The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a meeting at the Avon Town Hall on Tuesday, March 15, 2011. Present were Duane Starr, Chairman, Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary, Carol Griffin, Linda Keith, David Cappello, Marianne Clark and Alternates Elaine Primeau and Christian Gackstatter. Mrs. Primeau sat for the meeting. Absent was Alternate Donald Bonner. Also present was Steven Kushner, Director of Planning and Community Development, and John McCahill, Planning and Community Development Specialist.
Mr. Starr called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Keith motioned to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2011, meeting, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson, received approval from Ms. Keith and Mrs. Primeau and Messrs. Thompson and Starr. Mesdames Griffin and Clark and Mr. Cappello abstained, as they had not been present at the February 22 meeting but noted that they have read the minutes and are familiar with the content.
PUBLIC HEARING
App. #4528 - Sylwester Barwinski and Zbigniew Matulaniec, trustees, Rossetti Development, LLC, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section IX.E. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit pool within 150-foot ridgeline setback, 485 Deercliff Road, Parcel 2090485, in an RU2A Zone.
Present to represent this application were Robert Rossetti, applicant, and Brian Stolz, landscape designer, Environmental Designs, Inc.
Mr. Rossetti submitted revised plans in response to Town Staff comments. He commented that the septic design has been completed and added to the plans, although not requested by Staff. He added that, per the Staff’s request, language noting that the existing house will be demolished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new home has been added to the plans; a key map has also been added. He displayed a map of the site and noted that the proposed house is located outside the 150-foot ridgeline setback area; the proposed pool, patio, and pergola are located within the 150-foot ridgeline setback. He noted that tree clearing within the 150-foot ridgeline setback will be needed for the pool; some tree clearing for views is requested within the 75-foot ridgeline setback.
He noted that all drainage patterns flow to the east (away from the neighbors) at the request of the Town Engineer. He explained that the proposed pool, for the most part, is at grade; there is a lull in the valley at the proposed location and, therefore, is the best location to minimize earthwork.
Mr. Starr commented that the 150-foot ridgeline setback line runs through the center of the proposed pool. Mr. Rossetti concurred.
In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Rossetti addressed tree clearing and noted that most of the tree clearing for the proposed house would occur beyond the 150-foot setback but sporadic tree clearing is proposed within the 150-foot setback line; the site plan shows the delineated trees. He added that some selective tree clearing, with the Staff’s guidance, is proposed within the 75-foot setback. In response to Mr. Starr’s question regarding tree cutting, Mr. Kushner explained that the Regulations do not automatically require Town approval to cut trees within the 150-foot ridgeline setback but noted that conditions could be attached to an approval; tree cutting is generally studied/permitted on a case by case basis.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Rossetti if the proposal is to mark trees and ask for Town Staff review before cutting. Mr. Rossetti confirmed that that is the proposal.
Mr. Kushner noted that a significant amount of trees are proposed to be added on both the north and south property lines.
Mr. Stolz explained that there are many white pines and hemlocks currently on the site; the proposal is to replant with white pines and hemlocks as they are native to the area. He noted that the plantings would be offset and, therefore, initially there would be no sight corridors through the trees but in 2 to 3 years they should fill in to become a solid line. He added that approximately 40 trees are proposed with 70 shrubs and ornamental grasses to be located in front of the trees. Mr. Stolz explained that this type of planting provides better screening over time.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposed screening is from one house to another and doesn’t provide any screening from the valley. Mr. Stolz concurred and added that the existing trees located closest to the valley will remain. The cutting proposed for the view corridor would be no more than 10%.; this cutting would also thin out unhealthy trees. He noted that the white pines proposed for the front edge of the property would help to maintain the vibrancy of the existing plantings to avoid a “dead edge”.
Mrs. Griffin questioned why the proposed pool couldn’t be constructed in the area where the existing house is located (once the house is demolished) rather than infringing on the ridgeline. Mr. Rossetti explained that he doesn’t believe that the property owners want a pool in the front yard. Mrs. Primeau and Mrs. Griffin commented that the proposed house could be pulled back. Mrs. Griffin commented that there is plenty of land; there is no reason for infringement into the ridgeline. Mr. Rossetti commented that the proposed house is located outside the ridgeline.
