Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/01/2001CITY COUNCIL 1 OCTOBER 2001 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 October 2001, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members present: J. Condos, Chair; T. Sheahan, S. Magowan, C. Smith, D. O'Rourke Also present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Business Manager; D. Whitten, Water Pollution Control Dept; J. B. Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Hoar, Public Works Director; Rep. S. Audette, J. McLean, City Attorney; D. & M. Griffiths, E. Martinez, B. Cimonetti, B. Miller, S. Greenwell, D. & J. Manley, B. Milizia, C. Luce, T. Leene, D. Leban, R. Esponte, N. Nadeau, H. & I. Petersen, A. Mitiguy, V. Wolfson, J. & P. Barry, T. Pockop, M. Donato, D. Haggarty, W. & C. Dunlop, B. & K. Weaver, B. Cauthon, N. Patel, R. Sundetjan, T. Gibbons, B. & C. Pfenning, B. Mahoney, L. Bousquet, C. Wilbur, D. Youngblood, K. Spartalian, C. Shea, L. Kert-Benard, S. Crosby, N. Hyman, M. Hackett, J. Cota, W. Nadeau, K. Manazir, K. Crosby, M. Dupuis, B. Sprague, T. Beck, M. Bruce, R. Boulanger, T. & C. Malone, B. Ferris, H. Shah, E. Forbes 1. Comments & question from the audience not related to Agenda items: Mr. Cimonetti noted that 11 years ago when Overlook Park was dedicated, a proposed flagpole was not installed due to cost considerations. He felt that it would be an excellent step for the Council at this time to put in the flagpole. He also felt that City employees would be more than willing to put up and take down the flag each day. Mr. Hafter agreed to look into costs and flag etiquette. 2. Announcements and City Manager's report: Mr. Sheahan: Regional Planning Executive Committee meeting, 15 October, 5 p.m. Mr. Hafter: The City has hired a company which is expert in golf course appraisal to appraise the VT Country Club golf course. The cost is $9,000. The South Burlington Police Dept. has received $250,000 for new computers and other equipment for crime fighting. The Vermont Coalition of Municipalities will hold its annual meeting on 31 October. Mr. Hafter will attend. Mr. Hafter gave members a list of tax penalties that were waived. Don Whitten will be retiring on 7 December. The City will begin looking for a replacement. Mr. Condos said the City should be proud of how Mr. Whitten has run his department. 3. Discussion with residents of Village at Dorset Park regarding proposed extension of Swift St. to Hinesburg Rd: Mr. Miller presented a petition with 180 signatures opposing the extension of Swift St. for the following reasons; it is close to Kennedy Drive and doesn't save a lot of time; Dorset Park was not designed with a wide buffer zone to shield homes from noise; the City seems to be designing Dorset Park as a destination area and when you mix a destination intention with a "cut thru," you get unsafe conditions. Mr. Miller added that if there has to be a road the city should consider design elements. He noted Dorset Park is a very close knit neighborhood. Mr. Barry said there are also environmental issues that should be studied. Drainage from the hillside to the wetland is one issue. Mr. Barry was also concerned with exhaust fumes as his home is the closest to Swift St. Ms. O'Rourke asked how a decision will be made. Mr. Condos said this road has been on the city map since 1960. Any building will depend on what happens with the land now called the Hill Farm. The city would have to purchase the property and pay for the road to be built; other than that, the city would wait for a development proposal and would make the road a requirement of that development. Ms. Weber noted that surveyors were in that area today. Mr. Hafter said the City has not received any plans from the property owner. Ms. Weber asked about the stream and wetland that crosses where the road would go. Mr. Condos said many boards and commissions would have to deal with the details of any proposed road. Ms. Stern expressed concern for the number of children in the area and felt the road would make it more dangerous for them. Ms. Hoover said the consensus at the August meeting was that there is now no outlet for traffic between Cheese Factory Road and Kennedy Drive. This puts a lot of traffic on Van Sicklen Rd. With current development proposals, the feeling is that Swift St. and Old Cross Road need to be put through. Ms. Hoover added that roads are built when developments on adjacent parcels occur, and developers understand this. Ms. Stern felt that 1960 was a very different time from now. A Dorset Park resident noted that their children have been redistricted because of projections that turned out not to be true. He felt that traffic is just not a problem, and he did not feel that traffic projections were credible. Mr. Condos said that Swift St. would not be another Kennedy Drive but more of a grid system to allow traffic to move. He also noted that Kennedy Drive is to be reconstructed. Ms. Leban said she does not object to connecting neighborhoods but the plan is to extend Swift St. to an industrial area or to a Hinesburg Rd. access to the Interstate. She felt that would be a real threat to the neighborhood. She also felt that an interchange at Hinesburg Rd. would solve a lot of the city's problems. Mr. Condos