    |
  |
        |
|
|
Planning Commission MinutesTOWN OF SHELBURNE MEMBERS PRESENT Rick Peterson Chairman Reg Gignoux Fred Schmidt Tucker Holland Claude LaPierre Kay Kraushaar Hilda White was absent STAFF PRESENT Dean Pierce Town Planner OTHERS PRESENT William and Tracy Monell Margory Sharp Andy Rowe Bruce and Virginia Righi Ross Mohn Boris Funtow Gwen Webster Milton Edelman David Webster Robert Rushford Mark Neagley Dennis Delaney Chris Neme AGENDA 1 Call to Order and Approval of Minutes 62404 2 Design Review Application William Tracey Monell 1077 Falls Road prefabricated shed DR0413 3 Final Plan Review Bruce Virginia Righi 1117 Webster Road SUB0310 4 Discussion of Possible Zoning Changes in Shelburne Village 5 Request for Waiver of Impact Fees 6 Discussion of Town Plan Update 7 Other Business Correspondence 8 Adjournment 1 CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES Rick Peterson Chairman called the meeting to order at 737 pm APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 24 2004 MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Kay Kraushaar to approve the 62404 minutes with the following corrections Page 3 top of page item 1 – change “shall remain undeveloped to “will not be developed Page 4 last paragraph condition 5 – reword to read “Rick Peterson suggested the applicant consider reconfiguring the boundary of Lot 3 of the southern most soccer field to extend along the northerly boundary of Lot 2 Page 9 1st paragraph – change “George Faris resident … to “George Faris attorney representing Lin Stone… VOTING unanimous 50 Fred Schmidt not present for vote motion carried 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION WILLIAM TRACY MONELL 1077 FALLS ROAD DR0413 William Monell appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS William Monell explained the planned 10’ x 16’ shed to house gardening equipment lawn tractor snow blower weed whacker at 1077 Falls Road The shed will be painted the same color as the house and will be located behind the house 230’ from the sidewalk STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report dated 7804 Dean Pierce noted the Design Review Committee approved the application as part of their consent agenda at the 7804 meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS None DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review Monell 1077 Falls Road DR0413 MOTION by Kay Kraushaar SECOND by Claude LaPierre to grant design review approval to William and Tracy Monell for placement of a prefabricated shed in the rear yard of property at 1077 Falls Road consistent with the plans submitted VOTING unanimous 50 Fred Schmidt not present for vote motion carried 3 FINAL PLAN REVIEW BRUCE VIRGINIA RIGHI 1117 WEBSTER ROAD SUB0310 Andy Rowe with Lamoureux Dickinson appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Andy Rowe reviewed the two lot subdivision of 325 acres at 1117 Webster Road The front lot of approximately one acre has an existing dwelling historic home served by town water and sewer The newly created lot of approximately two acres will have a new house built on it to be served by municipal water and sewer The existing driveway will be widened to 20’ and continue to the new house on lot 2 A request to have the driveway off of Webster Road is being made The driveway will be within the easement A name for the access road driveway is not necessary because less than three houses are being served Vegetation is being removed from the front of lot 1 to improve the sight distance The culvert in the driveway is being replaced with a culvert across most of the front lawn of lot 1 There is a 10’ wide easement along lot 1 Webster Road for the bike path The sewer line is along the edge of lot 1 as well Rick Peterson asked about the culvert outfall Andy Rowe stated the outfall would be just inside the town rightofway but there is still room for the 10’ path outside the rightofway Chairman Peterson asked about the location of the house on lot 2 Bruce Righi stated the location shown on the site plan is fairly close to the true location The back of the house will face southwest and the three car garage will be in the front Rick Peterson mentioned the existing house on lot 1 is the oldest house in Shelburne The owner is encouraged to consult with the Historic Preservation Committee for input on any changes to the house STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 7804 Dean Pierce mentioned the setbacks need to be corrected on the final mylar to reflect the front yard for lot 2 relative to Webster Road which is the principal access way to the lot rather than Boulder Hill Drive It was noted the location of the stable shed as shown on the site plan may be impacted PUBLIC COMMENTS Ross Mohn Webster Road asked about the location of the bike path Andy Rowe stated from the edge of the 10’ easement to the house is 17’ The edge of the town rightofway is about 10’ from the pavement The property owner Righi is providing another 10’ and from that edge there is 17’ to the face of the house Dean Pierce noted the conceptual design of the path was not relying on the additional easement so there is more flexibility available now Mr Mohn asked about additional lighting on Webster Road Mr Rowe stated there will only be lights on the house There were no further comments DELIBERATION/DECISION Final Plan Righi 1117 Webster Rd SUB0310 MOTION by Fred Schmidt SECOND by Tucker Holland to grant final plan approval to Bruce and Virginia Righi for a minor subdivision as shown on the plans presented subject to the following conditions 1 Legal documents shall include dedication of a 10’ bicyclepedestrian easement along Webster Road and access to maintain water and sewer lines in the event of an emergency 2 Prior to filing a mylar plans and the final plat shall depict the front yard along the southern boundary of lot 2 rather than the eastern boundary 3 Prior to filing a mylar the applicant shall submit finalized and executed legal documents revised to the satisfaction of the Town Manager and Town Attorney 4 Prior to filing a mylar plans shall be revised to address the setback of the existing shed on lot 2 to staff’s satisfaction 5 Within 60 days of this approval the property owner shall record a “Memorandum of Municipal Action with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office said document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions VOTING unanimous 60 motion carried 4 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ZONING CHANGES IN SHELBURNE VILLAGE Members of the Shelburne Zoning Board of Adjustment Boris Funtow Gwen Webster and Milton Edelmen discussed the proposed zoning changes that would affect a portion of Shelburne Village proposed new section 970 Concerns include parking sharing of offsite parking Definitions of “residence to include studio apartments and “off site parking are needed The parking for the Noonan House was cited as an example of shared parking in the municipal parking lot Regarding conversion of residential space to commercial use in the village district it was noted most of the preexisting lots in the village do not conform to side yard setbacks so dimensional requirements will exclude many conversions Boris Funtow suggested compiling a list of businesses wanted in the village such as governmentprofessional office uses or trading one office use for another and allowing flexibility on the dimensional requirements Conditional use review would still be required to assure there would be no adverse impact It was also suggested lot coverage could be allowed to be increased for an existing building in the village district but the nonconformity can not be increased for example a building could be extended along the same side line but the back yard setback requirement must be met Also a building could be rebuilt in the same footprint but the nonconformity can not be increased Rick Peterson summarized the comments from the Zoning Board members reconstruction in the existing footprint is allowed but conditional use site plan review and design review is required to convert residential to commercial use If the footprint is changed then the regulations must be met In Rick Peterson’s words “what you got you got you can convert but you can’t change You still need conditional use design review and site plan review It was suggested language be added to the regulations to say Zoning Board approval is granted with the condition site plan approval is secured from the Planning Commission Reg Gignoux urged thinking about what the village district should look like 20 years in the future Fred Schmidt stated guidelines are needed so business people can do their planning There was mention of having incentives for multiple uses residential and commercial and keeping an “old town atmosphere Boris Funtow suggested applying the proposed regulations to variance applications that were denied by the Zoning Board under the current regulations to see if approval would be granted It was noted there are 76 parcels in the core district and nine would not benefit from the newly proposed 75’ frontage requirement PUBLIC COMMENTS David Webster resident disagreed with allowing an expansion along a noncomplying setback because this is an imposition on neighboring property especially if the neighboring property is a residence rather than a commercial operation Mr Webster also noted the more commercial the area becomes the more sales values will increase which makes it difficult to keep apartment residential uses rather than commercial uses in the village A public hearing on the proposed zoning changes for the village district is scheduled on 72204 at the Village Center meeting room 5 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES Reg Gignoux recused himself Bob Rushford and Mark Neagley representing Shelburne Cliffs Partnership requested recreation and education impact fees related to the development at 333 Morgan Road be waived due to the nature of the development Mr Rushford pointed out the former facility housing 38 full time residents The Pillars is being converted to 11 living units approximately totaling 22 bedrooms The number of dwelling units is not being increased so an impact fee should not be assessed and it is expected the residents of the condominium units will likely not have children so there will not be an impact on the education system Rick Peterson stated The Pillars was an elderly housing project and that facility is now