Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/21/1992CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 7:30 PM LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM 575 DORSET STREET The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, September 21, 1992 at 7:30 PM in the large conference room in South Burlington City Hall at 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: City Council: Michael Flaherty, James Condos, William Cimonetti, John Dinklage and Robert Chittenden Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Margaret Strait, Assistant City Manager; Dick Ward, Zoning Administrator; Nat Lash, Duncan Brown, Bill Weiner, Brian Searles, Police Chief; Ann Pugh, Peter Jacob, Mary Roy, Joe Weith, City Planner; Terry Sheahan, Planning Commission; Patrick Moody, Mark J. Bronder, Harley Brown, Daniel O'Brien, Stephanie O'Brien, Erick Kennaugh, Jan Emerson, Dick Posey, Ray Unsworth, Ed DesLauriers; Sid Poger, The Other Paper Chairman Flaherty called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. 1. Comments and Questions from the Public: There were no additional comments, questions or additions submitted from either the public or members of the City Council. Chairman Flaherty shared that the Air Show, which had been held the previous weekend, had been a great success with a large number of people attending. Therefore, there will be a significant amount of funds donated to charity. The bulk of it will go to the United Way. The United Way has allocated $3,000 to South Burlington for the purpose of our drug education program. 2. Request for discussion on the Peddler's License. Mr. Nat Lash proposed his concerns as a business man, a resident and most of all for the appearance of South Burlington. He felt that we would be very remiss if we should allow the present regulations to exists. The questions he asked were: How would you like it if you were the owner of a ski shop, you paid city taxes, you collected sales taxes and someone comes across the road on a vacant lot or gas station and sets up a full display of skis and starts selling them with his entire overhead cost at $25? This same individual can continue to sell this equipment for a full three months. Mr. Lash feels it is a flagrant abuse of business conditions. You are giving this individual the opportunity to sell his product on probably one of the most travelled thoroughfares in the State of Vermont. This product list consists of art, quilts, skis, trees, shrubs, furniture, carpet, fruit and many other products. It seems ridiculous to Mr. Lash that hometown people are paying their taxes, paying big rents, and outsiders are able to compete against them for only $25. On top of this South Burlington is developing a "honky-tonk" look and it is the main entrance into the City of Burlington. Mr. Lash questions whether these merchants are paying sales tax. He called the State of Vermont months ago and was told that the State does not have enough people to police the payment of the taxes. These merchants are charging sales taxes and not paying sales tax. Mr. Lash felt it acceptable that the owner of land or a store should be able to obtain a permit to hold some sort of special event on the land or in front of the store. Mr. Lash suggests that there be two (2) basic concepts to go by: (1) The merchant who has an established location be able to do what they want to do in front of their building. (2) A transient coming in should have to post some kind of bond to make sure that he/she is paying their justly amount of taxes. (3) Whenever a transient does acquire a permit, they are assessed approximately $500 for three months to have their stand in the City of South Burlington. (4) Somewhere along the line there should be some policing done to make certain that these people have the proper permits. House to house sales should be stopped. Mr. Cimonetti asked what the requirements are in the neighboring towns. Mr. Ward stated that surrounding towns all have peddler licenses. We do not know the charge in the area towns. Mr. Dinklage expressed his concern with the point Mr. Lash made in regards to the State sales tax. Mr. Hafter stated that the City is not responsible for the sales tax and Mr. Ward pointed out that the only state policing that he has seen in the ten (10) year of our peddler's license is the weights and measure authority and he is in South Burlington two (2) to three (3) times a year. Mr. Ward expressed that he does see a problem with the fact that our peddler's fee has not been updated since 1983. No charitable organizations are charged and farmers are not charged. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Ward about the site control for peddlers and Mr. Ward said that the Planning Commission had some concern with traffic control and parking and, therefore, a few of the sites have been removed. They do not allow any peddlers at Gracey's on Hinesburg Road. All peddlers have to be set up on private property. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Lash for his opinion regarding the truck from Maine which sells fresh seafood. Mr. Dinklage expressed that he felt that some citizens would object to losing the fish truck. Where and how does Council draw the line? Mr. Lash felt that it is important to find out whether these dealers are competitive with the area merchants. Mr. Lash suggested that there be two or three categories when dealing with the peddler's license. Mr. Brown suggested that the City ask to see proof that the peddler has registered with the State and will be paying sales tax. Mr. Brown supported Mr. Lash's position. Mr. Condos encouraged reviewing the peddler's license by city staff. Mr. Dinklage also asked city staff to research through legal considerations and discussions with the State. Although it is not our responsibility to collect sales tax, he would like to believe that we are doing everything that we can to support sales taxes. Mr. Cimonetti asked staff to research to see what our ability is to restrain under Title 24. He is not familiar with either of these documents and, therefore, it is important to seek out what controls we can put on these peddlers. Mr. Flaherty asked City Manager and City Staff with the help of the City Attorney to review our Peddler's Ordinance. Mr. Dinklage suggested that the review be mentioned in the "City News." 3. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations to Article XVI Industrial-Agricultural district; Second Reading of same. City Planner Joe Weith was asked by Chairman Flaherty to answer any of the audiences' questions pertaining to this Zoning Regulation. Joe explained that the Industrial Ag zone is about 500 acres located south of the interstate on both sides of Route 116. This area has been zoned for a long time (at least since the early 80's) for large lots industrial and corporate office uses. There has been some concern that this zoning has been too restrictive and that it is not competitive in attracting industries. Planning Commission was asked to review this area. The commission's goal has been to continue the large lot theme, industrial theme, but look at ways of increasing competitiveness. The Planning Commission has also been concerned with the maintaining the natural resources in that area. There are also significant scenic views that need to be protected. It is also a main entrance into the city from I-89. The Planning Commission suggested that the title of the district be changed to "industrial open space" to lessen the emphasis on agricultural preservation and put more emphasis on open space. The Planning Commission encourages all lots to be treated the same. Permitted and conditional uses are still restricted to agricultural and outdoor recreational uses and industrial and office uses can only go in as part of a PUD. The Planning Commission wanted to require that developments meet the subdivisions standards. This allows more control for the larger usages. The minimum and average lot sizes have been reduced from 10 acres to 3 acres and the average lot size from 20 acres to 8 acres. More lots could be created in this zone but the commission felt that this 3 acre minimum and 8 acre average still promoted large lots to develop in this area. Buffer zones which are required along the adjacent residential district has been increased from 150 feet to 200 feet. That was seen as necessary as the density was being increased. PUD standards are still in place and have been changed somewhat. The Planning Commission advised to reduce the agriculture and increase the open space area, such as preserving open space, streams, wetlands, scenic views and providing compatibility with the residential areas. John Dinklage asked if there were any significant minority objections to the changes. Joe stated that there were no objections with the Planning Commission or the Natural Resource Committee but there were a number of residents present at the hearings and they were very concerned with what impact that whole area would have as it developed on their neighborhood. There was nothing submitted in writing and they did not attend the last few meetings so the Commission is not sure whether they accepted the changes or felt that they were fighting a losing battle. Terry Sheahan pointed out that in this instance he wore his Planning Commission hat and voted with the commission. He recognized the necessity to protect the residents and also recognized that the city is not using a very large tax base in that area. He stated that it is not economically viable to do anything with that area with the existing zoning. He felt that this was a nice compromise to get something started out there and achieve some of the goals that we have outlined. Bill Cimonetti commented that South Burlington holds a unique position in Chittenden County in that it has the most potential industrial sites that are not developed. We have to carefully husband these properties and see that we are not overly restrictive nor unduly attractive. He wanted to go on record as stating the he felt the present ordinance does not effectively manage the property from the City's point of view. Mr. Cimonetti supports the Planning Commission with the new ordinance and feels that the ordinance will be very effective in making the asset marketable but not degrading of value. What we want is slow and controlled growth in this given area. Pat Moody, Oak Creek, felt that the 10 acre/20 acre minimum and average did not afford the neighbors much protection. The view corridor discussions are not going to satisfy anyone. Hopefully the new ordinance will protect the land; but, if all it does is crowd