Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/24/1978CITY COUNCIL JULY 24, 1978 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, July 24, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen, Ken Jarvis, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Stephen Page, Planner; Fran Brock, Free Press; Cynthia Rubin. The Other Paper; Joe Slakas, Jean Cochran, WVMT; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Lubomir Dellin, J.W. Chandler, E.J. Darling, J.S. Stone, M. Wiener, Roxie Allen, Lucy and Michael Samara, Douglas Wynand, Gordon O'Brien, Gregory and Paula Premo, Russell Chase, Lowell Krassner, Diane Geerkin, Frank Wilder, Murray Edelstein, Bernice Edelstein, Leo O'Connor, Marguerite Armstrong, MaryLou Cole, Dorothy Swartwood, George Mona, Ethel and William Schuele, Barbara and Wilbur Bull, C. Malaney, L.M. Field, Frank Plumley, Paul Graves, Elmer Premo, Hal Benson, Dale and Sandy Kleppinger, Robert Ray, David Morency, Catherine Connolly, Kay Neubert, Robert Phillips, William Wessel, John Lundia, Gordon Fischer, Frank Breen, Sharon Woodward, Tom Schroeder, Shirley Phillips, Andrew Corologa, Red Lafeunesse, Elmer Argast, Rey Lawrence, Harris Drury, Eugene Cenci, Sidney Poger, John Dinklage, Gary Farrell, Mary-Barbara Maher, Gary Farrell, Ed Blake, Peter Jacob, James Ewing, Arlene Krapcho, Harry Scurrey, Maureen Connelly, Tom Racine, Mary Connelly. Additions to agenda One item was added: To discuss the construction at the Dorset St.- Williston Road intersection. Minutes of July 3,5, and 10, 1978 It was moved by Mr. Paulsen to approve the minutes of July 3, 5, and 10, 1978 as printed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Interviews for city committees Dorothy Swartwood - Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Swartwood to tell them a little about herself. She replied that she had lived in the city since 1969 and that she works for the Immigration service. She recruits and hires and fires people as well as watching the staffing needs. She said that she has a daughter and that the family lives in the Country Club Estates area. She is interested in city affairs and wants to help any way she can. Mr. Farrar asked if she felt she could contribute to the Fine Arts Committee and was told she would like to find out. Mary Lou Cole - Ms. Cole said she had lived in the city for 14 years and had been active in the schools. She has done Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, and taught arts and crafts. She felt she could contribute and that she would like to do something for the city. Meet with representatives of Shunpike Road to consider making said street a dead-end. Mr. Farrar asked if there were representatives on Shunpike Road present but there were none. He said the Council would go on and come back to this item. Public hearing on conditional use application within interim zoning district Arthur Mason and Sharon Woodard to operate daycare center at 938-950 Shelburne Road - Ms. Woodard gave the Council a synopsis of the proposed use in relation to traffic impact. She said she hoped to open a daycare and nursery facility on this site and that based on past experience of the type of business this is, she felt the traffic impact could be controlled. She would care for a maximum of 40 children, and hopes to have only about 35. Ms. Woodard looked at other similar facilities on Shelburne Road and did traffic analyses. She would be open 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year and felt that the heaviest traffic impact would be prior to the peak on Shelburne Road. The children would be dropped off between 7 and 8:00 a.m., and she plans to transport 50% of them herself. There will not be any extensive alteration to the building - mostly cosmetic changes. Ms. Woodard felt that this use and Mr. Mason's would complement each other - he has very little traffic since he is an organ distributer and people order from a catalogue. She showed the Council a map of the outside grounds and Mr. Farrar asked for a copy for the record. Mr. Farrar asked if she would get a state license and was told she would. Ms. Woodard stated that the building had previously been used as a residence which was used by college students and she felt that her proposed use would he no worse and might be better than that one as far as traffic. Mrs. Lucy Samara said that she owned the adjacent property on Brewer Parkway and she asked Ms. Woodard several questions. She was told that there would be a fence between the Samara property and Mr. Mason's from the corner of the existing fence to the Parkway. He Woodard said she would like to meet with the Samaras and discuss the type of fence that would be agreeable to both parties. Mrs. Samara said that she end her husband found chain link fence disagreeable and did not want to see it put up at all. In response to Mrs. Samara's questions Ms. Woodard said that the side yard would be used for a playground and that none of the trees would be removed. The children would be outside when the weather is good in shifts and probably for 2 1/2 hours. The hours will be from 8-5:00, with children coming in as early as 7:30 a.m. The facility will be fully staffed, with an adult for every 7 children. Ms. Woodard did not feel there would be an increase in noise from the present use because of the staffing and the fact that not all the children would be outside at one time. The facility will care for 3-6 year olds and will not operate on weekends. Ms. Woodard stated that she wanted to have a lot of programs in which to involve the children every day and said that there was a lot of space inside, so much of the activity would be indoors. Ms. Samara was concerned about people using their drive to turn around in but Ms. Woodard felt there would be fewer cars from this use than from the college students and that the flow would be more controlled. Ms. Samara asked about the sign for the business and was told it would be discreet and tasteful. Ms. Roxie Allen said that she was