The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday April 6, 2010. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Henry Frey, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Douglas Thompson, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Marianne Clark, and Donald Bonner. Mrs. Clark (arrived at 7:35 pm) and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Absent were David Cappello and Edward Whalen. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Keith motioned for approval of the March 23, 2010, minutes, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received approval from Ms. Keith and Messrs. Starr, Frey, Thompson and Bonner. Mrs. Griffin abstained, as she had not been present at the March 23 meeting but noted for the record that she has read the minutes and is familiar with their content.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4480 - CT Valley Developers, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit one rear lot, 415 Lovely Street, Parcel 3060415, in R30 and R40 Zones.
App. #4481 - Salmon Brook Development LLC, LLC, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot subdivision, 1.82 acres, 4 and 10 Southgate, Parcels 5390004 and 5390010 in R30 and R40 Zones.
Mr. Starr announced that the applicant has requested that the public hearing for Apps. #4480 and #4481 be continued to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for April 27.
Mr. Frey motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4480 and #4481 to the next meeting, scheduled for April 27. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Kushner clarified, for the record, that due to a problem with the Hartford Courant and the timing of the required legal notice publications for the April 6 hearing, the public hearing for Apps. #4480 and #4481 will not officially open until the next meeting, scheduled for April 27. He noted that legal notices for the April 27 hearing will be published by the Hartford Courant in accordance with statutory requirements.
App. #4478 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit fitness studio, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone.
The public hearing was continued from March 23, 2010.
Present were Attorney Robert M. Meyers, on behalf of the owner and the applicant; and Scott Simmons, Chairman of the Francis & Lawrence Neighborhood Association of Avon, as well as numerous neighborhood residents.
Attorney Meyers distributed to the Commission a “google” map showing an aerial view of the subject site and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Mr. Meyers explained that a “Snap Fitness” club could conceivably have up to 500 members. The club’s history is that, in some locations, up to 1% of the members use the club during the hours of 12 am to 6 am. Typically, 40% of the members are classified as regular users, meaning they use the club twice a week; 60% of the members are classified as casual users, using the club a little less than every 2 weeks. For example, if a full 1% were regular members (5 members from a membership of 500) frequented the club twice a week that would equate to 10 visits per week. This would result in a little fewer than 1½ visits
per day, which is negligible. He noted that there are more intensive uses with funny hours in the area. Mr. Meyers noted that he visited Walmart and Big Y and observed that there were 33 cars comprising the night crew for both businesses. There were employees sitting in their cars listening to the radio. He noted that there is a Bank of America located between the subject site and the nearby residential neighborhood that has an ATM machine. Mr. Meyers explained that he could not get any information from Bank of America regarding ATM usage so he went to People’s Bank who noted that their ATM usage during odd hours (12 am to 6 am) is anywhere from a few to no more than 10 in one night. He noted that the manager of People’s Bank indicated that he would anticipate that the usage of the ATM at Bank of America is higher than that of People’s Bank, as Bank of America is located closer to the road and many more cards are issued.
Mr. Meyers clarified that the branch manager of People’s Bank was uncomfortable with guessing about the ATM usage at Bank of America. Mr. Meyers noted that Mr. Kushner has confirmed that the Zoning Regulations do not prohibit this use. He further noted that Mr. Kushner has received input from the Police Chief who has indicated that he has no problem with the use. Addressing concerns relating to possible injuries while someone is alone in the fitness center, Mr. Meyers explained that there is a call button on the wall that is center station alarm monitored; if no intelligible response is received, the police are dispatched and they are given the code to enter the building.
Mr. Meyers commented that he believes there may have been some concerns relating to car lights. He noted that he visited the site and also referenced the aerial map and added that there is a forest of evergreen trees between the subject site and the neighborhood. In addition, the neighborhood is located uphill from the subject site. He noted that as best he can tell, there is no way lights can shine on anybody.
