Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/15/1975CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 1975 At the meeting of the City Council on April 21, 1975, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Public Hearing of April 15, 1975, with the following change: On page 13, the last half of the page, Mr. Dinklage's motion, the underlining should be removed from the words he would like to withdraw his motion and would move and the words would move should changed to he moved Several other corrections of a typographical nature are to be made in the original copy. CITY COUNCIL APRIL 15, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, April 15, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Vice Chairman; John Dinklage, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Fred Mitchell, City Planner, Paul Graves, James Lamphere, Walt Levering, Gretchen Graves, Tim Wood, Jim Wood, Fred Blais, William Schuele, Evelyn W. Lamplough, R. E. Curtis, David Houston, Kathleen Kilby, Frank Breen, Ruth Stokes, Frank Gerred, Barrie Bemis, Robert K. Kessel, Randall Munson, also members of the Planning Commission The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Farrar. Minutes of April 7, 1975 A correction was made on page 4 in the paragraph entitled Contact with City Employees. In the 5th line the word failures should be changed to feelings. It was moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of April 7, 1975, as corrected. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were presented for signature. Public Hearing on Amendment to 1974 South Burlington Zoning Regulations — Lamplough property Vice Chairman Farrar stated that because of a technical error in notifying the area communities, this notice having gone out eleven days late, no action on the zone change will take place for at least eleven days. Mr. Farrar then referred to a communication from the City Planner for Burlington and one from the Community Development Coordinator for Winooski. These are to be included in the Minutes of the meeting. Mr. Farrar then invited Mr. Graves to begin his presentation concerning his request for a zone change on the Lamplough property. Mr. Graves began by saying he is the owner of the property, he is not a front man for any organization. Because he wished to work with local people he has Jim Lamphere as architect and Hickok and Boardman as his real estate agents. He said he felt his plan for a regional shopping center conformed to the objectives of the Master Plan to encourage economic development, and also conformed to The Economic Study of South Burlington by Professor Nadworny. A presentation of colored slides was narrated by Jim Lamphere, with air photos showing the property in question and its surrounding commercial areas, also both exterior and interior pictures of shopping malls in other states. Excerpts from the Master Plan were also shown on the screen. The proximity to the cloverleaf was indicated by slides, the ease of access was stressed, the location of four large motels in the cloverleaf area was pointed out. The meaning of a regional shopping mall was explained in contrast to a discount type and food chain shopping center of which South Burlington already has several. The regional shopping mall would attract shoppers from a wide area with a quality department store, Jordan Marsh for example. The covered mall is a new concept, providing store entrances on the outside only for the large stores, with all other entrances fronting on the covered walkway or mall and all window displays on the mall. The mall connects all the shops, has attractive lighting from overhead, with plantings, fountains, and benches adding to the appearance. Some malls are constructed on two levels. An average sized department store would require 400,000 square feet of area. Slides were also shown of the new Pyramid Mall in Plattsburg which is said to have provided 500 permanent jobs as well as the jobs during the construction work. Mr. Graves explained the present zoning on the property as PUD R-4 which provides for an area of land to be developed for dwelling units and commercial uses by a single owner, with the requirement that 50% of the residential would have to be built before any commercial use could be built. The noise from the highway, the airport runway, the proximity of the sanitary landfill, and the neighboring commercial uses on Patchen Road, would tend to make the area undesirable for residential development even though it had been zoned for this. The difference in costs to the City vs, increase in tax base were depicted as resulting in a loss to the City with a residential development as against a large increase in the tax base for a regional shopping center with a much smaller expense to the City. Mr. Graves said the City Planner, after a review, had recommended zoning for commercial use along Williston Road with the remainder of the superblock to be PCD (Planned Commercial Development). Two renderings were then displayed showing the location and the appearance of the proposed building. Mr. Graves then asked for questions from the City Council. Mrs. Neubert began by telling Mr. Graves she was insulted by his presentation which took excerpts from the Master Plan to support his proposal, and which indicated that South Burlington is functioning under Hollister Kent. His proposal was rejected by the voters of the community. Mrs. Neubert said the developer had been asked to provide a traffic study to give some indication of the impact and also what is to be done about traffic on Williston Road. With a BPD the City has no control over traffic on Williston Road but would have control with a PUD. Also she was concerned about such things as boat shows he had described as taking place in other shopping malls, and asked if he planned to have these things in his proposed mall. Mr. Graves said there would ample room to carry on quite a bit of activities within the mall itself and it would probably be used frequently. Asked by Mrs. Neubert if he was building a convention center for boat shows, Mr. Graves said he was not, the answer was "No." Mr. Lamphere said that traffic would have to be studied with the site plan review because it cannot be tied to specific