Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/22/2013JOINT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION 22 JANUARY 2013 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 22 January 2013, at 5:00 p.m, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: City Council: R Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, H. Riehle, P. Mackenzie Planning Commission: J. Louisos, Chair; C Cole, B. Benton, T. Riehle, B. Stuono, T. Harrington, S. Quest Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. McLean, D. Rugh, City Attorneys; P. Dreyer, B. Saxton, A. McCrellis, J. Warren, G. Henderson-King, consultants; interim zoning committee members; M. Simoneau, J. Nick, J. Dinklage, P. & B. Nowak 1. Executive Session: Ms. Mackenzie moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, negotiations, real estate and litigation and to continue deliberative session on interim zoning applications. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Following the executive session, Ms. Mackenzie moved to exit executive session. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Mr. Miller: Attended the VEPC meeting with Ms. Blanchard and Mr Conner. It went well. Attended the City Managers’ luncheon with Mr. Rusten. The legislative update breakfast will be held on 28 January, at the Library, at 7:30 a.m. Ms. Murphy has decided not to retire and will continue as Librarian. Ms. Dooley: Attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting which included a presentation of the annual audit. Ms. Riehle: The Open Space Committee has completed its vision statement, priorities and action plan. Mr. Engels: The Form Based Codes Committee will meet this Thursday. Ms. Greco: Attended the DRB meeting. The Sustainable Agriculture Committee will meet this Thursday. 4. Consent Agenda: A. Sign Disbursements B. Consider approval of an Entertainment Permit - Magic Hat Brewery for February 1, 2013: Ms. Mackenzie moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Discuss City Council Options regarding DRB Decision on Methadone Clinic: Mr. McLean said that what is clear under Vermont law is that the Council cannot appeal the DRB decision. The Council may potentially intervene in an appeal to the Environmental Court, if an appeal is filed by the School District or citizen. Mr. McLean said they recommend intervening at a minimum to get copies of all filings, participation in mediation, conferences, etc. Historically, Mr. McLean said, in this situation, when the DRB has granted or upheld a permit, the city has not actively participated in an appeal of a decision. The city has monitored proceedings without intervening. Appeals to the Environmental Court are heard de novo, as if there had been no previous action by the DRB. The Court takes evidence and will apply the city’s land use regulations. The city can observe the proceedings, enter an appearance, to be sure the Court has correctly applied the regulations and that the Court has not exceeded its authority. The city’s legal counsel would follow what is going on and report back to city management and the City Council, but would not advocate actively on behalf of one side or the other. Ms. Meckler asked if the city can’t appeal that the decision is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, the TIF plan, etc. Mr. McLean said not in his experience, though those criteria do help determine if you are an interested party. Mr. Mayer asked if the DRB recognizes its liability in making their decision. He said there were state regulations that should have precluded the methadone facility from being in that location. Mr. Miller said there had been state legislation, but that expired 10 years ago. He added that the DRB is governed by state legislation as long as they stay within their authority. Mr. McLean explained that quasi judicial bodies like the DRB are potentially shielded from liability by judicial and qualified immunity as long as they act within the scope of their authority. This immunity covers them as a board and as individuals. Mr. Meyer asked if the city could pass a law to prohibit such a facility within 1000 feet of a school. Ms. Greco responded that there are some ADA considerations, involved, issues of discrimination. 6. Liquor Control Board: Ms. Dooley moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller presented a Class 2 Liquor License request from K-Mart, 947 Shelburne Road. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Class 2 Liquor License for K-Mart as presented. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved that the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Recess Regular Session to open Steering Committee Meeting: Ms. Dooley then moved to recess the meeting until 7 p.m. following the Steering Committee meeting. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Reconvene Regular Session with the Planning Commission: 8. Discuss Integration of Interim Zoning Committees, Planning Commission’s and City Council’s work: A. Community Visioning: Mr. Conner reviewed a series of maps including a 2011 image of what exists in the city, a pictorial example of existing development and what has been approved, a buildout analysis showing future development potential under present regulations, a future land use map from the Comprehensive Plan, and a draft future land use map (not a regulatory document). Ms. Riehle questioned how to delineate solar arrays. Mr. Conner said that is to be decided. He added that solar arrays are exempt from local regulations as are agricultural structures. Mr. Miller noted that there is concern among municipalities that natural resource areas are not totally in the control of municipalities. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns is looking at ways in which local priorities can be more of a factor in these areas. There is also controversy among communities because municipalities are already having problems siting utility installations. B. Synthesizing Interim Zoning Products: Ms. Louisos said the Planning Commission has discussed the fact that many committees are working on things that will eventually come through the Commission. Before that happens, it would be good to have a conversation as to how that could happen and how work can be integrated so groups are not working at cross purposes. Ms. Riehle questioned how to manage areas where different committees are at odds. Interim zoning consultants were then introduced and indicated which committees they are advising. Mr. Dreyer said the Form Based Codes Committee (FBC) is endeavoring to write LDRs for the City Center and eventually the whole city. He felt that stormwater concerns, affordable housing and transportation mobility all fit into that. The idea would be that the FBC would become the clearing house for all others so they can write an end product that encompasses everything. Mr. Dreyer said they are planning a week-long workshop to include meetings with stake holders, etc. He felt the committees should interface as much as possible. Ms. Quest commented that this is the first she has heard of what some of the committees are doing. Ms. Greco said the Planning Commission needs to speak with Mr. Dreyer about what form they want information in. Mr. Dreyer said they can write a code from any specific or general information. Ms. Greco said she envisioned having the community review options and give their input. Mr. Dreyer said that makes sense. Mr. Riehle said his question is how to put all this together. The Planning Commission is in the middle and he questioned what they should be doing to avoid “spinning our wheels.” Mr. Dreyer said one thing for sure is getting regular updates, especially from the FBC. Various subcommittees could report to the Planning Commission. They should all be interacting. He also felt that other subcommittee members should show up at FBC meetings as much as possible. Ms. Riehle said there are visions and strategies for the Open Space Committee that interact with other committees. They haven’t started yet to work on strategies or elicit public comment. She said it might be important for FBC and maybe Affordable Housing to review these to see how it all interfaces. She asked what the process would be for that. Ms. Dooley said they need to know how density fits into FBC, so Affordable Housing doesn’t spin its wheels working on density. Mr. Cole asked what the community would be reacting to. Ms. Mackenzie noted that each committee has a vision statement and she thought the community would be asked to respond to that. Ms. Greco said they could also react to work already done by the committees. Ms. Saxton said there will be some specific recommendations. Ms. Louisos asked when this visioning processing would occur. Mr. Dreyer said during the week-long workshop event, the week of 11 February. He added that anything that comes in to their committee will be put into the process. Mr. Stuono asked the time frame for all of this. Mr. Dreyer said they anticipate delivering a product over the course of the summer for passage in October. Mr. Stuono asked about development potential. Mr. Dreyer said that should fall into place if they do their job correctly. FBC is neutral on growth. It regulates where growth happens. Growth will decrease on “green fields.” Already disturbed areas will allow more density. FBC cares about how growth occurs. If growth occurs will depend on the market. FBC is a “very laissez­faire thing.” Mr. Riehle asked where the documents like the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan are going to be after this. Mr. Dreyer said those that don’t apply will be discarded. When it makes sense to merge, they will merge. As far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned, this process will inform the Comprehensive Plan. It will produce a map of predicted and enabled growth patterns. C. Process for synthesizing community visioning with Comprehensive Plan: Ms. Louisos noted that in 2011, the city readopted the 2006 Comprehensive Plan with a few changes. It is not that up to date. There has been a huge amount of work done on a new Comprehensive Plan. She said she hoped to learn how additional community visioning would get wrapped into all the work done on the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission over the past year. She added that it appears the visioning is not happening at the Planning Commission level but in the committees. She felt this was a “bit of a disconnect.” Mr. Cole said the LDRs are supposed to flow from the Comprehensive Plan, so the Planning Commission is stuck. He was not sure how to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan so as not to waste people’s time guessing what other people are doing. Ms. Louisos said she just learned 5 minutes ago that the FBC is doing a future land use map. Mr. Cole said it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to hear from the full committees. He added that it sounds like density is “out the window.” He asked if there would be a traffic overlay district and noted these are the things the Planning Commission has been working on. The Commission has also identified where it wants density to occur and asked how that aligns with FBC. Mr. Dreyer said that “if you say you want density where there is public transit, we can deal with that.” He said they can translate potential LDRs into FBC which is better than traditional LDRs. Ms. Greco said the question is what the Planning Commission does practically to participate in the process. Mr. Dreyer said the Planning Commission can get information and decide what to do with the information and feed that back to FBC. He felt it was critical for