Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/08/1973SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 1973 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting at 7:30 P. M. on Monday, January 8, 1973, in the Conference Room of the South Burlington City Hall, 1175 Williston Rd. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Frederick Blais, Harold Brown, Michael Flaherty, Brian Gee, and Walter Nardelli. OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager Richard Ward, Code Officer Paul Zerr Steve Ordief, WJOY F. Fagelman Nancy Fagelman Arlene Krapcho F. C. McCagfrey George S. Smith Albert Audette Kay Newbert Virginia Kelleher Raymond Unsworth Richard Myette James Pizzagalli William Wessel Chairman Blais opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. He asked the Council if there were any corrections, omissions, or additions to the minutes of December 4, 1972. Mr. Nardelli moved to accept the minutes of December 4, 1972. Mr. Brown seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. DISBURSEMENTS Chairman Blais reminded the Council to sign the disbursements at their leisure. Chairman Blais said that the Sign Committee was meeting at this time, and therefore the next item on the agenda concerning the sign ordinance would be postponed until later on the agenda. SUBMISSION OF RESIGNATION OF JAMES LAMPHERE, CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Gee moved to regretfully accept the letter of resignation from Mr. Lamphere. Mr. Nardelli seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Blais read a resolution prepared by the City Manager, Mr. Szymanski, which resolved to express appreciation for Mr. Lamphere's services and professional help. Mr. Nardelli moved to accept the Resolution as drafted. Mr. Gee seconded the motion. Mr. Blais commented that he hoped Mr. Lamphere's service would be an illustration of other people who would be serving the city in the future. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Brown added that he felt it was a great loss to the city of Mrs. Laaphere's knowledge, ability and hours. RED ROCKS COMMITTEE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 1972 Chairman Blais said that the Red Rocks Committee had reviewed their priorities for Phase II of the Red Rocks Plan. He explained that the initial plan called for the purchasing of five homes adjacent to the Red Rocks beach front property with funds of 104,000 available for the purchase. Since the asking price of property owners was much greater than the appraisal, the Committee reevaluated their priorities. The Committee said their first priority now is for construction of bath house and second to acquire property with the balance of funds. Mr. Szymanski said he contacted Mr. Forest Orr, and that Mr. Orr said the plan could be amended. Mr. Szymanski asked Mr. Peter Bergh to draw up a preliminary plan for the bathhouse and cost estimates. The plan for the bath house showed 2,460 sq. ft. for an approximate cost of $70,000, as estimated by Mr. Anthony Adams. Some features of the proposed bath house are: Maintenance and storage room Janitor's closet Life Guard Room and rest rooms First Aid Room Men's and Women's Rooms Shower's and Changing areas Concessions Public Locker Telephone The bath house is presumed not to be winterized according to the proposed plan. Mr. Nardelli said he would like consideration for the bath house to be designated a lodge which would provide fall and winter use. He suggested that the Red Rocks Committee be consulted as to its opinion and estimate of the value of having a bath house versus a lodge. Mr. Gee asked the going rate for construction of a house which was said to be $30,00 per Sq. Ft. The architect's fee was said to be $4,000. Mr. Nardelli asked that target dates be drawn up by the City Manager for what will be available for public use at what time. Mr. Szymanski said he believed that the trail, beach, parking and sidewalk will be available by warm weather and the deadline for Phase II was December 1973. Chairman Blais said the biggest holdup was the signal lights and the walking bridge. Mr. Szymanski said he would make a schedule. Mr. Gee said he would like to see a report indicating a time schedule for rules and regulations for parks in the city, that would be ready for adoption by the Council. Mr. Szymanski said the only ordinance on the books now was the prohibition of motorized vehicles on the High School Natural Area. Mr. Blais said that he wanted a proposed regulation ready for a first reading at the next meeting of the Council. Mr. Nardelli moved to accept the concept of the bath house, or lodge, subject to the Red Rock's Committee reporting back to the Council at the next meeting on their evaluation of a lodge concept, and a list of budget allocations for the remainder of Phase II funds after construction of bath house, or lodge. Mr. Gee seconded the motion. Mrs. Newbert asked what percentage of the floor area was devoted to the Life Guard quarters. Mr. Szymanski said 320 sq. ft., which is 8%. She asked if there is an open area in the bath house for gathering of people for recreational purposes or to provide shelter for inclement weather. Mr. Szymanski said he did not think there was a general open area, but said there was a picnic facility to the west which is proposed to be a hexogonal covered structure. He said each side of the hexogon was 12', and he estimated the structure would be approximately 24'x20'. She suggested that since it was proposed to have a concession in the bath house that an eating area