Planning Commission Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
September 26, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson, Chairman; Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux, Herb Shartle. (Fred Schmidt was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Name Address
Linda B. Riell Falls Road
Chuck Bigalow 77 Cedar Ridge Dr.
Tom Gresham Shelburne News
Stephanie Balter 80 Loomis St., Burlington
Joplin James 338 Thompson Rd.
Sarah Millham 396 Thompson Rd.
Bart Frisbie Williston
Robert Rushford POB 369, Burlington
George Faris 316 Oak Hill Road
Jean Burks 150 Wildwood Dr.
Bev Jacobson 227 Thompson Rd.
Oda Hubbard Shelburne
Dan Cox Shelburne

AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of September 12, 2002
2. Design Review, Kevin and Linda Riell, 836 Falls Road (DR02-18)
3. Design Review, Trinity Episcopal Church, 5171 Shelburne Road (DR02-19)
4. Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, Forest Park Realty, Irish Hill and Thompson Road (SUB01-07)
5. Site Plan Continuance, Town of Shelburne/Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Public Access Area, 1136 Bay Road (SP02-05)
6. Other Business and Correspondence
7. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rick Peterson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.

APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2002
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to approve the 9/12/02 minutes with the following corrections/clarifications:
Globally correct the spelling of "Shartle", "Towle", and "Selina";
Page 2, seven lines from top of page – add "cross northerly to Marsett Road and to the east in the right-of-way";
Page 2, 1st paragraph, third line from bottom of paragraph – change "the easement" to "an easement";
Page 2, six lines from the bottom of page – change statement to read: "Cynosure Drive should not be blocked due to the desirability for emergency access.";
Page 6, Other Business, following Mr. Bigalow’s introductory remarks on the Adler report – add the statement: "Mr. Bigalow was asked to withhold his presentation until the next Planning Commission meeting at which time the O’Brien application is scheduled for continued public discussion.".
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

2. DESIGN REVIEW, KEVIN AND LINDA RIELL, 836 FALLS ROAD (DR02-18)
Linda Riell appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Linda Riell explained the plan to install an in-ground pool behind their house at 836 Falls Road. There is a picket fence around the backyard. Landscaping will be done. The shed will house the pool filter and associated pool equipment. The Maple trees will remain, however, the Willow and Cottonwood trees were damaged by the ice storm and had to be removed.

STAFF REPORT
The Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/26/02. Rick Peterson noted the Design Review Committee granted approval of the application.

PUBLIC INPUT
There were no comments from the public on the application.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review, Kevin & Linda Riell, 836 Falls Road (DR02-18)
MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to grant design plan approval to Kevin and Linda Riell for construction/installation of an in-ground swimming pool and small storage shed on their property at 836 Falls Road as depicted on the documents presented. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

3. DESIGN REVIEW, TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 5171 SHELBURNE ROAD (DR02-19)
George Faris appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
George Faris described the 4’ high solid cedar panel fence with lattice on top running along the Towle property to the end of the church parking area. A picket fence will extend toward Route 7 beyond the house as shown on the plan. The Design Review Committee suggested the fence end at the house, however, the agreement with Mr. Towle is to repair the fence to the original state and location. The picket fence went 10’ beyond the front of the house. Mr. Towle does not want a hedge due to maintenance concerns. There was discussion of the transition of solid fence to picket fence, and the view of the house through and over the fence.

STAFF REPORT
The Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 9/26/02.

PUBLIC INPUT
There were no comments from the public on the application.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review, Trinity Episcopal Church, 5171 Shelburne Rd. (DR02-19)
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to grant design plan approval to Trinity Episcopal Church for a fence along the northern boundary as depicted on submitted plans and illustrations with the following condition:
1. if additional screening is requested by the neighbor to the north, it may be provided by plantings or a picket fence matching the style and height of the existing picket fence.
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

4. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, FOREST PARK REALTY, IRISH HILL AND THOMPSON ROAD (SUB01-07)
Patrick O’Brien and Mike Burke appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Patrick O’Brien mentioned the traffic report and three items Mr. Adler asked to be addressed. One of the three items required third party information which was received last week. The requested information has not yet been reviewed or analyzed by Mr. Adler. The Planning Commission requested the applicant forward the traffic information at least a week or earlier before the next meeting on the application.

