Town of Waitsfield
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Brian Shupe.
DRB Members Present: Chair Brian Shupe, Vice Chair Chris Cook, John Donaldson, Gib Geiger, and Chris Jernigan.
DRB Members Absent: Michael Kingsbury.
Staff: Planning & Zoning Administrator Susan Senning and Minutes Taker Laura Caffry.
Others: Chuck Martel, Robin Morris, Ed Read, Gene Scarpato, Virginia Scarpato, and Kate Stephenson
---other minutes excerpted----
5. Continue Sketch Plan Review for an adaptive redevelopment proposal by Yestermorrow following a site visit on Thursday, January 19, 2012.
Kate Stephenson represented Yestermorrow. After the initial appearance for sketch plan review weeks ago, all the DRB members present attended the site visit along with representatives from Yestermorrow. They covered the parts of the property where new development is proposed. The permit will be a complicated process due the adaptive redevelopment overlay district, a required master plan, planned unit development (PUD), and conditional uses.
As part of the sketch plan review, a requested setback from Route 100 waiver will be considered. Sketch plan reviews do not receive formal decisions. The minutes will serve to provide guidance for the master plan and process.
Ms. Stephenson presented the same plan that she used at the prior meeting. Mr. Shupe explained master plan concept: that the DRB would write their decision providing parameters for what things could be done with administrative review, and what things would require further approval from the Development Review Board.
The buildings being proposed in the sketch plan include a greenhouse / chicken coop that the school would like to build this coming summer. They also propose 7 new housing buildings. These would be designed and built by students. There would be 4 new buildings for design/work studios. The studios would have additional outdoor work space and be connected by covered walkways. A pole barn for vehicle storage is proposed. The final building of the plan, perhaps 10 - 15 years out, is a new building for administration and dinning.
With respect to traffic, there would still only be one entrance/exit but they would like to relocate it. They would apply for a new curb cut permit with VTrans and the Town and remove their existing curb cut. Their goal is to keep most vehicular traffic away from the main campus while allowing for deliveries of material deliveries and supplies.
In regard to vegetation, Yestermorrow has not undertaken comprehensive planning for vegetation at this point.
An intention of the over-lay district is to promote “active re-use” of existing buildings. However, Yestermorrow’s long term plan is to move away from the use of the existing building. The current criteria of the new Overlay District require that only 25% of the original principal structures existing as of January 4, 2010 can be removed. Yestermorrow is thinking about what use the old building will be able to serve. They do plan to remove the chalet currently used for intern housing. Ms. Stephenson asked the DRB for guidance on if that would be counted toward the required percentage. There was discussion about the requirement.
In regard to road set back of 225’, a building corner previously just hit the set back line. The Sketch Plan calls for a new building to be closer to Route 100 than 225’. It is possible that the changes to zoning regulations in regard to set back could occur prior to the end of their 10-15 year build out schedule. However, a waiver would be required at this time to allow a structure to be closer to the Route 100 than 225’.
Ms. Cook suggested that a master plan application should provide delineation of the road set back, stream set-backs, wetlands, utility lines, and steep slopes. She stated that it should also show any trees that will need to be cleared. Some preliminary landscaping plans should also be shown.
Mr. Shupe recommended that this application be defined as a major subdivision, as required by the “Development Review Process” on page 13 of the Bylaws.
The application should give a breakdown of the project’s phasing. It should include a general narrative along with bullet points about structures and uses, building bubbles /development areas and conceptual plans for buildings, and landscaping. Mr. Shupe suggested that the details can be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Mr. Morris, a Yestermorrow board member, provided a specific example of parts of their project for which that scenario will not be workable. They would like to have semester-long classes where the students will be given design and permit parameters for a residential building. The students would design a building and then build it. They would not have time to obtain DRB conditional use approval in the middle of the process. Mr. Morris would like to get enough detail approved in the master plan so the students can design and build a building in a single semester. They would provide the students with the pre-approved scope, including footprint, height, and a few other requirements. Mr. Shupe and Ms. Cook stated that approach may work for smaller, less visible buildings. They advised Yestermorrow to designate which buildings in the master plan are intended for use as class projects like those described above and which buildings will have specific design parameters. The application should also show existing vegetation that would be removed or would be kept. Additionally, areas of trees for screening, tree lines, and hedge lines should be detailed.
With respect to traffic, the regulations state that 100 or more trips per day could require a traffic analysis. Mr. Shupe does not anticipate a need for a traffic study. VTrans and the Town will have to approve the new curb cut.
With respect to the requirement for largely contiguous open space, there are currently 2 primary areas proposed. One is the open area along Route 100; the other is the forested area on the hillside. The locations of the open space(s) and plans for maintaining and managing the open spaces should be included in the application.
In addition to local approval, Yestermorrow will need an Act 250 permit, a wastewater permit, and perhaps a stormwater permit from the State of Vermont. The DRB’s approval could be conditioned on the evidence of the wastewater permit being in place. Yestermorrow plans to permit the wastewater in increments for each phase of the build out.
Other details that are required for the application are listed throughout the Zoning Bylaws but were not discussed.
Mr. Morris asked the DRB members if they had additional questions after the site visit. There were none other than what was discussed above, with the primary interest being that the application show the natural features, especially in regard to plans for earth moving for creations of ponds and other features. Yestermorrow will be using a specialist to work with them on that aspect. Their idea is to slow the water down as it comes off the hill and to free it from long ago installed culverts. Ms. Cook mentioned the required setbacks from any waterways or streams.
Ms. Stephenson and Mr. Morris asked for further clarification on what building envelope means. They asked if a circle shown on the plan with specifics of 2 stories, each accessible from the outside due to the slope of the land, not to exceed a certain height and certain amount of square footage would be enough detail.
Mr. Shupe asked about the water design. Mr. Morris stated that the plan is still unfolding at this time. He stated that their intent is to uncover the streams that are currently underground as a philosophical goal of restoring the property’s natural waterways. They also have culvert maintenance issues. Mr. Shupe reiterated the point that they could be creating setback challenges that they don’t currently have.
Mr. Shupe stated that Yestermorrow’s plans seem to fit the intent of the Adaptive Overlay District. He understands that an approved master plan will give the school fundraising ability. Mr. Morris stated that the school is looking for long-term certainty that will allow the school to move forward.
Mr. Shupe asked again about the buildings in the front stating that they seem like a “back yard” activity in the front yard.
Ms. Senning advised the applicants that the permit application needs to be made within 6 months of the sketch plan determination.
Ms. Stephenson summarized her understanding of the process, stating that Yestermorrow will make a proposal in the application as to what can be done with parameters and what can be done with more details. They will prepare a preliminary application. Upon learning of any missing application elements in preliminary hearing, they will improve their application and come back to the DRB with a final application. Being able to design and build some of the buildings within single semesters is of the utmost importance to them.
MOTION: Mr. Geiger made a motion to classify the pending application as a major. Ms. Cook provided the second. All voted in favor.
various setbacks to the site: 200' from centerline of Rte 100, 75' from each property boundary, 50' wetland buffer, stream setbacks (100' on the steep slope sections and 50' on the flatter sections where the existing culvert runs) and identified ag soils and existing ag land. He also noted that all the forested area is considered a deer yard according to Fish and Wildlife mapping and it's possible that they could require a buffer as well.