PLANNING
COMMISSION
P.O.
BOX 308
Thursday,
January 11, 2007
7:00
p.m. Town
Hall
a.
Subdivision Application #397, 23 Lots (Gillette’s Crossing), 180 Battle
Street & 7 Eleanor Lane, KRL Builders
Chairman
Karl Walton called the public hearing to order at 7:00 p.m. and the legal notice
was read. Receipts were presented
showing that notices had been sent to each of the abutting property
owners.
Sandy
Aeschliman, Aeschliman Land Surveying, spoke on behalf of Ric Leno of KRL
Builders, and requested that the minutes and record of the last public hearing
be combined with this public hearing.
A motion was made by Cliff Bordeaux, seconded by Joe Iadarola and
unanimously voted to incorporate the minutes as requested.
Mr.
Aeschliman explained that the property is a 61.5-acre subdivision on the
northerly side of Bailey Lane and southerly side of Battle Street. The applicant is proposing to continue
Bailey Lane to Mason Lane, which will be a cul-de-sac off of Battle Street. Four of the proposed lots will be
fronting along Battle Street and the remaining 19 will be fronting along
interior roads. He added that all
of staff comments have been addressed and approval has been received from the
Conservation Commission. The
applicant is seeking a waiver of the radial lot line requirement and proposes to
give a fee in lieu of open space.
David
Spear, Principle Engineer with DLS Consulting Traffic Engineering, reported that
the site would generate about 230 trips on a daily basis and 23 trips during the
peak hour. He explained that when
this is compared with the background traffic, there would be no significant
traffic issues.
The
geometry of the proposed road is the biggest concern, with the jog in the
connecting road. Various meetings
were held with staff and after considering several options, it was determined
that the best one would be to put curve warning signs at each end of the reverse
curve. Signs for an advisory speed
limit of 10 mph and a center line along the roadway through the curve are
designed to encourage people to stay on the correct side of the road. This would provide good balance between
safety and traffic movement.
Access
for fire vehicles and large trucks was discussed. Mr. Spear explained that the fire trucks
would have access to the full road in cases of emergency, as their lights and
horns would alert other motorists.
Normal delivery trucks could make it through the curves, but longer
trucks may have some difficulty maneuvering along the inside of the curve
lines. However, he noted that the
lightness of traffic in the area would serve as an advantage for
motorists.
Mr.
Pellissier asked about pedestrian safety, given that there is no sidewalk and
the subdivision is located within walking distance to several local
facilities. Project Engineer, John
Martucci, explained that the layout of the curves are designed to be rather flat
and slow. There is adequate site
distance from the approach of each curve, both horizontally and vertically,
which will help motorists see pedestrians.
He also commented that school busses would have no difficulty moving
along the curves.
Mr.
Walton asked about the number of expected trips that will come out of the
subdivision and take Bailey Lane.
Mr. Martucci stated that in the morning peak hour there would be 11 cars
exiting and 3 cars entering Bailey Lane, and in the afternoon there were 6 cars
exiting and 10 cars entering. The
Battle Street figures were similar.
Mr.
Strauss noted that he has addressed these reports in his recent written
comments, stating that the situation is similar to one in West Hartford
intersecting into Main Street. The
traffic numbers in that instance are much higher, however. He has used the West Hartford route for
many years and it is fine. He has
no problems with the proposal.
Don
Tisdale, 23 Bailey Lane,
commented that he worked in the architectural field for many years and he has
never seen anything as dangerous looking as the proposed “S” curve. If people do not follow the speed limit,
there will be accidents. He feels
that this situation would never pass in most towns, even though it meets the
legal requirements. There are many
trees that will block views and this will open up the town to potential
litigation. He recommends that it
be handled with a cul-de-sac.
Eric
Young, 15 Rye Hill Circle,
stated that he currently works for the Metropolitan District in Hartford and is
a member of their Mapping Division and has much experience and this sort of road
configuration is not something that he would normally see.
He
explained that the design speed for a continuous road is 20 mph and the proposed
speed is a clear deviation from the minimum standard. He disagrees with Mr. Martucci’s belief
that the signage will result in a decrease in speed for
motorists.
He
also noticed that the 30-foot triangle does not meet the design standards,
particularly with any vegetation above 3 feet tall. There currently are oak trees which will
prevent visibility.
Mr.
Young also stated that he believes that the situation in West Hartford which Mr.
