Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/01/2016 CITY COUNCIL 1 FEBRUARY 2016 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 February 2016, 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; J. Barlowe, City attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Louisos, S. Quest, A. Klugo, Planning Commission; B. Paquette, B. Nowak, S. Dooley, P. Taylor, H. Trombley, T. Finard, T. Barritt, T. McKenzie, D. Leban, R. Paquette, P. Tashiro 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: Mr. Paquette thanked Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Chittenden for meeting with him regarding the budget. He suggested providing pliable spreadsheets. He also spoke about moving toward a paperless environment. 3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Mr. Dorn: Progress is being made regarding the space above the Police Department. Funding has been approved, and it is anticipated that construction will start in the next few weeks. Mr. Dorn credited Ilona Blanchard for “toughing this out.” There is a bill in the House on which Mr. Dorn and other City/Town Managers have testified. It would allow organizations to be formed under the Regional Planning Commission for shared services. It will probably be voted out this week. Several committees will meet on 18 February regarding the Wheeler conservation issue. The Housing Trust Fund had its first meeting last week. They heard an application regarding a potential senior housing project in City Center. Negotiations have been completed with the Fire Fighters bargaining unit and there is a tentative agreement which the Council should see by the first meeting in March. Council members then reported on meetings and events they had attended. 4. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursement b. Approve Minutes for 4 January and 19 January 2016 Ms. Riehle moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Reports from City Councilors assigned to represent South Burlington on outside boards and commissions: Mr. Shaw – Regional Planning Commission: Mr. Shaw explained the make‐up and voting process on the Commission and explained that they deal with transportation and land use. South Burlington’s two votes are important when deciding on funding for such things as the CNAPC. Current projects being done for South Burlington include: a traffic study regarding Kimball Ave, a Hinesburg Road culvert (to be done later this year), and planning around the Airport. Mr. Shaw noted he also serves on the All Hazards Mitigation Board (which the Council will be hearing about), a long-range planning subcommittee and an active transportation subcommittee. Ms. Riehle – Channel 17 Board: Ms. Riehle said the Board, which meets once a month, has been focusing on stewardship and fiscal responsibility. They are looking for someone to take over management of funds as things are not as “robust” and they would like. The Board has also submitted letters to the Public Service Board regarding issues with Comcast (not providing HD caliber technology/methodology as the contract requires, so that all shows can be digitally available). There are also talks regarding bringing Channels 15, 16 and 17 together. Mr. Chittenden – CCTA – In addition to serving on the larger committee, Mr. Chittenden is on the Strategy Committee.  He noted that the DTC will open this summer. There is now a new attitude on route management, so people can know exactly when a bus will arrive. They are also looking at day passes. There are plans to do a complete re-engineering study this summer. Ms. Nowak asked Mr. Chittenden to raise the issue of more service to the Tilley Drive area. Ms. Riehle noted that buses going on Rt. 116 to Hinesburg appear to have very few riders. Ms. Nowak – Airport Commission – The Commission focuses on planes, enplanements, income from the garage, repairing taxiways, new contracts, debt ratio, and the bottom line of the Airport. Ms. Nowak said that the Airport operates on a “razor sharp” margin. Some issues have to go back to the City of Burlington. Ms. Nowak also noted that when other airports shut down due to weather conditions, it affects Burlington Airport even when the weather is not an issue here. 6. Public Hearing #2 and possible adoption of draft 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Shaw moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Louisos said the Planning Commission had reviewed the City Council’s proposed changes and found no issue with them with regard to state statute. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Dooley praised the efforts of all who participated in the process and said it is a wonderful product. Mr. R. Paquette, representing his mother who owns property on Dorset Street, asked if there is any chance for input if the plan is adopted tonight. They want to be sure their property is still recognized as an individual piece of property. Mr. Conner explained that adoption would place this plan as the legally adopted plan of the city. He said the property in question is in the heart of the Central District and is included with those properties. It is in the T4 zoning district. There was no further public input. Ms. Emery moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery then moved to adopt the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Nowak expressed gratitude on behalf of the Council for all the hard work that went into the creation of the Plan. 7. Presentation by Todd Finard relating to the future of the University Mall: Ms. Nowak noted that UMall has been a feature in South Burlington for almost 40 years. Mr. Finard added they look forward to another 40. Mr. Finard said they have spent a lot of time with the City Manager and Planning Department about where Form Based Code is taking the city. He noted the UMall property is at the gateway to the city, and they are very excited to see what is happening across the street. They want to fit in with the “downtown” designation. Mr. Finard then showed an overhead of the Mall property and described it as a classic 4-anchor single story structure. It was originally a “strip center” that was failing until his father and grandfather brought it up to a “closed mall” design. Mr. Finard noted that in this part of the world, people come to UMall from significant distances. Mr. Finard then acknowledged that “time has passed us by,” and they need to consider what a new realm of “mall” can be. To be competitive, they have to offer more to make UMall a compelling place to be. He showed renderings of what they are imagining in their effort to take the Mall in the direction of a “lifestyle mall” with the best that Vermont has to offer. The concept would include a residential component, a “boulevard” through the heart of the property, pavilion buildings with second floor uses, parking garages, outdoor dining, skating rink, and park area. The concept will involve conversations with existing tenants, “homes” for new tenants, and a construction plan that will allow the mall to remain in use during the upgrading. They are prepared to invest more money in the city and use the form based code concept as a guide. Members of the Council voiced their support for the concept. Mr. Shaw asked how this might work into the TIF district. Mr. Dorn said the Planning Department has already begun an application to expand the “New Town Center” designation to include the UMall property. Right behind that, would be an expansion of the TIF. He added that the city would look at this as an extension of City Center. Mr. Finard said that by introducing a mix of uses, there would be differing parking needs. He stressed that they would not lease anything that doesn’t have sufficient parking. He noted there are examples of successful and unsuccessful types of parking garages. They will be looking at what has worked successfully. Mr. Dorn said the city has recognized for years that parking will be needed on the east as well as on the west side of Dorset Street. The city has opened its doors to people to talk about parking. Ms. Riehle asked if an expansion of the TIF is feasible. Mr. Dorn said he felt the Downtown Board will be very excited that a 70’s era mall is looking to feel/look like a downtown. The State knows the TIF can grow. Even with the UMall expansion, there would still be room. The city feels very good about going for the expanded designations. Ms. Nowak noted comments made by Mr. Finard that UMall is not in competition with the downtown Burlington center. Mr. Finard said that at one time they had 17 tenants in common; many of those are still in place. He said both enterprises are trying to make their locations more enticing and more vibrant. Both Church St. and UMall have an “energy”. UMall is going with the “family in mind”; Church Street has a different demographic. Ms. Riehle asked how much more retail could be added. Mr. Finard said possibly 200,000 sq. ft. (including restaurants and movie theatres). There could also be a “civic component.” A member of the city’s Rec Path Committee said he hoped UMall would address infrastructure with older folks in mind (e.g., shuttle bus, Dorset Street protected crossings, etc.). Good bike access is also important, especially across I-89. Accommodations for Canadian visitors (e.g., bilingual signs, parking for buses, etc.) would also be an asset plus provision for immigrant entrepreneurs. Mr. Finard said outdoor spaces would be a very important consideration. Ms. Nowak said the city looks forward to hearing more as plans progress. 8. Continued Discussion and possible adoption of amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: Members of the Council voiced their questions and concerns with specific areas/provisions of the LDRs as follows: Mr. Shaw: Page 114-115, Section 8.04: If a primary street gets moved, it has to go through a Regional Planning Commission process, not just the City Council. Mr. Conner said the code gives flexibility as to where a road might be, but there is a lot of study going on regarding intersections. Moving an intersection 30 feet could have a major impact. There is also a statutory process for changing an Official Map. Page 119, Section C: What drive-thru’s would there be? Mr. Conner said there are already a handful of existing drive-thru’s in the City Center area (e.g., White Street credit union, People’s Bank). New ones would be allowed in full two-story building and only at the back of the building. Ms. Louisos added that a big part of form based code is that it does not regulate “use.” The Planning Commission felt that the criteria that accompany drive-thru use made sense (e.g., queueing). Mr. Conner cited some buildings that meet or almost meet this code. Page 120, Item G: What about requiring solar-ready roofs? Ms. Louisos said the Commission decided to go with the “stretch energy code” instead. It pushes the envelope but gives a pallet of options. Mr. Conner added there are models as to how to do this. The code looks at an ultimate performance and provides flexibility as to how to get there. The “stretch energy code” has been touted as the next State Energy Code.  