Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/21/2008CITY COUNCIL 21 JULY 2008 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 July 2008, at 5:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: S. Magowan, Acting Chair; M. Boucher, M. Emery, S. Dooley Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; Rep. A. Audette; T. Whipple, Police Chief; T. LeBlanc, City Assessor; R. Corbier, M. Young, M. B. Maher, L. Berkitt, K. Donaghue, S. Deacon, C. Gents, M. Mittag, S. Dopp, other Hinesburg Road neighbors 1. Executive Session: Mr. Boucher moved that the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss litigation and real property acquisition. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Special Meeting: City Council site visit at 725 Hinesburg Rd. Northwest corner of Hinesburg Rd. and I-89 for purpose of condemnation of property: Mr. Stitzel explained that the purpose of the site visit was for the City Council to observe the property. He then showed a plan indicating the property to be taken, including the existing driveway. He also indicated the area of a proposed development and its proposed access drive. Mr. Stitzel also showed the indication on the Official City Map for placement of the Interstate offramp. A resident of the area indicated the location of a wetland area. The Council then moved down the path to the existing house that marks the end of the property to be taken. It was noted that there will have to be a value assigned to that house. The Council moved up to Hinesburg Rd. to view the take limit in that area. Mr. Boucher then moved that the special session be adjourned. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: 3. Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to the Agenda): No issues were raised. 4. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Ms. Dooley asked why there is no paving on a portion of Spear St. Mr. Hafter said a private developer will be responsible for that. Mr. Magowan: CCTA meeting, 30 July, 5 p.m. Mr. Hafter: The next Council agenda will include discussion of the Conservation Fund and Scott property, a report on the EPA energy challenge report including ways to save energy, and appointments to boards & committees. 5. Discussion of Site Visit to Allen Rd. Co./Exit 12B and Process for Condemnation: Mr. Stitzel reviewed the process for condemning land. He noted that the Council had identified the property to be taken. The Council will hold a public hearing to discuss how much the City will pay for the land and to determine that there is a need for this land. Mr. Stitzel noted that the plans for the interchange did not become available until a few weeks ago, so the discussion at tonight's meeting is not a formal public hearing but a preliminary review so the Council can decide how to proceed. Mr. Stitzel also noted that the condemnation process does not have to be completed. The Council has the option to decide not to proceed. Once the Council decides they will condemn the land and decides on how much to pay for it, the owner of the property can appeal either necessity or the amount offered (or both) to the Superior Court. Mr. Stitzel stressed that the condemnation process has nothing to do with any proposed development on the site. The law spells out the 2 determinations that the Council has to make: 1. What land does the city need in order to construct the interchange? 2. What is the value of that land? In terms of the evaluation of the land, there will be 2 parts to that process: 1. determining compensation for just the piece of land being acquired 2. "severance" damages: a determination of whether the land that is left behind has suffered a loss of value in addition to the dimunition of its size (e.g., loss of access, etc.). The City Assessor is beginning to do some evaluation work on the property, including a site inspection, and he will present his findings to the Council. Mr. Stitzel noted that by the time condemnation occurs, the proposed project is usually close to a final design and there are engineers present to discuss design considerations and how they relate to the land the city needs to acquire. Ms. Dooley asked if the City could acquire all the land. Mr. Stitzel said it could, especially if what is left is not usable. The City could then sell that land for another potential use, if such a use could be determined. Ms. Emery asked who proposed the on-ramp. Mr. Stitzel said the State Department of Transportation, and the MPO. He stressed that the city's Development Review Board has no role in this process. Mr. Hafter briefly reviewed the history of the I-189 on-ramp and interchange issues. Mr. Young asked the size of the parcel. Mr. Stitzel said it is approximately 1.5 acres. Mr. LeBlanc said the entire parcel is 6 acres. Mrs. Maher asked why the city has to pay for the land if it is a State project. Mr. Stitzel said the State has said that if the City acquires the land and makes it available to the State when the road is built, the City will get reimbursed or will receive credit for the purchase price. Mr. Stitzel added that the reason the land is being acquired now is that it is cheaper to purchase it before it is developed. Mr. Young asked what it is worth to the City to have an interchange there. Council members said it was hard to attach a number to it because there are so many hypothetical possibilities. Ms. Gents, speaking on behalf of Allen Road Land Company, the owner of the property to be taken, questioned whether other sites have been considered for the interchange. She said the city had an obligation to examine other sites as there may be one or more that don't involve her client. She said the city also should consider how long the interchange project has been in the works and is still not funded or on the plans for future funding through the year 2011. Ms. Gents said that with the land the city is contemplating taking, Allen Road Land Co. would be left with very little frontage on Hinesburg Rd. An access would have to be 300 feet from the on-ramp, and there is not enough property for that to happen. This would leave Allen Rd. Land Co. with no access; therefore, the city would effectively be taking the whole parcel. Ms. Gents noted that the application for the housing development was denied by the DRB because of the interchange plans. She felt the property should be valued based on its developable capacity. Members agreed to set a formal public hearing on 2 September 2008. 