Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/13/1988CITY COUNCIL 13 JUNE 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 13 June 1988, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Molly Lambert, Michael Flaherty, Francis X. Murray, John Dinklage Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Steve Stitzel, City Attorney, Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Albert Audette, Street Dept; James Goddette, Fire Dept; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Leslie Linton, Joe Randazzo, Jerry Desautels, Ralph Deslauriers, Chuck Deslauriers, Comments & questions from the public not related to items on the agenda No issues were raised. Approve Fire Chief's recommendation for change in proposal for rebuilding fire engine Chief Goddette explained that because of engineering problems, the company that was going to do the work couldn't do it for the price they had quoted. Chief Goddette then went to Maxim Motors factory. They agreed to build the chassis and have another company do the body for the same amount as the original quote. Mr. Dinklage moved to instruct the City Manager and Fire Chief to proceed with the new proposal for rebuilding the fire engine. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Continue Public Hearing on Zoning Amendments for Proposed City Center District on Dorset Street to also include the following: a) discussion with Planning Commission on JHK Traffic Study; b) traffic study on proposed Deslauriers Dorset St. development. Mr. Farrar noted the report contains 4 different development scenarios with total buildout projected in the year 2002. Mrs. Maher said reading the report really scared her insofar as traffic projections which were made. Mr. Farrar said the purpose of the report is to see if the 2002 traffic scenario with the City Center is acceptable and/or what would have to be done to make them acceptable is reasonable. Mrs. Lafleur noted the report presumed 4 lanes on both Hinesburg and Kennedy Drives with connecting streets such as Mary St. in place. She stressed this is a worst case scenario for present zoning and there has never been a development close to the numbers that were used. The report indicates that the Williston Rd/Dorset St. intersection will exceed capacity and would require at least partial grade separations; Dorset St/Kennedy Dr. would be at level "F" as would Hinesburg Rd/Kennedy Dr. at the PM peak; White St/Williston would be "E" due to lack of turning capacity. Mr. Dinklage noted the city has a job to take care of intersections even without the City Center. He said he would like to see the city proceed with the Dorset St. changes as orderly and methodically as possible and suggested looking at setbacks, density, etc. not use changes. Mr. Farrar suggested one possible approach would be to allocate a certain number of trip ends per acre and let the developers decide what to build that would meet the allocation. Mrs. Lafleur added that the city could start to change the character of the area without increasing density. She added that one way to stop strip development is to bring things up to property lines, not having one driveway per use but having joint parking in back. Mrs. Maher said that when she read the conclusions of the report, she read them as a warning. Mr. Farrar said numbers were picked with different densities and it should be looked at that way. The density put in for the City Center assumption is higher than what can be accommodated and the traffic density would have to be limited to less than that. Mrs. Maher suggested reconvening the Dorset St. Committee to look at this again in light of the JHK study. She stressed that currently the road system can barely handle what is there now. Mr. Dinklage said it is important to clarify how much of a change there would be in permitted uses. With the exception of residential units, all of what is to be allowed is now allowed, and a number of uses presently allowed would not be allowed under City Center zoning. So the new zoning is actually more limiting. Mr. Randazzo noted their residential area is squeezed between I-89, Dorset St., Kennedy Dr. etc. and there will be a definite decline in air quality because of increased traffic. He said the only time the state reviews air quality is when a development requiring 99 parking spaces is built. He expressed concern about the cumulative affect of a number of small developments. Mr. Farrar advised that Act 250 is monitoring this continuously. Mr. Farrar said that if a certain number of trip ends were assigned per acre, these could be transferable within the area. He suggested the Planning Commission go back and look at the various scenarios in detail. Mrs. Lambert noted that one thing mentioned in the report is that by concentrating the development, you encourage more walking and possibly also some sort of mass transit. Specific questions that have to be considered are the I-89 on-ramp at Kennedy Dr. which has been approved by Regional Planning but which is not in the State plan and is thus at least 5-7 years away. Even with some creative financing plan it would still be at least 3 years away. The second left turn lane on Williston Rd. has not formally been acted upon by Act 250 (the University Mall application). Mrs. Lafleur noted that most intersections are worse than the Ordinance allows and the question arises whether the Commission allows more development to occur, collecting money to fix some things and letting others get worse for a while. There is also the question of how much worse things can be allowed to get and whether there is a point at which the city says it will make an improvement no matter what the cost. Mr. Dinklage said if the allowable traffic has been exceeded, the burden is the City's. The City can also impose stricter qualifications for future development that it has in the past. He felt the City should get as much assistance from developers, but they should not be the primary source of funding. He added that