Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/04/1998CITY COUNCIL 4 MAY 1998 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 4 May 1998, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, Terrence Sheahan, Joan Britt, David Austin Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Assistant City Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; William Burgess, Planning Commission; Albert Audette, Highway Dept; Anna Johnston, The Other Paper; George Holcomb 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda items): Mr. Holcomb addressed the Council about traffic on Orchard and Meadow Roads. He suggested making Meadow Rd. one way going north and Orchard one way going south. He felt this would solve a lot of problems and would make it harder to run through the intersection. A crosswalk would also help. Mr. Holcomb said he had talked with some neighbors about this, some of whom supported the idea and some who oppose it. Mr. Cimonetti said the Council would discuss it. Ms. Britt said she would be concerned with people trying to pass each other on those streets. Mr. Holcomb said they do that now. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter announced the following: a. a Channel 17 airing of ballot items and discussion with candidates to be held on Wednesday, 6 May b. receipt of a letter from Summit Properties regarding a meeting with residents of East Terrace and Spear St. about the proposed development, 11 May, 7:30 p.m. at the Emerald 2 ballroom of the Sheraton. A presentation of the proposal will be made and questions will be answered. Ms. Strait updated the Council on reappraisal. The physical inspections and computer input are finished. A bulletin is being printed this week which will list old and new values. This will be in the mail next Tuesday, third class, and should be received by homeowners at the end of next week. The booklet will include information on the grievance process. Homeowners have till 1 June to call to schedule a grievance hearing. Obvious errors will be corrected immediately. Tax bills will be mailed on 15 June. Mr. Sheahan asked when the Board of Civil Authority will begin to hear appeals. Ms. Strait said the end of June. Mr. Cimonetti explained that what triggers BCA hearings is the receipt of tax bills. Mr. Condos suggested a notice to this effect in the Other Paper. Mr. Hafter said that taxpayers will have to understand what part of the tax bill is South Burlington and what part is Act 60. 3. Discussion with Planning representatives regarding location of power transformer in Mary Street right-of-way: Mr. Weith explained that the Judge development is in front of the Planning Commission for minor adjustments and is asking for approval for the project as built. Discussion arose about the transformer which was put in the middle of the proposed Mary St. right-of-way. The Commission has 3 options: approve it as is (which means the city would have to pay to move it), deny the application (which will give the city 120 days to pursue condemnation and would require Judge to move it), or approve the plan with the stipulation that Judge would have to pay to move the transformer when the proposed city road is built (Judge could appeal this and fight it in court). Mr. Austin asked if there is a fourth option, to put it where it should have been put according to the approved plan. Mr. Weith said it was not on the plan. Mr. Condos suggested arguing that the project should meet the approved plan. Mr. Weith said the City Attorney says the intent is you have to proceed by official plan rules. Mr. Cimonetti said there should be discussion of the proposed Mary St. extension first. He noted that Judge owns the land the city would have to buy for this project. Mr. Weith said the Commission is under the gun because if they close the hearing, the city would have 45 days to make a decision. Mr. Hafter said the critical question is the other end of Mary St. and how it will line up with Williston Rd. Mr. Burgess said Mary St. residents are divided on whether they want it opened. He felt it makes sense to open it from a planning point of view. Mr. Sheahan said he has mixed feelings and isn't sure it will work. Mr. Condos felt that the more streets the city has the more traffic will dissipate. For a downtown atmosphere in this area, he felt traffic has to be kept moving. He suggested the possibility of a right turn only from Mary St. onto Williston Rd. He felt it could be designed so there isn't traffic speeding through, possibly by allowing parking on both sides. Mr. Condos said he was also annoyed that Peter Judge knows what the rules are and went ahead and located the transformer there. He was concerned with developers getting the idea that it's OK to put things in a future city right-of-way. Mr. Cimonetti felt the city will pay for it one way or another because it's there (either by having to move it or by fighting it in court). Mr. Weith said that legally it's not there, and the city could deduct the cost of moving it from the cost of the purchase. Mr. Cimonetti said that would happen only under a very adversarial situation. Mr. Condos said he would agree to approve the plan only with a negotiated settlement, including moving the transformer. He felt it would be wrong to approve it any other way. Mr. Sheahan felt the city should not do anything now but should deal with it when the land is wanted. Ms. Britt agreed with Mr. Condos but was not sure the city is in a position to condemn the land now. Mr. Austin said he was torn. He felt the developer should agree that if the Commission approves the plan he will eventually pay to move the transformer. He felt that in the cost of the overall project, $15,000 to move it is not a whole lot. Mr. Burgess said he understands that Judge has no interest in paying anything to relocate the transformer. Members felt they could live with a stipulation that required Judge to move the transformer when the city purchases the land. Mr. Hafter said he was concerned that these transformers are popping up around the city and are ugly. Mr. Weith said the Commission is beginning to address this. 4. Consideration of proposed zoning amendment: auto sales subzone, Shelburne Rd: Mr. Weith said the Planning Commission agreed with the Council about properties on the east side of Shelburne Rd. The zoning map was redrawn to exclude these properties. Mr. Condos moved the Council schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the zoning regulations: auto sales subzone, for 15 June. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consideration of proposed zoning amendment: scenic view protection zone: Mr. Weith said the Council had expressed concerns with the proposed waiver provision. There had also been concern that the view to be protected was not well defined. The Commission defined the view and used exhibits to demonstrate how the waiver would work. The Commission recommended the waiver provision remain with a few revisions. Mr. Cimonetti said he still had concerns with a waiver and asked why it was necessary. Mr. Burgess said that in some cases there are already things that block a view. The waiver would allow people to build below what is already obstructing the view. Mr. Cimonetti said it was never defined that it was the lake or Adirondacks that were to be the view protected; it is the panorama. The woods are just as important as the water behind it. He said he was content with the line and opposed a waiver of any kind. Mr. Austin said the city and property owners went through a lot of discussion on this. He felt the only outcome of a waiver would be that everyone who tries to build there would come in and ask for as much as they could get. He opposed a waiver. Ms. Britt and Mr. Sheahan agreed. Aaron Goldberg, representing the Kelleys who want to build an addition to their home, said he didn't think there is a clear understanding of what is to be protected. He didn't see a problem with a waiver process and felt the Zoning Administrator should have the ability to go on site and look at something. Mr. Condos felt the waiver process should be eliminated. He felt the trees are part of the view. He said he would actually like more of Red Rocks Point in the northern section. Members agreed they wanted the line as it is now drawn with no change. Mr. Weith then explained changes to the Allen Rd. view protection zone which involve technical inaccuracies that need to be corrected. The changes make the zone more restrictive. This zone impacts only one property and makes 30 acres non-developable but leaves a lot of land where density can be clustered. Mr. Sheahan moved to set the public hearing for amendments to Section 22.30 for 15 June 1998. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of proposed zoning amendment: definition of land development to include Dorset St. waterline service area: Mr. Hafter explained that this amendment requires landowners to get a zoning permit to connect to the waterline so the impact fee can be charged. Mr. Condos moved to set the public hearing for this proposed zoning amendment for 15 June. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of proposed zoning amendment: establish new Central District sub-zone (CD-4) along the east side of San Remo Drive and expand allowable uses: Mr. Weith said the new allowable uses would be: general retail personal service, educational facilities, indoor recreation, municipal, and printing/publishing/engraving. Dimensional requirements would be the same as for CD-3. Alterations to non-complying structures would also be allowed. Currently a non-complying structure can't be expanded in any way and can only have improvements up to 35% of the fair market value of the structure. Under the amendment, the Planning Commission could grant a waiver to allow improvements to exceed 35%, but the applicant must increase the square footage of the building envelope (to bring it closer to compliance). In addition, improvements may not exceed 100% of the fair market value of the structure, and the applicant must make other improvements that are in line with goals of the City Center plan (promenades, etc). Ms. Britt asked if this can be tied into criteria of the design review board. Mr. Weith said it will have to be. Mr. Austin felt there should be a statement that the noncompliance can't be increased. Mr. Cimonetti suggested only specifying those things that can be done and eliminating the need for a waiver. Others agreed. Mr. Condos moved to set the public hearing on the proposed amendments including those revisions made by the City Council at this meeting for 15 June. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. First Reading of Ordinance Regarding Use of Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Spaces: Mr. Hafter said the City Council approved the use of permits for street encumbrances. The City Attorney felt there should be an ordinance covering this. Mr. Hafter noted there is already an application for a permit. Members recommended striking "sandwich boards and signs" as these are covered under the sign ordinance. Mr. Austin moved to waive the reading of the ordinance and approve the first reading as amended and to schedule a public hearing on 2 June. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Discussion of Street Trees: Mr. Condos said he found a street tree inventory/master plan and would like to have an agenda item to discuss what action the city will take on recommendations made in the plan. He noted the Free Press has raised $50,000 for street trees to replace those lost in the ice storm. He felt the city should try to take advantage of this if it can. Mr. Hafter will update this on 2 June. 10. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. 11. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Condos moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented liquor license renewals from: the Net Result, Cosmos Diner, and Old Heidelberg Restaurant. He said all are in order. Mr. Austin moved to approve the First & Second Class liquor license renewals as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Executive Session: Mr. Austin moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to discuss contract negotiations and to resume regular session only to approve a contract and/or adjourn. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The City Council returned to regular session. Jim Condos moved acceptance of the amended contract with the Highway Association for the period 7/1/97-6/30/2000. David Austin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Jim Condos moved adjournment. Joan Britt seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.