Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/21/1980CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 21, 1980 CORRECTION On page 4, it was Mr. Jarvis, not Mr. Flaherty, who made the motion on the Senesac appeal. The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, January 21, 1980 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Kenneth Jarvis, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen, Michael Flaherty (late) Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; James Lamphere, James Goddette, James McGee, Ed Chastenay, Erwin Valgoi, Laura King, Rob Eley, Vincent D'Acuti, Paul Graves Agenda additions Mr. Szymanski announced a meeting of the Burlington Aldermen regarding the Southern Connector and said it should be discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Farrar said he hada request from the Census Bureau regarding the creation of neighborhoods in the city for census purposes. Mr. Jarvis asked why the on-site sewer regulations were not on the agenda. He was told Messrs. Paulsen and Szymanski were still working on them. Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Minutes of January 7 and 15, 1980 Mr. Paulsen moved to approve the January 7, 1980 minutes and Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion. All voted aye. Mr. Paulsen then moved to approve the minutes of January 15, 1980 and Mr. Burgess seconded. The motion carried unanimously. New City Municipal Building Review architect's sketch plans and estimate of cost and consider including building cost for a bond issue in the special March elections Mr. James Lamphere showed a sketch of the new building. He has met with all department heads to develop the plan and now there are only minor revisions to make. He explained the layout to the Council. The roofs will be sloped and a new one put over the fire station, around which the rest of the building is constructed. The existing fire station will be extended to the south and to the west. The exterior will be brick and glass and the interior drywall or concrete blocks. There are about 75 parking spaces for the public, as well as a carport for other vehicles. Mr. Lamphere gave the Council a cost breakdown (see attached copy), but he noted that the equipment cost might have to be revised upward. He was then asked about the cost of renovating the present space used by the city. He said that the building was about 22,000 sq. ft. including the basement, which is not large enough for the programs it handles. Renovation would cost about $726,000, site work and upgrading of the exterior, about $150,000, and there would be other costs also. Including furniture and fees, he felt the total cost would be about $1,417,000. Mr. Flaherty entered the meeting now. The cost of the new structure would thus be about the same as the cost of renovating the existing structure, and that would not include any increase in parking on the existing site. With a new building, the city would have more utilitarian space, located in a less congested traffic area, and it would be better for management purposes. With renovation, there would be some overlapping of facilities (two dispatch areas would be needed). Mr. Farrar asked about heating and was told that was still under study. There were no comments from the audience. The Council was in agreement that this item should be added to the March ballot. Mr. Jarvis moved to accept and sign the resolution as prepared and printed (see attached copy) and Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar read the resolution. The motion passed 5-0. Mr. Jarvis then moved to approve and sign the warning of the special meeting Tuesday, March 4, 1980 (see attached copy) and Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion, which carried with all in favor. Mr. Farrar noted that the Council had received the 5 year cost projections of the effect on the tax rate for bonded debt of the total city (city and school), which indicated that if the bond issue were approved, in 1981­82, the bonded debt tax rate would be less than 4¢ higher than it is today, in 1982­83, it would be 2/10 of 1¢ more, and in 1983­84 and 84­85, it would be lower than it is today. This is the combined debt tax rate for both city and school. Mr. Flaherty then moved to approve the ballot as put forth and Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion. After Mr. Farrar read the ballot, the motion passed 5-0. (Copy attached). Mr. Erwin Valgoi suggested having a model for people to look at. Public hearing on Interim Zoning application of Erwin Valgoi for removing 6 cottages and constructing a 12 unit two story motel at 1272 Williston Road Mr. Valgoi said that he presently had 6 cottages along White Street within 20" of the sidewalk. These are freestanding 12ʹ x 24ʹ with 12ʹ between them. They are not economical to heat and he wants to remove them plus one unit attached to the house (a total of 7 units to be removed) and erect a two story building of 12 units, 6 on each floor. He also wants to have a basement under the new building for storage. This would be 4ʹ above the ground level. He proposes to set the new building back 12ʹ from