Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/02/1998CITY COUNCIL 2 FEBRUARY 1998 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 2 February 1998, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, Joan Britt, Terrence Sheahan. Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Anna Johnston, The Other Paper; Albert Audette, Highway Dept; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Joe Weith, City Planner; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Department; Marilyn Frederick, School Department; Lee Wrigley, Lenore Budd, Lou Bresee, Chris Cavin, John & Agnes Clift, Julie McLane, Melissa Goldberg, Karen Bresnahan, Debra Sachs, Elaine Bessery, Sandie & Alex Blair, Leo Brown, James Brown, Charles Scott, Peter Taylor, Ronald Schmucker, Stephen DeMaroney, Harry Yawney, Mary & Ed Schirmer, Charles & Beverly Amblo, Elizabeth Downer, Judy Young, Pat Barra, Betty Lacey, Kim Robinson, Walter Kuentzel, Mildred Estey, Aaron Goldberg, Jane di Ferdinando, Dave Morrison, Ellen Kahler. 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: a. Mr. Condos said residents should have received the Solid Waste District handbook. The annual report of the District will be out this week. b. Mr. Cimonetti advised of a special MPO meeting Wednesday at 7 p.m. at the Shelburne Town Hall to discuss interactions between the MPO and Regional Planning Commission. c. Mr. Cimonetti also noted that Symquest Group, a new business that has recently located in the former Digital Building, will host a Chamber of Commerce mixer on 19 February, 5:30-7:30 p.m. d. Mr. Hafter updated the meeting schedule. He recommended holding the regularly scheduled Council meeting on 16 February even though it is a legal holiday. Members had no problem with this. That meeting and the 23 February meeting will involve work on the 1998-9 City Budget. Another budget session could be held on 26 February or 5 March, if needed. The City Charter Committee will meet tomorrow night with members of the School Board. The Correctional Center Liaison Committee will meet on 9 February at 4 p.m. e. Mr. Hafter observed that there are 3 areas where the Legislature did not take all things into account in framing Act 60. These include cash flow, how to do an equal basis property appraisal and revenue projections. He then read from an item published by the Vt. League of Cities and Towns. The League said the Legislature used an estimated Grand List growth percentage of 3.25 when the actual is much lower. This means that more state revenue will have to be committed or that property taxes will have to go up. The League said four things can happen: the tax rate can be raised, property appraisals can be raised, income sensitivity levels can be lowered or the state could cut the share given to communities. g. Mr. Audette then reported on the continuing cleanup from the ice storm. He hoped current cleanup efforts could be completed this week so that work can begin on city properties. The total cost to date is over $200,000 of which $125,000 can be reimbursed from federal funds. In the spring, more work will be done including clean-up of brush and downed limbs. A citizen asked who is responsible for broken limbs that haven't yet fallen. Mr. Cimonetti said that if they are in the city right-of-way, the city is responsible. Mr. Audette noted that a contractor will be doing that work for a few weeks. That cost is also reimbursable from federal funds. 3. Public Hearing on Amendment to the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance to add Dorset Street Waterline impact fee; second reading of same: Mr. Hafter explained that the fee would be $187.25 per dwelling unit to hook up. Hooking up is voluntary. Mr. Cimonetti then reviewed the history of the impact fee. He stressed that the Council is not anxious to encourage development in that part of the city and feels that this impact fee may actually discourage development. He then solicited public comment. Mr. Blair noted that when the developer was getting his permits he said he was deeding the water line to the city. There was never a question of a price. Mr. Cimonetti acknowledged this was true. Mr. Blair said he did not feel it was right to charge this fee. Mr. Cimonetti said the water line will be deeded to the city at no cost to the city. In addition to the impact fee, those who hook up to the line must pay a $500 hookup fee and the cost of materials to bring the line to their homes. There is no requirement to hook onto municipal water as there is with municipal sewer. The impact fee is a means by which a developer can recover some of his costs. It is legal. This developer had asked for a fee based on frontage, but the Council felt this was more equitable. Mr. Blair felt the price was fair but did not feel the added 5% per year was fair. He felt it should be at today's inflation rate. Mr. Scott felt the inflation factor would encourage development now because the cost will go up in future years. He also said he understood there was no stub for each developed property when the line was put in. Mr. Ward noted that the City Engineer did not recommend that. Ms. Sachs asked if the impact fee includes a maintenance cost. Mr. Hafter said maintenance is paid for by all citizens. Mr. Schmucker also opposed the 5% inflation factor. He suggested a CPI figure be picked. He also noted that an "impact fee" is used to assess a developer's impact on the community. He felt it is the community that is