Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/06/1976CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 6, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the Conference Room of the Municipal Offices on Monday, December 6, 1976. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; John B. Dinklage, Frank H. Armstrong, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Paul Graves, Peter Matta, Pat Burgmeier, John Dillon The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Farrar. Reading of the Minutes of November 15, 1976 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mr. Armstrong, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of November 15, 1976, as presented. Sign Disbursement Orders It was noted that the disbursement orders were ready for signatures. Second Reading of the Amendments to the City Sewer Ordinance Mr. Dinklage moved that Council waive the formal reading of the Ordinance to Amend the Sewer Regulation Ordinance of the City of South Burlington. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council approve the Ordinance to Amend the Sewer Regulation Ordinance of the City of South Burlington. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council waive the formal reading of the Ordinance to Amend the Ordinance to Establish Sewer Disposal Charges. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and passed unanimously. Mr. Armstrong then moved that Council approve the Ordinance to Establish Sewer Dispoal Charges. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council dispense with the formal reading of the Ordinance to Amend the Sewer Installation Regulations of the City of South Burlington. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council approve the Ordinance to Amend the Sewer Installation Regulations of the City of South Burlington. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and passed unanimously. Review Amendments to City Zoning Ordinance and Set Date for Public Hearing Chairman Farrar opened the discussion by stating Council could review the proposed amendments and make changes. An extended discussion followed regarding procedures and the Chairman said he would contact the City Attorney on this. Asked by Mrs. Neubert what the Planning Commission desired to gain by making the conditional uses, Mr. Ward explained the Planning Commission had reviewed all the uses allowed in the Business Retail District and then listed those uses that generated an increased traffic flow. These uses are the ones which are now before the Council for consideration as Conditional Uses. Chairman Farrar suggested setting the warning date for the document and then prior to the next meeting get the precise language in which it is to be warned. Mr. Ward recommended proceeding with the public hearing because people will come to the hearing and their arguments can be considered by the Planning Commission. Also Council might have some different thoughts after hearing the public input. Council may want to add more to the document. Mr. Armstrong felt more study was needed on hotels, motels, and drive-in banks, as there was no data on traffic. He felt everyone agreed that the fast food places are the immediate problem. Mr. Dinklage wanted to get Section e included as soon as possible, the sale of books, magazines, and newspapers, with a public hearing by the Planning Commission as soon as it could be held. Even though this doesn't relate to high traffic, for simplicity's sake he would like to get all these through the public hearing at one time. Mr. Ward explained what is involved once the amendment proceeding is begun. A person coming in has to conform to the warning; if he doesn't, then the Zoning Administrator cannot issue a permit. The person must come before Council at a public hearing and request a permit from Council. Mr. Ward added that this discussion tonight was really just a work session type of thing; all Council was supposed to do was to establish a hearing date. It was still felt the City Attorney should be consulted on both language and procedures. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council amend the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance submitted to Council by the Planning Commission by deleting paragraphs a and e of Section 7.004 and adding to Section 7.10, and these then would become Sections 7.109 and 7.110. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council refer these changes to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage next moved that Council instruct its Chairman to consult with the City Attorney regarding Council's ability to modify sections 7.004 based on the preceding motions. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Work Session on proposed Sign Ordinance amendments Mr. Ward the compensation schedule from the State of Vermont had been sent to Council as was requested at the previous work session, and he had also included copies of the Nashua N.H. sign regulations. The Sign Review Board was now looking for direction from the Council as to whether or not it wished to include compensation provisions in the South Burlington Sign Ordinance. Mr. Ward said he was not recommending that the City adopt the State's position and he would go on record again as favoring the grandfathering of signs rather than paying for the signs. However, he was concerned that there is only year to do something and if there is to be any thought about compensating, it is time to start thinking now. Mr. Ward explained there are 100 signs which are non-conforming under the 40 sq. ft. restriction. Over a period of three years, 18 signs have been made conforming. He said he would recommend moving back to the former 60 sq. ft. limit. Mr. Matta said actually 64 sq. ft. was a very popular size, as most materials come in that size. Mr. Graves said this also allowed a business to keep the 40 sq. ft. sign but add a promotional sign of 12 sq. ft. which has to be permanently placed. Mr. Dinklage asked if there wasn't some creative way to set a time limit based on some reasonable depreciation or other scheme whereby the City could be assured that in X number of years somehow every sign over 64 sq. ft. would be removed without having to pay compensation and without being forced to go to court. Some point which would be reasonable and which would stand up in court. Mr. Ward said they could go to each individual business and assess the value of and in lieu of dollars allow him to blanket the sign in for say 5 years. Some of them are new signs and the owners would not have had time to write them off. Mr. Graves suggested 5 years from the date of the ordinance or 15 years from the time the sign was erected, so that everyone would get at least 15 years out of their sign. Chairman Farrar felt there were two questions involved: 1) how to approach getting rid of the signs they wanted to get rid of, and 2) which signs do they want to get rid of. Mr. Ward said size is going to mean a lot to