Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/29/2010CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 29 NOVEMBER 2008 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, 29 November 2010, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Councilors & Planning Commission Present: City Council: Mark Boucher, Sandy Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray; Planning Commission: R. Kay, C. Shaw, M. Beaudin, T. Duff, B. McDonald Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rustin, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; C. Ford, CCMPO; B. Worthen, M. Young, B. Stuono, L. Bresee, S. Dopp, B. Bull, R. Greco, P. Nowak, B. Cimonetti, L. Yankowski, B. Shupe, N. MacKay, F. Coffey, T. Tordy, C. Cjoles, J Zacconi, A. Morganti, Mr. Silverstein, M. Ducharme, G. Stevenson, A. Williams, T. Moore, J. Jarvis, J. Arioli, A. Germain, P. Halches, S. O’Brien Executive Session: Ms. Dooley moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel and contract negotiations. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Regular Session: 1. CCMPO Presentation on History of Exit 12B/13 Studies: Ms. Ford explained that the MPO does short and long-range transportation planning and works with various groups planning for all the ways people get around Chittenden County. Specifically dealing with Exit 12B/13, Ms. Ford showed photos of the construction of Exit 13, through its opening, and today. Exit 13 connects I-89 and I-189. A study done in 1987 looked at changes at Interstate access points. It included design concepts, preliminary cost estimates, and calculations of cost-benefit. Access points looked at in this study were: a new Interchange at Rt. 116, a full interchange at Exit 13, a full interchange at exit 15, and a new interchange in Milton. For the South Burlington locations, it was deemed that the benefits outweighed the costs; the benefits of the other two potential projects did not. In 1997, a study looked at performance and safety and cited future congestion issues. A more detailed study was done at Exit 13 in 1999, specifically looking at a northbound on-ramp and a full interchange. The Federal Highway Administration said a full interchange would not be allowed there. Ms. Ford showed a diagram of what was considered as a full Exit 13 interchange. It required 4 new ramps and the moving of 2 existing ramps. Existing houses and wetlands present challenges for this design. The study also looked at a “u­turn alternative” and found very few cars would use this alternative compared to those who would use a full Exit 13. There was also very little reduction in traffic foreseen on other roads. Safety issues included “weaving” traffic. This alternative was then eliminated. (The full service interchange would also have made changes to Kennedy Drive an Dorset Street, increasing the eastern approach from 3 lanes to 5 and the southern approach from 2 lanes to 4.) A ground access study done for the Airport evaluated 7 alternatives to improving access to the Airport. It showed significant congestion at Williston Rd/Dorset Street and a worsening of conditions on Kennedy Drive with a full Exit 13. The recommendation of this study was to increase transit service to the Airport, to develop one new interstate access, and to improve connection to Vermont Rt. 15. In 2003, the Agency of Transportation began a study that included: transportation system management, expansion of Exit 13, a new Exit 12B, etc. This study was never completed as it became too big and complicated. The recommendation was to separate it into individual studies including: an Exit 12 study (widening of the off-ramp), and an Exit 14 study (widening of the off-ramp). There was no consideration given to widening the interstate as this was not deemed likely. In 2009, a 12B alignment study was done to evaluate the feasibility of a new interchange at Route 116. Six design options were looked at. Ms. Ford showed photos of the area, including wetlands and archeologically sensitive areas and also diagrams of what various alignments would look like. Some of the options could not take place with the existing residential development in the area. Costs ranged as high as $47,000,000 for various options, and some required expanding the number of lanes on the bridge from 2 to 5 or as many as 6 lanes. Mr. Boucher asked how the choice of a design would get made. Ms. Ford said that regulatory groups would require the least damaging impact. There would be an environmental assessment, consultation with various federal agencies, and a determination by the Agency of Transportation and federal agencies. The Army Corps of Engineers would also say “yes” or “no” to a plan. Mr. Murray asked if federal agencies take into consideration the wishes of the local community. Ms. Ford said they do, and they would not be likely to do something the local community didn’t want unless there was a high accident location involved. Ms. Ford then reviewed the possibility of a ramp in the vicinity of the “whales’ tails.” This would provide only connections to the north, and federal agencies would not consider it to be meeting a “regional need” and would not allow it. A 2009 Financing Options Study was done for Exits 12B and 13. Both are eligible to 80-90% federal funding. This would leave about $9,500,000 unfunded. Funding options for this amount could include a special assessment district, TIF, or a surcharge at the Airport. A 2010 Interstate Justification Review evaluated whether 12B would satisfy FHWA criteria for the allowing of a new interchange. One of the criteria would be whether traffic demands can’t be managed with the current system. The conclusions of this study included: 1. 