TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (DRB) MINUTES
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Development Review Board Present: Tim Waker, John Watanabe, Ray Ferrarin, Cathy Stewart, John Kennedy.
Staff Present: Planning & Zoning Director Janet Hurley.
Also Present: Steven Bryant, Frank Parent, Tom Hoffman, Ramsay Gourd, Ginny Baier, Michael Zoufaly, Kathe Dillmann, Greg Boshart, Sara Buckley, Ryan Downey, Debbie Hayes-McGraw, Steve Adams, Polly Raine, Paul Bogossian, Sam Johnson, Paul Carroccio, Marek Kovac.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Waker called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Hurley initiated recording and read the remote meeting script, which is attached to these minutes and hereby incorporated. She asked participants to mute themselves unless speaking. Waker took a roll call of board members.
1. Pearl’s Place & Pantry, 1942 Depot Street, Design and site plan review for new restaurant, Application 2020-11-100.
Waker administered the oath to Frank Parent, Steven Bryant, Ramsay Gourd, Tom Hoffmann, Greg Boshart, Mike Zoufaly, and Ginny Baier. Hurley displayed the latest revised site and landscaping plans on screen, along with lighting specifications and a bike rack. Parent described site plan revisions including refinements to the landscaping plan and parking lot (with n change in the number of spaces). He said this updated site plan reflects the recently completed survey and confirms that all improvements are on the property. Parent indicated that the applicant is still trying to work out an agreement with the Town concerning Butternut Lane improvements. The plan shows the intersection with flattened grading and shifted to the south. He explained that if an agreement is not reached, the pickup service would not be initiated nor would the landscape screening along the rear property line be installed.
Waker asked for confirmation that the Butternut Lane driveway would only be used for employee parking and service deliveries if an agreement on Butternut Lane improvements is not reached. Parent confirmed this would be the case. Waker proceeded through the six waiver criteria:
1. Parent indicated it was a restaurant with three entrances before and will continue as a restaurant with the three same entrances.
2. Parent argued that continued use of the three curb cuts will not impair the use of neighboring property, but if the pickup service is instituted the rear property line plantings will be installed to screen the service.
3. Parent maintained that keeping all three curb cuts is the safest option for now.
4. Parent confirmed that it would be beneficial for the continuing use of the property and noted that safety improvements will be made.
5. Parent indicated that the curb cuts would be narrowed and better defined than they are currently.
6. Keeping all three existing curb cuts is the least deviation possible from the standard of limiting one curb cut per lot.
Waker asked about the proposed dumpster enclosure in the flood hazard. Hurley explained that Regional Floodplain Manager John Broker-Campbell has reviewed the plan for a fence beginning at one foot above grade and has issued his approval. Stewart spoke to the issue of the lighting proposed in the trees. She pointed out that the ordinance requires lighting to be fully shielded and aimed no higher than 45 degrees above straight down (Hurley displayed Section 9.5.3 onscreen). She said she would not support approval of these lights.
Kennedy asked how much each curb cut was used historically. He surmised that any East Manchester intersection correction will take quite a while and asked how people would be directed to the safest exit in the meantime. Parent suggested if the intersection were to be realigned that both the Depot Street and Rootville curb cuts would be closed and a new more central one would be constructed, keeping the balance of what is there in the meantime. Kennedy asked what the Butternut Lane intersection accident history was. Parent said he did not research that question.
Watanabe asked for confirmation that there would be no pickup window is Butternut Lane is not improved. Parent confirmed this would be the case. Watanabe asked about the timeline for these communications with the Town. Parent indicated they were ongoing. Watanabe asked Hoffmann and Gourd to speak to the issue of the tree lighting. Hoffmann said these lights would have less impact than holiday lights. It would produce a subliminal lighting focused into the foliage, not through the foliage producing upward light pollution. They would be 90 lumen fixtures that would be adjusted as the trees grow. They are meant to produce ambient, very low impact light. Stewart asked Hurley to display the tree lighting photos that were submitted. Hoffmann said that these examples are much brighter than what is proposed here. Gourd agreed with that the photos depict a more forceful exposure than what is proposed.
