The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday November 16, 2010. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, David Cappello and Marianne Clark and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Christian Gackstatter. Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent was Edward Whalen. Also Present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Griffin motioned to approve the October 12, 2010, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4507 - 302 West Main Street LLC, owner, Stephen Fish, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(1) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign, 302 West Main Street, Parcel 4540302, in a CR Zone.
The public hearing was continued from the October 12 meeting.
Mr. Kushner explained that the applicant is not present but has requested that the public hearing be continued to the next meeting. He noted that the applicant will need to provide a letter granting an extension of the public hearing.
Mr. Starr stated that the public hearing will be continued subject to the receipt of a letter of extension from the applicant to the Town.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4507 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4510 - Gold Borg Associates, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.3.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 353 West Main Street, Parcel 4540353, in a CR zone.
Present was Michael Goldfarb, owner, and Rick Theriault, Superior Spas
Mr. Goldfarb commented that the subject site contains a two-tenant building that is experiencing reduced visibility from Route 44; the trees planted in 1978 are now fully mature. The building cannot be seen until you are past it, when traveling from the west. Mr. Goldfarb submitted photos of the site showing views from both the east and west. He noted that tenants have been lost due to poor visibility; the sales for Superior Spas have dropped. He commented that the State right-of-way is approximately 60 feet wide at this location and therefore, the proposed sign would be located quite a distance from the road pavement.
Mr. Theriault noted that he has been in this location since 2005; employees have been reduced to cut costs. He noted that the proposed detached sign would help the business.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Goldfarb explained that entrance into the site is via the driveway/traffic light at Friendly’s. Mrs. Griffin commented that it would be better if the sign could be located closer to the entrance. Mr. Goldfarb explained that the subject site and the Friendly’s site are, legally, two separate parcels. He noted that a sign placed on the Friendly’s parcel would also have to be 60 feet back from the street; it would not be practical. He noted that Superior Spas is trying to identify their building location and added that he doesn’t feel there is any risk of traffic problems from this proposed sign. He commented that one tree is proposed to be cut and the rest trimmed, as part of this sign proposal; no clear cutting will
occur.
Mr. Kushner noted that the photos submitted show a company van with signs on it parked in the parking lot. He asked whether the van could be moved to another location, not visible from the road, if the sign is approved. Mr. Goldfarb noted that he is agreeable to moving the van if the sign is approved.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4510 was closed.
App. #4511- David Ford, owner, Jack Kemper, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 44 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044, in an RU2A zone.
Present was David Ford, owner.
Mr. Ford commented that the proposal is for an in-ground pool within the ridgeline setback.
Mr. Starr asked whether any of the impervious surfaces for the pool (i.e., deck, concrete patio) will be located inside the 75-foot ridgeline setback. Mr. Ford stated that all impervious surfaces will be located outside of the 75-foot ridgeline setback.
Mrs. Griffin asked if blasting was necessary for the sports court. Mr. Ford noted that a small amount of blasting in the northeast section was needed for construction of the sports court. He added that no blasting will be needed for the pool and the maximum depth will be no more than 10 feet, including the concrete.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Ford whether he is confident that no bedrock will be encountered when excavating for the pool. Mr. Ford stated that there will definitely not be any bedrock for the pool but there may be traprock.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4511 was closed.
App. #4512 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to the Industrial Park Zone.
Present to represent this application were Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics; August Jasminski, Ensign Bickford Realty Corp.; and Andy DiFatta, Ensign Bickford Realty Corp.
Mr. Chalder explained that the proposal is for an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to expand the size of a school permitted in the Industrial Park. He noted that more specific criteria have been added for a proposal for a school with more than 250 students. The site would be located at the periphery of the Industrial Park Zone; be compatible with existing and potential neighboring uses; and demonstrate excellence in landscaping and overall site design.
Mr. Starr commented that the proposed regulation changes do not impose a limit on the number of students but would rather be controlled by the number of square feet available on the parcel.
Mr. Chalder concurred.
Mr. Kushner noted that Ensign Bickford has been working on an overall master plan for the remaining 50 acres located in Avon Park North. He commented that the master plan study done by the Town consultants is well underway. He explained that Town Staff, along with the Town Attorney, has made good progress relating to more comprehensive regulation changes for a long-term plan for Avon Park North. He noted that a proposal should be ready to present to the Commission in the next couple of months. Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed amendment would allow Ensign Bickford to move forward with an application for a school. He explained that the Commission could ask for a cap to the maximum number of students permitted or maximum building size. He pointed out that this amendment would also
affect Avon Park South, as it is located in the Industrial Park zone.
