MEMBERS PRESENT:       Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Tucker Holland, Kay Kraushaar, Dick Elkins, Claude LaPierre. (Peter Gibbs was absent.)

 

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:            Lance Llewellyn, Becky Ramsey, Steve Smith, Gail Albert, Maureen O’Brien, George O’Brien, Susan O’Brien, Matthew Taylor, Sara Clayton, Steve Clayton, Brianne Riley, Bill Hoadley, Chris Carlson, Llyndara Harbour, Brad Dousevicz, Jed Dousevicz, Connie Fay, Emmanuel Leduc, Norm Leduc, Jeanne Leduc, Ron Lyon, Peg Rosenau, Howard Seaver, Tom Rowe.

 

a.         Proposed Development at 2000 Dorset Street, South Burlington

b.        LaPlatte Watershed Partnership Presentation

a.       Llyndara Harbour (Stella Shoes)/Scout Investments, 65 Falls Road (DR07-13)

b.       Chris and Laurie Carlson, 5829 Shelburne Road (DR07-14)

c.        Steve and Sara Clayton (Shelburne Supermarket), 20 Shelburne Shopping Park (DR07-15)

d.      Brianne Riley, 5462 Shelburne Road (DR07-16)

e.       Matthew Taylor &Bonnie Thomas, 102 & 122 Harbor Road (DR07-17)

 

Reg Gignoux called the special session to order at 7 p.m.

 

 The Planning Commission heard a brief presentation on the proposed development at 2000 Dorset Street in South Burlington known as Edgewood by the developer and engineer for the project.

 

The Planning Commission heard a presentation on the LaPlatte watershed by the LaPlatte Watershed Partnership.

 

2.         CALL TO ORDER (regular meeting)

Reg Gignoux called the regular meeting to order at 8 p.m.

The Planning Commission will approve the minutes of 6/14/07 at a future date.

 

Sam Patrill appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Sam Patrill reported Stella Shoes is located in the same building as Ink Ink. There is an existing free standing sign. Mr. Patrill requested a 4.71 square foot oval sign located on the opposite side of the free standing sign using the same sign post.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07.  Dean Pierce stated there is an issue with the size of the proposed sign which can only be 25 % of the main sign (Ink Ink sign).  The sign with the phone numbers for Ink Ink is not part of the principal sign.  Sam Patrill noted the Ink Ink sign is 48”x 32” so the Stella Shoe sign would have to be 12”x 1” in size which is not large enough to promote the business on the second floor of the building. Also, the Ink Ink sign is slightly smaller than the maximum allowed. The maximum size of a sign that a principal business can have is 36”x 24”. Per Section 1680.8.2 of the zoning bylaws one façade sign is allowed, but there is nothing addressing the number of free standing signs. A second free standing sign is requested because there are two commercial businesses in the building. The sign will be hung on the same post as the existing free standing sign. Per Section 1680.1.2.B the Planning Commission can allow a variance for signs. Dean Pierce clarified the bylaws do not authorize a second free standing sign, but do allow a freestanding sign and façade signs. There was further discussion of seeking a variance. The applicant was directed to the Zoning Board.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Design Review, Sign, 65 Falls Road, Llyndara Harbour (Stella Shoes)/Scout Investments (DR07-13)

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to  grant design review approval to Llyndara Harbour (Stella Shoes)/Scout Investments, LLC for a sign to be mounted on an existing sign post at 65 Falls Road consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions:

Chris Carlson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chris Carlson stated his plan to build a 10’x 12’ shed with vinyl siding and asphalt shingles.  The shed will be compatible with the existing house design.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07. Reg Gignoux questioned the width of the lot as noted on the site plan. Following recalculation of the lot width not including the shed, it was agreed the plan needs to be modified to reflect 75’ from the side property line to the 10’ wide shed.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Steve Clayton appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Clayton stated the proposed 16’x 7’6” shed will be used to store recyclables until pick up by the distributors.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Reg Gignoux advised the applicant to begin bringing the site lighting into compliance with town standards.

Brianne Riley appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brianne Riley explained her request for a 2’x 2’ sign at the edge of her driveway to advertise a home occupation. The applicant will construct the sign herself.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07. Reg Gignoux advised the sign cannot be located in the town right of way.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to grant design review approval to Brianne Riley for a home occupation sign located in the front yard of property at 5462 Shelburne Road consistent with the submitted plans and subject to the following conditions:

Matthew Taylor appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Matthew Taylor explained the plan to install a latticed topped cedar fence between the Taylor and Thomas properties.  There are existing bushes, but due to lack of sun the bushes have not grown. The proposal is to replace the bushes with a fence. Matthew Taylor stated his car lights shine into Ms. Thomas’ bedroom window when he enters his driveway at night.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by, Dick Elkins, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to grant design review approval to Matthew Taylor and Bonnie Thomas for approximately 60 feet of a six foot tall fence along the eastern third of the common boundary, and for an additional section of fence (approximately) 12 feet long to connect the boundary fence with the northern side of the primary structure on the Taylor property consistent with the submitted plans and subject to the following condition:

Ron Lyon, Howard Seaver, and Steve Smith appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ron Lyon reviewed revisions to the site plan following conversations with the Public Works Director and Fire Chief. There are hydrants located 360’ and 220’ from the building so there is adequate water supply. The water line to the site will be increased to 2.5” in size. Water and waste water issues will satisfy town requirements. There is an access curb cut to the retention pond, and it will be ensured there is a curb cut for access to the manhole for the sanitary sewer. The sidewalk will be shifted on to the Jolley property outside of the town right-of-way. The sidewalk will be realigned to the center of the island by the restaurant parking for safer pedestrian access to the site. There will be a bike rack on the site. Regarding fuel unloading, there are monitors and shut downs for fuel overflows. At the pumps there are containment and separation devices to catch spills before discharge into the environment. Regarding circulation, the turning radius can accommodate fire trucks and tractor trailers delivery trucks.

 

Reg Gignoux suggested the sidewalk be shifted to the northerly boundary of the property and the bike rack located closer to the front door of the building. Mr. Gignoux also mentioned the area by the front entrance to the store and restaurant and the likelihood people will park right there. Mr. Lyon rebutted most people feel more comfortable in a designated parking space. There may be one or two people parking in front of the door, but there are controls that can be in place to deter this. Mr. Lyon felt there would not be a problem.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07.  Dean Pierce mentioned the fire extinguishing system noted by the Fire Chief. Mr. Lyon confirmed Jolley Associates is willing to install the fire suppression system.

 

Hilda White questioned the lot coverage if the sidewalk is relocated on the Jolley property. Mr. Lyon stated the lot coverage is at 39.9%. Maximum lot coverage allowed is 40% so it may be necessary to look at other alternatives for pedestrian circulation without increasing lot coverage, conceded Mr. Lyon.  Dean Pierce added if the bike rack is set on a cement pad this could increase lot coverage as well.

 

Dick Elkins expressed concern about taking action on the application when a Conditional Use application has not yet been submitted to the Zoning Board. Also, the lot size issue needs to be settled. Dean Pierce noted if the Zoning Board changes the proposal the applicant must return to the Planning Commission to amend the site plan. Kay Kraushaar stated a legal opinion is needed on the lot size and issues raised in the staff report.  Reg Gignoux stressed lot coverage is a major issue, and the circulation as presented does not make sense. People will park in front of the building. There is a lot of space between the pumps and the building. Also, there are six pumps (separate pump for each hose), but the application is for three pumps (this makes the application void). Ron Lyon pointed out the application as presented has been shown as such since the day it was submitted (the 2003 application shows three pumps with six fueling stalls). The application does not conflict with the definitions in the town’s regulations. The applicant’s interpretation is there are three pumps.

 

Reg Gignoux mentioned the previous request to change the design to be more in character with the town, but that has not been addressed. Howard Seaver expressed willingness by Jolley Associates to work with the town on the type of restaurant, number of seats, and style of building if the town boards will work together jointly. If the Planning Commission approves the applicant, but the Zoning Board feels the application is changed from the use application and the matter has to be settled in court then that is a problem, stated Attorney Seaver. Reg Gignoux stated the town boards speak with individual voices. The Planning Commission does not do the job of the Zoning Board. The proposal and use though permitted does not feel right to me, stated Mr. Gignoux. Attorney Seaver stressed the application must be viewed as a whole. There are three pump islands with six fueling positions. The decision on the application should not be based on a semantic technicality.  Mr. Gignoux clarified the matter is beyond semantics, involving the size of the operation as well. Steve Smith, Jolley Associates, explained technically there are three pumps in the ground which could serve up to twelve fueling positions.  Mr. Gignoux reiterated the design and parking are critical issues. Mr. Seaver observed there are two points to hash out the issues, at the town level or in Environmental Court. A court hearing will be de novo and the decision will be made by the judge. It is better to keep the matter at the town level so the town makes the decision on the project, ensuring the project will work for the town. The design has not been changed for the past ten years, continued Mr. Seaver, and if it is changed it will lose the “grandfathered” status that allows the gas station portion of the application (gas stations are not allowed under current zoning).  Dean Pierce stated a Conditional Use application can be filed with the Zoning Board while a simultaneous hearing before the Planning Commission can be held. Mr. Seaver assured it would not be a problem to have both boards hold a hearing (one hearing before both boards) or to hold hearings at the same time. Dean Pierce noted since the Zoning Board meeting in August exceeds the 60-day decision time frame for site plan review by the Planning Commission, the applicant must submit written notice of acceptance that the 60-day decision requirement is waived. Mr. Seaver confirmed this is acceptable if the boards are willing to work together with the applicant and approve the project based on certain changes. Mr. Pierce clarified the boards will make their decisions based on the ordinance and the bylaws, not negotiations. The Planning Commission must act within a time frame or there is a decision by default if the Planning Commission takes no action on the application after the hearing.  There was further discussion of the application. Howard Seaver stated the appearance of the building is an issue for the Planning Commission. The design was done to resemble the Almartin Volvo dealership, but the applicant is willing to make changes to have the building look more traditional per the advice of the Planning Commission. Mr. Seaver asked if the application will be protected before the Zoning Board if design changes are made so the Zoning Board does not rule the plan is changed from the grandfathered version. Reg Gignoux stated a legal opinion on the matter is needed.

