Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/17/1985CITY COUNCIL JUNE 17, 1985 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, June 17, 1985 in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St., at 7:30 pm. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, George Mona, Leona Lansing, Francis Murray Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane Bechtel, City Planner; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Albert Audette, Street Dept., Sidney Poger, The Other Paper; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Eugene Szatkowski, Judy Hurd, Mary-Barbara Maher, Kay Neubert, Jim Condos, Ernest Levesque, Ronald Wilkinson, Robin Izzo, Craig Austin, Echo Adams, Sally Allen, John Gonyea, Ephram and Audrey Berteau, Dorothy Roberts, David Boehm, Marsha Smith, Nick Hardin, Lowell Krassner, Catherine Peacock, Carl Von Turkovich Agenda Additions The following items were added to the agenda: Discuss the evaluation procedure under Old Business, receive new information on the Brand property in Executive Session, and receive an update on the whey pollution problem. Comments and questions from the public (not related to items on the agenda) There were none. Public hearing on amendments to the City Zoning Regulations regarding the establishment of Transitional Districts Since no one voiced a desire to have the ordinance read as proposed, Mr. Murray moved to dispense with the reading of the ordinance and Ms. Lansing seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ms. Bechtel explained the ordinance and showed the area for which it was proposed. She noted that the area was in traffic overlay zone 5, which restricted the number of trips per peak hour to 45 per 40,000 sq. ft. lot. Mrs. Neubert felt the language allowing "business and professional offices" should be made more specific, so there would be no question as to what constituted such an office. She felt that, if this zoning passed, it was the intent of the city to also put it on Hinesburg Road, Williston Road and Patchen Road. She was also concerned about strip zoning and the proliferation of multiple curb cuts from each of these existing small lots. Ms. Bechtel said the pre-existing lots would be grandfathered in. She noted that this area was under strong pressure for commercial uses and that the Commission was concerned about the strong residential neighborhood behind this area. The zone would allow the city to control development issues such as buffers, noise, parking, lighting, hours of operation, etc. In a normal commercial zone that sort of review is not usually done. Mr. Murray asked if she felt, in her professional opinion, that the uses allowed in section 17.602e would protect the residential neighborhood and she replied that she did not, but that the Commission had voted on the ordinance with those uses included. It was noted that the Commission hada difference of opinion on inclusion of retail, and the ordinance had been discussed both with and without them. Mr. Condos said that he did not want this type of protection. Mr. Farrar asked about the comparison between R4 traffic and the kind of traffic generation which could be expected from this zoning and was told R4 traffic generation would be significantly less. Ms. Bechtel noted that the probability of building residential uses in that area was low. Mr. Berteau said he owned a home on Dorset Street and was unable to rent or sell it as residential property. Ms. Smith said she lived in the Brookwood development behind this area. She did not see how this zone would protect her neighborhood, and she noted that such protection was set out in the Comprehensive Plan. She questioned the uses, especially retail. She felt people would not object so strongly if retail uses were removed, and she mentioned having uses which would operate from 9-5 Monday through Friday, so the neighborhood would not be disturbed. Mrs. Roberts, who owns a home on Dorset Street, noted that with the rental business across the street, it was not a 9-5 neighborhood anymore. She noted that she would like to be able to sell her property. Mrs. Neubert felt the zoning could not be put in place with the only consideration being the impact on 2-4 homes in the city. Mr. Berteau said his home had been on the market for 3 years. He noted that for the past 1 year, 3 of the lots in the area had been on the market as 1 piece. Mr. Krassner felt the Dorset Street residents had been abused for years by the commercial uses which had been allowed into this area in the past. He noted that he felt the proposed zone was intended to protect the neighborhood and that the retail uses were contrary to that goal. He also felt the Commission should consider other areas in the city where this zone could go, and he mentioned Corporate Way near Hinesburg Road. Mr. Murray asked Mrs. Hurd why she had voted against the zone on the Planning Commission and was told she objected to the retail uses. Mr. Boehm passed out copies of his comments on the proposal (see attached copy). Mr. Hardin did not feel this proposal was the best way to approach the problem and he did not want to see the zone applied to other areas of the city. He felt that at the