Mr. Starr commented that if the proposed house were moved further east, the pool could be pulled entirely out of the 150-foot ridgeline setback. Mr. Rossetti acknowledged that that scenario could work but added that the proposed house was designed specifically to allow a walkout and the grade in the selected area accommodates a walkout. He noted that moving the house forward eliminates the possibility for a walkout and utilization of the backyard as it exists. Mr. Rossetti explained that the property owners are conscientious and they do not want the house or pool any closer to the ridgeline; the home design is Adirondack style. He noted that the current pool location is the lowest part of the lot; it would not be visible as it would be located below grade. He added that the property owners
are interested in having more yard, more trees, and the walkout feature.
In response to Ms. Keith’s questions, Mr. Rossetti explained that the dark green area shown on the map identifies a forested area; a mixture of trees and rock ledge. He noted that the grade drops off significantly as you get closer to Deercliff Road and none of the forested area extends above the roofline of the house.
Mrs. Primeau addressed the grade lines on the map and commented that there doesn’t appear to be a large grade difference in the area where the new house is proposed. Mr. Rossetti explained that the grade at the center of the proposed house is 140; the grade at Deercliff Road is approximately 100. Mrs. Primeau noted that she is requesting to pull the proposed house back just enough to get the proposed pool out of the 150-foot ridgeline setback, about 10 feet. Mr. Rossetti commented that a 10 foot pullback results in a 4-foot grade change which would eliminate the possibility for a walkout. Mr. Rossetti commented that if the proposed house location were moved back, the house would have to be raised up in order to create the level needed for the walkout. Ms. Keith and Mrs. Primeau asked
whether the earth could be graded down 4 feet to accommodate the walkout. Mr. Rossetti explained that the house is being proposed in the current location because it would require the least amount of disturbance (i.e., no retaining walls, minimal grading and contours) for the walkout. Mrs. Primeau commented that a total of 13 or 14 trees are proposed to come down for the construction of the house. She noted that the proposed pool is located halfway into the 150-foot ridgeline setback and added that she is asking to pull it all the way out. She asked how this request would substantially change the grade.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Rossetti if there is a way to design the site such that the pool (including the decking, etc.) is located completely out of the ridgeline setback. Mr. Rossetti commented that it may be possible to shift everything to the east to keep the pool and patio out of the ridgeline setback but added that he doesn’t think that is what the homeowners want. He noted that clearing would still be needed for grading and for sun. In response to Mr. Starr’s question, Mr. Rossetti noted that additional tree clearing is needed for the current pool location, as the homeowners want to have as much sun exposure as possible. Tree clearing is needed for both the house and the pool.
In response to comments from Mrs. Primeau and Mr. Cappello, Mr. Rossetti noted that moving the house back 10 or 20 feet would alter the position of the house and the driveway layout due to the grade change.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the Commission has tried to limit anything near the ridgeline and added that the rules are there for a reason. She noted that if adequate land exists to accommodate the proposal, there is no reason to infringe on the ridgeline.
Mr. Starr suggested to Mr. Rossetti that viable alternatives be investigated for the next meeting.
Mr. Thompson asked whether the pool would rise if it were moved to the east. Mr. Rossetti confirmed that the pool would be located higher if moved to the east. Mr. Thompson commented that the pool would be more visible if moved to the east. Mr. Rossetti noted that the current pool location is the lowest part of the site.
Ms. Keith commented that the Commission has been charged by the State, the Town, and the residents of Avon to protect the ridge and the traprock. She noted that the Commission does its best to maintain the integrity of the ridgeline; there have been both good and bad experiences.
Mr. Rossetti addressed the cross section view from Tillotson Road and noted that there would very little impact to the ridge.
Mr. Starr explained that the concerns involve more than the visual impacts; the entire 150-foot ridgeline setback is a protected area for the traprock. He commented that there are instances where activities are permitted within the 75-foot setback when a property layout doesn’t allow any other alternatives due to septic systems, etc. He commented that it appears that there may be some room to reposition the house for the subject proposal. He noted that the Commission is requesting that viable alternatives be studied for the next meeting. Mr. Rossetti noted his understanding and requested that the Commission look at the cross section detail which shows the ridge and how the trees would crown down and work back up.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the cross section detail is not the problem. Mr. Rossetti asked what impacts on the ridge are bothering the Commission. Mrs. Griffin commented that tree cutting and potential blasting are two areas of concern. Mr. Rossetti commented that there would be blasting for the home; he added that the test pits show that rock will run out in the lower section of the valley.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Rossetti confirmed that he will have to dig to create the pad for the proposed house. He noted that the house will be constructed in the existing slope to create the walkout; excavation will be limited. Mrs. Primeau commented that she is requesting to pull the house back; the elevation starts rising again as you move back. Mr. Rossetti conveyed his understanding but explained that the property owner has designed the home specifically for a walkout. He further explained that the engineers have indicated that in order to have a walkout the house must be located in the current proposed location.
