Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/14/1994CITY COUNCI 14 November 1994 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 14 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; William Burgess, Mac Teeson, David Austin, Terry Sheahan, Mark Crow, Gayle Barone, Mary-Barbara Maher, Planning Commission; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Dept; Rolf Kielman, David Boehm, Alex Linton, Phillip Linton, Dwight Palmer, Tony Cairns, Sandra & Alex Blair, John Jewett, Betty & Jeff Goldberg, Vince Bolduc, Dean Zoecklein, Littleton Long, John Finnigan, Ralph Goodrich, Wayne Davis 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to agenda items): Mr. Bolduc noted that a plastic fence at the new park is flapping in the wind and looks like litter. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: a. Mr. Flaherty announced that on Thursday the city will receive the checks from the Air Show which will benefit CASA and the Family Center. CASA will receive about $2,000 and the Family Center will receive $1,000. b. Mr. Cimonetti announced a meeting on Thursday, 1 p.m., of the Vermont Rail Council. Discussion will include the proposed commuter rail in the Shelburne corridor. c. Mr. Hafter announced the following meetings: 11/16 - MPO 11/21 - the next City Council meeting d. Mr. Hafter noted that three service clubs are interested in putting up a sign to let the public know they exist. e. Property tax payments are due tomorrow. f. Mr. Condos advised that the Solid Waste District will meet on Wednesday at 7 p.m. 3. Discussion with Planning Commission members of a request from Gerald Milot for City participation with party status in appeal of District Commission Denial of Act 250 Permit to Southeast Summit Residential Development on Dorset St: Mr. Crampton gave members a letter from Mr. Milot detailing his request. He said that Mr. Milot feels it is important for the city to consider its position as the Environmental Board found the application not to be in compliance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Plan. They are not asking the city to testify but to be aware of the impacts on the city. Mr. Crampton noted there are a few neighbors who have opposed the plan and have testified. The Town of Shelburne has also appeared and said the development would not be in compliance with the Regional Plan. The City may want to defend its Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Crampton said they are asking the City to file a pre-trial testimony that the proposed development is in compliance with both the City and Regional Plans. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the City plan has been submitted to Regional Planning for approval. Mr. Weith said the submission of the plan has been approved, but it has not yet been submitted. Mr. Burgess said the Planning Commission tries to apply regulations to each application. The Commission decided it was not their job to make policy decisions for the City and deferred to the Council on Mr. Milot's request. The Commission hasn't undertaken a formal review but is comfortable that their original action was in conformance with the city's Comprehensive Plan. There was a considerable effort to make sure the new zoning was also in comformance with the Plan. Mr. Cramption noted the City Planner did testify at the District Commission that the development plan was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there is any way the city can be required to present a position. Mr. Crampton said the city can name a person who is available to be subpoenaed. Mr. Flaherty said he didn't see why the Council has to get involved if the Planning Commission has said the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Crampton said the testimony has to be from the source. Mr. Jewett, a resident of the area and a party to the hearing, said he disagreed with Mr. Crampton. He said he has been told by the staff of the Environmental Board that he can submit any document that is genuine as an adjunct to his testimony. He said there is no question of the City's Comprehensive Plan not being in conformance with the Regional Plan. The Regional Board said they did conform and that the proposed development was not in conformance with both. He said he felt it would be "advocacy" for the City Council to take a position on this matter. Mr. Bolduc said that the words Mr. Crampton used when appealing to the Planning Commission were "political clout." He felt this is clearly an attempt to put the weight of the City Council behind a private development project. Mr. Flaherty noted that on another occasion the Council had been asked to take a position on the side of residents and refused. Mr. Bolduc felt the city should be consistant in this. Mr. Condos agreed. He felt it would be a bad precedent to all of a sudden take a position for a particular member of the community. Mr. Cimonetti also noted the Milot request asks the Council to meet with Shelburne regarding this issue and to try to convince them that the proposed development is not out of conformance with the Shelburne plan. Mr. Flaherty said he would hesitate to do that not having attended meetings on the plan. Mr. Cimonetti felt it was appropriate to meet with Shelburne to discuss both municipalities' plans but felt that to relate such a discussion to this appeal was a leap he wouldn't want to take. Mr. Maclaughlin agreed. Mr. Cimonetti summarized the Council's position not to take an advocacy position for the proposed project. The Council decided it would be advantageous for the City to act on its own behalf and testify in front of the Environmental Board that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Council instructed the City Planner and/or Planning Commission to submit pre-filed testimony and represent the Planning Commission at the upcoming Environmental Board Hearing scheduled for January 1995. 4. Presentation from Citizen's Group on Proposed Skating Facility: Mr. Linton said they have met twice with the Steering Committee and also with the City Manager. They saw their mission as finding a way to build the facility without taxing taxpayers and to insure that the city would never be responsible for funding in the future. The facility also had to fit where it has been laid out in the Master Plan and it must be open to the public. Mr. Linton said they have accomplished these goals. There are agreements for private funding from a local bank and also from private contributions. They are now asking the City Council to authorize the City Manager to work on to things: a formal agreement between the city and the skating facility group to put the plan together with the bank, and to being permitting work. Mr. Linton said that for financing reasons the facility must be able to be opened next fall. The general concept of the plan was then outlined. A non-profit organization will build the structure and give it to the city. The facility will then be leased back to the group for 20 years. There would then be an option for the city to have it or the non-profit group to continue to have it. Mr. Chittenden asked what happens if the project fails. Mr. Linton said the group will convey the facility to the city lien free. If the group fails, the bank takes over. Mr. Maclaughlin said he had originally been concerned with the use of taxpayer money. He felt the group has now demonstrated that this can be done without tax money. He congratulated the group and said he was encouraged by what had been shown tonight. Mr. Maclaughlin then moved to direct the appropriate city officials to draw up the necessary documents to facility a lease agreement and the permitting process. Mr. Condos seconded. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the city can preserve municipal participation. Mr. Linton said if there was a default, the bank would be obligated to the lease as written. The bank already knows about the public participation aspect. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there is any further involvement by the city apart from the site and infrastructure such as additional site work. Mr. Linton said there are some things the City Manager wants to keep control of and these will be specified in the lease which the City Council will have to approve. Mr. Condos said he is very enthused and felt the public/private participation was excellent. He noted that quality of life issues were very much in the public mind as witnessed by the large margin of victory for the school bond vote. He noted the plan also affords the city some economic development potential such as retail sales, hotels, restaurants, etc., during tournaments, etc. He was also pleased to see that a local bank was involved. Mr. Chittenden asked why the facility will be on public land. Mr. Linton said because it conforms with the city park master plan which shows an ice facility in the proposed location. He felt no one could object to their group providing it to the city for free. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 5. Discussion on Future Course of Action on Public Golf Course: Mr. Cimonetti reviewed the history of the proposed golf course noting that there were to be discussions to see if a public/private collaboration could be possible. Mr. Zoecklein, representing the owner of the property, said that what they are really talking about is open space. Even if the golf course doesn't happen, there are still issues of open space and the proposed school on the property. He asked for some good, solid feedback. Mr. Flaherty moved to authorize the City Manager and Chair of the City Council to continue discussions on the possibility of a public golf course. Mr. Condos seconded. Mr. Maclaughlin said he doesn't oppose further discussion only public financing of a private venture. He would like a hard figure to debate and put on the ballot for voters to decide if there is no alternative way to finance the project other than public funds. He suggested involving members of the original committee. Mr. Condos felt the golf course becomes a quality of life issue and also the potential for economic development and perpetual green space. He supported continued efforts. The motion was then passed unanimously. 6. Discussion of Planning and Infrastructure requests from Ralph Goodrich Reference Green Acres Subdivision: Mr. Goodrich said he is asking that lot 10 of Green Acres be allowed to cross the 200 ft. buffer until Swift St. Extension is built. The Rowleylot and 1100 Hinesburg Rd. could also use this access. Mr. Cimonetti said lot 10 doesn't have much Hinesburg Rd. frontage and noted that is a road that does come in between the Rowley land and 1100 Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Goodrich said he wasn't saying that road couldn't be used. He wouldn't know until he had a developer for the land. Mr. Weith noted there is a 200 ft. buffer which prohibits buildings and accesses. This is a new lot that would have to comply. Zoning doesn't allow an access road. The existing road can access the barns, etc, but when those come down, there can't be an access to Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Cimonetti asked what body can grant such a temporary access. Mr. Weith said it would require a change to the Zoning Regulations or there can be a variance. Mr. Cimonetti noted there can be stipulations to such a variance. Mr. Condos said there is a question as to whether they can meet the 5 criteria. Mr. Hafter added that you can't create a lot and then say you have a hardship. Mr. Weith said there is a process by which the Council could propose amendments to the Zoning Regulations in which case the Planning Commission would hold public hearings and then send it on to the Council for action. Mr. Cimonetti noted there is a second part of the applicant's requests: that there be revenue bonding to building the infrastructure. Mr. Flaherty noted there is no money to repay the bonds unless there is a buyer for the lots. Mr. Maclaughlin suggested sending the issue to the Economic Development Committee. Mr. Cimonetti said they would ask the same questions about revenue bonds and the Council can get those answers. Mr. Flaherty said he would need to see a specific proposal on the access road and would want to hear from the neighbors in the residential area. Mr. Cimonetti said he didn't want to drop a bomb on the Planning Commission regarding this zone. He suggested the Council not pursue an order directing the Planning Commission to change the ordinance. He would rather the Commission initiate any action after a study of all the implications. Other members agreed. 7. Approval of Vermont Community Development Program Grant Agreement for Kirby Road Project: Mr. Cimonetti noted the buildings are now up. Mr. Hafter said the grant agreement resolution is to be signed. There are many requirements that city has to conform to. Most of them are standard, but one requires a drug-free policy which the City has not adopted. He presented a draft of such a policy which he read into the record. Mr. Condos moved them Council approve the Drug Free Work Place Policy dated 11/14/94. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter then read the Grant Agreement Resolution. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Vermont Community Development Grant Agreement Resolution as read. Mr. Condos seconded. Mr. Condos noted the project looks great. It was noted that some of the units have been purchased by children of local residents who now have a way to remain in their community. Ms. Wright noted there will be an open house in late winter/early spring. Mr. Chittenden said he had concerns about the agreement and couldn't support it. Mr. Maclaughlin said his concern is that the document is being signed after the development is built. He said he would vote for it as long as he was assured the city couldn't be held liable. Mr. Hafter said he had no reservations at all. The city simply passes the money through. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there is any change from what the city expected. Ms. Wright said the only change is that 2 single family lots are being sold separately by the developer. The amount of the grant is smaller than the original presentation, but it is the amount that was asked for. In the vote that followed, the motion, passed 4-1 with Mr. Chittenden opposing. 8. Review Planning Commission Agenda for 11/15/94: Mr. Maclaughlin asked about the public/private road situation in item 6. Mr. Hafter said the developer wants a private road, mainly so he can keep it up to their standards and also a sign can be put on Shelburne Rd. The Planning Commission is willing to try to work with the developer. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: There were no disbursement orders presented. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.