The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town on Tuesday, December 14, 2010. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Marianne Clark and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Christian Gackstatter. Messrs. Bonner and Gackstatter sat for the meeting. Absent were Linda Keith, David Cappello, and Edward Whalen. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the November 16, 2010, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, 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 hearing was continued from November 16.
Mr. Kushner represented the applicant and noted that the newly staked sign location is lower to the ground than the original staked location. He explained that the Police Chief has indicated that the newly staked location is better than the original proposed location but noted that the Police Chief still has concerns about the possibility of the sign blocking the sightline. Mr. Kushner noted that the Police Chief further indicated that pulling the sign further back may at some point help the situation but moving the sign too far back may negate the purpose of the sign, which is to provide direction from Route 44. Mr. Kushner noted that both he and the Police Chief agree that a better solution would be to try to partner with either the Tri-Town Plaza sign or the Farmington Bank sign. He noted that
Tri-Town Plaza has recently indicated that they would like to reface their detached sign.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4507 was closed.
App. #4512 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to the Industrial Park Zone.
The hearing was continued from November 16.
Present to represent this application were Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics, representing the applicant; Andy DiFatta and August Jasminski, Ensign Bickford Realty, applicant; Robert Stevens, Stevens Land Architecture; Roger LaFleur, Bruce Douglas, and Denise Gallucci, Capital Region Education Council (CREC); and Jeff McKenzie, Evans & Dew, a retail development firm.
Mr. Chalder submitted a summary page of the proposed regulation changes. He explained that Ensign Bickford has been working with the Town for some time on the creation of a master plan for Avon Park North. He noted that a lot of time has been spent with Town Staff and Town consultants, since the November meeting, on specifics for the master plan concept. He explained that information pertaining to square footage and intensity of development has been collected but despite all the progress that has been made it will still be several months before a new regulatory structure exists to accommodate the master plan for Avon Park North. Mr. Chalder noted that this is the reason why a modification to the IP Zone regulations has been requested. He noted that town centers are more successful if a range
of uses exist (i.e., retail, office, residential) and added that civic uses are one example. He explained that while there are a large variety of uses for retail, office, and residential to pick from there are only a few civic uses available at any given point in time. Mr. Chalder noted that the Town currently has an opportunity to incorporate a civic use into the proposed center development. He noted that the subject application involves a text change to the Regulations and would not approve any specific development but would allow the applicant to move forward. He noted that timing is important as there is a defined timeline for an academic calendar. Mr. Chalder noted that additional language has been added to the proposed regulation text change to address the Commission’s concerns regarding the location of the proposed school (i.e., there must be frontage on 2 collector roads and located with 1,000 feet of a traffic signal and a cap on school
size).
Mr. Starr noted that the Commission is concerned how the proposed school site would interact with the remaining proposed development and added that there was also concern as to whether the school should even be looked at until the overall master plan is available. He asked to see what is available to date for the conceptual master plan.
Mr. Chalder referenced a document entitled “Avon Village Center - Preliminary Concept”, dated December 10, 2010, and noted that this plan has evolved over several years and is the culmination of the applicant’s viewpoint for the potential development of all the different components of Avon Park North as a town center. He noted that the goal is to create a pedestrian-friendly environment with a number of mixed uses. Mr. Chalder commented that there will have to be a use that goes first and while the area is zoned Industrial Park, an industrial use is not likely to be first. He added that the first use may end up being one of the potential uses identified in the study, which will be different than what is permitted under current zoning for this area. He noted that the applicant
feels that the regulatory structure would work well, given the discussions with the Town and its consultants, but added that it will be several months until the new regulations are in place.
Mr. Starr clarified that the Commission is being asked to review whether they would be in favor of increasing the number of students permitted in a school in the Industrial Park Zone. He further clarified that a school in the IP zone requires a special exception application and is not permitted by right. He noted that currently up to 250 students are permitted and the request is to change the cap to 480 students.
