TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD (DAB) MINUTES
Committee Attendees: Joelle Greenland, John Watanabe, Ramsay Gourd.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director).
Public Attendees: Ginny Baier, Catherine Cech, Seth Bongartz, Steven Bryant, Frank Parent, Tom Hoffman, Bill Drunsic, Stephen Drunsic, Kyle Murphy, Luz Llano.
Hurley began recording and asked participants to remain muted unless speaking. Greenland called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with committee members Greenland, Gourd, and Watanabe present via Zoom. Greenland stated that the committee was authorized to meet electronically by addendum 6 of executive order 01-20 and Act 92 of the Vermont legislature in response to the COVID-19 threat.
1. Catherine Cech, DMD, 5271 Main Street, New entryway plan.
Hurley displayed floor plans on screen. Cech described her building and plans to enclose the front entryway. Hurley showed a site plan and elevation drawings from the file that illustrate the existing covered entryway, as well as a Google Street View image that shows the existing doorway. Cech explained that the door would simply be moved to the outer newly constructed exterior wall and retain is current color. The siding and trim would match existing. Her main clinic entrance would remain at the rear of the building off of the parking lot. Hurley noted that Cech has an upcoming meeting with Fire Marshal Matt Jakubowski and asked Cech to bring any resulting design changes back to the committee for review. Gourd motioned to recommend approval of the project as submitted. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0-0. Hurley indicated that she would work up a permit and get it to Cech soon.
2. Pearl’s Place, 1942 Depot Street, Revised site and landscaping plan. Application 2020-11-100.
Gourd recused himself as he serves on the applicant team for this project. Parent described revisions to the site plan, including a narrower Depot Street driveway and tree planting along Depot Street. Hoffman explained that overhead power lines area a factor and these trees are salt tolerant maples of medium and larger sized growth habits. Watanabe asked about the two lamps on either side of the driveway. Parent indicated that the existing would be removed but that specifications for new ones have not been finalized. Gourd added that they would reflect the vocabulary of the other site lighting. Parent described contemplated dine in and pick up directional signage. He noted that the site plan shows that potential vehicle stacking on the rear drive meets setback requirements.
Greenland asked if overflow parking would be provided. Parent indicated that overflow could occur on grass area. Greenland noted that a few parking spaces have been eliminated in the main lot. Bryant confirmed that 6 to 8 have been removed in the new configuration. Parent said there is parking for 107 restaurant seats. Watanabe asked how spaces might be delineated. Parent said that aside from the ADA spaces reserved with signage, delineation had not yet been determined.
Watanabe asked whether the dumpster would be fenced. Parent indicated that it would be fenced on four sides at 1 foot above grade. Hurley offered that depending on the fence design, it may not need to be situated 1 foot above grade to allow for flood waters to pass though at base flood elevation. Hoffman said that the final design is to be determined but it would be in keeping with the architecture of the building and likely consist of 6 foot high post and panel system. Hurley noted that because it will be within the Flood Hazard Overlay, it will need to be reviewed by Regional Floodplain Manager John Broker-Campbell.
Hoffman indicated there would be fencing along the new ramp structure to block road noise for the outdoor seating area. He said the pavilion indicated on the plans may or may not be pursued in later phases of the project. Bryant confirmed that he would pursue approval for a pavilion in a future application. Watanabe asked if there would be any landscaping around the dumpster. Hoffman responded that there would not be, but the area would be screened by plantings around the seating area. He pointed out that rolling bins next to the loading dock would also be screened by plantings. Watanabe asked about the privacy fencing referred to on the site plan. Hoffman said it would be a post and panel system, but whether vertical or horizontal has not yet been decided. Greenland asked how tall it would be. Hoffman confirmed it would be 6 feet in height.
Hurley asked whether there would be any screening along the Butternut Lane driveway. Hoffman indicated that after meeting with abutting landowner Bongartz, the evergreens shown on the Bongartz lands would not be planted. However, Hoffman indicated that additional arborvitae plantings were offered to Baier to screen her view of the rear of the restaurant. Hurley displayed an image showing Baier’s house from the rear of the restaurant. Baier confirmed that she would like the additional arborvitae to address her concerns about lights from the restaurant shining into her house at night.
Parent described work contemplated and shown for Butternut Lane. Watanabe asked whether plowing of Butternut Lane might be an issue for snowy evenings. Bongartz remarked that the town plowing of Butternut Lane is generally timely. There was discussion about whether there would be any plantings along the Butternut Lane property line. Bryant indicated he would like to reserve this area to be available for future expansion of the septic system or other uses.
Watanabe motioned to recommend approval of the site and design plan as presented provided outstanding lighting and fencing details are shared with the committee prior to their final approval. Greenland seconded the motion. The motion carried 2-0-1, with Gourd recusing himself.
3. REE&C Capital Management Services, Inc., 39 & 41 Bonnet Street, Building addition, retaining wall, expanded parking, and outdoor seating arrangement, Application 2021-01-004.
B. Drunsic explained his two-part project involving a building addition and parking lot expansion. A 22’x14’ addition on the north end of the building will accommodate food preparation. A wrap around porch on the east (front) and south (main entrance) sides will accommodate outdoor eating. The building historically had a porch on the front side. This plan would extend that historic porch to the south side. Although the plans show a membrane roof on the porch, Drunsic would prefer copper standing seam if he can get adequate pitch. The painting scheme would match the existing, and foundation plantings ae contemplated as shown.
