Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/01/2010CITY COUNCIL 1 February 2010 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 February 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; M. Emery, S. Dooley, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Hubbard, Recreation Department; Chief D. Brent, Fire Department; B. Vogel, K. Williams, J. Zaetz, B. Worthen, B. Searles, B. McEwing, L. Leavens, M. Young, B. Stuono, T. Stone, E. Burack, D. Booska, B. McCormick, R. Kay, L. Kupferman, M. Boomhower, Mr. Datillio, L. Dorr 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda Items: Mr. Leavens suggested that to replace the affordable housing the Airport has taken the City charge a fee for long-term parking at the Airport and use the money to create affordable housing. He said this was done in San Francisco where a similar situation existed. Mr. Leavens said he was concerned with the deterioration of that neighborhood. He also noted that relatives of his who sold their home to the Airport are now having to rent because they can’t find an affordable place to buy in South Burlington. 2. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Ms. Dooley: The City Manager Search Committee has narrowed the applicants down to 10 and will conduct phone interview with these candidates. Ms. Emery: She and Ms. Dooley, who are both up for re-election, will be on Channel 17 to discuss issues on 12 February, 5:25 p.m. Mr. Hafter: Will present the proposed City budget on Channel 17 on 11 February, 6 p.m. The 16 February City Council meeting will be held at Central School. Mr. Hafter introduced Justin Rabidoux, the new Public Works Director. 3. Presentation of Plans from Veterans’ Memorial Committee: Mr. Zaetz said the Committee ran a contest for designs for the Memorial and picked 3 winners, one of whom is from South Burlington. The Committee will have to fund-raise about $160,000 for the project. They are trying to get a grant with the help of Senator Bernie Sanders. Mr. Boucher stressed that no tax dollars will be used, but the City will be the custodian of the collected funds. Mr. Dorr then showed the proposed site plan. Mr. Hafter noted that a minor Act 250 amendment will be needed. Mr. Zaetz then introduced the first contest winner, Kurt Williams, a metal smith from Burlington. Mr. Williams showed a slide of his “dog tag” sculpture made of brushed stainless steel. It will stand about 50 inches high and will be anchored to prevent vandalism/theft. The second contest winner, Bob Vogel showed a slide of his cylindrical steel sculpture. It will be 3 ft. 9 in. in diameter and stand 10 feet high. Mr. Vogel said he wanted something people can walk around. It will have the names of the wars cut out of the steel and will be interior lit. Mr. Murray expressed concern with liability if children climb on the sculpture. Mr. Zaetz then showed the last of the memorials which will be done by Bianchi Stonecutters of Essex. He asked the Council’s approval to get the project underway so they can start fundraising. Mr. Boucher asked about the on-going cost of lighting. Mr. Zaetz said they hope to raise enough money to maintain the sculptures. He felt that at some time they may have to come to the City for maintenance. Mr. Murray moved to approve the concept for the Veterans Memorial as presented and allow the Committee to fund raise, with the understanding that the Committee will come back to the Council with the final plan. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Report from Burlington International Airport regarding proposed bus terminal location; Greyhound representatives: Mr. Stone noted that the “Vermont Transit” name was retired 2 years ago, and all buses are now under the Greyhound name. They are proposing to move the terminal now located on Pine St. in Burlington to the Airport. Mr. Stone noted that Greyhound, which has been in business since 1914, is now owned by First Group. They carry 2,000,000 people a year in the U.S. and also operate in Canada and Mexico. They operate 2300 buses, 40 of the new luxury model (all in the northeast). These will be the ones coming to the Airport. They are more fuel efficient and are quieter. Buses are maintained at a facility in White River. Mr. Stone said they want to come to the Airport for many reasons: 1. It is a transportation center. 2. It has good amenities and is customer friendly. 3. They are trying to upgrade all of their facilities. 4. The downtown building is too big and is oddly configured. It also has leakage problems. 5. It will be easier for people to board buses. 6. There is 24-hour security. 7. The roads near the Airport are the first to be plowed. 8. There is good signage. 9. There is bus service from Burlington to the Airport. 10. There is a demand state-wide to get to the Airport. 11. It will remove traffic and noise from Burlington in early and late hours. (Mr. Boucher said that has a lot of people in South Burlington very uneasy.) Mr. Conner asked for a profile of bus users. Mr. Stone said they are usually between 18 and 45, 50% men/50% women, 40% college students. 10% come by cab, 5% walk in, and 80% are dropped off. In Burlington, they are carrying 100-120 people a day in 4 trips (8 counting going in and out). Ms. Dooley noted that their service has shrunk, especially with no service to Rutland. Mr. Stone said there is no call for it. He added that there is the capability to grow if they move to the Airport, which they can’t do on Pine St. Mr. Murray asked which road buses would use to get to the Airport. Mr. Worthen said they would come off I-89 and take Williston Rd. to the Airport. Southbound, they would take Williston Rd. to Taft Corners and then to I-89. He said buses would not use White Street. Ms. Emery asked why not have a terminal in Burlington and just have a stop at the Airport. Mr. Stone said the Airport is their biggest market, especially with Canadians. Ms. Emery suggested they combine with the CCTA hub. She said her concern is with people driving through the residential neighborhood to bring people to the Airport to get bus service. Mr. Kupferman said the CCTA terminal is 4 to 5 years away, and Greyhound needs a terminal now. Mr. Hafter also noted that CCTA doesn’t run an early morning or late night bus. He asked how people getting