Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/13/2018SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 13 NOVEMBER 2018 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, 13 November 2018, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, D. Kaufman Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; A. Lafferty, Deputy City Attorney; C. LaRose, City Planner; Members of the Planning Commission: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, Vice Chair; M. Mittag, M. Ostby, A. Klugo; L. Yankowski, S. Dopp, M. Simoneu, J. Simson, S. Dooley, J. Belivan, A. Derry, C. Peters, C. Baker, J. Silverstein, C. Miller, S. Mowat, E. Langfeldt, C. Snyder, B. Sirvis, S. Mazalita, F. Koznitsky, J. Morway, B. Brinkerhoff, A. Chalnick, R. Greco, B. Dousevicz, other members of the public. 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Mr. Dorn provided instructions on emergency evacuation of the building. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. Ms. Riehle noted that Mr. Barritt has just returned from California where he saw first-hand the devastating fires. Everyone in the town of Paradise lost their homes including all the members of their City Council. She added that this puts into perspective the issues South Burlington faces. She also cited the great vote last week on what residents want the city to look like. 4. Public Hearing and possible action on the adoption of Interim Zoning Bylaws: Mr. Kaufman moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Louisos and Mr. Gagnon of the Planning Commission explained that at their last meeting members discussed how to proceed during this time period. The provided a letter to the City Council with their recommendations as follows: 1. Completion of the PUD regulations: Members feel the new regulations will help clarify how the city wants developments to look. The Commission will be working to wrap up that long project. 2. Prioritize Open Land: This would involve putting together a committee with representatives from the Commission, Natural Resources Committee, Parks & Recreation, Energy Committee. They would look at open lands and come up with a recommendation as to how to prioritize for future conservation. They would consult previous studies and have a consultant to lead the process. 3. Look at TDRs: This would be a 2-step process involving understanding what is working and what are the obstacles/challenges and then seeing if TDRs can be applied elsewhere in the city. Ms. Louisos said the City Council also had discussed an economic study, and the Commission decided to defer to the Council as to how to approach that. Mr. Chittenden asked why interim zoning is needed and whether these tasks could be done outside of using the IZ tool. Mr. Gagnon said the PUD process will improve how subdivisions are done, and it is advisable not to have any new subdivisions planned until that work is done. It is also beneficial to take a close look at open spaces before development is planned in those areas. Mr. Chittenden asked why a 6-month IZ period was important for the Commission. Mr. Gagnon said they did not want the process to languish and also recognized the impacts to property owners. The longer the process goes on, the longer property owners are prevented from exercising the value of their land. Members felt the work could be done in 6 months. Ms. Louisos added that it also adds an atmosphere of urgency and sets the expectation that this is a focused activity. Ms. Emery said she felt the prioritization of open space could be focused in committees with a City Councilor as liaison. She noted that an open space report was completed in the last IZ and should be revisited. Regarding TDRs, she saw a member of the Planning Commission, Affordable Housing, and Economic Development Committee looking at ways to maximize resources of the city. She felt all of that work should be done before there are any new LDRs drafted. Ms. Riehle felt the shortcoming of the last IZ was that it never got to the point of any concrete changes in the regulations. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is still working on recommendations from the last IZ that they haven’t gotten to yet. That is why they recommend other committees be involved. She felt representatives from the committees need to get together to synthesize recommendations. Mr. Kaufman felt the work will take more meetings than people are used to, but he didn’t see why it can’t be done in 9 months. Ms. Riehle said in some ways, they have the cart before the horse. Tonight, the Council will decide whether to approve this IZ Resolution. She felt they shouldn’t get bogged down in the details. Ms. Lafferty then introduced the IZ Bylaw. It includes a purpose statement, a listing of lands to which IZ applies, the inclusion of new subdivisions, a review process, and the duration of IZ. If there is a project that is already approved by the DRB and all that is required is a zoning permit, that permit can be granted without the applicant having to apply to the City Council for review. Any changes to an original approval would fall under IZ. Ms. LaRose noted there is language regarding the geography