The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday June 11, 2013. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice Chair, Carol Griffin, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney, Christian Gackstatter, and Alternates Donald Bonner and Jenna Ryan. Mrs. Ryan sat for the meeting. 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
Mrs. Clark motioned to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2013, meeting, as submitted. The motion seconded by Mrs. Ryan, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4669 - Avon Village, LLC, owner, Avon Village, LLC, and LCB Senior Living, LLC, applicants, request for 2-lot Subdivision, 11.0 acres, 117 and 121 Simsbury Road, Parcels 3970117 and 3970121, in a CP-A Zone
App. #4670 - Avon Village, LLC, owner, Avon Village, LLC, and LCB Senior Living, LLC, applicants, request for Special Exception under Section VI.E.3.b. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit 74-unit assisted living facility, 117 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970117, in a CP-A Zone
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4671 - Avon Village, LLC, owner, Avon Village, LLC, and LCB Senior Living, LLC, applicants, request for Site Plan approval to permit assisted living facility, 117 Simsbury Road, Parcel 3970117 in a CP-A Zone
Mr. Starr announced that the applicant has requested a public hearing continuance to the next meeting, scheduled for June 25.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4669 and #4670 to the next meeting, scheduled for June 25. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Mahoney motioned to table App. #4671 to the next meeting, scheduled for June 25. The motion, seconded by
Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
App. #4667 - Shops at Dale Corners, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 385 West Main Street, Parcel 4540385, in a CR Zone
App. #4668 - Shops at Dale Corners, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.C.3.b.of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit Class III restaurant, 385 West Main Street, Parcel 4540385, in a CR Zone
Also heard at this time but not part of the public hearing:
App. #4666 - Shops at Dale Corners, LLC, owner/applicant, request for Site Plan Modification to install sidewalk, replace existing lights, and request minor parking waiver, 385 West Main Street, Parcel 4540385, in a CR Zone
Present were Attorney T.J. Donohue, Killian and Donohue, representing the owner; Anne Bjorkland, Director of Facilities and Property Management; Mark Arigoni, landscape architect, Milone and MacBroom; Lee Pollock, commercial realtor; and Scott Campbell, Sweet Frog Premium Frozen Yogurt.
Attorney Donohue explained that 2 new restaurants are proposed for the tenant space once occupied by Strawberry Records. He noted that he has met with Town Staff several times and confirmed endorsement of all of the Town’s comments.
Scott Campbell explained that Sweet Frog is a self-serve frozen yogurt store, similar to TCBY; the proposal is for 8 machines with 16 flavors at any one time (101 flavors in total). He noted that he has 3 other stores in CT (Glastonbury, Manchester, and West Hartford). He explained that the peak hours are afternoons, between lunch and dinner, and after dinner.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Campbell noted that service is half sit down and half take out.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question, Mr. Campbell confirmed that his store in West Hartford was formerly occupied by Friendly’s.
Lee Pollock explained that Moe’s Southwest Grill (similar to “Chipotle”) has locations in West Hartford, Manchester, Southington, and Glastonbury. It is a self-service restaurant; there is no waiter service.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Pollock explained that the Blue Back Square location does a stronger dinner business than lunch; maybe 70% dinner, 30% lunch.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Donohue explained that the lease for Southwest Grill provides that the tenant will install a full grease trap for treatment and management. He added that grease management will be consistent/compliant with the Building Code. Mr. Donohue noted that it is not known yet exactly where the grease would be stored outside but noted that the location will be out of the way of traffic and fully compliant with the Building Code.
Mr. Campbell explained that the Town of Glastonbury required a grease trap but no grease traps were required in Manchester and West Hartford; it depends on the local health department’s rules.