being replaced by housing units without price or age requirements Mr Peterson said he sees an increase in the dwelling units with the current project Kay Kraushaar said her view of The Pillars was one dwelling with 38 residents Each bedroom did not have its own entrance Chairman Peterson pointed out the ordinance was crafted with the thought that all development has an impact unless it can be shown there is not an impact or less of an impact such as with affordable or elderly housing Kay Kraushaar commented impact fees are a shared responsibility and there must be a compelling reason to waive them The Planning Commission felt there wouldcould be use of recreation and school facilities in the town by the residents at 333 Morgan Road MOTION by Fred Schmidt SECOND by Tucker Holland to support the applicant’s request for waiver of impact fees associated with the Shelburne Cliffs LLC project VOTING 0 ayes 5 nays Peterson Kraushaar Schmidt LaPierre Holland motion did not carry Reg Gignoux returned to the Planning Commission 6 DISCUSSION OF TOWN PLAN UPDATE Dean Pierce distributed materials to the Planning Commission relative to the update of the Town Plan The Planning Commission will prioritize the issues and sections of the Plan to be addressed and submit the rankings to staff by 72204 A work session was scheduled for July 26 2004 at 7 pm Rick Peterson reported on the outcome of a recent meeting with the school board noting the interest of the school board is the impact of recently approved projects Information from the Forum on Sprawl was given to the Planning Commission Of interest is the concept of high density development being planned well so it does not appear as high density 7 OTHER BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE Teddy Bear Company Landscape Plan The Planning Commission briefly reviewed the landscape plan for the addition to the Vermont Teddy Bear Company facility Andy Rowe noted there will be nine softwood trees Pine and three hardwood trees Ash of 10’ to 12’ in height planted at the west end area of the building There was discussion of the arrangements with the neighboring property owner regarding planting and maintaining the plantings Rick Peterson pointed out if the trees come down and compliance to the plan is lost then this matter will have to be resolved by the applicant 8 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Fred Schmidt SECOND by Reg Gignoux to adjourn the meeting VOTE unanimous 60 motion carried The meeting adjourned at 1035 pm Minutes respectfully submitted by MERiordan Recording Secretary TOWN OF SHELBURNE MEMBERS PRESENT Rick Peterson Chairman Reg Gignoux Kay Kraushaar Hilda White Fred Schmidt Tucker Holland and Claude LaPierre were absent STAFF PRESENT Dean Pierce Town Planner OTHERS PRESENT Ron Desroches Jeremy Matowsky Marge Sharp Walt Bohlman Michael Marciel Barbara Hamblett Fritz Horton Beverly Remisk Joanne Jarrett Bob Jarrett Ives Bradley Matt Wamscantz George Faris Gwen Webster Sherry Senior Gillian Senior Bart Frisbee Stephen Dates Paul Bohne Gregg Beldock Roger Dickinson AGENDA 1 Public Hearing Amendments to Town Zoning Bylaw 2 Call to Order and Approval of Minutes 7804 3 Design Review Application Charter One Financial Inc 5068 Shelburne Road DR0412 4 Site Plan Review Queen City Printers IncJA McDonald Inc 80 Northside Drive SP0404 5 Final Plan ReApprovalNotice of Recording Boulder Hill Partnership Hawley Drive SUB016R 6 Preliminary Plan Review Town of ShelburneBullrock IncPizzagalli Properties LLC 154 Turtle Lane 19 Harbor Road 166 Blodgett Road SUB0406 7 PUD Final Plan Amendment CatamountShelburne LLC 40664076 Shelburne RoadShelburne Commons SUB0407 8 Other Business Correspondence 9 Adjournment 1 PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO TOWN ZONING BYLAWS Rick Peterson Chairman opened the public hearing at 735 pm and explained the proposed amendments to the zoning bylaws related to the village district The impetus for the changes is to keep a healthy vigorous mix of residential and commercial uses in the village and minimize the migration of residential uses out of the village PUBLIC COMMENTS Gwen Webster village resident stated the lot frontage minimum of 75’ disenfranchises 10 properties in the village even if they are not at maximum lot coverage Ms Webster felt the zoning should be inclusive of all properties or no changes should be made Chairman Peterson pointed out the amendment specifies if the change to the property is to increase the coverage then the 75’ requirement must be met Ms Webster also mentioned the 10000 sf requirement for each allowable use is not feasible for most lots in the district so expansion will not be possible George Faris resident noted that the 10 properties in the village without 75’ of frontage are already nonconforming lots Mr Faris suggested relying on lot coverage rather than frontage to avoid monolithic development and cap density Mr Faris mentioned food services as an allowable use conditional use needs to be included in the list Also “accessory apartment needs to be added to the definition of residential unit Mr Faris suggested having Section 9707 – Conditional Use Review follow the definitions and subsection b related to the lot frontage minimum needs to specify “existing lot and lot frontage Regarding the comment on accessory apartments Dean Pierce explained according to state statute a single family residence is entitled to an accessory apartment if desired If the requirements for an accessory apartment can not be met square footage limitation and blood relative as resident then the dwelling is considered a twofamily multifamily dwelling and the associated requirements must be met Chairman Peterson mentioned using a 10’ side yard setback rather than “15’ or the existing setback whichever is less as is stated in the amendments There was further discussion of setbacks and lot coverage It was noted the proposed 35 lot coverage amount may be too high Dean Pierce pointed out the change in zoning is to allow a change of use not expansion or a change of use plus expansion Some communities rely on performance impacts such as noise rather than dimensional or use requirements There were no further comments MOTION by Hilda White SECOND by Kay Kraushaar to continue the public hearing on the amendments to the town zoning bylaws on 81204 VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried 2 CALL TO ORDER regular meeting and APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Peterson called the regular meeting to order at 825 pm APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 8 2004 MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Kay Kraushaar to approve the 7804 minutes as written VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CHARTER ONE FINANCIAL INC 5068 SHELBURNE ROAD DR0412 Walt Bohlman appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr Bohlman explained the replacement of the failed and leaking balustrade causing the wood to rot and windows with a pitched roof and three new windows on the building at 5068 Shelburne Road STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report dated 72204 Dean Pierce noted the staff report reflects results of the Design Review Committee meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS None DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review Charter One 5068 Shelburne Road DR0412 MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Kay Kraushaar to grant design review approval to Charter One Financial Inc 5068 Shelburne Road for the following exterior changes consistent with option 3 depicted on plans submitted July 22 2004 1 removal of balustrade parapet and scupper drainage system 2 removal of door four windows and associated trim 3 installation of new windows 4 installation of new joist hangers “from inside the portico and replacement with new stainless steel hangers 5 construction of a new truss system for the roof 6 installation of cedar clapboard siding 7 installation of inch plywood sheathing as roof decking to be covered with copper roof sheeting 8 installation of trim and painting of surfaces to match the existing building VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried 4 SITE PLAN REVIEW QUEEN CITY PRINTERS INCJA MCDONALD INC 80 NORTHSIDE DRIVE SP0404 Jeremy Matowsky and Ron Desroches appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Jeremy Matowsky explained the request for a temporary gravel area for parking and two office trailers for the Route 7 project the contract runs through July 2006 There will be metal storage boxes for contractor tools and a dumpster The dumpster will not be visible from the road screened by an office trailer One trailer will be used by VTrans and will be served by municipal sewer and water The other trailer will be used by the contractor JA McDonald and portalets will be used The area is currently an overgrown meadow Fabric will be put down on top of the top soil and then gravel will be added An existing thick hedgerow will provide screening In addition a temporary earth berm will be built as a result of comments from residents expressed at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting There will be up to 15 employees at the trailers during the day Construction workers will park their cars at the site during the day use a company vehicle to go to the construction site then return and take their personal vehicles home by 630 pm Up to three rubberwheeled loaders will be stored over night on the site the tracked equipment will be at the construction site Pipe for the road project will also be stored at the site The site will not be used in the winter since the construction work shuts down but there may be a limited number of staff members at the trailers An average of 80100 round trips made by 4050 people comingleaving the site is anticipated The approximately 50 parking spaces will be adequate The parking area will be built first then the berm before the leaves fall from the trees Normally this type of facility would be located in the road rightofway but there was not room This necessitated a temporary use on private property Regarding lighting continued Mr Matowsky there will be a temporary pole mounted light by the trailers for security purposes Technical details have been submitted The lighting is low level Following discussion it was agreed the lights will be metal halide on a 16’ maximum height pole Pedestrians are not expected at the site Rick Peterson