Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/04/1995CITY COUNCIL 4 DECEMBER 1995 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 4 December 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, Michael Flaherty, Robert Chittenden, David Maclaughlin Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Wallace Possich, Fire Dept; William Burgess, Planning Commission; Dean Zoecklein, Dean Economou, Joan Britt, Randall Kay, Art Shields, Dave Marshall, Dale Azaria, Mark Bergeron, Stephen Incavo, Paul Heald, Sue Palmer, Lani Ravin, Rosalind Saunders, Jimmy Leas 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda Items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter reported on the following: a. The new skating facility will have its grand opening on 30 December at noon. b. The Northwest Regional Corrections Facility Liaison Committee will meet on Thursday. c. The Commuter Rail Advisory Committee will meet this week. Mr. Weith will be attending for the City. d. The Light Rail Steering Committee will meet on Thursday, 12/14. e. Mr. Cimonetti has been interested in discussion guidelines for parking structures and has been working with the City Planner on this. Mr. Weith said he has contacted a number of municipalities in New England to see their procedures. He said he is also trying to get hold of design manuals and should have information to present in a few weeks. Mr. Cimonetti noted there are security problems with parking structures, and perhaps some information can be gotten from fire and police people as well. Mr. Weith noted that because the city has no building codes, things like fire and police protection are not usually looked at. Mr. Weith added that the Barnes & Noble approval includes two levels of parking. 3. Interviews with Applicants for Appointments to Zoning Board of Adjustment and Social Responsibility committee: The Council interviewed Joan Britt and Lani Ravin for the Zoning Board opening. Ms. Ravin is a new resident in S. Burlington who was an urban planner/architect in Israel. She has seen development from the consultant's point of view and has seen issues similar to what is going on in S. Burlington. She has dealt with issues around development and how to promote economic growth and still avoid the bad things that go with it. She felt S. Burlington is in a delicate position. Ms. Britt has a background in commercial real estate investing and has worked for a mortgage banker. She also recognizes the delicate balance between commercial and residential development and would like to maintain that balance. Neither applicant had attended a S. Burlington Zoning Board meeting. Ms. Britt felt the Board should be objective and consistent with variances. Ms. Ravin felt there has to be flexibility. Mr. Condos noted that what happens with a particular site may have long term results for the city, even though it may seem to be right for the applicant at the present time. He asked how the applicants would handle this. Both felt they would have to go with the city's plan. Mr. Maclaughlin noted that in recent years this is a turnover on the Board and asked if the applicants planned to serve full term. Both said they did. The Council then interviewed Ros Saunders for appointment to the Social Responsibility Committee. Ms. Saunders has lived in the city for 6 years and is very committed to it. She is director of Allocations for United Way. She has enjoyed being part of the Social Responsibility Committee in the past. Mr. Maclaughlin noted the need for a Family Center and also noted the new Pines Senior Center. He asked how funding for such ventures might be gotten. Ms. Saunders said she has worked with Cindy Zook on the Senior Center concept and also attended a meeting of the Family Center group. She felt there could be some funding for on-going activities in the budget. She felt it was important to keep funding programs and also felt the groups need someone to help them plan and look for funds (e.g., grants, United Way, etc.). Mr. Chittenden said he felt Ms. Saunders would be a continued asset to the Committee. Mr. Condos asked if Ms. Saunders had any ideas on how the Committee should function. Ms. Saunders said she had been talking with the City Manager about working with United Way and having them do the allocations process using S. Burlington people. She also would like to see the Committee do more than funding, particularly in the area of awareness of needs and community programs. 4. First of Two Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the 1991 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations Affecting 550 Acres of Land Located Both East and West of Dorset St, South of Swift St, and North of Old Cross Rd: Mr. Weith reviewed the history of the proposed amendments noting that the Council had asked the Planning Commission to look into what changes would be necessary to accommodate some kind of golf course/residential development. Mr. Weith said there are 4 areas where amending plans would be needed: boundaries of designated development/restricted areas; parkland; future school site; future roadway location. a. Restricted/development areas: Mr. Weith showed maps of the current developable/open space areas. The main reason to look at this issue was that the original plan proposed housing in restricted areas, mainly on the ridge area east of Dorset St. (the future park and school sites). Houses were also proposed in other restricted areas with setbacks and near wetlands. When the Commission discussed the issue, they felt they shouldn't view the situation based on a development plan but from objective criteria. They were also concerned about spot zoning and didn't want to zone for a golf course and then not have it happen, leaving the city with the new zoning. The Commission also felt the city erred when it made the ridge a restricted area because of the park and school future designations. An area should be designated as restricted only if it fits certain criteria. Mr. Weith then reviewed the criteria used to designate developable/non-developable areas. These include: preserving natural features (e.g., wetlands), preserving scenic views, providing significant setbacks to maintain an open feeling, allowing development to encroach into wooded areas to hide units, protecting wildlife habitat, and clustering to keep some farmland open. Two changes have been proposed to development/restricted areas: a. the ridge east of Dorset St. has been designated as a development area, except for one area with drainageways. b. The Swift/Dorset St. area: larger setbacks have been recommended to provide a scenic gateway to the Southeast Quadrant. The proposed new division is along a hedgerow to keep the open fields in front. 2. Parkland: Mr. Weith showed currently owned and proposed additional park lands. The Planning Commission decided to leave the recommendation in the plan but to add some language to add flexibility for use of recreational lands. This would allow the Commission to consider other types of recreation land with the approval of the City. It would also redraw some of the recreation path routes to comply with plans of the Recreation Path Committee. 