Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/08/1974CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Friday, February 8, 1974, at the Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Walter Nardelli, Chairman; William Cimonetti, Paul Farrar, Michael Flaherty, and Mrs. Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman of the Planning Commission; Patricia Calkins, Rena Calkins, Jean Hildick, Rowland Peterson, Richard Bingham, Elizabeth Horton, Jane Horton, Fred H. Taylor, Paula F. Taylor, Ruth B. DesLauriers, Viola Luginbuhl, Robert Martineau, Charles Fish, Sidney Poger, John Dinklage, Harry Behney, R. C. Schuster, Fred Sargent, Jack Tabaka, Verle Houghaboom, James Vaillancourt, Ernest Levesque, Jr., William B. Wessel, Raymond J. Danis, William Robenstein, Louise Demers, R. J. Furlong, A. and E. S. Emory The meeting came to order at 7:40 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Chairman announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive "in-put" from the audience regarding questions or criticisms of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Regulations. Mr. Schuster, stating that he represented Durgin and Brown, questioned the lot coverage of 20% for a Business Planned Development Zone. They consider this to be too restricted when Business Retail allows for 40% lot coverage. He requested that this be changed to 40% for BPD or else placed on a sliding scale percentage according to the size of the lot. Mrs. Maher said the Planning Commission, after receiving the same request, had agreed that it should remain at 20%, as otherwise very large buildings would be built. Mr. Martineau felt this showed an inconsistency and that it should be at least 30%. Mr. Flaherty agreed with this, that 30% might be better. Mrs. DesLauriers felt it should be a sliding scale according to the size of land being developed. Mr. Schuster said the City would always be protected by site plan review. Mr. Levesque mentioned Route 128 (Boston) as an example of attractive buildings for light industry, employing many people. A motion was made by Mr. Flaherty to change the maximum lot coverage in Business Planned Development Zone from 20% to 30%. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Mr. Bingham asked how a significant change could be made at this meeting after a short discussion, how the Planning Commission document could be amended after they had spent a lot of time acquiring expertise. He wished to see a compromise that would be acceptable to both the Planning Commission and the Council. Motion withdrawn by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. David Merrill said the Planning Commission is composed of idealists. Farmers, business men, land owners are not represented. Many groups have been alienated. The City Council should listen to the people, their criticisms, and incorporate some of it into this plan. Mr. Danis said the motion was out of order; this had been advertised an informational meeting; no reason for any motions to be made. Mr. Merrill asked when revisions would be made available. The City Manager replied by the end of next week, but a copy for review would be available Monday. Mrs. Taylor asked about the latest policy on limited growth. Mr. Nardelli explained the growth policy is intended to control the impact of residential subdivision development in that residential subdivision development shall be planned to phase growth at a rate commensurate with a 2% yearly rate or the previous year's growth rate in residential units of the County, whichever is larger. Mr. Farrar added that they made sure to put a policy in place that could be implemented with reasonable confidence that it could be sustained. Two per cent was a reasonable figure, but wanted to make sure it could be defended if it ever became necessary to tell someone he could not build. Mrs. Maher said the vote in the Planning Commission on this amendment had been 4 to 2, with one member abstaining. Mr. Schmucker said it should not be tied in with the county growth, and Mr. Wessel said he felt it should be pegged to the growth of the entire state, not the county. Mr. Flaherty said the City can only defend its growth policy if it agrees to take its fair share of the county growth. The City does have controls to take care of this because the Planning Commission will have to reconsider this policy every year. Mr. Nardelli announced that they had just received a legal opinion asked for: that this is a legal meeting and any business can be transacted. Mr. Nardelli then explained the changes made on page 5 of the zoning regulations regarding the southeast quadrant to allow building. If a developer comes in and wishes to put in some of the services at his own expense, the area must already be contemplated for development in the Capital Budget. Has to be in the original program but can be changed in the time sequence, with public hearings by the Planning Commission and by the Council required. If an area is proposed that is not in the Capital Budget Program, it would have to be zoned. Mr. Farrar said the Planning Commission would have to make a decision that this proposed development would not be overtaxing the school system, the police department, or that the sewers would not be overloading the sewer plant. When Council is satisfied with this, then developer can go ahead after his site plan is reviewed. Mr. Flaherty said the wish is to keep