Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/16/2023 - Special Meeting j - f r southburlington YERMONT SOUTH BURLINGTON SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2023 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Thursday, 16 November 2023, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt,A. Chalnick, L. Kupferman ALSO PRESENT:J. Baker, City Manager; Chief S. Locke, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning&Zoning; K. Peterson, Planner; M. Mittag, B. Britt, E. Fitzgerald, G. Silverstein, K. Easton 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology option: Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology options. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: There were no public questions or comments. 4. Announcements and City Manager's Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had recently attended. Ms. Baker: Thanks to staff leadership and Martha Machar, the FY24 proposed budget is almost completed. 5. Public Hearing: Draft City Municipal Plan 2024: Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Britt: On p. 46, in the Transportation section, in the last paragraph regarding Hinesburg Road north of Tilley Drive, he asked to add that the city will be looking south of Tilley Drive to try to get a crosswalk. It hasn't been possible in the past because of speed. He also suggested that the Table of Contents indicate a listing of maps. He noted that Map#1 doesn't show the Great Swamp land and asked whether the city does not own it. Ms. Riehle said it is owned by a number of people. Development is not allowed PAGE 1 there,but it is not conserved in perpetuity. Mr. Britt also noted that Map#4 is missing a shared use path that is being built on Williston Roade between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road. It also doesn't show the paths at Technology Park. Mr. Conner showed an enlargement which does indicate the Williston Road path. It will be in the Bike/Ped Master Plan. Mr. Britt also suggested changing the word "transportation" to "vehicle." Ms. Easton: The Holmes Rd. neighborhood is concerned with several things including 2 major developments going in nearby. The issue is the map being used for planning purposes. Map#4 shows a road going through the Easton property. Staff and the Planning Commission have been responsive to her concerns, but they say the language is "visionary" and "aspirational." That seems to mean that someday the city will have that land. She stressed that property rights are enshrined in the Constitution and State Law. She didn't think it was right for any government to take a proprietary position over someone's property. As there was no further public comment, Ms. Emery moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. City Council Discussion of City Plan 2024: Ms. Baker noted that comments from the last Council session have been captured. Staff is working to incorporate them. Mr. Kupferman asked whether the city has any recourse regarding speeds on Hinesburg Road and Shelburne Rd. Ms. Riehle said the city applied to the State to reduce speeds on Hinesburg Road. The State did reduce the speed in a few spots but not nearly as much as the city wanted. Ms. Emery noted that at the Legislative Forum earlier today, Kate said she would look into this to see if a municipality can override State minimums. Ms. Emery referred to Ms. Easton's comments and asked what the line on the map actually represents. Mr. Conner showed Map#4 and said the dashed lines represent aspirations. He indicated the "aspirational path" on the map. He noted that the Planning Commission made two modifications to clarify the role of the maps, stressing they are proposed. There is a statement on the map saying this path is "conceptual." He noted that no parcel lines are shown on the map and said that at this scale, it is hard to show much. Ms. Riehle said she would support a Table of Contents for the maps. She also agreed with "Vehicle Transportation" and the comment about Hinesburg Road. Mr. Chalnick also agreed with Mr. Britt's comments. The Council then continued with its comments on the Plan, from p. 84 on, as follows: Mr. Chalnick: Would prefer to eliminate Goal 84 (p. 83) as it duplicates which is in the Climate Action Plan. He also asked to delete the reference to "renewable energy development." The task force looked at where it would be appropriate to have renewable energy and there are enough impervious surfaces to put it on. Mr. Barritt said there are also places where it can be at a height with agriculture underneath it. Mr. Mittag said it CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 16,2023 I PAGE 2 also works with wind energy, and he wouldn't leave it out. Mr. Chalnick said he wasn't sure it should be a goal. Ms. Emery did see it as a goal and felt there was no risk to leaving it in. Ms. Peterson said this is for a specific land use type, not big chunks of open space, especially places not necessarily suitable for agriculture. The goal says "allow," not encourage. She felt it should be left open for landowners. Mr. Kupferman noted that UVM has an application for solar on some of their land. He said he never thought that solar on bare land was good; in this case, he felt it works and the flexibility is OK and the language was acceptable. Mr. Chalnick: On p. 93,he would like a parallel sentence regarding permanent conservation at Hubbard Park. Members agreed on language placement. Mr. Barritt: On p. 92, change "poorly integrated" to "need to be better integrated and connected.: Members were OK with that language. Mr. Chalnick: On p. 103,he felt the language was not in sync with what the task force looked at for solar. Ms. Peterson said that language was provided by CCRPC to comply with the State. Mr. Conner said there is a process being required by the State to determine what is available. The language gives the plan substantial weight. Mr. Chalnick: On p. 104, he questioned a discrepancy in the numbers. Ms. Peterson said she will check with CCRPC which provided the numbers. Mr. Chalnick: Questioned whether it is appropriate to show the road on the Long property. Ms. Baker suggested holding that comment until after next week's executive session. Mr. Conner said that for the next Council discussion (4 December), staff will provide updates. They will flag items that the Council wanted to discuss further. The Council can then warn a second public hearing for 2 January 2024. They could adopt the plan at that time or make changes and then hold another public hearing. 7. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Council Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Clerk CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 16,2023 I PAGE 3