Mr. O’Brien addressed the affordable housing component of the development, requesting if preliminary approval is granted, the Planning Commission allow proposed deed language for affordable housing be submitted at final review. The deed language will ensure affordability in perpetuity. There will be four units which meet Shelburne’s definition of affordable housing. The four units will be in the multi-family area, commingled and indistinguishable from the exterior as affordable units. All the interior upgrades found in the other multi-family units will not be included in the affordable units. It is undetermined at this time, continued Mr. O’Brien, whether a third party will be involved in the affordable unit arrangement. Options include selling the units to a third party (not-for-profit entity) which then leases the unit, or working with the homeowner finance agency. Rick Peterson suggested it might be advantageous to have a third party involved to ensure the units remain affordable after resale. Following further discussion, it was agreed Mr. O’Brien will submit draft deed language for Planning Commission review.

On a related issue, Mr. O’Brien requested the impact fees for the affordable housing units be waived. There was discussion of whether this course of action is available at this time. Staff will further research the matter.

Mike Burke reviewed the water supply to the project, discussing the water line size based on recent hydrant testing and modeling scenarios. Water would come from the water tank at Shelburne Industries. For fire flow, 800 gallons/minute at the multi-family units are needed for the project (750 gallons/minutes for the multi-family units, 500 gallons/minute for the single-family units). A 10" water line halfway up Bacon Drive or an 8" line up to the intersection of Mount Philo Road (there will be an 8" line on Falls Road to the intersection of Bacon Drive) will provide the needed water flow. The 8" line to the intersection of Mt. Philo Road will enhance water flow to that entire area of town. Mr. Burke will work out the details of the water flow with the town engineer, Steve Vock. Following questions about who is responsible for the cost of the water line, whether the south parcel of land owned by the O’Briens was included in the model, and what method was used to determine pipe size, Mr. Burke explained the developer will pay for the water line, a portion of the south parcel can not be served by the water tank due to elevation, but some of the land can be served because the contour is the same as the multi-family units that were modeled, and the Kentucky pipe flow network was used to determine pipe size. In response to a question about extending the water line up Thompson Road to Cedar Ridge Road, Mr. Burke replied extending the line is a function of the elevation of the water tank for water pressure. The tank at Wake Robin is 100’ higher than the Shelburne Industries tank and could provide the water pressure and flow to the entire area and connect to Spear Street. There are a number of infrastructure improvements that would be needed first.

Mike Burke reviewed the construction phasing analysis, referring to a preliminary chart of activities. It is not known what year construction on the project will begin, and some activities shown on the chart may be compressed. Water and sewer off-site improvements will be done first as well as road improvement if possible. Simultaneously, erosion control, clearing, grading, and installation of the stormwater retention ponds will be done followed by bringing the water/sewer lines to the site. Site work and improvements for a cluster of multi-family units will be done next. Not all the multi-family units will be built at once; there will be overlap with the single-family units. The project will wind up with construction of the remaining single family units. Improvements, utilities, roads, and landscaping within the development will be done as portions of the units are built. There are no plans to completely open the site and build all roads at once, assured Mr. Burke. The intent is to build clusters of units with utilities, front to back of the project, multi-family to single family units. Off-site improvements (utilities) are the first phase of the project (each phase represents a year), then there will be systematic repeat of the on-site development over the estimated six year period to complete the project. The site work will take six months. Housing units will be constructed per market demand until the end of the project.

Rick Peterson asked about the number of units built per year. Patrick O’Brien replied the town’s sewer allocation will allow 17 units from February 2001-2004 and 18 units February 2004-2007. Mr. O’Brien said he would like to be allowed to build up to17 units per year. There was further discussion of the sewer ordinance. The allocation for the O’Brien project provides 4,131 gallons (February 2001-2004) which supports 17 two-bedroom condominiums, and 4,368 gallons (February 2004-2007). Banking of allocation is allowed per the ordinance. It is most likely given the market, explained Mr. O’Brien, that the 2001-2004 allocation will be used with construction beginning in 2004, then the 2004-2007 allocation will be utilized for more units. The project would be complete in 2010. It is expected to have allocation for 17 units and 17 units, then a two year gap in allocation, then allocation for another 17 units in the fifth year of the project. Per the sewer ordinance, reapplication for allocation is required or the unused allocation will be lost. The first 3-year allocation block for the project ends February 2004 (it is hoped the 4,131 gallons of allocation will be used by then), then the second 3-year block begins. The project has 4,368 gallons of allocation in the second block, and it is anticipated to use this allocation as quick as possible (i.e. build and sell the units) to offset the up-front investment in the project’s off-site improvements. Kay Kraushaar pointed out if 17 units are build between 2001-2004, then the entire project could be complete in the next allocation block (e.g. 17 units built 2001-2004, roll over to 2004-2007 and have enough to build 17 plus 17 plus 17 units). Pat O’Brien agreed this is possible only if the market will bear it.

