Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/12/1993CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 12 APRIL 1993 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting with the Planning Commission on Monday, 12 April 1993, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: City Council: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden Planning Commission: William Burgess, Chairman; Mary-Barbara Maher, Terrence Sheahan, William Craig, Catherine Peacock, Mac Teeson Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Bill Schroeder, Fred Hackett, Frank Pichon, Arthur Boyd, Vince Bolduc, Laura DeMaroney, Dave Maclaughlin, Lou Kleh, Thomas Kleh, Bill Gormley 1. Discussion of the Southeast Quadrant District: a. Density/Lot Size b. Sewer and Water Service c. School Impact Fee d. Spear Street/Swift Street Intersection e. Other Issues Mr. Weith began the session by showing how maximum density is calculated. There are two steps to the process: first, the number of units a parcel can generate is calculated; then, the number of units that can actually go on the parcel is calculated. He showed examples of both types of calculations. Mr. Dinklage asked if units can be placed so that in reality there are physically more than 4 per acre. Mr. Weith said yes, but the average can't exceed 4 per acre. Mr. Condos asked whether the Commission or Zoning Board can waive the restricted area and allow building in it. Mr. Weith said this can be done but only as part of a planned residential development (p.r.d.) as long as it can be shown that the goals of the district are still being complied with. Mr. Condos asked whether that can increase the allowable number of units. Mr. Weith said it can. Mr. Cimonetti said the Ordinance started in a different fashion, with an attempt to define a maximum buildout and then construct the ordinance around that number. He said the question now is whether the city is working in that direction, toward a maximum buildout. Mr. Burgess said they are at or under that number. Mr. Schroeder, representing Fred Hackett, said there is also a minimum lot size in question. He noted you can now get quarter acre lots where it used to be zoned R- 1 and R-2. The effect is to put a burden on the neighborhood to show why the development shouldn't go there. Mr. Burgess agreed. He stressed that there used to be several zones in the Southeast Quadrant, but the City Council didn't want to continue that concept, so now there is only one zone. Mr. Condos noted that in calculating the number of units that would have been allowed under previous zoning and what can be allowed under the current Ordinance, you can actually get 36 fewer units under the current regulations. Mr. Hackett noted that he lives near, not adjacent to the proposed development. His concern is for the precedent as the new Ordinance begins to be implemented. He said he had no objection to aesthetic clustering. Now, he said, existing homes, which are relatively large with a lot of open space will have the smallest possible lots right next to them. He said the problem is the combination of lot size and density. Mr. Burgess then addressed building in restricted areas. He noted that in designating restricted areas, the information that was on hand at the time was sketchy at best. Developers have been told that if they can prove that what is designated as a wetland isn't a wetland (via a statement from a wetlands expert from the state), the Commission will honor this. Mr. Flaherty asked how the feeling of openness was to be preserved. Mr. Burgess said view corridors were protected as were wetlands and areas along the major north-south corridors, and wildlife habitats. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Hackett how much of a buffer he felt would be enough. Mr. Hackett said nothing smaller than 1 acre lots near the Spear Street lots, then 1/2 acre and 1/4 acre behind that. He noted the costs of development push developers to get the maximum density rather than to consider the best use of the land. But, he asked, is that what is best for the city and does it do justice to abutting neighborhoods? Mr. Bolduc noted the plan says that the city should respect the zoning of neighboring communities. But this isn't happening either. He noted the proposed Dorset St. development is 5 per acre and the adjacent Shelburne zoning is 1 per 5 acres. Mr. Craig emphasized that the Planning Commission had originally suggested decreasing densities toward the southern end of the city, but the City Council had rejected this concept. Mr. Boyd drew attention to a petition from 49 residents of the Spear St. area who are bothered by the size and density of the proposed lots. He added that he thought the development would block views from Spear St. Mr. Burgess replied that the Commission did not try to protect every view in the city. He explained how they toured the city and made note of all the views and then came up with a selection of those views which they felt they could rationally protect. Mr. Schroeder noted that respect for adjacent properties is addressed in the Act 250 process and felt it should be addressed at the local approval as well. Mr. Pichon, who is not an adjacent neighbor, said he didn't believe you can write a law that will be all-encompassing, but he felt there could be a lower density and more open space with the Ordinance as it is written. Ms. Demaroney said she felt the interest of the community should be the determining factor. Mr. Teeson said he felt the Commission made the only decision it could make. Aesthetics, he said, is a personal decision. A defined buffer is something you can deal with, but individual taste isn't. Mr. Bolduc noted that about 10 years ago, when Act 250 had been around for 20 years, the Regional Planning Commission said it was having a problem with aesthetics. There was a grant received to explore the aesthetic question. A number of criteria were adopted, so the decision didn't have to be so subjective. Mrs. Maher replied that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. She said the development may not be perfect, but to her the aesthetics were pleasing. She noted the Commission had asked for many things from the developer and she felt it would be a nice neighborhood and wouldn't adversely affect anyone. There will be tree- lined streets, expensive, well-built homes. Mr. Burgess said he didn't think he was hearing anything new tonight as most of the suggestions have dealt with applying the planning document. Mr. Condos said he felt this Ordinance was better than the old one, but he noted the Council had said it would fine tune it. Mr. Dinklage said he felt the Commission is doing an excellent job with what it has, but he would like to help the Commission strengthen its arguments in order to invoke aesthetic issues. He suggested specific aesthetic criteria that can be published so a developer will know what the measurement will be. Mrs. Maher said it may be necessary to do some re-zoning to accomplish this. Regarding infrastructure issues, Mr. Cimonetti said defining infrastructure needs is the responsibility of the City Council. He felt that sewer and water concerns in the Southeast Quadrant shouldn't be decided by developers, by the City Engineer independently, or by city staff. He said the Council should have been addressing these concerns by establishing city policy. He felt the same is true with schools. He noted there is a statement that the two proposed developments will have an adverse impact on the schools, and the city has to deal with this. He felt the Council has to make some decisions on infrastructure, and until it does he didn't think the Planning Commission can go through on developments that have infrastructure. Mr. Craig emphasized that the Commission can't sit around and not approve an application because it has an infrastructure issue. If a plan isn't acted upon within a certain time period, it is automatically approved. Regarding traffic concerns, Ted Boyd said the city might want to consider roundabouts instead of intersections. Mr. Cimonetti said he was concerned that all answers on traffic questions come from the developers' traffic consultants, not from people in the employ of the city. Mr. Weith noted that developers' traffic studies are reviewed by Regional Planning people. He also said the Commission would be eager to have the city provide traffic studies for development reviews if the funds are available for this. As there was no further business to come before the joint bodies, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.