Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/05/1992CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON OCTOBER 5, 1992 7:30 PM LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM 575 DORSET STREET The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, October 5, 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; Joe Weith, Planning Administrator; Steven Stitzel, City Attorney; Donald Whitten, WPC Superintendent; Albert Audette, Highway Superintendent; Michael Sheridan, CCTV-17; Les Pratt, Attorney; Bill Emberly, Dubois & King; Mike Munson, Robert Murphy, Dubois & King, Inc.; Sid Poger, The Other Paper 1. Comments and Questions from the Public: City Manager Chuck Hafter announced that the City had been awarded a $15,000 grant from the State Planning Agency. This is from the Act 200 funds that are now up for competitive process and the City applied for this grant to hire a consultant to develop a capital budget and impact fee ordinance for traffic, sewers and recreation. There were no additional comments, questions or additions submitted from the public. 2. Joint Hearing of South Burlington City Council and VAOT on Necessity of Acquisition of Certain Lands Consisting of a 300' Section of the 5.5' wide Bicycle Path which Commences at the Northerly Edge of the Intersection of Dorset Street and South San Remo Drive and extends 300' Northerly therefrom Parallel to Properties Commonly Known and Designated as 364, 366 and 369 Dorset Street, as part of the Dorset Street Widening Project M-EGC 5200(8). Mr. Flaherty read a letter prepared by City Attorney Steven Stitzel. These opening comments were to provide an explanation of this public hearing. Mr. Flaherty turned the meeting over to Mr. Robert Murphy, of the VAOT, who described the proposed taking and the reasons for taking the land. Mr. Murphy explained that the display presented was constructed from the construction plans for the Dorset Street Project. It was colored coded to make it easier to understand. The purpose of the project that is being discussed is to construct that remaining section of the bicycle path on the east side of Dorset Street. The project begins at San Remo Drive and runs across the front of the Munson property to the northerly edge of it which is about 300' in length. The proposal is a 5' concrete sidewalk for pedestrians, next to the sidewalk will be a 5.5' bike path which will be paved with bituminous concrete, a green strip which is 5.5' wide with trees and other types of landscaping, a curb and then a 2' wide road shoulder next to the 11' travel lane. The lower diagram was an alternative plan. It shows a bike lane next to the traveled portions of the road way in lieu of a separate bike path that is protected behind the green strip. This was the original proposal and was considered a dangerous proposal due to the student travel and the traffic on Dorset Street. The cost of the proposed bike path is around $1,500 at present contract prices. The cost of the plan whereby a bicycle lane ran along the travelling lane was estimated to be about $35,000 which covered the cost of the complete path along Dorset. The bike lane was more expensive than the bike path because there can be a shallower depth of subbase for the path than it would take to build a bike lane. Mr. Flaherty asked Council and people in the audience to present their questions if they should have any. Mr. Stitzel asked Joe Weith, City Planner, to offer a couple of comments about the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Dorset Street design first appeared in the City Center Plan which was prepared by the Citizen's Committee and reviewed by the City Council and Planning Commission in 1986. It was endorsed by the City Council back in 1987. In 1988 the City's Comprehensive Plan was amended to include a discussion on the proposed City Center Plan and also the Dorset Street reconstruction. Originally there was a 5' wide bicycle lane on both sides of the street and the current Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in July 1991 again reference the City Plan prepared in '86. This is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Flaherty stated that it was the City's plan to have a bicycle path on Dorset Street since 1988. Mr. Condos asked Mr. Murphy whether he preferred the bicycle path separated by the green or would he favor the bicycle lane. Mr. Murphy much prefers the bicycle path separated from the roadway because it is so much safer. Mr. Leslie Pratt asked if there were crosswalks planned to go across Dorset Street. Mr. Murphy answered with a, "yes." What provisions will be made to prevent pedestrians who use the crosswalks from getting hit by a biker? Mr. Murphy pointed out that at each crosswalk there will be signs of warnings. Bicyclists will be expected to yield to pedestrians. Mr. Flaherty stated that the hearing will be closed and the public is welcome to review any documents or proposals presented to the Council tonight. Any comments or concerns are requested to be sent to the City Manager on or before the close of business on Thursday October 15, 1992. The Council will consider these matters at its regular meeting on October 19, 1992. Councilman John Dinklage made a motion to close the hearing and Jim Condos seconded this motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 3. Continued Discussion on Facilities Planning Study for Expansion/Upgrade to Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant; Bill Emberley, Dubois-King. Mr. Hafter asked to review where the City is at this time. A few months ago City Staff presented the first draft of the facilities planning study on the Bartlett Bay Plant and since then some work has gone on and Mr. Hafter would like to bring City Council up to date. The Facilities Planning Report has been finalized and been sent to the State for review and comment. The second comment is the capacity of Bartlett Bay Plant. This plant has a permit for 800,000 gallons per day. The flow at this plant has decreased this year because this past year has been a dry year and the average use of the plant has dropped to 658,000 gal. per day. We have reserved 111,904 gallons for future development. Now because of the decrease