Mr. Douglas, Executive Director of the Capital Region Education Council (CREC), noted that one of his functions is to serve the Town of Avon for any educational needs that CREC could provide. He noted that CREC very much wants to locate a school in Town, as Avon is an excellent place to educate children from all areas. He explained that he has 41 years of experience in education and CREC now operates 13 schools (magnet and charter). He noted that many of the magnet schools are located in Hartford and added that “The Learning Corridor” (home of 4 magnet schools) is located in an area that was once one of the worst neighborhoods in Hartford. He commented that there are approximately 900 students on this campus and the students range in age from 2 ½ years old through the
5th grade. Mr. Douglas noted that there are many commercial businesses that exist around this school and children are transported back and forth safely every day; high security exists but has not been necessary. He explained that, currently, there are no children that attend the Reggio Emilio program in Avon that walk to school; all children are transported. Mr. Douglas concluded by asking that the request to locate a school in Avon be considered, as there is no better place in the Capital Region.
Mr. Gackstatter asked about time frames/schedules for opening the proposed school and whether other locations are being considered. He questioned whether the proposed changes to the Regulations will move ahead quick enough to allow a school to be built in the necessary time frame.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Douglas explained that the proposed school is one of four schools that CREC was asked to open 3 years ago by the State of Connecticut (Sheff vs. O’Neill). He noted that CREC opened 4 schools one year between April and September and added that it was the first time that the State had ever made its goals. He commented that all the schools went into leased spaces, as there were no buildings but, currently, building sites are being investigated. He noted that the enrollment is growing each year and there will not be enough space for the students in the school’s current location (Fisher Drive) by September 2013; a new school must be constructed and ready to open by September 2013.
Mr. Gackstatter asked when building construction must begin in order to be complete by September 2013. He further questioned if there are alternative sites being considered if Avon doesn’t work out.
Mr. Douglas explained that CREC is looking at other sites. Mr. LaFleur explained that the proposed school is in the design phase currently and added that the design process can take 8 to 10 months; the design process cannot proceed until the site is known. He noted that the drop dead date is September 2013 and, therefore, there are only a couple of months of leeway.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Douglas explained that CREC would have to know by February 2011 whether a good opportunity exists to locate a school in Avon. If not, other sites that are currently being looked at will be aggressively investigated. He noted his appreciation that Avon may be able to work with CREC and that possibly a school could be ready by 2014 but added that CREC has a responsibility to its students and their families; he reiterated that September 2013 is the drop dead date for an Avon location.
Mr. Douglas explained that other sites in nearby communities are being investigated but there is already a constituency in this area and CREC has made a commitment to them, so the school won’t be located too far away. He added that distance is also an issue with regard to transportation and bussing needs. He reiterated that September 2013 is a “hard” date and added that there is no alternative site that is a certainty; however, there is one site that CREC thinks they might be able to get into by 2013. Mr. Douglas explained that CREC is in a tough spot from the State mandated order because the State did not apply for the school construction grant until a year after the Sheff decision.
Mr. Bonner noted that he doesn’t have a problem with a school in the proposed location but added that he does have a problem with the relationship between the school and the other uses that may be constructed as part of the master plan. He commented that there will be a lot of parking, buildings, and pedestrian activity in the area along with bus traffic. In response to Mr. Bonner’s question, Mr. Douglas noted that a maximum of 20 buses are expected for the proposed school; currently 8 to 10 buses are used. Mr. Bonner commented that if the proposed school didn’t have to be part of the whole complex it might be acceptable.
Mr. Starr clarified that the only issue, right now, before the Commission is whether to adopt a regulation change for schools in the IP zone to allow an increase in the number of students from 250 to a maximum of 480. He added that the special exception criteria would govern an application submitted for a school in the IP zone.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she is not against the proposed school being located in Avon but noted that she is against such a school being located in an Industrial Park zone. She noted that there are already traffic flow problems on Route 44 and Route 10. She commented that she feels a school in this area would be a detriment to the remaining development potential of the industrial park; many industrial uses would not want to have a school for a neighbor. Mrs. Griffin stated that she doesn’t feel this is the right place for a school.
Mrs. Clark noted her support for Mrs. Griffin’s comments and added that she is concerned with the increase in traffic.
