW BUSINESS: 1. REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD Request a special exception per Art. II, Sec for a place of worship use at 73 Summit Street. Special Exception ( ) 2. DKS REALTY For a building addition, new pavement, and parking spaces at 111 Utopia Road. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ( ) 3. JOSEPH FELICE Request a 5-year extension of the previously approved inland wetlands permit at 129 South Main Street. Extension of Previously Approved Inland Wetlands Permit ( ) 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 13, 2018 Public Hearing/Business Meeting 6. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS R:\Planning\PZC\2018\09 - September 17\Agenda 17 SEP 2018.docx

2 TOWN OF MANCHESTER LEGAL NOTICE The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on September 17, 2018, at 7:00 P.M. in the Lincoln Center Hearing Room, 494 Main Street, Manchester, Connecticut to hear and consider the following petition: REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD Special Exception ( ) Request a special exception per Art. II, Sec for a place of worship use at 73 Summit Street, Residence B zone. At this hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications received. A copy of this petition is in the Planning Department, Lincoln Center Building, 494 Main Street, and may be inspected during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday). Planning and Zoning Commission Eric Prause, Chair

3 TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission Matthew R. Bordeaux, Senior Planner DATE: September 12, 2018 RE: Redeemed Christian Church of God 73 Summit Street Special Exception ( ) Introduction The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing multi-tenant building at 73 Summit Street as a place of worship. The existing facility is located in the Residence B zone, within which places of worship are permitted subject to special exception approval by the Commission in accordance with Article II, Section of the zoning regulations. The site is 1.22 acres in area and is located on the east side of Summit Street, west of the Manchester High School athletic fields, to the north of the Bigelow Brook and is otherwise surrounded by residential uses. Summit Street is classified as a Collector Road per the Town of Manchester Roadway Classification Map. Project Description The applicant is proposing to utilize a portion of the existing building as a place of worship. The applicant s proposal would maintain the exterior of the site without making any physical changes. The building has been historically occupied by various businesses including an electrical contractor and an oxygen home delivery business. A portion of the building is currently occupied by the CPM Adult Day Care Center serving approximately 35 clients with 15 staff members. This use will remain unchanged. The site currently has 33 standard parking spaces (23 in the rear, 6 on the north side, and 4 in the front of the building). There are 2 handicapped designated spaces in the front of the building. The applicant s engineer, Mr. Andrew Bushnell of Bushnell Associates, LLC, has provided a Traffic Impact Statement dated July 24, 2018 (attached) to describe the anticipated parking demand on the site. Mr. Bushnell concludes that it is anticipated that the peak traffic flows and parking demands for both uses will occur at different times of the day. It is also anticipated that the activities proposed by this application will not have an adverse traffic impact on Summit Street and adequate on-site parking will be available for both uses on the site. Presently the building is served by public water, sanitary sewer and natural gas services located in Summit Street. Mr. Bushnell states that it is anticipated that the current public utilities servicing the building will be sufficient for the proposed uses.

4 September 12, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Considerations for the Commission The Commission should review provisions of Article IV, Section 20 for the project s compliance with the Special Exception Criteria. In addition, Town staff has expressed some concerns for the Commission s consideration following their review of the plans and documents submitted with the application. As the Commission may recall, the applicant appeared at a Pre-Application meeting on May 21, 2018 to discuss the proposed project. One part of the conversation was the requirements of Article II, Section (e)(4) regarding the screening of adjoining residential properties with a landscaped border. The applicant stated that the improvement of a landscaped buffer or alternative would require installing an obstruction in the regulated floodway of Bigelow Brook. The floodway means the channel of a river and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood. The provisions of Article II, Section (a) state that encroachments in the floodway shall be prohibited. The Commission is being asked to consider the existing wooded area south of the river between the subject parking area and the existing residential dwellings at 63 Summit Street as an area sufficient to satisfy the provisions of Article II, Section (e)(4). Similarly, the Town Traffic Engineer stated that a metal beam rail should be provided separating the parking lot from the drop off to the Bigelow Brook. Currently curb stops are in place to serve this purpose. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has pointed out that the existing driveway providing one-way vehicular access to the rear of the site is only 12 wide. The provisions of Article IV, Section 9 provide that the construction of private driveways designed for vehicular traffic shall be a minimum of 16 wide. The Commission should consider the suitability of the existing condition to achieve reasonable safety in accordance with Article IV, Section (d). Finally, the Town Fire Marshal has indicated that the applicant has provided no documentation of separated fire areas and that the applicant s proposal to occupy the space as a place of worship would be considered new assembly in accordance with the International Fire Code (IFC) and would require substantial building design changes in order to meet current codes. The applicant has been advised that compliance with the applicable requirements of the IFC shall be satisfied prior to approval of a Building Permit. Additional staff comments were minor and technical in nature and may be made as modifications to the plans following the Commission s decision on the application. MRB R:\Planning\PZC\2018\09 - September 17\Packet Memos\ docx Attach.

