The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday June 25, 2013. Present were Duane Starr, Chair, Linda Keith, Vice Chair, and Alternate members Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Jenna Ryan; Mesdames Primeau and Ryan and Mr. Bonner sat for the meeting. Carol Griffin, David Cappello, Marianne Clark, Peter Mahoney, and Christian Gackstatter were absent. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Ryan motioned to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2013, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Bonner, received unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
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
The public hearing was continued from June 11.
Present to represent these applications were T. J. Donohue, Killian & Donohue, representing the owners; Anne Bjorkland, Director of Facilities and Property Management; Tom Daly, PE, Milone and MacBroom; Lee Pollock, commercial realtor; Scott Campbell, Sweet Frog Premium Frozen Yogurt; and Bruce Stemansky, Moe’s Southwest Grill.
Atorney Donohue explained that many plan revisions have been made and additional information has been provided.
Bruce Stemansky explained that Moe’s Southwest Grill is a “tex mex” menu served in a similar fashion to “Subway”; the food is ordered and made in front of the patrons. He noted that the food quality is fresh with no added hormones and the menu is family friendly; entrée prices range from $6 to $9. He noted that Moe’s is very active with local community fund raising.
Tom Daly, PE, reviewed the revised plans, noting that the Commission’s concerns have been addressed. He explained that a “no cut through” sign is proposed to be installed at the driveway
on Dale Road. Two (2) speed bumps are also proposed to be installed to slow people down as soon as they enter the site; there are 2 to allow drainage to run through the area. Mr. Daly noted that there has been much discussion about sidewalks on the site. He explained that the Police Chief has indicated that the site is privately owned and therefore offered no comment. He stated that a raised sidewalk (like a very large speed bump – 11 ft wide) is proposed to be constructed as close to perpendicular across the parking lot as possible. He noted that some of the landscaping in that area may have to be replaced; he added that there is a light fixture very nearby that may allow the sidewalk to be lit. Mr. Daly indicated that the owners have recently put down wood chips and pedestrians
have already worn a path through them; he added that there appears to be a natural path from the traffic signal into the site.
Mr. Daly addressed lighting and stated that all the light fixtures will be replaced with modern fixtures; there are no existing light fixtures that will remain as is. The fixtures along the Route 44 frontage are intended to be consistent with the fixtures used in the Town Center. The light fixtures to be used in the rear portion of the site will be traditional shoe box style with 100% full cutoff.
Mr. Daly addressed the connection to the adjacent site (369 West Main Battiston Cleaners) and explained that the driveway will be constructed to the subject property line; once the Battiston site constructs their portion of the driveway, both sides will connect. He noted that the construction of this driveway results in the loss of 4 parking spaces but added that a site plan from 2002 (for Cosi Restaurant) shows a driveway in this area.
Mr. Donohue stated that although he was not able to reach the Battiston’s attorney today he explained that the agreement, as it currently stands, is that the Battistons will build a base and box out the area and then the subject owner will put on a finish coat to match the subject site driveway.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Donohue explained that the Battistons have to prepare their side first because it isn’t a good idea to cut into the bank on the subject site. He added that the subject owner is ready to go when the Battistons are ready. He noted that if the Battistons are not done when the subject site is done, the subject owner would make arrangements with Battiston to pay for the portion of pavement on the subject site, which is approximately 15 feet.
Mr. Daly commented that if both sites work together, the project would be quite simple.
Mr. Daly addressed the rear parking lot and noted that a thorough cleaning has been done since the last meeting; vegetation has been cleared and the area opened up. The lot could now function as a remote employee and overflow lot. Some additional clearing will be done to the overgrown pines; he reiterated that all the lights in this rear lot will be replaced. He noted that the pavement is in good shape but it will be restriped.
Mr. Daly reviewed the Parking Study (dated May 1, 2013, revised to June 20, 2013) and addressed employee counts; he noted that Ms. Bjorkland has spoken with all the businesses to determine peak times. He explained that a peak parking demand between 11 am and 2pm is approximately 37 parking spaces; he added that from an overflow standpoint, there is a lot of parking in the rear area. He commented that both Moe’s and Sweet Frog have indicated that a rear entry to their spaces is definitely possible.