Mr. Starr pointed out that nothing would be permitted by right and would require a special exception application to the Commission. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Ms. Keith noted that she would feel more comfortable approving this type of amendment once she has seen a master plan so it is clear what would be located near the school. She commented that there is a lot of traffic with a school of 450 students. She added that she wouldn’t want to see other parcels become use restricted because they are located next to a school. She noted that she doesn’t want the school to be the driving force for the rest of the development.
Mr. Kushner explained that the regulation change is the first step; a site plan for the school must be prepared and a special exception application would also be required. He noted that the Commission may be uncomfortable approving the site plan and special exception until a master plan is in place. He added that it may take several months to prepare a site plan and in that time a regulation and a more concrete master plan could be available.
Ms. Keith commented that she doesn’t want to see the applicant spend a lot of money on plans for a school to hold 450 students when the Commission may not feel a school is an appropriate use for the master plan. She noted that the traffic and scheduling for a school this large can be quite overwhelming. She added that she would be uncomfortable approving a regulation change without a cap, especially not knowing what the master plan entails.
Mrs. Griffin commented that Avon has a limited amount of land in the industrial zone and we aren’t going to get any more. She noted that the regulation change to allow a 250-student school in the Industrial Zone was done as a favor because it was represented that it would be a temporary situation for a couple of years. She commented that the school concept seems to be growing while a mixed-use development is being planned for Avon Center. She noted that you can’t have wine shops and restaurants that serve liquor near schools. She noted that she would like to see the mixed-use development work.
Mr. Bonner commented that he did not have an issue with the proposed school location but noted that if a new street with retail shops is proposed nearby it doesn’t seem like a good mix.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposed location is not a proper place for a school.
Mrs. Clark noted that the Commission has raised this issue before.
Ms. Keith commented that this area proposes a mixed use development with buildings that have residential on the second floor with businesses on the first floor and there will be students that will walk home from school. She noted her concern with that scenario.
Mr. Kushner explained that CREC has represented that the students will range from age 3 through age 11. He commented that he feels it would be unlikely that very young children would be permitted to walk on their own.
Mrs. Griffin commented that once a school is established the ages can change.
Ms. Keith commented that intermediate aged children can be difficult to deal with and sometimes take off without telling anyone.
Mr. Kushner summarized the Commission’s position in that if the master plan existed it would allow the Commission to properly evaluate the school proposal but if the school was approved first it could make it more difficult or impossible to implement other parts of the master plan. He noted that the whole picture needs to be present.
Mr. Bonner asked whether it would be possible to move the proposed school to another location within the master plan; possibly put the school where the housing is proposed in the far corner of the site and move the housing to the proposed school location.
Mr. Chalder noted that the type of mixed uses in the village center is important; civic uses are important. He commented that there is a strong tradition in Avon for transitional uses; uses between industrial uses and residential areas. He noted that there aren’t many sites left that could be schools or another type of facility. The proposed school site is served by 2 collector roads adjacent to 2 arterial roads; multiple routes of distribution exist. Mr. Chalder noted that the proposal is for a magnet school, not a traditional neighborhood school, so students will be bussed from other locations and there will be security; the issue of walkers seems unlikely. He commented that the school would be a strong civic contribution to the Town Center. He noted that the existing industrial
park areas are surrounded by residential uses; the proposed school would introduce a transitional use between these commercial/industrial uses and the neighboring residential uses. Mr. Chalder noted his understanding of the Commission’s request to see a master plan to see how all the pieces come together and added that the proposed regulation change is the first step. He commented that while great progress is being made with the master plan it is not quite ready yet. Mr. Chalder concluded by noting that the regulation change would give the applicant the ability to proceed with a dialogue about the proposed school as part of the master plan.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question about which roads/routes the busses would use, Mr. Chalder explained that the routing of the busses would depend on where they were coming from. She noted her concerns with busses in an area proposed for retail and restaurants. Mr. Chalder noted that Climax Road, Bickford Road, Fisher Drive, and Ensign Drive are collector roads and there are arterial roads that surround them. He noted that there are many routes that could be used and many are served by traffic lights. Mrs. Clark commented that currently there is no retail/restaurant development in this area. Mr. Chalder reiterated his understanding that the Commission needs to see a master plan for the overall development of this area.
Mr. Starr commented that the Commission needs to see a master plan to see how everything will fit together before they move forward with a regulation change for a school. Ms. Keith noted her agreement.