Mr. Starr explained that if a special exception application for a school were submitted a review for traffic would be required to see what the impact would be in comparison to what the traffic impact would be for a permitted use (office) in the industrial park zone.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the Town has paid for road infrastructure to create an industrial park and noted that there are already 2 schools located in the Industrial Park zone. She questioned what would happen to the Town’s industrial zone if a third school were added
Mr. Starr noted that land use is the issue and explained that if a regulation change occurs and a special exception application for a school is submitted, issues like traffic and road adequacy would have to be reviewed in comparison to uses (i.e., office buildings) that would be allowed by right in the Industrial Park zone; a judgment would have to be made.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with amending the Regulations and adding specific language for schools in the Industrial Park Zone, as it could create unforeseen problems in the future. He asked how the proposed regulation changes would help limit the location of the proposed school.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comments/questions, Mr. Chalder explained that the subject site is currently located in the Industrial Park zone and added that this is the area affected by the proposed regulation changes. He further explained that 6 months from now it is possible that the subject area may no longer be located in an Industrial Park zone. He noted that the goal is not to eliminate the existing industrial parks in Town but rather to create a mixed-use town center development that currently doesn’t exist. Mr. Chalder noted that if the new regulations needed for the proposed mixed-use development were closer to being ready, there would not be a need for a regulation change. He commented that the proposed amendment language has been revised to note that there are 4 collector
roads and 2 arterial roads in proximity to the subject site. He added that when noting the location of the traffic signals in proximity to the collector/arterial roads there are only 2 sites that fit this criterion. He noted that the current location of the CREC facility (150 Fisher Drive) is located outside the 1,000 foot range; the only sites included are located on the corner of Climax and Bickford Drive and 20 Security Drive in Avon Park South. Mr. Chalder noted that no other school in Avon benefits from being located proximate to two State highways and four collector roads and the access that such a location provides. He noted that if the proposed school were to be established in another town, the traffic could still affect/impact the Town of Avon depending on the location.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that he is not opposed to a school in the proposed location but added that he believes a lot of planning and detail are required beforehand. He commented that once the school is located it may limit the use options for adjacent land areas. He conveyed his concerns with the proposed rezoning of the area and the possibility, down the road, that a different location for the school will be decided upon after Ensign Bickford has spent considerable funds creating their master plan. He added that he doesn’t feel that all the questions have been answered.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comments, Mr. Chalder noted that he feels it is unlikely that the school location will change, as a tremendous amount of planning has already gone into creating the overall concept/master plan for the Park. He pointed out that the study done by the Town’s consultant mirrors much of what is being proposed by Ensign Bickford for a configuration of uses.
Mr. Jasminski explained that the proposed school location has been reviewed in detail. He noted that a CREC school is different than a traditional town school in that it attracts students from a larger area; a regional school. He commented that it is important to have this type of school in a centrally-located transportation area, such as Avon Center. He further explained that the school is intentionally proposed on a specific site, as it would be located next to a proposed retail area. Mr. Jasminski noted that typically retail opens after school is open, after the busses have gone through. Schools let out at approximately 2 pm, after lunch but before people leave work for the day; traffic peaks are generated at different times during the day to support mixed uses. He noted that office
parks would typically be designed around larger collector roads because everyone, for the most part, arrives at a certain time and leaves at a certain time. He commented that a mixed-use development creates mixed traffic throughout the day. He noted that all town centers need an anchor and the proposed school is just that. Mr. Jasminski explained that the proposed school is not a fleeting idea bur rather has been studied for some time. He commented that Ensign Bickford feels the school is a good fit in the proposed location and that they won’t be coming back to ask for a change in location.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his understanding of Mr. Jasminski’s comments but added that he feels that more details are needed because once the school is there it may control future adjacent uses.
Mr. Jasminski stated that suburban towns, typically, use schools as a transitional use between residential and commercial zones. An active adult community (Forest Mews) currently exists on Climax Road across from the proposed school site; housing for empty nesters and singles is proposed for the area located on the other side of the proposed school site.
Mr. Starr referenced the proposed regulation text change and suggested that the only revision should be for the number of students permitted. He noted that all other details would be reviewed under the Special Exception criteria. He added that it is his understanding that the Town’s consultants will be presenting information on the proposed regulations for the entire area at the Commission’s January meeting.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. LaFleur stated that once ground is broken the school could be completed in 14 months. Mr. Chalder noted that construction would have to begin by May of 2012 in order for the school to be ready by September 2013. Mr. LaFleur noted that there is also the design review process (approximately 6 months) and the State also conducts a full review of the project, which takes 3 months. He added that bidding takes a couple of months; a total of 5 months of regulatory processes. Mr. Kushner commented that there are many other constraints aside from the creation of a new village district/zone. Mr. LaFleur concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether CREC can locate the school someplace else if the timelines in Avon cannot be met. Mr. LaFleur explained that if the school doesn’t open in 2013 it will result in an almost catastrophic situation; there will be financial impacts to the families. The school is already in session in 2 locations and cannot accommodate additional students.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment, Mr. Douglas stated that CREC is not going to locate a school in the wrong place; a good decision will be made whether or not the school is located in Avon. He noted that the best interests of the children and their families will be considered; a commitment has been made. Mr. Douglas noted his clear understanding of Mr. Gackstatter’s comments but added that any risk involved is CREC’s decision to make; it is understood that everything is a calculated risk. He noted his full appreciation and understanding that the Commission is looking out for the best interests of both the Town and CREC. Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns that while the proposed location may work well for CREC, it may not work well for the Town.