in usage we now have 30,000 gals available capacity. This has bought the City some time, however, the City can not count on the weather. Mr. Hafter stressed that we have to continue to plan for growth. Mr. Hafter suggested that the City work to regain some of the capacity through getting some of the allocation back. A time limit should be set on the use of the capacity. It was not long ago that some builders were eager to build but we had no capacity because capacity was being held by those allocated and had not used it over a long period of time and holding it free of charge. Mr. Chittenden asked Mr. Hafter how he proposed to deal with this allocation issue. Mr. Hafter indicated that there has to be more Staff discussion and planning on this issue. One way of handling allocation is that the allocation is issued with your building permit. You have a building permit for 6 months. At the end of six (6) months, if the allocation is not used is the allocation goes back to the city and the developer has to reapply. Some cities require that if you want to hold the capacity beyond a designated time you have to pay for it. Mr. Hafter suggested that after a policy is established he would like to get back to all allocations out there as far back as 1979 or as near as six (6) months ago. Mr. Chittenden is concerned and would like to avoid putting too much pressure on our business and building community, especially, because this is such a tight time for everyone. Mr. Condos is concerned that the City needs tax base and it is important that lack of sewer capacity is not caused by old allocations. We do not want to hold up development in our community. Mr. Hafter pointed out that a year ago developers wanted to come before the Planning Commission and were not able to because there was no sewer capacity open to them. South Burlington was sitting with a waiting list. Developers asked if they could sell their capacity to other developers and that is not considered appropriate. Mr. Cimonetti asked what the process is for extension or renewal of a building permit at the end of six months. Mr. Weith pointed out that if it is a site plan their approval expires within 6 months but they have an opportunity to extend that for another 6 months. Planning Commission will always grant this request. Beyond one year the sewer allocation and building permit expires. This has not been a problem. Mr. Weith pointed out that the problem has been occurring with the subdivisions. The Planning Commission grants sewer allocations. The way the regs are written now, a subdivision does not have to start construction for three years. The allocation sits for three years, the developer then goes in and builds half of the development and half of the allocation sits waiting for the market to become more desirable. In every case a building permit is good for 6 months. There is only a one time extension. Mr. Cimonetti asked whether we are clear from a legal point of view in imposing our building permit policy. Mr. Cimonetti indicated that sewer allocations are most often granted when the site plan is granted. This often precedes the building permit by months or years. Mr. Hafter stated that this is correct and Staff would have to look at this problem. Mr. Cimonetti sees this as a real problem but feels that much has to be done to solve the problem. Mr. Cimonetti suggested that we work on solving the problem when dealing with new allocations, and for those allocations that are outstanding we should place a time limit on them. Mr. Condos suggested that we check with other communities and inquire as to how they handle their sewer allocations. Mr. Cimonetti stressed that the last thing we would like to do is to have people pay the City to not use the system. With the upgrading of the Bartlett Bay Plant it would allow the City 400,000 gallons capacity increase. This would come on line 2 to 3 years after the start of design. This will should carry the City for about 20 years. Mr. Hafter asked Bill Emberley to review the cost of the expansion. The total cost of the options are based on receiving no state or federal aid. Option 1: City can do nothing. Option 2: City can bond for the whole plant. Option 3: City could bond for only the design work. (The advantage of having the design work on hand is to be ready if any grant monies should become available.) Bill Emberley summarized his conversation with Larry Fitch during the week of September 21. Nothing has changed since the last presentation. The State will not provide funds to the City at this time because the priority ranking is so low. Because the city is doing an excellent job there is no reward for it. The bottom line is that Larry Fitch indicated to Bill that it will be at least year 2000 before South Burlington could expect to get funded under Title 24 Chapter 120 which again is the 0% interest loan. There are no grant programs. Mr. Condos asked how good the design plans may be if they are drawn up and set aside for a later date. With technology changing as rapidly as it does, will this outdate the design? Mr. Emberley explained that the plans that would be developed on the technologies that are proposed for the City and the prices that are proposed will carry the City for as long as necessary. Mr. Cimonetti shared that there is no new technology being tested today that will come into play. There is nothing more cost effective than what is being proposed. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Hafter about the south part of the City. We are paying premium fees to Burlington for their sewage. Has this been placed in consideration when drawing up plans and cost estimates? Mr. Emberley stated that it would be 4 to 5 months for a finished design project. Mr. Cimonetti questioned the cost of $300,000 and Mr. Emberley pointed out that this project would normally be a 10 to 12 month project. Therefore, this would be labor intensified. The balloted bond time is 45 days and the advertising for the bond needs 30 days. Mr. Hafter extended his compliments to Don Whitten and his Staff for the excellent job being done at all of our WPC plants. Mr. Whitten thanked Dubois and King for the good job they have done for the City of South Burlington. 