HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 04/13/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, April 13, 2021
7:00 pm
IMPORTANT:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and
members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone.
There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-04-13
Telephone (audio only): (312) 757-3121; Access Code: 979-877-741
AGENDA:
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Commissioner announcements (7:10 pm)
4. Consider changing date of Public Hearing on LDR-20-01 [Environmental Protection Standards] to avoid
conflict with other City Meeting.
5. *Discuss and prepare feedback to City Council on I-89 Corridor Study Interchange alternatives: weighing of
objectives and preferred options (7:15 pm)
6. *Review and discuss Swift Street Extension and other east-west road connections currently included in
the Comprehensive Plan and/or Official Map (7:50 pm)
7. *Minutes: March 23, March 31 (8:50 pm)
8. *Other Business: (8:55 pm)
a. Shelburne Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Shelburne Zoning
Bylaw, Thursday, April 22, 2021, 7:00 pm via zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88424177686?pwd=R1B5VzdGTFpJVkt2N1RxQVlUcUpmQT09
9. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings
to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently
presenting / commenting will have their video on.
3. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment.
4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant
in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute
yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat.
5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
6. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to to complete the agenda.
7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint.
Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat.
9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to
allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time.
10. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and influence public opinion on the matter.
11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulated to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning
and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com.
12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items
specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message
Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages
on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of
Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official
meeting minutes.
13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission.
14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently
focused to help guide participants.
15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published
timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda
items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any
expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end
that will be covered “if time allows”.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: April 13, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
A note first off: I may or may not be in attendance for this meeting, but Justin Rabidoux, Public Works
Director, has offered to attend and be a resource for the Commission for these transportation-related items.
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Commissioner announcements (7:10 pm)
4. Consider changing date of Public Hearing on LDR-20-01 [Environmental Protection Standards] to avoid
conflict with other City Meeting.
At our weekly staff meeting this week staff realized that the Commission’s public hearing on the draft
LDRs is scheduled for the same night as a DRB meeting that may or may not include applications of
interest to some people who may also wish to weigh in on the Draft LDR amendments. Staff recommends
that the Commission consider moving the date of your hearing from Tuesday 5/18 to either Wednesday
5/19 or Thursday 5/20. We would ask that action be taken at this meeting if you choose to change the
date so that notice can get into the City’s newsletter being published this same night.
5. *Discuss and prepare feedback to City Council on I-89 Corridor Study Interchange alternatives:
weighing of objectives and preferred options (7:15 pm)
Last month, the Commission (alongside other city committees and the public) provided valuable feedback
on the metrics being used to provide a high-level evaluation of the five (5) options on the table for
possible future interchange improvements. The goal is to narrow these five options to two (2), to be
further evaluated – one at Exit 14 and one at Exit 13/12B.
The City Council received a presentation and had a preliminary discussion on this at their meeting on
March 29. The CCRPC, leading the project, provided an updated scoring matrix that added seven (7) new
evaluation metrics and also updated and simplified the scoring system. As a refresher, the evaluation
metrics are categorized into a handful of different overall project objectives: Safety; Livable, Sustainable
& Healthy Communities; Mobility & Efficiency; Environmental Stewardship; Economic Access; System
Preservation.
2
The Council will next be discussing this topic on April 19. They are being asked to provide direction on
whether to weigh any of the goals more heavily than others, and ultimately, to provide guidance on
which interchange options to further evaluate alongside the other non-interchange improvements that
will be examined in greater detail in the next stage of this work: bicycle & pedestrian enhancements,
public transit, non-interchange intersections improvements, etc.
The Commission is invited to provide feedback on any of the above, including weighing of goals, and if
you have specific recommendations on which interchange options to take forward to the next stage, to
do so as well. We have included the packet of materials provided to the City Council that was discussed at
their March 29 meeting in your packet for this meeting. And as always, all project information can be
found online at www.envision89.com
6. *Review and discuss Swift Street Extension and other east-west road connections currently included in
the Comprehensive Plan and/or Official Map (7:50 pm)
See enclosed Memo.
7. *Minutes: March 23, March 31 (8:50 pm)
Includes draft minutes from these two meetings.
8. Other Business: (8:55 pm)
a. Shelburne Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Shelburne Zoning
Bylaw, Thursday, April 22, 2021, 7:00 pm via zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88424177686?pwd=R1B5VzdGTFpJVkt2N1RxQVlUcUpmQT09
The Shelburne Planning Commission is considering a series of amendments under the heading of
“regulatory reform” including streamlining of process and removing certain activities from requiring
permits.
9. Adjourn
South Burlington City
Council Workshop
March 29th, 2021
Meeting Goals
▪Review Updates to the Evaluation Criteria,
Scoring Methodology, and Matrix Format
▪Review Revised Interchange Evaluation
Matrix
▪Identify any outstanding questions prior to
April 19th City Council meeting
Evaluation Matrix
Updates
Updates to the Evaluation Criteria, Scoring Methodology, and
Matrix Format -Based on Feedback from Council, Committees &
the Public
▪New Metrics Added
–Access to City Center
–Access to Airport
–Impacts to Exit 12 Trips
–Volume Changes on Select Arterials
–Change in Impervious Area
–Noise Impacts (Qualitative)
–New employment weighted by average wage rates
▪Matrix Formatting Updates
–Combined metric values and scoring in same table
–Broke out Exits 12B/13 and Exit 14 alternatives into separate tables
▪Scoring Updates
–Exits 12B/13 Alternatives: 0-2 scoring based on metric’s value in relation to mean & one standard deviation
–Exit 14 Alternatives: 0-1 score based on maximum value
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Establish a resilient I-89 Corridor that minimizes environmental impacts associated with the transportation system.
Wetland Impacts
Approximate area of wetland/wetland buffer impacts based
on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange
improvements
Acres of Impact to Wetlands & Buffers 0 0.1 1 1.4 0 0.5 1
River Corridors
Approximate area of river corridor, floodway, and 100-year
flood zone impacts based on the estimated limits of
disturbance for the interchange improvements
Acres of Impact to River Corridors 0 0 2 1.1 1 1.8 0
Impervious Area Change in Impervious Area at Interchange Acres of Change to Impervious Area 0 3.4 0 2.0 1 1.4 1
Indicates
New
Metric
0 Points 2 Points1 Point
/2 /2
Suggested Metric
Include in
Matrix?Comments
SAFETY
Better define which option is safest for bike and pedestrians. The current qualitative criteria make this unclear.No Difficult metric to score objectively
Alternative usability - Unfamiliar designs can cause confusion leading to crashes No Difficult metric to score objectively
LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE & HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
How each interchange supports or detracts from City Center Yes Travel time change (all origins to City Center TAZ destination).
Community connectivity or community cohesion No Difficult metric to score objectively
Impacts to neighborhoods resulting from % change in traffic, trucks, or interchange expansion No Already evaluating change in traffic under Mobility goal
Update Consistency with Regional Plan goal to more heavily weight growth in urban, metro, enterprise No CCRPC has not been differentiating growth focus within the "non-rural" zones
MOBILITY & EFFICIENCY
Effect of new/improved interchanges on the surrounding area/roads Yes Volume changes on selected roadways
Impacts to Exit 12 traffic Yes Estimated change in Exit 12 volumees in 2050
Bike/Ped Directness No Influenced scoring for Exit 13 Hybrid; Will consider further in Bundle evaluation
How interchange construction and reconfiguration will impact bike/ped safety outside of the project area No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Opportunities for park & rides No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Access to or use of public transit services related to interchange construction or reconfiguration No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Impact of interchanges on commercial traffic on neighborhood streets. No Future truck volumes not projected in regional model
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Change in impervious area Yes Change in interchange impervious area in each alternative
Noise impacts Yes High-level assessment of potential noise impacts
Historic & Archeological resource impacts No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Wildlife passage or connectivity No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Metric on disturbed area No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Wetland impact metric should include the extra roads and new development that will be built No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Does alternative increase or decrease the move towards a more sustainable means of transportation No Will consider in Bundle evaluation
Identify resource restoration opportunities with each alternative No Insufficient environmental resource data at this stage; not clear whether VTrans/FHWA will relinquish ROW
Look at cumulative fuel consumption (2020-2050) vs. snapshot in time No Assumed fleet shift the same under all scenarios; revised metric to look at annual fuel reduction in 2050
ECONOMIC ACCESS
Impacts to South Burlington’s employment opportunities resulting from each interchange alternative Yes Mean wage opportunity within 1 mile of the interchange
Access to the airport Yes Travel time change from I-89 north & south and I-189 west to airport
Capture land value of reclaimed ROW resulting from interchange reconfiguration No Difficult to estimate land value; not clear whether VTrans/FHWA will relinquish ROW
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
Availability of federal money for maintenance and construction No Difficult metric to score objectively
OTHER
Timeline for potential change to be accomplished (implementability)No Difficult to determine speed at which different projects would advance
Suggested Interchange Evaluation Metrics from South Burlington City Council, Committees, and Public
Revised Evaluation
Matrix: Exits 12B & 13
Goal: Safety
SAFETY: Enhance safety along the I-89 Study Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users
Ramp Spacing Meets AASHTO Standard for Ramp Spacing to Next Closest
Interchange Yes / No N/A Yes 2 Yes1 1 Yes 2
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change
in Total Crashes across the Network
% Change in Total Estimated Crashes
Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -3.2%2 -1.3%1 0.4%0
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change
in Fatal and Injury Crashes across the Network
% Change in Estimated Injury / Fatal
Crashes Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -1.1%0 -1.9%1 -3.1%2
Bike/Ped Safety
Safety Improvements for Bicyclists and Pedestrians based
on Proposed Accommodations, Number of Conflicts Points,
and Type of Conflict Point
Relative Level of Safety Improvement for
Bicyclists and Pedestrians N/A Improved 1 Significantly
Improved 2 Significantly
Improved 2
Safety / Operational
Commentary
1Left Off-Ramp
and Left On-
Ramp Not
Advised
Declassify I-189
from Interstate to
Limited Access
State Highway
Exit 12B
New Interchange
Exit 13
Hybrid + Bike Overpass
Exit 13
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13
SPDI
2050 Base
Scenario
Safety Impact
Metric Metric Description Units
Goal: Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities
LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE, & HEALTHY COMMUNITIES: Promote compact growth that supports livable, affordable, vibrant, and healthy communities.
Total Secondary Growth Households 0 593 203 203
Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household
Growth Located in Growth Zones Inclusive of
Secondary Growth *
90.2%90.4%1 90.3%1 90.3%1
ROW Impacts Approximate area of ROW impacts based on limit of
disturbance around the interchange Acres of ROW Disturbance N/A 4.0 0 0.2 2 0.0 2
Average Trip Length in the Model Average Trip Length in minutes 15.69 15.61 15.66 15.68
Additional Travel Time for Traffic Analysis Zones Identified
as EJ communities Minutes of Additional Travel Time in 2050 N/A 0.019 0.022 0.011
Additional Travel Time for EJ TAZs as a Percent of Average
Trip Length
% Additional Travel Time per Average Trip
in 2050 *N/A 0.12%1 0.14%1 0.07%1
Travel Time from Points North, South, and
West (minutes)18.8 18.0 18.4 18.5
Percent Change in Total Travel Time
compared to Future Base Scenario N/A -4%2 -2%1 -1%0
Exit 12B
New Interchange
Exit 13
Hybrid + Bike Overpass
Exit 13
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13
SPDI
2050 Base
Scenario
Consistent with Regional
Plan
Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household Growth Located in
Growth Zones Inclusive of Secondary Growth (includes
Center, Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban
Designations)
Metric Metric Description Units
Access to South
Burlington City Center
Average travel time change for access to City Center from
points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west on I-189
Environmental Justice /
Underserved Populations
*Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values.
**Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values.
Goal: Mobility & Efficiency
MOBILITY & EFFICIENCY: Improve the efficiency and reliability of the I-89 Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users.
# of Daily Trips Using Exit 14 51,929 47,226 46,654 45,319
Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using
Exit 14 N/A -9.1%0 -10.2%1 -12.7%2
# of Daily Trips Using Exit 12 31,834 27,238 31,301 30,632
Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using
Exit 12 N/A -14.4%2 -1.7%0 -3.8%1
Total VMT 5,207,449 5,219,058 5,206,473 5,201,707
Average Trip Length in miles 8.103 8.087 8.097 8.090
% Change in average trip length in 2050 *N/A -0.2%1 -0.1%1 -0.2%1
Total Daily VHT 147,758 147,394 147,452 147,636
% Change in Daily VHT in 2050 N/A -0.25%2 -0.21%1 -0.08%0
I-89 Corridor V/C Mainline corridor congestion as indicated by the number of
miles with v/c of greater than or equal to 0.9 Miles of Mainline with v/c > 0.9 1.34 2.18 0 1.34 2 1.34 2
Average Delay Change in 2050 PM Peak Hour Delay at Exit 14 Change in Average Delay per Trip (seconds) N/A -40 2 -34 0 -37 1
Bike/Ped Connectivity Bicyclist and Pedestrian Connectivity Improvements Across I-
89 Based on Existing and Proposed Accomodations Level of Bike/Ped Connectivity Improvements N/A Improved 1 Improved 1 Significantly
Improved 2
Williston Road (at Windjammer)25,900 -15%2 -2%0 -4%1
Dorset Street (at UMall)19,800 -9%0 -15%1 -17%2
Dorset Street (south of I-89)14,400 5%2 23%1 33%0
Hinesburg Road (south of I-89)17,700 39%0 1%2 2%2
Hinesburg Road (north of I-89)14,200 -2%2 0%1 2%0
I-189 (west of I-89)57,900 -1%0 -5%1 -10%2
Exit 12B
New Interchange
Exit 13
Hybrid + Bike Overpass
Exit 13
SPDI
Networkwide change in Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
per vehicle trip with interchange improvement and
projected growth compared to the Future Base Model
VMT
VHT
Networkwide change in Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) with
interchange improvement and projected growth compared
to the Future Base Model
Perent Change in Daily Volume with
Interchange Compared to 2050 Base
Volume
Change in Daily Traffic
Volumes
2050 Base
Scenario
Interchange Trips
Metric Metric Description Units
Number of daily trips using the Exit 14 Interchange. (Note:
For scoring purposes, larger reductions at Exit 12B and 13 were
scored higher, while at Exit 14, lower reductions were scored
higher)
Number of daily trips using the Exit 12 Interchange.
