Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/03/1978CITY COUNCIL JULY 3, 1978 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, July 3, 1978 at 8:00 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Ken Jarvis, Martin Paulsen Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Stephen Page, Planner; William Wessel, Chairman Planning Commission; Fran Brock, Free Press; Jean Cochran, WVMT; Ed Blake, Exec. Mgr. Champlain Water Dist.; Douglas Wyand, Wayne Wilson, George Handy, Gordon O'Brien, Elmer Premo, Joseph Hubbard, Arlene Krapcho, David Merrill, Andrew Corologor, Eugene Cenci Minutes of June 19, 1978 It was moved by Mr. Jarvis and seconded by Mr. Burgess to approve the minutes of June 19, 1978. The motion passed unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Public hearings Amendments to Zoning Ordinance - Mr. Page told the Council this was a proposal in the AR district to allow simple clustering and would apply in the southeast quadrant where there is currently 10 acre minimum zoning. Mr. Page explained that if someone had 100 acres of land he could use less than 10 acre lots if the balance of the property was encumbered so that it would remain undeveloped forever. Mr. Farrar asked how the city would proceed in the future when water and sewer were available in the undeveloped section and was told that these amendments did not address that but it would be good to include that in a legal document drafted for this. Mr. Paulsen did not like the word "community" sewage disposal. Mr. Burgess moved to amend the proposed zoning amendment, Section 5.405 (d) to substitute the word "all" for "community". The motion was seconded by Mr. Jarvis and passed unanimously. Mr. Jarvis then moved to forward the proposed zoning amendments to the Planning Commission for their comments on the changes the Council has made. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Page said there were two parts to these amendments. The first is the Transportation Chapter, where the suggested revisions originated from the work of the Williston Road Task Force report of 1976. He said there have been two other attempts to get these incorporated and that one of the recommendations has already been implemented so that has been deleted and the others moved up. Mr. Page said the amendments recognized the conflict inherent in the use of Williston Road between access to abutting properties and its use as a through road. The suggestion, of course, is to provide alternate routes for through traffic and he showed the Council some of them. Mr. Farrar suggested dates be attached to the recommendations for Williston Road and Mr. Burgess added that these should be consistent with the Capital Plan. Mr. Paulsen moved to amend the proposed amendments to the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to insert on page 2 the dates consistent with the dates in the Capital Program as adopted in May 1978 for improvements to the Williston Road area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. Mr. Paulsen asked whether something about the Southern Connector should be added to this chapter and said that by fall they should know pretty much where it will be placed. Mr. Jarvis moved to forward the proposed amendments to the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission for their comments on the Council's changes. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it passed unanimoulsy. Amendments to Comprehensive Plan to add Historic Sites Chapter - Mr. Page told the Council this draft new chapter was the result of a UVM student study under the direction of Chester Liebs. The first part of the chapter is a history of the city and then there is an inventory of historic and cultural resources. He said that the most important practical impact of the chapter was just a recognition of the sites so that when a development proposal comes in on one of them the Commission will be aware of it and can contact the appropriate people to see how it can be modified or preserved. He felt the chapter should be reviewed next March and said this was just a preliminary attempt to consider Historic Sites. Mr. Farrar asked if they had researched the legal implications of this addition to the Plan and was told they had not yet contacted the City Attorney about this. Mr. Wessel said the intent was to create a list that would be a flag to help the Commission spot potential trouble areas and he added that they had carefully skirted the legal implications and have not created an inventory. The Council was concerned about the legal implications and wished to have the Attorney's opinion of this in terms of the obligations and limits placed on both the city and the landowner by it. Mr. Paulsen moved to table further discussion on this particular amendment to the Comprehensive Plan until the next regularly scheduled meeting (July 24), with the request that the City Attorney advise the Council as to the legal implications of adding this to the Comprehensive Plan for both the city and the landowner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed with all in favor. Amendments to Subdivision Regulations - Mr. Page told the Council this was a mixed bag of revisions. He said that the Water Board had asked for new wording of one section. They want their specifications referenced so that a developer knows where he stands and they also want a new formula for cost sharing of larger than needed water lines. Mr. Farrar felt it would be good to meet with the Water Board to discuss the changes. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Page about fire protection and was told that the practice has been to have the Fire Chief review plans. Mr. Farrar asked what happened if there were modifications to the recommendations the Chief made and Mr. Page admitted that the Chief had not gotten every plan that was modified back for his review but he felt that was just an administrative oversight. Mr. Farrar said he had concerns that perhaps the Commission was not giving enough weight to the recommendations of the Chief and said he was not sure they should be followed verbatum but he felt the language in the Subdivision Regulations should convey that they were important. He asked whether the Chief should just review, or should approve plans. He suggested that at least something should be added to the effect that when the Commission departs substantially from the recommendations of the Chief, or the Water Board, etc., the people involved should get a chance to comment specifically on what was approved. Mr. Burgess moved to table this until the next regularly scheduled meeting at which time we will rewrite sections 8 and 9 and we would also like to meet with the Water Board and the Fire Chief at that meeting if it is convenient to them. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Informal review of proposed new commercial zoning Mr. Page reminded the Council that the adoption of this new zoning had been one of the objectives of the interim zoning and he said that the perimeters of the commercial zones did not change but would be renamed. The approximate equivalent of the present BR zone would become C-1 and the approximate equivalent of the present BPD would become C-2. BR (now C-1) would be downzoned to professional office district. C-2 zone would allow all C-1 uses plus other BPD uses. He said the heart of the amendment was that the uses allowed on the busiest roads would only be allowed under a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) provision. Thus if a landowner wants the most lucrative use of his land he could only have it under a PCD. This is intended to minimize strip development. A landowner could get together with his neighbors on access for several different parcels of land in order to get the size and frontage requirements of a PCD. Mr. Farrar asked how this would effect the interim zoning district if it were passed and said he did not want to approve this until the city was ready to lift interim zoning. He also pointed out that the Commission wanted to put the zone allowing PCDs on Dorset St. and said that if the determination of the Commission that the intersection of that street with Williston Road was at capacity had been correct, perhaps no further development on that street should take place. Review Zoning Board and Planning Commission agendas There were no comments. Review proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance and if acceptable consider for the first reading Mr. Farrar felt the Council should start by looking at Section 8, which amended section 14c. This section dealt with the removal of nonconforming signs on January 1, 1979 or after they have been standing for 15 years. He said he felt 15 years was adequate use compensation. Mr. Jarvis stated that he did not like the removal clause because when the old signs were erected the owners were playing by the rules of the game then and he was not sure the city could say that after 15 years the value of the sign was gone. Mr. Burgess did not like having rules for one set of people but none for the people who got to town first. Mr. Paulsen stated that his feelings lay halfway between those of Mr. Burgess and Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Ward said the Sign Review Board did not like the section. Mr. Gene Cenci said that he would like to know how the city arrived at the 15 year figure. He told them that the majority of the people in the audience were in the motel business and that they depended on out-of-state residents, people unfamiliar with the roads, and they needed their signs to be seen easily. He felt that the next years would see a revolution in the sign industry towards nicer, carved-wood signs, etc. He told the Council he felt that the time a sign should come down was not after a certain number of years, but when the business would allow it to come down. He pointed out that the industry was #1 in the city and added that they paid their fair share of taxes. Mr. Farrar said the city was trying to balance the value of a sign against the person with a non-conforming sign who has an advantage over the person with a conforming sign. Mr. Premo told the Council that he had a large sign on Shelburne Road which he felt was necessary for the operation of the business. He did not think the age of a sign had anything to do with anything. He saw no valid reason for the city to legally ask them to remove the sign. Mr. Cenci stated that he had never been convinced that the citizens of the city wanted the signs taken down and Ms. Krapcho replied that it was unfortunate that there were no other representatives of the public here tonight. She pointed out that a large sign could block out things hidden behind them. Mr. Cenci felt that forcing motel owners to conform to the ordinance could create a terrible traffic hazard because people will not know where to go when all the signs are the same size. Mr. Wilson felt the mistake in the ordinance was the removal of the grandfather clause and said that he felt the times would be seeing more attractive signs. He added that it was a hardship to a small business to be forced to replace a sign. Mr. Jarvis said he was concerned about the competition South Burlington businessmen have in the surrounding communities and said he did not want to hinder them any more than other obstacles already did. Mr. Premo felt cost was not relevant to the discussion, saying that the value of a sign was its recognition by the public and he said that he estimated his business would drop 40% without the sign, and they would suffer greatly with a smaller one. The Council now went over Section 2, which dealt with sign size. Mr. Ward said that 64 square feet was the standard material size and that the figure of 12 square feet for a promotional sign came from the petroleum industry, which seemed to make the size of their gas price signs that large. On Section 3 Mr. Ward said the wall sign would be 5% of the signable wall area or 100 square feet, whichever is smaller. He said that businesses often needed larger signs than the city allowed them and this would provide wall signs of larger size. If a business has no freestanding sign, that amount can double to 10% or 200 square feet. Mr. Farrar felt it would be good to try to see if some of these problems could be worked through with all five members present. Mr. Paulsen moved to continue this discussion on Wednesday, July 5, 1978 at the City Council meeting at 7:30 pm in City Hall. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. Accept new street off Hinesburg Road Mr. Szymanski informed the Council that the street had been inspected and was up to city standards but had no curbs and was paved to 24' wide. Mr. Jarvis moved to accept the new street of Hinesburg Road as shown on the plan of Smart Associates dated September 1977, designated on the plan as "Sally's Way". The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and passed unanimously. Executive Session for the purpose of reviewing applicants for appointments to Boards and Commissions At 10:30 pm Mr. Paulsen moved to go into Executive Session to discuss applicants for various Boards and Commissions, following which we will adjourn without taking action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unaimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.