Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-90-0000 - Decision - 0540 0640 Shelburne RoadPLANNING COMMISSION 9 January 1990 page 3 Pizzigalli owns. The property is located on the east side of Hinesburg Rd. just north of I-89. It is 7.8 acres and the sub- division will result in lots of 1.2, 3.3, and 3.3 acres. There is a 150 foot buffer from I-89 in which no development is allowed. A new access road would service the three lots. Mr. Landry said they are proposing to build a 2,000 sq. ft. office building on lot #1, a 28,000 sq. ft. office building on lot #2, and a 38,000 sq. ft. office building on lot U . Mr. Craig asked how close they would be to the Tilley buildings. Mr. Landry estimated about 300 ft., possibly 100-150 ft. from the Tilley's market. Members asked that when the applicant returns there should be a plan that shows the relation of this property to the Tilley farm, the Interstate and the bridge. Mrs. Maher asked about a reserved right of way to the O'Brien and other properties. This will be looked into. Mr. Craig said he foresaw a problem if the city wants to put a new ramp for I-89 at Hinesburg Rd. He also had a problem with a road right of way that wasn't 60 ft. He noted this could be waived or the applicant could cut 10 ft. from the end of each lot. Mr. Landry said he had spoken with Don Allen of the Agency of Trans- portation who said they have no plans for an Interchange for at least 20 years. Members noted that plans could change. Mr. Weith suggested seeing if another interchange design could fit with possible alterations to the site plan being proposed. He also noted an alternate access to this site culd be provided in the event the interchange goes in. Mrs. Maher noted the problem is there might then be a building in the way. Members felt another sketch plan hearing was in order with a full map of the area and with right of way details. Mrs. Maher sug- gested having a traffic expert present as well as a comment from Regional Planning on the traffic report. She also wanted a comment from the City Engineer as whether he felt the right of way requirement should be waived. 5. Revised Final Plat application of Heathcote Associates (Factory Outlet Mall) to revise the front parking lot, Shelburne Road Mr. Burgess reviewed the history of the project and resulting parking lot problems. He noted that the original plans for the TJ Maxx addition were inadequate in terms of parking spaces and that the applicant then reduced the size of the proposed TJ Maxx store and acquired more land. It was the revised plan that the Com- mission approved. He also noted there have been previous attempts PLANNING COMMISSION 9 January 1990 page 4 to remedy the parking lot problem but that the City Planner says that circulation and parking in front of the Mall is still not adequate. People are parking in travel aisles and drivers are confused as to where to go. There is congestion in front and unused parking in the rear. He added that there is not enough parking in front to serve everyone who wants to park in front. Question has arisen as to whether Grand Union could have a rear access. Mr. Tichacek of Grand Union noted the typical layout of a supermarket has all checkouts up front and storage and such things as condensor units in the rear. It would be dangerous to brin7 customers through the rear area. Mr. Tichacek stressed that Grand Union has experienced a decrease in business since the TJ Maxx addition was built and they attribute this directly to the parking lot problem. Mr. Fitzpatrick then reviewed the history of various parking plans. He said one current concern is with increased speed in front of the buildings. Mrs. Maher noted that she has also re- ceived complaints of inadequate handicapped parking. Mr. Weith said the new proposal will add handicapped parking at the south entrance to Grand Union. Mr. Fitzpatrick then stated the ob- jectives of the proposed plan: to increase the number of parking spaces up front by 12, to make spaces more accessible with more access points into the lot, and to make the area safer and elim- inate parking in fire lanes. Mr. Burgess then opened the floor to comments from the audience. Ms. Novotny said the Commission needs to understand how customers drive. It is now harder to access the lot when you want to go to Grand Union. YOu can't back out, and you get trapped in a maze. She cited the narrow "chute" as the worst problem. She also felt that rather than reduce stacking, the present plan causes more stacking because people can't access the lot. Ms. Marshall also cited the problem of the chute and noted that it's difficult to turn in;if there's an oncoming car in the chute facing west it's difficult to see. She also felt the pedestrian curb cuts are hard to see and that two people with carts can't pass each other in the curb cuts. Mr. Jones felt there is a natural inclination to stop as you enter from Rt. 7 and this slows everything down. Ms. Kibhardt felt the old lot worked fine. She said the stop sign at the end of the chute can't be seen and people don't know it's there. Mr. Burgess noted that the contention of the applicant was that people would use the rear parking lot to serve the addition and this camje in with a plan to facilitate getting traffic to the rear lot. He added it is a particularly tricky site, especially with the addition. Mr. Burgess noted that the Planning Commission had stipulated the installation of signage which the applicant has not complied with. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 January 1990 page 5 Ms. Stephans said it is an important part of her lift to shop where she wants to. She felt a herringbone design would work better with no curbing to hit or drive over in the snow. It was explained that angled parking would actually reduce the number of spaces. A tenant of the Mall felt there was a dangerous situation with the runway between the Bank and the end of the Mall. Mr. Plouffe felt the access lanes to the parking spaces are too narrow for 2 cars. Mr. Bradley said the design doesn't work because one pedestrian can stop all traffic in the lot. He said this is the only Mall where all traffic has to pass in front of the mall where people walk. Mr. Boyd said he felt the new proposal was a good improvement. The Grand Union representatives also felt it would alleviate problems. Mr. Bradley said it would still not solve the Shelburne Rd. probelm where traffic is being stopped because of criculation problems in the lot. Mr. Tichacek said he felt this plan would address that because it had more access points. Other problems cited by shoppers included: the need for more lighting in the lot at night, striping of pedestrian walkways, and additional signs directing people to the rear. Mrs. Maher asked whether the existing bond is sufficient to cover anything the applicant doesn't perform. Mr. Weith will check on this. Ms. Peacock moved that the Planning Commission approve the revised Final Plat application of Heathcote Associates to change the front parking lot as depicted on a plan entitled "Site and Utilities Plan, Revised: Alternate #3," prepared by Fitzpatrick, Inc, and dated March, 1989, last revised 1/9/90, with the following stipu- lations: 1. A signage plan directing outlet and T.J. Maxx customers to the northwest and rear parking lots shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to construction. Signs directing outlet and T.J. Maxx customers to the rear lot shall be installed prior to construction. 2. All original stipulations that are not superseded by this motion are still in force. 3. The revised Final Plat shall be recorded within 90 days or this approval is null and void. Mr. Craig seconded the motion which passed unanimously.