Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/03/1974SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 1974 Corrections to minutes of September 3, 1974 At the October 7, 1974, meeting of the City Council it was moved that the Minutes of September 3, 1974, be approved as corrected. Corrections are: (page 2) Mr. Wray should be correctly spelled as Mr. Reay next paragraph should read: cross beneath rather than go beneath. The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the Conference Room, Municipal Office Building, 1175 Williston Road, on Monday, September 3, 1974. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman; William Cimonetti, Paul Farrar, Duane Merrill and Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Albert C. Audette, George G. Smith, Fire Chief Monell, F. McCaffrey, Jack Tabaka, Charlotte Marsh, Richard Spokes, Al Guyette, Alfred Calcagni, Terry Boyle, Fred Blais The Council went into executive session at 7:30 p.m. to interview applicants for the vacancy on the Planning Commission. The regular session was called to order by Chairman Flaherty at 8:00 p.m. MINUTES OF JOINT MEETINGS OF AUGUST 12 and 27, 1974 Mr. Cimonetti moved to accept the Minutes of August 12, 1974, as presented. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. An addition was made to Mrs. Neubert's motion on page 2 of the Minutes of August 27, 1974, to read: The City reaffirms its support of the southern route if the route is to be overhead. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Farrar to table the consideration of the Minutes of August 27, 1974. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously for approval. Review of Ridgewood Estates subdivision application Mr. Farrar stated he had received from the developer the results of the test borings alluded to in one of the Minutes and wished to have copies entered in the record; he also wished to have in the record a letter from the developer dated August 20th, spelling out the stipulations which he agreed to in the Planning Commission hearings; he also wished to include a memorandum from the City Manager dated September 3rd referring to streets, sewers, and sidewalks. Other items he wished to have in the record were a letter from the Fire Chief dated September 3rd regarding fire protection; one from Fred Mitchell on traffic impact, and one from Richard Ward on August 26th regarding Ridgewood Estates. Answering a question from Mrs. Neubert, Mr. Farrar said the requested information on bussing had not been received. Chairman Flaherty then suggested going through the 14 points as being the best way to handle the review. Section 12.002 A. 1. Mrs. Neubert asked if the developer would display his drawing on the board, which was done. She then questioned the change in location of the stream, saying she understood from Mr. Wray and Mr. Towne that a stream may be moved but must be maintained. Mr. Calcagni explained there will be two culverts and that the sewer will have to go beneath the stream, a not uncommon practice. Sewer will be entirely enclosed, causing no concern over infiltration. He pointed out on his map the location of both the road and the stream and assured Council that the stream would have adequate protection. Mrs. Neubert said she felt things that are really important should be agreed to in a private contract with the developer that certain covenants be carried with each sale. City Attorney Spokes said the City could protect itself with a separate agreement with the developer stating the conditions upon which the approval is given; that the Planning Commission had several stipulations; at the final approval of the total package these conditions would be brought up. He added that the By-Laws are not the appropriate document by which we protect ourselves: they are an agreement between the private developer and the owners. Asked by Mrs. Neubert at what point a decision is made on the covenant, Mr. Spokes said there should be a document incorporating the conditions the Planning Commission and the Council required in the 14 points, and also additional conditions the Planning Commission made concerning its subdivision approval. That document would have to be approved and executed prior to the approval. There is no approval if the 14 points are not met. Mr. Farrar made reference to the letter of intent to agree to the stipulations required by the Planning Commission, with Mr. Cimonetti adding that it is only a statement of their intent, not a binding document. Mr. Spokes agreed that some binding agreement would have to be formalized. Mr. Blais said this had been put into a letter, and they are agreeing at this meeting to enter into a formal agreement. Mrs. Neubert expressed fear that the By-Laws and Articles of Association could be changed by the owners any time they wished to do so. Mr. Spokes assured her a binding document will be drafted, subject to his approval and the approval of Council. Mr. Farrar stated there seemed to be no particular problem in the soil in the area. Regarding the stipulation of the Planning Commission that no salt be used, the City Manager said salt is so expensive the City has to be very careful in its use, but there could well be a hazard if Police or fire vehicles were unable to get into the area in the winter. He suggested using chloride or sand, is salt is to be prohibited. Mr. Farrar then moved that the City Council consider that the developer has complied with Section 12.002, A. 1., with the additional stipulation that the road will be culverted wherever it crosses the stream; that it will cross the stream only twice; and that the integrity of the stream bed be maintained for drainage purposes. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Asked by Mr. Cimonetti what is meant by integrity of a stream bed, Mrs. Neubert replied the soil conservation people will make recommendations on how to maintain the stream. She then suggested changing the motion to read: stabilization process of the stream bed to be substituted for the word integrity. This was agreeable to Council. Mrs. Maher said no one had raised the issue at the Planning Commission of the times when a little salt might come in handy, nor had chloride or sand been mentioned, but the grading of the development would reduce the necessity for the use of salt. Mr. Farrar's motion was voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council consider that the developer has complied with the requirement for sufficient water, as required in Section 12.002 A.2. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. 12.003 Soil erosion Mrs. Neubert was fearful that some of the lots would be sold to private contractors and could languish for a considerable time. There could be a water problem and she asked what control the City would have over those lots. Mr. Spokes said there is site plan review for the entire subdivision, but not site plan review for a residential lot. An architectural control committee could review any plans with the objective that it would be beneficial to the rest of the development, but it is not the City's concern. Chairman Flaherty said that condition of approval of point 3 would be the stipulation that the building of the homes in any particular area would be reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Szymanski said there is good control over drainage but no control over the building of the house. Mr. Spokes said these consideration would normally come up during the subdivision review and would be binding on the developer's successors. Mrs. Neubert suggested making an informal recommendation or suggestion. Mr. Spokes felt that to be the extent to which the Council could go; that the Council doesn't have the jurisdiction and can't ask the developer to do things which are illegal. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council consider the developer has complied with the requirements of 12.002 A.3. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously for approval. 12.002 A.4. Unreasonable highway congestion Chairman Maher was asked to give a run-down on what had actually happened regarding the question of sidewalks Mrs. Maher said the advice of the City Attorney was that the developer could only be forced to build sidewalks within his development, and a motion was passed by the Planning Commission to approve that particular point. Whether or not there will be sidewalks within the development itself has not been decided by the Planning Commission. Chairman Maher said the Commission unanimously recommends to the Council that the City take upon itself the building of sidewalks from the egress on Dorset Street to the corners of Kennedy Drive. Mr. Cimonetti said that this meant, to him, that the Planning Commission was saying there must be sidewalks; that the City is to budget and build sidewalks. Mrs. Neubert felt the Commission was also saying, by their request for sidewalks, that the development will cause unreasonable highway congestion. She wanted to know the final intent of the Commission. Mrs. Maher said there would be no danger to the students unless they took it upon themselves to walk to the corners of Kennedy Drive, or their parents allow them to do so instead of taking the bus. However, children will be walking at other times, weekends, vacations. Mr. Spokes agreed with Mr. Cimonetti's re-statement of the legal opinion; namely, that the City cannot require the developer to provide walks external to his development. Mrs. Neubert suggested that the trail system night take the place of sidewalks. Mrs. Maher said this would mean going across someone else's property, with Mr. Cimonetti adding they would not cross the interstate. Mr. Farrar asked if not putting in sidewalks would create an unsafe condition? He felt that, given the supposition that the School System will bus all children from this area, there would be a hazard no greater than any other area; that it is not creating an unsafe situation. Mr. Guyette commented that kids don't go to school 365 days a year but they were going to