Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/17/2003CITY COUNCIL 17 FEBRUARY 2003 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 February 2003, at 6:30 p.m., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; J. B. Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Dooley, J. Jewett, D. McBee, D. Worth, S. Hall, J. Collins, J. Jaeger, R. Deslauriers, E. Farrell 1. Comments & questions from the audience not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements and City Manager's report: Mr. Smith: Testified regarding the proposed Technical Academy Mr. Magowan: CCTA Meeting next Wednesday, 5 p.m. Mr. Condos: MPO/Regional Planning Commission facilities coordination meeting, tomorrow, 5 p.m. MPO meeting, Wednesday, 7 p.m. Budget presentation, Thursday, 7 p.m., at City hall Regional Planning Commission meeting, Monday, 6 p.m. Next City Council meeting, Monday, 3 March, 4 p.m. The time change is to allow members of the Council to attend a dinner honoring the 50th anniversary of the South Burlington Police Department. Mr. Hafter: The main items at the next meeting will be a continuation of discussion on the Zoning Ordinance revisions and a presentation on water upgrades needed in the city prior to a May ballot item. Family Day will be on 19 March. Mr. Hafter distributed a summary of traffic enforcement activities for 2002. CCTV Board meeting, 24 February, 4 p.m. Interviews of finalists for the stormwater RFP, 26 February 3 March, Legislative breakfast, 7:30 a.m. 3. Consideration of adoption of Family Day, March 19, 2003, Proclamation: Mr. McBee introduced members of the committee. He noted that the Family Day concept began in 2001 as an attempt to address substance abuse. The aim is to focus on family engagement. Activities in South Burlington will include essay contests in the schools with a top prize of a family ski vacation, special "family dinners" at local restaurants, etc. Mr. Condos read the Proclamation. Mr. Magowan moved that the Council support March 19, 2003 as Family Day in South Burlington. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. First reading of proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance; set public hearing: Ms. Hoover said that in redoing the Sign Ordinance, some problem situations were found: a) The Design Review Board feels that applicants for approval of individual sign applications made pursuant to a master signage plan should not have to come before the Board but should just need to get approval from the code officer. b) In order to prevent huge window signs, there should be a specification that window signs exceeding 25% of the area of the window to which they are attached will be counted against the total allowable area of wall signs. c) Clarify that gas stations are entitled to a free-standing sign of the size allowed under Section 9 plus an additional area of up to 12 sq. ft. for a price board. d) Revise wall sign regulations to: 1) eliminate 100-120 sq. ft. per building limitation and 2) clarify how to allocate signage among individual tenants in multi-tenant buildings. (Ms. Hoover said the problem is that building owners have no interest in dealing with allocation of signage to tenants). Ms. Hoover indicated the table to be used to allocate signage space. Mr. Magowan moved to waive the first reading of the proposed amendment, approve the first reading and set a public hearing for 7 April 2003. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Updated land use regulations (Zoning Ordinance); first reading of Ordinance; setting of public hearing dates: Ms. Hoover began with an overview of the rewrite. She noted that in the current regulations there are 7 pages of definitions. In the revision, there are 50 pages. She noted that the city has gotten into trouble because there are not enough definitions of terms. All general provisions are now located in one place (legal fundamentals). Sections 4-9 relate to individual zoning district regulations and include some new districts. Sections 10-12 deal with specific overlay districts (e.g., flood plain, traffic, scenic view protection, etc.). Section 12 deals with what is now the CO Zone. The CO Zone is no longer a zoning district but is a series of overlays. Mr. Condos asked if anything was done with railroad areas. Ms. Hoover said no. There will be a section for expanded design review, but this is not yet complete. Section 13 consists of supplemental regulations including a bonus for affordable housing and site plan review for utility cabinets. Sections 14-15 are the "process" chapters. An attempt has been made to combine conditional use review and the site plan review process. There is also an expanded use of administrative review. Subdivision and PUD review have been completely combined. Section 16 addresses the need to show there are municipal standards related to erosion control. These are now all in one place. Section 17 relates to fees. Ms. Hoover said the Council should re-examine fees as South Burlington is at the low end among county communities. The Ordinance also includes appendices for maps, etc. In the definitions section, Ms. Hoover noted the number of individuals needed to form a "household" has been reduced to 4. Mr. Condos said he had several e-mails in support of this and one opposed. There are expanded definitions for food establishments of various kinds. The Ordinance does not provide for junkyards, body-piercing type uses, and "adult" uses. Mr. O'Rourke suggested finding