Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/31/1994CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING 31 JANUARY 1994 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Monday, 31 January 1994, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: City Council: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden Planning Commission: William Burgess, Chairman; Mary-Barbara Maher, Catherine Peacock, David Austin, Terrence Sheahan, William Craig, Mac Teeson Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Peg Strait, Assistant City Manager; Sonny Audette, Street Dept; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Michael Sheridan, Channel 17; Littleton Long, Donald & Margaret Miner, Stephen Crowley, Burton Wilcke, Rose Modara, Matt Sutkoski, C. Mann, Susan Renaud, Lynn Powers, Martha Perkins, Catherine Dimitruk, Dena Letarneau, Thomas Bissonette, Alice Beisiegel, Lorraine Berkett, Marguerite Paulsen, David Heleba, Faith Donoghue, Shirley Adams, Kristina Bielenberg, Kurt Cotanch, Stanley Youngblood, Terry Boyle, Gary Barnes, Judith Behnke, Stephanie Hawthorne, David & Sue Miller, Linda Seavey, Ray Lavigne, Larry Forcier, Charles Scott, David Maclaughlin 1. Zoning Regulations Update: a. Institutional & Agricultural proposed District (rezoning UVM lands along Spear Street corridor): Mr. Weith outlined the district on the map and explained the conditional use process. Conditional uses would include educational facilities, educational support facilities, research & testing, and public utility substations. Minimum lot size would be 10 acres with maximum building coverage of 10% and maximum lot coverage of 20%. A 100 ft. wide buffer strip would be required. Mr. Crowley said the Natural Resources Committee wanted to insure that a corridor is maintained for wildlife and recommended passing this section of the Ordinance without changes. This view was also expressed by Gary Barnes. Kurt Cotanch asked why there would be restrictions on these parcels and not on others. Mr. Burgess explained that the Southeast Quadrant has always been viewed as a separate entity but that these parcels were never part of the Southeast Quadrant zoning. They are also under the same ownership. The Planning Commission tried to address their uniqueness. Mr. Craig added that there are, in fact, other parcels in the Quadrant under view protection, and that some of these are more restrictive. Mr. Cimonetti noted there had been recent interest in what the horticultural farm might become when it is no longer used by UVM for its present use. There has, he added, been some talk of turning it into a local or state facility. He suggested the Planning Commission have a discussion with the University people as to their plans. Mrs. Maher said that University people had spoken with the Planning Commission but that they were very evasive about their plans. Both Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Condos felt this was very rational zoning for this property and could support it. Mr. Chittenden said he wanted to know more. Mr. Cimonetti said he didn't feel there was any chance of creating a 2000% bonus (under present zoning). Mr. Burgess said that wasn't the issue. The present zoning is illegal and there must be provision for it to be changed. Ms. Dimitruk urged support of the proposed zoning feeling it was very well thought out. She expressed concern for traffic in the area and said she didn't want to see another 600 homes built there. Ms. Adams noted that two of the parcels in question are connected to city-owned land and also that there are waterways, wetlands and ponds which add to the natural area. She urged passage of the proposed zoning, and indicated that it represents the Comprehensive Plan's goal of preserving suitable wildlife habitat. She also noted that the hort farm has been designated as an area that deserves special preservation. Mr. Lavigne of UVM said the University just finished its long-range plan and the individual colleges are now doing their plans to coincide with the University's. He said it will be a much different university from today. In the Agriculture College, the emphasis will be in new areas (e.g., sustainable agriculture). He said the College needs to perfect plans and involve others in the planning. Mrs. Maher asked if the University is considering selling some of that land to buy other land for agriculture purposes. Mr. Lavigne said he didn't know the answer but acknowledged that this was possible though he knew of no such plans at present. b) Conservation & Open Space District: Mr. Weith said there had been major revisions to this section. Wetlands have been added as a resource to be protected by the CO District. Major and Minor streams have also been better defined. Encroachment into protected zones can be allowed under certain circumstances (such as to rectify a natural disaster). There would also be circumstances under which a watercourse could be altered. Mr. Boyle asked if these regulations conform with state setbacks. Mr. Weith said the setbacks are 50 ft. which is the state requirement for Class 1. The proposed ordinance would make it the requirement for all classes. The City Council generally felt this was going in the right direction. c) Southeast Quadrant: Mr. Cimonetti asked if the Zoning Ordinance had inadvertently