Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/02/1975CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 2, 1975, in the Conference Room, 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; Mary Thompson, Wm. J. Schuele, Richard L. Worcester, B. Buechler, Jean Stone, Sheri Larsen, Sue Sweterlitsch, George Khouri, Betsy Moraska, Clark H. Bensen, Ray Unsworth, Norma Unsworth, A. C. Audette, James A. Goddette, Sr., Mr. and Mrs. Frank H. Armstrong, Jim Wallace, Raymond Lavalley, Gerald B. Cadien, Joe Medved, Wilbur Bull, Steve Page, Walt Levering, Paul Graves, Alan Ruben, Jean Emmons, Steven Bushey, Karin Larson, Angelo Pizzagalli, Ruth R. Tabakin The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farrar at 7:30 p.m. Interview - Stephen Page Mr. Page was interviewed for a position as assistant in the planning area pending the hiring of a City Planner. The person holding the position would be responsible to the City Manager and the Chairman of the Planning Commission and this point was strongly emphasized by Council. Minutes of August 18, 1975 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage and seconded by Mrs. Neubert to accept the Minutes of August 18, 1975, as presented. Voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were presented to the members of the Council for signature. Public hearing on amendment to 1974 Zoning Regulations Chairman Farrar explained the changes proposed, copies of which had been given to the Council members. Mr. Dinklage moved and Mr. Flaherty seconded his motion, that Council accept these proposed amendments. In the discussion which followed Mrs. Neubert objected to the uses allowed in R-7 because she was concerned that presently existing houses in residential neighborhoods could, by going to the Zoning Board, be allowed to be converted into such uses as real estate offices, etc. She didn't feel that because someone wants to change the building at the corner of Kennedy Drive and Dorset Street that this is a good reason for changing the zoning. Mr. Schuele commented that the concept of good planning was better expressed by the Planning Commission than by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, explaining he was making that comment as a private citizen. Mrs. Neubert answered that the Zoning Board is responsible for cleaning up the mistakes made and they get blamed because the ordinances are not good; they take a lot of abuse. Mr. Dinklage was concerned that more developments would be springing up if this was passed. Mrs. Neubert wanted to see Kennedy Drive kept the way it was intended to be, and would like to see uses only as compatible in a subdivision where doctors and dentists could be available for the residents but there would be no need for a real estate office or an architect. Mr. Szymanski explained the conditions as to curb cuts and speed limit which were made when the City bought the land for Kennedy Drive. Mr. Merrill objected to discriminating against certain professions, saying he was not opposed to real estate, insurance, engineering, legal or any other professions in this area. The motion to accept the amendment to the zoning ordinance was defeated by a vote of 3 to 2, Chairman Farrar, Mrs. Neubert and Mr. Dinklage voting against, and Mr. Merrill and Mr. Flaherty voting in favor of acceptance. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Council request the Planning Commission to reconsider the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance to include the following objectives: a larger minimum lot size; intent to keep the curb cuts on Kennedy Drive to a minimum with the intent of allowing Kennedy Drive to continue as a high speed artery with the anticipated future full interchange of I-89; to consider these conditional uses to be allowed as part of subdivision approval in R-7 development. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Bushey explained they had started the ball rolling because they had come to the Zoning Board for a variance to put a small office building on the corner of Kennedy Drive and Dorset Street. He said he couldn't imagine anyone wanting to live on that corner; they had already tried to rent it for a residence and no one wanted it. The Council voted unanimously to approve Mr. Dinklage's motion. Request of Rand Corporation for a tax stabilization agreement Chairman Farrar referred to a communication from Rand Corporation requesting that the City enter into negotiations for a tax stabilization agreement for the extension of the University Mall project, and said that the City Attorney stated the City does not have the authority to do this. The only thing Council can do if it wishes is to set in motion the proper procedures to get this authority from the voters; it can request generalized authority or it can request specific authority which would then say each agreement would have to be based on voter approval. Mr. Dinklage said he was interested in working up a proposal to take to the voters in regard to tax stabilization on open land. Mr. Farrar said that would be dealing with two somewhat different subjects, open land and the encouragement of current construction. Mr. Khouri, representing Rand Corporation, said his proposal would eliminate the stabilization proposal and keep it strictly a negotiated settlement. He said he was asking Council to consider a recommendation to the assessor to establish a valuation on the property prior to construction to allow that property to be developed. Mr. Khouri said that was a very common practice in other states. Chairman Farrar suggested that Mr. Khouri point out to the City Attorney exactly what he wished to do. Mr. Dinklage said the guidelines the assessor uses are well known, and asked Mr. Khouri if he couldn't come to a valuation reasonably close to what would actually be put on it. Mr. Khouri explained he needed an evaluation to make the project viable to get a major tenant to sign a lease. Mr. Schuele said all the other developers have gone along without this. Mr. Khouri said they are proposing a rental so low as to bring a triple-A anchor into South Burlington and the only way to make it viable is to establish a set evaluation on the property. He said if he could get this one year he would be willing to take his chances on being re-evaluated the next year. Chairman Farrar said he didn't see how the assessor could evaluate the actual physical plant before construction, and second, the tax rate is going to change from year to year and he thought Council would be getting into an area over which it would have little control, and he felt Council should drop this matter right now. He felt Mr. Khouri could talk with the assessor in terms of getting the range, and the contractor could give him an estimate of what it might cost. Mr. Dinklage, referring to "visual swindle", said no statement of intent can substitute for seeing a finished project. Mr. Merrill said that based on the free enterprise system other stores would be operating at a disadvantage; also that any problem of taxes in terms of appraisal should come to the Board of Civil Authority. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council take no further action on the request of the Rand Corporation for a tax stabilization agreement. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Chairman Farrar said he didn't think there would be any objection if Mr. Khouri wished to call the City Attorney to clarity his intent. Mr. Khouri asked if there would be any objection to his sitting down with the assessor to see how close they could come, and Mr. Farrar said he should be able to do both things. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Public discussion of proposed contract for Lamplough property Because of the number of citizens attending the Council meeting it was agreed that this item of the agenda should be the next topic to be discussed. Mr. Farrar explained that discussion between the City Attorney and the Attorney for the developer resulted in the revised draft of August 21st of the proposed contract between the City and the developers, and any language changes which Council members wish to propose can be discussed at this meeting. If there were no substantial changes Council would ask the City Attorney to go through the draft to make sure it was in proper form. Mr. Dinklage asked if the Attorney is able to assure Council that this document is adequate to protect the City along the lines that were discussed, that he has already looked at the legal loopholes. Mrs. Neubert said some of Council's suggestions are not incorporated in the contract. She said she had understood that Council was going to have a work session on the contract, she would rather have a meeting to consider the problems, and now she was not being permitted a work session. Chairman Farrar assured her she could have a meeting tonight or any other time she wished and that was the reason he had asked that everybody go through it and see if there points any individual wished to raise. Mrs. Neubert then presented three pages of points she wished to have clarified or changed in the proposed contract. Mrs. Sheri Larsen objected, saying that the public came in for a public hearing on the whole contract approach. Mr. Dinklage suggested that because so many of the public came in, Council should discuss the philosophy of the proposed contract, and Mrs. Neubert agreed to defer discussion of her concerns until later. Mr. Flaherty suggested finding out what the public thought about the contract. Chairman Farrar explained the entire contract will be published in the paper for public information. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't want it published before she had a chance to give her input. Council members felt the newspaper article on the Lamplough property was unfortunate as to timing because Council is still involved in the "nitty gritty" mechanics of the contract and the publicity getting people out for a public hearing was a little early. But because the public was present, Council was more than willing to listen to them and appreciated the interest shown. Mrs. Tabakin asked why there was a contract and Mr. Farrar explained the need for a traffic study and the need to know how much the proposed solutions would cost. The Council intends to ask for an outside opinion in evaluating the results of the solution that comes, to see that it is acceptable to the City. Mrs. Sweterlitsch referred to the talk of what is fair to the developer, and asked what is going to be fair for her, what protects her. She urged having an absolutely unbiased study that neither party has a personal interest in. Mr. Dinklage answered that would cost the City a considerable sum which Council does not have the authority to spend. Mr. Merrill explained the purpose is to get a traffic study, then to see if it is feasible to place the mall there, and the Council will determine from a list of traffic engineers the one it wishes to choose to do this study. This is the Council's option. He added that the contract is written in the City's favor. Mrs. Tabakin asked if the zone is to be changed first. Mr. Farrar explained the procedure to be followed, the publication of the contract in its entirety, a date set for the public hearing with suggestions from the public, then a vote to be taken by Council as to whether or not it wishes to have the contract. Then the request for some change which was tabled will have to be acted upon. The intent of the contract, he explained would be to prevent a mall from being built upon the site unless and until a solution to the traffic problem is arrived at which is acceptable to the City Council; also to prevent anything else being built on the property other than the mall if it is zoned for business retail or business planned development. He explained the motion of the Planning Commission that the area was inappropriately zoned and also their concerns over traffic which could be created by the proposed use, and if a zone change was made a new plan might appear to use the area for other things which might be allowed but would not be desirable. Mr. Dinklage stated that in a formal vote by Council both he and Mrs. Neubert voted not to take any further steps to facilitate this mall, but the majority of the Council wished to find a vehicle by which the mall could happen. After that vote Council has worked diligently with the developers and the attorneys on the contract. He said that first the contract has to be agreed upon by the Council and the developers, and secondly a zone change has to be enacted. Mr. Flaherty said that no vote has been taken on the contract; Council is trying to get its own thoughts together on it and the thoughts of the public. There has never been a vote to continue with the shopping mall. Chairman Farrar said Council is not waiving its right to zone the land in any way it wishes. Mrs. Neubert said that Mr. Graves would have a BPD which nobody wants him to have; he could drop the traffic study; he could drop the mall; if he has a legal zone. Council wouldn't have the right to turn him down on anything. Mr. Dinklage responded that Council could turn him down on any grounds it wished; it would have the right. The intent of the Planning Commission and understood by all was that there will be another zone, one which Planning Commission and Council are satisfied with. The City Attorney has advised that this be done as soon as possible. A spectator commented the Council is trying to get something for nothing, that if the City needs the traffic study it should pay for it and go into it on that basis without any strings. Mr. Flaherty emphasized that nobody is committing himself to the contract. Council has to vote on the contract; a zone has to be voted on; the results of the traffic study and proposed solution have to be approved before the developer can get the zoning permit. He suggested that the public attend the meetings of the Planning Commission and let them know how they felt about their neighborhood concerns. Mary Thompson asked that a diagram be printed in the paper showing the Lamplough property because she had found that many people don't know where it is located. Mrs. Neubert mentioned the 13,000 additional cars a day and said it was completely unrealistic to expect Paul Graves to redo every street in town for this anticipated traffic. She then asked Mr. Graves if he was willing to pay for this. Mr. Graves explained the course of events since they first came in last December, and that he can't do a traffic study until he knows what is going in. He felt the land can't just lay there like it has, it has got to be put to zone commercial use or the taxes have to be changed. The owner would continue living there but she can no longer afford to live there with the taxes. The area of the property along Williston Road which is already zoned commercial could be developed as stip development but they would like to avoid that. It is impossible to go to a major tenant without knowing what the cost is going to be, and no major tenant is going to walk into a traffic problem. He emphasized that everything is to be open and above board, there is no deal, he simply wants this vehicle in order to get started. The City will have in writing what he will pay for before they get any permits, and they will be well bonded for it. Mrs. Neubert objected to saying that Mrs. Lamplough has a tax problem, and Mr. Graves explained the Lamplough tax formula. Mr. Levering said it could easily be strip developed, have had many requests for that, but what they are proposing is in keeping with the Master Plan, to get back into the property for indepth development. They had come in very honestly and very strongly with a project that would be in keeping with the Master Plan. Mr. Dinklage said the reason Council has gone as far as it has is because somehow this project seems better than strip development. Mrs. Karin Larson suggested letting the City Attorney write the document, the contract. Mr. Schuele raised the question of terrain, that it is not applicable for a shopping mall, and he was also concerned about the Conservation zone. Mr. Medved objected that all the discussion seemed to be technical and he would hope that Council would consider other things that were the concerns of those who live in the area. He said a large mall in South Burlington would be of no benefit it caused businesses in Burlington to close down. An immediate tax benefit would not be a long-run benefit. Crime would increase; noise would increase; traffic would increase. There is more and more pressure for building and Council should be protecting the people. Mr. Pizzigalli said the economics of the mall was not the business of Council; that South Burlington grew and provided school and community services to the people, built malls and office buildings. He recommended that Council level with the developer right now and not lead him down the road. If the developer can solve the traffic problem, whether Burlington survives is not the concern of Council nor the concern of Paul Graves. Mr. Merrill said he agreed, that he did not feel much sympathy towards Burlington, that South Burlington has got to think about growth in order to support our school, etc. The planned growth centers included in the "We are not the last generation" presentation by the Regional Planning Commission are not oriented towards South Burlington. He said he was not opposed to the mall concept, he was interested in jobs for our children. He was concerned about the issue of Williston Road which the City will have to face, perhaps with a bond issue. He was interested in tax revenue; there will have to be growth to support the school budget. If a traffic solution is possible, he felt the City should consider the mall proposal. Mr. Merrill then stated that if the Regional Planning document is adapted, South Burlington is going to have very little to say about what goes on, the growth policy, the 40 - 60 tax division, etc. He recommended that the public try to get hold of a copy to read, even though it is hard to get. Mr. Schuele said the Community Library now has a copy. Mrs. Neubert said there is no provision in the City's comprehensive plan for a mall the size of all downtown Burlington. Mrs. Tabakin suggested the City should do its own traffic study which would cover all the things it needs to know and not just in reference to Mr. Graves' proposal. Mrs. Karin Larson asked about the City's capital improvements budget ever the next five years, what the impact would be, is it going to be economically feasible to get into improvements within the next five years which would have to be made because of the mall. Mr. Farrar explained that improvements unrelated to the mall which the City desires to make, may or may not be made at the time the mall is built; that is the option the City has. As to certain "gray areas" the City would determine that payments were to be made and it might mean changing the capital plan to do this. The intent is to get a document which will protect the City from having to pay for any improvements; everyone is concerned about money to solve these problems. A resident of White Street asked about air pollution from traffic, saying her children wake up with headaches from pollution coming in the windows, and asked if this was going to be more than they could handle in the future. Chairman Farrar admitted he didn't know to answer that question. Mr. Schuele said more trees are needed. Mrs. Sweterlitsch asked about the residential area along Patchen Road, what would happen to the land adjacent to the mall, that she hoped it wouldn't all be rezoned commercial. Mrs. Neubert said she always felt it could be turned into a very nice residential area. This would be close to Central School and be desirable from that point. She said she would like someone other than Paul Graves to tell her it was too expensive and undesirable for residential use. Mr. Flaherty said another solution brings other problems; a residential area would also generate more traffic and add to the schools. Mrs. Jean Stone asked if a traffic study had been made when the shopping center at Hinesburg Road and Williston Road was built, saying the traffic pattern there was a very difficult one and she hoped nothing like that would happen again. Mr. Merrill stressed the importance of attending the Planning Commission meetings for the next few weeks, that it would be especially important for the landowners on Patchen Road to express their opinions on buffer zones and protection of residential areas. After a recess the meeting was reconvened at 10:45 p.m. Burglary Alarm Ordinance Copies of the Burglary Alarm Ordinance revised August 13th and approved for the first reading, were given to the Council members with new corrections noted in Section 1: Section 8(3); and the last paragraph of Section 8. The City Manager explained the reasons for these corrections. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council reconsider the approval voted at the last meeting for the Burglary Alarm Ordinance, for the first reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage to accept the changes in the revised document dated August 29, 1975. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council approve the revised document as the first reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved that Council instruct the City Manager to set a date for the second reading of the newly revised Burglary Alarm Ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Regional Master Plan Council members agreed with Chairman Farrar's suggestion to schedule the discussion of the Regional Master Plan for a meeting next Tuesday. Discussion of points raised by Mrs. Neubert regarding the proposed contract Mrs. Neubert reviewed her three pages of questions concerning the contract with the developer. Concerning some of the points she received assurance that the contract as written gives the City the necessary protection. Some of her suggestions for changes in the document wording were agreed to by the other members. Her concern about Section D on pages 4 and 5 is to be referred to the City Attorney to see if there is a problem. Her suggested changes which were approved are: Page 1. next to last WHEREAS, now wording: for uses which might be deemed inappropriate for that particular property, or in a manner which does not give the City the controls it would have under the existing P.U.D. designation: Page 2. second WHEREAS, change problem in 4th line to traffic situation. Page 3. concerning renogiating in three weeks, add the words after the Planning Commission has received the scope of services Page 3. second line, change wording to situation near the Lamplough property from Williston Road to East Avenue including the adequacy of the I-89 ramps. Page 3. Section B regarding projection time. She suggested this should be under the scope of services; that 20 years would be reasonable. Page 3 Section D. change accommodation to solved, existing and proposed and solved. Mr. Spokes will take these expressed concerns into consideration in going over the proposed contract for his final revision. Sign renewal notes Mr. Szymanski presented renewal notes for three months to be signed by Council members. These were: Dutchess Avenue sidewalk $ 2,000 Welfare 15,000 Garvey property 17,000 Red Rocks $ 20,000 Red Rocks 15,000 Landfill machine 25,990 Street Sweeper 7,772 Loader 22,300 Sign Town Highway Annual Financial Report The City Manager explained this report is a requirement of the State. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Dinklage that this report be signed. Voted unanimously to sign. The meeting was declared adjourned at 12:25 a.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.