In response to Mr. Starr’s questions, Mr. Daly confirmed that the rear entrance could be used by customers as well as employees. He noted that the primary entrance will be in the front but indicated that signage will be added to the rear to alert customers. Mr. Daly stated that the employees will be designated to park in the rear and added that an alternate striping color can be used; he noted that there is a lot of parking in the rear that can be utilized.
Mr. Daly addressed the dumpster areas and explained that the gates are at 90° angle to the travel lane, which doesn’t appear to work. He noted that gates have been successfully turned to 45° angles at other plazas, which allows the trucks to swing in and back out. He noted that meetings will be arranged with the trash companies.
Mr. Daly addressed parking noting that the counts (shown in the aforementioned Parking Study) are broken down into different zones. He noted that the zone that gets used the most is near Cosi Restaurant, especially at lunch; the other zones are not heavily used. The parking supply demand information indicates that 25% of the spaces in the project were being used. Parking needs for future uses is also shown. He noted, for example, if you went to the plaza today at peak time, around 12 noon, approximately 45 parking spaces are being occupied by the current uses. Mr. Daly explained that under proposed conditions, 79 spaces is estimated to be peak demand for parking for the future uses including employees, such as Moe’s, Sweet Frog, and one vacant retail tenant. He noted that an
additional 84 parking spaces remain vacant when taking into account existing and proposed uses.
Mr. Starr addressed a sidewalk connection, discussed at the last meeting, located just north of where the future driveway connection to the Battiston parcel is located. He noted that the driveway is hopefully proposed in the area where there is an existing island so no parking spaces would be lost. The sidewalk connection would allow pedestrian access between the Battiston parcel and the subject site. He noted that there was a lot of reluctance to put a full sidewalk out towards Route 44 but he indicated that if such a sidewalk connection would accomplish pedestrian flow, eventually several of these sidewalks would be connected together. He commented that this method seems to be a much shorter distance for construction while allowing the safe flow of pedestrians.
Mr. Donohue confirmed that the owners would be pleased to give a commitment to provide a sidewalk connection, north of the proposed driveway connection for pedestrian flow between the subject site and the Battiston site, once a driveway connection has been established on the Battiston site.
Ms. Keith commented that a slightly raised sidewalk may be a good idea, as it could also act as a speed bump. Mr. Daly confirmed that a raised sidewalk on that side of the parking lot (similar to the raised sidewalk/speed bump proposed for the other side of the lot) could be accomplished but he added that a relationship/agreement with Battistons would be needed due to the topography and grade in that area. Mr. Donohue concurred.
Mr. Kushner indicated that there is a commitment by the owner that any new tenant leases would contain provisions that require the employees to park in employee designated spaces. He added that the owner has the right and agrees to enforce this provision. He noted that if an approval is granted there are several items that would need to be addressed before any C/Os are issued for the new proposed tenants. The Town would want to ensure that the property owner grants a sidewalk easement to the Town in the event that the State initiates sidewalk construction on Route 44 and/or State grant funds become available. He noted that constructing a sidewalk in the State ROW seems to be the most likely scenario, as the ROW in this area is very wide, but added that in the late 1990s the State prepared a plan showing
a landscaped center median on this section of Route 44, similar to what exists on Avon Mountain. Mr. Kushner explained that if this center median was built it might be necessary to build a sidewalk on private property and added that it is his understanding that the subject property owners are agreeable to granting an easement to the Town. He clarified that there would be no obligation by the property owner to build a sidewalk but an easement would give the Town the right to build if needed as part of a sidewalk system.
Mr. Kushner addressed dumpsters noting that they should be reoriented and suggested that the owner should commit to enclose all dumpsters with a fence; in addition, a concrete pad should be installed to accommodate all dumpsters.
Mr. Kushner addressed the cross easement and noted that he believes that the language is satisfactory to both parties. There is a provision in the draft agreement that states that the Battistons will be responsible for a small amount of grading as part of their reconstruction, extending onto the subject site. He noted that a gravel subbase would be put down and the subject owners (Hoffman) would be responsible to pave the portion on their site as part of their resurfacing plan. He added that if an approval is considered, that this item should be made a condition of approval while at the same time realizing that some of the work is not within the control of the subject applicant/owner.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Daly confirmed that the pavement would be completely redone except for the rear parking lot. He noted that brand new pavement, lighting, curbing, and striping are proposed.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question, Mr. Daly confirmed that extruded curbing would be used for all the front areas, especially on the radius. Mr. Kushner requested that detail be added to the plan to show which areas would have extruded concrete curbing. Mr. Daly concurred.
