Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/11/1974CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1974 Corrections to minutes of September 11, 1974 At the City Council meeting of October 7, 1974, it was moved to accept the Minutes of September 11, 1974, as corrected. Corrections are: (page 8) the sentence referring to needs of the Fire Department should read: It was asserted by the Fire Chief that the Fire Department needs three more men at the present time, and if the development goes through, the department would not need any additional men. The South Burlington City Council held a Meeting on Wednesday, September 11, 1974, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman; William Cimonetti, Paul Farrar, Duane Merrill, Mrs. Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Paul Flinn, Fred Calcagni, Bill Schuele, Paul R. Casavina, Jr., M. A. Monell, Jack Tabaka, Fred Blais The meeting was opened by the Chairman at 7:45 p.m., for the purpose of continuing the review of the Ridgewood Estates proposal and the 14 criteria which must be approved. The Chairman thought the best method was to go back to Item 4 which had been left unresolved at the last meeting. This relates to unreasonable highway congestion, and whether unsafe conditions would be caused by the lack of a sidewalk. Chairman Maher of the Planning Commission read the two motions passed by the Planning Commission at their meeting the previous evening. These are: That there is a consensus of the Planning Commission that an unsafe condition will exist because of pedestrian and bicycle traffic when the proposed Ridgewood Estates development is completed, in view of the present condition of Dorset Street. That it is the consensus of the Planning Commission that regarding the question of alleviation of the pedestrian and bicycle hazard caused by Ridgewood Estates development, that an adequate solution to the hazard caused is contained in the last paragraph of the City Planner's memorandum to the Planning Commission dated September 9, 1974. This paragraph reads: The alleviation of unsafe conditions could initially be accomplished by providing a defined temporary improvement to the road shoulder that will accommodate pedestrian and bicycle flows. In the future, as demands warrant, this could be upgraded to a permanent accommodation of this type of activity. The City Manager said he had worked up four alternatives, ranging in price from $11,500 to $94,000. The least expensive would be to widen the road to 15 feet and in that widening delineate a 3 foot width for bicycles, painting something similar to what was done on Kennedy Drive, and adding a 5 foot shoulder for pedestrian traffic. This should cost $11,500. Second possibility would be to widen to 20 feet, same width as Kennedy Drive, giving a 5 foot bicycle lane and 15 foot travel lane, and adjacent to that a concrete curb and just behind that a graveled walkway. Would have a length of 2200 feet, from the Kennedy Drive intersection with Dorset Street to just south of the new House (Robenstein's) which is at the entrance to this development. Estimated cost, $22,000. A third possibility would be the same as the second except that instead of a graveled walkway it would be a concrete walkway, costing $3,500 more, or approximately %25,500. A fourth possibility, more of a permanent solution, would be widening the street to 25 feet, widen the bicycle lane, putting in a concrete sidewalk on the right of way. Would not necessitate moving it later when the street is widened. This cost would be $90,000 and there would be much earth to be moved and more rights of way to be obtained. Since writing up these estimates, Mr. Szymanski said he had talked with Fred Blais, and the developers are willing, when digging for the sewer line, to upgrade that shoulder by widening it to 6 or 7 feet to provide the width for pedestrian traffic. This would be from the intersection south to where the sewer line crosses into the Economou property which is just north of the Methodist Church. Would still be short by 300 feet to the entrance to the development. Asked by Mr. Farrar if any or all of these proposal would eliminate any traffic hazard, Mr. Szymanski said it depends on which scheme was chosen. A pedestrian walk adjacent to the roadway is not the best solution but would certainly improve the situation. Asked again by Mr. Farrar if each solution in itself is an adequate one, and which one he felt the best solution to alleviate the hazard, Mr. Szymanski said the second was probably the best, it would have a definite barrier between pedestrians and the traveled way. Asked if the first solution would answer the problem, he said he would rather see a delineation between people walking and the roadway. Mr. Farrar said what the Council is trying to define is whether or not there is a situation there that must be corrected, and if it must be corrected, what is the minimum amount of correction that must be done. Mr. Flinn questioned asphalt for the curb, with the snow removal problem; would it last more than two years. The City Manager said yes, the City has had good luck with it. Mr. Merrill asked the width of the street now, and was told 11 feet; the shoulder varies from 3 to 7 or 8 feet. Mr. Merrill was concerned that there are no figures to show how many people are walking on the road