Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/06/1996CITY COUNCIL 6 May 1996 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 6 May 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; Michael Flaherty, James Condos Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Sonny Audette, Street Dept; Joe Weith, City Planner; William Burgess, David Austin, Terry Sheahan, Planning Commission; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Steven Stitzel, Joseph McLean City Attorneys; Lee Graham, Police Chief; Cpt. Michael Stowell, Police Dept; Denny Johnson, Cindy Guy, Chris Tan, David Duell, Matt Sutkoski, David Shiman, Dhyan Nirmegh, Kristin Kelly, Dana Houlihan, Andrea Tulin, Eva Brunelle, Christian Manley, Paul Engels, Marcel Lapiere, R. Jeffrey, Karen Shingler, Susan Deacon, Mildred Estey, Roy & Jennie Buttles, Steve & Carol Nedde, Laurie LeClair, Lee Wrigley 1. Other Business: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements and City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter announced the following: a. There will be a meeting of the Light Rail Steering Committee on 8 May, 1-3 p.m. b. The Commuter Rail meeting will be on 4 June at 10 a.m. That same evening from 7-9 p.m., there will be a public hearing on the environmental report of the Commuter Rail proposal. c. Mr. Hafter and Mr. Cimonetti will appear on public access TV on Friday at 5:45 to discuss the ballot item on the business personal property tax. d. Pizzagalli has come in with a proposal for a building on what is planned for one of the accesses to an interchange at Hinesburg Rd. The city is going to contract for a study to see if another access is possible. e. The UVM Hort Farm is having a festival on the weekends of 15-18 May and 25-26 May. The festival will feature nature walks, etc. f. The City will begin its comprehensive reappraisal of all properties in July. There will be a notice about this in the June tax notice. Public meetings will be held to keep the public informed about the reappraisal process. Mr. Cimonetti noted that tax bills mailed 2 years from now will be based on this reappraisal. There will be ample opportunity for public input. Every property in the city will be re-examined to establish a fair market value, though appraisers will not necessarily come into every building. There will be drive-by appraisals, a study of building permits, etc. Mr. Cimonetti advised that the Agency of Transportation asked if there could be a brief discussion about the Light Rail proposal by the City Council before the next meeting. There had been a proposal for a trolley service to connect Burlington, South Burlington and Winooski. A lot of money was spent on this study. The conclusion submitted for discussion is to take advantage of an enhance the existing bus system. This would include more frequent service, additional routes, increased accessibility, etc. Mr. Cimonetti and other members supported this conclusion. Mr. Condos noted that he has supported better bus service for a long time. He felt there are ways to improve service to the public. 3. Approval of Proclamation, "Employ the Older Worker Month": Mr. Cimonetti read the Proclamation. Mr. Condos moved that the Council sign the "Employ the Older Worker Month" Proclamation. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Discussion with Proctor Avenue residents about proposed roadway improvements: Mr. Cimonetti noted that Proctor Ave. is on the schedule to be rebuilt this year. The road bed and subsurface are in poor condition. Curbing is non-existant, and the sidewalk is in need of repair. The road carries an unusual amount of traffic for a neighborhood street. Subsurface drainage is also in bad condition. Mr. Cimonetti noted that eventually changes to the sanitary sewer system will be made in the area. At present, the city pays Burlington to handle sewage from that area. With the increased capacity at the Bartlett Bay facility, the city will connect the East Woods neighborhood to the city system. The issue on Proctor Ave. is the width of the street and what the pedestrian amenities should be. The city standard is that there be a curb to curb width of 30 ft. with curbs and a sidewalk on at least one side. The proposed width seems to be the major issue. Mr. Duell said the residents feel that 27 ft. in width would be acceptable. They would like a 2 ft green strip and a 4 ft. sidewalk. He asked if the street would have to be torn up again when the new sewer connection is done. Mr. Cimonetti said it wouldn't be completely torn up. The problem is that work can't be done now. Mr. Shiman asked about the "neckdowns" proposed for Meadow Rd. and Hadley Rd. He asked if they are also planned for Orchard and Proctor. Mr. Cimonetti noted the "neckdowns" were ordered as a stipulation to a Planning Commission approval. Mr. Shiman felt that if they are put only on a few streets, people will drive on the other streets as a way to avoid them. He also asked if there are plans for curbs and sidewalks on Orchard. Mr. Audette said Orchard will just be resurfaced. Mr. Weith said the neckdowns will be on all four roads. The developer will be back to the Commission soon with a final location for the neckdowns. Mr. Shiman gave the Council a petition asking for the neckdowns on all 4 streets. He also felt that 27 ft. width with parking on one side would be best for the neighborhood as it would make the road less of a speedway. He noted there were also concerns about moving the sidewalk to the other side. Mr. Audette said they can't put the sidewalk on the north side because of the telephone poles. It must go on the south side for safety reasons. Mr. Audette also felt that 27 ft. is substandard for a road and felt that 30 ft. works well on Hadley Rd. with cars parked on both sides. He felt the city should build a road the same way a private contractor has to. He also noted that you can't store snow in a 2-foot green space. 