Ferrarin asked about light levels proposed for the Rootville Road curb cut. He is concerned that is it very dark there and could be unsafe. He asked whether the parking lot lighting is sufficient to make this a safe driveway. Hurley displayed the light spread model and suggested that the illumination would be no more than 0.1 lumens. Gourd explained that the parking lot lights are primarily for pedestrians to be able to navigate the parking lot safely. He argued a brightly lit curb cut is not necessary pedestrians will not be out that far from the parking lot and cars will have headlights. Ferrarin questioned the purpose of pole lights on either side of the Depot Street entrance. Hoffmann indicated that very few people are expected to enter via Rootville Road. Parent added that the lights at the Depot Street curb cut will highlight that as the main entrance. He pointed out that adding lights to the Rootville Road curb cut is not desirable due to adjacent residential use. Ferrarin indicated he could go along with that if the DRB could revisit if it proves to present a safety issue. Ferrarin pointed out that the site plan shows only one of the two proposed pole lights at the Depot Street entrance.
Waker asked for more comparison of the tree lighting to holiday lighting. Hoffmann explained that the goal is to see only reflection off the leaves, not the hot spot of the lighting. Watanabe asked if the leaves would act as shields. Hoffman said they would. He noted that they would need to be tweeked as the trees grow. He said the intent is to show this reflected light off the leaves at eye level. There will need to be a careful balance with the other task lighting so that one does not wash out the other. The goal will be to keep lighting at a comfortable level. Waker asked if the intent was not to provide lighting with the tree lights, but to add ambiance. Hoffman confirmed that would be the intent.
Zoufaly asked about the proposed reconfiguration of the Rootville Road curb cut. He suggested that the southerly side stay angled as is. He also noted that due to the upward incline, drivers exit at speed. Parent explained that the driveway would be leveled out and said that keeping the angled southerly side is feasible because almost no traffic is expected to enter at this curb cut so a symmetrical two-way intersection is not necessary. Waker pointed out that this could minimize the effect of headlights on the residential property across from the driveway. Waker asked Hurley whether the typical standard could be disregarded here. Hurley reasoned that the DRB could approve this as an alternative if it made better sense here.
Zoufaly asked if the proposed parking lot lights would illuminate his house across Rootville Road from the site. Gourd indicated they would not cast light across the street and were only intended to provide light for pedestrians within the parking lot. It was noted that the parking lot is about 50 feet away from the road. There was discussion about the Rootville Road utility pole light shown on the plans.
Baier asked about the height of the trees with the proposed lighting would be. Hoffmann said they would be 16 feet tall at planting and they would mature to 60 feet. The lights would be mounted at about six feet off the ground and will require readjustment as the trees grow. Baier suggested that they would add to light pollution and that the regulations have a purpose. She said she opposes the tree lights. Hoffmann assured that they would constitute a tasteful application. Gourd suggested the applicant set up a demonstration of this lighting. He said he understands the concerns and perhaps such a demonstration could ease the concerns. Baier agreed that would be a good idea.
Zoufaly asked whether the Rootville Road driveway be one-way for exit only. Parent said that it could and could be signed that way, but that people would not head the signage. Gourd added that those who do head the signage might use Zoufaly’s lot to turn around.
Ferrarin motioned to close the hearing to April 7, 2021. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
2. Sara Buckley, 2832 & 2834 Richville Road, Final plat review for 2-lot subdivision. Application 2021-02-009.
Waker administered the oath to Ryan Downey. Hurley displayed the plans onscreen. Downey described the subdivision plan. He explained there is no water or wastewater infrastructure on the proposed Lot 2 containing the existing barns. A 50 foot wide delineated easement across Lot 2 is proposed to provide access to properties along Airport Road. Waker asked about the separate curb cuts and elevation differences. Downey described Lot 1 with the house above, and Lot 2 with the barns below.
