DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Date: Thursday,
April 27, 2017
Time: 7:00
p.m.
Place: Municipal
Building Community Room
Address: 43
Bombardier Road Milton, VT 05468
Contact: (802) 893-1186
Website: www.miltonvt.org
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair
called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. ATTENDANCE
Members
Present: Bruce Jenkins, Chair; Henry Bonges, Vice
Chair; Robert Brisson.
Members
Absent: Julie Rutz, Clerk; Jessica Groeling,
Alternate.
Staff Present:
Jeff Castle, Town Planner.
Public Present:
Bob Provost, Andrew Bean, Roth Perry, Christine Golden.
3. AGENDA REVIEW
None.
4. PUBLIC FORUM
None.
5. OLD HEARINGS/BUSINESS
None.
6. NEW HEARINGS/BUSINESS
6(A). Minor
Conventional Subdivision Amendment – Courtland Properties, LLC, c/o Roth Perry,
Owner & Applicant – 3 North Gardens Lane.
The Chair
read the following summary to open the hearing:
Courtland Properties,
LLC, c/o C. Roth Perry, Owner & Applicant, requests Minor Conventional Subdivision Amendment approval to change the
highway access located at 3 North
Gardens Lane. The original approval
included a single access off North Gardens Lane and abandonment of the access
to McMullen Road. This amendment
proposes additional access to McMullen Road for Unit 102, and retained access
off North Gardens Lane for Unit 101. The
property is described as SPAN 11185, Tax Map 29, Parcel 62; consists of
approximately .36 acres; and is located in the Old Towne Residential (R1)
Zoning District and Town Core Planning Area.
The
Chair administered the Oath to Interested Persons. Representing the Applicant were Bob Provost
and Roth Perry, hereafter referred to as “applicant(s).”
Provost
provided a history of the project and explained the reason that they are before
the Development Review Board (DRB). The
single-family home at 3 North Gardens Lane was permitted with highway access on
North Gardens Lane, but the site layout and Vermont state wastewater
requirements pushed the house closer than anticipated toward North Gardens
Lane, resulting in a driveway that would be too short to park a car in. Therefore, the applicants are requesting
approval to relocate the driveway for Unit 101 and to add a new driveway off of
McMullen Road for Unit 102.
Brisson
asked whether or not this could be solved by building only one duplex; the
applicant explained that the units are already built. Various questions were asked and
answered. Brisson wondered how this got
an approved permit. Staff explained that
there is no regulation specifying how long a driveway must be, so there was no
basis for denial, and that it is generally assumed that any given Zoning Permit
applicant has included enough room to park a car. The applicant noted that the driveway was
large enough to accommodate a car and that there is no regulation prohibiting
cars from being parked over the sidewalk, but that he is attempting a more
reasonable solution per the advice of the Planning Office staff.
The
Chair asked if anyone wanted the numbered items within the Staff Report read aloud. There was general consensus that it was
unnecessary and all bases had been covered.
Hearing no furthers questions or comments, the Chair
closed the Hearing at 7:25 p.m.
6(B). Site Plan – GFA
Realty, Inc., Owner/Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. & GFA Realty, Inc., Applicants
– Catamount Drive.
The Chair
read the following summary to open the hearing:
GFA Realty, Inc.,
Owner/Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. & GFA Realty, Inc., Applicants, request Site Plan approval to construct an
approximately 17,500 s.f. trucking and distribution facility located on Catamount Drive on Lot 19 of the
Catamount Industrial Park. The project
includes distribution and office space, will be served by municipal sewer and
water service, and is proposed in two phases.
The proposal includes grading on the applicant’s adjacent lot 20. The
property is described as SPAN 10839, Tax Map 3, Parcel 8-19 and is located in
the General Industrial (I2) Zoning District and Catamount Planning Area.
The
Chair administered the Oath to Interested Persons. Representing the Applicant were Amanda Raab
of Trudell Consulting Engineers and Andrew Bean of Old Dominion Freight Line,
Inc., hereafter referred to as “applicant(s).”