out if there is a distinction between "not providing" and "excluding." Mr. Collins, representing UVM, gave members a written statement outlining concerns. Among these is the definition of "group housing" which excludes apartment style housing; the exclusion of spectator facilities for recreational facilities (Mr. Condos noted this exclusion is only in certain districts). Mr. Collins said they are concerned with having a soccer field with bleachers. Ms. Hoover said this is allowed in the northern district of UVM property. Mr. Condos said UVM would have a hard time convincing the city to put any athletic facility off Spear St. because of access issues. Ms. Hoover acknowledged that the Commission excluded "apartments" in the southern UVM portion. This does not exclude some sort of living/learning facility. What the Commission is trying to preclude is apartments that are not directly under the auspices of the University. Mr. Condos said South Burlington already has a tremendous impact from UVM and does not get one cent of compensation. There are quality of life issues with neighbors of UVM facilities. Mr. Condos said he did not feel the Council would consider opening up other areas of the city to the same type of development. Mr. Jaeger noted some concerns under the "removal of earth products" section. Ms. Hoover said this will be clarified. General provisions support keeping deeper setbacks on corner lots so that corner lots continue to have two frontages. There must be 5 ft. between whatever structure (e.g., sheds) you put on a property and the property line. Mr. Condos asked about the parking of cars in front yards. Ms. Hoover said this should be addressed through a municipal ordinance, not zoning regulations. There are now expanded side and rear yard setbacks on boundaries of residential/commercial uses. There must be dense evergreen plantings and no light fixtures in that area. The number of days allowable for garage sales has been reduced from 14 to 8 per year. There were numerous complaints about this during the public meetings held by the Commission. The revised ordinance makes it easier to change tenants without going back through the DRB process. Mr. Hafter noted there are no time limits indicated for RV storage. Ms. Hoover said this was left out by mistake. RV's will be allowed in driveways from 1 May through Halloween and in side and rear yards between 1 November and 30 April. Mr. O'Rourke asked about the liberalization of regulations for secondary units. Ms. Hoover said the Commission felt it was better to do this. A secondary unit can be in a main structure or above a garage. With regard to non-complying structures, the value of the structure can be increased (via painting, landscaping, etc.) but the non-conformity cannot be increased (dimensional requirements). Mr. O'Rourke asked if the Commission considered cumulative alterations. Ms. Hoover said you can never do anything to increase the nonconformity. Mr. O'Rourke noted that the section on "abandonment" seems inconsistent and seems to set up a different timetable. Ms. Hoover said this will be revised. Ms. Hoover then reviewed the zoning districts and any changes made within them. R-1 and R-2: within certain R-1 and R-2 districts, there can be a PRD with certain specifics. This is an "upzoning." R-4 -- No changes were made that would increase densities. R-7 -- Basically no changes. R-12 -- This is a new district with locations behind East Terrace and the bulk of the O'Brien Farm. Ms. Hoover noted that Wellesley Grove is actually developed at R-12 so the Council can get an idea of what that density looks like. Mr. Condos said his concern was what it looks like. He felt town houses were OK but did not like the idea of 3- and 4-story buildings. Ms. Dooley said she was not aware of any leverage the DRB would have to make a developer do something that would look like Wellesley Grove instead of a 3- or 4-story unit. She felt this could be a real detriment to a neighborhood. Ms. Hoover said if you go over 35 ft., you have to have deeper setbacks or go through design review. There are also solid landscaping standards. Mr. Condos said he had heard some concerns from neighbors. Ms. Hoover felt that standards for parking, lighting, etc. would be more important than an R-7 or R-12 designation. Mr. Condos said in one area neighbors are concerned that trees are being tagged because the new regulations will allow more development. Ms. Hoover said this would be checked on. R-7NC -- this is a new designation at the Hinesburg Rd./Kennedy Drive intersection. Lakeshore neighborhood: no changes Queen City Park -- Ms. Hoover said she has to check with the city attorney about a possible inconsistence. C-1 -- All that changes is the residential density. There is mandatory technical review for any new drive-throughs. The only drive-throughs allowed on Williston Road are for banks, offices and retail services. C-1 Airport -- This is a new district which allows car rentals and hotels. No medical offices, animal shelters or supermarkets are allowed. Mr. Condos was concerned that this district continues to the south side of Williston Rd. and he feared seeing cars parked to the edge of the road. Mr. Jaeger raised the issue of 3 property owners adjacent to the IC District who have been operating under the mistaken noting that they were in the Mixed IC District. This apparently was never picked up. All three have businesses have uses that are allowed in the IC district and not