The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a special workshop meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, February 8, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Linda Keith, and Alternates Elaine Primeau, Donald Bonner, and Christian Gackstatter. Absent were Carol Griffin, Marianne Clark, David Cappello, and Edward Whalen. Also present were Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development, and John McCahill, Planning and Community Development Specialist.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Review of Proposed Changes to the Zoning Regulations in Connection with the Creation of a New Zoning District Known as the Avon Village Center Zone
Present was Michael Looney, Senior Planner, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. Also present was August Jasminski, Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation.
Mr. Kushner provided insight to the overall process and noted that the first step would include a change to the official Zoning Map to identify the proposed Avon Center Zone boundary. He explained that if there are property owners that were not initially included in the new Avon Center Zone boundary, they would be allowed to apply for a zone change at any time to request to be included, thus expanding the overall boundary limits. He noted that the boundary, while essentially comprised of Avon Park North, does not include properties to the north located on Fisher Drive (i.e., the Alzheimer’s facility, the Montessori School, and the Hartford Hospital Cancer Center). He reiterated that the first step is the establishment of the boundary and the adoption of a new set of regulations. He explained
that the second step would be the submission of a special exception application by Ensign Bickford for a master plan. He noted that the master plan will have quite a bit of detail; once this special exception is granted, no additional special exception or zone changes will be needed. The master plan would divide the land area into several sub-areas, or Village Design Districts.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the Village Design Districts (VDDs) will not be defined ahead of time and are not included in the proposed Regulations. He noted that these Districts will be defined and included in the master plan that will be submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Kushner continued and noted that step three of the process would be the submission of individual site plan approvals. He explained that while Ensign Bickford’s master plan will include information about the sequencing of the proposed VDDs, there will be flexibility regarding the order in which each phase gets developed (i.e., Phase Four may happen before Phase Two). The details of the infrastructure (i.e., Rails to Trails connections, road construction of a new main street, open space) would be addressed in the master plan. It is likely that approval of the master plan will include conditions imposed by the Commission relative to the order in which the infrastructure improvements get done.
Mr. Kushner addressed the proposed regulations for the Avon Village Center Zone (AVC) and noted that a lengthy meeting was held recently between Ensign Bickford and the Town Staff; many of the changes shown in “red” are a result of that meeting.
Mr. Starr commented that he would prefer to see the parcels near the Marriott Hotel included in the AVC Zone boundary and asked about the pros and cons of excluding this area.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that the parcels near the Marriott Hotel are already developed and that is why they are not included but added that they could be. He commented that being included in the new zone offers more flexibility but also imposes a burden, as the property owner would have to invest in some type of planning study. He commented that it doesn’t appear that there would be much to be gained for the Marriott and that is why it is not included.
Mrs. Primeau commented that it could pose a problem in the future to not include the Marriott in the AVC Zone because the Marriott could close and a new use proposed in its place. She questioned why the crossroads area at Route 10 is not included.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that the AVC Zone presents a lot of flexibility with the intent to promote creativity and mixed uses that could not otherwise be accomplished under the existing Zoning Regulations.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels that the land area long Route 10 should be included, rather than carving it out, because we don’t know what the future holds and we may want flexibility.
Mr. Starr commented that if the area along Route 10 and Route 44 were included in the new AVC Zone it would not pose a hardship for the existing hotel; the existing church and cemetery uses will not change but the existing retail may change someday.
Mr. Kushner noted his agreement that including the land area does not create a hardship but pointed out that the proposed regulations for the AVC Zone do not have any uses that are permitted by right; every use is a special exception and requires a public hearing. It may add flexibility but also requires a certain investment by the property owner.
Mr. Thompson noted that currently there is only one property owner involved. He noted that, from a practical standpoint, adding multiple property owners could cause delays in the timeframe that is expected to complete the project.
Mr. Starr noted his understanding.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that the boundary issue would have to be revisited many times should property owners decide that they want to be included in the future. He asked if it makes more sense to address it only once and be done with it. He questioned how divided and/or irregular the boundary lines should be allowed to become.