Mrs. Griffin commented to Mr. Rossetti that the hearing for this application can be closed tonight and voted on; it will either be approved or not approved.
Ms. Keith commented to Mr. Rossetti that he must make a decision whether he wants to come back to the Commission with a revised plan or not.
Mrs. Primeau commented to Mr. Rossetti that she doesn’t know if his customers knew about the ridgeline protection. Mr. Rossetti confirmed that his clients know about the ridgeline protection requirements.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. Rossetti to study the pros and cons of pulling the house back. The question is whether moving the house back would result in more damage/impact than the subject proposal. Mr. Rossetti noted his understanding.
Mrs. Griffin commented that there is plenty of room to move the house and keep everything in compliance with of all of the ridgeline setback areas. She noted that there is no reason for a special exception.
Ms. Keith commented that the proposed pool encroaches into the 150-foot ridgeline setback and there is also a request for selective tree cutting within the 75-foot setback. She noted that she has a problem with both requests. Mr. Rossetti noted his understanding.
Mr. Stolz explained that a lot of the selective tree cutting is for the health of the trees. He noted that the site is densely packed; it is obvious that most of the trees grew up at the same time. He explained that this is not a natural or healthy forest situation; the proposal for less than 10% cutting would add aeration to the site and improve the health of the trees.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Stolz explained that the trees proposed to be added for the back two rows are all evergreens. He noted that the other rows of proposed trees include a mix of evergreens, deciduous, and ornamental grasses. Mrs. Primeau mentioned that it was noted earlier that the proposed trees would be planted 8 feet apart; she asked that when these trees reach 20 feet in height whether they would be growing into each other and become overcrowded creating an unhealthy condition. Mr. Stolz indicated that by planting young trees (7 to 8 feet in height) they can be easily maintained/trimmed and trained to grow up rather than out.
Mrs. Clark asked how the Commission would know if the trees are being maintained.
Mr. Starr pointed out that the trees to be planted are not necessarily visible from other locations.
Mrs. Primeau noted her concern that if the trees are not maintained as they grown up they could blow right over; she added that the tree roots don’t have much to hold onto due to the traprock. Mr. Stolz explained that many of the existing hemlocks are far closer together than 8 feet and they have grown up to a mature level; this includes many of the hemlocks that will remain located in both the lower forested area and in the 75-foot ridgeline setback. He added that ridgelines are a natural environment for hemlocks; they are an alpine evergreen just like white pines. Mr. Stolz stated that he made a large effort to add plants that he has seen already doing well in the area and, with maintenance, the plants fare even better. He noted that evergreens provide a sound barrier; deciduous plants do
not provide as good a sound barrier at any time of year.
In response to Mr. Cappello’s questions about the pool area, Mr. Stolz replied that a black aluminum fence is proposed; the fence would enclose the entire pool area. He added that the proposal pergola would be constructed of natural wood timber.
There being no further input, Mr. Rossetti stated that he would take the Commission’s comments under advisement and return at the next meeting.
Ms. Keith motioned to continue the hearing for App. #4528 to the next meeting, scheduled for April 5. The motion, seconded by
Mrs. Primeau seconded the motion that received unanimous approval.
OUTSTANDING APPLICATION
App. #4526 - Lexham Avon, LLC, owner, Don Hammerberg Associates, applicant, request for Site Plan Approval to modify interior and façade of existing building to house urgent care facility, 339 West Main Street, Parcel 4540339, in a CR Zone.
The discussion was continued from February 22.
Present to represent this application were Mark Fey, architect, Don Hammerberg Associates; Gary Grom, site engineer, Pereira Engineering LLC; Attorney Robin Pearson, Shipman, Sosensky and Marks, LLC; John Manners, architect for Hartford Hospital, The Casle Corporation.