There being no further input, the public hearing for Apps. #4667 and #4668 was closed.
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
NEW APPLICATIONS
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
Present to represent these applications were James Ryan, RLA, John Meyer Consulting; Edward SanClemente, Director of Development, and Ted Doyle, VP of Marketing, LCB Senior Living; Patrick Mallon, consultant to LCB Senior Living; Anthony Vivirito, architect, The Architectural Team; and Matthew Herz, owner.
Mr. Ryan noted that the subject proposal is similar to the plan presented to the Commission in 2008.
Mr. Doyle explained that LCB Senior Living has been constructing, for the past 20 years, facilities for independent, assisted living, and memory care; there are 30 facilities in total and 4 in Connecticut. He noted that LCB is looking forward to becoming part of Avon’s community and added that there is also an ongoing project in South Windsor. He noted that people that utilize senior housing tend to come from a small radius; it’s a very local business that becomes and depends on the local community.
Mr. Doyle explained that the 4 facilities in CT were part of the original company, which has since been sold, but added that the facilities were built and managed by LCB for several years before the sale.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Ed SanClemente explained that the 4 facilities in CT are located in Rocky Hill (Greenwich Place, formerly known as Bridges of the Green); Hamden (Larsen Place); Waterford (Crossroads); and West Hartford (Hamilton Heights Place).
Mr. Ryan explained that there are 2 existing lots on the site and the total acreage is 11 acres. The proposal is to move the boundary/lot line to meet the requirements for both access and perimeter; no new lots are proposed. Approximately 3 acres on the southern part of the site would be used for the senior living facility. Various alternatives for the northern part of the site have been provided and although the use of this portion of the site is unknown at this time it is expected to be within the parameters of the existing zoning.
Mr. Ryan addressed the proposed building noting that it is a 3-story building with 74 units; the footprint is approximately 24,000 SF. He noted that 48 parking spaces have been provided; a ratio of .65 per unit. He explained that specialized uses such as senior housing and, particularly, assisted living generally have a very low parking demand; the national average is somewhere under .5 but LCB wants to provide a buffer and therefore proposes a slightly higher ratio than seen in other similar facilities.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Ryan explained that essentially all of the proposed parking is for employees, as the average age of residents for this type of facility is well into their 80s. He noted that John Meyer Consulting has been involved in approximately 30 facilities throughout the region and added that residents in their 80s are not expected to drive or have cars. Transportation is provided by the facility. He noted that the maximum number of staff during a shift is 23 employees; the 48 parking spaces can accommodate the overlap in shift changes and guests. Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant feels the proposed parking is more than adequate, based on experience and follow up with these types of facilities over the last 15 years. Mr. Ryan explained that outside
accommodations in an offsite parking lot could be made for special events/occasions that may happen once a year. He stated that the need for offsite parking is rare and the applicant is trying to strike a balance to preserve green space/landscaping.
Ms. Keith conveyed her experience with certain elderly facilities and noted her awareness that some residents do keep cars and take up parking spaces. She noted that sometimes residents’ families bring in extra outside caregivers, in addition to the normal employees, which also adds extra vehicles at the facility. She noted her concerns with special events (holiday parties, anniversaries, etc), noting that she has seen situations where parking in the street is needed. She added that sometimes individuals in their early 70s live in these types of facilities that drive and keep a car.
In response to Mrs. Ryan’s question, Mr. Doyle stated that one large van will be kept on site. He noted that outings are scheduled in advance and if there is an occasion where more room is needed for more people a larger extra capacity van would be used.
Ms. Keith noted that the facilities that she is familiar with have 2 vans and 2 SUVs and these facilities have fewer residents than being proposed here.
Mr. Doyle stated that one large van is typical. He explained that LCB is in the service business and noted that it would be a disaster if the parking didn’t work. He noted that family visits are a huge part of the therapeutic environment that the facility tries to create. A balance between open space and parking is very important but quality of life is the number one goal. He noted that LCB is very good at managing and balancing the issues being discussed and noted that their track record is very good.
In response to Mrs. Ryan’s question, Mr. SanClemente explained that the facility would employ a snow removal contractor who would be called to remove snow from the site should a heavy snowfall result in the loss of parking spaces.
