TOWN OF HINESBURG
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
January 19, 2010
Approved on February 2, 2010
Preliminary Plat Review of Lyman, Milot 2-lot subdivision, Tax Parcel #08-01-06.320 (includes proposed Kinney Drug Store) on Route 116 and Farmall Dr.
DRB members present: Ted Bloomhardt, Dick Jordan, Tom McGlenn, George Munson, Dennis Place, Zoë Wainer, Greg Waples.
DRB members absent: None
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Alan Nyhan, Jerrilynn Miller, Carrie Fenn, Johanna White, Margory Sharp, Phil Pouech, John Lyman, Tom Lyman, Barbara Lyman, Nancy Goddart, David Lyman, Charles Kogge, Bobbie Jo Maglaris, Guy Maglaris, B. Hunter, Carl Bohlen, Kristi Brown, Lisa Carlson, Steve Carlson, Jacob Merdin, Greg Tomczyks, Rodman Cory, Sylvie Vidrine, Dan Opton, Dale Wernhoff, Anita Collins, Jim Collins, Roger Giroux, Denise Giroux, Alyssa Lasher, Amanda Van Vranken, Dave Hirth, Gary Mawe, Tom Ayer, Rose Webb, Natacha Liuzzi, Joe Tomko, Ray Miner, Bob Linck, Kathy Beyer, Rolf Kielman, Michael Wisniewski, Jean Isham, Ray Keller, Andrea Morgante, Brett Grabowski (developer) and Greg Rabideau (architect)
Tom McGlenn called the meeting to order at 7:32pm. Asked the Board to read over the minutes from the January 5th meeting and make any corrections.
Minutes of January 5, 2010 meeting: Zoë Wainer MOVED to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Greg Waples SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 6-0, with Ted Bloomhardt abstaining.
Tom McGlenn explained the Lyman/Milot –Kinney Drugs agenda to the audience He stated that this is the second phase (the preliminary) of a three phase process.
Greg Rabideau (architect) started the meeting showing diagrams of the proposed property to the audience to give a better understanding of the locations and layout of the buildings that are being proposed. Greg went on to address some issues, such as:
– Explaining that the plan at this point is to complete the subdivision process and proposed development of this first lot.
– Explaining the overall Master Plan includes some purely commercial buildings, some “mixed use” buildings, and some buildings that were fully residential; with the commercial up front, the mixed used in the middle and then the residential acting as a transition to the open space in the back of the subdivision.
– Stating that what is currently being proposed in the first phase of that subdivision is a drug store and two office buildings. The idea being the subdivision continues to evolve over time and looking at what would give us the “Mixed Use” designation.
Some points of interest were several pedestrian gathering areas; one being by the sign, new sidewalks along Route 116 as well as Farmall Drive, and the extension of Kailey’s Way in the back so there would be sidewalks on all sides. There is a recreation path along the south side of Farmall Drive with a master plan that would extend back to the open land in the rear of the subdivision.
Greg stated that they have scaled down the mass of the buildings and also proposed the uses of the second building, keeping in mind the look facing Route 116. Greg also stated that it appears that the Kinney’s Drug store sign, as it is proposed, will not fit into the ordinance. The client is interested in exploring a waiver for this, but will come back with a new proposal that meets ordinance for signage. Another waiver the Board will have to consider is waiver allowing parking on the corner of Route 116 and Farmall Drive.
Greg explained that they need a minimum of 10 parking spaces right in front of the door to accommodate the older demographics and would still have parking available between the buildings. Landscape screening was in place to mitigate the look, Greg said the client really felt strongly that the front entrance of the commercial property should be oriented to Route 116.
Greg discussed the breakdown in the remaining parking spaces as: the drug store will need at least 20-22 parking spaces and the medical office building will need not less than 26 or more than 40 spaces depending on the type of medical practices. That would leave 37 – 53 parking spaces left for the second set of buildings.
Landscaping was touched on and Greg said that it would be continued into the second phase making both parts look cohesive. Greg said they want to forego planting now in order not to have to take them out two or so years later.
Greg said the building elevation has been modified by adding additional windows and with landscaping features along the two sides. The drug store would be a wood framed building with clapboard siding and dormer features to liven it up. This has a natural height of 27’ (feet). The medical office building is a very traditional form and will come in at 35’ (feet) as it is currently proposed.
Tom thanked Greg for the presentation and opened the meeting to the Board for any questions or concerns they may have.
