Town of Hinesburg

Development Review Board Minutes

November 16, 2010

-Minutes Approved January 4, 2011-

Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Dennis Place, Ted Bloomhardt, Greg Waples, Dick Jordan (arrived late)

Members Absent: Zoë Wainer, George Munson

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning/Zoning Director), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), David Palmer, Randy Volk, Cathy Ryan, Greg Rabideau, Johanna White, David Fenn, Carrie Fenn, David Lyman, Brain Busier, Ken Brown, Brett Grabowski, Dorothy Pelette

Tom M called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Minutes from November 2nd: After some corrections Ted Bloomhardt moved to accept the minutes as amended. Greg W seconded. A vote was taken. 4-0 to approve. THE MOTION PASSED

Minutes from October 19th: The minutes had been held over in order to have the narrative of the site visit to George Bedard’s subdivision added. Dick J arrived to the meeting at this point. After the Board reviewed the minutes Dick J made a motion to approve as amended. Ted B seconded the motion. A vote was taken. 5-0. THE MOTION PASSED

Brian Busier: (Lantman’s IGA) CU/Site Review. Tax Map #(20-50-24.000): Members: Tom McGlenn, Dick Jordan, Dennis Place, Ted Bloomhardt, Greg Waples

Randy Volk gave the Board a presentation (using a diagram on the property) on the expansion Brian wants to make to his store. The addition of 585 square feet (sf) would be added to the current footprint of 15,800 sf. This will occur to the westerly side of the area which is currently a lawn area. In addition to the expansion of the footprint, 324 sf of existing space will be renovated. All of this is for the purpose of providing an area for sales of alcoholic beverages by license with the state. Access to this area is from within the existing market. In addition to this purpose an area is proposed to serve bottle and can recycling (vending machines) with access directly to the outside. This addition is the minimum possible that still serves the requirement of these functions. Randy said this application has to address Conditional Use and Site Plan Review.

Under Conditional Use: no changes are proposed in hours of operation, number of employees, no significant traffic change, parking will remain the same, and no change in signage. Randy stated if the signage were to change Brian would apply for those permits separately.

Water and sewer will not change and there is no belief that this expansion will cause any new emissions of any kind. The same materials, colors and textures that are on the present building will be used on the new addition. The existing walkway in front of the new structure will be covered with a roof.

On Site Plan Review: the vehicular and pedestrian circulation on this site works. No proposal to alter any of that. Snow removal, trash handling, parking and loading facilities are currently provided on site and not proposed to be changed. Landscaping addressed by percentage of expense method will be budgeted at $3,600. Lighting will be left alone except for one pole light that will be displaced with the addition. This will be replaced with building mounted LED lighting. The parking lot will remain adequately lit for safety; lighting will conform to standards that restrict the light to its intended purpose. There is no plumbing in the new area. Drainage, grating and storm water runoff will be minimally impacted.

Randy stated this expansion seems in every way consistent with the town plan. It is anticipated that the improvements to this market will be made this winter with final site work items being completed in early spring/summer of 2011.

It was discussed that Brian is maxed out on the lot coverage even without the addition. The village zoning only allows 75% lot coverage and right now it is a little over. Brian is looking to utilize a provision which would allow him to make a significant contribution to the town for an additional two bonus points thus making possible a larger lot coverage percentage. The two additional points would allow him to go to 85%.

Tom M asked if the bonus points were coming from the contribution Brian would make towards the sidewalk on Route 116. Randy said they were.

Brian B said it had come to his attention that the town was very concerned for the safety of individuals using the sidewalks along Route 116. He is especially interested in making a contribution for a sidewalk to run between Hart & Mead to Lyman Meadows corner by Papa Nick’s. Brian said he realizes this project has been put on the back burner for several years because there is no money for it in the budget and he feels it is a necessary part of town to have the good for public safety in mind. His idea is to contribute money towards this project.

