Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/07/1994CITY COUNCIL 7 November 1994 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 7 November 1994, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chairman; Robert Chittenden, David Maclaughlin James Condos, Michael Flaherty Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Marilyn Frederick, School District; Toby Dion, Channel 17; Joanna Pakula, Mike Munson, Bill Savoie, Wayne Gibson, Fred Ralston, John Floyd, Deborah Palmer, Lon Gleason, Dwight Palmer, Bill Shearer, David White, Mark Crow, Michael Arruzza 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to agenda items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: a. Mr. Hafter reminded members of the special meeting on 14 November. The agenda will include a request from Gerry Milot for the city's help in the Ramsey property appeal and further consideration of the golf and skating facilities. b. There will be a budget planning meeting with the side judges at 10 a.m. on 1 December at the Courthouse. c. Sgt. Peter Lavallee has been named co-officer of the year by the Champlain Valley Crime Stoppers. d) Mr. Hafter read a letter of resignation from Police Chief Brian Searles effective 11 December. Chief Searles has accepted a position in state government. e) Mary Ann Gucciardi will be receiving a state recreation award on Wednesday at the State House. f) Mr. Audette advised that paving has been completed for the year. East Terrace will be completed in the spring as will sidewalks on East Terrace and Brookwood. The Street Dept. did 22 sidewalks and curbs this year, using 13,000 tons of asphalt. Traffic lights have been ordered for Williston Rd/Kennedy Dr. Work on this will be done in the spring. There will be dedicated left turn lanes. Also, Williston Rd. from Dorset St. to Milham Court will be repaved this year. The contract will be let in the spring. A problem has developed at Swift/Spear Sts. which the Dept. is now working to correct. Mr. Audette praised the work of department in getting so much accomplished. Mr. Chittenden arrived at this point in the meeting. 3. Interview with Applicant for Recreation Committee: The Board interviewed Dwight Palmer. Mr. Palmer said he has been a resident of the city for 2 years. He played a lot of sports in high school and feels he can bring some fresh ideas and opinions to the committee. He praised the work done on the recreation paths. He felt some of the fields and parks could be worked on. 4. Public Hearing on Amendment to South Burlington Sign Ordinance; Second Reading of Same: Mr. Flaherty moved to waive reading of the proposed amendments. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Weith reviewed the proposed changes, noting that recommendations were made by a committee formed by the City Council a year ago. The aim of the amendments was to balance the needs of the business community with the needs and concerns of citizens. a) Free Standing Signs: Presently there is a 40 sq. ft. maximum with only one sign per lot allowed. Signs can be only 15 ft. high and there is a minimum 5 ft. setback from the property line. Mr. Weith said that the current regulations are good in that they help to reduce visual clutter but are bad in that 40 sq. ft. is too small when there is more than one business on a property. There is also a disincentive to accommodate certain city goals (i.e. shared access, shared parking, etc.) and a tendency to encourage smaller lots with single uses. The proposed changes would allow lots with significant frontage and development to have more signage. With a minimum of 200 ft. of frontage and at least 10,000 sq. ft. of development, a lot can have a sign up to 80 sq. ft. maximum. This would be calculated on a scale. For non-conforming lots, the maximum sign would be 32 sq. ft. Signs over 40 sq. ft. can be up to 20 ft. high and be set back 20 ft. from the property line. Pre-existing Non-conforming Signs: The current provisions are not effectively getting non-complying signs into conformance because a message can be altered without bringing a sign into conformance. Also, even if a sign owner is willing to reduce a sign a little, there is no incentive to do this. The recommendation is to all alterations to a non-conforming sign with only a 25% reduction in size. Routine maintenance would be excluded from this requirement. Directional Signs: Presently, these are exempt from the ordinance, but the Code Officer can find them unnecessary or contrary to provisions of the ordinance and can order them removed. It is proposed that a logo be allowed if there is no access to the property on a main thoroughfare to which the business is oriented or if it is intended as an entry sign or if there is no freestanding sign at the entrance. Wall Signs: At present, a wall sign is allowed up to 5% of wall area or 100 sq. ft. The maximum is two wall signs unless there are separate businesses. It is proposed that for service stations there can be a total sign area of the building and structural canopy calculated for the 5%. Temporary Signs: Presently, temporary signs are allowed only on the interior of a window or on certain banners. They are allowed for only up to 30 days and require a permit. The proposal is to allow window signs up to 25% of the window area. There will be no time limit or permit required. The amendments also include a new definition of a "lot" which is consistent with the Zoning Regulations. There is also a clarification that Section 23 applies only to the Dorset St/City Center Sign Control District. Mr. Condos asked if a sign placed in the city right-of-way must be moved to be in compliance. Mr. Weith said it must. Mr. Cimonetti asked about neon tube signs inside windows. Mr. Ward said these are counted based on the outside measurement of the sign. Ms. Pakula said she is opening a new business next to Gigabytes. There is an existing non-conforming sign. She was told she can't use it because the lots have been merged as they are owned by the same person and are non-conforming. Mr. Ward said there has been a ruling within the last 18 months that if a person buys a pre- existing lot and owns the next lot, the lots are automatically merged. Thus, there would be only one sign allowed. Mr. Ward noted those lots still don't meet the minimum lot size even when merged into one. The owner of the lots said that when the prior owner owned both lots he had two signs. Mr. Ward noted there are other similar situations: McDonalds/Citgo, Alpine Shop/Cheese Traders. Mr. Savoie suggested allowing up to 2 signs if the total square footage of the signs doesn't exceed what is allowed for one lot. Mr. Weith said the