3. Discussion of Fencing Used on Kennedy Drive Project to Secure Stormwater Ponds: Mr. Hafter noted that residents are unhappy with the chain link fencing that was used to secure stormwater ponds. He said the city isn't happy with it either; however, the State did 90% of the funding, and the State will pay nothing if a different kind of fencing is used. Mr. Hafter added that the City tried to do some landscaping, but that didn't work. Ms. Berkitt gave members a petition signed by residents of Winding Brook asking for replacement of the fence. She said that before the Kennedy Dr. construction, Winding Brook had a beautiful entrance. Then a commercial type fence was put up, the same type of fencing used on construction sites. The City told Winding Brook residents that landscaping would block the fence when trees matured; however, Mr. Berkitt said trees that were planted block nothing, and no plants were placed in front of the 20 chain link panels. She stressed that waiting for non-existing plants to grow is not an option. Residents feel that this situation has done economic injury to their property values. Ms. Berkitt also gave members a letter from the Board of Winding Brook Condominiums requesting that the industrial fencing be replaced by one appropriate to a residential area. She noted that appropriate fencing was used at Farrell Drive near the Correctional Facility and also near Marcott School She gave members photos of the existing industrial fencing. Mr. Hafter noted that landscaping was put in at the end of last spring, but it did not come up this year. He added that the city has looked at options for other types of fencing and noted the costs for each: It is the city Arborist's recommendation to try the larger arba vitae at $2600. Ms. Deacon asked why a fence is needed at all since there are not a lot of children in the area. Mr. Hafter said the area is next to a bike path, and fencing is a federal requirement. Ms. Berkitt said that over 1000 feet of fencing now has no landscaping. She said if vegetation is planted by the city, the city will have to maintain it. She stressed that it is not Winding Brook's pond, it is the city's. She also noted that no mowing is taking place in the area, and the weeds are getting very high. Mr. Hafter said the city will take care of that. Mr. Mittag noted that the fence at the Correctional Facility faces the road and is very good looking. Mr. Hafter said that was put in with a federal grant. Ms. Berkitt said the reconstruction of Kennedy Drive was beautifully done, and it is a shame to have the fence mar that. She noted that on the Kennedy Drive side of the fence there is room for trees. She suggested keeping the chain link fence there and putting a nicer fence on the Winding Brook property. Ms. Dooley said she would like to see if there is a way to reach an accommodation. Mr. Magowan suggested the possibility of cost sharing, with the city contributing the $2600 it is proposing for arba vitae toward a more attractive fence. 4. Discussion of Voting Date for "Use of Calkin" question; Consideration of Approval of Resolution and Warning for Special City Meeting on September 9, 2008 to Consider Same: Mr. Magowan said there has been discussion of holding this vote in November and then voting on the Police building/budget in March. Chief Whipple said there is a question of delaying until November in order to provide more education to the public. He added that the Committee is not unhappy with moving the vote to November. Mr. Donaghue said it is very important to have the public be fully informed. Mr. Boucher favored November because there would be more voters in the Presidential election. The Council agreed to hold the Calkins vote in November. 5. Consideration of Ballot Schedule for Recommended Amendments to the Charter from City Charter Review/Update Committee: Ms. Dooley said it would be more symbolic to have the vote at a strictly city ballot time. Mr. Hafter said the city is willing to do November or March. Mr. Boucher agreed with Ms. Dooley and felt there is nothing urgent that needs to be passed with regard to the Charter. Ms. Emery agreed with holding the vote in March in order to focus on the Police Station in November. Members agreed to hold the Charter vote in March, 2009. 6. Consideration of Changing the Annual City Meeting Date from the Third Tuesday in May to the First Tuesday in March; schedule public hearing for same: Mr. Boucher moved to schedule a public hearing to consider changing the Annual City Meeting Date from May to March effective March 2009 on 2 September 2008. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of Approval of Resolution Establishing Reserve Fund for Rooms and Meals and Alcoholic Beverage Tax Revenues: Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of the item. He noted that the City wants to make the use of these funds transparent but also make it available for uses that come up during the year. A public meeting would be held if such uses are considered. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Resolution Establishing a Reserve Fund for Rooms & Meals and Alcoholic Beverage Tax revenues. Mr. Boucher seconded. Mr. Boucher said he would like to see language that the intent is that the use of those funds be budgeted and that non-budgeting would be rare. Mr. Hafter said a contingency would not be carried in the budget. Mr. Stitzel said there could be language that "if some use had not been anticipated at budget time and could not be reasonably deferred until the next budget..." Members were OK with that type of language, which was added as a "friendly amendment." In the vote that followed, the motion was passed unanimously. 