Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/30/1991CITY COUNCIL 30 SEPTEMBER 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Michael Flaherty at 7:30 PM. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, William Cimonetti, James Condos, John Dinklage, Robert Chittenden Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Planning Commission Members - Bill Burgess, Catherine Peacock, Ann Pugh, Terry Sheahan, William Craig, David Austin, and Mary-Barbara Maher; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Dewey Frint, Michele Auclair, Peter Jacobs, Ray Unsworth, L. Long, John Trono, Alex Blair, Fran Reiman, Vince Bolduc, John Ponsetto, Barbara Hibbitts, George Chamberland, Niles Druppstadt, Stephen Whittlesey, Dick Ward, Dick Underwood, John Larkin, William Wessel, Diane Wessel, Ralph B. Goodrich, Steven F. Stitzel, Charles Scott. 1. Comments and Questions from the Public (not related to the Agenda). Michael Flaherty informed the Council that Monday, October 7 is picture taking day and everyone should wear a tie. 2. Discussion with Planning Commission about proposed Rezoning in the Southeast Quadrant and amendment to Comprehensive Plan; Joe Weith, City Planner. John Dinklage informed the public that the City Council is meeting with the Planning Commission to see where they are at and when the Comprehensive Plan is in a stage to present formally to the public, the Planning Commission will have warned public hearings and if they approve it, then they will send it on to the City Council and we will have warned public hearings before it becomes law. This is just an informational meeting. Joe Weith stated that the amendment package addresses three areas. The first area are some amendments to existing Article VI which is our Agricultural and Rural Residential District. The second area with changes is Section 19.15 Planned Unit Development provisions. These are the standards to all planned unit developments in all of the districts in the City. The third change is to establish a new Article XXV which is a Scenic View Protection Overlay District. This District would encompass some identified view corridors and limit heights of structures and landscaping in those areas in order to preserve views from existing and planned public ways. The No. 1 goal which the Planning Commission is working with in reviewing the zoning is to preserve the open rural character of the quadrant. It is an objective of the City to allow residential uses in this area, allow growth to expand into this area but we are really trying to encourage development that will be designed in a way to preserve these special qualities, those being the open lands, the natural resources, the wetlands, the streams, the wildlife habitats, some of the wood lots, special features, continued agriculture use and also the scenic views in the quadrant. Joe Weith reviewed the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan with the City Council, Planning Commission and the public. John Dinklage commented on the downzoning of the 50 acre PUD. We should hold out an option for a landowner/developer to come close to the original 2 per acre under certain conditions; 1) if the proposed development met or sufficiently furthered the objectives to achieve affordable housing as yet undefined; and 2) consider even a higher density back toward what we originally perceived along the lines that I suggested, it might present us with situations where we might want to insist on more buffering, more landscaping, perhaps even design control for that particular development. John Dinklage questioned about Section 6404 5., on page 4, regarding two or more contiguous lots - there is a provision regarding a public right-of-way. Does the Planning Commission intend that to include any two parcels in the Southeast Quadrant. A connection by a public road which is a public right-of- way could serve that definition and does the Planning Commission have that in mind. Mr. Burgess replied no. Mr. Dinklage stated that they consider that language because they should include or exclude that possibility. William Cimonetti stated that within the Agricultural Residential District we have three isolated properties that are University property and he raised the point that the Planning Commission should look into this regarding the zoning change. We need to consider a specific University agricultural usage zone for those isolated properties. Michael Flaherty highly reiterated John Dinklage's comment on the density of 2 units per 50 acres. We have many developments now even though they don't approach 50 they were under those guidelines and with some equity of fairness, we can continue with the existing properties that have not been developed. William Cimonetti replied that the difficulty in the arguments of Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Dinklage is that you are agreeing that there are special criterias for a PUD. He pointed out there are no guarantees but you must make serious steps towards the objective or accomplish the objectives of the PUD. It really is a bonus consideration and he hopes that as the Planning Commission goes forward with the ordinance that we don't confuse it even further than the statutes allow. James Condos wants to make sure the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Goals both agree with respect to affordable housing. James Condos asked Joe Weith that in referring to his topography map, why Dorset Park Zone B the northerly line goes out farther than the Hinesburg Road line. Does it just end at the road. Mr. Weith replied it is a different elevation and the view is different from above and we just determined what the view corridor should be by looking at it. Mr. Condos asked if the topography is correct regarding this zone. Mr. Weith replied that along Hinesburg Road on the west side there is no problem. He can look into that further to see if on the other side of Hinesburg Road if there might be potential for a tree that might grow 40 or 50 feet. William Cimonetti asked about a particular area in the community with a height restriction of vegetation imposed by Act 250 is not necessarily a part of our zoning ordinance. Is that a way we will want to continue. Either being silent or in opposition to an Act 250 stipulation is not a healthy situation and the zoning ordinance should either speak to and should be in agreement with Act 250 but if it is not in agreement with an Act 250 stipulation, we surely should speak to it in our ordinance. Rather than say the height is taken care of here by an Act 250 stipulation, it should be included in the ordinance. Mr. Weith responds that it is included. Regarding the Meadow Wood at Spear, they put a limit on the height of trees. We could not regulate the existing vegetation. One thing going in our favor is the Act 250 stipulation limits the heights of the existing trees and we could put in additional zoning which would regulate future landscaping planning in other areas covered by Act 250. The Act 250 regulation is more restrictive than the one proposed here. Mr. Cimonetti stated that we should make sure we understand and have record of the ordinance and any other Act 250 stipulations that are binding on these properties. If these stipulations are intended to apply to the ordinance, I think we want to get specific on them. Mike Flaherty asked Mr. Burgess if the Planning Commission discussed the need of smaller industrial lots in the Southeast Quadrant. Mr. Burgess replied that they did not propose smaller industrial lots. He is not sure the Planning Commission is opposed to it but they did not choose to include it. Robert Chittenden asked Joe Weith who formulated the goals. Mr. Weith replied most of the goals already existed in the 85 plan and were formulated by the City and probably in the previous plans to that. Some of the newer goals were proposed by me and the Planning Commission based on input provided at some of our forums and discussion in public meetings. Bill Burgess replied that there is a difference between setting goals for the Planning Commission and the goals you are addressing as part of the Comprehensive Plan. We are proposing those to be the goals and it is up to you to agree or not agree or adopt them or change them. We are effectively done and the reason we have not gone public is because we have a conflict with the crosshatched areas. Robert Chittenden stated that it seems that the Planning Commission is encouraging a 25 acre development by having 1 unit/5 acres. Why not just have 1 unit/5 acres, instead of developing 25 acres you can have a three lot parcel that is 15 acres, so you are doing less construction than you would if you developed 25 acres. Joe Weith replied the Planning Commission wanted to keep the existing concept in place with the density bonus provision, one unit/10 acres. Robert Chittenden replied this is encouraging development at 2 lots per 5 acres. If you want to preserve the open land, then develop 10 acres at 5 acres per lot instead of 25. William Craig replied if you want to parcel the lots into 2 acre lots or 5 acre lots throughout the entire region, then you cannot cluster the houses. It is the concept of the planned unit development where you can move things around and to protect the open space. Bill Burgess replied that the Planning Commission looked around and decided how dense does one unit per acre look and it had a lot to do with our decision to recommend 1 unit/1 acre. Robert Chittenden asked if the Planning Commission would be opposed to 1 unit/5 acres instead of 1 unit/10 acres. Mr. Burgess replied yes because with the proposed densities, the Planning Commission and the City Council have control over the development and the placement or whatever the developer chooses to do. If you just change the zoning, you lose complete control. Robert Chittenden replied 1 unit/10 acres is not even middle income housing, that is upper level. A person making $50,000 will not buy a 10 acre parcel, or 5 acres. Are you trying to make it affordable for people to live out in the Quadrant or are you trying to make it an isolated housing project for the rich. I don't know what you are trying to do. Ann Pugh asked Mr. Chittenden since he owns between 50 and 75 acres in the Southeast Quadrant, could he tell us what his concerns are regarding the density. Mr. Chittenden responded that he feels the density should not be downgraded and 2 units per acre was appropriate in the past. James Condos stated that it is important to keep in mind that the existing zoning has been 1/10 and a PUD was 2 per acre on a 50 acre parcel. There wasn't a guarantee of 2 per acre although that evolved and developers and landowners felt it was their given right that it was 2 per acre on a 50 acre plus parcel but it is not a given right but it was something we designed through the PUD system. The issue of the 25 acre lot where it gives you a 1 unit/5 acres it doesn't mean you are going to break it up in 5 acre pieces. It is the intent that you are going to cluster those 5 units on the 25 acres somewhere on the parcel, they might be on a 1 acre parcel and the rest will remain open and that is what the intent is of that whole section regarding the 25, 35 and 50 acres. Ann Pugh stated there seems to be a