Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/13/2016
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 DECEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 December 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. Forde, CCRPC; D. Leban, G. Maille 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos reminded members there would be no meeting during the week leading up to Christmas. The next meeting will be the first one in January. Mr. Conner: The Airport re-use plan meeting will be held tomorrow night at 6 p.m., at the Airport. There is a long list of potential projects for 2017. Mr. Riehle asked about any big projects that may be “fomenting” that the Commission may not know about. Mr. Conner noted the O’Brien project, Larkin Terrace rebuild, an additional 50 units at Cider Mill II, and Spear Meadows (the preliminary plat closed last week. This involves 49 housing units and a 5-acre park near Vail Drive and 4 Sisters Road. 4. Review and Possible Approval of Draft Purpose & Need Statement for I-89 Exit Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Study: Mr. Conner explained the purpose of a “purpose & need” study. The purpose of the current study is to create safe, comfortable, convenient, direct and distinctive crossing for pedestrian and bicycle travel across I-89 in the vicinity of Exit 14 interchange. Mr. Riehle said the designer of the cloverleaf feels there is no safe way to make it safe for pedestrians and bicycles. He hoped they could “magically” come up with something. Mr. Conner said it is possible that the solution is a separate bridge. It could be as “creative” as a gondola crossing over. Mr. Riehle noted that at the workshops, a separate bridge was appealing to the public. Mr. Klugo felt the priorities need to be re‐ordered to make the “identity” and “distinctive place” the primary need. Ms. Harrington noted that the document says this is the “only” crossing. It isn’t. It is the only one in the City Center area. Ms. Ostby said no matter what is built, there will still be “hardcore” bicyclists trying to go to work. She also felt there should be no effort the make the cloverleaf friendly for 10 year olds because it wouldn’t work. She asked about an alternative vehicle access near Exit 13. Mr. Conner noted there is a project at the Regional Planning level involving new and different accesses to the Interstate. These are very large projects. He added that if South Burlington wants to pursue the Exit 12B or Exit 13 options, these would have to be elevated to a project to look at significantly. Mr. Riehle said that by South Burlington being a “good neighbor,” it is being compromised by having so many streets going through residential neighborhoods. He would like the RPC to recognize this and to understand that the community is being stressed by all the traffic and by having to make plans to get more people through this corridor. Mr. Conner stressed that this project is about bikes and pedestrians. Ms. Forde added that the days of just moving cars are past. They are now looking at more than just increasing capacity. Mr. Klugo said that sometimes it seems to him that the city’s Comprehensive Plan is not being considered. Mr. Conner said the city needs to make statements more clearly about where it wants to go as a community if that’s not shining through enough. Mr. Klugo said they need to state what the city is really trying to do. Mr. Conner cited the aims of this project: to connect “downtown” to the rest of the community, transportation, safe access, and a tie‐in to Quarry Hill. Mr. Klugo said he would re‐order the needs to put the “aspirational” pieces first, then the technical ones that say how to achieve the aspirations. Ms. Leban said the Bike/Ped Committee hears over and over again that there is not a single crosswalk in the city where people feel safe crossing. Mr. Riehle said it is too bad the Interstate System didn’t contemplate the growth. He questioned whether “they owe us something.” Ms. Ostby felt the city could bring in a lot of revenue from university people if it was more attractive for them to access the city. This is especially true if the arena is coming to South Burlington. Mr. MacDonald noted there is now a push for the arena to go back onto the UVM campus. Mr. Conner said that with or without the arena, this will be an activity center. Mr. Macdonald asked if UVM has been approached regarding contribution to this and whether there are federal funds available. Mr. Conner said UVM is participating in the discussions. There has been no talk of dollars as yet. Mr. Klugo suggested adding a statement to the “purpose and needs” that ties this back to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Louisos said they may have to identify two groups of users: those who are commuters and those who want a nice experience. Ms. Leban noted that a lot of serious riders are now coming back to using the bike path. This is probably a result of the number of cyclist deaths last year. Members asked to remove the word “comfortable” from the purpose statement. Ms. Louisos suggested added “visible” somewhere as well. Mr. Conner will bring back language at the next meeting for the Commission to consider/approve. 5. Overview for discussion of Burlington International Airport draft 2016 Re-Use Plan; possible feedback: Mr. Conner identified George Maille and Ms. Harrington as members of the former committee studying Airport neighborhood issues (CNAPC). He stressed that ultimately the “re‐use” plan is a “land use plan.” He then noted that airports may undertake a noise compatibility plan that consists of noise exposure maps and a noise compatibility program (which includes home buyouts). Mr. Conner explained that with a noise compatibility program, the airport has to have a plan of what it is going to do with the land they acquire. The first goal of a re‐use plan is to move the designation of the land out of the category of “noise land.” This can start with land for airport purposes such as buffers and/or ancillary services. If there is no use for the Airport, the land can be disposed of (to another entity). Mr. Maille explained that if the land is sold to another entity, the money from that said has to go back to the federal bucket. So it is generally more desirable for the Airport to find a use for the land. Ms. Louisos asked if there could be a hotel or parking lot. Mr. Maille said not unless the city changes the zoning of the land. Ms. Ostby asked about tax revenue from something like a hotel. Mr. Conner said it would be the same as any other business in South Burlington. Ms. Louisos said the land is now zoned “residential,” and it is “in limbo” until South Burlington makes a zoning change. Mr. Conner then showed the 2009 Airport plan with proposed roadway reconfigurations, connections of streets, and “re‐use” areas. He noted that a new plan came out in 2016, but it does not have a lot of detail. It shows the nearly current acquisition area and includes short, medium and long term plans. It includes closing down some city streets. Mr. Conner stressed that city streets are the sole purview of the City of South Burlington. Mr. Macdonald asked what happens to the “holdouts,” those who don’t sell to the Airport. Mr. Maille said his history is that they eventually “relent” and sell. He added that South Burlington can’t exercise “eminent domain” and give the land to the City of Burlington or vice versa. This could, however, happen if the Airport were to be regionalized. Mr. Conner said the City of South Burlington will absolutely not close roads while there are still homes on those roads. Mr. Klugo asked “what is short term”? Mr. Conner said he will ask that question of the Airport tomorrow. Mr. Conner then showed an overlay of the 2011 Airport Master Plan including a future hotel, and road network. He said the road network is based on an “Airport only” Interstate access. The City of South Burlington has not taken a position of that idea, and it is not in the Comprehensive Plan one way or another. The City is not interested in an “Airport only” access but wants access to city streets as well. Mr. Conner then showed plans that could be “midterm.” One shows a concept with a relocated road network connecting Airport Drive to Airport Parkway with local connected streets. Another shows only connections at Williston Road and Kirby Road and not local streets. The Airport likes this plan because they can get additional FAA funds. Another plan shows areas of land “traded” by the Airport to get land they want. Ms. Ostby asked about a possible “sound wall” as a buffer. Mr. Conner said now is the time to ask for this and this may be the document to accomplish it. He noted there is a committee comprised of members of several surrounding communities as well as South Burlington. They are “gearing up” to decide what to propose to the Airport regarding noise issues. Mr. Maille said a wall would have to be high enough and wide enough and of the right density to be effective. It would also have to be inside the Airport fence. He felt it was unlikely to happen as it would take real estate away from the Airport’s desired use. Ms. Harrington directed attention to page 5 which does not acknowledge that all the land “outside the fence” is under the jurisdiction of the City of South Burlington. Ms. Louisos expressed concern that the buyout area is creeping further west. Mr. Conner indicated the extent of the buyout area. Ms. Louisos asked about F-35 contours as neither the 2015 nor the 2020 maps contemplate the F-35s. Mr. Conner said the mapping that includes the F-35s used a different modeling. The city would like to see maps that use the same methodology as the 2015 and 2020 maps. Mr. Maille felt that is doable and reasonable and the right thing to do. It would help the city to know what it is up against and would allow the city to consider potential future development (e.g., the O’Brien project). Ms. Ostby asked about the avigation easement. Mr. Maille explained that basically it would waive a homeowner’s future rights regarding noise from different aircraft if the homeowner accepted home insulation. Ms. Harrington said she hoped that residents would be told how avigation easements work before they accept funds and stressed that the easements run with the land. Mr. Klugo asked if those in the buyout area who haven’t sold their homes could be in the insulation program. Mr. Conner showed all the homes that would eligible for home insulation. It appears that those who are in the buyout area and haven’t sold would not be eligible. Mr. Conner suggested members read the plan and consider a wider buffer from the road to the neighborhood. He noted that the Planning Commission is under no obligation to weigh in on this. He asked members if they wished to. Members felt they would as ultimately they would be asked to deal with the zoning issues. 6. Status report of FY2017 CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program and first consideration of FY2018 requests: Mr. Conner said the Commission will be asked for a formal action at their next meeting. He gave members a handout indicating where all existing projects now stand. Ideas for potential future projects include: a. Phase III of Kimball Avenue project b. 4 more bike/ped connections c. Scenic view inventories d. Natural resources standards e. Parks Siting Master Plan (would have to include connection to transportation) f. Bike/Ped Plan Mapping Mr. Conner felt that in this fiscal year the Commission can do the PUD plus the guide or the PUD plus the first Scenic View inventory. Members felt they wanted the latter unless there is money in the next budget for the Guide. He cautioned members to think about their total capacity for work. Members liked the ideas for the last 2 options, which are new. Mr. Conner said members will be asked to “self‐rank” all of the possibilities. The City would know by May which projects CCRPC will be funding. 7. Minutes of 8 November and 22 November 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 8 and 22 November 2016 as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: a. Proposed amendments to Shelburne Zoning Bylaw, public hearing December 15, 7 p.m.: It was noted that a “gentlemen’s club” is under consideration in Shelburne. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 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, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: December 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Below please find a summary of items to be discussed at next week’s meeting. 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. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:07 pm) 4. Review and possible approval of draft Purpose and Need Statement for 1-89 Exit Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Study (7:15 pm) See the attached memo from Ilona Blanchard, along with a draft Purpose and Need Statement for your consideration, and backup materials from the first public workshop. Note also that Ilona’s memo contains weblinks to the project website if you want to dive into this more deeply. Staff will present the project, how we came to this draft Purpose and Need Statement, and seek the Commission’s input. Ultimately, it will be the Commission’s task to Adopt the Purpose and Need Statement. You may choose to do this at this meeting or seek modifications and do it at your next meeting. 5. Overview and discussion of Burlington International Airport draft 2016 Re-Use Plan, possible feedback (7:45 pm) See attached memo 6. Status report of FY 2017 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Unified Planning Work Program and first consideration of FY 2018 requests (8:30 pm) Staff will provide an update on the status of current planning projects, budgets, and staff’s initial recommendations for FY 2018 UPWP projects at the meeting. 7. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm) 2 Draft minutes from November 8 and November 22 8. Other Business (9:00 pm) a. Proposed amendments to Shelburne Zoning Bylaw, public hearing December 15, 7:00 pm – See attached. 9. Adjourn (9:01 pm) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com To: Jessica Louisos, Chair Planning Commission From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director Subject: I-89 Exit 14 Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Project Purpose & Need Statement Date: December 9, 2016 Background: This fall the City initiated public outreach for the I-89 Exit 14 Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Project. This project was proposed to address long recognized deficiencies in serving the needs of the walking and bicycling public in traveling east west over I-89 as well as to accommodate the growing need for viable alternative transportation options. The study phase of this project is being undertaking by the Chittenden County Regional Commission as part of their Unified Planning Work Program in partnership with the City (requested by the City of South Burlington last winter). The project is in the “Project Definition Stage”. Public outreach meetings have been held: a public kick-off workshop (November 16) and stakeholder meetings. From these meetings and a review of existing conditions a Purpose and Need Statement has been drafted. The purpose and need statement is used throughout the project to evaluate or “test” alternatives (different solutions) as they are put together. Specifically, the consultant team will ask “Does the alternative meet the Purpose & Need” for the project and document the extent to which each alternative meets the purpose and need. Alternatives will also be evaluated using the matrix in the Local Transportation Facilities manual which include such items as cost, impact on natural and historic resources, utilities, and right of way, etc. The purpose and need complements this matrix as the expression of the community goal and needs to be addressed. Once alternatives are generated and tested they will be shared with the community for feedback as part of this process. Following community feedback, a recommended alternative will be presented to the City Council to complete the project definition process. Attachments: • Draft I-89 Exit 14 Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Project Purpose & Need • Nov 16 Public workshop notes and “Best Ideas” • The Project Development Process (click link) • I-89 Exit 14 Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Study website (click link) Recommendation: Review Purpose and Need and consider for approval. The Commission is welcome to either consider and approve at this meeting, or to seek additional information and take action at your next meeting. Additional consideration: Many of the comments received at the workshop, while valid and important, are outside of the scope of this particular project. Some of them are included within the scope of other proposed or ongoing projects or fall under other departments. All comments related to 189, Exit 13, Exit 14 and Exit 12 will be passed on to a study project that is looking at transportation outside of City Center. Public Safety related comments will go to the South Burlington Police Department and VTrans with a cc: to Local Motion and the City Manager. Maintenance comments will go to the Department of Public Works with a cc: to the City Manager. Sidewalk and bicycle lane comments not at Exit 14 may be considered as part of the project but where appropriate, will be folded into projects that are part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Some of these CIP projects are already in the preferred concept stage, such as Dorset and Spear streets. I-89 Crossing Purpose and Need Statement Draft for Planning Commission consideration December 9, 2016 1 Purpose and Need Statement I-89 Exit 14 Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Study Purpose The purpose of this project is to create a safe, comfortable, convenient, direct and distinctive crossing for pedestrian and bicycle travel across I-89 in the vicinity of the Exit 14 interchange while maintaining safe and efficient vehicular conditions on the I-89 mainline; support healthy and sustainable lifestyles; promote compact growth and economic development in City Center; create attractive public spaces in support of the region’s identity and enhance capacity of the US 2 corridor in a cost-effective manner. Need 1. Increase the regional transportation network capacity for multi-modal travel. I-89 is a barrier dividing three of the region’s most significant nodes of commerce, housing, and education: South Burlington City Center to the east, and The University of Vermont and Downtown Burlington to the west. South Burlington’s Williston Road, as the only means to travel across I-89, is challenging for all users. As pedestrian and bicycle facilities are comfortable for only the most experienced users the viability of this mode of travel is severely limited. 