Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-87-0000 - Decision - 0540 0640 Shelburne RoadPLANNING COMMISSION 8 DECEMBER 1987 PAGE 2 Mr. Belter seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Public Hearing: Final Plat application of Terry and Mary Shepard for subdivision of a 1.83 acre parcel into a 1.47 acre parcel with existing house and a .36 acre parcel with existing house, 131 Patchen Rd. Mr. Shepard explained the land is adjacent to JC Park with a gully out back that belongs to the City. The house out back was built a year ago, and they now want to subdivide. All utilities are in the right-of-way. Mrs. Hurd asked if a second house could go on the larger lot. Mrs. Lafleur said it could as the land is zoned R-4. Mrs. Hurd moved that the Planning Commission approve the Final Plat of Terry and Mary Shepard for subdivision of a property at 131-133 Patchen Road into a .36 acre parcel and a 1.47 acre parcel as depicted on a pale entitled "Property Survey for Terry and Mary Shepard, Pathcen Road, South Bur- lington, Vermont" prepared �2y Palmer Company, LTD, dated September 7, 1987 with the following stipulations: 1. The Final Plat shall show sewer and water services to parcel "B". If these services are not located within the 20 foot driveway easement, another easement shall be given to parcel "B" for these services and shall be shown on the plan. 2. It is the applicant's responsibility to record the revised Final Plat within 90 days or this approval is null and void. It shall be signed 12y the Chairman or Clerk and approved the Planner prior to recording. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Consider motion to table Public Hearing until 1/5/87 on request of John Larkin for amendment to the approval motion for Harbor Inn, 1710 Shelburne Rd. Mrs. Hurd moved to table the public hearing for Harbor Inn until 1/5/87. Mr. Belter seconded. Motion passed unanimouslv. 5. Public Hearing: Revised Final Plat ofrHeathcote Associates for construction of a 20,400 sq. ft. addiTIon to the Factory Outlet Mall, 540-640 Shelburne Rd. Mr. Schroeder explained this is basically the same as the last plan but with a smaller footprint. They have added a mezanine, so there is a slight increase in square footage. They are proposing more landscaping, about twice what is re- PLANNING COMMISSION 8 DECEMBER 1987 PAGE 3 quired. There is also a plan to redesign the back of the building. The propose to upgrade the intersection at Shel- burne Rd. The application will bring a new department store to the back of the center to draw traffic back there. Mr. Webster said they are slightly over the 30% building coverage but were sent away by the Zoning Board which said they don't need a variance because the addition is valued at less than 25% of the current structure. Mrs. Lafleur stressed that the City Attorney said this right does not give them the right to impinge on other standards such as parking, etc. Mr. Webster said there will be less paved area, particularly in the southeast corner and they have tried to improve the appear- ance of the whole facility. Mr. Jacob asked if there are any parking spaces shared with anyone else. Mr. Schroeder said there was a sale in 1981 where Garden Way bought 2 parcels of land which they later sold. The front parcel and a small piece of the back parcel were combined for the land on which the Factory Outlet stands now. In the deed from Farrell to Garden Way, Farrell reserved supplemental parking for Club New England and the TV station for 50 cars in the daytime and 100 at night. Part of the land on which this parking is reserved is now Heathcote property. Mr. Ponsetto, attorney for Farrell, said there is a certain amount of disagreement about -the legal remifica- tions. They would question any approval in which the Planning Commission leaned too heavily on the parking spaces mentioned in order to satisfy zoning requirements. Mr. Jacob asked what happens if the 50 or 100 spaces are taken when Club New England or the TV station wants to use them. Mr. Belter said he didn't think Farrell cared about where to park cars but was concerned about the future value of the land. Mr. Jacob said shared parking is not all that bad, but the Commission has a dilemma in that there has to be a guarantee the parking will be available at the time the Commission allows for. Mr. Thomas of Agel-Corman noted that the parking problem came up when he was trying to divide his building and added he has a law suite against Farrell in an attempt to find out where his parking is located. He felt if the Outlet is adding 20,000 sq. ft, this would create a traffic and parking problem worse than the one for which his request was denied. He also raised the question of being turned down on a tie vote which he said he has been advised cannot happen. Mrs. Lafleur will check on this. Mrs. Maher said she cannot remember the Commission ever acting when there was such a dispute. Mr. Schroeder said he felt the Club New England and Outlet Center uses complement PLANNING COMMISSION 8DECVEMBER 1987 PAGE 4 each other. Mrs. Maher said she is not convined the Outlet has those 100 spaces. Mr. Poger said what he remembers is that what is presented to the Commission is presented in good faith. If it isn't correct, the applicant will be sued, and the project won't get built. Mr. Ponsetto said they did not want the right to that property taken away from them. Mr. Burgess said the Commission would not assign Farrell's parking spaces to anyone. The applicant must convince the Commission there is adequate parking. Mr. Webster said there were 547 spaces. 