Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/03/2010CITY COUNCIL 3 MAY 2010 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 May 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: D. Gravelin, Acting City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; R. Kay, M. Beaudin, T. Duff, B. McDonald, Planning Commission; T. Moreau, Solid Waste District; P. Stabler, E. Lesser-Goldsmith, M. Young, K. Donahue, B. Gilbert, B Cimonetti, B. Stuono, S. Dopp, B. Charish, M. Scollins, B. Worthen, D. Young, B. Skiff, B Bull, D. Lorier, M. Abrams, B. Precourt 1. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to Agenda Items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Ms. Dooley: Spent last week visiting the Air National Guard Training Center to learn about their role. Ms. Emery: Was asked about a bike trail by Holiday Inn. Mr. Conner said there is work from Vtrans going on, but it is not a bike path. Mr. Gravelin: Reviewed the following dates: 15 June - Annual GBIC meeting 10 May - MPO/Airport meeting regarding transportation issues 13 May - Staff meeting with Airport 17 May - Next City Council meeting 19 May - Steering Committee Meeting, 6 p.m. at the Middle School Library 19 May - MPO Meeting, 7 p.m. 20­21 May ­ Vermont Town/City Managers’ Conference 12 June - Open House at the new Police Station - ribbon cutting at 11 a.m., event until 3 p.m. Mr. Gravelin advised that the Planning & Zoning and Recreation Departments have received an “Outstanding Community Partner” award from the University of Vermont. Mr. Gravelin also noted that for the second year in a row South Burlington has been named a “Tree City USA” by the Arbor Day Foundation. Paving bids have come in at $69/ton which is lower than the budgeted $85. 3. Request to Suspend Land Development Regulations Relating to Transfer of Development Rights: Mr. Gilbert said he felt it was time to look at a freeze on TDR provisions of the Land Development Regulations. He noted there is a large TDR before the DRB, and he felt the Council should pay attention to the impact such developments will have on the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Gilbert said that when TDR provisions were passed, the City Council was focused on their “good parts,” namely saving open space. But he felt nobody looked at the receiving areas for the TDRs. He said the land near him has gone from 1.2 per acre to much more. It is possible for his 6 acres to become not one 100-year old house but 24 units. He felt that “condos beget condos.” Mr. Gilbert felt that suspending the TDR regulations would allow the city to look at both the good and bad elements. Mr. Gilbert gave members a copy of a map from the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan which show 2 units per acre; he said he was told this was left in the Comprehensive Plan by mistake, and that it should be 4 units per acre everywhere. He didn’t feel that was the case, and that it would lead to condominiums everywhere. He said that single family homes are “not an enemy,” and that 4 units per acre will change the nature of the city. Mr. Donahue said the DRB has indicated they are following the rules, so he went to the Planning Commission which referred him to the City Council. He also felt that the granting of waivers is disturbing. Mr. Boucher explained that the City Council cannot exercise control over the DRB, which is a quasi-judicial board. Their decisions are appealed to the Courts. The Council can meet with the Planning Commission and will do that over the next months as the Council reviews the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Conner explained that the Planning Commission holds hearings and sends its recommendations to the City Council for action. Mr. Murray asked if there is a mechanism to deal with the request from Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Donahue. Mr. Conner said it is the obligation of the Planning Commission to deal with the request and if there is a proposed change to send it to the City Council for action. Mr. Kay reviewed the history leading to the 4/acre zoning. He noted that with overwhelming voter support the city created an Open Space Fund. The TDR concept arose as a vehicle that would allow the city to preserve additional acreage. Mr. Kay said there have been many benefits from TDRs to date. Mr. Kay noted that as a Planning Commission member, who had originally opposed a larger development near his home, acknowledged that he was wrong to oppose it, and said the residents of the neighborhood have become good neighbors and friends. Mr. Kay said it is human nature to be concerned about a development. He also cited the challenge of working with many different parameters: open space, a mix of housing and housing types, etc. He noted that when the residents came to the Planning Commission with their concerns, the Commission was unanimous in not considering this a high priority. They felt the TDR process could be “tweaked,” but there are other areas of the city (e.g., Airport) that need more immediate attention. Mr. Kay noted that consultants hired by the city made the TDR recommendations. He