2. Create a safe, user-friendly, year-round bicycle and pedestrian connection between the west and east side of I-89. The existing cloverleaf interchange is configured for the high speed movement of large numbers of vehicles merging onto and across several lanes resulting in challenging accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists: • Six of the eight I-89 vehicular ramps meet US 2 at flat-angled, uncontrolled intersections. Pedestrian and bike crossings occur at junctions where vehicular traffic is fast moving and where yielding or stopping for pedestrians and cyclists is not anticipated by the driver. • The existing crossing consists of a mix of on-road bicycle lanes, off-road shared use paths, and off-road sidewalks, all within the span of the I-89 bridge. This mix creates uncertainty among all users and potential for conflicts between vehicles and cyclists and cyclists and pedestrians. • The width of the bridge, availability of right of way, and other factors prohibit the installation of a buffer between the US 2 roadway, bicycle lanes (where existent) and sidewalks and I-89 below, leaving no space for snow storage. 3. Facilitate use by all age groups and experience levels. The current facility presents physical barriers to all but the most experienced and confident pedestrians and cyclists. - 4. Maintain Interstate 89 safety and efficiency. Existing traffic signals at two of the I-89 off-ramp intersections with US2 facilitate vehicle access to US2 and reduce the potential for back-ups onto I- 89. Modifications to ramp intersections with US2 has the potential for increasing ramp queues which could result in backups on I-89. This condition creates the risk of high-speed, rear-end collisions on the I-89. 5. Complete a key connection in the regional network. Extensive bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist on both the east and west sides of I-89. The lack of a safe and convenient crossing over I-89 in this location has been identified as a principal barrier to the completion of the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. This limits the networks capacity to link neighborhoods, services, and employment centers. I-89 Crossing Purpose and Need Statement Draft for Planning Commission consideration December 9, 2016 2 6. Build attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center and Chittenden County. Exit 14 is a gateway to Chittenden County, Vermont, Burlington and South Burlington. The current facilities do not lend a distinctive identity to the gateway to Vermont’s premiere destinations. Bike & Pedestrian Crossing Study: Williston Road at I-89 Exit 14 Best Ideas presented at Public Worksop #1 (16 November 2016) At the end of the workshop, each participant had the opportunity to share what they saw as the best idea presented during the session. Major ideas shared include: - Build a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge or tunnel to cross I-89 near Exit 14 - Build a bicycle through lane down the center of the existing bridge - Focus on connectivity - Build new exits to access I-89 and relieve congestion near Exit 14 - Build U-turn at I-189 for access to I-89 - Consider smaller improvements available in short term: traffic calming, police enforcement, distracted driving, maintenance, lane changes - Look at network holistically to improve travel for all users - Recognize the inter-relationships between different users and components of the system - Recognize different categories of cyclists (E.g., commute vs recreation; expert vs beginner) - Focus on comfort and safety - City council needs to make biking a higher priority in South Burlington. Specific comments shared include: - Build a designated bicycle/pedestrian mezzanine bridge over Route 2. - Build an elevated bridge right down the center of Route 2, instead of a separate bridge. - A bridge south of the current clover leaf would be great for everyone, at all levels. - Bridge just south of current bridge; connectivity of bike arteries. - Dedicated bike/ped bridge. I’ll ride it already, but let us reach out for the 60 percent of riders who won’t. - A big new bridge would be beautiful. - South of the current clover leaf may be the least costly place to build a new bridge. - A new bridge would be wonderful, and a U-turn. - Separate bridge. Would go out of my way few minutes due to safety. - New bridge and bike path on Spear. How long is the timeline for the bridge? Will it happen? - Long term: separate bridge. Short term: identify interim improvements. - New bridge for long term. For short term, make bike signals on bike lane to activate red light for cars on ramps. Shouldn’t have stop signs for bike lane; bike lanes should be through lanes. - Bridge south of interchange to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians and public transit. - Connect Quarry Hill to Market Street for bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and emergency vehicles. Modification for I-189. - Long term: bicycle, pedestrian, emergency vehicle bridge from Quarry Hill to Umall and Market Street. - Bridge south of I-89 Exit 14 bridge. - Recognized back in 1991 that the least safe place for bikes is the cloverleaf. First, implement a U-turn on I-189. Second, build structure for bicycle and pedestrian crossing to Umall over Quarry Hill. - A through lane in the middle of the bridge could be lower cost. - SAFETY for UVM students to come into South Burlington. Wherever along the path that is as safe as possible. - Connectivity is key, make sure anything can be accessible for where travelers go. - Most immediate need is to fix connectivity in the corridor. It feels like I’m taking my life into my hands when traveling through there daily. - Keep facilities maintained for safety; clear pebbles and other debris from bike lane. - Regionally, there is much work being done in transportation that not everyone is aware of. New services like Uber, Lyft, and Bridge provide alternatives to GMT. - Getting people to cooperate and work together to improve transportation. - Building a new exit (14N) at Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive. - Exit 13N. - Interim solutions to improve safety now: Exits 13a and 12b; traffic lights to trigger left turn; safety bike lane marking narrows road. - Creating a U-turn between east and west on I-189. - U-turn on I-189. Get traffic away from the Route 2/Dorset Street intersection and Exit 14 interchange. - Impressed with the enthusiasm and sentiment expressed at the workshop. - This meeting includes a wide cross-section of the community, and we’re ready to do something. - Impressed by breadth of interest in total transportation infrastructure for all modes. - Whatever facilities are put in place, keep in mind what is used by commuter cyclists compared to recreation cyclists. - Not just bicycles and pedestrians in this area. - As a walker, I’m delighted at the respect for walkers among people at the table. Get bikers off sidewalk, and/or improve their etiquette. - Nice to have so many people talking about getting “interested but concerned” people on bikes. - Changing third lane in middle of bridge, slowing vehicles down - The idea that solving bicycle and pedestrian problems can also help other traffic issues, emergency vehicles, cars, and regional commuting. - With four feet bike lanes on bridge currently, plus median, there are 10 feet to possibly use for short term, cost-effective improvements. - Express lane for cyclists between East Avenue and Dorset Street. - Consider future population growth and possibility of using a tunnel for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. - Small simple changes that use less money: traffic calming, police enforcement, distracted driving, maintenance, lane changes. - Struck with how interrelated everything is. Complexity of changing stream of cars to allow for bicycle and pedestrian safety. Everything is connected. There are spots to work on, but it is a bigger issue than only making the bridge safe for bicycles and pedestrians. Lots of little pieces. - Hinesburg Road cloverleaf. Some kind of short term solution for the interchange. Jersey barriers to semi protect bikes. City council needs to make biking a priority in South Burlington. We are not yet a community that says this is a bike ped community. Meeting Notes ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx Public Workshop #1 Bike & Pedestrian Crossing Study: Williston Road at I-89 Exit 14 Date/Time: November 16, 2016 / 7pm Place: Holiday Inn, South Burlington, VT Next Meeting: Attendees: Christine Forde (CCRPC), Ilona Blanchard (City), Ashley Parker (City), Greg Goyette (Stantec), Sean Neely (Stantec), General public Absentees: None Distribution: Attendees Comments During Introduction State should change form for reporting crashes to make sure that pedestrian and/or bike involvement is properly recorded. What are the trends over time with respect to crashes? Police need to enforce existing distracted driving laws. Bike lanes are not well maintained. More frequent sweeping needed. Standing water often present. Why are we talking about transit? Buses, cars-same thing. Really need to address pedestrian and bike issues. Six breakout groups were asked to tell us about: Pedestrian & Bicycle needs Transit needs Potential ideas/solutions Other community needs Their input is summarized below. November 16, 2016 Public Workshop Page 2 of 8 ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx PEDESTRIAN CONCERNS AND NEEDS: Can we improve upon what’s currently in place? Crossing ramps (high motor vehicle speeds) Make the interchange safer immediately Sidewalks crossing bridge are uncomfortable Snow storage narrows sidewalk Narrow, no buffer between roadway and sidewalk Lack of yielding by motorists Sidewalk at Holiday Inn is right against travel lane, with no grass strip buffer Big drainage problem at Holiday Inn driveway Don’t want pedestrian flashers (blinding for drivers) Students walking from UVM to Hannaford, CVS, and other destinations BICYCLISTS CONCERNS AND NEEDS: Make safer immediately Crossing Ramps To cross interchange ramps, cyclists must turn their heads > 180 degrees to see Bridge railings restrict sight lines (WB to SB on ramp) Confusing whether bikes are supposed to act as a vehicle or a pedestrian As an on-road bike commuter, near Sheraton Westbound: How to cross two lanes of traffic to get to UVM, near/at jug handle? Eastbound: How to cross lanes of traffic to get past Dorset Street? Standing water issues in bike lanes Minimize pedestrians and cyclists on existing bridge/interchange Third lane on bridge allows cars to go too fast Street markings and striping are not maintained Spear Street Speeding on Spear Street Little protection for cyclists No shoulders TRANSIT CONCERNS AND NEEDS: Buses are not very loud; hard to hear them coming up behind you No easily accessible transit stop for regional commuters November 16, 2016 Public Workshop Page 3 of 8 ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx POTENTIAL IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS: Build new bridge Off Road bike/ped bridge is only acceptable solution Bicycle/pedestrian bridge and emergency access bridge Necessary investment to connect the community Would be nice if it was a great place to walk on all approaches so a student could, would want to walk alone to meet a friend Connects huge section of town Would be a boon for City, as makes more proximate to Burlington South side bridge from East Terrace/Quarry Hill to Umall/Market Street o Should consider needs of bike commuters/tourists i.e. - travel time, signage o Thread behind Staples Plaza o Extend connectivity in southwest corner/East Terrace to get toward downtown Burlington & UVM campus o Just south of Route 2 (Less diversion) o Just south of interchange (narrower) North side of bridge another option for bridge connection o Not many businesses, good elevation o From Sheraton, behind Holiday Inn, maybe to Patchen Road or White Street Challenges: o FHWA approval o Easements through Quarry Hill o Residents of East Ave (quiet neighborhood) Multiple access points for good connectivity Regarding transit on bridge: o UVM shuttles can stay on roads as is o Buses and emergency vehicles on new bridge could make it a faster route o Mixed opinions Allow plowing vehicles Safety of path – lighting, cameras, call buttons, patrol Build tunnel To cross interstate From Umall to west side of I-89 Modify existing facilities Retrofit existing overpass bridge Center lane going through Williston Road – East Ave to Dorset St o Raised/segregated center bike lane on Route 2 o Center through lane for bicycles from East Ave to Dorset St November 16, 2016 Public Workshop Page 4 of 8 ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx Check out: Holland; New York City; Portland, OR o Include through bike lane from gas station to on-ramp Eastbound Expanded lane on existing bridge Bike lane left of ramp lanes Eliminate 3rd lane on bridge, yield at ramps o Would allow wider bike lanes with buffer/protection Traffic calming o Narrow travels lanes from 12’ to 11’ over bridge Bicycle and pedestrian signals at Dorset Street / Williston Road Bike through lane at East Terrace o How to fit bikes on East Terrace. Resident opposition. Put bike lanes on Spear Street Additional connectivity around Mary Street Crossings o Safer, more visible on-ramp crossings o More visible and better-signed crosswalks o Put crosswalk on west side of Dorset Street o Install dedicated pedestrian phases at intersections (all way stop) o Motion controlled stop lights o Full signals at all ramps More lights, sidewalks on Patchen Road Eliminate bikes/pedestrians on existing interchange Get bicyclists off sidewalks Consider drain inlet design – curb inlets Need interim steps Bike lane plows Motion sensor bike signals Collect data for bike and motor vehicle traffic Better bike etiquette and shared facilities More driver education/signage for flashing crosswalks Increased law enforcement SBPD program with teeth for distracted driving Ticket cars that: o Block intersections o Run red lights o Don’t let pedestrians cross in crosswalks o Reduce cell phone use – very prevalent Buses – make more audible when taking left turns Have transit stop at Exit 14 for regional commuters Off-ramp at Sheraton toward Burlington November 16, 2016 Public Workshop Page 5 of 8 ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx Regional benefits OTHER COMMUNITY CONCERNS, NEEDS, IDEAS, AND SOLUTIONS: Most traffic on current Williston Road bridge are not going to South Burlington – just going through this area to get to the interstate Build more exits off I-89 to reduce traffic at Exit 14 Reduce Route 2 traffic New interchange at Hinesburg Road New on-ramp at Kennedy Drive o Ramp onto the interstate at Dorset St/Kennedy Dr would help Dorset St/Route 2 intersection Improve Route 15 Exit Exit to I-89 at I-189/Dorset St. Create U-turn on I-189 Exits 12B & 14N Exit 13 cloverleaf Kimball Drive, Hinesburg Road/Route 116 Analysis of impacts on traffic of cloverleaf at Route 116/Hinesburg Rd Timing of traffic lights at Dorset Street/Williston Road Northbound not flushing out well Traffic exiting northbound I-89 Add right turn lane NB Hinesburg at Gracey’s Store & Deli Controlling traffic at jug handle, pulling onto Route 2 Champlain Parkway Future land development – Arena, Whole Foods site BEST IDEAS PRESENTED At the end of the workshop, each participant had the opportunity to share what they saw as the best idea presented during the session. Major common ideas shared include: - Build a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge or tunnel to cross I-89 near Exit 14 - Build a bicycle through lane down the center of the existing bridge - Focus on connectivity - Build new exits to access I-89 and relieve congestion near Exit 14 - Build U-turn at I-189 for access to I-89 - Consider smaller improvements available in short term: traffic calming, police enforcement, distracted driving, maintenance, lane changes November 16, 2016 Public Workshop Page 6 of 8 ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx - Look at network holistically to improve travel for all users - Recognize the inter-relationships between different users and components of the system - Recognize different categories of cyclists (E.g., commute vs recreation; expert vs beginner) - Focus on comfort and safety - City council needs to make biking a higher priority in South Burlington. Specific comments shared include: - Build a designated bicycle/pedestrian mezzanine bridge over Route 2. - Build an elevated bridge right down the center of Route 2, instead of a separate bridge. - A bridge south of the current clover leaf would be great for everyone, at all levels. - Bridge just south of current bridge; connectivity of bike arteries. - Dedicated bike/ped bridge. I’ll ride it already, but let us reach out for the 60 percent of riders who won’t. - A big new bridge would be beautiful. - South of the current clover leaf may be the least costly place to build a new bridge. - A new bridge would be wonderful, and a U-turn. - Separate bridge. Would go out of my way few minutes due to safety. - New bridge and bike path on Spear. How long is the timeline for the bridge? Will it happen? - Long term: separate bridge. Short term: identify interim improvements. - New bridge for long term. For short term, make bike signals on bike lane to activate red light for cars on ramps. Shouldn’t have stop signs for bike lane; bike lanes should be through lanes. - Bridge south of interchange to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians and public transit. - Connect Quarry Hill to Market Street for bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and emergency vehicles. Modification for I-189. - Long term: bicycle, pedestrian, emergency vehicle bridge from Quarry Hill to Umall and Market Street. - Bridge south of I-89 Exit 14 bridge. - Recognized back in 1991 that the least safe place for bikes is the cloverleaf. First, implement a U-turn on I-189. Second, build November 16, 2016 Public Workshop Page 7 of 8 ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx structure for bicycle and pedestrian crossing to Umall over Quarry Hill. - A through lane in the middle of the bridge could be lower cost. - SAFETY for UVM students to come into South Burlington. Wherever along the path that is as safe as possible. - Connectivity is key, make sure anything can be accessible for where travelers go. - Most immediate need is to fix connectivity in the corridor. It feels like I’m taking my life into my hands when traveling through there daily. - Keep facilities maintained for safety; clear pebbles and other debris from bike lane. - Regionally, there is much work being done in transportation that not everyone is aware of. New services like