Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/03/2000CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2000 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 January 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members present: James Condos, Chair; Terry Sheahan, David Austin, Joan Britt, Chris Smith Also present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peter Bestenbostel, Assistant City Manager; Bruce Hoar, Public Works; Joe Weith, Director of Planning & Zoning; Joe Segale, Regional Planning Commission; Dave Schneider, Sheldon Katz, Alice Boyd, Tim Barrett, Kathleen Gorman, Mrs. Shorter, Paul Demers, Alex Blair, John Kimball, Mike Cassidy, Kenn Sassarossi, Amy Wright, Eric Farrell, Ray Unsworth 1. Comments & questions from the public not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Review minutes of 20 December 1999: Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the minutes of 20 December as written. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Announcements & City Manager's report: Mr. Hafter reported the following: a. Steering Committee meeting, 27 January, 7:30 p.m. to discuss city and school budgets and alternate revenue sources. b. The city made it into Y2K without incident. Mr. Hafter thanked the staff members who spent a thankfully very dull New Year's Eve at City Hall. 4. Further action & discussion on petition requesting closure of Farrell Street to traffic between Hadley Rd. and Joy Drive: Mr. Condos reviewed the history of this item then introduced Joe Segale, traffic engineer with the Regional Planning Commission, who researched possible options using the Commission's computer model. Mr. Schneider noted that many of the signatures on the petition opposing the closing of Farrell St. were from out of the neighborhood. Mr. Condos said that many were also from within the neighborhood. Mr. Segale said he was asked to look at what would happen if Odell Parkway were open all the way through to Farrell St. He said he looked at the current year (with existing conditions) and at the year 2005 (assuming some developments and completion of several road improvement projects). He found that just opening Odell would reduce traffic in the neighborhood by 30%. Mr. Segale also said that dead-ending Farrell St. would reduce neighborhood traffic by 70%. Making Farrell St. one way would reduce neighborhood traffic by 50%. Regarding the speed of traffic in the neighborhood, Mr. Segale said that for every 5 miles per hour less of speed, you can double the amount of traffic you can reduce. This can be accomplished with speed bumps, street narrowing, etc. Mr. Austin noted that the city has introduced a number of traffic calming devices, including stop signs and neckdowns. The evidence is that these have not worked. He asked Mr. Segale why. Mr. Segale said the neckdowns were placed in the center of the street, and people are speeding up to them. He said what he recommends are "gateways" which you can't see from the end of the street. This treatment would continue throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Segale also indicated that the down side of this is plowing and street maintenance. Ms. Britt asked what would be the reduction in traffic with only the traffic calming measures. Mr. Segale replied that results of traffic calming throughout the country are mixed. Ms. Shorted said that a number of years ago neighbors were told that you couldn't put in speed bumps or reduce speeds lower than 25 mph. Mr. Segal said you still cannot post a road for less than 25 mph, but there is a bill in the Legislature that would consider going as low as 15 mph. Ms. Gorman asked where the 30% reduction in traffic comes from with the opening of Odell. Mr. Segal said it is traffic going all the way through. Ms. Gorman said all the traffic in the neighborhood is cut-through. Why would anyone go down Odell rather than go to the light near the gas company. She felt opening Odell might actually increase traffic in the neighborhood as other people might go through local streets to get to Home Avenue. Mr. Condos said that Odell would be designed so there would be a natural flow on Farrell. Farrell would also be modified at the joining point with Odell. Mr. Barritt said this scenario has never been shown on any developer's plans. He felt the opening of Odell would add more traffic with people going to the new supermarket, apartment house, etc. He felt the best traffic calming method is to dead end Farrell St. Mr. Katz asked if Mr. Segale considered the congestion that would take place at Home Avenue/Odell/Shelburne Road. Mr. Segale said he did and acknowledged that this is a concern. Mr. Katz said the result of that congestion would be to have more people go through the neighborhood to avoid that intersection. Mr. Segale acknowledged that is possible. Mr. Katz said that when developers presented their plan to the neighborhood, they said that opening Odell and making Farrell one way could get only 25% of traffic out of the neighborhood. He asked how Mr. Segale could say that just opening Odell would result in a 30% traffic reduction. Mr. Segale said the developer might have modeled it a bit differently or used different speed limits. Mr. Kimball asked what traffic control was anticipated at Farrell/Swift. Mr. Segale said he assumed a traffic light there. Mr. Demers said that under every scenario, the Home/Shelburne Rd. intersection goes to a level of service "D" or "E" in 5 years. He asked how adding Odell Parkway to the mix can be a solution to the traffic problem. Mr. Demers said that intersection is a mess already. He also felt that making Farrell one way looks pretty simple compared to trying to get the Home/Shelburne/Odell intersection to work. Mr. Blair said the only way you will make any difference is to increase Shelburne Rd. to 8 lanes and to increase Swift, Spear and Dorset to 4 lanes. He stressed that there are only 2 east-west roads and just a few north-south roads, and they are not adequate to handle the volume of traffic. He felt there are no strictly "residential" neighborhoods anywhere anymore. Mrs. Gorman said she didn't want the neighborhood to have all the suggested traffic calming methods. It is only 6 blocks long, and the talk is for 16 stop signs in that short area. She noted that people don't stop at the signs that are there now. Mr. Cassidy