5

6

7 Town of Manchester, CT 73 Summit St Town of Manchester, CT DISCLAIMER: This map is compiled from other maps, deeds, dimensions and other sources of information. Not to be construed as accurate surveys and subject to final changes as a more accurate survey may disclose. NOTES:Original planimetric and topographic data were compiled by stereophotogrammetric methods from photography dated April 1999 in accordance with ASPR accuracy standards for 1inch = 40ft large scale Class I mapping. The updating of the GIS data is performed by the GIS/Maps & Records Unit on a continual basis utilizing the best and most appropriated sources available. 1 inch = 333 feet Author: µ Date: Manchester GIS 9/13/2018

8

9

10

11 TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission Matthew R. Bordeaux, Senior Planner DATE: September 10, 2018 RE: DKS Realty 111 Utopia Road Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ( ) The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing building and make improvements to the parking and loading areas at 111 Utopia Road. The 2.04-acre site is located in the Industrial zone and is occupied by a company called FLEX that manufactures precision plastic parts. The proposed 115 x 135 addition will occur to the rear of the existing building in an area that is currently paved. As the plans show, a portion of an existing outbuilding will remain and be connected to the proposed addition. Areas highlighted in yellow on the plans are currently unimproved and are proposed to be used for additional parking. The applicant is requesting the certification of the proposed erosion and sedimentation control plan. Although the site is substantially improved, the total area of disturbance required to install the addition and make other site parking and loading improvements will exceed 0.5 acres. Measures proposed to be employed to mitigate potential erosion and sedimentation during construction activities will include the installation hay bales around existing catch basins and the prevention of sediment migration to adjacent properties with perimeter silt fencing. The applicant s engineer, Suzanne Choate, of Design Professionals, Inc., states on the application form that no change in drainage patterns is anticipated due to the proposed development. Town staff has reviewed the plans submitted with the application and recommended approval with modifications to address outstanding technical comments. MRB R:\Planning\PZC\2018\09 - September 17\Packet Memos\ docx Attach.

12 Town of Manchester, CT 111 Utopia Road Town of Manchester, CT DISCLAIMER: This map is compiled from other maps, deeds, dimensions and other sources of information. Not to be construed as accurate surveys and subject to final changes as a more accurate survey may disclose. NOTES:Original planimetric and topographic data were compiled by stereophotogrammetric methods from photography dated April 1999 in accordance with ASPR accuracy standards for 1inch = 40ft large scale Class I mapping. The updating of the GIS data is performed by the GIS/Maps & Records Unit on a continual basis utilizing the best and most appropriated sources available. 1 inch = 333 feet Author: µ Date: Manchester GIS 9/13/2018

13

14 TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: Inland Wetlands Agency Matthew R. Bordeaux, Environmental Planner/Wetlands Agent DATE: September 13, 2018 RE: Joseph Felice 129 South Main Street Inland Wetlands Permit-Request for Extension ( ) Introduction The applicant and homeowner, Joseph Felice, is requesting an extension of the previously approved inland wetlands permit ( ) to construct a 24 x 48 garage at 129 South Main Street. The 5-year permit will expire on September 16, The applicant is requesting the Agency consider the late request and approve a 5-year extension. The 1,152 square foot garage will be located in the southeast corner of the lot, adjacent to and at approximately the same grade as the driveway serving the neighbor s home to the rear of the lot. The applicant has stated that no changes to the approved plans are proposed and that the reason for the delay in construction of the garage was due to finances. Description of Regulated Resource and Proposed Activity A wetlands area identified on the Town s map encompasses the northern portion of the lot, extending north onto Town-owned and State-owned property. The wetlands area to the north and east is associated with the Globe Hollow Brook. The brook begins south of Spring Street at Globe Hollow Reservoir, flowing in a northerly direction under Spring Street and into a broad, wooded wetland area before it is interrupted by Interstate 384. The applicant has identified on the plans where silt fence and staked hay bales will be installed to prevent the migration of disturbed material downhill. The applicant has stated that the project is expected to take 12 weeks to complete and turf will be established to permanently stabilize the site. The project will result in approximately 3,000 square feet of temporary disturbance of the nonwetlands 100 upland review area. As shown on the plans, work in the wetlands will be limited to installation of erosion and sedimentation control devices as well as the foundation drain outlet. Staff has no outstanding comments regarding the extension request. MRB R:\Planning\PZC\2018\09 - September 17\Packet Memos\ Felice.docx Attach.

15

16 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 2018 DRAFT ROLL CALL: Members Present: Alternate Member Sitting: Alternates: Absent: Also Present: Eric Prause, Chairman Michael Stebe, Secretary Jessica Scorso Timothy Bergin Teresa Ike Patrick Kennedy Andy Kidd Julian Stoppelman Gary Anderson, Director of Planning Matthew Bordeaux, Senior Planner Nancy Martel, Recording Secretary The Chairman opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. The Secretary read the legal notice when the call was made. EOC PROPERTIES, INC. Request a special exception for alternative compliance under Art. II, Sec to allow the width of a proposed new building to occupy less than 90% of the lot frontage; to allow the principal pedestrian entrance to face the existing Business District Street; to allow access to parking from Broad Street; and to allow the driveway to occupy more than 25% of the lot frontage, for proposed improvements at the existing Economy Oil Change site, at 315 Broad Street. Special Exception ( ) Attorney Michael Darby, 773 Main Street, Manchester, introduced himself. Attorney Darby explained he was representing EOC Properties, Inc., the owner of 315 Broad Street, Manchester. The business, which is named Economy Oil Change, has operated at the location since 1984, he reported. Gerry Gallo joined the business at its inception at age 16, and is now the general manager. Attorney Darby stated that Economy Oil Change began business to serve their customers, has been successful, and has expanded to other towns. However, at this time, the Manchester shop is in serious need of an update. In order to be competitive, he noted, they must expand their PZC PH 8/13/18-1