tenants right now. Traffic for a food store and traffic for a department store would be quite different. If the property is zoned, it gives the developer an opportunity to talk with prospective tenants and learn the type of tenant he is going to have. Mrs. Neubert said she had no real quarrel with the overall intent of the proposal, but Council is hearing the request for a zone change and it does not have the control of traffic outside the development with BPD that it could have with a PUD. The developer could not be tied to doing anything outside of his specific property with BPD. Asked by Mr. Lamphere why there was more control with a PUD, Mrs. Neubert said there would be a longer review process rather than just site plan review. Mr. Lamphere said they would have to solve a lot of the problems on Williston Road to be able to get the kind of center they want in there. Mrs. Neubert said she was concerned with the traffic on Williston Road and Mr. Lamphere was concerned with making money on that property. Mr. Merrill said he thought the presentation very good and informative, and the indoor mall has impressed him. He was concerned with the entrance and would like to know more specifically about the entrance from Williston Road into the property. Is the entrance from Williston Road to be through the Lamplough property or through some other existing property. Mr. Lamphere said that would be studied with the traffic study, he couldn't give a final answer on that now. Asked by Mrs. Neubert if they were planning to build the road shown on their map, Mr. Lamphere said he would suppose that would be one of the things in the site plan review. Mr. Merrill then asked what kind of response the developers had received, how does the City know it isn't going to turn out to be something else. Mr. Levering said the intent is to bring in a different type of tenant, and the response has been absolutely amazing considering that the developers really don't have much to give them yet except an aerial view of the property. Basically the responses are that they like the area and want to come to Vermont if we can see our way through the maze of bureaucracy. Mr. Merrill asked Mr. Graves what his response would be to spending more time on this particular project and come up with a new zoning as a planned commercial district, would it be discouraging, would he keep the prospect open or would he back off from it. Would he be willing to wait a longer period of time before starting it. Mr. Graves said they would have to know a little more about what a planned commercial district is. Mr. Mitchell explained the best way to implement something of a PCD nature would be through the establishment of one of the existing commercial zones. Mr. Merrill said Dick's idea was to put it through one of the commercial areas the City now has, but he was concerned about the developer spending more time. He said he didn't think anyone would deny the commercial possibilities are there more than for a grid type of housing, but he would like to pin them down a little more. He asked if the developers would be willing to spend a year and keep interested in this. Mr. Graves said he was interested in working with the community if the community was interested in working with them, but they still haven't gotten the zone change which has been discussed for a long time. One of his problems is that interest is down now, and once the economy gets going again, interest will go higher than it was last time. He is interested in getting financed while interest is down, also construction costs have gone down from the peak of last year. It would be most advantageous to them if they could get things moving. If they could get the zone changed to a commercial designation, they could still get in the site plan review while the City was working out the PCD. Besides Planning Commission review, the City Engineer has to approve this traffic access. He said putting it off for a year would put him in a terrible financial bind. Mr. Dinklage said he was concerned about the planning process and the process of considering the zone, change. One of the areas the Council addressed itself to last time was the impact on the City, that this is not wholly containable by the process of site plan review once an area has been zoned for certain permitted uses. He said he felt strongly that the intent of the Master Plan was to give the Planning Commission extensive control over the use of the area. He also thought they had heard some compelling reasons why a portion of the area could be used for other than R-4. He was addressing his concern to the particular zone change request, a change from essentially R-4 PUD to business planned development. One primary concern is the uses that would be permitted for that area, and if for any reason the plans of the developer change before implementation. He said he was trying to envision all of the uses that would be permitted under the zone change. The reasons for it may change with time and economic factors. He asked people to visualize a situation where after substantial site preparation had taken place, the concept of a large shopping mall is discontinued and the area is broken up. A mobile homes service and sales area is one use that would be permitted and one which he would not like to see there. He would be much more receptive to hearing a proposal which would allow planned commercial development, is attracted to the proposals the City Planner and Zoning Administrator have put forth, but as yet is not convinced changing the PUD would be wise. Requests have already been received from adjoining property owners to rezone their property if this zone change takes place. Mr. Dinklage said he was not concerned about the time being taken to deliberate because it is the first major zone change request received under the new zoning ordinance that is at all controversial. The other changes had minimal impact on the City and were envisioned in the Master Plan. He said he was willing to go slow on this and willing to see that planning procedures are established by a precedent that would be followed for all zone changes. He said he had not heard arguments that would lead him to support this zone change request. Mr. Graves replied