TOWN OF WILLISTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD …F506B13C... · DP 11-01, Munson Earth Moving, 85...

Town of Williston Development Review Board Minutes of September 14, 2010

Page

1

TOWN OF WILLISTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

September 14, 2010, 7:30 PM Town Hall Meeting Chamber

Minutes approved 9/28/2010 with corrections as noted on pages seven and seventeen.

________________________________________________________________________________________ Digitally Recorded Minutes are available in the Williston Planning and Zoning Offices, 7878 Williston Road, or the Town Clerk’s Offices located at 7900 Williston Road. DRB Members Present: Brian Jennings, Cathy O’Brien, Philip Martin, Richard Asch, John Bendzunas and Scott Rieley. Absent: Chairman Kevin McDermott resigned prior to September 14th. Staff: Ken Belliveau, Matthew Boulanger, and Carol Daigle Others: Mark Austin; Joel Baird; John Jaeger; Amanda Duquette; Mike Duquette; Tom Hergenrother; Jeff Nick; David Fenstermacher; Holly Rouelle; Walter Nardelli; Mark Smith; Bruce Latelle; Albert St. Amand; Marie St. Amand; Vince Paradis; Matt Daly; Kevin Paton; Paul Guay; Mark Andrews; and Nick Sanders. I. Public Forum II. Public Hearings III. Minutes from August 10, 2010

IV. Communications or Other Business

V. Adjournment ___________________________________________________________________________

Agenda:

SP 06-09 Amendment, Williston School District, Allen Brook School, 497 Talcott Road, requests a Discretionary Permit review for a one year extension for the removal of the three temporary classrooms and restoring the site at Allen Brook School in the Residential Zoning District (RZD).

APP 11-01, Hergenrother Custom Development LLC, 302 Mountain View Drive, Ste 300, Colchester, requests the Williston Development Review Board review an appeal of a decision by the Director of Planning for a deck on a dwelling at 21 Lansdowne Street (Lot #6) in Slate Barn Estates in the Village Zoning District (VZD).

DP 11-01, Munson Earth Moving, 85 Shunpike Road, Williston requests a Discretionary Permit review for a Master Sign Plan at 45-48 Industrial Avenue in the Industrial Zoning District West (IZDW).


Page

2

DP 10- 37, G.B. New England 2, LLC, 14 Breakneck Hill Road, Lincoln, RI, requests Discretionary Permit approval to demolish existing building (Imported Cars), to construct a 13,600 s.f. retail building for CVS Pharmacy, parking lot, landscaping and associated improvements at 2466 Saint George Road in the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD).

______________________________________________________________________________

I Public Forum

II Public Hearing

7:35 P.M. Opened Public Hearing

_________________________________________________________________________________

Announcement: Mr. Scott Rieley announced that Chairman Kevin McDermott, had resigned from the board and as Vice Chairman, Mr. Rieley would be conducting the meeting(s) until a new chairman was elected.

___________________________________________________________________________ 7:35 P.M. Opened hearing for SP 06-09 Amendment. SP 06-09 Amendment, Williston School District, Allen Brook School, 497 Talcott Road, requests a Discretionary Permit review for a one year extension for the removal of the three temporary classrooms and restoring the site at Allen Brook School in the Residential Zoning District (RZD).

Representing the application were Mr. Walter Nardelli, District Principal,Williston School District, 100 Ardec Lane, #6, Bolton Valley, Vt., and Ms. Holly Rouelle, Chairwoman of the Williston School Board, 211 Shirley Circle, Williston.

Mr. Ken Belliveau explained the first hearing, scheduled for August 24, was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum. This is important because of the date agreed upon by Mr. Nardelli and the DRB to remove the three modular classrooms was the end of August 31, 2010. He continued to report he and Mr. Nardelli had conversations earlier in the summer concerning the lack of a buyer(s) for the classrooms and possibly missing the deadline. They thought they had a deal; however it fell through. He suggested the school restore the original entry way, which he knew was a high priority for board members, and to disconnect all the electrical and plumbing connections between the modulars and the school, and close up the units as a show of good faith. This has been done. At this point the school would like an extension to keep the units in place and remove/remediate the site by August 31, 2011. They are now closer to a sale of the units than they were a couple of months ago. The conditions of approval are pretty much the same as the board approved a year ago.


Page

3

Mr. Nardelli spoke and added they are waiting to finalize an agreement with a company interested in buy the modulars. If it is signed, the best case scenario is they would be removed by November 15th. At that point, what would be left would be the remediation of the site. They are just a few stipulations away from an agreement. They would make sure, as a construction site, they would protect the site during removal to make it safe for small children. He reported if the sale goes through, they have a four-day option, during the teacher’s convention, to remove the units while the children are out of school. Mr. Jennings raised the question about closing or continuing the meeting in case the sale of the units falls through. They might want different conditions if the sale falls through. Mr. Belliveau mentioned condition #10 concerning no additional extensions could be given. Mr. Rieley asked ‘if’ the sale falls through and ‘if’ no buyers are found and it’s the end of the June, 2011, what is the plan? Mr. Nardelli responded they would demolish the classrooms and sell them for scrap. Ms. O’Brien asked which original design would the school be using when restoring the site to the “original design” back to the pre-2006 plans or to the post-2006 plans (to redo the bus loop). Mr. Nardelli responded it would be the post-2006 design. _________________________________________________________________________________

Staff Notes Williston Development Review Board – September 14, 2010

Allen Brook School Modular Classrooms Tax Parcel # 8:87:95

497 Talcott Road

Application No: SP 06-09 Name: Allen Brook School Modular Classrooms

Tax Parcel #: 8:87:95 Property Address: 497 Talcott Road

Zoning District: Residential Zoning District Total Acres: 25.01

Overview This is a request for an extension of time to remove the existing modular classroom buildings at the Allen Brook School located at 497 Talcott Road in the Residential Zoning District (RZD). The modular classrooms are attached to the permanent school building by an enclosed walkway, and they have been located on the site since July 2002. The applicant is requesting a one year of extension of time to remove the modular buildings from the Allen Brook School property and complete the required site restoration work, or until August 31, 2011. This item was originally scheduled for the DRB agenda of August 24, 2010 but was moved to this hearing because of the lack of a quorum of the board. Relevant History


Page

4

• The modular classroom buildings were originally approved for use at the Allen Brook School in July 2002, and were originally approved by the DRB for a period of three years with the understanding that the modular units would be used only on a temporary basis.

• In February 2006, the DRB approved a request to allow the modular classrooms to be used for an additional four years along with some additional site improvements for the school busses for turning movements and the discharging and picking up students at the school.

• As a condition of approval of the extension granted in February 2006, the DRB required that the school district submit a master plan for dealing with the modular buildings two years prior to the end of the approval period for the modular units.

• The review of the master plan was scheduled to occur in May 2008, was rescheduled to September 2008 at the request of the school, and further extended until January 2009.

• In January 2009 the DRB reviewed two alternative master plan options submitted by the school district. At that time the school district was directed by the DRB to come forth with a permanent solution to the modular classroom situation prior to the expiration date of the current authorization of February 14, 2010.

• In August 2009 the DRB approval a plan and proposal by the school to continue to use the modular buildings through the 2009-2010 school year, but with conditions specifying that the modular building would be removed from the school and the site restored by no later than August 31, 2010.

Planning Staff Comments

The use of the modular classroom buildings under discussion at the Allen Brook School has been an item of considerable discussion and some controversy since they were originally proposed. They were intended to provide some temporary space and a short term solution to a school system that was being overwhelmed with rapidly rising school enrollments. After a number of meetings and discussions between the school system and the DRB, a plan was approved by the DRB in August 2009 calling for the removal of the modular buildings and restoration of the permanent school building and site by August 31, 2010. The school system was allowed to continue to use the modular buildings through the 2009-2010 school year and then use the 2010 summer vacation period to complete the removal and restoration work.

The school system has thus far been unsuccessful in finding a buyer for the modular buildings. Removing the buildings from the site either through disassembly or moving to a temporary location will be costly, and thus the school system would like to be able to leave the modular buildings in their current location until they can be sold in order to help them manage their costs. The school system has indicated that they have some promising leads for the sale of the buildings but no deal has yet been finalized.

The modular building will no longer be used. The school system has reported that they have removed all of their belongings and equipment from the modular buildings and the building are now closed and inoperative. In addition the school has removed the hallway that was used to connect the modular buildings to the main school building and they are in the process of re-establishing and restoring the main entry doors to the Allen Brook School to their originally designed and intended condition. The request before the DRB does not involve the modular building continuing to be used, rather the request is for an additional year’s time to remove the building and complete the site restoration work as required.

Staff has prepared the following findings, conditions, and motion for the DRB to consider.

Findings of Fact


Page

5

1. The existing modular classroom buildings have been approved as a temporary use by the DRB, and this approval is set to expire on August 31, 2010.

Conclusions of Law

1. The proposal to remove the existing modular building from the Allen Brook School site is in keeping with the conditions of the DRB approval of August 2009 that the modular building no longer be used on the Allen Brook School property.

Conditions of Approval

1. The existing modular classroom buildings are to be permanently removed from the Allen Brook School property and all site improvements required by this permit shall be completed prior to August 31, 2011. If there is no sale by this date, the buildings will be demolished at the end of the 2010 - 2011 school year.

2. The modular buildings shall not be used in any way or form after August 31, 2010, and the buildings shall be closed and securely sealed at all times while they remain on the Allen Brook School grounds.

3. The entryway to the Allen Brook School shall be fully restored and landscaped to its original design prior to the start of the 2010-2011 2011 – 2012 school year in accordance with the 2006 site plan approved by the DRB.

4. The land area to be vacated by the modular buildings shall be re-sodded and re-vegetated in a manner consistent with the existing ground cover and 4-6 additional trees shall be planted in the area to be vacated by the existing modular buildings.

5. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the planning office for review and approval prior to the beginning of any work detailing the landscaping work to be completed as part of the site restoration.

6. The applicant shall meet with the staff from the Public Works Department and shall submit an erosion control checklist prior to commencing any work and to discuss any required erosion control measures and the discontinuation of any water and sewer connections to the modular buildings.

7. The applicant shall obtain an Administrative Permit prior to commencing any work on the site as part of the permit.

8. The applicant will provide information about any changes made to the site as part of this permit and approval in any subsequent applications for development approval that involve the Allen Brook School property.

9. No material changes shall be made to the use of the Allen Brook School property except upon the approval from the Williston Development Review Board.

10. No further extensions of this permit are available. 11. If the modular classrooms are removed during the school year, the site will be fenced off so

no children can access the active construction site.

MOTION:

• As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Cathy O’Brien, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the proposal submitted by the school system and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 14, 2010, accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommended conditions of approval 1-10, and as modified above, proposed by staff for the removal of the existing modular classroom buildings and restoration and re-vegetation of the site. This approval authorizes the applicant to complete the removal


Page

6

of the modular classroom buildings and the required restoration of the site in accordance with the standards contained in the Williston Development Bylaw by no later than August 31, 2011.

SECONDED by: Richard Asch VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES 7:50 P.M. Closed public hearing of SP 06-09 Amendment. No one spoke from the audience. _________________________________________________________________________________ 7:50 P.M. Opened public hearing for APP 11-01. * Board member Brian Jennings recused himself from hearing this application and left the room. APP 11-01, Hergenrother Custom Development LLC, 302 Mountain View Drive, Ste 300, Colchester, requests the Williston Development Review Board review an appeal of a decision by the Director of Planning for a deck on a dwelling at 21 Lansdowne Street (Lot #6) in Slate Barn Estates in the Village Zoning District (VZD).

Representing the application were Mr. Tom Hergenrother, Hergenrother Custom Development, 302 Mountain View Drive, Suite 300, Colchester, VT; Ms. Amanda and Mr. Mike Duquette, 21 Lansdowne, Williston.

Mr. Belliveau reviewed the bumpy process this development has gone through over the years especially the concern of DRB members with the size, scale and mass of this development. He has allowed a porch and decks that have been built on other newly erected dwellings. Within the last year the board discussed it when a permit for a porch was submitted. Unless a particular item was included on the site plan for any of the house lots in this development, he would not sign off on the permit. He reviewed the two step process in this appeal. He had previously approved a scaled out drawing of an approximate 12’ x 18’ porch or deck (216 s.f.) for the applicant’s dwelling plans on the original building permit, and explained to Mr. Hergenrother it was the largest deck he could approve. Anything larger would have to be approved by the DRB. The board members were given plans with the 12’ x 18’ deck and also the plans for the larger deck which was not approved. The Duquettes, perspective owners of the dwelling, desired a larger deck, and later applied for a permit to enlarge the deck to 662 s.f. He denied the permit to allow the larger deck. Under the rules of the by-laws the board can uphold his denial, modify it, or overturn his decision. Those motions are listed in the staff notes. Mr. Hergenrother talked about the screened in porch that was approved for the Brochu dwelling and was approved by the DRB. His impressions were it was based on the roof lines. This is strictly a deck with no awnings or screens. It is a straight deck with a rail, of approved materials for building in this development and fits in the building window.


