Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - City Council - 04/06/2015
AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Regular Session 6:30 P.M. April 6, 2015 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (6:30 – 6:32 PM) 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (6:32 – 6:42 PM) 3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report. (6:42 – 6:52 PM) 4. Consent Agenda: (6:52 – 6:54 PM) A. *** Sign Disbursement B. *** Approve Minutes for March 16th and March 26 C. *** Police Station lease and fit-up resolution D. ***Designate Maggie Leugers, Rec. Dir., as City representative to DPSA Board E. *** Approve Grant request for State Class 2 Town Highway Program 5. Drawing for 2015 Top Dog and First Feline – D. Kinville, City Clerk (6:54 – 7:00 PM) 6. East Terrace/Spear Street Neighborhood discussion – property owners invited. (7:00 – 7:45 PM) 7. UVM Housing and Planning presentation by UVM Vice Provost Annie Stevens (7:45 – 8:15 PM) 8. *** Approve recommended concepts for Garden Street and Dumont Park design – Ilona Blanchard (8:15 – 8:25 PM) 9. Appoint Council member to serve on the Interview Committee for Auditor – Tom Hubbard (8:25 – 8:30 PM) 10. *** Follow-up discussion on Underwood Property Task Force Report – Tom Hubbard (8:30 – 8:50 PM) 11. ***Consideration of motion pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 708(a) to initiate proceedings to discontinue an approximately 5’ x 345’ portion of the Market Street rightofway – Paul Conner (8:50 – 9:00 PM) 12. Designate The Other Paper as the “Paper of Record” and the Burlington Free Press as the backup Paper of Record. (9:00 – 9:05 PM) 13. ***Convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Board to approve the following: (9:05 – 9:15 PM) *** Special event permit-VT Spirits @ Higher Ground (4/23/15) *** Entertainment permitsVenue Nightclub, Sheraton, Growler Garage, Higher GroundMoose Lodge, Franny O’s *** First/Second Class licenses Gonzo’s Golf, Waterfront Catering, Magic Hat, Jolley#107, Jolley#146,Healthy Living, Hannaford’s(Dorset St.),Silver Palace, Sugarsnap, Windjammer (+outside consumption) Price Chopper, Applebees, Outback, Kinney Drugs#55, Aviation Deli, Cheese Traders, Zachary’s Pizza, Marco’s Pizza, VT Sports Grill, Champlain Farms (3), Van Phan Billiards, U Save, Skinny Pancake @ Airport, Growler Garage (+outside Consumption) 802 Cocktails, Hannaford’s (Hannaford Drive), Shaw’s, Koto, Pauline’s, Simon’s, Klinger’s, Shelburne Rd Variety, Sheraton (2), Franny O’s, Homewood Suites, Venue (with conditions) 14. Other Business: (9:15 – 9:20 PM) A. Items held from the Consent Agenda 15. Adjourn (9:20 PM) Respectfully Submitted: Kevin Dorn Kevin Dorn, City Manager *** Attachments Included Issues raised by Councilors or the public that have not been on a prior meeting agenda: 1. Policy regarding landscaping City-owned land and request from Hadley Road. 2. Encouraging litter removal by businesses and the public. 3. Cost of development/cost of open space. 4. Airport noise survey 5. Meeting with Department Directors on future staffing needs 6. Meet with Lisa Bedinger, Community Justice Center 7. Employee appreciation policy 8. City Manager evaluation Issues that have been discussed by the Council where further action is pending: 1. FY ’15 and ’16 paving budget. 2. East Terrace neighborhood conversion of housing into rental units. 3. Street light policy. 4. Committee reorganization. South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible; but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings, we kindly request your cooperation and compliance with the following guidelines. 1. Please be respectful of each other (Council members, staff, and the public). 2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address. 3. Please address the Chair and not other members of the public, staff, or presenters. 4. Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficient time for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda. 5. The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time. 6. The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard. 7. Please do not interrupt when others are speaking. 8. Please do not repeat the points made by others, except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views. 9. Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are other conversations occurring. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY COUNCIL March 26, 2015 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, March 26, 2015, at 6:25 PM, in the Cafeteria of the Chamberlin Elementary School on White Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Nowak, Chair, C. Shaw, Vice Chair, M. Emery, Tom Chittenden ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager 1. Agenda Review There were no changes made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. There were no comments or questions from the public. 3. Approve and Sign Disbursements. C. Shaw moved to approve the disbursements. T. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission. C. Shaw moved to convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission. M. Emery seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Chaw moved to approve the following: *** Special Event Permit, Boyden Valley Winery, Sheraton (3/31/15) M. Emery seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Shaw moved to adjourn the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission. M. Emery seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Adjourn C. Shaw moved to adjourn. T. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 6:30 PM. __________________________, Clerk R-2015 - RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND SIGN A CONTRACT WITH R.E.M DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE CONTRACTING SERVICES FOR THE SHELL REMODEL AND FIT-UP OF 19 GREGORY DRIVE WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the City to enter into a lease with the United States as negotiated by the GSA for a portion of 19 Gregory Drive; and, WHEREAS, the lease has been executed and as a condition of the lease both shell and tenant improvements are required; and, WHEREAS, the Council has anticipated these costs and budgeted for them in the FY16 budget and with a note from the Sewer Enterprise Fund; and, WHEREAS, R.E.M. Development Company, LLC built and is co- owner of 19 Gregory Drive with the City of South Burlington and has great familiarity with the building; and, WHEREAS, R.E.M. Development Company, LLC is a contractor of good standing in the community; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has authorized the selection of R.E.M Development Company as a sole source provider in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and sign a contract with R.E.M. Development Company, LLC as required to construct shell and tenant improvements for the 19 Gregory Drive Lease No GS-01P-LVT04969. APPROVED this _____ day of April, 2015. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Pat Nowak, Chair Chris Shaw, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Clerk Meaghan Emery __________________________________ Tom Chittenden TO: City Council FROM: Tom Hubbard, DCM RE: Proposed Appointment DATE: April 3, 2015 Councilors: With the recent appointment of Maggie Leugers as our new Director of Recreation & Parks, City Management proposes that the Council appoint Maggie as the City representative to the Dorset Park Skating Association (DPSA) Board of Directors. This is consistent with the other appointments over the years, with the Recreation Director (including myself in past years), serving in this capacity. This item will appear on the Consent Agenda for Monday evening, feel free to contact me with any questions. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com REGULAR SESSION To: Kevin Dorn, City Manager From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director Subject: City Center Project Definition: Dumont Park and Garden Street Date: April 3, 2015 Background: Last year the City initiated two City Center projects: City Center – Dumont Park which assessed land for inclusion into the park, access to the park, and the design of the park. Garden Street connecting Dorset Street to Midas Drive and including two Williston Road intersections. The Dumont Park team has completed recommendations which will fully define the general concepts to be used in the project and the Garden Street project has completed most of the recommendations needed to define the project. Attachments: Dumont Park Resolution Dumont Park Phase A Summary and Recommendations Garden Street Resolution Garden Street Project Definition Report Recommendation: Review and vote on attached resolutions Additional Consideration: Approved recommendations will be used to develop the Master Plan that will be submitted for Market Street wetland permits. R-2015- RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ALIGNMENT AND CONCEPTUAL STREET TYPICALS FOR THE GARDEN STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, Garden Street has long been recommended as a downtown City Center street and included in planning for City Center such as the Capital Improvement Program, current and draft Land Use Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, the Official Map, the Impact Fee Ordinance, the Market Street Environmental Assessment, the adopted South Burlington-City Center Tax Increment Financing District Plan, and is included in private sector projects most recently within the Trader Joe’s development; and, WHEREAS, in 2013 the City authorized the City Manager to contract with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. to complete the construction documents for Garden Street and associated City Center intersections; and WHEREAS, in 2014 the consultant team initiated the project definition phase of the project including the documentation of existing conditions, and WHEREAS, community and stakeholder outreach was conducted including a site walkabout, a workshop, online material and property owner, committee and agency outreach to prepare the “Purpose and Need Statement” that was adopted by the Planning Commission and against which the options were vetted and culminated in public and additional stakeholder outreach in late winter to assess alignment and street typical alternatives (all in conformance with the draft form based codes street standards) including a workshop, an elementary school classroom exercise, and online; and WHEREAS, the consultant team completed a draft project definition report which includes a recommended alignment (Exhibit A), a street typical alternative concept (Exhibit B) for Garden Street between the bridge and the southern edge of the City owned parcel adjacent to the Rick Marcotte Central School which is a modification to the alternative generally supported in outreach as suggested by the main adjacent property owner’s representative, and street typical alternatives for the aforementioned parcel (Exhibit C and D); and WHEREAS, the community-supported alternative includes both multi-modal and garden like characteristics including a buffered bicycle facility (as the primary southeast-northwest dedicated bicycle facility in City Center), sidewalks on both side, a landscape strip adequate to support shade trees and bio retention, narrow travel lanes that both calm traffic and support buses, and parking on both sides interspaced with landscaping; and WHEREAS, the South Burlington Realty requested modifications to the community-supported conceptual street typical at the completion of the public outreach phase included wider sidewalks on the north side and widening the overall width to shift the landscaping from bumpouts interspaced with parking stalls within the parking lane to a green strip between the parking and the pedestrian/bicycle facilities which was supported by the consultant team as it results in more parking and more trees which are also objectives expressed by the community; and WHEREAS, the consultant team proposed two alternative concepts for the full 100-foot right of way adjacent to the Rick Marcotte Central School property and which were equally supported by the community and have all the features in common with the recommended Garden Street alternative with the addition of a garden strip which may be in the center of (a median) or to one side of the travel lanes pending review by the Fire Department; and, WHEREAS, the preferred alignment location is largely guided by a) the location of land acquired for purpose of building Garden Street or for which the City has an irrevocable offer of dedication, b), the location of a stormwater pond which is funded by the Army Corp of Engineers and for which design has been completed, right-of-way obtained and which is near construction after significant study, review, and negotiation, and c) it is the option which would be the most desirable with respect to providing opportunities for buildings or attractive landscaping fronting Garden Street on both sides along the length. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council hereby approves the following: 1. A preferred alignment for Garden Street as shown in Exhibit A. 2. A preferred minimum public street width of 76.5 feet running between the Garden Street bridge and the southern boundary of the property that the City owns adjacent to the Rick Marcotte Central School land and concept generally for a street typical as shown in Exhibit B. 3. A preferred minimum public street width of 100 feet for a “gateway” feature on the land the City owns adjacent to the Rick Marcotte Central School which contains the same accommodations as the main conceptual typical and either a garden in the street median as shown in Exhibit C or on the side as shown in Exhibit D. APPROVED this _____ day of April, 2015. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Pat Nowak, Chair Chris Shaw, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Clerk Meaghan Emery __________________________________ Tom Chittenden R-2015- RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREFERRED CITY CENTER-DUMONT PARK PROJECT PREFERRED CONCEPT, CIRCULATION PLAN AND LAND ACQUISITION WHEREAS, Dumont Park was acquired in 1975 has long been recommended as a park serving the adjacent neighborhoods and more recently City Center street and included in planning for City Center such as the Capital Improvement Program, the Official Map, the Impact Fee Ordinance, the adopted South Burlington-City Center Tax Increment Financing District Plan, and referenced in documents such as the Market Street Environmental Assessment; and, WHEREAS, in 2014 the City authorized the City Manager to contract with Landworks to complete the construction documents for Dumont Park; and WHEREAS, in 2014 the consultant team initiated the project definition phase of the project including the documentation of existing conditions, and WHEREAS, community and stakeholder outreach was conducted including an onsite workshop, online material and property owner, committee and agency outreach to prepare the “Purpose and Need Statement” that was adopted by the Planning Commission and against which the options were vetted and culminating in public and additional stakeholder outreach in late winter to the circulation and concept alternatives; and WHEREAS, the consultant team completed a draft project definition report which includes a recommended circulation infrastructure and location (Exhibit A), a Dumont Park concept (Exhibit B) and future land acquisition; and WHEREAS, the community-supported generally features within the presented park alternatives included the arched boardwalk as a connection between Dumont Park and the future downtown, a north-south recreation path connection, a system of light-impact walking/running trails undivided by the recreation path, a general gathering location and some minimal structures in keeping with the natural character of the area, respecting the privacy of adjacent neighbors and ecological and hydrological enhancements; and WHEREAS, Landworks has recommended a preferred alternative which combines the supported features of the four plans submitted; and WHEREAS, the community expressed a general preference for a) a southwest – northeast bicycle connection on Garden Street rather than alongside the wetland buffer zone and behind buildings and parking lots, b) a connection between San Remo Drive and Garden Street, and c) a connection to the Village Green; and WHEREAS, the land west of and adjacent to Dumont Park is at risk of development and provides a green wooded buffer between Dumont Park and the development on San Remo Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council hereby approves the following: 1. A preferred park concept for Dumont Park as shown in Exhibit B. 2. A preferred circulation plan as shown in Exhibit A. 3. Exploration of land acquisition of the parcel directly to the west of and adjacent to Dumont Park. APPROVED this _____ day of April, 2015. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Pat Nowak, Chair Chris Shaw, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Clerk Meaghan Emery __________________________________ Tom Chittenden CITY CENTER - DUMONT PARK Phase A Alternatives Summary & Recommendations Prepared by: LandWorks With Assistance from: Jackie Brookner | Engineering Ventures North Woods Ecological Consulting | Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. The Team Project Initiation Site Analysis Key Takeaways - from Public Meeting #1: “A Park Walk & Talk” Key Takeaways - from Stakeholder Meeting Resources Inventory Map The Site Over Time Photo Inventory Purpose & Need Statement Design Alternatives Overview Overall Circulation Concepts & Conceptual Site Plans Potential Amenities Key Takeaways - From Public Meeting #2: “Public Design Workshop” Evaluation Matrix Preferred Alternative Overall Circulation Plan Conceptual Site Plan Summary of Recommendations Preferred Alternative Plan: The Basis for Selection Recommended Property Acquisition and Easements Next Steps 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 20 24 25 33 35 39 33 34 35 37 CONTENTS DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 1 Landscape Architects: LandWorks David Raphael Principal, Licensed Landscape Architect and Planner Patrick Olstad Landscape Architect, LEED and Sustainability Specialist Ecological Artist/Designer: Jackie Brookner Civil/Structural Engineers: Engineering Ventures Kevin P. Worden Project Manager, Vice President Paul Boisvert Senior Engineer/Principal Russ Miller-Johnson Senior Engineer/Principal Ecological and Wetlands Consultant: North Woods Ecological Consulting April J. Moulaert Principal, ecological consultant Archeological Consultant: Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Thomas R. Jamison Principal Investigator Elise Manning-Sterling Project Manager City of South Burlington: Ilona Blanchard Project Manager Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works Paul Conner Director of Planning & Zoning Tom DiPietro Deputy Director of Public Works THE TEAM 2 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 PROJECT INITIATION As noted in the City-issued Request for Qualifications (issued January 31, 2014) the goal of this project is to develop “a publicly accessible passive recreation space – with trails, entrance gateway treatments, minimal furniture, discoverable mysteries and sufficient infrastructure to allow for the enjoyment and protection of Potash Brook and associated wetlands and buffers.” The park was identified as a natural area that would serve South Burlington’s envisioned City Center downtown by establishing a peaceful respite amidst a dynamic downtown environment. Additional potential goals identified by the City include serving adjacent neighborhoods and business communities and creating non-motorized vehicular north-south connections and east-west connections along Tributary 3 of Potash Brook. Although not directly stated in the RFQ, it is clear that City Center – Dumont Park should be a special place. The artful melding of landscape, ecology, and community can be a powerful means of creating a memorable sense of place. Creating such a park would not only serve the local community but also help to attract new urban infill development within City Center. In terms of the design process, engagement with the broader public and stakeholders was identified as crucial to developing designs that truly respond to the needs and preferences of the community. LandWorks established a diverse team of professionals, which includes landscape architects, an ecological artist, a wetlands ecologist, a civil engineer, and an archeologist, to creatively meet all of the goals identified by the City and established by the public process. SITE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Project Area and Context Dumont Park is a 7.65-acre parcel acquired in 1975 by the City of South Burlington with funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This wooded parcel of land is tucked into the Iby/Barrett Street neighborhood just south of Tributary 3 of Potash Brook. The full build- out of the Park is envisioned to span from this City- owned parcel to land(s) associated with the future City Center development to the north, and it could include the parcel immediately to the west as well. In terms of land use, residential neighborhoods border the site to the south and east, while commercial properties along San Remo Drive and Dorset Street are located to the west. The property immediately to the north is currently undeveloped but is the site of the future mixed-use City Center district. There are three schools in the vicinity; Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School and South Burlington High School to the south and Rick Marcotte Central School to the north. Existing Conditions Analysis Character and Use The Dumont Park parcel is mostly wooded with small clearings, and it possesses a natural character separate and distinct from the surrounding land uses. Within the park there is some visibility of Barrett and Iby Street residences (primarily backyards) and buildings on San Remo Drive, particularly in winter. Traffic noise is audible from Dorset Street and surrounding roads. There are worn footpaths present on site, and the park currently serves as an informal neighborhood open space with no signage to identify it as a park. There are currently no amenities present on site. Typical activities include walking and running, dog walking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, and some biking by kids. Current access to the park is primarily from the end of Iby Street, with a relatively steep and unstable dirt slope leading to a small wood footbridge of poor quality that crosses the shallow channel along DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 3 the eastern property line. A few unmarked parking spaces are located in a gravel area at the end of Iby Street. There is currently informal access to the Iby Street entrance through a property owner’s yard on Barrett Street, and there is informal access through private property along the south side of Tributary 3. There is currently no direct connection to the land north of Tributary 3 due to the absence of a bridge. Microclimate Due to the forest cover, the site is cooler than surrounding developed areas, and it possesses a moist microclimate in summer months. Forest cover and understory shrubs provide wind buffering, and shade cast by the canopy cover aids in snow retention during the winter. Topography and Soils The site is primarily level with some hummock and swale patterns. The vertical change is approximately 7 feet from the high point (elevation 311’) to the low point (elevation 304’). There is no exposed bedrock or ledge. Seasonal surface water is present at times, especially in spring. Soils present on site are classified as Duane and Deerfield soils, 0-5 percent slopes, with the following USDA description: These soils formed in sandy glaciofluvial deposits on terraces and outwash plains. Duane soils are very deep to bedrock and moderately well drained. These soils have a water table at depths of 1.5 to 2.0 feet below the surface from mid-winter through late spring. Permeability is moderately rapid. Deerfield soils are very deep to bedrock and moderately well drained. These soils have a water table at depths of 1.5 to 3.0 feet below the surface from early winter through early spring. Permeability is moderately rapid or rapid in the surface, rapid in the subsoil and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. Natural Communities Wetlands Class Two and Class Three wetlands, which are primarily forested, are present on the Dumont Park parcel. A stream-like (possibly man-made) channel with sparse vegetative cover and eroding banks is located along the eastern boundary of the park, which appears to primarily carry rainwater runoff from the adjacent neighborhoods north to Tributary 3. Tributary 3 drains to Potash Brook, which is classified by the State of Vermont as impaired. Forest According to historical aerial photos, this site was completely cleared in 1942 and the property was farmed up until the 1960’s. The site appears to have been almost completely forested in 1973, and it is now entirely forested. In terms of tree cover, the site is predominantly red maple forest with white pine, poplar, and some oak. Additional tree species present include paper birch, black cherry, beech, and hemlock. Shrub understory species include beaked hazelnut, witch hazel, species of Viburnum and Canadian yew. Herbaceous species present include sensitive fern, intermediate wood fern and Canada mayflower. Invasive species present on site include buckthorn, which is particularly pervasive on much of the parcel, and honeysuckle. Invasive Species Invasive species present on site include buckthorn, which is particularly pervasive on much of the parcel, and honeysuckle. Habitat The Dumont Park site does not provide significant wildlife habitat due to its limited connectivity to other habitat types and its location in an urbanized setting. The wetlands, in particular the ones associated with Tributary 3, do provide habitat for wildlife such as songbirds, reptiles, and amphibians. Small mammals such as squirrels and other rodents are present within the forest, and the occasional deer has been seen on the property. Cultural Resources The area is considered archaeologically sensitive for pre-contact resources, but otherwise no identified cultural resources are present. 4 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 KEY TAKEAWAYS From Public Meeting #1: “A Park Walk & Talk” Character • Want minimal footprint - don’t want to see drastic changes. • Maintain natural character (especially on Barrett Street side of Tributary 3). • Minimal clearings unless it improves on the landscape. Access & Circulation • Strong connections - multiple points of access to park. • Pedestrian & bike connection between City Center and neighborhoods needed (with potential lighting on this main path). • Very wet site in spring throughout. What does it take to make it 4-season accessible? Boardwalks? Protecting ecology of site might result in more developed appearance. • Provide direct access to students - Central School lacks nature trails. • Consider security. • Some seating desirable. Education / Interpretation • Possible outdoor classrooms. • Interpretation and ID tree species. • Draw attention to different ecological zones and wetland. Ecology • Remove invasive species (in particular buckthorn)! • Bring ecological health back to park - ecological restoration, not just invasive species management. • Plant wildflowers. Community • Didn’t know park existed - wonderful asset for City. • Create sense of ownership and build community volunteer work days. • Important amenity for future City Center development. DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS From Stakeholder Meeting Neighbors • Recommend extending the boundaries of the park. • Place to walk dogs, but should not be a ‘dog park’. • Place for cross-country skiing in winter. • Used by children / to and from school. • Concerns regarding security and homeless people in park. • Priorities: ›1st - make it neighborhood park. ›2nd - green space to offset urban development and density. ›3rd - place for Central School field trips. Stakeholders & Committees • Want to be able to walk N/S from Market Street. • Bike connection through park, potentially limit bike use otherwise. • Strong case for lighting. • Park can serve as a “bridge” between urban and natural. • Self guided nature trails around perimeter for walkers. • Circular path around park seems logical. • Potential for Olmsted style plantings - ‘crafted nature’? 6 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center Park DATE: December 4, 2014 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Base Map: Site 0 50’100’200’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Class II wetland Class III wetland 50’ wetland buffer Existing path Existing significant deciduous tree* Existing significant evergreen tree* * Note: Trees identified as “valuable” were based on size (typically 15”+ caliper), rarity of the species on site, or other outstanding aesthetic qualities. DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 7 SITE ANALYSIS THE SITE OVER TIME City Center Park LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DATE: October 17, 2014Aerial Photographs: The Site Over Time 1942 1973 1962 2014 City Center Park LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DATE: October 17, 2014Aerial Photographs: The Site Over Time 1942 1973 1962 2014 8 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 PHOTO INVENTORY Woodland Areas Wetlands / Water View into park from end of Iby Street View looking east at wetlands / Tributary 3 Canadian yew and white pines at northern end of park Informal path from Iby Street, looking west Drainage leading to Tributary 3 along eastern edge of park DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 9 Surrounding Areas View looking north across Tributary 3 toward Healthy Living parking lot (fall) View looking east at wetlands / Tributary 3 (fall) View looking south into woodlands from Market Street View looking north across Tributary 3 toward Healthy Living parking lot (winter) View looking east at wetlands / Tributary 3 (winter) View looking north at bridge to future Garden Street from Healthy Living parking lot 10 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 PURPOSE & NEED STATEMENT Approved by Planning Commission 11.18.14 The Purpose and Need Statement is used to establish the key community needs and goals of the project, explain the issues present, and outline the criteria that must be addressed to achieve those goals. In addition to guiding the development of the design alternatives, the Purpose and Need Statement is used to evaluate or “test” alternatives within the format of the Evaluation Matrix. Purpose The purpose of the City Center Park (encompassing the parcel commonly known as Dumont Park and adjacent areas) project is to plan, design and augment a centrally located, passive-use community park using principles of ecological and accessible design. The project is intended to cultivate and enhance the park’s natural setting and features as a contrast to the developing urban context that surrounds it. The goal is to serve the needs of local residents and workers, neighbors, visitors, and people of all ages who seek the benefits of passive recreation in a wooded environment, while maintaining the area’s water quality and wetland functions. Need 1. Provide passive recreational opportunities and design elements that enhance the use of the park and the health and well-being of city residents. Currently this area has the feel of a remnant woodland, with narrow worn trails being the only indicator of its use, and there is little awareness of its presence beyond the immediate neighborhood. There is a need for more clearly identified trails, seating, and entryways to better define this woodland area as a community park. It is also important to listen to and respect the concerns of abutting property owners with regard to its use and access, in balance with the needs of the community. 