Tom M asked if what Brian was going to contribute would be enough money to complete the project and Brian said it was not, it is just a contribution towards it.

Peter Erb stated the process is that the DRB will have to determine whether the improvement is important enough to award the two bonus points or not. This is supposed to be done in concert with the Selectboard. The Selectboard has been consulted twice in two meetings and they are very much in favor of this. Peter E said he had reviewed some possible draft legal language and the Selectboard is also comfortable with that. A CCMPO has done a feasibility study which put it at a very high priority and the Lyman Meadow residents have come in to the Selectboard meetings with petitions in favor of a sidewalk as well.

Peter said the Trails Committee is also in agreement with the sidewalk proposal.

Alex W showed a map on the overhead projector where the new segment of sidewalk would go stating it is in the State’s right-of-way so the town would need a permit from VTRANS to go ahead with the project. Alex W did not think this would be a problem.

Greg W stated the liquor store is a license from the state and asked Brian if he had any guarantee he would win the bid. Brian said talking with the Department of Liquor; he has been eyed as the primary location because of his location in the center of the village. Once he gets permit approvals from the Board he will submit them to the state to continue with the bidding process, but he has no guarantees.

Alex W stated the state has actively solicited the Hinesburg Business Community because they really want a liquor store in Hinesburg. There will be one it is just a matter of where.

Tom M asked if Brian would have to use state registers for any sale of liquor and Brian said he would and that the liquor store and the grocery store registers would be separate.

Dick J said in the area where the new expansion will go he remembers a propane tank being there and Brian said there is but it will be taken out as they have now gone to using natural gas.

Tom M asked if there was anyone from any advisory boards with a question.

Cathy Ryan, from the Trails Committee said she also lives in Lyman Meadows and she is in favor of the sidewalk. She stated there are a lot of children living in the Meadows who could use the sidewalk to get to school. As it is now they pretty much have to walk in the road and sometime on the road which can be dangerous. She said in winter time with the snow and ice it can be dangerous for adults and children walking that span along Route 116. Cathy reiterated a lot of residents from the Meadows have written to the Selectboard regarding this stretch of road expressing concern for the children having to walk in the road in order to cross Route 116 to get to school.

Tom M asked if the residents of Lyman Meadows cross the park to get to Lantman’s and Cathy said they did now but once the snow comes they will have to walk around as they can’t get over the piled up snow bank between the Meadows and the parking lot at Lantman’s. She said in the winter this short cut is not suitable for anyone with mobility issues or mothers with strollers.

David Palmer said he is in favor of the project. He asked why the sidewalk doesn’t run on the south side of 116 and then cut across as opposed to across the Mead’s lawn? He then asked if Brian makes a contribution to the town in order to get the permit approved for the store, but he is denied the liquor license what happens to his money that he gives the town. David reiterated that the contribution towards the sidewalk project does not guarantee Brian will get a permit; he is not getting a permit for the contribution. The permit still has to be approved based on the merits of what is presented tonight.

Dick J said his assumption was that if Brian didn’t get the permit he would still go ahead and do the expansion which would be used for other store functions because the Board is not necessarily granting this and then revoking it based on Brian not getting the license. This permit approval has nothing to do with the state’s liquor approval.

Peter E said if the Board approves this permit Brian’s donation to the town would have to happen before he gets his Certificate of Occupancy, which means that he would be fully aware he is getting the liquor license. He will not be building this addition if he is denied the license from the state; this removes the risk for Brian. The next thing that would happen is the contribution would have to go into some type of financial surety with the Selectboard and remain there, so that if for some reason the sidewalk project couldn’t happen, it would still be in the hands of the town. Then the Selectboard in agreement with the Board would have to designate another project that would qualify for the two bonus points.

Greg W said this being the first occasion involving density bonuses on commercial spaces under the new regulations he would like to flesh out for the record as to establish from the applicant why is two points appropriate. He stated the Board will be setting a precedence and he felt they should be aware of that.

