Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/17/1979CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 17, 1979 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, December 17, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen, William Burgess, Kenneth Jarvis Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Albert Audette, Street Department; Joe Senesac, Daniel and Joan Fleming, John Holmberg, Lana and Robert Szczerbak, Frank Jones, Stanley Seigel, James McGee, Stanley McKinley, Jack Cleary, Robert Collins, Shirley and W. H. Hosick, Jan Maddox, Paul Graves, Walt Levering, Mike Smith, Warren Anderson, J. A. Underhill, Anne McMahon, Guy Teschmacher, Donald Swann, Rob Eley, Free Press; Richard Underwood, City Appraiser; Lowell Krassner, Jim Harvell, Mr. Coburn, Stuart Ireland Agenda addition There were no objections to adding the following item: Discuss a communication from the Chairman of the Zoning Board. Minutes of December 3 and 5, 1979 The minutes of December 3 and 5, 1979 were approved on a motion by Mr. Jarvis, a second by Mr. Paulsen, and a unanimous vote. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Consider petition for plowing Meadowood at Spear residential area Mr. Farrar stated that the city had received a petition to plow the streets in Meadowood at Spear along with a cover letter from W. Hosick. He said that the city Planning Commission had ruled that those streets should be public and the developer had appealed that decision to the County Court. He asked whether the developer would waive the city of any liability and Mr. Ireland, the developer, said he would. Mr. Burgess asked if the developer would pay the city for plowing and Mr. Ireland replied that he would not, saying that the area paid a lot of taxes to the city. The developer is not now charging a maintenance fee to the residents. Mr. Ireland said the city plowed the streets last year and that they also plowed other unaccepted streets in the city. Mr. Burgess said the city plowed two short private streets because both had been plowed for a long time, at least 20 years. Mr. Ireland was unwilling to drop his appeal if the streets were plowed. Residents of the area expressed their concerns. They do not want to be caught between the developer and the city in the dispute over whether the roads are private or public and they feel that they pay city taxes and are entitled to city services. They were concerned as to how emergency vehicles could get to the area and were concerned about safety in the area for school children. The school bus does go into the development because it is unsafe for children to wait at the top of the hill. Mr. Farrar asked if the developer had made any provision to plow the streets and was told that if they had to plow, they(Ireland Industries), would plow the streets. Mr. Flaherty saw no problem with plowing the streets, but he said that the city wanted the streets to be public and it was made clear to the developer that the city's responsibility for services was contingent on the city owning the streets. That was clear when the issue of public vs. private first was discussed. Mr. Ireland felt the Planning Commission had given approval for private streets with an 18 month trial of the security system. Mr. Flaherty noted that the Council had wanted public streets so they could be plowed and maintained. Mr. Ireland stated that the city plowed 5 private areas and said he would give the names to Mr. Burgess, who requested the information. Mr. Audette, head of the Street Department, noted that there was work that had to be done in the area. There are a few holes in the street and some catch basins need feathering. He stated that last year the city had almost ruined some plows in the area and he was afraid that the city would see some large repair expenses because of problems that needed fixing in that area. Mr. Szymanski said the streets were not in the condition under which the city would accept them if offered. They need a final surface layer, some sidewalks put in, some curb replaced and some adjustments made to drainage structures. Mr. Ireland said the money was in escrow for that. A resident stated that the city had more resources available in case a truck broke down. Mr. Ireland said he was willing to feather the catch basin and repair the two holes in the road within a day or two if weather permitted. Mr. Flaherty moved that the city plow the streets for the calendar year of 1979-1980 if the developer will accept liability for damage to city plows caused by the unfinished portions of the private streets in the development and relieve the city of liability for damage to the streets. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Mr. Burgess noted that it is the city's intention that those streets be public and be finished according to the Planning Commission approval and completed in conformance with city regulations. Ultimately the city will take over the streets. He asked whether the city could take the bond, finish the streets and take them over without developer approval. Mr. Farrar did not think so. Mr. Ireland stated that it was his intention to put the finishing coat on the road this year but that the paving company lost one of its crews and was unable to do the job. He tried other companies but no one could do it. He also stated that he did not agree to assume any expenses for damage to city equipment. He will assume any damage city plows do to his property, but not any damage done to city plows. He said he could not complete the roads any farther unless the weather permitted. Since Mr. Ireland did not agree to the terms of the motion, Mr. Flaherty suggested that if any damage was done to city plows by the unfinished condition of those roads, the city would have to sue the developer. Mr. Burgess asked why Mr. Ireland wanted private streets, and when he replied that he could not answer, Mr. Burgess said that based on the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, it seemed that private streets increased the value of property in an area. If that is the case, the argument that the residents of the area pay a lot of taxes is not relevant. Mr. Farrar felt that based on the position of the city in this case, the streets were public and should be plowed on the assumption that this is in line with other unfinished streets which the city plows while they are being completed. He said he would talk to the City Attorney about the legal position of the city since the developer has not agreed to all terms of the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Farrar stated that if the Attorney felt it was desirable to modify the motion, it would be added to the agenda for the Thursday meeting and Messrs. Ireland and Hosick would be notified. Mr. Ireland said he would plow between now and then. He added that last year, even though the city had plowed and salted, he had also plowed and sanded. Asked about the other streets the city plows, Mr. Burgess said one was done because it was convenient to do so in order to turn around and the other was not owned by one person only. Both have been plowed for many years. Mr. Ireland said East Terrace was a case in point and Mr. Szymanski noted that the plows had to turn around there also. That street should have been deeded to the city a long time ago, he said, and Mr. Ireland responded that he would deed it to the city. The other private streets plowed are Dawn Court and Bartlett Bay Road. Mr. Audette asked Mr. Ireland if he would agree to go around with him and make the legitimate repairs to the streets this fall. Mr. Ireland said he would. The Council wanted to add this item to the Thursday agenda. Discuss updating property appraisals with Richard Underwood, Assessor Mr. Farrar said he had a question on the appraisal of open land. Mr. Underwood said that the state had said that if a farmer or anyone who owned open land wanted to do so, they could sign up and receive a special appraisal on their acreage. In return, when they sold the land, they would pay 10% of the fair market value to the state. Mr. Underwood did not think there was much interest in the proposal on the part of farmers and others with open land. Mr. Farrar felt it was in the best interests of the city to adjust its appraisals on open land to the same percentage of fair market value that other properties in the city were appraised at. The city itself lowered open land appraisals during the last reappraisal. If the adjustment is made, the owners of the land can decide what to do. Mr. Underwood will look into it. Mr. Farrar also noted that the state might, in the future, require the communities to appraise property at 100% of fair market value for real. He asked about yearly updates, which might be done with the aid of a computer program for that purpose. Mr. Underwood said that a reappraisal done with a physical inspection of every property would probably take 10 people one year to do, but with a computer program it might be possible to do yearly updates within the present budget for the department. Mr. Farrar felt a continuous reappraisal would take one new person doing only that. Public hearing on Interim Zoning application of Joseph G. Senesac to construct a 60' x 100' building and occupy same as office and warehouse for manufacturing garages at 172 Dorset Street The proposal is to construct a new building on the lot about 205' from the road and 20' from the property line of Lake Buick. Existing on the lot now are a home and a garage with a driveway. The drive will be eliminated and access will be from a common 30' drive with the music store recently approved by the Council. The home and garage will be used until the new building is finished. The existing house will be used as an office and the existing garage as a warehouse and for manufacturing until the new building is constructed. Mr. Farrar asked when the new building would be finished and was told they wanted to be in it by the end of 1980, so Mr. Farrar said this would be a temporary approval to use the two existing buildings that way until the end of 1980. The approval for construction and use of the other building would be permanent. Mr. Senesac said there would probably be one car in and out of the property 2 or 3 times per day and 2 trucks in and out 2 or 3 times per day. He presently does this work on Dorset Street. Customers do not come to the business, and he has no employees, just two subcontractors. He said his manufacturing would not cause noise or pollution. The previous zoning in the area was BR and this would not be a permitted use (manufacturing) in the area, although office space would be. Mr. Senesac said he would probably re-rent the house for