Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/18/1988CITY COUNCIL 18 JANUARY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 18 January 1988, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, George Mona, Frank Murray Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Wendy Schroeder, Mary McKearin, Business Managers; Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Peter Jacob, Planning Commission; William Burgess, John Dinklage, Jim Condos, City Center Committee; John Race, Police Dept; Don Whitten, Water Pollution Dept; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Ralph Goodrich, Michael Marks, Jack Campbell, Mark Sperry, Dennis Blodgett, Gerald Desautel, Gregory Dicovitsky, David Walters, Carol Smith, Liz & Al Mansfield, Larry Brainard, Leonard Brown, Mark Koenigsberg, Peter Judge, Scott Pennington, Jeane E. and Jeane P. Anderson Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Discuss options regarding the Quarry Access Road Mr. Szymanski said one question is where the road will enter into Williston. He and Mrs. Lafleur met with 2 Williston Selectmen who feel the best place would be midway between I-89 and Walker Hill Rd. That area is, however, currently zoned residential, and there was concern about connecting with a road that would serve mostly commercial development in S. Burlington. The other issue is the access from the Mitel (now Orchard Lake) property. The City Attorney says the City could accept the right-of-way and require Goodrich to build it to City standards. The portion of the road through the Brand property would have to be handled by the City through Act 250, as the City has an irrevokable deed. Another option is that Goodrich could go back to the Planning Commission and ask that the road be made straight through to Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Goodrich does not want to do this. Mr. Marks, representing Mr. Goodrich, reviewed the history of the project. He said that when the project was first proposed, they had the option of gaining access to Hinesburg Road directly through their land which fronts Hinesburg Rd. The Planning Commission didn't want another curb cut on Hinesburg Rd. and felt they didn't want to waste the chance to use the access the City already had through the old Mitel property. The Commission approved the project with the intent that the Mitel access be used, and Mr. Goodrich agreed to dedicate the entire road to the City. The problem developed at Act 250 when it was asked if the City had accepted the street. The City has not, and Act 250 asked how Goodrich can then have a right to use it. What is needed is for the City to accept the dedicated right-of-way first and to condition its acceptance on Goodrich's improving the right-of- way to City standards. Mr. Marks felt that any other commercial ventures that use the road should contribute to it. Mr. Murray said he recalled a controversy over the impact of industrial development on residential development nearby. He asked if it was possible for the road to go east along the property line instead of dipping south toward the residential area. Mr. Marks did not feel this should be done as the Planning Commission had laid out the route they wanted. He said if the Council were to say it wanted the road moved, it would put Goodrich back to square one with the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray said he did not feel the Planning Commission was necessarily the best one to decide where this road should go and asked why Goodrich did not want it moved further north. Mr. Marks said moving it would add some harsh turning movements that do not make sense in terms of highway design. They also do not want to lay out the right-of-way so it would aggravate problems for potential development. The plan approved by the Planning Commission would allow flexibility. He said they have consulted experts who feel the location of the road will not create a noise disturbance for the neighbors. Mr. Murray said he felt people who live in the City 24 hours a day should be respected, and if there's a way to lessen the impact of quarry trucks on the residential neighborhood, he would like to see that done. Mark Sperry, legal representative for 5 of the Ledge Knoll neighbors, said they have been striving to get the road moved further from homes. The quarry will last 10 years with 6 million cubic yards of rock being moved. Anticipated average traffic is 34 trucks per hour. He felt it should not be impossible to engineer any curve problems with the road if it is moved further north. He noted that the land is zoned for light industrial use and that the neighbors bought their homes believing there would not be heavy industrial use such as the quarrying project. He asked if the Council accepted the Orchard Lake right-of-way that it do so with the condition that the road be moved as far north as possible. Mr. Jacob said the Commission felt this was a reasonable place to put the road. Another curb cut close to homes on Hinesburg Rd. is not desirable. Mr. Condos asked why there is an engineering problem if the road comes out in the exact same place. Mr. Marks said it was a question of a second curve close after the first curve. Mr. Brennan said the question is whether this is the future Swift St. and if so, whether this is where the City wants it to be. He added that if you put a sub-base down, you have to feel this is where the road will be. Mr. Mona said that if the Council accepts the right of way on Orchard Lake property, he wants it to be clear they are not necessarily concurring with the plan as drawn on Green Acres property. All the Council is doing is accepting the location of the road where it enters Green Acres property and the angle at which it enters that property. Mr. Mona moved that the City Council take title to the right-of-way depicted as Swift Street Extension on Orchard Lake property and require developers to build the roadway to City standards at that location. By taking title to this, the Council does not agree or disagree with or accept the proposed extension to the road located on Green Acres property. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Murray said the Planning Commission did not consider where the road turned once it entered Goodrich property. Their concern was not to have an additional curb cut on Hinesburg Rd. He felt the Commission could say Mr. Goodrich can have access through the City's right-of-way and felt Act 250 would agree with the Commission to have the entrance from an already existing curb cut. He felt that they would also agree that while the Commission may not have considered it, the further away from residential neighborhoods, the better. Mr. Murray felt the Council should not accept that portion of the road until it can be determined whether it could be moved further to the north. Mr. Mona felt that as an engineer there is a lot that could be done to move the road north, but he felt that was a separate issue. Mr. Murray said his concern was that the Council would never get a chance to discuss the location of that road. Mr. Sperry said it obviously helps Mr. Goodrich if he can put lots on both sides of the road, but it doesn't hurt Mr. Goodrich at all if the road is put north. He stressed that the quarry operation will be using Detroiter diesels, the noisiest vehicles, and these should be gotten away from residential neighborhoods. He said it is not a planning problem or an engineering problem but only an economic problem for Mr. Goodrich. Mr. Sperry felt this was the time for the Council to do something for the residents of the City. Mr. Marks said they felt the Planning Commission made a reasonable decision and if the neighbors didn't like it, they can go to Court. He didn't feel it right for them to "ambush" Mr. Goodrich at this time. In the vote which followed, the motion passed 3-2 with Mr. Murray and Ms. Lambert voting against. Public Hearing on Proposed Zone Change on a portion of the Blodgett property from R-4 to R-7, located at 1342 Shelburne Road Mrs. Lafleur explained that the front of the property is zoned C-1 and will stay that way. The rear is R-4. The Planning Commission recommends rezoning the rear portion to R-7. About 4.7 acres would be rezoned. The area is bordered by residential properties on the north and east and also by Holmes Rd. Ext. which will have an 80 foot right-of-way. R-4 allows 4 units per acre, residences, daycare and nursing home facilities, churches and educational facilities as conditional uses. R-7 allows those uses plus professional and medical office buildings as a conditional use. Mrs. Lafleur noted that Mr. Blodgett originally requested C-1 for this property but the Commission turned that down. The Planning Commission anticipated the area will be developed as offices. This would require a 65 foot setback from the property line. Office building could have parking within the 50 feet. They would also have to have a 15 foot green strip. The Commission felt that since Green Mountain Drive and Holmes Rd. Extension would be primarily a commercial loop, it was not appropriate for residences. Mr. Jacob added that the Commission felt R-7 zoning gave greater protection to the neighbors with deeper setbacks. Mr. Mansfield said that the neighbors oppose the zone change and presented a petition from 17 abutting homeowners. He felt Mr. Blodgett was just trying to get economic justification for buying the property. Mr. Mansfield said there is a need for single family homes. The neighbors do not want a parking lot within 20 ft. of their homes and would like to continue to enjoy their residential neighborhood. Mr. Flaherty said he agreed with Mr. Mansfield and that the Master Plan speaks to the preservation of neighborhoods as a priority. He saw no reason for a change. Mr. Blodgett said the big issue is the construction of Holmes Rd. It has always been stated that Holmes Rd. must be the access to this development. There is a 120,000 sq. ft. office building approved across the street, and he didn't feel R-4 zoning was appropriate there. Holmes Rd. will be a highly traveled road. He felt that an office park with a residential character would be the best use for the land. He stressed he is more than willing to work with the neighbors and that he has cooperated with both Mr. Tarrant and the city on Holmes Rd. Mr. Mansfield said it is a question of more vehicles, more parking, more noise and less green area. The area is highly treed and is a wildlife area. They want something that will be compatible with a quiet, residential community. Mr. Blodgett said there will be some development there and that the least way to impact is with the largest buffer which is R-7 zoning. He felt there would be more cutting and roadwork with R-4 zoning. Mr. Dinklage said that's not necessarily true and that total lot coverage with R-4 is not as great as with R-7. He asked if there had been any discussion about clustering homes in a p.u.d. at R-4. Mr. Jacob said the Commission envisioned a small office complex that would compliment what is there. Mr. Blodgett said he is in a quandry. If the City wants R-4, it shouldn't have the commercial loop there. He felt the road affects privacy more than office building. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the proposed zone change for the Blodgett property from R-4 to R-7. Mr. Mona seconded. Mr. Farrar asked why Holmes Rd. has to back on the residential area. Mrs. Lafleur said it could swing onto the property owned by UVM beyond Green Mountain Drive. Mr. Murray said he didn't think Mr. Blodgett, the Planning Commission, or the neighbors were being unreasonable, but that when he was faced with 3 reasonable options, he would opt for the residential neighborhood and the security of the residents. Mrs. Lambert said she felt Mr. Mansfield and the neighbors had both bought their properties at R-4 and had a right to expect it would stay that way. Mr. Mona said he agreed with the Planning Commission. In the vote which followed, the motion was defeated 1-4 with only Mr. Mona voting in favor. Continue Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to 1985 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations for the new Central District located on Dorset Street. Mr. Farrar noted that a request has been received from Randy Munson that final approval of zoning changes for this district be by 2/3 vote. Mr. Munson is allowed to make this request because he owns more than 40% of the property involved. Mr. Murray moved to change "of" to "or" in the last sentence under CD-1 and CD-2. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Lafleur noted that in CD-2 a green belt is added on Dorset St. In the vote on the motion continued from the previous meeting (to add pages 7 and 8 in place of Sect. 1.602 on pages 3 and 4), the motion passed unanimously. Under Sect, 1.603, Mr. Farrar asked whether what is allowed in terms of building heights is enough motivation for an owner to tear down what is there now. He felt there should be more "by right" and less by bonus. Mrs. Lafleur and Mr. Dinklage both felt there was enough incentive. Mr. Dicovitsky said he felt there was a compelling reason to keep what was already there because they are already dealing with a 30 foot setback. He felt the bonus plan for CD-1 which he saw an early draft of was workable. Mr. Judge agreed there didn't seem to be much incentive at the base level to tear down what is there. Mr. Farrar questioned whether a developer would build a 4-story building if they could get everything allowed on a one or 2 story building. Mr. Dinklage said the intent is not to have immediate massive tearing down of what is there but to make it attractive to begin moving in that direction. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue discussion until 15 February. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Meet with Mr. Brown of Greening Avenue regarding removal of a tree on public property Mr. Brown said a spruce tree is planted in the right-of-way which causes a hazard getting out of his driveway by blocking his view. The tree is about 8 ft. from the driveway. His neighbor planted the tree. Mr. Szymanski said the Tree Warden would not give permission to remove the tree. Mr. Audette said the tree does not impede the total site distance and that a telephone pole is what impedes the view. Mr. Brown said he had not discussed the matter with his neighbor. Mr. Audette said he would still object if the neighbor agreed to cut down the tree. The tree is 3 to 5 ft. from the edge of the pavement and is about 8 ft. in diameter at the branches. The area is basically flat. Mr. Audette added that property owners can plant trees in the right-of-way as long as they don't obstruct snow plowing. Mr. Brown said he would like to know what the law is. Mr. Farrar said he would talk with the City Attorney and see what the Council's authority is. Mr. Flaherty moved that the issue be continued until the next meeting. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Review Planning Agenda No issues were raised. Minutes of 4 January 1988 Mr. Poger noted he was present at this meeting. Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the Minutes with the amendment. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Sign Disbursement Order Disbursement orders were signed. Other Business a) It was noted that Planning Commission minutes of 5 January refer to traffic through Harbor Heights. These traffic problems have come before the Council earlier. Stop signs are needed as well as "no through trucks" signs. Mr. Audette said there are really no trucks going through because they can't use Spear St. anymore. He added that the streets are to be accepted at the next Council meeting and signs can then be installed. b) It was noted that a bill is mentioned in Legislative Report #539 which would not allow "economic impact" as an Act 250 criteria. Members asked for a history of the bill, and Mr. Szymanski said he would write for a copy. Liquor Control Board Mr. Murray moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented catering requests from KND, Inc. to cater a benefit at Rice H.S. for the hockey team, on 23 January, 6 pm - 1 am, and also a request for a wedding at K of C Hall, 6 February, 2:20-11 p.m., Mr. Murray moved the Board approve the 2 permits as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously Executive Session Mr. Mona moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to discuss findings of the Dorset St. Necessity Hearing and resume regular session only to adjourn. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council came out of Executive Session and adjourned immediately. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.