being impacted by this development. Mr. Cimonetti acknowledged this is correct. Mr. Scott asked if this would set a precedent for the sewer line that is coming. Mr. Hafter noted that the sewer will be a force main and there will be no opportunity to hook on. Mr. Scott asked why this isn't a 50-50 arrangement as in the past with the whole city paying half and the neighborhood half. Mr. Condos said that has only been done with sewer lines. Mr. Cimonetti said the Council elected not to do that in this case. Mr. Scott asked if someone south of his property could hook up. Mr. Hafter said no because that would be a very long hook-up. Mr. Cimonetti added that if a way is found for them to hook up, the ordinance would be amended to pick up an impact for those properties. Mr. Sheahan moved to close the public hearing and waive reading of the proposed amendment. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed. Mr. Condos said he was willing to make a change to use a CPI figure. Mr. Cimonetti noted this is a "forever" ordinance and the CPI could go above 5% as it has in the past. Mr. Condos moved to approve the second reading of the Ordinance with the following changes: 1. The date 12/30/97 changed to 1/30/98 and the 5% inflation figure changed to 3%. There was no second. Mr. Condos then moved to approve the second reading of the Ordinance with the following changes: 1. The date 12/30/97 changed to 1/30/98 and the 5% inflation figure changed to 4%. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Scott said this was a development nobody in the area wanted, and he felt it was unfair that now they would have to pay for it. Mr. Condos noted that citizens had raised the question of the quality of work on the road to the development. Mr. Audette said the developer will be back in the spring to do paving, etc. 4. Discussion with Rec Path Committee and City Residents on proposed rec short path between Williston Road and Barber Terrace: Ms. Budd introduced committee members. She noted the proposed path is 1500 ft. and runs from Williston Rd. through the Lutheran Church property and Garvey property to Barber Terrace. It is part of a city network of paths and is in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Alternative Transportation Plan. She then showed the location on the map and noted that a number of streets in the area have no sidewalks. The Garvey property is publicly owned and the Lutheran Church has donated land that requires the path be built in a timely manner. Mr. Bresee then reviewed the history of the "short path" projects. This project was moved to the top of the agenda because of the donation of land by the Church. Mr. Wrigley said the Church has a strong interest in the easement and hopes the path can serve everyone. The easement allows access for handicapped. Mr. Schirmer, a resident of the area, presented a petition from neighbors in opposition to the path. Residents are concerned with safety (the crossing of Williston Rd. to access the path and very heavy traffic and a sharp turn at the end of Barber Terrace). They are also concerned with the loss of trees and displacement of wildlife. Mr. Schirmer said houses on Mills Ave. are very small and are already bombarded by traffic and Airport noise. They are concerned this area will become a hangout and would require more police patrol. Residents feel that since the path leads nowhere, it is unnecessary. They would like to leave the area as it is forever. Ms. Budd said there will be improvements to Williston Rd. including more pedestrian crossings, and the path will help make a case for those improvements. Barber Terrace is similar to Deerfield Drive and Spear St. There have been no car/bike accidents. Stop signs can be used. Mr. Wrigley noted the number of trees will not be reduced. They will actually plant more trees on the Church property at no expense to the city. The path actually will eventually connect in with the entire bike path system in the city. Ms. Budd added that they are trying to encourage people to use paths. There is a path there now and they want to make it accessible to all people. She felt that the more legitimate users a path has, the more it discourages bad, undesirable use. The overwhelming experience is that paths don't increase crime. Mr. Morrison said he had been involved in an bike/car accident on the existing path and felt it is dangerous. There have also been problems with snowmobiles and motorcycles using the current path and he felt widening the path would encourage that use. He felt the money could be put to better use. Ms. Lacey felt it would be terrible to blacktop the area, especially for the wildlife that lives there. She also felt there had been an agreement for that land to remain untouched. Mr. O'Neill explained the agreement signed by the city with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, specifically that the area was to be a neighborhood park (with tennis courts, benches, etc.). The Bureau wants to know when the city will do something with the property. This path will address that concern. Ms. Bresnahan felt the path was appealing as it fits in with plans for access to Chamberlin School. She noted that whether there is a path there or not, people still have to cross the street. She felt this was safer than Airport Parkway and White Street. Ms. Young said they were told it would be like a road because it is being built with federal funds. Mr. Cimonetti said there are no federal funds