Mr. Starr explained that there are a lot of pieces that have to come together but tonight’s mission is only to consider a text amendment to the Regulations which would allow the applicant to submit a special exception application for a school.
Mr. Kushner summarized by noting that a new set of Zoning Regulations needs to be adopted for the “village district” to allow/promote mixed uses. He noted that once this happens, the Industrial Park zone, as it currently exists, would no longer exist; it would be a village district zone. Once the new regulations are in place, the applicant would submit a detailed master plan. He commented that the Commission will want to see enough detail in the master plan to offer a level of comfort that all the proposed pieces fit together. Mr. Kushner noted that a Special Exception application must accompany the master plan submission. He explained that individual site plans for each area of proposed development would be the third step.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether verbiage for the “village district” will be included. Mr. Kushner noted that language would be included. He explained that the first step is the adoption of the new regulations; the second step is submission by Ensign Bickford of a Special Exception application for acceptance of a detailed master plan; and the third step is the submission of individual site plans (i.e., housing, school, retail, etc). Mr. Kushner noted that it appears that everyone agrees that if timing were not an issue that this would be the best course to follow to ensure a comfort level for all.
Mr. DiFatta explained that alternative sites within the park were looked at; the area near the pond was considered early on. He noted that there are now ongoing discussions with an office building user that might be interested in locating near the pond, which is viewed as the focal point of the whole town center. He commented that the proposed school fits nicely in the corner and the applicant is not sure they want it to take up the pond area that could have better potential for offices/residential/restaurants. He noted that anchor tenants are very important and added that the proposed school would generate a significant traffic volume to the Park each day; possibly better than some stores could bring in. He commented that Ensign Bickford is willing to wait on the retail segment until the master
plan is finalized but noted that alternate sites for the school inside the Park have been investigated. It has been determined that the subject site is the best location. It is not the focal point of the whole community but is a nice fit. Mr. DiFatta commented that the Town’s consultants agree that the proposed school site would work as part of the village center. He noted that there is approximately 1M square feet of space to be developed; there is ample space for office buildings as well as the proposed school. He pointed out that he doubts any industrial buildings/uses will arise, as this area is not industrial. He concluded by noting that Ensign Bickford is really trying to create a town center. He noted his appreciation of the Commission’s time and offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with locating a school next to an active adult community (55+) for noise reasons and asked whether Ensign Bickford is open to the idea of moving the school to another location. Mr. DiFatta noted that Ensign Bickford is familiar with housing for adults 55 and older, as there are some under construction right now in Simsbury (The Powder Forest). He added that while there are people that are not crazy about children there are many more who love children. He noted that the school area will be fenced; children will be contained and won’t be running across Climax Road.
Ben Colman, 37 Tamara Circle, noted his understanding of the process but pointed out that the high school is located on a busy road with a liquor store, funeral home, and restaurants nearby. He noted that a car wash and Walmart were approved for Route 44, which generates traffic on Route 44. He asked how this proposal is different from the uses already approved.
Mr. Starr explained that such a discussion is premature and added that as soon as a detailed application for a school is received issues such as traffic and road adequacy will be reviewed.
Saguna Chunduri, 18 Alcott Way, noted that she is a board member for the Coalition of Citizens for Avon. She read the following message: “The concerned citizens for Avon urge Town officials to work swiftly with the Capital Region Education Council to identify a suitable site for construction of the new Reggio Magnet School so it can remain here in Avon. The Reggio Magnet School is a tremendous asset to our Town; it provides educational choices for Avon children and opportunities for learning in a more diverse student setting. In addition, the opening of its building and activities and grounds gives our school district more of a sister approach. The summer school and professional development sessions to Avon residents will benefit our community at large.”
