Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/27/2010 (2)SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 27 JULY 2010 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 July 2010, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: R. Kay, Chair; C. Shaw, L. Fife, T. Duff, B. McDonald, J. Clark, M. Beaudin Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Miller, City Manager; City Council members: M. Boucher, S. Dooley, F. Murray, M. Emery, J. Knapp; I. Donahue, J. Simson, A. Clift, S. Dopp, B. Stuono, M. Young, K. Donahue, C. Hafter, R. Greco 1. Motions for Joint Meeting: Mr. Duff moved that the Planning Commission meet in joint session with the City Council. Mr. Beaudin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved that the City Council meet in joint session with the Planning Commission. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boucher noted this is the first time in 5 years that the 2 boards have met together. 2. Open to the Public for Items Not Related to the Agenda: Ian Donahue noted that he had given the information on electric savings to the Planning Commission. In addition, Public Works has said they would look into it. Mr. Simson noted the new “Welcome to South Burlington” signs paid for by the Rotary. He said they look great. 3. 2011 Comprehensive Plan: A. The Comprehensive Plan: Statutory Requirements and Existing Plan: Mr. Conner said a Comprehensive Plan is not required, but if a community doesn’t have one it cannot enact or amend zoning regulations and would not have access to certain grant opportunities. Per State law, the plan needs to be prepared by the Planning Commission and then go on to the City Council. Both boards are required to hold public hearings. It is ultimately up to the City Council to adopt the Plan. A comprehensive plan expires in 5 years. South Burlington’s Plan will expire in March, 2011. It can be re-adopted as it is or can be changed. It may also be submitted for regional approval, which Mr. Conner believes every community in the Region has done. Mr. Conner said it is a good policy for a community to have a plan as it is needed in a number of instances: creating a capital budget, applying for state and federal grants, creating zoning regulations, etc. A plan must include 10 elements: 1- A statement of objectives 2. A land use plan and map 3. A transportation plan and map 4. A utility/facility plan and map 5. A statement of policies on preservation of rare natural areas, scenic and historic features, etc. 6. A plan and map of educational facilities 7. A recommended program for the implementation of objectives 8. A statement of how the plan relates to development trends 9. An energy plan 10. A housing element He noted that for a plan to be regionally approved, it must also be consistent with a series of 17 statewide planning goals, and directed the Commission and Council members to the list in a handout in their packets. Mr. Conner the reviewed the proposed structure of the new Comprehensive Plan. It will have four parts: 1. An executive summary 2. A vision statement and top goals 3. Objectives, policies and implementation and future land use chapter 4. A community assessment including: A. Blue infrastructure (water) B. Grey infrastructure (transportation) C. Green infrastructure (natural resources) D. Social infrastructure (the human element) Mr. Conner noted that the existing plan has several pages of goals under different headings (e.g., Housing) followed by policies relating to those goals. The problem is that every policy effects more than one goal. To address this, the Planning Commission decided to come up with a “Top Ten” goals for the city (this is now reduced to 9), and these will be the umbrella under which all policies fall. There is no order of preference to the goals. c. Review Working Draft of the Plan’s Top Goals and Overall Direction: Mr. Kay asked Council members if the goals make sense. Ms. Dooley said she found the analysis included in the packets very helpful and commended staff and the Planning Commission. Goal: Be affordable with housing for households of all incomes, structures, and stages of life throughout the city Mr. Murray questioned whether the goal for affordable housing for households of all incomes, etc. was achievable. Ms. Emery cited the statewide planning goals. She felt South Burlington was struggling to find ways to provide safe and affordable housing that is not next to a highway. She added that she personally believes in diverse neighborhoods. Ms. Dooley said she finds it hard to understand what this would look like. She also said she would like to see something measurable for a goal. Mr. Conner said the next level in the Plan is for “objectives” which would include the measurable element. Mr. Boucher said part of the reason the city has a housing crisis is that it has such good schools and is such a good place to live. He questioned whether the city wants to do away with that in order to have affordable housing. Mr. McDonald said if something is easy to achieve, it shouldn’t be a goal. This is difficult to achieve, but it is something that should be worked toward. Mr. Conner noted the city is submitting a grant application to develop a housing plan. Goal: Have a well-defined community with existing neighborhoods reinforced by pedestrian-friendly new neighborhoods, mixed use corridors, employment centers and open space Mr. Fife asked