asked about dust generation and control Mr Matowsky replied the same dust control will be used as with the Route 7 road project A VTrans engineer will be onsite Chairman Peterson asked about noise and how often the dumpster will be emptied The applicant said no heavy equipment will be on the site and the dumpster will be emptied once a week Kay Kraushaar asked about restoration of the site Mr Matowsky stated road fabric will be put over the grass then gravel This will be removed when the project is complete The temporary berm and structures will also be removed The meadow will be reseeded and mulched It is a requirement of the agreement with Queen City Printers to leave the site as it was received STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 72204 Dean Pierce reported the Water Department said temporary water service would be from the 6 main Mr Matowsky stated water for dust control will come from the water trucks serving the entire project PUBLIC COMMENTS A gentleman in the audience asked about storm water management and silt control Mr Matowsky explained the temporary area is ancillary to the Shelburne Road project and therefore part of the erosion control permit for Route 7 There will be an environmentalist onsite to oversee the project Mr Horton resident requested the dumpster be emptied on weekdays only rather than on weekends There were no further comments DELIBERATION/DECISION Site Plan Queen City PrintersJA McDonald 80 Northside Drive SP0404 MOTION by Hilda White SECOND by Reg Gignoux that the Planning Commission determined the amount of parking proposed on the site 80 Northside Drive is reasonable VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried MOTION by Kay Kraushaar SECOND by Hilda White to approve the site plan submitted by JA McDonald Inc for a temporary construction office facility to be located at 80 Northside Drive as depicted on the above referenced plans revised through 71504 with the following conditions 1 all exterior lighting shall be metal halide and in conformance with Shelburne zoning bylaws 2 the requirement for paving of parking areas shall be waived 3 servicingemptying of the dumpster shall be once a week during week day business hours only VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried 5 FINAL PLAN REAPPROVALNOTICE OF RECORDING BOULDER HILL PARTNERSHIP HAWLEY DRIVE SUB016R Bart Frisbee appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Bart Frisbee explained the mylar for the project was signed but not filed in the clerk’s office by the deadline Reapproval of the application is needed to ratify the approval granted in April 2003 STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report dated 72204 PUBLIC COMMENTS None DELIBERATION/DECISION Final Plan ReApprovalNotice of Recording Boulder Hill Partnership Hawley Drive SUB016R MOTION by Kay Kraushaar SECOND by Hilda White to ratify approval of the Boulder Hill subdivision a planned residential development PRD of 37 single family lots with associated open space located on the north side of Webster Road the Final Plat for which was recorded in the Shelburne land records at Map Slide 255A on July 10 2003 subject to the conditions attached on April 10 2003 VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Kay Kraushaar to authorize Rick Peterson Planning Commission Chairman to sign and execute the Notice of Recording for the Boulder Hill subdivision in a form substantially similar to the one warned for public hearing VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried 6 PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW TOWN OF SHELBURNEBULLROCK INCPIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES LLC 154 TURTLE LANE 19 HARBOR ROAD 166 BLODGETT ROAD SUB0406 George Faris Gregg Beldock Matt Wamscantz Roger Dickinson and Paul Bohne appeared on behalf of the application The Planning Commission received the most recent version of the site plan for the project APPLICANT COMMENTS Matt Wamscantz clarified that the half acre at the entrance to Blodgett Road is owned by the town Research continues to determine if the area is a lot or a rightofway The land was previously listed as part of lot 1 Blodgett Road is a public road Mr Wamscantz reviewed that there are two lots owned by Pizzagalli to be combined and subdivided into three lots The town’s lot with the baseball fields will remain The baseball fields and parking lot will be reoriented Drainage improvements catch basin swales stone trenches will be done With the three lot subdivision the first lot lot 1 will contain a Little League ballfield soccer fields and a portion of the parking lot There will be no sewer water lighting or landscaping beyond the existing vegetation On lot 2 six duplex buildings 12 living units will be built on a semicircular drive two curb cuts Water and sewer service will be through a 10 water line Drainage will be sheet flow into grass swales There will be lights under each housing unit porch and over each garage This is the only proposed for the housing development Mr Wamscantz reviewed the planned landscaping tree species and other plantings to augment existing vegetation on lot 2 On lot 3 the only lighting will be on the Blodgett building cut off fixtures There will be no pole lights Mr Wamscantz reviewed the location of the gravel pathway through the parcels and sidewalks and crosswalks proposed for the development A sidewalk along the north side of Harbor Road is not possible due to impact on wetlands Reg Gignoux asked for further clarification of lighting on the Blodgett building noting it appears the parking lot will not have lights Matt Wamscantz stated the soccer fields will have day use The lights on the building are sufficient for those who will be using the athletic club inside the building Gregg Beldock reported that neighbors requested signs saying “No Parking After Dark be posted so people using the indoor facility will use the western most parking area which will be illuminated by the lights on the building Roger Dickinson traffic consultant gave a presentation on the traffic impact of the project outlining the parameters of the study three peak hour periods studied early morning midafternoon and evening use of data from the Harbor Road traffic study commissioned by the town to determine the impact of the indoor facilities and residential portion of the project determination that the outdoor fields will not have impact on traffic in the late afternoon and projections for 2004 and 2009 Mr Dickinson reported the Harbor RoadFalls RoadRoute 7 intersection operates poorly presently If timing of the traffic light is optimized this will improve the situation VTrans has a statewide signal optimization project underway It is not certain if VTrans will do the optimization at the Route 7Harbor RoadFalls Road traffic signal or the applicant will be directed to do so An answer from VTrans on when and who does the optimization is anticipated within a month after the request is submitted Optimization continued Mr Dickinson treats all roads into an intersection equally Without optimization the intersection level of service is “E in the morning and midafternoon and “C in the evening With optimization a “C level of service can be maintained until 2009 when the level of service will go to “D A “C level of service can be maintained at the Harbor RoadBlodgett Road intersection with the optimization of the traffic signal on Route 7 The Harbor RoadBlodgett Road intersection has excellent sight distance Gregg Beldock asked about traffic now versus when the Blodgett Company was operating Roger Dickinson said this situation was not analyzed The 2002 traffic report looked at May 2002 circumstances Blodgett closed in May 2002 and by the time of closing the number of employees decreased from 140 workers to 80 workers Blodgett had two work shifts 6 am and 230 pm which would have impacted the school afternoon peak traffic Roger Dickinson discussed traffic calming measures including raisedtextured crosswalks “bulbouts striping Harbor Road to define travel lanes bike lanes on both sides of the road There was further discussion of “bulbouts areas at crosswalks where the sidewalk or raised surface for pedestrians protrudes into the roadway slightly narrowing the road at that point and forcing drivers to slow down Reg Gignoux asked about the effect of a dedicated right turn lane on Harbor Road onto Route 7 noting there are no pavement markings currently but the turn lane is informally recognized and used by drivers Mr Dickinson said this situation was not analyzed but having a dedicated turn lane would likely improve traffic flow The MPO traffic study recommended a right turn lane on Harbor Road Rick Peterson mentioned the suggestion that during morning peak hour at the Route 7 intersection traffic on Falls Road should be routed onto Church Road to Route 7 in order to use the turn signal at the traffic light Roger Dickinson noted the traffic impact of the duplex housing units was not analyzed but generally fewer curb cuts are better Regarding optimization relative to pedestrians at the Route 7 intersection 20 people per hour crossing each of the four crossings at the intersection was determined stated Mr Dickinson The existing pedestrian phasing at the traffic light is not changing Regarding queuing in 2009 with an optimized traffic signal at Route 7 queuing back 410’ during the evening peak hour is expected The railroad tracks are 400’ from the intersection Currently queuing is to beyond the railroad tracks Kay Kraushaar asked for further clarification of the impact on level of service by optimization Mr Dickinson explained each leg of the intersection has a different level of service rating Presently the average is “E With optimization which seeks to make each leg similar the level of service would be “C Rick Peterson asked about parking and the uses on the site per the applicant’s calculations 140 are needed for the indoor facility plus 60 vehicles for the playing fields Mr Peterson commented that 20 cars per playing field may be a very conservative number The applicant noted the plan shows 158 parking spaces and reference material for athletic field parking requirements is scarce Research showed average parking required for football soccer and lacrosse fields was 1723 spaces Mr Dickinson stated there is shared parking for nonoverlapping uses The two expansions proposed and shown on the site plan are included in the parking but the