the southeast quadrant as the last area to be developed. City would still have right of refusal. Density would remain the same, two per acre, and still be a minimum of fifty acres to be developed. Mrs. Hildick asked how this document was arrived at? Mr. Sargent answered it was based on some good concepts of good planning and is to put control of the future of the City in the hands of the Planning Commission and the Council, to satisfy the needs of 10,000 people. Mr. Merrill said he understands that 26 owners in the southeast quadrant are considering posting their land if a more liberal policy is not made in developing the area. He is concerned that this open space may be lost for hunting, showmobiling, etc. Mrs. Neubert explained that the 2 per acre PUD in southeast quadrant would be zoned by the gross area rather than the net, as formerly. She mentioned the 10% bonsus also, for low cost housing. The only other PUD is behind the lamplough property, to be commercial tied in with residential units, requiring 50% of the dwelling units to be completed before any commercial may be built. Mr. Schmucker stated the 1 - 10 figure is shown by the State to be compatible with water recharge problems, a very defensible situation. Mr. Merrill then asked where in South Burlington could a young person with a middle income afford to buy a lot and build a house. He was told that there is nothing to prevent a variety of houses on different lot sizes being built, that there is a great incentive for the builder to have different types of housing to meet different income levels. That new lots and houses will be expensive but there are always older homes in good condition for lower prices. Mr. Behney commented that the manufacturing jobs are the highest paid jobs in the economic structure. Mr. Flaherty explained to the audience the section saying that in Bartlett's Bay area that any house that is in existence at this time may be continued, and may be rebuilt after being damaged or destroyed. He also explained that the proposed zoning of the lakeshore of one unit per acre may be three per acre now if the houses are clustered, and the developer may be required by the Planning Commission to leave some of his land open for a right-of-way to the lake. The question of a definition of cluster was referred to Mrs. Maher who promised to provide the Council with a definition. Mr. Larson asked about the flood plain. Mr. Szymanski explained that 230 feet is considered the flood elevation, according to the State. An area of ten acres in the flood plain is higher, as an island in case of flooding, is considered to be part of the flood plain as it would be surrounded by water. Mr. Sargent this has to be considered agricultural because of sewer problems, and that the Council had concurred in this. Mrs. Neubert then explained that the conservation areas consist of the Winooski River, Muddy Brook and Potash Brook, the setbacks on the Interstate, two natural areas, (East Woods and Centennial Woods) also 50 feet setbacks on minor streams. All are privately owned with no design on the part of the City to acquire them. Nothing can be built in these strips and nothing done to cause pollution of streams, but the owner can use this acreage in computing his allowable density for the rest of his property. Mr. Vogel recommended that something be done to prevent future erosion of the lake front. A motion was made by Mr. Flaherty to take the suggestion of Durgin and Brown to increase the lot density to 30% in Business Planned Development zone and send it back to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously. Mr. Larson asked about projected enrollments for schools, that no mention is made of kindergartens, and kindergartens could be a future possibility. It was explained to him that the school department is a separate and independent entirety, and that Council had not had time to review the whole school section. Mr. Farrar then moved that a section be added on page 112 to Table 1 and Table 2 to include the projections for the kindergarten population enrollment figures for the years indicated. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Cimonetti questioned this, saying the Table is from a study that exists, impossible to just add to a Table and consider it a report by Dr. Nadworny. Mr. Larson said a separate table had been his intention. Motion withdrawn and a new motion made by Mr. Farrar that a paragraph following the second paragraph on page 113 be added, this paragraph to refer to projected kindergarten population enrollment figures. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Voted unanimously. Mr. Behney brought up the subject of bus shelters vs. setback requirements; that it wouldn't seen feasible to build a bus shelter 150 feet back from the road. He would like to see a special ruling for bus shelters to be reviewed by some responsible body as to aesthetic desirability, but not to have to go before the Zoning Board (and pay a fee) to get permission to build a shelter. He said the Timberland Medical Center should have one, possibly one other in this end of the City, and one in the Shelburne Road area. Mr. Nardelli theorized that this could possibly be included under General Provisions. Mrs. Krapchko asked if any consideration had been given to allowing planned development in an R-7 district. The answer was "No." It was explained that single family or duplexes were not