down from Swift Estates, for example, or how many students are now walking. He was not convinced that there is an unreasonable situation there; other areas need sidewalks more than this street. Also concerned about setting a precedent for other developments. Mr. Szymanski said that when they took a two-hour traffic count, therewere no pedestrians at that time. Mrs. Neubert felt crossing the interstate and Kennedy Drive would be much more of an unsafe situation than just walking along the road, and that we were talking about $11,000 for possibly only two kids. If the developers are willing to widen the shoulder, it would be valuable, and the danger them would be in coming out of the development and crossing Dorset Street. Asked how much it would be to pick up the 300 feet to the entrance to the development, Mr. Szymanski estimated $1,000 to $1,500. Also that if the developer did put in the walkway on the shoulder, this would reduce his other cost estimates by about $2,200, perhaps more, as the gravel would already be there. Mr. Neubert suggested that perhaps when the second or third phase of the development was in, that the City might install a light at the entrance. Mr. Cimonetti asked if it appeared to be the Council's opinion that this walkway over the sewer line would not cause an unsafe hazard or congestion. It provides zero protection for bicycles; also does not provide a gravel way to the entrance to the development. He added that his motion had been tabled at the last meeting so that a more imaginative solution could be found. The Chairman said the motion was tabled at the request of both Council and the developers so that a further study might be made. Mrs. Maher suggested putting fine crushed stone on top of the gravel on the walkway; that it is possible to cycle on this fine crushed stone. Mr. Merrill was afraid a precedent would be set to establish bicycle paths around the City in other locations, which the City cannot afford. Mr. Cimonetti said it is the Plan and $3,000 was appropriated for it this year. Mr. Schuele said the aim should be to make this an improvement; it should not be compared with what is worse in the City. Mrs. Neubert said there has been nothing to show her that an unsafe condition is being created by permitting this development to go in; how can you establish a danger when the people are not there yet. Mr. Schuele felt the developer should pay for everything if he is building in an area that is not set up, and this would include sidewalks. Mr. Blais felt a decision must be arrived at first as to whether this development is going to create a dangerous and unsafe condition. The question of what to do to correct it, and who pays and in what proportion, should be decided under point 6. Mr. Blais then said they had agreed to provide for said "walkway" which would be similar to the one at Red Rocks going from the bridge to the Red Rocks access. Mr. Farrar thought this problem (unsafe condition) could be cleared through with an appropriate motion, and then the cost be considered under point 6. Three things must be considered, pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, and highway traffic, and there has been as discussion of any highway traffic problem. The bicycle problem, if one exists, has not been solved. If a cost figure could be established which is reasonable, which would fit with solving the problem, there could be an agreement, and then pass on to point 6. At least the Council could go through and establish whether or not this development would fit the criteria of point 4; not to decide specific solutions. Mrs. Maher asked in what year it would be necessary to have #2 solution completed. The City Manager said it would depend on whether phase 1 would generate a lot of children. Mr. Farrar thought the Council could say they had examined this development and it does indeed fill the spirit and letter of the zoning ordinance. He felt that if the Planning Commission Minutes establishes the fact that in their opinion there is a hazard or a potential hazard, then in Bill's opinion an expenditure of less than $12,000 would correct any potential hazard. The Chairman said the cost factor would not be considered until under point 6. It must first be determined whether or not it is needed. Mr. Cimonetti thought that in satisfying condition 4, it is necessary to bind the City to an expenditure. What you are suggesting is that it will be not an unreasonable burden, but you were forced to that position because you, in fact, found there was an unreasonable highway congestion or problem and that you were going to correct that by the expenditure of capital funds. Mr. Merrill said he could not see an unreasonable condition at this time. The number of cars is not establishing a highway congestion at all, and there may be no need for sidewalks. The Chairman said the two alternatives are: 1) Council can vote on whether they feel that this development is causing an unreasonable highway condition, or 2) the Council can find it will not cause unreasonable highway congestion if the conditions are net. Cost has to come under point 6. Mr. Farrar suggested establishing that proposal #2 would satisfy any conditions. Mr. Neubert said she was not ready to commit herself to proposal #2. Mr. Cimonetti said it is not the duty of the City Council to design a sidewalk. Mr. Farrar