The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - City Council - 04/16/2018 CITY COUNCIL 16 APRIL 2018 The South Burlington City Council held a special and a regular meeting on Monday, 16 April 2018, at 6:00 p.m, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery (arrived late), T. Barritt, T. Chittenden Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; Chief T. Whipple, Police Department; Chief D. Brent, Fire Department; P.Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Leugers, Recreation Department, I. Blanchard, Project Manager; R. Nowak and members of the Nowak family; C. Forde, CCRPC; J. Kochman, S. Goddard, A. Holland, L. Bresee, C. Frank, B. Milizia, D. Leban, M. Simoneau, C. DiBlasio, T. Crane, B. Dousevicz, C. Heffert, R. Bordeau, M. Barton, S. Nealy, J. Ruher, L. Gluck, L. Ravin, J. Leas, F. Cioffi, J. Masuga, C. Sargent, G. Holland, L. Ventriss, R. Gonda, D. Bedinger, T. Gustafson SPECIAL SESSION: 1. Reception in honor of Pat Nowak: Members of the Council and the public gathered to honor the memory of Councilor Pat Nowak. REGULAR SESSION: 2. City Council Resolution in honor and memory of Pat Nowak: Ms. Riehle read the Resolution which outlined Ms. Nowak’s service on the local, state and national levels and recognized her character, integrity, honest, hard work, and loyalty to the South Burlington community. Other Council members spoke to her friendship, her defense of her values, and her knowledge which served as a resource. Ms. Campbell, one of Ms. Nowak’s daughters, then spoke of her mother’s grace and class. She felt the setting of the meeting agenda (including the potential vote on the F35 basing) was disingenuous and offensive to the family and that the F35 issue should have been put to a public vote. Ms. Riehle said the Council received no request for a public vote. 3. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Mr. Dorn provided instructions on emergency evacuation of the building. 4. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Riehle asked to add an executive session to discuss appointments and real estate matters. Mr. Chittenden said he would advocate for more time and a public hearing for item #11. 5. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 6. Consider and possibly approve updates to the local Emergency Operations Plan: Chief Brent said the plan is the same as last year’s with updates to child care centers. It must be approved by the Council. Mr. Barritt asked how the plan is tested. Chief Brent said the plan is more of a “prompt” than a plan. There is a state-wide template, and training is done on certain portions of it. The City Manager and the Deputy City Manager have also taken RCS training. The School Department also participates in training. Mr. Barritt moved to accept the Emergency Operations Plan as presented and to have the City Manager sign the plan. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 3-0. 7. Presentation/discussion with Bike/Ped Committee on capital funding: Mr. Goddard said the Committee is asking the Council to add a “Penny for Paths” to the August ballot in order to close gaps in the path and to build additional infrastructure. They are looking toward a more strategic approach to building a truly bikeable, walkable, city. They also feel that this initiative would help with securing external funding from grants. Mr. Goddard said that one in ten residents, mostly lower income, elderly, and those with limited mobility, lack access to vehicles. Mr. Goddard also noted the launching of Greenride Bikeshare. He also noted that Burlington has a $50,000,000 project for rebuilding which is very heavily oriented toward bike/ped concerns. The Route 15 bike path will also be dropping bike traffic into South Burlington as will the re-doing of the Winooski road network. Mr. Goddard then showed maps of the current bike/ped network with indications for planned additions and notations of key gaps. A major gap occurs at the end of the Burlington bike path where it dumps into Queen City Park. The “Penny for Paths” would cost the average single family home owner $33.61 a year and the average condo owner $23.14. Ms. Holland then showed a map of the existing infrastructure, including crosswalks, and identified gaps. She pointed out the areas of housing to show the household impact. Mr. Chittenden suggested adding anticipated housing as well. Mr. Goddard identified how the committee would promote a ballot initiative to get the word out so the ballot item would be successful. Mr. Britt said they are targeting the second meeting in June in order to get on the August 14th ballot. Mr. Van Driesche of Local Motion said South Burlington’s Bike/Ped Committee is the most capable in the County. He felt this is the time and place to make the proposed investment. Ms. Riehle asked if any other communities have a similar “penny for paths” program. Mr. Van Driesche said there are various mechanisms being used. Burlington had a capital bond issue which recently passed. Shelburne passed a bond a few years back and funded a number of paths. Winooski is making plans along this line. Mr. Barritt asked if the Committee is working together with Public Works. Mr. Goddard said they are working with Mr. Rabidoux regarding repainting of bike lanes. Mr. Dorn noted this is very high on the list. Ms. Riehle asked that the Council get a copy of the Public Works repaving list. Mr. Barritt asked about early work that could be done, like the use of Sure-Pack, to address safety concerns. Mr. Dorn cited the frustration with how much money is spent on scoping and engineering and how little is left for actual construction. Mr. Bresee added that 80% of grant money is spent before paving ever starts. He cited a section of path on Dorset Street where the city put in the path. It was done in 6 months. The path on Tilley Drive that went through “the process” took 6 years to complete. Ms. Riehle asked if this would be a 10‐year initiative or a “forever” initiative. Mr. Goddard said they’re looking at 10 years, with a “wait and see what happens” after that. Ms. Riehle asked Mr. Dorn if there is a concept of how many miles of rights-of-way are involved and what the cost would be to address the needs internally. Mr. Dorn said he would like to meet with the Bike/Ped Committee and Justin Rabidoux to come up with some estimates. Mr. Chittenden said he supports of the “Penny for Paths” but didn’t see pressure for the August ballot as the money wouldn’t come in until next July. 8. Public Hearing: Second reading and possible adoption of amendments to the City’s Public Nuisance Ordinance: Mr. Bolduc reviewed the history of the amendments, particularly issues affecting haulers and noise from dogs and cats. He specifically noted that some issues are specifically addressed by regulations related to uses. Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. DiBlasio noted that noise from animals is a 24-hour concern for them. Regarding the issues of use regulations, she noted there are no buffer zones in place to address their concerns and nothing in place to see if a use is in compliance. She said that in her business, she is required to comply with the noise ordinance and does not get the benefit of the exemption that her neighbor with the barking dogs received. She noted that noise can be incessant for 30 minutes or more all through the day, impacting her business. She offered to provide an audio tape to the Council. Ms. Riehle said when she visited the site she found the noise from entering trucks to be worse than the barking dogs. Ms. DiBlasio said that is ‘background noise’ and is not bothersome. Mr. Barritt said they are at different frequencies. Ms. Emery asked if Ms. DiBlasio had received a notice when the dog business was going in. Ms. DiBlasio said they are not technically an abutter, so they received no notice. Ms. Emery suggested use of a “white noise” machine. Ms. DiBlasio said she does use one but that anything louder would not allow her to hear her own clients. Regarding noise from trash haulers, Mr. Bolduc said that as the ordinance now reads there are no changes to the hours. Mr. Chittenden noted that Burlington allows haulers at 6 a.m. in non‐residential areas as long as they don’t violate noise levels. Mr. Bolduc read from the regulations regarding noise from a permitted use between Midnight and 8 a.m. (45 dB at 50 feet away in a residential area and 60 dB in a commercial area). Mr. Barritt said the problem is an allowed use that doesn’t anticipate the potential noise. He questioned how you reconcile the approved use with the performance standards. Ms. Riehle asked how you address that: by applying standards retroactively? Mr. Dousevicz, owner of the property where Ms. DiBlasio’s business is located, said that because there is a 50-foot strip between the dog day-care and his property, he was never notified of the dog day-care hearings. He felt the DRB was at fault for approving a business that should never have gone in there. He added that when they complain, they are told nothing can be done. Mr. Dousevicz also noted that when noise was discussed at the DRB, the Board said to approve it because it would be an “enforcement issue.” Mr. Dousevicz said there is no enforcement. The attorney for the dog day‐care felt an ordinance shouldn’t be changed because of one complaint. He understood the noise concern, but the business is operating under its permit. He also noted that when noise was discussed at the DRB, the dog daycare people proposed more mitigation, but the DRB said “don’t.” Ms. Heffert, another tenant in the Dousevicz building, said she works with severely traumatized people which requires an amount of quiet. Her clients complain about the noise from the dogs. She felt the industrial park across the road would have been preferable for the dog daycare business. She also felt that raising the height of the wall could be helpful. Several clients of the dog daycare spoke of the excellent environment for their pets and the excellent level of care they receive. Mr. Barton, owner of another nearby business, said they are 270 feet away and even with closed windows the noise goes on for hours. He compared that to noise from trash haulers which is only a few minutes in the morning. He felt that if the dogs are creating a nuisance, it should be handled under the nuisance ordinance. He felt that even if you have a permit for a business, there should be clearer rules to apply in the noise ordinance. He added that he can’t imagine living in any of the homes that are being built hundreds of feet away. As there was no further public comment, Mr. Barritt moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Barritt said he wanted the 8 a.m. moved to 7 a.m. Mr. Chittenden said he wanted to have the larger conversation regarding trash pick-up. Mr. Barritt moved to have the language read “…noise between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. in residential areas. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Chittenden said he has a question to address with the City Attorney in an executive session regarding language in connection with land use. Mr. Bolduc said since there is a proposed change, there will be another second hearing at which time there can be an executive session. He recommended 21 May for that hearing. Ms. Emery moved to warn the 4th second reading with changes for 21 May, 7:30 p.m. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Dorn suggested holding the executive session at the 7 May meeting. 9. Possible Appointments of public officers to fill vacancies in the City Council, Airport Commission and Pension Advisory Committee: Ms. Riehle said the only appointment to be made is to the Airport Commission. Ms. Emery suggested having a conversation in Executive Session before proceeding. Mr. Barritt moved the Council enter executive session to discuss appointments and to have the City Manager join the session. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Following the executive session, Mr. Chittenden moved to appoint Ms. Riehle to serve on the Airport Commission until the end of June. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Chittenden moved to appoint Mr. Barritt to serve on the Pension Advisory Committee for the reminder of the term. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Presentation: Exit 14 Ped/Bike Crossing Phase 1 Scoping Report and consideration of approval of the recommended preferred alternative: Ms. Blanchard noted that the project is 30% TIF eligible. Ms. Forde noted that CCRPC gets federal planning money that they can make available to communities, and South Burlington requested this project. Mr. Nealy of Stantek Engineering said they were hired for this project. They evaluated the existing conditions, demographics, land use, and prior studies. They also did community outreach including 2 community workshops and surveys. There were meetings with stakeholders, agencies and committees. Mr. Nealy then showed an overhead of the area and identified various location. This is the highest volume road in the state that is not an Interstate, based on average daily traffic volumes. He then showed photos of existing conditions, including a bike lane with no buffers from traffic and no room for snow storage. The area also qualifies as a “high crash location” with at least one crash each year over a 5‐year period. At the first community workshop, focus groups documented their concerns and proposed short and long-term solutions. Safety was the primary concern. A purpose and need statement was approved by the Planning Commission in January 2017. Mr. Nealy showed the matrix used to evaluate purpose/needs. He noted that a “do nothing” alternative was not considered in the final decision. Mr. Nealy then identified the 4 alternatives that were proposed and were presented at a second community workshop an on-line for public comment. The preferred solution was for a bridge separate from traffic. The project team then determined that alternatives 2 and 3 were the best: Alternative #2 involves 3 separate bridges crossing the Interstate with a shared use path and significant drainage work in the area. Alternative #3 involves ramping structures, path connections to the residential neighborhoods and a potential connection through UMall to City Center. It is a single span bridge, which reduces the cost. Stantec is recommending alternative #3. Ms. Emery asked the life span of the project. Mr. Nealy said he would have to get back to the Council on that. It will be longer than 30 years, depending on how long it would take to get it built. Ms. Emery asked if there is still potential for bike lanes on Williston Rd. in the short term. Mr. Nealy said short term improvements were determined not to meet the purpose/needs because a wide berth of users would not be comfortable within those improvements. Mr. Chittenden asked how much cheaper #3 is than #2. Mr. Nealy said substantially, including the cost for traffic management during construction, and drainage. Mr. Chittenden then moved to approve alternative #3 of the Exit 14 Bike/Ped Crossing Phase I Scoping Report as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 11. Consider and possibly approve a Resolution to join Winooski and Burlington to formally request that the U.S. Air Force replace the F- 35A with a safe and quiet aircraft: Ms. Riehle said this is a resolution which she brought to the Council. She stressed that this is not meant to be an affront to Ms. Nowak or the family. She added that she feels the resolution is supported by the South Burlington community. The language comes from several resolutions approved by the City Council several times. Approval of that language was not unanimous (3-2 votes) but reflected the majority. She then invited Council members and members of the public to speak for 2 minutes: Mr. Barritt: Supports the Resolution as a simple way to solve the loss of housing and preserve the quality of life in the neighborhood as much as possible. Ms. Emery: In the 6 years since the first F35 meeting, she has become convinced that the F35 is incompatible with a residential area. She cited decimation of housing stock and the threat to a school. She noted there are few locations in the city for residents of the Airport area to relocate, and moving people further out puts more of a burden on roads. In addition, the lack of affordable housing is the #1 factor in the lack of growth in the city’s economy. The Air Force has stated other missions are available with no loss in personnel and no closure of the base. The C-130 would provide a win/win situation. Mr. Chittenden: Does not feel this Resolution addresses the question. Burlington’s Mayor, the State’s Congressional leaders, the Governor and the U.S. Air Force support the F35 Mission. He felt the public had a right to be heard and asked for a pubic hearing, duly warned, for that purpose. He also felt that if the Council majority is to go forward with this, it should be in the name of the City Council and not the “City of South Burlington.” He also asked to change the word “cancel” to “replace” as the City of Burlington did. Ms. Riehle said she could be convinced to change “cancel” to “replace.” Ms. Ravin: No one would stand for any other user creating this much noise. It affects housing and most of the City of Winooski. She noted the Air Force has said the homes will not be habitable. Ms. Gluck: Voted in Burlington to cancel the F35s. Believes there should be discussion with the State’s Congressional delegation. The C-130 also provides jobs as it triples the number of crew members. Mr. Ruher: Cited the impact of noise on health. The Council considered noise from dogs disturbing several people. The F35 will affect 33,000 homes. Ms. Masuga: VTANG was set up to protect Vermonters. Once she researched the F35s she came to feel she could not support them. Mr. Cioffi: As President of GBIC, he understands the economy. He noted the areas hasn’t really recovered from the recession. He felt the city could lose the 1100 Air Guard jobs with this resolution. He favored changing “cancel” to “replace.” He also felt the area has as much chance of getting the C- 130 as it has to get the space shuttle. Mr. Leas: Felt “cancel” is the right word. Noted that the Air Force acknowledges that chronic exposure to high noise levels can affect learning. NATO also concludes that day cares and schools shouldn’t be near sources of noise. Mr. Holland: Noted that the Air Force predicts 2‐3 “mishaps” with the F35 in the next 5 years. Having them here will make the area a #1 choice for attack. He felt that with the F35 here, nuclear bombs will also be stored here. Ms. Ventriss: Endorsed Mr. Chittenden’s call for a public hearing. Noted that the jets will be heard only 6 minutes a day, and the dog barking goes on all day. Ms. Sargent: Lives in that neighborhood and is disheartened to see the neighborhood crumble. The Airport is profiting from the destruction of homes, but they say they can’t find money for building a sound barrier. Would be happy with alternatives. Mr. Finnigan: There have been 9 years to gauge the will of the people. 11,000 names were on the petition in support of F35s. The C130 flies lower and slower, with a continuous noise level. Urged the Council to become educated before they vote. Mr. Gonda: Proceed with the vote. VTANG won’t close if they don’t get the F35s. Ms. Bedinger: The threshold of pain for noise is already exceeded by the F16s. The F35s will be worse. Ms. Gustafson: Felt people are smart enough to come up with other business opportunities. Was concerned with quality of life and wants to feel good every day. Ms. Riehle noted receipt of a text from General Craig who is ‘disappointed by not surprised’ at the resolution. Noted the unnecessary stress this is putting on members of the Guard. Felt that in no way does the resolution support the Air Guard. Mr. Chittenden said he would support putting this to the voters. Ms. Emery said it has been discussed since 2010. She also noted the Burlington voters approved the word “cancel.” Ms. Riehle felt it had to be approved now in order to stand in solidarity with other communities. Ms. Emery then moved to approve the Resolution with typo corrections. Mr. Barritt seconded. Mr. Chittenden asked to amend the Resolution to change “cancel” to “replace.” There was no second to that amendment. In the voted that followed, the motion was approved 3-1 with Mr. Chittenden voting against. 12. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended in recent weeks. Mr. Dorn: Got a debriefing from Mr. Hubbard following his appearance at the School Board. He is disappointed at the lack of willingness to discuss the issue. Felt it is advisable to entertain a modification to the proposed building so it fits on the city’s property. The City has been approved for a UVM Medical Center mental health grant of $80,000. The Market Street Plan Set is complete and design features are at VTrans. The hope is to go to bid in the next 10 days. There will be a one-month turn- around time. It looks like it will coincide with the end of the school year. There will be a ground-breaking ceremony. The first Chittenden County Public Safety meeting will be held on Wednesday. There is an event planned for South Burlington seniors to discussion plans for the Senior Center. Mr. Dorn and Ms. Blanchard will be at CCRPC on Wednesday for an update on the Senior Center. 13. Councilors Reports from Committee Assignments: No reports were presented. 14. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursement b. Approve Minutes for 19 March, 28 March, 2 April and 10 April The Minutes of 2 April were pulled from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the minutes of 2 April. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 15. Liquor Control Board: Consider convening as the South Burlington Liquor Control Board to approve the following applications: a. Interstate Shell Mr. Chittenden moved the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the Liquor License for Interstate Shell as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Barritt moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 16. Other Business: a. Items Held from Consent Agenda b. Other There was no other business. 17. Executive Session: Ms. Emery moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss labor relations and real estate and to have the City Manager join the session and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Following the Executive Session, there was no further business to come before the Council, and Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Bike-Ped Committee Request for a Penny for Path (4-16-2018) Purpose of our presentation The South Burlington Bike and Pedestrian Committee is here to ask that the City Council consider our request to add our Penny for Path’s ballot item to the August ballot. Our Penny for Path’s initiative proposes to establish a small, long-term funding stream with the purpose of building bike and pedestrian infrastructure in South Burlington. South Burlington’s Bike-Pedestrian Infrastructure Goal To provide the people of South Burlington a safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure that connects our neighborhoods, schools, parks, city center, places of business and public transportation as well as to the paths of our neighboring cities and towns. What problems are we are trying to solve? • Closing the gaps – Our walk/bike infrastructure has significant gaps that limit connectivity for: • Broad access to local businesses, parks, schools, services and public transportation. • Improved accessibility to/from surrounding communities • Establish sustained funding to build a truly bikeable, walkable city • Historically, our more opportunistic approach has improved bike/ped infrastructure, but has also resulted in a disconnected system that can’t be efficiently utilized. • Continue to leverage new development to grow our infrastructure • Yet, this approach will not lead to a coherent and comprehensive bike/walk system. • Sustained funding leads to: • Strategic growth of infrastructure that aligns with our larger priorities (e.g. City Center) • Broader and more efficient use of our infrastructure investments • A safer, more dynamic, and cohesive city • Improved opportunity for external funding (a demonstrable local commitment to infrastructure will help South Burlington stand out on grant applications) • Why Now? • City Center ▪ Connecting South Burlington and surrounding communities to our downtown region will help realize the strategic vision for our city. • Prioritize our economically and physically vulnerable citizens ▪ Many of our poor, elderly, and limited-mobility citizens lack alternatives and rely solely on our pedestrian and public transportation infrastructure. Let’s prioritize those who lack alternatives. • Greenride Bikeshare ▪ Phase 1 just launched!...but future growth will be data driven and based on usage. Let’s help ensure that South Burlington gets its share. • Let’s not get left behind ▪ Surrounding communities are making significant investments into bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Let’s make South Burlington stand out for our investment and connectivity, rather than our lack of investment. On our doorstep in the next 1-3 years • Williston Rd Bike Lanes Extended - This year: extension of wide bike lanes on Williston Rd. from Taft Corners to North Williston Rd. • Burlington Main Street Rebuild - over the next 2-4 years, Main Street will get a total rebuild to be more pedestrian and bike friendly. • Burlington Southend - bike traffic rerouted in the south end by providing bike lanes on Pine St. and a multi use path along the Champlain Parkway. • Route 15 Rec Path - New rec path along Rt 15 between Lime Kiln Rd and Susie Wilson Road. • Winooski infrastructure - Main St revitalization project, Winooski bridge rebuild with possible separate bike bridge, & Weaver St bike lane Greenride BikeShare - Map Phase 1 Phase 1 • 105 bikes in 17 hubs (25 E-bikes!) • 3 Hubs in key locations in Burlington, S. Burlington and Winooski Phases 2 & 3 Plan • Approx. 200 additional bikes w/ approx. 40 hubs • All over Burlington, S. Burl Winooski, Colchester, Williston, Shelburne, Essex • Primarily serving residents, commuters and employees Summary of Financial History of SB Recreation Path (1990-2006) The recreation path concept started in South Burlington in the 1980s with the idea of linking neighborhoods. That vision has expanded to connecting neighborhoods, schools, parks, public transportation, City Center places of business, an neighboring paths. Approximate Expenditures to date Donations $37,000 City Bond $400,000 Grants $683,900 Matching Funds $143,550 Total $1,264,450 Over the years, sections built by developers, organizations and individuals • A path into the Meadowland industrial complex off of Hinesburg Rd. • Paths in the Dorset Farms development. • Extensive paths in the area of the Vermont National Golf Course. • Paths in the Cider Mill development. • Paths in Technology Park. • A path along Tilley Drive • Bike lanes along several sections of Williston • Paths in the South Village development Impact on Property Tax Payers A penny added to the City’s property tax is estimated to raise $300,000 per year. The impact on a South Burlington homeowner of an average single family home of $336,111. $33.61 The impact on a City homeowner of an average condominium of $231,356 $23.14 Ballot Initiative - Planned Awareness Activities Pop-Up! • See how a future project could connect more people to where they want to go. Get the Word Out • Connecting with the community through South Burlington’s SoBu Nite Out events • Educational outreach through The Other Paper, Front Porch Forum, FaceBook, etc… Working Together • Working with other city committees and groups who share mutual goals, including the AARP, Local Motion, Energy Committee, Greenride Bikeshare, Burlington Walk-Bike, and more! Restatement of our Purpose: The South Burlington Bike and Pedestrian Committee is here to ask that the City Council consider our request to add our Penny for Path’s ballot item to the August ballot. “It is my dream that South Burlington will become one of the proudest cities in Northern New England as we establish and maintain a Recreation Path which joins with other communities. It is vital that we learn to share our spaces, so that families have safe places to be together in healthy ways. Only in that way can we survive as civilized, reliable people on this fragile planet.” * * Doro Sims, former South Burlington Resident “It Is My Dream...”, from a newsletter called “South Burlington Recreation Path” dated September 1991. 