Page

7

Ms. O’Brien responded she was on the board when this original development went through all the stages. The board’s concerns about the whole development were about the location in the middle of the historic village center, and wanted the houses to be a similar size, massing and design as the historic village. She feels the proposed deck has no historic value and it’s totally out of character with the all the historic structures in the village. Mr. Duquette spoke as the homeowner about his concerns with the preserved woods in the back yard, the lack of and slope of back yard, and the size of it being too small for his children. They will have very little play area. This deck is for them and it will come from the playroom and that is why they added the French doors so they could ride their bikes around the deck. Ms. Duquette responded this deck will not be seen from the bike path; it will only be seen by two neighbors next to them. They approve the deck and one of them wants to now appeal their own deck. The height of the deck is less than 3’ above the grown ground. Mr. Hergenrother asked if it was about the materials in relationship to the historic look. Ms. O’Brien responded ‘no’ and asked him to show her another deck that is 662 s.f. in the historic village. The whole project was that it had to ‘fit’ in the historic village. There were huge concerns and a lot of community participation when this development was proposed in this location. Ms. Duquette noted from the site plan the house is not visible down the driveway until one reaches lot 5. It would not be visible from the bike path. Mr. Rieley reminded the applicants they had to consider setting a precedent. If the board did this for this application, they would have to do it for others. To put it very simply, the whole process this development went through was very messy. Mr. Hergenrother asked about other large decks that have been approved as he wanted to work on behalf of the applicant. Ms. O’Brien spoke again about the huge size of the deck; it is a fairness issue. She understood because she was a mother and understood the concerns the applicant’s had for their children. However this would be setting a precedent and reminded the applicant she had already mentioned a homeowner in the development told her they were going to appeal their deck permit. Ms. Duquette replied she didn’t know this request was going to be an such a big issue. They signed the contract without know this information. Mr. Duquette responded they didn’t know about the historic district; they live in Colchester not Williston; didn’t know this would be an issue; didn’t know they had to go through this process to ask for a larger deck; didn’t know they had to abide by all these rules such as having to have a certain garage door and certain windows.


Page

8

Mr. and Mr. Duquette said they picked this site because of the closeness to the schools and playground, their children were very excited about it, and how the children could grow up walking to school. _________________________________________________________________________________


APP 11-01 Appeal of AP 11-0012 Hergenrother Deck by Duquette Tax Parcel # 14:104:146: 005

21 Lansdowne Street, Lot # 6 Slate Barn Estates

Application No: APP 11-01 Duquette Name: Mike and Amanda Duquette

Tax Parcel #: 14:106:146:005 Property Address: 146 North Williston Road

Zoning District: Village Zoning District Total Acres: 3.02

Overview This is an appeal of the denial by the Administrator of a permit to construct a 662 sq. ft. deck at 21 Lansdowne Street in the Village Zoning District (VZD). The proposed deck would be a modification and enlargement of a 216 sq. ft. deck (12 ft. x 18 ft.) already approved for the subject property under AP 10-0209.

Actions by the Administrator, such as the issuance of an Administrative Permit, may be appealed to the DRB if filed within 15 days of the Administrator’s decision (WDB 5.4). After hearing an appeal, the DRB may uphold, modify, or overturn the decision of the Administrator and shall make written findings and conclusions supporting its decision (WDB 5.4.6). In considering and appeal of an Administrator’s decision, the question for the DRB is whether or not the Administrator acted improperly or erred in making a decision.

This item was originally scheduled for the August 24, 2010 DRB agenda but moved because of the lack of a quorum of the board.

Administrator’s Action Being Appealed

An Administrative Permit to construct a 12 ft. by 18 ft. deck attached to the rear of the house was approved on May 14, 2010. Authorization to construct this deck was part of the approval of a permit to construct a house on the subject property. The decision to allow a 12 ft. by 18 ft. deck was based on an approximate measurement of what appears to be either a patio or deck to the rear of the house shown on SUB 03-08. The maximum size or area of a deck on a single family residential property is not normally limited. However, the subject property was part of SUB 03-08 where the size and massing of the proposed houses was discussed at length and limitations on the maximum size of the houses were imposed as conditions of subdivision approval.

Based on this background, AP 11-0012 was denied July 14, 2010. This denial still authorized the appellants to construct a 12 ft. by 18 ft. deck to the rear of the house as approved under AP 10-0209.

Basis of the Appeal

The appellants have cited the following reasons for appealing the decision to deny the proposed deck:

1) The propose deck meets the setback requirements for the VZD.


Page

9

2) The materials to be used to construct the deck are those approved under SUB 03-08. 3) The proposed deck would provide a play area for their children and would run the

length of the rear wall.

4) The proposed deck is to the rear of the house and would be obscured from view by the

house and the existing vegetation.

5) The location of the volleyball field on the town property on the other side of their rear

property line justifies the appellants having a deck as proposed.

Staff Comments Decisions by the Administrator concerning the issuance of Administrative Permit are intended to be based on compliance with the development standards of the Williston Unified Development Bylaw (WDB), and on any additional conditions of approval that may have been imposed by the DRB as part of a Discretionary Permit (WDB 5.2). The Administrator is required to act on an application for an Administrative Permit within 30 days of the submittal of a complete application. The question for the Administrator is whether the proposed use or structure requested on the permit application complies with the provisions of WDB, and any applicable conditions of approval from previous DRB decisions or actions that might affect the subject property.

In this particular case, the subject property is one of the house lots created as part of SUB 03-08 (Slate Barn Estates). The subject of the size and scale of the houses to be built in this subdivision was an important item of discussion and consideration when this subdivision was approved. Because of the location of the subdivision in the heart of the Village Zoning District, the DRB was particularly concerned about the houses proposed as part of SUB 03-08 fitting in with the size and scale of the existing buildings in the VZD. Specific size limitations on the size of the houses proposed was part of the conditions of approval for SUB 03-08. Decks were not specifically discussed in the conditions of approval, but the foot prints of what appears to be patios or decks appears on the approved plans for SUB 03-08.

Staff has used the approximate size and location of those areas as a guide in considering requests to build decks. The 12 ft. by 18 ft. deck size approved under AP 10-209 was based on a consideration of the issues discussed as part of SUB 03-08, and an approximate measurement of the patio/deck shown on SUB 03-08. In addition, 12 ft. 18 ft. was used because it is a conventional size with length and width proportional to each other.

Proposed Finds and Conclusions Should the DRB decide to uphold the Administrator’s decision, staff offers the following Finds of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Findings of Fact

1. The subject property is in the Village Zoning District (VZD). 2. The proposed deck would be approximately 662 sq. ft. and located to the rear of the house. 3. The proposed deck would be built using materials approved under SUB 03-08. 4. An Administrative Permit to build a 12 ft. by 18 ft. deck was approved under AP 10-0209 on

May 14, 2010. 5. An Administrative Permit (AP 11-0012) to build the proposed 662 sq. ft. deck was denied on

July 14, 2010. 6. An appeal of AP 10-0047 was filed with the Williston Planning Office on July 15, 2010.


Page

10

Conclusions of Law

1. The proposed fence is considered to be a permitted use and structure in the Village Zoning District and governed by the provisions of WDB 20.8 of Chapter 20 - Residential Improvements.

2. The proposed deck is larger than the area shown on Lot 6 of SUB 03-08. 3. An Administrative Permit (AP 10-0209) to build a 12 ft. by 18 ft. deck was properly issued

by the Administrator on May 14, 2010. The DRB may wish to consider using one of these proposed motions for rendering its decision and make modifications as necessary. Motions (Uphold, modify, or overturn) MOTION: (Uphold)

• As authorized by WDB 5.4.6, I, Richard Asch, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the appeal of the Administrator’s decision and all of the accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 14, 2010, accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by staff for APP 11-01 appeal of AP 11-0012, and uphold the decision of the Administrator denying the request to build a 662 sq. ft. deck.

