Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/19/1990CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 1990 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 March 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Michael Flaherty, Acting Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present Charles Hafter, City Manager; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Dept; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Susan & Doug Pritchard, Janet Delneo, Holly & Brian Reed; Diana & Hal Kemp, George Mona, Aletha Hubbell, Ronald & Ellen McDonald, Mildred Stiles, D. H. Steele, Alice Michel, Jane & Charles Brown, Michael Tomkowicz, Roger Dickinson, Janet Campbell, Chris Cavin, Peter Rowan, K. Thompson, Billie Griggs, Robert & Clarice Fisher, Marcel Lapierre, Jane Quilliam, Katherine Barnes, Theresa McLaughlin, Ella Carlisle, Hope Ruble, Kim Jacobs, Lorene Checkering, Charles Scott, Jill Coffrin, Anne-Lise Tungvaag, Jay McKee, Francis X. Murray, Alice & Ken Boyd, Sarah and Ann Savitt, Doug Weber, Robert Schultz, Vincent Koehler, Brian Searles, Pat Boudreau, Paul Boudreau, Jerman & Christine Preuschoff, Nile Schneider, Mary Benoit, Eileen Comer, Mary Scollins, Ernie Nalette, B. Barone, Bruce Allbee, Nan Crowell, Scott Brooks, Bob Torney, Barbara Bull, Lenore Budd, Sally Hughes, Nancy Bell, Vi Luginbuhl, Vic Ratkus, Becky Davis, John Simson, Liz Mansfield, Doro & Ethan Sims, Tom Cavin, Paul Bruhn, Dennis Snyder, Wayne Davis, Pam Meaker, Laura DeMaroney Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to agenda items) No issues were raised. 2. Amendment to Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulations; 1st Reading to Establish a One-way Zone on Farrell Street Mr. Flaherty read the Amendment and explained the procedure. Mr. Hafter said he had met on Friday with leaders from both sides of the issue to see how the traffic problem could be addressed while still minimizing inconvenience. A short-term solution that was proposed would post Farrell St. one-way south between 7-9 am on Monday-Friday. Chief Searles said he could enforce this. A second proposal would post Shelburne Rd. for no left turns onto Hadley and Proctor Rds. from 4-6 p.m., Monday-Friday. The long-term consideration of encouraging the opening of Odell Parkway was also discussed. Mr. Cimonetti said that when streets are public streets, the city spends taxpayers money on them and they are thus the property of the taxpayers. He felt that controlling travel on such streets was a task for city government, but that prohibiting travel on such streets was not. He felt speed of traffic can be controlled with stop signs and local enforcement. He felt the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to inhibit access and that it should be the city's function to make streets easier to use. Mr. Cimonetti also said that forcing more traffic onto Shelburne Rd. would make that road more crowded. Mr. Dinklage said this is one of the most troublesome decisions he's been faced with as any decision will offend a large number of citizens. He felt a much larger group of people would be inconvenienced by the proposed ordinance than would be benefitted and that he was not inclined to curb traffic on Farrell Rd. at this time. Mr. Condos saw the issue as one of safety vs. convenience. He said he believes in protecting residential neighborhoods and at this point he would vote to protect the interests of the people in the residential neighborhood. Mr. Flaherty said this is one of the most difficult decisions the Council has ever faced. They have the power to control and limit traffic. He said he believes in the sanctity of neighborhoods and that it is the Council's role to try to make places where people can live as nicely as possible. He said that unless some other solution to the problem could be found, he would vote in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Condos said he liked the option suggested by the City Manager and thought it was worthy of a 6-month trial period. Vincent Koehler of Meadowbrook Condominium Assn. said that putting more traffic onto Shelburne Rd., Spear St. and Swift St. would make those roads less safe and would also make other intersections more crowded. There would also be only one legal exit for emergency vehicles. He said it is never safe for children to play in the street. He felt that East Woods is both a residential and business neighborhood and that businesses made a decision to be there partly based on existing roads. He said S. Burlington is not a rural area but an urban area and that the proposed ordinance would benefit only a few people for a few hours a day. He felt that Meadowbrook people shouldn't be made to suffer because they would gain nothing. He said that anyone buying a home in East Woods should take traffic into account. Mrs. Boyd said that public vs. private streets is not an issue. The issue is safety. She stressed that their neighborhood is a residential, family neighborhood, and that the streets were intended as local streets and not as major highways. Mr. Mona felt restricting city streets is a bad idea and that alternate routes diffuse pressure points. He felt the ordinance would establish a terrible precedent. Mr. Boyd said there is a symptomatic problem here: total disregard for speed, traffic regulations, and safety. He said there has been a major change in the flow of traffic in 4 years. The Meadowbrook residents, he felt, are fortunate to live in a cul de sac. If their street is ever opened up due to nearby development, they will be asking for the same thing as East Woods is asking for. Mrs. Boyd noted it is not the people of S. Burlington who are causing the problem in East Woods. It is people from Shelburne, Charlotte, and Monkton. Ms. Griggs was against