misunderstanding about the 25 and 35 acres and one reason for that is when you have 49 1/2 acres you could build 4 houses on it but if you had that extra 1/2 acre you could then go to 100 units. The Planning Commission felt that was a large leap to make and we felt we should step into this matter. William Cimonetti asked if any member of the Planning Commission would comment on any other areas either the ones identified or had been identified through prior planning process, you studied and set aside from the view protection discussion. Would you inform us on your process of selecting these particular six view protection zones, one which is pre-existing. Bill Burgess responded the Planning Commission rented a bus and drove around and went from view corridor to view corridor. As a result, we eliminated a number of areas and retained the ones that we thought were the most important. William Cimonetti commended Mr. Burgess for their work regarding the examination of view protection zones. William Craig commented regarding affordable housing. There are portions of the City that go up to R7 and it is within these portions of the City where we have been successful in implementing affordable housing. Going to 2 units per acre will not get you to affordable housing. If you wish to pursue this in the Southeast Quadrant, you would do better to take a portion of it and put it up to R7, and that is where you will get affordable housing. At 2 units per acre it will be very difficult for the Planning Commission to get the open space and the views. James Condos stated that in the draft of the Comprehensive Plan Goals it states that the City plans to encourage structurally sound, safe housing for all income levels ... dispersing lower cost housing throughout the City. Reading this it says we want affordable housing throughout the City excluding it from the Southeast Quadrant. If we are going to say it in the Comprehensive Plan but exclude it from the zoning document, we should make the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and make it agree. If we are going to have affordable housing, it should be put around municipal focal points such as schools, parks and public transportation. Bill Burgess replied he will get the two documents to agree. John Dinklage asked if the Commission in looking at the Southeast Quadrant identified any areas that they thought about possibly increasing the density somewhere up to 7 per acre. Mary-Barbara Maher replied no they did not look at the aspect of increasing density in other areas. If the City officials are serious about affordable housing, it is not going to be done even at R2, it has to be done at R2 plus a bonus. If we have downzoning, we are penalizing the people who have large lots, many of whom have had them in their family or have owned them for a long time. Whereas, people who own the smaller lots, the 25 or 30, for the most part acquired them and knew what the zoning was, they are being rewarded. I am not opposed to them being rewarded but it creates an injustice. PUBLIC AUDIENCE Michele Auclair agreed with Mary-Barbara Maher regarding the large landowners being penalized and the smaller landowner will not which is not right. Everybody should be thankful for the large landowners who have kept the Quadrant open. We are maintaining it and we are paying the taxes. The scenic views are gorgeous but if the City wants it, the City better buy it. Niles Druppstadt stated that the City is taking half the equity away from the landowners with no justification. I have been a land planner for 25 years and you take a look at what the goals are of the town, you look at the people who live there, and you work together for a solution. You do not just downzone. If you go to one acre zoning, that means the actual density will be 1/3 of an acre, at most 1/2 acre. The least expensive house in South Burlington will be $300,000. Ray Unsworth stated it is logical to zone with smaller lots rather than larger lots. I don't understand the need of a base of 10 acres. What can you do with a house on 10 acres. You can't farm it, you can't grow timber, you can't grow commercial Christmas trees, you can't grow turf and they won't let you raise pigs. Have you ever tried to keep up 9 acres of lawn for just one summer. The Southeast Quadrant will become a horrible mess of weeds and second growth trash trees and destroy whatever views you seek to keep open. You can get privacy from reasonable landscape on an acre of land. He proposed that you not ignore a) that South Burlington is in fact a community; b) that it will continue to grow in spite of the labels the Planning Commission affixes; c) the 10 acre zoning is unconscionable; d) that 5 and 10 acre zoning does not satisfy a legitimate purpose; and e) that you have given a disproportionate benefit and bonuses to the larger landowners. Charles Scott stated that the population of South Burlington will double. That means doubling the amount of traffic, doubling the need in schools, doubling the amount of services and the costs of services to all the residents. I encourage the Commission to continue the way they are going in relationship to the 50 plus acre units. I want to see many farms remain open, and many farmers remain farming if they can. Once they stop farming and develop the lands, they are no longer farmers, they are developers. The residents of the Southeast Quadrant are very wealthy and if you look at what the basis for the land when they paid for it and how they got it and what it will sell for, whether it be 1/2 acre or one acre, they are coming out okay. I encourage you to think that the full City and the