(Modify)

• As authorized by WDB 5.4.6, I _________________, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the appeal of the Administrator’s decision and all of the accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 14, 2010 accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by staff for APP 11-001 appeal of AP 11-0012, and modify the decision of the Administrator and authorize the appellant to built the proposed deck with the following modifications ______________________________________. This approval authorizes the applicant to complete the work proposed subject to the stated conditions of approval and in accordance with the standards contained in the Williston Development Bylaw.

(Overturn)

• As authorized by WDB 5.4.6, I _________________, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the appeal of the Administrator’s decision and all of the accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 14, 2010 accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by staff for APP 11-001 appeal of AP 11-0012, and overturn the decision of the Administrator and allow the appellant to construct the proposed 662 sq. ft. deck. This approval authorizes the applicant to complete the work proposed subject to the stated conditions of approval and in accordance with the standards contained in the Williston Development Bylaw.

SECONDED by: John Bendzunas VOTE: 5 – 0 – 1 (Jennings abstained)


Page

11

No one spoke from the audience. 8: 02 P.M. Closed public hearing of APP 11-01 appeal. _________________________________________________________________________________ * Board member Jennings returned to the public hearing room for the next application. ___________________________________________________________________________ 8:03 P.M. Opened public hearing for DP 11-01. DP 11-01, Munson Earth Moving, 85 Shunpike Road, Williston requests a Discretionary Permit review for a Master Sign Plan at 45-48 Industrial Avenue in the Industrial Zoning District West (IZDW).

Representing the application was Mr. John Jaeger, South Burlington Realty for Munson Earth Moving, 85 Shunpike Road, Williston.

Mr. Boulanger reviewed his staff notes for the board. This is for the Master Sign Plan for the parcel at the intersection of Industrial Drive and Williston Road. This will cover the three buildings where Self Storage, Up This Rock and Pastabilities are located. The owner of Upon This Rock has taken over the whole building and has been working with Matt on the signage. Awnings are part of this request. The awnings themselves were recommended by HAAC when it reviewed the proposed changes. The applicant is allowed 708 s.f. (8% of street front of building). The applicant is proposing 503 s.f. of signage. The awning can only be approved under a Master Sign Plan. They are not using the total area the awning could use for signage. Staff does not have a problem approving a third free standing sign. Mr. Jaeger talked about the third free standing sign being a cure for a deficiency in directing people. They are not requesting any signage for the self storage business. They are trying to reach the maximum compliance with the multi-tenants to have easier guidelines to give the tenants (existing and future) when they want to erect signs. He is happy with the awning and has worked with staff to be able to delineate the signs. There will be no lighting on these signs. ________________________________________________________________________________

Williston Development Review Board – September 14, 2010 Staff Notes- DP 11-01 – Munson Earth Moving

Application No: DP 11-01 Name: Munson Earth Moving Master Sign Plan

Tax Parcel #: 08:069:005 Property Address: 48 Industrial Avenue, 58 Industrial Avenue, 4735 Williston Road

Zoning District: Industrial Zoning District West (IZDW)

Overview:

This is an application for a Discretionary Permit approval for a new Master Sign Plan at 48 Industrial Avenue, 58 Industrial Avenue, and 4735 Williston Road; collectively the Munson


Page

12

Earth Moving properties at the intersection of Williston Road and Industrial Avenue. The applicant is proposing a plan to move some existing signs, and to add new signs, including awning signs, which are only allowable through the approval of a Master Sign Plan.

Sign Area:

Overall allowable sign area on the site per the Williston Development Bylaw (WDB) table 25.A is 8% of the area of the street facing frontages of the buildings on the site. There is an aggregate area of 8857 square feet of building frontage on the site, 8% of which is 708.56 square feet.

The applicant is proposing 503 square feet of signage, which is less than 6% of the street facing frontage. No special findings are required for the DRB to approve the overall amount of signage on the site. Staff recommends conditions of approval that address how the nonconformity as to the total area of signage on the site will be reduced on this site.

Some of the proposed individual signs on the property are larger than would normally be allowed by WDB 25.A, and these signs will require special findings by the DRB to be approved:

• Sign “48 WIN 1” is an awning sign, which is only permitted as a part of an approved Master

Sign Plan. The proposed size is 44 square feet, where a wall sign in this location would be allowed by 25.A at 24 square feet.

• Sign “58-I” is a third freestanding sign where on this site, table 25.A would normally only allow two freestanding signs. Staff recommends approval of this sign given the triangular shape of the lot and its frontage on two major streets.

Master Sign Plan:

WDB 25.5 provides a mechanism by which a commercial site may gain approval for a Master Sign Plan from the Williston Development Review Board:

25.5 Master Sign Plans

25.5.1 Are master sign plans required for new developments? A proposed master sign plan must be submitted with the application for a discretionary permit for any development that will, or may reasonably be expected to, have multiple occupancies.

25.5.2 Are master sign plans required for existing developments? A proposed master sign plan must be submitted and approved by the DRB before any new sign for which a permit is required may be posted in any existing development that has, or may reasonably be expected to have, multiple occupancies.

Findings of Fact:

1. 48 Industrial Avenue, 58 Industrial Avenue, and 4735 Williston Road is a multi-tenant commercial site.

2. WDB 25.5.2, effective June 22, 2009, requires existing multi-tenant commercial properties to have Master Sign Plans approved by the DRB before any new signs can be permitted.

3. Some of the new proposed and existing signs are larger than would be allowed by WDB 25.A without a Master Sign Plan, as referenced above. The DRB makes the following findings related to those proposed signs:

a. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: i. Because the 2006 Williston Comprehensive Plan (WCP) requires multi-

tenant properties to be regulated under Master Sign Plans.


Page

13

ii. Because allowing tenants to have a greater sign area than 8% of the building frontage is consistent with WCP 2, “Williston’s Vision for the Future, where that vision includes a statement that the Town will “attend to the details of site planning and architectural design, including outdoor lighting, signage, access, and landscaping that give development both market appeal and long-term community value.” This is due to the sloping nature of the site.

b. Consistent with the purpose and principles of WDB 25:

i. Because allowing tenants to have a greater sign area than 8% of the building frontage satisfies WDB 25.1.2.4, “Well designed signs in the right locations can make a positive contribution to Williston’s landscape, economy, and community life. Compliance with these standards will ensure they do so.”

ii. Because installing a greater sign area than 8% of the building frontage is in accordance with WDB 25.1.2.5 Location Matters. “Different types, numbers, and sizes of signs are appropriate in different parts of Williston and the standards adopted here vary accordingly.”

Conclusions of Law:

1. A Master Sign Plan is required for any new signage to be installed at 48 Industrial Avenue, 58 Industrial Avenue, and 4735 Williston Road, including new signs proposed as a part of this application.