4. Request to Appoint Peg Picard as Voting Delegate to VLCT Town Fair Business Meeting. John Dinklage made the motion to appoint Peg Picard as Voting Delegate to VLCT. Jim Condos seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. 5. Scheduling of Public Meeting to Discuss Williston Road Improvement Project; October 29, 1992 at 7:00 PM. John Dinklage made the motion to schedule the public meeting to discuss Williston Road Improvement for October 29, 1992 at 7:00 PM. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter mentioned that the Williston Road Project has been improved from the City's standpoint. The Federal Government has extended the economic growth centers so that the funding will be at 2% local share. This will offer a major savings. Mr. Cimonetti pointed out that the utilities will be participating. 6. First Reading of Proposed Amendment to Zoning Regulations - Design Control District; Scheduling of Public Hearing. Joe Weith, City Planner, pointed out that the Design Control District is a set of regulations which are included in the zoning regulations which would require the Planning Commission to approve the design of the buildings for new buildings and also any changes to existing buildings. The Design Control District is proposed to cover the Central District CD1, CD2 and CD3 and also the industrial open-space district. This idea was first brought up in 1986 and known as the City Center Plan. The goal of this district is to create a focal point for the city. One of the key elements in a successful downtown is the aesthetics. A few months ago while working on the Industrial Open-Space amendments the idea of design review came up again. This was raised by the adjoining residences. The Planning Commission saw this as a trade off with the increase of industrial densities. They felt some more control in design would be appropriate to make certain that industrial development would be compatible with the adjoining residential uses. Joe expressed that this is a quick overview of the history. Mr. Dinklage is very much in philosophical support of this Design Control District concept. He feels that it is very important that we have an appeal process spelled out very clearly. Joe stated that this has not been discussed with Planning Commission. Mr. Dinklage suggests that the City Council be the route of appeal and there may be others involved. Mr. Flaherty agrees with this need. Bill Cimonetti suggested another step for consideration. There may be need for a separate design review board with the repeal to the Planning Commission and the ultimate appeal to the City Council (elected board). The technical design review is not necessarily the strongest requirement of a Planning Commission, and it might be necessary to find technical experts in the field of aesthetic analysis. Mr. Weith pointed out that the State statue allows the legislative body to create a design review board but their function is solely advisory. They can approve or disapprove. The Planning Commission has to approve or disapprove. The Planning Commission is concerned that we not get too complicated with boards, architects etc. which may take a great deal of time and little would be accomplished. Mr. Cimonetti could see this point of concern but encouraged that the design review board not be superficial. Mr. Dinklage agrees with all but wanted to stress that the City Council be in the chain of review process. These decisions can become political and we want to make certain that citizens have a means of appealing the Council decisions if they see it necessary. Joe Weith pointed out that there are three (3) central districts. Mr. Chittenden is concerned with the Design Control District. He feels that there is too much control and "red tape" for any business to have to go through to get anything started. He would like to have less government involvement rather that more government involvement. Mr. Cimonetti expressed the need for a joint meeting between Council and the Planning Commission to deal with an issue such as this one. This meeting should precede the public hearing. Mr. Cimonetti suggests that a meeting be scheduled. Mr. Flaherty will meet with Bill Burgess to schedule a joint meeting. 7. Information of Official City Map and the Use of "Notes." Mr. Hafter stated that for the purposes of getting the City Official Map passed, at this time there will be no location on it for the Kimball Ave./Hinesburg Rd. connector, boat access, or the commuter rail station. The warning is scheduled for October 19, 1992. Joe Weith stated that Mr. Stitzel, City Attorney, feels that a note can be added but the intent of an official map is to actually show the location. Mr. Stitzel felt that if there was just a note and the City were challenged a note would not hold up in court. Mr. Cimonetti sees a note as implying advance notice. He sees it necessary to indicate the planning that has taken place such as the Kimball Ave/Hinesburg Rd. connector. 8. Approve City Council minutes for September 21, 1992 Mr. Condos made the motion to approve the City Council minutes for September 21, 1992. Mr. Dinklage seconded this motion. The minutes were approved. 9. Review Zoning Notice for Monday, October 19, 1992. Mr. Dinklage is very concerned about increasing the multiply uses of a congested lot of item #1. This was a concern of all Council members. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Hafter to pass on the Council concerns to the Zoning Board. 10. 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. Hafter discussed the Bambino's proposal. Mr. Harley Brown has not met with Mr. Hafter and Police Chief Brian Searles as originally planned. A meeting was set up but Mr. Brown did not attend. Mr. Cimonetti made a motion that a hearing on revocation of Bambino's Liquor License be set. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion. The motion was passed. Mr. Chittenden made a motion that the Liquor Control Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 12. Mr. Condos made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Dinklage seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM. Respectfully submitted: Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.