Patrick O’Brien reviewed a chart showing the estimated number of school children to be generated from 17 housing units built in each of four consecutive years, though this amount of construction would not be allowed with the current sewer allocation. A total number of 8.11 students in grades 9-12 will be generated from the entire project. The research was done several months ago and submitted to the Shelburne School Board, stated Mr. O’Brien, and according to a letter from Jed Graef , the Board accepted the basis for the calculations. A total of 26.99 children will be generated in grades K-12.

Regarding recreation paths, Patrick O’Brien reported originally the Recreation Path Committee suggested a 30’ wide easement from the north property line (Gardenside and Cox property) to the proposed road inside the development, and an 8’ wide asphalt bike path, striped at the crossings, to the front entry then a striped easement down the frontage of the development (this land to be offered to the town). A recent letter indicates a request for a sidewalk along the frontage. Recreation Path Committee recommendations include a 4’ wide sidewalk along the inner road to the entrance, up to 2’ wide grass strip between the sidewalk and street, a 30’ wide easement along the north boundary to the inner road (the Fire Chief wants the easement wide enough to accommodate an emergency vehicle), and grade/prepare the frontage with Irish Hill Road and Thompson Road for a sidewalk. Patrick O’Brien requested the recreation impact fees be waived if the recommendations are satisfied. Rick Peterson stated the Planning Commission needs the cost figures for the work for comparison to the impact fees due (amount must equal or exceed the impact fees). Also, the amenity must be for what the impact fees are intended and must go beyond what is expected with a PRD (planned residential development). Bev Jacobson, Shelburne resident, noted the recommendation is not for a sidewalk, but for preparation of the base for a sidewalk to be built by the town at some point in time.

Rick Peterson asked about the 30’ easement and utilities noted on the site plan. Mr. O’Brien explained the layout was to provide for a possible loop with Gardenside for water. The 30’ wide easement defines the area in which the bike path would be located. The entire easement will not be cleared.

Patrick O’Brien discussed the width of the road within the development, and requested the road width be 26’ past the multi-family units then decreased to 22’ to the single family homes. There is no curbing by the single-family units. There is testimony that a narrow road without curb will benefit wildlife in the area and help slow the speed of cars in the development. Dean Pierce noted the road superintendent is opposed to a 22’ wide road (26’ is the standard width, though 24’ wide may be tolerated). The Planning Commission supports narrower streets and no curbs, but would like to view a 24’ wide and 22’ wide street prior to making a decision on the request.

Patrick O’Brien mentioned landscaping and clearing trees, noting specifications by the power company might require 70’ of trees to be clear-cut. Green Mountain Power does not want electric utilities in the town right-of-way. There will be penalties if trees are damaged or removed by residents. A crown will be maintained at the center of the development. There are street trees shown on the plan, but it is not known if these trees can be planted in the right-of-way. The situation could be such that trees are cut down to plant other trees in their stead, stated Mr. O’Brien.

The second access to the development was discussed. Mr. O’Brien felt the second access is a waste of green space, and suggested eliminating the 20’ access (which must be maintained year round) and widening the main entryway for a portion to allow vehicles to pass in/out. Mr. O’Brien will discuss this idea with town staff and safety personnel.

Mr. O’Brien reviewed several issues, including the stormwater discharge permit to the Agency of Natural Resources (permit is prepared, but not submitted yet), parking by the multi-family units (the parallel parking spaces have been changed to angled parking), streetlights (lighting plans shows lantern style lamps), and sidewalks in the single family area (will not be built; town can do sidewalk/path in the town right-of-way).

STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received correspondence and reports related to the project. A staff report on the project was provided previously.

PUBLIC INPUT
Dan Cox asked if the construction work will be contracted or done by the O’Briens. Patrick O’Brien stated a decision on the matter has not yet been made. Mr. Cox also asked about the 30’ easement and impact on water drainage. Patrick O’Brien stated the design shows water shedding over the easement (same drainage pattern as present).