impact of the Southeast Quadrant will have on the full City if full developed in 1/2 acre lots. Most of the large open land are more than 50 acres and that is a lot of development in the City of South Burlington. Michelle Auclair replied that the City will make more money with more houses to tax on than they do on land. John Dinklage asked Michelle Auclair if she is aware of the tax abatement process that is available to a landowner if they wish to keep their land open for a period of 10 years. Is that attractive to you or your neighbors as a landowner. Michelle Auclair replied yes it does help, but on your land you are still going to pay a certain tax and the general tax rate will continue to climb with the growth of the City. Vince Bolduc reminded the Commission why we started relooking at the Southeast Quadrant. A couple of years ago when the Southeast Quadrant Committee was formed of which I was a member, there was a concern of a loss of views, open space and the character of the Quadrant. A lot of work went into that Committee, a lot of work the Planning Commission has done and I feel the Planning Commission has done just what they are supposed to do, listen to the public, listen to their concerns, and talk to the Commission. All of the concerns have been looked at and unless we do something, we will be back where we started from. We have a proposal before us and it may be time to do something. I commend the Planning Commission for having worked as hard as they have. Fran Reiman replied about what to do with 10 acres. We planted trees, we care for the land, we do not mow 10 acres, we leave part of the land free. The area we mow and don't mow we love. We thoroughly enjoy our 10 acres. There are other options available for affordable housing, there are R7 areas. Alex Blair stated he feels the Planning Commission has done a good job. I hope everyone can get at least 50% of what they want. Robert Chittenden would like to stay with 2 units per acre for a 50 acre parcel. William Cimonetti would like to have the Planning Commission set aside the isolated University land and create a very special zone that identifies it university agricultural and divide the industrial sites smaller. I recommend the Planning Commission go into the public hearings with the Plan as they have it. James Condos supports the Plan as it is and to go forward with the public hearings. He agrees with Mr. Cimonetti that we look at the industrial sites remaining with the possibility of reducing the size of the industrial sites. Michael Flaherty stated one of the objectives was to keep open space and the people who have kept the lands open will be penalized and he has some problems with the fairness and equity of this. He favors 2 units/1 acre. John Dinklage commented about industrial zones and lot size. These are issues that will need more in-depth analysis. I suggest when you go through your final deliberation, you should have some items that you would like to revisit later, make a public commitment to do so and not hold up the process of completing this stage of the zoning. On the issue of smaller industrial lots, perhaps a committee for industry needs to be formulated to explore this in-depth and that probably cannot be accomplished in the time before us to complete this stage in process. 3. Approval of Grant Application Under Municipal Planning Program. Chuck stated this is a Grant Application Act 200 where the funds got cut. They pay us a certain way which is to apply for a grant and we are not obligated to them if we use the money as proposed. William Cimonetti moved that we authorize the approval of the grant application. Mr. Condos seconded this motion. The approval was granted unanimously. 4. Approval of Application for Engineering Planning Advance from State of Vermont for Facilities Plan Development, Bartlett Bay Water Pollution Control Facility. James Condos moved that we approve the resolution as presented. John Dinklage seconded this motion. The approval was granted unanimously. 5. Read Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting: September 16, 1991. John Dinklage moved to approve the minutes of September 16, 1991 as written. James Condos seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. Robert Chittenden made a motion to adjourn as City Council and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. John Dinklage seconded the motion and Council passed unanimously. a) W.F.W. Co. Inc., Wetherbee's, catering a Halloween Party - D. Andrew's, 1721 Dorset Street, South Burlington, on October 26, 1991 from 7:30 PM until 12:30 AM. Chuck checked the parking and found ample parking. This is a private home. William Cimonetti asked how large of an attendance at the party. Chuck replied Wetherbee's is catering for 65 people. William Cimonetti asked if this was an adult gathering. Chuck replied yes. William Cimonetti asked if there are houses nearby or neighbors. Chuck replied there is one house nearby. Their previous parties have been in the barn. The police have no problems with the party. William Cimonetti stated if this is approved, I strongly recommend you contact the neighbors and inform them well in advance. William Cimonetti moved approval contingent upon Chuck contacting the neighbors before the party. James Condos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Michael Flaherty moved the Liquor Control Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in executive session to discuss contract negotiations and land acquisition. Regular Session: John Dinklage moved for adjournment, Robert Chittenden seconded. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.