8. Request from Jeff Nick, Green Mountain Delta Holding LLC, for return of 60-foot right-of-way between 6 & 7 Green Tree Drive to adjoining property owners: Mr. Hafter directed attention to a picture of the area. He said the city has no use for that right-of-way, and the property owners would like it returned to them. He explained the process for accomplishing that. Mr. Magowan moved to return the 60-foot right-of-way between 6 & 7 Green Tree Drive to the property owners and to public a notice of intent to do so. Mr. Boucher seconded. motion passed unanimously. 9. Review of Police Department Mission Statement Development & Visionary Process: Chief Whipple said that a desire for some "internal reflection" led to a convening of supervisory staff for a 2-day session. The session resulted in a new statement of the Department's Mission and Values to include the following: It is the mission of the South Burlington Police Department to: Foster a safe environment which promotes a high quality of life within our community by: Reducing the level and fear of crime, facilitating safe highways, addressing community concerns by actively seeking input and responding to issues..., managing our organization responsibly..., recruiting, retaining, and nurturing the development of the most qualified personnel. The core values of our agency are integrity, loyalty, dedication to duty, professionalism, teamwork, fairness and respect. Chief Whipple said they will look at the Department to see what changes are needed to meet the mission. He noted they had received a lot of good community feedback. 10. Approval of Resolution of National Night Out Proclaiming Tuesday 5 August 2008 as National Night Out in South Burlington: Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Resolution of National Night Out as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Resolution re: Jane Butler v. Jacqueline Quattlander & City of South Burlington Complaint: Ms. Dooley moved that the City Council authorize its insurance carrier, Vermont League of Cities & Towns Property & Casualty Intermunicipal Fund, Inc. (VLCT PACIF, Inc.), to enter into a settlement of the Jane Butler v. Jacqueline Quattlander and City of South Burlington complaint, provided that City funds of any settlement shall not exceed the sum of $500.00. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Review Agenda for Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 22 July 2008: It was noted that the Commission is trying to refocus the Design Review process. One thought is to have the Committee meet on an ad hoc basis. Ms. Dooley raised the question of adding units to a PUD after a final approval. This concern will be passed along to the DRB. 13. Minutes of 16 June 2008: It was noted that in the discussion of the Calkins vote, it was stressed that this was a not a vote on the specifics of the building and/or budget. Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Minutes of 16 June 2008 with the above addition. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Minutes of 2 July 2008: Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Minutes of 2 July as written. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gravelin updated members on the work being done on the City Hall building. The flat roof is finished and did not leak during this week's heavy rains. Other work is due to start in about a month. 15. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY COUNCIL 21 JULY 2008 PAGE 4 Members agreed to set a formal public hearing on 2 September 2008. 3. Discussion of Fencing Used on Kennedy Drive Project to Secure Stormwater Ponds: Mr. Hafter noted that residents are unhappy with the chain link fencing that was used to secure stormwater ponds. He said the city isn’t happy with it either; however, the State did 90% of the funding, and the State will pay nothing if a different kind of fencing is used. Mr. Hafter added that the City tried to do some landscaping, but that didn’t work. Ms. Berkitt gave members a petition signed by residents of Winding Brook asking for replacement of the fence. She said that before the Kennedy Dr. construction, Winding Brook had a beautiful entrance. Then a commercial type fence was put up, the same type of fencing used on construction sites. The City told Winding Brook residents that landscaping would block the fence when trees matured; however, Mr. Berkitt said trees that were planted block nothing, and no plants were placed in front of the 20 chain link panels. She stressed that waiting for non-existing plants to grow is not an option. Residents feel that this situation has done economic injury to their property values. Ms. Berkitt also gave members a letter from the Board of Winding Brook Condominiums requesting that the industrial fencing be replaced by one appropriate to a residential area. She noted that appropriate fencing was used at Farrell Drive near the Correctional Facility and also near Marcott School She gave members photos of the existing industrial fencing. Mr. Hafter noted that landscaping was put in at the end of last spring, but it did not come up this year. He added that the city has looked at options for other types of fencing and noted the costs for each: Chain link - $3400 installed Wood picket - $4800 installed Steel - $14,000 installed PVC - $11,000 installed Aluminum - $14,000 installed 5-6 ft. arba vitae - $1500 installed 6-8 ft. arba vitae - $2650 installed It is the city Arborist’s recommendation to try the larger arba vitae at $2600. Ms. Deacon asked why a fence is needed at all since there are not a lot of children in the area. Mr. Hafter said the area is next to a bike path, and fencing is a federal requirement.