Town of Manchester, Vermont
Development Review Board
Meeting Minutes – February 16, 2022
Development Review Board Present: Tim Waker, John Watanabe, Ray Ferrarin, Cathy Stewart, John Kennedy.
Staff Present: Planning & Zoning Director Janet Hurley.
Also Present: Kirk Moore, Bill Drunsic, Brian Benson (Via Zoom), Mike Nawrath (via Zoom), Greg Sukiennik (via Zoom). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hurley initiated recording, Waker called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Minutes of the January 12, 2022, Meeting.
Ferrarin motioned to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2022. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Northshire Community Fieldhouse, 340 Rec Park Road, Site and design plan review for 74,000 sq. ft. indoor recreation center with height waiver request. Application 2022-01-004, Tax Map ID 15-20-27.00.
Waker offered that the DRB would review the application with respect to the zoning bylaws only and if it is approved, it would be up to a vote of the townspeople as to whether it moves forward. He administered the oath to Kirk Moore and Bill Drunsic. Moore oriented the board to the overall park site. He explained that Rec Park Road would be squared off with a three way stop to provide traffic calming. There would be new parking and a bus drop off. The building entrance would face east. Kennedy asked for a general overview of the concept for the facility and how it came to fruition. He said he supports the idea of the facility and thinks it is in keeping with town plan goals.
Drunsic explained that the idea dates back to 2005 when there was an attempt to put together a community center – the Northshire Community Center – to serve teens and seniors. He continued saying that effort went by the wayside as the Manchester Community Library took shape. Drunsic said about ten years ago there was renewed discussion about establishing a teen center. He said the town recreation programmers and area schools also began expressing a desire for more space for athletics. Drunsic estimated that in 2020, BBA asked whether all of these various desires could be combined in a project that met everyone’s needs. Thus, Drunsic said, the fieldhouse facility was devised to be as flexible and affordable as possible to address as many of the different activities and purposes as the community wanted.
Drunsic said the expressed community desires led to the size and configuration of the proposed facility, including an indoor track. He said that rock climbing was accommodated after area community members expressed an interest in indoor climbing. He added that a 3000 sq. ft. fitness room with self-serve cardio equipment and free weights is planned, as well as flexible meeting spaces. Drunsic stressed that the goal was to offer as much flexibility as possible within a reasonable budget. In the end, he said, it is more than one town can support. He reported that the Northshire Community Fieldhouse is therefore exploring participation by area towns. Other Northshire towns will have an advisory vote on the ballot (Manchester, Dorset, Danby, Sunderland, Winhall, Peru, Londonderry, and Landgrove). Drunsic explained that the project is being fast tracked so that if voters decide to move forward, the facility will be shovel ready.
Kennedy asked whether the facility would be income producing. Drunsic answered that it would be and thereby it would be self-sustaining on an operating basis. He explained that there will be user fees, affordable memberships for citizens of participating towns, and participating towns would provide 25 to 35% of the capital costs based on a formula that takes into account population, grand list, and distance from the facility (Manchester’s share would be about 3 million dollars). He added that the Right Track Foundation would provide a grant of about 3.5 million dollars and other funds would be raised through private donations. Ferrarin asked if there was flexibility in design or scale based on how much support is achieved from area towns. Drunsic said that in order to maintain the mix of uses currently proposed, there was not that flexibility. If the project is downsized, he said, the track is lost, the rock climbing is lost.
Moore and Drunsic offered an explanation of why indoor tennis courts and a pool could not be accommodated by the project. Each basically would increase operational costs while not offering enough flexibility for multi-use. The mix of uses proposed offers the most versatility. Kennedy asked whether a community member could walk in to use the fieldhouse at any time, or how structured the use of the facility would be. Drunsic explained that use would be shared between open use and scheduled team use. He said that after school hours during the winter would be appropriately scheduled for youth sports according to age group. He said there would also be tournaments hosted. Most of the time the track and fitness center would be open for use he said.
Watanabe asked whether there is room for future expansion of facilities at the rec park. Moore said there would be, as the park is 95 acres. Drunsic pointed out that if enough money is raised there would be some additional outdoor racket ball and pickle ball courts constructed. Ferrarin asked whether there were bleachers for spectators. Moore said there are bleachers. Drunsic added that there is also an upper deck viewing area. Drunsic stressed that the idea was to provide something other than a big box. Moore explained that the design team toured facilities throughout the state and talked with facility managers. Moore said there are interior renderings on the northshirefieldhouse.org website. Kennedy inquired as to whether towns were brought in initially. Hurley said that was being pursued now. Moore added that information has been gathered now for 18 years from schools, clubs, and leagues to inform the programming and plan. He said there are two more Zoom meetings planned before the town meeting votes.