that the property is now zoned residential. The Planning Commission was unanimous in saying that the property was improperly zoned, but not unanimous that it should be BPD. He said there are only two designations for business. It is a commercial site and he doesn't care whether or not it is BR or BPD. They could still do the same kind of development with BR, and they don't have any reservation with a PCD overlay. But because the ordinance doesn't have a separate zone, they are left with a one everybody agrees is wrong. He feels they ought to have the opportunity to get started, and if Council wants to add an additional zoning, they will be willing to work with that too. Mr. Dinklage said there are no procedures whereby additional restrictions can be added, so that would have to be done in the stage of the process. He said he shared the opinion of the Planning Commission that a portion of the property might well have better uses. He would like to see the planning process deal with the whole triangle, not just the property Mr. Graves represents, and have the change made in such a way that it represents the wishes of the adjoining property owners, so the City will not be in the position of having to deal with additional requests. He said he personally thought that a BR district with permission for PCD overlay would probably be very attractive. He added he thought the City was obligated to come up with a solution to the situation. Mr. Graves said the mobile homes operation Mr. Dinklage mentioned could only take place if the Zoning Board allows that kind of development. Mr. Dinklage referred to the April 7, 1975, Minutes of the Zoning Board, concerning a use variance, saying he wondered if the sentiment of the community which was behind the present master plan would prefer to see the discussions on permitted uses carried out in the forum of the Planning Commission rather than the Zoning Board. He said he was attracted to PUD which starts with the Planning Commission and a public hearing. Mr. Graves said one reason they went to such an elaborate presentation was because they wanted to show what a regional mall is, that it takes a substantial amount of land to create one. At least 400,000 square feet is needed in order to attract the kind of department store which is not in the area now. They were trying to differentiate between malls which are discount houses, and something large enough to draw a department store, because they feel there is a definite need for it, and they would hope they wouldn't be restricted to such a point that the commercial use would go to a half use rather than a full use. Mr. Dinklage said that once a zone change is accepted, with the land zoned BPD, and the proposal comes to the Planning Commission for site plan review, the City would find itself on very shaky ground to deny a certain used of the property that is specifically permitted by the zoning regulations, on some of the grounds of impact to the City such as traffic congestion, etc. A project of this else would be better handled in terms of its total impact rather than having to deal with piece by piece subdivision and development which is permitted and is very difficult to control and impossible to stop. Mr. Graves asked why the Lamplough property should be singled out rather than the Pomerleau property for instance, which is a larger piece of property. Mr. Dinklage replied the Lamplough property is different in nature, it has the problems of traffic entrance and egress, and is different in that it borders on neighborhoods that are different in character than others mentioned. It has some rough terrain, natural areas, beaver ponds, that have been spoken of as worth preserving. It presents a different development pictures it was treated differently in the Master Plan and the ordinances it is necessary now to look at the reasons for changing that zone designation. He said he would like the Planning Commission to address itself to what happens as far as the total impact on the City if all the areas that have already been approved for commercial development should simultaneously develop, and named these developments already approved. These malls of somewhat comparative size could develop concurrently with this proposal and the area can't support them. There would be an overwhelming impact on this community. One of the objectives is to control the rate and the location at which development takes place in the City. He said Council is obligated to address itself to why, at this point in time, is it necessary to add this large tract of land for commercial development when other areas are zoned and plans are underway for their commercial development. Mr. Graves said it is not the function of the Planning Commission to say that a certain developer should have preference over another developer because his plan has been under way. There are not that many regional sites in the area, he is convinced there is only one, that regional department stores will not be springing up in the areas Mr. Dinklage has suggested. Mr. Dinklage said he didn't think it is an area of the Planning Commission to say which developer goes first, etc., that it is a zoning request being considered, creating additional commercial space, and he felt in that case his question was germane, that is, is there enough space and what happens if there is simultaneous development in all these areas. Mr. Lamphere reminded Mr. Dinklage that most of the uses he referred to are conditional uses and would have to go through the Zoning Board and they are pretty specific about conditions before allowing these permitted uses. He said the first request to the City Planner for review was to include the entire superblock, which it did, and he asked Mr. Dinklage if he was now saying he would like to have more study done. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to see it come through the whole planning process from the Planning Commission, that he would not personally favor the Council accepting the recommendation that the Zoning Administrator and the City Planner have put to it without moving through the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar said that as a matter of procedure if the Council were to make any modifications of the proposal before it, it could be sent back to the Planning Commission for its consideration. Mrs. Neubert said they have talked about the Planning Commission's position on saying that the zoning is inappropriate. It is inappropriate for what is being proposed. She said she is not totally convinced or tied to it. The wording, or how such wording can be implemented, by mixing residential and commercial use in that area is still a very viable proposal, and she does not agree that it should be split down the middle and Mr. Munson get all the residential. There has not been any formal presentation of any other proposals from the developer, the Zoning Administrator, or the Planner. Mrs. Neubert then asked about the frontage on Williston Road and what occupies the existing spaces. Mr. Lamphere said they are a house, a filling station, and a small office, older buildings. Mrs. Neubert asked if they were buying the Lamplough house. Mr. Lamphere said this area is zoned BR and they would hopeto use it as part of the whole complex. They wouldn't want to put a use there that would be detrimental to a use going in back. Mrs. Neubert said she had hoped for a deceleration lane, but with the property Mr. Graves owns it would be impossible. Mr. Graves said he thought the City was going to acquire some property to do it. Mr. Lamphere said that in answer to Mr. Dinklage's question about what would happen if all areas were developed simultaneously, this is just something that wouldn't happen as other factors are involved such as financial backing. Mr. Dinklage said it is a planning question as to how much commercial area is needed in the City. Vice Chairman Farrar said the real question is what is the balance between commercial areas we have and residential areas, what is the ratio of industry to commercial, to residential. Does this change affect that ratio unfavorably, or not at all, or favorably. Mr. Dinklage said the change as requested would have an effect on the surrounding property and there will be substantial pressure to change that whole zone to some form of commercial. He personally would prefer a more limited approach to consider rezoning that portion of the triangle that makes the most sense, and have it commercial, and might extend it outside of the property now being considered, but not change the rest. Mr. Lamphere said the original request was withdrawn because it was assumed that they would take the planning process through and make a request for the surrounding properties too. It took so long to get to that point, the developers had to initiate the zone change to get any action this year. It would be preferable to have it come through the Planning Commission, but they had to request the zone change to get this project moving. Mr. R. E. Curtis said the major stores, the kind we want in the area, have turned down some in-depth presentations from the area, because these stores do a very extensive survey themselves of the population, the trade center population, the location of the property and what the possibilities are for attracting this business to their place. They have turned down some very good spots, but have expressed extreme interest in this one. This tells us something, that South Burlington does have a piece of land that has some possibilities. Should we pass up something like this that is going to make a big change in our tax base. He said he was speaking as a tax payer of South Burlington, as well as from his experience with Hickok and Boardman. Mrs. Neubert asked if the sites which were turned down were in South Burlington. Mr. Curtis said some were, and some were in Burlington. They were not strategically located to attract the trade. These large stores are thinking in terms of 100,000 people in their sales area. When they decide to come in, they have explored every single possibility before they make a presentation to their banker. Mrs. Neubert asked about traffic. Mr. Curtis replied he believed in the possibilities for arranging this traffic but it should be left to the experts who have done it in large places. Mrs. Neubert stated South Burlington has been doing this for years, letting developments come in and get the Zoning Board to waive setbacks. The City has streets it can't do anything with; it has properties that cannot be serviced unless it remains the way it is. A disastrous situation has been allowed to develop. She said Williston Road is so bad now that she wanted that control. Mr. Levering said he already talked with a traffic consultant from a New York City firm. There are several possibilities of handling the traffic such as lights or by lanes, but there is no point in going further with this firm at considerable expense until it is known what is going to be in the development. Mrs. Neubert, describing traffic congestion in the New York area, said "Don't get a New York guy!" Mr. Lamphere said the consultant's question was what should he design for. There are particular hours for industries, for normal shopping centers, and for a regional center. The use to be put on that property is what he will design for. Mr. Schuele said the survey will be made after the zone change is made. He called attention to Zayres with their plan for enclosed malls for which they couldn't get the financing. It could be the cost of money but also that the base isn't there. He said he would hate to see the change come about and then have them say we don't have the base for the center. He said he also was insulted by the presentation, it was an insult to anyone who looked at it. Mr. Lamphere said when the other center came in the City was working within a totally different ordinance. Anything the Planning Commission got was by With pressuring the developer; they didn't have anything going for them. The ordinance now in effect, the City would not be faced with this kind of development. Mr. Mitchell said it is the zone change that is being considered, to BPD. The proposals or presentation shown here should be considered as an optimum situation under BPD and traffic could be assessed on that optimum situation. If it were developed piece-meal and not as a coordinated package, what kind of traffic and general impact to the City would result from that. There are a number of impacts from which the particular assessments would come. If the commercial zone is approved, these are the kinds of impacts we have to consider. 