Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/02/1983CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 1983 CORRECTION On page 9, the figures should be $30,000 and $60,000. PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING The South Burlington Planning Commission and City Council held a joint meeting on Tuesday, August 2, 1983, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Planning Commission: Sidney Poger, Chairman; George Mona, Mary-Barbara Maher, Judith Hurd, John Belter, Peter Jacob City Council: Hugh Marvin, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Michael Flaherty, Paul Farrar, William Peters Member Absent Planning Commission: William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Barry Carris, Regional Planning Commission; Albert C. Audette, Street Department; Dick Trudell, representing Homer Dubois; Anne Chapman, WJOY; Don Melvin, Burlington Free Press; Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; George Commo, Channel 22-TV; Donald Whitten, Water Pollution Control Dept., Ralph Goodrich, W. J. Schuele, Gaye Simmon, Ted Winfield, Thomas O'Connor, Donald Kerwin, Nicole Chittenden, Colette Ozarowski, J. Patrick Brennan, Jane Brennan, David Spitz, City Planner; Stan Wilbur, Paul Gormsen Review of sketch plan application by Homer and Jackie Dubois for a planned residential development containing 62 single-family units and 110 multi- family units on Hinesburg Road After opening the meeting, Mr. Marvin turned the proceedings over to Mr. Poger, who outlined the procedure for the review. He explained, that this was a special case because the proposal is in the Southeast Quadrant which requires dual approval. This meeting will consider the sketch plan; at subsequent meetings, the Planning Commission will review the preliminary plat; if that is approved, the City Council will review and consider approval; if the Council approves, the Planning Commission will then see the final plat. Mr. Mona noted for the record that the application is being reviewed under Sect. 6.60 of the Zoning Ordinance. Dick Trudell, representing the Dubois, explained that there had been a previous proposal for a 3-party development consisting of lands owned by Green Acres, Michael and Dubois. At that time, the 3 parties went to the District Environmental Commission for review under criteria 9B, which is primary agricultural soils, and received a permit under that criteria for a concept of agricultural corridor development. The Dubois parcel is now able to proceed with development. What is planned is a development consisting of 62 single family dwellings and 110 multiple dwelling units. The best agricultural soils have been preserved for agricultural use. The area on the ledge is being utilized for the single family homes. A roadway will run through the two sections, with some smaller streets branching off from it. Single family lots will be about 1/3 of an acre. The rear lots will be served by a gravity sewer while the front lots will requite a pump station. Water will be brought in by an extension of the 12สบ main from Mitel. The development will have city streets throughout. The total area is approximately 40 acres, with an average density of 2 per acre. The density of the multi-family units will be 10 per acre. Mr. Szymanski said his major concern was with the number of cul-de-sacs at the ends of the smaller streets. These hinder snow removal and school bus maneuvering. He noted there are also too many driveways off the cul-de-sacs, as many as 6 in one instance. Mr. Marvin added that the ladder truck might also have problems in that area. Mr. Trudell said he would have to check with the Fire Department on that. Mrs. Hurd asked who would own the agricultural land. Mrs. Maher said she felt the land should be deeded to the City. Mr. Farrar said deeding the land jointly to all the tenants might tie it up even tighter. Mr. Jacob said it was too bad the whole area couldn't be on a grid system of single family dwellings. He felt South Burlington had done its share of condos, and would like to see some good neighborhoods again. Mr. Trudell said they would prefer that arrangement but are trapped by the economics. Mrs. Maher said she had nothing against the mixed neighborhood concept. Mr. Mona asked for the record whether there had ever been before these two bodies a proposal that was then in conformance to the zoning ordinances as they then existed. Mr. Spitz said there had not been. Mr. Poger noted that it is preferable to keep a lot of traffic out of a private neighborhood, and it would thus make more sense to put the condos up front. Mr. Trudell said they felt the single family homes are more marketable. Regarding the agricultural issue, Mr. Spitz said the State seems to be going along with their concept. He added the Planning Commission had hoped to tie in better with the 50-acre concept; however, since the State will also be looking at farmland, the back piece of land can tie in with the Goodrich piece. He stressed that much smaller lots will be adjacent to larger lots. Mr. Poger asked whether there are any problems with rights of way. Mr. Trudell said they are in the talking stages, but nothing has been firmed up as yet. Mr. Szymanski asked whether they are planning to tie in with Highland Terrace. Mr. Trudell said that some of the neighbors on Highland Terrace were not pleased with that idea. Regarding the open land, Mr. Poger stressed that this will have to be tied up. Mr. Spitz noted that the City Attorney has proposed a conservation agreement for Shelburne which could apply in this instance. Mr. Mona asked how many feet of sewer line will be involved. Mr. Trudell said about 