4 feet are needed. Mr. Audette commented that curbs will narrow the road. He said with the current plans, all work would be in the right-of-way and not many trees would have to be removed. If trees are cut down, they will be replaced on the homeowner's property. Ms. Tulin said she understood the wish to adhere to standards, but she also wanted to see the area keep its sense of neighborhood. She felt that 27 ft. instead of 30 ft. would make a difference in terms of safety, especially with so many children in the neighborhood. Mr. Tan said he favors 27 ft. With 30 ft., a lot of yards would be cut very short. In addition, 30 ft. would encourage more speeding on the road. Mr. Engels asked where the neckdowns will go. Mr. Cimonetti explained that the developer will present a plan on this shortly. Mr. Engels said he also supports the 27 ft. road width. Another resident asked how long the construction would last. Mr. Audette estimated 2-3 months, depending on the weather. Mr. Duell asked if it would be better to bid the job out. Mr. Cimonetti said that would be discussed between the City Manager and the Public Works Director to find the best way for the best deal. Mr. Hafter added that the Public Works Dept. saves the city a lot of money by doing a lot of work in-house. Mr. Houlihan questioned the amount of traffic in the East Woods neighborhood. Mr. Cimonetti said the city fully understands that this is a residential neighborhood. But, he noted, it is a neighborhood that lies between destinations (Rice High School, commercial establishments, and a state facility). There are no plans to find a different access to those places. He added that the city is trying not to make East Woods an attractive alternative to Shelburne Rd, and the neckdowns will make it less attractive to through traffic. The same developer doing the neckdowns is also paying to widen lanes at Farrell & Swift to make that route more attractive to traffic to use those streets. Mr. Hafter added that the upcoming Shelburne Rd. widening will also help. He felt that Burlington also has to realize the importance of the Southern Connector. Another piece of the puzzle is O'Dell Parkway. A study is being done on that as part of another development plan. Mr. Flaherty said he feels it should be the city's position to slow traffic in residential neighborhoods to make those routes less attractive. Mr. Condos said another idea he has been considering to slow traffic is using a rougher surface near intersections. Mr. Hafter said that does slow traffic, but it also creates noise. Mr. Flaherty moved that in the Proctor Avenue project, the width of Proctor Avenue should be 27 feet curb to curb with the intention that there be no parking and a sidewalk on one side of the street. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. First Public Hearing on 1996 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Weith said there are no significant changes in the plan in terms of policy. Changes are mostly regarding data and information, to make the Plan easier to read. He then outlined the process by which the plan was updated, including 15 public meetings and 2 public forums, input from all departments, citizens' committees, and outside organizations (Green Mountain Power, Chittenden Water District, etc.). The Planning Commission then held a public hearing. The City Council must hold 2 public hearings and the plan must then be adopted by the Council. Mr. Weith then reviewed various chapters in the Plan: a. Population: In 1990, the population of the city was 12,800. It is estimated to be 18,000-19,000 in the year 2015. This translates to a 1.5% annual growth rate. The elderly population of the city has been growing since the 1970's. Goals regarding population include maintaining the 1.5% annual growth rate and considering a growth rate over 2-2.5% to be a "red flag." b. Land Use: Mr. Weith noted that almost 60% of the city is open land (agricultural land, parks, etc.). 