least the retail uses should be removed. Mr. Mona noted that only Dorset Street was under consideration now. Mrs. Maher said she favored the zone. She felt that without it, the city was inviting all the small lots to come and ask for variances, which would lead to piecemeal small developments. Mr. Farrar suggested that perhaps the office uses were most compatible with residential. His concern was the pre-existing lots and he wanted to find language which would encourage consolidation of those lots. Mr. Murray and Ms. Lansing did not like having retail uses in the ordinance. Mr. Farrar mentioned only office uses or other uses allowed in R4. Mr. Mona liked the zone without the retail, and he felt this was a good place for it. Mr. Flaherty agreed. Mrs. Hurd suggested language which would encourage curb cut combination rather than lot consolidation. Mr. Mona moved to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting, in two weeks, and to ask the City Planner to consult with the City Attorney and come up with appropriate new language. Ms. Lansing seconded the motion and all voted for it. Review and act on proposed ambulance service contract Mr. Szymanski said the Council had received copies of the contract (copy on file with City Manager). Mr. Farrar asked about communication and was told calls would go through the city's dispatcher. Fire Chief Goddette noted that people would have to be re-educated for a new phone number. Mr. Von Turkovich said that now when South Burlington residents call, the call goes to Burlington and is relayed. They would now propose to have their own number so they could talk directly to people, which would save time and be more efficient. During the transition period, both the old and new numbers could be called. Mr. Murray asked about any change in service and was told it would remain the same. Mr. Flaherty moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the contract, and Ms. Lansing seconded the motion. All voted aye. Interview applicants for appointments to the Planning Commission and Zoning Board The Council talked briefly with Mrs. Judy Hurd and Mrs. Mary-Barbara Maher, both of whom are up for reappointment to the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar noted that Mr. Dan King, up for reappointment to the Zoning Board, had been unable to attend, but had sent a letter indicating his interest. Interviewed for appointments to the Planning Commission and Zoning Board were Lowell Krassner, Marsha Smith, Catherine Peacock, David Boehm, James Condos, Ronald Wilkinson and Ernest Levesque. Appointments to other boards and committees, such as the Dorset Street Committee and the committee to study zoning procedures were mentioned. Mr. Boehm, Mr. Condos, Ms. Smith and Mr. Levesque said they would be interested in serving on such committees. Mrs. Hurd noted that the Zoning Board met at 5 pm and she felt that precluded a lot of people from attending meetings. She noted that she could not attend such a meeting, since she has 3 small children. No one present felt 5 pm was a good time for those meetings. Mrs. Hurd also noted that she felt attendance at board meetings was very important and she felt board members should look at the sites they were considering. Continue discussion on appointing a committee to study zoning procedures Mr. Murray said he was concerned about a remark which had been made at the meeting two weeks ago. It was that if the 5 criteria were applied exactly as set out, no use variances would ever be granted. He felt that if that were the case, perhaps the use variances should not be granted. He said he would like to find out whether that had in fact occurred. Mr. Farrar suggested that the City Attorney be asked about the status of use variances. Mr. Murray felt someone had to determine if the law was being violated by the Board. He suggested looking at some of the use variances granted in the past few months or so to see if the State statute was being ignored. He felt that if the study showed gray areas and that the Board had made a decision one way or the other, that would be all right, but if the law was being ignored, he felt the Council had to do something to correct the situation. He felt the Committee should contact the people who had made the complaint. Mr. Murray moved to appoint 3 people to review use variances granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the past 6 months to 1 year, depending on the number, and to report back to the City Council. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr Farrar suggested that this committee be filled with the others. Consider appointments to the following: Metropolitan Planning Organization. Transit Technical Committee - Mr. Flaherty nominated Frank Mazur as the South Burlington Representative to the MPO, TTC, and to appoint William Wessell as the alternate. Ms. Lansing seconded the motion and all voted aye. Governor's Study Committee for the Burlington Municipal Airport - Mr. Szymanski said a member of the governing body had been requested. The first meeting is next Monday. Mr. Flaherty said he could not make that meeting, but would be OK after that, Mr. Murray moved to appoint Mr. Flaherty to the Committee and to appoint William Szymanski as the alternate. Ms. Lansing seconded the motion and all voted aye. Dorset Street Committee - Planner Jane Bechtel gave the Council a list of interested people. She felt 7 was the easiest number to work with. The Council decided to appoint people with the other appointments. Update on final Act 250 hearing on Dorset Street Mr. Szymanski said the final hearing had been May 29 and that bike paths had been a major item of discussion. Mr. Audette had some questions about what had been proposed. Mr. Szymanski said there was a discrepancy between the Mall's projected traffic and the State's. Mr. Murray said that if the hearing were re- opened, he would like to have the city take a position on some items such as the sidewalk, the possibility of 4 instead of 5 lanes, where and how many lights there should be, and landscaping. Review and approve reappropriation of accounts for FY 1984-85 Mr. Szymanski said they would be balanced or under in all accounts this year and that all that needed to be done was to transfer the open space funds to the escrow account. That amount is $16,800, because a little was spent this year. Mr. Flaherty moved to transfer $16,800 to the escrow account. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and all voted aye. Review Zoning agenda There were no comments. Minutes of Organizational and Regular Meetings of June 3, 1985 Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the minutes of the organizational and regular meetings of June 3, 1985. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and all voted for it. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Other or Old Business Mr. Szymanski said the Fish and Game Department and the Environmental Conservation Agency were looking into the whey pollution issue. After they do some more interviews, the matter will be forwarded to the State's Attorney. He said they were going to recommend prosecution. Mr. Mona said he would like to have on the agenda a continuation of the evaluation. He wanted to interview the City Attorney and City Treasurer. Mr. Murray felt a special meeting was needed to do all that, and July 8 at 7:30 pm was set. This will be an Executive Session. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider request of Garfield's (Queen City Park Road) for outside serving of liquor and food Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn as the City Council and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded the motion and all were in favor. Mr. Szymanski noted that this request had been heard at the last meeting. He noted that in the past the State had approved such uses, and that there were two in the city now. Recently, the State has required that the city also approve outdoor uses like this. The two currently in the city are connected to restaurant uses and neither is close to residential land. Mr. Szymanski said there was a row of trees between this building and the residences, and Mr. Mona noted that there were no windows on that side of the building. The Council had no problem with the use during the day, but was concerned about evening hours. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the outdoor liquor license between when Garfield's opens for lunch and 8:00 pm. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and all voted aye. Consider going into executive session to discuss appointments to Boards and Commissions, the purchase of land in the Shelburne Road area for use as a fire station, and an update on the Brand property Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn as the Liquor Control Board and reconvene as the City Council in Executive Session to discuss personnel for appointment to city boards and commissions, the purchase of land in the Shelburne Road area for a fire station, and an update on the Brand property. Ms. Lansing seconded the motion and all voted aye. By motion of Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Ms. Lansing the Council came out of Executive Session at 11:30 PM and adjourned immediately. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. June 17, 1985 City Council So. Burlington City Hall Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Transitional District Proposal Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to express my concerns and thoughts about the new Transitional District proposal. I am a resident property owner and in the City. While I am concerned that this concept, as proposed, will be a detriment to the residential neighborhoods of the City, I feel that a fiodification of the prupoaal could be very beneficial to the City. The Transitional District is proposed in such a way as to alloa significant cornmer-cia1 uses in the middle ~f current residential zones. Furthermore, the zone as proposed may encourage encroachment of commercial uses in the limited neighborhoods left in the plder parts of the City. In the long range, it paves the way for a transition to more intensive ccmmerciaI zones in these areas, with creeping advancement of further tranritianal districts into the neighborhoods. I NCDNSISTENT WITH CGMFREHENSIVE PLAN .................................... The T.D., as