Planning Commission Minutes

SHELBURNE HISTORIC PRESERVATION & REVIEW COMMISSIONMINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2002


PRESENT: Pam Daly, Oda Hubbard, Tom Koerner, Dorothea Penar, Warren Sanderson

ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Nick, Jeff Lawson, Michael Fournier, Monique Estes, Gordon Berg, Dean Pierce (staff), Susan Cannizzaro (staff)


ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES:

The minutes of September 19, 2002 were unanimously approved with a correction noted regarding the Shelburne Baseball information. The existing dugouts measure 12 x 4’, not 12 x 24’ as stated in the minutes.

SHELBURNE BASEBALL, 5420 SHELBURNE RD (DR02-20)
Jeff Nick was present at the last meeting on behalf of the Shelburne Baseball League to request approval to replace the four existing dugouts at the ball fields behind the Shelburne Town Center and for approval of the existing scoreboard. At that meeting, it was suggested that Mr. Nick investigate alternative dugout styles and costs and return to the Commission. A post and beam style was suggested as a possibility. The Commission tabled discussion on the scoreboard until Mr. Nick’s return.

Mr. Nick reported that he spoke with the Burlington Tech. Center, who will be building the dugouts, and that a post and beam style is possible, but it would add about $800 to the overall cost. Since the League’s budget is tight, they would rather not incur this extra expense.

At this meeting, Mr. Nick proposed using the original dugout style with extended eves as suggested at the last meeting, and a tongue and groove style siding that will be painted dark green. The dugouts will be placed on a gravel bed.

Mr. Koerner moved to accept the new dugouts with the changes presented today by the applicant. Mr. Sanderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Discussion followed about the existing scoreboard. The scoreboard was installed 3’ higher than an agreement with the baseball league and Mr. Bohne, Town Manager. In addition, no zoning permits were obtained for the scoreboard. It was noted that the baseball league should have received approval from this Commission and the Planning Commission for the scoreboard before it was installed.

Mr. Nick stated that vandalism was a concern at the lower height of 2’ above the fence line, and that the contractor placed the scoreboard at its current height of about 5’ above the fence line for visual and electrical purposes. Currently it sits among the leaves of a large maple tree. If it were installed lower, it would have the tree trunk as a backdrop. Also, the electrical box and wiring for the scoreboard are approximately 4’ above the fence line, so the higher height was more accommodating for the electrical connections. The Committee also discussed the Pepsi logo on the scoreboard. Mr. Nick pointed out that the old scoreboard featured a Coca-Cola advertisement, and that Pepsi subsidized the cost of the new scoreboard for the baseball league.

Mr. Koerner viewed the scoreboard from the Town Clerk’s office. He reported to the Committee that he feels the scoreboard height is suitable, but suggested that the top posts be removed and some landscaping around lower posts might make the scoreboard more attractive.

Mr. Koerner then made a motion to approve the Shelburne Baseball League’s scoreboard and its current height, noting the above suggestions. Ms. Daly seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

JEFF & LAUREN LAWSON, 1007 FALLS RD (DR02-17)
Jeff Lawson returned to the Commission with a revised plan for the exterior renovations to his barn. He is proposing to add a second garage door on the south side, and four additional windows on the north side. He submitted pictures of the proposed garage doors that will have pine vertical siding. The windows will be authentic divided light windows with wood casing and 6 over 6 panes. The window placement on the garage doors was discussed. The Commission prefers the windows at the top of the door versus at the lower height. Mr. Lawson stated that they plan to paint the garage doors white to match the trim. Ms. Hubbard suggested they consider painting the doors to match the house color instead.

Mr. Lawson also requested approval to install galvanized gutters. The Commission agreed that Mr. Lawson could install seamless white gutters, which will be less expensive and easier to maintain, if he preferred.

Mr. Koerner moved to accept the Lawson’s application with the suggestion that they consider the higher window placement on the garage doors, and that they may install either galvanized or white seamless rain gutters. The windows are acceptable as proposed. Mr. Sanderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.


MICHAEL FOURNIER, 242 MARSETT RD (DR02-21)
Michael Fournier was present to request approval for an 18 x 22’ addition to the south side of his house. The siding, windows, and roof shingles will match the existing house. He is proposing a modified hip roof, but the Commission suggested that a gable roof might be more attractive. There will be an entrance door on the east side of the addition. Mr. Fournier will be using the addition for a wood shop.

Mr. Koerner moved to accept Mr. Fournier’s application as presented. Mr. Sanderson seconded the motion. Ms. Penar added the option of a gable roof rather than the modified hip roof at the owner’s discretion. The application was approved unanimously.