17 services and the current building will not accommodate that expansion. Attorney Darby pointed to the vote of confidence in the Broad Street area by EOC Properties. Attorney Darby reported that the proposal is the first new construction before the Commission under the Form-Based zoning regulations. He noted the project is attractive, will meet many of the stated goals of the regulations for the Form-Based zone, is an approved commercial use in the zone, and will provide a service that will serve the surrounding neighborhoods. The concept with the Form-Based zoning, according to Attorney Darby, was there would perhaps be residential development in the area. Attorney Darby described the lot and the location of the building, which is far from the road, and in keeping with the form-based zoning idea, it will be moved forward substantially. He noted the proposal will not meet all the regulations, which should not be surprising considering the limitations of the property. Art. II, Sec allows an applicant to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission to ask for a special exception to allow alternative compliance. Attorney Darby described the four items the applicant is seeking in terms of alternate compliance: 1. The driveway regulation states no more than 25% of the frontage can be occupied by driveways; the proposal is 26%. A portion of the problem is that the business requires cars entering and exiting a narrow lot. An effort was made to make that as minimal as possible, which resulted in the 26%. 2. Under the regulations, % of the frontage should be building. In neighboring communities, developments have been created similarly, though it is not feasible in the existing Broad Street area. The proposal is for only 42% and, thus, the applicant is requesting alternate compliance. 3. The regulations contemplate the main entrance being on the front of the building. Such placement would attract pedestrians to businesses, but there will be no pedestrian traffic in this situation. Patrons will drive their vehicle into the queue and, therefore, the main entrance would be placed near the vehicle entrance. 4. Sufficient parking has been provided behind the building and access to the parking is off Broad Street. Access by a side alley to the parking is not an option at this location and the applicant is seeking alternate compliance. Mr. Gerry Gallo, General Manager for Economy Oil Change, introduced himself. Mr. Gallo reported he began employment with Economy Oil on January 7, 1985, and described Broad Street as a vibrant area at that time. He recounted the decline of the Broad Street area and lauded the Town s effort to revitalize the district. Mr. Gallo said he anticipates the applicant s efforts may spur other businesses to take care of their properties and attract others. PZC PH 8/13/18-2

18 Mr. Gallo presented the building rendering and explained the proposed building design and materials. He also exhibited the site plan with a detailed description, including the proposed traffic pattern. Mr. Stebe questioned whether the two bays in the existing building will be utilized. Mr. Gallo explained the bays will remain, though there are no plans to use them. The plan for the proposed building is to utilize two bays for oil changes and one bay for emission testing. Mr. Stebe referenced the drive access and noted there is a double-width on what has been referred to as the south drive. He questioned why that will be maintained at that full width. Mr. Gallo reported it will be narrower than the current drive at 24 ft. and will maintain the existing curb cut. He explained the rationale is that, if the curb cut was eliminated, years down the road it would be difficult to re-establish. Mr. Stebe reiterated that the existing building will not be used for clientele. Mr. Gallo confirmed, stating they require office space. Mr. Prause referred to the 173 ft. and questioned how far back that measurement goes from the garage. Mr. Gallo reported it is 173 ft. from the existing garage to the sidewalk. Ms. Scorso inquired about the buildings to the back of the existing location, whether they are part of the applicant s business. Mr. Gallo stated that the buildings behind the existing structure are not part of the company. Ms. Scorso questioned how much would be repaved. Mr. Gallo pointed to the various areas that will be repaved. Mr. Stebe asked about drainage, noting a problem on the property during a recent rainstorm. Mr. Gallo explained that debris from a neighboring property plugged the storm drain, which caused the flooding on the property. He noted that the new building will be set at an elevation slightly higher than Broad Street; the current location s lawn area is the lowest area. Ms. Denise Lord, Anchor Engineering, introduced herself. Ms. Lord noted the finished floor is 139.5, similar to the existing building. The current building has had no problem and they are separating the site drainage to a new outlet to alleviate everything coming to one area, she reported. Mr. Gallo described the flow of the current drainage. PZC PH 8/13/18-3