Mr. SanClemente addressed outside caregivers and noted that while there is some, there is not a lot. He referenced parking data from a facility that has less than 50 spaces and still runs successfully. He acknowledged that he is not an operations caregiver and cannot speak to the numbers, per say, but noted that not a number as high as 50% of the residents have outside caregivers.
Ms. Keith noted that the facility she visits every day has a minimum of 6 outside people that drive their own cars; this is in addition to the main staff.
Mr. Doyle indicated that the level of care and services can differ from facility to facility and noted that LCB tries to be self contained. Primary care physicians and specialists are brought in when needed and visiting nurses come to the facility but most residents go to their own primary care physicians outside the building. He reiterated that service is a priority for success; services must be conveniently provided and the community made livable. Mr. Doyle explained that he would be here asking for 100 parking spaces if he thought they were needed.
Mrs. Primeau asked about the environment (city vs. country) of the other locations in Connecticut and noted that, in this area, people in their 90s refuse to give up their cars and still drive very well.
Mr. Doyle conveyed his understanding of Mrs. Primeau’s comments and added that LCB’s experience is such that when people are ready to move into one of their assisted living facilities there are very few who bring cars.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Doyle explained that while LCB does offer an independent product, it is usually a very small percentage of the facility. He noted that the percentage varies from facility to facility but added that, overall it is less than 10%.
In response to Mrs. Ryan’s question, Mr. SanClemente explained that the unit mix is a combination of studios and one-bedroom units and there are a few two-bedroom units for couples. Mr. Doyle further explained that the per-unit calculation is not like an apartment and noted that this type of facility tends to be one person per unit, mostly widows with some widowers. He added that there may be 20 memory-impairment units; these residents are not driving. Mr. Doyle reiterated that in order for LCB to be successful, the facility must work well; he reiterated that they are not skipping on parking spaces, as it is not in LCB’s best interest.
Mrs. Ryan commented that “River Ridge” in Avon has 41 parking spaces, which is inadequate. She noted that they also have trash issues, staff parking issues, and a car parked in the lot that was owned by an individual that passed away 3 years ago. She added that these problems make her ask how this proposal can be made better. Mr. Doyle noted his understanding.
Patrick Mallon, consultant to LCB, stated that he was the former director for Sunrise Senior Living and explained that Sunrise used a parking ratio of .4 per unit for the original application in 2008; the original application proposed 32 parking spaces. He noted that LCB wanted to increase the parking to be sure and added that he feels the Sunrise facilities are over parked. He noted that Sunrise Senior Living had 450 facilities nationwide, many located in the suburbs, and their parking ratio was .4, on average, which seemed to work fine for employees and visitors. He added that some of the facilities near the end moved to .5 but never parked at .6 or at .65.
Mr. Ryan explained that John Meyer Consulting (JMC) also has traffic engineers on staff and noted that a number of facilities have been studied but added that none of the specific facilities here were studied. He stated that JMC concurs professionally that the ratio tended to be less than .5 for many of the earlier facilities constructed. Mr. Ryan stated that JMCs recommendation to LCB is a parking ratio of .5, rather than Sunrise’s ratio of .4. He added that LCB wished to raise it to .65 and explained that it is JMCs professional opinion that .65 is more than adequate. Mr. Ryan noted that JMC has been involved with 32 Sunrise facilities and a number of other major providers of assisted living and added that the subject proposal is on the high end, proposing a significant buffer and higher
than normal number of parking spaces. He noted that this industry really only started to develop approximately 15 years ago and added that many of the facilities that have parking issues are more than 10 years old. He noted that ASHA (American Society of Senior Housing) still recommends/maintains that a proper parking ratio is .35, which is almost half of what is proposed.