future expansions are not Reg Gignoux pointed out the parking lot at the Blodgett building will essentially double in size with the proposal Chairman Peterson stated the Planning Commission would want to revisit parking in the future if the current parking plan is not working Mr Peterson asked about using the area between the railroad tracks and the building for parking by the staff of the club The applicant indicated there are limitations to the area Chairman Peterson asked how parking along Blodgett Road will be controlled It was noted residents are assuming no parking signs will be installed The road is narrow and there is a ditch along the side of the road which will deter parking Chairman Peterson asked about parking for the residential units Matt Wamscantz stated there is a parking space for each unit in the garage and in the single car driveway The road is 24’ wide so parallel parking on the road is possible Under discussion is the idea of making the semicircle road oneway traffic only Reg Gignoux asked about the addition of parking spaces for the baseball fields and the impact on Harbor Road Roger Dickinson stated there are 36 parking spaces plus 24 spaces along Turtle Lane Rick Peterson asked if the design review process has been started regarding the layout and appearance of the residential portion of the development which is in the design review district George Faris stated the application has been before the Design Review Committee two times The Planning Commission reviewed elevations of the duplex units Rick Peterson commented the orientation of the duplex units appear to be an aberration to the existing residential development along the road Mr Faris stated in order to line the houses along the road only eight units would be built and the cost would exceed what is allowed for affordable housing Also there are constraints due to the wetlands It was noted the neighbors prefer clustering the dwelling units and find the design to be appropriate for the area Rick Peterson stressed the Planning Commission will value input from the Design Review Committee DRC so the applicant is urged to work closely with the DRC Chairman Peterson asked if the gravel pathway is in lieu of a sidewalk on the north side of Harbor Road Matt Wamscantz stated a sidewalk would require much fill material and tree cutting With the gravel path no trees will be cut and there is minimal impact on the wetlands STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a staff report dated 72204 Dean Pierce asked the applicant to respond to the comments from the town’s consulting engineer Phelps Engineering Inc Mr Wamscantz did so commenting on the sewer line between the buildings the duplex buildings are 14’ apart agreeing the six inch diameter manholes are acceptable noting there will be a pump station for the two dwelling units on the end of the complex and that the units do not have basements The recommendations for drainage by Phelps Engineering are acceptable stated Mr Wamscantz Details on grading of the fields are forthcoming Agency of Natural Resources and US Army Corps Of Engineers permit applications are in process Whether the gravel pathway will have year round use ie need to be plowed in winter has not been discussed Having a curb and sidewalk adjacent to the paved Blodgett Road is a good recommendation and can be incorporated into the plan stated Mr Wamscantz Following a question on who the contact person from the town is for this project it was clarified Paul Bohne is the contact person PUBLIC COMMENTS A gentleman in the audience asked about drainage from the soccer fields Matt Wamscantz explained the southern most soccer field will sheet flow west The parking lots drain into grass swales The other soccer fields drain west There are stonelined trenches on the uphill sides of all the fields No irrigation of the fields is proposed Gregg Beldock clarified the contract with the Town includes irrigation The Blodgett building drainage system is as existing Mr Suskin neighbor reported on the meeting with Mr Beldock to work out a number of issues including screening It was agreed there would be up to 8’ tall Evergreen trees planted on the neighbors’ properties There was also discussion during the meeting with Mr Beldock of installing speed bumps on the road and posting no parking signs Gregg Beldock added agreement was reached that the south parking lot by the Blodgett building will not be used after 7 pm and Wendy Smith’s house will be screened with a fence andor additional plantings All these matters must be discussed with the town contact person for the project Paul Bohne A woman in the audience asked about the impact of the traffic light at By Road Roger Dickinson stated the intersection will have a level of service of “C with ample reserve capacity once the Route 7 project is complete In response to a question about a left turn signal from Harbor Road heading north Roger Dickinson said there has not been consideration of this and the optimization study did not make a recommendation for a left turn signal A question was asked about who would be responsible for the optimization of the traffic signal on Route 7 and how many cars are anticipated to be generated by the Bullrock project Roger Dickinson stated as a rule of thumb VTrans optimizes and maintains traffic signals every three to five years A statewide project to this effect is underway VTrans may require the developer to do the optimization at the intersection impacted by the development With the Bullrock project 69 additional vehicles are anticipated on the road in the morning peak hour 43 entering26 existing During the midafternoon peak hour 52 additional vehicles are anticipated and in the evening peak hour 107 vehicles are anticipated 60 entering47 existing The trips to the ballfields at the school have been added to the traffic projections A suggestion was made to have turn arrows from Harbor Road and Falls Road onto Route 7 Roger Dickinson pointed out the analysis would have identified these turn arrows as a recommendation if the impact was positive ie improve traffic flow Reg Gignoux asked if the light at Webster Road will have a beneficial effect on the village Mr Dickinson said the traffic light at Webster Road is too far from the village and it is not known if the light will be synchronized with the light at Harbor RoadFalls RoadRoute 7 Wendy Smith neighbor asked about the total number of trips inout of Blodgett Road due to the proposed uses Roger Dickinson said a total number was not estimated but up to 1000 cars per day could be expected 500 cars entering and then exiting DELIBERATION/DECISION Preliminary Plan Review Town of ShelburneBullrockPizzagalli 154 Turtle Lane 19 Harbor Road and 166 Blodgett Road SUB0406 There was discussion of continuing the hearing due to time constraints The applicant asked for a summary of outstanding issues from the Planning Commission’s point of view Chairman Peterson listed the following site landscaping parking traffic VTrans letter regarding optimization striping turn lanes pedestrian button at Route 7 intersection and other traffic items design review for the housing units sewer line extension The applicant reminded the Commission of the significance of the October deadline in order for the project to occur and urged that a special meeting be scheduled to continue the project review MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to continue review of the Bullrock application until 72904 7 pm VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried 7 PUD FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT CATAMOUNTSHELBURNE LLC 40664076 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE COMMONS SUB0407 Michael Marciel appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Mike Marciel explained the proposal to create an area for two picnic tables to be used by people for a lunch area There will be no food service The picnic tables are a general amenity for the site STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report dated 72204 PUBLIC INPUT None DELIBERATION/DECISION PUD Final Plan Amendment CatamountShelburne LLCShelburne Commons 40664076 Shelburne Road SUB0407 MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Kay Kraushaar to approve amendment of the PUD Final Plan by CatamountShelburne LLC for 40664076 Shelburne RoadShelburne Commons and more specifically to approve amendment of the project site plan to include two picnic tables as general site amenities consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions 1 all existing approval conditions shall not be superceded by this approval and shall remain in effect 2 an updated and properly labeled site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office within 60 days 3 within 60 days of this approval the property owner shall record a “Memorandum of Municipal Action with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office this document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried 8 OTHER BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE Dean Pierce reminded the Planning Commission of the work session on the Town Plan update on 72604 at 7 pm Mr Pierce briefed the Commission on the results of a planning session he recently attended noting language is needed in the Town Plan relating to planned unit developments 9 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to adjourn the meeting VOTE unanimous 40 motion carried The meeting adjourned at 1115 pm Minutes respectfully submitted by MERiordan Recording Secretary TOWN OF SHELBURNE MEMBERS PRESENT Rick Peterson Chairman Reg Gignoux Kay Kraushaar Hilda White Tucker Holland Claude LaPierre Fred Schmidt was absent STAFF PRESENT Dean Pierce Town Planner OTHERS PRESENT Matt Wamscantz George Faris Dave Marshall Stephen Dates Paul Bohne Gregg Beldock Roger Dickinson Mike Liker Phyllis McEntee Wendy Smith AGENDA 1 Call to Order 2 Preliminary Plan Review Continuance Town of ShelburneBullrock IncPizzagalli Properties LLC 154 Turtle Lane 19 Harbor Road 166 Blodgett Road SUB0406 3 Other Business Correspondence 4 Adjournment 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 707 pm 2 PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW TOWN OF SHELBURNEBULLROCK INCPIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES LLC 154 TURTLE LANE 19 HARBOR ROAD 166 BLODGETT ROAD SUB0406 George Faris Gregg Beldock Matt Wamscantz Dave Marshall Roger Dickinson Paul Bohne and Steve Dates appeared