HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 03/09/2016
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE
MINUTES 3-9-2016
APPROVED
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commi ee held its regular monthly mee ng on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:30 pm in the
small conference room at the city office building.
Members Present: Cathy Frank (dial-in), Vice-Chair; Jamieson Goodwin, Clerk; Amanda Holland; Bob Bri ; Ac ng-Chair,
Donna Leban, Roy Neuer
Members Absent: Dana Farr
City Representa ve: Holly Baker, Assistant Director of Recrea on & Parks
Also Present: Jus n Rabidoux Department of Public Works Director
Mee ng began at 5:30 pm.
1. Changes to Agenda – Addi on of discussions on the following topics: Bob Bri ’s mee ng with Tom H, whether
the commi ee should extend an invita on to Tim Barri , and a brief overview of coming City discussions over
South Burlington scenic vista preserva on.
2. Approval of minutes from last mee ng – Mo on, Jamieson – Donna second. Unanimous.
3. Comments from public not related to Agenda – None
4. Discussion with Jus n Rabidoux (DPW Director) – Discussion followed about the Impact Ordinance Fee (IFO)
and it’s use in Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Jus n has been working with Paul Conner in rela on to use of the
fee(s) and their descrip on. Specifically the Impact Fee descrip on outlines very specific projects, some of which
have been completed. Per Jus n, any ordinance changes required to update poten al projects, requires council
hearings to change the defini on; namely an involved project. Jus n and Paul are working to use the CIP to direct
IFO. The IFO is specifically used to develop a measure of # of people per unit of land (ac ve recrea on, sewage,
etc.), as a way to develop a baseline for iden fied service and create a means to maintain service as growth in
areas within the city grow or expand. Impact fees can only be used for capital, not equipment, maintenance, etc.
City departments would contribute plans or projects into a Fee descrip on along with capital requirements that
would then be included in CIP. Quick example is the forthcoming South Village soccer field, which should be
completed within the next year is receiving at least par al funding from Recrea on Impact Fee as a means to
increase the number of similar facili es within South Burlington. Jus n outlined the general process in which
some of the Impact Fees can be u lized. For example, to advance our recommended projects there should be
feasibility studies, or are these projects a worthwhile expenditure of effort before cost and effort es ma ng. Cost
es ma on is eased by use of calculator and published guidelines with which DPW is familiar. Jus n or available
staff can assist in this process for our purposes. Second is constructability – how much effort may be needed.
Followed by permit-ability – which would highlight any poten al roadblocks in comple on of the proposed
project.
a. Discussion: Recent Williston Rd public hearing – Jus n offered some very unique and helpful
perspec ve for many within the mee ng, in that Williston Rd serves more than just the city of South
Burlington. The city and it’s ci zens should help determine the desired use case for proposed changes to
the Williston Rd corridor, which will aid in the planning and then eventual build out of what the
community wants, not just what other stake holders request (commuters through South Burlington, etc).
b. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Update – All ba eries changed/upgraded and mings
reflec ve of MUTCD required mings (crosswalk standard for protected phase 3.5 /sec). Addi onally,
and as a result of ci zen input, the City Council has requested a scheduled yearly update on iden fied
issues, like crosswalk and RRFB issues, which Jus n will provide as well. This update mee ng would
include topics such as the addi on of lights to both sides of each RRFB.
c. Crosswalks mings – No real update, as discussed previously, this issue is largely a percep on and
community level issue. Any proposed changes are the result of input from various stakeholders and the
community with careful determina on as to the desired impact for pedestrian safety or traffic flow. A big
picture view would also include studying the affects in a larger area in which a single change would
impart (overall traffic flow in a neighborhood, for example). Some poten al middle ground, leading
pedestrian phase before a concurrent phase begins. Jus n recommended that a matrix or formal policy
should be wri en and recommended to council/commission. With some upcoming projects (Swi /Spear
specifically), it is likely an appropriate me to produce a new study examining traffic pa erns/usage.