Peggy Roell, Avon resident, noted that there has been some concern for the proposed regulation change to allow up to 480 students (the current regulation permits up to 250 students). She pointed out that the current elementary schools in Avon house between 587 students and 631 students; 480 students is 1/3 less. She added that the size of the proposed school building is approximately 60K square feet and noted that the existing elementary schools are between 75K and 95K square feet in size. Ms. Roell noted that all the CREC buildings are beautiful and added that the proposed school would be a great asset for Avon.
Laura Young, 57 Hitchcock Lane, commented that she hopes that if the current proposed location is found to be inappropriate, that the Town will work with CREC and Avon Public Schools to find a suitable location in order to keep this school in Town. Ms. Young read a letter from Susan Davey, 11 Edwards Road: “As founder of the Unplugged Learning Project I urge Town officials to support CREC in its efforts to find a suitable building site for the Reggio Magnet School. The Reggio Magnet School is a unique asset to Avon and promotes the principles of unplugged learning through its experiential pedagogy and dynamic curriculum. Every effort must be made to keep it here in Town. The Reggio School provides Avon and area children with educational choice and the opportunity for learning in a
cultured, diverse environment. Its benefits to the community extend far beyond the school children; its proposed buildings and grounds would be open to the public enhancing and expanding the Town’s usable space. Its extracurricular activities, summer school, and professional development instruction would relieve stress on our schools and provide opportunities for many in the community. I hope you will join me and countless other supporters in ensuring that the Reggio Magnet School remains a part of the Avon Community”.
Al Piehl, 79 Carriage Drive, stated that his son has downs syndrome and noted that his attendance at the Reggio Magnet School has made a huge difference. Mr. Piehl noted that his son has progressed far beyond his dreams.
Mary Marinello, 87 Meadow Ridge, noted her support for an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to allow the proposed CREC School. She conveyed her concern that if an approval is not granted Avon may lose their chance for this school, which could bring educational and business opportunities to Town.
Barbara Zuras, resident of 428 Deercliff Road and Board of Education member, commented that she is aware of Ensign Bickford’s proposal for housing in Avon Center as part of their master plan and noted her concerns that this housing could attract individuals with children that could, in turn, impact school enrollment in Town and the possible need for another school. She commented that CREC is prepared to build a school in Avon and added that she feels the Town should work with CREC. She stated that the Reggio program not only provides social justice but could also provide enrollment relief for Avon and eliminate the need to search for another public school site. Ms. Zuras asked that the whole picture and all the impacts be considered.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4512 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Griffin motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4507 and #4512. Mrs. Clark seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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.
Mr. Starr noted that the Police Chief has reviewed the proposal sign to be located in the driveway island located between Tri-Town Plaza and The Farmington Bank and has determined that the sign would cause sightline disturbances. Mr. Starr added that the Commission suggests that the applicant work with one of the abutting property owners to see if identification for 302 West Main could be added to the either the sign for 320 West Main (Tri-Town Plaza) or the sign for 310 West Main (Farmington Bank).
Mrs. Griffin motioned to deny, without prejudice, App. #4507. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
App. #4512 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to the Industrial Park Zone.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels that the only change to the Regulations should involve the number of students permitted; all other language should remain as is. He noted that, currently, the cap is 250 students and the request is to raise it to 480. He commented that this change would allow the submission of a Special Exception application for a school in the Industrial Park zone. Mr. Starr explained that if an application is received, the Commission would review all the special exception criteria to see if the proposal is appropriate for the location, the traffic, the roads, etc.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concern that the change to the Industrial Park zone regulation will remain once it is changed. Mr. Starr explained that it would be okay to leave the revised language in the Regulations because any school proposed in the Industrial Park zone is not permitted by right and is subject to special exception criteria that requires review by the Commission.
Mr. Kushner commented that a scenario could exist such that the proposal for a school occurs before the approval and adoption of the new regulations needed for the master plan for Avon Center. He noted that while this is not the best scenario, if it happened that way the Commission could require that the school be incorporated into the master plan and that the school site be rezoned.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns for setting a precedent that could cause a problem in the future.
