Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/15/2006CITY COUNCIL 15 MAY 2006 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday 15 May 2006, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, M. Boucher, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Asst. City Manager; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Hoar, Public Works Director; T. Hubbard, Recreation Director; S. Falbel, B. Cimonetti, B. & M. A. Irish, L. Bresee, B. Wessel, B. Lundy, P. Jensen, G. Edwards, C. Ford, C. Cole; 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. Hafter: The Police Chief Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday to go over resumes and set up interviews Groundbreaking for the Farrell Street Housing will be on 22 May The 5 June agenda will include a report on the Community Library study The Council reorganization meeting will take place on 22 May, 6 p.m. Reappraisal notices will go out on Friday. 3. Presentation from CCTA, Update & Proposed New Operating Assistance Formula: Mr. Cole reviewed the history of CCTA funding. He noted that the original formula was based on mileage, and municipalities were allowed to change routes if they agreed. Mr. Cole noted he had been asked to look at why the system had not changed or grown in 30 years. The answer he found was a result of the mileage formula and the over-reliance on property taxes for funding. This year, the CCTA Board decided to tackle the issue of the mileage formula. There is not a specific proposal as yet, but they are making progress on a new formula. Mr. Falbel said the mileage formula creates inefficiencies and wastes taxpayer money. There are cases where because of the mileage formula, bus drivers are sitting still at a bus stop instead of providing more service. In one instance, the cost of a bus trip to somewhere like the Shelburne Museum is $16,000. But this route would result in Shelburne's assessment going up $55,000 even though the cost is $16,000. The town's assessment does not reflect the real cost of the service. A similar situation exists in Essex. This has caused the system to stagnate. Mr. Falbel then outlined the Board's goals for a new funding system: 1. local communities retain some control over assessments 2. CCTA Board would be empowered to make decision on how CCTA is run 3. service would be "delinked" from miles within a community Some of the options to replace the mileage formula include: 1. freezing mileage/assessment (anything new would be renegotiated based on driver pay hours, not mileage 2. freeze current shares and develop a "regional benefit" system 3. devise a formula based on resident population 4. devise a formula based on resident population and employment (high volume travel corridors) 5. devise a formula based on employment 6. define membership contributions based on broad service levels and population and employment Mr. Falbel said the Board has decided to further investigate Option #1. Mr. Cole said he is not sure this will solve the reliance on the property tax. The next step will be to get language to the CCTA Board and then to the 5 member towns. Any new funding plan will need unanimous approval. 4. Consideration of First Reading of Proposed Amendments to Official Zoning Map and Land Development Regulations: a. Allow self-storage in C-2; standards for storage: Ms. Hinds noted this was always a permitted use in C-2 and was left out inadvertently. b. Retail Food establishments in IC-Mixed IC District: Ms. Hinds said this was also an oversight. Food establishments are permitted only within a structure and have a maximum of 5000 sq ft. The intent is to keep people from having to go up and down Kimball Avenue to get a sandwich. c. Zoning Map for R4 to Mixed IC, Shunpike Road: Ms. Hinds said this would enable the closing of a cub cut if properties are combined. She noted that we would have to start dealing with "commercial creep" into Shunpike Road. This amendment will also allow redevelopment on Williston Road. d. Minor Definitions Amendment: Adds snowmobiles to "recreational vehicles." e. Zoning Map from R-1 Lakeshore to Lakeshore Neighborhood, Bartlett Bay Area: Ms. Hinds reviewed work done by the Planning Commission with residents of the area. She noted there are a lot of small pre-existing small cottages on very small lots. The city originally had R-1 zoning there, which made all the lots non-conforming. In 1998, the Planning Commission ratified the existing development pattern. Since then, there have been some new houses built in the area. There are a lot of 6,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. lots in the area. The Planning Commission zoned it at 12,000 sq. ft. minimum. Meanwhile, the Farrell estate and one lot off the road were zoned R-1. Lakeview Lane was developed in 1987. There is an offer of dedication for that road. It is bounded to the north by part of David Farrell's property and a 3- acre piece owned by Bob Irish. The zoning is R-1, but if you have 5 acres, it is R-7. The Planning Commission was initially approached by the Irishes because of a lot merger issue. The Planning Commission considered the following: a. What is the equitable treatment of the land in this area? b. Is there any reason why Lakeview Lane and the Irish lot should be treated so differently? c. What would be the appropriate treatment? d. The issue of heights of structures in a visually sensitive area e. Access issues f. Potential impacts of very big houses on small lots g. The future of this land with the Farrell Estate looming nearby Ms. Hinds noted this is one of the least studied areas in the city. The Planning Commission proposes the following: a. Zone the Lakeshore lot and the Irish lot as Lakeshore Neighborhood b. Create a new R-1 Lakeview subdistrict at 3 units per acre, 14,000 sq. ft. lots, for the north frontage of Lakeview Lane and the north part of the Lakeview Lane Irish property c. Apply the same height limit (25 feet with an option for the DRB to allow up to 35 feet with stipulations) as Bartlett Bay District to both of the above districts. Ms. Lundy said neighbors would be looking at an addition of 6 houses with the subdivision of everyone else's property and much more traffic. She said they all bought with a one-acre restriction and she felt one acre to a half-acre would be reasonable. Mr. Irish, owner of the land at the end of Bartlett Bay Road, said Lakeview Lane was a Homestead Design project several years ago. He personally owns all the rest of the property on Bartlett Bay Road and on the private road. His dilemma is that he & his wife have made the decision to "downsize" and move to a condo. They had several people interested in the property, but the wanted to sell to just one buyer. That wasn't happening. Potential buyers wanted lakefront property. Access is also a problem. The next house will be the 4th on the road and will require the road to be brought to city standards. Mr. Irish said he feels his property should have been in the Lakeshore Neighborhood zoning from the start. He also felt the road width and design