TWIN STATE SIGNS/BAER REAL ESTATE (U.S. POST OFFICE, FALLS RD (DR02-22)
Monique Estes was present to represent this application for signage at the new U.S. Post Office on Falls Road. She explained that Twin State Signs is a subcontractor for Trans World from Canada who has a contract with the U.S. Postal Service for signs. The proposed freestanding sign is plastic with an aluminum-clad bottom featuring the red, white and blue postal logo. There is also a proposal for an aluminum façade sign measuring approximately 1’ 5” x 3’ 4” to be placed between windows near the entrance door featuring the same logo. Ms. Penar stated that she did not understand why this issue is before the Commission again since the signage had already been negotiated when the Committee originally reviewed the post office design. The freestanding sign was to be a wood sign between two posts with top caps and sit low to the ground similar to the municipal office sign. Mr. Pierce researched previous Historic Preservation and Review Commission Minutes and found that the minutes of March 29, 2001 outlined the acceptable signage conditions that were later approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2001, with the exception that the Planning Commission minutes state “there shall be no building mounted sign in the west gable.” The minutes state that the Design Review Commission will review final signage design when available.

Following discussion, the Commission recommended to Ms. Estes that she advise Trans World of the acceptable signage conditions and return with a revised design. In addition, the Commission stated that they would prefer simple elegant lettering on the building if required, and not a logo sign.

Mr. Koerner moved to deny this signage proposal, stating that it is unacceptable as offered based on the prior recommendations of the Historic Preservation and Review Commission of March 29, 2001 and the Planning Commission approval of April 12, 2001. Mr. Sanderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

KATHRYN WEPSIC, 99 HILLSIDE TERRACE (DR02-23)
Gordon Berg was present to represent Kathryn Wepsic. Ms. Wepsic is requesting approval to replace an existing deck. The Commission determined that Ms. Wepsic’s property is outside of the Village Design Review Overlay District, therefore Design Review approval is not necessary.


NEXT MEETING
Date to be announced. It was suggested that the next agenda include a discussion on CLG money.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Cannizzaro

----

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
October 10, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson, Chairman; Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux, Fred Schmidt.

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Name Address
Sue Davis Shelburne News
Mike Burke
Roger Dickinson
Patty Coburn
Ed Fitzpatrick
Chris Senesac
Mike Senesac
Jeff Nick Shelburne
Mike Fournier Shelburne

AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of September 26, 2002
2. Design Review, Shelburne Baseball, 5420 Shelburne Road (DR02-20)
3. Design Review, Jeff & Lauren Lawson, 1007 Falls Road (DR02-17)
4. Design Review, Michael Fournier, 242 Marsett Road (DR02-21)
5. Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, Ethan Allen Holdings, LLC/Rice Woods, Route 7 (SUB01-4)
6. Other Business and Correspondence
7. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rick Peterson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.

APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to approve the 9/26/02 minutes with the following corrections/clarifications:
Page 5, statement regarding 30’ wide easement – change “along the north boundary” to “from the north boundary”;
Page 8, 2nd paragraph, statement regarding Mr. Frisbee’s situation being unique – change “averted” to “subverted”.
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

2. DESIGN REVIEW, SHELBURNE BASEBALL, 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD (DR02-20)
Jeff Nick appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Jeff Nick explained the existing small, decrepit dugouts will be replaced with new 6’ x 20’ structures built by students from the Burlington Technical Center (labor at no cost, donations are being solicited for materials). The chainlink fence will remain around the field, but removed by the dugouts. Mr. Nick described the new scoreboard (photo was shown) which is already in place.

STAFF REPORT
The Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/10/02. Dean Pierce noted the Town Manager indicated a lower scoreboard height, but the Design Review Committee felt this was not necessary. The top of the poles on the scoreboard will be leveled with the board itself, and there will be landscaping around the bottom. The board height is similar to others around Chittenden County. The height will help deter vandalism.

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

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review, Shelburne Baseball, 5420 Shelburne Road (DR02-20)
MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to grant design plan approval to Shelburne Baseball for replacement of four baseball dugouts and installation of a baseball scoreboard located near the left field foul line subject to the following conditions:
1. the dugouts shall be built in the style originally proposed, but with extended eves and a tongue and groove style siding painted dark green;
2. the top of the posts holding the scoreboard shall be removed and landscaping installed around the bottom of the posts.
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

3. DESIGN REVIEW, JEFF & LAUREN LAWSON, 1007 FALLS ROAD (DR02-17)
The applicant was not present. The Chairman noted the disposition of the matter (application) remains to be determined.

4. DESIGN REVIEW, MICHAEL FOURNIER, 242 MARSETT ROAD (DR02-21)
Michael Fournier appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mike Fournier explained the 18’ x 22’ addition to the back of the garage. The addition will be subterranean (four foot underground and four foot above ground), low profile with a gable roof. The existing shingles will be matched. The addition will not be visible from the front of the house. Neighbors to the east will be able to see the addition.

STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 10/10/02. There was mention the gable roof maintains the character of the house.

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

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review, Michael Fournier, 242 Marsett Road (DR02-21)
MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to grant design plan approval to Michael Fournier for construction of an 18’ x 22’ addition to the south side of the house at 242 Marsett Road as depicted on the submitted plans with the owner having the option to construct the addition using a gable roof. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

5. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, ETHAN ALLEN HOLDINGS, LLC/RICE WOODS, ROUTE 7 (SUB01-4)  Mike Burke appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mike Burke briefed the Planning Commission on the discussions with the owners of the Commons regarding the roadway. It appears the access to the Rice Woods development will be on Rice Lumber land due to the topography (steep slope) and drainage issues by the Commons land. The entrance will be shared with the Commons, but the road will proceed on land owned by Rice Lumber. The shed building will be removed. A swale will be created to collect water run off. At the toe of the slope there will be a catch basin and stormwater treatment basin. Mr. Burke reviewed the slope of each section of roadway and where the sidewalk will be located. As the road continues into the development, the slope increases. It was noted the Town Engineer (Steve Vock) has not seen the latest rendition of the site plan, but has reviewed a plan that is a close rendering of the working plan.

There was discussion of the sidewalk location and connection to Route 7 sidewalk(s). The intention is to bring pedestrian traffic into the Commons area. It was agreed if there is sidewalk along the westerly side of Route 7, then Rice Woods development should make a sidewalk connection. The applicant will work with VTrans on this matter.

Mike Burke noted the curb cut to Rice Lumber on Route 7 will be closed and the entrance will be off the access road to the development (in line with the intersection work to be done by VTrans on Route 7). There will be a Stop sign on the lane from the development to control the flow of traffic out of the intersection. The road will be 26’ wide with curbs. If VTrans does not do the intersection work, the developer is requesting the option to do the work (to VTrans standards and at the developer’s expense), however, the developer does not want to be responsible for doing the work at Webster Road (hammerhead) if 30 units are built and VTrans does not do the Route 7 improvements. The intent of the hammerhead turn is to deal with left turn movements onto Webster Road. Route 7 will have a center line median. Travelers need to be able to turn on a regular basis. Dean Pierce clarified the understanding was no more than 30 units will be built until VTrans does the improvements to Route 7, not that the developer must do the improvements if greater than 30 units are built. Mr. Burke confirmed the intention not to build beyond 30 units without the intersection issue being resolved. Rick Peterson summarized the applicant is proposing the southerly access as the primary access to the first 30 units in the development regardless of what happens on Route 7. If greater than 30 units are built, then the second access (northerly access) will be needed, but the developer does not want to be held responsible for building the hammerhead at Webster Road.

Mike Burke reviewed the location of the water lines and three hydrants by the multi-family units in the development. The water lines will be owned by the homeowners association. Two of the hydrants will be on the public water line. One hydrant will be on a private water line to be maintained by the homeowners association. The stormwater detention basins and collection system will be within the private domain. There will be the appropriate documentation for maintenance and access by the town as necessary.

Mr. Burke reviewed the lighting in the development. Streetlights will be metal halide, downshielded. The buildings will have downcast, incandescent lights at the entrances.

Traffic was reviewed by Roger Dickinson. The Planning Commission received a copy of the gap study that was done. A gap is defined as the amount of time between successive vehicles on the road. The critical gap is the minimum time interval for one vehicle to enter a major road from a side street. The critical gap for a vehicle turning left is higher than one turning right so data for both must be collected. The critical gap per the Intersection Sight Distance publication is 6.4 sections, the minimum gap is 5.3 seconds. Most drivers find 8-9 seconds an acceptable gap. The highway standard for a critical gap is 7.1 seconds. Readings for the project were taken during morning and afternoon peak hours (7:30-8:30 and 4:45-5:45 respectively) to the north of Webster Road and south of the Commons. In a 15 minute interval in the morning peak hour, there were 114 gaps exceeding 6.4 seconds and 90 gaps greater than 7.1 seconds (73 gaps were in the 9-15 second range). There is lower trip generation in the morning than afternoon peak. Multiple vehicles would exit in the gaps. When an intersection is designed for sight distance, a 7.5 second gap is standard. This is conservative for Route 7, but does exist in sufficient numbers daily, year round, except for Friday afternoons, stated Mr. Dickinson. Reg Gignoux questioned the results of the study supporting the situation as adequate and safe, noting the data seems to indicate only 11 opportunities to go left from the development between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., and eight opportunities to enter traffic flow between 7:45 a.m. and 8 a.m. Also, the data was collected as the traffic situation exists today. When the Route 7 improvements are done or not done, and traffic from the development is added, there will be changes. Finally, the data was collected in August when school is not in session (when school is in session it is more difficult to make left turns off Route 7), and each household in the development will likely have two cars leaving for work and/or school each day. Roger Dickinson stated August is the peak traffic month per historical data, and greater than 1% per year additional traffic load was applied in the study, however a gap study is only a snapshot in time though patterns can be seen.

Rick Peterson asked about building right turn lanes prior to waiting for the 31st unit to be built. Roger Dickinson noted there will be a median installed in the center of Route 7 which will prohibit left turns, so building turn lanes will be wasted effort and expense. Following further discussion, there was agreement a widened gravel shoulder (no curb) could be built and used as a temporary turn lane.

Mike Burke mentioned the final stormwater discharge permit is secured. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Vermont Wetlands Office have determined they have no jurisdiction with the Class III wetlands, but do consult with Act 250. All materials submitted to the State will be forwarded by the applicant to the Town Engineer.

Ed Fitzpatrick addressed the affordable housing aspect of the development. Two units in accordance with the Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA) guidelines will be held affordable in perpetuity. It is yet to be determined if the language will be in the deed or town requirements. Mention of having third party involvement was made to ensure the guidelines for affordability are met by the resident and/or owner of the units. Mike Burke noted the impact fees affect the affordability factor. It was explained only the Selectboard can waive impact fees, but the Planning Commission can make a recommendation in support of waivers for the project. There was lengthy discussion of criteria and income levels to determine affordability (Shelburne mean income is $57,000, Chittenden County mean income is $47,000). The Planning Commission must determine if using the VHFA as a benchmark for affordability for the project is acceptable and what the recommendation will be to the Selectboard on how to define affordability and allow waivers. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission found the VHFA qualifications for a home loan as acceptable for what is being defined as affordable housing in the project.

Mike Burke mentioned phasing. The proposal is to use the south entrance to the development to access a mix of multi-family and single family units. The sewer line and water line extension will be installed. VTrans requested housing construction in the south entrance area be delayed to avoid conflict with blasting, so construction will take place toward the western side of the property away from Route 7. Twenty-two units per year would be the maximum allowed per the sewer allocation, but banking can be done with the allocation. The plan calls for a four-year build out starting in the permit year. Rick Peterson suggested the clock begin when the first permit is drawn. Mr. Peterson also stated housing must be introduced at a rate that can be absorbed by the town. Other housing projects were phased at 15 units/year. There was discussion of the banking option and build-out cap. Mike Burke suggested 15 units per year with the ability to cap to a maximum of 22 units in any year, based on the permit year as opposed to the calendar year. The permit year begins with the issuance of the first building permit.

There was mention of the fence by the open space. Dean Pierce will research the position of the Natural Resources Committee on the fence. Rick Peterson asked about covenants to protect the open space. There is an open space agreement for no further development in the open space area, no removal of trees in the open space area, and the fence, if there is one, will be maintained by the homeowners association. There will not be a pedestrian path through the open space.

Rick Peterson asked about the water study information being valid at this time (study was done in 1989). Mike Burke noted a model of the town’s water supply was used to determine water supply and line location for the development. The Town Engineer can confirm the findings.

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

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Preliminary Plan Review, Ethan Allen Holdings, LLC/Rice Woods, Route 7 (SUB01-4)
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to grant preliminary plan review approval of the proposal by Ethan Allen Holdings, LLC for a planned residential development consisting of 25 single family lots and a lot with 37 multi-family units within duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes with the following conditions to be met prior to or as part of final plan review:
1. the applicant shall submit revised plans addressing any unresolved comments made to date by the Town sewer, water, highway, and fire departments or the Town’s consulting engineer;
2. the applicant shall submit to the Town legal documents regarding the dedication of all easements to be granted to the Town in connection with the project, including documents prohibiting parking on the street in the multi-family portion of the project, and all legal document relative to stormwater maintenance, open space maintenance, no cut zone, hydrants, and water and sewer facilities;
3. phasing shall be at a rate of 15 units/year with the allowance of carryover to the next permit year not to exceed 22 units per permit year where the permit year begins with the issuance of the first building permit, and further, no more than 30 units shall be built until the northerly entrance is constructed;
4. the applicant shall add a turn lane at the southerly access to remain in place until the northerly access is constructed (no more than 30 units shall be built until the northerly access is constructed);
5. the applicant shall submit a proposal detailing a program for regular maintenance and annual flushing of the private fire hydrant(s);
6. the applicant shall present information indicating whether the State stormwater requirements have had any impact on the design of the proposed stormwater management facilities or other aspects of the project;
7. the applicant shall submit legal documents addressing the need of the applicant to maintain the affordability of the proposed affordable housing units over time;
8. if the sidewalk extends on both sides or the western side of Shelburne Road (Route 7), the applicant shall be responsible for extending the sidewalk connection from the development at both accesses to Route 7, and a detailed plan for such connections shall be submitted as part of final plan review.
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

6. OTHER BUSINESS and CORRESPONDENCE
The conference on affordable housing,10/23/02, was mentioned.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m.