Mr. Kushner explained that all the traditional rules of zoning will apply to the newly created AVC Zone and, therefore, the boundary lines would not have to be squared off because any property owner anywhere in Town could apply for a zone change to be included in this zone. He noted that the potential for approval for parcels not in the vicinity of Avon Center would be slim; the Commission always has discretion for zone change requests.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Kushner noted that he feels it will take time for other property owners to make a decision as to whether they want to be included; the concept is very new. He noted that the Zoning Map is a compilation of many different commercial zones that transition smoothly from one to another; an orderly plan. The Commission has the authority to review the Zoning Map at any time.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she would rather see clean lines for the proposed AVC Zone; she added that she feels the entire area should be included. She noted the possibility for building demolitions and rebuilds for existing sites near Avon Center and asked whether such activities would require approval by the Commission.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that under the current Zoning Regulations for the Commercial Specialized (CS) Zone if a building is demolished and a rebuild is requested, site plan approval before the Commission is required. Under the proposed new AVC Zone Regulations it is more involved, as an overall master plan must be prepared as well as information provided as to how the proposal relates to the rest of the District. He added that a special exception application is also required in every instance. Mrs. Primeau noted her understanding and asked why it wouldn’t make sense to include the Hotel area because the area is very large.
Mr. Looney addressed the revised draft of the Avon Village Center Zone Regulations and noted that while the content is similar to what was presented at the Commission’s January 11 meeting there are some changes/additions to review. He reviewed the Preamble (Section 1) and Purpose (Section 2), noting that language indicating that house construction for smaller households will be promoted was added to Section 2.
Mr. Gackstatter questioned the word “accommodations” (Section 2. Purpose, “b”) and commented that he feels Rails to Trails is a huge asset to the community, as well as Avon Center, but added that it should be clearly defined and delineated with more than just a couple of plaques identifying a bicycle path. He noted that he would also like more information about how pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle spaces and open spaces would be defined. He commented that landscaping can be provided in different forms (i.e., plantings near a building or a specific building type such as a theater).
Mr. Looney explained that an applicant, as part of an application submission to the Commission for the Avon Village Center Zone, would have to provide specific information about pedestrian connections, bicycle connections, and/or non-motorized vehicular accommodations and how these items would fit into the overall master plan for a proposed development.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that information on the specific purpose/use for a proposed path/access way or details about what makes the area unique should be required (i.e., paths dedicated to motorized vehicles only versus paths dedicated strictly to bicycles or paths dedicated to just pedestrians).
Mr. Kushner noted that the language can be clarified and made more specific. He addressed Section 8-2j of the CT State Statutes, “Village Districts Act”, and explained that this provision allows towns to give special recognition to areas that possess special historic character. He added that special regulations can be adopted to both promote the protection of the existing buildings/resources and provide protection that new buildings are constructed to the standards of the existing architecture. This Statute permits the Commission to either create a design review commission and/or maintain (on an on-call basis) an architect, a landscape architect and/or planner; the cost would be borne by the applicant. He explained that the Commission, under normal circumstances, is not permitted to
approve or deny a project based solely on aesthetics (i.e., appearance, materials, architectural design). Section 8-2j provides the Commission with some discretion in this area.
Mr. Gackstatter asked how far the parameters of Section 8-2j extend. Mr. Kushner noted that Town Attorney Zizka indicated that any buildings that can be seen from the street would be included. Mr. Looney added that the Statute speaks to buildings/structures constructed on a site that are visible from public roads. Mr. Kushner commented that the subject 100-acre area has been identified as historic because of the uniqueness of the existing buildings; therefore, any new buildings constructed within the confines of this identified area would be subject to the same review.
Mr. Starr noted that it is his interpretation that it is not only the existing historic structures that define/influence the proposed district and noted the importance of identifying the entire area to be included under Section 8-2j because anything that is added must complement the historic nature of the area.
Mr. Kushner noted that he would seek clarification from Town Attorney Zizka.
Mr. Looney explained that he believes the Town can define the “Village District” as they feel appropriate; any structure/building (new or existing to be altered) that can be seen from the street falls under the Commission’s design review authority.
Mr. Kushner clarified that Section 8-2j gives the Commission certain authority but noted that the proposed regulations for the Avon Village Center Zone are independent of the Statute. He explained that even if the Town Attorney reports that there have been cases narrowly defined with respect to where Section 8-2j can apply, the Commission would, under no circumstance, lose the discretion they already possess. He further explained that a special exception application, a public hearing, and a detailed site plan review by the Commission are still required. Mr. Kushner noted that it is possible that one of the proposed Village Design Districts could propose 80% of the buildings to be clearly visible from the road and 20% to not be visible but the entire proposal would be presented as one master plan.