12B would add traffic to I-89 and would reduce traffic on local roads 2. Vermont Rt. 116 would not be affected south of Vt. 12A. 3. Additional lanes on I-89 would not be needed. 4. Improvements to the existing system don’t address existing issues. 5. Traffic volumes at high crash locations would be reduced. 6. Congested conditions would remain at US2/Dorset St. and US 2/VT 116, though traffic volumes would be reduced 7. Congestion would be reduced at I-189/Kennedy Drive. This study also looked at the impact of 12B on other north/south routes and found very little impact south of Rt. 2A. 2. Comments by Interested Groups: A. Smart Growth Vermont: Noelle MacKay of Smart Growth and Brian Shupe of Vermont Natural Resources Council outlined some of the qualities of “smart growth” including walkable communities, community centers, and transportation choices. These should be in the forefront of thinking, not the background. Current trends include a 69% increase in traffic due to more sprawling land use patterns. The answer to these problems has been just to build more roads, and this doesn’t work in the long­term (“if you build it, they will come”). Mr. Shupe noted that transportation accounts for half of the green house gases and 1/3 of all energy use. They asked that people look at transportation in a different way, not just considering roads. They noted that land use patterns can reduce auto dependence by providing higher density near public transportation, bike paths, sidewalks, etc. Design should also be for a human scale with connected streets and homes built near to services. Mr. Shupe reviewed prior planning regarding interchanges. He noted that 9-10 years ago the state was very concerned with interchange development from the point of view of scenic impacts and viability of downtowns due to sprawl. They felt economic development potential at interchanges was not being managed well. Guidelines were then developed for interchange areas that included: 1. Fostering interchange development that is aligned with land use goals 2. Providing resources for visualizing growth patterns Mr. Shupe then showed what Middlesex did to change the patterns of development. He said that in South Burlington most of the land in the 12B/13 area is Industrial-Commercial with large lots, large setbacks, etc. This would not reflect smart growth principles. These principles include: 1. Plan for compact centers surrounded by rural countryside 2. Fix it first 3. Don’t build for auto dependency 4. Reinforce traditional centers; don’t subsidize scattered development 5. Address regional land use and transportation issues through integrated regional planning. b. Burlington International Airport: Brad Worthen said the Airport has been updating its 20-year Master Plan. He noted that over the past 15 years, there has been significant growth with most passengers arriving at the Airport in cars. In the 20-year plan, the Airport will continue to grow so that in 20 years there will be an estimated 3,000,000 passengers on an annual basis, double what exists today. Traffic improvement is needed to address this increase. Mr. Worthen said the Airport supports the concept of a new or improved interchange, either 12B or 13. He noted that some carriers, including Southwest, won’t come to Burlington because of access to the Airport. c. GBIC: Frank Coffey said that Vermont’s long­term economic outlook is good, and Vermont is expected to emerge from the recession sooner than the rest of the country. Chittenden County is the economic nucleus of the Vermont economy with 25% of the state population living here and 33% of the work force employed here. The Airport is the epicenter of the state’s transportation. It is expected to grow over thenext 20 years and is vital for commerce to occur in Vermont. It is also vital for recreation, colleges, medical care, etc. Airport access is a concern for airlines. People trying to access the Airport now have to drive on congested surface streets. Mr. Coffey noted that the number of vehicles using the interstate has grown steadily, and improved transportation access would provide direct access to Technology Park, the City Center, and properties developed on Tilley Drive and Kimball Avenue. Mr. Coffey said that doing nothing is not an option. e. Chamber of Commerce: Tom Tordy said he does not disagree with anything said previously. There is a need to plan for friendly communities, and businesses want those kinds of communities for their employees to live in. He felt the area has examples of what has been done well and what has been done not so well. Mr. Tordy said the need is to get congestion off the roads and out of neighborhoods but still to have it serve commercial areas. He felt the area is poised for another economic expansion, but that will not occur until people can be brought into the Airport. He added that it has been difficult to get conventions, etc., here because of the difficulty of getting people to Vermont. He agreed with Mr. Coffey that doing nothing is not an option. 