Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/28/2011SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 28 JULY 2011 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, 28 July 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Councilors Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery, J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; K. Murphy, City Manager’s Staff; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; J. Dinklage, M. Young, D. Sopp, E Farrell, T. Duff, R. Kay, P. O’Brien, R. Deslauriers, D. O’Rourke, B. Stuono, P. Nowak, J. Larkin, B. Gilbert Note: Ms. Emery chaired the opening of the meeting until the arrival of the Chair. 1. Agenda Review: Mr. Miller advised that the Council meeting scheduled for 15 August will be switched to 8 August and a special grievance hearing will be held on 15 August. Both meetings will begin at 7 p.m. Mr. Knapp moved to hold a regular City Council meeting on 8 August and a special grievance hearing on 15 August, both at 7 p.m. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda Items: No issues were raised. 3. Review and Possible Vote on Penalties for Late/Incorrect Homestead Declarations as Now Specified in Act 45 of the 2011 Legislative Session: Mr. Rusten reviewed the history of this item. He noted that the city wasn’t notified of the changes in the law until July. There must now be a decision as to whether to implement penalties in this fiscal year. Staff recommends that the penalties continue to be assessed for this year. Mr. Miller said the city received the notification after the tax bills went out, and the system is already in the middle of the previous method. Mr. Knapp moved to adopt the current practice with regard to collection of penalties for late/incorrect homestead declarations and to ratify collection of penalties already collected. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Note: Chair Dooley presided over the remainder of the Agenda. 4. Review of Public Input and Possible Adoption of Interim By-laws: Ms. Dooley read from the City Attorney’s memo. She noted that the public hearing is now closed, and this meeting is for the City Council. The Council should allow substantive comment from the public. If the Council wishes to take public comment, it will have to warn a new public hearing. Ms. Dooley then advised that a third option has been suggested by Mr. Knapp. Mr. Knapp said he felt the proposal for interim zoning was premature. He suggested that the city identify what study (studies) would be conducted, by whom, and at what range of costs the city would be willing to pay. He also suggested changing some language the proposed interim zoning resolution as follows: The language regarding PUDs would be struck. In its place would be language requiring that new PUD/Master Plans be subject to City Council review. This would include new residential PUDs with density more than twice what is allowed. Any project which includes affordable housing would be omitted from this review as would a project which preserves 50% of the lot for at least 20 years. These conditions would apply to C-1-R-12, C-1-R-15, Swift Street, Allen Road, and the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Knapp said he felt there is already an open space plan in place. He suggested that if a proposed development in an open space area exceeded more than 50% of the total lot, it would be subject to Interim Zoning. Regarding waivers, Mr. Knapp said he would limit restrictions to areas where abutting zoning is R-4 or above. This would not apply to any project for which a Master Plan is approved or preliminary approval has been granted prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance by the City Council. Ms. Dooley said this would not be a reduction in scope from the motion that was previously passed. Mr. Knapp said it is a complete change in concept. He felt growth can now be managed, and there are smart growth people willing to help with that. He stressed the need to be very clear in what is studied and how studies are conducted. He felt they must be conducted by professionals and must be able to stand legal challenge. Mr. Engels asked where TDRs might be used. Mr. Knapp suggested Williston Road, Hinesburg Road, Shelburne Road, Kimball Avenue….other main corridors. Mr. Conner noted that the R-1 PRD District, R-2, R-1 Lakeshore and possibly R-1 Lakeview Districts also can have increased density provisions. Ms. Dooley then asked Council members where they stand on the interim zoning issue. Ms. Emery said she felt it is not easy to find a solution to the issue of buffers which concerns her. She felt interim zoning was intended as an emergency measure. She also questioned leaning on an “open space strategy” as opposed to an “open space plan” were there to be an appeal. Mr. Conner noted there is one reference to the “open space strategy” in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). It references the natural resources within the “open space strategy.” Ms. Emery felt the language sounded like language that did not pass muster in the JM Golf case. Mr. Stitzel said he felt it could stand up since it ties into specific standards (e.g., stream buffers). Ms. Dooley noted that language applies only to