Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/22/1976CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting and public hearing on Monday, March 22, 1976, 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, Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Frederick Fayette, Jr. and J. Everett Reed of the Zoning Board of Adjustment; William Schuele, Cynthia Rubin The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farrar at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council go into Executive Session to consider with the City Attorney and the Zoning Board the implications of the recent Zoning Board decision. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The regular Council meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Disbursement orders Attention was called to the Disbursement orders prepared for signature. Citizens' request to discuss Lamplough use variance Chairman Farrar said one of the things discussed at the previous session between the Zoning Board and the Council was whether or not to hear an appeal so a position could be taken on how any particular appeal might affect the City so that in some cases there would be more of an adversary hearing because there would someone there to present evidence as to why the appeal should not be granted. He said if a mechanism is established like this, Council might be able to help the Zoning Board by providing information where there is a serious concern because the Board might be at a disadvantage in arriving at a decision. The defense is somewhat disorganized. The Code Officer has all the evidence lined up. Mrs. Neubert asked if it would be appropriate every time when there is an appeal of some significance and that person has an attorney, would it be appropriate to ask the City Attorney to be present. Chairman Farrar said he felt it would be very difficult to have any attorney put in a position where he is expected to make rulings on law basically "off the cuff." Mr. Spokes said he agreed with that. He said he was available to the Zoning Board and to the other commissions and boards within the City. If any of them have a legal question, it should be presented. Mr. Farrar asked what the other members thought; would that be a useful procedure in getting some position established. Mrs. Neubert asked if he was saying that Council has an obligation at certain times to take a position. Mr. Farrar said he was not saying this particular case is one of that type but where a person comes in and appeals to the Code Officer, would it not be in the best interests of the City to say in some cases there is an impact on the community, not necessarily the adjoining property owners. Council has an obligation to all property owners. Perhaps Council could be of assistance to the Zoning Board in making its decision if Council tries to marshall the facts. Mr. Reed asked if this would for every decision of the Zoning Board. Mr. Farrar said as soon as a person files for appeal, then prior to the hearing of the appeal, Council would have to ask the Planning Commission if the granting of this appeal in its opinion be the type that would be of general concern to the City or is this basically an area of specific local concern. Mr. Spokes said he had a couple of concerns. One would be that the Zoning Board is charged by law to hear things and make decisions and any procedure that could be construed as delegating this to the Planning Commission or Council could be a problem. The real problem is that there is generally no adversary because there is nobody who wants to contest the applicant's proposal. He said he felt the Board could probably be stronger in extracting evidence from the applicant by saying "I am not sure you have given us enough information on this particular point." I think the Chairman could try to get some of this information, throwing the burden on the applicant. Another possibility would be for the Chairman or the Board to make the decision to get reports on his own volition from experts on certain points. Somebody the applicant hasn't presented but the Board might feel would be appropriate. Mr. Spokes said he was not saying that in certain cases the City should not be an active party, but in most cases getting other than the Board involved in routine cases would be pulling it away from the Zoning Board. Mr. Farrar asked if it should perhaps not be more of an adversary-making proceeding, not to take the decision-making away from the Zoning Board but to try to give them the ability to step back a little bit and watch the by-plays of competing arguments. He felt a great burden is put on these people, the fact they have to try to weigh the evidence as presented, but at the same time try to dig for the evidence. Especially in more complicated cases the applicant is only going to present that train of thought which is most beneficial to his case. The Zoning Board is going to have to listen to arguments with one ear and think what other argument should be heard. Mr. Dinklage offered an example: A use variance which would allow commercial use of land otherwise zoned as residential and perhaps because of the way development is taking place all of the surrounding property owners are zoned commercial and would actually like to see this land used commercially instead of residentially, so all of the interested parties are in favor of this variance, being granted. But suppose a large body felt the granting of this variance was in violation of the Master Plan; how does the spirit of this opposition get presented in the present format under present procedures. Possibly it doesn't. If the Zoning Board does not take it upon itself to ask the larger question of what would be the effect on the whole community, these questions might conceivably not get asked. One can't