Chuck Bigalow, Cedar Ridge, asked about the architectural design of the multi-family units and urged the Planning Commission to get an idea of what will be built. Mr. O’Brien stated the outside look of the building (i.e. location of windows, color, and such) will not be known until three-four months before construction when the market research is conducted. The footprint and height of the units will be known prior to then. Rick Peterson pointed out the town does not have design review in the Residential 2 district (only in the Village area), but under the subdivision regulations, landscaping, screening, lighting, and general aesthetics can be covered. Oda Hubbard, Shelburne resident, suggested the applicant provide the Planning Commission proposals in a friendly manner for an advisory perspective. Patrick O’Brien respectfully declined to attend an advisory meeting on the appearance of the buildings. Dean Pierce stated the Planning Commission could check closer to construction on screening, landscaping, and such to ensure there are adequate amounts of both. This could be done with diagrams if the size of the buildings are known. Patrick O’Brien countered the information on buildings was provided at prior meetings. The goal is to sell the units, so the product must be good, stressed Mr. O’Brien.

Bill Griffin, resident, asked if the sewer allocation is different for multi-family and single family units. Mr. O’Brien clarified sewer allocation is based on the number of bedrooms in a unit.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, Forest Park Realty, Irish Hill and Thompson Road (SUB01-07)
The Planning Commission requested the traffic data be submitted to Dean Pierce by October 14, 2002. Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Adler need time to review the Police Dept.’s data, so the information should be forwarded by the police as soon as possible.

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to continue the application by Patrick O’Brien and Forest Park Realty for a development at Irish Hill Road and Thompson Road (SUB01-07) until 10/24/02. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

5. SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, TOWN OF SHELBURNE/VERMONT DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE, PUBLIC ACCESS AREA, 1136 BAY ROAD (SP02-05)
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to continue the hearing on the public access area, 1136 Bay Road, (SP02-05), until the first Planning Commission meeting in December, 2002. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

6. OTHER BUSINESS and CORRESPONDENCE
Bart Frisbee
Bart Frisbee, Sterling Construction, requested the Planning Commission provide background information on the reasons why the decision was made to locate houses in the proposed Boulder Hill development off of Webster Road in a clustered fashion in the open meadow, rather than in the wooded portion of the property. Mr. Frisbee reviewed the problem with agricultural soils on the south end of the property (where the houses are clustered) and Criterion 9.B of the Act 250 permit application. There is confusion as to who prevails, Act 250, the town decision, or the State Agriculture Department. The matter is before the District Commission. Mr. Frisbee affirmed the Planning Commission’s reasons for locating the houses as shown on the plan, including the wooded area abuts town land and provides more open space to the town, there are long standing trails and wildlife corridors in the woods, the wooded section is contiguous with surrounding wooded swaths, the bike path/trail will be located near the wooded area when built. This information/reasoning was not specified in the motion of approval for the application, stated Mr. Frisbee.

Dean Pierce reported the Town Attorney advises against adopting a resolution regarding the project (there is a better way to accomplish the objective, and the Planning Commission may not have statutory authority), and suggested exercising party status for the project’s Act 250 permit application. The Planning Commission should come to consensus on a representative at the Act 250 hearings and on what the message to be conveyed will be. The motion of approval basically supports the staff report on the project which addresses conformance to the town plan. The message to Act 250 could relate to how the Planning Commission deals with staff reports which is basically consenting with the staff reports, suggested Mr. Pierce. Rick Peterson expressed concern about the appearance of the Planning Commission supporting a particular project, although Mr. Frisbee's situation is unique and support is needed to assure the Shelburne planning process is not averted. The Environmental Board will have to decide if prime agricultural soils on a parcel surrounded by development make the land a good agricultural piece. Following further discussion and by a straw vote, it was decided to exercise party status and that supporting the decision by the Planning Commission does not mean the Commission is supporting any particular project, but taking the opportunity to defend the language in the town plan. Dean Pierce will be the Planning Commission spokesperson at the Act 250 hearings. Copies of the staff report on the Boulder Hill project will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Resignation by Herb Shartle
Herb Shartle regretfully announced his resignation from the Planning Commission due to unanticipated relocation to Virginia in October. The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Shartle for his participation.

6. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

Minutes respectfully submitted by M. Riordan, Recording Secretary.
"To Do" List from 9/26/02 Planning Commission meeting:
1. Re: O’Brien application for Irish Hill/Thompson Rd., the Planning Commission requested the applicant forward the traffic information at least a week or earlier before the next meeting on the application.
2. Mr. O’Brien will submit draft deed language (affordable housing) for Planning Commission review.
3. Staff will further research whether impact fees for the affordable housing units proposed by O’Brien can be waived.
4. The Planning Commission supports narrower streets and no curbs, but would like to view a 24’ wide and 22’ wide street prior to making a decision on the request.
5. Copies of the staff report on the Boulder Hill project will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.