Strauss used as an example is completely different from the current
application. He appealed to the
Commission to disregard Mr. Strauss’ comparison.
He
also commented that the right of way was not originally intended to be used in
this manner.
Nancy
Cook, 16 Bailey Lane,
addressed the elevation of Bailey Lane from Route 190. When she backs out of her driveway, she
cannot see what is happening at the cul-de-sac. She is concerned about what will happen
when someone comes around the “S” turn at a rate of speed higher than 10
mph. She noted that in the past a
cul-de-sac was considered, and she thinks that this would be a much better
situation. She finds the current
road situation difficult, and can’t imagine what it would be like with an “S”
turn. She questioned if a line of
sight study had been done for the driveways on Bailey
Lane.
Norma
Skiliman, 15 Bailey Lane,
stated that each day about 20 people turn around thinking that the road is a
through road. She commented that
this application is not well presented to the public at the
meetings.
Mr.
Aeschliman stated that a line of site study had not been done for each driveway
on Bailey Lane and Nancy Cook stated that she would like to see such a study
completed. She stated that there
are alternatives that could work.
Mr.
Martucci stated that the safe stopping site distance was evaluated and federal
tables show what it takes to stop at different speeds. Bailey Road from Route 190 to the curve
has the safe stopping distance adequate for 30 mph. The roads were designed according to
regulated standards. He added that
if a car backing out of a driveway is over 3 feet tall, it can be seen by an
approaching motorist, who will be given adequate time to stop while her car is
exiting. Mrs. Skillman commented
that if anything happened to her because of a motorist not seeing her, she would
take recourse with the town.
She
asked why a cul-de-sac option was ever being considered when they are being
discontinued. Mr. Strauss noted
that cul-de-sacs are not being discontinued, but they are being
discouraged. In some cases they
serve as a function to access land that can be reached no other way. This proposed cul-de-sac would serve 8
lots.
Laney
Mancussi, 9 Mountain Road,
expressed concerns about potential future flooding of property downstream. She asked who would have to pay for any
cleanup.
Mr.
Aeschliman showed the 100-year flood zone, and explained that the subdivision is
located outside of this zone.
Sue
Peck,
expressed concern about how the development would change the look of the small
town.
Mr.
Strauss asked Mr. Spear about his letter of September 8, 2006, which stated that
signage will resolve the substandard speed issues by alerting approaching
drivers. Mr. Spear stated that the
signs will alert the driver to the upcoming curve. The geometry of the road will also serve
to slow down the driver because a standard passenger vehicle would automatically
have to slow down just to make the turn.
He also stated that other towns are using the same sort of roadways and
traffic circles calling them “traffic calming features”.
Nancy
Cook, 16 Bailey Lane,
stated that she doesn’t understand why stop signs are not being put in on both
sides of the turn. She suggested
perhaps having speed bumps.
David
Spear stated that stop signs in such situations tend to be ignored and the
geometry of the road will control the speed of motorists. Speed bumps usually are difficult in
inclement weather.
Mr.
Strauss explained that his primary interest was the Rush driveway, because it is
the first driveway motorists will encounter when driving along the road. He has calculated that, based upon his
accident reconstruction experience, it is likely that a vehicle would stop
before it reaches the Rush driveway if it is traveling at a speed of 20
mph.
Eric
Young, 15 Rye Hill Circle,
commented that when people back out of driveways, they move their vehicle to a
position beyond the exact location of the driveway, so the distance in question
is actually going to be closer to the end of Bailey Lane.
Mr.
Strauss explained that in this case whenever a vehicle moves onto the southbound
lane, the object coming toward it must be able to stop under wet conditions when
traveling at the speed limit. He
also noted that stop signs need to be used with extreme care for attempting to
calm traffic flow due to the fact that they are often not seen in time to fully
stop by motorists.
Nancy
Cook, 16 Bailey Lane,
asked about the public hearing from last summer and the alternative option that
was presented and wondered if the alternative given at that time was
pursued. Mr. Strauss looked at that
proposal but the town regulation and policy are to have through roads where
possible to create an orderly pattern of road travel. The point is that through roads are
desirable for emergency purposes, for snowplowing and for traffic
circulation. Therefore, it is the
policy of the commission is to discourage cul-de-sacs.
She
commented that even though there has been a lot said about safety, why is the
town so upset about cul-de-sacs here when this should be a safety
issue.
Mr.