Mr. Fey reviewed/addressed comments received from the Commission at the last meeting, held on February 22. He noted that there will be a fire alarm system that meets the Building Code. The hours of operation would be 7 am to 7 pm. Two handicap parking spaces have been relocated to the rear of the building; the hospital staff has been instructed to park in the rear. He noted that Friendly’s will be contacted prior to starting any improvements on the driveway entrance island. Mr. Fey noted that the Town Engineer’s comments/requests will be satisfied in connection with the sanitary sewer. A dumpster enclosure is now shown on the plan; no dumpsters/trash will be permitted outside the enclosure. If an additional dumpster should be needed, the enclosure would be expanded. He commented that there is a note on the plans addressing retaining walls and added that the applicant will do whatever it takes to ensure compliance with the Town’s standards and/or requirements. A knox box and
key will be provided, in accordance with the Fire Marshal’s request. The rear entrance will be accessible for overflow patients as well as employees; the main entrance has been moved to line up with the rear entrance to provide a central admitting area. Mr. Fey stated that no MRI unit would be stationed at this location. He noted that a dropoff area has been incorporated into the front of the building and the main entrance has been moved to the east to address cueing and safety. The sign package will be addressed separately; the plans show signs on the building as well as a freestanding sign. He noted that the intent is to utilize all the existing light poles; no height increase is anticipated but new poles may be added if deemed necessary for under lit areas. Mr. Fey noted that the height of the proposed tower (on the front of the building) has been lowered and the design simplified. He noted that the Hospital wants to create a
prototype sign/logo that informs patients that the facility is state-of-the art with the best equipment possible.
Mr. Fey addressed Planning Staff Comments and indicated that 5 evergreens are proposed to be added to the rear of the building where some blacktop will be removed. Two handicap van spaces have been requested by the Town Engineer; an additional handicap van space has been added in the front. A note on the plan has been added for a silt fence on the north side. A note has been added to the plans, as requested by the Town Engineer, to indicate that all catch basins will be cleaned and the pitches for the new bituminous pavement will be reworked to ensure that there will be no standing water.
Mr. Fey reviewed the building interior noting that the rear entrance has been lined up with the front entrance in an effort to help make the inside floor plan flow easier. He noted that the exterior of the building will look a bit like a Richard Meyer building and from a distance would maintain evenness; a panel support system would work well and produce a clean finished edge with a contemporary look. He added that the Hospital wants the building to look institutional and not like a shopping center; translucent smoked glass is proposed for the building.
Mr. Fey explained that the proposed colors of the building are white, dark gray and light gray; the trim pieces (i.e., the cap on the building, the overhang for the drive through at the columns, the window frames) are proposed to be dark gray; the brick is proposed to be painted light gray and trimmed in sharp white.
In response to Mrs. Griffin’s question, Mr. Starr explained that you would be able to see out of the smoked glass windows (from inside the building) but no one could see in from the outside. Mr. Fey concurred and added that you may be able to see inside the building at night if the lights are on.
Mr. Grom reviewed the site plan and explained that 7 parking spaces have been removed in the front to accommodate the drop off area. The handicap parking spaces have been relocated to the east; across from these spaces are two new handicap van spaces. He noted that the Town Engineer has indicated that all of his (Town Engineer) Staff Comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
Mr. Starr asked if the parking spaces located towards Bailey Road are single loaded only. Mr. Grom explained that all but two parking spaces are single loaded. Mr. Starr noted that there are two handicap parking spaces to the rear of the building and added that it is his understanding that rear parking will be predominately utilized by hospital staff. Mr. Grom noted that two handicap parking spaces to the rear were requested. Mr. Starr indicated that he believes the request was to ensure that there are plenty of handicap parking spaces available.
Mrs. Griffin commented that someone who is mobile but handicapped could park their car and utilize the rear entrance. Ms. Keith added that handicap spaces in the rear would also be beneficial for patients visiting offices located closer to the rear of the building. Mr. Starr noted his understanding and agreement.
Mr. Kushner noted that there are 3 architects working on the building. He commented that John Manners, The Casle Corporation, is responsible for the inside layout. Mark Fey, Don Hammerberg Associates, represents the building owner and a third architect is working for the Hospital in connection with “branding”.
Mr. Manners stated that he has developed interior designs/layouts for many medical office facilities. He noted that he has developed other satellite centers around the State for Hartford Hospital. He noted that there are many layers of people involved; the subject project has been ongoing for about 5 months and no design work has been done yet. He noted that Hartford Hospital agreed on a final program yesterday and it is consistent with what has been discussed to date; he noted that he must now prepare a schematic design. He explained that this location must be up and running by October 1, 2011.
Mr. Kushner noted that a final design of the interior should happen in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Manners concurred. Mr. Kushner noted that once the inside design is final, Mr. Fey could make decisions about the exterior (i.e., windows and door placement). Mr. Manners explained that there is a sea of columns located inside the building which makes it challenging to design efficiently. Mr. Kushner commented that once the interior layout is determined, questions relative to building flow (i.e., the front and rear entrance) could be answered.
Mr. Manners agreed and noted that, unfortunately, having the entrance located in the middle of the building doesn’t allow for optimal efficiency; the urgent care aspect of the program is very important.