be going other places, people as well as kids. Mr. Merrill's response to that was there is always the possibility that some child is going to be riding or walking — it would be nice to have a sidewalk run seven miles down to the end of the City. Mr. Guyette insisted it was something to be concerned about. Mr. Farrar repeated it was a question of whether an undue hazard was being created. Mrs. Maher felt partnership between the developer and the City should mean the City is willing to take its fair share: that nothing will ever get built in the City if the developer is expected to do everything. Mr. Farrar insisted the only thing to decide now is whether the development, as proposed, without a sidewalk, is going to create an unsafe condition, and whether the City is going to undertake to build the sidewalk. Then the economic impact would be judged under point 6. Mrs. Neubert suggested using the trail system in the development, which will run in a north-south direction according to Mr. Blais, with the City picking up a sidewalk from the trail. This was objected to on grounds of safety, lighting, and snow removal, with Mrs. Maher saying if they were going to walk, it should be on a sidewalk. Chairman Flaherty said this should be the time to find out what more information is needed. Mr. Cimonetti said a more imaginative solution is needed, but it is not the Council's burden to solve the problem. Mr. Cimonetti then moved that the City Council find that under Section 2.004, the proposed development does cause an unsafe condition, that the developer should be requested to provide data supporting or defending this. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Cimonetti then explained he would like to see the Council establish whether or not they feel that the existence of the development does or does not create an unsafe condition; that this could be discussed and resolved at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Farrar suggested rewording the motion to say: We have not found that they have complied with... The Chairman suggested making a condition that additional information be brought in to the Council for their consideration. Mr. Spokes said the Council could vote not to accept criteria 4, or could vote to table criteria 4 for more imaginative plans. Mr. Merrill felt criteria 4 should be tabled. He asked the City Attorney if this would set a precedent for the City to put sidewalks in any other development if it was voted to do so in this case. Mr. Spokes said he thought it would not. Mr. Cimonetti said he couldn't face point 6 until he had an understanding on 4, and suggested a motion to table and refer the matter to the Planning Commission as being the most appropriate thing. Mr. Spokes commented it seemed like an impossible chore to ask of the Planning Commission. He said if you determine that a sidewalk is necessary for safety, then in point 6 you could, in fact, not find it unreasonable. It could be voted whether or not a sidewalk is necessary for both 4 and 6. Mr. Calcagni mentioned that it would make a difference who moved in, high school or younger students. Mr. Farrar, saying he was not an expert in knowing what constitutes a reasonable or an unreasonable hazard, felt it was probably farther than most people would walk. Mrs. Neubert said there will be a very bad situation with the entrances and exits to the interstate and crossing Kennedy Drive. Mr. Cimonetti then moved to table his motion on Section 2.004, and refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mrs. Maher stated the Planning Commission had unanimously endorsed #4 with a simple, clear recommendation that the City build a sidewalk. Mr. Cimonetti said the Planning Commission had said it found no problem with #4. Mrs. Maher replied that without using the word "congestion" there will be children who will walk. The motion was tabled by a vote of 3 to 2. Mr. Merrill and Chairman Flaherty voting in the negative. Mr. Cimonetti suggested the City Planner and the City Engineer should study the proposal and give the Council a projection of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Blais asked from what position the developer should act at this point. He was advised by Mr. Cimonetti that the finding of the Planning Commission on #4 with respect to the creation of unsafe conditions has been challenged; that the developer should rise to that challenge and perhaps find a solution. 