Conditions of Approval:

1. Final Plans must be filed within one year of the Notice of Decision of the approval of this Discretionary Permit.

2. The applicant shall obtain Administrative Permits for any work authorized by this approval and the subsequent approval of Final plans prior to the commencement of any work

MOTION: As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Brian Jennings, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application materials submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 14, 2010, accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval proposed by staff for the review of DP 11-01 and approve this Discretionary Permit for a Master Sign Plan. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek an Administrative Permit for future development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. SECONDED by: Philip Martin VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES No one spoke from the audience on this application 8:10 P.M. Closed public hearing for DP 11-01. ___________________________________________________________________________


Page

14

8:11 P.M. Opened public hearing for DP 10-37. DP 10- 37, G.B. New England 2, LLC, 14 Breakneck Hill Road, Lincoln, RI, requests Discretionary Permit approval to demolish existing building (Imported Cars), to construct a 13,600 s.f. retail building for CVS Pharmacy, parking lot, landscaping and associated improvements at 2466 Saint George Road in the Taft Corners Zoning District (TCZD).

Representing the application were Mr. Matthew Daly, Daly & Daly, 110 Main Street, PO Box 0069, Burlington, Vt., Mr. Kevin Paton, BKA Architects, Inc., 142 Crescent Street, Brockton, MA., Mr. David Fenstermacher, PE, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc, 6 Bedford Farms, Bedford, NH.

Mr. Daly asked about the outcome of the HAAC meeting held September 7th. Mr. Boulanger explained the three members who attended were supported by a fourth member, contacted electronically by e-mail, who concurred with the others that they felt what was presented was in general conformance of the requirements of the Design Review chapter and addressed concerns raised prior to the Pre-Application meeting. Mr. Belliveau reviewed his staff notes with the board. This is a multi-tenant commercial site currently being used as a used car sales business. The proposal before the board was approved by the board at the Pre-Application hearing in June, and includes demolishing the building currently being used for the car business. This is the first new building in the Taft Corners Zoning District to be proposed under the by-laws adopted by the Selectboard in June 2009. Thus the details of this proposal are very important. He mentioned the five criteria the applicant has chosen from the menu, listed in the by-laws, to meet as part of the new requirements for this zoning district. These five: 1) multiple uses; 2) multiple stories; 3) wide sidewalks; 4) public art; and 5) urban park remain the same as presented at the June DRB meeting. At that time the board members expressed concerns about the size of the park; the amount of space of the second floor needed to fulfill the requirements of the by-law; the suggestion the applicant work with Efficiency Vermont on energy saving construction methods and materials; truck traffic and working out the traffic issues with abutting landowners and the use of Bishop Avenue, a private road, along with Wright Avenue for truck deliveries and customer traffic. He discussed the modifications made by the applicant. These include the new color renderings, site plans and details given to the board in their packets. The HAAC was pleased by the overall appearance and design of the building. The only outstanding issue from that committee was the Master Sign Plan for the multi tenant site. He felt one of the major issues to come out of the Pre-Application hearing was the requirement of a second floor. The new proposal for the second floor is 32% of the first floor. The new renderings give a stronger impression of the second floor from the south and east sides of the building. The board will have to determine if this fulfills the requirements of the by-laws. He also mentioned the importance of the mechanical equipment on the roof being hidden or screened from view. This screening could be worked into the design of the roof line. He used the nearby Ponderosa Restaurant, on the corner of Marshall Avenue and Route 2-A, as an example of what not to copy.


Page

15

The applicants have reworked the entry that had been proposed at the back of the building to the second story. They are showing an entry way in the back to the rear parking area and have added a new access to the second floor from the main entrance. This was another major issue of concern of the board at the Pre-Application hearing. The applicant can meet the parking requirements if the board agrees to grant them a 20% reduction by working with the CCTA discount program transportation program as this location is along the bus line. This includes handicap parking, bicycle parking and trip facilities. The 20% reduction would bring the application into compliance with the by-laws requirements. A couple of details still need to be worked out. He didn’t find any information retaining to or spelled out for a Master Sign Plan and it would need to cover tenants. Future tenants would know what they could expect for dimensions and placements of signs. He mentioned the lighting plans and lighting values. Some were in excess of the allowed illumination. The Department of Public Works had concerns/comments about the proposed street trees along Wright Avenue not meeting the requirements. The Fire Department had concerns about lock boxes etc. He had not received any comments from the neighbors about the truck traffic and he didn’t know if the applicant had worked out any agreement with the abutters about the proposed use of Bishop Avenue, a private road, or not. This was a major concern with the board. Mr. Rieley pointed out the DPW was suggesting Wright Avenue be the only entrance and exit for truck traffic. Mr. Belliveau described the future road connections from Marshall to Wright Avenue. Bishop Avenue would not meet the street grid as this is a ‘funky’ lot, not squared off. He hopes in the long term the issue will be resolved. Mr. Matthew Daly started out by informing the board he’s had some discussions with Ms. St. Amand whose property is south of this property. He stated they had reached a stalemate. Ms. St. Amand wants no truck traffic on this road at all; however the applicant’s plans do include using Bishop Avenue. They are stuck where they are. They have had cordial discussions with them and they generally support this project; however the use of Bishop Avenue is too sensitive for them. Mr. Dave Fenstermacher reviewed the differences in this plan from the Pre-Application plans. He had met with Mr. Bruce Hoar, head of Public Works, about the standard 5’width of the sidewalks being efficient; however for the design criteria they are pushing for 8’ wide sidewalks along Route 2-A. They are providing space for public art, talking with artists and some local artists. There was a brief discussion over which group, HAAC or DRB, had the final decision over the ‘art’. In defining the ‘urban’ park, he said they were approaching it as a street-side plaza, keeping it to scale, and making it a 55’ park with pavers and a seat wall, and a short-term bike area. Mr. Kevin Paton, the architect, discussed his design of the building. Previously the second floor was presented as primarily being along Bishop Avenue. It had limited access and access faced the parking lot in an awkward location. He mentioned they are limited by the parking space in expanding the second floor. The new presentation showed the second floor now showing along Bishop and around the front toward Route 2-A. The design steps down from the appearance of a second story building


Page

16

when viewed from Wright Avenue. The bulk of the first floor will be occupied by CVS. There will be a common door for the entrance to CVS as well as access inside the doors to the second floor. The second floor will be partially given over to storage for the pharmacy. He explained the changes in the screened delivery area in the back. There would be no loading dock. The CVS trucks have tail-end elevators for unloading stock. Whole pallets could be loaded onto the freight/people elevator for storage on the second floor. The elevator provides handicap access to the second floor. There would be separate dedicated doors from the rear parking area for the pharmacy and for the second floor. He pointed out the second floor hallway that opens to bathrooms/showers and locker rooms. In response to a question from Mr. Jennings about the type of tenant CVS is looking for, Mr. Paton replied it would be a retail use. Mr. Daly added it was a difficult question because CVS draws traffic and any retailer would benefit from the store traffic. Mr. Rieley agreed it will draw traffic, but felt it would not be easy for a tenant to draw people to a second floor northeast corner and down a long hallway. He also expressed concerns about people using the back doors and elevator at the same time deliveries were being made. He wants the site to be successful for both CVS and their prospective tenants. Mr. Daley explained deliveries for CVS could be scheduled before store operating hours or after closing hours. He predicted there would be one to two 18 wheel truck deliveries once or maybe twice a week, more during certain seasons of the year, with one to two hours needed to unload the trucks. Board members raised questions about security for women in the long second floor hallway, not knowing who may be hanging around the hallway or bathrooms and about the possible need for security cameras. They also suggested the use of the elevator for freight be limited to hours before or after operating hours. Members also expressed concerns about a successful retailer being able to greet customers immediately vs. customers walking down a long hallway to reach the retail space. A suggestion was made to consider flipping the layout of the second floor. Mr. Rieley mentioned they had not yet touched on the percentage of the space that was planned for the second floor retail. As mentioned by Mr. Jennings, the condition is the second story is required to be the majority of the space of the first floor. Mr. Rieley interpreted that to mean over 50%. Mr. Daly pointed out the difficult criteria the applicant had to meet to fit this location. It’s not a huge lot with the parking necessary and the square footage standard of the CVS stores makes it difficult to address all the issues. The effort has been made to give the building the appearance of the second story and it was impossible to meet any other five criteria. He mentioned it might be possible to flip the space. He understands the board’s struggle with the application; theirs is the guinea pig application, the criteria and the precedence that might be set. He asked the board to look at it from the broad view of the appearance, a case-by-case situation and improvements to that location. When a board member asked if the project was maxed out with the parking, Mr. Fenstermacher responded in the affirmative. Upon request from a board member, he demonstrated the movements of a truck making a delivery off Bishop Avenue. Coming off the interstate, the trucks would make a left hand turn onto Bishop Avenue (not signalized) and exiting on Wright Avenue. When asked if he


Page

17

anticipated difficulty making left hand turns into Bishop, he felt the signal lights before it would provide pockets of space to make the turn. This would be during off-peak hours. Mr. Rieley asked about the changes in the delivery configurations if Bishop Avenue wasn’t used (the DPW asked for the entrance and exit be off Wright Avenue). Mr. Fenstermacher explained it would be difficult to reconfigure the delivery route. He further explained Mr. Hoar (DPW) didn’t realize CVS had rights to access Bishop because it is a private road, but that he (Mr. Hoar) now understood that CVS has access to both avenues. Mr. Rieley mentioned the board had asked for a legal opinion concerning who had access to the private road. Mr. Daly explained they have a title opinion and it is legally shared access with the Masonic property and other properties in back. Mr. Jennings asked where the right-of-way between CVS and Wright Avenue was located. He wanted to protect the town with reference to any future extensions of side walks and getting an easement. Mr. Daly explained O’Briens owns a sliver of land and CVS is negotiating to purchase that sliver. There is an exchange of right-of-ways with Taft Corners Association. Mr. Belliveau again mentioned the future plans for the street grid with Marshall connecting to this and other properties. At this time the St. Amands, owners of the Taft Corners Health Center, which abuts this lot, were invited to speak.

Speaking for this group was Ms. Marie St. Amand & Mr. Albert St. Amand, and Mr. Bruce Latelle, 25 Bishop Avenue (mailing address: 61 South Willard Street, Burlington); Mr. Vince Paradis, their lawyer, Box 174 Essex Jct.; and Mr. Mark Smith, Resource Systems Group, Lake Street, Burlington (analyzed the CVS traffic report).

Mr. Paradis spoke first and wanted to correct comments made earlier by Mr. Daly. The St. Amands do not support this development on this small lot. He felt the ordinance was being stretched to accommodate fit the CBVS application, not the other way around. The issues are about multi-use and multi-story. He stated the traffic planned for Bishop Avenue was not appropriate for truck traffic at any time or any place. What had been asked but not answered is that the only legal right-of-way is a 25’ ROW adjacent to and southerly of the Imported Car property that is a common ROW that services the Masonic Center. He stated this is the only legal access this property tacks on to. He pointed out nothing had been mentioned about the noise of the back up alarms and how the health center property will be protected from the truck traffic.


Page

18

Mr. Smith had prepared some papers to give to the board members in support of the St. Amand’s argument against the use of Bishop Avenue for truck traffic. Since staff had not seen this information it was felt the board could not consider it. Mr. Paradis objected and argued that as abutters they should be able to demonstrate reasons why Bishop Avenue should not be used. He objected to their not being able to present evidence. He pointed out Mr. Smith had photographs and illustrations to show turning traffic. Mr. Daly objected to the information being shown as they had not seen it, could not analyze it and comment before the board made a decision later that evening. Mr. Rieley pointed out he felt the board would probably not be making their decision that night. A copy of the information being offered to the board was given to the applicant. Mr. Paradis explained the application had not been shown to them before the application was file with the Planning & Zoning offices, and they have been scrambling to get information to respond to the application. Communication with the applicant has not been easy. Mr. Smith pointed out the road was created back when 25’ was considered wide enough, and with the guard rail the pavement is as narrow as 18’ in places. No improvements to Bishop have been mentioned and he feels more than the truck traffic will come in this entrance because it is the first entrance from the interstate. He discussed the truck traffic movement and in their opinion the preferred movement is to turn into Bishop and exit out on Wright Avenue; however the applicant is proposing to do the opposite. They are not denying the right of CVS to use the ROW; however the road is in poor condition, there are no curbs and trailer trucks take up most of the road. When other businesses/neighbors on the road have events on occasion, cars fill up the road. The traffic study done by the applicant doesn’t mention any road improvements. If the applicant is using a left-hand turn, a left-hand turning lane should be considered. He pointed out there will be other truck deliveries not just the once or twice a week trailer truck. Beverage trucks and other venders will also be making deliveries and these trucks should be considered as well. When asked by Mr. Rieley as to the road being private or public and who maintained it, Mr. Paradis responded the road is on St. Amand property. There was an informal arrangement as there is with most Vermont ROWs. It does extend to the properties in the rear; it is “L” shaped. Mr. Smith again pointed out if CVS has a ROW, then they should pay for improving it. Mr. Paradis pointed out if Wright Avenue, as a public road, had cars parked along it, police could enforce illegal parking. Cars parked along Bishop Avenue can not be regulated. The town cannot regulate it, does not plow it, cannot curb it, it cannot enforce anything on the road because it is a private road. He again expressed his opinion this project is overbuilt for using a private drive. Mr. Rieley asked about the other businesses along Bishop Avenue.


