Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/02/2008CITY COUNCIL 2 SEPTEMBER 2008 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 September 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; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; R. Belair, Administrative Officer; T. Whipple, Police Chief, and members of Police Department- Lt. J. Snyder, T. Shepard, R. Bliss; D. Brent, Fire Chief, and members of Fire Department; B. Hoar, Public Works Department; T. LeBlanc, City Assessor; R. Kay, M. Beaudin, D. Boyle, L. Fife, Planning Commission; C. Forde, MPO; S. Bradeen, D. Wilbur, L. Nadeau, K. Donahue, Police Facility Committee; R. Larsen, T. Cutler, J. & M. Zaetz, C. & J. Galey, Ms. Sylvester, J. West, T. O'Keefe, J. Simson, J. Larkin, C. Jensen, L. Berkitt, M. Young, Y. Ahladas, M. Mittag, M. Smith, L. Leavitt, M. Vizzard, F. Saucier, L. Chickering, E. Whitney, S. & M. Caustian, G. Donovan, S. Buscher, F. Moravcsik, S. Deacon, J. Seuei 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: a) Tim Cutler: re: Peddlers License Issues: Mr. Cutler said that this summer he started a concession trailer at Lime Kiln Rd. and Ethan Allen Drive. He placed 4 plastic picnic tables near the trailer for patrons. The State had said he was allowed to have seating for up to 16, as long as it was temporary. Two weeks later, Mr. Cutler said he was told by Mr. Belair that the tables were in violation of the Peddlers Ordinance. Mr. Cutler said he told Mr. Belair what the Health Dept. had said. Mr. Belair said that because the city had no wording indicating that he could have tables, he could not. Mr. Belair suggested Mr. Cutler meet with the City Manager. The City Manager was then on vacation. In the interim before the City Manager returned, Mr. Cutler said he took down the tables and experienced a drop in business. On 15 August, Mr. Cutler sent a written request to Mr. Hafter asking what he was doing that was in violation of regulations. He received a reply from Mr. Belair that the use of tables was a Land Development issue. On 1 September, Mr. Hafter sent an e-mail saying he wanted to work with Mr. Cutler so there are no issues when the next request for a peddler's license comes along. Mr. Belair indicated that "temporary seating" comes under the category of "short order restaurant," and the zone in which Mr. Cutler is set up does not allow "short order" or "temporary" restaurants. Mr. Hafter suggested that Mr. Cutler go to the Planning Commission to see whether this use might be added to additional zones. Mr. Cutler said he found it unfair that his business should suffer while the city works through this issue. Ms. Galle said she believed that Mr. Belair knew about the tables from the beginning. Mr. Belair said even the applicant hadn't thought about the tables until the Department of Health said he could have them. Ms. Sylvester felt Mr. Cutler did everything he was supposed to do and never got anything in writing. Mr. Zaetz said he was appalled at how this was handled. He asked the Council to give Mr. Cutler temporary authority to put the tables up. He felt what happened was a "bad image" for South Burlington. Mr. O'Keefe said he found Mr. Cutler's location to be very convenient. Mr. Magowan stressed that Mr. Belair and Mr. Hafter were doing the job they were hired to do. Mr. Belair's job is to enforce zoning rules to keep the city from degrading. He suggested that as there was some confusion in this case that Mr. Cutler be allowed to keep the tables up until 4 October and then refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Boucher noted that he had several people tell him that they felt this is a very unsafe location for a restaurant due to the dangerous intersection. Mr. Magowan moved to allow Mr. Cutler to keep the seating at his food stand until 4 October 2008. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b) Rand Larson -- Request to Amend Sign Ordinance: Mr. Larson noted that he has had total access to both Mr. Belair and Mr. Hafter. Mr. Larson indicated that the building at 1100 Hinesburg Rd. (Vermont Eye Laser) is up and open. There is one major problem: visibility of their sign. The property was 6 inches short of the frontage needed to allow for the size of sign they had wanted. He noted that you can't see the building until you are virtually on top of it, and many of their clients are visually challenged. There are complaints on a daily basis. Mr. Boucher questioned whether it is safe for people to be driving when they are so visually impaired that they can't read the sign. Mr. Larson read the wording for an amendment he proposed to allow for legible signage (larger) for facilities dealing with the visually impaired. Members felt this was a "spot zoning" type of situation and were reluctant to make this exception. They felt it would be more reasonable to reduce the frontage requirement for all properties from 250 feet to 249 feet. Mr. Hafter said he would prepare an amendment to the Sign Ordinance, and that this discussion would qualify as a first reading. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Boucher: Noted that the paving project on Hinesburg Rd. is a state project. Mr. Hoar added the City has no say in it and was only told it would happen a few days ago. Mr. Magowan: At a CCTA meeting last week, it was decided to arrange a meeting with South Burlington's representatives and the City Manager to discuss service to South Burlington. Mr. Hafter: The next City Council meeting will be at Orchard School on 15 September. The Steering Committee will meet on 24 September, 6 p.m., at the Middle School Library (prior to the School Board meeting). It is the City Council's turn to have one of its members serve as Steering Committee Chair. The working group of the Police Station planning committee will host a public town meeting on 2 October at the Middle School cafeteria. The meeting will be preceded by a pot luck meal. A citizen had requested that the Dorset/Swift intersection be looked at following a serious accident. The report of the consultant will be sent to the citizen. A request to look at accumulating cars and junk on a property on Swift Street has resulted in a Notice of Violation to the owner. A petition was received from the residents of Iby Street opposing the realigning of Market St. 3. Further Discussion of City Standard Fencing at Stormwater Pond at Winding Brook Condominiums: Ms. Emery said she still sees landscaping as an option and also suggested a black industrial fence which would cost $800 more than the landscaping. Ms. Berkitt said they would like the same kind of fencing as that which is used at Oak Creek. Mr. Boucher suggested installing the new standard of fencing on one side and using landscaping for the rest. Mr. Young asked why the storm pond outside Timberlane does not have a fence. Mr. Hoar said it wasn't fenced because it is next to an existing wetland. The same is true for the pond behind Twin Oaks. Ms. Berkitt said they would like a 4 ft. high black chain link fence. Ms. Emery moved to replace the current fence at Winding Brook with a 4-foot high black chain link fence and to use the existing fence wherever the City deems appropriate. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Interview for appointment to Red Rocks Advisory Committee: The Council interviewed Yiota Ahladas for appointment to the Red Rocks Advisory Committee. Ms. Ahladas said she has lived in Queen City Park for 22 years and considers herself a "full time steward" of the Park. Mr. Smith explained the appointment process. 5. Council Hearing on Proposed Condemnation of a Portion of Allen Road Land Company Property, Northwest Corner of Hinesburg Road/I-89 Intersection; for Purpose of Interstate Use: Mr. Smith opened the public hearing. Mr. Stitzel swore in all witnesses. He then gave members copies of the Official City Map and a plan of the property to be acquired and a copies of the deed by which Allen Road Land Company acquired the property in 2004. Ms. Forde, Planner for the MPO, explained that the MPO plans and coordinates spending of federal money for road projects in Chittenden County and maintains a long-range plan. She noted that the Interchange at Hinesburg Rd. is proposed because of traffic congestion in the area. The MPO is currently planning a feasibility study for this Interchange. This should be complete in 3 months. The next step would be to get an Environmental Impact Statement. This would look at a larger area. It has been determined that Hinesburg Rd. is the best location for this Interchange, but the Environmental study would look at it again. The proposed Interchange has been approved by the Legislature as a project, but it has yet to be funded. Mr. Stitzel gave members copies of the State Transportation Program. Mr. Smith, Project Manager for Resource Systems Group (RSG), said he has been the lead consultant on the project since its inception a year ago. A draft report has been completed. Mr. Smith said the most feasible alternative is shown on the drawing he presented. The drawing included improvements needed to make the project work. Alternatives were considered that did not impact the Allen Rd. property, but these were found to be unfeasible due to potential congestion at intersections. Mr. Smith gave members guidelines on access management, which indicate that driveways should be at least 250 feet from Interstate ramps. He noted that there are other development projects which will be relying on the building of this Interchange. Ms. Jensen, representing Allen Rd. Land Company, asked if this project has been discussed since 1985. Ms. Forde said it has, though not necessarily this configuration. Ms. Jensen asked for confirmation that no funding is in place for the project. Ms. Forde confirmed this. Ms. Jensen asked if this is a "candidate project" for 2009. Ms. Forde said the State does not use that designation. Ms. Jensen asked if construction of this ramp will require federal highway approval. Ms. Forde said it will, but it will require the Environmental Report first. Ms. Jensen asked if residential development in an area is considered when an Interstate ramp is considered. Mr. Smith said they consider all "restraints." Ms. Jensen asked if Mr. Smith was aware there were permit applications being presented by Allen Rd. Land Company. Mr. Smith said not at that time. Ms. Jensen asked if other locations were considered. Mr. Smith said they were. Ms. Jensen asked whether the project would not have to impact Allen Rd. Land Company property if it weren't for Tilley Drive. Mr. Smith said that is true for a part of Tilley Drive. Ms. Jensen asked if anyone at the Agency of Transportation had worked with Mr. Smith on his study. Mr. Smith said they had and that would also review the final results of the work. Mr. Magowan said that in the past the Council had been told that the project would not get federal funding because it would serve only local traffic. He asked if this is still true. Ms. Forde said she felt the case can be made that it serves all traffic. Mr. Magowan asked if the Bolton interchange still has priority over this interchange. Ms. Forde said Bolton is now "off the table." Mr. Magowan asked for a cost estimate. Mr. Smith said the current proposal should cost about $18,000,000. An enhanced project could cost $27,000,000. Ms. Forde said 90% of this would be federally funded. 