Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/06/2008CITY COUNCIL 6 OCTOBER 2008 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 6 October 2008, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, and 575 Dorset St. Members Present: C. Smith, Chair; S. Magowan, M. Boucher, S. Dooley, M. Emery Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; T. Whipple, Chief of Police & other members of Police Department; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; R. & Dr. J. Larsen, K. Donahue, C. Shaw, L. Bresee, S. Dopp 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Ms. Dooley: Was in touch with consultant for this area regarding underage drinking. This is more than a driving issue. There is an underage drinking reporting line in Vermont. Research says DARE is not effective in controlling this problem. Mr. Magowan: Has been appointed Treasurer of CCTA and will be working to prepare their next budget. Mr. Hafter: The Social Responsibility Committee will meet this week and will present a proposal at the 20 October meeting. The City Center Real Estate Committee will meet on 14 October, 6:30 p.m. Chuck will be attending the Town & City Managers' Conference with Mr. Gravelin on 16-17 October in Dover, VT. Personal safety expert Ken Wooden will be speaking on 14 October, 7-9 p.m. His topic will focus on what middle and high school students need to know to keep them safe. The South Burlington Energy Committee will host an event with "Button Up Vermont: to advise people on how to secure their houses for winter, including low-interest loans for retrofitting, 27 October at the Middle School Cafeteria. The next agenda (20 October) will include a discussion on the Sign Ordinance, the new Tree Ordinance, and a continued discussion on the Police building. Mr. Hafter then asked Chief Whipple to summarize events surrounding the fatal car crash in South Burlington over the weekend. Chief Whipple said the accident occurred at about 2 a.m. on Saturday and resulted in terrible outcomes for several of young people. He added that he was confident there will be some arrests soon. Investigators are trying to piece together where the vehicle started from. The Chief was also confident all officers did what they should have done. Ms. Emery asked if any UVM students were involved. The Chief said there were not, but there were some UVM student witnesses who provided good information about the crash. Ms. Dooley asked if any of the occupants of the vehicle were wearing seatbelts. Chief Whipple said not to the best of his knowledge. One victim was thrown from the car and killed. The Chief felt there would have been fewer injuries if seatbelts had been used. Chief Whipple also advised that counseling is being provided to the officer involved. Mr. Hafter thanked the Police and Firefighters and said the City appreciates what they have to go through. 3. Public Hearing on Amendment to Sign Ordinance to lower frontage requirements from 250 to 249 feet for additional 5 square foot sign allowance; second reading of same: Mr. Smith opened the public hearing. Mr. Shaw spoke against the proposed amendment on the basis of its narrow focus. He noted there are residences directly across the street in this neighborhood which borders on the Southeast Quadrant. He also noted this location is at the entryway to South Burlington and the sign would be the first thing people would see upon entering the City. He felt the impact of the sign could be mitigated to be more in character with the residential neighborhood and added that the box-like building was already out of character with the area. He noted that there have been 2 signs on the property which block the view of traffic coming on Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Shaw also said that the building caters to people seeking selective surgery and are therefore younger people who shouldn't have trouble seeing a slightly smaller sign. Mr. Larsen said there are 2 businesses in the building, Vermont Eye Associates and Vermont Eye Laser. The former serves 60% Medicare patients and does cataract surgery on people 65 and older, some as old as 95. Vermont Eye Laser does elective surgery one day a week. Mr. Larsen took exception to labeling the building as a "box." He thought the building was attractive and that the sign reflects the character of the building. Mr. Larsen said that when they first approached the city they asked for an exception to the regulation based on visually impaired criteria. He said there is a precedent for this (e.g., Braille lettering in elevators). It was the City Council who thought to reduce the frontage requirement. Mr. Larsen said the goal is safety for the people they serve. Dr. Larsen advised that the building is 60% occupied with eye-related practices. People often don't have perfect vision when they come to the building, and they need a sign that patients can see. She added that traffic moves fast on Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Larsen said they will do whatever is reasonable to work with the city. Mr. Boucher moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery said she had supported the reduction in frontage with reluctance. She suggested a State Highway Notice sign to draw attention to the building's location. Mr. Hafter said those signs can be used only for locations on an adjacent street. Ms. Emery suggested doing something with color on the sign. She didn't feel that a slight increase in the square footage would make it more visible. Mr. Magowan agreed. He was also concerned with the "slippery slope" possibility. Ms. Emery suggested a boundary adjustment, since less than a foot is needed to meet the frontage requirement for a larger sign. Mr. Larsen said that could be expensive but agreed to look into it. Members felt the boundary adjustment was the better path to take. There was no motion to approve the Second Reading. 