on behalf of the application The Planning Commission received the following at the meeting a Staff report on the application dated 72904 b Booklet explaining the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee HPDRC c Notes from Dean Pierce on the HPDRC meeting of 72904 on the Bullrock application d Letter from Roger Dickinson regarding traffic e Letter from VTrans regarding traffic f Fact sheet from the Agency of Natural Resources on classes of wetlands APPLICANT COMMENTS Matt Wamscantz explained minor changes to the site plan regarding the housing units and utilities at the houses and drainage rather than sheet flow per the comments from engineer Lance Phelps Chairman Peterson suggested the applicant address the items as ordered in the staff report Design Review George Faris reported Peter Morse architect who designed the round barn at the Shelburne Museum and who will design the housing units in the Bullrock project met with the HPDRC regarding the site and site constraints Mr Morse put the project in context of the neighborhood A good dialogue with the HPDRC transpired The HPDRC deliberated then continued the hearing pending information on design specs and elevations for buildings in the PRD stated Mr Faris Dean Pierce added the HPDRC deliberated then moved toward a motion action but decided to continue the hearing and make reference to the minutes per the requested information George Faris said at issue is the purview of the HPDRC and the Planning Commission Mr Faris opined density issues and the site plan are beyond HPDRC purview The HPDRC covers architectural issues to ensure the project “fits into the neighborhood It does not seem discussion of the number of units should be part of the HPDRC purview and this is of concern stressed Mr Faris Chairman Peterson pointed out that 90 of the time the HPDRC is dealing with existing structures but not always and there are design review criteria to meet Mr Peterson reviewed the bylaws and explained how the bylaws form the foundation for the input and guidance from the HPDRC to the Planning Commission for example ensuring compatibility with the surrounding area Chairman Peterson acknowledged the Bullrock project is on the fast track and assured the Planning Commission is trying to work together with the applicants to keep moving forward The project is at the preliminary plat stage and if approval is secured then the project goes to final review which is normally a punch list tweaking process explained Chairman Peterson Mr Peterson said it strikes him that what has been received from the HPDRC and applicant to date is not a punch tweaking list but more fundamental and this puts the project in a tough spot in terms of moving forward when the Planning Commission does not have a concrete recommendation from the HPDRC the applicant will still have to deal with the HPDRC even if preliminary approval is received Paul Bohne noted the HPDRC typically deals with a project in the context of the historic district and village streetscape The Bullrock project presents the challenge to look at an area of town that does not fit that description There are open fields a school modern houses and a sewer plant The HPDRC is struggling to come up with a meaningful recommendation to the Planning Commission related to historic character stated Mr Bohne Rick Peterson reiterated the Planning Commission is looking for guidance on what the site can accommodate based on what is in the area The Planning Commission has not yet received this guidance but rather has received “what to do next direction The Planning Commission is trying to move forward on the project but needs a concrete recommendation from the HPDRC and the applicant needs the same advised Mr Peterson Gregg Beldock agreed suggestions from the HPDRC can be helpful but should be relative to signing color trim of the housing units Mr Beldock pointed out the town is a coapplicant in the project which appears to be at an impasse A decision on whether the project will go forward is needed Issues noted by the HPDRC include layout of landscaping structures and roads relative to the residential portion of the project the HPDRC felt these items have not been given proper consideration For the past four years Bullrock has worked with the town Paul Bohne and the Selectboard as well as numerous consultants to try to provide the town and county with something that the town county and state plans indicate are requisite specifically athletic fields and mediumaffordable housing stated Mr Beldock There has been lots of hard work and effort put forth and there has been no personal financial gain Mr Beldock pointed out there is no investment tax credit ITC with the project The impetus has been to provide and meet a social responsibility which will provide hundreds of thousands of children over the next decade with the benefits of athletic fields and affordable housing in a prime location Too often affordable housing is located where it is not seen where two cars are needed but the Bullrock project shows the housing in a prime location The houses are being designed by an architect from Kiley Associates a world renowned firm Mr Beldock questioned when it was decided the design of trim boards on houses is more important than providing affordable housing The Town Plan says the area is a suburban entrance to the village that the trees and landscaping create vistas and atmosphere and the “villagescape and historic district in Year 2001 sic should reflect a communal and neighborhood feeling stated Mr Beldock Some of the HPDRC members continued Mr Beldock suggested the houses should be spread out among the landscaping if possible within the constraints of the property however it is felt by the applicant and the applicant’s consultants that the landscaping and communal aspects of the project as shown are appropriate The architect pointed out large trees along the road way Harbor Road create an entryway and muted colors are less offensive to the neighborhood vista There will be a view of the open space even with the residential dwellings in place The architect urged looking at the site from the street rather than a bird’s eye view stated Mr Beldock George Faris noted the Design Review booklet was reviewed and at the meeting with the HPDRC the applicant was prepared to discuss architecture but the direction of the discussion was changed This begs the question of who is in charge ie HPDRC or the Planning Commission stated Mr Faris Rick Peterson assured there may be opportunity to accept the design presented and let the HPDRC flesh out the architectural details or leave some wiggle room for the HPDRC regarding building design George Faris agreed it is acceptable to come to final review after securing a recommendation from the HPDRC on the items mentioned but the project should not be going through two similar reviews by both the HPDRC and Planning Commission Reg Gignoux acknowledged the expertise of members of the HPDRC Mr Gignoux observed the project is located at the gateway to the community and bridges the immediate town center to the agricultural district Requesting elevations is appropriate The HPDRC has a difficult task but it is important stressed Mr Gignoux The Planning Commission has asked for elevations and only received elevations for one side of the buildings In addition the Planning Commission has not seen a landscape plan George Faris interjected instead of design review before the HPDRC the project is bogged down in review of the entire project by the HPDRC Rick Peterson referred to the list of points from Dean Pierce relating to the 72904 HPDRC meeting on the project Steve Dates reviewed his notes from the same meeting expressing doubt there could be positive outcome for each item listed Mr Dates suggested a determination of whether an item can be done or not should be made The items include faade of the houses to Harbor Road grading the backyards to avoid a drop off but this means grading will occur on town owned land a landscape study building design unique Shelburne design period versus cookie cutter and having one house screen another road configuration too much paving with the horseshoe configuration and others Rick Peterson stated the HPDRC appears to be asking the applicant to explore the possibility of each item on the list Gregg Beldock mentioned his depth of experience in constructing houses and commercial buildings and the quality exceeding standards as a general rule Mr Dates felt there is room to make some agreements with the items on the list There was further discussion of having general agreement with the notes from Dean Pierce on the HPDRC meeting on 72904 and resulting recommendations and that the recommendation of the Planning Commission would be for the applicant to meet the HPDRC recommendations and provide the requested information before the next phase of review Dean Pierce explained the HPDRC stressed they want to see the plan they are approving before them and before they make a motion of approval to allow the application to go forward to the Planning Commission George Faris said he felt the HPDRC needed guidance from the Planning Commission on what the Planning Commission wants for a recommendation with regard to the project Gregg Beldock felt there is a dichotomy in that the Town Plan calls for medium and affordable housing but that is not allowed by the vernacular used by the HPDRC Mr Beldock said lots of money and time has been spent in the last three years on the project and some of the recommendations could be incorporated but the Town Plan is not in the spirit of what the HPDRC would like to see in the historic heart of the district Mr Beldock felt medium income housing can not be done within the confines of the HPDRC bylaws There was further discussion of the time spent and the meetings held on the project over the past few years Rick Peterson suggested the following wording for a condition of approval “The applicant shall revise plans to the greatest extent possible to reflect recommendations of the HPDRC as substantially set forth in Dean Pierce’s notes of 72904 document titled “Points Raised at the July 29 2004 Meeting of the Shelburne Historic Preservation Design Review Commission pertaining to the layout of structures in the residential component of the project and further the applicant shall return to the HPDRC for final recommendations prior to the submission of the final plan application George Faris asked if