of the land that is exempted. She showed a map of excluded lands (primarily the Transit Overlay District) and some lands in question. Form Based Code area that is not part of the Transit Overlay District is also exempted. Specifically exempted areas include a portion south of the jughandle, some property near Holiday Inn, Berard Drive (which is zoned the same as Ethan Allen Industrial Park but is not specifically named), Meadowland Business Park and a piece above that which is considered part of the Business Park. Ms. Riehle noted that if those exemptions are added, it would narrow IZ and thus not require another public hearing. Public comment was then received as follows: Mr. O’Brien: Said a clarification of “new principal building” is needed. He also noted that the area to be studied has been studied for years. He felt this would only divide the city again. He also felt the city plan could be updated via normal procedures. He encouraged the Council to have a developer/builder on the committees to raise red flags. He stressed that the last thing the Council should do is to raise the cost of housing in the city. Ms. Jeffers: Noted that the purpose statement doesn’t talk at all about where the city wants development. She felt those vested rights should be included. With regard to Section 3b, 3c, and 3d, she asked that the “ever” be inserted (“…has not ever been submitted…”). She also felt the language in 3d means no new building is allowed even with a previous approval. In Section 4, 4c would require a lot more clarification unless it is made clear in 3d. In Section 5, the word “existing” should be changed to “approved.” Ms. Belivan: Supports IZ to meet the needs of citizens. Mr. Simson: (Chair of Affordable Housing Committee). Noted the city’s Comprehensive Plan speaks to safe and affordable housing and also includes targets for new affordable housing by 2025. Some progress has been made but not enough. The Committee has a plan for Inclusionary Zoning. While Interim Zoning is in place, there is an opportunity to have inclusionary zoning included in the Transit Overlay District which is exempt from IZ. He wanted to be sure that any development during IZ includes incentives for Inclusionary Zoning. He noted the Planning Commission has seen a preliminary plan and did not oppose it. Mr. Chittenden and Mr. Kaufman both supported that plan and felt it should be expedited. Mr. Barritt was concerned with slowing down the Planning Commission’s work. Ms. Riehle noted the Commission chair feels this can be done with reasonable haste. Mr. Simoneau: Supported Mr. Simson. Said you can’t talk about open space without talking about affordable housing. He felt this was a great opportunity to look into both issues. He stressed the need to overcome differences. He noted the annual Medical Center questionnaire cites the importance of adequate housing. Ms. Derry: Represented the Jewetts who ask that a minor subdivision be taken off the list and that minor subdivisions be removed as they don’t affect any of the 3 areas listed to be achieved. Mr. Baker of the Regional Planning Commission: Expressed concern with the impact on regional sprawl. South Burlington is at the edge of the urban area, where the Commission wants development to happen. He spoke with pride of what South Burlington has done to address “smart growth.” Felt Mr. Simson’s idea regarding housing is a good one. He also noted that Building Homes Together seeks to build 3500 homes in 5 years, but they are not on track with that, and they are not on track with 20% of those homes being “affordable.” He said “the market in Chittenden County is broken.” People have to commute because there is not enough housing to drive down the cost of housing. He also noted that South Burlington has the strongest planning process in the State. There are a lot of demands on that process. The Regional Planning Commission is willing to help with that effort. He noted that in the proposed Bylaw, no one is ‘responsible.’ He suggested identifying the Planning Commission for that role and instructing them to consult with other committees. Ms. Riehle said that is the Council’s intent. Mr. Silverstein: Cited the importance of open space to people and said that once the land is gone, it is gone forever. Mr. Mowat: Opposes Interim Zoning and cited the need for more homes. He felt IZ makes houses less affordable. Mr. Snyder: They have a duplex they want to modify to a single family lot. He asked if they would have to go to the Council to do that. They also have a project that was approved but may be changed by a court action. He felt there should be language to address an exemption for that situation. He believes the use of TDRs is beneficial. Higher densities will increase open space. Mr. Snyder said they are the largest builder of affordable housing in the city. Just building homes in South Burlington is expensive. He would rather reduce the cost of housing for everyone by lowering impact fees, etc. He recommended the Council really vet the language of the IZ amendment before approving it. Ms. Sirvis: Feels there should be open space in the city that people shouldn’t have to drive to get