The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIZ-89-0000 - Supplemental - 1565 Spear Streetl City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658.7955 March 20, 1989 Mr. Robert Cooper 408 South Beach Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658.7958 Re: Application for permit under Intermin Zoning Regulations Dear Mr. Cooper: Be advised that the South Burlington City Council will hold a public hearing at the City Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street on Monday, April 3, 1989, at 7 :30 P.M. to consider your request to construct a single-family dwelling on a parcel located at 1525 Spear Street. The criteria for reviewing your application is setforth under Section 4410 of the Vermont Planning & Development (a copy of that section is enclosed). If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Encls RW/mcp The LEGAL NCITICES >) PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL The South Burlington City Council will hold a public hearing at the South Burling. Ion City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South BurlingtonVermont on Monday, April 3, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Application of Robert F. Cooper at 408 South Beach Road, South Burlington, Ver. mont for authorization to construct a single-family dwelling which exceeds the height requirement as set - forth under the Interim Zon- ing Regulations for the pro. tection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District, adopted March 7, 1988, on a parcel located at 1525 Speor Street. Copies of the plan are avail. able for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative March I8, 1989 Officer 1WVITATIAy Tn n § 4409 MUNiCIPA.:-AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT Ch. 117 CURRENT LAW (g) A municipality may enact a bylaw that imposes forest management practices result - Remains In ing in a change in a forest management plan for land enrolled in the use value appraisal Effect program pursuant to 32 V.S.A. chapter 124 only to the extent that those changes are sil- viculturally sound, as determined by the department of forests, parks and recreation, and protect specific natural, conservation, esthetic, or wildlife features in properly desig- nated zoning districts. Such changes also must be compatible with 32 V.S.A. § 3755. § 4410. INTERIM BYLAWS (a) if a municipality is conducting, or has taken action to conduct studies within a rea- sonable time, or has held or is holding a hearing for the purpose of considering a bylaw, a comprehensive plan, or an amendment, extension, or addition to such bylaw or plan, the legislative body may adopt interim zoning regulations, interim subdivision regula- tions, interim shoreland zoning regulations, interim flood hazard area regulations or an interim official map regulating land development in all or a part of the municipality, in order to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and provide for orderly physical and economic growth. Such interim bylaws shall be adopted, reenacted or extended or amended by the legislative body of the municipality after public hearing upon public notice as an emergency measure which regulations shall be limited to two years from the date they become effective and may be extended or reenacted only in accor- dance with subsections (f) and (g) of this section. An interim regulation adopted under this section may be repealed after public hearing, upon public notice by the legislative body. The legislative body shall, upon petition of 5 percent of the legal voters filed with the clerk of the municipality, hold a public hearing for consideration of amendment or repeal of the interim regulations. (b) An interim bylaw adopted, extended, or reenacted under this section may contain any provision authorized by permanent zoning, shoreland zoning, flood hazard area reg- ulations, subdivision regulations, or official map bylaws under this chapter. (c) Interim bylaws shall be administered and enforced in accordance with the provi- sions of this title applicable to the administration and enforcement of permanent bylaws, except that uses other than those permitted by an interim zoning bylaw may be author- ized as provided for in subsection (d) of this section. (d) Under interim zoning bylaws, the legislative body may, upon application, author- ize the issuance of permits for any type of land development as a conditional use not otherwise permitted by the bylaw after public hearing preceded by notice in accordance with section 4447 of this title. The authorization by the legislative body shall be granted only upon a finding by the body that the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the municipality and the standards contained in subsection (e) of this sec- tion. The applicant and all abutting property owners shall be notified in writing of the date of the hearing, and of the legislative body's final determination. (e) In making a determination the legislative body shall consider the proposed use with respect to: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services or lands; (2) The existing patterns and uses of development in the area; (3) Fnvironmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites; (4) Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances or regulations in effect. (f) The legislative body of the municipality may extend or reenact interim bylaws for a one-year period beyond the initial two-year period authorized by subsection (a) of this section in accordance with the procedures for adoption in that subsection. (g) A copy of the adopted, amended, reenacted or extended interim bylaw shall be sent to adjoining towns, the regional planning commission of the region in which the munic- ipality is located and to the agency of development and community affairs. § 4411. REGULATION OF SHORELANDS 0 (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow municipalities to regulate shore - lands as defined in section 1422 of Title 10 to: 42 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL The South Burlington City Council will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, April 3, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Application of Robert F. Cooper of 408 South Beach Road, South Burlington, Vermont for authorization to construct a single- family dwelling which exceeds the height requirement as set -forth under the Interim Zoning Regulations for the protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District, adopted March 7, 1988, on a parcel located at 1525 Spear Street. Copies of the plan are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer I 1/23/89 Draft of proposed amendments to cover only the Zone A Area PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING REGULATIONS 1. The City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations are amended to add the following new sections: 1.30 Spear Street View Protection Zone Map defines that area of the City that is subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 19.47 of these regulations. The Spear Street View Protection Zone Map is filed in the office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference. 19.47 Spear Street View Protection Zone In addition to the provisions of any other section(s) of these regulations, the uses allowed in any district in the Spear Street View Protection Zone, as shown on the Spear Street View Protection Zone Map, shall be subject to the following limitations: 19.471 No part of any structure within the Spear Street View Protection Zone shall exceed an elevation of 370 feet above mean sea level minus 4 feet for each 100 feet that'said part of a structure is horizontally distant from the Base Line shown on the above referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone Map. 19.472 Landscaping and other vegetation located within the Spear• Street View Protection Zone shall be maintained so that it does not exceed an elevation of 370 feet above mean sea level minus 4 feet for• each 100 feet that said landscaping or vegetation is horizontally distant from the Base Line shown on the above referenced Spear. Street View Protection Zone Map. Notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in the previous sentence, any vegetation or plantings located within an area two hundred (200') feet east of any building in existence on the effective date of this amendment may be maintained so as not to exceed an elevation corresponding to the easterly horizontal extension of the roof peak of such building. rr .� Y 19,473 The term "structure" when used in this section (19.47 and sub -sections) shall mean an assembly of materials for occupancy or use, including, but not: limited to a building, mobile home or trailer, billboard, sign, wall or fence, antenna, utility poles (including towers and lines), earthern berms. II. These amendments shall become effective 21 days following their adoption by the City Council. amendmnt sfs # 1 February 24, 1989 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Street Overlook District Application for Building Permit Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4410(d) To Whom It May Concern: I had hoped, and assumed, that the present controversy initiated by the City's adoption of Interim Zoning on April 4, 1988 would be resolved by the start of the 1989 building season. Unfortunately, I still do not see an end in sight. I am not clear on the form or content of the City Council vote slated for March 20, 1989 and I obviously have no way of predicting subsequent developments. Accordingly, in order to protect my interest in building a house on my Spear Street property, I am filing the present application for a zoning permit pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4410(d) and would ask the City Council to warn the public hearing required by that section at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Robert Co per Gs/11/19 Official Use City of South Burlington ,Application to Board of Adjustment Date *23 Applicant Owner, leasee, agent Address ��C21l�1 �� /�69/6,�Telephone Landowner APPLICATION # HEARING DATE C </ FILING DATE FEE AMOUNT Address ,_ram`/ i� Location and description of property C'��Y Type of application check one ( ) appeal from decision of Administrative Officer( )request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance. I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also that hearings are held twice a month (second and fourth Mondays). That a legal advertisement must appeal a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of the hearing. Provisions of zoning ordinance in question Reason for appeal , X.' The owner or applicant should submit along with this application (8 copies) plans, elevations, landscaping diagrams (drawn to scale) traffic data and any other additional information which will serve as support evidence to the Board. (' YZL9/ 8 q - W_ Hearing Date Signature of Appellant Do not write below this line ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24, V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlingotn Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Day of Week at to consider the following: Month and Date Time Appeal of seeking a From Section of the South Burlington Regulations. Request is for permission to PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 February 28, 1989 Mr. Robert Cooper 408 South Beach Road South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Cooper: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Your request for a zoning permit for property located at 1525 Spear Street is rejected. The area in question is under Interim Zoning regulations. These regulations require a hearing before the City Council prior to the issuance of any permit. Your public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 3, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. This office will keep you informed of any changes. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp Encls CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO ........... JPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone............ 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR!" 4th Copy APPLICANT Date :4'..:...... .. .:.,............... The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed in accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and t e State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION STREET"` — _ NUMBER {' OCCUPANCY FLOORS LOT SIZE: Frontage Depth 6 3 II.7 Lot No. Single Family B 1 12 13 Two Family Apartment No. Fam. Store Offices Warehouse Res, Garage No. Cars Det.❑ Att. Gas Station Additions -Alterations FOUNDATION Concrete Concrete Block Brick or Stone Piers Cellar Area Full No Cellar EXTERIOR WALLS Clapboards Wide Siding Drop Siding No Sheathing Wood Shingles Asbes. Shingles Stucco on Frame Stucco on Tile Brick Veneer Brick on Tile Solid Brick Stone Veneer Conc. or Cind. BI. Terra Cotta Vitrolite Plate Glass Insulation Weatherstrip ROOFING Cement Earth Pine Hardwood Tile Carpet Attic Fl. & Strs. Height INTERIOR FINISH Pine Hardwood Sheetrock Unfinished Paneling Recreat. Room Finished Attic Fireplace HEATING Pipeless Furnace Hot Air Furnace Forced Air Furn. Steam Hot Wat. or Vapor No Heating Electric Gas Burner Oil Burner Solar Panels PLUMBING Bathroom Toilet Room Water Closet Kitchen Sink Std. Wat. Heat Auto. Wat. Heat Elect. War. Syst. Laundry Tubs No Plumbing OWNER (;+I; G(.��t.4�. BUILDER WATER SUPPLY: Public Private ❑ SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public JX Septic Tank ❑ Permit 4t I ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit # ELEC. WIRING: Underground j Overhead ❑ Permit # Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass point indicating North. Asph. Shingles Wood Shingles TILING Asbes. Shingles_ Bath Fl. & Wcot. Remarks ❑ Demolition ❑ Utilities closed ❑ Slate Toilet Fl. & Wcot. Tile LIGHTING Metal Electric Composition No Lighting Roll Roofing NO. OF ROOMS Bsmt. 2nd. C 1st. 3rd. Estimated Cost 3 v(� 01 �`� 0 U FEE CO P (�Tr I N $ / Plans received Yes ❑ �^.NNo,1❑ -1 G5 .��lc: ,C �cY_ S> .. �LGi� L IN�t /1 VT SIGNA URE of OWNER or BUILDER ADDRESS of OWNER '0-'p3 APPLICATION: REJECTED L9' APPROVED ❑ SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFIC - ISSUED TO Date --- 1 x--� PERMIT VALID FOR SIX MONTHS PERMIT SUBJECT TO APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED 1/23/89 Draft of propos& amendments to cover the Zone B area assuming the Zone A area is already been established. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CITY I SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING REGULATIONS The City of Souk Burlington Zoning Regulations are amended as follows: I. The SpearStreet View Protection Zone Map referred to in Section 1.30 is hreby amended as shown on an amended map filed in the office ofthe City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference. II. The sub-setions of Section 19.47 are amended to add the following new te* which is underlined and delete the text which appears in brack*: 19.471 No part of any structure within Zone A_ of the Spear Street View Protection Zone shall exceed an elevation of 370 feet above mean sea level minus 4 feet for each 100 feet that said part of a structure is horizontally distant from the Zone A base line shown on the above referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone Map. 19.472 Landscaping and other vegetation located within Zone A of the Spear Street View Protection Zone shall be maintained so that it does not exceed an elevation of 370 feet above mean sea level minus 4 feet for each 100 feet that said landscaping or vegetation is horizonLall.y distant from the Zone A base line shown on the above referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone Map. Notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in the previous sentence, any vegetation or plantings located 44Lhin an area two hundred (200') feet east of any building in existence on the effective iaa.te of this amendment may be maintained so as -rot to exceed an elevation corresponding to the easterly horizontal extension of the roof .-ak of such building. 19.473 [The term "structure" when used in this section (19.47 and sub -sections) shall mean an assembly of materials for occupancy or use, including, but not limited to a building, mobile home or trailer, billboard, sign, wall or fence, antenna, utility poles (including towers and lines), earthern berms.) Within Zone B of the Spear Street View Protection Zorie, no part of any structure shall exceed the elevation of the Zone B base line minus 4 feet for each 100 feet that said part of said structure is horizontally distant from the Zone B_ base line shown on the above referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone_ Map. This section shall not apply to any structure located in a Designated Building. Envelope. 19.474 Within Zone B of the Spear Street_ View Protection Zone, landscaping and other vegetation shall be maintained so that it does not exceed the elevation of the Zone B base line minus 4 feet for each 100 feet that said landsca.pin or v�ketation is horizontally distant from the Zone B base line shown on the above_ referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone Map or Z feet above any grade existing on the date that these Spear Street View Protection regulations become effective, whichever height is higher. This section shall not apply to landscaping located within a Designated Building Envelope. 19.475 Within Zone B_ of the Spear Street View Protection Zone, any principal structure shall be located entirely within a Designated Building Envelopee_ T 19.476 The term "structure" when used in this section 19.47 and sub -sections) shall mean an assembly of materials for occupancy or use, including but not limited to a building., mobile home or trailer, billboard, sign, wall or fence, antenna, utility poles (including towers and lines), earthern berms. 19.477 The term "Designated Building Envelope" as used in this section shall define a_ hexagonal figure enclosing an area of 15.000 square feet as depicted on the SPEAR STREET VIEW PROTECTION ZONE MAP. The long axis of a Designated Building Envelope shall be oriented on a lot so that it is perpendicular to Spear Street. Structures or vegetation located in any portion of a_ "Designated Building Envelope" located in Zone A_ shall be required to meet_ the_ height limitations applicable to Zone A. III. These amendments shall become effective 21 days following their adoption by the City Council. IV. On the date that these regulations become effective, the "Interim Zoning Regulations For the Protection of The Spear Street Scenic Overlook District", adopted April 4, 1988, shall be repealed. amendmnt.2 sfs *1. EXHIBIT LIST 1. Warranty Deeds - Aurora Nowland, Helen N. Gagnon, Marie Underwood and Rheal Gagnon to Maurice A. Brown and Jean B. Brown dated September 26, 1979 and Maurice A. Brown and Jean B. Brown to Robert F. Cooper dated October 10, 1985. 1A. Planning Commission Minutes - Original Nowland Subdivision 2. Planning Commission Minutes - Pecor/Milot Subdivision - Overlook Acquisition 3. City Council Minutes - Robert & Cynthia Hoehl Application for Building Permit 4. City Council Decision - 1/31/89 - Hoehl Application 5. Letters: (a) - Jane S. Bechtel to Lance Llewellyn dated 6/27/85 - Private sewer line extension; (b) - Richard Ward to Dr. Victor Ratkus dated 4/14/87 - fill proposal; (c) - Michael Zahper to Victor L. Ratkus, D.D.S., P. C. (cc Ward) dated 6/1687 - fill proposal; (d) - Leslie S. Linton to Members of the South Burlington City Council dated 5/2/88 - interim zoning; (e) - Geoffrey M. FitzGerald to South Burlington City Council dated 2/13/,89 - interim -zoning; (f) - R. Joseph O'Rourke to South Burlington City Council dated 3/6/89 - interim zoning. 6. City Council Minutes 3/20/89 - Adoption of Zone A/B proposal (proposals attached) 7. Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan re view protection 8. Bond issue ballot - 9/13/88 April 17, 1989 Members of the South Burlington City Council 595 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 Res Robert Cooper - Application for a building permit Dear Members of the South Burlington City Council: I represent Robert Cooper. Mr. Cooper has applied for a building permit to construct a single-family residence at 1525 Spear Street. As you know, the Cooper lot is located within the "Scenic Overlook District" created by the Interim Zoning bylaws which were adopted by the City Council on April 4, 1988. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator has referred this application to you for authorization as a conditional use under 24 V.S.A. §4410(d). I will be as brief as possible given your extensive involvement in matters relating to the Overlook District during the past year. For the record, I set forth the following factual summary. Introduction The Cooper lot is one of six lots lying on the west side of Spear Street. The Cooper lot is adjacent to and borders on the Hoehl lot which, in turn, is adjacent to and borders on the City -owned Overlook Park. This six -lot subdivision was approved by the City of South Burlington in 1976. The original subdivision plan, as submitted by Mrs. Aurora Nowland, was reviewed in great depth by the Natural Resources Committee, the Planning Office and the Planning Commission. Minutes from those meetings, which are attached and made a part of this record, clearly indicate that the views from Spear Street were considered and discussed. The project was ultimately approved by the City with certain restrictions, including a sixty -foot right-of-way along the westerly boundary of the six lots for possible develop- ment of a connecting city street as well as a fifteen -foot pedestrian easement for use by the public. The City also negotiated for a one-year option on a 200-foot by 100-foot parcel south of the approved lots to be used as a scenic overlook. South Burlington City Council Page 2 April 17, 1989 Rather than exercise its option, the City acquired an Overlook Park in 1980-81 as a condition for its approval of the Pecor/ Milot subdivision (Planning Commission Minutes attached) further south on Spear Street. The park, which is 266 feet in depth and has approximately 300 feet of frontage on Spear Street, was deeded to the City in November 1985. Robert Cooper purchased lot 5 of the Nowland subdivision in October 1965. Mr. Cooper has always intended to build a house on this lot, and he has had ongoing discussions with his architect since the date of his purchase. As the Council knows, shortly before his purchase of the property, the lot owners applied to the City for permission to extend city sewer to service the six lots. The City's approval of this project is contained in a letter from then City Planner, Jane Bechtel, dated June 27, 1985 (attached). It should also be noted that many of the houses constructed pursuant to the City's approval of the Pecor/Milot subdivision block or obstruct views of the lake and mountains. Moreover, views from Spear Street have also been obstructed or blocked by single-family residential development north of the six -lot Nowland Subdivision. In short, Mr. Cooper clearly acted reasonably relying on the City's original subdivision approval, as well as its subsequent approval of the sewer extension, in purchasing this lot for the development of a single family home. On April 4, 1988, the City Council enacted Interim Zoning. Interim Zoning effectively prohibits Mr. Cooper from building on the top two-thirds of his lot. Given the private restrictions already in place, Mr. Cooper is unable to site his proposed one and one-half story home anywhere on his lot. Technically, Mr. Cooper might be able to build a one-story house approximately 400 feet from Spear Street under Interim Zoning as originally adopted. However, the economic and aesthetic considerations of siting a one-story house 400 feet from Spear Street, on this particular lot, are totally unacceptable. First, Mr. Cooper would lose a significant portion of the view of Lake Champlain. He would also be unable to protect the remaining views that would be available given the possible future development of the Hort farm. Perhaps more importantly, such a house would not be in keeping with the character of development in this area, especially when viewed in conjunction with the existing two-story Hoehl house sited 120 feet from Spear Street. It would also be located directly in the foreground of, and impact on, views from the South Burlington City Council Page 3 April 17, 1989 City -owned park as well as views from Spear Street, thus defeating, at least in part, the City's prior efforts in this area. In short, Mr. Cooper would sooner challenge Interim Zoning than build a one-story house 400+ feet from Spear Street. By way of further background, in November 1988 the citizens of South Burlington voted in favor of a bond issue to improve the City -owned Overlook Park and, at the same time, rejected a bond issue to purchase development rights on two lots north of the park. (See copy of Bond Issue Vote attached.) By focusing on and improving the Park, the City can effectively mitigate the impact of the Jamieson house and, at the same time, provide the public quality access to views of Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains. The Cooper proposal now before the Council would not in any way impact on views from the Park. Even peripheral views to the north would be shielded or blocked by the existing Hoehl house. During the past year, the City Council and the Planning Commission have held numerous public hearings on Interim Zoning and related issues (minutes of meeting attached). The City's efforts in this regard culminated in the City Council meeting held March 20, 1989 wherein the City Council voted in favor of, and adopted a compromise plan for this area which would preserve the views from the City -owned Overlook Park as well as view corridors from Spear Street. Mr. Cooper's plans conform in every respect to the zoning amendments adopted by the City Council on March 20, 1989. Criteria of 24 V.S.A. S4410(d) and (e) This statute outlines the City Council's conditional use authority when land development is not in compliance with interim zoning bylaws. The statute presupposes that the interim zoning regulations have been validly enacted and are properly enforceable. Mr. Cooper continues to challeng- the validity and enforceability of the interim zoning regulations adopted by the City Council on April 4, 1988. Nevertheless, Mr. Cooper contends that even if the regulations are deemed valid and enforceable, his permit application meets the criteria enumerated in the statute. (a) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities services or lands. This area is zoned for single-family development. Mr. Cooper's proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the South Burlington zoning ordinances. Moreover, the proposed single-family residence will be served by the City's sewer, water and school systems, all of which are available and contain adequate capacity. South Burlington City Council Page 4 April 17, 1989 (b) The existing patterns and uses of development in the area. Spear Street is a rapidly developing residential neighborhood. The proposed one and one-half story single- family structure is clearly consistent with the existing patterns and uses of development in the area. (c) Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites. As noted above, the proposed residence will be served by public water and sewer. Accordingly, there are no environmental limitations which preclude development of the site. If the Council finds that the views of Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains constitute a significant natural resource, the applicant contends this that significant natural resource will not be unduly impacted by the proposed residence. As noted above, views from the City -owned Overlook Park will be preserved. Moreover, the proposed residence only blocks views from a small portion of the Overlook District, which runs for 1,100 feet along Spear Street. The proposed structure is 98 feet wide. However, the plans call for a hipped roof which significantly lessens the mass and visual impact of the roof and actually decreases the ridge line to a modest 48 feet. This proposal also allows for viewing corridors from Spear Street on over one-third of the total width of the lot. In sum, given that the proposal calls for a house one and one-half stories in height with a hipped roof and relatively low ridge line set back 200 feet from Spear Street, the proposal will not significantly impact on the views from Spear Street along the 1,100 foot Overlook District. As comparable views are also available at the nearby City owned Overlook Park, the proposal clearly meets the above enumerated natural resource criteria. (d) Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances or regulations in effect. This proposal is consistent with South Burlington's municipal plan, relevant excerpts of which are attached hereto, as well as all other municipal bylaws, ordinances or regulations now in effect. Validity of Interim Zoning As stated above, Mr. Cooper specifically challenges the validity and enforceability of the interim zoning regulations adopted by the City Council on April 4, 1988. The constitutionality of the regulations can be challenged under the Taking and Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Vermont Constitutions. Moreover, even if valid, the applicant contends that the City is estopped from enforcing such regulations given its prior actions and approvals in this area. South Burlington City Council Page 5 April 17, 1989 Rather than go into these legal issues at great length at ,the City Council level, z simply make note of them here to preserve our right to develop these issues on appeal should that become necessary and refer the City Council to letters from Attorneys Leslie Linton, Joseph O'Rourke and myself dated May 2, 1988, March 6, 1989 and February 13, 1989 respectively. Your careful consideration of this application is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Robert Cooper. Geoffrey M. FitzGerald Gs/16/23 Encs. 1 Vol. 155 Page 279 WARRANTY DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I THAT WE, AURORA NOWLAND, HELEN N. GAGNON, MARIE j UNDERWOOD and RHEAL GAGNON, all of South Burlington, in the 1 �i County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, GRANTORS, in the consideration of TEN AND MORE DOLLARS paid to our full satisfac- tion by MAURICE A. BROWN and JEAN B. BROWN, of South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, GRANTEES, by these presents do freely GIVE, GRANT, SELL, CONVEY AND CONFIRM unto the said GRANTEES, MAURICE A. BROWN and JEAN B. BROWN, husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety, and their heirs and assigns forever, a certain piece of land in the City of i South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as follows viz: Being Lot 5 on a plat entitled "Proposed Nowland Property Subdivision -Spear Street," I South Burlington, Vermont, dated April 27, 1977 and recorded in Map Volume !OS at Page J/ j of the South Burlington City Plat Land Rec��r s. i j' Said property is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point, said point located in the westerly sideline of Spear Street and marking the northeasterly corner of the herein conveyed property; thence proceeding westerly 631.30 feet to an iron pin marking the northwesterly corner of the herein conveyed :property; thence turning to the left and proceeding southerly 197.00 feet in and along the common boundary of the University of Vermont and State Agricultural College to a point marking the j southwesterly corner of the herein conveyed property; thence turning to the left and proceeding easterly 603.15 feet to an iron pin in the ,+ester:y sideline of Spear Street marking the southeasterly corner of the herein conveyed property; thence turning to the left and proceeding northerly 160.00 feet in and along _.v wcs'_vrly sideline of Spear Street to the point or place of beginning. '^ho within conveyed property is subject to and hss the benefit of the following covenants, restrictions and conditions, each of which shall be considered to run with the land: LATHAM. EA5TMAN. SCN W ETER G TETZLAF F -1- !o[ EXHIBIT "1" Vol. 155 Pare 280 2 - `./ LATNAM. EASTMAN. aCNMLYER A TETZEAFF •,tcwh[,f � ,OC ..I• II CT 1. The property is specifically to be used as a single family residential lot and shall not be subdivided. 2. No trailers, mobile homes or other pre- fabricated homes (prefabricated homes not to include by definition precut homes such as Acorn, Stanmar, etc.) with or without wheels and regardless of placement upon a permanent foundation shall be erected, constructed or placed upon said lot. This prohibition shall not prohibit a home owner from keeping and storing a travel camper or trailer on a lot as long as it is kept under cover in a garage or other appropriate structure. 3. No building or structure of any type shall be erected within 75 feet of the westerly sideline of Spear Street, nor shall a fence, whether natural or constructed, of a height greater than 6 feet be placed within said 75 foot setback. Further, no trees, shrubs or other growing thing within said 75 foot setback from Spear Street shall be allowed to achieve a height of more than 2U feet from its base. The purpose of the restrictions in this particular paragraph is to preserve a westerly view for those lands of the within Grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns, which lie easterly of Spear Street, and if any of the terms of these conditions are violated by the within Grantees, their heirs, successors or assigns, they shall pay all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, if said conditions shall have to be enforced by a court of law or equity. 4. The ridge line of any dwelling or other structure of any type which is erected on the property shall rise no more than 18 feet in height above the present center of the highway known as Spear Street. 