there should be language related to satisfying Design Review criteria in Section 1550 of the bylaws Rick Peterson pointed out this is implied with the review process Number of Residential Units Proposed Rick Peterson questioned if the number of units was covered in the discussion just held regarding design review Reg Gignoux commented the number of units is basically determined by the applicant and what the applicant feels is possible to do or not to do Hilda White stated her feeling that the number of units is not unreasonably large George Faris suggested it might be helpful for the Planning Commission to make a finding to help the HPDRC because half an hour was spent with the HPDRC discussing the number of units and this was not helpful in moving toward design Rick Peterson replied it may not be necessary to incorporate comment on the number of units into a motion because if the Planning Commission is going to approve a preliminary plat showing six duplex units then the Commission has indicated that has to be done George Faris agreed Tucker Holland noted the issue was not one of the follow up points in Dean Pierce’s list in the summary of the discussion with the HPDRC Rick Peterson suggested the following condition of approval “The six proposed duplexes must be developed according to a plan substantially similar to the one recommended by the HPDRC Open Space Requirement Paul Bohne stated the town is willing to offer a portion of the land to the Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy is discussing the offer There has not been any further information from VELCO regarding the power line through the property Steve Dates added there has been dialogue but the final agreement must be to the benefit of the citizens Rick Peterson stated the Planning Commission simply wants assurance the area remains open space Chairman Peterson suggested the following condition of approval “Prior to submission of the final plan application the applicant shall consult with a qualified third party and obtain a commitment from the third party to conserve the land eg by holding an easement or alternately the applicant shall develop some other legal mechanism acceptable to the Town Attorney regarding lots 1 and 2 not being further developed Landscaping and Screening The applicant mentioned the planting of trees on neighboring properties to provide screening Wendy Smith Harbor Road resident stated White Pine trees would be inappropriate for the width of her lot A fence was discussed with Mr Beldock at the meeting held with the neighbors stated Ms Smith Matt Wamscantz noted tree plantings on property other than the project land are not reflected on the site plan because these plantings will be determined after further discussion and agreement with the neighbors The information can be added for final review Reg Gignoux observed there appears to be a lack of plantings around the large building on the railroad side of the building and the side facing the athletic fields Mr Gignoux suggested some plantings be added on the west and east sides of the building Gregg Beldock pointed out the fields must be kept accessible for mowing The plantings must be indigenous and tolerant of wetlands Also the children should always be visible Mr Gignoux suggested plantings could be done in the area denoted as “Future Expansion on the site plan There was discussion of planting trees to break up the building faade and planted islands in the parking lot Rick Peterson suggested the following two additional conditions of approval to the three items listed under “Landscaping and Screening in the 72904 staff report “Prior to submission of the final plat agreement shall be reached with neighboring lot owners and Mrs Smith as to landscaping and screening Final Plat shall include landscaping along the westerly faade of the Blodgett Building within the parking area adjacent to the building and on the northerly side of the PRD structure In response to a question about lighting Matt Wamscantz confirmed the building mounted lights have a cage rather than a lens Parking The applicant confirmed there are 158 parking spaces on the east side of the site and 56 parking spaces on the west side of the site Rick Peterson asked about shared and overflow parking Matt Wamscantz stated parking by the baseball fields can be used for soccer events and there is a grassed area by the south soccer field that could be used for parking There was discussion of curbing on the side of Blodgett Road Paul Bohne said he will recommend to the Selectboard that no parking be enforced along the town road portion of Blodgett Road Hilda White spoke in support of curbs on one side of the road and boulders along with “No Parking signs on the other side of the road Reg Gignoux felt people will park wherever they can regardless of obstacles Paul Bohne stated the town would have concern with drainage as a result of curbing and would prefer a grass swale The location of the gravel path was clarified about five feet from the road The applicant agreed to restrict parking in the southerly parking lot after dark Mr Gignoux asked about enforcement George Faris stated signs will be posted and violators will be asked to move their cars or be towed Reg Gignoux asked if the town will own Blodgett Road from Harbor Road to the building Mr Bohne said this matter is under discussion currently with Mr Beldock There was discussion of the parking for the residential component of the project each unit will have two dedicated parking spaces with one in the garage and one in the driveway plus there will be 11 parking spaces on the street for visitors Drainage for the housing portion of the development will be into a swale on the south side of the road Tucker Holland asked about the number of parking spaces on the Blodgett site when the company was in operation Matt Wamscantz stated 50 spaces but the area to the west is not marked so the actual number is not certain Reg Gignoux commented if the parking is underestimated for the project the town will have a problem immediately Gregg Beldock stated research of parking requirements for athletic fields was done by referencing the ITE book unscientific data gathering and hiring a traffic expert Roger Dickinson Kay Kraushaar asked if the easterly side of the building has been explored for parking use George Faris stated if necessary the area on the east side of the building could be available The applicant pointed out parking areas for sports not in season ie baseball in the fall can be used by sports in season ie soccer in the fall There was further discussion of parking being adequate Mr Bohne stated the numbers are rational based on the research but if the recreation program proves to be wildly successful parking could be tight If future expansion of the Blodgett building does not occur in the space denoted on the site plan then that area could be used for parking Dave Marshall suggested the ‘Future Expansion’ area be labeled “Overflow Parking Gregg Beldock mentioned the expense to the project to remove the parking when the area is needed for building expansion Also if the building is expanded the soccer field by the building will have to be made smaller because space will be needed for the building expansion Mr Beldock advised it would be best for the applicant building owner to assure the neighbors are not bothered by parking issues so future expansion of the building can occur Dave Marshall suggested whatever is done in the green spaces be made available for overflow parking in order to meet peak demand and avoid paving everything Steve Dates pointed out the plan is to have one of the five athletic fields fallow to allow rejuvenation of the grass If there is a parking problem it means the recreation program is very successful Tucker Holland suggested seeing what happens with the parking on the site eg if the parking is adequate and if the recreation program becomes greatly successful and when the applicant comes before the Planning Commission for future expansion of the building the matter of parking can again be reviewed Mr Holland said he does not want to see too much paving The following conditions of approval were suggested “Use of the parking area south of the socalled Blodgett building shall be prohibited after dusk by use of appropriate signage Parking shall be prohibited along Blodgett Road and restricted along the proposed access drive serving the residential component of the project to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief Features such as ‘No Parking’ signs boulders bollards curbs or swales shall be installed to discourage illegal parking along Blodgett Road and the proposed access drive serving the residences The Planning Commission finds that the parking spaces for the uses proposed are reasonable The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over parking Prior to considering any application involving the proposed future expansion of the Blodgett building depicted as “Future Expansion on the preliminary plat the applicant shall submit a detailed parking study to the Planning Commission which may require additional parking at that time The Final Plat shall provide for unpaved parking as overflow parking on the southerly end of the Blodgett building Traffic Dean Pierce reported a letter from VTrans was received by Roger Dickinson saying VTrans is willing to work with the application but the appropriate divisions within the Agency of Transportation have to sign off on the work Additionally there is information on grandfathering trip generation and trips by people going to the school and health club not being double counted because a trip coming from the school is not going through the Route 7 intersection again Rick Peterson summarized traffic issues delineated by Roger Dickinson as follows optimization of the traffic signal on Route 7 pedestrian safety at the Route 7 intersection striping on Falls Road and Harbor Road for turn lanes crosswalks at Blodgett Road Turtle Lane and School Street and a bulbout at the crosswalk at Blodgett Road There was discussion of a crosswalk at the residential units Roger Dickinson agreed this would be appropriate Reg Gignoux suggested the crosswalk line up with the crosswalk to the school It was noted there is not a sidewalk on the north side of the road to meet the crosswalk Paul Bohne spoke of the need for a logical start place for pedestrians and motorists and a place to land with regard to crosswalks The town