what is meant by “community.” He felt it was appropriate to encourage some high-rise residences for single people, couples without children, etc. He said times are difference and there are people who are comfortable without the standard family structure. He also felt the economy would drive what the city gets. Mr. Conner said there has been a lot of effort at the school level, the Recreation Department, etc., to foster a sense of community in South Burlington. The city’s disparate geography is a challenge. Mr. Murray felt that Mr. Fife had some good points, especially with regard to the future. Mr. Boucher said there isn’t a community feel of “South Burlington.” You do get it in individual neighborhoods and in the schools. Mr. Murray said that once kids leave school, there’s an isolation again. Ms. Dooley said she didn’t feel the city had a coherent identity. Mr. Duff suggested deleting the words “well­defined” from the goal. Goal: Establish a mixed use City Center as a focal point of the community. All members agreed with this goal. Goal: Protect important natural areas, open spaces aquatic resources, air quality, viable agricultural resources, and recreational assets. Mr. Knapp said they need to be sure goals don’t become “bullet points” so that someone focuses on one instead of having the goals interrelate. He stressed the continuing relationship between goals throughout the plan in order to reinforce this intent. Goal: Support a safe and efficient transportation system that connects diverse neighborhoods and prioritizes pedestrian, bicycle and transit supportive land use over automobile-dependent uses: Mr. Boucher said he had a problem with this, and in particular the term “over.” Ms. Dooley said Williston Road is very pedestrian unfriendly, and the only way to fix it would be to slow traffic down. She felt the city would have to face those choices. Mr. Knapp felt that you can’t stop “auto­dependent” use. Mr. Boucher said the city has to acknowledge that it is a community that people will pass through. Ms. Clark said this gives clout for clustering development near public transit or in the City Center, etc. Mr. Conner questioned whether there are land uses where the city could provide incentives for people to build housing near city services. He cited Tilley Drive where a land use predated any transit to get people there. This forces added fees on taxpayers. It was suggested that the goal could be amended to support pedestrian, bicycle, and transit together with the automobile. Goal: Provide effective and community-oriented education, safety infrastructure and recreation services alongside transparent and accessible government operations. Members agreed with this goal. Goal: Reduce energy consumption from all sources and foster appropriate renewable energy production. Mr. Boucher expressed concern that such a goal could make it difficult for a good employer to enter the city based on the fact that it would use energy. It was suggested that the language could return to reducing energy consumption per capita. Members suggested adding “non­renewable” after the word reduce. Mr. Conner noted that the current plan is silent on energy production. Mr. Kay suggested changing the word “sources” to “users.” Goal: Support a diverse and vibrant economy built on quality jobs and a supportive educational and research system. Members agreed with this goal. Goal: Be a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and statewide community. Mr. Conner said this includes recognizing that the city is a transportation and commercial focal point of the area. Mr. Fife asked whether this means having to build the kinds of roads and infrastructure that allows people to get through this city into Burlington and out and around. He felt economic growth should be encouraged in the city. He felt it would be a disaster if Whole Foods went elsewhere. He said sometimes he feels the city suffers from provincialism and that people think everything will be the same as it was 50 years ago. He said he would even suggest South Burlington rejoin Burlington again. He noted that around the country communities are joining together to be one economic area. Mr. Beaudin said that when he studied planning, he was told to look ahead. He said he believes that the lack of affordable housing is a cause of sprawl. He also felt that communities should find ways to subsidize affordable housing by providing incentives to build it. Mr. Murray said he felt the goals are hard to argue with (“motherhood and apple pie”). Mr. Shaw said he felt the goals are general goals. He felt there would be a possibility of the city being brought into court if goals are too specific. He questioned whether there was a special way to address Airport goals as the Airport will drive growth and sprawl if there isn’t affordable housing in South Burlington. Mr. Conner said one of the ways the Commission hopes to address that in the next phase is to identify physical and topical areas that are in need of research and planning. Mr. Shaw cited the loss of housing near the Airport and the possibility of replacing it with hotels so that people would be saying: “I lost my hone and now a work in a hotel where my house was.” He said he welcomes what the Airport brings to the city but hopes it can be managed to the city’s benefit. Mr. Kay noted that nothing can happen unless the city changes the zoning around the Airport. d. Public