In response to Mrs. Clark’s questions, Mr. Campbell explained that deliveries in the summertime will be every other day, probably Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Delivery times depend on the vendor; he noted that US Foods deliver in the morning and New Jersey deliveries come in the evening. He noted that all deliveries would be to the rear of the building, nothing in the front.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question and concerns about parking spaces, Mark Arigoni explained that 36 seats are proposed for the frozen yogurt store and 76 seats proposed for Moe’s Southwest Grill.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s comments about the deterioration/lack of maintenance of the rear parking lot, Mr. Donohue indicated that the area has deteriorated due to lack of use but added that the Hoffman’s are going to make a significant investment and will clean up the area in connection with the current proposal. He noted that relighting and enhancement of the pedestrian walkway leading to the rear parking lot are proposed. He explained that the parking study reveals that there are a ton of parking spaces convenient to everything that is being used now but it is expected that more parking to the rear of the building in the remote parking lot will be needed; the proposal is to refit, resurface, and maintain the rear lot.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question about lighting, Anne Bjorkland explained that a survey of the property has been done and a landscaping company has been acquired. Lighting has been reviewed and will be incorporated into the plan; she noted that the owners realize that the trees in the rear should have been trimmed but added that the Hoffmans have indicated that they will make every effort to maintain the rear area to have it look as nice as the front. Ms. Bjorkland noted that the rear lot has lights but added that they need to be checked to see if they are working. Ms. Keith commented that the rear parking lot lights are not working.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Ms. Bjorkland indicated that the rear parking lot is not currently chained off.
Ms. Keith commented that there would be a lot of traffic in and out with the two proposed restaurants; she noted that the main driveway on Route 44 at the front of the site does not have a traffic light and is a dangerous area. She asked whether there is a plan for one-way in and one-way out and whether or not most of the traffic would be filtered to the Dale Road driveway to utilize the traffic light at Route 44.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that motorists cut through the parking lot at the subject site when the traffic backs up on Dale Road. He commented that he feels something should be done to keep the site from being used as a cut through.
Mark Arigoni addressed lighting and noted that a lighting designer (Apex Lighting) has been working on a photometric plan for the site. He displayed the photometric plan and pointed out that part of the plan is to clear the trees in the rear parking lot. There is also a berm that would be pushed back to make the rear parking lot more visible. He noted that every lighting fixture that exists now will be redone; all fixtures will be transferred to LED. The rear fixtures will be 18’ high (modern-looking LED fixture) but the fixtures proposed along the frontage (design to mimic the decorative lights found in Avon Center) will be 14’ high to provide adequate lighting but not shed glare onto Route 44. Mr. Arigoni explained that there are currently 32 fixtures on site; the proposal is 34
fixtures. He noted that the rear parking lot will be totally lit and the access to the back parking lots will be cleaned up; he added that there has been some discussion that employees be directed to park in the rear.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Arigoni explained that rear access to the buildings would be for service and employee entrance.
Mr. Donohue added that Town Staff has strongly suggested that the employees park to the rear of the building. He added that the leases for the two new tenants give the landlord the right to direct employees to park either in the remote rear lot or in the parking lot to the rear of the building. In addition, a letter from the Cosi Restaurant management, dated June 3, 2013, notes their agreement to require employees to park in the rear to keep front parking spaces open for customers.
In response to questions from the Commission about dumpster location, Mr. Arigoni explained that the current location/angle of the dumpsters (in an under-utilized parking space) doesn’t allow for easy truck pickup. He noted that if the angle of the dumpsters is changed, the dumpsters could be located where they are supposed to be (inside the existing enclosure) and accessed by a drive-in truck.
Mr. Arigoni addressed proposed site improvements noting that the entire parking area will be repaved, curbed, and new lights added. Trimming of some of the branches along Dale Road is proposed to allow more light from the new fixtures.
Mr. Arigoni addressed parking data and explained that a 7-space parking waiver was granted in the past but noted that there are 6 reserve spaces that were not constructed and are shown on the approved site plan to the rear of the building. He noted that these 6 spaces will not be constructed, as it is felt that there is still no need for them. He noted that the Zoning Regulations state that if more than 25% of the gross floor area of a building is used for restaurants, parking counts must be raised by 10 spaces per 1,000 SF over the 25%. The required spaces would go up to 219, from the original requirement of 207. He noted that, currently, 198 spaces are provided; 6 spaces are held in reserve; and 4 parking spaces (for future Battiston connection) are currently held as parking spaces but have been
subtracted as 4 spaces for a potential cross easement connection. He noted that, in addition, the current proposal is requesting a 12-space waiver, which would bring the total parking to 194 spaces.
