Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/27/1987CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING 27 JANUARY 1987 The South Burlington City Council held a Special Meeting on Tuesday, 27 January 1987, at 7:30 p.m., in the Gymnasium of the Orchard Elementary School, 2 Baldwin Avenue. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, George Mona, Francis X. Murray, Molly Lambert Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Wayne Racine, Dennis Delaney, State Legislature; Frank Mazur, Al Brunini, Jean Brunini, Bill Spalding, Cail LeBlanc, Roger Bourgea, Mignonne Bourgea, Mary Blanchette, Sylvia Perelman, Soloman Perelman, Lynne Swan, Sue Snyder, Connie Snyder, Lisa Yankowski, Carol von Rohr, Sandy Stoddert, Dorwin Stoddert, Peter Yankowski, William Gilbertson, George Killen, Pat Iafrate, Christos Condos, Paul Landry, Bill Thompson, Abiah Allen, John Miltebeitel, Robert Cota, Grant Goorlate, Ward Brace, Greg Premo, Lorrie O'Donovan, Tom O'Donovan, Erwin Waibel Mary Gamelli, Larry Kupferman, Judy Newman, Stephen Crowley, Jim Condos, Donald Crawford, Marie Crawford, Roland & Margrit Bechade, James Howley, Bill Keogh, Ed Slayton, Len Brown, Ben Brown, Jacquelyn Drew, Marsha Robbins, Littleton Long, Sherry Balcar, 1. Consider calling a special City Election on March 3, 1987, to vote on forming a Chittenden County Regional Solid Waste Disposal District Mr. Farrar explained that a number of communities in the area are being asked to vote at the same time (their regular town meeting). It is important to have a special election so that if South Burlington decides to join this district, the city will be in at the beginning to help set ground rules, etc. a) Sign Resolution: Mr. Farrar read the Resolution (attached). He explained that the District will operate in the same manner as CWD operates in regard to water use. The major question to be considered is the appropriate way to dispose of solid waste in the long run. The landfill will be filled in 7-9 years, and then there will be a problem. He felt there would be no costs in terms of staffing the District, but there will be costs to do the studies. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council sign the Resolution as read. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimously. B) Sign Special Election Warning: Mr. Farrar read the Warning (attached). Mr. Mona moved that the Council sign the Warning as read. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. c) Set date of Public Hearing on formation of the solid waste district: Mr. Szymanski suggested 17 February as it will allow for the proper notices to be given. Mr. Murray moved that the Public Hearing on the solid waste district be set for 17 February at the City Hall Conference Room. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Continue discussion on the Burlington Southern Connector Mr. Farrar provided a brief background of the situation. At the Act 250 hearing in 1981 where the permit for the Connector was issued, the testimony of the Highway Dept. with concurrence by the Consultant was that if nothing was done to the Interchange Intersection, the level of service was expected to drop to D or E. In 1981, the level of service was C, except at Swift St. where it was already D. It was estimated that Swift St. would become E if the highway were not constructed. It was also stated that despite the improvements, by the year 2003, with the design as proposed, the level of service would deteriorate from what it was in 1981. At this point, Mr. Murray and Ms. Lambert indicated they would reluctantly have to step down during the discussion due to possible conflicts of interest. Mr. Murray's legal firm was involved in applying for the Act 250 permit, and Ms. Lambert is Executive Director of the Downtown Burlington Association which strongly supports the Connector. Mr. Farrar then read from the letter he sent to the Secretary of Transportation, Susan Crampton, asking the State and the City of Burlington to respond to the following concerns: 1. When Contract I of the Connector is complete and the light is operating on a 50/50 cycle, will the capacity of Shelburne Rd. be greater or less for through traffic both north and south than it is now, and by how much. 2. When Contract I is complete and the light is operating at a 50/50 cycle, will the capacity of the intersection increase or decrease with respect to traffic entering Shelburne Rd. from I-189 heading East and by how much. 3. Does the Agency intend that the light operate on a 50/50 basis after the completion of Contract II. If not, what will the cycle be and what will be the Sufficiency Rating of Shelburne Rd. and the intersection. 4. When the road is complete, does the Agency intend the light operate at a 50/50 setting, and what will be the Sufficiency Ratings for the year 1990 and the year 2000 as compared to today. 5. If, as it appears, the capacity of the intersection and of Shelburne Rd. will be possibly less after the Completion of Contract I, can the west bound lanes be opened to Pine St. until Contract II is complete. 6. Why was the original plan for a ramp allowing traffic from I-189 to merge with Shelburne Rd. heading south dropped? 7. What would be the effect of allowing traffic to exit from the Sears lot going south at the intersection? Can this be included if it will relieve pressure on the intersection. 