Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/16/2011CITY COUNCIL 16 MAY 2011 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Councilors Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery (arrived late), J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Assistant City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; Rep. M. Kupersmith; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; K. Murphy, City Manager’s Staff; L. Murphy, Community Library; Lt. J. Snyder, Police Department; R. Kay, C. Shaw, J. Clark, M. Beaudin, T. Duff, B. McDonald, R Reihle, Planning Commission; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; M. Young, S. Dopp, B. Stuono 1. Executive Session: Mr. Knapp moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously Regular Session: 1. Agenda Review: Agenda Item #14 was pulled from the agenda as this loan has been paid off, saving the city $4000.00 in interest. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda Items: Mr. Young asked where the $90,000 to pay the comp time and vacation time for the retiring bookkeeper is coming from. Mr. Miller said it will come from the General Fund over a 5-year period. He added that the city does not set aside fund for accrued sick leave, etc. Mr. Young asked if there is a dollar figure for other accrued time. Mr. Miller said he didn’t believe there are any other arrangements such as that one; however, when a person retires, that person is entitled to some comp/vacation/sick leave accruals that must be paid. There is a limit to the amount of vacation and comp time. There are no limits on sick leave accrual except that the City Manager does not, by agreement, get that benefit. Mr. Young also asked about increasing the pay for those who complete paramedic training and not collecting ambulance fees to support that. He said taxpayers had been told that the ambulance system would be self-supporting. Mr. Miller said the ambulance service was originally set up to be an “enterprise fund,” self­ supporting. There is a billing for ambulance services, but the city has never taken anyone who has not paid to a collection procedure. Mr. Miller noted that paramedic training will be completed in September. Adjustments have been made to the ambulance rate, and it is believed that this incremental service will be self- supporting, even possibly making some money. 3. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Ms. Greco said she was told that if the speed limit in the city matches the state speed limit, the city would get some money when a State Trooper writes a speeding ticket. Mr. Miller said he would check on this. Mr. Miller: Will be attending the conference for State Managers on Thursday and Friday. The Public Works Department is down 2 employees, and they are working to fill those positions. 4. First Reading of Amendment to Dog License Ordinance to Change the Registration Fees and Late Registration Fee: Ms. Kinville said she was surprised to learn that of the estimated 4500 dogs in the city only 600 are licensed, and only 100 cats are licensed. Ms. Kinville then reviewed the increase in fees as follows: For a spayed/neutered dog - fee goes from $10 to $20 For a dog that is not spayed/neutered - fee goes from $12 to $24 Other changes to the Ordinance include: 1. Changing the definition of a “vicious dog” to the wording used by VLCT. 2. Adding late fees ($10 in 2012; if an animal control officer has to go out, $50) 3. Adding a section to require confining a dog or cat in heat. 4. Adding a section on “humane care” of dogs and cats. Mr. Knapp moved to waive the first reading of the Amendments to the Dog License Ordinance. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Knapp moved to set a public hearing for 20 June 2011. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider for approval of the Ronald McDonald House Charities Grant: Ms. Murphy said the grant is for an early literacy station in the amount of $3520. This includes a 5-year warranty. The station features touch-screen computer programs for children between 2 and 10, which the children can do on their own. The programs are very useful for early literacy, school readiness, etc. Ms. Greco moved to approve submission of the grant application. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consider approval of Police Grant for Mobile Radios: Mr. Miller said there would be no city match for a grant of $7160 for 2 mobile radios the city would have had to pay for. Ms. Greco moved to approve submission of the grant application. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consider Approval of Police Grant for Mobile Data Terminals, Air Cards, and Optical License Plate Readers: Mr. Miller said the grant would be for $84,461.20 with no local match and would purchase 3 mobile data terminals with Internet access, and 2 optical license plate readers. This will result in a savings of $5000 in 2012 and a tremendous time saving. After 2012, there would be fees of $4500 plus $3200 (for the laser reader) but these can be paid for from fines, drug money, etc. Lt. Snyder said the License Plate Readers will allow them to have fast identification of stolen vehicles, etc. Mr. Knapp moved to approve submission of the grant application as presented. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consider Approval of Police Grant to Provide Funds for School Security Enhancements: Mr. Miller said the grant would be for $30,000.00 with a $30,000.00 match which is in the school budget. The grant would save having to spend that money in 2013. It would provide for cameras, enhanced security locks, etc. Mr. Knapp moved to approve submission of the grant application as presented. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Review the City’s Paving Bid Award for Fiscal 2012: Mr. Rabidoux said the low bidder for the paving contract was F. W. Whitcomb at $254,440.97. He said there is no reason not to accept that bid. Ms. Dooley noted that a Butler Drive resident requested that the Council not act on this until there can be a review of streets to be paved. Mr. Miller said that after looking at Butler Drive, he saw no imminent failure and felt the road is acceptable at this time. Ms. Dooley read the list of streets to be done in the coming fiscal year: White Street (portion)Swift Street (portion) Brigham Road Slocum Street Meadowood Drive Lupine Drive Pinetree Terrace Mr. Knapp moved to approve the award of the paving contract in the amount of $254,440.97, as presented. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consider Approval of Regional Sustainability Project-Steering Committee Agreement: Mr. Miller said this has involved the review and updating of the Regional Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Chittenden County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, and Burlington Legacy Action Plan. It is a partnership of 60 municipalities which requires no funding, only “in kind” time. Ms. Greco moved to approve the agreement as presented and authorize the City Manager to sign. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery arrived at the meeting at this time. 11. Consider Appointing a Representative and Alternate to the Newly Merged CCMPO and CCRPC, effective 1 July 2011 for a one-year term: Ms. Dooley said that the preference is for a representative who is a member of the elected body. Ms Dooley said she is willing to serve with Mr. Beaudin as alternate. He is agreeable to that arrangement. Mr. Stuono questioned whether South Burlington should have more than one vote. Ms. Dooley noted that on the RPC, each community has one vote; on the MPO, South Burlington has two votes. The plan is to continue with this arrangement, depending on what issue is being considered. Ms. Emery moved to appoint Sandy Dooley as representative to the joint RPC/MPO with Marcel Beaudin as alternate. 12. Public Hearing on Amending the peddlers Ordinance; second reading of same: Mr. Knapp moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner said this amendment is specific to farmers markets and would allow a sign a maximum of 8 feet tall and up to 32 sq. feet in size on each side. This is the same size as the UMall sign, which is frequently used to announce special events. There was no public comment. Mr. Knapp moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Knapp moved to waive the second reading and approve the amendment to the Peddlers Ordinance as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Discussion on Interim Zoning: Ms. Dooley said there have been concerns regarding how the city has developed in the past decade and the relationship between development patterns and how they relate to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner noted that under Vermont law, a municipality is not required to do long-term planning. South Burlington does, and it updates its plan every five years or so. South Burlington has had zoning regulations since the 1940’s, and these are also updated regularly. Mr. Conner also noted that a municipality has a lot of authority as to how development takes place; on the other hand, landowners have the right to economic benefit from their property. Denying a landowner that right is considered a “taking.” Interim zoning is allowed under emergency circumstances to make changes. It required a public hearing of the City Council. There is a 2-year maximum to interim zoning with A possible one year extension beyond that. There is also a requirement that a study be done during that time. Mr. Conner noted that the last time interim zoning was enacted in South Burlington was in 2005. It prohibited subdivision of property in the Southeast Quadrant for development purposes. At that time, the regulations allowed development in wildlife corridors and discouraged it in non-wildlife corridors. Mr. Engels asked if there is an open space plan in the city. Mr. Conner said there is, but it has never been formally adopted by the City Council. Mr. Engels said he understood that the city population has exceeded the projected figure by 25%. Mr. Conner said the census says the growth rate has been 1.9%. The recommendation was for 1.5% annually. That is about 25% higher than expected. Ms. Lafferty said there are 2 prerequisites for enacting interim zoning: 1. The city has to be conducting a study 2. The city has or is holding a hearing for an amendment to the by-law. The purpose of interim zoning is to maintain the status quo while the city “takes stock.” Interim by­laws don’t change the existing by­laws; they are in addition to them. Ms. Lafferty went on to say that the city must identify a potential land use issue. It must define the area of the city where it exists. It must determine whether the status quo must be maintained until changes can be made. And new regulations must be in place by the time interim zoning expires. The process for enacting interim zoning requires a public hearing with public notice (with 15 days warning). Ms. Emery asked where the majority of development has been going on. Mr. Conner said the largest number of units is on Farrell Street (in a compact area); the largest land use is in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). He showed these areas on the map. Mr. Engels said he felt what has happened to the area near the East Woods neighborhood is terrible. Ms. Greco said when she was running for office; a lot of people were vocal about development. She said that at DRB meetings she has heard people asking the DRB not to approve something because it would be a detriment to their neighborhood. She felt the city needs to consult with people who are fluent with “smart growth.” She also felt that land should be evaluated to see where it is suitable for farming. Ms. Dooley said she felt some of Ms. Greco’s concerns are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Dooley then enumerated her own concerns: 1. Affordable housing - the existing regulations make the providing of affordable housing voluntary. 2. PUD’s ­ can be approved on a lot of any size, which results of which undermine the Comprehensive Plan and the character of neighborhoods. 3. Regulations regarding non-conforming uses 4. The loss of housing because of the Airport’s buying up of affordable housing units; providing affordable housing in the Chamberlin neighborhood 5. Natural resources - there is a lot of attention to this in the SEQ but not in the rest of the city. Ms. Dooley said she is also concerned with how to fund this endeavor. Ms. Emery said she is concerned with neighborhoods. She noted that the city is divided by roadways, which provide a challenge to planning bodies. She said she would like to focus on traffic as there are more and more cars on the streets. She felt that with smart growth, the city could “nudge the market” to get more of what it wants. She said she was not anti-growth; however she was concerned that there should be some open space throughout the city. She was also concerned with PUDs on small lots and with requiring that housing have some road frontage. Mr. Knapp said he didn’t see where much of what the previous Councilors have stated as concerns could happen with 2 years of interim zoning. He also didn’t see how the city can pay for the required studies. He said he understands the concern but didn’t see it as an emergency situation that requires interim zoning; he would prefer to focus attention on a specific purpose. Mr. Beaudin said he didn’t disagree with anything that was said. He also felt that finding funds would be a problem. He noted that the Planning Commission wrestles with all of these issues all the time. Ms. Dopp felt growth was a concern even though it is not a “red flag” situation. She noted that this was the impetus for founding the South Burlington Land Trust. She noted that the Trust will be conducting a survey soon to ask the public to express its feelings about conservation, etc. Ms. Dopp felt that TDRs were a concern for the Land Trust. She said she personally supports them so that people can derive benefit from their land. The question is where to put the receiving areas and where to situate new growth. She was also concerned with loss of affordable housing in the Airport area and would like to see incentives to replicate that housing elsewhere, if possible. She noted that people come to South Burlington for its schools, restaurants, recreation, community feel, etc. She felt the city has to plan ahead so it can keep these attractions viable. Mr. Stuono felt that the fact that South Burlington has outpaced the rest of Chittenden County in growth is a red flag to him. He questioned the feasibility of suspending waivers or PUD subdivisions or all subdivisions. Mr. Young asked whether interim zoning would disband the DRB. Mr. Knapp said it would not; they would still handle everything else. Mr. Young said he felt that interim zoning would be just another layer of review that would drive up the cost of development and kill any chance for affordable housing in the city. Mr. Knapp added that it also forces everything into Act 250 and takes more time, both of which drives up the costs even more. He felt the city is not giving developers the opportunity to create truly affordable housing. Mr. Young said he thought “affordable housing” was a joke, just a hollow expression. Mr. Duff said he felt re-adoption of the Comprehensive Plan is the opportunity to work out a lot of the stated issues. He added that what he didn’t hear stated is the future of the city and what it can be for future generation. He said he wants a viable city for his children. He was very skeptical that there can be an “administrative solution to affordable housing.” He felt that was just wishful thinking. Mr. McDonald said the only way to get affordable housing is through density. He felt that what is needed is less frontage with smaller units and unique designs. He said that single family homes are a thing of the past. He also noted that the issues cited by the Council are addressed in the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. He stressed that this is an on-going process and there will always be challenges. He said the city should celebrate the fact that people want to live in it. Mr. Shaw said he agreed with both Mr. Duff and Mr. McDonald. He felt that issues around non-conformity can be worked out. He didn’t see any of this as an “emergency.” Mr. Reihle said he felt South Burlington is being taken advantage of from a traffic point of view. He didn’t see any way to stop that. Ms. Clark noted that a lot of the issues mentioned are in the Planning Commission’s work plan list. She stressed that traffic on the city’s roads comes from people driving through the city from places like Hinesburg. Mr. Kay noted that a year ago there had been a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that doing this again may be an opportunity to prioritize goals. He also noted that the Commission has been looking at several things to put forth in zoning, including extending TDR receiving areas