the sidewalk and retain the existing landscaping in the front (Williston Road side) of the lot. Under this plan, cars would exit onto White Street. He proposes to maintain his two existing curb cuts on Williston Road and add a new one on White Street. Mr. Valgoi did not think the plan would add any new traffic. There will be 5 new units, but they will exit onto White Street. Mr. Farrar felt the Zoning Board would have to grant a variance for the plan. Mr. Valgoi noted that if they had a 50% occupancy rate, they were happy, and that is what their rate usually is, he said. In the motel business the peak season is July and August, and that is when city residents are usually vacationing out of the city also, he said. He felt that equalized the traffic. He also noted that motels had long off-seasons; usually from the end of October to the end of June. Asked how people could be forced to use the White Street exit, Mr. Valgoi felt that the way the parking was set up would do that. He felt it would be the natural flow and added that it would be marked. He did not want to close his Williston Road exit because he felt the 9 unit building on the east of the lot needed that exit. Mr. Valgoi felt that this use was a low traffic generator. Mr. Jarvis felt that cars would use the new exit because that would be the path of least resistance. He added that there was not much room on the lot for cars to change direction with the landscaping in the middle. Mr. Valgoi said that to send all cars out the back would require removal of the center island of landscaping The drive to White Street is proposed to be 10ʹ wide. The total height of the new building including the basement and the firewalls would be 28ʹ. Mr. Valgoi said that he also wanted to add 1ʹ to the length as shown on the plan submitted to the Council. He noted that someday he would want to add an "A" roof to the 9 unit building, which presently has a flat roof. Mr. Szymanski told Mr. Valgoi that the city was planning to widen Williston Road and that they would have to have at least 6ʹ on each side of the road. Mr. Valgoi was aware that the road would be widened. Mr. Paulsen asked the present use of the house and was told it was 2 motel units. There will be a total of 5 new units on a base of 21 units now. Mr. Paulsen moved to send this proposal to the city's traffic consultant and to the city's Fire Chief for their comments and to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted aye. Formal action on staff prepared motions for the following Interim Zoning applications Norman Ramsey to construct a 12 unit motel at 1108 Williston Road - Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the findings of fact as submitted to the Council by City Attorney Richard Spokes, dated January 21, 1980 as follows: 1. The Applicant seeks conditional use approval to construct and operate a twelve (12) unit motel at 1108 Williston Road. 2. The lot in question contains approximately, 45 acres of land with 125ʹ feet frontage on the northerly side of Williston Road, and is located approximately 315ʹ feet easterly of the Dorset Street - Williston Road intersection. 3. The Council's review of this proposal is governed by the standards set forth in Section 5 of the City's interim zoning regulations. 4. The above cited Section requires findings that the proposed use will not adversly affect the capacity of roads and highways and will not adversly affect traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. 5. At least one approach to the Dorset Street - Williston Road intersection is operating at "D" level of service for many hours of the day including the morning and late afternoon peak hours. 6. Section 5C of the City's interim regulation requires the Applicant to submit sufficient traffic studies and data to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversly affect the present level of service on roads in the general area of the proposed development. The Applicant has not satisfied this evidenciary burden. 7. The addition of another motel in this particular location will increase the number of turning movements in the vicinity of the Williston Road - Dorset Street intersection and thus reduce even further the level of service at the intersection. 8. The proposed use will also increase traffic congestion in the area of the intersection, resulting in unsafe conditions and increased susceptibility to serious accidents. 9. The adverse traffic consequences the proposed motel would produce are further complicated by the Applicant's desire to name the proposed motel Anchorage II, thus increasing the possibility of confusion for the motoring public. 10. The Council finds the proposed use would be inconsistent with the health, safety and welfare of the City of South Burlington. 11. The traffic data submitted by the Applicant was insufficient as determined by the City's traffic consultant. 12. The proposed 12 unit motel (Anchorage II) would be located on a Federal marked route (U.S. 2) which offers good exposure to the traveling public. Anchorage I, a 91 unit motel, is located on Dorset Street, a local street. Divergence of overflow traffic from Anchorage II to Anchorage I will further impact traffic movement at the entrance to Anchorage II and the Dorset Street - Williston Road intersection. DECISION Thus, the application of Normand Ramsey is disapproved. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all were in favor. Joseph G. Senesac to construct a 60ʹ x 100ʹ building and occupy same as office and warehouse for manufacturing garages at 172 Dorset Street Mr. Flaherty moved that the South Burlington City Council approve the conditional use application of Joseph G. Senesac of South Burlington, Vermont permitting the construction of a 60ʹ x 100ʹ building and occupy same, along with existing structures, as an office and warehouse for manufacturing garages at 172 Dorset Street, according to the proposal of record and 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. 3. That no additional traffic is projected to be caused by this development on the Williston Road-Dorset Street intersection. Stipulations 1. That the use of the present structure be temporarily for office space and that the use not exceed a period of one (1) year. Upon expiration, the structure will revert to a residential use. 2. That the driveway, located to the north of this property be shared with the adjoining property, and constructed, according to the plan of record, prepared by Land Planning - Investment, Inc. dated 11/28/79. 3. That the present access to Dorset Street be closed. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. He noted that the traffic which would be created by this development would be very low and have no noticeable impact on the Williston Road- Dorset Street intersection. It was also noted that the applicant's plan was that the buildings revert to residential use after a certain time period. The motion carried with Mr. Flaherty abstaining. Rehearing of August 20, 1979 hearing for recreational development and acquisition of land in the Laurel Hill area to satisfy a Federal requirement for published ad The Council was informed that the city had not satisfied Federal requirements with regard to this issue at the August hearing. The City has to furnish a newspaper copy of the hearing notice and that was not done. The notice has now been inserted in the paper and a copy will be furnished. Mr. Farrar summerized the August 20 hearing (see those minutes). Mr. Flaherty moved to direct the Recreation Director to file an application with the State and Federal governments for the development and acquisition of additional land of the so called Potter property off Laurel Hill and Laurel Hill South. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Farrar abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. Review Zoning and Planning Boards agendas There were no comments. Meeting of Burlington Aldermen regarding Southern Connector Mr. Szymanski stated that South Burlington had to acquire land in this city for Burlington's portion of the Southern Connector, and Burlington had to acquire land in that city for South Burlington's Southern Connector. Burlington feels it needs legislation to enable it to do this, so they are proposing a bill in the legislature this session to provide for that. There will be a meeting of the Burlington Aldermen and the Burlington City Attorney on Monday January 28 at 8:30 pm at Burlington City Hall and they would like the South Burlington City Council and other representatives to attend. Request from the Census Bureau regarding the creation of neighborhoods Mr. Farrar said the Bureau had asked whether South Burlington wanted data to be acquired on a neighborhood basis. If so, they will have to define the neighborhoods (the city). Mr. Burgess wanted to think about the issue and he suggested that the city staff do so also. Mr. Szymanski suggested asking the School Board for its opinion on the matter. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider Harper Hotels of Vermont, Inc, to Harper Hotels, Inc, (Holiday Inn) license change Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn as the City Council and meet as the Liquor Control Board and Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. All voted aye. Mr. Szymanski said that Harper Hotels wanted a name change, which meant a liquor license transfer. Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the liquor license of Harper Hotels of Vermont. Inc. to Harper Hotels, Inc. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Szymanski noted that the problem with the Black Angus liquor license application had been taken care of and it could be signed now. It was previously approved. Mr. Paulson then moved to adjourn as the Liquor Control Board and reconvens as the City Council. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. Consider going into executive session to discuss the following contracts: Airport Tax Agreement and Police Union Contract It was suggested that the Council go into executive session and then reconvene without taking any action. At this point the Council went into executive session. At 9:45 pm the executive session was adjourned. Fact Sheet about the Retail Gasoline Industry Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.