Minutes respectfully submitted by M. Riordan, Recording Secretary.
“To Do” List from 10/10/02 Planning Commission meeting:

1. 1. There was mention of the fence by the open space. Dean Pierce will research the position of the Natural Resources Committee on the fence.

----

----

SHELBURNE HISTORIC PRESERVATION; REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 31, 2002

PRESENT: Pam Daly, Fritz Horton, Oda Hubbard, Tom Koerner, Dorothea Penar, Warren Sanderson

ALSO PRESENT: Bob Furrer, Stacey Thalden, Stuart Bennett, Dean Pierce (staff), Susan Cannizzaro (staff)


ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: Mr. Koerner made a motion to accept the minutes of October 3, 2002. The motion was seconded by Ms. Daly, and unanimously approved.

Shelburne Museum, 5760 Shelburne Road (DR02-24)

Bob Furrer from the Shelburne Museum was present to represent this application. The house located at 5760 Shelburne Road, owned by the Museum, is currently being used for intern housing. The Museum would like to convert the house to Museum office space, and would like to change the access to the property. The proposal is to eliminate the existing driveway (off Route 7) and to add a parking area and new driveway to an existing Museum drive in the rear of the property. The proposal also includes a new 5’ white picket fence on the south, east and north sides of the house. The Museum will eliminate the existing overhead garage doors on the garage structure, frame the void and side with red cedar and clapboards. They will also install two barn sash to match the existing sash on the gable. All materials used will match the existing structure. Ms. Daly noted that this house is on the Historic Site and Structure Survey. Mr. Koerner moved to accept Shelburne Museum’s application as presented. Mr. Sanderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Town of Shelburne, 5420 Shelburne Road (DR02-25)

Stacey Thalden was present to represent this application. Ms. Thalden has designed a memorial bench for Tom Haddock that is to be located across from the pond in the Pocket Park at the Town Center. The Haddock family has approved the design. The bench will be constructed of native locust and steel. Quotes will be inscribed in bronze and will be mounted on the back of the bench. The face plaque, also on the back of the bench, will be a granite tile. Gardenside Nursery will provide landscaping around the bench. A Tom Haddock memorial fund has allotted $4,000 to cover the cost for the bench. Ms. Penar moved to accept the bench design as submitted. Mr. Koerner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Pierce noted that it will not be necessary for this application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has given the Historic Preservation and Review Commission the authority to review and approve specific landscaping items for the Pocket Park.

Stuart Bennett, 5203 Shelburne Road (DR02-26)

Mr. Bennett was present to represent this application. He is requesting Design Review approval for a roof overhang over the front door of his office. The overhang will prevent sill damage and ice build-up. Materials used will match existing roofing. Mr. Koerner moved to accept this application as presented. Ms. Penar seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Discussion on Possible CLG Grant Projects

The Commission members briefly discussed future uses for CLG Grant money. Mr. Pierce noted that applications are generally due in February. It was also noted that the Shelburne Oral History project was completed and submitted on time. Previously, there was some discussion about doing a Phase II of the Oral History project, however Ms. Daly stated that we would not be able to get additional CLG money for the same project. It was suggested that we look into a $1,500 humanities grant, and possibly a summer intern for the continuation of the Oral History project. The Town would have to match the grant funds, so Mr. Pierce will consider this when he submits next year’s budget request.

Ms. Daly reminded the Committee of Brian Knight’s suggestion of making either Shelburne’s agricultural area or the Falls area a National Register District. She suggested doing a survey of the pre-1850 agricultural buildings and farmhouses. The Committee agreed that this would be a good use of CLG grant funds. Ms. Daly will investigate this further, and the Committee will finalize plans in January for the February application deadline.

Mr. Horton reminded the Committee that the Pierson Library has designated wall space for a Shelburne History display. Ms. Penar said she would like to plan an event for National Preservation Week in May where people can bring old photos that could be scanned or reproduced for display. It was suggested that the Historic Sites Committee could help with this event.

