HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee - 05/11/2016
CHAMBERLIN NEIGHBORHOOD-AIRPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
11 MAY 2016
The South Burlington Champlain Neighborhood Airport Planning Commi ee held a mee ng on Wednesday, 11 May
2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: C. Sargent, Chair; G. Maille, P. Nowak, L. Brakel, W. Rooney, K. Robison, G. Severance, L. LaRock, K.
Schlenter
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. Krohn, C. Schlessinger, J. B. Hinds, S. Smallridge, Consultants;
B. Nowak, T. Barri , M. Emery, C. Frank, and other members of the public
1. Changes to the Agenda:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
2. Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda:
No comments were made.
3. Minutes of 13 and 28 April 2016:
The spellings of names were corrected in both sets of minutes.
Ms. Robison moved to approve the Minutes of 13 April 2016 as corrected. Ms. Brakel seconded. Mo on passed
unanimously.
Ms. Nowak moved to approve the Minutes of 28 April 2016 as corrected. Mr. Schlenter seconded. Mo on passed
unanimously.
4. Report of the Noise Subcommi ee:
Mr. Maille reported that members of the public asked how the effec veness of the Commi ee that survives either the
CNAPC and/or the Noise Subcommi ee will be evaluated and determined and what would happen if there is no
par cipa on from BTV, VTANG or ANG. The Subcommi ee also con nued dra ing the details of an Airport Noise
Advisory Commi ee and began collec on, consolida on and gaining final consensus on the list of recommenda ons that
will be presented to the full CNAPC. The final dra will be presented to the full CNAPC by 26 May.
Ms. Nowak noted there were 3 City Council members in the room. Mr. Barri agreed not to par cipate in the discussion.
5. Consultant Team Presenta on – helping to define recommenda ons for refined transporta on
improvements, civic improvements, and ins tu onal improvements:
Mr. Chamberlin updated members on the results of input from the public at the community mee ng. There were several
new ideas suggested, including:
a. Radar speed signs on White Street to address speed issues. Mr. Conner noted the city now has 3 semi-
portable units, and the inten on is to move them around the city.
b. A sidewalk on the northeast side of Airport Parkway. The cost es mate for 2000 feet of sidewalk is
$350,000. For just the southern piece the cost would be about $150,000. Mr. Chamberlin showed the
loca on on the map and said this would be a medium priority.
c. Bike lanes on Airport Drive. The cost es mate is $4,000-8,000. This would be a short term, low cost, high
recommenda on.
d. A boardwalk along Centennial Brook. This would require an easement. A photo of a California “boardwalk”
showed what it could look like. The cost es mate is $10,000-$100,000. A pathway would be at a lower cost.
This is a medium term, lower priority.
Regarding the Airport Drive alterna ve, Mr. Chamberlin noted that the scoping study that had been done will not work
was it came too close to the Airport fence. He showed a map with an alterna ve development scenario. The Airport
would have to acquire addi onal proper es to make this work. There is now no preferred alignment, and there would
have to be a new scoping study done. Members felt this would do a lot for the neighborhood in terms of a bypass.
Feedback from the public regarding sugges ons from the Commi ee included:
a. Short term projects (bike/pedestrian) got a lot of public support
b. One-way streets on Elizabeth and Patrick Streets were not supported. Ms. Sargent noted that there was
support for linking Elizabeth and Patrick with one egress.
c. Bike lanes on Hanover/Richard Street were not supported.
Ms. Nowak noted the comments from the public were very telling, not just the numbers.
Ms. Robison noted there wasn’t support for changing the name of one of the “Airport” named streets.
Of the medium term projects, Mr. Chamberlin noted that most of the got good support, especially the crosswalks on
White Street, Airport Parkway and Patchen Road at J.C. Park. On-road bike lanes, overland paths, and a crosswalk with a
median at Williston Road west of the Rec Path were all supported.
Members had a posi ve response to a sidewalk on Airport Parkway. Mr. Chamberlin noted that the city already has a
design for extending the sidewalk on the west side of the street all the way to Lime Kiln. Mr. Conner noted this was
presented to the Planning Commission at its last mee ng. The CNAPC could add its support to that as well. It will need a
lot of community support to move it up the priority list. Ms. Nowak asked if some Airport land would be needed for that
project. Mr. Conner showed a map of the concept for the sidewalk, which will include bike lanes on both sides of the
road. Almost all of it would take place on city land with one small excep on near the hazardous waste drop-off. Mr.
Conner also noted there are also ideas for a roundabout and a sugges on for speed monitoring at that loca on. He
commented that everything you don’t want at an intersec on is there.