one-way traffic for convenience reasons and hated to go to Shelburne Rd. She felt there will be problem until there is a Southern Connector. Mr. Rowen said that until traffic becomes impossible, there will be no Connector. As long as people can sneak around neighborhoods the Southern Connector will not happen. He said streets were not designed to take the flow of traffic through East Woods now and asked the Council to address the problem from the point of view of safety. Mr. Burns didn't feel the peak hour one-way approach would work. He said he fully understood how residents felt seeing their neighborhood go. He felt that to be fair, Hadley and Proctor should be one way too. Mr. Snyder, representing WJOY, said they are opposed to the proposed ordinance because of employees going to and from work but would rather see the 7-9 one-way than a 24-hour one way. Mr. Reed felt the limited time one-way play addresses traffic during rush hours but thought it might not be as easily enforceable. He noted the Police Chief feels it would work. Mrs. Thompson said she would like to see the corners marked better as there is nothing to indicate where people should stop at the stop signs. She also felt that if the corners were squared it would slow people down. Ms. Delneo supported the parttime proposal as it would keep outsiders out. Ms. Pritchard felt the compromise was a good idea but had a problem with the Shelburne Rd. no left turn idea. She said there is a very dangerous situation for children waiting for school buses. Mrs. Reed felt the residential integrity of a neighborhood was important. She liked the compromise. Ms. Jacobs of Twin Oaks said they were not as opposed to the parttime one-way as to the full time. Roger Dickinson, a traffic engineer representing several businesses in the area said he didn't feel the problem had been property studied. He felt it should be determined where traffic is going and what the volume of traffic is. He felt part of the problem was the removal of the traffic light at Proctor and Shelburne Rd. by the City of Burlington which, he said, set a bad precendent. He felt the one-way approach would be hard to enforce because the piece of road was so short and that more data was needed to find the best approach to the solving the problem. Chief Searles said that he would not be overjoyed with an additional enforcement responsibility; however, he wanted to find a solution to the problem. If the Council decided this would solve the problem, the Police Dept. would do everything it could to enforce the law. Mr. Cimonetti questioned whether S. Burlington could post Shelburne Rd. as it is in the City of Burlington. Mr. Fisher said he would give East Woods the 7-9 am one-way if they would promise not to bring up the question again. Mr. Kemp said a lot of roads have more traffic than they were built for. The whole area is full of traffic. He felt the whole place is growing too big. Mr. Boyd said that with regard to setting a precedent, if S. Burlington is a community of people concerned with each other, it would be a good precedent to set. He felt that other neighborhood would be coming to the Council with similar problems very soon. He also urged the city to acquire a right-of-way on Odell Parkway as it would help both residents and businesses. Mr. Condos moved to table the issue to further discuss options of posting Farrell St. one-way south from 7-9 am, Monday-Friday. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Condos said that 350 to 360 cars between 7:30 and 8:30 am means one car every 12 seconds on a narrow street with homes built close to the street. He said he worried about what could happen in this neighborhood. Mr. Cimonetti moved to approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Condos seconded. As the vote was 2-2, the motion was defeated for lack of a majority. Mr. Condos then moved to amend the proposed ordinance to read: posting Farrell Street from Hadley Rd. to Joy Dr., Monday to Friday, from 7 to 9 am. Mr. Dinklage seconded. The vote was 2-2 and the motion was defeated for lack of a majority. Mr. Dinklage said that street markings will be checked on and that the City Council will continue to seek a right of way on Odell Parkway. 3. Presentation from the Recreation Path Committee Ms. Cavin said they now have more accurate cost estimates which approximate $628,000 for Phase I, which is almost 7 miles of the recreation path. This would include signals, signage, etc, and a tunnel under Kennedy Drive and a bridge across the wetland. She then outlined the proposed route on the map and noted they have had excellent success getting easements. Eight owners have sent letters of intent. The Committee asked the city to seek $500,000 in the coming bond issue and said the Committee would continue to work toward getting the rest. Mr. Scott said the total project cost is estimated at $1,030,000. He was impressed with the generosity of landowners and volunteers who have already given over 3500 hours of time. $22,500 has been raised in cash donations along with many "in kind" donations. He said that he felt the Committee could get the votes to pass a $500,000 bond issue. Mr. Flaherty noted the Council has approved a $200,000 bond issue. Mr. Weber of Pinkham Engineering, said he had walked the full proposed path. He noted the Wheelock Farm has some magnificent trees and wetlands and that there are also some wonderful 6-foot in diameter maple trees on the ridge in the new park in an area that would be excellent for picnicking. Mr. Dinklage suggested putting together a brochure with pictures. Mr. Cimonetti said he wanted to know the alternatives to the very expensive tunnel and bridge. Mr. Dinklage encouraged the Committee to let their imaginations fly and to put together all kinds of