the SEQ, and there is nothing comparable for the rest of the city. Ms. Emery said she is also very sensitive to affordable housing issues. She felt the DRB has worked very hard toward the goals of affordable housing, and she didn’t want to stifle attractive, livable housing such as the Kirby Cottages. Mr. Conner noted that 3 of the 7 units in that development meet affordable criteria. Ms. Greco said she was told that interim zoning was a tool to maintain the status quo while a vision is developed and there is time to evaluate and plan. She felt development has negatively affected the city, and there needs to be an understanding of the impact of the 1000 units already approved but not built. She felt development is affecting the environment and taxes. She felt the second interim zoning resolution was too narrow in scope and “saves trees while destroying forests.” She urged the Council not to vote at this meeting and to study Mr. Knapp’s proposal and others that were received. Mr. Engels said he liked Mr. Knapp’s thoughts and asked how they could move forward on his ideas. Ms. Emery said she prefers contiguous development, not small pockets of development. This would allow for bus lines, bike lanes, etc. Ms. Dooley said her proposal was based on things that don’t live up to what is in the Comprehensive Plan. She felt that LDR changes were made in 2003 which don’t protect existing neighborhoods (e.g., height waivers) and that there used to be better tools for protecting these neighborhoods. She also felt there hasn’t been consideration of open space protection in areas other than the SEQ. She said that interim zoning needs to address goals already in the Comprehensive Plan that are not served by the LDRs. With regard to Ms. Greco’s plan, Mr. Dooley said she thought it would have to be preceded by studies. Ms. Dooley asked the City Attorney what would have to happen to broaden the scope of the current Interim Zoning Resolution. Mr. Stitzel said a new public hearing would have to be warned as this would be a substantial change. Mr. Miller said that he hasn’t heard any discussion of the Traffic Overlay District and why that is in the draft. Ms. Dooley said it is included because of where these districts are located (Shelburne Road, Williston Road, and pieces of Dorset St., Hinesburg Road, and Kennedy Drive). The thought was whether to allow waivers that exacerbate traffic. Mr. Conner noted that staff took a very conservative view in this regard and considered anything where there was a modification. He explained how Traffic Overlay Districts work and how maximum traffic is figured for a development. The modification rule allows increased traffic in exchange for site modifications that offset the increased traffic (e.g., closing a curb cut, eliminating a drive-through, etc.). Mr. Miller said the waivers make developers do more of what the city wants, to make roads safer, etc. Ms. Dooley acknowledged this piece might “fall off” her list. Ms. Emery suggested traffic concerns should be looked at more in terms of LDRs instead of a study. Mr. Engels then moved to hold another public hearing to include Mr. Knapp’s thoughts after he has had a chance to work on them with the City Attorney. Ms. Greco seconded. Mr. Knapp felt they should strike everything and start from scratch. Ms. Emery said she didn’t see “option 3” as related to “option 2.” Mr. Engels offered to withdraw his motion. Ms. Greco, the seconder, opposed withdrawal. In the vote that followed, the motion was defeated 1-3 with Mr. Engels abstaining. Mr. Knapp then moved to withdraw Resolution 2. Mr. Engels seconded. The vote on the motion was 2-2 with Ms. Emery abstaining. Ms. Emery then moved to approve Resolution 2 with the following amendments: a) set an expiration date of one year from this day unless studies are 50% complete; b) that PUDs include study on the affect of affordable housing; c) remove traffic overlay districts from the resolution; d) that there be a re-vote after one year following input from staff. Ms. Dooley seconded. Mr. Miller noted this would be less inclusive than the resolution previously presented. Mr. Knapp said he felt this is still premature as there is no indication of what the studies would be. He cited the expense, loss of revenue to the city, and the substantial possibility of legal challenge. He also felt the city could adopt the 2002 open space plan. He added that anything that restricts PUDs is counterproductive to what the Council is trying to do. In the vote that followed, the motion was defeated by a vote of 2-3 with Messrs. Knapp and Engels and Ms. Greco opposing. Mr. Miller said that interim zoning has failed and is no longer in effect. Mr. Stitzel said that there is nothing currently before the City Council regarding interim zoning and the city is under the LDRs. 5. Executive Session: Mr. Knapp moved that the Council adjourn and reconvene in executive session to discuss personnel and real estate transactions and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Regular Session The Council returned to regular session. Ms. Emery moved adjournment. Mr. Knapp seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The council adjourned. _____________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.