Goal: Environmental Stewardship
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Establish a resilient I-89 Corridor that minimizes environmental impacts associated with the transportation system.
Wetland Impacts
Approximate area of wetland/wetland buffer impacts based
on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange
improvements
Acres of Impact to Wetlands & Buffers 0 0.1 1 1.4 0 0.5 1
River Corridors
Approximate area of river corridor, floodway, and 100-year
flood zone impacts based on the estimated limits of
disturbance for the interchange improvements
Acres of Impact to River Corridors 0 0 2 1.1 1 1.8 0
Impervious Area Change in Impervious Area at Interchange Acres of Change to Impervious Area 0 3.4 0 2.0 1 1.4 1
Natural Habitats
Approximate area of rare, threatened, and endangered
(RTE) species impacts based on the estimated limits of
disturbance for the interchange improvements
Acres of RTE Impacts 0 7 0 0 2 0 2
Resilience Percent Change Network Trip Robustness (NTR)Percent change in robustness N/A -0.38%0 0.81%1 0.93%2
Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Year in
2050 14,871,507 14,904,660 14,868,720 14,855,109
Change in Gallons of Fuel Consumed per
Year in 2050 N/A 33,153 0 -2,787 1 -16,398 2
Estimated Level of Noise Impacts from
Alternative N/A High 0 High 0 Medium 1
Description of Potential Noise Impact or
Reduction N/A
Potential impact to
sensitive properties
in northwest
quadrant
Potential impact to
sensitive properties
in southeast
quadrant
Potential reduction
at sensitive
properties in
northeast quadrant,
potential impact in
southeast quadrant
Exit 12B
New Interchange
Exit 13
Hybrid + Bike Overpass
Exit 13
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13
SPDI
Fuel Consumption
Qualitative Assessment
of Noise Impacts
Qualitative assessment of potential noise impacts resulting
from alternative
Total Annual Fuel Consumption Across Model Network
(based on 2050 projection assuming MTP Investments and
90% electric vehicle fleet)
2050 Base
ScenarioMetricMetric Description Units
Goal: Economic Access
ECONOMIC ACCESS: Improve economic access and vitality in Chittenden County.
Connectivity to Areas
Planned for Growth
Percentage of land area within 1 mile of interchange that is
classified as an ECOS Growth Zone (includes Center,
Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban Designations)
Percentage of area within 1 mile of
interchange in ECOS Growth Zone **N/A 87%0 90%1 90%1
Total number of projected new jobs in 2050 compared to
2020 within 1 radial mile of the interchange including
adopted job projections and secondary growth
Total number of New Jobs within 1 Radial
Mile of the Interchange **N/A 3,054 2 2,461 1 2,461 1
Total number of projected 2050 jobs within 1 radial mile of
the new interchange infrastructure including adopted job
projections and secondary growth
Total Number of Jobs Within 1 Radial Mile
of Interchange **N/A 11,416 2 9,592 1 9,592 1
Mean wage opportunity within 1 mile of the interchange Average Annual New Wage Opportunity
(2020 dollars)N/A $57,300 $50,000 $50,000
Number of new jobs within 1 mile of the interchange
weigted by average job class wage
Total Annual New Wage Opportunity
(millions of 2020 dollars)**N/A $175 2 $123 1 $123 1
Travel Time from Points North, South, and
West (minutes)26.7 23.6 26.8 26.9
Percent Change in Total Travel Time
compared to Future Base Scenario N/A -11%2 0%0 1%0
Exit 12B
New Interchange
Exit 13
Hybrid + Bike Overpass
Exit 13
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13
SPDI
Job Access
Airport Access
Travel time change for access to Burlington International
Airport from points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west
on I-189
Employment
Opportunities
2050 Base
ScenarioMetricMetric Description Units
*Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values.
**Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values.
Goal: System Preservation
SYSTEM PRESERVATION: Preserve and improve the condition and performance of the I-89 corridor.
Construction Cost Estimated cost for the interchange improvements
Planning-Level Cost Estimate (millions of
2020 dollars) (Includes PE, CON, and
contingency)
$0 $29,000,000 1 $15,000,000 2 $61,000,000 0
Asset Maintenance Cost Estimated 30-year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13
& 14 combined
Asset Maintenance Cost (Bridges & Culverts)
for Exits 12B, 13, & 14 combined (excluding
assets replaced with construction)
$94,151,074 $88,516,699 0 $90,832,324 0 $48,464,064 2
Total 2050 Cost (inclusive of asset
maintenance and new construction costs)$94,151,074 $117,516,699 0 $105,832,324 2 $109,464,064 1
Incremental Additional Cost $0 $23,365,625 $11,681,250 $15,312,990
Exit 12B
New Interchange
Exit 13
Hybrid + Bike Overpass
Exit 13
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13
SPDI
Maintenance &
Construction Cost
Estimated cost for the interchange improvements plus 30-
year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13 & 14
combined (excluding assets replaced with construction)
2050 Base
ScenarioMetricMetric Description Units
Total Scores: Exits 12B & 13
SUBTOTALS Weighting
Safety 1
Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 1
Mobility & Efficiency 1
Environmental Stewardship 1
Economic Access 1
System Preservation 1
TOTAL SCORE
NORMALIZED
Number of Metrics SUBTOTALS Weighting
4 Safety 3.25
4 Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 3.25
13 Mobility & Efficiency 1.00
7 Environmental Stewardship 1.86
5 Economic Access 2.60
3 System Preservation 4.33
TOTAL SCORE
Exit 12B Exit 13 Hybrid+Exit 13 SPDI
83 89
20
13
16
17
10
13
16
13
14
6
21
4
74
16
16
12
11
10
17
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exits 12B & 13
9
4
3
42
Exit 12B Exit 13 Hybrid+Exit 13 Single Point
Diamond Interchange
5
4
14
3
8
1
35
5
5
12
6
4
4
36
6
4
16
Revised Evaluation
Matrix: Exit 14
Goal: Safety
SAFETY: Enhance safety along the I-89 Study Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users
Ramp Spacing Meets AASHTO Standard for Ramp Spacing to Next Closest
Interchange Yes / No N/A Yes 1 Yes 1
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change
in Total Crashes across the Network
% Change in Total Estimated Crashes
Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -5.0%1 -2.8%0
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Change
in Fatal and Injury Crashes across the Network
% Change in Estimated Injury / Fatal
Crashes Compared to 2050 Base Scenario N/A -4.5%1 -2.3%0
Bike/Ped Safety
Safety Improvements for Bicyclists and Pedestrians based
on Proposed Accommodations, Number of Conflicts Points,
and Type of Conflict Point
Relative Level of Safety Improvement for
Bicyclists and Pedestrians N/A Improved 0 Significantly
Improved 1
Safety / Operational
Commentary
C-D Road
Advised at
Current/Future
Volumes for Loop
Ramps
Removes Merge
on Mainline
Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf
Exit 14
DDI
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14
Metric Metric Description Units
2050 Base
Scenario
Safety Impact
Goal: Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities
LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE, & HEALTHY COMMUNITIES: Promote compact growth that supports livable, affordable, vibrant, and healthy communities.
Total Secondary Growth Households
Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household
Growth Located in Growth Zones Inclusive of
Secondary Growth*
90.24%90.24%1 90.24%1
ROW Impacts Approximate area of ROW impacts based on limit of
disturbance around the interchange Acres of ROW Disturbance N/A 0.4 0 0.1 1
Average Trip Length in the Model Average Trip Length in minutes 15.69 15.69 15.72
Additional Travel Time for Traffic Analysis Zones Identified
as EJ communities Minutes of Additional Travel Time in 2050 N/A 0.018 0.023
Additional Travel Time for EJ TAZs as a Percent of Average
Trip Length
% Additional Travel Time per Average Trip
in 2050*N/A 0.12%1 0.15%1
Travel Time from Points North, South, and
West (minutes)18.8 18.8 18.6
Percent Change in Total Travel Time
compared to Future Base Scenario N/A 0.3%0 -0.9%1
Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf
Environmental Justice /
Underserved Populations
Exit 14
DDI
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14
Metric Metric Description Units
2050 Base
Scenario
Consistent with Regional
Plan
Proportion of 2020 to 2050 Household Growth Located in
Growth Zones Inclusive of Secondary Growth (includes
Center, Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban
Designations)
Access to South
Burlington City Center
Average travel time change for access to City Center from
points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west on I-189
*Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values.
**Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values.
Goal: Mobility & Efficiency
MOBILITY & EFFICIENCY: Improve the efficiency and reliability of the I-89 Corridor and Adjacent Interchanges for all users.
# of Daily Trips Using Exit 14 51,929 49,677 46,924
Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using
Exit 14 N/A -4.3%1 -9.6%0
# of Daily Trips Using Exit 12 31,834 31,816 32,058
Percent Change in # of Daily Trips Using
Exit 12 N/A -0.1%1 0.7%0
Total VMT 5,207,449 5,203,632 5,200,102
Average Trip Length in miles 8.103 8.097 8.092
% Change in average trip length in 2050*N/A -0.07%1 -0.14%1
Total Daily VHT 147,758 147,737 147,906
% Change in Daily VHT in 2050 N/A -0.01%1 0.10%0
I-89 Corridor V/C Mainline corridor congestion as indicated by the number of
miles with v/c of greater than or equal to 0.9 Miles of Mainline with v/c > 0.9 1.34 1.34 0 1.34 0
Average Delay Change in 2050 PM Peak Hour Delay at Exit 14 Change in Average Delay per Trip (seconds) N/A -47 1 -41 0
Bike/Ped Connectivity Bicyclist and Pedestrian Connectivity Improvements Across I-
89 Based on Existing and Proposed Accomodations Level of Bike/Ped Connectivity Improvements N/A Improved 0 Significantly
Improved 1
Williston Road (at Windjammer)25,900 -1%0 -4%1
Dorset Street (at UMall)19,800 -1%0 -5%1
Winooski Main Street bridge over Winooski River 38,500 1%1 4%0
Limekiln Road bridge over Winooski River 12,500 1%1 3%0
Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf
Exit 14
DDIMetricMetric Description Units
2050 Base
Scenario
Interchange Trips
Number of daily trips using the Exit 14 Interchange. (Note:
For scoring purposes, larger reductions at Exit 12B and 13
were scored higher, while at Exit 14, lower reductions were
scored higher)
Number of daily trips using the Exit 12 Interchange.
VHT
Networkwide change in Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) with
interchange improvement and projected growth compared
to the Future Base Model
Change in Daily Traffic
Volumes
VMT
Networkwide change in Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
per vehicle trip with interchange improvement and
projected growth compared to the Future Base Model
Perent Change in Daily Volume with
Interchange Compared to 2050 Base
Volume
Goal: Environmental Stewardship
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Establish a resilient I-89 Corridor that minimizes environmental impacts associated with the transportation system.
Wetland Impacts
Approximate area of wetland/wetland buffer impacts based
on the estimated limits of disturbance for the interchange
improvements
Acres of Impact to Wetlands & Buffers 0 0.4 0 0.0 1
River Corridors
Approximate area of river corridor, floodway, and 100-year
flood zone impacts based on the estimated limits of
disturbance for the interchange improvements
Acres of Impact to River Corridors 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Impervious Area Change in Impervious Area at Interchange Acres of Change to Impervious Area 0 4.8 0 -0.5 1
Natural Habitats
Approximate area of rare, threatened, and endangered
(RTE) species impacts based on the estimated limits of
disturbance for the interchange improvements
Acres of RTE Impacts 0 0 0 0 0
Resilience Percent Change Network Trip Robustness (NTR)Percent change in robustness N/A -0.08%1 -0.14%0
Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed per Year in
2050 14,871,507 14,860,606 14,850,525
Change in Gallons of Fuel Consumed per
Year in 2050 N/A -10,901 0 -20,982 1
Estimated Level of Noise Impacts from
Alternative N/A Medium 0 Low 1
Description of Potential Noise Impact or
Reduction N/A Not likely to
change at any
sensitive properties
Potential reduction
at sensitive
properties due to
ramp shift
Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf
Exit 14
DDI
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14
Metric Metric Description Units
2050 Base
Scenario
Fuel Consumption
Total Annual Fuel Consumption Across Model Network
(based on 2050 projection assuming MTP Investments and
90% electric vehicle fleet)
Qualitative Assessment
of Noise Impacts
Qualitative assessment of potential noise impacts resulting
from alternative
Goal: Economic Access
ECONOMIC ACCESS: Improve economic access and vitality in Chittenden County.
