Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/15/1982CITY COUNCIL MARCH 15, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, March 15, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, William Burgess, Howard Perkett Member Absent Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; David Spitz, Planner; Albert Audette, Street Department; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Jodie Peck, Free Press; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director; Tim Breen, Michael Behn, Gary & Richard Caron, James Ewing, Sidney Poger and George Mona, Planning Commission members; Gary Farrell, William & Ethel Schuele, Robert Watson, Marnie Kneeland, Ray Unsworth Minutes of February 25, March 8 and 9, 1982 The minutes of February 25, March 8 and 9, 1982 were approved on a motion by Mr. Flaherty, a second by Mr. Burgess and a unanimous vote. Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Continued public hearing on request of Richard and Gary Caron to convert existing warehouse to automotive and sales service Mr. Farrar noted that the question of where the zoning boundary in this area was had been brought up at the last meeting. Mr. Szymanski stated that the application had gone before the Planning Commission and they had recommended that this be in the industrial zone if it was not already there. The use would be a conditional use in the AI zone. Mr. Farrar said he personally had no objection to the recommendation. Mr. Burgess moved to approve the request of Richard and Gary Caron to convert an existing warehouse to automotive and sales service agency as outlined in the request dated 2/24/82, subject to the following stipulations: 1. That no more than 8 vehicles be displayed as indicated on the plot plan presented to us and dated 3/1/82, with the exception of a 65ʹ buffer area extending from the south property line being provided. The display area shall be relocated to an area adjacent to and immediately east of the building shown on the plan dated 3/15/82. 2. That the uses which are allowed be the sales and service of motor vehicles. 3. That this approval shall expire 6 months from this date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkett. During discussion of the original form of the motion, Mr. Caron noted that he had been asked by the city administration to move the parking area over from where it was shown on the original plan, in order to leave a 65ʹ buffer area between this use and the residential area beside it. He showed the Council a new plan with this 65ʹ area laid out and that plan was signed and dated with today's date. Mr. Ewing, a Planning Commission member, asked about outside storage and Mr. Caron told him that the outside to the rear of the building would have a stockade fence around it by the end of the summer, so there will be no outside storage of the vehicles they are working on. The motion carried without dissent. Public hearing on request of W.A. Sandri, Inc., Michael Behn, agent, to convert existing service station one bay to car wash at Sunoco station at 1143 Williston Rd. Mr. Behn said the proposal was to install a car wash in the west bay of the station. The service station is a pre-existing non-conforming use, which will be given up. He said his company usually leased its stations to dealers, but in this case they will run it themselves. They will continue to sell gas from the location. The Mary Street curb cut will be moved back about 100ʹ, so cars will enter the car wash from the rear of the building. There will be no expansion of the building, just some interior work. Mr. Farrar noted that under the proposed zoning for this area, this would be a permitted use. If approved by the Council, this will have to go before the Planning Commission for site-plan review. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the request of W.A. Sandri, Inc. to convert an existing service station one bay to car wash at the Sunoco station at 1143 Williston Road as described in the memo dated 3/12/82. Mr. Burgess seconded, the motion, and all voted aye. Authorize State Highway Department to purchase a parcel of land in Burlington which is required for construction of the South Burlington Southern Connector Mr. Szymanski showed a map of the area in question. It is a little over 2 acres in size. He noted that part of the land would be needed for the Burlington Southern Connector, but most of it would be needed for South Burlington's project. The State recommends that the entire parcel be purchased. Mr. Flaherty asked why South Burlington was authorizing the purchase of land in Burlington and was told that the State was acting as the city's agent in this. Mr. Flaherty moved to authorize the State Highway Department to act as our agent in purchasing a parcel of land in Burlington which is required for construction of the South Burlington Connector, as outlined on a map entitled "Sheet 47, Burlington M5000I". This is a 2.29 acre parcel located adjacent to #38 Hawke Building Supply Inc. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and it carried without dissent. Continue review of proposed zoning regulations Planner David Spitz continued to go through the points in his "Explanation of Major Zoning Changes" memo. Number 7 concerned encouragement of single family housing. Mr. Spitz said that if a developer could obtain full density by building single family homes, that would encourage the development of such homes. Longer lots would also allow people larger backyards. Lots could be 80ʹx 118ʹ. Mr. Farrar wondered if a lot 80ʹ wide was large enough to allow for the things people add to their homes, such as garages. Mr. Spitz said a 10ʹ side yard was being suggested, which would allow 60ʹ for the house and any additions. Mr. Farrar asked about only allowing single family homes in certain zones as a way to encourage them, but Mr. Spitz said that had been discussed and it had been felt that it would be better to let economics dictate what would be built. Mr. Farrar felt it might be better to plan for the type of community the city wanted rather than allow the community to develop the way it will if it is not planned. Number 8 in Mr. Spitz' memo deals with mixed uses. He said there were some uses which could co-exist with others. Number 9 was setbacks from major roads. The proposal is to measure setbacks from the edge of the proposed right of way. Mr. Farrar asked how that would be determined - what legal document would be used to fix the location from which to measure. Mr. Spitz said the tax maps could be used. Mr. Farrar felt the city had to be careful to define precisely where the measurement would be taken, although he did not object to the concept. Mr. Spitz noted that the existing commercial setback of 75ʹ had been reduced to 50ʹ. This will encourage parking behind the building and green space in front. Number 10 deals with height limits. The feeling of the Commission was that buildings taller than 2 1/2 stories could be allowed in the city under certain conditions. Planning Commission Chairman Poger noted that those conditions included topography, not obstructing views, and allowing more green space. It was felt that topography could be used for more imaginative architecture. Mr. Farrar felt this provision would totally change the character of the community, but Mr. Poger noted that it was not a blanket approval. Commission member Ewing stated that he did not like the idea of building taller buildings in the city until the city had building codes in place. Mr. Farrell felt, however, that with taller buildings came more State regulations, and taller buildings would be built with better materials and would be safe. Mr. Krassner felt tall buildings would overshadow residential areas. Mr. Schuele also felt 2 1/2 story buildings were tall enough. Mr. Farrar pointed out that there were already some buildings in the city which had 3 stories, at least on one side. Mr. Spitz said the new proposed height would be measured from the average contour of the land. Mr. Spitz noted that there had been changes made in general provisions. Parking spaces for multi-family units have been increased, and requirements for parking for office space have been decreased. Parking space size has also been changed from 10ʹ x 16ʹ to 9ʹ x 18ʹ. The public hearing on the zoning ordinance will be held April 5. Mr. Spitz noted that a proposal for development of a large parcel of land in the southeast quadrant would be coming before the Council. It was noted that the Council could not meet on March 29th because they would not have a quorum, so this would have to be delayed until April 12 or 19. Mr. Farrar asked that the city be sure to proceed legally on this. Continue discussion on proposed 1982-83 budget Mr. Farrar said there were three items left to decide. The first is the proposed skating facility. Mr. O'Neill passed out copies of a budget for operation of the proposed rink and a schedule of responsibilities. He said he had put these together by researching minutes of meetings where this issue was discussed. Mr. Farrar asked the cost for the work the highway department was going to do. The city will either have to pay someone else to do the work, or the highway department personnel will do it, and something else will not get done. Mr. Audette said he had thought his department would have nothing to do with the project. Mr. Burgess noted that at first the proposal had been to have the city stump and grade the land, and now other items have been added. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. O'Neill if he felt the rink would be worthwhile for citizens of the city and was told he did. He then asked Mr. Audette if his personnel could do stumping and grading in their regular schedule, but was told that something else would not be done. Mr. Farrar estimated that the work to be done by the city would take 5 man-weeks, for a cost of about $1500. He said it sounded like a cost of $4500 this year and $2000 next year, and this item was budgeted for $5000, so it seemed like the city could cover the cost. Mr. Szymanski was asked to write the School Board and inform them that the city would maintain the rink if they provided a place for it. Mrs. Schuele noted that on the library budget, they had stayed within the 10%, but that the first item on the prioritized supplemental list was very important. She