the owner of the property on the other side of Mason's and she felt that the playground area that was proposed was not large enough and was full of tree stumps. A large tree on that side hangs over her yard and she does not want treehouses in it. She added that she wanted the playground separated from hers and did not want to see hands going through the fence. She said she was worried about the noise also. Mr. Lubomir Dellin felt that area presented a traffic hazard and said he was concerned about the safety of the children. Ms. Allen asked if any children would be picked up in the middle of the day and was told they would not. Ms. Woodard said she wanted to have the children for 40 hours per week and would not accept a child who would be there less than 35. Mr. George Mona stated that he had walked by the building for 20 years at 7:30 a.m. and 5:20 p.m. and he suggested that the impact on traffic be given serious consideration. Mr. Farrar said that at the next Council meeting they would see if there were any additional questions to be asked and that if there were, they would be sent to the applicant in writing for a response. Continue hearings on conditional use permits for the interim zoning district Trachte Metal Building Co., Lot #1 National Life subdivision. Shelburne Road - Mr. Farrar stated that the Council had received written answers to its questions. He asked why an access other than Green Mountain Drive was being proposed. Mr. Argast said that the topography was such that to ask people to go up and then come down a hill to get to the building was not reasonable. He felt this would be difficult in the winter and especially for people hauling trailors who were not used to doing that. When Mr. Farrar pointed out that Green Mountain Drive was controlled by a traffic light, Mr. Argast replied that there were several of them down there and they created large gaps in the traffic for people to get onto the road. He stated that if the plan was approved conditional on access only to Green Mountain Drive that would not be acceptable. Mr. Farrar asked what would happen to the building if the business did not work and was told it could be disassembled and removed from the property, leaving only the concrete slab. Mr. Flaherty asked if they were going to ask for any other zoning variance and was told they were not. Mr. Paulsen asked how many renters they expected with the 400 units and was told it would be 3-400. Ms. Arlene Krapcho said that when that piece of land had been before the Planning Commission for subdivision review there had been much discussion of access and the Commission had ruled out access other than Green Mountain Drive. She hoped the Council would consider the time spent then and the issues weighed when the Commission considered it for the first time. Mr. Farrar stated that the hearing was now closed and that at a regularly scheduled meeting within 45 days it would be discussed and a decision made. Tracy Gleason at 700 Dorset Street - Mr. Ward stated that the city had received a letter from the owner saying that they would like to remain with a septic system for engineering reasons and that they will move both drives. He also said that the business feels it can survive with one curb cut. There was no representative present. Mr. Farrar asked the City Manager to find the actual location of the island on Kennedy Drive in relation to the curb out to this property. He said the hearing would be continued till the next regularly scheduled meeting at which time the City Manager would present that information. Sterling Emerson at 1210 Shelburne Road - Mr. Ward said that Mr. Emerson had been requested to work out an arrangement for joint access with the property to the south, document expected traffic flows and consider screening the north property line. He was also asked to submit a list of possible uses for the building. Mr. Ward said that Section 7.002 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for different office uses in a building. Mr. Farrar felt that a reasonable way to proceed would be that if approval was given, the use could be limited to real estate offices. Mr. Ward suggested that the clients selected for the building be required to get Council approval. Mr. Farrar said the hearing could be tabled for the time being with the intention to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting at which time the Council would like this issue clarified. Meet with Planning Commission to discuss directions in City Planning Mr. Flaherty said that Sid Poger, Chairman of the Commission, would be coming a little later and would appreciate holding off on discussion of this issue until he gets here. Review City Attorney's draft of proposed revisions to sign ordinance and consider document for first reading Mr. Burgess said he was not in agreement with grandfathering everything but he also did not like the idea of taking private property. He suggested that non- conforming signs; that is, those over 60 square feet, he removed effective July 1, 1979 and that the owner be compensated at the rate of $2.00 per square foot which shall constitute Fair Market Value. The owner of a sign, if willing to sign an agreement of no compensation at all, can leave his sign standing for an additional 5 years at which time it must be removed and no compensation will be paid by the city. He said he would like to have the city plan for such an expenditure. This would cost the city roughly $8,000. Mr. Burgess did not know if this was a reasonable amount of compensation or what fair market value was, and he said he would change the $2 figure if someone could convince him that another one was a better figure. Mr. Farrar asked what would happen if an owner refused to sign the agreement of no compensation and was told that the sign would then have to come down in 1979. Ms. Barbara Bull said she would like to make the Council aware of the feelings of several hundred people in the city. Five years ago the city passed the sign ordinance