Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/29/1973SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JAN. 29, 1973 APPROVED FEB. 5, 1973 WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS Page 8 - Correct minutes "to show that Chairman Blais abstained from the vote on accepting Article I" Page 5 - Correct minutes to read "the motion was approved by a 3 to 2 vote, Councilman Nardelli, Flaherty and Gee approved." Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 29, 1973 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, January 29, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the City Hall, 1175 Williston Rd. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Frederick Brown, Harold Brown, Michael Flaherty, Brian Gee, and Walter Nardelli. OTHERS PRESENT Albert Cummings Robert Ray, Brewer Motor Eugene Cenci, Holiday Inn Peter Matta, Tower Restaurant Scott Henderson, Conn. Bernard Rocheleau, Suburban Dist. Gregory Premo, Redwood Master Hosts John Menonis, Black Angus Steak House Kay Neubert Joan and Wayne Wilson Lou Mazel, Gaynes Gregg Wilson, Attorney for Mutual Tennis P. Kyricou, Roostertail Paul Zerr Arlene Krapcho Alfred Calcagni Loren Avery Rowland Peterson David Merrill, Ethan Allen Motel Frank Cota, Twin State Neon Raymond Danis Doug Hoar Ray Unsworth Robert Larson William Robenstein Chairman Blais opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. DISBURSEMENTS Chairman Blais reminded the Council members to sign the disbursements at their leisure. MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 1973 Councilman Gee said that on P. 2 it should be corrected to read that Mr. Gee suggested that Chairman Blais read a letter from the City Attorney. On P. 3 it should be corrected to read that the concept of regional planning "should", not "could". Councilman Nardelli moved to accept the minutes of January 15, 1973, as corrected. Councilman Brown seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR ZONING PERMIT UNDER 24 V.S.A., SECTION 4443-MUTUAL TENNIS Chairman Blais explained that under Title 24 Act 91 while zoning is in the process of ordaining and warning, a building permit which is substantially different must receive written approval from the City Council. Mr. Greg Wilson, Attorney for Mutual Tennis, said that Mutual Tennis complies with all provisions of the warned zoning except that lot coverage is 22% rather than 20% as provided in the proposed zoning. Mr. Gene Rosen explained the project to the Council saying it was a revised plan from the original submission. The original plan complied with the existing zoning and the revised plan showed an acquisition of an additional 3/4 acre piece of land, which allowed the developer to comply with yard requirements and minimum 50 acre requirement of the new zoning. The additional land also allowed the developer to almost meet the lot coverage requirements. Mr. Rosen said that Mutual Tennis received a parking space variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The variance reduced the spaces required from 200 to 50. Mr. Rosen said that under optimum conditions there would never be more than 48 cars parked at any one time. Chairman Blais said that the City is making an effort to reduce paved area. Mr. Ward recapped the history of Mutual Tennis' application. He said the Zoning Board approved the variance December 30, 1972, and the Planning Commission on January 9, 1973 recommended in favor of construction after some changes. Chairman Blais asked if there were any brooks or waterways on the property. Mr. Ward said no. Councilman Nardelli asked Mr. Rosen if the proposed architecture was the best that could be done. Mr. Rosen said that the rendering did not show a change to add more planting and additional facing on the corners. Mr. Ward said the building had brick facing on the front and corners. Councilman Brown asked if the State had arrived at a height requirement. Mr. Rosen said not yet, but he believed it would be 36'. Councilman Gee asked if there was proper sewerage. It was indicated to be so. Mr. Rosen said no one in the neighborhood opposed the project. He also said there would be no serving of alcohol beverages. Councilman Brown moved to allow the building permit to be issued, subject to the stipulations of the Planning Commission. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. Councilman Nardelli asked if all bonding would be satisfied. Chairman Blais said it was part of the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The motion was approved unanimously. Chairman Blais instructed the Council to sign the agreement for a building permit. SECOND READING OF DOG ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Chairman Blais said the proposed amendments are for Sections 4 and 7 of the 1968 amended dog ordinance, concerning impounding and penalty. Mr. Szymanski said the penalty is imposed only by the courts in the event of a prosecution. He said that the dogcatcher only charges fees in accordance with Section 5 which is set at a total of $12.00. Chairman Blais said a dog owner may voluntarily pay a fee for a dog violation or if he questions the fine or violation, he may go to the courts whereupon a fine may be imposed. Mrs. Krapcho asked who compensates the dogcatcher for keep of a dog which is not registered and that no one claims. Chairman Blais said the basic compensation is from the annual appropriation from the City. If the dogkeeper is able to sell the animal, only as a pet, he is further compensated. Councilman Nardelli asked how a dogowner should attempt to locate his lost dog. Mr. Szymanski said he will publish this information in the City's newsletter. The Chairman entertained a motion. Councilman Gee moved to pass the Dog Ordinance as amended and written. Councilman Nardelli seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. The Ordinance to amend the South Burlington Ordinance for the Care and Control of Dogs is as follows: The Council of the City of South Burlington hereby ordains: Section 1. The South Burlington Ordinance for the Care and Control of Dogs, adopted May 7, 1963 and amended June 3, 1968, is hereby further amended by substituting the following for Section 4 and Section 7. Section 4. (Impounding) shall read as follows: It shall be the duty of every police officer, constable or poundkeeper to apprehend any dog found running at large contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance and to impound such dog in the municipal pound or other suitable place. The poundkeeper (or other official specifically designated by the City Manager) on receiving any dog shall make a complete registry, entering the breed, color and sex of such dog and whether licensed. If licensed, he shall enter the name and address of the owner and the number of the license tag. Section 7. (Penalty) shall read as follows: Any person who, after warning from the City Manager or Chief of Police, or their designated representative, shall permit a dog owned or kept by him to run at large in violation of Section 2 hereof or shall keep or harbor any dog in violation of Section 3 hereof shall be fined not less than $10.00 nor more than $50.00 Dollars. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect from its passage. Approved 1973. Councilman Gee requested that the City Government Committee be instructed to revise the City Charter to increase license fees, if the City is faced with increasing costs for a dog catcher. OPEN DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE Chairman Blais asked Mr. Gene Cenci if he wished to read the letter from the Chamber of Commerce or to synopsize the contents. Mr. Cenci said he preferred to read it. The letter said the Chamber of Commerce was aware of the need to control signs, but that the proposed Sign Ordinance for South Burlington does not have the approval of the Chamber, businesses, citizens nor some of the Council. The letter said the proposed ordinance has been modified by a 3 to 2 vote, has not been publicly announced for changes, and asked that the ordinance be withdrawn and returned not less than four months. The letter made the following points: 1. There should not be a new sign ordinance until after the adoption of new zoning which will have new activity areas and new densities. 2. The Sign Ordinance should be flexible for different activities 3. The Ewald book entitled Street Graphics should be considered. 4. Businesses near the Federal Interstate System should be given special consideration, as they pay proportionally more taxes there. 5. Consideration for safety by controlling fixed sizes is not only way. 6. There should be consideration for window signs. 7. There should be a variance procedure. The letter concluded that the Council should withdraw from further review and return the ordinance to a new Sign Ordinance Committee with adequate representation from businesses, and that workshops be set up, with the ordinance going through proper channels, and that a Street Graphics committee be set up in the interim. Councilman Brown said he didn't believe you could come to any solution unless confronting it head on. Mr. Cenci said that 40 sq. ft. was totally unacceptable. Councilman Gee asked what size was acceptable. Mr. Cenci said that he felt that could be handled in the Committee. Chairman Blais asked to what extent the businesses feel they have not been heard. Mr. Mikell said that the businesses have written 60 or more pages of reports and that they have not been paid attention to and probably not read. He said that he felt the same homework done by businesses has not been done by the other side. Chairman Blais said that the ordinance has been worked on for at least a year and a half and that buck stops at the Council now. He said he generally believed the community was looking for: good standards for better graphics that would not be so restrictive as to impair businesses. Mr. Mikell said that most of the work done was done by a committee that was stacked, and it rejected almost all of the