Connectivity to Areas
Planned for Growth
Percentage of land area within 1 mile of interchange that is
classified as an ECOS Growth Zone (includes Center,
Enterprise, Metro, Village and Suburban Designations)
Percentage of area within 1 mile of
interchange in ECOS Growth Zone**N/A 100%0 100%0
Total number of projected new jobs in 2050 compared to
2020 within 1 radial mile of the interchange including
adopted job projections and secondary growth
Total number of New Jobs within 1 Radial
Mile of the Interchange**N/A 4,133 0 4,133 0
Total number of projected 2050 jobs within 1 radial mile of
the new interchange infrastructure including adopted job
projections and secondary growth
Total Number of Jobs Within 1 Radial Mile
of Interchange**N/A 27,220 0 27,220 0
Mean wage opportunity within 1 mile of the interchange Average Annual New Wage Opportunity
(2020 dollars)N/A $53,700 $53,700
Number of new jobs within 1 mile of the interchange
weigted by average job class wage
Total Annual New Wage Opportunity
(millions of 2020 dollars)**N/A $222 0 $222 0
Travel Time from Points North, South, and
West (minutes)26.7 26.7 26.4
Percent Change in Total Travel Time
compared to Future Base Scenario N/A 0.2%0 -0.9%1
Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf
Exit 14
DDI
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14
Metric Metric Description Units
2050 Base
Scenario
Job Access
Employment
Opportunities
Airport Access
Travel time change for access to Burlington International
Airport from points north on I-89, south on I-89, and west
on I-189
*Scored the same. Not enough difference between raw values.
**Used full standard deviation. Only two different raw values.
Goal: System Preservation
SYSTEM PRESERVATION: Preserve and improve the condition and performance of the I-89 corridor.
Construction Cost Estimated cost for the interchange improvements
Planning-Level Cost Estimate (millions of
2020 dollars) (Includes PE, CON, and
contingency)
$0 $44,000,000 0 $37,000,000 1
Asset Maintenance Cost Estimated 30-year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13
& 14 combined
Asset Maintenance Cost (Bridges & Culverts)
for Exits 12B, 13, & 14 combined (excluding
assets replaced with construction)
$94,151,074 $74,859,153 1 $84,840,338 0
Total 2050 Cost (inclusive of asset
maintenance and new construction costs)$94,151,074 $118,859,153 1 $121,840,338 0
Incremental Additional Cost $0 $24,708,079 $27,689,264
Exit 14
Enhanced Cloverleaf
Exit 14
DDI
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14
Metric Metric Description Units
2050 Base
Scenario
Maintenance &
Construction Cost
Estimated cost for the interchange improvements plus 30-
year asset maintenance costs at Exits 12B, 13 & 14
combined (excluding assets replaced with construction)
Total Scores: Exit 14
SUBTOTALS Weighting
Safety 1
Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 1
Mobility & Efficiency 1
Environmental Stewardship 1
Economic Access 1
System Preservation 1
TOTAL SCORE
NORMALIZED
Number of Metrics SUBTOTALS Weighting
4 Safety 2.75
4 Livable, Sustainable, and Healthy Communities 2.75
11 Mobility & Efficiency 1.00
7 Environmental Stewardship 1.57
5 Economic Access 2.20
3 System Preservation 3.67
TOTAL SCORE 30 33
6 11
7 4
2 6
0 2
7 4
0 1
2 1
15 16
Enhanced Cloverleaf DDI
8 6
Exit 14 Enhanced
Cloverleaf Exit 14 DDI
3 2
2 4
7 4
1 4
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
3/25/2021 DRAFT Second Round Interchange Screening Matrix: Exit 14
Next Steps
Next Steps
▪Second Round Interchange Evaluation
–Technical Committee Meeting: April 7th
–South Burlington City Council: April 19th
–Virtual Public Meeting: Late April/Early May
–Advisory Committee Meeting #5: May/June
▪Corridor Evaluation & Public/Stakeholder Involvement
–Develop & Evaluate Bundles: Summer/Fall 2021
•Includes identifying the need for I-89 widening in Bundles 2 and/or 3
▪Draft & Final Report: Winter 2022
Interchange Concept
Plans for Reference
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
Place: Zoom Meeting
Date: March 10, 2021
Project #: 58179.00 Re: I-89 South Burlington All Committees Meeting
Break-out Group Notes
South Burlington All Committee Meeting
Following a presentation of the I-89 2050 Study, which focused on the interchange concepts and evaluation, the
group divided into break out rooms for each respective committee. The committee breakout rooms included:
➢ City Council
➢ Economic Development Committee
➢ Natural Resources Committee
➢ Affordable Housing Committee
➢ Bike-Ped Committee
➢ Energy Committee
➢ Planning Commission
In the breakout rooms, participants were asked to discuss the following questions:
• Are there any additional metrics that should be evaluat ed at this stage?
o Should any of the metrics be changed?
• Should some of the metrics be scored on a different basis (rather than just compared to each other)?
• Should the goals be weighted equally?
o If not, which goals should be weighted more or less than others and why?
Each committee breakout room was assigned a project team member to help facilitate the conversation, answer
clarifying questions, and help to record the discussion. The committee membership present for the discussion and the
notetaker for each group is noted for each breakout session below.
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 2
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
CITY COUNCIL
Attendees: Helen Riehle, Meaghan Emery, Tim Barritt
Note taker: Charlie Baker
• Noise should be a metric. Particularly its impact on residents close to 89 and 189.
• Access to the airport should be a metric.
• Stormwater run-off should be a metric.
• The partial interchange at 13 isn’t great and might provide some opportunities for improvement that make
better use of Kennedy Drive.
• There is some concern about the proposed Exit 13 SPDI traffi c light and whether it is too close to the Dorset
St signal. Could a roundabout (or two) work here instead since there is so much right of way already?
• The safety goal should get more and the cost/preservation goal should get less weight.
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 3
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Attendees: John Burton, John Wilking
Note taker: Dave Saladino
• Metrics Comments
o Potential new metric that looks at type of new jobs potentially created by each interchange alternative
▪ Potential for new high wage jobs should be scored higher
o Potential new metric that looks at the impacts to South Burlington’s tax base resulting from each
interchange alternative
o Suggested metric that looks at total “throughput” of the transportation network under each scenario
• Scoring/Weighting Comments
o Would prefer to see updated scoring approach applied to two jobs metrics – i.e. setting minimum
quintile value at 0
• General Comments
o Strong support for Exit 12B to grow South Burlington’s tax base; strongly support Exit 12B over Exit 13
upgrades; would prefer upgrades at all three interchanges.
o Felt that undeveloped, commercial and industrial zoned land around Exit 12B presented the best
opportunity to meaningfully grow South Burlington grand list.
o Don’t see much additional opportunity for growth around Exits 13 & 14
o Important to construct Exit 12B before Exit 14
o Improvements at Exit 12B and Exit 13 both improve access to airport, but felt that 12B was preferable
due to development opportunities around Exit 12B
o Felt that the tax rate in South Burlington is getting too high for some residents; important to grow tax
base
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 4
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Attendees: Jean-Sebastien Chaulot, Lisa Yankowski, Ray Gonda, Andrew Shatzer, Larry Kupferman
Note takers: Karen Sentoff, Larry Kupferman
• Metrics Comments
o Metric on wildlife passage or connectivity
▪ both as safety for vehicle traffic and connected habitat for wildlife
▪ criteria should help to evaluate whether we are providing connected wildlife habitat with each
option
▪ channelization (i.e. fencing) and passage with appropriate culverts vs. open crossings of
roadway with no protected path
▪ particularly important as development continues and habitat gets squeezed, those
connections become more critical
o Metric on stormwater
▪ Impervious surface calculation is one proxy
▪ The capacity or potential for prevention of runoff or treatment with each option would be
better
o Metric on noise pollution
▪ Understand how noise from each option might impact both people (residential areas) and
nature (habitat areas)
o Metric on disturbed area
▪ Newly disturbed area vs. already disturbed area being repurposed
▪ Discussed in the context of what amount of natural area is being affected, not necessarily
overlapping with sensitive areas like RTE but rather other currently open spaces being altered
• Scoring/Weighting Comments
o Safety goal should be weighted more heavily than the others
o Other goals besides safety should be weighted evenly
• General Questions/Comments/Discussion
o Do the plans include up to date proposals for surrounding areas (i.e. Champlain Parkway, Eastview,
Poor Farm Road, vacant lands proximate to the airport)?
o What are the criteria for environmental stewardship leading to resilience? Best to create structures
that are robust and resilient in major weather events (i.e. flooding).
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 5
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE
Attendees: Chris Trombly, Sandy Dooley
Note taker: Aaron Guyette
• General Comments
o Consider impacts to City Center resulting from interchange construction.
o For major study such as this one, for the outcoming actions including interchange construction or
reconfiguration, the general public would anticipate travel time to be reduced. The data shows that
travel times are not reduced.
▪ APG thought - Travel times are quantified system wide. While we may not want to change
the metric, could we present data on localized changes associated with each interchange?
o The metrics seem to score bike/ped safety only at each specific interchange study area. We should
consider how interchange construction and reconfiguration will impact bike/ped safety outside of the
project area as well - for example, if 12B is constructed, additional traffic on Hinesburg Road could
have a negative impact on bike/ped safety.
o We should have a stronger emphasis on bike/ped connectivity (first) and related safety (second).
o Discussed potential impacts on Patchen Rd related to construction/reconfiguration of interchanges.
▪ APG thought - traffic congestion metrics are calculated system wide. While we may not want
to change the metric, could we present data on localized changed to traffic congestion
associated with each interchange?
o We discussed the need for system wide bike/ped facilities. For example, there is no good connection
down Spear St to the South Burlington Rec Path. A multi-use recreation path would be a good start,
however the grade to go down under the interstate is also somewhat limiting. We also discussed the
potential connection of Spear St to I-189 with an Exit 13 SPDI, which may help with this connectivity.
o The southeast quadrant seems disconnected from the rest of South Burlington. An Exit 12B may
increase the development in the southeast quadrant and may actually increase the disconnect. A new
exit at this location would promote commercial growth for Gas Stations, etc and will also benefit
commercial growth for Technology Park, but will not help to community connection. Should we have
a metric to evaluate community connectivity or community cohesion?
o The current mix of market rate housing doesn’t meet the dem and.
o The planning exercises have forecast more jobs in South Burlington, however there is concern that
there may not be enough space for the housing needed for the jobs. With job growth and high
housing costs, it will potentially make community to the jobs from outside the area for attractive.
Everyone commutes into work, then commutes back home after work (perhaps even outside the
county). This scenario would be viewed as a negative due to increased vehicle emissions, more time
spent commuting leads to a decreased quality of life (time away from family, life events, etc), and the
further people live outside of the metropolitan areas the more access to transit is reduced.
o Potentially add a transit metric to evaluate access to or use of public transit serv ices related to
interchange construction or reconfiguration.
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 6
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
BIKE-PED COMMITTEE
Attendees: Bob Britt, Nic Anderson, Cathy Frank, Amanda Holland, Donna Leban, Havaleh Gagne, Dana Farr, Jonathan
Weber - Local Motion, Bryan Davis - CCRPC Facilitator
Note Takers: Nic Anderson and Bryan Davis, organized by Cathy Frank
• Metrics Comments
• Metric: Timeline for potential change to be accomplished
o Bob - Missing timing. Need to know when things would need to be replaced. If timing is
important, that could be weighted into the numbers.
• Metric: Availability of federal money for maintenance and for construction
o Another challenge - Do we know if there is support federally for maintenance/upgrading existing
vs new construction?
o One metric we used for a different project was “Ability to get it done”. This could come into play
with federal funding. Is it easier to do brand new than changing an existing exit.
• Metric: What would be the effect of providing better, safer facilities for pedestrians and bikers to the
projected increase in vehicular traffic.
o Cathy - When calculating changes, does the increase in bike ped use change the metrics for
vehicles. Metric:
o Nic - Timing is difficult. They are triggers.
• Metric: What would be the effect of new or improved interchanges on the surrounding area/roads, not
just the interchanges themselves.
o Donna - 12B is ok now and don't see that it could be more improved. Will have much more traffic
etc. The additional metric that needs to be added for 12B “environmental impact of the ne w
extenuating roads to be built”. There are two significant wetlands that would be damaged by the
extra roads. 12B metric needs to include effect of extenuating roads to be built in an area with
two significant wetlands.
o Amanda asked if that metric would be for all interchanges.
o Donna - Yes, but more important at 12B. Could be impact at 13 to a small degree.
• Metric: Improve the current Wetland Impact Metric and apply it to all interchange areas.
o There is a wetland impact metric. Wetland impact metric for all interchanges should include the
extra roads and new development that will be built, not just the interchange. Part of Tilley Drive
has Significant wetlands
o Donna - Should be based on the extra roads not the interchange
o Amanda - That part of Tilley is one of the wildlife corridors and where the new City streets could
be are more wetland. The city roads tying in would have an environmental impact.
