Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-85-0000 - Decision - 1710 Shelburne Road (4)1 _2- should be rezoned. Mr. Dooley moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the area to the west of Farrell Street and north of I-189 consisting of the former Lakeside Tennis property, Gardenway and part of7the land owned by T. Farrell be rezoned from C-1 to C-2.�Mr. Burgess seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Dooley then moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council at the same time that Hadley Rd. be signed so as to close it to all through truck traffic, similar to the regulation on Shunpike Rd. This change would still be recommended even if the Farrell, Lakeside, Gardenway rezoning is not approved. Mr. Jacob seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Continue Public Hearing on the Final Plat application.John Larki for the Planned Commercial Development of -Harbor Inn, a 200-unit hotel complex, and the existing restaurant --at -171-0 Shelburne Rd. Jeff Nelson of Wagner, Heindel & Noyes reported on the analysis of the impact of the development on the Bartlett Bay Watershed. To verify their findings, they used an actual 25- year storm event. They found that although the peak discharge would be about double, once off the site the peak discharge does not increase. This is because the location is very close to the stream, and the timing is such that runoff from the site reaches the stream before runoff from the rest of the watershed. They then looked at what would be required in order to cause no increase, and they recommend that a total of about 44,000 gallons in dentention capacity be provided on the site. Mr. Nelson noted that the erosion problem was not as bad here as at the north fork of the stream. Mr. Belter asked what possibility there was that this proposed construction would make matters worse. Mr. Nelson said construction would have to be planned with proper techniques, including rip -rapping. Mr. Belter asked who would be responsible for maintaining this 10 years from now. Mrs. Maher stressed that if it is on their land, the developers are responsible. Mr. Dooley asked why they are recommending detention if the runoff occurs before the peak. W(?�_dn't this now affect the peak? Mr. Nelson said the peak at this site with no detention occurs about an -hour before the rest of the watershed peaks. With detention, it would still occur before and would not affect the peak. He said that although the timing doesn't change from the undeveloped to developed state, the volume does increase, which is why they recommend detention. He added that the City Manager agrees with the study and with the recommendation. -3- Mr. Burgess noted there were a number of options in the report and asked why this one was chosen and whether they would not be making this developer pay for a future problem. Mr. Nelson said they were looking at the overall long-term effect of a number of these developments. There could be an early peak and a later peak of the same magnitude which, would create a situation similar to the north fork. They felt it was in the city's and the stream's best interest to prevent increased erosion. He added that the catch basin would also keep debris from the parking lot from going downstream. Mr. Jacob asked whether with the information now available and with information on future development, would they be able to predict when erosion will occur. Mr. Nelson said they would. They would also be able to recommend steps to prevent it as they now have a permanent data file which can be updated. They would not have to recalibrate every time. Mrs. Hurd asked whether discussions regarding the catch basin would occur before or after the development plan is approved. Ms. Bechtel said it would have to be designed prior to building permit. Mr. Krebs said he felt it was asking a lot of them to spend $40,000 to $50,000 fors a problem that does not exist. Mr. Jacob asked whether r!P-rapping the north and south forks or altering the stream's course would help since the problem is further downstream. Mr. Burgess said there are 2 objectives: to rectify the past problem and to prevent future problems. He asked whether the developer could be asked to contribute a certain amount of money and that future developers be asked for similar amounts to solve the whole problem. Mr. Jacob suggested they should see hom much more land above Shelburne Rd. is still to be developed and what that land contributes to the watershed. Then they should make a decision, rather than doing it piecemeal. He said he would like the research firm to sit down with the City Manager and look at the overall problem. He felt that this developer would rather put aside a lesser amount for a better solution than the $40,000 would afford and to accept the marginal risk that this development might make it a bit worse. Mrs. Maher felt that given the immensity of the problem, she would prefer to have the applicant come back to the Commission after a decision has been reached with the City Manager. Regarding landscaping, the applicant advised that screening will be provided by tall shrubs. The developer will be bonded for 3 years and any shrubs that die will have to be replaced. Mrs. Hurd said she was still uneasy about the location being so far from either the Shelburne or South Burlington fire stations, as it would take at least 10 minutes for fire vehicles to reach a fire at the location. Ms. Bechtel then reported on the