Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/21/1980CITY COUNCIL APRIL 21, 1980 CORRECTION The hearing on the Milot application before the Council had been closed, and the motion on page 3 should read that the discussion, not the hearing, was continued. The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, April 21, 1980 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Michael Flaherty, Vice Chairman; Kenneth Jarvis, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen Member Absent Paul Farrar, Chairman Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Erika Valgoi, Matthew Katz, Douglas Schner, Ronald Schmucker, Lowell Krassner, Sandy Kleppinger, Daniel O'Brien, Alex Guyette, Ray Unsworth, Peter Coffrin Public hearing on proposed C1-C2 amendments to the Zoning Regulations Mr. Paulsen noted that there was not an updated copy of the regulations with the changes which had been made. Mr. Flaherty read portions of the City Attorney's memo on the changes suggested by Council. He also read portions of the warning for the public hearing as it had appeared in the newspaper. The Council went through the changes made at the last meeting. The Council had wished to delete the maximum lot size in section 7.20. The Attorney noted that would seem to permit shopping centers of unlimited size. The Council noted that such centers would have to have Commission approval. In section 8.00, the wording of "hotels and motels with 100 units or less" was deleted and wording regarding "small motels, restaurants", etc. was added. In section 8.20 the maximum lot size was also deleted. In section 8.303g, the Attorney had suggested some language, which removed the reference to "C" level of traffic, changed a "will" to "shall" and made other changes. Mr. Paulsen wanted to see a final typed document and the Council agreed. Messrs. Jarvis and Flaherty wanted to be sure that, with the passage of this zoning, people did not find the development rules changed in mid-stream. Mr. Ron Schmucker represented the O'Brien Brothers and Business Park North. He noted that he had sent a memo to the Council on January 15, 1980 regarding the above development. Business Park North was approved in May of 1978 and 3 of its lots have been sold, one in what will now be the C2 zone. At the time of the hearings before the Commission, Business Park North came to them with the buyer of lot 7, which is a bank, and the fact that a bank would be constructed on that lot was part of the presentation. The Commission conducted a rigorous review of traffic for the development and for lot 7. Now that the zoning is to change, it seems that this development will have to undergo another thorough review. Mr. Schmucker said he had asked the Commission to exempt Business Park North from the new zoning as a pre-existing subdivision but that the City Attorney had taken the most restrictive view of the law in this case. He saw no public interest which would be served by subjecting the development to the new requirements. The consensus of the Council was that they wanted to grandfather the development. Mr. Flaherty noted that it was not the Council's intent to make the development go through another set of hearings if they had approval before C1/C2 was adopted. Mr. Burgess noted that there might be others in the city with the same situation. Mr. Schner asked about sections 7.20 and 8.20. The gross floor areas allowed under those sections would be based on lot size vs. square footage in the building. The Council also stated that a square foot under the ordinance would be a square foot of space, no matter where it was located. In other words, a 10,000 sq. ft. building with a full basement under it would be a 20,000 sq. ft. building, Mr. Burgess said. Mr. Schmucker asked about areas set aside for heating and cooling systems and was told those areas would be considered part of the total square footage. Mr. Schner commented on section 8.303 g (1). He noted that the section did not include a maximum distance a development could be from an intersection which might be the nearest signallized intersection. He stated that the Commission could decide that a development had an impact on an intersection a mile away. Mr. Flaherty felt the city had to protect its interests by letting the Commission decide what would create a problem and handling each application individually. Mr. Krassner hoped the Council would define "small" motels. Mr. Burgess felt the amendment suggested for that portion of the ordinance had been meant to take care of motels with restaurants, and he wondered if some wording had been changed by mistake. Mr. Katz, representing the Swiss Host motel, felt that small motels generated less traffic than some retail uses, particularly if they did not have restaurants attached. He wanted small motels allowed in both C1 and C2. Mr. Burgess said that in the original document "small" had been defined as under 100 units, but no motels were allowed in C1, in any case. The Council decided it wanted to see the final document before approving it. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Szymanaki to check with the City Attorney regarding what kind of zoning the city now had. It was decided to meet on Monday, April 28. Mr. Schmucker asked the Council to act regarding the grandfathering of Business Park North. The consensus of the Council was that that was their intent, but Mr. Schmucker noted that any substantial change to the ordinance at this point would require re-warning and he was afraid that adding the exemption might be such a substantial change. Mr. Flaherty asked the City Manager to have the City Attorney respond in writing by next Monday to the question of whether exempting developments with prior approvals would require re-warning the ordinance. Mr. Paulsen moved to continue the second hearing until next Monday on the C1/C2 zoning amendments, at City Hall at 7:30, at which time there will be corrected documents available for perusal. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Minutes of April 14, 1980 Mr. Paulsen moved to approve the April 14, 1980 minutes and Mr. Burgess seconded. All voted aye. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Review any additional data and formulate action and stipulations on the following Interim Zoning applications Gerald Milot to construct 4 buildings, housing 34 2-bedroom residential units on land located northerly side of Kennedy Drive bound by property of Ryan, ICV Investors, and City of South Burlington Mr. Burgess asked if the city had a plan showing the final placement of the buildings, since there had been some discussion about putting garages under the buildings. The Council looked at the plans, which did not show garages underneath the buildings. He asked (Mr. Burgess) if that change had been submitted officially and he wanted to see a plan that showed it if it were the intent of the developers. He wanted to know if having garages under the building was a firm plan or just a possibility. It was suggested that the files be searched to see what was submitted and action could be tabled until next Monday. Mr. Burgess also asked to see the minutes of the hearings. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the hearing on the interim zoning application of Gerald Milot until Monday, April 28th. Mr. Paulsen seconded and all were in favor. Addison Corp., Barbara Wick to occupy an existing structure (12' x 20') as an antique shop, said structure is located on a lot also occupied by a residential dwelling at 400 Shelburne Road No more information had been requested. Mr. Paulsen moved to instruct the staff to prepare an approval motion for Barbara Wick and the Addison Corp. to occupy an existing structure as an antique shop, said structure located on a lot also occupied by a residential dwelling. at 400 Shelburne Road. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Robert L. Provost to operate a commercial mail receiving agency and retail shop in conjunction with an apartment on the second floor at 1270 Williston Road Mr. Flaherty noted that the public hearing had been closed at the last meeting, but that Mr. Provost had submitted another letter to the Council. As a courtesy to the audience, he read the letter, which stated that Mr. Provost had permission from the Merchants Bank to park on a lot across the street from the lot in question. Mr. Flaherty asked the Council if they wanted to make the letter part of the hearing. Mr. Burgess did not wish to re-open the hearing. He pointed out that the Council had suggested keeping the hearing open and that Mr. Provost had asked that it be closed at the last meeting. He has now submitted a letter after the hearing was closed. Mr. Jarvis felt it was great that the property in question had been improved, but he noted that the applicant had seemed to assume that he had the approvals he needed, since the mail boxes were in already and there were signs in the window. Mr. Burgess asked that the Zoning Administrator check to see if the business was now, in fact, open. Mr. Burgess had some problems with the use, which he did not feel was appropriate. He was not convinced that the traffic data given the board was correct and he added that the more he learned about the business, the more traffic he thought it would generate. He did, however, feel that the city had an obligation to the property owner to allow him some use of that lot. Mr. Paulsen noted that he could have an apartment upstairs and small shops downstairs, so he felt the city had allowed some use of the property. Mr. Burgess did not believe the traffic figures submitted on the commercial mail use. Mr. Jarvis moved that the Council advise the staff to draft a motion of approval, if possible, for the apartment and the ALA operation, but to deny the commercial mail receiving agency. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted for it. Mr. Flaherty asked the City Attorney to comment on whether such a motion was legal. Review Planning Commission agenda Mr. Burgess asked about the status of the municipal building and was told the Commission was waiting for more information. Old business Mr. Burgess asked about the new non-conforming signs and was told that if a sign was less than 15 years old, even if it was non-conforming, a new face could be put on it. Mr. Burgess said that meant the city had given owners approval to create an illegal sign, or one which would be in a few years. Mr. Flaherty asked for a comment on this from the City Attorney. Mr. Burgess noted that some time ago the city sent a letter to at least one property owner telling him to connect to the sewer lines or the city would take him to court. Since there were others in the same situation, the city has now sent out letters to people who are not hooked up. In one case, a sewer line was put in 1976 and sewer connections should have been made at that time, but were not made in all cases. Mr. Burgess felt the city should have forced people to hook on and in the case he was referring to, there was a contract between the person who put in the sewer and the city which provided that when hookups were made the city would reimburse the developer. Mr. Burgess noted that this had happened 3 years ago and he felt the city was responsible, so he moved that the city reimburse Fred Blais for the dollar amount specified in the contract between him and the city for the sewer connection of the Lang property. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion. Mr. Szymanski stated that Mr. Blais had run the line in question because he wanted to develop some land in the area and he noted that the contract said that if and when people hooked on the developer would be reimbursed. Mr. Burgess replied that the legal contract existed, and that by definition it was illegal not to hook to the sewer if it were available. He felt the intention of the contract was to have the developer put in the line and it seemed clear to him that it was the intent of the city to collect from people as they hooked on. He felt the city had an obligation to force people to hook on because that was the law. The motion carried unanimously. Still regarding sewers, Mr. Burgess noted that he had a letter dated October 20, 1978 from the City Attorney which suggested several ways to make the sewer ordinance stronger. He said he would like to see these adopted, and moved to prepare changes in the Sewer Regulations to add the 2 paragraphs recommended by the City Attorney in his October 20, 1978 memo and to have this prepared for a first reading at a public hearing. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted aye. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider liquor licenses Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn as the City Council and meet as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and none dissented. Mr. Szymanski said all the licenses had been approved by the Fire and Police Chiefs. Mr. Burgess moved to sign the following liquor licenses: Sizzling Steak, Rotisserie, Lakeside Tennis, Howard Johnson's, Kuala Mauna, The Windjammer, The Ground Round, Papa Gino's, Pizza Hut, and the Old Board. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.