2. Improve connections to the surrounding area and make the park accessible and safe to all. Access into the site is not currently ADA compliant, in part due to topography and wetlands at the site’s perimeter, and access points are not defined. Accessible paths (with bridges/boardwalks as required) from marked entry points are needed to expand the use of the park to people of all ages and abilities. There is an identified need to connect existing neighborhoods to the south and future City Center development to the north with a path, which could potentially accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition to connecting existing and proposed paths, this new path should also connect to visitor parking, which should be provided within the City Center development. Proposed open space within the future downtown such as stormwater treatment areas should be incorporated into the park and park management where practical, as logical travel corridors between City Center and the primary park space. Personal safety and security within the park needs to be a focus of the final design. 3. Enhance opportunities to enjoy natural features within the park and support its educational potential. The site is home to a number of natural features, many of which lack appropriate awareness by visitors. Paths and overlooks should be located to bring these natural features (e.g. native trees and understory species, wetlands, etc.) into view, and educational programming opportunities should be supported with an interpretive/ wayfinding sign system. 4. Improve the user experience of the park in a manner that protects any sensitive natural or cultural resources that may be present. The presence of Class II wetlands within and adjacent to the site dictate that any park improvements need to be responsive to the regulatory requirements for wetlands and their buffer zones, and wetland crossings and impacts need to be limited within these areas. The site is considered archeologically sensitive, and if artifacts are discovered through an archeological field survey, soil excavation may need to be avoided in those areas. Based on these factors and the fact that the original funding source for the purchase of the Dumont Parcel was from the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, the proposed recreational uses will continue to be “passive” in nature and soil excavation should be limited. In addition, Low Impact Design strategies should be employed for stormwater management in order to prevent increased flow into the wetlands or adjacent properties. 5. Improve the ecological health and diversity of the site. The land is overrun with a dense undergrowth of invasive species. As such, it will require a plan to enhance the natural ecology of the woodland and wetland areas and a management plan to support a healthy and dynamic natural park. DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 11 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW Based on the public input and the analysis conducted to date, four design alternatives were developed by the team to elicit feedback from the community and key stakeholders. Each design alternative was represented by two plans: 1. An Overall Circulation Concept, which depicted potential connections to the park in the larger context of the future City Center site and surrounding areas; and 2. A Conceptual Site Plan, which focused in on the main park area and depicted internal circulation and site organization options. Although the plans depicted some amenity options, a separate exhibit was prepared with precedent images of a range of potential amenities. These separate exhibits were prepared to ensure that public preferences for circulation and organization options could be assessed independent of preferences for potential amenities, without muddying the two. Although each of the Conceptual Site Plans represents a distinct design option, all four plans share the following features or qualities: 1. Gateway treatment with info at each park entrance with wayfinding signage located at key junctions. 2. Clarity of site organization to make orientation and wayfinding easy. 3. North-south multi-use path connecting Barrett Street to City Center, with boardwalk across Tributary 3 wetland. 4. Bridge connection into park from Iby Street. 5. Extensive path system for recreational and educational enjoyment of the site’s natural features, while minimizing wetlands crossings. 6. Higher concentration of paths on the north side of the site, which is drier and has more vegetation diversity and topography. 7. Paths could begin to define “zones” within the park, which may have different management or planting strategies associated with them. 8. Overlook deck or tree house with view of wetlands / Tributary 3. 9. Wetlands restoration along the eastern property line. 10. Potential clearing in the center of the site at a key junction point (not depicted in Option C). Some trees would remain but understory could be opened up to provide a visual reprieve from the forest density. 11. Nodes of learning/interpretation or natural play could be located throughout the site. Tree species identification system. 12. Seating provided throughout the park. Notes: 1. General path orientations depicted, but could be field-adjusted based on trees or other features on site. Paths typically located to bring park users to larger or more noteworthy trees that were inventoried. 2. Some existing footpaths could potentially remain in their unimproved condition, while others will likely be eliminated. 12 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Overall Circulation Concept A 0 150’300’600’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Crosswalk Pedestrian / bike bridge crossings Multi-use path (assumes no cycle track along Garden St.) See Conceptual Site Plan Option A Future path connection Boardwalk DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 13 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 6, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Conceptual Site Plan - Option A 0 50’100’200’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Kiosk / gateway element Pedestrian bridge Wetland restoration area Enhanced stormwater treatment area w/ wetland restoration Outer loop path Boardwalk Multi-use path Woodland clearing (desirable trees to remain, understory shrubs thinned) Natural play area Inner loop path Wetland overlook Pedestrian / bike boardwalk Gazebo East-west path along wetland buffer edge Access path for Market Street stormwater feature Path along wetland buffer edge to Midas Drive Class II wetland Class III wetland 50’ wetland buffer Existing path 1 1 1 9 9 5 5 13 13 3 3 11 11 7 7 15 15 2 2 10 10 6 6 6 6 14 14 4 4 12 12 8 8 16 16 14 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Overall Circulation Concept B 0 150’300’600’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Pedestrian / bike bridge crossings Future path connection Multi-use path Multi-use path Boardwalk Pedestrian path (assumes cycle track along Garden St.) See Conceptual Site Plan Option B DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 6, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Conceptual Site Plan - Option B 0 50’100’200’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Kiosk / gateway element Pedestrian bridge Wetland restoration area Enhanced stormwater treatment area w/ wetland restoration Loop path Boardwalk Spiral stone wall around large maple tree Multi-use path Woodland clearing (desirable trees to remain, understory shrubs thinned) Wetland overlook Pedestrian / bike boardwalk East-west path along wetland buffer edge Access path for Market Street stormwater feature Path along wetland buffer edge to Midas Drive Class II wetland Class III wetland 50’ wetland buffer Existing path 1 1 19 5 5 13 14 13 14 3 3 11 11 8 7 7 2 2 10 10 6 6 6 4 4 12 12 9 8 6 16 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Overall Circulation Concept C 0 150’300’600’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Pedestrian / bike bridge crossing Future path connection Multi-use path Boardwalk Pedestrian path (assumes cycle track along Garden St.) See Conceptual Site Plan Option C Boardwalk Crosswalk DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 17 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 6, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Conceptual Site Plan - Option C 0 50’100’200’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Kiosk / gateway element Pedestrian bridge Wetland restoration area Enhanced stormwater treatment area w/ wetland restoration Loop path Boardwalk Multi-use path Connector path Wetland overlook Pedestrian / bike boardwalk East-west path along wetland buffer edge Access path for Market Street stormwater feature Path along wetland buffer edge to Midas Drive Class II wetland Class III wetland 50’ wetland buffer Existing path 1 1 1 9 9 5 5 13 13 3 3 11 11 7 7 2 2 10 10 6 6 6 4 4 12 12 8 8 8 6 18 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Overall Circulation Concept D 0 150’300’600’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Boardwalk Multi-use path (assumes cycle track along Garden St.) See Conceptual Site Plan Option D DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 19 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 6, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. 0 50’100’200’Conceptual Site Plan -zz Option D Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Kiosk / gateway element Pedestrian bridge Wetland restoration area Enhanced stormwater treatment area w/ wetland restoration Outer loop path Boardwalk Multi-use path Woodland clearing (desirable trees to remain, understory shrubs thinned) Inner loop path Treehouse / gazebo Pedestrian / bike boardwalk East-west path along wetland buffer edge Access path for Market Street stormwater feature Path along wetland buffer edge to Midas Drive Class II wetland Class III wetland 50’ wetland buffer Existing path 1 1 1 9 9 5 5 13 13 3 3 11 11 7 7 2 2 10 10 6 6 6 6 14 14 4 4 12 12 8 8 20 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Potential Amenity & Enhancement Images 1/3 Bridges, Boardwalks & Overlooks Paths Seating POTENTIAL AMENITIES These following reference photos were used as part of the public outreach process in order to solicit community preferences for potential amenities and design options for the park. Although proposed designs would likely differ from what is depicted, these precedent images provide the public with a sense of what might be possible. DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 21 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Potential Amenity & Enhancement Images 1/3 Bridges, Boardwalks & OverlooksPaths Seating City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Potential Amenity & Enhancement Images 2/3 Natural Play Outdoor Classroom Site-Based Art/Interpretation Gazebos 22 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Potential Amenity & Enhancement Images 2/3 Natural PlayOutdoor Classroom Site-Based Art/Interpretation Gazebos City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Potential Amenity & Enhancement Images 3/3 Fire Pits Native Plantings & Clearings Wetland Restoration Treehouses DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 23 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: January 20, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. Potential Amenity & Enhancement Images 3/3 Fire Pits Native Plantings & Clearings Wetland Restoration Treehouses 24 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 KEY TAKEAWAYS From Public Meeting #2: “Public Design Workshop” Support for the following: Access & Circulation • Multiple connections to surrounding areas • San Remo mixed-use path/bridge • Cycle track on Garden Street • Large curving boardwalk across Tributary 3 wetland (making connections between Market Street, Garden Street, and park) • Multi-use path located at western edge of park to minimize impacts to walking trails and natural area. Education/Interpretation • Outdoor classroom • Native species identification Amenities • Natural play area • Small central clearing with sitting area • Pedestrian boardwalks (no railings) • Multi-use boardwalk (with railings) • Wetland overlook deck / tree house • Benches Ecology • Native woodland plantings and wetland restoration Land Acquisition • Expansion of park space to the west as buffer to development. Concerns for the following: Character • Paving (multi-use path) • Lighting • Structures with modern forms/details • Size of clearings • Visual clutter Access & Circulation • Path along outside edge of wetland buffer would be unattractive if located adjacent to parking lots • Conflicts between multi-use path and walking trails (safety, noise, etc.) • Snow removal on multi-use path and boardwalk? DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 25 EVALUATION MATRIX The Evaluation Matrix provides an objective means of accessing and comparing the alternatives1 based on a range of factors, including the criteria established by the Purpose and Need Statement, relative cost, and anticipated permitting requirements. The matrix serves as a useful tool in selecting a Preferred Alternative for the overall park plan. Evaluation Matrix Contents: p. 26 Goals p. 27 Summaries & Cost p. 28 Permits: Alternative A p. 29 Permits: Alternative B p. 30 Permits: Alternative C p. 31 Permits: Alternative D p. 32 Permits: Preferred Alternative 1 Each alternative is comprised of an Overall Circulation Concept and Conceptual Site Plan City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: Y/N/P Y=Yes, N=No, P=Partially 1 of 9 Purpose and Need (Key Goals) Criteria to Achieve Goals Y/N/P Notes Y/N/P Notes Y/N/P Notes Y/N/P Notes Y/N/P Notes Trails for walking & running/cross-country skiing & snowshoeing, etc. Y Y Y Y Y Path for biking/rollerblading/ scooters, etc. Y Y Y Y Y Play structures Y Y Y Y Y Seating Y Y Y Y Y "Pause Places" (discoverable areas)N Y N N Y Iby Street and Barrett Street Y Y Y Y Y San Remo Drive Y Y N N P Healthy Living Y Y P P Midas Drive Y N Y P P Garden Street P Y Y Y Y Market Street Y N Y Y Y Village Green Apartments N N Y N Y ADA-compliant trails, multi-use path, boardwalks and bridges (with railings as needed) Y Y Y Y Y Lighting at multi-use path Y Y Y Y Y Trails located to access valuable trees/shrubs Y Y Y Y Y Boardwalks (wetland)Y Y Y Y Y Overlook deck/tree house (wetland)Y Y Y Y Y Interpretive elements throughout park Y Y Y Y Y Outdoor classroom Y Y N N Y Paths and amenities located to minimize wetlands impacts P P P P Y Paths and amenities located to preserve valuable trees/shrubs Y Y Y Y Y Low-impact design strategies (e.g. minimize grading impacts) Y Y Y Y Y Stormwater managed to avoid increased runoff from impervious surfaces Y Y Y Y Y Invasive species management plan Y Y Y Y Y Native woodland plantings Y Y Y Y Y Wetland restoration Y Y Y Y Y Preferred Alternative Provide passive recreational opportunities for people of all ages Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Improve connections to surrounding areas (alternative modes of travel) Multi-use path outside wetland buffer assumes no cycle track along Garden St. Pedestrian path outside wetland buffer assumes no cycle track along Garden St. Pedestrian path outside wetland buffer assumes no cycle track along Garden St. Pedestrian and bike connections between Healthy Living, Dumont Park, and Midas Drive assumed to be provided by Garden St. sidewalk and cycle track Pedestrian and bike connections between Healthy Living, Dumont Park, and Midas Drive assumed to be provided by Garden St. sidewalk and cycle track Provide safe and accessible environment Improve access to natural features Enhance educational potential Protect natural and cultural resources Improve ecological health and diversity City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: Y/N/P Y=Yes, N=No, P=Partially 2 of 9 Preferred AlternativeAlternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Wayfinding signs/kiosks Y Y Y Y Y Consistency of design details Y Y Y Y Y Natural materials where practical Y Y Y Y Y Appropriate design details Y Y Y Y Y 50'+ buffer along property line shared with residences Y Y Y Y Y Vegetative screening as required Y Y Y Y Y Amenities with possible noise impacts located away from residences Y Y Y P Y Lighting levels at minimum required for safety, shielded to avoid glare Y Y Y Y Y Keep bike through-traffic separate from internal pedestrian