The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Senior Center on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, and Peter Mahoney and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Donald Bonner. Alternate Christian Gackstatter was absent. 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 minutes of the September 27, 2011, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4554 William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot Resubdivision, 2.69 acres, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359, in an R40 Zone
App. #4555 William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.5.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit waiver of density requirement, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359, in an R40 Zone
Mr. Starr announced that Apps. #4554 and #4555 have been withdrawn by the applicant. He noted that the applicant has indicated that the applications would be resubmitted at a later date.
App. #4562 Proposed Amendment to Avon Subdivision Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, applicant
App. #4563 Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID); Town of Avon, applicant
Mr. Starr reported that Town Staff has requested a continuance for Apps. #4562 and #4563.
Mr. Thompson motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4562 and #4563 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for November 1. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4571 Old Avon Realty, LLC, owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.b. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit public school, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone.
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4572 Old Avon Realty, LLC, owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to permit public school with associated parking, access drives, and play areas, 59 Waterville Road, Parcel 4500059, in an RU2A Zone.
Present to represent these applications were David Hoopes, Mayo Crowe, LLC, representing the Capital Region Education Council (CREC); Bruce Douglas, Denise Gallucci, and John Mena, CREC; Luke McCoy, David Friar, and Glenn Yeakel, Friar Associates; Steve Ulman, Purcell Associates; and Dr. Roy Beebe, owner.
Attorney Hoopes stated that the proposed school would serve 435 students, Pre-K to Grade 5 (ages 3 to 11). He noted that the subject site is approximately 10.5 acres; the northern part of the site has an existing building (yellow barn) and also houses an existing cider mill business. He noted that the original application involved only the 9 acres on the southern portion of the property but recently the applicant has reached an agreement with the property owner to acquire the 1.4 acres located on the northern section of the site.
Mr. Hoopes addressed the existing yellow post and beam building and noted that CREC proposes to use this building for 3 temporary classrooms for the existing CREC School located at 150 Fisher Drive; this proposal is for the next school year only. He indicated that it is understood that any other/future use of this building would require permission by the Commission. Currently, the parking areas on the subject site are connected but Mr. Hoopes noted that there would be no access for the main school directly from Waterville Road. A locked gate is proposed for the driveway to the yellow barn; the Town would have access at all times to this driveway for emergency situations.
Mr. Hoopes addressed Avonwood Road and noted that it is a private road. It was originally constructed to provide access for the Avonwood Apartments located at the end of Avonwood Road. He explained that the Avon Mill Apartments and the shopping center located to the south of the subject site have easements rights to use Avonwood Road. He noted that Avonwood Road has not been maintained for many years and some parts have fallen into disrepair. Mr. Hoopes noted that the proposed school would only use the beginning part of the road. He noted that CREC has taken initiative and prepared a comprehensive plan/agreement for ongoing maintenance and road repair for Avonwood Road; this agreement would be filed on the Land Records. He noted that this proposed maintenance agreement is currently
being circulated and one party has already agreed. Mr. Hoopes stated that CREC, as part of the subject applications, proposes to repair and maintain the beginning part of the road, regardless of what any of the other users do. He added that the hope is to reach an agreement to benefit all. He explained that a report prepared by Clarence Welti, PE, geo-technical engineer, dated October 12, 2011, has been submitted and contains an analysis of the road along with a set of recommendations on how to repair it. Mr. Hoopes noted that part of the subject application includes a proposal to repair the part of the road that CREC would use; the repairs would be accomplished either in accordance with the recommendations contained in Dr. Welti’s report or in accordance with recommendations provided by Town Staff. He explained that the applicant, as part of the subject applications, also proposes to seek approval from the State Traffic Commission (STC) to
install a traffic light at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road. Mr. Hoopes noted that the applicant is reasonably confident that approval would be received from the STC but added that this Commission must render a decision before any decision can be made by the State. He explained that a bypass lane would also be requested.
Mr. Hoopes addressed traffic and noted that all the surrounding roadway systems/intersections currently function adequately with the exception of one movement during morning rush hour at the intersection of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road. He noted that if a traffic light were installed, that movement would function well. He noted that the other intersections would not be impaired in terms of function. He noted that the only thing that CREC would change is to make the key intersection better. Mr. Hoopes commented that CREC would, not only, not make traffic any worse, they would make it better. He referenced two projects that had been previously approved by the Commission for the subject site. One project, approved in 1998, involved a 98K square foot medical office building; the other
approval was for an office building some years earlier. He noted that the average daily traffic volume for the proposed school is 15% of the traffic that would have been generated by the approved medical office building. The morning rush hour traffic for the proposed school is 45% of the traffic that would have been generated by the medical office building. He commented that the data for average daily traffic at the time the medical office was approved (1998) shows that there was considerably more traffic on the subject section of Route 10 (Waterville Road) than there is today. Mr. Hoopes commented that even with the additional traffic from the proposed school, there would be less traffic on that particular stretch of Route 10 than there was about 10 years ago.
Mr. Hoopes addressed parking for special events and noted that CREC holds large events off site and not at the school; the Metropolitan Learning Center in Bloomfield is often used. He explained that a detailed schedule of every event has been submitted. He noted that 103 parking spaces are proposed for the subject site; 68 staff members are proposed. Mr. Hoopes acknowledged that Waterville Road is a busy road but noted that outside experts will provide testimony to show that no traffic or parking issues exist. He noted that a legal memo has been submitted outlining the Commission’s obligations in connection with the special exception application. He commented that everyone is probably familiar with what the issues are and what cannot be considered but added that just about every
argument, both at the hearing and outside of the hearing, that the applicant has heard against this project indicates that many people are under very fundamental misapprehensions as to what the Commission’s job is. Mr. Hoopes indicated that, while he means no disrespect to the Commission, the subject proposal is a serious matter and the Commission’s duties are a serious matter. He commented that he has explained what the standard is and added that the Commission must decide, based on the evidence, whether the 9 criteria found in Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations have been satisfied based on the evidence and nothing but the evidence. Mr. Hoopes commented that the applicant has heard many arguments that have nothing to do with anything. The applicant has heard that the proposed school would cost the Town money. Mr. Hoopes explained that that argument is false and also irrelevant and noted that while the applicant has rebutted that
concern, it is bothersome that this issue is even mentioned and should play no part in the Commission’s consideration. He indicated that the Commission must view the subject applications as if they were submitted by a private developer; fiscal impacts play no part in the decision. He commented that the applicant has heard some people say that land in Avon should not be used to educate children from other towns. He noted that it is understood that people have different views about this issue but added that this type of issue is absolutely irrelevant to the Commission’s decision. Mr. Hoopes stated that a decision has to be based only on the evidence and facts presented and nothing else. He noted that if evidence is presented by a qualified expert and not rebutted by another qualified expert, it has to be taken into account; he added that the law is very clear in this regard. Mr. Hoopes explained that the Commission is, by law,
required to make a decision based on the evidence. He added that the law is very clear that vague and general reasons are not permitted. He commented that traffic is always raised as an issue/concern but noted that it is not a legally valid reason to deny an application unless there is qualified evidence presented to support the concerns. He added that the Commission’s job is to listen to the evidence and apply that evidence to the 9 criteria listed in Section VIII. Mr. Hoopes concluded by noting that tonight’s presentation will show that the subject property is a very suitable location for the proposed school and that there is no legitimate reason to turn it down.
Bruce Douglas, CREC Executive Director, explained that one of CREC’s efforts in working with the State of Connecticut is to provide a reasonable solution to a desegregation plan. He noted that a CREC school has been operating (temporarily at 150 Fisher Drive) in Avon for the past 3 years. He commented that two years ago CREC looked into the possibility of a permanent location for CREC on Climax Road but added that this site was rejected by the Commission due to concerns involving the location. Dr. Douglas explained that CREC was before the Commission on January 11, 2011, looking for guidance as to whether CREC should pursue an alternate site located at 59 Waterville Road. He noted that the minutes of that meeting reflect the Commission’s enthusiastic encouragement to CREC to pursue the
site at 59 Waterville Road as a far better location for the CREC magnet school. Originally, CREC was not able to come to terms with the owner, Dr. Beebe, for the entire site and, thus, a subdivision application was necessary; however, in June of 2011 an agreement to purchase the entire site was reached. He noted that applications were resubmitted to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission; an approval has been received from the Inland Wetlands Commission. Dr. Douglas explained that no special waivers or concessions are being requested. CREC would construct a beautiful school campus for 435 students that would meet all Town requirements. He noted that CREC would meet and exceed the standards of the CT Mastery Tests and measure up to world-class achievement standards. Dr. Douglas stated that CREC would like a permanent location in Avon and added that if an approval is granted, Avon would become the fourth
community to grant special approval to CREC; others include Glastonbury, New Britain, and South Windsor. He noted that local approvals are also being sought in Enfield, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Hartford. CREC schools are currently operating in Avon, Hartford, Bloomfield, Wethersfield, Windsor, East Windsor, Enfield, and Manchester. He commented that a site plan has been submitted that is practical, safe, attractive, and fully responsive to all Town standards/regulations. Dr. Douglas explained that the proposed school would be constructed with a grant from the State of Connecticut; there would be no cost to the Town of Avon for construction or operation. He acknowledged that construction of the school would remove taxable property, as the site currently generates $21K annually in tax revenue. Dr. Douglas commented that CREC wishes they could compensate the Town for this lost revenue but noted that the State does not permit it. To offset
the revenue loss the school would offer a world-class public education for 20 to 40 Avon students; there are currently 28 Avon students at the CREC School and 7 of the 28 students are 3 and 4-year olds. He noted that Avon doesn’t pay to educate 3 and 4-year-old students so, theoretically, these numbers would equate to the cost of 21 students for Avon. The cost to educate students in Avon is approximately $12K per student; the cost for CREC tuition is approximately $4K per student (i.e., 12K - 4K = $8K x 21 students = $168K). The building permit required by CREC would cost approximately $160K; CREC would spend $30M to stimulate the regional economy. School construction and operations would create jobs and customers for Avon businesses. Dr. Douglas conveyed his thoughts that the proposed school would benefit the Town of Avon for many reasons; the Reggio School has operated successfully in Avon for 3 years. A state-of-the-art magnet school on
Waterville Road would complement Avon’s already outstanding public school system. He noted that a school on the subject site would not generate any where near the traffic that would be generated by the two previously approved projects. An approval by the Town would send a message to the region that Avon is very interested in being part of the solution to regional public education inequities. He stated that he hopes the Town finds CREC to be diligent and responsible in their quest/commitment to serve the best interests of children and families throughout the Capital Region. He stated that if an approval is granted, CREC would make the Town proud; CREC would listen and adjust circumstances as needed, just like they have done in every other town where a CREC school exists. Dr. Douglas noted that CREC would not compete with Avon Public Schools but, rather, would complement and serve as a partner; a school on the subject site would be open to
municipal uses/needs. Dr. Douglas concluded by thanking the Staff and the Commission for their time and effort and kind, intelligent consideration of this proposal.
Luke McCoy, landscape architect, displayed a site plan for the proposed school. A yellow post and beam barn currently exists on the northern part of the site; this building is currently unfinished on the inside and a gravel parking lot exists adjacent to the building. The two existing buildings located to the south and east of the yellow barn have existed for many years; one is a red barn and the other is the cider mill. These buildings currently operate only during the summer months as a retail flower shop. The remaining areas of the site are wooded and there is a gravel access road that runs through the middle of the site. He noted that approval has been received by the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Mr. McCoy explained that the first phase of the proposal is to construct 3 classrooms in the yellow barn and complete the gravel parking lot area that is adjacent to the building. The building would operate as a temporary location for classroom instruction; CREC currently uses two facilities for their existing Reggio School and due to growth need a couple of classrooms until a new building is constructed. The plan is to use the yellow barn for one year until the new building is completed at which time the students in the temporary classrooms would move into the new building. Mr. McCoy explained that if CREC decides to utilize the yellow barn after the temporary classrooms are no longer needed, they would return to the Commission for permission.
Mr. McCoy explained that the second phase of the proposal is the actual school construction. He noted that the proposed location of the school is the same general area that was approved for the 98K square foot medical office building. Located to the west of the proposed school would be the parking and bus and parent drop off areas. The proposal is for buses to enter off of Avonwood Road; Staff would arrive before students and buses and would assist students into the school. A secondary access for parent drop off is proposed on the west side of the building. He noted that there are handicap and standard parking spaces provided near the school for parents that need to park and bring the student in; this area does not interact with the bus area. A lawn play area is proposed on the west
side of the site; this area could also be used as a youth soccer field. He noted that this field area is not a curriculum requirement but added that if the budget permits, CREC would construct a full-sized field. A paved play area and playscape are proposed to the north of the lawn/field area; the intent is to have it located as far away from Waterville Road as possible. The cafeteria and gym are located on the side of the building to allow direct access to the play areas; a separate play area (playscape with paved area) is proposed for the younger students; a retaining wall with a fence is proposed for the outside of the play area. An outdoor classroom is proposed to the north of the proposed school; an amphitheater-style classroom is proposed, if the budget permits. He noted that there is direct access to the main entrance of the school from the bus dropoff area; all students would enter and exit via the same area.
Mr. McCoy addressed deliveries and noted that all large deliveries (i.e, food, paper deliveries) would be scheduled after school hours to ensure that they don’t occur during bus dropoff and pickup times. Deliveries such as mail and UPS would occur at the bus dropoff area near the main entrance. The trucks for large deliveries would pull into the parent dropoff area, back right into the loading dock, and then exit onto Avonwood Road; trucks would not travel through the parking lot or have any interaction with cars on the site.
Mr. McCoy noted that all the play areas are located to the rear of the building and have direct access from the rear of the building; no play areas are proposed for the front of the building. A wooden guard rail is proposed for the parking area along the side of the building to offer protection between the main road and the parking area for students walking to cars. A connection between the main school building and the existing yellow barn was requested by the Fire Marshal, in the event an emergency/secondary access in and out of the site is needed. The emergency connection area would be gated with a lockbox and the Town would have keys. He explained that it is not CREC’s intention to leave this secondary connection open to allow people to cut through; the gate would be kept closed and locked
and opened only in the event of an emergency.
Glenn Yeakel, architect, displayed elevations of the proposed building. He pointed out that the proposed building is divided into 3 areas; the academic wing (classrooms); the administrative wing near the front of the building; and the assembly spaces (i.e., cafeteria, gym, kitchen and large gathering space in the middle of the school - the piazza). A secondary entrance with a stairway (building is proposed to be 2 stories) is proposed with a central corridor that runs from east to west. The classrooms located on the second floor would be on each side of the corridor. Pre-K, K. and Grade 1 would be located on the first floor and Grades 2 through 5 would be located on the second floor.
Mr. Yeakel noted that the proposed building is required to meet Connecticut High Performance Standards for energy. The exterior of the building and wall system have been designed to be highly insulated and the mechanical systems are designed for great efficiency. The exterior is proposed to be masonry material (several shades of brick) and stone.
Denise Gallucci, CREC Superintendent and Avon resident, addressed events planning and parent pickup and dropoff. She explained that a CREC learning environment is designed to recreate a nurturing home experience. Celebrations are small and intimate to create an environment where all children are highlighted; large-scale events are not typical in CREC schools, as the Reggio philosophy centers around small learning communities. Ms. Gallucci noted that 103 parking spaces are proposed; a staff of approximately 68 is expected once the school is fully enrolled. She noted that CREC has submitted an “events planned” document to the Commission outlining the schedule of events to be held at the school during school hours and beyond as well as events planned for offsite. Any event held
during school hours would not bring more than 20 vehicles to the school; events held after school hours (i.e., open houses) should not bring more than approximately 50 vehicles to the school at any one time. Events are staggered over long periods of time to accommodate CREC families; all staff members are not required to attend after-school events which would reduce the staff parking needs from approximately 68 spaces to 35 spaces. Ms. Gallucci stated that CREC has 15 magnet schools with state-of-the-art facilities. Larger scale events, approximately 3 per year, are held at the Metropolitan Learning Center for the Reggio School and at other magnet high schools or other elementary CREC schools; this scenario is typical of all CREC elementary schools. Ms. Gallucci addressed parent dropoff and pickup procedures. She noted that CREC schools are committed to serving the best interests of their students and families. A valet system, as a convenience to
the parents, is proposed at the subject site; this service is used at many existing CREC schools and has proved to be very efficient, safe, and effective. During morning dropoff, parents pull up to the curb to let students out of the vehicle without the need to park; this practice takes approximately 30 to 60 seconds per student. Parents are given windshield placards to assist with afternoon pickup; school staff members stand outside identifying the students to be picked up. Students are escorted to the cars by school staff so parents do not have to get out of their car if they choose not to. She noted that this process takes between 60 and 90 seconds per vehicle. Ms. Gallucci thanked the Commission for their kind consideration of this proposal.
Steve Ulman, PE traffic engineer, explained that he has a lot of experience with school traffic including site circulation for bus traffic and parent pickup. He noted that the first traffic study for the subject site was done in June 2011; a second traffic study was done in September 2011. Mr. Ulman added that nothing has really changed for the current application from a traffic perspective. Traffic counts were done at the intersections of Route 10 (Waterville Road) and Avonwood Road and at the intersection of Route 10 (Waterville Road) and Route 44 (at Nod Road). Twenty four hour machine counts were done on Route 10 just north of Avonwood Road and on Avonwood Road just to the west where trucks and buses would enter the subject site. Site distances were measured from the intersection of
Avonwood Road along Route 10 and from the site drives along Avonwood Road. The speed on Avonwood Road was assumed to be 35 mph which requires a site distance of 390 feet; there is an excess of 480 feet looking to the west and both drives can see all the way to the intersection of Avonwood Road and Route 10. The average speeds measured on Route 10 are 51 mph, which would require a site distance of 570 feet. The site distance from Avonwood Road, in both directions north and south, exceeds 725 feet. The site distance from the proposed “LeJardin” (yellow barn) entrance drive also exceeds 725 feet in both directions.
Mr. Ulman noted that the State of CT Accident Data was reviewed for the last 3 year period in the site vicinity; there were 5 accidents. Two accidents were attributed to wet snow and rain; 1 accident was due to unsafe backing; 1 accident was a traffic control violation; and 1 accident was due to following too close. He noted that there is no accident pattern that shows a real need for any geometric improvements in the subject location. He commented that capacity analyses were conducted utilizing the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual for both intersections for existing conditions and for the condition of the roads if the proposed school were not built in 2013. The existing conditions at the intersection of Route 10 and Route 44 presently operate at Level Service C in the mornings and Level Service B in
the afternoons. The afternoon counts were done during normal school afternoon peak hours, which is between 1pm and 3pm. He explained that, overall, the intersection of Route 10 and Avonwood Road operates at Level Service A during both periods; however, during the morning peak hour, the left turn from Avonwood Road heading north onto Route 10 operates at Level Service F; approximately 208 seconds of delay. The study for 2013 shows that the Level of Service at Route 10 and Route 44 would remain the same; the Level of Service at Route 10 and Avonwood Road would be Level Service B.
Mr. Ulman reviewed the proposal for 3 temporary classrooms and noted that the plan is to have all the students dropped off at 150 Fisher Drive and then bused to the subject site. The only individuals that would be using the driveway at the subject site would be a few staff members and the buses both dropping off and picking up students in the morning and afternoon. Mrs. Griffin asked where the bus dropoff area would be for the temporary classrooms. Mr. Ulman noted that there is more existing parking on the subject site than would be needed for the proposed temporary use. There may be 3 teachers and 1 or 2 staff members; the staff would be onsite to greet the children in the morning and escort them to the bus in the afternoon. Mr. Ulman explained that the school staff would not be parking in
the area proposed for bus dropoff; they would park in another location and parents would not be driving to the site.
Mr. Ulman offered data about trip generation for the proposed development in 2013 when the school would be open; information for schools from the 2008 Trip Generation Manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) was utilized. It is estimated that the average daily estimated traffic for a school with 435 students is 561 vehicles; the morning counts are estimated at 87 vehicles arriving at school during peak hour and 71 vehicles leaving the school during peak hour. The afternoon count is anticipated to be 110 vehicles in total; 50 vehicles entering and 61 vehicles leaving. Post-development traffic volumes have been studied; Mr. Ulman explained that these generated volumes are an assumption for the roadway network, 2013 no-build volumes, to come up with conditions for the proposed school.
He noted that the intersection of Route 10 and Route 44 would operate at Level Service C in the morning and Level Service B in the afternoon. Avonwood Road would operate at Level Service D in the morning and Level Service A in the afternoon; the Avonwood Road site driveways would operate at Level Service A for both peak periods.
Mr. Ulman addressed a traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Avonwood Road and Route 10. He noted that the results received for an unsignalized intersection are typical for a prime side road located on Route 10; the level of service for an unsignalized driveway/road located on Route 10 is governed by the amount of traffic on Route 10 and not as much by the traffic on the side street. Avonwood Road with one vehicle turning left operates at Level Service E; one vehicle during one peak period can cause delays. He noted that a traffic signal is warranted in accordance with 3 of the normal 8 warrants (i.e., interruption of traffic, peak hour). He explained that the volume for warrant 1B, the primary warrant to add a signal, would meet the existing volumes for 11 hours per day. Mr.
Ulman stated that there have been preliminary discussions with the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and they have indicated that they would not give any final analysis until a local approval is granted. He added that the DOT has also indicated that they would not be opposed to putting a signal at this intersection. He noted that a left-turn bypass lane for northbound traffic on Route 10 will also be discussed with the State. He added that a signal at Avonwood Road may possibly offer relief to the side streets located immediately south of Avonwood Road.
Mr. Ulman addressed and reviewed his letter to David Hoopes, dated October 18, 2011, pertaining to his parent dropoff and pickup analysis. A 150-foot area along the curb is proposed for the dropoff area; enough area for 7 vehicles but, in reality, there will probably only be room for 6. There would also be room for 3 to 4 cars on Avonwood Road. He explained that he observed parent dropoff and pickup at the Fisher Drive site and at the CREC magnet school at the University of Hartford. He noted that the University of Hartford uses the valet system that is proposed for the subject site. At the Fisher Drive location a total of 31 vehicles were observed for morning student dropoff (17 vehicles were observed at the Latimer Lane location for a total of 48 vehicles). Twelve (12) vehicles
arrived between 7:30 am and 8:10 am (early arrivals) and 19 vehicles arrived between 8:10 am and 8:40 am (the bulk of the dropoff). He noted that 11 vehicles were observed for the afternoon pickup traffic from 2:45 pm to 3:15 pm. He explained that the proposed school would have 435 students, which is a 153% increase over the 284 CREC students located at the Fisher Drive and Latimer Lane locations. He noted that 61% of the total vehicles (74 are expected at the new school - there are 48 currently at the 2 existing schools) were observed during the peak half hour in the morning; 45 vehicles would be dropping off during the heaviest half hour morning time period. The afternoon would realize 35%, or 26 vehicles dropping off. It is expected that 60 seconds per vehicle would be needed for the morning and 90 seconds per vehicle in the afternoon. Mr. Ulman explained that to ensure that there would be enough time these numbers have been doubled to 120
seconds in the AM and 180 seconds in the PM. Sixteen (16) minutes are needed for 45 vehicle dropoffs along the curb during the morning peak. Fifteen (15) minutes are needed for 26 vehicle pickups during the afternoon peak. Mr. Ulman explained that these counts are a worst-case scenario, as there would be deviations from these numbers due to parents parking and going in to talk with a teacher, students bringing in projects, etc.
Mr. Ulman offered trip generation volumes/information for the previously approved medical office building. The 98K square foot medical office building, using the current 8th generation 8th edition trip generation, would generate an average daily traffic of 3,823 trips compared to 561 trips for the school. The school morning peak time is the same as the medical office building morning peak time; a total of 159 vehicles in total are anticipated to enter and exit the school versus 350 vehicles anticipated for the medical office building.
Mr. Ulman addressed traffic volumes along Route 10 and noted that the State of Connecticut DOT does 24-hour counts at specific locations along major roadways and State roadways in every town every 3 years. Counts were done in Avon in 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006 and the last count was done in 2009. The count station is located along Route 10 south of Route 44; it is done in the same place every time for accuracy. The average daily traffic in 1997 was 15,400; in 2003 it was 15,500; in 2009 the count dropped to 14,200.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Ulman noted that the counts are always done in May. The May counts are adjusted to an average day on Route 10; there are also numbers factored by season so that when ADTs are compared by traffic engineers, there is a confidence that the comparison is “apples” to “apples”.
Mr. Ulman explained that similar traffic counts were taken at the count station located just north of Old Farms Road; 11,900 in 1994; 13,400 in 1997; 14,200 in 2000; 13,300 in 2003; 12,600 in 2006; and 12,900 in 2009. He noted that he has done a number of traffic studies recently throughout the State of Connecticut and the result patterns are similar; traffic is affected by the economy. He stated that based on the traffic study and his professional opinion he doesn’t feel the construction of the proposed school would adversely affect safety or traffic patterns in the subject area.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Ulman explained that he doesn’t have any data relative to traffic accidents on Avon Mountain. He added that he doesn’t know if the runaway truck ramp located on Avon Mountain is the only one in Connecticut but added that he doesn’t believe it has been used to date. He explained that no traffic counts could have predicted the truck accident that occurred on Avon Mountain in 2005, as it was caused by negligence. He commented that, to the best of his knowledge, buses would not go over Avon Mountain.
Mrs. Griffin asked about the dropoff area and noted that older children often sit up front in the passenger seat but added that normal seating for younger children, in car seats, is in the back seat so the vehicle would want to pull up next to the curb to let the children out. She asked whether the proposed plan and the arrows shown on the driveway should be reversed in direction. Mr. Ulman explained that from his observations at the University of Hartford CREC School it didn’t matter, as there were students getting out of both sides of the car’s back seat. He noted that there are many instances where there is an older student in the car and a younger student in the back; the older student on the left side and the car seat on the right side. He added that school staff would be there
assisting students. He commented that because the school would be using the valet system it doesn’t seem to be a problem to have vehicles entering with the left side at the curb.
Mr. Starr commented that it has been represented that there would be enough room for 4 cars in the entrance lane. He commented that on rainy days there may be more vehicles and asked whether there would be enough room on the shoulder of the rebuilt Avonwood Road to hold more vehicles to keep them out of the traffic/cueing lane. Mr. Ulman indicated that he doesn’t know about the shoulder width area but added that another option, to keep vehicles off of Avonwood Road, could be for school staff to direct vehicles to park on the school site and teachers could bring students out to parked vehicles. He noted that this scenario has occurred at the CREC School at the University of Hartford. Mr. Starr asked CREC whether this scenario actually occurs/works in reality. Ms. Gallucci explained that
there are several ways that the valet service works. There are security personnel in uniform that direct traffic along with outside school staff. She noted that there has not been a situation, in the current facilities, where cars are backing up onto roads. The valet service is fast and efficient; typically it takes 30 to 60 seconds per vehicle. Ms. Gallucci noted that on rainy days parents, generally, park and walk in with their student. She noted that this has not been an issue to date and added that CREC is prepared for any situation and could make adjustments to address a cueing problem (i.e, staggered start times) or any other unforeseen traffic problems.
Mr. Kushner explained that Avonwood Road has a 60-foot right-of-way and is of substantial width. This road serves approximately 370 apartments/condominiums to the rear and asked whether it would make sense to stripe a shoulder in connection with the proposed rebuilding of Avonwood Road. He added that striping the shoulder could also serve for traffic calming. Mr. Ulman stated that he thinks striping the shoulder would be possible. Mr. Hoopes agreed and stated that CREC would like to make this representation part of the application.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Ulman confirmed that the majority of students are dropped off by buses. He added that it has been his experience that all magnet schools have a higher percentage of students on buses than normal town schools because they are coming from wide-spread areas.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Ulman offered information about the number of cars that would be traveling over Avon Mountain. He noted that it is estimated that in the morning 26 vehicles would come over Avon Mountain from West Hartford; the afternoon count for the same direction would be 15 vehicles. The count for the opposite direction would be 21 vehicles in the morning and 18 vehicles in the afternoon. He explained that the number of students per bus varies from town to town and from bus to bus; there are different size buses. He noted that his observation has been that the buses carry anywhere from a handful of students to half a bus load.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s question, Mr. Ulman stated that all the buses used are the short variety. He asked whether the buses would use Nod Road to Route 185 since they cannot travel over Avon Mountain. Mr. Ulman indicated that he would imagine so.
Mr. Kushner asked whether the State would allow the crossing of Avon Mountain via Route 185 but not allow crossing via Route 44.
Mr. Ulman noted that that scenario would be his guess in consideration of the 2005 accident.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Ms. Gallucci noted that the State Statutes state that it is a town’s responsibility to transport its children to school regardless of which school they attend (i.e., private, magnet, public). She added that CREC affords parents a 60-minute time period to drop off their children and use the valet service, beginning at 7:30 am; the number of vehicles coming into the site at any given time is not great.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s earlier question about buses going over Avon Mountain, Mr. Hoopes stated that Simsbury Road (Route 10) over the mountain in Bloomfield is considered safer and isn’t that inconvenient with the way the bus routes work. Mr. Mahoney asked whether all the traffic coming from the east, over the mountain, would come through Bloomfield and down Nod Road. Mr. Hoopes noted that this route would be for bus traffic. Mr. Mahoney asked if any traffic would come over Talcott or through Farmington. Mr. Ulman pointed out that the bus traffic coming from the east going to Fisher Drive would use the same routes to get to the proposed site on Waterville Road. Mr. Ulman added that he doesn’t really know what the bus routes are because he hasn’t studied them. Ms. Gallucci added that CREC families come from 28 towns throughout the State and, therefore, the routes vary depending upon where the students are coming from. Mr. Mahoney asked how many students come up Route 10
from the south. Ms. Gallucci noted that she doesn’t know the answer but offered to find out. Mr. Ulman commented that when he left the school he followed 2 buses down Route 10; one turned left and one turned right.
Mr. McCoy addressed parking for the existing yellow barn and noted that the plans show 25 parking spaces to comply with the current Zoning Regulations; parking is based on the square footage of the building. The total number of parking spaces in relation to the proposed use of the building is far significant for what the school plans to use. He noted that the student dropoff area would be a striped area with direct access into the building; the students would exit the same way onto the bus. A few handicap parking spaces are provided in the front of the building. Mr. McCoy reiterated that students would arrive by bus and return to Fisher Drive by bus where they would be picked up; no parents would be parking in the area in front of the yellow building during the time that the buses are there.
He noted that the existing yellow barn will be tied into the existing sewer, gas, and water lines in the street; drainage calculations have been submitted to Town Staff. Storm water would be caught on the building and collected and treated via roof leaders into the storm water system; an underground detention basin would store water and be discharged at a rate so as not to increase the existing wetland on site. The water to the north of the site would be collected in an above-ground detention area; the area would be fenced and planted to function naturally. Water in this area would also be stored and discharged into the wetland at the current rate to ensure that the wetlands do not get over flooded during storms and also to ensure that no offsite flooding occurs.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. McCoy explained that the area proposed for the soccer field/lawn area would not be clear cut initially; a decision would not be made about the use of this area until it is determined that there would be funds in the project budget and bids are received. If the area does get cleared for a field/lawn, the area would be heavily planted and screened per the Regulations.
Mr. McCoy explained that the first phase of the project involves the temporary classrooms in the existing yellow barn; the second phase focuses on the new building construction. He noted that the two existing red buildings would function during the beginning of phase II, as the current lease runs through the winter of 2012. After the lease expires, the red buildings would be taken down and in the spring of 2013 the parking lot and landscaping would be finished before the school proposes to open in the fall of 2013.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question about deliveries, Mr. McCoy explained that the dumpsters would be screened in by a wall which would match the building wall; a fence would also be used for screening. He noted that a sidewalk is shown in this area to provide for access to the soccer field after school hours. No students would be exiting via the front of the school during the day and crossing the driveway/delivery area to access the play areas.
Mr. Starr added that there would be school staff outside supervising the students. Mr. McCoy concurred. Mr. McCoy explained that if the soccer field is built, there would be a fence around it. The lawn area is protected by a significant wooded area; if the area is cleared out a fence would be installed as a buffer to the neighbors and Avonwood Road.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question regarding noise to the neighbors, Mr. McCoy explained that the proposed field is not large and there is quite a bit of natural existing vegetation/screening that would provide a buffer during the day. If the soccer field is opened up, it would be replanted to screen for both visual and sound; both trees and shrubs would be proposed.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. McCoy stated that there is 100 yards or more from the edge of the subject property to the nearest apartments to the rear. He noted that the parking for the apartments is actually located closer to the subject site than the apartments themselves.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. McCoy explained that CREC is still in the process of determining how they want to handle the driveway area after the temporary classrooms in the yellow barn are no longer used. He noted that CREC would be agreeable to closing the driveway once the temporary use is completed. CREC would agree that the driveway could not be reopened until a new use is approved by the Commission.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she was disappointed when she saw the revised plan and noted that she had hoped that once the entire site was purchased that CREC would propose to take down the yellow barn. She commented that she hoped for a new plan that showed decent parking and everything incorporated into one facility, one area. Instead, the proposal is two separate areas functionally separately; it’s not one area at all. She commented that once the Fisher Drive location no longer exists for bus loading into this facility, the Commission needs to know how CREC is going to transport students in and out of the site. Mr. McCoy explained that the yellow barn is proposed to be used only as a temporary classroom area for one year. Once the school is open there would no longer be students in
the yellow barn and there would no longer be student dropoffs in that area; there would not be concurrent uses on the subject site. CREC would come back to the Commission for any future use of the yellow barn.
Mr. Starr commented that it would be a good idea to show reserved parking in the area near the yellow barn so it wouldn’t have to be paved right now but if more parking were needed it would be available.
Mr. Hoopes explained that CREC is very flexible with what they would do with the subject site. He noted that it is not that important to CREC to have use of the yellow barn for one year; the building could come down if that was the Commission’s preference.
Mr. Cappello suggested that some “green” technology be incorporated into the proposed building. Mr. McCoy explained that many “green” philosophies are designed into the proposed school; the CT High Performance Standards are being followed which is essentially equal to a LEED Silver Building. A roof garden is proposed for the second floor, which would also be used as a teaching space/outdoor classroom. He noted that all the mechanical systems are high performance in nature.
Mr. Hoopes reviewed the 9 criteria found in Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations.
- Suitable location for use - the regulation is very specific and directed at the size, nature, and intensity of the use for the lot. He noted that 10 acres is a reasonable amount of land for the proposed use. CREC is very amenable to showing reserved parking in the area near the yellow barn. He noted that he has submitted a handout on the issue of whether a site this size is suitable for an elementary school. The University of Hartford Magnet School is on 7 acres and serves 441 students; The Montessori Magnet School in Hartford is on 5.5 acres and serves 350 students. Two schools recently constructed in Avon, Pine Grove and Thompson Brook, are on a total of 36 acres and serve 1,235 students; 35 students per acre. He noted that the Pine Grove parcel contains a fairly substantial wooded
watercourse area and nature trails. The proposed school is very suitable for the subject site.
- Suitable structures for use - it has been shown that the proposed structures are very suitable for the proposed use, as they have been designed specifically for a school. He noted that CREC is open to suggestions in this area.
- Neighborhood Compatibility – the proposed school is well designed; the architects did a very good job. A school is an ideal use for the site as it would be located in a mixed-use area of Town where there is commercial, multi-family residential, and single-family residential; a very good transitional use. The proposed school is similar in terms of scale and impacts to those existing commercial uses on Waterville Road. A school would have no impacts on evening rush hour. The proposed building is very attractive and would fit well into the neighborhood.
- Adequate parking and access – valet parking is proposed and a parking and dropoff and pickup analysis has been provided. A special events schedule has been submitted; CREC has significant experience in this area and have demonstrated to that effect. CREC is willing to accept a condition, if an approval is granted, that a cueing area be established on Avonwood Road.
- Adequate streets for use – it has been demonstrated that the proposed school would make the existing traffic conditions better.
- Adequate emergency access – the proposed project has been reviewed by the Town Planner, the Town Engineer, the Fire Marshal, and the Police Chief and no one has expressed any objections to this site; no concerns have been raised with regard to emergency access.
- Adequate public utilities – the site is served by water, sewer, and gas; approvals have been received by the appropriate authorities and all criteria have been satisfied.
- Environmental protection and conservation – there are no special environmental considerations required; there are no endangered species along this site. There are two minor wetlands on site; an approval has been granted by the Inland Wetlands Commission.
- Consistent with purposes – the proposed school would not produce any detrimental effects to health, safety, and welfare.
Mr. Hoopes stated that all special exception criteria have been satisfied and added that the applications should be approved. He thanked the Commission.
Mrs. Clark asked how many students from Avon would be attending the proposed school. Ms. Gallucci stated that currently there are 28 Avon families that attend the CREC School. She explained that the regional school choice office is overseen by the State Department of Education for the State of Connecticut and posts a lottery. Students are assigned a number and the school allows a certain number of seats available for any particular year, in any particular grade, and students from Avon are placed in the lottery along with students from other towns throughout the State. She noted that CREC anticipates that the number of students for Avon could grow from 28 to 40 (once fully enrolled) and added that if the Avon Board of Education wanted a number agreement that the State of CT would set aside seats for
students from Avon and be given a preference in the lottery. She noted that Avon already has an agreement with the University of Hartford Magnet School and Avon Public Schools. Any further agreements for Avon would be determined by Avon Public Schools, certain magnet schools, and the State Department of Education.
Mr. Cappello asked where the CREC students go when they complete 5th Grade. Ms. Gallucci explained that CREC is working to develop K12 pathways within their schools but noted that, typically, families could apply to another CREC school or take advantage of their town public school. She noted that, currently, there are some pathways for some CREC schools and added that once Reggio reaches the 5th Grade, CREC will have worked to establish pathways for other CREC schools. Ms Gallucci stated that once a student is accepted through the lottery system, they stay through the 5th Grade and do not have to reapply every year.
Mr. Mahoney asked if the details that would be submitted to the State about the turning signal at Avonwood Road are available. Mr. Ulman explained that he has not prepared any plans yet but noted that he sees the signal working as a three-phase signal; phase one would be northbound and southbound traffic on Route 10. The second phase would be Avonwood Road; there would be vehicle detectors in Avonwood Road and also a left-turn arrow. He noted that during the day there would probably be 4 patterns to the signal; one for the AM peak; one for the school in the afternoon; one for the commuter AM peak; and one for the rest of the time. The signal would more than likely flash between the hours of 11 AM and 5:30 PM. Mr. Ulman commented that currently there is not enough right-of-way and land for a
full left-turn lane; he added that he would propose putting in a wider area northbound, possibly 20 to 22 feet wide for a left-turn bypass lane. He concluded by noting that plans would be submitted to the State DOT/STC as soon as a local approval is granted.
Ms. Keith asked if there could be a signal delay, on either side, to left-hand traffic move. Mr. Ulman explained that if northbound traffic approached the light and it was red, there would be a left-turn arrow and a green ball; southbound would still be stopped. He commented that during school hours there may be 12 seconds of green time.
Mr. Starr opened the hearing to the public
Robert Paine, Tamara Circle, conveyed his support of magnet schools but also noted his displeasure with the proposed location at 59 Waterville Road. He commented that he feels that the former M.H. Rhodes property is an excellent site for a magnet school. He added that he feels the culture of Avon affords a valuable environment for good education.
Candy Doersch, 125 Ayshire Lane, commented that Ayshire Lane would be impacted by the proposed traffic light, as it is located just south of Avonwood Road. She noted that there is a blind corner on Ayshire Lane and the bus stop is close to this blind corner. She conveyed her concerns that an increase in traffic on Ayshire Lane will pose a risk to the children. She noted her concerns about putting an elementary school on a busy road.
Joe Delbone, 45 Waterville Road, asked why the M.H. Rhodes property wasn’t considered for the proposed school. Mr. Starr explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission has no jurisdiction over this type of decision. Mr. Delbone asked who he could talk to about this matter. Mr. Starr informed Mr. Delbone that he could talk to the Town Council. Mr. Delbone asked why CREC is pushing so hard to locate a school in Avon. He noted that he currently has a wash through on the rear of his property; there is standing water and he noted that it doesn’t happen often, maybe every 4 years. He commented that if Christmas trees are planted in standing water they would be lost. He asked what is going to happen and noted that he would be going back to the Town to fix the water system. Mr. Delbone addressed the recent zone change and indicated that a 7½ foot variance was missed. He noted that there is 7½ feet from the edge of his property to the yellow barn. He commented that he got a copy
of the letter from the lawyer that was a waste of paper; legal speak and it meant nothing. He commented that this issue has to be resolved; he added that he doesn’t know how to resolve it but further added that he does not plan to file another lawsuit. He asked Mr. Kushner what the next course of action would be.Mr. Kushner, in response to Mr. Delbone’s question, explained that the yellow post and beam building, for years, was located in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zone, which is a commercial zoning district; this district requires a 25-foot side yard separating distance from the side of the building to the side property line. The parcel containing the yellow barn was rezoned to RU2A (residential 2 acre); the RU2A zone requires a 35-foot separating distance. The 35-foot side yard requirement that currently exists for the RU2A zone was modified in 2006; prior to 2006 the requirement was 25 feet. He explained there is some question as to
whether the provision in the Zoning Regulations that talks about lots in existence as of 2006 means that the 25-foot requirement still applies. He further explained that the Town Attorney has indicated, in an email that was shared with the Commission and with Mr. Delbone, that it is her opinion that whether that 2006 grandfathering provision applies or not, a Planning and Zoning Commission is not prevented from granting a zone change where there is an existing structure on the property in the event that that structure would then become nonconforming to the modern-day side yard setback requirement. He continued by noting that the Town Attorney further indicated that should this scenario be the case, the only property, then, that a Commission could consider rezoning would be a parcel of land that is vacant.
Mr. Delbone commented that he imagines that this is something that will have to be looked into. Mr. Kushner explained that the Town Attorney appears to be very solid in her opinion and she doesn’t believe any additional research is required. Mr. Delbone commented that there are two different view points on how that letter was read; it was legal ease at its best. Mr. Kushner reiterated that he doesn’t believe that the Town Attorney wants to do any additional research; he noted that he had a phone conversation with the Town Attorney in addition to reading her email. Mr. Delbone commented that this issue has to be resolved; he added that there have been too many loose ends with this whole deal.
Mr. Delbone commented that it takes longer and longer to get out onto Route 10. He noted that the State DOT has opposed the flyover, which included that section of Route 10/202. He commented that the State has indicated that they are not going to do anything at this time; he questioned what “at this time” means and asked whether the Commission has taken this into consideration. Mr. Starr asked Mr. Delbone if he is referring to the flyover. Mr. Delbone said yes and asked if the flyover was discussed at all. Mr. Starr noted that the flyover was not discussed. Mr. Delbone asked whether a discussion about the flyover would have been pertinent. Mr. Starr stated that he doesn’t feel a discussion about the flyover is pertinent, as it would never happen in his lifetime. Mr. Delbone noted that there has been a lot of verbal communication from the State but asked if maybe something in writing should be sought.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s question about the flyover, Mr. Kushner offered background information and explained that there was a public meeting several years ago, at the request of the State DOT, at a Town Council meeting where the DOT presented a very conceptual plan for the flyover. It was a grand plan that would cost many, many millions of dollars and, while it had some benefit, it would have certain impacts to some of the existing properties, including Mr. Delbone’s house, the River Mead Condominiums, Avon Old Farms Hotel, and Nassau Furniture. He noted that the State held stakeholder meetings following the Town Council meeting; abutting property owners were selected. The State reported back to the Town that the reception from the abutters was lukewarm, at best, with many concerns
raised. He noted that the Town Council indicated that they thought the plan was worth studying but noted they weren’t currently prepared to endorse the plan. In response to the reactions from both the abutters and the Town Council, the State informed the Town Council verbally, not in writing, that the State would not be pursuing the flyover plan at that time. Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Chairman Starr that the likelihood of the flyover occurring is very, very slim; anything could happen but at this time there are no plans by the State to pursue this project.
Mr. Delbone commented that, in his opinion, it appears that a decision was made at some point about the CREC School and now the process is trying to be jury rigged to confirm the decision that was made. He commented that during this entire process, the Chairman of the Commission has failed to perform his fiduciary responsibilities to the best interests of the Avon taxpayers and because of this, he respectfully requested for the Chairman’s resignation, effective immediately.
Sue Henneberry, 488 Huckleberry Hill Road, noted that she sent the Commission a letter and commented that she is a teacher. She commented that Avon has an opportunity to close the achievement gap; CREC Schools have shown success.
Margaret Bratton, 15 Old Mill Road, commented that every time there is a meeting CREC asks for more; approving this proposal would not prevent additional requests of Avon. She noted that CREC has used the term “social justice” and noted that while it sounds nice, it is not legally permitted to be part of the Commission’s decision. She noted that Avon already has a wonderful K-12 program; there is no need for CREC and the State to take away fine Avon land. She noted her concerns with liability to the Town if an approval were granted. She noted concerns with traffic increases and loss of property values in the subject area. She asked the Commission to vote no to the subject applications.
Asante Mendes, 61 Bronson Road, commented that his daughter attends the CREC Reggio School. He stressed the School’s value and the added benefits to the community.
Bruce Murray, 93 Ayshire Lane, commented that he has noticed an increase in traffic from time to time on Ayshire Lane. He noted that he feels it is natural to use Ayshire as a cut through road, if there is congestion in the area. He requested that the traffic impacts to the nearby residential areas be considered to avoid any negative consequences. He asked if there is any supporting documentation to support the decision that the subject site would be more desirable than the site on Climax Road. Mr. Starr explained that whether the subject site is the correct site or not is the decision that the Commission will be making once all the input has been received. Mr. Starr explained that, personally, he has concerns with school buses on Climax Road, as it is very narrow. Mr. Murray commented
that Waterville Road is only a two-lane road just like Climax Road. Mr. Starr noted that he feels Waterville Road is a better road than Climax Road.
Bruce Shein, 11 Oak Bluff, asked if a “school zone” sign would be posted in the area on Route 10. He noted that, normally, the speed limit for a school zone is 10 mph less than the posted speed limit. He noted his concerns that traffic could back up on Route 10 due to a school zone. Mr. Kushner explained that Route 10 is a State road, controlled by the State. Mr. Ulman commented that at the present time only warning signs for a school zone area are proposed. He noted that there would not be any children playing near the road. He stated that school zone postings on all roads, not just State roads, are always controlled by the State of CT. He noted that the posted speed on Waterville Road in that area is 45 mph; a school zone speed would be 35 mph. He stated that
his request to the STC would be for warning signs for a school zone; he added that there may also be a traffic signal there. Mr. Shein asked whether this reduction in speed would cause traffic backups into Farmington. Mr. Ulman commented that he doesn’t believe so and added that he would expect 5 or 6 cars, at most, backed up at the signaled intersection. Mr. Shein noted his disagreement indicating that he drives back and forth on Waterville Road 10 times a day. He asked if there were any plans to widen Waterville Road to allow vehicles to pass. Mr. Starr commented that it is his understanding that a widening is proposed to allow room for the northbound vehicles to continue straight while left turns are happening.
In response to Mr. Shein’s concern about traffic at the intersection of Old Farms Road and Waterville Road, Mr. Kushner explained that the Town has been working with the State for the past 15 years in an effort to gain approval to construct a new bridge (just north of where the existing bridge is) crossing the Farmington River; some road widening would be required. He noted that this project has been stalled for many years but the Town is still hopeful that approval will be granted by the State at some point.
Linda York, 12 Reverknolls, commented that she feels the proposed school is a wonderful idea but noted that she feels the site across from Thompson Brook School would be a better location. Waterville Road is not a logical place for a school; it doesn’t look like a school should belong there. She noted her concerns with worsening traffic conditions on Waterville Road.
Laura Young, 57 Hitchcock Lane, indicated her support for the proposed school. She read aloud a letter of support noting that she has sent it to the Commission.
An unidentified speaker stated that his daughter attends the CREC Reggio School on Fisher Drive. He noted that he used to live in the Avon Mill Apartments and is familiar with the area. He noted his support for the proposed plan and added that he feels it is a wonderful opportunity for Avon. He added that dropoff and pickup at Fisher Drive is not a big issue.
Susan Norman, 277 Cider Brook Road, noted her support for the Reggio School in Avon and added that she feels Avon could use additional facilities. She indicated that she favors healthy competition in education and while she welcomes the proposed school, she added that she is not wild about the location because she would not like to see a stop light for northbound traffic in the AM. She noted that she hopes there would be plenty of room for snow piling so as not to create sightline issues on Waterville Road. She concluded by noting that she would like to see the elevations of the proposed school look more like the existing yellow barn.
Mr. McCoy stated that CREC has submitted with their plans their intent to maintain the school just like any other school within the district; plowing and shoveling of the walkways throughout the site would be provided. He noted that there are quite a few lawn areas on the site and the proposed athletic field would not be used during the winter months. CREC feels that there is adequate room on the site to store snow while also being able to provide safe movements around the site and not create any negative impacts to the sightlines.
Joan McDonald, 222 Reverknolls, commented that she supports the CREC School in Avon but noted that she doesn’t support it at the subject site. She commented that she feels it would create a traffic problem even with an extra turning lane and a traffic signal.
Reba Nassau, 5 Grey Fox Trail, commented that she feels CREC is doing an amazing job with magnet schools and added that Avon now has an opportunity for such a school. She noted that both Avon High School and Avon Middle School are also located on a busy State road and asked whether anyone has ever expressed concerns about traffic issues there; Route 167 is a very busy road. She conveyed her support for the CREC School as proposed.
Diana Goode, 17 Cotswold Way, thanked CREC for not giving up on the Town of Avon in their attempt to find a permanent home for the School. She noted her daughter attends a CREC school in Hartford and loves it because of the diversity it offers. She indicated that the traffic on Scoville Road is a nightmare when the Pine Grove School parents are dropping students off. She commented that there is no perfect place for the magnet school but noted her hope that the subject application would be approved.
Linda Merlin, 48 Highgate Drive, noted that she sent a letter to the Commission noting her support. She commented that having this school in Avon would be a privilege, as the school offers tremendous programs for the students. She commented that our public schools don’t come close to offering what this school offers and added that that there would be traffic issues no matter where the school was located. She asked for consideration to approve the proposal.
Roy Beebe, owner of 59 Waterville Road, noted that he has owned the property since 1996. Dr. Beebe indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Planning Department have been very helpful and creative throughout all his trials with this site; at no time have the Commission or the Town been obstructive in any way. He noted that he received an approval to construct a medical surgery center but the plans fell apart due to conflicts with abortion issues; he noted that he still feels a medical surgery center would have been a great use on the site. He explained that he has been before the Commission on several occasions for many different uses such as an upscale restaurant, a specialty food store, an active adult complex, and an early learning center. He pointed out that in the 15 years
he has owned the subject property at no time did anyone ever approach him and ask to build an office building. He stated that he doesn’t feel there is any need, for a lot of reasons, and added that he doesn’t think it will happen in his lifetime. Dr. Beebe commented that unless the Town wants to preserve this site as open space, some type of development is going to occur here, someday, whether it’s a CREC School or a subdivision of some type. He noted that whatever development occurs on the site there will be traffic issues and probably as many traffic issues, if not more, as the proposed school. Dr. Beebe concluded by stating that he feels that a well maintained school would increase neighboring property values as opposed to decreasing values.
Ben Isaacson, 108 Wellington Heights Road, indicated his support for the proposed school. In response to his questions, Mr. Ulman stated that the proposal is for 435 students and the average daily traffic for the proposed school is 561 vehicle trips; 159 trips in the AM peak and 110 in the PM peak. Mr. Isaacson commented that these trips would occur over a one-hour time period so there wouldn’t be 159 cars lined up at any one time. He commented that everyone knows that Route 10 is crowded and added that not all the school traffic would be making a left-hand turn. He pointed out that school is open 180 days a year; an office building or a retail use would be open more days with more traffic. He conveyed his support to bring CREC to Avon and added that he believes the benefits far
outweigh the small bump in traffic.
Mr. Ulman offered clarification about how many vehicles would be cueing in a northbound direction and stated that the report analysis shows a 95th percentile cue, meaning that 95% of the cues would be shorter than 182 feet. He explained that based on his study for trip distribution, the area near Ayshire Lane and points south would realize an additional 47 vehicles in the morning and 33 vehicles in the afternoon.
Mr. Hoopes stated that he has nothing further and thanked the Commission for their time.
Mr. Starr noted that the Commission received Staff Comments tonight from the Town Engineer and, therefore, has not had an opportunity to review them. He commented that the comments really pertain to the site plan and added that the Commission could move forward on the special exception but asked if it would be better to act on both applications at the same time. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding that the applications are two separate matters but added his recommendation that the Commission vote on both applications on the same night and not separate the applications. He explained that the Special Exception Criteria contained in Section VIII of the Zoning Regulations directly relates to the function of the site plan. Mr. Starr concurred.
In response to earlier comments from nearby residential property owners, Mr. Kushner suggested that the applicant, if agreeable, have their traffic engineer study the potential impacts, if any, of the school’s operation on the nearby residential streets and provide comments. He also requested that the traffic engineer prepare some type of preliminary design drawing of what the intersection improvements would be (i.e., traffic signal proposal to the STC) and submit this information to the Town Traffic Authority and Town Engineer. He added that the Commission could also provide input in this regard.
Mrs. Clark commented that she would like to have data on the accidents that have occurred on Avon Mountain over the last 5 years. Mr. Ulman explained that he will attempt to get this information but noted that the latest accident data from the DOT is from 2008. He further explained that the DOT is currently working on inputting data into a new system and was told that January 1 would be the earliest that any additional data could be obtained but noted that he would try. Mrs. Clark noted her appreciation.
In response to Mr. Delbone’s question, Mr. Kushner stated that the date of the Town Engineer’s Staff Report to CREC is October 14, 2011.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4571 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for November 1. The motion, seconded by Ms. Keith, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing would reconvene in the same location in two weeks, on November 1, 2011.
Mr. Cappello motioned to table App. #4572 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
OUTSTANDING APPLICATION
App. #4570 Fred & Bonnie, LLC owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification for changes to existing and proposed buildings and site layout, 221 West Main Street, Parcel 4540221, in a CR Zone
Mr. Mahoney motioned to table App. #4570 to the November 22 meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Avon Boy Scout Troop #274 requests permission to sell Christmas trees at J. Foster Ice Cream located at 4 Bailey Road
Present were David Whitney, Avon resident representing Boy Scout Troop #274 and John D’Arcangelo and Frank Campanelli, assistant scout masters.
Mr. Whitney explained that Troop #274, comprised of 75 scouts, requests permission to sell 200 Christmas trees, as fund raising is an important part of scout trips. He noted that the intent is to pre sell as many trees as possible to cut down on the number of trees at the site. He noted his understanding that there are restrictions for outdoor display but commented that recently cut trees would not do well stored inside a building. He noted that the requested location for tree sales is J. Foster Ice Cream, located on Bailey Road. He noted that John D’Arcangelo, the owner of J. Foster Ice Cream, has agreed to let the scouts use his business, which has visibility on Route 44. He conveyed his understanding that a Temporary Special Event permit would be needed by the Town. The plan
would be to have a few lighted trees out front with a sandwich board sign; a loading area has been designated on the plan/sketch. He noted that the adjacent property owner has agreed to allow some parking on his property to free up spaces for customers. Mr. Whitney pointed out that he doesn’t believe there would be an overwhelming amount of customers at any one time. Mr. Whitney noted his understanding that if an approval is received it is a one-time approval and if the troop wishes to sell trees in subsequent years that they must return to the Commission for permission.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Whitney noted that J. Foster Ice Cream would be open during the tree sale.
Ms. Keith requested that temporary safety cones be placed on Route 44 near the site. Mr. Whitney noted his understanding.
Mr. Kushner stated that the Staff supports this request but noted that the Zoning Regulations restrict/limit the outdoor use of parking lots for product display/sale. He noted that every year the Town receives requests for temporary seasonal sales (i.e., fireworks vendors that want to set up tents in parking lots). He noted that temporary sales can pose a tricky situation for the Town but added that he believes, due to the scale of the proposed tree sale, that the Commission could make a determination under the Regulations that these trees are “live”. He explained that there is an exception under the Regulations that states that products must be displayed and sold inside a building except for those activities normally conducted outdoors. He pointed out that the Commission has allowed “Big Y” to sell mums outdoors in the fall. Mr. Kushner commented that he feels the subject proposal is reasonable but added that sometimes small ventures evolve into something much larger and other
people pay attention which, in turn, results in other similar requests in the future.
Mrs. Griffin commented that an ice cream parlor is a seasonal use; there is not much need for use of the parking lot in the winter time. Mr. Kushner concurred. Mrs. Griffin noted that she feels this is different than a request to use the parking lot of an active business.
In response to Ms. Keith’s comment, Mr. Kushner explained that no distinction can be made under the Regulations between profit and non-profit businesses. In response to comments from the Commission, Mr. Kushner explained that the concern is land-use impacts not the tax status of an organization. Mr. Kushner commented that the Commission could possibly make a finding about the subject request that it falls under the category of activities normally conducted outdoors because of the nature of the product to be sold, the scale of the operation, and the unique circumstances of the seasonal ice cream business.
Ms. Keith conveyed her understanding and agreement with Mr. Kushner’s comments and motioned to approve the temporary sale of Christmas trees at 4 Bailey Road. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on October 18, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
The following applications were withdrawn:
App. #4554 William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for 2-lot Resubdivision, 2.69 acres, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359, in an R40 Zone WITHDRAWN
App. #4555 William Deramo, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.5.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit waiver of density requirement, 359 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520359, in an R40 Zone WITHDRAWN
Dated at Avon this 19th day of October, 2011. 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
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Senior Center:
App. #4573 - Path LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from RU2A to CPA, 2.13 acres, 38 Guernsey Lane, Parcel 2500038
App. #4574- Three Ninety Five Deercliff Partners LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 395 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090395, in an RU2A 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 19TH day of October, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