Mrs. Griffin commented that the Commission is not necessarily interested with the rooms inside the building but noted that a back to front hallway is important so patients will use the rear parking spaces. Mr. Manners noted his understanding and guaranteed that there would be a connection from the back of the building to the front.
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. Fey explained that two handicap parking spaces are proposed for the rear of the building to provide for handicap access in more than one location. Mr. Manners noted that there is grade level access in the rear.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s questions, Mr. Fey stated that 35 parking spaces are proposed in the rear and 42 spaces in the front; a total of 77 are proposed. Mr. Fey noted that no sidewalks are proposed on the Bailey Road elevation. Mr. Starr noted that a sidewalk exists on the side of the building that faces Bailey Road. Mr. Fey concurred but clarified that the sidewalk is not along the building, as there are gas meters on that side of the building. He clarified that there would be a sidewalk on the side of the building that faces Friendly’s. He added that no sidewalk is proposed for the rear of the building, as the grade changes do not permit it but the handicap parking spaces would be located right next to the rear door. Mrs. Primeau noted her concern that a sidewalk is
not proposed at the rear of the building.
Mr. Kushner requested/suggested that information about the operation (i.e., will patients be encouraged to park in the rear) of the hospital be provided to the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Fey commented that approximately 35 support staff would be in the building at one time; he added that he doesn’t anticipate that many patients, if any, will be parking in the back unless the hospital is extremely busy.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Manners commented that he believes that employees would be encouraged to park in the rear to avoid having to travel through the waiting areas.
Mr. Starr commented that if it is determined that the rear parking area would be predominately for the Hospital staff it should be ascertained whether the rear parking area is the appropriate place for 2 handicap parking spaces. Mr. Fey commented that he feels that the rear parking area should have handicap parking.
Mr. Starr explained that the items for the project team to address include the front drop off area/front entrance; an adequate number of handicap parking; and the encouragement to use the rear parking area. He added that the further the front entrance is moved towards Bailey Road the more likely patients will utilize the parking along Bailey Road.
Ms. Keith noted that she is happy with the changes to the plans (i.e., roof lines, drop off area).
In response to Mr. Fey’s comments, Mr. Starr noted that the Commission supports the project and the Staff will review the plan revisions for the next meeting.
Mrs. Primeau motioned to table App. #4526 to the next meeting, scheduled for April 5. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
Review the latest revisions related to the proposed regulations for the Avon Village Center (AVC) Zone and Low Impact Development (LID) measures to be incorporated into both the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.
Present was Michael Looney, senior planner, Milone & MacBroom.
Mr. Kushner stated that changes to the proposed regulations that address the Commission’s comments as well as some suggestions by Ensign Bickford will be presented tonight.
Mr. Looney addressed the most recent draft of the Avon Village Center (AVC) Zone Regulations. He noted that language to address building height was added, similar to the existing language for setbacks. Additional language was added to address pedestrian, non-motorized vehicle accommodations; public use easements on private roads; cul-de-sacs; earth removal and filling (utilities for new construction should be buried); and alternative power infrastructure (i.e., solar panels). He noted that the main change, as suggested by Town Attorney Zizka, involves the zone boundary. He explained that Attorney Zizka has suggested that the proposed AVC Zone be setup as a “floating zone”. He explained that the proposed text changes would be adopted before the new zone would be mapped. A
property owner would have to apply to the Commission for a zone change to “land” the AVC Zone on a particular piece of property in Avon Center; if the zone change were approved, a map amendment would result.
Mr. Looney explained that the term SE-MUD (special exception mixed-use development plan) has been renamed to MUDP (mixed-use development plan), as a special exception is no longer necessary but the requirements for submission remain the same (i.e., a very detailed mixed-use site development plan is still required). He further explained that an application for a MUDP would be submitted simultaneously with a request for a zone change (map amendment) to the AVC Zone (floating zone). Once a zone change is approved and the “floating” zone is landed on the official Zoning Map, applications for VDDs (Village Design Districts have been renamed to ACDDs or Avon Center Design Districts), could be submitted. Mr. Looney explained that ACDDs would be essentially the same as the VDDs but noted that each
ACDD would require both special exception approval and site plan review.
Mr. Kushner commented that the basics remain the same. He noted that Ensign Bickford has been working on a master plan for a long time and some additional refinement to that plan is still needed. The master plan would still be broken up into different “pods” (districts) which would be adopted by the Commission; he noted that the Commission still possesses all the needed discretion.