Mr. Chalder noted that the applicant has been working with Town Staff. He acknowledged the study that is ongoing with the Town’s consultants and noted that the applicant has been waiting for an opportunity to make application. He commented that the proposed regulation change seemed the most appropriate avenue to start the ball rolling, unrelated to the master plan.
Mr. Chalder explained that the proposed school is the first step in the large overall picture/master plan which the Commission has seen; he reiterated that the master plan could be complete in a couple of months.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels the proposed regulation change could be continued and reviewed at the same time as the proposed regulation changes for the entire master plan.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels the Commission would be more comfortable seeing the entire package at one time; the master plan is the driving force.
Brett Eisenlohr, Avon resident, asked what the tax implications would be for the proposed regulation change. Mr. Starr explained that tax matters cannot be considered by the Commission as they are not within the Commission’s jurisdiction; land use only. Mr. Eisenlohr noted his understanding and commented that this type of regulation change for a school could possibly have an impact on the tax payers.
Mr. Kushner suggested that the public hearing be continued. He commented that the basis of the master plan is almost complete but noted that Ensign Bickford must add details and define the mix of retail/restaurant/office/housing (i.e., how many units, how many square feet, etc.). He noted that design guidelines are critical (i.e., architecture, parking, building orientation, landscaping). He noted that he didn’t hear anyone say that it would be unlikely that a school would be approved as the first piece of a master plan but the Commission would like to feel more comfortable that it would work.
Mr. Chalder noted that the applicant feels that they have been patient while the Town has been preparing their study/planning but added that there is a defined academic calendar, which poses a challenge. He noted that the applicant feels that based on the discussions to date, the concept of a school in the subject location has merit. He noted that the Towpath School has enhanced the Town Center for many years; the proposed school is a similar type of use. Mr. Chalder commented that progress is being made and noted that he hopes many of the issues can be resolved by the Commission’s next meeting.
Ms. Keith agreed that everyone should work together on this plan but noted that after the first presentation of the master plan, the Commission was assured that a school was going to be moved out of this plan. She noted that she needs some time to digest the concept of not having a cap on the number of students.
Mrs. Clark noted that she needs to see all the pieces to the puzzle.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with changing the regulations for all the land located in the Industrial Park noting that it could create problems for years to come. He commented that a zone for mixed use in this area is what is needed.
Mr. Kushner explained that prior to the regulation change to allow the Montessori and CREC schools at 150 Fisher Drive there were no opportunities for schools in the Industrial Park zone. He commented that there were discussions at that time as to whether the industrial park was an appropriate location for a school and it was noted that 150 Fisher Drive is located on the periphery of the Park, acting as a transitional use to the single-family homes to the rear. He noted that because the Commission had some uncertainty as to whether a school at 150 Fisher Drive would be appropriate, a 3-year time limit was imposed on the initial approval for the Montessori School. He noted that the Montessori School would like to expand their space and occupy the entire building if CREC moves out.
Mrs. Griffin commented that if the proposed regulation change occurs, there is a lot of empty space in Avon Park South that could be utilized for schools.
Ms. Keith motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4512 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
App. #4513- Avon Properties, LLC, owner, Progressive Animal Wellness, LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit veterinary clinic, 56 East Main Street, Parcel 2140056, in a CS zone.
Present to represent this application was Corey Shagensky, DVM.
Dr. Shagensky noted that he currently practices at 9 Avonwood Drive and is proposing to open a small animal veterinary clinic at 56 East Main Street, The Fairway Shops. He commented that the business will be a 9 am to 6 pm clinic for small animals; he noted that a pet store is moving into the next space. He explained that there will not be any boarding of animals; the facility is for medical purposes only. He commented that if overnight care is needed, the animal would be transported to the emergency clinic at 9 Avonwood Road. Dr. Shagensky noted that a small grassed area outside the building will be policed twice daily for animal waste; a graveled area on the side of the building will be used to store bags needed for waste pickup. He noted that animals will be walked in the parking lot to
the rear of the building; these grassed areas will also be policed twice daily for cleanliness.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comment, Dr. Shagensky commented that the grassed areas will remain grassed.
Mr. Bonner noted his concerns with the restaurant on the other end of the building.
Robert Meyers, representing the owner of 56 East Main Street, noted that the owner of Max-a-Mia restaurant is fine with the proposed clinic. Attorney Meyers explained that the small grassed area in the front of the building is only for use when the animals are in their owner’s care, coming and going from the clinic. The grassed area in the back by the dumpsters will be used once the animals are inside and in the care of the clinic.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Dr. Shagensky noted that he would see approximately 18 patients per day in total and maybe 2/3 of the animals would be dogs. He explained that of that total, approximately 1/3 may urinate in the grassed area and a handful may defecate. He further explained that the stool will be analyzed as part of the medical work up.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4513 was closed.
