Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/03/2003CITY COUNCIL 3 FEBRUARY 2003 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 February 2003, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, T. Sheahan, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; J. B. Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning; H. Sexton, Planning Consultant; B. Burgess, M. Beaudin, R. Kay, L. Fife, Planning Commission; Rep. A. Audette; L. BreseeJ. Jaeger, S. Fortier, R. Deslauriers, A. Jestes; R. Farley, The Other Paper 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda Items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements and City Manager's Report: Mr. Smith: At the most recent Regional Technical Academy meeting, participants discussed how to proceed with setting up the facility. Mr. Sheahan: Commended the Street Department and Bruce Hoar for the work they've done in keeping city streets and roads clear, especially the rec path. Mr. Condos: Will attend the Regional Planning Housing Subcommittee meeting next Monday, 4 p.m., and following that the MPO Regional Planning Commission consolidation meeting. Mr. Hafter: The Police Department will hold its 50th anniversary dinner on 3 March. Members agreed to decide later on whether to postpone the City Council meeting scheduled for that night. [This meeting was later set for 4:00 p.m. on March 3, 2003] Budget meetings will be held on 20 February and 6 March, 7 p.m. The Fire Department has received a grant of $100,000 for which they will get rescue and fitness equipment. VLCT's Local Government Day will be 12 February. The Rec Path Committee is planning an event 21 June to honor the memory of George Sporzynski. Activities will include a bike ride to a bridge which will be dedicated to George. There will also be a bench on the path dedicated to George. 3. Interview with applicant for appointment to the Planning Commission: The Council interviewed Amy Jestes. Ms. Jestes said she has been a city resident for 18 years and is involved with transportation planning with the Vermont Agency of Transportation. She has a degree in environmental studies and has done graduate work in municipal planning. She did not see any conflicts of interest involving her work. Ms. Jestes felt the City Center was an excellent idea. She also favored the preservation of open space and noted she has had a focus on agricultural land preservation. Ms. Jestes also felt her work with the VAOT could benefit the city as she is learning a lot about transportation, infrastructure, etc. Mr. Condos explained the selection process. 4. Consideration of condemnation proceedings for parcel of land adjacent to the Midas building on Midas Drive; consideration of approval of notice of public hearing: Mr. Sheahan stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of issue. He noted the parcel has two buildings on it, the Midas building and an office building. The owner wants to break off the office building parcel and sell it as a separate lot. In order to do this, he wants to swap a right-of-way on his parcel for another. The Council believes the swap would benefit the city as it would provide a better access to the City Center. The owner refinanced the building. He then learned that the city could not create 2 separate parcels because the office building would become non- conforming. However, if the lot is created by condemnation, non-conformity does not happen. The owner would accept the city's 60 foot right-of-way as compensation for the condemnation and would pay all legal fees. A site visit is required and would be held on 17 March prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Magowan said his only concern is that the city get a strict hold-harmless from the owner. Mr. O'Rourke felt they should get a release as well. Mr. Smith said he is bothered by the process and felt it was awkward. Ms. Hoover said condemnation makes this a clean sub-division. The proposed zoning ordinance would allow the DRB to deal with the setback issues, but the existing ordinance does not. There would be a considerable wait for the new ordinance to take effect. She stressed that the change of right-of-ways would substantially improve the alignment for access to the City Center. She also noted that this whole problem came about because of an ill-advised variance issued by the city. Mr. Magowan moved to schedule a public hearing on 17 March. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimsouly. Mr. Sheahan rejoined the Council. 5. Presentation of updated land-use regulations; schedule for review: Mr. Condos explained that the Council was getting its first look at the proposed regulations. He stressed that this was not a public hearing and that there would be 2 public hearings in the future. The first reading will take place on 17 Feburary. Public hearings are scheduled for 17 March and 7 April. Ms. Hoover introduced Harlan Sexton who served as consultant for the updating of the regulations. She noted that the last full comprehensive update occurred in 1994. The revisions process was financed by a Municipal Planning Grant and from Bianchi funds. There were 8 well attended public forums and 10 extra Planning Commission meetings. Ms. Hoover praised the dedication of the Commission to this process. Ms. Hoover also noted that she and Ms. Sexton spent time with land owners, the public, the Natural Resources Committee, the Development Review Board, special interest groups, etc. Ms. Sexton said she was hired not only for the update but to create a unified land development ordinance. The new document puts site plan and subdivision regulations together for the first time. There is also a new process for Master Plan Review. The new code is better organized, cross- referenced, and has a clear Table of Contents. Ms. Hoover then reviewed the key recommendations which include: a) an increase in maximum housing densities in the core area and increased housing opportunities overall b) protection of the integrity of residential neighborhoods c) the maximizing of development potential d) insuring sufficient land area for job-generating uses e) improvement of natural resources protection Staff objectives in the rewrite included: a) improved landscape standards b) roadway standards and design c) flexibility for improved design d) better definitions e) consolidation and organization of regulations f) greater use of administrative review (for minor reviews) Mr. Burgess said what did not change was: a) base density and mapping in the Southeast Quadrant b) development review standards for the SEQ c) substantive elements of the Central District The Commission will come back to the Council with recommendations for the Southeast Quadrant. Ms. Hoover then reviewed the substantive changes: a) There will be more liberal allowances on half-acre+ lots in R-1, R-2, SEQ for "mother-in-law" type apartments. These will be limited in floor space to the greater of 600 sq. ft. or 30% of the original structure. This will still be a conditional use, but the relationship, age and disability requirements have been eliminated. b) No new gas stations would be allowed within 1000 linear