Next Meeting
Date to be announced.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Cannizzaro

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2002

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

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Name Address
Tom Gresham Shelburne News
Mike Burke Colchester
Roger Dickinson Lamoureux & Dickinson
Patti Colburn Lamoureaux & Dickinson
Ralph Campbell 95 Wildwood Drive
Norm Caswell 111 Cedar Ridge Drive
Chuck Bigalow 77 Cedar Ridge Drive
Bev Jacobson 227 Thompson Road
Tom Adler Resource Systems Group
William Griffin Thompson Road
Jennifer Ray 339 Hillside Terr.
Robert H. Rushford Burlington
Jean Burks 150 Wildwood Drive
Lili Ruane Shelburne
Oda Hubbard Shelburne

AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of October 10, 2002
2. Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, Forest Park Realty, Irish Hill and Thompson Road (SUB01-07)
3. Discussion of Development Review Board Concept
4. Resume Discussion of Town Plan Update
5. Other Business and Correspondence
6. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Reg Gignoux, in the absence of Rick Peterson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2002
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the 10/10/02 minutes as written. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

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

APPLICANT COMMENTS and PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. O’Brien listed the items to be reviewed, including traffic, affordable housing, road width, and recreation impact fees. Roger Dickinson, traffic consultant, discussed the traffic impact from the proposed development. Traffic studies identified Irish Hill Road as a corridor to CVU high school. The intersection of Irish Hill Road/Spear Street (4-way stop) has a level of service “C”. Re-aligning the intersection of Irish Hill Road/Thompson Road to a “T” will include new pavement markings, signs, and road widening. The accident information shows the majority of accidents involve a single vehicle going westbound and not negotiating the curve on Thompson Road. Speed is also a factor (the 85th percentile is 49 mph, but the road is posted at 35 mph). The turning warrants for Irish Hill Road (to justify an exclusive right turn lane) are not satisfied. The recommended improvements at the intersection will improve the function and safety of right turns, stated Mr. Dickinson. The left turn going eastbound did not meet the turning warrants at 35 mph, but did at 40 mph or faster. Adding turn lanes on a local street may encourage higher speeds (i.e. doing the opposite of traffic calming), cautioned Mr. Dickinson. Irish Hill Road is a collector street, not an arterial or highway. The preference is not to install a left turn lane onto Thompson Road. Also, widening the roadway and changing the drainage is expensive and somewhat out of character for the area, stated Mr. Dickinson.

A resident living on the corner by the intersection stated on the date when the data was collected there were school buses stopped which slowed/stopped traffic, but normally cars are traveling at 50-60 mph making it extremely dangerous to walk along or cross the road.

Tom Adler, traffic consultant for the town, confirmed the traffic volumes are representative. Speeding cars east and west of Thompson Road are a concern for the community. The accident history indicates issues are not significantly related to the intersection and the development. A right turn lane onto Thompson Road will improve the situation as will the proposed improvements to the intersection. Additional signage on the road will be helpful to warn about the speed limit and the upcoming intersection. The signs likely will not control the speeding. Enforcement is necessary. The signs could be installed now to determine their effect. Hilda White asked if the geometric correction to the intersection for the right turn is acceptable. Mr. Adler stated the improvement is probably most appropriate for the current situation.

Fred Schmidt marveled at the traffic volume variation per the collected data. Dean Pierce noted there was an equipment malfunction on one occasion. Mr. Bigalow provided the traffic volume numbers for October as follows: October 4 – 6023 vehicles, October 5 – 4230 vehicles, October 6 – 3513 vehicles, October 7 – 5489 vehicles, October 8 – 5689 vehicles. Mr. Schmidt mentioned the increase in traffic volume on area roads that is anticipated when the Route 7 reconstruction begins, and that speeding will be an issue as well. Roger Dickinson stated generally as volume increases, speed decreases somewhat because traffic is constrained by the vehicles. While Route 7 is under construction, speed on side roads can be controlled through enforcement, speed carts, temporary speed humps. There was agreement the problem with speeding cars on the roads is an existing community problem and not due to the proposed development.

Norman Caswell, Cedar Ridge, asked if the speed of the cars counted in the study was determined by the police. Roger Dickinson explained a traffic counter measured the speed of the cars on the road.

Chuck Bigalow asked what speed was used for the left turn warrant. Mr. Dickinson answered 35 mph. Mr. Bigalow commented the lane warrant is not met at 35 mph, but 85% of the vehicles are exceeding 35 mph. Also, the Adler report says the warrant is met for a left turn lane. Mr. Bigalow reviewed the police data showing vehicles traveling at over 50 mph on Irish Hill Road (one car speeding at over 90 mph), stressing cars significantly exceeding the speed limit is consistent day after day. The situation is dangerous in light of the curved road and the intersection being on a curve and hill. Mr. Bigalow referred to a VTrans publication on guidelines for engineering issues, including traffic and warrants. According to the section on warrants, the criteria may not be adequately responsive to specific conditions. Mr. Bigalow stressed there is a specific condition with the intersection under discussion, and specific traffic characteristics on Irish Hill Road (i.e. hills, curves) as well as the factors of speed and turning vehicles to be considered. Mr. Bigalow urged the town to look toward the future when considering the right turn lane. Factors such as the additional housing on Thompson Road, Route 7 reconstruction, annual increase in traffic will change the accident statistics in the area. Mr. Bigalow recounted a serious accident in August, 1997, where a car was hit from behind while waiting to make a left turn onto Thompson Road. The situation is serious on Irish Hill Road, stressed Mr. Bigalow.