There was public support for a blinking light and for a “boardwalk.” Of the long-term projects, the realignment of Airport
Drive and protected bike lanes got high support.
Ms. Robison asked about bus shelters. Mr. Chamberlin said he thought that had “fallen through the cracks.” Ms. Robison
said she would like to see them to keep people from having to stand in the rain and snow. Ms. Nowak said the CCTA
representa ve comes to the City Council once a year and this would be a good topic to discuss at that me. Ms. Robison
suggested having a map of all the bus stops in the area. Mr. Chamberlin said he would check on the criteria for placement
of bus shelters.
There was a lot of public reac on to the Airport Master Plan showing new development. Mr. Maille said the ques on is
whether this will be for the exclusive use of the Airport, which would make it a very different discussion. Ms. LaRock said
she heard from people that the configura on of the road was not user friendly. Mr. Maille said he heard there should be
public use, pedestrian and bike friendly. He added that any development will have to be considered a er the re-
alignment takes place.
Mr. Chamberlin said the next steps will be contact with the Bike/Ped Commi ee, Public Works and then the City Council.
Ms. Schlessinger then addressed response to Civic Enhancements:
There was a lot of support from CNAPC for Neighborhood Gateway/Welcome signs (these were not shown at the
neighborhood mee ng). She showed a map and photos of poten al key loca ons for these signs at places where you are
entering the neighborhood. Ms. Sargent suggested adding George and Pat’s neighborhood. Ms. Schlessinger said she will
add that. Ms. Nowak said if this is something the Commi ee wants, bring it to the City Council as they will have to look at
it in the broader picture. Ms. Schlessinger showed a concept fo5r a neighborhood sign and how it would look on the
land. The cost is about $7500 per sign with installa on. A lighted sign would about double the cost. Mr. Conner said the
city got a much be er deal (about $2000) for the Park signs.
Members were in support of these signs.
There was public support for pedestrian scale ligh ng on White Street. Ms. Schlessinger showed a picture of what this
could look like. The cost es mate is $650,000 (for both sides of White Street for the full length of the street). Ms. Sargent
said she would advocate for ligh ng improvements on very dark streets where it feels unsafe to walk. Mr. Conner noted
this is a very “hot bu on issue.”
There was strong public support for amending the zoning regula ons to allow for front porches up to 12 feet in depth.
This would be free to the city and could be done in the short term. Ms. Schlessinger showed a cross-sec on of what 12-
foot and 6-foot porches could look like. This would involve a zoning amendment through the Planning Commission
process. Mr. Maille said the biggest concern he heard was having the porches become an “eyesore” with junk stored on
them. Ms. Sargent asked if the porches could be screened. Mr. Conner said screening would be allowed but not glass.
Members were OK with this recommenda on.
There was also public support for allowing fences and hedges at the property line with plan ngs within the public right-
of-way. This would require individual property owners to have a license agreement with the city, and there could not be
anything planted that would interfere with u lity lines. The city would also have the right to dig up plan ngs for u lity
maintenance. Regarding fences, Mr. Conner noted that up to 4-feet is allowed without a permit. 4-8 feet requires a
zoning permit. Members preferred a lower height limit for fencing. This is a medium priority project.
Members were OK with this recommenda on.
There was public support for maintaining the access to scenic views. There was also a recommenda on for benches at
key view loca ons. Ms. Schlessinger showed a concept for this with a bench and bike rack. Providing “pocket park”
viewing areas at key loca ons would cost about $165,000-$248,000 per park and could be developed as part of a mul -
use path.
Regarding a mul -use trail through the “acquisi on land,” dense foliage could help absorb noise. Ms. Schlessinger
showed photos of what this could look like and a map with hypothe cal Airport uses/development. It was noted that this
would block some views. The cost es mate is $1,250,000 to $2,650,000. This is considered a long-term, high priority
project.
Ms. Hinds then addressed Ins tu onal Arrangements, specifically how the neighborhood will communicate with the
Airport, City, etc. She said the objec ves are to be sure to provide for “communica on up” and “communica on out.”
These should be in wri ng, so there is a record of the expecta ons.
Op ons raised for ins tu onal arrangements have very different levels of par cipa on, formality and me commitment
and can be both neighborhood and city based. Neighborhood based communica on could be from a resident-generated
newsle er, use of Front Porch Forum, etc. City based communica on can arise from the city’s website. Ms. Hinds
stressed that when improvements are proposed that the best ways to communicate are used.
