Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/17/2008CITY COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2008 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 17 November 2008, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: C. Smith, Chair; S. Magowan, M. Boucher, S. Dooley, M. Emery Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Assistant Administrative Officer; Planning Commission Members: R. Kay, L. Fife, D. Boyle, C. Shaw, M. Beaudin, T. Duff, B. McDonald; M. Flaherty, R. McEwing, B. Searles, B. Worthen, G. Paris, R. Wilmer, M. Lawrence, Burlington International Airport; M. Boomhower, MPO; D. Bedard, L. Wilbert, J. Zaetz, A. Durback, M. Griffiths, A. Clift, J. Densmore, H. Smith, C. Leddy, J. Gibbs, S. Driscoll, T. Cutler 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda Items: Mr. Bedard thanked the City Manager and Tom Hubbard for the Veteran's Day program at the High School. 2. Announcements/City Manager's Report: Mr. Magowan: The Budget Committee for CCTA met last Monday. There will be a meeting with the Auditor the first week in December. Mr. Conner: There will be a public hearing for the Environmental Assessment of the proposed Market St. improvements and City Center on 9 December, 7:30 p.m., in Cafeteria #2 at the High School. At 6:30 p.m., there will be an informal open house. Mr. Hafter: South Burlington has been the recipient of the 2008 Waste Water Utility Award. The City has received a $12,500 grant from the Agency of Natural Resources to explore use of a hydro micro turbine to power some of the Wastewater Plant. The City has negotiated a contract with the architect and landscape engineer to do the borings, stormwater, and parking analysis for the City Hall property. RFP's have been issued for both a temporary and permanent building space for the Police Department. Responses are due back on 4 December. At the next Council meeting, 1 December, the City Attorney will be present to address the possibility of "option votes." The City Attorney will also address the proposed petition. That meeting will also include an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Regulations regarding the speed limit on Air Guard Road. 3. Presentation of South Burlington Quilt Square for VLCT Municipal Quilt: Ms. Dooley introduced Mitzi Oakes and her quilt square based on the city's new logo. She also explained the VLCT quilt project which is to include a square from every Vermont town. 4. Presentation of Burlington International Airport Re-Use Plan: Mr. Flaherty explained that the Airport is looking at noise impact in neighborhoods near the Airport. He said that the Airport is committed to finding a solution that will include everyone. Mr. Worthen then explained that he was asked to serve as Community Facilitator to promote good discussions with the City of South Burlington. Mr. Worthen reviewed the program funded by the FAA to purchase land where noise levels are not compatible with residential use. Levels are determined from engineering studies. Mr. Worthen stressed that this activity is separate from the Airport Master Plan. Under the program, land can be identified as non-compatible due to noise. The Airport can then purchase that property. The program is voluntary on the part of homeowners. Mr. Worthen also explained that federal regulations prohibit re-use of purchased properties for residential use. On a plan of the area, Mr. Worthen identified properties that have already been purchased and those within the 65 decibel zone which are eligible for purchase by the Airport with federal funds. He noted that most of the owners have contacted the Airport. Homes are purchased at market values after a federal appraisal. Mr. Worthen said the 65 decibel line is permanent. Mr. Boucher asked if the line wouldn't shift as homes are destroyed and noise can travel through the open space. Mr. Worthen said he would discuss that later. Regarding future use of the purchased properties, Mr. Worthen said the Airport anticipates purchasing 100 dwellings over the 10 years between 2009 and 2019. Land acquired will be used mainly for Airport purposes including parking, car rental facilities, etc. Mr. Smith asked about a possible hotel. Mr. Flaherty replied that such a use would have to be a South Burlington zoning decision. Mr. Worthen said there is a concept to extend Airport Drive in the future. There would be landscaping and design considerations to protect residential properties. He showed a plan of concept for Airport Drive Extension. This could parallel the 65 decibel line and could then buffer the remaining properties. The road would be 85 feet back from any homes and any Airport structure. A member of the audience expressed concern that taking down homes that now block sound. He said these homes serve to block low and middle frequencies from reaching other residences outside the 65 decibel area. Mr. Lawrence, landscape architect, said they have been looking at 3 areas around the Airport: 1. Airport Parkway, where it intersects Kirby Road, and where many homes have been purchased and already taken down. The Airport asked for a visual screen. All shade trees that predate the homes or have been planted since the homes were built would be maintained. There would then be a 40-foot setback to a new landscaping screen with a dozen varieties of evergreens and a variety of seasonal shrubbery. 2. Two existing residences on Airport Drive (identified on the plan) which would be screened by proposed plantings to provide 20 feet of screening. 