proposed, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Flan. Note the following sections: Pg- 3 - ... it is our intention to protect existing neighborhoods from commercial encroachment and traffic disruption. The T.D. proposal allows encroachment into current residenti a1 areas. pg. 7 - "Protection of Residential Neighborhoods - Existing neighborhoods shall be identified and protected through appropriate zoning. Many of these residences constitute an irreplaceable, lower cost segment of our existing housing Trans. District 1 June 17, 1985 stock." The T.D. purpose is stated to include protection of existing neighborhoods but it then effectively rezones these very residences. pg. 20 - Hausing Quality - . . . Existing residential neighborhoods should be protected from inappropriate out-of-character transitions in land use such as businesses that exceed the customary and accepted standards for home occupations, the rental of single family homes on a room by room basis, or the conversion of hornes to multiple units in a predominant1 y single family area. " The T.D. will allow these inappropriate and out-of -character uses. pg. 21 - "Protection of neighborhoods - b) Create additional landscaping and setback requiremznts around the perimeter of residential neighborhoods; also, establish transition or buffer areas where permitted use5 may include multifamily residential units, office type commercial uses, or a combination of such uses. " While the idea of a buffer is proposed here, ths intent is clearly-not to allow a long list of comm~rcial ~5~5, and the intent seems to be to buffer around neighborhoods not within neighborhoods a5 the T.D. is proposed. I believe it is possible to have a buifer or transitional district that is ccnsistent with the Plan but the current proposal does not meet these criteria. SFECIFIC TEXT SL~EBESTION~ With rsgard to the specific prcpcsed language of the draft, I have the following comments: 1. In Section 17.60, what is thq eurgnse of Mo+fering an alternative to owners of small residentral lot5"? How can many of the uses listed be considered "coapatible" in residential neighbarhoods? How is "a.llowing the cansolidation of small lots" specifically addres~sed? How wi 11 this praposal "not significantly change the charscter of oi the area" when commercial businesses are allowed in current residential areas? The purpose ought to be to protect existing neighborhoods. This should be accompl i shed by zoning the areas outside of these neighborhoods for more compatible commercial uses. Trans. District June 17, 1985 2. In Section 17.602, why not put some specific limitations on these uses so as to better define what is intended and what will be permittd? Far example, limit the square footage of the building, or number of employees, or number of cars. 3. Section 17.602,e. should be eliminated or greatly scaled down. These uses are inconsistent with the Plan as discussed above. 4. In Section 17.6031, I again suggest that some limit5 be stated. For example, I feel that even a home occupation may adversely affect the character of a neighborhood to sgmg degree. To what degree does a new use have to adversely affect the "essential character of the neighborhood" to be unacceptable? In the same section, I am totaly confused by the reference to property values. I thought that part of the basis of this proposal wa5 to permit new uses for properties which have alledgedly been decreased in value because of encroaching commercial uses. How can you start with the premise that ccmmercial uses have depreciated adjoining residential property values, and then plan to prohibit new camwercial uses if they do the same thing? c a- I think section 17.6031,e. should be clarified. 6. The Section 17.6032 referring to specific standards should be specific. Some minimums should be set. What is a minimum adequate distance between a day care center and an adjacent sing1 e family home? 7. Under the first paragraph of Section 17.604, accesory uses should be included. A Transitional District should be proposed to rezofie the ex isti nb commercial 1 and around existing residential neighborhoods to softer commercial uses. more consistent with residential land use than the comm,ercial uses allowed now. This would establish a true buffer that kould be less likely to creep inward on the residential neighborhoods, and the Plan concepts would be implemented. a I think this could be accomplished by: 1. Revising the text of the zone to be consistent with the Trans. District June 17, 1985 Comprehensive Plan, including adopting the above specific suggestions. 2. Including a clear requirement that the zone shall only be adopted egtside of residential land. Finally, I think that as the density of So. Burlington increases, it may become necessary for the Plan to begin to address and evaluate the most centrally located existing residential neighborhoods in terms of needed areas for commercial development, road alignments, and general central city development. However, until these densities are reached, we should maximize the protection of our residential resource, in accordance with the current Plan. b David W. Boehm 26 Elsom Parkway So. Burl i ngton, Vermont 05401 Trans. District June 17, 1985