circulation Multi-use path located at edge of park with crossings of walking trail loops minimized N N Y N Y Minimize impacts to abutting property owners Other Goals Respect "natural" context (contextual design) Create distinct identity for park (placemaking) City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: Y/N/P Y=Yes, N=No, P=Partially 3 of 9 • Destination feature(s) • Multi-use path bisects park space and intersects walking path in multiple locations • Pedestrian path connects San Remo/Healthy Living and Park • No centralized clearing or play space • Walking paths to one side of shared-use path • Paving and lighting of multi- use path could undermine natural character (but is desirable for functionality and safety) • Distributing natural play elements throughout site could contribute to visual clutter • Paving and lighting of multi-use path could undermine natural character (but is desirable for functionality and safety) • No boardwalks for Class 3 wetland crossings • Large curving boardwalk with two wetland crossings: enhanced connectivity between Garden St., Dumont Park and Market Street, enhanced educational opportunity, destination feature • No San Remo Drive connection • Natural play node located relatively close to adjacent residence • No boardwalks for Class 3 wetland crossings • No boardwalks for Class 3 wetland crossings • Multi-use path intersects walking path in multiple locations • Paving and lighting of multi- use path could undermine natural character (but is desirable for functionality and safety) • Centralized clearing• Centralized outdoor classroom and natural play area Alternative A Summary (key concerns, distinguishing qualities, based on public process and analysis) • Portions of northern spur trail within Trib. 3 wetland buffer • Pedestrian path along future City Center parking lots not desirable • Portions of northern spur trail within Trib. 3 wetland buffer • Pedestrian path along future City Center parking lots not desirable • Large portion of outer loop path within Trib. 3 wetland buffer Concerns • Multi-use path along future City Center parking lots not desirable • Paving and lighting of multi- use path could undermine natural character (but is desirable for functionality and safety) • No San Remo Drive connection• Clearing depicted too large • Multi-use path intersects walking path in multiple locations • Distributing natural play elements throughout site could contribute to visual clutter • No boardwalks for Class 3 wetland crossings Preferred AlternativeAlternative B Alternative C Alternative D • Centralized outdoor classroom and natural play area • Spur trails to special features • Pedestrian path connects San Remo/Healthy Living and Park • Paving and lighting of multi- use path could undermine natural character (but is desirable for functionality and safety) • Connections between San Remo Dr. / Healthy Living not as direct as in options with path just outside Trib. 3 wetland buffer • Large curving boardwalk with two wetland crossings: enhanced connectivity between Garden St., Dumont Park and Market Street • Enhanced educational opportunity Distinguishing Qualities • Multi-use path connects San Remo/Healthy Living, Park, and Midas Drive City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: Y/N/P Y=Yes, N=No, P=Partially 4 of 9 Relative Cost: Improvements within City-owned Parcel Relative Cost: Improvements outside City-owned Parcel Relative Cost: Total Combined Project *Base Cost represents the plan alternative with the lowest cost. All other plan alternatives are then compared to this Base Cost. 1.4x Base Cost 1.6x Base Cost Cost 1.5x Base Cost 1.2x Base Cost 1.3x Base Cost Base Cost (Lowest) 1.1x Base Cost1.1x Base Cost Base Cost (Lowest) 1.7x Base Cost 1.2x Base Cost 1.2x Base Cost1.1x Base Cost* 1.5x Base Cost Base Cost (Lowest) Preferred AlternativeAlternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: L/P/NL L=Likely, P=Possible, NL=Not Likely 5 of 9 Potential Permits L/P/NL L/P/NL L/P/NL ANR Operational Stormwater Permit NL Less than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious including Healthy Living ANR Construction General Permit L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area NL Less than 1 acre of disturbed area ANR Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Bridge abutments and path impacts USACOE Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Bridge abutments and path impacts ANR Stream Alteration/Crossing Permit NL No stream crossing proposed L Boardwalk crossing L Bridge crossing ANR Water Supply and Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements FEMA/VT Rivers Program/Floodplain Management NL No floodplain on subject parcel P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone Archaeology review L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits P Depends on involved parcel permits Act 250 NL Municipal project on less than 10 acres L Amendment to SBR permit P Depends on involved parcel permits South Burlington Permits L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review ALTERNATIVE A 1. The San Remo Pedestrian Bridge involves 3 parcels: AOS Realty, LLC; SBCC, LLC; and Malone (Healthy Living). Dumont Parcel South Burlington City Center, LLC Parcel San Remo Pedestrian Bridge1 City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: L/P/NL L=Likely, P=Possible, NL=Not Likely 6 of 9 Potential Permits L/P/NL L/P/NL L/P/NL ANR Operational Stormwater Permit NL Less than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious including Healthy Living ANR Construction General Permit L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area NL Less than 1 acre of disturbed area ANR Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Bridge abutments and path impacts USACOE Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Bridge abutments and path impacts ANR Stream Alteration/Crossing Permit NL No stream crossing proposed L Boardwalk crossing L Bridge crossing ANR Water Supply and Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements FEMA/VT Rivers Program/Floodplain Management NL No floodplain on subject parcel P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone Archaeology review L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits P Depends on involved parcel permits Act 250 NL Municipal project on less than 10 acres L Amendment to SBR permit P Depends on involved parcel permits South Burlington Permits L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review ALTERNATIVE B 1 The San Remo Pedestrian Bridge involves 3 parcels: AOS Realty, LLC; SBCC, LLC; and Malone (Healthy Living). Dumont Parcel South Burlington City Center, LLC Parcel San Remo Pedestrian Bridge1 City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: L/P/NL L=Likely, P=Possible, NL=Not Likely 7 of 9 Potential Permits L/P/NL L/P/NL L/P/NL ANR Operational Stormwater Permit NL Less than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious surface NL Less than 1 acre of impervious surface ANR Construction General Permit L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area NL Less than 1 acre of disturbed area ANR Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Boardwalk and path impacts USACOE Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks P Below threshold, could be combined though ANR Stream Alteration/Crossing Permit NL No stream crossing proposed L Boardwalk crossing NL No stream crossing proposed ANR Water Supply and Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements FEMA/VT Rivers Program/Floodplain Management NL No floodplain on subject parcel P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone NL No floodplain on subject parcel Archaeology review L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits P Depends on involved parcel permits Act 250 NL Municipal project on less than 10 acres L Amendment to SBR permit P Depends on involved parcel permits South Burlington Permits L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review ALTERNATIVE C 1Village Green Boardwalk involves 2 parcels: Sonrise Partnership LLP and SBCC, LLC. Dumont Parcel South Burlington City Center, LLC Parcel Village Green Boardwalk1 City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: L/P/NL L=Likely, P=Possible, NL=Not Likely 8 of 9 Potential Permits L/P/NL L/P/NL ANR Operational Stormwater Permit NL Less than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious surface ANR Construction General Permit L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area ANR Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks USACOE Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks ANR Stream Alteration/Crossing Permit NL No stream crossing proposed L Boardwalk crossing ANR Water Supply and Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements FEMA/VT Rivers Program/Floodplain Management NL No floodplain on subject parcel P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone Archaeology review L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits Act 250 NL Municipal project on less than 10 acres L Amendment to SBR permit South Burlington Permits L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review Dumont Parcel South Burlington City Center, LLC Parcel ALTERNATIVE D City Center Park Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 4.1.15 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Key: L/P/NL L=Likely, P=Possible, NL=Not Likely Note that a Project Review Sheet should be requested from regional ANR staff for Preferred Alternative when appropriate. Potential Permits L/P/NL L/P/NL L/P/NL L/P/NL ANR Operational Stormwater Permit NL Less than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious surface L More than 1 acre of impervious including Healthy Living NL Less than 1 acre of impervious surface ANR Construction General Permit L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area L Likely more than 1 acre of disturbed area NL Less than 1 acre of disturbed area NL Less than 1 acre of disturbed area ANR Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Bridge abutments and path impacts L Boardwalk and path impacts USACOE Wetlands Permit L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Wetland restoration, paths and boardwalks L Bridge abutments and path impacts P Below threshold, could be combined though ANR Stream Alteration/Crossing Permit NL No stream crossing proposed L Boardwalk crossing L Bridge crossing NL No stream crossing proposed ANR Water Supply and Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements NL No water or sewer uses or improvements FEMA/VT Rivers Program/Floodplain Management NL No floodplain on subject parcel P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone P FIRM Map shows "Other" flood zone NL No floodplain on subject parcel Archaeology review L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits L Based on USACOE and Act 250 permits P Depends on involved parcel permits P Depends on involved parcel permits Act 250 NL Municipal project on less than 10 acres L Amendment to SBR permit P Depends on involved parcel permits P Depends on involved parcel permits South Burlington Permits L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review L Wetlands, stormwater and site plan review 1The San Remo Pedestrian Bridge involves 3 parcels: AOS Realty, LLC; SBCC, LLC; and Malone (Healthy Living). 2 Village Green Boardwalk involves 2 parcels: Sonrise Partnership LLP and SBCC, LLC. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Dumont Parcel South Burlington City Center, LLC Parcel San Remo Pedestrian Bridge1 Village Green Boardwalk2 DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 33 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: March 17, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Overall Circulation-Preferred Plan Option 0 150’300’600’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community See Conceptual Site Plan-Preferred Option Bike/ped access to Market Street (paths associated with Market Street stormwater feature) Boardwalk See inset Bike/ped access to future Garden Street (assumes Garden Street will include cycle track) 10’ paved multi-use path to Garden St. 10’ paved multi-use path to San Remo Dr. Pre-engineered bridge, approx. 30’ span with headwalls Pre-engineered bridge, approx. 75’ span with headwalls 10’ paved multi-use path with retaining wall INSET: Pedestrian multi-use path & connections 0’50’ DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: March 18, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Conceptual Site Plan - Preferred Option 0 50’100’200’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Kiosk / gateway element Pedestrian bridge (6’ wide, with railings) Wetland restoration area Outer loop path (4’ wide, gravel/stonedust) Boardwalk (5’ wide, no railings- except on multi-use path- 10’ wide w/ railings) Multi-use path (10’ wide, paved, with lighting) Outdoor classroom w/ seating (stone slabs or seat walls) Natural play area (logs, boulders, etc. w/ bark mulch ground surface) Inner loop path (5’ wide, gravel/stonedust) - “wildflower walk” “Pause place” or destination with natural design/art element(s) Accessible tree house Multi-use boardwalk/bridge (10’ wide, railings, approx. 5’ above wetland water level) Access to Garden Street (to be determined by future City Center development plan) Access path for Market Street stormwater feature Note: benches, wayfinding signs, and interpetive elements to be located throughout the park as appropriate Class II wetland Class III wetland 50’ wetland buffer Existing path 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 5 5 555 5 13 14 13 14 3 3 3 3 11 11 7 7 2 2 10 10 10 6 6 4 4 12 12 8 8 34 DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Preferred Alternative Plan: The Basis for Selection Overview The recommended “Preferred Alternative” best addresses the key goals outlined in the Purpose and Need Statement. This plan takes the most popular elements from the four prior plan alternatives (circulations and conceptual site plans) developed for this project to form a distinct hybrid plan based on public feedback and design refinement. Investment is channeled into the areas where it matters most- notably the wetland area of Tributary 3. The long, curving elevated boardwalk would become a destination feature in itself by offering a unique elevated perspective from which to view this diverse natural ecosystem and its transition through the adjacent woodlands. This would present an engaging and experiential educational opportunity for the public, and it would be accessible to people of all ages and physical abilities. The plan includes access to both Market Street (via paths at the proposed stormwater feature) and Garden Street (to be determined based on future development plan), and the multi-use boardwalk would create strong pedestrian and bike connections between the park and the future City Center development, serving to bolster its economic vitality. The park’s circulation system features a paved and illuminated multi-use path located at the western edge of the park property, away from the internal pedestrian path system. This proposed layout will preserve the more quiet and natural aspects of the property that are so valuable to local residents. The accessible pedestrian path system has an intuitive organizational structure, making orientation and wayfinding easy. Paths have been located to provide an extensive recreational experience for park users while routing them among valuable native trees and shrubs. Boardwalks at all wetland crossings and low impact design strategies will ensure that the improvements have a light footprint on the existing natural resources. There are several features that will serve as interesting detours from the outer loop path, including an accessible tree house, which offers yet another perspective from which to view the woods and wetlands, and two “pause places”, or areas to discover off the main pathway system. Although as yet undefined, these features could include natural design/ art elements in keeping with the woodland qualities of the site, adding interest and helping to create a “sense of place” for the park. The path system is oriented around a central space comprised of an outdoor