Committee felt the number of signs has more of an impact than the size of signs. Mr. Ralston asked what the appeal process is on signs. Mr. Ward said there is no appeal to increase a sign. Interpretation is made by the Planning Commission. Any wish to change a provision of the sign ordinance goes to the City Council. Mr. Cimonetti said it would be his hope that directional signs do what they should do and that is direct traffic. Mr. Maclaughlin proposed that on directional signs the words "or symbol" be added after the word "wording" (page 10 subsection 2 and p. 11 section c). This suggestion was then made in the form of a motion by Mr. Maclaughlin and seconded by Mr. Chittenden. It passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden then moved that on page 9, Section 10a, the work "unnecessary" and the comma that follows it be removed. Mr. Maclaughlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Maclaughlin moved that in the same paragraph the word "him" be replaced by "the Code Officer." Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members suggested that the document and other city ordinances be changed to be gender neutral. Mr. Condos noted that the work "involuntarily" on page 17, section c, should be "involuntary." Mr. Chittdenden moved that on page 3, section a, everything after the words "owner thereof" be removed. Mr. Maclaughlin seconded. Mr. Condos said he would like to see the motion withdrawn as it deals with things not in the proposed amendments and would require rewarning. This would hold up people relying on the proposed amendments to help with their present situations. After a brief discussion, the maker and seconder of the motion agreed to withdraw it. Mr. Cimonetti assured members that they could bring back the document for further revision even if it is passed at this meeting. Mr. Flaherty then moved to approve the amendments as proposed and with the amendments made at this meeting. Condos seconded. Mr. Chittenden said he felt a business name should be allowed on any directional sign. Mr. Hafter said that would be a substantial change and would require rewarning. He suggested approving the document leaving out the section on directional signs. Mr. Maclaughlin moved to amend the motion to strike Section 4 from consideration of proposed amendments. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden said he also did not like the 25% rule for window signs. He moved that on p. 13, Section 1, everything after the word "permitted" be removed. Mr. Cimonetti said this would be a substantial change. There was no second to this motion. In the vote that followed, the amended motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Chittenden voting against. Mr. Hafter said staff will put the Ordinance as adopted back on an upcoming agenda and will come back with a proposal for directional signs. Mr. Ward asked the Council to write down its concerns so he knows in advance what to deal with. 5. Public Hearing on Amendment to Zoning Regulations Central District Permitted Uses, to Allow Educational Facilities and Indoor Recreation; Second Reading of Same: Mr. Condos moved to waive the reading and approve the proposed amendments. Mr. Maclaughlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Introduction and Discussion of Proposed Impact Fee Ordinance: Mr. Munson noted that impact fees are authorized by legislation for capital projects related to future development. There must be a comprehensive plan and a capital budget plan in place before such fees can be collected. Mr. Munson said a capital inventory has been done and a capital program and budget prepared. There are four areas which are appropriate for impact fees: recreation, waste water treatment, roads, and schools. Each area was considered separately. a. Recreation: Recommended fees are: single family unit (1995)$1,251.21 multi-family unit (1995)544.96 b. Waste Water: Recommended fees are: single family unit (1995)$ 239.01 multi-family unit (1995)119.51 typical non-residential project w/1200 gpd flow 1,274.72 Mr. Hafter said the waste water figures will have to be looked at as they will result in less than the city is now getting for hook-on fees. c. Roads: Recommended fees are: single family unit (1995)$ 94.7 Multi-family unit (1995)67.89 non-residential project with 55 trip ends and $600,000 construction cost 11,636.60 Mr. Munson noted that all figures have been adjusted to reflect bond payment concerns. d. Schools: Recommended fees are: single family unit (1995)$1513.93 multi family unit (1995)699.21 Mr. Munson said that all of these figures fall in the middle range of other communities. The estimated annual impact fees (based on 60 single family homes, 40 multi-family units and 10 typical non-residential developments) are: Recreation:$ 96,872.80 Waste Water 31,868.20 Roads 124,764.20 Schools:118,804.20 TOTAL $372,309.40 Mr. Condos noted that even at 80% this would save 3% on the tax rate. Mr. Hafter said the City Attorney has a commitment to get a proposed ordinance ready for the 5 December meeting. Ms. Frederick said the figures have been reviewed and approved by the School Board. Mr. Chittenden left the meeting at this point. 7. Discussion of Impact of Proposed City of Burlington Road Weight Restrictions on South Burlington: Mr. Hafter said the proposed restrictions would force traffic onto Queen City Park Road. Mr. Audette feels the bridge can handle it. Mr. Cimonetti asked what would happen if a similar restriction were placed on QCP Road. Mr. Audette said he believed the street is set for 24,000 pounds now. Mr. Condos said the city needs to know the impact on Shelburne Rd. intersections and on the residential neighborhood and Red Rocks Park. Mr. Hafter said someone from South Burlington will attend Public Works meetings in Burlington. 8. Review Zoning Board Agenda for 21 November: No issues were raised. 9. City Council Minutes of 17 October: Members could not consider these minutes as 2 of the members still present had not attended the meeting and there could not be a majority vote. 10. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. Executive Session: Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in Executive Session to discuss appointments to Committees and personnel matters and to resume regular session only to make appointments and/or adjourn. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: David MacLaughlin moved the appointment of Dwight Palmer to a three-year term on the Recreation Committee. Jim Condos seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Jim Condos moved adjournment. Mike Flaherty seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.