in on a 4:30 a.m. bus get to where they are going from the Airport. Mr. Leavens noted that the Airport is surrounded on the north and east by the Winooski River and to the south by Route 2. The only way it can grow is into the Chamberlin residential area. He asked where the proposed terminal would be. Mr. Stone said they don’t need a terminal, just a curb and a kiosk for ticketing. Mr. Boucher said he hasn’t heard anything about the impact on traffic. He said that what he has heard would mean many extra cars a week going to the Airport, which is a huge issue for this neighborhood. He stressed that the City Council’s job is to protect the interests of its citizens. Ms. Dooley asked whether this would require a zoning change. Mr. Conner said it depends on the kind of facility they are talking about. Mr. Boucher noted the Council also represents the interests of its business community. They have a fair number of guests from Canada, and this could affect that business. Mr. Searles said the idea of Greyhound leasing Airport space grew out of try to build Canadian business. He added that they will need a lot of strategies to be sure growth in passengers can be handled by the Airport. Mr. Hafter stressed that this doesn’t necessarily mean a Greyhound terminal at the Airport is the answer. Mr. Hafter asked where people who are picking up people would wait. He questioned whether there would be 15-30 cars circling and going around the residential neighborhood. Mr. Searles said they will have to work on that. He noted that a “cell phone lot” is being considered. Mr. Murray asked if there have been talks with CCTA about providing a schedule to get to the Airport for early and late flights. Mr. Searles said they hope to involve CCTA, possibly a private shuttle service. Mr. Hafter said by his calculations this could mean 1400 cars a week coming and going to pick up and drop off passengers. Mr. Stuono noted an effort by Plattsburgh Airport to attract Canadian flights, and they are providing free parking. He also noted an effort to get train service to Burlington and the proposed completion of the Southern Connector. He felt that in the long run people will think bus service should be in Burlington. Mr. Booska said that Greyhound has to “rejuvenate the brand.” They have an infusion of capital but have to look at every aspect of the operation. The Airport makes a lot of sense and it is the image they want of a modern facility. He felt there will probably be more cars if they don’t get a shuttle service. He added that he couldn’t say Greyhound would subsidize a shuttle. Ms. Dooley said it seems that Greyhound is “cherry picking,” serving the Airport and letting the rest of the service whittle away. She said she wanted to see a proposal in writing with independent research. She felt the people of South Burlington deserve that. Mr. Murray said the Airport is a viable business in South Burlington, and the city wants to help. But he felt that reasonable questions have been asked and the city will need answers to those questions (how will 4 a.m. traffic be handled? When will the cell phone lot be ready? (Etc.). Mr. Kay felt that a traffic study should be provided. He noted that the DRB recently approved an addition to the parking facility which will also bring more traffic to the Airport. Mr. Knapp said it is important to have solid traffic numbers. He also felt the city can’t tell 2 private entities they can’t do business together, so the city needs to know what is in the scope of what it can require. Ms. Emery said there is not enough dialogue between South Burlington and Burlington. She felt this plan is very nice for Burlington. Mr. Kupferman said Burlington’s main focus is to get passengers to downtown Burlington. Mr. Boucher noted that a lot of success of the Airport has been on the back of the Chamberlin residential neighborhood which has nothing to do with the City of Burlington. Mr. Murray asked what other locations they have considered. Mr. Stone said they haven’t found anything that works. He stressed that buses can’t go down some streets. Mr. Hafter asked when the proposed service at the Airport would start. Mr. Booska said he could do it in 2 weeks if he had to. Mr. Young asked what South Burlington gets for this. He felt the city is getting steamrolled. 5. Conduct Second of Two Public Hearings on City Charter Amendments: Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boucher summarized the changes to the Charter to accommodate the change from a May vote to a March vote. Mr. Hafter noted this conforms the Charter to every other town that votes in March. There was no public comment. Ms. Emery moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Report on Exit 12B Innovative Financing Options Study: Ms. Boomhower said the MPO has been involved in examining alternative financing for transportation projects since federal money is limited and is shared throughout the state. She explained the formation of a “blue ribbon” commission and noted that one of its recommendations was to see alternate sources of funding. They also recommended looking at permitting process efficiencies, a more efficient right­of­way process, and more “design/build” projects. She asked the Council support for a resolution to this effect which she left with the Council to review. Mr. Boucher asked that this be placed on a future agenda. Ms. Boomhower then explained the need for Exit 12B. She noted that developers at the proposed location are aware they might get this done sooner by contributing to the effort (providing more than the 10% local share match). Most of the traffic using that exit would be using it for South Burlington activities. Private funding could also elevate the project in the “queue.” The project cost would be $35­45,000,000, which is more than the state’s annual allotment of federal funds, so private contributions would be looked at favorably. Ms. Boomhower directed attention to a map showing what would be a “local assessment district.” She noted that a TIF district has been considered as well as Airport parking fees. The Town of Williston has also looked at the numbers and is excited about the potential for them for their won use. Ms. Boomhower noted that they feel that approximately $1,750,000 could be generated over a 20-year