Mr. Starr noted that it is important for the Commission to always document their findings when reviewing the criteria for a special exception use. He commented that adding too much language/detail to a regulation sometimes limits the Commission’s flexibility.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve the language modification for App. #4512, as follows:
Schools, generally not to exceed 250 480 students
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gackstatter, received approval from Messrs. Thompson, Starr, Gackstatter, and Bonner. Voting in opposition to approve App. #4512 were Mesdames Griffin and Clark. The effective date of the amendment is December 22, 2010.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4521 - Golf Club of Avon, owner/ applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to erect safety nets at driving range, 160 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940160, in an ROS Zone.
Present to represent this application was Ryan Hall, head golf professional, representing the Golf Club of Avon.
Mr. Hall noted that the height of the poles for the safety nets is being increased.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve App. #4521. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner received unanimous approval.
App. #4522 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to move existing fueling station and eliminate underground fuel tanks, Public Works Facility, 11 Arch Road, Parcel 1090011, in an I Zone.
Mr. Kushner noted that the proposed activities are part of a 5-year plan; the State has mandated that the tanks be replaced. He explained that there are 3 underground fuel tanks located on the west side of the building that will be removed and 2 new fuel tanks will be located above ground on the east side of the building.
Mr. Bonner motioned to approve App. #4522. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
OUTSTANDING APPLICATION
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., applicant; Ken Pilon, Moser Nelson Pilon Architects; David Carson, OCC Design; James Bubaris, Bubaris Traffic Associates; Richard Pearson, John Meyer Consulting, PC; Eric Johnson, Fresh Market; and Henry Thomas, LRC Group.
This application was tabled from November 16.
Mr. Cornell noted that since the last meeting the project team has been working to address the concerns of both the Commission and the Staff. He noted that internal traffic circulation has been reviewed to look for ways for improvement; a second traffic engineer was hired to perform a traffic study.
Mr. Pearson stated that he is a certified traffic operations engineer and noted that John Meyer Consulting was involved with the traffic study for Boston Market in Avon and has performed hundreds of traffic studies. He commented that the traffic study done by Bubaris Associates was reviewed and the information was incorporated into his study. Mr. Pearson displayed a virtual traffic simulation/animation showing the site driveway and Route 44 and noted that the analysis conditions include weekday peak pm highway hours (4:30 to 5:30) and peak Saturday midday hour. He explained that the simulation indicates vehicles per hour and shows both eastbound and westbound traffic. He noted that the projected traffic for Fresh Market has been conservatively projected; no credit was taken for pass-by traffic and
the interplay between the existing shopping center and the proposed Fresh Market. Mr. Pearson noted that it is the opinion of John Meyer Consulting that vehicles should be allowed to travel from the existing shopping center parking area into the Fresh Market parking area; he commented that this would be a relatively low-volume vehicle movement.
Mr. Gackstatter expressed his concerns with cueing/stacking for cars heading westbound out of the site. He noted a similar situation at the Walmart plaza where a second west-bound lane was added.
Mr. Starr commented that the Town Engineer has recommended that the center lane be for both straight and left turns; there would be three lanes with two left-turn lanes.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if there was a backup plan if the proposed plan doesn’t work.
Mr. Pearson explained that there are a variety of options and added that there is signaled timing; there are no substantial delays on Route 44. He noted that there are loop detectors on the side streets that determine the signalized green time needed on Route 44. He commented that the signal timing can be adjusted; the applicant is working with the State DOT.
Mr. Starr asked whether traffic projections for holiday time have been reviewed and whether the stacking lane can accommodate the additional load.
Mr. Pearson acknowledged that the traffic gets heavier during the holidays and noted that there may be times when some delays are experienced. He commented that 99% of the time the proposed internal traffic circulation pattern would function properly without any significant delays.
Mr. Starr commented that most likely if the traffic circulation is not functioning properly the patrons will complain.
Mr. Cornell commented that the property owner is the largest stakeholder in whether this shopping center operates properly. He noted that the owner is highly confident that the proposed internal circulation will work, as a significant investment is being made with this belief in mind. He explained that the owner is more than willing to hire John Meyer Consulting a year from now to perform an additional traffic study to ensure that everything is working properly and to make changes if it is not functioning optimally. Mr. Cornell noted that the owner would certainly address any issues brought to their attention by the Town.
Mr. Bonner commented that he feels the proposed traffic pattern is a nightmare. He noted that individuals with limited driving skills will be crashing into each other and not know which direction to go. He asked whether the traffic pattern could remain as it does today. He commented that the proposed pattern is too complex but doesn’t need to be.