Mr. Arigoni addressed the parking study done by Tom Daly, PE (dated May 1, 2013, revised May 21, 2013) and explained that traffic counts were done; the study discusses the use and the under utilization of the existing parking lot and how many spaces are available. He noted that the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) Manual for restaurant uses was referenced to determine and conclude that approximately 129 spaces of the existing 198 spaces would be occupied during the average peak periods under proposed conditions. Mr. Arigoni noted that these results include the new proposed uses, which do not operate at the same time (i.e., yogurt store has different peak hours than Moe’s restaurant).
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Arigoni pointed out the different parking zone/lots depicted on the site plan drawing. He noted that he doesn’t want to guess which lot is which and indicated that actual data charts with the breakdown for each parking area are available (back at his office) but confirmed that the total is 198 spaces.
Mrs. Griffin asked about the number of employees vs. the number of customers relative to available front parking noting that no customers are going to park in the remote rear lot.
Mr. Arigoni explained that the ITE Manual bases parking recommendations on square footage and includes employees based on the use.
Mrs. Griffin commented that she feels a total count of employees for all the businesses in the building is needed because all the employees will have to park in the rear for this plan to work.
Mr. Arigoni indicated that the ITE Manual is generally very conservative, on the high side. He explained that the ITE Manual indicates that there is a surplus of 40 or 50 spaces when taking into account everything that is proposed.
Mr. Starr pointed out that the surplus spaces are to the rear of the building. He noted that the ITE Manual shows peak demand time for shopping centers as noon on Fridays and Saturdays. He further noted that while that is probably correct for most shopping centers the subject proposal is adding 2 restaurants and with the existing restaurant at this site, the peak demand is probably going to be Friday night. He questioned whether the parking analysis was done correctly for the parking needs in the northeast/west part of the parking lot. Mr. Starr indicated that he feels a better analysis/presentation is needed of where the peak restaurant parking is going to occur. He noted that although there are a high number of parking spaces in total, the parking spaces on the sides of the building closest
to the rear and the spaces all the way in the back of the site will not be utilized by any customers.
Mr. Arigoni explained that it is understood what the peak hour times are; the frozen yogurt store has different peak hours than the proposed Mexican restaurant.
Mr. Starr indicated that he has no problem with the yogurt store but noted his concern for the combined restaurant traffic of Moe’s and Cosi, especially on Friday nights; everyone will want to park in front of the restaurants.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels that every night at 5:30pm there will be heavy restaurant traffic. He asked if there are numbers available for parking lot loads, as there are many cars that drive through the subject lot that don’t park in it; the traffic load at this site is heavy.
Mr. Donohue commented that Pier 1 Imports and Rite Aid are the primary tenants and occupy the most space but don’t have evening loads and are not peak time businesses. He noted that he has been told that Cosi Restaurant is primarily a lunch business.
Mr. Starr commented that from his observation Cosi does a good lunch business but they also appear to do a good dinner business.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s concern about traffic running through the site and Moe’s restaurant traffic, Mr. Donohue explained that the Police Chief and Town Staff have requested that 2 speed bumps be put in to slow down cut through traffic; the owners have agreed.
In response to Ms. Keith’s concerns about Battiston patrons parking in the east corner of the subject site, Mr. Donohue explained that the owner is committed to build the access way to Battiston Cleaners, located on the adjacent site.
Mrs. Ryan asked if a cut through hallway from the front of the building to the rear is proposed to make the rear parking more accessible. Mr. Donohue noted that no hallway is proposed at this time. He noted that there are sidewalks all around the building that would be brought up to Code.
Mrs. Griffin noted that she would like to see the numbers of employees and customers for every business, at the next meeting. Ms. Keith noted her agreement.