the Commission should also limit to whatever level possible the degeneration of a problem. Mr. Burgess said that philosophy sounds fine, but it does not always work practically. Ralph Deslauriers said he did not want to see the City Center concept lost as the reasons for it are still valid. He felt that as an area is upgraded, there should be a generation of new tax dollars that will help with traffic problems. Mr. Murray said he felt the whole question of capacity should be looked at again. Mrs. Lambert said that the city doesn't have to stop collecting from developers for an intersection even though the intersection work has been completed. Jerry Desautels of So. Burlington Realty noted that the original thrust of the zoning plan was based on increased density. Tonight, he said, it seems density is the bad word. He said he was concerned about all the work that went into the Ordinance based on the idea of increased density and he had a problem with approving an ordinance based on density increases when that idea is now not acceptable. He felt the Ordinance should go back and be reworked. He didn't think anyone had conceived of the City Center with this traffic study in mind. He also felt that uses can be changed in other ways. Mr. Dinklage said that the higher densities in the Ordinance were in exchange for a significant amount of open space; density might not then be so high. Mrs. Lafleur raised the question of Sect. 1.80 which might not allow for upgrading existing buildings. Mr. Dinklage suggested leaving it and coming back possibly later with a modification. Question then arose about the timing question if the Ordinance has to go back to the Planning Commission because of significant changes. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Council meet in Executive Session to receive the advice of the City Attorney on this question. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Following the Executive Session, Mr. Murray moved that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance in its entirety, Section 1 through Section 1.90, pp. 1-6, also including the sections set out in pp. 1-3, without the proposed amendment. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session Mr. Murray moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss the findings in relation to the Hoehls' request for a building permit and also to discuss proposals for land acquisition. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Upon resumption of regular session, Mr. Murray moved that the Council adopt the Findings as amended and make them available after the amendments have been included, by 9 AM tomorrow, and further that the Council authorize the Chairman to sign the amended Findings on its behalf. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Dinklage abstaining. Mr. Farrar announced there will be a special meeting on Thursday, 16 June, at 7:00 pm, to consider interim zoning for the Central Business District. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and meet as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a catering permit request for Francesca's Restaurant to cater an open house at Comfort Inn on Williston Rd. on Monday, 27 June, from 4- 10 pm. Mr. Flaherty moved the Board grant the catering permit to Francesca's Restaurant as presented by the City Manager. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. manlncIL moFm~Gmn IN RE: APPLICATION OF CYNTHIA AND ROBERT FIOm This matter came before the South Burlington City Council pursuant to the provisions of 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(d) on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl to construct improvements in the City of South Burlington which fail to comply with the "Interim Zoning Regulations for the Protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District" adopted by the Council on April 4, 1988. he City Council conducted public hearings on this application on May 2nd. May 10th. May Zrd, May 26th and June 6th. The Hoehls were present at all three hearings and were represented by Ms. Leslie Linton, Esq. Numerous adjoining property owners and neighbors were also present at these hearings. At at least two of these hearings some of these adjoining property ovners and neighbors were represented by James Dumont. Esq. A partial listing of those persons represented by Attorney Dumont is attached as Exhibit A to this decision. On May 7th this City Council viewed the site of the proposed development with the applicants and neighbors present. The May 2nd and May 10th hearings on this matter were attended by the full City Council consisting of Mr. Farrar, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Mona, Mr. Murray and Mrs. Lambert. At the City election on May 17th. Mr. Dinklage was elected to fill Mr. Mona's position on the Council. Mr. Dinklage familiarized himself with the evidence presented to the Council at its hearings on Hay 2nd and May 10th and thereafter participated in the proceedings of the Council. Mr. Mona did not participate in the Council's deliberation or decision in this matter. Based upon the evidence submitted at the hearings mentioned above and the Councils observations from the site visit, the Council hereby renders the following decision on this application: mmGS OP PAQ' 1. Cynthia and Robert Hoehl are the owners of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. The subject property is located on the westerly side of Spear Street, so-called. It has 160 feet of frontage on Spear Street and a depth of approximately 600 feet. 3. The subject property adjoins on its southerly sideline the overlook park owned by the City at the intersection of Spear Street and Deerfield Drive. 