Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/06/1974CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 6, 1975, at the Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Walter Nardelli, Chairman; William Cimonetti, Paul Farrar, Michael Flaherty, and Mrs. Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Fred Sargent and Ronald Schmucker of the Planning Commission; Dr. and Mrs. L. H. Coffin, Dr. and Mrs. W. H. Luginbuhl, Jane Horton, Mrs. Edward S. Horton, A. J. Blais, George O'Brien, John Dinklage, Raymond David, Ralph Goodrich, Jack Tabaka, Mrs. Edward Emery, Fred Blais Chairman Nardelli opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with everyone joining in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The responses of the Planning Commission to changes made by the Council in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly their objections, was the subject of the meeting. Page 10, Balanced Rate of Growth. Mrs. Neubert said she had rewritten this paragraph because of comments from the audience and comments from the Council, that we were not recognizing economic growth in the community, only talking about people. Mr. Sargent said they had no complaints about the concepts Mrs. Neubert had mentioned, but were complaining about the Council taking out the concepts the Planning Commission wanted in. Mr. Farrar moved that between the second and third paragraphs of the amendments given on Council action of January 29th, the paragraph on page 10 of the Master Plan document entitled Controlled Rate of Growth be inserted, eliminating the heading Controlled Rate of Growth. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and passed unanimously. Page 10, Agricultural Lands Mr. Sargent suggested using the original paragraph, that the Planning Commission was concerned over losing greenbelts to over-development. Mrs. Neubert said she objected to changing this back unless the City was going to buy the greenbelts. Mr. Sargent said there were at least 14 ways of keeping land in agricultural use. Mr. Cimonetti felt the last sentence to be a reasonable and realistic statement. Mr. Flaherty said the one sentence being taken out was the crux of the matter. The use of the words we plan was questioned unless there was an actual plan, but it was pointed out that the same words we plan were used several times in the following pages and had not been deleted. Mr. Sargent said these were our goals, first step is to say we plan on this. Mr. Flaherty said if the Commission felt the document had been weakened by taking this out he would go along with them. Mr. Cimonetti said he would object to putting it back in. Page 11, Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Planning Commission objected to deletion of sentence regarding residential use being the highest possible social use of land. Mr. Farrar said highest use in some cases might be for farming or industrial. Mr. Cimonetti said they had attempted, in striking out the sentence, to clarify the language. That an existing neighborhood should not be encroached upon by other types of uses that was the goal which was introduced. Page 13, Controlled Growth Mr. Sargent felt this was preventing a person from building a single family home. Mr. Farrar raised the problem of a builder who would sell individual lots to people who would build individual homes, that this could be a big loophole which must be prevented. Mr. Sargent replied the Commission's intent was not to forestall the possibility of individuals being allowed to build homes. Mrs. Neubert wondered if adding that they are not part of a subdivision" would help the meaning. Mr. Cimonetti felt the paragraph really attempts to build in a loophole but will not control the growth. Mr. Farrar said the implementation might be challenged in this plan. Page 30, Definition of low cost housing Mr. Sargent felt the whole chapter would be meaningless without the definition. Mr. Farrar moved that the definition that was used in section 15.128 in the zoning ordinance (definition of low cost housing) be included on page 30 following the paragraph re Committee on Housing. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Voted unanimously. Page 10, Agricultural Lands. Mr. Cimonetti brought up the question of the belt of agricultural land being considered in the conservation area. He felt the plan allowed for controlled growth in a southerly direction supported by capital budget program, that it was not intended to have a "jump-over" of undeveloped land after we move south with our development. Page 36, Tax preference Mr. Farrar the only form of agreement that would be entered into had been very carefully spelled out. Mr. Sargent felt there was no point in taking out the sentence in question; it was not redundant; it was making a point which had not been made adequately. There have been irregularities in tax assessment in South Burlington. Motion made by Mr. Flaherty to have the deleted paragraph put back in. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. This paragraph begins "It is recommended that the City investigate ....." Passed by a vote of 4 to 1, Mr. Cimonetti objecting. Page 13, Rate of Growth Considerable discussion took place regarding the percentage of growth rate, whether it should be based on a yearly rate or the county's previous year's growth rate. Mr. Farrar said if the proper county growth rate is 2%, the proper rate should be 2.3% for Environ 1. He felt the City should build a line of defense which hopefully would not have to be used, but could be enforced if necessary. Should decide what would be considered an excessive rate of growth. He would like to see a concensus of some number which is somewhat greater than the average, that we can make sure that we can defend. Mr. Farrar continued that taking the average rate of the county might be difficult to defend in court. Mr. Nardelli suggested leaving