App. #4514 - Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 2 rear lots, 85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone.
App. #4515 - Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision,
85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone.
Present to represent these applications were Robert Meyers, The Law Offices of Robert M. Meyers; William Ferrigno, owner; and Doug Ellis, PE, Buck & Buck LLC.
Attorney Meyers explained that the subject proposal requests a modification of the original approval for this site (App. #4487 approved July 20, 2010). He noted that it has been determined that the short public road initially proposed is not needed, as Mr. Kushner has indicated that it would serve a limited public purpose (2 lots). Mr. Meyers explained that the current proposal is to eliminate the proposed road and request 2 private driveways. He noted that a 5-foot waiver of the required 30-foot access is being requested. He further noted that a waiver of the rear lot area is also being requested; rear lots require double the land area of frontage lots. Mr. Meyers commented that the applicant’s preference is to construct 2 driveways out to Reverknolls but noted that if the Town prefers
it could be redesigned with only one curb cut. He noted that the common area of the driveway would be located on Town property (ROW).
Mr. Starr commented that the building lots are identical to what was originally approved but the access is being changed from a road to a driveway. Mr. Meyers concurred and added that the 2 lots are now a bit larger as they have gained the area that would have been taken up by the road.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that both strips of land, at the narrowest point, are 25-feet wide; there is room for landscaping between the proposed driveways. Mr. Starr noted that the Fire Marshal is asking for 12-foot wide paved drives.
Mr. Meyers noted that that could be done.
Mr. Meyers noted that the applicant is requesting that the Fire Marshal’s request for sprinklers not be imposed. He noted that an area for fire trucks to turn and pass has been provided.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4514 and #4515 was closed.
App. #4516 - Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G.4.a. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit construction of athletic field in the floodplain, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
App. #4517- Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4518 - Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct athletic field, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
Present to represent these applications were Richard Webb, RLA, LEED, AP, Clough, Harbor & Associates (CHA Companies), representing Avon Old Farms School; Brian Doyle , Athletic Director, AOFS; and Ted Brenner, Assistant Director of Facilities, AOFS.
Mr. Webb explained that the proposal is to convert an existing natural grass field (located inside the existing running track) to synthetic turf. He noted that the running track will not be disturbed except for the saw cutting needed for the construction of a trench drain. He noted that there are no wetlands closer than 500 feet and no clearing is proposed. He explained that top soil will be removed; borings have been done and the soil averages 12 inches deep in this area. He noted that the total soil removal will equate to approximately 3K cubic yards; the material will be hauled to the lower polo field area and be stabilized. Mr. Webb explained that the top soil will be reused for miscellaneous projects on campus. He noted that the drainage report has been reviewed by Town Staff.
He commented that the applicant would like to begin construction as soon as possible and finish as early as possible in the spring of 2011.
In response to Mr. Starr’s questions, Mr. Webb explained that there will be a reduction (290 CY) in the volume of material in the floodplain and floodway; the elevation of the field is being lowered slightly. He noted that the protective covering proposal will be reviewed with the Town Engineer.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4516 and #4517 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider all the public hearing items. Ms. Keith seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4510 - Gold Borg Associates, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.3.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 353 West Main Street, Parcel 4540353, in a CR zone.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve App. #4510 subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant submitted photos of a truck parked in the parking lot at 353 West Main Street at the public hearing held on November 16. The truck contains signage that says “Superior” and “Hot Tub Sale”. This truck shall be moved to a location that is not visible from Route 44. Failure to do so or the reappearance of this truck sign or anything similar in nature shall render this approval null and void.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
App. #4511- David Ford, owner, Jack Kemper, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 44 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044, in an RU2A zone.
Mr. Cappello motioned to approve App. #4511 subject to the following condition:
1. No impervious surfaces shall encroach into the 75-foot ridgeline setback area.
Mr. Starr noted that App. #4511 will not cause any negative impacts to the Traprock Ridge and meets the requirements of the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone Regulations.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4513- Avon Properties, LLC, owner, Progressive Animal Wellness, LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit veterinary clinic, 56 East Main Street, Parcel 2140056, in a CS zone.
Ms. Keith motioned to approve App. #4513. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the Staff agreed that it will be the landlord’s responsibility to police the site.
App. #4514 - Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 2 rear lots, 85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone.
