Development firm Redstone has applied for a zoning permit to build a 120-room, five-story hotel on East Allen Street in downtown Winooski.
To make way for the project, the developers have proposed demolishing two residential structures, including one at 41 East Allen that is listed on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places as a locally significant structure. The home was built in 1872 and is known for the two lions that sit on either side of its front steps.
Tear-downs are an increasingly familiar scenario in the city, where an uptick in development on major streets has come with multiple demolitions.
The hotel would be developed by Winooski Block LLC, according to the zoning application. The LLC is headed by Redstone CEO Larry Williams; managing partner Erik Hoekstra is listed as the LLC’s registered agent, state records show. Neither responded to messages from Seven Days.
The Winooski Development Review Board will consider the proposal at its regular meeting Thursday night.
Redstone’s hotel project could compete with another proposal a few blocks away at a city-owned lot along Abenaki Way. Last month, the Winooski City Council voted to enter into negotiations with Nedde Real Estate and partners for a development on that lot, which would include a 100-room boutique hotel, a 300-car parking garage and 36,000 square feet of office space.
Redstone’s project would incorporate an existing surface parking lot, along with the land under the two houses that would be demolished. Those homes are currently rentals that contain approximately 10 units total.
The hotel would include 65 parking spots at the existing parking lot. The developer is asking the city for permission to meet requirements for another 43 spaces in the nearby city-owned parking garage on Cascade Way.
Winooski officials have sought to attract a hotel in the downtown core for more than a decade, with various projects that have surfaced and then stalled. With two projects now proposed, is there a market for both?
Heather Carrington, Winooski’s community and economic development officer, said the city is willing to work with any developer who brings a project forward.
It’s up to the developer to determine “what the market will bear,” Carrington said Tuesday.
The proposed hotel on East Allen requires local approval. It could also be large enough to require approval under the state development review law, Act 250, said Eric Vorwald, the city planning and zoning manager.
It’s unclear if the proposed demolition of a state-listed historic structure will slow the project. The house at 41 East Allen is sheathed in rusting aluminum siding, but with its tall white columns and curving porch, it still has fans who believe it has potential for reuse and renovation.
Winooski Historical Society member Sarah van Ryckevorsel expressed concern that it could be on its way out.
“The house with its two lions is an iconic welcome as you enter the downtown of Winooski,” van Ryckevorsel wrote in an email to Seven Days. “Of course I would love to see the house stay standing with a creative architectural solution to incorporate the old building into the new one, similar to what is being done with the old YMCA building in Burlington.”
She was referring to plans to turn the former Greater Burlington YMCA building into a hotel that would retain the building’s historic front.
Meanwhile, opponents of a proposed apartment building that would raze one of the oldest houses in Winooski, known as the Mansion House, have appealed that project on multiple grounds.
The appeal is currently at Vermont Superior Court.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
More housing, not more hotels!
“More housing, not more hotels!.”
See, here’s the thing: you don’t own this property.
Sigh. Another ‘historic’ structure that has been chopped into apartments, sheathed in vinyl and let fall into disrepair for decades. As a Winooski resident, I welcome the jobs, tax growth and downtown revitalization that a new hotel would bring.
More service wage jobs brought to you by Neo-liberal economics and the cancer spreads.
It’s up to the developer to determine “what the market will bear,”
What about, what the sewer mains and sewage treatment plant will bear? Is the developer paying to update those for the new burden they will place on it? You know, the ones that already can’t handle what they have now without flooding untreated sewage into our waterways, creating cyanobacterial nightmares all summer long.
How about water supply? Electrical supply? Storm water? Increased garbage disposal?
The Winooski and Burlington area need more real affordable housing. I know the city is just thinking about how much money they can get from a hotel from taxes and more tourists. But what does Winooski have to offer them except for bars? They haven’t had any stores there in centuries worth shopping at. The last one they had was Forest Hills Factory Outlet. Then there were the small shops in the Woolen Mill. What makes them think a hotel will do any better?
“What makes them think a hotel will do any better?”
See, here’s the thing: you don’t own this property. If the person or company that DOES own it thinks that a hotel will be profitable there, that’s their decision.
Hey Assumptions,
You don’t own the property either, but that doesn’t matter. The question is whether the infrastructure can support the hotel (or both hotels!) and whether there is a need. I agree with the comment on the limitations of tourist attraction to Winooski. Perhaps people who enjoy the sound of the F-35s? But in that case they all better hurry, as the accumulation of more jets at the airport will exacerbate the noise complaints (which are all valid). I believe the jets will not be able to stay here long.
[I can’t wait to see which line you excerpt for your snarky tongue-lashing.]
knowyourassumptions – If the person or company that DOES own it thinks that a hotel will be profitable there, that’s their decision.
