Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/07/1975CITY COUNCIL JULY 7, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, July 7, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert, John Dinklage MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Tim Cronin, Margo Howland, Arlene Krapcho, Leonard Grow, Brian Gee, Mrs. E. Lamplough, Walt Levering, R. E. Curtis, James A. Lamphere, Fred I. Parker, Paul R. Graves, Bruce Marks, Mary Barbara Maher, William Wessel, Ray Danis Following an executive session on a personnel matter, the regular meeting was convened by Chairman Farrar at 8:35 p.m. Minutes of June 16, 1975 The reading of the Minutes of June 16, 1975, was postponed. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed by the Council members. Report by Chairman Wessel of the Planning Commission — Lamplough property Chairman Wessel read two motions passed by the Planning Commission and explained that two subcommittees would be formed, one would come up with a new zone and the other would formulate a new zone that would accept the mall and maximize the City's control over the development. Referring to the contract, Mr. Wessel said initially he was enthusiastic about it, but after discussion with the City Attorney the Commission came to the consensus that the City might be in a weak position. He said the Commission is not rejecting a mall entirely but is saying that they are not ready to say that a mall is positively desirable, and they are considering once again a mix of commercial and residential, or a mix of commercial, but have ruled out a 100% residential, feeling that complete residential is inappropriate. Chairman Wessel then outlined the findings of the Planning Commission which had been expressed either in a motion or by a consensus of the Commission: 1) Traffic seems to have caused the most concern. The intersection is at capacity; this was confirmed by the traffic engineer from the Regional Planning Commission. Any solution would require land acquisition and would be costly in that area. 2) Adjoining property. Protection of the Patchen Road residential area should be a priority, to reinforce the school and maintain a well-planned situation. The land open to Williston Road, Mr. Wessel said, would seem to be another natural area for another zone. The Munson land would relate more to Williston Road than to the residential character of Patchen Road. It could be a division of zone by contours or by soil types, with maps available which would aid in this. Whatever happens on that land is going to affect Patchen Road, with an increase in real estate values. 3) Balance of commercial vs. residential. The Commission found there is much available commercial land within the City right now. Chairman Farrar asked if the Commission had explained the ratio between the developed commercial and residential and the undeveloped residential and undeveloped commercial, with Mr. Wessel saying they had not. Mr. Farrar asked if it was correct that it is not known whether the City has more undeveloped commercial or more undeveloped residential, and Mr. Wessel said that was correct. 4) Tax implications, Mr. Wessel said, are hard to estimate. They did talk with the assessor and learned the value is about the same as residential or as commercial. A residential area would have a greater impact on schools, while a commercial area would have a greater impact on traffic. The land within the triangle is the largest single piece of land available in the City, with none of the existing commercial areas being large enough to include a regional mall. 5) Soil conditions. Mr. Wessel mentioned the conflicting reports received from Russel Reay and Bob Towne. Mr. Reay had written that if it went to the Environmental Board he would oppose it, while Mr. Towne who had attended a meeting of the Planning Commission was of the opinion that the land could be developed with proper engineering. Fred Mitchell had found 50% of the soils to be acceptable for development, with the rest having moderate or severe restraints. An engineering survey would be necessary. It would seem that development could be done, with the question being at how much cost. Horizontal seepage of water is one problem, also drying up the heaver dam. Mr. Wessel summarized by saying this is probably the most difficult site in the City because of soil constraints, but it is not an impossible situation. Chairman Farrar stated that as he understood it, the Council had a recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve a zone change which was sent back to the Planning Commission for some additional information. Council now has a recommendation coming back with additional information and saying they do not recommend a zone change, so the question before the Council is still whether or not it would approve the zone change as recommended to Council. Mr. Spokes agreed that was correct. The Planning Commission originally approved a BPD classification and passed that proposed amendment on to Council, and then Council asked for more input. He said he believed what the Planning Commission was offering at this meeting does not have any legal effect but is giving more input. The question is still before the Board whether or not to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to re-zone to BPD. Mrs. Neubert referred to a copy of a letter from Russell Reay to Fred Mitchell saying that the triangle of land is unsuitable for commercial development. A use should be put on the land that would not change the topography. Mr. Flaherty said Mr. Reay did not get to the point of making a positive recommendation. Mr. Wessel explained that Mr. Reay had gone on vacation after writing the letter and Mr. Towne had visited the site and told