In response to Mesdames Griffin and Keith, Mr. Donohue apologized that the numbers were not available tonight but noted that Tom Daly (PE, Milone and MacBroom) has this information but could not be present tonight.
Mr. Kushner requested that it be identified which leases, for the current tenants, already have a provision where the landlord can enforce a restriction that employees be required to park in the back.
Mr. Donohue noted that the two new restaurant uses and Cosi Restaurant are the only tenants that have the requirement for employees to park in the rear.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Pollock confirmed that Pier 1 Imports and Rite Aid do not have the requirement for employees to park in the rear.
Mr. Arigoni continued his presentation and addressed sidewalk location and the connection to the other side of Route 44. He referenced a memo, dated June 11, 2013, from Kwesi Brown, PE and PTOE (traffic engineer) with Milone and MacBroom and explained that Mr. Brown reviewed the adequacy of the parking lot and the proposed uses, as well as the proposed location to move people from the subject building to the existing crosswalk with the existing pedestrian signal. Mr. Arigoni explained that Milone and MacBroom feels strongly that the only safe way to cross Route 44 in this location is to utilize the sidewalk system around the building by crossing through the parking lot where a crosswalk is proposed to be added.
In response to the Commission’s questions/comments, Mr. Arigoni indicated that a raised, striped crosswalk, similar to what has been done across the street, could be looked into; he noted that while it is a good idea he explained that the drainage in the subject parking lot would first have to be considered.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Donohue explained that there are no public commitments currently to cross Dale Road into the subject site; he added that that is a significant item. Mr. Gackstatter commented that many people cross Dale Road now and added that he feels it should be addressed, as it is dangerous if people are being enticed to walk.
Mrs. Clark commented that she doesn’t feel people should be encouraged to cross Dale Road, as it is dangerous.
Mr. Donohue explained that the scope of the subject proposal is a lot; the parking lot will be redone with the addition of speed bumps and sidewalks. He indicated that the subject proposal does not have the ability to carry the addition of crossing Dale Road.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that people should be directed to the corner and maybe the corner redesigned so as to allow people to cross Dale Road at that point, as opposed to crossing in the middle of the road.
Mr. Starr asked whether there is a pedestrian walk light to cross Dale Road at the corner of Dale Road and Route 44. The Commission confirmed that there is no walk light at this location.
Mr. Donohue noted that the number of people that cut through the subject parking lot is impressive and added that the danger to pedestrians at the entrance to Dale Road is overwhelming but further added that there is only so much you can impose on property owners.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that because people are already crossing in this area it should be marked and made safe.
Mesdames Clark and Keith noted that they don’t feel crossing in this area should be encouraged.
Mr. Donohue stated that there, currently, are a lot of people that cross the street at the traffic light to patron Cosi Restaurant; the subject proposal will be a wonderful and safe addition to existing conditions.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Donohue indicated that the property owner has agreed to install speed bumps in the parking lot but added that location is going to be at the advice/direction of Town Staff (Police Chief, Town Engineer). Ms. Keith conveyed her concerns with the speed at which people are cutting through the parking lot and indicated that speed bumps near both driveway entrances (Dale Road and Route 44) would be helpful. Mr. Donohue noted his agreement and added that a raised crosswalk should also be studied.
Mr. Kushner suggested that an aggressive plan for speed bumps (how many, locations, design, etc.) be considered to discourage cut through traffic while keeping in mind the practicalities of winter maintenance.
Ms. Keith commented that she feels signage should be added indicating that there are speed bumps ahead and that the driveway is not a “thru way”.
Mr. Starr commented that he agrees that the connection from Route 44 into the existing sidewalk at the corner of Rite Aid is ideal, as that is where people are going and the area should be made safe, but noted that the piecemeal addition of sidewalks along Route 44 needs to be considered. He noted that the Commission has required all development along Route 44 over the last several years to install sidewalks. He indicated that, at this time, a sidewalk in front of the subject site would be a sidewalk to “nowhere” but added that someday it would be connected.
