Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/05/1978CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JULY 5, 1978 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, July 6, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. in the Assessor's Office, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road. Members Present Chairman Paul A. Farrar, Michael D. Flaherty, Martin Paulsen, William Burgess, and Kenneth Jarvis Others Present City Manager William J. Szymanski, Zoning Administrator Richard Ward, Free Press Reporter Fran Brock, L. M. Field, Holiday Inn; Andrew P. Corologos, Ramada Inn; Mr. O'Brien, Town & Country Motel; George Handy, Handy's Town House Motel; Douglas Wyand, Handy's Town House Motel; Chuck Munson, Howard Johnson's Motel; Attorney James H. Wick, Burlington; Elmer Premo, Best Western Redwood Motel; Frank W. Plumley, Sigh Review Board member; Albert Audette, George C. Voland, Jr., Michael Pcolar, William J. Schwale of South Burlington and several other interested persons. Additions to Agenda On motion made by Mr. Jarvis, seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously the following items were added to the agenda: 4. Continuation of discussion on possible amendments to the Sign Ordinance. 5. Meet in Executive Session for the purpose of continuing discussion of applicants to openings on the Commissions, Committees and Boards. Continuation of the June 19, 1978 Public Hearing on Conditional Use Applications within the Interim Zoning District 1. Real Estate Office at 1210 Shelburne Road Request is for permission to convert an existing dwelling into a real estate office and other similar offices on a parcel of land located at 1210 Shelburne Road. Chairman Farrar read the request. Mr. Ward said that he and Steve Page had reviewed the application and noted that the adjacent property to the south owned by the Merrill's (formerly the Charlotte Marsh property) had a "for sale" sign on it. The property has a residential curb cut on it. Mr. Ward felt the applicant should contact the owner of the adjacent property and work out an agreement for a common curb cut. There was a discussion on the size of the property and the amount of traffic it would generate. Mr. Ward said the applicant was going to tear down the garage and gravel that part of the property for parking spaces. He also said that Mr. Wilson, an adjoining property owner, was concerned about his privacy. The applicant will have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment if he goes over the cost allowed for improvements. There was further discussion on the amount of traffic that would be generated and what other kind of businesses would be allowed in the facility. The Council instructed Mr. Ward to obtain the following from the applicant: 1. A written assurance that the applicant will work with the adjoining property owner on a common driveway, and that this is in agreement with the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission. 2. A written, notorized report on the traffic that will be generated by the real estate office. 3. Inform the applicant that we may impose a condition requiring screening. 4. Information on what type of businesses will be allowed to rent the other offices in the building. 2. Tracy W. Gleason of South Burlington Request is for permission to convert an existing 28' x 40' dwelling into a retail music store and attached garage into a studio apartment. Parcel of land in question contains 2.4 acres and is located on the southeast corner of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive, 700 Dorset Street. Chairman Farrar read the request. Mr. Ward explained that he had concerns about allowing retail use in a residential area and also about the location of the curb cuts. Mr. Flaherty wondered if this could be made a conditional use for the music store only and if there was any change it would have to go to the Zoning Board for review. Mr. Ward presented a plan of the property, saying Mr. Gleason planned to convert the garage into a studio apartment and do some remodeling in the house to convert it into a music store with plate glass windows, etc. There was discussion on the location of the present driveways, one on Kennedy Drive and the other on Dorset Street. Mr. Flaherty remarked that this is about the 4th proposal that has been presented for the use of the property. Mr. Ward said he felt the most important aspect is the use versus the character of the area. He said the applicant could spend up to 25% of the value of the property for remodeling. The Council asked Mr. Ward to have the applicant do the following: 1. Consider relocation of existing curb cute. 2. Connect to the sewer 3. Trache Metal Buildings Company of Madison, Wisconsin Request is for permission to construct five (5) metal buildings containing 61,300 square feet and a 25' x 32' office manager's unit. Proposal is to operate mini- warehousing on a lot containing approximately eleven (11) acres, located northerly of Nordic Ford, lot #10 of the National Life Insurance property on Shelburne Road. Chairman Farrar read the request. Mr. Ward passed out an undated sheet titled Traffic Counts Tabulated From Managers' Daily Reports which gave the traffic count on this type of business in different communities. He then distributed a plot plan of what the facility might look like. He felt the remainder of the property should be subdivided and have offices or low traffic generators in the front. The Council instructed Mr. Ward to obtain the following information: 1. The number of units and the population in each community referred to in the traffic count sheet. 2. An accurate rendering of the plan if what was presented tonight is not accurate. 3. Plans for the development of the remainder of the property. 