Uber, Lyft, and Bridge provide alternatives to GMT. - Getting people to cooperate and work together to improve transportation. - Building a new exit (14N) at Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive. - Exit 13N. - Interim solutions to improve safety now: Exits 13a and 12b; traffic lights to trigger left turn; safety bike lane marking narrows road. - Creating a U-turn between east and west on I-189. - U-turn on I-189. Get traffic away from the Route 2/Dorset Street intersection and Exit 14 interchange. - Impressed with the enthusiasm and sentiment expressed at the workshop. - This meeting includes a wide cross-section of the community, and we’re ready to do something. - Impressed by breadth of interest in total transportation infrastructure for all modes. - Whatever facilities are put in place, keep in mind what is used by commuter cyclists compared to recreation cyclists. - Not just bicycles and pedestrians in this area. - As a walker, I’m delighted at the respect for walkers among people at the table. Get bikers off sidewalk, and/or improve their etiquette. - Nice to have so many people talking about getting “interested but concerned” people on bikes. - Changing third lane in middle of bridge, slowing vehicles down - The idea that solving bicycle and pedestrian problems can also help other traffic issues, emergency vehicles, cars, and regional commuting. November 16, 2016 Public Workshop Page 8 of 8 ns v:\1953\active\195311328\transportation\meetings\2016.11.09 public workshop #1\i-89 exit 14 crossing public workshop #1 mtg notes.docx - With four feet bike lanes on bridge currently, plus median, there are 10 feet to possibly use for short term, cost-effective improvements. - Express lane for cyclists between East Avenue and Dorset Street. - Consider future population growth and possibility of using a tunnel for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. - Small simple changes that use less money: traffic calming, police enforcement, distracted driving, maintenance, lane changes. - Struck with how interrelated everything is. Complexity of changing stream of cars to allow for bicycle and pedestrian safety. Everything is connected. There are spots to work on, but it is a bigger issue than only making the bridge safe for bicycles and pedestrians. Lots of little pieces. - Hinesburg Road cloverleaf. Some kind of short term solution for the interchange. Jersey barriers to semi protect bikes. City council needs to make biking a priority in South Burlington. We are not yet a community that says this is a bike ped community. The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Sean Neely Civil Engineering Designer Phone: (802) 864-0223 Sean.Neely@stantec.com Attachment: None c. File 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, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Burlington International Airport DRAFT 2016 Re-Use Plan DATE: December 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Airports that acquire homes under noise computability programs are obligated, under FAA regulations, to prepare and update “Re-Use Plans” for the land that they have purchased. The first objective of the Re-Use Plans is to determine whether the airport should “dispose” of the land. That is a pretty tightly defined term that essentially determines whether the land is necessary in any sense to airport functions, including as buffer area. The Re-Use Plan then reviews and proposes how land should be used in the future, whether kept by the Airport or not and in the context of their Master Plan and the community. The Burlington International Airport last winter began their 2016 update to the Re-Use Plan. They held a public meeting in March and released a first draft of the document around that time. The Chamberlin Neighborhood-Airport Planning Committee reviewed the draft and provided recommendations to the City Council for feedback. The Council approved those recommendations for submittal. Those recommendations, and the Airport’s response, are contained in the attached second draft of the Plan (pp 40-45). This second draft is attached to this packet. At this meeting, staff will present a more detailed overview of what is described here and seek Commission input. The Commission may elect to provide formal feedback to the City Council or to the Airport. Staff will confirm what the deadline for comments is prior to the meeting. The Airport will be holding a public meeting on this second draft of the Plan on Wednesday, December 14th at 6 pm at the Airport. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) FAA AIP NO. 3-09-0000-094-2012 December 2016 Prepared for: Burlington International Airport Prepared by: CHA Consulting, Inc. DRAFT NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 NOISE LAND INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 NOISE LAND REUSE PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 13 5.0 REPORT FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 17 LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1 NOISE LAND INVENTORY 18 2 SHORT-TERM PLAN 19 3 VISION 2030 20 4 MID-TERM ROADWAY ALIGNMENT (MAINTAINED LOCAL ACCESS) 21 5 MID-TERM ROADWAY ALIGNMENT (AIRPORT DEDICATED ACCESS) 22 6 PROPERTY BUNDLING 23 7 POTENTIAL LAND EXCHANGE SITES 24 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES 4 2 ACCEPTABLE DISPOSAL METHODS PER FAA GUIDANCE 6 3 ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY 7 4 PROJECT COORDINATION MEETINGS 8 5 ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS 10 6 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF NOISE LAND 13 APPENDICES APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE A BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE LAND INVENTORY (1985-2016) B MEETING PRESENTATIONS C STUDY CORRESPONDENCE NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Burlington International Airport (“BTV” or “the Airport”) has prepared an update to the Airport’s Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan to satisfy FAA planning requirements, and have retained the services of Clough Harbour & Associates LLP (“CHA”) to perform this study. The purpose of this project is to evaluate properties that have been acquired, and properties planned to be acquired with Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds for land use and noise compatibility purposes. This has been part of an ongoing noise land acquisition program initiated in 1990 when the Airport’s first Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning Study was completed. The AIP program provides grants to public agencies for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). When airport owners or sponsors, planning agencies, or other organizations accept funds from FAA- administered airport financial assistance programs, they must agree to certain obligations (or assurances). These obligations require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. When property is acquired with AIP funds for land use and noise compatibility purposes, it is referred to as “noise land” and is subject to AIP Grant Assurance 31 – Disposal of Land. This assurance is based on 49 USC §47107(c)(2)(A), and is intended to assure that optimal use is made of the federal share of the proceeds from the disposal of the noise land property. The noise land may no longer be needed once the incompatible use is removed; typically through purchasing homes, relocating the residents, and removing the houses (or other incompatible development). At this stage, the Airport must determine if the noise land is still needed for aviation related purposes or if it should be disposed of. The assurance requires that when noise land is no longer needed for noise compatibility or future airport development, the land will be disposed of and that the federal share of the proceeds will be either returned to the FAA’s Airport and Airway Trust Fund or will be used for another noise compatibility project. It is the Sponsor’s determination and decision whether noise land is sold, retained by the Airport, leased for a compatible use, or exchanged; however, the decision must be evaluated in a Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan and approved by the FAA. The Burlington International Airport completed a previous Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan in 2009. The 2009 plan included determinations of the Noise Land acquired through the Voluntary Land Acquisition Program (VLAP). This update to the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan will review the previous proposed disposition and future potential use of all noise land listed in the Inventory, as well as any additional properties that have been acquired. Although the study is complete once it is approved by the FAA, the management of noise land will be a continuing process. An implementation plan will be developed and provide a step-by-step guide to the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs of the disposal process. The implementation plan will: 1. Outline the areas of each category of disposal or retention 2. Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling). 3. Illustrate properties that have potential for exchange for noise land. 4. Incorporate the planning activities of the City of South Burlington. 5. Provide a tentative schedule for future activities NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 2 The final piece of the plan is the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan Report. This includes the preparation of the study report with appropriate graphics based on the completion of all the work leading up to this point. The report is submitted in draft form for review by BTV and the FAA, and Public Information Meetings will be held during this part of the process to discuss the Plan findings, implementation, reports, and remaining action items. During the study effort, the City of South Burlington (“the City”) conducted the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, a vision plan geared to guide land use and transportation goals and develop a vision by the residents and community stakeholders in the Chamberlin neighborhood in South Burlington. This neighborhood is bounded generally by Kirby Road to the north, Airport Drive to the East, Williston Road to the south, and Patchen Road to the West. The intent of the plan is to recommend neighborhood improvements that benefit its residents and the community as a whole. The airport and consultant team worked with the City to provide input from the airport’s perspective. The plan incorporates the Airport as an adjacent land use and work to be integrated with the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. Detailed information describing how to satisfy the Grant Assurance No. 31 requirements is specified in the September 30, 2014 Airport Improvement Program Handbook (Order 5100.38D) and the August 5, 1983 Advisory Circular 150/5020-1 “Noise Compatibility Planning for Airports”. The FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming’s Noise Land Management and Requirements for Disposal of Noise Land or Development Land Funded with AIP provides detailed program guidance with regard to Noise Land Management. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Burlington International Airport (BTV) is a small hub commercial service airport owned by the City of Burlington and operated by the Burlington Airport Commission. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Burlington International Airport had over 600,000 enplanements (passengers boarding aircraft) and over 70,000 total aircraft operations in 2015. The Airport, located in the City of South Burlington, three miles southeast of Burlington, occupies over 950 acres of land. BTV has two runways, Runway 15-33 (8,319 feet) and the secondary, or crosswind runway, Runway 1-19 (4,112 feet). The passenger terminal includes ticketing, baggage claim, surface transportation areas, security services, multiple concession areas, two concourses, air service gates, and administrative offices. In addition to the terminal building, other airport facilities include hangars, a fuel farm, an air cargo facility, ground support facilities, the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility (ARFF) operated by the Air National Guard, an airfield maintenance facility, an air traffic control tower, in addition to an Army and Air National Guard facility. BTV has a large parking garage accommodating approximately 2,700 spaces and a small surface parking lot on airport property. 1.1 NOISE LAND & LAND USE COMPATIBILITY “Noise land” is defined as property that an airport acquires for land use compatibility (i.e. noise) in a noise- impacted area surrounding an airport. Under federal land use compatibility guidelines, residences are generally not compatible with noise levels measured above certain levels or meeting specific criteria. The FAA's primary metric for aviation noise analysis and the level at which the FAA has determined that the cumulative noise exposure of individuals resulting from aviation activities has been established in terms of the day-night average sound level (DNL) in decibels (dB). The 65 DNL is the Federal significance threshold for aircraft noise exposure. In order to reduce or eliminate incompatible uses, an airport may acquire land or provide sound insulation to homes within a certain noise contour; the 65 dB DNL contour is the threshold for these types of action. These standards are defined by the FAA in the “Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports” Advisory Circular (150/5020-1). The FAA has adopted land use compatibility guidelines that specify the noise compatibility parameters for various land uses. As shown in Table 1, residences (along with other sensitive land uses such as churches, and schools) are generally not compatible with noise levels measured at 65 dB DNL or greater. The figure on the following page shows examples of various urban and suburban noises, classified by DNL. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 4 TABLE 1 - RESIDENTIAL LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Land Use Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) in decibels Below 65 65-70 70-75 Over 75 Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Yes No* No* No Mobile home parks Yes No No No Transient lodgings Yes No* No* No* *Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes & be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction & normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. The use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. Source: Program Guidance Letter 8-02, Management of Acquired Noise Land: Inventory – Reuse-Disposal Common Sound Levels by DNL Source: City of Milwaukee Office of Environmental Sustainability, 2011. 1.2 NOISE LAND MANAGEMENT As noise land is acquired with AIP grant funds, it is subject to Grant Assurance 31, Written Assurances on Acquiring Land. The assurance requires that when noise land is no longer needed for noise compatibility purposes or for future airport development, the land will be disposed of and the federal share of the disposal proceeds will be either paid to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund or will be used for another noise compatibility project. The purpose of Grant Assurance 31, based on 49 USC §47107(c) (2) (A), is to assure that optimal use is made of the federal share of the proceeds from the disposal of noise land (disposal proceeds). NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 5 However, under any Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan, the sponsor is often obligated to retain sufficient interest in the land in order to ensure that the “converted” land uses remain compatible with the noise levels expected from the continued operation of the Airport. This is typically accomplished with a permanent avigation easement (i.e., a permanent deed restriction) placed on the property. It is at the discretion of the airport to sell, retain, lease or exchange the unneeded noise land. This decision is generally done in accordance with an FAA-approved Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. A decision to retain the noise land property must be based on a documented need which is acceptable to the FAA. After a complete review of existing noise land as described above, a recommendation of whether to retain or repurpose each area or parcel (as needed) is provided in the land reuse plan. If the future use of noise land includes disposal by sale, the property will be subject to the City of South Burlington’s land use and zoning regulations. In addition to compliance with the City zoning regulations the property will also contain an avigation easement preventing the development or reuse for any noise sensitive activity or other activities that conflict with the operation of an airport. Under the FAA Program, BTV is required to identify appropriate repurposing for all noise land and obtain FAA approval through this study. There are several appropriate methods to retain or dispose of noise land. The approved methods are as follows: Retain Land for Noise Buffer Convert Land to AIP-Eligible Airport Development Land Exchange for Development Land Pending Disposal (Temporary) Sale In Fee and Repayment of the Fair Market Value Noise land acquired by the airport typically falls into one of the categories outlined in Table 2. The table also provides a brief explanation of each method. Airport Terminal and Chamberlin Neighborhood NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 6 TABLE 2 - ACCEPTABLE RETENTION & DISPOSAL METHODS PER FAA GUIDANCE Retain Land for Noise Buffer Conversion to airport owned noise buffer. Per FAA guidance, a noise buffer may be left undeveloped or developed to compatible land use. Noise land developed to compatible land use must be leased on a long-term basis at the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land. FMV lease proceeds are airport revenue. Convert Land to AIP-Eligible Airport Development Land Examples would be noise land within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), land needed access improvements, etc., which must be retained for airport control. Repayment of the FMV of the federal share is not required in this case. Exchange for Development Land Trade or transfer noise land for property needed for airport purposes. Repayment of the FMV of the federal share is not required if the exchanged value of the land meets or exceeds the value of the noise land. If the FMV of the development land is less than the FMV of the nose land exchanged, the Federal share of the difference is subject to repayment under Assurance 31. Pending Disposal (Temporary) An airport sponsor may have ongoing noise land acquisition projects and continue to acquire and assemble land for airport-compatible redevelopment. If these parcels are to be sold or exchanged for development land, once cleared of incompatible development, they may be leased out on an interim basis pending assemblage and disposal or conversion. Sale In Fee and Repayment of the FMV This is a common occurrence where adjacent property is exposed to noise levels not compatible with residential use, but would be compatible for commercial, industrial, recreational, and other activities. Source: Noise Land Management and Requirements for Disposal of Noise Land or Development Land Funded with AIP, FAA Office of Airports Planning and Programming (APP-400), June 2014. The method chosen by BTV is specific to each parcel, based on several factors including: Adjacent land use, municipal zoning and the City of South Burlington Chamberlin Neighborhood Study (existing and updated); Airport buffer or other airport requirements; Airport airspace and FAA design standard requirements; Existing airport needs for the property (e.g., additional facilities, improved access, etc.); and Environmental constraints. 