Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/04/2002CITY COUNCIL 4 MARCH 2002 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 4 March 2002, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, T. Sheahan, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; Rep. Frank Mazur; J. B. Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Moreau, Solid Waste District; B. Knight, P. Craven, S. Dooley, B. Bull, B. Wessel, R. Reichel, F. Taylor, P. Adams, M. Oaks 1. Comments & questions from the audience not related to agenda items: Rep. Mazur noted that even though South Burlington doesn't have an election tomorrow, residents can get copies of Sen. Doyle's "exit poll" at the City Clerk's office. A member of the audience suggested changing South Burlington's election to Town Meeting Day. Mr. Condos reviewed the history of the South Burlington date and noted it was done because of school funding issues. 2. Announcements and City Manager's report: Mr. Sheahan: Regional Planning Commission has hired an interim general manager, Jim Tully. They may look into sharing some management. Mr. Condos: Will be attending a meeting of the National Steering Committee of the League of Cities and Towns in Washington on Saturday. Mr. Hafter: The City's appeal of the equalized grand list has been addressed and the common level of appraisal was changed from 89.92 to 90.04. This will lower the tax rate. The Fire Chief selection committee will meet on 11 March. The Steering Committee will meet on 21 March, 7:30 p.m. At the 18 March City Council, there will be a presentation from the Sign Ordinance Review Committee. 3. Discussion with residents of East Terrace regarding safety concerns with overflow parking at UVM special events: Ms. Dooley said the East Terrace Steering Committee identified three options to address safety concerns: one side of the street parking, a flashing light when no parking is allowed on the street, resident-only parking. Residents are not enthusiastic about one side of the street parking. Mr. Sheahan thought the blinking light would be effective. It is hard to enforce "resident only" parking. Mr. O'Rourke asked if there was any improvement with the barrier and sign. Neighbors felt generally no improvement. It was better at first, but then parkers crept back. A resident said sometimes he can't get out of his driveway when there's a UVM event. During the day, there is a "no parking" ban, but a resident noted people still park near the first few houses, right under the "no parking" sign. Ms. Oaks said she was concerned with access for emergency vehicles when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Mr. Condos added he had seen how much worse it gets when there is snow. Another resident thought it would be good to have a one-way sign where East Terrace meets the jughandle. Mr. Sheahan asked about the cost of a blinking light. Mr. Hafter thought about a few thousand dollars. UVM said they will be responsible for the lights and for writing tickets. The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance the will allow installation of the lights. Mr. Condos read the proposed ordinance. Most residents agreed with the proposal for the blinking lights. Mr. O'Rourke moved to instruct staff to prepare the ordinance for a first reading. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Discussion of MPO resolution amending Long Range Transportation Plan to add Route 15 Corridor Plan (including Burlington-Essex rail): Mr. Condos noted information that has been received since the issue was raised. He said the vote the MPO will be taking is not a construction vote but only a decision to continue to move forward. This would be funded by federal money with no local share. The Council does not have to take action tonight but can wait until the next meeting. Mr. O'Rourke wanted more detail on what the upcoming vote is for. Mr. Knight said it would amend the long-range plan to add a corridor plan. Preliminary engineering work needs to be done and it can't be done unless this is in the plan. The $4,700,000 must be in the TIP and in the new long-range plan. Mr. O'Rourke asked if there is a determination that the plan is not feasible, does the State have to repay the money. Mr. Knight said no. He stressed that this is a different set of rules from the Champlain Flyer. Mr. Condos said this is part of the transportation plan for the County. When this was first put forward, it was for commuter rail only. The MPO said it wouldn't deal with only commuter rail and the plan had to include improved buses, intersections, etc. Mr. Smith said it feels like they're starting with a dysfunctional system and this is complicating it. Mr. Knight felt they could use this project to leverage transportation money from the State. Mr. Magowan felt they have the cart way ahead of the horse. If you move forward, the perception is that this is just Chittenden County gobbling up the funds. He felt they needed to solve the funding first. Mr. Condos felt this project wouldn't be passed if there were not a new funding source (other than the property tax). Mr. Hafter said Brian Searles has said there won't be any money in the plan. Mr. Knight said that isn't what he meant. Mr. Hafter asked how much money is in the plan for this year. Mr. Knight didn't know. Mr. Condos said his goal is that there will be no money coming from the property tax. He felt it may be a good thing some towns are saying "cut the services, we won't pay a rate increase." He felt that until there is a coherent system, the transportation problems won't get solved. He also felt that if this project is killed now, it is dead forever. Mr. O'Rourke felt that $1,500,000 was being used to serve a very small number of people. Mr. Condos said the Flyer was destined to have low ridership because the people and the jobs are in the same place. With the Burlington to Essex proposal, there is density at both ends and new jobs going in. Mr. Condos felt it was wrong to be encouraging growth without a transit station. Mr. O'Rourke felt that