Waker asked if Downey had a lot coverage measure for Lot 2. Downey calculated it to be 45.79%. Waker asked about the concrete barriers that Hurley’s review suggested should be removed from the Flood Hazard Overlay. Downey explained that they were set there at the Town Manager’s request that the property line be delineated to prevent encroachment onto the adjacent town property. Hurley concurred that the Town Manager wants the property line to be demarcated.
Waker asked whether the applicant would agree to a condition that the excavation use be vacated when Steve Adams ceases operations on the site. Downey said the applicant would not accept that condition. The object was to create a marketable lot and such a restriction would impair that. He suggested that any new user would have to get DRB approval. Hurley said that would not necessarily be the case if it was a continuation of the same use. There was some discussion about how long Adams’ use had been there. Adams was no longer present to confirm. Waker asked if Downey would show FHO and APO zoning on the plat. Downey confirmed that he would. Waker asked if the proposed E911 changes were acceptable to the applicant. Downey said they were.
Stewart motioned to close the hearing. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
3. Friends of Hildene, Inc., 1520-1884 River Road, Waiver request for multiple freestanding signs and one of 10 sq. ft., and site plan review for installation of 3 animal run-in shelters, Application 2021-02-011.
Waker administered the oath to Polly Raine. Hurley displayed the site plan and sign design submittals. Raine described the plan for three run in shelters for four season protection of the animals. She also described the plan for 4 roadside signs at primary gated entrances. She explained that the aim is to make the no parking message more visible. She noted that the smaller of the run in shelters may be relocated into the flood hazard area at times. Hurley reported that Reginal Floodplain Manager John Broker-Campbell has reviewed the specifications for the shelter and auger anchors and has confirmed that they will meet flood standards.
Raine said that the smaller signs would consist of two panels, one with the no parking message and the other identifying the site as Hildene. Together they would be 18” x 34” and mounted at 4 feet high. She said that the sign at the main access to the greenhouse and classroom would be 10 square feet to match the sign at the Hildene goat farm.
Kennedy asked if parking was provided for the site. Hurley indicated that no parking is allowed on the site. Raine confirmed that only staff and the BBA bus park on the site. Resident and maintenance staff park across the street. Kennedy suggested that the parking issue arises from touirsts. Raine confirmed this was likely true. Kennedy remarked that the farm was an attractive nuisance in this regard. Waker proceeded through the six waiver criteria. Raine maintained that the signs would not alter the character of the area and would not impair the use of neighboring properties. She said they were small in size relative to the size of the property and they are tasteful and compliment those throughout the Hildene site. Watanabe asked if any lighting was proposed. Raine said no lighting is proposed.
Watanabe asked if any lighting was proposed for the signs. Raine confirmed there would be no lights. Ferrarin asked whether there would be a no parking sign panel at the main entrance. Raine said there would be and 18” x 18” panel mounted on one of the sign posts. Hurley asked whether it should rather be hung from the main panel and centered. It was suggested that wind may be a problem. Raine said she would explore these options.
Watanabe motioned to close the hearing. Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
4. Paul Bogossian, 4566 Main Street, Design and site plan review for conversion of parking spaces to outdoor dining space. Application 2021-03-021.
Waker administered the oath to Paul Bogossian. Hurley displayed application submittals while Bogossian described his plan for a fenced outdoor service area along the south side of Haig’s Sports Bar. Bogossian indicated that the 21 to 30 year old clientele largely matched that of the Hampton Inn, with many of those customers walking over from the hotel. There is also lots of adjacent parking that will largely be empty during nightclub hours. He proposes to have propane fire pits and 36 seats in the outdoor area.
Waker asked if Bogossian if he was worried about the three rear parking spaces being too confined. Bogossian said they were intended for small employee vehicles and that the area is well illuminated. There was discussion about deliveries and trash collection from the same area. Bogossian prefers using multiple plastic trash cans rather than a dumpster because they are easily cleaned. The trash pickup does not correspond to business hours and he requires deliveries to be completed before noon.
Hurley explained that she determined that Bogossian was short only one parking space from what he was approved for previously. She suggested that between July and October he assess parking needs resulting from the 36 additional outdoor seats. This can be done in consultation with town staff and he could return to the DRB if need be. Hurley said she thought he might find that there is no need for additional parking.
