Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/24/1978Minutes Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Board July 24, 1978 Svitak - Missle Silo Road out -of -city utility service request. Paul Deibel: Said this was a request for City water service. Said the County approved a rezoning for the site from 0-Open to FO-Forestry, permitting five acre lot development, condi- tional upon the City supplying water. Noted the water utility saw no problem with supplying the service. But said the rezoning was inconsistent with the County Land Use Plan. Recommended that since the rezoning was inconsistent the question of water service should not enter in a decision. Robert Evans: Asked what the nearest water district was. Paul Deibel: Said LaPorte. Phyllis Wells: Asked is this a precedent for out -of -city service requests. Paul Deibel: Did not think so since requests for out -of -city utilities are relatively frequent. Phyllis Wells: Asked if the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation should go to Council and the Water Board. Paul Deibel: Thought it should Robert Evans: Asked for the fartherest site served by City water. Paul Deibel: Did not know. Phyllis Wells: Thought the capacity of the districts should be used up and that City water service should serve the city. Bob Burnham: Concerned that the water would be tapped off before it reached the City but had no objections to five acre lot development of the site. Charles Unfug: Asked what other uses were allowed in the zone. Paul Deibel: Said agricultural. Ed VanDriel: Disagreed with Bob Burnham. Thought once the Land Use Plan was adopted it should not be undermined. Bob Burnham: Saw the land Use Plan as a guide for a point of departure. Page 2 - 24 July 1978 Special Meeting, Planning & Zoning Board Phyllis Wells: Thought consideration must be given to whether another five acre lot development was desirable. Moved to recommend to City Council and the Water Board that service not be supplied because it would allow for the development to proceed and recommended to the County Commissioners deny the rezoning because five -acre lot development at that site was undesirable. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: YES - Robert Evans YES - Ed VanDriel YES - Phyllis Wells YES - Charles Unfug NO - Bob Burnham Motion Carried, 4 - 1. J_, r Planning and Zoning Work Session: Subdivision Street Widths July 24, 1978 Board Present: Bob Burnham, Robert Evans, Ed VanDriel, Phyllis Wells, Charles Unfug Staff Present: Charles Mabry, Paul Deibel, Eldon Ward, Robert Steiner Bob Burnham: Called the meeting to order at 7:30. Declared the work session an official meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Explained the hearing format for the meeting. Paul Deibel: Gave the staff analysis and conclusions reached by the City and by the Design Professionals: The attached report discusses in detail the issues considered by the various concerned departments of the city and the design professionals concerning streetwidth recommendations. Everyone's initial recommendations are summarized on page 13. Subsequent to preparation of this report, staff from the concerned City departments have met to derive a conensus staff position which is indicated below (along with the existing requirements and the recommendations of the design professionals). Existing City Staff Design Professionals Arterial street 60 60 48 R.O.W. 100 100 88-92 Collector street 54 44 36 R.O.W. 80 62 '48-50 Local street 40 36 28 R.O.W. 60 54 40 Place street 321 322 20 R.O.W. 50 50 30 Notes: 1. 350' max length, 11 lots maximum 2. 350' max length, 15 lots maximum 3. Cul-de-sac streets would be permitted with local streetwidth requirements at a length of less than 660', or with place streetwidth requirements at a length of less than 350' and serving 15 units or less. Outlined the history behind and the need for the review of Planning and Zoning WOleSession • July 24, 1978/page 2 Subdivision Street width requirements. Bob Burnham: Asked if the analysis of existing street widths had been discussed with neighbors who lived on variously sized streets. Paul Diebel: Said no. Bob Burnham: Asked if any of the other sity departments had held any such discussions. Roy Bingman(Director Public Works): Said no.. Charles Mabry: Said the intent of the meeting was to give the Board an overall perspective and that at the next regularly scheduled meeting the Planning staff would make specific recommendations. Pointed out pages 13, 1� and the appendix as especially pertinent to the problem. Noted the final opinions on various street widths was the result of compromise. Added that pages 3-9 presented a good summary of the differences in analysis between City staff and the Design Professionals. Phyllis Wells: Said she had asked various people what their reaction would be to narrower streets and indicated the reaction was mostly a concern for a possible loss of bike and pedestrian services. Asked if this might actually result from narrower streets. Eldon Ward: Said the narrower street recommendations took into consideration facilities for bikeways and sidewalks. Jim Stewart(Stewart and Associates): Said, as a cyclist, he preferred the narrower city streets for reasons of safety. Ed VanDriel: Thought the R.O.W. recommendations were inconsistant. Eldon Ward: Explained that the figures were arrived -at via the various utilities required. Phyllis Wells: Asked what the narrowest street allowed in a P.U.D. was. Paul Deibel: Said 20 feet with four or less residential units and a length of less than 100 feet. Bob Burnham: Asked if on -street parking was really good. Paul Deibel: Said it was difficult to assess the need for on -street parking in a subdivision since no site review was required as with P.U.D.'s; Bob Burnham: Suggested establishing a more thorough review process for subdivisions. Suggested establishing more flexible standards. Robert Sutter(Architect): Explained his feelings that cluster type per- pendicular parking was a substantial improvement over on- Planning and Zoning WOOSession •'' July 24, 1978/page 3 is street parking in terms of economics, emergency access to residential units and safety. Don Hisam(City Fire Marshall)': Said his department was trying to remain flexible. Pointed out that according to the Fire Code, any reduction of the standard 20-foot unobstructed clearance would necessitate the introduction of alternative fire fighting equipment such as sprinkler systems. Said that a fire engine, mirror -to -mirror, was nine and a half feet wide, making it a touchy operation for one truck to pass another (standard fire -fighting technique) with just 20 feet of clearance. Roy Bingman: Saw a possible problem of enforcing one -side parking. Bob Lee(Traffic Engineer): Said he came from a town where restricted parking was a big enforcement problem. Bob Burnham: Asked if the City staff recommendations included the entire City staff or just the planning staff. Paul Deibel: Said the whole city. Roy Bingman: Suggested some kind of new ordinance between the subdivision and P.U.D. structures. Phyllis Wells: Felt it was too difficult even to stay abreast of the present structure and that the P.U.D. ordinance was intended to provide the needed flexibility anyway. Bob Burnham: Asked if there was a review of the P.U.D. ordinance in the works. Charles Mabry: Thought the whole thing needed reviewing. Noted the street width issue was an issue of trade offs: front end costs versus operating costs; front end costs versus effecient safety services. Pointed out the City would be required to consider much more carefully in the futures operating costs, especially in light of proposals such as proposition 13. Ed VanDriel: Asked how cost of cluster parking would be distributed. Robert Sutter: Explained. Robert Evans: Asked what the advantages and disadvantages were for a R.O.W. versus an easement. Eldon Ward: Explained. Charles Unfug: Asked that the item be put on the August Agenda. Phyllis Wells: Complimented all those involved on the report. Bonsell D. Johnson(1828 Manchester): Felt that narrower streets confined future options. Thought that narrower streets and reduced setbacks would invite higher land use intensity. Cautioned -rlanning and Zoning Wo*Session July 24, 1978/page 4 the Board not to over react. Bob Lee(Traffic Engineer): Pointed out that at major intersections it might be desirable to have wider streets. Bernie Kane: Noted the variety of backgrounds of those people involved. Said the effort was aimed at being cost effective to the consumer. Other items discussed: 1) Phyllis Wells: Said the County Planning Commission had recommended approval of the Southborough Rezoning and suggested someone attend the County Commissioner's hearing on the item. 2) Bob Burnham: Asked the status of the letter drafted by Phyllis Wells. Charles Mabry: Said it would be submitted with the budget.