Moore explained that the 3D rendering provides a better reflection of the proposed colors than the 2D elevation renderings do (it is difficult to show coloring in AutoCAD); however, some revisions have been made to the building since the rendering was produced. He said that the planners of the facility did not want to go with a pre-engineered metal building. Rather, they wanted to offer something unique and something that would break down the size of the building. Fiber He explained that basketball requires 26 feet of clearance above the floor and a 100 foot court length, but the high bay above this area of the building is wrapped with the sloped roof over the track at 12 feet to eaves. This low bay will be wrapped in a barn red cement board by Nichiha. Moore said the palette matches everything that is at the park right now and there are essentially five colors on the building: bronze on the roof, red on the low bay, beige on the insulated metal panels (IMP) similar to the Park House beige, white on the north side of the building, and the chocolate brown ribbed panel. Moore said the aim is a very high performance building envelope. He explained the Nichiha paneling consists of a dimensionally precut clip system that is applied to the concrete block wall (CBU).
Watanabe asked about the performance of the Nichiha panels at ground level. Moore explained that the lower building is wrapped in a limestone product, with the base (i.e. bottom or water) course in granite. Moore summarized that the aim is to break down the scale of the building in form, texture, and color. He added that by the time construction is underway there could be supply issues that mean not all of these products will be available and adjustments will have to be made. Waker asked why some windows were black and others white. Moore said that the window colors were chosen to better match the background color of the cladding. In response to other window questions, he said that all windows are aluminum storefront and none of them will open. Egress is provided around the building by insulated metal fire doors. Kennedy surmised that the proposed colors are to complement the Park House as much as possible. Moore confirmed that the Park House was the basis for the color palette.
Watanabe asked if the building was required to be sprinklered. Moore confirmed that it was. Stewart asked what the reason for choosing green windows was, as she felt the green was going toward a totally different color scheme. Moore responded that he liked forest green on the barn red color and felt that it was a reflection other structures at the park and of Vermont vernacular. He further argued that the building offers Vermont vernacular forms and that the stone along the building base is reflective of Vermont vernacular. Ferrarin asked whether more ties to Manchester’s history and character could be made. He reiterated that balancing maintenance costs was always considered. Drunsic said that Town Manager John O’Keefe expressed a preference for something more robust than barn board. Watanabe said there would be opportunity to use marble in the outside patio areas. Moore agreed and said stone pavers would be used, not stamped concrete.
Kennedy remarked that he read the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) minutes and was surprised that the committee voted to recommend approval in the end. He recounted that the DAC seemed to think there were too many colors and the design did not tie into the history of the place. Moore reiterated that there were not so many colors as Alan Benoit counted and some of the colors called out are small elements of the building or very closely related to other colors. Kennedy asked Watanabe to help him understand the DAC recommendation despite the concerns expressed in the minutes. Watanabe said there was discussion and disagreement and finally a 2-1 vote. Drunsic expressed the difficulty of working across such large building spans. Hurley argued for more reference to Manchester as a place and maintained that there are endless possibilities for doing this. Ferrarin asked if timber framing in the entrance would work. Moore said it would not. Moore added that it was a balancing act between the forms that the interior dictated and the exterior manifestation while working to keep within a reasonable budget.
Moore recapped that it is a very large building, unique in its use and he did the very best to keep it from being a big metal box. Kennedy summarized that it is important that it be complementary to the building that is there. Moore offered that a lot of people have reviewed the building design and they were all blown away by it. Watanabe argued that we are never going to get everyone on board with the design, but the DRB needs to be over the hurdle comfortable with the design. Ferrarin appreciated the ways in which the building was scaled down, but expressed that he felt more vernacular or historical references could be added. Drunsic asked Hurley what she would suggest. Hurley reiterated that there are more ways that Manchester as a place could be referenced by this building. Drunsic asked her to provide examples and she said she made suggestions in her staff review. Waker said that he would like to move on from design discussion and asked about the energy aspects of the project.
Moore described the energy efficiency measures that would be employed, essentially including a high performance building envelope and all LED lighting, LP gas, limiting air conditioning to the two story portion of the structure. The two story spaces would be maintained at 68 degrees, while the track and fields would be maintained at 62-64 degrees with a forced air system. Drunsic said the focus was on provided a high performance building envelope and pointed out that the Commercial Building Energy Standards (CBES) do not dictate which energy source to use. He said that heat pump operational costs exceed those of propane. He continued explaining that one of the biggest energy costs would be for lighting even though all LED is planned.
