Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/18/1978CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 18, 1978 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, December 18, 1978 at 6:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Martin Paulsen, Ken Jarvis, William Burgess (late), Michael Flaherty (late) Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Planning Commissioners Sidney Poger, Chairman; Ernest Levesque, Kirk Woolery, James Ewing, George Mons, Peter Jacob, James Draper; Planner Stephen Page; Andy Potter, Kay Neubert, Lawrence Bagdan, Arthur Pappas, Robert Methot, Stewart McConrogity, John Bruno, A.C. Audette, Mr. Danforth, Jean Cochran Joint meeting with Planning Commission S. Poger asked where the city was in the budget process for the next year and said that the Commission was interested in having a consultant help them decide what was best to do about the Southeast Quadrant when the Comprehensive Plan was revised starting in January. A consultant could tell the Commission the alternatives and the best way to use that land. S. Poger said they would like to know how to preserve green spaces, provide for lower cost housing, and develop so as to provide for good traffic circulation. P. Farrar felt the consultant would be of more use if he were given specific alternatives to look into. He suggested the Commission draw up a scope of work that a consultant could look at. J. Ewing asked the Council whether, if the size and population of the city were to be doubled, they would rather see the density of the land currently used doubled, or would they like to have twice the area used? The 3 Council members present agreed that they would like to see the area doubled, feeling that the citizens of the city liked the present density. P. Farrar noted that the Southeast Quadrant was zoned now for R2 if city water and sewers were available. The Commission and Council discussed several ways to provide low cost housing in the city. S. Poger said that revision of the Comprehensive Plan would begin in January and that on the second of that month the Commission would discuss the goals in the Plan. He said the public was invited and suggested it would be good if Council members could come also, especially to discuss the goals chapter. M. Paulsen felt it would be a good idea to send the Council draft forms of the chapters as they were revised, so that they could be in on the early stages of the work. S. Poger asked the Council where Interim Zoning and the new Commercial zoning proposal stood. S. Page said the commercial zoning had been revised to incorporate Council comments on it but that they had not yet been sent that revised draft. K. Jarvis asked where traffic consultant Bruce Houghten was on his study and was told that a preliminary report was expected soon. S. Poger told the Council that the Commission had recommended adoption of the on-site sewer disposal health regulations to them and P. Farrar said that City Attorney Richard Spokes was putting them in the proper form for the city and that they would probably be passed after the Attorney was done. S. Poger then asked the Council about the Capital Budget. He was told it would be reviewed in January or February and that the Commission was invited to comment on it. P. Farrar said the Council would like comments on any changes in the priority of certain items or on any additions or deletions. S. Poger asked that the Commission be told of any changes to items in the Capital Budget. The question of sewer plant upgrading was raised and W. Szymanski noted that it looked like the Bartlett Bay plant would be upgraded before the Airport Parkway one was. P. Farrar said that the vote on Airport Parkway was at least 1 year from now, according to the requirements, but that it could be held earlier if the city got cost estimates from the State. If this city could pass its bond issue, even if it were not scheduled for construction soon, if another community could not pass its bond issue, South Burlington might be able to take that community's place and build sooner than expected. S. Poger asked about the White Street corner, whose purchase was voted down in the recent election and was told that if the land were still for sale in the spring, it could be put up to another election, especially since so few people voted this time and the margin was so close. S. Poger noted that the Commission felt strongly about the realignment of that road, and he expressed his discomfort with the vote. W. Burgess came in at this point. K. Woolery asked about the $18,000 per year that the Council was putting aside for land acquisition and was told that they were looking into 3 pieces of property right now. M. Flaherty entered now. Possible relocation of the city offices was discussed briefly. G. Mona brought the discussion back to the question of what to do with the Southeast Quadrant and supported the idea of a consultant. P. Farrar said the city had had consultants look at the land before and said he could give the Commission about 20 alternatives for that land. J. Ewing asked what he felt it should be and was told that it was probably best for the city to have a commercial tax base which was about equal to the residential tax base, because without that balance services cannot be provided well, and if they are, taxes are very high as a result. K. Woolery asked about progress on the Southern Connector and was told that the project had just been passed from one arm of the Highway Department to another and that the Department was getting ready for the writing of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement. P. Farrar said it looked like the city's road was behind Burlington's by about 1 year. He felt they could go to a bond issue in the fall. P. Farrar also noted that the city had recommended that the State concentrate on a route on the east side of the railroad tracks and that the State had been receptive. He went on to say that it looked like the road would be very effective in doing what the city had hoped it would do, saying that at the southern end of it it would take 2/3 of the traffic presently on Shelburne Road off and it would take 1/2 of the traffic on the entire length of that road off. The present plans are for a 4 lane road. G. Mona alerted the Council to a proposal for commercial lots on Allen Road which would dump a lot of traffic onto Shelburne Road at that point. K. Woolery asked if there was a way to tie the traffic lights together and synchronize them in front of Gaynes. He felt that the resulting improvement in the traffic flow up there would more than offset the cost involved. W. Szymanski said he would look into it. Reading of minutes of December 4, 1978 It was moved by K. Jarvis and seconded by M. Flaherty to accept the December 4, 1978 minutes as printed. The motion passed 5-0. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Continue hearing on Interim Zoning Application of Pappas Restaurant on Shelburne Road Mr. Arthur Pappas said he expected his architect and traffic consultant soon and asked that the hearing be postponed until they arrived. Act on pending Interim Zoning application of Thomas Farrell Distribution Center north of Holmes Road east of the railroad tracks P. Farrar said the city had received a letter from the applicant stating that the purpose of the warehouse would be only for beverage distribution (see attached copy). This communication closed the hearing, as per a motion at the last meeting. P. Farrar said that staff would be asked to prepare suitable motions for approval or denial of the request which the Council would consider and act on at the next meeting. Review projects to be submitted for Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funding W. Szymanski said that preliminary applications had to be submitted by the end of the year and that the city wanted to apply for two projects; one is in the south end of the city of the old Potter and Miller property and the other is to buy some Nowland property partly with BOR funds and then make a land swap with the Stonehedge property. The applications only signify the city's intent to buy the land and reserve some funds for it. M. Paulsen moved to authorize the City Manater to make out the preliminary applications for BOR funds for these two projects: acquisition of a portion of the Nowland property and a portion of the Stonehedge property and also a second application for the development of the Potter property. M. Flaherty seconded the motion. W. Szymanski said that the appraisal for a third piece of land the city had been considering was $180,000 for 12 acres and the Natural Resources and Recreation Committees had felt that price was excessive and had recommended that the city not buy that land. This parcel was Ryan land near the sewage pumping station on Hinesburg Road. Report on proposed Urban Systems Highway Projects W. Szymanski submitted a report of preliminary construction costs for 3 projects (see attached copy). These costs do not include right of way, utility, or engineering costs. On project 1, he felt that (a) was probably the best one to go with, since right of way costs would push the lower figures up considerably. On project 2, W. Szymanski said that the higher figure included some barrier medians, which the city does not want. On project 3, P. Farrar noted that the city would be trading construction costs with right of way costs and he felt it might be cheaper to take a little land on both sides rather than a lot on one. W. Burgess said he would like to know if utilities could be put underground when the road was widened. P. Farrar suggested a bond issue for these projects plus the Southern Connector. He said that only project 2 could be fit into the operating budget if the city wanted to do that. He suggested that land costs be worked up on these projects. He noted that the bonding costs would be lower if the city could get approval for all of them at 1 time. P. Farrar asked W. Szymanski to have the Highway Department give the city cost estimates on the projects so that they could have a bond issue and he asked that W. Szymanski try to work project 2 into next summer's construction program. Pappas restaurant Mr. Pappas' architect and traffic consultant had arrived by this time. Mr. Bruno, the traffic engineer, submitted a report on traffic to the Council (see attached copy). He said that he had done some traffic counts as the basis for his work and had used the information available on Route 7 traffic flows. There is a traffic light on nearby Baldwin Avenue which stops the flow of traffic and facilitates left turns, he said. Mr. Bruno also noted that the majority of the traffic using the restaurant seems to come from the north and he said that with the turning lane in the road and the traffic light, making left turns into the lot seems to be no problem. P. Farrar asked if he was saying that the present traffic flow patterns and the existance of a traffic light allowed unobstructed left turns into the lot without interfering with north-bound traffic and was told that was correct. Mr. Bruno said he had observed traffic at the noon and afternoon peak hours and had not observed any conflicts and in his opinion the expansion of the restaurant would not significantly change the traffic consitions in the area from a congestion or safety standpoint. Mr. Bruno said that traffic outletting onto Baldwin Avenue could be a safety valve and might improve the internal flow if exiting traffic was distributed between the two exit points. He noted that the majority of exiting traffic was going north. Mr. Danforth, the architect of the building, said that the expansion was to allow a banquet facility and that most of the people using that room would probably go out in the same direction from which they came, but he also noted that banquets were usually held in off-peak hours. He said a sign directing cars to exit onto Baldwin Avenue could be put up. Mr. Danforth said that the plans as submitted had not been changed from the last hearing and were finalized. M. Flaherty moved to close the hearing. W. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed with all in favor. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider liquor license for Friendly Ice Cream on Shelburne Road M. Flaherty moved to adjourn as the City Council and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board to consider a liquor license for Friendly Ice Cream. W. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. W. Szymanski said that Friendly was opening on January 8, the date of the next Council meeting, and that he had not received clearance for the license from the Fire Chief or the State. M. Flaherty moved to authorize the members of the City Council to sign the license contingent on the receipt of the approval of the Fire Chief and State Fire Marshall. W. Burgess seconded the motion. W. Szymanski said he was not aware of any problems but that the inspection had not yet been done. The motion passed with all in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.