noted that a Hinesburg Rd. interchange is not in the plans at this time. It is, however, a priority for the city. Mr. Stern asked about the impact of the recent storm water ruling on Kennedy Dr. or Swift St. Mr. Hafter said the City does have to have permits and meet conditions. Mr. Magowan said he didn't think it was anyone's intention to build a road to make it easier to get from South Burlington to Williston. He felt there are ways to design neighborhood connector roads to prevent them from becoming straight "bomb-throughs." Mr. Magowan also felt the chances that the City would build the road were slim. Mr. Marone said the City has recently done 2 studies. He also noted the Comprehensive Plan also speaks of protecting views, wetlands, etc. The MPO study talks only about moving traffic. Mr. Condos replied that there will be development and the City has to accommodate development with infrastructure. The person who did the MPO report says he feels that the more east-west roads the better as this allows traffic to filter throughout the whole city. Traffic now has only a few places to go. Ms. Bakeman felt that Ridgewood would also be impacted by an extension of Swift St. She noted it is hard to walk on the Rec Path near Swift St. now. She felt that if the City wants neighborhood connectors for emergency vehicles, etc., they can figure out how to do it without completely ruining the area. She suggested a possible emergency access only. Ms. Busquette said she objects to hearing that there might be a road there because a developer will build it. She felt the people in the City should decide where roads go. Ms. Weaver presented a petition from the area children who feel that an extension of Swift St. will make it dangerous for them and will ruin the natural area. Ms. Paquette noted that the road at Meadowood was only built to help a developer get to a water connection. She didn't want that to happen here. A resident asked how to get the road taken off the City map. Ms. Hoover said it is part of the Comprehensive Plan, and that was a very open process that was revisited in 1999. The official map amendments go from the Planning Commission to the City Council which has the final vote. Ms. Kerr said the Natural Resources Committee has identified Dorset Park as a wildlife corridor. Mr. Hafter noted it is part of a larger open space plan. Ms. Jacobson said she asked the surveyors what they were doing, and they responded that they were dealing with a sewer line. Mr. Condos said he had no idea what was going on as it is private land. Mr. Hoar said there is talk about a connection to Oak Creek/Butler Farms which was supposed to happen in order to get rid of the pump station. Mr. Manley noted that the area attracts wildlife. He felt that keeping open space was very important so there are quiet places to get away from noise and pollution. Mr. Condos noted that the City tried to buy the adjacent property but was outbid. He felt that any decision that is made should be one that is best for the whole City. Ms. Hoover noted that the Planning Commission is going to be getting together with the Council regarding an east-west connector south of Swift St. 4. Discussion with residents of Shunpike Road regarding traffic volumes and speed: Mr. Guyette presented a petition from residents of Shunpike Rd. He said the problem is 3-fold: the amount of traffic, speeding, and trucks using the road as a cut-through. He cited problems residents have pulling out of driveways resulting in accidents. Mr. Hafter noted that trucks are not allowed on the road unless they have specific business there. Mr. Hafter also indicated that the City will get traffic counts. He also noted that there are 3 other roads being used as cut-throughs (Dumont, Ruth/Heath Street, Old Farm Road). People use them because the arterials are overcrowded. The City has designed some traffic calming methods (gateways, speed tables, neck-downs, etc.). It is hoped that by next spring the City will know what works and will meet with residents of Shunpike Rd. to discuss what to do. In the meantime, the City will try to enforce the "no trucks" ban. Ms. Griffiths noted that some truckers think this is Shunpike Rd. in Williston. She suggested possibly changing the name of the road. Ms. Martinez noted that in 2 months her mailbox has been knocked down 4 times. Cars also end up on her lawn because they are going so fast, and her husband's truck has been hit in the driveway. Mr. Hafter said he can take care of additional signage this week. He said that the biggest question is what to do with a residential street that is between 2 commercial streets. Residents felt that the main issue is speeding, and it is endangering their children. 