Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/14/1982CITY COUNCIL JUNE 14, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, June 14, 1982 at 8:00 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Hugh Marvin, Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; David Spitz, City Planner; George Mona, Planning Commission, Edith Hendley, John Belter, Carl Cobb, Ralph B. Goodrich, Lowell Krassner, Mary Westley Executive session to discuss police union contract Mr. Szymanski said an executive session would not be needed. The police have a few problems with the contract which they have not been able to resolve and would like to meet with the council on the 17th or the 24th. It was decided to meet with the police on the 17th at 8:00 pm. Mr. Marvin felt it was ridiculous to decide all these issues and then have things come up later, so that more meetings are needed. Sign renewal notes; discuss municipal bonding Mr. Szymanski said there was a typographical error in one of the notes signed at the last meeting. It is the one for the Bartlett Bay sewage treatment plant and should be $65,000 instead of $69,000. Mr. Marvin moved to sign the corrected copy of the renewal note for the Bartlett Bay sewage treatment plant for $65,000. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted for it. Continue public hearing on revisions to the City Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan City Planner David Spitz presented the information the Council had requested concerning tax revenues from various types of uses in the city. He noted that the highest current tax dollar per acre came from shopping centers. He stated that he felt the Digital land was about 1/4 developed. If they develop 4 times as much as they have now, they will have 16% lot coverage. He did not know whether they would build that much, but the maximum coverage is 30% and he did not want to underestimate. Mr. Marvin asked what the $181.2 per acre potential for Digital was based on and was directed to the second sheet of Mr. Spitz' memo entitled "Sample of Existing and Potential Assessments per Acre". Mr. Farrar asked what the average assessment per acre of land that is now developed as industrial and commercial was and was told Mr. Spitz could get that figure for him. Mr. Spitz noted that the phasing out of the inventory tax would affect some of the numbers, for example, the shopping centers. Mr. Marvin asked what the drop for such centers, shown in the "Sample" memo would mean in dollars and was told it would amount to a loss of $128,000, or about 5-8% of the total tax revenue. Mr. Spitz noted that high-quality construction had a favorable impact on assessments, as did high-quality uses. Two and three story buildings had higher assessments also, although parking is a restriction on lot coverage. He added that an increase from 10% to 20% lot coverage would be significant, although most high-quality uses would not benefit from an increase from 20% to 30%. Most uses in the city cannot get that high because of restrictions caused by parking requirements. Mr. Farrar asked whether, using reasonable planning principles, something less than 30% coverage would be where the lot could be considered to be saturated and was told that was correct. He expected that the smaller the lot, the sooner constraints would be run into. Mr. Farrar asked what the IBM lot coverage was in Essex Junction, and a figure of 20% was mentioned. Mr. Flaherty noted that they had just had to buy more land. Mr. Spitz was asked to check on the figure, to be sure the Council had the right one. Mr. Marvin asked whether IBM's water treatment and utility areas would be included in the coverage and Mr. Spitz felt they would. Mr. Farrar said the State Agriculture Department had requested that they be allowed to come before the Council and give them some information on the zoning in the quadrant. They were not able to be at tonight's meeting, but will be here on the 28th. He also noted that some quadrant landowners had submitted a proposal for changes to that area. Some of the proposed changes were for a 10 acre minimum lot size, to allow multiple uses and increase building coverage to 30%. Mr. Mona expressed concern about having to wait until the 28th for a decision in this area. Mr. Farrar felt that since the Agriculture Department had requested a hearing, they should be heard. Mr. Flaherty asked why they had waited until now to request a hearing and Mr. Burgess said he was willing to listen to them, but not to wait to listen to them. He noted that the Council had spent a lot of time at the last meeting listening to farmers, and he added that if the Department changed anyone's mind, they could always back up and go over this issue again. He did not feel irrevocable action would be taken tonight. Mr. Spitz said the figure he had come up with for the average assessment per acre of industrial and commercial was $169 per acre. This is just about the potential for large industries and the potential for Digital, and they have no more than 20% coverage. Mr. Farrar asked whether 20% coverage would generate tax revenue in the same ballpark area and was told it would. If the city allows building to more stories, it will go higher with tax revenue. The figure assumes about the same quality construction as Digital, an inventory tax, and 20% coverage. Mr. Farrar said that meant that the 20% coverage figure would be consistent with and would protect the assumptions in the made in setting aside a certain amount of industrial land in the quadrant. Without the inventory tax, the $169 would be $141. Ms. Lansing asked whether, if the proposed 10% coverage were made 20%, the cost of services would double and was told they would not, although some services would have more of an increase in need than others. The need for road improvements, fire protection and sewers would increase. Mr. Flaherty felt the impression left with citizens when the industrial zoning in the quadrant was discussed was that the uses out there would be similar to Digital and Mitel. Mr. Burgess agreed, but noted that the record only showed Mr. Flaherty making that statement. Mr. Flaherty noted that Digital and Mitel were used as examples, and they do not occupy 1 acre lots. Mr. Marvin asked how many companies like that the city could expect and Mr. Flaherty felt space had to be left for them so there will be room to put them if they do come. Mr. Marvin felt that limiting lots to 50 acres minimum would limit the future industrial growth in the city and penalize taxpayers. Mr. Flaherty felt that if the Council made 10 acres the minimum size, the next request would be for even less and once lots were made that small, the land would be lost for large developments. Mr. Burgess felt 50 acre lots were not salable, but he said he felt 1/2 or 1 acre lots were too small. Mr. Mona noted that the kinds of companies the Commission had wanted to have in the city would be the ones which pay well the