HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 06/09/2021
1. Welcome and online meeting guidelines - S. Goddard (5:30 p.m.)
2. Changes or additions to the agenda
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda
4. Consideration of minute(s)
5. Updates from the City - Ashley (5:45 p.m. - 15min)
6. Review proposed locations for wayfinding signs - Signage Group (6:00 p.m. - 20min)
7. Review a revised SBBPC Mission Statement & Charter - Bob (6:20 p.m. - 15min)
8. Bike Greenway - Discuss options & treatments - Nic (6:35 p.m. - 20min)
9. Discuss/propose project candidates for shovel-ready projects - All (6:55 p.m. - 25min)
10. Project Priorities - Review (revise?) - All (7:20 p.m. - 20min)
11. Other Committee Updates - Any/All (7:40 p.m. - ~2-3 min per person)
12. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, July 14, 2021 @ 5:30pm
13. Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, June 9, 2021 @ 5:30 p.m.
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recent legislation. Presenters and
members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by
telephone. There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options –
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/829579925
By telephone (audio only): 1-872-240-3212; Access Code: 829-579-925
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Regular Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, May 12, 2021 @ 5:30 p.m.
Meeting was held virtually
Committee Attendees: Shawn Goddard (Chair), Cathy Frank (Vice-Chair), Nic Anderson (Clerk), Bob Britt,
Donna Leban, Dana Farr, Amanda Holland, Havaleh Gagne,
Other Attendees: Ashley Parker (City Liaison), Jonathon Weber (Local Motion), Lou Breese
1. Welcome and clarification of meeting procedures
2. Changes or additions to the agenda.
a. None
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda.
a. Jonathon would love to talk about outreach to help Ilona Blanchard with grant
application for Exit 14 grant funding. Maybe committee members connecting with
businesses.
4. Consideration of minutes from the previous meeting(s):
a. April 14, 2021
b. Edits submitted to group by Bob
c. Nic motion to accept edited minutes. Cathy seconded. Edited minutes approved
unanimously.
5. Review results from DPW quarterly meeting on 4/27/21 -Bob (5:55 p.m. -15min)
a. Couple of questions from meeting that they wanted committee input on. In packet.
b. Dorset St barrier
i. Want to talk about the three sections not just Existing to Grandview.
ii. Nic would suggest an actual guardrail instead of chain link fencing. Would solve
snow issues and provide a better barrier for safety too. Im sure the cost would
be really high but would be a better long-term solution.
c. Crosswalk painting
i. Amanda helping with list of all crosswalks using mapping database
ii. Currently do crosswalks closest to schools first and then out. Some never get
done
iii. Suggesting ranking system to prioritize annually, biannually or more.
iv. Amanda – Do have crosswalks on map and got them into an excel database
from Pam at CCRPC
v. Bob – having a list of the ones that get worn away quicker and using that for the
prioritization.
vi. Break up city into quadrants and have a committee member do each for
assessment
vii. Lots of volunteers
viii. Havaleh – Did you discuss having a speed limit on paths.
ix. On agenda today.
d. Spear Street
i. Are we looking for a sidewalk on Spear along with bike lanes (not a rec path).
ii. Nic thinks that there is demand for a sidewalk. With bike lanes. Provided rec
path happens as the “alternate” along the east.
iii. Lou asked if it sets us up but leaves us wanting a rec-path in 10 years anyway
iv. Amanda – Do we need sidewalks on just sections or all the way down? There
was a previous scoping study that did not recommend a sidewalk the entire
length.
v. Bob – Paul and Justin were discussing a need for sidewalk in Transportation
Impact fee discussions
vi. Ashley – this may be stemmed from the discussion from a couple of meetings
ago
vii. Shawn – Spear is good for bike lanes, has rec path to the west and eventually to
the east. All about priorities.
viii. Bob – There are sections that are too narrow for bike lanes on one side.
ix. Cathy – Another section that is bad is close to Spear.
x. Shawn – More a priority on spending issue.
xi. Cathy – Could target primary connections. Don’t see recreational cyclists using
Spear as much.
xii. Donna – Is a recreational cyclist and uses it all the time
xiii. Shawn – Agree we could piecemeal it and not do the whole section.
xiv. Amanda – Been a while since we looked at the map and prioritized. Maybe that
could be a summer project. Need to figure out what our immediate needs are.
xv. Shawn – Meeting with Justin again to talk about the other items they didn’t get
to.
6. Updates from the City
a. In agenda packet. Ashley read updates
b. Attending meetings as a quorum
i. Shawn – Asked Ashley can the City have a blanket warning that there may be
committee members present to cover those who may attend as a member of
the public
ii. Cathy – One of the meetings, Bob and I were there as members of my
neighborhood and it didn’t even occur to me that I was a bike ped member
iii. Dana – Ashley can you ask about signing petitions too? We aren’t supposed to
post on Facebook at the same time.
iv. Donna – Should not forgo your rights as a citizen because you are part of a
committee
v. Dana – If we could get some clarification if possible.
vi. Ashley – Can take items to City Attorney. Know that if speaking at a meeting you
need to make it known that you are speaking as either a member of public or
representing committee
c. Continued reading updates
d. Underwood – Have agreement. Will have staff and consultant kickoff meeting in the
near future.
e. RRFBs
i. Bob asked if it will be done this year
ii. Ashley – Think he wants to get it done this fiscal year
iii. Shawn asked if CCRPC info had RRFB data to see which crosswalks have lights.
f. Williston Rd Crosswalks – Bob asked for update. Ashley noted small scale program grant
application would work. Council should be reviewing that grant application soon.