moved that the motion be taken from the table (Mr. Cimonetti's motion tabled at the last meeting) Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted for removing from the table. Motion was read from page 4 of the September 3rd Minutes. Mr. Cimonetti said he would be glad to know if the developer has anything different. Mr. Blais said they were making the proposal that where the second access comes out on to Dorset Street, just to the north of the Methodist Church property boundary, and where it crosses to the easterly side of Dorset Street, that that point join into the walkway from Kennedy Drive; in back-filling, that a crushed stone or something suitable to the engineer will be placed to establish a "walk way — bicycle way." Mr. Cimonetti asked where the walkway would run in proximity to the street, and was told it would be about 11 feet from the edge of the pavement. From the center line of the road to the start of the walkway would be plus or minus 16 feet and would have a five foot break between the walkway and the road — a buffer. Mr. Cimonetti asked about the width of the gravel, and Mr. Szymanski said it would have to be graveled all the way across from the shoulder. Mr. Calcagni said they would put plant mix on the top of the sewer line — plant mix is a crusher mix, not bituminous. Mr. Cimonetti wished to make a statement for the record that this does not make any change in the existing conditions of the highway southerly from where the sewer line angles in to the Economou property — 300 feet with no solution. Chairman Flaherty raised the issue that a yes vote on the motion would mean the development would be turned down. The motion could be amended. Mr. Farrar said he intended to vote no because he felt the test was one of reasonableness; that there may well be in the future certain expenditures that will have to be born by the City to improve the safety along this area, and those expenditures are to be considered when point 6 is reached. The condition is not being created by the developer because of bad design or poor planning. Mr. Cimonetti favored asking the developer to include a plant mix overfill, or whatever it would be called, for the remaining distance to the entrance to the property. Mrs. Maher suggested a simple motion to the effect that since the developer and the City Council have agreed to improve the shoulder of the road with the use of plant mix overfill from the entrance to the property to Kennedy Drive, it is therefore concluded that an unsafe condition does not exist. Both Mr. Farrar and the Chairman said this motion could be substituted for Mr. Cimonetti's motion. Mr. Blais said the developers would amend their proposal to provide for a walk way from the school in a southerly direction on Kennedy Drive, to provide a similar walkway from the crossing of the sewer easement in a southerly direction opposite Ridgewood Drive, medium and design to be coordinated with the City Engineer. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Cimonetti to withdraw his motion. Mr. Cimonetti said he would propose to defeat the motion on the floor because he finds there is an adequate solution. Then he would expect to hear a motion that Council accepts point 4. Chairman Flaherty called for a vote, and the Council was unanimous in a nay vote. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council find that the revised plan of the developer as amended, is in conformance with Section 12.002 A.4. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously for approval. Section 12.002 A.6. Will not place unreasonable burden on local government, etc. Mr. Farrar moved to table action on point 6. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. Voted to table 4 to 1. Mr. Merrill opposed. Chairman voted affirmative. Mr. Farrar said this should be the last point to be considered because it would tie everything together. Section 12.002 A.7. No adverse effect on natural beauty, etc. Mr. Schuele stated he still had a problem; that the Master Plan was drawn up through the efforts of residents of South Burlington at open sessions in which the public participated. He is most concerned with the 15% for natural open areas. The Chairman said the Planning Commission had passed point 7, and that Natural Resources had found no problem. Mr. Farrar moved that, based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the comments by the Natural Resources Committee, that the City Council finds that the developer is in conformance with Section 12.002 A.7. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Voted unanimously for approval. Section 12.002 A.8. In conformance with Chapter 91 of Title 24. Mr. Schuele stated the Council is ignoring what the Master Plan started out to do; that this was the way the City was going to increase its natural resources area as the City developed. Mrs. Maher said that more than 15% of the development will be left in open space, thereby taking the burden from the City — that is the reason why the Planning Commission voted as it did. The Planning Commission cannot insist upon a deed Mr. Cimonetti said it may well be that the Council is not doing what the majority of the people thought was provided for in the plan, but it cannot provide for something outside the law. Mr. Schuele felt if the people are not getting what they want, it is