5. First reading of amendments to Zoning Ordinance: 1) nighttime illumination of flags and 2) Spear St. view protection overlay district; schedule public hearing: Ms. Hoover noted that Mr. Martin of WCAX had pointed out that nighttime illumination of the flag is not allowed and that if flags are left up at sunset, they must be lit. The problem is that business people use the lighting to enhance advertising by lighting the flag with garish lights. Ms. Hoover said the proposed ordinance would allow nighttime illumination of government flags only. Narrow beam lights with glare control must be used and they must be mounted on the ground or no more than 2 feet from the ground. There are also light level restraints: no more than either 35,000 lumens output or 100 foot candles at the flag in commercial areas and 50 foot candles in residential areas. The view protection amendment resulted from residents of Pheasant Way/Whatley Rd. approaching the Planning Commission. Ms. Hoover showed the area to be protected by the overlay. She noted that in other areas, view protection was imposed before development, but in this area the development was existing. The amendment says that if you can demonstrate that no part of what you are going to do can be seen from any point on the baseline, you can do it (would apply to blockage by a hill, berm, etc.). This does not apply to vegetation that blocks the view; it must be topographical or a person's own home that blocks the view of the addition. Ms. Hoover said she was comfortable the regulation can be enforced. Ms. Hoover also noted the Spear St. ridge district was also comprised of existing homes which are not visible from Spear St. She showed what is allowed. An addition cannot go above the height of the existing structure. Mr. Sheahan suggested amended wording for the note on p. 3. Members agreed. Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the first reading of the amendments with the amendment proposed, and to schedule a public hearing for 5 November. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. First reading of amendment to ordinance regulating the use of public and private sanitary sewer systems; schedule public hearing of same: Mr. Hafter said the Council had raised the question of allocations being held indefinitely. The proposed amendment would have the original permit be for 5 years. If at the end of that time the permit is not renewed, the sewer allocation would be forfeited. The DRB can extend a permit if the applicant applies; if it is in the city's interest, and if substantial progress has been made or there has been a change in permitting conditions or other extenuating circumstances. The applicant must pay 50% of the cost for the sewer allocation when the mylar is recorded or when the City's land use permit becomes final. The remaining 50% must be paid when zoning permits are obtained. If the capacity lapses, there will be no refunds. Mr. O'Rourke suggested limiting an extension to another 5 years. Mr. Hafter suggested having a standard for affordable housing, possibly no up-front cost. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the first reading of the amendment with the minor changes to affordable housing payments and extensions being granted only in 5-year increments, and to set a public hearing for 5 November. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consider amendment to sewer capacity/connection fee from $2.50 to $4.60 per gallon for new allocations: Mr. Hafter said that if adopted, this could go into effect immediately. He noted that this is a cost the city is currently bearing. Mr. Sheahan suggested a warning period. Members agreed to have the increase effective on 15 October. Mr. Sheahan moved to amend the sewer capacity connection fee to $4.60 for new allocations effective at the close of business on 15 October 2001. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of approval of Vermont Community Botanical Gardens for a special event permit; Pumpkin Festival: October 13, 2001, 1- 4 p.m.: Mr. Hafter said everything was in order. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the special event permit for VT Community Botanical Gardens as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of approval of special event permit for annual Magic Hat "Night of the Living Dead Party," 26 October 2001: Mr. Hafter said there were no problems last year and the parking issue was resolved. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the special event permit for Magic Hat as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Review Development Review Board agenda for 2 October 2001: No issues were raised. 11. Review minutes of 10 and 17 September 2001: Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the minutes of 10 and 17 September as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 13. Executive Session: Mr. Smith moved that the Council adjourn and reconvene in executive session to discuss litigation and contract negotiations and to resume regular session to take possible action and/or adjourn. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Sheahan moved to approve a proposed settlement with John Larkin in the matter of a house which exceeds the height limitations at 69 Pinnacle Drive. The City Manager was authorized to sign the settlement. Mr. Magowan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Terry Sheahan moved to approve a settlement with Harper Hotels, Inc. regarding the tax valuation of the Holiday Inn, Williston Road, for the tax years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The City Manager was authorized to sign the settlement. Mr. Magowan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Smith moved adjournment. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.