Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/23/1996CITY COUNCIL 23 SEPTEMBER 1996 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 9 September 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, David Austin, Terry Sheahan, Robert Chittenden Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Sonny Audette, Street Dept; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Wallace Possich, Fire Chief; Gary Rounds, Maureen Leahy, Fire Dept; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer' Joe Weith, City Planner; Lee Graham, Police Chief; Jim Snyder, Police Dept; William Burgess, Gayle Barone, Planning Commission; Dean Zoecklein, Dick Walters, Wayne Misselbeck, Paul Stabler, J. Canning, Dick Deforge, John Kennedy, Lonnie Field, Bob McCarroll, Rick Milliken 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda Items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter noted the following meetings: a. CCTA Board Meeting to discuss the budget, Wednesday, 11:45 a.m. b. City Charter Committee, 2 October, 7:30 p.m. c. Agency of Transportation to open bids for final design of the Lime Kiln Bridge, 3 October. Mr. Hafter then turned the floor over to Police Chief Graham and Officer Jim Snyder. Chief Graham introduced the concept of the Citizens' Police Academy. At present 13 citizens meet once a week in a program to educate the public as what the Police Dept. does. He encouraged the City Council members to drop by. Officer Snyder then explained that in the academy participants will be introduced to laws and procedures involving criminal, motor vehicle and DWI cases. A process will be set up to allow participants to do car stops and some crime scene investigations. The Academy will also deal with youth services, domestic violence and emergency dispatch. The States Attorney and a Judge will speak to the group. Chief Graham said many department members are providing instruction on a volunteer basis and are enjoying the experience. Mr. Hafter noted that the Airport proposal for a parking deck will be coming back to the Council on 7 October. Bids were opened on Friday for repaving work, and contracts were awarded today. Mr. Audette outlined the work that will be done including grinding down Kimball Ave., a final course on Country Club Estates, recycling and repaving Suburban Square, Victory Drive and Helen Street, redoing White Street, including replacing the sidewalk, and repaving the rest of Old Farm Rd. and Cheese Factory Lane. Mr. Audette also noted the first course was completed today on Proctor Avenue driveways. With good weather, he hoped work can be done by the end of the week. There have been very few complaints, but a lot of people want to know why the road is not being done to a 30 foot width. Mr. Cimonetti said he thought Proctor looks very good and he didn't see any driveways that reminded him of the East Terrace problems. Mr. Cimonetti also felt the Swift/Dorset corner work also looks very good. Mr. Hafter advised that Mr. Weith and Mr. Audette have been working to locate the "neck-downs" in the East Woods area and this work should be done in the next few weeks. Mr. Weith said the work will be done with asphalt curbing, and there will be one neckdown on Orchard, Meadow, Hadley and Proctor. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the Farrell/Swift intersection improvement will be done this year. Mr. Weith said it would. He noted that National Gardening is putting in the 5' bike lanes on both sides of Farrell St. They need a small easement which is not yet signed. They will be seeking an amendment to phase the work until the easement is signed. Mr. Condos noted the Hinesburg Rd. to Dorset St. stretch of the bike path is beginning to look chewed up and suggested it might be added to the Kennedy Drive scoping work. Mr. Hafter noted that the Economic Development Committee has come up with two items that will involve discussion. They have also appointed a sub-committee to work on a "get-together" with area businesses. Mr. Cimonetti announced a meeting of the MPO on Wednesday at 2 p.m. to vote on the TIP. He noted that the TIP as warned did not include the Charlotte to Burlington commuter rail project. The AOT wants to amend the TIP to include it. 3. Public Hearing on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; Second Reading: Mr. Cimonetti suggested the Extended Stay Hotel amendment be discussed first as there were a number of people present with interest in that issue. Mr. Weith said the question arose at the request of a land owner who wants to put this use in the CD 3 Zone. Mr. Weith showed the location on the map. This is a transitional district between residential and commercial uses with both residential and office uses allowed. The Planning Commission recommends two new land uses for this district: nursing/convalescent homes and extended stay hotels. They do not want a full hotel/motel use because of the potential for traffic and noise so close to a residential district. The language of the amendment focuses on the residential portion. Additional language has been added to try to prevent the units from being used as permanent apartments without upgrading to full residential standards. Mr. Cimonetti asked for comments or questions from the audience, but none were forthcoming. Mr. Austin noted that with respect to the words "permanent residence," no one considers a residence "permanent." Perhaps "long term" would be better. He noted that an apartment complex would have a significantly larger parking requirement. He suggested a possible maximum average stay, after which it would become a "long term" use. He said he wanted to avoid another Larkin Terrace which has significant and continuing parking problems. Mr. Deslauriers, owner of the land in questions, said that traditionally they would need only 1 parking space per unit. The units are small, 500 sq. ft. They are not ever intended to be permanent residences. This is part of a PUD, with 435 parking spaces. Spaces for this use have been allocated as 1 per unit. Mr. Austin noted there