Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/04/1975CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 1975 At the City Council Meeting of August 18, 1975 it was voged to approve the Minutes of August 4, 1975, with the following amendments: On page 8, line 18, it was agreed that this should be deleted and followed by the following sentence: A motion was made by Mr. Merrill to table, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to table by Council. Also on page 8, 4th line from the bottom of the page, electrical system should be changed to burglary alarm system. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 4, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, August 4, 1975, in the Assessor's Office, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward Zoning Administrator; Margo Howland, Tim Cronin, Sheri Larsen, A. Krapcho, Mary Thompson, Wm. J. Schuele, A. C. Audette, Bill Robenstein, Lloyd A. Partnow, Jim Wallace, Brian J. Gee, Don Dooley, Frank McCaffrey, Leonard Brown, Paul Graves, Karin Larson, James Quinn, Tom Schroeder, Joe Medved, Atty. Fred Parker, Walt Lovering, Ray Danis, Frank Armstrong An Executive Session was held at 7:30 p.m. and the Regular Meeting was convened at 8:45 p.m. by Chairman Paul Farrar. Interview applicant for the Planning Commission The Council interviewed Frank Armstrong for the vacancy on the Planning Commission. Minutes of July 21, 1975 On page 5, Mrs. Neubert asked to have the sentence beginning on line 4 changed to read: Mrs. Neubert said Council had the two Rounds hearings and the hearing it had the other night and it is going to have a committee to make rules and regulations to solve the problem without having the background material Council has obtained during the executive session. Also on page 5, Mrs. Neubert asked to have the words in the small lot at Arthur's deleted and substitute the words at the exit from the Mammoth Mart parking lot in front of Arthur's. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Minutes of July 21, 1975, be accepted as corrected. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders which had been prepared were distributed to the Council members for their signatures. Permit for circus entertainment — Firefighters Association The City Manager read aloud a letter from Fred Bessette, President of the South Burlington Firefighters Association requesting a permit to sponsor the Great London Circus for two shows at the Zayre's parking lot on August 15th, and asking that the fee for the permit be waived because they are a non-profit organization. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council confirm the permit for the South Burlington Firefighters Association to sponsor the circus entertainment at the Zayre's parking lot on August 15th, and that the fee be waived. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mrs. Neubert then asked what would be done with the money and was told it goes to the Firefighters Association and is used for their benefit programs. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Public information session on the proposed mall contract Copies of the proposed contract in draft form were distributed and Chairman Farrar explained for the benefit of the audience the purpose of the proposed contract. The draft presented had two sets of additions to the original draft, the additions having light lines through the words were made at the request of the City, while the underlined portions were those portions added to the original draft at the request of the developer. This composite document was then discussed. On page 2, Section I, Council members expressed concern about the seven days limit for its approval or disapproval after the final survey, feeling that time would be needed for public input. Atty. Fred Parker said the developers would be willing to extend the time to what would be a reasonable time which would put some ultimate limit such as 15 or 20 days, but would not like to see general language such as "after due consideration." He said there would be periodic reports so the necessity for a lengthy passage of time should not exist. The time period was intended to be from the time the persons consulted report back to Council. Once Council gets the report it is obligated to act within 15 days or within a limited time. Both Mr. Farrar and Mrs. Neubert said they did not read it that way at all. Page 4, Section B, the 15 days was objected to by Chairman Farrar. Also in Section B, Mr. Parker said the first sentence should be dropped, it was never intended to be in there. Section C., the last five lines were cited by Chairman Farrar as basically guaranteeing that the developer will pay for what he says he will pay for. Also in Section C, it was felt that the time limit for the developer to exercise his option could not extend forever, it could not be open ended. Section D, Mrs. Krapcho felt might be compromising an essential right of the City. The community is supposed to develop a capital program for the next 5 or 10 years, and this might mean committing the City to a certain cycle of capital improvements. On page 6, Section D, ii., Chairman Farrar recommended that subsection-ii be stricken in its entirety. Mr. Parker said it was his understanding from the discussions last time that the entire contract was predicated on the idea that there was going to be consideration by the Council of whether there is going to be rezoning of the property at least on a temporary basis while the question is under study. Chairman Farrar said he felt it unnecessary to have this language here because the contract would not be operative if the Council decided not to change the zone. Section V.A. was questioned by Mrs. Neubert, with Mr. Farrar replying it says the developer is not obligated to expend any money. Mrs. Neubert felt