Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/17/1980CITY COUNCIL MARCH 17, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, March 17, 1980 at 6:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Martin Paulsen, William Burgees, Kenneth Jarvis Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Albert Audette, Street Dept.; Alyce Piche, tax department; Gloria Yandow, bookkeeper; Jamie Grenier, Diane Gadhue, Marie Gallant, Darla French, Betty Bailey, City Hall staff; Richard Underwood, City Assessor; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Rob Eley, Free Press; James and Nancy McClary, Mike and Dave Brassard, John and Virginia Coleman, Carroll Berry, Ted Olsen, Robert Martineau, George Mona, Madge Kopf, Evie Schwerin, Edward Lyman, Emily and John Bell, Jim Maynard, Barbard Stevens, Dale and Nancy Klein, Constance Knodt, Audrey Park, Betty and Donald Moser, Jim and Lorna Cross, Joanne and George Neal, Elane Isaacson, Don Sessions, Gloria Sessions, Gabe Hartstein, Bill Robenson, Robert Provost, Carl Lisman, Erwin Valgoi, Gloria Gibson, Barbara Wick, Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director; Steve Page Meet with City Hall Employees Association Mr. Richard Ward spoke for the employees. He noted that the Council had held many meetings with the police on their contract and had settled on a dollar figure for pay increases of 10 1/2% with 1% longevity. He did not feel that the Association necessarily wanted to try to convince the Council to go higher than that. He noted that the Association had been formed last year and said that the employees tried to give the city a good service but that it became harder each year to tell the city what they wanted to have. There seems to be a gap between the Council and the employees. Mr. Burgess wanted to explore the problems the employees saw, perhaps at a later meeting. Mr. Ward mentioned an item which had not been purchased for a department, and felt there were communication problems. Mr. Farrar felt the first sentence in Article 6 section 1 should be removed. The association should make a list of officers available to the city yearly, though. He also noted that the city had nothing to do with Article 7. Mr. Ward said they might want payroll deductions and Mr. Farrar said they could bargain for the right to such deductions. Mr. Farrar noted that Article 8 was not the present practice. Mr. Ward said that an hour's lunch was the practice in surrounding communities and he also noted that some employees travelled home to eat and 1/2 hour was not enough to do that. The employees feel that the police receive an extra week's pay and that they are given a clothing allowance, as are other city departments and the City Hall employees want an hour's lunch. The Council felt the police did not receive extra pay - that the 1991 hours per year rule worked for the City Hall people also. As to clothing, it was noted that City Hall employees were not required to wear uniforms, nor were their clothes exposed to unusual wear. Mr. Ward noted that he was often in the field and Mr. Burgess responded that perhaps he should have a clothing allowance, but that the bookkeeper, for example, should not. Returning to the lunch issue, Mr. Ward noted that hours would be staggered so the office would not have to close. He felt that other departments received benefits which had a dollar value, as this lunch time does. Regarding the pay schedule, Mr. Farrar asked if the Association was willing to accept a pay schedule similar in form to the one offered to the Police Department and accepted by them. Mr. Ward said the members would discuss that and come back to the Council. Article 10 section 2 was discussed. Mr. Ward said the employees wanted a committee appointed outside the Salary Review Committee to investigate pay grades and job classifications, and if the committee found any discrepancies, they wanted it to report these to the Council and have the Council remedy the situation. They want to know where the City Hall employees stand in relation to other communities, Mr. Ward said. The Salary Review Committee tried to do this job 5 years ago, Mr. Ward said, and the job was never finished. He said they wanted some outsiders to work these things out and noted that the composition of the committee could be changed from what the contract required. He added that there were provisions in the personnel rules and regulations which were violated regularly. Mr. Burgess felt the Council should know about these things so it could take action to remedy them. It was decided to meet again Wednesday at 7:30 with the Association. Later in the meeting, because of other items the Council has to discuss, it was decided that the Council would meet at 6:30 that evening. Minutes of February 27, March 3, 5, and 10, 1980 The Council did not have copies of the February minutes. Mr. Paulsen moved to approve the minutes of March 5 and 10, 1980 and Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. On the March 3 minutes, on page 1, the new street is Twin Brooks Court. Mr. Jarvis moved to approve the March 3, 1980 minutes with the above correction. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried without a nay vote. Mr. Paulsen was not present for that meeting. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Meet with residents of Stonehedge development Mr. James McClary was president of the F7 cluster association and he said that residents of the area had attended a Planning Commission meeting to object to major changes in the complexion, building type and layout of what they believed to be an approved PUD. The only thing which will not change is the density. The residents were told to take their comments to the Council. Mr. Farrar was not sure why the Commission would approve the changes if they were not in the best interests of the community. Mr. McClary noted that the selling price of the units would be below that which most residents paid for their units, which would drive their values down. He said the residents were told that the building style would not change when they bought their units. Mr. Farrar said the city could look into the legal jurisdiction of the Commission in accepting these new units. He did not believe the Council could do anything for the residents except clarify whether the Commission could or could not deny the changes, since they are not consistent with the original proposal. Mr. Ted Lyman noted that there did not seem to be anyone to complain to about the fact that the Planning Commission was not in control of the gradual downgrading of the area. The Council did not think it or the Planning Commission could get involved in the type of construction proposed, although they might be able to if changes would materially alter the neighborhood. Mr. McClary asked to whom the residents could go to be sure the PUD was constructed the way it was originally planned. He was told the Council would try to get an answer to that question. One possibility was discussing the issue with the Act 250 people. Another issue was also discussed. It was noted that certain parts of the original approval, such as landscaping, had not been finished yet. Mr. Farrar said that such conditions of approval were normally covered by bonds and if they were not done, the city could take the bond and do the job itself. The person to discuss such violations with is the Code Officer. The question of enforcement was discussed. Mr. Farrar noted that the developer had to certify to the city that the utilities were put in place as shown on the plans. In addition, the Code Officer, City Engineer and Fire Chief made inspections of developments under construction. Mr. Moser noted that before phase 2 was to be constructed, the developer had agreed to monitor the sewage flow from phase 1 to see if there was sufficient capacity. Mr. Szymanski said he would check to be sure that had been done. Mr. Moser felt that if the size and price of the units changed, that might change the type of person who bought a unit, which might increase the sewage flow. Mr. Burgess requested the minutes from the public hearings and the approval motions for this project before the next regular meeting. Mr. Bruce Latelle asked how phase 2 could be started if the sewage was supposed to be monitored after phase 1 was finished, when that phase was not completed yet. Mr. Burgess suggested that perhaps building permits should not be given, if that was in fact a stipulation of approval. Mr. Lyman expressed his frustration with the situation. He was told the Commission might have the power to address the size of the new units if that would affect traffic and sewer capacity in the area. Some residents complained that the maps of the area had not been large enough for them to orient themselves on them. Mr. Burgess suggested that it would be helpful if the residents submitted a specific list of questions, some of which he felt the city could solve, and some of which he did not think they could. Mr. McClary objected to the changes proposed because this was a planned unit development, and now the plan was changing. He also mentioned problems due to lack of inspection and wondered if the Council was responsible for seeing that things were built according to code. He was told that was the State's responsibility. Mr. Farrar explained the relationship between the Council and the Commission. Legally they have separate responsibilities and if either the citizens or the city does not like a decision the Commission has made, they can appeal that to the courts. One resident said that they had been told that the rest of the units would be townhouse units and he felt that the residents had been deceived if that concept were to be changed. Mr. Farrar noted that if a developer made a statement to the Planning Commission about his development, that was not binding on him unless it were later made a stipulation of approval. The Act 250 hearings are different, however, and statements made to them during the hearing are binding. Mr. McClary noted that the original condominium documents stated that the property now owned by these residents would not have its property values impaired. Mr. Paulsen said that if that were a covenant, it would still be in force, but it was noted that the city could not enforce a covenant. The residents thanked the Council for its time. Sign resolution of commendation for Robert Martineau and present plaque Mr. Farrar read the resolution of commendation (see attached copy). Mr. Paulsen moved to sign the resolution and Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion. None