the Commission it could be developed with good engineering. Mrs. Maher said it could be developed, could be engineered so it would not be damaging but it would be very, very expensive. Chairman Farrar remarked that from his point of view how much it would cost the developer is not strictly the topic under discussion, that they had received a somewhat ambiguous answer to that question. Mrs. Neubert then raised the question of setbacks from the stream, a conservation district, and asked how a variance could be given from a zoning district. She felt the zoning ordinance would prohibit any engineering to fill in the gullies because it is a conservation district. The conservation district on the Lamplough property is a zone, and she asked how they could get around that. Mr. Spokes said the ordinance could be amended. If any portion falls within the conservation district which is to be utilized for any purpose not permitted in the conservation district, the ordinance would have to be amended. Mr. Wessel said perhaps it would be better to be more flexible, that it was a "gray area." It was a zone that they might want to make more accommodating all over town. Mr. Flaherty asked if in the new recommendation the Commission feels the area is improperly zoned, and Mr. Wessel replied they feel it is still improperly zoned. Mr. Flaherty said he would like a positive statement, how they thought it should be zoned; that they are now back on square one. Mrs. Maher said she wished to apologize on behalf of the Planning Commission, that they have gotten nowhere except to really understand the magnitude of the problem. Mr. Dinklage said he was prepared to introduce a motion that Council reject the proposed zone change. Chairman Farrar said he would like to hold back on that because Council had also had proposed to it by the developer a proposal that Council consider using a contract to solve some of these problems. He referred to a copy of the draft of a contract dated June 20th. Mr. Farrar said he felt if Council is to consider a contract it should do that prior to taking any formal action on a zone change. That should be disposed of first if Council intends to proceed that way. If it decides not to proceed in that direction, then it would decide about the zone change. Mrs. Neubert asked about signing the contract before making a zone change, and Mr. Dinklage said that was Mr. Spokes's recommendation. This proposed contract would be a step which Council could take, Mr. Dinklage explained, and he asked whether Council wanted to take any steps toward bringing about a regional mall on the Lamplough property. Does Council think, based on the information presented and the members own perceptions, that this is a desirable thing for South Burlington. If Council does think so, there are a variety of ways in which it can move forward. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't think anyone has ever expressed themselves in favor of a regional shopping mall. She felt the effort that had been made to create a zone had been done in a sense of fairness, and she didn't know how a vote taken by either the Planning Commission or the Council would come out. Chairman Farrar suggested someone might make a motion that under certain circumstances a mall would be desirable and that would give Council a sense of what direction to proceed. Mrs. Neubert said she did not like that; it was what they had been doing for seven months. Mr. Farrar explained if the answer is "No" Council would then vote on the zone change. If the answer is "Yes" it would vote on how to proceed. Mr. Merrill suggested setting up a meeting to at least discuss the possibility of a contract, to discuss with Dick Spokes what Mr. Graves has proposed, not necessarily doing it on the Lamplough property but to look into this type of contract. Mr. Dinklage said he thought there are some members of the Council who might not like to proceed any further and since it is tying up Council's time, the Planning Commission's time, the City Attorney's time, and therefore he felt there should be a consensus on this before going any further. Mrs. Neubert said she thought it would clear the air and would allow Council to start over on a new zone, and she didn't think that vote would mean the issue was closed forever. Mr. Merrill said he would prefer to keep the door open and discuss it more. Mr. Dinklage said he personally felt he was not convinced that this was a desirable thing and that they needed in effect to be sold more effectively on having this development in the City. He said he was speaking only for himself. His opinion has not changed in the course of the discussion they have had or in reading the Minutes of the Planning Commission. He felt that in case there were others who also held this opinion that Council find if there is a consensus that it not be pursued. The Planning Commission is split on the simple question of the desirability of the mall, and Council should make sure that there is a consensus on the Council that it is desirable, and then look at ways to implement it. Mrs. Neubert said the Planning Commission is doing exactly what this motion would try to do. No one knows whether or not the mall is suitable for that land but they would like to have a zone change which would permit it and then go through the whole thing again. Mrs. Maher said she thought there would be a lot of absentions. The Planning Commission is divided and she would like to get some direction from the Council. One faction is going to develop a zone if they get an indication from Council, that is the way they will go. Another faction will develop a zone that would change the way the land is zoned now and would not accommodate a mall. She said the Council are the