Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-79-0000 - Decision - 1117 Shelburne Road3. PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 1979 Mr. Jacob suggested using peastone or plant mix instead of paving the lot. He felt that if that were done, they would not have to come before the Commission, but Mr. Poger disagreed, feeling that they were changing the site. Mr. McDermott said that they could eliminate the protrusion if they took 3-4' off the area for backing out (3-4' is the amount of the protrusion). This would leave them with 21' between the back of the space and the fence. Mr. Mona asked whether, if the Commission apYroved this plan and then Mr. Alling sold the land to McDonald's, they would have to come to the Commission. He was told they would not have to. Mr. Page reiterated that this was not a subdivision. Mr. Poger felt that the proposal included shifting a lot line and he wondered if the Zoning Board had.to approve it. Mr. Jacob felt a lot line was not being shifted, but Mr. Poger said a use line was being shifted. Mr. Ewing wondered if there were too many parking spaces proposed and he suggested parallel parking. He was told that is what they have in there now. Mr. Wallace suggested angled parking (750). Mr. Ewing said it looked like there would be more spaces for customer parking as well as employee parking and Mr. Wallace said his future intention was to eliminate the spaces in front of the building and make a full patio there. I,:r. Poger noted that the lot was too small for the size business and that the curb cuts were too close together. Xr. Draper felt that with more spaces available, more people might come in during peak periods. This did not bother him, -but he said it went against the concept of the lot being an inappropriate size for the business. He suggested keeping porous material on the new lot so it would not look like customer parking. Mr. Mona did not like the increased severity of the non-conformance, given the fact that the land could be sold later. This would leave a zigzag lot line and a building sticking into a travelled way. He liked the idea of more employee parking, though. Mr. Page noted that this was a site -plan review where access, landscaping, circulation and screening were issues. ownership, leases, etc. are not matters for review under site -plan, he said. Mr. Poger did not accept that opinion because he felt they were changing the lot line. He ruled that the non-conformance was germaine to the discussion of the plan. M,r. Wallace noted that employees would park in the spaces for periods of several hours, so there would not be a lot of turning movements. The Commission did not oppose the concept of adding additional employee parking. They did not feel it was necessary to submit the plan to the traffic consultant for his review. Mr. Wallace was told that the Zoning Administrator should look into the question of shifting lot lines and that the plan should be given to the City Engineer and that if he in turn sent a memo to the Commission which arrived at the beginning of the meeting, it would be sent back to him. The question was also raised as to whether the Council should look at the plan since it was in an Interim Zoning area. Mr. Poger felt the City Attorney should be consulted on the lot line shift question. Mr. Ewing moved to continue the site plan until two weeks from this evening at City Hall at 7:30 pm. ifs. Mona seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. Site olan review of Vermont National Bank.\ 1117 Shel Mr. Kona raised the question of the matter of traffic increase in the Interim Zoning area and the Council's seeming indifference to the reasons Interim Zoning was put in place. Xr. Poger said the Council reviewed projects of this sort first and decided as to the applicability of Interim Zoning. Once that decision is made, the plan comes to the Commission for site -plan review only. However, said :'r. Poger, quoting :'r. Draper, if you don't like it, vote no. I•:r. ToCer wert.on 1 4. PLANNING COMMISSION uCTOBER 23, 1979 to say that the Council had reached the conclusion that this plan would not add an undue amount of traffic to the area. If the members felt the Council had come to the wrong conclusion, he said, he recommended that they vote against the plan. He felt the Commission should be guided by the Council but not ruled by them. Mr. Wiemann said the proposal was to convert a house into a branch bank with two drive-in windows on the north side. A total of 17 parking spaces have been provided. Cars will enter on the north side of the property and exit on the south (this was a Council stipulation). The traffic consultant has also reviewed the plan. -ir. Draper was concerned about north -bound exiting traffic. Mr. Gebauer said the property was about 200' from the traffic light at South Burlington Chrysler Plymouth. The Commission had received the memo from the traffic consultant on this project which was given to the Council during the Interim Zoning hearings. Kr. Woolery felt there would be conflicts between exiting traffic from the bark going north and left turning traffic going south. It was noted that the center of the 5 lanes in this area was to be used for left turns in both directions and that cars would not be able to get out of the bank unless that lane were clear. Yr. Mona did not feel that providing two access points solved the problem of left turning north traffic. Eventually the south access can be combined with the property adjacent to it on that side, but that lot is vacant now. Mr. Gebauer estimated 50-60 vehicles per day, with peaks of 75-100. The Commission assumed that most o f the traffic for the bank would come from the north and also head back north after the transaction was completed, but Xr. Gebauer said this side of the road was chosen because this bark felt most of its customers came in on their way home. Mr. Jacob felt that external traffic was not the Commission's problem, and Ifr. Levesque moved to strike the discussion because it is irrelevant to our charge. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion. It was suggested that external traffic could be related to internal traffic because if cars could not get out of the lot, they would snarl things up inside it. Mr. Poger was uneasy about the Council's use of Interim Zoning. He felt there was a double review process here and that he would be shirking his duty if he said the Council had decided about traffic and the Commission could not look at it. Mr. Jacob suggested a joint meeting with Council might be in order, Yr. !:ona felt that the traffic consultant had said there was a problem and had proposed two solutions, neither of which is viable now. :r. Ewing felt the Commission had jurisdiction in the area. :r. g-l'oolery felt technically they did not have jurisdiction but that for the health, safety, and welfare of the City, a message should be sent to the Council. He said this was a high traffic generator and it was on a major artery and he felt the Council blew this one. Yr. Yona cited item 13 of the 13 powers and duties of the Commission laid down in the Vermont Planning and Dgvelopment Act as suprort for his position. The motion was defeated with Messrs. Jacob, Levesque, and Ewing, voting yes, and lvessrs. Kona, Foger, Woolery, and Draper voting no. Xr. Levesque felt the extra lane gave cars enough room to make the turn out. Yr. Draper moved to anarove the site -plan. Yr. Levesque seconded the motion. .r. Gebauer said that they would cooperate with the adjoining !.rol)erty owner to the south if a common access was desired and he said that in the 21 other sites the bank has, they cooperate with the neiEh'Lors. The stipulations of the Council still apply to the plan. Xr. Gebauer was asked whether, if a road were put in on the south property, the bank would be willing to remove the exit from :>helburre `oad and put it on the J 5. PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 1979 new road. He replied that he did not see any reason not to do so and that they would do it. No land is needed along the front of the property for road widening, the sidewalk is shown and a new hydrant marked. Mr. 11ona felt the traffic report had pointed to a problem but no reasonable solution, and he said he would have to vote no. Tr. Poger said he would join Mr. Mona for the same reasons and he added that from the evidence, he felt the Council had made a wrong decision. The motion carried with Messrs. Poger and Mona voting no. Mr. Woolery noted that his was a reluctant yes vote. He felt the Council had turned down the Commission's recommendation to say no. Mr. Jacob again urged a joint meeting with the Council and Mr. Poger said he would set one up. Other business Mr. -roger noted that he had attended the Council meeting last night to tell them of the Commission's concerns on the proposed bank at 1309 Williston Road. At 9:20 pm the meeting was adjourned and the members and recording secretary went off to toast to the sucess of former Planner Stephen Page. He will be missed. Clerk