treats the entire area on Harbor Road by the school beginning at Blodgett Road and ending by the sign beyond the flashing light by the treatment plant as a pedestrian crossing zone Reg Gignoux commented that the town will build the appropriate pedestrian crossing at some point in time Rick Peterson pointed out per the discussion there would be three crosswalks plus a stretch of sidewalk westerly from School Street to the crosswalk at Turtle Lane Gregg Beldock clarified that the crosswalks will not be done until the fields are open in a year and a half Dean Pierce stated the athletic field portion of the project may not require a Certificate of Occupancy because the fields are not occupied Rick Peterson agreed use of the recreation fields will drive installation of the crosswalks Wendy Smith Harbor Road resident asked about the crosswalk and bulbout at the Blodgett Road intersection Roger Dickinson explained the bulbout and crosswalk is approximately 10’ west of the corner Rick Peterson pointed out the bulbout feature with the crosswalk will narrow the road with the intention of slowing down cars Reg Gignoux expressed reservation about the effectiveness of the road narrowing on slowing cars Paul Bohne mentioned the report done in 2002 on the study of the intersection by the CCMPO which was the basis of Roger Dickinson’s work and recommendation The town has not focused on the report until the project came forward but the intention over the next two fiscal years will be to make recommendations to the Selectboard to implement the recommendations in the report including optimization of the traffic signal on Route 7 FallsHarborRoute 7 intersection widening Harbor Road to the north by the Mobile gas station to allow for a turn lane going east and striping Harbor Road to calm traffic 11’ lanes with four foot wide bike lanes on each side Rick Peterson asked about the time frame over the next two fiscal years Paul Bohne replied implementation will hopefully coincide with the opening of the athletic fields The recommendations are an obligation the town foresaw when the study was commissioned so it is an obligation to pursue stated Mr Bohne Rick Peterson pointed out Mr Dickinson’s report says traffic will flow reasonably well with optimization Mr Bohne added when all the features are implemented the Route 7 intersection will improve dramatically to level of service “C Chairman Peterson asked about implementation of the recommendation by final plan application Mr Bohne confirmed some of the recommendations can be implemented quickly including signalization optimization as long as VTrans commits to a schedule The town will pursue this with VTrans and commits to doing the optimization plan as soon as possible Past experience has been that VTrans will work with the community on this matter George Faris asked for clarification of what is being considered for the signalization optimization plan Rick Peterson explained the proposed scheme would be to get the plan agreed upon before final plan approval and implement the plan before the recreation fields go into use George Faris pointed out the final plan can be submitted to VTrans but the applicant can not commit VTrans to do the work by a date certain Paul Bohne stated it will be helpful in getting VTrans to commit to do the work by final plan if the town submits the request George Faris reiterated his concern about the lack of control the applicant has over VTrans acting on the optimization plan in a timely manner Rick Peterson clarified the condition of approval says the applicant will submit their plan to VTrans before the final plat comes in and before the Certificate of Occupancy for the building is issued or use of the recreation fields is instituted and that the optimization plan shall be implemented Paul Bohne agreed with the condition reiterating that the study on which the project was based was commissioned and done through the CCMPO which is responsible for transportation planning in Chittenden County so it carries some weight Wendy Smith Harbor Road resident asked about traffic during nonpeak hours noting the development projects 9001000 cars into the Blodgett building Reg Gignoux pointed out the revised count is 878 trip ends with both the residential and health club components of the project Gregg Beldock calculated this as an increase of 339 cars per day from the previous use Ms Smith interjected presently there are no vehicles going into the Blodgett site now that the company is closed Dean Pierce gave a brief history of the plan for a bikepedestrian path being located along the railroad rightofway connecting the village with neighborhoods and the concern expressed by the railroad company about cars queuing over the tracks Mr Pierce asked if it would be possible to have the traffic signal at the intersection connected to the train track to avoid having cars waiting for a green light at the intersection queued over the railroad tracks when a train is coming through Roger Dickinson explained the concept of railroad preemption which is commonly done Preemption would provide the west bound lane of traffic on Harbor Road with a green light when a train is coming and a prolonged red light on Falls Road until the train is clear of the crossing This matter can be discussed with the CCMPO and VTrans There may be railroad safety funding available as well stated Mr Dickinson Paul Bohne added if the recommendations of the report are implemented the queue would be decreased to 225’ at peak hour traffic The railroad tracks are 450’ from the intersection Also the traffic light will have preemption for emergency vehicles Dean Pierce asked about the status of preemption for emergency vehicles in town Mr Bohne explained implementing emergency vehicle preemption will be done when the Route 7 project is complete Emergency vehicles will have the necessary equipment in the vehicle to preempt the light Following further discussion and assurance by the applicant that the queue issue is to be addressed the Planning Commission agreed to wait and see if the addition of the pedestrian phasing changes anything and at that time the matter will be addressed Reg Gignoux asked about the installation of pedestrian signals as a condition of approval in light of the letter from VTrans Roger Dickinson explained VTrans will approve pedestrian signals with concurrent phasing The town many want to show with pedestrian counts that exclusive phasing is preferred Initially concurrent phasing with a leading pedestrian interval LPI of three second advance to claim the rightofway will be proposed This has been successful in Burlington to reduce conflicts by over 90 between pedestrians and cars The suggestion of concurrent phasing with LPI will be part of the signal optimization plan stated Mr Dickinson Paul Bohne pointed out the 2002 report recommended concurrent phasing There was continued discussion of the implementation of pedestrian signals Mr Bohne observed design funding and implementation will take time The time frame is late summer of 2005 There was explanation of the steps of the project being to optimize the intersection without pedestrian signals then do it again with pedestrian signals and to widen Harbor Road to accommodate turn lanes Rick Peterson outlined suggested conditions of approval relative to traffic as follows “As part of the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall submit a revised signal optimization plan incorporating pedestrian signals and phase at the US 7Falls RoadHarbor Road intersection Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Blodgett building or commencement of use of the recreational field on Lot 1 whichever comes first the applicant in cooperation with appropriate public agencies will implement the following improvements relating to the US 7Falls RoadHarbor Road intersection striping of lanes per recommendations in the report of Susan Smichenko on file in this matter and retiming of vehicular signals Installation of pedestrian signals for concurrent pedestrian phasing with leading pedestrian interval LPI shall be done within one year of the final approval As part of the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall submit detailed traffic calming plans pertaining to edge striping and further these plans may include a bulbout on Harbor Road at the proposed crosswalk near Blodgett Road and use of speed tables Prior to the use of the recreation field on Lot 1 for the recreation component of the project the applicant in cooperation with appropriate public agencies will implement the following improvements crosswalks and bulbout as depicted on plans and a crosswalk at the PRD drive across Harbor Road if warranted by applicable standards and proposed gravel paths as depicted on plans In response to a question about striping Paul Bohne stated the town intends to do the striping of lanes this summer Phasing Rick Peterson suggested the applicant strike “Future Expansion denoted on the site plan because the application does not include approval for this George Faris stated there may be others than the Planning Commission viewing the plan and they need to see the planned future expansion area Gregg Beldock added the area is mentioned frequently in the contract with the town Rick Peterson clarified the condition of approval says the area is denoted on the plan but the Planning Commission is not including this in the approval When the future expansion is pursued the applicant must return to the Planning Commission Dean Pierce explained the approval for the future expansion portion would be an amendment to the conditional use approval of the project Zoning Board as well as an amendment to the site plan approval Planning Commission The PRD component of the project would not be relevant Rick Peterson read the suggested condition of approval as follows “This approval does not encompass elements of the plan identified as “Future Expansion specific plans for the implementation of such elements must undergo review according to appropriate sections of the bylaw eg Site Plan review and Conditional Use review FireEmergency Chairman Peterson mentioned the most recent email from the Fire Chief which suggested no parking on traveled lanes and a pull off area within the horseshoe drive of the duplex units Matt Wamscantz stated that an access lane fire lane on the north side of the Blodgett building can be done Dave Marshall assured all the suggestions from the Fire Chief are