elected officials and asked that they please give a tired Planning Commission some direction. Mr. Merrill said he could understand the Planning Commission's problem, but from what had been presented to him from the time he first looked at it is presenting him with the same dilemma as before and it is time that Council takes the direction or says the Planning Commission must create the proper zone for the triangle. He said this has gone on for a considerable amount of time and he has looked at all aspects of it. He has not seen any large number of people opposing this mall, no great popular outcry against it. He is looking at the person who owns the land paying six or seven thousand dollars in taxes a year on property, the soil on which may turn out to be worthless in terms of construction. He said it is right back where it started and it is time the Council actually looks into the situation, and has a separate meeting and looks into the possibilities of either pursuing the contract type of arrangement, or returning it to the Planning Commission and request a proper zone for the area, what the land is suited for, and some clear evidence to document such and such. He said he would comment that they could go back over all the things the City Planner recommended that this property was suited for. The Planning Commission originally voted for this. The Planning Commission doesn't want to take a stand on this and it is time that in all fairness to the developer, the owner of the property, and other people of the City, that a decision should be made within the next week or two to either pursue a contract or turn it back to the Planning Commission. He said he felt as an elected official the necessity to move in one direction or the other to make this decision. He added that other members might disagree with him. Mrs. Neubert said this would be asking the Planning Commission to create a zone they would never dream of creating. Filling in gullies in a conservation district, destroying a natural area, the impact on nearby roads, the ramp. Mr. Merrill said if the Planning Commission wanted to say they wanted it left in a natural area, then the Planning Commission should come out and say this is a natural area and this is the way they want it left. Referring to the contract, Mrs. Neubert complained that it doesn't give the cost of the traffic solution; that Council should not be expected to sign a contract without cost figures. Mr. Farrar said it doesn't commit the City to spend one cent if it doesn't want to. If the City desires certain improvements to be put in, it would be the responsibility of the City to pay for them, but any improvements put in to solve problems created by the developer would be paid for by the developer. Mr. Flaherty said he was sure Council wouldn't accept the contract as is, but it is necessary to start from somewhere and they wanted to look at a contract. It is something to study and not a final document. Mr. Danis objected to members of the Council saying people have not been at the meetings. He said people can't be expected to come night after night, and he asked what else there is to work with, that the answer should either be yes or no. Attorney Fred Parker, representing Paul Graves and Mrs. Lamplough, said he wished to respond to the Council at this point, to either vote up or down the regional mall concept, and to suggest to the Council that the regional mall as such is really not the subject of what the question before the Council is and it shouldn't be. The mall was brought up by a developer in the spirit of attempting to explain to the Planning Commission initially as what use should be made by the developer of the zone change was made. The whole presentation of selling the mall has never been made. Planning on the mall itself is far from complete but what has been asked is that the zone for the Lamplough property be changed and the Planning Commission has indicated on several occasions that the zone is inappropriate. What they now have after spending six and a half months with a finding of the Planning Commission that the present zoning is inappropriate, is no finding from anybody on what they think would be appropriate. The developers have attempted to address one of the major problems that seems to crop up, the traffic problem. The proposal is that if the present zone is inappropriate, the developer is at the same time suggesting he can work with the City to solve the traffic problem by way of the separate contract. In the contract intended to be proposed, the language can certainly be made appropriate to accomplish that and to be working with the developer and the City Attorney, assuming the Council decides that is the way to go. Mr. Parker said he was not suggesting to Council that they change the zone in exchange for a contract. He said they were willing to enter into a traffic study and try to help solve the problem that the use they have proposed would create, and also expand that study much broader to address the presently existing and future traffic problems. Rather than deciding at this meeting whether the mall is appropriate or not, it is appropriate to put in that contract a provision that in the event this traffic study does not come up with an idea which is appropriate to solve the traffic problems created by this mall, then we do not go forward. He said they have not asked Council to approve a regional mall. They have the problem that Mrs. Lamplough for six months has been unable to move that property or do anything because the price is contingent on whether it is zoned appropriately. The Council could find it is inappropriately zoned. The developer is still tied by the contract to a traffic study to solve the problem before they go forward. Council should take the fact that the property is improperly zoned and then act on that and zone it properly. The question of how the site is going to be prepared is all a future problem. He said they felt very strongly that the Council has to get this off the center. Mrs. Lamplough, be said, is saying taxes on this, and they have never been able to make a presentation to anyone. He urged that Council consider that it is an inappropriate zone now; it has got to be rezoned. The traffic problem can be solved with the proposed contract. He said they would work with the City in what they wanted to accomplish, if they can just get an answer — is it going to be rezoned or remain residential. Mr. Dinklage said be absolutely agreed with Mr. Parker that one shouldn't consider a specific use, but the facts of the matter are in this case that Council would not be considering any zone change proposal were it not for the fact that a large regional mall were attractive to many people of the community. Council has already gone on record in its unanimous motion sending the recommendation back to the Planning Commission, asking that the Commission come up with a zone that would allow a regional mall but no other commercial activity. Council is not interested in considering a general zone; it is in truth responding only to this proposal for a regional mall. He then suggested again that Council first establish whether or not it wants to go forward with any mechanism which would allow a regional mall, saying he sensed that there was not a consensus on the Council that this is desirable. He said he personally did not think it is desirable and he wanted to find out if any of his colleagues felt this way. He would like to see this question put to some sort of a resolution. Mr. Parker suggested that the contract provisions would accomplish what the Planning Commission would do because if it is rezoned BR or BPD, there would be nothing but a regional mall because the developer is tied to that. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to see the Council take a position on the matter. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Parker about what would happen if Council signs the contract, the developer gets the zone that would permit the mall and prepares the engineering studies that will be submitted to Council, and the City so ends tax dollars — and Paul Graves for some reason pulls out of the shopping mall — how much money the City is going to be committed to would be a problem, as she didn't see how the City could bond when the money would be spent to help the developer. Mr. Parker said he thought the contract was clear on that point, that the expenses of doing the study are the developer's. There will be some cost figures in the study. The decision is then the City's, whether or not the City is to spend money to solve existing problems and whether the developer is going to spend money to solve the traffic problems. By entering into this contract the City has no obligation to make these changes. It is impossible to find out what something is going to cost until it is found out what has to be done. Mr. Spokes said it was important to realize the spirit in which this contract was originally drafted. The problem presented was whether a contract of this nature was a possible vehicle that could be utilized in solving the entire situation. Mr. Graves said presenting the draft was an attempt to commence discussion, not in an effort to start picking away, but more in an effort to determine whether any kind of contract is a possibility or could assist the City and the developer. That is the spirit in which he reviewed the contract. He said he quite frankly had offered his initial comments, but he didn't really consider the draft in the spirit in which it is now being discussed, so he thought it might be appropriate to clarify his position on the contract concept. He said he agreed with John Dinklage that a decision has to be made on the mall concept. The contract concept is simply an interim measure; he didn't think it was a substitute for amending the zoning ordinance in the way that is mandated by the Vermont Planning and Development statutes. He said he didn't think that by itself it solves the dilemma in which they are fixed; it is simply a mainly temporary vehicle to help settle the entire situation. The logical life of this contract should be three to six months and if there were any chance that that contract would extend beyond that period his recommendation would be not to go with any such contract. Chairman Farrar asked if what Mr. Graves was saying was not the duration but the time during which Council would get a zone change made in which it would be proper to allow the mall to take place. Mr. Spokes said the real objective of the contract is protecting the City during the period in which they have the zone change. The period is the several months it would take the Planning Commission to go back and come up with a zone which is more appropriate and would allow the developer to proceed with the assurance that if he could solve the traffic problems he could proceed. He said he did not view the contract as a substitute to determining the proper zone; it may be a vehicle to use on a temporary basis or it may not. He said he did think the Planning had spent six months on this project and they have all complained that nothing has transpired; no conclusions have been made. The Planning Commission has looked at it; they have made certain concrete recommendations. One is that they don't feel BR or BPD zone is appropriate; they don't feel commercial grid-type is appropriate; they do feel there may be a possibility that this property is capable of accommodating a commercial project whether