Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/07/2005CITY COUNCIL 7 FEBRUARY 2005 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday 7 February 2005, 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; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Hoar, Director of Public Works, D. Marshall, R. Hubbard, D. Scheuer, M. Cypes, B. Cimonetti, S. Vallee, J. Anderson, S. Dopp, L. Bresee, D. Wetzel, D. Jacobowitz, B. Carris; A. Parent, The Other Paper 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Smith: Regional Technical Academy Meeting, Monday, 8:30-3 at Sheraton. Mr. Sheahan: Regional Planning Commission Executive Committee meeting, 14 February, 4 p.m. Mr. O'Rourke: Police Building Committee meeting, Thursday, 8:30 a.m. Mr. Condos: Press event, 14 February, at City's Edge. MPO meeting, 16 February, 7 p.m., City Council first budget meeting, 15 February, 7 p.m., at Public Works Building. Mr. Hafter: Legislative Breakfast, Monday, 7:30 a.m., at Community Library. Community Economic Strategy group meeting, tomorrow, 8-10 a.m. UVM Master Plan session, Wednesday, 11:15 a.m. at 109 S. Prospect. Mr. Sheahan will attend. Valentine's Day Tea for volunteers, 14 February, 3:30 p.m. Local Government Day at the Legislature, 16 February. Final interviews for Stormwater Superintendent will be held the week of 13 February. Neighborhood meetings regarding stormwater will be held on 9 March, 5-6:30 p.m., 16 March, 7-8:30 p.m., and 24 March 7-8:30 p.m. The first reading of the Stormwater Ordinance will be at the 22 February meeting. Mr. Hafter distributed copies of the proposed 2005-6 City Budget. 3. Interview with applicant for appointment to Rec Path Committee: Rick Hubbard: Mr. Hubbard said he grew up in Middlebury and lived in Stowe. He moved to South Burlington 4 years ago. He has an interest in "outdoor stuff" and is willing to put time and effort into the community. He has both legal and business expertise. Mr. Condos asked if there is anything specific Mr. Hubbard would like to accomplish. Mr. Hubbard he would like more information on the web site. He was also concerned with the relationship between roads and rec paths and information on needed repairs. 4. Discussion of Proposed Spear Street to Dorset Street Road Connection via Midland Avenue and Funding for Roadway: Mr. Condos stressed that the discussion was not "whether" the road would be built but "how" it will be built. Mr. Marshall showed the road location on the map along with the proposed Retrovest project location. He said the applicant is very supportive of the connected neighborhood concept. The road configuration has been worked on with staff to be sure it will work for the city in the long term. The applicant is asking for the road connection to be made following the phasing of the project. Ms. Hinds said the question that is relevant to the City Council is: if it is the desire of the Council that the road be built sooner rather than later, can there be discussion regarding financing. Ms. Hinds felt it is not reasonable to ask the applicant to finance the amount of the road in Phase I of the project. Mr. Sheahan asked what guarantee would the city have that the road would be built. Mr. Scheuer said the only portion of the road that isn't supported by housing is the small piece at the end. He felt it would be hard to guarantee that much road. Mr. Marshall showed the portion of the road that would be permitted (but not necessarily built) with Phase I. Mr. Smith asked about the timing of the 3 phases. Mr. Marshall estimated 2-3 years per phase. The Council then estimated this could mean 7-10 years before the road is built out. Mr. Sheahan said he is struggling with this. If Phase 3 is never permitted, all the traffic will move onto Spear Street and that road is already choking. Mr. O'Rourke said he is concerned with the public safety element. Mr. Marshall noted the Fire Chief is comfortable with the phasing plan. Ms. Hinds said without Phase 3, there would be a problem justifying the Midland connection. There is enough traffic mitigation at Allen Road to deal with the traffic from Phases I and II. Mr. Cimonetti said he has been involved with planning for the city for 30 years and advocated for the street to be done at the beginning of this project. He noted it was considered part of the "public good" to build the road, and he was appalled that the largest developer the city has ever had isn't funded well enough to make the investment in the road up front. He asked the City Council not to back away from something that has been planned for so many years. Mr. Cypes of Dorset Farms said he was appalled at the desire to make this connection. He said if you compare Midland Avenue with other connectors in the city, the other have been built around a development. Midland Avenue will be the only one going through a development. Kids would have to cross Midland to get to the bike path. He also believed the road would become a connector between Shelburne Road and Dorset St. Mr. Cypes also said the design of Midland encourages speeding, and there will be a lot of people who aren't "kid aware" using this road. He cited the need for good traffic calming on Midland Avenue and suggested an 8-foot non-planted median. Mr. Condos said he agreed with the need for traffic calming. But he noted that if there is speeding now, it is Mr. Cypes' neighbors who are doing the speeding. He added that the city would work with the developer so Midland doesn't become a speedway. Mr. Wetzel noted that east-west studies have recommended not building Midland Avenue. The Arrowood study says it's not a good idea as well. The city's Natural Resources