Mr. Ryan addressed landscaping and noted that a significant amount of plant material is proposed and a great effort has been made to create a therapeutic value. He noted that LCB does a great job at maintaining their landscaping. He explained that an additional access point for emergency vehicles has been added to the plans, as a result of meeting with the Fire Officials. In addition, one of the roadways has been extended with a grass paver material to allow vehicles to drive in further.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about fire truck access to the rear of the building, Mr. Ryan explained that full 360° access by fire/emergency vehicles is not available due to the grades on the site and noted that the Fire Officials have asked for an additional connection for fire trucks, as only one access point was proposed originally. He explained that a fully-paved emergency access connection has been added to the plans. A grass paved area has been extended out to allow emergency access to the building rooftop. He noted that the grassed area is a hardened surface that allows grass to grow but is also a maintainable surface that has been used in other locations. In addition, the dead end area of the parking lot has been extended further back. He noted that fire hydrant
locations have also been addressed and accommodated/changed per requests from the Fire Officials. Mr. Ryan conveyed his belief that the Fire Officials are satisfied with fire safety on the exterior of the site. He pointed out that the interior safety/evacuation requirements are significant for these types of facilities; fire suppression systems, hallway designs, and signage are at very high standards and the building is fully sprinkled.
Anthony Vivirito displayed a “PowerPoint” presentation addressing building architecture and materials and explained that the proposed building is non-combustible steel construction, per State requirements, and not made of wood. He explained that the Alzheimer portion is located on the first floor of the building; this area is isolated for safety reasons and has its own dining area and secure outdoor courtyard. The residential units are located around the perimeter of the building. The main entrance has a covered porte-cochere (covered walkway) through the main vestibule of the building; a grand staircase is often times a focal point and is meant, primarily, to provide access for those residents whose rooms are located on the second and third floors. A series of doors from a common lobby
lead into common spaces, which include a bistro, a sunroom, a living room, and a common dining area. The second floor has rooms for more independent residents including amenities such as a beauty/barber salon, a brain gym (computer stations), and a media/multi-purpose activity room (events, movie nights, speaking engagements). Mr. Vivirito noted that the building is designed to let in as much daylight as possible.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Vivirito confirmed that some of the assisted living units do have kitchenettes, similar to a college dorm, with a 2-burner cook top, a micro fridge, and a sink. Most of the residents’ meals happen in the main dining room. He clarified that the country kitchen area of the building is more of a gathering place that has snacks and lemonade in the afternoon. Mr. Vivirito noted that a large part of the program is to create gathering spaces for activity and interactions between residents.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question Mr. Vivirito explained that the studio rooms are approximately 500 SF in size and the one bedroom units are between 600 and 650 SF; all units have a dedicated clothing closet, a full bath, and separate windows to bring in natural light. The three-bedroom units are a bit larger but there are only 3 in total. Mr. Vivirito reviewed the materials to be used and noted that a precast stone is proposed for the building exterior. He noted that the Town Hall buildings have a “rock face” finish, which is easily simulated in manmade materials for a textured finish. The proposed color is a reddish tone which the applicant feels would be in keeping with the traditional look of the existing buildings in Avon Center. The proposed building is three
stories; the blocks (1’ x 2’ module) on the first two stories are alternated across the façade. He explained that the building proposes false dormers on the roof and shingle elements; traditional clapboard style is carried across the first and second floor and a batten style is continuous across the façade.
Mr. Starr commented that the clapboard and “board and batten” systems are not really wood, they are manufactured products. Mr. Vivirito concurred and added that the proposed cement board products are very good and maintenance free. Mr. Starr indicated that this product was used on the Carmon Funeral Home and came out very well.
Mr. Vivirito displayed photos/slides of completed buildings in various areas noting that a cement board product was used and is representative of a building that would be constructed in Avon. He noted that the buildings in the photos have a brick base but the building in Avon would have a stone base. He displayed elevation drawings noting that the first floor would have a durable aluminum rail system; the columns for the covered porch would be made out of “hardy” material and the shingle that would be used is traditional in nature. He noted that each façade is slightly different to convey a residential look to the building and help break down the scale and massing. He noted that the intent is to use materials that are consistent with existing projects in Town.
Mr. Bonner noted his concern with the proposed entrance and exit due to the rise in the roadway in that area. He indicated that although he finds the building very attractive he conveyed his feeling that it’s a very dangerous situation without some serious road improvements.
Mr. Ryan explained that Route 10 is a State road and noted that the Department of Transportation (DOT) was contacted early on during the original application by Sunrise Senior Living in 2008 to review sight distances. He noted that the location of the proposed driveway is at the crest of the hill, which is the optimal location as determined by a meeting with the DOT. He noted that the applicant continues to work with the DOT; the contact person at the DOT is the same person as in 2008. The proposed driveway is considered a low-volume driveway but would be connected to a potential retail or other use on the rear of the site. Mr. Ryan stated that from a professional/traffic engineer’s standpoint, the proposed driveway location is the only place it can go.
