TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 8, 2022
Commission Attendees: Megan Amundson, Phil Peterson, Leon Ward, Greg Boshart. Absent: Chris Glabach.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director).
Public Attendees: Rita Wright, Mike Nawrath.
Hurley initiated recording. Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Hurley noted that Zoom participants are unable to connect, but she could not resolve the technical issue.
1. Minutes for the 7-18-2022 meeting were approved by unanimous consent after replacing the word “explained” with “Interpreted” under the discussion of the Depot Street project on page 3, paragraph 4, second to last sentence.
Peterson recognized Rita Wright. Wright clarified that she thinks the Depot Street Project is a wonderful and needed enterprise, but she thinks that working toward having a large number of people in a small place is out of character for the town. She added that 40 units in one building in particular is out of character in Manchester.
2. 2022 Working Zoning Revisions
Hurley displayed Boshart’s list of zoning revisions under consideration. Peterson noted that it largely conforms with a list that Hurley emailed to commissioners.
Amundson offered that she felt there were an outrageous number of parking spaces recently proposed for the Firefly/gas station site plan and she is concerned that the ordinance requires too much parking. There was discussion about parking minimums with Amundson asking whether the current parking minimums were in the way of redevelopment. Hurley pointed out shared parking, allowances for nearby public parking, and payment in lieu of parking provisions. Boshart added that full parking lots would be a great problem to have that would create other opportunities such as a trolley service. It was established that there are provisions for flexibility and for parking maximums.
Hurley noted that Boshart’s list included a few items that have already been addressed (Dorr Oil and Barnstead properties included in the MU2), rejected (changing zoning along Bentley Hill Road), or will be addressed by future studies (potential STR regulations and APO changes). Boshart pointed out that he referenced the applicable minutes within the list to help jog memory.
There was extensive discussion about allowing increased building height where set back and topography would mitigate visual effects. For example, Boshart indicated the Friends of the Sun site might allow a taller building with an embankment taller than the building within a certain distance. He noted that fire suppression is not an issue, but rather aesthetics are and that is why taller portions were required to be stepped back from the façade. He said the basis of these considerations remains to try to get multifamily development in the downtown.
Ward noted that historically there was a four story factory in downtown Manchester. Boshart estimated that a first floor at 10 to 12 feet height and 9 to 10 foot floors above that could result in a 50 foot 5-story building. He added this would not be everywhere, just in a few locations where appropriate. He explained that the ordinance allows for the calculation of height to be between the peak and eaves. Together with the step back requirements, this would push architects to create visual interest to a structure he added. Boshart said the ordinance allows for dormering and encourages creation of unique, appealing, and dynamic buildings.
Boshart offered context for height changes through the years: town acquisition of the ladder truck allowed for increase from 30 feet to 35 feet, then to 40 feet. Behind the increases was the question of whether the zoning was limiting multifamily development in the downtown he said. He explained that building material and property prices were out of our control, but the zoning was not. He added that we need to manage unintended consequences. There was discussion of what the White & Burke study showed, essentially that a mixed use project with 40 units of housing would not be financially feasible in the downtown. Hurley explained that on the town owned site, some tweaks to the financial plan could make a project feasible.
Boshart noted that a concept plan for a new mixed use building on the town-owned Depot Street site was taller than 40 feet, but it was tiered. Commissioners and Hurley explored whether height waivers were limited by the ordinance and determined that height waivers were not specifically limited. Amundson asked whether we care only about how a building looks from the street, or also from the site itself. Hurley said that the town’s design guidelines require the building to be pedestrian scaled. Boshart suggested if a height waiver is granted, perhaps additional step backs should be required. He offered the architectural principle that buildings should not appear larger the closer you get to them. He reiterated that step backs are an intentional way to create a dynamic façade that doesn’t feel as tall as it is.
Boshart inquired whether single family house development applications were required to show conformance with the 30 foot height limit. Hurley responded that architectural elevation drawings are not required for single family house development, but if a house exceeded the 30 foot height limit without having secured a waiver, it would be in violation. Nawrath asked whether height waivers should be allowed outside of design districts. Hurley suggested that height waivers should be limited to the design districts. Commissioners asked whether houses in the Residential 1 district should be no taller than two stories.
Amundson asked what would happen if there were no parking minimums. Hurley suggested it was not politically feasible. She pointed to Section 9.6.5(2) that allows shared and offsite parking within 1000 feet and Section 9.6.5(5) that allows consideration of public parking within 200 feet of a site. Amundson offered that parking minimums get in the way of realizing multimodal accessibility. Boshart suggested that we need to maintain a tension between parking requirements and pedestrian oriented development. Hurley noted that the ordinance allows a tradeoff between bicycle parking and car parking. Amundson asked whether the current parking minimums are too high. Boshart suggested allowing reductions in the Town Center and Downtown districts, encouraging waivers in the downtown, or increasing the distance for public parking to be counted toward minimums.
3. Historic District Surveys & Reconfigurations
Hurley displayed Boshart’s digitized historic district maps. Boshart described the effort to modernize the maps in a digital and accessible format. He pointed out the gaps between the Manchester Center and Bonnet Street districts and reported that the walking tours with Manchester Historical Society (MHS) members confirmed that we may want to expand the districts to incorporate additional sites. The idea is, he said, to accomplish this work and incorporate the new maps into the town plan.
Amundson asked if the historic district mapping followed property lines. Hurley said they do not. She showed the parcel data and zoning on screen and noted that the historic districts were not initially fully encompassed by the Design Review Overlay (DRO) until the R10 was added to the overlay. [She discovered that the digital mapping included some R4 on School Street in the DRO that should be corrected.] Hurley urged commissioners to schedule two more walking tours with MHS members when weather permits and before cold weather returns.
4. Running Project Updates.
Hurley reported that the APO study committee met with the consultant hydrogeologist and he will explore further the two year time of travel within the protection area before finalizing his report to the town. She noted that the Village of Manchester decided to join the town on the STR study, so she contacted research consultant Doug Kennedy to give him the green light. She explained that the engineers working with the town on the Depot Street project confirmed in a recent meeting with the Depot Street project committee that the new FEMA modeling results in a base flood elevation that is 4 feet higher than when the three existing building were constructed, resulting in these buildings now being three feet below base flood elevation. The engineers are preparing a final report for the town.
Peterson asked what the Depot Street committee is tasked to do. Boshart indicated that is tasked with gathering information to provide the Selectboard. He added the Selectboard is the decision making body and the committee is providing data to the Selectboard that it will need in order to make its decisions. Boshart reported that he has developed a matrix that outlines the various options and decisions that the Selectboard will address. Wright asked if that included selling the property. Boshart confirmed that it did.
Commissioners agreed that the running project list should include work toward a town plan and that the item should remain on the Planning Commission agenda unit the projects are completed.
Boshart motioned to adjourn the meeting. Amundson seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0 at 8:36 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date