7. Discussion of Long Property development -bike/ped design input -All (6:10 p.m. -20min)
a. Cathy recused herself because she lives in South Point. Happy to answer any factual
information on layout etc. but will not provide comment.
b. Shawn understands that it is still in sketch plan review and is changing daily
c. Cathy – Cleared sketch recently.
d. Ashley brought up plans
e. Cathy detailed history. Anticipated Parkside drive would connect to developments north
and south.
f. Bob asked what was proposed.
g. Cathy - Would connect south to South Village at North Jefferson. No plans for recreation
path. Green walking path shown on plans (East-West).
h. Shawn asked if pedestrian infrastructure matches between north and south to connect
seamlessly.
i. Donna – We have 150 houses at Dorset Park and people use road instead of sidewalk.
People would probably use the road anyway.
j. Bob thinks that a road and sidewalk is sufficient along the east. More concerned about
fronting on Spear Street.
k. Bob detailed the section along Spear Street in front of the longs property. Would be
great while it was all dug up it would be ideal to have a sidewalk.
l. Cathy – In Planning departments initial comments about the proposal, one of the
suggestions or recommendations that a ROW is made to have a path in the future.
m. Donna – There is a full rec path that comes out of Preserve Rd that stops there. Seems
like there is an intention to have a shared use path along Spear St. That is what the
south section of South Village has. Seems like it is not a good place to drop people. Road
is too narrow. South Village did a lot of work to widen the road and make it good.
n. Bob – Do we want the ROW or to ask them to build the infrastructure.
o. Shawn – Without a plan for Spear it could be hard to ask them for a path.
p. Nic – I think we very much need to ask them for a rec path to connect Preserve to S.
Pointe. If we do a ROW it will take forever to fund and build it from a City front.
q. Cathy – If I was a parent, I would be doing the other connection to be built at Parkside
over going out to Spear. Would suggest people look at it.
r. Bob – Today our walking group had to walk on Spear Street to be able to do their walk
and it would be nice to have this potential gap filled. We kick ourselves for allowing
developers to not do paths.
s. Nic – Agrees that we need to advocate for the path and if we don’t get it, at least we
tried and can say that we did our best.
t. Donna – There are other locations where we advocated and they have done more to set
up the basecourse to do it later.
u. Shawn – The compelling point is that there is an existing path that just ends at the end
of Preserve Rd and could go further.
v. Nic – The potential sidewalk from Pheasant Way on the West side is an easy win as
there is sufficient ROW to do it.
w. Shawn – So are we simply suggesting that a rec path be installed on the west side and
the rest is OK?
x. Bob happy to second that if that was a motion
y. Cathy - Should there be wayfinding signage suggested by the committee.
z. Amanda – Would suggest wayfinding for the entire north south route through.
aa. Motion by Shawn to request shared-use path along Spear from Preserve through to
South Pointe.
bb. Second by Bob
cc. Vote – All in favor. Cathy abstained
dd. Shawn to email recommendation to Marla for the DRB
ee. Remembered that Alan Long reached out to meet with committee sometime. Should
connect with him. Ashley will follow up.
8. I-89 Interchange discussion -any additional actions while Council contemplates
recommendations?
a. Shawn introduced
b. Jonathon sent the group a draft of what we could use to weigh in and push back.
c. Shawn had discussed with Tim Barritt. Sounds like CCRPC may study all three and maybe
our only recourse is to keep pushing about bike ped.
d. Havaleh – At first was OK but that was based on what Hinesburg Rd will look like now,
but will be more like Exit 14.
e. Nic – Agreed, the ramps will be just as bad as exit 14. If it was straight it would be fine,
but it wouldn’t be.
f. Bob – Would like to include that it would make another impenetrable connection that
only the most fearless would use.
g. Shawn – Does anybody feel they disagree with this second recommendation.
h. Nic – Would like to add that this is too narrow a scope of just the interchange, not the
whole corridor.
i. Shawn – I think Tim gets it but maybe doesn’t quite understand the overall bike ped
challenges.
j. Motion by Shawn to forward letter that has been drafted to City and CCRPC (through
Ashley)
k. Seconded by Donna
l. Bob – Would just want in that second bullet to mention Exit 14 and Shelburne Rd I-89
intersection. To illustrate the problems, we would be creating. Bob will send edits to
Jonathon to add that language. Shawn will submit.
m. Vote – All in favor.
9. Maintenance issues-Bob
a. Presentation to Update City Council on Safety and Maintenance issues and P4P Projects
i. Time to do an update to the City Council?
ii. Shawn – Could be good to talk about next meeting.
b. Potential group ride to assess the condition of our paths and other bike/ped
infrastructure.
i. Justin wants to know longer stretches of the path that need to be replaced so he
can budget for it. Such as Butler Farms to Golf Course which may be too far
gone to patch. Justin is hoping there may be federal infrastructure injection
where we could do significant work, so wants to be primed.
ii. Shawn – Liking the focus on this maintenance component instead of just new.
Glad to hear him asking for this.
iii. Amanda – This would be great if we already had an inventory of all sidewalks
and recreation paths. Broken record. Lots of work. Should be something that
DPW does or hiring an intern to do. Or CCRPC. Big task for a volunteer
committee. They need to have someone assessing this infrastructure annually.
iv. Havaleh noted in chat: “Dorset street from Kennedy Drive to Williston Road is a
mess.” And “Shared use path, Szymanski Park to Stonehedge.”
v. Shawn thinks this is something that should be done and not necessarily the
committee’s responsibility.
vi. Bob – Would like to hear from other committee members.