1 - Scoped Cost refers to cost identified by a VT Dept of Transportation (VTrans) defined scoping study with the expectation of constructing with federal funding 2 - Estimated Cost refers to estimated cost to construct through Public-Private Partnerships 3- Percent of single-family and multi-family residential buildings in South Burlington that are within 1 mile of segment “As the crow flies” & can access with existing connections Phase 1 Recreation Path (Shared Use Path) and Sidewalk Gaps: DRAFT: 04/08/18 Facility Types: Rec Path (10 foot paved), Sidewalk (5-6 foot paved) Rank City Quadrant Rec Path (Unless Noted) Street Start End Existing Conditions Scoped Cost1 Estimated Cost2 Major Commuting Route # of Households Served within 1 mile3 Aver Traffic Volume (AADT) Potential Funding Partners 1 SE Dorset Street Old Cross Road Sadie Lane, adjacent to Cider Mill Road development Rec Path Narrow shoulder, no infrastructure $610K (FY 2017) Yes 19% 4900 Mill Market & Deli, VTrans 2 SW Allen Road Baycrest Drive Spear Street No infrastructure $290K (FY 2017) $185K (S.D. Ireland at cost) No 33% 4700* SD Ireland, VTrans 3 SW Allen Road (Rec Path or Sidewalk being scoped) Shelburne Road Farm Stand Apartments (Baycrest Path) No infrastructure TBD (Being Scoped in 2018) $342K (if rec path) No 12% 4700* VTrans 4 SW Spear Street (east side) Spear Street Rec Path at US Forest Service Building Swift Street Rec Path at Spear St and Swift Street Intersection Narrow shoulder. Used by cyclists and runners to connect to Dorset facilities and other rec paths TBD (Being Scoped in 2018) Yes 33% 4900* UVM UVM Med Center Developer of Spear/Swift Prop VTrans 5 NW Spear Street Jug Handle UVM campus East Terrace No facilities $711K (FY 2017) Yes 9% 4900* UVM UVM Med Center VTrans 1 - Scoped Cost refers to cost identified by a VT Dept of Transportation (VTrans) defined scoping study with the expectation of constructing with federal funding 2 - Estimated Cost refers to estimated cost to construct through Public-Private Partnerships 3- Percent of single-family and multi-family residential buildings in South Burlington that are within 1 mile of segment “As the crow flies” & can access with existing connections Rank City Quadrant Rec Path (Unless Noted) Street Start End Existing Conditions Scoped Cost1 Estimated Cost2 Major Commuting Route # of Households Served within 1 mile3 Aver Traffic Volume (AADT) Potential Funding Partners 6 NE Kimball Ave Kennedy Drive Potash Brook Bridge Currently sidewalk along N side of road, then no facility for ~900ft, and shared use path then on south side of road $1,320K (2010) Yes 30% Recreation Impact Fees VTrans 7 NW Hinesburg Road Williston Road Kennedy Drive Narrow shoulder TBD (Being Scoped in 2018) Yes 49% 8 SW Fayette Drive to Queen City Park Road Shelburne Road Queen City Park Road Fayette Dr & Hannaford Dr have sidewalks TBD (Being Scoped in 2018) 9 NE Airport Parkway Kirby Road Lime Kiln Road No facilities present between Kirby Road and Lime Kiln; sidewalks on either end. $2,560K (FY 2017) Yes 20% 7400 Public/Private Partnership (St. Michaels College) VTrans 1 - Scoped Cost refers to cost identified by a VT Dept of Transportation (VTrans) defined scoping study with the expectation of constructing with federal funding 2 - Estimated Cost refers to estimated cost to construct through Public-Private Partnerships 3- Percent of single-family and multi-family residential buildings in South Burlington that are within 1 mile of segment “As the crow flies” & can access with existing connections Phase 1 Crosswalk Gaps: Rank City Quadrant Street Start End Existing Conditions Proposed Facility* Estimated Cost Aver Traffic Volume (AADT) # of Households Served 1 SW Route 7 & Queen City Crossing Lindenwood Drive Queen City Parkway Crosswalk does not line up to provide efficient crossing for pedestrians or bikes Relocated crosswalk with pedestrian controlled traffic signal & No Right Turn sign $15,000 2 SW Swift Street and Spear Street Crossing Swift Street Spear Street Intersection has Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Traffic signal controlled pedestrian light crosswalk needed $12,000 7300 * 3 NW Hinesburg Road Village Green Rd Ruth Street No crosswalks to connect neighborhoods to sidewalk on East side of Hinesburg Rd. Crosswalk with RRFP $14,000 4 NW Hinesburg Road Prouty Pkwy West Side Sidewalk No crosswalks to connect neighborhoods to sidewalk on west side of Hinesburg Rd. Crosswalk with RRFP $14,000 5 NW Hinesburg Road Wright Court West Side Sidewalk No crosswalks to connect neighborhoods to sidewalk on west side of Hinesburg Rd. Crosswalk with RRFP $14,000 6A NW Williston Road Elmson Parkway Pillsbury Manor North (Gazebo Senior Living) No crosswalk with which to get to bus stops on either side Crosswalk with High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) $58,000 6B NW Williston Road Mills Avenue Bus stop and restaurants on other side of Williston Rd. No crosswalk with which to get to bus stops on either side Crosswalk with High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) $58,000 7 SW Eastwood and Farrell St Crossing Farrell St Eastwood St Have to go past intersection for crossing Relocate Crosswalk $5,000 8 NW Hinesburg Road Eldridge Hayes sidewalk on either side of state highway, but no crosswalk Crosswalk with RRFP $14,000 1 - Scoped Cost refers to cost identified by a VT Dept of Transportation (VTrans) defined scoping study with the expectation of constructing with federal funding 2 - Estimated Cost refers to estimated cost to construct through Public-Private Partnerships 3- Percent of single-family and multi-family residential buildings in South Burlington that are within 1 mile of segment “As the crow flies” & can access with existing connections Rank City Quadrant Street Start End Existing Conditions Proposed Facility* Estimated Cost Aver Traffic Volume (AADT) # of Households Served 9 NW Kennedy Drive West Twin Oaks Terrace North Side of Kennedy Drive No crosswalk to/from bus stop on both sides of very busy road Crosswalk with High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) $58,000 1700 10 SE Van Sicklen Hinesburg Rd Crossing Van Sicklen Hinesburg Road unsignalized; stop sign on Van Sicklen Crosswalk with RRFP $14,000 *Crosswalk could include crosswalk lights, landing pads, signage and/or other costs. April 9, 2018 Financial History of South Burlington Bike Path 1989-2018 Data from Lou Bresee and John Dinklage The recreation path concept started in South Burlington in the 1980s with the idea of linking neighborhoods. 1989 Winter of 1989 - drive to connect neighborhoods A sidewalk connection of Laurel Hill Drive with Duchess Ave. was the first direct result. This dramatically improved the walking access to Orchard School for many people. The drive to connect neighborhoods with similar paths was led by Chris Cavin and Jill Coffrin starting in the winter of 1989. In February 1990 two Recreation Path poster winners had been selected at each elementary school and over $12,000 had been donated by citizens to the path effort. 1990 • On Feb. 12, 1990 UVM presented the City with a letter of intent to license (similar to an easement) 6,500 ft. of right of way for the path. This included much of the path connecting the Swift – Spear Streets intersection with Farrell and Overlook Parks. • $2,000 donated by citizens to the path effort • May 1990 A $400,000 Bond issue was passed. 1991 • By Sept. 1991 Over $37,000 had been contributed by more than 500 donors. Design work had been completed. • A $70,000 Federal Land & Water Conservation Grant was awarded for Phase II (from Swift St. to Old Cross Rd. along Dorset St.). 1992 • May 1992 (Phase 3?) An Agency of Transportation grant of $613,900 was awarded for the construction of a path from Farrell St along I-189 and Spear St. to UVM. 80% federal money and 20% match. • Sept. 27, 1992 The official opening of the South Burlington Recreation Path with paving completed on both Phase I and II. 2001 • July 15, 2001 (Phase 2) The official opening of the section of path from Farrell St. to UVM along Spear St. 2006 • Aug. 16, 2006 (Phase 3) An application for a grant was submitted to the Vermont Agency of Transportation for a path to connect the eastern end of Tilley Drive with Community Drive in Technology Park. Construction was started in Dec. 2010 and the path was opened unofficially May 1, 2011 Over please April 9, 2018 Over the years The network of the path has expanded through the efforts of a variety of individuals and organizations. The original Recreation Path Committee, now the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, has coordinated and guided many additional projects that have been done by the City as well as several major additions that have been created as a part of large development projects. The result of that work includes but is not limited to: • A path into the Meadowland industrial complex off of Hinesburg Rd. • Paths in the Dorset Farms development. • Extensive paths in the area of the Vermont National Golf Course. • Paths in the Cider Mill development. • Paths in Technology Park. • A path along Tilley Drive. • Bike lanes along several sections of Williston Rd. • Paths in the South Village development. Approximate Past City Spending Summary Grant Match Total Grant Applications $250,000 $50,000 $300,000 Grant Award $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 Grant $174,199 $217,749 $217.749 Total $624,199 $143,550 767,749 March 9, 2018 Kelly Stoddard Poor AARP Vermont 199 Main Street, Suite 225 Burlington, VT 05401 To the AARP Placemaking Projects Review Committee: Local Motion is pleased to support the City of South Burlington’s application to build support for closing the gaps in its walking and biking infrastructure. We have been working with the South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee for several years, and have been impressed with their dedication and competence. The City of South Burlington does have a extensive system of paths and bike lanes that are a good start towards linking neighborhoods to schools, parks, employment, and services. However, there are a number of key gaps that need to be filled, and the committee has identified a short list of the most important gaps. They have also developed a well-thought- out strategy for building community support for investing in closing those gaps. If this grant is funded, Local Motion will be partnering with the South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to develop a pop-up demonstration project in July 2018 to highlight the community benefits of closing one particular gap: a 3/4 mile gap in the multiuse path along Dorset Street. To complete this pop-up demonstration, Local Motion will provide technical assistance and the use of its pop-up project mobile support unit. The City is responsible for 20% of the cost of materials used during the event, along with various expenses related to outreach and publicity. I hope you will be able to help them make this project possible. Sincerely, Jason Van Driesche Deputy Director Public Nuisance Ordinance NUISANCE ORDINANCE 2 City of South Burlington Ordinance Table of Contents 1. Purpose and Authority ......................................................................................................... 3 2. General Definitions ............................................................................................................... 3 3. Excessive Noise ..................................................................................................................... 3 4. Urination and Defecation in Streets ..................................................................................... 5 5. Defacing Buildings, Structures and Signs ............................................................................. 5 6. Improper Use of Privately Controlled Waste Containers ..................................................... 5 7. Enforcement ......................................................................................................................... 5 8. Civil Penalty; Waiver Fee ...................................................................................................... 5 9. Other Relief .......................................................................................................................... 6 10. Severability ........................................................................................................................... 6 NUISANCE ORDINANCE 3 City of South Burlington Ordinance The Council of the City of South Burlington hereby ordains: 1. Purpose and Authority This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted to the City to promote the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience contained in 24 V.S.A. Section 2291, and Section 104 of the South Burlington City Charter. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare by prohibiting general nuisance behavior which is unreasonable or unsuitable for a particular time and place, and which, consequently, is detrimental to the peace and good order of the community. It is the goal of this Ordinance to allow all persons of South Burlington to peacefully coexist in a manner which is mutually respectful of the interests and rights of each other. Typically, nuisance behavior disrupts the public peace and affects the quality of life within the community. This Ordinance shall be a civil ordinance within the meaning of 24 V.S.A. Chapter 59. 