Ted asked for an explanation of the fill and site elevations listed in the staff report. Sounds like the elevation for Kinney Drugs is quite a bit higher than the sidewalk and the whole thing is raised 5’ (feet) or more. It seems like a huge amount of fill lot. Some indication from the staff that it could be lowered without much trouble.
Greg Rabideau said the super elevation from Farmall would help for good drainage and said that he would like to work with the civil engineers between now and the final plat to lower that down as much as possible. The plan is to elevate Route 116 but only enough to provide positive drainage keeping in mind that the water needs to drain away from Route 116 and the buildings to the catch basin.
Greg Waples asked about the intersection on Farmall Drive. Will it be 3 lanes with two heading east and one heading south; one left-turn lane, one right-turn lane and one inbound lane heading west, and will the signal light interval be change? What is the stacking on Farmall now, about 6 cars?
Brett Grabowski (the developer) stated that the right-turn lane is being added. No curb cuts will be needed as it fits into the right-of-way. Greg Rabideau said that the light was regulated by the state and the stacking is 6 cars and does meet all regulations.
Ted asked about the loading dock, where would it be placed?
Greg Rabideau said that there would be no “loading dock’, that all deliveries would be by truck and that it would be infrequently and done at night so as not to interrupt business.
Ted asked if the medical office building was a dedicated medical building or could some business come in that was not medical.
Brett Grabowski said that the intent was to condo-ize the building, thus selling off suites to medical practices or other businesses in the area or businesses who want to bring their businesses into the area.
George Munson asked about the flat roof.
Greg Rabideau stated that the drug store has a Gable roof, a shed roof and flat roof to stay within the height limit. The second building also has a flat roof line because the flat roof is the logical site for mechanical A/C units to be placed.
Ted Bloomhardt: There needs to be some projection on next “mixed use” traffic so we know that we are not maxing out Farmall Drive. Ted asked the applicant to project this additional traffic at a future meeting.
Brett Grabowski referred to the letter from Roger Dickinson addressing that issue. Whatever is to be built in the master plan will not interfere with the light.
Greg Rabideau stated that the level of service at that intersection is an “A” and it is regulated by the state.
Ted Bloomhardt asked when they thought Phase II would start.
Greg Rabideau said that is best determined by the economy.
Dick Jordan stated that it looked like the storm water treatment had been moved out of the buffer from the sketch plan and it was pushed back. Would that be where the new storm/flood area would go?
Brett Grabowski: In the design that is being proposed, the storm/water treatment area would remain where it is. Any new development that would occur here would be treated, as we move into the second phase, would also be in back. The need is to treat it closer to its origin is critical. Brett talked about pedestrian trails with the future building out.
Greg Rabideau said the recreational paths follow Farmall Drive, transverse through the residential area to a big open space in the back of the property. There will also be sidewalks on Route 116 and Farmall Drive.
Ted Bloomhardt asked about future recreational areas on the western side of the remaining Lyman property.
Brett Grabowski said the entire property has been delineated and there is an approved Core of Engineers wetland permit on it. The overall impact is minimal, no lands are being offered at this time. Everything from the west of Farmall has been zoned as recreational use and at this time nothing is being changed.
Alex Weinhagen addressed Ted’s question regarding future residential and master plan. It shows recreational area that is identified on official map as futures community facilities. The Select Board has not indicated just what kind of community facilities. During master plan discussions it was recreational area. Wetlands not as limited, some limitations but we haven’t worked them all out. Large part of the area is agricultural, and now Act 250 plays a role. It is part of our map the flood/hazard area, the LaPlatte River and Patrick Brook converge at the western side of the Lyman parcel, quite a bit beyond this area identified for future community facilities. The area that gets inundated during the 100 year flood covers the bulk of the area that we are talking about. That’s a limitation on the parcel. Planning Board has growing concern that adding any fill to the flood/hazard area just shifts the flood patterns around and puts the burden on other properties. He state that many recreational areas are built on fill in order to allow proper drainage.
Tom thanked the Board for their questions and opened the question session to the audience.
Ray Keller asked what the north elevations of the medical building would look like and what would be seen from the road. He is concerned about the flat roofs being used to house mechanical objects. What is the square footage of the store?
Greg Rabideau showed the elevations of three sides, there would be windows and trees. The foot print is 7500 sq. ft. and there might be 3-4 A/C units on the roof.
Lisa Carlson stated that she saw nothing pertaining to solar energy and wondered if they were going to use it.