the City is not going to give him a zone change until he spends some money on the traffic study. Mrs. Krapcho also questioned this section, saying the contract was initiated to allow the developer to initiate the study, and this wording changes it around quite a bit. Mr. Flaherty said he didn't think Council could vote on a zone change until it had the traffic study. Mr. Parker said his understanding of the method of procedure was that the developers sign the contract, then Council decides within a short time if it wishes to rezone. If it is rezoned BPD the developers would have a zone on which they could proceed to do the traffic study. If Council decides the traffic study cannot solve the problem, then the developers do nothing. That is the risk they take, that Council could come up with a zone that would stop them. If the traffic study came in and was approved or disapproved, they would try to proceed in the way of the agreement rather than by litigation. They have waived everything in this contract until such time as the study is done; they have no claim because they have waived their development rights. He added that maybe the City is in a bad spot now. He explained they are committing themselves to a regional mall; they are not coming back to Council and say they are going forward with something else. Mrs. Neubert said Council wouldn't have the right to turn them down, Council would have to review some BPD proposal the developers might come in with. Mr. Parker said they could not go forward unless they get Council's approval because they have waived their rights to develop in any other way. Mrs. Neubert said she felt the paragraph in question to be ambiguous, and Mr. Dinklage answered that the City Attorney had said the contract was sufficiently binding. Mr. Farrar said the person is selling to the City for one dollar certain rights which he (Mr. Farrar) believes the City has the right to contract for, and that he could see no problem with that. Mrs. Krapcho suggested it would be unfortunate if the developer started the traffic study and carried it only part way through. Mr. Dinklage suggested language at the top of page 6 to say that if the study were discontinued the entire study and all supporting data would be submitted to the City Council. Atty. Parker said the portions that dealt with the traffic problem that now exists would be turned over to the City up to the point at which it was done, but not the portions that would be meaningful only in connection with the mall. Mr. Farrar said all data would become the property of the City and it would be Council's option to say whether or not it would proceed with it. Atty. Parker said it would be available to the City but would remain the property of the developer. Asked about a mall under BPD, Chairman Farrar said the proposal would be a permitted use under BPD; it is not guaranteed it could be done under BPD but it is permitted. Mr. Dinklage cautioned about always distinguishing it from a conditional use which has to go to the Zoning Board. This would be a permitted use under BPD; it could be built there; the procedure is there and it is a zone; if the proper procedures are followed then it could be built. Mr. Robenstein, referring to page 6, said Mr. Graves would be able to propose another use. Chairman Farrar explained that if at the completion of the study it was determined that the traffic situation was such that there was no economic solution, he has in this language waived his right to use another otherwise permitted under BPD without the express approval of the Council to the specific use which he might wish to put it to. Mr. Robenstein answered that all those proposal must originate at the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar explained Council has a proposal by the Planning Commission to rezone this property, and what this would do would be to limit the developers' and owners' rights to proceed under what would be the rights under the zone change. Mr. Robenstein said he didn't interpret it that way. He then asked if Council had entered into any other contracts or agreements or is Council just doing this contract for the benefit of one individual owner. Chairman Farrar answered that it was Council's understanding that this contract is for the benefit of the City and not for the benefit of the owner. Mr. Robenstein asked how many property owners, and Mr. Farrar replied one. Mr. Robenstein said the block is zoned PUD R-4, this piece of property is part of that R-4 zone. He asked how many owners were in that zone. Mr. Farrar replied there are several owners. Mr. Robenstein said a lot of people have said the zone needs changing, but he thought the South Burlington Master Plan says the City has enough of the retail type of shopping for the population it has. He said he would like to hear the areas in which the health, welfare, and safety of this community is going to be served by this zone changes; also the mistake that was made originally. He said he would like those points answered. Chairman Farrar stated Council has a recommendation presented by the Planning Commission recommending by a five to one vote that this be rezoned to Business Planned Development. Also since that time Council has had a vote by the Planning Commission saying they feel the present zone on the property is improper, Council also has a vote from the Commission saying they are not sure Business Planned Development is the proper zone. Because of these three pieces of information, Council is trying to proceed the way it is this evening. Mr. Robinson repeated he would like to see justification for health, welfare, and safety. Mr. Farrar replied that if Council considers a zone change on the property, that is the appropriate time to answer that question. Mr. Robenstein then asked, because the City Attorney