• Metric: for the effect each proposed interchange (14, 13 and 12B) would have on the other 2 in regard to
vehicular traffic, and bike-pedestrian traffic
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 7
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
o Cathy – Doesn’t seem to have a metric for how changes in 13 and 14 would impact Dorset St.
Adding 13 would probably decrease traffic on Dorset St north and increase traffic on Kennedy Dr.
south and east to the airport.
o Havaleh - impact on city center needs to be included. What about the changes that the dying mall
would have? Assess traffic flow through Dorset street.
o Donna - Just doing something at 13 would change dorset st by taking away traffic
o Bob - There are maps that show that already.
o New metric could be impact to residents and neighborhood (i.e., changes in traffic to local roads,
change in “livability”)
• Metric: Which combination best connects the city of South Burlington
o The Shelburne Road area is disconnected from the Dorset St area. Need to connect our city
better.
o Amanda - Could frame it in connecting South Burlington on a regional connectivity way.
• Metric: Economic Impact
o Bob - Surprised economic metrics seems like they are waiting. Seemed interest ing that 12 and 13
had no positive weighting in economic. Didn't calculate or make sense to him. Seems like it's a
good thing jobs are created close to city centers. The 0 for creating new jobs/job access should
be different, maybe there should be more weighting than other metrics. 12B seemed to be
creating the most jobs and the most housing. Maybe it's just too close to show the difference.
o Bryan - Should there be more distinction between those.
o Bob - Should yes.
• New Metric: Directness of route for walkers and bikers, not just cars and commercial vehicles.
o Nic - Missing the metric of “directness”. Current metric is connectivity but just having a path from
Dorset to Spear is very different from a direct path from Dorset to Spear. The keys to a good bi ke
network are safety, directness, comfort and cohesion. Safety and cohesion (connectivity) are
covered but not direct. Metric needed to measure directness of proposed new car, AND bike-ped
routes. Example – proposal for shared use plan for 13 is not in anyway direct.
• Metric: Impact of noise on the residential houses
o Jonathon - Noise impacts aren't covered and should be. Should have that in there with regard to
the impact on residents. Same with air quality.
o Nic - of the additional vehicles on Hinesburg Rd if 12B is done. Need to cover the impact on the
residential nature or amenity of those streets.
o Metric on Noise impact Jonathon - That’s not squishy. Noise impacts aren't covered and should
be. Should have that in there with regard to the impact on residents.
o Donna - Maybe it's not the interchange that makes the noise but it's the traffic on local streets.
The noise impact there is a frightening scenario at 12B. Changing smaller roads into major
thoroughfares could impact neighborhoods badly. Impact to Wheeler Nature park could be
impacted by other roads such as the Swift St extension that may follow an interchange.
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 8
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
• Metric: How much effect would altered or new interchanges have on adding or reducing commercial
traffic of neighborhood streets? (Havaleh)
• Metric: Analyze a new interchange versus updated one. (Amanda)
o Cathy - Much easier to improve exit 13 and steer non-residential traffic to Kennedy Drive and
have less impact on Dorset St.
• Metric: Which improvements are most needed first?
o Donna - The “Ability to get it done” should be more important.
o Cathy - Add to that the ones that are “most needed”. The most important improvement the
quickest. There was no weight put on the three options against each other.
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 9
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
ENERGY COMMITTEE
Attendees: Marcy Murray, Ethan Goldman, Andrew Chalnick
Note Taker: Jason Charest
Major Points:
1. It is not clear that the differences in the metrics are significant and ranking those differences with the current
scale amplifies differences that may not exist.
Suggestion: For each metric, the min/max of the output values should NOT be used. Rather, either:
(a) The range used to determine the quintile of the particular metric should be such that each
quintile in the range is larger than the “uncertainty” in the inputs that produced the related
metric, or
(b) The range should be developed by reference to measured improvements of similar projects
2. To produce more reliable metrics, the goals and each of the items under the goals, need to be carefully
weighted to avoid distortion. Ultimately, though, this will not eliminate subjectivity because the weightings
will themselves be subjective. A better way to approach this would be “dollarize” each item, so the
comparison of each item is on an “apples to apples” basis.
• For example, determine the dollar value of saving an acre of wetland, a life, reducing noise, cost of
incremental carbon, etc…
3. Getting the “fuel consumption” metric correct is really important. The current metric seems to be a snapshot
at a point in time, even though EV usage will change dramatically during the relevant period. We would think
the metric should take into account that changing use based on the anticipated timing of the infrastructure
changes.
Other Points:
• VMT/VHT/Fuel Consumption and other metrics have differences that are too small to score.
o Are the differences statistically significant?
o Conduct a sensitivity analysis instead?
o Are the raw VMT/VHT/Fuel Consumption data as accurate as possible for each local scenario
(despite having used county-wide data)?
• Additional Metrics
o Climate Change could be its own goal with respective metrics underneath it
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 10
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
o Weighting Environmental Stewardship more heavily could be an alternate way of getting at
this
• Tough to set the boundary at Chittenden County for energy impacts.
o Don't know where the new residents are coming from outside the region and what the new
homes’ energy footprints would look like.
o Focus on metrics that provide a meaningful difference between alternatives
• Environmental Stewardship
o Four out of Seven are related to water.
o Sort of builds in weighting within the goal that may not make sense
• Consider a metric around which design would help further increase more sustainable ways of
transport e.g. walking, biking, transit
• Noise metric should be added
o Change in noise levels
o Context matters, cars driving by commercial areas are better than cars driving by residential
areas
o Home value depreciation due to noise.
• Not obvious that the VMT numbers are a daily value. While percentages are small due to the numbers
being so large, a reduction of 5,000+ miles per day is a big deal especially when you think of that
added up over an entire year.
• When monetizing things, need to think about what the appropriate time frame is: daily, monthly,
yearly etc.
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 11
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
PLANNING COMMISSION
Attendees: Eleni Churchill, Paul Conner, Jessica Louisos, Duncan Macdonald, Michael Mittag, Monica Ostby, Charlie
Baker
Notetaker: Monica Ostby
• Mittag stated concern regarding impact to wetlands, particularly at the 12B location. Requested wetland
impact metrics be included. Churchill stated that we have a wetland metric and an updated 12B concept
seemed to address wetland issues but will review.
• 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. Churchill indicated that she will discuss this with the consultant team.
• Mittag suggested underlying assumptions might expect more working from home thus taken into
account. Also a lack of transit for rural residents. Churchill explain 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.
• Ostby stated disappointment that a version of exit 14 with the inclusion or assumption of a separate bike/ped
bridge to its south was not presented. 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.
• 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? 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 (Envision89) and were shared with the City Council (Feb 16th
meeting).
• Regarding exit 13, Ostby stated safety concerns of heavy truck/commercial on a 4 land 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. Churchill explained that since it is Federal land it would have
to be invested. They will review how to identify commercial traffic safety impact.
• 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 adding a metric of
"Return of Valuable Land." Churchill stated that such questions will be directed to VTRANS and FHWA.
• 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.
Place: Zoom Meeting
Ref: 58179.00
March 10, 2021
Page 12
\\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\58179.00 CCRPC I-89 2050 Study\docs\VARIOUS\Meetings\2021-03-10 - South Burlington Committees
Meeting\I89 SB Committees Meeting Notes - 2021-03-10.docx
40 IDX Drive
Building 100, Suite 200
South Burlington, VT 05403-7771
P 802.497.6100
• 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.
• Macdonald asked for clarification of the process. 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. That 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. Macdonald suggested that
timing to completion is an important metric that should be included.
• Macdonald asked for clarification regarding the two future roads shown on the 12B draft. Conner confirmed
both roads are currently on the Official Map, and one, connecting to Community Drive, will be under
construction with a pending development.
• 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? 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.
• Ostby stated that while reviewing exits 14 and 13 can be clear and constructive, evaluating whethe r to support
a new 12B will be highly political, making it more challenging to be objective. Macdonald stated that
reviewing a new construction at 12B vs a partial reconstruction (such as 14 and 13) would be a much heavier
lift.
• Ostby asked if a metric considering the benefit of each interchange to the surrounding cities can be
useful. Baker stated that earlier research confirms that 12B is not more helpful to Hinesburg residents' access
to 89 than using the current exit 12. Considering the fuller option for exit 13 might review benefits to
supporting Burlington.
• 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.
See attached supplemental notes from the Planning Commission
South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Interchange Study
Input on Screening Criteria
Compiled based on March 16, 2021 Commission Discussion
The City of South Burlington is host to all considered options for changes to I-89 interchanges included in the
study. The impact is the most significant to our community. Although at this stage we are weighing in on only
the evaluation criteria, we believe that direct input from South Burlington on the specific alternatives should be
considered prior to final study recommendations being formulate.
We would recommend including specific criteria that reflect changes to the quality of life to the host community
of South Burlington with the following suggestions:
• Include a metric on how City Center supported and/or detracted from.
• Include a metric on how access to the airport is affected.
• Better define which option is safest for bike and pedestrians. The current qualitative criteria make this
element unclear. It appears that none of the options address this well.
• Include a metric on how traffic locations or type of vehicles be changed in proximity to existing
neighborhoods. For example, will commercial truck traffic be close to homes?
Other criteria to consider:
• Make sure the values or differences in the values is significant when using them to stratify results
between options. For example, are “Connectivity to Areas Planned for Growth” values of 87% or 90%
different enough to justify choosing one option over another?
• Add a metric that considers the timeline of the implemented changes. This could include the complexity
of the project, where a partial upgrade may be quicker to complete than a full new interchange. This
could include the likelihood of appeals that would take significant time.
• Add a metric that quantifies benefits due to the reduction in footprint from existing. Examples are if
areas currently used by the interchange could be reverted to natural space or additional buffers to
neighborhoods.
• Across the analysis consider future users and how they may be different than today’s users. Changes
could include less car centric mobility, autonomous vehicles, more shorter trips, more home workers.
The implementation and subsequent life span of these changes is far into the future.
• Add an additional safety parameter considering the usability. Unfamiliar designs can cause confusion
leading to crashes. Familiar designs may be more friendly to new users.
Make sure that the wetland near Tilley Drive has been properly included in the evaluation matrix. We believe
there is a more extensive wetland in that area that may not be accounted for in the wetland impacts.
South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 1
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study
South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – Meeting Notes
Presentation and Meeting Video are available at: https://envision89.com/public-process
DATE: March 18, 2021
TIME: 7:00-9:00 PM
PLACE: Via Zoom
PRESENT: Please See Attached
1. Welcome & Introductions
Charlie Baker of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) opened the
meeting at 7:05PM.
2. Project Background
Charlie reviewed the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). This document is the region’s
principal long-range (2050) transportation plan that evaluates system performance, identifies
future needs, and sets regional transportation priorities. The document makes the following
land use and demographic projections through 2050:
• Population: Projected to grow by over 20,000 people (14% increase)
• Employment: Projected to grow by nearly 50,000 jobs (35% increase)
• Households: Projected to grow by of almost 15,000 (25% increase)
The Plan tries to balance all modes, address safety and congestion issues, and improve
livability. The MTP priorities are to: 1) allocate 70 percent of funding to system preservation; 2)
concentrate growth in villages and downtowns with a goal of 90 percent of all household
growth in areas planned for growth; 3) pursue safety improvements at high crash locations; 4)
invest in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS); 5) promote Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs; 6) increase walking and biking; 7) make capacity expansions
when necessary; 8) make significant transit enhancements; and 9) study the future of I-89 from
Exits 12 to 16 and focus on the congestion between Exits 14 and 15.
Charlie also reviewed the following outcomes resulting from all MTP investments for meeting
state and regional energy goals:
• 2.4% decrease in vehicles miles traveled (VMT)
• 4.6% decrease in Vehicle hours traveled (VHT)
• Increase non-automotive mode-share from about 12% to 16%
• 90% electrification of the vehicle fleet
• 77% reduction in fuel consumption compared to 2015
South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 2
In terms of roadway capacity, even with all of the transit, bike/ped, ITS, and TDM investments
in the MTP, Interstate 89 between Exits 14 and 15 is expected to be over capacity by 2050
during peak and near-peak hours. The CCRPC analyzed various transportation scenarios during
the MTP planning process, including widening the Interstate between Exits 14 and 15 and
adding a new interchange at Exit 12B. Although adding a third lane on the interstate between
Exits 14 and 15 alleviated congestion in this segment, the section between Exits 15 and 16
became congested. Results from the MTP transportation scenarios indicated that Interstate 89
improvements required further study which resulted in the decision to conduct the I -89 2050
Study.
The project study area includes 37 miles and 7 interchanges of I-89 and roads adjacent to those
interchanges. There are three likely sets of recommendations from this study: 1) Minor capital
investments; 2) Operational investments; and 3) Major capital investments. Based on the
results from the first round of interchange evaluation, the I-89 Advisory Committee voted to
advance the South Burlington interchanges (Exit 12B, Exit 13, and Exit 14) to the second round
of evaluation. This is the basis for tonight’s discussion.
The I-89 Study Goals include: Safety, Livable, Sustainable, & Healthy Communities, Mobility &
Efficiency, Environmental Stewardship, Economic Access, and System Preservation.