a residence or office space after the new building was finished. He felt he would rather re-rent it as an office. The Council commented that whether he could do that or not would depend on the final approval motion. There will probably be a stipulation that the house be used only for a residence unless future approval is granted to use the home for a different purpose. Mr. Jarvis moved to close the public hearing on the application of Joseph Senesac to construct a 60' x 100' building and occupy same as an office and warehouse for manufacturing garages at 172 Dorset Street. Mr. Paulsen seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Continue public hearing on the Interim Zoning application of Norman Ramsey to construct an 18-unit motel at 1108 Williston Road Mr. Farrar reminded the Council that the application had been reduced from 18 units to 12 and that traffic consultant Bruce Houghton had submitted some information on the appeal (see attached copy). Mr. Frank Jones represented Mr. Ramsey and stated that the report did not attack the conclusions of the study prepared by the applicant. Mr. Jones did feel that using exponential functions was a fair method to use. He felt this would be a low traffic generator and asked the Council to use common sense in hearing the appeal. Mr. Paul Graves, an adjoining property owner, submitted some information to the Council (see attached copies), and went over that information. He pointed out that, as the letter from Mr. Lamoureaux stated, the left turn lane for a turn into Dorset Street is longer than shown in the Land Plan diagram, making it necessary for a car turning left into this motel to cross three, not two, lanes of traffic. Mr. Krassner said he had also pointed out many items addressed by Mr. Graves. Noting that the left turn lane for Dorset Street often backed up, sometimes very far, he felt that common sense dictated not approving another motel in this area, since to approve it would be to violate the principles of the Interim Zoning ordinance. Mr. Jones responded to the above comments of Mr. Graves, noting that all motels had referrals and stating that to treat this hotel owner differently than others just because he owned two pieces of property was discriminatory. He asked for time to read the comments, and when he had done so, said he had nothing else to offer. Mr. Burgess moved to close the public hearing on the application of Norman Ramsey for an 18 unit motel at 1108 Williston Road. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion and all voted aye. Sign short term notes While Mr. Jones was reviewing the comments submitted, the Council took up this and the following item. Mr. Szymanski gave the notes to the Council, saying there were 10 of them. They are for the sewers, equipment, Red Rocks park, etc. He did not have an interest rate for them, and said he could not get one because rates were changing so fast. Mr. Paulsen moved to sign the ten short term notes as presented at the prevailing current rate of interest with the Chittenden Bank. Mr. Flaherty seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Review dog damage claim The Council received information about a complaint that two white dogs had gotten into a cage and killed 6 turkeys on Hinesburg Road. The owner valued the turkeys at $20 each. The police have two suspects, but there is no evidence to positively prove that they are the guilty parties. The owner has the choice of going to the owner of the dogs or to the city in a case like this and he has chosen to come to the city. Mr. Szymanski stated that he felt the amount requested was reasonable. Mr. Jarvis moved to reimburse Mr. Arthur Toutant $120 for the loss of 6 turkeys. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all were in favor. Review additional data and formulate action and stipulations on the following closed public hearings North American Shopping Center, Inc. to construct a shopping complex on the easterly side of the road at 1690 Shelburne Road Mr. Burgess moved that the staff prepare a motion of approval for North American Shopping Center Inc. to construct a shopping complex on the easterly side of Shelburne Road at #1690 subject to the recommendations of traffic consultant Bruce Houghton which are part of the record of the last meeting. These are, specifically, that a traffic lane be added along the frontage of the property, that, subject to state approval for it, the applicant erect a light at the new intersection and coordinate this light with the one at Green Mountain Drive, and that the parking configuration that was discussed by Bruce Houghton in his remarks to the Council at the last meeting be adhered to. There should be a further stipulation that the recommendations made in Fire Chief Goddette's December 3 memo regarding fire protection for that land be implemented, and that the new traffic lane to be added be extended far enough south so that a car can pull into it and use it as an acceleration lane. The staff should discuss with Mr. Houghton how far this lane shall extend. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion. Mr. Flaherty disagreed with the motion and referred to Mr. Martineau's remarks at the last hearing. The Council took note of the fact that a separate building was proposed and said that that building has not been approved. Mr. Burgess wanted to be sure the staff considered and included in the motion Mr. Houghton's written and oral presentations to the Council. The motion carried with Mr. Flaherty voting no. Ogden Associates, Richard Feeley, agent - request to occupy two existing structures as office and retail business complex, building #1 at 1161 Williston Road and building #2 at 10 Mary Street Mr. Szymanski said the city had received a letter stating that the proposed tenant for the Williston Road location was a formal wear business dealing in rentals and sales. They expect very low traffic (2-20 trips per day). Mr. Coburn asked if the Council could consider the application as two separate parcels and was told they could not unless they denied it or the applicant withdrew it and the application was rewarned. Mr. Coburn did not like either alternative. Mr. Coburn said they were willing to put up a sign directing exiting traffic to Mary Street. They will discourage people from using both curb cuts on Williston Road, but they do not want to eliminate one, because they might later sell the Williston Road parcel as one piece of land. Mr. Farrar wanted the city to provide the best traffic pattern it could here, and he thought that was making an entrance from Williston Road and an exit onto Mary Street. Mr. Burgess moved to instruct the staff to prepare a motion of approval for Ogden Associates, Richard Feeley agent, to occupy two existing structures as office and retail business complex, building #1 at 1161 Williston Road and building #2 at 10 Mary Street, subject to the stipulations that 1) all proposed tenants be reviewed and approved by the City Council before they are accepted and 2) that a restriction be placed that all exiting traffic from the complex go to Mary Street and then to Williston Road via that exit and that the entrance on Williston Road be restricted to one curb cut (the staff can give a specific recommendation for the location of the curb cut after consultation with Mr. Houghton). Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion. Mr. Jarvis said that since the applicant already knew who his tenant was going to be, perhaps the Council could approve that use at the next meeting. Mr. Farrar suggested that Mr. Houghton be asked for comments on the traffic generation of this tenant. Mr. Coburn felt they had given the Council all the traffic information they could on the application for the use. The motion carried without dissent. Formal action on staff prepared motion for Vermont Federal Savings and Loan to convert an existing structure (tire sales building) into a bank facility with drive-in located at 1309 Williston Road, at the southwest corner of Williston and Hinesburg Roads Mr. Flaherty moved that the South Burlington City Council approve the conditional use application of the Vermont Federal Savings of 5 Burlington Square, Burlington, Vermont, permitting converting of an existing structure into a bank facility with a drive-in at 1309 Williston Road based on the following findings and stipulations: Findings 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the City of South Burlington and standards 2, 3 and 4 of Section 5 of the Interim Zoning Regulations. 2. That the proposed use is consistent with standards 1 and 5 based on the evidence submitted by the applicant and recommendations by Traffic Engineering Associates. Stipulations 1. That the applicant extend the barrier median on Williston Road westerly a distance agreed upon by the City Engineer, with the intention of preventing left turns off Williston Road. 2. That the applicant work out a coordinated access with the adjacent property owner, and if that is available now or in the future, to make modifications necessary to implement it. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar said that he was very concerned about the ability of traffic to exit onto Hinesburg Road without accomplishment of stipulation 2 and he did not feel the motion required that coordinated access be worked out. With this motion, if the adjacent property owner does not agree to the stipulation, the stipulation will not be done. He was seriously concerned about the viability of that exit unless coordination were achieved. Mr. Burgess noted that the applicant had told the Council that cooperation would not occur because there was no reason for the other property owner to agree. Mr. Burgess went on to say that he was not convinced that traffic had been counted correctly in this case. He felt there had not been a scientific method employed in determining how much traffic would be generated. He noted that the Council had been told this was not a commercial bank, so they would have about 50% of the traffic of a commercial bank and he was not sure whether the counts were wrong, or the 50% figure was wrong, but he said that if he compared this proposal to the commercial bank he does business with, 1/2 of the cars using his bank, particularly on certain days of the week, would constitute 4 times the number of cars projected for this bank. He had to assume there was an error in the traffic projections. Mr. Burgess also noted that he had spent a lot of time watching traffic going north on Hinesburg Road and several times recently had seen traffic backed up almost to the entrance of the Grand Union complex. If the bank placed a curb cut closer to that intersection, sometimes