Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/11/2012CITY COUNCIL 11 DECEMBER 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, at 5:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, H. Riehle Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; Chief T. Whipple, Police Department; Chief D. Brent, Fire Department; T. Hubbard, Recreation Director; I. Blanchard, J. Ladd, C. LaRose, K. Murray, City Hall; J. Louisos, S. Quest, Planning Commission; G. Maille, M. Mittag, L. Michaels 1. Agenda Review: Members agreed to have the appointment of Library Board members on the next agenda. 2. Continued Discussion of City Council Priorities: Airport Related Issues: Members agreed to add the noise exposure map, noise compatibility program, and Airport improvement program to their priorities. They agreed to work through the city's representative to the Airport Commission to get information to address these concerns. They also agreed to continued dialog with VTANG and to continue to participate in the Airport Strategic Planning Committee. Mr. Maille noted that the Airport is required to present the noise exposure map to the community and to solicit City Council and public comment. He added that he would like to see monthly updates from the city's Airport Commission member and to have the public be able to ask questions. Members agreed to have "regular updates, no less than quarterly." Transportation: With regard to expanding "complete streets," Mr. Engels noted that the Form Based Codes Committee is including this in its work. Ms. Dooley noted that "walkability" came up repeatedly in the Affordable Housing community meetings. Mr. Conner added that "complete streets" is referred to in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Members agreed to continue to "support bike path connections." With regard to conducting the Shelburne Road corridor study, Mr. Rabidoux said the final report will be available by the end of the month. Members changed the word "conduct" to "review" the study. With regard to potential I-89 interchanges, Mr. Miller noted that if these are taken out of the Comprehensive Plan, there may a problem with the Environmental Impact Study on Market Street and the TIF District. These were taken into account for both of these projects. Ms. Dooley said her understanding is that the ECOS project approach is to look for alternatives to roads. Mr. Miller said roads are expensive, so it is important to look at alternatives as well as at new roads. ECOS does contemplate that there will be new roads. Ms. Dooley noted that there was a scoping study for the Hinesburg Road potential interchange (12B). She said she asked the Regional Planning Commission to say to the feds that South Burlington was reviewing its position on 12B, and it might not continue to be in the plan. She was told the study is good for 5 years, so the RPC will wait to see what the city decides. Mr. Rabidoux said the RPC is looking for a sense of priorities from the city. In the interim, others have asked South Burlington to assign priorities to the projects. Mr. Conner added that the Planning Commission has discussed this generally in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. It will be an appropriate discussion when zoning in that part of the city is discussed. Members agreed that if it will help the TIF district, they would go with "discuss" the potential additional interchanges. With regard to the "intermodal transportation facility," Ms. Dooley said that CCTA Board is unanimous in opposition to use of federal mass transit funds for this purpose. They feel it does not contribute to redirection in use of cars/traffic and wouldn't contribute to use of mass transit. She asked if that opposition is a "death knell." Mr. Miller said it is not. There is a lot of interest in the facility from Senator Leahy. CCTA sees this competing with them for the same sources of funding. Mr. Rabidoux noted that the state has raised some of the same concerns as CCTA. He also noted there will be a presentation on the scoping study in January. Members agreed to take it off the priority list. With regard to determining the overall city transportation strategy, Ms. Dooley said she saw the need for major east-west connections (e.g., Swift Street). She didn't think connecting neighborhoods enhances community sense or walkability. She felt they need to look at that again to see if it improves the quality of life. Ms. Greco added that roads don't connect neighborhoods; walking and biking do. She felt roads just become "cut-thrus." Mr. Engels felt that connecting neighborhoods should make driving less necessary. He noted that on a normal grid of streets, everyone is connected. Members agreed to keep this on the list of priorities. Ordinances and Codes Enforcement: Mr. Miller said the city would have to hire a firm to go thorough its ordinances and codes and update/reconcile contradictions. Money for this could be in the "computerization of records" fund. Ms. Kinville said she has talked with companies that do this kind of work. Her office is now scanning all the ordinances (several hundred). Mr. Maille asked if there isn't a historical keeping of ordinances. Mr. Miller said that is not the issue. There are, for example, noise ordinances which don't coincide or don't say what the city needs them to say today. This goes beyond cataloging. He estimated the cost of the work to be between $40,000 and $60,000. He said there is money for this without touching taxpayer money. Ms. Greco asked if there is enforcement of ordinances. Mr. Miller said there is. He said there is a question of whether to update fines to make them more of a deterrent. He added if this is a priority, staff will work on it. Members agreed this is a priority. They also noted there has been public interest in adding or updating codes/ordinances relating to littering, energy and idling. Members agreed to allow staff to wordsmith the language for this priority. Mr. Miller suggested the Council wait for a rewritten copy before prioritizing items. Railroad Crossing: Mr. Miller noted this is still be worked on. Possible Additional Priorities: With regard to new priorities, Mrs. Greco noted the possibility of a renewable energy priority. Ms. Louisos said that when a developer comes to the Planning Commission regarding a solar installation, the Commission has no policy to rely on. Ms. Quest noted that a 20% reduction in emissions is in the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested asking the Energy Committee to craft a policy. Ms. LaRose noted that the Energy Committee sprang from the Natural Resources Committee. Both are very interested in being included in these discussions. Ms. Greco questioned whether "Path to Sustainability" should be a priority. Mr. Miller said this is how the ECOS grant was worded. Ms. Riehle said they have to be clear it's not "total sustainability." There is still a need for markets, etc. Mr. Rabidoux suggested having Mr. Miller ask staff to rank priorities when they are rewritten. 3. Discuss City Council Procedures: With regard to meeting procedures, Mr. Engels felt the Council is doing well at not having "side conversations." The need to talk into microphones was emphasized. Ms. Dooley said she was troubled by what Ms. Mackenzie said about things being said in executive session. Mr. Engels questioned whether interim zoning deliberations should be in open session. With regard to individual contact with staff. Mr. Greco said she thought the purpose was to free the City Manager and Deputy City Manager from too much conflict. Mr. Miller said they don't want to prevent contact regarding questions, etc. He didn't feel this was a major problem for staff. 4. Follow Up to Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting per Paul Conner's memo: Ms. Louisos questioned whether the Commission should move ahead in light of other things going on with interim zoning. She suggested that perhaps what they decide should be in the form of a "recommendation" rather than a "rule." Mr. Engels said that from the point of view of the Form Based Codes Committee, he felt it was a waste of the Commission's time to make changes now as these changes will be "superfluous." Ms. Dooley disagreed. She said some of the proposed changes, such as "buildable area" were proposed before interim zoning. She felt that the LDRs are so permissive in some ways they give little space for affordable housing. Mr. Engels felt that under Form Based Codes there will be no such things as "PUDs" or "TDRs." Ms. Dooley said she wasn't convinced that would be the result. She felt they have to get all groups together to see what works for all of them. Mr. Michaels said there are others who want to weigh in on this. He said that from the standpoint of interim zoning, his feeling is that the city has hired consultants who are putting in time with committees. Any LDR changes, regardless of whether they impact committees or not, should wait until information is brought forth by the consultants. Ms. Riehle felt that public hearings were a way for the Planning Commission to get public input. Mr. Michaels responded that what comes forward at Planning Commission meetings may conflict with what comes from consultants. He felt it should all be brought forward together. Ms. Greco felt the more people who participate, the better. She noted the Planning Commission meets in the evening and the committees in the daytime. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Riehle moved to adjourn. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Clerks Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.