Committee also said it is not a good idea. Mr. Wetzel said it will "encase the Great Swamp and have a major ecological impact. He felt that sometimes you have to reconsider things because of new knowledge and not just say it's been in the books for 40 years. Ms. Dopp said she agreed with Mr. Cypes and Mr. Wetzel. She felt the Great Swamp is a wonderful natural feature and recommended rethinking this road. Mr. Bresee said he felt putting the road in initially allows the community to utilize it for the whole duration of the construction project. Mr. Scheuer said he supports the road. It is not designed to be a high-speed road. However, it has to be financially feasible to build the road, and this can't be done at the beginning of the project. Mr. Vallee said most of the discussion at the DRB said the road was needed to connect neighborhoods. Now he is hearing it is to relieve traffic congestion on Spear Street. He noted the State Wildlife people recommend a 300-foot buffer around the natural area. If that position prevails, then that central section will be reduced to nothing. Then the question of viability of the connector road arises. Mr. Valley said the Midland Avenue section of the road crosses 800 feet of wetland. He felt the Army Corps of Engineers might not even permit the building of the road. Mr. Hafter said the original intent was for an arterial road. This has changed over time. He felt it makes sense for the road not to be an arterial. Mr. Anderson said he feels there is a misconception as to what this road accomplishes. Mr. Jacobowitz said one consideration of the Rec Path Committee is to connect neighborhoods. He felt that if the road is delayed, it might make sense to think of building the rec. path without building the road. Ms. Dopp said she hoped there would be a public vote before the city decided to build the road itself. Mr. O'Rourke reminded everyone that whatever the City Council does, it does not represent a stamp of approval for the project. 5. First Reading of Amendments to Sign Ordinance; Schedule public hearing of same: Ms. Hinds reviewed the amendments as follows: 1. Wall signs with "cut out" letters: the aim is not to punish people for attractive signs with geometric figures. 2. Interpretive Signs: definitions are added to Section 2. These signs require a master sign permit. 3. Changeable Message Areas: The Committee felt it was OK for use involving performing arts with changing events to have changing message areas. These must be within the allowable area of the sign. 4. Clarification for the Limit on Wall Signs (multi-tenant building where each wants wall signage): The sum of the individual tenant signs must fall within the limitation. 5. Signs in Residential Areas: This relates to day cares, clinics, etc. The committee felt it important to allow a 20 sq. ft. sign for a non-residential use. Churches/houses of worship can get a temporary sign permit for special events. 6. Temporary Signs: Large conference centers can have one temporary sign a week, so long as it isn't related to the business (e.g., room rates). 7. Use of Parked Cars to Display Temporary Signs: This is not to be allowed. 8. Internal Lighting of Canopy Banners: The original ordinance didn't specify whether these could be illuminated. The Sign Committee felt they should not be lit. From the point of view of the public interest, Ms. Hinds didn't feel this would accomplish much. She left it up to the City Council to decide. 9. Clarify that Gas Station Price Portion of Sign is limited to 12 sq. feet. The whole sign can be the price indication. 10. Barber Poles: The Secretary of State's Office says moving barber poles must be allowed for barbershops. They would be subject to wall sign regulations and must not represent a hazard. 11. No "blow-up," inflatables will be allowed. Mr. Smith moved to waive the first reading, approve the first reading, and set a public hearing of 7 March. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. CCTA Letter: Mr. Condos explained that the TIP has always included $700,000 for maintenance (federal money). There is a stipulation that if VTRANS votes for the TIP, the Governor will include the TIP in the statewide "STIP." In past years, the Governor has not funded this. Last year, $350,000 was appropriated ("if not spent elsewhere"). If this money were received, it would alleviate local taxes. Mr. Condos noted a meet was held last week at which Chris Cole was asked to draft a letter to be sent to legislators so this allocation can be received. Mr. Sheahan moved to send the letter presented to each legislator. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Review Planning Commission Agenda for meeting of 8 February 2005: No issues were raised. 8. Review Development Review Board Agenda for meeting of 8 February 2005: No issues were raised. 9. Review Minutes of 18 January 2005: It was noted that on p.1, the word "Burlington" should precede "Community Land Trust." Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the Minutes of 18 January as amended. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Condos abstaining. Executive Session: Mr. Smith moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in executive session to discuss appointments and litigation. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The City Council returned to regular session. Mr. Magowan moved the appointment of Rick Hubbard to the Recreation Path Committee. Mr. Sheahan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hubbard was appointed to a three-year term ending in 2007. Mr. O'Rourke moved adjournment. Mr. Magowan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.