Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/07/1974CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 7, 1974 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road South Burlington on Wednesday, August 7, 1974. Council Chairman Flaherty called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Council members present were Chairman Flaherty, Paul A. Farrar, Catherine M. Neubert, William J. Cimonetti, and Duane E. Merrill. Planning Commissioners present were Chairman Mary Barbara Maher, Sidney B. Poger, William B. Wessel and John B. Dinklage. MEMBERS ABSENT Planning Commissioners Robenstein and Levesque. OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Fred Mitchell, City Planner; Frederick G. Blais, Alfred Calcagni, Paul L. Flinn, Attorney Richard C. Blum, Paul R. Casavina, Jr., William Schuele, Paul D. Heald, Nancy Neubert, Charlotte Marsh, Arlene Krapcho, Richard Bodette, Richard Myette and Jack Tabaka, Free Press Reporter. VIEWING OF CORRECTIONS CENTER Chairman Flaherty announced that he had heard from Peter A. Profera, Director of Community Correctional Centers for the State of Vermont, who invited the Council members to meet on Monday, August 12, 1974, at 4:30 P.M. to view the new facility on Swift Street. Dr. Farrar said he would not be able to make it and Mr. Merrill was not sure, but it was agreed that all the members who could make it would be present. CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE XII, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING REGULATIONS - SECTION 12.002, STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS Chairman Flaherty outlined the method to be followed during the meeting, saying that each of the 14 points would be considered separately, that questions and remarks should be kept pertinent to the point being considered, and that there would be no vote until all items had been reviewed. If the Planning Commission approves what has been submitted the City Council will wait one week to see if they want any additional information. If the Planning Commission votes negatively the matter will not come back before the Council. Mr. Poger asked if just Ridgewood Estates was being considered at this meeting and Dr. Farrar said no, it must be determined that all requirements of Section 12.002 will be met by the developer taking into consideration the proposed development and any other proposed or planned development. Chairman Flaherty then read in full all of Point #1 as follows: POINT #1 "Will not result in undue water or air pollution. In making this determination it shall at least consider: the elevation of land above sea level; and in relation to the flood plains, the nature of woils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal; the slope of the land and its effect on effluents; the availability of streams for disposal of effluents; and the applicable health and water resources department regulations." Alfred A. Calcagni, representing the developers Calcagni, Blais and Casavina, began the presentation. He introduced Paul Flinn, who was representing Terry Boyle, landscape architect, Richard Bodette, of Rist and Frost Engineering Company of Glens Falls, New York, and Richard Blum, Attorney for the developers. Mr. Calcagni reported that the site plan has had favorable review at two work sessions and suggested improvements have been made. Mr. Flinn pointed out on the map the site in relation to the rest of South Burlington, saying it contained 57 acres which borders Swift and Dorset Streets. He point out also the proposed r-o-w off Dorset Street and the access off Swift Street. He showed where there was a 15% to 20% grade change and where the low wet meadow area was. The access off Swift Street was planned for access to the single family units with another road to the pool, tennis courts, and recreation areas. He pointed out the garden areas and the bike paths. Mr. Flinn noted that PUD R requires 50 acres, the area contains 57. Also the density of 114 units was permissible on 57 acres and the proposed height of buildings at 2 1/2 stories was permissible. Mr. Bodette then spoke, saying the sanitary sewer is going to connect to the municipal system. In regard to Air Pollution, the units would be heated by natural gas and of course electricity would be used for all other utilites. Mr. Calcagni said a contained storm drainage system with sub-service would be installed. Mr. Flinn said the elevation of the land was 68' from one corner to another, the high elevation is 368 and the low 300. Mr. Poger asked if the stream would empty into the proposed pond. Mr. Flinn answered that the stream will run into and out of the pond, that a constant flow would be maintained. He also reported that there was no indication the area is located in a Flood Plain. Dr. Farrar noted that basically the water would go into the same streams as now, and Mr. Bodette explained that the natural water course goes into Potash