Fred Schmidt stated due to the traffic increases and speeding situation, the road must be considered a major arterial in the context of suburbia so there will be pedestrians/bikers traveling the roadside. Mr. Schmidt expressed support for installing additional signs on the road now. There was discussion of having the Selectboard consider more signs being installed, enforcement, speed humps, using the speed cart to help control speeding on the roads and to make the intersection safer. Mr. Adler confirmed the turn warrants do meet the volume criteria at 35 mph, but the point is moot since in practice cars are exceeding the speed limit. Reg Gignoux asked Mr. Adler to rerun the program using a higher speed limit. The results will be forwarded to the Selectboard for consideration. There was further discussion of the speed of vehicles on the roads and the potential impact of additional signs. Pat O’Brien asked if there is potential speeds will increase if the intersection is overbuilt to include a left turn lane. Mr. Adler stated theoretically this is possible, but a major impact is not expected at the intersection under discussion. Accident data show the crashes are mainly rear end collisions. The turn lane will help decrease the possibility of this type of accident since cars will not have to stop in the main travel lane.

Patrick O’Brien discussed road width and access points, noting more input from town staff is needed. The proposal is for a 22’ wide road within the development, and the elimination of the second access point by the multi-family units after widening the main entrance to 30’ (two 15’ wide lanes). If the second access is eliminated, continued Mr. O’Brien, then two multi-family units will be moved farther away from the road. Dean Pierce reported Paul Goodrich, Road Superintendent, finds 24’ of pavement with four-foot wide shoulders on each side of the pavement acceptable. The Fire Chief finds the 30’ wide access road and 22’ wide travel way within the development acceptable as well as removing the second access point. The Town Engineer supports 24’ of pavement with two-foot wide shoulders on each side. Mr. Pierce said he has seen evidence of a single, wider access way being adequate and safe. There was discussion of the 30’ paved entryway plus shoulders narrowing to 22’ paved road in the development, and the issue of snow removal/storage. Dean Pierce will ask Paul Goodrich if a 22’ wide road is acceptable provided there are plans for snow storage/holding on the site.

There was a question about widening Thompson Road between the development and Irish Hill Road, noting there are mature Pine trees on the east side of the road. Patrick O’Brien said he did not know on which side the widening would occur at this point in time.

Mike Burke explained the bypass intersection for emergency use, noting the Road Superintendent proposes extending the drainage and using the original roadbed on Irish Hill Road. The area will be set off from Thompson Road, but maintained in winter (i.e. plowed). The bypass is not intended for every day use. There was discussion of the composition of the bypass (gravel sub-base with topsoil and grass or elevated paver surface with drive-able curbs). The consensus of the Planning Commission was to support the suggestion of Paul Goodrich, Road Superintendent.

Patrick O’Brien mentioned removal of trees in the right-of-way within the development per the site plan requirements, and suggested a condition of approval that would allow planting a street tree only if needed. This would avoid having to remove an existing tree in order to plant a new tree. The Planning Commission supports a practical approach to this matter.

Patrick O’Brien discussed the matter of affordable housing. A decision on involving a third party has not been made as yet, but the VHFA and Burlington Community Land Trust have been contacted. A letter of interest in the project and sample covenants have been received. Bob Rushford, attorney, reported the covenants say a certain number of units will be perpetually affordable at a certain level of affordability. The Burlington Community Land Trust will purchase the units, uses credits to get homeowners into the units, but has stipulations on selling the units for full profit. The Burlington Community Land Trust has first option on the unit, or if the unit is sold, the credit extended by the Land Trust must be repaid and the seller receives a share of the profit. Mr. Rushford stated if a definition of “perpetual affordability” is drafted, then third party involvement may not be necessary. The VHFA guidelines for a two-income household are most widely used to define ‘affordability’. Kay Kraushaar asked what might happen to the affordability factor of the units if the Land Trust is no longer involved. Mr. O’Brien stated there will be language in the deed related to maintaining affordability, but the units still need to be marketable and hold their value. Mr. Rushford explained there will be two covenants: the developer’s related to perpetual affordability based on median income, and the Land Trust language related to resale. After further discussion, it was agreed the applicant will draft a proposed condition of approval related to perpetual affordable units and income guidelines. Dean Pierce noted the definition of “perpetual” is clear, but the language defining “affordable” needs clarification.