3. Interchange Alternatives
Dave Saladino, VHB consultant team, explained that the Study Team is seeking input on the
interchange evaluation metrics & scoring methodology. He presented five conceptual
interchange designs at Exit 12B, Exit 13 (two alternatives: Hybrid and Single Point Diamond
Interchange-SPDI), and Exit 14 (two alternatives: Diverging Diamond Interchange and an
Enhanced Cloverleaf). Interchange concept plans and the presentation video are available on
the website.
Q: Was the Exit 14 Intercept Study (at the current Doubletree Hotel) considered? Dave: Yes, it
was considered but not included in the two Exit 14 concept plans. Justin Rabidoux (South
Burlington): The land needed for the intercept facility is subject to long-term (25-year) parking
leases. We can revisit it if those leases change.
Q: If we implement the Exit 13 SPDI, what does the decommissioning of I-189 mean? Dave: The
federal government is now looking for opportunities to decommission interstates. We could
take advantage of this program and no funds would have to be paid back to federal
government.
Q: Do the Exit 13 SPDI ramp volumes warrant a bike/pedestrian overpass? Dave: It will be
considered, although there will be signals to allow safe bike/pedestrian crossing.
Q: Will there be an Exit 14 bike/pedestrian bridge over 89 considered? Dave: If we are unable to
include bicycle accommodations within the selected Exit 14 interchange alternative, a
separated bicycle overpass will be evaluated in the next phase of the project .
South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 3
4. Interchange Metrics & Scoring
Dave reviewed the twenty-six Interchange Evaluation Metrics which are aligned with the study
goals. The draft scoring process identified metrics for each goal. He asked participants if there
are metrics that are missing or should be changed. Each metric was assigned a numerical value
between 0 and 4, and Dave asked the participants if the scoring should be allocated or ranked
differently.
Q: Why do the Exit 14 changes result in the most new jobs? Aren’t vehicle volumes reduced?
Karen Sentoff (VHB): There is a high concentration of activity near Exit 14, so changes
encourage even more growth there. Significant employers are concentrated within the 1-mile
radius – UVM, UVMMC, and South Burlington City Center.
Karen summarized the themes from the “Chat” feature:
• Safety for bike/pedestrians
• Add a quality-of-life metric for those who live in the 116 corridor (volume/speed of vehicles)
• Metrics for noise, impervious service, access to the airport
• Impact on existing roads – traffic volumes on Kennedy Drive, Williston Road, etc.
• Exit 13 would address Kennedy Drive and airport access. Exit 12B may not be needed with
Exit 13 improvements.
• Who provided the budget estimates? Dave: VHB in collaboration with VTrans.
• Is Exit 14 growth not included in number of new jobs in the no build scenario? Dave: There’s
no area to draw a circle around the interchange, but future job growth is included in the no
build scenario.
• Why the traffic volume changes? Dave: Shifting interchange traffic has different impacts on
the street network – some increases and some decreases.
• Does the DDI reduce capacity? Dave: It has 5-10% less through-put capacity than the
existing full cloverleaf due to two additional signals.
• What about snow management? Dave: We tried to design the alternatives to alleviate snow
plowing and storage issues. There is a representative from the VTrans Maintenance District
on the Technical Committee and we’ve talked about the need to accommodate snow
storage. There will be more detailed designs in the future.
• Will there be flashing lights at all pedestrian crossings that don’t have signals? Yes, they will
be considered.
• What about wildlife corridors? Most wildlife issues occur between interchanges, and we’ll
be looking there next.
• SPDI should be built at Exit 13 as soon as possible. It will solve all the problems. I support
the DDI. A new Exit 12B assumes a Tilly Drive expansion over a wildlife corridor.
Charlie reiterated the input the Study Team is seeking for the metrics and scoring. Comments
are due Monday, March 22, 2021 and should be emailed to Diane Meyerhoff.
South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting – March 18, 2021 - Page 4
5. Next Steps
Second Round Interchange Evaluation
• South Burlington Committee Comment Deadline: March 22nd
• South Burlington City Council Workshop: March 29th
• Technical Committee Meeting #8: April 7th
• South Burlington City Council: April 19th
• Virtual Public Meeting: Late April/Early May
• Advisory Committee Meeting #5: May
Corridor Evaluation & Public/Stakeholder Involvement
• Develop & Evaluate Interchange Bundles: Spring/Summer/Fall 2021
Draft & Final Report: Winter 2022
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30PM.
Participants (Zoom User Names)
Joanne Necrason Tom Chittenden Loretta Marriott
Karen Yacos* Pamela Swift Dale Azaria*
Matt Cota (Matt Cota) Johnny Illick Kathy & Bruce Boozan
Chris LaMothe (Lopez# Nelly K) leo nadeau Rick Hubbard
Mike's iPhone Beverly David Boedy
gerrysilverstein Christopher Jolly** Jonathon Weber
Chris Shaw Don Catalano Havaleh Gagne
Austin Betsy Bahrenburg Marcia Dunham
Kevin Marvin Jody Prescott Shawn Goddard
Barry Cathy Chamberlain BobBritt
wayne Justin Rabidoux** Adam Froehlig
Tim McKenzie Kevin Marshia** Jessie Baker
Claire Jessie Smith# Jennifer J
Donna Leban Tim Barritt David's iPad
Roland Groeneveld Mary A Putnam Meaghan Emery
Terry Jessie
Betsy Bahrenburg susandaily
CCRPC Staff: Charlie Baker, Jason Charest, Eleni Churchill, Christine Forde, Sai Sarepalli
Consultant Team: Aaron Guyette (VHB), David Saladino (VHB), Diane Meyerhoff (TSA),
Karen Sentoff (VHB)
*I-89 Advisory Committee; ** I-89 Technical Committee
I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 1
I-89 2050 Study
Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 South Burlington-Focused Public Meeting
From: I-89 2050 Study Project Team
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 6:54 PM
Subject: New feedback on Your Feedback
You have received new feedback on the Guestbook on project Your Feedback on your site,
As a South Burlington resident who lives near Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive and who has family who lives
near Dorset and Swift Streets, I think we need to lessen and slow down traffic in and around this area, not add
to traffic, speed, noise and congestion where are homes and places of outdoor recreation are and could be.
We need to consider the wellbeing of our community and our environment. We need to make South
Burlington a more walkable community, safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Adding more sidewalks, crosswalks,
extending public transit options, and slowing down traffic are needed to make South Burlington a more livable
and viable place to live, work and play. What we don't need more highways, exits and speeding cars.
Added by Jen Click here to view the feedback
From: Eleni Churchill <echurchill@ccrpcvt.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:13 AM
To: Erik Brotz <erik@burlingtontelecom.net>;
Subject: RE: Burlington outreach on I89 project
Hello Erik, Thanks for reaching out to ask for a Burlington focused public meeting on the I-89 Study. I just want
to let you know that we are planning to have another public meeting (in addition to the South Burlington
focused one we just had last week) sometime late April or early May (date TBD) in which everyone will be
invited to provide their comments on the I-89 Interchanges under review.
We are planning to advertise this meeting widely but we will also send you the meeting announcement so you
can forward to Burlington Walk-Bike Council members. In the meantime, please check the project website
(https://envision89.com/) for updates on the study. Best, Eleni
********************************************
Eleni Churchill
Transportation Program Manager, CCRPC
Office Direct Line: 802.861.0117
www.ccrpcvt.org
**CCRPC employees are working remotely and the office is closed to visitors.
Please call or email and will respond as soon as possible. Thank you.**
I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 2
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Brotz <erik@burlingtontelecom.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:13 AM
Subject: Burlington outreach on I89 project
Hi Eleni and Jason, I am writing to strongly encourage you to schedule and promote a public meeting for
Burlington regarding the I89 2050 Study currently underway. Although I89 does not go through Burlington, it
and its interchanges affect many Burlington residents. Even as someone active in transportation issues, I had
not heard of this project until recently.
Outreach should include UVM students as well as permanent residents; we've heard some students say that
they have cars on campus at least in part because they want to be able to get to the Dorset St. grocery stores.
Thanks very much for your attention to this issue. I look forward to hearing from you on your outreach plans.
Erik Brown Brotz,
Chair, Burlington Walk-Bike Council
*****
From: Leo Nadeau <firstcall211@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:48 PM
Subject: Suggestions for the Swift/Spear St intersection
Diane, I’m sending the attached picture relating to my suggestions for the intersection of Swift Street and
Spear Street. The main focus that I’m bringing forth is that they would be designated right turn lanes at every
roadway leading into the intersection. Also recommending the smart traffic light system to facilitate the
movement of vehicles and pedestrians through the intersection more efficiently and hopefully more safely.
Leo Nadeau, Retired Essex Chief of Police
Home Phone: 863-6699
I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 3
*****
From: Bob Britt <brittvtbiz@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:33 PM
Subject: I-89 2050 Corridor Study Input
Hello. Please see my attached list of the pros and cons for an Exit 12B. I have concluded that when
comparing the decision metrics between and Exit 12B and the Exit 13 Single Diamond option that the
later carries more benefits and should be selected. I do not have the time to document my pros and
cons in such detail for the Exit 13 Single Diamond option as I believe comments are due by today.
Please note that no bicyclist or pedestrian is going to go out of their way to take the proposed bicycle
bridge as outlined on the Exit 13 Hybrid option as it is not direct.
Bob Britt 802-338-6334 (cell)
Pros and Cons of a New Exit 12B:
I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 4
Conclusion:
Although this alternative may have some favorable potential economic development aspects, the Exit
13 Single Diamond alternative clearly has more overall benefits when matched up against the totality
of the metrics that have been established to make this decision. Exit 13B would help to directly jo in
the west and east sides of South Burlington. Exit 13 provides a direct link for vehicles, bicycles and
pedestrians and links smoothly with existing infrastructure. Exit 12B would serve to divide the
Southeast Quadrant from the rest of the City and would weaken the safety, livability and
environment of the Hinesburg Road neighborhoods both north and south of the proposed exit. As an
economic benefit of the Exit 13 Single Diamond option, it should carry the assumption that the State of
Vermont/Federal DOT be responsible for all the ongoing maintenance of the expanded Kennedy Drive
“boulevard” from Shelburne Road to Williston Road as it serves the region's international airport. These
entities are already paying for I-189 that would be replaced and this should not become a cost for the City of
South Burlington.
Pros:
• This exit may support the growth of industrial and commercial businesses in this area that
may help to rebalance the commercial/residential tax base within South Burlington that has
steadily been shifting to add more burdens on residential taxpayers
• This exit may encourage more industrial and commercial business growth in an area where
this type of development is preferred and zoned to be located
• Having this exit may encourage additional airlines to provide service at Burlington
International Airport because there is a more direct route to the airport (alleged Southwest
Airlines example)
• It could be assumed that a new Exit 12B could be built much earlier in years than the
reconstruction of Exit 13 whose bridge may not need to be replaced for another 15 or more
years. This may or may not be a good assumption.
• It could be assumed that this new exit will significantly reduce the commuter vehicle traffic on
Williston Road, Dorset Street, Market Street and Kennedy Drive since people working in the
Technology Park and vicinity businesses will use this exit as well as vehicles heading to
Burlington International Airport. This also may or may not be a good assumption.
• The above pros assume that the Exit 12B “bundle” would include the following:
o The concurrent building of the “Commercial/Industrial” road connecting the end of the
exit ramp directly to Kimball Avenue at the intersection with Tilley Drive and the road
to Technology Park. This will help minimize the traffic the heads to Hinesburg Road.
o The building of a separated bicycle and pedestrian facility on the I-89 bridge over the
highway on Hinesburg Road
I-89 2050 Study –Public Comments Received After 3/18/21 Public Meeting - Page 5
o The building of a shared use path the length of Hinesburg Road from Cheese Factory
Road to Kennedy Drive
o The concurrent building of the U-turn ramp on I-189 to allow vehicles coming
southbound on I-89 to access eastbound Kennedy Drive and for vehicles heading
westbound on Kennedy Road to access northbound I-89
Cons:
• Without the concurrent building of the proposed “Industrial/Commercial” road to Kimball
Avenue and the road to Technology Park (preferably paid for by this project), the traffic jam
this Exit 12B would cause at the intersections of Tilley Drive and Hinesburg Road and Kennedy
Drive and Hinesburg Road would be overwhelming. Dumping the Exit 12B midway down Tilley
drive would be foolish without this added infrastructure.
• This exit would further isolate and disconnect residents that live south of I-89 along Hinesburg
Road from the rest of South Burlington especially if a recreation path a nd other separated
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is not included in the bundle for Exit 12 B.
• The traffic on Hinesburg Road south to I-89 would increase markedly as vehicles from
Shelburne, St. George, Hinesburg and beyond that would typically access I-89 via Exit 12
would instead head to Exit 12B to head south.
• Likewise, cars heading to Shelburne, St. George, Hinesburg and beyond may choose to use Exit
12B rather than Exit 12 or Exit 13.
• The noise levels for residents north and south of I-89 will also increase with ramp and road
traffic including trucks using engine brakes, etc. and increased traffic
Supplemental Comments by Natural Resources Committee Received via Email -
3/24/21
TO: Karen Sentoff, CCRPC/VHB representative to the Natural Resource
Committee breakout meeting on 3/10/21 as part of the I-89 2050 Study – Review
of Draft Second Round Interchange Evaluation Metrics and Scoring
Re: statement in response to the discussion of proposed RT I-89 interchanges
located within So. Burlington
From: So. Burlington Natural Resource and Conservation Committee (NRCC)
Thank you for your notes which captured the discussion members of the So.
