town of bennington development review board minutes CDC ASSEMBLY ROOM bennington, vt 05201 aUgust 1, 2001 @ 7:30 p.m. Present: Dr. Michael Brady, Bob Burgess, Charles Copp, Jim Frechette, Barry H”rst, Bill Barney, Michael Lochner, Michael von Ouhl, Janet Thompson, Ron Alderman, Jim Gulley and Jamie Jerome. Also present: Joel Lentzner, Brenda Saraffin, Leanne Hudson, Dennis Woodard, Deborah Zompa, Joe Hall, Jim Marsden, Tim Holbrook, Chris Williams, Epstein, Dave Adams, Jim Goodine, Jacquelin Prue, Tyler Harte, William Thomson, Robyn Baker, and other citizens. Dr. Brady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. Minutes of July 18, 2001. ¨ Burgess noted that on Page 8, Line 22, site should be sight. ¨ Burgess also noted that on Page 9, Line 36, the entry is not.... ¨ Lochner noted on Page 9, line 4, right and left hand turn lanes required as well as proper signalization for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. H”rst moved to approve the Minutes of July 18, 2001 as amended. Copp seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Reading of witness' oath. Mr. Monks read the witness oath: "I solemnly swear and affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that the statement I make, the testimony I give, and other evidence I submit to the Development Review Board at the Board's public hearing held on this date shall be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." 3. Disclosure of Ex parte Communications and Conflicts of Interest Copp and Barney will excuse themselves from Item 6. 4. Alternates Voting Assignments 5. Joel Lentzner, Fiddlehead at Four Corners, design review of signs. H”rst noted that the ARP reviewed and recommended the quantity, size and location of the signs for approval with design and content subject to approval upon changes. There was some discussion about the holes to be made in the marble. Lentzner noted that they are planning a system of high-end banners/signs. The interior of the building has been transformed while the outside still looks like a bank. He reported that they have looked at other marble buildings, and he noted that the Clark Art Institute has some Monet's on banners. They would like to put a series of six up, four with artwork, and the two smaller banners with logo and text. They will be on Tybek, four 7' x 3', and two 2' x 4'. H”rst noted that Lentzner has proposed plugging the holes in the marble with cores from a supply on the roof. Lentzner felt that it would be difficult to hang the bars from the window frames. Alderman asked how many signs there would be, and Lentzner noted that there would be six, one will be used twice on each side of the building. Lentzner reviewed the symmetrical placement of the banners. Barney asked how often the banners would be changed, and Lentzner noted that they would change them every nine months. Barney asked about the possibility of the banners falling off the side of the building, and Lentzner noted that the bolts to secure them would weigh more than the banner. Thompson asked, and H”rst noted that the applicant would present all new designs for approval by the ARP. There are no lights intended. Alderman asked if the colors comply with approved colors. Monks noted that the banner with the store identification complies, while the other signs have a wide variety of colors. Alderman was concerned about the colors on one of the banners. Lentzner felt that they need to indicate that this building is no longer a bank. There are limited things that they can do to make the building more retail oriented. He feels that this also adds a vibrancy and energy to the Four Corners, and makes the building more interesting. Lentzner noted that the image Alderman was concerned about was by Dr. Seuss, and they are the only gallery in the area that carries the Secret Art of Dr. Seuss. Lentzner also noted that there is less green in the actual image. Alderman noted that almost the same argument was used by a business on the south side of Main Street, and the applicant was held in strict compliance to the acceptable colors. Lentzner asked if there was a difference in the amount of color, and Alderman felt that proposal was less flashy than this. Frechette felt that a fundamental difference is that colors are associated with permanent signage. He feels this is artwork, not signage, and should not be held to the same standards as signage. Thompson agrees that artwork should be considered when looking at a sign, because it is a reproduction of a piece of art. H”rst agreed, and noted that this is not a permanent sign being decorated or designed. Alderman noted that if this were not a sign, the applicant would not be before them. Alderman asked and Monks noted that this would be present longer than a temporary sign. Von Ouhl asked if all six banners would be changed, and Lentzner noted that the two small ones would be replaced at the end of their life, approximately two years. Burgess noted that this is complementing the Better Bennington Corporation project. Burgess moved to accept as recommended by the ARP, with the stipulation that future designs receive board approval. The motion carried. Alderman was opposed. 