App. #4515 - Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision,
85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve Apps. #4514 and #4515 subject to the following conditions:
1. A waiver of the requirement for rear lots to have twice the land area is granted.
2. A waiver to permit an access right-of-way of 25 feet instead of 30 feet is granted.
3. Staff Comments, dated November 16, 2010, from the Assistant Town Engineer shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
4. A driveway plan/detail shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4516 - Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G.4.a. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit construction of athletic field in the floodplain, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
App. #4517- Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
App. #4518 - Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct athletic field, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone.
Mr. Bonner noted his concerns with regard to earth removal and the trucks using Old Farms Road, as the road is very narrow. The Commission noted their agreement.
Mr. Kushner suggested a review by the Traffic Authority and added that it may be better if the School used their own roadways.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approved Apps. #4516, #4517, & #4518, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed covering to be using during flood season shall be reviewed and approved by Town Staff (Town Engineer??) to ensure that it is properly anchored.
2. Earth removal is estimated to be 3,000 cubic yards. A time schedule including truck routes shall be prepared and submitted to the Chief of Police for review and approval and, if necessary or preferred, Avon Old Farms School shall utilize their own/internal roadways.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4519 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, Midwood Management Corp, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct new retail building and expand parking lot with modifications to traffic circulation, Nod Brook Mall, 287 and 315 West Main Street, Parcels 4540287 and 4540315, in a CR Zone.
Present to represent this application were Kevin Cornell, Midwood Management Corp;
David Carson, OCC Design; Richard Brown, Moser, Pilon, Nelson Architects; Steve Showalter, Fresh Market; and Henry Thomas, LRC Group.
Mr. Cornell noted that several renovations/improvements have been made to the Nod Brook Mall in the last 15 years. He noted that it is believed that the current proposal meets the Town’s goals of promoting quality development for both use and architecture. He explained that a lot of effort has gone into trying to integrate the proposed building into the existing shopping center so it feels like an expansion rather than a separate parcel. The existing main driveway aisle that comes off of Route 44 is proposed to be removed and additional parking is proposed to be added. The entering traffic will be directed onto the “ring” road in an effort to more evenly distribute the parking throughout the site.
Mr. Carson displayed an as built plan of the subject site and noted that the northwest corner did not get renovated in 1998 with the rest of the plaza; the proposed plan for “Fresh Market” has been ongoing for the last 3 years. He explained that the proposed square footage and number of parking spaces (5/1,000 - Avon’s Regulation is 6/1,000) has been dictated by the Fresh Market. He noted that a traffic study was done for both existing and proposed conditions and for both internal and external (Route 44) traffic flow. He noted that reconfigurations of the entrance driveway are needed to address cueing problems and to improve internal plaza circulation; an STC permit is required. Mr. Carson noted that many alternatives were investigated to come up with the current proposed layout,
which is similar to an expansion layout considered in 1996. The main entrance drive will remain in the same location and all traffic will be funneled except vehicles entering Fresh Market as an end destination. All other cars will be encouraged to utilize the “ring” road and select an aisle. He noted that the “ring” road is for both pedestrian safety and customer convenience. He pointed out that the current traffic scenario/pattern in this plaza has cars traveling along the front of the plaza where pedestrians are typically found. He noted that all traffic patterns with a shopping center are learned habits. He noted that during construction entering traffic will be rerouted through the ring road so that by the time Fresh Market opens the plaza customers will be accustomed to the intended traffic patterns.
Mr. Carson discussed truck routing and noted that Fresh Market utilizes much larger trucks/tractor trailers than most stores because they have a limited number of deliveries.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Steve Showalter, new store development and construction for Fresh Market, explained that the large trucks generally come to the store 3 times a week, every other day. He noted that generally, deliveries are early in the morning before customers arrive. The smaller truck deliveries come, generally, 5 or 6 days a week.
Mr. Carson explained that the proposed site improvements contain designs to accommodate these larger trucks and added that more retailers in the future will be using these larger trucks. He noted that trucks coming from the east using the main entrance will utilize the ring road; deliveries to Fresh Market would cross the front and head into the loading dock area. The trucks servicing the existing building will continue to drive around to the rear of the site. Trucks coming from the west will be directed by signs to use the limited access entrance located on the east end of the project. The truck exiting route is essentially the same scenario in reverse; a truck utilizing Fresh Market’s loading dock would drive around the rear of the building, go straight out heading east along the ring road,
and exit heading west.
