Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/25/2018 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 25 JUNE 2018 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 25 June 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, D. Kaufman Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; J. Murray, Librarian; A. Klugo, Planning Commission; H. Reed, Recreation Department; J. Kochman, Parks & Recreation Committee; C. Hafter, L. Bresee, M. Van Ohlsen, P. Taylor, M. Simoneau, S. Dooley, P. LeDuc, M. Cole, S. Roy, S. Dopp, B. Sirvis, other members of the public 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. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. City Council Work Session related to the possible construction of a Community Center-Library on Market Street in City Center: Mr. Dorn invited members of various city committees and departments to address the topic: Mr. Klugo (Planning Commission): He cited the importance of “civic buildings” and the unique opportunity this building presents. He also noted that from a planning perspective, the Comprehensive Plan supports the building of a civic building in City Center (goal #102). He felt the building will bring people into the downtown and be an anchor for City Center development. Ms. Murray (Librarian): She cited the wide range of needs served by the Library (e.g. kids’ books, adult books, dog‐training workshops, teen spaces, etc.). She noted the visioning sessions held with the community and the amount of space needed to serve everyone’s needs and desires. She also noted the many iterations the building design has gone through to where it now has evolved to a space to meet the needs of the people of South Burlington with an open and inspiring design. She also noted the potential for interaction with City Hall and the community center. Mr. Cole (Library Board of Trustees): He read the vision for the new Library and said he felt the proposed design accomplishes what they have set out to do. He noted that he had personally learned how important libraries are, especially to downtowns. Mr. LeDuc (Vice Chair of Library Board of Trustees): He said the vision is now starting to come together and cited the challenge of putting so many ideas into a design. He was excited with the combination of a City Hall/Library/Senior Center and noted that seniors can mentor children at the nearby school. Ms. Reed (Recreation Department): Cited the collaborative work to be sure all the marks are hit. She felt a senior space near the Library and City Hall is “a draw.” She also noted that the conference room space in the current City Hall was supposed to be a senior center but that got taken away. She felt the closeness to the school provided the opportunity share programs. Ms. Kochman (Chair of Recreation & Parks Committee): Said she has been waiting for this for 10 years. She was a previous chair of the Library Board and noted that both departments have needs (Recreation & Parks has virtually no indoor space) that the proposed building addresses. She also noted that it was the TIF potential that has made this all possible. The senior center will have additional community uses as the seniors will have the space from 8-4:30. Spaces can be rented out to bring in income (the Library cannot charge for services, but Recreation and Parks can). Ms. Riehle asked Ms. Reed to outline specific kinds of programs that can be accommodated in the senior/community center. Ms. Reed responded with the following partial list of programs/uses: a. Informal get-together space b. Big open, flexible space c. Space for classes (arts, dancing, exercise, etc.) d. Space to serve more than one meal a week e. Space for blood pressure and other medical screenings Ms. Kochman also provided a listing of Library/community center uses beyond the “senior uses” as follows: a. Safe learning space for the youngest kids b. Story time space c. After school space d. Book discussions e. Computer space f. Digital lab for training (use of phone for photography) g. Activity spaces (jewelry making, building blocks, etc.) h. Study rooms (can be used for tutoring) i. Relaxing space j. Nooks and crannies for quiet reading Mr. Roy, architect for the project, then outlined the building features as follows: First Floor: a. Auditorium b. Library “living room” and children’s library c. Senior Center d. City Clerk’s Office (visible near the front door) e. Mechanical rooms Mr. Roy noted the building was brought a few feet forward to accommodate the senior/community center. Ms. Riehle asked the number of feet from the front wall to where a car would drive. Mr. Roy said about 21 feet. Ms. Emery noted that a previous plan had shown a two story entry way which this plan does not. Ms. Blanchard cited the expensiveness of two-story plate glass panes. Second Floor: a. Adult collections all on one floor b. Program spaces c. Allowance for future addition d. Reading room and terrace (can be used after Library hours) Third Floor: a. City management offices b. 3 meeting rooms c. Planning & Zoning Department d. Shared staff spaces Mr. Roy then showed close-up iterations of each floor indicating locations of entrances, elevators, stairways. He noted that in general ceilings are 16 feet high (the auditorium is higher at about 19 feet, and the City Clerk’s office is about 9‐10 feet). He also explained how the auditorium can be used with a raised platform and moveable seating. Ms. Kochman asked that there be the potential for professional lighting. Mr. Roy said that is part of the plan. The occupancy of the auditorium is estimated at 120. A member of the audience asked about parking. Mr. Roy said there will be on-street parking plus other parking being worked on by the city. Ms. Riehle noted that for events after school hours, the school parking lot can be used. A member of the audience asked for “something that says Vermont.” Mr. Roy said that as much as possible they will use local materials such as granite and slate. A member of the audience asked for a flagpole. Mr. Roy said that is definitely achievable. Ms. Riehle noted the recent MOU with the School Board and said it will provide greater safety for buses and vehicles entering the school as well as access to the rear of the City Hall/Library and Community Center. Ms. Dopp suggested a plan to reuse rainwater. Mr. Roy said that will be considered. Mr. Roy noted the cost for the design is being developed and exterior materials are being explored. They have looked at a plan for sustainability that is cost-effective. There is an opportunity for geo-thermal heating. Mr. Roy then reviewed square foot comparisons to existing spaces and to previous