should be immediately adjacent. Mr. Szymanski reminded that BOR funds can only be used to provide facilities for outdoor recreational purposes. Mrs. Krapcho commented that winter use of the bath house should be discouraged to avoid costly vandalism unless the city was prepared to provide a full time supervisor. She suggested that only the Men's and Women's Rooms be opened in the winter which are accessible from outside the bathhouse and keeping the rest of the bathhouse closed. Mr. Audette asked what the existing structure would be used for. Mr. Blais said it is possible that it will be used for a oaretaker's house. Mrs. Neubert asked if the building would be metal, and Mr. Szymanski said it would be all wood. The motion was passed unanimously. AMENDMENT TO EXISTING DOG ORDINANCE Mr. Blais read the existing Section 4 and 7 and the proposed changes to the sections which authorizes the City Manager to delegate the responsibility of warning, fining, and impounding to a designated representative such as a dogimpounder. Mr. Flaherty said that Section 4 does not mention the responsibility of calling dog owners when their dogs are impounded. Mr. Blais said this requirement is in the Poundkeeper Agreement. A member of the audience asked if a dogcatcher would be allowed to automatically trespass on any property other than there property of the dog's owner. He said it might be a problem if a dog were being taken care of by someone else, and the dogcatcher would have no way of knowing the dog had permission to be there. Chairman Blais said he felt more people were annoyed at roving dogs than at having the above mentioned annoyance. Mrs. Newbert said she didn't realize the city was going to have a roving dogcatcher. She felt dogs should be picked up when a complaint was registered. Mr. Nardelli moved to adopt the drafted amendments to Sections 4 and 7. Mr. Gee seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Nardelli moved to table action on the draft Poundkeeper Agreement until the next meeting in order to have a chance to read it over. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. OPEN DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE Mr. Blais said they will first hear from the Sign Committee. Mr. Flaherty said the general intent was for open discussion and if there was general agreement on amendments, then the second reading would be warned. He said recommendations had been received from the Planning Commission and the procedure would be to hold a public hearing on the second reading. Mr. Pizzagalli, Chairman of the Sign Committee, indicated to the Council the Committee's evaluation of the Planning Commission's revisions to the draft of Sign Ordinance, and of the report from the Chamber of Commerce. -no comment on the addition to the purpose clause P.1 -no objection to changed formula for replacement schedule, as recommended by Planning Commission -reference by Planning Commission to Section 14 b is already covered in Section 16 -do not understand reference to table of Basic Design Elements by Planning Commission -opposed to variance procedure, but see need for appeals. If variances are allowed, then the Committee recommends one additional step of public hearing by Planning Commission as well as approval by Zoning Board and Review Board. Also the City Attorney should draft precise criteria conditions under which variances would be allowed and then enforced carefully. -according to Chamber of Commerce Report, allow stores in shopping centers to have a total of three facade signs, the same as an individual business is allowed, the total area of all signs to be within the maximum allowed for square area. -according to the Chamber of Commerce report, allow certain designated areas of signs for changeable messages or prices if approved by the Sign or Design Review Board. Mr. Nardelli asked if Reader Board had been defined. Mr. Pizzahalli said not yet. It was suggested that charitable organizations might be exempted from the fee schedule but that a permit would still be required. Mr. Pizzagalli said he felt the permit and fee schedule should be worked out by the Code Officer and the Council. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Pizzagalli if the Committee had evaluated the suggested revisions made at the Council meeting of November 6. For example, Mr. Gibson suggested that definitions of reflective devices needed revision. Mr. Pizzagalli said it would be a good idea for the Council to confer with Mr. Gibson. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Pizzagalli about the pros and cons of computing cut-out letters. Mr. Pizzagalli said the method of allowing double maximum for cut-out letters was to encourage the use of cut-out letters which have less visual impact against the natural facade of a building than against another color or material on the background of the sign. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Pizzagalli why the total number of characters was not limited as was recommended by the consultant on signs, Mr. Ewald. Mr. Pizzagalli replied that he thought it would infringe on a person's right to say what he wanted on the sign. Mr. Gee said he was concerned about certain restaurants which have numerous sayings. Mr. Pizzagalli said he thought the Sign Review Board would limit the amount of lettering, but that more flexibility would be provided if the lettering were handled by the Board rather than through a provision in the ordinance. Mr. Gee asked Mr. Pizzagalli if he thought the 40 sq. ft. limitation on free standing signs would be an infringement on motel businesses. Mr. Pizzagalli said he add concluded there should not be different standards for different businesses. Mr. Flaherty asked why should the purpose clause include the phrase which says "promote an orderly and business atmosphere". Mr. Flaherty said that in a case of a conflict between the public interest and private business, it would be a problem to interprete the purpose clause. He said he believed an ordinance was intended to protect the interests of the general public rather than a special interest. Mr. Brown said he did not think that the business interest should be eliminated from the ordinance. Mr. Flaherty said the only interest should be public safety, and that the promotion of business interests could be in direct conflict with safety. Mr. Flaherty moved that the phrase "promote an orderly and business atmosphere" should not be a part of the sign ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. After some discussion Mr. Nardelli seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Gee and Mr. Brown opposed the motion, and Mr. Nardelli, Mr. Flaherty and Chairman Blais voted in favor. Chairman Blais proceeded through the ordinance from Page 1 to see if the Council had any questions, Mr. Nardelli raised a question on the formula for computing cut-out letters by taking half its size. He felt the proposed ordinance was already generous by allowing three facade signs, and with its maximum area. Mr. Pizzagalli explained that wall letters cannot exceed 4' in height. Mrs. Krapoho said that the Grand Union had cut out letters totaling 171 sq. ft. in area, which was 5% of its facade, since it did not have any free standing sign. Mr. Flaherty said newer buildings were already using cut-out letters under the present ordinance and that the bonus of computing half the size was not needed under the proposed ordinance. Chairman Blais believed that the average business would use loud colors if confined to small sign areas. Mr. Flaherty reiterated that businesses were already using cut-out letters under the present ordinance. Mr. Nardelli moved that the phrase "one- half of" be deleted from the section defining the computation method for cut-out letters, Section 3a. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Gee, and Mr. Nardelli approved, and Mr. Brown and Chairman Blais opposed. Mr. Gee moved to add a section to Section 3c, "If a business elects to eliminate its free standing sign, it may compute cut-out letters for its facade signs by taking one-half its area." Mr. Brown seconded the motion. Mr. Zerr said he believed this motion would cause problems because the businesses which erected signs already by computing in the normal way will feel it is unfair to let future signs have the benefit of doubling its size if using cut-out letters. Mrs. Krapoho reminded the Council that the Grand Union already 171 sq. ft. and since the proposed ordinance has a maximum of 200 sq. ft. for all facade signs including cut-out letters, she does not feel there is a problem with computing out-out letters, One-half its size as long as there is a maximum of 200 sq. ft. The motion was carried by a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Brown, Mr. Gee, and Chairman Blais approved, and Mr. Mardelli and Mr. Flaherty opposed. Mr. Nardelli moved to add string lighting to Sect 2 P. 2. Mr. Gee seconded the motion. The motion passes unanimously. Mr. Nardelli moved to get a legal definition for parapet wall and for reader board sign. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Brown moved that cut-out letters applied directly to the building may include decals, artistic painting, etc. Mr. Gee seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Pizzagalli informed the Council that the Sign Committee would strongly oppose an ordinance which did not provide some form of design review for every application. Mr. Flaherty moved to accept Sections 4,5,6,7 as drafted, concerning provisions for a Sign Review Board. Mr. Flaherty then withdrew this motion and moved to table action on these provisions until the next meeting. Mr. Nardelli seconded them motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Gee said the Council should have a work session before the next meeting. Mrs. Krapcho requested that the Council take up discussion where they left off. SIGN HIGHWAY STAT AID CLAIM Mr. Szymanski said three signatures are required. The measurement of of state aid totaled 20,239 miles. SALE OF LAND IN PLANNED DISTRICT Chairman Blais proposed that any sale of land in Planned District shall be deemed a Subdivision, and that any sale of land to a non-profit institution shall be deemed a Subdivision and shall be required to go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nardelli believed this would be discriminatory. Chairman Blais said non-profit institutions have other protective measures. Mr. Flaherty asked what was the estimate of acreage in the city that was owned by non-profit institutions. It was said approximately 10,700 acres in 600-700 total acreage in the city. Mr. Gee asked if this provision would cover gifts and grants. Mr. Flaherty commented that private institutions donate money and services in lieu of taxes. Mr. Nardelli asked the Chairman to get a legal opinion. AUXILLIARY POLICE FORCE Mr. Gee briefed the Council on further information he had received. The subject will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Gee moved to adjourn. Mr. Nardelli seconded. Motion passed at 10:45 P.M. Approved Brian J. Gee. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.