period (they had hoped for $8-9,000,000). Adding an Airport parking surcharge could get the number to $2,000,000. Ms. Boomhower said that in a better economy developers might be willing to contribute more. It would take a 24-cent assessment to raise the $9,000,000 they had hoped for. This information has been presented to the Legislature. Ms. Boomhower said it is clear that at some time more space will be needed for the Interstate system, so it is prudent to continue to study whether 12B remains viable. There is currently an Interstate/Interchange study being done to be sure Exit 12B won’t create any safety or operational problems for the Interstate system. They will make sure there are no “big red flags.” Ms. Emery said she would like to know the feasibility of an entrance/exit further to the south so Hinesburg Rd. doesn’t become another Route 2. Ms. Boomhower said there are some natural resource concerns (wetlands) in that area. There is also not a western connection and that would have to be built. She said that site is lower on the list of alternatives because of cost. Mr. Boucher felt it is time to get creative about how things are done. He suggested studying the possibility of making an I-189 U-turn as a 4th leg. This would cost a few million dollars instead of $40,000,000. He acknowledged the reluctance to have left turns off an interstate, but he felt this option could be considered. 7. Report of Task Force Findings: Mr. Conner said that last summer the Council asked the Planning Department to put together a committee to review the Sign Ordinance. The group that was assembled had very divergent interests and backgrounds. They met 3 times this past fall and came up with good suggestions to address requests to relax the Ordinance a bit. 1. Historic Signs: The Committee felt it was OK to exempt historic signs if they receive the appropriate designations. Al’s French Frys and the Swiss Hotel both have received that designation. 2. Freestanding Signs distance from the public right-of-way: The Patchen Road right-of-way is much wider than usual, and this makes it impossible to have signs 5 feet back from the right-of-way. The proposed solution is to allow signs within one foot of the right-of-way. If a street has a sidewalk (Patchen Rd.), where the right of way is within 5 feet of the edge of the sidewalk, the sign would have to be at least 5 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. If the sidewalk is further than 5 feet, the sign can be no closer than one foot from the right-of-way. When there is no sidewalk (west side of Patchen Rd.), the committee wanted to sure there is a possibility for a sidewalk in the future. The recommendation is to keep at least 16 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, assuming there is that much room. If there isn’t that much room, the sign would have to be 5 feet from the edge of the road. Council members were OK with this proposal. 3. Outdoor Displays: Mr. Conner noted that a vending machine constitutes a sign. Mr. Datillio said he has 2 soda machines and has 2 businesses located in one place. Mr. Conner said this is on one property. Mr. Datillio said he can cover the machine so the brand name isn’t visible. He also has a fish sign that has been there for 40 years (it indicates the name of the business). He commented that the city is supposed to be “business friendly.” Mr. Conner said he will poll the committee for feedback. Mr. Conner noted the Committee considered one potential exemption from the outdoor display regulations. Propane has to be sold outdoors. If there is a sign with a number to call in emergencies, there would be OK, but a company ad on the machine would not be acceptable. 4. Directional Signs: The Department has heard that a maximum of 3 is too restrictive. The committee recommends 2 per acre, with a maximum of 8 signs. This would apply only to properties with 10 or more acres. 8. Consider Ambulance Service Fees for 2010: Chief Brent reviewed the history of the ambulance service in the City. He noted that rates were last adjusted in 2007, and he is proposing some small adjustments. Mr. Murray moved to approve the proposed ambulance service fees for 2010 as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Continue Discussion on City Manager Selection Process; Residency Requirement: Ms. Emery said she felt the City Manager should live within the city so he/she has to live within the rules and budget he or she sets. Mr. Murray said he didn’t feel that should be required. He felt the qualifications the city is looking for include honesty, courage, etc., and these are more important than where a person lives. He didn’t see a connection between where a person lives and leading the business portion of the city. Ms. Emery said she didn’t feel it should be mandated, but it should be a preference. Mr. Knapp said the city may not be paying enough to ask people to move to the city. He didn’t want to throw away a great candidate because they can’t afford to live in South Burlington. He said this is a job, not a life style. Mr. Boucher said they are hiring a professional, and no matter where they live, they will do the job. Mr. Murray said it is not wise to be talking about this now when there are already candidates. He didn’t want someone from Milton or Shelburne to feel that the process is “rigged.” Members felt any change of this sort should go through the City Charter change process. 10. Review Development Review Board Agenda for meeting of 2 February 2010: No issues were raised. 11. Review Minutes of City Council Meeting of 19 January 2010: Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 19 January 2010 as written. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Boucher abstaining. 12. Review Minutes of Special City Council Meeting of 25 January 2010: Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Minutes of 25 January 2010 as written. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 14. Executive Session: Ms. Dooley moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel matters and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Ms. Emery moved adjournment. Mr. Knapp seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The council adjourned at 11:00pm _______________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.