Tom M asked the staff for any comments. Alex W gave a short narrative background on incentive points and how they work.

Tom M said the Board had received a letter from Rodney Trudeau stating he is not in favor of an expansion for a liquor store. Rodney stated he was in contact with the Department of Liquor and based on estimates from the liquor store in Richmond they estimated approximately 8,200 customers a year; some are probably existing Lantman’s customers, but this makes extra traffic an issue. Rodney also characterized the density bonus points as a quid-pro-quo and ultimately a way of buying your way out of zoning.

Randy Volk responded to Rodney’s letter. From his studies he could not see an increase in parking or traffic.

The Board reviewed the draft decision Peter E had prepared. Greg W questioned about liquor bottle redemption, saying there needs to be a statement in either the Conclusion or Order of the decision saying that state law requires a suitable arrangement for the redemption of liquor bottles.

Peter E said Andrea Morgante has stopped by the office to inform him that the Burning Bush is classified as an invasive plant and would like Brian not to have any planted in his new landscaping designs.

Tom M made a motion to close the public hearing and accept the decision as amended. Dennis Place seconded the motion. A vote was taken. 5-0. THE MOTION PASSED

David Lyman/Milot Real Estate: Kinney Drugs Sign Review/Site Plan Revision: Tax Map #(08-01-06.320): Members: Tom McGlenn, Dick Jordan, Dennis Place, Ted Bloomhardt, Greg Waples

Sign Review: Greg Rabideau and Brett Grabowski gave an update on the signs they have proposed using. The following is the break down:

1. The Applicant is requesting approval for multiple signs for a proposed Kinney Drugs store (building C-1) on lot 40 in the Hinesburg Center project located in the Village Zoning District. This is a portion of the Lyman, Milot 12-lot subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD), located on the west side of Route 116 and the north side of Farmall Drive; parcel # 08-01-06.320. This project received final subdivision approval and conditional use & site plan approval on 9/7/2010.

2. One double-sided, free-standing sign is proposed along the Route 116 frontage, just south of the Kinney Drugs building – see the Site Plan (sheet 4 of 9). This sign is 12’4” tall with a sign area at the top of 16 square feet and “Kinney Drugs” text as shown on the plan. This is an internally illuminated sign with clear/white lettering and a dark blue background. The internal illumination for this sign consists of 3 florescent lamps.

3. Two wall mounted signs are proposed – one on the building’s east elevation (facing Route 116) and one on the west elevation as shown on the Exterior Elevations architectural plan (sheet A-2.1). The one on the east side will be 24 square feet in size (7’2” across and 40” high) with internally illuminated, dark blue channel letters spelling “Kinney Drugs” with an orange mortar and pestle graphic above the letter “K” as shown on the plan. The internal illumination will be by internal white LED lights. Another wall mounted sign is proposed above the drive thru on the building’s west facing side. This sign will be 4.67 square feet (7’ across and 8” high) with internally illuminated, dark blue channel letters (same method as above) spelling “Drive Thru Pharmacy”.

4. Pursuant to the previously approved conditional use and site plan, the Kinney Drugs hours of operation are Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 7 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.; Sunday, 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Section 5.4.5 #1 of the Zoning Regulations requires that internally illuminated signs not be lit when the premise is not open for business. This requirement significantly limits the number of hours these 3 signs will be illuminated.

5. Three non-illuminated directional signs (for the drive thru) are also proposed along Kaileys Way as shown on the Site Plan (sheet 4). These signs will be 3’6” tall with a sign area of 4 square feet and “Drive-Thru Pharmacy” text. Pursuant to section 5.4.3a & 5.4.9 #3 (Zoning Regulations), these directional signs do not require ZA or DRB approval.

