TOWN OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Approved
DRB Members
Present: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick
Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson,
DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples, Zoë Wainer.
Also Present:
The meeting began at approximately
Minutes of the
Tom MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5–0.
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,
Dick Jordan, George Munson, Tom McGlenn,
Continued Hearing(s):
Planning
and Zoning Office staff notes:
This is a
proposal to divide a 50-acre parcel –
-
-
-
-
-
Note: the
Village Growth Area Rezoning proposal was adopted by the Select Board on
The group discussed details of the site visit that took
place before the meeting. In attendance
were Tom, Ted, George, Dick, Dennis (
Tom noted the following:
- subdivision lot lines staked with flags
- the location of the Kinney drugstore building (four corners and entrance)
-
the location of the building on
- the edge of the 100-foot stream buffer
- areas that would be filled & raised to higher elevations ranging from 5 feet at the back and approx. 7 feet at Route 116.
-
parallel parking directly off Route 116 and also at the
northern side of
- the center line of Kailey’s Way and the entrance from Kailey’s to the back parking lot
-
the west end of the village zone area within
- the stormwater treatment area, proposed to be located in the stream buffer area
Brett Grabowski reviewed changes made to the proposal since the April 21st hearing:
- the building to the north has been more clearly delineated and brought more into scale with the Kinney building
- the slip lane access off Rte. 116 has been removed
- two additional parking spaces have been added off Rte. 116
- parking between the buildings at the back has been better integrated, with a shared entrance off Kailey’s Way added. A walkway between buildings leading to the back parking lot has also been added.
Brett said grading plans did not change. He introduced a landscaping plan, noting a
pedestrian-friendly park with plantings, benches, etc. planned for the corner
of
Brett discussed plans for a stormwater treatment area to be
located within the 100-foot stream buffer (area north of the building proposed
for
Alex noted that the Creekside neighborhood had a central stormwater collection area at its western edge. He asked Brett whether he had considered locating a treatment area to the west to serve the currently proposed lots and any future lots/projects developed behind them. Brett said they did not want to consider this due to costs but that he would tie in the proposed facility with a future pond to the west if one were created in the future.
A proposed retaining wall approximately 7 feet in height, sited along the 100-foot buffer line, was discussed. The area behind it would build up to the 7 feet, level with the proposed building site. Skip said the area would be buffered by trees. Brett said it would be built in an attractive manner and described possible materials for the wall (large stone boulders or other masonry). Ted asked about elevations within the retention area. Skip described the area as a 2-foot deep depression, with 2 settling basins, one near Rte. 116 and one to the west. These depressions were designed to handle a volume of water in a big storm. Peter asked what the elevation of the depression area was in relation to the stream. Skip said it would be 2 feet higher than the stream bed, with pond sides built up around the settling area.
Parallel
parking spaces planned for the north side of
Andrea Morgante said that while much discussion had focused on site planning issues related to the two front properties, the sketch plan being reviewed involved the entire 50-acre parcel. She noted goals within the new regulations to increase density in the village and also to create a village streetscape. She said future buildings along 116 would define the gateway to the village and represented an opportunity to make a statement about high density and mixed use. She said the configuration allowed for the two front lots would set a precedent for single-story commercial buildings surrounded with parking lots. She felt landscaping and sidewalks would not go far enough to demonstrate a high-density area. She suggested that multiple-level, mixed-use buildings along Route 116 would more effectively create a village streetscape, versus one very large building used only on the first floor, with a second similar building next to it.
Brett said that a use for the second building has not yet been determined. He noted much debate in the development community regarding the term “mixed-use”, whether every building within a large-scale development area had to be mixed-use, or if single and mixed-use buildings could co-exist together. He said while New Urbanism planning (creating livable, sustainable communities) was popular, developers still needed to accommodate for cars. He offered to include a third building along Rte. 116 in the proposal but cited town stream setback constraints.
Katharine Hikel asked about the scale of the Kinney building
and how it compared to Lantmans. She
expressed concern about the aesthetics of a very large building out of scale
with the rest of the village. Brett said
Kinney is open to designing a structure that the
Michael Fay expressed concerns regarding the aesthetics of
the town as one enters from the north.
He noted traffic issues coming in to
Ken Brown noted the walkway planned between the two buildings; he said he could not visualize what would compel pedestrians to use it, especially because it went past the loading area. Brett said the loading area was comprised of only one door. He said landscaping and building design would address how attractive it would be for pedestrians.
Sylvia Geiger asked if the project being considered was the only option available for the parcel. She asked if there was a specific size that a Kinney Drugs store needed to be. She did not think the plans for the front lots were integrated enough with the rest of the parcel, or with the larger community. Tom said the Board was obligated to review the application before them. Greg Tomczyk asked if the project fit the model of the suggested vision of the town plan. He stated he did not feel that a cookie cutter concept fit the mold of the last 10 years of discussion.
Tom explained that the
Greg Tomczyk suggested integrating the two lots into one, as
opposed to two lots with two independent uses.
Alyssa Lasher said she felt the green area proposed for the corner of
Andrea Morgante asked the Board to consider the purpose of the meeting - to review a sketch plan for the subdivision of a 50-acre lot. She thought the entire parcel should be considered and also that alternatives to the proposed plan should be explored. She felt the current proposal was more suitable for a commercial rather than a village area. She noted the possibility for a new neighborhood behind the two commercial buildings, and said that possibility of a neighborhood needed to be addressed within the current proposal. She asked the Board not to approve just two businesses; Sylvia Geiger and Greg Tomczyk agreed. Katharine Hikel asked if a bike path would be included in plans, and also asked if the Kinney building needed to be a certain size.
Brett said he and the landowner David Lyman have not looked
at their proposal as a stand-alone two-lot subdivision. He said the
David Lyman compared the size of the proposed Kinney building
to the NRG building (stating that the NRG building was much larger). He noted opposing comments to the project and
also a petition that had been signed in favor of this drugstore; he asked the
The board discussed how to proceed. Ted said he would like time to become familiar with the new zoning regulations. Alex proposed a training session for the next meeting (May 19th). He said he would invite Planning Commission members to join them for that discussion. Ted and Tom acknowledged the complex nature of the proposal - it requires multiple hearings (subdivision, site plan and conditional use) under new zoning regulations. George said he thought the Board needed to consider the entire parcel, not just the two buildings at the front. Ted agreed, stating he did not see a clear connection between the front and back of the parcel. He thought a better relationship between current and future neighborhoods to the proposed commercial area could be established. He also cited the buffer area, plans for stormwater treatment and the retaining wall as concerns.
David Lyman asked the Board to also consider plans for the new municipal building to the south. Peter Erb asked the Board to ensure that necessary legal agreements are in place, to describe how the two commercial entities will share infrastructure (parking areas, landscaping requirements, stormwater treatment, etc.). Brett said those legal agreements would be presented at the Preliminary hearing.
Ted MOVED to continue the public hearing to the May 19th meeting and also to discuss the matter in deliberative session. George SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick
Jordan, George Munson,
Other Business
Blittersdorf Final Plat Decision
George MOVED to accept the draft decision as amended (approval). Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 5-0.
Voting: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick
Jordan, George Munson,
A suggestion to amend the approved April 21st meeting minutes was discussed. Andrea Morgante’s comments were read aloud to the Board. They agreed to accept them as written testimony rather than amend the approved minutes.
NOTE: Comments from
Tom MOVED to go into deliberative session to discuss the Milot/Lyman application. Dennis SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
The meeting ended at approx.
Respectfully Submitted: