Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/15/2015 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 15 DECEMBER 2015 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, 15 December 2015, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Nowak, Chair; H. Riehle, C. Shaw, M. Emery, T. Chittenden ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; C. LaRose, City Planning; J. Louisos, T. Harrington, A. Klugo, S. Quest, Planning Commission; M. Simoneau, S. Dopp, E. J. Necrason, G. Shelerin, A. Crocker, D. Leban, G. Sproul, J. Kochman, W. Nadeau, T. Papp, P. St. James 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing: Mr. Shaw moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Louisos noted that there was a quorum of the Planning Commission present and that no business of that Commission would take place. Public comment then followed: Mr. Necrason: Regarding east west roads, he felt that roads shouldn’t be on the official map without further investigation. He questioned whether if a developer develops that land he would have to build the road. Ms. LaRose explained that there is a state process by which a developer is compensated for a public amenity and that being on the map doesn’t mean the road has to be built or that it won’t be built. Mr. Necrason asked for the statute to research this. He also asked to see any RFP that might be done if a consultant is hired to do a study relating to the Swift Street Extension. He felt that any study should include a new environmental assessment, wildlife inventory, and traffic study. Ms. Nowak asked that specific comments be provided to the Council and/or City Manager in writing. Ms. Shelerin: Was concerned with “so many wheels spinning” with things being handled by various groups and going very fast. Ms. Nowak explained that there are some deadlines, particularly a March deadline for approval of a revised Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Shelerin expressed concern with the extension of Swift Street. Ms. Crocker: Asked that the description of Wheeler Nature Park on p. 2‐31 be changed to read: “….intended to be conserved in perpetuity.” With regard to Swift Street Extension, she noted there are people on both sides of the issue. Her concern is that there are private developers in discussion now for developments that would require that road to be built. She questioned whether that road is on the map just to make development happen. Ms. LaRose explained that the official map doesn’t mandate a road be built or not. Even if it were not on the map, the DRB could require it to be built. At the DRB level, a road is reviewed at a “micro level” for the impact it has as a benefit or as a burden. A complete study would include such things as how much further an ambulance would have to travel to reach certain areas of the city or how much further people have to travel between neighborhoods, etc. Ms. Louisos noted that the Planning Commission did include a strategy to redo some of the earlier studies. Mr. Shaw noted that Section 3-36/37 has the rationale for that road. Ms. LaRose added that section 2-66 specifically references Swift Street Extension. Ms. Crocker asked to add to the strategy on p. 2‐63 “…and expand the analysis to include environmental impact.” She also asked to “soften” the language on p. 2‐68 which reads: “…long been identified as an important east‐west connector.” She felt the stated purposes of the road may not be appropriate now. Ms. Kochman: Felt the Plan is a “magnificent document.” Asked that some items suggested by the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee to included. Ms. Leban: Cited the difficulty of balancing two “conflicting goods,” namely an efficient transportation system and conservation of resources. She also noted that traffic also contributes to air quality issues. She felt that any study of Swift Street Extension should by more than a traffic planner. She felt it would require a very expensive bridge to cross the wetland; otherwise a road would have to go around, which would involve taking land from Wheeler Nature Park. Ms. Leban also cited the need for a rec path from Butler Farms to Veterans Park and the need to adopt a “model lighting ordinance” to give clear direction to developers and to make it easier for the city to maintain lighting in the future. Mr. Simoneau: Noted that when Dorset Farms was being marketed, the road was already part of the official map. He said it was put there because people looked to the future. Today, it would be required as a secondary access. He suggested keeping it on the map, though he shares the concerns with such a road. He felt it is prudent to look at the big picture and felt there should be a study before any road happens. Mr. Nadeau: Asked who would initiate a study of Swift St. Extension. Mr. Dorn said it is not known what Act 250 would require. Ms. LaRose said that in a project of more than 9 units, an Act 250 review is required by the state and Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Papp: They are building a home in Butler Farms. He noted a development in Re Meadow with a “straight shot” road.” He felt this will become a “drag strip.” He felt if there isn’t going to be a Swift St. Extension, that other road could be made more “winding.” Ms. Dopp: Noted that ideas on road widths have changed as have environmental issues. She felt the city shouldn’t necessarily adhere to a standard that was in vogue years ago. Mr. St. James: Felt the quality of life for people in the Village at Dorset Park