4. The subject lot has an elevation of approximately 374 feet above mean sea level on its easterly boundary where it adjoins the Spear Street right of way and approximately 314 feet above mean sea level at its westerly boundary where it adjoins lands presently owned by the University of Vermont and operated as a horticultural farm. 5. By their application to the City Council the Xoehls seek approval to construct a single-family residence on the subject lot. The Hwhls' application with supporting plans dated March 28, 1988 and April 5, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Plan A") was filed with the City Zoning Administrator on April 12, 1988. The Hoehls submitted revised plans dated May 26th, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Plan B") for their proposed residence to the Council on June 2, 1988. 6. The easterly building line of the proposed residence is approximately 120 feet from the westerly edge of the pavement of Spear Street. The house has an approximate depth of 45 feet so that the westerly building line is approximately 165 feet from the westerly edge of the pavement of Spear Street. 7. The proposed house, not including porches, has a total width of approximately 85 feet. This width is composed of 3 sections: a northerly wing approximately 28 feet in width; a central section approximately 43 feet in vidth; and a mouthern wing approximately 14 feet in width. 8. The ridge line of the roof over the northern wing is approximately 382 feet above mean sea level; the ridge line of the roof over the central section of the house is approximately 387.9 feet above mean sea level; and the ridge line of the roof over the southerly wing is approximately 376.5 feet above mean sea level. 9. The proposed house contains tvo chimneys, each of which extends above the ridge line of the central section of the house. 10. The finished grade for the proposed residence on its westerly side is at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level on Plan A. The finished grade for the proposed residence on its westerly side is at an elevation of approxhtely 353.9 feet above mean sea level on Plan B. 11. The proposed structure contains approximately 4000 square feet of living space located in an improved basement, and a first and second floor. The proposed structure also contains an attic area located above the second floor and a tro-car garage. 12. At the proposed location, the Hoehls would be able to view Shelburne Bay. Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains from any floor of the proposed residence. 13. The City of South Burlington owns park land adjoining and immediately south of the Hoehl property. This park site has approximately 301 feet of frontage on Spear Street and extends westerly from Spear Street approximately 266 feet. 14. The Hoehl property fronts on a portion of Spear Street which is frequently used by bikers, joggers and pedestrians. It is posted as bike route and is not authorized for general use by through truck traffic. 15. The Hoehl property is located in a portion of South Burlington which is primarily residential in nature and will likely experience further residential development in the future. 16. The Adirondack Mountains, Lake Champlain and portions of Shelburne Bay are visible while standing on the Hoehl property at a point approximately 500 feet westerly of Spear Street. At this point the Hoehl property has an elevation of approximately 330 feet above mean sea level. 17. The residence proposed by the Hoehls vill significantly block views of the Adirondack Mountains. Lake Champlain and Shelburne Bay from Spear Street. 18. If moved ten (10) feet north. the residence proposed by the Hoehls will not interfere with views of the Mirondack Mountains, Iake Chaaplain and Shelburne Bay from the westerly portion of the city-owned park land. 19. It is possible for the Hoehls to construct a residence of comparable size to the one proposed on the westerly portion of their property in a way that it would not obstruct views of L~ke Champlain and the Adirondacks from either Spear Street or the City-owned park site. Such a residence would, however, be readily visible in the hediate foreground from the City-owned park site. 20. If allowed to construct their residence in the location they propose, the Hoehls have agreed to maintain the westerly portion of their property in its open and natural condition to preserve the view across the westerly portion of their property. cxMansIOHS The Interim Zoning Regulations for the protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District establish height limitations for structures and vegetation located in the District. At the location proposed by the Hoehls for the construction of their residence, the standard contained in the Interim Zoning Regulations prohibits construction above an elevation of 372 feet above mean sea level. Since the ridge line of the roof over all three sections of the proposed residence exceeds this elevation, the proposed construction fails to comply with the Interim Zoning Regulations. For this reason this Council must review and approve the proposed constructlon under the provisions of 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(d) and (e). 1. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(l) requires this Council to consider the effect of the proposed use on "the capacity of existing or planned conrmunity facilities, services or landsH. The proposed residence will connect to public sewer and water services, both of which are available and contain an adequate capacity. The proposed residence may also result in children being placed in the South Burlington school system which also has adequate capacity. Eased on this. the Council concludes that construction of the proposed residence will not have an adverse impact on the capacity of existing or planned connnunity facilities, services or lands. 2. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(2) requires this Council to consider the proposed use with respect to "the existing patterns and uses of development in the area". The proposed residence is a singlefamily structure and is located in a portion of the City developed with and zoned primarily for the construction of single-family residences. Based on this, this Council concludes that the proposed use is consistent with existing patterns and uses of development in the area. 3. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(3) requires this council to consider the proposed use with respect to "environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites". Because the proposed residence will be served by public water and sewer, this Council concludes that there are no environmental limitations on the site which preclude the development. However, this Council concludes that the proposed development will occur on lands which constitute a significant natural resource area because they offer spectacular panoramic views of the Lake Champlain Valley including Shelburne Bay, bke Champlain. and the Adirondadcs. The proposed residence will obstruct these views from Spear Street. If moved to the north, the proposed residence will not obstruct vieus from the Mty-omed Overlook Park. Further, if the residence is located on the easterly portion of the property as proposed, the westerly portion of the property can be maintained in its natural and open condition, thereby maintaining an attractive foreground for the views to the west from the park site. Because the modified siting of the Hoehls' residence protects views from the Overlook Park and because the Hoehls are willing to maintain the westerly portion of their property in a natural and open condition to further enhance the views from the Overlook Park, this Council concludes that the proposed development does not adversely impact this significant natural resource area. In reaching this conclusion this Council has been particularly persuaded by the unique and specific location of the Hoehl property and proposed structure in immediate proximity to the City's Overlook Park. 4. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(4) requires this Council to consider the proposed use with respect to "municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances or regulations in effect". The Comprehensive Plan for the City of South Burlington recommends that the City act to preserve public access to views of Lake Champlain and the Adironacks , with a strong emphasis on City acquisition of scenic turnouts. (Comprehensive Plan, dated 1985 - Aesthetics, History and Cultural Resources Chapter). While the proposed development does restrict views from Spear Street, it protects views frm the City-ovned Spear Street Overlook Park. Based on this, this Council concludes that the proposed development complies with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of South Burlington. Zoning regulations in effect for the subject property limit the maximum height of structures to 35 feet. Zoning Regulations Section 18.112(a). The structure initially proposed in this case (Plan A) exceeds 37 feet in height, measured from the elevation of the finiehed grade to the elevation of the ridge line of the roof. For this reason this plan fails to conform to the Zoning Regulations of the City of South Burlington and is rejected. The structure proposed by Plan B is within the 35 foot height limitation based on a measurement from the elevation of the finished grade to the ridge line of the roof and for this reason this Council approves construction in accordance vith Plan B. 5. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(d) requires this Council to detdne whether the proposed construction is consistent wlth the 'health, safety and welfare of the municipality and the standards contained in subsection el'. For the reasons set forth in conclusions 1 through O above, this Council has concluded that the proposed development is in conformance with the standards set forth in subsection e. The Council is not aware of, and has not received other information indicating any impacts other than those already discussed on matters of public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, this Council concludes that the proposed project can be constructed consistent with the health, safety and welfare of the City of South Burlington. ~SIOW 1. The request of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl pursuant to 24 V.S.A. Section 4410 to construct a single-family residence on Spear Street, dated April 12, 1988, is approved subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth below: a. The residence shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted to the City, dated March 28, 1988 and April 5, 1988 as modified by the plans submitted to the City, dated Hay 26. 1988. b. The proposed residence shall be relocated to the north on the subject property so that the building setback on the northerly side shall be reduced from 45' to 35'. c. The Eoehls shall deliver to the City, as offered, an appropriate open space restriction subjecting the westerly portion of the Hoehl property to a requirement that it be maintained in its existing natural and open state, this document, to be reviewed and approved by the City attorney. That portion of the Hoehl's property subject to this open space restriction shall be all lands lying west of a north-south line which line shall commence in the Hoehl's northerly boundary line at a point 200' west of the northeast corner of the property and proceed in a southerly direction to the point of intersection with the Hoehl's southerly boundary line at a point 150' west of the southeast corner of the property. d. This approval does not authorize any site work or landscaping which fails to comply with the "Interim Zoning Regulations for the Protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District" adopted by this Council on April 4, 1988. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont this 14th day of June , 1988. CHAIRMAN, SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL STATE OF VERMONT ) Paul A. Farrar CHITTENDEN COUNTY, ss.) At South Burlington in said county, this 14th day of June, 1988 personally appeared Paul A. Farrar and executed the above instrument and acknowledged same to be Before Commission Expires 2/11/91