Mr. Donohue explained that the front property line is 40 feet back from Route 44; he noted that there is a ton of land in the State right-of-way where a sidewalk could be constructed.
Mr. Starr explained that he believes First Niagara Bank (232 West Main former Boston Market restaurant) acquired a waiver from the State to build a sidewalk in front of their site.
Mr. Donohue indicated that Mr. Hoffman’s risk management advisor indicates that building half a sidewalk dumps people into the throat of the driveway and is a traffic hazard and a risk. He noted that it also becomes a maintenance issue if it’s underutilized. Mr. Donohue noted that the cost of constructing the sidewalk is not the issue but rather the cost of maintenance and risk is the issue. He commented that an ADA compliant connection to Battiston Cleaners cannot be accomplished because of the grade at the property line. He noted that while he has seen where sidewalks have been built in other locations he added that he doesn’t think this is the right place. He indicated that the Commission has discussed tonight how it doesn’t seem like a good idea to bring
pedestrians to the edge of Dale Road to cross the road but adding a sidewalk would do just that. Mr. Donohue noted that the applicant, while he understands the Commission’s goal, is very reluctant to build a sidewalk in this location.
Mr. Gackstatter noted that foot patterns/foot traffic are essentially in line with the store fronts of many of the buildings in the subject area (i.e., Friendly’s, Superior Spas, Battiston Cleaners, Cosi Restaurant) and not along Route 44. He suggested, in addition to the improvements proposed at the corner of Dale Road and Route 44, that an extension of approximately 10 feet of sidewalk on the other side corner be added to allow crossing of Dale Road. He added that 10 feet in front of Battiston Cleaners would also help.
Mr. Kushner explained to Mr. Gackstatter that prior discussions with the Traffic Authority and the Police Chief have indicated that they are not in favor of what traffic engineers refer to as “mid-block crossing”; it is generally not advisable. He noted that he has observed a few people crossing between the aforementioned sites and added that individuals are not crossing at the intersection with Route 44 they are crossing in the manner referred to by Mr. Gackstatter.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that it is observed that people are crossing at different areas so one could argue that painting a crosswalk at a non-signalized intersection, midblock, gives the pedestrian a better chance because hopefully most drivers are paying attention. He further pointed out that if a crosswalk is painted it sends a message to the public that a safe condition exists and is being encouraged.
Mr. Kushner noted that John McCahill (ZEO Planning Department) inventoried all the intersections on Route 44 that have pedestrian buttons; there are 12 in total. He explained that many different conditions exist and noted that there are pedestrian buttons without a painted crosswalk between Town Fair Tire and Walmart; he noted that there is a great amount of activity and a bus stop at this location and pointed out that there is no sidewalk or area of refuge. He noted that the Town received a notice from the State indicating that a private contractor was hired to restripe and paint new lines on Route 44. Mr. Kushner stated that he wrote to the State explaining that there are areas on Route 44 in Avon where pedestrian buttons exist and people are using them but no painted crosswalk exists so, in turn, it
seems like it might be a good idea to paint some crosswalks. He explained that the State’s position is that if you paint a crosswalk, then you’re saying to the public that it’s safe to cross; there are no handicap ramps or ramps of any kind. He clarified that the subject applications for Cosi Plaza propose to install a ramp on the south side of Route 44. Mr. Kushner asked whether it would be better to have a crosswalk marking and area to recognize that people are crossing there anyway and indicated that he didn’t know but added that it is a good topic for discussion. He concluded by noting that painting a crosswalk midblock presents a lot of pushback from traffic officials.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he would not suggest a painted crosswalk midblock because while it is where most people cross, it’s probably the most dangerous place to cross. He suggested adding a raised speed bump on the northeast corner; a raised speed bump on the northwest corner, right before leaving the driveway heading onto Dale Road; and the addition of a crosswalk such that people could cross Dale Road to the backside of the” Garden of Light” and all the stores located at 395 West Main. A raised crosswalk is also a possibility that could serve as speed bump. He commented that at some point the property owner is going to have to acknowledge that people are crossing and it’s going to have to be made safe.