Mr. Meyers pointed out that with the traffic and lights and noise on Route 44, less than 1½ visits per night would appear to be negligible.
Mr. Starr asked about the lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Meyers noted that the property owner has indicated that the parking lot lighting is programmed in agreement with the Town to be diminished at 1:45 am. He noted that the applicant is fine with that and would not require any increase in lighting. The fixtures are shoebox style, cutoff fixtures. Mr. Meyers commented that he drove through the subject parking lot and the lighting doesn’t appear to be an issue.
Mrs. Griffin noted that she was not in attendance at the last public hearing but indicated that she is familiar with the minutes. She noted her concern that it appears that this facility is not monitored during the evening so someone could be alone there from 10 pm to 6 am.
Mr. Meyers explained that members could be alone often even during the day, as this is not a high-intensity use. He further explained that Snap Fitness is a franchise club that is sold with reciprocity, as members can utilize clubs located in different areas. He noted that in addition to the button on the wall there is also a pendant that is available for individuals to wear if they are in the facility alone. Mrs. Griffin noted that she has concerns about someone being attacked late at night, as the building is located very far back from the road and nothing else around it will be open. She commented that she would be fine with the facility being open from 6 am to 10 pm but noted her great concern with someone being alone in the building at 2 am.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comments, Mr. Meyers noted that he addressed this issue with the applicant who, in turn, addressed it with the franchisor. He noted that there are facilities in New York City and Boston in areas that would be considered less safe than the subject site and there has never been a problem in that regard.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels it would be safer if the building was close to the road so cars passing by could see inside.
Mr. Meyers commented that Mrs. Griffin must be concerned with people coming and going, as once someone is inside the facility they are locked in.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concerns with members getting to and from their cars safely, as well as the possibility of an unwanted person getting inside the facility.
Mr. Meyers noted that there is a “people counter” inside the entryway of the building. If someone swipes their card and more than one person enters, this information is visible to the business owner (by viewing a website) via camera monitors located inside the building.
In response to Mr. Simmons’ question, Mr. Meyers explained that the “people counter” device summons the business owner when there are more persons entering than cards swiped.
Mrs. Griffin asked whether this “people counter” device is monitored 24 hours a day. Mr. Meyers noted that it is not monitored 24/7, as there is staff on site during some of the daytime hours. Mrs. Griffin asked whether this device is monitored constantly during the hours when no attendant in on site. Mr. Meyers noted that he doesn’t mean to say that the device is monitored by a person but the machine operates all the time and notifies the owner if need be. Mrs. Griffin commented that there will be a time lapse from when an incident occurs to when the police could arrive. Mr. Meyers commented that the alarm at his house went off last week and the police arrived in 3 minutes. He noted that his house is much further away from the police station than the subject site.
Mrs. Clark noted her concerns with females being alone and trying to get from their cars to the building during off hours in the middle of the night. She noted that there is a thick row of pine trees in the back; she added that she has been in the back and it is very dark at night.
Mr. Bonner asked whether it would be appropriate to require parking in the front of the building for admission after hours. Mr. Starr clarified that the front is the only place there is parking. Mr. Meyers clarified that the forest of trees he mentioned earlier is not located between the road and where the cars would be parked but is located between the building and the adjacent neighborhood. There is no obstruction to seeing the cars in the parking lot from Route 44.
Ms. Keith questioned the Zoning Regulations with regard to the 24/7 proposal. Mr. Kushner noted that his statement at the last meeting was incorrect and clarified that Section V.F. of the Zoning Regulations, Hours of Operation, states that “retail establishments and restaurants shall be closed to the public between the hours of 2 am and 5 am.” He added that he doesn’t believe the proposed health club is either a restaurant or a retail establishment; it is a unique category.
Mr. Starr noted that the facility would not be available to the general public; one would have to be a member with key card. It would be similar to having access to one’s office after hours.