 

Mr. Seaver agreed to submit a letter waiving the 60-day decision obligation by the Planning Commission and to submit a Conditional Use application to the Zoning Board. Mr. Seaver confirmed concerns by the Planning Commission with the application include circulation, lot coverage, style of building, sidewalk location, and employee parking.

 

Steve Smith mentioned there has not been a franchise or individual willing to make a commitment to operate the restaurant in the last three years. There have been discussions by Jolley of operating the restaurant themselves. Originally McDonald’s was to be the restaurant operator which is why 52 seats were listed, but McDonald’s did not want to go to court with the application. Howard Seaver stated Jolley is willing to modify the size of the restaurant provided this is not considered a significant change in the project. Reg Gignoux summarized the goal is to figure out a mechanism to allow creativity without jeopardizing the project.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Tom Rowe appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Rowe explained it was anticipated the window would be relocated to the side of the building, but recent construction on Falls Road has negatively impacted business (there has been no business at the store for the past two weeks) so it is necessary to reassess once the construction on Falls Road is complete and business resumes as usual. The property owner would like to withdraw the application or have it denied without prejudice, but to pay another application fee for another application is cost prohibitive at this time.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07.  Dean Pierce stated the application can be continued provided the applicant submits a letter waiving the 60-day decision requirement by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pierce will help the applicant draft the letter.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Reg Gignoux reported the Planning Commission held a deliberative session on the application. Dean Pierce noted comments from the Shelburne Paths Committee. Steve Antinozzi, Shelburne Paths Committee, summarized feedback from the Paths Committee. Essentially, the committee feels the developer should within the zone of development construct the lanes in conformity to the town comprehensive plan. Tucker Holland acknowledged the goals of the Paths Committee, but noted the O’Brien family is willing to provide the ability for future path layouts. To put the burden and cost on the developer to construct the paths may be too much to ask. The town should handle the construction of the paths. Reg Gignoux noted the town collects impact fees and there are other funding mechanisms available as well. The Planning Commission has not required building of paths by developers in the past, but has asked to provide for the ability of the town to do something. Dick Elkins pointed out the bike path for the proposed development in South Burlington is in the right-of-way and on the east side of Dorset Street. Mr. Elkins expressed concern about the safety of bicyclists since many do not abide by traffic rules.  Dean Pierce mentioned the Planning Commission has four provisions to consider under site plan review and can require a developer to do certain improvements.

 

Maureen O’Brien pointed out the property address is incorrectly noted in the Findings in the Staff Report, dated 6/28/07.

 

Jeanne Leduc appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Leduc indicated there are no changes to the plan from the previous presentation.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peg Rosenau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Rosenau stated there are no changes to the plan previously presented. The residents on McCabe Circle want a modified design and can do the paint stamping, but pavers are a more cost effective approach.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/28/07. Dean Pierce explained the Stowe Club Highlands court decision and that based on the court case the Planning Commission can uphold the original approval and not support the proposed change to the site plan. The change from colored pavement to pavers is substantial, but still within the intent of the site plan. Kay Kraushaar recalled the Planning Commission decision regarding the pavement painting and felt the developer should fulfill the conditions of approval. Peg Rosenau noted the street print is redone every five years because the paint degrades and fades over time. The cost is $70,000 which the homeowners association cannot afford to do again (the money was already paid when the units were purchased). Pending legal action against the developer was mentioned. Potential impact on legal proceedings by the decision on the amendment was discussed. Tucker Holland suggested getting a letter from the developer indicating he accepts the lower cost alternative. Ms. Rosenau stated the developer feels he is not responsible for the original plan so he is not interested in discussing any alternatives. The Planning Commission again expressed concern about compromising the town’s legal position if legal action is taken against the developer.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.