Mr. Kushner noted that he could ask Milone and MacBroom to take a look at Mr. Gackstatter’s suggestions and make a recommendation to the Police Chief. He added that he doesn’t think the Police Chief will support a Dale Road crossing but it’s worth asking.
Mr. Donohue acknowledged his understanding and confirmed that he will work with the Police Chief and Milone and MacBroom but noted that it is his experience that it is not a good idea to increase pedestrian traffic in an unsafe area.
Mr. Starr noted his preference for a study of the installation of a sidewalk near the front of the building that would cross over to Battiston Cleaners. He noted that there is already an area where an island exists in the parking lot so parking spaces would not be lost.
Mr. Donohue noted that he would be happy to look into Mr. Starr’s request.
Ms. Keith commented that from a legal point of view if crosswalks were striped on Route 44, even though the pedestrian buttons are already there, it gives an indication that it’s a safe area and people can sue.
Mrs. Clark commented that if Dale Road were striped it could create lawsuits.
Mrs. Ryan commented that people should not be allowed to cross Dale Road.
Mr. Kushner addressed Mr. Donohue’s earlier comments about the owner’s concerns regarding risk and liability in connection with constructing a sidewalk on Route 44 in front of the building. He suggested that if the sidewalk were designed such that it turned the corner at a 90° angle rather than just ending in a “sidewalk to nowhere” and paralleled the driveway, that perhaps the owner’s risk management company might view it differently.
Mr. Donohue indicated that the sidewalk construction is a significant investment for no purpose. He added that if the sidewalk was going to complete the network, Mr. Hoffman would agree.
In response to Mr. Donohue’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Town has an Ordinance requiring that adjoining property owners maintain the sidewalks. Mr. Donohue noted that the sidewalk would be a public right-of-way that is not going to be used and, in addition, would pose liability to the property owner should it not be maintained. He added that he gets it and noted that he will talk to Mr. Hoffman again but indicated that it’s a significant imposition.
Mr. Kushner suggested that a revised sidewalk drawing, as discussed earlier, could be presented to the owner.
Mr. Donohue confirmed that he would talk to everyone again.
Mr. Kushner indicated that if the sidewalk doesn’t get constructed now, he noted his agreement with Mr. Donohue that the most likely location for installation would be the State highway ROW, as that area is very wide. He noted that there is a long-term State plan to widen Route 44 that includes landscaped center islands; this plan may or may not happen. He commented that if the sidewalk is not going to get constructed at this time, it is his understanding that the Hoffman family is agreeable to deeding to the Town an easement in the event that the State widens the road and the sidewalk needed to be built on private property. Mr. Donohue concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the back lot on the subject site is really hidden and noted his concerns for employees parking there at night. He further noted concerns relative to the lot not ever being used and then possibly being overcrowded because the lot is small and may be used by employees of 3 vibrant businesses.
Mr. Donohue stated that a parking study will be prepared for the back lot, including information about employees and how the lot would work. He noted that many areas along Route 44 (from Torrington to Providence) are over parked and noted that while the rear lot is not optimal, Town Staff has pushed for the use of it and that is the reason why the owner has created leases requiring employees to park there. He explained that the owners feel that when the plaza is very busy the rear lot will be used; the lot will be better lit and the berm will be moved for better visual access.
Mrs. Griffin commented that van service to remote parking lots is one way to make them safe for employees to reach their cars late at night. Mr. Donohue noted his agreement.
Mr. Campbell explained that employee parking in the rear lot is going to be a condition of employment; he added that he doesn’t think it’s going to be a problem and will be easy to enforce.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that if there was retail access from the rear of the building people would be willing to park back there.
Mr. Campbell noted that he would be happy to put in a back door, as one exists at his location in West Hartford.
Mr. Bonner, Avon resident, commented that the area could be made safer and some problems alleviated inexpensively via the use of signage and video surveillance cameras.