always depend on it. Mrs. Neubert said in the beginning the Board was considering traffic. This was after their witness came in; there was no other testimony. All of a sudden traffic was not to be considered. How they could go from considering it was a problem to saying they didn't want to hear any more about it — she didn't know what happened in between — but she still felt traffic to be a problem. Mr. Reed said it was definitely not the problem of the applicant. He didn't think it was up to the appellant to change or make better a traffic problem that the whole City is to blame for. Mrs. Neubert asked "But at what point do you stop?" Mr. Fayette said the Board discussed the percentage of increase of traffic the impact of this development would have on Williston Road, and about the best it was going to affect it was about two percent; this is saying that 98% of the problem still exists. The Board asked the question and discussed it for awhile and felt it was going to cause a no worse impact than any other business and less than a residential development. Mrs. Neubert started to ask about the access opening up the other land and Mr. Spokes said this was just "rehashing." Mr. Farrar said what is being discussed is the question of whether there is a better way. Mrs. Neubert asked if there is a position to take, that something has a significant impact on the City, how is it presented. She asked Mr. Farrar if he was satisfied that the Council could take a position on traffic. Mr. Farrar said the question is not that Council would be trying to substitute its judgment for the Zoning Board's but should Council in some cases come in as an interested party and offer evidence which would be of assistance to the Board in making a decision. The Board could grant the appeal or deny it. There could be cases where the Council might feel that even adjoining property owners would disagree but it would be in the best interests of the City to grant it. He said in his experience Council had never exercised that right and may be it would be beneficial if it did exercise that right. Mrs. Neubert said there might be cases where they would feel they had to, but you wouldn't know if you wanted to exercise that right until the process had started. Mr. Farrar said he would like to try to develop a mechanism which would try to develop information before the procedure started. Mrs. Neubert said she felt Council already had the right. To set up a procedure where we are trying to oversee potential problems as they are coming along is to her, she said, interference. She thought the thing had to exist first. A procedure could be set up. Mr. Dinklage read from page 58. Section 4464, regarding to appeals, and said he thought the municipality per se can be a party. He then referred to page 61. stating any person can be heard. He said it seemed to him that by law the municipality is granted the right to appear and be heard. Everyone agreed there was no argument on that. Mr. Farrar said it would be necessary to decide whether or not the municipality was going to do that and now there is no procedure as to whether or not it will become a party to these things. Council has never discussed in a single case whether or not the City should become an interested party, and perhaps it is not exercising its duty to the fullest extent. Mr. Reed said Council would have to make up its mind before the Board even hears the case. Mr. Fayette said the other things Council is not recognizing is that Richard Ward is the Zoning Administrator; he is Council's representative. Mr. Farrar said the point was that in the procedures we would be trying to help you in providing information. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Spokes if Mr. Ward is a party. Mr. Ward answered he was not. Mr. Spokes stated Mr. Ward is not a party in the sense Mrs. Neubert means; he is a lower court. Mr. Reed said he is the citizens' representative. Mr. Spokes said he didn't know if he would agree to that. He felt the Board could be a little stronger in looking at 57 and 58 in 4462. This gives the Board authority to do those things other than what they have been doing. He proceed to read aloud from these references. He compared what Mr. Farrar was suggesting with a stronger position by the Board in saying it needed some more information on these five points. That is what he felt they were striving for. Mr. Dinklage said that from reading the section they have an incredible amount of power. Mr. Fayette said he thought the record showed that the Board is receptive to discussion with anybody from the public but nobody looks in on the Zoning Board process until there is something like the Lamplough case. That is why there is a misunderstanding. Mr. Flaherty referred to the time there was another use variance on the same agenda and everybody concerned with the Lamplough property left before this other appeal was heard. He said he was just bringing that up as a comparison. Mr. Merrill said there has been no case of appeal. Ten people have not signed a petition yet. The process is there and Council hasn't seen it yet. He said he didn't know if Council has to be that concerned but really the people who are upset should bring in the appeal. Mr. Schuele said the fact of the matter is that most people consider the Zoning Board to take care of the kinds of appeals of people who have only 19 feet and need 20 for the requirement. But at this point people feel this issue was really planning and contrary to the plans the City has. If somebody needs to build a garage, that is the sort of decision he expects of a Zoning Board, but complete re-zoning of an area he felt was planning. That is when he gets upset, he said. Mrs. Neubert said they do have the right to have a use variance; there is nothing illegal and improper about the whole thing and it has obviously been misleading and misconstrued. Mr. Schuele said he was convinced that the public is not of that opinion. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Spokes to go over it one more time. Mr. Schuele asked how large an area could they re-zone by this technique. Mr. Spokes said he couldn't answer that because each case is considered on its merits. The larger the parcel, the closer you would be getting to a legislative issue. Mrs. Neubert asked where that point is and where is the cross-over. Mr. Spokes said he did not know. Mr. Ward said Mr. Schuele keeps talking about zoning; there is no zoning. Mr. Dinklage said that just because the proceedings were legal there is no reason that people can't disagree. Mrs. Neubert said that to her it was finished, it was done, and she was finished with it. Mr. Schuele then asked if the Zoning Board has any concern for the City. It seemed to him that if someone comes in for a change, the Zoning Board has to be concerned about what the City is aiming for. Mr. Spokes said he personally felt that was an unfair question. He felt they had concern for the City or they wouldn't devote the enormous amount of time they are giving. Mr. Schuele asked if they shouldn't be essentially concerned about what Paul (Graves) is going to try to do. Mr. Farrar said he thought maybe Council could help them by preparing certain information ahead of time because once you get started, questions lead to questions. He thought certainly they have a concern for the City; they have a legal concern. The point he said he was trying to make is the procedural point; that is where things tend to get one-sided because the applicant is well prepared and puts them at a disadvantage in carrying out their obligations. This was the point he was trying to address, the position they may find themselves in of being at somewhat of a disadvantage. Mr. Spokes said one of the criteria in the granting of a variance is that it not be detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. Ward suggested something that he knew was working in other communities, where a member of Council could serve as ex-officio on the Zoning Board, attend the meetings, have the right to ask questions. If he feels he wants more time he has the power to put it off and delay it. He cannot vote on it. Mr. Farrar objected that such a representative would be choosing on the spot how Council wished to act on the evidence. Mr. Ward said he could ask the Chairman to table it for two weeks. Mr. Ward said a member of the Council does have the power to vote on the Zoning Board. Mr. Farrar said voting was not the thing. Mr. Ward said he was saying the representative gets to hear every case; he is probably not voting. Mr. Spokes said he would be the agent; the City would be the party. If there is going to be a representative of the Council and the Council is the legislative body in the City, therefore the City is the party. Mr. Farrar said that was just changing one set of individual judgments for another and he didn't think Council was any more capable of making right decisions. He said the question is how is there any way Council can assist. Would this be of help to the Zoning Board. Mr. Fayette said any input is helpful, but one area to be rather careful in is not to violate the spirit of setting up the Zoning Board in the first place. Dick may differ with you in some ways. The Board was originally set up because it was well known that when any type of blanket zoning laws are made everything cannot be covered, and this Board was set up to relieve difficulties, and he wouldn't want to see a situation where people don't have a Board that is different from any other board. He said he didn't feel the input given by Council would have this effect, it would be very beneficial, but he would want to make sure that everyone would keep in mind the spirit of the law under which the Board was set up. In answer to the question do they represent the town, he said they do, but at the time they were set up they already had the town's laws and the town zone. People come to the Board to try to gain relief and the door has to be always sort of open and not have so much input from the town saying that regardless, this is the way it should be. The safety valve has to be there all the time. Sometimes a Zoning Board's decision can force the town to do something. There is a real taking of property through our zoning rules. If the Zoning Board feels strongly there is a definite hardship he said he felt that regardless of an effect in a given situation the Board should grant the variance. Then everybody gets into it together. Many times there is too much worry about technicalities; people should not worry about the future so much but also about people living now who have the right to do something with their land. There has to be a Zoning Board of Adjustment; input is needed and would be very helpful, but at the same time the spirit of why we are here should always be remembered. Chairman Farrar said it does put the City in the position that when it feels the Zoning Board has made a bad decision there will be an avenue for appeal from that; the City could appeal. In this case we would be better able to make an intelligent decision as to whether we wished to make an appeal if we had been an interested party or an interested bystander. In other cases we could be interested bystanders or be justified to take a little more active participation. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to follow up on Dick Ward's suggestion. He thought it was a good one because Council does have to consider the practicality because most of the decisions go without comment from any quarter. Perhaps there could be over-kill, unnecessary response. He would like to suggest something to Dick Ward; he is a party in these procedures because he is first involved in a zoning permit which is denied. He is completely familiar with what is coming up. Independent of what Council decides to do as a body he would like to see Mr. Ward play a more active role in this in terms of advising Council on the basis of his own personal judgment. He said he would be very receptive to hear from Mr. Ward when he thinks there is a matter coming before the Board which Council should be particularly aware of, if this might be an appeal which would generate a great deal of publicity. Perhaps by resolution Council could ask him to give us his opinion and then Council could take whatever action it wished. Mrs. Neubert commented that Council gets the Minutes but perhaps it should also get the copies of the agenda. Mr. Ward said there is a warning in the paper; other than that nobody gets anything mailed to them. Mrs. Neubert said she thought the Board had an agenda. Mr. Farrar said the thing is the background, the warning does not cover this. Mr. Ward said the City Attorney could check this out but he personally felt it was a dangerous thing for him to be in, especially if an appeal went to court and someone said he had gotten involved in it. He didn't think that was a very comfortable position for an administrator to be in. That was why he was recommending someone as ex-officio. He said he had discouraged many people who came in from filing an appeal for variance because he has a feeling for it, for what might happen. Mr. Spokes said he felt we are not being very honest with ourselves. We all knew what was going on. The Minutes were available. Anyone of us could have attended the proceedings. Mr. Ward said Yes, he agreed. People criticize the Zoning Board because of the hour of the meeting but for the most part the average person knows the file is in the Zoning Administrator's office and they don't take the time to come in and find out what it is all about. Mr. Merrill said one of us could have made a motion asking Council to take a position, asking that certain facts be brought to the Zoning Board. The reason it is being discussed now is because some members are unhappy with the decision and some are concerned about legal questions. Those individuals could have said they wanted Council to make a motion. Mr. Merrill said he is bothered about Mrs. Neubert saying she represents the Council. Mrs. Neubert said if one is interested enough he will go, but everyone can't go. She did go. Mr. Farrar asked if Council could learn something, to improve the procedures in a way to help the Board which is trying very hard to do a good job. Are we satisfied with the procedures. Mr. Szymanski suggested having copies of the warning. Mr. Farrar said he can't tell just by reading the warning without questioning the impact. The question is whether or not input could be helpful in making a decision. Mrs. Rubin asked if there was some better way that the public could be involved earlier and be more informative, and asked where does the Board go wrong. There is lack of understanding on the part of the public about the mechanism of the Zoning Board and of the City Council. Because of this lack of understanding of their rights, there was not adequate participation from the public. Mr. Spokes told her if she was concerned about a particular application that is coming up to get nine people to join her, then they could appear as a party in the proceedings. Mrs. Neubert said she thought Mrs. Rubin was still worried about how to appeal. Mrs. Rubin said she was mainly concerned about the lack of mechanism for public input all the way through and ultimately when the Zoning Board has made its decision; the legal route. Mr. Merrill said she should realize the Lamplough appeal went through the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. Had they not wished to appeal to the Zoning Board they could appeal to the court. Mr. Dinklage told Mrs. Rubin she could appeal the decision at her own expense or she could get together with people of similar minds and do the same thing as a group, or she could attempt to convince the legislative body that an appeal should be made through the court. Mrs. Rubin said the purpose of coming before the City Council was probably a "rehash" because they all understood the legal steps, that the Zoning Board was within its rights, but that she was still confused. Mr. Spokes told her perhaps she did not understand his role. He views his roled as City Attorney for all departments of the City. When they need legal advice or assistance, he is there. He is not an attorney for the public; he can't be; the job would be impossible. In many cases he would have a conflict of interest because their interests might be different from those of the Council. It would be impossible on his part to advise every citizen of his legal rights, whether or not they are connected with municipal affairs. A municipal attorney's job is to represent the governing body. Any legal question comes to him from the City Manager or the Council. If any citizen has a legal question and it goes to them, it is their judgment to make the decision as to whether it gets into my hands. Mr. Flaherty suggested that Mr. Spokes give the answer to the question as to why the Board could hear the appeal. Mr. Spokes replied he gave the Zoning Board a legal decision. He met with the Zoning Board. They well understood that question. He answered that question. He conveyed exactly what they wanted to know. He gave a legal opinion. A layman is not on the same footing in interpreting the law. A layman might disagree and he might be right. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Spokes if he read the Minutes. Mr. Spokes said he was completely aware that his response wasn't what she wanted to hear. Mrs. Neubert said she couldn't find the answer there. Mr. Merrill said he felt the answer was clear. Mr. Merrill said the thing that should be discussed, when you are interested in this case and the five criteria, is the question of whether the five criteria are met. That should be analyzed. That is what the Board based their decision on. And if it is appealed the court will not hear it unless they really feel that one of the five was violated. Mr. Spokes said that has been changed now. All the evidence is introduced again; you start all over again. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to comment on the suggestions. He thought this had been a somewhat beneficial experience for many of us. We are learning. He said he sympathized with the position. He finds himself in that position. Just speaking for himself he thought he had a better awareness of what Council could do. He would prefer not at this point to formalize Council's involvement with the Zoning Board but to play it on a case by case basis. All of the Council will simply be more attentive and approach these matters differently in the future. He said he personally was rather timid in wanting to get involved in this proceeding because he felt it was a test case of great importance to the Zoning Board. In that respect he would not proceed that way again in the future because he was personally strictly opposed to the logic that was used, but he also could recognize that these are matters about which reasonable people can disagree. The purpose of meeting with the City Attorney was to establish if there was anything more to it. Mr. Dinklage repeated that it was a matter about which reasonable people could disagree. Mr. Schuele said the big concern is that now this proceeding can be used by anybody; it has established a precedent; if a person doesn't get what he wants he can get it from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He asked if Council had concerned itself with that. Had they discussed that problem. Mr. Farrar answered it had been discussed at length. Mr. Fayette said the point was that this is a right that everyone always has. There were no further rights given to anyone. He said Mr. Schuele probably did not understand that this is a right that all property owners have and have always had. Mr. Reed explained they could have come to the Board before they went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dinklage said there has been a lot of emotion and discussion about that issue. Mr. Schuele said for a year or so the Planning Commission had been working with the same developer for a piece of land and arguing. When he didn't like it he pulled it away, took it to Council, and then took it to the Zoning Board. Mr. Fayette explained that is why the Board is here; that is their function when there seems to be a hardship and someone is looking for relief. Mr. Flaherty said they have a right to go to the Board. There is no way that right can be taken away from any particular landowner. There are appeals for use variances; some are approved and some are disapproved. It was not a new procedure. Mrs. Neubert said the use variances granted have not been of this nature. Mr. Fayette said they had been of this nature. Mrs. Neubert asked if they had ever had such a case where 50 acres were involved. Mr. Flaherty said people have to be involved in it; it is not a new proceedings; it only hits us in the face now because it is so big. Mr. Schuele remarked it would appear they can get bigger and bigger. Mr. Merrill said it could be 100 acres. Mr. Flaherty said there is no way you can stop anybody from doing it. Mr. Schuele said that is what he is worried about. Mr. Flaherty said it could only be done by changing the complete philosophy of the law to which is protect the individual rights. Mr. Merrill said zoning cannot be that correct; there are always mistakes in it. Anybody has the right to appeal. The decision can be right or wrong. Mrs. Neubert said a use variances that changes boundaries too, that is the big difference. Mr. Fayette said there is a difference between a use variance and zone change. He described what could happen to a piece of land that could be called a zone change and would be wrong, but if a person came in and met the criteria and wouldn't be the spirit of the law and had a plan outlined with every little thing going in there — that is a use variance. Mrs. Neuabert said Council heard tonight from the City Attorney that anybody can use that method as opposed to a zone change now. Mr. Spokes said it is not "anybody now" because it has always been that way. That is their right. Mrs. Neubert said that is what people did not understand. Mr. Reed said they could have gone to court and done the same thing. They didn't have to come to us. Mr. Fayette said what was suggested could very dangerous. The Board and its decisions have to be looked at because if the Board is being blind to the welfare of the town that is the time for Council to start removing them; it is time to replace whatever segment of the Board it wants to replace. Responsible people have to be on that Board, he said, and the decisions they have to make are very very serious. Mrs. Rubin said the laws state a member of the Planning Commission can also be on the Zoning Board; this is a mechanism which says members of the Planning Commission can become members of the Zoning Board. Mr. Reed said the City Charter would supersede that and the Charter says a person can only be on one Board. Chairman Farrar said if nobody wishes to propose any action, he thought there was no need to discuss the matter any longer. Mr. Reed asked if the Minutes could be sent to each member of the Zoning Board and Mr. Farrar agreed they would be. The Chairman thanked