suggestions from business. Mr. Cenci said he had strong feelings about how the committee was put together and the opportunity to participate was not offered, except to have one representative from businesses which was not acceptable to the businesses. He said he wanted 40% representation, or 4 out of 10. Mr. Mikell said the ratio was less important than the fact that the existing members of the committee were so solidified that he wanted a whole new committee. Councilman Flaherty asked how we will know if the new members are fair minded, and would the businesses ask for a new committee if they came back with 40 sq. ft. Mr. Mikell didn't think that would happen. Councilman Gee asked how it could be expected that the same amount of work that has been done in almost 2 years can be done in 4 months. Mr. Cenci believed it could if the present ordinance was worked with. Councilman Nardelli said the Council should honor the letter from the Chamber, but it should also honor the time and work of the Sign Committee and the Planning Commission. He said the businesses have given input, and he recommended that the Council should continue as it has, giving consideration for all the input from all sources. Mr. Mazel said he would clean up his signs, but would not take them down. He said if his signs were not the proper size he would not make it, and he said 40 sq. ft. absolutely would not do the job. Mr. Calcagni said he agreed with Councilman Nardelli, and he said there had been a great deal of work done by the City and the Committee. The area he disagreed with was the standard size for every business. Mrs. Krapcho asked what kind of a role the Street Graphics Committee would have during the interim as suggested by the Chamber letter. Mr. Cenci said that would depend on who was on the Board and what their positions were. Chairman Blais said there three ways to proceed: Council discuss each article of the ordinance; remand the ordinance to the Planning Commission to appoint a study group; table discussion for a week. Councilman Brown moved to table any action because of the complexities until next meeting. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. Councilman Mardelli suggested that the Council formally answer the Chamber's letter as to the points raised, but he still felt the Council had enough input and sufficient basis for going ahead. He said the Council had gone through two-thirds of the ordinance and did not believe in tabling, but in confronting the rest now. Councilman Gee said he had serious doubts, about what could be achieved in 4 months, and that the withdrawing of the ordinance seemed like a temporary delay and would ultimately extend removal of non-conforming signs. Chairman Blais said the motion was to table for one week not four months. Councilman Gee wondered if the appointment of new members to replace the old would take time for the new ones to become as informed as the old members. Councilman Gee asked what will the Council do for the next week. Councilman Brown said it would give the Council a chance to listen to the importance of the issue, and he didn't believe the Council was really capable of reviewing the ordinance compared to the year and a half put in by others. The motion was defeated by a 3 to 2 vote. Councilman Nardelli, Flaherty and Gee opposed. Councilmen Blais and Brown approved. Councilman Nardelli moved to answer the letter from the Chamber of Commerce in a reasonable amount of time by the members of the Council, and to continue reviewing the proposed Sign Ordinance point by point, during public meetings. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Chairman Blais said discussion would be tabled until after other items on the agenda were completed. DISCUSSION ON NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS-MICHAEL FLAHERTY Councilman Flaherty said the Park Committee (composed of himself, William Robenstein, William Schule and Mary Barbara Maher) consulted the National Standards for neighborhood parks. The standard is 5 acres for every 2,500 people within a half mile radius. He said that no parks in the city come close to this standard. He said the committee designated 5 areas in the city based on walking distance and heavily travelled roads as boundaries. The areas are: 1. Williston Rd.-White St.- Airport 2. Williston Rd.-Hinesburg Rd.- Kennedy Dr.-Dorset St. 3. Williston Rd.- Hinesburg Rd.- Kennedy Dr.- Mayfair Park 4. Kirby Rd.-Patchen Rd.-White St.-Airport 5. Laurel Hill-Brewer Pkwy.- Lindenwood-Twin Orchards Councilman Flaherty said that in undeveloped areas neighborhood parks area may come from developers. Councilman Flaherty said the committee met with Mr. Potter who is proposing development west of Spear St. 15% of the land (6.32 Acres) will be deeded to City (a 300' strip east of Laurel Hill). Mr. Potter would be willing to sell an additional 3.4 acres, but would like to have a firm commitment from the Council. He said the Committee feels the additional land would be valuable. Councilman Gee asked what the original price for the 300' strip was. It was $30,000 for 7.8 acres. Councilman Blais asked if the Planning Commission felt that the City should make improvements on the sewerage line on Imperial Dr. for $15,000 and if the City did in fact pay, it should be realized that the price for the park property was costing more than meets the eye. Mr. Szymanski said that it was the Planning Commission's feeling the City should not be responsible for the sewerage improvements. Chairman Blais said he hoped the Planning Commission has consummated discussion on other factors if they are related to open space. Councilman Flaherty said from his talks with Mr. Potter, the 15% is firmly committed to the City. Councilman Brown asked if this open space was approved by the Natural Resources Committee and if it followed the trail system. Mr. Schule said the Committee was pleased with the proposed open space. Councilman Flaherty said that Mrs. Maher had recommended that land be acquired near Iby St. (residents in this area have also submitted a petition for park area) and that the acquired area not be designated just for park purposes so that possibly it could be used for other municipal purposes. Mr. Flaherty said the park land in the Iby St. area would be advantageous, since it is the core of one of Dr. Kent's superblocks. The Garvery property has already been acquired by the City. There is land available near Chamberlain School and Patchen Rd. and there will be further heavy growth in the area. In the Mayfair Park area there is an area of woods and a pond. Councilman Flaherty therefore recommended that Mr. Szymanski negotiate for the Duval, Iby, and Potter park areas with the idea of seeing what is available and for what price. Councilman Gee commented that this was the same basic park proposal as in November, but with no strings attached. Councilman Nardelli moved to accept Councilman Flaherty's report, and to authorize and instruct Mr. Szymanski to negotiate for available neighborhood park land to be possibly put to a vote in May. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. Mr. Szymanski asked if an appraiser should be hired. Chairman Blais suggested that the negotiations be started first and then come back to see if an appraiser is needed. The motion was approved unanimously. Councilman Gee asked how much was incurred for the Garvey property. Chairman Blais said that up to $30,000 was authorized. Mr. Gee asked if BOR has been applied for. Mr. Szymanski said yes. Chairman Blais said it was not known about the future of BOR funding the federal government. He said that BOR will consider one project a year and that each project may include more than one property as long as it to be considered one project. Mr. Robert Larson, resident of Laurel Hill, said that a good portion of the buffer strip to be deeded by Mr. Potter was subject to water seepage from a pond easterly and from Spear st. He said the strip was good as a buffer, but was not always good for recreation nor prime land for building. He said the additional land being proposed for purchase by the City is already used by children and is high and dry, with a grove of trees. Mr. Larson said additional open space will help to absorb run-off which will be increased with development of the Potter property, and he doesn't believe all the water will be handled by the ditch and pond, nor by the proposed pumping station according to last year's plan by Potter. He asked the Council to consider all these factors when negotiating with Mr. Potter. Councilman Brown asked Mr. Larson what he thought of the proposal by Potter to improve the pond area, to prevent flow from going westerly. Mr. Larson said he didn't know how the water could be shut off completely, and he said it should be examined very carefully. Mrs. Hildick asked if a pedestrian access between Twin Orchards and Laurel Hill could be reinvestigated in order to allow children to get to the proposed park area without trespassing or walking a great distance on the roads and vice versa to allow children from Laurel Hill to get to the play area at Orchard School. Chairman Blais asked Mr. Szymanski to investigate this. Mr. William Robenstein briefed the Council on the types of common space defined under 24 VSA Chapter 91, Section 4411 1. Common Open Space-related to Planned Unit Residential Development where the site is used only for residents and owners, and related to Subdivision Regulations for providing neighborhood parks for residents of the subdivision. 2. Open Space-dedicated to public or private owners and occupants of adjacent areas. 