10. Discussion of potential E-bike speed limits and signage on rec paths
a. Shawn – Not sure where this came up.
b. Bob – Since E-bikes were coming to Greenride Bikeshare. Has had issues with E-bikes
whizzing by. Should we be limiting speeds.
c. Nic – I would love to disassociate the conversation of E-bikes and speed limits. Anyone
can go 20 on a bike. Its more about courtesy. This is the future. We should not be
limiting it.
d. Havaleh – I agree that its more about courtesy. All users.
e. Donna – They are so silent. Need to get more people to call out or bell.
f. Havaleh – Need to do a bell giveaway. Much better than talking. Its all about courtesy.
g. Bob – Asked Jonathon what is happening in other places
h. Jonathon – Burlington waterfront had this same challenges and leant more towards
courtesy and slow zones than having speed limits. Maybe a signage campaign and
markings would be good.
i. Shawn asked if there are any other towns that have speed limits already?
j. Jonathon – Not really heard of any.
k. Shawn – Agree on decoupling from E-bikes. More about courtesy, even with dogs etc.
Concerned if we made rules that were inconsistent with other towns. If Burlington had
limits then maybe we could do that.
l. Jonathon – Burlington may have a speed limit that is an ordinance but not signed and
not enforced.
m. Donna – Another point that needs to be addressed is use of sidewalks by bikes.
Generally make way when young kids but when adults it’s a problem.
n. Nic – That’s indicative of a larger problem. Need to have better road infrastructure so
people feel safe. Saw some amazing etiquette sign on the Lamoille Valley Rail trail on
the weekend and they were big and clear for all users.
o. Jonathon could get a copy for us to see.
p. Nic put link in chat https://www.lvrt.org/faq
q. Asked who does this?
r. Ashley – This falls within the wayfinding package discussions and should be part of what
was proposed.
s. Shawn – Asked if it was within the scope of the Penny for Paths
t. Bob – Yes, is part of the CIP.
u. Havaleh – Could we use Justin’s infrastructure money for signs instead of P4P?
v. Ashley – Depends on the restrictions that may be in place.
w. Nic – Suggests doing Other Paper article and the Sub-Committee get together to work
through the other stuff.
11. Revise Bike/Ped Committee Charge-Bob (7:25 p.m. -15min)
a. Bob happy to write up the other changes that he suggests
b. Ashley suggests making sure the committee agreed with changing it in the first place.
c. Bob – The reason it seemed necessary because we do more than just rec-path oversite.
Cover all bike lanes, crosswalks and other bike ped infrastructure.
d. Nic – Agree. Needs an upgrade.
e. Donna – Agreed
f. Bob to do the first brush and send to Donna before coming back to the committee
12. Exit 14 Bike Ped Bridge
a. Jonathon – Ilona reached out to Local Motion to get support for a grant application to
get comments from individuals to use in any application. Also want to get letters of
support from businesses and hoping to enlist committee on working on getting
businesses to be on board. Happy to draft a letter together or happy to have people just
contact people directly.
b. Bob – Happy to go to South Burlington Business Association but concerned that it may
be confused with current Envision 89 study. Would want it to be clear why.
c. Jonathon can write something up as talking points to differentiate and the benefits of
connecting other places such as East Terrace, Quarry Hill and UMall. Some businesses
have noted that the current route is a barrier for employees to get to work.
d. Havaleh would like talking points as she has people she could connect with.
e. Cathy – Knows UVM provost and may be able to help UVM from the top to help support
the bridge.
f. Jonathon – Would love any and all contacts or just ideas for businesses you may not
have contact with. Will send out a spreadsheet to add businesses.
g. Nic – Asked what format it needs to be to ensure open meeting law is complied with.
Cannot work in a shared document.
13. General comments/updates from Committee members
a. Designated a Bicycle Friendly Community today!
i. Nic – Excited about the report that will help us focus on what we can do to
improve more. Maybe we do some sort of promotion near the end of the
month. Will work with Ashley and Coralee on a plan.
14. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, June 9, 2021 @ 5:30pm
15. Adjourned at 8.00p.m.
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Special Meeting Minutes
Monday, May 24, 2021 @ 7:00 p.m.
Meeting was held virtually
Committee Attendees: Shawn Goddard (Chair), Cathy Frank (Vice-Chair), Nic Anderson (Clerk), Bob Britt,
Donna Leban,
Committee Members Absent: Dana Farr, Amanda Holland, Havaleh Gagne,
Other Attendees: Ashley Parker (City Liaison), Marla Keene (City Development Review Planner)
1. Welcome and clarification of meeting procedures
2. Changes or additions to the agenda.
a. None
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda.
a. None
4. Special Topic-O’Brien Development -Old Farm Rd to Hinesburg Rd Bike/Ped connection -All (7:05
p.m.)
a. Objective: Review counter proposals from O’Brien Development Team & vote on our
formal feedback for the next DRB Meeting on Wednesday, 5/26
b. Shawn understands they would like to strike the multi-use path down Old Farm Road to
Hinesburg
c. Marla detailed four proposals.
i. Option 1 is Advisory Bike Lane - not supported by the City due to coming off a
state highway and Proposing rec path along future industrial road to Tilley Dr
ii. Option 2 is rec path on west side of Old Farm Road
iii. Option 3 is rec path on east side
iv. Option 4 is bike lanes on both sides
d. Nic asked if Obrien own the rights to the Pizzagalli property to Tilley Dr?
e. No, but have agreement with Pizzagalli.
f. Marla went out today and sold on East side of Old Farm Road. Could connect well to
Tilley Dr
g. Shawn asked if they propose a crossing at Old Farm Road.