400,000 square feet is going to give you an optimum for the parcel, then scale it down to the other uses if it were to be developed piece-meal. When a site plan comes in, certain kinds of impacts will be faced. David Houston said he had no feeling as to whether or not it should be zoned residential or commercial, but he didn't want to see grid housing or a shopping mall. He said he had heard nothing ecological. This requires long range thought and long range planning. He would like to see the area developed carefully so that in 20 or 25 years he wouldn't have to look at his children and say "I am sorry." Mrs. Neubert said she appreciated his comments because she tells her kids all the time "I'm sorry" when they come down Williston Road. She suggested to Mr. Houston that he read the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations, saying it is not apparently clear to the people in the audience that PUD was not intended just to be a grid development of houses; it was intended to be a flexible multistory multi-use type of housing, that clustering, compacting up and down has a great deal of variety, and also provides for commercial to support the residential development that was planned for that property. She said she is quite disgusted with people who say that PUD-4 is ridiculous; it is not worded so that it can be made to work. She is still interested in that kind of development in that area where you could have people living in more types of units. The City has got to have more compact housing, more per acre, and this is what was planned for that area. She said she felt it was not a bad zone for that area and one of the few mixed residential and commercial areas that Hollister Kent did discuss with them. PUD-4 is the most flexible zone in the ordinance. It gives the town control of the things that affect the general public. The other zones do not give this control. Mr. Houston said a good job has been done, but he is nervous about what is going to happen in 20 years, and he would like to prevent the abuse of this sort of development, no matter what it is. Mr. Levering said this is what they are trying to do, trying it with a brand new concept that has been very successful in the down country areas. This has been the answer for the environmental concern. They are just as concerned in other states as we are with impacts, etc. The larger developers have come up with the enclosed mall; it is the new way to go forward from the point of the older concept which is now being phased out. There is a certain amount of functional obsolescence built into any type of property. We certainly appreciate the long range approach but we also know it is very hard to plan past five years. Mr. Merrill said South Burlington did receive a letter from the City of Winooski and one from the City of Burlington, both saying they would prefer to see the area remain as residential, and he personally would have serious reservations about these letters because both cities are developing large commercial tracts, and if South Burlington keeps this property as residential, then their cities might be guaranteed certain stores. Another thing to consider, Mr. Merrill said, is that this property was originally commercial and was re-zoned back to residential. Comparing it to another case of expecting an indoor mall and getting stuck with a big parking lot and another plate glass development, Mr. Merrill said the City has got to face that problem through some kind of a legal contract, and most developers are not going to like to enter into it, but it is the only way the City can be sure that what is proposed is what it is going to get. Mrs. Neubert said the PUD gives the same control as a contract. She then told Mr. Levering the enclosed shopping malls in the suburbs have proven to be disastrous, because the downtown core died. She said she was interested in the core area, Burlington, even though she lived in South Burlington. Also, she said, she did not like comments about letters that have not been read into the record. It was established that the vice Chairman had summarized these letters when Mrs. Neubert had been absent from the room and was unaware of it. The two letters are to be part of the Minutes of the meeting. Mr. Dinklage said the central issue is not whether or not this mall is a had idea, but that the Council is talking about the procedure by which it will get to the point where this activity is allowed. He said he was simply not in favor of doing it by a route which allows for other activities which might not be desirable, that his only objection was the implementation of the zoning vehicle that is before the Council right now. Mr. Graves said Mr. Dinklage really doesnot have an objection to that kind of use, what he really wants is a control to say what happens, what happens if the development is not done, some way to control it after that. One approach might be to work this out with the Planning Commission and Fred Mitchell. He stated again that they are anxious to get going and would like to work with Mr. Mitchell, Another way, Mr. Graves suggested, would be for the City to take an option on the property, that the City would buy it if he cannot develop it. He said the developers would have to stand the economic loss if it doesn't go, if the result is that dragging it out two or three years means it doesn't get built and then saying the developer didn't do what he promised. Mrs. Neubert said the zoning ordinance is intended to protect the majority of the people in the community, and also to protect the majority of the people who must pass through the community; it is not to cater to developers. Mr. Graves said they came before the Planning Commission thinking they wanted to work with the developers, that they wanted to be told what the developers wanted to do, that they wanted to isolate the problems and solve them together. But it seems over and over again that they are not working together, he said. He would be more than happy to work with the City, but keeps getting the feeling of delay, delay, delay. He would be willing to put in all his time to put together the kind of ordinance that is wanted; he wants to move toward the direction the City wants. Mr. Blais, remarking that we are a city, a city with problems, and those who don't want to solve them should retire to the foothills of Vermont, asked to be forgiven for quoting this. He said there are other properties in this triangular piece of land where the R-4 designation he does not believe, for the record, to be the highest and best use of the land. One of the ancillary owners of a small piece of property also owns 2½ acres which penetrates into this piece of land. Williston Road is strip development under the master plan and zoning regulations, but there would be a possibility of grouping together and tying in with a developer like Paul Graves for the utilization of this small piece of property. If only the Lamplough property is zoned commercial, it will mean leaving numerous owners of small parcels of two, three, or four acres with the R-4 which is so impossible. This is basically an unfair situation for a reasonable use of land. Zoning is to make sure that a reasonable use of land by the owner is possible. He felt some thought should be given to what reflection is created on the adjoining property owners in the reasonable use of their property when a new zoning designation is made. These are in-depth strips left over from the frontage, not developed at the time because the terrain was unsuitable for development. Mr. Yankowaki asked why the City needed more paved areas when it already has so many where stores are not developed yet. Mr. Lamphere asked if a member of the Planning Commission and one from the City Council could be appointed to work with the City Planner and Zoning Administrator to get some sort of agreement that would be agreeable to both parties, so that the developers could be assured of going ahead and the City could be assured of getting what is being proposed. Mrs. Neubert said she thought they should go through the Planning Commission. She added that perhaps the Council should be telling the Planning Commission to do their job. Mr. Lamphere said he didn't agree that they haven't done their job. Mr. Farrar said the Council should try to get more comments from the audience before approaching specific solutions. He referred to Mr. Yankowski's question as to why more paving is needed. Mr. Lamphere explained the ordinance has always required a certain amount of parking, not based on how many people use it, but is based on the size of the center. Mrs. Neubert asked if the parking is for the total area they anticipate but which might never come, and asked particularly about Mammoth Mart. Mr. Lamphere said it was suggested that they build the entire parking lot along with the first phase. Mrs. Neubert said the developers might put one thing in there and never put anything else in there. Mr. Lamphere answered that a mall is rather unsuccessful with just one store. Mr. Curtis asked if people didn't understand the difference between the regional mall and the strip center or mall which is found in several areas of the City and not completed. With this regional mall the intention is to attract people from several areas of the State, perhaps from Canada, who would use it as their shopping center. A PUD in there might be creating some development there that would be duplicated in some of the areas the City already has, and that would be undesirable. Mrs. Neubert said she had never truly made up her mind that a balanced concept would not work, a new-city type of thing that could very will have this type of development in it. Where it should be mixed, it is being split; everything should be included; it requires a lot of study. Mr. Curtis said he was in favor of using all the landowners fairly but he felt that developments are jeopardized by the long process to act upon something of this nature. The owners have an investment, they have an ongoing tax obligation, an ongoing interest obligation which is terrific. He suggested getting a group together and getting a form of agreement that everybody could work with. Mr. Mitchell said he had been charged with looking at the highest and best use for the parcel and there were several considerations such as site location for commercial activity. This was considered in terms of the master plan of bringing together and clustering activities, preserving existing viability of residential neighborhoods. He felt there was a very definite residential focus along Patchen Road, but with some site restraints. Housing of a higher density should be encouraged in the development of the remaining parcels on Patchen Road. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Mitchell what kind of zone he would put on the triangle if it were all owned by one party. Mr. Mitchell that, using the use factor, he would still come up with the same recommendations with the commercial activities on the western side. Mrs. Neubert said she thought it had been zoned to have the flexibility of some commercial and some residential. Mr. Merrill said he would like to see a basic drawing giving some idea of how much space the 400,000 square feet would take, also the parking space, and something a little more definite in terms of open acreage that would be left. Mr. Lamphere said this would be no problem at all. Mr. Dinklagesaid he would like to have the Planning Commission and the City Planner review the whole triangle, keeping in mind the general guidelines, the total use of the parcel of land for its best use based on the land use possibilities, the community needs, not based solely on the request of a single land owner — a very dangerous precedent based on the request of a single owner. Mr. Levering said this was the only request they could come in with. Vice Chairman Farrar said the discussion is going around in circles, and that a decision must be made, basically of two natures: 1) do we support in any way the proposals made and do we want to try to work to bring the proposals to fruition; and 2) if we do not, then the course is pretty straightforward. We can do several things to make sure it doesn't happen. Mr. Farrar asked, if the Council does wish to do this, how does it wish to proceed to do this. Concern has been expressed by real questions, questions the Council must try to answer, such as what happens if the developer doesn't carry through with his plan. He said he didn't think the problem could be solved by voting either yes or no on the proposal. It is not proper only to consider the specific proposal made; there are other options. He suggested getting feeling at this point as to the feeling of the members of the Council as to whether or not Council should proceed in a way to try to say if this proposal is a proposal that is good for the community, there is a proposal for the development which is separate from the proposal for the zone change. Mr. Dinklage said he saw the planning process as being a two-step process, having a nature of checks and balances; the Planning Commission working with the City Planner being a proper forum for work sessions, where they sit down and get involved. He said personally he would like the City Council to not be involved in that process, but would have an independent forum where the procedure worked out can be aired in a public setting on a different level. He said he would not like to see a straw vote taken; that he thought the developer would not like to see it any more formalized than at present. Mr. Dinklage added he would argue for not in any way commenting at this meeting on the value or the merits of this proposal. Mrs. Neubert said she agreed with Mr. Dinklage, adding that any Council member can attend meetings of the Planning Commission, can have input, and can learn what they need to know. Mr. Farrar said he felt Council had a duty not just to react positively or negatively to a specific proposal, but it has a duty also to modify proposals, change them, try to solve problems — that is what Council gets paid for. Mr. Farrar repeated that Council does have a proposal. He said if he looks at the proposal for the zone change, he has some personal reservations about it; if he looks at the pretty pictures, they look nice; but connecting the two is the problem that must be dealt with. It may well be that you can never create a system of laws that a smart lawyer can't get around, but you can at least try to make it more difficult. Council is the only body which can actually make changes; it can approve changes or modify those changes and refer them back to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't know why the Planning Commission had had so much trouble with this thing; they have postponed and delayed making recommendations to the Council. Mr. Mithell and Mr. Ward have come up with several alternatives of handling this. There has to be some official way to have a specific answer coming from the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar reminded Council that no official action could be taken at this meeting because the required time has not elapsed for the surrounding communities. However, the feeling of some members of the Council had been made reasonably clear that it would not be unwise for the developers to propose to the Planning Commission or to the Council alternative ways that the land could be zoned which would achieve the results they have in mind and would answer some of the questions that have been brought up. Mr. Levering asked if Council is not concerned with what the developers might do, but with what they might not want to do. Mr. Farrar answered that legitimate concerns have been expressed about what would happen to that particular piece of property if this proposed zone change is made. He said there is a proposal which he, personally at least, looks upon with some favor, and the problem he is wrestling with is to reconcile those two facts. It might be done by the creation of a zone different from what we now have, a regional shopping zone for example, laying out certain requirements, forcing the developer to do something as they have proposed. Mr. Levering asked what the time frame might be. Mr. Farrar said he could see no reason why proposals like this could not be brought forward at the next meeting and discussed. Mr. Levering suggested Council is still going to hide behind the so-called "planning process." Mr. Farrar explained Council will have to take a vote. If the proposed zone change was voted affirmatively, he said he believed the problem would be solved. If it is voted negatively, then the developer can't proceed. If, on the other hand, a substitute motion could be offered, or an amendment to the present one, then this would have to be referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration, which shouldn't take a great amount of time, not many months. It could also be that Council would vote to refer the question back to the Planning Commission and ask them to make a substitution. Mr. Graves said he would like to put together what Council is looking for, the ideas being brought up, and asked how he could get to that stage. Mr. Dinklage said he would prefer to have these matters discussed in a public forum. Mr. Ward said this could go for another three months or six months; there is no simple way to provide a zoning change. The only thing is to stay within the bounds of the property. Even if BPD should be voted at this meeting, it still wouldn't solve the problem of allowing more than one use on the property. Mr. Farrar said Council could substitute a different zone, with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ward saying that legally it would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Merrill suggested that the only short way out of this is a separate contract and there are legal problems with that. It creates problems for the developer, but the City wants to make sure it is getting what is proposed. Mr. Merrill said he just hoped that if a tenant for the industrial park should appear, it wouldn't take nine months or a year to make a decision on that. He said he would suggest asking the City Manager to ask the City Attorney if there is any other legal proposal that would allow for a more workable solution for a planned commercial development. When Mr. Ward mentioned the subdivision review and the Act 250 approval required. Mr. Graves said they could not get to the 250 until they get past the zone change, and they will not get through all these permits until late summer. Mr. Ward said it was a matter of talking about 90 to 120 days, but they could be working on their other permits at the same time. Mr. Levering emphasized there is a lot of money on the line. Mr. Farrar said the first Monday in May is the first time Council can act on it. Mr. Ward said it is necessary to notify the public 30 days before adoption. Mr. Dinklage said the request could be rejected right now. Mr. Ward said it can be rejected or revised, but cannot be adopted. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Council reject the zone change requested for the Lamplough property to change it to BPD as submitted by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Dinklage suggested that after this vote it might be appropriate to give some instruction to the Planning Commission if there is a consensus. Mr. Ward stated again that Council can amend or reject, but cannot adopt the zone change. Mr. Farrar suggested that perhaps before voting on a motion of rejection, it might be more useful to propose any possible substitutions or alterations and attempt to vote on those. He felt more useful information could be developed as to how to proceed, if at all. Mr. Dinklage said he was trying to do that, but in reverse order. Mr. Farrar said if this is rejected, then there is no way to revise it or substitute a proposal. Mr. Merrill said he couldn't see any reason to make a decision now, at this time. Mr. Dinklage said it was not his intent to stop this process and he would withdraw his motion if it was going to do that, and he would be receptive to other ways or solutions and would phrase them for direction to the Planning Commission. It might be desirable to extend the depth of the commercial district with development along Williston Road using service roads. This might be explored. He asked if it would be better to phrase a motion to reject the proposal as submitted to Council but at the same time return the proposal to the Planning Commission with the request that they consider the ways Council would like it considered. Mr. Farrar felt it would be much better to frame a motion that would give direction; by rejecting it, it is off the agenda. He said Council could reject it, approve it, return it to the Planning Commission, or, a fourth way, could substitute language. Mrs. Neubert said she wanted it to go back to the planning process. Mr. Dinklage then stated he would like to withdraw his motion and would move that the original motion be amended by deleting it in its entirety and the following be substituted: After reviewing the request of the developer and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, that Council send the zone change request back to the Planning Commission, asking that they study the impact of this zone change request on traffic, the effect on adjoining property owners, the balance of commercial vs. residential property in the City, and that they study alternative zoning methods by which the regional shopping center could be permitted on a portion of the Lamplough property while prohibiting other uses as for example those outlined in the BPD district. Mrs. Neubert told Mr. Dinklage his motion didn't get rid of them, that BPD was warned in the paper. Mr. Farrar said that basically the motion refers the matter back to the Planning Commission. They will react to Council's instructions. Mr. Schuele commented that one of the real problems was the developer ignoring the Planning Commission because the Commission wasn't working fast enough. They went to the Planning Commission and forced the issue before the survey was completed. It was a two-way street and not entirely the fault of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ward said the motion isn't doing anything but to tell the developers to go back and have another conversation with the Planning Commission. The Council voted unanimously to delete the original motion, and then voted unanimously to approve Mr. Dinklage's motion. Mrs. Krapcho asked how the traffic study would be conducted and how it would be financed, saying that it would require a rather sophisticated alternative. Mr. Merrill said the City is not necessarily hiring a New York firm. Mr. Farrar said he would be interested in an opinion from the City Planner as to what he believes would be the problems created by a development of this size, the magnitude of the problems and the reasonable solutions. Mr. Dinklage felt thought might be given to the use of some of the other parcels of land by making a much more attractive entrance to that whole parcel. Mrs. Neubert said the Council is not supplied with the information to help it to make a decision. Mr. Mitchell said the report he prepared for the Planning Commission was given to the Council also. Mr. Merrill said the important thing is to consider whatever zone should be made for the Lamplough property. Meeting with Police Department representatives, Police Department Union Mr. Merchant and two others from the Police Department were present at the Council meeting and had several questions regarding the pay scale. Also a question regarding the dry cleaning bill which Mr. Szymanski was instructed to review. Another question regarding insurance is to be reviewed by the Salary Review Committee as well as the question of compensation for college credits obtained by members of the Police Department. The policy to be followed in filling vacancies when temporary jobs become permanent is also to be given consideration. Liquor Control Board It was moved and voted that the Council meeting be adjourned and reconvened as the Liquor Control Board at 11:30 p.m., at which time the following applications were approved for first-class liquor license; Redwood Motel and Restaurant 1016 Shelburne Road Rotisserie Restaurants 1355 Williston Road Black Angus Steakhouse, Inc. 1710 Shelburne Road Tower Restaurant 1234 Williston Road Quarry Hill Club 360 Spear Street Court Club Farrell Road The City Manager read from a letter containing the City Attorney's opinion that the license for Arthur's, Inc. could be withheld pending their correction of certain difficulties which affect the public interest. This letter is to be part of the Minutes of the meeting. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.