In response to comments from Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Carson explained that the driveway at the east end of the site is only for right-turn ins and right-turn outs; trucks needing to make a left turn into the site would enter utilizing the traffic light located at the west end of the parcel.
Mr. Starr commented that it appears that trucks may be coming at each other at the rear of the site. Mr. Carson noted that the existing truck routes will remain the same. The trucks for Fresh Market will go across the front of the site to be able to back into the loading dock. He noted that the area behind the building is more than wide enough to accommodate trucks in both directions.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Showalter noted that the large trucks would make deliveries at approximately 6 am. Ms. Keith commented that the bagel store is open at 6 am.
Mr. Cappello and Mrs. Primeau commented that the large trucks can drive in front of the stores but cars cannot. Mr. Carson noted that the truck deliveries are limited to a few times per week while there could be a few thousand cars.
Mrs. Primeau commented that cars will be allowed to drive in front of the proposed Fresh Market building but won’t be able to drive in front of the existing building. Mr. Carson noted that vehicles will not be prohibited from driving in front of the existing building but an attempt will be made to disperse the traffic. He commented that vehicles will be encouraged to take the logical route to the parking lot rather than driving in front of the building. Mr. Carson explained that most commercial tenants don’t want their deliveries during the busy customer time; the situation generally polices itself. He added that while no one wants it to happen, it is obvious that there are going to be times when a truck delivery occurs when a store is open.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with truck traffic (i.e., noise, odors) early in the morning, as the site is adjacent to residential properties.
Mr. Showalter explained that there are a number of Fresh Market stores that are located next to neighborhoods and noted that noise levels must be adhered to.
Mr. Starr commented that he would like information, for the next meeting, about separation distances from the adjacent properties and screening options. He asked that it be investigated for the next meeting how the truck traffic pattern might change if the restriction on the eastbound entrance/exit from right-turn only was eliminated and changed to an open entrance.
Mr. Cornell explained that in 1996 the STC didn’t want an unsignalized left-hand turn because vehicles are coming up a grade at that location while crossing two lanes. Mr. Starr noted that the more you try to prevent motorists from making left turns at that location, the more they try to do it. Mr. Cornell noted that Mr. Kushner has indicated that it is important to find ways to further discourage vehicles from making left-hand turns at that location.
Mr. Cappello left the meeting at 9:15 pm.
Ms. Keith suggested that pavement signage be utilized. Mr. Carson noted that there is a complete signage program. The Commission conveyed their concerns that vehicles will continue to follow the same driving patterns they always have regardless of the proposed signage.
Mr. Bonner inquired about fire truck routes. Mr. Carson noted that the fire truck routes work and it will be addressed.
Mr. Starr asked whether it has been considered to move the proposed Fresh Market building closer to Route 44 and locating the parking behind the building. Mr. Carson noted that just about every scenario over the last 3 years has been looked at. Mr. Cornell explained that if the building is moved closer to the road, the amount of parking is drastically reduced.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether the parking spaces could be angled at 90º. Mr. Cornell explained that suburban traffic wants two-way traffic and when angled parking is imposed it creates more of the odd vehicle movements that are trying to be avoided.
Ms. Keith suggested speed bumps.
Mr. Starr noted that the visual presentation of the proposed building is great but added that the parking and traffic still flow needs work.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposed building is at a higher level than the rest of the plaza. Mr. Cornell explained that a lot of effort has gone into making one shared parking field to allow people to shop at Fresh Market and then go to Marshall’s without driving, or vice versa.
Mr. Carson continued and noted that there are grading and erosion control measurements contained in the plans. He noted that comments from the Town Engineering Department will be addressed; a new drainage system is proposed to be tied into the existing drainage system. He explained that the existing water and fire service for the plaza will be relocated to the east side of the building.
Mr. Brown explained that the architecture of the proposed building has been tied to the architecture of the existing building. He noted that cement board siding will be utilized (looks like wood siding) but the building will primarily be masonry. He commented that the roof panels are proposed to be traditional dark green, which is used on many buildings in this area. The intent is for traditional New England architecture with a contemporary feel.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Showalter explained that the sign for the proposed building will be internally illuminated LED channel letters; the color is “Fresh Market” green.
Mr. Cornell noted that awnings are proposed near the main entrance with a seasonal seating area; a special exception application will be submitted for the next meeting. He noted that the information is already shown on the plans.
Mrs. Primeau asked how low the proposed building will sit as a result of the proposed elevation change. Mr. Carson explained that the existing grade differential on the west side of the site will be further spread out; a planted, decorative 4-foot high retaining wall is proposed between the sloped area of the driveway and the building. Mr. Cornell noted that the retaining wall will be visible from West Avon Pizza, as they currently do.