h. Bob asked about timing of installing the possible rec path to Tilley Dr
i. Marla – Industrial is last phase so would need to make sure it was done earlier.
j. Bob asked about path up below recreation center and what phase that was.
k. Marla – Would be in third planned residential phase. Likely would be doing road
improvements at same time. Would argue it could be done without the road
l. Donna – Asked about east side of Old Farm Road section. Has Right Of Way but are
there existing trees. Looks bad to cut down mature trees to build a rec path.
m. Marla – 66ft ROW. Line of scrub on east side. Within scrub look to be 3 mature trees in
possible good health and three in poor. Two oaks and a maple. Would likely be on the
hook for doing some landscaping on front yards. There are utility lines but feel the path
could weave around the poles.
n. Shawn asked if there were issues with Tilley Dr path connector.
o. Marla – Not bad, but just think that it will cost more to do the path on the east side as
the Tilley Dr path could be easier. We already have an easement for the connecting road
so could do that path on our own later. Lou’s Bridge also helps as a commuter route
through to Kimball and Williston.
p. Donna – Need to have a path along Old Farm Road. Not sure why there is a possible
lawsuit. Perennial issue?
q. Marla – They previously asked for the road to be closed. On the west side they are 10ft
from ROW. There is plenty of items within the City ROW which would be more of an
issue with removing. Two houses on East.
r. Donna – Makes sense to have on East and intuitively be on the right.
s. Shawn – Asked about connection to Tilley Dr along 116 from Old Farm Road
t. Marla – Own a lot of ROW in front of the place on the corner of Old Farm Road and
think we could ask for the path connection over to the existing path in front of Red Barn
Deli.
u. Shawn asked for clarification
v. Bob – So we could still get the path at Tilley Dr anyway?
w. Marla – Correct, as part of that PUD
x. Bob asked about the path on Obrien Brothers Drive that was in Phase 1.
y. Marla – We will see that again so don’t even worry now.
z. Cathy – Supports East side path. Wondered about grade of the proposed purple rec path
from Tilley Dr.
aa. Marla – Detailed topographical plan and grades around
bb. Cathy – Seems like several different types of people using the Old Farm Road path.
Families with kids, older and younger. Commuters getting over to Kimball/Kennedy
intersection. Should be safe for big chunk of population. Leaning to east side.
cc. Nic – Big miss to have no pedestrian facilities. Regardless of bikes. Connectivity to Red
Barn Deli and Tilley Dr businesses should be huge for the residents of that location.
dd. Marla noted that for people that lives in Phase 1 that to get to Red Barn Deli will not
walk or bike all the way around, they will just drive.
ee. Donna – Need to build for walking first. Really walkable distances and easier to walk on
hills instead of bike.
ff. Shawn – Does the board want ranking or just one option chosen.
gg. Marla – Board did not ask for feedback. They seem torn between developers and the
City. The Bike Ped Committee could be the tie-breaker.
hh. Cathy – Sounds like there is a better potential for things to go through when there is a
backing from another group.
ii. Bob – Asked if the City should talk with the two property owners and figure it out before
they get upset.
jj. Shawn motion to recommend a multi-use path be installed on the east side of Old Farm
Road with connection to Tilley Dr. Reasons why:
i. Better grade
ii. Directness
iii. Designing for walking first
iv. Already walking on it anyway
v. Current residents wont want to walk on road once its busy.
kk. Cathy – Should note the “starting point”.
ll. Marla – Old Meadow Loop.
mm. Nic – Clarified connecting to existing path in front of Red Barn Deli, because its
already there to Tilley Dr.
nn. Shawn – Asked if anything else was needed.
oo. Nic asked if a written letter from Shawn is needed or just this.
pp. Marla – More powerful if there is a separate doc she can show at the meeting. Meeting
with Obrien tomorrow who may support it. Will find out.
qq. Donna – Asked if three trees needed to be destroyed, would the City propose replacing
them? Especially with larger, nicer trees like an Oak. Good faith thing.
rr. Marla – Will have to look at how to avoid them as much as possible. Large oak we would
be sad to see disappear unless it was bad inside.
ss. Shawn – Asked for minutes.
tt. Nic will send for him to draft a small statement
5. Bob – Asked who would be on City Council meeting tomorrow. Made sure there would not be a
quorum.
6. Adjourned at 7:51pm
Bike/Ped Staff Update – 6/9/2021
• DPW completed line striping along Queen City Park Road and White Street.
• Jessie Baker officially kicked off her role as South Burlington City Manager on June 1st.
• City staff are beginning to plan for the move to the new building in July. This involves packing,
cleaning, and drafting policies for the new building. A lot is happening behind the scenes to get
everyone ready for this move/transition. There will be a grand opening event on July 23rd. Stay
tuned for more information.
Penny for Paths Projects Updates – 6/9/2021
• Jug Handle Sidewalk: Additional lighting work and landscaping still need to be completed. DPW
has moved this project to the bottom of their 20+ project to-do list. At this time, DPW staff will
likely complete the remainder of this project in the fall. DPW will be painting the P4P stencil on
either end of the sidewalk in the near future.
• Allen Road Rec Path: Council approved a contract with Courtland Construction at a special
meeting on May 25th. We now have a signed contract and are planning a pre-construction
meeting. We hope to break ground on this project in June.
• South Dorset Street Shared Use Path: Staff hopes to have preliminary plans to review in June.
Once VTrans approves these plans, the project can move into the Right-of-Way phase.