6. The sign application was initially received on July 6, 2010 in conjunction with the original subdivision and site plan review; however, the Applicant withdrew the application at the 9/7/2010 meeting in order to address various issues. The revised application was received on October 19, 2010 and deemed complete on October 28, 2010. This application included:

a. Five sign plans and a memo by Kassis Superior Signs, dated 8/24/2010 and stamped received 10/19/2010

b. Acrylite specifications (3 pages) for the acrylic covering over the various internally illuminate signs – stamped received 10/28/2010.

c. Explanatory narrative in a letter by Greg Rabideau (project architect) – stamped received 10/28/2010.

d. Engineering Site Plan (sheet 4 of 9) by Llewellyn-Howley, dated 10/1/2008 and last revised 10/12/2010.

The Board wrapped up discussions on lighting on Farmall, LEED certification, responsibility of future HOA, hours signs will be lit, wall height of sign, stand alone sign.

Site Plan Revision Review:

The Applicant is requesting approval for site plan revisions to the Hinesburg Center Project, including specific changes to the proposed Kinney Drugs building (building C-1, lot 40). This is a portion of the Lyman, Milot 12-lot subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD), located on the west side of Route 116 and the north side of Farmall Drive; parcel # 08-01-06.320. This project received final subdivision approval and combined conditional use and site plan approval on 9/7/2010.

Approvals are requested for the follow aspects of the project:

1. Overall parking lot lighting plan revision. A significant reduction in the number of parking lot and street lights from what was previously approved. Type “A” lights reduced from 23 to 14 poles/fixtures.

2. Landscaping plan revisions. Minor modifications to original plan to: 1) comply with conditions of the 9/7/10 approval, and 2) make other minor changes to the placement and number of plantings.

3. Building elevation changes:

i. Addition of a small gabled roof section on north side of building, to provide another out of sight location (i.e., inside the gabled roof) for building mechanicals and more storage space.

ii. Relocation of an employee access door from the east face of the building (facing Route 116) to the north face of the building.

iii. Shifting of the main gabled roof section (facing Route 116, near entrance) a bit to the north to accommodate street tree plantings.

iv. Addition of canopies on either side of the entrance vestibule.

v. Slight increase in the wall height of the 1-story section of the building. Originally proposed for about 12’. Now proposed at 13.7’. This is proposed to accommodate what goes into the roof area – i.e., support beams, Kinney Drugs building exterior lighting. This was not reviewed previously.

Changes specific to the Kinney Drugs building include the new elevations and the exterior lighting. Changes to the overall site plan for the 12-lot Hinesburg Center Project include the parking lot lighting plan and the landscaping plan. As noted in Finding of Fact #11 and Order #1 of the 9/7/2010 approval, the Applicant plans to return to revise and update the site plan and obtain any additional conditional use approvals necessary when customers for and development of lots 42-48 are closer at hand and specific uses are better fleshed out.

The site plan application was initially received on October 19, 2010, and deemed complete on October 28, 2010. This application included:

a. Lot 34 Parking Lot Lighting Plan (sheet 1 of 1) by Llewellyn-Howley, dated 10/1/2008 and last revised 9/20/2010. Also a 9/21/2010 e-mail from the engineer (Skip McClellan) explaining several lighting level statistics.

b. Landscaping Plan (sheet L-1) by Rabideau Architects, dated 4/28/2010 and last revised 10/10/2010.

c. Exterior Elevations – Kinney Drugs (sheet A-2.1) by Rabideau Architects, dated 7/9/2010 and last revised 10/28/2010.

d. Reflected Ceiling /Lighting Plan (sheet A-1.4) by Rabideau Architects, dated 7/9/2010 and last revised 10/28/2010. Supporting lighting documents include 4 pages of exterior light fixture specifications (for E-1, E-2/E-2A, E-3).

Ted B moved to accept the draft as amended, Dennis P seconded the motion. A vote was taken. 5-0. THE MOTION PASSED.

Tom M made a motion to adjourn the night’s meeting, Dennis P seconded.

The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Next scheduled meeting December 7th.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mary Seemann

Recording Secretary