allowed in C-1. He asked if those properties could be included in the IC district. Ms. Hoover said the Commission looked carefully at this issue and went with C-1 Airport. C-1 Limited Retail -- This is the Kimball Rd. area. A retail use can't be over 1,200 sq. ft. and is mainly for uses to serve a neighborhood function. Mr. DesLauriers was concerned that their property is being called the "East Terrace Zone Change." He gave members a letter outlining concerns. C-2 -- No changes. Allen Road: This is a new district which allows R-12 development. No new service stations will be allowed. Swift Street: This is also a new district which allows R-7 density and hotels. No service stations are allowed. Ms. Hoover noted that principal retail use in the Allen Rd. and Swift St. districts would be limited to 5000 sq. ft. Mixed IC -- Basically no changes. Airport and Airport Industrial -- No changes. I-Open Space: The previous requirement for a minimum lot size of 3 acres and an average lot size of 8 acres has been eliminated. The requirement now is for a minimum lot size of 3 acres. Mr. Condos noted that Mr. Sheahan has concerns about this. Ms. Hoover noted that educational facilities are not allowed in this district. Conditional uses are: distribution/storage in conjunction with office/studio/research and development uses. This is a major change. I-Ag -- UVM comments have already been heard. Parks/Recreation -- No changes. Municipal -- No changes. Central District -- Some technical adjustments have been made regarding building envelopes, heights, location of parking, calculating density, and building coverages. Mary Street -- Changed from R-4 to CD. Southeast Quadrant -- No changes have been proposed as yet. Overlay Districts: Floodplain has been updated to meet regulations. No changes have been made in the view protection overlay. A few changes have been made to the Interstate overlay. The Department has a grant to address revisions to the traffic overlay districts. No changes are proposed to the City Center Design Review overlay. Some design review is being considered for the C-1 district. There is a new chapter on surface water. There are very specific standards as to where you can and can't plant and what you can and can't cut. You would also need to designate a snow storage area which is out of the stream buffer. In a stream buffer area, you can place a rec path and a stormwater treatment facility. A new standard requiring a 10-foot setback from a drainageway is new. There is new language regarding pre-existing structures. You can reconstruct a house but there is a limit on footprint, and you can't get any closer to water than the previous structure. You would also need a landscape and erosion plan. With regard to wetlands, presently everything within a 50 ft. buffer is called "CO District." Under the new regs, the DRB will be able to invoke technical review to see what a developer can do to improve the function of a stream or wetland. The aim is to look at overall function. No changes are proposed for the Bartlett Brook watershed. There are now very specific requirements regarding parking, including off-site parking and shared parking. There are no bonuses for compact car spaces. There is a new section on Landscape/Screening/Street Trees. There is also a new affordable housing section. Mr. Hafter asked if this section assumes there can't be a "for profit" affordable housing project. Ms. Hoover said she would have to check on this. The sections on Site Plan and Conditional Review have been greatly expanded. There will now be a 2-stage site plan review process. Minor changes made in "the field" for technical snags discovered during construction can be phoned in to the administrative officer. There can also be more material changes done administratively but these must be reflected in the "as-built" plans. Mr. Magowan was concerned that if changes are made administratively there is no "checks and balances" system. He wanted to see a reporting structure. Ms. Hoover felt this was covered in the "as-built" plan. Administrative review is expanded from what now exists. This is all reported on the DRB agenda. Members noted receiving a lot of positive feedback on limiting of new gas stations. Master Plan Review will now be required for more than 10 developed units in the SEQ and 10 units in the CD and all development in the Lakeshore District. With regard to public vs. private roads, a public road will be required for 4 or more single family homes, 10 or more multi-family structures. There can be up to 19 units if there are 2 accesses. Mr. Collins asked about private roadways for dormitories. Ms. Hoover said there is a waiver provision with City Council approval. Mr. Condos felt there would have to be a major discussion on this issue. Mr. Farrell asked about the R-15 designation. Ms. Hoover said in the C-1 District there is a multi-family provision at R-12 or R-15. Mr. Condos said the first reading will be extended to the next meeting to see what can be brought forward to public hearing. Ms. Hoover noted there must be a public hearing by 14 April. 6. Review Development Review Board Agenda for 18 February 2003: No issues were raised. 7. Review minutes of 3 February 2003: Mr. Magowan moved to approve the minutes of 3 February as written. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. Mr. Hafter reminded members of the 4 p.m. start for the next Council meeting on 3 March. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.