2. General Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: City The City of South Burlington and/or its duly authorized agents or employees. Person Any natural person, corporation, municipality, the state of Vermont, or any department, agency or subdivision of the state, and any partnership, unincorporated association or other legal entity. Public place A place where a governmental entity has title to or which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, including but not limited to any street, highway, parking lot, plaza, transportation structure, facility or vehicle, school place of amusement, park, playground or sidewalk or to the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings, or grounds enclosing them thereupon. 3. Excessive Noise (A) The purpose of this section is to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare by prohibiting excessive and disturbing noise and to prevent noise which is prolonged or unsuitable for the time and place and which is detrimental to the peace and good order of the community. It is the goal of this section to allow all persons of our city to peacefully coexist in a manner which is mutually respectful of the interests and rights of others. (B) General Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause to be made any loud or unreasonable noise. Noise shall be deemed to be unreasonable when it disturbs, injures or endangers the peace or health of a person or when it endangers the health, safety or welfare of the community. Any such noise shall be considered to be a noise disturbance and a public nuisance. (C) Express Prohibitions. The following acts, which enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, are declared to be noise disturbances: (1) Operating or permitting the use or operation of any musical instrument, radio, television, phonograph, or other device for the production or reproduction of sound in such a manner as to be plainly audible through walls or floors between units within the same building, from another property or from the street between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or in such a manner as to unreasonably disturb the peace, quiet or comfort of the public. NUISANCE ORDINANCE 4 City of South Burlington Ordinance (2) The operation or permitting the operation of any radio, stereo or other sound amplification equipment from a motor vehicle that is audible at twenty-five (25) feet from such vehicle. The term “motor vehicle” shall mean any car, truck or motorcycle. (3) Notwithstanding section (3)(B), it shall be unlawful for any person who is participating in a party or other social event to actively make unreasonably loud noise. A “party or other social event” is defined as a gathering upon the premises of one or more persons not residing at the premises. Unreasonably loud noise is noise that unreasonably interferes with the peace or health of members of the public or is plainly audible between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. through the walls between units within the same building, from another property or from the street. It shall also be unlawful for any resident of a premises under his or her control to allow a party or other social event occurring in or about the premises to produce unreasonably loud noise. There is a rebuttable presumption that all residents of the premises have allowed such party or other social event to occur in or about the premises. All residents of the premises are responsible for such unreasonable noise made, each having joint and several liability. (4) Operating or permitting or directing the operation of any power equipment or machinery outdoors between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except in emergency situations or by permission of the City Manager. (5) Noise resulting from the excavation, demolition, erection, construction, alteration or repair of any premises or structure between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except in emergency situations or by permission of the City Manager. (6) The use of loudspeakers or other sound amplification equipment upon the public streets for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any building or site. (7) Persons keeping or harboring any dog or cat which by frequent or long continued noise disturbs the comfort or repose of persons in the vicinity. (8) Noise related to trash pick-up and removal between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (D) Noise from the following sources shall be exempt from the prohibitions specified herein: (1) All safety signals and warning devices or any other device used to alert persons to any emergency or used during the conduct of emergency work, including, but not limited to, police, fire and rescue vehicle sirens. (2) The repair and maintenance of municipal facilities, services or public utilities when such work must be accomplished outside daytime hours. (3) Snow removal equipment operated within the manufacturer’s specifications and in proper operating condition. (4) Musical, recreational and athletic events conducted by and on the site of a school, educational institution, park, or recreational area. (5) Events and activities conducted by or permitted by the City. Persons operating an event or activity under authority of an entertainment permit, parade/street event permit, or parks special use permit shall comply with all conditions of such permits or licenses with respect to noise control issues. NUISANCE ORDINANCE 5 City of South Burlington Ordinance (6) Construction or repair work which must be done to address an emergency health or safety concern and that cannot be accomplished during daytime hours and which is not work which includes normal maintenance and repair. (7) Any other specific function as approved by the City Manager. (8) Noise from a permitted use in an applicable zoning district of the City’s Land Development Regulations provided it complies with the Regulations’ specific performance standards for that district. (E) The City may notify the owner of any property upon which a violation of this section has occurred and a person has been issued a municipal complaint pursuant thereto that such complaint has been issued. 4. Urination and Defecation No person shall urinate or defecate on any street, in a park or other public place, except in facilities specifically provided for this purpose. Such practice is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. 5. Defacing Buildings, Structures and Signs Defacing buildings, structures and signs prohibited. No person shall apply or cause to be applied any paint, varnish, lead, crayon, wax, ink, dye or other indelible substance, nor shall any person carve, chisel or write any figure or letter on the exterior or interior walls or on the windows of any building or structure or deface any sign without having first secured authority from the owner of such building or his duly authorized agent to do so. Such practice is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. 6. Improper Use of Privately Controlled Waste Containers The dumping of household, construction, or other forms of waste in privately controlled waste containers shall be a violation of this section. 7. Enforcement (A) Any person who violates a provision of this Ordinance shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $800 for each violation. Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. Police Officers of the City of South Burlington shall be authorized to act as Issuing Municipal Officials to issue and pursue before the Judicial Bureau a municipal complaint. A municipal complaint may, at the discretion of the Issuing Official, be dismissed or a civil penalty or waiver fee may be reduced, upon the successful completion of a reparative justice program through the South Burlington Community Justice Center. 8. Civil Penalty; Waiver Fee An Issuing Municipal Official is authorized to recover civil penalties in the following amounts for each violation: First offense $160 Second offense $320 NUISANCE ORDINANCE 6 City of South Burlington Ordinance Third offense $480 Fourth offense $640 Fifth and subsequent offenses $800 An Issuing Municipal Official is authorized to recover a waiver fee, in lieu of a civil penalty, in the following amount, for any person who declines to contest a municipal complaint and pays the waiver fee: First offense $100 Second offense $250 Third offense $400 Fourth offense $550 Fifth and subsequent offenses $700 9. Other Relief In addition to the enforcement procedures available before the Judicial Bureau, the City Manager is authorized to commence a civil action to obtain injunctive relief and other appropriate relief, or to pursue any other remedy authorized by law. 10. Severability If any portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not invalidate any other part of this Ordinance. [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Adopted at South Burlington, Vermont, this 19th day of October, 2015, and to be effective upon adoption. NUISANCE ORDINANCE 7 City of South Burlington Ordinance Adopted at South Burlington, Vermont this _____ day of __________________, 2018, and to be effective upon adoption. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair _________________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair _________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk _________________________________ Thomas Chittenden _________________________________ Received and recorded this ______ day of _____________________, 2018. _________________________________ Donna Kinville, City Clerk 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com REGULAR SESSION To: Kevin Dorn, City Manager From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director Subject: Presentation of the I-89 Exit 14 Alternative Transportation Crossing Study and Recommended Alternative Date: April 13, 2018 Background: Last year, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), on behalf of the City, contracted with Stantec Consulting to scope the means and location (alignment) to improve the pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities across Exit 14 – the intersection of I-89 and Williston Road. A report, the I-89 Exit 14 Alternative Transportation Crossing Study, is now complete, and available to the public. The study process included significant public outreach: • Two public meetings 1) to gather comments on existing conditions and possible solutions and 2) a review of alternatives • A survey along Williston Road over I-89 for pedestrians and cyclists, • A survey regarding which alternative met their needs and how well, • Many e-mailed comments, • Stakeholder meetings and presentations with representatives of agencies, neighborhoods and committees. • A coordinated meeting with multiple departments from the State of Vermont Agency of Transportation. In accordance with the TIF District project process and federal transportation planning best practices, a Purpose and Need Statement was adopted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission emphasized the need for the project to build identity for City Center. A purpose and need statement is used to vet alternatives and ensure the project decisions best meet the needs of the community. Several short and mid-term projects were considered as alternatives but eventually were set aside as better pursued through a separate project as they did not fully meet the purpose and need for this project. Taking into consideration this input and feedback, cost considerations, potential future projects, existing and planned land uses, and potential travel routes, an alternative was selected to be recommended as the “Preferred Alternative” – Alternative 3. This alternative follows the southern edge of Exit 14 and features the following attributes: • Users do not need to contend with the four on/off ramps. • Avoids the costs of multiple bridges. • Longer than other options, it is not as much longer as it appears as the switchback and ramping requirements in other alternatives make them longer than they seem to be in order to attain altitudes necessary to cross over traffic. • May be used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. • Has a minimal impact on I-89 operations. • Enables future connections to the residential neighborhoods of Quarry Hill/East Terrace to the east and the University Mall and the TIF District to the west. • Has the potential to be a highly visible and with strong design elements. This project, while outside the TIF District, is within the TIF District Financing Plan. It is eligible for 30% TIF District financing due to the economic benefits the construction of this transportation infrastructure would bring to the TIF District. Specifically it provides significant capacity in a constrained location. This study completes Phase I of scoping for the project. A request to initiate the next phase, Phase II, was submitted to CCRPC in the last Unified Planning Work Program round (still under consideration by the Commission). Phase II would scope the specific design needs of this location – what type of structure would be most appropriate and how it would connect to Williston Road and adjoining properties. Attachments: • Draft Final Report: I-89 Exit 14 Alternative Transportation Crossing Study (use link to access online) • Appendices: Existing Conditions Maps, Natural Resources Memo, Underground Utilities, Public Outreach, Initial Alternatives (use link to access online) Recommendation: Listen to the presentation, ask questions, and consider making and approving a motion to “Approve Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative for the I-89 Exit 14 Pedestrian Bicycle Crossing Improvement Project”. South Burlington City Council Resolution in Solidarity with the cities of Burlington and Winooski regarding replacing the F-35A with a safe and quiet aircraft WHEREAS, South Burlington values the women and men of the Vermont National Guard and endorses their mission to protect the citizens of Vermont; WHEREAS, South