it be a shopping mall or some other commercial project. They don't have the answers to the traffic and soil problems, he said, but he thought there are zoning mechanisms by which a door can be opened to present to the City that they consider some sort of commercial development. There are other zoning mechanisms to confront that proposal if and when it comes. He thought the Planning Commission had said they might be able to accommodate certain commercial development, but that would be more appropriate when the specific proposal is made. Mrs. Neubert said the Commission has rejected the zones—they are certainly not going to make it agricultural. There could be a shopping mall under BR or BPD. Mr. Spokes said creating a new zone was not necessarily being talked about. There may be some positive results of the Planning Commission's work if the zoning problem is looked at but not the mall. There are safeguards when the developer makes his proposal. Mrs. Neubert asked what other zone could there be, and Mr. Spokes replied the possibilities are endless and this was not the time to get into different alternatives. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the City Council determine that at the present time, based on information received from the developers through the public hearings and from the Planning Commission, that the City Council take no further action to facilitate placing a regional shopping mall on the Lamplough property. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Dinklage explained he had not yet been convined that at this time this is something South Burlington either wants or needs. He felt it would be a major change in the Master Plan that he didn't think needed to be made at this time. He personally thought it represented an unneeded expansion of property zoned for commercial development in the City, taking into consideration the property already zoned. He would prefer to take it slowly and see those properties developed. Council has before it indications that there is soon to be intensive development of properties in other parts of the City. He also has a personal opinion that a regional shopping mall of the size and type proposed by the developers would have a serious if not a disastrous impact upon the plans for the Burlington downtown urban renewal which he personally would like to see succeed, so he wouldn't like to see this development come into South Burlington at this time. It would have a substantial change in the character of the City and he did not favor it. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Dinklage what his motion meant, saying if it meant the contract, she was against the contract. She didn't think the City should assign away its right to legislate to any individual for his own private personal project. The City shouldn't give away its zoning rights. Rights and laws that govern zones should be laws that apply to everybody, and to her this would be granting special privileges. Every person who wrote the document, she said, was sincere, and she found this contract insulting, extremely insulting in that it is incomplete, that it does not cover what happens to the person that this property may be sold to if it not be Mr. Graves. She said she could never sign this. She said she felt that the Lamplough property itself is incompatible with the use that is proposed from an environmental standpoint; it is incompatible for the use proposed for it because of the existing commercial in the area; it is incompatible for the use because of the traffic problems. Williston Road belongs to the entire county, she said, and she did not think the City has the right to risk tying it up with the severe density of traffic, nor was she convinced that this mall would ever get off the ground and she said she had a great fear of getting tied down to a partially completed solution to traffic and the City is left holding the bag for roads half done. She said she didn't feel this community needs that much commercial in this area. She thought a regional mall could be accommodated in the area but this site is absolutely wrong for this. Mr. Flaherty expressed his opinions as: 1) the land is improperly zoned; 2) the City Planner recommended there should be planned commercial development. He commented that when the City gets such recommendations, as this one from the Planner, they are only followed "if they agree with our own." 3) he didn't think it ought to be turned down. He would like to listen to Dick Spokes' proposal and get further input. If the City is afraid to deal with new types and ideas, it will be dealing with a frozen City: 4) regarding traffic there is going to be more, whether or not the Lamplough property is rezoned. Council has always talked about planning ahead and this would be an opportunity. Chairman Farrar said that in response to Mrs. Neubert's point, he didn't feel that the contract if entered into would in any way give away rights to legislate; it would give the City adequate protection in a couple of areas in which there had been reasonable concern. The proposed change was to change it from basically residential to basically commercial zone. There were comments which indicated that there were some uses in this zone which were inappropriate to the area. Another concern was about the generalized traffic problem which would be incumbent on somebody to solve if commercial activity were put into that area. He said he read the contract as a means of trying to insure that somebody wasn't the City but was the developer. Perhaps the language was not complete; there had been no attempt by the City Attorney to make it that way, but he was responding to a generalized concept of the contract and was trying to caution the City that it