HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee - 02/18/2016CHAMBERLIN NEIGHBORHOOD-AIRPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
18 FEBRUARY 2016
The South Burlington Chamberlin/Airport Study Committee held a meeting on Thursday, 18 February
2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: C. Sargent, Chair; G. Severence, P. Clemins, K. Robinson, K. Schlenter, T.
Harrington, W. Rooney, P. Nowak, G. Maille, L. Brakel
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. Krohn, C. Forde CCRPC; B. Chamberlin, M.
Smith, R. Meuse, Consultants; G. Richards, N. Longo, Burlington International Airport; P. McDonald, CHA
Consultant; M. Emery, S. Marriott
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. Minutes of 28 January 2016:
Ms. Harrington moved to approve the Minutes of 28 January 2016 as presented. Mr. Schlenter
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Report of Noise Sub-Committee:
Mr. Maille reported that the sub-committee continued its discussion of goals with a focus on drafting a
noise and planning committee to follow this committee. The possible composition of this committee
was discussed.
The sub-committee supports a State Airport Planning Cabinet Position to look at emerging situations,
community needs, threats to communities, etc. This position could address both land transportation as
well as – but focusing on – the Airport.
At the next meeting, the subcommittee will continue discussion of the formation of a planning & noise
committee and a possible Cabinet position.
5. Presentation by CHA consultants on the Airport’s Land Use/Reuse Plan:
Mr. Longo said the Airport is planning public meeting sessions regarding the Land Use/Reuse Plan, the
first one of which will be in about 4 weeks. The second will present the findings of the consultants and
2
will be prior to the July submission to the FAA. At all meetings, there will be feedback from the public.
Mr. Richards added that between meetings, people can contact Mr. Longo or CNAPC consultants. He
asked the committee to get this message out to the community. He also noted that all Airport
Commission minutes dating back to the 1980’s are now on the Airport website.
Mr. McDonald said the objective of the Land Inventory and Reuse Plan is to guide incompatible land
uses away from the Airport and to encourage compatible land uses around Airport facilities. The study
will evaluate the future use and disposition of properties acquired for noise compatibility purposes. The
study has to recommend whether the land should be retained for compatibility purposes, is needed for
other aviation-related purposes, or if the property can be transferred, exchanged or sold for non-
aviation purposes. Mr. McDonald noted that nationwide, the most common form of disposal of “noise
land” is to other necessary airport purposes. The Airport cannot profit from transfer or sale of the
property; all proceeds must be returned to the FAA. The Airport does not have to sell the property if
there are other FAA eligible purposes.
Ms. Sargent said she understood that the land acquisition program would go away in 2019. Mr. Richards
said it won’t “go away.” There are people who have not yet decided to move (older residents, people
with children in school, etc.). The Airport is in no rush to have them move.
Mr. Clemins asked how the Airport consultants will work with the CNAPC consultants. Mr. McDonald
said he will come periodically to CNAPC with reports. He felt that the two entities are not far apart with
planning goals. Mr. Chamberlin said the next time Mr. McDonald will be at a CNAPC meeting will be on
14 April. At other CNAPC meetings, Mr. McDonald will provide e-mail updates.
Mr. Maille thanked Airport people for sharing their plans openly and said this is great for the
community. Mr. Richards said there is always time to work with CNAPC prior to the meetings at the
Airport.
Mr. Conner asked what kind of input is most useful for a local community to provide. Mr. McDonald
said CNAPC plans would be helpful. He noted that the Airport cannot control if and when properties will
be acquired. He felt that what the committee is doing (e.g., discussing what will happen with roads) is
already very helpful. Specific ideas regarding road ownership would be helpful.
Mr. Maille said he would like to hear about the Airport Master Plan and the new noise compatibility
program. Mr. Longo said they can always update the noise compatibility program, but there is not new
program.
Mr. Richards said that as the committee moves forward, they should be thinking of funding sources. He
added they are very open to use their land to help with traffic issues. He noted that only one of ten cars
that go by the Airport actually comes into the Airport. They are open to being part of the solution, but
they “don’t have a checkbook.” He said that garage income is down $400,000 this year. Things need to
be done creatively, putting resources together.
3
6. Overview and Committee Review of Draft Concept Transportation Improvements in the
Chamberlin Neighborhood:
Mr. Chamberlin said that one objective of the planning project is to develop a neighborhood land
use/transportation plan (other objectives will be dealt with at future meetings).
Mr. Chamberlin then reviewed the neighborhood relationship to other transportation plans. He showed
a map with plans that include: VT15 multi-use plan, airport Parkway sidewalk and bike lanes, proposed
Airport Parkway Extension, Williston Road study (including a new street to connect from near JC Park to
Williston Rd.), the redesign of White Street/Midas Drive inter-section, and Garden Street study. He also
showed a map of existing conditions. Most streets are “neighborhood streets.” Mr. Chamberlin pointed
out crosswalks, sidewalks, conserved open space, bike lanes and traffic signals.