17% is residential, 6% commercial, and 1% industrial. Objectives for land use include striving for diversity in land use types and supporting the growth center concept with less intensive use to the south and southeast. c. Housing: It is anticipated the city will need 7900 housing units to meet the population projection for the year 2015. That means about 100 new housing units a year. From 1970 to 1990, the city added about 120 units a year. d. Natural Resources: Recommendations include maintaining the quality of rivers, streams and wetlands, protecting Lake Champlain, and protecting aquifers, vistas, wildlife habitats, and forests. e. Transportation: The plan supports a multi-modal approach to transportation: pedestrial facilities, bike paths, buses (CCTA), air (Airport), rail, and roads. It also supports the access management technique on high volume roads. f. Economic Development: The largest percentage of jobs in the city are in the retail and service areas. Only about 7% is in manufacturing jobs. There has been a great decline in manufacturing jobs, mainly because of the Digital closing. The city's goal of maintaining a 50-50 split in the Grand List between residential and commercial property has been maintained. It is now a goal that the city takes a more active role in attracting higher paying industries and ensuring adequate infrastructure to do so. g. Schools: Mr. Weith noted that this section aroused the most comment during Planning Commission hearings. It is projected that the capacity at the elementary schools will be filled by the fall of 1999, and another school site will be needed. The goal is for a school site in the Southeast Quadrant. The plan also supports the continued educational and research emphasis on UVM-owned lands. h. Implementation: Mr. Weith noted the Plan is implemented through regulations (sewer and sign ordinances, zoning and subdivision regulations, official map, etc.), land acquisition, capital expenditures, impact fees, special assessment districts, on-going planning studies, and regional, state and federal cooperation. The meeting was then open for public comment. Mr. Matley presented a petition regarding the access road for the golf course project. Signers did not want the road to go through public land. Mr. Nermegh noted that 100 homes are planned on the highest point of land. He felt the developer should have to put the road on his own property, not the city's. Mr. Amblo noted that the existing farmhouse on the Calkins property could be a community center. It is a good looking building and part of the city's history. Mr. Cimonetti asked if anything in the Comprehensive Plan speaks to roads, trails, etc., in Dorset Park. Mr. Weith said Dorset Park is incorporated by reference. The plan recommends a road to connect Swift St. to Old Cross Road. The exact locations of that road is open as plans develop. Mr. Condos noted that on p. 16, next to the last paragraph, the reference to the landfill should read "closed and capped landfill." Regarding the road in the Park, Mr. Condos noted that road was proposed when the citizens' committee planned the park. Mr. Cimonetti noted there will be a second public hearing on 20 May. Mr. Condos moved to close the Public Hearing on the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Request for consideration of entertainment permits; SBC Enterprises, Inc., Live Entertainers, Male & Female Dancers (no nudity); VIP Booths: Mr. Cimonetti said the city has received 3 applications from SBC, 2 of which appear to be identical. Mr. Hafter said one of those was filed by Mr. Cliche on 30 April and the other by Mr. McDonald on 2 May. Mr. Cimonetti asked if Mr. Cliche is a resident of South Burlington. Ms. Shingler, representing SBC, said he is not. She believed he resided in the southern part of Chittenden County and also has a residence in Barre. Mr. Cimonetti noted the application filed on 30 April is similar to the application on which the Council took action in April. He asked if there is a substantive difference between those two applications. Ms. Shingler said they are asking for perpetuation of the same entertainment permit that previously existed. She said she believed the city ordinances allowed SBC to apply for a renewal of their entertainment license. Mr. Cimonetti stressed the city does not renew entertainment permits. They issue new entertainment permits on a yearly basis. Ms. Shingler noted one basis for denial was the existence of the VIP booths. There has also been an application submitted which includes those booths. She said they do not believe these booths are entertainment but are an exercise of free speech granted by the First Amendment. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the application submitted on 2 May will be withdrawn. Ms. Shingler said it would. Mr. Cimonetti then asked why the Council should reconsider an application it denied on April 19th. Ms. Shingler said it is their belief that because SBC had an entertainment license, they had certain rights, including the right to rely on renewal of that license if they complied with the last permit. She said she it is their belief that they did comply with all health and safety issues in the permit. They also filed a timely request for renewal. Ms. Shingler further said they believe the issue of the VIP booths is not germane to the renewal of the entertainment permit. The issuing of tickets for alleged violations kicks in the due process procedure. Mr. Cliche has a right to contest the tickets and to submit to jurisdiction of the Courts. Ms. Shingler said the city could have gotten an injunction or taken other measures to see what the Court would say about the VIP booths. She reiterated that