TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (DRB) MINUTES
Development Review Board Present: Tim Waker, John Kennedy, Cathy Stewart, Ray Ferrarin, John Watanabe.
Staff Present: Planning & Zoning Director Janet Hurley.
Also Present: Steven Bryant, Frank Parent, Tom Hoffman, Emily Waite, Ginny Baier, Kathe Dillmann, Jenny Foster, Seth Bongartz, Virginia Boshart, Greg Boshart, Bill Drunsic, Ed Morrow, Menno Van Burken, Sylvia Jolivette.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Waker called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Hurley read the remote meeting script, which is attached to these minutes and hereby incorporated. She asked participants to mute themselves unless speaking.
1. Pearl’s Place & Pantry, 1942 Depot Street, Design and site plan review for new 107 seat restaurant with a pickup service window, Application 2020-11-100.
Waker administered the oath to Steven Bryant, Frank Parent, Ginny Baier, and Tom Hoffman. Hurley displayed the latest revised site and landscaping plans on screen. Parent described site plan revisions including refinements around the building, full landscaping plan, narrowed Rootville Road driveway, and more landscaping proposed on the east property line (which necessitated a slight realignment of the rear driveway), and directional signage for the site. He noted that a survey is not yet available. The main parking lot, he explained, was reduced in size to generate more landscaped space between outdoor seating and the parking lot.
Waker asked whether there had been progress on reaching an agreement with the town on Butternut Lane improvements. Parent responded that intersection design still needed to be finalized with VTrans and Bryant is talking with John O’Keefe but no agreement has been reached yet. The issue of needing a waiver to have more than one curb cut was discussed. Parent explained that having an interior driveway would not work for the restaurant use on the site. He said that narrowing the entrances will offer better safety. After any potential reconfiguration of the East Manchester Road intersection with Depot Street, Parent felt it would make sense to consider closing off one of the drives to the main parking lot. There was discussion of whether a planting across from the Rootville Road exit would be called for. Bryant has reached out to Ruth Kent on this point.
There was discussion about the proposed dumpster enclosure. Design details will need to be shared with Regional Floodplain Manager John Broker-Campbell for his review because the dumpster location falls in the Flood Hazard Overlay. The exterior lighting plan is not yet finalized. Hoffman described the plans and Hurley displayed the previously approved fixtures on screen. Hurley indicated that a lighting plan will be needed from Parent once the lighting details are finalized. Waker noted that if overflow parking is regularly required, the applicant should come back with an expanded parking plan. There was discussion about how to delineate parking spaces in a gravel lot. This has not yet been settled. It was noted that design specifications for a bike rack should be submitted.
Hoffman provided some clarifications about the two different maples that are proposed to be planted around the site and described revised plans for the rear planting island and along the Bongartz property line. He noted that gates on dumpster enclosures often fail and these details are still being considered for this enclosure. Stewart asked about the uplights that are shown on trees in the outdoor seating patio. Hoffman explained that they are proposed to be mounted on the trees at 5-6’ to provide some of the necessary ambient lighting for the seating area, while highlighting the trees’ foliage. Stewart questioned whether these would contribute to sky glow. Hurley asked whether the tree canopy would prevent light from contributing to sky glow. DRB members asked for examples to be submitted. Hoffman said that the Taconic may use this type of light. He will provide examples to Hurley.
There was a discussion about the proposed fencing. One fence is aimed to provide an acoustic block of road noise from outdoor seating. Another to provide screening of rear operations from outdoor seating. Hoffman explained that the fencing will consist of a 2-sided wooden post and panel system. Hurley displayed two alternative examples that Hoffman had shared with her, a horizontal alternative and a more standard vertical alternative. Hoffman and others expressed a preference for the horizontal alternative. Ferrarin asked whether lighting should be proposed for the Rootville Road driveway. He suggested this might be considered as part of the waiver request in terms of the public safety criterion. Consideration of any adverse effects of lighting on neighbors will also be important.
There was some discussion of the proposed retractable awning and preparations for a pavilion that would be pursued separately in a future application. The design details of the awning need to be submitted. Kennedy asked for clarifications on the use of Norway spruce. Hoffman noted that none are proposed for planting on the Bongartz property any longer, but three are planned for the rear driveway island. Kennedy also asked whether a parking waiver would be needed. Parent indicated that he feels there is ample parking provided and described how overflow parking in the grass could be accessed via two parking spaces in the main lot.
Baier expressed disappointment that the plantings along her property line were no longer reflected on the plans. Hoffman explained the new plan to include plantings on the restaurant site itself instead. There was discussion about whether the new plan would be sufficient to block restaurant lighting from the Baier property. Bryant indicated he would plant the arborvitae on the Baier property if it was shown to be needed to prevent light trespass. Waker indicated he would like to evaluate the situation by visiting the site. Bongartz expressed that he really likes the new landscaping plan and appreciates the effort. He remarked that it will be attractive for Pearl’s Place and from the perspective of the Bongartz property. Hurley also remarked that the new plan provides better onsite landscaping.
Greg Boshart argued that the DRB is incorrect to characterize a pickup window service as not constituting a drive-thru and that such a drive-thru is not allowed in the MU3 district. He said that this service will lead to a problematic increase of traffic on Butternut Lane. His understanding of the intent of the ordinance prohibition is to limit transient restaurant activity. Waker distinguished this pickup window from the types of drive-thrus in which orders are placed in line from the car and prepared while the customer waits in the drive-thru line. He felt it an appropriate allowance to help restaurants adjust to a new reality. Boshart pushed back against allowing something the ordinance prohibits. Hurley suggested that this issue was decided after a separate hearing, the appeal period has passed, and this hearing was not the appropriate venue for resolving the conflict.