There was discussion about where the propane tank is buried. Bogossian noted that it may be partially on the adjacent property and Haskins prefers filling the tank from that property. He added that he may install only two fire pits rather than three, and the propane line would be underground right along the edge of the property. The pits are electronically lit and there will be an emergency shut off feature.
Waker asked about water and sewer fees for additional seats. Hurley explained that fees are waived for outdoor service during COVID-19, but that Bogossian would have to work out allocation with Town Manager John O’Keefe after this year. Waker asked about sound levels for the proposed outdoor area. Bogossian said music would just be at background levels. Hurley explained that although the town does not have a noise ordinance, the DRB has the authority to limit noise levels through site plan standards.
Hurley warned the board that they would need to extend the meeting. Kennedy motioned to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Stewart asked if smoking would be allowed in the outdoor area. Bogossian said only near the northeast corner, not near the tables. Ferrain asked if there would be an emergency exit. Bogossian said there would be in this northeast corner. Bogossian said there would be two corn hole games in this east side of the enclosure. He suggested he might have an occasional band, or more regularly, a comedy show in this area. Ferrarin asked what the additional fencing in this area was for. Bogossian said it covers a cpmpressor.
Kennedy said he likes the idea of assessing the parking needs and suggested shared parking arrangements be pursued to address overflow needs rather than payments in lieu of parking. Bogossian explained that changes in ownership make agreements cumbersome. Kennedy suggested querying customers about where they park in some unobtrusive way.
Watanabe asked whether there would be any lighting for the enclosed outdoor area. Bogossian says he used string lights last year and would likely use them again below the fence line. He said they are 7 Watt bulbs along a rope. Hurley asked if they were shielded. She requested Bogossian share the specifications. He said he would send them tomorrow. Board members indicated that the fire pits would provide some light as would lights from inside the building.
Watanabe motioned to close the hearing. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
5. Sam’s Wood Fired Pizza Co., 4478 Main Street, Design and site plan review for second freestanding sign. Application 2021-03-022
Waker administered the oath to Sam Johnson. Hurley displayed the proposed sign. Johnson said the bottom of the 2’ x 7.5’ sign will be four feet off the ground, it will be at least three feet from the sidewalk to comply with the ordinance, and mounted on 6x6 pressure treated posts stained to match the building. Johnson explained that he wanted more visibility for southbound roundabout traffic. He indicated that he would remove the sign and lighting from the north side of the building. The sign would be positioned at an angle to be most visible to people in the roundabout. Hurley explained that the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) did not make a recommendation on the application because there was too much question about whether there was enough room in between the yield and crosswalk signs. Sam provided this photo the next day, but the DAC had already met.
Kennedy asked how Johnson expected to catch northbound traffic. Johnson indicated he had the existing sign in front of the building for that. He noted that with his road frontage he is now allowed two freestanding signs. Kennedy asked why not have just one bigger sign. Johnson said it would still miss people in the roundabout. Kennedy asked whether he could have a bigger sign on the building then. Johnson and Hurley explained that he could not because the building is too small.
Ferrarin asked when the temporary roof was due to come down. Kennedy confirmed June 21 as the date it was due to come down. Hurley explained that Johnson will seek an extension due to the continued COVID threat. She reported that Johnson met with the DAC last week, which suggested if Johnson wanted that roof to be permanent it would need some finer finishing characteristics. As is, it was not deemed worthy of permanent status. Watanabe asked for confirmation that the existing lights and sign above the roof would be removed. Johnson confirmed they would be.
Stewart motioned to close the hearing. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
6. Minutes of the March 3, 2021, Meeting.
Stewart motioned to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2021. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
7. Other Business.
The next meeting of the commission is May 5, 2021, meeting. Hurley indicated that she had no applications yet scheduled for that meeting.
Watanabe motioned to go into closed deliberative session. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 9:51.
_____________________________________ ______________________
For the Development Review Board Date