Brook, the roof and site drainage would be going into pipes, catch basins and culverts. All remaining areas would flow into the existing water course, through catch basins, pipes and culverts to the stream. Mr. Poger asked if there was not a pond wouldn't it just be a bog and Mr. Bodette said there would be no bog. Mr. Dinklage asked if the developers would be running surplus water off the property and Mr. Bodette said no. Dr. Farrar asked if the ratio of total runoff would be changed and Mr. Bodette said that because of the paving the amount would arrive at point of discharge rapidly. It would not be a problem. Dr. Farrar asked if the area served by the construction of drainage was essentially the same after construction as before and Mr. Bodette said yes. Dr. Farrar asked if it all runs to the left and then runs to the right, what happens? Mr. Schuele asked how much more water will run off to the stream. Mr. Flinn said he did not have the answer to these questions. Dr. Farrar asked Mr. Flinn to get the answer and put it in the record. Mrs. Neubert expressed her concern about salt from the parking lot polluting the water. Mr. Flinn said they wanted to put in the covenants that there be no salt used on the parking lots. Kay then said that we cannot have salt run-off into our streams. Mr. Flinn then explained the construction of the catch basins which are designed with a low point and pumps to take care of sediment. Mr. Calcagni noted that the length of discharges affect the amount of salt that gets into a stream. Mrs. Neubert questioned the legality of constructing a road three or four places across a stream. She said we should not have any construction within 50' from a stream. She asked Mr. Ward to check the ordinance as to the restrictions of building these roads across a stream. Mr. Poger said he understood the stream could not be altered in any way and that must mean roads. Attorney Spokes said he felt it would be unduly restricted to interpret the ordinance this way, the question is, does a road constitute construction. Chairman Flaherty asked Mr. Spokes to check up on this. Mr. Dinklage remarked that on Swift Estates a tennis court had been built where a stream exists. Mr. Myette of Swift Estates informed him that the tennis court was located 70' from the stream and Mr. Dinklage said he stood corrected. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Bodette to be more specific about drainage in the area of the townhouses. Mr. Bodette pointed out on the map where the pipes were to be located and the sizes of the pipes, as well as location and type and size of culverts and catch basins. Mr. Wessel asked if the soil types on the property had been checked out. Mr. Bodette explained the types of soil and clay on the property. He said it was in good shape for the type of construction being planned. Mr. Calcagni said he felt there would be no problem. Mr. Wessel said that from Mr. Bodette's description of the type of soil on the property it appeared to meet the criteria of what the State of Vermont calls "severe" and on which the State recommends no developing. Mr. Wessel then asked the developers if they would be developing a soil map. Dr. Farrar asked Mr. Wessel what his concern was and Mr. Wessel said water in the cellar, etc. Mr. Calcagni said we have always built on this type of soil in South Burlington with no trouble. Mr. Poger asked if there had been any condominiums built on this type of land. Mr. Calcagni said the land is always checked before construction. Mr. Poger wondered if the load bearing capacity would be similar to that for private homes. Chairman Flaherty instructed Mr. Szymanski, City Manager, to contact the Regional Planning Commission for any material and information on "severe" soils or other pertinent data. He asked if there was any other discussion on this and since there wasn't said they would proceed to Point #2. Chairman Flaherty then read in full all of Point #2 as follows: POINT #2 "Does have sufficient water available for the reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision or development." Mr. Calcagni read in full a letter dated August 6, 1974 from Mr. R. W. Emerick, Executive Director of the Champlain Water District which supplys water to the City of South Burlington. The letter stated, in essence, that the water requirements of the planned Ridgewood Estates development will create no burden on the existing water facilities in the area. The letter is marked exhibit 1 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Chairman Flaherty read in full all of Point #3 as follows: POINT #3 "Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result." Mr. Flinn said the developers have an Erosion Control statement. This has been obtained, is marked Exhibit 2, and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Wessel questioned Mr. Flinn as to whether the developers had researched studies on soil erosion such as the