6. Brenda Sarafin, 87 Albe Drive, seeking variance of lot size/density requirement to construct apartment in basement of single family dwelling, a RR District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 4.1, 8.5. Monks distributed water level readings, and some information regarding Vermont wastewater rules. Woodard noted that the Board had asked for a more complete diagram, which he presented. He noted that they were also present to address the water problem. He reported that an engineer had been there and stated that the water flow was adequate. He also reported that a state engineer has inspected the apartment and it qualified for square footage. Woodard noted that in the Holt Springs Development there were approximately 150 building lots, and each lot was sold to one person. There are 31 houses in the Barney Road development, and 37 lots have been sold. Water flow as predicted will be less than the original 150 gallons per unit per day. Woodard does not believe that this qualifies as an accessory apartment, and does not need a variance. Woodard noted that the state allowed for people to have an apartment in their basement, one-third the square footage size of the house. He has had an engineer certify that. Hudson distributed copies of the accessory apartment legislation that was enacted in July of 2000. Monks noted that this legislation was not a zoning matter, but part of a wastewater permit. Jerome asked and the applicant noted that they are proposing that a family member occupy the apartment. Frechette asked if the apartment would be dismantled if the relative vacated. Woodard noted that a blood relative must use the apartment. Hudson noted that they planned to purchase the home from her mother in law eventually and remove the apartment. Alderman noted this is only a little more than half of what is required for a two family dwelling. Monks noted that one matter was Title 10 and one was Title 24. Monks noted that this was approved as a PUD with small lots and a section of reserve land. Thomson addressed the Board. He noted that there have been more lots sold than homes that have been built, so there is a possibility that only 58 of the 60 lots might be built. Thomson noted that the lots are small because of the Planned Unit Development. He noted that there was no indication that there would still be ample water pressure once the project is built out. Thomson noted that he still owns ten lots on the high part of the hill. He has been told that he needs to have a minimum of 35 psi. The pressure test from the town held at 36 psi. Since then they have put a reservoir on Burgess Road. Thomson noted that he has 20 approvals from 20 agencies between the state and the town. Monks noted that the town and state standards are different, and Thomson asked if the zoning bylaw still has to be met and Monks noted that it does. Thomson would like documentation that this matter would not jeopardize his permitted development plans. Frechette asked, and noted that his question was not regarding water and sewer, but that his permits state 60 single family dwellings, and he wants to be sure this doesn't jeopardize the existing permits. Barney asked about the water supply, and Thomson noted that they are permitted for 60 single-family dwellings. Barney asked and Thomson noted that the town has assured them that they will have 35 psi for 60 homes in his development. There are currently 31 homes in the development, with the potential for an additional 25. Burgess asked if there was any restriction on the number of bedrooms in the single-family homes. Brady noted that the single family home could be two bedrooms or six. There was no restriction on the number of fixture units. Alderman noted that they are allowed to place conditions on variances. He asked about enforcement issues regarding the relative stipulation. Thompson moved to approve the variance of the lot size/density as requested. Von Ouhl seconded. Jerome is voting. Alderman noted that the DRB does not technically set a precedent, but he feels that they must be consistent. Monks read the five facts which were voted on: 1. Five in favor. Alderman, Frechette and Lochner were opposed. 2. Five in favor. Frechette, Alderman and Lochner were opposed. 3. Two in favor. Von Ouhl and Jerome. Seven opposed. 4. Four in favor H”rst Thomson Von Ouhl and Barney, five opposed. 5. Seven in favor. Alderman and Lochner opposed. The variance is not granted. 