those who came, saying they were welcome to stay for the work session on subdivision regulations. Mr. Dinklage said a comment had been made at the last meeting about the Minutes of the Zoning Board not being available. Mr. Reed explained they had been approved all the way up to the last meeting but when a member is absent they usually wait to approve them. Review of Subdivision Regulations Mr. Page presented Council with three pages of proposed Subdivision corrections which were reviewed with the Council by the City Attorney. Mr. Spokes recommended changing collector street to secondary street for the sake of consistency. This is in the third paragraph of the suggested changes for page 2 of the regulations. Item #4 for page 3 Mr. Spokes felt should contain a provision for having this recorded in the Land Records. Mr. Page suggested adding a phrase at the end: "Shall not be deemed a subdivision provided an instrument which waives development rights is reviewed by the City Attorney and is recorded in the City Land Records." Mr. Spokes said his reference to 10 acres was only to avoid getting below what the minimum size lot permits in that district. Council preferred to leave it at 25 acres. Mr. Page called attention to the large dots before some of the page numbers in his list of corrections, saying these were things that came up after the Planning Commission held its public hearing. Section 204.1 for page 10, Mr. Spokes approved of changing 6 months to 18 months, provided there is continuing evidence to pursue the subdivision application. For page 11,(b),2, Mr. Spokes explained City Council should be retained and not replaced with Commission. For #7, page 14, the correction penciled in was approved by Mr. Spokes although he said he had reservations about it. For page 16, Section 403, Mr. Spokes stated lakeshore should be deleted for legal reasons. Page 15, Angle at Intersection of Street Center Lines, 90', 90', and 60-90' should be changed to degrees rather than feet. Regarding page 17, Section 406, Mr. Spokes recommended caution here, that this would be very good if there was a Capital Budget Program, but standing alone it could be disastrous. He recommended leaving it out now and perhaps adding it after there is a Capital Budget Program. Section 604 for page 27, Mr. Spokes said he had drafted this action and it is in order. Under General, Mr. Spokes said Council should establish a fee schedule but it should not be included in the regulations. A fee schedule should be adopted by resolution. Referring to a letter from Mr. Robenstein, Mr. Spokes said the suggestion about recording the agreement in the Land Records had been adopted, and the rest of the letter contained planning material. The City Attorney then said his biggest concern was Section 412, School Sites, and he had recommended in his memorandum of February 3rd that the exact language of the Vermont Planning and Development Act be used: "When a development composed of one or more plats will accommodate a total of more than 100 dwellings, the Planning Commission may require of the developer the designation of necessary public school sites or a payment in lieu thereof." He felt this would avoid problems and would give more flexibility. Mrs. Neubert said one of the problems from the Planning Commission's point of view was that when the enabling act is set up it becomes a rather arbitrary gesture as to whether or not a Planning Commission is going to require a developer of 100 units or more to provide the site for a school. The Planning Commission was trying to set up something which would be less arbitrary so they wouldn't be accused of imposing something on one developer that was not on another. It could be implemented in all cases where several projects under one developer could produce 100 units or more. Mr. Spokes said he might agree with the first sentence of Section 412, but the second sentence was really running into problems and tying it up with the recreation would be getting into trouble. Chairman Farrar then suggested taking the corrections submitted and review them section by section with motions for approval of same; then making a motion to submit these changes to the Planning Commission. Mr. Flaherty moved and Mr. Dinklage seconded that Council accept the changes for page 2. Motion passed by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved and Mr. Dinklage seconded that Council accept the changes for page 3 including the word "installations." Motion passed by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council approve the insertion of the words "Type of" at the beginning 201.1 5) on page 4. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Motion passed by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept the addition for #4 on page 3 suggested by Mr. Page: "Provided an instrument which waives development rights until and unless subdivision occurs is approved by the City Attorney and the City Council and is recorded in the City Land Records." Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Motion passed by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept the two changes for page 5, one for page 7, and the first one for page 10. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Approved by a vote of four members, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that the following changes be made in the third paragraph under Section 203.2 on page 9: A period be placed after the words "general welfare under item (2) and a new paragraph added to read: "The amount of improvement or the amount of all bonds which will be required shall be set prior to the final subdivision plat approval." The two remaining sentences under (3) are to be deleted. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Approved by a vote of four members, Mr. Merrill abstaining. For page 10, Section 204,1, Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve the change of 6 months to 18 months. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Approved by a vote of four members, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept the changes for page 13, 301.4. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Motion passed by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve for (2) on page 11 the following change; delete "with the sufficiency of such bond" and add "either with the bonding or surety company or with security furnished by the subdivider." Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Motion passed by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council approve the addition of the words "and maintenance for two years" after the words "such improvements" in (2) on page 11. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Motion passed by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve #7 for page 14 including the penciled correction to the second paragraph. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Approved by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve the new paragraph for #8 on page 15. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Approved by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Merrill moved that on page 15, Street Design Standards, the figures under Major. Secondary and Minor headings for Angle at Intersection of Street Center Lines be changed to 90 degrees under Major and Secondary, and to 80-90 degrees under Minor. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Flaherty moved that Section 402 on page 16 be divided into two paragraphs, the division being at "Corner lots". Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Approved by four votes with Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that the word "parks" be added before "schools" in Section 403 on page 16. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Approved by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council accept the correction for page 18, Section 410. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Approved by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that the proposed wording by the City Attorney be accepted for Section 412 on page 19. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Approved by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve the corrections for Pages 22, 25. 26, and 27. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Motion passed by four votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council recommend the preparation of a Table of Contents for the Subdivision Regulations document. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage moved that on page 9. last paragraph, the words "for phased development" be inserted after the word "sections" in the third line. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Motion passed by four votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that on page 15, (8) the sentence beginning "Means such as merging" be deleted. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Motion passed by four votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty then moved that Council forward these changes to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Motion voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Schuele inquired as to what happens next and the required procedure was explained to him. Mr. Schuele recommended that copies of the document be available for the public at the public hearing. If public input was wanted, the public couldn't do anything without the documents, they are helpless. Mr. Schuele then asked what Council's comment was on the fact that a public hearing was held scheduled as a tentative executive session. He said it disturbed him because it was circumventing the law. Mr. Farrar said his personal opinion was that it never should have been warned that way. Mr. Schuele asked if they were told that, so they wouldn't do it again. The Chairman said it was discussed briefly. The deadlines for warning, finalizing the document, notifying the surrounding communities, etc. were discussed by Council and Mr. Ward and Mr. Page. Chairman Farrar suggested sending off the document with the proposed changes already drafted, listing them as such, and send out a letter on April 6th saying the Council approves. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council schedule a public hearing on Monday, May 3, 1976, at 8:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Ward commented that if there are any corrections after that, there would be trouble. The hearing should be held 15 days from tonight, then make the final hearing 15 days after that. After discussion as to the proper action to be taken and the time element involved, the motion by Mr. Flaherty for a May 3rd hearing was voted for approval by four members, Mrs. Neubert abstaining. Mrs. Neubert stated she was abstaining because the Zoning Administrator was not happy with the May 3rd date. Mr. Merrill moved that copies of the document be sent to the potential developers by mail, to any other interested persons who might have valid input, also to committees and to the League of Women Voters. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Ward asked if it would be possible to just tell people by mailing a notice. Mailing the document costs a dollar. The suggestion was also made by Mr. Merrill to include in the next Spokesman. Mr. Merrill's motion was voted unanimously for approval. The Minutes of March 15 Consideration of the Minutes of March 15, 1976, was deferred until the next meeting. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Merrill that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.