Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/03/1999CITY COUNCIL 3 MAY 1999 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 May 1999, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, Joan Britt, Terrance Sheahan, David Austin Also present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Joe Weith, City Planner; Peter Bestenbostel, Asst. City Manager; Anne Geggis, Free Press; Joe Segale, Brian Mack, Doug Weber, Tim Eustace, Mary Benoit, Jim Snyder, Art Balfe, Bonnie Pelkey, Chris Jolly, Peter Plumeau, Christine Forde, Jack Darling, Cindy Smith, James Pease, Frank Clark, James & Cynthia Hall, David Boehm, Donna Leban 1. Comments and questions from the audience (not related to Agenda items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Condos announced that this will be Chair Cimonetti's last Council meeting. He hoped it was a great day for Bill but felt it was a sad day for the city. Mr. Sheahan said that the update of the Regional Plan should be ready for review in a few weeks. Regional Planning people have asked for time on the 28 June agenda for a presentation. The Council and the community will have opportunity to comment on the plan. Mr. Cimonetti noted that in order to take effect, the plan must be approved by a majority of the communities. Mr. Hafter also thanked the Mr. Cimonetti for his service and for the help he has given to him. Mr. Hafter then reported on the following: ---on 5 May, at 5:25 p.m., a presentation on public access TV by Mr. Hafter and Mr. Chattman on the City and School budgets. This will be followed by a presentation of the School Board candidates. The following evening at the same time, there will be a presentation of the City Council candidates. ---on 12 May, a retirement gathering for Dick Ward who has given over 30 years of service to the city. ---Mr. Hafter announced that Sonny Audette will retire on 16 July after more than 30 years of service. ---both the Zoning Board and Planning Commission chairs will be stepping down from those positions. ---on 13 May, a meeting of regional elected officials. The main items of discussion will be affordable housing and the Correctional facility. ---The City & School Cooperation Committee consists of Gary Farrell, George Chamberland, Bill Cimonetti, Rep. Mike Flaherty. A City Council representative is needed. ---on 18 May, 7 p.m., a specialist in aquatic facilities from Massachusetts will discuss a possible facility in the city. ---The Kennedy Drive scoping report is complete and will advance to final design as soon as possible. The City will ask to take over the project and begin final design as soon as a consultant can be hired. ---Property assessment appeal hearings will be held on 14, 15, and 16 June, as necessary. 3. Public hearing on condemnation of Meadowbrook Condominium Association, Inc., property, Joy Drive, for purposes of constructing a bicycle path (.08 + or - acres, 2 permanent slope easements, 2 temporary construction easements and a temporary landscape easement: Mr. Cimonetti read the Notice of Public Hearing. He noted that the Council had inspected the property earlier in the evening with members of the Recreation Committee. The property is now staked and shows the edge of the proposed Rec Path and the extent of the temporary construction easements. The land is almost exclusively unimproved land, except for a very small piece outside the tennis court which would be used only during construction. Mr. Britt said she and Mr. Sheahan walked to where the path will link up with part of the UVM path. This is quite far from any condo units. Under oath, Mr. Pinkham entered 3 plans as exhibits. He noted that the path connects Shelburne Rd. and Williston Road. He showed the route of the path on the plan. The path has a 25 mph design speed. Mr. Pinkham then showed the permanent path and construction easements. He also entered as exhibits a letter from CWD with a request not to relocate water lines and a letter from the AOT with a request not to impact the I-89 right-of-way line. Mr. Cimonetti said that when I-89 was built, the State acquired a very substantial piece of land, part of which is being used for the Rec Path. The State does not want to impact any more than that. Under oath, Ms. Smith described the appraisal process. She said she inspected the property on 14 April and invited Meadowbrook people to accompany her on this inspection. The taking is .08 acres and is 20 feet in depth at the widest point. The land is near the condo's recreation area at the south end of the development. Buildings and site improvements are not involved in the land being taken. Ms. Smith then explained how land is appraised and how "comparables" are used in this process. She said that the land is valued at $44,000 per acre. The total Meadowbrook property value is $497,600. Its value after the taking will be $493,800. The total compensation for the taking would be as follows: $3500 for the taken area, $300 for the permanent slope easements, and $200 for the temporary easements for a total of $4,000. Ms. Smith noted that her report was approved by the State AOT and by federal agencies involved in the funding of the Rec Path. Ms. Britt asked if topography is taken into consideration. Ms. Smith said she knew it was not a developable piece of land but did not use that to impact the value. Mr. Condos asked if the Rec Path would have a positive or negative impact on the property's value. Ms. Smith said the general belief is that it would have a positive impact or no impact at all. Under oath, Mr. Balfe of the Condominium Association, explained the nature of their bylaws which require 100% consent in order to transfer property. In this case, 3 or 4 owners opposed the transfer. He asked if there is any latitude in working with the appraisal figure. Mr. Cimonetti said the Council does have flexibility to establish a fair and just value. The Council's decision can be challenged. Mr. Hafter noted that the City made every effort to get 100% agreement and received the cooperation of the Condo Association. Mr. Cimonetti declared the hearing closed and said the Council would deliberate