Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/15/1991CITY COUNCIL 15 APRIL 1991 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 15 April 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Dick Ward, Zoning Administrator; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Karen Cloutier, Brian Shea, Raymond Jewett, Chris Cavin, Bob McCarroll, Barbara & Neil Shepard, Frederick Hannon, Ralph & Grace Aruzza, Dorothy & Emerson Whitney, Harvey Reed, George Khouri, Andrew Covington, David Raphael, Bob Chittenden, Gerald Milot, Lance Llewellyn, Sanborne Dow, George Bracuzzi, John Larkin Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to Agenda items): Mr. Jewett of Lindenwood Drive asked for help regarding the recreation path which is proposed for that street. He said he and other residents don't feel it is a good idea. He noted the street is only 16 ft. wide in places and it is hard for cars to pass. He noted they have been granted party status at the Act 250 hearing, but if the Council agrees to relocate the path, they won't protest. Mr. Jewett said they want the path north of them with a fence barrier and cedars to screen the fence. Mr. Bocuzzi said he has lived on the street for 25 years and likes the fact that it is a dead end street with a country feeling. He was puzzled as to why residents were the last to know about the proposed path. He questioned the security of backing out of driveways and also feared their street would become a thorough-fare. He said he and other neighbors want peace, security and safety. Mr. Farrar said he understood the administration is looking into other alternatives and this would be an agenda item for the next meeting. Mr. Dinklage noted that when the Burlington bike path was proposed in residential areas there was a lot of trepidation by residents, but now the experience has been just the opposite and residents are very positive about it. Mr. Bocuzzi said the widest part of their street is 18 ft., and the recreation path would be 8 ft. wide. He said they have problems today without the recreation path. He noted there are no curbs or sidewalks. Mr. Jewett showed pictures of the street. He said they can't wait 2 weeks to hire an attorney for the Act 250 hearing which is 7 May and asked for an answer now. Chris Cavin noted a lot of planning has gone into the path for 2 years. She said they tried to use existing rights of way and connections to streets. People on Lindenwood Drive were contacted during the process and expressed concern with their yards. She said the recreation path committee is also concerned with safety. She noted Farrell Park is at the end of Lindenwood Drive, and that might present an alternative. She noted the cost estimates for a different route are significant as 5 easements would be required. Mr. Dinklage noted there was a series of public meetings on the path, all of which had public notice. Maps have always been available at city hall and were published in The Other Paper and in the Free Press. Mr. Weith noted there were also warned Public Hearings at the Planning Commission. There was also a bond issue for the recreation path voted on and approved by the community. He said that at the "11th hour" the Council is being asked to consider options that cost between $30,000 and $60,000. These alternatives, he said, need some study. Mr. Condos agreed that it would be impossible to vote tonight as the Council would not know the consequences of a vote. Mr. Hafter said one option would be to dead end the path in Farrell Park for this year or to use Lindenwood on a temporary basis. Mr. Cimonetti said perhaps the Council should consider prohibiting vehicular traffic on the street or having resident-only parking. Mr. Farrar asked that the issue be placed on the next agenda and that more information be made available to the Council. 2. Public Hearing on Amendment to Ordinance to Regulate Signs to Establish Regulations for the Dorset Street/City Center Overlay District; second reading: Mr. Flaherty moved to waive reading of the ordinance. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar said there are two alternatives concerning the ordinance: to propose amendments or to pass it as written and then to propose amendments later. Mr. Condos asked if a whole awning is considered a sign because it is all backlit at night. Mr. Raphael felt only the identifying sign with the writing would be considered a sign. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the ordinance should be specific as to only that part of the awning that has letters. Mr. Dinklage felt there should be very specific language. The general sense of the Council was that they liked awnings but felt they needed some control. Mr. Ward said he felt the awning would be a "facade" sign and only the letters and graphics would be counted for square footage. Mr. Cimonetti suggested tightening the language on p. 16, Section 13. Mr. Jacob noted that he is part of a franchise. He has a sign with a white background which has to be lighted or he would lose his franchise. Mr. Flaherty noted this would be grandfathered. Mr. Cimonetti felt the degree of illumination would have to be considered in the ordinance. Mr. Khouri felt it may be better to have a light background; otherwise there is a problem with colors bleeding together which might require a bigger sign to correct. Mr. Shepard showed pictures of their sign and asked if it would be legal. Mr. Ward felt there would be no problem with it. Mr. Shepard then asked about setbacks for signs as they do not want their sign in the right-of-way. Mr. Raphael noted the setbacks have been eased in this ordinance. Mr. Farrar noted the slope remains as the Shepards property and they could put their sign on top of the slope. The City's easement only grants them the right to maintain the slope. Mr. Llewellyn asked if Section 7C on "common signage" includes a sign band on a shopping center. Mr. Raphael said it does. Mr. Llewellyn asked how a shopping center could create a sign band when it may not know who all the tenants will be. Mr. Raphael said the sign band become part of the allocation of the sign for that business. Mr. Llewellyn asked if sign bands are considered wall signs. Mr. Hafter said they are. Mr. Condos noted the franchise issue has existed before and noted that McDonalds doesn't have its golden arches in S. Burlington and uses a wood sign to conform to Stowe regulations. Mr. Cimonetti noted the city is trying to create something new and different from strip developments. He felt the ordinance for this district should be different from the rest of the city and encouraged directory signs as a bonus. He said this is typical of a downtown landscaped boulevard feeling. He suggested a 32 sq. ft. sign limitation. Mr. Flaherty felt 32 ft. from 40 ft. wasn't such a difference and 32. ft. would create a whole class of non-conforming signs. Mr. Farrar felt there should be a statement in the beginning of the ordinance that it is adopted under the South Burlington Charter and State enabling legislation. He then asked if the Council wanted to pass it now or to propose changes. Mr. Ward saw no reason it couldn't be passed tonight and noted the State is looking for guidance. Mr. Khouri noted that people really start thinking about an ordinance when it's in place. Mr. Farrar felt it should be passed because of the provisions for temporary signs during construction. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the second reading of the ordinance as presented Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar raised the question of selling or leasing back signs bought by the city so they can be used during construction. Mr. Cimonetti felt the city had to be very careful not to breach the process. 3. Presentation from George Khouri, Finard & Co, regarding request to amend Act 250 permit #4CO219-50R to allow occupancy of the third department store at University Mall: Mr. Khouri noted the restriction on occupancy is only from Act 250 and that the city placed no such restriction. He said it is impossible to negotiate a deal unless there is a date certain for occupancy/opening. He said that previous scenarios (including the development of Corporate Circle) were never realized and there is less traffic than was assumed when the stipulation was made at Act 250. He said the third department store would produce less traffic than the "permitted" traffic that has never come about. Mr. Khouri noted the current project says the Kennedy Drive/Dorset Street intersection would be at about the same level of service after the Dorset St. project and suggested the Mall would pay for a study to see if there could be a better alignment. Mr. Khouri asked the city to submit to act 250 its support for the opening of the third department store. They are asking to open by the fall of 1992, even if Dorset Street work is not complete. Mr. Cimonetti felt strongly that any implication that the proposed project is not adequate would seriously jeopardize the whole project. The Council agreed and said that any request to Act 250 should exclude reference to Kennedy Dr./Dorset street. Mr. Dinklage asked if the City Planner has reviewed the application. Mr. Weith said he hadn't and would like to review traffic studies. Mr. Cimonetti said he couldn't support a third department store without a widened Dorset Street. Mr. Farrar said he would have to see a signed contract for Dorset Street and a specific date in the request before he could support the Mall's request. Mr. Dinklage shared Mr. Cimonetti's concern and felt it needed more discussion and review. Mr. Cimonetti stressed he didn't want the city to take any position that might jeopardize anything on Dorset Street. Mr. Farrar noted the traffic carrying capability of Dorset Street may be a question if the road is not complete. 4. Sketch Plan Review of MBL Associates proposed subdivision of 202 acres of land into 31 residential lots (sizes vary from 1.4 to 3.9 acres) and the remaining 134 acres as open space, Dorset Street: Mr. Milot said he bought 202 acres at the southernmost end of Dorset St. He presented a plan to the Planning Commission at 2 units per acre (283 units) and got negative feedback. The Commission didn't want that density there. Neighbors were also concerned that the neighborhood remain much as it is now. Mr. Milot said the new plan has been discussed with neighbors. It would involve a 31 lot subdivision, about 1/3 of the acreage, and would establish a TDR bank for 250 units. He said they would extend the force main sewer down Dorset Street. City water would be used. He said he would like to see TDR's as a conditional use in all areas in addition to stated receiving areas. Mr. Farrar asked why all units are on one side of the road. Mr. Milot said he wanted to create a working farm on the other side. He then discussed various possible scenarios. Members generally supported the concept though did not approve any specifics. 5. Discuss and Review proposed 1991 Comprehensive Plan for South Burlington: Mr. Farrar asked if the Planner felt the Plan satisfied any legitimate concerns of Regional Planning. Mr. Weith said he felt it did. He said a few things need to be added to the map (location of libraries, e.g.). He said he disagreed with regional people as to how detailed the plan has to be and felt this plan was in line with other plans that have been passed in other communities. One area of concern is implementation of the plan. Mr. Weith felt the capital plan is the implementation plan and that the Comprehensive Plan shouldn't be that specific. Mr. Weith noted that Mr. Durfee of Regional Planning fells agriculture isn't covered thoroughly. 6. Scheduling of Interim Zoning Application and Request to draw Findings of Fact prior to hearing: Members agreed to drawing of findings and scheduled the hearing for 6 May. 7. Approval of Warning for 5/21/91 Ballot: Mr. Flaherty moved the Council sign the warning as presented. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Information Items: No issues were raised. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 10. Planning Commission and Zoning Board Agendas: Mr. Farrar noted the Zoning Board is being asked to create an odd-shaped lot in Queen City Park. 11. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented application for a first and second class beverage license renewals. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the first and second class licenses as presented with the understanding that all have been found to be in order. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Cimonetti opposing. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the Board has control over "charity" gambling. He said he has heard there is substantial gambling in places the city is licensing and asked what can be done. Mr. Farrar said the City should first find out whether it has control and should then decide if it wants control. The question would then be whether anything illegal or on the fringe of legality is going on. Mr. Hafter then presented an entertainment permit for Bambinos for a live DJ on Saturdays from 2 p.m. to 2 am. Mr. Flaherty moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the entertainment permit as presented. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed 4-1. Mr. Cimonetti opposing. Mr. Flaherty moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Minutes of 4 March, 11 March, and 18 March: Mr. Condos moved to approve the Minutes of 4, 11, and 18 March as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.