3. Questions from the Public: Coles said he read about an option for a limited access road to the Airport between exits 14 and 15. Mr. Worthen said their consultants feel that would be dead last as an option. Mr. Zacconi of the Agency of Transportation added that the FHWA does not support access to individual locations (e.g., an airport). Ms. Morganti asked how projects get funded. Ms. Ford explained that the MPO has a board of representatives from Chittenden County towns which make decisions on a regional basis. It has some authority over funds that come into the county. Mr. Silverstein asked what aspects of the model led to the conclusion that it would reduce traffic at various intersections. Ms. Ford said these included land use projections, transportation, and estimated travel time. Ms. Ducharme of the MPO said that answer is beyond the technical scope of a public meeting but offered the opportunity for someone to sit down with engineers to look at that. She added that they use one of the most advanced models nationally. Mr. Stuono said the issue of truck traffic on Rt. 116 was not even mentioned, and he felt this would increase if that interchange is built. He also asked what the formal presentation of 14N was made to the MPO and not to South Burlington. Mr. Worthen said the presentation was made to the Airport. The MPO is now in charge of where that ranks in the county. Ms. Ford added that from the MPO’s perspective, 14N serves the Airport; they are looking to serve the City of South Burlington. Ms. Stevenson asked if traffic goes down on Hinesburg Road, how it gets to the Airport. Ms Ford said that involves peak period traffic. Mr. Conner added there would also be a street called “Generation Drive” which is not now in existence. He also noted that there would not be a decrease from the traffic that is there today but a decrease in what is predicted for the future without that interchange. Ms. Greco asked if the purpose of 12B is double traffic to the Airport or to reduce traffic on Route 2. Ms Ford said it is both as well as to serve businesses in the area. Mr. Murray asked what the traffic problems that are driving this are and is there a study that outlines all of these problems and how 12B would relieve them? Ms. Ford said the study is on the website and is very detailed. Mr. Murray said he felt the public should be told this in public. Ms. Ducharme said they weren’t prepared to take that amount of time, but they are willing to show how the model meets standards, etc., and would be more than pleased to do that. Ms. Ford noted the model takes where people live and work and determines where they drive. It is based on travel time. Ms. Williams asked if anyone doing studies ever comes to Hinesburg Rd. during commuting hours. She said it is already very congested, and adding more traffic would be a disaster for the residential neighborhood. Mr. Bresee asked if satellite parking has been considered for the Airport along with mass transit. Mr. Worthen said it has. There are plans now for additional parking at the Airport garage, and they are already looking at satellite parking. He felt this has to happen. There have been preliminary discussions regarding a ‘park and ride’ in Williston. He noted that the Greyhound access to the Airport has been a great success. Mr. Murray asked if satellite parking is part of the model. Ms. Ford said it is not. Mr. Silverstein encouraged the Council to address Route 2A before making a decision about 12B. Mr. Conner explained that the city is actively working on a Route 2 study. He some progress being made, including a new bus route with a 15-minute schedule. Mr. Arioli said this is an opportunity to look at things comprehensively. He suggested looking at criteria for success and working with the MPO around a more comprehensive solution that just what South Burlington can do. He felt all exits should be looked at as all of them have problems, and if you look at them one at a time, you may not get the result you want. Ms. Jarvis said the city continues to approve residential development in the Hinesburg Rd. area. She asked if the city would have to take those over if some of the projects shown tonight are to happen. She suggested that development should be stopped. Mr. Moore said he is having trouble connecting the dots: how people from Hinesburg will get in and out of downtown Burlington, how 12B or 13 will affect various things, etc. Ms. Sullivan said more traffic on Hinesburg Rd. means more accidents, especially at the bottleneck. She asked if there is a plan to buy up the house on the curve. Mr. Conner said he is not aware of any analysis of that. Mr. Rabidoux said that a few years back the state and city looked at that curve with regard to the culvert. He has a copy of that study. Mr. Miller suggested putting it on the website. He also asked people to ask legislators to extend the waiver to allow heavier trucks on interstates and to add I-189 to that list. Ms. Dopp said