He reiterated that he would get more information from the Town Attorney.
Mr. Looney addressed Architectural Review (Section 3) and noted that the revised language is almost verbatim from the Statute. He noted that substantial reconstruction activity would be determined by the Director of Planning and brought before the Commission as needed.
Mr. Kushner explained that this protocol has been identified in other sections of the proposed regulations; the Commission could designate the Staff to make judgments but if there are discrepancies in opinion the applicant would seek a final determination from the Commission.
Mr. Starr noted that he is comfortable allowing the Staff to make judgments about minor exterior modifications.
Mr. Looney reviewed Special Exception Uses (Section 4) and noted that the uses listed have not changed except for the addition of one use, namely arts centers and performance venues. Prohibited uses and conforming uses have been removed, as the proposed regulations are permissive in nature; if the use is not listed it is not permitted.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that almost all zoning regulations/ordinances are written in a permissive fashion; in order for a use to be allowed it has to be listed in the rule book. It is not possible to list every use that is prohibited but it is possible to list uses that are permitted.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Looney explained that assisted living could fall under the category of other uses that the Commission could determine to be similar in nature to elderly housing.
Mr. Looney reviewed Special Exception - Mixed Use Development (SE-MUD) (Section 5) and noted that information contained in this section gets to the heart of how the new zone would function. He explained that there is a definitions section for the terms that occur in many places within the document.
Mr. Starr noted that a change is needed for the first definition, SE-MUD Plan. It should read “A generalized plan of proposed development within for the Avon Village Center District.” Mr. Looney noted his understanding and agreement.
Mr. Looney addressed the definition for Main Street and noted that the words “public or private” have been added because it is possible that any development proposed for the Village Center could include a roadway that could be privately owned and maintained.
Mr. Kushner explained that the existing public streets are likely to remain public but noted it is possible that some of the new roads would be private. There will be issues such as snow removal for on street parking, maintenance responsibilities, and shared parking that will require the individual districts to be tied together in some way. He added that he believes that, for the most part, these will be private issues rather than public.
Mrs. Primeau commented that if a road is private the general public would not be allowed to travel over it. Mr. Kushner explained that some type of public easement would be necessary to allow public access over privately owned land. He noted that it would be a different situation than a private road located in a private exclusive development.
Mr. Starr and Mr. Bonner noted that shopping centers are privately owned but allow public access.
Ms. Keith commented that she would prefer not to see any cul-de-sacs. Mrs. Primeau noted her agreement. Ms. Keith commented that the roads will be tightly knit and some may not be up to standards for emergency vehicles and therefore should flow without the use of cul-de-sacs. She added that she feels there should be some guidelines.
Mr. Starr commented that he agrees that no cul-de-sacs may be needed for the retail areas but noted that there may be some areas that need review and input from the Commission.
Mr. Thompson pointed out that all applications will require special exception review and approval by the Commission.
Mr. Looney explained that Item #6, under SE-MUD Plan Requirements states that the applicant must present a parking and traffic circulation plan.
Mr. Starr addressed Item #2 and noted that the reference to Climax Road and Woodford Avenue is too specific, as this zone could be used in other areas.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Looney explained that the language pertaining to site development detail found in Item #3 is also included in the Design Guidelines for the Village Design Districts. Mr. Starr questioned whether the word “detail” should be removed from Item #3, as the information is more conceptual at this stage and should contain more general information. He commented that a site plan could be submitted and it could be years before a Village Design District is proposed so the level of detail should be included in the VDD and not in the initial site plan. In response to Mrs. Primeau’s comments, Mr. Starr requested that
Mr. Kushner and Mr. Looney review the language under Item #3.
Mr. Looney addressed setbacks under Item #4 and explained that there will be a setback for the entire perimeter of the SE-MUD as well as setbacks within the development (i.e., streets, buildings). He noted that the suggestion is to have the applicant provide a building setback schedule for each individual VDD and the Commission would have the opportunity to review these schedules.
Mr. Gackstatter suggested that specific language/words are needed to explain/define/clarify the level of detail needed with regard to setbacks in connection with both the SE-MUD and the VDD’s.