4. An alternate plan using the cul-da-zac on Green Mountain Drive as an entrance to the property. 5. Ascertain the date traffic counts were made on the sheet presented to us. 6. Ascertain if the applicant contemplates selling merchandise on a retail or wholesale basis. Chairman Farrar said it would be reasonable to have work on Conditional Use Applications taken care of before the meetings. He suggested that a member of the Council could work with Mr. Szymanski, Steve Page and Dick Ward to try and get all the information together before the item was brought before the Council. The Councilmen were in agreement that this should be done. Continuation of Possible Amendments to the Sign Ordinance Chairman Farrar presented a copy of a letter dated July 3, 1978, from Mr. George G. Voland, Jr. of 6 Ciover Street in which Mr. Voland expressed his opinion that the Sign Ordinance should not be amended. The letter is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Section 1 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Sec. 3, (15), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in South Burlington in full, explaining that it was to add to the definitions in the ordinance a definition for Promotional Signs. Mr. Burgess made a motion to accept this amendment to Section 3, (15), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in South Burlington. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Section 2 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 8, (a), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in South Burlington in full, which in essence would control the size, height and location of future signs. Mr. Ward explained the differences in the sizes allowed under our present ordinance and what is allowed under the proposed amendment. Mr. Paulsen wondered how the 40 square foot figure was arrived at in the city's sign ordinance. Mr. Jarvis asked about single businesses having 3 or 4 operations – could they have identifying signs for each of the operations as well as a free-standing sign. He asked the function of the Sign Review Board and was told it was mostly a reviewing function at this time, but the proposed amendment would give the Board a little more control as to height. Mr. Paulsen wondered why the city ever went from 60 square feet to 40 square feet in size. He asked about the rationale for the change. He was told we had a consultant at the time of the drafting of the ordinance. Chairman Farrar went over the consultant's report which had a figure of 50 square feet for a sign and 18 feet in height. Mr. Paulsen wondered what the logic was in going back to a larger sign. Mr. Elmer Premo explained that operators of National Franchise companies used certain types of signs as to size and height. He asked what the Committee's definition of a non-conforming sign was and Mr. Farrar said any sign that does not meet the present ordinance. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Ward to research the information as to why we now have the 40 square foot figure. Mr. Burgess made a motion to accept the amendment to Section 8, (a), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion. Mr. Paulsen said he would agree with the motion if he could and it by adding provided that the council receives the rationale as to why the figure went from 60 to 40 square feet. Mr. Burgess said he accepted the amendment to the motion. Chairman Farrar asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Scheule felt the amendment was something the Council did not really know was advisable and Mr. Ward said the Council and the Sign Review Board have the rationale behind the request for 64 square feet. Mr. Scheule spoke about the visual impact and the aesthetics of the large signs, saying that at the time of the drafting of the present ordinance the residents were concerned about the general appearance of the area. Mr. O'Brien of the Town and Country Motel remarked that he and the other owners of non-conforming signs had all received city approval to install the signs they have. He did not feel the signs should come down because the ordinance was adopted when it was. Several other motel owners and operators agreed with him. Mr. Cenci of the Sheraton spoke about the activities of the Council and the Motel Owners Association at the time of the drafting of the ordinance. He felt the Council at that time did not consider the Motel Owners' concerns. Mr. Flaherty who was on the council when the ordinance was adopted said that the Association's representative did not appear when the ordinance was in the stages of passage. Mr. Cenci said that the Association's legal counsel was present at the meetings. Chairman Farrar asked for a vote. The vote was unanimous in favor of acceptance of the amendment to Section 8 (a). Section 3 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 8, (b) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington in full. He then explained the difference between the proposed amendment and the present ordinance. Mr. Ward explained how the size of wall signs were figured and how to figure the size if the signs were constructed of cut-out letters. Frank Plumley of the Sign Review Board said that this particular amendment is being considered in order to take care of those operations that have no free- standing signs. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to accept the amendment to Section 8 (b) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in South Burlington with a change in the last line of the figure 200 to 100 square feet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen Chairman Farrar asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Farrell spoke, saying he did not think the council realized the impact changing those figures would have. Chairman Farrar called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Section 4 of the proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 8 of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington in full, saying the amendment adds a new paragraph, (d), to the section allowing promotional signs to be used. Mr. Jarvis remarked that this amendment seemed to be geared mostly to garages Mr. Jarvis made a motion to accept the amendment to Section 8, (d), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in South Burlington. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. Section 5 of the Proposed Amendments & Section 6 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 9, (k), (2) and Section 9, (k), (3), in full, saying they both related to window signs as to size and length of use. Mr. Paulsen made a motion to accept the amendments to Section 9, (k), (2), and Section 9, (k), (3), of the Ordinance to regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Section 7 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 11, (c), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington in full. Mr. Ward explained that allowing illumination of signs until midnight or until the business closes cuts down on thefts and vandalism. Mr. Premo felt it should be up to the owners as to how long they would keep their lights illuminated. Mr. Corologos of the Ramada also expressed his feelings, saying some areas were really dark when the lights were shut off early. Mr. Burgess made a motion to accept the amendment to Section 11, (c), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Section 8 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 14 (c) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington, saying that the basic change is to change the date for the removal of non-conforming signs to January 1, 1979. Councilman Paulsen said he was not happy with the old or the new proposed section. He would suggest that the City Attorney formulate the language to allow the non-conforming signs to remain as in under a grandfather clause. Mr. Farrell said that having a time limit was more than a matter of time, it is a matter of money, the cost of maintaining the signs. He felt we were talking, about service signs, signs that attract people and help the economy. He emphasized that all the signs in questions were erected with city approval. Mr. Flaherty said what about the man who had to get a small size sign, wasn't he discriminated against. Mr. Burgess said people have had to conform to the ordinance. Mr. Cenci explained how large signs on the exits help the small businesses in the community by attracting travellers into the area. William Scheule felt that the signs should be removed, saying if we have visual pollution we should be able to correct it. Chairman Farrar pointed out that we are giving the owner of a large sign a year to work out the problem. Mr. Premo also spoke, saying that a lot of money and planning went into the erection of his sign and he felt it should remain as is. Mr. Farrell said that the sign problem would eventually balance out through attrition, changes in use, and new owners. Chuck Munson from the Howard Johnson Motel told how he had to remove his sign, lose 13 parking places, and install a small sign in accordance with the Ordinance because of the widening of the road, but he believed in large signs and the owners' right to have such signs. He said they could consider him as representing the people who have had to abide by the 40 square feet size. Other Motel owners and managers reiterated their feeling that they had approval for their signs and they should not be forced to remove them. William Scheule remarked that tourists say coming into South Burlington was like going into New Jersey. He wondered why there were no other 40 square feet sign owners at the meeting. Mr. Paulsen made a motion to request the City Attorney to prepare the language for Section 14 (c) of the Ordinance to Negulate Signs in the City of South Burlington that will, in effect, provide for a grandfather clause for existing non-conforming signs. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion. The vote was three to two to accept the motion with Mr. Farrar and Mr. Flaherty casting the dissenting votes. Section 9 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 14, (d) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington. This amendment, he said, would delete the entire paragraph and renumber Section 14, (e) as Section 14, (d). Mr. Jarvis made a motion to accept the amendment to Section 14, (d), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Section 10 of the Proposed Amendments Chairman Farrar read the proposed amendment to Section 15, (a), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington. This changes the formula for the size of certain wall signs from 27 to 5% of the front area not to exceed 100 square feet. Mr. Paulsen made a motion to accept the amendment to Section 15, (a), of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion which passed unanimously. A COPY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE. Mr. Scheule asked that the public be well informed as to the time and place of the public hearings on the proposed amendments. He also requested the Council not to schedule a hearing on the Labor Day weekend. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Flaherty made a motion to Corelude the regular session to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing applications to the various boards, committees, and commissions and then to reconvene the regular meeting for the sole purpose of making appointments. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.