49 were lost when the Interstate was moved. There is a potential'for 54 more spaces in the land gotten in exchange for the piece taken by the Interstate., for a total of 552 existing spaces. Regarding coverage: the existing coverage is 117,000 sq. ft. Proposed coverage is 133,400 sq. ft. Existing GLA (gross leasable area) is 104,000 sq. ft. Proposed GLA is 122,600 sq. ft, which includes the mezanine and Chittenden Bank. They are proposing 650 parking spaces which yields a ratio of 5.3 per 1,000 sq. ft. of GLA which, Mr. Webster noted, is the same as that approved for University Mall. There is also a bus space provided. Lot coverage was 98%. They are pro- posing 89.37 if a 24 foot fire lane is allowed and 91.8% if a 30 ft. lane, as requested by the Fire Chief, is required. Mr. Webster noted the new circulation plan allows a wider lane in front of the building which will relieve a problem when trucks are unloading there. (Mr. Jacob left the meeting at this point, and Mr. Burgess assumed the role of Acting Chairman.) Mr. Webster explained that with the new circulation pattern, cars will have to go to the south end of the Grand Union before making a parking decision. Mrs. Lafleur was con- cerned about what will happen at that end and whether it would create confusion. The advantage is that it will be used by Grand Union shoppers, and Outlet shoppers will be more inclined to park out back. Ms. Peacock was concerned about 6 parking spaces which back into circulating traffic. Mr. Lamphere felt 30 feet was sufficient for 2 cars to circulate. Mrs. Lafleur noted that 756 spaces would be required by the Ordinance. This would mean a waiver of 14%. Mr. Szymanski had expressed concern about spaces being used up for snow storage. Mr. Webster said Mr. Mehler, owner of the Outlet, would be will►hjto cart snow away. Mrs. Hurd noted that trucks are using Odell Parkway which is not a city standard street. Mrs. Lafleur said Farrell has PLANNING COMMISSION 8 DECEMBER 1987 PAGE this right-of-way. Mrs. Hurd noted the Ordinance doesn't allow more than 3 homes on a road that isn't to city standards and is allowing much more use of Odell Parkway. She did not see that Odell Parkway was going to be improved by this development. She added that if they are allowed to compute parking by GLA, she would stipulate that no kiosks, etc. be in the areas that are not included in the GLA. Mrs. Lafleur noted the project requires sewer allocation from Burlington which is not approving any new sewer uses. Landscaping proposed is significantly higher than required. Mr. Webster said they are trying to ring the Center with landscaping. There will be a continuous white cedar 4 foot headge and street trees, also another border against the side of the building to soften the facade. The dumpsters and transformer will be screened. Mr. Dickerson reported on traffic. This is historically a congested area with existing conditions at level of service E to F. The recent study done by JHK projected a 229 vehicle increase per hour going in and out. This project would generate(Il'&. The signal now being installed would still_� rre -levels result in E and_F, so something more is needed. What they propose is to split h timing on the signal opposite , the Sears exit so that the Sears lot and this lot would exit on different cycles. There would be 2 left turn exit lanes. �0 This would result in a level of service C. They would also revise the islands which would help with truck traffic. Mr. Belter felt this revision to the controller should be done even without this project. Mrs. Lafleur noted this change would have to be worked out with the City of Burlington and would have to be bonded for. A poll of members showed that the majority would still not favor approval of this project. Mrs. Hurd moved the Planning Commission deny the revised final plat of Heathcote Associates for construction of a 20,400 sq. ft. addition to the South Burlington Factory Out- let at 540-640 Shelburne Rd. as depicted on a three page set of plans entitled "South Burlington Factory Outlet, South Burlington, Vermont" prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere Architects, page one dated 9/3/87, last revised 11/18/87, page 2 dated 11/18/87 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed plan does not meet the parking standard of 5.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. (Table I. South Burlington Zoning Regulations). Under this standard, 756 spaces are required. The plans show 650 spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 DECEMBER 1987 PAGE 6 2. The abutting property owned by Thomas Farrell has legal right to 50 parking spaces in the day before 6 PM and 100 spaces in the evening, weekends and holidays on this property and the Davis parcel to the east. This legal right further diminishes the available parking spaces for the Outlet Center. The Planning Commission feels that the overlap in the hours of operation, especially on weekends, does not warrant a waiver of the parking spaces for shared use as allowed under Section 19.256. 3. The existing parking situation is deficient. The Planning Commission believes the recently acquired land (parcel 2B) and the land for the proposed expansion should be used for parking to remedy the existing parking deficiency. In addition, the Commission contends that some of the proposed parking spaces are inadequate and possibly unsafe; the placing of handicapped parking is not adequate, and there is conflict of parking spaces with travel aisles on the southern border. 4. The proposed parking lots are excessive amounts of pavement with little buffer area from passing traffic, public street and adjoining property. The Planning Commission denies this for aesthetic reasons as allowed under Section 19.103d and "e". 5. The proposed plan does not have adequate snow storage area. Storing snow on site will eliminate parking spaces. 6. The lot coverage of 91% is excessive. Allowed coverage is 70%. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion of denial passed 5-1 with Mr. Burgess opposing. Mr. Burgess indicated he opposed the motion because he felt it was missing the chance to get more green space and to improve traffic at the intersection. He felt the latter consideration was worth the inconvenience. Mr. Lamphere said he felt that they had improved overall design, circulation and traffic and met the same standards as approved in other South Burlington retail centers. He asked what they had to do next? Mrs. Hurd said the improvements they proposed could be done without a new department store. Mr. Belter felt they should get more land out back and add to the parking. He didn't feel there was enough land for the square footage proposed.