noted that a school secretary was available in the library during the summer, but she liked to have the librarian, Ms. Kneeland, available sometimes. This has amounted to about 10 days during the summer. She was asking for an additional $600 for 5 days of her time, but they are not sure if that is the correct figure to use. Mr. Farrar felt that $600 could be found for this item. The next budget item to be decided was the fire truck. Chief Goddette said a ladder truck would cost $240-260,000. He felt a new truck like that would be nice, but he felt a new pumper was needed and that Engine 2 needed work, and that could be done for the same amount and it would upgrade the entire department. He did not think a snorkel truck was the right thing for the city. Mr. Farrar asked the useful life of the equipment if the Chief's recommendation were taken and Mr. Goddette said at least 15 years barring any emergency. This is if they have the third pumper and fix Engine 2. With the new pumper, he said he hoped that in another 5 years if nothing happened to the chassis they could put on a new chassis. Mr. Farrar asked if he could assume that, as far as equipment, if the Chief got a new pumper/tanker, rebuilt the ladder truck and rebuilt Engine 2 the equipment would last 10 years, and Mr. Goddette said it would last at least that long. Mr. Farrar asked if that would hold true if the community grew 20% over the next 10 years and was told that if that 20% growth included projects approved now but not built, the city would still be in good shape at that time. Mr. Farrar asked about 50% growth and was told that would depend on the number of fire calls the department was receiving at that time. Mr. Perkett asked why another pumper was needed and Mr. Goddette said he had been asking for one for several years. Mr. Perkett asked about a used pumper and Mr. Goddette said he could not get the capability he wanted with one. Mr. Goddette was asked when he would want to buy the equipment and he said he would like to buy it by January of 1983. Mr. Farrar felt the ladder truck should be bought first, then the work on the pumper, and then work on Engine 2. Mr. Perkett asked why, if he had two good trucks, the Chief did not run the other one into the ground and was told he wanted to save the cab and chassis, which he felt would last 10-15 years. Mr. Farrar asked if he could get another year out of it and was told he could. Mr. Perkett suggested getting some more use out of it before $40,000 was spent to repair it. Mr. Goddette was afraid that if he did that, he might have to get rid of the whole thing. Mr. Flaherty moved to ask the City Attorney to construct the appropriate wording to go to the voters in the May election to ask to spend $90,000 per year for the next three years for the purpose of purchasing a used ladder truck, a new pumper/tanker and refurnishing Engine truck #2. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Highway items were now discussed. Mr. Audette had given the Council a 5 year program for spending $200,000 per year. The dollar amounts were set in 1982 dollars, so the costs had been discounted down rather than inflated up. An inflation rate of 10% per year was used. Mr. Auddette noted that this might not totally take care of Dorset Street, but it would be almost done. Mr. Perkett noted that the city had a lot of money tied up in its roads and he felt they were in bad shape. He was not sure this was not a penny-wise and pound-foolish way to approach the problem. He felt that if the city did not start repairing roads soon, the cost of such repairs would go way up. He was not sure this was enough. Mr. Burgess felt this would let the city stay even or perhaps even catch up a little and Mr. Szymanski felt this was at least a start. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the 5 year capital plan to appropriate $200,000 per year for the next 5 years for highway improvements as outlined in the list dated 3/15/82, with the understanding that we will adjust the figures into the dollars of the year and that we ask the City Attorney to work out the proper wording for this to be put before the voters. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Perkett voting no. He stated that his objection was not to the program, just to the fact that he felt it was not large enough. Sign note for purchase of highway department truck Mr. Szymanski said the city had bought a truck and funded it with a note of $10,000 at 10.2%. He stated that the bank wanted a commitment from the city on the length of time they intended to fund this. Mr. Farrar said it would be paid off in 2 years. Mr. Burgess moved to sign the note for purchase of a highway department truck. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Old business There was none. Sign South Burlington Street Department contract Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the Highway Department contract for 1981-83. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Consider going into executive session to review City Hall Employees Association Contract It was decided to discuss this item at tomorrow night's meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.