Mr. Cornell explained that there isn’t enough room between Fresh Market and Route 44 for the exiting traffic; there isn’t enough room to maintain the existing driveway aisle design. He commented that the exiting traffic would block the incoming vehicles.
Mr. Pearson explained that the entrance might seem complex but the entering traffic only has one decision point, as they must either take a right to go to Fresh Market or take a left to go to the shopping mall. He commented that the traffic would very often be repeat customers; after one trip the drivers would have a feel for the layout of the parking lot. Mr. Pearson also noted that signage is proposed to clarify circulation patterns and follow-up studies will be conducted. He noted that the pattern for exiting traffic is not unlike a modern-day roundabout and, much of the time, there would be no opposing traffic for vehicles exiting Fresh Market. He reiterated that it is believed that the proposed layout will operate well and added that it could be monitored and tweaked as necessary.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Pearson explained that the traffic simulation shows cars utilizing both driveway exits heading in an easterly direction. He further explained that the traffic study projections were used to show a certain percentage of exiting traffic coming out of Fresh Market utilizing the main driveway and another percentage utilizing the driveway located on the east side of the site. Mr. Gackstatter noted his concerns with cueing/stacking issues at the main/signalized exit. Mr. Pearson reiterated that the hope is that as motorists get accustomed to the circulation layout that they will realize that the easiest eastbound movement is via the unsignalized right in, right out drive.
In response to questions from Mary Markow, Avon resident, about directional signage upon entering the site, Mr. Cornell commented that the entrance driveway is wide enough for two lanes but is only striped for one lane; he noted that the striping is controlled by the State DOT.
Mr. Pearson explained that there will be a sign at the island directing people to the Fresh Market that will be clearly visible upon entering the site.
Mr. Carson addressed proposed signage and noted that a directional sign for Fresh Market will be placed at the tip of the entrance island. Once past this sign, a merging traffic from the right sign is proposed and then there is free access to the rest of the parking area. He noted that exiting traffic, regardless of what direction it originates from, will encounter stop signs and stop bars. He commented that one-way and two-way traffic signs will be posted. He added that directional signs for Route 44 east and west would be posted at the exits. Mr. Carson explained that the project team is aware that the proposed traffic circulation pattern, at a first glance, is very confusing but added that it has significant improvements over the existing traffic patterns. He noted that the current
traffic pattern has cars following each other, crossing pedestrian walkways, trying to find a parking space. He explained that the proposed circulation pattern is the way a shopping plaza is supposed to work; the first car travels down the first lane and the second car automatically travels to the second lane. He commented that the traffic gets spread out and evenly distributed in the parking lot; aggressive driving becomes less of a problem than the existing setup because drivers are not competing for the same lane and parking spot. Mr. Carson explained that the existing center island near Marshall’s causes most of the present problems, as it creates a segmented parking area where everyone wants to park. The island has been moved over to isolate one row of parking for customers who know they will be shopping at both Marshalls and Fresh Market; there is no competition with traffic exiting the plaza. He addressed the right in, right out driveway
located at the east end of the site and noted that an attempt has been made to make the island wider to discourage illegal turning movements. Mr. Carson explained that the proposal is to provide multiple curb widths to accommodate tractor trailers but narrow the driveway to accommodate vehicles.
Mr. Cornell commented that Bubaris Traffic Associates will try to work out a geometry that is acceptable to the State Traffic Commission (STC) to address the illegal left-hand turn issue.
Mr. Starr inquired about the Fire Chief’s comments regarding turning difficulties near Marshalls. In response, Mr. Cornell noted that a template showing vehicles larger than a fire truck making all the necessary turns was provided to the Fire Chief.
Mr. Cornell noted that the lighting engineer, landscape architect, and building architect are present for any questions the Commission may have.
Mr. Starr commented that the Town Staff could review the lighting, landscape, and architectural details and report back to the Commission.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concerns about tractor trailer trucks idling alongside the building early in the morning. In response, Mr. Cornell explained that Fresh Market has control over the larger tractor trailer trucks and indicated that these trucks will be turned off during loading and unloading. He noted that this procedure may not be possible for the smaller panel trucks. He explained that the entire rear of the plaza sits over many acres of wetlands; there is no one within close proximity and an idling area could be setup, if necessary. He added that the area would be monitored if idling occurred.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner commented that it would be difficult to police idling trucks on private property, as there are no Town Ordinances that address this type of activity. He noted that the business owner and the landlord would be responsible to ensure compliance.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Cornell explained that there is a mature tree canopy between the proposed building and the adjacent residential area. He noted that the proposal is to add shadow-box fencing, which works better with difficult grades and tree lines.