Mr. Kushner concurred and added that there are offices in Town that permit access 24/7; while this doesn’t result in much traffic it is not prohibited under this Regulation. He noted that there are restrictions for businesses located in the Neighborhood Business Zone; the subject site is located in the Commercial Retail (CR) Zone.
Mr. Meyers noted that there are retail uses in the CR Zone that permit entry by authorized personnel during off hours (i.e., Walmart and Big Y). He commented that he feels Mr. Starr’s point was correct in that the Regulation seeks to prohibit public access. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Frey asked whether the proposed facility falls into the category of Personal Services. Mr. Kushner commented that Personal Services would be the closest category but the Commission is also authorized to permit similar uses by Special Exception. Mr. Meyers added that it was decided not to present this proposal as an “as of right” use.
Mr. Simmons commented that he feels a comparison of the proposed facility to an ATM machine is somewhat of a stretch. When people utilize ATM machines they don’t get out of their car, slam their door, and lock their car with an alarm, all while being located right next to a neighborhood. He noted that Mr. Meyers represented that the lights don’t appear to be a problem but he explained that his house faces the subject building and, while not terrible, the lights are a problem; with increased traffic it would be more of a problem. Mr. Simmons noted that it is his understanding from the site plan approval granted for this site that the lights were to be turned off at 10 pm not 1 am.
Mr. Starr addressed Mr. Simmons and commented that if the lights are on after 10 pm maybe it wasn’t noticed because they aren’t bothersome. Mr. Simmons noted his understanding but reiterated that he believes that the lights go down at 10 pm. Mr. Starr explained that the lights are box type and don’t spill out. Mr. Simmons agreed and asked whether the lights will now be on 24/7. Mr. Starr noted that there will be no change to what currently exists for lighting conditions. Mr. Meyers concurred.
Mr. Simmons noted that the Snap Fitness facilities located in other cities are not situated far back from the road and located behind other businesses, as would the proposed facility if located on the subject site. It’s not a very good comparison. He questioned the issue of monitoring and noted that the business owner indicated at the last meeting that he would be monitoring the business. Mr. Simmons commented that he can’t imagine that anyone is going to stay awake all night to monitor the facility. He commented that it appears that there will be no monitoring other than by machine. He noted that he feels that women exiting the facility would be more at risk than women entering the facility. The facility will be one of the only businesses in that area that will be
illuminated and could attract predators, as they will be able to see people (both men and women) inside the building. Mr. Simmons noted that he has owned a business on Route 44 for many years and asked why Snap Fitness needs to be open all night if only 1% of their business will use the facility during the off hours. He commented that it will cost more to stay open all night than it would to close during off hours. He pointed out that there is a lot of vacant commercial real estate on Route 44 and asked why this proposal couldn’t be moved to another location. Mr. Simmons pointed out that he feels this proposal would set a precedent for 24 hour businesses in Avon; a bad idea for the neighborhood and a terrible idea for the Town as a whole. He concluded by asking that either the proposed business be moved to another location or that more reasonable hours be proposed.
Joseph Donato, 56 Lawrence Avenue, asked what the total club membership would be. Mr. Meyers explained that the highest conceivable number of members is 500 but it is not expected that the number would be this high. The representation is that 1% (5 members) is the most that would ever show up during the off hours. In response to Mr. Donato’s question, Mr. Meyers explained that most likely the business owner would be happy to have a membership of 700 members but this type of business has been in existence for some time in many locations and the owners would be delighted if they get 300 or 400 members. Mr. Donato commented that he feels it should be known whether membership will increase over time. He added that other locations are not Avon. Avon is a special place that should
remain that way.