Mr. Starr commented that there could be an instance where a particular “pod” is not submitted for approval until sometime in the distant future when circumstances have changed. He pointed out that the Commission will still have discretion due to the special exception requirement in place. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that any special exception application must demonstrate consistency/compliance with the approved/adopted master plan.
Ms. Keith commented that the proposed regulations have progressed/evolved as a result of discussions at the last meeting and everything appears to be on target. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mrs. Primeau asked whether the term “pods” is being used because the land would not have been subdivided yet. Mr. Kushner noted that Town Attorney Zizka has advised that the division of the land (i.e., large parcels reconfigured and conveyed to different property owners) would most likely require subdivision approval. He explained that certain subdivision standards would be excluded (i.e., the construction of a public road). Some of the roads currently existing in Avon Park North would remain public (i.e., Ensign Drive, Bickford Drive, Fisher Drive) but the new “main street” would most likely be privately owned, as the street would be intersected by different “pods” with various developers and would also include on-street parking. He clarified that a private road
would include an easement to permit public access. Mrs. Primeau asked why it wouldn’t be better for the new “main street” to be publicly owned. Mr. Kushner explained that the proposed regulations are written such that the Commission could request a road to be either public or private. He added that it could be the case that the public could receive all the benefits of a public road while the burden of maintaining a private road rests with the developer.
Mr. Kushner noted that the Public Works Department is not equipped to remove snow from on-street parking spaces.
Mrs. Griffin asked what would happen if a developer doesn’t maintain a private road; she asked what recourse the Town would have.
Mr. Kushner noted that a public easement document could possibly give the Town rights to maintain a private road if maintenance wasn’t being done adequately. He added that there will be many legal documents needed in connection with the proposed development. Mrs. Primeau noted her reservations about privately owned roads in Avon Center.
Mr. Looney explained that an application for a mixed-use development plan, per the proposed regulations, must provide an ownership maintenance and management plan for all internal streets and roads (private and public) including sidewalks and pedestrian circulation elements.
Mrs. Griffin questioned whether the police could issue parking tickets if a road is privately owned. Mrs. Primeau noted that she doesn’t understand why the Town would not want control over the public areas. Ms. Keith added that once the area is built out, possibly some type of shared maintenance agreement could be created.
Mr. Starr noted that details pertaining to roads will be part of the discussion when the Commission is presented with an application for special exception review.
Mr. Gackstatter asked why the SE-MUD was changed to a MUDP and also requested clarification about the “floating zone” concept.
Mr. Kushner explained that Attorney Zizka has indicated that the “floating zone” approach is the most traditional method used in other towns around the State; it vests the Commission with the highest degree of discretion. He further explained that, as a result of the Commission’s conversation at the last meeting, it was determined that applications for restaurants should require special exception approval. He noted that the master plan is still very important, as it sets the tone/creates the mold for which all future site plans must comply/adhere.
Mr. Starr commented that Attorney Zizka also had a concern that if the proposed AVC Zone were imposed on landowners that weren’t necessarily interested in being included that the Commission’s decision may not prevail, as it may be determined that private property rights were taken away. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that Attorney Zizka has indicated that, as a general rule, a new zoning district would generally include both as-of-right uses and special exception uses.
Mr. Gackstatter conveyed his understanding that there is some legal precedence with regard to a “landed zone” method while there is no legal precedence with regard to the original approach for the proposed zone change. He added that the reason for changing the acronyms (from SE-MUD to MUDP and from VDD to ACDD) is to give the Commission greater control later in the process. Mr. Starr and Mr. Kushner concurred. Mr. Kushner clarified that special exception and special permit mean the same under Connecticut law but Attorney Zizka prefers the term special permit.
In response to Mrs. Primeau’s question, Mr. Kushner explained that it is not clear at this time whether the existing properties in Avon Park North would be considered pre-existing or nonconforming. He noted, however, that if the Commission follows Attorney Zizka’s advice, it becomes a non issue because individual property owners would have to apply to request a zone change to become part of the proposed AVC Zone; they would not automatically be included.
Mr. Thompson commented that the existing property owners would be allowed to maintain the uses that have always been permitted in their zone; nothing would change unless they requested a zone change to be included in the proposed AVC Zone. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mrs. Primeau noted her understanding.
Mr. DiFatta, President, Ensign Bickford Realty, addressed the revisions to the Final Draft of the AVC Zoning Regulations, dated 3/11/11. He addressed “permeable paving” on Page 16 and noted that Ensign Bickford’s understanding was that the primary focus was going to be on LID (low impact development). He suggested that the emphasis be put on LID, in general, rather than just requiring permeable paving, as there are many alternatives available to achieve LID (i.e., water gardens, perforated pipes, biofilters, etc).