8. If the capacity of the intersection in 1990 will not be at least C, what would be the effect of an additional lane from westbound I-189 to the north on the Shelburne Rd. exit, and if required to meet a sufficiency rating of C, will the Agency and Burlington agree to adding this as an Addendum to Contract I or Contract II? 9. The light on Lindenwood Drive should remain and be coordinated with other lights on Shelburne Rd. Issues were also raised with regard to access to Queen City Park including provision for a bike path and sidewalk along QCP Rd. from Shelburne Rd. to Central Ave, the marking of the access road Shelburne Rd. intersection, signalization of that intersection, if figures show it required, and design of the access road so that emergency vehicles can at all times negotiate it quickly, especially in winter. In addition, the letter noted that the residents of the area are concerned with having easy access to the south-end of Burlington by both car and foot and would recommend not dead-ending Pine St. but continuing it to QCP Rd. either at grade or with grade separation. Finally, the letter requests that Urban Typical design be extended to the vicinity of Shelburne Rd. Mr. Farrar advised that the City has hired Professor Openlander to evaluate the responses of the State when these are received. The City of Burlington has already responded, and Mr. Farrar read from that response. Basically, the City is not averse to widening Ramp C, they support any aesthetic improvements that South Burlington requests, they support greater access to bikes and pedestrians, and support widening QCP bridge. They do not support a Pine St. access at grade level but are vigorously pursuing pedestrian and bike access there. Mr. Farrar felt these were very positive answers. Mr. Farrar indicated there will have to be a modification of the Act 250 permit if the changes requested are made, and South Burlington has already asked for a February 5th hearing with Act 250. To formalize the request, Mr. Flaherty moved that the City request the Environmental Board to hold a hearing on the Burlington Southern Connector on 5 February 1987. Mr. Mona seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Ms. LeBlanc asked if the meeting is open to the public. Mr. Farrar said it is, but the meeting site is not large. He added it is not necessary to have large outpourings of people. A resident noted that the Buds design did include an overpass on Pine St. which was later dropped. Ms. Swan asked if it was true that the changes would have to be requested by the City of Burlington. Mr. Farrar said that since they are the applicant, they would have to request the changes. Burlington has said they will do this with the exception of keeping Pine St. open at grade level. Mr. Yankowski asked if Mr. Szymanski felt the plan was flawed. Mr. Szymanski said he felt it was a reasonable plan. Mr. Farrar said it is not yet known what the real constraints are on the road, and when the state provides it, it will be assessed by Professor Openlander. Ms. Salzberg asked if attorneys have been brought in. Mr. Farrar said the first legal step is to ask for the Act 250 hearing, which has been done. He stressed that proceedings must follow the established route. Mr. Iafrate said he was disappointed as he felt it's the State's responsibility to come up with designs that are appealing to the people. Mr. Killen added that he is bothered when the State designers say they will know when they get half through the work whether it works or not. Mr. Farrar said that a public meeting will be held when the State's answers are received, and that the right people from the state will be present. Ms. Newman said she is disturbed that they had to go and poll Pine St. to discover that those people share the concerns about closing Pine St. She said she needed to be reassured that somewhere this will come up, since Burlington is not going to support it. Mr. Farrar said the City will be sure that there is access to QCP, including pedestrian access. Ms. LeBlanc presented a petition of over 300 names from businesses and residents supporting their concerns. Mr. Jim Condos asked if the ramps will be single or double lane. Mr. Farrar said the City asked that the ramps be studied to see if they are adequate. Projections made for the last Act 250 hearing were based on data that is now 8 years old, and the City has asked the State to check whether projections for today that were made at that time were accurate. He said that his main concern is the one lane merging north. Mr. Condos said he felt people have to begin to look at issues regionally, not city by city. Mr. Farrar said he felt the response of Burlington has been most positive, and added that the Shelburne Rd. access north is really Burlington's problem as well, since that road enter Burlington. Larry Kupferman asked how a negotiated settlement could take place. Mr. Farrar said there could be a meeting of minds between South Burlington, Burlington, and the State. This would also require Federal approval, since the project is federally funded. Mr. Crowley asked how the City will be represented at Act 250. Mr. Farrar said he will attend, the City Manager will attend, and if needed, the consultant and attorney. Mr. Crowley said it seems the reason for doing the road in disconnected sections is money, and there is a risk that there will just be a big dead end sitting there. Mr. Farrar said they are trying to evaluate various scenarios, and that is why the city is asking if the interchange will work as well as what is there now. He said he personally felt Contract II will get at least to Lakeside Ave. The rest of the plan after Contract II will depend on what happens with the barge canal. Mr. Bechade asked what will happen to go south on Shelburne Rd. Mr. Farrar said the citizens of South Burlington voted down the South Burlington Southern Connector which would have provided some relief to Shelburne Rd. south of the Interchange. Other community members stressed that they felt the spirit of "neighborhood" is being violated. Mr. Brace said he felt vehicles should not have to cross railroad tracks to get in and out of their community, and that the people should not lose access to the park, trails, etc. Ms. Swan asked if, as she has heard, it is too late to do anything. Mr. Farrar said he did not think so. Ms. LeBlanc read a letter from the Governor indicating that it was her feeling that it is too late to address questions of design. The question of access to QCP during road construction was raised. Mr. Farrar said he has asked the City Manager, police, fire, and emergency providers how they will handle things during the construction phase. He indicated that the City of Burlington has agreed to work with South Burlington on this as well. Mr. Farrar said he hoped the State's response would be received in time to hold another public meeting before the February 5th Act 250 hearing. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the South Burlington City council has concluded that the public interest and necessity of the City requires that a Chittenden Reaional Solid Waste Disposal District be formed, and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the South Burlington City Council that the proposition of forming a Chittenden Regional Solid Waste Disposal District be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of South Burlington in the following form: Shall the City of South Burlington enter into an agreement for the formation of a union municipal district to be known as the "Chittenden Regional Solid Waste Disposal District". IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that a vote on said proposition shall be conducted by Australian Ballot at a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 at which meeting the polls will be open at 7:00 AM and close at 7:00 PM, balloting to be conducted at the City's regular polling places at the Chamberlin School on White Street, the South Burlington Middle School on Dorset Street and the Orchard School on Baldwin Avenue. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont this - 27th day of January, 1987 SOUTH BWRLINGTON CITY COUNCIL ,fkilA5/r.. 2 I(///&/ George J': ~dXa 1 Received and Recorded this ?,4; day of January, 1987 --- i . i Margaret ,.A) Picard, eity Clerk . ~. WARNING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 3, 1987 The legal voters of the City of South Burlington are hereby notified and warned to meet at their respective polling places at the Chamberlin School on White Street, the South Burlington Middle School on Dorset Street and the Orchard School on Baldwin Avenue on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 at 7 o'clock in the forenoon, at which time the polls will be open until 7 o'clock in the afternoon, at which time the polls will close, to vote by Australian ballot on the following Article: ARTICLE I: CHITTENDEN. REGIONAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Shall the City of South Burlington enter into an agreement for the formation of a union municipal district to be known as the "Chittenden Regional Solid Waste Disposal District." POLLING PLACES Am THE CHAMBERLIN SCHOOL ON WHITE STREET, THE SOUTH BURLINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL ON DORSET STREET AND THE ORCHARD SCHOOL ON BALDWIN AVENUE: VOTERS TO GO TO THE VOTING PLACES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICT. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 27th day of January, 1987. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Paul A. &//2/<- Michael D. Fla erty FILLED AND RECOROED 1 this7= day of January, 1987 -- ,&9/I$J-, George J .d Mom& <d~~ Francis X. Murray ' Margareta Picard; City Clerk PUBLIC HSARING SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED CHITTENDEN REGIONAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT FEBRUARY 17, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Pursuant to Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated, Chapter 121, notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the City of South Burlington City Council on February 17, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. at the South Burlington City Hall, South Burlington, Vermont, regarding the proposed Chittenden Regional Solid Waste Disposal District Agreeinent. The proposed agreement, which has been recommended by a joint Yunicipal Survey Committee, creates a Union Municipal District for the purpose of providing for the efficient and environmentally sound disposal of solid waste generated by member communities and their residents. Initially the District will engage in a planning phase by exploring various solid waste disposal alternatives for its member communities including recycling, resource recovery and construction of lined landfills and shall adopt a solid waste management master plan for the member communities. Copies of the proposed Chittenden Regional Solid Waste Disposal District Agreeinent nay be examined at the City Clerk's office in the South Burlington City Hall, South Burlington, Vermont. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 27th day of January, 1987. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL 575 msEl mEl 1 +-.A f SOUTH BURUNGTON. VERMONT -1 i: (802) 65879U Mrs. Susan C. Crampton Secretary Of Transportation 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mrs Crampton: I wish to thank you and your staff for taking the time to discuss with me the concerns of the City of South Burlington and some of it's citizens with respect to the first Contract of the Southern Connector, construction on which is now scheduled to commence shortly. The concerns can be broken into three areas First the adequacy of the design for the intersection of the Connector and Shelburne Road. Second the Access to the Queen City Park Area both from the rest of South Burlington and from the South End of the City of Burlington. Third is the general concern for the aesthetics of that portion of the connector which is passing next to the Queen City Park neighborhood. The first problem centers on the adequacy of the design to handle the traffic from the East heading West and exiting on to Shelburne Road. As you know there is presently a significant a problem every working day in that the present design can not handle the exiting traffic (mainly that wishing to go north) causing a significant backup on to 1189. 