more buildings up toward the road and leave the 150 acres in the back, nothing has been accomplished. Joe Weith explained to Mike Flaherty that the minimum lot size for development is 3 acres. A minimum of 16 acres is needed to subdivide. The view from Hinesburg Road will be protected. The larger lot will protect the most important natural resources. Mark Bronder, a resident of Oak Creek, stated that the main reason he chose to purchase in the area was because of the attractiveness of the view. He was made aware at the time of purchase that the area is zoned industrial. There is a fair amount of space near the highway which could be developed commercially and still keep the two (2) residential neighborhoods relatively protected and protect the property. He would like to go on record that it concerns him that commercial development could take place that close to Hinesburg Road. Terry Sheahan expressed that the Planning Commission has been very concerned and have worked diligently to protect the views. Much time has been spent by the Planning Commission on view protection. Mr. Chittenden made a motion to close the public hearing and Mr. Cimonetti seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden made a motion to approve the proposed amendment to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations to Article XVI Industrial-Agricultural District as proposed. Mr. Dinklage seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations Section 1.6022 and 1.80, Central District Ordinance. This amendment deals with setbacks and building alterations along Dorset Street. Joe Weith stated that there are two (2) primary amendments proposed. The first one deals with the district along Dorset Street and Corporate Way Area and also the San Remo Drive area. This includes that other side of Dorset Street. The first amendment deals with Central District 2. The area between Dorset Street and the eastern side of San Remo Drive. This deals with the front yard setback along Dorset Street. Currently there is a 50' setback along Dorset Street and the intent was to create a pedestrian oriented space or mall effect. Over the last couple of years there have been several businesses coming into Planning Commission to redevelop. Within the block there are 11 buildings fronting Dorset Street and only one of the buildings meets the front yard setback of 50'. There is a lot of concern over the nonconforming buildings and the extent of improvements that they can do. Planning Commission reviewed again what could be done to take advantage of the existing buildings and keep it in accordance with the Center City goals. Planning Commission felt that a 20' setback would still promote the pedestrian connection goal. All parking will be in the center of the building. Of the ten (10) buildings that don't meet the 50' setback eight (8) of the buildings will be in compliance with a 20' setback. The other amendment deals with altering noncomplying structures. Right now in the Central District Ordinance 1.80 prohibits any alterations to noncomplying structures. A number of property owners have come in to convert their structures to City Center type uses and we have found that they have to do some alterations to house this type of usage because they are all warehouses. The Planning Commission feels that this ordinance should be amended to allow the present structures to be used. This would get things going in the City Center. The Planning Commission would like to make the changes to Section 19.002. They would like to allow in the CD1, CD2 and CD3 zones alterations to noncomplying structures. There can be alterations to the structures but no expansion. Ms. Ann Pugh asked if there will be any incentive for businesses to be two (2) stories? Joe Weith answered that he thought so because with the way that the zoning is structured there is an 80' building envelope from the front point to the back point. Mr. Dinklage thanked the Planning Commission for moving as expeditiously as they did when dealing with the Net Result. Mr. Condos asked Dick Ward if he was comfortable with the proposed changes. Mr. Ward said, yes that he was comfortable with the changes. He pointed out that it may be necessary to use variances for those remaining buildings that do not comply. Mr. Condos made a motion to close the public hearing and John Dinklage seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Cimonetti made a motion to approve the proposed amendment to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations Section 1.6022 and 1.80, Central District Ordinance. Mr. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Discussion of Proposed South Burlington Official Map; Setting of Date for Public Hearing. Mr. Flaherty pointed out that there will be no decisions made on the Official Map on this date. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information on the map. Joe Weith pointed out that an Official City Map is a type of bylaw allowed by State statue that shows future public facilities and the land that would be required to construct it. Some of the items purposed are school sites, future streets, highways, existing parks and future parks, open space, public parking spaces, existing and purposed recreations paths. This map puts future developers on notice. Mr. Unsworth asked what the green space just above Spear Street was. Joe pointed out that it is a purposed park. The land has not been taken. The area shaded encourages developers to develop around the area and if the developer chooses to include this area it forces the City to condemn the land if they want it. This is a legal process. Mr. Flaherty invited everyone to the ribbon cutting on the South Burlington bike path. It will be held on Sunday, September 27, 1992 from 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM. a) Joe Weith explained what some of the future changes in the Official City Map. There is outlined a proposed connector to join Kimball Ave. and Hinesburg Rd. and Joe mentioned that there has been some concern that this road is too close to the proposed I-89 on and off ramp. Bill Szymanski has taken a closer look at this and suggested that a road be brought in to intersect Rt. 116 near the current intersection of Old Farm Road. He proposed to end Old Farm Road at a cul-de-sac and eventually have the Old Farm Road connection rerouted over the O'Brien property and connect to Rt. 116 opposite Hayes Ave. Mr. Daniel O'Brien pointed out that he has not had an opportunity to formulate his thoughts but would like to express his concerns. Mr. Flaherty reiterated that this is a time of information gathering and nothing is cast in concrete. Mr. O'Brien felt that the revised route goes very tight against a residential area. It was originally intended that this road would be as far away from the residents as possible. He stated that he could not argue with the merit of having an interchange at Hinesburg Rd. and to have the connector to serve the industrial area on Kimball Ave. Mr. Dinklage pointed out that sometimes the most effective way to get planning wheels rolling is to throw out an idea to get reactions. The City would invite the suggestion or concerns from anyone that would like to share them. Mr. O'Brien felt that advertising this first information gathering as the first public hearing seemed very formal. Mr. Cimonetti stressed that this connector is planned as a road and should not be referred to as a residential street. It is meant for commercial traffic and should be planned as such. Mr. Dinklage stated that the more he looks at this plan he sees that this road will become a short cut for vehicles coming north on Hinesburg Road or east on US2 and not just commercial vehicles. It would be appropriate and prudent to make Williston aware of these plans. This will have the effect of dumping a lot of traffic on Brownell Road. Mr. Dinklage asked Joe to send a copy of this as a courtesy. Ms. Simms asked if it is cast in concrete that the on/off ramp for I-89 eventually has to be north of the Interstate? This would cause traffic congestion on Kimball Ave. and the traffic would be pushed up toward the residential area. Mr. Dinklage pointed out that the location of the on/off ramps would be designed based on the best traffic engineering. There are four (4) ramps, a diamond interchange. Mr. Cimonetti indicated that this interchange is in the MPO tip and not yet in the State plan. Mr. Dinklage said that the Feds are luke warm toward the idea. It is in the Regional Planning. Mr. Brown pointed out that there has been near panic on Old Farm Road. He asked that the Planning Commission be more communicative and notify people of this type of hearing well in advance. Mr. Brown would like to participate in the planning of this road. Mr. Flaherty suggested that the residents of Old Farm Road meet with Joe Weith to work out a plan that is acceptable to all parties. Joe Weith suggested that by next month there will be a Planning work session set aside to deal with this issue. Mr. Cimonetti listed three (3) concerns that have to be considered when planning this road. You can not talk seriously about one point without discussing all points. 1. Interchange 2. Commercial Connector 3. Changes to Old Farm Road Mr. Hafter and Mr. Cimonetti pointed out that the City is far better off with an official city map for many reasons. It is important not to let the interim status of the city map do damage. The map can always be changed, it can be changed as many times in a year as needed but there has to be a public hearing to do it. Mr. Flaherty suggested that the interim map become the official map without adding and add whatever is necessary in the form of an amendment. Mr. Cimonetti suggested that intentions be known and at some point draw right-of-ways. Mr. Dinklage asked Joe to please make a copy of this with a cover letter describing the time schedule that the city is operating under and when we would like to adopt an official map. A copy needs to go to all residents along Old Farm Road. Mr. Hafter stressed the importance of adopting a city map and schedule a public hearing. Joe Weith was directed not to include the changes on Old Farm Road and to inquire as to whether in could be stated as an intention. b) Mr. Flaherty suggested that the discussion move onto the South Burlington Southern Connector. Mr. Dinklage asked if the Plan A was the States original proposal that went before the voters? Joe Weith said that he thought so. It is the alternate that was recommended in the EIS report. Five different alternatives were viewed and this one was recommended by the citizens' committee. The recommendation does not