The
applicant gave an overview of the proposal and the parcel’s history, which
included a recent Boundary Line Adjustment, and touched upon each of the
following topics:
- · Security fencing
- · Exterior lighting
- · Building elevations
- · Building design
- · Highway access (2 curb cuts proposed)
- · Internal traffic circulation
- · Impervious surfaces
- · Stormwater runoff
- · Parking
- · Grading and other earth movement
- · Hours of operation: this business operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 364 days a year (Christmas is the only day they are closed)
Raab
then addressed some items contained within the Staff Report, stating:
- · There are no streams on the property.
- · The project is proposed in two phases.
- · Lot coverage is planned at 75% (the maximum allowed); stormwater system designed to handle the total lot coverage will be built during Phase I.
- · All accessory structures will meet applicable setbacks.
- · Vehicle trips: the applicant estimated 2-3 vehicle trips per hour at peak times and 50-75 trips per day (the previously reported figures of 4-6 daily trips were incorrect).
- · The applicant agreed that the southern access to Catamount Industrial Park was the preferable entrance. This led to a brief discussion of trucks entering and exiting the site. The applicant confirmed that vehicles do not line up and depart at a certain time; rather they utilize a “staggered start” approach that has the vehicles departing in a more staggered fashion.
- · The height of the proposed lighting was discussed, as the plan proposes 30-foot and 25-foot tall lighting fixtures, which exceed the 20-foot maximum. The applicant explained the reasons that 20-foot poles would not effectively illuminate the site. Bonges asked whether the lights would be down shielded and angled so as to not trespass on to neighboring properties; the applicant confirmed that they are. Brisson brought up motion-sensing options and the applicant felt that these would be more distracting than conventional lighting, because they would flicker on and off frequently.
- · The applicant addressed landscaping within the parking lot, stating that they do not feel landscaped islands are the best option. The applicant shared a potential layout showing where the islands – if required – could be positioned, and pointed out the difficulties that these would cause. The applicant proposed a 5-foot wide landscaped belt along the length of the parking lot, instead of the islands. Landscaping options were reviewed.
- · All garbage containers/dumpsters/recycling will be shown on the Final plans; these are proposed in a corner location, tucked in near the building, and screened by the building on 2 sides and trailers on the remaining sides.
The
Board posed several questions concerning the retaining wall, onsite fueling,
sight distances, onsite distribution, and outside storage. The applicant confirmed the height of the
retaining wall, and stated that there would be no onsite fueling, distribution
or outside storage. The applicant
estimated the distance between the entrance and exit at 270 feet.
Discussion
of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comments commenced. The applicant stated they would install a
fire hydrant and do what is necessary to ensure emergency access.
Signage
was briefly discussed. The applicant
stated all proposed signage complies with the regulations.
Bonges
inquired about angled parking. The
applicant agreed it was a good idea and stated they would look in to it. The Chair asked about an electric vehicle
charging station and the applicant replied that if required by the Commercial
Building Energy Standards stretch code, one would be installed. Otherwise, none is planned.
The
Chair confirmed that the applicants understood and agreed to numbered items
17-19 within the Staff Report.
Hearing no furthers questions or comments, the Chair
closed the Hearing at 8:33 p.m.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Staff shared an update on recent
Planning Office activity and upcoming DRB Hearings. Brisson’s nomination to the Infrastructure
Standards Committee was confirmed.
8. MINUTES
8(A).
Minutes of April 13, 2017
Tabled by
unanimous consent.
10. ADJOURNED
MOTION by Bonges
to adjourn at 8:40 p.m.; SECOND by Brisson.
Unanimously APPROVED.
Minutes approved by the Development Review Board this
___________ day of _____________, 2017.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Bruce Jenkins, Chair /kt
Draft filed with the
Town Clerk this __2nd_________ day of ___May__________, 2017.
Filed with the Town Clerk this ___________ day of
_____________, 2017.