plans. Mr. Kaufman said he loves the design. He suggested looking at lumber from the UVM forest, if allowed. He also suggested a heated sidewalk at the immediate access to the building to avoid plowing, sanding and to be cleaner and safer. Mr. Roy said that can be considered and evaluated. Ms. Riehle noted the city has a fund from the money earned from the solar array at the Landfill. This could help reduce the bonding amount. The language allows the money to be used for energy efficiency. Mr. Barritt cited the importance of exterior facades and felt this building should be a lot different from anything else in the City Center. Mr. Chittenden suggested something uniquely Vermont: the use of solar panels as pergolas. Ms. Emery said she heard the kitchen is very costly. She also felt that the second and third-story terraces could be more prominent and that there can be better use of hallway space. Ms. Blanchard complimented the design team and cited the many cost and revenue components. The estimated project cost is $17-20,000,000 of which the building is $12,000,000. The hope is to be at the lower end of the estimate. Project costs include building construction, site work, architect/engineers, land acquisition, furniture/fixtures, public art, etc. Funding sources include: a city reserve fund, impact fees (public facility and highway), TIF District financing (just under 25%), capital campaign (estimated $800,000). She explained how TIF funding works. She also noted the debt would be spread over 30 years. Final numbers will be available in August. Ms. Emery read a communication from Michael Mittag who is concerned that the design process and public input are not reflected in this design because of the addition of the senior-community center. He wanted the building to house only the Library and City Hall. Ms. Kochman noted that when a TIF district was created, a recreation center was part of the plan; it is not something that was just added on. She stressed the need for the community to come together and not present dissension to the voters. Ms. Sirvis suggested using “community center” instead of just “senior center.” Ms. Reed agreed and said there would be as much multi-generational space and activity as possible. A member of the audience said people feel “Central School is being shoved off the board.” Ms. Riehle stressed that the School Superintendent and School Board are involved in all discussions and that safety issues are important to the school. 5. Consider modifications to draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations and update of warning of public hearing: Mr. Conner noted that when the amendments to the LDRs were presented to the Council, there was concern that there could be housing in buildings built closer to the Interstate ramp. The Council can now make the change to not allow housing there and still keep the same public hearing date. There is also new language to better describe the location. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve both changes as presented. Mr. Kaufman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Possible changes to draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations DATE: June 25, 2018 City Council meeting Last week the City Council acknowledged receipt of a set of proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations from the Planning Commission and warned a public hearing for July 16th. At the meeting, some Councilors raised a question / concern regarding the removal of the setback from Interstate ramps. Specifically, the possibility that this change would result in housing being located within 50 feet of an Interstate ramp. In light of this, staff has two possible changes for the Council’s consideration: 1. Residential uses within 50 feet of an Interstate Ramp in the Form Based Codes District: Staff has prepared a possible minor adjustment to the Land Development Regulations that would prohibit housing from being located in this area (thus keeping, for housing, the same prohibition that is currently in place): 8.03 Land Development and Building Placement … C. Special Requirements, Prohibitions & Exceptions … (4) Residential uses are prohibited within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of ramp rights-of- way, both existing and planned, for Interstate 89 and Interstate 189. 2. Clarification of language regarding Interstate Ramp applicability Staff and the City’s legal counsel took a second look at the overall language that allows building to be placed within 50’ of the Interstate ramps. We found a way to be slightly more clear as to applicability; previously, the language could have been interpreted to mean that the Interstate Highway Overlay District ONLY applied to “exit ramps” and only at the interchange of I-89 and I-189. We believe that neither was the intent and so have proposed the following slightly amended language: 2 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Interstate Highway Overlay District to provide for a safe and aesthetically attractive buffer between the right-of-way of the Interstate Highway and developed land uses within South Burlington. B. Boundaries of the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The Interstate Highway Overlay District shall include the following areas, as depicted in Figure 10-1: (1) all land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the Interstate 89 and Interstate 189 rights-of-way, and (2) all lands within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the Iinterstate 89 and Interstate 189 exit ramps rights-of-way, both existing and planned, for Interstate 89 and Interstate 189, as depicted in Figure 10-1except within the City Center Form Based Code District.* * THE PREVIOUS draft had read: (2) all lands within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the Iinterstate 89 and Interstate 189 exit ramps rights-of-way, both existing and planned, as depicted in Figure 10-1except those within the City Center Form Based Code District. Procedures for adoption: The Council may make one or both of the changes above without changing the date of the public hearing. Any such amendments would be provided to the Planning Commission for public comment. Should the Council decide to make these changes after the public hearing (or within 14 days the hearing), it would need to warn a new hearing. Recommendations: 1. Staff recommends that the Council determine whether it wishes to pursue change #1 above, and if so, to vote to modify the draft amendments to the LDRs as presented. 2. Staff recommends that the Council pursue change #2 above and vote to modify the draft amendments to the LDRs as presented.