5. The terms, conditions, covenants and restrictions made a part of the record of or attached by the South Burlington City Planning Commission in granting approval of this lot among others to the within Grantors. A small portion of the westerly end of the property conveyed herein is subject to an easement and right of way for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress to other property of the within Grantors, and additionally to be for the installation, maintenance, repair or replacement of utilities of any sort such as water, sewer, electricity, gas, cable TV, etc., these easements and rights of way beina reserved by the within Grantors, and the property conveyed herein made subject thereto in accord with an agreement by and between the within Grantors and the City of South Burlington as part of Grantors' subdivision plat approval. LATHAM. EASTMAN. .MW ETER A TETZLAFF . noAeETA lOF •,IN =T RAET - 3 - The within conveyed property is additionally subiect to all the terms and conditions of an offer of irrevocable dedication with regard to a 15 foot wide pedestrian easement as contained within said 60 foot easement and right of way aforementioned, said dedication having been extended and accepted by the within Grantors to the City of South Burlington as a term and condition of said subdivision plat approval. The said Rheal C. Gagnon, husband of Helen Nowland Gagnon, joins in this conveyance with said Aurora Newland, Helen N. Gagnon and Marie Underwood for the sole purpose of releasing the following covenants and restrictions contained in the deed from John Newland, Aurora Newland, Edward 'lowland, Helen Newland and Katharine Newland to Rheal C. Gagnon and Helen N. Gaynon dated December 27, 1963 and recorded in Volume 66, Page 271 as said restrictions and covenants apply to the herein conveyed lot. The covenants and restrictions hereby released as they affect the land owned by Rheal C. Gagnon and Helen N. Gagnon are as follows: "The grantors, for themselves, their heirs, and assigns, further covenants that no dwellings, buildings, trees, poles, or other objects, except fences, hedges, or walls under forty-eight (48) Inches in height, will be erected, planted or placed on a strip of land of the grantors that lies in the line of view of Lake Champlain westerly of Spear Street for a distance of two hundred (200) feet westerly from the westerly line of Spear Street. This strip of land is 75 feet wide and extends westerly from Spear Street 200 feet and is shown as the shaded area on the above mentioned plan. The grantors, for themselves, their heirs, and assigns, further covenants and agree that nothing higher than a two story dwelling house will be erected on a two hundred (200) foot extension westerly of the shaded area shown on the above mentioned plan." In order to comply with the State of Vermont Health Regulations on the subdivision of lands and disposal of waste including sewage (and also to meet a condition of plat approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission), the Grantees shall not construct or erect a structure or building on the parcel of land conveyed herein, the useful occupancy of which will require the installation of plumbing and sewage treatment facilities, without first complying with said State Regulations. Being a portion of the land and premises known as the "Howland Farm" and originally conveyed to Vol. 155 Pape 281 I Vol. 155 Far282e 282 -4- John Nowland and Mary A. Nowland, his mother, i both now deceased, as tenants in common, by i Warranty Deed from Mary A. Huntley, dated March 17, 1921 as recorded in Volume 8 at Page 314 of the South Burlington City Land Records, and as further recorded in Volume 13 at Page 525 of said Land Records. Reference is further made i to a Deed from Eldred French to John and Aurora Nowland, dated October 26, 1951 and recorded in Volume 30 at Page 230 of said Land Records. Subsequently -the remaining undivided one-half interest in said property was acquired by John Nowland, Edward Nowland, Helen Nowland and Katherine Nowland by Decree of Distribution from I the Chittenden Probate Court in the Estate of Mary A. Nowland, dated December 17, 1957 and recorded in Volume 34 at Page 397 of said Land Records, and also by Decree of Distribution from said Court in the Estate of Mary Frances Nowland, dated December 17, 1957 and recorded in Volume 34 at Page 409 of said Land Records. The present interests of Helen N. Gagnon and Marie N. Underwood were obtained as follows: Decree of Distribution of the Estate of John Nowland (Volume 109, Pages 110-112), Decree of Distribution of the Estate of Katherine Nowland (Volume 109, Pages 113-116), Decree of Distribution of the Estate of Helen Nowland (Volume 109, Pages 117-120), and Decree of Distribution of the Estate of Edward P. ;,lowland (Volume 109, Pages 121-125), all said Decrees dated October 18, 1972. i Reference is hereby made to the above mentioned instruments, the records thereof, the references there4_n made, and their respective records and references, in further aid of this description. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said granted premises, with all the privileQes and appurtenances thereof, to the said GRANTEES, i MAURICE A. BROWN and JEAN B. BROWN, husband and wife, as tenants I by tl.m entirety, and their heirs and assigns, to their own use i and behoo_` forever; and we the said GRANTORS, AURORA NOWLAND, I I,! HELEN N. GAGNON, MARIE UNDERWOOD and RHEAL C. GAGNON, for our- ' selves and our heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant with the said GRANTEES, 14AURICE A. BROWN and JEAN B. BROWN, their heirs and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents we are the sole owners of the premises, and have good ,I right end tit'_e to convey the same in manner aforesaid; that j they are FREE FROM EVERY ENCUMBRANCE; except as above stated, LATNAM. EASTMAN, SCN W ET ER ! TETZLAF F ETTOYN[li l01 VEIN STA[ET FVllt iN440N. v[I,N ONi I Vol. 155 Pape 283 and except all real estate taxes thereon which are to be pro- rated as of the date of this conveyance, and we do hereby engage to WARRANT AND DEFEND the same against all lawful claims whatever, except as above stated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto set our hands and seals I dri J this ay of September, 1979. �i 'I In Presence Of: Aurora Nowland jl Helen N. Gagnon Marie o6iF Rhea l C.- Cagnont !I STATE OF VERMONT ;I CliITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At in said County I d this "Z` day of September, 1979, AURORA NOWLAND, HELEN N. GAGNON, MARIE UNDERWOOD and RHEAL C. GAGNON, personally appeared, 'I I jI and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and sub- scribed, to be their free act and deed..;' Before me„�({R(C' Notary Public •iN~' hOpertF IWOw T.. 3 7 V.S.A CN.O. 7J1 —ACKNOWLEDGMENT— R.t U. fu Y[O Uui�J ui ... ....r1. Mw'Y ar UA, Utt i Uv..I4V�•er�l Ygl.ira •:tl l.en..ee'U .. NO.4�2zLa(Q-- 5q LAINAM. EASTMAN. .04ALYERATEULAFF 1. •r L.. t >0. M.I. tT.ttT i Received for Record September 28, 1979 at 11:30 a.m. Attes , QQ C I CLERK�y�� Vol. 214 Page 141 C✓ A Alw- ItIIlnl PlitTfhfsrV1r;5?nt,4 ebat MAURICE A. BROWN and JEAN B. BROWN, husband and wife, of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantors , in the consideration of -----------------------------TEN AND MORE ---- paid to our f911 satisfaction by ROBERT F. COOPER, a single 9 person Of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantee , b the se ese presents, do freely Oibt, &rant, &ell, Conbtp anb Confirm unto the said Grantee ROBERT F. COOPER and his heirs and assijns forever, a certain piece of land in South Burlingtc:i in the County of Chittenden and State of rermont, described as follou's, viz: Being Lot 5 on a plat entitled "Proposed Nowland Property Subdivision - Spear Street," South Burlington, Vermont, dated April 27, 1977 and recorded in Map Volume 105 at Page 84 of the South Burlington City Plat Land Records. Said property is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at Point, said point located in the westerly sideline of Spear Street and marking the northeasterly corner of the herein conveyed property; thence proceeding westerly 631.30 feet to an iron pin marking the northwesterl corner of the herein conveyed property; thence turning to the left and proceeding southerly 197.00 feet in and along the common boundary of the University of Vermont and State Agricultural College to a Point marking the southwesterly corner of the herein conveyed property; thence turnin to the left and proceeding easterly 603.15 feet to an iron pin in the westerly sideline of Spear Street marking the southeasterly corner of the herein conveyed property; thence turning to the left and proceeding northerly 160.00 feet in and along the westerly sideline of Spear Street to the point or place of beginning. The within conveyed property is subject to and has the benefit of certain covenants, restrictions, conditions and easements as set forth in a certain Warranty Deed from Aurora Nowland, Helen N. Gagne, Marie Underwood and Rheal Gagnon to Grantors herein dated September 26, 1979 and recorded in Volume 155, Pages 279-283 of the City of South Burlingtcn Land Records. In order to comply with the State of Vermont Health regulations on the subdivision of lands and disposal of waste including sewage (and also EXHIBIT "1" Vol. 214 ?age 142 LI-, to meet a condition of plat approval by the South Burlington Planning Commission), the Grantees shall not construct or erect a structure or building on the parcel of land conveyed herein, the useful occupancy of which will require the installation of plumbing and sewage treatment facilities, without first complying with said State Regulations. Being all and the same land and premises conveyed to Maurice A. Brown and Jean B. Brown by Warranty Deed of Aurora Nowland, Helen N. Gagnon, Marie Underwood and Rheal Gagnon dated September 26, 1979 and recorded in volume 155, Pages 279-283 of the City of South Burlington Land Recor s. Reference is hereby made to the above -mentioned instruments, the record thereof, the references therein made, and their respective records and references, in further aid of this description. i90 babe anb to bola said fronted premises, with all the privilejes and ap- purtenances thereof, to the said Grantee ROBERT F. COOPER and his heirs and assijns, to their own use and behoof forever; dnd we the said Grantors 14AURICE A. BROWN and JEAN B. BROWN for ourselves and our heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant urith the said Grantee ROBERT F. COOPER heirs and assijns, that until the ensealinj of these presents we are the sole ouner of the premises, and have food rijht and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are _free from tberg encumbrance; except as aforesaid; Vol. 214 Page 143 L— and we hereby enjaje w Warrant ana ]Dcfcna the same ajainst all lauful claims whatever, except as aforesaid. 3n witnezo Wbereof, We hsreuato eat our hands and seal this loth y of October d. D. 19 85. �Inprrstnrr of JE u&tatc of Vermont, { gg ,1t Burlington this CHITTENDEN Countp IOth day of October A. D. 19 85 Maurice A. Brown and Jean B. Brown personally appeared, and they acknowledjed this instrument, by sealed and subscribed, to be their� /free /act and deed. Before me !i1 // • (� - - .�,c�s�� U�:�n,tr�i• Received for Record October 16, 1985 at 10:35 a.m. AttestC.—aag$3 ♦CO`AcQJ CI CLERK PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINAL NOWLAND SUBDIVISION MINUTES 12/76 - 10/77 EXHIBIT "1" A :, 6J4�-L o 6 tL� c ✓, :w,r 4i) N Crs'.c DECEMBER 14 1Q76 FUNNING COMMISSION f fry ti•, The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on .Tuesday, December 14, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road.. MEMBERS PRESENT Ernest Levesque, Vice Chairman; James Ewing, David Morency, Sidney Poger, Kirk Woo ery MEMBERS ABSENT William Wessel, Chairman; Frank Lidral OTHERS PRESENT Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Richard Underwood, Hal Bensen, myron Samuelson. Andrew Corologos, Gordon G. Woods, James Lamphere, Bonnie Fahey, Marshall McBean, Mr. and Mrs. George DeForge, Mr. and Mrs. Lanou, John Ewing The neeting was opened at 7:55 p•m• by the Vice Chairman. ReAdi.. of '".inutes of November an'�ece-bf- , It was moved by Mr. Morency, seconded by Mr. Ewing, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of November 3, 1976E as presented_ It was moved by Mr. Ewing, seconded by Mr. Morency, and voted unani.mously to arove the Kinutes of December_7, 1 Z6 as presented. Sketch Plate Nowland Farm -SubdivisionL-J.p-ear Street Mr. Page _stated the la ou of the proposed subdivision seemed to be ivNr core tibl_e with the Comprehensive Plan. a rea a o taL the._Natural Resources Committee advocaiin a scenic tur_nou iB—L � aTea`� g_gvera gars to b'e aTile to puT�off tfie ra to allow people to admire t �= eu anU take pictures. y�r. Leves uue asked if the old school site had any special significance. / mr. Underwood stated the school was built on Nowland land and when the school was given up it was bought by the Nowlands from the Scuth Burlington j School Department. It was planned to leave it there for the time being. Mr. Levesque said the school building could have some use in conmection with 7_�tt:e scenic turnout; perhaps the City could have first refusal for that l �� particular lot. c Mr. Underwood said some member of the family might build there s e ometime, usln. the school as part of the house. `Mr. ''orency asked about the umber -.of —curb cuts to be involved. ,' � � 1h -`Mr. 9ensen said four curb cuts as recommended in the memo from r. Fa .1r. Levesque suggested adding a restriction that for the rest of the Now! warm warm that any further subdivision be allowed only two curb cuts for the entire `arm. DECEMBER 14, 19f6 PLANNING ComKISSION_ ' Mr. Poger felt the question was what was expected to happen to Spear Street, would it remain two lanes, or go to three or four lanes, what would it be in five years. ;fir. Page said Mr. Szymanski had talked aboourut widening Spear Street but he was quite sure he was not planning Mr. Poger recommended planning for some kind of single curb cut and using a service road. Some provision should be made for some kind of collector or service road for the protection of people getting out and for the protection of people moving along Spear Street, not that this be done now but at a later date all these curb cuts might be closed and a single collector street used. Mrs e4 -x� dgd the Commission he had talked about this last time, that ce speaking as a resident of Spear Street he was tired of�it'�ecoming a raceway, and the elimination of these curb cuts would just make Hett easier ought fostor t the his residents of other communities to make it a raceway. neighbors would be in agreement with him and if it would help he would be glad to have them come in to talk about it. Mir. Poger said he didn't think having more curb cuts would have any effect on slowing down traffic. Mr. Morency asked Mr. 3ensen if he was complaining about high sperm or the amount of trarrlc. '!r. Bensen saki both volume and speed. Mr. Morency said Spear Street is becoming a major artery. Mr. Bensen said he hadn't understood that. He added that Allen Road brings the greatest part of traffic up on to Spear Street, making it more convenient for people to switch off. They had asked to have i checof ed tint at certain times of day which did slow it down for a limited period He said the residents are interested in living in a residential area and having some of the benefits other people have in the community. Yr. Poger said that with a road that goes directly from Shelburne down to the university, the only way to stop the large flow of traffic is to have es a physical dentialBareavbygmore addingrtoithecamountrbeing of trafficthat goes less of a residential down there. Mr. Bensen said this was discussed at the last meeting and he didn't think it was a major isa commercial and hightraveling ee traffic aroaSHecollector foundroads anybut then where in residential areas. Mr. Ewing said the fact is that Spear Street eventually is going to be a major artery; traffic is going to increase. commission to increase Ms. Bensen asked if this was the plan of the Planning the traffic onSpear thisstheethought therePshouldgbeoamfewion, they residentswofpthean- ning to generat area talking about it to the commission. Mr. Levesque said he didn't think they were promoting it. Yx. Poger said as development increases along Spear Street, it will take more traffic. Mr. Bensen said anyone making an investment of $100,000 in a ho._ me; ould � normally look toward having his own ace I ess to his property. What they e planning here is sharing their drivewaywith someone else; inves'.ing 04 I PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 127 $100,000 and sharing a driveway. He felt they were exceedingly unique , in doing this. Mr. Levesque felt they could develop a little community there with a col- lector street and generate some action there. Mr. Morency asked if there was any precedent in South Burlington for a collector street, and Mr. Page replied No, not that he knew of. Mr. Poger said no one was arguing about the driveways as layed out here, but he was thinking of the future, so if it gets more and more difficult to get out, some kind of common connecting way should be considered to have only one driveway coming out to Spear Street. It would actually be done by the cooperation of the seven homeowners rather than by the City. in Mr. Bensen described the difficulty -of having several of the neigh bors line trying to get out at once, waiting for a lapse in traffic, where as with several driveways several cars could take advantage of the same lapse in traffic. What was being suggested would be an expenditure but would not serve as any great benefit to the people who live there. He said there was nothing to stop the owner from putting in a turnaround on his own land to save having to backing out onto the street. Mr. Foger said the Commission was trying to plan this intelligently, and he thought it would be reasonable to ask that in the future they woull put in some kind of collector street and having, single access on to spear Strk-et, at the request of the Planning Commission. �~ Mr. Levesque suggested the homes could come out to the scenic turnout;_if the,_ City _pays-for-.he.--turnout__there_wouldi be Rood protection for thoQe lots -plus — which _the_ -City would maintain. Mr. Underwood asked who would want a scenic turn out in front of his house. -Xr, .roger asked about the�r� tion of the scenic turnout, would it be in front of -the 7.1Io s or _between #7 and tthhe-'barn. a should be --- - _ planned along with the layout,, an3 asked_i the City was prepared to build �-scenic turnout with access to these lots as soon as the lots may__be� e- fveloped.- - Mr. Ewing felt the collector should be separate from the scenic turnout. Mr. Poger said he was thinking of a deadend driveway; it would have a single access and the only traffic would be the neighbors; it should be very ad- vantageous to the homeowners and to the City. Ms. Bensen said in this plan the City is asking for two rights of way; one for reservation and the other fora right of way. He asked why one of these couldn't be used for a drive-in parking area. People do stop and look at the view. The scenic turnout shou14--have been put at the Pottery"pr0erty_.,_�x this area -was -mounded up,to destroy the _w._ That shy h_a� heen___ place�ecause it xou�d"have allow unique view w t out disturbing, ny of their landowners because Y the were down' - - _ ..�.. Mr. Page indicated on the map the location of the right of way where a pro- posed future City street might go. Mr. Poger said the other right of way is for access to the other land of the Nowland Farm and the Commission had assumed that the area in the back would have to be developed in a residential pattern and there would be a road then between lots #2 and 43 at some time in the future. Mr. Page said the 60 foot right of way is for access to the lot in back; the one south of #7 is the RO foot right of way. The entire east half of the farm is on•• the cast side of the road; the back 15 or 20 acres is accessible by the 60 foot right of way. It was hoped that there be some understanding that the lots be developed in an intenrated plan, with circulation , etc. 4. a PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBEERR 1_4, 1916 Poger said he xnuld,nat-like.-to-see--those-4ots-subdLvidedxiLhnut, seeing what is going to ha - ' _ -- -- -- PRen__on_the _rest of that aad��aa M_wLb�er o_f the f fir. Planning Commission he would want to know__wha _.Is,,going in there, what is {-t go ng-through there. 6 g _ .` Mr. Page -said the potential uses are pretty limited. The area is bounded on the south by Hort Farm and on the west by a fully developed residential neighborhood, and on the north by the Potter Park and the Potter development. It is zoned R-4 - about 15 acres - and potentially would mean 60 houses. He said he could see no barrier, if the zone doesn't change, to ask these 7 parcels to connect up to that right of way with a single access. He felt the present proposal was a reasonable use of the land and an improve- ment over what has happenedin the past, and he had made the suggestion of four curb cuts for 7 lots. Mr. Poger agreed that.4 is better than 7, but from the planning point of view, since there is going to be an access street to the other 15 acres, he didn't think it was unreasonable to ask those lots to connect up to a single access on this right of way. He said he would rather use a different term than a collector road, he didn't expect public access. One curb cut would help traffic on Spear Street and also benefit the buyers of those lots. He said he had originally suggested that it be developed when the City wishes, but it seems to be more intelligent for the developer to put it in now. it would enhance the property a great deal. He said he did not ,b�Pct to 4 curb cuts at the present tame, with the-rovisicn that this: might be connected at a later time. Mr. Ewing agreed that 4 cuts are fine now but at some. time in the future there should be only one, and asked how can the Commission do that. Mr. Foger said he would encourage the construction of the right of way now, but it would have to be understood by them they would have to bear the cost. Mr. Morency said Chairman Wessel was going to talk to the City Attorney a bou t what things can be written into a contract, and until these opinions are re- ceived he didn't think the Commission should make a decision now. He added that he knew what he wanted. s Poger moved that the Planning Commission approve the Sketch Plan of the Noxland Form Subdivision on Street with th«'�ri hts_ of -way specif'_ed, and that the plan'at some future time to be determine—d b th_e Cityshould _ JRave one curb cut and the —existingdrivewa but that the Commission would_ aPProv2on atem �sis 4 drivewayrs for 7 lots as shown on the lamtemporary basis Seconded by Mr. Ewing. plan. Seconded r. Poger commented the Commission would get some legal advice before the su on hearing,.._ Aph e mo on was vo unanimously for approval. 17L �Jl Pa 9 e e lained the pedestrian easement. i _shown-on_the__ lan.-a-t-the-very back of the property an es n x th the__Natural_esources Committee's trail nlari. Regarding storm -- drainage; he said the concern was for a - very --small Swale on #3, with an easement to be given to the City. Regarding sewage disposal, .14r. Underwood said they have to get State Health Regulations approval on a septic tank system. �gardina the scenic view, Mr. Schuele said Spear Street is being used that xa nou- thou _.��. — - - -.- _----------_ _ g __Y '- - gh not necessarily safely. -L_-- - Mr. Underwood said there is -plenty of opportunity to see the vi?w ',ut t:irnoat is not wante:i in :rout of somebody's a 5. PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1K6 Mr. Levesque said. the right_of xay__could be used as a temporary,thingt -i+ith a better scenic turnout later_up-to the�deYelopes If this right of gray is going to be usC, as a�road, there should be some other place for a scenic turnout. A temporary one would be the interim solution. Mr. Poger said it could be noted somewhere that in any development of the Nowland Farm, that a permanent access would have to be found. Blair Farm Subdivision, orset Street, Revised Sketch Plan It was explained by Marshall McBean they were now submitted a new plan, their re -thinking. One lot is to include the existing house, and along Dorset Street13 lots would go halfway back into the property. There would then be a lot of about 50 acres which they would plan to retain themselves. Me asked the meaning of Mr. Ward's statement in his memo of December 9th that the existing -house is non -conforming to dimensional requirements, affecting any proposed alterations. Mr. Page explained the ordinance limited the cost of any improvements to 25�,' of the existing value of the house. In Item 1 of Mr. Page's memo of December loth, regarding any further sub- division, !fir. McBean stated they would like to keep that back 50 acres any would not have any desire to subdivide that, and asked if it woulr' be possible to have an access str'_p between lots -2 an,-".43 which would neet the letter of the law by giving them frontage on tors -A Street, so 'here would be an access road for that lot in the back and lot .-Y3, anr: then there would be no further subdivision of the piece because they would be living on it. He said he felt the access comments, Item #2, by Mr. Page were reasonable. Mx. Poger asked the location of the north -south right of way, and it was indicated by Mr. McKean on the sketch where this would go. Those two rights of way would come to about 7 acres. "fir. McBean said basically what the Commission has before it is one alterna- tive the developer would be happy with. It doesn't inclu:?e some of Steve Page's comments which came in after the drawing was made. The 250 foot strip could be the access road for any further subdivision. Lots #1 and #2 could share a common access. Mr. Poger told Mr. McBean he would have to come back to the PlanningCom- missionanyway before he could subdivide. If there was a subdivision beck there it would have to be served by a City street. Mr. Poger asked if the houses would still go back on the raised wooded area. "+x. McBean said it would be necessary to talk to the person who builds the house. There might be better drainage and a view there. He explained the strip between lots #2 and #3 would mean #2, #3, and #4 would not be con- nected with the big back lot. #2, #3, and #4 would be individual lots. Mr. Poger said that would mean the back lot would called #5 and they would take 100 feet each from #2 and #3 and would guarantee Lots #2 and j�3 a right of way over that 200 feet. Mr. Poger moved that the Planning Commission approve the Sketch Plan for the Blair Farm Subdivision subject to the foregoingstatements in the Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Ewing. Mr. McBean asked if that motion included Mr. Page's comments. Mr. Poger said Mr. McBean had agreed about the placement of the curb cut. Mr. McBean said he didn't know whether they agreed with MI.r. rage's Point about the 60 foot right of ;ray, the north -south ri#t of way. lli PLANNING CCKMISSICN DECEVBER 29, 1976 onsideE Proposal. for Nowland ?arm Scenic turnout Mr. Page reviewed his memo of December 21st containing his recommendations and a sketch of the proposed turnout area. He said it was not a simple situation; there are a lot of things to be weighed as to where it is, the use of it, etc., and how acceptable it would be. The Chairman asked the Commission if they really wanted to do this now, if this should be negotiated now. He asked if the Commission should take a L position at this meeting to empower Steve or Mr. Szymanski to do something. Y.r. Page recommended there be nothing beyoln-1 su m ng a etter of intent. There is going to be a need for someone such as Mr. Szymanski to approach the Nowlands; he didn't think the Planning Commission as a body should ask Dick Underwood who is the ,son-in-law. ,x. Woolery asked if a letter of intent could be sent without Council being made aware of this. Mr. Page said Council is not aware of this proposal but he will check it out with I-Ir. Szymanski. Xr. Poger asked about the facility being locked at ni(7ht, would this be a chain put up at night. .•r. . ;� ��. s.� i a possibly. then asked if thi:; wo-,:ld be :'-1lberately put out:.'' -de the prop( F—,i "ity strt-et, the riF;ht of way. s. :age °id :.-Jii he hadr Riven some thought tc F.:ttin� scmethi. wh: -h mi�ht.,aIlcx_.for.-the--portion of the turr.ou �iT"the amount the ;ity aoul''. I _be paying--W41ld__be_astronancT`_ e - __..... acquisition o? the rightrniKay : anciLher-.�hig� �"4r. ': ger moved that the Planning Commission authorize ,''r. ?age to`end a letter of -Intent to ROR with the approval of Mr. S_�manski._ Seconded by Mr. Levesque and voted unanimously for approval. �S:hai nan said this was half an idea and before the next meetini, the .;ommission should know more about wfia�� is going to do in order to make a recommendation such as whether this should be one acre of land. 'r. Page said that uas not required for a letter of intent. Mr. Foger felt this could be discussed when the Commission vets into the subdivision process with the Nowlands. '?r. Page said it might be difficult to decide exactly what the Commission wanted at a public meeting. ..'"ter. Poger sugeStedY ?!x..Page see what could be neaoti tea. ,...._- r. Page a'sfced that any thoughts_ -be given to him before the next meeting a he didn't think all the negotations could -,.occur at a public ,r. '"t' f, The proposal'is -for them to set off 7"10ts and have 2 remaining dots. The Chairman said he would hope for the preservations of the barr..now on the property. ,he next lar e_et_in"f the Planning Commission will be .;anuary 11, I977. ':hP Chairman :suggested moving up the date for the report3 from the committees by two weeks, but Mr. roger suggested January 1F.th be used for these reports. ''r. Wessel said he understood the people who worked or, the subliv:sion regu- 1.?'.ions were willing to serve cn these committees. It was noted 'h7t home c0:1m,i ttees cti l l lacked a member of the C1 ty Council. •:h.-, meetllm; *•a.- ,ie,71ared a(i. urne-i .,t IC:5-' D.m. Cl F-rk 6. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1977 7) the deed for a pedestrian asement, and certificate of title must be approved by the City Attorney. 8) a recreation fee of 361.0U is to be paid to the City. 9) the north -south right-of-way shall have the following notation on the final plat: "reserved for future, access purposes" 10) the east -west right-of-way shall have the following notation on the final plat: "reserved for future, potential city street" The final agreement pertaining to this right-of-way must be approved by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque. Mr. Rozendaal abstained and the motion passed with five votes. Public Hearing on final plat application of Mr. Robert Auclair for a 1 lot subdivision off Hinesburg Road Mr. Ernest Auclair The applicant was not in the room, so Mr. Morency said. that because the applicant did not appear, he moved that the public hearing on the final Plat approval of Mr. Auclair be postponed for two weeks at City Hall The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewing and passed unanimously. Public Hearing on preliminary plat application of Mrs Aurora Nowiand for t( an 8 lot subdivision off Spear Street, Mr. Hal Bensen Mr. Bensen made a general presentation. Mr. Rozendaal asked for an explanation of the view restrictions and was told that some houses had been deeded scenic easement and thus, no buildings could be constructed in those restricted areas. Mr. Wessel brought up the question of the scenic turn -out and Y1r. Bensen said that Mrs. Nowland did not want it right in front of her house but that there was plenty of room further down the property. Mr. easel then asked why the other land ._was not_g9jpg_j be subdivided and xas told that the reason that-aome of_the-land, "s beto give __e abuttors_a chance to_ reserve their views. He said that lots 3 & 4 are fqx this purpose - the intent is_.not_w _..to_.iise,_them_na this point, Mr.-Paul-Southerland, an attorney representing the University Of Vermont, asked for more information on the sewage disposal of these lots. He said that the tilt of the land is such that water runs to the UVM Hort Farm and that the soil does not absorb well. He wanted to be Sure that sewage disposal on these lots would not effect the growing conditions on the farm. Mr. Bensen replied that in order to build one needed a building permit and that to get one, he needed percolation tests. No one would be given a permit unless his sewage could be taken care of safely. He said that Mr. Southerland could look at the data if he wished. Mr. Southerland then asked if the 80' reserved strip would become a limited access road that UVM could not use and was told that it would not. At this point, Ns. Harris Abbott asked if the right of way was going to go from Spear Street through the farm to Shelburne Road. After much discussion it D 7. PLANNING COMYISSION APRIL 12, 1977 r. was decided that it looked that way on the Transportation Plan. fir. Morency asked if the Commission wanted to change the Plan and said that if they did, they would have to do it now. He added that they could ask for the right of way now but did not have to use it. .Mr..Southerland then asked about the 15' pedestrian easement. He said that he was afraid that there would be a problem with people going onto the Hort Farm if this were put in and that the University would share the cost of a fence with the developer. The developer flatly refused this offer. fir. Southerland asked that the Commission consider the fact that the farm serves the public and thus merits increased protection. Mr. Rozendaal said that the question would not come up unless and until the land was developed. Mr. Woolery then moved that the South Burlington planning Commission approve the preliminary plat application of Yrs. Aurora Nowland as depicted on a plan entitled, "Proposed 6-lot subdivision of Nowland Property. . .", dates March 1977, drawn by Warren A. Robenstein, subject to the following stipulations: 1) the 80' reserved strip and the 60' right of way be secured by legal assurances to be submitted to and approved cy the City attorney. 2) each pair of lots (1 & 2, 3 & 4, 5 a 6) is to share a common curb cut. 3) wilding permits will be issued only after submission of adequate test pit and percolation data. 4) applicant shall consult with the City Engineer on provisions,for storm drainage. 5) a pedestrian easement shall be deeded to the City, in a location to be determined by the Planning Assistant, in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. 6) the applicant shall confer with the City Manager regarding alternatives for a scenic turnout on Soear Street. 7) Ilie final plat shall show the entire parcel on the west side of the road 8 lots). 8) all_required.improvements,:with the exception of lot corner markers, are -waived. 9) lots 7 and 8 shall be planned and developed as units, with the exception of pro arty transfers for the purpose of enlarKing existing 1 of abuttors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rozendaal and passed unanimously. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:55 pm. Clerk 3. pi-i NTN-G CCY',:ISSICN CClO_ 11, loT7 Develop_�nt to the highest limits was not in Souy. 2urlir tcn's best interests, he felt. \Mr. Xorency thought\that the Commissi9'n had not had much choice in the _titter,. Site lan rcvie, �^e said, is very/sp.ecif is about what t e C;,: omission can and darn^.ot r'v:riew. The thiis that Vessr .��eve.sue and roger were addressing were _ore arx.li able to the Zoni% Board tha the Commission. _f all the conditions suNch as access, iandsCF1'ity� en -in , etc. are met, the Co.:r.�SS�o_^. h_s no recour �. the Commission agreed wi h the feelinbs of Nessrs. FoEer and �evescje but f eI't that .�'s. Xorency was ai o correct. �;essel suggested that _..e ^:,r_.__ss n to '��:�e c�.sely at the nine aEends and partici:ate m,cre tti.E e. Re So slid that tr.o C; n-.oslon`w.=S ceEinn_nE to Eet a handle o_n =;.re .3s--Es and er.'.-:s tn;nE,s would Cet better. :vbl=C ; ecr_na, final a r.1ZC _14 Of .^S. r.1r^ 'a ',oiiland for an 8 lot s:� - divisicn. S:.ear Ztreet !J � * �Srr'j r nit: t :2^'cSEr.tEd : rs. Ncwland and said that t hey :ad cC=plied wit.^ ..._ �1 'Mall 'he IE uests .'-.de at the previous hearing. hereis an 83' reserve strip �3 or a potential connector between Spear St, and S he_bur ne Road, a 601 _r,i ht✓of , y_-cress the Lottom of_t1le_ 6 lots connecting to the 17 acre parcel, and a 17) estrian e=_se-ent. The buyers will have perc tests done, the arolicant will cr `_ss ta__:ed to the City EnEin.eer about stsrz a_E_., `e and the scenic leveloned _turn-c.ut is e_, i,:.e east side of the road and is 1C3' deep and ?00' w e. -he al plat will show the entire : arcel, and lots 7 and 8 Will be planned and F as a unit. He repeated that they had Wet all the requirements and told the Comrfission that Dic1: Spokes had said to tell the or ;ssio=� i.at he was i�satisfied with everything. There will be one curb cut for every two 1.- :aul Sutherland, an attcrr.ey or she university of Vermont, said that Lti':-: had score serious objecticas to this plan. The land which contains the Horticultural Farm is adiacent to this and the slope of the land is such that there is already ponl;ng "here and the University wants to be sure that the sewage systems, wren Tut in, will r.ct allow seepage or pollution which could damaEe the thin Es on the Farm. The;,: regjest the opportunity to review the engineering plans. For the same reasons, t ey would like to look at plans for surface water discharge. Another objection the university has to the plan is that under it, part of the Sort Farm is surrounded by the 80' strip, the 60' ri€ht of way and the 15' pedestrian. easement. They are worried about the effects of increased pedestrian traffic around a crrefully planted area with educational uses and special plants. They already have problems with people in there. 'r.'aen Laurel Fill Scut:. went fir., they shared the cost of a cyclone fence with its developer to seep reo--le out. They would like tc do the same :-ith the 'lowlands. Their final objection is th nt if that 80' strip becomes a road, it will bisect the ort Far_ and do great dr�:.sEe, and it does not seem r.ecessary. The University would like another site for t::e road chosen. Mr. .:ESSel said that enrine'_-rin€ lans were p-:1�11C and that he t:.cur-'.t u.:. CO::I rEV_E'w t.':e=. :E 2Si.Ed i f ^�r_. .']2: tali:ed to the i.O.i.fin�S about the fEr:CC c:. ut}.Er1fi :� Said t%at t*%c .:ad ta:r:ed In `_ nil aGc::t SC== 1C....