Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/19/2002CITY COUNCIL 19 AUGUST 2002 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 August 2002, at 7:30 p.m, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members present: J. Condos, Chair; T. Sheahan, D. O'Rourke Also present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; J. B. Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. O'Neill, T. Hubbard, Recreation Dept; Rep. A. Audette, P. Reed, P. Keating, D. Weaver, M. J. Reale, J. Halstater, M. Fietelberg, B. Davis 1. Comments & questions from the audience not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements/ City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter reminded members that the next meeting is scheduled for Labor Day. Members agreed to meet on 9 September instead. 3. Continued discussion on Community Center alternatives: Mr. O'Neill said the city has to make a decision: cut back the plan, build it in phases, etc. He said the Committee did what it was told to do, and they can't be expected to do all the work. Mr. Hafter said the city needs alternatives, such as what can you do for $6,000,000 or $3,000,000. Mr. O'Neill said there has to be an idea of what is wanted. Ms. Davis said any discussion should include the environment for kids and families. She cited drug use, drop out rates, etc. Mr. Condos felt a committee should include 2 Council members, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hafter, a teen, Family Center member, etc. Mr. Sheahan thought there should also be someone who has been active from the original committee. Rep. Audette said it doesn't make sense to work on something and then decide the Council wants something else. Mr. O'Rourke said they know what they can get for $11,000,000, but need to know what they can get for lower amounts. Mr. O'Neill said he talked with people from the consulting firm in St. Louis about phasing. They are trying to put together some figures. They initially indicated that in phasing it is best to do the "dry side" first. Ms. Reale suggested a committee to look at the needs of the community. Mr. Hafter said that is what the first committee did. All the needs that were identified resulted in the $11,000,000 project. Mr. Weaver spoke and said he represented many families that could not be present. People keep asking when the pool will be done, not whether it will be done. He said the $11,000,000 proposal was scaled down from $30,000,000. He felt that when it gets built, people will probably wish it were bigger. He said part of the problem is the size of the park. Mr. Weaver spoke to the need for a vision for the future of South Burlington. He said the reputation of the schools is declining because of funding issues. Things such as music, foreign languages and sports are being cut. The schools are a major reason many people came to South Burlington. Mr. Weaver said that as the schools provide less and less, the community has to provide more. Mr. Weaver reminded people that the committee was originally formed to look into a pool for the city. It became obvious that more was needed to address the needs of families, students, seniors, etc. He stressed that kids want somewhere else to go other than school and the mall. He felt it is a shame that things are starting over again. Mr. Weaver said that even if it may be more efficient to build the "dry side" first, the pool was the number 1 priority for the people surveyed. He felt the good side of the economy being down is that bonds will be cheaper now. Mr. Sheahan stressed that he is not suggesting they go back to the beginning. There is a wealth of knowledge. He said the question is whether the community can spend $11,000,000. Mr. O'Rourke said one thing the community could be faced with is a $6,000,000 facility that actually costs more because it could not produce income. Ms. Halstater asked if the issue will be on the November ballot. Mr. Condos said probably not. Spring is more likely. Mr. Condos reviewed the history of the park. He noted that voters overwhelmingly approved the purchases of land for the park and for the rec path. It was clear that people wanted more recreational activities. He felt there is no doubt that people will be supportive again. The question is at what level. Mr. Hafter then reviewed estimated costs for a family of 4 in an average $150,000 home in the city: The bond would cost $128 in the first year and a membership for a city resident would be $650 for the year. Mr. Hafter noted the amount would be reduced by fees received from non-resident use of the facility. Mr. Sheahan moved to draw up a charge for a committee and to use up to $25,000 from impact fees to further research the project. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Reed suggested the committee include people who have discovered belatedly that this has been a very full process. He did not feel opposition from the private sector should be included as their aim is to kill projects such as this. Mr. Condos noted that the opposition has a "kill site" of all the projects around the country that they have been able to kill. Messrs. O'Rourke and Magowan were appointed as Council members with Mr. Sheahan as alternate. 4. Presentation of airport access by Peter Keating, CCMPO's Senior Transportation Planner: Mr. Keating reviewed the history of the situation. He noted meeting held with the public at Chamberlin School because people were uneasy about the airport buying properties, etc. It was suggested that the Airport provide a 20-year overall picture, and the Airport agreed. A committee was formed which met over a year and a half, including public meetings. The consultant then considered alternatives including: realigning Airport Parkway, interchange improvements, moving the terminal (too expensive), building a new north/south road (did not make sense), widening Williston Road. They also looked at a possible new Hinesburg Rd. interchange and a full interchange at Kennedy Drive. Recommendations made by the group include: looking at public transportation, realignment of Airport Parkway, extending the 4-lane segment of Williston Rd., and a full exit 13 build-out. The estimate is that this would be a 7-12 year process. Mr. Condos asked how this would work with what the Airport is planning in the way of expansion next year. He noted that the northbound on-ramp at Exit 13 was proposed by the city in 1980. A few years ago, the city was told this would be a 5-year project. Mr. Condos added that Airport Parkway alone doesn't improve access to the Airport. Combining it with an expanded Exit 13 or a Hinesburg Rd. interchange would make a difference. Mr. Condos expressed concern with the Burlington/Essex corridor study that shows 2 left turn lanes from Rt. 15 onto Lime Kiln Bridge. This will create more traffic in the neighborhood. 