Vergennes Associates material. He felt all relevant material on soil erosion should be studied. He asked Mr. Flinn how drainage from the road would be controlled. Mr. Flinn described how the road would be constructed, with an 18 in, gravel base, carrying the gravel beyond the shoulders and crowning the road so the drainage would run off. Mr. Szymanski, City Manager, was asked if the proposed construction of the road plans met with his approval. He said yes, it was planned to the standards set by the city. A sketch of the road standards is marked Exhibit #3 and attached to and made a part of these minutes. Chairman Flaherty read in full all of Point #4 as follows: POINT #4 "Will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways existing or proposed. Plan must be approved by City Engineer." Mr. Flinn pointed out that the access road on Swift Street and the road on Dorset Street had adequate sight distance. Mr. Calcagni referred to a traffic count study that was taken on the streets which shows a peak hourly volume on Dorset Street as 314 vehicles per hour and on Swift Street as 170 vehicles per hour. The counts had been taken under City Manager's direction on a Thursday July 25 and Friday, July 26, 1974. The sheet showing the traffic count figures is marked Exhibit #4 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. He also referred to a sheet taken from the American Association of State Highway Officials study of Arterial Highways in Urban Areas which sets the high rate of traffic at 540 vehicles per hour per lane. This sheet is marked Exhibit #5 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Flinn said assuming 2 cars per unit and all on the road at once the traffic generated would not meet what is considered the peak. Dr. Farrar asked City Manager if Swift and Dorset Streets meet the minimum requirements of major streets. Mr. Szymanski said he felt the widths of the two streets were adequate. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Szymanski if the width was the only criteria used in determining what is a major street. Mr. Cimonetti asked City Manager Szymanski what the description of a major street is. Mr. Szymanski said Swift and Dorset streets were certainly close to major streets, and then said he did not think the development would overload the streets. He said he was concerned about the Y intersection, feeling it could be a problem, but one that could be easily corrected. Mr. Calcagni said coming into the Y at a 90° angle corrects it. Dr. Farrar asked Mr. Calcagni if the land adjacent to the proposed development was to be developed in the future could the Ridgewood Estates road or roads be used by the new developer for access. John Dinklage asked if use of the road by adjacent developers could be an item included in the Association papers when they are drawn up. Attorney Spokes said the developers could be asked to keep an open mind on such a request. Mr. Paul R. Casavina, Jr., one of the developers asked to speak, and explained that the units being planned were not condominiums but townhouses. The owner holds full interest in the exterior and interior of the dwelling plus a defined lot for his personal use. Each owner has equal interest in the open space, swimming pool, tennis courts, bike trails, etc. After development the CBC Realty Corporation will turn over to the Ridgewood Estates Corporation all of the open spaces, roads, bike trails, etc., which will be controlled by the owners. Mr. Poger asked if when the agreement is signed and the developers turn the development over to the owners would it be possible to insert in the agreement use of the access roads by other developers. Attorney Spokes thought not. Attorney Blum said the plan was to have the Articles of Association held in perpetuity. He was not definite as to whether such a stipulation could be included in the Articles of Association. Charlotte Marsh asked if the townhouses were separate buildings or if they were under one roof. Mr. Calcagni explained that the walls between the buildings were common property but all other parts of the units belongs to the owners. Mr. Blum explained to Charlotte that the common wall would be something like a common driveway that might be used by adjacent property owners. Going back to the use of Ridgewood Estates' roads Arlene Krapcho wondered if the roads were to be used by other developers shouldn't they be designed differently, wider, for instance. Mr. Szymanski said they would be adequate as presently planned. Mr. Poger asked if the area on both sides of Swift Street was developed in the near future would the existing roads take care of the increased traffic. Mr. Szymanski said it would depend on the density of future development. Mr. Dinklage asked the City Attorney if we had any authority to review the development's by-laws, transfers of land, etc. Attorney Spokes said that traditionally the By-Laws are reviewed. Chairman Flaherty