the Planning Commission to learn about FBC because in 4­6 months they will be “taking that FBC and tweaking it.” Mr. Cole said the process with the stormwater consultants has worked well. He felt the other committees should come to the Planning Commission because Commission members can’t get to meetings during the day. Ms. Greco thought it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to identify conflicts in the LDRs. Mr. Engles felt they should all meet at least once a month like this. D. Overall process flow of IZ work between IZ committees, Planning Commissin and City Council: Ms. Louisos said her concerns are that things are spread out so everything is not being done at once. She was also concerned with how best to use the Planning Commission time to mesh everything together. Ms. Greco said she thought the products of the various committees would go directly to the Planning Commission, then to FBC, then to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council. Ms. Quest said there should be some fairly close deadlines so the Planning Commission knows what’s happening. Ms. Henderson-King said she felt the visioning piece needs to happen first and the outcome of that will help all the committees refine and develop their work products. She noted that Sustainable Agriculture is not planning a public meeting until March. Mr. Engels said FBC has been meeting every other week since July. They anticipate coming out with their City Center work in March, so others can see what it looks like. There will be a template of what FBC looks like. Ms. Louisos noted the Planning Commission did a lot of community visioning regarding the Comprehensive Plan. They have 10 goals, objectives, etc. E. Are there items that the IZ Committees are not tackling: Mr. Miller identified a city Energy Policy and noted the city is working on that with the Energy Committee. He also cited the Stormwater work. Ms. Dooley noted that the Affordable Housing Committee would like to see smaller houses which use less energy. Mr. Stuono questioned how things like traffic, Airport, Exit 12B etc. will be incorporated into FBC. Mr. Dreyer said their team includes one of the foremost traffic experts in the world. They will be addressing that. They also address streets, connectivity and walkability. Mr. Stuono asked how FBC will affect existing neighborhoods and whether homes will become non-conforming. Mr. Dreyer said he would prefer to discuss that with the Planning Commission one-on-one. Ms. Louisos noted that things like Exit 12B are policy issues. She asked if there are policy questions that need to be answered to feed into FBC. Mr. Dreyer said not that he is aware of. He added that FBC is the “regulatory tool kit.” Mr. Riehle noted that the Planning Commission had a presentation from a developer regarding land not under interim zoning. They want taller buildings. He asked if the Planning Commission were to allow them to go to 5 stories, would that be in conflict with FBC. Ms. Greco said it may not be in conflict, but rewriting the LDRs now, if they’re going to be changed a year from now doesn’t make sense. Mr. Riehle asked how to respond to the developer. Does the Commission “put him off?” He felt there have to be some ground rules. Mr. Stuono asked if FBC will affect industrial areas. Mr. Dreyer said that remains to be seen. They’re not there yet. Ms. Dooley said she didn’t want to impeded development. Ms. Greco asked when there would be something city-wide. Mr. Dreyer said November or December. F. Council consideration of Open Space Vision and Goals: Mr. Miller felt the vision and goals were consistent with what other committees have put together and are approvable. Mr. Cole said he is struggling with “environmental stewardship.” Ms. Greco said she liked it the way it is. Ms. Harrington suggested a definition of what the “score card” is. Ms. Riehle said this is language used by the Natural Resources Committee. Ms. Dooley then moved to adopt the Open Space Vision and Goals with the modification that the language “incorporate Natural Resources criteria” is added in place of “score card.” Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller suggested using the actual name of the Natural Resources Committee document. He said staff will insert that and append it so it is part of this document. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. G. City Council Procedures for Interim Zoning Application Decision-Makin Ms. Dooley said she thought the Council is ready to have their decision making process occur in open session except when legal counsel is needed. Ms. Dooley then moved that the City Council procedure for interim zoning application decision making take place in public. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: 1. Items from Consent Agenda: There were no such items. 2. Bike Rack: There was no discussion. 3. Other: Ms. Harrington noted that the bike path on Kennedy Drive has no street lighting and it is hard to see when she bikes home from Planning Commission meetings. Also, a street lamp has been out for months. Ms. Dooley added that it is also dark driving on Kennedy Drive at night. Members agreed to add this to the bike rack. Ms. Greco noted that she received a threatening phone call from an individual who is known to carry a gun. The law says you can’t take the gun away from him, even with his history of issues. Ms. Mackenzie said it might make sense to have a presentation from the Police Chief. 10. Executive Session: Ms. Mackenzie moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel issues and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Regular Session: As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Riehle moved to adjourn. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned. ________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.