Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/19/1998CITY COUNCIL 19 OCTOBER 1998 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 October 1998, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: James Condos, Acting Chair; David Austin, Terrance Sheahan, Joan Britt Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Albert Audette, Street Dept; John Jaeger, Terry Boyle, David Boehm, Marcel Beaudin 1. Comments and Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: a. Mr. Condos read a letter from the Department of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division to Darlene Worth of the School Department advising of the award of a $72,543 grant for a proposed substance abuse prevention program. b. Mr. Hafter advised that the city also received a $124,000 grant from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture to address repairs necessitated by the July rain storms. Mr. Audette said work will be done near Central Avenue and involves two homes which were almost lost. The bank on which they are located will be stabilized. c. Mr. Hafter advised of another grant received from the Preservation Trust in the amount of $40,000 for work on the Calkins property. d. A grant has been applied for in conjunction with the Living Technologies program. This would involve pre-treatment of waste from the Magic Hat Brewery. e. On December 2, a program on the Regional Educational TV Network will feature the South Burlington Fire Dept. f. The Commuter Rail Steering Committee will meet Wednesday at 9 a.m. The MPO will meet that evening at 7:00 p.m. g. There will be a community meeting on Thursday, at 7:30 for input on Dorset Park, specifically a swimming pool. The focus will be on community needs. Mr. Hafter said he hoped the next budget will contain funding for a consultant. 3. Public hearing on proposed amendment to South Burlington Zoning Regulations to establish City Center Design Review Overlay District, second reading of same: Mr. Weith reviewed the history of the amendment and noted that it was created by a committee of landowners in the area, an architect, landscape architect, etc. The ordinance would apply to all land zoned Central District. Mr. Weith showed the area on the map and indicated three sub-zones within the City Center. Each would have its own design characteristics. The ordinance would require design review when a property owner wanted to construct a new building, make alterations to an existing building, change the use of a property, or enlarge/alter non-landscaped outside areas (e.g., parking lots). Design review would be advisory only, and the Planning Commission would make the final decision on whether the design plan is accepted. There would be 19 criteria, both building and site related and could include materials, orientation to public roads, landscaping, vehicular and pedestrian access, streetscape improvements, etc. The amendment also involves a change to the building heights section to eliminate criteria which would now be covered in design review. Mr. Austin questioned whether change of use should be included as a design review trigger. Mr. Weith said there had been a lot of discussion on that in the committee and was thought to be a good idea because it offered the opportunity to at least suggest some aesthetic improvements. Mr. Austin also asked about the requirement for the submission of a model and asked if this would be a burdensome expense. Mr. Beaudin said that would depend. It could be very inexpensive but would be valuable because it gives the overall configuration of the mass of a building. The floor was then opened for public comment. John Jaeger and other merchants in the area were concerned that this is one more hurdle to delay a project, one more layer to go through. They did not feel properties would be improved by giant steps but by small steps. They also spoke against change of use as a trigger for design review. Mr. Condos noted that the city had a sign ordinance in which non-conforming signs were grandfathered. It was assumed these would come into conformance through time, but after 27 years, the signs were still the same size. He felt the same thing might happen in the City Center and the buildings would never get upgraded. Mr. Jaeger said upgrading would happen through economics, but that it isn't going to happen in 2 or 3 years. Members of the committee said it was their intention that major requirements would be suggested when significant reconstruction or use change was involved. Mr. Boyle said he was concerned that if change of use doesn't trigger design review, it will lead owners not to upgrade those buildings. Mr. Austin did not agree. Mr. Condos felt that if change of use to a particular tenant triggered design review, the owner might not be inclined to rent to that tenant. Another committee member felt that each time there is a way to upgrade a building, it should be welcomed. Other members agreed changes would be incremental but felt that there needs to be something to assure that in time the area will reach the point where it looks the way the city wants it to. A member of the audience questioned whether providing a park bench could be considered a public amenity. Mr. Weith said several benches might. Mr. Condos said it would be hard to imagine this could lead to confusion since the wording describes public amenities as parks and courtyards. Mr. Weith noted that one recommendation of the committee was that the city take another look at the whole streetscape issue along San Remo Drive. Members discussed whether to approve the amendment minus the "change of use" section and to ask the Planning Commission to reconsider that section or to send the entire document back and approve it all in one piece. Ms. Britt moved to close the public hearing and to send the amendment back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of Section 24.20 and 24.201. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Beaudin said he felt the Commission could add some language to make the section a little clearer. 4. Public hearing on proposed amendment to the South Burlington Sign Ordinance's City Center Dorset Street sign district; second reading of same: This item was tabled as it relates to the previous item. 5. Consideration of approval of cooperative agreement between City of South Burlington and State of Vermont for AOT Enhancement Grant to construct a 1.25 acre stormwater retention pond in the Bartlett Brook watershed: Mr. Hafter said the grant was applied for by the Natural Resources Committee. The terms of the grant allow the city to manage the project and provides 80% funding ($88,000). The city match of $22,000 can be provided by in-kind services or a cash match. This will be decided later. Mr. Sheahan moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement as presented. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of approval of application for VAOT 1998 Enhancement Grant Program: Dorset Street information signs: Mr. Weith explained that the grant would be for funds to pay for manufacture and installation of 7 information signs on Dorset Street. It would be for $24,350. This is the third year the city is applying for the project which has now been scaled back a bit. The concept was designed by the Dorset St. landscape committee. A member of the audience asked if the signs would replace existing signs. Mr. Condos said some would probably be replaced, specifically the "access to buildings on Dorset Street" signs. Mr. Austin moved to authorize the signing of the grant application as presented. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of acceptance as public streets the private roadways in the Foxcroft development (Derby Circle, Dover Street, Kingston Street, and Barnsley Street): Mr. Hafter noted the city has received a request to accept these private streets. This is similar to the request of Valley Ridge which the city accepted in the past. It is mainly for snowplowing reasons. Easements will be needed from all properties for 5' for snow storage. Mr. Hafter noted the streets were built to city standards. Mr. Audette added that there is proper drainage and the roads are in good condition. Mr. Austin moved to accept the 4 streets in Foxcroft subject to receipt of legal documents. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of rescheduling of next meeting date to November 9, 1998: Members had no problem with this. 9. Review Planning Commission agenda for 20 October 1998: No issues were raised. 10. Review City Council Minutes of 14 and 21 September and 5 October: Ms. Britt moved to approve the Minutes of 14 September as written. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Britt moved to approve the Minutes of 21 September as written. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Britt moved to approve the Minutes of 5 October as written. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Austin abstaining. 11. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 12. Executive Session: Mr. Austin moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel issues and real property acquisition and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Austin moved adjournment. Mr. Sheahan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.