requested the City Attorney, the Zoning Administrator, and the City Manager to give the Planning Commission any specifics they would like to have incorporated in the By-Laws. Chairman Flaherty asked City Planner Mitchell how much traffic he thought the road (in the development) could handle. Mr. Mitchell said he would research this. Bill Schuele said he felt this should be carefully weighed. Mr. Poger wondered if the city would be able to widen Swift and Dorset Street in the future if widening was needed. Mr. Cimonetti wondered if any thought had been given to a method of stopping people from cutting corners by going through the private street. Mr. Flinn said the road design was such that speed limit would probably be under 30 miles per hour. Mr. Szymanski ask what the objection was to keeping the streets private streets. Mr. Calcagni spoke of the added expense in using more black top, building curbs, etc. If curbs were installed as suggested by Dr. Farrar Mr. Flinn said that would mean more catch basins. Mr. Blais explained that the plowing equipment would be available at all times to take care of the plowing, that the Association would be well equipped to handle any problems that would arise. They would have to maintain the open spaces anyway so it would not be too much of an added expense to maintain the roads. On Point #4, Chairman Flaherty reminded the City Manager that he was to research the definition of major streets, City Planner Mitchell was to gather material on traffic figures and how the development would affect traffic and City Attorney Spokes was to look into the matter of reviewing the By-Laws and the possibility of inclusion in the By-Laws of a stipulation regarding the use of the access roads by adjacent developers. Chairman Flaherty then read in full all of Point #5 as follows: POINT #5 "Will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of a municipality to provide educational services." Mr. Calcagni presented the Council and Planning Commission members with copies of a letter dated July 23, 1974 with attachments on Community Economic Impact & Expense Impact which the developers submitted to the South Burlington School Board at its meeting of August 14, 1974. Chairman Flaherty asked the Council and Planning Commission members if they wanted to wait and review the School Boards recommendation before considering this point. All agreed to wait for the recommendation. However there was a short discussion on this point. Mr. Blais briefly touched on the figures on page 4 of the material that had been presented to the School Board. This material is marked Exhibit #6 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Blais said a development of this density generally produces a cash surplus in both services and education expenses. Mr. Wesell said if we have more developments, could we project what the economic impact would be on the schools. Mr. Blais said that the city's experience with Georgetown Apartments, Forest Park Condominiums and Manor Woods apartments did not make any sizeable impact on the city services or schools. Mrs. Neubert felt this was not a fair comparison, since in the above units there were very few 3 bedroom apartments or condominiums, that a townhouse would be expensive, that there could possibly be more of an impact with this development as planned. Chairman Flaherty said we should wait for the School District's report. Chairman Flaherty read in full all of Point #6 as follows: POINT #6 "Will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of local government to provide municipal or governmental services and facilities." Mrs. Neubert asked if the city owned the sewer at Potter's development. Mr. Szymanski said yes. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the city had problems servicing and maintaining utilities on private land. Attorney Spokes said this presented no problems since we obtain easements to go on to private property for repairs. Mr. Cimonetti then asked if there was conflict with municipal owned services on private streets. Mr. Szymanski said we have had no trouble in the past. Chairman Flaherty read in full a letter from Fire Chief Melvin A. Monell dated August 5, 1974, which stated in essence that the development of Ridgewood Estates, at the present time, would create little or no burden on the South Burlington Fire Department, that an adequate water supply is available and the location of the development would mean a minimal response time for the fire department. The letter is marked Exhibit #7 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Kay Neubert said she wanted to ask about the 8" pipe. Could an 8" pipe be extended into another development? Would it be attached to another the same size or would a larger pipe be needed. Mr. Calcagni said the pipe at the present pitch will handle 2000 people. Mr. Cimonetti asked what is the capacity of an 8" pipe specifically. Mr. Bodette did some figuring