Mr. Kushner explained that as part of the overall master plan, the individual “pods” will be shown and there will be a thoroughly thought out plan for each “pod”. He noted that there are rewards from the property owner’s perspective, as they get to decide what the setbacks will be; normally the setbacks requirements are rigid and if they can’t be met a variance must be requested. The Commission will have a lot of oversight/discretion over the applicant’s proposal.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s questions, Mr. Kushner clarified that the first step is the submission of a master plan with a well-thought out proposal for each “pod”; there will be various dimensional standards for each “pod” which get approved by the Commission. As individual site plans are submitted, it will be up to the applicant to supply the details that show compliance with the standards that were approved as part of the special exception/master plan. He explained that if there is a major deviation from what was approved (language is included to define a major deviation) it would not be permitted; the plan must be adhered to. The only other option would be to apply to the Commission and ask for a modification to the special exception.
Mr. Kushner addressed the Buckingham Subdivision and noted that it is a good example of a development that did not follow traditional setback requirements. The applicant created their own setback schedule/standards that were submitted as part of the special exception application to the Commission. Every time a site plan was submitted, the setback schedule was utilized. Mr. Kushner noted that a similar approach would be used in connection with the proposal for the village center.
Mr. McCahill commented that the Buckingham Subdivision is a mix of both public and private roads; a network of easements allows public access over private roads and trail systems. He commented that some type of similar arrangement could probably be accomplished for the subject proposal.
Mr. Looney continued his review and explained that language has been added under Item #9, SE-MUD Plan Requirements, to address the need for the applicant to provide third party professional reports in connection with traffic and environmental impacts. He noted that the following sections of the regulations get into the procedural/approval process details for both SE-MUD’s and VDD’s, which are essentially the same as what currently exists for special exceptions and site plans. He noted that applicants are responsible for peer review costs, as noted in Town of Avon Ordinance #55.
Ms. Keith commented that earth removal and/or fill is not addressed in Item #4, VDD Site Plan Application Submission Requirements and asked if language could be added.
Mr. Starr commented that he feels a general policy should be added to note that balanced sites are encouraged.
Mr. Kushner explained that while applicants would be permitted to ask for modifications under certain circumstances, he further explained that there are overriding requirements such that an applicant is not at complete liberty to ask for any type of modification they wish. For example, if an area was approved for a specific combination of commercial retail and housing, the applicant could not come back to request a complete change to the mix of uses. Once the master plan is approved minor changes would be allowed but once a certain threshold is crossed a request for a modification would be required.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question relating to applicants requesting changes and who is responsible to keep the original documents, Item #3, Additional Development Requirements, Mr. Kushner noted that language could possibly be added to try and address responsibility for original documentation. Mr. Gackstatter commented that he feels there should be some requirement for the applicant to keep the original documents. Mr. Kushner stated that the official copy of the approved master plan would be maintained in the Town’s records/files but it would be the applicant’s burden to demonstrate to the Commission how the VDD complies with the master plan.
Mr. Looney continued his review and noted that any SE-MUD must include a centrally-located gathering space containing a minimum of 4,000 square feet for use by the general public. To ensure that development occurs in a balanced fashion, language has been incorporated to allow a certain percentage of each use to be constructed (for example, all the residential units could not be constructed without some percentage of the commercial uses also being constructed).
Mr. Kushner commented that the purpose of the Avon Village Center Zone is to build a traditional New England town center, which involves the addition of some small scale retail buildings that complement the existing architecture. He noted that Ensign Bickford has indicated that there appears to be a market for this type of development. The residential uses proposed for this area would not be enough to support the retailers in the center but would add traffic to the area while providing living accommodations that may not be available elsewhere in Town. He noted that the housing proposed should be viewed as subordinate to the commercial retail area.
Mrs. Primeau commented that the language contained in all the “bullets” under Item #3, Additional Development Requirements, “Zoning permits for.....” should be reworded, as these sections don’t flow very well and are hard to understand. Mr. Looney noted his understanding. Mr. Kushner added that language/information relating to Certificates of Occupancy may also be necessary with regard to the timing of residential versus commercial construction. In response to comments from the Commission about regulating the percentages of uses, Mr. Kushner commented that the free market tends to be self regulating and, in turn, balancing.
Ms. Keith asked whether empty retail spaces could be converted into a condo. Mr. Kushner explained that a modification to the approved VDD would be required and a determination made as to whether the requested change is consistent with the approved master plan. Mr. Looney noted that language exists under Modifications to the Special Exception - Mixed Use Development, stating that modifications can not be for more than 20% of floor area changing from either commercial to residential or vice versa.
