Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/23/1991CITY COUNCIL 23 JULY 1991 The City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, 23 July 1991, at 7:30 PM, in the Conference Room, City Hall 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; Robert Chittenden, John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Margaret Strait, Assistant City Manager; Sid Poger, Other Paper; Joe Weith, Planner; Mary-Barbara Maher, Planning Commission; William Craig, Planning Commission; William Burgess, Planning Commission; David Austin, Planning Commission; Ann Pugh, Planning Commission; Nile Duppstadt, SEQ; Michele Auclair, SEQ; Terry Sheahan, Planning Commission; Howard N. Stark, Lake Champlain Regional Chamber Commerce; Dick Underwood, Assessor; Peter Jacob, Sonny Audette, Highway Supt.; Lisa Scagliotti, Free Press; John Butler, Lochmore Assoc.; Charlie Brush, Lochmore Assoc.; Paul Adams, P.G. Adams Inc.; William Wessel, George Sporzynski, Gary Farrell 1. Comments and Questions from the Public (not related to the Agenda). Chuck Hafter, City Manager, took this opportunity to invite everyone to the Dorset Street Ground Breaking on July 24, 1991 at 3:30 PM in front of South Burlington City Hall. Refreshments will be served in the Large Conference Room immediately following the ground breaking. Mr. Hafter introduced Margaret (Peg) Strait, Assistant City Manager to the City Council and all others present. It is Peg's first week as Assistant Manager with the City of South Burlington. 2. Council and Planning Board Discussion on Applicability of TDR Concept to Zoning in the Southeast Quadrant; Proposal on How to Proceed: Mike Flaherty expressed his concern that there is confusion between the Council and Planning Commission regarding the position both have regarding the TDRs. Whenever any idea is presented it requires much discussion, there are many questions, fears and anxiety in how it will all work out. Everyone had a copy of Mr. Hafter's letter of proposals regarding the TDRs where he states that the Council probably should have explored other scenarios and start with the most simple one which is working with the current zoning. How can we use the current zoning and build upon it to reach the zoning master plan that we need? What are other options that we could use for conventional zoning? Council does not want to divorce that TDR concept entirely, but more research is necessary. Have TDRs been tried? Where have they been tried and how would they be handled? Bill Cimonetti expressed that he has had several calls and a letter from Ray Unsworth which was passed around. Ray's position is a request for time before any strong positions are taken on TDRs. There were too many unanswered questions in order to draw a positive conclusion at this time. Bill does not propose scrapping the idea. He is in support of several elements that are in Mr. Hafter's memo: - The Planning Commission should be strongly encouraged to give Council their studied opinion. - Let's analyze what the specific problems were of the last three years and consider other solutions; as well as, those solutions already in place. - Supportive of keeping the TDR study alive and work to answer some of the many questions brought up by concerned citizens. - The Planning Commission should be the group to go back and work on this issue after the City staff has done the research necessary to guide the commission. - Bill suggested that as soon as some kind of a working document begins to appear that a small support committee is structured that would critique that effort and act as critics. Mr. Flaherty turned to Jim Condos for his opinions on this matter. Jim stated that Chuck's suggestions should be considered very seriously. The South East Quadrant zoning is probably going to be the most important zoning decision to be made for many years. It can not be taken lightly and much consideration has be taken when it comes to concern for the citizens. Jim felt that he is possibly in favor of TDRs but does not feel knowledgeable enough to make that decision at this time. Jim is concerned about taxes and economics of the TDRs, would like more specific information in regards to other similar communities who have used TDRs. Jim also considers optional TDRs as a possibility. Jim expressed a real concern over approving developments with pump stations throughout the City and sees a need for a master plan behind all of these approvals. There seems to be a future problem surfacing with several pump stations, all different pumps with different parts. We have to start requesting specific criteria when pump stations are built by developers so that there is some continuity. It would bring more cost effective maintenance. We need a City planned sewer in the Southeast Quadrant. Jim is interested in TDRs but does not think that the City is ready for them at this time. Mike asked John Dinklage for his feelings on TDRs and John felt that Chuck's memo was very constructive. He recognized a consensus of opinion that the TDRs need much more work. The discussion should move onto to some other items that sadly enough have not been reviewed earlier. TDRs are a tool and should only be used as such. It is important to spend the time together focusing on seeing if we can come to an agreement as to the problems, and what are some of the more attractive solutions. Bill Burgess wanted to clarify that what he has heard from Council is that TDRs may have seemed to be a good idea but it is a little early for them at this time. The Planning Commission needs Council direction. Bill suggested that the Commission go back to consider different alternatives, get them to the conceptual stage and then present them to Council and ask Council to review the options. Bill