Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/17/1997CITY COUNCIL 17 MARCH 1997 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 17 March 1997, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, Terry Sheahan, Robert Chittenden Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Fred Blais, Zoning Board; Don Whitten, WPCD; Albert Audette, Highway Department; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Joe Weith, City Planner; Bill Burgess, Marcel Beaudin, Planning Commission; Anna Johnston, The Other Paper; Agnes Sector, Douglas Hevotanatte, Frances Brigham, Michael & Kathleen Racine, Peg Adams, Robert & Margaret Johnson, Henry & Phyllis Atherton, Fred Taylor, Wendell Shepard, William & Barbara Bull, Sandra Dooley, Kevin Baillargeon, Bill Simendinger 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda Items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter announced that the next Legislative breakfast will be on 7 April and will be hosted by the school. Mr. Cimonetti advised that next Monday at noon, the Rotary will have Steve Jeffrey of VLCT speaking on the view from the towns on proposed property tax reshuffling. Mr. Cimonetti also advised that the MPO will meet on Wednesday at 3 p.m. preceded by an informal meeting at noon. The Federal Highway Dept. will be bringing in the MPO director from Delaware to talk about their program. Mr. Hafter announced the following upcoming meetings and events: a. The Steering Committee will meet on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. for the budget presentation. The public hearing on the city and school budgets will be 10 April at 7:30 p.m. b. The study on the Regional Convention Center findings will be presented Friday. c. The Fire Dept. will be hosting a Community Appreciation Day on April 19th at 2 p.m. Activities will include the dedication of the new tower truck and new defibrilators. Firefighters are now training on the new equipment. The tower truck will be in service on 1 April. Mr. Cimonetti noted that the city turned 132 years old on March 15th. 3. Request from residents of East Terrace for the City Council to discuss site plans submitted by Timberlake Associates to Vermont Environmental Court: Mr. Cimonetti noted that there is litigation on this proposed development and the city is a defendant in the appeal. The Council does not want to jeopardize anyone's position in this litigation. Ms. Bull said there is a feeling among residents that the Planning Commission thoughtfully regarded the whole issue and was unanimously against it. She hoped the city would stand behind its Planning Commission. Ms. Bull also read from a letter written by Edna Webster citing existing traffic problems and other hazards which she felt would result from the proposed development. She particularly cited the possibility of three curb cuts so close together on Williston Road. Mr. Cimonetti stressed that the City Council doesn't direct how the Zoning Board and Planning Commission make decisions. He added that if the matter is settled in court, it will be the judge's decision that prevails. Ms. Dooley said she felt the city has an excellent traffic ordinance. She cited the three separate decisions by the Planning Commission on proposed development at this location. The first decision was a denial. The second, which would require the addition of another lane to handle traffic exiting the site was approved. The third decision was also a denial. Ms. Dooley said she felt it was very important that traffic rules are not waived except when standards are met. The site in question allows just under 30 trip ends without a waiver. The proposed development has never presented a plan which would result in fewer than 75-80 trip ends, more than double what is allowed. The standard for waiving regulations is that there be a net benefit/improvement in traffic in the area. She said that in its denials, the Planning Commission must have believed this development doesn't meet that standard. Ms. Dooley said this is one of the busiest streets in the state and asked the City Council to support its Planning Commission in upholding the standards. She added that it is important for citizens to know that standards which are there to protect them are upheld. She felt that people are questioning whether the regulations are worth the paper they are written on. Mr. Atherton said his house overlooks the site. He cited safety issues, noting that Spear St. is being used more and more as an alternate to Route 7. He also noted that there will soon be swimming at the tennis club and there will be many more youngsters coming for activities there. On a personal note, Mr. Atherton said it is only a few hundred feet from the site to his deck, and he did not feel he should be subjected to the sounds, smells and commotion that this development would produce. He felt the City Council should support the Planning Commission in preserving this neighborhood. Mr. Simendinger, developer of the proposed gas station, said that all parts of the plan had been approved except traffic. He felt it