noted that people drive on lawns to get around the neckdowns now, and he felt adding more of them or making them narrower would only increase "road rage." He felt the cheapest and best results would be gotten from dead ending Farrell. He suggested trying it for 30 days and taking some measurements. Mr. Unsworth noted that nearly 100% of businesses in the area have written letters opposing the closing of Farrell. He felt you can't close a street because it serves too many people. A resident of the neighborhood said there are signs in the neighborhood that say "No Through Traffic," and they are there for a reason. Mr. Condos noted there is no ordinance to back up those signs. They are strictly a discouragement. Ms. Britt said that to her the major issue is speed. Reducing speed would discourage people from cutting through. She was concerned that closing a road would set a precedent and might create more problems. Mr. Smith said he was concerned with conflicting numbers that have been suggested. Mr. Sheahan said he has a great deal of empathy for the neighborhood. This has been an ongoing struggle. He also stressed the need to consider the whole city and not only the neighborhood in question. He said he is a "crawl, walk, run" person and that he would be amenable to considering making Farrell one-way south from Hadley to Joy with some added traffic calming measures in the neighborhood. Mr. Austin recalled that the city had not done speed bumps because of concerns with plowing and maintenance. Mr. Hafter said what is being considered is "speed humps" which are doable with newer technology. He said the city was willing to try them. Ms. Britt added that it is important to have them close together so people don't speed between them. Mr. Condos felt that the existing neckdowns could be narrowed and additional stop signs could be put in right now. Mr. Austin said he wished he could believe that would get speeds down. He said he was concerned with dead-ending Farrell because it would create more left turns into Shelburne Road. He stressed that these are public streets, and he was not inclined to shut them off for people in the area who want to use them. On the other hand, he did believe in keeping cut-through traffic out of residential neighborhoods and noted that this is the worst instance of this in the city. He felt that whatever the Council decides, some people will be disappointed. Mr. Condos noted that at tomorrow's Development Review Board, the project that includes the opening of Odell Parkway will be heard. He indicated he would like to try something and see what kind of impact it will have. Mr. Sheahan said he felt an obligation to do something tonight, and thought the first thing is to work with what exists. He suggested narrowing the neckdowns and adding stop signs. Mr. Hoar said he didn't think anything of a temporary nature would work, but he was willing to try something. Mr. Austin said that one option is to adopt a plan that, say within 18 months, the city wants to see Odell Parkway built as discussed. The success of this could then be measured. This would, of course, be dependent on whether the DRB approves the project. Mr. Austin said he was inclined to go with that provided the results can be measured against a standard. If it is not successful, he would then be persuaded to dead-end Farrell Street. He also felt the Council should consider making Farrell one-way south and adding traffic calming measures. He stressed that whatever is done, the results should be assessed. Mr. Austin said he had no problem pushing traffic onto Shelburne Road because that is what that road was built for. Mr. Smith said he would lean more toward making Farrell one-way and adding traffic calming measures. He did not feel that opening Odell Parkway would do enough. Mr. Condos said the Council could instruct staff to start doing engineering for traffic calming measures right now so they could be installed in May. By then, the city would know the status of Odell Parkway. If that project were moving forward, the city would also know the timing. Mr. Condos said he was sure the DRB would require that Odell be built immediately. The city could then take traffic counts 6 months after Odell is open to see the results. Mr. Sheahan asked about the possibility of traffic calming in conjunction with making Farrell one-way south. That would take another chunk of traffic out of the neighborhood. Mr. Condos said that will require an ordinance change, but he acknowledged that it would have an immediate impact. Ms. Britt suggested that between traffic calming and making Farrell one-way south, people's habits could change. She said she wanted to do something that would have an impact and she was willing to try that combination at least on a temporary basis. She felt that before a decision could be made, however, she would like to know the costs. Mr. Hafter said he could get cost estimates on the traffic calming methods. Costs on making Farrell one-way are known. Mr. Sheahan agreed Farrell might not have to be one-way forever, but he felt something has to be tried. Mr. Austin said this is a problem that has grown over the years. He felt a decision should be made tonight, even if it can't be implemented immediately. Ms. Britt said she didn't want to ask the neighbors to wait for Odell to be open, which might take years. Mr. Smith said he did not have a problem with something that might be temporary. All members agreed on trying additional traffic calming methods and to direct staff to bring in costs for this. Mr. Condos noted that in order to make Farrell St. one way, there would have to be a first reading of the ordinance on 17 January followed by a second on 7 February. By then, the city would have cost estimates. If the decision were made to make Farrell one way south, it could be accomplished during February. Mr. Condos said he was not a big fan of making Farrell one way, but he realized it would make a significant impact on the neighborhood. He also felt it was a compromise for those who want it completely closed and those who want it kept open. Members instructed the City Manager to prepare an ordinance that would make Farrell St. one way south between Hadley and Joy. Mr. Condos explained that on 17 January, staff will bring in for a first reading the proposed ordinance making Farrell one way south. The Council would take comments, etc. The ordinance would then move to a public hearing on 7 February and staff would try to have all cost figures on engineer for traffic calming at that time. If no major changes are made to the ordinance, Farrell could become one-way south the next day. Mr. Austin felt the Council should select a date on which to measure whatever is done. Mr. Condos noted that making Farrell one-way south is projected to remove 40% of traffic from the neighborhood. This would still keep the road open and still maintain access. 5. Consideration of petition requesting the city to acquire by condemnation the Davis and Farrell properties between Shelburne and Farrell Streets: Mr. Condos noted that this request was made via a petition signed by 125 residents. A member of the audience asked if the city would have to buy the land. Mr. Condos said yes, it would have to pay fair market value. He then explained the process, including proving necessity, then going through the courts to determine a fair price (including lost revenue from potential development). He said it would be a very costly process. An audience member asked where the money to purchase the land would come from. Mr. Condos said from taxpayers. Mr. Katz asked if the staff had calculated the cost of not acquiring the land (need for additional services if the land is developed, e.g., police, fire schools, etc.). Mr. Hafter said he did not because the cost of the land is not known and there is no knowledge of how many students it might generate, etc. Mr. Katz expressed concern that all the people in the neighborhood were not notified of this discussion. A member of the audience expressed the opposite concern, that issues that come to the Council do not involve just one neighborhood, and that private notice to some citizens is not fair when the whole city can be involved. Mr. Condos then read the petition. He noted that it included a statement that the neighborhood did not have access to public parks and green areas. He felt this was not true and cited Farrell Park, the East Woods natural area, and Rice High School fields, etc. A resident noted you have to drive to all of these. Farrell Park is across Swift St. which is dangerous to cross. If residents try to walk to these areas, they have been told they are on private property and to leave. This is true also of Rice High School. Mr. Condos said that a traffic light for Farrell/Swift is on order and it will have a pedestrian activated signal. This is part of the rec path project that the city has taken over from the state. He showed the route of this path. Mr. Hafter then explained why he felt the city did not have a chance to get the land condemned. The parcel has never been identified as desirable public land. The value of the land is very high, as much as $5,000,000. The proposed development on the land is dense infill which is what the city is seeking (including needed affordable housing), and the cost of the condemnation process is extremely high. Mr. Hafter noted the city just paid $4,000.00 for a piece of land the size of a table that had no value at all. Mr. Hafter did acknowledge that some of the neighborhood's concerns are valid. It will be important to have adequate buffers between the neighborhood and proposed project. Farrell Park is not family-friendly, and he recommended adding picnic tables, and some playground equipment to improve that situation. Mr. Smith said he would consider condemnation only as a very last resort. A member of the audience asked about the impact of Act 60. Mr. Condos said the city will be looking at the impact of Act 60 on growth as a result of the recent growth forums. The city has no legal recourse to stop development until this study is done. A resident of the neighborhood expressed concern with the quality of the neighborhood citing increased traffic and commercialization. Mr. Condos said this is a great small neighborhood, and the city is taking some steps to try to reduce traffic. He also noted the developer has made changes to increase buffers with the residential area. He noted this is a mixed use development which is far better than a high impact retail use which the land is currently zoned to allow. Mr. Condos stressed that the city can't buy every piece of property. In order to stop sprawl, this is also an ideal place to have development. 6. Consideration of acceptance of Vermont Community Development Planning Grand for $450,000 for development of 30 housing units on Williston Road: Mr. Hafter said all the paperwork is in order. The question of the Act 250 status of the project was raised. Mr. Sassarossi said there is an approval that is being challenged. He did not know the timeframe for that process. He felt the 30-day process should be starting soon. The appeals are based on aesthetics and traffic issues. Ms. Britt asked if the city has indemnification from the developer so there is no liability for funding. Mr. Hafter said they do. Mr. Sassarossi said any additional funding needed would be sought outside the city. Mr. Bestenbostel said the clause that is of concern is simply the grantor's way of saying "if this isn't enough money, you're on your own." Mr. Sheahan moved to authorize the Chair to sign the documents and to further authorize the City Manager or Assistant City Manager to sign further documents as they come forward. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Capital Refunding Notes for street sweeper and Scot air packs: Mr. Hafter said the Street Sweeper note is the second of 5 payments. It is for $16,000 for this year at 4.4% interest. Funds are in the budget for this payment. Mr. Smith moved to approve the note and resolution for the street sweeper as presented. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter advised that the note for the Air Packs is the second of three payments and is for $10,000 this year at 4.4%. Funds are in the budget for this amount as well. Ms. Britt moved to approve the note and resolution for the Air Packs as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Development Review Board Agenda for 4 January 2000: Mr. Condos noted that with regard to item #5, the DRB will be asked to consider a road configuration as discussed earlier in the meeting. He also noted that the developer is participating in traffic calming measures. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.