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.