3. The White/Dumont Street area where evergreen screening is being put in. The next steps in the program include: 1. continued acquisition of homes for which funds are available 2. continued work with Picard Circle residents 3. continued land-use planning 4. Airport Drive planning 5. work with the City on zoning strategies 6. coordination of the next presentation date to the City of South Burlington Ms. Emery asked who would pay for the landscaping. Mr. Worthen said it is part of the federal money. Ms. Emery asked if that money would cover installation of berms. Mr. Worthen said it would. Mr. Fife felt that Airport Drive would have a lot of traffic on it, especially if it became a limited access road. He questioned the diminished value of homes in that area. Mr. Paris, Sr. Consulting Engineer said the line is a projection of noise 5 years into the future. Areas outside the line are not exposed to the same noise as those inside the line. Airport Drive would be designed so there would be a significant landscape corridor with berms, etc. Mr. Paris said there shouldn't be an incompatible level of noise in the future for those outside the 65 decibel line. Mr. Hafter stressed that when the city looks at that road, the first thing it will look at is impact on the neighborhoods. What was shown tonight is only a concept. Ms. Emery felt that using some of the land for parks would be a good idea, but it would not be good to have to cross a major highway to get to a park. Ms. Willett noted that 3 more homes are being taken down on Dumont Ave. where she lives. She asked if there would be Airport parking 2 doors down from her home. Mr. Searles, Airport Director of Aviation, said there are no plans as yet for reuse of any land. He stressed that the Airport would do nothing without collaboration and permission of the City of South Burlington. Mr. Boucher noted that the land is still zoned residential and cannot be used as a parking lot. Mr. Zaetz expressed concern with the loss of tax revenue from the homes that are taken down. He didn't feel other taxpayers should have to pay for this. Mr. Hafter said the City has talked about adding onto the tax stabilization agreement with the Airport in an amount equal to the taxes that are being lost. Mr. Paris added that there could be future uses that replace a comparable amount of taxes. A resident of Logwood Street asked if the noise study was done when the houses that have been taken down were still there. Mr. Paris said the study was done with aircraft aloft. The resident said that the type of noise that exists at his home comes from engine start-ups, taxiing, etc. He felt that the noise contours the Airport is discussing are not very realistic to residents in his area. He said that when homes are taken down, the noise can then come directly to their homes, and the only thing that can block it is a high-density building. He felt that the Airports 10-year plan is a 10-15 day plan for him with nothing to dissipate the noise. He felt that residents of his area need something substantial now and landscaping was not the answer. He was also concerned that with the proposed new road, there would be only one point of access to his home. Mr. Searles said they realize there is taxiing and engine noise and this study is looking at that. He expressed willingness to talk with residents of the area. Ms. Emery suggested the possibility of towing aircraft to runways instead of running the engines to get there. Mr. Worthen said he has never seen a plane with passengers being towed to a runway. Mr. Searles noted that at 5:30 a.m. a number of plans that "overnight" at the Airport could possibly be towed to the runway. Ms. Emery said there is also the issue of emissions and odors. Mr. Griffiths asked whether homes that are sold could be left standing so the neighborhood doesn't look so different for people still living there. Mr. Worthen said they are not allowed to rent the residences, and if they are not removed, they become targets for vandals. Mr. Griffiths asked if he chose to sell in 5 years would the value of his home be different because he waited and there are then no other homes in the area. Mr. Magowan asked if it is fair to say the Airport will pay more than anyone else. Mr. McEwing said there are benefits to Airport purchase. Mr. Burback expressed concern that in the future there might be another runway that would push the 65 decibel line out further. Mr. Paris said that is very unlikely as it would cost $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 for a new runway and it would be hard to justify on a cost/benefit basis. Mr. Shaw said he would like to see a clear commitment to properties outside the 65 decibel line. He felt there should be more sound barrier options than landscaping. He said there are residences that now have their bedrooms open to the Airport, and this is a life-altering issue. He also wanted to see a written commitment from the Airport. Mr. Hafter said that when the City Council reviewed the preliminary proposal, the recommended looking into soundproofing of remaining homes. He said he understood this is eligible for federal funding. Mr. McEwing said this is a last resort as it would keep people in their homes. Mr. Hafter added that currently there is an agreement that the Airport will buy no more homes without completion of a study. He asked if this still holds. Mr. Flaherty said it does. Mr. Worthen added that the Plan has to be completed by February, 2009 so they don't lose federal funding. Mr. Boucher said the city needs a methodology for deciding the order of purchase of homes. A resident suggested a sound barrier on the