include the Southern Connector in the Official Map. c) Mr. Flaherty opened discussion on the North-South collector west of Route 7. Joe Weith suggested that this collector is to join the properties and relieve the commercial routes as much as possible. The Planning Commission want to provide movement between properties without going on Shelburne Road. The area of the new McDonald's on Shelburne Road calls for a traffic light and has to be installed before McDonald's opens. Mr. Condos asked how this matches up with Pomerleaus' plans and Joe stated that it does not do very well. Mr. Cimonetti pointed out that another reason for adopting an official map is that the map will mean more. Mr. Cimonetti asked that Joe Weith check out and see whether the official map can have "notes" or "intentions." He would like to see this discussion be part of the public hearing. Mr. Cimonetti suggested that we may want to indicate the desire and intent of the City to eventually negotiate to locate a boat ramp. Mr. Cimonetti would like to see a computer rail station sited on the map with some amount of parking and sufficient access for public transportation access. Bill Cimonetti made a motion that a Public Hearing be set for October 19, 1992 at 7:30 PM to approve the Official City Map and John Dinklage seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden asked Joe Weith what a "design control district" is. Joe explained that a "design control district" are regulations that require the architectural design of buildings to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Chittenden expressed concern that the city may be trying to place too much control over the building in the city. Joe explained that this was first recommended when the City Center idea was proposed. This design control district would cover the City Center District and the I-O District (former I-Ag District). The Planning Commission is working on developing an ordinance which would then go to City Council for approval. 6. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 7. Chairman Flaherty asked that a motion be made to adjourn as City Council and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage made the motion and Mr. Condos seconded this motion. The motion was passed. Mr. Flaherty asked Attorney Brown to present the request from Bambino's for modification of provisions. Mr. Brown requested that Bambino's be granted the responsibility to hire the private security necessary according to the patron numbers and the size of the crowd. Business has decreased and the cost of security is overwhelming and it is not felt that this security on quiet nights is necessary. He files a motion to request release from having to hire independent security on Tuesdays and Wednesdays based on present business. He further files a motion of request of release from condition imposed on Bambinos' having to hire a specific number of employees and security on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Brown would like to have some flexibility in making the decisions based on the number of patrons and the size of the crowd. The complaints have decreased significantly and, therefore, this large numbers of security is no longer necessary. Mr. Cimonetti asked how the decision of the amount of security necessary would be made. Mr. Brown felt that they need all nine employees if the crowd is in an excess of 300. Mr. Cimonetti stated that he knows that the number of incidents reported to our police has decreased significantly, but how do we know if all incidents have been reported? Any time there is any physical contact Mr. Brown has requested that these incidents be reported to him. Mr. Dinklage would be willing to hear a well thought out and well documented proposal prepared by Mr. Brown and the City Staff. Mr. Brown pointed out that one reason the incidents have decreased is because attendance has decreased. Chief Searles stated that the number of reports are way down and he feels part is fewer people and another component is that the Club knows that the City is serious about controlling the establishment. He does not feel that any incidents are being hidden or covered up. Chief Searles felt that probably outside security on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings is not necessary. Mr. Searles would like to see a floor number of people who have no responsibilities other than the security number rather than total flexibility. Mr. Dinklage asked Chief Searles if any of our police cruise through the parking lot and Chief Searles assured him that they do. Mr. Chittenden feels it reasonable to for the Council to review Bambino's situation and not penalize them at a time that they are not doing the business that they were doing one year ago. Mr. Flaherty has asked Mr. Brown to meet with Chief Searles and City Manager Chuck Hafter and prepare a concrete proposal to City Council during the next Council meeting. Mr. Chittenden moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council. Mr. Condos seconded this motion. The motion passed. Mr. Dinklage made a motion to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:38 PM and Mr. Cimonetti seconded the motion. The motion was passed and the meeting was adjourned at 9:38 PM. Respectfully submitted: Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.