Mr. Looney continued his review and addressed Aggregate Development and noted that the original language contained more rigid standards but it was decided that the total residential component within the Avon Village Center should be between 400 and 500 units. He noted that language was added to indicate that dwelling units should contain two bedrooms or fewer. He commented that the non-residential development should be composed of approximately 500K to 600K square feet of gross floor area.
Mr. Kushner noted that an applicant will still have to comply with the 50% maximum lot coverage requirement that has existed in the Regulations for many years for all commercial zones. He explained that there will be opportunities to achieve greater lot coverage within the individual “pods” but the overall master plan will have to show 50% green space compliance.
Mr. Looney addressed Item #2, Context, under Design Guidelines - General, and explained that the boundaries for the Village Center Zone include a much larger area than what is commonly perceived as the center of Avon. He noted that while Old Avon Village and the Post Office are not physically included in the new “zone”, an effort will be made to emulate their character and architectural contributions in the new Avon Village Center Zone.
Mr. Looney addressed SE-MUD Dimensional Requirements, and noted that many changes have been made; the minimum lot size for each VDD is 5 acres and the maximum building height can be no higher than 40 feet, as currently defined by “building height” in the Zoning Regulations. He explained that the setbacks would apply to the perimeter of the SE-MUD and the requirements for front, side, and rear yards are defined. He noted that the existing standards for a “B” Bufferyard will be used for the side and rear yard setback requirements. He explained that the setbacks for the individual VDD’s will be part of the setback schedule proposed by an applicant.
Mr. Starr suggested that the setbacks for new construction in the SE-MUD be the same all the way around. He commented that possibly a greater setback will be needed for new construction adjacent to existing residential (i.e., Climax Road). Mr. Kushner agreed that this approach would eliminate any confusion about what constitutes front, side and/or rear yards. Mr. Starr clarified that setbacks for any existing buildings would not change. Mr. Looney noted his understanding. Mr. Kushner clarified that building height, as well as setbacks, will be proposed by the applicant but added that final determination about building height would be at the Commission’s discretion and in no instance can the building be higher than 40 feet. He added that there may be some areas where the Commission
is only comfortable with a maximum of 35 feet. Mr. Starr noted that the Commission would generally be most concerned with the elevation that faces the street.
Mr. Gackstatter asked if some general guidelines for building height could be included in the regulations. Mr. Kushner suggested that the regulations could be written in such a way to require that an applicant, as part of the special exception application, include a height schedule along with a dimensional setback schedule. Mr. Looney agreed and noted that language to that effect will be added to an earlier section in the document. Mr. Kushner explained that once height is approved as part of the special exception application, the individual site plans will have to show compliance with the special exception approval for the master plan (i.e., building height, building locations, architectural details, etc.).
In response to comments regarding modifications to the SE-MUD, Mr. Looney commented that additional language could be added to Item #1, Modifications to the Special Exception - Mixed Use Development, to set a standard for how much a building height could be changed before it creates a problem. Mr. Kushner commented that all the dimensional standards would have to be addressed. Mr. Looney concurred. Mr. Gackstatter commented that it should be a two-layer change (i.e., 10% of all the buildings cannot exceed 40 feet in height). Mr. Kushner commented that zoning regulations generally contain exceptions/exemptions for unique structures such as church steeples, cupolas, and bell towers.
Mr. Looney continued his review and addressed Low Impact Development. He explained that a statement has been added to say that, in general, all SE-MUD developments must implement, where feasible, low impact development (LID) and best management practices (BMPs). If an applicant can show that LID and/or BMPs cannot work in a certain area and can reasonably demonstrate as such, conventional methods/techniques will be permitted. He noted that categories for LID/BMP elements that an applicant must consider have been added to the regulations. A maintenance and management plan must be included with an application if LID/BMPs are proposed. Mr. Looney noted that language has been added to note that at least 10% of the area in a SE-MUD used for parking (aisles, circulation,
drives) and pedestrian circulation must use permeable pavement materials.
Mr. Kushner explained that there will be increased runoff from the more compact development that will be permitted in Avon Center and, therefore, more innovative measures are needed to handle the storm water.
Ms. Keith commented that the intent is to slow some of the traffic down and asked whether cement pavers are considered permeable.
Mr. Kushner commented that traditional pavers used for traffic control are not necessarily permeable. He explained that the consideration is to possibly take sections of a conventional paved parking lot and build small portions using permeable pavers which would allow more rainwater to infiltrate directly into the ground.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether the existing telephone poles could be buried, because in newly developed areas there won’t be any.