6 second problem which exists is the ability of Shelburne Road to handle the north and south traffic at this time. The present design which calls for all the traffic to exit on to Shelburne Road at a light. It is again our understanding that this light will be a 50/50 affair ie. the traffic will be flowing on Shelburne Road only 50 Percent of the time in the North South mode and will be stopped for 50 Percent of the time to allow for entering traffic from the Connector. In regard to this concern we would like the following questions answered. 1) When Contract 1 of the Connector is completed and the light is operating on a 50 /50 cycle will the capacity of Shelburne Road be greater or less for through traffic (~orth-South) than it is today and by approximately how much. 2) When Contract 1 of the Connector is completed and the light is operating in a 50/50 mode will the capacity of the intersection increase or decrease with respect to traffic entering Shelburne Road from I1E9 coming from the East and by approximately how much. 3) Is it the intention of the Agency that the light operate on a 50/50 basis when the Connector is open after the completion of Contract 11. If not what then will be the light sequence, the Sufficiency Rating of the street (Shelburne Road) and the intersection. - 575 mn STREEI YXJlH BURWON. VERMONT 05401 rwn) -79% 4) When the entire road is completed is it then the intention of the Agency that the light be at a 50/50 setting and what will the Sufficiency Rating of the intersection and the Shelburne Road be in 1990 (assuming the Road is Completed by then, and the year 2000 as compared to today. 5) If as,it seems to us the capacity of the Intersection and Shelburne Road will be no greater or possibly less after the completion of Contract 1 will the Agency and the City of Burlington agree to open at least the West bound lanes to Pine Street (hntil Contract I1 is completed) to relieve some of the pressure on Shelburne Road and the Intersection? 6) The original plan called for a Ramp which would allow traffic from I189 to merge with Shelburne Road heading South why was this dropped from the final plans? 7) What would be the effect of allowing traffic to exit from the Sears lot heading South at the intersection? If this would relieve some of the pressure on the intersection will this be included as a addendum to the present contract? 8) If the capacity of the intersection in the 1990 scenario will not be at least C what would be the effect of the inclusion of a additional lane from the West bound I189 to the North on the Shelburne road exit and if required to meet a sufficiency rating of "C" Will the Agency and the City of Burlington agree to adding this either as an Addendum to Contract I or as part of Contract II? 9) The light on Lindenwood Drive should remain and be coordinated with the other lights on Shelburne Road. The question of access to Queen City Park has two parts one to the rest of South Burlington and the Second to the City of Burlington from that portion of South Burlington. 1) With regard to access from Queen City Park to the the rest of the City of South Burlington The City requests that: 6) Provision for a bicycle path and a sidewalk be made along Queen City park Road from Shelburne Road to Central Avenue. 8) That the intersection of the access road with Shelburne Road be clearly marked "Queen City Park Road." C) That if required. the intersection of the access road and Queen City Park Road be signallized. D) That the Agency assure us that the design of the access Road be such that emergency vehicles can at all times negotiate it quickly, especially in the winter when snow plowing reduces the road width. 2) With reqard to access from Oueen City Park to the City of - Burlington. There are two problems to be addressed here the first is safety, Pine Street now provides a second access road 575 DORSfl mER SOLIRl BURUNGTON, MRMOM 05401 IBM) Mamy to the Queen City Park Area. The residence of the area are most desirous of having easy access to the South end of Burlington by both car and foot. From their point of view the most desirable option would be that Pine Street not be dead ended but continue as it do@ now to connect to Queen City Park Road either at grade or with grade separation. The City of South Burlington requests that the Ogency and the City of Burlington Continue to provide both pedestrian and vehicular access from Queen City Park Road &ther by maintaining Pine Street as a through Street or by up grading Home Avenue- Industrial Drive to City standards and agreeing not to close off access to Queen City Park from the City of Burlington with out the concurrence of the City of South Burlington. If the second alternative is chosen the City of South Burlington requests that a pedestrian crossing of the Connector be provided by a suitable addendum to Contract I. In regard to aesthetics the City of South Burlington requests that Urban Typical design be extended to the vicinity of Shelburne Road and ifi in the Agency's opinion this is impractical the City be informed as the to the reasons why. &gain We would like to thank you for your early consideration and reply. Paul A. Farrar Chairman South Burlington Citv Council cc: Bert Noffatt