and it had community support. She felt the city would benefit from it in terms of safety, esthetics, and fairness. The section requiring non-conforming signs to come down in 5 years was now in jeopardy, she said, and she told the Council that she had a petition with 352 signatures on it. She read the petition to the Council, and then added that the Charter of the city required the Council to respond to a petition of this sort by adopting it or calling a special election within 45 days of filing of the petition with the city clerk. Since they did not wish to put the city to the expense of a special election, they were going to wait one week before filing so that the election could be held on the date of the scheduled elections. Mr. Farrar suggested that, since there were sufficient signatures on the petition to force a vote, it would be reasonable to delay action on this section of the ordinance until the next meeting, when the petition is formally in front of them. He personally hoped to enact it. Ms. Sandy Kleppinger, a representative of the League of Women Voters, read a statement to the Council regarding the ordinance (copy attached). Ms. Diane Geerkin stated that she did not want to see a change from a maximum size of 40 square feet to 60 square feet because there were a lot of businesses that conformed to the 40' limit and she saw no reason to change it. Businesses with 40 square foot signs did good business, she said. Mr. Greg Premo of the Redwood motel and restaurant said he was a resident of South Burlington and had been active in community affairs. He gave the Council some history on the present sign ordinance and how it came into being. He stated that he objected to quotes from the Ewald report on signs in the city being part of the League statement. He felt these quotes had been taken out of context and pointed out that the report had been paid for by private enterprise. He said that the city would only find a small percentage of signs larger than 64 square feet in the city, most of which are those of the hotel-motel businesses in the city. He felt that the ordinance should provide an appeal process, which it does not now. He also said that when a person's private property was taken for the public good that individual must be compensated and he did not think $2 per square foot was acceptable. He felt the two issues of due process (the lack of an appeal provision) and compensation were very important and he said he would be available to help anyone if they wished more information. Ms. Maureen Connolley stated that she felt the city should compensate those businesses which took down large signs before they were forced to, rather than compensating the businesses which fought the city on the issue. Ms. Kay Neubert said the Redwood sign was 290 square feet in size and that it cost $6,500 at the time of erection. She asked what the Premos would consider that sign worth today. She was told it could not be built today for less than $14,000. Mr. Premo said the sign had been erected under the laws existing at the time. Ms. Schuele told the Council that people in the community had strong feelings that they did not want larger signs and recommended that each member get out and talk to his constituents and see what they are thinking. Mr. Krassner suggested that every sign must be carried on the businesses books and that maybe it had reached the end of its useful life when its amortized values was close to $1. He also said that the city had had a 40 square foot maximum size on signs for 5 years and that businesses had conformed to that. If all signs become 40 square feet, no businesses will have an unfair advantage over others. Mr. Tom Racine said that he owned businesses in Burlington and Montpelier and he did not think the size or the number of colors on the sign had any bearing on the success or quality of the business. The trend, he said, was toward smaller signs and he felt the ordinance was right 5 years ago and it is right now. He said the city did not have a center or a park but it did have a lot of visual pollution and the citizens want a little quality. Mr. Farrar suggested splitting consideration of the sign ordinance into three parts - the size, what to do with non-conforming signs and the rest of the proposed amendments. He said that he would like to take no formal action on the issue of the non-conforming signs since there is a pending petition. After some discussion they agreed to delay formal action until the next regularly scheduled meeting, when the petition is before the Council. Mr. Flaherty moved to separate for consideration Section 2 and Section 9 of the proposed amendments from the rest of the body. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and passed unanimously. Mr. Schuele asked for and was given the rationale behind the increase for wall signs from 2% to 5% of the wall area. Ms. Marguerite Armstrong noted that a hostile atmosphere had developed in the city and she hoped cooperation could take place between the businessmen and the citizens. She noted how beautiful Vermont was with its lack of ugly large signs and said a traveller saw nothing of the city but its two thoroughfares, so they should look as nice as possible. Mr. Schuele noted the section of the ordinance dealing with illumination of signs after the business is closed and said that an illuminated sign usually meant people could go in and it was disconcerting to find the doors locked. Mr. Paulsen moved to warn the ordinance less Sections 2, 4, and 9 a.m. appearing in the July 19 letter from the City Attorney. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Ms. Arlene Krapcho questioned the wisdom of this move, saying that the public will get very confused if different bits and pieces are considered at different times. Mr. Flaherty said the date would be coordinated with the discussion on the other items. The motion passed with all in favor. Mr. Paulsen asked what the reasoning had been behind reducing the maximum size of signs from 60 to 40 square feet. Mr. Ward said the subcommittee that worked on this in 1973 did not keep minutes and when he called the chairman last week, he had thrown away his files on the issue. Mr. Paulsen suggested going through the old Selectmen minutes and Mr. Farrar suggested that Mr. Ward contact the old members of the subcommittee. The Council decided to delay action on this section until their next regular meeting, at which time Mr. Ward can present some more information. This meeting will be August 7. Mr. Farrar asked if there were now representatives of the Shunpike Road area present but there were not. He then asked if there was a representative present for the Gleason appeal and Harry Drury came forward. Hearing on conditional use permit for Tracy Gleason at 700 Dorset St. Mr. Drury read a statement from Mr. Gleason. He said the average car count would be 22 per day and left the supporting documentation with the city. The current driveway curb outs will be closed and relocated south. Mr. Farrar asked if both curb outs on Kennedy Drive and Dorset St. were necessary and was told that the business could survive without both but that it would be nice to have the two. Mr. Drury said the proposed Dorset St. cut would be the primary entrance with the exit on Kennedy Drive. Mr. Drury requested that a sewer connection not be mandatory because he felt it was impractical because of the grade of the hill and the distance from a pumping station. The cost of such a connection would be $4-5,000. He felt this use would tax the septic system less than the previous use. Mr. Farrar said the hearing for this application was now closed and that the Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting or within 45 days would make a decision. Mr. Farrar asked if a representative for the Emerson application was present and when no one was he said the hearing would be continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Meet with city Planning Commission to discuss directions in city planning Mr. Poger, chairman of the Commission, said that they could only assume, with the replacement of 2 of the most active members of the Commission, that the Council wants to see a new direction in planning and they ask for Council guidance on that new direction. Chairman Farrar, saying that he had been in the minority when the vote to replace the two members had been taken, stated that he would leave the answering of that question to the majority. Mr. Burgess said that the request made sense and that the members deserved an answer, but he felt the answer should come from the Council as a whole, not from individual members, and should be a well-thought out position taken after some discussion. Mr. Jarvis stated that he had only received the request on Saturday and was not ready to answer it. He was willing to have a meeting with the Commission. He stated that as far as appointments are concerned, the people should understand that appointments are only for a certain time period, not for life, and when the terms expire those people are subject to consideration as well as other applicants for the positions. There were five applications for the two positions, he said, and all five people were interviewed. Mr. Paulsen added that with 5 applicants and 2 positions, there had to be 3 losers. Mr. Flaherty said he felt bad for the losers but that it should not reflect on the new members. The fact that two people were removed does not, he said, reflect on the quality of the new members. Mr. Poger said the Commission did not quarrel with the new members - one has been to two meetings and the other has been out of the country - but he said that the history of the Commission and Council has been such that in the past nobody has not been reappointed and they can only assume that there is a reason for this. He also said that the Council may have only received the request on Saturday but he hoped that before the Council replaced people they looked into the effect this would have on the Commission and that they had thought about it first. Mr. Poger said the Commission has delayed its work and that they did not meet last Tuesday for the first time in a long time because they are waiting for Council direction. He said that a further delay would slow the work the Commission is doing on the criteria for the lifting of interim zoning. They do not now know whether to move in the same direction they have been going - towards a speedy removal of interim zoning - or to backtrack. Mr. Ewing felt the Council should give the Commission direction because it has made a drastic change in the group and he said it had been a long time since the Commission had been given direction by the Council in the form of a letter. To remove two members suggested the Commission had been doing something wrong, he said, and they would like to know about it so that things can get rolling again. Ms. Maureen Connolley added that the members deserved the time to discuss their cases with the Council. Ms. Mary Connelly said that she was annoyed with the Council for taking the two men off the Commission and suggested that perhaps these should be elective rather than appointive offices. She said the three members must know why they voted the men out and she felt they should be told why tonight. Mr. Lubomir Dellin commended the work of the past members of the Commission and said he felt they had had a reasonable approach to controlling growth in the city. He said he felt the non-reappointment was an indication of the new balance of the Council and he hoped it did not mean the city would now go for uncontrolled, rapid growth. He also hoped the new members would continue to do the work of those they replaced and he expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the Council. Mr. Krassner said that many members of the public supported the measures proposed by the Commission for controlling growth and he said it did not seem that some members of the Council had gotten the message of the public. He said the public would like to know how the Council stands. Mr. John Dinklage stated that the public wants to have confidence in its public officials and he said that they had to conclude that, without reasons, the action was at best arbitrary and capricious, or at worst, that there were hidden motives. He felt the members who voted against the two former members should tell the public what motivated them to take the actions they did. Mr. Jarvis moved to meet this Thursday, July 27 at 8:00 p.m. as a City Council for the sole purpose of discussing a direction policy for the Planning Commission and to then meet with the Commission to deliver this recommendation at this meeting on August 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and passed unanimously. Mrs. Mary Connelly insisted that she be told why the members were removed and Mr. Paulsen replied that there had been a number of reasons. He felt the direction the Commission had been going had not been wrong but that it needed a few more avenues of light. A few more comments were made regarding the wish of the public for the Council to justify its moves. Meet with Water Commissioners and Fire Chief to discuss proposed subdivision regulation changes Mr. Farrar asked the Commissioners to explain the proposed change in the compensation provision of the subdivision regulations. Mr. Farrell, Chairman of the Water Board, replied that at one time the policy of the Water Department had been to reimburse a developer for the installation of a larger pipe than he needed for his development but that he could not recall that ever having been done. The way the developer normally receives compensation is when people tap onto the line later. In the past few years the Department has realized that they might have to borrow money to compensate a developer for a larger line and that did not seem like a reasonable course of action. They would either have to raise water rates and put away some money for such a use or tell the developer that it was part of the development cost and he would have to pass it along. He felt the Department should not bear the expense. Mr. Jacob added that the Department had never been told of the change in the regulations and that when they spotted it they had thought it was an error and immediately went to discuss it with the City Planner. Mr. Ed Blake said that he had been working with South Burlington for more than a year and had never had anyone ask for compensation like that set down in the regulations. Mr. Blake said that a developer would be reimbursed under the new plan when adjacent landowners hooked to the lines he put in. They would pay the original developer. Mr. Farrell said the Board had a rate schedule which was subject to review every year. He said the formula would give the developer a reasonable change to recoup his costs. Mr. Paulsen asked if the mechanism of payback would be controlled by the Water Department and was told it would be. Fire Chief - Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Goddette, Fire Chief, if he got enough chance to respons to any changes the Commission might make to his recommendations and was told they did not really come back to him with changes. Mr. Farrar suggested that the language be such that any changes be reviewed again before final plat. Mr. Goddette said he would like to see minimum standards set for the city as far as fire protection. Mr. Page pointed out that it was the Commission which had started the circulation of plans to the various departments but he said that he felt the point which had been raised was an excellent one, even though it meant more paper shuffling and more dealys. Mr. Szymanski asked Mr. Goddette how he felt about dead-ending Shunpike Road and was told he did not like it at all. He was not averse to no through traffic, though. Mr. Burgess moved to add to item 9 of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, which changes paragraph 19, Section 405. Fire Protection, a paragraph to say that any changes in the recommendations as presented by the Fire Chief or his designate made by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Fire Chief or his designate for his comments prior to final approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and passed with all in favor. Mr. Farrar suggested it might be good to add such a paragraph to reviews by other departments and Mr. Burgess moved to instruct the City Planner to add a similar paragraph to effect other city departments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and passed unanimously. Review list of unlicensed dogs The list was reviewed. Review Planning Commission and Zoning Board agendas Mr. Flaherty commented on the variance being requested by Treetops for a different placement of its garage units. He wished this had been handled on the original plan rather than coming in for a variance later. Sign Water Department Renewal note Mr. Szymanski said this note was for $2,000 for a truck at 4.65% interest at the Merchants Bank. Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the note. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Discussion of the Dorset St.-Williston Road intersection Mr. Paulsen stated that he was glad to see how near completion the intersection was and that he had gone through there at peak periods and had found it to work very well. He suggested a traffic study be done as soon as possible on the new intersection and said it might be helpful in September and might keep the city out of court. Mr. Page told him that a study was a key in the traffic study the Commission is going to do this fall. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Szymanski to look into hiring some high school students for 2 or 3 days to count cars in the intersection and he said perhaps the Red Coach Grill would like to count cars and go back to the Commission. Mr. Page said they had been encouraged to do just that when they came in the last time. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.