Dick McCall, 65 Lawrence Avenue, thanked the women on the Commission, as he feels their concerns are realistic. He commented that he feels Attorney Meyers is making light of what goes on in after-hour fitness centers. He referenced the health club located at 100 Simsbury Road and noted that he researched police records (including fire and medical responses) from April 18, 2006 to March 4, 2010. He noted there were 172 incident reports at this location; 44 medical calls; 35 calls for suspicious persons in vehicles; and 16 motor vehicle accidents. He noted that other incident reports involved disorderly conduct; motor vehicle theft; animal complaints (pets left locked in cars); vehicle burglary/larceny; and vehicle lockouts. The Fire Department calls could have involved anything from
over-heated cars to administration of CPR in the health club. Mr. McCall noted these are tax dollars at work. He commented that car alarms going off at 2am at the proposed facility is a possibility as well as people getting locked out of their cars which will require police assistance. He noted that he has concerns about these kinds of issues especially between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am. Mr. McCall noted his agreement with Mr. Simmons’ comments and added that if the proposed facility must be located on the subject site, he asked that it not be open all night long in an attempt to avoid potential dangerous situations in the parking lot.
Brian Mirizzi, 28 Francis Street, asked whether there would be an AED on the premises for medical emergencies. Mr. Meyers noted that while it would seem logical that there would be an AED in the facility he added that he doesn’t know. Mr. Mirizzi commented that he feels an AED should be a requirement regardless of the hours the facility would be open. Mr. Meyers noted that the Commission could impose such a condition. Mr. Mirizzi posed a scenario such that 2 men are inside the facility at 2 am and they have a fight which results in one man lying on the floor while the other man flees the building, possibly in the direction of the adjoining neighborhood. He asked who would call the police. Mr. Meyers noted that he would assume that the same thing happens at 9pm when the
neighborhood would be happy to have the business there. Mr. Mirizzi agreed that that scenario would be possible but more doubtful. Mr. McCall noted his agreement with Mr. Mirizzi.
Mr. Kushner asked whether the statistics that Mr. McCall presented were for the entire facility located at 100 Simsbury Road and not just the health club. Mr. McCall clarified that the information does not include information pertaining to the physicians’ offices. He noted that he specifically asked the police department that question and added that he has a separate listing for the doctors’ offices which he would be happy to provide. Mr. Kushner noted, for the record, that the information presented was specific to the health club. Mr. McCall concurred.
Mr. Bonner asked what time period these statistics include. Mr. McCall reiterated that the time period is from April 18, 2006 to March 4, 2010.
Mr. Kushner commented that he believes the entire building located at 100 Simsbury Road is one address and asked whether the police department was able to separate the calls for the health club. He commented that it seems like a lot of calls. Mr. McCall noted that his list is broken down into categories (i.e., medical, motor vehicle, disorderly conduct, suspicious persons).
Mr. Meyers explained that the owner of the building located at 100 Simsbury Road is a client of his; most of the calls, especially the medical calls, come from the medical facilities.
Mr. Frey commented that anywhere there is a lot of people, these types of calls will happen.
Mr. Meyers commented that the Police Chief has indicated that he has no problem with this application. Mr. Meyers explained that he knows something about crime in Avon, as he has prosecuted cases for 15 years, including the Town’s first homicide. He noted that he doesn’t know another nearby town that wouldn’t like to have Avon’s crime problem.
Mr. McCall noted that his information from the Police Department is broken down by unit number; the disorderly conduct occurred at Unit 269.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4478 was closed, as well as the entire public hearing.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Frey motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider App. #4478. Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4478 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit fitness studio, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone.
Mr. Frey motioned for approval of App. #4478. He noted that while he has compassion for the neighbors, the proposed application meets the Zoning Regulations. He commented that bad things can happen anywhere and noted that he hopes there wouldn’t be any incidents at this site.
Mr. Starr seconded Mr. Frey’s motion to approve App. #4478 and welcomed discussion by the Commission.
Ms. Keith noted her concerns with setting a precedent for a 24-hour business. Mr. Starr pointed out that the subject application is a special exception and conditions can be added. Ms. Keith commented that she believes the 24/7 business proposal is an injustice to the neighborhood and sets a precedent for all health clubs in other areas to be open for 24 hours. Ms. Keith added that she would prefer that the business be closed from midnight to 6 am.
Mrs. Clark noted her agreement with Ms. Keith that she would prefer the business to be closed from midnight to 6 am.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels the business should be closed between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am. She added that she feels that part of the Commission’s charge is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of all of Avon’s residents. She commented that she feels this proposal presents a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of Avon’s residents.
Mr. Starr noted that no one is forced to become a member.
Ms. Keith commented that while people know what they are joining and don’t always use common sense, she is more concerned about the precedent it would be setting. She noted her understanding that this is a special exception application but added that she would rather not have to deal with future applications involving the same circumstances.
Mr. Starr commented that for this proposal to be viable, the business will have to be open at least until midnight and reopen at 5 am; people will want to use this facility before they go to work. He noted that he could not agree with a closure from 10 pm to 6 am, as it would take away much of the use.
Mr. Bonner commented that many young people are just getting going at 10 pm, so that is too early to close. People going to the facility at 5 am is reasonable and if only 1 person will utilize the facility during the off hours it doesn’t make sense to have it open. He noted that his recommendation would be for the facility to be open from 5 am to midnight.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concern that the facility is not staffed during the hours of operation.
Mr. Kushner noted that medical response time was discussed at the Staff Meeting; criminal activity was not discussed. The Police Chief indicated that the Police Department is staffed 24/7 and deal with medical emergencies 24.7. If one individual was at the facility and had a medical problem during off hours, the Police Department would respond to it like they do to any other medical problems in any location (i.e., the response would be the same as if it were coming from a residence at 2 am). Mr. Kushner noted that it has been represented that it is improbable that the facility would realize more than 500 members, but the Commission could place a limit on the number of members and allow a review of the membership number in 2 years.
Mr. Frey commented that it is his understanding that the applicant was going to report back to the Commission after he checked with the franchisor to see if they would allow the facility to be open less than 24/7. Mr. Kushner noted that a conference call between the applicant and the Town was scheduled but was cancelled. Mr. Meyers explained that he discussed this with the applicant who indicated that the franchisor would be unhappy if the facility could not be open 24/7, as they try to sell reciprocity, but noted that they are willing to listen to a request by the applicant if it is required by law or regulation. Mr. Meyers commented that if a time limit were to be imposed maybe it makes sense to impose the time limit that already exists in the Regulations for retail establishments, which is closure from 2 am
to 5 am. Mrs. Clark noted that she supports this proposal with closure from midnight to 6 am, with no room for compromise. She referred to the aerial map submitted earlier and pointed out the large wooded area behind the building; maybe someone should patrol the area.
Mr. Frey suggested conditions of approval to include hours of operation from 5am to midnight, a maximum of 400 members allowing a review in 2 years, and the installation of an AED device. Mrs. Clark concurred.
Mr. Starr noted his agreement and added Mr. Frey’s suggested conditions of approval to his earlier motion to second.
The Commission voted unanimously to approve App. #4478 subject to the following conditions:
1. Snap Fitness is approved to be open from 5 am to 12 am (midnight), 7 days per week. The business must be closed between the hours of 12 am (midnight) and
5 am 7 days per week.
2. A maximum of 400 members is permitted; the applicant may request a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2 years.
3. An AED device (automated external defibrillator) shall be installed inside the facility.
NEW APPLICATIONS
App. #4479 - Church of Saint Ann, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Approval for building addition and parking lot renovation, 289 Arch Road, Parcel 1090289, in an R40 Zone.
Present to represent this application were Russell Cook, Special Projects Manager, Church of St. Ann; Kathy Leathers, Owner’s Representative, Church of St. Ann; George Andrews, PE, Loureiro Engineering Associates, Inc.; Jeff Gebrian, Landscape Architect, CR3; and Wojciech Harabasz, Architect, Hara-Arch.
Mr. Cook offered history of St. Ann s Church and noted that church began services in 1959. Father Bennett Hall was added in 1980, which includes a kitchen, offices, and meeting rooms. He noted that renovations occurred last year to improve the meeting rooms and a private entrance for the Avon Pantry was constructed. Approximately 7 years ago it was proposed to add a building with classrooms and offices. Everything else would be demolished and a new church and a new chapel would be constructed. Mr. Cook noted that this plan was abandoned due to costs (20M+). A new program to renovate the church and add a wing was discussed but the economy wasn’t good. He noted that the proposed wing has been eliminated; tonight’s proposal is to renovate the church. Mr. Cook noted
that the fascia will be removed; the ceiling will be opened up; and 10 pews will be added but the capacity will not change. Existing pews will be cut down in the side nave; more aisle space will be added for better movement within that area of the church. A gathering space is proposed to allow people to socialize inside. The parking lot will be reconfigured; a total of 199 parking spaces will result. More parking is not proposed due to both cost constraints and required permits from the STC, causing a time delay. Mr. Cook reviewed a list of the different groups that utilize the church and noted that neither the uses nor the seating capacity will change; the proposal is for an upgrade only.
Mr. Andrews noted that Loureiro Engineering has been involved with the St. Ann’s Church project since August of 2009, providing civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering expertise. He noted that the Commission should have the most recent plan revisions and reviewed plan submittals, to date, namely site utilities; landscaping; soil erosion and sediment control; a photometric plan for the site and a master photometric plan; a drainage report; 7 architectural drawings; a utilization table; site improvement history and service summary; exterior luminaries; architectural plans; and a parking computation guide.
Mr. Andrews displayed a map and noted that the subject parcel is 10.4 acres. The property has been assessed for wetlands; a determination was made by a soil scientist that no wetlands exist on the parcel and a report was submitted to Town Staff. Currently, 222 parking spaces exist and there is a large wooded area toward the east of the church proper. There is a large, naturally-occurring glacial kettle hole in the middle of the wooded area. The proposal is to add a 2,600-square-foot gathering space to be located towards the front of the church. The church entrance would be relocated and the addition will extend out into the existing parking lot; some handicap parking spaces will be displaced. The existing handicap spaces in front of the church will be revised to meet current State
requirements; additional parking is proposed towards the back of the site to serve Father Bennett Hall. Mr. Andrews noted that the proposal would result in a net reduction of parking spaces. The proposal includes the installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system; the plan has been submitted to the Farmington Valley Health District. The site is served with public water; the existing water hydrant will be relocated. Improvements and changes to both the interior and exterior lighting are proposed.
Mr. Andrews displayed the grading and erosion control plan and noted that the site was broken down into different areas, namely the main nave; the north side nave; the sanctuary; and Father Bennett Hall (which includes multi-purpose rooms). Occupancy was studied both from a building code perspective and a practical perspective; 18 inches per seat (fixed pews) appears reasonable. He noted that a worst case scenario (main nave is full, north side nave is full and the sanctuary has a maximum of 5 people, which is customary) would result in 720 occupants. He further noted that at no time are there concurrent operations; activities in Father Bennett Hall do not occur while a mass is taking place. The required parking for the worst case scenario (720 occupants) equals 180 spaces. Mr. Andrews noted
that he feels that parking requirements from a building code perspective are over done. From a practical perspective, 433 occupants would require 108 parking spaces. Mr. Andrews explained that he reviewed the Town’s parking criteria with Mr. Kushner and it was agreed that it is on the light side; one parking space for 4 occupants doesn’t appear reasonable in today’s world. Mr. Andrews noted that 199 parking spaces is being proposed; he noted that he feels this is adequate based on the head count data.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Andrews noted that a total of 6 handicap spaces are proposed; 4 in the front and 2 in the rear.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s questions, Mr. Andrews explained that the 4 spaces in the front would be for mass and the 2 spaces in the rear would be for Father Bennett Hall. He noted that there are currently 5 handicap spaces in the main parking lot. Mrs. Griffin commented that the handicap spaces are always occupied and the majority of the parishioners are elderly. She noted that she doesn’t feel it’s a good idea to move handicap spaces to the rear. Mr. Andrews clarified that the 2 handicap spaces in the rear already exist today; they will be maintained.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Andrews clarified that the number of handicap spaces in the front will be reduced by 1.
Mr. Bonner commented that he feels the parking need is grossly underestimated, as members park up and down the side street and also on the lawn. There are not enough handicap spaces and there is not enough parking for the parishioners; the current proposal is not even close.
Ms. Keith noted a typical scenario and explained that part of a family may arrive early for activities (i.e., choir) and the rest of the family may come later for the church service; families are arriving in 2 cars.
Mr. Bonner commented that he feels 250 parking spaces are needed, not 199, and more handicap parking is needed.
Mr. Andrews noted that a couple of additional handicap parking spaces could be added to the plan.
Mr. Starr commented that maybe a couple of spaces could be created in the far corner of the site, as this area is most likely only used for bus tours.
Mr. Andrews explained that the existing entrance will be relocated; six stairs leading up to a flat landing into a grand entrance is proposed.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Andrews noted that the two existing access points (one on West Avon Road and one on Arch Road) for the parking lots will be maintained as is.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Andrews pointed out on the plans the location of the ramp for handicap entrance.
In response to Mr. Andrews’ comments, Mr. Starr explained that information pertaining to storm water can be addressed with the Town Engineer, as he will provide a report to the Commission. Mr. Andrews noted his understanding.
In response to Mr. Frey’s question, Mr. Cook explained that during construction there will be at least 4 masses on Sundays but after construction is complete the normal schedule of 3 Sunday masses will resume. Mr. Frey asked where the buses from River Ridge will park under the new parking plan (they currently park in front of the handicap parking area) without blocking the parking lot. Mr. Cook commented that a bus would most likely park on the south side of the church where the ramp is. Mr. Andrews explained that there is a feature in the front of the church that could help with this situation. The parking lot is flush with the sidewalk at the front entrance, right in front of the stairway. He noted that Mr. Gebrian has provided landscape bump outs in this area which will allow
lighting to be located in the stair area. This could also be a good area for vehicle unloading. In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Andrews noted that vehicle unloading in this area would not block the areas where people need to enter the church.
Mr. Andrews addressed site lighting and noted that there are currently 4 flood lights located at the front of the church and 2 flood lights on the side; the lights are angled and point out into the parking lot and, unfortunately, there is light reflection into the neighboring areas. The proposal is to eliminate the 4 lights in the front and replace them with the same lanterns used at the Carmon Funeral Home on Country Club Road. The proposal is 9 new lamps; 3 new lamps in the rear in the new parking area and 6 new lamps in the front area of the church. The photometrics for the proposed lighting plan meets IES requirements for the new activity area; however, some of the periphery of the parking areas doesn’t meet the IES standards but it is felt to be an improvement. He noted that 2 of the new
lamps will be adjusted so they don’t project off the property line into the adjacent residential area. A master lighting plan has been prepared to assist with this proposal, as well as future projects. He noted that 18 lamps (in addition to the 9 just discussed) are shown on this master plan; a goal for the church to work towards as funding becomes available for future projects.
Mr. Cook addressed parking and noted that Miller Foods has offered to the church the use of their parking lot; there are 50 parking spots at Miller Foods. Mr. Cook noted that this parking option will be promoted, in response to concerns by the Commission. He noted that many parking spaces are lost in the winter when the snow is piled up; he noted that this will have to change in the future.
Mr. Starr pointed out that the entrance from the Miller Foods site doesn’t line up with the entrance to the church and people would have to walk along Arch Road to get to the church.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the garage and the entrance to the Miller Foods store is where the driveway is; it does not line up with the driveway for the church. She added that the Miller Foods parking lot has been used by the church for 60 years. Additionally, Miller Foods has a reciprocal agreement with the church to use the church parking lot on holidays.
Mr. Starr and Mr. Bonner suggested that steps and a railing could be constructed.
Mr. Gebrian displayed a proposed landscape plan and noted that new plantings (shade trees and flowering trees) are proposed along West Avon Road. Plantings are proposed at the interior of the site to accent the new entrance. A large landscaped island off Arch Road is proposed as well as several shade trees and perennials. Mr. Gebrian noted that the new lights being proposed would be a tremendous improvement, as they will replace the existing, very tall, lights. He explained that the church is aware that the site does not currently meet the zoning requirements for landscaping (20%) and lighting. Meeting the lighting requirements would require the elimination of some parking spaces, which interferes with the master parking plan for the future. More than 200 parking spaces require
approvals/permits by the STC. Mr. Gebrian commented that the overall proposal, including the landscaping, will visually enhance the site.
Ms. Keith commented that the plowed snow could now be placed into the grassed area. Mr. Gebrian commented that there is plenty of space (about 20 feet) for snow deposit.
Mrs. Griffin asked how the proposed flowering trees will line up with the sign, which is located in the same area. Mr. Gebrian ensured that the trees will be spaced appropriately so as not to interfere with the sign.
Mr. Starr commented that the architectural renderings are very good; the addition exterior will blend nicely with the existing exterior of the building. He noted that the Town Engineer needs to review the latest plan revisions and submit a report. The Farmington Valley Health District has approved the additional septic area. Mr. Starr noted that he would like to hear more input at the next meeting relative to the bus/van drop-off area. He noted that he would also like to receive at the next meeting information relative to the construction of a stairway of some kind or some means of getting safely from the Miller Foods parking lot to the church.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she would like to see increased handicap parking in the front. The Commission agreed. Ms. Keith commented that she would like to see as many handicap parking spaces as possible; exceed the requirements, if possible.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to table App. #4479 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for April 27. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Transfer of land- former cul-de-sac - Tyler Court
Mr. Starr acknowledged the Commission’s receipt of information pertaining to the transfer of land (former cul-de-sac area) to 14 Tyler Court, located in the Kings Wood Subdivision.
Opinion from Town Attorney regarding discretionary authority - fee in lieu of open space appraisal reports
Mr. Starr reported that Attorney Zizka has indicated that the Commission cannot refuse to accept an appraisal but an appraiser can be removed from the Commission’s Approved Appraiser List.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on April 6, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4478 - Sunset of Avon, LLC, owner, Josh Livingston, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit fitness studio, 260 West Main Street, Parcel 4540260, in a CR Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
Dated at Avon this 7th day of April, 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
Henry Frey, Vice_Chairman and Secretary
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall, on the following:
App. #4480 - CT Valley Developers, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.p. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit one rear lot, 415 Lovely Street, Parcel 3060415, in R30 and R40 Zones.
App. #4481 - Salmon Brook Development LLC, LLC, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot subdivision, 1.82 acres, 4 and 10 Southgate, Parcels 5390004 and 5390010 in R30 and R40 Zones.
App. #4482 - Three Ninety Five Deercliff Partners LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit house and pool construction within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 395 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090395, in an RU2A Zone.
App. #4483 - Power Test Realty Company, owner, Core States Group, applicant, request for Special Exception under Sections VII.C.4.b.(1) and VII.C.4.b.(5) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit detached identification sign and gas price sign, 441 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520441, in an NB Zone.
App. #4484 Power Test Realty Company, owner, Core States Group, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(7) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall and canopy signs, 441 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520441, in an NB Zone.
All interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications will be received. Applications are available for inspection in Planning and Community Development at the Avon Town Hall. Dated at Avon this 12th day of April, 2010.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Henry Frey, Vice_Chairman and Secretary
| 
