Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/05/1979CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 5, 1979 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, November 5, 1979 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Kenneth Jarvis, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen (late) Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; James McGee, William Congelton, Frank Jones, John Fleiter, Warren Schaeffer, Hildine Flynn, Benedict Buley, James Goddette, Fire Chief; William Bellinger, Robert Carmichael, Gail Simons, Rene Cloutier, Arthur and Genevieve Rideout, David Arnold, Leo O'Connor, Kay Neubert, Susan Boucher, Yvan Beliveau, Paul Graves, Stewart McConaughy, Margaret and H. M. Farmer, Mary and Theo Irish, Al Bartlett, Gerald Milot, Willard Nalchajian, Lowell Krassner, Larry Bagdan, Richard Feeley, Jim Harvell, William Bailey, W. Eckhardt Jacka Russell. Addition to agenda The following item was added: Request to meet as Liquor Control Board to consider a liquor license renewal. Chairman Farrar noted that item 7a, a review of the Southern Connector Citizen's Committee report, would not be discussed in any detail tonight, but that the Council would meet with the Chairman of that Committee on November 19 to do that. He added that any specific questions could be answered tonight. Minutes of October 22 and 29, 1979 On page 3 of the minutes, Mr. Burgess noted that there was some confusion regarding traffic figures for the proposed Vermont Federal Savings and Loan branch. Mr. Farrar said that the statement presented at that hearing was that there would be 18-20 cars per hour, but that that number could be cut in half because this was a savings and loan facility, which does not have commercial customers. This point is further clarified later on in these minutes. This discussion is in regard to the October 22 minutes. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 1979 and Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mr. Burgess moved to approve the October 29, 1979 minutes. Mr. Flaherty seconded and the motion carried 4-0. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Meet with representatives of Manor Woods Association to consider their request to purchase a parcel of City owned land Mr. Warren Scheaffer said that the City owned a parcel of land west of Manor Woods Condominiums and that the Association was interested in looking into purchase of that parcel. Mr. Szymanski stated that that parcel had been acquired by the City when it was doing some sewer construction in the area. The owner of the land had not wanted to give an easement over his property, so he sold the land to the City. 3-4 years ago the Schools asked for the land for a nature area. The City gave the Schools the land, reserving 3 acres of it to remain with the City. Mr. Schaeffer said that the Association had no immediate plans to build on the land, but was interested in it for building for the Association or for holding on to the land as it is. He did not think the land would be resold. There is no access to the parcel from Kennedy Drive. Mr. Farrar noted that the City had no purpose in mind for that land at this time and he raised the possibility of the City selling the land but holding the development rights. The Council was willing to consider the possibility of selling the land, although Mr. Burgess wanted to withold judgement until a specific use was proposed for the property. Mr. Farrar commented that if the Association wanted the land for more recreation area, the City would probably be more interested in the proposal for a sale. He said the procedure could be that the two parties agree on an appraiser to appraise the land. If, after that were done, the City did not want to sell, they would pay the appraiser. If the Association did not want to buy, it would pay the cost, and if the land were sold, the cost would be split between the two parties. Asked about having the land appraised before the idea was discussed with the entire Association, Mr. Burgess felt that should not be done and he reiterated that he wanted to know what use the land would be put to. He said he probably would not be willing to sell if the purchase were to be made without conditions. Mr. Jarvis asked whether the Association had any concerns regarding the land as long as it remained open space and was told they liked the idea of it remaining open. He suggested an option, in that case. Mr. Flaherty agreed, feeling that both parties wanted the land to remain open. Continue public hearings on the following Interim Zoning Applications Norman Ramsey to construct 18-unit motel at 1108 Williston Road Mr. Frank Jones represented Mr. Ramsey. He said that he did not have the traffic information requested by the Council, but was here to request direction. He did not have the information because of the cost involved with getting it ($4500). They feel that is a lot of money to spend to get a mechanical count for 16-18 cars. He also noted that there were few mechanical counters in the State and that traffic consultant Bruce Houghton had indicated that he could not do any work for this applicant sooner than two weeks from tonight. Mr. Jones wanted to table the traffic discussion for now and see where the application stood on the other 4 criteria for a conditional use permit. Capacity of existing facilities - the motel will not impact schools, and the sewer question has been addressed. Regarding fire protection, the Chief has stated that he can give good service to the property. Mr. Jones did not see a major impact on police protection. Existing pattern of development in the area - There are several other motels in the area. Environmental limitations of the site- Mr. Jones noted that the site was small and had no pecularities. Not much natural resource exists on the site. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan - Since Interim Zoning is in effect, Mr. Jones went to the old zoning, which zoned this area BR, in which zone a motel is a conditional use. He felt that a motel would generate less traffic than several uses allowed under the old zoning, Interim Zoning, or the proposed new commercial zones, such as doctor's offices, and laundromats. Mr. Flaherty responded to Mr. Jones' contention that adequate fire protection could be given by referring to the October 1 letter from the Chief, which states that the Department would have a hard time giving adequate protection because of traffic, winter weather, and the materials used in construction of the building. Mr. Jones countered by referring to the September 4 minutes of the hearing and he noted that the plan submitted had been signed by the Chief. The Chief's letter was written after the hearing, Mr. Goddette, the Chief, said. Mr. Burgess agreed with Mr. Flaherty's assessment of the fire protection situation. Back on the subject of traffic, Mr. Jones said they would do the mechanical count but would not do it willingly. Not all the cars would come at peak times, he said. He said the firm had given the Council a traffic study from Land Plan Inc., which the City gave to its traffic consultant and that consultant attacked the method of taking vehicle counts. Mr. Farrar stated that what the Council had asked for was the probability of one of the cars coming to the facility seriously interfering with traffic on Williston Road. Such interference could occur when a car was trying to turn left into the motel and could not do so because of traffic going the opposite direction. This left-turning car could block traffic behind it. The City's consultant found the report from Land Plan Inc. incomplete and he found the motel would have an adverse impact on the area, Mr. Flaherty said. Mr. Jones felt other applications on Williston Road had been approved, but it was pointed out that none were as close to the Williston Road - Dorset Street intersection, where traffic is very heavy. Mr. Farrar said the Council wanted to know the probability of a tie-up in front of the motel and he felt that information could be worked out. He told the applicant to do the best he could. Other issues raised on this application are the adequacy of the site to provide for parking and snow removal, which can be addressed here or at site-plan review. Regarding snow removal, Mr. Jones said it would be bucket loaded and removed from the site. A fence could be erected if desired, to keep snow off neighboring land. He felt this and the parking should be addressed at site-plan. Mr. Farrar said the Council has to decide if the site has the capability to handle 18 units. Regarding parking, Mr. Jones said the ordinance required 16' and they would provide 18'. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing on Norman Ramsey to construct an 18-unit motel at 1108 Williston Road until Monday, November 19 at the request of the applicant. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Vermont Federal Savings and Loan to convert existing structure (tire sales building) into bank facility with drive-in located at 1309 Williston Road Mr. Bob Carmichael said that he had tried to come up with accurate traffic figures and then to prove them. He got his figures from an article on drive-in banks in the September 1975 Traffic Engineering Magazine. The article stated that in facilities up to 20,000 sq. ft. (and this facility is 1,000 sq. ft.), the hourly traffic generation is 15-20 vehicles. That is where the figure of 18 per hour came from. That figure was cut to 10 because this is a savings and loan facility (explained in the October 22 minutes). Mr. Carmichael said he would put this discussion in the form of a memo for the Council. Mr. Carmichael tried to confirm these figures through their operations elsewhere in the State, such as the Montpelier bank. They have 180 customers per day and Mr. Carmichael estimated that this branch would have 1/2 that number, or 90 per day. They assume that all the business will come from people driving cars to the bank. With a figure of 10 cars per hour and an 8 or 9 hour day, they get 90 cars per day. Asked how he knew this bank would be 1/2 the size of the Montpelier one, he said they felt they would serve the 1/2 of South Burlington east of the Interstate, and they estimated that they would do 1/2 the business of Montpelier because of the restricted trade area here. He did not feel this bank would pull business from Williston, Shelburne, or farther than UVM. There is a branch in Essex Junction, but not in Shelburne or Williston. Mr. Carmichael stated that people seldom make a trip only to the bank, and said he felt that most of their business would come from people already on the road going somewhere else, who stopped at the bank on the way. It was noted that the volume of cars on Williston Road at that point was probably greater than in the entire City of Montpelier. The Council was shown a plan for the site with a right turn in and right turn out only at the Williston Road curb cut. People needing to make left turns can do so by using the Hinesburg Road curb cut. Mr. Flaherty suggested extending the median on Williston Road beyond this curb cut, so left turns could not be made in. This was acceptable to the bank. Mr. Burgess noted that nothing stopped cars from going where they wanted to once on the lot to the right of the bank and the area directly behind it to the left. Widening Williston Road was discussed. Mr. Szymanski recommends taking 6' for that but he noted that the State and Federal people may want more. Mr. Carmichael said peak hours at the bank were 11-12 and 2-3. Most customers using the bank on the way home will have a right turn in and out if they work in Burlington. Hours are 8:30 to 5:00 Monday through Thursday and on Friday they will be open until 6:00. Mr. Farrar asked that Bruce Houghton, traffic consultant, give the Council a statement on the effect that turning movements to from the bank will have on Williston Road, using the figures given by the applicant both before and after the figures are divided in two. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue this hearing, to be scheduled on receipt of the information from Mr. Houghton, at the request of the applicant. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Public hearings on the following Interim Zoning Applications Ogden Associates, Richard Feeley, agent to occupy two existing structures as office or retail business complex - Building #1 at 1161 Williston Road and Building #2 at 10 Mary Street Mr. Feeley gave the Council a list of possible uses for the buildings (see attached copy). He said that the property was owned by Mr. Ogden and that he (Feeley) and his partner, Mr. Coburn, wanted to buy the land and improve the interiors and exteriors of both buildings and then lease the space. The two parcels are contiguous. Both parcels were zoned BR before Interim Zoning. There are no immediate plans for the Mary Street parcel until spring, but they would like a service or retail use for the Williston Road one. Eventually Mary Street would contain a service use. There will not be retail use of that parcel. Mr. Feeley felt there was enough parking proposed. He said his traffic figures for the uses were based on conversations with people in those types of businesses. The Williston Road building has 700 sq. ft. in the first floor and 400 sq. ft. in the second. The Mary Street house has 800 sq. ft. in the first floor and 400 sq. ft. in the second. 18 parking spaces are proposed. As of today the two parcels are being treated as a single lot with one owner. They do not plan to sell one parcel, but will not rule that out. There is excess parking available on the Mary Street lot. He said they did not object to putting an exit on Mary Street. Both access points on Williston Road exist now. Mr. Feeley said that the present business in the Williston Road building has 20-30 trips per day. He said his other traffic figures had no reference other than himself. They are his estimates of what the uses will generate considering the amount of square feet in the buildings. In other words, with his estimates, an accounting firm would generate 20 trips per day per building. Regarding the garage on Mary Street, Mr. Feeley was not sure whether that would remain or be torn down. Mr. Farrar asked that the traffic consultant check Mr. Feeley's list of traffic counts to see if he can confirm or deny that they are rational. Mr. Burgess noted that in the past the Council had approved office space with the condition that each tenant come to the Council for approval. Mr. Farrar listed 4 options the Council had: 1) approve the list of uses, 2) deny the application, 3) approve an amended list, or 4) approve the use in general but not specific uses and request that each use be brought to Council. Mr. Paulsen arrived at this point in the meeting. Mr. Burgees moved to continue the hearing pending the receipt of the report from the traffic consultant at the request of the applicant. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Paulsen abstaining. William Bailey, David Arnold, Agent to occupy an existing structure as a music store and business office at 166 Dorset Street Mr. Jim Harvell explained the history of the parcel. It was to be part of a motel-restaurant complex but that fell through and the Baileys have not been able to sell the home since as a residential use. It is in a commercial zone. Now they have a sales contract pending the outcome of this hearing. Mr. David Arnold wants to keep the structure the same, have 12 parking spaces, and run a music store in the building. He presently runs such a store in Waterbury and has 10 customers per day. There will also be the option for some commercial offices in the home, but they will be low density uses, such as the type with a secretary and a desk, he said. They project a total on the property of 20 vehicles per day. The offices might be for real estate or professional offices. There will be room for two offices plus the store. Mr. David Arnold said he estimated that this store would have twice as much business as the store in Waterbury and he said that included in that figure were the two commercial offices. He said he could give the Council a list of possible uses, and Mr. Farrar noted the Council could retain jurisdiction over the specific uses. He will sell such items as guitar strings and will rent instruments, although that is usually done on a large scale in school buildings, not the store. Mr. Arnold said the operation would be similar to Gleason's operation. Instrument repair will be done. Mr. Rene Cloutier noted that he owned the property in front of this one and stated that he would like a fence erected on the back of his property and along the right of way because of the increase in traffic. They want to keep traffic within the right of way and they want a fence in the rear for privacy. Mr. Harvell noted that at the back of the Cloutier land there