19 Mr. Prause, referring to the building entrance, questioned why it is not feasible to have a front entrance to the building on Broad Street. Mr. Gallo described the queuing area and the location of the customer entrance. Compliance also calls for a certain percentage of windows, according to Mr. Gallo. He stated they were unable to make the plan work with the actual building and functionality, in terms of mechanicals, restrooms, and the size of the building. Mr. Prause asserted that the entrance is limited by the internal layout of the building. Mr. Gallo pointed to the north side where the sidewalk will be extended to the street. Attorney Darby interjected that the other two Economy Oil Change locations do have a front entrance. He reiterated that this lot is long and narrow. Mr. Matt Bordeaux stated that the Planning Department received comments from the Town Engineering staff in response to the revised plans. He explained the comments are technical and substantially related to the conflicts of the different utilities close to Broad Street with the sidewalk, the stamped concrete, water, sewer and storm water. The Engineering staff seeks detail on proper separation distances and he stated Anchor Engineering will be able to provide that information. Mr. Bordeaux reported Engineering recommends approval with modifications. Mr. Bordeaux said there was an additional comment from the Traffic Engineer, who is concerned about utilizing the north driveway, referred to by the applicant as the business district street, as the entrance. The reason, he explained, is because in the vicinity of that curb cut on Broad Street, there are double lanes heading north a bypass lane and a left turn lane. If headed south on Broad Street turning left into the Economy Oil Change site at the main entrance, a vehicle would have to cross two lanes of traffic, Mr. Bordeaux explained, and explained the Traffic Engineer s suggestion. Mr. Gallo reported that the business is currently using both the north and south entrance with no problems or traffic issues. He reminded the Commission about the number of businesses back in 1985, during which time the traffic count was nearly 18,000; today the traffic count is 11,300. Mr. Gallo noted the location averages 70 oil changes per day; at the emissions facility nearby, the average is approximately 25 emissions tests per day, which would total 95 vehicles per day at the new site. He acknowledged the company hopes to see a 20% increase in business in the future, which would bring the total to 114 vehicles per day; assuming 50% enter from the north and 50% from the south, over a nine-hour period, there would be 6.3 vehicles entering the site from the north. Regarding a traffic flow reversal, Mr. Gallo detailed the difficulty with that option. PZC PH 8/13/18-4

20 Mr. Prause inquired whether the left turn lane into Green Manor Boulevard is longer than necessary and whether the applicant could change the north entrance to Economy Oil into a lefthand turn. Mr. Bordeaux explained that part of the problem is the entrance into American Eagle on the opposite side of the street, which is short of the intersection. Mr. Prause explained his question was whether there could be a left-hand turn lane in both directions in order to not block the south-bound queue by having to make a left-hand turn over two lanes. He noted that on the weekends, there is a lot of traffic turning into both Economy Oil Change and American Eagle. Mr. Anderson stated that the redevelopment of Broad Street took development at the Parkade into account in terms of where those things are located and anticipated development at the Parkade property. If the turn lane is a bit longer, that would probably be the reason, he suggested. Mr. Prause speculated on other reasons why the left-hand turn lane is longer. There were no members of the public to speak on the application. Mr. Prause questioned whether there was a detailed storm water plan or erosion plan as part of the application. Ms. Lord reported it has been included on the utility plan. The other plan that shows the general utilities and storm water includes the erosion control features at all the basins. Mr. Prause asked what is additional in the storm water plan on this application. He noted that Ms. Lord mentioned some storm water drains that exist now and questioned whether there will be any changes to storm water drains. Ms. Lord referred to the depiction of the site and pointed out the various catch basins and drainage system. Mr. Prause stated he was interested in the site runoff from an oil change facility and moving the building much closer to an existing storm water drain, and noted that the applicant will be adding water quality measures which seems better. He questioned whether there are any special design standards taken when dealing with an automotive repair shop. Ms. Lord reported there are no concerns outside of the building. There will be no floor drains; it will be handled in underground storage tanks. Attorney Darby spoke on behalf of the applicant and explained the urgency in coordinating to be able to continue emissions testing. PZC PH 8/13/18-5

21 MOTION: Mr. Stebe moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Ike seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. BJ S RESTAURANTS, INC. For a 2-lot resubdivision and a special exception under Art. II, Sec for a use requiring more than 60 parking spaces for construction of a BJ s Restaurant and Brewhouse at 344 Buckland Hills Drive. Special Exception ( ); Resubdivision ( ) Ms. Susan Hayes, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, 100 Pearl Street, Hartford, Connecticut, introduced herself as representing BJ s Restaurants. Ms. Hayes explained the proposal is for a 7,500 sq. ft. BJ s Restaurant and Brewhouse on property that is currently owned by J.C. Penney. Ms. Joan Leguay, Director of Property Development for BJ s Restaurants, 7755 Center Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, introduced herself. Ms. Leguay noted that BJ s Restaurants is based in Huntington Beach, California, and has approximately 200 restaurants across the country, traded under BJRI. She stated the proposed restaurant will be the first in Connecticut. Ms. Leguay explained that BJ s concept is contemporary American brew house and it is considered to be a premium casual dining restaurant. She described many of the menu items. She displayed the latest prototype; only three have been built at this point. Ms. Leguay described the features of the proposed building. She noted the restaurant will employ approximately 200 people, and they hope to open as early in 2019 as possible. Mr. Luke DiStefano, Site Civil Engineer, Bohler Engineering, 352 Turnpike Road, Southborough, Massachusetts, introduced himself. Mr. DiStefano detailed the proposal for the restaurant, which will be located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Buckland Hills Drive and Northeast Magazine Road. The project entails a subdivision of the existing property which, in its current state, is about 360,000 sq. ft., just over 8 acres. The subdivision proposed would be just over 2 acres, he explained. Mr. DiStefano pointed to the site plan and described the plan in detail, including the parking and drainage plans. He explained the utilities will not be tied into Buckland Hills Mall, but into Northeast Magazine Road. Ms. Erin Fredette, McMahon Associates, 120 Water Street, Boston, Massachusetts introduced herself. Ms. Fredette stated McMahon conducted a full traffic impact study that included four study area intersections, including a signalized intersection of Buckland Hills Drive and Northeast Magazine Road; Ring Road s intersection with Northeast Magazine Road; and the two project site driveways. The study was conducted looking at Friday evening and Saturday midday. The proposed project, Ms. Fredette reported, will have a minimal impact on the operations of the study area intersections. Mr. Prause questioned whether there will be signage directing people how to enter the site. Ms. Leguay was unsure if that had been contemplated. PZC PH 8/13/18-6