10% is State funding eligible. Mr. Magowan asked whether a traditional diamond design could be built were it not for the Pizzagalli property. Mr. Smith said it could. Mr. Magowan questioned why this discussion wasn't held before the Pizzagalli property was developed. Mr. Boucher questioned whether the Pizzagalli Tilley Drive access could be closed and the Interchange moved down. Mr. Smith said there is an issue as to where the controlled access ends. He felt moving the access would eliminate access to the Pizzagalli property. It also violates the rules for designing a controlled access. Mr. Hafter asked whether in examining models, RSG found the proposed Interchange would impact the proposed City Center. Mr. Smith said absolutely. It would also impact Airport traffic. Ms. Emery asked if there is a time limit as to when the project has to be built if the city condemns the land. Mr. Stitzel said that when a condemnation decision is final, the City has to come up with the money for the property or abandon the project. Once the City pays for the property, it owns that property. Nothing requires any time limit for building the project. If the project is never built, the city can sell the property or use it for another purpose. The Chair asked if the property owners had any evidence to submit. Ms. Jensen said they would submit their evidence in writing. Mr. LeBlanc, the City Assessor, then reported that he did a typical sales analysis using properties similar to this one. Both comparables were in the Southeast Quadrant in an R-7 zoning district. This resulted in a per unit cost at maximum density of $20,800, for a total property valuation of $700,000. Ms. Jensen asked if there was any adjustment for the existing residence. Mr. LeBlanc said no as he considered a maximum density of 34 units (the existing residence plus 33 new units, or 34 new units). Ms. Jensen asked if there was any adjustment for the type of units. Mr. LeBlanc said his analysis was for the raw land only. Ms. Jensen asked if Mr. LeBlanc looked at the proposal Allen Rd. Land Company made for the land. Mr. LeBlanc said he had not. Mr. Stitzel asked if this evaluation is for the entire parcel. Mr. LeBlanc said it is because if the City took only what was needed for the project it would leave no access, and the "cost to cure" that would negate the value of the land. Mr. Magowan asked the current tax valuation of the land. Mr. LeBlanc said $370,000. Ms. Emery asked who pays for the property if the City condemns it. Mr. Stitzel said the City would pay, but if/when the project goes forward, that cost could be credited toward the city's share of the project. Mr. Stitzel then gave members copies of the Property Transfer Tax Return. Ms. Jensen said she would present written arguments in the next week. Mr. Boucher moved to close the hearing. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Smith noted that the City now has 60 days in which to issue a written decision. 6. Public Discussion of Annual City Meeting Date: Consider Intention to Warn City Meeting for First Tuesday in March (Town Meeting Day): Ms. Leavitt recommended the Council approve this as a way to encourage voters to vote. It is also a Vermont tradition. Mr. Simson, who chaired the City Charter Review Committee, said the members of that Committee made a similar recommendation. Mr. Magowan moved to set the Annual City Meeting Date for the First Tuesday in March, beginning in the year 2009 and to continue this practice until another decision is made. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Discussion of Authorization for Fire Truck Purchase: Mr. Smith reviewed the issue. He noted the City received a proposal which would result in a savings to the City of $190,000. Mr. Hafter proposed to fund the purchase of 2 new fire trucks through city savings, an increase in the allocation for fire truck purchases from the General Fund, and from proceeds of the Rooms and Meals Tax. Mr. Hafter noted that the local option Rooms & Meals Tax receipts have exceeded expectations this year. Mr. Magowan moved to go forward with the purchase of 2 fire trucks and the financing option presented by the City Manager. Ms. Emery seconded. Members cited the need for better planning for short, medium and long-term needs. In the vote that followed the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Boucher voting against. 8. Consideration and Discussion of Items Related to Police Facility; Warning for November 4th Meeting: Mr. Magowan moved to place the vote on use of the Calkins property for a Police Facility on the November ballot and to approve the proposed Resolution. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Dooley voting against. Members then discussed the question of exchanging property owned by the City to be designated as "open space" to replace the Calkins property. Mr. Hafter referred members to the map and noted the property is within a 24 acre parcel that is landlocked. It is about 6 acres. The property had previously been identified as a potential future School site, but the School District says it does not need this site. There are wetlands on the southern part of the property. Mr. Nadeau said he thought the proposed new "open space" land is more treed and more conducive to wildlife than the land proposed for the Police facility. Mr. Boucher suggested dedicating more than the 6 acres as it feels like some of the same wooded area as the Calkins property. Mr. Hafter suggested "squaring off" the property, resulting in 10-12 acres. Mr. Magowan suggested dedicating the whole property or else selling it. Mr. Hafter said it is landlocked and has no development value. Mr. Boucher moved to commit approximately 10 acres as conserved space if the ballot issue regarding use of the Calkins property for a Police facility passes. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Dooley opposing. Mr. Smith read a resolution thanking the committee and endorsing the recommendation of the committee. Ms. Dooley suggested splitting the vote into 2 segments. Ms. Emery said that ideally she would prefer to see the Police Facility on the current site but is endorsing the plan because the Police need a new facility now. Mr. Magowan moved to thank the Police Facility Committee for its work. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Magowan moved to endorse the recommendation of the Police Facility Committee. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Dooley opposing. Mr. Hafter noted there will be a Town Meeting on the Police Facility on 2 October in the Middle School Cafeteria, 6 p.m. This will be preceded by a pot luck supper at 6 p.m. with the meeting from 7-9 p.m. Assistant School Superintendent David Young will host the meeting. Mr. Wilbur said the public should know exactly what the City Council will do if the Calkins property is turned down, including what the costs are (moving City Hall, temporary rentals, etc.). Police officers said they are fed up with waiting and have to know where they are going. Mr. Smith agreed that the effort has to be to get this ballot item passed as there is no "plan B or C." Members agreed to suspend the discussion of the Police facility to allow the City Planner to make a brief presentation. 9. Consideration of Approval to Apply for $40,000 Growth Centers Planning Grant: Mr. Conner said the request is to apply for funding under the growth centers program. Mr. Magowan moved to apply for a Growth Center Planning Grant of up to $40,000. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8 (continued): Chief Whipple then presented information on the design/size elements of the proposed Police facility. The current facility was designed for use by 25 Police officers. Chief Whipple noted that there are now 48 officers. In addition, when the building was designed, there were no "gender" issues and no technology to house. The department now has 7 female officers and lots of technology that takes up whole rooms. Policing has changed as well. There is an increased number of calls, including hard drugs and related crime, and "financial" crimes. There are also requirements for retention of records, and storage in the current facility is almost non-existent. In addition, there are privacy rights being compromised and serious security considerations. Locker rooms are inadequate and there are no shower facilities. It has become necessary to move the Youth Services Department out of the existing facility due to space issues. Of major concern is the lack of a secure environment for prisoners. At present, they could gain access to weapons and evidence. Currently, the Police Department has 5800 sq. ft. of stand-alone space and shared access to conference rooms. Chief Whipple cited the potential for 2100 housing units at buildout in the Southeast Quadrant, and felt that it made sense to put a police presence closer to a growing area. He also cited overall population growth and where the Police Department should be staffwise. The proposed facility projects a 25-year buildout, and there will be excess space to begin with. There is also a significant community room (meeting space) which could also hold a full department meeting. The Chief acknowledged that police facilities are expensive. He reviewed the comparative space figures of other towns. Mr. Magowan asked whether other communities would try to "dump" on South Burlington if it builds a bigger facility. Chief Whipple said that would require South Burlington's agreement. Mr. Bradeen noted that when the Facility Committee began work, there were many skeptics, but as the committee reviewed functions of the department, they realized what was reasonable for a community of this size. Mr. Wilbur added that 3 major things have to be considered with regard to the size of the facility: the expectation for the size of the Police Department, housing them all in one building, and the need for public meeting space. He noted that the projection is that in 12 years the force will increase from 48 to as many as 78 officers. Mr. Nadeau added that if you don't build for the future, it will cost three times as much to build again later. A member of the audience felt there should be discussion of a "precinct" system and that there should be multiple options on the ballot. Mr. Bradeen felt the only thing that could reasonably be reduced in size is the Conference Room. Mr. Donahue said it is important for voters to know that the facility uses only 6 acres of the Calkins property. Mr. Magowan moved to continue the discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Review Development Review Board Agenda for meeting of 2 September 2008: No issues were raised. 11. Review and Approve Minutes of 18 August 2008: It was noted that on p. 6, paragraph 4, the word "property" should read "fund." Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Minutes of 18 August 2008 as amended. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session: Mr. Magowan moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in executive session to discuss appointments to boards and committees and to resume regular session only for the purpose of making such appointments and/or adjourning. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: Mr. Magowan moved to appoint Yiota Ahladas to the Red Rocks Park Advisory Committee for a three year term ending in 2011. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.