feet of an existing gas station (in districts where gas stations are allowed). Ms. Hoover noted this has been used nationwide and is defensible. This would not create a non-complying situation with any existing station. c) Sheds under 100 sq. ft. would require a zoning permit and must be 5 ft. from the property lines. d) Structures in certain districts would be allowed to go up to 45 ft. in height with additional setbacks; there can be approval for more than 45 ft. if the structure is part of a PUD or if there is a Master Plan. Mr. Beaudin said the main reason for this is to prevent sprawl. It would also increase the potential for mass transit in the future. Ms. Hoover said a critical focus of the rewrite was to increase housing opportunities. There will be a new R-12 district. There will also be commercial districts with allowable housing on Allen Road (R-12), Swift Street (R-7), C1-LR (R-12), C2 (R-7), and IC (R-7). There is also a proposal for an affordable housing density bonus. In order to protect residential neighborhoods, a number of actions were taken: a) conditional use standards were revised b) no increase was proposed in R-4 district densities c) land behind the East Terrace neighborhood was downzoned from C-1 d) buffer standards were improved e) Queen City Park and lakeshore homes are now conforming uses. In order to encourage infill development: a) there would be no minimum size for a PUD b) there would be no frontage requirement c) there would be generous dimensional waivers and height provisions Mr. Condos said he didn't see any incentive to combine lots for better PUD's. Ms. Hoover felt that lot coverage would take care of that as more room is needed for parking. Mr. Condos was also concerned it would not bring non-conforming uses closer to conformity. The aspects of the zoning update the address economic development include: a) eliminating the requirement for average lot size in the I-Open Space District; a minimum of 3 acres is now required b) creation of new neighborhood scale commercial districts (R-7 NC, C-1 LR, SW and AR; these would allow limited retail uses c) new Airport related district: C1-Air d) shifting of many uses from conditional to permitted e) revision of parking, site plan, site layout and PUD standards f) creation of an "umbrella" permit. Aspects of the revision that address natural resource protection include: a) replacing of the CO District with surface water protection standards for streams (buffers) and wetlands (hydrology, plantings, and buffers) b) incorporation of Bartlett Brook overlay and Potash Tributary 3 study into development review c) requirement for snow storage areas on site plans d) prohibition of new structures, lawns and most snow storage within stream buffers e) updating of construction and erosion control standards Projects in the City Center and Southeast Quadrant would require Master Plan Review. This review locks in on: a) collector roadway layout b) off-street parking requirements c) sewer capacity d) total trip ends e) total number of units or floor area ratio f) total impervious coverage g) permanent open space areas If any of the above limits are exceeded, the project would go back to sketch plan. Within the limits, an applicant would need only a final plat amendment. Improved Site Plan Review standards include: a) a 2-step instead of 1-step review process b) more specific standards c) more latitude for administrative amendments, field changes d) clarified conditional use review e) new landscape standards f) requirement for a professionally prepared landscape plan Ms. Sexton then reviewed the "technical fix" highlights: a) all important terms defined b) conformance with Chapter 117 c) removal of "imbedded" regulations d) removal of uses that are not allowed e) modernization and simplification of terms f) organization of regulations g) creation of a format that enables amendment Administrative review would be allowed for: a) minor alterations b) no changes for a permit that expired within the previous 6 months c) proposed increase in building are is no more than 5000 sq. ft. or 3% of site coverage There would have to be City Council action to allow private roadways for projects that exceed the standards. Council approval would be required before preliminary plat. Members expressed concern with private roadways, noting that in the past residents have felt they were entitled to city services on roads not built to city standards. Ms. Hoover then reviewed proposed specific rezoning recommendations: a) Shamrock Road: from R-4 to Airport b) Patchen Rd. east of I-89: from R-4 to C-2 c) Williston Rd: C-1 to C-1-R-12 and C-1 Airport d) Mary Street: R-4 to CD-2 e) Kimball Avenue/Old Farm Road: C-2 and R-7 to C-1 LR (R12) f) O'Brien Farm: R-1 and R-7 to R-1PRD (R-4) and R-12 g) Tilley Farm: Mixed IC to I-O h) Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. Intersection: R-7 to R-7-NC i) East Terrace: C-1, R-4, R-7 to R-7 and R-12 (also extends C-1 at the top of Staples Plaza to the Interstate) j) Shelburne Road: C-1 to C-1-R15 k) Swift Street: C-2 and R-4 to Swift (R-7) l) R-1-PRD (Farrell Estate) to R-1 Lakeshore (R-7) m) Allen Road: C-2 to Allen (R12) n) LN, QCP; rezoned to reflect replacement of CO District The I-Ag District (UVM property) would be divided into I-Ag North and I-Ag South with clarification of uses in each. Multi family dwellings would not be allowed on university properties (dormitories are allowed). Ms. Hoover said the revised ordinance would be on the web site by the end of the week. She also noted that as soon as the ordinance is warned for public hearing, applicants can apply under the new regulations at their own risk. Members agreed to start the 17 February meeting at 6:30 p.m. to allow for full review of the ordinance. 6. Request from Town of Underhill for residents to use Environmental Depot: Members agreed not to consider the request. 7. Acceptance of resignation of Mr. Bernie Gagnon from Design Review Committee and Jim Cameron from Development Review Board: Mr. Magown moved to accept the resignations of Bernie Gagnon and Jim Cameron and to ask the City Manager to sent a letter of thanks for their service. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Development Review Board agenda for meeting of 4 February 2003: No issues were raised. 9. Review Minutes of 20 January 2003: Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the Minutes of 20 January as written. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session: Mr. Magowan moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss appointments and to resume regular session only for the purpose of making such appointments and/or adjourning. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Smith moved the appointment of Tim Duff to a three-year term on the Planning Commission (ending in June 2005) and the appointment of Amy Jestes to a four-year term on the Planning Commission (ending in June 2006). Mr. Magowan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sheahan moved adjournment. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. The motion passes unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.