created a situation where it is an advantage to having developable land adjacent to undevelopable land. Mr. Burgess said the answer was ultimately yes, but that this was not inadvertent. He said the Ordinance made much more land undevelopable, so the Commission was very careful to allow those undevelopable areas to be included in density calculations. Mr. Cimonetti said he was concerned about increasing density near fragile lands. Mr. Craig said he didn't feel density was the way to preserve fragile lands; rather, he felt setbacks and buffers should accomplish this. Mr. Teeson added that the entire density of an area is not being put right next to the fragile area. Density is spread over the entire developable parcel. Mr. Scott asked for the Ordinance not to be changed. He said that the benefit is that 50% of the land is left open and that view corridors and wetlands are being protected. He also felt that buffers and setbacks can protect natural areas. He said this was preferable to a general sprawl. Mr. Dinklage supported the change from 1.1 to 1.2 density and doing away with bonuses. Mr. Flaherty agreed. He said he was comfortable with 4/acre zoning. Mrs. Maher said the purpose of 4/acre zoning is to create neighborhoods and that there is nothing inherently wrong with 1/4 acre zoning if it is done well. d) Proposed Bartlett Brook Watershed Protection Overlay District: Mr. Weith outlined the District. No issues were raised. e) Traffic overlay District: Mr. Weith identified the overlay districts. He said the Commission is concentrating on Zone 1. The peak hour would be changed to the peak hour of the adjacent roadway instead of the generator. Overlay Zone 6 would be eliminated (City Center) as it would preclude City center development. Mr. Weith said the Commission felt the medians would prevent a lot of the dangerous turns. Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Condos both indicate support for this section. 2. Discuss proposal by Peter Judge to develop several buildings behind the 100 Dorset Street and Ramada Inn properties. The proposed development conflicts with a proposed city street serving the City Center as shown on the city's official map: Mr. Weith showed the location of the proposed development and the city's designated streets. Mr. Judge then said they are going to exchange a parcel of land (the Arby's piece) for a piece of land in the rear and then build on that piece. He noted that the start of the proposed street requires a strip of land 140 ft. wide (because of setbacks) until it gets to the City Center District which allows development up to the street edge. This would create setback problems for existing buildings, making them non-conforming. Mr. Craig noted that the plan would eliminate a segment of road between Dorset St. and Mary Street. Mr. Dinklage suggesting extending the City Center zone to include the land in question up to the Ramada boundary. Mr. Judge said he wasn't sure you could have City Center zoning on one side of the street and C-1 on the other. Mr. Dinklage said the City Center zone has to end somewhere and suggested that people parking in the Ramada lot could see the storefronts and patronize the facilities. Mrs. Maher noted that City center zoning is so intense and will generate so much traffic that the Commission felt it had to limit it at some point. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to maintain the street structure and would prefer to do it without having to go to a condemnation process. Mr. Burgess said he supported that concept and would not want to see all the land rezoned. Mr. Condos suggested moving the City Center district to the edge of the proposed street. Mr. Dinklage felt that was a good idea. Mr. Miner of the Recreation Path Committee noted they have applied for a grant to go from Lime Kiln Bridge to the City Center and asked the Council and Commission to keep that in mind. 3) Discuss Section 19.151 (n) of Zoning Regulations which requires PUD's to conform with the City's Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Cimonetti said there is a question of whether the Comprehensive Plan should be referenced in more city ordinances than at present. He suggested that in all Planning Commission hearing there should be a statement of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dinklage said he saw no issue here and felt nothing needs to be done than is different from what is presently done. Mr. Condos said he felt this is done though not necessarily as formally as Mr. Cimonetti suggests. 4) Discuss and Set Date for Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to present proposed Williston Rd. Access Management Plan alternatives: Mr. Hafter said Williston Rd. is being proposed as a 5 lane road with one center turning lane. The only way this will work is with an aggressive access management plan. Mr. Condos echoed this sentiment. Members agreed to meet on Monday, 14 March. 5. Discuss status of impact fee study and set schedule for review: Mr. Hafter said the School Board has recommended adoption of school impact fees. The city also has the Munson proposal and needs to proceed. Members agreed to work this discussion into a regular meeting. As there was no further business to come before the bodies, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.