also stressed that the Planning Commission welcomes any ways to improve what exists. Ms. Dooley asked about the map referred to by Mr. Gilbert. Mr. Conner said it was in place until 1996. It could have been left there because of the JAM Golf issues. He stressed that when there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Regulations, it is the Zoning Regulations which prevail. He also noted that there 29 Planning Commission meeting and 10 City Council meetings on the SEQ before the regulations were put in place. Mr. Cimonetti said the City Council is the only body that can impose or alter land regulations. The Planning Commission can propose regulations, but the City Council must act. He said the Council can enact or suspend zoning after due process. He also noted that development would not cease during a suspension, but it would have to come to the City Council. Mr. Cimonetti said he wasn’t opposed to condos, but he felt multi­family housing begets multi­family housing. He said that when you take a neighborhood and propose intense multi-family housing surrounded by single family and University/Agricultural zoning, it is impossible to imagine developers not coming in for more multi-family housing on other small pockets of land. Mr. Skiff said he didn’t believe that the DRB wasn’t accountable to anyone. Mr. Boucher stressed that the DRB and Planning Commission members are residents of the city. They have no “agenda.” Mr. Kay noted that 4 of the members of the Planning Commission live in the SEQ. Mr. Beaudin noted that many communities in the country have deliberately zoned land to achieve economic diversity. Ms. Dopp said it is important to think of South Burlington as a whole and not different neighborhoods. She didn’t feel that everyone should be painted with the same brush and that other areas of the city also merit conserving. Ms Dopp counseled strongly against throwing out TDRs as they are one important way to preserve open space in the city. She noted that the city can’t afford to buy all the land it wants to preserve. She did feel there is merit to re-thinking where receiving areas should be, and this conversation could take place as part of the review of the Comprehensive Plan. She felt the city should also at that time consider a “wish list” of other areas to conserve. Mr. Knapp said he needed guidance on what was a “freeze,” a “moratorium,” a “suspension.” He also stressed that the city owns a significant number of TDRs. The Vermont Land Trust provided $1,000,000 to purchase those TDRs, and it is not the wish of the Council that those TDRs lose value since it was the Council which encouraged the Land Trust to purchase them. Mr. Knapp enumerated other questions which concern him: How long would a “freeze” last? Would it adversely affect property rights in the city? Would it adversely affect property right of the Vermont Land Trust? Ms. Emery said she was concerned a “freeze” would be followed by other neighborhoods asking for the same thing in their area. Mr. Scollins gave members a letter which he had written in opposition to the TDRs. He felt there are inconsistencies in the TDR process. Mr. Duff noted that if the TDR section of the Zoning Regulations is removed, the zoning regulations for all of the SEQ won’t function and it would remove protection of open space. He noted that he lives in a single family home that is happily located in the midst of multi-family units. Mr. Stuono said there is nothing in the ordinance that talks about character of a neighborhood and no design review for residential areas. He also noted that many communities separate different areas with buffer areas. He felt this could help in the TDR process. Mr. Cherish said there is a lot of emotion and fear of the unknown. He said he agreed with the TDR concept of preserving land by creating higher density elsewhere. But he felt the higher density areas should be located where there are public services in order to reduce vehicle traffic. Ms. Emery noted the Comprehensive Plan review has a deadline so there will have to be a resolution. Mr. Boucher said the Planning Commission could be asked to come back with the recommendation for “tweaking.” Ms. Dooley said she would like Mr. Conner to provide a memo outlining the plusses and minuses of a moratorium. Ms. Emery felt a moratorium should cover the whole city. Mr. Boucher said the city can’t do that to circumvent the DRB. Mr. Murray said he felt the Council had to make a responsible decision. He felt it had to go back to the Planning Commission first. Mr. Knapp moved to table the discussion until the first meeting in August at which time there would be input from the Director of Planning & Zoning with guidance from the City Attorney. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley encouraged people to participate in the update of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Update on Burlington International Airport Matters: a. Home Acquisition Update: Mr. Worthen advised that 29 homes have been purchased and are vacant. There is a holdup in the program as they have run into a lot of asbestos issues in the homes which requires mitigation. This will delay removal of the homes until fall. There are 55 more homes on the “I want to be bought” list, and 30 more which are still eligible for voluntary acquisition. b. Noise Testing Protocol: Mr. Worthen said the agreement with the City is no longer valid as noise measurement needs to take place over a random 10-day period, not the 24 hours the agreement indicates. The living wall is “in limbo.” The issue is that the Council needs to provide direction regarding its construction. Mr. Worthen noted the F­16 won’t be in the city during the summer months, which would affect noise levels; however, the wall needs to be put in now so it can grow during the warmer weather. Mr. Worthen said they may need to move the wall down the street a bit and test in that location prior to the other area. The F­16’s are set to return on 1 September if the runway repaving is completed; otherwise they would return on 1 October. Ms. Emery felt that noise measurements could have been done last fall. Mr. Worthen said that would only have been a 24-hour measurement instead of the 10 days now required. Mr. Worthen noted the cost of the noise measurement is $50,000, and the FAA won’t pay for it. It is also not in the Airport budget, and they need to work on finding the money. Ms. Emery noted there are FFA approved sound barriers. She indicated she still had an issue with the Airport ignoring other options than buying up homes (e.g., soundproofing, noise barriers). Mr. Maille said the base measurements have to be done before the wall goes up, and testing in a different place won’t do that. He felt that if it takes another year, so be it. Ms. Emery said her concern is that a delay could impact other families. Mr.Maille said that if the living wall doesn’t work, there will have to be more proven measures. Mr. Worthen said they will delay taking down houses until they have baseline testing done. Mr. Worthen noted that plat sprouts are on the way and will have to be planted before it is too hot. Mr. Murray said this was talked about a year ago, and it is a frustrating place to be. He didn’t blame the Airport for the Act 250 delay. Mr. Conner suggested having staff clarify the next steps. A resident of the area said the Airport often puts the city in a difficult position and things never get done. Residents go with good faith, but the Airport never does its part. She felt that if the wall goes in now, the measurements will never get done. She also noted that the empty house next to her has become “a dump.” She said the Airport has not been a good neighbor. They haven’t done plantings, holes in the street are not filled, planes are tested for hours at night, and paving work is done in the middle of the night. She felt that if, as the Airport says, they are experiencing a decline in passengers, and they shouldn’t build the garage addition and use that money for the $50,000. Ms. Emery said residents in the area have been told by Airport people that the whole road will become commercial. Also, people have been given a length of time in which to move out but they can’t find adequate housing. Ms. Dooley moved to have staff work together to achieve statistically valid measurements, and that homes not be taken down nor the living wall installed before the return of the F­16’s and the taking of adequate measurements. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Emery abstaining. Mr. Lorier noted there are a lot of vehicles being parked near the homes purchased by the Airport. He felt this creates safety concerns, especially for children. He asked for a more visible Police presence. Mr. Gravelin said he will look into this. c. Greyhound busing update: Mr. Worthen said Greyhound arrived 2 days ago and things are going smoothly. Mr. Boucher noted that the City Attorney was asked to look into whether DRB approval was needed for the Greyhound buses to be at the Airport, and the City Attorney said it is not. Ms. Emery asked where buses will be maintained. Mr. Worthen said the closest maintenance facility is in White River Junction. Ms. Emery was also concerned with fight and drugs which had been an issue in Burlington. Mr. Worthen said the Airport is crawling with TSA and TSA dogs. It is policed 24/7 and is a lot more secure than Pine Street. A resident asked how the vacant homes can be more secure. Mr. Rabidoux said he will deal with any health issues. Mr. Worthen advised that they are meeting with the Recreation Department people regarding the use of 2 acres of Airport Land at the end of Kirby Road Extension for a dog park. Mr. Abrams noted he had not been present at the F-35 discussions and asked to give his reactions. He said he was concerned for the character of the city and with potential hearing impairment because of the noise. He suggested that Plattsburg might be a better location for the planes. 