Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/04/1992CITY COUNCIL 4 MAY 1992 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday 4 May 1992, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, Robert Chittenden, James Condos (arrived late) Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Lisa Scagliotti, Free Press, William Burgess, Planning Commission; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Jacqueline & Michael Marceau, Laura & Stephen DeMaroney, Alex Blair, Vince Bolduc, Dick Underwood, Charles Scott, Nile Duppstadt, Michele Auclair, Joan Nadeau, Don & Joanne McLean, Christine Andreson, Dean Zoecklein, Dean Economou, Doug Richmond, Al Cummings, Nan Freymoyer 1. Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to Agenda Items): No issues were raised. 2. Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to the S. Burlington Zoning Regulations - Southeast Quadrant District and Scenic View Protection Overlay District; Consideration of second reading and adoption: Mr. Flaherty noted that two members were not present and that no decision would be made on adoption tonight but additional testimony and comments would be heard. Mr. Weith then reviewed the background of the proposed amendments. He indicated that the first step for the Planning Commission had been to set a goal in terms of the number of units that could be accommodated in the Southeast Quadrant. Then the Commission set about drafting an Ordinance to promote this number and some other goals. In order to arrive at the total buildout number, the Commission first went to the Master Plan to identify areas appropriate and not appropriate for development, giving consideration to preservation of natural features, views, significant setbacks, open space, farmland and wooded areas. Consideration was also given to compatibility with existing and planned infrastructure. The Commission then applied neighborhood densities to development areas. This resulted in approximately 3550 new units which, combined with existing units, resulted in the goal of approximately 4100 total units at buildout. The Commission then checked this number against other city goals such as sewer capacity, tax balance between residential and commercial, etc. They found that the total city goal is for approximately 12,000 total units (based on sewer capacity). The 4100 number is compatible with this. It is also compatible with maintaining the 50-50 residential-commercial ratio. Mr. Weith said it is estimated that 100 new units would be built each year for 20 years, so the 12,000 total units would not be reached for about 70 years. The Commission, he said, was comfortable with this. The Commission then drafted an Ordinance to promote the 4100 total units and the other stated goals. Mr. Weith then reviewed the highlights of this proposed Ordinance. There would be a new "Southeast Quadrant District." The City-owned parkland in the Quadrant would be rezoned as "Park Land." The goal of the Southeast Quadrant District would be to encourage the maintenance of the special character of the Quadrant by requiring development to occur in specific development areas. Mr. Weith then reviewed several hypothetical situations and showed how density would be computed in these cases. On areas of restricted development, the only development that could occur would be for agriculture/forestry, outdoor recreation, utility services, and access drives. Mr. Weith then explained the circumstances under which densities can be transferred between non-contiguous parcels. Mr. Weith then reviewed the provisions of the Scenic View Protection Overlay District and located the restricted areas on the map. He noted that heights of new structures and vegetation would be limited in the restricted areas according to a formula. There would be a waiver provision which would allow waiving the restrictions if more than 30% of a piece of property is in a restricted area or where, because of existing vegetation or structures, a planned development would not block a view. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the public. Ms. Auclair said that the views being protected wouldn't exist if the farmers hadn't protected them all these years. She said the proposed zoning would take away the most valuable piece of property. The city will enjoy what the farmer has worked and paid taxes for. She asked why they are paying taxes on land they couldn't develop. Mr. Weith explained that the density from this land is still available to the owner and can be used elsewhere. Mr. Scott said he does not favor the proposed zoning and will vote against it in the May 19th referendum. He felt the number of total units was too high and should be about half of that. He said that roads and schools will be overcrowded and noted there is already a bond issue being proposed to increase the capacity of the sewer system to accommodate development. He noted that the current proposed zoning can be accommodated only if the sewer plant is enlarged, so that technically the capacity for the proposed total number does not exist at this time. Mr. Scott also argued with the estimate of 70 years for buildout. He noted that before interim zoning was enacted there were proposals before the Planning Commission that would have resulted in 1200 homes being built and noted that with the proposed zoning those 1200 homes could be built in the next few years. Mr. Hafter said he had tried to look at the concerns of all sides in this issue and stressed that these concerns are legitimate. He said the intent is to do what is best for the city. He offered some suggestions of his own as to compromises that could be made: With a single density for the whole quadrant, Mr. Hafter said, smaller lots can be chapped up and larger lots are losing some of their development value. He suggested a different density plan that would arrive at the same total number. In this plan, a piece of land up to 10 acres would have a density of 1 unit per 3 acres; land between 10 and 25 acres would have 1 unit per 2 acres; between 25 and 50 acres would have one unit per acre, and a parcel over 50 acres would have a density of 1.5 units per acre. Mr. Hafter felt this would encourage planned development. Mr. Hafter said that Mr. Scott's point about the potential for rapid development is a good one. He said there could be an 800 unit subdivision this year. To address this possibility, he suggested the possibility of a limit on the number of building permits that can be issued in the city per year, possible 120. This would result in a minimum 30-year buildout for the Quadrant and would allow the city to control some of the "unknowns." Mr. Hafter also noted that the concern with building setbacks was a valid one as increased setbacks result in increased building and maintenance costs. To address this, he suggested a minimum setback of 200 ft. and then a bonus for a developer who builds with deeper setbacks. Mr. Hafter also felt there