6. Adelphia Business Solutions, Mount Anthony, seeking site plan and conditional use approval for the addition of antennas to an existing tower and the installation of equipment cabinets at the base of the tower at the peak of Mount Anthony, a Forest District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 5.2. Monks noted that this application would require two hearings. Deborah Zompa, representing Devon Mobile presented the plans. She explained that there are three existing towers on Mount Anthony, and they are discussing the tower owned by Adelphia. The one owned by Atlantic Cellular is visible from all over town. The Adelphia tower is visible from some locations in town. She explained that there is also a three-legged wooden structure, which is a guide tower. They are proposing to erect six panel antennas on the tower. She presented an antenna to the Board. She noted that it weighs less than 10 lbs., 18 lbs. mounted. The tower is 60' now. These will be 45' above ground level. On the base they will have a fenced in compound 20' x 20' on a stone base, not concrete. There will be a metal platform for three equipment cabinets. There will be a chain link fence, 6' high, with three rows of barbed wire. The gate will be locked. H”rst asked if this would be grate work and if it would be like a platform 45' from the ground. He felt that the bridging looked like grate work. Zompa noted that this would be a platform with the antennas mounted. H”rst felt that the existing antennas would obstruct this. Zompa noted that changes may be made up to 10'. Zompa noted that these would be at 45'. Adelphia has informed her that there are several things that can be moved and not replaced. There is one whip antenna at 45' that can be moved if necessary. H”rst asked if anyone has checked to see what trees would need to be removed, and Zompa noted that they do not plan on removing any. Jerome asked and Zompa noted that 45' is to the center of the antenna. Copp asked about some existing equipment and Zompa felt that those were guide wires. Lochner noted that the towers are innocuous, but the white is too bright. Zompa noted that they could use olive drab or dark grey. Lochner noted that the compound itself is going to require that some trees of significant height would need to be removed. Zompa felt that was the turnaround area. H”rst presented a picture of a tree that they suspect might be in the way. Zompa asked and H”rst felt that the compound could be relocated to preserve existing vegetation. Lochner noted that guy wires have been placed in the turnaround. If this were rotated to the south and east it would prevent them from cutting trees. The Board agreed that any tree removal larger than 3" caliper would require approval. Alderman asked and Zompa indicated that the antennas would be mounted in three directions. Von Ouhl moved to grant preliminary approval for the six antennas with the stipulation that they be painted a non-glaring flat color and the compound located so that no trees larger than 3" caliper are removed. Jerome asked if the top of the antennas could be dropped below 45', and Zompa noted that they have run their frequency tests at 45'. H”rst felt that they should have a stipulation regarding maximum height. H”rst noted that the contractor may make moves up to ten feet. Jerome asked, and Zompa noted that the tower was measured. H”rst noted that he can see both metal towers from his home. Burgess asked if they are approving the three futures or six. Zompa noted that Burgess was indicating existing antennas. They are approving six. H”rst asked how it would affect them to move the antennas, and Zompa noted that running new radio frequency tests would take them much more time. Jerome noted that the existing antenna is lattice while these are solid and much more visible. Frechette was comfortable with the center of the tower being at 45'. He feels that to have this technology they must make concessions. The maximum height according to the applications is 47 feet. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Mount Anthony Union High School, District 14, Mount Anthony Union Middle School, East Road, review of site plan and conditional use request for proposed 147,500-sq. ft. public middle school. Prue, Chair of the Mount Anthony Board addressed the Board. She thanked the DRB for their effort in reviewing the application. She recognized that they have been acting in the best interests of the children and community. They do not feel that it is the school district's place to comply with off site requirements. The improvements stipulated have been needed for many years, and other developments on East Road have not been required to build them. They are willing to work to insure that off site improvements are constructed. The MAU Board has instructed their engineers not to draw the off site requirements into their plans. The Boar reviewed issues regarding vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic on site. Dave Epstein, Truex, Cullins and Partners addressed the Board. He distributed a partial plan revision. Epstein indicated that they have incorporated a second access drive at the same scale as the C-1 site plan. They provided more detail including a cut through the road as requested. He explained that they have also provided a detail of the drainage plans, the extent