Mr. Bonner reiterated his displeasure with the proposed driveway location, noting he feels it’s a disaster waiting to happen. He commented that a traffic light would be needed, as it is often difficult to get out of Riverdale Farms.
Mr. Ryan explained that the State DOT has requested a list of items from the applicant that will be part of the State’s review. He noted that engineers at John Meyer Consulting have also looked at sight distances from a safety standpoint and added that the DOT will be looking at analyses based on actual speeds. He explained that in some ways the crest of the hill is the optimal location in terms of speed because deceleration is occurring on both sides as vehicles are going up hills. Mr. Ryan conveyed his understanding of Mr. Bonner’s concerns.
Mr. Starr inquired about a left-hand turn lane heading north bound.
Mr. Ryan stated that the DOT has indicated that a slight widening on one side of the road is needed to allow for additional accommodations for the left turn lane. He explained that everything is still in the early stages with the State DOT and added that preliminary approvals are not supplied by the State any longer, as a local approval is needed before an application can be filed with the State. Mr. Ryan explained that the applicant has begun communications with the State and noted that Town Staff will be kept informed regarding State information. He indicated that both JMC and LCB feel the proposed driveway is safe and in an optimal location.
Ms. Keith commented that some grading will be done in the area to make the sight line a bit better.
Mr. Ryan concurred and added that the grading plan proposes to cut back the existing knoll in the area. He explained that the applicant is trying to retain some of the characteristic of the knoll but noted that sight distances will not be sacrificed. He concluded by noting that the applicant is ready to advance the process with the State DOT and keep Town Staff fully involved.
Mrs. Primeau indicated that she would like to see the driveway on the assisted living property and noted that it appears that most of the driveway is on the other property.
Mr. Starr commented that the property subdivision lines will have to be changed so that the proposed driveway is entirely fee owned by LCB, as well as the retention basin. He noted that the area to the north, to be developed at some future date, will have its own fee owned exit eventually and can still have an easement through the front. He stated that each property should have at least one fee-owned driveway.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about the driveway width at the Route 10 intersection, Mr. Ryan explained that the driveway is three (3) 12-foot lengths at 36-feet wide to allow for a left turn, heading northbound, out of the site without too much stacking. A free right-hand turn out of the driveway is proposed, as well as a through movement to go straight across.
Mr. Ryan addressed the proposed subdivision noting that a number of schematic plans have been submitted to show the possibilities for the rear parcel with a driveway location that makes sense because it is not known at this time what type of use it will be. He noted that the proposed lot line revision does not change the location of the driveway and added that easements are in place that address the types of issues the Town may have regarding ownership on one side or the other. The applicant has worked closely with the owner to ensure that the driveway location was properly addressed regarding maintenance and access, as there will be interplay for many years to come.
Mr. Starr stated that the property line will have to be adjusted to make the driveway fee owned by the assisted living facility, as well as the retention basin.
Mr. Ryan indicated that the applicant has no objection to including the retention basin and noted that the cross maintenance agreements would not change. He noted that the current location of the driveway alignment is preferred.
Mr. Starr clarified that he’s not asking to change the driveway alignment but rather is asking that the property line be moved; the easement can remain to benefit the property to the north. He noted that the property to the north will have its own fee-owned exit at some point.
Mrs. Primeau indicated that she would like to see an area for reserve parking shown on the plan; a grassed paver is a possibility. She noted her understanding of the parking statistics but added that she feels there are times when additional parking is needed.
In response to Mrs. Ryan’s concerns about parking for events, Mr. Ryan explained that accommodations would be made for offsite parking if it was deemed necessary. He noted that the applicant would like to preserve the “green” aspects of the site and added that there are islands proposed that could be removed, as the proposed parking is most likely in excess of what will be needed. He noted that most people like to believe that these types of facilities receive a lot of visitors but the reality is that they don’t. He noted that both of his parents are in their mid 80s and added that he has 20 years experience with assisted living and noted that people don’t tend to congregate in the facility; a more likely scenario is a family member taking the resident out for the day.
He stated that it is his expert opinion that the proposed parking is more than adequate and would not like to see any landscaping sacrificed to add more parking.