Mr. Kushner explained that the intent is to suggest that LID techniques be used throughout a development but the proposed language states that, at a minimum, at least 10% of all parking must be permeable pavement. In addition, the proposed regulations also encourage alternative means to handle storm water. He further explained that Mr. DiFatta is suggesting that rather than requiring 10% in every case, that maybe the language could be revised to be less rigid and not mandatory in every situation.
Mr. Starr commented that 10% of the total area must utilize an LID technique; permeable pavement material is only one type of available LID techniques. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. Gackstatter commented that it is his understanding that 90% of the LID techniques could be accomplished with water gardens or another method. The proposed regulation states that of the 10% that is left over (i.e., sidewalks, parking spaces) permeable paving must be utilized.
Mr. Kushner noted that the intent, with respect to the master plan, is to have a combination of conventional storm drainage methods plus more innovative and environmentally-friendly practices. There will still be conventional storm water methods but the suggestion is that it would be looked favorably upon to utilize some alternative methods. He explained that Mr. DiFatta is suggesting that requiring 10% of all parking surfaces to use permeable pavement materials may be too rigid, as the same overall benefit could be realized using an alternate method (i.e., a series of swales that would provide the same infiltration capabilities or greater) and other options/techniques should be provided/permitted. Mr. Kushner noted that the language can be modified.
Mr. DiFatta referred to language on Page 7 “Peer Review and Professional Studies”. He explained his concern that Ensign Bickford would be paying not only for their own consultants but also any and all consultants requested by the Commission. He asked whether there is a way that Ensign Bickford could work with Town Staff to eliminate duplication of professional studies. He noted, as an example, that Ensign Bickford would be on board with hiring a traffic engineer that has been agreed upon by Town Staff rather than both Ensign Bickford and the Town each hiring a separate consultant for the same issue.
Mr. Starr commented that Ordinance #55 may already cover this issue. Mr. Kushner noted that he would look into it. Mr. DiFatta noted his understanding.
Mr. DiFatta referred to the metrics on Page 10, “Development Phasing - Land Uses”. He noted that it is his understanding that the Commission wants residential housing in Avon Center but noted that the requirements/language in this section would make it difficult in relation to the requirement for office/retail space. He noted that, for example, 200 units of residential would require 167,000 square feet of retail/office space. He added that he is currently talking to a retail developer who is looking to build in the range of 125,000 square feet.
Mr. DiFatta suggested that the metric requirements could remain but maybe the language could be softened to allow some discretion on the Commission’s part and provide some flexibility for Ensign Bickford (i.e., allow 200 residential units without all the retail in place and/or allow retail before all the required residential).
In response to Ms. Keith’s question, Mr. DiFatta explained that all the proposed residential units would be two or three-story, high-density apartments; there is no proposal for individual homes in Avon Center. Mrs. Primeau asked if there would be three-story residential. Mr. DiFatta confirmed that it’s a possibility.
Mr. Starr clarified that specifics on residential story height would be covered in connection with an application for housing.
Mr. Kushner acknowledged his understanding of Mr. DiFatta’s comments and suggestions and explained that the rational behind the language in the proposed regulation is to, hopefully, end up with a commercial village center. He noted that while the Commission understands and agrees that it makes sense to introduce more opportunities for residential living in the village center to help support retail and restaurant uses, the main idea is to first encourage the commercial retail component. He explained that it is important to establish some commercial areas first to ensure that an excess of residential units are not constructed and then later learn that there was never really a market to support the retail uses. Mr. Kushner reiterated that he understands Mr. DiFatta’s concerns and noted that the
proposed language and the required percentages could maybe be reworded/revised to be less rigid to give the Commission more discretion.
Mr. Looney explained that there are many different possible permutations and there will always be some that work and some that don’t.
Mr. Gackstatter asked whether the intent is not to have a standalone apartment complex but rather have a mixed use of retail and office with apartments on top to create more of a village setting. Mr. Starr noted that the plan proposes some mixed uses but also proposes some areas with just residential. Mr. DiFatta explained that the residential uses are proposed for the perimeter of the project. Mr. Kushner noted that the reason for the proposed detailed set of regulations is to help ensure the creation of small-scale retail development as part of the new “main street” concept for this area.