and then issue its findings within 60 days. 4. Interview candidates for the City Council Design Review Committee: Mr. Hafter said they had advertised for members for the 5-person committee and received a number of applications. Those to be interviewed are: David Boehm, Donna Leban, Mary Benoit, Frank Clark and Bonnie Pelkey. Mr. Cimonetti asked candidates to explain why they want to serve on the committee and what relevant experience they would bring. He also asked them to comment on how the city planning process works and their hopes and expectations on how the review process might proceed. Ms. Benoit said she has been a city resident since 1986 and was an original petitioner for a bike path. She has been interested in city planning since a child and has traveled extensively. She likes Vermont because each community is unique, unlike the Midwest where all towns look alike. She is familiar with the construction process as she is an electrical designer/applications engineer. Ms. Pelkey works in interior design and has a 2-year certificate from Parsons School of Design. She felt it would be wonderful to make that area of the city more impressive. Donna Leban has been a city resident since 1992, is an architect starting her own business. She specializes in lighting design. She felt this is a car- dominated community but that this should not overshadow the pedestrian nature of the city. Mr. Clark has been a city resident since 1986 and is a construction company controller who deals with contractors. He served on the golf course committee and would like to be a part of this new effort. Mr. Boehm has been in South Burlington since 1977 and previously served on the Zoning Board and on the committee that wrote the Design Review Ordinance. He was a planner in Maryland for 4 years and now owns a small consulting engineering firm. He has been before planning commission and design review boards and would like to help shape the future of the city. Ms. Britt asked candidates what they felt the city could do to make the City Center a reality. Mr. Boehm felt the city has to take the initiative, possibly with regard to a parking structure. Ms. Leban cited the difficulty of the approval process and felt mixed use should be made easier to accomplish. Mr. Sheahan asked candidates if they could cite one thing that might be a catalyst to get people to come to use the facilities of the City Center. Ms. Benoit felt a park setting with attractive mixed-use buildings that don't empty out when the stores close. Mr. Clark felt parking and also a reason to go there. Ms. Pelkey noted that in Burlington, you can park in one place downtown and walk everywhere. In South Burlington there are 2 sides to Dorset St. and difficulty in walking from one to the other. She also felt that all-season "core spots" are needed. Most important, people shouldn't have to use a car to get around. Ms. Leban felt the area needs interesting spaces. Mr. Condos asked if applicants would be serving on any other city committees. Most felt they had a particular interest in this effort but would consider what might fit into their schedules. 5. Alternative presentation meeting for I-89 exit 13 access improvements; project scoping and definition; MPO and Webster-Martin: Mr. Segale introduced the presentation and briefly reviewed the history. Mr. Edwards then addressed location, purpose & need, existing conditions, local concerns, etc. He showed the location on the plans. The project is needed to improve transportation efficiency, to connect 2 national highway routes, to relieve congestions, to provide connection to the Airport, and to support economic development. Existing conditions have resulted in levels of service at nearby intersections ranging from C to E. By the year 2015, these are projected to deteriorate to E and F. In 1997, there were 20 accidents which followed no particular patterns. There have been 14 accidents on Exit 13 ramps over a 5-year period. Local concerns include the need for additional access to I-89, the increase in noise with an additional lane, the impact on the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd. intersection, congestion at Exit 14, and consideration of bike and pedestrian facilities. There are three alternatives: do nothing, add a northbound on-ramp, or build a full interchange. Doing nothing does not impact resources but does not reduce delays or congestion and does not promote the growth center. The on-ramp would improve connections to the national highway system, reduce traffic volumes at Exit 14 and other intersections, would support economic development, provide additional connections to the Airport, and contribute to a possible future full interchange. The negative impacts would be increased traffic at the intersection with Kennedy Drive and the lack of a full connection to the national highway system. The full interchange design would include new and widened bridges, additional lanes, etc. It would also require an additional lane on Kennedy Drive. Its advantages include reduced traffic volumes at Exit 14, reduced traffic at various intersections, improved connections to the national highway system, promotion of economic development, additional connections to the Airport. Negative impacts include traffic at Kennedy Dr/Dorset St (19% increase) and at other intersections, wetland impacts, the need for archeological testing. The costs for the three options are: 0 for doing nothing, $2.3 million for the on-ramp, and $13 million for the full interchange. The two construction options would require relocation of utilities and both would result in more noise. Mr. Segale said that the FHWA does not allow partial interchanges. They want a full interchange commitment (not necessarily all built at once). This necessitates an environmental assessment to see if a full interchange could be built. If this resulted in "no significant environmental impact," the project could go ahead. Mr. Hafter asked what would happen if the study revealed that there was one leg of a full interchange that couldn't be built. Mr. Segale said probably none of it could be built. Ms. Britt asked if a choice had to be made between this and a 116 interchange, what would Mr. Segale choose. Mr. Segale said the 116 interchange because of the benefit study. Mr. Sheahan asked if doing the Exit 13 project would put off the 116 interchange indefinitely. Mr. Segale said there is a policy of no new interchanges but this could change. Mr. Cimonetti felt it will take an economic event to drive a 116 interchange. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the Class 2 wetlands might be the "cruncher" on the Exit 13 project. Mr. Edwards felt it could and so could the public lands (high school property) issue. Mr. Condos expressed concern with some of the improvements to local streets that were suggested would be needed. He felt these would make the city pedestrian unfriendly, especially in the area of the schools where kids often walk. He also felt the city could get a full 116 interchange and an on-ramp at Exit 13 for less than $13 million. Mr. Cimonetti felt that if the most logical thing is to do an environmental study, he had no problem dedicating the funds for it. He stressed the city's commitment to Exit 13 and the resulting benefits. He also stressed that City Center plans hinge on the ability to move traffic. Mr. Edwards urged the city to begin discussions with the state on having the city take over this project, the sooner the better. 6. Public hearing on amendment to Zoning Regulations re: fences: second reading: Mr. Weith said Section 26.47: Fences is new and has 6 provisions, 3 applying to all fences, 3 to fences over a certain height. Fences can go up to, but not on a property line. The good side must face out. And clear vision area must be maintained at street corners. Fences over 4 ft. high require a zoning permit and fences over 8 ft. high require conditional use approval and must meet normal setback requirements. Mr. Darling asked why the ordinance is being considered. Mr. Weith said it began with the construction of a fence at the Correctional Facility and the realization that the city had no provision for fences in its ordinances. Ms. Britt said there was a concern with visibility and therefore safety. Mr. Darling felt permits should be required only for fences over 6 ft, not 4 ft. because for some dogs a 4 ft. fence isn't high enough. He also didn't think the good side should face out because it is hard to maintain if you can't go on the neighbors property. Mr. Weith noted that 4 ft. is a standard fence size and was used for that reason. Mr. Darling asked if there is a fee for a permit. Mr. Weith said it is $5.00 per $1000. of construction cost. Mr. Austin moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Britt said she was comfortable with how the ordinance was written. Mr. Austin moved to waive reading of the proposed amendment. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Britt moved to approve the amendment as presented. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. First reading of amendment to South Burlington Zoning Regulations, Article XXII, Bartlett Brook Watershed Protection Overlay District; schedule public hearing: Mr. Weith said there are three changes: a) design of retention systems should incorporate a 2-year storm event in addition to a 25-year event b) the trigger requiring a review process has been changed from 15,000 sq. ft. to 7500 sq. ft. or undeveloped land c) there is an additional requirement that every development submit an annual report by a certified engineer on the system. Deficiencies would have to be corrected. Mr. Cimonetti said there will have to be discussion as to whether these systems will have to become pieces of municipal infrastructure in the future. It would be a very big step. Mr. Audette noted there are over 60 such systems, various sizes and in various conditions. Mr. Austin moved to approve the first reading of the proposed amendments and to set a public hearing for 7 June 1999. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Condos suggested having Natural Resources Committee and Heindel & Noyes people at the public hearing. 8. First reading of amendment to Ordinance Regarding Street Naming and Addressing; schedule public hearing: Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of the amendment and noted it changes the language to conform with what was approved by the City Council. Mr. Austin said there should be an indication that "old roads are grandfathered." Ms. Britt moved to approve the first reading and to schedule a public hearing for 7 June 1999. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of approval of Special Events Permit for Mt. Sinai Shriners' Circus, 8/21-22, Dorset Street: Mr. Hafter said he has met with the applicants and discussed rules regarding set-up, inspection, etc. Ms. Britt moved to approve the Special Events Permit for Mt. Sinai Shriners' Circus as presented. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Schedule reorganization meeting: Members agreed to hold the reorganization meeting at noon on 24 May. 11. Review Zoning Notices for public hearing on 5/10/99: No issues were raised. 11. Review Minutes of 5 April and 19 April 1999: Mr. Condos moved to approve the Minutes of 5 April 1999 as presented. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Ms. Britt and Mr. Sheahan abstaining. Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the Minutes of 19 April as written. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Cimonetti and Mr. Austin abstaining. 12. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. Executive Session: Mr. Sheahan moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss appointments and to deliberate on the condemnation issue. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The City Council returned to regular session. Jim Condos moved, Dave Austin seconded, the following appointments to the Design Review Committee for City Center: Three year appointments (2002):David Boehme Dana Leban Mary Benoit Two year appointments (2001):Bonnie Pelkey Frank Clark The motion passed unanimously. Terry Sheahan moved adjournment. Joan Britt seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.