4. Public Comment on Action to Allocate $125,000 from the Rooms & Meals Reserve Fund to 2009 Budget to pay for emergency repairs to City Hall: Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of the item and noted that repairs included fixing the mezzanine roof ($16,577); work on interior walls ($31,000), and main roof retrofit ($75,000). Kevin Donahue said this was the "best money the City ever spent." Mr. Magowan moved to approve the transfer of $125,000.00 from the capital reserve fund for emergency repairs to City Hall as outlined in Mr. Gravelin's memorandum of 1 July 2008. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Discussion & Comments regarding Town Meeting, 2 October 2008: Ms. Emery said she got an e-mail from a citizen about the great job done at the Forum. She asked why there was no Free Press coverage. Mr. Hafter advised that the Free Press reporter assigned to South Burlington had left her job just that afternoon, so it was an issue of unfortunate timing. Ms. Emery suggested emphasizing the annual cost to homeowners instead of the total project cost. She hoped that before the vote the "what ifs" are laid out to voters. She asked if interest rates could be subject to change given the existing credit crisis. Mr. Hafter said absolutely. Ms. Emery asked about the stormwater issues on the current site. Mr. Hafter explained that the original plan included tanks under the building to store water. This is no longer an acceptable solution under State stormwater regulations. The City would have to work with the Federal Government to get a stormwater pond in the Interstate right-of-way, and they generally do not support this. Ms. Dooley asked what will happen to the boarded up home at Dorset/Swift Streets. Mr. Hafter said it will be demolished. All the asbestos had to be removed and now they have to get air quality permits in order for the Fire Department to burn it as a training exercise. It may be just be torn down if too unsafe to burn. Ms. Dooley felt that no matter how the City Hall site is used, they would have to comply with stormwater regulations. Mr. Boucher said that would happen only with the need for a larger building with more parking. There should be no issue with renovating the existing building for other uses. Mr. Boucher felt it was very regrettable that people talked about the loss of 6 acres of land but nobody talked about the awful working conditions for the Police in their existing facility. He also felt that there were questions the Police Facility Committee should have answered. Mr. Magowan agreed. He noted that not a single person thanked the Police. He also noted that the Police Department was "very demoralized" after the meeting. He added that he thought it would be hard to come up with an item for the March ballot if the Calkins vote fails. Mr. Magowan said that it would then be an "off-election" vote. He asked if there isn't a piece of better land the City could buy to preserve for the $3.5 million difference. Ms. Emery cited the need for signs on other public open space land. Mr. Donahue felt the format of the public forum favored the negative view and that the Committee had answers they had no way to get out. Members of the audience complemented the City for the presentation. One person cited a difference between concern for land and concern for people. Mr. Wilbur said the Committee worked over a year and could not come up with another piece of property that would meet the needs of the Police Department. He felt it would take another 2 years to get another committee and another plan. He added that the City needs to focus on people who work for and protect the community. Ms. Dopp felt it was still possible to save the Calkins property and give the Police a facility. She felt there should be planning for temporary facilities now. 6. Discussion with City Attorney regarding Act 250 "agricultural mitigation" land and preserved Open Space: Mr. Stitzel said the property the city acquired in 1987 was in connection with an Act 250 approval of the Oak Creek subdivision. It addressed the issue of development of agricultural land, and the developer was required to deed 12 acres of land to the city. The City paid $185,000 for 28 acres of land. The deed to the city was free and clear of restrictions from the prior landowner. The question has been raised as to whether that land is already "conserved," making the city's offer to conserve it questionable. Mr. Stitzel said that land is subject to Condition #15 of the Act 250 approval. He stressed that a restriction related to a permit is not permanent and can be changed at the will of the appropriate people. In 2006, the Legislature made a very significant relaxation of the Act 250 restrictions. Mr. Stitzel provided members with the language added at that time. This has created a new set of legal standards as relates to protection of agricultural soils. There is now a question as to whether this land is protected in the future, and this would have to be decided between the City of South Burlington and the Environmental Court. Mr. Smith said that the City's action to designate this land as "open space" would further conserve it as opposed to its status at this time. Mr. Stitzel said that all the land under discussion (i.e., Calkins, etc.) was purchased at or fair market value. It is an asset to the City. Voters of the City ultimately have the decision as to what to do with assets of the City. Courts are reluctant to let some decisions