the Land Trust has been trying to gauge public feeling about 12B and 13. The concern is for increased traffic, wildlife, open space, and separation of neighborhoods. Mr. Halches said that some things are no quantifiable. He cited among these things: removing people south of the interstate further from the community center, eliminating incentives to bike or walk, concerns for other communities, noise, etc. He added that his senses say that local traffic would increase no matter what the model says. A member of the audience questioned whether traffic from Exit 13 would wind up on Kennedy Drive. He felt there is already too much traffic there, and Hinesburg Rd./Kennedy Drive is already confusing. He didn’t think widening it did anything to improve it. He said there are accidents every day on Kimball Ave. He felt you have to get people off the local roads and onto the interstate. He added that when there’s an emergency vehicle, cars don’t know where to go to let them through. Mr. Young said he liked the concept of fixing what we already have. Ms. Germain said she lived on Hinesburg Rd. near the church, and this is already a dense, walkable, neighborhood like Smart Growth is talking about. She felt that 12B would dump more traffic onto Hinesburg Rd. and take away the “smart growth” model that they now have. She cited a number of streets which access only onto Hinesburg Road. Ms. O’Brien thanked the Council and Planning Commission for looking ahead at this. She felt it is truly a balance, and the issues are everyone’s concern. The interstate is there. Growth has occurred in the city without additional interstate access. She felt now is the time to weigh all concerns and to do something. 4. Planning Commission Questions and Comments: Mr. Reihle noted that one of the proposed road configurations highlighted problems for bikers and walkers. Mr. McDonald asked if a cost-benefit study was done for the u-turn option on 13. Ms Ford said it was not. Mr. McDonald felt that was a simple, cost effective approach. Ms. Ford said the feds would not be happy with a left turn exit. Mr. Arioli said it could be done with all right turns, the same as a cloverleaf. He felt it should be looked at again. Ms. Dooley said it would help to know what the model encompasses. It seems to be very traffic focused and doesn’t consider quality of life. Mr. Duff asked how it is that 14N would be OK if the feds want only full interchanges. Ms. Ford said 14N would be funded by the FAA and not the FHWA. It could serve only the Airport. Ms. Dooley asked if consideration was given to a roundabout at Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road. Ms. Ford said it was, but it required a very big footprint. Also, roundabouts weren’t talked about much 15 years ago. Mr. Kay noted that some airports have a surcharge on a ticket to help solve transportation problems. He asked if the Greyhound presence at the Airport has resulted in more traffic or more crime as people feared it would. Mr. Worthen said it has not. He added that it is safer than when the Greyhound terminal was on Pine Street. Mr. Kay said Route 116 is very narrow for a state road. He suggested swapping it with Kennedy Drive and making Hinesburg Rd. a city road and Kennedy Drive a State road. This would put truck traffic on a safer route. He also suggested that the state put its data in a more readable form on the website. Mr. Kay noted that the Planning Commission made zoning changes in the area of Shaws/Shelburne Road, and the city won an award for development there. Residents of the area can walk to everything. The only ones who seem to be unhappy are adjacent neighborhoods who wanted everything to be single family neighborhoods. Mr. Beaudin said he suspected that in 30 years they will need both 12B and 13. He felt this was inevitable as long as there is population growth, and that thinking has to be in a 30-40 year timeframe. Mr. Shaw asked the dollar figure for exit 13. Ms. Ford said it was $13,000,000 in 1999, but this is not a good estimate today. Mr. Shaw asked what the FHWA wants to dictate in terms of design for 12B and 13. Ms. Ford said this would be part of the environmental assessment. The assessment has to look at all potential alternatives and would have to be approved by the FHWA. They don’t want to build an interstate to solve local issues. Ms. Ford indicated that the rating criteria are on the website. Cost-benefit is a component of this as is consistency with local plans. Ms. Emery said she would like data on high crash/danger potential on Hinesburg Road. She also wanted more information on the Circ Highway and the impact on roadways if it is or isn’t built. Ms. Dooley asked Mr. Arioli if he would draft something on the “criteria for success.” 6. Next Steps: Mr. Boucher said there will probably be another meeting sometime in January. He thanked community members and presenters for coming out to this meeting. 7. City Council - Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. As there was no further business, both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings were adjourned. ____________________ Clerk City Council ____________________ Clerk Planning Commission Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.