HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/10/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
I-89 BREAKOUT SESSION MEETING MINUTES
10 MARCH 2021
1
A quorum of the South Burlington Planning Commission participated in a Joint Meeting/Working Session
regarding the I-89 Corridor Study facilitated by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission on
Wednesday, 10 March 2021, at 5:00 p.m. via Zoom remote technology. Minutes for the joint meeting
are with the City Council minutes. The Planning Commission held a “break-out” sessions afterwards with
the same Zoom remote technology.
Present: Eleni Churchill, Paul Conner, Jessica Louisos, Duncan Macdonald, Michael Mittag, Monica
Ostby, Charlie Baker (attended part of the meeting)
1. Breakout room to have individualized conversations and feedback regarding I-89 Corridor
Study Interchange Evaluation Criteria
Mr. Mittag stated concern regarding impact to wetlands, particularly at the 12B location. Requested
wetland impact metrics be included. He has walked the area and cannot see how the proposed location
of 12B can avoid the destruction of this wetland. Ms. Churchill stated that there is a wetland metric and
an updated 12B concept seemed to address wetland issues but will review.
Ms. Louisos requests economic access impact as the interchanges connect to areas of growth. She
would like to see a sub set metric of how each exchange contributes and/or detracts from supporting SB
City Center. Ms. Churchill indicated that she will discuss this with the consultant team.
Mr. Mittag suggested underlying assumptions might not have taken into account that we expect more
people to work from home This would mean fewer commutes and fewer cars on the road. Also, a lack of
transit for rural residents might lead to the use of robotaxis by rural residents making traditional transit
less important. Ms. Churchill explained that due to the uncertainty of how people will travel in a post-
pandemic world, the study will recommend monitoring travel patterns and develop triggers to identify
when major roadway capacity improvements are needed so they can move forward.
Ms. Ostby stated disappointment that a version of exit 14 with the inclusion or assumption of a separate
bike/ped bridge to it's south was not presented. Ms. Churchill explained that the isolated bike/ped
bridge is being reviewed as part of the I-89 corridor "bundle" and evaluated separately (in the next
phase of the study). That it might be a mid-way project that is constructed prior to an exit 14
reconstruction. And that any exit 14 option should include safest bike/ped facilities even if a separate
bridge is constructed.
Ms. Ostby also asked if truck/commercial traffic impact not only on each exit but the surrounding city
roads be considered. Are there areas of SB that would see a rise in commercial traffic? Ms. Churchill
indicated that the regional model provides data on overall vehicle traffic but not necessarily on
commercial traffic. The project team already developed maps indicating change in volumes for each of
the five interchange concepts. Note: The maps are available on the project website
(www.envision89.com) and were shared with the City Council Feb 16, 2021.
Regarding exit 13, Ms. Ostby stated safety concerns of heavy truck/commercial on a 4 lane boulevard
design connecting I-89 to Shelburne Road. She also asked if the land connected to the southern portion
of the current 189 might be converted to bike/ped use. Ms. Churchill explained that since it is Federal
land it would have to be invested. They will review how to identify commercial traffic safety impact.
Mr. Conner suggested that all exits review what Federal lands would be no longer needed with the new
designs and what might happen to that land. That even if the land ownership continued to be Federal
and was left alone, what impact would it have on a potential quality of life improvement. He suggested
2
adding a metric of "Return of Valuable Land." Ms. Churchill stated that such questions will be directed
to the Vermont Agency of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Mittag asked about the cost impact of creating 12B, how many acres would have to be purchased as
is this part of the cost estimate. Churchill confirmed the construction estimates do not include ROW or
land acquisition expense.
Mr. Mittag supported exit 13 given its direct access to the airport, reducing traffic load to exit 14, and
asked that this be considered in a weighted evaluation.
Mr. Macdonald asked for clarification of the process. Ms. Churchill explained that while the final
decisions on which interchange concepts to move forward for further evaluation are made by the I-89
Advisory Committee, they will give preference to the direction received by the City Council. As part of
the process the committee will look at midway options such as bike/ped bridge before final interchange
work. That major interchange improvements (permitting, design and construction could take 15 to 20
years. Mr. Macdonald suggested that timing to completion is an important metric that should be
included.
Mr. Macdonald asked for clarification regarding the two future roads shown on the 12B draft,
connecting Tilley Drive to Kimball Ave and to Community Drive.. Mr. Conner confirmed both roads are
currently on the Official Map, and one, connecting to Kimball Ave, has its northern half currently under
consideration as part of a proposed development.
Ms. Louisos reminded that there was a suggestion to consider how the scoring might be weighted. This
is a topic the full PC will discuss in an upcoming meeting. Further, should any goals be weighted? Ms.
Churchill also ask the committee to review the scoring methodology and offer any comments.
Mittag asked how to best engage the community. Churchill reviewed the public sessions already held,
and future sessions planned including 3/18 and mid April.
Ms. Ostby stated that while reviewing exits 14 and 13 can be clear and constructive, evaluating whether
to support a new 12B will be highly political, making it more challenging to be objective. Mr. Macdonald
stated reviewing a new construction at exit 12B partial vs a partial reconstruction (such as 14 and 13)
would be a much heavier left.
Ms. Ostby asked if a metric considering the benefit of each interchange to the surrounding cities can be
useful. Mr. Baker stated that earlier research confirms that 12B is not more helpful to Hinesburg
residents' access to 89 than using the current 12. Considering the fuller option for exit 13 might review
benefits to supporting Burlington.
Mr. Baker asked that the PC further contemplate if something more can be weighted, and if any
considerations are missing. He also mentioned as an example that in the City Council sub group this
evening safety was seen as a higher concern than cost.
The meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:09 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 31, 2021