Mr. Kushner suggested that the applicant consider restriping some of the parking spaces with yellow paint to identify employee parking areas.
Ms. Bjorkland concurred with Mr. Kushner and noted that color-coded employee parking spaces have been done at the dealership; the color blue is used for Hoffman. Mr. Donohue acknowledged that it was a good idea. Ms. Bjorkland stated that there are 5 stores at the subject site and added that her estimate of 8 employees per store may be over estimated. She noted that Mr. Campbell (Sweet Frog Yogurt) has 4 employees and Moe’s Southwestern Grill has 7 employees. She commented that Rite Aid and Pier One Imports are larger stores and may have more employees but the back lot would be sufficient for all employee vehicles.
Mr. Starr confirmed that in 2 weeks the Commission will see an updated and refined parking analysis to include what’s really there and best estimates of peak times and where employees would park.
There being no further input, Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing for Apps. #4667 and #4668 will be continued to the June 25 meeting; the accompanying Site Plan App. #4666 will also be tabled to June 25.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4667 and #4668 to the Commission’s next meeting, scheduled for June 25. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Griffin motioned to table App. #4666 to the next meeting scheduled for June 25. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
STAFF REPORT
Accessory Apartments – review proposed language amendments
Mr. Kushner reviewed the proposed language changes for accessory apartments and noted that much of the text has been eliminated, as it no longer seems appropriate, and a more simplified approach is being taken. He explained that the current regulation requires that no more than 25% of the dwelling, after modification, can be used for the accessory apartment. The current regulation requires that all apartments be at least 400 SF but not more than 600 SF. He noted that almost every application over the last several years is for an apartment more than 600 SF in size and added that most are much more than 600 SF; both apartments and houses have gotten larger in size. Regulations for the Towns of Simsbury and Canton were reviewed and the Staff suggests that Avon’s rules now require apartments to
not be more than 30% of the dwelling (after modification) or 1,000 SF in size, whichever is less. He clarified that the single-family appearance of the house must still be maintained.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that any reference/restriction as to how a house can be enlarged would be deleted from the existing language. For example, if an owner wanted to add a 500 SF addition to their house and use 500 SF of the existing house to reach an apartment size of 1,000 SF, that would be permitted.
Mr. Kushner explained that a waiver provision allowing the Commission to modify these requirements will remain. (i.e., the Commission has discretion to permit an apartment larger than 1,000 SF if certain conditions exist/are satisfied.)
Mr. Kushner noted that language relating to lot coverage was eliminated, because houses always have to satisfy lot coverage requirements.
Mr. Kushner reviewed new proposed language pertaining to occupancy, “a principal owner of the single-family dwelling must reside in either the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit. Said owner shall certify such residence to the Planning and Zoning Commission by affidavit at the time of the initial application.” He explained that one cannot purchase a house as a rental property and then petition the Commission to create an accessory apartment; the house must be owner occupied.
In response to questions from Mrs. Griffin and Mr. Gackstatter regarding rental of the apartment to a third party, Mr. Kushner explained that he will discuss this option with the Town Attorney to ensure that the regulation conforms to all State laws. He noted that Avon’s Regulations include a definition for the word “family”, which most towns do not have. The definition of “family” reads: “Any number of individuals related by blood, marriage, or adoption and not more than two additional unrelated individuals living and working together on the premises as a single housekeeping unit.” He pointed out that the “single housekeeping unit” part is very important. Someone cannot rent a room in their house to a stranger (a person disconnected from the
family) who is just a boarder in the house. Mr. Kushner explained that while it is not allowed it is also very tough to prove. He indicated that the vast majority of applications for accessory apartments are for family members (aging parents/in laws) who strongly wish to maintain their independence; they want a separate door to the outside and their own kitchen.
Mr. Starr commented that one of the concerns of having non-family members in an accessory apartment is the possibility of disruption to the neighborhood (i.e., parties) and pointed out that if the principal owner is living in the main house there should be some controls in place.