5. Consideration of lease to the Vermont Community Botanical Gardens: Mr. Gravelin noted the current lease is about to expire. A new 99-year lease is proposed. It includes language that provides options for default provisions. The city has asked for a certified survey to be provided. Mr. Hafter explained that if the Council approves the lease tonight, it would be posted for public review. If there is no opposition, it would be finalized in 30 days. Mr. Sheahan moved to authorize the Chair to sign a 30-day notice of the intent to execute the lease and to authorize the City Manager to execute the lease with suggested changes. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Review progress of Comprehensive Zoning: Ms. Hoover distributed information to members. She noted the last zoning update took place in 1994. The Ordinance has been amended 24 times since then, and this is not good. The "no variance" emphasis has resulted in many requests for zone changes. Ms. Hoover reviewed the process for the update and noted that workshops were very well attended. The goals of the revisions in commercial zones are: a. to direct a majority of commercial growth to the City Center b. to encourage mixed-use development and redevelopment in commercial corridors c. to review zoning and consider increasing residential densities d. to encourage improved aesthetics, public transit, traffic improvements, pedestrian amenities Goals for residential areas are: a. to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible commercial encroachment through zoning enforcement b. to consider increasing residential zoning densities in areas planned for residential use, in the core area, and currently undeveloped land c. to evaluate zoning regulations re: the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) after the Open Space plan is done Specific recommendations for residential areas include: a. increase density in a few selected areas as part of the core b. do NOT increase densities in established R4 neighborhoods c. add neighborhood convenience retail at a few key intersections d. improve buffer standards and add more options for mitigation noise and light impacts. Ms. Hoover explained the concept of "floating retail zones" which might be attached to a development plan. Specific recommendations for commercial areas include: a. add design review to major gateways b. consider limiting the number of gas stations in the city c. adopt proposed City Center zoning d. reduce/eliminate minimum lot size requirements for PUD's e. allow buildings to be connected as long as circulation is OK Considerations for the Conservation-Open Space District include: a. current muddle of regulations b. is currently a land use district, not an overlay district (problem in Queen City Park) c. possible subdividing into wetland standards, stream standards, and interstate buffer requirements d. possibly adding other standards, overlays, based on Open Space plan Ms. Hoover said a key issue for density is natural resources, and this is currently a very hazy area in the regs. The question is what is the zoning density for a property if it includes resources that are protected through the CO district overlays. Considerations regarding use regulations include: a. considering allowing co-branded facilities b. considering allowing hospitals, medical facilities in C-1, C-2, Mixed IC and I-O c. expanding definition of medical office to include chiropractors, physical therapists, etc. D. allowing distribution center, educational facilities in I-O District Mr. Sheahan said he would have a problem with distribution centers because of traffic. Mr. Condos said that could also apply to some educational facilities. Ideas related to Agriculture include: a. splitting the definition of "agricultural use" into keeping of livestock (10 or more acres) vs. growing products for sale b. consideration of allowing growing of products for sale on less than 10 acres c. looking at zoning map in SEQ with respect to ag uses, prime ag soils Strategies being considered for Subdivision Regulations include: a. integration with zoning regs in a "Unified Development Ordinance" b. creating a 'master permit' review and approval procedure for complex, multi-phase projects c. revisiting roads, curbing, and drainage standards d. dealing with public road acceptance Proposed zoning map changes include: a. up-zoning C-1 on Shelburne Rd., O'Brien farm for higher residential density b. creating C-1 Airport district c. creating NC Neighborhood Districts at Shamrock/Airport Parkway; Kennedy/Kimball; Chittenden Cider Mill d. creating new Allen Road and Swift St. districts for housing and mixed-use development e. Patchen Rd. at Burlington line from R-4 to C-2 f. Old Farm/Kimball from C-2 to C-1 g. Queen City Park to new QCP district throughout h. residential districts on Old Farm, Swift from R-1 to R-2 with an R-4 PUD provision on 5+ acres i. Expanded design review district to key gateways Ms. Hoover then reviewed the timetable for the project. She estimated that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing in December and pass the document to the Council in January. 7. eview DRB Agenda for 20 August 2002: No issues were raised. 8. Minutes of 5 August and emergency meeting of 13 August: Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the Minutes of 5 August and 13 August as written. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.