Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/04/1988CITY COUNCIL 4 JANUARY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday 4 January 1988, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Francis X. Murray, George Mona, Molly Lambert Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane Lafleur City Planner; Wendy Schroeder, Mary McKearin, Business Managers; James Goddette, Fire Chief; William Burgess, Sylvia Smith, James Condos, John Dinklage, City Center Committee; Craig Leiner, Traffic Consultant; Peter Judge; Greg Dicovitsky, Jerry Desautels Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Review City Manager's Report on Status of 1987-88 Goals Regarding the Brand property Mr. Szymanski advised the original closing date was 12/29/87; however, attorneys could not get together, and the City Attorney wants additional information included in the survey. Talks on the Calkins property are continuing. Their attorney would like to resolve some suits which are pending. The meeting with the State on the Bartlett Bay Treatment Plant went well, and a plan will soon be presented to the Council. Mr. Mona asked what stands between the City and an official city map. Mr. Szymanski said money. He noted the City Attorney feels some existing maps could be used if updated. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendments to the 1985 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations for the New Central District on Dorset Street, San Remo Drive and Corporate Circle Mrs. Lafleur noted the first installment of the traffic study has been received. It does not show the impact for the City Center but does show some problems with current zoning, especially Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dr. Dorset St/Williston Rd., and all of Hinesburg Rd. itself. The proposed zone change does not significantly increase density by itself but relies on a TDR and bonus plan to do that. Mrs. Lafleur felt the current document could stand by itself. a) Amendment to the 1985 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan: Mrs. Lafleur stressed the importance of a grid network of streets, of public amenities, and of having buildings brought to the street for pedestrian orientation. The overall goal, she said is to blend uses and activities. The framework of the City Center is based on the new Dorset Street Boulevard and the new character that can be created on Dorset Street. Mr. Desautels asked what the procedure would be for zone changes. Mr. Farrar said first there would be discussion, comments, questions, etc. When that is complete the Council has 4 options: approve as is, vote to modify, vote to reject, or vote to continue discussion. A vote to approve would be a final vote. If the vote is to modify, it would go back to the Planning Commission for their comments. Mr. Mona then moved that the Council adopt the document: Amendment to the 1985 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan as approved by the Planning Commission on 6/16/87, and insert it the first defined area after the Introduction at page 7. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Mr. Murray asked whether by adopting this plan the Council was limiting the action it could take on the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Farrar said he didn't see it as a limiting factor. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. b) Proposed Zoning Ordinance: Central District: Mr. Leiner said he felt they were about 2 months away from the completion of the traffic study. Mrs. Lafleur noted that the part of the study that is available did assume build out with current zoning. Mr. Murray said they need to know what build out would be under new zoning. He said he was not so much concerned with the rate of build out as with the end result. Mr. Dicovitsky said the assumptions are below allowable limits and didn't want to be limited to these numbers. Mrs. Lafleur said this was not so. Mr. Dicovitsky then asked whether this might set up a race to be the first to get to capacity. Mr. Farrar said it could but the City hoped to watch the rate of development and match it against planned rate and make adjustments as it went along. Mr. Murray asked what is needed to complete the process. Mrs. Lafleur said the TDR and bonus aspect of the plan. She noted that about a year ago Mike Munson prepared a plan to get a TDR system in place. It would take about a year. Mr. Farrar said he would feel more comfortable if they knew the maximum density the City wanted in the area. They could then determine how to allocate that between TDR's bonuses, etc. Mr. Murray added that they also need to know how much open space the City wants to retain. Mr. Dinklage said the Dorset St. Committee stayed away from stating how a bonus system would work and noted that the plan before the Council allows a myriad of mixtures. He said it is a 2 step process: first to put the framework in place so the types of uses can be changed on Dorset St. without defining maximum density. The cap now, he said, is a zero bonus. The second step would be to determine how much bonus would be granted, and that would depend on how much capital the city wishes to spend to upgrade traffic problems, etc. Mr. Farrar felt there still have to be some limits up front. Mr. Dinklage felt that could be addressed when bonuses are addressed. Ms. Lambert said her concern is that the framework be in place so the Planning Commission is not caught in a situation where development cannot be denied for currently allowed uses which are not wanted in the City Center. Mr. Dinklage stressed it is important for this document to stand on its own even if there is a zero bonus. Mrs. Lafleur then outlined the boundaries of the 3 areas within the Central District (CD-1, CD-2, CD-3). She noted that permitted uses in CD-1 and 2 are typical downtown uses public and pedestrian oriented. Mr. Dinklage added these uses are consistant with what is allowed now. Both gas stations and drive through bank windows were eliminated because they are not pedestrian oriented and because many of these facilities are located nearby. Mr. Cairns said he had a problem with the statement that says uses which are not specifically permitted are prohibited. Mrs. Lafleur noted that ordinances in most cities say that, and that the City Attorney felt it was acceptable when generic terms such as "retail uses" are used. Mr. Murray questioned whether "retail uses" might allow something that might be objectionable. Mrs. Lafleur said that would be the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Mona felt it would be easier to handle than any other district because there is a description of what the City is trying to accomplish. Mrs. Lafleur added that there is also a listing of what is specifically prohibited. Mr. Mona felt that was highly appropriate. Mr. Dicovitsky felt that drive-in bank windows were not antithetical to the City Center concept. Mr. Mona said he thought drive-in banks in Burlington are in conflict with what the City is trying to accomplish. Mr. Condos stressed the intention is to cut down on pedestrian/vehicle conflict points. Under Conditional Uses for CD-1 and 2, the question of a "take out" counter in a restaurant was raised. Mr. Judge noted they were denied an Italian restaurant where people could take food out as well as eat on the premises. Mr. Burgess said they were trying to discourage a place that would be a high traffic generator where people drove to, picked up food, and left. Mr. Condos suggested removing "only" from Sect. 1.201. Mr. Mona moved to strike "only" from Sect. 1.201. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dicovitsky questioned why restaurants could be only in a 2 story of higher building. Mr. Dinklage felt there could be problems with a low level restaurant next to a 3-story apartment. Mr. Murray moved to strike the language after "customers" in Section 1.201. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed 3-2, Mr. Mona and Ms. Lambert opposing. Members questioned the difference between a hotel and motel, the latter being a prohibited use. Mrs. Lafleur said the intent was to set the flavor of multiple use (conference rooms, cocktail lounges, etc). Mr. Mona said he didn't think the language did that. Mr. Judge said he felt the traffic issue would take care of the problem. With a minimum setback out front, you can't have a motel-like appearance of cars parked in front of units etc. The CD-3 zone areas abut residential uses. In these areas allowable heights are lower and uses are more limited. Mr. Murray said he was concerned about parking garages near residential areas. Mr. Farrar suggested this be a conditional use so it would be subject to more scrutiny. Mr. Murray moved that Sect. 1.304 be moved to "Conditional Uses" and renumbered 1.405. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar noted that unless transmission and receiving towers are specifically prohibited in a Zoning Ordinance they are presumed to be permitted uses. Mr. Murray thus moved that transmission and receiving towers be included as prohibited uses and numbered as Sect. 1.517. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Under Density and Dimensional Requirements Mrs. Lafleur noted that lots would be smaller than presently zoned to allow multiple buildings closer together. Mr. Murray moved to substitute the new language on page 7 for the language currently in Sect. 1.602. Mr. Mona seconded. Mrs. Lafleur noted the Planning Commission has been notified of this change but it would still legally have to be sent back to them. Mrs. Lafleur said the problem with the original language was the rigid standard for a block. This has been changed. Also, the original specified a front and rear setback, and there were conflicts because a building could conceivably front on 3 streets. There are now allowable building envelopes from zero to so feet in depth. The intent is that all buildings front on a public street with parking in the center or blocks. There would be a street planning map, which is not as binding as an official city map but is more than what exists now. It would say to a developer "This is where the City wants a street to be. Mrs. Larleur noted the planning Commission wanted the City to decide where streets will be, not developers. Mr. Dicovitsky said he had many problems with the proposed layout. He said the whole concept is something they favor very much but have problems with detail drafting. He said they have over 40 acres of land, over half of which is covered by the proposed amendments. They also have a street layout that was required by the City at one time and for which they have an Act 250 permit. He said the new pattern requires land taking from 9 owners (including the City and schools). He felt this would create lots of cul de sacs. He felt if problems couldn't be solved, their site would suffer. He felt having buildings at the edge of the block was not the only way to go. He then showed Council members conceptual pictures of what they have in mind for the land. Members unanimously agreed the pictures represented the same type of "sprawl" design they are trying to get away from. Mr. Condos stressed they want more streets in the area and felt what is there now would be too far apart to encourage pedestrians. Mr. Judge felt the City deserved praise for dealing with the "urban vs. suburban" issue. He felt growth in the area hasn't been severe, but sprawl has been. He said he wished the same discussion had been held 20 years ago. Council members suggested Mr. Dicovitsky submit another possible layout in a few weeks time. Mr. Murray said he felt the City was at the crossroads of important legislation. He felt developers may have concerns with specific layout of streets but didn't feel the Ordinance tied them to any one layout. He stressed that somewhere between what Mr. Dicovitsky was suggesting and what the Zoning Plan states there could be a meeting of the minds, but he felt it would betray the whole notion of what the City set out to do if it accepted what Mr. Dicovitsky was proposing now. Mr. Murray added it is incumbent on Mr. Dicovitsky and the people he represents to come forward with something that would be to their advantage and would still meet what the City is striving for. Mr. Farrar noted the map was not an action item at this meeting. It is hoped by the end of the process to have a map that says what the City wants it to say. Mr. Desautels then suggested deleting the sentence relating to the street map. Mr. Murray moved to change sentence 2 of Sect. 1.602 to read: "Proposed block layouts will be depicted on an official city map or on a street planning map, to be adopted." Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved to adjourn the Public Hearing until 18 January 1988, 7:30 pm. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Review and discuss updating of City 10-year Budget Program for fiscal 1988-89 Mr. Farrar noted some items have been projected for 1988-89, and the question is now whether to put these into the regular budget. Members felt that if additional funds become available, the additional policeman should be hired earlier. Mr. Murray moved to include the 1988-89 portion of the 10 year budget program in the regular budget. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Review Planning Commission Agenda No issues were raised. Review Minutes of December 21 and the Dorset Street Necessity Hearing of December 14, 1987 Funds for Fire Truck Mr. Farrar noted the City can now borrow money from the State for a fire truck at 2% interest for 3 years. Up to $50,000 can be borrowed. The City has $100,000 now which would total $150,000. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Fire Chief be requested to solicit proposals for a new pumper. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Report on Action regarding Dorset Street Act 250 Permit Mr. Farrar noted several housekeeping changes had been requested. A drainage study of Potash Brook was also asked for, but it was determined that what was really wanted was a study of the unnamed tributary. A completion date was set at 12/1/88, but the City has asked this be extended to 12/1/89. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.