Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/02/1982CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 2, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, August 2, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing, Hugh Marvin, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; David Spitz, Planner; Jodie Peck, Free Press; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; George Mona and Sidney Poger, Planning Commission; Robert Perry, John Dore, William Schuele, Nancy Boardman, Frank Pichon, Lowell Krassner, Robert McKnight, Barbara McNight, F.E. and C.M. Boerger, William Peter, John Belter, Ralph Goodrich, Carl Cobb Sign Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Public hearing - request by Green Mountain Power Co. for a height variance for a new office building on Green Mountain Drive Mr. Marvin stated that although he had been retired for several years now, he felt it would be better if he took no part in this discussion. Mr. Robert Perry represented Green Mountain Power and he introduced Mr. John Dore, the project architect. It was noted that the Council had discussed the proposed new zoning ordinance, which contains a change in height limitations in the city, but had not yet made a decision on that area of the ordinance. Mr. Perry said that the existing ordinance allowed a height of 35ʹ and that the proposed new ordinance would allow that to be increased under several circumstances, such as retention of green space and how the structure relates to the topography and existing or proposed structures. He asked how, under either ordinance, building height was measured. He said that from the north and east, this building was 29ʹ high, but from the west and south it was 42ʹ2ʺ, measured from the final grade. Mr. Perry said this was lot 17 in the National Life subdivision off Shelburne Road, and he located the lot for the Council. He said the lot sloped up from west to east. They propose a 3 story building, built into the bank and they plan to leave in place some old and tall pine trees. The entrance to the building will be on a two story side of the building. Mr. Perry said the staggered west and south walls would be a bronze reflective glass. They do not plan to regrade the land except where the building is. Mr. Perry showed the areas on Shelburne Road from where the building would be visible. There are only 3 areas where it is visible, and when the new plantings are mature, the building will be more hidden. In all 3 areas, the pine trees behind the building will be visible. Mr. Perry said the building had a gross floor area of about 18,000 sq. ft. for 1 floor. They can either build it into the bank, as proposed, or move it up 20ʹ onto the flat area on the site, and build it in two stories. It would still be higher than the proposal now in that case, and some existing trees would have to be removed. Mr. Perry showed pictures of the site from the locations it can be seen. He said the building would be most visible from when a person drove in or parked, and from those areas, it would be a two story building. The 42ʹ height can only be seen when the leaves are off the trees and from certain locations, until the plantings mature. If the building were to be expanded, another "cube" could be added to the northwest corner. Mr. Dore noted that, GMP did not want to plan for any potential expansion in this building, but that he had left an area for them to do so, if they decided to in the future. If the expansion were put in, the same elevation would be maintained. Mr. Dore said there was a lot of flexibility built into the building for mechanical equipment because GMP wants the building to be an energy showpiece for a long time ahead. They will want to try new systems out here, and to do that they need a lot of duct space for electrical and mechanical equipment. They also have a lot of heavy steel beams and the ceilings will be 9ʹ6ʺ high, so the floor to floor dimension will be 13ʹ6ʺ. There will be no heating or cooling equipment on the roof - just a skylight over the stairway 2ʹ high, in the middle of the roof. It will not be visible because there will be a 2ʹ high parapet on the building, and that is counted in the overall height. Mr. Krassner asked about sinking the building into the ground more, and was told that cannot be done, because of the soils. There is 20ʹ of silty sand and below that a watery clay. The entire building will be built on piles, and to go down more would mean the first floor would be in the clay, and there would be a water table problem. The Council looked at a scale model of the building. Mr. Farrar asked how, under the present zoning regulations, the building height was determined. Mr. Spitz said the ordinance did not define the height. In the past the interpretation has been from finished grade to average height. The maximum height of this building is 42ʹ and the average is about 38ʹ. The definition in the new ordinance is from finished grade and it is average height. It was noted that the request was thus for a 3ʹ variance. Mr. Schuele commented that in the past, the citizens had opposed raising height limits in the city. He was concerned that coming in with a variance request before the Council decision on new height limits in the city had been made was a way of "beating the system". He asked the Council to consider the concerns of the citizens in the past. Ms. Lansing shared the concerns expressed. Mr. Poger felt that the Planning Commission had laid out certain criteria, and he felt this was a very good example of what they were talking about. He felt that if the Council granted this variance, they would be committing