should be bonuses for the building of affordable housing units. Mrs. DeMaroney said she felt undevelopable land should have been subtracted before density was computed as it is done in other parts of the city. Mr. Bolduc said Mr. Hafter's proposals are interesting and deserve consideration. Mr. Dinklage noted the process is still open and there may be more ideas that haven't yet been considered. It was noted there will be at least one more hearing. If the Council feels more study is needed, the proposed zoning will go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bolduc said he liked the idea of a cap on the number of building units. On the question of density calculations, he felt the city might wind up with "some funny looking things" that don't go with the natural flow of the land. Mr. Bolduc also said the 4100 number that the city says has always been understood was never fully stated to the community. He also noted that people who worked on the original zoning that resulted in this number have acknowledged that they themselves were not aware of the total buildout potential. Mr. Duppstadt said no matter how many or how few units are built in the quadrant, the traffic will be there because if the development isn't in S. Burlington it will be in adjacent communities and there will be pass-through traffic. He also felt the sewer will happen anyway and it wasn't "a big deal." He said statistics show the largest total number of units built in the County was 800 in a year. Ms. Freymoyer said she isn't sure how to vote. She said there are view protection policies and then waivers to eliminate them. She didn't know what was or wasn't controlled and what loopholes there were. (Mr. Condos arrived at this point in the meeting.) Mr. Richmond of Citizens for Property Rights said the Planning Commission rarely allows maximum densities to be built and 4100 is not likely to occur. Regarding scenic views, he felt land shouldn't be treated as if it belongs to the public. He felt that future farmland in Chittenden County is doomed. Mr. Cummings said this is a very difficult issue and he didn't know how it affects him, since he doesn't live in the Quadrant. Ms. DeMaroney asked what will happen if the referendum results in a "no" vote. Mr. Flaherty replied he didn't know. Mr. Blair noted that the proposed zoning in the quadrant would make that 1/4 of the city as large as the whole city is now. Mr. Dinklage then moved to continue the hearing until the first meeting in June. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the South Burlington 1991 Comprehensive Plan, Southeast Quadrant and Future Land Use; schedule second public hearing: Mr. Weith said the amendments are compatible with proposed zoning. He reviewed the current plan noting that it calls for an urban center surrounded by more rural areas. Development out of the general growth area is discouraged and moderate density is encouraged near the core with very low density outside the core. In the proposed amendments those sections would be revised to refer to 4100 units as the goal. The growth area concept would be eliminated and the Quadrant would be treated as a unit. The section still would recommend a modified urban core with decreasing densities to the south or east. Mr. Condos moved to set the second public hearing for the first meeting in June. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Public Hearing of Proposed Amendments to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Section 1.6022, Central District Ordinance; consideration of second reading and adoption: Mr. Weith noted there were problems in the Central Distric (CD2) with setback provisions. In trying to promote the goal of putting development at the streetside with parking in the middle of the block, certain locations were left with not enough room for a building. This amendment creates an 80 ft. building envelope and still keeps parking in the center of the block. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the proposed amendments to Section 1.6022 of the S. Burlington Zoning Regulations, Central District Ordinance, as proposed. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend the Sewer Regulations Ordinance of the City Of South Burlington to utilize Vermont Health Regulations, Chapter 5 Sanitary Engineering, Sub-Chapter 10 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, Individual on-site systems, as the City standard for on-site disposal systems; second reading of same, consideration of adoption: Mr. Ward said this proposed amendments bring the city into conformance with current state law. The process won't be changed from what is currently being followed. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the proposed amendments to the Sewer Regulations of the City of South Burlington as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Review Zoning Board agenda for 11 May: Mr. Condos noted that in Item #2, the request for a beauty salon in a single family home is an attempt to overrule the Zoning Administrator's ruling on this. He said the Council should urge the Board to look at this very carefully as it is a use variance which is illegal. 8. Minutes of 20 April and 29 April 1992: Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the Minutes of 20 April as written. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden felt that Mr. Condos had been misquoted in the Minutes of 29 April on the issue of parking fees at Red Rocks Park. Mr. Condos felt the Minutes expressed the gist of what he had said. Mr. Condos moved to approve the Minutes of 29 April as written. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 2-1 with Mr. Chittenden opposing and Mr. Dinklage abstaining. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 10. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Dinklage moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented a catering permit request from Creative Catering, Ltd., for an open house at the Lavine Residence, Swift Street, 14 May 1992, from 5-8 p.m. He said the request is in order. Mr. Condos moved to approve the catering permit as presented. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter then presented a liquor license request for Pizza Putt which, he said, was in order. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the liquor license request for Pizza Putt as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter then presented a new list of tobacco licenses approved by the City Clerk. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the tobacco licenses as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session: Mr. Dinklage moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to discuss real property acquisition and a personnel matter and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The City Council returned to regular session. Mr. Condos moved adjournment, Mr. Dinklage seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.