1.3 ACQUISTION PROGRAM HISTORY Burlington International Airport has been acquiring property for noise compatibility purposes under the FAA’s Part 150 program since 1985. The FAA Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning outlines the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs. This includes the process for evaluating and approving or disapproving those programs. The original Part 150 Study was completed in 1990 and since that time, there have been several updates to the program. The most recent approved update to the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) was July 2008, which was preceded by updated Noise Exposure Maps (NEM). The resulting 2009 Noise Land Inventory included the acquired properties of the BTV Voluntary Land Acquisition Program (VLAP). In November of 2015, a 2015/2020 NEM Update was presented for public comment and submitted to the FAA for formal review. On December 22, 2015, the FAA approved the new NEMs. Table 3 outlines the Noise Program History starting with completion of the first Part 150 noise study in 1990. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 7 TABLE 3 - ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY Year Action 1990 First Part 150 Noise Study Completed 1997 NEM Update (1997 and 2002 Contours) 2006 NEM Update (2006 and 2011 Contours) 2008 NCP Update 2009 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan 2010 Master Plan Update / Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 2015 NEM Update (2015 and 2020 Contours) 2016 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan Update (ongoing) Source: Clough Harbour & Associates LLP, 2016. 1.4 MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC OUTREACH Public involvement is an integral part of any significant airport planning study. Key stakeholders for this project include the FAA, BTV, local residents, airport users and tenants, the City of Burlington, the City of South Burlington, and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC). In an effort to expand the outreach this project has been coordinated with the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, conducted by the CCRPC in 2015 and 2016. The study is part of an ongoing effort to improve coordination between the Airport and the neighborhood in an effort to implement land use and transportation improvements for the neighborhood that work in conjunction with the Airport’s Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. Municipal Coordination Meetings During the study preparation, coordination meetings were held with the host community – South Burlington, the CCRPC, and the City of Burlington. In October 2015, the consultant team met with municipal officials and staff for the City of South Burlington and the City of Burlington. In addition to these meetings, the consultant team met with CCRPC throughout the study to address local planning issues, review report components, and integrate the study with ongoing municipal planning activities. A goal of Airport Leadership is to work with the CCRPC and City of South Burlington to coordinate and inform stakeholders of the activities and findings of the Airport Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan Update. Public Informational Meeting There were two Public Informational Meetings (PIM) held as part of the study process to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the study process and recommendations. The PIMs provided an open forum for the presentation of study recommendations to the broad base of the public. The meetings covered the following topics: Program History Project Background Noise Land Disposition Project Implementation NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 8 Public Web Page A public website was established to provide readily accessible project specific information, such as study reports, meeting agendas and minutes, meeting announcements, contact information, draft and final reports, and mailing list sign up. The website also enables local residents to comment electronically. The website is updated at regular intervals throughout the study duration and can be accessed at www.btvairportlandreuse.com and www.btvairportlandreuse.org. The various Municipal Coordination and Public Informational Meetings to date are listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 – PROJECT COORDINATION MEETINGS Date Meeting 07/20/15 Project Kickoff Meeting 09/29/15 Meeting with City of Burlington 10/13//15 Meeting with City of South Burlington 02/18/16 Meeting with CNAPC 03/24/16 Public Informational Meeting Number 1 12/14/16 Public Informational Meeting Number 2 Source: Clough Harbour & Associates LLP, 2016. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 9 2.0 NOISE LAND INVENTORY The FAA requires airport sponsors keep an up‐to‐date Noise Land Inventory that accurately reflects all of the parcels that have been acquired with AIP funding. The inventory accounts for all grant‐acquired noise land, and serves as a tool that will assist BTV with the management of noise land in compliance with the FAA Grant Assurance 31, which regulates the “disposal” of land. Since 1985, Burlington International Airport has purchased 162 noise‐impacted residential properties with AIP funds (as of August 2016), with an additional 37 parcels eligible for acquisition under the existing program. The ongoing program includes residential homes. There are no apartment buildings, schools, or other noise sensitive facilities planned for acquisition. All properties included in the program have been acquired through voluntary means, following the procedures in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act). The primary subject area for acquisition has been the portion of the Chamberlin neighborhood closest to the Airport. The overall neighborhood is comprised of approximately 800 residential units, some commercial properties, and an elementary school. The neighborhood and general area is zoned R‐4 Residential, and is mostly comprised of single‐family and duplex housing (with density at four units per acre). Generally, the parcels acquired for noise compatibility are single‐family, detached homes on one‐quarter to one‐half acre lots. Due to significant interest and a large number of potential participants, BTV requested that the South Burlington City Council accelerate the program for FY2010 and FY2011. As a result, the FAA agreed to increase the funding for acquisition of noise land for the subsequent two fiscal years, allowing for purchase of approximately 20 homes per year. An additional 97 parcels have been acquired since 2010, bringing the total number of acquired parcels to its current total of 162. Figure 1 shows a graphical depiction of the parcels in the VLAP, both acquired and eligible for future acquisition. Appendix A lists the properties acquired under the ongoing VLAP. 2.1 EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE The development of noise contours is not part of this Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan, but were previously developed in Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) prepared in 1997, 2006, and most recently in 2015. The 2006 NEM identifies 115 homes within the 65‐70 dB DNL contour interval, many of which have since been purchased by the Airport. It is important to note that the updated 2015/2020 NEMs reflect larger noise contours. These new NEMs identify approximately 556 dwelling units within the 65‐70 dB DNL contour interval, 372 units within the 70‐75 dB DNL contour interval, and 33 units within the 75 dB or greater contour interval. This is largely driven by changes in the operating procedures of the Lockheed Martin/General Dynamics F‐16 fighter jets operated by Vermont Air National Guard’s (VTANG) 158th Fighter Wing that includes use of ‘after burners’ for takeoff. Future planned operations by F‐35 fighter jets will result in additional changes in the noise contours. Acquired and Cleared Properties Along Dumont Avenue NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 10 3.0 NOISE LAND REUSE PLAN The FAA Noise Land Use Program requires all identified noise land parcels to be evaluated for their disposal or potential repurposing. In addition to more general standards noted in Section 1.2, the following features and reference documents were reviewed as part of the disposition evaluation for the Noise Land: Local land use and zoning Street width, right-of-way width, & street geometry Access to arterials FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (2012) 2006 and 2015 Noise Exposure Maps Chamberlin Neighborhood Study In order to evaluate the existing and future needs of the Airport, the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for BTV was reviewed. The TAF is the official FAA forecast of aviation activity for U.S. airports. Table 5 summarizes the TAF, showing historical and forecasted enplanements (the number of passengers boarding and aircraft) totals. While recent years have shown a decline in total enplanements, the FAA has forecasted enplanements to grow by the year 2020 and beyond. It should also be noted that, with the exception of 2012, each year’s actual reported enplanements have exceeded the TAF projections. TABLE 5 – ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS Year FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) Reported Enplanements 2010 639,323 651,280 2011 634,987 648,195 2012 629,653 623,604 2013 599,351 616,006 2014 605,273 611,805 2015 585,139 594,034 2020 670,947 N/A 2025 728,875 N/A 2030 781,216 N/A Source: Burlington International Airport, FAA Terminal Area Forecast, 2016, Accessed 5/2016. Terminal area improvements such as additional automobile parking, expanded gate areas and new maintenance facilities are included in the FAA-approved Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Although airport traffic has seen a decrease in recent years, the TAF forecasts traffic growth to the year 2030 and beyond. The terminal area improvements depicted on the ALP will support the facilities necessary to accommodate this increased activity. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 11 3.1 SHORT-TERM PLAN In order to best prepare for the implementation of new facilities called for in the Master Plan, special consideration must be given to the repurposing of noise land parcels as well as airport access. The property within the 75 dB DNL contour should be reserved for future airport development as well as areas along Airport Drive which fall within the 70 dB – 75 dB DNL contour. This will allow adequate space for future parking expansion, access to the right-of-way, passenger terminal growth, and other aviation- related facilities. Figure 2 depicts the recommended short-term reuse plan for the parcels and existing right-of-way. The short term plan calls for no immediate development of Airport facilities, however it does involve parcels being retained for one of the following purposes. Retain Land for AIP-Eligible Development The land immediately adjacent to the airfield should be reserved for future aviation-related facilities and activities. These areas are considered unsuitable for non-aviation devlopment by the FAA. This is primarily due to the need for necessary expansion space for the terminal and there are few other uses allowed within the 75 dB DNL. Retention of the Noise Land adjacent to the Airport will provide the Airport with some flexibility as to the use of the property and give the Airport the potential to convert the property to AIP-eligible development land in the future. This would provide property for the improvement of the airport access roadway, public airport facilities, and other non-revenue generating improvements for the Airport should they be needed in the future. This option would also be available for the Airport to convert the land to non-AIP-eligible development land, for revenue-generating development purposes such as parking or a hotel. Retain Land for Noise Buffer Most of the properties in the VLAP that fall within the 65 – 75 dB DNL range will be retained for noise buffer between the Airport and Chamberlin neighborhood, and will include green space and open lands. Near-term development of these parcels would impede long-term development projects associated with the FAA-approved ALP. Retention of the Noise Land adjacent to the Chamberlin neighborhood will allow the land to later be converted a noise buffer. This type of land use consists of greenspace with little-to-no development, but often implements natural foliage to reduce noise between a noise-generating land use, such as an airport or major highway, and a surrounding residential area. This buffer would divide the Airport and access roadway from the Chamberlin Neighborhood. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 12 3.2 MID/LONG-TERM VISION Properties retained for future development will provide necessary space for airport expansion. This expasnion would be consistent with the FAA-approved Master Plan and ALP should enplanement levels continue to rise in the future as forecasted in the TAF. These potential long-term improvements are described below. Approved Airport Layout Plan The 2030 Master Plan vision includes construction of a new limited-access road to reach the passenger terminal as a long-term scenario. Additional improvements include an expanded passenger terminal, additional parking, hotel, and expanded maintenance facilities. All airport access will be directed between Airport Parkway and Airport Drive, along the new access roadway. Additionally, an option for a new connector will link the existing portion of Airport Parkway with Interstate 89, allowing uniform traffic flow from both the Interstate to the north, and U.S. Highway 2, to the south. The FAA-approved ALP improvements are depicted in Figure 3. Alternative Roadway Concepts Figures 4 and 5 show alternative mid-term development scenarios of the Airport. These options provide interim, or scaled-back versions of the long-term development plan depicted in the ALP. A scaled-back development plan may be more financially feasible in consideration of the state and federal funding programs, and if the enplanement levels do not reach those forecasted in the Master Plan. In these scenarios, a new airport access road is built, linking the existing Airport Parkway with U.S. Route 2, providing direct access to the terminal. Lands to the north are reserved for airport development, and a parallel stretch of land to the immediate south is maintained as a noise buffer. The noise buffer area can include a proposed multi-use pedestrian trail. This interim approach is compatible with the 2030 Vision, as space is preserved for the future parking and terminal area improvements. Figure 4 depicts the “Maintained Local Access” alternative. In this configuration, access is maintained between the Airport and the Chamberlin Neighborhood (as it is now). Links to the recommended new Airport Parkway and the neighborhood are preserved at Kirby Road, Hanover Street, White Street, and Maryland Street. This is the desired alternative of the City of South Burlington. It should also be noted that this road concept would need to be a funded by the City or State, as new or improved roads serving the local community are not eligible for FAA funding. The right-of-way could be leased or transferred to the State or City. The multi-use pedestrian trail could be located on noise land property, but also cannot be FAA-funded. This concept includes a green-space buffer between the new roadway and the Chamberlin Neighborhood. Figure 5 illustrates the same new roadway configuration as Figure 4, but is the “Airport Dedicated Alignment” alternative. In this configuration, direct access between the Airport and the Chamberlin Neighborhood is eliminated. This airport-dedicated new roadway would be eligible for FAA-funding, and the new road and right-of-way could remain as an airport-owned and maintenance facility. This scenario would remove airport automobile traffic from the neighborhood, providing access only at Kirby Road and Williston Road (US Route 2). Although eligible for FAA funding, based on recent trends in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding levels and current federal funding priorities, the probability of obtaining FAA funding for the road improvements is very low in the foreseeable future. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 13 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Once all noise land is inventoried and a proper reuse plan is recommended, steps for implementation of the plan must be developed by the Airport, whicha schedule and method for disposal or retention of Airport-owned noise land. 4.1 NOISE LAND REUSE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS As detailed in Section 1, the acquired noise lands have been evaluated using the FAA’s five disposal categories to determine the appropriate land use management method. Based on this evaluation, the noise land at BTV fall within the categories described in Table 6: TABLE 6 – RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF NOISE LAND Noise Land Management Category Acreage Retain Land for Noise Buffer ±20 acres Convert Land to AIP-Eligible Airport Development Land ±50 acres Acquire City Road Right-of-Ways (or Exchange for Development Land) ±9 acres Pending Disposal None Sale In Fee and Repayment of the FMV None Source: Clough Harbour & Associates LLP, 2016. Short Term (3-5 Years) Thus far, the Airport has acquired 162 different parcels, each with a unique street address. There are an additional 37 parcels in the VLAP. It is recommended that the Airport continue its ongoing Noise Land Acquisition Program by acquiring the remaining, eligible properties and as parcels are continuously being acquired by the Airport, non-compatible land uses should be removed. This primarily involves continued removal of exisiting residences. It is recommended that all lands be retained in the Short-Term planning phase. The land will be retained for future AIP-eligible developments, or for future noise buffer. Recommendations: Complete VLAP by acquiring remaining, eligible Noise Land parcels and removing incompatible land uses Retain Noise Land for AIP-Eligible Development including include terminal expansion projects, maintanance facilities, and other improvements recommended on the FAA-approved ALP. Retain Noise Land for Noise Buffer including greenspace and open lands separating the Airport from the Chamberlin neighborhood. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 14 Beyond Five Years As the remaining parcels in the VLAP are acquired and the program comes to an end, it is recommended that the acquired properties are bundled into larger tracts of land. Figure 6 depicts a potential bundling of noise land parcels, including parcels previously acquired by the airport and eligible for the VLAP, into 17 tracts of land. Bundling include combining multiple parcels into larger tracts, to simplfy the redevelopmed or release process. At this time, the Airport should also begin the acquisition of road right-of-ways that no longer contain any homes. In this case, once the VLAP is complete, there would be no homes located on several City streets including, North Henry Court, Dumont Avenue, Delaware Street, etc., thus the road surface can be removed, and the property acquired by the airport. In other locations, some ‘through-roads’ may be converted to cul-de-sacs, such as Elizabeth and Patrick Streets. For this processs, the Airport would acquire these unused and unoccupied right-of-ways from the City of South Burlington, as part of the noise land program. For BTV, Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the potential road closures and associated right-of-way acquisitions, whichh make up an area of approximatley nine acres. The acquistion price would be set by an appraised and negotiated fair markety value (FMV) at the time of acquistion. Thereafter, in addition to removal of curbs and pavements where applicable, the process involves closing off or removal above and below ground utilities. In some cases, the road pavement may be retained where it would assist with future redevelopment. Upon acquistion of the right-of-ways, further bundeling is possible to combine the right-of-way acreage into the other parcels bundels. It is noted that similarly to the VLAP, the acquisition of City road property is voliuntary, and can only occur through coordination between the Airport and the City, and with concurrance on the FMV. The nine acres of right-of-way acquistion would be in addition to the approximately 70 acres included in VLAP. As an alternative to the acquistion of the road right-of-ways from the City, a Property Exchange is also possible. In lieu of the City selling the road right-of-way property to the Airport, an exchange of property is permitted under the noise land program, where the City would transfer the property of the roads to the Airport, in exchange for an equal value of noise land property transferred to the City. Candidate locations for property exchage may include locations to the southwest of the proposed access road. These areas are recommended to be retained for noise buffer land, but could be transferred to the City instead. As part of the transfer (or any release of noise land), the FAA requires that a permanent deed restriction on the released parcels to insure that the City, or any subsequent owner, does not use the property for a noise sensitive purpose. The exact location and size of the exchanged parcels would need to be determined through negotiation with the City, and would include FMV appraisials. Any land exchanged with the City would be located outside of the 75 dB DNL, as FAA guidance prohibits most non-airport activites, including recreation and parks, within that noise level. Figure 7 shows the location of the possible locations for land to be exchanged with the City. If land exchange is not advanced, the subject parcels would be retained by BTV indefinitely as noise buffer land. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 15 Currently, a small area of airport noise land is being leased to the City for public Dog Park on Kirby Road (approximately 1.5 acres). The dog park currently located on east end of Kirby Road, adjacent to the airport security fence and within close proximity of the Airfield Operations Area (AOA). As such, security is a concern, prompting a recommendation for relocation for the park. The existing dog park is in a location better suited for aviation-related development. Figure 7 includes several potential areas have been identified for potential exchange with the City. These locations may be considered for relocation of the Dog Park. Note that neither the Airport nor the City is obligated to exchange property. If these areas are not exchanges, the airport would retain the property as noise buffer. 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS The process explained above, the short-term and mid/longer-term, can be organized into steps, based on parties involved and priority of action. These steps are outlined below and provide a general guideline for the order of actions. 1. Retain existing Noise Land and reserve for either noise buffer or future Airport development 2. Acquire remaining properties in VLAP by purchasing 37 eligible Noise Land parcels 3. Remove incompatible Land Uses by removing residential buildings 4. Acquire right-of-ways from City, may include exchange for land 5. Implement road removals, may include creation of cul-de-sacs 6. Bundle acquired Noise Lands and former City-owned property into larger tracts of Airport- owned land 7. Implement road improvements, such as creation of potential new access road 8. Re-assess Noise Land for disposal by updating Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 9. Implement Master Plan improvements as recommended on the FAA-approved ALP Existing Dog Park located on Kirby Road Recommendations: Assemble Noise Land by bundling parcels into larger tracts Acquire Road Right-of-Ways, add right-of-way to bundled property, which may include Exchange of noise land. Execute Mid/Long-Term Improvements such as airport road improvements and development of Terminal area facilities included on FAA-approved ALP NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 16 4.3 POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The graph below depicts a potential schedule for implementation phasing of the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. This schedule is tentative and relies on extensive coordination between the Airport and the City, FAA and other funding, as well as implementation of the Airport Master Plan. TENTATIVE PROJECT PHASING SCHEDULE Task 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2. Acquire Remaining Eligible Properties 3. Remove Non-Compatible Land Uses 4. Acquire City Right-of-Ways 5. Road Removal 6. Bundle Acquired Properties 7. Implement Road Improvements 8. Re-assess Noise Land for Disposal 9. Implement Airport Master Plan Development NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 17 SECTION 5.0 REPORT FIGURES Noise Land Inventory Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 1 0 500 1000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) Properties Acquired (1992-2015) Other Eligible Properties(Not Acquired) 2015 Noise Contours 2020 Noise Contours South Properties North Properties 226 222218214210206 238 234236 150-1521204 810 12 237241 6 Picard Cir225 223 221 184 196 141161171 181 191195199 165 127Kirby Rd 110104 53 39 2515 92 98 54 382410 76 72 68 64 60 56 50 Airpo r t P k w y Hanover StN He n r y C t 7773 69 6561 57 47 44811 37 31 25 13 420 400 392 396 384 39061 87 Dum o n t A v e S He n r y C t 11 21 49 35 44 38 32262012 450 2 4 531441 1391138713831379 449405 10 397 Delaw a r e S t Maryland StAirpo r t D r 1270 - 1 3 6 0 451 1375137112651261125726812 20 27231713 1 35 7 Maryl a n d S t Ledoux Ter15/17 5 11 1247 123712331227122312136 Elizabeth St1253 5 3 1 6 4 2 1205119511851181 Patrick St31 1171116511591155115311511141 1111110711031089108510831079/1081 Airp o r t D r Airport Rd1131 Chamberlin School White StDuv a l S t Pet e r s o n T e r Bar b e r T e r Lynn AveLogw o o d S t Fore s t S t Mi l l s A v e U.S.Rte 2 Terminal Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 75 dB DNL 75 dB D NL 65 dB DNL 200/202 251255261 265 285 287 481 1392-1460Airport Drive 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL 1020, 1238-42 5 7 11 15 17 19 - 2 9Airport ParkwaySham ro c k Rd Previous65 dB DNL Previous65 dB DNL Previous Noise Contours Short-Term PlanAirport Noise LandReuse Plan UpdateFigure 20400800GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)Land Use Areas2015 Noise ContoursRoadway ClosureRoadway ImprovementParcels Acquired inVLAPEligible Parcels forAcquisition2020 Noise ContoursPicard Cir Kirby RdAirport PkwyHanover St N Henry CtDumont AveS Henry CtDelaware StM a r y l a n d S t Airport DrMaryland StLe d o u x T e r Eli z a b e t h S t P a t r i c k S t Airport DrDuval StW h i t e S t 75 dB DNLChamberlin School75 dB DNL65 dB DNLTerminalRunway 15-33Runway 1-19Airport PkwyReserved for Aviation-Related Developmentand/or Noise BufferReserved for Aviation-RelatedDevelopment and/or Noise BufferReserved for Aviation-RelatedDevelopment and/or Noise Buffer70 dB DNL70 dB DNL Vision 2030Airport Noise LandReuse Plan UpdateFigure 306001200GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)Future StructuresExisting StructuresFuture Roadways2015 Noise ContoursEligible Parcels forAcquisitionParcels Acquired inVLAP2020 Noise Contours(From Airport Master Plan)Fut. HotelFut. CarWash FacilityFut. LandsideDevelopmentFut. ParkingTerminalExistingParkingFut. AirportMaintenance BuildingWhit e S t Maryland StMar y l a n d S t Led o u x T e rChamberlin SchoolAir p o r t R d White St U.S .Rte 275 dB DNL75 dB DNL65 dB DNL70 dB DNL70 dB DNL65 dB DNLRunway 15-33Runway 1-19Fut. Parking 0 600 1200 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) Airport Land Use Areas 2015 Noise Contours Roadway Closure Roadway Improvement Parcels Acquired inVLAP Eligible Parcels forAcquisition 2020 Noise Contours 75 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL Reserved for Airport Development Rese r v e d f o r A i r p o r t Dev e l o p m e n t Reserved f o r N o i s e B u f f e r / G r e e n S p a c e 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Dum o n t A v e Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Duv a l S t White StChamberlin School Airport Pkwy Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 Terminal Airport Drive Right-of-Way Multi-Use Path Hanover St65 dB DNL Mid-Term Roadway Alignment - Maintain Local Access Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 4 Mid-Term Roadway Alignment - Airport Dedicated Access Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 5 0 600 1200 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 2015 Noise Contours Roadway Closure Roadway Improvement Parcels Acquired inVLAP Eligible Parcels forAcquisition 2020 Noise Contours 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Dum o n t A v e Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Duv a l S t White StChamberlin School Airport Pkwy Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 Terminal Airport Land Use Areas Airport Drive Right-of-Way Multi-Use PathReserved forAirport Development Rese r v e d f o r A i r p o r t Dev e l o p m e n t Reserved for Noise Buffer / Gre e n S p a c e Property Bundling Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 6 0 300 600 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) All VLAP Properties(Eligible and Acquired) Bundled Property Tracts 2015 Noise Contours 2020 Noise Contours Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Hanover StDum o n t A v e S He n r y C t Delaw a r e S t Airpo r t D r Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Chamberlin School White StDuv a l S t U.S.Rte 2 Terminal Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 75 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 70 dB DNL70 dB DNL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q TRACT ACREAGE A 10.24 B 3.74 C 2.50 D 4.83 E 5.50 F 2.26 G 2.87 H 9.64 I 3.12 J 1.58 K 2.51 L 1.15 M 2.40 N 3.94 O 3.64 P 2.01 Q 3.54 TOTAL 65.47 Approx. 175 Parcels Bundled Into 17 Potential Tracts Potential Land Exchange SitesAirport Noise LandReuse Plan UpdateFigure 70300600GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)Existing Dog Park(To Be Relocated)2015 Noise ContoursRoadway ClosureParcels Acquired inVLAPEligible Parcels forAcquisition2020 Noise ContoursPicard CirKirby RdAirport PkwyN Henry CtDumont AveDelaware StM a r y l a n d S t Airport DrMaryland StLe d o u x T e r Duval StWh i t e S t 75 dB DNLChamberlin School75 dB DNL65 dB DNLRunway 15-33Airport Pkwy70 dB DNL70 dB DNLProposed Roadway Closures(Totals ±9.0 Acres ofRight-of-Way)Existing Dog Park(To Be Relocated)±1.5 acres±4.8acresAreas Identified forPotential LandExchange with City±2.4acres±1.3acres±1.1acres±1.6acresPotential Land ExchangeSitesRoadway Improvement 0 600 1200 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 2015 Noise Contours Proposed Roadways Retain and Convert toAirport Development Land Retain and Convert toAirport Noise Buffer 2020 Noise Contours 75 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Dum o n t A v e Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Duv a l S t White StChamberlin School Airport Pkwy Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 Terminal Hanover St65 dB DNL Land Disposition Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 8 Acquire and Convert toAirport Development Land NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX A BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE LAND INVENTORY (1985-2016) NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX A - BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND INVENTORY (1985-2016) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 1079/1081 Airport Drive 11/23/2011 BK 1040, PG 278 1083 Airport Drive 7/28/16 BK 1334, PG 311 1085 Airport Drive 6/25/2013 BK 1168, PG 197-198 1089 Airport Drive 9/18/2013 BK 1186, PG 127-128 1181 Airport Drive 7/23/2013 BK 1174, PG 132-133 1103 Airport Drive 5/17/2006 BK 749, PG 204-205 1107A/B Airport Drive 9/1/2004 BK 681, PG 135-356 1111 Airport Drive 5/12/2003 BK 610, PG 663-664 1131 Airport Drive 1/20/2004 BK 695, PG 315-316 1151 Airport Drive 9/25/2007 BK 796, PG 617-618 1153 Airport Drive 3/20/2008 BK 810, PG 26-27 1159 Airport Drive 4/16/2003 BK 606, PG 129-130 1165 Airport Drive 10/6/2010 BK 962, PG 193-194 1171 Airport Drive 10/24/2003 BK 644, PG 367-368 1185 Airport Drive 11/15/2010 BK 972, PG 19-20 1205 Airport Drive 5/29/2003 BK 613, PG 476-478 1213 Airport Drive 9/18/2007 BK 796, PG 131-133 1223 Airport Drive 7/14/2010 BK 944, PG 181-182 1227 Airport Drive 4/2/2010 BK 926, PG 266-267 1233 Airport Drive 11/9/2013 BK 1194, PG 65-67 1237 Airport Drive 4/28/2004 BK 664, PG 336-337 1247 Airport Drive 6/15/2010 BK 939, PG 216-217 1253 Airport Drive 6/28/2012 BK 1085, PG 331-332 1257 Airport Drive 7/24/2003 BK 625, PG 749-750 1261 Airport Drive 2/17/2010 BK 921, PG 15-16 1265 Airport Drive 12/7/2009 BK 909, PG 248-249 1270 Airport Drive 3/25/1992 BK 321, PG 218 1272 Airport Drive 1/17/1996 BK 388, PG 209 1276 Airport Drive 4/21/1992 BK 322, PG 647 1320 Airport Drive 4/22/1992 BK 323, PG 86 1330 Airport Drive 10/24/1994 BK 369, PG 687-688 1340 Airport Drive 10/31/1994 BK 370, PG 199-200 1350 Airport Drive 7/6/1994 BK 364, PG 461-462 1360 Airport Drive 7/16/1985 BK 212, PG 504 1371 Airport Drive 1/26/2012 BK 1054, PG 64-65 1375 Airport Drive 10/21/2009 BK 900, PG 251-252 1379 Airport Drive 9/17/2009 BK 895, PG 50-51 1383 Airport Drive 5/14/2014 BK 1215, PG 310 1387 Airport Drive 12/7/2009 BK 909, PG 251-252 1391 Airport Drive 1/16/2008 BK 805, PG 130-131 1392 Airport Drive 2/6/1997 BK 403, PG 648-649 1396 Airport Drive 12/23/2003 BK 651, PG 534-535 1399 Airport Drive 9/13/1999 BK 188, PG 492-494 1400 Airport Drive 8/25/2005 BK 237, PG 306-307 1401 Airport Drive 6/10/2002 BK 554, PG 408 1407 Airport Drive 7/28/1999 BK 56, PG 378 1412 Airport Drive 10/23/1991 BK 312, PG 218 1413 Airport Drive 12/21/1998 BK 443, PG 568-569 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 1419 Airport Drive 5/16/1998 BK 428, PG 484-485 1425 Airport Drive 9/4/1998 BK 436, PG 524-525 1429 Airport Drive 8/7/1998 BK 436, PG 283-284 12 Dumont Ave 11/1/2005 BK 209, PG 487 13 Dumont Ave 8/11/2011 BK 1020, PG 219-220 20 Dumont Ave 6/28/2005 BK 715, PG 469-470 25 Dumont Ave 1/29/2008 BK 809, PG 574-575 26 Dumont Ave 3/11/2008 BK 809, PG 172-173 31 Dumont Ave 9/10/2009 BK 892, PG 242-243 37 Dumont Ave 6/08/2016 BK 1326, PG 241 47 Dumont Ave 7/30/2007 BK 790, PG 654-655 56 Dumont Ave 6/29/2007 BK 788, PG116-117 57 Dumont Ave 8/2/2011 BK 1019, PG 112-113 60 Dumont Ave 2/18/2016 BK 1309, PG 226 61 Dumont Ave 7/8/2009 BK 877, PG 309-310 64 Dumont Ave 2/12/2010 BK 920, PG254-255 68 Dumont Ave 10/28/2009 BK 902, PG 202-204 69 Dumont Ave 12/19/2013 BK 1199, PG 65-66 72 Dumont Ave 9/16/2011 BK 1026, PG 121-122 73 Dumont Ave 3/9/2010 BK 923, PG 146-147 76 Dumont Ave 4/29/2009 BK 857, PG 305-306 77 Dumont Ave 1/28/2010 BK 917, PG 256-257 392 White Street 9/2/2011 BK 1024, PG 210-211 396 White Street 3/15/2010 BK 924, PG 21-23 397 White Street 10/24/2014 BK 1239, PG 320 400 White Street 4/13/2009 BK 853, PG 337-338 405 White Street 9/11/2015 BK 1288, PG 95-96 420 White Street 7/10/2014 BK 1224, PG 140 441 White Street 4/8/2013 BK 1151, 335-336 448 White Street 7/19/2013 BK 1173, PG 104-105 449 White Street 5/2/2013 BK 1158, PG 94-95 450 White Street 11/5/2004 BK 687, PG 543-544 451 White Street 11/15/2013 BK 1192, PG 91-92 481 White St. Ext. 2/6/1997 BK 403, PG 644-645 1936 Williston Road 11/30/1995 BK 385 PG 250-251 3060 Williston Road 6/28/01 BK 509, PG 338 3062-4 Williston Road 7/6/1994 BK 369, PG 685-686 3080-3092 Williston Road 6/30/2000 Bk478, PG 133 234 Kirby Road 11/18/2004 BK 688, PG 688-689 236 Kirby Road 8/7/2003 BK 628, PG 721-722 237 Kirby Road 5/25/2006 Bk 750 , PG 145 238 Kirby Road 9/30/2005 BK 728, PG 523-524 241 Kirby Road 7/29/2004 BK 677, PG 92-93 251 Kirby Road 6/28/2005 BK 715, PG 648-649 255 Kirby Road 8/1/2006 BK 756 , PG 680 261 Kirby Road 3/10/2006 BK 743, PG 116 265 Kirby Road 7/17/2006 BK 755, PG 600 285 Kirby Road 10/22/2002 BK 575, PG 5-6 287 Kirby Road 8/1/2005 BK 422, PG 124 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 4 Picard Circle 8/29/2008 BK 824, PG 581-583 6 Picard Circle 4/13/2009 BK 853, PG 334-336 8 Picard Circle 10/15/2009 BK 899, PG 275-276 10 Picard Circle 8/14/2008 BK 823, PG 157-158 12 Picard Circle 9/4/2008 BK 825, PG 180-181 104 Airport Parkway 4/12/2013 BK 1152, PG 39-40 110 Airport Parkway 