Ms. Keith suggested that the grassed driveway area proposed for emergency fire truck access could be made wider and used for overflow parking. Mr. Ryan commented that the driveway is proposed for emergency access and clarified that the smaller areas shown on the plan are pathways/walkways and not driveways. Ms. Keith noted her understanding.
Mrs. Primeau commented that these types of facilities often offer lectures on topics such as Alzheimer and aging and that is a reason to have reserve parking. She added that grassed parking areas would not disrupt the landscaping.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question about a possible easement for overflow parking on the rear site, Mr. Ryan explained that there are too many unknown variables with regard to the rear site but noted that a parking management plan for the subject facility can be prepared for Town Staff. He added that in some areas municipal buildings are used for overflow parking.
Mr. Kushner stated that Hartford Hospital is located right around the corner and is closed on weekends and within walking distance of the proposed building.
Ms. Keith noted her concern that there are only 4 handicap parking spaces and that it’s not enough. She asked that extra handicap spaces be considered noting that the residents will use the public handicap spaces.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s question about pick up and drop off at the porte cochere, Ms. Keith noted that you are not allowed to park in that area.
Mrs. Ryan noted that the McLean facility in Simsbury has an effective pick up and drop off zone on one side of the building entrance with idling spots to load and unload.
Mr. Ryan conveyed his understanding.
Matthew Herz, Avon Village, LLC, asked why the Commission is asking to move the property line to encompass the driveway, as currently a cut exists to access the property. He noted that this is the only cut that is getting approved with the State DOT and added that without access the parcel would be landlocked. He questioned how the remaining part of the land would be accessed.
In response to Mr. Herz, Mr. Starr explained that the same easement agreement could be used and roles would just be reversed. Mr. Starr reiterated that the Commission wants each piece of property to have their own fee entrance.
Mr. Herz commented that he would not have that when he goes back to apply for anything on the rear site.
In response to Mr. Herz’s comments about not knowing what the DOT would approve or accept, Mr. Starr communicated that at this point we know that there is one parcel to be developed and that’s where the Commission wants the fee-owned driveway to be located. Mr. Herz noted that it is possible that the DOT will not allow a driveway cut in that location. Mr. Starr noted his understanding and reiterated that the same easement agreement could apply. Mr. Starr clarified that if there was no choice, the Commission would accept the easement option but noted that the first choice is a driveway owned in fee by the parcel proposing the assisted living development.
In response to Mr. Herz’s question, Mr. Starr and Mrs. Primeau confirmed that the Commission would also require a driveway owned in fee if the rear parcel were the first parcel proposing development.
Mr. Ryan indicated that parking management including handicap and over flow needs will be reviewed and opportunities investigated. He stated that a sidewalk is proposed down Simsbury Road to Fisher Drive and a pedestrian signal would be provided along with some striping, per Staff’s request. He noted that granite curbing is also agreed to and will be used. Mr. Ryan explained that the applicant will work with the Town Engineer regarding the capacity of the pump station and upgrade details. He recognized that the Farmington Valley Health District has certain protocol and requirements and noted that the applicant agrees to comply. He concluded by noting that LCB estimates that there are approximately 2 ambulance calls per week and special arrangements with a private company are made if this
activity over burdens the local ambulance provider. He explained that these types of facilities have in house triage and people are available 24/7 to determine whether an ambulance call is necessary.
In response to Mr. Kushner’s questions, Mr. SanClemente explained that private ambulance providers are contracted with ahead of time in other facilities for transportation that is non emergency. He noted that some towns have indicated that they would rather the facility call the local ambulance while other towns have indicated that they would rather not be burdened with calls. Mr. SanClemente offered assurances that LCB is prepared to contract with private companies if the Town prefers that the local services not be burdened.
Mr. Kushner noted that Avon contracts with a private ambulance service, as the Town does not have its own, and added that he would check with the Police Chief.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Herz stated that the existing houses were connected to Town water and have been shut off; there is no active well that is being used. The test wells are not true wells and will be taken out.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Herz explained that if the houses ever had active wells, he is not aware of it; there is no structure on the site and there is no information from any of the studies that have been done.
There being no further input, Mr. Starr announced that the public hearing will be continued to the next meeting.
Mrs. Ryan motioned to continue the public hearing for Apps. #4669 and #4670 to the next meeting, scheduled for July 16. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Primeau received unanimous approval.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to table App. #4671 to the next meeting. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Ryan, received unanimous approval.
