TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

April 21, 2009

Approved May 5, 2009

DRB Members Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

DRB Members Absent: Amy Escott, Greg Waples.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Robert & Dot Blanck, David Blittersdorf, Ken Brown, David Lyman, Andrea Morgante, Greg Tomczck, Brett Grabowski, Paul and Alyssa Lasher, Rodman Cory, Michael Fay.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.

Minutes of the March 3 and March 17, 2009 meetings:

Tom MOVED to approve the March 3 meeting minutes as written. Zoë SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5–0 with Dick and Lisa abstaining.

Zoë MOVED to approve the March 17 meeting minutes as amended. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 4–0 with Tom, Dick and Dennis abstaining.

Hart Hill Designs, LLC – Final Plat Review – 9-lot/8-unit or 8-lot/7-unit PRD/Subdivision - Route 116 –Applicant: David Carse/Hart Hill Designs, LLC

DRB members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Dick Jordan, George Munson, Tom McGlenn, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

Continued Hearing(s): January 20 and March 3, 2009

Tom MOVED to continue the Hart Hill final plat hearing to the May 19, 2009 DRB meeting. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Final Plat Review – 4-lot Subdivision – Route 116 - Applicants: Jan and David Blittersdorf (Tax Map #16-20-56.900)

DRB members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Dick Jordan, George Munson, Tom McGlenn, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

Dave Blittersdorf addressed five points from the staff report:

1. Road width at the top of the road – it will be widened to 18ft.

2. Water, sewer line easements, responsibilities – all the infrastructure will be NRG’s responsibility, provided to the new subdivision at no cost. Ted asked if the new lot owners were given the right to access and/or maintain that infrastructure. David said language would be amended to clarify NRG’s responsibilities as well as the access and maintenance rights of new lot owners. Dick asked about water/sewer volume capacity, particularly in the event of an NRG expansion or additional development. David said there is sufficient capacity, currently 2-3 times more than what NRG needs now. Alex said rate capacity had been discussed at preliminary (and was satisfactory) and that future development would be reviewed by the DRB.

3. The sharing of Riggs Road – David said costs associated with the existing road will be the permanent responsibility of NRG. Costs for the portion of the new road (as it extends beyond NRG) will be shared by new lot owners equally (in even thirds). David said association language would be amended to clarify this and also lot owners’ maintenance and access rights to the NRG portion of the road.

4. & 5. Technical corrections to Plat - Alex said the project engineer will correct Plats as needed.

Alex said he would also review and add those items from the Homeowners Association document that should be entered into the official DRB decision.

Ted MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Dick Jordan, George Munson, Tom McGlenn, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

Sketch Plan Review – 4-lot Subdivision – Route 116 - Applicant: Milot Real Estate LLC – Landowner – David Lyman (Tax Map #08-01-06.320)

DRB members: Ted Bloomhardt, Lisa Godfrey, Dick Jordan, George Munson, Tom McGlenn, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer.

Planning and Zoning Office staff notes:

This is a proposal to divide a 50-acre parcel – Lot 32 from the Creekside subdivision project – into 4 lots:

- Lot 34 (1.53-acre) – SW corner of Rte. 116 and Farmall Drive - potential location for a new Kinney drugstore of approx. 11,000 sq. ft.

- Lot 35 (1.7-acre) - along Rte. 116 directly north of Lot 34 – potential location for another commercial/retail space of approx. 10,000 sq. ft.

- Lot 36 (.75 acres) – strip of land (with north-south orientation) directly behind Lots 34 & 35 – planned for an access road serving Lots 32, 34, 35 and potentially additional areas to the north. May be dedicated to the Town for a new Town road.

- Lot 32 (46 acres) – remaining acreage to the east, accessed by Lot 36 as well as potential access to Farmall Drive at 2 locations. There is no proposed development for this lot at this time.

The Applicant has submitted this sketch plan while a comprehensive rezoning proposal is under review by the Selectboard (SB). Under State statute, the DRB is to review this application under the proposed new zoning since the SB has already warned (3/6/09) and held a public hearing (4/6/09).