says the contract is the proper thing to have, does Council feel the enabling legislation allows it to enter into it with one owner. Mr. Farrar answered that this is a contract by which an owner of a piece of property is contracting to give certain rights he has or may acquire to the City. Mr. Robenstein replied he thought they are considering a zone change, what they are doing now is negotiating the control of that zone change. Chairman Farrar answered that Council is negotiating for control of a piece of property. Mr. Joe Medved asked about public input, a kind of nebulous phrase, saying his concern was that a person who is not adjacent to the property but near it, with traffic, noise, and pollution, at what point will someone like himself have a chance to look into this a little more. Mr. Farrar replied he hoped there would be ample opportunity for public input. The first thing Council is trying to do is to see if this is a way to proceed to get certain pieces of information, the use for this land, is the traffic solution acceptable to the traffic problem. He added that Williston Road belongs to the City of South Burlington unlike Shelburne Road which belongs to the State of Vermont. Therefore Council has to be very sure that whatever use is allowed will not unduly burden the taxpayers of the City with the solution of the problems. Council is trying to see that this cost of the traffic solutions are met by the developer. One thing in addition to that would be to instruct the Planning Commission to try to develop suitable language in the zoning ordinance itself to enforce what Council is doing here. The study and the results thereof would be made available monthly to the City, and he said he would assume this information would be available for public input. All of these hearings would also be open to the public, site plan review being only one of them, as well as the Act 250 hearing. Mr. Medved said the time period is unacceptably short — that citizens who live in this area have rights. Mr. Farrar said the right of the citizens to respond along the way should certainly be protected. Mr. Schuele, referring to page 5, Section F, said what worried him was that this says the developer will direct Council into areas that Council hasn't of its own free will decided what the priorities are. Mr. Farrar answered it gives Council the option to decide what is the highest priority, whether it is in the best interests of the City. There is no obligation implied or intended that Council has a moral obligation to proceed with any expenditure of City funds. Mr. Schuele asked, if 50% of the traffic problem related to the proposal, what if the City didn't have the money for the other 50%. Mr. Farrar said the City if it wished at the same time to solve some other problems, Council has the right to couple it with what is being done. Mrs. Neubert told Mr. Farrar he was reading things into this contract that are not there. Mr. Farrar said he took strong exception to what Mrs. Neubert said, saying that what he had said is exactly the way he interpreted Council's intent of what would be in this document. The way he reads and understands it, the points he has just covered are in this contract. Mr. Danis said he wished to limit the amount of money the City can spend. Chairman Farrar said the City is not committed to spend any money here. Mr. Danis asked Mr. Farrar how he reached the public tonight. Mr. Farrar said he told the Vermont Sunday News reporter Council would be discussing this tonight in public session. Mrs. Neubert said she thought Council has an obligation to make sure that the Free Press gets an official call. Mr. Danis asked how the City could stay within the tax limit set by the Charter. Mr. Farrar said again that there is not a commitment in this contract for the City to spend any funds. Mr. Danis mentioned other streets that would be affected by this thing. He suggested that Mr. Farrar stop reading between the lines and read what is in them. All these roads he mentioned he thought should be in this study. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to see something in the contract that permits the developer to assume a certain portion of it, and asked at what point he could be made to pay for it. It doesn't say this in the contract anywhere. Mr. Danis asked why Council doesn't advertise for public input if they want it. Mr. Flaherty replied there is a double responsibility; the people should let Council know what they want, what they don't like, what they want changed, not just with innuendoes. Mr. Robenstein asked if Council felt there is no time limit on the zone change. Mr. Farrar replied Council has a request in front it and a recommendation for a specific zone change which we held public hearings on. It is Council's understanding there is no fixed time limit but he doesn't think they can drag it out forever. Mr. Robenstein brought up the 90-day period, saying in the straightforward process the Planning Commission holds a public hearing, takes input, it can have another public hearing, but once it closes its public hearing, the 90-day time frame begins and Council must make a decision. Two weeks beyond 90 days is reasonable but anything more than that is not reasonable. Chairman Farrar said they have held public hearings on this and it has been tabled and it has been before us for approximately 90 days, and Council would expect to make a decision shortly on that particular zone request. Mr. Robenstein suggested that a firm effort be made to place that meeting in an area where they might have more people. Someone in the audience suggested sending postcards to the people who live on the streets which would be affected. Mrs. Neubert answered that that was a totally unreasonable request as far as she was concerned; all the people are concerned, 10,000 