• Underwood Parcel Shared Use Path: A kick-off meeting was held May 17th to officially launch
the design of the viewing area, on-site parking, and associated elements. We also met with Act
250 representatives to discuss permitting requirements, and looked into archaeology review.
The project team will be looking at a conceptual plan that will incorporate these elements into
the same plan as the shared use path. There will be a public meeting over the summer to
review. We hope to kick off the permitting process at the end of the summer/early fall.
• Kimball Culvert & Bike/Ped Infrastructure: There is a signed contract for the construction of this
project. The contractor expects to take control of the site and commence the 13-week closure
on August 2nd.
• RRFB Upgrades & Dorset Street Barriers: DPW is still moving both of these projects forward.
Justin did relay that they double-sided the East Terrace RRFB. DPW is ordering more materials
to outfit all other RRFBs in the same manner.
• Twin Oaks/Kennedy Drive Crosswalk: We now have a grant agreement from VTrans. The
engineering work is continuing.
• Spear Street Phase 1: We have a signed grant agreement from VTrans. Staff will be working
with VTrans to bring on a consultant to do the engineering/design work. We hope to get this
done in the next month or so.
• Hinesburg Road Crosswalks: Staff is reviewing the work done for the 1111 permit now. We are
very close to having a completed permit that can be submitted for review by VTrans. It is
possible we could kick these projects off this summer.
• Williston Road Crosswalk Project: Staff has been working on a grant application through the
VTrans Bike/Ped Program for the implementation of two proposed crosswalks across Williston
Road (Pillsbury Manor & Pine Tree Terrace/Davis Parkway). The grant application was
submitted on June 4th.
SB Bike Ped Signs
See map at:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=1_chQybbtCpL4vPZ1DoGJ2M0ezAwmWglV&usp=sharing
See table of existing and possible new wayfinding signs:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fDtfSJ33iiq06-PYsAxkA_j-KO99x8po60u6oF0v7zo/edit?usp=sharing
City Sign Design Guide
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mZ2jP5XXfAjQrgtz41dPvvVhWE6pZJ8q/view?usp=sharing
Sign Rules or Assumptions
Entrances to PARKS should have the primary Kiosk or park ID (not our deal)
Entrances to Paths should have bike directional or trail marker
Within paths should have secondary trail marker or secondary kiosk
Recommendations to focus on:
●Key entrances to paths with secondary Kiosk signs
●Key entrances to neighborhoods (ie Imperial) with bike directional signs
●Focus on hidden connectors with bike directional or trail signs
●QR Code panel on signs directing people to an online map to reduce need for big map panels
Quick List so far (thoughts?)
Kiosks top 5 ($9950)
1.Laurel Hill Dr (new)
2.Golf Course Heights (new)
3.Butler Drive at path to golf course (new)
4.Farrell St at bottom of 189 path (existing-ish)
5.Deerfield at entrance to path (replace existing)
Bike Directional ($774 each)
1.Prouty Parkway
2.Elsom Parkway
3.Birch St
4.OBrien Drive
5.Williston Road
6.Barber Terrace
7.Spear and Swift
8.Tilley Dr
9.Community Dr
10.Landon Rd
11.Imperial Dr
12.Lindenwood Dr
13.Laurel Hill Dr
14.Dutchess Ave
15.Dorset at Sadie
16.Farrell Park Woods junction
Approximate Costs
Bike Directional - As shown with 12” top panel and 5” bottom panel =$774
Main Panel 1-sided per vertical inch - $7
Main Panel 2-sided per vertical inch - $10
Lower Panel 1-sided per vertical inch - $9
Lower Panel 2-sided per vertical inch - $12
Bike Directional Post (black finish) - $194
Installation - $400
Trail Marker – Primary - As shown with 10” top panel and 6” bottom panel =$340
Angled upper panel per vertical inch - $10
Lower panel per vertical inch - $10
Angled post* - $80 (*black finish may be included)
Installation - $100
Trail Marker – Secondary
Angled upper panel per vertical inch - $9
Lower panel per vertical inch - $9
Angled post* - $60 (*black finish may be included)
Installation - $90
Primary Kiosk
Larger Panel 1-sided - $1,150 =6540
Larger Panel 2-sided - $2,208 =7598
Smaller Panel 1-sided - $276
Smaller Panel 2-sided - $532
Structure - $4,240
Installation - $1,150
Secondary Kiosk -$1990 (two sided)
Panel (1-sided) - $595
Structure - $480
Installation - $320
Tracked Changes Draft of Proposed “Charge” Update
SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION & PARKS
BIKE BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE
MISSION AND DUTIES
1. The South Burlington Recreation & Parks BikeBicycle & Pedestrian Committee
shall consist of seven to nine members, duly appointed by the City Council for
three year renewable terms, with the appointments staggered so that not more than
three appointed terms expire in any one year.
2. The Mission of the BikeBicycle & Pedestrian Committee is to oversee the general
operation of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including its many
recreational paths, sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks and including field trails and
sidewalks, and to advise the City Council of bicycle and pedestrian policy and
safety issues and operational needs and future development plans for the City’s
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including the path network.
3. The City’s Recreation & ParksCity Manager’s Department shall be the
coordinating office for the Recreation Path Committee.
4. The Recreation & Parks BikeBicycle and & Pedestrian Committee shall annually
elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Clerk.
5. Meetings shall be held at the discretion of the Committee. The Committee shall
establish a regular meeting schedule, and when a deviation from the regular
schedule is required, shall post public notice of the meeting in accordance with
general City procedures.