3,000. Mr. Mona asked whether the project will have to get in line for the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Poger said they will. Mr. Poger said they need some kind of bridge between larger and smaller lots. Mr. Spitz said that in most areas there is a setback standard, usually 50 feet in cases such as this. Mr. Mona noted that this project will almost double the number of homes off Hinesburg Road and he felt that buffers should be considered. Mr. Poger said he didn't feel the question was one of buffers but of the wisdom of putting 1/3 acre lots next to 7 or 10 acre lots. He added that he didn't think 10 units per acre is a appropriate density for the back part of the development. Mr. Spitz suggested that judgment should be reserved until the layout is seen. Mr. Poger said the only other question is to review the traffic on Hinesburg Road. He noted that a 35-mph speed limit had been proposed, but had been rejected by the State. Mr. Farrar said that the speed limit question has now gotten slightly more complicated. A community can change a speed limit if it can prove the change is necessary. He added that he would like to see that proof gathered this year. Mr. Mona asked whether the owner of the adjacent strip of land to the south has seen the plan. Mr. Trudell said he thought the land was in the process of changing hands. Mr. Mona said he would be concerned with the roadway along so much of the northern boundary of that lot. Mr. Schuele said that as a member of the Natural Resources Committee, he would want to be sure what the plans are to preserve the open land. Mr. Farrar indicated that before he could vote for approval, there would have to be a specific concept. Mr. Mona said he would propose instructing the City Planner to check out the possibility of land owned in common. Mr. Spitz said that since the would like to see the land kept for agriculture, they might not want to have to deal with 86 homeowners. Mr. Farrar said that what is really wanted is to preserve the character of the community and to have the land pleasing to look at. A Highland Terrace resident asked what power the two bodies have in enforcing its wishes. He noted that a strip of land containing a tree line was to be preserved in the Highland Terrace area but was subsequently destroyed. Mr. Poger said that the Zoning Officer had power to enforce but that the Planning Commission did not. Mr. Farrar added that if the Planning Commission or City Council imposes a stipulation, they can enforce it, but that they cannot enforce something a developer promises if it does not become a stipulation. He noted that in an Act 250 hearing, whatever you say you will do, you must do. Mr. Trudell asked whether the cul-de-sacs are going to be a stumbling block to approval. Mrs. Maher asked whether the cul-de-sac at the end of East Terrace the standard that the City wants. Mr. Szymanski said that even there, if someone is parked, it is difficult to get the school bus in and out. Mrs. Maher suggested that maybe a large area in the center of the development might be better for the school bus. Mr. Marvin then suggested joining the 2 cul-de-sacs with a road on one side of the property and joining the cul-de-sac with the proposed road on the other. Mr. Trudell said they wanted to maximize the number of homes and this would cut down on homes. Mr. Poger said this was not the Commission's concern; the question was one of traffic flow and public services. Mr. Audette noted that the cul-de- sac at Brookwood is the only one where public vehicles can get around since it is larger than the specifications call for (30 feet). Both Mr. Szymanski and Mrs. Maher indicated that they liked Mr. Marvin's idea of connecting the cul-de-sacs. Concerning the question of smaller lots adjacent to larger lots, the question was raised whether the pre-existing lots could at some time be developed at the same density as the lets presently being considered. Mr. Spitz said they could not since they have less than 50 acres and thus do not qualify under Section 6.60. As there was no further discussion, this part of the meeting was recessed. Following the recess, at 8:20 pm, the City Council reconvened to consider its regular agenda. Read Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 18, 1983 It was noted that on p.5, paragraph 3, the word "solvents" should read "solids." It was further noted that on p.7, in the discussion of tax stabilization, the City Manager had been asked to pursue the discussion with the City of Burlington. Mr. Farrar then moved that the minutes be approved as amended. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Continue review of the Agreement for upgrading the Airport Parkway Bewage Treatment Plant Mr. Farrar moved that the motion of July 18, 1983 be removed from table. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Marvin stressed that unless there is an alternate plan, the City is in a tight spot. There is only a temporary permit to dump into the Winooski River; in addition, should there be a delay, the City might lose the benefit of 75% federal financing. Mr. Szymanski noted that the original bond issue for sewer lines and the treatment plant will be paid in November, 1985 which will decrease the debt by $185,000, thus reducing taxes the following year. The proposed debt for the sewage plant upgrading and expansion will be $240,000. It was noted that it could be January, 1987, before the City would be selling the new project bonds. Mr. Peters asked whether the two parts of the plan are to be considered separately, i.e., upgrading and increased capacity. Mr. Szymanski said it would all be one package. Mr. Farrar asked whether