Most of the details of this new zoning will become more important at later steps in the review process, which will be as follows for this application:

Major Subdivision Application Additional required reviews

Step 1: Sketch Plan review Site Plan review*

Step 2: Preliminary Plat review Conditional Use review*

Step 3: Final Plat review *reviewed in conjunction w/Prelim & Final Sub. reviews

For details on the Village Growth Area rezoning and Official Map proposals, see the Town website http://www.hinesburg.org/villagegrowthproject.html.

There was a discussion regarding how proposed changes in village zoning affected this review. Alex explained VT state statute Title 24, Chapter 117, Section 4449d:

After a town has publicly warned any additions or changes to current zoning regulations, all applications must be reviewed under those proposed regulations – even though they are still under discussion and/or have not yet been adopted – during a 150-day period beginning from the official warned date. If the governing body (Hinesburg Select Board) does not adopt the changes at all or as written, the application – even if approved during the 150-day period - will not be allowed to proceed to the next step without a re-review under old regulations (regs. are not adopted at all) or adopted-but-revised regulations (regs. are not adopted as written and warned).

Alex said this 4-lot sketch plan application was similar to a 2-lot sketch plan approved by the DRB on 1-15-08 (that approval has since expired). He said although this project needed to be considered under the proposed zoning, the sketch plan portion of the application (in which lot divisions are conceptually approved) was not dependant on the new zoning – i.e., it could have been reviewed under old zoning, as was the 1-15-08 plan. He said this application’s proposed uses were dependant on new zoning – the two front lots are intended for commercial use which is not currently allowed in the agricultural district. He said those discussions would take place during later phases of this subdivision review, and during an additional site plan review.

Brett Grabowski introduced the project, stating that regulation changes if adopted would extend the Village district zoning line to Patrick Brook, allowing for the inclusion of commercial properties on the parcel. He said other proposed changes such as unit densities and design standards would also affect the project.

Creekside residents Michael Fay and Greg Tomczck asked for clarification on village uses as well as the hearing process. Alex said an extensive list of uses that now apply to the Creekside neighborhood (in the Village district) would be extended to the parcel under review if zoning changes are adopted. He added that commercial properties, even though permitted, require an additional site plan review. David Lyman clarified that the Village district line is proposed to be extended to his property line just north of Patrick Brook.

Brett said some of the issues or conditions raised in the previous approval have been resolved. He said a wetland delineation has been done on the property and that permits have been acquired to impact 11,000K sq. feet of fragmented Class III wetlands. That area covers the commercial sites (Lots 34/35) back through the entire parcel (Lot 32) that could be developed in the future.

Creekside resident Bob Blanck asked if the elevation at the front along Route 116 would be raised; Brett said yes, it would come up to the same level as Route 116. He said Lot 32 could be a future mixed-use subdivision that reached to the back of the parcel, lining up with the back of the Creekside development. He said Lot 36 will contain a road to service the front lots but they do not anticipate turning this over to the town in the near future. Brett said he intends to retain ownership of Lots 34-35-36 (with lease agreements in place for commercial tenants); David Lyman would retain an easement to access his remaining Lot 32 over the service road.

The group discussed wetlands and the 100-foot stream buffers indicated on application maps. Alex pointed out the flood hazard area and explained the concept of the new stream buffer areas (part of proposed regulations). The group discussed whether a commercial operation would be viable on Lot 35 as a large portion of it is wetlands. Brett said although wetlands take up 2/3 of the lot, a structure there, perhaps one smaller than the proposed 10,000 sq. ft., was possible.

Traffic issues, road and parking plans were discussed. Brett noted plans for:

- a proposed slip lane access, a one-way right-hand turn lane off Route 116 entering at a point between Lots 35 & 34. Brett said this idea was met with conceptual approval by the VT Agency of Transportation (VTrans).

- parallel parking along a portion of the Route 116 frontage as in the front of Town Hall but with a greater setback to its intersection. (A sidewalk along the east side of Route 116 is also planned but not part of this project.)