elsewhere in the city. Rep. Kupersmith suggested that it would be interested to have this discussion statewide. Mr. Knapp said he had not heard anything that would suggest an emergency condition or any idea of how to pay for any studies. He also said that if the Grand List doesn’t grow, it will cost people more in taxes. He added that he trusts the Planning Commission and they are committed to dealing with issues. Ms. Emery cited the work load of the Planning Commission and the DRB. She felt there was a need for prioritization. She felt the Council could carefully form specifics to work on, including open space throughout the city, the character of neighborhoods, and transitions. Ms Greco said the whole thing is about the future and that if the city doesn’t do anything, “things will happen to us.” She saw a need for thoughtful strategic planning so the city isn’t at the mercy of developers. She said it pains her to see the city being paved over, and she wanted to see interim zoning city-wide. Mr. Conner reminded the Council that anything put on a piece of land (e.g., a fence, pool, porch, etc.) is “development.” Mr. Rusten noted that two things are being discussed as interchangeable: policy issues (what you want to talk about) and what the Council wants to restrict. Ms. Lafferty drew the Council’s attention to the #1 interim zoning criteria: to identify a specific issue with land use. Ms. Dopp said she was concerned with wholesale consumption of land and suggested the possibility of a certain number of permits per year. Ms. Greco said she wanted no new structures at all. Ms. Emery felt that might be too much to do and added that “the sky is not the limit.” She felt a compromise might be needed. She questioned how much employee time the Council wanted to monopolize with interim zoning. She said her priorities would be: rebuilding a non-conforming use so that it conforms, PUDs and density, and open space throughout the city (possibly exempting the SEQ). Ms. Dooley said she felt the Council needed more information on options, something less than no new construction. Mr. Miller said if the Council can’t reach consensus, they should consider continuing the discussion to another night. He felt there are 3 viewpoints that don’t overlap, and he didn’t feel the Council was moving toward any draft interim zoning by­law. Mr. Rusten suggested the Council focus on what they want to restrict vs. what they want to study. He suggested that for the next meeting member each bring in 5 concrete things they want to restrict for a year. Ms. Emery then moved to request staff to examine potential language to use for potential interim zoning or other strategies they would consider more effective to address: PUDs, with respect to neighborhood character, open space throughout the city based on the 2002 open space study, non-conforming uses and structures, replacing the loss of housing in the Chamberlin district, possibly restricting areas west of Chamberlin to allow only residential uses, and density. Ms. Greco seconded. Mr. Conner reminded the Council that any plan that has already been submitted as a preliminary or final plat is vested. He also felt a few of the issues in Ms. Emery’s motion need more specificity. Mr. Beaudin suggested the possibility of several interim zoning periods. He noted this action can affect thousands of jobs. Mr. Conner then identified some of the large parcels remaining in the city including: UVM lands, the area behind the Windjammer, both sides of Hinesburg Rd. north of Oak Creek Village, the area near the railroad west of Shelburne Road, and an area along Old Farm Road. Ms. Lafferty suggested that the Chamberlin area was more of an issue for a study. Mr. Conner noted there is no imminent problem there because homes are the only thing allowed there (4 per acre). Mr. Miller suggested restricting development unless it had a certain number of affordable units. Mr. Beaudin noted that had worked successfully in the City of Burlington and throughout the country. This was suggested as a friendly amendment. Ms. Greco said she would not second that amendment. In the vote that followed, the motion was approved 4-1 with Mr. Knapp voting against. 15. Review and Approve Minutes of 25 April and 2 May 2011: In the minutes of 25 April, item agenda item #7 was amended to eliminate the first line. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Minutes of 25 April as amended. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Minutes of 2 May as written. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 17. Liquor Control Board: Ms. Emery moved that the Council meet as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller presented Liquor and Tobacco License applications from Vermont Soup Company and Quarry Hill Club. He said they were both in order. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Liquor and Tobacco License applications of Vermont Soup Company and Quarry Hill Club as presented. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 18. Other Business: Mr. Engels asked if members wanted to set a date to discuss the trauma services he had mentioned at the last meeting. Mr. Miller said he would work with the Chair to see when to put it on an agenda. Mr. Miller said the application deadline for boards and commissions is 23 May. The question of what to do to celebrate the anniversary of Red Rocks Park was raised. Mr. Miller suggested waiting until the flood waters have receded since they can’t do any work on paths, etc., until they can see what is there. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. _____________________________Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.