22 Mr. Prause noted there will be two curb cuts on Ring Road and inquired whether there is signage at both entrances to make it clear, though he believed it would be visually obvious. Ms. Leguay did not believe anything was required. Mr. Prause inquired about compliance with the special exception criteria in the zoning regulations. It appears straightforward that the location is suitable as restaurants are compatible with the neighborhood. He questioned how the size of the building compares to the other restaurants in the area. Ms. Hayes assumed the area restaurants are of the same size, specifically Red Robin and Longhorn Steakhouse. Mr. Prause asked whether the height is similar to the referenced restaurants. Ms. Leguay reported their parapet is 24 ft., which is probably very similar to Longhorn Steakhouse and Red Robin. The entry feature is 32 ft., she stated, noting that Red Robin has an entry feature, though she was not sure how tall it is. In her opinion, the restaurants will be well balanced on the corner. Mr. Prause referred to the Dave & Buster s, which is larger, and said he wanted to make sure that the proposal is closer to the Red Robin and Longhorn Steakhouse. Ms. Leguay agreed it was. Ms. Hayes commented that Dave & Busters is approximately 10,000 sq. ft. Mr. Prause questioned whether the lighting on the renderings is accurate to the proposed building and Ms. Leguay said it is. He asked if there were color samples to view. Ms. Leguay reported she did not bring a material board. She noted the Commission had both renderings and actual photographs. Mr. Prause asked whether, in Ms. Leguay s opinion, the renderings or the photographs were more accurate to reality. Ms. Leguay referred to the photographs, noting that in the photograph the paint color is more golden than it is; it is actually closer to tan. Otherwise, the color appears to be accurate. Mr. Prause inquired about the depicted patio area. Ms. Leguay pointed to the patio on the rendering. Mr. Hayes stated that the entrance will be on the north side, facing Buckland Hills Drive, and the patio would be to the east. Mr. Prause questioned why the entrance is to be on the north side of the building rather than the south. PZC PH 8/13/18-7

23 Ms. Leguay reported the entrance is studied prior to the building of each site. At the location, she stated, they felt the entrance to the north has the most energy from the street. There is a great opportunity with cars entering the mall area, which is also why the patio is being located to the east, and they are comfortable that this will be the right orientation for the site. She reminded the Commission that Red Robin faces the street. Mr. Prause asked about the trees to the front of the building. Mr. DiStefano stated the proposal calls for seven red oak trees in the front, 15 to 18 ft. at planting. In total, he said, there will be approximately 14 trees throughout the property. Mr. Bergin referred to a memo in the Commission s handout about enhanced pedestrian connection between Buckland Hills Drive and the front of the building. He stated he was unsure if the site plans the Commission received were updated in the presentation and if there were any modifications for pedestrian access. Mr. DiStefano explained that they took a hard look at that during the design process. At this time, they envision pedestrian traffic to be low, acknowledging the residential development across the street. Given their understanding of the property and how it is traditionally used, he stated they do not anticipate a lot of pedestrians and currently there is an existing route, though it would be a bit of a travel. Mr. DiStefano noted when looking at a more direct route, there are considerations such as a retaining wall proposed as part of the development and the existing Buckland Hills Mall sign. In order to provide access, pedestrians would go up along Northeast Magazine Road to the site, which is a steep grade, he said. Additionally, he stated, it would have to be accessible, which would require stairs and switchback ramps to make the elevation change from Magazine Road to the parking lot, which may require losing parking spots. Mr. Anderson reported he had spoken to this issue several times. He stated that, in his opinion, the applicant is missing an opportunity because there are hundreds of people living across the street who will likely want to visit the restaurant. Mr. Anderson agreed that facing Buckland Hills Drive is the best orientation of the building and said he understands the location of the sign and the elevation. However, he said, it does seem that there is an opportunity to make the connection from the corner beyond the sign on the Northeast Magazine Road. Mr. Anderson assumed the applicant could afford to lose a parking space or two and there would still be the accessible route to the back of the building. Currently, they are requiring pedestrians to walk past the attractive entrance to walk to the back rather than inviting them to cross the street and enter the restaurant at that frontage. Mr. Bergin commented on the amount of parking required for the site given its proximity to the mall and overlapping access to parking spots. If there was ever an opportunity to improve pedestrian access to a site at the loss of some parking spots, this would be a case where there is the potential for shared parking, he said. PZC PH 8/13/18-8

