Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/12/1974CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING AUGUST 12, 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 Monday, August 12, 1974. Council Chairman Flaherty called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Council members present were Chairman Flaherty, William J. Cimonetti, Catherine M. Neubert and Duane E. Merrill. Planning Commissioners present were Chairman Mary Barbara Maher, Sidney B. Poger, William B: Wessel and John B. Dinklage. MEMBERS ABSENT City Council member, Paul A. Farrar. Planning Commissioners William Robenstein and Ernest Levesque. OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Frederick G. Blais; Alfred Calcagni, Attorney Richard C. Blum, Paul R. Casavina, Jr., William Schuele, Tim Shaeffernoth and Arlene Krapcho. DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS RAISED ON POINTS DISCUSSED AT PRIOR MEETING Chairman Flaherty first raised the question presented by Mr. Wessel on "severe soil" on which the State recommends no developing. Mr. Szymanski, City Manager, contacted the director of Regional Planning and he said basically that under these conditions extra precautions would have to be taken, but construction is not impossible. He read a Preliminary Report which is marked Exhibit #1 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Planning Commission Chairman Maher raised the question of whether the subdivision regulations give us any control in seeing that necessary safeguards are taken since we don't have a building code. Mr. Szymanski said he felt that we do not have to worry, we have reputable architects working on this. Mrs. Neubert then raised the question as to whether or not we were going to see that the necessary precautions were taken, and further she felt that we should have some guidelines for other builders to follow. Mr. Poger stated that the Building Code would be something we should work on. Mr. Calcagni then stated that he had spoken with the Green Mountain Boring Company to take 19 or 20 borings in the area, and on or about the 19th of August he expected some report from them. In addition, he talked to Russell Reay, Assistant County Forester, and he asked him to check over the soil and give a report. Mrs. Neubert also stated that the Extension Service would give a report. Mr. Cimonetti said that no definition had been given as to what is called "severe" soil. He suggested we contact an agency who is responsible for this and have them report on the same. Chairman Flaherty then moved on to the definition of a major street. Mr. Szymanski read the discription which has been marked Exhibit #2 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Chairman Flaherty then went on to the next question relating to how much traffic would be generated with further development. It was suggested that the Boards wait for an answer from Mr. Frederick Mitchell, City Planner. The next question was: are there any By-Laws to be added to the By-Laws of the Association in regard to roads. Attorney Richard Spokes stated he had briefly considered this and a memo was given to all Board members tonight. Basically, if a road is to remain private there are certain protective devices that can be required, such as maintenance, up-grading, etc., which should meet City specifications. Chairman Flaherty then proceeded to Page 9 of the prior minutes regarding Mr. Wessel's question as to whether or not the city has the capacity to take care of the sewerage generated by development if all lots were developed. Mr. Szymanski said that the sewage system has been averaging below capacity and would still be below capacity if all the lots were developed. Chairman Flaherty then moved on to the question of policy for bussing students from the development. City Manager Szymanski said that he had spoken with school department personnel and their policy was within one mile, but they felt that under existing conditions the children would be bussed. The question was raised as to whether or not the cost of installing sidewalks was cheaper than bussing. City Manager Szymanski said that if there were sidewalks the high school children could walk. Chairman Flaherty then moved to the next question of whether or not the proposed plan is in conformance with local or regional plans. Attorney Spokes said the proposed plan is in conformance with the City Plan. There is no Regional Plan as yet. Mrs. Neubert then brought up the question of the four crossings across the stream. Mr. Calcagni stated that they had left two of the crossings out, thus eliminating the crossings to two. Mr. Poger pointed out that we should take great care that the stream is crossed without damaging the stream. Chairman Flaherty then proceeded to Point 9, which had been discussed at the prior meeting of August 7th, but was not completed before the meeting was adjourned. Mr. Wessel stated that he had spoken with City Planner Fred Mitchell and had learned that the city would have to pay for an appraisal. It was suggested by Mrs. Maher that the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission should be consulted regarding the income as related to the type of housing the city needs. Mr. Wessel stated that available study projections give housing needs. Mr. Wessel further stated that the projected market price was $42,000 to $46,000, and he would like to be filled in on the estimated value of the land and recreational facilities. Mr. Calcagni reported on the square footage of the 2 bedroom units, the 3 bedroom units and the square footage of the cellar if there was a cellar. Mrs. Neubert asked if all units were going to have cellars. Mr. Calcagni said they would if they were not located on an irremovable ledge. Mr. Calcagni further said that they would have a carport. He also said that they would locate the garbage collection out near the rear rather than in the front. Also, that all appliances except washers and dryers would be included and garbage disposals would be included if the sewage system would handle it. Mr. Cimonetti asked about the question of the escalation period. Mr. Casavina stated the estimate was derived from the 1975 index, and the selling price includes cost per unit for common area, tennis court, swimming pool and bike paths. Mr. Cimonetti asked what part of the $46,000 is for the common area on that basis. Mr. Casavina stated that it was about $3,000 per unit, and a common maintenance charge per dwelling. Chairman Flaherty said the development was certainly not for poor people. Arlene Krapcho questioned whether the $3,000 included raw land. Mr. Blais stated they expected to get $30,000 per structure and the balance was for raw land, profit and common area. Chairman Flaherty then read in full Point No. 10 as follows: POINT NO. 10 "Efficiency of allocation, distribution and maintenance of common open spaces." Mr. Calcagni explained where the areas were common on the map, which are Lots No. 1 to 7 and 13, 17, and 12, the open spaces on the boundary and in the center of the development. Mr. Dinklage questioned what would be the right-of-way for the recreational area, and how the single family owners of the 14 buildings would be allowed to use the common area. Mr. Casavina stated that they would be the same as the cluster owners. Mr. Blum, Attorney, further stated that there would be Articles of Association and By-Laws drawn up for a non-profit corporation with life perpetual, all of the land held in perpetuity on the common areas. "What we think we will do is to say no vote of less than 100 per cent of all persons eligible to vote can change the Articles of Association." Mr. Dinklage posed the question that after four years if a substantial group of town houses remain unsold, will the resident home owners have the right to see that the common areas are developed. Attorney Blum stated that it is the developer's position that they will be developed and included in the first phase. Mr. Calcagni said that in Phase 1, twenty-five units and the common area would be completed. Mr. Poger raised the question that if at the end of four years the developer had not sold all of the lots, would all the common area go to the owners of the houses. Attorney Blum stated they wouldn't vote all units over until they are all sold, but there would be an absolute cut-off when all units are sold. Mr. Casvina furthur stated that there would be a maintenance fee charged or an assessment on each unit which is sold; that the non-profit corporation will have a board of directors for four years and then the directorship will be turned over to the resident owners. The reason for holding this off for four years is to make certain that the plan and the development is executed in the proper way. He further stated that when a unit is sold a certificate of membership will pass to the new owner of the unit. Chairman Flaherty then read in full Point No. 11 as follows: POINT NO. 11 "Economy and efficiency of street and public facility installation, construction and maintenance." Mr. Calcagni stated that the economy and efficiency of public streets, engineering and designing will be developed along the guidelines of the city and state. Mr. Blais asked Mr. Szymanski if he had the change on the layout of the street, sewer and water and Mr. Szymanski read a memo referring to the same. The memo is marked Exhibit #3 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Szymanski posed a question on the location of the main sewer, that maybe there was a possibility of making it go through the parking lot to the water main located within the parking lot paved area. It might not be possible. He also state that we will need a road to run into the common area to get the heavy machinery in if need be. Mr. Calcagni stated that they are working on this and will be working on it with the city and that they will review the contours with the city, the contours being important since Mr. Shaeffernoth said it was more effective to have utilities curve off the street. Mr. Blais stated that Paul Flinn had tried to create a different look with the same, coming from back and front. Chairman Flaherty then read in full Point No. 12 as follows: POINT NO. 12 "Proof of economic capility that the developer