doable Gregg Beldock mentioned the sprinkler system in the building noting that the building meets industry standards Chairman Peterson read the following conditions of approval “Prior to the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall revise plans to address the concerns raised by the Shelburne Fire Chief in emails dated 72104 and 72904 including an accessible fire lane ie with acceptable turning radius extending along the north end of the building to the eastern building face a turnaround at the north parking lot andor fire lane and replacement of all existing fire hydrants The socalled Blodgett building and immediate expansions will be sprinklered to all applicable standards Fire lanes defined as the travel portion of the entire road including the areas closest to the building shall be marked and signed and kept clear of traffic at all times Infrastructure Reg Gignoux asked if the Town Engineer would have another opportunity to review the site plan after the HPDRC review process Mr Pierce explained if as a result of design review the residential portion changes then the Town Engineer will have opportunity to review the changes Rick Peterson read the suggested condition of approval as follows “Prior to the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall revise plans to address the concerns raised by engineer Lance Phelps in letters to Dean Pierce dated July 14 2004 and July 21 2004 and address any further concerns raised by Mr Phelps in conjunction with changes between preliminary plat and final plat review Further Discussion Crosswalks and Speed Tables Dean Pierce asked if there is a logical location to create a crosswalk close to the entrance to the school that could be accessed by a short sidewalk on the north side of the road George Faris pointed out there is a slope that falls off from the street into the wetlands on the north side of the road Rick Peterson mentioned a sidewalk from the westerly side of the horseshoe road along Harbor Road to a crosswalk by the school entryway Mr Pierce pointed out this would benefit the residents of the residential component of the project Paul Bohne stated MUTCD standards would have to be met and an additional crosswalk would be in close proximity to two existing crosswalks There was further discussion of the proposed crosswalks and sidewalk and the impact on the planned trees to be planted along Harbor Road as part of the project Hilda White suggested a crosswalk by the driveway to the duplexes Dave Marshall agreed with the suggested location but stressed the crosswalk must be done to the appropriate design standards Mr Marshall suggested if it can be done then the applicant will do it otherwise revert to the existing situation Rick Peterson suggested an amendment to the condition of approval under the traffic component of the project relative to a crosswalk across Harbor Road at the PRD driveway if warranted by applicable standards There was mention of speed tables to help slow the speed of cars on Harbor Road The condition of approval under the traffic component of the project relative to the traffic calming plan was amended to include the suggestion of speed tables DELIBERATION/DECISION Preliminary Plan Review Town of ShelburneBullrockPizzagalli 154 Turtle Lane 19 Harbor Road and 166 Blodgett Road SUB0406 MOTION by Tucker Holland SECOND by Hilda White to approve the preliminary plan application submitted by the Town of ShelburneBullrock IncPizzagalli Properties for the proposed redevelopment of the former Blodgett property north of Harbor Road to include approval of a three lot subdivision and on one of the resulting lots establishment of a 12 unit Planned Residential Development PRD subject to the following conditions 1 The applicant shall revise plans to the greatest extent possible to reflect recommendations of the HPDRC as substantially set forth in Dean Pierce’s notes of 72904 document titled “Points Raised at the July 29 2004 Meeting of the Shelburne Historic Preservation Design Review Commission pertaining to the layout of structures in the residential component of the project and further the applicant shall return to the HPDRC for final recommendations prior to the submission of the final plan application 2 The six proposed duplexes must be developed according to a plan substantially similar to the one recommended by the HPDRC 3 Prior to submission of the final plan application the applicant shall consult with a qualified third party and obtain a commitment from the third party to conserve the land eg by holding an easement or alternately the applicant shall develop some other legal mechanism acceptable to the Town Attorney regarding lots 1 and 2 not being further developed 4 Any application for final approval shall include letters of consent signed by property owners who would have landscaping installed on their lots these letters must indicate a commitment to maintain the landscaping or to require the applicant to do so 5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit a Letter of Credit for 100 of the cost of the required landscaping with a term of two years shall be submitted 6 Lighting shall comply with the lighting section of the Shelburne zoning bylaws 7 Lighting shall be limited to the locations depicted on the plans and no other building or site lighting for the new facility is approved without further review and approval by the Planning Commission 8 Prior to submission of the final plat agreement shall be reached with neighboring lot owners and Mrs Smith as to landscaping and screening 9 Final Plat shall include landscaping along the westerly faade of the Blodgett Building within the parking area adjacent to the building and on the northerly side of the PRD structure 10 Use of the parking area south of the socalled Blodgett building shall be prohibited after dusk by use of appropriate signage 11 Parking shall be prohibited along Blodgett Road and restricted along the proposed access drive serving the residential component of the project to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief 12 Features such as “No Parking signs boulders bollards curbs or swales shall be installed to discourage illegal parking along Blodgett Road and the proposed access drive serving the residences 13 The Planning Commission finds that the parking spaces for the uses proposed are reasonable 14 The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over parking 15 Prior to considering any application involving the proposed future expansion of the Blodgett building depicted as “Future Expansion on the preliminary plat the applicant shall submit a detailed parking study to the Planning Commission which may require additional parking at that time 16 The Final Plat shall provide for unpaved parking as overflow parking on the southerly end of the Blodgett building 17 As part of the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall submit a revised signal optimization plan incorporating pedestrian signals and phase at the US 7Falls RoadHarbor Road intersection 18 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Blodgett building or commencement of use of the recreational field on Lot 1 whichever comes first the applicant in cooperation with appropriate public agencies shall implement the following improvements relating to the US 7Falls RoadHarbor Road intersection striping of lanes per recommendations in the report of Susan Smichenko on file in this matter and retiming of vehicular signals 19 Installation of pedestrian signals for concurrent pedestrian phasing with leading pedestrian interval LPI shall be done within one year of the final approval 20 As part of the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall submit detailed traffic calming plans pertaining to edge striping these plans may include a bulbout on Harbor Road at the proposed crosswalk near Blodgett Road and use of speed tables 21 Prior to the use of the recreation field on Lot 1 for the recreation component of the project the applicant in cooperation with appropriate public agencies shall implement the following improvements bulbout and crosswalks as depicted on plans and crosswalk at the PRD drive across Harbor Road if warranted by applicable standards and proposed gravel paths as depicted on plans 22 This approval does not encompass elements of the plan identified as “Future Expansion specific plans for the implementation of such elements must undergo review according to appropriate sections of the bylaw eg Site Plan review and Conditional Use review 23 Prior to the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall revise plans to address the concerns raised by the Shelburne Fire Chief in emails dated 72104 and 72904 including an accessible fire lane ie with acceptable turning radius extending along the north end of the building to the eastern building face a turnaround at the north parking lot andor fire lane and replacement of all existing fire hydrants 24 The socalled Blodgett building and immediate expansions will be sprinklered to all applicable standards 25 Fire lanes defined as the travel portion of the entire road including the areas closest to the building shall be marked and signed and kept clear of traffic at all times 26 Prior to the submission of the final plan application the applicant shall revise plans to address the concerns raised by engineer Lance Phelps in letters to Dean Pierce dated July 14 2004 and July 21 2004 and address any further concerns raised by Mr Phelps in conjunction with changes between preliminary plat and final plat review VOTING unanimous 50 Kay Kraushaar not present for vote motion carried 3 OTHER BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE None 4 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to adjourn the meeting VOTE unanimous 50Kay Kraushaar not present for vote motion carried The meeting adjourned at 1020 pm Minutes respectfully submitted by MERiordan Recording Secretary January 2004Planning Commission Minutes February 2004 Planning Commission Minutes March 2004 Planning Commission Minutes April 2004 Planning Commission Minutes May 2004 Planning Commission Minutes June 2004 Planning Commission Minutes July 2004 Planning Commission Minutes August 2004 Planning Commission Minutes September 2004 Planning Commission Minutes October 2004 Planning Commission Minutes November 2004 Planning Commission Minutes December 2004 Planning Commission Minutes |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2008 |