Burlington NRCC had with you on 3/10/21 in a breakout zoom meeting. The
Committee further discussed the matter at a special committee meeting on
3/15/21.
Your minutes reflect the Committee’s concern that metrics and evaluation of the
3 interchanges proposed include the following:
Wildlife passage and connectivity by providing adequate channels, fencing
and culverts for their safe passage under the highway
Identify rare, endangered and local flora and fauna to be disturbed by
construction and highway location
Calculate the amount of impervious surfaces to be added or removed per
each site/proposal
Design culverts and stormwater retention to be resilient in major weather
events
Include a metric and evaluation of the noise implications for each site
particularly proximate to housing located near the highway.
The committee supports re-construction of I-89 interchanges at their current
locations #s 13 and 14. Minimizing the amount of impermeable surface and
creating the smallest footprint is important both of which favors the boulevard
approach at interchange 13 and with modified diamond design at both
interchanges 13 and 14.
We do not favor a new exit at 12B/Hinesburg Rd. Building one there will put
development pressure in South Burlington’s South East Quadrant (SEQ) which the
city comprehensive plan deems should maintain its rural characteristics.
The committee will continue to be involved and informed as to the decision-
making process evolves and final choices of I-89 interchange selection are made
in order to represent these aspects of the decision matrix.
Submitted for the Committee by Larry Kupferman
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Swift Street Extension and Other East-West Roads Discussion
DATE: April 13, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
The Commission decided to review and discuss the status of the planned Swift Street Extension and other
east-west roadway connections in South Burlington. Below is a summary of existing plans, regulations, and
relevant related reports.
Background & Current Planning Documents
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan and current Official Map both include a planned roadway linking the present
Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road [though the two documents show its destination at Hinesburg Road
in slightly different places]. This roadway has been contemplated in the City Comprehensive Plan since the
1960s, and the Official Map since its inception in the ‘90s.
The Comprehensive Plan describes the planned connection as follows:
The Comprehensive Plan also included the following strategy: “Strategy 37. Due to increased development and
the desire to protect natural resources, update the South Burlington Planned East-West Roads Analysis”
The Commission briefly discussed a potential study to perform a full transportation assessment of east-west
roads in the Southeast Quadrant as part of your CCRPC Unified planning Work Program requests two years
ago, but decided that the Commission should instead first discuss and review the subject using existing studies
before deciding whether a new study was warranted and/or the scope of such a study.
2
Link to 2016 Comprehensive Plan [Map on page 203]:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/document_center/planning/SB_Comprehensive_Plan_Complete_
Adopted_2-1-2016.pdf
Link to Official Map:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/document_center/planning/Official_Map_Complete_Effective_4-
11-2016.pdf
Presentation on History of East West Roads, July 2020
Last summer, the City Council had staff to give a presentation on the history of planning for east-west roads in
South Burlington. I’d encourage Commissioners to review either the handouts or watch the video, as it gives a
good overview of the planning and construction of roadways in the SEQ over the past half century plus.
• Link to Video of Presentation on History of East-West Roads: https://www.cctv.org/watch-
tv/programs/south-burlington-city-council-408#
• Link to Presentation Slides on History of East-West Roads:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/Planning/Project%20Docs/East-
West%20Roads%20Council%202020-08-03.pdf
3
Relevant Studies and Reports
Staff has compiled some resources for the Commission to use as you begin your evaluation of these East -West
Roads (and specifically Swift Street Extension).
• 2007 Dorset Street Corridor Study. This study includes a number of recommendations for
improvements to Dorset Street and the cross-streets that connect to it. The Report includes a traffic
analysis of Swift Street Extension, among others, and certain specific design recommendations. While
the study is now 14 years old, it did use the same foundations of anticipated development as are
included in the 2006 LDRs that created the current SEQ, its subdistricts, and the TDR program and which
is largely the same today.
Link to Dorset Street Corridor Study: https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/Dorset-Street-Corridor-Study.pdf
• 2020 Kimball/Tilley Drive Land Use and Transportation Study. This study, completed last fall, was
looking at the transportation system needed to accommodate the buildout of the Tilley Drive / Tech
Park / O’Brien / Meadowlands / Hill Farm area. As part of this study, we had the consultants review the
implications of building, or not building, the Swift Street Extension connection, and what that would be
with or without a 12B interchange being constructed.
The Study’s evaluation and findings, on page 24-25, and conclusions, on pages 36-37, are excerpted
below.
Swift Street Extension
“… the addition of the Swift Street Extension pulls traffic away from Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road
and increases volumes along upper Dorset Street and Swift Street as traffic takes advantage of the new
east-west connector. Traffic volumes along Kennedy Drive between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road
are expected to decrease by approximately 24% while volumes on VT 116 adjacent to Tilley Drive are
expected to decrease by approximately 15% with the Swift Street Extension in place. Future evening
peak hour traffic volumes on Swift Street east of Dorset Street are expected to increase from
approximately 125 PM peak hour trips to approximately 1,200 PM peak hour trips with the addition of
the Swift Street Extension.
“The easterly terminus of the Swift Street Extension would connect to Rye Circle and continue east to
the existing two-way stop-controlled intersection of Meadowland Drive and Rye Circle with VT 116.
With the addition of the Swift Street Extension (assuming 100% build-out), the VT 116 / Meadowland
Drive / Rye Circle intersection would require a new signal or roundabout and a new eastbound left-
turn lane (as shown below in Figure 10).
“At full build-out with the Swift Street Extension in place, the Dorset Street/Swift Street signalized
intersection could accommodate the projected volumes with minor signal timing and phasing
adjustments.” Pp 24-25
Conclusions:
“With the Swift Street Extension added in as an additional connector road, additional east-west
connectivity would be provided in this area. The need for east-west connectivity, which has been
identified in South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, would be enhanced by this connection. In
addition to meeting the east-west connectivity need, the Swift Street Extension would also enhance
emergency vehicle access to the area.
4
“However, the extension of Swift Street would also have implications for residents of the Village at
Dorset Park who would see evening peak hour volumes along Swift Street increase from approximately
125 PM peak hour trips to approximately 1,200 PM peak hour trips with full land use build-out of the
study area. The Swift Street Extension would also draw traffic off adjacent arterials designed to handle
higher traffic volumes (e.g. Kennedy Drive is expected to see traffic volumes reduce approximately 24%
with the Swift Street Extension in place). Additionally, as shown previously in this report, the Swift
Street Extension would also have environmental impacts to potential wetlands, habitat blocks, and
threatened species.
“The Swift Street Extension could be designed and constructed in a manner that discourages cut-
through trips (i.e. through traffic calming and/or curvilinear features), however the environmental
impacts would remain. The decision of whether to proceed with the Swift Street Extension should be
based on a wide-range of factors including both traffic and environmental impacts, along with broader
policy implications (e.g. merits of enhanced connectivity vs. concerns over cut through traffic,
connectivity to a future educational complex, future development of the Hill Farm parcel, emergency
vehicle connectivity), costs, and public input.” pp 36-27
Link to Kimball Ave / Tilley Drive Final Report:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/Planning/Regulations%20&%20Plans/Kimball-
Tilley%20Land%20Use%20and%20Transportation%20Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%202020-11-29.pdf
Link to Kimball Ave/Tilley Drive Report Appendices:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/Planning/Regulations%20&%20Plans/Kimball-
Tilley%20Land%20Use%20and%20Transportation%20Study%20-%20Appendix%20-%202020-11-29.pdf
• 2020 Arrowwood Environmental Habitat Assessment and Ranking: This Report considered a number of
possible Habitat Blocks in the City including one that is colocated with a portion of the planned Swift
Street Extension.
Link to Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/Planning/Project%20Docs/SBurlington%20Habitat%20Block%20R
anking%20Final%20Report%20Corrected%2002%2007%202020.pdf
• 2001 East-West Roads Traffic Study. This study evaluated traffic patterns from three potential east-west
connectors. Staff notes that this study may have limited value as the land use assumptions are based on
prior zoning and the locations of the planned roadways in the southern portion of the SEQ have
changed.
Link to 2001 East-West Roads Traffic Study: https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/sburl_ew_roads.pdf
• Other Studies. There are several other studies and reports that Commissioners may find of historic
interest that assessed land use, transportation, and natural resources in this part of the city. Visit the
City’s online library of completed studies for these.
Link to South Burlington Online Library of Completed Studies:
https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/planning_and_zoning/final_reports_and_plans.php
5
Planning Commission Considerations:
Staff recommends that the Commission consider the possible Swift Street extension in the context of the
various needs and goals of the city: neighborhood connectivity via roadways and/or recreation paths, natural
resources management and connectivity, overall transportation system management and operation, and
emergency services.
At this meeting, Commissioners are encouraged to discuss how you would like to proceed from here in terms
of community input, further study if needed, etc.
Ultimately, should the Commission and City Council elect to modify the present policy of connecting Swift
Street Extension to Hinesburg Road and/or other changes to the planned transportation network, the
Comprehensive Plan and Official Map should be amended.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
23 MARCH 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 March 2021,
at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald,
P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; D. Hall, Zoning Administrator; M.
Pasaren, L. Wood, N. Anderson, D. Seff, S. Dopp, R. Gonda, D. Hernberg, M. Cota, J. Charest, B.
Britt, S. Kumar Sarepalli, T. Barritt, S. Dooley, S. Partillo, D. Albrecht, A. & A. Chalnick, D. Long,
R. & T. Davis
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Ms. Louisos asked to add to Other Business a check of the upcoming schedule.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. & Mrs. Davis, owners of the Davis Studio on Shelburne Road, addressed the Commission
regarding a potential to the LRDs. Davis Studio includes an arts-based pre-school, and they
wish to renovate a building now used with a residential use to an educational use. They noted
that in addition to affordable housing, quality affordable childcare is also a city priority. Their
request is to add “childcare” to the list of exemptions for replacement of housing that is a
discontinued use.
Ms. Louisos explained the procedure for members to decide whether to add this to a future
agenda.
Mr. Riehle said the request has merit. Ms. Ostby noted the Commission recently discussed
adding childcare to PUDs.
Mr. Mittag suggested sending a written request.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Mittag said that Land Trust is asking for help with Green-up Day on 1 May.
Mr. Conner announced that the city has just received two grants: The first would construct a
crossing of Kennedy Drive by Edge Fitness by narrowing the street and putting in an island. The
second would expand the bike path south on Spear Street. Mr. Conner also noted that new e-
2
bikes arrived today. Mr. Gagnon asked whether they will be allowed on bike paths as they
often go too fast for safety of others. Mr. Conner noted that he testified at the Vermont Senate
regarding defining e-bikes and to set upper speed limits and give municipalities the ability to
address their use on shared use paths. That bill has come out of committee.
Mr. Riehle asked about the “dip” on Spear St. Mr. Conner said that may be part of the I-89
discussion. Mr. Britt said it is part of the proposed diamond interchange. Mr. Charest of the
Regional Planning Commission said it is an option that would remove that bridge. They haven’t
moved to correct the dip yet.
Ms. Ostby noted she had seen a “very competent” biker riding in the left lane. She felt this will
be happening more often.
4. Swift Street/Spear Street Intersection Improvement Scoping Study presentation &
feedback:
Ms. Hall introduced the study team. Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. MacDonald represented the
Commission on that team.
Mr. Sarepalli said the Committee worked with a consulting team to get a conceptual plan for
the intersection. The have posted a plan on-line and are seeking public comment. They will
then create a plan to make that intersection safer. Alternatives will be brought to the Planning
Commission for considerations of safety, affordability, etc. Ms. Hall encouraged people to take
the on-line survey. There are 180 responses to date.
Ms. Hall then showed an overview of the project area. Ms. Louisos commented that the
summary of existing conditions was excellent.
Mr. Macdonald noted that the Committee did consider the impact of the Spear Meadows
development on the intersection as well as the Kwineaska development. Mr. Charest added
that those numbers were added in as “general background growth.”
Ms. Ostby raised the question of considering a rotary for that intersection. She did not feel that
would be good for bike/ped. Mr. Charest said that is a great comment. He then noted the
difference between a “rotary” and a “roundabout” and said traffic in the roundabouts moves
slower. They are new to Vermont and are safe for drivers and pedestrians. Some designs are
safer for bikes as well. He added that CCRPC will be prepared to do some education to the
public as to how roundabouts work.
3
A note in the chat box questioned timing of the traffic light at that intersection, specifically for
southbound traffic, and said that a certain times of day traffic backs up because the light
doesn’t change for 3 cycles while cross traffic keeps going.
Mr. Riehle raised the possibility of wider bike paths for electric bikes, perhaps divided down the
middle with one side for the e-bikes. Mr. Britt said national standards have increased the width
for bike paths from 8 to 10 feet and South Burlington will strive for that standard where
possible. Mr. MacDonald asked whether the Bike/Ped Committee provided information to the
Swift/Spear Committee. Mr. Britt said they just learned about this study from Front Porch
Forum. Their next meeting is 8 April, and they will provide feedback after that. They would
also like to have a representative on the team.
Ms. Ostby said there should also be consideration of “orange posts” between bikes and the
road on faster roads.
5. Continued Land Development Regulations work session:
a. Continued review of updated Environmental Protection Standards following
Commission guidance and related amendments:
Ms. Louisos said she hopes they can get to where a public hearing can be warned at the next
meeting. She noted that the Commission will be losing staff help sometime after that. Mr.