Mr. Pilon displayed a drawing of the proposed building and explained that the proposed retaining wall will be built out of the same material as the base of the building. He noted that the trash enclosure area would be completely screened.
Eric Johnson, Fresh Market, explained that trash pickup is twice a week. A grease recycle bin would be located in the back far corner and pickup would be approximately once a month. He noted that there would be a primary deli located in the center of the store and two small ovens.
Mr. Cornell explained that there would not be a high volume of grease generation.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern, Mr. Johnson explained that the grease recycle bins are completely covered and self-contained. He noted that the store would be tightly policed; store management oversees everything. The trash is compacted and not stored in open dumpsters.
In response to Mr. Starr’s questions, Mr. Johnson noted that trash pickup and deliveries occur before the store opens, typically between 6 am and 8 am. The trash pickup is normally 3 to 4 times a week. Mr. Starr commented that, generally, all deliveries would occur before any of the stores in the mall open, with the exception of the bagel store. Mr. Johnson concurred.
Mr. Cornell commented that he doesn’t feel delivery trucks running in front of the bagel store would be an impediment but added that the trucks can make the necessary movements from behind the existing building if the Commission deemed it necessary.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Johnson explained that no motorized pallets are used; everything is hand operated.
Mr. Thomas, landscape architect, noted that there have been no substantial changes from the originally submitted landscape plan other than changes/adjustments needed in response to some of the island reconfigurations. He noted that the proposed shadow-box fencing would be located above the existing retaining wall, resulting in approximately 8 to 10 feet from the pavement to the top of the fence. He explained that the shoulders of the islands have been designed in a way to avoid damage.
Mr. Kushner noted that the applicant would like input from the Commission regarding the proposed driveway that would allow two-way movements from the parking lot into Fresh Market. He added that the Town Engineer and the Police Chief have indicated their reservations about a two-way driveway. He explained that Town Staff recommends that the driveway be limited to one-way traffic movements.
Mr. Starr noted his concerns with one-way movements because motorists will often engage in two-way movements, regardless. He noted that he would prefer to have the area marked for two-way traffic, as many motorists will likely use it that way.
Mr. Cornell noted his appreciation for the Staff’s concerns with two-way traffic but added that there is an opportunity, if a problem should arise, to extend the curb line and add some additional plantings.
Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Engineer has indicated that if the driveway were to be one-way, it would not be constructed as currently shown on the plans, as it is designed for two-way traffic.
Mr. Starr noted his concern that even if the driveway is made narrower for one-way traffic, motorists will still tend to use it for two-way movements. He noted that he would rather see a two-way drive lane.
Mr. Starr requested that Mr. Kushner work with the applicant to resolve various issues before the next meeting.
Mr. Cornell commented that the project team will meet with Town Staff before the next meeting to address outstanding issues and expressed his appreciation to the Commission for their time. He noted that the hope is to break ground by this coming spring.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to table App. #4519 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Appraisal for 70 Talcott Notch Road - Markow/Secor - PZC App. #4218
Mary Markow and Eric Secor, owners, were present.
Mr. Starr stated that the appraised market value is $275,000, based upon the pre-approved subdivision. He noted that there is no provision for the Commission to accept a reduced appraisal amount ($220,000) based on a “quick sale” approach. He commented that the only amount the Commission can approve is $275,000.
Mrs. Clark motioned to accept $275,000 as the appraised value for 70 Talcott Notch Road. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
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. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
App. #4512 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to schools in the Industrial Park Zone, Ensign Bickford Realty, applicant. APPROVED AS MODIFIED. EFFECTIVE December 22, 2010.
App. #4521 - Golf Club of Avon, owner/ applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to erect safety nets at driving range, 160 Country Club Road, Parcel 1940160, in an ROS Zone. APPROVED.
App. #4522 - Town of Avon, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to move existing fueling station and eliminate underground fuel tanks, Public Works Facility, 11 Arch Road, Parcel 1090011, in an
I Zone. APPROVED.
Dated at Avon this 15th day of December, 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
| 