6. Meetings shall be held in a public facility or interactively online with full public
access. Meetings shall have a proposed agenda published in advance of each
meeting. Minutes of each meeting shall be recorded and maintained. A
representative of the Recreation & ParksCity Manager’s Department shall attend
each meeting of the Committee; other City staff shall attend as requested by the
Committee.
7. Duties of the Recreation & Parks BikeBicycle & Pedestrian Committee are:
a. Develop and recommend to the City Council rules and regulations for the
operation of all of the City’s Recreation Path system bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure in accordance with existing ordinances and
policies. The Committee shall develop and propose new and/or revised
ordinances and regulations as needed.
a.
b. Keep the City Council informed on the operation of the Recreation Path
system bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure through published minutes
and attendance at appropriate meetings.
b.
Tracked Changes Draft of Proposed “Charge” Update
c. Make recommendations to the Public Works Department of the City for
Recreation Path system bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure maintenance
needs, and meet quarterly with the Director of Public Works.
c.
d. Make recommendations to the Police Department of the City for
Recreation Path system bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure security
needs, and meet annually with Police Youth Services.
d.
e. Prepare and submit to the Recreation & Parks DepartmentCity an annual
operations Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for the new
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructureRecreation Path system.
e.
f. Prepare and submit to the Recreation & Parks Department City an annual
operations report suitable for inclusion in the Annual City Report.
f.
g. Recommend to the City Council future development of the Recreation
Path system, including routes, approximate costs, and time frame for
development.
h.g.Review all proposed developments and zoning changes which come
before the Development Review Board and/or the Planning Commission
for the impact upon the Recreation Path system City’s bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure; meeting with developers and City staff as is
appropriate. Ensure that opportunities for the gaining of additional
Recreation Path system bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure resources,
including completed facilities and the attainment of easements and rights
of way are considered. Review proposed changes for impact upon and the
protection of existing easements and rights of way. The conclusions
reached by the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee recreation Path
Committee in its review of proposed development and change shall be (i)
formally adopted by vote of the Committee, (ii) reflected in the minutes of
the meeting of the Committee, and (iii) appropriately communicated, in
writing, to the City Council, the Development Review Board and/or the
Planning Commission, and the impacted developer.
Adopted January 18, 2005 ? by City Council
Notation: Updated by Recreation & Parks Director of Committee Name Change 7-29-15
Clean Draft of Proposed “Charge” Update
SOUTH BURLINGTON
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE
MISSION AND DUTIES
1. The South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee shall consist of seven to
nine members, duly appointed by the City Council for three year renewable terms,
with the appointments staggered so that not more than three appointed terms
expire in any one year.
2. The Mission of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee is to oversee the general
operation of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including its many
recreational paths, sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks and trails, and to advise the
City Council of bicycle and pedestrian policy and safety issues and operational
needs and future development plans for the City’s bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure including the path network.
3. The City Manager’s Department shall be the coordinating office for the
Recreation Path Committee.
4. The Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee shall annually elect a Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, and Clerk.
5. Meetings shall be held at the discretion of the Committee. The Committee shall
establish a regular meeting schedule, and when a deviation from the regular
schedule is required, shall post public notice of the meeting in accordance with
general City procedures.
6. Meetings shall be held in a public facility or interactively online with full public
access. Meetings shall have a proposed agenda published in advance of each
meeting. Minutes of each meeting shall be recorded and maintained. A
representative of the City Manager’s Department shall attend each meeting of the
Committee; other City staff shall attend as requested by the Committee.
7. Duties of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee are:
a. Develop and recommend to the City Council rules and regulations for the
operation of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in accordance
with existing ordinances and policies. The Committee shall develop and
propose new and/or revised ordinances and regulations as needed.
b. Keep the City Council informed on the operation of the bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure through published minutes and attendance at
appropriate meetings.
Clean Draft of Proposed “Charge” Update
c. Make recommendations to the Public Works Department of the City for
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure maintenance needs, and meet
quarterly with the Director of Public Works.
d. Make recommendations to the Police Department of the City for bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure security needs.
e. Prepare and submit to the City an annual Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) budget for new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
f. Prepare and submit to the City an annual operations report suitable for
inclusion in the Annual City Report.
g. Review all proposed developments and zoning changes which come
before the Development Review Board and/or the Planning Commission
for the impact upon the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure;
meeting with developers and City staff as is appropriate. Ensure that
opportunities for the gaining of additional bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure resources, including completed facilities and the attainment
of easements and rights of way are considered. Review proposed changes
for impact upon and the protection of existing easements and rights of
way. The conclusions reached by the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee in
its review of proposed development and change shall be (i) formally
adopted by vote of the Committee, (ii) reflected in the minutes of the
meeting of the Committee, and (iii) appropriately communicated, in
writing, to the City Council, the Development Review Board and/or the
Planning Commission, and the impacted developer.
Adopted ? by City Council
Neighborhood Schools Greenway Treatments
MAJOR DECISION...Need to decide what parts of greenway receive what treatments.
See summary document on next page.
See examples of treatments here and here.
Concept could be:
Gateway Features
To calm traffic turning onto Elsom or Prouty
To highlight that bikes and peds have priority
Speed Reduction
20 MPH speed limit?
Street markings
Bike and ped symbols every few hundred feet in middle of lanes
Mileage signs
For people walking to school, an indication of how really close it is
Trail signs at connection points
Through woods at Elsom and Prouty
Across trail from Birch to OBrien
At Sunset on Hinesburg
MAJOR DECISION...Need to decide what level of public outreach we do
A)Inform them a pilot project is planned and then ask for feedback after through public process
B)Do full public process up front which will likely delay project
Neighborhood-Schools Greenway
The Concept
Create a Neighborhood Greenway from Elsom Parkway to Dorset St to create a "Safe Route to School" for
middle and high schoolers. This could involve pavement markings and signs. Also would involve installing a
key crosswalk on Hinesburg Rd at Prouty Parkway (already planned but not executed) which is technically a
state-controlled road. For safety, pleasantness, placemaking,neighborhood calming. Could have 20mph speed
limit? Art?