Ms. Keith commented that road improvements may occur as part of the Avon Center development and asked whether some of the utility poles could be removed as part of the process. Mr. Kushner noted that the answer depends on the boundaries of the new district. He added that he doesn’t believe there are any existing overhead utilities within the proposed boundary.
Gus Jasminski, Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation, commented that there are some utility poles along Climax Road.
Mrs. Primeau suggested that maybe there should be something in the proposed regulations to address utility poles and street lights.
Mr. Kushner commented that the cost to bury all the utility poles along Route 44 is enormous. He noted that even if the funds were available the utility companies resist burying the poles because if a problem arises a huge effort is required to identify the problem area. If Avon had a significant area of new development potential along Route 44 it may make sense economically. He explained that if the proposed boundary for the Avon Village Center Zone was enlarged to include some of the properties along Route 44, the additional development potential is minor because these areas, for the most part, are already built out.
Mrs. Primeau noted her understanding but added that she is talking about new developments within Avon Center. She noted that once Ensign Bickford starts selling off different parcels there will be a lot of different boundaries/broken lines. She commented that someday someone could propose to redevelop the Marriott Hotel parcel, which is currently not included in the proposed Avon Center boundary.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Kushner to look at both the Marriott parcel and the adjacent corner site and analyze what the impacts would be (pros and cons) under both the existing Zoning Regulations and the proposed Avon Village Center Zone regulations. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether the rear of the old Talbot’s property abuts the parking lot for the Marriott Hotel site. Mr. Kushner confirmed that the property lines do abut. Mrs. Primeau noted that she is more concerned about the Marriott Hotel site than she is about the small individual properties located on the corner. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding.
Mr. Bonner asked whether it would make more sense to include more areas within the boundaries of the proposed Avon Center Village Zone in the context of the possibility that State and/or Federal funds could be applied for. Mr. Kushner explained that, currently, there are not many local programs available to apply for State and/or Federal funds for this type of project. Mr. Bonner commented that there may be some funds available in connection with wetlands and/or water features. Mr. Bonner asked whether it could work against the Town, in the context of whether a possibility exists for obtaining State funding, to not include more area/parcels in the proposed zone. Mr. Kushner noted his understanding and added that he doesn’t think including and/or excluding certain parcels would have an impact
on whether the Town received funds.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether the Town would want wind turbines and other types of “green” techniques to be used in the center; he added that people will want to use this technology and questioned how it could be regulated. Mr. Kushner suggested that the use of “green” techniques may require a Town-wide approach. He noted that the Staff and the consultant decided that language relative to LEED certified buildings is not necessary to include at this point. He commented that if a developer wants to qualify a building to be LEED Certified it would be their prerogative but it is not mandatory under the regulations. Mr. Gackstatter asked, as an example, if a developer wanted to add a renewable energy device that would change the look of a building whether the Commission would
want to regulate that type of request under these regulations.
Mr. Starr commented that he believes the proposed regulations already give the Commission discretion with regard to regulating building design; the basic concept is that new buildings are required to adopt the general look of the existing architecture in Avon Center. Mr. Kushner commented that a statement could be added to the regulations to address structures/appendages proposed to be added to buildings; the Commission would have the discretion to grant an exception for such additional structures that may generate power but do not comply with the historic architectural criteria. Mr. Starr agreed and noted that solar panels may not be visible from the street and a cell tower could be enclosed in a steeple. Mr. Kushner explained that the regulations could state that an applicant is encouraged to find
creative ways in which to incorporate these accessory devices without compromising the integrity of the building.
Mr. Looney addressed the Design Guidelines and noted that a few modifications were made; a statement about multiple paned glazing was removed from Guidelines for Doors and Windows.
In response to Mr. Gackstatter’s question, Mr. Looney noted that there is no information in the proposed regulations pertaining to acoustics but pointed out that there is language contained in Truck Traffic Circulation and Deliveries which states that truck traffic associated with pickups and deliveries in Avon Center is permitted, generally, between 6am and 7pm.