24 Ms. Hayes stated that the applicant meets the criteria from a subdivision perspective. Mr. Prause asked for clarification about the resubdivided parcel, which Ms. Hayes clarified on the rendering. Mr. DiStefano noted there was a resubdivision plan submitted, which outlined the property shown on the rendering. However, the plan does extend a bit further to the west; the property becomes fairly narrow moving away from the intersection. He reported they had to provide 25 ft. of frontage for the J.C. Penney lot. Mr. DiStefano noted the rendering does not show the full subdivision but the subdivision plan submitted in the application package does. Mr. Prause questioned whether the applicant wished to touch on the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Mr. DiStefano explained the plan will speak for itself, and is generally in compliance with the regulations. The applicant proposes soil and sedimentation control barriers around the limit of work as well as filtration barriers. He stated it is a fairly standard soil erosion and sediment control plan. Mr. Prause referred to the proposed construction entrance on the western end of the property. He questioned whether the applicant will widen the curb cut and replace it or if that will be the final size. Mr. DiStefano stated they will make the curb cut for the construction entrance and it is believed that it will be as far away from the main entrance into the site off of Northeast Magazine Road as possible. Mr. Prause asked if there will be a large soil stockpile. Mr. DiStefano explained they always show a stockpile; there will be some soil onsite. It will be a fill site so anything taken out will go right back in, he noted. Any stockpiled material will be surrounded by siltation measures. Mr. Bordeaux addressed outstanding Staff comments. He noted there were four Staff memos with various outstanding comments. In a memo dated July 25, 2018, the Deputy Fire Marshal questioned the need for additional hydrants. The applicant has addressed the comment. Mr. Bordeaux stated his comments have been addressed, though he included a comment about the pedestrian access, which can be dismissed after the Commission s decision. Based on revised plans, there are comments from Ray Myette, Design Engineer, who is addressing the site development review while there is a staff shortage. All his comments are PZC PH 8/13/18-9

25 minor and technical, according to Mr. Bordeaux, and Mr. Myette recommended approval with modifications. The Water and Sewer Design Engineer, Bernard Kalansuriya, had additional comments about the depth of the sanitary sewer main. It was Mr. Bordeaux s understanding that Mr. Kalansuriya had a conversation with the applicant s engineering staff. He noted that, after the Commission s decision, Bohler Engineering can revise the plans properly and move forward. Mr. Prause sought an opinion on whether the hearing should be held open due to concerns over color samples or discussion about the sidewalk. Mr. Stebe stated that, regarding colors, he is satisfied with the fact that they have actual photographs with varying lighting situations. He addressed his concerns regarding the sidewalk and echoed Mr. Bergin s comments about sacrificing a few parking spaces in order to have that access. MOTION: Mr. Bergin moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Ike seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION To revise Art. II, Sec (c) to add brewpubs and breweries as permitted uses in the Central Business District zone. Zoning Regulation Amendment ( ) Mr. Gary Anderson, Director of Planning, explained that the recommendation from Staff is to add breweries and brewpubs to the Central Business District. Breweries and brewpubs were added to the regulations in 2016 and currently the Town allows those establishments in the Industrial zone and the Historic zone via special exception. Restaurants/brewpubs are allowed in several other categories, including the CUD zone and the Central Business District, according to Mr. Anderson. Town Staff feel as though breweries and brewpubs are in line with the allowed uses such as restaurants, brewpub/restaurants, cafes, taverns and grills, alcoholic liquor sales and general retail, and would be desirable in the Central Business District. He stated that Staff feels this change would be consistent with the Manchester 2020 Plan, most notably Growth Management Principle 3, which talks about investing in desirable industries, which, in his opinion, breweries would certainly be. Those uses encourage adaptive reuse of vacant underutilized sites in the downtown area, which may have been used similarly before but may be vacant because of market conditions currently. Mr. Anderson stated they would promote the vibrancy the Town is trying to generate downtown, as well as walkability and activity in the evening hours, which is one of the main goals for the Downtown District. He noted the subject had been brought before the Downtown Special Services District Board of Commissioners at its meeting in August, and the Board was supportive of the text amendment. PZC PH 8/13/18-10

26 Mr. Prause asked where in town breweries and brewpubs are currently allowed. Mr. Anderson stated they are currently allowed in the Industrial zone and the Historic zone by special exception. He noted they are different from brewpub/restaurants, which are allowed in the CUD zone and the Central Business District. Mr. Stebe asked for clarification on the zoning map as to which areas would be affected by the amendment. Mr. Anderson explained and depicted the area comprising the Central Business District. Mr. Bergin stated he supports the amendment. He questioned the piecemeal approval of breweries in particular zones. The Industrial zone may have been just before he joined the Commission, he noted, after which it was the Historic zone. In looking at Main Street as a whole, Mr. Bergin stated he is surprised there is not a discussion about Business 3 because that represents the other part of Main Street headed north. Mr. Prause asked if Mr. Anderson had a definition of a brewery and brewpub as part of the presentation. He was of the opinion that a restaurant/brewery is more of a restaurant and has a brewery onsite. A brewery would be primarily an industrial brewery, he stated, with some beer service and a pub. Mr. Anderson said that typically there is a tap room. Many brewpubs bring food in from the outside; there may be a runner that visits other downtown restaurants to bring the food back. Referring to the proposal, the interest is in creating a small area for brewing and a tap room without a restaurant associated. Mr. Bordeaux reported, A brewery is a facility where beer is manufactured, stored, bottled and sold at wholesale or at retail in sealed containers for consumption off premises or offered for onthe-premise tastings in accordance with Art. IV, Sec. 8, which is the provision for alcoholic liquor sales. A brewpub is a facility where beer is manufactured, stored, bottled, sold at wholesale or at retail in sealed bottles or other sealed containers for consumption off premises or sold to be consumed on the premises in a room that is ancillary to the production of beer with or without the sale of food, in accordance with Art. IV, Sec. 8. Mr. Prause asked, if these were added to the Central Business District zone, whether they would be allowed to have outdoor seating like any typical restaurant, or if there would be special permitting for that. Mr. Anderson explained they would be permitted if they go through the same requirements for outdoor patios but there are additional requirements from the Liquor Commission having to do with how space is separated. There cannot be an outdoor patio that is not separated from the sidewalk or from the right-of-way. The requirements must be met in terms of separation, Mr. PZC PH 8/13/18-11

