Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/16/1975CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting in the Assessor's Office at the City Hall, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, on Tuesday, September 16, 1975. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Paul A. Farrar, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert, John B. Dinklage and Duane E. Merrill. MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT City Manager William J. Szymanski, Attorney Paul Graves, Walter Levering, James Lamphere, William J. Schuele, Jean Stone, City Attorney Richard A. Spokes, Free Press Reporter Jack Tabaka, Gerald A. Cadieux of Williston and several other interested persons. Chairman Farrar called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1975 It was agreed to table the reading of the minutes of the special meeting of September 9, 1975 until the next regular meeting to be held on October 6, 1975. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS There was a general discussion on the Proposed Amendments to the 1975 South Burlington Zoning Ordinance that had been warned for a public hearing on September 15, 1975. Chairman Farrar explained that the Council could review the proposed amendments but could take no official action until the meeting of October 6, 1975 because of a delay in sending out notices to the other communities. Chairman Farrar said that under the proposed amendment Residential Planned Unit Developments would be permitted in the R1, R4, and R7 Districts. The developer could develop up to 7 units per acre. Mrs. Neubert asked if he had any objections to that. Chairman Farrar said no and that he also had no objections to clustering. It should be an option the developer could use. If it makes for a more profitable way for development he should have the right, but he didn't think he has to be given a bonus. Mrs. Neubert said she objected to increasing the density in R7. Chairman Farrar said clustering is cheaper because of having less streets to build, less utility lines and other facilities. Mrs. Neubert said R7 is mostly on Kennedy Drive at present, and R4 is mostly in existing neighborhoods. Attorney Spokes said that R7, if developed in a grid fashion could not have 7 units, but with clustering you could have 7 units per acre if there is enough land for common land. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to have R7 removed from this section. She would like to instruct the Planning Commission to have R7 written in as a separate district because she thinks it has different problems. John Dinklage asked if we still have the option to have 15% of the land set aside for open space. Attorney Spokes said that it is in the Master Plan, that it is taken care of. We have the authority to insist on the 15%, even if it is not stated in the subdivision regulations. We have the authority under Vermont Statutes, Title 24, Sec. 4407. Mrs. Neubert repeated that she did not want the R7 included in this. There are too many problems. Mr. Dinklage asked what the problems were. Mrs. Neubert wondered if he couldn't see 7 or 8 or 9 units per acre causing problems. She said we have more choices in R4 than we would have in R7. Mrs. Neubert made a motion to reject the Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as warned for a public hearing on September 15, 1975. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Chairman Farrar called for a discussion on the motion, asking if the major point of difference was the addition of the R7. Mr. Flaherty asked how much it would increase the density. Mr. Farrar said R7 called for about 5 1/2 units per acre but could allow 7 units per acre on a cluster basis. He further said that years ago discussion hinged around apartment complexes and the question of how many units per acre would be allowed. Mrs. Neubert said she thought it (R7) needed more definition in the zoning regulations. Dr. Dinklage asked at what point does the Planning Commission begin to discuss allocation of open space. He said he was in favor of this being clearly set out. Chairman Farrar then explained that if the motion passed and the proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance were rejected then no further action would have to be taken. However, if the Council voted in favor of approving the proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance it could not be considered as an official vote due to the delay in sending out the notices to other communities, but would be tabled to the next regular meeting of October 6, 1975 when official action could be taken. Chairman Farrar then called for a vote. The vote was three Years and two Nays and the motion to reject the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations as warned for a public hearing on September 15, 1975 was passed. Chairman Farrar said that now that the proposed amendments have been rejected the Council could refer them to the Planning Commission for further study and changes. Mrs. Neubert said she would like the Planning Commission and anyone else to reexamine all the zones in the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, they are too mixed up and they interlap. She also said she had a lot of material on the differences in the zones and on the present zoning regulations in general. Chairman Farrar asked her to assimilate the material, make copies of it and distribute it to the Council. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to hold off any further consideration of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and any proposed amendments until the next regular meeting. Mrs. Neubert seconded the motion which passed unanimously. LAMPLOUGH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Chairman Farrar announced that the Council has been discussing a proposed contract with the developer of the Lamplough property for a considerable length of time and he felt it behooves the Council, at this time to make a decision. He outlined his ideas on how to proceed as follows: 1. The Council could take a vote on the proposed contract between the city and the developer. 2. The Council could delay consideration on the contract until such time when conditions might change. 3. The Council could vote Aye or Nay to proceed, and if we proceed should take action on the zone change as soon as possible. 