3. School Site: The plan now recommends acquisition of 14 acres for a site on the ridge. Based on the recommendation of the School Board, this will be left in the plan but language will be added to allow the city to consider an alternate site if it is comparable to this site. 4. Roads: A planned collector road from Holmes Rd. Extension to Dorset would be deleted. A north/south collector road on the east side of Dorset St. would be redesignated as a local road. This would require less right-of-way and have different design standards. The Zoning map would be changed to match the Southeast Quadrant goals-based plan changes. In Section 6.50 (uses in restricted areas), structures and paved parking would be allowed in restricted recreation areas. Municipal facilities would also be allowed in restricted areas. Mr. Cimonetti noted there had never been a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consult with the City Council or School Board and asked how this would work. Mr. Weith said the intent is that if such a proposal is made before the Planning Commission grants approval, it would meet with the Council to see if what is proposed meets with the Master Plan. Mr. Cimonetti felt there should be a good statement of the intent. Members considered the setbacks and questions why they are so deep on one side and not on the other. Mr. Weith felt that the original setbacks were designed to be fair to land owners. He noted that the Commission had originally pushed them back even farther. Mr. Hafter suggested possibly more flexibility in park acquisition language. He also asked how the amendments deal with view protection zones. Mr. Weith said there are no proposed changes. If a development plan doesn't comply, but the developer can show why it is OK to shift the line, the could go through an amendment process. Mr. Cimonetti felt it was quite likely to have planning and zoning changes proposed for a tract of land this size and that it was not a case of spot zoning. The Chair then opened the discussion for public comment. Mr. Zoecklein said they understand the city's point of view on the park language. He said they have been looking at a lot of detail on the land and there are some buildable areas they won't build on for various reasons. He said they have a problem with the Swift/Dorset area. With regard to view protection, Mr. Zoecklein said the view corridor was made with limited information which can now be updated. He noted that about half of the proposed school couldn't be built today because of view protection zones. Mr. Zoecklein said he would like to see more flexibility in the planning process to allow an applicant the right to prove that what they propose is equal to or better than what is there now. Mr. Weith said the City Attorney has said this can't be done as part of the development process because view protection is a very precise thing and other properties may be involved. There has to be an amendment process so everyone is kept informed. Randall Kay said he wasn't clear how extension of the setback on Swift Estates follows criteria. He also thanked Messrs. Zoecklein, Economou, Condos, Weith, and the Planning Commission for the tour of the site. Mr. Leas noted that many concerns raised by Butler Farms had been resolved but the issue of open space behind Butler Farms is still open. He noted the proposal would make more of that land developable. He also noted that in one plan the developer had suggested that there would be no development on that land and there could be covenants to assure that. He asked when those covenants could be in place. Mr. Cimonetti said that is a very difficult area as such covenants become unenforceable. Mr. Cimonetti then reviewed the process for amendment. He noted that minor changes could be enacted without having to go back to the Planning Commission but significant changes would require a 15 day warning. Mr. Flaherty moved to eliminate the word "concurrence" from the last sentence and replace it with "advice." Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members felt this was not a major change. Mr. Cimonetti suggested having the City Planner reword the "acquiring" language to conform to the city's intent. Mr. Chittenden moved to amend the setbacks on Swift Street south from 800 ft. to 250 ft. and west of Dorset St. from 500-600 feet to 250 feet, as far as the water tower. Mr. Condos seconded. Mr. Cimonetti noted this would be a major change and would require Planning Commission input. Mr. Weith said he didn't think it was a major change as they were just leaving what is there at this time. The motion passed 3-2 with Messrs. Maclaughlin and Flaherty opposing. Mr. Leas suggested carving out a buffer zone along Butler Farms. Mr. Cimonetti said that sounded to him like a taking of land. Mr. Condos noted the Planning Commission will have site plan review and will get input from all concerned. Mr. Audette said he has a problem with the road in the park. He said the original plan was not to have a road through the passive park area. Mr. Weith said the road serves the park and gives access to several park areas. Mr. Audette said it also brings in outside traffic which was never intended to happen. Mr. Chittenden left the meeting at this time. Mr. Condos moved to close the public hearing and set the second public hearing for 8 January. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consideration of Recommendation on Purchase of Fire Apparatus: Chief Possich said they had received 4 bids. They have met with the E-1 representatives and have taken advantage of some pre-purchase discounts reducing the price to $399,916. A performance bond will be needed for 1005 of the amount. Prices are based on today's prices and would go up if a contract is not signed in 2 weeks. There is a 210 days delivery clause though delivery is expected in 180 days. Mr. Flaherty moved to authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase agreement in the amount of $399,916 for two new pumpers. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of Approval for Capital Equipment Funding Note for "Plow and Dump Body" and Resolution of Capital Equipment Borrowing: Mr. Hafter said the amount borrowed is $16,000. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the note and resolution as submitted. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Review Planning Commission Agenda for 5 December: No issues were raised. 8. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 10. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. a. Consider approval of a First Class Liquor License for the Redwood Cafe, Inc, 1016 Shelburne Rd: Mr. Hafter said the new owner is Mark Bergeron, Jr. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the First Class Liquor License for the Redwood Cafe, Inc, as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session: Mr. Condos moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to discuss litigation and appointments to Boards and Committees and to resume regular session only to make such appointments and/or adjourn. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL CLERK Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.