The public hearing was closed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mrs. Primeau motioned to waive Administrative Procedure #6 and consider Apps. #4666,#4667, and #4668. Mr. Bonner seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
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
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
Ms. Keith motioned to approve Apps. #4666, #4667, and #4668 subject to the following conditions:
1. Property owner shall define on the plan and grant an easement to the Town regarding possible the future construction of a sidewalk along Route 44, in front of the site.
2. An agreement between the subject owner and the owner of 369 West Main Street (Battiston) shall be prepared regarding timing for necessary grading and paving activities in connection with the cross-easement driveway connection between the sites. The applicant’s representatives have communicated to the Commission that substantial progress has been made with regard to a driveway connection agreement (a condition of a
prior approval with the adjoining owner to the east). A draft agreement exists and has been agreed to, in principal, by both parties. The agreement will permit both owners vehicular access across each of the parcels via a driveway connection, depicted on the site plan. The agreement also stipulates that the owner of 369 West Main Street (Battiston) would be responsible to perform a limited amount of work at 385 West Main Street (Hoffman, subject site) to include rough grading and the preparation of a gravel surface; the owner of 385 West Main Street (Hoffman) is responsible to pave the prepared area. Based on the applicant’s representations and the subject approval, it is the Commission’s expectation that the applicant will make a significant effort to get this
agreement signed, recorded and the work completed as part of the subject project approval.
3. The subject owner (Hoffman) shall exchange a reciprocal sidewalk easement with the adjoining property owner at 369 West Main (Battiston), at no cost to either party, regarding the construction of a sidewalk on the east side of the subject site in the parking area where the future driveway connection exists. The applicant’s engineer shall study a likely location for such sidewalk and show a concept plan for construction on the approved plans. A note shall be added to the approved plans regarding this sidewalk easement agreement.
4. The owner shall enforce restrictions in existing leases requiring that employees park to the rear of the building or in the remote parking lot at the southeast corner. In addition, the 2 new tenant leases will contain similar provisions. Finally, all lease renewals and new tenant leases will contain similar provisions.
5. The entire parking lot, excluding the remote/rear lot, shall be repaved, recurbed and restriped. The applicant shall stripe designated employee parking in the rear with yellow pain. Concrete curbing shall be used in all areas.
6. All dumpsters shall be reoriented as presented and fence enclosures utilized; a concrete pad shall be installed. A fence enclosure detail shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning.
7. All site work including work within the State ROW shall be completed before Certificates of Occupancy will be issued for both Moe’s Southwest Grill and Sweet Frog Yogurt.
8. Applicant shall document compliance with IES Standards for parking lot lighting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request for wine and beer liquor permit – 85 East Main (The Elephant Trail)
Mr. Kushner explained that when the owner of The Elephant Trail, Soden Tek, came before the Commission for approval (November 2012 App. #4637) to move his restaurant from Old Avon Village to 85 East Main Street (former Connecticut Home Interiors) he represented that he had no plans to obtain a liquor license, as the restaurant currently operates as “bring your own”. Mr. Tek has since changed his mind and would like to obtain a beer and wine permit.
Mr. Starr noted that the Commission is being informed about the liquor permit request and no official approval is needed. Mr. Kushner concurred.
The Commission concurred that a beer and wine permit is reasonable.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
At a meeting held on June 25, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon voted as follows:
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
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 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Dated at Avon this 26TH day of June, 2013. Copy of this notice is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Avon Town Hall.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice-Chair
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 7:30 P.M. at the Avon Town Hall:
App. #4672 - Amber and Brian Rush, owners, Morgan Contracting, Inc., applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IV.A.4.q. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit accessory apartment, 79 Carriage Drive, Parcel 1680079, in an R40 Zone
App. #4673 - Leibert Real Estate, owner, Maureen Callahan, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VII.C.4.b.(2) of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit low-profile detached identification sign, 192 West Main Street, Parcel 4540192, in a CR Zone
App. #4675 Twenty Security Drive LLC, owner, Capitol Region Education Council, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section VI.G.3.e. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit extension of temporary elementary public school use, 20 Security Drive, Parcel 3900020, in an IP 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 1st day of July, 2013.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chair
Linda Keith, Vice Chair
| 