Page

19

Ms. St. Amand mentioned the Masonic Center often has activities on the weekends, as does the dog training business, when cars will be parked lining the road. The health center building has seven tenants including dentists, medical and general offices. There are four lots in back. Currently, one is unoccupied; three are occupied by the Masons, the dog training, and a plumbing supply business. When asked by Mr. Asch if the applicant made suitable improvements to the road, would it make for a more agreeable arrangement with the St Amands. Mr. Paradis again expressed his opinion that the car import lot is too small for the amount of use proposed by the applicant. Mr. Smith pointed out the improvements would need to include 11’ wide lanes, 2’ shoulders, curbs, and adequate drainage, which would take a 26’ width. It’s not what makes a commercial road, but it could be made to work if part of it came from CVS. Ms. St. Amand further commented about their concerns for public safety for their tenants. They expressed these concerns at the June meeting and felt CVS had not responded to these concerns. She felt changes had been made again back to the original plan for truck traffic and felt their concerns were being totally ignored. Mr. Albert St. Amand spoke about the truck traffic and felt CVS would be unable to control all the truck traffic that will be taking place on the lot. They will not be able to control traffic/deliveries for potential businesses on the second floor and they had not addressed this issue to date. Neither they nor their tenants have been approached about this issue. Mr. Paradis commented in reading the traffic report, it was calculated 440 cars would potentially be going in and out of Bishop Avenue during peak traffic hours. The road is not built for that. It would not be able to handle this amount of traffic. Mr. Daly asked to respond to the issues raised by Mr. Paradis and the St. Amands. The applicant has a traffic expert to address these concerns. For the record, he wanted to respond to Mr. Paradis’s comments that this project is not over built. It meets the density and setback requirements and it’s within the bounds and parameters of the regulations and by-laws. They are not proposing any unreasonable use of the ROW. It’s a serious legal issue that the owner of the property enjoys with the ROW. The proposed use is reasonable under common law rules of easements and ROWs, and it is a legal right the property owner enjoys. Mr. Jennings mentioned staff’s comments on screening the roof top mechanical equipment and asked the applicant to redraw the roof line and indicate how high the roof walls would be in their future drawings. Ms. O’Brien pointed out CVS has the burden to prove the road could handle the traffic. After seeing the photographs, she felt the road needed an upgrade. Mr. Jennings asked about ways to encourage drivers to use Wright Avenue instead of Bishop.


Page

20

Ms. O’Brien asked what other truck/vendors such as beverage trucks, newspaper trucks etc. would be making deliveries. Does CVS use other trucks for deliveries? Mr. Daly mentioned they might have to make clear direct communications under arrangements with the vendors that they have to use Wright Avenue. Mr. Bruce Latelle spoke about the relocating of traffic on Bishop and the need for adequate year round screening by trees around the site and the back of the property. There was a discussion about the timing of submissions to staff to prepare for the next DRB meeting and giving the applicant time to respond to the issues raised during this hearing. Unless waived by the applicant, decisions must be reached within 45 days. In fairness to everyone involved the applicant was asked to return on the October 12th DRB meeting date. Otherwise they would have to submit the new material within a few days to meet the September 28th DRB meeting. _________________________________________________________________________________


DP 10-37, G. B. New England (CVS Pharmacy) Tax Parcel # 8:103:13

2466 St. George Rd., (VT Rt. 2A)

Application No: DP 10-37 Name: G. B. New England (CVS Pharmacy)

Tax Parcel #: 08:103:013 Property Address: 2466 St. George Rd.

Zoning District: Taft Corners Zoning District Total Acres: 1.39 acres

Overview This is a request for a Discretionary Permit for a proposed multi-use retail commercial development in the Taft Corner Zoning District (TCZD). The property is located on the west side of VT Rt. 2A between Wright Avenue to the north and Bishop Avenue to the south. Retail sales uses are permitted in the TCZD. The primary objective of this proposal is to build a pharmacy to be operated by CVS. The property is currently developed as an automobile sales and service use. This proposal calls for the existing building to be demolished and the site completely redeveloped. This proposal is to develop a 19,320 sq. ft. two-story retail commercial building, of which approximately 5,300 sq. ft. would be located on the second story.

This project was reviewed by the DRB for Pre-application on June 22, 2010, at which time the board voted to allow the applicants to proceed with an application for a Discretionary Permit with recommendations that the proposal be modified to better address the development standards of the TCZD.

Planning Staff Comments

This development proposal is significant because of its prominent location on Rt. 2A in the heart of the Taft Corners shopping district and the town’s growth center. In addition to the typical development standards, the building design is also subject to the design review criteria


Page

21

of WDB Chapter 22 including review by the Williston Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee (HAAC). Specifically, the TCZD calls for the development of a design-conscious, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use town center in the heart of Williston’s growth center.

New development proposals in the TCZD have some choices about how they intend to meet the development standards for this zoning district. There are nine design elements listed in WDB 41.5.3 of which an applicant would have to include at least five in their proposal. The applicants are proposing a design that addresses the following five elements:

41.5.3.1 … multiple retail uses; 41.5.3.5 … multiple stories, not just the appearance of multiple stories; 41.5.3.6 … wide sidewalks that may be used for outdoor dining and/or with seating that encourages outdoor social interaction; 41.5.3.7 … public artwork, the nature of which must be approved by the DRB, with the advice of the HAAC; and 41.5.3.9 … an urban park, as defined in the Open Space Plan. Credit for compliance will be provided only where a proposed park is visible and accessible so that it complements other proposed uses. A picnic table for employee lunch breaks is not an urban park.

Part of the task for the DRB in reviewing this request will be to determine whether the design proposal meets the intent of the bylaw in how these design elements have been incorporated into the proposal.

Design

The building proposed is oriented close to both Rt. 2A and Wright Avenue as required for the TCZD. The exterior has a proposed façade of red and a light earth tone colored brick. Parking and vehicular access would be to the rear of the building, along with four proposed parking spaces along Wright Avenue. The applicants have proposed a partial second story that would run along the length of the building’s front elevation facing VT. Rt. 2A (~24 ft. deep), and along the south side of the building Bishop Avenue (~33 ft. deep). This would yield a second story of approximately 5,300 sq. ft. or 62% of the floor area of the first story. The DRB must determine whether this is sufficient to meet the intent and requirements of WDB 41.5.3.5 for multiple stories. The second story would have two points of entry: one shared with the first story at the entryway on VT. Rt. 2A, as well as a separate entryway facing the rear parking lot of the south side of the rear elevation.

The current design is a modification of the applicant’s original proposal to the DRB when the second story was approximately 22% of the floor area of the first story. The current proposal also has two entrances to the second story that are more prominent and visible and thus more accessible.

Access

Access to the site has been indicated from both Wright Avenue on the north, intended to become a public street, and Bishop Avenue a private way to the south. There are some questions about truck deliveries and routes which should be addressed. The neighboring


Page

22

property owners to the south would like trucks to not use Bishop Avenue. A trash compacter has been proposed to be located next to the south side of the building. The existing driveway fronting onto VT. Rt. 2A will be closed.

Parking

Vehicular parking was calculated at a rate of 4 parking spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, the standard for retail use, or a minimum of 78 spaces with a minimum of 4 handicap accessible parking spaces have also been specified. Four on-street parking spaces along Wright Avenue have also been proposed. Five bicycle parking spaces including one long term space and one end of trip facility (changing and shower facilities) are also required. This project is also eligible for up to a 20% reduction in the number of required parking spaces because it is located in proximity to a public transit line, proving that the occupants participate in the CCTA discount pass program for their employees, subject to DRB approval. With a 20% reduction in the number of parking spaces, the number required could be reduced to 58 spaces, which is the number of spaces proposed.

Traffic

The applicants have provided a traffic study for review. The traffic study has indicated that the proposed building and uses will not have a major impact on the traffic levels of the surrounding area. The public works department does not have any significant concerns with the potential traffic impacts for this project. This assumes that access to the site will be provided from Wright Avenue and Bishop Avenue and the existing driveways will be closed.

