HINESBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of February 21, 2001
APPROVED
Present:
Ted Bloomhardt, Roger Kohn, John Mace, Jean Isham, George Bedard, Carrie
Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, and Will Patten.
Also Faith Ingulsrud, Town Planner
Members
Absent:
George Munson
Members of the
Audience:
Andrea Morgante and Jeff McDonald
1.
Firehouse Plaza - Continuation of Site
Plan Amendment. The Planning
Commission reviewed the draft of the conditions for the Firehouse Plaza Site
Plan Approval. Some corrections
were made and the final approval is attached to the end of these minutes.
George Bedard
moved to accept the Firehouse Plaza Site Plan Approval. Carrie Fenn seconded, and it was
unanimously approved.
2. Camp Conversions. Faith presented
color-coded maps, made by Holly Russell, that indicate which camps have been
approved for year-round use; approved for seasonal use; and those camps that are
lived in year-round but not approved for that use. The main issue the Planning Commission
reviews for approving year-round use is safe and legal access. Faith noted there are no clear standards
for what is “safe and legal”. There
are five roads involved in this issue; consistent standards should be applied to
them all. George Bedard said that
the Planning Commission has to be flexible to allow as much road improvement as
possible. Jean Isham thought maybe
road standards weren’t a good idea; perhaps it should be handled on a case by
case basis. Roger Kohn suggested
sending notification of a notice of violation to all camps. Faith said that when Lake Sunset went
dry last year, Rocky Martin walked around the lake looking for straight-pipes
but he didn’t see any. Fred
Haulenbeek noted that camp lots were originally created so a lot of people could
enjoy the lake in a small way. It
is important to preserve this resource, and it doesn’t make sense to pollute
around the lake. Faith pointed out
that one of the reasons Lisa Carlson gives in her letter for approving Rich
Donato’s camp conversion, is to get septic away from the lake. She feels that summer use of the camps
with all the visitors puts much more strain on the septic systems than the
year-round use.
Ted Bloomhardt
noted there are 76 year-round camps and only 26 summer camps; “the horse is
already out of the barn”. Roger
brought up the 15 year statute of limitations issue. He urged that violation notices be sent
out immediately to stop the 15 year clock from running-out. Faith noted it would be a lot of work to
do this, and that viable solutions will be needed for those 26 seasonal
camps.
Roger and Faith
discussed the idea of the Planning Commission requiring road associations to be
created as a condition of camp conversion approval.. It was agreed the Planning Commission
would have site visit of the Upper Access Road before the March 7th
meeting. The site visit was
scheduled for Saturday, March 3rd at 9:30
a.m.
3. Build-out Analysis. John Mace and Andrea Morgante presented
a build-out analysis of Hinesburg using a program developed by the Addison
County Regional Planning Commission for the Lewis Creek mapping project. Jeff McDonald from the Charlotte
Planning Commission sat in on the presentation. John described the build-out as the end
point of development we believe we’ll never get to. It illustrates how Hinesburg would look
if it was fully developed based on the current zoning and with no other
constraints. He is able to change
the build-out based on any zoning, so that one could see how a change in zoning
would impact the build-out. The build-out shows only residential development
with maximum sub-division. The
visual display of the software program that John had worked on showed that
another 9,665 units could be developed in Hinesburg.
George Bedard
said you had to look at the reality of septic limitations. Andrea asked the Planning Commission to
think about where the 2 to 3 acre zoning came from, and what the capacity of the
land is for handling sewage. She
said the build-out analysis is a tool to help the Planning Commission determine
what will be created out of zoning.
John added that the analysis is useful as a sensitivity tool. Faith said the development you see in
Tafts Corners and in Hinesburg today are a result of decisions made 20 or 30
years ago. The decisions the
Planning Commission makes today will impact the development 20 years from
now. John said the build-out is our
vision. How do we feel about
it? Andrea felt zoning should
reflect what we want Hinesburg to be, for sound environmental and social
reasons. Jean suggested John plot
higher elevation/ridgeline development.
Faith thought the new consultant might have some ideas for using and
modifying the build-out analysis.
Will Patten said it was a good tool to use to explain changes in the Town
Plan in public meetings. Andrea
suggested the Planning Commission think about creating zoning districts based on
natural features, rather than arbitrary lines. Will concluded the discussion by noting
the further out the Planning Commission has to think, the harder the
decisions.
Everyone thanked
John for the excellent visuals and his hard work on the build-out
analysis.
4. Development Review Board. Faith
distributed summaries of the workloads of the Zoning Board and Planning
Commission. About a third of the
applications had to be reviewed by both boards. Jean wondered if a DRB would get
overloaded with work, and if there would be enough people available to fill a
DRB. Jean also asked if a DRB does
not become reality, are there other ways to streamline the application
process? Jean’s questions were
discussed, and it was agreed that everyone on the Planning Commission in
attendance tonight was in favor of a DRB.
Faith will schedule time on a Zoning Board meeting to further explain and
discuss the DRB idea.
5. Engineering Review. Faith gave an update of her discussions
with Spencer Harris about reviews of septic sites for subdivisions. He could be available one day a week to
review test pits and septic designs.
Faith said that an applicant for a subdivision designed by John Stuart
would be at the March 7th meeting. The test pit results for this
subdivision were done a few years ago so would need to be re-dug to be
reviewed. Roger suggested three
options: 1) Re-do the test
pits; 2) Don’t do anything; 3) Ask Spencer Harris
to review the test pits. Faith
noted that this particular project will come under Act 250 review. She suggested that if a 10 acre lot has
to have Act 250 review, then the Planning Commission may not need additional
engineering review.
George Bedard
said he hated to see everyone get punished because of what happened on Sherman
Hollow Road. The Planning
Commission should be able to tell applicants using John Stuart that we want his
work reviewed by someone else.
George Bedard thought the Planning Commission was going to write a letter
to the Professional Review Board to describe what happened at the Sherman Hollow
subdivision. Faith said it is on
her list of things to do.
6. Other
Ted and Roger
volunteered to serve on the selection committee for the new Zoning
Administrator. Roger asked Faith
for the Town policy on terminating an employee.
Since Faith will
be away the last two weeks in March, and because there is already a waiting list
of applicants, she proposed the Planning Commission see applicants at the second
meeting in March instead of having a work session.
Bob Mellion and
Joe Fallon will be at the March 7th meeting to discuss unresolved
issues at Travias Restaurant. Faith
will provide the Planning Commission a list of the conditions that haven’t been
met. Roger thought it was
good that Mr. Mellion wanted to start a dialogue with the Planning Commission,
even though it would cut into other applicants’ time. Carrie suggested a site visit to
Travia’s the same morning as the Upper Access Road site
visit.
Roger Kohn moved
to approved the minutes of January 17, 2001, as corrected. George Bedard seconded, and it was
unanimously approved.
Jean Isham moved
to approve the minutes of February 7, 2001, as corrected. Carrie Fenn seconded, and it was
unanimously approved.
The meeting
adjourned at 10:50
pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Sally Kimball,
Recording Secretary
Hinesburg
Planning Commission
SITE PLAN
APPROVAL
ESTEY COMMERCIAL
COMPLEX
March 6,
1996
Revised May 15,
1996
Amended February
7, 2001
The Hinesburg
Planning Commission hereby grants site plan approval to David and Veronica Estey
for a 19,300 square foot commercial complex with 50 customer parking spaces plus
4 parking spaces near the northeast corner of the building on lots #9 and #10 in
Commerce Park. The proposal is
approved for a hardware store and specialty retail as proposed by the applicant.
The site plan shall be as shown on an as-built plan by Phelps Engineering, Inc.
dated 11/29/00, revised
2/13/01. This approval is
subject to the conditions of the May 15, 1996 revised approval, amended as
follows:
1.
Sidewalks.
A concrete sidewalk shall be constructed parallel to Commerce Street and
shall be at least 4 feet wide. The
area in the northeast corner of the lot is approved for entrance and
drive-though or alternatively used for 4 parking spaces, 2 on either side of the
planters as shown on the plan.
There shall be a crosswalk at the northwest entrance and if the northeast
entrance is used, there shall be a crosswalk there and it will be shown on the
plan. No crosswalk is required for
the northeast corner until there is a sidewalk linkage constructed on the
adjacent Ferrera property.
The sidewalk shall connect to the sidewalk on the property to the east
and shall end opposite the existing sidewalk on the Jolley Associates parcel,
mirroring the curve in the opposite sidewalk as closely as possible. The sidewalk shall be designed for
handicapped accessibility.
a.
A 10 foot wide sidewalk easement shall be granted to the Town along the
western landscaped strip for a public sidewalk along Route 116. Landscaping may be placed within the
easement, but the Applicant shall keep an unencumbered strip at least 5 feet
wide to prevent disruption of the landscaping when the sidewalk is
constructed. Any landscaping which
must be moved due to any sidewalk construction shall not be at the expense of
the applicant.
b.
If requested by the Town, the Applicant shall grant an easement to the
Town for a sidewalk spur directly across from the covered walkway on the
northwest corner of "Building A" to connect with a future Town sidewalk along
Route 116.
2.
Outdoor
Storage. Outdoor storage of materials is
prohibited except under the canopy on the west end of Building “A” and in
the garden area per condition #7, and
in the gravel yard behind the building and along the south boundary line
south of the internal gravel drive.
Materials shall be stored as close to the gravel driveway as possible to
minimize impacts on the existing trees.
Temporary or permanent storage in tractor trailers is prohibited. Storage and display of bagged goods
under the canopy is allowed.
3.