- sidewalks on both sides of 116.

- on-street parking on Farmall Drive.

- a right-hand turn lane off Farmall.

- a left-hand turning off the light onto Farmall.

- a landscaping plan proposed to soften the various parking areas

- an existing crosswalk with pedestrian signal at rte. 116 & Farmall.

Creekside resident Alyssa Lasher, the closest neighbor to the project (Lot 29), raised concerns regarding privacy, screening and the potential for drivers to use the area around her house as a turnaround, particularly those cars coming out of off-street parking space facing west. Brett said he thought those drivers would likely use the Kinney parking lot for that turnaround. Alyssa also expressed concerns regarding the construction process. Brett said state regulations addressed those issues and that the construction period (for Kinney) would be short (only 3 months).

Ted explained that a complete site plan review would take place at a later date, during which the board would review landscaping, screening and traffic circulation. Greg Tomczck asked whether a traffic study would be provided. Brett said the traffic engineer that did the studies for the National Bank of Middlebury project will also work on this project.

Specific staff report issues were discussed:

1) Access plan: Alex discussed his concerns regarding the slip lane access, generally due to how it bisected Lots 34 & 35:

- The lane left little opportunity to extend proposed on-street parallel parking (in front of Kinney) to the north (in front of a future business)

- It discouraged pedestrian access between the two sites as it cut the sidewalk planned along Route 116 in two

- It presented pedestrian safety issues, with the potential for cars to move quickly off 116 and over the sidewalk.

Brett said he did not think many more parking spots could be planned to the north due to wetlands. He suggested speed control measures such as speed bumps and narrow street widths. He said the access road would ease traffic flow on Route 116 and would be an important access to any future development to the west. Ted asked about grading to the north side of the slip lane; Brett said it would eventually come up to grade.

Alex said the real focus of the Village Growth proposal is to make Hinesburg a more walkable growth center. He said the sidewalk planned along the west side of Route 116 could become a main pedestrian access to future development to the north; a slip lane would be a high-speed dangerous point bisecting that access. He also noted how the two commercial lots varied in terms of their proposed layout - one was set up for a particular purpose while the other was very constrained. Brett said it was typical to create one lot and reserve the other for future development. He said parking would be adequately provided for a second building and that stream setbacks on Lot 35 would be respected.

Peter Erb asked what architectural design standards or tools the Board would have to work with in reviewing this project. Alex said standards will change with new zoning.

2) Lot 36 and Official Map elements: Brett said Kaylee’s Way (Lot 36 road) would be built to town standards but would remain a private drive until Lot 32 is developed. The group including neighbor Greg Tomczck and Selectboard member Ken Brown discussed the current road warranty between the Association and the Town.

Greg asked if there were any dependencies or conditions from previous approvals related to this parcel. Alex said yes and that they would be reviewed by the Board.

3) Master Plan considerations: Brett said there were no prime agricultural soil issues. He said the ratio of impacted ag soils compared to what is left undeveloped mitigates the impact, at least under current State guidelines. Tom asked how development at the front of the parcel would impact access to the back. Ted asked how many acres being impacted were prime ag soils.

Alex said future community facilities have been identified on a portion of Lot 32 by the Town, as indicated on the Official Map (part of the proposed regulations). Brett said David Lyman will own Lot 32 and retain access to it as it needs to be maintained.

Tom asked why the recreation fields planned for the Creekside development never came about. Alex gave this explanation:

2 parcels were donated to the Town as part of the Creekside project, a 5+-acre parcel at the back of the development and a 1.5-acre parcel to the front, behind the Fire Station. At the time the project was reviewed by the DRB, the US Army Corps of Engineers had a policy regarding converted wetlands – they gave up purview over land that had been converted from wetlands into agricultural use. The Town assumed that because the donated 5-acre parcel was in agricultural use at the time of the donation, it would not be subject to Corps wetland regulations.

This VT State Corps office policy was then corrected by the Federal office to state that all lands would be reviewed once they came out of agricultural use. The Town then had the parcel delineated, much of it was determined to be wetlands and according to the Corp regulations, could not be filled to create recreational fields. This determination did not affect the 1.5-acre parcel in the front.