4. The Council could immediately suspend discussion of the contract and take up the zone change. Dr. Dinklage made a motion that the Council not consider further the proposed contract between the city and the developer. Mrs. Neubert seconded the motion. Chairman Farrar called for a discussion. Dr. Dinklage said he had nothing to say. Chairman Farrar said it had been his personal position that the only way he could consider favoring a zone change was if he personally could be satisfied that there could be a solution to a serious problem, that of the traffic study. He further said we have used a lot of our own time and we have imposed on the developer. Mrs. Neubert read the names of three persons, residents of South Burlington who had sent her letters objecting to the approval of construction of a proposed regional mall. She also said she had received about 20 phone calls, all opposed. Chairman Farrar said he had also received letters and calls but the decision was left to the Council, the Council should act at this time. Dr. Dinklage said the developer and the attorneys have worked diligently. He felt the contract tried to protect the city's interest. Mr. Flaherty said he knew that he formerly was in favor of approving the contract, but he presently feels it is not the function of the Council to enter into such a contract. Mr. Merrill said he had no comment. Chairman Farrar called for a vote on the motion. The vote was 3 to 2 against approval of the contract. The three yes votes were cast by Dr. Dinklage, Catherine Neubert and Michael Flaherty, the two yes votes by Duane Merrill and Chairman Farrar. DISCUSSION ON ZONE CHANGE REQUEST ON THE LAMPLOUGH PROPERTY Chairman Farrar asked Attorney Spokes when the Council could take action on the zone change request, which if approved, would in effect allow construction of a regional mall. Attorney Spokes said he felt that even the action on the zone change request had been tabled from a previous meeting, it was not tabled to a specific date and time and he therefore felt it would be safer to put the item on a future agenda. Attorney Spokes said if the Council wished it could take a poll on whether or not the Council would consider granting Mr. Graves his requested zone change without a contract. Chairman Farrar then polled the Council. Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Merrill and Chairman Farrar said they would be opposed to the BPD zone and Dr. Dinklage and Mrs. Neubert said they would be opposed to both the BPD and BR. Chairman Farrar then stated that it seemed the Council would be in opposition to the zone change. Chairman Farrar said since the Planning Commission was presently considering the Lamplough property for re-zoning the Council should give the Commission some guidance. Mr. Schuele asked whether philosophically the Planning Commission should consider proposed uses or the best use of the property. Chairman Farrar said consideration should be given to the best possible use on a piece of land. Mrs. Jean Stone wondered about the start of this consideration of a zone change on the property. Chairman Farrar said the Council received a request from the Planning Commission for a zone change to BPD. There were uses in BPD which the Council felt were not suitable. The Commission feels that the present zone is not suitable and we feel the Commission must present a zone that will project the best use of the property. Such a zone could very well provide for a mall and would have to be looked at very carefully. Mrs. Neubert said she did not feel the Commission thinks the present zone is inappropriate. It was mainly that the density was too low. Dr. Dinklage said he would have great difficulty in accepting a zone change that allows commercial activity in the whole triangle. It would be too much of an expansion. We have other commercial areas to be developed. If the Planning Commission and the majority of the Council favors a commercial activity of great magnitude on that property then the Council should have the power to protect the city by getting a traffic study. Mrs. Neubert said she would support a suitable residential area on the Lamplough property. She would support the type of PUD that allows some commercial use, but she could not support intense commercial growth in that area. Chairman Farrar pointed out that adjacent land owners were interested in some type of commercial use. He thought the whole triangle would not be zoned as an entity, maybe they could come up with three zones. Mr. Flaherty said he was not opposed to shopping centers but it was the responsibility of the developer to prove why a location is suitable. He further said that as he saw the comments he could not hold out any strong hope that there is a possibility for the developer to continue with the mall. Mr. Graves asked how he should proceed to get new zoning. He asked the following: Are you going to change all zones so there will be no growth of any magnitude? - Are we looking for a zone that would be suitable for a mall? - Are you going to create a zone on the Lamplough property where there could be no commercial activity of that magnitude? Dr. Dinklage said he would oppose clustered commercial activity, that he was not terribly opposed to the zone in the area now. Mr. Graves asked if the council was going to put a handle on shopping malls, or a handle on the Lamplough property. Attorney Spokes explained that in some communities there is a floating zone which goes to the governing body with requests, such as regional shopping malls or commercial growth, and if the developer can meet all the criteria he gets approval. He did say, however, that he did not know of such a zone in this state, and whether or not it would come under Vermont state requirements. At this point Chairman Farrar said we seem to have reached two concerns; 1. Do we wish to proceed and instruct the Planning Commission to go to work on this area (the Lamplough property)? 