as long as you can drive reasonably as quickly and park, the train won't work. Mr. Craven said that in 2025, the intersections on Route 15 will fail. Mr. Knight said the other option is that development will go somewhere else. He felt there are many reasons to protect that piece of rail. He said that someday there will be high-speed rail to Montreal and the station will be in Essex Junction. He also said you could expand rail serve, you can't expand roads. Rep. Mazur said this has been studied in the past without any impetus from a rail study. The state does not subsidize public transit. He noted that CCTA relies heavily on the property tax for funding. He felt there is no interest in the House now toward funding rail as there are already holes in the budget. He felt priorities have to be established. Mr. Condos felt it would be shortsighted not to look into this. He said you can't just look at roads and buses. Mr. Hafter asked when long-range funding has to be nailed down. Mr. Knight said the federal government would get more specific as the project goes on. If the Legislature doesn't put money into it, it's dead. Mr. Hafter asked when it would be known if CCTA is included in the project. Mr. Wessel said the CCTA Board is not confident that CCTA won't be harmed in some way. The funding source is the same. He said he would like a contract between the City and VTrans indicating no adverse impact on CCTA. Mr. Knight said he could support that. Mr. Magowan said he didn't see rail as a viable transportation alternative in Chittenden County. He didn't think the population exists for it. Mr. Magowan also cited a conflict of interest with Bill Moulton serving as Chair of the Burlington/Essex Task Force. Members wanted more time to think about this before voting. 5. First reading of zoning amendments: a. Allow municipal facilities in municipal district to encroach into interstate highway buffer: Ms. Hoover said this relates to the municipal zoning district (schools, treatment plants, City Hall, etc.). In that district, facilities are close to or in the 150 foot CO Interstate buffer. The Chittenden Solid Waste District Biosolids Building is well within the buffer which means they can't do anything to that building. The proposed amendment would allow encroachment subject to some standards (outlined in Sections 3.505 and 3.506). Members questioned why there should be different rules for municipal buildings and for commercial developers. Ms. Hoover said because of public good and public need. There are also pre-existing large investments in these facilities. b. establish standards for review and approval of existing city permits: Ms. Hoover said they are being "nibbled to death" by "small increases," amendments of on-site changes, etc. These fall into 3 categories: cases for legitimate on-site changes prior to a Certificate of Occupancy; situation with legitimate reasons for an amendment; situations where someone wants substantive changes and are willing to put everything back on the table. The proposed amendment would say that if you submit an application before there is a Labor and Industry Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy, plans can be amended by an administrative decision or can go to the DRB. After permits or a CO is issued, a developer is stuck with the plans. If there is a substantial change in circumstances (factual changes, changes in construction or operation of the project, changes in technology), changes can be made after 4 years. No changes in coverage or gross building square footage can be made. The total change can be for no more than 3% or 5,000 sq. feet, whichever is less. Changes can also be made in the number of units, site coverage or PM peak hour traffic is reduced. If a developer wants more density, parking trip ends, etc., they must put everything back on the table. There will be no CO until the entire new approved plan has been completed. c) expand existing provisions for administrative approval of minor amendments to existing city permits: Ms. Hoover said this would allow for quicker approval time for applicants with minor amendments. For conditional use and PRD/PUD changes, the 10% existing limit would be reduced to 3% or 5,000 sq. ft. cumulative. There could be no more than four administrative or DRB reviews in a 4-year period. No public hearing would be required for these PRD/PUD changes. Mr. Magowan moved to waive the reading of the amendments, approve the first reading and set a public hearing on 1 April 2002. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Hoover noted that Rice H. S. has work that has to be done this spring for a summer kids' program. They are a non-conforming use in an R-4 district. This can be done by a zoning update, or under a "municipal facilities" category, or the Planning Commission can propose something. Members felt that to be fair, there should be a formal zoning change. 6. Consideration of approval of amended City of South Burlington Retirement Plan: Mr. Magowan said he had reviewed the Plan and recommended approval. Mr. Smith moved to approve the amended Retirement Plan as presented. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of Special Event permit for Magic Hat Brewing Company birthday party serving as fundraiser for Lake Champlain Waldorf School; April 13, 2002, 7 p.m. to Midnight: Mr. Hafter said the application is in order. Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the special event permit for Magic Hat as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Development Review Board agenda for 5 March 2002: Mr. Condos noted the requests for variances from Wesco. Ms. Hoover said you can't keep them from applying. 9. Review minutes of 19 February and 21 February: Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the minutes of 19 February as presented. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the minutes of 21 February as presented. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Smith abstaining. 10. 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.