Burlington is the city out of which the Vermont National Guard flies; WHEREAS, the city of Burlington owns the Burlington International Airport, which is geographically located in the city of South Burlington; WHEREAS, South Burlington has no legal authority over the flight operations, including those of the Vermont National Guard, at the Burlington International Airport; WHEREAS, according the the Final United States Air Force F-35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement, there are over 1,900 homes and over 4,600 people in the F-16 65 dB DNL, an area the Federal Government classifies as unsuitable for residential use; WHEREAS, South Burlington has lost over 200 of work force homes because of the noise of the cur- rently-based F-16s; WHEREAS, in the Final United States Air Force F-35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact State- ment, the Air Force reported that the noise of the F-35A will place over 2,900 homes and over 6,660 peo-ple in an area unsuitable for residential use; WHEREAS, the South Burlington City Council during the 2012 public comment period for the United States Air Force F-35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement, wrote on June 11, 2012 of • their very strong support for and appreciation for the men and women of VTANG for their service in defense of the nation, their dedication and their, and their families,’ sacrifices on behalf of all of us; • their obligation to question developments, including military developments, that may impact our com-munities; • their primary concern being the impacts on our environment and community and not on the mission of the military; • their many questions and concerns, not the least of which are safety issues related to a new aircraft be-ing used in the heavily populated areas adjacent to Burlington International Airport; WHEREAS, the South Burlington City Council in their June 11, 2012 letter, expressed their • concern about the F-35A noise level (68/70 dB DNL) in the Chamberlin Elementary School; • concern about the F-35A noise level on shift workers such as first responders, firefighters, police, hos-pital workers, food preparers, etc., who sleep during the day; • concern about the F-35A noise level on outdoor construction workers and farmers; • concern about the F-35A noise levels on children’s health and cognitive development; • concern about the F-35A noise levels on property values; WHEREAS, the South Burlington City Council stated that South Burlington is not a good choice for the F-35 basing; WHEREAS, the South Burlington Planning Commission, during the 2012 public comment period for the United States Air Force F-35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement, wrote • it is their charge and responsibility to insure the goals of the city’s Comprehensive Plan are achieved; • it is their responsibility to insure that the goals of the city’s Comprehensive Plan include providing ade-quate affordable housing, preserving existing neighborhoods, and maintaining overall quality of life for residents are achieved; • about their concern that the noise of the F-16 resulted in a significant loss of affordable single family housing; • about their concern that the even greater noise impacts from the F-35 will affect significantly more homes and residents; • about their concern that the even greater noise impacts from the F-35 will affect owners’ ability to sell, rent, or remain in their homes; • about their concern about being able to replace the almost 3,000 existing homes that may very well be deemed incompatible with residential use; • about their concern about the loss of some of the oldest and most dense housing stock in the city; • about their concern about the loss of neighborhoods; • about their concern that the even greater noise impacts from the F-35 will compound the problems of finding affordable housing; WHEREAS, the South Burlington School Board, during the 2012 public comment period for the United States Air Force F-35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement, wrote • about their concerns regarding the direct noise impacts on the District’s schools, teachers, staff and stu- dents and their families; • about their concerns regarding the impacts of noise on Chamberlin students when they are outdoors, explaining that students are outdoors for at least 45 minutes a day; • about their concerns regarding a potential decrease in the number of households and associated popula-tion and a resultant decrease in the tax base that funds the District’s schools, and a decrease in school enrollment; WHEREAS, the city of South Burlington joined the federal lawsuit as amicus curiae against the Secretary of the Air Force in 2016 because “the Sept 2013 Final Environmental Impact for the United States Air Force F-35A Operational Basing … did not provide adequate information as to noise impacts on the City, or mitigation thereof…and did not provide adequate information as to potential health and safety impacts which could result from noise or an F-35A crash within or near the City”; WHEREAS, the Air Force stated the Vermont Air Guard would continue to have a flying mission regard- less of whether or not the F-35A was based at the Burlington International Airport; WHEREAS, the Air Force assured the public that the Vermont Air Guard would always have a flying mission; WHEREAS, the Air Force has other military aircraft which are far more compatible with densely popu- lated areas, such as the area around the Burlington International Airport; WHEREAS, while other types of military aircraft may be available, cargo/transport aircraft, such as the C-130, are examples of aircraft that are compatible with residential areas in that they are very safe and much quieter than fighter aircraft; WHEREAS, C-130 aircraft are flown by at least 24 other state Guard units; WHEREAS, other state Air Guard units have switched from fighter aircraft to C-130 and other non- fighter aircraft missions; WHEREAS, according to the United States Air Force, “The C-130 Hercules performs the tactical portion of the airlift mission. The aircraft is capable of operating from rough dirt strips, and is the prime transport for air dropping troops and equipment into hostile areas. The C-130 operates throughout the U. S. Air Force serving with Air Mobility Command, Air Force Special Operations Command, Air Combat Com-mand, U. S. Air Forces in Europe, Pacific Air Forces, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Compo-nents, fulfilling a wide range of operational missions in both peace and war situation. Basic and special-ized versions of the aircraft airframe perform a diverse number of roles, including airlift support, Antarc-tic resupply, aeromedical missions, weather reconnaissance, aerial spray missions, firefighting duties for the U.S. Forest Service and natural disaster relief missions.” WHEREAS, the noise produced by C-130 is similar to commercial airliners; WHEREAS, the noise of a C-130 would not result in any homes being in an area unsuitable for residen-tial use; WHEREAS, the C-130 has been flown since 1955, has over 19 million flight hours, and has a very safe record with a class A mishap rate of 0.83 over it’s lifetime; WHEREAS, a C-130 would increase the number of crew members at least three-fold, and depending on its mission, could increase crew members over ten-fold; WHEREAS, acquiring a C-130 mission would likely increase the number of Vermont Air Guard jobs over the jobs associated with the F-16 or the F-35A; WHEREAS, given the essential role the C-130 plays in military and humanitarian operations, acquiring a C-130 mission would guarantee the Vermont Air National Guard a flying mission in perpetuity; WHEREAS, the humanitarian mission of the C-130 aligns with Vermont values; WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, Burlington city voters approved by a vote of 6,482 (55.3%) to 5,238 (44.7%) the following ballot item: “Shall we, the voters of the City of Burlington, as part of our strong support for the men and women of the Vermont National Guard, and especially their mission to ‘protect the citizens of Vermont’ advise the City Council to: 1. Request the cancellation of the planned basing of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport, and 2. Request instead low-noise-level equipment with a proven high safety record appropriate for a densely populated area?” NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of South Burlington stands in solidarity with the City of Burlington and the City of Winooski in their request to the United States Air Force to 1. Cancel the basing of the F-35A at the Vermont Air National Guard Station in Burlington, Vermont, and 2. Instead provide an aircraft that is compatible with a densely populated residential area—an aircraft that has a proven high safety record, and an aircraft whose noise will not result in any homes being in the noise zone categorized as unsuitable for residential use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of South Burlington respectfully requests a written response from the Honorable Secretary of the United States Air Force, Heather Wilson, by May 1, 2018. APPROVED this 16th day of April, 2018. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________ ______________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair _____________________________ ______________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden _____________________________ South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date Range: 4/17/2018 to 04/17/18 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 4/17/2018 3355 Champlain Water District 61,463.20 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 3/31/2018 VI-14497 SBWD-336 61,463.20 61,463.20 4/17/2018 3356 Champlain Water District 114,037.28 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 3/31/2018 VI-14495 SBWD-329 276.91 276.91 3/31/2018 VI-14496 MARCH 113,760.37 113,760.37 4/17/2018 3357 E.J. Prescott, Inc. 393.53 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 3/27/2018 VI-14494 5357947 248.53 248.53 4/3/2018 VI-14498 5362913 145.00 145.00 4/17/2018 3358 Hergenrother Construction 88.18 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 4/5/2018 VI-14500 REFUND 88.18 88.18 4/17/2018 3359 City Of South Burlington 322,681.04 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 4/3/2018 VI-14492 MARCH SEWER 322,681.04 322,681.04 4/17/2018 3360 City Of South Burlington 189,282.93 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 4/3/2018 VI-14493 MARCH STORMWATER 189,282.93 189,282.93 4/17/2018 3361 William Yagoda 79.87 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 4/10/2018 VI-14499 REFUND 79.87 79.87 Total Amount Paid: 688,026.03 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: April 12, 2018 Page 1 of 1 CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 March 2018, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Ostby, Planning Commission; M. Leugers, H. Baker, Recreation Committee; J. Murray, Community Librarian; B. Milizia, M. Mittag, C. Schultz, T. Myer, C. Deblasio, M. Simoneau, J. Simson, C. Sargent, J. Leas, B. Dousevicz, E. Lee, S. Dopp, D. Pollack-Bruce, D. Roy, D. Ruhe 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Mr. Dorn provided instructions on emergency evacuation of the building. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Emery asked to add to Other Business discussion on the mental health initiative, and a possible planning session with the public regarding prioritizing initiatives. She also noted that with regard to item #10, in order to reopen a policy decision, according to Roberts Rules it has to be one of the members who voted in favor of the item who puts it back on an agenda. Ms. Riehle said the reason it is on the agenda is not reopen the dog park, it is a question of taking the gates off to open that part of the park to the public again. 3. Possible Executive Session to discuss legal issues related to current and proposed restrictions on land use at the Wheeler Nature Park as well as a potential purchase of property utilizing funds from the City’s Open Space Fund: Mr. Barritt moved that the Council enter executive session to discuss legal issues related to restrictions on land use at Wheeler Nature Park and potential purchase of property utilizing funds from the Open Space fund and to include the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Director of Planning & Zoning, and Attorney David Ruhe in the session. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Members entered executive session at 6:44 p.m. and resumed regular session at 7:36 p.m. Ms. Riehle then advised that there will be 2 separate executive session meetings with two committees, one on 2 April with Wheeler Park Easement Committee and the other on 28 March during the regular meeting regarding the Auclair property. There will probably be no action taken following those meetings. 4. (previously Item #6): Public Hearing: Second Reading of and possible adoption of amendments to the City’s Public Nuisance Ordinance: CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolduc explained the changes made following the first hearing on the amendments. Restrictions on trash haulers were removed from the Ordinance. It was noted that comment was received from a member of the public regarding people who work nights and are disturbed in the mornings by dogs barking uncontrollably. This is covered under dog/cat regulations, not by this ordinance. Mr. Barritt noted that the majority of people who contacted him wanted the trash collection hours to begin at 7 a.m. Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Schultz said he understood the trash people wanting to get work done early. This is not bad in winter when windows are closed, but there should at least be quiet when windows are open in warmer weather. He also noted that sometimes haulers are there before 6 a.m. Mr. Myer said he supports 7 a.m. for trash haulers. He said he has been awakened at 4:30 a.m. by the haulers. With the windows open, he can hear dumpsters from properties half a mile away. Mr. Chittenden said the city is “out of step,” and needs a consolidated service. He suggested getting haulers to the table to deal with larger issues and possibilities. This would eliminate having 5 different haulers going down one street. Mr. Barritt noted that haulers said they base their collection hours on the closing of the transfer station at 4 p.m. Ms. Riehle noted that one of the haulers runs the transfer station and suggested the closing hour could be changed. Mr. Schultz felt the police should be ticketing haulers who are violating the collection hours. Ms. Diblasio said she is confused as to why more noise from dogs is being allowed during the day. She is a nearby business owner, and the incessant barking of dogs disrupts her workplace. They are 270 feet from the source, and it is still very loud and disruptive. She felt they shouldn’t have to “go through hoops” to get this addressed. She questioned why there is an exemption for a “permitted use.” CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 3 Mr. Senecal, who owns the property between the 2 properties in question, said the fence built by the dog care business is not protecting anything. He is hesitant to put up a building on his land because it is so close to the dog care place. Mr. Dousevicz, developer of Rye Circle, said the dog care place impacts the marketability of the housing project he is building nearby. He has complained to police and animal control people, but nothing happens. He felt the Ordinance needs “more teeth.” Police feel their hands are tied. Ms. Lee, whose nearby office faces north, said she can’t have windows open, and they hear the dogs even in winter with the windows closed. Ms. Ostby suggested a time schedule when the dogs could be let out for a while. Mr. Bolduc noted that the intent was when it came to uses to put regulations under Planning & Zoning. Under the performance standards, Mr. Belair is currently investigating the situation. Mr. Bolduc read the passage from “performance standards.” Ms. Milizia noted she is on the committee looking at Dog Park options. She noted there are no codes as to how many dogs can be outside at once. She also noted there are several “dog businesses” in the city. Ms. Emery then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Emery moved to rewarn this item for a second reading on 16 April 2018, 7:30 p.m. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 5. (formerly #9): Public Hearing on possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Establish housing preservation and replacement standards in certain zoning districts b. Modify the City Center Form Based Code, including building placement standards; buffer strip requirements; prohibited exterior materials and replacement of existing siding; open space and landscaping; accessory structures; and building envelope standards in the T3/T3+, T4, and T5 districts CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 4 c. Modifications to height standards in the C1-R12, C1-R15, and C1-Auto Districts and removal of minor rooftop apparatus from height requirements in all districts d. Establishment of an Urban Design Overlay District within portions of the C1-R12, C1-R15, and C1-Audo Districts e. Modifications to Bicycle Parking standards f. Minor Technical corrections Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Ostby provided an overview of the proposed amendments as follows: The housing preservation amendment requires that for each dwelling removed, a comparable unit must replace it or there must be a financial contribution. The developer can build on the same parcel, build on a separate parcel or contribute to the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Emery said her main concern was that single-family homes could be replaced by multi- family buildings and that multi-family buildings are less attractive to families with children. She also noted that land values are different in different parts of the city. She suggested that those who chose the financial contribution option would pay the difference in land value. She also felt that if a multi-unit building was taken down, a portion of new homes built should be single- family homes.. Ms. Ostby noted that the Planning Commission is scheduled to have a discussion regarding “cottage housing,” etc. Mr. Conner said that certain zoning districts are exempt from this amendment, specifically those which do not currently permit housing but where a few houses still exist. He stressed that the Airport neighborhood is not exempt with the exception of the 39 homes from the 2016 agreements plus 4 homes that have been in of the eligibility areas but whose owners have not yet chosen to sell. Ms. Riehle asked if there is language to prevent another Airport buyout. Mr. Conner said the language names the specific grants and exempted properties. Ms. Emery said she could foresee that when the F-35s arrive the Council will have its hands full with people wanting buyouts. Mr. Barritt asked if this would have affected the Larkin apartments being torn down. Mr. Conner said that was technically an “extended stay hotel” and would not have been affected; CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 5 however, 61 units are being built to replace the 60 units from that building which would meet the standard if it had applied. Mr. Barritt asked if this amendment is enforceable with the FAA buyout program. Mr. Bolduc said it is. Mr. Chittenden felt this makes sense and that the Airport could come up with the money if it wants to take down homes. Mr. Simson, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, said a similar regulation has been in force in Burlington for a long time and it has discouraged tearing down housing. He said the Committee tried to draft an ordinance that would be fair to homeowners and to the city. He said the hope is that in the future there will be enough money to actually building some housing, including single family homes. Mr. Conner noted there are some properties in mixed use neighborhoods that could have housing in some buildings. In addition, some housing could come down so an adjacent house could have a larger yard. Someone could also buy a house to remove it so their existing house would have a better view. Mr. Leas spoke against any exemptions. He felt it was hard to resist people asking for their homes to be bought out. He said the Airport has put 1000 homes in a terrible noise zone. Were they to be taken down, the money from those homes would give the Housing Trust Fund $2,600,000. He said that if South Burlington doesn’t get that money, it would be like writing a check to Burlington to $2,600,000. He also noted that Burlington and the Airport not only took down the houses, they got the land. Ms. Riehle noted most of the 39 homes have been purchased already. She questioned whether the city could now go back and say “you owe us.” Mr. Bolduc said there could a risk if they are not exempted. Mr. Chittenden asked if there is an appeal process in the regulation. Mr. Conner said that would put the DRB in a very difficult position. There is no specific appeal process other than the appeal of the permit. Ms. Ostby added that the exemptions were put in to avoid problems for people whose homes are to be bought. CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 6 Ms. Riehle suggested getting a legal opinion on eliminating the exemptions for Airport properties vs. keeping them in. With regard to the other amendments, Ms. Riehle asked why stucco is not an acceptable building material. Mr. Conner noted that is not new. What is new is that it would not be allowed on any side of the building not only the street side. This applies only to the Form Based Code District, and it was felt that stucco could lead to “bad design.” It is OK elsewhere in the city. Ms. Ostby then explained the issue of 5’ vs. 8’ setbacks. The original rule was 8 feet with a buffer. The developer of the Market St. homes was concerned with the 8 feet because it could impact the porches. Mr. Conner noted that the homes already built have a 5-foot setback/buffer. Staff has been working with that property owner to see what solutions exist. Members agreed to continue the entire package of amendments to the next meeting. Mr. Chittenden moved to continue the LDR amendments to 2 April 2018 at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. (formerly #7): Library Grant Application: Ms. Murray said the intent is to apply for a federal grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The grant is for “infrastructure to support the humanities.” Ms. Murray noted that a lot of their programs meet that qualification and would continue to do that. The grant is for $400,000 and requires a 3-to-1 match which Ms. Murray felt they could meet. The grant is also specifically for “capital costs.” Mr. Chittenden moved to support the Library Grant Application as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. (formerly #8): Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursements b. Approve Minutes for 20 February, 5 March and 7 March c. Approve & Authorize Council Chair to Execute Quitclaim Deed for Conveyance of City “Lease Land” Interest at A1 Stonehedge Drive d. Approve Chittenden County MS4 Stormwater Program Agreement Amendments CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 7 e. Approve Hadley/Proctor Neighborhood Sewer Project State Revolving Loan Application – Construction Phase Question arose with regard to item D and members agreed to remove it from the Consent Agenda to get more information from the Stormwater Superintendent. Ms. Emery moved to approve Consent Agenda items a, b, c, and e as presented. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. (formerly #4): Comments & Questions from the public not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 9. (formerly #12): Presentation on Underwood Plan: Ms. Baker reviewed the history of the purchase of the Underwood property and the creation of a task force and Master Planning group. She then introduced the consultants who have worked on the planning process. Mr. Pollack-Bruce reviewed the public process they employed and noted that the major program elements the public wanted were: a. Low-key development b. Focus on the natural c. Sustainability d. Multi-generational e. Low-impact development The three major themes were: a. Agriculture b. Natural resources c. Recreation Guiding principles included: a. Food production CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 8 b. Gateway to recreation c. Connection to the rec path system d. A primary structure e. Diversity of trail forms Mr. Pollack-Bruce showed a map of where these uses could be located and also photos of the views from the site. He noted that the site has every layer of protection the city can provide. Mr. Pollack-Bruce then reviewed in more detail the program elements: a. Community agriculture, including raised beds/community gardens, traditional community garden plots, a wildflower garden, support facilities b. Passive Recreation, including walking paths, picnic tables, a shade structure, seating for sunset viewing c. Active Recreation, including non-programmed field space, a natural play- ground, treehouse, pump track d. Event Facility, including uses for a kids’ camp, classes, concerts, private events (e.g., weddings, family reunions), lawn and outdoor terrace/patio e. Natural Resources including habitat protection, invasive species removal, defined meadow areas, and stormwater improvements f. Support facilities, including parking, an access road, restrooms, signage, public art, lighting, drinking fountain, bike racks Mr. Pollack-Bruce showed a proposed plan for the location of various facilities and uses. He cited the potential for a staging area for cross-country skiing, which would involve the securing of an easement. There is enough parking to accommodate 150 people on the site. There was some concern about noise from neighbors but they generally supported events of a reasonable size with guidelines. Regarding bike path connections, Mr. Pollack-Bruce should the locations and where there would be a paved path through the property. He also indicated the sidewalk and bike path crosswalk. Mr. Roy then showed the floor plan for the event barn and storage shed. He also showed sketches for the potential buildings. Buildings would be heated in the winter. It was noted that the primary priority was for views first solar second, but there could be some of each. CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 9 Some of the themes from public feedback included: a. Overwhelming support for the concept with some funding already donated b. Importance of rec path connections c. The windiness of the site d. Water catchment alternatives e. Net zero goal f. Dog policy g. Undergrounding of power and low lighting h. A crosswalk from Pheasant Way with sidewalk on both sides Mr. Pollack-Bruce then reviewed potential costs on a phasing basis: Phase I: including access, passive recreation, habitat protection, parking lot, walking paths, benches, stormwater treatment, a tree buffer between the 2 homes Cost Estimate: $720,000-$880,000 Phase 2: including gardening, pump track, play areas, community garden, paths, view area with pergola, garden/farm shed with restrooms Cost Estimate: Site work - $936,000-$1,144,000 Buildings - $85,000-$104,000 Phase 3: including event facility, completed entrance drive, patio/terrace, lighting, treehouse Cost Estimate: Site work - $813,000-$994,000 Buildings - $870,000-$1,027,000 Ms. Leugers noted there have already been donations for the bike path and benches. Ms. Riehle commended the effort and noted it has been years in the making and will take years to complete. CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 10 10. (formerly #14): February Financials: Mr. Hubbard reported that with the fiscal year 2/3 complete, the general fund is at 60% of expenses and 62% of revenues. Fire inspections are at 52%. Ambulance service is on target. The final payment has been made for the communications upgrade. The salt budget has been overspent due weather incidents. Fortunately, the city was able to get more salt. Enterprise funds are on target. Ms. Emery asked about “police salaries other.” Mr. Hubbard will get that information. 