Greg Rabideau discussed the vision for the village center and explained that they are looking at any and all other environmental changes they could use.
Tom Lyman asked about street side parking, why the town would want it.
Alex Weinhagen stated that rezoning happened last year in May and part of the vision for the village area was on-street parking.
Jim Collins asked if the state was involved in the approval process for parking on the street, would the state plow to keep the area clear. He stated that in the staff report it was mentioned that there was not enough lighting in the parking lot and to do so would mean lights would have to be placed on the other side of the road.
Alex Weinhagen said the state was involved because the work would be within the States Right-of-Way on Route 116. One point brought up in staff report is that we will be looking for greater feed-back. The applicant has been working with VTrans.
Brett Grabowski added that VTrans has no problem with street parking on Route 116. Have submitted an application into the state for official approval of the parking. The state will plow but any further maintenance will be needed by the town.
Charles Kogge was concerned about rush-hour traffic and what impact this plan would have on it. He stated that during rush-hour you would never get out of the parking spot.
Greg Rabideau said he could not see any real impact on the traffic as the stop lights were already in place to control the flow of traffic.
Alex Weinhagen said the state’s concern is keeping Route 116 corridor clear. In regards to on street parking they are less interested in maintaining that, the landowner will most likely be responsible for maintenance.
Charles Kogge said he would just as soon see the parking on the street go.
Kathy Beyer was asking where the 100 year flood plan is on the parcel. At sketch plan review what were the village design standards, and was asking about a retaining wall on north side. She also asked how did the developer get rid of it.
Greg stated that they made a smaller foot print, which means smaller walls.
Roger Giroux stated that the consensus thinks that it is not a good idea to have street parking. No one wants to open their car doors into the Route 116 traffic or expect traffic to wait while they back-up into the parking space. Why are you pushing this matter?
Brett Grabowski stated that parking exists outside existing shoulder so there will be no additional room needed. There is already a 9’ (foot) width for the shoulder, so it will become part of the shoulder, just like what is in front of Town Hall.
Roger Giroux stated that the way it looks now is that you would be using the turn lane to back in your car.
Marge Sharp asked if there would be a basement or slab, Greg Rabideau said slab. She also asked about what types of trees would be planted. She said there should be some that stay green all year round.
Greg Rabideau said that there would be some that lose their leaves and some that stay green. He said that they liked what Alex said about a stone wall perhaps that would work too.
Greg Tomczyks talked about integrating the plan into the town vision with commercial and residential. The plan seems to separate them. Some of the traffic issues will parlay into pedestrian issues. Does there need to be fill for the Creekside area as it fills up with each rain. If the water is running north to a catch basin what happens with the residential part of Phase II? How is the whole structure suppose to look in terms of catching all the water?
Greg Rabideau stated that the plan would have some purely residential, some purely commercial and some of both. Our problem is knowing what is in the future. As far as the storm water goes, within the area we are talking about this evening, the first part of the development, all that would be captured in the curbs and dropped into the catch basin.
Dan Opton asked if there would be public transportation and if this was a LEED certified project.
Brett Grabowski said that they were doing all they could do to become LEED certified.
Ted Bloomhardt asked if they have to provide alternative energy to qualify.
Brian Hunter had two questions; first regarding sidewalks on Route 116 and creating pedestrian way, perhaps a sidewalk on the other side of Patrick Brook. The one ends at the proposed building A. What happens when someone builds on the other side of Patrick Brook? Is the town on the hook for building a bridge or continue the sidewalk back to the parcel? His second question was about the lighting for the street and parking area.
Ted Bloomhardt answered that the lighting would be looked into further in the process and said that in past projects the applicant has been responsible for extending sidewalks when it made sense so as not to build sidewalks to nowhere.
Michael Wisniewski said he had some issues with the design entering on Farmall Drive heading to Kailey’s Way. It is essentially an access road not really a street. He believes to make it a strong village sense it needs to have a strong streetscape which would mean that the buildings would front on Farmall Drive, with their entrance and parallel parking on it. They would have a greenbelt and sidewalk, then some kind of transition zone between the public sidewalk and the buildings. With these in place one would feel like they were in the village. The key to solving this is to create a streetscape along Farmall Dr. and Kailey’s Way, rather than leave an access drive and enter a large parking lot.
Alex Weinhagen passed out comments from Michael Wisniewski and Natasha Liuzzi to the DRB and the audience.