of curbing, and have eliminated the cut through the parent drop off loop. He explained that the second access drive comes off of the north gravel fire lane, turns west in the power line right of way, and then comes to East Road with a crash gate at the bottom. This will be the same construction as the gravel fire lane, 18' wide with gravel surface. Epstein indicated the location of three gates. He also indicated the location of an emergency access drive to the playing fields. He explained that the piping to Furnace Brook has been rerouted to the north and down to get some better grades. They are in the process of obtaining permits. No water from the western portion of the building east will be coming toward East Road. He addressed water on the access road, and noted that the road is crowned, so half the water will go into a swale on the south side of the road, and the other half comes along to a catch basin. The road has a reverse pitch as per traffic standards. Nothing has changed regarding landscaping. They will be maintaining hedgerows as a buffer, and are planting several trees, well in excess of the zoning requirement for the number of trees. Lighting was pole lights along the access drive, with a shorter variety along the parent drop off, and wall packs around the building. There will also be downlights on the canopies. All of the fixtures are full cut-off metal halide fixtures. Epstein explained that water and sewer access is in the road. He indicated the location of those lines on the drawings. Epstein noted that three-phase power is located 800' to 1000' down the road, and they will bring it up on existing poles. Epstein addressed the water resource protection areas, and noted the location of several wetlands on the site. He explained that all of the site improvements are outside of the 50' buffer. Tyler Harte of Dubois and King addressed the Board. He reviewed the drainage in detail. He noted that there would be a culvert under the driveway and some ditching along East Road. There will be a catch basin along the north side of the driveway that will be discharged into the existing culvert. The rest is collected by a series of 16 catch basins in the parking lot. Runoff rainfall from the roof is collected into that system by a series of downpipes. Harte explained that there is an amount of pollutants in the pavement runoff, and that is collected in the storm water basin. The basins have a cleaning schedule where sediments are removed. Floating material will be baffled. The water discharged to Furnace Brook will be clean and well treated. They need three permits for this, one of them from Army Corp of Engineers has been granted, others have been applied for. Harte noted that they have added culvert and ditching along East Road for the added emergency access as well. Harte reviewed the curbing designs. Jerome asked about the entranceway curbing on the north, showing the road crowned and water coming to catch basin on north side of the entranceway. He asked the length of the road, and Harte felt that it was around 300'. Jerome noted that on the north side where it follows it would create an icing problem. Harte indicated the location of another catch basin at the top. Harte felt that the one that is there is adequate, but had no objection to adding another one. Jerome asked about the size of the existing town culvert, and Harte noted that it was 15" and will need to be upgraded to 18" minimum. Burgess disagrees with the road going in a 6' to 8' swath on a field. He noted that from the gate to the main road is 920'. When the ditch is plowed full in the winter, the water will go by the single culvert and down to the main road. Harte respectfully disagreed, and indicated the location of a culvert that intercepts the water. Burgess noted that they received this print on June 26, and it is dated June 30. He also addressed sheet drainage on the parking lot, from the southeast corner to the parent drop-off area. He feels that as designed, water will go up into corner and sit there, and Harte noted that there is a catch basin there, and he indicated their locations on the plan. Harte indicated the location of the low point of the parking lot. Burgess asked about the curb between the sidewalk and the road. The sidewalk is 8' wide. Burgess noted that the town recommends a snow shelf, and Harte noted that the snow could be plowed completely off the sidewalk. Burgess noted that the design shows the bank coming down to the sidewalk and Harte agreed that there might be a slight bank. Harte noted that the catch basin elevation is, lower and the water will drain to the low point. Harte felt that the snow would be plowed onto the grass. Burgess felt that they should have a design to get the snow off the sidewalk. Jerome felt that the bank could be removed and a snow shelf installed to remove the melt off. Harte agreed that they could feather the bank back. Burgess felt that the bank was approximately 6', not 18" as Harte indicated. Jerome