and said the figure was 785,000 gallons per day. Dr. Farrar wondered if when extending the sewer line to Kennedy Drive the developers would be willing to install a pipe larger than 8". Mr. Calcagni said there would be quite a difference, an increase, in cost of installation since an 8" pipe could be handled by hand whereas a 12" pipe requires the use of machinery. Mr. Wessel asked if the city has the capacity to take care of the sewerage generated by the development if all the lots were developed, and Mr. Cimonetti wondered what the impact would be if Phase V were added to the system also. Chairman Flaherty instructed Mr. Szymanski, City Manager, to get together a projection of the treatment plant capacity taking into account Phase V sewage amount. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Bodette to point out on the map where the sewer line was going to be located. Mr. Bodette did so on one map and Mrs. Neubert asked him to point the line out on the town map which he did. Mr. Wessel ask if the developers could predict how many people would occupy the units. Mr. Blais quoted the figures from the Expense Impact from the material presented to the School District as follows: 228 adults 78 children (twice the no. of school children) 306 total added population Mr. Blais said the figure could be off some, but that he had researched the Nadworny Report that was compiled in 1973. Mr. Wessel said we do not need to be dependent on a local survey, we should have figures from a national survey. It was pointed out that the city has about 3000 housing units and under 3000 children in school. The City Planner was requested to review these figures, find out the number of school children we have and any other pertinent information. Mr. Dinklage referred to Point #4 (Will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways existing or proposed. Plan must be approved by City Engineer), saying an unsafe condition will exist for pupils walking from the proposed development to the High School. His remark raised the question as to exactly how far from the high school the development was. He wondered if the developer should be asked to install sidewalks. Mr. Myette remarked that the pupils to the high school were bussed from the Swift Estates. Chairman Flaherty said he felt a good point had been brought out. He asked Mr. Szymanski to ask the School District if children from the proposed development would be bussed to the school. Mrs. Maher asked City Manager why he felt so strongly about the development having private roads. Mr. Szymanski said it was because he could see, in the future, the city being responsible for the roads. Mrs. Neubert asked how many times this has happened. Mr. Szymanski said the roads in Queen City Park was one example. Mrs. Maher said she thought there was a saving in the city's operational cost if the roads in the new development were private. Mr. Szymanski pointed out that Swift Estates and Dorset Heights had private roads. Mrs. Maher said yes, but you feel we might incur costs in the future. Mr. Szymanski said yes, for instance, we would have to plow people out if there was an emergency. Mrs. Maher said she wanted to direct a question to the developer and asked Mr. Flinn why the developers wanted private roads. Mr. Flinn said a public road would cost more, that we are talking increased storm system and curbs. Mr. Blais said he felt public roads would destroy the concept of an Association, that they would have all the equipment to plow itself out since the Association could control it. Attorney Blum said in measuring the concern about being forced to take the care of the streets the members would have a feeling of privacy. Mr. Casavina said the parties living in such a development want their privacy, they are paying for the open spaces and the recreational areas, there is a cost for this and their use of their own property is a prime concern. Mr. Neubert then asked Mr. Szymanski why he felt concern, and he said we still might have to plow in an emergency. Mr. Cimonetti said he shared Mr. Scymanski's concern mentioning what if the city decided not to provide police protection. It could happen. Mr. Flaherty read all of Point #7 as follows: POINT #7 "Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural area, and conforms to proposed pedestrian trail system." Mr. Flinn noted that the City's Master Plan does not propose any natural areas, parks, or pedestrian trails for this parcel of land. He said they are planning the plantings and green spaces to make the development inward oriented. He said there were no rare or irreplacable plantings on the land. He pointed out on the map the proposed pedestrian ways, proposed plantings, where the carports would be located and how the back yards would be private. Mr. Schuele remarked that in a sense it is a private thing. There was no 15% public area set out. Where is the 15% compensation that should be made to the