Mr. Conner noted that Act 250 now requires meeting that code. Ms. Nowak asked if there has been any talk from developers about detrimental impacts. Mr. Conner said they have heard of challenges but nothing that says it can’t be done. Mr. Shaw asked why vinyl siding is prohibited. He said it might have value in a second or third story in a T4 or T5 building. From a maintenance perspective, it can be very hardy. Ms. Louisos said in most zoning districts all natural materials are required. She noted this is looser than the existing requirement. Mr. Shaw said that wood, stone and brick can also get “grungy.” Page 123: Mr. Shaw asked about open space credits. Mr. Conner explained that if you have a small property (up to 10,000 sq. ft.), you are required to have 150 feet of open space. The question is whether that is of value. This gives developers the option of writing a check to enhance a larger area. That money must be used in City Center/form based code district. Page 169, Figure 9-3: What are there interconnected streets? Mr. Conner said the policy of interconnecting streets has existed in the LDRs for many years and was part of the adopted package by the City Council. Page 229: Mr. Shaw suggested rewording “mews” to be clearer to Americans. Page 70: There is an error in “review authority.” It should read 13.12, not 13.16. Page 340: Why not a duplex? Mr. Conner said that would be an item for the Planning Commission to consider. Ms. Riehle: Page 34: Does a solar array count as an open space. Mr. Conner said that for the purpose of the form based code district, what qualifies as open space is listed on page 362. A solar array by itself in City Center wouldn’t count as open space, but it could be part of an open space. Mr. Chittenden asked if anything would prevent Finard from having solar panels. Mr. Conner said there is not as they are exempt from local zoning. Page 123 – public realm requirement: Ms. Riehle asked if this means it is a private courtyard. Mr. Conner said it does. In the “public realm” would mean it is physically accessible to the public. There can be visual open spaces that are not accessible to the public. There is no open space requirement for residential use because it was felt that is for the residents to determine. Page 163: Ms. Riehle distributed an article regarding “How Trees Calm Us Down” and suggested trees might be closer together to get a canopy. Ms. Louisos said the Commission had input from a consultant on this. She directed attention to Page 150, streetscape standards, where requirements are listed for each T zone. Mr. Conner said there is a question of how much root space is needed for trees to grow a canopy. There is not yet a good measurable standard. Page 183, C-1: It sounds like TDRs could go anywhere. Mr. Conner said this is a Planning Commission item for the next few months. Mr. Chittenden: Asked about the time-line for approval. Mr. Conner said the LDRs should be approved within 150 days from the warning. Page 281 re: minutes of neighborhood meetings. Mr. Chittenden asked if the wording is sufficient as to who will draft minutes, etc. Ms. Louisos said one characteristic of form based code is the administrative approval. There was a concern that there wasn’t a place for public concern. Mr. Conner said there is no right or wrong on how to do this. But there is a need to be clear as to expectations. Ultimately, the recourse of a neighbor would be to appeal the administrative decision to the DRB. Page 95, Mixed IC District: Has the city done some benchmarking, as with regard to something like a wholesale club application. Mr. Conner said there is an appeal for something like that, so he did not feel able to comment on that. Mr. Chittenden asked if the Planning Commission could deal with this. Mr. Conner said absolutely. Ms. Emery: Page 72: accessory structures. Why does a treehouse require a permit? Mr. Conner said it is a judgment call. Some treehouses might include electricity and WiFi, etc. It is a question of anything that might be built in someone’s yard. He said they are trying to be consistent. Appendix E, p. 362: Ms. Emery asked that consideration be given to where playgrounds be put. Trees should also be included for playgrounds. Ms. Emery asked about sound attenuation and location of bedrooms in residential buildings. Mr. Conner said the closest the regulations come to that is the extent to which a project can generate noise to a neighboring property. He added they would have to look at statute regarding noise inside of buildings. He wasn’t sure this is the place for something like that. Members were asked to submit any changes they wanted to see in writing to Mr. Dorn by next Monday morning. 9. Energy Committee Report: Ms. Tashiro said this is a “half‐time” report but scores are available only for the first quarter. South Burlington is one of 49 competitors and ranks 38th, but is only 14 points from the top 10. The next measurement is at the end of 2016. Ms. Tashiro reviewed what various city people have been doing. She said that more resident participation is needed. The Committee is reading out to real estate people who are providing “welcome bags” with energy information as gifts at closings. Ms. Nowak asked what area needs the most improvement. Ms. Tashiro said they need to know what challenges the city and schools are facing and how the Committee can help. 10. General Discussion among Council members regarding crosswalks and street lights in the city: Ms. Nowak suggested a brief discussion and then a larger timespan on a less crowded agenda. Mr. Dorn said to provide issues and let staff come back with the relevant people to address those issues. Issues identified by Council members included: a. Crosswalk buttons don’t work well in cold weather b. Removal of street lights on Shelburne Road c. Crosswalks too far to go to from Kennedy Drive on Williston Road. Are other lights needed? d. Dark areas of the city (e.g. Kennedy Drive) e. Having transit where it is accessible to people f. Areas in front of Staples Plaza re: lighting g. Lighting for Quarry Hill and where else students are being housed h. Lighting at bus stops i. Safety for the elderly (crosswalks near Pillsbury Manor) j. The crossing at Trader Joe’s/UMall/Healthy Living k. Prioritization of crosswalks/lighting at bus routes l. Shielded lighting of street signs in neighborhoods Members asked that the Bike/Ped Committee be invited to participate in the discussions. 