Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/21/1977CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 21, 1977 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, November 21, 1977 at 8:00 pm in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Frank Armstrong, William Burgess, Michael Flaherty (late) Member Absent Martin Paulsen Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; David Morency Addition to Agenda Discussion of a letter concerning the Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern Connector was added to the agenda. Minutes of November 7, 1977 Mr. Armstrong moved to approve the minutes of November 7, 1977. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Review Zoning Board and Planning Commission agendas There were no comments on either agenda. Mr. Farrar said that McDonald's had decided to wait until December 12 to have its hearing since it was incorrectly warned and its representative was ill, and he said that he would attend the next meeting. Public hearing on amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance Zoning Ordinance Mr. Flaherty moved to dispense with the reading of the proposed zoning amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Armstrong and passed unanimously. The Council discussed g) of Section 5,405, Mr. Farrar feeling that the city wanted to be sure that access provided to backland was wide enough to allow a city street. They discussed adding wording such as "as determined by the City Engineer" or "adequate access including space for future roads built to city standards". Mr. Flaherty suggested that the Council ask the Commission to work on that some more. Mr. Burgess moved that the South Burlington City Council approve the document as printed. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. Mr. Flaherty added that the document was approved with the understanding that the Council would ask the Planning Commission to work on g) of Section 5.405 and to tailor their comments so that an access of sufficient width to build a road to city standards be provided. They would also like the adequacy of the land over which the road is to be built to be approved by the City Engineer. The motion was approved unanimously. Subdivision Regulations Mr. Flaherty moved to dispense with the reading of the Subdivision Regulation amendments. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar asked if this had been warned as a single entity and was told that it had but that the Council could take different action of different parts of it since all the items were unrelated. Mr. Page said that the definition of a subdivision had been expanded and that many non-residential projects such as larger restaurants, motel- restaurant complexes, and larger office buildings would fall under it. He said that the City Attorney was somewhat hesitant about it but that Middlebury had a similar definition and they have not had any trouble to his knowledge with it. The Council felt that the expanded definition needed some more work done on it. Mr. Page suggested that the specific measurement of 30' between buildings be deleted, since the city would have to have some documentation on that distance and they do not. This is in the Fire Protection section of the amendments. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council approve the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, dated 10/11/77. The motion was seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Burgess then moved that the Council strike the "(30')" from number 9. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and passed unanimously. Mr. Burgess then moved that, for the purposes of approval, the Council split the proposed amendments into two sections: paragraph 2 and the rest of the document. Mr. Flaherty seconded this motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Council table item #2. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The motion to approve the document then passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council take final action in terms of adopting the document into the ordinances at the next meeting, which will be December 5, 1977 at 8:00 pm at City Hall. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Consideration of an appointment to the Planning Commission Mr. Szymanski said that there were two applicants and that the Council had interviewed one already for another position. He said that he would try to get the other to be interviewed at the next meeting. Review of proposals for an office copying machine This item was deferred until the next meeting. Discussion of a letter concerning the Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern Connector Mr. Farrar said that he had written a letter detailing the position of the city and had signed it personally. Discussion of proposed zoning amendments affecting traffic, commercial districts, and others Mr. Page said that the areas with the most congestion would be those effected and those areas with high traffic would be restricted to low traffic generating uses. He said that they were not deleting any uses from the present zoning but were suggesting that some uses only be allowed under pretty stringent restrictions. Mr. Morency showed the Council a map of the city with the proposed restricted zones shown in red and blue. In the red areas, which are very congested, only low traffic generators would be permitted uses. These uses include dentists, doctors, artists, etc. In the blue areas, medium traffic generators would be conditional uses, he said. The Zoning Board would be given a specific set of conditional use criteria such as traffic accident information, V/C ratios in the nearest intersection, minimum lot size and frontage, which would have to be evaluated before a conditional use was permitted. In other words, to get a conditional use, a developer will have to give the Board proof that he has certain area conditions. Mr. Flaherty asked how the level of traffic generation was defined and was told that Mr. Morency had taken figures from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Bulletin and then figured out how many vehicles per hour were generated from that. A medium traffic generator, for example, generates about 60 vehicles per hour. High traffic generators, Mr. Morency said, would be allowed in PCDs, which are like PUDs. PCD, however, is a floating zone. No PCDs would be allowed in the red areas, only the blue. In order for someone to have a high traffic generator, he would have to meet requirements such as controlled intersections (i.e. a traffic light) and minimum lot size and frontage. Mr. Farrar asked if Mr. Morency had considered taking all uses and making them conditional with specific requirements for high, medium and low traffic generators. Mr. Morency replied that he had but that he did not recall why they had decided to do it this way instead. Mr. Farrar said that he felt that if this worked on the basis of geography, the problems might just move down the street. Mr. Morency said that he was not sure the conditional use criteria could be set up like that and he felt that it was not good to say that a conditional use might be allowed in an area where it would not be permitted anyway. Mr. Burgess said that if the city could define what makes the red areas red, the map would change automatically and that would free people from having to fix it all the time. Mr. Farrar said that the Council liked the goal but that they would like to find the best way to reach it. Mr. Morency suggested that it be done both ways. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:10 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.