Poten al for commi ee to provide input to study, which is likely to happen late this summer.
d. Striping machine – Jus n indicated that DPW an cipate the receipt of the new striping machine this
summer. This new equipment opens possibility for future improvements to areas of issue (i.e. expansion
of bike lanes where lane width allows). Jus n and team are developing their own list and are certainly
open to input. Increase of seasonal labor force will help to address items like worn cross walk restriping
at the end of the season.
e. Bollards – Jus n indicated a large order was made for addi onal Bollards. He also indicated that there is
some possibility for leaving bollards in place year round as a low cost study to determine feasibility in
various areas. Currently, there haven’t been any further studies for replacing bollards with more
permanent fixtures.
f. Recommenda ons to CCRPC – Jus n believes that, currently, there is no expecta on for those
priori za ons sent from the city to the Chi enden County Regional Planning Commission to get funded
for feasibility study.
g. Current high priority projects: Jus n gave the following brief summary of current City/DPW high priority
projects: Tilley drive phase 2 study is at conceptual phase. Umall/89 bridge study is half funded. Brief
updates on study for pedestrian facility gaps (Allen rd, Dorset path extension, airport pkwy, N Spear st jug
handle and athle c field area).
5. Discussion: Determina on of priority for issues from community feedback iden fied by the commi ee –
Discussion ensued about best method to priori ze iden fied issues. Ways to shorten list, like striping projects vs
more intense items. Level of impact, best address the gaps between high traffic areas. For example, Shelburne
Rd vs lower use areas. Safety concerns (like along spear st between swi and UVM). Commi ee recommended
doing a quick personal assessment of priori es, providing a general high/med/low rank to Amanda by Mar 31.
6. Updates from City: Holly Baker– No significant updates.
7. General Ma ers
a. Discussion: Bob – Policy & Safety recommenda on updates – This topic was largely covered in various
areas of discussion with Jus n Rabidoux earlier in the mee ng. Items included Impact Fee Ordinance,
Crosswalk mings, etc.
b. Discussion: Use and implementa on of R. Hubbard’s commi ee model – Current items that the
commi ee feels should be monitored:
i. DRB mee ngs - Jamieson and Amanda to review and a end as needed.
ii. Planning Commission mee ngs – Donna to review and a end as needed.
iii. Monitor City Council mee ng agenda for items of interest: Cathy to monitor.
iv. Community public outreach: Bob will con nue efforts on this front.
v. Monitor City website for new items – Roy to monitor.
vi. Review of ongoing projects – Donna to monitor and no fy commi ee of items requiring
a en on by the commi ee.
c. Report: Williston Road Transporta on Study Mee ng - Item from Talking points – this discussion was
largely held while Jus n Rubidoux was in a endance.
d. Report: Colchester/Riverside Ave Intersec on study – No current insight or known impact. Will need
further review.
e. Discussion: Bob’s mee ng with Tom Hubbard – The outcome of Bob’s mee ng iden fies that this
commi ee needs to be more asser ve and forthright in providing feedback to other city departments
and commi ees. As previously iden fied, the commi ee has no fiscal input or methods in which to
provide direc on/focus for the city. Tom iden fied the poten al for fiscal progress through the
implementa on of ordinances or land development regula ons and fees.
f. Discussion: Ques on to extend invita on to Tim Barri to a end a commi ee mee ng. Commi ee
proposed to invite Councilman Barri to a end ASAP. Dana to extend invita on.
g. Discussion of scenic vistas – Topic provided by Donna, and was largely just a review of some new and
ongoing a empts which may have some impact on areas of commi ee interest. The city is a emp ng to
define scenic view corridors. This was brought about as the city is currently reviewing land within the
view corridor from Wheeler Nature Park and the Dorset St recrea on path for future development. It is
felt that these are important topics specifically as usage for recrea on can be impacted if scenic views are
obstructed. Donna to follow-up and provide more informa on for next commi ee mee ng.
8. Confirma on: Next mee ng Wednesday April 20 @ 5:30 PM.
Mo on to adjourn – Cathy, Roy second. All approve.
Mee ng ended at 8:15 pm.
Respec ully submi ed,
Jamieson Goodwin, Clerk