Mittag said he wanted to cover things from Chapter 9 before they move on. Ms. Louisos said
they should look at mapping which is a big piece of pubic outreach. Mr. Conner noted there are
some resources, including agricultural ones, that are weaved into the PUDs from an incentive or
requirement perspective.
Mr. Conner then showed a series of maps as follows:
1. NRP current regulated: Mr. Conner indicated the NRP district
2. Currently added covered lands
3. Including what is built and approved to be bult (Mr. Conner indicated land
neither built on nor conserved
4. Proposed hazards, level 1, level 2 and conserved lands, parks, and built on
land
5. Existing protected areas compared with proposed (Mr. Conner noted co-
existing). Mr. Conner showed a close-up of the Allen Rd. area and indicated
the expansion of the wetland buffer and how it changes the property. Mr.
Mittag asked to see the current NRP overlayed with the proposed. Mr.
Macdonald said he remembered some slight adjustments, nothing major.
4
Mr. Chalnick asked how reliable wetland mapping is. Mr. Conner said the mapping is an
indicator as to what is potentially out there. Wetlands must be delineated by the State
wetlands person. Ms. Louisos said the regulations would require that on-ground delineation.
She added that from what she’s seen they can be a little bigger than what is mapped. Mr.
Conner said the larger ones are usually closer to streams. Mr. Mittag asked when the
delineation takes place. Mr. Conner said that under the current regulations, delineation takes
place at the time of development. He added that wetland delineations are good for only 5
years. When delineations are done, the results are added into the State data base.
6. Future land use map: Mr. Conner indicated the very low, low, medium,
higher intensity use areas
7. Conserved and NRP lands superimposed over the Future Land Use map and
Article 10 and 12 (Mr. Conner indicated lands owned by UVM, specifically the
Miller Farm)
8. Built environment superimposed over the Future Land Use and
conserved/NRP/resources
9. Map 7 of Primary Conservation Areas. Mr. Conner said this identifies what
was thought to be wetlands, steep slopes, riparian connectivity, etc.
10. Map of NRP and Resources superimposed over Map 7
11. Map 8 of Secondary Conservation Areas. Mr. Conner identified various areas
and showed the conserved, NRP and Chapter 10 & 12 resources
superimposed over that map. He identified portions of the Hill Farm, Auclair
Property and Cider Mill II. He noted that only a few areas of prime ag soil in
the SEQ are not protected, some of which are in private ownership.
Both Ms. Louisos and Mr. Gagnon noted there is no scientific basis for what is on Map 7. Mr.
Mittag said they have to live with that map because it is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Macdonald said that any wetlands shown would still have to be delineated. Mr. Conner said it
would and any wetland found to be wider would have the buffer added to that. Ms. Ostby
noted that what is in Chapters 10 & 12 covers most of what is in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Louisos said she has always known that the lines regarding riparian areas wouldn’t
perfectly match up.
Members then questioned what they need to do to bring this to the public for comment. Mr.
Albrecht asked for a FAQ section to help the public understand the document. Mr. Gagnon said
a “plain language summary” is being worked on. Mr. Conner said it will be a one-pager
followed by a page or 2 regarding history.
Mr. Mittag said that at the last meeting it was said that farmland is protected by 906C. He
noted that section says “encouraged” and suggested that be changed to “required.” Ms.
Louisos said the Commission said they would include agriculture in the PUDs. Mr. Mittag said
5
he felt it belongs in Chapter 12 as it’s an environmental protection. Ms. Louisos noted that in
some places agriculture is classified as “land use,” not “environmental.” Mr. Mittag said Act
250 regulates prime ag soils and noted that the city has to mitigate them on the new soccer
field. Ms. Louisos said any large development would have to go through Act 250, so that would
be addressed.
Members then continued their review of specific areas of Chapters 10 & 12 as follows:
Chapter 10:
Ms. Ostby asked for a definition of “historic sites.” Mr. Conner said this is defined in the
definitions.
Ms. Louisos said she would like to see a standard that fencing doesn’t block animals. Mr.
Conner said he can do that. Mr. Gagnon recommended checking with Public Works regarding
fencing issues. He noted that if you have stormwater ponds with steep slopes it can be
dangerous for small children. Mr. Conner said the regulations are silent on that, and it can be
looking at on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Macdonald said the 2 diagrams on setbacks and shadow are hard to follow and suggested
simplifying these for the public. Mr. Conner said these were provided by the State. He added
the “shadow” idea may be superfluous.
In Section E2, Ms. Ostby asked why the DRB can grant waivers for wetlands. Mr. Conner said
“waiver” will be changed to “modifications.” This applies only to Class 2 wetlands in the City
Center District and to Class 3 wetlands. It is a trade-off in City Center and applies to Class 3 if
they can demonstrate they meet the criteria.
Habitat Blocks:
Mr. Mittag asked about habitat block buffers and noted these are stressed in the Arrowwood
report. He favored a 300-foot buffer, where possible, to make the habitat blocks work.
Ms. Ostby said the habitat blocks have “cores” and areas outside the cores to protect the cores.
Mr. Conner said Arrowwood identified 26 habitat blocks and used metrics to identify their
quality. One metric was that the block was at least 300 feet from a road or a house in order to
have a greater core. Ms. Ostby said she felt the current blocks include a 300 foot buffer.
Ms. Ostby said that since the Commission is creating habitat blocks, some mathematical
information would be good in the definitions. That way, if the mapping leaves one out, there is
a way for the public to bring it to the Commission’s attention.
6
Mr. Gagnon reminded members that when Arrowwood did their study it was a “drive-by,” not
on-ground. He noted that an applicant can go to the DRB to modify the mapping and delineate
what is actually on the ground. There is also language to allow for removal of invasives. He felt
habitat blocks were well defined and there is latitude for field delineation.
Mr. Conner noted that in order to qualify for an “Arrowwood block,” there had to be 50% trees.
He said that people can remove trees in a forestry operation, and if that happens and what is
left is less than 50% trees, the claim can be made that it is no longer a habitat block. One idea is
that in a Conservation PUD, 70% of the land would be protected. The Commission could choose
certain areas of the city where a Conservation PUD is required, and 70% of that land would
have to be protected. He noted that as the Commission moves toward more “aspirational
resources,” this becomes a policy question. Mr. Riehle asked how those areas of the city would
be identified. Mr. Conner said they could look at the most important resources. He added
there are not that many areas of the city that would be involved as there wouldn’t be
contiguous areas to support it. Mr. Riehle said a buffer in one place might not be as important
as one in another place. It would have to be customized.
Ms. Louisos then moved that the Commission not include in the draft for public comment
additional buffers around habitat blocks. Mr. Gagnon seconded. The motion passed 4-3 with
Messrs. Riehle, Mittag and Engels opposing.
Members then briefly considered passing Articles 10 & 12 on to the Council prior to completing
work on the PUDs. Mr. MacDonald asked if the Council could “sit on” Articles 10 & 12 until the
Commission got them the PUDs. Mr. Conner said the Council would have one hear in which to
take action on what is given to them. If they don’t, it would no longer be valid.
Mr. Mittag was concerned there is “wishy washy” language in the draft. Mr. Conner said he will
check in the legal review. Mr. Mittag said he would provide some examples.
Mr. Conner said there will be a section in the memo regarding rare/endangered species, which
the Natural Resources Committee is looking into. He recommended addressing this only if
someone wants to disturb a habitat block.
Ms. Ostby asked about the next step. Ms. Louisos said Mr. Conner will incorporate what was
discussed into a final draft for the Commission to view at its next meeting and then warn for
public hearing. Mr. Conner raised the question of warning the public hearing before meeting
with the City Council. Mr. Gagnon felt it should be ready to warn but held until after the
meeting with the Council. Mr. MacDonald agreed.
6. Other Business:
7
Mr. Conner noted the City Council has a special meeting on Monday 29 March. Members then
agreed to a special Commission meeting on Wednesday, 31 March, at 7 p.m. Mr. Conner noted
he will need time to prepare the report that goes with draft to the Council.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:56 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
31 MARCH 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 31 March 2021, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; A Crocker, D. Peters, F. Von Turkovich, R.
Gonda, R. Greco, A. Jensen-Vargas, L. Ravin, S. Dooley, A. & A. Chalnick, C. Trombly
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Ms. Louisos asked to add 2 items to Other Business: an update on scheduling and an update on
correspondence.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Crocker asked the Commission to add item to an agenda to consider removing the Swift Street
Extension from the Official City Map. She felt it would be a “commercial highway” through an
environmentally sensitive area and would increase traffic near the entrance to Veterans Park. She also
felt it would drive development away from City Center. She noted Swift St. Extension was planned as a
second egress from Village at Dorset Park, but since that time, other east-west roads have been added
or remove from the Official City Map. There was a petition in 2015 to remove the road from the map
and there was an agreement by the Planning Commission to study this. That study has not been done.
Mr. Mittag said this is long overdue, and somehow the Commission never got to it.
Mr. Mittag moved to place the issue of Swift Street Extension on one of the next 2 or 3 agendas and deal
with this problem. Ms. Ostby seconded.
Mr. Macdonald noted there had been an agenda item regarding all east-west roads and asked if the
Commission was going to review all of them or just Swift Street Extension.
Ms. Louisos said her only issue regarding scheduling is the need for background data and the fact that
the Commission may not have staff support in the next few meetings. She asked for a friendly
amendment to change “2 or 3” to “few.” Mr. Conner added that even with a focus on Swift St., the
Commission needs to look at the context. He also noted this is a transportation issue as well as an
environmental issue.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Louisos said she will mention this as part of the joint meeting with the City Council.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
2
Mr. Riehle noted that the Long property will be in front of the DRB. Ms. Ostby said she saw their
presentation to the City Council and to the Affordable Housing Committee. She noted the Longs are
aware of Article 12.
Mr. Conner noted the City Council had a work session on Monday regarding interchanges and will
continue their discussion on 19 April. The Council also considered options to seek funding to build the
pedestrian boardwalk to connect City Center to park areas. Ms. Louisos noted she had signed a letter of
support for the funding application on behalf of the Commission.
Mr. Conner also noted that the Council had a conversation regarding completion of Interim Zoning and
whether they want to consider Articles 10 and 12 separately. The sense was to have Interim Zoning in
place for the Commission to complete work on Articles 10 and 12 and the PUDs.
4. Review and possible action to approve advancing LDR-20-01, draft Environmental Protection
Standards amendments to the Land Development Regulations, and accompanying Planning
Commission Report for the purposes of holding a public hearing on same:
Mr. Macdonald asked the pros and cons of putting Articles 10 & 12 out alone or with the PUDs. He
noted that Ms. Dooley favors the latter option.
Mr. Conner said the benefit of doing them together is you get to look at all the pieces, and if one affects
the other, things can be adjusted. The benefit of doing them separately is that one big piece of the
puzzle would be complete and the Commission would have a lot of feedback. With that behind them,
they could get more feedback on the PUD part.
Ms. Louisos said even if they don’t warn a public hearing, they should release what they have with a
report in order to get comments.
Ms. Ostby noted that because there may not be staff available after the 4/6 meeting, they may not be
able to address comments right away.
Mr. Mittag said both the environmental and PUD documents are complex. He felt they should get
Articles 10 & 12 done and then focus on Article 15. He felt it would be hard to get public input if both
documents were done together.
Ms. Louisos cited the need to have a enough of a block of time for public comment. She felt the
Commission should finish their draft tonight and decide what goes into the packet for the joint meeting
with the Council. She added that one of the April or May meetings would be good to have a listening
and mapping session, look at the maps together with the public. She proposed that as part of the path
moving forward.
Ms. Ostby felt good about the separate path. She thought the Council wants to do their hearing during
Interim Zoning and do both parts together.
3
Mr. Riehle said the Commission should be through the pubic hearing process by May. Mr. conner
agreed. He didn’t know if there were substantial things the Commission would want to change after
that hearing. Most times in the past, the Commission has advanced a document soon after a public
hearing. He also noted the Commission will have to warn a public hearing regarding the PUDs by mid-
September in order to meet the Interim Zoning deadline.
Ms. Ravin said she was representing UVM, and the University is trying to follow this process. She noted
the University does not support regulations that would limit the use of UVM land any more than it is
limited now. She reminded the Commission that UVM owns lands identified as habitat blocks. She
understood it would be possible to develop portions of those blocks. She said the University hasn’t had
enough time to really understand the implications of the new regulations, and it was hard to understand
the impact on University land without the PUD standards, both intended and unintended consequences.
She thought moving one forward without the other could wind up taking more time if the Commission
has to go back and change something. She suggested there not be an official public hearing until the
Commission has both pieces.
Mr. Conner noted that UVM is a large landowner in the city, including the Wheelock parcel on the north
side of Spear Street, the property on Patches Road and some agricultural properties now zoned
Residential.
Ms. Dooley said her reading of Articles 10 & 12 is that habitat blocks apply to all land in the city,
including UVM land. Mr. Conner said that is correct, except where there is an exemption beyond local
authority. Those articles re “ownership neutral” and reflect only where the resources are.
Members then reviewed the new draft which Ms. Louisos noted includes updates since the last
Commission meeting.