At the community mee ng residents felt strongly that they wanted to be no fied of any Airport development,
Chamberlin School plans and changes in the transporta on system (roads, streets, signals). There was a moderate
response to communica on regarding paths, recrea on plans, neighbor-to-neighbor programs, parks, and visual
enhancements.
In terms of public par cipa on, people felt the would par cipate more ac vely in a decision to close or phase out
Chamberlin School, plans to change the roads in the neighborhood, plans for new Airport development, and any proposal
for rezoning. There was li le posi ve response to dog park plans, noise/F 35s, Airport acquisi on plans and noise
mi ga on commi ee mee ngs. People felt they would respond most by a ending a mee ng and/or submi ng
comments via e-mail or an online forum. They felt the best way to get communica on about things affec ng the
neighborhood was via e-mail from the city, The Other Paper, Front Porch Forum and/or e-mail from a local organiza on.
There was li le response to the City’s website, mailings, Facebook, South Burlington Community Watch, or a message
board at a local site.
Ms. Hinds said that it was the consul ng team’s sense that there was li le support for crea ng a formal local associa on
or commi ee. There was support, but not a “groundswell” for local “ownership” of aesthe c projects. There was
support for keeping formal Airport communica on/interac on on a separate track.
There has been city discussion about having a city “neighborhood project coordinator.” This person would deal with
parks, paths, etc. Ms. Nowak asked if this could be a UVM intern. Mr. Conner said for trails, yes, but for road, no. Ms.
Hinds added that most projects quickly need a qualified engineer.
Mr. Chamberlin said that at the 26 May mee ng, they will have all ideas formalized in a dra plan for the commi ee to
look at and endorse. This will also be presented at the next community mee ng.
6. Review/Input to City Council on dra South Burlington comments on Airport re-use plan concepts:
Mr. Conner said staff has observed there is a great deal of interest in providing feedback to the Airport on their various
plans. There hasn’t been a process for a long me for the city to provide some specific comments, and the City Council is
interested in doing this but wanted to hear from this Commi ee first.
Mr. Conner then discussed a dra set of ques ons and city posi ons for the Commi ee, and Council’s considera on. He
noted that this was staff’s first a empt at capturing what he said staff have heard over the past year on a variety of
subjects, from the community and commi ee.
Mr. Conner drew a en on to feedback on the 2006 BIA/P Re-Use Plan/Noise Compa bility Plan regarding land
acquisi on. He showed a map of what has been acquired and what has not been acquired within the 65 db area. He said
the city’s dra posi on in the le er is that homes on Airport Parkway and west of Airport Parkway should no longer be on
the map.
Mr. Maille felt the city would be in a very precipitous posi on with this. It would mean that people in the 70 db area can
no longer seek the same remedy as others within the 65 db area had the op on to seek. Mr. Conner said staff
understands this is a very complex issue. Mr. Maille said that 70 db line was always there and should have been on the in
the first place.
Ms. Sargent said it is a ques on of whether to preserve the neighborhood or not. She felt the only way to do that is to
have the city par cipate at a level it hasn’t par cipated in before.
Mr. Maille said the neighborhood con nues to be subjected to noise levels that are not compa ble with residen al use.
He felt the city should not take a posi on in opposi on to people seeking a remedy for being subjected to those noise
levels.
Mr. Conner noted that the city does not support an “Airport only” access from I-89 in the dra le er.
Mr. Maille asked about new buildings within the 65 db level. Mr. Conner said there hasn’t been a decision on that as yet.
Mr. Conner said the city told the Airport they would try to get a first round of comments to them for the Airport’s 4 June
mee ng. The City Council would like comments to them by their 16 May mee ng. He suggested CNAPC could have a
one-hour mee ng prior to that Council mee ng. Members agreed to meet at 5:30 on 16 May.
Mr. Conner also directed a en on to the e-mail from Nick Longo at the Airport. Mr. Conner stressed that this is
ul mately the Airport’s decision, that the city of South Burlington can provide comments on the re-use plan.
7. Chamberlin School Issue:
Mr. Schlenter encouraged members to a end the 24 May mee ng at Orchard School, 6:30 p.m., to provide feedback on 5
proposals from the School Board. He added that proposals #4 and 5 are not being seriously looked at. Ms. Sargent noted
that #3 s ll does away with Chamberlin School which she opposes. She said the Air Guard has said it would support
sound proofing.
8. Other Business:
There will be a food drive on 15 May conducted by PACT students. Food dona ons can be put on the doorstep before
noon or brought to the Chi enden Food Shelf.
As there was no further business to come before the Commi ee, Mr. Rooney moved to adjourn. Mr. Schlenter seconded.
Mo on passed unanimously, and the mee ng was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
_______________________________
Clerk