The potential for development on Lot 32 was discussed. Brett said a formal wetland delineation done for the entire Lot 32 parcel found very few wetland areas and was otherwise unconstrained. The group discussed whether the Town would be prevented from developing community facilities in that location, not due to wetland constraints but to limits on agricultural soil impacts of the total parcel. Would impacts allowed on agricultural land during initial projects cause an ACT 250 “shut off” of allowed impacts during later projects. Brett said he thought prime ag soil considerations did not shut the door to development in the way wetlands do.

4) Water Resources – Brett noted the wetlands impact permit already obtained from the State.

Next steps, including a site visit, were discussed.

Ted and Zoë requested demarcation of certain elements proposed on the sketch plan, such as lot boundaries, stream and ROW setbacks, the slip lane location and parking areas. There was a lengthy discussion about proposed lot configurations, specifically on these issues:

- The viability of development on Lot 35, given restraints of grade changes, wetlands and take-outs for ROW’s, setbacks and other infrastructure. DRB members asked Brett to calculate the actual size of land left over on Lot 35. Alex said setbacks would be smaller under new regulations.

- The possibility of stormwater entering the stream buffer. Brett said stormwater treatment is allowed within the buffer.

- The interests of the proposed tenant (Kinney), how they affect lot layout (such as the proximity of parking to front door) and whether the layout is in keeping with rezoning objectives for increased walkability and connectivity in the Village Growth Center. Brett described Kinney as an anchor tenant and gave insight into how this layout works for their particular business. He said he thinks the plan is in line with Town objectives and noted the project’s value to the Town as a needed service and future tax base.

- Plans to divide the 2 front lots with an access road, and plans for separate parking and delivery areas, with the concern that those businesses will be isolated from each other.

- The lack of a master plan for the entire parcel.

- The possibility that this lot will serve as a gateway to the Village due to wetland constraints in the proposed NW district.

Brett offered to remove the slip lane from the plans and to site buildings closer together. He said Kinney sites are pre-designed, with the approach that they want to be by themselves. He said he did not think a mixed-use approach on Route 116 was viable. Ken Brown suggested that a more comprehensive road plan for the entire site would be helpful. The loading dock area and screening were discussed; Tom said these could be reviewed during the Site Plan review.

Brett said he would remove the slip lane and adjust the front parallel parking, providing a more complete picture. Michael Fay asked if the Kinney building could be sited to the north, not at the corner. Andrea noted that the parking lot is on the corner, not the building, creating a large gap between planned landscaping at Farmall Drive and the building entrance. The dimensions of the lot versus the building size were discussed in terms of how much parking was needed. She said it was important to discuss these kinds of uses (parking needs, etc.) as it affected the actual subdivision of the parcel. Lisa agreed, stating it was a matter of determining whether lot lines make sense.

Creekside resident Rodman Cory gave several comments:

He agreed with removing the slip lane

He stated that on-street parking within Creekside was a nuisance due to narrow streets.

- He requested that entrance and egress into the Kinney parking lot be placed carefully, not so far back that it impinged on the homes or at the stoplight.

- He did not agree that landscaping slowed traffic, particularly non-resident vehicles.

- He noted damage to Creekside’s road curbs from town snow plows.

- He requested that meeting materials be posted online.

Next steps were discussed. Brett requested that the Board move forward with a sketch approval, given his commitment to removing the slip lane on the plans. The group agreed they wanted a site visit in order to view staked elements of the plan. Ted said certain site elements such as road access locations or setbacks needed to be understood during the sketch plan phase, as they help determine the number of viable lots a parcel may be divided into.

Tom MOVED to continue the meeting to May 5^th, with a site visit planned for 6:00pm of the same evening. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 7-0.

The board moved to go into deliberative session to discuss other business. Dennis also left the board at this time (9:35pm).

Other Business

Willmott Sketch Plan

Decision: Tom MOVED to approve the draft decision as amended (approval). Zoë