Greg Rabideau elaborated on what Michael said and said that the Board needs to take action.
Phil Pouech stated that he didn’t want the client to decide the plan or the plan trying to meet the clients’ (Kinney Drugs) needs. He hopes it tries to meet the Town of Hinesburg’s needs and zoning, zoning intent and regulations. He walks that area and it is not very welcoming now. Seems the plan is being tweaked to meet the clients’ needs and it is really important that it meets Hinesburg’s needs. He wants the DRB to think of zoning regulations and consider what the long-term vision is.
Lisa Carlson wants there to be more windows in order to use natural lighting.
Ray Keller stated that he thought the north elevation of the Kinney Drugs building was “butt ugly”. Could it be made more pleasant to look at? What kind of luck was the town having with rezoning?
Ted Bloomhardt said rezoning knew this development was a possibility when Planning Committee was doing it.
Alex Weinhagen stated that we didn’t have enough experience to know that answer.
Allen Mead wanted to know from the Board’s standpoint what does “Mixed Use” mean?
Greg Waples stated that he thought he was hearing the applicant say that they are receptive to Alex’s suggestion that the other two buildings be mixed use.
Zoë Wainer said that right now she doesn’t know if she is fully convinced that mixed use, as intended by the regulations, is a commercial cluster with a mixed use and residential behind it.
Bob Linck asked if any part of this project was in the flood area.
Alex Weinhagen answered that the applicant specified no building in this phase was in the flood/hazard area.
Carl Bohlen stated that he would like to have a pharmacy in the town and would like it to fit in with the plan from the Planning Committee. Said that all involved need to be on the same page. He is on the Affordable Housing Committee and would like to see residential space above Kinney’s.
Ken Brown asked what is the purpose of the Drive-Thu window.
Rolf Kielman stated that he sympathizes with the applicant. Thought that the Board and client had collected good comments. He welcomes the presence of a pharmacy but asked if the design could be better as this would be the defacto entrance to our village. He doesn’t like the falseness of the looks of the building.
Charles Kogge said the he looks to the Board to take opinions from the community on this project and LEAD. If you say no than say no. He hopes the architect can be flexible. He is hoping that Hinesburg will become a real town.
Tom McGlenn said that the time was up and suggested that anything else would be carried over to the meeting on February 16, 2010.
Alex Weinhagen asked what does the Board need before the next meeting.
Brett Grabowski said the Board needs to understand “mixed use”, to look at Creekside, understand that apartments don’t work in Hinesburg but affordable housing is a possibility.
Zoë Wainer asked about the budget and landscaping. Wanted to know whether the design meets the minimum spending percentage outlined in the regulations. By her calculations she figured that the landscape is running about 32-33K which would just meet the minimum if they are spending 2.5million on the project. She also has concerns about the intent of the regulations in terms of the landscaping. She feels that Alex left out a key word of having landscaping serve as a central organizing feature and you are actually left the central out of your comments and thinks that that’s the key word. The way she sees this plan now is to place a building in the parking lot and around the edge you put landscaping. Hoping this will integrate plans to look like a village. To accomplish goal the plan needs a lot of work, not sure if mixed use means mixed in sections.
Brett Grabowski also needs the Board to understand what mixed used in terms of the old town concept. Economically from a financing standpoint that is a very difficult thing in today’s economical market due to very strict guidelines about buying residence over retail. Mixed can be perceived as a more global term creating a commercial area to Creekside as going in to Phase II can look at ways to change.
Peter Erb asked if apartments would work where condos wouldn’t.
Brett Grabowski stated that apartments don’t work in Hinesburg because the cost that would have to be charged for rent is too high for the area.
Tom McGlenn stated that it would be nice to go back to the client with all the comments.
Brett Grabowski stated that the client is flexible but does have some restraints which could be stumbling blocks.
Greg Waples said that until hearing the comments he did not consider parking on Route 116 to be an issue. He did hear real concerns about the wisdom of parking. He would like to hear from someone who knows about traffic in the particular context as to whether this is off the wall or a good idea.
Tom McGlenn made a motion to continue discussion at the February 16th meeting and Greg Waples seconded. The vote was 7-0.
Dennis Place made a motion to go into deliberative session to discuss the Hinesburg Auto Sales decision and the Lyman, Milot project. Greg Waples seconded. The vote was 7-0.
Board went into deliberative session.
Meeting ended at 10pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Seemann
Recording Secretary