people. Mr. Robenstein agreed, saying it was clearly impossible with the clerical help that would be available. Mrs. Thompson said the public is involved; the streets are very much involved. She questioned the need of the shopping mall. She said she thought she was assured at one point that this was pretty much dropped, that the Planning Commission pretty much voted it down. South Burlington already has shopping malls, and there are plans for Burlington and Winooski; there is only so much shopping that can be done. She asked if Council hadn't really had some public comment. Mr. Schuele said all the other problems have not really been discussed in public. They have been touched on at the Planning Commission meetings. But the social problems, the problem of putting some other shopping mall out of business — he said this whole thing really bothers him. Mrs. Neubert said the public has not been here to oppose the mall, and asked if he thought the public would come, just come in and say what they think. Mr. Schuele said a thing can produce this public interest but not maintain it. Mr. Farrar said very few people showed up the night the recommendation from the Planning Commission was discussed. The Council's concerns were about traffic and the other uses permitted under BPD. Council felt it could not vote to approve it without seeing how the other problems could be solved. Mr. McCaffrey asked if the traffic problem is all right there, where does it originate from. Mr. Farrar said the problem originates outside of South Burlington to a large extent. Council wants to make sure it can solve the problem. Mr. Robenstein said Council should be able to analyze all of these problems and come up with solutions. It is not realistic to expect people to come out to meetings for a period of eight months. If it had been done normally within the 90-day basis, Council would have had its input from the people. Mr. Farrar said the point was that there was one meeting, duly warned, for the purpose of considering a zone change. Tom Schroeder suggested a large meeting at this point would not be advisable, that this should wait until the traffic study has been made. Mr. Farrar explained they have to vote reasonably soon on the zone change, and he is willing to consider the vehicle Council is now considering. Under the present circumstances he felt it would be very unwise because of the impact to the City to vote for the zone change as presented to the Council, but he said he did have an open mind as to whether or not there may be circumstances in that arrangement that might be beneficial to the City. He said the traffic problem is the key problem and suggested trying to see if it can be solved. Mr. Medved asked if the traffic study says it is possible to do this, does that mean the mall would be built. What is to prevent the mall just going in there. Chairman Farrar explained that under the provisions of BPD there is a series of procedures which have to be followed in order to show that this is good for the area. Mr. Ward said he didn't think one needed to worry so much about the zone change as about the subdivision procedures. There would be a subdivision hearing, a local hearing, where many other questions would have to be answered. They would have to go before the Zoning Board for more than one use, and follow with Act 250 and also the Regional Planning Commission. Mrs. Neubert said there is nothing under BPD requiring the developer to do anything about the off-site traffic. Mr. Farrar said that is why Council is willing to consider the contract, making sure problems are not created outside the development such as on Williston Road. Mrs. Neubert explained the zone the City has on there now is a PUD zone, and if it is put under BPD the City doesn't have the right to turn the developer down. Mr. Robenstein asked about this right during site plan review and Mr. Farrar said there were two different opinions on this, so Council said "Maybe we don't, so let's make sure we do." Mr. Robenstein mentioned that a resident of the community can't go and be heard at the Act 250 hearing. Mrs. Krapcho again referred to Section D on page 4 of the proposed contract, saying she was concerned that the City might be forced into a situation where it will ultimately have to make capital commitments it is not ready for. Mr. Farrar said they are consulting with the City Attorney to see if there is anything that can be done to improve it. Mrs. Krapcho suggested adding that "Council may request completion of an appropriate traffic study before ratifying any development proposal." Mr. Farrar said he didn't think Council wanted to imply that they would be ratifying a proposal, what they would be doing is looking at a traffic solution. The developer is waiving his right to put anything on this property other than the mall. Mr. Farrar said it was Council's hope that prior to the completion of the study it could work with the Planning Commission and come up with language in the zoning ordinance which would incorporate any of the things in this contract. That way there would be no problems in carrying it out. Mrs. Krapcho asked about the status of the Council having a right to approve anything else for the area except the mall. Mr. Farrar replied that was a little ambiguous. He referred to the sentence on Page 6 beginning "Graves and Mrs. Lamplough." Asked when this would terminate, Mr. Farrar replied that as he reads it, it doesn't terminate. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council take a five-minute recess. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. The meeting was reconvened at 11:05 p.m. Att. Parker presented a plea on the basis of time, asking that the City Attorney work with him on the improvements to the contract, and would urge that if Council plans to have a further public hearing it be done in the very near future. Mr. Dinklage recommended that the contract be published in its entirety, then have a public meeting. Chairman Farrar said that upon notification of the respective attorneys, Council could schedule a meeting to discuss it, and then would instruct the City Manager to publish the whole agreement in its entirety, and with the publication, schedule a public meeting. Council would take further direction from the public at large, and then take some definitive action on it. The Council members agreed with Chairman Farrar on this. Mr. Flaherty recommended giving direction to the Planning Commission, and Mr. Farrar said he would like to consider that separately. He asked if Council wished the Planning Commission to consider appropriate language to modify the zoning ordinance which would zone in a way appropriate to the entire triangle which is now zoned R-4 PUD, and to consider the possibility of a shopping mall, a use that under certain circumstances might be desired. Mrs. Neubert suggested adding "immediately." Mr. Farrar said it might be necessary in the future to sit down with them and discuss procedure. Flood Hazard Insurance Program Chairman Farrar explained there were two resolutions to be passed before people can get Federal flood insurance. Mr. Szymanski said this also applies to an area subject to mud slides, such as an area of Queen City Park where this could be a possibility. Mr. Farrar said one resolution is that the City enforce zoning regulations and issue zoning permits, and the other is that the City is applying for this insurance and also will cooperate with the Federal authorities and will have on record the flood elevations. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council waive the reading of the Flood Insurance resolutions. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Mr. Flaherty moved to empower the City Manager to sign the resolutions relating to the Flood Insurance Program. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Merrill said he was not opposed to the program but it did seem extremely restrictive in terms of removing buildings, and he would ask that Mr. Ward review this to see if it conforms to the zoning ordinance. Motion voted unanimously for approval. Appointment to Natural Resources Committee A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously to appoint Mrs. Doris Bailey to fill an expired term on the Natural Resources Committee. Review revised draft of the Burglary Alarm ordinance Mr. Dinklage moved that Council accept the new language prepared by the City Attorney for Section 6. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council waive the reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. A lengthy discussion of the ordinance then followed. Mr. Schroeder questioned Section 3, saying some of this cost would be borne by individuals already connected into the police station now. He felt the businessmen who would be paying for it should have the option of determining what kind of a price they want to pay for it. Mr. Flaherty explained this was the ordinance to be put into effect. Council would have to deal with the fee structure next, then the installation of the panel. Mr. Farrar said the first intention is to make sure the City is providing the best service it can, and second to make sure that the improper operation is not interfering with the Police Department. Asked what a private burglary alarm system meant in Section 4, Mr. Farrar said it was any alarm installed in any structure whether a private residence or business, installed by a private corporation and not by the City. Mr. Schroeder suggested making the wording more explicit in the section concerning response. He also questioned Section 7, and it was agreed that this section was not worded too clearly, that it means that it is unlawful for a person who knows that an alarm has been tripped accidently not to notify the police. Mr. Schroeder claimed 8 out of 10 false alarms are caused by the phone company crossing the lines and the businessman should not be penalized for this. Mr. Dinklage said they had been told that most false alarms are caused by failure of the electrical system and the main concern is to put enough pressure on the owner to do something. In Section 8 (2) Mr. Schroeder suggested allowing "a person acceptable to the owner" to be authorized to inspect the alarm system. Mr. Schroeder also questioned the provisions in Section 8(3) as not being reasonable. He added, however, that when he had had false alarms the police had been very courteous and had offered suggestions for the reason for the false alarms; they were ready for action and he had no complaints at all about the Police Department. Chairman Farrar thanked Mr. Schroeder for remaining at the meeting so long in order to have a chance to express his views on the burglary alarm ordinance. Mr. Merrill moved that Council table any action on the Burglary Alarm Ordinance at this time. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Progress report on Ridgewood Estates, the Rand Corporation proposal, and Comments on city operations by Mr. Robenstein were all stricken from the Agenda because of the latness of the hour. The Chairman asked Mr. Ward for comments on the resolutions relating to the Flood Insurance Program, and Mr. Ward said he would like to talk with the City Attorney about his responsibility. The City doesn't have a building inspector, and he himself never gets involved in water supply. Appointment to Planning Commission Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council appoint Frank Armstrong to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. The meeting was declared adjourned at 12:15 p.m. following a motion by Mr. Merrill, seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.