11. (formerly #15) Consider and possibly approve providing Chair authority to sign Union Municipal District Agreement authorized by voters on 6 March 2018: Mr. Dorn said the next step will be for the Council to approve the MOU which will stipulate the costs. This is the interim step. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve giving the Chair authority to sign the Union Municipal District Agreement authorized by voters on 6 March 2018. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Riehle asked about the time frame. Mr. Dorn said the goal is to have at least 2 communities working by the end of the year. He will provide monthly briefings to the Council on progress. 12. (formerly #16): Consider and possibly authorize City Manager to send a Letter of Intent to the Superintendent of Schools and Chair of the School Board relating to the transfer of land at the south end of the Marcotte Central School Parking Lot property to the city for the use in construction of a Community Center and the transfer of a small parcel of land to the City on the east side of the Marcotte Central School property needed to construct Garden Street and the construction of a new, guaranteed and permanent entrance to the Marcotte Central School property: Mr. Dorn directed attention to the drafted letter. He said it is the same concept as the letter sent last summer minus space for an Arts Center. It would give the city land behind a Community Center and would give the school a permanent access to Market Street and probably Mary Street. CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 11 Ms. Riehle noted this is not on the School Board’s “high priority list,” but it is on Wednesday’s meeting agenda. A possible outcome may be “we don’t have time to take it up.” Mr. Dorn stressed the need to get clarity soon if the city intends to go to the voters in November. Mr. Chittenden moved to support the Letter of Intent as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 13. (formerly #5): Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended in recent weeks. Mr. Dorn: The roundtable meeting with SBBA will be on Tuesday, 7 a.m. Has spent a lot of time with incoming Police Chief Burk at meetings with different groups. The four mental health people have passed all the background checks. They are now meeting different department leadership people. It is expected there will be some service available by the end of the month. Ms. Emery asked how this would be paid for. She had heard it would be from using the funds for unfilled FTEs from the Police Department. She said the Council has to approve that. She also didn’t feel South Burlington should pay up to 5 times more than other communities. Mr. Dorn said the Charter authorizes him to make that decision. Mr. Chittenden said those are good questions but not at the end of a meeting where it hasn’t been warned. Ms. Riehle said the Council had received a number of updates from the City Manager and that they should not have thought it would be free. Ms Riehle said a full discussion of the Mental Health Collaborative MOU and program including budget materials will be presented at the next meeting. There were also discussions with Chief Whipple about the need and the impact of mental health issues on the Police. Ms. Emery said she wanted to have the whole picture in front of her and expected the cost to be “front and center.” 14. (formerly #11): Councilors’ reports from Committee assignments: CITY COUNCIL 19 MARCH 2018 PAGE 12 Mr. Chittenden said there is a possible reduction in the city’s assessment from Green Mountain Transit. 15. Other Business: a. Ms. Emery said she wants to see all the costs for all projects laid out. She felt the Council has not gotten the full picture. Mr. Barritt disagreed and said the Council went through a prioritization process. He didn’t think they could get any more public in the process. Ms. Riehle added that the Council cannot expect to receive information on every future topic envisioned for the next 5 years prior to making decisions on some items. She agreed with Mr. Barritt that they have a full and structured process, although sometimes things come up “mid-stream” b. Regarding the gates at the former dog park, Mr. Barritt saw no conflict with the removal of some of the dog park fencing as well to ensure that visitors would not just block the gate entrance. He noted the ground is too frozen now to remove any fencing. Ms. Milizia felt that for safety purposes it was best not to have any fencing there at all in case a child got in there with a dog. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Chittenden moved to adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. ________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 28 MARCH 2018 1 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, 28 March 2018, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M Emery; T. Chittenden; T. Barritt ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Leugers, Recreation Dept; H. Baker, Interim Director of Recreation & Parks; B. Milizia; D. Crawford; L. Yankowski; K. Langrock; J. Kochman; G. Sproul; L. Chiasson; M. Simoneau; T. Riehle; M. Mittag; B. Bless; S. Bless; C. Pierce; J. Israelow; E. Tischler; A. Karnatz 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Dorn provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Possible joint executive session between the City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation Committee and Natural Resources Committee to discuss real estate transactions. Mr. Chittenden moved that the City Council enter into an executive session to discuss the negotiating or securing of real estate, the premature disclosure of which would place the City at a disadvantage, and invited the following individuals to join the Council: K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Leugers, Recreation Dept; H. Baker, Interim Director of Recreation & Parks; B. Milizia; D. Crawford; L. Yankowski; K. Langrock; J. Kochman; G. Sproul; L. Chiasson; M. Simoneau; T. Riehle; M. Mittag; B. Bless; S. Bless; C. Pierce; J. Israelow; E. Tischler; and A. Karnatz. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed. 3. Adjourn As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:20 p.m. ___________________________________, Clerk SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 10 APRIL 2018 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, 10 April 2018, at 6:30 p.m., in the Upstairs Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, Vice-Chair; T. Barritt; T. Chittenden Also Present: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager 1. Consider convening as the South Burlington Liquor Control Board to approve the following applications: Night Flight Inn/Lakeview (1st class) Cheese Traders/Wine Sellers (2nd class) Ms. Emery moved and Mr. Chittenden seconded to convene as the Liquor Control Board. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery motioned and second by Mr. Chittenden to approve the above applications. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Possible executive session to discuss the appointment of a public officer to fill recent vacancies in the City Council, Airport Commission, and PAC. Motion made by Mr. Chittenden, second by Mr. Barritt to enter Executive Session to discuss item #2 above, to include Mr. Hubbard. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Chittenden moved to adjourn, Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. __________________________________ Clerk Signature CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 2 April 2018, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk, A. Bolduc, City Attorney; Chief T. Whipple, Police Department; Chief D. Brent, Fire Department; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; P. Taylor, J. Simson, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, S. Dooley, M. Ostby, D. Ruhe, D. Bugbee; other members of the public Ms. Riehle opened the meeting with a tribute to Councilor Pat Nowak who passed away over the weekend. She recalled Ms. Nowak’s warmth and love, her zest for life and her willingness to debate hard issues. A full tribute to Ms. Nowak will take place at the next City Council meeting when the family can be present. 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Mr. Dorn provided instructions on emergency evacuation of the building. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Possible Executive Session to receive legal guidance on matters involving real estate: Ms. Emery moved that the Council meet in executive session to receive legal guidance on real estate matters and that the session include the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, the City Attorney, attorney Ruhe, Cathyann LaRose, Ms. Reed, and members of the Wheeler Task Force. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Members entered executive session at 6:45 p.m. and resumed open session at 7:36 p.m. 4. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 5. Top Dog and First Feline Contest Winners Drawing: Ms. Kinville noted this is the first annual contest which provides a fun way to get animals registered. She noted there has been an increase in registrations every year (1240 by the due date this year). In the drawing that followed “Salaam” the cat and “Oakley” the dog were drawn as winners. CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 2 Ms. Kinville thanked event sponsors: Guys’s Farm & Yard, Pet Food Warehouse, Hannaford, and Happy Tails. 6. Council re-consideration and possible approval of Garden Street Preferred Street Typical: Mr. Conner explained that in 2015 the Council approved “alternate #5.” At that time, the preferred alternate from staff would have been for a narrower road; however, there were some “unknowns” at that time (e.g., stormwater treatment, parking, etc.). Since then, concepts have evolved, and as a result it is now possible to consider a narrower road concept. The DRB prefers the narrower concept which would reduce the road width from 75 feet to 64 feet, which is more appropriate for an urban environment. All of the community’s goals (e.g., sidewalks, trees, etc.) can still be attained with the narrower width. Ms. Emery asked if there will be enough water for the trees. Mr. Conner said one key was to create options for the trees to exist. Staff is confident they have achieved this. Mr. Barritt asked about snow plowing. Mr. Conner said there is different equipment for different circumstances. The Public Works Director is OK with this plan. Mr. Barritt moved to approve the revised Garden Street Preferred Street Typical as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Council Action to cure a failure to properly warn a November 20, 2017 City Council vote to close the Jaycee Park Dog Park by providing proper warning for possible action on closing Jaycee Park Dog Park at a future Council meeting on a date to be determined: Ms. Riehle noted that the previous agenda item did not include action to be taken. Without that, she said, it was just a discussion item. The Council is being asked to agree to have a proper warning. The suggestion is to do this at a date when the Dog Park Task Force has a recommendation. The Park would remain closed. Ms. Emery said she was glad to wait until there is a recommendation. She felt the Council acted in good faith when it voted to close the park. There was more than one complaint and there was an actual dog attack at the park. CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 3 Mr. Chittenden asked when the Task Force report is due. Mr. Dorn said 7 May. Ms. Riehle added there will be a full discussion at that time including size, hours, signage, noise, etc. Members of the public questioned why the park cannot be kept open until the May data since the vote to close it should not have happened. Mr. Chittenden said he would support that but did not think there were enough Council votes to do that. Mr. Barritt moved to warn for action an agenda item on 7 May 2018 regarding Jaycee Dog Park pending receipt of the report of the Dog Park Task Force. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Continued Public Hearing on Possible Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Establish housing preservation and replacement standards in certain zoning districts b. Modify the City Center Form Based Code, including building placement standards; buffer strip requirements; prohibited exterior materials and replacement of existing siding; open space and landscaping; accessory structures; and building envelope standards in the T3/T3+, T4 and T5 Districts c. Modifications to height standards in the C1-R12, C1-R15 and C1-Auto Districts and removal of minor rooftop apparatus from height requirements in all districts d. Establishment of an Urban Design Overlay District within portions of the C1- R12, C1-R15, and C1-Auto Districts e. Modification to Bicycle Parking standards f. Minor technical corrections It was noted that the Council had wanted additional information regarding the housing replacement amendment. Ms. Ostby noted there is a list provided of the exceptions for properties on the Airport area that have already been purchased or are on the list to be purchased. Mr. Barritt noted that the amendment deals only with demolition, not with purchase of a property. Mr. Bolduc noted the amendment also does not deal with changing the use of a property (e.g., to commercial). He cautioned against further discussion of these properties in open session. Mr. Chittenden asked if there can be an expiration date for the exceptions. Mr. Bolduc said this is not unheard of, though it is not known how long the Airport would keep an AIP open. It could be 3-4 years. CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 4 Ms. Dooley said the wheels of federal government sometimes go slowly, and there is no guarantee that a deadline would work. She did not want to leave the affected homeowners in limbo and suggested just leaving the exceptions. On other amendments, Ms. Riehle noted business owners were concerned with some of the bicycle parking standards. A very small use could be required to replace long-standing bicycle parking. Mr. Conner said any change that involves a site plan change would trigger the bike rack replacement. However, if the current bike rack is not made of wood, it can be reused as long as a bike can be attached in some way. Ms. Emery also questioned the number of bike racks required. She specifically noted UMall, where people go to shop and where it may not be feasible to carry home purchases on a bike. Also, since South Burlington employers report that their employees cannot afford to live in South Burlington, there may be few UMall employees who bike to work.. Ms. Riehle asked if a business could ask for reduced parking spaces in exchange for the bike racks. Mr. Conner said in the new regulations, required parking spaces have been reduced to 2 per 1000 sq. ft. The Commission is also working to update traffic impact fees, possibly based on the total number of trips (not only vehicles). A business could get a credit for being on a bus route, having a bike rack, etc. Mr. Conner stressed that they are trying to make this easy and inexpensive to do, including addressing the need to have an engineer do a “little update” to a plan. Ms. Riehle noted that at the SBBA meeting with the Council a request was made that all committees consider fiscal impacts of the changes they propose. Ms. Simson, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, noted that the attorneys had said the proposed amendment was the way to address the issues. He stressed that they would welcome an option that would allow the houses to remain and be soundproofed. Mr. Leas spoke against allowing the exemptions. He felt that if the Guard’s mission is changed, there may not have to be demolition. He did not feel the City of Burlington should benefit from any exemptions. Ms. Emery asked for a brief executive session to hear from the City Attorney. CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 5 Ms. Emery moved that the Council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of the confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to this body. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Emery then moved that the Council enter into executive session with the City Attorney for the purpose of discussing confidential attorney-client communications with the session to include the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, City Attorney and Direction of Planning & Zoning. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. The Council entered executive session at 9:12 p.m. and resumed open session at 9:29 p.m. Mr. Chittenden moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Consider possible adoption of draft Land Development Regulations: Mr. Barritt moved to approve the draft Land Development Regulations amendments as presented. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Council review and possible action to endorse the Community Outreach Mental Health Partnership between 6 Chittenden County Communities and Howard Mental Health: Mr. Dorn identified the 5 communities in addition to South Burlington as Colchester, Winooski, Essex, Shelburne, and Williston. Chief Whipple then reviewed the history of mental health concerns on the part of the Police Department. This began with the realization that mental health calls were driving a lot of Police calls and that these calls were on the increase. He cited 7 such calls in 2012, 10 in 2013 and 2014, 16 in 2015, 16 in January and February of 2018 and 12 in March of 2018. As these number rise, they put increased pressure on Police officers. In 2015, Chief Whipple approached the Howard Center to see if their services could be available in an emergency. Howard Center agreed. In the summer of 2017, a number of calls came with real challenges to the Police Department. That is when the City Manager got involved due to stresses and risks to City personnel. At the end of 2017, Howard Center was asked what they could do to help address the issues. They felt that 4 clinicians could be supportive within the neighboring communities. Under the CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 6 proposed plan, South Burlington will have the services of one of these clinicians for 40 hours a week. Chief Brent noted that in February, 2018, the Fire Department transported 137 patients to the hospital, 17 of which were for behavioral health issues (4 suicidal). In the same month, they had only 6 patients with substance abuse issues and only 10 with heart-related issues. There were 3 calls to the same person in one day. This is a huge drain on both Fire and Police resources. The Chief noted that is staff is elated with prospect of getting assistance from trained clinicians. Ms. Riehle recognized both chiefs for the leadership in addressing mental health issues with their staffs. Chief Whipple noted that in some instances, Police and a clinician will respond together. If there is not level of danger, only a clinician may have to respond. He cited an issue last week where a clinician met with a family in need and provided some resources to the family even before the program officially began. Mr. Barritt asked if this has been tried elsewhere in Vermont. Chief Whipple noted similar programs in Brattleboro and Barre and numerous places across the country. Ms. Riehle noted that this program can also provide a reduction in stress to Police and Fire personnel. Chief Whipple said that his officers worry about having to use deadly force with a mentally ill person. Just knowing that help is coming, has already reduced the level of stress in the department. Ms. Emery was curious about call levels in other communities and about the Howard relationship with the City of Burlington. She noted funding for this is coming from money to hire additional Police officers. Chief Whipple said he didn’t have numbers on hand about other communities. Shelburne is second highest, but South Burlington is by far the highest. Burlington began its program with funding from businesses as it was geared to “street activity.” Clinicians walk the streets in Burlington. With regard to the funding for police officers, Chief Whipple said there is no way he could hire 5 people in a year. There will be an $80,000 surplus in this year and next year. And there may be another retirement in the department in that time. There is still the ability to fill a position if CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 7 the market changes. The Chief stressed this is a double win for them. It is hard to recruit police officers who realize they may have to face these kinds of issues. This resource can reduce some of that stress. Ms. Emery noted that other communities will be subsidized by the State, but South Burlington has the second lowest median household income and is being left to cover the rest. She was uncomfortable with that. Mr. Hubbard noted there is still a grant pending which could address some of South Burlington’s costs. He stressed that if he didn’t feel confident using and recommending use of that $80,000, he wouldn’t have done so. He also stressed that the benefit is worth the investment. Ms. Emery asked if South Burlington could be subsidized in the future. Mr. Hubbard said it will depend on the use of the services. Mr. Chittenden cited the increased concern with mental health issues at UVM. He said it takes leadership to get things off the groups and applauded the effort to get this done. Chief Whipple said there will be “minute record keeping” so that data can be assessed. Mr. Barritt cited the possibility of reducing the need to 4 Police Officers and having a clinician be a permanent position. He asked if the current clinician will be able to provide any training to Police officers. Chief Whipple said yes, both in the car and during roll call sessions. If there is potential danger, they can also discuss strategies with specific people. Chief Whipple also noted that this effort can help to destigmatize mental health issues. Mr. Bugbee said this issue is very important to him. He noted the Drug and Alcohol Counselor program in Burlington has made a difference in people’s lives because of interventions that might not happen elsewhere. His family has benefitted from outreach as well. He noted that more than 18% of people in the U.S. have been diagnosed with mental health issues and stressed that those whose jobs involve dealing with these people should have the best tools to do that job. Mr. Simoneau, who serves on the Board at Howard Center, cited the energy and leadership of Mr. Dorn in responding to needs of both the Police and Fire Departments. He said this is a “need,” not a “want.” Mental Health is a growing industry, and more people are paying CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 8 attention. But we are still behind the curve. He felt the current initiative will pay great dividends for South Burlington and the other communities. Mr. Chittenden said he would still like to see renewed efforts to fill the police positions. Chief Whipple said he hasn’t given up, and this program may help. Mr. Chittenden then moved to endorse the Community Outreach Mental Health Partnership between 6 Chittenden County communities and the Howard Mental Health Center as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 11. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. Mr. Dorn: The School Board will be taking up the City’s letter regarding Central School property on Wednesday. The City is working with the Town of Shelburne on issues with the water tank. Shelburne will be taking advantage of some of the tank storage and will be paying off some of the debt from the upgrading of the tank capacity which will reduce the amount for South Burlington taxpayers to pay. The Council work plan will be reviewed on 7 May. That discussion could include a potential Economic Development Committee. 12. Reports from Committee Assignments: No reports were presented. 13. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursements b. Approve Minutes for 19 March c. Award Hadley Road Area Infrastructure Improvements Project Contract to GW Tatro d. Approve Chittenden County MS4 Stormwater Program Agreement Amendments CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 9 e. Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and sign a contract with CLD I FUSS & O’NEILL to design and engineer the Williston Road Streetscape Project (STP BP17(9) Members asked to remove the Minutes from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the Minutes of 19 March. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0 14. Consider convening as the South Burlington Liquor Control Board to approve the following applications: Applebees (1st class), Bourne’s (2nd class), Bueno Y Sano (1st class), CVS (2nd class), Charlie’s on Fire (1st class), Eagles Club (1st class), 802 Cocktails (1st class), Gracey’s Liquor (2nd class), Gracey’s Store (2nd class), Halyard Brewing (1st class), Hannaford Dorset St (2nd class), Hannaford (2nd class), Higher Ground (1st class), Homewood Suites (1st class), Independent Brewers (2nd class), Jiffy Mart Kennedy (2nd class), Jiffy Mart Williston (2nd class), Jolley Shelburne Rd. (2nd class), Jolley Shelburne North (2nd class), Jolley Shelburne South (2nd class) Klinger’s (2nd class), Magic Hat (1st class), Old Post (1st class), Osaka Hana (1st class), Pauline’s (1st class), Pour House (1st class), Quarry Hill Club (1st class), Shaw’s (2nd class), Shelburne Rd. Variety (2nd class) Silver Palace (1st class), Skinny Pancake (1st class), Smokey’s Low n Slow (1st class), Uno’s (1st class), Vt. Pool & Bar (1st class), Zachary’s (1st class), Zen Garden (1st class), Champlain Farm’s Williston Rd. (2nd class), Champlain Farms Exxon (2nd class), Champlain Farms So. Burl. (2nd Class), Green Mtn. Suites (1st class), Guild Tavern (1st class), Holiday Inn (1st class), Jolley Williston Rd. (2nd class), Mill market (2nd class), Sugarsnap (1st class), Trader Duke’s (1st class), Trader Joe’s (2nd class) Walgreen’s (2nd class), Cheese Traders (2nd class), Chipotle (1st. Class), Doubletree (1st Class), Farmers & Foragers (1st class), Koto (1st class), Lakeview Bar & Grill (1st class), Moe’s (1st class), Moose Lodge #1618 (1st class), Olive Garden (1st class), Outback (1st class), Price Chopper Hinesburg Rd (2nd class), Pulcinella’s (1st class), Simon’s Store (2nd class), Starving Artist Café (1st class) Tavern II (1st class), VT National Country Club #3944 (1st class), VT. National Country Club #3944-2 (1st class), VT National Country Club #3944-3 (2nd class), Waterfront Catering (1st class), Marco’s (1st class), Rotisserie (1st class) Mr. Chittenden moved the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Members noted that Cheese Traders and Lakeview Bar & Grill had boxes not checked off. CITY COUNCIL 2 APRIL 2018 PAGE 10 Ms. Emery moved to approve all liquor licenses as presented with the exception of Cheese Traders and Lakeview Bar & Grill. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Barritt moved to reconvene as City Council. 15. Business: a. Items Held from Consent Agenda b. Other Ms. Riehle asked for a brief executive session to discuss appointments and the process for replacing City Councilor Nowak. Mr. Chittenden moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss appointment and a process for replacing Councilor Nowak, to invite the City Manager and Deputy City Manager to the executive session, and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. The Council entered executive session at 10:55 p.m., and resumed regular session at 11:22 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. ________________________________ Clerk