was a fence and a 2-car barn, plus some trees, so they were totally screened from this property. The existing fence on that line belongs to the Cloutiers. Mr. Farrar asked that the impact of 20-40 cars on Dorset Street be checked by the traffic consultant. Mr. Flaherty moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried without dissent. South Burlington Southern Connector Review Citizen's Committee final plan of recommended design and location Mr. Farrar noted that the Committee had found a design it found acceptable and had adjourned at the call of the Chairman. One piece of business was left unresolved and that is the decision on how to tie Holmes and Bartlett Bay Roads together. The proposal is to cut off Holmes and put in a new road. Bartlett Bay will either go over or under the Connector. There are two options on how to tie the two roads together on the west of the tracks, but niether the State nor the Committee had a preference, so it was determined that the residents of the area should be consulted to find out their preference. The Council wants to set up a special meeting within the next week or two with the residents to discuss the issue. The Chairman of the Committee will make a formal presentation to the Council on Nov. 19. A resident of the area said that proposals to connect the two roads close to the tracks on the east or west had met with approval from residents and that since these plans had not been feasible, perhaps consideration should now be given to a bridge at Holmes Road as well as at Bartlett Bay Road. It was pointed out that the cost for that particular bridge was very high, because of the railroad spur in that area. Mr. Willard Nalchajian, President of the South Burlington Lakeshore Association, noted that the residents of the area had made it clear a year ago that they did not want any more roads on the west of the tracks and he mentioned bridging Holmes Road again. He also mentioned the on-off ramps on the Connector at Bartlett Bay Road, saying those were never wanted because of fears they would increase development pressures in that area and increase traffic also. Mr. Farrar replied that the Committee had also questioned the ramps and that the State had felt they were necessary. The Committee requested that the State show data at the Environmental Impact hearings to support the necessity of the ramps. The consensus of the Committee was that if the data showed them to be necessary, they would be added. Mr. Nalchajian felt that a lot had changed on the road design at the last meeting of the Committee, and he wanted to be sure that a bridge or tunnel for Holmes Road could still be considered, at the special meeting with the residents before Nov. 19. One resident of the area looked ahead to the time when land to the north and south of this area was further developed. This could mean a lot more cars using the roads in the area, particularly Bartlett Bay Road. There was a concern expressed for the safety of the children of the area if the roads carried more traffic. It was suggested that Allenwood Road bridge the Connector and Holmes Road be connected to that road. Mr. Farrar asked that the Highway Department be contacted about this possibility. Allenwood is currently planned to be severed and damages paid for loss of access. Mr. Paulsen also asked that the State look into moving the at-grade crossing south. In other words, start south of Holmes Road, west of the tracks and cross the railroad between Holmes and Bartlett Bay Roads. It was noted by Stewart McGonaughy, who represented Mr. Farrell, who owns land north of the Holmes Road area, that support for using Allenwood Road would not be unanimous. Mr. Farrell would probably have substantial concerns about the proposal. Mr. Nalchajian said he would like another meeting to discuss the Connector, and Mr. Farrar told him the City would contact the residents when they heard from the State, and if a meeting were desired, it would be set up. Authorization to sign limited access order as requested by the State Highway Department - Mr. Paulsen moved that the order prepared by the State Transportation Board dated October 24, 1979 at Morrisville be signed by the Chairman of the City Council or his designee. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Discuss discontinuance of Interim Zoning Mr. Farrar asked if the Council wanted to ask the Planning Commission to hold formal hearings on its new commercial zoning and then to introduce that zoning on Williston Road, Kennedy Drive, and Dorset Street and to think about the Shelburne Road situation and terminate either all or part of Interim Zoning. The new zoning has been discussed and approved in concept by the Council. Mr. Burgess moved to request the Chairman of the Planning Commission to hold hearings on their commercial zoning proposal and to forward it to the City Council for its disposition. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all were in favor. Meet as Liquor Control Board Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn as the City Council and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Flaherty seconded and all voted aye on the motion. Mr. Szymanski said that one of the directors of the Swisspot had changed and the City had not had time to check on him yet. It was suggested that the license not be signed by three of the members, since three signatures are required and that one member sign it after the change has been checked. Mr. Flaherty moved that the City Council sign the liquor license for the Swisspot upon receipt of clearance by the Chief of Police. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.