Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/06/1980CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 6, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held an executive session at 7:00 p.m. and then went into regular session at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, October 6, 1980 in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Michael Flaherty, Vice Chairman; William Burgess, Martin Paulsen, John Towne Member Absent Paul Farrar, Chairman Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Spitz, Planner; Rob Eley, Free Press; Ron Schmucker, Gail and William Lang, Yvan Beliveau, B. Simpson, George Mona, Sidney Poger, Dawn Derridinger, Mrs. Simpson, Lowell Krassner, John Jewett At 7:00 p.m. the Council met in executive session to meet with the City Attorney for a report on pending litigation. At 8:00 p.m. the Council came out of executive session and met in regular session. Minutes of September 15, 1980 Mr. Burgess moved to approve the September 15, 1980 minutes and Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Meet with Chairman of Sign Review Board to discuss status of board Mr. Graves, Chairman of the board, was not present. Continue public hearing on City Master Plan Mr. Flaherty noted that at the last meeting the Council had made some changes to the document as presented by the Planning Commission and had sent these changes back to the Commission for comments. In response the Commission has sent the Council a memo, part of which Mr. Flaherty read. This portion concerned commercial development in the Southeast Quadrant. Mr. Schmucker asked whether the residents of the Quadrant could rely on the fact that the revisions made at the last meeting would remain part of the Plan and Mr. Flaherty said that now that the Council had heard comments from the Commission on the changes, they could decide whether to remain with the original motion or change it. Messrs. Burgess and Towne did not want to reopen the matter, and Mr. Paulsen said he would like to keep it open but did not intend to change his mind tonight. Mr. Flaherty asked whether, based on the Commission's memo, anyone wanted to discuss commercial development in the Quadrant further. Mr. Paulsen felt a joint meeting, perhaps, with the Commission to discuss the subject would be good, but Mr. Poger felt it should be discussed now. Commission Chairman Poger stated that the Commission had not been proposing that commercial development be placed in the Quadrant now, but that when the number of people living out there justified it, it could be allowed. Mr. Schmucker did not feel the language in the Plan said that and he noted that the Plan had to be reviewed every 5 years. He did not feel that there would be so many residential units in the Quadrant in 5 years that commercial uses had to be planned now. Mr. Krassner felt there had been pressure to make the Plan a long term document with the addition of industrial and commercial areas in the Quadrant. He also said he would be very happy if the Council maintained 10 acre zoning out there and did not allow 2 units per acre zoning. Mr. Mona, a member of the Commission, noted that goal 2 on page 76 contained the key word "Future", and he hoped the Council would look beyond the 5 year period of the Plan. He noted that there was a difference between commercial uses serving a neighborhood and serving a region. Mr. Jewett said the idea under discussion was threatening to the community living in that area now. Allowing zoning of 2 units per acre was discussed. The Council suggested zoning some land to allow 2 units per acre without approval of both the Commission and Council. Mr. Spitz added that just south of the Interstate was an area which would be zoned for the regular residential category at 2 units per acre. The rest of the Quadrant would remain, as it is now, 1 in 10 acre zoning unless public water and sewer are extended and approval from both Planning Commission and City Council is gained. Mr. Beliveau felt that idea was poor planning, but Mr. Flaherty noted that approval was not automatic; there are a lot of conditions which have to be met first. Mr. Beliveau did not feel it was good planning to mix into a residential area an increase by a factor of 20 in the density. Mr. Simpson expressed his concern over commercial uses in the Quadrant. Mr. Flaherty did not feel there was any intent to allow commercial uses in the Quadrant in the Plan at this time. Industrial zoning in the Quadrant was discussed and Mr. Spitz showed the areas in question. The Council felt 800 acres zoned industrial was needed to maintain the 50% residential to 50% industrial and commercial ratio to maintain the present tax base. The Commission feels that 800 acres is more than necessary and has recommended that the amount be cut down to 400 acres. Mr. Spitz noted that condominiums did not generate the same kind of burden on schools as other residential uses have in the past. He also said the Commission did not feel the need to designate the entire area at this time. Mr. Krassner urged that the industrial area under consideration south of Van Sicklen Road not be included, since he felt this would be leapfrogging into the middle of a residential area. He also felt the area proposed for commercial behind the Holiday Inn should be industrial instead, since that would generate less traffic. Recreational land in the Quadrant was discussed and Mr. Spitz pointed out the areas in question. Both he and Recreation Director O'Neill like area 6C for recreation but it is only 106 acres, so area 12 was added to bring the total to about 200 acres. On page 27, Mr. Krassner noted that lines 10-11 stated that because 3 natural areas are institutionally owned there is little apparent threat to their status. He said the Natural Resources Committee wanted to add a statement that future development near these areas should take into account their status as natural areas and try to protect them. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Spitz to add some wording on that, and was told that he would send to Council the wording suggested by the Committee on this point. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting, on October 20. Mr. Towne seconded the motion and all voted for it. Sign petition for installation of buried telephone cable along Kennedy Drive Mr. Szymanski said the cable would serve the Sugartree condominiums on the south side of Kennedy Drive. It would start on Hinesburg Road, cross the street and run along the south side of Kennedy Dr. Mr. Burgess moved to approve the petition subject to 2 stipulations: 1) that work not begin until after 9:00 a.m. and that it stop before 4:00 p.m., and 2) that two-way traffic be maintained at all times. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Decision on dog damage claim Mr. Szymanski had submitted a memo dated 10/3/80 on the claim. He said that Mr. Auclair had requested $5200 and he recommended that $2200 be paid, for mastitis in 2 cows and for the chewed right leg of a heifer. Mr. Burgess moved to accept the City Manager's recommendation and reimburse Mr. Auclair for items 1 and 5 on Mr. Szymanski's report, for a total of $2200. Mr. Towne seconded the motion and all were in favor. Review tax waiver penalties The Council reviewed the list submitted. Review Zoning Board agenda for October 20 It was noted that a drive-in window at the Shelburne Road Burger King was being requested. Old business Mr. Paulsen asked about an item in the financial statement. Mr. Burgess said he would like to discuss sewer connections as an agenda item at the next meeting. Mr. Towne stated that the Planning Commission would like to discuss the Assistant City Manager position with the Council and Mr. Burgess asked that that be put on the agenda also. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.