was treading upon new water. Mr. Farrar said he thought the contract, if used properly, could afford some additional protection to the City; therefore it is not something that should be rejected outright. He said the protection he saw was that if the property was resoned BPD, under those circumstances the City might be able to control the developer in the sense that he would have to take care of traffic problems created outside the development; and that second, Council should only consider an actual zone change because of the fact that there were things that could be put on under this zone change which we didn't think would be appropriate in that particular area; that could be solved by coming up with a different zone than what is there now. Mrs. Neubert asked what if the income (estimated by Dick Underwood to be $200,000 in tax income) was not as great as the cost of the traffic solution. Chairman Farrar said he would expect the contract to be written so that any improvements to be made on Williston Road would be paid for by the developer; also he would expect that before the first shovel of dirt was turned there would be appropriate performance bonds in place. The City has the options of solving its problems at the same time if it wishes. There would be the option to do it or not to do it when the bill was presented. Mr. Dinklage said he was not opposed to a contractual approach to this if there was a consensus that Council should proceed but the intention of his motion was to ascertain if there was a division of the Council. It was not the intent to convey to the Planning Commission anything that would preclude a change of zone. Mrs. Maher said two members of the Council had referred to the City Planner. She wanted to bring out that David Ellis had talked with Fred Mitchell and learned that Fred didn't feel it was wise to have this size of mall in South Burlington. Fred had spent a lot of time in Montpelier, also with people at the University and with the Regional Planning Commission. She suggested that perhaps he didn't want to reverse his first opinion by putting it in writing. Chairman Farrar asked if this was her feeling, her surmise, saying the reasons would be much more important, and asked if Fred said traffic was a specific reason. Mrs. Maher said she knew for a fact that traffic would be too much for the City, and she thought this was going to go on and on; that there would never be a mall, people in South Burlington are very silent because they also feel that they don't believe that the City would go forward with it. It would mean putting another two lanes on Williston Road from the jug handle to the City line, another lane on Dorset Street. It would be unfair to the developer. There is no way South Burlington can afford it, there is no way he can afford to do it. Chairman Farrar said that is not really what Council is there to discuss because that goes back to the same point. Mr. Dinklage said he had found that the sentiment of people at random seemed to be 75% to 25% against the mall. Mrs. Neubert said that in talking with people she would say it was about 90 to 1. People had called her and asked who they should vote for to keep this mall from coming in. She felt the City has no right to possibly inconvenience the tax payers and cause them undue oppression. She didn't think there would be this kind of impact if the City didn't have this kind of too large development on this particular property. She added she had talked with Fred Mitchell the day before he left and could confirm everything Mary Barbara had said. He felt that in looking at the whole feeling in the community, the ultimate impact on the community was wrong, the use was wrong. Mr. Dinklage's motion was defeated. Mr. Dinklage and Mrs. Neubert voted for it. Chairman Farrar then asked how to proceed from this point, saying that at this time he was not prepared to vote for the original zone change that was proposed without some way to assure himself that many of the things that Mr. Dinklage had pointed out originally as problems would be solved. Mr. Farrar said he had talked with Mr. Spokes about this and they both came up with problems, but it would give both the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board a considerable broader powers in seeing that these problems are resolved. Also, he said he felt the proposed contract offers some unique advantages to the City. He suggested asking the City Attorney to take the comments made at this meeting and see if he can work out with the attorneys for the developer the language which says the problems will be solved, and present it to the Council before any zone change is voted upon. Mrs. Krapcho asked if Council would consider instead of proposing that this mall be considered a conditional use, just determining whether the Planning Commission could be authorized to review this proposal under the present zoning regulations, the whole mechanism for reviewing a PUD, which allows the Commission to consider thirteen points or more. If the area is rezoned, the Commission would not then be in a position to apply the review process that is authorized for a PUD. She wondered if there was some way this might be attached to any contract that might be considered. Mr. Farrar said there is at least some area of uncertainty about the validity of a contract. This is something which is somewhat new; it has been untried in Vermont. The contract shouldn't be counted on as a final solution, but only as an item in the solution. Mr. Spokes and Mr. Merrill agreed with that. The contract would be a temporary type of thing but would assure the proper study of traffic; and secondly, the Planning Commission would rezone the entire triangle properly and come up with a zone