Drunsic further explained that the proposed system would utilize heat pumps until exterior temperatures fall below 30 degrees, at which time the propane heaters would kick in. He also said that to maximize roof space for solar panels the propane system required three times less roof space than an all heat pump system. Drunsic said the propane tanks would be underground, while heating units on the roof. He reported that the geothermal system explored had the highest capital costs by far. Moore added that the Vermont CBES are the highest standards in the U.S except for California. Ferrarin asked whether it made sense to include a charging station adjacent to the building. Moore said no because it would take too long to charge, and with overnight charging, a hotel would be a more appropriate place.
Drunsic confirmed that electricity generated from the rooftop solar would be fed back into the grid and that a separate solar developer would be sought that could make use of the tax credits offered. In response to a question about windows, Moore indicated that the windows would be double pane, and some may be triple pane. Ferrarin asked about indoor air quality and air exchange technology. Moore responded that mechanical engineers would be working on this and the building would meet indoor air quality codes.
Moore described the parking needs and allotments. He estimated that 150 spaces would be needed at peak use and explained that the plan provides 190 spaces located close to the building. He noted that only 90 spaces would be expected to be needed during an average day from late fall to early spring. During large events there is Riley Rink and MEMS parking available. Waker asked whether an event at the fieldhouse would ever require plowing of the overflow parking lot. Moore said that it would not. He explained that his parking analysis was broken down and details were provided in a submission board members were furnished with just before the meeting. Kennedy summarized that about 170 spaces would be needed at peak. Drunsic confirmed this and that teams would be bused to the facility. Waker asked if the asphalt would be striped for parking. Moore said it would be.
There was discussion about snow removal. Moore indicated that there was ample room at the park to store snow. Waker asked how snow would be cleared from around the building eaves. Moore said that there is a three foot overhang with a six foot wide gravel drip around the building, and the fire lane would be plowed. Hurley referred to concerns raised by Brian Van Horn about keeping snow from fire egress at various locations under the eaves around the building. Moore said there are four such exits that can be cleared directly to the nearest sidewalk or fire lane. He also pointed out that he provided bike rack details in the latest submission. In response to a question about the walkways from Waker, Moore said natural stone pavers would be used at the main entrance and regular concrete everywhere else (not stamped concrete). Moore pointed out proposed and existing crosswalks and argued that additional crosswalks are not warranted. He said sidewalk was proposed to be extended south of the facility to the paved parking lot adjacent to the Park House.
Moore said the criteria for landscape selections were low maintenance, non-invasive, and flexible in terms of sun exposure and soils. Kennedy asked who the landscape architect was. Moore indicated that he devised the landscaping plan. Kennedy suggested that a landscaper could help resolve the questions raised in the staff review about species choices. Moore indicated that he maintains an understanding of landscape choices appropriate for Vermont sites. Drunsic offered that he would be willing to agree to any planting choices that the DRB suggested. He noted that certain specimens planned for now may not be available in two years when the landscaping plan might be implemented. Moore agreed that depending on when the planting occurs, plantings reflect what is available at the time. Kennedy reiterated that a firm such as Homestead would be knowledgeable about what was available and best suited for the job of selecting appropriate landscaping choices.
Watanabe asked whether committees from any participating towns other than Manchester would have a say in the development phase. Drunsic confirmed they would not, but that an advisory board would be involved in the operational phase. Moore summarized the idea with the development phase was to propose a basic plan that makes sense, but involving all involved parties would not be workable. There was a discussion about involving student welders or artists for hardscaping that could tie into Manchester themes. Noting the number of Vermont affiliated athletes at the Olympic Winter Games, Watanabe wondered whether the state would have funding that could be put toward this facility as an asset to support the development of world class athletes. Drunsic said a few hundred thousand dollars in state funding may be available.
Drunsic suggested that landscape/hardscape approval could be delayed until the end of the build so inventory available then could be assessed and a firm plan put together. Kennedy suggested that a set aside budget item should be established at project commencement to make sure funds are available for the landscaping. Drunsic indicated this could be done and suggested it would be in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars. Moore said that the project manager would be responsible for this and explained that the construction manager has already completed one full round of cost estimations.
Moore described the proposed pole lighting: 12’ high parking lot lighting along the sidewalk and a more pedestrian scaled 8’ high walkway light in the front walkway. Stewart could not locate specifications of the proposed lighting. Moore indicated he submitted specifications. Drunsic and Moore agreed with the staff suggestion to have the parking lot lighting remain on after hours and to fit fire door lights with motion sensors.