£wF_r_ Inc bat ::8^_ nct beer able to aE,ree cn e pricE. Xr. . h rlE7�;ans said that wh_-t was t'.ErE now as far as a fence was totally ir.adequbte hrld he said that the U.nivenslty does prsblem wil eo;le find deer Co=1nE: t::rzur--. ".r. 'r„lEh' _._SEC :t t:.8t =,-st of t.^.e :nivercit;i'.. C ecti-_ns did not cc=e fro_ '_:•.e setti nL Cff C; t:_E- :otS, �L't t-cr t,,ey Erese fr--= t}.e city's re ::]Est fcr essc-�r.ts, rE Gri'E r t t t s LC ='E E CCSt E _ e_ .`__ _ :�„uid ..e ur. _fir fon -:r :,�� _,_r. cf a cyc:cne fence arcun d time p.rc erty. Ee added t..at t,.e :.cwland's d` r.;t J 4. �. , � �.-� L•`--,.Ic, Tag :1:-- 1•�:.J �I r.�V like the idea of the connector road there either, and -would be glad tc see it €o sc=.ewhere else. Xr. 4'essel asked about the cost of the fence and was told that it was about S5.85 per foot and that would be about 110,000 for each party. ,r. Fare said that the easement would probably not go in for some time. 2•.'r. Sutherland said that if the fence were put u: tetween the Farm and the 6 lots, the cost would only be about V02,000 apiece. 1•:r. Ewing felt that if the Ccm=fission required a fence along to easement, every landowner could request one and he objected to the Co—ission requiring anyone to build a fence. Mr. . Sutherland said that the University should rst be considered us t another landowner since It erfor=ei a vublic `u'nction and .'Ba q:fren'ent in otut e. gays. ,:r. : cz-er =C:v ed tc ccnc:u1e the "ub'' _c Ynz. }.:. s `„ e= :orency econded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Wessel said that the reserve strip is ;n the Master Flan and that the Ccis- sion should leave it the way it is. :•:r. Xo' rency agreed but felt that alternate locat_,;ns sh-Ould be look:eq for and said t ,.t he would like ;.o kEE'_' the o it_Cns open. .._. ..essel Felt that t e CiV _ r:er could tell when ^e vas ` irg to lock at sewer and drainage systems. a sa-d that the Ccmmissio. wart.e iyt::e pedestrian. easement and that at issue was the fence. Vr. :�'orency suggested moving the location of the easement away fro=. the Farm: and 'Mr. Page thought that could be done if no one objected. Mr. Levesque felt that the fence issue s hculd be resolved between the city an,1 the University. Mr. M.orerCy said th at he was :arty to get the easen Ent and did not think :ors. :lowland s ould have to build a fence. He hoped that it could be placed where it was not a problem to UdM but if not, he felt that the University should talk about a fence and perhaps the city could help fund it. Xr. roger said that the University was an asset to the city but that he was not sure that the two should split the cost of a fence even though he agreed that the Eort.Farm should be protected. '-r. Ewing felt that a developer should not have to build a fence on sc='eore else's land to benefit someone else. Xr. Wessel pointed out that the Ncwlands have given the city quite a bit and that they are happy about that. Ee suggested trying to move the easement and if that failed locking at the fence issue a€ain when the easement went in. Mr. Poger said that he felt there would be a problem and that he would like to know that when it arose, it could to dealt with quickly. He wanted to stress preservation of that green area and thought partial payment of a fence night be good. Mr. Wessel warted to wait until the easement was built. :r. -oger felt that this was a different situation because the Farr is a unique piece of property and serves the public. Mr. Ewing said that other lard served the public and that he would not reco-..:_.Tend paying for a fence. Mr. Woolen' moved that the South Burlington: Flarnir.s Co=ission approve the final plat application of Xrs. Aurora ;Howland for an 2 lot subdivision as depicted cn e plan entitled To:�csed aowiand Property Subd'vislon - STear Street" dray, b,Y : dated 4/27 77, subject to the following st_^ulatic•ns: 1) "he store drainage easement to relocates to the vicipity cf the south lire cf lot =2, kit exact location: to Le deter=ined by ti.e City iaeer. 2) one Flan to be recorded :all show lots 1 - 6 eurve•:ea in their entirety, with the balance of- tKe Fro;.erty shown c1eE_1: with the rotation that "Er1=e1E:- survey of lots 7 and S ha-; nrt been cC_ `Iete,. 3) All corners ..F lots 1 - 6 Shull .save ..eT=t-..e.^.t=arkerc :het. ` 4) No buildini; er--Atf, C :ell '.E issjed unt:l fia'_'^hate .,erc `Ests, and ar-;ate se^t_C P}'�te� �e�1-n5 CC=.1y=?i' withb^ 11C3LiE StLtE Stlz'��T^s are f rI�3I0:+ 1977 sub=itted, unless the municipal sewage system is to be used. ?efore building per=its are issued, the City Engineer will notify the University of Ver^ont and sub--it—the plans for their oerusal. 5) The segment of the redestrian easement along lot 8 may be relocated as long as the link: up to the City parkland to the north is maintained, with the agreement of the applicant and the Planning Assistant. 6) Lots 7 and 8 are to be rlann=d and develcpe _ccch as_:r_ts 7) The final wording of the agreement pertaining to the 83' reserve-3 stri_ shall be as ap=roved by the City Attorney The mction was seconded by `:r. ''orency. Xr. : cger a=e_ ded the motion to re;;d. 8) The Planning Commission reco—ends to the City Council that it ccnsult wit the University of Vermont on sharing the cost cf a fence cn the ;.7T' Tar= a_d_acert to the pedestrian e_se=ent when. the easer_er:t is constr-.:cted. .._ . Levesq.;e seconded the &=e ndzent. Ah,e motion. passed unanir:cusIy. mite Plan Review, 7. - Up Yarehouse, Berard.Drive :'r. Berard located tie property for ti-.e Co=.:.ission. He said that yaste water will go into a gulley and then into the Winooski but that it will be treated and that they will have a permit from the 'rater Resources B:,ard. Fhcsphates taken from the water will be placed in the landfill area. :..r. Foter asked a -out the storm drains and was told that they will not really hook up to them, and that they are about 10001 from the river. :L-. 14'essel was cc.^.cerr.ed about the effect of outdoor liEhtirg on the airport and Mr. Eerard said that they would check it out but did not anticipate a problem. ?'.r. -age said that if there was a the Zoning Ordinance would have a provision, for it. .... Woolery asked if�this warehouse would eventually be a bottling, plant where bottles would be cleared and refilled and was told that that was correct. he asked about truck traffic and was told that there would probably be 5 of their own and 1 trailer truck per day. ;'r. Woolery moved that the South Burlington P1anrinE Co`ission a.:nrcve t::e site plan proposal of M . gene Eerard, for a soda bottling and warehouse facility, as depicted or, a plan entitled ".New 7-Up building", by Gordo. G. Wocds Ass;,ciates, dated 9/77. revised 10/3/77, subject to the following sti^ulations: 1) Bends for landscarirv, as deter=; -Led by the Zorin€ Ad=inistrator, and ^.b WLV P= ut21ity extenslcnsVEs deter=ined b'. the Cly '' ncer, ati _1 't;. 2) Stc= dr ip-'e ^! all be reviewed and -rc:Ed by the Cit' r. ineer L 3) A Eraveled turnaround shall be added to tte end of t e c4V. street 4% tilz F✓7r^`E1 `^ 'Ll eX77 -- C =CT.t::s fro= tK-S dF-te. The =oticn was seconded by i'r. ..eveaqq7e E-nd ;�SsSeC . lte ':�1F^ 'eVlew, Aidltic' t. � •ilk G. Tire, " e; :re- L^ 7.' 1_1Stc _ ".r. :our sLid that the E-id4t-cn a ,ul^. c9 ��. r� Y Jam' end t;.$t the .C1 ... _.. � I cr j�Zi' 1t11 rY LOT 40,4 I (* I� 10 oA tf ov 1-4 i � d I PLANNING C0124ISSION PECOR/24ILOT SUBDIVISION OVERLOOK ACQtiISITION MINbTES 11/80 - 8/81 EXHIBIT "2" 4.- 11W,:JNG CODE-II66IO14 :�JVZ:j; : 11, 1580 ( Xr. Lloyd Kranz said a 40' x 4�" r.:etul buildine; would be erected on the lot. A ;Pavel drive is proposed with ::ome storage for 4-5 duml:sters. ThiLl storage area will have a stockade fence around it. A design for the septic system will be sub:aitted. Ltorn drninnoe v ill be throu(,h a swale at the rear and will go to the street in ti.e front. Curbs alid 1;avine cannot be :ut in this year, but it will -jc bonded. The street will bta accepted by the city when the 1%st lot i.s develo,;ed and the street is to city standards. The buildinE will be a i-..raje. Very little maintenance and no office work will be done there. Xr. Woolery moved � the south RurliniArin rl nnni n;;�;nmmi atii or. Z,,jyrove the site clan of Richard acid Jusan 3arnier for a terminal for rubbish rer,oval trucks on Lot 15 in Berard Industrial Parr, as depicted on a 'lan entitled "Lot 15, .iite Plan for Richard Barnier" ire' tired by Ronald R. O'3rv: n last rev se 11 11 r l_ subiect to the followin, sti-ulations: 1. Outside stora,e includia dumn)sters sh:.11 be liwited to the fenced story e area indicated on the site ;lan. the fence shall be stockade. 2. Bondin - or 3 ro'•rin to burety coverin•- the re'•ainder of ctreet imrrave ,ents Across the front of Lot 15 -h ll be, rovided oy the developer of t'^e i.noustrial rk rior to the i! sugn ce of'_ n builair r:At lPrdac3.:i t: (. :)e •o•.tidea 4. T:.is r.:val ex, i rk•s ir. 6 months. 5. The septic syste� ,,iall be Al:..rove? )y t:,e City ten'Tiro :er and noted on tale ,l.n of record. :;r. i.evezque sec nded the Motion, which ; assed un-nimously. i.ctch review of apJ ,lication by R. recor °^ P 143 unit rUJ, consisting -ulti-faizil and of ;in 1c f it unite located on .e ';o.al< :d �,n tiie west side of tar Street ..r. iagc showed the Co.:.Wis.;ion tiie !rj:(jscs 1::.y.Jut. :e r.;;Lad tilut tile. vac"i.it 4 1%2 acres in the middle of t.le area wou Ld� be deeded to the 4 homeowners oil :;_near ."trey>t. :ach would havt a 350' Strip ti!u i -:1t Of Is lot. Tih�t transaction i.; : e1 :r) t from this suedivision. i,:r. :=, L;e rioted that the land era:- coned Rl in a strir 60j' i :.cl, from the \ :1treet r.Nd that the rest of the lir,i was R4 (20 1/? ►-ores Rl and ?;' 1/2 acres :;r. 1 af;e sari there would be a collector street as Yri.:.Lry access. The reason f,,r the curves in this stro:rt is the to::ovralaly of the site. The develo. era iior•e to ::rovide i'or sewn,:-e runnin to tines in the street. They have nlso show.-, the collector road so that it is c ,j::,)ntible with ttia t., 4t-r;i;st er.tension of Avr.:)ue .;lrnned for t,,e future. ':ed -!i:rt`.er the 1 of i n the .: i arec :l : !' r1 7r"E't 'i:. ' f tilt road Uiul WaS told tr. It t .:'�':2 ?b(,Ut 1i �aCrf . ..:art are `j 40 lots ii.rthe :il area )ind there are ,lot tiller than lots in the ic4 area. ='.r. :`age said :1:. fi.... ...<d IOOS(A at t11E .,r. .•o6vr i(,lt the �orC:AsS ;io:l h' -i :u:j a ,: ;' _lat t'!r )nir.�. wi)« rt tr,(J :re - tslat t!.i: a try !.%.i fo1. al _ � ,1 ! i:,:� t. a. ;acuL t ..:ut ;it ! :lt t.t: .ct •'..::: :c ; i', .:.. t.^,e st .e:je the : u (yet MI'd it 1.'. `wouldyc:ieck' into t :Nt. .'fi2 ^('^ ]1C .rrlook thrit t':e cif Y 'In7 C )i1q1 Q this Are:. vt4, ALSO .,P!It :):It i ';,,i ..r. ^it .r. to c:. c ii,ta t.u:t. It su.- ostcd t.!,,at the cit tajin, so.ae 1--id for sue!. an r)v,-rlo-.)k ir. liou r,cr.."atiol, 1,C.C. a-,ked t'.,:-tt tr-il in tl,-4.-; ar(-% bo drawr, ira ri 'lie it roi, :-rty. tile Ji ani*..,, I a,:e SiLll !it '--e rt.o%v.2 unit:. ..r. "'06fi, ,ritjon. 1, c. uai "h(:, lot:-- to pr,.1servi t"... from, road. �lc I,o'L:; t e- f 1 t t of tj,jler� '.ay 4 ed I. -' -ther L: CUJ.-- in that 111'e—1 S%,J.-Id cjrinect to that ss t1re t� A cinroction fai I to the west wa.; discussed aloo. r. :'rqe noted t`.at !'!I --: sants hay 'iaa :.Ot been ded c or ;7cce!-:'Lvd Ly tii( city, tl.c% have no rces.-,, t,- it It that that ,3t2,, (,�t -,v�s -,.11cj.qecl to t, private as ex,eri::.(:nt fic-, 1 year r,,3 t e U -nd t!ia. at thE= end of t.at yer.r tr4'-, 2,ul(..-J that it ublic 7hey :iow c,-,n.,,,idei, it ii ,ubli,- :-ttreet. :r. a.�e said ttiv .::hi::r(.-:1 w,-)ul,.: h-ve 60' rii,ht of wny and -:Live::.ent cu� :,S and storm .�i An rit of w, a - aerl .r 0vided f,-)r the y —re .vt-.nu(, c).ter,:3iun, 4 E,.y it 1,1c O-Cal 1 ed " -.!i rc 1 i t;.-, 4 c n t k 2 t 1 er, out rec !.J, F- a 4 4 i d t., "j I w! Vr cc: vei��, ed nE.J t t - i t 'L:,c-, city i,i tii:-, -;1-ei and nu r, u c c, .section of [)C.,-;t -:.,:-.I,a to ;-U!-n ja c clu ?7,1 L f Sp t"It- r c t ae.;.th j-, more t r, '0 -1 a-.. ,It r. t c 0 t 6 a t t u th,: j C. r. qj c r f e,d th"', t t-,- —C 1 1 L, L; IL i C t c .sere 0 t C." C C C, I r iU 7; IJ LA 1.1 IL t t city will Jo L; C:ll-,- '2ity fjij n L 4 ot A tli n, A..-o, i.- t,:! t i t -c::1ed I it be City C n , or, .,-;,d i W t t v c, d i., -- t t r rf- v ,I C 'I, I r t h: v'! ,.,,-k 2, PLANNING COMMISSIOR JANUARY 27_1981 2. This approval expires in 6 months. �. It is the Commission's intention to look at the traffic counts the meeting_followin& their submission to the Planner. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion. Mr. Mona wanted to see the new drawing that would have to be submitted and he also wanted to look at the traffic figures which would be submitted. The motion carried unanimously. Continuation of application by R. Pecor and Associates for preliminary plat approval of a 143 unit planned unit development on Spear Street The City Attorney had submitted an opinion on this application, dated 1/26/81. Mr. Page said the plan had been dropped by 7 units to 136 and there will be 57 single family lots and 79 multi -family units. The Pheasant Way access point has been revised for better sight distance. There are now no more lots in the Rl area than could be there if they were to grid them off. They have 20.6 acres and propose 22 lots in Rl. They used-tthe_-.40,000 sq. ft. size set forth in the 'Zoning Ordinance. The access for the multi -family portion has been changed - it is wider now. It will be 20' of pavement plus shoulders at least on one side of each lane separated by a burm. A 60' right of way to Spear Street has been shown. Mr. Page said 7 of the lots were bisected by the zoning line and there is more than enough usable land to site the homes entirely in the R4 zone. He added that the owner could also, under conditional use, extend the boundary 501. Mr. Spitz said the fire chief felt the new plan for the multi -family units was an improvement, but he still had some reservations. Mr. Page showed a conceptual drainage topo map. They plan to bring most of the drainage to the northerly Swale on the land. This feeds into the UVM pond. They plan to divert most of the drainage to the other swale on the UYM property where it will follow that swale to the city parkland and beyond. Mr. Doug Fitzpatrick felt this would improve Meadowood at Spear drainage in the spring. The issue of a scenic overlook came up and 14r. Spitz said he had checked into it. Coming from the north on Spear Street, the first good view is at the entrance to Stonehedge, but it cannot be seen from a car. Farther south the views are good where lots have not been built on yet. R*gasding-t-he `proposed.-f-uture streetoverlook ,,,might -be ---next to --the right - of- way-on-the_nor-th.-edge of --the property, but for a _good view one might need-2-4'lots. fir.- Spitz noted that -'the right of way -was--80`--wide-and- Tie -mentioned- a---turn-off-~lane on one or- both -aides of that ma-jo7--road.f—After climbing the ridge to the east of Spear Street, the views are good almost anywhere along there, but a lot of land would have to be protected to keep the view. Mr. Walsh favored more than a turn-off lane for the overlook, feeling people should be able to get out of their cars. Leaving lot ff22 undeveloped until there was a pull -off area on the other side of the road was mentioned, or lot #22 could have the area at the top of it. Mr. Spitz mentioned that when the road was built, there would be a turn-off area at a major intersection. Mr. Milot said he proposed to build 49 units without going through the Pheasant Way access unless the city and owner of that road agrye that it will be public. At that point, if Pheasant 'day is still private, he will put in the other access so he can build the multi -family units, if the Commission wishes. It can tell him to use a private street at that point, or another Access 3. PLA"ING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 1981 to Spear Street. The 49 units will exclude those on Pheasant Way. Mr. Milot le reali.eed that the access to Spear Street might later be abandoned. Mr. Ewing did not want to give approval for a temporary access at this point and he said that the Commission could later deny it. Mr. Poger added that the Commission might refuse to allow access either through a private street or a temporary access. Asked about sewers, Mr. Hilot said he had a 15' easement to Pheasant Way and they would tie to the private manhole in that sewer system. Mr. Ray Tremblay expressed his view that the proposal contained too many units and would block Spear Street views as well as causing problems with noise, increased traffic, etc. Mr. Bill Hosick asked whether the amount of water and salt in the swale would be increased and was told the amount of water would not increase, but the salt content probably would. Mr. Peter Collins, representing some area residents, asked whether the diverted water could be brought into the Swale behind Meadowood at a point farther west than had been mentioned. He suggested bringing the water into the Swale downstream at the end of Meadowood. He added that Meadowood residents would hire their own engineer to look over the drainage plans of this development. It was hoped that this engineer, the City Engineer, and the developer's engineer could discuss drainage at some forum other than a Planning Commission meeting. The City Engineer will be the Commission's final authority, however. Mr. Bob Seczerbak pointed out an area behind Meadowood which might flood if more water were added to the swale above that point. Kr. Merve Gochman felt tha,00allowing density of this kind, some of the beauty and value of this land would be lost. He was told to urge the City Council to spend some of its open space money to buy land to preserve the views. Mr. Page noted that they could have 8 lots on Spear Street instead of the 5 they were proposing, which would block much more view. He added that this development contained single family lots, which are in demand in the city. Mr. Collins reiterated his 4 concerns, expressed at the last meeting. He said the Meadowood residents would prefer a second access to Spear Street to access to Pheasant Way and he felt there would be enough distance between the cuts to be assured they were safe. They are still concerned about drainage and salt and erosion and the density is too great, they feel. Mr. Collins stated that if there was a conflict in the Zoning Regulations between lot square footage and the unit per acre figure, it should be resolved by using the more conservative figure. He also was concerned that the open space requirement would be waived in this area and the money put toward land not in the vicinity. Mr. 4ilbur Newton felt there was a lot of runoff to this area from east of Spear Street and he felt the sight distance on Spear Street of the proposed new access road would not be great enough. Mr. Spitz said a preliminary look had shown that it was good enough for a 50 mph design speed. Mr. Smith felt the change from narrow lots to square lots here would change the character of the area. Mr. Ewing moved to close the public hearing and Mr. Mona seconded. All were in favor. It was noted that the proposal could be discussed now or next week. The items to be discussed include another Spear Street entrance, drainage, density, open land donation rather than a recreation fee, and the problem of the PRD and whether the Commission favored this type of development. Mr. *Iona felt drainage could not be discussed tonight. Regarding a second Spear Street access, Messrs. Ewing, Poger, Woolery and Mona favored access to Pheasant 4. PLANNING COMMISSION JANULRY 26, 1981 Way instead. Mr. Walsh was not sure, saying he did not strongly object to a �j Spear Street access and Mr. Jacob agreed. Mr. Levesque favored another Spear Street entrance. The Commission was thus 4-3 in favor of Pheasant Way. It was noted also that if access were given to Pheasant Way, that would provide a second access for Meadowood... . Mr. Woolery asked Mr. Spitz to find out what he could about where the court action regarding Pheasant Way stood. Regarding the recreation fee/land, Mr. Spitz said about 2 acres would be involved in this case. It was noted that lots 22-24 comprised about 2 acres of land. Regarding density, Mr. Mona felt the real issue here was esthetics, not density. Mr. Poger felt that having 7 lots on Pheasant Way would provide a better transition. He asked the members whether they preferred long narrow lots on Spear Street, or these wider lots with more room between the houses. Mr. Ewing favored more room between houses but Mr. Jacob felt there should be large backyards for family activities. Whether having a second row of houses behind the first row would block the views was discussed. It was decided to discuss this application more next week, since the hour was late. Application by GBIC for sketch plan review of a 50,000 square foot building for light manufacturing located easterly of Hinesburg Road and southerly of I-8 Mr. Peter Judge represented GBIC. He said the proposal was to construct a manufacturing facility building on the land formerly the Wright farm. This is the first choice location of the client. Application has been made to rezone the land. The firm is a semi -conductor manufacturing company also involved in telecommunications. It is a high technology firm. The present plan is for a 30,000 to 60,000 sq. ft. building with an initial employment of up to 300 people. It might later expand to 100,000 sq. ft. Mr. Trudell said the site was 161 acres on the east side of Hinesburg Road. A Champlain Water District water main runs near the site and there is sewer on Kimball Avenue. The site is partially under the airport approach cone. Water will come from the CWD main and sewage will go to a pump station and force main, under the Interstate and to Kimball Avenue. There is an easement across the Digital land for the sewer. Mr. Poger noted that the proposal would involve extending sewers into the Southeast Quadrant, and if that were done, the pipes would have to be large enough to service an area larger than just this plant. Mr. Trudell said that would be considered. On the conceptual plane, any building expansion would be to the south. 250 parking spaces are shown, which is over the requirement. Storm water will go to a retention pond and then into a swale. There will be burns along the entrance road, which will have good sight distance in both directions on Hinesburg Road. It will be about 1500' long. The building will be one story, about 15-20' tall, with office space in a second story over part of the building. The firm intends to retain all the acreage now and Kr. ioolery warned that if they decided to subdivide the land, it might be difficult to get approval. Common ownership of the land with two buildings on it would be no problem. It was also noted that swales and drainageways on the property could not be disturbed. Mr. Mona noted that when the Commission had considered this area for industrial uses, it had thought about shared access for all the land. He 0 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRIIARY 3. 1981 Mr. Painter favored the entrance road being on the north side of the Wright farm. Mr. Ewing moved to close the public hearing._ Mr. Levesque seconded and the motion carried 7-0. Mr. Mona moved to exclude the 3 residential lots owned by Wiles and Painter from the proposed zone change. Mr. Walsh seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mona moved to approve the zone change and send it to the City Council. Mr. Levesque seconded and the motion passed 7-0. Stuart Ireland for sketch plan review of 18 additional multi- fomiiv units d units are existinv) on a 3 acre parcel south of Kennedy Drive and west of Dorset Street Mr. Poger stated that from experience with ks. Ireland in the recent past concerning the private/public street and the fact that the Planning Commission laid clear obligations on him which he did not follow, he would not vote in favor of any project of Mr. Ireland's at this time. That is his personal statement. Mr. Ewing asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether the Commission could hold up this project in consideration of past developments of Pis. Ireland's in the city. The City Planner was directed to ask that of the Attorney. Mr. Ewing asked whether the Commission wanted to look at the sketch plan before it obtained the opinion. Messrs. Levesque, Jacob and Woolery wanted to look, Messrs. Walsh, Mona and Ewing did not, and Mr. Poger broke the tie, telling the representative, Mr. Blanchard, to put the sketch on the board. Mr. Spitz showed the location on a slide. The total parcel is about 3 acres but it has a lot of setback restrictions on it. It was noted that sight distance on that hill was not good. Mr. Blanchard said the existing building would be remodeled inside and fixed up outside. Mr. Ewing asked that the Planner review the record to see if there is a mutual curb cut agreement with the property next door to this. Mr. Levesque felt this area was an important entrance to the city and that the land in the area should have been purchased to maintain the esthetics of the area. He did not seen any logic in the R7 toning of the area. Mr. Blanchard said the proposed units could not be seen from the Interstate ramp into the city. Mr. Woolery did not feel the parking spaces nearest the road would be useful because of sight distance and he did not know where snow would be stored. He added that the Commission has been requesting 2 parking spaces per unit. Continuation of application by P. 2ecor and Associates for preliminary plat approval of a 136 unit planned unit development on Spear Street Mr. Spitz passed out a letter from the applicant dated February 3, 1981. Mr. roger read part of it. Mr. Poger felt the number of lots on Pheasant Way should be reduced. On the question of long vs. short lots, he preferred fat ones, so he did not object to the layout. Mr. Mona took the opposite view. Mr. Walsh felt that if the second row of houses was below the drop in the land, he did not object, but if the second row was on the slope, he had a problem with it. Ar. Ewing did not feel tae secund row would be seen. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3. 1981 Mr. Jacob did not object to a second entrance on Spear Street. Mr. Poger, however, strongly objected to that and Mr. Ewing agreed with Mr. Poger. Mr. Levesque said he would agree if he could see an accident ratio in the same distance. Mr. Mona noted that physical access to Pheasant Way would still be possible. He added that if, on lots 16, 17, and 18 the city could control the height of the roofs it could guarantee that they would be no higher than the pavement level on Spear Street. He mentioned a 3-D building envelope. No one objected to the mixture of single family and multi -family units. Drainage will be determined at final plat. Mr. Poger suggested 7 lots on Pheasant Way. Regarding the "paperclips", Mr. Spitz noted that if the City Engineer were not satisfied with thin, they could be conventional cul-de-sacs and he suggested a note that they were still to be reviewed. Mr. Walsh raised the issue of the scenic overlook. He noted that lots 22-24 constituted about 2 acres of land. which is about the amount which can be required. He stated that the land on the other side of the road could still be acquired in the future and he strongly favored asking for the 3 lots for a scenic overlook. He wanted an actual parking area where people could get out of their cars. If that were done, Mr. Poger said, he would want access to be from the new street. Mr. Levesque pointed to 4 lots on Spear Street where the city could blacktop in its right of way for an overlook. He added that tre city could have bought this land for an overlook, but it did not, so he did not feel the burden should be on the developer, but Mr. Poger noted that the developer had an obligation to provide land or a fee. Mr. Jacob favored the view on the other side of the road and felt two were not necessary. Mr. Ewing asked if the city had the right to make the choice here and Xr. Spitz replied that they had the right to require land for recreation and he felt an overlook would fit in that category. He felt this location should be studied carefully and noted that lots 22-24 might not be enough land. Mr. Poger said the applicant could be asked for final plat to submit an area for an overlook. Messrs. Walsh, Woolery, Ewing, Poger, and Mona favored requesting land for the overlook. Mr. Mona recommended that it be between the street and the northern boundary, depth to be determined. Mr. Woolery wanted a maximum of 7 lots on Pheasant 'Tay. He felt there should be a connection to that street. He liked the right of way to Spear Street but felt that if it were ever built it should be able to be closed and should not become someone's private drive. He liked the paperclips. He felt the drainage was the more serious question and said he would not vote for final plat at all until all the engineers came up with a solution which would solve the problem and is all right with the city and developer. And the people at Meadowood, added Mr. Poger. Mr. Woolery felt the retention pond was a good idea. He thought the city needed a position on streets and utilities even though the developer~ had a private agreement with the owner. He did not want to see quite as many multi -family units as were shown here. Mr. roger noted that the fire cnief would have to review the entrance to the multi -family portion before final plat. Mr. Ewing noted that the multi- family portion had not been studied in detail yet and he was not sure approval should be given for that part yet. Mr. 'roger noted that the number of units might have to be reduced. Mr. Mona also favored fewer lots on Pheasant clay and said he would like a more even split between the single lots and the multi -family units. Mr. Spitz said the last lot on Pheasant a*ay was narrow and had the pedestrian trail easement on it. he also noted that the road might be moved and said pernaps theybelow the through road should be reduced by one. He also noted I" fs PLANNING COMMISSION 5• FEB UARY 3, 1981 that there was some Nowland land which may be swapped for parkland. If it is not, the parcel is landlocked and a right of way needs to be left for it. Lot 26 cannot be developed until the parkland question is resolved. approve Mr. Koolery moved that the South Burlington PlanningCommission the preliminary plat application by R. Pecor and Associates for a 136 unit planned residential development as dep eted on a Jan entitled "Howland Proper, Preliminary Plan," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, dated 1%81, subject to the following stipul,ions: 1. The intersection of the new street with Pheasant Jay shall be relocated southerly so as to line up between houses across the street. Adequate vertical sight distance shall be maintained. 2. There shall be no more than 7 lots on Pheasant Way. 3. Improvements shall be made along Spear Street as necessary to provide adequate eight distance for the new northerly intersection. 4. The acceptability of the two short loop streets shall be re-examined after complete drainage information is available. 5. Uncurbed private streets shall include a three foot wide r�a_ve1 shoulder on each side. 6. A second entrance shall be provided to serve the multi -family units if advised by the fire chief and approved by the anni Comm ssion. 7. Adequacy of hydrants_ and access for fire protection shall be reviewed prior to final plat approval 8. Private walkways shall be provided to serve the multi -family units. 9. Utility easements shall be provided, as necessary to serve adjacent pro ertiee along Spear Street 10. A 60 foot right of _way shall be provided to connect with the rAjKht of v_a►L reserved_in the previous Nowland subdivision to the north. This right of way may be reduced to a 20 foot pedestrian and utility to the land with no public road easement if alternative access is provided frontage in that previous subdivision. 11. Previously shall be revised in _recorded agreements for the proposed future city street - -- - - - accordanee with the new location as-ahown on this plat. 12. The final plat submission shall include the following data in addition to a1.1_normally required information: a. A traffic study containing existing_ and projected_ traffic- - - -- -- volumes for Spear Street between Allen Road ana-Swift Street. b. Proposed phasing schedule. 13• Connections of all proposed public streets and utilities and .--- ---------- - ublic facilities drivewa a serving single family lots shall be to existing p have or to streets and utili�'ies for which o�'f�rs of dedication to the City been recorded. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1981 14. Lots 22, 23, and possibly 24 shall be dedicated to the city outright. for a scenic overlook. Mr. Ewing seconded the lotion. i Mr. Woolery was not sure #6 was needed, feeling that the proposal was i plenty. In #5► the intention was to say that there should be a burin in the middle, 20' of pavement on each side and 3' shoulders on each outside edge. Mr. Jacob questioned 12b, which, before the motion was amended, read "Proposed building envelopes for all single family lots". He was told the envelopes were to protect the view of the lake, but he felt a lot of these lots would not have views anyway. It was suggested to ask for envelopes only in the R1 zone. Mr. Jacob also questioned 12e, which is the present 12b. Mr. Poger felt it was important to know the traffic impact of the development. The words "3D" were added to 12b before the amendment and a proposal by Mr. Mona to replace all single family lots with lots 16-28 failed. Mr. Mona then moved to include lots 24, 25, and 26, Mr. Walsh seconded, but Messrs. Levesque, Woolery, Ewing and Jacob voted no and the motion failed. Mr. Mona then moved to include lots 16-21, Mr. Walsh seconded, but again the vote was 4 nos, by Messrs. Ewing, Woolery, Levesque, and Jacob. Mr. Levesque then moved to eliminate 12b. This motion was seconded by Mr. Jacob, and carried with Messrs. "oger, Levesque, Jacob, and Ewing voting yes. 1�r. foolery did not want building envelopes on all lots. Mr. Mona opposed a development which would contain more multi -family units than single lots, even if the single lots had to be smaller to even the ratio. ter. Poger disagreed, feeling the development moved nicely from Meadowood lots to multi -family units. He was not sure he could support that many units, but saw nothing wrong with the split. Mr. Jacob asked the meaning of #13 and was told any utilities in Meadowood that this would connect to would have to be offered to the city. The amended motion passed with Messrs. Jacob and Mona voting no. Mr. Jacob disagreed with many of the stipulations imposed and Mr. Mona did not feel that esthetics had been addressed enough here. Review annual and capital budgets Mr. Spitz went through his 1/23/81 memo on the budgets. Mr. Levesque asked which city streets were proposed for widening vs. the cost of a sidewalk on Hinesburg Road. Mr. Ewing felt that widening Williston Road at Gaynes was a more important project than some before it and he suggested it be moved up. He felt there would be serious problems with traffic if it were not widened until 1985• Mr. Poger felt the Council had been derelict in putting off the addition of a single north -bound on ramp at Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, and I-89. Mr. Ewing did not agree that was more important that widening at Gaynes. Mr. Mona moved to urge addition of the ramp, Mr. Jacob secondedand all voted aye. Kr. Jacob felt money should be in the budget for sidewalks. Mr. Poger did not know why sewers for Country Club Estates were in the budget and he called it a piece of fiction and said it made no sense.-. Mr. Ewing wanted to remove riiliston iioad widening at Dorset street and Hinesburg Road and Mr. Woolery agreed the city would not gain much with a 5th lane. Other business Meetinghh hh plans Me nong wiuththe firwayedefi f w4s .proposed, and .Jr. Spitz said the airport The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 Pm- Cler!