Martucci commented that he designed the intersections and laid out WB-50, the
wheelbase of a tractor trailer, and it easily went through the area. It is the same diameter as a full-sized
cul-de-sac. There is plenty of room
for them to go through those curves.
Two tractor trailer trucks may not be able to speed through there at the
same time, but it is very close to allowing them to do so.
Nancy
Cook, 16 Bailey Lane,
commented that she still thinks the road will have a higher volume of traffic
than what the traffic study engineer is suggesting.
Mr.
Walton noted that perhaps Ms. Cook would be willing to conduct and present her
own traffic study.
Mr.
Strauss asked for a review of the traffic flow numbers, specifically regarding
which of the cars noted in the report are current versus which are
proposed. Mr. Spear explained that
11 cars were new traffic. The
current number was 5 in the am and 3 in the afternoon. The total coming down Battle Street in
the morning is 103.
Mike
Bidmead, 111 Battle Street,
asked if the road can be driven continuously at 20 mph. Mr. Walton explained that this is one of
the things that will be verified when checking the design
standard.
At
9:15 p.m., a motion was made by Cliff Bordeaux, seconded by Brad Pellissier, and
unanimously voted to continue the public hearing for KRL Builders’ Subdivision
Application #397 for 23 lots (Gillette’s Crossing) at 180 Battle Street & 7
Eleanor Lane to January 25, 2007 beginning at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman
Karl Walton called the regular meeting to order at 9:30 p.m. Members Cliff Bordeaux, Brad Pellissier
and Karl Walton, and Alternates Greg Genlot (seated for Michael Collins) and Dan
Fraro (seated for Michelle Hayward) were present and constituted a quorum. Town Engineer Merv Strauss was also
present.
III. OLD BUSINESS
a.
Discussion/Possible Decision:
Subdivision Application #397, 23 Lots (Gillette’s Crossing), 180 Battle
Street & 7 Eleanor Lane, KRL Builders
No
action at this time since public hearing has been
continued.
b.
Other
– No other Old Business was presented.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
a.
8-24 Referral: Substantial
Improvement of Town Property, Expansion and Renovation of Somers Public Library,
51 Ninth District Road, Town of Somers
Ed
Burns, the Chairman of the Expansion Study Committee, introduced Shirley Warner
who presented a report showing the artist rendering of what the final library
would look like as well as the proposed floor plan. She also presented a report from a
meeting with the Town Sanitarian, as well as information showing the financial
issues involved.
The
plan is in the preliminary design stages.
She explained the map showing where new construction is proposed and
where proposed renovations would be.
A
floor plan and elevations were presented.
A full color rendering is forthcoming.
Discussion
followed about the parking lot layout and accommodation of those using the
facility once it is completed. Mr.
Strauss commented that the sidewalks need to be clearly defined from the parking
and driving areas. He also
commented that adequate lighting is also necessary.
A
motion was made by Brad Pellissier, seconded by Joe Iadarola, and unanimously
voted to accept
the improvements to town property at 51 Ninth District Road for the expansion
and renovation of the Somers Public Library and recommend the same to the Board
of Selectmen for their approval and Town Meeting, in accordance with the
recommendations of the town staff and Section 8-24 of the Connecticut General
Statutes. This recommendation is
conditioned upon conformance with the comments from the Town Engineer and his
review of the plans presented at the meeting.
b.
Other
– No other New Business was presented.
Mr.
Walton reported that they are awaiting finalization of information on the
cistern portion of the regulations and as well as information on the farms. The Somersville Study Committee is
moving forward at this point. They
have selected a consultant and the contract is being reviewed by the Town
Attorney.
Mr.
Strauss explained that he has been working on Gillette’s Crossing, Shady Lake,
Eleanor Road and the Roulier property.
Discussion
followed about the dilemma caused by working to meet policy, procedure, and
regulations while at the same time applying these to fit the needs and desires
of the community.
VII. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
An
audience member commented that it seems as if there is a perception by the
community that the Planning Commission is planning the developments. A brief discussion followed about this
between the audience member and the Commission.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND BILLS
A
bill was presented from Merv Strauss for $7,313.75 for the second quarter. A motion was made by Cliff Bordeaux,
seconded by Joe Iadarola, and unanimously voted to pay the bill as
presented.
This
item was deferred until the next meeting.
A
motion was made by Joe Iadarola, seconded by Brad Pellissier, and unanimously
voted to adjourn the January 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 10:20
p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Brad
Pellissier, Secretary
Robin Timmons, Recording Secretary
MINUTES
ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING.