The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, December 13, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney and Alternates Donald Bonner and Christian Gackstatter. Mr. Bonner sat for the entire meeting and Mr. Gackstatter sat for App. #4577. Absent were David Cappello and Alternate Elaine Primeau. 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
Mr. Starr requested corrections to the November 22 meeting minutes. He indicated that the withdrawal of Apps. #4562 and #4563, pertaining to Low Impact Development Regulations, should be noted in the minutes. He also advised of a correction needed to page 511 relating to names of elementary schools in the Farmington Valley that front on Route 10; he clarified that the information was provided by Peggy Roell rather than the Capital Region Education Council (CREC).
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2011, meeting, subject to the corrections requested by Mr. Starr. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4573 - Path LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from RU2A to CPA, 2.13 acres, 38 Guernsey Lane, Parcel 2500038.
The public hearing for App. #4573 was continued from November 22.
Present were David Whitney, PE, representing Path LLC, owner, and Russell Bush, owner.
Mr. Whitney displayed a map and explained that the subject site is part of the Guernsey Lane Subdivision and the request is to change the zone from residential RU2A to commercial CPA. He explained that the lot has 25 feet of frontage on the cul-de-sac for Guernsey Lane and 300 feet of frontage on Waterville Road. The purpose of the CPA zone is to establish an area for office and commercial and light industrial uses. Mr. Whitney displayed a vicinity map showing zoning designations for surrounding properties; several sites are existing CPA zones and some sites are existing NB (neighborhood business) zones. He explained that the property across the street at 59 Waterville Road has just recently undergone a zone change from commercial to residential RU2A; a CREC magnet school is proposed for this site. Mr. Whitney referenced 2 vacant lots on the south side of Avonwood Road that are currently zoned RU2A but noted that the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development recommends that
these lots be developed as office uses or multi-family residential. Mr. Whitney noted that residential sites zoned RU2A surround this area of mixed commercial properties.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Whitney displayed a topographic map of the site and noted that the topography is the driving force behind the zone change request. He noted that just under half of the lot (rear portion about .9 acres) has steep slopes of approximately 40%; the developable area of this lot (front area about 1.2 acres), has slopes of approximately 10%, which are relatively flat by comparison.
Mr. Whitney noted that 40 Waterville Road (zoned CPA), located just north of the subject site, is also owned by Path LLC; the existing house at
40 Waterville Road was converted into an office building. He explained that there is basically a 60-foot elevation difference from the cul-de-sac of Guernsey Lane down to the toe of the steep slope; there is a natural divide between the developable portion of the site and the Guernsey Lane Subdivision.
Mr. Whitney displayed a map showing an option to develop the subject site as residential; he noted that while it could be done it would be difficult. A driveway from Guernsey Lane would need to be approximately 500 feet long and there would need to be approximately 25 feet of an 8% average transition to a maximum grade of 14%. He noted that because the land is very steep, at 40% grade, excessive cuts and some fills would be required and most of the driveway would be between 12% and 14% grade. The driveway width would have to be a minimum of 10 feet with 3-foot shoulders on either side for drainage swales. Mr. Whitney added that he doesn’t believe that driveway access from Waterville Road would be looked favorably upon by either the Town or the State DOT.
Mr. Whitney displayed a schematic site plan showing the lot developed as a commercial site, if the zone were changed to CPA. A building would have to be located on the front portion of the site; the feasibility plan showed a two-story, 9,000-square-foot office building with 45 parking spaces. The plan shows a 50-foot buffer to the south and east; a retaining wall is also proposed. He noted that he believes that this is the largest building that could fit on the site and added that it would be about the same size as two of the three buildings located in the plaza on the corner of Avonwood Road and Waterville Road.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comments, Mr. Whitney confirmed that the driveway entrance is shown/proposed to be shared with the commonly-owned parcel to the north because the area to the south gets steeper and closer to the intersection of Avonwood Road. He added that the intent is to have a consolidated parcel agreement but pointed out that the proposed driveway location is only conceptual in nature; the drawing was prepared to show how the lot could be developed if the zone were changed to CPA. Mr. Whitney explained that the owner, Path LLC, is outgrowing their space on the parcel to the north and their intent would be to move their office to the subject parcel.
Mr. Whitney explained that the owner is willing to provide a conservation easement/restriction. He conveyed his understanding of the desire to preserve the appearance of the existing buildings in the area and added that it would seem appropriate, and the applicant/owner agrees, for the proposed building to have more of a residential look than a commercial look.
Mr. Whitney explained that the subject site is located in Neighborhood #1, as referenced in the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development. He commented that an interpretation could possibly be made that some additional commercial development in this area is reasonable, as some already exists, and there is land zoned OP (Office Park) nearby. He added that the Plan also mentions two parcels located southerly of Avonwood Road that are currently zoned RU2A and notes these parcels should be developed as either an office use or medium-density residential.
Mr. Bonner commented that he is in favor of another business generating tax revenue but noted his concerns with additional traffic on Waterville Road without a plan to repair the road so it could handle additional vehicles.
Mr. Whitney explained that while a traffic study may be warranted for a site plan application, he doesn’t feel it is warranted for a zone change proposal. He added that it could be the case that a smaller building with less traffic would be the result.
Mr. Bonner noted his understanding but added that Waterville Road is an old windy road that needs improvements to be able to accommodate the traffic from all the existing businesses in the area as well as the additional traffic that would be generated from the recently approved school.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Whitney stated that he doesn’t believe the adjacent property owner has been approached to see if he would be interested in buying additional land to square off his lot. He noted that there are 9 parking spaces at the current office location at 40 Waterville Road and explained that this site has already been developed to the maximum permitted.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4573 was closed.
App. #4578 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, National Sign Corporation, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone
Present was Darcie Roy, representing National Sign Corporation and The Fresh Market.
Ms. Roy commented that the request is for an 84-square-foot wall sign on the Route 44 elevation of the new building for “The Fresh Market” (Nod Brook Mall). The proposed sign is internally illuminated channel letters with green LEDs and would be centered over the front door. A second wall sign, 63 square feet, is proposed for the east elevation. She noted that the building has 151 linear feet of frontage on Route 44; the two signs proposed equal 147 square feet.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Ms. Roy noted that the banner shown on the last page of the sign drawings is not part of the subject application.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Kushner noted that he feels the sizes of the proposed signs are in scale with the building and the plaza and explained that The Fresh Market, initially, wanted larger signs on the building but noted that a compromise was eventually reached. He commented that there are other large retailers in Town that have signs larger than 75 square feet such as Big Y, Walmart, Marshalls, and TJ Maxx. The allowable sign area is based on linear frontage of the building (1 square foot of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage).
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s concerns, Ms. Roy explained that she believes the intensity and brightness of LED lights are less than that of neon lights. She added that the letter covers would be green and not bright white; the color/tone of the green would be the same as shown in the drawing and the LEDs would be powered by a low-voltage power source. Ms. Roy noted that diffusers can be installed in the letter faces if they are too bright.
Mr. Kushner asked Ms. Roy is she knows what the industry standard is with regard to foot candles and readability from a highway. Ms. Roy acknowledged that she doesn’t know the standard.
Ms. Keith noted her agreement with Mrs. Griffin’s concerns about LED light projection. Mr. Starr requested that Mr. Kushner work with the applicant regarding compliance with light standards for LED. Mr. Kushner suggested that the light intensity for the existing tenants in Nod Brook Mall could somehow be measured and matched.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4578 was closed.
App. #4579- Leibert Real Estate Limited Partnership, owner, Mark Smith, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit self-service dog bathing, 192 West Main Street, Parcel 4540192 in a CR Zone.
Present to represent this application was C. Michael Margolis, Butler Norris & Gold, representing the applicant.
Attorney Margolis explained that the proposal is for a self-service dog wash with 6 bays in a 1,200-square-foot tenant space located at 192 West Main Street; the site currently has 47 parking spaces. The proposed business would be open Monday through Friday from 10 am to 8pm and Saturdays and Sundays from 8am to 6pm. He noted that traps would be installed in the tubs to collect the dog hair.
In response to Mr. Starr’s questions, Mr. Margolis confirmed that he has received the Staff Comments from the Town Engineer, dated December 8, 2011. He added that he has been in contact with both the Town Engineer as well as the Simsbury water and sewer district; no objections have been noted. Mr. Margolis noted that the applicant is comfortable with all Town requirements.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s concerns regarding dog stops, Mr. Margolis noted that the owner would monitor dog stops and any droppings in the parking lot would be removed immediately. He explained that there is very little grass in the area and the dog owners would be requested to be courteous of other tenants in the building.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s question, Mr. Margolis commented that dog bags could be provided.
Ms. Keith commented that the owner could request that all dogs be on a leash.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concerns, Mr. Margolis provided assurances that any areas marked by dogs inside the building would be washed and sanitized.
In response to Mr. Bonner’s concerns, Mr. Margolis acknowledged his understanding of a dog’s need for elimination after bathing and noted that this issue would be closely monitored.
There being no further input, the public hearing for App. #4579 was closed.
Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing will be suspended and Administrative Procedure #6 waived in order for the Commission to review and consider Apps. #4573, #4578, and #4579.
Ms. Keith motioned to suspend the public hearing and waive Administrative Procedure #6 to consider Apps. #4573, #4578, and #4579. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
App. #4578 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, National Sign Corporation, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone
Mr. Mahoney motioned to approve App. #4578 subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall work with the Director of Planning to establish an acceptable level of light intensity/projection from the sign. In general, light levels shall not exceed that of the current signs in the Nod Brook Mall.
Mr. Thompson seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
App. #4573 - Path LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from RU2A to CPA, 2.13 acres, 38 Guernsey Lane, Parcel 2500038.
Mr. Starr stated that a driveway off of Waterville Road works better than a driveway from Guernsey Lane. He noted that the site is located adjacent to an existing CPA zone and the topography is not really conducive for residential development. Mr. Thompson added that driveway access from Guernsey Lane is also unfavorable due to the topography.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Commission cannot place conditions on a zone change but the Chairman has recognized, for the record, that the applicant has represented that access from Waterville Road would be favorable. Mr. Kushner added that the applicant voluntarily offered to place a conservation restriction on the property and that the zone change proposal appears to be generally consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Thompson motioned to approve App. #4573. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Griffin, received approval from Messrs. Thompson, Starr, and Mahoney, and Mesdames Griffin, Keith, and Clark. Voting in opposition to approve App. #4573 was Mr. Bonner. The effective date of the zone change is December 21, 2011.
App. #4579- Leibert Real Estate Limited Partnership, owner, Mark Smith, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit self-service dog bathing, 192 West Main Street, Parcel 4540192 in a CR Zone.
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve App. #4579 subject to the following conditions:
1. This business, “The Dog Wash” is approved for a one-year time period to ensure that adequate monitoring regarding dog waste will occur.
2. This approval is subject to compliance with all items listed in the Town Engineer’s Staff Comments, dated December 8, 2011.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
Ms. Keith motioned to reopen the public hearing. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Thompson stepped down and Mr. Gackstatter sat for App. #4577.
App. #4577 - Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from CPA to AVC (Avon Center Zone), 6.6 acres, 16 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210016; from CPA to AVC, 11.6 acres, 21 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210021; from IP to AVC, 30.7 acres, 65 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210065; from IP to AVC, 16.3 acres, 70 Ensign Drive, Parcel 2210070; from IP to AVC, 13.7 acres, 55 Bickford Drive, Parcel 1300055; from IP to AVC, 5.4 acres, 75 Bickford Drive, Parcel 1300075; from CPA to AVC, 6.5 acres, 65 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970065; from I to AVC, 1.0 acres, 71 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970071; and from IP to AVC, .93 acres, 93 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970093.
The public hearing for App. #4577 was continued from November 22.
Present to represent this application were Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics, representing Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation; August Jasminski and Andy DiFatta, Ensign Bickford Realty; Bob Stevens, Stevens Land Architecture; Mark Vertucci and Kent Schwendy, Fuss & O’Neill; and John Mullin, Mullin Associates.
Mr. Chalder explained that the subject application proposes a zone change for various parcels in Avon Park North currently zoned CPA, IP, and I to the newly created Avon Village Center (AVC) Zone. He explained that although the details of the master plan will be discussed in conjunction with the zone change request, tonight’s application is just for a change of zone. Mr. Chalder clarified that the zone change is only the first step in a long process. He noted that step 1 of this process was a modification to the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development to explain why the subject area in Avon Park North would be appropriate for this type of town center development. He noted that step 2 was the Commission’s adoption of the new Avon Village Center (AVC) Zoning Regulations and step 3
is the subject application for a zone change. Future steps would include special permit approvals by the Commission for the individual areas within Avon Park North. Mr. Chalder explained that any development in this Park would fall under the Village District legislation for the State of CT and would give the Commission significant discretion with regard to the design aesthetics of the development.
Mr. Chalder continued by noting that tonight’s goal is to review the contents of the binder, entitled “Avon Town Center Mixed Use Development Plan, November 2, 2011”, that was provided to the Commission and the Town.
Mr. Chalder addressed Tab 1, “The Overall Vision”, and noted that it is the applicant’s intention to reinforce the Avon Village Center area as a focal point of the community and create a traditional New England center while enhancing the existing buildings. A mixed-use area with an attractive, pedestrian-friendly village center is the goal with the creation of a new “main street”. He noted that the development program is approximately 450,000 square feet of non-residential space and approximately 500 residential units. A town park, approximately 14.5 acres, and walking trails are also proposed; sidewalks and trails would be integrated within the development. The existing Farmington Valley Greenway trail would also be relocated and integrated.
Mr. Chalder explained that there will be a need for flexibility as this development plan progresses. He noted that Ensign Bickford has been working on this plan for many years and have talked with many experts, located all over the country, in this type of development. It is the applicant’s position that the current proposal would create the greatest potential for success but noted that it is possible over the next 5 to 10 years that the development program could change. He explained that the information contained in the aforementioned binder is not a site plan in terms of specifics but, rather, is an overall approach.
Mr. Chalder acknowledged that significant contributions to this plan were received from Milone & MacBroom and The Cecil Group. He noted that Milone & MacBroom also worked closely with Mr. Kushner and the Commission to prepare the new regulations for the Avon Center Zone.
Mr. Stevens addressed Tab 2 and provided a general overview of the 13 sections involving the site. He displayed the Location Plan (1), noting that the area subject to the zone change is all the land currently owned by Ensign Bickford located within Avon Park North. He displayed Existing Conditions (2), and noted that the plan depicts the existing conditions (i.e., buildings, physical features, topography and wetland soils, and some utilities) of the site. He displayed the Zoning Map (3), noting that there are currently 3 different zones within the property (CPA, IP, and I).
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Stevens explained that the Farmington Valley Arts Center (FVAC) owns both of the buildings they occupy; he clarified that Ensign Bickford (EB) owns the land under the buildings and the FVAC has a land lease with EB. Mr. Chalder further explained that the intention is that these buildings would remain and function as they currently do but be integrated into the park complex, as EB feels civics uses are very important to a town center.
Mr. Stevens displayed the Conceptual Site Development Plan (4) stressing that the plan is conceptual in nature proposing a blend of business and hospitality uses as well as civic, residential, institutional, and other uses that are intended to create a new vibrancy. He explained that the overall plan proposes to utilize Ensign Drive, Fisher Drive, and Bickford Drive as they exist today. He further explained that a major element of the plan is a new east/west road (parallel to Route 44) that would connect Woodford Avenue with Climax Road. The proposed east/west road would be the new “main street”, designed to be a pedestrian-friendly road. In addition a new north/south road is proposed to connect Bickford Drive with the new “main street”.
Mr. Stevens displayed Avon Center Design Districts (5) and explained that 9 design districts are proposed; he noted that the proposed Town Park is one of these districts. He indicated that Mr. Chalder will be reviewing these districts in greater detail. Mr. Stevens displayed Landscaping (6) and noted that the primary goal is to soften the edges of construction, provide shade, improve aesthetics, and provide landscape buffers to adjacent properties. He commented that more than 50% of the post-development plan would be green space. Street trees are proposed to be planted on each side of the new streets and along existing streets that are improved as part of this project. All above-ground utilities would be screened and all landscape designs would conform to
sustainable principles such as construction, operation, and maintenance.
Mr. Stevens displayed Open Space (7) and explained that the site would contain both public and private open space; the privately-owned open space would permit public access. He noted that this map shows the relocation of the existing Farmington Valley Greenway trail and added that foot trails are also proposed. He commented that small gathering spaces, “pocket parks” are proposed along pedestrian-oriented streets. A gathering space for both paid and green services is proposed near the existing large white oak tree in the area of the existing Town Green. He summarized the open space totals and noted that the proposed Town Park would include 14.5 acres, or 15% of the total land area; private open space equates to 27 acres or 28% of the total acreage.
Mr. Stevens displayed Site Grading (8) and explained that this plan is very preliminary in nature; existing contours and spot grades are shown.
Mr. Stevens displayed Earth Removal and Filling (9) and explained that this “cuts and fill” plan is also very preliminary in nature and subject to change.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Stevens explained that there are some areas in the wetland in the area near the proposed Town Park that are marshy in nature, like the area near the stream. He noted that a good part of the stream bank is high ground, dry, and walkable; the proposed trail is shown along the stream. Mr. Stevens further explained that nature trails are proposed but not intended for intense, high activity. Mr. Chalder noted that there are wetland soils in the area but added that there are also sand and gravel soils that are firm and not marshy.
Mr. Kushner reported that he and John McCahill walked the property with a representative from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and an engineer from Fuss & O’Neill to discuss some of the regulatory issues. He noted that while it would not be impossible it would be difficult to get all the needed permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the State DEEP. The proposed pond has been removed from the plan, for now, and trails have been refined and added. He noted that Town Staff has encouraged Ensign Bickford to investigate other alternatives, such as identifying higher ground and using existing drainage to fill a pond and maintain it using some low impact development (LID) methods.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Stevens explained that a cuts and fills volume analysis has not been done at this point; it is not known how much, if any, material would have to be trucked off site. He noted that while some sites could not achieve balance on their own, the hope is that the entire site, overall, can be balanced but added that that information is not yet known.
Mr. Starr commented that the Regulations imply that an effort to achieve an overall site balance, as well as an effort to achieve a balance for each individual design district, should be made. He explained that this issue will be part of the Commission’s review when individual site plan designs are submitted.
Mr. Stevens displayed Parking (10) and noted that this plan shows both on street and off street parking; major access points to off street parking are also noted on the plan. He explained that a total of 2,800 parking spaces are shown (some existing and some proposed). The ratio for business and mixed use is 3.84 spaces per 1,000 square feet; residential only is 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet; and on an overall basis there are 2.27 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Mr. Stevens displayed Roadway and Traffic Circulation (11) and noted that this plan identifies the different types of roads in the proposed development. Arterial roads are Route 44 and Route 10; vehicle-oriented roads (collector) are Climax Road and Woodford Avenue and parts of Ensign Drive; and pedestrian-friendly roads are the proposed east/west road and proposed north/south road, part of Ensign Drive, possibly part of Fisher Drive, and Bickford Drive.
Mr. Stevens displayed Street Designs (12) and noted that this plan shows road designs/cross sections. He explained that the primary objective is to have main streets that are pedestrian oriented; the pedestrian is given priority and separated from moving traffic via wide sidewalks, on-street parallel and diagonal parking, and landscaping. Traffic calming elements would also be introduced into the design, such as on-street parking, textured pavements and crosswalks, street plantings and lightings, and the narrowing of pavement at intersections. He noted that the lighting used would be the standard Town of Avon light fixture.
Mr. Stevens displayed the Project Phasing (13) and explained that the Regulations require a phasing plan. He further explained that it is not known where the economy will be in 2012 and, therefore, the plan is based on today’s knowledge and the market information that has been received to date, which is subject to change. Phase 1 is an area of mixed-use buildings proposed near the Marriott Hotel; Phase 2 is the Town Park and “The Knoll”; Phase 3 is the area on top of the hill proposed for mixed use and some in fills in the brownstone complex; and Phase 4 is the proposed development on the west side of Climax Road. Mr. Steven’s concluded by noting that this layout is the best guess at this time and is subject to change and working things out with the Commission.
Mr. Chalder addressed Tab 3, the 9 individual Avon Center Design Districts (ACDDs). He explained that each district has been given a catchy name. He commented that ACDD #1 is “The Green”, the area around the Town Green and explained that the goal is to pick up the existing character of Route 44 and begin the new “main street” and add buildings along it. Building #16 (formerly Talbots) is no longer part of this plan, as that is where the new “main street” road would be located. He noted that there are metrics associated with each of the 9 ACDD areas giving specific information relative to design, building area, parking, and potential uses. Mr. Chalder noted that the proposed uses in Area 1 are the same types of uses that already exist here, such as retail, office, restaurant, and possibly residential.
Mr. Chalder addressed ACDD #2, “The Brownstones” noting that this area houses the existing brownstone buildings and the arts center complex. He noted that all existing buildings in this area would remain, except for one building on Canal Court, and the area would be enhanced by the new buildings proposed. The potential mix of uses continues in the same pattern that exists today, such as offices, services, and the arts center, with possible additional uses such as retail and restaurant and hospitality.
Mr. Chalder addressed ACDD #3, The Village Center” and noted that this area is the primary retail focus. The intent is to create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape with wide sidewalks. The buildings would be oriented directly to the street. He explained that no specific architectural information is available as there are no site plans at this stage but noted that Village District controls would apply and the Commission would have discretion. The mix of uses would include retail, restaurant, bank, office, and possibly residential on the second floor.
Mrs. Griffin suggested that provisions for deliveries be taken into consideration when the site plans for this area are prepared to avoid having trucks parking along the main street. Mr. Chalder explained that all buildings would be accessible from two sides.
Mr. Chalder addressed ACDD #4, “The Knoll” noting that this is the hilltop area located north of Bickford Drive; one-floor residential uses are proposed within walking distance of the Town Center. A clubhouse and small pool/recreational facility are also proposed. In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Chalder noted that walking paths and sidewalks are proposed to connect the residential units to the “main street” area.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comments, Mr. Chalder explained that the elements of the phasing plan need to be flexible. The Regulations contain concurrency standards to guide the Commission and while elements may occur in different sequences/phases over all, it is the applicant’s goal to create the most successful place possible. He noted that Area #1, which is within Ensign Bickford’s control, may occur first. The applicant knows that the Town has a strong interest in the park area and therefore it is anticipated that this area of development would occur early on. He noted that either Area #3 or Area #4 could happen next but added that there are issues that evolve daily.
Mr. Chalder commented that the areas that are projected to occur further into the future are Areas #6, #7, and #9. He noted that Area #6 contains a “flex corner” that could be residential or civic or commercial business and added that there are many things that could happen. He explained that the current proposal demonstrates what the applicant feels is the most likely outcome but added that flexibility is needed.
Ms. Keith asked whether there would be areas available for gardening in the housing proposed for adults 50+ years of age. Mr. Chalder commented that while no building could occur in the right-of-way private open space areas he added that maybe it could be used for gardening purposes.
Mr. Gackstatter questioned whether Area #4 could be broken into 2 subsections, such as 4a and 4b. Mr. Chalder noted that that scenario is possible and added that the market may also dictate phasing.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels Area #4 needs to be divided into 2 phases; he added that the MDC easement provides a good area for division. He added that he feels the design of this area should be done in accordance with the topography, in an effort to keep the site balanced as much as possible. He referenced Peachtree Village as an example where, due to the topography, there are single level units but there are entrances on two levels. He noted that Area #4 proposes 324 units, which is more than 25% of the 500 total units proposed and, therefore, needs to be scaled back. Mr. Starr concluded by noting that dividing this area into 2 phases and working with the topography may result in a scenario that the Commission would feel more comfortable offering flexibility with.
Mr. Chalder addressed Area #5, “Bickford Street”, and explained that this area is intended to be pedestrian-friendly where live/work units are proposed (i.e., someone would live in the unit where a portion of the lower floor would contain the resident’s business). This use could continue some of the commercial activities currently located off of Bickford Drive. There is potential for some larger buildings at the intersection of Ensign Drive; proposed uses include retail, restaurant office, and residential but reiterated that the area is proposed to be pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Chalder addressed Area #6, “Parkside Lane”, and noted that multi-family and townhouses are proposed here, oriented around the street. He explained that if the opportunity arose to include the street grid into this area for office or other uses, the applicant may come back to the Commission to suggest a reconfiguration of this area. Mr. Chalder pointed out that development of Area #6 projects further into the future than some of the other areas, as focus would be given to the areas near Route 44. He noted that the residential proposed for Area #6 may change over time.
Mr. Starr agreed with using the term “flex area” and not showing Area #6 as residential right now; he explained that when the Commission first viewed this proposal it was understood that this area was to be utilized more for commercial office space. He noted that he has no problem with the “flex” concept but added that it should be stated that way.
Mr. Chalder addressed Areas #7, #8, and #9 and noted that descriptions are limited at this time; Area #7 is narrow/shallow and located adjacent to Simsbury Road and proposes two detached buildings for either restaurant or office or bank. Development here is projected further off in the future. Area #8 is the proposed Town park; Area #9 is the area located on the west side of Climax Road and could serve as a transitional area, as there is residential to the north, office to the south, retail to the east, and institutional to the west.
Mrs. Griffin referenced Area #4, The Knoll, and commented that it appears that there is only one exit. Mr. Chalder conveyed his understanding of the Commission’s concern about access and explained that a boulevard-style road approach is proposed with 2 lanes that would provide access into the complex. He explained that just before you reach the MDC area, the driveway splits and from that point forward there would always be 2 means of circulation; both means of circulation are parallel to each other and the median could be made wider if necessary. Mrs. Griffin commented that it would be nice to have an emergency exit towards the east side.
Ms. Keith commented that an access road near the lower parking lot would be beneficial; she indicated that an access on the east side would be helpful. Mr. Chalder noted his agreement and added that the applicant has been working with the Town Staff and the technical review team who are aware of an access issue in this area; he commented that input from the Commission will be reviewed and answers will, hopefully, be provided at the next meeting.
Mr. Gackstatter addressed the overall design and noted that he feels it would be better to locate the “village center” in Areas #5 and #6, rather than in Area #3. He commented that Avon really includes Canton and Simsbury as well, as these 3 towns are part of a connected community and people travel between them. He noted that while Avon is located primarily on Route 44, he added that he feels few people travel through the community to go over the Mountain as part of their interactive social life. He commented that motorists use Bickford Drive as a cut through to bypass Route 44 and added that it would be a better area to bring Rails to Trails into the village center. He indicated that he has a problem with putting the downtown village center along Route 44 and reiterated that he feels
Areas #5 and #6 are a better choice.
Mr. Chalder commented that the belief is that any type of commercial center is going to thrive on traffic; he noted that being able to tie into the existing traffic on Route 44 is a tremendous advantage. Mr. Gackstatter commented that the traffic on Route 44 that drives by the subject area is not part of the everyday community life in Avon; the traffic is made up of people driving through Avon to get somewhere else. He added that the people that live and interact in Avon (i.e., go to soccer games, dinner, etc.) are driving between Simsbury and Avon and using Route 10/Route 44 or cutting through.
Mr. Chalder continued and explained that Area #3 is the focal point for commercial activities to be able to take advantage of the location’s visibility and a tie into the “main street”; this area is also adjacent to the Town Hall complex. He commented that if Area #3 works out as projected, Areas #5 and #6 have the potential to continue the concept. He reiterated that this is a long-term program that could take 15+ years and noted that the applicant feels that starting in Area #3 would offer more flexibility over time. He explained that the applicant has worked this concept through with experts from around the country and feel that the current development program has the greatest chance of success for Avon.
Mr. Gackstatter noted his concern that Area #3 would become an offshoot shopping area that wouldn’t generate/create the type of area that people would want to live in and move through. He commented that Areas #5 and #6 would be near the proposed Town park and near Healthtrax; he noted that there is already a lot of foot traffic in this area.
Mr. Chalder addressed Tab 4, “Ownership, Maintenance and Management”. He noted that this topic has been reviewed with Town Staff and because the area is private property, a master association to handle maintenance responsibilities is proposed. He commented that Town Staff has indicated that they may want to explore either a master association or an alternative method and added that the applicant is okay with that. He noted that more information will be available at the January 3 meeting.
Mr. Kushner explained that the new “main street” would be constructed by private developers and added that the question is who would maintain the road once the improvements are completed. He noted that either the road would be turned over to the Town, once completed, and the Town would maintain it or if the road remains in private ownership, cross easements would be required to allow public use of the area. He noted that the current consensus of Town Staff is that the new main street should be publicly owned but added that he hopes to have more information for the next meeting.
Mrs. Griffin noted her concerns with maintenance if ownership is private; if funds were lacking maintenance may not be a high priority. She commented that if the Town owns the road she feels it is more likely that maintenance would occur. Mr. Kushner noted his agreement with Mrs. Griffin and explained that a complex set of legal documents (i.e., consolidated parcel agreements, cross easements, rights to the Town, etc.) will be required to make this project a success. The public will need to be able to patron this area as one large seamless town center; they won’t be thinking about where property lines begin and end. He commented that more information on this subject will be available at subsequent meetings.
Kent Schwendy, PE, Fuss & O’Neill, addressed Tab 5, “Environmental Impact Assessment”, and Tab 6, “Stormwater Management and Utility Infrastructure” and explained that he will address utilities and infrastructure; storm drainage and low impact design; and environmental impacts. He noted that the utilities in the subject area meet the necessary capacity requirements, due to the existing development in the area; details for connections (i.e. sewers) will have to be determined. Mr. Schwendy addressed environmental impacts and low impact design techniques and explained that the intent is to avoid, as much as possible, using items that don’t exist in nature (i.e., pipes). The goal is to balance the natural environment
with the constructed environment. He explained that flexibility must be built into the subject master plan and noted that there cannot be mandates for specific techniques to be used in specific locations (i.e., a specific number of rain gardens in specific locations) but noted that, instead, general recommendations should be provided. He noted that once a site plan is prepared it should provide the goals and methods that could be used while providing flexibility. He pointed out that low impact design must be applied at the smaller scale, at the points that it is being created; you cannot gather all the storm water from an entire site and then treat it in a different location. He commented that the subject plans show a combination of low impact techniques (i.e., infiltration, biofiltration, bio swales) throughout all the areas.
Mr. Schwendy stated that he has walked the site and noted that his analysis is included in the binder; he encouraged people to read it. He explained that the subject area has been viewed as a development area for a long time; the area has already been fragmented. Currently there are no plans for any direct impacts to wetlands, although some temporary, indirect impacts exist. He concluded by noting that the current proposal would not negatively impact the larger environment and added that he will provide specific numbers at the January meeting.
Mark Vertucci, PE Transportation and Traffic Engineer, Fuss & O’Neill, addressed Tab 7, “Traffic Feasibility Study”, and explained that an analysis of existing traffic volumes at key intersections (Route 44 at Climax Road, Route 44 at Ensign Drive, Route 44 at Route 10,
Route 10 at Fisher Drive, and 3 internal intersections namely Climax Road at Bickford Drive, Ensign Drive at Bickford Drive, and Ensign Drive at Fisher Drive) were studied as part of the traffic study for this area. The master plan was reviewed for impacts relative to access for trucks and emergency vehicles; sight distances at key intersections; and the proposed master plan road network. He explained that the analysis was based on an assumed 10-year build-out plan; 2022 was used as the design year and existing traffic volumes were grown to that date assuming normal background traffic growth. Industry standard rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual were used to determine trip generations from the proposed master plan. He noted that the site has excellent regional access to the adjacent road
network and the site benefits from the existing three signalized intersections. The existing intersections, aside from Route 44 at Route 10, have reserve capacity in both existing conditions and in the year 2022. Mr. Vertucci explained that the proposed development would require offsite improvements in a couple of locations; road widening for an additional turn lane would be required at Route 44 and Ensign Drive, as well as signal modifications. The recommendation for the intersection of Route 10 and Fisher Drive is a widening of Fisher Drive for an additional turn lane as well as a south-bound right turn lane on Route 10 with signal modifications. He explained that some of the impacts of the proposed development could be mitigated by modifying the signal timing at the intersection of Route 44 and Route 10 while also optimizing the coordination of the signal with adjacent signals on Route 44. He further explained that by utilizing timing modifications
the future condition at this intersection could be brought back to the levels of delay in a no-build condition, without the proposed development. Clearing of vegetation would improve safety as sight distance constraints have been identified at Fisher Drive at Route 10 and Ensign Drive at Fisher Drive. The sightline coming out of Bickford Drive at Forest Mews, in both directions, is substandard; he noted that the recommendation is that an all-way stop be considered to force traffic on Climax Road to stop. The circulation from the proposed internal road network in the master plan flows well but he recommended that some of the intersections be reviewed more closely for sightline distances.
Mr. Vertucci addressed the timing of offsite and full build-out improvements on Route 44 and Route 10. He explained that the improvements would not be required all at once or during the initial phases but noted that full traffic studies and State Traffic Commission (STC) permits would be required as each phase of the development progresses; review by the Town Engineer and the State Department of Transportation (DOT) would also be required. The review for needed roadway improvements at the intersection of Route 44 at Ensign Drive would be required somewhere between 50% and 75% of development build out. The review for needed improvements at the intersection of Fisher Drive and Route 10 would be required at somewhere between 50% and 60% of development build out. He explained that any improvements
would be dictated by the STC review process and the State DOT would also have input.
Mr. Vertucci addressed pedestrian access and noted that the greenway through the site provides local and regional access for bicycles and pedestrians but pointed out that there are no pedestrian facilities/phasing shown at the intersection of Route 44 at Ensign Drive. He recommended that when improvements are completed at this intersection that pedestrian accommodations be provided.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s comment about bike paths being located along pedestrian-friendly streets, Mr. Vertucci explained that pedestrian-friendly streets are more confined and more walkable with retail and on street parking; there’s a lot going on. He noted that the bicycle route is more regional in nature where individuals are traveling at a higher rate of speed and this activity should be separated from the urban areas. Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels the trails are one of the best assets of the site and noted that he would like to see them integrated better into the property and not pushed off to the side. Mr. Chalder explained that cyclists need to be aware of the possible conflicts between both vehicles and bicycles and between pedestrians and bicycles. He noted
his agreement that the greenway trail that runs through the site is a tremendous asset and added that the plan would be reviewed to determine appropriate locations and to ensure that no unsafe conditions would be created.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question about bike path specifics, such as nearby amenities, Mr. Starr noted that those details would most likely be presented at a later date.
Mrs. Griffin suggested that a small parking area/bike rack might be a good idea to allow individuals to lock their bicycles and be able to walk around the area.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels the bike trails could really be the core of the whole proposed development; people could drive to Avon, ride their bicycles somewhere and then come back and patron the amenities in the Town Center. He added that he feels the trails have been undervalued in the current plan.
Mr. Chalder noted that he doesn’t feel the trails have been undervalued and added that a surplus of parking exists throughout the development to support the type of activity noted by Mr. Gackstatter.
Mr. Kushner questioned the coordination that will be needed with the STC for the proposed road/lane widening and asked how this would be done and how it would be funded. Mr. Jasminski explained that Ensign Bickford, as the land owner, would end up allocating some of the earlier land sales to pay for some of these improvements over time. Mr. Kushner commented that Ensign Bickford may not be responsible for completing all aspects of the infrastructure; for example, costs for the new “main street” may be assigned to a private land purchaser. Mr. Jasminski indicated that land buyers understand that traffic is always part of a land purchase and the question is at what point does the buyer need to come up with funds to pay for improvements. Mr. Jasminski pointed out that Ensign Bickford did
not create all the traffic in the area and explained that the State operates such that the next developer to come along shares the responsibility to pay for some of the improvements. Mr. Kushner commented that the first 3 developers may get away without much financial responsibility while subsequent buyers may incur more cost. Mr. Jasminski noted his agreement.
Mr. Vertucci continued his presentation and noted that an existing bus transit route runs from Hartford to Avon along Route 44. He explained that there is currently a bus stop near the subject site (the bus stops in the travel lane on Route 44) and suggested that a bus pull off and/or shelter be incorporated into the plan. He noted that the preferred location for a bus pull off area, if not on Route 44, would be on the subject site to make it easier for bus patrons. Prospective tenants should be encouraged to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies (i.e., car pool incentives, flex hours, bike racks).
Mr. Vertucci addressed parking noting that there are a little more than 2,800 spaces on the site. He noted that a review of the ITE Parking Generation Manual versus the parking represented in the master plan for each land use indicates a surplus of over 570 parking spaces. He noted that this number does not take into account shared parking or complementary uses (day businesses vs. night businesses) and added that there may be opportunities to reduce the number of spaces.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Chalder explained that outlets for electric vehicle charging have not been considered as part of the zone change application but noted that he would put it on the list; he added that there may be enough uses and activities in the area to warrant consideration.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about traffic volumes on Darling Drive, Mr. Vertucci explained that most of the volume on Darling Drive is through traffic; there are no significant volumes of turning traffic in that area. He noted that the main access points where significant turning movements would be generated were studied. Ms. Keith commented that because Darling Drive is used as a cut through and with the recent development of housing in Avon Park South it should be a significant part of the traffic study; she noted that she would be interested in seeing some numbers. Mr. Vertucci indicated that his traffic study is very preliminary to offer an overview and noted that each phase of the proposed development will require a full traffic study. Ms. Keith noted her understanding but
reiterated her feeling that Darling Drive needs to be studied at some point in the future. Mr. Vertucci concluded by noting that it is likely that Darling Drive, as well as other areas, would be included in a comprehensive traffic study in the future.
John Mullin, Mullin Associates, addressed Tab 8, “Fiscal Impact Assessment”, and noted that the proposed project would not cost the Town money; he added that the project would lower taxes some and not produce any negative impacts to nearby properties. He explained that a fiscal impact measures the direct, current, and public costs associated with growth and development in the local jurisdiction. He commented that there are 6 techniques that are commonly used and noted that “The Proportional Valuation Method” was used in this case. The “Developer’s Statement” provides information about the project; the proposal states approximately 500 residential units with approximately 500K square feet of commercial space. The developer estimates the
market value for the project to be $178M. Mr. Mullin noted that the possibility of additional school-age children coming to Town must be considered with every proposal; the cost for each child is approximately $12K per year. He referenced “The Residential Assessment Technique” and “The Data Input Sheet for Impact of Residential Development” and noted that this information is helpful when calculating fiscal impacts. Mr. Mullin pointed out that the current school enrollment in Avon is rather low given the number of housing units. He explained that a falling birth rate is currently occurring in this part of Connecticut and noted that the current numbers/trend show about one half of a child per household. The additional tax revenue that would be generated from the subject proposal is $2.1M (residential) and there would be 67 new students in Avon Schools. All the costs associated with this project, beyond school costs, are
estimated to be approximately $2M. He explained that the Town would essentially break even with regard to the residential portion of the proposal. Mr. Mullin explained that the end result/effect of this project to a single-family homeowner in Avon would be a $12.00 gain.
Mr. Mullin addressed the commercial side of the proposal and noted that the total estimated revenue would be $1.6M while the total costs would be approximately $480K. He explained that if this project were to be constructed today and everything was up and running based on the applicant’s represented scenarios, each homeowner in Avon would gain approximately $181.00 in tax relief. Mr. Mullin concluded by acknowledging that each phase would have to be analyzed separately as the project moves forward.
Ms. Keith noted that she worked for Avon Public Schools for many years and explained that school projections are not done by household but rather are done by age group. She commented that this method would change the numbers dramatically. Mr. Mullin noted his understanding and agreement with Ms. Keith but explained that his projections can only be based on direct local public costs and added that the figures used must be recognized and relevant in terms of the tax base for fiscal impacts. Ms. Keith noted her understanding but added that she feels some people would question the low number of students projected. She added that there are a number of moderately-priced, 3-bedroom houses in Avon that could likely have between 3 and 5 children living in them; the resulting numbers would contradict the
projected 67 students. Mr. Mullin conveyed his understanding and noted that he gets challenged on this issue all the time. He offered to go door to door and indicated his firm belief that his projections would be correct and that his data would prove accurate.
Mr. Kushner asked what parameters/assumptions were requested by Ensign Bickford to be used in terms of the numbers of one, two, and three bedroom units. Mr. Mullin explained that the numbers are in his report and noted that the numbers used are 250 one-bedroom units; 228 two-bedroom units; and 30 three-bedroom units.
Mr. Starr commented that preliminary discussions in the past on this subject have noted that one and two bedroom units tend to be more oriented towards young professionals or empty nesters. He added that the hope is that the projected 67 school-age children results in 6 or 7 school-age children.
Mr. Gackstatter asked how much infrastructure would have to be installed before the Town would realize any return/payback; he asked if a percentage could be placed on the analysis such as 10%±. Mr. Mullin explained that it would depend on how much infrastructure is in place before the project begins; he added that there is a significant amount of infrastructure already in place and noted that he feels the order of magnitude is less than 25%.
Mr. Chalder continued his presentation and thanked the Commission for their patience. He noted that a lot of detail has been discussed tonight and acknowledged that these types of discussions need to continue but reiterated that the subject application is for a zone change. He clarified, for the record, that the request for a zone change is for 9 parcels totaling approximately 90 acres; the zones of these parcels would be changed from CPA, IP, and I to the Avon Village Center Zone, AVC. Mr. Chalder explained that the purpose of the zone change request is to implement the recommendations in the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development. He noted that the proposed project proposes to implement the recommendations in the 2005 Avon Center Study. The requested zone change is in accordance with the
purposes of the Regulations and the uses permitted via the special permit village district approval process and would not adversely affect public health safety and welfare. He concluded by thanking the Commission for their time and consideration as well as the Town Staff for their input, support, and ongoing technical review.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Chalder noted that he believes the project would include a proposal to add sidewalks on the south side of Fisher Drive but explained that this level of detail would be discussed as the project moves forward. He further explained that an approval for the subject zone change would set the stage for the applicant to be able to come back with proposals for individual Avon Center Design Districts (ACDDs).
Mrs. Griffin noted that many of the suggestions made by the Commission are intended as guidance to the applicant as the level of plan detail progresses.
Mr. Kushner commented that the subject zone change is different than most in that it involves special regulations that require a certain level of detail. He commented that he hopes to receive a report next week from the Town’s consultant Milone & MacBroom.
In response to comments from Mr. Starr, Mr. Chalder indicated that the timing and detail of the consultant’s comments would determine whether the revised plans could be ready by the next meeting, scheduled for January 3. He concluded by noting that he would communicate this information to the Commission through Mr. Kushner.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for App. #4577 to the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 3, 2012. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on December 13, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
App. #4573 - Path LLC, owner/applicant, request for Zone Change from RU2A to CPA, 2.13 acres, 38 Guernsey Lane, Parcel 2500038. APPROVED. EFFECTIVE December 21, 2011.
App. #4578 - Nod Brook LLC, owner, National Sign Corporation, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.2.f.(3) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit wall sign larger than 75 square feet, 315 West Main Street, Parcel 4540315, in a CR Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITION.
App. #4579- Leibert Real Estate Limited Partnership, owner, Mark Smith, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.d. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit self-service dog bathing, 192 West Main Street, Parcel 4540192 in a CR Zone. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.
Dated at Avon this 14th day of December, 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, January 3, 2012, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4580 - Connie and David Gordon owners/applicants, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit in-ground pool within 150’ ridgeline setback area, 45 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090045, 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 December, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman
Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