Mr. Chamberlin then gave members worksheets to fill out with comments and ideas as he proceeded
through his presentation.
Projects that are under consideration include:
a. A sidewalk on the northerly side of White Street leading to Chamberlin School – a recommended
street cross-section was shown
b. Extension of that sidewalk to Airport Drive
c. “overland paths”
d. Crosswalks – connections to JC Park and 3 options for Williston Road – these crossings would
have flashing lights
In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Chamberlin explained how full traffic signals are
“warranted.” This process includes assessing the amount of traffic and pedestrian volume, speed limit,
accident history, etc.
Mr. Chamberlin then showed option #1 for bicycle accommodations. This would be for on-road bike
lanes and would be a short term accommodation. There would be no need to move the curbing and
there would be minimal cost. He showed a cross section with 5-foot bike lanes. Driving lanes would be
narrowed to 10 feet each way to accommodate the bike lanes. Mr. Conner noted that as the road gets
narrower, people naturally travel slowed. Mr. Krohn commented that this would be easy to do on
Patchen Road as there is a lot of pavement.
Ms. Nowak noted that last night the Council was shown a concept for a protected bike path that seemed
very creative.
Mr. Chamberlin then reviewed the “neighborhood streets” concept. These streets must have a 50 foot
right-of-way but paved areas are 20-30 feet wide. He then showed the characteristics of a residential
4
street and showed types of traffic calming efforts. He noted that in the Chamberlin neighborhood, there
is no “identification” or “celebration” that this is a “neighborhood.” Painted streets can emphasize the
neighborhood concept and reduce speeds. They also draw people together.
Mr. Chamberlin showed ideas for main streets such as White Street and Patchen Road. They could have
“median refuge islands” with some landscaping. It is also possible to tighten the curb radii, which tends
to slow traffic down. Examples of whimsical crosswalks were also shown as well as “welcome” signs
that indicate this is not just a place to move through.
Mr. Chamberlin then showed a “mini-roundabout” concept. Mr. Conner noted that Public Works feels
these take longer to plow.
Other amenities might include planting strips near the street, front yard gardens, playful bike racks, and
public art. Mr. Chamberlin commented that some of these are very easy to do.
Mr. Chamberlin then addressed Airport Drive possible reconstruction. He showed an approximate
alignment of the reconstruction (this is on the Airport’s 2030 Master Plan). He noted there are a lot of
streets which intersect with Airport Drive.
Short term options for Airport Drive include:
a. Keeping White St. and Delaware St. open and closing all other street
b. Closing Elizabeth and keeping Patrick St. open
c. Possibly looping Elizabeth and Patrick Streets
Mr. Chamberlin said they would like to know if the Airport is interested in acquiring any of the streets
which are between lands they have acquired.
Mr. Conner noted there are street standards for emergency vehicles. It is possible to do trials for one-
way streets and get feedback. He asked people to think about what they would like to try.
Long term options for Airport Drive could include:
a. Closing White Street (this creates a problem of access to Chamberlin School)
b. Looping Elizabeth and Patrick Street
c. Keeping White Street open
d. One-way options for Elizabeth and Patrick Streets
e. Closing all other streets
Mr. Maille noted that the city has a lot of infrastructure under these streets. Water lines would have to
be shut down, waste water lines would have to be capped, etc. Mr. Conner said that where there was a
house, the lines have been capped at the street unless a whole street was shut down. The question was
5
asked as to whether the city would consider rerouting those lines. Mr. Krohn said that would be very
expensive. Mr. Maille asked at whose expense. Mr. Conner said that any new road that required new
infrastructure would be part of a project cost. Who would pay for it is a question. He stressed that this
is a very complex issue.
Mr. Clemins asked people’s impressions of White Street. Mr. Maille said traffic increases on Airport
Drive and White Street occurred after the change of Williston Road to a “complete street.” Mr. Conner
noted that the amount of traffic and the “character” of traffic (how vehicles move through the
neighborhood) are 2 different things.
Mr. Maille suggested having no parking on both sides of Airport Road.
Ms. Sargent felt there could be better placement of bus stops and bus shelters to encourage people to
use them. In some places, traffic backs up because of buses stopping. Ms. Nowak suggested inviting
Tom Chittenden in as he’s the City’s representative to CCTA.
Mr. Chamberlin said there could be a trial of various options to see if there are adverse impacts that
can’t be predicted. Detailed traffic studies are too expensive, but something can be done. Mr. Conner
said that committee members’ knowledge of the neighborhood is vital…where people can and can’t go.
7. Next Steps:
Mr. Maille noted the noise subcommittee will meet next Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. The next CNAPC
meeting will be on 16 March, 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Krohn said they will need to change the June meeting from 15 to 16 June.
As there was no further business to come before the Committee, Mr. Maille moved to adjourn. Ms.
Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
___________________________________