disagreed. Burgess asked where the contaminated soil that is removed from the detention basin would go, and Harte noted that it would go to a receiving depository, typically a landfill. Burgess asked if oil that wasn't bound would go into the brook, and Harte noted that the basin would be cleaned twice a year. Harte noted that under most cases the water would never rise to overflow and it would all be contained in the detention basin. Barney asked the size of the retention pond, and Harte explained that it is 100' by 300', with a 4' overflow height. Harte noted that it would contain all water including the runoff from roof area, which is not required to be detained or treated. Barney asked if the state allows a certain amount of pollution into the brook, and Harte noted that they do not have specific standards at this time. The proposed filters will also filter oil. Burgess felt that there should be a catch basin at the dumpster area. Harte agreed. The Board addressed vehicle, pedestrian and bike access and circulation on site, including parking, traffic, etc. Lochner asked questions regarding traffic circulation in the parking lot. The entrance to the parent drop off is an entrance to a two way street and he has concerns about crossing traffic while trying to discharge children. He feels that it would be cleaner if those areas were one way to the east. He noted that the two entrances to the parking area are both two ways. Harte noted that the easterly entrance to the drop-off is two ways, the most westerly is one way out. Harte noted that he left it as is to provide two exits. Harte agreed that they could reconsider that. Burgess has an aversion to the road being so deep. He asked if it had to be so low. Harte noted that they are trying to provide for handicapped access, and minimum grades in the parking lot. He noted that site plan standards go into the design. They also have to meet cut and fill bounds. H”rst asked about the gravel road circling the building. There is a crash gate at the highway, and he asked what is located at the edge of the parking lot to prevent access. Harte noted that there is no gate there. H”rst noted that they have blocked two of three exits. Harte agreed. Jerome asked what the paving limits are and Harte noted that the driveway, the bus drop, vehicular drop and parking lot are all paved. He indicated the location of the change from pavement to gravel. The additional parking to the rear is intended to be gravel. Jerome thinks that they should consider paving the additional parking to the north corner of the building for dust control, etc. Harte noted that there is an excess of paved parking on site. Jerome noted that the parking was close to the ball fields and they would be used. Burgess asked about storm drainage catch basins 4, 6, 15, 16, and 13. He would like to see detail. The rim elevation is the grade line at that point. Burgess asked why they included catch basin 17, and Harte noted that there has to be structure where they bring pipes together. They are trying to catch whatever storm water there is on the surface. Lochner reviewed the parking requirements, and noted that he comes up with 166 parking spaces specifically marked on the plan. Harte noted that the spaces to the east and the north are not marked. Burgess noted that those spots were inaccessible because of the gate. Lochner asked about the gravel drive to the soccer fields being gated. Harte noted that there is a gate and indicated the location. Lochner asked about the small gravel drive, and Harte felt that was for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Lochner felt that should also be crash gated. Copp asked about the gravel parking area in the back, which consists of about 30 spaces. He feels that should be paved and marked to maximize capacity. Burgess would like to see the gravel emergency drive for the playing fields redone. He also feels that the post hydrant is too close to the soccer and baseball fields. Harte agreed that they could look at the relocation of the hydrants. Harte noted that they put a lot of effort into the grading to meet the cut and fill requirements. They worked to make slopes mowable and safe and to make the drainage work. Harte noted that these are submittal drawings, not the final contract documents. The Board addressed landscaping. Lochner asked about the field maintenance plan they requested. Epstein submitted the maintenance plan, which addresses the fields. H”rst asked about Item 5, and felt that is a plan, but it does not state where it applies. H”rst asked and Marsden noted that on Item 4, he defined finished landscaped areas vs. open areas. The finished areas will be maintained as lawns, perennials, etc. H”rst asked and Marsden noted that there has not been a decision as to how much will be maintained lawn, and the rest will be maintained as open space. Marsden noted that they contract with a vendor who takes the dumpsters off site for cleaning. The field south of the school