Exterior
Lighting. Six security
lights attached to the rear of the building and two lights mounted on poles, no
higher than 24 feet above grade, in the parking lot area are approved. In addition to these, lighting in the
ceiling of the covered walkway, and spot lights on the free standing and
wall-mounted signs are approved.
All lighting fixtures shall be designed and installed so that the source
of illumination is not visible from off-site locations. All lights, including security lights,
shall be shielded at all times. All exterior lights, except for the security
lights, shall be turned off when the business is closed. Use of every third light
under the canopy for security lighting is approved.
4.
Street
Lighting. The lighting plan for Commerce Park
requires street lighting on Lot #10.
No street lighting is proposed on Commerce Street at this time. A receptacle for a street light along
Commerce Street shall be installed by the Applicant. The Planning Commission reserves the
right to require installation of a fixture at a later
date.
5.
Signs.
The location of the existing free standing sign on Route 116 and the
future sign location on Commerce Street are approved. The signs above the business doors under
the canopy are approved as per the June 9, 1999 approval. The applicants shall return to the
Planning Commission for review and obtain approval for any other signs on the
property not previously approved.
6.
Landscaping.
Landscaping shall be installed as shown on the site plan. All areas so designated on the site plan
shall be maintained as grass areas with plantings of the type and location shown
on the site plan. The grass and
plantings shall be maintained and groomed, and any plants or trees which die
shall be promptly replaced. All
grass areas shall be mowed on a regular basis and kept attractively
maintained.
a.
Trees and plantings in the gravel yard in the rear of the building shall
be protected and maintained with an annual covering of mulch at least 2" deep
around the base of the plantings.
Mulch around the trees in the gravel yard shall extend at least four feet
from the tree trunks.
b.
All existing trees on the site shall be protected during construction to
prevent damage.
c.
The applicant has requested the area between the parking lot and the
Commerce Street sidewalk as an area for future parking, as shown on the
plans. Approval is not granted for
additional parking at this time.
The area between the north side of parking lot and the sidewalk shall be
reserved for future parking needs.
If the applicant wants to have additional parking in that area in the
future, the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with such a
request and the Planning Commission will consider it at that
time.
7.
"Garden
Center". The area outside the canopy on the west
side of "Building A" is proposed to be used as a seasonal display area, and as
such shall be maintained in a neat and attractive condition at all times. No bagged goods, mechanical equipment or
items stored on pallets shall be stored overnight in the Garden Center. Items allowed for extended display in
the Garden Center include plants, garden furniture and tools, Christmas trees
and other natural seasonal goods, and statuary, and other such lawn and garden
items.
8.
Circulation.
If experience indicates unsafe traffic flow, the owner of the lot shall
immediately present proposed modifications of the site plan to the Hinesburg
Planning Commission, and obtain approval of a revised site plan.
a.
No permanent structures shall be placed at the southern extension of the
service drive in the southwest corner of the property, to allow the possibility
for an internal driveway to the adjoining parcel in the future. A fence may be installed in this area,
with the understanding that if an extension to the adjoining commercial lot be
necessary, the fence will be removed or an opening will be
required.
9.
Parking
Lot. All 54 customer parking spaces (except
the 4 in the northeast corner of the building) shall be indicated with painted
lines as shown on the site plan and shall be repainted whenever
necessary.
a.
All employees shall use the parking spaces in the rear of the building
and shall park in front of the building only if the rear parking spaces are
full.
b.
The islands shall be at least one/half parking space in width and shall
be landscaped with hardy, salt-tolerant plants and/or grass.
10.
Building
Exterior. The applicant proposes and is permitted
to use vinyl clapboard siding on the building. Approval is granted for use of the cut
stone finish as presented by the applicant on the north and east fronts and
under the west canopy. Of the color
choices presented (white, buff and light gray), the "buff", off-white color is
preferred. The roof over the
walkway shall be a standing seam flat finished roof.
11.
Other
Requirements.
a.
The Applicant shall obtain a Building Permit from the Zoning
Administrator before beginning construction. All new tenants shall obtain a Zoning
Permit from the Zoning Administrator before occupying the building.
b.
A mylar of the revised amended site plan and these conditions of approval
shall be filed with the Town Clerk within 90 days of Planning Commission
approval of the revised site plan.
The applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with two additional
paper copies of the revised site plan.
c .Further site plan review is
not required for the hardware store or for tenants with small scale retail or
service businesses. Site Plan
review is required for any new tenant having one or more of the following
characteristics:
1.
A business that changes the site plan.
2.
A drive-through service or drive-though retail
business.
3.
A business that requires a building addition or new
structure.
4.
Any business serving food with seating for more than eight
customers.
5.
A business which proposes to use the entire building for other than a
retail hardware store or a business which is not a small scale retail or service
business.
The above motion was passed by the Hinesburg
Planning Commission on February 21,
2001.
_____________________________
Theodore Bloomhardt,
Chairman
Hinesburg Planning Commission