9/1/2009 BK 891, PG 169-170 120 Airport Parkway 8/18/2009 BK 889, PG 49-50 150-152 Airport Parkway 3/14/2008 BK 809, PG 495,496 200-202 Airport Parkway 12/23/2009 BK 912, PG 318-319 206 Airport Parkway 6/18/2004 BK 672, PG 113-114 214 Airport Parkway 10/30/2002 BK 574, PG 776-7 210 Airport Parkway 1/28/2005 BK 696, PG 128-129 218 Airport Parkway 10/22/2002 BK 573, PG 1-2 222 Airport Parkway 5/25/2005 BK 167, PG 464 226 Airport Parkway 8/31/2007 BK 794, PG 422-423 700 Airport Parkway 7/17/2012 BK 1090, PG 136-137 1020 Airport Parkway 8/15/1997 BK 413, PG 297-298 1238-42 Airport Pkwy 2/28/2002 BK 542, PG 242-243 5 Shamrock Road 9/24/2008 BK 819, PG 250-251 7 Shamrock Road 6/29/2009 BK 875, PG 195-196 11 Shamrock Road 7/9/2003 BK 621, PG 746-747 15 Shamrock Road 5/18/2000 BK 139, PG 554-555 17 Shamrock Road 11/18/1999 BK 465, PG 421 19 Shamrock Road 10/18/1998 BK 439, PG 266-267 21 Shamrock Road 8/24/1998 BK 435, PG 347-348 23/25 Shamrock Road 10/16/1998 BK 441, PG 190-191 27/29 Shamrock Road 4/22/1999 BK 435, PG 24-25 2 Delaware Street 5/19/2011 BK 1008, PG 178-179 3 Delaware Street 11/22/2011 BK 1040, PG 248-249 4 Delaware Street 11/30/2011 BK 1038, PG 109-110 5 Delaware Street 3/24/2011 BK 999, PG 279-280 1 Elizabeth Street 12/18/2012 BK 1126, PG 337-338 3 Elizabeth Street 1/20/2010 BK 916, PG 238-239 6 Elizabeth Street 3/25/2011 BK 1001, PG 46-47 1 Maryland Street 3/17/2014 BK 1207, PG 185-187 3 Maryland Street 3/28/2013 BK 1149, PG 192-193 5 Maryland Street 1/27/2010 BK 917, PG 179-80 7 Maryland Street 6/12/2013 BK 1165, PG 202-203 10 Maryland Street 9/11/2015 BK 1288, PG 92-94 13 Maryland Street 12/11/2013 BK 1198, PG 114-115 17 Maryland Street 9/13/2013 BK 1185, PG 20-21 23 Maryland Street 7/14/2012 BK 1015, PG 314-315 2 Patrick Street 4/27/2011 BK 4001, PG 334-335 3 Patrick Street 10/12/2010 BK 963, PG 309-310 4 Patrick Street 8/23/2010 BK 951, PG 319-320 6 Patrick Street 5/3/2011 BK 1005, PG 252-253 87 Pump Lane 4/2/2013 BK 1150, PG 115-116 10 N. Henry Court 4/5/2011 BK 1002, PG 178-180 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 24 N. Henry Court 11/6/2014 BK 1241, PG 125 BK 1241, PG 123 25 N. Henry Court 1/27/2015 BK 1252, PG 126 38 N Henry Court 10/18/2010 BK 965, PG 22-23 39 N Henry Court 12/2/2010 BK 977, PG 266-267 53 N Henry Court 4/9/2012 BK 1070, PG 66-68 54 N Henry Court 3/28/2013 BK 1149, PG 190-191 11 S Henry Court 11/30/2011 BK 1042, PG 286-287 49 S Henry Court 4/6/2012 BK 1069, PG 192-193 2 Ledoux Terrace 10/28/2010 BK 967, PG 291-292 5 Ledoux Terrace 12/13/2013 BK 1203, PG 279-280 6 Ledoux Terrace 2/4/2014 BK 1204, PG 323-324 8 Ledoux Terrace 7/22/2014 BK 1225, PG 210 11 Ledoux Terrace 9/24/2013 BK 1186, PG 304-305 15/17 Ledoux Terrace 10/2/2013 BK 1188, PG 243-244 Poor Farm Road 10/9/2008 BK 827, PG 107-111 National Guard Ave 10/9/2008 BK 827, PG 112-114 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX B MEETING PRESENTATION 12/1/2016 Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan Update Burlington International Airport Public Informational Meeting #1 March 24, 2016 Program History •The last Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan for BTV was completed in 2009. •The current property acquisitions are part of a continuing noise land acquisition program at BTV. •The Land Reuse study findings will be presented to the City of South Burlington and the general public for comment (Public Meeting #2), prior to consideration for approval by the FAA. ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY Year Action 1990 First Part 150 Noise Study 1997 NEM Update (1997 and 2002 Contours) 2006 NEM Update (2006 and 2011 Contours) 2008 NCP Update 2009 Noise Land Inventory and Re‐Use Plan 2010 Master Plan Update / Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 2015 NEM Update (2015 and 2020 Contours) 2016 Noise Land Inventory and Re‐Use Plan Update (ongoing) 12/1/2016 Project Background •Traditionally, the objective of airport‐related land use planning is to encourage land uses that are compatible with aviation operations in the airport environs. •The purpose of the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan update is to evaluate future use of airport noise lands and disposition of properties acquired for noise compatibility purposes. •Property acquired for compatibility is commonly referred to as “noise land”. •Once noise land is acquired, FAA Grant Assurance 31 requires airports to alleviate incompatible use of this land. •The Land Reuse Plan must then document if the noise land: •Should be retained for noise compatibility purposes, •Is needed for other aviation‐related purposes, or •If the property can be transferred, exchanged, or sold for non‐aviation purposes. Noise Land Disposition •Disposition of property is referred to as “disposal” of the noise land. •“Disposal” of noise land does not require the Airport to sell the property if there are other aviation purposes. •Nationwide, the most common form of disposal is conversion of the noise land for airport purposes or buffer zones. •Assurance 31 prevents airports from profiting from transfer or sale of the property, as any proceeds must be returned to the FAA or used for airport‐related purposes. 12/1/2016 Project Implementation •The study will include an implementation plan with a step‐by‐step guide of the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs. •The implementation plan could include: •Recommended disposition for each parcel by category of disposal. •Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling or combining properties). •Consider if any properties have potential for exchange for noise land. •Consider the planning activities of the City of South Burlington. •Provide a tentative schedule for implementation. Noise Land Inventory 12/1/2016 Proposed Short‐Term Program 2030 Master Plan Vision 12/1/2016 Alternate Development Scenario NOT TO SCALE Thank You Any questions or comments regarding the BTV Noise Land Reuse Plan Update or any of the information discussed tonight, please contact: Gene Richards Director of Aviation grichards@btv.aero (802) 863‐2874, ext. 200 Nicolas Longo Director of Planning & Development nlongo@btv.aero (802) 863‐2874, ext. 236 Project Website: http://www.btvairportlandreuse.com/ NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX C AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE MAY202016southburlingtonVERMONTMay17,2016Mr.GeneRichardsDirectorofAviationBurlingtonInternationalAirport1200AirportDriveSouthBurlington,VT05401re:Feedbackondraft2016BurlingtonInternationalAirportRe-UsePlan/NoiseCompatibilityPlanDearGene,TheCityofSouthBurlington(theCity)welcomestheopportunitytoprovideinputontheBurlingtonInternationalAirport’s(BIA)draft2016Re-Use Plan. Thefollowingquestionsandpolicypositionsare providedtoyouinthespirit ofcollaborationandclarity.TheitemsinthisletterrelatedtotheDraftRe-UseplanarebasedonthepresentationanddisplaysprovidedtothecommunityatBIA’sMarch23communitymeeting.TheCityalsorecognizesthatsomeofthefeedbackandquestionsbelowmaynotbedirectlyrelatedtotheReUse Planitself.ItisourhopethatBIAwillmakeuseofthisfeedbackinitsoverall planningeffortswhetherforthisPlanorothers.FeedbackonthedraftRe-Use Planaredividedintoseveralcategoriesforeaseofreading,andarefurtherbrokenintothemesofquestions,feedback,andpolicypositionsoftheCity.I.DevelopmentScenariosQuestions:1.Pleaseelaborateonwhattheintent, potentialuses,scale, andfunctionsenvisionedforthevariousdesignationsareoneachdevelopmentscenario.Specifically:1.Onthe“ProposedShort-TermProgram”map:i.ReservedforTerminalAreaExpansionii.ReservedforAirportRoadImprovementsiii.Noise BufferArea/ReservedforAviation-RelatedDevelopment2.Onthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”map:i.Aviation-RelatedDevelopmentii.TerminalAreaExpansionsiii.Buffer/GreenSpace2.Towhatisthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”Mapanalternative?Isitan“alternative”totheMasterPlan?575DorsetStreetSouthBurlington,VT05403tel802.846.4106fax802.846.4101www.sburI.com 3.IstheAirport seekinginputontheelementsofthe“2030MasterPlan”versusthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”?4.Whattype/level/feelofBuffer/GreenSpaceisenvisionedinthe“Alternativescenario?”AirportDrive—AirportParkwayConnectorCityPolicyPositions:1.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsanewroadsegmentconnectingAirportDrivetoAirportParkway.TheCitysupportsaroadwaythat:a.ConnectsthesectionofAirportDriveneartheterminaltothesectionofAirportParkwaynearKirbyRoadb.Isatwo-laneroadway,oneineachdirection.TheCitydoesnotsupporta4-laneconfiguration.c.IsadequatelyseparatedfromandbufferedfromtheChamberlinNeighborhood(fornoisegeneratedbytrafficontheroad,andforvisibility)d.Includesattractivespacesforpublicenjoymentofthetravelingpublicalongandadjacenttotheroadwaye.Followscompletestreetsprinciplesandincludea10’recreationpathandsidewalkf.MeetsallCitystreetdesignstandardsDiscussion:TheCitysupportsanewroadwayconnectionto removethrough-trafficfromthelocalstreetnetworkandprovidemoreclearaccesstotheAirport.Anysuchroadway,though,mustbeconsistentwiththeCity’sgoals andobjectivesrelatedtotransportationandneighborhoodqualityoflife.2.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsapublicly-accessiblelinearpark,artpark,park-like,orotherinvitinglandscapedesignbenefittingthetravelingpublic,runningsouth-northtobuilduponthewindingrecreationpaththatexistsadjacenttotheparkinggarage,toincludingamenitiessuchaslandscaping,arecreationpath,artwork,andbenches.TheCitysupportsthisaspartofbothshort-termplanandlong-termplansinvolvingreconstruction&re-alignmentofAirportDrive/AirportParkway3.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportscontinuedlinksofWhiteStreetandRichardTerrace/HanoverStreetinto AirportParkway.TheCitydoesdonotwishtomakeKirbyRoadtheonlyoptionforconnections.4.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonhasnotyettakenapositiononthe“looping”ofElizabethandPatrick.Alternativesarebeingexaminedandconsequencesmustbeevaluatedbeforesuchapolicypositionisadvanced.TheCitywouldbewillingtopartnerinoneormore“trials”iftheneighborhoodwishestotryandevaluate them,however.5.TheCityofSouthBurlingtoncannotandwillnotcloseanyroadwaysthatprovideexclusiveaccesstohomesorotherbuildingsunlessotheraccessisestablished.6.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonhasnoformal positionontheconceptforthe“Exit14N”1-89interchangepresentedintheAirport’s2030MasterPlan.Itisnotincludedinthe2016SouthBurlingtonComprehensivePlan.2 7.TheCityof SouthBurlingtondoesnotsupportanAirport-onlyroadaccessnetwork,separatedfromthecollectorandairport-accessstreetnetwork,asshownonthe“2030MasterPlanVision.”TheCityprefersthe conceptsforhowthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”connectstotheexistingstreetnetworkand any possibleExit14N.Useof AcquiredLandinadditiontoRoadway1.Asnotedabove,theCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsanewAirportDrivetoAirport Parkwayconnection.2.TheCityof SouthBurlingtonsupportsuseoftheacquiredlandfor creatinganattractiveandcontext-sensitivegatewayto Vermont,ChittendenCounty,andSouthBurlington.3.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsattractivefeaturesdesignedtomitigatenoisegeneratedfromtheAirportand/orRoadway.4.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsthemaintenanceofviewsoftheGreenMountains,andMountMansfieldinparticular,accessiblefromtheneighborhood.5.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsthelocation ofapublicdogparkandotherpublicspacesandparks, andpedestrianaccessesbenefittingthetravelingpublicintheacquiredlandarea.6.Anyfuturechangestotheacquiredlandshouldsupportgoalsof:a.ProvidingmitigationtothesoundsandotherimpactsoftheAirportb.Creatingasafeandattractive transitionfromathrivingresidentialneighborhoodtoanexceptionalinternational airport7.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonhasnot takenaposition of newbuildingsordevelopmentwithintheacquiredland. TheCitynotesthatany suchdevelopmentwouldlikelyrequireachangeinthezoningandwouldbeevaluatedatthattime.Inconsideringanysuchpossibility,theCitywouldbeconsidering,a.Thecontextoftheneighborhoodandquality oflifeofresidentsb.Attractivenessofadditionstotheneighborhoodc.Noisebufferingeffectsoftheactions8.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsthemaintenanceandenhancementofsignificantlandscapingservingasabufferfromAirport andanattractiveamenitytotheAirport.OnbehalfoftheSouthBurlingtonCityCouncil,whoapprovedthisletteronMay16,2016,thankyoufortheopportunitytocommentonthedraftRe-UsePlan.inDornCityManager3 MEETING NOTES From: Jeremy Martelle, ACE SUBJECT: Project Kick‐Off Meeting BTV Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan DATE: July 20, 2015 ATTENDEES: See attached Sign in Sheet AGENDA 1) Team Introductions 2) Airport Overview, Project Background 3) Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Objectives 4) Scope of Work 5) Describe Next Steps 6) Meet with Staff to collect/review inventory data MEETING NOTES The overall purpose of the meeting on July 9, 2015 was to officially kick off the Burlington International Airport’s Noise Land Reuse Plan Update. 1. Team Introductions 1.1 The members of the CHA Team and BTV staff were introduced. Points of primary contact were established and the overall communications between the CHA project Team and BTV Management were confirmed. While N. Longo will be the primary contact for the project, he requested that all meeting attendees (attendance sheet attached) be copied on any correspondence in order to keep everyone in the loop. 2. Airport Overview, Project Background 2.1 The 2009 Part 150 Noise Land Reuse Plan was discussed, as well as the goals to this update. Keeping the resulting documentation simple and easy to understand will be a key objective. 2.2 A draft agenda was presented and discussed (attached). It was relayed that the project may move ahead of schedule but given our past experience this schedule should be the target. Burlington International Airport July 9, 2015 Page 2 3. Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Objectives 3.1 It is the intention of the Airport to retain as much of the noise land as possible to ensure the continued viability of the Airport. 3.2 The Airport needs to acquire the road right of way within the acquisition areas. The Airport may consider an “exchange” of noise land with the City of South Burlington for this property. 4. Scope of Work 4.1 The scope of work (attached) was reviewed and discussed, there were no suggested changes to the scope of work. 4.2 It was noted that Program Guidance Letter PGL 08‐02 referenced in the scope has been updated to PGL 14‐05 since the drafting of the document. 5. Next Steps 5.1 The development for the project website will begin. The website should be simple and easy to navigate. The Bradley International Airport website for a current project was provided as a sample. The web address is: http://bradleyairport.caa‐analysis.com/ . The scope suggests http://www.BTVLandReuse.org. 5.2 Document collection for the study materials will start immediately as this information will assist the project team with the next steps. The CHA Project team provided a documents request list for the Airport (attached). In addition to these items the Airport will provide the following electronically: 5.2.1 BTV will provide updated land records and Exhibit A. 5.2.2 Most recent master plan update. 5.2.3 Most recent highway access study/plan. 5.2.4 Base map with layers from most current ALP 5.2.5 Airport Property Acquisition Plan mapping (2014?) and/or Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan mapping. 5.2.6 Summary of Property Purchases in Excel (12.15.2014) 5.2.7 Vision 2030 Aerial Exhibit (2011?) Is this FAA approved? 6. Meet with Staff to collect/review inventory data 6.1 A field visit was conducted. The project team drove around the neighborhoods where property acquisition has taken place and observed some of the construction results. Action Items 1. The Airport will provide the CHA Project team with documents from the documents request list (above). 2. CHA will provide BTV with the sample website for review. (Complete as of 7/9/2015). Document Request Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Burlington International Airport (BTV) Project Kick‐Off Meeting Thursday, July, 9, 2015 9:00 AM 1. Base map with layers from most current ALP 2. Airport Property Acquisition Plan mapping (2014?) and/or Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan mapping. 3. Summary of Property Purchases in Excel (12.15.2014) 4. Vision 2030 Aerial Exhibit (2011?) Is this FAA approved? Burlington International Airport (BTV) Noise Land Reuse Plan Update SIGN-IN SHEET Meeting Project Kick Off Meeting Location BurLington International Airport Conference Room I Date Thursday,July 9,2015 Time 9:00 am -11:00 am JE(Lt,k&lLL £I - gC I t%’C tôio @ 6&)Z 53 - Con md D (rin Sro-’e4cpp b-4-v.ceco )EL1[t’Y’c ‘ “4 E OZ —77 ?--779 e AUL Pk puiU@ d &ci atj.c 7o3 Z3s- rfl cc-,d —&(4’J&-,‘- ,(1e42c p57/..4iR-D &Z 5’/5 1’?dJ At’l /2,t!1_VW1 -, BURLINGTON INJEI$ABOIAI.AIIPOKT C+IA— NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) CITY OF BURLINGTON MEETING Date: September 29, 2015 Time: 1:00 PM Location: Burlington City Hall ATTENDEES Mayor Miro Weinberger, City of Burlington Brian Lowe, City of Burlington Gene Richards, Burlington International Airport Nicolas Longo, Burlington International Airport Jeremy Martelle, CHA Paul Puckli, CHA MEETING NOTES The study team met with Mayor Weinberger and his staff to brief him on the project, its objectives, and address any concerns he and his staff may have. The Mayor expressed concerns regarding resident displacement and maintaining affordable housing. The project team explained the overall scope of the project and the potential outcomes. The airport staff stated they would keep the Mayor’s office updated on the progress of the project. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON MEETING Date: September 29, 2015 Time: 3:30 PM Location: Burlington International Airport ATTENDEES Pat Nowak, City of South Burlington Councilor Kevin Dorn, City of South Burlington City Manager Gene Richards, Burlington International Airport Nicolas Longo, Burlington International Airport Erin, Knaap, Burlington International Airport Jeremy Martelle, CHA Paul Puckli, CHA MEETING NOTES The study team met with City Councilor Nowak and City Manager Dorn to brief both of them on the project, its objectives, and address any concern they may have. The project team explained the overall scope of the project and the potential outcomes. The airport staff stated they would keep the City of South Burlington updated on the progress of the project. The project team discussed the coordination and involvement with the Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee (CNAPC). The City asked the project team to meet with their consultants who are working on our Chamberlin Neighborhood study. The lead consultant is RSG. Mr. Dorn would also like bring in the Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commission, Charlie Baker into the loop as they are providing funding. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (CCRPC) Date: October 13, 2015 Time: 3:30 PM Location: Burlington International Airport ATTENDEES Pat Nowak, City of South Burlington Councilor Paul Conner, City of South Burlington Christine Forde, CCRPC Lee Krohn, CCRPC Pat Nowak, South Burlington Bob Chamberlin, RSG Charles Baker, CCRPC Jeremy Martelle, CHA Paul Puckli, CHA MEETING NOTES The study team met with City Councilor Nowak and City Manager Dorn to brief both of them on the project, its objectives, and address any concern they may have. The project team discussed the various airport studies and how the Land Reuse Plan project is different and separate from the on‐going Part 150 study. The project team suggested that all stakeholders need to work together to come up with a plan that meets BTV’s needs, complies with FAA guidelines, and satisfies the community’s needs to the greatest extent possible. They provided the project team with pertinent documentation that has been developed on their part to date. They have also asked the project team be present at the meeting when the new noise contours are presented – just so that we can get a sense about how the community feels about BTV and the noise issue. They asked if we can meet with the CNAP committee after that to hear what they are doing on their plan and so that we can share with them what is guiding our project (FAA guidelines and compatibility with airport operations and needs). NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) Chamberlin Neighborhood- Airport Planning Committee Meeting Mintues Date: February 18, 2016 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Hall - South Burlington The Airport and CHA participated and presented at this regular meeting of the Chamberlin Neighborhood – Airport Planning Committee. Full meeting attendees and minutes can be found at the follow in link: http://clerkshq.com/content/Attachments/SouthBurlington- vt/chamb0218_16d.pdf?clientSite=SouthBurlington-vt ATTENDEES (Representing the Airport) Gene Richard, Airport Director Nicolas Longo, Director of Planning & Development Paul McDonnell, CHA MEETING NOTES Airport staff and consultant presented several slides (attached), and highlighted the following issues and goals of the Reuse study: Presented the study process, goals, and schedule of the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. The overall study purpose is to guide compatible land use on the noise land acquired by the airport Informed the committee of the two planned public meetings for the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan (early 2016 and upon release of the Draft Report). Identified the Study website where study documents will be posted and comments can be submitted at any time. Study findings will identify the disposition of properties acquired for noise compatibility purposes. Recommendations will include retaining some property for future airport use, retaining other property for noise buffer, and could also include property exchanges and/or sale for compatible future development. The airport cannot profit from the sale of noise land; the federal share (90%) of any sale revenue must be returned to the FAA or reserved for other FAA eligible projects. The airport intends to continue to acquire properties through the existing program – a fixed deadline for completion has not been determined. Property acquisition offers will continue to eligible home owners based on the availability of FAA funding. In the interim, the existing acquire properties will be left undeveloped as noise buffer. Burlington International Airport (BTV) Chamberlin Neighborhood-Airport Planning Committee - presentation Page 2 February 18, 2016 It was highlighted the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan is a separate effort from the Noise Compatibility Study / Noise Evaluation. The Reuse plan is focus solely on the short and long-term disposition of acquired noise land parcels. The Reuse Study is interested in the Committee’s plans and recommendations for road improvements. Consistence in studies’ efforts is beneficial where possible. Airport staff highlighted that although the airport is planning for roadway improvements (Airport Drive / Airport Parkway realignment), funding has become an issue. FAA and local Airport funding for road improvements will not be available in foreseeable future. As much of the traffic on Airport Drive and Airport Parkway is not airport traffic, road improvement could logically be a community effort (state and municipal). Slide presented at the meeting by the Airport are provided below. 9/27/2016 1 1 Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 1.The objective of aviation-related land use planning is to guide incompatible land uses away from the airport and to encourage compatible land uses to locate around airport facilities. 2.Previous Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan was completed in 2009. 3.The purpose of this study is to evaluate the future use and disposition of properties acquired for noise compatibility purposes. 4.Federally Funded Project (FAA Airport Improvement Grant)-Grant Assurance 31 5.Property acquisitions are part of a continuing noise land acquisition program-1990 following the Airport’s first Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. 6.Once noise land is acquired, the airport is required to remove the incompatible use; typically through relocating the residents and removing the houses (or other incompatible development). Then the reuse plan must document if the noise land: Should be retained for noise compatibility purposes, Is needed for other aviation-related purposes, or If the property can be transferred, exchanged, or sold for non-aviation purposes. 2 Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 1.Disposition of property is termed a ‘disposal’ of the noise land. 2.Nationwide, the most common form of disposal is conversion of the noise land to other necessary airport purposes. 3.The assurance prevents airports from profiting from transfer or sale of the property, as any proceeds must be returned to the FAA or used for another noise compatibility project. 4.“Disposal” of noise land does not require the Airport to sell the property if there are other “FAA-eligible” purposes. 5.CHA team is following the guidelines in FAA Program Guidance Letter (PGL) 08-02, the study will recommend whether the noise land is retained, sold, leased for a compatible use, exchanged, etc. 6.The study findings will be presented to the City of South Burlington and the general public for comment, prior to consideration for approval by the FAA. 9/27/2016 2 3 Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 1.This update will review the previous proposed disposition and future potential use, as well as additional properties that have been acquired. 2.The study will also include an implementation plan with a step-by-step guide of the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs. 3.The implementation plan will provide: •Outline the recommended disposition for each property. areas of each category of disposal. •Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling or combining properties) . •Illustrate if any properties that have potential for exchange for noise land. •Incorporate the planning activities of the City of South Burlington. •Provide a tentative schedule implementation. Record of Meeting Page 1 of 5 Record of Meeting Purpose of Meeting: Burlington International Airport - Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan update Date: 03/24/2016 Location: Burlington International Airport, Burlington, VT Time Started: 6:00pm Time Ended: 8:00 pm Participants Gene Richards Nicolas Longo Paul Puckli Paul McDonnell Lee Krohn Linda Brakel Michael Ashton Bernie Paquette Tracey Harrington Rich Joy Carmine Sargent Paul Conner Gordon Lawrence Kristn Schlenter Meaghan Emery Dough Klinefelter Amanda Hanaway-Corrente Judy Kearns Miranda Jaswold Gwen Kjelleren Helen/Ted Riehle Carolyn Chambers Steven Marriott Joel Clements George Maillo Pat/Bob Nowak Margaret Palumbo Tim Barritt Topics to be discussed 1. Introductions 2. Project Background 3. Noise Land Disposition 4. Project Implementation 5. Maps of property acquisition, short-term program, 2030 mater plan, and an alternate development 6. Participants divided into two groups to answer questions Topic # 1. Introductions Meeting participants signed in and were provided project handouts as they arrived. Participants are seated in groups at round tables. Paul McDonnell of CHA introduces himself to the group and begins the presentation. The meeting begins and speaker introduces himself to the group and gives an introduction of the program. Record of Meeting Page 2 of 5 2. Project Background Mr. McDonnell mentions that the last Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan for BTV was completed in 2009. The current property acquisitions are part of a continuing noise land acquisition program at BTV. The Land Reuse study findings will be presented to the City of South Burlington and the general public for comment (Public Meeting #2), prior to consideration for approval by the FAA. The following timeline is presented to participants: ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY Year Action 1990 First Part 150 Noise Study 1997 NEM Update (1997 and 2002 Contours) 2006 NEM Update (2006 and 2011 Contours) 2008 NCP Update 2009 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan 2010 Master Plan Update / Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 2015 NEM Update (2015 and 2020 Contours) 2016 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan Update (ongoing) He then describes the reasons given for why the land is being purchased by the airport. Land purchased by the airport is to be used as what is referred to as “Noise Land”. This land is to be used in ways that are compatible with aviation operations. Typically, the Noise Land is used as buffer zones surrounding the airport which is known as Noise Land Disposal. Once noise land is acquired, FAA Grant Assurance 31 requires airports to alleviate incompatible use of this land. The Land Reuse Plan must then document if the noise land: Should be retained for noise compatibility purposes, Is needed for other aviation-related purposes, or If the property can be transferred, exchanged, or sold for non-aviation purposes Record of Meeting Page 3 of 5 3. Noise Land Disposition Mr. McDonnell describes the disposition of property and notes that is referred to as “disposal” of the noise land. “Disposal” of noise land does not require the Airport to sell the property if there are other aviation purposes. Nationwide, the most common form of disposal is conversion of the noise land for airport purposes or buffer zones. Assurance 31 prevents airports from profiting from transfer or sale of the property, as any proceeds must be returned to the FAA or used for airport- related purposes. 4. Project Implementation Mr. McDonell explains that the study will include an implementation plan with a step-by-step guide of the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs. The implementation plan could include: Recommended disposition for each parcel by category of disposal. Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling or combining properties). Consider if any properties have potential for exchange for noise land. Consider the planning activities of the City of South Burlington. Provide a tentative schedule for implementation. 5. A map is shown of the properties adjacent to the airport labeling which ones have already been acquired and which are other eligible properties possible for acquisition. Record of Meeting Page 4 of 5 6. A map of the proposed short-term program is shown: 7. The master plan is explained using a map overlay for assistance and is set to extend to 2030: Record of Meeting Page 5 of 5 8. An alternative development scenario is also shown on a map overlay including which roadways could be closed and where buffer zones may be created adjacent to the airport: 9. The presentation is concluded and the attendees are asked to split up into two groups to further voice any questions the public may have. Two groups are formed in front of sets of easels that contain maps and other plan details. Each group has representatives from the airport to answer any questions and to make clarifications regarding the plan and its impacts on the public. Meeting is adjourned and people are reminded to sign the sign in sheet if they have not yet done so. There are also comment cards at each table for participants to ask questions or submit comments within a comment box. There is also a mailing address on the comment cards so that participants may mail in questions at a later time. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 NOVEMBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 November 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Dopp, other members of the public 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Member agreed to add a discussion of the December schedule to Other Business. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Riehle and Ms. Ostby attended the Regional Planning Commission forum regarding Williston Road bike/pedestrian issues. Short term goals include making the road safer for “heavy” users. Long term visions include better crossings (slowing traffic down). Mr. Conner noted it was the Planning Commission’s support that got this project going. Mr. Conner: The TIF ballot item regarding completion of Market Street and City Center Park was passed by voters. Last Monday, the City Council hosted a very informative meeting with Burlington International Airport officials. The Airport provided answers to questions raised by the Council and the public at a previous meeting. The Council also asked what can be done in terms of future planning (e.g., updating noise exposure maps so the city and residents can make good decisions). UVM has submitted a zoning change request to allow housing on the site of the former dog park. Staff has told them that the area may be an area of noise impact. Staff and UVM have decided to put the request on hold pending learning more about noise exposure maps. Attended the Vermont Planners Association session which focused on planning and the law, including recent Court decisions. At last night’s Council meeting Mr. Conner and Mr. Rabidoux provided an update on capacity at the Airport Parkway Treatment Plant. Due to conservation efforts and a year of less rainfall, 2 usage at the plant is down, although approximately 30,000 gpd gets added per year. The Council began a discussion regarding updating the reserve capacity for City Center. On Election Day, Vince Bolduc worked with some of his students on a survey at city polling places. Some of the results indicate that 75% of the public feel City Center is very important; 95% feel affordable housing is extremely important; 93% favor sharing some services with surrounding communities (e.g., dispatching). 4. Consider Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Continue review of draft Shelburne Road Corridor Form Standards: Ms. LaRose referred to a document with data on every building on Shelburne Road. She said staff wants to review these numbers before presenting a final draft. Staff is also looking for feedback on other places in the city were similar standards could apply (e.g., the corner of Williston Road/Kennedy Drive). Mr. Gagnon suggested using Shelburne Rd. as a “template” for use with other locations. Mr. Conner indicated the section of Williston Road from Kinney Drug to Kennedy Drive and asked if the basic Shelburne Road standards would be appropriate for this area. He noted that it is not anticipated that much will be going on in that area for the next few years. Members looked at this idea favorably. Ms. LaRose suggested that members visit that area and come back with their observations. Mr. Conner then showed a proposed plan for the Larkin Terrace area, including some images of proposed buildings. He noted that this is being shown for informational purposes only, to give the Commission a sense of what types of applications are being considered and to help them consider future regulations. Ms. LaRose noted the plans include waivers for setbacks and height. Ms. Ostby felt people will miss the ‘green spot’ there. She said foregoing the setbacks didn’t seem right to her. Ms. LaRose suggested the Commission consider varying setbacks in different areas and at nodes of activity. b. Initial review: draft garage placement and door standards: Ms. LaRose noted this is in response to a request for parking in front of buildings when there are issues of elevation and terrain. The Commission had asked staff to look at this and to include some design standards. Section 14.4 addresses the developer’s request and requires limiting the size of the garage. This draft will be sent to that developer. Mr. Conner noted that the proposed language applies only to the “upslope” side. Mr. Conner reminded members that single family units and duplexes can have parking in front by today’s standards. The proposed changes affect only triplexes and 4-plexes. What is being recommended would also create consistent standards for single-and two-family homes city-wide. They would preempt what is now the standard for the Southeast Quadrant. It would focus on 3 the relationship between a garage and the front of a building. There would be an exemption for a building set back at least 200 feet from the road. Ms. LaRose noted the language proposes a 4-foot front setback from the house instead of the 8-foot requirement. She felt this gives more flexibility without losing the intent. Mr. Conner said they will try to get someone to do some drawings to provide examples. 5. Continued discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: Ms. Louisos noted that this use would replace the existing development potential. Mr. Conner said staff has begun to do some “numbers” on the subject of equivalencies per the Commission’s request. (e.g., surface parking, trip ends, etc.). Peak hour vehicle trips appear to be the same for 50 homes as for the agricultural use. Mr. Gagnon noted that previous public concern was for impacts. He said that if the developer goes the TDR route, there would be a greater impact with homes. Mr. Conner said that today some of the impacts would have to be addressed on site and some off site. He added that Citizen Cider is proposing to make the orchard active and vibrant there again. Ms. Dopp noted that homes can be clustered and not spread out all over the property. A resident of Stoneyfield Village said that their concern is with truck traffic, which is not the same kind of traffic as residential. Mr. Gagnon asked if there can limits to the kind of traffic. Mr. Conner said there can. Different streets have different requirements. The city cannot, however, control state roads. Ms. LaRose stressed that this would not be zoning for just this particular lot. She asked members to consider how it would work/not work in other parts of the city. Ms. Louisos felt the Commission should look at Van Sicklen Road regardless of the type of development. She suggested talking with Justin Rabidoux about it. A member of the audience asked what would happen if Citizen Cider failed and another “not so nice” use came in. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is considering that. Mr. Gagnon said it would be a question of what uses would be “allowable.” He noted that the Commission is trying to require a “locally-grown” component, which would limit uses. An audience member said Van Sicklen is only 20 feet wide. Trucks now use it illegally and no one stopes them. She also felt the Citizen Cider plan would destroy their home values. Another audience member asked about pesticide drift and felt it would affect Stonehouse village. Ms. Dopp noted that pesticides are already being used now. 4 Ms. Louisos noted receipt of an e-mail from Ben Mills of Butler Farms expressing concern with noise, smells and pesticides, and an e-mail from Jeanette Justice opposing commercial development. 6. Discuss Official Map Street Type Designations in the City Center T4 District in the Vicinity of San Remo Drive: Mr. Conner showed a map of the area and indicated a walking path. Mr. Riehle asked if there is a proposal to connect Barrett and San Remo Dr. Mr. Conner said that has been on the City’s official map for a number of years. He indicated where a potential connection is proposed. Mr. Conner noted that for City Center the Form Based Code says that if an applicant is advancing a street, it has to be the type that is labeled or if there is no label, the applicant proposes a type to the DRB. One choice is a “pedestrian pass,” while the others all allow vehicles. In this case, no street type is identified so an applicant can propose one. Given the potential for a vehicular connection, Mr. Conner felt this should be dealt with before there is an application. He asked members if a “wide pedestrian pass Is a goal for this area or whether a vehicular “street” should be required. Ms. Louisos said it seems to her it should be vehicular. Mr. Riehle felt a street would be less desirable to the neighbors. Mr. Conner then showed some alternatives for location of parking for residential development on an adjacent property. Mr. Gagnon said he likes a pedestrian connection at the end and a road to allow for residential development into San Remo. Mr. Conner then indicated other connections which would take place long into the future. Ms. LaRose suggested members keep in mind the width of rights-of-way if they move an official map designation. This right-of-way is 40 feet on a property that is only 80 feet wide. This could render the property unusable and would force the city either to buy it or reimburse the owner. Mr. Riehle asked if it could be a bike path. Mr. Conner said it could, that this is a policy discussion, but noted that a recreation path would fall into a different category under the FBC. Mr. Gagnon suggested moving the “purple line” marking the planned street connection and then connecting across. Mr. Conner noted that can certainly be done, but added that this would put an imposition on a different property owner who has not known this could happen and so some outreach would be encouraged. One suggestion was to do a north/south road and have the existing purple line as a “pedestrian pass.” Mr. Conner noted this would not solve challenges of getting cars off Dorset Street, but that this is all about balancing various needs and interests. 5 Members agreed they did not want a vehicular road. Mr. Conner said he would follow up with the Director of Public Works and come back with follow-ups. 7. Other Business: a. Notice of Williston Planning Commission public hearing on draft Town Plan amendments, December 6: Mr. Conner said the changes are minor and do not impact South Burlington. b. Notice of Colchester Planning Commission public hearing on draft Zoning Regulations amendments, December 6: Mr. Conner said these changes also do not impact South Burlington. c. Upcoming Meetings: Members agreed not to hold the second meeting in December (12/27). As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 NOVEMBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 November 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Larkin, R. Keller, D. Rukow, K. Epstein 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: Introduced new Commission member Monica Ostby Mr. Conner: A St. Michael’s College class has been doing surveys at the polls. More than 500 people have been surveyed regarding South Burlington issues (e.g., energy, TIF, the Comprehensive Plan, etc.). Staff is excited about what will result from the surveys. At a recent City Council meeting, a member of the Vermont National Guard approached staff regarding a potential partnership to fix the Shamrock Rd./Ethan Allen Rd/Lime Kiln Road intersection. They have access to some funding the city does not have. Staff has been meeting with them. The new City Attorney, Andrew Bolduc, started yesterday. Committee staffing has been re-organized. Ms. LaRose will be staffing the Bike/Ped Committee and Maggie Leugers will be staffing the Natural Resources and Recreation and Parks Committee. 4. Planned Unit Development Project Phase II – establish work schedule, prepare for kick-off: Mr. Conner said the Municipal Planning Grant application for this work has been submitted to the State. He suggested that a late December of early January meeting sounds right for the kick-off. The estimate from the consultants is that the work will be done at one meeting a month for about 8 months. The work would result in having 4 PUDs to go to public hearings. 2 Ms. LaRose said they should know about the grant by the next meeting. 5. Continued Discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of e-mails from the public who live in the area expressing concern with potential impacts. She also noted that due to the small Commission group at this meeting (other members are serving at the polls), no big decisions will be made. Feedback will be given to staff as to what information members would like for the next discussion. Mr. Conner noted that members had at previous meetings indicated that they had felt this use was not appropriate in the NRP district. Mr. Riehle asked what Village Residential development in that area would mean in terms of housing units. Mr. Conner said they could equate the number of square feel with housing and the cider facility or they could do a comparison based on traffic generation. There are also some “unknowns” that could have follow up, such as truck traffic. Mr. Gagnon suggested looking at it all based on infrastructure impacts (i.e., traffic, percentage and types of trucks, water, sewer, etc.). Ms. Louisos added that one thing they don’t always measure well is “paved area.” With residential use, you get a lot of pavement (e.g., driveways). The cider use might have more paving in one spot but not as spread out. Ms. Ostby raised the issue of noise and how much land might be needed as a buffer to residential use. Mr. Conner said there are city performance standards that have been used extensively. These include noise and lighting. Mr. Keller, said he is an engineer and understands the impact of this kind of facility on wastewater and water. He also cited the impact of a chiller on the neighborhood. He said all of this would depend on the type of equipment used. He also cited traffic issues on Van Sicklen and said it is especially challenging for bicyclists. He felt that Citizen is a good company. The question is the location. He added that events draw a large crowd at places like what is being proposed. Mr. Riehle asked about consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner suggested members look at this proposal through the lens of the Comprehensive Plan. There are some clear statements regarding the objectives for this part of the city (e.g., creating community, agriculture, etc.). He asked members to consider how those objectives could be met. Ms. LaRose directed attention to the last paragraph of staff notes which addresses “non-starters.” She felt the sooner those are addressed, the sooner there can be a decision. 3 Ms. Ostby suggested this could be the first type of PUD they tackle. Mr. Gagnon noted the Commission was split as to whether this should be a PUD. They had also identified other PUDs as higher priorities. Ms. Louisos suggested there may be other issues that are more important than whether this is a PUD or not. Mr. Gagnon questioned what features/criteria they would want to define: buffers, infrastructure, noise, odors, etc. He felt the criteria should fit into multiple areas. Mr. Riehle questioned whether the developer is willing to have the project go into the Village Residential district instead of the NRP. Mr. Conner said he shared that with the property owners and left it for them to think over. Mr. Larkin said that decision makes it complicated. He felt that if the Commission feels it doesn’t fit with the Comprehensive Plan, they should make that decision soon. He stressed that they are committed to making it work if it fits in the neighborho0od. The intent is not to create something troublesome for the neighbors. Mr. Conner suggested a chart of things the Commission would want to look at. The Commission would have to find the development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan before sending it on to the City Council. The other alternative is to change the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ostby felt they shouldn’t change what the zoning anticipates. Mr. Conner said the word “planning” should be used instead of “zoning.” He noted there are some “complimentary” non-residential uses allowed in residential areas. Ms. LaRose raised the issue of defining “value added agriculture” and determining whether it works with the proposed business plan. She felt that discussion should happen sooner rather than later. Mr. Riehle asked who addresses concerns such as noise and traffic. Mr. Conner said some of that can be gotten from national data. They could also reach out to some similar uses and get some case studies. Water and sewer can be addressed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Gagnon suggested looking at some local wineries that have “tastings.” They also have an agricultural component, manufacturing on the site, and special events. Bread & Butter Farm also has events. Mr. Keller suggested looking at Vermont Hard Cider in Middlebury. Ms. LaRose advised members to look back at the 9 August packet for some questions to consider. An audience member expressed concern with pesticides. Mr. Gagnon said he would be interested in knowing what types of pesticides are used. He noted that alar is now banned. Mr. Conner said staff has had a preliminary discussion with the Agency of Agriculture. Agriculture is exempt from local zoning, but it does have to meet standards of the Agency of Agriculture. This use would fall under their jurisdiction. Mr. Conner said he would get information from that Agency. 6. Review Draft Shelburne Road Basic Form Standards: 4 Ms. LaRose said her recommendation would be for an overlay district. She felt such a district is great for corridors because they have shared characteristics. She was not yet ready, however, to call it the “Shelburne Road corridor.” She felt the standards should address corners as well as heights, setbacks, etc. She would recommend a more “urban form” for corners. She questioned whether members would want to create “nodes” in a corridor. She noted that members had said they didn’t want a “line of buildings.” Mr. Conner asked for feedback on the 35-foot height limit. He noted this often puts the DRB in an uncomfortable position. He suggested they could set a new maximum with a hard cap or have a number that the DRB could waive under specified conditions. Mr. Conner suggested the Commission could do some minor adjustments (e.g. doors facing the street, glazing) and then do more complex things later. Ms. Ostby expressed concern with increased heights blocking views. Mr. Conner said the Commission has been getting input regarding important scenic views. He noted there are places where there are no views unless you are up several floors high. He reminded members that the current standard is to protect views from a public right-of-way or a public park. Ms. Louisos felt an overlay district makes sense. Mr. Conner suggested a requirement for a minimum number of stories for a corner building. He also cited the need to create “places of identity” on Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner stressed the importance of giving the DRB the intent of whatever regulations the Commission decides upon. 7. Update on input to CCRPC on renewable energy siting maps, possible action on revised letter: Ms. Louisos noted receipt of feedback from Chris Shaw who felt they should be careful to consider the difference between solar and wind since there are some places where wind is not appropriate. Mr. Conner said the CCRPC has asked where in the Comprehensive Plan specific energy concerns are addressed. He directed attention to a chart created by staff where there are specific statements of policy and explained the nature of level 1 and level 2 constraints. a. The Comprehensive Plan speaks about endangered/rare species, but State language is stronger. Members felt they should go with the State language. 5 b. The question arose as to whether wetland buffers should be a level 2 constraint. This was recommended by the Natural Resources Committee. Members felt that made sense. c. Natural Resources also recommended that steep slopes be a level 2 constraint. Members agreed. d. With regard to “agricultural soils,” Mr. Conner noted the State and Natural Resources Committee say they should be level 2. But Mr. Conner commented that “the devil is in the details.” 90% of South Burlington falls into the “agricultural soils” definition. This would make it impossible to meet state energy goals. He recommended saying “level 2, as it has been looked at before.” This is not language in the Comprehensive Plan, but this can be explained that it is not included because so much land is “agricultural soils.” Members were OK with that explanation. e. With regard to riparian connectivity, Mr. Conner noted “bubbles” in the Comprehensive Plan that are sometimes in conflict with where development is allowed. Member agreed this should be level 2. Ms. Ostby noted that as technology improves, less land could be requi4red for solar. She felt the regulations should be able to adapt to that potential. Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the letter for submission as discussed. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Minutes of 25 October 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 25 October as written. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Other Business: There was no other business discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 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: NOVEMBER 21, 2016 On Thursday, December 15, 201, the Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment of Shelburne’s Zoning Bylaw. The extent of the proposed changes is detailed in the attached memorandum. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m., or shortly thereafter, and take place in the Shelburne Municipal Complex Meeting Room. Those who plan to speak at the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments. It is not necessary to appear at the hearing to offer comments. Written comments should be submitted to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Electronic submissions are encouraged. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org. MEMORANDUM TO: RECIPENTS FR: DEAN PIERCE, ON BEHALF OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES DA: NOVEMBER 21, 2016 At its November 17 meeting the Shelburne Planning Commission discussed possible zoning bylaw amendments. The amendments would modify the Town’s land use regulations by adding language intended to mitigate the adverse secondary impacts associated with adult entertainment facilities while not unduly limiting freedom of speech and expression. At the conclusion of its discussion, the Planning Commission voted to warn a formal Public Hearing on the proposed changes and to conduct that hearing on Thursday, December 15, 2016. In addition, Staff was directed to distribute the proposed amendment and a “zoning change report” as required by statute. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The proposal would add Adult Entertainment to the list of conditional uses authorized in the Mixed Use district and by operation of Section 2010.7 (“All uses not specifically authorized by this bylaw are prohibited”) exclude the use in all other districts. The proposal would also add a series of Conditional Use review criteria applicable to Adult Entertainment uses. These criteria would establish requirements relating to a) comparability to other uses allowed in the Mixed Use district; b) separation from sensitive land uses such as schools, libraries, daycares, religious land uses, public parks, and residential zoning districts; c) separation from other instances of the same use; d) visibility of displays from any public vantage point; e) visibility of merchandise from any public vantage point; f) restrictions on signage; and g) entry by adults only. The proposal would preclude review of the use under the Form Based Zoning overlay district. A list of the sections contained in the proposal is presented below. Article II Table 1 Article X Section 1020.43 Adult Entertainment authorized as Conditional Use [sections following renumbered] Article XVII.A Section 1.1.2.D Adult Entertainment Uses governed by Section 1910.8. Article XIX Section 1910.8 Adult Entertainment as a Conditional Use [sections following renumbered] Article XXI [sections renumbered as required with insertion of new definitions] Section 2110.5 Adult Entertainment Section 2110.6 Adult media Section 2110.7 Adult oriented merchandise Section 2110.144 Sexually oriented toys or novelties Section 2110.148 Specified anatomical areas Section 2110.148 Specified sexual activities The text of the language to be the subject of the hearing is presented in the documents attached. Language to be added to the bylaw is shown in color with underscore. Language to be deleted is shown in color with strikethrough (strikethrough). 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.”