within a reasonable time. Mrs. Neubert asked if there could be a contract to get the thing on the road without committing the City to BPD. Mr. Dinklage said he liked the suggestion to move in this direction to make a shopping center a conditional use. He then asked if the Planning Commission rewrote this section of the zoning ordinance and went through the formal hearings, could the City still have the option when a formal sound proposal came before them, to enter into a contract of the type before the Council now which would force the developer to pay for a substantial cost of the traffic improvements ­— would one exclude the other — would the City find itself holding the bag and couldn't enforce it because the developer would be working within a provision of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Merrill said there were certain things in the contract the City would want extended beyond the two or three months period originally talked about. Mr. Spokes said it might need another contract. Mr. Dinklage pointed out that if a conditional use approach is to be the answer there is a possibility of at least examining it. If the City works towards that goal in rezoning the area, he would see the contract as bringing in the control during this temporary period. Certain aspects would be extended, whether a new contract would needed or not. He then said it was not clear to him under a contractual approach whether the hearings that would take place in the determination on the conditional use proposed by a developer would be before this body or the Planning Commission. Mr. Spokes said they would probably be before the Zoning Board and they could not share Council's sentiments about sharing the costs of traffic alteration, and he would like to see something adopted by Council with the developer that would be binding regardless of what review process is put into force. Mr. Farrar said that was why he thought the contract a very valuable thing to have around. Mr. Graves referred to the concern over conditional uses under BPD and yet the Council was talking about having the Zoning Board decide on a conditional use. He said either the Zoning Board is accepted or it is not, and he did not think it should be. The problem is here, he said. Referring to the other concern about other uses the property could be put to, he said there is no way that land could be subdivided under the existing subdivision regulations. Mr. Dinklage said the consensus is not to allow small parcel development. Mr. Graves replied that the subdivision would come before the Planning Commission. There would not be a positive response to simply asking for a BR or BPD. There is a whole list of controls in the subdivision regulations now. Just by definition, a shopping mall is defined as a subdivision. Mr. Graves said it all boils down to just one issue and that is traffic. In site plan review the City will get a bond; that takes care of the problem of what happens if it isn't finished. Mr. Dinklage said he had a concern that at some time in the future the developers will change their minds and decide not to come in with a regional shopping mall, but to take advantage of a provision in a changed zone and subdivide it for intensive commercial development. That would not be desirable and he didn't think a flat zone change would be the way to go. Chairman Farrar said the City Attorney could be asked to work out with the attorneys for the developer the acceptable language; then the Council could vote on the zone change. If the zone change is approved, the developer would then start the traffic study. Nothing would be encouraged that would prevent the Planning Commission from continuing its deliberations of a zone change that would basically allow a shopping mall. The contract would be signed, the developer could proceed with the solution of the traffic problems. The City would be protected from the problems that all have foreseen. Mrs. Krapcho asked if under that mechanism the community has a right to reject any proposal because of traffic problems, or does that have to be inserted specifically. She asked for Mr. Spokes' point of view on it. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to see a zone that could be applied to any undeveloped commercial area, have a zone that ties them down to the commitment, or at least the City's control or consideration of that commitment. Mr. Merrill said this would be an advantage to the City and a saving to the tax payer. Mr. Dinklage asked if it would be clearer to have a motion to table further consideration of the zone change request received from the Planning Commission until Council has a signed contract acceptable to Council. He said he was incorporating the suggestion from Dick Spokes that the contract be signed. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council instruct the City Attorney to work with the developers to draw up a contract which would require the developers to pay the expense of road improvements required to solve traffic problems associated with this development as determined by the Council, and that Council table further consideration of the zone change request received from the Planning Commission until such time as Council has signed said contract. A stipulation would be that the contract would allow only for a regional shopping mall of the type currently being proposed. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mrs. Neubert questioned allowing only a shopping mall, asking if that was only for control purposes, to tie them down to the traffic solution. Mr. Dinklage said that was the intent of the original motion sent back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Farrar said he was concerned that there are a number of uses under the proposed zone change and if he only had that zone change presented in the abstract he would have to vote against it for those reasons. Some of the problems the Planning Commission has had in trying to find a different way to zone might mean it would be several months before a zone is achieved, and this may be a way by which Council can at least get sufficient information in an expedient manner to decide whether this proposal is worthwhile. Mr. Parker asked if he understood correctly that the contract would be signed but the developer would not undertake the obligation under it until such time as Council had voted on the zone change request. Mr. Farrar replied anything that is allowed under the present zoning would be allowed by the contract. He said Council was asking that certain things be agreed to before, and he didn't think there should be any reason why anyone would be required to expend funds under this contract unless they wished to expend them. Mr. Parker said the study is going to be an eight or ten thousand dollar proposition. If there was time to work on the contract this week, he wondered if Council would consider the possibility of meeting next Monday to work on the contract. He said it seemed to him that people are so close in concept that drafting it is going to be a very short session, and the developers are very anxious to move this along. Mrs. Neubert objected to having to vote on a contract thrown on the table; she would like to have it by at least Friday. Mr. Parker said that would be no problem for him. Mr. Merrill said he would like a separate work session so Council could discuss it with Dick Spokes and the Chairman of the Planning Commission; then Council would meet jointly with them. Mr. Spokes said he was not convinced he understood what Council wanted this contract to cover. He and Mr. Parker and Paul Graves could meet and draft what they think Council may have in mind. He suggested a work session first might be better so he could take the Council's input to Mr. Parker and Mr. Graves. He said he could accomplish more with the Council than he could with a public gathering. Mr. Farrar suggested a working document could be back by Friday of this week and it could be reviewed Monday night; the Planning Commission could review it Tuesday. Mrs. Maher asked if the next step would be to rezone the land. Mr. Farrar answered the provision with respect to the traffic study would have no termination date, the provision with respect to what was to be done on the property would have some finite termination date. Mrs. Maher said they do have a BR and BPD and all the provisions that go with it. Mr. Spokes said not, they are waiving those provisions, but Council still has the oglibation to come through with new zone. They can't utilize all the permitted uses under the temporary zone. Mr. Dinklage said that with the suggestion that the shopping center be a conditional use in that zone, the way to change the zone might be to permit a shopping mall but not the other uses of BPD. Chairman Farrar outlined the procedure as: 1) contract to be signed; 2) take up the question of a zone change; 3) Council might vote the zone change affirmatively, with the only uses which could be put to that land would be a shopping mall; there would also be the option to vote it back to its former state. It could be zoned in such a way that would allow a shopping mall but not all the other things allowed under BPD. Mrs. Krapcho felt this was much too narrow. Mrs. Neubert said that while that was being worked on, Council would have approved the BPD with a contract that takes away a lot of the uses. If the Commission comes up with a zone Council does not like, because of the contract Council can turn it down, turn down the zone. The vote on Mr. Dinklage's notion was four affirmative, with Mrs. Neubert abstaining. Chairman Farrar said there would be a special meeting of Council subsequent to the City Attorney advising that he has a draft for consideration. If the draft is ready by Friday, the meeting will be called for Monday. Second reading of Burglary Alarm Ordinance Mr. Dinklage moved that Council continue consideration of the second reading of the proposed Burglary Alarm Ordinance until next Monday evening at eight o'clock. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Sign Hold Harmless Agreement for parking cars on O'Brien property on Patchen Road Mr. Szymanski explained there is not enough parking area at the recreational field. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council empower the City Manager to sign the Hold Harmless Agreement with Daniel and Leo O'Brien. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Authorize City Manager to sign agreements Mr. Dinklage moved that Council empower the City Manager to sign agreements negotiated by the appointive bodies of the City. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Sign warrant for unlicensed dogs The City Manager said he now has a list of unlicensed dogs; there are 80 owners, some with more than one dog. They were contacted by letter. This warrant gives the Chief of Police the power to destroy the dogs unless the owner gets then licensed. Mr. Dinklage moved that this warrant be signed. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Steering Committee Meeting Date It was suggested that the date of July 17th, Thursday, be set for the meeting of the Steering Committee. The last meeting had to be cancelled because of lack of a quorum. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council go into executive session to consider the personnel matter. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The regular meeting was declared adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.