is nothing in the language that says the units have to be 500 sq. ft. Mr. Hafter suggested a restriction in the size of units. Mr. Burgess said that a relocating family might have several children and choose to locate here temporarily because it is near schools. They might also have more than one car. Mr. Hafter suggested that parking be tied to the number of bedrooms. Mr. Condos noted these are usually 1 bedroom units. Mr. Burgess felt that more parking spaces would make it easier to convert the units to apartments. Mr. Field said the State definition of a "resident" is a person who stays 30 days or more and no longer pays a rooms/meals tax. Mr. Austin suggested the Planning Commission review a parking standard to add to the definition. Mr. Canning, owner of the Residence Inn in Williston said he has 96 room and 30 employees. He has 105 parking spaces and never runs out of parking. Mr. Condos noted he had a number of calls from people in the hotel industry expressing concerns with the original definition. He was not sure more parking spaces would answer the questions. Mr. Weith noted if there were a conversion to apartments, they would not meet density requirements. Mr. Weith suggested coming up with a definition of "short term" and that the Commission check to see if it appears to be a problem. Mr. Cimonetti said a newly constructed residential facility in the City Center that starts out with a parking problem is a problem. Members then discussed the other proposed amendments: a. Dorset Park View Protection Zone: Mr. Weith noted that currently there is a viewing baseline that protects the view to the east and west. The amendment would break the baseline into 2 baselines, one with a view to the east and one with a view to the west. The area would be open to the public and the land would be dedicated to the city. The view that was intended to be protected would still be protected. b. Industrial-Open Space District: This involves land on both sides of Hinesburg Rd. and concerns a 200 ft. buffer strip. The intent is for new development to access from planned roadways instead of individual driveways. There are, however, 3 lots which abut Hinesburg Rd. but which are not contiguous to planned roadways. The intent of the amendment is to allow access to these 3 lots via Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Austin said the idea is fine, but he suggested a better way to say it.. He raised the question of people "backing into" this by subdividing a lot so it only has access via Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Weith said that would be picked up at subdivision where access from another lot would be required. Mr. Cimonetti ruled that the proposed language changes would be minor and would not require going back to the Planning Commission. c. Bartlett Bay Sewer Facility: The amendment would change the zoning designation to "Municipal" for all city-owned lands. d. Permitted uses - Industrial-Open Space District: This is a formatting change that makes it clear up front that Industrial and Commercial uses are allowed. e. Front Yards: The Ordinance requires front yard coverage of non-residential lots not to exceed 30%. Clarifying language is being added to make it clear that sidewalks are allowed in the first 15 ft. of setbacks. Mr. Cimonetti asked for public comments or questions. None were forthcoming. Mr. Austin moved to close the public hearing except with respect to the definition of "extended stay hotel." Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Austin moved to amend Section 18.303 to read: "The buffer strip must be kept free of buildings, structures, and parking facilities except for driveways and private roads located within a planned or existing public road right-of-way and shall be suitably landscaped with dense evergreen or other suitable plantings to provide adequate screening." In addition, the next sentence shall be modified to read: "For lots which have frontage on Hinesburg Road but which do not have access to an existing or planned public road right-of-way, the Planning Commission may approve driveways within said buffer strip which provide direct access to Hinesburg Road or other existing or planned public road rights-of-way." Mr. Condos seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Austin then moved to approve all amendments with the exception of the "extended stay hotel" amendment as written or amended. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Austin then moved to hold open the public hearing on the "extended stay hotel" amendment and return it to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Interviews with Applicants for Appointment to City Boards & Commissions: The Council interviewed Paul Stabler, applicant for Alternate to the Solid Waste District. Mr. Stabler said he was the Alternate Delegate in Huntington for several years and found it a very rewarding experience. He recently moved to South Burlington and is interested in serving in this capacity again. He has also served on a Town Planning Commission and on the Regional Planning Commission. He believes strongly in recycling and hazardous waste disposal. Mr. Condos attested to Mr. Stabler's interest and excellent attendance record at Solid Waste District meetings. Mr. Hafter noted that Susan Fitzgerald, incumbent member of the Leisure Arts Committee, is seeking reappointment but does not choose to be interviewed. 