allowed in R-7. Mr. Nardelli asked Mrs. Maher for her concept on this, with Mrs. Maher replying that the Planning Commission never considered a mix of units for R-7, had left it the way it was. Mrs. Maher then announced that the Planning Commission had gone across the hall to discuss the question of increasing the lot coverage in BPD and had voted unanimously to compromise on the 30% increase as recommended by the Council. Mrs. Maher then referred to the provision to increase density to a maximum of 10% if 10% of all the houses are to be low cost housing, saying that the Planning Commission further recommends that this principle be applied to any planned unit development in the City and not just for the southeast quadrant as originally recommended. Mrs. DesLauriers asked if condominiums could be included. It was also asked if that property (Quarry Hill) could be zoned as Business Retail to allow for 40% coverage rather than the 30% now to be allowed on the land. Mr. Nardelli said there were other considerations also, such as entrance and exit to and from the property, with too much involved for any consideration just now. Mr. Cimonetti made a motion that the Planning Commission shall be authorized to increase density by a maximum of 10% for the purpose of permitting land to be used for low cost dwellings, provided 10% of the units are low cost housing as defined in Section 15.128 of Article 8. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Mr. Nardelli asked how this could be done. Mr. Cimonetti said the developer would have to assure that 10% of the buildings would be sold in that low cost definition. Mr. Ward said it would be almost unenforceable. Mr. Nardelli said at least the intent is there. Mrs. Maher said the Planning Commission had discussed it at considerable length. Motion passed by a unanimous vote. Question of clustering was discussed, with Mrs. Maher agreeing to present a definition of a cluster after more study. Next subject was the public building question. Mr. Ward suggested extending the zone from wherever you are allowing municipal buildings in that district as a permitted use, just extend the boundaries of the district wherever they are. It was moved by Mr. Farrar that the Council direct the City Manager to include in all the zones where they are now located, municipal buildings and services as a permitted use. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Motion made by Mr. Flaherty to delete the municipal zone created last night in the ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously. Motion made by Mr. Farrar that the City Manager or Code Officer be instructed to extend the boundaries adjacent to the municipal buildings to include municipal buildings and services. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Clustering was discussed again. Mr. Farrar said the point in clustering was to maintain open space and asked what could be done to insure that would happen. He felt there should be more than just the general provisions that apply to any PUD in the city. Mr. Ward replied the built-in safeguard of site review, a public hearing with plans, that is enough to control anything. He also felt a definition to be un-necessary unless it was a very general definition. Otherwise it would leave nothing to design or imagination. A motion was made by Mr. Flaherty that development in R-3 be subject to prevision of 6.202(a) (five acres) and (3) (water service facilities); 6.203 (permitted uses) and 12.002. Seconded by Mr. Farrar----- After discussion motion was changed to read that Section 6.001 be amended so that the portion of the R-1 district which is bounded on the east by the railroad, the west by the lake, the south by the town line of Shelburne, and on the north by Potash brook, be allowed to have three units per acre, subject to the following provisions of 6.202(a) (five acres) and (3) (water service facilities); 6.203 (permitted uses); and 12.002. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Mr. Vogel had a request to have the word destroyed inserted after damaged in section 6. Mr. Farrar moved that after the word structure in the third line in section 6. it be amended to read destroyed or damaged. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Ward then explained the sequence in time as follows: The document to be Warned on Monday, the 11th. Public hearing on the 28th. (these dates refer to February) Any changes made on the 28th would mean waiting another fifteen days. The By-law says we have to have document in by the 23rd of March but by-law does not become effective until 21 days after its passage. If we don't make it, we will have to have interim zoning. Mr. Szymanski called attention to page 18, what he thought was perhaps a typographical error, the radial curb requirement reads 20 feet which would be an impossibility, that 4 feet would be the limit. Mrs. Neubert made a motion that on page 18 the wording be changed from 20 feet to not less than 4 feet, as recommended by the City Engineer. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Mrs. Maher asked if the City Council had asked the City Counsel to begin preparing interim zoning. Answer was that it had not yet been done. Mr. Farrar moved that the meeting be adjourned, at call of Chairman, to 4,00 p.m. Saturday afternoon, for the sole purpose of correcting any omissions or corrections. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.