Mr. Starr noted that the Zoning Regulations already contain general language addressing outdoor speakers and music. Mr. Kushner concurred.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner noted that he doesn’t believe the proposed AVC Zone Regulations and/or Design Guidelines need to contain language about noise but added that he would clarify that point with Town Attorney Zizka. He noted that the Zoning Regulations currently contain language that addresses noise issues. He added that there are many other aspects of the Zoning Regulations that would apply to Avon Center.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that it could be the case someday in Avon Center where a restaurant with band music exists on the first floor with residential on the second floor. He added that he doesn’t believe this scenario exists anywhere in Town currently and asked whether the current Zoning Regulations could address it. Mr. Kushner commented that the current Regulations require a separate special exception approval for a restaurant with outdoor dining. He noted that special conditions are sometimes attached to the approval if the Commission feels it’s necessary. Mr. Kushner explained that the proposed regulations will require an overall special exception approval followed by individual site plan approvals and acknowledged that he isn’t sure whether this level of detail would be
covered. He noted that he would look into it further.
Mr. Looney continued his review of the Design Guidelines and noted that modifications to the language have been made with regard to shade trees and parking islands, Guidelines for Parking Lots. He acknowledged that it would be most difficult to ensure/enforce that a certain percentage of the parking aisles are shaded at a particular time of day. He noted that some of definitions included in the Glossary of Terms have been removed, as it was determined that there is no strong connection to the rest of the document’s text.
Mr. Gackstatter questioned the word “linear” in the context of islands and shade trees under Guidelines for Parking Lots, and noted that an applicant may not propose linear islands. Mr. Looney referenced the paragraph immediately preceding this information containing the following language: “Landscaping with parking areas consisting of a combination of end-row islands and linear or diamond islands.......”. Mr. Looney noted that linear islands are not mandatory and could be used in combination with other styles. Mr. Starr suggested that the words “on the linear islands” be taken out of the sentence to have it read “Shade trees should be planted at a ratio of.......”. Mr. Looney and Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that while there are dangers in making the regulations too specific as it creates an opportunity for very literal interpretation, there are also advantages, as it defines the expectations up front. Mr. Looney commented that the language requires a delicate balance.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Jasminski, Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation, commented that the 10% green parking requirement will have to be reviewed, as it’s a new concept. Mr. Kushner explained that the Zoning Regulations have contained a standard for years that states that 20% of the parking lot must be green. He commented that the hope is to create a somewhat different environment in Avon Center. He noted that 10% green is not a lot; it essentially means, for example, that if a parking lot contains spaces for 50 cars, the pavement would be broken up with landscaped islands.
Mr. Gackstatter asked for clarification relating to “permeable” parking for LID areas. He asked whether permeable means paver blocks linked together so water gets down into the cracks or does it mean open blocks with “sod” in the middle. Mr. Kushner explained that there are 2 or 3 technologies available and noted that specific situations/conditions normally dictate which technology is used (i.e., how much/often the parking will be used). Mr. Looney stated that porous concrete functions like concrete but has more openings and, therefore, allows more water through. Mr. Kushner added that permeable bituminous is a fairly new product now available.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question about the deletion of certain definitions in the Design Guidelines, Mr. Kushner explained that the subject guidelines were provided by a sub-consultant and not created by Mr. Looney. He further explained that some of the terms/definitions listed are not referred to in the body of the text and, therefore, are unnecessary.
In response to a general discussion about permeable materials/pavers, Mr. Looney explained that there are a number of different options available. He noted that the intent of the proposed regulations and guidelines is to give an applicant the opportunity to present to the Commission, based upon site analyses and soil studies, which method(s) they feel would work best. The Commission would have discretion during their review to either agree or disagree. Mr. Gackstatter commented that an applicant would find information about different options in the section dedicated to Low Impact Development (LID). Mr. Looney concurred.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Jasminski noted that he met with Mr. Kushner recently to review the proposed regulations/design guidelines. He noted that he will review his notes and contact Mr. Kushner if there are any outstanding issues.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Ann August, Old Avon Village Associates, commented that the concept is very new and noted that she would like to review the material.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that there are no restraints in connection with the State’s grant funding for this project; a public hearing to adopt the proposed changes could occur when the Commission is ready, possibly sometime in April. He noted that Ensign Bickford has expressed their interest to submit an application to the Commission possibly in late spring or early summer. Mr. Starr noted that he would like to keep the process moving. Ms. Keith commented that she feels the Commission has made great strides in a short amount of time.
Mr. Kushner closed by noting that Town Attorney Zizka has indicated that the proposed regulations/guidelines look reasonable.
There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
| 