Boshart expressed that he is disappointed that the applicant had not involved him in the Butternut Lane discussion and he is concerned about the precedent that this will set. He reiterated that he does not agree with the DRB's interpretation of the ordinance. Watanabe suggested that a definition of pickup service is not provided in the ordinance. Boshart responded that a drive-thru is a drive-thru, that transient activity like this was not intended to be allowed in this zoning district. He said that he wants to be supportive of this new business effort but he is concerned about the zoning not be adhered to. Drunsic added that he had similar concerns and contacted Hurley about them. He rationalized this in the end as strictly a more convenient takeout service. He surmised that every restaurant along Route 11/30 may want to do the same, but their configurations would not allow it. He concluded that it was acceptable even if he agrees that the ordinance does not allow it.
Virginia Boshart expressed her concern that exiting Butternut Lane onto Depot Street is very challenging due to visibility issues and high speeds of oncoming traffic. Parent described planned improvements to Butternut Lane and the intersection (including widening, paving, and leveling up the intersection landing) that address these safety concerns. Hoffman added that installation of a speed indicator for westbound traffic ahead of the Butternut Lane intersection would be helpful. Bryant summarized that the pickup service is aimed for Stratton bound visitors, that he is working to improve the look of a neglected commercial site (removal of the solar panels being one aspect of this aesthetic improvement), and that he is going above and beyond with a landscaping plan. He pledged to continue to work with neighbors.
Ferrarin motioned to continue the hearing to April 7, 2021. Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
2. REE&C Capital Management Services, Inc., 39 & 41 Bonnet Street, Design & site plan review for building addition, retaining wall, expanded parking, and outdoor seating arrangements, Application 2021-02-005.
Waker administered the oath to Bill Drunsic, Frank Parent, Ed Morrow and Sylvia Jolivette. Hurley displayed the plans onscreen. Drunsic described the retaining wall and adjacent site development, including five new table pads for outdoor seating. Waker asked how the retaining wall will be tied so that it does not fall over. Drunsic explained it is an interlocking system that tilts inward. Morrow expressed concerns about stormwater flow and asked whether the site engineering addresses stormwater issues. Drunsic noted that there will be an overall decrease in impervious cover with the demolition of the barn. The wall will be backfilled with open graded stone that will function as an infiltration basin. Parent confirmed this.
Morrow asked whether the new paving would be pervious or impervious. Drunsic explained that he is considering either pervious pavement or a swale. Waker asked how pervious paving works in the winter. Drunsic responded that he is not convinced it does, which is why he is not decided on that option. Parent explained it as a maintenance issue in which sand applied in the winter can interfere with the porousness of the pavement if not properly monitored. Kennedy explored whether the retaining wall would be complementary to the bookstore property landscaping. Morrow considered its appearance and decided it would not have excessive reveal, was attractive enough, well screened from bookstore parking, and he suggested he could add plantings against it if need be.
Drunsic described the proposed kitchen addition and wrap-around porch. He explained the porch will allow outdoor seating to be under cover, and noted that building historically had a front porch that will be recreated and carried around to the south side. Morrow expressed approval of recreation of this historic aspect of the building.
Waker stressed the need for a complete landscape plan that addresses what will happen to stormwater onsite. Drunsic reiterated that stormwater will be absorbed through ground infiltration. Waker asked whether water and sewer allocation for the property was adequate for increased outdoor seating. Drunsic said he would address water and sewer needs with Town Manager John O’Keefe. Waker asked what the roofing would consist of on the porch. Hurley explained that the plans show a rubber roof, but Drunsic prefers a copper standing seam if he can get the necessary pitch. These alternative were reviewed by the Design Advisory Committee and the committee was okay with either option because a rubber roof would not be visible. Kennedy asked whether the marble patio would be affected by the kitchen addition. Drunsic explained that it would not.
Kennedy asked about the side setback. Hurley explained that no setback is required in this DN district. Morrow offered that he sees the project as a beneficial addition to the streetscape. Ferrarin asked about lighting. Drunsic answered that it would consist of recessed lighting in the porch ceiling.
Kennedy motioned to close the hearing. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
3. Van Burken, 464 Hillcrest Road, Waiver request from side setback for garage expansion, Application 2021-02-007.
Waker administered the oath to Menno Van Burken. Van Burken described his plans for a small garage addition to store his tools and function as a workshop so that he can reclaim his garage for parking two cars. He responded to each of the waiver criteria in turn. Hurley displayed Van Burken’s site and elevation sketches onscreen, along with imagery of the site. Van Burken estimated the addition would involve and 5 to 7 foot encroachment and that the neighbors are okay with it. Van Burken noted that originally he had planned for a door on the side, which would have caused further encroachment. He has removed the door element and said he will retain the existing trees and shrubs in the vicinity of the property line. Originally, Van Burken had planned a 12’ rather than 10’ foot addition, but reduced it to minimize the encroachment. He maintained that ten feet is needed for a functional workshop.
Kennedy motioned to extend the meeting for ten minutes until 9:40 p.m. Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Kennedy asked whether Van Burken could secure a note from the neighbor confirming agreement with the plan. Van Burken responded that he could.
Watanabe motioned to approve the waiver with the condition that written confirmation of agreement from the neighbor is provided and to close the hearing. Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
4. Minutes of the January 7, 2021, Meeting.
Stewart motioned to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2021. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
5. Other Business.
In addition to the continued Pearl’s Place hearing, Hurley noted that there was a minor subdivision, and two potential site plan applications from downtown restaurants for the April 7, 2021, meeting.
Ferrarin motioned to go into closed deliberative session. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 9:33. Hurley stopped recording accordingly.
_____________________________________ ______________________
For the Development Review Board Date