cars will not be able to exit and he had some fears that if that were the case, cars might even back up through the drive-in and out onto Williston Road. Finally, Mr. Burgess pointed out that no matter what stipulations were imposed, the city could not eliminate left turns on Williston Road. Cars can always go into one of the curb cuts at the complex adjacent to this property on Williston Road and get to the bank that way. He felt that allowing the bank would create a traffic nightmare. Mr. Flaherty took issue with the statement that the counts were not correct, saying that the bank had given the Council a study based on traffic at their Burlington facility. Mr. Burgess noted that there was a difference between an average of 10-20 vehicles per day and 80 cars on Friday. Mr. Flaherty felt this was one of few places that there were alternate routes. He said people could take a right turn out and use Kennedy Drive. He also pointed out that this was a commercial area. Mr. Paulsen said he intended to abstain because he missed some of the first testimony regarding traffic impact. Mr. Farrar wanted to apply more pressure to get a coordinated access. Mr. Jarvis felt the bank's presentation had been as accurate as it could be and he felt that savings and loan banks did generate less traffic than commercial banks. He also sympathized with this property owner, who is in a bad position because his neighbor will not cooperate with him. The vote was Messrs. Jarvis and Flaherty yes, Messrs. Farrar and Burgess no, and Mr. Paulsen abstained. Mr. Farrar requested that Mr. Paulsen review the data and see if he can satisfy himself that he is able to vote and he said that he would talk to the City Attorney about a possible solution to the problem. Mr. Szymanski was instructed to see when the 45 days allowed for making a decision run out, but it was felt that they would run out before the next meeting, so it was decided to meet at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall on Wednesday, December 26 on this item. Review Planning Commission agenda There were no comments. Review and consider for first reading the On-Site Sewer Regulations The regulations contain 65 pages of diagrams and text and Mr. Burgess moved that, unless the public wished to hear the regulations, to dispense with the reading. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion, and when there was no objection from the audience, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Paulsen stated that he had not had time to read the regulation. Mr. Farrar said the state had reviewed it and given it tentative approval. There are no significant differences between this regulation and the model it was taken from. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the first reading of the On-Site Sewer Regulations. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Old business Mr. Paulsen asked about the sign ordinance enforcement and was told the City Attorney had not had time to work on it recently. Mr. Paulsen then asked about joggers on Spear Street but Mr. Szymanski had not yet discussed it with the police. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider liquor license for U-Sav (formerly Hank's U-Sav) Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn as the City Council and meet as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Mr. Szymanski said there had been a transfer of ownership in this case. The taxes are paid and the police chief sees no problem. The fire chief does not object. Mr. Paulsen moved to approve the liquor application for U-Sav (formerly Hank's U-Sav) as submitted. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Mr. Burgess then moved to adjourn as the Liquor Control Board and reconvene as the City Council. Mr. Paulsen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Discuss communication from the Chairman of the Zoning Board Mr. Farrar said that Robert Martineau had submitted a letter of resignation from the Zoning Board to be effective January 1. Mr. Paulsen moved to accept with regret the resignation of Robert Martineau from the Zoning Board of Adjustment subject to confirmation of a successor, and that the City Manager be directed to write him a thank-you letter and perhaps send a suitable resolution and a gavel with his name and the number of years he has served. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. Consider going into executive session to discuss the Police Association Contract and to review information on South Burlington City Hall Employees Association Mr. Flaherty moved to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the Police Association Contract and the City Hall Employees Association and to reconvene only to take action on the City Hall employees request. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and none dissented. Later, Mr. Flaherty moved to recess the executive session until Thursday December 20, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall and to reconvene the regular session. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all were in favor. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the City Council voluntarily recognize the City Hall Employees Bargaining Unit with the exception of Ms. Picard, City Clerk, on the advice of the City Attorney. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.