will handle any additional traffic, and there would be only 3 or 4 additional lots over what would have been allowed before. Several relatives and neighbors have expressed an interest in the lots. They would be a minimum of 17,000 sq. ft. Mr. Irish said he has agreed to remain involved and protect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. O'Rourke asked the width of Lakeview Lane. Mr. Irish said it is a 60' right-of-way and is not paved. h. Outdoor lighting in recreation fields in municipal district: Ms. Hinds said the Planning Commission got a lot of testimony on the impact of an 80-foot light pole and on noise impact as well. Language has been prepared for the protection of adjoining neighbors. There is a question as to whether rental of these facilities constitutes "usual and customary" use of a school property, which is a requirement of the regulations. Mr. Condos felt that from the standpoint of the schools and wear/tear on the fields, he felt it would be a mistake. Ms. Hinds said this would be a conditional use. There would have to be a "light trespass study, and lights would have to be shielded to avoid hot spots. There would be independent technical review. The stadium could not be lit after 11 p.m. Mr. Smith felt it was a logical move given Act 60/68 and the need for fund-raising. Ms. Hinds said there are also issues of parking. Mr. O'Rourke noted there is a large residential neighborhood directly adjacent to those fields. Ms. Hinds said she did not personally believe that the definition of an education facility and the parking/traffic standards have been contemplated in how an educational facility is treated. Council members noted that the school gym is already being rented out for non-school uses. Mr. O'Rourke said he saw this as more of a noise/disturbance issue. He asked if there has been in put from neighbors. Ms. Hinds said they have been notified. Mr. Boucher felt that anything that helps with Act 68 helps the community. Mr. O'Rourke asked what happens when Act 68 collapses. Ms. Hinds said the Planning Commission felt this should be discussed by the Steering Committee. Mr. Smith said he would need a lot more information before he could make a decision. Ms. Hinds suggested warning all but this item and then scheduling another "first reading" for the light pole request. Members felt a School Board member should be present for that reading. Mr. Smith moved to waive the first reading and to schedule a public hearing for all items except the school request on 19 June 2006. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Further Discussion and First Reading of Sign Ordinance Amendment; Schedule Public Hearing: Ms. Hinds said the Planning Commission had further discussion regarding "community gardens" signs. They continue to recommend along a sign, especially since UVM has a sign at the Wheelock Farm. A sign informs the community as to what is going on and how to become involved in the activity. Ms. Hinds suggested that since there is already a provision for a real estate "project sign," (32 sq. ft.), that this could also be considered a "project sign," since it is a community project. Mr. O'Rourke said the distinction is that these places already have an allotment of signage. He also felt that 32 sq. ft. was too big. Ms. Hinds noted that temporary signs are allowed to be up to 32 sq. ft. and asked why these should be less. Mr. Condos said he had no problem with a community garden sign; he was more concerned with "temporary" signs that become "permanent." Ms. Jensen of the Lutheran Church, the proposed garden is very removed from the area where there existing sign is. She also said it is a garden for the whole community, not only the members of the Church. Members were OK with a 24 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Boucher moved to approve the amendment to Section 9B3 and warn a public hearing for 19 June along with the gas station amendment previously heard. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Presentation of South Burlington-Williston Shared Use Path, Connection Over Muddy Brook Alternative Alignments Study: Ms. Ford said the MPO was requested to look at a bike path connection between S. Burlington and Williston. A committee has been working on this for many months and has had a lot of input from both communities. Mr. Edwards said the input has led to good results. The proposed project area is from Kennedy Drive east to S. Brownell Road into the Town of Williston and from Williston Road south to I-89. He then reviewed the location of existing paths and trails. The proposed path would be a 10-food wide shared path. There would be a protected crossing at Kennedy Drive. The path would continue along Kimball Avenue and cross Potash Brook. A vertical retaining wall would be built along the slope. Mr. Edwards then reviewed some route alternatives along with costs based on crossings, permits, etc. He felt that alternative B-3 was the most feasible. Williston preferred B-1 or B-2 because there is a great deal of truck traffic on Marshall Ave. Mr. Bresee noted the committee originally wanted the path as far off the road as possible, but they recognized there would be permitting problems because of the wetlands issues. The committee felt that staying as close to the road as possible seems to address those issues. Mr. Hafter stressed that this is not a "wilderness" bike path. It is a connection between South Burlington and Williston. Council members preferred alternative B-3. Mr. O'Rourke moved to endorse alternative B-3 as presented. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of Update to City Capital Plan; second public hearing: Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of the update and noted that the School District has not participated to date. Ms. Hinds noted that Mike Munson will do impact fee work in June. It was noted that without a Capital Plan, the city couldn't use impact fees. Ms. Hinds particularly noted the importance of an impact fee for a City Center parking garage. Mr. Smith moved to schedule a public hearing on the city Capital Plan on 19 June. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Acceptance of Resignation of Larry Kupferman from the Development Review Board: Mr. O'Rourke moved to accept the resignation of Larry Kupferman from the Development Review Board and to instruct the City Manager to send a letter of appreciation for his services. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Annual Entertainment Permit Request: Mr. Hafter presented a request for an annual entertainment permit from La Careta. He said it was all in order. Mr. Smith moved to approve the Annual Entertainment Permit for LaCareta as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Review Development Review Board Agenda for Meeting of 16 May 2006: No issues were raised. 11. Review Minutes of 1 May 2006: Mr. Smith moved to approve the Minutes of 1 May 2006 as written. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Condos abstaining. 12. 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.