classroom and natural play area in a small clearing. While this space would certainly be a draw for children and families, the outdoor classroom space would serve as an attractive seating area for adults as well. The natural play area would consist of play features built from contextually appropriate natural materials such as logs and boulders, while a play surface of engineered bark mulch would be safe and accessible. With native plantings and management of invasive species, the inner loop path that defines this central area could become a “wildflower walk,” complete with interpretive markers. Benches, wayfinding signs, and interpretive elements would be located throughout the park, as appropriate, to make park visits enjoyable for local residents and visitors alike. Access As with all the alternatives developed as part of this study, direct access points proposed for the park include the following: • South: The ROW off Barrett Street between two residential properties is envisioned as a primary access point for bicycle/pedestrian circulation from the south to enter the proposed multi-use path through the park. • East: The western end of Iby Street, which currently serves as the primary neighborhood access point for the park, is envisioned as a formalized pedestrian connection. A new bridge would provide an accessible crossing of the drainage channel and wetlands along the eastern property line. 35 DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 Preferred Alternative Plan: The Basis for Selection • North: The proposed elevated boardwalk would bring pedestrians and bicyclists from City Center (with connections from Market Street and Garden Street) to the multi-use path that runs through the park to Barrett Street. Connections from surrounding areas to the west and north are also important in order to bring more people safely into City Center and subsequently into the park, without the use of a car. These access points also reinforce the notion of a walkable/bikeable downtown that is interconnected with the rest of the city. Recommended indirect access points include the following: • San Remo/Healthy Living: A multi-use bridge would span over Tributary 3 to the Healthy Living parcel from the terminus of San Remo Drive. A second bridge would then span over the drainage channel that runs along the eastern edge of the parking lot. This would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to enter the City Center development without having to travel along Dorset Street or through a busy parking lot. From there a multi- use path would connect to Garden Street’s proposed sidewalk and cycle track, with a bike/ ped connection from Garden Street to the elevated boardwalk crossing the wetlands. • Village Green Apartments: With a concentration of residents there, a connection to this complex should be considered (benefits of the investment to be weighed against cost). Access would be provided by a pedestrian boardwalk, which would cross the wetlands and connect to City Center. The proposed sidewalk and cycle track along Garden Street would then provide a route to the park for these residents and those walking or biking from Midas Drive. Summary The Preferred Alternative would fully serve the needs of local residents and workers, neighbors, visitors, and people of all ages who desire the benefits of a passive recreational experience amidst an urban center. Memorable features such as the curving boardwalk, the accessible tree house, and outdoor classroom / natural play area would make the park a draw for visitors. This factor, combined with the extensive connectivity proposed, would enhance the economic vitality of the future City Center. With a design that is sensitive to the natural features on site, the park would also have a light environmental footprint and would preserve the natural qualities that are so valuable for this public open space. 36 DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Property Acquisition and Easements Recommended Property Acquisition One discrete property is recommended for acquisition: the parcel immediately to the west of the Dumont Park parcel. This 2.4-acre parcel is zoned Residential (R4), and if not purchased by the City it could be developed with as many as nine residential units. If this development were to occur, a road would be built within the City ROW to provide vehicular access. Due to its close proximity to the main park parcel, this additional development would potentially undermine the natural qualities that make this open space so valuable as a reprieve from its urban surroundings. In addition to visibility of the homes and cars that would face the park, there would be additional noise associated with the development- from cars to barking dogs- which would detract from the relative quiet that park users currently enjoy. The acquisition of the parcel would also potentially allow for additional useable park space. Additional loops of walking trails could be located within this area, with connections to the multi-use path, to provide a more extensive recreational experience. It is possible, however, that expanding park infrastructure into this land could trigger the requirement of an Act 250 review if the affected area of the project is considered to be more than 10 acres. At the minimum, setting aside this land as a natural buffer is desirable. One Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) is potentially recommended: adjusting the north boundary of the park to the southern edge of the Potash Brook Tributary 3 (pending ongoing discussions with South Burlington Realty and progress of the development plans for the parcel north of Dumont Park). Tributary 3 of Potash Brook in essence currently functions as a natural boundary line for the northern end of the park, and existing footpaths currently span onto South Burlington City Center, LLC’s property in this area. By incorporating this land into the park with a BLA, the City would have more control over the property, and the park limits would coincide more intuitively with the natural features present. This land features some of the most desirable tree species present on the property, as well as the most compelling views of the diverse wetlands ecosystem. The proposed accessible tree house would capitalize on these views. Note that such a BLA could shift the responsibility for acquiring wetland and stream related permits to the City of South Burlington as part of this project, as well as having potential construction cost implications for the City. As such, it is recommended that the BLA be deferred until after the completion of the Dumont Park construction. See Acquisition vs. Recreation Path Easements: Factors to Consider. Recommended Recreation Path Easements In order to create a bicyclist and pedestrian connection between the Dumont Park space and the future City Center (including Market Street and Garden Street), the plan necessitates a crossing of the northern property line onto private property. Depending on the outcome of the aforementioned BLA, the recommended easement in this area might be solely for the proposed 10’-wide elevated boardwalk and associated path connection(s) to City Center. If the City elects to forego the BLA, then the segment of the 10’-wide multi-use path between the existing northern park boundary and the elevated boardwalk would also require an easement, along with the proposed tree house and associated access path. An easement is also recommended for the multi-use path and bridges proposed to connect San Remo Drive and Garden Street, thereby expanding the public pedestrian and bicycle network. An easement at the potential boardwalk connection to Village Green Apartments is not recommended, however, as there is no direct access to City-owned land or ROW’s. Acquisition vs. Easement: Factors to Consider Since many of the proposed park improvements extend onto currently privately owned land, it will be important to address ownership and maintenance of such improvements. There are several options 37 DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 Recommended Property Acquisition and Easements including assigning an easement for improvements over private land, acquiring private land upon which the improvements are located, or a combination of the two. Below are some considerations for these options: 1. Easements for all park improvements. This option would limit responsibility (e.g. maintenance) and access to just the park improvements. Features such as adjacent wetlands or other areas would not be legally accessible to park visitors or City maintenance staff. This option may benefit the current private landowner who may need a certain amount of open space to complete proposed developments. It is also possible that private development permits will require additional protection and/or improvements to adjacent natural areas, and this responsibility would remain with the private developer. 2. Acquisition of all land required for all park improvements. This option would likely include more land than just what the proposed park improvements are located on, in order to meet ordinance requirements for lot size, access, etc. This would therefore likely increase the City’s responsibility to manage and maintain features in addition to the specific park improvements (such as adjacent wetland areas). This may also impact the ability of the private landowner to set-aside required open space, unless agreed upon at the time of acquisition. In addition, the acquisition of additional land will likely shift the responsibility for acquiring and maintaining wetland and stream related private development permits to the City. 3. Hybrid of acquisition of all land south of the Potash Brook Tributary 3 and Easements across and north of the Potash Brook Tributary 3. This option would likely clarify the extents of the park proper based on natural boundaries and simplify associated ROW/easements. It would result in a mix of impacts noted in the two previous options, and factors such as timing and permit responsibility would have to be taken into consideration. Recommendations: 1. Acquire the parcel to the west of the Dumont Park parcel. 2. Request Recreation Path Easements across all South Burlington City Center, LLC land during the permitting process for the SBCC development. 3. Request Recreation Path Easements across abutting parcels for San Remo recreation paths and bridges. 4. Request a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) for the South Burlington City Center, LLC land south of Potash Brook Tributary 3 during the permitting process for the SBCC development. Complete the BLA after construction of the Dumont Park. 38 DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 First, City Council will review and consider approval of the recommendations contained within this report, including the Preferred Alternative (Overall Circulation Concept and Conceptual Site Plan), property acquisition, and easements. This will conclude Phase A of the project. With final City approval, the LandWorks Team will then commence work on the following initial steps of Phase B, with a primary focus on the Dumont Park1 portion: 1. Support wetlands permitting process at SBCC, LLC parcel with plan coordination as needed. 2. Review proposed park plan with ANR, USACOE, and any other relevant state agencies in order to gain preliminary feedback regarding permitting considerations. 3. Refine plan based on the following: a. Additional feedback from the City, the public, or permitting agencies. b. During a follow-up site visit, review of proposed plan in relation to the following site conditions: • Soil/moisture conditions (including subsurface investigation by geotechnical engineers, where required) • Microtopography • Native plant species 4. Review grading and stormwater management 5. Develop typical path sections. 6. Develop typical boardwalk/bridge sections. 7. Prepare sketch concepts of “Pause Places”, with potential integration of natural design/art elements. 8. Develop preliminary Wayfinding Plan. 1 Additional focus includes acquisition of the parcel to the west and design development of the San Remo bridge area, which is tied to the design development of Garden Street NEXT STEPS 39 Garden Street Project Definition Report Alignment and Typical Section Report - DRAFT Prepared for: City of South Burlington, Vermont 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Prepared by: 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 April 2, 2015 Sign-off Sheet This document entitled Garden Street Project Definition Report was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Greg Goyette, PE Reviewed by (signature) Ilona Blanchard Project Team A Project Team was formed and met monthly to discuss project status and develop action items to keep the project on schedule. Much of the background, history, local input, and consensus documented in this report is attributed to the Project Team members’ involvement. Stantec Greg Goyette, PE Project Manager, Licensed Professional Engineer Karl Richardson, PE Project Engineer, Licensed Professional Engineer ORW Carolyn Radisch, Project Manager, Certified Transportation Planner Robert White Registered Landscape Architect City of South Burlington, Vermont Ilona Blanchard Project Manager Justin Rabidoux, PE Director of Public Works Paul Conner Director of Planning and Zoning Tim DiPietro Deputy Director of Public Works GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 PROJECT AREA ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS, STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ............... 5 3.0 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS/PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP .............................. 9 3.1 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ................................................................................... 9 3.2 PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP ............................................................................................. 9 4.0 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT ................................................................................... 10 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ 12 5.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 12 5.1.1 Alignment Alternatives ................................................................................... 12 5.1.2 Typical Section Alternatives .......................................................................... 17 5.1.3 Gateway Alternatives .................................................................................... 24 5.2 PROJECT TEAM MEETING TO DEVELOP DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 26 5.3 COORDINATION WITH CITY CENTER MASTER PLAN ...................................................... 26 5.4 EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................................... 27 6.0 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 31 6.1 RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT AND TYPICAL SECTIONS ............................................... 31 6.2 NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................... 33 6.3 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ............................................................................................... 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Draft City Center Zoning Map. Garden Street project area is outlined in black with light green shading. ..................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Typical section for a Support Street as defined in the proposed additions to the Land Development Regulations dated June 27, 2014 ................ 6 Figure 3 - Alignment Alternatives: A1 in red, A2 in purple, and A3 in blue .......................... 15 Figure 4 - Preferred Alignment (Alternative A1) shown in green ........................................... 16 Figure 5 – Typical Section and Plan Alternative 1 .................................................................... 18 Figure 6 – Typical Section and Plan Alternative 2 .................................................................... 19 Figure 7 – Typical Section Alternative 3 ..................................................................................... 