Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/12/1973CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING SEPT. 12, 1973 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Wednesday, September 12, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the City Hall, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont. City Council Chairman Nardelli called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT Council Chairman Walter Nardelli, Michael D. Flaherty, Paul Farrar, Catherine M. Neubert, and William Cimonetti. Planning Commission Chairman Mary Barbara Maher, Ronald Schmucker, Frederic O. Sargent, Sidney Poger, Frederic O. Sargent, William Robenstein and William Wessel. MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT City Manager William Szymanski, Zoning Administrative Officer Richard Ward, Free Press Reporter Cheryl Benfield and Steven S. Page. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED GROWTH CONTROLS Commissioner Sargent reported that he had received an opinion from Montpelier on the legality of proposed growth controls. Mrs. Maher had contacted Attorney Spokes for an opinion on the same. Mr. Sargent objected strenuously to double payment for the same opinion, since the same firm of Ewing and Spokes is retained by the City as well as the State for consultation on local matters. Chairman Nardelli read the letter of opinion from Ewing and Spokes. Councilman Flaherty said a letter from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission confirmed the opinion that growth could be regulated, not by limiting building permits, but could be limited by Capital Budget and Program, or provisions of municipal services. Mr. Farrar made his PRD proposal, saying he was basically in philosophical agreement with the proposal of Mr. Sargent. Mr. Nardelli asked what is the logic of the 80 acre lot size. Mr. Farrar said his decision was reasonably arbitrary. Chairman Maher asked about the philosophy behind mixed densities. Mr. Farrar replied that his proposal: 1. Treats all landowners the same 2. Provides for the demand for different kinds of housing 3. Requires parcels of land large enough for high quality planning. Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Farrar why densities should be mixed in a development, since they are already mixed between different zones. Mr. Farrar said, that by mixing density within a development, the city determines; 1, density and uses; 2, as far as profits are concerned, all landowners are treated fairly, and 3, de-facto economic segregation is reduced. Mr. Farrar concluded that, with projected housing needs in mind, his PRD mixed density proposal would not require too much land to satisfy these projections. In response to a question from Mr. Sargent, Mr. Farrar said only a portion of the present PRD area would in fact actually need to be zoned PRD; also, he said all PRD's would be on city sewer and water. Mrs. Maher said she considered herself an integrationist but had reservations about; 1, an untried PRD proposal, and 2, the worth of so much effort solely for the goal of mixing densities. She asked Mr. Page to prepare numerical and geographical mixing examples of Mr. Farrar's proposal. Mr. Farrar asked that agreement first be reached on the overall concept and then everyone would decide on the specific figures to be used. Commissioner Robenstein asked what sort of impact would the development (to be expected under this proposal) have on municipal services, i.e., 1300 acres in PRD, at 2 dwelling units per acre, with 3 persons per dwelling unit would equal 7800 persons; and he wanted, essentially, to know how much land should be devoted to PRD and what effect it could have on the tax base. For an example, Mr. Robenstein wanted an impact assessment of the PRD development of 500 acres on the tax base. He said he agreed with the 2 per acre density in an amount which can be reasonably supported by existing facilities. Councilman Flaherty felt the cost of lots, at 2 dwelling units per acre, is prohibitive to most city residents, and that this was a serious drawback to the scheme. Mr. Poger agreed. Chairman Nardelli asked if all were in agreement. Mr. Poger said no, that the proposal did not achieve the desired goal, that of putting housing (within a single development) within reach of a variety of different income levels. Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Schmucker about the legality of prohibiting applications for variances. Mr. Schmucker said laws change, and that a desired end may be reached in several ways, some of which are legal and some of which are not. He expressed the great fear that variances or different Planning Commissions in the future would destroy the work of this Planning Commission. He further said he did not see in people the ability to use and maintain land in common (undivided interest) with others. Councilman Farrar said the Planning Commission must decide how land held in common will be treated. It was generally conceded that a decision needed to be made on who was to use open space in the types of development expected, the purchasers of the dwelling units or the citizens at large. Planning Commission Chairman Maher asked Mr. Schmucker how the zoning ordinance could be constructed, in a justifiable way, to preclude, or to at least make very difficult, zone changes. Chairman Nardelli asked the entire gathering if it favored the concept and said it warranted further study and consideration. The group reacted favorably and unanimously. Commissioner Sargent reported on the current status of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Nardelli wanted to know if anything had been done. Mr. Sargent said a lot had been done. Mr. Nardelli wanted to know what chapters could be ready by September 24th for review and comment, and Mr. Sargent replied that Aesthetics and Recreation chapters could be ready by then and possibly one on the Southeast Quadrant also. On motion made, seconded and so passed the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Approved Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.