will be an open field. The Board addressed lighting. Lochner noted that they discussed security lighting and lighting out in the roads. Epstein noted that they haven't made any changes to the lighting plan. Lochner noted that they asked for a light use plan, and Epstein noted that they do not have a lighting schedule. The Board addressed access to utilities. They discussed how much power there was for the transformer location. Burgess noted that they had transformer problems at the high school because there was not adequate power coming into the transformer. Burgess asked if CVPS had assured them that the power would be adequate. Marsden noted that the problem at the high school was that it was set too low and was PCB contaminated. That system was approved when the building was built. It needed to be changed because the school had expanded over 37 years. CVPS assures them that the three-phase power has adequate capacity. Marsden thinks that the line is 41-60, possibly higher. He feels that there are no issues with power with adequate design. The Board addressed other site plan issues. Lochner asked if a 4' high chain link fence was adequate around the storm water detention basin. Harte noted that the basin depth is 4'. The berm is 5'. The area is a very gentle slope that can be mowed with a lawn tractor. Harte noted that under normal conditions the basin would be dry. Burgess asked about the grease trap. Harte noted it would have an access cover, and be covered by a couple of feet of soil. He asked if it is acceptable to bury a stump at that location. Harte noted that they have to be buried above the water table. Burgess asked if this was a fill area. Harte noted that they would not be buried under the fill, but beyond the fill area. The finish elevation is 514. Burgess asked, and Harte noted that there is no basement in the school. Burgess had concerns that Brady noted were building code issues, not part of site plan review. Lochner noted that they deferred the specifics of conditional use items pending site plan review. Brady noted that was for deliberative session. Chris Williams addressed the Board. He noted that a year ago the bond was approved and they have since spent $500,000 in architectural and engineering fees. He feels that in conditional use review, too many conditions were imposed. Specifically he was concerned about the requirement for right and left-hand turn lanes being installed on East Road. He noted that the application traffic impact study shows 24 turning movements coming from the north making a left in the peak hour at 2006. The threshold recognized as standard is accepted by the State of Vermont DOT, is a nationally recognized standard, and would be able to sustain 7 times as many turning movements and maintain level of service B. Williams was also concerned about the requirement for double signal heads at Kocher Drive. He feels that this won't do a thing for a failing service intersection. The level of service is F or D at the afternoon peak, and is predicted to fail whether this is built or not. He understands that the financial burden is not the consideration of this board, but somebody is going to have to pay and asked what the benefit would be. He noted that the addition of Abacus Automation was approved with no improvement to the intersection. Williams was also concerned with the stipulation regarding the turning radius at the intersection. He noted that currently tractor-trailer trucks are not staying in their own lanes. He was concerned that the phrase "necessary improvements" could mean anything. Williams also addressed the argument about sidewalks. He heard Jim Sullivan testify about grant programs that are available, the Pedestrian alignment study, and the Lewis Burger plan, which will have community, input and address what the proper alignments should be. Williams encouraged the board not to design sidewalk solutions, because professionals are working on that. He feels that it is unfortunate that could not have taken place before this hearing. Williams noted that neither the school nor the town has the funds to build these sidewalks without state aid. Some sort of collaboration will have to take place. Williams agreed that student safety is necessary and sidewalks are a desirable thing. Von Ouhl moved to close the hearing. Copp seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business. ¨ Findings of fact were reviewed and signed. H”rst moved to accept as presented. Von Ouhl seconded. The motion passed unanimously. ¨ Monks noted that the Planning Commission discussed Kocher Drive as part of their overall intersection and pedestrian circulation study. They proposed alternatives for review and discussion at the next meeting. ¨ The next regular meeting will be in the Rotary Room at the Library. As there was no further business to come before the Board, von Ouhl moved to adjourn. H”rst seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 10:26 PM. Respectfully submitted, Robyn C. Baker