can fully complete, on schedule, the proposed PUD or phases thereof." Mr. Calcagni stated that they were in the process of putting together a development portfolio and initial drawings to review with real estate investment companies and major banks, and it was hoped that they would express an interest and state their interest in participating in the same. Mr. Poger posed a question to Richard Spokes, City Attorney, on whether he felt that a letter from prospective financing institutions would fulfill Point No. 12. Attorney Spokes said he felt we would need something more from the financing institution that the developer was dealing with; and he further felt the subdivision should be approved subject to the furnishing of further information when it was obtained. Mr. Dinklage questioned Attorney Spokes as to whether there was any bonding on private roads. Attorney Spokes said yes, if they were to become public streets. Mr. Dinklage then asked if it would be desirable to have a sidewalk down Dorset Street. Mr. Spokes stated if we required sidewalks in the development there would be bonding, but not if the sidewalks were outside of the development. Mr. Cimonetti stated he wished to make a point that the city would be assured of the following: 1. The characteristics represented in the plan would be brought to a finish. 2. That the Plan can be completed in the advertised time frame. In order to satisfy these points the city will have to have something stronger than a letter of interest. The city will need a fully detailed letter to meet Phase 1 development as an indication that the developer will do what he says he will do. City Attorney Spokes stated that a formal letter of commitment would be impossible to obtain at this time. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there could be a more encompassing performance bond. Mr. Spokes indicated that there is no legal bonding authority as this is limited by State Statutes. He suggested approval contingent not only to include Phase 1, but all of the development. Mr. Cimonetti said the city should have in writing, that approval be given for construction subject to developer's ability to finance the project before a building permit is issued. Mr. Blais wondered how this point was left and was told that approval would be contingent upon firm financing approval. Chairman Flaherty then read in full Point No. 13 as follows: POINT NO. 13 "Developmental timetable." Mr. Blais cited a timetable of a 4 year building-out and sell-out in two or three years. Mr. Poger said the timetable should be much more detailed. He posed the question that if the development was not finished in a certain time it should be brought back to the Planning Commission to rescind. Chairman Flaherty said that a general guideline should be given to the city subject to change. Mr. Dinklage asked Attorney Spokes what kind of approval we can use on this; what can we rescind. Mr. Spokes said it sould be geared more toward public improvements such as roads, etc. Mrs. Neubert questioned whether we should require proof of ownership. Mr. Blais read a letter from his attorney. Mr. Spokes stated that the developer should supply a letter regarding the certificate from the attorney doing the legal work. Chairman Flaherty then read in full Point No. 14 as follows: POINT NO. 14 "Objectives and purposes to be served by this PUD." Mr. Blais read the "statement of development intent" and a copy of the statement is marked Exhibit #4 and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Chairman Flaherty then suggested we should set up some sort of schedule of opinions for which the city is waiting. He further stated that it was not necessary for the two boards to meet again. He said there should be a City Council meeting after we have received the opinions and he then turned the meeting over to Chairman Maher of the Planning Commission. Chairman Maher stated that the legal notice had been given, stating that the Commission was meeting tomorrow night (August 13, 1974), and at that time must entertain a motion to recess. If the Planning Commission so wishes, she suggested that a meeting be set for next week so the Commission can go over each of the 14 points. The meeting was set for Monday, August 19, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. and it was decided that the August 13, 1974 meeting would be opened and then recessed by 8:00 P.M. She said that a warning should be published in the paper concerning the August 19, 1974 meeting. Mr. Cimonetti asked when the City Council would act on the 14 points. Chairman Flaherty said they would wait and get the information from the Planning Commission and the developer. Mr. Flaherty announced that the subdivision hearing would be scheduled for August 27, 1974 if everything was approved by that date. Chairman Maher made a motion to recess at 10:05 P.M. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion which passed unanimously, and the meeting was recessed until August 19, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. Approved William J. Cimonetti, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.