would be good for the judge to know which plan the city prefers. Mr. Baillargeon said he lives closest to the proposed development and asked if members would want to live that close to a 24-hour facility. He said it would be very difficult to enjoy an evening on his deck only 60 feet from this location. Mr. Johnson said his family intends to live at their address for the rest of their lives and feel this development would hurt the value of their estate. He cited increased traffic, both day and night, lights, and exhaust fumes. The Athertons noted they are protected from Spillanes and Price Chopper by a large stand of trees so they don't get the noise and lights on their property. This proposal would provide no such protection. Mr. Stitzel explained that there was one plan approved by the Planning Commission but denied by the Zoning Board. That plan is now before the Court. There are also two plans approved by the Zoning Board but denied by the Planning Commission which are also before the Court. There was a request made to the Court to ask the developer to proceed with only one plan. That request was rejected and the Court will hear evidence on all three plans and decide whether to approve any of them. Mr. Chittenden asked when a decision might be forthcoming. Mr. Stitzel said if the case is closed next week, as he assumed it would be, there would be a few weeks for the parties to submit findings of fact and replies. A decision could then take 3-6 months after that. If there were then an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court, it could take another year to year and a half for a decision from them. Ms. Dooley said she felt it was the City Council's job to decide what is in the best interest of the city and to ask the City Attorney to defend that position. Mr. Cimonetti replied that it is the responsibility of the City Council to represent the best interest of the city. He said there are many technical questions involving permitted uses, permitted traffic, impacts on neighborhoods, etc. Lee Brigham asked if the City Council can overrule any of its Boards decisions. Mr. Stitzel said the Council can't overrule a Planning Commission or Zoning Board decision but does have limited authority to appeal but the extent of this is uncertain. Ms. Dooley said the city can take a position and support an appeal. Mr. Stitzel said the city is not precluded from being a party to an issue at the Environmental Board. But there is an issue as to the extent to which the city can take a position in a zoning appeal that is different from its Zoning Board or Planning Commission's position. Mr. Cimonetti added that the City Council is aware of the issue and has encouraged the Planning Commission and Zoning Board to meet jointly and to have meetings with the developer and the neighborhood residents. It hasn't been apparent that there is any proposed use for the property that would be acceptable to the neighborhood. 4. Discussion of Planning Memorandum from William Burgess, Chair, Planning Commission in reference Airport Drive traffic, Bus Service on Dorset Street, and future use of the Mary Street Extension: Mr. Cimonetti noted that with regard to Mary Street, the Commission recommends that the city acquire the necessary right-of-way so that Mary Street could be extended to Corporate Way. It also recommends retaining a traffic engineering firm to look at impacts of opening that street. Following that, the Commission recommends there be plans prepared showing the precise design of Mary Street and then proceed with plans to change the zoning from residential to a designation more compatible with commercial uses. The Commission suggests CD-3 zoning with mixed residential/office uses. The Commission further recommends that the potential impact on property values from a zone change and from opening the through street be evaluated. They urge that the connection to Corporate Way not be made until Mary Street becomes a through street. Mr. Chittenden asked what Mary St. residents feel about this. Mr. Burgess said reaction seems to be mixed. Residents like their neighborhood and many would like to preserve it. At least one owner felt making it commercial would be to his benefit, but most residents are concerned with it being anything other than a residential dead end street. Mr. Cimonetti noted the street is 700 ft. long. The first 200 feet is zoned commercial and the rest residential. The extension to Corporate Way would add 220 feet in the City Center Zone. Mr. Condos said there is a likelihood that Corporate Way will be open in the next year, and there is a developer who could put the city on a time clock as to whether the city wants this piece of property. He said he had no disagreement with the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Sheahan agreed. He said it is a through road on the Official City Map and he felt it was time to move forward. Mr. Cimonetti felt the Council should ask the Planning Commission to proceed with a zone change and acquisition of the right-of-way. Regarding Airport Drive, Mr. Weith