The Route
Essentially following a 1 mile route from Williston Road
●Down Elsom Parkway,
●through the City Owned woods at the end through to Prouty Parkway,
●crosswalk over Hinesburg Rd,
●Up Hinesburg a little on the West Side path,
●Down Sunset Ct (lilac has a path at the end but it is private property. People use it now but likely would
not be able to have a sanctioned route on it),
●through the official city ROW path from Birch St to O’Brien,
●along O’Brien Dr on the street and then
●through the cut at the end of Barrett to the Middle School.
The Need:
Planning help. Use of the LM Demonstration Trailer.Expertise. Signs
Timing:
Would be awesome to spend the winter planning and do a two month pilot from April 15-June 15. Could do a
bunch of promotion in colab with the two schools to encourage kids to walk and ride the route to school
especially during May Bike Month. May and June, could gather feedback from users to find out if they have
walked or biked to school before, if this encouraged them to, if they felt safer etc. Late June, could gather
additional feedback and hope to do permanent installation during August.
Outreach/Engagement
●State - Demonstration project permit - Jonathon
○New VTRANS Pilot project guidance document
■April 15-Dec 1 is max. How long do we want this?
■Need to demonstrate support for project from City Council
■Traffic Control plan required for install and maintenance.Likely not allowed to just do
volunteers. Would need to flaggers.
■Public engagement required
■Permitting - Phase 1 - Back and forth/Pitch first to find out their temp and get their
feedback etc which could take a few months
■Phase 2 - Section 111 permit for install after that.Potential fees but likely not. State
issues decision within 30 days.
■Well under maxes for ADT and speed
■Should not do where active constructions project are proposed. Jonathan to dive in
further.
■Needs to have clear need. CCRPC scoping study likely enough. Could go out to survey
but likely not needed
■All markings MUTCD compliant. Could be challenge on Hinesburg. Find out where
highway ROW is (traveled or full width)
■May need to install more MUTCD crosswalk signs before and after crosswalk.
■Waivers needed for all people helping with installation.Need to submit with Phase 2
application. LM, SBBPC and prob even DPW if we need them.
■Cities Liability can cover - May need ashley to sign etc.
■Need evaluation of project. Could have camera setup to do counts initially.
●Neighbors - Getting buy in and excitement - Mayfair Park FB Group. Flyering. Lawn signs for “coming
soon”?
●School Community - Nic to ask if school can provide list of where students are located? No names etc?
Have bike-ped committee to ask
●Metrics if it helped - before and after surveys
●Current users
Other thoughts
Middle of the day activities - walking groups - Could there be some connectivity there. Dana to concept.
Connection with Rec and Parks on greenway to camps.Dana to reach out to Ben McShane
Review
Concept approved by SBBPC on Nov 2019 to explore and plan. Emailed Local Motion Nov 15, 2019 to ask for
their support.
Signs
Should design and install lawn signs along the route (with the hope that it becomes permanent signage after
that). This would help be a visual reminder to walk and bike to school. Could use a design like this…(total hack
job but you get the idea)
Phase 2:
If successful, could expand the greenway to connect the Chamberlin Neighborhood across Williston Road
(crosswalks planned there too) through to the schools as well as south down Dorset St with signage
Phase 3:
Do the same at Orchard to get kids from that neighborhood to bike to HS/MS and to elementary school. Lots of
neighborhood streets and some great path connections too. See orange lines for greenway connectors
Project Status Review 06-09-21
Project Name Ranking Description
Planned
"Spending" Start
Per CIP
Expected
Completion
Date
Scoping Study
Completed
Present
Cost
Estimate
CIP Projects - Currently in Process:
Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper)Connect Baycrest Rec Path to South Village Rec Path including Spear crosswalk 2021 season Yes
Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 1)Rec Path over Muddy Brook conduit at Williston town line to connect to
Technology Park Rec Path 2021 season Yes
Williston Road Crosswalk Locations - Elsom Pkwy May be combined with Davis Parkway 2022 season Yes
Williston Road Crosswalk Locations - Mills Ave
Connects to shared-use path to Chamberlain neighborhoods and elementary
near Mills Ave on north side and to pharmacy, shops and restaurants on south
side.
2022 season Yes
S. Dorset Street Shared Use Path Paralell to Dorset St between Old Cross Rd and Sadie Lane filling the gap in the
existing path system 2023 season Yes
Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Locations Includes crosswalks at Ruth, Prouty Pkwy & the Awasiwi Trail 2021 season Yes
Kennedy Dr/W. Twin Oaks Terrace Crosswalk Connects to bus stops and The Edge Sports facility across busy road 2021 season Yes
City Rec Path Wayfinding Project Design and installation of wayfinding signage 2021 season?N/A
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 1)Connects the rec path at the U.S. Forest Service to the rec paths at Songbird Rd
and Swift St 2024 season? N/A
Underwood Park Property Open Space CIP - Rec Path between South Pointe and Nowland Farm 2022 season?N/A $90K of P4P
RRFB Upgrades 2021 season?N/A
Dorset Street Barriers 2021 season N/A
CIP Projects - Put on Hold:
Airport Parkway (Phase 1)Yes ~562K
CIP Projects - Not in Progress:
Queen City Park Road Sidewalk Add about 600 feet of sidewalk along Queen City Park Road, connecting the
Water District with Central Ave.FY 2023 FY 2024 In Process $100K
Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 2)
Originally to construct rec path between Technology Park and Kennedy Drive, but
due to O'Brien Eastview Development, we only need section over Potash Brook
to connect Technology Park Path to the O'Brien Path.