Craig asked if Council was in favor of the Planning Commission's goals. Bill believes that there are two goals: 1. Attempt to grade the zoning density from the City Center to the rural communities that surround us. 2. Attempt to implement the Boyle Study Development Plan in the South East Quadrant. Bill Cimonetti reiterated that Council has asked the Commission to write a master plan and a zoning ordinance that are in harmony. Bill Burgess suggested that the Commission work to come up with some answers in regards to the TDRs because the concept will be brought forth again. The concern of Bill's is that he is afraid that they won't come up with many answers because the concept is too new. Commission and staff will do whatever they can to fulfill the Council's directions. John Dinklage stressed the importance of putting TDRs to rest and pointed out two real concerns in our zoning: 1. We became aware of our inability to protect important view corridors and natural resources with the developments along Spear Street. It should be a goal to devise a zoning ordinance that is as simple and defensive way as possible. Try to use the Boyle Study as a master overlay to direct our planning. Finding a way to protect these areas through an ordinance should be the goal. John would like to see that protection written in the law, rather than rely on the review process that accompanies each proposal. Concepts have to be tailored specifically for each and every proposal for each is unique, but let's minimize the hassle Planning Commission is faced with. The objectives should be spelled out as clearly as possible. 2. Our present ordinance was not adequate in dealing with the Ramsey Farm Development Proposal. We need help in implementing PUDs. Bill Craig expressed his concern not only for the City but also for the landowner and the developer. It is important that all know the City's agenda and expectations before making any plans for a certain area. Bob Chittenden expressed that he is not in favor of TDRs and also feels that the Boyle Study is not a practical one. Bill Burgess also pointed out that the Boyle Study was based on a single landowner for the SEQ which is not the case and; therefore, makes it difficult when preparing a zoning ordinance trying to protect views, right- of-ways, and many different land owners. The City Council asked the Planning Commission to revisit the zoning for the SEQ using more traditional zoning controls than TDRs. The Planning Commission will bring the Plan into conformity with the proposed zoning. The Council expressed the opinion that the use of a north-south divider line for phasing growth was not a critical element of a zoning plan. 3. Public Hearing on Extending the Interim Zoning By-laws; Consideration of Approval of Extension. Jim Condos made a motion to extend the Interim zoning until April 17, 1992 John Dinklage seconded this motion. Chuck Hafter agreed to direct the process and ask the Planning staff to give Council a schedule. The schedule has to allow time for the public hearings and input. The motion passed unanimously. There was agreement that Chuck would present a schedule at the next Council meeting that the Planning Commission and City Council can mutually agree upon and work with. John Dinklage chose to publicly give the Planning Commission the encouragement to better control their agenda. 4. Public Hearing on Amendment to Interim Zoning Ordinance to Permit Expansion of Existing Single-Family Structures and Accessory Uses in the Interim Zoning Area if such Construction in Compliance with Zoning Regulations; Second Reading of the Same. John Dinklage moves that the second reading be waived. Jim Condos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Request from Chittenden Regional Solid Waste District to Undertake a Feasibility Study Establishing a Regional Composting Facility for Septage, Sludge and Yard Wastes at a Site Adjacent to the Airport Parkway WWTF and the Municipal Landfill. The Regional Solid Waste District has approached City Manager to request the privilege to do a feasibility study for a composting facility at our landfill. They are interested in its location because of its close proximity to the sewage treatment plant. It is a closed self contained facility. Chuck encourages the study for the feasibility. It would be a means of disposing of our sludge if it should ever be decided that land disposal is no longer acceptable and it would be a means of revenue to follow the closing of our landfill. Bill Cimonetti questions whether the property could be more valuable to the City used in other ways. Bill would not oppose a feasibility study that would provide answers for the City as well as the District. It should be understood that there is no commitment from the City as a result of the study. John Dinklage expressed an interest in composting in terms of reducing the volume going into the landfill. Bill Cimonetti made a motion that the Council oppose the feasibility study. Bob Chittenden seconded the motion. Mr. Cimonetti withdrew the motion to table it until another agenda. The motion to table passed unanimously. 6. Request for Appointment of Council Member for Selection Committee to Review Proposals for Engineering Services. Robert Chittenden was appointed to the Selection Committee and Mr. Chittenden expressed his willingness to serve. John Dinklage made a motion to move into Executive Session to discuss personnel. Jim Condos seconded this motion. The motion was passed and Council moved into Executive Session at 9:30 PM. REGULAR SESSION: The Council reentered open session. Robert Chittenden moved adjournment, Jim Condos seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM. Council Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.