12.005 Educational services Mr. Farrar said the space question only resolves around the high school, as there is adequate space in the elementary and middle schools, and that he felt no period shorter than four years should be considered for the development. Mr. Blais replied their minimum was three, optimum four, and maximum five years. Mr. Farrar said compressing it below four would cause concern. The City Attorney stated that there is a growth rate policy in the Master Plan but it has not been implemented. If the City attempts to implement that policy, he would have reservations. The policy indicates the City's desire, but beyond that he does not feel it can be enforced. He said he would be very uncomfortable defending a position where we have declared the proposal non-conforming because of the growth policy. Mr. Farrar felt Section 13, developmental timetable, should be tied down because of its impact on the community. Mr. Blais said they would begin with 20 to 22 units the first year, the fall of 1975, and he asked Mr. Farrar to give him an example of what he feared in terms of impact. Mr. Farrar mentioned all the other developments now in process. If all were to be built in two years there would be a considerable impact on the community. He felt '78 to be reasonable, '79 to be comfortable. Mr. Cimonetti said the only control is by means of the Capital Budget, and the whole crux of the matter is for the services for those places outside the Budget. Mr. Blais reminded Council that the School Board recommendation to them was "No burden" and he would like to leave that 3 - 4 year option. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council move to point 13 which is the developmental timetable and solve that issue. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. This motion was carried 3 - 2, with Mrs. Neubert and Mr. Merrill voting against the motion and the Chairman voting for it. Short recess was then taken, with the meeting being reconvened at 10:25 p.m. to consider point 13, Developmental timetable. Mr. Blais stated the timetable approved by the Planning Commission was to begin in the fall of '74 (already too late) or spring of '75: to be completed in 3 to 5 years. Mr. Blais said 2 years scared the banks, 3 to 4 was more comfortable, 5 years scared them again, and if he were to go to 5 he would have a difficult time finding money. Short-term money is normally a 3 years renewable type of process. He suggested the City agree to a 3 year minimum, but review annually after each phase was completed, so that if the impact is contrary or adverse to the Master Plan or the county growth, they would be agreeable at that time to revision of the timetable. Answering a question from the Chairman as to how he measured, Mr. Blais said he measured from the time the units were done. Mr. Farrar suggested no more than 30 units per year: 30 completed in '75, 30 in '76, 30 in '77, balance in '78, or up to 30 units average. Mr. Calcagni asked what would happen if an industry wished to come into the area, subject to finding housing. Mr. Farrar said this agreement could be modified if it were in the best interests of the community. Mr. Cimonetti said the Master Plan controls growth policy. Under that, if an industry came, we would say we have a controlled growth rate in South Burlington that has some negative effects on industry and has some very positive effects also. Mr. Calcagni said that if this City turned the industry to some other state, he would feel the first responsibility should be to the people of Vermont. Even in the policy of growth control there should be room for change. Mr. Blais said he doubted it would be a viable position in law. It was brought out that the Council and the developers were really only a year apart in their projections, and Mr. Blais agreed that they could live with the provision of "over the calendar year 1977, completed and ready for sale." Mr. Merrill felt the potential of 42 students would mean a problem for the schools. Mr. Farrar said it would be considerably over the projected growth rate. Mr. Blais then asked what would be the procedure for review, to whom would they address themselves, what would be the process? Mr. Farrar said the Code Officer would tell the developers what the growth rate had been the previous year, and the next year they would be allowed enough units to make up this difference, and that he would put this into reasonable language. Mr. Farrar then moved that the development plan under point 13 as stipulated by the developer at the rate not to exceed 30 units in '75, '76, and '77, and 24 units in '78, that these numbers be cumulative, and that if the county growth rate in the preceding year after '75 is less than 2% of the average growth rate of the community, the developer can apply to the Code Officer who can issue additional building permits such as to make the number equal to the 2% or county growth rate, whichever is larger. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Spokes then asked Mr. Blais whether he would agree to that motion or not. Mr. Blais replied he could live with it; that he would accept it. Mr. Cimonetti asked that the Minutes show that acceptance of the motion was given by the developer. Mr. Farrar moved that with the builder's acceptance of the previous motion, there has now been produced a satisfactory developmental timetable in conformance with Section 12.002 A.13. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously for approval. Asked about a schedule for recreation, Mr. Calcagni said it is planned for the first phase. Section 12.002 A.5. Educational Services Mr. Farrar moved that on the basis of the developmental timetable, that the City Council finds that the development places no immediate burden on the school system. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Section 12.002 A.6. Municipal services Referring to the larger size sewer pipe, Mrs. Neubert was not in favor of the City paying for the additional cost. Mr. Farrar explained it is a question or whether or not it is in the best interests of the City to pay for this now or at a subsequent date. The sewer pipe is not directly related to this particular development, but is related as to how the Council wishes to proceed in general development. A separate question from the approval of the development. The City is asking for the option of putting in the larger pipe and could recover the investment by taxing the next person who would pay the City back for the privilege of hooking on. Any size of pipe, 8" or 12", will be conveyed to the City. The City Manager said the pipe could serve approximately 5,000 persons in the area, and he felt this was the logical place for the sewer for the area. Mr. Szymanski felt roads could best be handled in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Blais said they would be built to city standards in construction, but not in geometrics, as they would be 24 feet rather than 30 feet, with the City Engineer supervising all the work to be done. He also stated that accesses to sewers now meet the City Engineer's requirements. Chairman Flaherty suggested that Council meet on Tuesday, September 10, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. to finish consideration of the 14 points. Mr. Spokes agreed the Council should finish the 14 criteria before the subdivision vote. A presentation can be made to the Planning Commission in the meantime, but a final vote should await the 14 points. (NOTE: The meeting date was later changed to September 11th at 7:30 p.m.) When Mr. Blais asked if there would be anything else the Council would want more information on, Mr. Cimonetti said he anticipated that there would be considerable discussion on point 12, the economic capability, and it might result in a request. Mr. Blais said there would be a bond and also a commitment for the first phase, but no bank would be willing to commit for the second phase. There would be a problem in getting a letter committing to the following phases. Correction of Minutes of Meetings After discussion, Mr. Farrar suggested that corrections be made and then the approval motion should become an integral part of those Minutes. This suggestion was considered a motion, and was seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Motion voted unanimously for approval. Recommendation of Chief Carter to lower speed limit on Airport Parkway Mr. Sztmanski said Chief Carter had recommended reducing the speed limit from 35 to 25 from the Lime Kiln Bridge to Kirby Road, where it presently becomes 25. Discussion followed as to the need for this because of the few houses in the area, although it was acknowledged there is a bad intersection and some industry. It was moved by Mr. Cimonetti that Council modify the speed limit from the intersection to the Lime Kiln Bridge, from 35 miles per hour to 25 per hour. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. Enforcement of traffic regulations Mr. Cimonetti made a plea for stricter enforcement of traffic regulations in South Burlington by means of a popular campaign, not just a traffic enforcement campaign. Saying that getting local people to slow down would be winning half the battle, he suggested the possibility of bumper stickers, and Mrs. Neubert suggested enlisting a high school group to support such a program. Resolution on the death of Fred Fayette The City Manager presented a resolution on the death of Fred Fayette who had been active in both county and local affairs. Mr. Cimonetti moved that the resolution prepared by the City Manager on the death of Fred Fayette be sent. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Renewal Notes The City Manager presented ten renewal notes, to bear the same interest rate, as follows: A. C. Loader $5,536.00 Welfare, renewal 19,000.00 Garvey Property, renewal 25,000.00 Red Rocks Dev., renewal 15,000.00 Land Fill Machine 26,990.00 Street Sweeper 8,772.00 Cat. #9302 Loader 23,300.00 Sewer Constr. Phase IV 225,500.00 C.C.T.A., renewal 25,000.00 20 Duchess Ave., renewal 3,000.00 Mr. Farrar moved that the Council approve the short term notes as indicated by the City Manager. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Farrar suggested that in the future such a list should show short term funds outstanding a year ago and as of today. Motion was made by Mr. Farrar to go into executive session to discuss the acquisition of land for road to industrial zone and the sale of a portion of land dedicated for a street at Bartlett's Bay. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Regular session was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.