- I j. PLANNING COMMISSION JUNt 23, 1981 3. An offer of dedication for the pedestrian eRsement shall be provided pricer to issuance of a building: Hermit. 4. A complete septic design shall be provided prior to issuance of a building peryit. 5. A revised final plat, containing, required changes from stii:ulations 1 and 2 shall be.recorded within 90 days. `,r. Jacob seconded the motion. Before the motion was amended, stipulation 174 contained the words "pre;)ared by a professional engineer" after the word "design". Xr. Levesque objected to those words and :-Ir. Ewing agreed a system could be designed by a non -engineer just as well &a an engineer. The words were deleted. The motion carried unanimously. Preliminary discussion of a•)plication by Dery Brown for a revised Stonehed«;e final artproval related to a land swap to create additional city parkland ..r. Spitz exi;lained thgt there would be a find swap in the area which would crf.nte ,n rectani-ular :'nark i:. the . r(la. ierr,l funds are in, :l:ed in tt1F' r^ ir:C'. :Ir. ;itZ P..x;:l'..rlt'. thi + l .n.i would ;), tr dta_ betwee.; _.rows: and :Jowlard 'and that would in r:he •:tonchedge I.fty. at. Mr. :'aL-e said there wo.:ld a rearrr.nL;e3,ent of the rrcvlous 1 :%its, utilities and roadways. Sewer will be tied to Andrews Avenue. The general concept of utilities ai,d streets is the same. The water line will be taken fro^ near cluster A and tied into the existing main in the cul-de-sac. As far as roads, they will continue the concept of pha:os 1 and 2. They will be publicly owned and maintained, 24' wide in a 60' rifht of way, without curbs. Access for emergency vehicles will ce im,,roved because the rsr�:inU areas .re looped to the main round, excel)t in clu ter H. There will 4e one covered and one o,.en parkins, s;:ace per unit and the units will be t::e townhouse type on two or three levels. Mr. 'Foolery asked about screening around the boat and trailer Y rkin,. and was told Mr. -age saw nc problem with that. ?'r. ' ona asked if the rv-mbers had any problems with tine proposal n,nd none were raised. ..r. :alsh asked about extra ;.,3rkinr; s-paces over the two per unit nand was tolr: there was a disagreement between the Mann"r and fire chief ;>n the need .`or t at. :'r. 'Iona asked zt.:cut a scenic overlook but r. Spitz did not think it could be required. ..r. "cClary, a resijent of the "r clu::ter, did not object to the 1 );-out but '.:(-?:ed attention would be paid to storm drainage. ile was na;:py with t.",c Otl:t_r bu_-ines:=. r. itz raid tt:ere would be no meeting )n July 28. c.•ted t`.:nt n site vi-it had bet�n .;;ale to the are;i t,"hin-i F• and it wrla t::e c,;irli on ;i' . ea:: rs. :'.), tar , sw? nr anJ hire:;r l f .J' t:l: 1�" .ail'?'. 'n'i:. C( .1: 4:;t1C .:d LLF'O, .'!..1:t !'.,.. l:at:: tl.tJ ar•Ca't .'c:._B. .IP f•. 1'. t..t? .._.'l.... ! C'!'.7.,,: ..1.'.:1:r:iiirj�h� ...:U!....I br. C,.._.... ..� .:nii1 tLE: lilts C;Ju:lcli. .: ?nti11C:. he.:.i �i ...t':Ili)1-:r, `�:i)lil:, be Q:..1C'.;5....:, f••d 0 PLANNING COMMISSION 5• JUL: 14, 12bl Xr. Spitz said that if any of the church land were to be developed for revidential usF:s, it: would be desirable to have a combined prc_;osal now, because it would be h:!rd to develop the tack of the church land independently. Ttie developers pro;,ose a concrete walkway ttrough the :levelo^mert. :r. .:pit, felt there :should be a sidewalk on the Hinesburg _'load frontage includin,,; the section in front of the Goodrich land. "r. 'doolery agreed that tKis applicant had a sidewalk resconsibility. '.:r. :'ona felt it should be on the opposite side of the road. As far as density, A:r. Spitz said this was addressed in secticn 6.7"^2c of t%e zoning regulations and he read 6.1^2c, :i.ctions 1-4. it was noted that the applicant had open space on both si;ies of the unito. They also do not object to part of the pedestrian system- goini; thrcu-h the property. There is enough room in the sewage treatment z1arit to handle the development. Mir. Ewing felt that widening might be needed on Hinesburg :Road. Xx. Alona felt the density on the property was too high. 7r. Jacob wanted to look at the site. Ar. :evesque saw no density problem with exits on Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg; Road and with a sidewalk en Hinesburg Eond. r.r. Ewing felt there were too many units, becau:se ,art of the land it :Indevelonable. I:r. Woolery felt that if the building the fire chief t:iin,Ks i.- oriented wrong; were :;hortened, t}tat wcu7 ^.atisfy }rim. ::e felt were t4,,'It an. 11 i.f they were broke :I.. :nd rcorlente?d, it ..i,-ht dl'i nt:t. have t:iat .Touch f.--,i h:,,w wE'li x.;.:,:1 :.1Y.•? tr.e '.,rite:• away %ndhe .."old tIin.t if t.'. � �ui1t to thr, :ax-':,A,: ai d the drain did not work, it would be cad :'or everyone. He felt i;t+rn aps the units could be cut down by 6 to 16. :r. :ora creferred fe:,er. r. doolery moved to continue tiie public ^Paring for zreliminary plat as;roval of 'Winding Brook nark until next week, July 21, at 7:3C rn at City Hall. I-ir. Levesque seconded the motion and all. voted I'a ,orabl.;. A,).),', ication by tray Pecor for final �)lat approval -f a 1;4 unit sul:divisi or; c)n.;isting of 55 single-family jr„f 7) :::ulti-f3ai1'; '.snits .'tr. ipltz said preliminary approval had i;een ,-i,,ren on rel,)r-,.':ry ', w:th 14 `:ti.,ulp.tions attached. :':r. ?ar;e went through the stipulations to anew the c^a•ices -.ride wince. T::e intersection of the new street with Pher,sant gay is now about 2� • ' from spear .street and there i:3 adequate sight -distance. Thie will. also :1e-tn that traffic from that street will im-,act only one lot on the :street. Lots on eheasant way have been reduced to 7. :right distance was mearurNd in the field and is adequate for speeds between 40 and 6i- mph. ,;n ;t4, the two "paperclips" have been eliminated and sta iard city cul-de-sac3 been put in. #5 pertained ..o: tly to the I.rivate drive in the :-ulti- fsmily section, and this has been done. :):r. are said thy: deveio (%r.9 maintained that the dual driver constitute-d two access pinta tr. the m-ulti- f i%ily units. i•ir. i'age saw no ,r,,ble:., with �7. r:6 has been done. The walkway: are pavallel to tiip dual drives. ii has been done, 'ts :ias :r. 'aj, ..:id they did .. it -..an to Z.c to the Yea.icwood I:t,•,;c. _. :A . will be collected by gravity acid ) nort:: and over iI'r:•. fr;,l,r'rty, t>r:.'.into al: it t}ie nroth end of rireen X'ountairi Drive. T.-,e inte__," _ .';s tAor": of s' .'et-'. Wli1 •.t' euruea, wit:. .•LUi.. :I'..!a:... Uin t I': r .I. !t... ] ..l J11 ..0 Ltit: ;1CCt•..., t.. ..:ra. ...., ij r r�....... .. '!. .. -. -... t.!:r. center W !i!l •�.!r. 2'. ,.. di. 1:. , f; t :. '�' tom. _'�.' ... ..u.!:. ...r: '1L'Ve•I:J1r?!' .;?.•1:. it..t. ulti..a..'t:�_ ..aria ,... _ ,•t .. ., :y, Lut until :itit �. :I: , �.:i: iJtia :' :lcct'f!:, w, f•t'- 6. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1.981 The access is shown as 24' wide with a 6J' right of way. Mr. Milot said theostipulation was that they have an alternate acces.n on a city street or a street with an offer of dedication, and Pheasant Jay is neither. This means they cannot use it and the only other alternate is Spear atreet. They would remove the access if and when Pheasant '.Jay can be used and will bond for that. Mr. Page said a 1.7 acre site was shown for a city park. There are 19 lots in the R1 zone and there will be 134 units instead of the 136 originally proposed. Mr. Milot was opposed to the public park in a Private development because he felt it would be hard to police and he did not want people gatherin,3 here and disturbing the residents. Mr. Fitzpatrick, engineer for the project, said there was a culvert under Spear Street and that water will be brought through this land. The drainage will be able to handle full development across the street. The multi -family section will have a separate system. The sanitary sewer will start 400' from Pheasant Way and go to Green Xountain Drive. Crcnsing the WM land has been discussed, but the board of trustees must also discuss it and they will not meet until fall. There is ample sewer capacity for t!i�: aevelo-ment. '':r. crild he ;ir'r:t cj with tile fire chief dint the d'.].';'' 'Iris - t ',.lh:It wax meant by a sea.nd acces!,. They feel it :ihould be a loc^t.Gn 'ind shou"i be .t, in here unlc:,s there i;. n. not to do so. ie also did not like the proposed temporary acce.;s to Spear .'treet, ie did not like temporary roads and he added that, if tix f other access never came to be, the temporary road :ni�:ht not be in the best location for it. He recommended that the project be approved in phases :with the last phase to be the lots on :heasant :day and in that area. :ie suggested nhasirg it over a 3 year period. If thincs worked out with .'hensant play, tale temporary access would not be put in, and if they did not, that connection to the road would not be built. :r. :':ona felt the access to the multi -family snits should be discussed. :r. 'colery liked the dual drive idea and Mr. Ewing felt it met the crd_ nce. Ir. ?ona said it bothered hi:n. ?'r. Levesque said the pl^n was like n.tvini, two pear streets into the area. lie wondered if another access could cc:ne out the back of the cul-de-sac, but :!r. "ilot said that was a natural zoT,aration between the 2 cievelopments and a lot of fill would have to be put in to put a connection in there. A lot of trees would be lost. Mr. Jacob felt the dual access was all right if' it wns the only way to sic it. The question. 31' sear -treet was then discus^ed. IMr. Vilot said he woula prefer to have the alternate access to , pear :street even if the ,rG ;ect is phased, for safety r,:asons. :•.e3 ,rs. .•:iiot and .':ona tl at lots 1-7, cn 1'hr3sant :4lty, were in no -mews lend until t::. controvt•rsy •:er that street waa rec•,Ived. 111:r. Milot said he wanted to build the rhea:ant «ay connection to city standards Rnd iate it so no one woul.i use it. Vr. ;.00lery skid tl:at .,;ould leave only 4 or I lots without access and he :, w no rease,n :tot to build that. Mr. :;,,na noted that most Commission members :' ,vc,red the connection to Pheasant Way. iir. eVP,S 1UE f( It thy: tC::i:").^u'.Y T' :id wia 'i r,ro- sn fnty ..^.Glu'.1(n j.'..•. T. Ylln, E,1. ti4o :evo I I per �:,.`: ^`., t:,E hfc.;t l•P 1... :6' s i, 1 t f 1. 11.t♦lt, ."o f0 t t.,i. f ":E c.`ik . t'.r. ...io11t 1... i.. 1 t 'lhiti. l t:l.l.:... In Ot .. t;:..t>L ..1:._.'E. .l" t..... ..lt(it fiat, tein Cr.'1T'Y .RCCCO., wc_ii.,� !i:,V+ ti, 1)t. ii'ailt in and Cc:. .,.JE. PLANNING COYXISSION 7. JULY 14, 1981 the courts move very slowly. He saw no problem with saying the temporary access would be built after a certain number of units were constructed. r.'Jacob said he would like to see some single family homes built before 7::ore condominiums were and he added that the access should be left in place even if the project were phased., ir. case it were needed. o.r. '�'ilot said he planned to build the single family units first. The streets in that section will be constructed first. He said the temperary access could be added only after a certain number of units were built 1!nd at that point the decision on the second access could be :lade. He planned to ut in all the roads this year and start with the single homes. I: tide market demand becomes for condominiums, though, he would like to Start work on those. Night now the demand is for houses. Mr. Stan McKinley was a neighbor and he felt the project would have a direct adverse financial impact on his property, in that the sewer would run behind his land. He was afraid excavation for the sewer would kill the trees behind him and he was not sure what would hapl:en to drainage. :•:r. Milot said he had tried to meet with :01eadowood residents before sketch plan to address these questions. He said the sewer line could be moved a little from the property (13-15' ) to s»ve the trees. Regard---dr ina,.e, ':e si:i;: they would not cre,nte more water. Thev will -.ick u ,cater ncr�:11 is `.�E! --area and channel it, .:;? ti:E? felt Xr. XcYin'c; ::.4 :t eve:'. ::ee •'. _ luCtl ;i L`,E: .'1 '.: acrr,.,., his lot. .r. itz,,.ntrlce, a :_.. In, se"-,f Tr C ..,1] to :r red anc offere'. to wn e t arca wlt.i �i'e: s. .. ilo'. t:. wanted to maintain flow i% '..ie . w, rsi ojr i'f':-.. ty, and the i would = can they cauid not :aove it too much. Xr. rosick asked if' the section of road connectin6 to Phe-asant .iay had to be built now. i1r. Hilot said that one alternate was to assume t r:t that road would never be offered to the city, and tG nct build the section, rha.)s ::uttinf; in a cul-ie-mac in the area. ,,.r. Newton asked about utilities and was told the;; would be underL-round. ..s. Rathes wondered if the public mark was desirable. Jr. Terris urged the devoid:er to take evt:ry GS3 i GlE CG?a'::'; t:� �'�'. r �'•e Xr. Smith agreed about the oubl is He felt it should 'ce f:,r `--f residents of the area and should bii ti�,nt1, ciritrolled. 'r. :'one `e.t tt City Council should be asked for advice on the park and its maintena:.ce -nd iol.cinF,. ?r. Noolery moved to continue the final plat hearin::• for the ::o- land property for 1 week,;�July 21, at City Hall at 7:3C :;m. '''r. Leveslue secon:ed the =otion and all voted for it. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p=. C 1,rrk f PLANKING COMMISSION 3. JULY 21, 1981 detailed drainage from cluster H prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Boat and trailer J)arkinC shall be adequately screened. Nr. Jacob seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Continuation of warned public hearing on final plat application by Ray 'recor for a 134 unit subdivision, consisting of 55 single-family and 79 culti-family units, on spear Street Mr. Spitz said it had not been clear whether this development was going to have to be redrawn, so the plan has not been changed since the last meeting, and there are no final legal documents. The City Attorney says that what he has seen in ro::gh form is all right, but those are not final documents. i+ir. Yoger said the Attorney would have to review the documents before approval was given. :4r. Page, representing the developer, said sidewalks were shown on one side of the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Spitz did not feel sidewalks on the cul-de-sacs were needed at all and I1'r. Woolery agreed, if the streets were to city standards. It was agreed to remove the sidewalks from the cul-de-sacs. Downstream drainage was discussed. ;.r. Fitz;:atrick, the develo:er's ell,-,ineer, said t:zey had :lone a detailed otudy which showed that the pond on the Horticultural Fare. would not be hurt by drainr:E;e from this ievelopment. There in also a drainage problem downstream on Brigham ::oad. ..r. Fitzpatrick said there was a 4' culvert in that area, which in his ::;ind wa:: too small. It was felt that this was an existing city problem. :'r. ?oE;er said that if the city would take responsibility for it, fine. If not, it would be consistent with Past policy on traffic to say that the develo,):nent could not go in without the problem Deing solved. ':r. Levesque felt it was a city problem and this developer should not be held up. Yr. ...ilot said drainage would t)e released no faster than it is now from the pond wi-,ich wr;uld held the water on the pro, erty. ;sir. Levesque su6Lrested one cnd instead of three, so people could skate in the winter. "r. r itzpatrick expl-ined the drainage ,:,l,-.ns. The parcel, except fcr the ::.ulti-family i-.ortion, would drain into an existing swale. There is a very small ..,ortion of the property which will run into another ravine on the land, closer to Pheasant tiay. 'slater presently sheets across this land into the backyards of the Ieadowood develoiment, and that will be Picked u,, and -ut into the Swale. M "cKinley, a resident of Yeadowood, had submitted some information on dr:inaCe to the Commission (cepie.,3 on file with Manner). lie said he was concerned about an increase in water in his area. fie also worried that sewer system construction ,)arallel to the back of kis -)ro:)erty would disturb the sui;surface soils and damage trees in that area. He had hired a forest mana. ement s )ecialist to subi,it a report, and that .)erson, r. ':;ilbur, was h !re tc.ni,:ht. :r. "ilbur recom.ac:nded underdrains for the section of sewer behind the ::ci:inley :and Terris lots, He was also concerned that wit", removal of the Lruot: .1nd er8sr on the land, t";e speed of tire water w,;uld inerer.se, which ,-�uld :za{e the existi.ni iraint�ire _ z o: lela worse. he reco=.e rlded eresicn C',:,.^,tr"1 :�zISI:L'�:; �uI•l.Jlr, con.'true tion. .!r. ',,ilot did not n,_;ree vita all the i..,. _.:t t. .;v, USA i . t;. -"ere willin'; t;) do r.:iat `i;id veer. a::' d. c..lnle•.' fin(. 1'�'rri:. 1Ots. ..r. Jn<'s no 7 ''.'.1:. w)ul.. Fniti;il ruV::,vin;', luil,e? . numre:'L of ,:reps. .11( tr0,vS1?d J1EW .,ela w,ui:i run into :in 3iLall ravine next to tiie cio�3ick lot, i,at the PLANNING CUMISSION 4. JULY 21. 1981 flow of water in the ravine will be decreased. Drains in the road system wills channel the water. Mr. McKinley said the Swale was proposed because the land behind him will be disturbed for sewer construction anyway.. Xr. Alilot asked about a swale running from the cul-de-sac to Pheasant Way which would take water into the collection system. V1r. roger felt the location of any swale in that area should be worked out by the developer and the residents. :.Ir. EcKinley said that if the conditions in his letter were met, he would be satisfied. Fitzpatrick said the water department had been sent plans of the water system. He noted that they had met with the fire chief regarding reorientation of two buildinEs. Landscaping plans for the retention pond area will be submitted. They hope to keep as many trees as possible. Air. Milot offered to post a bond so that if additional screening were needed, it could be added. :,:r. Page said the area for the =ulti-family units was mostly open hillside. If additional landscaping is needed, the developer would like to have it as a buffer between the two areas of this development, and leave the rest for discretionary uses. :'inLle-family sett;:,cks and building envelo:,es were discussed. The ordinance r enuil—us a 3c;' setback. :.:r. .'ate said this was a PO and t'.at wr:ere t -ere was a t,,uod reason for a 30' front yard, it would be provided, such as at corrlera for sit;ilt distance. In other areas, they would life to leave tree lot owners maximum flexibility. :Ir. spitz recommended 36' front yard setbacks. i•:r. Page said the developer would like flexibility so not all t7e homes were set back the same distance from the road. He said the lot depths ranged from about 120'-18o'. :;r. Milot sue6ested that :`essrs. :'age and Spitz work on each individual lot to see where there are unusual circumstances and they could ask for waivers on those lots. The developers indicated no problems with including; on the plans a numoer of construction details, as in the City :tanager's 7/9/81 memo. .dr. :spitz gave the Com_%ission a memo from the recreation Director regarding the scenic overlook. He would like to have one and sug,.ests ways to control iz use (memo dated 7/21/bl ar!d on file with r'lanner )'. 4r. ;-;ilot asked whether the city would develop the t:ark and was told they would. :•;r. :-a6e said the pedestrian trail connections to this development would be shown on the ,;lan. ;•tr. Iilot requested that they never be fenced. Street "G" was discussed. ;Fr. ':ilot said that city ordinances required a second access for Wore than 5U units on a dead-end street. He proposed that when they came for the building hermit for the 50th unit, the second access to Jpear ,street be corm leted. It will be eliminated when the Pheasant ,-lay access question is solved. I:r. Spitz did not like the prope:ed locLtion for the second access because it contain.- two :-harp curves. He said he would like to have this area develo:ed last, :;o if the Pheasant slay question is resolved, the situation can be reevaluated. ::r. ;;mith objected to any house with a lot on Pheasant 'Way ,which did nt:t face that street. :r. '.ona asked t .at the access to •heasant ';:ay be s:a:wn with dotted linf-s until its status is clear le• -ally. the question of whether thin section o. road 3,+,culd be 1,aved now was di:.cus::t.d. r. Milot warted to .ave it. .:r. iosick o; ,o:;cd d,,in ti;at :i .;. :r. ,;:,l.r . ;1r. :lu rep o _,ave it, u 4r. :.one, ai i not wr;nt it t r;vt d. _ o, er fov,;.t:d a-,asin, scliec ule Sri:Gr w'.icn ti-,at area^. wouid ;o:, d l:.st. ie c:' _ _ c •,.:rs. ,:;tcJC Ina . JOler, lid nr,t fee, P:lasinc was ntt•ded . and '•:r. •+sl::^ Ll �^ d PLA�YI�II\'G CJM.MISSIUN 5. DULY 21, 1981 agreed with them - pave it and no f:hasing. Xr. Levesque felt it should be paved now. As f%r as tare access to ;:pear .:treet, Mr. Jacob did not object to Xr. "ilot's plan and fir. soolery aL.reed. Zr. :oEer did not want it in. Milot said that when it was built, it would be deeded to the city and they could take it out anytime. There will ce a bond for the work. The street will be to city standards. Mr. :iona asked for a draft from the developer of his short-term phasing plans or intentions. Mr. Levesque suggested putting cedar trees across the road section to ,'heasant day and Mr. ":ilot said that was not a problem. Air. 'Noolery moved to continue the final plat application of Pay Fecor on .5pear .-)treet, until three weeks from tonight at City Hall at 7.30 pm Mr. Mona seconded the motion and all voted aye. Continue warned public hearing, on preliminary alat application of Robert Ryan et al for an 84 unit subdivision, entitled Winding Brook, on Hinesburg Ed- :'r. j:,itz said that draina6e did not seem to be as serious a problem as :ad peen ti,ouil-ht at the last :Lectine. The culvert under Hinesburt :.)sd is ir bad c at:e, cut it will not affect whether or not these units, can : e t, u i'_t. Xr. Krebs did riot know specifically where the Church of God drive would be located. He said building b had been reoriented at the fire chief's request and 4 units had been dropped from the project. The units are 17-1E5' higher than the brook elevation. Xr. S itz said the sidewalk should be on the west side of the road and that the developer should put it in along the Goodrich frontage also. A rei=burse-,ent provision can be :.ut in. '!r. Poger felt it should pe. .:r. .;oolery wanted some coat and trailer storage on the lot. :•:r. r:reds showed where the pedestrian trail was now. It will have to be relocated and :':r. .spitz said it should Oo onto the city land in the area. The applicant can work with the Natural resources Committee on it. Density was discussed. Xr. :'oUer was not co::fortable with this :density. ..r. Krebs sAid the distance betaeer, buildings was no less or treater than others in the area. 'r. oolery asked about ,,arai;e s %ce. There are 44 covered parxine s;:aces and 131 uncovered. :r. ,"oolcry believed that all recently a:: -)roved :rojects had one covered space :,er unit, with storage behind the cars. He felt this Project should have that also, :.lus one uncovered s,,ace per unit. ::r. ::rebs said there would be R =turaf-e iuilding for tine residents. :'r. Nona aj reed with :-.r. r,00lery, but said hi:: desire fur reduced density has not cuntinLernt un a covtIred parkinfL s,,ace for everyone. : r. '.;alsh liked the density as it was and he liked tl:e :)lanned storat;e sheds. 'r. Leve ;que liked the sensit;; as it was. ,'r. .iacoo said ti:e density iluthered hiM a little rnd he felt there would be ;ruble s with ;:now storai-e. :fe said tarot ...itri sturaile :,reds !'or the units, he would :-ot object to the density. ::r. . c) er noted that 3 :�r:::Uer. w:,nted It 1 :i fin t .,., er): t and 3 felt it was e. would rat thing -. tvil 1 ci:vQ:. ted . :ce t.,r :knit, .io s';id :d they .lea o: a ,!turA,!e aal:ed i, ,17i 1 .:j :�t v L r hr l . a:.,j .L J.. .13 i;) . ll i 1Kc. to t't r. %, firil 'r. 0; c_ I' r . t tti:.tt ..N r'eFsuxi able. 2'1 ,,:! d t(. CCr7t1r111C L:,e 1LLiC ,earin • : n trie reli:ai:iar lat - �. iichtlall Jf :;)pert an fur t: ree weeKs from tcni, nt at City:lall at 7:3.) ::r. „ac'.;b-econaed and all wf::ru ir. f':�vor. J PLANNING CoMM19N AUGUST 14. 1981 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 14, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Ball, 575 Dorset St. :embers Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Kirk Woolery, George Mona, James Ewing, Robert Walsh Members Absent Ernest Levesque, Peter Jacob Others Present David Spitz, Planner; Jodie Peck, Free Press; Robert Vinson, Douglas Schner, Eleanor Smith, Fred Smith, Mark Smith. Judy Hurd, William Schuele, Mark O'Reilly, J. McNamara, Lillian Terris, Milton Terris, Nancy McKinley, Stanley Wilbur, Sandra Patrick, Harold Brown, Ed Sanborn, Robert & Joan Hunt, Bart & Bill Hosick, Clara & Robert Ryan, Charles Smith, Robert Szczerbak,_ Donald Brisson, Ursula Beauvais, Margaret Ryan, Robert Krebs, Carl & Anna Lavallee, Robert Perry, Stephen Page, Gerald Milot, Douglas Fitzpatrick, Richard Trudell, Chuck Thweatt, David Martell, Mr. Goodrich Minutes of July 21, 1981 On page 3► in the paragraph beginning with "Mr. McKinley", it should be noted that Mr. Wilbur was not the forest management specialist. He is an engineer. Mr. Woolery moved to approve the July 21. 1981 minutes as corrected. Mr. Welsh seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Ewing abstaining because he was not present. Continuation of warned public hearing on the final plat application by Ray Pecor for a 134 unit subdivision, consisting of 55 single-family and 79 multi -family units, on Spear Street Mr. Spitz said that drainage improvements had been submitted to and reviewed by the city engineer. They seem to meet his expectations. With regard to the UVM land, Mr. Larry Snyder of the university has told 101r. Spitz that they are agreed in concept but that the reviews have to be finalized. Mr. Spitz said that of the entire drainage area that goes downstream, this development covers 10%, and they will only increase drainage 10%, so he feels they cannot be asked to do more than put in the retention pond. Mr. Spitz said preliminary survey data and legal documents have been reviewed by the city attorney. Mr. Milot has submitted a letter dated 8/5/81 dealing with the proposed street :r,ituation. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he, as Mr. Milot's engineer, had met with the city engineer and area residents. They have agreed to install a curtain drain along the sewer line which will drain the land and channel the water into a swale which will eventually run through the UVM property. The city engineer feels this is fine. There will be less water running through there after this improvement than there is now. ;+,r. Hosiek, a landowner in the area, said that the residents' engineer had asked to see the calculations which showed that water would be reduced. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he could do it but it would take some time. For the I 2. FLMING COMMISSION AUGUST la. 1981 t� record, he said the peak runoff rate would be lower. He gent on to say that this development would only increase the water on Brigham Road by 1% and it is his opinion that the culvert in that area is undersized. Mr. Spitz said the problem exf aced now and that this developer was doing a lot to keep the drainage low. He felt the developer had mat his responsibilities. Mr. Poger said it might not be a large contribution to drainage, but that if the culvert was full, any additional drainage would make it overflow. He felt the city had been remiss in not fixing it in the past. Messrs. Mona, Walsh, Woolery and Ewing did not want the applicant to have to fix the Brigham Road problem. Mr.Schuele felt someone had to defend the people in that area who would suffer from the increased drainage. Mr. Poger said that the Commission could require that it be fixed before the development went in, and the city and developer could fight about who would fix it, but the members did not agree with that. Mr. Page said he and Air. Spitz had discussed building envelopes in the project and that they had been substantially increased throughout. Some of the envelopes are closer than 30' in the cul-de-sacs at the points of tangency. Mr. Spitz said he had noticed that on the cul-de-sac near Spear St. some of the setbacks were closer than what was acceptable to him. The front yards except on the cul-de-sacs were 30'. Some rear yards near the multi -family section are small, but there is a natural buffer in that area. Front yards on Pheasant Way are 30-35' and the setback from Spear St. is 75'• Mr. Hosick asked that the setbacks on Pheasant Way be increased to 50' for consistency with the other side of the road, but Mr. Milot wanted homeowners to have the maximum flexibility in siting their homes. Mr. Page noted that lots 1-4 and 7 were not usable without Pheasant Way access. The question of providing the drainage calculations was discussed. Mr. Milot suggested giving the calculations to the city engineer and the neighbors' engineer and if the neighbors' engineer did not like the figures, he could discuss them with the city engineer, who will adjudicate any dispute. Mr. Milot asked whether, if the Pheasant Way public/private dispute was settled against the city, and he could make a deal with the street owner, the city would let him put in the road over to Pheasant Way. He was told that the city would not want him to do that. Mr. Vinson asked whether a traffic study had been done on the project. He was told that Mr.Spitz had looked at the counts for the street, and the standards, and he had felt that the result showed that it was so far from needing improvement that the figures had not been put on paper. '%.r. Woolery felt those figures should be part of the record. Air. Milot said they would give the city figures for the record. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning -Commission approve the final Plat application by Ray Pecor f_or a 134 _unit pls.nned unit development on Spear Street as depicted on a 15 page set of plans entitled "?lowland Proerl, A Planned Residential Development" re ared bey F'itzpatrick- LlewellAn Associates with revisions through 8K71 and a 1 page landscaping plan entitled "Howland Property", prepared by Mt. Philo Meadows, dated 6 17 81, sttbjec-t to the following stipulations: 1. Street names shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of the first building permit. 2. All streets except street G and the southerly 170 feet of street A shall be built during the initial phases of construction. 1rior to issuance of a building permit for the 51st dwelling unit, a second access to the I PLANNING COMISSION 3. AUGUST 11. 1981 project shall be provided..Said access shall_ consist of the balance of street A if Dublie ornerahlp of Pheaaent Way has been -secured, or_street G if public ownership has not been secured. 3. The agreement recorded in aprevious Nowland subdivision to reserve 80 feet for a possible future street shall be replaoed with a_ new agreement indicati!W, a 60 foot right of way and 20 foot reservation at a revised location and removing restrictions on previously reserved land now owned by Nowland and the Universityof Vermont. The new 20 foot wide reservation of land shall be marked on the plan to be recorded. 4. Bond_,M for all required public improvements - including sewer and water mains, drainage facilitiee� roada,_and (if necessary -removal of street G and construction of a_permanent cul-de-sac at the southerly end of street A - shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. 5. A landscaping bond of $41,000 shall be provided prior -to issuance of the first building permit. The bond shall _include_ S12,750 for public _street planngs, tii30_0_per multi -family unit, and the balance to be distributed around the retention ponds or added to the multi -family area as approved_ b_y the City Planner. 6. If the balance of the Nowland property to the north is sold to the adj.oinin,g_City_and -Stonehedge property owners, then the 60 foot conditional easement shall be removed and replaced by a 20 foot pedestrian easement. 7. Several additional sewer and drainage easements over proposed facilities shall be provided to the city as required by the city engineer. 8. All construction_procedures shall comply with the requirements of City Engineer William Szymanski's memo dated July 9, 1981. 9. Building envelopes for all lots shall be as indicated on the final plat. Front ds yarfor all R1 lots shall be a minimum of 30'. 10. One additional multi -family garage shall be added to bring the total to_790 or 1 per unit. It is suggested that several garages be relocated to correspond with the relocated dwelling units. 11. All survey data for internal lots and roads and all required legal documents shall be submitted to and approved by the city prior to issuance of the first building permit. 12. The _balance of the Nowland property near the northeast corner of the development shall not constitute a separate building lot. Development or further subdivision of this land shall require approval by the Planning Commission. - - - -- - _ _ 13. The final plat,_ incorporating all changes required from stipulations 1J3, 6, 7-t9, 10, and 11, shall be recorded within 90 days. 14. This approval expires 3 years from this date. 15. The scenic overlook shall be as indicated on the final plat. (he PLANNING COMMISSION 4. AUGM 11, 1981 16. Traffic data including existing volumes of traffic -on Spear St. and anticipa_ed volumes of traffic from this development, shall be provided with _the final plat. _ 17. Drainage ealeulatione, supporting equal or lesser volumes of runoff than currently exists in the southerly ewale along Mr. Hosick's property, shall be submitted to and approved by the city engi_n_eer prior to issuance of the first building permit. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. Mr. Mona opposed the wording in stipulation 17. He also did not feel that this PUD fully maintained the esthetics of the 600' of R1 acreage. He noted that one acre lots only were permitted in the R1 zone and he felt this would change the way things look in that area. He was also concerned about the single access to the 79 multi -family units. The motion passed with Mr. Mona voting no for the above reasons. Continuation of warned public hearing on the preliminary Plat application by Robert Ryan et al for a 72 unit subdivision, entitled Winding Brook, on Hinesburg Road Mr. Spitz said the number of units had been reduced from 84 to 72 and that 72 enclosed parking spaces were now shown. There is a total of 172 parking spaces. The street is 24' wide, with 2' paved shoulders in areas without parking on the sides of the street. Mr. Mona felt the development had a long stretch where cars would be parking on both sides of the street and a driver would have to watch for backing cars. He also noted that the street was pretty straight, which would lead to higher speeds. Mr. Krebs noted that there was an island in the middle, which would slow care down. Messrs. Ewing and Poger felt curves in the road might help and Mr. Krebs suggested that the Commission bend on building setbacks from the property line, in order to give the developer more room to work with in getting some curves in. Mr. Spitz said that if the present loop in the pedestrian trail in that area is not continued after the buildings go in, there will be more room to move the buildings. Mr. Ewing suggested putting some of the parking lots between the buildings. ,fir. Krebs mentioned taking out 30 of the parking spaces or putting landscaped islands in the parking lots. Xrr. Woolery mentioned rotating some of the buildings ( perhaps 6&7) 900. Mr. Spitz said he would check to be sure the documents were in place for this development to gain access to Kennedy Drive. Mr. Woolery suggested breaking the 28 garage building into 2 pieces. Mr. Spitz said the sidewalk would be put in with a payback provision, on the opposite side of the road, and across the area owned by Goodrich. Hr. Krebs said the Church of God could have access from this new road across the corner of their property. Mr. doolery moved that the _South Burlington Planning Commission approve the prelimina__y plat application by Robert Ryan et al for a 72 unit multi- f amily development on Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive as depicted on a plan -entitled "Site Yla%-Jgnding Brook ", prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, last revised August 4, 1981, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Requirements for drainage improvements in the vicinity of the existing gh`urch of God driveway shall be reviewed during the final plat stage. If necessary, the existing driveway shall be relocated. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Peeor Application (Nowland Property) Date: 1/23/81 A. Lot and Building Layout The number of single-family lots has been reduced by i to improve spaci of lots on Pheasant Way, along Spear Street, and at one or two other locatio Average single family lot size is now approximately 24,500 square feet. Density between R4 and R1 zones has been averaged as in previous presen ations to the Planning Commission, to provide for consistency of development If preliminary approval is granted, developers must proceed to the Zoning Board for a variance to confirm the density averaging in the Rl portion of the development. B. Street Layout Southerly access onto Pheasant Way has been relocated and will provide adequate .sight distance. Since last meeting it has been observed that certain minor improvements may be needed at the northerly access to provide adequate sight distance on Spear Street. The City Attorney is providing a legal opinion on status of Meadowood at Spear's streets and utilities and their impact on this development. C. Second Access for Multi Familv Section Second access requirements are fairly consistent in theory, in various ordinances. Burlington calls for two entrances "wherever possible." South Burlington's ordinance states, "The number of dwelling units served by ... a common single access ... shall not exceed 50 unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Planning Commission after consultation with the City Engineer and Planner. In practice, adverse experiences to date luckily have been limited. In Essex the sole entrance to Pinewood Manor (150 units) has been blocked for 15 minute on at least one occassion, but no emergency vehicles were seeking access at the time. Emergency vehicles in Essex have been stopped by railroad crossings for 10 to 15 minutes when no alternative routes were available. What- ever the past experience, I feel that 50 units is a reasonable point at which to start requiring second accesses. D. Scenic Overlooks Several good locations for scenic overlooks can be identified. For all of the areas suggested below, the proposed type of overlook consists simply of an cjddi t ional 1)1-ivFn? I ane I[IUIX-d i,Itc-ly c1d j'w''nt to tt� I (AJ(3wIIy i I I I i ,-I k,', , I od Memorandum - 2/23/81 Re: Pecor Application (Nowland Property) Page 2 by a painted line. The length of the turn -out can vary but should aceomodate at least 2 to 3 cars. A larger turn -out area with off-street parking is not proposed because of potential liability and enforcement problems. 1) Along the proposed Holmes Road_ extension east of Spear Street. This section is on TTowland-property east of the proposed development and —'carries up to the ridge where -views in all directions are excellent. The 80 fmr_ro_adway width plus 75 foot setbacks would leave a_ -wide corridor free of obstruction to maximize available views: 2) On the knoll at the entrance to Stonehedge. This location would re- quire an extra lane for a short distance along Cedar Glen Drive and a walkway up to the top of the knoll. 3) Anywhere on the west side of Spear Street between the schoolhouse and the four existing houses within this development. The City Qaujda 2Mlorre �1 scenic --- €asement_xi,ghts_ with the owners of at least 2 lots who apparently don't want the —view -obstructed anyway. This section includes 450 feet of frontage i at the northeast eovner of the proposed development. To obtain satisfactory i views along this 450 feet section several proposed lots would have to be wiped out as opposed to the more northerly section where any one lot backing up to the horticultural farm would be sufficient. E. Other A number of other points raised at the last meeting and in previous memos - such as drainage, traffic, and setbacks - remain to be resolved. Some information of these items may be presented at Tuesday's meetings. However, none of them are crucial to the preliminary layout and can be resolved prior to final plat. CITY COUNCIL ROBERT & CYNTHIA HOEHL BUILDING PERMIT MINUTES 3/7/88 - 6/13/88 EXHIBIT "3" CITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 1988 The South,Burlington City Council held a Regular meeting on Monday,.'7„'1March 1988, at 7r30 pm, at the Central School, Williston Rd. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; George Mona, Molly Lambert, Francis Murray Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Mary McKearin, Wendy Schroeder, Business Managers; Jane Lafleur, City Planner; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Don Whitten Pollution Control Dept. Albert Audette, Street Dept; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; James Brady, Penrors_ __Jacic.son, Stacie Blake, Gregory Dicovitsky, Carol Chase,, -Nancy Walsh; Ann Yawney-,.Mary Thompson, Bob O'Brien, Keith Kertland,' Cathy Frank"\ Comments & questions from the public not related to items on the agenda No issues were raised. I J Review City Manager's report on status of 1987-88 goals Mr. Szymanski noted that the closing on the Brand property is set for 17 March. Consider request for view preservation zoning along Spear Street ; Nancy Walsh noted that the city has/a viewina area along 7 Spear with a beautiful view o the lake with a small park acquired through a Milot development agreement. Ms. Walsh said her concern is that there won't be and views if to �. -houses--are.-..built .in ---the area.. There is readyr _one- ome— which has, in effect, v' -She requested a restriction on height for future homes and also a procedure to situate homes so they don't block _views. She ed that -the--view-area could-a-ls.o_. be extended down �_�S't . Another ed -- - suggestion offered was the widening of�Spear St. so people can park and look out over the lake. This would also give cyclist and joggers a wider shoulder for safety. Mr. Farrar said there T#y_-already be a city right-of-way in some of the area. He said the heights of the land would have to be known before building heights were restricted. Mrs. Lafleur said that information is available. Cathy Frank said the problem begins further..down where people bui so as to have a view _lk) of -the lake, and then those who build above have to build taller homes. Mrs. Lafleur said the City Attorney stated the City,can make a specific regulation that limits heights CITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 1988 PAGE 2 because it affects a view from a piece of public land. IV Mr. Murray moved to refer the question of building heights to the Planning Commission with -a request that they prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for height restrictions affecting Spear Street viewing areas. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion nassed unanimously Mr. Murray then moved to ask the City Planner to prepare interim zoning for the properties, affecting the Spear Street viewing area. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unan- imously. 4 \ Report on progress of updating the City Personnel Rules and Regulations Mrs. Lambert reported that some of the major concerns include a) regulation of lack of regulation on the accumulation of compensatory time (the committee feels there needs to be stricter supervision of that time and also a way to deal with people who have been employed 18 or 20 years); b) communication among city employees and department heads and management and the City Council; c)uniformity of policies among all departments; d)the perception among employees that appropriations made by the Council after the budget is set directly affect benefits that can be offered employees the following year. Mr. Mona noted that in the last instance, there will always be expenses that arise in mid -budget, and it would be imprudent of the Council not to be prepared for this. Mrs. Lambert felt communication on the budget process would help. Mr. Mona added that he is very impressed with the new Newsletter which Mrs. Lambert said is a direct result of this committee. Interview agencies who request city funds to operate their agencies 1. Visiting Nurse Associaton: Cathy Frank outlined services provided to South Burlington residents including home care for people confined to' their homes, the hospice program to help the terminally ill spend their last days at home, and the maternal care program. In South Burlington, there were 2,000 regular nurse visits this past year, 320 physical therap visits, 2,000 cases of home care, 1600 homemaking visits�.•for a total cost of $269,000 for South Burlington services. $235,000 of this is reimbursed from various sources, leaving a shortfall of $34,000. This is made up for by United Way, town and city donations, and their own fund raising efforts. They asked South Burlington for an appro- priation of $14,700. Mr. Kertland noted they are antici- _rw CITY COUNCIL 4 APRIL 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a r(-(Iul-,r 11---t in-1 on Monday, 4 April 1988, at 7:00 pm, in the Library of Chamberlin School, White Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Molly Lambert, Michael Flaherty, George Mona Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Chris Davis, Ronald Piper, Police Dept; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Ulrich Leppman, Ruth Leppman, Janice Smith, William Schuele, Richard and Paulette Bennett, Dick Underwood, Susan Hardin, Peter Taylor Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss pending litigation of Heathcote Association Parking Study and Dorset Street Utilities. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Comments & questions from the public (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Review City Manager's Report on Status of 1987-88 Goals Mrs. Lambert asked the City Manager to explain the tax comparison chart attached to the goals status report. Mr. Szymanski did so noting that the chart showed South Burlington taxes had gone UF) less than those in other communities. Public Hearing: Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Mr. Farr-3r read the proposed Resolutir)n Mrs. Lambert moved that the Council sign thf-, Re!volution as read Mr. Flaherty seconded. Mr. Farrar noted that the Planninq Commission will hold Pub Iii Hearings on the proposed new district; in the mw,int ime, anything that comes in for that area has to corne before- t ht- C i t y COMI • r 1 .1:' well . —A-Leside_ nt asked since the resent over look i now al -mar t ly block!ed, can the over look be movF� i�r : '� ym•r►�: k i sa i�i ` other land- is--pr_i_vat�l_x- own��). Mr.,- kod i t t h• over I could be raised. Mr. Farrar F:. ;__.;i41nrt - �carft— irtfer(,n14r; Hone a:k(1(1 what h�,r- � };. � i 11'. CITY COUNCIL 4 APRIL 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a r(-(Iul-,r 11---t in-1 on Monday, 4 April 1988, at 7:00 pm, in the Library of Chamberlin School, White Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Molly Lambert, Michael Flaherty, George Mona Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Chris Davis, Ronald Piper, Police Dept; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Ulrich Leppman, Ruth Leppman, Janice Smith, William Schuele, Richard and Paulette Bennett, Dick Underwood, Susan Hardin, Peter Taylor Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss pending litigation of Heathcote Association Parking Study and Dorset Street Utilities. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Comments & questions from the public (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Review City Manager's Report on Status of 1987-88 Goals Mrs. Lambert asked the City Manager to explain the tax comparison chart attached to the goals status report. Mr. Szymanski did so noting that the chart showed South Burlington taxes had gone UF) less than those in other communities. Public Hearing: Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Mr. Farr-3r read the proposed Resolutir)n Mrs. Lambert moved that the Council sign thf-, Re!volution as read Mr. Flaherty seconded. Mr. Farrar noted that the Planninq Commission will hold Pub Iii Hearings on the proposed new district; in the mw,int ime, anything that comes in for that area has to corne before- t ht- C i t y COMI • r 1 .1:' well . —A-Leside_ nt asked since the resent over look i now al -mar t ly block!ed, can the over look be movF� i�r : '� ym•r►�: k i sa i�i ` other land- is--pr_i_vat�l_x- own��). Mr.,- kod i t t h• over I could be raised. Mr. Farrar F:. ;__.;i41nrt - �carft— irtfer(,n14r; Hone a:k(1(1 what h�,r- � };. � i 11'. CITY COUNCIL 4 April 1988 page 2 overlook could be closed on Spear St. and moved to Deerfield Dr. Mr. Audette said this would create more problems as people would just park there anyway. In the vote on the motion which followed, the Resolution passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved to amend the map attached to the Resolution to show a line parallel to Spear Street 3,000 feet from Spear Street. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Schuele asked whether the Council was considering this type of action in other parts of the City. He thought it was a great idea. Mr. Farrar said he felt it was something to be considered as part of the planning process. , Appoint Auditors for the Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/88 Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the Manager's recommendation in memo of 4/1/88 to appoint Urbach, Kahn and Werlin for audit services for the fiscal year ending 6/30/88 and for the two conditional options to renew for 1989 and 1990. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. his Review outline of Williston Road traffic study as prepared by Craig Leiner of CCRPC Mr. Farrar suggested that a citizens' committee be 'appointed to look at design concepts and recommendations and suggested that the City MAnager advertise this. Mrs. Lambert moved that the Council accept the outline of the Wiliston Road traffic study dated 3/8/88 prepared by Craig Leiner with the stipulation that a citizens' committee be appointed to consider the design concepts and other recommendations to be reporter; to the City Council. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously_ Hear Police Union Grievance regarding compensation for Shift Commander work Chris Davis explained the problem: On some occasions an officer is appointed shift commander on a temporary basis when a higher ranking officer is unavailable. Question has arisen as to whether this officer, if appointed for less than a full shift, is entitled to a higher rate of pay for the hours he serves as shift - commander. Mr. Davis said there is a conflict between past practice and Article X, Section 2 of the agreement. Tho City's Position is that the officer (lets the higher rate of pliv only for a full shift. The bargaining unit's contention is chat pa::t Practice should prevail by which off icers h�ivl- lwii n p,i i d t he higher rate for the hours they served ,:: s-J,i t i —wmman.t*•, _ Mr. CITY COUNCIL 4 April 1988 page 3 Davis acknowledged this issue never occurred to either side during the bargaining procedure when language was changed to indicate there should be higher pay for a "complete shift". The previous language had said "eight hours." The bargaining unit's position is that the language change was only made to accommodate the fact that full shifts can be 8 or 8-1/2 hours. The bargaining unit is asking for the higher rate of pay for the specific hours -the officer worked at the higher position. They feel this is important because of the greater liability of the person in the higher position. Mr. Flaherty asked whether this happens often. Mr. Piper said to his recollection it has happened about 3 times in 4 months. He added that the wording of the agreement means that an officer would have to work 16 hours straight to get the higher rate of compensation. What happens now is that 2 people split the shift and each take 4 hours at the higher rate of pay. Mr. Mona said the question is whether the contract language was changed just to accommodate the fact that shifts can be of in- consistent lengths or whether there was a conscious effort to change past practice. Mr. Davis said that on at least 2 occasions prior to the present incident, officers have been paid at the higher rate since the new contract was in force. Mr. Farrar noted there was an attempt to clear up and define past practices, but this issue was one that was collectively missed by both sides. Mr. Mona said he thought it was imperative that the City and Union document the intent of the language in the contract so the issue doesn't arise again. He did not feel the language change had anything to do with past practice and was rather an acknowledg- ment that shifts have varying lengths. Mrs. Lambert said she was concerned that officers had been paid at the higher rate after the new contract which does create a set in the mina of the officers. Mrs. McKearin asked where the line would be drawn. Would an officer be paid for 1 hour at the higher rate? Mr. Flaherty asked what past practice was. Mr. Piper said generally a shift is split in 2 with each officer taking 4 hours. It is a very unusual circumstance when a commander gets hurt on the job and there is less than 4 hours involved. Both Council members and Union people felt they would like to check on the number of hours officers had been paid for in the past. Mrs Lambert thus moved to continue the hearing until 4/18/88. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Review Plannin4 Commission Aqenda 4/5/88 Nr) wprr. r05sod. CITY COUNCIL 4 April 1988 page 4 Review Minutes of 21 March 1988 Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Minutes of 21 March 1988 as written. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Old Business Mrs. Lambert reported on progress of the Employee Rules and Regulations Committee. She noted that 2 major issues being considered are death benefits and accumulation of sick time. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and meet as Liquor Control Board. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. -Szymanski presented a catering permit request for the windjammer to cater a wedding reception at the NCO Club, Air National Guard, on 4/23/88, from 1-5pm. Mrs. Lambert moved that the Board approve the catering permit for the windjammer as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before thO Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. Clerk rJ CITY COUNCIL 18 APRIL 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a reqular meeting on Monday, 18 April 1988, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; George Mona, Molly Lambert Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Chris Davis, Attorney SBPOA. Comments & questions from the public not related to items on the agenda No issues were raised. Public Hearing: Miscellaneous Amendments to Zoning Regula- tions approved �y Planning Commission Ms. Lambert moved to waive reading of the Ordinance. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mona questioned whether Sect. 2.307 was unnecessarily restrictive and could possibly be less than 1000. Mr. Farrar said this could be a problem if most of a lot were in the flood plain and very little in a buildable zone. Mrs. Lafleur agreed and said that buildable land is being developed at almost 100o coverage and this is a problem. Mrs. Lambert moved to delete the following sections from the document: 11.301, 11.504A, 12.301, 13.301, and 22.105. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Lambert moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Lambert then moved to approve the miscellaneous amend- ments dated 4/15/88. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unan- imous ly . Mrrs Lafleur advised tha.e_ndments become of feet ive in ? 1 gays . — - - Adopt 1988-89 City Budget Mrs. Lambert moved to adopt the 1988-9 E::vensc i�ud<_let Is presented at the Public Hearing on 4/1/88. !1r. 'lon.i sc CITY COUNCIL 18 APRIL 1988 PAGE 2 onded. Motion passed unanimously. Act on Police Grievance heard at 4/4/88 meeting. Mr. Davis noted the issues are whether there was a past practice and if so, what it was. He said the best they can determine is that payment was always for a full or a half shift, never for less than 4 hours. He said in 1982 there were 2 instances in which an officer was paid for a half - shift as acting commander. They could not find any instances when an officer who worked 4 hours as officer in charge did not get paid at the higher rate. Mr. Farrar said it is the council's job to define what the contract means. Anything beyond that would have to be dis- cussed at future negotiations. He felt that existing data establishes past practice and practice after the new contract. Evidence shows that every time an offi. worked 4 hours or more as officer in charge, he was paid at the higher rate. Ms. McKearin said the 3 times this occurred under the new contract were a mistake acknowledged by the Chief and the Bookkeeper. Mr. Farrar said that does not change the fact of what happened. Mr. Davis said it was their belief that the so-called mistake happened because the bookkeeper believed this is what she should have been doing. After a lengthy discussion, Mrs. Lambert moved that the City Council uphold the grievance based on the knowledge that these officers had the expectation that they would be paid for shift commander duty of four hours or more. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Review Planning and Zoning Agendas Mr. Mona questioned 06 on the Zoning Agenda and felt the proposal would encroach on Winding Brook. Mr. Szymanski noted it is also right on the bank. Members asked Mr. Szymanski to inform the Board of the Council's concerns. Mr. Farrar questioned the warning on Item #4 and asked if it shouldn't also be warned for multiple use . Mr. Szymanski will check on this. Minutes of 4/4 and 4/11/88 Mr. Mona moved to approve the Minutes of 4/4 and 4/11 as written. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL 2 MAY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 2 May 1988, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Molly Lambert, Michael Flaherty, George Mona, Francis X. Murray Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; John Dinklage, Zoning Board; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Leslie Linton, Robert and Cynthia Hoehl, Bill Posey Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Comments and Questions from the Audience (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Review City Manager's Report on Status of 1987-88 Goals Mr. Szymanski noted there is only one item left to complete the Fire Department equipment update. Mr. Flaherty moved to authorize the City Manager to proceed with the contract with Greenwood Fire for replacement of the chassis and associated work for a total of $87,588. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing: Application of Robert and Cynthia Hoehl for the construction of a single family home within the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Ms. Linton, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hoehl, said the Hoehl's land abuts the City overlook land. It is one of 6 lots approved by the Planning Commission in 1977. At that time, views were discussed by the Commission as were restrictions put on the lots by the seller, Mrs. Nowland. A 15-foot right-of-way was discussed and CITY COUNCIL 2 May 1988 page 2 also the scenic overlook. Mrs. Nowland agreed to sell the City a piece of land for an overlook. Subdivision approvals were issued in October, 1977. There is a 75-foot required setback from Spear Street where nothing higher than 20 feet can grow. The lots must be for single family homes, and the houses can be no more than 18 feet above the center line of Spear Street. The Hoehls plan to build a 2-story, very traditional house. It is their opinion that the house will not interfere with the view from the scenic overlook. Ms. Linton noted the proposed ordinance has a very serious impact on all of the lots, and the Hoehls house could not be built on this lot at all under the proposed ordinance. They feel that the location of the house required by the ordinance would be worse from the point of view of the scenic overlook. Mr. Hoehl said his lot is 160 ft. across the front, 200 feet across the back, and 603 feet deep. He outlined the money and time he has invested in planning his house and said that real estate people have told him he would suffer a $100,000 loss in land value under the proposed zoning. He said if he has to build at the back of his land, he will lose the protection of his view. Among the costs Mr. Hoehl cited, were $13,000 for an architect, $3900 in taxes, legal fees, topography, etc. If he has to build a single story house, it will also cost $10,000 more for the foundation and considerably more for the lengthened driveway to the back of the lot. He said he has a large family and did not feel he could build a large enough home in the rear of the lot Mr. Hoehl's architect noted that from grade to the top of the house, they propose to build 33 feet in height. Ms. Linton said it is their contention that the house meets the existing pattern of development in the area and also the en- vironmental limitations of the area. Mr. Hoehl did not deny that his proposed house will impact the view from Spear Street. He said it would not impact the view from the overlook and showed photos to the Council to support this contention. Members felt they would like to see the site and asked Mr. Hoehl to stake out the proposed location of the house. The Council agreed to visit the site on 4 May, at 6:00 pm and to meet again oni TutS&.1, 10 May, to make their decision. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue the public hearing until 4 May, at 6:00 pm, at the Hoehl lot on Spear Street and further until Tuesday, 10 May, at 7.30 pm Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reschedule Public Hearing on Proposed City Center Zoning Mr. Flaherty moved to reschedule the Public Hearinq of Proposed City Center Zoning until 16 May 1988. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. IJ CITY COUNCIL 2 May 1988 page 3 Public Information Meetin re ardin the proposed Dorset Street Improvement Bond Issue and Establishment of a S ecial Assessment District Along Dorset Street Mr. Farrar read the Warning. He then noted the Council has proposed a $1,750,000 bond issue. Funds for this will come from two sources: general taxes and a special assessment district. The special assessment district will be taxed $125,000 per year for 6 years beginning in 1991. The tax rate will depend on the total value of real estate in that district. It is now valued at $35,000,000. With planned expansion to University Mall, it is estimated the value will increase by $6,000,000. The bond issue also contains improvements to numerous streets and roads in the city. Mr. Dicovitsky asked where the figures came from for the assessment of onableenumbers�because ofFarrar lincreased d the nvalues cil thought of the these were reas properties in question. Another resident of the area asked where the legal precedent for such a tax came from. Mr. Stitzel quoted the statute from volume 24, Chapter 87 by which municipalities can levy special assessments to specific properties for public improvements that benefit those properties. A property owner said this was not what was said at Act 250 and felt it was a slap in the face to the property owners. He noted they have endured all the problems on Dorset Street with traffic, development, etc., and now that something is finally being done to improve it, they are the ones who have to pay for it. Mr. Posey said he felt it was an undue portion for them to pay. He agreed the improvements will increase the value of their property, but they have to give up a portion of their property and put up with a year of noise and grime during construction. Another resident asked whether property will be re -assessed each year. Mr. Farrar said he expected that sometime in that period where the tax for the special assessment is due, there will be a general re -appraisal. All new improvements to the area will be included. Review Zoning Board Agenda for 9 May Mr. Mona noted that Item #1 looks like a multiple use and he didn't see where any hardship or necessity promulgated a multiple use need. Mr. Dinklage explained that multiple use does not require a hardship and is considered under (3ifferent criteria. CITY COUNCIL 2 May 1988 page 2 also the scenic overlook. Mrs. Nowland agreed to sell the City a piece of land for an overlook. Subdivision approvals were issued in October, 1977. There is a 75-foot required setback from Spear Street where nothing higher than 20 feet can grow. The lots must be for single family homes, and the houses can be no more than 18 feet above the center line of Spear Street. The Hoehls plan to build a 2-story, very traditional house. It is their opinion that the house will not interfere with the view from the scenic overlook. Ms. Linton noted the proposed ordinance has a very serious impact on all of the lots, and the Hoehls house could not be built on this lot at all under the proposed ordinance. They feel that the location of the house required by the ordinance would be worse from the point of view of the scenic overlook. Mr. Hoehl said his lot is 160 ft. across the front, 200 feet across the back, and 603 feet deep. He outlined the money and time he has invested in planning his house and said that real estate people have told him he would suffer a $100,000 loss in land value under the proposed zoning. He said if he has to build at the back of his land, he will lose the protection of his view. Among the costs Mr. Hoehl cited, were $13,000 for an architect, $3900 in taxes, legal fees, topography, etc. If he has to build a single story house, it will also cost $10,000 more for the foundation and considerably more for the lengthened driveway to the back of the lot. He said he has a large family and did not feel he could build a large enough home in the rear of the lot. Mr. Hoehl's architect noted that from grade to the top of the house, they propose to build 33 feet in height. Ms. Linton said it is their contention that the house meets the existing pattern of development in the area and also the en- vironmental limitations of the area. Mr. Hoehl did not deny that his proposed house will impact the view from Spear Street. He said it would not impact the view from the overlook and showed photos to the Council to support this contention. Members felt they would like to see the site and asked Mr. Hoehl to stake out the proposed location of the house. The Council agreed to visit the site on 4 May, at 6:00 pm and to meet again on TutS&.1, 10 May, to make their decision. Mr. Flaherty_ moved to continue the public hearing until 4 May, at 6:00 pm, at the Hoehl lot on Spear Street and further until Tuesday, 10 May, at 7:30 pm. Mrs. Lambert seconded Motion passed unanimously. Reschedule Public Hearing on Proposed City Center Zoninq Mr. Flaherty moved to reschedule the Public Hearin(i of Proposed City Center Zoning until 16 May 1988. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. er on rueyday 515 _tY Hall, »belt, Geotge :itY 21anned,Y- ; Boar Mar ,�onin9 Ann pugh� Hurd�on; Albert ,mmisRay �nsworthi ;on 1 Cat Y Coopeoi Roskowitz, ell Le Collette s Mabet I other paper yd p0 er' is and Lion °f home within famil ecif is aP- of -der the Of the Piece Zoning sent because de_ be r ke � ema f ,hen..t�em applicant Pahet measurin9 was 'Lai was put in in9 ordinanc time -two ck_on t edi byi the and City from that the views from auce the view has been Ater °f al that ropos ds to the he p City intends en e mo dification would th made that the cOmmen e Way down and se 2/3 °f the he e°point Mr' Mti.n9 from tttht lnwet .esent the h°use a fur l� et - want fe tehedeso t able lncatl°n t t issue tNg- mug `d h u P W Lt h .fight-tl" �� CITY COUNCIL 10 MAY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on ruesday, 10 May 1988, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, George Mona, Francis X. Murray Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; John Dinklage, Zoning Board; Mary - Barbara Maher, Peter Jacob, John Belter, Judith Hurd, Ann Pugh, William Burgess, Catherine Peacock, Planning Commission; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Robert Hoehl, Leslie Linton, Ray Unsworth, Victor Ratkus, Ann Ratkus, Carol Chase, Robert Cooper, Cathy Doyle, Len Tashman, Diane Farnum, Bernard Hussel, Leo Roskowitz, Nancy Walsh, Karen Jacobs, Richard Chase, James Maher, Collette Oseroski, Dennis Blodgett, Lance�wPllyn Sid Poger, Other Paper & Mike Donoghue, Burlington Free Press. Continuation of PUBLIC HEARING on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl for the construction of a single-family home within the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Mr. Farrar advised this meeting was to consider the specific ap- plication of the Hoehls, not to discuss the zoning of the piece of land. The Planning Commission was asked to be present because this _d i�as svi gh��-va7u a 6.1 e to them when them m a k e t h_�_.d e- liberations about the zoning, Mr. Farrar asked the applicant if he- har}-anything 0 new"Eo _aTJ7 Mr. Hoehl noted the measuring was correct for the positioning of the house. Mr. Farrar explained that the Interim Zoning Ordinance was put in place to give the Council and Planning Commission time to look at the problem., An overlook a een acquired by the City and con struction could take place that would reduce the views from that overlook and would also change the character of the view from Spear Street. The question is whether the propo sal that has been made is compatible with the overlook as the City intends to preserve and use it. If it is not, what modification would the Council suggest to improve it. Mr. Mona said on the recent site visit, the comment was made that the applicant could have sited the house 2/3 of the way down the hill and not be in the way of the view. Mr. Mona said he found this is more objectionable than the present siting from the point of view of the overlook. He would not want the house at the lower end of the lot. He did suggest siting the House 10 feet further east and 10 feet further north as a more desirable location. Mr. Murray moved that the City Council_issue_ a permit to Mr__3Id P[rs. Hoehl for construction of their house with the_��diL.i_ou__dd Mr. Hoe agreed to last Wednesda 9 ---- y ni(Iht_that CITY COUNCIL 10 May 1988 page 2 ten feet to the north and ten feet to the east. Mr. Flaherty ,� seconded the motion. Mrs. Maher asked what this motion would do. Mr. Farrar said that from his perspective, if he stood at the overlook, the house would be in such a position he would not see it if he were looking at the lake. He then demonstrated this on the posted plan. Mr. Hoehl said he would be willing to grant a view variance guarantee l from the overlook parking area. Leon Roskowitz a resident at the Overlook condos, said he was concerned with the view from Spear Street. Nancy Walsh said she is very concerned about keeping the last panoramic view for every- one. She said she is sympathetic with the property owner but felt he should build further down. A house on Spear St. blocks the view and she felt the whole panorama should be saved. Mr. Hoehl said at the time of subdivision this was considered. There is a road easement at the bottom of the land. Mr. Ratkus added there is 100 acres across the road for sale. Ms. Walsh said 1 it is not a question of money. Mr. Dinklage said all the city bodies had dropped the ball on protecting the view from Spear St. He didn't feel, however, that it was too late. He said he was at the overlook on Wednesday and differed with the motion. He felt it was more important to protect the view from both the overlook and from Spear St. He felt placing the house further down would be preferable. He said it could be possible to allow the owner to use his property and still allow preservation of this valuable natural resource. Mrs. Lambert said she feared if the Council acted too hastily, they may not have looked at every option. Ms. Chase said she was concerned that a precedent would be set for exceptions to interim zoning. The fact that the law exists protects the owners as well as everyone else. Mr. Cooper, owner of the adjacent parcel, said he had owned his land longer than the Hoehls and felt interim zoning did not take into account the property owners. He said he has paid taxes and also paid to put in sewers. He added they didn't know if they were protected from future development of the University property. Mrs. Ratkus said they bought the schoolhouse lot and noted they had to agree to height restrictions. She asked how others would feel in their position. Mr. Un2worth said he sympathized everyone but stressed that once —.that vi-ew is gone._it is gone forever. It is some , ny that everyone going up and down Spear Street enjoys and is an asp;et CITY COUNCIL 10 May 1988 page 3 that should be protected. He also felt nothing should be taken away from the property owners. He felt if the Council took its time to make a decision and didn't rush into something, they would have time to come up with a solution to satisfy everyone. If the town makes property less valuable to preserve it for the good of the community, the owners should be compensated for this. Cathy Doyle commented that she used to go to the overlook to see the vista, but she doesn't go anymore because the view is marred by the house already there. She felt it important to preserve the land further north. She did not feel people would go to the over- look because the view is already spoiled. Mr. Hoehl said he did not agree and has seen people parked there. He said the view is incredible from the overlook though it is not what it used to be. He added he felt the compromise was made at subdivision time when views were protected from the overlook. The City got that land for nothing; the same is true of the easement. He felt if he had to move his house to the lower part of the lot he would not be Protected from what might happen at the horticultural farm. In addition, he could build only a one story house on the lower part of the land. Mr. Tashman said he has lived in S. Burlington 20 years. He asked the Council to consider the broader view of what the overlook is. He recalled many people stopping, parking, and taking pictures of the scenic vista. He felt the citizens have naturally defined the overlook district. He said it was a heartbreak to see the house that is there rising like a tumor on the land. The Hoehl property would further desecrate the view. He expressed disappointment that the Council let the Jameson house go up and felt they should take steps not to add to the desecration. Mr. Tashman cited an editorial in the Free Press as representative of the citizens' views. Diane__Far-num said she has. no ve,ste-d inter_e_s_t__.in_this-..property but did appreciate the view. She was concerned about stepping on Ehe toes of landowners and felt there needs- to be some intimate dis= cussion with landowners. She felt the Jameson house is a travesty. Mrs— Lambe-rt_..s_a.id- tha.t`is what interim zonin is about -g_.. ..4 - a 6 month period in which to consi.der._ever yle.. - an q _ Mr. Hussel said he has no property there but agreed with Mrs. Farnum and was concerned about protecting the views as well. He asked why the City couldn't buy the land across the street and put a road up there for enjoyment of the views. Mr. Dinklage agreed with Mrs. Lambert about the concept of interim zoning as a chance to pause and assess changes happen in< c� rapidly. He asked the Council to turn down--t-Pre__t#rr�h.