should be the #1 consideration. He cited the issue of people closest to the proposed Extension being able to open their windows in warmer weather. Ms. Harrington: There are a lot of unknowns. She added that there is a process that takes into account impacts on wildlife, archeology, etc. There was no further public comment. Mr. Shaw moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. City Council Work Session on Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Shaw expressed concern that there are only 2 mentions of Form Based Code in the Plan. He suggested a general discussion including what it means for City Center and a map with the Form Based Code area. Ms. LaRose noted that the Council can make changes before they warn a second public hearing. Any changes have to go back to the Planning Commission so they can attest that they are in accordance with state law. Mr. Dorn added that there needs to be consensus on any changes. Mr. Chittenden asked that under 1‐1, Vision and Goals, under the second bullet under Affordable and Community Strong, instead of ‘maintain’ it read ‘maintain or improve (or enhance).’ Ms. Nowak was uncomfortable with the use of the word “implement” under housing strategy #4 on p. 216. She felt the city was not at the “implement” stage for some of these items. She was particularly concerned with the section of “family definition.” Ms. LaRose said staff can put together some other language for this. Mr. Klugo suggested something like: “…foster innovative approaches which may include….” Ms. Nowak asked that the City Attorney look at the “family definition” language. Ms. Riehle raised the question of appropriate language regarding aquifers on p. 2-86. She noted that for some homes, there is not place they would get water if there were to be development that affected aquifers. Ms. Nowak commented that the use of “forceful” words can imply that the city will do these things, and there may be things which the city cannot afford or hasn’t the time to do. Ms. Emery asked about the language regarding Wheeler Nature Park and conservation in perpetuity. Mr. Dorn said the City Attorney will have an opinion on what that vote meant. Members agreed to wait for that opinion. In Sections 2‐52 and 2‐65, members agreed to add language relating to “noise” and “air quality” to the list of things related to quality of life. Ms. Emery asked for a specific objective addressing noise and air quality. Ms. Emery and Ms. LaRose will get together to work on that language. Members then reviewed public comments as follows: They agreed to accept Ms. Kochman’s comments. Regarding comments from the Energy Committee, specifically the removal of “where appropriate,” Mr. Dorn noted that the City Council wants a say on where solar installations are. If you take out the “where appropriate,” the opportunity for that input can be lost. Ms. Louisos said the Planning Commission discussed this and felt it was important that the Public Service Board doesn’t get to page 1 and say, “They’re all for it.” It was noted that there are places in the Plan which indicate where such installations are not appropriate. Members agreed to leave “where appropriate” in the language. (As aside, Mr. Dorn announced that an agreement has been reached on the solar installation at the Landfill.) With regard to Ms. Crocker’s comments, members felt they should wait for the City Attorney’s opinion regarding the conservation easement. They felt her last sentence was unnecessary. Ms. Nowak asked to leave in “long been identified” but was OK with removing “important” with regard to east‐west corridors. With regard to Ms. Leban’s comments on the view shed, Ms. LaRose noted no language from the plan has been removed. She cited the difference between a “view shed” and a “view overlay district.” No action was taken on this request. Members felt the issue of a model lighting ordinance was outside the bounds of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Shaw said he had an interest in preservation of topsoil. Members agreed to discuss this at Monday night’s meeting. 4. Possible Warning of Second City Council Public Hearing on South Burlington Comprehensive Plan: This item was tabled until the next City Council meeting. 5. Consider warning public hearing on draft amendment to the Land Development Regulations redesignating an approximately 0.34 acre segment of land located immediately south of Park Road in the Southeast Quadrant from the Park and Recreation District to the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential sub-district: Mr. Dorn noted this is a little piece that got left off the original warning. He suggested 4 January 2016 for the public hearing. Ms. Emery moved to schedule a public hearing for 4 January 2016, 6:10 p.m. on draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations redesignating an approximately 0.34 acre segment of land located immediately south of Park Road in the Southeast Quadrant from the Park and Recreation District to the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential sub-district. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: There were no issues raised. 7. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Plan DATE: December 10, 2015 December 15th represents the first warned public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan which you formally received from the Planning Commission on November 12th. This is one of the two required public hearings that the Council must hold. The second hearing must be warned with at least 15 days of notice. Public Feedback I am pleased to share with you the feedback we have received on the draft Comprehensive Plan since it was warned by the City Council on November 12th. These submissions are attached. Approach for Review Following review of any additional public comment offered at this December 15th Public Hearing and a review of comments received to date, Staff recommends that the Council consider whether they wish to make any changes to the document. Staff and some members of the Planning Commission will be in attendance at the hearing to answer questions as to the content of the Plan, providing background and historical discourse on the concepts highlighted and language used. Commissioners, committee members, residents, and other stakeholders have dedicated substantial time to share a variety of important and impassioned thoughts. Staff recommends that the Council consider for changes or new inclusion in the Plan anything that is egregiously under- or misstated in the Plan and that which the Council feels does not represent the vision and goals of the City. We recognize that no plan will ever be perfectly complete; there may be suggestions for updates which the Council finds respectable, but which may require further time for outreach, development, or understanding. It is an option to include these on a dynamic list for research and discussion for the next Plan. The Planning Discussion has begun just such a list. Staff recommends that if the Council decides to make any changes, that such changes be provided to Staff with specificity and detail. The current Plan expires on March 9th; renewal and expansion of the City’s New Town Center and TIF districts are tied to having a duly adopted Comprehensive Plan. If the 2 Council is comfortable with a document at the end of its 12/15 work session, it could warn its second hearing for a possible January adoption. Comprehensive Plan Timeline A reminder of legislative procedure: 1. The Council must hold a minimum of two (2) Public Hearings. These must be given 15 days of notice in the newspaper and at our normal posting locations around the City. 2. The City Council may propose changes to the draft Plan. If any changes are proposed, the Council must do the following: a. Provide a copy of the proposed changes to the City Clerk and Planning Commission, and request that the Planning Commission review the changes for consistency with the 17 statewide planning goals. The Commission must be given at least 15 days to review and provide its report. b. If the Council makes substantial changes after its public hearings, it must warn and hold a new public hearing on the revised Plan, with 15 days public notice as described above. 3. Following the completion of the public hearings, and once the Council has no more changes to propose or make, it may vote to adopt the Plan. The Plan takes effect upon passage. Regional Approval The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission is responsible for determining consistency with the Statewide planning goals established in Statute. The CCRPC completed an informal review over the summer. The feedback was very positive, and included a few items to be addressed. These have been addressed by the Planning Commission in the present draft. Staff will request that a formal review be held in January. Staff is confident that the Plan will be approved. Comprehensive Plan Councilors have been given a printed copy of the warned Plan. Anyone wishing to access the Plan online may find it at www.sburl.com/planning. From:Jennifer Kochman To:Pat Nowak; jshaw5226@aol.com; meaghanee@yahoo.com; Thomas.chittenden@gmail.com; Helen Riehle Cc:Maggie Leugers; "Glenn Sproul"; Paul Conner; Cathyann LaRose Subject:R & LA Comp Plan comments 111615 Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:32:59 PM Attachments:R and LA Comp Plan notes 111615.docx Dear City Council members, At our Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee meeting Monday, November 16, we reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Notes that were sent to you last week. After discussion and a few changes, we voted unanimously to accept the Notes (attached). Thank you for your consideration, Jennifer Kochman Vice-Chair Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee Jennifer Kochman 75 Hadley Rd. South Burlington, VT 05403 802-862-8281 Recreation and Leisure Arts/Recreation and Parks Department 11/16/15 Notes to the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan Draft of November 3, 2015 City Council and Planning Commission, We thank the Planning Commission for incorporating many of the changes to the Comprehensive Plan that we offered in June, and in the fall. Our special thanks also to Paul and Cathyann for the time they have spent with Recreation and Parks Department staff and the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee. We appreciate the thought and effort that the Commission and staff have taken in formulating the Plan, including willingness to listen to so many voices. We offer here a very few edits and changes. We believe the Plan is a design for the City’s best vision and aspirations. And we believe that the details and words matter. We believe these few changes better represent the vision and aspirations of recreation. We hope you will give serious consideration to these changes. Respectfully, Maggie Leugers, Director of Recreation and Parks Department Glenn Sproul, Recreation and Leisure Arts Chair Jennifer Kochman, R & LA Vice-chair Liz Robitaille George Donovan Naa Addo Mike Simoneau Mary Olmsted Rebecca Poquette Changes to the Comprehensive Plan: Requested Change 1. Strategy 28 Page 2-47 Strategy 28 Construct people-oriented public facilities - including a community library, city hall, recreation and environmental infrastructure - in the City Center area. Recreation recommends this change: Encourage consideration of the construction of people-oriented public facilities, including a community library, city hall, indoor recreation facilities, and community center; and open space environmental infrastructure in the City Center area. Requested Change 2. Page 2-111 Inventory Recreational Facilities. The City of South Burlington is home to a diverse range of recreational facilities. A comprehensive listing of parks, public and private, can be found in the Community…. Recreation recommends this change: The City of South Burlington Recreation and Parks Department offers diverse leisure time and recreational opportunities in a variety of settings. A comprehensive listing of parks, public and private, can be found in the Community… Requested Change 3. Page 2-114 Strategy 79: Work with private developers to integrate additional public parks into the recreation system; create sufficient active recreation fields to enable restoration and maintenance. Recreation recommends this change: Integrate additional public parks into the recreational system to reflect National Recreation and Parks Association Level of Service Standards (LOS); create sufficient active recreation fields to enable restoration and maintenance. Recreation recommends adding an Additional Strategy: Work with private developers to integrate open space and neighborhood parks into planned development. Requested Change 4. Pages 2-112 and 2-113 Recreation recommends this change: Consistency: Recreation and Parks Department Examples: Thank you again for your consideration. For reference: LOS NEED AND GAP ANALYSES (From the Open Space Report) The city has also adopted the following Level of Service (LOS) standards, based on former NRPA guidelines, for the provision of a “core system” of park and recreation paths – as referenced in the city’s comprehensive plan, capital improvement program and recreation impact fee ordinance:8 8 The National Recreation and Parks Association now recommends that LOS standards be determined locally, based on a more detailed assessment of individual community needs and priorities. The city’s current LOS standards have been endorsed by the Recreation and Leisure Arts Commit-tee, and the larger South Burlington community (as reflected in recent surveys) for continued use in facility planning and development. 25 acres of city parkland per 1,000 residents, 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents, 1.0 mile of linear recreation path per 1,000 residents. A community park within 1 mile of all neighborhoods A neighborhood park within easy walking distance (1/4 to 1/2 mile) of all local neighborhoods. December 7, 2015 Dear South Burlington City Council members, The South Burlington Energy Committee is pleased to provide the following comment on the draft Comprehensive Plan that was warned for the first City Council public hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2015. Suggestion (1-1 on Page 11) Change the second Green & Clean goal to "Reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy production." rather than "Reduce energy consumption city-wide and increase renewable energy production where appropriate." Rationale Inclusion of the words "where appropriate" seems like an attempt to minimize the importance of increasing renewable energy production compared to the other goals. The appropriateness of a proposed renewable energy installation will be determined at the time of permitting regardless of whether or not the Comprehensive Plan contains the words "where appropriate". Locations where renewable energy are encouraged are already defined in Objective 23 on page 2-79 (101). Thank you for the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing this draft, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide suggestions to improve the Comprehensive Plan. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about our suggestions. Sincerely, South Burlington Energy Committee Keith Epstein, Chair Karen McKenny, Vice-chair Don Cummings Fred Kosnitsky Wayne Maceyka Linda McGinnis Marcy Murray Sam Swanson Patty Tashiro Thor Vue 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Land Development Regulations – SEQ-NR Public hearing DATE: December 15, 2015 City Council meeting At last week’s meeting, staff noted that we had missed the warning of the City Council public hearing on a small piece of the JAM Golf-related zoning changes. In order to make sure we’ve properly dotted all of the “i’s” and crossed all of the “t’s”, staff respectfully requests that the Council warn a public hearing on this item for January 44th, 2016. At this meeting, you will need to set a time for the hearing. The item is as follows: To consider re-designating an approximately 0.34-acre segment of land located immediately south of Park Road in the Southeast Quadrant from the Park and Recreation District to the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential subdistrict. This amendment was included in the package of amendments that was submitted by the Planning Commission following its duly-warned public hearings. The only item that was missed was the inclusion of this specific item in the warning of the City Council’s public hearing for December 7th.