those who are going to take down their signs. There are people who would take down their 600 sq. ft. signs if they could be allowed to have one of 100 sq. ft. Mr. Matta recommended letting matters take their course because firms all over the country are going now for smaller signs. Mr. Farrar suggested just inserting a clause that says after 5 years of the adoption of the original ordinance or 15 years from the time of the first valid permit for the sign. Mr. Ward said his records didn't go back 15 years, he only has records dating back to when he took over. The Chairman asked where the City would stand if a limit was put on everything of 64 sq. ft. Mr. Ward said he could give a report, a good idea of what signs we have. Mr. Dinklage suggested asking Mr. Ward to give his best estimate of how many signs there are over 64 sq. ft. He said he personally would not be opposed to even 20 years if that would accomplish it in a good, neighborly way. Mr. Farrar felt that in 15 or 20 years the sign would certainly have been depreciated. Mr. Matta noted that some signs are leased and the businessman might not be able to break the lease, but they could be told not to put the sign up again when the lease period expired. Mr. Matta also commented that things will happen quicker on their own than by being pressured. Mr. Szymanski asked about the status of signs on Shelburne Road, and Mr. Ward said from 90 to 100 are in the right of way and will have to be moved back. Formal request to Vermont Highway Department for an interchange with I-89 and Dorset Street at the intersection with Kennedy Drive It was felt by Council that steps should be taken to request the State to implement this intersection. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council direct the City Manager to communicate officially with the State Highway Department requesting them to start the planning process for a full interchange at the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. The comment was made that this would take probably 10 years to accomplish. Mr. Armstrong asked about other alternatives, and possible locations were discussed. Getting something closer to Digital for a turnoff on the Interstate was suggested. Mr. Dinklage said this was an example of the justification for having an Official Map. Mr. Szymanski said some work was done on the Transportation Plan that he was almost sure included an interchange in that area and it was sent to the Highway Department then. The motion by Mr. Dinklage was voted unanimously for approval. Determine City and Regional five most pressing needs as requested by the Regional Planning Commission Reference was made to last year's list: Housing; Transportation; Recreational Program; Capital Improvements; Solid Waste. Mr. Dinklage felt recreation was no longer a pressing need, while Mr. Flaherty felt the community received more value for its dollars in recreation than the people themselves received from building a road, and he would prefer something that people actually benefited from rather than transportation. It was suggested that solid waste was a regional problem and should have a county-wide solution. Mrs. Neubert suggested adding the term Highways to Transportation to include planning for automobiles. Mr. Dinklage suggested a county perk on the lake-front might be needed, acquisition of lake frontage for public use. His suggestion was not accepted as one of the five. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council submit the following as the five most pressing needs for the Region: Transportation and Highways; Housing; Solid Waste; Uniformity of Regional and Local Master Plans; More Highway Consulting Services for the Local Community. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council submit to the Regional Planning Commission the following most pressing needs of South Burlington: Housing; Transportation Plan; Recreation: Capital Program; Solid Waste. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Discussion on Southern Connector — Mrs. Neubert Mrs. Neubert urged the submission of an application for South Burlington's extension of Burlington's Southern Connector. The Highway Department project only goes so far and if South Burlington gets into it a formal application must be made. It is debatable whether or not South Burlington's connector is on there for the reason that the City never had Mr. Paquette's agreement to the connection. In order to be on an Urban Systems project the two communities have to agree. The connection is not clear. South Burlington does not connect with their project officially. The problem is that South Burlington is not officially tied into that project because it never made a formal application for our street to connect to their project. Mr. Szymanski or Bruce Houghton could find out how this has to be done. Mr. Farrar said the highway starts at the Burlington line and parallels Shelburne Road on the map. Mrs. Neubert said now Burlington's drop-off is going to be right on to Shelburne Road. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council direct the City Manager to take whatever steps are necessary to include South Burlington in the planning of the extension of the Southern Connector parallel to Shelburne Road. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mrs. Neubert emphasized that decisions are going to be made very soon and South Burlington has to get a formal agreement with Burlington as it did on the other Urban Systems projects. They have to be inter-community. Chairman Farrar said we could not be taken off the Urban Systems Map without our signature, without our approval. The motion by Mr. Dinklage was voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Neubert said she would like the City Manager to plan where that road should go. Adopt resolution designating Mr. Flaherty as the authorized representative for State and Federal Grant applications for Phase V Sewer Construction It was moved by Mr. Dinklage that Council sign a resolution designating Mr. Flaherty as authorized representative for State and Federal Grant applications for Phase V Sewer Construction. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Review Planning and Zoning Boards Agendas It was noted that the Zoning Board would not be meeting again until January 3, 1977, and the next meeting of the Planning Commission is to be a work session. Sign renewals of short term notes The City Manager presented a list of short term notes to be renewed, commenting these were at a lower interest rate of 3.75. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council, upon the recommendation of the City Manager, sign the following renewal notes at the interest rate of 3.75: $6,700 Chittenden County Transportation Authority 20,000 Red Rocks 3,000 " " 7,000 Welfare 25,000 Shelburne Road sewer extension 1,000 Sidewalk on Dutchess Ave. 17,850 Loader 21,690 Landfill machine The motion was seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.