Buffers and Landscaping

A Type III landscape buffer will be required along the side and rear property lines. In addition, the proposal calls for some enhanced landscaping along the front and south side of the building facing Rt. 2A. All exterior mechanical equipment, utility connections such as meters and junction boxes, trash dumpsters and compacters should also be screened from view with landscaping, or in the case of rooftop equipment though the use of architectural screening. Street trees are also required along Wright Avenue. Public works has indicated that the current proposal does not meet the town’s standards.

The applicants are also proposing an urban park, to be located near the front entryway, in order to meet the design element requirements of the TCZD, and some enhanced landscaping along the front façade of the building has been proposed. The urban park will include a seat wall, outdoor seating, and an object of art. The proposal also has indicated that a wide sidewalk (eight foot wide section) will be provided along VT Rt. 2A. The typical town standard calls for a five foot minimum section.

Stormwater Management

The applicants have indicated that they would incorporate what appears to be a bioswale in the parking lot as part of their stormwater management scheme. The applicants may also want to consider managing water runoff from the building’s roof on-site in some type of rain garden or other BMP technique.

Signs

The applicants are proposing a multiple tenant building, thus a master sign plan is required. The current proposal has not provided all of the information necessary to render a decision on the master sign plan aspect of the application. The applicants will also need to provide information concerning the size and location parameters of the signs for the proposed space that will be used for occupants other than the proposed pharmacy.


Page

23

Lighting A lighting plan has been submitted as part of the application. The illumination values along the building elevation facing the parking lot, however, indicate several lighting levels in excess of the 5.0 lumen maximum allowed. This should be changed to comply with the WDB standards and incorporated into Final Plans. Also missing are details on the type fixtures proposed. The town requires fixtures with full light cut off, and this information needs to be supplied.

Conservation Commission Comments

This project was not reviewed by the Williston Conservation Commission. HAAC Comments and Recommendations

The HAAC has reported that they are generally pleased with the design of the proposed building and they’re comments from Pre-application have been addressed. They’re comments are attached. HAAC has reiterated that a master sign plan should include information about other tenants in the proposed building besides the pharmacy.

Public Works Comments

The Public Works Department has indicated in their comments that the following should be provided: • The location of water and sewer service • A traffic study • Analysis of stormwater and plans to manage stormwater • DPW recommends that only one entrance be used for tractor trailers serving the site • Information concerning a proposed curb on Wright Avenue should be removed from sheet

SV-1. Fire Department Comments

The Fire Department has indicated in their comments that the following should be provided: • A remote for the fire alarm panel in the entryway • The location of the key safe box should be determined in consultation with the Fire

Department • Fire hydrants shall be located within 300 feet of the proposed building in both directions • Additional information about the location of deliveries by truck and how this might affect

access to the site should be provided. These details would best be provided in conjunction with an application for an Administrative Permit along with the plans for construction of the building. Recommendation Staff has prepared the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, conditions of approval, and motion for the DRB to consider in makings its decision. Findings of Fact

1. The subject property is located in the TCZD and subject to the development standards of WDB Chapter 41.

2. The proposed commercial building is proposed to be approximately 19,320 sq. ft. in size, with approximately 5,300 sq. ft. on the second story.

3. The proposed building will have space for multiple retail uses.


Page

24

Conclusions of Law 1. The proposed development can meet the development standards of WDB Chapter 41 for the

TCZD as well as other applicable sections if the proposed development meets the conditions of approval listed below.

Conditions of Approval

1. The applicants shall file Final Plans for approval and signature within one year from the date of the notice of determination of this decision or this approval shall be considered null and void. All development of the subject property shall be in conformance with the approved Final Plans unless otherwise authorized by the DRB.

2. Following the signing of Final Plans, the applicants shall first obtain an Administrative Permit or Permits prior to starting any work as part of this project.

3. No occupancy or use of the proposed building shall take place until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued signifying that all conditions of any required permits from the Town have been satisfied.

4. All signage proposed for this building, including prospective future tenant(s), shall be in conformance with the size, location, and lighting requirements of the approved Master Sign Plan.

5. All development for this project shall be in conformance with all of the requirements of the Williston Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee, the Williston Public Works Department, and the Williston Fire Department.

6. The applicants shall enter into a Development Agreement with the town insuring that all required public or private improvements shall be completed in accordance with town standards and the conditions of this approval prior to obtaining Administrative Permit(s).

7. The applicant shall consult with Efficiency Vermont and Vermont Gas for ways of achieving a high standard of energy efficiency.

8. The proposed artwork shall be subject to review and approval by the HAAC and shall be approved prior to the signing of final Plans.

9. All mechanical equipment and utility connections including but not limited to HVAC, water, gas, and electrical meters and connections shall be fully screened from sight. Any necessary architectural screening for roof top equipment shall be provided the parapet wall along the roof line.

10. All exterior lighting shall utilize full cut off fixtures and shall be in compliance with the lighting level requirements of WDB Chapter 24.

11. All landscaping, including street trees along Wright Avenue, shall be in compliance with the town’s standards in the WDB and the Williston Public Works Standard Specifications, and these landscaping details shall be included in the landscaping plan as part of final Plans.

12. All public improvements required by the approval of this proposed development (including, but not limited to roads, sidewalks, water & sewer connections) must be built to meet the Town's specifications.

13. The applicant shall obtain any and all required permits and authorizations as required by either the State of Vermont or US Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencing any work in association with this project.

14. This approval incorporates by reference all plans and drawings presented and all verbal representations by the applicant at Development Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other conditions or regulations.

MOTION:


Page

25

• As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, _______________, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town’s staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 14, 2010, accept the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law proposed by staff and approve DP 10-37 subject to the above listed conditions.

• This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of those plans from staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based.

Speaking from the audience were Ms. Marie St. Amand and Mr. Albert St. Amand, Mr. Vince Paradis, Mr. Bruce Latelle, and Mr. Mark Smith, 9:37 P.M. DP 10-37 hearing was recessed 10/12/2010.

_________________________________________________________________________________ III. Minutes from August 10, 2010. (August 24th meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum) MOTION:

I, Philip Martin, make the motion to approve the minutes of August 10, 2010 as written. SECONDED by: Cathy O’Brien VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES _________________________________________________________________________________ IV. Communications and Other Business MOTION:

I, Cathy O’Brien, make a motion to elect Scott Rieley as Chairman and Richard Asch as Vice Chairman of the DRB.

SECONDED by: Brian Jennings VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES _________________________________________________________________________________ 9:38 P.M. Closed public hearing for deliberations.

10:30 P.M. Reopened public hearing after deliberations.

_________________________________________________________________________________ V. Adjournment

MOTION:

I, Philip Martin, make the motion to adjourn.

SECONDED by: Cathy O’Brien VOTE: 6 – 0 AYES


Page

26

10:38 P.M. The meeting was adjourned.

For further information, please call the Planning and Zoning Department at 878-6704 or stop by the Town Hall Annex, 7878 Williston Road, where the information and an audio recording are on file. * Attachments for DP 10-37


Page

27


Page

28

TOWN OF WILLISTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD …F506B13C... · DP 11-01, Munson Earth Moving, 85...

Documents

Transcript of TOWN OF WILLISTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD …F506B13C... · DP 11-01, Munson Earth Moving, 85...