Town of Hinesburg
Planning Commission Meeting
October 13, 2010
- Approved October 27, 2010 -
Members Present: Bob Linck, Carrie Fenn, Johanna White, Tom Ayer, Jean Isham, Ray Mainer, Joe Iadanza
Members Absent: Tim Clancy
Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Planning/Zoning Director), Mary Seemann (Recording Secretary), Andrea Morgante (Selectboard), Ken Brown, Fred Haulenbeek
Jean I called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Future of West Side Road through Saputo/Redstone Property: Jean I stated that Alex Weinhagen had sent each member a feasibility study for this item making points on: original rationale for West Side Road, current conditions and likely future need, and alternatives to vehicular access. Jean I asked the Commissioners what their current thoughts were on the material.
Carrie F said she liked the idea of getting some of the local traffic off Route 116. She stressed that the town now has the opportunity with the Saputo/Redstone property to work on options, if the Commissioners feel they are going to do anything ever on the West Side Road.
Jean I said one of her concerns is the wetlands issue. Jean asked Andrea Morgante if she had any thoughts on this.
Andrea M said she had gone back through Faith Ingulsrud’s notes from 1995 which appears to be the origin/idea of the West Side Road and read a list of questions Faith had made regarding the road. Andrea M looked at the feasibility study done in 2004 or 2005 and the studies did not get into what the issues were around flood plains and wetlands. She felt it tended to underscore what those issues would be. She went on to say she didn’t think that information was made available enough or understood enough to know what the consequences of wetlands are with respect to putting a road in.
This led to discussions on the time frame for starting the road, cost of bridges to cross Patrick Brook, Hinesburg staying a one road town, the monies the town would have to collect to pay for roads and sidewalks, the possibility of the road ending at the Saputo property and not connect to the Charlotte Road, and keeping the option of putting in a road in the future. Jean I said she noticed in the feasibility study it talked about a road going from Charlotte Road to Silver Street. She didn’t think the Planning Commission ever gave that any serious consideration. It was agreed the Commissioners did not want to lose the option for having the road as they do see the need for another road in town. Jean I stated if the option for the road was removed they most likely would not be able to get it back.
Andrea M stated the assumption is that the road is not going to be a bypass highway it is an economic driver; to drive development, to allow access for shops and residential growth. Andrea pointed out that where the road is located now it does not allow for development near it because there are wetlands and flood plains located to the west side of it. She thinks the full concept of the road really needs to be discussed; whether or not it is going to generate the opportunity for a lot of growth. Andrea stated if the Commissioners do not stick with their vision they will mostly likely end up with the developers vision and for that reason she feels it should be kept on the official map.
Joe I said he understood Andrea’s point and he agreed with a lot of them, especially that the road has to have economic viability. He went on to state he was worried if the town does not get alternative access besides Route 116, it would not be economically viable to have shops or restaurants on the property. Joe said what it comes down to is “do we want to be a one road town forever?”
Alex W said he had talked to the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) staff the previous week about this and they did not have any magic wand or wisdom to share. He said they saw the pros and cons of the idea and the most pressing question “Should the West Side Road connect through the Saputo/Redstone property?” Alex said the CCMPO did clarify that the water crossings are likely going to be a responsibility that a public entity (town) is going to have to pick up. He said the CCMPO also clarified that it is unlikely any federal dollars would flow to those projects. Alex said the town’s ability to pay for road improvements right now is zero.
Jean I asked Fred Haulenbeek, (a former Commissioner) what his thoughts were as he has worked on this project more than anyone on the Commission has. Fred H said with Saputo out and with the proposed development he thinks it is more important that the road be a reality more than ever before for the health of all the businesses that will be going in. He felt if the only major access is off Route 116 during the busiest times for businesses when cars are stacked up and can hardly get in or out, that is not a very healthy thing to portray as far as people wanting to develop here. He stated that as they move away from the one manufacturing plant to multiple uses and lots of different retail, it is more vital that it goes through. It was also discussed if now is the time for the road to be built the town may have to purchase some of the property.
Joe I said they needed to be looking beyond what is the best for this one developer and as a Planning Commission look at what’s best for the community. He said their interest has been somehow to foster connectivity between this growth area and the Village Center.
Having a second access, whether vehicular or pedestrian is what is going to foster that connectivity. If the Commissioners give that up it may be good for the developer but is bad for the greater plan north of there.