Mr. Starr addressed truck flow and asked if the trucks could come in, take a right in front of Fresh Market, and then travel around to the rear. Mr. Carson noted that the turns for that scenario are too difficult to make. Ms. Keith asked if the trucks could enter and go straight down, as the trucks have to back up anyway. Mr. Carson explained that one of the earlier plan iterations allowed the trucks to go straight through but noted that that scenario encourages the same traffic patterns that are currently ongoing today. He noted that the goal is a successful plaza with full occupancy and not necessarily to address a typical Monday at 10 am where there are 40 to 50 cars parked in front of Marshall’s and only 10 cars in the rest of the lot. He explained that the applicant is trying to
address a 500 to 600-car parking lot while trying to keep all those cars from making the same incorrect vehicle movements; it’s a learned experience.
Mr. Starr reiterated that he would like to see the option that proposes the building closer to Route 44 and Bailey Road with the parking behind it. He commented that it seems like there ought to be a way to make the traffic flow smoother. He pointed out that approximately 40% of the parking spaces on the east side of the site are never used, if not having enough parking for the entire mall is an issue.
Mr. Carson pointed out that one of the elements to the parking solution is providing 6 spaces per 1,000 (required under the Zoning Regulations)for Fresh Market. He noted that approximately 40 parking spaces are being added to the west end of the plaza. He explained that Fresh Market has indicated that they only need 5 spaces per 1,000. He further explained that a parking waiver would not address all the traffic issues on this site.
Mr. Cornell commented that the goal is to maximize the customer experience, not the delivery experience. It is possible to take east bound entering trucks through the main drive aisle and down through parking spaces if islands are shaved but this is the not traffic pattern hoped for. He noted that the preferred truck route it to the north, out of the parking field, and over to the east where it is quieter. He commented that the owners are invested in a shopping center that works properly. The proposed changes at the entrance would be done at a high expense; it is not something that would be undertaken lightly if there were a simpler solution. Mr. Cornell noted that the signalized entrance should never have been located where it is, it should have been moved further east.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that it would be difficult for a vehicle to exit this site at the signalized driveway and head west; you would be forced to go either straight or east due to car stacking in that area. Mr. Carson explained that this scenario would not occur with the proposed design. He went on to note that the reason that the “simple” plan doesn’t work is for cueing at the traffic light. The current design would never result in the subject traffic lane being cued/stacked to the point where it would create a problem for vehicles wanting to head west. Mr. Gackstatter noted that stacking problems sometimes occur at the Walmart plaza and asked that this issue be re-examined for the subject site.
Mr. Starr commented that maybe the center exit lane could also be a left-turn lane, so there could be 2 left turns like at Walmart. Mr. Carson noted that technical issues such as these will be reviewed by the STC.
Mr. Starr asked if the parking requirement was changed from 6 per 1,000 to 5 per 1,000 whether it would change the parking configuration. He asked whether there would be more flexibility with the building location in relation to the parking if the parking requirement was reduced.
Mr. Cornel reiterated that there have been numerous plan iterations and although it appears complicated at a first viewing, the current layout doesn’t ask people to learn a lot. Mr. Starr commented that he hopes the plan would work but added that he has some doubts as to whether motorists would actually follow the proposed internal traffic patterns.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Carson explained that he doesn’t know whether the larger truck (67 feet) could maneuver on the site as it exists today, but added that he knows it would work if the proposed site improvements were implemented. He added that he feels that the larger truck could probably maneuver on the site as it currently exists, as truck drivers can usually drive much better than what is indicated by computer-generated information. Ms. Keith noted her concerns about whether there is room for trucks backing up to the rear of the site. She asked, for the next meeting, that the nearby houses be located on the plan.
Mr. Cornell noted that while there is a mature canopy of trees on this site, a solid wood fence has been considered to lessen the impact to the homes located along the property line (Bailey Road).
Mrs. Griffin asked whether something could be added as a sound barrier. Mr. Cornell noted that he feels a solid wood fence would provide a sound barrier. Mr. Carson commented that he doesn’t feel there will be any adverse visual effect. He added that the existing retaining wall will be extended to a corner of the proposed building such that the top of a truck would be below the fence level.
Mr. Starr commented that the visual impacts are easy to address but the sounds from the trucks (i.e., safety back up, idling) need to be addressed.
Mr. Showalter, Fresh Market, explained that the stores are approximately 20K square feet in size with 2/3 of the products being perishable. He noted that things like cleaning supplies and toiletries are not sold. He commented that fresh produce, fresh fruit, meat, deli, bakery products, seafood, and some prepared and specialty foods are what draw people to this store.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Showalter noted that approximately 60% of the produce is organic; deliveries are 6 times per week.
Mr. Showalter explained that customer service is a large focus; there are no grocery carts in the parking lot. Normal operating hours are 9 am to 9 pm; there are no overnight operations (i.e., stocking, cleaning). The store is stocked early right before opening and an hour after the store closes all the lights go out.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Showalter noted that there will be a rotisserie cooking operation (with a ventilation hood and built in grease trap) located in the center of the store. He commented that a refrigeration room is located inside the store (in the back room) and is well insulated. There are rooftop units for heating and air conditioning.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Cornell explained that the rooftop units cannot be seen from the parking area or from Route 44.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Showalter noted that it is a full time job for a couple of the employees to find local food sources. Ms. Keith noted that she thinks Fresh Market is a good operation.
Mr. Showalter continued by noting that approximately 90 employees will be hired, most from the local area. Approximately 30 to 35 employees will be in the store at any given time.
Mr. Thomas addressed landscaping and distributed colored plans to the Commission. He noted that the intent is to make the new area compatible with the existing plaza with some enhancements. He explained that the dividing island will be simple and planted with low grasses for color and attention while keeping the visibility. The center arrival island will have one kind of tree, a tulip tree, with perennials below it. A cluster of birches is proposed at the end of the dividing island to create a perforated view and not a visual barrier. Mr. Thomas noted that the existing maples in the front of the site will remain; the large existing pine tree will also remain. Clusters of junipers are proposed for the parking lot side to grow 3 to 4 feet tall to provide some screening. A supplemental
plant hedge is proposed in the area on the western boundary where currently there is a row of tall evergreens; the hedge would provide screening at the 4 to 6 foot height. A fence is proposed adjacent to the residential area. He explained that care will have to be taken when installing the fence and the plantings to ensure that the existing trees are not harmed. Simple masses of evergreens are proposed for the western side of the proposed building. The east elevation has nice architectural detailing; trees are proposed to be complimentary only. A large but simple perennial bed is proposed along the base of the new building and above the retaining wall; junipers would be added to grow over the wall.
Mr. Cornell stated that the presentation is complete but noted that the traffic engineer, the electrical engineer, and the construction manager are present for questions.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about lighting, the electrical engineer noted that down lighting on poles is proposed. Mr. Cornell added that some building mounted lighting as well as some security lighting near the doors is proposed; no flood lights only down lighting.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter, Mr. Kushner noted that there is no crosswalk across Route 44 in this area but added that he recently contacted the Police Chief about it and asked him to contact the DOT. Mr. Kushner commented that the State could be asked about the possibility of extending the sidewalk/crosswalk to where the pedestrian button is located. He noted that he has asked the applicant to consider constructing a section of sidewalk along the portion of the frontage being redeveloped.
Mr. Cornell noted that he is agreeable to extending the sidewalk but noted that the actual location should be field located to ensure that the correct location is identified so that trees don’t need to be removed. Mr. Kushner concurred.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s question about snow removal. Mr. Cornell explained that no matter what precautions are made there seem to be problems. He added that periodically during the season the snow has to be removed from the site.
Mr. Bonner motioned to table App. #4519 to the next meeting, scheduled for December 14. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received approval from Messrs Bonner, Starr, and Thompson and Mesdames Clark, Griffin, and Keith.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on November 16, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4510 - Gold Borg Associates, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.3.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 353 West Main Street, Parcel 4540353, in a CR zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
App. #4511- David Ford, owner, Jack Kemper, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 44 Sky View Drive, Parcel 6060044, in an RU2A zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
App. #4513- Avon Properties, LLC, owner, Progressive Animal Wellness, LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.D.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit veterinary clinic, 56 East Main Street, Parcel 2140056, in a CS zone. APPROVED.
App. #4514- Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 2 rear lots, 85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
App. #4515 - Sunlight Construction, Inc., owner/applicant, request for 2-lot resubdivision, 85 Chidsey Road, Parcel 1780085, in an RU2A zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
App. #4516- Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.G.4.a. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit construction of athletic field in the floodplain, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
App. #4517- Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section III.H. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit earth removal, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
App. #4518- Avon Old Farms School, Inc., owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to construct athletic field, 500 Old Farms Road, Parcel 3360500, in an EL Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
Dated at Avon this 17th day of November, 2010. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