11. Consider Convening s the South Burlington Liquor Control Board to consider the following application: a. Outside consumption permit – Franny O’s. Ms. Riehle moved that the City Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members raised questions regarding the deck as to safety, interaction with minors, occupancy limit, and noise (proximity to apartments). Mr. Dorn will provide further information. Mr. Chittenden moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business: a. Items held from Consent Agenda: No items were held. b. Ms. Nowak distributed a letter from Airport Manager Gene Richards delivered to the city this afternoon. Members took time to read the letter. Mr. Dorn suggested this was Mr. Richards’ reply to an invitation to come to the City Council. Ms. Riehle said it appears he heard what the Council had to say without being there. Ms. Nowak noted it is the intent of the consultant to the CNAPC to invite the Airport’s consultant to a CNAPC meeting. Mr. Dorn suggested discussing this at the next meeting. Ms. Emery moved to reverse the last 2 items on the agenda. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously 13. Discussion of Saxon Partners, LLC, Airport Complex PUD, 5-1-16Vtec. Possible executive session to consider pending civil litigation to which the City is a party under 1 V.S.A. Section 313(a)(1)(E): Mr. Barlow noted an appeal has been filed regarding the proposed BJ’s development proposal. He reviewed the process and then recommended discussion in executive session. Mr. Chittenden moved that the Council find that premature general public knowledge of the City position and strategy in the pending Saxon Partners civil litigation would clearly place the City at a substantial disadvantage. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden then moved that the Council hold an executive session to consider pending civil litigation to which the City is a party under 1 V.S.A. Section 313(a)(1)(E). Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council entered executive session at 10:30 p.m. The Council returned to open session at 11:15 p.m. 14. Possible executive session to discuss a real estate transaction the premature disclosure of which could put the City at a competitive disadvantage: Mr. Chittenden moved that the City Council find that the premature general public knowledge of a contract for this potential real estate transaction would clearly place the City at a substantial disadvantage. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chittenden moved that the City Council hold an executive session to consider the contract for a potential real estate transaction pursuant to 1 V.S.A. Section 313(a)(1)(A). Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council entered executive session at approximately 11:15 p.m. The Council returned to open session at 11:45 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Shaw moved to adjourn. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:46 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 02/02/16 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 2/2/2016 2929 SoVerNet, Inc. 42.61 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 1/15/2016 VI-13886 3593337 42.61 42.61 2/2/2016 2930 Ti-Sales Inc. 1,287.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 1/26/2016 VI-13887 INV0060128 1,287.00 1,287.00 Total Amount Paid: 1,329.61 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: January 28, 2016 Page 1 of 1 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Planning Commission REPORT Re: Consistency with Statewide Planning Goals of City Council’s changes to the Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan January 12, 2016 The South Burlington City Council held a warned public hearing on the draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan on December 15, 2015. A second public hearing is warned for February 1, 2016. During the course of their discussions, the City Council made some changes to the draft presented to them by the Planning Commission. These are each summarized below. Per state statute, the Planning Commission is obligated to review these changes for consistency with statewide planning goals spelled out in 24 V.S.A. §4302.  Include more text documenting and supporting the Form Based Code Committee and Committee work. These changes were intended to reflect the importance of the work done by the Form Based Code Committee.  Revise 1.1, Vision and Goals to include enhancement of quality of life These changes were intended to make clear that the quality of life should not only be “maintained” as previously stated, but enhanced.  Amend Strategy 4, Housing These changes were intended to make clear that the tools listed are for exploration and not to be construed as mandatory tools.  Include recommendations from Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee (RLA), per November 18th letter from Jennifer Kochman. These changes were effective in clarifying the importance of indoor programming space, and to show consistency the name of the department.  Address aquifer recharge areas and include wells This change was intended to place emphasis on protection of private wells, and the quality and quantity of water accessible to the residents who rely upon them.  Address Clean Air and Quality of Life The City Council amended the plan to reflect greater emphasis on access to clean air; it also sought to expand a discussion on the importance of livability for its residents and employees.  Amend description of Wheeler Nature Park  These changes were intended to show that the Park is intended to be permanently conserved.  Amend discussion of planned cross-town roads The City Council amended the plan to remove outdated text. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the following are the current statewide Planning Goals spelled out in 24 V.S.A. §4302. (1) To plan development so as to maintain the historic settlement pattern of compact village and urban centers separated by rural countryside. (2) To provide a strong and diverse economy that provides satisfying and rewarding job opportunities and that maintains high environmental standards, and to expand economic opportunities in areas with high unemployment or low per capita incomes. (3) To broaden access to educational and vocational training opportunities sufficient to ensure the full realization of the abilities of all Vermonters. (4) To provide for safe, convenient, economic and energy efficient transportation systems that respect the integrity of the natural environment, including public transit options and paths for pedestrians and bicyclers. (5) To identify, protect, and preserve important natural and historic features of the Vermont landscape, including: (6) To maintain and improve the quality of air, water, wildlife, and land resources. (7) To encourage the efficient use of energy and the development of renewable energy resources. (8) To maintain and enhance recreational opportunities for Vermont residents and visitors. (9) To encourage and strengthen agricultural and forest industries. (10) To provide for the wise and efficient use of Vermont's natural resources and to facilitate the appropriate extraction of earth resources and the proper restoration and preservation of the aesthetic qualities of the area. (11) To ensure the availability of safe and affordable housing for all Vermonters. (12) To plan for, finance and provide an efficient system of public facilities and services to meet future needs. (13) To ensure the availability of safe and affordable child care and to integrate child care issues into the planning process, including child care financing, infrastructure, business assistance for child care providers, and child care work force development. (14) To encourage flood resilient communities. The Planning Commission finds that the changes proposed by the City Council are not only consistent with the statewide planning goals, but also serve to advance them. Several of the changes- e.g. the amendments to aquifers and wells, to air quality, and the conservation easement at Wheeler Nature Park- directly reflect several of the state environmental planning goals. Several other changes are intended to provide greater clarity for the reader, a respectable objective of its own. None of the proposed changes diminish the robust work put forth by the Planning Commission over the course of several years, or the many hours of stakeholder participation and input. The Planning Commission also acknowledges that the State Legislature has set forth a standard for the process by which a community engages in its planning efforts. These goals are enumerated as: (1) To establish a coordinated, comprehensive planning process and policy framework to guide decisions by municipalities, regional planning commissions, and State agencies. (2) To encourage citizen participation at all levels of the planning process, and to assure that decisions shall be made at the most local level possible commensurate with their impact. (3) To consider the use of resources and the consequences of growth and development for the region and the State, as well as the community in which it takes place. (4) To encourage and assist municipalities to work creatively together to develop and implement plans. The Planning Commission affirms that the entirety of its process respects and furthers these goals. The Planning Commission also finds that the City Council has met its duty in respecting these goals, with a fair and public hearing process. Specifically, the transfer of the document and the coordination between the two municipal bodies has enabled an open and productive conversation to assist each in understanding the basis for the substance of the plan, and the rationale for any proposed changes. 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, City Planner SUBJECT: Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan: Second Public Hearing DATE: February 1, 2016 City Council meeting The South Burlington City Council held a warned public hearing on the draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan on December 15, 2015. The Council closed the hearing that day but held work sessions through two more meetings, December 21, 2015 and January 4, 2016. On the latter date, the Council voted to warn a second public hearing to be held February 1, 2016. During the course of the discussions, the Council made some changes to the draft presented to them by the Planning Commission. Per state statute, the Planning Commission was obligated to review and prepare an analysis report on these changes for consistency with statewide planning goals spelled out in 24 V.S.A. §4302. The Planning Commission issued a report on January 12 addressing this requirement, ultimately finding that the changes made by the Council were consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. This report is attached for your consideration. The Public Hearing was sufficiently warned. Staff has not received any formal feedback. Following the Public Hearing, the Council may: 1) Make changes. Should the Council wish to make any changes at all, it may do so. However, it must warn another Public Hearing on the revised document. The Public Hearing cannot be any sooner than 15 days after said warning is advertised in the newspaper (given lead time for the paper and weekends, this would likely be sometime between February 22-29). The Planning Commission will also need time to prepare a revised report on the amendments’ consistency with State planning goals and the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Adopt the Plan. If the Council is satisfied with the Plan as presented, the Council may vote to adopt the plan on February 1st. Proposed language for an adoption is as follows: “I move that the City Council approve the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as drafted.” A copy of the Draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan can be found online at www.sburl.com