21 Figure 8 – Typical Section Alternative 4A .................................................................................. 22 Figure 9 – Typical Section Alternative 4B ................................................................................... 23 Figure 10 - Gateway Alternative A ............................................................................................. 24 Figure 11 - Gateway Alternative B.............................................................................................. 25 Figure 12 - Typical Section Alternative 5 .................................................................................... 28 Figure 13 - Alternatives Evaluation Matrix.................................................................................. 29 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT LIST OF APPENDICES EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY .............................................................. A.1 APPENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM DRAFT LDR’S AND DRAFT ZONING MAP ....................... B.1 APPENDIX B EA RE-EVALUATION MEETING SUMMARY ................................................... C.1 APPENDIX C PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES .................................................. D.1 APPENDIX D PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP NOTES AND BEST IDEAS .............................. E.1 APPENDIX E ALTERNATIVES WORKSHOP NOTES ............................................................... F.1 APPENDIX F CCTA ROUTES ................................................................................................ G.1 APPENDIX G NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW MEMO ......................................................... H.1 APPENDIX H CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW ....................................................................... I.1 APPENDIX I HYDRANT FLOW TEST DATA ........................................................................... J.1 APPENDIX J SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ K.1 APPENDIX K GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Executive summary April 2, 2015 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of South Burlington is designing a new downtown street named Garden Street. This planned street is located in a partially developed area known as City Center – an area envisioned to create a new downtown for South Burlington. Garden Street currently exists as an access road to the Healthy Living and Trader Joe’s/Pier One development off of Dorset Street, and will ultimately connect Dorset Street to Market Street and beyond to Midas Drive. The project will also include improvements to two intersections with Williston Road, one of the more heavily traveled roadways in Vermont. These intersections are at Midas Drive/White Street and Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road. The purpose of the Garden Street project is to develop the supporting infrastructure for City Center, create comfortable and attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center, improve transportation network connectivity and circulation, and enhance multi-modal travel in City Center and South Burlington. The City hired Stantec and ORW to assist the community in defining and designing Garden Street and moving this project into construction. The project is being developed in three major phases as follows: Phase 1 – Project Definition Phase 2 – Project Design Phase 3 – Project Construction This report summarizes the work completed for Phase 1- Project Definition. This phase was the critical first step in the development of the project. It identified the community’s expectations for the project and established the basis of design to be followed during Phase 2 – Project Design. Phase 1 steps included: Collecting background and existing conditions information Engaging the community (citizens and stakeholders) in a public process to identify project needs & desires Defining the purpose for the project based on identified needs and resident and stakeholder input Creating alternatives for the street design Evaluating alternatives based on the purpose and needs established for the project Recommending a preferred alternative to be presented to City Council for approval A robust public process was followed to gather input from the community including citizens, landowners, business owners and local agencies. The input received was critical in developing and evaluating alternatives and making final recommendations. The combination of alignment Alternative A1 and typical section Alternative 5 is recommended to best achieve the project goals and reflect key design elements that were identified as being of primary importance to the community. Both of these alternatives are described in Section 5.0. The final recommendations for the street alignment and typical sections and next steps for the project are contained in Section 6.0. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Executive summary April 2, 2015 2 City Council will review and consider approving the final recommendations contained in this report on April 6, 2015 prior submitting them for inclusion into an ACOE/ANR wetlands master plan being developed for City Center. The recommendations are based on the draft Form Based Code, significant public and stakeholder input and the information that was available at the time this report was developed. Any significant alterations from these recommendations will need to be reviewed and considered for approval by City Council. This report includes alternatives review and final recommendations for the proposed Garden Street from the end of the existing Garden Street to a future connection with Midas Drive. The report does not yet include alternatives and recommendations for the existing Garden Street, Midas Drive from the intersection of Garden Street to the intersection with Williston Road, or the Williston Road intersections at this time. The City has undertaken a concurrent analysis of the Williston Road network from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road to explore transportation improvements to accommodate the full build-out of City Center. The traffic projections from this analysis have recently been completed and will be used to develop the alternatives for the Williston Road intersections. Alternatives for these segments and intersections will be developed and presented to the public and final recommendations presented to City Council in May 2015 at which time this report will be amended to include this work. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background April 2, 2015 3 2.0 BACKGROUND Background information, including existing physical and environmental conditions, was documented to understand the impacts of the alternative improvements. Team members researched and reviewed available information, solicited input from the City and project stakeholders, and field reviewed the project area. This field review included recording conditions and taking numerous photographs. Much of the existing physical and environmental conditions information is contained in Appendix A. 2.1 PROJECT AREA The Garden Street alignment is expected to begin at the intersection of Dorset Street and Garden Street, extend to the northeast where it will intersect with Market Street, and then continue to the northeast where it will intersect with Midas Drive. The roadway alignment will be fully contained within the proposed City Center Zoning district as shown in Draft Proposed City Center Zoning Map dated April 16, 2014 (Figure 1). This project is also 100% eligible for Tax Increment Financing, a mechanism, which, with the approval of voters, allows future tax revenues on new development to service debt on related public infrastructure. From The City’s website, “South Burlington’s City Center Tax Increment Financing District is an initiative to build a walkable downtown core centered on the land south of Williston Road, east of Dorset Street, and north of Tributary 3 of the Potash Brook and west of Hinesburg Road. This initiative was first proposed by residents in the 1980’s, and since then several ongoing projects have been making strides to bring this concept to fruition.” The project area includes the anticipated alignment of Garden Street as well as the intersections of Midas Drive/White Street and Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road with Williston Road. These intersections are included in the project area as required by the Federal Highway Administration to mitigate traffic impacts identified in the Environmental Assessment for City Center. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background April 2, 2015 4 Figure 1 - Draft City Center Zoning Map. Garden Street project area is outlined in black with light green shading.Project Area GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background April 2, 2015 5 2.2 REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS, STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Numerous plans and studies that are relevant to the Garden Street project have been completed or are ongoing. These include: 1. City Center Form Based Codes District – The Planning Commission completed a draft redline of the Land Development Regulations (LDR’s) that propose a new type of zoning for City Center – one that focuses on the shape of buildings and how they contribute to public streets more than uses. This type of zoning is called Form Based Code. The redline of the LDR’s is contained in Appendix B. The proposed changes are anticipated to be adopted into the LDR’s pending review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Form Based Codes Recommended Street Typologies The draft Form Based Code District includes various street typologies which provide specific requirements for typical section dimensions, target and design speeds, design vehicles, curbing, medians, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and parking. It also includes an order of consideration for various users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, motor vehicles, and delivery vehicles. According to the draft City Center Zoning Map, Garden Street, Midas Drive and White Streets will be Support Streets (see Figure 2), Hinesburg Road and Patchen Road will be Neighborhood Streets - Bike Boulevards and Williston Road will be a Commercial Street. The draft proposed Land Development Land Regulations dated June 27, 2014 define these street typologies as follows: Support Street (Garden Street, Midas Drive and White Street) Role in Community – Support Streets are side streets parallel or perpendicular from primary thoroughfares with higher levels of activity. Support Streets allow for a harmonious transition from high activity along the primary thoroughfare into the surrounding land use context. Support Streets provide space for deliveries and additional on-street parking, especially where those uses may be constrained on the primary thoroughfare. Congestion Tolerance – Significant delay is acceptable at peak periods. Neighborhood Street – Bike Boulevard (Hinesburg Road and Patchen Road) Role in Community – Neighborhood Streets-Bike Boulevards are a special residential street type which is meant to prioritize the movement of bicyclists from neighborhood to neighborhood and from neighborhood to destination. Congestion Tolerance – Motor vehicle use primarily for neighborhood residents. Commercial Street (Williston Road) Role in Community – Commercial Streets are thoroughfares of moderate vehicular capacity at low speed. Located outside the core of City Center, GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background April 2, 2015 6 Figure 2 – Typical section for a Support Street as defined in the proposed draft additions to the Land Development Regulations dated June 27, 2014 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background April 2, 2015 7 Commercial Streets provide neighborhood commercial services and are lined with businesses such as restaurants, retail, services, and some offices. This thoroughfare type is sometimes equipped with a landscaped median and should be designed to balance the needs of vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists. Congestion Tolerance – Significant delay is acceptable at peak periods. Form Based Codes District Proposed Land Use Garden Street is anticipated to be generally in a T-4 zone which means 2-4 story buildings located 0-20’ from the ROW, except for at Market Street where the west side will be a T-5 zone with 2-6 story buildings. The T-4 zoning does not specifically restrict curb cuts. The Garden Street design could address allowing curb cuts or not. The zoning regulations for Market Street will not allow curb cuts - parking is on-street parking or accessed via alley to parking at the rear of buildings. It is important to note that the proposed additions to the LDR’s and City Center Zoning Map are still in draft form. It is possible that the street typologies associated with the Garden Street project area may change. 2. Market Street Reconstruction – The Market Street Reconstruction project is currently in the permitting phase. The reconstructed Market Street will include new sidewalks, street trees, street furniture, and pedestrian-oriented decorative lights. The anticipated Garden Street alignment will intersect with Market Street to form a new four- leg intersection east of the existing driveway to the Rick Marcotte Central School and west of Tributary 3. Coordination between Market Street and Garden Street design features, such as street light and furniture types, is underway to create a coherent identity for the downtown. 3. Revised Environmental Assessment – South Burlington, Market Street Improvements STP 5200(17), May 2010 – The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is providing funds for the design and construction of Market Street improvements. As a result, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The EA summarizes traffic, environmental and cultural resource impacts not only associated with the reconstruction of Market Street but also the full buildout of City Center including Garden Street. The City met with Rob Sikora, FHWA Vermont, on March 6, 2014 to discuss how planned improvement projects within the EA study area, including Garden Street, could potentially affect FHWA’s “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). Since there is no intent to use federal funds for the Garden Street project, as long as its design/construction does not result in major changes to the Market Street project intent or EA, then the Garden Street project will not be reviewed by FHWA. The Garden Street project will result in no substantive changes to the Market Street project since the FONSI was issued. A summary of this meeting prepared by Justin Rabidoux, City Public Works Director, is contained in Appendix C. 4. Potash Brook Restoration – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is partnering with the City to restore Tributary 3 of Potash Brook. This project consists of a new wet extended detention pond to treat stormwater runoff from existing impervious surfaces. The pond will be located just south of the Vermont Federal Credit Union on Midas Drive. This project is in final design and is anticipated to be constructed in 2015. The proposed roadway alignment needs to consider the area allocated for the stormwater pond. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background April 2, 2015 8 5. Dumont Park Project – The City has awarded a contract to Landworks to design a City Center Park. The City owns approximately 7 acres south of the TIF District which were acquired with Federal Funds. The land is adjacent to Tributary 3 and its associated wetlands. There is an opportunity for the park design to incorporate areas for public access across Tributary 3, as may be donated or acquired, that are undevelopable such as wetlands and stormwater treatment areas. 6. South Burlington City Center, LLC – South Burlington City Center, LLC (SBCC) owns a majority of the land in the project area and is developing a Master Plan for development. This plan includes consideration of Garden Street, and will be used to begin the stormwater and wetlands permitting process. 