5. Consider Chittenden Solid Waste District FY 2011 Annual Budget: Mr. Stabler said there is no assessment to the City of South Burlington. He also noted that operating expenses are slightly down and revenues are anticipated to go up a bit. Mr. Moreau said they have a 5-year strategic plan and are pursuing relocation of the Intervale composing facility in Williston. They also have a franchising study being done and a long-term organics plan. Mr. Murray moved to approve the proposed Solid Waste District budget for FY2011 as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Conduct Public Hearings on Amendments to Sign Ordinance, second reading of same: Mr. Murray moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Knapp moved to waive the second reading. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Precourt asked if there will be another 5-year grandfathering period. Mr. Conner said there will not. The only grandfathering that will occur is if a more restrictive rule is made. Mr. Precourt expressed displeasure that while he complied with the Sign Ordinance, others did not and were not penalized. Mr. Conner explained what the exceptions were (e.g., historical signs) and indicated there will be enforcement of the ordinance. Ms. Emery moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery moved to approve the amendment to the Sign Ordinance as presented. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Public Hearing: Ordinance to Regulate Peddling; second reading of same: Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery moved to waive reading of the ordinance. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner explained that the ordinance will now allow Farmer’s Markers to exist on private property with associated signs and seating. Mr. Adamson cited problems with peddlers in the Laurel Hill areas who have been known to become very aggressive and follow kids around. Mr. Murray sympathized with the problem but didn’t know how to regulate this. Mr. Conner said the issue involves First Amendment rights. He said staff will try to deal with it. Mr. Knapp moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved to adopt the Ordinance to Regulate Peddling as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consider Amendment #3 to the Cooperative Agreement SB STP 5200(17)-Market Street: Mr. Gravelin explained that the city is asking for the ability to collect the federal grant proceeds for this project from the State. He further noted that the city share of the project is covered by impact fees. He also explained that the agreement does not authorize the expenditure of project cost, simply enables reimbursement of such authorized expenditures. Ms. Dooley moved to approve Amendment #3 to the Cooperative Agreement SB STP 5200(17)-Market Street as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consider Support for Vtrans Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Grant Application - White Street Sidewalk: Mr. Rabidoux said this will be a regular 5-foot sidewalk. Mr. Murray moved to support the grant request as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consider authorization for execution of construction contract award to Don Weston Excavating for the San Remo Drive streetscape improvement project: Mr. Rabidoux said Weston was the lowest bidder and the cost is within the money available. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the contract with Don Weston in the amount of $204,756.00 provided it is authorized by the City Attorney and to authorize the Acting City Manager to sign it. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Consider Appointment of Justin Rabidoux, Authorized Representative, and Thomas DiPietro Alternate Authorized Representative for ARRA Funded Storm Water Projects: CWSRF ARRA; AR 1-070, AR 1-071, AR 1-072, AR 1-073, AR 1-074: Mr. Murray moved to appoint Justin Rabidoux, Authorized Representative, and Thomas DiPietro Alternate Authorized Representative for the above-named storm water projects. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Consider Capital Equipment Refunding Notes for Public Works Highway Equipment and Storm Water Services: Ms. Emery moved to approve the Capital Equipment refunding notes and accompanying documents as presented. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Report on 2009-2010 Property Tax Waivers: Mr. Gravelin explained these were penalties on late tax payments which were waived for various reasons. No action was required. 14. Consideration of Entertainment License Applications: National Chimney Supply - Special Events Permit June 12 (11 a.m.-5 p.m.); Franny O’s ­ annual permit: Mr. Murray moved to approve the entertainment license applications of National Chimney Supply and Franny O’s as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Review Development Review Board Agenda for meeting of 10 May 2010: The question arose as to whether item #10 is private property. Mr. Gravelin will check. Ms. Dooley noted that item #6 involves a major expansion of a non-conforming structure. 16. Review and Approve Minutes of 19 April 2010: Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Minutes of 19 April 2010 as written. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 17. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ______________________________Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.