Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/17/2006CITY COUNCIL 17 JULY 2006 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 17 July 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Hubbard, Recreation Director; B. Hoar, Director of Public Works; T. DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent; A. Parent, The Other Paper; Rep. M. Kupferman; Rep. A. Audette; M. Beaudin, R. Kay, C. Shaw, Planning Commission; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; D. Wilber, L. Bresee, S. Bradeen, P. Plumeau, M. Cloutier, J. Walsh, G. Chamberland, T. Shepard, Acting Police Chief; C. Lothrop, J. Lieper 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter: a. Circulated a thank you note from Mary-Barbara Maher b. There will be a meeting at Tuttle Middle School, 20 July, regarding the Vermont State Hospital Futures Study on a proposed mental health facility adjacent to the Medical Center. South Burlington has raised concerns regarding safety, traffic, etc. Mr. Hafter will attend the meeting. c. There will be a meeting with Joe Segale regarding MPO issues, 8 August, 10 a.m. d. The next Council agenda (meeting of 21 August) will include a presentation on the Library facilities study, a request from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding drainage, and a Police contract grievance. Mr. Condos: a. The MPO monthly meeting will be Wednesday, 7 p.m. b. Airport quarterly meeting, 24 July c. Board of Civil Authority Meeting, 27 July, 7 p.m. d. A meeting on 1 August regarding transportation issues relative to the Vermont State Hospital Futures Project. 3. Interviews with Applicants for Appointment to City Boards & Commissions: The Council interviewed incumbent Chris Shaw for appointment to the Planning Commission. Mr. Shaw felt the City Center was the main project on task for the Commission now. He said this is an interesting time to be on the Commission with so much happening. The Council then interviewed Peter Plumeau for appointment to the Development Review Board. Mr. Plumeau has been a resident since 1999 and is a management consultant and transportation planner. He is the former Director of the MPO. He said South Burlington is a great place to live and he would like a chance to serve the community. He is interested in what Planning/Zoning regulations say and what actually gets built. He felt there will be a lot of issues in making the City Center happen, and would love to be part of the process. He is also interested in more non-motorized opportunities for transportation, especially in the area where he lives. He also cited the need for more east-west connectivity. The Council then interviewed David Wilber for appointment to the Library Board of Trustees. Mr. Wilber indicated he had attended a Board meeting and is also an avid user of the Library. He is former treasurer of his Fire District. He noted the space issues at the Library, especially when there are programs being presented. Mr. Condos explained the process for appointment and thanked all applicants for their willingness to serve. 4. Interviews for Appointment to Police Facility Committee, Discussion of Committee Process: The Council interviewed David Wilber, Lou Bresee, Stan Bradeen, Scott Harrington, Kevin Donahue, and Sonny Audette. Mr. Wilber recognized the need for a Police facility but noted that the vote clearly reflected concern on the part of voters. Mr. Condos noted the current facility has 3900 sq. ft. to serve 40 sworn officers. He also noted the need to provide arrangements now there are is a mixture of genders in the Police Department. He emphasized how difficult it is for officers to work in the existing conditions. Mr. Bresee cited both the need for the facility and the need for the community to understand this. He is willing to work to try to figure a way to meet both needs. Mr. Bradeen felt the original proposal was not well explained to the public, especially the issue of a new City Hall. He is a facilities planner and would offer his ability to communicate with the community. Mr. Harrington cited his 22 years of experience with new construction and needs assessment. He would like to understand all city facilities. Mr. Donahue has been interested in the project from the start. He felt that a lot of people wanted to vote in favor but were concerned with the City Hall situation. Mr. Audette noted his role in getting the new Public Works building for the city. He cited the need to get an affordable building and felt this could be worked out. Mr. Hafter said the city appreciates the quality of people who have volunteered. He will recommend that the Council appoint as many citizens as possible to serve on the committee along with 5 Police officers, Councilman O'Rourke, Julie Beth Hinds and himself. He suggested the possibility of sub- committees to address the building itself, the broader picture of city needs (e.g. City Hall, Library, City Center), and technical aspects. Mr. Hafter said he would recommend the city hire a facilitator to be responsible for moving the process forward toward a vote in May 2007. He estimated this would cost $10,000. Money is available from either the Police Foundation (from a bequest) or the operating budget. Ms. Hinds echoed the importance of having a neutral facilitator. Mr. O'Rourke noted that this worked very well in the stormwater utility project. Mr. Smith moved to approve the hiring of a facilitator for the Police Facility effort. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Hearing on Amendment to Land Development Regulations to allow outdoor lighting of recreation fields in MU Municipal Zoning District; second reading of same: Ms. Hinds noted the conditional use review standards that could apply if this were approved. This would include no use of lights after 11 p.m. and the furnishing of full lighting standards. Ms. Hinds stressed that there is nothing to address parking and traffic concerns, as those would be considered in a different use category. She noted that the Planning Commission had questioned whether this use by anything other than a school team is not within the "usual, customary use of a school field." Mr. Cloutier, representing the Vermont Astronomical Society, expressed concern that this was not part of the design to preserve the night sky. Ms. Hinds noted that light spillage can't be avoided with an 80-foot structure and that the city can only enforce what is within its powers. Mr. Condos noted that money for this project has been donated and is not from public funds. Mr. Magowan asked whether the Council has to approve this. Ms. Hinds said no. But if it is not approved, the school would have to apply for a variance, which they would not be likely to meet the requirements for. Ms. Hinds said the major concern is that if the field is rented out to a group that draws more people, traffic and parking will become an issue. If there are then complaints, and Mr. Belair finds that this is not within the "usual, customary use of the school field," he could issue a Notice of Violation. There is also a question of people living in the R-4 adjacent zoning having the right to know what is expected of the use of a school facility. Members felt they did not have enough information to make a decision. They recognized the school's need to bring in more money due to Act 60 and 68 concerns but felt they had to hear from the School Board regarding policy on this (specifically whether a policy exists). Ms. Hinds said it may be possible to get some parking counts from Ice Storm games. Mr. Magowan then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the amendment to allow outdoor lighting of recreation fields in the MU Municipal Zoning District. Mr. Smith seconded. The vote on the motion was 0-4 and the motion was deemed to have failed. 6. Request from State of Vermont and Kubricky Construction Corp. For 2-week closure of Lime Kiln Bridge in Mid-September 2006: Mr. Walsh said they have now finished the substructure and will set the superstructure next week. The road is scheduled to open on 1 October 2006. They are asking to close the road for 2 weeks in September to do the tie-ins to Route 15 and Airport Parkway (drainage, roadwork, curbing, sidewalks, etc.). Closure will make it safer for employees and will minimize traffic stoppages. It will also reduce the cost of flagging. Mr. Walsh showed the locations where message boards will be placed to let the public know of the road closure. Information will also be given to local media. Local access will be maintained, and school buses would still be able to use the turnaround. Mr. Walsh then showed detour routes. He indicated that they would be working 6 days a week to get the work done. Mr. Shaw asked about pedestrian and bike traffic. Mr. Walsh said most of the time they would be able to get through. Accommodations would also be made for emergency vehicles to get through at any time. Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the 2-week closure and any additional short time needed to get work done on the Lime Kiln Bridge in as safe a manner as possible. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of Request from Rec Path Committee for Transportation Enhancement Grant Application to construct a bike path from Tilley Drive to Community Drive: Mr. Bresee cited the desirability of this crossing of the Potash Brook. It would be about 1000 feet. The project has been discussed with the Natural Resources Committee and with the Army Corps of Engineers. It is a challenge but is felt to be do-able. There will have to be accommodation for snow-removal equipment as there is a requirement that the path be usable for 4 seasons. The bridge would be steel or some other type of product more like a boardwalk. The Committee is also asking to use a small amount of money from impact fees to consult with an engineer. Mr. Bresee also noted how competitive it will be to get these funds. Mr. Smith moved to accept the request to spend up to $5000 for an engineering consultant. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Discussion of Stormwater Financing and Permit Issues: Ms. Hinds thanked the people of Butler Farms and Oak Creek who have been working on this issue. They have articulated some important questions, including: "What's fair?" "How do we decide what the right fix is?" etc. Ms. Hinds noted that the State has finally gotten a handle on where the problem discharges are. She showed slides of the problems, which include erosion, illegal discharges, and habitat impairments. She also showed slides of some of the solutions to remedy the problems. There are 3 major impaired watersheds in South Burlington: Potash, Bartlett and Centennial. There are also 3 unimpaired watersheds (Lake Champlain, Winooski River, Muddy Brook). Ms. Hinds showed the land areas involved in the impaired watersheds. All sub-watersheds, discharges, etc. have been mapped and identified by the State Department of Environmental Conservation. Within the impaired watersheds, there are 43 discrete commercial discharges, 23 discrete residential/condo neighborhoods with associations, 7 planned capital projects for multi-property areas (for which there is no responsible authority), 4 City facilities, 9 residential neighborhoods with expired permits with no association (about 1000 homes), 12 residential areas with no treatment and no permits and no associations (e.g. Mayfair Park, Airport Parkway neighborhoods), 8 co-mingled commercial/city street discharges with no permits, no treatment and no responsible party (some of the worst problems occur here) and some discharges that are not the City's problem (Vtrans, UVM, City of Burlington, Airport). Ms. Hinds then reviewed the state permit status. There are 86 expired permits (affecting about 3000 homes). Ms. Hinds explained that the state sets targets for reducing flow during a storm event. To achieve these targets you can upgrade an existing system or build that control. Work in the city to date has indicated how much impervious surface needs to be upgraded and retro-fitted within the watersheds. It is estimated that in the city 1253 acres of impervious need to be treated to meet the targets. Of these acres, 355 have existing treatment, 529 have no treatment, and 356 need upgrading. Upgrading a system costs about $7500 per acre. This might involve fixing an outlet structure of a pond. At Dorset Park, this would result in a cost of $50,000. Retro-fitting costs $30,000 per acre. Ms. Hinds noted that the "big number" for the city is $18,540,000, though not all of this is the city's problem. Ms. Hinds estimated that in order to complete the needed work it will take 15 years. The state has given municipalities until November 2007. The "good news" is that work is underway in 40% of the areas that need work. Ms. Hinds estimated that there is $9,500,000 - $10,000,000 worth of work left to do. She noted that the Kennedy Drive project is treating 10 acres of previously untreated impervious. Ms. Hinds said the capital of $300,000 annually is sufficient to support bonding, if desired. Some questions that arise include: 1. How much can reasonably get done in a year? 2. Should there be a fund to front costs of engineering? 3. To what extent should costs of an upgrade be put on the people closest to it or on the city as a whole? 4. Under what circumstances should there be special assessment districts? There are also "big policy" questions, such as: 1. What is the city's obligation for public roads within permitted neighborhoods with associations? 2. What obligation does the city have for public roads that discharge into commercial systems? 3. How are neighborhoods prioritized? 4. Should there be a flat fee or a capped fee per household? 5. Should the utility absorb differing costs by location and neighborhood? Should this cost be bonded and have the utility do the work? 6. Should the City pay to have people put in "rain gardens? 7. Is anything gained by getting rid of or disconnecting impervious surfaces? 8. Should the city assist commercial permit's and property owners? 9. How does the City compel non-permitted commercial uses to participate in these costs? 10. How can permit relief be insured if the State doesn't make changes? Mr. Hafter said the City will try to get the 2007 date extended until it can evaluate the result of the big projects now being done. Ms. Lothrop asked how people sell their homes in the meantime. Mr. Hafter felt the city should come up with a prioritized list of projects and see where funding runs out. Mr. Stitzel distributed a possible Resolution for the Council to consider. Members felt they needed more time to consider this and asked that discussion be continued in August. 9. Consideration of Approval of Request from the Police Department to Establish a Temporary "No Parking or Standing" Zone on Shamrock Road & National Guard Avenue for the Period of 18-20 August 2006: Acting Chief Shepard said this request relates to the Air Show that is schedules for those dates. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the request to establish a temporary "No Parking or Standing" zone on Shamrock Rd. & National Guard Avenue for the period 18-20 August 2006. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consideration of Acceptance of Hollbrook Rd., Tabor Pl., Fairway Dr., Golf Course Road, Park Rd., Econmou Farm Rd., Four Sisters Rd., Dorey Rd., and Nowland Farm Rd. as public streets: Mr. Condos questioned whether Adelphia has signed off on this. Mr. Hafter said he was told they are not in the right-of-way. Mr. Kay raised the issue of a jog in the road at Dorset St/Park Rd that he felt was not up to city standards. He felt the City shouldn't have to pay to fix this. He said there are similar concerns on Four Sisters Rd/Nowland Farm Rd as well. Mr. Hoar said he would look into this. Mr. O'Rourke moved acceptance of the streets pending approval by the City Manger and City Attorney that all utility issues were satisfied and receipt of all documents. Mr. Smith seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 11. Consideration of Approval of Resolution for National Night Out, 1 August 2006; use of public streets permit for Dorset Street Parade and Entertainment License: Mr. Hafter said the Resolution is similar to past years and is in order. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Resolution as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Review Development Review Board Agenda for meeting of 18 July 2006: No issues were raised. 13. Approval of Minutes of 19 June 2006: Mr. Smith moved to approve the Minutes of 19 June as written. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Approval of Minutes of 6 July 2006: Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the Minutes of 6 July 2006 as written. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Magowan abstaining. 15. Executive Session: Mr. Smith moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss appointments to Boards and Committees and pending litigation and to resume regular session only to make appointments and/or adjourn. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Magowan moved the following appointments to City Boards and Committees: Mr. Smith seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Chris Smith moved and Dan O'Rourke seconded a motion to ratify the action of the City Manager on applying to get status as an interested party in the Certificate of Need Process for the Vermont State Hospital Future Project. The motion passed unanimously. Dan O'Rourke moved adjournment. Steve Magowan seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.