city. Attorney Blum said that in effect the public gains private space because so much of the land is open. It would not look all built up. Mr. Flinn said that recreation was being supplied to the residents, they would not be looking to the city for recreational facilities. Mr. Schuele again remarked on the city being able to use some of the open space, trails, etc. Attorney Spokes said this question comes up very often in a different form. He felt it should not be construed to be a mandatory requirement, rather a discretionary donation on the part of the developer. Mr. Poger asked if the recreational areas could be used by the public. Mr. Flinn said the Master Plan does not show it as such. Attorney Spokes said it is a recreation reservation neighborhood oriented, not city oriented. The intent is oriented to a specific area not to the whole city. Mr. Farrar asked if all this was germaine to the question. Chairman Flaherty said no. Chairman Flaherty then requested the City Attorney to draft a letter stating the rights of the developer and the rights of the city in regard to the recreation area. He was also requested to forward the letter to Mr. Scheule. Attorney Blum asked if the developers could also submit a letter and Chairman Flaherty said yes. Mr. Schuele said the Natural Resources Committee is concerned about getting open spaces for the public. Mrs. Neubert said it would concern us if some development doesn't have any green area set aside. Arlene Krapcho asked if the public could go by bicycle trail from Spear to Dorset Street. Mr. Dinklage asked if there was a pedestrian trail system. Mr. Schuele said the pedestrial trail does not go over this area. Mr. Dinklage said the trail system will change as the area grows. Could we ask for you to consider proposed changes to accomodate people in this development. Mr. Schuele said yes. Mr. Cimonetti asked if bicycle trails could be planned for the area. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Schuele to look into the fact of bicycle trails there. Mr. Calcagni said he was sure bicyclists would use the bike trails, that not much could be done about it. Mr. Flaherty then readin full Point #8 as follows: POINT #8 "Is in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan under Chapter 91 of Title 24." Attorney Spokes was asked if the proposed plan was in conformance with the Master Plan. Mr. Spokes said he could see no discrepencies, and that he would check on it. Mr. Flaherty then read in full Point #9 as follows: POINT #9 "Housing types, costs, and characteristics appropriate to the most imminent housing needs of various social and economic groups as determined by the Planning Commission." Mr. Calcagni said he would like to explain just what these houses are. He said they would be two story units, with a stairwell to the second floor. He explained the layout of the rooms on both stories, saying that either the 2 or 3 bedroom units could have the same configuration. The units are wood framed, stained with asphalt shingles. The cost projection was from $42,000 to $45,000 -$46,000. Mr. Calcagni read a letter from the firm of Smith Bell and Thompson, Incorporated, dated July 26, 1974 which outlined the need for this type of housing units in South Burlington. This letter is marked Exhibit No. 8 which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Calcagni read a letter dated July 25, 1974 from Janes & Jacob Real Estate which stated in part that the market could support additional housing starts now and for the immediate future. This letter is marked Exhibit #9 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Wessel asked if the letters could be from firms who would be sales agents for these houses. When told the answer was yes he said he would think the opinions could be colored. Mrs. Neubert remarked that the Hickock, Boardman and Thompson letter does not relate to Point #9. Mr. Calcagni said he had other opinions. Mr. Blais said there is no such thing as a medium priced house here in this area but he said lower price homes are needed. He quoted from the Nadworny report and if South Burlington had no migration, no change other than births and deaths we would have a population of just under 12,000 by 1983. For such an increase we would need 465 units. We recently have added 100 units so there is still a need for approximately 365. He said every report studied leads them to be encouraged, that there will be a need for housing. At 11 P.M. Chairman Flaherty said he felt the meeting should be recessed until next Monday, August 12, 1974 at 8 P.M. Dr. Farrar said he was sorry, but he would be out of town and unable to attend. Mary Barbara Maher made a motion to recess at 11:05 P.M. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion which passed unanimously, and the meeting was recessed until Monday, August 12, 1974 at 8 P.M. Approved William J. Cimonetti, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.