traffic study. The traffic overlay zone allows for 481 trips from this site per peak. hour. The proposed use would produce 146 trips. Mr. Dooley noted that the only thing they are protecting is curb cuts on and off Shelburne Rd., and he added that on this curb cut there would be far more traffic than would be allowed on a single lot. Mrs. Maher asked whether the study takes into account the safety 'of cars entering and leaving. Ms. Bechtel said it did not. Mrs. Maher said she felt the Planning Commission did have some leeway where public safety is concerned. She stressed that this would be the biggest motel in South Burlington, even larger than the Sheraton. She said that when the Commission visited the site, there was discussion about the possibility of another exit to the south which would come out on Allen Rd. Ms. Bechtel said a second exit is being required but onto Harbor View Rd; the Allen Rd. route cannot be used because it would involve taking land from other owners. Mr. Spitz noted that when the Irish property develops, there can be a through connection to Allen Rd. He said they have evaluated what is needed to make the entrance as safe as possible. They compared trip end infor- mation on Holiday Inn and the Sheraton and found that those facilities were 40% below the ITT numbers. Mrs. Maher noted that those two facilities are located at a traffic light which is much better for safety. Mr. Spitz said that by providing 2 exiting lanes, cars going left will not impede traffic going right. He added that the accident history on that section of the road is good. There is also no major entrance across the road as there is on Williston Rd. Mr. Dooley asked about the possibility of a light at Allen Rd. Mr. Jacob said the state had refused that request. Mr. Dooley asked whether the situation at Allen Rd. was considered in the study. Mr. Spitz said the analysis looks at traffic from Burlington turning left and traffic exiting in both directions. The study says traffic will not back up because there is room to pass on the shoulder. There is no question there will be major delays for traffic exiting to the left. Mrs. Maher suggested that since there is a plan to upgrade and widen Shelburne Rd., the Commission could consider approving a portion of the development and making the remainder contingent upon the widening of Shelburne Rd. She said she would vote for.50 units at this time, not for 200. Mr. Dooley then moved that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Commercial Development of Harbor Inn with respect to the traffic standards and continue the hearing on an alternative to the retention pond which would cost less than the Wagner, Heindel & Noyes recommendation by which the applicant would agree and which the City Engineer would find -5- would improve the situation more than the retention pond. Mr. Jacob seconded, and the motion passed 4-2 with Mrs. Maher and Mrs. Hurd votipq against. Continue Site Plan Application of Stern & Davis for the conversion of the Agel Corman building into 6 retail specialty shops located at 512 Shelburne Rd. Mr. Forsythe advised that they had revised the parking to remove the angled parking. There is a total of 115 spaces, and they have a verbal agreement with Rick Davis & Fred Teballi that they should be able to give the project 20 more spaces, for a total of 135. The developer would not build until this is confirmed in writing by all parties. Ms. Bechtel noted the requirement is for 149 spaces, which would require a waiver of 23% with the 115 present spaces. The other 20 would be a bonus. The Commission is allowed to waive up to 25%. Mr. Dooley asked whether the 115 spaces are for the exclusive use of the development or whether they would be shared. Mr. Stern replied they have no agreement with the Farrells regarding parking and they do not have exclusive rights to the parking. He felt there was enough parking to satisfy the needs of the others. Ms. Bechtel said the City Attorney has confirmed that if this developer claims these spaces and they have been allotted only once, it would not matter whether there is a. Qwpec, kve. agreement. Mrs. Hurd pointed out there were 8 spaces in a right of way which reduces the right of way from 50 ft. to 20 ft. Members were polled as to how many parking spaces they would require: Mr. Jacob, Mr. Dooley, Ms. Hurd, and Mr. Belter all felt 135 should be required; Mr. Burgess said 126 would satisfy him. Mr. Dickinson reported on the traffic study. The traffic overlay zone allows for 47 trips per peak hour. This project would have 81, but this requirement can be waived under certain conditions and he felt the estimate was conservative. The study does not take into account multiple entrances but assumed all would enter from Odell Parkway. They felt that turning movements would be complicated and that certain adjustments in signalling might be required. They also per- formed a critical movement analysis. There are 1,098 vehicles per hour which puts the intersection into Level C, with or without the proposed project. They felt that even though the project would generate 80 vehicles per hour, the functional increase in traffic which would affect the operation of the intersection would only increase by 23 vehiiles per hour. Mr. Burgess felt waiving 34 trips per hour was a significant number considering holdups and the risk of accidents. Mr. Belter said he had no problems as there was already a signal there. Mrs. Hurd said she would not favor waiving the