Mrs. Griffin referred to the master plan and noted that it appears that there is only one way out from the high area on the site where the residential units are proposed. Mr. DiFatta explained that that could be addressed from an emergency vehicle standpoint. Mrs. Griffin commented that the general circulation of the area needs to be addressed, not just emergency vehicles. Mr. Kushner explained that the master plan has not yet been finalized; there may be changes to the road layouts. Ms. Keith commented that she feels that the applicant needs to know that overall road circulation needs to be addressed. Mr. DiFatta acknowledged his understanding.
Mr. Starr asked Mr. DiFatta if he has any other comments. Mr. DiFatta indicated that he has conveyed all his concerns/suggestions.
Mr. Starr noted that he believes all the comments/suggestions can be accomplished. Mr. Kushner concurred.
Mr. DiFatta thanked the Commission for their time.
Mr. Starr indicated that he reviewed all the proposed revisions to the AVC Regulations and everything appears to flow pretty well.
Mr. Kushner noted that an attempt was made to incorporate all the Commission’s suggestions. He commented that final revisions could be presented at the next meeting with a public hearing possibly in May. He explained that changes were also made to the Design Guidelines but were not reviewed tonight. He noted that Attorney Zizka recommends that the Design Guidelines not be incorporated into the Zoning Regulations, as they are very specific in nature and there is always the possibility that someone could propose an alternative design that is not part of the Design Guidelines. Mr. Starr commented that the Design Guidelines would function more as recommendations. Mr. Kushner concurred and added that the proposal is to include them in the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). He
noted that by State law, the POCD is a plan and not a regulation and therefore could be used as a reference tool by an applicant bur they would not be locked into anything specific. Mr. Kushner explained that Mr. Looney is working on a set of recommended changes to the POCD; these changes could also be adopted in May if a public hearing takes place.
Mr. Kushner noted that the overall Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations were also required to be reviewed to come up with ways to incorporate standards for Low Impact Development (LID) as part of the State Grant received from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He noted that LID standards were reviewed with Town Staff and some language changes are proposed to make recommendations to developers to utilize alternative means. He added that the Staff tried to keep the LID changes light so as not to completely change the way business is handled; the changes, at this point, are less mandatory and more recommendation friendly.
Mr. McCahill commented that the goal is to take out the impediments that prevent developers from using LID techniques. Mr. Kushner explained that he has had discussions with experienced civil engineers who have indicated that as developers realize that some LID techniques can be achieved at the same cost or lower than some of the traditional/conventional methods they will most likely be more widely utilized and accepted.
Ms. Keith commented that she has reviewed everything in “red” and noted that she feels the content includes everything that the Commission has discussed.
Mr. Kushner pointed out that at attempt was made to not make any changes at the expense of public safety; there are standards in the Subdivision Regulations regarding cul-de-sacs.
Mrs. Primeau commented that she feels that through streets should be promoted, rather than cul-de-sacs, due to flooding issues, the cost of gas, and the extra time.
Mr. Gackstatter referenced the Draft LID Revisions to the Subdivision Regulations, Page 3, pertaining to topography and steep slopes and commented that he feels that grades of 10% to 12% should only be permitted as a transition area and not allowed to extend for long distances. Mr. Kushner noted that he would check with the Town Engineer.
In response to comments from both Mrs. Griffin and Mrs. Primeau regarding permitted road grades, Mr. Starr suggested to Mr. Kushner that the current Road Design Standards be reviewed.Mr. Kushner noted that he would consult the Town Engineer.
Reappointments to CRCOG Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Starr nominated Ms. Keith to be the 2011 Representative to CRCOG Regional Planning Commission. The nomination, seconded by
Mrs. Griffin, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Starr nominated Mr. Cappello to be the 2011 Alternate to CRCOG Regional Planning Commission. The nomination, seconded by
Mrs. Clark, received unanimous approval.
Mr. Starr reported that Ned Whalen has resigned from the Commission. He explained that until a replacement is appointed by the Town Council, Mrs. Primeau will sit and Mr. Bonner and Mr. Gackstatter will fill in as needed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Sadlon, Clerk
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF AVON
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2011, at 7:30 P. M. at the Avon Town Hall, on the following:
App. #4529 - Proposed Amendment to Avon Zoning Regulations pertaining to yard setbacks for Outdoor Dining, Old Avon Village Associates, LLC, applicant.
App. #4531- OAVX Associates, LLC, owner, DaCapo Ristorante, applicant, request for Special Exception under Section V.O.5. of Avon Zoning Regulations to permit outdoor dining, 5 East Main Street, Parcel 2140001, in a CS 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 18th day of March, 2011.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Duane Starr, Chairman - Douglas Thompson, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
| 