Mr. Riehle said he agonizes over 12:10 and felt allowing a road is a negative. He could not support that
section. He cited the road across the Great Swamp as “an abomination.” He felt allowing the crossing
of wetlands could lead to many east-west roads the city doesn’t want. Mr. Conner urged the
Commission to look at the Official City Map as a whole. Mr. Mittag agreed with Mr. Riehle. Mr. Conner
showed the list of alternatives that would have to be considered before a wetland could be crossed.
Ms. Ostby said the Commission has to decide on shifting NRP boundaries. Mr. Mittag felt the map was
hard to distinguish between the NRP now and what is proposed. Ms. Ostby said she felt it made sense
to change the NRP and let the habitat blocks be established. Mr. Conner said the current thinking is that
a TND must exclude any lands in the NRP. There is also the option for a Conservation PUD. Mr.
MacDonald agreed with Ms. Ostby. He felt they would lose flexibility by putting those land into the NRP.
He noted there is already a landowner who wants to use the ‘swap” ability. Ms. Louisos agreed. Ms.
Ostby said it doesn’t seem right to add to the NRP when a TDR proposal hasn’t been considered.
Mr. Mittag asked whether the South Village Master Plan shouldn’t conform to the NRP rather than vice
versa. Mr. Conner explained the timing issue.
4
Ms. Ostby then moved to keep NRP zoning intact until a later stage. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion
passed 6-0.
Members then considered the Report that accompanies the changes. Mr. Conner said some pieces of
the report will be part of the public outreach. What he is presenting meets State law. Ms. Louisos
stressed the need to be sure they are not misleading the public to think every inch of what is not
conserved is going to be built on. Ms. Ostby agreed and said they need to indicate that what they are
doing adds so much more protection for natural resources and will make it clear to people what can and
cannot be built on.
Mr. Mittag noted the paragraph near the bottom of page 2 and cautioned care with that statement
because he had an objection to something removed from what is now in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Conner then asked to what extent members would be interested in having a brief discussion in
“plain English” on what each of the categories in the environmental standards does, possibly a ½ or 1/3
of a page, something like: “Here is what it is, here is where it comes from, here is what can happen with
it,“ explained in layperson’s terms. Ms. Louisos felt that was a good idea.
Ms. Ostby noted that Strategy 138 of the Comprehensive Plan is said so nicely that she recommended
including it.
Ms. Louisos questioned whether language in the Table regarding river corridors is confusing. Mr.
Conner said he will look to clarify it. Ms. Louisos also noted that for the 500-year flood plain, language
should say FEMA Insurance Maps, not State Reiver Corridor Mapping. Mr. Conner agreed.
Mr. Mittag suggested a list of what is in the package.
5. Consider Topics for Discussion at Upcoming Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting:
Ms. Louisos listed the Report, Revised Standards for Articles 10 and 12 and related items, mapping (to
be provided in the packet). Mr. Conner said he has available interactive mapping which shows previous
and new standards. Mr. Mittag said the CCRPC map is a lot more user friendly than other maps. Mr.
Conner said staff will be looking at making maps more “tidy.”
Ms. Louisos suggested as talking points: details of mapping regarding environmental protection
standards, overview of PUD work including the concept of minimum density, high-level policy items
related to potentially developable lands as part of the PUD portion of Commission work, and a target
update to Comprehensive Plan to insure consistency with city policy.
Ms. Ostby suggested maximum density as well as the Council may want that. Mr. Conner said the
Southeast Quadrant as a whole has a maximum density that could be retained. There could be very
compact development in some areas or possibly target some areas for development. He noted the
current 9-lot development that doesn’t take conservation into account.
5
Ms. Louisos felt there was more on the list than they could get feedback on. Mr. MacDonald felt it was
important to get feedback on the density issue as it might surprise people how dense some
development could be.
Mr. Conner urged members to think about “the tool” and “the applicability of the tool.” For example,
something may be a “good tool,” but “not here.”
Ms. Louisos said it is important to stress that the total number of units in the SEQ isn’t increased.
Mr. Engels said he would like to see some hard numbers. How many acres would be conserved after the
changes are made? Mr. Conner said he will see what can be done with that. It is on a list for CCRPC to
do as soon as possible.
Ms. Ostby felt the Council should be reminded of things they can do that are out of the Commission’s
purview (e.g., inclusionary offsets, TDR marketplace, etc.). She felt there is grant money available to
accomplish some of those things. Ms. Dooley said that may be something for the new City Manager to
take on; it may be hard to add to Kevin’s load at this time.
Members briefly discussed remaining after the joint meeting and summarizing what they gathered from
the Council.
6. Minutes of 3 March, 9 March, 10 March and 16 March 2021:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 3, 9, 10, and 16 March as written. Ms. Ostby seconded.
Mr. Macdonald noted that the minutes of March 9 say March 3 in the header. Mr. Conner said he
would correct that. The motion passed 6-0.
7. Other Business:
a. Winooski Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Unified Land Use
Development Regulations, Thursday, 8 April 2021, 6:30 p.m.
b. Burlington Planning Commission Public hearing on proposed amendments to Comprehensive
Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 13 April 2021, 6:45 p.m.
c. Upcoming meeting schedule
Mr. Conner noted the Burlington amendment address short-term rentals and suggested members take a
look at this.
Members agreed on a “listening session” for members of the public prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Conner said he will send out information on the I-89 alternatives. The question is which alternative
to support. The Council wants to address this in the first part of next month.
Ms. Louisos cited the possible need to meet every week.
6
Mr. Conner said he will also get information to members on the Tilley Drive Study as it relates to the
Swift St. Extension.
Members agreed to hold a short “debriefing” session following the joint meeting with the Council.
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of an email from Ray Gonda regarding buffers and a letter from Arrowwood
regarding habitat buffers. There are also emails regarding the appropriateness of a person reaching out
to a consultant on behalf of the city. Ms. Louisos said there may be some correspondence on that issue
coming forth. The concern is that this could incur an expense. Ms. Louisos said she would never do that
on her own. Mr. Mittag asked if it’s OK to reach out to State resources. Ms. Louisos said she has done
that, and it feels different to her. Mr. Conner agreed there is a difference but still encouraged having an
individual confer with his/her committee before doing that so there are no surprises and so the person
can speak on behalf of the group.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:15 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
Town of Shelburne, Vermont
CHARTERED 1763
P.O. BOX 88 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE, VT 05482
Clerk/Treasurer Town Manager Zoning & Planning Assessor Recreation FAX Number
(802) 985-5116 (802) 985-5110 (802) 985-5118 (802) 985-5115 (802) 985-9551 (802) 985-9550
INVITATION TO COMMENT ON ZONING AMENDMENTS
TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST
FR: SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION VIA DEAN PIERCE, DIR OF PLANNING
RE: ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT
DA: MARCH 26, 2021
On March 25, 2021, the Shelburne Planning Commission voted to conduct a public hearing on proposed
amendments to Shelburne’s Zoning Bylaw on April 22, 2021. The extent of the proposed changes is
detailed in the attached memorandum.
The meeting of which the hearing is part will begin at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be conducted remotely
using the Zoom online platform. It will also be possible to participate in the meeting via telephone. Those
who plan to participate in the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments
in advance. (Details will be posted on the Town of Shelburne web site.)
Via web browser:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88424177686?pwd=R1B5VzdGTFpJVkt2N1RxQVlUcUpmQT09
Meeting ID: 884 2417 7686
Passcode: 8rG56B
One tap mobile
+19292056099,,88424177686#,,,,*960424# US (New York)
+13017158592,,88424177686#,,,,*960424# US (Washington DC)
Dial by your location
1 929 205 6099
Meeting ID: 884 2417 7686
Passcode: 960424
It is not necessary to participate in the hearing to offer comments. Written comments may be submitted in
advance of the hearing to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO
Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org.
MEMORANDUM
TO: RECIPIENTS
FR: DEAN PIERCE, ON BEHALF OF PLANNING COMMISSION
RE: HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING BYLAWS
DA: MARCH 29, 2021
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2020, the Shelburne Planning Commission voted to conduct a public hearing on proposed amendments to
Shelburne’s Zoning Bylaw at 7 PM on April 22, 2021. In addition, Staff was directed to distribute the proposed
amendment and a “zoning change report” as required by statute. This memo and other materials were prepared in
response to that directive.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The proposal is the first the Commission has prepared as part of the “Regulatory Reform” initiative underway in the
Town. A list of the sections modified by the proposal is presented below.
Article Section
XIX 1930.1
1970.5
XX 2010.8
The text of the language to be the subject of the hearing is presented in boxes in the documents attached. Language to be
added to the bylaw (within the boxes) is shown in color with underscore. Language to be deleted is shown in color with
strikethrough (strikethrough). Highlights are an artifact and are not part of any proposal to change the bylaw.
ZONING CHANGE REPORT
A report prepared in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) is also attached. This report describes how the proposal
“Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan…” and “Is compatible with the
proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.”
Planning Commission Reporting Form
for Municipal Bylaw Amendments
(Form Based Zoning)
As approved by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2021
This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) which states:
“When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the
proposal. A single report may be prepared so as to satisfy the requirements of this subsection concerning bylaw amendments
and subsection 4384(c) of this title concerning plan amendments.…. The report shall provide (:)
(A) brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice
under §4444 of this title,
(A)nd shall include findings regarding how the proposal:
1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the
proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing:
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan:
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw amendment.
This set of bylaw changes is the Commission’s first in the ongoing “regulatory reform” process.
Purpose
The Planning Commission has developed this initial set of proposed bylaw changes as participants in the
“regulatory reform” process. The majority of changes would discontinue permit requirements governing
activities deemed to have limited impact on the community. Another change would simplify review processes
by allowing for administrative approval (ending a hearing requirement). The other change would provide the
DRB with greater flexibility to authorize certain development (fences) within PUD buffers.
Findings regarding how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the
municipal plan
Under state law, the Zoning Regulations must be “in conformance with” the Plan. To be “in conformance with”
the Plan, the bylaw must: make progress toward attaining, or at least not interfere with, the goals and policies
contained in the Plan; provide for proposed future land uses, densities, and intensities of development contained
in the Plan; and carry out any specific proposals for community facilities, or other proposed actions contained in
the Plan.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in
the municipal plan. Such policies include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
GOAL: To encourage the continued growth and diversification of Shelburne’s economy in a manner the
enhances the general well-being of the community, and which does not detract from the overall character of
the community, while adhering to smart growth principles.
Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 2
Zoning Amendment Proposal, March 2021
OBJECTIVES:
4. Encourage forms of economic development that complement and are compatible with existing institutions
and businesses.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
4. Facilitate development review and permitting to the extent permitted by law for commercial and
industrial development in areas designated for such uses in the Land Use section of this Plan. Establish
expedited review process for development projects implementing key objectives of Comprehensive Plan.
GOAL: To preserve and maintain the agricultural, economic, environmental, recreational, and aesthetic
benefits provided by Shelburne’s rural lands while at the same time balancing the town’s need for growth
and successful integration of the town into the larger regional community.
OBJECTIVES:
3. Recognize that Shelburne’s road corridors form the ‘bones’ of this community, and especially in the rural
area, roadscapes are the primary means by which both visitors and residents experience the town. They are
the outward expression of community identity and heritage. Consider adopting design guidelines to guide
site planning, height bulk and scale compatibility and architectural character of new development occurring
in these irreplaceable scenic contexts to increase the likelihood that it will be compatible.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Revise the Zoning Regulations to implement the above goal and objectives.
Planning Commissioners find that the proposal would positively address and advance the foregoing language as
well as related Comprehensive Plan language. They believe that:
● By relaxing restrictions on non-conforming signs and further by authorizing administrative approval of
changes, the proposal would promote economic activity.
● Similarly, by ending permit requirements for certain minor activities, the proposal would promote
efficiency while continuing to enhance the general well-being of Shelburne residents.
Commissioners also recognize the potential for the proposal to promote other Comprehensive Plan goals and
objectives.
Findings regarding how the proposal is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of
the municipal plan
The default development densities authorized by the zoning bylaws are not affected by the proposal. Thus, in
conclusion, the Planning Commission finds that the zoning amendment proposal that is the subject of this report
would be entirely compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 3
Zoning Amendment Proposal, March 2021
Findings regarding how the proposal carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned
community facilities.
The proposed amendment does not directly carry out specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
In addition, the proposed amendment does not conflict with any specific proposals for planned community
facilities.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dean Pierce, hereby certify that this memorandum and enclosure were sent to the
following people, via email, on March 29, 2021:
Department of Housing and Community Affairs via Jenni Lavoie Administrative Services Coordinator
National Life Building, 6th Floor
Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620
South Burlington Planning Commission via Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Williston Planning Commission via Matt Boulanger, Director of Planning and Zoning
Williston, Vermont 05495
St. George Planning Commission via Planning Commission members Chantal Beliveau / Bill Newton
/ Nina Friscia (cc Town Clerk)
St. George, VT 05495
Hinesburg Planning Commission via Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning and Zoning
Hinesburg, VT 05461
Charlotte Planning Commission via Larry Lewack, Town Planner
Charlotte, Vermont 05445
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, via Charles Baker, Executive Director / Regina
Mahoney, Senior Planner
Winooski, Vermont 05404
\ x \
______________________ Date: __March 29, 2021______________
Dean Pierce