be made to restrict voters or future City Councils, as they may have different goals and objectives. Mr. Stitzel noted that the City could take land bought in 1987 for $185,000 and with the approval of the voters donate it to the Vermont Land Trust. Mr. Magowan noted that the Trust could then sell the land. Mr. Stitzel said they could but with many restrictions. Mr. Magowan asked about an arrangement like a "stewardship committee." Mr. Stitzel said if the City is interested in that, it would require an amendment of the City Charter to create such a panel and then authorize the voters to place land under that stewardship. Mr. Donahue asked whether the City, if it went through the permitting process, could build something on the land in question. Mr. Hafter said that is possible. Members then discussed an appropriate response to the letter from Michael Mittag on this subject. 7. Discussion of Council Protocol regarding media contacts: Ms. Emery was concerned with Council members saying they represented the opinion of others. She said she had never supported the Calkins site and that her vote had a caveat attached to it. Mr. Smith said that was what the vote had been about. He said the first vote was to accept the report of the committee and thank them for their work. The second vote was to support their recommendation. He noted that Ms. Emery voted in the affirmative for both. Ms. Emery said she only voted to the issue to a vote by the public. She added that nowhere in the Minutes does it say she supported the site. Mr. Boucher said that he has caveats on just about everything the Council votes on. Mr. Smith said that when he wrote the Resolution, his intent was an endorsement of the site. Mr. Stitzel said that under the law, Minutes are supposed to reflect votes and actions taken. He said that he had understood the vote was an endorsement of the plan. Mr. Magowan then moved that the City Council support a "yes" vote on the Calkins property at the 4 November 2008 election. Mr. Boucher seconded. The vote on the motion was 3-1 with Ms. Dooley opposing and Ms. Emery abstaining. Mr. Magowan then moved to support bringing the Calkins property vote to the public on 4 November 2008. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Dooley opposing. Ms. Emery suggested that individual councilors keep others in the loop, so that there's more coherence in our combined action. Ms. Emery also suggested that we identify ourselves as councilors in these communications; particularly when discussing City business, since our positions give us access to privileged information as well as make us accountable to the electorate. (We are public figures.) Ms. Emery initially suggested this discussion because others had raised the question of the clarity of her position following my letter to the Editor of The Other paper (in late September, before the Town Meeting). Questions were then raised as to the use of the "Front Porch Forum," what is appropriate for City Council members to ask of staff, Counselors roles as a Council and as individual City Counselors, etc. Members agreed to table the discussion until after the election. 8. Discussion of Council policy regarding vacancies and applications to City Boards and Committees: Mr. Hafter asked whether members wanted to advertise positions which incumbents have indicated they are willing to hold again. Ms. Dooley said the City of Burlington does this. Mr. Magowan suggested seeing if the League of Cities and Towns has a protocol on this. Mr. Magowan was concerned that there is no "assessment process." He said this applies to the MPO and Regional Planning Commission as well. He asked Mr. Hafter to research this. A member of the audience felt that the Burlington process was very political and made appointments based on political parties. 9. Consideration of Approval of Application to CCMPO for Transportation Action Grant: Mr. Conner said grants up to $250,000 are available for "creative ideas on using transportation planning funds." He noted that the Planning Commission would like to work on how Williston Rd. would be implemented into the City Center. He said there are some very creative elements to this with benefits to the city, including possible revision of site plan regulations to support walkable communities, more hidden parking areas, height regulations, etc. Ms. Emery asked about traffic pattern studies. Mr. Conner said that can be very expensive. He cited recent studies on Route 2, Dorset St. and Spear St. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the request to apply for a $50,000 transportation planning grant. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consideration for Capital Equipment Refunding Notes for Police Copier and Cruiser: Mr. Hafter said the note is at 2.95% and funds are in the budget. Mr. Boucher moved to approve the refunding notes and accompanying documents for the Police copier and cruiser as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Review Development Review Board Agenda for meeting on 7 October 2008: No issues were raised. 12. Review and Approve Minutes of 15 September 2008: Ms. Emery said that on p. 1, under announcements, the word "will" should be "could" and the word "digital" should precede "channels." Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Minutes of 15 September as amended. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 14. Executive Session: Mr. Boucher moved that the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss real property acquisition and appointments to Boards and Committees. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Boucher moved adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.