Carrie F said she can envision a pedestrian bridge over the West Side Road that would bring the people from a parking area to the west end of the building. One thing Doug Nedde said is there is a liability with people crossing a road to get into a business building. She said this is the time the Planning Commission has to insist on the vision on the official map to have that space left for a side road, a connector.
Jean I said she felt it is too early to think about giving up the ability to have it regardless of what form it takes in the future, the town needs to keep the ability there through the official map.
Jean I asked if anyone disagreed with that and wanted further discussion. Andrea M said she would like to think about the West Side Road going further north than the Saputo. She pointed out Marshall Avenue in Williston was an example of building roads and retail in wetland areas.
There was a tremendous amount of mitigation that the town and private developers had to do there. She said the layout was industrial buildings blocked out on little islands of upland with all the wetlands in between them. She said she is afraid that Hinesburg will end up with a similar kind of development when we cross Patrick Brook to the north onto the Bissonette property because of how much wetland is there.
Fred H said when he was on the commissions they had discussed having a wetland delineation before any development is done and it was decided that they wouldn’t. They would allow it to be an adversarial situation. He stated some wetland delineations got done without the Commissions approval and that has somehow found its way to the map and has become gospel. He doesn’t think that should have occurred. He stated if he were on the Commission he would be advocating to throw the delineation map away.
Bob L said he would want to know where the wetlands were as soon as possible so he would know what his constraints were instead of letting it go to a piecemeal approach which would gradually eat away at the wetlands and potentially have impacts on important natural resources.
Alex W said they are at that adversarial point now, where they have one delineation map that says there is quite a lot of wetlands and then there is the developers delineation map based on today’s data and backed up the Army Corps of Engineers inspection that there is nothing. It is a very muddy picture.
Jean I stated her concern is if it (delineation) was removed from the map then the Commission removes its options, whether it is for vehicular or pedestrian; but if it were to remain on the map it doesn’t mean changes can’t be made in the future as things progress.
Related Official Map Revision (future roads, sidewalks, trails, community facilities)
Alex W thought that while the Commission was spending much of their time talking about the West Side Road, it was important to note that as the Commission does permanent zoning for the Saputo property there are other official map elements that impact the property. They are: a road along the current access drive out to Route 116, a sidewalk along that road out to Route 116, a sidewalk along the West Side Road and two trails; one along the canal leading to Route 116 and one along the existing VAST trail down by the LaPlatte River. He said the Mechanicsville Road intersection is identified as an intersection that may be in need of future improvements, that’s identified on the official map and impacts the property. Then there was a cross-check of the whole property and it was found there is a wide variety of Community facilities that could possible be located here; recreation, storm water treatment etc. He stated to the Commissioners that it may be time to be thinking about being more specific regarding those elements in terms of revising or refining the official map so the developer and the Development Review Board know where they might want the recreation fields to go on the parcel rather than just saying it’s the whole parcel. If they think it looks good the way it is then nothing will have to be changed.
Jean I asked how the sidewalks and trails were delineated for the official map? Did the info come from the Trails Committee, and if the community facilities were designated as part of the Saputo Redevelopment Committee.
Alex W said the sidewalks were just placed along side the road network assuming that if there would be a road there would be sidewalks along it. Alex said he couldn’t remember how much input came from the Trails Committee. As for the community facilities, when they were placed on the map it was done to recognize we might want recreation fields on the southwest side where there is no development now, we might want a municipal storm water treatment facility to take advantage of the lagoons if they weren’t going to be used for anything else. He stated that if the Commissioners were not clear on what they want how could the developer have a conversation with them. If the official map is exceedingly vague as to whether or not there would be a conflict, it makes it very difficult for the DRB to make any kind of judgment.
Jean I asked Andrea Morgante, from the Selectboard, if they had any thoughts on storm water for this property. Andrea M said there is the municipal planning grant the town received to study the lagoons for storm water treatment.
This led to a discussion of amending the official map, having Doug N from Redstone attend a meeting as well as some Selectboard members. Jean I said this would be helpful to take a step forward on the official map.
Carrie F stated the road that is on the official map coming off of Route 116 that is access both in and out of the property, is a must to keep on the map. The Commission should insist that it be kept as well as the sidewalks and trail.