inside of the parking garage to muffle taxiing noise that reaches some homes. Mr. Searles said he would look into that. Mr. Densmore noted that one resident of Dumont Street, where homes are being bought by the Airport, just added onto a home. He asked if there is any rule against that. Mr. Conner said that anyone who chooses not to sell has the same rights to expand a home as anyone else in the city. Mr. Densmore then asked what happens when there are only 3 residences left in an area and they are a "hindrance" to Airport plans. Mr. Searles said they can be the last ones left "for a long, long time." Mr. Boucher stressed that in the Master Plan he wants to see how this is accomplished, how it is sequenced, and why. Mr. Searles said the City Council will get a product to act on and it will include that information. In the meantime, he encouraged people to come in "one on one" to share their ideas and concerns. Mr. Magowan suggested the next meeting on this topic be held at Chamberlin School. He also suggested a "pre-meeting drive-around." 5. Public Hearing on Tree Ordinance; second reading of same: Mr. Hafter said changes recommended by the Council have been made including the providing of examples and a revision of notice times. There was no public comment. Mr. Magowan moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Magowan moved to waive the second reading and approve the Tree Ordinance as presented at this meeting. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Request from South Burlington Family Center for City Service Funding: Mr. Smith reviewed the history of the request and indicted that the Council now has the information it requested. Ms. Leddy expressed concern that the Family Center has become "distant" from the City Council. She then reviewed the history of the Center and its funding. She indicated that they continue to have a strong relationship with the Recreation Department. The funding from the City Council is just about their only source of funding to serve hundreds of families with young children. Their programs have become a model for other communities. Ms. Emery asked how many families take advantage of the summer playgrounds. Ms. Leddy said about 12-15 families. They also provide field trips to other sites at no cost to families. Ms. Smith said she has been involved with the program for about 10 years and feels it is a lifeline for stay-at-home parents. Ms. Emery moved to allocate $6000 to the Family Center. Ms. Dooley seconded. Mr. Boucher stated his position that he did not believe the City should be funding of these requests. Ms. Leddy suggested that in the future they might become part of the Recreation Department budget. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Boucher opposing. 7. Introduction and Presentation by New Executive Director of Chittenden County MPO: Ms. Boomhower introduced herself to the Council and indicated that the MPO would be working on a variety of programs. They are looking for a 2% increase in member dues as they want to be sure a local match is available to take advantage of new opportunities. Regarding the Airport, Ms. Boomhower noted there is already a scoping study done for a different Airport Drive configuration. Money is allocated for this year and next that might have to be re-allocated if the design were to change. A "grants framework" was provided to members for a variety of grants that can be applied for to fund a variety of projects. Ms. Boomhower advised that the final scoping hearing for the Staples "missing lane" project will be held on 15 December. The MPO will cancel work on the 12B interchange project since the Council voted against purchasing the property. In the future, there would have to be a new alignment to build the interchange if any building goes in on the existing site. Mr. Hafter asked about the Southern Connector. Ms. Boomhower said the City of Burlington hasn't responded to the Environmental Study for 2 years, although there has been some recent movement on this. She didn't know what would happen. Mr. Hafter felt some funds could be released from that project. Mr. Magowan asked about the "Blue Ribbon Commission." Ms. Boomhower said the members include John O'Kane, Peter Clavelle, Bob Pettiman, Tom Tordy, and Jim Condos. The purpose is to begin to make a push in areas where transportation investments are made to see if there are better models to for funding projects. They will also look at funding options. Their recommendations were made last week and will be presented to the MPO Board on Wednesday and then released to the public. In December, the MPO Board will decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations. It was noted that the MPO will take a 50-year view of long-range transportation planning. They will list projects and strategies and justify that these are fiscally responsible. Visioning workshops are being held in the area. Mr. Conner said he attended one of these and found it to be a very interesting/interactive/hands on process. Ms. Boomhower said that Mr. Gravelin represents the City very well at the MPO. 8. Consideration of First Reading of Proposed Land Development Regulation Amendments: schedule public hearing of same: Mr. Conner noted that BFJ had been hired to review a number of issues and make recommendations. These were considered at a number of Planning Commission meetings. He then reviewed specific amendments: 1. Child care facilities: Current regulations don't completely match State regulations. The State allows for 3 types of child daycare facility: a. up to 6 full time and 4 part time children in a provider's home b. up to 12 full time children in a state licensed childcare facility in a provider's home (including an educational component) c. a licensed daycare facility not in a provider's home Previously, the City's regulations did not include provision for (b). The amendment would allow this use in all zoning districts with the same regulations as the State has. Ms. Driscoll, a daycare provider, explained some of the State regulations. 