-I'a �p�_al this time to further study the issue and get input from tlio Planning_Co mmission and the community. CITY COUNCIL 10 May 1988 page 4 C" - Mr. Roskowitz said he can relate to landowers, but this is a r, minimum amount of people versus tens of thousands who enjoy the �� ^ views. lie felt there should be a compromise but that the view should be protected for everyone. Ms. Walsh noted there is still time (5 months) left in interim zoning. Mr. Farrar said this could be extended up to 2 years if there were a reason to do that, such as a study being done. He said alternatives include legal action which might result in the City paying damages. Mrs. Maher asked if Mr. Farrar was saying the Council might make a decision based on fear of legal action. Mr. Farrar said no, he was just stating the possibility. Mr. Mona said he felt if the Council took action tonight, either to approve or disapprove, they might be acting in haste and recommended not rushing into the matter. Mr. Stitzel said Statute.-_doe.s_.not_ give a_time limit in which t e Counci as to act.. He felt the timeframes out ine or t e oning boa` r_ mig-Fit indicate a reasonable period. Ms. Linton, attorney for the Hoehls, said the law does not give the Council 6 months to hold up the Hoehls. She felt not acting tonight would, in fact, be acting. Ms. Lambert said no hearings have been held on this. Since the 1976 subdivision, South Burlington has changed dram- atically. She disputed the notion that not acting tonight would be a denial. Ms. Linton said Mr. Hoehl's children want to know where they will be going to school in the fall. Mrs. Lambert said South Burlington would welcome them. Mrs. Linton said everyone agrees this is a lovely view. Mr. Hoehl is not putting up a string of condos, just"his house. She said the Council's choice is to site the house in a position that will benefit the public. She agreed the Jameson house siting is horrible. Mrs. Lambert said what she is asking is to wait and not let it happen again. She felt the Council could not be driven by Mr. Hoehl's timetable. Mr. Flaherty said the City has a 2 acre overlook and felt the proposed citing of the house would protect views from the over- look. The question is whether Spear St, views can be protected well. Mrs. Lambert said waiting may produce a solution that is not apparent now. Mr. Hoehl said waiting would cost him money. Mr. Mona stressed the Council is trying to balance all interests involved and felt there should be no action tonight. as r. Murray said he made the motion and he supports it. It is not, he stressed, a black and white decision. He felt the community is I udged on how it treats individuals as well as the whole: community. This application is part of a process that began lU years ago. He was aware the City could have preserved the view by paying for it. The lots were very expensive, and the community 0 i C 1 T . ('Uu N(:1 1, 10 ".1av 1988 !Da (I 5 has limited resources. He said he hates to see the view go but felt the Council has to be fair and decent to Mr. Hoehl. He added if he had a sense there was anything the Council could come up with as a possible solution that would be fair to Mr. Hoehl, he would support a delay. Mrs. Lambert stressed the Council hasn't talked with the Planning Commission or with the State. Mr. Murray agreed there should have been more in place to prevent the Jameson house, and he wanted to protect the view from the overlook. A citizen emphasized there are people who don't own property, people who aren't even born yet, and he felt someone has to rep- resent them as well. Mr. Tashman said he was disappointed with Mr. Murray's view. He felt there are amenity rights to be upheld and questions to be answered. If there is even a small chance of protecting the community from another eyesore, that chance should be taken. He said he would feel better if his elected officials have done all their homework and considered every angle, even if the community loses. Mr. Murray said he will not feel easy about his decision for a long time, but he would stand by it. A citizen stressed that the City Council is supposed to represent all citizens of South Burlington and has a responsibility to do what is right for the community, even if it costs the community money. He said the Council is responsible for the abomination that now blocks the view. Mr. Flaherty responded that he felt the Council was protecting the greater part of the view. Mrs. Maher said she is concerned there will be further requests for other variances. Mr. Farrar said it is a question of pro- tecting the view from the City's overlook or from Spear St, or both. He said the only way to do this completely -is to buy the lot and severa s.---- Mr. Dinklage said he felt a very legitimate use of legislative authority is not only to consider the details of the proposed zone, but also to form other alternatives which could include buy_i.rlg_this_-piece of property. He felt the public might be willing to purchase the -property if it were put to a vote. Nancy Walsh felt houses can be blended into a landscape so as not to be obtrusive. Ms. Jacobs said this is a critical issue brought about by a lack of vision previously. Mr. Tashman asked if this request is approved, will others follow. Mr. Murrayaid it was his sense they would. This is, he acknowledged, a very serious decision'-a-s-far as other lots are concerned. Mr. Chase said that is why he finds it incomprehen- sible that Mr. Murray wants to rush info 11ision `oni(Oht He ii CITY COUNCIL 10 May 1988 page 6 said there are opportunities the Council is not aware of and if they act now, they act for all time; if a mistake is made now, it is made for all time. He stressed the cost of time to Mr. Hoehl is far outweighed by the cost to the community. Another citizen noted the community has ideas and no one has asked them. People are angry about the Jameson house and feel the Council should have foreseen it happening. He said if the Council doesn't want to come up with options, the community would do it for them. Mr. j Murray said he still felt the individual's rights are paramount because of the history of the matter. Mrs. Maher stated the Council has a responsibility for generations to come. She urged them not to vote for the motion and added it was a sad night for her because she could see where it was leading. Mr. Dinklage suggested laying out in general language a charge to the Planning Commission to hold hearings on the details of the Ordinance, including site angles; also to contract with a land- scape architect for further input and to form a citizens' committee to come back in 45 days with specific recommendations. Mr. Mona moved to table the motion for 6 da m so the City Council can gather information from the Planning Commission, property owners and other residents of the City regarding this application. Mrs. Lambert seconded. A recess was called at this point to allow the Council to confer with the City's legal counsel. Councilman Michael Flaherty made the motion to go into Executive Session at 9:15 PM, seconded by Councilman George Mona, all in favor. The Council came out of Executive Session at 9:35PM and by motion of Mr. Flaherty reconvened the Reqular Session, seconded by Mr. Murray. Mr. Mona withdrew his previous motion to table, the withdrawal was seconded by Mrs. Lambert. Mr. Mona then moved to table the action on this application until May 23,1988, so that the Council could receive additional written evidence from parties that may wish to present such evidence concerning this application. Such evidence to be received by the City Manager's O fice by the close of the business day May 19,1988. Seconded by Mrs. Lambert_. All voted. Mr. Mona, Mrs.Lambert & Mr. Farrar in favor. Mr. Flaherty f and Mr. Murray opposed. There was no futher business to come before the board. Mr. Nana maklk, the motior; to adjourn at 9:45PM, seconded by Mr. Murray. Al 1 in fav()r. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 23 MAY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 23 May 1988, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, Francis X. Murray, John Dinklage Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; Mary -Barbara Maher, Planning Commission; David Boehm, James Condos, Zoning Board; Albert Audette, Street Dept; William Schuele, Natural Resources Comm- ittee; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Lisa Scagliotti, Free Press; Greg & Carol Lothrop, Jamie Smith, Mr. & Mrs. Leppman; Leslie Linton (representing the Hoehls), Bob Hoehl, Cynthia Hoehl, Guy Teschmacher, Geoffrey Fitzgerald, Robert Cooper, Nancy & Robert Boardman, Aaron Stein, 'Karen Yacob, James A. Dumont (attorney representing citizens), Gregory Brand, Leon Moszkowicz, Marcia Killam, Patricia Day, Stacey & Jerry Johnson, Cheryl Baldwin, Shelley Snyder, Anne Ratkus, Sue Hayes, Debra Sachs, Kevin Dann, Jim Jamieson, Martha Campione, Rich German, Richard Carter, Philip and Diana McArthur, Raun Calan, William & Kathleen Posey, Richard & Carol Chase, Leonard Tashman, Nancy Walsh, Terrence Boyle, N. Hussels, Al Reyes, Bill Wargo, Richard Underwood, Jack Kane, J. H. Sopher, Jim Donohue, Tanise Adams, Phyllis Carr 1. Update on Airport Odor Problem Mr. Szymanski reported he had contacted Jeff Noyes who recommended the ethylene glycol not be cleaned up but be allowed to disperse. Mr. Noyes felt it was not hazardous and there would be no problem with casual contact. Mr. Szymanski also advised there will be a State investigator here this week. The State also feels it is not a problem and will disperse before it gets to major bodies of water. The City of Denver has had a similar problem. They now intercept the airport runoff and take it to a sewage treatment plant. South Burlington's plant is smaller than Denver's and probably couldn't handle the problem. The DuPont people say the chemical is not a hazardous problem. Fish can survive in up to 6,000 parts per million. George Crooks, retired UVM chemistry professor, looked over the information and felt the chemical would disperse. He also felt the area should be cleaned up. Mr. Dinklage asked whether oxygen levels were measured in the runoff. If the levels were low, Mr. Dinklage felt the area could be aerated. Mr. Szymanski said he thought the oxygen levels had been measured. Mr. Farrar noted that Mr. Crooks had felt the SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL i� 23 May 1988 page 2 problem might have come from incidental impurities in the ethylene glycol not from the chemical itself. Mr. Flaherty advised he had talked to the Airport Commission and the Airport Manager. They are very supportive and have applied for funding to divert the flow providing it will not cause a problem further down. A meeting will be set up with the City Manager and the City's consultants. The ultimate aim is to contain the chemical on the airport grounds. Mr. Lothrop said he had found out that people must wear special clothing to deal with this chemical. Mr. Farrar said if it is at the levels in the report, it is below the danger level. Mr. Lothrop stressed the stream is still not free -flowing which is a problem. Mr. Flaherty suggested that for the next regular Council meeting they find out how long it would take to clean up the area and how much it would cost. Members agreed. 2. Continue Public Hearing on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl for construction of a sinqle-family home within the a Spear Street Scenic Overlook District i Mr. Farrar began by enumerating the list of submittals received by the City Manager's Office (attached). He also indicated that he would make any rulings that might be required and where possible these would be made immediately. The first verification required was that Mr. Dumont was, in fact, employed by 10 or more citizens of the city and was therefore entitled to represent them at this hearing. Mr. Dumont said he could make such verification. The second item concerned the make-up of the City Council, and Mr. Farrar ruled that newly elected Councilman John Dinklage could sit on this case if he so chose. Mr. Farrar based his decision on advice of legal counsel. Ms. Linton objected to this on behalf of the Hoehls. Mr. Farrar noted that Mr. Dinklage had reviewed all materials and listened to the tapes of the previous hearings. Mr. Dinklage cited State precedents which he had consulted. These precedents indicate a Board does not have to be composed of the same people during hearing which take place over a period of time. He re -affirmed that he had reviewed tapes and had, in fact, at- tended all meetings of the Council since this matter arose. He was briefed by the City Attorney on matters brought up in Executive Session. Mr. Dinklage added that he has had experience in quasi-judicial matters having served for 8 years on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He had thus made the decision to sit during this hearing and to participate. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL {u 23 May 1988 page 3 Ms. Linton said she appreciated Mr. Dinklage's statement but felt he had been an outspoken opponent to Mr. Hoehl's petition at the earlier meetings and she felt it would be hard to switch from advocate to judge. Mr. Dinklage said the opinion he had expressed earlier was that he would like to find a way to protect views from the overlook and from Spear Street, ways that might be reasonable, defensible and affordable. He believed other members of the Council felt the same way. Mr. Farrar then ruled that 3 affirmative votes would be required to pass on a motion. He further ruled that each piece of evidence enumerated was properly submitted. Ms. Linton objected to the requirement of 3 affirmative votes. It is their contention that the application period has expired and the application has thus already been passed. Mr. Dumont asked Ms. Linton when she felt the application period had expired. Ms. Linton chose not to respond to this question. Mr. Farrar then asked the Council if there was any elucidation they wished on the evidence submitted. Mr. Dumont asked whether the applicant had seen the plan submitted by Terry Boyle. Guy Teschmacher, architect for the Hoehls, said the Boyle plan was actually 1-1/2 floors with a basement since the roof cuts out part of the second floor. The original plan was for a basement and 2 full levels on top of that plus an attic on top. Mr. Boyle was then asked to explain his proposal. Mr. Boyle began by noting there is now a 160-170 degree pan-oramic view from Spear Street blocked only by the Jamieson house. He said he had some slides to show his plan. Question arose as to the admissibility of these slides. Mr. Murray said he would like to see all the evidence Mr. Boyle has prepared and felt it was appropriate since Mr. Boyle was a professional in the field. He also felt the Hoehls should be given the chance to rebut the evidence of Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle said his plan was a compromise which may save both views: from the overlook and from Spear St. He first recommended sitting the Hoehl house further down the hill with access from a 7-, service road. This, he felt, would provide a similar or better view than the Boardman house now has. It would also conform with the City's zoning plan. He felt the City should buy the upper portion of the lot (and the other 5 lots in the strip) for a park. Mr. Boyle said this is not a new idea but was recommended years ago and has been considered for a long time. He stressed if the opportunity is lost with this application, it will be lost for all the other properties. Mr. Boyle noted that Fred Sargeant had identified this area as "unique" in a catalog of scenic places, and Mr. Boyle felt it important to maintain the foreground for the view. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL fu 23 May 1988 page 4 Mr. Dinklage asked whether the Hoehls felt placement of the house in the alternate plan would be a reasonable house and a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Hoehl said he did not. He said he owns a 600 ft. deep lot, and interim zoning would take the better half of his land. He noted the Boardman house is 2200 sq. ft. and his proposal is for a 4,000 sq. ft. house. He noted he has 6 children, and the proposal would not be reasonable for him. Mr. Boyle continued by saying the proposed service road would involve only 1 curb cut on Spear Street and suggested it be a one way street with access from the north end of the street. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Boyle to describe the impact on the view to people who would live in the proposed home (and houses on the other lots) if the homes were moved to the location Mr. Boyle proposes. Mr. Boyle acknowledged the views would be somewhat diminished. The view of the near shoreline would be lost, pos- sibly some of the bay. The far shoreline and the mountains would still be fully in view. Mr. Murray asked whether construction of homes in the valley would tend to interfere with the view of the proposed Spear St. houses. Mr. Boyle said he would need to extend site lines all the way down to determine this, but his feeling was they would not block the view from the Spear St. houses. Mr. Hoehl questioned the location of the pedestrian easement. Mr. Audette said it is right along the fence. The City Attorney confirmed the pedestrian easement is included in the 60 foot easement. Mr. Farrar asked how high is the proposed Hoehl house. The architect said 31 ft. plus chimneys. Mr. Farrar asked how high the house proposed by Mr. Boyle would be. Mr. Boyle said ap- proximately the same. The City Attorney said he felt a foundation had been laid for the slides to be shown. If there was any objection, he felt they would have to recess to a later date to allow rebuttal. The slides were then shown. Mr. Farrar asked whether the houses as proposed by Mr. Boyle have about the same visual impact as the Boardman house has now. Mr. Boyle said just about. The question of homes being built on what is now the UVM Horticultural Farm was raised and whether such homes would block views from the house sites proposed by Mr. Boyle. Mrs. Lambert noted that the Horticultural Farm is also within the interim zoning district and would have to drop down in size. Restrictive covenants could also be imposed. Ms. Linton asked if there were a picture of what the houses Mr. Boyle proposes would look like from the Overlook. Mr. Boyle said the only house in the view line would be the Hoehl house, but he felt SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL fu 23 May 1988 page, 5 it could be screen by plantings. Ms. Linton asked whether the possibility of filling in the Overlook had been considered and how that would improve the view. Mr. Boyle said filling would only cause the Jamieson house to further block the view. Ms. Linton then asked whether anyone had considered the cost to the city of putting in a city street, buying land for a city park site on Spear St. and putting in plantings. Mr. Boyle said he felt that could be pursued further. He stressed this is the last opportunity to enforce a wise interim zoning plan and that the Overlook Park would be of greater benefit if the land at the top of the hill were not compromised. Mr. Hoehl questioned whether the proposal would leave enough footage for a setback from the proposed right of way. Mr. Farrar calculated that it appeared not to. Mr. Dumont then presented a summation on behalf of the citizens he represents. He said that as he has read the interim zoning and Mr. Boyle's evidence, it would not be a ban on construction. He said that every decision by every court in the co>>ntry has ruled that interim zoning requirements do not represent a "taking" of land from the owner. The Hoehls would still have the right to use their property, develop it, even sell it at a significant profit. Interim zoning, he said, is a compromise, an accommodation, and what the Hoehls are saying is they will not compromise, not ac- commodate, and will not answer concerns in the public interest. He said that the Hoehls position is that private property rights exclude all legal rights. He said it is not true that zoning and interim zoning does not have to be followed. A zoning board has discretion, but it must follow the zoning. He said the Board could not grant the Hoehl application unless they have been convinced that it is "consistent" with environmental limitations of the site and with preservation of significant natural resources. It is the applicant's burden of proof, and unless he has shown this, the Board cannot make the finding to grant a permit. Mr. Dumont stressed there is no question of whether a particular design has to be accommodated. He urged the Board, if it feels the Hoehls have a right to a particular design, they should put it in their findings and let another legal body make a determination as to whether this is legally relevant. Mr. Dumont said the Board must conclude that the view from Spear St. and Overlook are both being protected by the Ordinance, and the ap- plication must be consistent with this. He felt the application was not consistent with this requirement. Mr. Dumont cited the case of DeWitt vs, the Brattleboro Zoning Board in which the ruling was that the Zoning Board had no authority to amend its Ordinance under the guise of granting an exception or a variance. He added that is the law; if doesn't like it, it can appeal it. But it is now the law. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL (u 23 May 1988 page 6 Mr. Hoehl then said he felt the interim zoning was a taking of half of his land. He said a proposal must be reasonable and he felt what was proposed was not reasonable. He felt raising the overlook would help and that his house would do nothing to impede the view from the overlook. He felt he would lose his view if he had to go by the Boyle proposal and showed pictures of what he said was a diminished view. He said the City could build a road on the easement it now owns and let the public have a view from there. Mr. Dumont said he felt it was a question of a small diminishing of the view from Mr. Hoehl's house for the loss of the public's view of the panorama from Spear Street. Mr. Hoehl said only a portion of his house would block the view from Spear St. Mr. Dumont said Mr. Hoehl is already being accommodated by the Council. Most interim zoning rules are a total moratorium on building in a particular area. The Council is making a tre- mendous accommodation and actually doesn't have to grant any building permits in the area affected by interim zoning. Ms. Linton said the purpose of interim zoning was to Protect the view from Overlook Park, and she felt that is a very important priority. She said there will be house on this lot some day, somewhere. Mr. Hoehl's choice of location will not block the view from the overlook. She felt picnic tables could be added to the overlook area to make it a real park. If the house is moved back, she said, it would be in the view line from the Overlook. She acknowledged that the location proposed by Mr. Hoehl would block some portion of the view from Spear Street but contended it won't ruin the view. She said that legally and practically the Council should focus attention on the overlook. She did not feel the Jamieson house ruins the overlook view. She felt the interim zoning was an extraordinary kind of zoning that affects 4 property owners acutely requiring them to change location, heights, to build into the side of the hill, and to compromise their views. She felt that under the statute, the environmentally sound thing to do is to approve the permit as applied for. She noted Mr. Hoehl is willing to move his house 10 ft. north, but didn't agree to move it 10 ft. east as he doesn't feel that is necessary. Mr. Hoehl affirmed he would build the house so it doesn't block the view from the overlook. Ms. Linton said compromises were made in 1977 for the pedestrian easement, setbacks, height limitations and that the Hoehls should now be able to build where they propose to build. Mrs. Lambert asked whether the berm ,could arouse landscaping questions. Mr. Dinklage said that is one issue that hasn't been Y explored, and landscaping could be a disaster. The City Attorney said landscaping would have to conform to interim or permanent zoning. 7 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL (cu. 23 May 1988 page 7 Mr. Dumont said they are not sure what other exceptions are being sought here and that they had only promises. He felt they should know what the Hoehls are going to do to be sure it all complies. Ms. Linton urged the Council to vote this evening. Mrs. Lambert then moved the Council meet in Executive Session for the purpose of deliberating on the present application. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. When the Council resumed regular session, Mr. Murray made the following motion: That the Public Hearing be adjourned unti Thursday, 26 Miy, a pm, in order to give the City torney the opportunity to provid the City Council with certain in- formation that it needs in order to make its decision and so th the Counce can have the advice of the City Attorney at the time it ma es its decision. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion, The question arose as to whether the meeting on Thursday would be an executive or open session. Mr. Farrar said it would be an executive session followed by an open meeting. Question then arose as to whether any further evidence would be taken. Mr. Farrar ruled it would not as the hearing has been closed. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 12:30am. ,' Clerk C CITY COUNCIL 26 MAY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, 26 May 1988, at 8:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar,Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, Francis X. Murray, John Dinklage Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Leslie Linton, Cynthia Hoehl, Robert Hoehl, Nancy Walsh, Len Tashman, Bob Cooper, Zoltan Sachs, Martha Campione, Richard German, Kathleen Doyle, H. J. Sopher, Richard Chase, Carol Chase, Gregory Brand, Karen Jacos, Dorothy Wootton, Al Reyes, Anne Ratkus Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss the findings of fact in the Hoehl application. Mr. r Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Recaular Session 1. Act on the Interim Zoning Application of Cynthia & Robert Hoehl, recessed from 23 May 1988 Mr. Farrar explained that in going over the application, the Council found that the height of the structure as proposed was not in conformance with the Zoning code. Mr. Hoehl responded that his architect said it was his understanding that this was how houses in South Burlington were usually measured, but he was willing to measure it the way the City requests. Mr. Farrar said the applicant's option was now either to let the application stand as it is, in which case the Council would have to deny it because of the height violation, or to request the Council re -open the public hearing. Mr. Murray added that if the application were denied, Mr. Hoehl would have to start again from scratch. Ms. Linton asked what the time line would be for Mr. Hoehl to submit new plans that comply with the 35 foot height limit. Mr. Farrar suggested a week or 2. Mr. Dinklage said the Council would like to study the plans and make them available to the public. Ms. Linton said they are still not sure the way the Council is interpreting the 35 foot limit is the way it should be CITY COUNCIL 26 May 1988 page 2 measured. Mr. Flaherty explained the Zoning Administrator measures height from grade to the highest point on the structure. Measuring this way, the Hoehl house would be 38 feet high. Mr. Tashman asked what positon the public is in now. Mr. Farrar said the public could be present at a re -opened public hearing and could present its own evidence in the matter. Mrs. Lambert then enumerated the criteria by which the City Council has to make its decision. These include 4 points: the capacity of the community facilities, existing patterns of development in the area, environmental limitations of the site and significant natural resources in the area, and compatability with municipal plans or other municipal by-laws in effect. The applicant then requested a brief recess to consult with legal counsel. Following the recess, the applicant's attorney requested the City Council re -open the public hearing. Ms. Linton indicated they would present alternative plans but still believe the present plan is in compliance. They also requested this be on the agenda of the next Council meeting which is 6 June. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Council grant the request of the applicant to re -open the public hearing on 6 June 1988, with the understanding that'the City Council will be receiving by 1 June 1988 replacements for pages 1 and 7 of the proposed plan. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Mr. Farrar said plans should detail the visual impact of what is being proposed. Mr. Tashman said he felt the Council was being very solicitous of the applicant without telling the public what its rights are now. He was not sure the public would have enough time to study the re- submitted plans. He felt that if the public had until 6 June to present its evidence, that would be all right. Council members agreed this was acceptable. Mr. Greg Brown asked whether there had been any communication be- tween the Zoning Administrator or City Council and the applicant since the public hearing closed. Mr. Farrar said the Zoning administrator had written to the applicant regarding the height issue. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. 2 Appoint City Representative and alternate to the Shelburne Road By -Pass Committee CITY COUNCIL 26 May 1988 page 3 Mr. Farrar advised that the Village of Shelburne would like a South Burlington representative on this study committee. There have been 2 volunteers, Bill Craig, who is presently chairing the Shelburne Rd. Study Committee, and Frank Mazur. Mr. Flaherty moved that Bill Craig be appointed as South Burling- ton's representative to the Shelburne By -Pass Committee with Frank Mazur to serve as alternate. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm. ;'C 1'e r k �� CITY COUNCIL 6 JUNE 1988 page 2 Continue Public Hearing on the application of Cynthia & Robert Hoehl for construction of a home in the Spear St overlook district Mr. Farrar noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Dumont. Mr. Dumont noted the submission of new photos from Terry Boyle showing that even the lower shoreline & Shelburne Bay would be viewable from the site he recommends. Council members and the applicants studied the photos and Mr. Hoehl said he had no objection to their sub- mission. Ms. Linton noted that a number of the photos don't in- dicate where they were taken from and that is a problem. Mr. Murray noted that on the night of his presentation, Mr. Boyle didn't know for certain the impact on the view in relation to what might be built on the UVM property below. Mr. Boyle said he feels there is no concern there because you can see the near shoreline - of the Bay. He did think the height of the hedge row would have to be controlled, however. Mr. Hoehl said he was absolutelsure that development at the UVM property would interfere with his view from the Boyle location. As there were no further submissions, Mr. Flaherty moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Murray seconded Motion passed unan- imously. Mrs. Lambert moved the Council meet in Executive Session to deliberate. Mr. Dinklage seconded Motion passed unanimously. When the regular session resumed, the motion as originally made was restated: to approve the Hoehl house subject to being moved 10 feet to the north and 10 feet to the east. Mr. Flaherty then moved to amend the motion to eliminate moving the house 10 ft. to the east. The house is to be constructed inaccordance with the revised plans dated 5/26 88and the applicant jl� shall convey a view easement as offered with no construction and no landscaping west of his house that would interfere with the view from the overlook, as agreed upon with the City Attorney. The approval does not authorize any landscaping or qradinq which would require approval of the City Council under the present interim zoning. Mr. Murray seconded In the votes which followed, the amendment was passed unanimously. The amended motion was passed 4-1 with Mr. Dinklage voting against Mr. Murray then moved to instruct the City Attorney to write the findings and decision consistent with the City Council's deliber- ations. When approved by the City Council, this will be the official findings. Mrs Lambert seconded Motion passed unan imously. CITY COUNCIL 6 JUNE 1988 page 3 TheoCity Attorney hoped to have the written findings for the 13 June special meeting. Mr. Farrar noted that once the written decision is approved, it will then be necessary for the applicant to seek a permit from the Zoning Administrator based on the rest of the zoning regulations. Mrs. Poger asked if interim zoning is still in effect for the rest of the lots. Mr. Dinklage said it is. Mr. Farrar said the present case was like a conditional use and was decided on its own merits. Review City Manager's Report on Status of 1987-8 Goals Mr. Murray asked when the proposed Charter Change on the park land acquisition might go to ballot. Mr. Farrar suggested the November._ election. Regarding the fire engine work, Mr. Farrar noted the Council had approved a contract for Greenwood to do the work; however, they can't purchase the chasis, so another proposal was solicited at the same price. Chief Goddette said he will have a proposal to be voted on at the next meeting. Accept Resignation of John Dinklage from the Zoning Board Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the resignation of John Dinklage from the Zoning Board with thanks for his years of service there. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Sign Agreement between Visiting Nurse Association and the City Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the agreement with Visiting Nurse Association. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Set 1988-9 City School Tax Rate (.671 + 1.794 = 2.465 Ms. Lambert moved to set the 1988-9 city school tax rate at 2.465. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that the total rate for everything is only 3.7% higher than last year. Review Planning & Zoning Agendas No issues were raised. Review Minutes of 5/16, 5/23 and 5/26 Mr. Murray noted he had not attended the 5/16 meeting. JANES & JACOB OA Better REAL ESTATE, INC. I 1 &VHOS. 10 ) I)o(scl Strect. PO. Box 2181, South Burlin(lton, Vermont 05403 TELEPHONE (802) 863-5516 ns Mr. Paul Farrar, Chairman So. Burlington City Council So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Paul: May 19, 1988 RECEIVED MAY 19 1989 MANAGER'S OFFLCE CITY. OF SO. BURLINGTOU I am writing to you as a member of the So. Burlington Planning Commission who was on the board at the time the Spear Street over- look was acquired as part of the requirements layed down by the Planning Commission for approval of the Spear Street project on the westerly side of Spear Street, known as the Nolan property. The Planning Commission did not look at the lots that are now in question for a takeover simply because they were not a part of this project and we had no control of those lots nor did we give any thought of those lots at that time. We tried our best to acquire a piece of land that everybody could enjoy, hence, the overlook. The only mistake that we made is that we gave no consideration, or no good consideration, to what would happen to the lot immediately to the west of the overlook. We thought there was enough pitch that even the lot being built on would not interfere with what we wanted for the people of So. Burlington. Our main concern at the time, as we knew this area would be built up, was to warn whoever owned the property on the east that when that property comes in for development, that we were certainly going to take the ridge of the land where an overlook could be put in and utilized for both lake view and mountain view. So. Burlington is not blessed with an unlimited amount of funds. Personally, I feel that the acquiring of the 200 acre park, hopefully, 300 acres, is a much better situation for So. Burlington and it's generations than five lots or six lots on Spear Street. Yes, I have enjoyed the view also. However, So. Burlington has always had a reputation of being fair to all, both it's citizens and people who wish to become citizens. I am sure you will keep both in mind on your decision. This letter is just to inform you that we did, through the planning process, the bast we could with th(' land we were di!;cussing. P(, ter 1'. J,jc'(>) PI.J/mlh 01MLS L&w OFFICES OF SYLVESTER 8 MALEY, INC. P. O. BOX 1053 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1053 HAROLD C. SYLVESTER ALAN F. SYLVESTER JOHN P. MALEY H. JOSEPH GAMACHE MICHAEL S. BROW GEOFFREY M. FITZGERALD MARGARET A. MANGAN May 5, 1988 Members of the South Burlington City Council 595 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Street Overlook District Dear Members of the South Burlington City Council: TEL. 802-864-�722 OFFICES AT: 78 PINE STREET MAY - i988 C7 This firm has been retained by Robert Cooper, Anne and Victor Ratkus and Douglas Meredith to represent them in connection with the possible impact of the new interim zoning regulations adopted by the South Burlington City Council on April 4, 1988 on their respective Spear Street properties. At this point, we are proceeding on the assumption that the City Council will grant Bob and Cindy Hoehl's application for a conditional use permit and will accord our clients similar treatment if and when they decide to build. If, however, the City Council denies the Hoehl permit appli- cation on the grounds that it fails to comply with the so-called "Spear Street Overlook District" enacted by way of temporary interim zoning, the City Council should know that we categori- cally endorse Attorney Leslie Linton's letter dated May 2, 1988 and the legal positions contained therein. Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle of law that zoning ordinances must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals or the general welfare and cannot discriminate against certain individuals so as to impose upon them burdens which should and must be borne by the public as whole. A cursory look at the development allowed by the City in this same general Spear Street area clearly illustrates how the interim zoning discriminates against my clients. 1 I hope that we are able to avoid litigating the validity of the interim zoning ordinance generally and as it specifically relates to my clients. However, we are prepared to do so Members of the South Burlington City Council Page 2 May 5, 1988 if my clients are not granted appropriate relief from the terms of the ordinance. If you should have any questions or if there is anything my clients can do to resolve this matter prior to litigation, please feel free to call. Cordially yours, Alan F. Sylvester ks/4/24 cc: Robert Cooper Anne and Victor Ratkus Douglas Meredith CITY COUNCIL 9 JANUARY 1989 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 9 January 1989, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Rooms, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michaael Flaherty, John Dinklage, Molly Lambert, William Cimonetti Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Wendy Schroeder, Business Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Stepehn Stitzel, City Attorney; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Robert & Cynthia Hoehl; Victor Ratkus, Robert Cooper, Terrence Boyle, James Dumont, Mark Kelly, John Hausner, Paul Lacouture, Lowell Krassner, Rick Simpson, Peter Serabia, G. Fitzgerald, Marcel Beaudin, Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss Personnel Rules & Regulations. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Public Hearing: Cynthia & Robert Hoehl request to construct a residence in the Spear Street Overlook District Mr. Farrar explained that this matter had been sent back to the Council by the Court. Mr. Flaherty moved to enter en masse all evidence previously taken. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Mr. Dumont said he did not object to this but was concerned that Mr. Cimonetti have the full benefit of that evidence. He asked for the opportunity to summarize through their expert witness the previous testimony. Mr. Hoehl asked if Mr. Cimonetti had had the opportunity to look at all the ex- hibits. Mr. Cimonetti said he had not yet done so. Mr. Farrar said all exhibits will be made available to Mr. Cim- onetti. Mr. Farrar then suggested that both the applicant and those opposing the application have 15 each to summarize CITY COUNCIL 9 JANUARY 1989 PAGE 2 prior testimony following which the evidence. The motion was so amended followed, it was passed unanimously. Council would take new and in the vote which Mr. Boyle then presented slides of the area and projections of what the area would look like with the proposed house and similar houses on the other lots in question. He also showed projections of what the area might look like if homes were built further down the slope. Mr. Boyle added that he felt the Ratkus Lot #1 could have a house at the road edge. Mr. Hoehl then summarized the history of their purchase of land and the easements given for pedestrian view paths. He felt the interim zoning was not substantiated in the Compre- hensive Plan and that the proposed zoning was a "taking" of part of his land. He said if they built lower down, they would be in the foreground of a view from the overlook and if they built at the 330' contour, they could lose their view if something is ever built on the UVM horticultural farm lot. He felt the view corridors work and there are still good views on either side of the house. Mr. Farrar then asked for new evidence. Mr. Hoehl presented a memorandum and findings of fact on building permits dated 12/18/88. Regarding the Judge's order, he said it dealt only with a small part of the issues involved. Issues on legality, constitutionality, etc., were held aside and not included in the Court determination. The Court, he said, did not hear evidence on the reasonableness of the decision. He said the Planning Commission has recommended zoning that would allow their house to be built in its present location. He said the house as built blocks 1/2 of the view that the house west of the overlook blocks. Mr. Dumont noted that the Judge had agreed that Mr. Hoehl was building his house at his own risk. Mr. Dumont asked Mr. Hoehl if he agreed that if interim zoning does become law, his house would be inconflict with that zoning. Mr. Hoehl said that is correct. Mr. Dumont then asked Mr. Boyle to present further evidence. Mr. Boyle showed a diagram of the Hoehl house and said it creates a presence similar to that of the Jamieson house and significantly diminishes the view from the overlook. He said it was like looking through a keyhole between 2 obstructions. Mr. Lacouture asked why this hearing was happening. He understood the Judge had given the matter back to the Council because it didn't take into account the view from Spear St. in its decision. Mr. Farrar said after the Council gets in- formation, it will have the opportunity to present any new i.� CITY COUNCIL 9 JANUARY 1989 PAGE 3 additions to its findings of fact. The conceptual design of the overlook park dated 6/29/88 was then introduced into evidence. Mr. Hausner asked if it would lessen the impact of the Hoehl house if the park height were raised by filling. Mr. Kelly said he lives nearby and always knew this land was to be developed. He felt the city should have bought the land if they wanted to preserve the view. Mr. Hoehl said he didn't understood how the house could be screened further down the hill and asked if it couldn't be screened as it now exists. Mr. Boyle said the house is too obvious in its present location. Mr. Cooper said there was a stipulation that the Hoehl house be screened from the park. He also noted the cost to the city if it had to buy 2/3 of the 5 lots in question plus the cost of a road for access to the houses if they had to be built further down the slope. He said Spear St. is a residential street and people who bought the land had the right to believe they could build a residence there. Mr. Krassner,noted the Natural Resources Committee had indicated this piece of land provided a view that should be preserved before the Jamieson or Hoehl houses were built. He said they are also concerned about the ridge across Spear St. Mr. Fitzgerald said he felt the scenario presented by Mr. Boyle of the homes forming a wall at Spear St. was not possible because of restrictions on deeds. Mr. Farrar said the Council will get all factual pieces of information such as deeds. He asked the City Manager to submit to the Council copies of deeds and restrictions and copies of any approvals the City has given on these lots in the last 10 years. Mr. Dinklage asked if the Council could visit the site after the hearings are closed. Mr. Stitzel said they could close the taking of testimony then visit the site at a specific time, and formally close the hearing after that visit. He also noted that at the last hearing the Council requested an easement on the back portion of the lot which he said was in existence now. Mr. Dumont asked if that easement wasn't voided by the Judge's decision. Mr. Stitzel said he would check. Mr. Farrar explained the procedure to follow. Following the closing of testimony, there would be a site visit. Both sides will then have the chance to submit any changes they propose to the Findings of Fact. The Council will then de- en CITY COUNCIL 9 JANUARY 1989 PAGE 4 liberate and issue a new set of Findings and a new order. He noted that the Hoehls were not represented by Council and felt they might wish to get legal representation for prepar- ation of findings. Mr. Flaherty then moved to adjourn the public hearing on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl until 7:30 am,_ January 11j 1989, at or near the citv overlook park on Spear Street for the sole purpose of making a site visit and that Findings of Fact —will be due at noon on 19 January 1989 at the City Manager's Office. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Continue Public Hearin on Proposed Amendments to City Zonin Regulations regarding the creation of the Spear Street View Protection Zone,' Mr. Weith said he had no further information to present. Mr. Cooperthen presented his request. He felt there is an inequity among lots 2-6 in the size of the Zone B area avail- able to put a building envelope on. He suggested narrowing the baseline to 250 ft. instead of 278' which would add 11 ft. to the lots. Mrs. Maher noted the Planning Commission was asked to do the same thing and had chosen not to. Mr. Cooper said a second proposal would change the angle from 157 degrees to 148 degrees which would intercept the division between lots 1 & 2 at 625 ft. from Spear St. A third proposal would be for a 148 degree angle all the way to the 2,000 ft. line. Mr. Cimonetti asked if Mr. Cooper had a visual point in mind when he swung the angle to 148 degrees. Mr. Cooper said it was a point inside Apple Tree Point. Mr. Farrar noted that the problem Mr. Cooper foresaw of someone building a house that would screen the view of other homes does not now happen. Mr. Cooper agreed. Mr. Dinklage said he was quite uncomfortable considering increasing the distance of the baseline from Spear St. He was still not persuaded of the need for a change. He noted that inequitability is inherent in zoning. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue the Public Hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting with the understanding that factual information will be gathered at the site visit on Wednesday. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously Report on Progress of Manager Selection Committee Mr. Flaherty said the Committee has done an excellent job. Over 80 qualified applicants had been considered. Seven have been interviewed. The League of Cities and Towns is now doing a background check on these. They hope by the end of CITY COUNCIL 9 JANUARY 1989 PAGE 5 month to have 3 resumes to give to the Council Sign Landfill Equipment Note Mr. Szymanski presented a note for the landfill machine for $106,000 at the Chittenden Bank at 6.5% interest. Mr. Flaherty moved the Council sign the note as presented. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Set dates for the following: aJ Public Hearing to consider making Interim Zoning for the Spear Street Scenic Overlook permanent and 121 Date for a off'int meeting with the Planning Commission February 6 was recommended for the Public Hearing. Mr. Dinklage moved to warn the Public Hearing on Interim Zoning for the Spear St. Overlook Zone for 6 February 1989. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members suggested Monday, 30 January, for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Review Planing Agenda for 10 January No issues were raised. Minutes of 19 December and 22 December 1988 It was noted that on 19 December, Wendy Schroeder, not Mary McKearin had been present as Business Manager. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Minutes of 19 and 22 December as amended Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed uanimously. Sign Disbursement Orders There were no orders. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a request for a catering permit from Jake's for a dinner dance at Rice High School on 28 January, from 6 pm to Midnight. CITY COUNCIL 9 JANUARY 1989 PAGE 6 Mr. Flaherty moved the Board approve_ the Catering Permit for Jake's as presented 12y the City Manager. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation with the City Attorney and that it resume regular session only for the purpose of adjourning the meeting. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The City Council came out of Executice Session at 11:00 PM and adjourned immediately. Clerk 41 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658.7955 June 27, 1985 Lance Llewellyn Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. The Kiln 15 Brickyard Road Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Private Sewer Line extension, Spear Street Dear Lance: ZONING ADMINISTRATJR 658.7956 This letter serves to confirm the City's approval of the sewer line extension to lots #1 through #6 on Spear Street owned by Messrs. Murphy, Brown, Meredith and Ratkus as depicted on your plans entitled "Private Sewer Extension'dated 6/12/85. This approval is contingent upon the stipulation of Bill Szymanski that MH #P3 knockout should be 8" so that the sewer extension can serve other properties on Spear Street. Also, upon application of each building permit, a sewer connection fee of $2.50 per gallon based on 150 gallons per bedroom will be charged. At this point, we will reserve 450 gallons per lot for these connections. In order to maintain this allotment, the owners should connect as soon as possible. Please call me if you have any questions. JSB/mcg cc: Victor Ratkus Ray Murphy Maurice Brown Sincerely, -- Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner EXHIBIT "5(a)" PLANNER 658 7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 April 14, 1987 Dr. Victor Ratkus 64 Laurel Fill Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 1485-1495 Spear Street Dear Dr. Ratkus: 3 ZONING ADMINISTRATOn 658.7958 Be advised that the proposed filling with clean material for the above reference lots is not subject to approvals by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. When' filling is incidental to or in connection with the construction of a building we only require review by the City Administration. Your filling proposal has been reviewed by the City Engineer, his only concern was the drainage to the north of your land. A swale carrying the run-off away from the Bolton property will be necessary. Upon completion, the slopes should be seeded. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. RW/mcp Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer EXHIBIT "5 (b) " ❑ Districts #I &'a8 1 ❑ ml trlcts Rs & IN RFD #1, Pittsford Academy +i+{ / 225 North Main Strcei Pittsford, VT 05763 4i Barre, VT 05641 (802) 483-2300� (802) 828-2454 ❑ Districts M2 & #3 1 ❑ Districts N7 RR Nl, Box 33 • n ' " 180 Portland Stn•ct N. Springfield, VT 05150 '„*ucet r, t,� St. Johnshury, VT 058 (902) 886-2215 "' ° ` (802) 748-8787 ❑ Districts N4 & #6 6/Environmental Board C III West Street STATE OF VERMONT c/o State office Buildi Essex Junction, VT 05452 Environmental Board Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 879-6563 District Environmental Commission (S02) 828-3309 June 16, 1987 Victor L. Ratkus, D.D.S., P.C. Endodontics 227 Colchester Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Southern Connector Disposal Area Spear Street, South Burlington, VT Dear Dr. Ratkus: Please be advised that your plan for the disposal of. 2800 cubic yards of clean fill on Lots 1 and 2 owned by you off of Spear Street is acceptable under the Borrow and Disposal Area agreement. This activity will require 400 round trips from Shelburne Road up Swift Street to Spear Street. The purpose of this filling activity will level Lots 1 and 2 to a depth of 150 feet and will allow for future development of these lots. I am not aware of any water courses in the area. However, normal erosion control measures must be implemented as per the recommendation of the Agency of Transportation's Resident Engineer, Peter Gibson. If you have any further questions, please contact me at the Environmental Board in Montpelier (1-828-3309). hsa cc: Peter Gibson Andy Buchanon J. A. McDonald Richard Ward Ltr Ratkus Sincerely, "r�OL& /ou Michael Zahne Environmental Board District #4 Coordinator EXHIBIT "5(c)" LiN'FON & HOBSON, P.C. A'PI( OHN1 VIA i I,AW V.(),Iw)x!0i BuRIANGT(�N, VFRMOMI' 05402 T .: (802) 863-2000 (802)863-"55 LESLIE S. LINTON OFFICE LOCATED AT: EDWIN L. HOBSON WATERFRONT PLACE PHILLIP C. LINTON 86 LAKE STREET O, Cbtmu BURLINGTON. VT May 2, 1988 Members of the South Burlington City Council 595 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Members of the South Burlington City Council: I represent Robert and Cynthia Hoehl. The Hoehl family has applied for a building permit to construct a residence at 1535 Spear Street. The house is to be of standard two story height. Since the Hoehl's 2.4 acre lot lies in the newly designated "Scenic Overlook District," the zoning administrator has referred this matter to you for authorization as a conditional use under 24 VSA Section 4410 (d). The following is a summary of the basis for this appeal. 1. Introduction. The Hoehl's lot is one of 6 lots lying on the west side of-S-pear treet, just north of the scenic overlook. The Hoehl lot is the southerlymost lot and borders the overlook. The Hoehl lot is appro)dmately 577 feet deep, while the scenic overlook is 266 feet deep. The interim zoning ordinance makes it impossible for the Hoehls to build their home anywhere on their lot. It appears that the only structure which might comply would be no more than one story in height and would have to be set back a minimum of 370 feet from Spear Street. The house would then be located in the field below the overlook and would be directly in the line of vision of visitors to the public overlook. The panorama currently enjoyed from the overlook would thus be further compromised. By contrast, the Hoehls propose to site their house in a location closer to Spear Street. As proposed, the Hoehl home would not interfere with the panoramic views enjoyed from the City owned scenic overlook. The field would remain undeveloped, with the possible addition of a pond at some time in the future which would further enhance the view available to park visitors. 2. Background. a. Subdivision a royal. In 1976 Mrs. Aurora Nowland applied t() the o. urlington Planning Commission for permission to subdivide her land in this area. The plan was reviewed in depth by the Natural EXHIBIT"5 (d)" Page 2 May 2, 1988 Resources Committee, the planning office, and the planning commission. The file indicates that the views on Spear Street were discussed at length. Finally, after two or three hearings over the course of a year, the project was approved with certain restrictions. The relevant restrictions include a 60 foot right of way for possible development of a connecting City street and a 15 foot pedestrian easement for use by the public. The City also negotiated the right to negotiate for a period of one year for a 200 foot by 100 foot parcel south of the approved lots to be used as a scenic overlook. The deeds to each of the 6 lots also carry perpetual setback and height restrictions designed to protect the land across the street that Mrs Nowland reserved. The Hoehls' deed includes a 75 foot setback and requires that no tree within the setback may be permitted to exceed 20 feet in height. Additionally, the deed requires that any dwelling erected shall rise no more than 18 feet in height above the center of Spear Street. The Hoehls' proposal comports with these requirements. b. Scenic overlook acquisition. The City did not negotiate and purchase the land for the overlook from Mrs. Nowland. In late 1980, early 1981, the Ray Pecor/ Gerry Milot subdivision was being proposed on land further south along Spear Street. A donation to the city of a scenic overlook was a suggested condition to approval. The plan initially was for a turn-off which would accommodate several cars. The concept was expanded to include an area where people could get out of their cars. A scenic overlook of approximately 300 feet in length and 266 feet in depth was ultimately deeded to the City by Spear Street Housing Partnership in November, 1985. 3. Purchase of Hoehl property. Lot 6 of the Nowland subdivision was conveyed to Robert and Cynthia Hoehl in October 1985. Installation of a sewer line which serves all six of the lots in question was complete shortly before the transfer. Mr. Hoehl consulted with Jane LaFleur in connection with his purchase of the property in order to understand requirements relating to curb cuts, sewer, and height. At that time a dwelling up to 35 feet in height was permitted. The Hoehls planned from the beginning to build their home during the summer of 1988 and to move during the fall so that the two youngest Page 3 May 2, 1988 children would change school systems at a time when they would have to be changing schools anyway (elementary to middle and middle to high school). They began the planning of their home right away. In January of 1987, the Hoehls began working with an architect. Since then, they have designed and redesigned their new home, always intending to build a two story structure. They have invested heavily in their new home, spending substantial sums for their architectural design work as well as very significant amounts of their time. See outline of Robert Hoehl. 4. Enactment of interim zoning. On April 4, 1988, the City Council enacted interim zoning which severely restricts the use of the 6 lots located along Spear Street just north of the City owned overlook. The effect of the zoning on the Hoehl lot is to prohibit any building or planting on the top 2/3 of the lot. The back 60 feet are subject to the City's right of way and pedestrian easement. This leaves a relatively small area where a one story dwelling might be built, notwithstanding the fact that such a structure must be below the city owned overlook within the viewing area. A two story structure cannot be built anywhere on the lot. Notwithstanding the drastic consequences of the proposed ordinance, none of the six lot owners was informed of the proposal. A public hearing was warned in the legal section of the Free Press. Mr. Hoehl learned of the enactment after the fact from an employee at his business. 5. Criteria of 24 V.S.A. Section 4410 d �_ This statute sets out standards for the approval o a conditional use permit by the City Council when land development is not in compliance with the interim bylaw. The statute presupposes that the interim zoning bylaw has been validly enacted and is proper] y enforceable against the landowner. The Hoehl's dispute the validity of the bylaw and request that the City Council issue the necessary authorization for the requested building permit. (See discussion in paragraphs 6-10 below.) Even if the bylaw was valid, however, the Hoehls' permit request meets the criteria enumerated in the statute. a. Theca acity of existing or planned community facilities services or lands. h s -fot bias always been intended to accommodate a single family dwelling. The proposal does not alter this. The proposal is well within density requirements, the Hoehl lot being 2.4 acres, more or less. b. The existing patterns and uses o_f�development in the area. The land south and west of Spear Street t has seen a great deal of development over the last few years. Most recently, the Milot development has Page 4 May 2, 1988 been and continues to be built. Harbor Heights, also recently developed, lies further to the south. Significantly, almost all, if not all of the homes built in these developments, are two story homes. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the demands of the housing market and a recognition of the very significant cost of attempting to build a large home all on one floor (vastly increased costs for foundation work, plumbing and other building materials including roofing). C. Environmental limitations of the site or area and s��n scant natural resource areas and sites. fife site is now served by the City sewer and water systems. If the Hoehls are not permitted to build as requested, they will be forced to sell the lot. Someone might buy the lot at a price reflective of the new zoning requirement and build in the field below the overlook. As noted above, we do not believe that to be in the City's best interest. Further, it is not in the interest of the owner of this lot as the lot will no longer have its own view protected. The one story structure which is the only dwelling possibly permitted would have to be situated so far down and back on the lot that the view from that location could easily be destroyed by any structure built further down the hill. View protection was one of the essential qualities of this lot and substantially influences it's value. The interests of the City (to allow city residents and visitors to experience the panoramic views of the lake and to, have been served in the exaction of a pedestrian easement along the westerly boundary of this property. Together with the scenic overlook owned by the City, there is plentiful public access. To further restrict the use of the subject land would serve as an unconstitutional "taking" of the Hoehls' property. d. Municipal plans and other municipal bvlaws. ordinances or regulations in effect. So. 95irlington's municipal pan recognizes zes the value of scenic views and describes a means of protecting the City's interests. So. Burlington is fortunate to be blessed with spectacular views of Lake Champlain, the Page 5 May 2, 1988 Adirondacks and the Green Mountains from many locations throughout the City. the concept of staggered layouts of buildings or lot lines can be implemented to help alleviate the conflict between the development of vacant land and the reduction of views and property values of nearby properties. Public access to views can be attained by fee simple acquisition. The best form of access is provided to pedestrians, the elderly and handicapped by scenic turnouts and public trails incorporated into future park acquisitions. (p.49.) While the enhancement of viewing areas from the major roadways is an important goal, safety factors are also important features to weigh during development reviews. At the same time that public access is an important goal, home buyers are also willing to pay high prices for the private access to the views and to the aesthetic qualities of the area. The rights and interests of bot�_Tarties are important conside ons durii the nri p ementation of this plan and during development reviews. (p.76.) 6. Failure to issue a building permit as requested would serve as a "taking." While zoning is an e tective and necessary tool to e-fective land use planning, it cannot be used to appropriate a public amenity without paying the owner. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles Count , ; flan v. California oasta ommission 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987). The -Vermont Constitution also recognizes and protects private property interests from excessive government regulation. That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it, nevertheless, whenever any person's property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money. (Article 2nd). The Hoehls will not be able to use their parcel of land. A one story home could not economically or aesthetically satisfy the needs of the Hoehl family. Mr. and Mrs. Hoehl have 6 children and they want to build a large home to accommodate their family. The law now recognizes that overregulation, which reaches beyond the legitimate needs of the public, will permit the damaged landowner to Page 6 May 2, 1988 recover money damages. The Hoehls do not want to litigate. They simply want to build the home for their family they have always planned. 7. Enforcement of the bylaw a ainst the Hoehls will result in denial of equal rotection o the he law. The ordinance, ni question does not app y uniformly to andowners in the City of So. Burlington. There are many areas of the City which enjoy scenic views, but no other landowners have been subjected to the severe restrictions of this ordinance. Other areas of Spear Street enjoy views, including the view of Camel's Hump on the other side of Spear. Dorset Street also features many lovely views. It appears that the Hoehls and the other three owners of the affected lots have been singled out for regulation because their land is near the City owned overlook. This is true even though the view from the overlook will not be compromised by the homes proposed, only the view from the street. The City is effectively deciding to expand its overlook without paying for it. 8. The ordinance is inconsistent with the City Master plan See discussion above. he rty ouncil should not preempt the planning process with hastily drafted interim zoning designed to stop -gap a few proposed homes. Zoning changes and changes to the master plan should be permitted to go through the hearing process and fully subjected to the scrutiny of the public. Interim zoning is appropriate only where a truly critical need exists. Since the public already enjoys views from the scenic overlook and has a pedestrian easement over the Hoehl land, it is hard to envision how critical the public need is to take the Hoehl's land. 9. The City is estopped from denying the requested building permit. The history outlined above demonstrates that the City has a ea y reviewed the lot plan for this subdivision. At that time the City contemplated several means of protecting the views in the area including purchase of land, the scenic overlook, the pedestrian easement, the height restrictions and setback requirements, widening of roads and granted it's approval subject to negotiated restrictions designed to protect the public interests. The Hoehls relied on the City's agreement as set forth in the approvals when they purchased their lot and designed their home. 10. Conclusion. The scenic overlook "district" ordinance represents a reaching. It an attempt to expand the City's overlook to cover privately held property. It severely restricts the use of the Hoehl's land. Moreover, applying the ordinance to the Hoehl property will not improve the view from the City overlook proper. Rather, it will compromise it. The City Council is urged to authorize the issuance of a building permit to Hoehls forthwith. It is the Hoehls' fervent wish that their home be completed in time to permit their children to attend So. Burlington schools this fall. Your action is needed at this time. Page 7 May 2, 1988 Thank you for your careful consideration of this application. Sincerely, (-,0," L : n (.