In response to Mr. Starr’s comment, Mrs. Griffin noted that a two-family house could have the same scenario where the owner lives on one side and the accessory apartment is on the other side. She noted that because it’s a rental apartment it changes the character of the neighborhood and if it’s a nice area it isn’t fair to the neighbors.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that it’s a similar scenario for a homeowner who finishes a basement and then rents it out; the house is located in a residential area and not an apartment area.
Mr. Kushner reiterated that the vast majority of applications are for mothers/fathers or in-laws.
Mrs. Ryan commented that, most likely, the only people who are following the rules are the individuals who are actually applying to the Commission for the apartments. She asked how many restrictions can be imposed on people who are already trying to obey the rules when they are not really the problem.
Mr. Mahoney asked how much the Commission can really restrict how an apartment is used from a legal perspective. The Commission concurred.
Mr. Kushner noted that the goal is to maintain the single-family appearance of the house while also maintaining the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.
In response to Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Kushner explained that property owners have the right to own a single-family home in a single-family zoning district. The owner has the right to rent out the house but the owner is only allowed to have an accessory apartment by special exception; it is not permitted as of right. He further explained that the Commission is not obligated under State law to extend rights to create accessory apartments to anyone in any single-family zone. If the Commission did not want accessory apartment rules at all, the language could be taken out of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Kushner reiterated that he would get clarification from the Town Attorney.
Mr. Kushner indicated that the following new language is proposed to be added when properties are sold: “Continuation of Accessory Dwelling Unit: Upon the sale of a single-family dwelling having an accessory dwelling unit, the new owner(s) shall file, within thirty days of the transfer of the property, a notice with the Planning and Zoning Commission stating whether the new owner(s) intend to continue the accessory dwelling unit. If the new owner(s) intend to continue the use, a principal owner shall also file with the Planning and Zoning Commission an affidavit of occupancy in accordance with these Regulations within thirty days of the transfer of the property.” Mr. Kushner explained that special permits, by law, run with the property. He added that he believes the accessory apartment
use can be transferred to a new owner as long as the use remains the same.
In response to Mr. Mahoney’s question about the possibility of adding information to the deed, Mr. Kushner noted that, currently, any special exception uses that are approved require a “Grant of Special Exception” to be filed on the Land Records. He suggested that a variation of the standard form could be created to allow for better tracking when land transfers occur.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that he will have to check with the Town Attorney as to what discretion the Commission may have with regard to rental apartments in connection with the Town’s definition of “family”.
In response to concerns from the Commission, Mr. Kushner stated that about 15 years ago the Town of Canton, as an experiment, changed their regulations to allow accessory apartments “as of right”. He explained that all the same rules applied to the apartments but a special permit was no longer needed, as some thought the “rules” were too onerous. He noted that he spoke with the Staff in Canton and they indicated that nothing really changed; it appears that there are only a certain number of people who want to have accessory apartments in their homes. He pointed out that it is possible that the same people who would have apartments without permits are still doing it but the number of individuals who understand and follow the rules has not changed.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that although there may be no change noted yet, the numbers could change over time as the general population in the surrounding areas grows.
Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and agreement with Mr. Gackstatter and pointed out that the housing stock in Avon is relatively new, as compared to surrounding towns like West Hartford and Farmington. He explained that most of the newer housing developments in Avon have private covenants and restrictions, many of which prevent home owners from even asking for a special permit.
Mrs. Griffin expressed her support of accessory apartments and the ability to continue the use from one owner to another but conveyed her preference that the apartments be used only for family members. She noted that the apartment should not be allowed to revert to a rental for income even if the owner is living there, as the owner never maintains the rental the way they maintain their own house.
NB Zone – review uses permitted “as of right”
Mr. Kushner asked the Commission if they would be interested in considering broadening the ‘as of right” uses currently allowed in the NB (neighborhood business) zone. He noted that most of the uses right now are by special permit; the NB zone is the most restrictive, for good reason, as it is generally surrounded by residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Starr commented that there aren’t that many applications for uses in the NB zone that come before the Commission for review.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels all uses in the NB zone should be reviewed by the Commission.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
| 