5. Discussion of Charlotte-Burlington Passenger Rail Service: Mr. Cimonetti referred to the updated Draft #5 of the proposed Memorandum of Agreement. He said the city has many concerns about unanswered questions and needs answers before approval can be considered. He made specific reference to items #2, #3, and especially #6. He said he expected a clear statement that municipalities would not be responsible for stations, plowing, etc. It seems now it is possible that the Vermont Transportation Board can say the city/town is responsible for maintenance. He also noted that in #7, the VAOT is not willing to indemnify the city for liability or to support legislation regarding this. In #9, there is no indication what "all other public transit operations" means. It seems to imply that following the demo project, there would have to be local support. Finally, in #11, the Steering Committee would still be limited to making recommendations. Mr. Cimonetti said he did not recommend acceptance of this draft. Mr. Condos noted that he still did not have a response to his letter. He added that his major concern from last week's meeting is the idea that if the noise issue is taken care of, everyone will fall in line with the project. He felt there are many more questions to be answered, not the least of which is parking at the stations. 6. Further Discussion of Status of Fire Tower Truck; Review of Options; Consideration of Approval of Warning and Resolution: Mr. Hafter referred members to his memo of 20 September. Mr. Cimonetti said the options are: to continue to rely on mutual aid, to purchase a used tower truck, to purchase a new tower truck, to repair the current tower truck. Mr. Barone said she was a resident of Stonehedge where there had been a tragic fire last year. Without the tower trucks, all units in that group would have been lost. Three were totally involved before the fire trucks arrived. She said the City Council is voted into office to protect the people of South Burlington, and although it was hard to have to spend so much money, it was not nearly so terrible as the cost of one life that might be lost. She felt the Council's duty was to put the issue to the voters. Mr. Chittenden asked what was the actual reason the tower truck was taken out of service. Chief Possich said 3 items failed inspections. These were a cylinder that controls the up/down movement of the boom, 3 cracks in the superstructure, and electronic controls. There are also other items that need to be addressed such as spring problems, rusted floorboards, and the rusted out area where the left front shock attaches to the frame. Mr. Chittenden questioned whether the vehicles had been properly maintained. He also asked if any of the repair work could be done locally. Chief Possich said according to his information, the only place some of the work can be done is Richmond, Virginia. He said manufacturers wouldn't certify their trucks unless parts come from them. He then explained the certification process and noted the city can't rely on mutual aid on a permanent basis. Mr. Chittenden noted that a new transmission was put into the tower truck a few years ago. He felt that with proper maintenance there wouldn't be this problem now. He felt the vehicle was operational and repairable. Ms. Barone noted the truck is 26 years old and there is a frame problem. She said she would not want to see a fire with firemen hurt because of the problems with the truck. Mr. Chittenden agreed but felt it could take a lot less capital to protect the people of South Burlington. Mr. Field said he is running a 4-story hotel and that trying to do this without having the proper equipment that is going to function properly to protect his patrons is unconscionable. He said it sounds like the city would be spending money to fix something that isn't worth fixing. He said he didn't want to have to rely on Winooski to put out South Burlington fires. Firefighter Rounds said the city has spent a lot of money on that truck. He said the question is whether to put another $40,000 into it now and then come back and have to put more money into it. He reminded the Council that the truck had 10 years of service in New York City prior to coming to S. Burlington. There are issues of metal fatigue. Mr. Chittenden said that "after market frames" could be used. Chief Possich said there is no way that they could spot a superstructure crack with routine maintenance. He referred to repairs over the last 12 months and said they have done as adequate a job of routine maintenance as can be done. Mr. Cimonetti asked what budget preventive maintenance gets charged to. Mr. Hafter referred to #6053 and 6054: vehicle maintenance and repair. In-house work is charged to salaries; if work is sent out, it's charged to those budgets. Mr. Condos said the city needs an aerial truck. He felt repairing this one may not be the wisest use of taxpayer money. He said that with the age of the truck, there is a chance that something else could go wrong right after it's repaired. He did not like to have to replace 3 trucks in one year, but all of them were 20 years or older. He said his major concern was the safety of citizens and firefighters. He felt the Council should take the staff advice on a 75 or 90 ft. truck. Mr. Sheahan said he felt the Council had all the facts it needs. He shared Mr. Chittenden's concerns, but felt it was not wise to expend taxpayer money to repair this truck. Mr. Chittenden was concerned with getting a used truck that the city would know nothing about. Mr. Sheahan asked Chief Possich if a used truck comes with a warranty. Chief Possich said it does not, it comes "as is." Mr. Sheahan asked if there were 10-15 year old trucks the Chief would be comfortable in purchasing. Chief Possich said there are, with clarification. He said he had sent for videos of available used trucks and these, along with history, visual inspection, certification, etc., could provide enough information to make a good decision. He would not buy a vehicle made by a company that is out of business, and he would not buy an uncertified truck. Mr. Austin asked why the 1990 E-1 is for sale. Chief Possich said the truck is too big for many of the streets in the town that has it. He said he would be comfortable with such a truck, provided it could be inspected and they could get complete records. Mr. Austin found that to be an appealing option. He felt that getting a new truck would put it in line to be replaced the same year as the 2 new ones the city just got, and he felt it would be best to have machines expire at intervals. He felt the Council had to rely on the professionals to provide information, and he felt he had sufficient