Stewart asked about supplying a photometric analysis. Moore argued that a photometric analysis was not needed for this site because it is not close to other uses, particularly residential uses, and no high level lighting like Applejack Stadium is proposed. He said all the information was provided on the cut sheets he submitted. Hurley argued it is difficult for board members to put all of that together to determine whether light levels proposed offer safety, which is particularly important because of the heavier winter use when it gets dark as early at 4:00 p.m. Moore suggested the lighting plan was adequate and a photometric analysis would be an unnecessary cost for this town project. Waker stressed that the board cannot treat the town as an applicant any differently than any other applicant. Hurley nonetheless recommended having an engineer drop the lighting plan onto a site plan. Moore said he would provide a photometric plan.
Waker turned to stormwater. Moore indicated that the stormwater plan was submitted to the state for permitting. In response to a question from Stewart, Moore defended his idea of placing these in the center of the walkway between small tree plantings. Hurley relayed that Brian Van Horn felt that Miss Kim Lilacs would not hold up under rough treatment by kids. Waker asked what the water plan was for the facility. Moore and Drunsic confirmed that town water service was planned. Hurley indicated that Town Consulting Engineer Chrissy Haskins had provided an engineered plan that had not yet been incorporated into the site plan. Moore and Drunsic indicated that they were in agreement with the Recue Chief’s recommendations for AED and backboard placements. Ferrarin asked if the elevator met the rescue squad’s minimum size. Drunsic said it was bigger than the minimum.
Waker directed the discussion to the height waiver criteria. Hurley explained that the maximum height is 30 ft. and that height is defined as average between peak and eaves. The various roofline heights were discussed. Waker asked what percentage of the building each section requiring a height waiver comprised. Moore and Drunsic estimated the climbing tower to be about 3-5% of the building mass and the 25,000 sq. ft. high bay to be about 35%. The fire stair to the roof comprises about 1% of the building. Hurley explained that the DRB must determine that the waiver granted is the minimum to afford relief. Moore described the high bay space as essential for any fieldhouse and that is what comprises the bulk of the waiver. Recalling that the tower shed roof draining to a flat roof on the public safety building presented issues on that building, Nawrath asked whether the shed roof of the climbing tower would pose a problem shedding onto flat roof portions of the building. He asked whether it could be sloped the other direction or gabled. Moore explained that the climbing tower roof cannot be sloped forward and still offer the desired tower height. Drunsic said he would look into the public safety building issue.
Stewart motioned to extend the meeting until 10:00 p.m. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Moore described that drainage from all of the flat roof components would be collected in interior drains discharging into the underground stormwater infiltration basin. Moore confirmed that the waiver will not affect views from adjacent property. Kennedy asked what the construction duration would be. Drunsic said it would be about 15 months. Kennedy asked how it would affect other park activities. Drunsic explained that the construction manager is working with the town to avoid affecting other park activities. Moore argued that mitigation consists of breaking the building down as much as possible.
Benson asked how many gallons per day would be generated to the septic system. Moore said he did not have that information. Moore said the existing system is more than adequate to serve the proposed facility. Hurley reported that Chrissy Haskins judged that the existing system is oversized for the Park House and had adequate capacity for the fieldhouse, particularly because peak uses would not coincide.
Watanabe asked what the project timeline was. Drunsic indicated that he would like to wrap up the town permit process as soon as possible because the District 8 Commission wants the local permit in hand before it considers the project for an Act 250 permit. The DRB decided to hold a site visit on Wednesday, February 23, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Watanabe asked whether a balloon could be used to indicate roof heights. Drunsic confirmed that he would provide photometrics by March 9 and Moore indicated that he would have additional renderings by then as well.
Moore shared interior flooring samples (spike friendly track surface, court surface, and turf overlay). He also shared climbing wall and bouldering surfacing sample and models. He said that the climbing features were designed by a Vermonter who is a climber. At forty-five feet high, Moore said the wall offers an attractive venue for experienced climbers. He said that harnesses and belaying would be required on the climbing wall. Moore confirmed that the fieldhouse project would not interfere with continued development of the skate park. Ferrarin asked how the court surface would be lined. Moore explained that surface is pre-painted by the sports flooring company. He explained that the track markers dictated the 227 meter track. He described the retractable dividers between courts. Drunsic explained that the building was designed over the course of the last two years. In response to a question from Watanabe, Moore said that windows would have argon infill and they would not be mirrored or reflective.
Ferrarin motioned to recess the hearing until March 9, 2022. Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Watanabe asked whether Drunsic and Moore were the agents for the town or whether there was a town representative serving as the applicant. Hurley said that John O’Keefe signed the application and would answer any questions that the board may have for him.
Kennedy motioned to adjourn. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 9:54 p.m. Hurley ended the zoom session.
___________________________________________________ ______________________
For the Development Review Board Date