dissented. Mr. Farrar said he appreciated having worked with Mr. Martineau for a long time and was saddened that this time was coming to an end, at least for a while. He then presented Mr. Martineau with a plaque in recognition of 15 years of dedicated service to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Martineau thanked the Council and said he appreciated this note of recognition. Meet with Brassard brothers on the Midas sign Mr. Dave Brassard said they had met with the Planning Commission on this problem and that the Commission minutes reflected that the Commission, not the Brassards, had asked the Council to help resolve the dilemma regarding the sign and the backland of the Midas property. Mr. Farrar noted that the Commission had sent the Council nothing on the issue other than its minutes. It was also noted that the law was the law. Mr. Brassard said that if the only recourse was through the courts, that was an avenue open to them. He went on to object to the stipulation placed on them by the Planning Commission regarding the upgrading of the Midas drive to a city street, which would then make the Midas sign non-conforming. Upgrading the drive would have to take place before development of the backland. At this time, the sign is conforming. Mr. Brassard pointed out that Midas had a long term lease of 20 years with several 5-year renewals, and that the location of the sign exactly where it is was very important to Midas. He told the Council that the Commission never intended to deny Midas a sign on Williston Road, but that it was the upgrading of the drive to a city street which caused the problem. The Council pointed out that off-premise signs, which this would be after the upgrading and subdivision of the land, were contrary to state laws as well as city laws. Mr. Brassard stated that the desire of the city for a city street was for access to the Munson property behind Midas, not for access to the rear of the Midas lot itself. Mr. Farrar asked if the position of the Brassards was that they did not object to making land available to the city for the street as long as it did not require the removal of the sign and was told that was correct. Mr. Brassard felt that it might be possible to allow the city use of the drive without actually making it a city street now, or part of it could be a city street, so that traffic would go from the city street to the Midas drive and then onto Williston Road. The Brassards noted that legally the Commission could drop the stipulation. Mr. Farrar said that if the property the sign stands on were split from the property the building is on, the sign would be illegal under state law and he added that the sign ordinance allowed no variances. Mr. Brassard asked about a narrow strip of land extending from the building to the road, on which the sign would be located. Mr. Farrar said the Council would try to get back to the Brassards in a few weeks. Formal action on staff prepared motion for the interim zoning application of Champlain Oil Co., C.A. Cairns, agent, for permission to construct a 30' x 40' building and occupy same as a mini-mart and gas station on land located southerly of Automasters and northerly of Shelburne-South Burlington town line Mr. Jarvis moved that the South Burlington City Council approve the conditional use application of Bernard Barney, C.A. Cairns, Champlain Oil Co., agent, for construction of a 30' x 40' building, and occupy same as a mini-mart and gasoline station, on land located southerly of Automasters and northerly of the Shelburne-South Burlington town line, 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 and verified by Traffic Engineering Associates. Stipulation 1. That the applicant cannot sell gasohol with more than 10% alcohol without the prior approval of the Fire Chief. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried with 3 yes votes and one abstention by Mr. Paulsen. Continue public hearing on the interim zoning application of Gerald Milot to construct 4 buildings, housing 34 2-bedroom residential units on land located northerly side of Kennedy Drive, bound by the properties of Ryan, ICV, and the City of South Burlington Mr. Szymanski said he had been unable to have the traffic consultant work on this application, so he had expanded on the data himself, taking into consideration the future uses on Kennedy Drive. He has looked at the impact of other developments and added them to the base. Mr. Steve Page, representing Mr. Milot, felt that the data might be an understatement of the conditions one might expect on Kennedy Drive, noting that some through traffic on that road was generated outside the city. He did not, however, object to this data. Mr. Page said he had tried to contrast the present projected traffic with that of the previously approved use. They now project 24 trips entering and leaving the project at the pm. peak hour. The previous office use would have doubled that number. Mr. Page said it was not clear to him exactly where the threshold was as far as the amount of congestion the city could tolerate on its roads. He felt, however, that the critical point would be reached by a project other than this, since this is a one-year project and others on the road will be phased over three