3. Public Open Space-conveyed or dedicated to a community for people from all areas. Mr. Robenstein said that from these three methods it is possible to obtain enough open space in future developed areas without the city buying any. He said the question is not how much land can be obtained, but that the City plan ahead no that the City will know what areas to ask for, so that there will not be fragmented parks but an efficient and coordinated park system throughout the City. He said under Subdivision Regulations thought should be given to asking for an amount of money in the event a development does not have suitable land to fit in with the total scheme of city parks. He said that a city policy would be enhancing to both the city and to developments. Mr. Robenstein informed the Council that Chapter 91 asks that standards and criteria be set out for Planned Unit Development. He said in PUD many people are being dealt with and that is imperative that a statement of objectives, policies and criteria be clearly spelled out. Mr. Robenstein also recommended that consideration be given to a fee schedule for development applications to be used to retain a Planner to review developments. Chairman Blais said this is being considered. CONSIDER PERMIT OF COLEMAN PARKER UNDER 24 VSA, SECTION 4443. Mr. Ward said the Planning Commission made the motion to recommend to the City Council that the Plan be approved with the stipulation that landscapping be approved by the Commission. Mr. Ward said the application does not comply with the duly warned Zoning Ordinance because it is not an approved use for the Airport Industrial District, and because it does not meet yard requirements. Councilman Flaherty asked if it conformed to current zoning, and Mr. Ward said it did. Chairman Blais asked if the Planning Commission's motion was unanimous. It was. Mr. Ward said that Willis Engineering reviewed the site, and determined that with an additional 4-5' of fill, the septic system would handle the additional load. Mr. Szymanski said that Phase 5 may be completed in 1974. Mr. Ward said that the Planning Commission considered the fact that there would be in-depth development with one curb cut serving 4 uses and five buildings. There would be a private drive. Councilman Flaherty moved to approve Celeman Parker's application for a building permit, subject to variance approval and stipulations of the Planning Commission. Councilman Nardelli seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. SIGN WARNING FOR MARCH 6, 1973 MEETING. Chairman Blais wanted the record to show that he will not participate in discussion for the authority to warn for the bond issue for the Chittenden County Court. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Brown. Mr. Szymanski said that Mr. Ewing said that costs cannot be listed on the vote for a district transit authority, since there is no budget until after approval of the Transit Authority and a Board is appointed. Councilman Nardelli expressed concern that once the City is a member of the Authority, the taxpayers will have to accept the budget, and will have to abide by the simple majority of the voters in the district for capital expenditures. He expressed doubts about the prediction that the transit authority of the district would be in a favorable financial position five years from now. Mr. Nardelli said that somehow he would like to see the public informed as to projected costs for the transit authority. Mr. Szymanski said that the City could do this on its own, but the City's share of the costs could not be put on the ballot since all ballots for all communities have to be identical. Mr. Nardelli said that information could be put in the City's newsletter. Following a discussion on the City Charter and Revenue Sharing, Vice-Chairman Brown read the two articles to be warned March 6, 1973. Councilman Flaherty moved to accept ARTICLE I: Shall the voters of the County of Chittenden authorize the County Courthouse Committee to make improvements as filed with the City Clerk, the cost thereof not to exceed $1,400,000 and issue bonds to pay for the improvement. Councilman Nardelli seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Councilman Gee moved to accept ARTICLE II: Shall the City's of South Burlington join the Chittenden County Transportation Authority as a member thereof. Councilman Nardelli seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Councilman Nardelli reminded the Chairman that the City's newsletter contain details of the proposed Articles. SIGN CLAIMS FOR HIGHWAY STATE AID. Councilman Nardelli commented that there was a Federal provision that there was no liability if Federal Appropriations were not given by, Congress. Chairman Blais reminded the Council to sign the claims. REVIEW AIR NATIONAL GUARD SEWER LIST CHARGE AGREEMENT. Councilman Gee asked if there would be any chemicals put into the sewerage system. Mr. Szymanski said it was domestic, and there was a separate fuel drainage. Following discussion, Councilman Nardelli moved to instruct the Chairman of the Council to sign the agreement, with the provision that there will be five year reviews. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Councilman Nardelli moved to go into executive session. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. The public meeting ended at 10:45. Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.