with present zoning density the proposed work will give sufficient capacity for all the area it will serve. Mr. Szymanski said it would. This, however, would not be the case if saturation density were achieved. Mrs. Lansing asked what the new bond issue would break down to per household. Mr. Szymanski said about $10 per year per $50,000 home. Mr. Farrar noted that if you scale back the size of the community, it is about the same as the older bond issue, and if you look at the inflated dollar, it is only about half of the impact of the original bond issue. Mr. Schuele asked what the implication would be if the public does not approve the bond issue. Mr. Szymanski said that in order to comply with federal regulations, the Winooski River must be of a certain quality. If this does not occur, we would be violating the law. He added that the permit has been extended only on the basis that we are acting in good faith to upgrade the facility Mr. Farrar added that a fine of as much as $50,000 per day could be imposed. He noted that some communities have been forced to put in pollution abatement facilities when they did not want to. Mr. Schuele said he knew of some people who felt that increasing sewage capacity was a way to increase development, which they opposed. Mr. Farrar replied that if the project were not approved on that basis, it would allow developers to go to Court and say the City is not acting in good faith and to ask for their own private sewage systems which might not be as sanitary as the City system. Mr. Marvin said he had faith that if the City's officials explain all the facts, the people will support the bond issue. Mr. Brennan questioned when Country Club estates would be getting sewers. He added that the feeling is that on-site disposal is becoming more in favor. He also asked how much of the amount is for expansion and how much for secondary treatment. Mr. Wilbur replied that of the total cost of $8,500,000, the amount for expansion is $2,300,000. Mr. Brennan said he felt it was important that this was explained to the people. He added that there is nothing that says you can't change the planned rate of development, and that development should be synchronized with fire protection, sewage, water, etc. Mr. Farrar then amended the motion to authorize Michael Flaherty, authorized representative, to sign the engineering agreement and to authorize the planning advance. Mr. Flaherty then seconded and the amendment passed 4-1 with Ms. Lansing voting against. In the vote which followed. the motion passed 3-2 with Ms. Lansing and Mr. Peters voting against. Sign Peddlers Ordinance Mr. Farrar moved that the Peddlers Ordinance presented by the City Manager be signed. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Discuss bicycle paths Mr. Flaherty noted that the budget is obviously tight. After a meeting with Mr. O'Neill, the conclusion was that if bike paths are desired, they will have to be financed another way. He suggested forming a committee of no more than 5 members to function under the Natural Resources Committee, to study the 3 major aspects of the issue: Are bike paths needed? Where should they be? How can they be financed? He said that when this information is gathered, a decision can then be made. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the City Council appoint a Bicycle Path Committee of no more than five members, as a sub-committee of the Natural Resources Committee, with one member from the Natural Resources Committee, and that no later than January 1, 1984, they report back to the City Council the need, location, and different financing methods for such bike paths. Ms. Lansing seconded. Mr. Flaherty indicated that he had talked with Ann Frymoyer and Colette Ozarowski who were very interested in serving on the committee. Mr. Audette indicated he would also be interested. Mr. Flaherty then amended his motion to include as committee members Colette Ozarowski. Ann Frymoyer Sonny Audette, and the Chairman or one other member of the Natural Resources Committee. The motion was then approved unanimously. Review and consider signing City Hall Employees contract Mr. Marvin asked Mr. Szymanski to explain the chart on p. 3 of the contract outline. Mr. Szymanski said that they had agreed to freeze present pay levels except for one person who is in level 2 but has a chance to become a level 3. Mr. Marvin then asked whether the only way to increase pay levels was to change jobs. Mr. Szymanski said this was true. Mr. Farrar then moved that the City Council sign the agreement as outlined by the City Manager and Assistant City Manager and as presented at this meeting. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Review Zoning Board & Planning Commission Agendas Mr. Farrar said that he understood that when the question of a zoning variance was raised, all adjacent property owners were to be notified. Mr. Szymanski said he thought this was the case, but that there had been a question of property owners across the street. Mr. Farrar said that might be considered as an added procedure. Dubois sketch plan review Mr. Flaherty raised a question about the review conducted earlier. He noted that regarding soil in the agricultural area, it had been said that top soil in the area had been stripped and the land was no longer to be considered as an agricultural area. He asked for clarification of what had happened. Mr. Schuele noted that top soil is a natural resource, and that the procedure of stripping the top soil and then disqualifying the lans as agricultural is a way of getting around the issue. He added that he would like to discuss this. Normally one cannot just strip the land, and he asked what can be done when someone does this. He also asked what happens when someone does this in opposition to the existing rules. Mr. Marvin said that they will have the owner in to discuss this question at the next meeting. Consider a request for the purchase of a parcel of open land space Mr. Brennan explained that he was here because at a recent Planning Commission meeting a development on Country Club Drive and Poor Farm Road was considered. One of the comments at that time was that the land, had not been zoned property. It is currently zoned R-4, with present density of R-2. The proposal is for a residential development which will bound the existing road. The area on the other side of the road is Industrial/Commercial. The concern of Country Club Estates is that if development occurs the removal of trees will increase the noise levels. He noted that the Airport Master Plan says the area is not good for residential development but also commercial development might make the problem even worse because that would probably result in even more trees being cleared. He said he was here to find out the cost and funding possibilities of making the area into a green belt. He asked whether the Council would study the question of whether the area has recreational value. Mr. Farrar noted that the area would basically be the airport approach zone if the runway in question were used. Mr. Irennan said that planes can use shorter runways. They are also talking about a micro wave system for the airport which would make that an instrument landing runway. Mr. Szymanski asked why the City of Burlington on the Airport doesn't buy the land. Mr. Brennan indicated that he is pursuing that possibility; however, the Airport is currently considering short-range issues such as parking. Mr. Marvin asked if the City would not be accommodating the Airport if they were to buy the land. Mr. Brennan said that is true, but that South Burlington should be concerned with the welfare of all of its citizens, and that one alternative he had to try was the City Council. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Belter, owner of the land, what his timetable was on development. Mr. Belter said that they have an active proposal. Mr. Farrar said that it was then a matter of 1 to 6 months before the option is really moot. Ms. Lansing said she shares Mr. Brennan's concern that the area is not zoned correctly. Mr. Flaherty said he agreed it's not the best place for homes. He said it's probably Burlington's problem, but it is South Burlington that will have to live with it. Mr. Szymanski said they must be careful not to delay. He noted that the last time the City wound up in court and lost. Mr. Brennan said there are two existing documents which say the land is incompatible with residential development. Mr. Szymanski aid he thought they might pursue sources of money, e.g., federal and state. Mr. Farrar added that they should discuss the issue with the Airport Commission to see if something can be done that is compatible with existing needs. The City could perhaps buy the land and then have the Airport buy it from us in a certain number of years. Mr. Marvin then asked the City Manager to discuss the issue with the Airport Commission to see if a plan can be worked out for the Airport's purchase of the land. He also asked the City Manager to find out the purchase price of the land. Mr. Schuele noted that the Planning Commission should be reminded that housing built in areas such as these should have appropriate amounts of soundproofing. Mrs. Brennan stressed that the 80 families of Country Club Estates pay taxes to South Burlington, not to Burlington, and that they have to rely on South Burlington officials to protect them. MPO Mr. Farrar advised that Mr. Szymanski will act as technical liaison with the MPO and that Mr. Szymanski will write a letter nominating himself for that position. The first meeting for technical advisors will be Friday, August 26, at 3 pm. He added that by the 20th of August, the names of 4 citizens who might serve on the Citizens Advisory Panel should be submitted. The intent is to get as much diversity of background as possible. Only one of those nominated will be on the panel. Ms. Lansing asked whether a notice could be put in The Other Paper for persons interested. Mr. Szymanski asked what the committees will do. Mr. Farrar said the technical committee will help formulate the list of projects. The Citizens Committee will purely advise en projects that are to be considered. He added that the emphasis will be on highways and the CCTA first. He said it looks like next year there will be between $30,000,000 and $60,000,000 available to South Burlington. Mr. Szymanski asked what has happened to expansion of the area. Mr. Farrar said this has not been formalized yet. Liquor Control Board Mr. Farrar moved that the City Council adjourn and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Szymanski presented a letter from Rick Ward of the Old Board's Club New England who is seeking an entertainment permit to stage arm wrestling championships at their location. The fire chief sees no problem as long as the seating capacity is not exceeded. The police chief also saw no problem. It was noted that no alcoholic beverages will be served during the tournament. Both Mr. Peters and Mr. Marvin expressed concern about crowd control during the event and following. Mr. Farrar then moved that the entertainment permit as requested in Rick Ward's letter of July 12, 1983 be granted. Mr. Flaherty seconded and the motion passed 3-2 with Mr. Marvin and Mr. Peters voting against. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.