27 Anderson stated. However, if the facility meets the requirements of outdoor cafes, the idea would be to allow outdoor seating. Mr. Prause speculated on allowing this in more commercial districts, i.e., if that is the intent of the location for a brewery and brewpub. Mr. Anderson reported the change is driven by demand; there is interest in this district. There may be other districts where it might be desirable, he speculated. Mr. Prause assumed the Commission would prefer to approve on a case-by-case basis. Each time there is the consideration for a different zone, there are different challenges. He questioned whether there would be an issue with proximity to Bennet School. Mr. Anderson stated there are State requirements about the separation between the sale of alcohol and schools. Mr. Prause noted the zone is limited and questioned how far that would extend. Mr. Anderson stated perhaps a couple of hundred feet. Mr. Stebe commented that a brewpub restaurant is already in the code. A brewpub would be in conjunction with the manufacture, but have a dedicated space for sampling, he noted. However, in his opinion, a brewery is typically an industrial site, and he cannot envision it in the Central Business District zone. Mr. Stebe reported he is having trouble with the word brewery ; i.e., brewpub and restaurant are understandable and acceptable. He questioned whether Labyrinth is considered a brewery or a brewpub. Mr. Anderson explained that he and Mr. Bordeaux felt the definitions of the three words were very similar and brewpub is more critical; in his opinion he would not have an issue with the Commission using the word brewpub. There were no members of the public to speak on the application. MOTION: Mr. Stebe moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Ike seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. The public hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M. I certify these minutes were adopted on the following date: Date Eric Prause, Chairman PZC PH 8/13/18-12

28 DRAFT MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING HELD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 2018 ROLL CALL: Members Present: Alternate Member Sitting: Alternates: Absent: Also Present: Eric Prause, Chairman Michael Stebe, Secretary Jessica Scorso Timothy Bergin Teresa Ike Patrick Kennedy Andy Kidd Julian Stoppelman Gary Anderson, Director of Planning Matthew Bordeaux, Senior Planner Nancy Martel, Recording Secretary The Chairman opened the Business Meeting at 8:50 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: EOC PROPERTIES, INC. Request a special exception for alternative compliance under Art. II, Sec to allow the width of a proposed new building to occupy less than 90% of the lot frontage; to allow the principal pedestrian entrance to face the existing Business District Street; to allow access to parking from Broad Street; and to allow the driveway to occupy more than 25% of the lot frontage, for proposed improvements at the existing Economy Oil Change site, at 315 Broad Street. Special Exception ( ) Ms. Scorso expressed her concern over the lack of a front entrance to the building, though given the nature of the property, she believes the owners have worked very hard to achieve the best plan. She stated she is in support of the plan. Mr. Prause commented that it is very exciting to have the first application under the Form-Based zoning regulations. He complimented the property owner, who embraced the regulations as much as possible on the site. The intent of the property owner is to meet the goal of the Broad Street Redevelopment Plan as much as possible, especially given the property. Mr. Prause noted the regulations were set to prevent referring similar applications to the ZBA. PZC BM

29 Mr. Stebe echoed the prior comments, noting that an applicant performing auto repair revolved around moving vehicles in and out of a garage would be difficult to fit into a regulation with the Broad Street requirements. He complimented the design of the building and hoped the intersection could be changed in the future. Mr. Stebe commented on the lengths the business has gone to in an attempt to improve the property in the past. However, he is concerned about future applicants requesting special exceptions. Ms. Ike sought a restatement of the modifications requested by the traffic engineer. Mr. Bordeaux reread the comment from Mr. James Mayer, Traffic Engineer, as follows: The revamped traffic circulation will require customers entering for oil change to now enter through the north driveway. This change in access will be north of the beginning of the two-way left turn lane. This means there will be no bypass for vehicles when customers are wanting to turn left into the business. The applicant should comment on the frequency of current left turn access during peak periods and the extent of queuing at these times in the northbound direction so that the driveway is not blocked and southbound traffic is not blocked. Mr. Bordeaux noted Mr. Mayer made a suggestion for the applicant s consideration and Mr. Gallo referred to where the flow of traffic would be reversed through the site. Ms. Ike suggested that, if the Traffic Engineer makes a suggestion that is the opposite of the applicant s proposal, he should attend the meetings. She stated she is in favor of the applicant s proposal without further input from the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Prause reported that some of the approval criteria to be considered, in addition to the intent of the Redevelopment Plan, are to promote the concepts involving walkability and sustainability in the Form Based zone, such as: Energy conservation Low-impact development practices including storm water management Light imprint storm water design practices, specifically including storm water quality Mr. Prause sought to point out that the applicant did fulfill the concepts. Special Exception ( ) MOTION: Mr. Stebe moved to approve the special exception for alternative compliance under Art. II, Sec to allow the width of a proposed new building to occupy less than 90% of the lot frontage; to allow the principal pedestrian entrance to face the existing Business District Street; to allow access to parking from Broad Street; and to allow the driveway to occupy more than 25% of the lot frontage, for proposed improvements at the existing Economy Oil Change site, at 315 Broad Street, with the modifications as specified in staff memoranda from: 1. James Mayer, Traffic Engineer, dated August 8, 2018; and 2. Bernard Kalansuriya, Design Engineer, dated August 13, Mr. Bergin seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. The reason for the approval is that the proposal meets the Special Exception criteria. PZC BM