Actually, no, it’s not their decision. This goes well beyond a private citizen using private property for their own purposes. This is a corporate entity, “Development firm Redstone” looking to tear into the historic fabric of a town & shoehorn in a large commercial operation, that will burden the entire surrounding area in numerous ways, subject to commercial regulation by the People of Winooski and the People of Vermont. And if the paid representatives of the People of Winooski act in any way other than the best interests of the People, they are subject to their own liability. The people of the town have a 100% valid interest in how this is going to affect them and every right to weigh in on it and prevent it if that is the consensus.
Winooski already has massive problems with storm water runoff & sewage disposal/contamination and now these developers want to amplify those problems while dangling dollar bills in front of starry eyed municipal servants.
@ Freedomtothink
It bothers me when people erroneously associate combined sewage discharges (due to lack of stormwater infrastructure) with phosphorous loading and cyanobacteria outbreaks. Whether these citizens are entirely uninformed on lake ecology or whether they want to use our (lack of) stormwater infrastructure as a convenient scapegoat to avoid discussing less politically-palatable regulations on the dairy industry I don’t know. But the continued coupling by citizens and policy makers alike of these two different problems bothers me.
Sewage discharges do create public health issues and are a vector for pathogens like e. coli to enter the lake, but they are NOT a significant source of phosphorous that lead to cyanobacteria outbreaks–at least not any more so than “treated” sewage which really only means it has been broken down into smaller particles and disinfected (sewage treatment plants are not designed to remove phosphorous).
The vast majority of phosphorous pollution comes from the ag sector. But oh no! We can’t have regulations that put our state’s “idyllic landscape” at risk! Grow a pair people. Vermont’s dairy industry is not economically viable nor sustainable.
Whether this project will have any effect (positive or negative) on Winooski’s partially-treated sewage discharges is a different question. But PLEASE don’t associate this new hotel with cyanobacteria outbreaks. Development like this has no effect on phosphorous levels and associated algae outbreaks.
@ Freedom
See, heres the thing: if the good people of Winooski do not want development because they think it will overly burden the infrastructure, then they can change the city regulations to not allow more development (although that would be silly given what theyve already crammed into the downtown). As long as the developer is complying with current city regulations on the use of private property, then she is free to build a hotel. As an individual rights advocate, Id think youd know that it is a fundamental principle of American law that it is actual, CURRENT law that controls. You cant stop someone from doing what current law allows. You cant stop someone from driving the posted speed limit because you personally think it is too high.
If you build a single family home on your property it will also burden the sewer system. Winooski cant stop you from building your house for that reason.
@ Messing
You keep repeating the same misunderstanding over and over and over and over about whether *we need* another hotel. The hotel is not for you. So you do not decide whether there is a *need* for another hotel. Nor do I. Nor does Ms. Smith or Ms. Jones. The market decides the need, not your personal opinion. The developers believe the market will support a hotel in downtown Winooski. I suspect they have good market data. Do you have contrary market information that the developer does not have? Then by all means call them up and tell them. But you dont . . .
If the city officials in Winooski dont want to grant a permit for another hotel, thats fine. But unless you are the developer, or a member of the Winooski Planning and zoning commission, your personal sense of whether Winooski *needs* one is entirely irrelevant.
Knowyerassumptions,
Thanks for the shout-out, but you keep repeating yourself a lot more than I do. Your argument is not with me. Build a hotel, why don’t you?
knowyourassumptions
Here’s another thing, or two:
You appear to be very confused about law and rights vs privileges. Are you actually trying to say that the rights & privileges of a large corporate entity/investment group, existing by consent of the people under a corporate charter, are the same as the inherent rights of an individual man/women?
And are you also trying to say that a five story tall, 120 room hotel is going to place no more burden on the sewers and other public infrastructure as a single family home?
You don’t seam to have a good grasp on what is being proposed or you are deliberately trying to twist the facts. I suggest you go back and reread the article, possibly with a dictionary by your side.
I’m not talking about changing laws. This corporation has applied to the city/people of Winooski for permission through a zoning permit. The city, in it’s administration of the Peoples business, has every right to deny that permit based on the impacts it will have on the people, including burdening the city with a stupid idea. And also looking to demolish a building that is on the historic register for yet another money grab.
The traffic circle is a death trap already, with locals who travel it daily still unable to safely use it. A huge gaggle of tourists rolling in and out of it will obviously not help the situation. Where will all these cars park? Each hotel, it seems, wants use of the parking garage. There’s already a street parking issue downtown, and near downtown. By all means, let’s add more cars. And tearing down 10 rental units is just that, a loss of 10 likely less expensive rentals, or at least compared to all the fancy new stuff going up all over the city. One hotel, 2, neither will be good for the PEOPLE of Winooski. So glad I left