FY 2024 FY 2026 No ~200K
Hinesburg Rd Bike Facilities Rec path on west side of road to replace sidewalk FY 2024 FY 2027 Yes $500K
Shelburne Rd Crosswalk Imp Relocate and mark new crosswalk, and install new signalling at the intersection
of Queen City Park Rd. and Shelburne Rd.FY 2024 FY 2025 In Process $116K
Allen Rd. Sidewalks (Lower)Preliminarily agreed to be a wider than a sidewalk asphalt path FY 2025 FY 2026 Yes $307K
Vale to Spear/Swift Streets Path This is the Developer funded path for the Spear Meadows housing development.
This path will not reach Swift Street. (see below) FY 2026 FY 2026 N/A $0
Airport Parkway (Phase 2)
Phase 2 is a continuation of the work completed in the Phase 1 Airport Parkway
project. This will connect existing sidewalk along Airport Parkway at Berard
Drive with existing infrastructure at Lime Kiln Road. It will also look at how to
incorporate bike/ped infrastructure at the intersection of Airport Parkway, Lime
Kiln, and Ethan Allen Dr.
FY 2026 FY 2029 Yes? $800K
Page 1 of 3
Project Status Review 06-09-21
Project Name Ranking Description
Planned
"Spending" Start
Per CIP
Expected
Completion
Date
Scoping Study
Completed
Present
Cost
Estimate
Shelburne Road Ped/Bike Facilities Now being proposed to be a asphalt expansion of existing sidewalks in apron
area from Imperial Drive to MacIntosh/Fayette FY 2026 FY 2028 N/A? $578K???
Queen City Park Road Shared Use Path Construction of a shared use path from the Shelburne Road to the entrance of
the Burlington Shared Use Path.FY 2026 FY 2027 In Process $300K
Spear Street/UVM Bike/Ped Infrastructure Design and construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along Spear
Street, between UVM's Athletic Facility and Route 2.FY 2028 FY 2030 Yes? $790K
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 2)Design and construct a sidewalk and on-road bike facilities from the Swift Street
intersection to the Shelburne Town line. FY 2028 FY 2030 No $450K
Intersection Improvements to the Airport Parkway/Lime
Kiln Intersection
Project from Roads CIP - Overall intersection improvements per 2006 Road
Safety Audit Review and 2014 Sidewalk Gaps Study FY 2023 FY 2025 Yes $70K of P4P
Additional Rec Paths to be Considered:
Hinesburg Road From Kennedy Drive south to Cheese Factory Road No ~$3 MM
Spear Street (Phase 3) West side at Long Property between South Pointe Drive and Preserve Road N/A, I hope $0
Spear Street (Phase 4) West side between Swift St and entrance to Spear Meadow development No $200K
Airport Drive/Airport Parkway From Williston Road out Route 15 at Cholchester Town Line No?~$2.8MM
?
?
Additional Crosswalks to be Considered:
St John Vianney State recommending better signage in lieu of RRFBs that BPC wanted N/A
Wright Court Left out of 2021 build above Yes
Songbird Rd & Dorset Critical link from planned rec path on Spear from US Forest Service path to Swift
Street for people to get to City Center, Schools & Veterans Park No?
Dorset Street & UMall & Garden St. Intersection Need North/South facing pedestrian-activated, crosswalk lights to cross from
Healthy Living to Trader Joe's on east side and from Sears Auto to
Xfinity/Comcast on west side. Need crossing lights and traffic light timing (?).
N/A
Across Shelburne Rd at Brewer Parkway & New
Hannaford Entrance
Need East/West crosswalk across Shelburne Road. Distances between nearby
crosswalks are too far. Will need State approval, etc.No
Shelburne Rd at Laurel Hill Dr & Hannaford Drive Need North/South crosswalk across Shelburne Road. Distances between nearby
crosswalks are too far. Will need State approval, etc.No
Across Hinesburg Rd. at Dubois Dr/Butler Dr Already has sidewalks on both sides. Easy in terms of engineering but 45MPH.
Needs state review and RRFB at least!No
Cider Mill Dr Where rec path crosses road near mail boxes. Just needs paint
Done by DPW
spring 2021 N/A
Ascension Church on Allen Needs FFRB and landings. Will intersect with lower Allen Road project No
Across Spear Street at Pheasant Way to get to South
Pointe Dr Will need short stretch of sidewalk to get to South Pointe No
Page 2 of 3
Project Status Review 06-09-21
Project Name Ranking Description
Planned
"Spending" Start
Per CIP
Expected
Completion
Date
Scoping Study
Completed
Present
Cost
Estimate
Across Dorset St. at Park Rd to connect to Nicklaus Circle Needs path or sidewalk to connect with Nicklaus. May require partnership with
association for possibly them intalling sidewalk No
Davis Parkway/Pine Tree Terrace Maybe done in conjunction with Elsom Parkway crosswalk Yes
?
?
?
?
Additional Sidewalks to be Considered:
Proctor Ave around to Fairmont Place On northside of road across from entrance to Rice High School No
Across Spear Street at Pheasant Way See related crosswalk above No
?
?
Page 3 of 3