themselves to supporting this section of the ordinance. Mr. Krassner did not like using an average height, feeling a maximum would be better. Mr. Schuele wondered if the building at the corner of Williston Road and Kennedy Drive had been built in violation of the height restrictions. He was told it had never been served with any violation papers. Mr. Perry noted that if they moved the building to the flat area, it would be much more visible than it would in the proposed area. He did not feel the building would show up as a large mass, because of the staggered walls. He added that the lot was very large and the building quite small in comparison. Mr. Dore said part of the reason for a 35ʹ height limit was because of fire equipment limitations, but that this building was easily reached for that. Mr. Perry felt this was not a variance request, but was rather a conditional use approval. Mr. Burgess noted that if the building were moved to the flat area and made two stories only, the visual impact would be the same as it would be as the building is now proposed, from a height point of view. The mass would be larger with the two story building, though. With either plan, the roof would be on the same elevation level. Mr. Farrar suggested that the Council discuss Section 19.112 in the proposed new zoning ordinance, to see if they wanted to make modifications to it. He asked if Mr. Marvin wanted to take part in this discussion, but was told he would rather not. Mr. Farrar felt some thought should be given to how building height would be determined in the new ordinance. He felt that with some design flexibility, there were some improvements which could be made over what could be done within rigid guidelines, and he thought there was some merit in some of the Planning Commission proposals. Mr. Spitz said the definition of height was on page 77 of the proposal. It is measured from the average ground level. Mr. Farrar said the wording would allow a building with an average height of 50ʹ to have a 55-60ʹ exposure, and he had a problem with that. He asked what determined a story in a building and was told it was an occupied area or a full basement. The proposal would allow a building 50ʹ tall or 4 stories, regardless of whether the stories are underground or above ground level. Neither restriction can be exceeded. Mr. Burgess felt the legality of that should be checked. Mr. Farrar asked the purpose of the restrictions. He was told that they were for ease in fire protection, esthetics, and restriction of the intensity of use of a lot, although it was pointed out that that can be done better through restrictions on the square footage. Mr. Farrar did not like the 50ʹ and 4 stories provisions in the ordinance, unless the 50ʹ was a maximum, not an average. Mr. Poger felt the ordinance was written for sloping areas and that the average was a way of dealing with the slopes. Mr. Flaherty felt the Commission should be given flexibility to deal with specific situations. He felt the 35ʹ height had been an arbitrary figure, although he was uncomfortable with a 50ʹ height. Mr. Burgees did not like the fact that the 50ʹ height could become 60ʹ on some sides of a building. He felt the 50ʹ should be a maximum, not an average. Mr. Poger suggested changing the definition, not the ordinance, to make that a maximum. Ms. Lansing agreed that 50ʹ was too high, and that a maximum instead of an average should be used. Mr. Farrar asked if the members agreed the Commission should be allowed some flexibility in this area and was told they did. Mr. Farrar felt the proposed building would not be a major departure from the present zoning ordinance requirements. He said the building could be left as is and a berm built up around it, and it would conform, but not look as good. Mr. Burgess asked if 42ʹ included everything - air conditioning units, solar panels, etc, and was told it did. Mr. Burgess moved that the Council grant the height variance and approve the plan of Green Mountain Power Co. for a new office building on Green Mountain Drive as presented by the attorney and the architect and as depicted on drawings dated July 22, 1982 sheet B3 for project 82307; July 12, 1982, sheet B1 for project 82307; and July 13, 1982, sheet 2C for project 82307. The building shall be a maximum of 42ʹ at its highest point. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar said copies of all the drawings used should be put on file. The motion carried with Ms. Lansing voting no and Mr. Marvin abstaining. Continue review of Proposed Zoning Regulations Mr. Farrar said that the Council had been discussing the lot size for industrial lots in the Southeast Quadrant industrial/agricultural zone at its last meeting. He noted that the present wording set no limit on lot size, which may or may not reflect the Commission's will. Mr. Poger, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that it was the Commission's intention that the minimum lot size be 50 acres. That is not in the present wording, though. Mr. Burgess moved that, in a Planned Industrial District, the city allow multiple uses, multiple owners and multiple buildings, with the restriction that a PID will be a minimum of 80 acres, the minimum lot size will be 10 acres and the average lot size will be 20 acres. He said that would mean that with an 80 acre lot, there can be 3 10 acre lots but there will also have to be 1 50 acre lot. He said his intention was not to change the current wording on existing small parcels. Mr. Spitz said that anything below 3 acres would not change. For those lots in the quadrant between 3 acres and the minimum the Council sets for a PID, Mr. Spitz suggested that those lots also be allowed to qualify for a PID, and be required to meet the minimum of 10 acres and average of 20. Mr. Farrar said that meant that any pre-existing lot less than the minimum agreed upon here for a PID would be treated as if it met the PID minimum size, as far as being allowed the PID option. Mr. Spitz noted that a 25 acre parcel could only have 1 lot. Mr. Farrar said no lot smaller than 40 acres could be further subdivided. Mr. Burgess' motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Council go with the Planning Commission's recommendation of a minimum area of 50 acres. Ms. Lansing seconded the motion. Mr. Spitz said that would still allow multiple use, multiple owners and multiple buildings, even if the area was not a PID. Mr. Poger said that in Commission discussions, the assumption had been a single owner and a single use, but that they had not gone into as great detail as the Council was doing. Mr. Marvin moved to amend the motion to say that this would allow for 4 owners of such a parcel, provided there were 3 10 acre lots and 1 20 acre lot. Mr. Farrar did not feel the amendment applied to the motion, which would set a minimum lot size for an individual lot. Mr. Marvin said his amendment would allow 3 businesses to come in there. Mr. Farrar said that if 50 acres was a minimum size, a lot could not be divided into any smaller pieces. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Marvin said he felt the Council would be sorry if they set a limit of 50 acres on the lots in the quadrant. He felt that would penalize 95% of the voters in the city of the tax revenue which could come from that land in the future, and that it would hurt the ability of landowners there to sell their land. Mr. Szymanski noted that along with the Commission recommendation of 50 acre lots in this area was the doubling up of the lot sizes on the other side of the city - going from 80,000 sq. ft. to 40,000 sq. ft. Mr. Flaherty's motion failed on a vote of 3-2, with Mr. Flaherty and Ms. Lansing voting yes. Mr. Goodrich said he did not want his land to be confiscated. All the sales people tell him he will not be able to market it in lot sizes as have been discussed tonight. Other communities are in competition for industries and he hoped that the Council would not consider lots larger than 5 acres. He also requested multiple uses and multiple owners on the 5 acres. He said he had held the land for development for 16 years and would like to develop it now. If he could not sell the land for industry, he asked that it be left zoned so he could sell it for housing. Mr. Krassner supported the Commission recommendation for this area. Mr. Farrar felt there was reasonable merit in Mr. Burgess' earlier proposal. Mr. Cobb asked whether, on the 10 acre lot in Mr. Burgess' proposal, there could be two different owners of two different buildings. Mr. Burgess said the motion allowed multiple use and multiple buildings. Mr. Farrar felt a single building on a single lot would have to have a single owner, although it could be used by several people, through leasing. Mr. Cobb asked whether, with a PID, all the buildings could be put on one corner of the 80 acre lot and was told they could. Mr. Spitz asked about someone owning the land, with someone else leasing the land and owning the building. Mr. Burgess said that was not his intent in the motion. Mr. Poger said his understanding was that any such development in this area would need both Commission and Council approval. Mr. Marvin asked how many multiple uses would be allowed on a 50 acre lot and was told there was not a limit proposed. Mr. Cobb asked the objection to multiple ownership, noting that when someone owned something, they were likely to maintain it better. Mr. Spitz felt that if multiple uses were allowed, the city might as well allow multiple owners of the buildings. Ms. Lansing did not like the PID concept. She preferred a large lot with one owner and one user. Mr. Flaherty had mixed feelings about PIDS. Mr. Poger, referring to Mr. Szymanski's earlier comment in regard to the doubling of density on this side of the city, said that the Commission felt that the quadrant, because of it being undeveloped and its visual impact, would be better off with larger acreage there and smaller acreage in the developed areas of the city. This side of the city is where the firms which do not want 50 acre lots will go. Mr. Burgess said that under his proposal, the smallest lot one could have would be 10 acres. Mr. Burgess moved that in a PID, that we allow multiple uses and multiple buildings, with the restriction that a PID will have a minimum of 80 acres, the minimum lot size will be 10 acres and the average lot size will be 20 acres. The ownership of all the buildings on a single developed lot shall be owned by the same owner, who shall be the same as the owner of the land. New or different uses subsequent to the original approval shall require re-approval. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Burgess said the ownership issue would apply to the 10 acre lots, not the entire 80 acre area. Mr. Farrar said this would allow multiple use but a single owner of the land and building. On the 80 acre lot, there could be 4 separate owners of 4 separate lots. On the 10 acre lot, there could be 15% coverage. Buildings could be leased, but the land could not. Mr. Poger asked what would happen if, after certain uses were approved for an area, later on the uses changed. Mr. Burgess said he would prefer the use be re-approved. Mr. Poger felt the City Attorney should be consulted on this point. The motion carried 4-1, with Ms. Lansing voting no. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue discussion on the zoning document until the next regularly scheduled meeting and Mr. Burgess seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Minnich noted that the 16th was a holiday, so the next meeting was set for Wednesday, August 18th at 8:00 pm. Response from Swift Estates residents regarding sewers Mr. Farrar noted that the residents did not wish sewers extended to them at the price quoted. Mr. Pichon said the quorum of the association voted unanimously that they do not want sewers. He asked if a variance could be granted to Mr. Peters to solve his problem, but was told it could not. Mr. Farrar asked whether the answer would be different if the cost were lower, but Mr. Pichon was not sure it would be, although the residents would reconsider the question. Mr. Farrar said the Council had discussed sewering this part of the city, and that the proposal discussed was having the city fund part of the feeder system which is outside this development and placing an area sewer charge. Ms. Lansing asked how many people had a problem and Mr. Szymanski said he was aware of 2, but they are not in this development, but rather, right outside it. She asked Mr. Peters if he could install a system to solve his problem, but was told he could not get permission to do that. He noted that his lot was accepted for on-site sewage disposal in 1971 with the rest of the lots. Mr. Szymanski asked about carrying the system partway - they could get it close to his house. If this were done, one property would be passed, and that property would be required to hook on. Ms. Pullin said she was the owner of the first lot and she did not feel she should be forced to pay for someone else's problem here. Mr. Marvin noted that if the rest of the community paid to get the sewer to Mr. Peters' lot, then the rest of that development would probably ask for sewers also. It was noted that the sewer was about 600ʹ from Mr. Peters' lot. Mr. Marvin asked whether an individual line could be run to it and was told it could. Mr. Farrar noted that if that were done the city could pay the incremental cost of putting in a larger pipe. Mr. Burgess said the city would allow Mr. Peters to run to the sewer, at no cost to the city, for his residence. Mr. Burgess moved that the city not install a sewer in the area under discussion at Swift Estates at the present time. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted for it. Discuss bond issues for the City's share of the cost for the Southern Connector Mr. Szymanski said that he had contacted the State to see if the project could be broken into two pieces and had been told it could. The first phase would be the engineering and purchase of right of way and the second would be the construction. There can be two separate bond issues for these phases. He said the State gave him a figure of about $5 million of which the city's share would be $500,000, for engineering and land acquisition. Mr. Marvin asked if the city could be assured that the costs would go no higher than the bond issue and was told they probably could not be, although the city would not be obligated to pay more than that. Mr. Marvin suggested a "not to exceed" figure be put in the contract. He was concerned that if the project were split into two parts, the city might lose funds for the construction phase, since there is a lot of demand for the State funds. He was also concerned that if the city went for only one part of this, they could lose the 75%- 15% split. He asked that the City Manager contact the State and federal government to obtain an answer in writing to what their level of commitment is. Sign New England Telephone Co. agreements for cable installations on Kennedy Drive, Timber Lane and Hayes Avenue Mr. Szymanski said NET wanted to install about 2,000ʹ of buried cable starting at the corner of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road and going down Timber Lane to Hayes Avenue. There will be 670ʹ on Kennedy Dr., 723ʹ on Timber Lane, and 629ʹ on Hayes Avenue. The cable will be buried 30ʺ deep, along the side of the road in the grassed area. Mr. Marvin moved that the City Council sign the petition for buried cable on Timber Lane, Hayes Avenue and Kennedy Drive, and that NET properly control traffic so that it is kept moving, as required by the City Engineer. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted for it. Discuss possible additional Visiting Nurse appropriation for fiscal 1982-83 Mr. Marvin asked if this was in the budget and was told it was not. They would like an additional $2,000. Mr. Minnich expressed concern over how tight the budget was for the coming year. Mr. Farrar mentioned borrowing money to reinvest it. Mr. Marvin did not see how more money could be appropriated for this, but Mr. Flaherty wondered about a small amount. Mr. Szymanski wondered about waiting until later in the fiscal year, to see where the city stands then. It was suggested that the appropriation be moved up to $8,000. It was also suggested that the City Attorney be contacted about whether, and if so, how much, the city could borrow to reinvest, and whether they should do so. Police Union contract regarding personnel evaluation procedures Mr. Minnich said that this spring it had been decided not to stay with the practice of tying evaluations to pay, until there was a new evaluation process. He gave the Council a draft for a new evaluation. Other business Ms. Lansing said there would be a weekend seminar given by the Vermont Law School dealing with how cities could deal with land disputes. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.