Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/01/2002CITY COUNCIL 1 APRIL 2002 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 April 2002, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members present: J. Condos, Chair; T. Sheahan, C. Smith, S. Magowan Also present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; J. B. Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; J. Jaeger, P. O'Brien, J. Larkin, J. Hausner; Anna Johnston, The Other Paper Mr. Sheahan presided over the meeting as Mr. Condos arrived late. 1. Comments & questions from the audience not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements and City Manager's report: Mr. Sheahan: The Regional Planning Commission is in the process of putting together its 2003 budget and is asking for comments regarding work proposals. Mr. Hafter: The UVM Rescue Squad will be celebrating is 30th anniversary with a banquet at the Sheraton on 13 April. The city has been trying to get the State to paint a crosswalk in front of St. John Vianney Church. The State has advised that this work will be done in the spring. A meeting on the new Sign Ordinance will be held on 4 April, 7 p.m. Council members have been asked to attend. The Steering Committee hearing on the 2002-03 budget will be held on 11 April, 7:30 p.m. The Legislative Breakfast will be held 8 April, 7:30 a.m. at the school. A meeting will be held with residents of several neighborhoods on 8 April regarding proposed traffic calming. A letter was received from Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle regarding the campaign to reduce greenhouse gas. The proposed Open Space Plan will be on the next agenda. Also on the agenda will be a presentation from a COPC consultant regarding affordable housing. 3. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing establishment of Spear Street Northeast special assessment district for sanitary sewer: Mr. Hafter said nothing has changed except the cost which is now $80,000. Half the cost of legal fees and engineering was added. Mr. Smith moved to approve the resolution authorizing establishment of Spear St. Northeast special assessment district for sanitary sewer as presented. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter said the paperwork is ready for the Spear Street South district, but one person has now sold his property and the work has to start over. 4. Distribution of Open Space Plan: Mr. Hafter distributed the Plan and said it will be reviewed at the 15 April meeting. Ms. Hoover said that Terry Boyle was the consultant and did a superb job. She reviewed the format of the plan. Mr. Hafter reminded members that the voters had approved a one-cent tax to preserve open space in the city. He felt the plan would be a great addition to the city. 5. Update on CCTA Items: Mr. Magowan said CCTA staff has embarked on an examination of how member communities are being charged back for service, based on a mileage formula. The current system puts a crimp on developing new routes. The Charter would have to be changed by all municipalities. 6. Public hearing on amendments to the Zoning Regulations to: 1) allow municipal facilities in municipal district to encroach into interstate highway buffer; 2) expand existing provisions for administrative approval of minor amendments to existing permits; 3) establish standards for review and approval of amendments of existing city permits; second reading of same: Regarding municipal facilities, Ms. Hoover said the amendment would allow such facilities to encroach within 45 ft. of the interstate right-of-way. They would apply to City Hall, the Fire Station (Dorset St.), Airport Sewer Treatment Plant, and the biosolids facility. This would be a conditional use and would require conditional use approval from the DRB. The facility must also be pre-existing. The building could not be used for anything other than the municipal use. Regarding administrative approvals, Ms. Hoover noted that the Planning Commission and DRB have been dealing with a situation of "asking for forgiveness" as opposed to "asking for permission" with respect to unapproved changes in site plans, etc. The proposed amendment sets up a procedure that gives greater finality to approvals. Before requesting a Certificate of Occupancy, a developer can amend a plan as often as needed. Once a CO has been pulled (from the city or Labor & Industry), if a developer wants to amend a plan and if the amendment is for 3% of the site of 5,000 sq. ft., there would be two options: a. bring in the amendment and open everything up for discussion b. make an argument showing what has necessitated the changes Ms. Hoover said the administrative approvals would make it easier to do small amendments. You can make changes if you are decreasing density, site coverage, or traffic without any prejudice. The period for finality is four years from the date of approval. After that, circumstances are deemed to be changed and an applicant may come back in with changes. Mr. Jaeger expressed concern with a lot of things getting "hit." He reviewed the history of the Stowe-Highlands decision and said he had no problem with the Stowe-Highlands test. He also had no problem with the amendment in a situation where a developer clearly set out a condition and there was a reliance on that condition being carried out. He did have a problem if a developer came back for a change and there had never been a stipulation or representation of finality. Mr. Hausner said he had the same sentiments as Mr. Jaeger. He felt a developer needs the ability to come back based on many conditions. He felt the right to come back to a Board needs to apply to anyone, especially a paying customer. Mr. O'Brien agreed and said a developer needs flexibility for large and small projects based on market demands. Mr. Hafter noted a developer could come back, but everything would be opened up for scrutiny. Mr. Stitzel said a developer can also plan for some things up front and not necessarily build them at the time. Mr. Lisman said the problem is mostly with larger projects and there may be many factors that bring a developer back. He said that before Stowe- Highlands there was no thought that a permit was cast in stone and couldn't be amended. He felt the proposed solution was "overkill." Ms. Hoover said one problem that has led to this amendment is projects that come in with phase one complete and then want to do phase two without looking at how the whole thing works together. She said you can't just look at one phase and be effective planners. Mr. O'Brien said he didn't want changing a building from a 3-plex to a 4-plex to reopen his stormwater permit. Ms. Hoover said the city doesn't have anything to do with stormwater permits. Mr. Smith moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sheahan said that the city needs to find a way to address issues that have been raised. Other members agreed. Mr. Magowan noted he has conflicting interests as he represents developers from time to time. It was stressed that this amendment was considered at the request of the City Council. The public wants to feel that when they've been heard on an issue and a decision is made, that decision will stand and "things don't get done by the back door." The Council felt it has to do something to address the public interest as well as the interests of developers and invited public thoughts and comments. Mr. Magowan then moved to approve item 1 of the amendment (allowing encroachment by municipal facilities into the interstate highway buffer) and the definition of municipal facility as presented. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of approval for special event permit, live music at Dorset Park during American Diabetes Association "Tour de Cure," 19 May 2002, 10 a.m.-2 p.m.: Members questioned live music at 10 a.m. on a Sunday. Mr. Condos suggested asking that speakers face away from residences. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the special event permit for live music at Dorset Park for the "Tour de Cure" as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of approval of annual entertainment permit for Holiday Inn, 1068 Williston Road, live bands: Mr. Magowan moved to approve the annual entertainment permit for Holiday Inn as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Review Development Review Board agenda for 2 April 2002: Mr. Condos expressed concern with the request for a variance in the last 3 items. He felt variances should not be given for encroachment into setbacks, etc. This concern will be relayed to the DRB. 10. Review minutes of 18 March 2002: Mr. Magowan moved to approve the minutes of 18 March as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Sign Disbursements Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 12. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Condos moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented a list of first and second class liquor license renewals. He said all were in order. Mr. Condos moved to approve the first and second class liquor license renewals as presented for the following: Applebee's Restaurant Cheese Traders Chittenden Cider Mill Clarion Hotel/Conference Center Cork & Board Deli Cork & Board Restaurant Gracey's Liquor Store Gracey's Store GU Markets of VT LLC Hannaford Food & Drug (2 locations) Ichiban Oishii, Inc.Klinger's Bread Co. Marco's Pizzeria Net Result Old Heidelberg Restaurant Olive Garden Perry's Fish House Pizza Putt, Inc. Rick's Italian Café, Inc.Simon's Store & Deli Vermont Soup Co.Windjammer Restaurant Zachary's Pizza House Mr. Magowan seconded the motion which was then passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.