years. He felt the threshold would be reached by a later phase of a larger project. He went on to say that it was not clear to him what the standard had been for evaluating congestion under Interim Zoning and he felt that future road improvements caused by these projects would be paid for out of tax revenues which will come from them. Mr. Page also noted that the Route 116 approach to Kennedy Drive was one approach least heavily impacted by this project, so the most critical approach is not the one which this project would affect most directly. He also noted that the 116 approach seemed to work better than indicated in theory. He said that how an intersection operated was the bottom line in terms of evaluating the overall situation. Mr. Page said the review of the project with the Fire Chief was not complete yet and he preferred to keep the hearing open until the Chief's review was submitted. Mr. Page said he could submit written comments to the Council on traffic. Mr. Szymanski's traffic study is on file with the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Paulsen moved to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting and Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Public hearings on the following Interim Zoning Applications Addison Corp., Barbara Wick to occupy an existing structure (12' x 20') as an antique shop, said structure is located on a lot also occupied by a residential dwelling at 400 Shelburne Road Ms. Gloria Gibson and Ms. Barbara Wick spoke to the application. They said that from 4-5 pm there were 1400 cars per hour on Shelburne Road and that they expected 2-4 cars to turn into their antique shop. They obtained these figures from observation of another antique shop on Shelburne Road. They felt they might have 2 cars twice a day on a good day. The business will be next to the Ski Shop at the corner of Proctor Avenue and Shelburne Road. Now and during the summer months they expect antique shop traffic, while the Ski Shop's business will be poor, so there will be a balance, Ms. Wick said. She noted also that the antique shop would be small and that there had been a gift shop in that building for many years. They bought the property last fall. The previous owner lives in a single family dwelling on the lot. The building has not been in use since its purchase last fall. Ms. Gibson noted that during the noon hour another antique shop on Shelburne Road had only one car come in and she said the antique shop could be run by appointment only. They expected to do business with dealers, so there would not be a lot of retail traffic. Mr. Farrar asked for a specific outline of how the operation would be run. He was told the doors would open at 9 am and close at 5 pm, but that there might not be a clerk in the shop during all that time. The ski shop clerks would keep an eye on the antique shop. Mr. Burgess felt that the largest amount of traffic would be during the summer and he asked for traffic counts for peak hours on that part of Shelburne Road. Ms. Wick expected tourist and local traffic but felt the bulk of the business would be from dealers. It was noted that there were 3 curb cuts on the lot. Mr. Paulsen moved to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jarvis and carried 4-0. Robert L. Provost to operate a commercial mail receiving agency and retail shop in conjunction with an apartment on the 2nd floor, at 1270 Williston Road Mr. William Robinson said his client wanted to use the building on the Williston Road-White Street triangle as it had been used in the past - as an apartment on the second floor and with a private mail service plus a small retail space or professional office on the first floor. 400 sq. ft. would be used for the mail service, and 600 sq. ft. for the office space. Presently there are 6 parking spaces on the lot and the owners have permission for parking behind the beverage warehouse, for a total of 14 spaces. All traffic will use the White Street curb cut, because the Williston Road one will be closed. The applicant expected 20-30 cars per day. There will be 150 boxes. The 20-30 figure was obtained from similar businesses in California, which also say that 3-4 parking spaces is more than enough for 200 boxes. Mr. Provost has correspondence indicating these numbers, which has been entered into the record (copy on file with Zoning Administrator). Mr. Farrar asked if the applicant was asking for a mail agency and apartment and was reserving a certain space for another commercial or retail use. He was told that Mr. Provost hoped for office space in the other part, but might have a gift shop there. The parking for permanent employees and tenants will be behind the warehouse. He wanted to set the empty space up for rent subject to zoning approvals. Mr. Jarvis noted that Mr. Provost would come to the Council for approval of the use once he had a tenant. Mr. Provost read a description of the mail service and was asked to give the Council a copy of it for the record. He said that it would provide private post office boxes, mail forwarding and holding, phone messages, wrapping and shipping parcels. They will accept mail from UPS but will not ship by them. This will be a bulk mail drop. Mr. Farrar asked if a post office truck would come in once a day and drop a lot of mail. Mr. Provost expected his hours to be from 10 to 4 Monday to Saturday. They will enter the letter from the warehouse owner regarding parking spaces into the record. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Szymanski to find out if the warehouse had 8 more spaces than it needed for that use. With 6 approved spaces on the lot, Mr. Burgess noted that the retail business would be alloted 3 spaces. Mr. Carl Lisman represented Erwin Valgoi, the only adjacent property owner. Mr. Valgoi feels there are three issues. If the business is operated 6 hours per day and there are 24-30 cars during the day, that is one every 20 minutes, which means 1 car in and out every 10 minutes. The intersection in that area is not the least congested in the city, Mr. Lisman said, and this traffic may be enough to create an unreasonable burden, which the interim zoning regulations were set up to avoid. He felt that if this was the only commercial mail drop in the east coast, it might be busier than the ones in California, and if so, traffic will be more than anticipated. He also noted that the traffic counts did not include the UPS, post office, and Federal Express trucks which would be bringing in mail. The second point is that this may place more of a burden on the city's police, since it will have to be watched for burglars. The third concern is the noise the traffic will create for the motel next door, where people will be trying to sleep. Mr. Lisman felt this was a piecemeal application and that there had been various requests to change the uses on this lot by the applicant. He did not feel the applicant could sustain the burden of traffic or impact on municipal services. Mr. Robinson responded that this use would not require more police service than other businesses, that traffic noise was caused by moving, not stopped cars, and that he did not feel this was a piecemeal application. Mr. Provost then responded that the businesses in California were in more populated areas, so their traffic probably would be greater. He also felt that the same traffic would be going to the post office if it did not come here, so there would be no increase in traffic flow on White Street. He said there would be an alarm system and he noted that few people slept from 10 am to 4 pm. Mr. Burgess noted that UPS trucks were quite large, and when one was on the lot, it would be using at least one parking space just for circulation. Mr. Provost said he could pick up parcels from UPS. He did not believe that this agency would be large enough to warrent a large truck coming onto the lot, but Mr. Burgess pointed out that if one did come, and there were customers also there, there might not be enough room for parking for the retail space. Mr. Jarvis also pointed out that it did not seem that the city or the applicant could restrict when mail would be delivered so Mr. Provost said he could pick up the mail. He did not see a problem with traffic since it was a small agency. Mr. Jarvis said that with 150 boxes, there might be 150 people who came in every day to get their mail. Mr. Provost said that was possible, but that the service was designed to give people working out of their homes a professional address and to allow transients to receive their mail. He said that he would answer the phone and take messages for his clients and would do gift wrapping. He will do this work. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jarvis and carried unanimously. Continue public hearing on proposed C1-C2 zoning regulations Mr. Paulsen wanted some time to review comments in a memo he had received tonight, so Mr. Jarvis moved to continue this discussion on Wednesday evening. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and carried 4-0. Continue review of 1980-81 budget Mr. Szymanski said a new computer system in conjunction with the schools would cost about $82,000, but the schools do not have any money budgeted for computer costs this year. This item may be put out for a special vote. To separate totally from the school would cost about $70-80,000 for a different, smaller system that would be adequate for City Hall plus a part-time person to help and do programming. The system was discussed further. Mr. Szymanski felt that staying with the school was the best way to proceed. Mr. Farrar felt that $1.65 was a good estimate on gas costs per gallon for the budget, so all departments will use that number. Mr. Farrar felt that there was about an $80,000 surplus, but some of that has been used to balance the sewer account, so there is really $50,000, minus the open space fund of $28,000, so there is a $22,000 surplus. The Council wanted a worst case, best case, and good estimate on what the actual Grand List this year would be from the Assessor. The amount to be raised by taxes was determined to be $1,610,452. Sewer hookup policy Mr. Paulsen asked what mechanism of control the city had over who did and who did not pay the sewer charge. Mr. Szymanski said the water department took care of that and that he could ask for a list of delinquent accounts. Mr. Paulsen wanted to be sure unpaid sewer bills were paid. Mr. Szymanski noted that it was not an easy procedure. Mr. Farrar felt it was not a significant problem. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.