30 BJ S RESTAURANTS, INC. For a 2-lot resubdivision, a special exception under Art. II, Sec for a use requiring more than 60 parking spaces, and an erosion control plan for construction of a BJ s Restaurant and Brewhouse at 344 Buckland Hills Drive. Special Exception ( ); Resubdivision ( ); Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ( ) Mr. Bergin stated the use is appropriate and the subdivision makes sense based on its orientation; he also had no problem with the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Mr. Prause reported he is excited about the proposal. He noted it will be a great addition to the mall area in town. The proposal is suitable for the location, he stated. Mr. Stebe commented the restaurant will be a good addition to the corner. He did, however, state he would have preferred to see the entrance on the sidewalk from Buckland Hills Drive, though the Commission cannot force that issue. Special Exception ( ) MOTION: Ms. Scorso moved to approve the special exception under Art. II, Sec for a use requiring more than 60 parking spaces, with the modifications as specified in staff memoranda from: 1. Shawn Morris, Deputy Fire Marshal, dated July 25, 2018; 2. Matthew R. Bordeaux, Senior Planner, dated July 27, 2018; 3. Raymond Myette, Jr., Design Engineer, dated August 13, 2018; and 4. Bernard Kalansuriya, Design Engineer, dated August 13, Ms. Ike seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. The reason for the approval is that the proposal meets the Special Exception criteria. Resubdivision ( ) MOTION: Mr. Stebe moved to approve the resubdivision to create a new 2.14-acre lot out of the 8.28-acre lot at 344 Buckland Hills Drive, with the modifications as specified in staff memoranda from: 1. Raymond Myette, Jr., Design Engineer, dated August 13, 2018 Mr. Bergin seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ( ) MOTION: Mr. Stebe moved to certify the erosion and sedimentation control plan, with the modifications as specified in staff memoranda from: 1. Shawn Morris, Deputy Fire Marshal, dated July 25, 2018; 2. Matthew R. Bordeaux, Senior Planner, dated July 27, 2018; 3. Raymond Myette, Jr., Design Engineer, dated August 13, 2018; and 4. Bernard Kalansuriya, Design Engineer, dated August 13, Ms. Scorso seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. PZC BM

31 TOWN OF MANCHESTER WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT For a new chemical storage building at the Hockanum River Water Pollution Control Facility at 864 Middle Turnpike West (a.k.a. 120 Thrall Road). Inland Wetlands Permit Determination of Significance ( ); Inland Wetlands Permit ( ); Special Exception Modification ( ); Flood Plain Permit ( ) Mr. Dennis Dievert, Jr., Wright-Pierce Engineers, Middletown, Connecticut, introduced himself as representing Patrick Kearney with the Town of Manchester Water & Sewer Department. The plan is to erect a 14 ft. x 14 ft. concrete building at the wastewater treatment plant to store the chemical sodium permanganate to be used for odor control to reduce the odor at the landfill. Mr. Dievert displayed the site plan, describing the current buildings as well as the proposed building. He explained the chemical is a strong oxidizer requiring significant fire suppression, and to put it inside one of the existing buildings would be very costly. The 14 ft. x 14 ft. concrete building will not be located in the wetlands, but will be within 25 ft. of the wetlands, according to Mr. Dievert. Because the treatment plant site is greater than four acres, he explained, the proposed activity requires a special exception modification approval. With respect to the inland wetlands permit, there are no work plans within the delineated wetlands. Mr. Dievert noted the estimated disturbance is 340 sq. ft. and the total anticipated site disturbance is 2,500 sq. ft. to enable piping from the existing building to the new building. He reported there will be no change from the existing pavement. Mr. Dievert demonstrated the details of the site plan. The applicant is requesting a special exception modification approval in accordance with Art. II, Sec (a) which includes development on a site which is four acres or larger, Mr. Dievert explained. With respect to flood plain and compensatory storage, he reported, when the treatment upgrade was done, there was a significant increase in the compensatory storage, in excess of 295 cu. yds. Mr. Dievert explained that, with the addition of the building, that would be decreased by 33 cu. yds., for an overall total flood storage volume remaining of 262 cu. yds. Mr. Prause asked for a description of the design of the building. Mr. Dievert reported the building will be pre-cast concrete with a brick façade to match the existing new buildings that were constructed in It will be elevated on a platform; grade elevation is year flood and the 500 year flood are the same in the area, approximately elevation 79 or 80. He noted the finished floor will be elevated to 81. Inside the building, Mr. Dievert explained, there will be two 300-gallon plastic storage totes and some pumps, fire sprinklers, emergency shower and eyewash. There will be an exhaust fan, double doors and no windows, according to Mr. Dievert. Mr. Prause sought clarification that the building will be concrete. Mr. Dievert concurred. Mr. Prause questioned whether there will be continuous ventilation. PZC BM