to. She felt smaller houses should be built, and there should be places for kids to play outside. She also spoke to the need for space for a dog park. Mr. Langfeldt: Felt the last IZ caused lasting damage to the city. He did not feel the current action meets the statute requirements for IZ. Cited the excellent planning process in the city. He specifically noted Section 2 as it relates to the “notch” at Old Farm Road. He said that area was always intended to be developed and they already have contracts on some future homes. Questioned why that “notch” is there. Ms. Riehle said they could just change the map. Mr. Langfeldt also cited a lack of clarity with regard to land that spans both included and excluded lands in the IZ process. He noted that they have delayed submitting a master plan because the Planning Commission was working on the new PUD process, but they can’t be held up forever. He stressed you can’t do good planning with rules that are ambiguous. Ms. Mazalita: Noted that what was recommended in the Red Rocks study hasn’t been implemented. Saw IZ as an opportunity to fine tune natural areas. Mr. Chalnick: Supports IZ and felt the LDRs don’t reflect what is in the Comprehensive Plan. Felt half of Dorset Meadows seems to be in what is “off limits.” Also cited fiscal studies that say towns do worse when land is developed. Ms. Greco: Supports IZ and also affordable housing. Cited the need to save open space. Felt land shouldn’t be exempted until you know what is on it. Mr. Brinkerhoff: Felt the city has gone off the track of the Comprehensive Plan. Felt the wrong houses are going in the wrong places. Mr. Koznitsky: Said a lot of catastrophes happen in slow ways and unchecked development and development in the wrong places will be catastrophic for South Burlington. Supports IZ and understand the need for affordable housing. Said the city needs to build up, not out. Ms. Morway: Stressed that open lands have to be paid for and taken care of. Noted that people use those lands to dump trash. Also noted that it is always the Southeast Quadrant that gets “shut down” first. She referred to the recent agreement with the city to conserve property, but now they are being told they may not be able to develop anything. She stressed that they still have to pay taxes on the land they may not be able to put even one family home on. She also said the Vermont Land Trust won’t pay anything for land they don’t know about. Mr. Chittenden distributed the agreement reached with the Auclair property and directed attention to Section 7. Ms. Morway said they could have sold the land to a developer for much more money. Mr. Dousevicz asked if he can pick up a building permit for a project already approved. Ms. Lafferty said if there is a DRB approval and all that is left is to get a building permit, IZ does not apply. Ms. Emery then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kaufman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barritt then moved to extend the blue line along the Interstate (to include the “notch”) and to exempt all red line areas. Mr. Kaufman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Lafferty said they should incorporate the map into the IZ documents. Members agreed to deny the Jewett’s request to exempt minor subdivisions. Regarding “who is responsible,” Ms. Riehle said she felt the City Council is. If they approve IZ, the next step will be to choose committees. With regard to a court requirement to change a project, Ms. Lafferty said the project was vested under a specific set of regulations, and review would remain under those regulations. IZ would not apply. Ms. Dopp noted the angst on the part of people regarding the future value of the Auclair property that was part of an agreement. Mr. Kaufman suggested leaving it out of IZ and exempting the entire parcel. Members were OK with that. Ms. Emery moved to add the Auclair land within the City of South Burlington to the lands exempt from Interim Zoning. These lands include the parcels that were part of the conservation land deal with the City, commonly known as parcels A, B and C. Mr. Kaufman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery then moved to authorize Amanda Lafferty to clarify the bylaw to make clear the Council’s intent regarding principal buildings and map changes. Mr. Kaufman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery then moved to adopt the South Burlington Interim Zoning Bylaw as amended. Mr. Barritt seconded. Mr. Chittenden said he would vote against the motion because he believes the objectives could be done without IZ. He felt it was a heavy-handed tool. He also cited the cost of IZ and noted that the only way to protect land is to buy it, and he would prefer to put money into the Open Space Fund for that purpose and to reinstate full funding to that Fund. Mr. Kaufman said he didn’t think anyone disagrees with that. He just wants to be sure nothing happens that the city doesn’t want to have happen. Whether IZ happens or not, the city would still have to buy the land to be conserved. Ms. Emery felt this situation is different from last time as it came from a “groundswell.” They have also heard the city is near a “tipping point” re: city services. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Chittenden opposing. Members felt there should be a Council member on each committee. Ms. LaRose noted the Planning Commission recommends a TDR consultant. She also noted the Open Space Report does not refer to specific parcel to be conserved. Ms. Riehle said the cost/benefit study will have a price tag. Mr. Barritt felt costs should be kept to a minimum. Mr. Dorn suggested working on this at a staff level and getting back to the Council. Mr. Dorn will also reach out to Committee chairs regarding members for committees. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Kaufman moved to adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:26 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Interim Bylaws Adopted _________________ ___, 2018 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON INTERIM BYLAWS I. PURPOSE Our community values a balance among our natural, open spaces and our developed, residential and commercial, spaces so that the flora and fauna co- exist alongside human dwellings, schools, industries and services. All of these spaces will sustain our economic viability going forward. Together these spaces provide, for the benefit of our residents and visitors, clean, fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink and swim in, recreational opportunities, homes, jobs, and valuable industries and services. As more homes are built in South Burlington, we must examine carefully the intensity and nature of development and its potential impacts on the balance that we seek to maintain. Based on previous studies, the City needs to review developable lands outside of the Transit Overlay District and certain business park areas, including undeveloped open spaces, forest blocks and working landscapes such as the City’s remaining large farms and parcels in the Institutional & Agricultural District. City staff regularly considers the infrastructure and staffing needs, short and long term, of the community. For the past three years, some City department heads have raised concerns about an ongoing strain on City resources. In the face of ongoing development, South Burlington must continue to safeguard against the possibilities that the costs of emergency services and construction and maintenance of sewers and roads will outstrip City revenues such that City residents and business will face the prospect of an acute increase in their tax burden. For all these reasons, the City Council has adopted a smart growth strategy in its policy initiatives, including the preservation of open spaces, forest blocks and working landscapes, and amended the Land Development Regulations to encourage dense development in our urban core, which includes City Center and the Shelburne Road corridor. We also have sought to encourage commercial development and construction of affordable housing. However, the pace of residential development has outstripped the planning tools and processes intended to ensure sustainability and encourage affordability. With the delicate ecosystems and preparedness of both our natural and constructed infrastructure in mind, the City needs to determine what locations, types, and densities of development are most desirable in order to maintain the balance between natural and developed spaces and sustainability and to avoid a fiscal crisis -- not when it is upon us, but before we reach that point. South Burlington Interim Bylaws Adopted _________________ ___, 2018 2 For all these reasons, the City Council considers it necessary to preserve temporarily the land development that currently exists outside of the Transit Overlay District and certain business parks in order to accomplish the following tasks: - Undertake an analysis of undeveloped open spaces, forest blocks and working landscapes and update the prioritization of these lands for conservation, permanent open space, and/or recreation. - Give the Planning Commission time to complete its extensive study or analysis of Planned Unit Developments and Master Plans, which necessarily includes the study of density of development and open space. - Undertake an analysis of the program for the Transfer of Development Rights established in and by the Land Development Regulations and recommend options for its implementation. - Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of hypothetical development, including density and type, on existing developable open spaces, forest blocks, and working landscapes. Once the City has determined which parcels in South Burlington are most critical to our environmental and economic goals, the City can assess whether, and possibly how, the current Land Development Regulations or tools, regulatory or nonregulatory, require amendment and act accordingly. II. LANDS TO WHICH THE INTERIM BYLAWS APPLY These Interim Bylaws shall apply to all lands in the Districts and/or Sub- Districts established and listed in Article 3.01(A)(1)-(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations except: A. Any lands overlaid by the Transit Overlay District, as depicted on the Official Zoning Map and the Overlay Districts maps, B. Airport District, C. Airport Industrial District, D. The lands in the Industrial & Open Space District that are within the Meadowland Business Park located on the easterly side of Hinesburg Road, and E. The lands in the Mixed Industrial & Commercial District that are within the Ethan Allen Farms Industrial Park, which for the purposes of these Interim Bylaws, includes only the lands accessed by Ethan Allen Drive and/or Commerce Avenue which are easterly of Shamrock Road and westerly of the easterly leg of Commerce Avenue. South Burlington Interim Bylaws Adopted _________________ ___, 2018 3 The Interim Bylaws Map describes the areas to which these Interim Bylaws apply and is incorporated herein by reference. III. DEFINITIONS A. Words, terms and phrases specifically defined in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations shall have the same meaning in these Interim Bylaws unless another meaning is clearly indicated. B. New Planned Unit Development shall mean any planned unit development for which a complete preliminary plat application had not been submitted to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department before October 25, 2018. C. New Subdivision: (1) For subdivisions classified as “minor”, a new subdivision shall mean any minor subdivision for which a complete final plat application had not been submitted to the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department before October 25, 2018. (2) For subdivisions classified as “major”, a new subdivision shall mean any major subdivision for which a complete preliminary plat application had not been submitted to the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department before October 25, 2018. D. New Principal Buildings shall mean any principal building for which a complete zoning permit application had not been submitted to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department before October 25, 2018. IV. LIMITATIONS ON LAND DEVELOPMENT Within the areas to which these Interim Bylaws apply, the following shall not be allowed: A. New Planned Unit Developments. B. New Subdivisions. C. New Principal Buildings. D. Amendment of a master plan or any related site plans or plats that deviates from an approved Master Plan in one of the respects set forth in Article 15.07(D)(3)(a)-(e) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. South Burlington Interim Bylaws Adopted _________________ ___, 2018 4 V. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS Upon application, the City Council may authorize the issuance of permits for the development prohibited in Section IV, above, after public hearing preceded by notice in accordance with 24 V.S.A. section 4464, but only upon a finding by the Council that the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the City of South Burlington and the following standards: A. The capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services, or lands. B. The existing patterns and uses of development in the area. C. Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. D. Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites. E. Utilization of renewable energy resources. F. Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or regulations in effect. The applicant and all abutting property owners shall be notified in writing of the date of the hearing and of the City Council’s final determination. VI. ENACTMENT; EFFECT; SEPARABILITY A. Enactment and Duration. These Interim Bylaws are enacted pursuant to the provisions of 24 V.S.A. section 4415, are to be administered in the manner provided for in 24 V.S.A. section 4415, as amended from time to time, and shall be effective upon passage. These Interim Bylaws shall be limited in duration to nine months from the date they become effective. The City Council may extend these Interim Bylaws in accordance with 24 V.S.A. section 4415 for subsequent three-month periods, but not beyond the initial two-year period authorized by 24 V.S.A. section 4415(a). B. Effect on Existing Law. These Interim Bylaws shall not repeal or alter any existing ordinances, regulations or bylaws of the City of South Burlington. These Interim Bylaws establish restrictions that are in addition to those contained in any other City ordinance, regulation or bylaw. C. Separability. Should any section, sub-section, paragraph, sentence, clause, provision or phrase of these Interim Bylaws be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such South Burlington Interim Bylaws Adopted _________________ ___, 2018 5 decision shall not affect the validity of any other portion of these Interim Bylaws, except the section in question. Adopted at South Burlington, Vermont this _____ day of __________________, 2018. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair _________________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair _________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk _________________________________ Thomas Chittenden _________________________________ Dave Kaufman Received and recorded this ______ day of _____________________, 2018. _________________________________ Donna Kinville, City Clerk