up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to adopt something that will give the people what they want. Mr. Merrill stated the zoning ordinance is law, but the Master Plan is not a law. He felt the developers have reached the point, through zoning, where housing for medium income families cannot be provided. He said he was concerned with recreational programs but much more concerned with what is being done to the cost of housing. Mr. Schuele said he was there to defend natural resources. If the City doesn't get the land as these areas are developed, then land will have to be bought later. Mr. Flaherty said the 15% is negotiable. In this case the developer is providing recreation for the people in the development and taking pressure off the City. Every developer will have different views. Every piece of land the City takes will have a cost of maintaining it. Mr. Blais said an opinion from John Ewing stated that after the Master Plan and By-laws are adopted, there is a further map that should be adopted before the City can force dedication. Mrs. Neubert moved that the Council find this development is in conformance with the duly adopted regional plan under Chapter 91 of Title 24. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Farrar moved to amend the motion by adding and is therefore in conformance with Section 12.002 A.8. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Motion voted unanimously for approval. Section 12.002 A.9. Housing types and costs appropriate to housing needs. Mr. Farrar felt the developer is filling a real need of the community by providing housing — it is certainly not possible for one developer to fill all the needs. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council find that the developer has complied with Section 12.002 A.9. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. Voted unanimously for approval. Section 12.002 A.10. Common open spaces. Mr. Blais described the planned recreational facilities which will include a lounge area, work-out room with saunas, toilet facilities, and locker room; an outdoor Olympic sized pool and two tennis courts. A trail system for bicycles, jogging, or cross country skiing. The open space will have a pond. There will be a gardening area for residents who wish to use it. The developer is generally in agreement to allow access for a pedestrian walkway in a north-south direction, based upon the proposed City walking and bicycling path when it comes up. Mrs. Neubert asked about a timetable. Mr. Blais said the recreational facility, the pool and tennis courts, will be done first, rather than telling buyers that "in the future you may someday have these." These will be done in the first phase — unless the bank won't lend the money. Mr. Farrar asked if the developer is stipulating that these will all be done by the completion of the development. Mr. Blais said he was. It was felt that the legal relationship of a proposal between the developer and the City is a pretty firm contract. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Blais where he would outline the area for recreation. He replied that it goes in the contract of sale. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to see a copy of the agreement with the purchasers. Mr. Blais said this would summed up by Attorney Blum and Attorney Spokes to the satisfaction of the Council; also there would be a side agreement with the City on the points of specific stipulation. Mr. Blais then said they were stipulating that they do intend to put in what is on the map by the completion of the development. Mr. Farrar moved that, with the stipulation, the Council finds that the developer has complied with Section 12.002 A.10. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. Voted unanimously for approval. Section 12.002 A. 11. Economy of street and facility maintenance, etc. Mr. Szymanski said the Planning Commission recommended private streets but they will be constructed to City standards. The exact dimensions will not be of City standards but construction will be. The geometrics is a good layout; turn-around is in conformance with City standards. Gravel shoulder width will be 3 feet on each side, which gives an additional 6 feet. Mr. Farrar moved that the plan as presented on July 25, 1974, and as amended September 1974, is demonstration of the fact that the developer is in conformance with Section 12.002 A.11. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Farrar then added to his motion: and therefore that the developer has satisfied the requirements of the above mentioned section. Mr. Cimonetti raised the question of access to the pumping station which would be owned by the City, over the privately owned and maintained cul de sac. If it was not plowed, for instance. The City Manager said that in the deed for the easement it will have to be stipulated that the existing roads can be used for the maintenance of a sewer system. Mr. Cimonetti said he would consider that a "fait accompli" — that the roads are not only there for use, but have got to be maintained for use to include snow plowing. Mr. Blais said he would be more concerned about whether or not the streets are maintained to get an ambulance or fire truck in. He would not be at all adverse to any form of language for a side agreement. Mr. Cimonetti suggested that someone should do some work on it, and Mr. Farrar suggested the Articles of Association might include appropriate language to cover the adequacy of maintenance of private streets to insure the health and safety of the people in the development. Voted unanimously to approve Mr. Farrar's motion. Section 12.002 A.6. Unreasonable burden on City. Mr. Farrar moved that Section 12.002 A.6. be removed from table. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The Chairman said the Planning Commission recommends that the City negotiate with the developer to install 12" pipe in the sewer line, with the City paying the difference in cost. Mr. Blais was then questioned about a revised breakdown of taxes anticipated. He replied he was not aware of any differences in the income. In checking the specific areas that might actually have an operating cost increase, he came up with a $19,000 surplus upon completion of the development. Discussion followed as to the impact on the budget by this development. Chief Monell stated he had requested one new man a year for the last three years, but had not had his request granted. These additional men are badly needed for the protection of the City, but he could not say they are needed just because of this new development. Mr. Farrar said the City has better fire protection now than it had in 1970 as far as the insurance companies are concerned, plus an up-dated water system. Mr. Szymanski said the projected cost when the Fire Department was sold to the voters went way over what was projected. This is the reason the planned buildup of the department has not been done. Mr. Merrill recommended that the matter be discussed during budget time. Mr. Farrar thought the question was whether there is anything different or unique about this development that would require any greater fire protection than any other units in the City. Mr. Cimonetti felt anything unreasonable might concern the layout of the buildings requiring any kind of particular fire equipment for fire fighting. Mr. Blais said the plan will ultimately be reviewed by the Fire Marshall and the National Fire Standards have to be covered before the issuance of a building permit. It was established that the Fire Department needs three more men at the present time, and if the development goes through, the department would not need any more men. After further discussion of the economic impact, Mr. Blais offered to take time out to develop his figures for presentation. Section 12.002 A.14, Objectives and purposes. The Council considered this section while waiting for Mr. Blais to present his figures on economic impact under point 6. Mrs. Neubert moved that the Council finds the developer fulfills the intent of Section 12.002 A.14 as per the statement of development intent of the Reality and Development, Inc. dated July 15, 1974. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Voted unanimously for approval. Letter, as above, is to be made part of the record. Section 12.002 A.6. Unreasonable burden on the City Mr. Blais distributed copies of his revised economic impact, saying it was the pessimistic outlook he could come up with, showing a possible surplus of $1,452.30. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council accept the revised cost estimate of September 11, 1974, as suitable evidence that the developer has compiled with Section 12.002 A.6. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. Voted unanimously for approval. Section 12.002 A.12. Proof of economic capability. Mr. Blais read a letter from Atlantic Coast Mortgage, Corp. as evidence of source of financing. He stated the Planning Commission had voted that the sewer construction and the pumping station be covered by bond to the City Manager. They intend to show specific commitment of financial ability. Mr. Farrar felt the developer should agree that sewer, drainage, water, streets and sidewalks be stipulated by the developer in the performance bond, and that clear ownership of the land be shown. Mrs. Neubert asked about the phasing of the sewer. Mr. Blais said the sewer has get to come down the street to Kennedy Drive but the spur will not be completed until the single family lots are developed. Mr. Merrill moved that the Council accept Section 12.002 A.12., proof of economic capability, that the developer has conformed with the following stipulations: that the performance bond cover sewer, drainage, water, streets, and sidewalks; and that a clear title to the ownership of the land by shown, before a building permit will be issued. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Voted unanimously for approval. Chairman Flaherty said Attorney Spokes had recommended that after voting on each individual item, the Council should vote on the entire package. Mr. Farrar moved that upon receipt of the written documents covering the various stipulations applied by both the Council and the Planning Commission, that the Council has determined that the developer is in compliance with Section 12.002 A of the zoning ordinance, PUD development. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Voted unanimously for approval. A motion for adjournment was made by Mr. Cimonetti and seconded by Mr. Farrar. Meeting was declared adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Approved Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.