Gourd referenced the anomalous timber framing on the south side and observed that the new porch would not include timber framing. He judged that snow slide onto the wrap around porch roof could be a problem and recommended snow guards on the slate roof above. B. Drunsic noted that he has snow guards on the other side and could install the same on this side if he cannot get sufficient pitch on the porch roof. Gourd noted that the rolled rubber roofing would not be visible from the ground and suggested that it may be best for this application. Drunsic reiterated his preference for copper.
Hurley asked whether windows would be removed from the second floor north façade. B. Drunsic confirmed that two windows would be removed so that the new roof pitch on the one story addition would match that of the main structure. Watanabe asked how far out the exhaust pipe extended from the façade. Drunsic indicated it would extend 18-24” much like the one on the adjacent bookstore structure. Greenland asked about the landscaping. Drunsic said it would consist of a low flowering shrub.
The second aspect of the project involves the installation of a retaining wall, split rail fencing, arborvitae plantings, table pads, and expanded parking. Gourd asked what happens at the northwest corner of the retaining wall. Parent indicated that there is an abrupt tapper in the topography at this location. Gourd asked what the wall would look like. Hurley displayed the example provided while B. Drunsic described it as a decorative block with cobblestone look. Greenland asked if there would be parking stops to prevent customers from driving over the edge of the wall. Drunsic indicated that the split rail fencing would help to prevent this. There was a brief discussion about the table pads and Drunsic said the design details for these are not finalized.
Gourd motions to recommend approval provided outstanding design details will be shared before installation. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0-0.
4. Skinner Point Park Plan Update.
Hurley reported that she met on site with Tom Hoffman, John O’Keefe, and Brian Van Horn. It was generally agreed and confirmed that aside from the mature oak tree, existing trees should be removed. She said they do not offer adequate screening of the substation and that the brush is what primarily screens the substation currently. Hoffman added that there is a fungus that affects Spruce causing them to loose needles after a few seasons from the bottom of the tree up. This is why they would not offer the necessary screening. Hoffman offered that it is best to take them all down and start with a clean slate. He recommended installation of a green fence with plantings of an arborvitae called Green Giant. He said they are deer resistant and a sweeping tree. Gourd asked how tall these would get and how fast they would grow. Hoffman responded that they grow 3-5’ per year topping out at 30 feet. He, Hurley and O’Keefe discussed an 8-10’ size at planting.
B. Drunsic asked about base expansion of this cultivar and whether there would be room to accommodate expansion. Hoffman explained that it has not been possible to shoot grades due to snow cover, but that regrading should displace runoff rather than pipe it. He suggested that water should be pushed toward Starbucks and preserving the oak tree would be an important consideration. He said that the Green Giants would be about 15 feet wide at base and that the plantings could be staggered. There would be space for ten specimens. He expressed a desire to contemplate an alternative to the T-shape walkway design, incorporating any ADA standards. He offered that a conceptual plan will be drawn once grades are shot. Committee members expressed concern about moving forward before funding or a final plan is in place. They requested that Hurley pass along their recommendation to O’Keefe and the Selectboard that trees and brush should not be removed until there is a fully developed plan.
5. Orchid, LLC, 5940 Main Street, Preliminary discussion of new design concept for the Aeolus Hotel and Spa.
B. Drunsic introduced the project team of S. Drunsic, architect Murphy, and site engineer Parent. S. Drunsic explained the reconceptualization of the new Orchid project as a major departure from the previously approved Aeolus project. He characterized the previously approved hotel structure as monolithic falling within a narrow commercially zoned ban on the property. He noted that the recent change in zoning allowed better use of the topography of the full site with less site disturbance and minimized impacts from a grading perspective. At the same time it allows relocation of the hotel structure to take better advantage of the viewshed. The concept aims to break up the massing and offer a smaller main structure with some separate cabins.
S. Drunsic shared illustrations of the new single loaded corridor concept on screen. The footprint is brought down to 50,000 sq. ft. from the previously approved 80,000 sq. ft. Interior renderings show that the new concept will take advantage of the property’s best asset – its viewshed. He explained that very single room has a south facing view. Gourd expressed enthusiastic approval of the concept. He noted that the DAC will be most concerned about what the project will look like from the street and from the neighbor’s perspectives. Drunsic noted that the new concept minimizes both visual and noise impacts. There will be no rooftop bar and patio as was previously approved. In addition, the developed features are all pushed south away from the neighbors above. He indicated that at 30 feet in height it would be visible from the street here and there.
Murphy added that the structure follows site topography as closely as possible. He display on screen a model view from a northerly perspective. Gourd reiterated that the DAC would be interested in street perspectives. S. Drunsic continued showing depictions of a charred wood cladding. He reiterated that the new concept is rooted in what Vermont is about. It will celebrate what will be one-of-a kind panoramic views of the valley, each room with a view framing a Vermont scene. He concluded that the massing will be sensitive to the residences above and street views will be provided.
Greenland noted that the DAC will be concerned with evaluation of nighttime appearance, sound acoustics, and any negative externalities. Watanabe expressed enthusiasm for the new concept and remarked that he was not hearing any negative feedback from committee members. Greenland said that this concept raises the bar to say “these are the standards that we want to see in Manchester.” She offered that it provides fabulous integration with the landscape. B. Drunsic expressed appreciation for the positive feedback and consideration by the committee.
6. Minutes of January 27, 2021.
Watanabe motioned to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2021, meeting as prepared. Gourd seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0-0.
7. Other Business
No other business was reported. The next meeting of the committee will be Wednesday, March 24, 2021.
Gourd motioned to adjourn. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
___________________________________________ _____________________________
For the Design Advisory Committee Date