it is their belief that the VIP booths are not entertainment. They also believe that as long as SBC has not violated any substantive conditions and has filed a timely request, the city must renew the entertainment permit. Mr. Cimonetti said the Council has taken action on the timely application and has already made its decision. Mr. Cimonetti then asked Ms. Shingler to explain the VIP Booths. Ms. Shingler said that as you walk into the club, to the left are 4 VIP booths. One side of these has a piece of plywood across it. There is a bench on the other side. Patrons are invited to spend time with the people who entertain there. Mr. Cimonetti noted there is also a sign advertising a cost of $85 an hour for those booths. Ms. Shingler said she didn't know who collects that money. Mr. Cimonetti asked the proximity between people holding conversations in the VIP booths. Ms. Shingler said she had been told it is at least 4 feet. Mr. Cimonetti said that is not the information the city has. Ms. Shingler said their position is that this is free speech and proximity can be less than 4 feet. She said she believes that nothing occurring in those booths is entertainment, only discussion between 2 people. She did not believe the exchange of money made it entertainment. Mr. Cimonetti then asked for comment from the Police Chief. Chief Graham said that on at least one occasion, there was touching between a dancer and a patron in the VIP booth (the dancer touched the patron). Cpl. Stowell added on one occasion he observed a customer and dancer well within 4 feet of each other, well within arm's length. Ms. Nedde felt the Council was being called upon to do things they should not have to do. She said she was disgusted by what use of words and the law has come to. Mr. Nedde noted that in a club with music being played, you have to be closer than 4 feet to hear what someone is saying. Mr. Duell noted that no one from SBC was present when the Council heard the original application. He felt that since SBC broke the rules, they shouldn't get a permit. Mr. Wrigley said he would like to know if SBC intends to pay the fines they were issued last year. Mr. Stitzel said the City has filed for Summary Judgment and is waiting for the Court's decision. He felt this would come soon. Mr. Hafter added that the Court has ruled that the city's Ordinance is valid. Cpl. Stowell noted that there seems to be some sort of signal being passed as officers enter Club Fantasy. He said when he entered on 26 April, at 11:27 p.m., he saw the bouncer signal to a person where the VIP booths are and saw a dancer get away from the VIP booth. He said there also appear to be whistle signals being given from the parking lot. Mr. Condos said that one criteria of the Entertainment Permit issued to SBC was that Club Fantasy would cooperate at all times. He noted that people issued tickets are refusing to give their names or are giving aliases. Ms. Shingler said SBC has allowed officials in every time, and there doesn't seem to be an obligation to have people identify themselves. Mr. Cimonetti suggested the Council deliberate in Executive Session and then announce its decision. Mr. Condos asked the status of Club Fantasy now. Mr. Stitzel said the permit expired on 30 April but because a new permit application was filed on 30 April, the old permit may remain in effect while an action is pending. If the Council approves the current application, the Club can continue operating; if the Council denied the application, there will be no valid entertainment permit. Mr. Flaherty then moved the Council deliberate the SBC entertainment permit request in Executive Session following the regular meeting. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Review Planning Commission Agenda for 7 May and Zoning Board Agenda for 13 May: Mr. Condos noted that on Planning Commission items #4 and 5, the Commission should look very carefully at improvements to the site. 8. City Council Minutes of 22 April: Mr. Flaherty moved the Minutes of 22 April be approved as written. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: Mr. Cimonetti noted the City has part ownership of a lot on Barrett St. An easement is needed on that lot, and he asked permission to execute the easements. Members agreed. 10. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Condos moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented an application for a First Class Liquor License for Quarry Hill Club, 360 Spear St. There is also a request to allow outside consumption of alcohol. This is usually handled administratively. Alcohol would be consumer near the pool and on the lawn in an area enclosed by a fence. Members had no problem at this site. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Liquor License for Quarry Hill Club as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session: Mr. Flaherty moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to deliberate on an entertainment permit request and to resume regular session only to announce a decision and/or adjourn. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. Jim Condos moved adjournment, Mike Flaherty seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.