2. Do we wish to instruct the Planning Commission to consider control? Dr. Dinklage said he would move to instruct the Planning Commission to consider the possibility of applying controls to large commercial developments such as regional malls which might be proposed and be detrimental to the city. He said he would also move to instruct the Planning Commission that we should have controls, which, if a shopping center like this is proposed, in zones where it would be allowed, the controls would and could impose on the developer the responsibility to solve traffic problems and any other problems that a mall might make. The Council agreed that the Regional Planning Commission could be asked to help in consideration of zones, that it would be wise if we wish to proceed that we follow procedures which would be consistent with the Regional Planning Commission's. Mrs. Neubert said she did not know if regional shopping malls are allowed in the present zone. Attorney Spokes said that controls could be included. Dr. Dinklage said he felt the controls should be stiffened in BR and BPD. Dr. Dinklage then made a motion to instruct the Planning Commission to consider amendments to our present zoning ordinance to include added criteria on large scale commercial developments in BR, BPD, and Industrial Zones. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. The vote was 4 YES and 1 NO with Mr. Merrill casting the NO vote. Mr. Merrill said he voted against the motion because he felt that the Council should be able to look at any request that comes in with an open mind. Dr. Dinklage said he just wanted greater control and we need criteria to protect the city's interest. Mr. Lamphere asked what the Council thought about how long it would take to get a zone change, what is a reasonable length of time. Chairman Farrar said that first we should take a general look at Dr. Dinklage's motion and second, the Planning Commission must give us another proposal on the triangle. He said he felt it would come forward in a reasonable length of time. Mr. Lamphere said he could see the motion as a tool to prohibit anything from coming in. Chairman Farrar said he did not see Dr. Dinklage's motion as holding up any developments. Mr. Lamphere said he felt it was just a delaying process. Mrs. Neubert said the Council's obligation is to vote yes or no to a proposal. The developer chose not to give us a traffic study, he chose a different route. She said the developer initiated a lot of the delay, that she could have voted "no" a long time ago. Chairman Farrar said he thought the council has completed all discussion on the subject. Mrs. Neubert asked Attorney Spokes to explain the multiple uses in BPD. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the regulations in regard to multiple business uses in one building, saying it was not made clear in the regulations. Then, in speaking of amendments to the ordinance, he felt it should be studied in depth and all minor items (changes, clarifications) consolidated and processed at one time. Mrs. Neubert said we can't keep making changes. She pointed out that in BPD it wasn't clear about multiple business uses. She thought it should mean that when a road was put in then businesses would all be in different buildings. It was agreed that official action on the Lamplough zone change would be taken at the next regular meeting to be held on Monday, October 6, 1975. DISCUSSION ON REGIONAL COMMISSION MASTER PLAN Mrs. Neubert discussed her reasons for disagreeing with the projected population and birth rate figures in the Regional Plan. Chairman Farrar felt you could not base growth or decline on years as such, that when certain things happened, migration, deaths, births, business growth or decline then we have to go ahead, no matter what the year. Mrs. Neubert said she felt the figures could affect transportation studies, school enrollment, etc. Mr. Flaherty said he agreed, he felt the figures were not too accurate either. They figure on a couple of thousand more people than he felt we would get. Dr. Dinklage felt the plan should show the drastic change in the birth rate. Chairman Farrar asked if the council should convey objection to the Regional/Master Plan as a whole, or should it set out what is objected to in specifics. Dr. Dinklage said he would like to express opposition to the Regional Council having taxing power. Mr. Merrill said he would have to oppose the whole plan, the taxing part, the regional council, the growth areas, etc. He said he had little faith in the approach of picking it apart, that the items would be ignored and it would go through. He said he was totally opposed to the Regional Master Plan. After further discussion Dr. Dinklage made the following motion: That the South Burlington City Council disapproves of the Regional Master Plan entitled 'We Are Not the Last Generation' based on the following reasons: 1. Objection of the establishment of a Regional Council with taxing and bonding power. 2. Because of the outlines of specific areas of growth and development. 3. Because of the shared tax provision as presently included. 4. Because we have questions about the basic statistics and the method of extrapolation used. 5. And we are in agreement with the comments outlined by the South Burlington Planning Commission. In summary the Council feels that approval of the Regional Plan is not in the best interest of either Chittenden County or the City of South Burlington. Mrs. Neubert seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Dr. Dinklage made a motion that the City Manager be instructed to forward the Council's action, with Planning Commission's comments attached, to the Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commission with copies to the heads of the governing bodies in each community in the County. Mrs. Neubert seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty made a motion that the Chairman of the City Council instruct Mr. C. Harry Behney, representative from South Burlington to the Chittenden Regional Planning Commission, to report on the Council's action, "That we reject the Master Plan entitled 'We Are Not the Last Generation', to the Regional Planning Commission." Motion seconded by Dr. Dinklage and passed unanimously. There was an informal discussion on the starting time of the Council meetings. Dr. Dinklage expressed his hope that the meetings could be scheduled for 8:00 P.M. Mr. Merrill felt that in the case of a lengthy agenda the meetings probably should start at 7:30 P.M. It was mutually agreed to have the City Manager use his own judgement as to the starting time, i.e., if the agenda was a small one to warn the meeting for 8:00 P.M., but if lengthy to warn it for 7:30 P.M. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 P.M. Dr. Dinklage seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.