being used. The funding is from impact fees. Mr. Bresee said the original proposal was for an 8 ft. asphalt path with a foot on either side to support the asphalt. Since then, they have decided to use a hardpack in order to maintain the naturalness of the area. Ms. Johnston liked the idea of walking on a dirt path instead of pavement. Ms. Cavin said she had heard the neighbors' concerns before when other parts of the path were proposed. She noted that the Police Chief would attest that concerns are not grounded in fact. The paths do not encourage crime and do not drive away wildlife. Ms. Clift liked the idea of the hardpack. She said she would not like to see it paved. She also felt the path would make the area safer. Mr. Cimonetti read a letter from Harry Behney who had no objection to the path but noted that Barber Terrace needs to be restored to a neighborhood street instead of an Airport access. Mr. Cimonetti noted that the city is looking for ways to connect all publicly owned properties in the city with rec paths. Several residents were concerned with loss of privacy. Ms. Morrison expressed concern with liability if people jump the fence to get to her swimming pool. Some residents suggested a chain link fence. Residents also expressed concern with loss of property value. Mr. Scott noted that the opposite has been the case and that homes near rec paths go up in value. Ms. Sachs read a letter in support of the path as a connection of two neighborhoods without having to use busy streets and as part of the conceptual plans for Chamberlin School. Mr. Clift said he has seen motor bikes and cars go through there and adults leaving bags of beer for kids to pick up. He wanted the city to make a statement that this is city property and these activities are not acceptable. Ms. Clift added that residents are dumping trash back there, and there is also poison ivy in the area. Council members then expressed their views on the proposed path. Mr. Sheahan felt it would be shame if the city didn't take advantage of its investment for all residents of the city. Mr. Condos read from the original agreement on how the property was to be used. He felt the committee had been responsive to the neighbors' concerns in not paving the path but still offering opportunities for its use. He felt the path was safer than having children walk the streets. It was the Council's concensus to continue work to bring the path into being. 5. Discussion with Chamberlin School Playground Committee on Future Plans: Ms. Sachs asked to delay the presentation for a joint meeting with the School Board. Mr. Cimonetti suggested putting it on a Steering Committee Agenda. Ms. Sachs asked the Council to consider improvements of pathways to schools in the new budget. 6. Presentation from Growth Center & Regionalization Team of the Champlain Initiative on Growth Center Planning: Ms. Kahler reviewed the history of the Initiative and gave members a physical representation of the vision of a healthy community. She noted that the work of the team is concerned with sustainability, economic success, environmental soundness and social justice. They feel a community should attract and retain jobs and foster a good quality of life. She specifically noted that South Burlington's efforts to design a City Center are in consort with the growth center concept. The group is trying to get people involved in a discussion of growth center planning and stressing that we live in a region, not only a city. The group's goals include promoting community involvement, coordination of land use, becoming stewards of Vermont's way of life, streamlining the regulatory process with regard to growth center planning. To achieve these ends, the group will meet with local officials to discuss issues, commission a "cost of sprawl" study, plan and host a "workday" on sprawl, advocate for legislative funding for local planning initiatives, and get support from the Regional Planning Commission. They are asking to come back and discuss South Burlington's vision for growth center planning and also to have a South Burlington official attend the workday and act as official representative to stakeholders' meetings. Mr. Cimonetti suggested group members spend some time with the City Planner and City Manager to find out what the city is doing. He felt participation in the workday would be a good idea and would consider participation in stakeholders' meetings. He noted there is excellent citizen participation in the city, and some of these people might be willing to help the group. Mr. Cimonetti stressed that he would like to see a dispassionate discussion on urban sprawl to correct some impressions. Mr. Hafter said the city needs the help of groups such as these to get new downtowns included in the bill currently in the Legislature. Mr. Sheahan left the meeting at this point. 