Mr. O’Brien discussed phasing, stating the plan is to build 17 units per year with a cap of 22 unit maximum per year if permission is granted to bank and carry over any unused units to the next year. Reg Gignoux clarified “year” means “permit year” (i.e. when the first building permit is issued), and the Planning Commission finds the concept acceptable.

Patrick O’Brien mentioned the sidewalks and paths in the development, noting the cost to do the gravel sub-base for sidewalks is $20,612.50. Cost figures for the recreation/utility path easement are still be compiled (appraisals will take 45-60 days). Mr. O’Brien asked the Planning Commission to consider the concept of a waiver of recreation impact fees for recommendation to the Selectboard and once the cost information is received, a waiver from the Selectboard will be sought. Hilda White pointed out the purpose of impact fees is to cover the cost of improvements, such as a bike path, not the value of the easement or right-of-way. Bob Rushford disagreed, saying the impact fee ordinance can not force a project to pay more than its fair share of the recreation amenities. Paying impact fees and property tax (which also cover recreation amenities) is double paying so a credit is returned. In-kind donations can be land or construction of facilities given to the town, and the applicant, Mr. O’Brien, is giving a portion of land (30’ easement). Ms. White interjected Mr. O’Brien was also provided a housing bonus because of the amenities being given to the town. Mr. O’Brien noted initial meetings a year ago with the Recreation Committee did not include discussions of a sidewalk, but now there is a sidewalk (sub-base) being requested. Mr. O’Brien said he is willing to pay an impact fee or build a sidewalk, but not do both. Hilda White commented that 68 housing units need a sidewalk; this is not an amenity that deserves waiver of the impact fee. Dean Pierce noted the conditions under which the Selectboard can issue a credit are narrow because this project does not specifically relate to northern paths or recreation fields as listed in the study for the recreational impact fee. There was further discussion of waiving the recreation impact fee. Reg Gignoux felt the developer is not making an offer above and beyond what will have to be done for the project itself with the possible exception of the gravel base for a future sidewalk on Irish Hill Road. Mr. Pierce read Section 8 related to in-kind contributions and credits. A straw vote of the Planning Commission was in support of not making a recommendation to the Selectboard for waiver of the recreation impact fee because a waiver is not justified.

STAFF REPORT
The Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/24/02. Dean Pierce noted the new water plan has been reviewed and accepted by the Town Engineer. Further information is needed on whether 22’ paved roads with snow storage/removal is acceptable. The applicant will provide legal documents relating to the homeowners association and maintenance of facilities, affordable housing, phasing (17 units/permit year with a maximum cap of 22 units/permit year). The paths and sidewalk improvements (impact fee) issue needs to be settled. Conditions of approval related to traffic improvements, wildlife resource plan, and tree cutting must be drafted.

A memo from Friends of Thomas Farm (families from Thompson Road, Irish Hill Road, Cedar Ridge Drive, Vista Drive, Wildwood Estates) regarding the Shelburne subdivision regulations as applied to Forest Park Realty Corp preliminary plat application for a 68 unit PRD was given to the Planning Commission. There was discussion of the left turn lane and if this is warranted under the present traffic volume and speed of vehicles. Who will install the turn lane was also discussed. Fred Schmidt listed actions to be considered by the town, including adding speed limit signs, installing speed humps, using the speed cart, and enforcement.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, Forest Park Realty, Irish Hill/Thompson Rd. (SUB01-07)
The preliminary plan review (Forest Park Realty) will continue on November 14, 2002.

3. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CONCEPT
Concerns expressed include disconnect between the Planning Commission and Development Review Board as the membership changes over time, and awareness by both board of proposed development in town. There will be further discussion of this matter at the 11/14/02 meeting.

4. RESUME DISCUSSION OF TOWN PLAN UPDATE
Postponed due to time constraints.

5. OTHER BUSINESS
Land in Conservation
There was brief discussion of the amount of land in conservation in the town, both public/private lands.

6. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

Minutes respectfully submitted by M. Riordan, Recording Secretary.
“To Do” List from 10/24/02 Planning Commission meeting:
1. Mr. Adler confirmed the turn warrants do meet the volume criteria at 35 mph, but the point is moot since in practice cars are exceeding the speed limit. Reg Gignoux asked Mr. Adler to rerun the program using a higher speed limit. The results will be forwarded to the Selectboard for consideration.
2. Dean Pierce will ask Paul Goodrich if a 22’ wide road is acceptable provided there are plans for snow storage/holding on the site.
3. The applicant will draft a proposed condition of approval related to perpetual affordable units and income guidelines. Dean Pierce noted the definition of “perpetual” is clear, but the language defining “affordable” needs clarification.