said that during the hearings for the Airport expansion, residents expressed concern with traffic problems on Airport Drive and the fear that these might become worse. They asked for a full 4-way stop sign at White St/Airport Drive. They also asked for a no parking area near the Airport exits so visibility is not blocked by parked cars. Mr. Audette said a stop sign wouldn't be warranted at the White St/Airport Dr. intersection. He also felt the parking situation was not as much of a problem now. He said that if Airport Parkway and Airport Drive were connected, it would eliminate some of the traffic through the residential area. Mr. Condos noted that the Airport had been using the new area for parking cars and asked if they had permission to do so. Mr. Weith said they didn't. They were told to put in berms, etc., before they could use it. Mr. Audette said they just used it during the heavy vacation traffic. Mr. Sheahan felt that definitive markings at the White St. intersection might help define the travelled lane so people don't cut the corner. Mr. Cimonetti said the Airport Dr./Airport Parkway connection should be on the Official City Map. Mr. Weith said it is in the Comprehensive Plan but not on the Official Map. Regarding bus service, Mr. Hafter said the Planning Commission proposes that buses turn onto Sherry Rd. and go to Aspen Dr. to pick up people and then go back to Dorset St. This would cost about $3000 a year. Mr. Weith said he was quoted $1300. Mr. Weith also said it would be more efficient if northbound buses could be served with a shelter, but he also noted that people could use a southbound bus to get to Timberlake Medical Center. Mr. Chittenden asked if The Pines could use its own funds for this. 5. Report for Council approval of City Staff recommendation to begin work of final design plans for expansion of Bartlett Way Waste Water Treatment Facility and award of design contract to Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc/Hallam Associates, P.C: Mr. Hafter said that applicants were interviewed by the City Engineer and Don Whitten and recommended the contract be awarded to Hoyle, Tanner. Mr. Chittenden asked why the contract isn't going to the low bidder. Mr. Hafter said the low bidder wasn't responsive to requests for information. Mr. Sheahan moved to award the contract for final design plans for expansion of the Bartlett Bay facility to Hoyle, Tanner & Associates at a contract price of $186,060. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Chittenden opposing. 6. Request from South Burlington Employee Associations/Unions to add ballot item to May warning seeking voter approval for binding arbitration in the event of an impasse for all city contracts: Mr. Cimonetti stated that the process for citizens putting items on the ballot involves presentation a petition. This request is to put the item on the ballot without such a petition. Mr. Chittenden said he felt it was important to maintain local control and didn't support the item. Mr. Harvell noted that the Police Dept. has binding arbitration and felt this creates an inequity. The City Council declined to take action and suggested appellants pursue the same process as other citizens would be required to do. 7. Consideration of Approval of Warning for City Annual Meeting and Resolution Authorizing Water Line Ballot Item: Mr. Cimonetti noted there are 2 public hearings scheduled for April and suggested not signing the warning now but placing it on the April 7th agenda. Then the Council can have an idea if there will be a petition by the April 10th deadline. Other members agreed. 8. Appointment of Town Service Office: Mr. Condos moved to appoint Mr. Hafter as Town Service Officer. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Accept resignation of Ms. Maja Smith from Rec Path Committee: Mr. Condos moved to accept the resignation of Maja Smith from the Rec Path Committee and to send a note of appreciation for her service. 10. Review Planning Commission Agenda of 18 March and Zoning Board Agenda for 24 March: Members briefly discussed the request for bus terminals and what kinds of facilities might be involved. Mr. Condos also noted a request to shift a property line which might impact a neighborhood. 12. Review Minutes of 20 February, 24 February, and 4 March: Mr. Chittenden noted that he was present at the 20 February meeting. Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the 20 February minutes as amended. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members could not review the other minutes as there was not a quorum of attending members. 13. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. Executive Session: Mr. Sheahan moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in Executive Session to discuss litigation and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session The City Council returned to open session. Mr. Chittenden moved adjournment, Jim Condos seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk South Burlington City Council Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.