out the word average, using the county growth rate. The intent is to put it concretely and give an illustration. Mr. Farrar said it was a point of philosophy which must be arrived at first. Mr. Nardelli suggested saying "or the previous year's county growth rate, whichever is larger." Mr. Farrar said if this is not open to challenge he would be happy to support it, but he was worried about putting in something that will not work. The reasoning that South Burlington has more services and facilities available for development than some of the surrounding towns like Colchester prompted Mrs. Neubert to read some figures showing what it cost South Burlington to provide services during the 1960-1970 period of a 45% growth rate. These costs increased by several times the 45% rate. She also read figures pertaining to land area of surrounding towns, showing that South Burlington has a greater percentage of their land in development at the present time, with the other towns having much more land available. She emphasized that South Burlington could only take so much! Dr. Luginbuhl asked if the question is the legality of the proposed limit on growth, and if the 2% is passed by Council, would it be appropriate to get a legal opinion? Or getting a five year running average of growth? Mr. Flaherty replied that a fixed 2% was too fixed, and open to challenge, which was why they went from a 2% to a county's growth rate. Mrs. Neubert said the 2% was not an arbitrary figure, but based on the slow-down in general in the growth rate in the Nadworny report. She thought the county growth rate to be fair, possibly more generous, more legally defensible, but she would not go "one person" over that. Mr. Dinklage raised the point that if Winooski and Burlington do not grow at the county rate, then Environ 1 will have to grow at more than the county rate. Therefore it would be wise to state that South Burlington is prepared to accept a growth rate in excess of the rate of growth for the county. South Burlington will experience a growth of much more than 2%. Mr. Farrar replied they are trying to set up a control which will prevent the City from growing excessively. Mr. Schmucker reminded the Council that they are not a regional council, that the Planning Commission is not a regional planning commission, that government in Vermont is still based on localities, that we are still supposed to solve our own problems. The City's growth policy is going to be based on how closely we have kept our growth based on our capital budget projections. We should say that we are growing in a way that we can handle properly and that our citizens are not over- burdened. Mr. Nardelli said it was understood that the growth would be limited by the Capital Budget Plan for five years and by the Capital Budget this year. We still have to measure that by what we have projected in the capital planning. He then called for very simple language to express that we will take our share of the county's growth. Mr. Schmucker said he liked the idea of a fair share rather than using a percentage. Chittenden County has particular growth problems and we should participate in such a way that it can be shown that South Burlington will take its fair share. Mr. Farrar said he didn't want it to be challenged. Mr. Schmucker replied the burden of proof is not on the City. We would be showing our intention to take our fair share. Mr. Szymanski informed the Council that he had learned a total of 953 building permits had been granted in the county last year, of which 195 were mobile homes. Mr. Farrar said the Council should separate the two things they are trying to do first, should plan the Capital Budget Program around the 2% figure, what the community can afford; second, try to establish a policy that says we will take some more action besides that, try to define the action point at which we will do something. It was then moved by Mr. Farrar that in third paragraph on page 13, the last part of the last sentence should be changed to "two percent yearly rate or the previous year's growth rate of residential units in the county, whichever is larger." Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Passed unanimously. Mr. Nardelli commented that the Planning Commission would review this policy annually. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council send all changes made to the Planning Commission for review. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Passed unanimously. Next was a motion by Mr. Flaherty to add Section 13 of the '64 zoning ordinance to the '74 ordinance as a replacement for the section on non-conforming homes on pages 22, 23, 24, up to section 13.10 on page 25. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Asked why this was put in in the first place, Mr. Flaherty replied it was done by a hired consultant who was unfamiliar with the city. Saying that she was concerned about recreational uses on the flood plain, even though they are conditional uses which would have to go through the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Mrs. Neubert offered the following motion: that the sentence beginning public or commercial recreation, should have an insertion of excluding drive-in theaters. This refers to page 2, paragraph 3.102. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Mr. Szymanski then read the boundaries of the flood plain as prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers, April, 1973. This boundary would be at elevation 230. The Vermont Water Resources Board uses the 100 year flood as a basis, also the standard projected flood which is the maximum based on the worst conditions that could happen. Not much difference between them in South Burlington. Any land below the 230 feet elevation is defined as flood plain. Mr. Cimonetti asked about the land higher than 230 but surrounded by lower elevation which could be flooded. Mr. Sargent felt this would have the same hazards as the flood plain and building should not be allowed. Should be left agricultural. It was argued that the City would lose in assessments as owners have the right to ask for lower taxes for flood plain zoned-land. For page 29, article 3, a motion had been suggested by Mr. Szymanski allowing building on a site which is at an elevation at or above elevation (230) of the District Line (USGS Burlington Quadrant). Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Voted unanimously. Page 3. Details not worked on yet. Page 5, 5.30, Planned Unit Development Mr. Farrar moved that the last sentence Any planned development be changed to read This proposed development and any other proposed or planned development. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Passed by vote of 4 to 1, with Mrs. Neubert opposed. Mr. Ralph Goodrich reminded the Council of the previous request in writing from the owners of 4300 acres of the southeast quadrant, that they wished a more flexible allowance of the use of their property. He recommended that the Council reread and digest what is one file. Section 5.306 concerning 10% bonus in density is to be transmitted to the Planning Commission for clarification and review. Section 5.304 (b) Density of R-1 vs. R-2 was discussed. Mr. Farrar said these were flexible densities, modifications of R-2 in some areas counterbalanced by R-1: would be average density of R-2. Mrs. Neubert explained previously densities were computed on a net basis, presently being done on a gross basis. Mr. Farrar suggested leaving it up to the Planning Commission to decide the plan and up to the builder to decide what the market called for, to provide a mix. Mr. Fred Blais made the following comments to the Council. All remaining R-4 land is basically committed. He endorsed the plans for encouragement of clusters, open spaces, and buffers. PRD is a basic non-grid pattern. Set backs on streams and interstates are not at all forbidding. 15% open space is reasonable. But to promote good planning and good design, the obligations to all classes of people must be met. He was doubtful of the success of the PUD development at two units per acre because lots would have to sell for in excess of $13,000. He wished to strongly recommend the use of the southeast quadrant, allowing the farmers a reasonable return on their investment, but land could be purchased at a figure that would allow it to be developed at prices that would enable our children to live in this community. He strongly asked that Council re-examine the R-2 provision in the southeast quadrant. Mr. Nardelli questioned the zoning of R-1 on the lakeshore right behind an R-4 area. He felt that if this had been zoned R-1 to prevent anyone from building on it with the hope of the City being able to buy it later, then the Capital Budget Plan should include it as a ten-year plan. Mr. Cimonetti said the capital budget is the only controlling device. Density should not be a controlling device. Mr. Farrar said that zoning a piece of property to make it easier to purchase it is completely indefensible. Mrs. Neubert said she had been on the property and it is beautiful, a perfect R-1 spot. Mr. Szymanski mentioned the cost of sewers for areas of few homes, giving the Bartlett's Bay area with thirty houses as an example of what it is going to cost the City. Page 6, 6.005 A motion was made by Mr. Cimonetti to create a Conditional Use Section and to transfer 6.005 to this new section. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Voted unanimously. Page 6, 6.004 New paragraph will be discussed at the meeting on Thursday evening. Dr. Luginbuhl inquired if there would be available space for 60 new units per year, or 300 units in five years, to be built in the City. He was told that there is more than enough. 6.20 on Page 7. Question of how to determine the PUD in the Holiday Inn - Lamplough area. To be discussed at the Thursday meeting. Page 10, 7.11 Mr. Nardelli felt that retail business should be encouraged as planned development, that nowhere is it encouraged now. Mr. Farrar asked if we really have areas large enough for that? He said the answer was "no" before. Mr. Nardelli said he was looking for depth, not strip development. Page 10. Mr. Farrar moved that kennel be changed from permitted use to conditional use, and moved from 7.005 to 8.109 on page 11. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty Approved unanimously. Table on Page 14 Mr. Farrar moved that the rear yard provisions for R-4* and R-4** be changed from 15 feet to 30 feet. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. Voted unanimously. Page 15, 11.15 A hold placed on this. Page 18, 11.80 Hold placed on this. One Room Units The suggested area of 650 square feet was considered too large by Mr. Cimonetti. Mr. Blais offered 450 square feet as a minimum. Mrs. Neubert questioned whether it would be worth the cost of building for such small units, with Mr. Cimonetti replying that there is always a demand for small apartments. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council add, after the paragraph previously inserted, that "every dwelling unit, excluding single family and two family dwellings, shall contain not less than 500 square feet exclusive of ..... and continue with rest of paragraph. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Approved unanimously. Page 21, 12.003 (d) Motion made by Mr. Farrar to add to (d) Retail and service establishments shall occupy no more than 20% of the total ground floor area of a residence unit. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Approved unanimously. It was decided to stop with page 25, 13.10, to be continued at the Thursday meeting at 8:00 p.m. Another meeting is to be held on Friday at 7:30 p.m. Moved by Mr. Farrar and seconded by Mr. Flaherty that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.