2. Seasonal mobile food units with tables: The amendment requires that these uses be under the land development regulations and also comply with State health regulations. There would be a maximum of seating for 16 people with seasonal limitation and limited hours of use (not at night). An application would be for 2 months and could be renewed twice. No landscaping would be required, and a site plan could be prepared by the applicant. This use would be allowed only in non-residential districts. Mr. Magowan suggested including the Director of Public Works to be consulted as he would have knowledge of access issues and areas where the DPW might be doing some work in the summer months. 3. Stormwater: The consultant worked with Tom DiPietro to draft the regulations. These regulations provide a standard (one year/24-hour event) to plan to. The Bartlett Bay area will be called an "overlay district" and the area affected would be reduced to half an acre (it is one acre elsewhere in the city). There is also a "Low Impact Development Manual" which has as a first option dealing with stormwater issues by better development before resorting to a pond. 4. Drive-thru Issues: One way to make commercial areas more pedestrian friendly is to deal with drive-thrus. There are 2 grandfathered restaurants, 1 Pharmacy and a number of banks with drive-thrus, and one additional permitted bank that is not yet built. Mr. Conner felt there is an opportunity to deal with these before more comes in. Ms. Dooley said she would eliminate all of them including banks. Mr. Hafter said future banks may choose not to come in since they would be at a disadvantage with so many existing bank drive-thrus. Ms. Emery suggested creating a pedestrian zone and not allowing a bank drive-thru to be located there. Mr. Conner recommended forwarding amendments to a public hearing with two changes: 1. no site plan review for child care in homes 2. adding the Public Works director to consultants for mobile food use. To make any more substantive changes would require another public hearing. Mr. Boucher moved to waive the first reading of the amendments, to approve the first reading as amended above, and to schedule a public hearing for 15 December 2008. Mr. Magowan seconded. Ms. Dooley said she couldn't approve anything that included more drive-thrus. Ms. Emery said that for banks, it could be a hardship for a parent to get out of a car in winter with children. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Dooley opposing. Mr. Magowan moved to request feedback from the Planning Commission on the minor amendments. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of Definition of Substantial Regional Impact of Regional Plan: Mr. Hafter said that both he and Mr. Conner endorse the language. No Council action is required. 10. Consideration of Resolution calling upon the U. S. Congress to raise Interstate weight limits in Vermont to match those of neighboring states and Canada: Mr. Hafter explained that local roads now have a higher weight limit than interstates in Vermont. This means heavy trucks leave the interstates and use local roads. The interstate averages 5 inches of pavement and local roads only 3-4 inches. Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Resolution as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Emery opposing. 11. Consideration of Refunding Note for Capital Equipment for the First Department Ambulance Service: Mr. Hafter said this is the last year of the note. It is for $50,490. at 3.4%. The money is in the capital budget. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the note and accompanying documents. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Review Agenda for Development Review Board meeting of 18 November 2008: Ms. Emery noted resident concern with a proposed project on Kirby Rd. 13. Review and Approve Minutes of 6 October 2008: Ms. Dooley shared with the Council that she had reviewed the tape of the 6 October 2008 City Council meeting, using the CCTV website, and the tape affirmed her recollection of her exchange with the City Attorney regarding whether the agricultural mitigation land is or is not encumbered. Based on her notes from the tape, she asked that the following summary of this exchange be added to the minutes of the 6 October 2008 Council meeting, "Ms. Dooley asked Mr. Stitzel whether it would be fair to say the agricultural mitigation land is encumbered. His response was that according to a decision of the Vermont Supreme Court the fact that this land is subject to an Act 250 permit means that it is encumbered as a matter of law." Mr. Boucher felt that the addition of that exchange would alter the nature of the Minutes. He noted that Mr. Donahue had then asked whether he could go door to door and say the land is not permanently encumbered, to which the City Attorney said yes he could. Mr. Hafter indicated that both statements are correct and they are saying two different things. Ms. Dooley then moved to approve the Minutes of 6 October 2008 as amended to include all of the above discussion. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.