Andrea M said the putting the roads in and making them feel like public roads, making them so you wouldn’t feel like you were driving into an industrial site is what will begin to make it feel like it’s connected to the Village, not just an industrial park. She said she didn’t know if Doug N fully understands that anything he does on the property means he will have to do something to those roads. She said at the last meeting she got the impression Doug N felt he could just leave those roads the way they are even as development on a private right-of-way.
Alex W said Doug N had said that the cost of bringing those roads up to the town standard and that would be prohibitive and also got the feeling Doug N felt if the roads stayed private he wouldn’t have to invest much monies in them.
Alex W said no matter what regulations the Commission passes, the DRB will have to wrestle with what is an appropriate site plan for the property, with regard to access and parking regardless of what the ownership is.
Andrea M said it should be worked on before presenting it to the DRB. Jean I said there are ways to think about this, to encourage rather than mandate. She said that mandating doesn’t look like a workable solution.
Alex W said it would be great as the Commission calls out these future public elements on the official map if there were some financial resources to back them up. He gave an example; if the Commission/town wants a public road where there is now a private driveway there seems to be some responsibility on the part of the town to bring some resources to the table and not pretend that the developer is going to make it all happen. He stated this is true for many roads on the official map; the Center Road behind Lantman’s, and the Riggs Road concept that extends it to CVU Road.
Jean I asked if the Commissioners wanted to move on to take a look at the rezoning proposals.
Saputo Rezoning
Alex W said at the last meeting there was a draft on the table and the one tonight is the new version. The previous version had three districts and the area closest to Route 116 was termed the Village Center District, which had a list of allowed uses and purpose for that district. He said at the last meeting there was a discussion on not having district lines split the building and allowing the uses inside the industrial 3 district spread out to the east. In the process of doing this it made the Village Center district so small that there was a suggestion that rather than creating a separate district just combine it with the surrounding Village District. This is what the latest draft does.
Alex W then went on to say at the last meeting Doug N had some concerns regarding the word “compatible”. Doug N was worried about how the word would be interpreted differently by different parties. Doug N was also concerned about the West Side Road, not knowing how the Commission was going to come down on that. Alex W said Doug N was also concerned about the “should explore storm water treatment options”. Doug N wanted to know what the Commission meant; will it mean it will have to rise to a standard that’s above what the state would require with the Act 250 process?
Jean I said in the Industrial 3 district it looked like “and other commercial businesses” had been added. Alex W said it had and discussed the previous vision for that district.
Bob L said he is confused about that wording. He said he is conflicted by the sense there is an Industrial 3 District that they are trying to preserve as an industrial district when it is not out of the realm of possibilities that this could just become offices which does not achieve the industrial goal at all. He said he is worried that this will leave it open enough that the DRB could be confronted with something that they would pretty much have to say yes to.
Tom A said the whole back of the building is really not suitable for offices, professional offices anyway.
Andrea M said there is 4,000sf of office space and suggested the area be moved to Conditional Use with a percentage in there that could be used for offices. Most of the Commissioners thought this would be a good idea. Alex W said he would look into that possibility further.
Jean I said her concern is that there is not a lot of viable space for light industry, light manufacturing, she stated her concern is that the vision isn’t to do away with the industrial and manufacturing end of it, but this looked to her like it could lead to that.
She asked how loose does the Commission want to make the regulations as far as the different types of businesses that could go in there.
Alex W said part of the developers rationale in asking for as much flexibility and as many uses as possible is it would allow him to fill the spaces quickly so this particular spot doesn’t remain a vacant eyesore.
Jean I said she didn’t think they could make a final decision until they start getting some public input on it. Alex W said there needs to be something for the public to react to.
Bob L said he would advocate putting in Conditional Uses with the possibility of putting on a cap for office space.
Alex W said he would do another draft for all to look at then possibly plan for a public hearing. There was a discussion on the earliest the Commission could take this to a public hearing. Alex said it would take a warning of 15 days prior to the date. He looked at the deadline for the Hinesburg Record and then there was a discussion on where it would have to be warned. With some adjustment to meeting dates it looks like the earliest public hearing could be held is on December 8th, provided the Commission would be ready.
Minutes of September 22nd: After some corrections Tom Ayer made a motion to accept as amended, Ray Mainer seconded. A vote was taken. THE MOTION PASSED
Ray Mainer made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Johanna White seconded.
The nights meeting adjourned at 10 p.m.
Next scheduled meeting: October 27th.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Seemann
Recording Secretary