Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/05/1992JOINT MEETING: CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 11/5/92 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Thursday, 5 November 1992 at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: William Burgess, Planning Commission Chairman; Mary-Barbara Maher, Catherine Peacock, William Craig, David Austin, Terry Sheahan Michael Flaherty, City Council Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden Also Present: Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Michael Sheridan, Channel 17; Charles Hafter, City Manager 1. Design Review Control Board: Mr. Burgess gave an overview of the topic. The Planning Commission feels it is desirable to establish such districts for two areas of the city: City Center and the I-Ag (I-O) District. The Commission didn't want to recommend another level of review, but if the Council agrees and wants such districts, the Commission would support it. The Commission was concerned also with reviewing the same development under two sets of criteria. With the guidance of the City Attorney, they decided to conduct both reviews simultaneously. There would be two separate votes, one as the Planning Commission, one as Design Review. Mr. Flaherty asked if the Commission considered having a separate board of experts for design review. Mr. Burgess said it did but did not want, on its own, to establish another board of review. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the Commission had a sense of what areas of easthetic design you would ask people to give an opinion on such as suitability of design, or would they set criteria based on their own opinions. Mr. Burgess felt it would be mostly the latter. Mr. Cimonetti felt there could be a team of people that represent various talents and skills who would act as a resource for the Commission. Mr. Craig felt there should be specific criteria. He felt that since this was an area which the Commission would be learning as it went along, they should do it themselves. Mr. Dinklage strongly supported the concept. He noted that by law only the Planning Commission can make the decisions. He was concerned with the work load for the Commission and the length of the approval process. He felt the Commission might want some professional help from architects, landscapers, contractors, etc. so that what is decided upon is something developers can work with. He noted that in order to establish such districts, there are very specific things that must be aired in hearings. Mr. Burgess asked the Commission how it felt about an advisory committee. Mr. Austin felt it was a good idea to have them help draft the specifics. After that, they might help on a consulting basis (such as the Natural Resources Committee does). He noted that the Commission sees great building design concepts, but there is nothing in the rules that says a builder has to build the concept he shows. Mr. Dinklage suggested a process whereby the City Council reviews any appeals of the Commission's decision. He said the decision would still belong to the Commission. Mrs. Maher said that would not be true. The Council appoints the Commission, and when the Council says it doesn't like something the Commission has done, it weighs very heavily on Commission members. Mr. Cimonetti said the applicant's only recourse outside of the judicial process is to talk with the people he elected. Mr. Condos said he was concerned about a neighbor who might not like a design that was approved. Would he also be able to appeal it? Mr. Sheahan noted the Council doesn't review a rejected application based on traffic or circulation standards. He asked if they would then want to do that as well as the "elected body." All members felt it was important that the proposed wording satisfy statute requirements. Mr. Weith will check on this with the City Attorney. He will also add more background information to the wording so people will know the goals and objectives and how they arose. Mr. Cimonetti asked what the impact of "bad design" would be in the I-Ag District from the point of view of expenditure of public funds. He felt the city had more right to establish criteria and make demands where it has more of a vested interest. He wanted to vote on the two proposed districts separately. Planning Commission members agreed and noted there would be different criteria for each district. Mr. Flaherty said his mind wasn't made up but he felt it would be a good idea to have experts help draft the ordinances. He felt review of rejected applications by the City Council was not a good thing. Mr. Cimonetti asked why the Commission wanted design review in the I-Ag district. Mr. Craig noted the nearness to residential developments. When lot sizes are reduced and regulations loosened, he said, there was fear the industrial area would get out of control and there would be a series of orange metal buildings that residents would have to look down on. He added there is no possibility of screening. Mrs. Maher also felt that visual impact from the highway was important as this is the entrance to the city from the Interstate. 2. Proposed City Center Street Layout: Mr. Burgess said the Commission has a City Center layout plan to work with, but there is a stream and a wetlands in the middle of it all. There is a question of relocating the stream and/or filling in the wetlands. He noted a developer would now have a problem complying with the layout plan. If the layout plan is important for the city to do, the city should make a statement so developers will design what the city wants, and if there is a problem relocating a watercourse, the city should say it wants that done. Mr. Dinklage felt this was true. He said it was a very troublesome situation. He said if everyone goes together with a proposal, there would be a better chance of getting an approval. He said a plan is needed that shows the moving of the stream and wetland. Mr. Hafter suggested a public informational hearing. Mr. Burgess agreed with this. 3. Discussion of issue of administrative due process: Mr. Burgess noted the Secretary of State recommends approval by a majority of the Planning Commission, not a majority of the quorum present. He also noted the Sec of State said people who testify before the Commission should be sworn in. Mr. Craig said there could be a blanket swearing in. Mr. Cimonetti suggested the possibility of an affidavit to be signed. Mr. Burgess noted the City Attorney suggests the adoption of some by-laws as to how the Commission operates. Mr. Craig noted the Commission will be keeping the tapes of its meetings from now on. Mr. Dinklage left the meeting at this point. 4. Roadway right-of-way condemnation: Mr. Weith said during development of the official map, there was discussion of a north/south road parallel to Shelburne Rd. to the west. This was adopted as part of the official city map. The Pomerleau people are now proposing a very large development behind Burger King. The Commission asked them to give an idea how their plan would connect to other properties. Mr. Weith then showed two possibilities suggested by Pomerleau. The question is how the city gets such a road to serve these areas. Mr. Craig said if Pomerleau builds, Martins and K-Mart will move to the Pomerleau development. The only way the old K-Mart area could revitalize would be to come before the Commission to fix up the property. He felt this would be a good chance to get the type of road the city wants and to eliminate that ill-defined parking lot. Mr. Cimonetti felt it was better to go to an undeveloped property for the road. Mrs. Maher noted that Ernie Pomerleau says this is not possible. Mr. Condos said he wasn't sure the city could prove necessity for condemnation proceedings. Further thought will be given on this. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.