7. Consideration of first reading of proposed zoning amendments to 1) Article - XXII, View Protection Overlay District, 2) the Official Zoning Map to change the designations of 2 parcels located easterly of Shelburne Rd, and 3) establish a new subzone within the C-1 District, Section 12.50, Automobile Sales Zone; schedule public hearing on same: a) View Protection: Mr. Weith explained that this part of the ordinance protects the view looking west and the view from Spear St. looking east. He noted that it had always been the intent to redo these angles as errors had been made. The proposal is to create 2 subzones, with zone "a" and zone "c" less restrictive than zone "b." With regard to the view looking east, they found the formula was wrong, and the amendment results in a little more restrictive zone than what exists today. This impacts only one parcel but does not preclude development there. A waiver provision is included, and an applicant could try to convince the Planning Commission that they could build higher and still not block the view. Mr. Britt noted that people believe the view from Spear St. will be protected and this is not so. Mr. Weith showed the ridge where the baseline is and noted that a future public park is planned there. The ridge is significantly higher than Spear St. Mr. Goldberg, representing the Mark Kellys who raised the issue, said that properties in zone "a" are being penalized now for being further from the line. Mr. Cimonetti said his question was whether it is well enough defined to put in specific exemptions. Mr. Weith said the Commission had a similar concern. The intent was to take into account the treeline in the distance. The greater concern is with someone who comes in with the question of a particular tree in the foreground. That could be a problem. Mr. Cimonetti also noted there had been wording about the height of vegetation and this was a "fuzzy" area. Mr. Weith said they cannot regulate growth of what was existing, only what is planted by a homeowner. The ordinance does that. Mr. Cimonetti felt the problem is that view protection was defined but there was never a definition of what view was being protected. He anticipated a problem in a public hearing. Ms. Britt was concerned with letting people push the envelope any more. She felt people should live within the rule. Mr. Weith felt there are some areas where a building could be higher and not block anything. The Commission's concern is that people could get a variance from the Zoning Board. Mr. Condos said he also had that concern. He suggested the possibility of having the Ordinance be similar to the Sign Ordinance where there is no appeal to the Zoning Board. Mr. Weith felt it would be helpful to define the view. Mr. Cimonetti said he favored correcting errors but was very concerned with waivers. He asked the Commission to work further on this. Other members agreed. Mr. Condos felt the baseline changes could be made tonight. Mr. Condos moved to waive the first reading and move to public hearing deleting Section 4 (22.90 and 22.95). There was no second. b. Zoning Map Changes: Mr. Weith noted this change relates to the land swap between the city and John Larkin. The Larkin land will now be zoned C-2 and the new city parcel will be zoned for Parks and Recreation. c) Auto Sales Zone: Mr. Weith explained that currently auto sales and service are not allowed in C-1; however, many such uses do exist in the C-1 zone. The Zoning Board recommended a sub-zone with auto sales and service as a conditional use to allow existing dealers to improve properties without allowing the use in the whole district. Members felt this made good sense, but they expressed concern with the possibility of having a sea of cars from Allen Rd. all the way up. Many undeveloped lots are small but could be combined. Mr. Weith said the Commission was aware of this but did not want to get into "spot zoning." After discussion, the Council agreed to move this forward to get public input. Ms. Britt moved to accept the first reading of parts 2 and 3 of the proposed zoning changes and set a public hearing for March 2, 1998. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Request for Approval of Capital Equipment Note, Resolution Capital Equipment Borrowing and Non-Arbitrage Certificate for purchase of a Jeep Cherokee by Public Works Department: Mr. Hafter said the note is for $17,000 at 4.3% interest from the Chittenden Bank. Mr. Condos said he got a call from owners of family-owned businesses who were concerned that the jeep was purchased from an out of city company. Mr. Audette explained that the original bids were made in August, and no bids were submitted from any South Burlington dealers. There was, in fact, only one bid submitted, and that was too high. They then went through the State contract process. Mr. Hafter added that the city likes to support its own businesses but also has to get the best price for all of its citizens. Mr. Condos moved to sign the capital equipment note, resolution and non-arbitrage certificate as presented. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Review Zoning Notice for Hearing on 9 February 1998: No issues were raised. 10. Review Minutes of 19 January: Mr. Condos moved to approve the Minutes of 19 January as written. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 12. Liquor Control Board: Ms. Britt moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented a first class liquor and cabaret license request from Nite Flite d/b/a 1710 Inn (the former What's Your Beef) on Shelburne Rd. He said the application is in order. Mr. Condos moved to approve the first class liquor and cabaret licenses for Nite Flite d/b/a 1710 Inn as presented. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Executive Session: Ms. Britt moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and to resume regular session only to adjourn. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The City Council returned to regular session. Mr. Condos moved adjournment. Ms. Britt seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.