alternatives but to be careful how engineering funds are spent. Mr. O'Neill advised they are in the process of doing an Act 250 study which includes the Kennedy Dr./Dorset St. intersection. This will provide some valuable information. Mr. Dinklage said they shouldn't rule out a short term solution and then work toward a tunnel or other long-term solution. Ms. Benoit said the Committee sees this area as a very busy part of the recreation path especially for children going from the schools to the park. Mr. Condos said he was very impressed with the Committee's progress. He asked about the possibility of a flashing yellow light at Victoria Drive/Williston Rd. to aid in crossing. Mr. Weber said a traffic engineer will analyze that to determine the best type of signal. Mr. Bruhn noted how tough it is to raise $100,000. He felt the path will be part of the city's infrastructure and noted the city didn't ask for donations to build City Hall. He hoped the Council would consider bonding for the whole $600,000+. He added there would still be a substantial community contribution in terms of volunteer time and easement donations. Frank Murray agreed with Mr. Bruhn and said he didn't want to see the recreation path binge on the raising of $100,000. He also favored spending the extra money on the tunnel and/or bridge to prevent serious accidents. Mr. Flaherty said he generally agreed with Mr. Murray but said he had found that the higher the bond issue, the harder it is to get it passed. Ms. Coffrin said they are hearing support from all sources and have a network in place to mobilize support for a bond issue. She said they have also planned a walk along the route on Earth Day. Mr. Cavin also noted widespread support and said he had been told time and time again that it should be a city project. Regarding the tunnel, he said that with traffic coming fight off the interstate, safety was a very important consideration. Mr. O'Neill expressed concern that there is still a lot of land to be secured for the park and he wanted to be sure that when land becomes available, the city has money to buy it. Mr. Dinklage agreed. He also noted there is a huge Dorset St. project to complete. He said these projects are laid out in a capital budget. The recreation path rants third in relation to those two projects and that the committee needed to be mindful of the tax rate for all of these projects. He felt phasing of the recreation path was important. Mr. Flaherty calculated that a $600,000 bond issue would cost citizens $20.00 a year on a $100,000 valued home. He felt the citizens should have the right to make that decision. Mr. Cimonetti urged the Committee to keep an open mind on design issues. He commended the citizen involvement and asked that they not let go of money raising as part of that involvement. He said he would like a budget with a 50% contributed value and a 50% supported value. He urged the committee to attend the budget hearing on 5 April. Becky Davis expressed concern with phasing noting that the city has a somewhat transient population and people want to see something happen now. She saw the total project as something to bring the community together. Ms. Hughes said it is harder to get support if people don't know if part of the path to be built in the first phase will go near their homes. Mr. Simson emphasized that the path will be a piece of the city's infrastructure and will also be a source of transportation. He urged the Council to go for the whole thing. Mr. Condos said he leaned toward putting it to the voters and letting them make the decision. Mr. Dinklage moved to put the issue on the 2 April City Council agenda. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Further Consideration of Amendment to Zoning Regulations Section 18.112, Height of Structures, et al Mr. Weith said a new concept has been added: in situations on lots that slope and need to be filled for construction on projects undergoing site plan approval by the Planning Commission, the Commission wanted the right to grant a fill permit instead of having the applicant go to the Zoning Board. Mr. Cimonetti questioned the clarity of the language. Mr. Stitzel said he would work to clear that up. Mr. Hafter thought it might not be good to have two boards with the same power. Mr. Weith said if the Commission doesn't have this power, it will be sending a lot of people to the Zoning Board. Mr. Dinklage questioned the use of the word "grade" which means different things to different people. 5. Review Zoning agenda for 3/26 and Planning Agenda for 3/20 Mr. Dinklage expressed concern with item #4 on the Zoning Agenda and the Council agreed to urge the Zoning Board to deal with extreme caution in dealing with fast food restaurants. 6. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. 7. Review Minutes of Compensation Hearing of 1 March 1990 and City Council meeting of 5 March and 12 March 1990 Mr. Condos moved to approve the Minutes of 1 March, 5 March and 12 March as written. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Liquor Control Board Mr. Condos moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented a second class beverage license request for Price Chopper #117, 825-861 Williston Road. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Board sign the beverage license as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session Mr. Dinklage moved that the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to discuss contract negotiations and Dorset Street and other litigation and to resume regular session only to adjourn. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Adjournment The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Dinklage moved adjournment, Mr. Condos seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.