---- Leslie S. Linton ALAN F. SYLVESTER. JOHN P. MALEY H. JOSEPH GAMACHE MICHAEL S. BROW GEOFFREY M. FITZGERALD MARGARET A. MANGAN* (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.K ) February 13, 1989 South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, 1 LAW OFFICE5 OF SYLVESTER 6 MALEY, INC. P. O. BOX 1053 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1053 City Council VT 05403 Dear Members Of The South Burlington City Council: TEL. 802-864-5722 OFFICES AT: 78 PINE STREET As you know, this firm represents Robert Cooper, owner of lot 5 located in the controversial scenic overlook district. It is my understanding that you have asked for opinions regarding the validity of the Interim Zoning Regulations now in effect. With that in mind, I would like to share these thoughts. First, you should realize that constitutional issues are never black and white. There is no objective standard that can be easily applied, and you will very likely get a different opinion from every lawyer who communicates with the Council on this issue. Nevertheless, we have done a considerable amount of research and we are confident that, at some level, the courts of this state will agree that the zoning regulations now in effect do not pass muster. As a general rule, land use regulations effect an unconstitutional taking whenever they do not "substantially advance legitimate state interest" or "deny an owner economically viable use of his land." Agins v Tiberon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). After countless public hearings wherein the Planning Commission and City Council were presented with the facts regarding the practical effect of Interim Zoning, there can be little doubt but that such regu- lations affect the taking in certain areas within the overlook district. The scenic overlook district extends 3,000 feet westerly of Spear Street. Extrapolating from certain known elevations near the westerly boundary of the district, it can be readily determined that many property owners within the effected area are precluded from making any reasonable use of their land and must be content to watch the grass grow. EXHIBIT "5(e)" South Burlington City Council Page 2 February 13, 1989 One need not look so far from Spear Street, however, to find property owners who have been effectively denied economically viable use of their land. The evidence presented has conclusively shown that lot 1 is virtually unbuildable under Interim Zoning. Given the present placement of the Hoehl house on lot 6, that leaves four lots on Spear Street which would be severely affected by the ordinance. Everyone apparently agrees that Interim Zoning effectively denies these lot owners all economically viable use of the top two-thirds of their land. It is also interesting to note that in all of the scenarios presented by Save The View, there is contemplated a city street coming in from Deerfield Drive and exiting onto Spear Street to provide access to the lower portions of these lots. While this plan may make for a more practical design if one were just now attempting to develop this area and wanted to preserve these views, it is clearly not within the realm of reality given the City's budgetary constraints and the recent vote on the bond issue. In this regard, I question whether 400-500 foot driveways, headed downslope on these relatively narrow lots to one-story or at best 1-1/2 story homes, present a practical or economically viable alternative for the affected lot owners. It must be emphasized, however, that a municipality's zoning authority is not simply limited by the Takings Clause of the Constitution. To be valid and enforceable, zoning regulations must also substantially advance legitimate state interests. Courts sometimes shorten this formula by stating that zoning regulations must be reasonable. In determining the reasonableness of a particular zoning regulation, courts weigh the burden on the private landowner against the benefit to the public. I have already laid out the burden on the private landowners: Interim Zoning, at the very least, takes the top two-thirds of their land and, in the worst case scenario, precludes them from building all together. In evaluating the public benefit at issue, it is important to distinguish between the public's interest in the view from the City -owned park land and the public's interest in the view from Spear Street. City Streets are designed for travel and are primarily intended to facilitate freedom of movement. Spear Street is now a commuter road carrying an ever-increasing amount of traffic. Safety considerations alone should dictate that the City encourage the biking, jogging and driving public to stop and use the City - owned overlook park to view the scenic vista. As the citizens South Burlington City Council Page 3 February 13, 1989 of South Burlington recently approved plans to improve the park and enhance the view, the need fora passing glimpse of the lake and mountains from Spear Street becomes even more difficult to justify. The present placement of the Hoehl house on lot 6 and the existence of nearly 1,000 grandfathered white pines on lots 1 and 2, further demonstrates the overbreadth of the Interim Zoning regulations now in place. The City has made it known that it is relying on a Colorado Supreme Court case entitled Landmark Land v City and County of Denver, 728 P.2d 1281 (Colo. 1986) as support for the Interim Zoning now in place in South Burlington. While there are clearly some parallels between the Colorado case and the Spear Street controversy, there are important distinctions as well. First and foremost, the City of Denver was concerned with access to mountain views from City -owned park land. As I noted earlier, the public's interest in protecting the view from City -owned park land is obviously much different and substantially greater than the public's interest in protecting views from City streets. The ordinance at issue in the Denver case simply extended mountain view protection to other City -owned park land under an already existing mountain view ordinance. In this case, the City of South Burlington is attempting to extend view protection to a city street for the benefit of the travelling public. Moreover, the Denver ordinance simply limited buildings to a height of 42 feet. The South Burlington ordinance is much more restrictive of private property interests as it effectively imposes a 400-500 foot setback requirement with an additional 24 foot height restriction. The City of South Burlington must also be made aware of the fact that the Interim Zoning regulations can be attacked on the grounds that they are discriminatory and therefore violate the Takings and/or Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. In Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987), the United States Supreme Court explicitly stated that: If the [property owners] were being singled out to bear the burden of California's attempt to remedy these [coastal view] problems, although they had not contributed to it more than other coastal landowners, the State's action, even if otherwise valid, might violate even the Incorporated Takings Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. South Burlington City Council Page 4 February 13, 1989 There can be no doubt but that in this case four property owners have been singled out to bear the burden of South Burlington's belated attempt to protect panoramic views from Spear Street. The City has repeatedly allowed development on Spear Street which has diminished views of Lake Champlain and the Adironack Mountains and it has failed to take regulatory action in many other areas of the city where there are panoramic scenic views to be enjoyed from public streets. Finally, constitutional issues aside, the City also must come to terms with its prior conduct in this area. The City recently approved the subdivision of these lots, and it further encouraged development by approving certain improvements to the lots, including,an extension of the public sewer at private expense. In sum, when one examines this issue from a fairness perspective as well as a legal perspective, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the Interim Zoning Regulations as originally adopted are inequitable, unreasonable and indefensible. Cordially yours, -V P1V\V%-& Geoffrey 1k. FitzGerald Attorney For Robert Cooper Gs/14/11 cc: Robert Cooper )YAN SMITH & CARBINE, LT ATTORNEYS AT LAW R. CLARKE SMITH LEONARD F. WING. JR MEAD BUILDING R. JOSEPH O'ROURKE 98 MERCHANTS ROW JOHN J. ZAWISTOSKI JOSEPH H. BAOGEWICK P 0. BOX 310 THOMAS M. DOWLING E. PATRICK BURKE RUTLAND. VERMONT 05701-0310 ALLAN R. KEYES HARRY R, RYAN. III GLENN S. MORGAN TELEPHONE (802) 773-3344 HAROLD P. BERGER FAX (802) 773-1343 March 6, 1989 Members of the Cite Council City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear City Council Members: CHARLES F. RYAN (1901-1977) JAMES B ANDERSON MARION T FERGUSON ELLEN W. BURGESS WILLIAM A O'ROURKE. III MARTHA M SMYRSKI JOAN LORING WING ANDREW H MAASS SHAWNE ARNOLD ELIZABETH A GLYNN KARL C. ANDERSON I am writing to you on behalf of Victor and Anne Ratkus, in response to a letter they have forwarded to us that was previously submitted to the City Council by attorney James A. Dumont dated February 3, 1989. Specificallv, in his letter, attorney Dumont cautions the City Council that it should not, "vote for the Planning Commission's version because you fear litigation." Mr. Dumont then cites two recent United States Supreme Court cases, presumably in an effort to alleviate your concern of possible litigation arising from vour vote on the proposed zoning for Spear Street. The City Council should be advised that the Supreme Court, in First F-.nalish Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Ancreles Countv, did not actually decide whether a taking had occurred. Instead, the only issue before it was whether property owners whose land had been taken temporarily through governmental regulation were entitled to compensation for the temporary taking.- Indeed, the Court decided that they were. Thus, the First Evangelical case, is really inapposite to the issues relating to permanent zoning and the Ratkus' land on Spear Street. In the Nollan case cited by Mr. Dumont, the Supreme Court said that governmental restrictions on the use of privately owned land did constitute a taking if they did not "substantially advance legitimate state interests" or if they "deny an owner economically viable use of his land". However, it is significant to note that the Court, in Nollan, did not decide whether the State's interest in protecting the public's ability to see a beach was a legitimate state interest. The Court also did not decide what type of connection between the restrictions and the governmental interest is required. Yet, what the Court did decide was that the California Coastal EXHIBIT "5(f)" Pdge 2 I Commission's attempt to preserve "visual access" to the beach in question did not justify the invasive actions of the Commission, and a "taking" was declared. Mr. Dumont attempts to distinguish the Supreme Court decision in the Nollan case from the instant case by contending that the Save the View zoning proposal "does not amount to depriving the land owners of the right to exclude anyone from the land" and that "all rights against trespass are unaffected". We submit, to the contrary, that the Supreme Court's decision is strikingly pertinent and persuasive precedent for the City Council to follow in light of the factual issues involved in the Spear Street zoning proposals. Specifically, if the effect of proposed zoning is to impose unreasonable restrictions on the Ratkus' when they decide to build a home on their land, for the purpose of preserving a view for the public along Spear Street, there simply is no distinction between the unreasonableness of those restrictions and the attempted invasive acts of the California Coastal Commission to preserve the public's,visual access to a beach, which the United States' Supreme Court said was unjustified and constituted a "taking". The similarities between the unlawful and unfair discrimination against the property owners within the City of South Burlington and the property owners involved in the Nollan case are striking. In Nollan, the Court explicitly stated "If the (property owners) were bei.nq singled out to bear the burden of California's attempt to remedy these (coastal view' problems, although they had not contributed to it more than other coastal land owners, the State's action, even if otherwise valid, might violate either the incorporated Taking Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. One of the principal purposes of the Takinq's Clause is to bar Government from forcing some people alone_ to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Can there be anv doubt that the Ratkus', as well as the other property owners along Spear Street affected by proposed zoning, have been singled out to bear the burden of Save the View's attempt to protect panoramic views? The City has repeatedly allowed development which has diminished the views of Lake Champlain along Spear Street. Additionally, the City has repeatedly allowed other development that has diminished the views of Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains throughout South Burlington. However, Save the View would attempt to encourage the City to now invoke regulatory action to promote the public view from a public street which constitutes an Page 3 } extraordinarily minimal area of the City, resulting in an obvious prejudice to those land owners. Lastly, the City Council should be mindful of our Vermont Constitution, Chapter I, Article 2, which states, in pertinent part: "private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it ...". Although the City Council should not be guided by the possibility of litigation regarding proposed zoning on Spear Street, we would certainly suggest that it consider what the legal precedent is since clearly the property owners would have no alternative but to resort to litigation should the law be misapplied. For this reason, a response to Mr. Dumont's aforesaid letter was deemed necessary. Yofirs v R. Jc RJOR/df cc: James A. Dumont, F.sq. Dr. and Mrs. Victor Ratkus 2813/2/B CITY COUNCIL 20 MARCH 1989 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 20 March 1989, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, John Dinklage, William Cimonetti Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Wendy Schroeder, Business Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/ Treasurer; Mary -Barbara Maher, Ann Pugh, Planning Commission; Lowell Krassner, Natural Resources Committee; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Lisa Scagliotti, Cynthia & Robert Hoehl, Geoffrey Fitz - Gerald, Victor Ratkus, Margaret O'Rourke, Ann Ratkus, James Dumont, Martha Campione, Barbara Bull, Kim & Sandra Hussels 1. comments & Questions from the Public (Not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. 2. Continue Public Hearing on Pro osed amendments to City Zoning Regulations for the establishment of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District in conformance with the Interim Zoning Regulations for the protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District adbpted by the City Council on April 4, 1988 Mr. Farrar asked if there was any new information to be presented. There was none. Mr. Flaherty moved to close the public hearing. Mrs Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Cimonetti then moved to table Item #2 until discussion had been held on Item #3. Mr. Flaherty seconded Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the City Zoning Reg- ulations to establish a Spear Street View Protection District which contains designated Zone A and Zone B. Mr. Flaherty moved to close the Public Hearing Mrs Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage read a prepared statement (attached). Mr. Cimonetti said he felt Spear Street has always been a residential street. EXHIBIT;"6" CITY COUNCIL 20 MARCH 1989 page 2 The view constitute a major part of the value of the homes there. He said this ordinance will preserve Spear St. as residential and will protect the view from the Overlook Park. Mr. Flaherty agreed it was a reasonable and equitable attempt to strike a balance. Mrs. Lambert said she felt the effect of interim zoning had been accomplished in that the Council has taken a year to study the situation. Mr. Farrar noted that no solution can completely satisfy everyone. Mr. Cimonetti moved to approve the Zone A document as approved on 23 January 1989. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Mr. Farrar read the document. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Zone B Section. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Mr. Farrar read the document and asked if the Council wished to make any amendments. He noted if amendments are made, the document would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Weith noted the Commission recommended that in Sect. 19.472 the 200 feet be changed to 50 feet. They also felt wording should be added that this zone could not extend any further north or south of the structure. Mr. Farrar said if the motion were not passed now, it could not become a ballot item in May. He added that it could be passed now and later amended by the same process. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimousl Mr. Farrar said he felt the voters were best served when the Council studies a matter and makes the best decision it can. He felt voters were not best served when they have to make a decision. He suggested the Interim Zoning Document be left on the table in the event there is a public referendum to upset the decision made by the Council. Mr. Dinklage felt this was sound strategy. Mr. Dumont said the effect of Mr. Cimonetti's motion was that a petition of 5% of the voters could not now make interim zoning permanent. Mr. Farrar said it was his understanding that one year from the date of the original petition a vote on the Interim Zoning proposal could be requested. He felt this gave "Save the View" the chance to make their case to the electorate. Mr. Dinklage said a unanimous opinion of the Council favored a compromise. Since there is 5 o much public issue over this zoning, the Council would like to pub.,, their position first before the ' voters and see if this compromise position is sustained. If it is CITY COUNCIL 20 MARCH 1989 page 3 not, then the Council has to deal with the issue brought to them by petition at which time any problems with Interim Zoning could be dealt with. Mr. Dumont said this is not at all a compromise. He felt the Council was putting the burden on the citizens to do what he felt the Council was elected to do. Mrs. Lambert said it was a compromise in the eyes of the Council. If the voters sustain "Save the View's" point of view, there will be an opportunity to amend Interim Zoning. Mr. Cimonetti also felt it was a compromise and that it was important that the Council be judged on decisions they make. 4.Consider setting dates and issue a notice for public hearing on proposed amendments to the City Charter Mr. Farrar said there are several proposed amendments which are now with the City Charter Committee for consideration. After brief discussion, Mrs. Lambert moved to hold hearings for proposed amendments to the City Charter and to allow the Chairman to be authorized to sign the Warning for the Hearings. Mr. Dinklaqe seconded. Motion passed unanimously. April 10 and May 1 were suggested as suitable dates for the hearings. 5. Planning & Zoning Agendas Mr. Dinklaqe noted a Zoning Board item on 27 March for an appeal by Wesco for a convenience store at the gas station on Williston Rd/R?-Innedy Drive. Mr. Dinklaqe moved to send the followinq statement to the Zonin Board: "In light of the concerns previously expressed by the City Council about expansion and uses at this non -conforming structure, the City Council recommends that any convenience store or mini - mart activity approved by the Zoning Board be limited in scale so that it is in the same proportion to the lot size as is the similar activity in the service station diagonally opposite in that intersection) and that traffic be a major consideration in any decision made. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Review Minutes of 27 February, 6 March, and 13 March Mr. Dinkla e moved the Minutes of 27 February, 6 and 13 March be approved as written. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motio assed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL 20 MARCH 1989 page 4 Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Other Business Mr. Dinklage asked the City Planner for advice on protecting the view from the ridge on Spear St. He wanted to proceed toward a public hearing on 17 April. Mr. Cimonetti said he would like to see a planning exercise to consider views from the area including adding to the city's grid of streets including east -west traffic between Spear and Dorset Sts. and also a north -south roadway. He felt the Council should get control over the area while a planning study is being done and that such a study out to at least include east of Spear St., north at least as far as the area across from the Ratkus lot #1. He felt there is a potentiAl for a ridgeway roadline that could go north -south. Mr. Farrar said he felt there is a better chance to come up with a better solution than there was across the street. Mr. Dinklage moved to warn a public hearing on 17 April for proposed Interim Zoning concerning the area east of Spear Street, north of the Unsworth property and north to Swift Street and easterly to Dorset Street. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motio asked unanimousli Mr. Szymanski presented catering permit requests from Halvorson's, Inc. to cater the Lake Champlain Yacht Club party at 9 Scotsdale Rd, 1 April, from 6:30-10 pm; and from Beem, Inc, to cater an anniversary party at K of C Hall, 1 April, from 5 pm to Midnight. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the 2 catering permits presented by the City Manager. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. Clerk After having listened to the many hours of testimony and after having read considerable information provided by all 'parties involved, there is no question in my mind that the city has the authority to enact the type of zoning envisioned by the interim zoning now in effect. I believe that the intent of the interim zone is consistent with the restrictions municipal government is allowed to place on private property to advance legitimate community interests. However, such authoritw is never granted in an absolute sense and must be tempered by the specific circumstances of each case. The historical circumstances in this case are a significant factor in my decisaon to support the proposed zone A & B ordinances and not to support the proposal to make the interim zone permanent. Not all mistakes cad be corrected to everwone`s satisfaction. In mw opinion, the City and the whole comnunitw did make a mistake by not taking actions earlier to more adequately srotect the views from Spear St. We let stand the subdivision which created the 6 lots in question and the zoning of that area for mans years without taking any steps to change the expectations of the land owners. The owners' plans were further supported when thew were permitted, some time ago, to extend the sewer line to serve their prcperties at their expense. The City also permitted filling of sDme of the land in obvious preparation for home building near Spear St. And no significant attempt was made to protect the views from Spear St. south of Deerfield Rd. during the residential construction which has taken place there. The City did act successfullw to obtain the land for the overlook park at the corner of Spear St. and Deerfield Rd. At that time no new attempts were made to control development on these 6 lots. The Planning Commission and the City Council at that time seem to have been satisfied with the balance which was struck between preserving a significant view from the overlook park and respecting the private interests of the property owners. After considering the alternatives, I believe that the most viable method to deal with view protection at this time, and still allow some house construction on these 6 lots, is to enact the proposed ordinances dealing with zones A & B, as recommended by the Planning Commission. This matter has been studied thoroughlg and independentlw by the Planning Commission which held its own public hearings and sought its own independent information. The proposed ordinances, whic:--i establish the two zones A & 3, are a reasonable attempt, in my opinion, to strike a balance between the interests mf the public in keeping the view as open as possible and the rights of the landowners. (statement b5 John B. Dinklage at the South Durlinqton City Council meeting, March 20, 1989) In the course of the hearings it has also become clear that there are substantial differences of opinion regarding the preferred placement of houses on these lots relative to the aesthetics of preserving the view from the city owned overlook park. These are matters about which reasonable people may disagree. In order to enhance that view from the City park, a significant concession was obtained in the terms of the agreement and easement entered into between the Hoehls and the City whereby the Hoehls agreed to forever keep the westerly portion of their lot open. There is also a problem with the interim zone proposal as it is now written which I think mould create bad lam if enacted (although that could be remedied). The problem is that building a reasonable house mould be effectively prohibited on the northern two lots. Relief would have to be sought by those property owners through a variance process. Knowingly creating such circumstances is not wise. by John B. Dinklage at the South Burlington Ci44 Council meeting, March 20, 1989) i 1/23/89 Dr.•ai't of proposed amendments to cover only the Zone A Area PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 'ZONING REGULATIONS i The City of South Burlington Zoning Reguint.ions are amended to avid the following new sections: 1.30 Spear street View Protection Zone Map defines that area of the City that is subject to the restrictions set. for•t.h in Section 19.47 of these regulations-. The Spear Street. View Protection 'Zone Map is filed in the office of the City Clerk and is incorporated her-ein by re f'P renc:e . 19. 4 7 SpFrar Street View Protection Zone Ln addition to the provisions of any other sect-ion(s) of these regulations, the uses allowed in any district. in the Spear Street View Protection Zone, as shown on the Spear Street View Protection Zone Map, shall be subject to the following Limitations: 19.471 No part. of any structure within the Spear Street View Protection Zone shall. exceed an elevation of 370 feet. above mean sea level minus 4 feet for each 100 feet that said part of a structure is horizont,al.ly distant from the Base Line shown on the above referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone `tap. 19A7Z Landscaping and other vegetation ideated within the Spear St.rr.et View Protection Zone shall be maintained so that it does not. exceed an el.evat.ion of 370 feet above mean sea level minus 4 feet for each 100 feet. that. said landscaping or vegetation is horizontally distant from the Base Line shown on the above referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone Mal). Notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in the previous sent.ence, any vegetation or plantings located within art area two hundred (200') feet east of any build.ilig in existence on the effective date of this amendment may be maintained so as not. to exceed an elevation correspond.inc; I-o th«� easterly horizontal ext..erts.i.on of the• rool' peak of such bui.ldir►g. y l � T 19.473 The term "structure" when used in this section (1y.47 and sub -sections) shall mean an assembly of materials for occupancy or• use, including, but; riot, l.imi.ted to a building, mobile home or bill boxed, sign, wall. or fence, antenna, utility holes (including towers and lines), earthern berms. I1. These amendments shall become efi'ect.ive 21 days following their adop I i can by the (.: i t. y Council. amendtun t, s 1' s # 1 1 / 23/ii9 Draft of proposed amendments to cover the Zone B area assumir►14 the Zone A area has already been established. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING REGULATIONS The (:it.y of South Burlington Zoning Regul.ati.ons are amended as follows: 1. The Spear. Street View Protection Zune Map referred to in Sect:.iort 1.30 is hereby amended as shown on an amended map ri..led in thN ofI'ice of t.lte G i t y Clerk and is ir►corpor•aLed lie r.eiri by reference. 11. The sub -section,., of Section 19.47 are amended to add the following new text. which is underlined and delete the text. which appears in brackets: 19.471 No part of any structure within Zone A of' the Spear Street View Protection "Lone shall exceed an elevation of 370 feet above mean sea minus 4 feet for each 100 feet, that said part of a sLructure is horizontally distant. From the Zone A base line shown on the above referenced Spear Street View Protection Zone Map. 19.4-12 Landscaping and other vegetation located within Zone A of the Spear Street View Protection Zone shall be maintained so that it does not exceed an elevation of :370 i'ee>t r►bove mean sea Leve--.l minus; 4 feet for eac-h 100 reet. that said landscaping or vegetat.ion is horizontal l.y distant from the "Lone a baso line, shown on the above referenreci Spear Street View Protection Zone Map. Not.wil,list.anding the restrictions set forth i.rt the previous sent.enc-e�, any vegetation or plant in,+:s Ic►c-crta•►i within an area Lwo hundred t 200' l l'e,et east. of any bui ldin, in exi.sl.ence ott they effective date of this amendment may be maintained so as not t,o excc�c c3 <rn ►-.Lav,rt, i.on cor•r espondinr4 to the east,er•ly horizontal extension of the roof peak of sttoh building. 19.473 [The term "structure" where used in th.i s seat ion ( 19. 47 and sub-secti ons ) sha i I. mean ern assembly of materials for occup.an(_-�• or use, including, but not J-imited to a building, mobile home or trai ter, billboard, sign, wall_ or fence, antenna, utility poles (including towers and lines), earthern berms.) Within Gone B of the Smear Street View Protection Zone, no part of aI structure -shall exceed they elevation of the 'Lone B base line minus 4 featfor_ each 100 feet that said part of said structure is horizontally distant. from the Zone B_—base line shown on the above referenced SF)ear Street View— Protection Zone Mae. This soct-Aon shall not apply to and sirucLur•e? located ated i_n a Designated Building 19.474 Within Zone B of. th-e Spear St_re_eet, Viet,; Protection Zone,. landsearlirig. an¢ othei -%,egetati_on shall be maintained so that i t._ does not exceed the elevation of the Zone B bast- line minus 4 feet for each 100 feet that said IandscHF�ing or. ve_etat.ion i_s horizontally: distant f r o m the Zone H base line shown on the! above r•eft-.- ced ST�c�r r Street View Protect iori Zone_ i`1t�p or- .L feet above a grade exis-ting on. the date that these 5peAr Street View Protection regulations become effective, whichever height is higher. This section shall not aj)p1v ty landscaping located within a Uesi�nated. Building Envelope. 14.475 Within Zone B of the Speur Street View Protection ZoneL an_y pp_ neilal. st.ruetu_re shai1_ be Located entirely within a De. i r.nat.ed Building Envelot�e�. 19.476 The term "structure" when used in this section (1_9.47 and sub -sections) shall mean an assembly of materials for occupancy or uses including, but_ not limited to a bui-ld l.inZ "Mbie home or trailer, bi.11b )ard� i..r►� + al l or fencel.Aanl.ennrt_, ut i 1 i t poles (irnc 1 uci i I1, Lowers and lines )_, exrt..hern berms. 19 .477 The germ_ - "Desigriate - d - Btjildiji_,K Envelope'_ :A.s used in this section shall define a he&a&onal. fj_gjjKe encl--osing pan9 1' .1.5) , 0 0 0 SQUare feet. --- ----- as_ d e v - i c A, e (I " o n t h e S P SE EA --' S T REET VIEW PROTECTION ZONE MAP. The I of a P.pa_jg_pated Building shall be oriented on a 1. o L s c) L h a 1, i t, is pt..rpeii(Jicular to Spear Sire ri,. 1. " 11 U.J. r veg!_�. 1. a t J. on located in any p9r..tJon o I- a "DesiKnat.ed B u i located in Zone A shal.1 be r quired lj�j 7 t-0 the Neigh-t 1-im.itations apjjLjc�- Ij to Zont-- A. 11 1 These amendmenl,s shall become effective 21 days Fol lowing their adoption by the City Cotineil. IV. On the date that th(rse regulnLions become effective, the "Interim Zoning Rf-,gul.ations For the Protection or the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District", adopted \pril 4, 19ii8, shall be repealed. a m c--, n t I m n COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The following �uotes are taken directly pm The City of South Burlington's Comprehensive Plan. / - Purchase land for views. Paqe 49: "public access to views can be attained by fee simole acquisition." and "The best form of access us provided to pedestrians and the elderly and handicapped by scenic turnouts and public trails incorporated into future park acquisitions." Paqe 76: "trail easements and public land acquisition will improve access to _these views." Page 77: "3. Public access to views, open space., parks and pedestrian trails should be acquired, maintained and improved. Development in visually significant areas should be limited by the City during subdivision and site plan reviet-j." - Slot build. Page 49: "The concept of staggered layouts or buildinq or lot lines can be implemented to help alleviate the conflict beti•,een the development or vacant land and the reduction of views and rprcper,y values or nearby properties." - Overlooks. Protect view from overlooks Paqe S3: "3) Scenic lookouts should be prcvided or. the summit of ridoes and hills." -Page 49: "The best form of access is provided to pedestrians and the elderly and handicapped by scenic turnouts and public trails incorporated into -� future pa-k acquisitions" s Page 50: "4) The City shall incorporate scenic turnouts and public trails in parkland to provide • ^:a'`�° ,== •:_ access to pedestrians A trians including the elderly and ,;., handicapped - Number of places in South Burlington. Pane 29: "fide hills or ridoes" "indication of the value attached to these views is implicit in real estate values iri adjacent residential areas." Paqe 46: Pedestrian Easement - "Nowland. Spear Street 3,000" includes 200 ft across back of our land. Paqe 49: "spectacular views of Lake Champlain, the Adirondacks and the Green Mountains from many locations throughout the City." - Safety Paqe 76: "While the enhancement of viewing areas from the major roadways is an important goal, safety factors are also important features to weigh during development reviews." - Rights Page 76: "At the same time that public access is an important goal, home buyers are also willing to pay high prices for the private access to the views and to the aesthetic qualities of the area. The rights and interests of both parties are important considerations during the implementation of this plan and during development reviews. - Summary EXHIBIT "7" I could not find, anywhere in the South Durlinoton Comprehensive Plan, that public access to •:iefjs should be gotten by taking existing property owners views through height restrictive zoning, On the contrary the,.)hole tenor of the plan :s to acquire such views via purchase and development of o:,erlocks and oarks and the protection of such purchases and City of South Burlington. VT OFFICIAL ELECTION BALLOT SEPTEM B ER 13, 1988 BOND ISSUE FOR PURCHASE OF ALL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR LAND ON SPEAR STREET Shall bonds or notes of the City of South Burlington in an amount not to exceed $500,000 be issued for the purchase of all the development rights to two parcels of land shown as Lots 3 & 4 on a plan entitled "Proposed Nowland Property Subdivi- sion —Spear Street," dated April 27, 1977, recorded in Plat Volume 105 at Page 84 of the City of South Burlington Land Records, it being understood that the fee simple property interest shall not be acquired. These parcels contain 2.79 acres, more or less, and 2.67 acres, more or less, respec- tively, and each has frontage on the west- erly side of Spear Street, so called, in the City, of approximately 165 feet. If in favor of the bond Issue, make a cFbss Ob 10 (x) In this square ...................... If opposed to the bond Issue, make a cross (x) El this square ............. . r0 l'14'1 BOND ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SPEAR STREET SCENIC OVERLOOK Shall bonds or notes of the City of South Burlington in an amount not to exceed $215,000 be issued for the purpose of con- structing a scenic overlook park on City owned property located at the intersection of Spear Street, so called, and Deerfield Road, so called, in the City including rais- ing the grade of said property above its ex- isting grade, constructing a vehicle parking area and a promenade, and installing land- scaping. If in favor of the bond Issue, make a doss 5� (x) in this square ...................... If opposed to the bond issue, make a cross ❑ (x) in this square ...................... "(Nc / a�U EXHIBIT "8"