people who work there. He added that the Commission had proposed a resource the city does not now have with the large lots. There are now in the city smaller lots. Mr. Cobb noted that the land on which Mitel is now located was originally proposed as a 14 lot subdivision, but Mitel bought it all. Mr. Krassner felt that if the lots were made large, they could be made smaller later. Ms. Lansing did not feel the city would have trouble attracting industries which could use lots that large. Mr. Marvin asked whether it was legal for the city to have such a large minimum size and Mr. Spitz said the document had gone to the City Attorney, who had not commented on it. If he had had a problem with it, he would have told the Commission. Mr. Goodrich said the proposed changed submitted by the landowners in the quadrant had not intended 1/2 to 1 acre lots. What they want is to allow a multiple use or multiple owner concept on a 10 acre lot. Mr. Flaherty said the letter had not made that clear. Mr. Goodrich said they were looking for multiple uses in a single structure or on a single lot. Mr. Spitz said the way the multiple use section was written, that could be done in any industrial/commercial area. More than one building would be a different story, and there is a provision for having offices only for a single user. Mr. Cobb said the landowners were looking for a PUD concept. Mr. Spitz referred to page 71, which allows only one principal building or structure unless in a PUD, and there are no PUDs proposed for the Industrial-Agricultural zone, so the only way to allow it would be to ask for a conditional use permit from the Zoning Board. Mr. Farrar asked whether this meant Mitel would have to go to the Board to build another building, and Mr. Spitz said that wording would have to be changed, so that would not be required. That was not the intent. Mr. Mona asked about a large company building several buildings on one lot when times were good, and wanting to sub-lease them when times were bad. Mr. Farrar said the Zoning Board would have to give approval for that under multiple use and Mr. Mona said that had not been the intent. Mr. Burgess suggested it might be better for the Commission to review it than the Board. Mr. Farrar felt the Commission wanted control of a large enough piece of land so it could understand what the final project would look like. Mr. Spitz noted that the Commission has been identifying areas for future buildings on large pieces, but it has not been setting out lots or building sites. Mr. Marvin asked whether a private theatre would be allowed on land in the quadrant and was told it would not be a permitted use. The small lots in the area were discussed. It was felt they should be allowed to be combined. Lot size and coverage were discussed. Mr. Farrar felt 20% coverage would fit the criteria used in the Master Plan to set the number of industrial acres the city should ultimately have. He said he would find it hard to go above 20% because he did not feel it was necessary, and he felt 10% would not fulfill the requirement. Mr. Flaherty agreed 20% was the most he would want. Mr. Burgess agreed. Ms. Lansing preferred 10%. Mr. Marvin asked what impact this would have on already developed areas and Mr. Farrar was not sure whether 20% would be a right, or would require approval. Mr. Spitz said that considering what was needed for the tax base, he felt 15% coverage would be close to what the city has now, and he noted that the land was so visible that 20% would look very developed. By contrast, IBM is in a hidden area. It was noted that one idea might be to allow 15% by right, and allow 20% with a separate review and approval, by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Commission would have to come up with the proper wording for such a process. Mr. Burgess moved that the Council determine the lot coverage to be 15% by right with 20% coverage with prior approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Marvin noted that if either board refused approval, the 20% coverage would be denied. Ms. Lansing felt the 15-20% coverage did not take into account the visual and esthetic considerations here and she felt the Council had a responsibility to the landowners in the area to keep a low coverage. She felt there had been an implied understanding on that point. Mr. Flaherty was not sure coverage had been discussed. The motion carried with Ms. Lansing voting no. Lot size was now discussed. Mr. Burgess felt a 50 acre minimum was excessive, and he said he would like some time to think of a proposal which would be practical and reasonable. He was not sure there should be a single number and Mr. Farrar said the same procedure as was set above for coverage could be followed for lot size. Mr. Marvin asked whether the 10 acre lot with one building and 2-3 uses in it was practical. He was told it was permitted with the language which is in front of the Council now. Mr. Mona said that had not been the Commission's intent. Mr. Spitz said that if the Council wanted to allow that type of thing, the way to do it would be to put a PUD provision into that zone. Mr. Marvin said that with a large minimum lot size, if the landowner did not find a large company who wanted the land, he might have to hold the land for a long time. He moved that the Council set 10 acres as the minimum lot size. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Ms. Lansing felt the quadrant landowners should be present before such a decision was made. She said they had not understood that this would be considered tonight. Mr. Burgess noted that this meeting had been called specially for this item. He said they had spent a lot of time on this, he saw no reason to delay it and he did not feel the Council was sneaking off into a corner to do this when no one was looking. Mr. Krassner said the 10 acre lot would do away with any agricultural use of the land at all. A PCD concept in this area was mentioned. Mr. Marvin asked whether that would still mean that one person would have to buy the 50 acre piece and was told it would. Mr. Coodrich asked whether this meant that a developer would take, for example, a 100 acre piece, could come to both boards for 20% coverage, and could then break up the allowed square footage of building among a number of tenants. Each individual lot could be sold, with common ownership of the open land. Mr. Farrar said that was his thought. This would be a PID. Mr. Mona said the esthetic review the Commission would have might be as extensive, if not more so, than the one they had for Mitel. Mr. Marvin felt this was an interesting idea to consider, and he withdrew his motion. Mr. Burgess withdrew his second. Mr. Marvin asked for Commission comments on the idea. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing until June 28th at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Flaherty seconded and all voted for the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.