information on whether to repair the current truck or not. Mr. Mercer said he would like to see a replacement fund so that vehicles could be replaced on a regular basis. Firefighter Rounds said that has been discussed, but unless the funding principle is changed, there would not ever be enough in the fund to replace an aerial truck. He noted that fire trucks have changed so much in recent years, made much safer. Mr. Cimonetti asked for an estimate on purchasing service for a fire truck. Chief Possich said UVM pays Burlington $90,000 per year, which is going to be raised to $100,000. Mr. Field asked why some members of the Council are so reluctant $$ put the issue up for a bond vote. Mr. Cimonetti said he was concerned how things are financed and felt the Charter system had been abused over maintenance of streets and the purchase of the other 2 fire trucks. Members then discussed the timing of a ballot item for the November ballot. Mr. Hafter said it was his belief that even in the current situation, that with the current equipment and mutual aid, it was possible to respond to any fire in the city of South Burlington. Chief Possich agreed. He then explained the process of placing a call to Burlington and Winooski for a tower truck. This call can only be placed from the scene of a fire when it is deemed necessary to have a tower truck. He recognized this as poor timing. Mr. Condos felt it should be put to the voters in November and supported moving forward with the purchase of a used vehicle. Mr. Condos then moved the following Resolution be adopted: WHEREAS the City of South Burlington owns and operates a fire department in the City of South Burlington; and WHEREAS the public interest and necessity of the City of South Burlington requires the purchase of a fire tower truck and related equipment; and WHEREAS it is estimated that the cost of purchasing a new fire tower truck and equipment will be approximately $580,000; and WHEREAS the City Council has information that a good used fire tower truck can be purchased for $425,000; and WHEREAS the City Council has determined that the cost of purchasing the fire tower truck as described above will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City of South Burlington; and WHEREAS the City Council has determined that, for the reasons set forth above, authority to incur bonded debt is required to purchase the fire tower truck; NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of South Burlington that the proposition of incurring bonded debt be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of South Burlington in the foregoing form: ARTICLE I: Shall the bonds of the City of South Burlington in an amount not to exceed $425,000 be issued for the purpose of purchasing a used fire tower truck and related equipment for the City of South Burlington Fire Department. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that a vote on said proposition shall be conducted by Australian Ballot at a Special City Meeting to be held on November 5, 1996 at the customary and usual polling places in the City at which meeting the polls will open at 7:00 in the forenoon and close at 7:00 in the afternoon. Mr. Sheahan seconded the motion. Mr. Cimonetti said he would oppose the motion because he didn't feel the Council had basic information on the proposed tower truck and he would want a recommendation for a truck committee. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Austin moved to table the motion for a week and ask the truck purchase committee to come back with as much information as possible on a used tower truck. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Members then discussed augmenting the truck purchase committee by having a Council member serve on it. Mr. Chittenden said he would be willing to do so and felt he had some experience, having served in the Department in the past. Mr. Chittenden was appointed as liaison to the truck committee. 7. Discussion of Economic Development Recommendations on "Easement Acceptance Policy" Reference Retention of Development Rights: Mr. Cimonetti noted this has to do with 2 pieces of property for road projects. Mr. Hafter said the owners have no problems with the easement but don't want to lose development right on the property. The city has traditionally compensated owners for loss of development rights. Owners say they don't want compensation, they want the density for their developments. Mr. Austin felt it did not make sense to him. Mr. Condos was concerned that with an undersized lot, if the city takes a sliver, you're forcing the Zoning Board to give a variance. Mr. Austin also noted the issue of setbacks. Mr. Sheahan suggested sending it to the Planning Commission to see if language could be put together that they would find workable. Members agreed. 8. Appoint Council Liaison to Work with School System on Selection of Site for New Elementary School: Mr. Austin was selected to serve in this capacity. 9. Review Council Minutes of 9 September 1996: Mr. Condos moved to approve the Minutes of 9 September as written. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Chittenden abstaining. 10. Review Planning Commission Agenda 9/24/96 Mr. Condos noted #5 concerned parking layout on the north side of Fayette Drive. He expressed concern with serious parking issues with the movie theatre in this PCD. People are parking in fire lanes, and on one occasion a fire truck could not be gotten down there because cars were parked on both sides. Mr. Audette noted that final paving isn't done, and there is work left to be done before it could be accepted as a city street. Mr. Cimonetti asked the City Manager to relay the Council's concerns to the City Planner and also to try to find out the developer's intention with regard to the roads. 11. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 12. Appointment: Mr. Chittenden moved to appoint Pual Stabler as alternate to the Solid Waste District and Susan Fitzgerald to the Leisure Arts Committee. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.