Comment: Mr. Stuono said he was impressed this as a great first step. He felt that on p. 7 of the goals analysis prepared by staff, under traffic issues, he would like a separate bullet item on improving traffic on Shelburne and Williston Roads. On p.11, he wanted to remove “as Exit 12B.” He felt it would create an unsafe situation on Hinesburg Road. He also felt the newly proposed connection from Winooski might solve the 12B problem. Mr. Stuono also wanted to see a more direct reference to a proactive approach to attracting businesses that the city wants. He asked how the plan would be implemented. Mr. Conner said that would be many-faceted, including: zoning regulations, housing tools, meetings with builders, etc. Ms. Clift noted that the ability of people to work from their homes is not addressed. She questioned whether the balance between commercial/residential is still important in view of Act 68. Mr. Conner said the a study has concluded that on a community by community basis, there is less impact from Act 68 than there was 12 years ago. The split between commercial and residential is equally important on a statewide basis. Ms. Dooley noted that non-residential property increases in value at a slower rate than residential. She felt it might be good to consider an increase in the commercial percentage so residents don’t wind up paying more taxes. Mr. Miller felt they would have to be very careful of that. Mr. McDonald said there is a completely different appraisal system for commercial and residential properties. Commercial is based mostly on income stream. Ms. Dopp said she was glad to see goals trying to balance each other. She noted the attempt to balance the fact of South Burlington’s topography, geography, three major corridors, and its “servicing” of Burlington with a sense of identity and a sense of community. She said these are opposing factors in many ways. She did feel that in the last 20 years people are identifying more with South Burlington. She felt that because there are so many things the city can’t control, it has to control what it can. She felt the city doesn’t have to be “just a corridor.” It has to think about what it wants to be. Mr. Hafter said 15 years ago towns did a comprehensive plan because it was nice to do. Then the courts gave a comprehensive plan more legal status. He felt the city has to write a plan with enough qualifiers to people will understand. He stressed having the City Attorney review the plan to assure there is nothing that will get the city pinned down to something it doesn’t want. Mr. Young felt the plan should be straight-forward, plain reading. He didn’t want to see roads become unattractive in order to encourage bikes or because someone prefers an alternative. Kevin Donahue felt the goals were laid out well. He noted that a lot of things, not only housing, has become less affordable. He questioned what it means to make something affordable. He noted that it takes a level of income to keep up a home. He said he was seeing more and more homes in disrepair. He felt there has to be a standard in the city. Mr. Conner noted that some of the city’s infrastructure is reaching the end of its lifetime. This will be an ongoing issue just to keep up with what the city has. Ms. Clift said she felt most commercial buildings are utilized and there is very little vacancy. She felt the city should be proud of itself. Ms. Dopp said she felt there is a lot of vacant commercial space. Mr. Conner said commercial buildings are less full than 3 years ago but not nearly to the extent that they are nationwide. He felt it would take a few years for the empty space to get filled up. Mr. Donahue said there is a lot of 1200 sq. ft. space which used to be grabbed up. Mr. Young said he believed the city needed a facility (aquatic/fitness, etc.) that is community based rather than a new City Hall. Ms. Greco felt the proposed plan is a commendable document. However, she didn’t see what makes South Burlington unique. She felt that is what the city should preserve and build around. She was concerned with watering down things so they hold up legally. Mr. Conner noted the Planning Commission will be working on the Comprehensive Plan on the second and fourth Tuesdays. All documents regarding the Plan are on the website. Ms. Emery moved to adjourn the joint meeting. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Regular Session for City Council The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, 27 July 2010, at 9:55 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager 1. Consider Approval of Special Event Permit for the Ground Round, 13 August 2010: Mr. Miller presented a special event permit for the Ground Round for an event to be held of 13 August 2010. He said the permit was all in order. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Special Event Permit for the Ground Round as presented. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Executive Session: Ms. Emery moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel issues and negotiations and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. As there was no further business Mr. Knapp moved for Council adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council adjourned. _________________________________ Clerk of Planning Commission __________________________________ Clerk of City Council Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.