7. City Center Commons – On July 7, 2014, Saxon Partners presented a proposal for a major retail and residential complex at a joint meeting of the City Council and School Board. Phase 1 of this development, presented as City Centers Commons, would be constructed on land currently occupied by the Rick Marcotte Central School (RMCS), owned by the School District, and would likely include a portion of Garden Street near its intersection with Midas Drive. Phase 2, presented as City Center Place, would be constructed along the north side of Market Street and along the west side of Garden Street north of Market Street on land currently owned by South Burlington City Center, LLC. City Center Commons requires a decision by the school board and public vote to proceed if it is to purchase the school property. 8. South Burlington Schools Master Planning and Visioning Process – This process between the City and South Burlington schools began in November 2014 and includes discussions about the future of RMCS in City Center. If a decision is made by the School Board to sell the RMCS property, development plans for this property will need to be coordinated with the design of Garden Street. 9. Williston Road Network Transportation Analysis –This study is being managed by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to better understand how the Williston Road transportation network between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road may operate under future land use objectives associated with the City Center development. The goal of the analysis is to develop short, medium and long-term transportation strategies for meeting the City’s goals of a walkable City Center while taking into consideration more pedestrian/neighborhood friendly and less expensive alternates to roadway widening such as construction of a parallel road north of Williston Road, traffic signal/intersection improvements, additional intersections, transportation demand management, increased transit, bicycle and pedestrian usage, access management and accepting more congestion. Conceptual design alternatives for the Midas/White/Williston and Patchen/Hinesburg/Williston intersections will be presented to the public for feedback once the analysis is complete; and will be used as a basis for designing improvements to the Midas Drive/White Street and Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road intersections with Williston Road. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Project Stakeholder Meetings/Public Kickoff Workshop April 2, 2015 9 3.0 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS/PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP 3.1 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS A series of project stakeholder meetings was held on September 4, 2014 in City Hall to provide an update on project status, listen to stakeholder concerns and outline next steps for the project. Stakeholders included local businesses, property owners, utility companies and local agencies. Stakeholder meeting summaries and attendance lists are included in Appendix D. 3.2 PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP A Public Kickoff Workshop was held on September 10, 2014 in City Hall. The purpose of the workshop was to share project status and learn about the community’s ideas, visions and thoughts on Garden Street. A pre-workshop walkabout was completed in the vicinity of Midas Drive. The workshop began with an introduction of the project team and a brief presentation about the project and the project development process. After the presentation, the attendees broke into four groups to discuss ideas, visions, and thoughts on the street. Each group was then asked to share highlights of their discussion with all in attendance. After the highlights were shared, each attendee was asked to share the “best idea” that they had heard from any of the highlights that were shared. The “best ideas” most relevant to the street include: Pedestrian paths and alley ways to connect Garden and Market Sharrows and separated bike path Rain gardens Road should be a real destination so that people from all over can enjoy this Garden Street should not be a high-speed pass through road from Dorset to Hinesburg Curved streets for traffic calming Gathering spaces Attract more residential / make it comfortable and inviting for families near the street Maximize development potential of area Should have a sense of place – what do we want 30-40 years down the road? The group highlights and a comprehensive listing of the “best ideas” gleaned from these highlights are summarized in Appendix D. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Purpose and Need Statement April 2, 2015 10 4.0 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT The Purpose and Need statement summarizes what the project is intending to accomplish and for what reasons. The Purpose and Need Statement is a fundamental requirement for projects that will pursue federal funding; and sets the stage for developing alternative solutions to the transportation problem. Working with the Project Team; and using the “best ideas” heard at the Public Kickoff Workshop, the following Purpose and Need statement was drafted. The Purpose and Need Statement was reviewed and adopted by the South Burlington Planning Commission on October 14, 2014. Purpose: The purpose of the Garden Street project is to: support South Burlington’s new, sustainable, livable downtown; promote economic development in City Center; create comfortable and attractive public spaces that establish a distinctive identity; improve transportation network connectivity; and enhance multi-modal travel and safety. The Garden Street Project includes a new street and intersection improvements on Williston Road (US Route 2) at Midas/White and Hinesburg Road (VT Route 116)/Patchen Road. Need: 1) Develop supporting infrastructure for City Center – South Burlington’s new downtown. The construction of Garden Street and associated infrastructure (including green infrastructure) improvements is needed to allow development of and economic investment in South Burlington’s City Center - a future mixed-use downtown district. Currently the area lacks a street network sufficient to support development and redevelopment of City Center area parcels. 2) Create comfortable and attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center. City Center is envisioned to be a distinctive, highly livable and attractive downtown. Decorative lighting, landscaping, gathering spaces, public art, integrated and attractive stormwater treatment and other public amenities are needed to create a high quality public space that promotes economic development and attracts residents, businesses and visitors. 3) Improve transportation network connectivity and circulation. City Center is an important regional commercial center but lacks a robust network (grid) to distribute trips. The lack of an interconnected street network and connecting pedestrian/bicycle facilities in this area contributes to congestion along the adjacent Williston Road and Dorset Street corridors, particularly in the peak hour. Greater network connectivity would improve access to City Center and the many destinations and activities along and across Dorset Street and Williston Road. Intersection modifications will need to ensure adequate capacity across all current and future modes. 4) Enhance multi-modal travel in City Center and South Burlington. There is a need to create safe connections that encourage multi-modal travel choices. Improvements should support current and future transit operations. City Center is planned to be a dense, walkable and bikeable mixed-use district, but existing roadways are unattractive, GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Purpose and Need Statement April 2, 2015 11 uncomfortable and unappealing to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. The new street and existing street segments, should incorporate shade trees, amenities and roadway geometry to signal drivers to “slow down”. The intersection of Midas/White with Williston Road has an awkward geometry and has no multi-modal functionality to cross Williston Road. Additionally, these intersections are characterized by significant traffic volumes and high numbers of crashes which compound the general uninviting atmosphere for biking and walking. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 12 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Various alternatives were developed for the roadway alignment and typical section by the Project Team. Each alternative was then evaluated on how well it satisfies the purpose and need for the project as defined in the Purpose and Need Statement, Section 4.0. The alternatives were presented to project stakeholders and the public to receive input for consideration when developing recommendations for the alignment and typical section. 5.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 5.1.1 Alignment Alternatives Three different alignment alternatives were developed and are shown in Figure 3. All alignment alternatives are the same from Healthy Living to the intersection with Market Street. The alignments begin to deviate between Market Street and the connection to Midas Drive. The alignments are summarized as follows: Alternative A1 (shown in red) This alternative would utilize the city-owned ROW through the RMCS property and between the Vermont Federal Credit Union and Midas Muffler properties. A new three-way t-intersection would be created with Garden Street and Midas Drive which will be offset from the Price Chopper Plaza drive access with Midas Drive. Alignment A1 is the preferred alternative for the Project Team. This alignment would have the following benefits: Best meets the purpose and needs for the project The street infrastructure would be located within the City-owned ROW thus reducing acquisition and site redevelopment costs The ACOE pond project would not be impacted The location would allow for greatest development and redevelopment opportunities The right angle turns and offset intersection would discourage high-speed cut-through traffic The roadway location will provide good sidewalk connectivity to adjacent land uses Alternative A2 (shown in purple) This alternative would squeeze the alignment between the Credit Union and the planned ACOE stormwater pond and would create a 90 degree connection to the south end of Midas Drive. Alignment A2 would least satisfy the purpose and need of the project. The available width of the road between the building and the pond is not enough to allow for typical section that can GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 13 accommodate pedestrians and aesthetic amenities on both sides of the road unless the ACOE pond is relocated. The City and Pomerleau Real Estate has devoted much time and resources to advance the pond to construction. The pond project is completely designed and has all easements, permits and approvals in place for construction to begin in early 2015, therefore relocating the pond is not a viable option in the City’s opinion. If a reduced typical section was considered, this alternative would still face significant hurdles as the space between the Credit Union and the pond has been designated as snow storage for Pomerleau Real Estate. The Project Team discarded this alignment for further consideration. Alternative A3 (shown in blue) This alternative is similar to Alternative A2 as it would connect to the south end of Midas Drive, but would pass directly through the planned location of the ACOE stormwater pond. The pond would need to be relocated. Like Alignment A2, this alternative would require relocating the pond which is not a viable option for the City. The Project Team discarded this alignment for further consideration. Alignment A1 is the alternative preferred by the Project Team. The preferred alignment is shown in green on Figure 4. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 14 This Page Left Intentionally Blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 15 Figure 3 - Alignment Alternatives: A1 in red, A2 in purple, and A3 in blue GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 16 Figure 4 - Preferred Alignment (Alternative A1) shown in green GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 17 5.1.2 Typical Section Alternatives The Project Team developed a number of typical section alternatives for consideration. Five of these alternatives were brought forward to the community for input at project stakeholder meetings held on January 13, 2015 and at a Public Alternatives Workshop held on January 15, 2015. At the Public Alternatives Workshop, the community had the opportunity to vote on their first and second choice for the typical sections and provide comments. Also presented and voted on were two options for the “Gateway” portion of Garden Street located in the City- owned parcel behind (to the west of) the Credit Union. The alternatives were posted to the City website and made available for further public comment until February 5, 2015. Notes from the stakeholder meetings and voting results and notes from Public Alternatives Workshop are contained in Appendix E. The following summarizes key features of each alternative. Alternative 1 (Figure 5) Pedestrians: 6' sidewalks both sides, bump-outs at intersections/crosswalks to narrow pedestrian crossing distances (all alternatives have this). Bicycles, scooters, skateboards, etc.: Multi-use trail behind buildings (150-200 feet from street) outside the wetland buffer. Shared-lanes that are in the vehicle travel lane only accommodate the most experienced cyclists. (Same as Alternative 2) Parking: Both sides of street, everywhere except bump outs at crosswalks. Same as Alternative 2. Trees: Approximately every 40 feet between cars and sidewalks (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have the most trees and tree canopy). Stormwater: Some infiltration of stormwater, most water treatment and all storage is offsite. Landscaping: In tree boxes and between trees. Alternative 2 (Figure 6) Pedestrians: 6' sidewalks both sides, bump-outs at intersections/crosswalks to narrow pedestrian crossing distances (all alternatives have this). Bicycles, scooters, skateboards, etc.: Multi-use trail behind buildings (150-200 feet from street) outside the wetland buffer. Shared-lanes that are in the vehicle travel lane only accommodate the most experienced cyclists. (Same as Alternative 1) Parking: Both sides of street, everywhere except bump-outs at crosswalks. Same as Alternative 1. Trees: Approximately every 40 feet between cars and sidewalks (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have the most trees and tree canopy). Stormwater: Biofiltration in boxes between the trees, infiltration of stormwater, has the most water storage & treatment onsite (some will be offsite). Landscaping: In tree boxes and in bioswales between trees. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 18 Figure 5 – Typical Section and Plan Alternative 1 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 19 Figure 6 – Typical Section and Plan Alternative 2 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 20 Alternative 3 (Figure 7) Pedestrians: 6' sidewalks both sides, bump-outs at intersections/crosswalks to narrow pedestrian crossing distances (all alternatives have this). Bicycles, scooters, skateboards, etc.: Protected bicycle way in right-of-way, accommodates all skill levels of cyclists. (same as Alternatives 3, 4a, and 4b). Parking: One side of the street, everywhere except bump outs at crosswalks. This option has approximately half as much parking as Alternatives 1 or 2. Trees: Approximately every 40 feet between cars and sidewalks (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have the most trees and tree canopy). Stormwater: Biofiltration in boxes between trees, infiltration of stormwater, approximately half the water storage and treatment onsite as Alternative 2 (some will be offsite). Landscaping: In tree boxes, bioswales between trees, and green strip. Alternative 4A (Figure 8) Pedestrians: 6' sidewalks both sides, bump-outs at intersections/crosswalks to narrow pedestrian crossing distances (all alternatives have this). Bicycles, scooters, skateboards, etc.: Protected bicycle way in right-of-way accommodate all skill levels of cyclists. (same as Alternatives 3, 4a, and 4b). Parking: Both sides of the street, everywhere except bump-outs at crosswalks. This option has approximately half as much parking as Alternatives 1 or 2. Trees: Every 80 feet located in the parking lane. Close to the roadway; opportunity to create a canopy over the roadway (provide traffic calming). This alternative has the least trees. Stormwater: Biofiltration, treatment in boxes with the trees, has a low amount of water storage, treatment onsite (a fair amount will be offsite). Landscaping: In tree boxes/bioswales and green strip between parking and sidewalk/protected bicycle way. Alternative 4B (Figure 9) Alternative 4B is similar to 4A except that the bump-outs for the trees are smaller to provide additional on-street parking and more street trees (spaced at 60’ on-center vs. 80’ on-center for Alternative 4A). There is less opportunity for stormwater treatment within the right-of-way for this alternative. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 21 Figure 7 – Typical Section Alternative 3 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 22 Figure 8 – Typical Section Alternative 4A GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 23 Figure 9 – Typical Section Alternative 4B GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 24 5.1.3 Gateway Alternatives The City owns a 100’ wide right-of-way between the Central School property and the Vermont Federal Credit Union property. Two gateway alternatives were developed for this portion of Garden Street. Common features for both alternatives include a 6’ sidewalk on each side of the road, 8’ green belts for landscaping and stormwater treatment on each side of the road, a 10’ protected bicycle way on the east side of the road and on-street parking along both sides of the road. The following summarizes key features of each alternative. Alternative A – Median Garden Option (Figure 10) This option includes a planted garden in a median located in the center of the road as shown in Figure 10 below. Note that the median is only located within the 100’ right-of-way that the City currently owns. Figure 10 - Gateway Alternative A GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 25 Alternative B – Side Garden Option (Figure 11) This option includes a planted garden between a buffered bicycle way and the sidewalk located to the east of the roadway as shown in Figure 11 below. Figure 11 - Gateway Alternative B These alternatives were also brought forward to the community for input at project stakeholder meetings held on January 13, 2015 and at a Public Alternatives Workshop held on January 15, 2015. At the Public Alternatives Workshop, the community had the opportunity to vote on their first choice for the gateway alternative and provide comments. The alternatives were posted to the City website and made available for further public comment until February 5, 2015. Notes from the stakeholder meetings and voting results and notes from Public Alternatives Workshop are contained in Appendix E. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 26 5.2 PROJECT TEAM MEETING TO DEVELOP DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS A Project Team Meeting was held on February 6, 2015 to review the input received from project stakeholders and the public and agreed on a preferred alternative to bring forward to the project stakeholders for final review and comment. The Project Team preferred a combination of Alternatives 4A and 4B primarily because these alternatives best satisfied the purpose and need of the project and included many of the key street elements that the public identified as important in the initial Project Kickoff Workshop and the Alternatives Workshop. These key design elements include dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, narrow travel lanes for traffic calming, on-street parking, landscaping opportunities, and stormwater treatment opportunities (ie. rain gardens) within the right-of-way. The Project Team agreed to present Alternatives 4A and 4B as the preferred alternative to the primary landowner representative, South Burlington Realty Corporation, for additional input prior to finalizing the recommendations. 5.3 COORDINATION WITH CITY CENTER MASTER PLAN The Project Team met with South Burlington Realty Corporation (SBRC) on February 11, 2015 to present the preferred alternative. At this meeting, SBRC indicated that they would be willing to consider a wider right-of-way for the street if there was a way to increase the number of on- street parking spaces. The Project Team agreed that this was a reasonable request especially since maximizing on-street parking was a key street design element identified in the public process; and this could be accomplished without sacrificing the other key street elements of Alternatives 4A and 4B. In addition, SBRC was working on a Master Plan for development of City Center. The Master Plan identified the need for wider sidewalks on the north side of Garden Street. It was agreed that the Project Team would develop an additional typical section alternative that incorporates all of the key design elements included in Alternatives 4A and 4B, and also maximizes on-street parking while fitting in with SBRC’s master development plan. After a series of meetings on March 11th and March 18th, 2015 with SBRC, Alternative 5 was finalized. Alternative 5 (Figure 12) Pedestrians: 6' sidewalks on the south side (residential), 8’ sidewalk on the north side (commercial) to accommodate buildings immediately adjacent to the sidewalk, bump-outs at intersections/crosswalks to narrow pedestrian crossing distances (all alternatives have this). Bicycles, scooters, skateboards, etc.: Protected bicycle way in right-of-way to accommodate all skill levels of cyclists. (same as Alternatives 3, 4a, and 4b). Parking: Both sides of the street, everywhere except bump-outs. This option has the same amount of parking as Alternatives 1 and 2 and more than 3 or 4a/4b. This alternative maximizes the amount of on-street parking. Trees: Approximately every 40 feet between cars and sidewalks (similar to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, provides the most trees and tree canopy). GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 27 Stormwater Treatment: Potential for biofiltration within the right-of-way, some treatment and all large storm storage to occur off-site. Landscaping: In dedicated green strip between parking and sidewalk/protected bicycle way. Alternative 5 maintains the key features of Alternatives 4A/4B including the protected bicycle way, narrow travel lanes, the potential for stormwater treatment in the right-of-way (ie. rain gardens), and landscaping/street amenity opportunities. It has the additional benefits of increasing the size of pedestrian ways on the north side, increasing the number of on-street parking spaces, and increasing the number of trees within the right-of-way while fitting in with SBRC’s Master Plan. 5.4 EVALUATION MATRIX An Evaluation Matrix was developed as a way to compare each alternative to one another with regards to total project impacts, as well as how each alternative satisfies the Purpose and Need of the project. The Evaluation Matrix is shown in Figure 13. The final recommendations developed by the Project Team are presented in Section 6.0. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 28 Figure 12 - Typical Section Alternative 5 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 29 Figure 13 - Alternatives Evaluation Matrix GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Alternatives April 2, 2015 30 This Page Left Intentionally Blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Final Recommendations April 2, 2015 31 6.0 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT AND TYPICAL SECTIONS The purpose of the Garden Street project is to develop the supporting infrastructure for City Center, create comfortable and attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center, improve transportation network connectivity and circulation, and enhance multi-modal travel in City Center and South Burlington. A robust public process was followed to gather input from the community including citizens, landowners, business owners and local agencies. The input received was critical in developing and evaluating alternatives and making final recommendations. The recommendations contained in this report carefully considered all of this input and reflect design elements which we believe are considered of primary importance to the community. The combination of alignment Alternative A1 and typical section Alternative 5 is recommended to best achieve the project goals. Alignment A1 (Figure 4) is recommended for the following reasons: The street infrastructure would be located within the City-owned ROW thus reducing acquisition and site redevelopment costs The ACOE pond project would not be impacted The location would allow for greatest development and redevelopment opportunities The alignment would discourage high-speed cut-through traffic Typical Section 5 (Figure 12) is recommended over the others because it best enhances multi- modal travel and best provides the supporting infrastructure necessary for City Center by: Creating a distinctive identity for City Center. The 8’ wide greenbelt will provide ample room for more frequent trees, landscaping, vehicle step-out zones and other roadside amenities such as public art, benches, bicycle parking, etc. This space also has the potential to be used for stormwater treatment. This alternative provides the best opportunity to provide the “Garden” in Garden Street. Dedicating bicycle facilities. The 10’ protected bikeway located within the ROW for the full length of Garden Street on the residential side will provide a safe and inviting opportunity for cyclists of all abilities to access the future developments of the new downtown area, as well as providing an important through connection to existing bicycle facilities to the south along Dorset Street and to the east along Williston Road. The protected bikeway also provides opportunities for future connections to bicycle facilities or other destinations such as Dumont Park that may be constructed as City Center as developed. The protected bikeway could be the first bicycle facility of its kind in Vermont and will further build on the great history and livability of our community. Connecting pedestrians to the anticipated land uses. The 6’ wide sidewalk on the proposed residential side and the 8’ sidewalk on the proposed commercial side will GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Final Recommendations April 2, 2015 32 provide safe and generous facilities for pedestrian mobility and complement SBRC master plan objectives. Calming traffic. Narrow 10’ travel lanes and street trees will contribute toward traffic calming. Slower vehicle speeds will establish a comfortable environment for bicyclists, pedestrians and other users and discourage the use of the road as a high-speed cut- through from Dorset to Hinesburg and vice versa. The travel lane widths still provide adequate width for emergency vehicles, transit and trucks. Curb extensions are recommended at all intersections and at mid-block crossings to provide additional traffic calming, create shorter crosswalks and provide additional space for streetside amenities. Providing the maximum amount of on-street parking. Maximizing the on-street parking will allow the streetscape to better support the planned surrounding residential and commercial development, and offset significant costs required to provide for these spaces elsewhere in structured parking. Both gateway alternatives include the design elements considered most important to the community such as landscaping opportunities, a dedicated and protected bikeway, sidewalks, and on-street parking. The Project Team recommends Alternative A contingent upon South Burlington Fire Department input on minimum requirements to effectively operate their equipment. If Alternative A does not meet the requirements of the Fire Department, then Alternative B is recommended and will satisfy the purpose of the project equally well as Alternative A. The recommendations are based on the draft Form Based Code, significant public and stakeholder input and the information that was available at the time this report was developed. Any significant alterations from these recommendations will need to be approved by City Council. The report does not yet include alternatives and recommendations for the existing Garden Street, Midas Drive from the intersection of Garden Street to the intersection with Williston Road, or the Williston Road intersections at this time. The City has undertaken a concurrent analysis of the Williston Road network from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road to explore transportation improvements to accommodate the full build-out of City Center. The traffic projections from this analysis have recently been completed and will be used to develop the alternatives for the Williston Road intersections. Alternatives for these segments and intersections will be developed and presented to the public and final recommendations presented to City Council in May 2015 at which time this report will be amended to include this work. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Final Recommendations April 2, 2015 33 6.2 NEXT STEPS The next steps for the project are as follows: 1. Present final recommendations for alignment and typical section of Garden Street from end of existing Garden Street to the intersection with Midas Drive to City Council for approval. 2. Develop and evaluate alternatives for Garden Street from Dorset Street to the end of existing Garden Street, Midas Drive from the intersection with Garden Street to the intersection with Williston Road, Midas Drive/White Street/Williston Road intersection, Patchen Road/Hinesburg Road/Williston Road intersection, and present these alternatives to public for input, develop final recommendations and present to City Council for approval. 3. Begin Phase B – Project Design and continue coordination with other City projects including Market Street and Dumont Park. 6.3 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL Pending City Council review GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Final Recommendations April 2, 2015 34 This Page Left Intentionally Blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix A Existing Conditions Summary April 2, 2015 A.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARYAppendix A GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix B Excerpts from Draft LDR’s and Draft Zoning Map April 2, 2015 B.1 EXCERPTS FROM DRAFT LDR’S AND DRAFT Appendix B ZONING MAP GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix C EA Re-evaluation Meeting Summary April 2, 2015 C.1 EA RE-EVALUATION MEETING SUMMARYAppendix C GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix D Project Stakeholder Meeting Notes April 2, 2015 D.1 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTESAppendix D GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix E Public Kickoff Workshop Notes and Best Ideas April 2, 2015 E.1 PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP NOTES AND BEST Appendix E IDEAS GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix F Alternatives Workshop Notes April 2, 2015 F.1 ALTERNATIVES WORKSHOP NOTESAppendix F GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix G CCTA Routes April 2, 2015 G.1 CCTA ROUTESAppendix G GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix H Natural Resource Review Memo April 2, 2015 H.1 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW MEMOAppendix H GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix I Cultural Resource Review April 2, 2015 I.1 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEWAppendix I GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix J Hydrant Flow Test Data April 2, 2015 J.1 HYDRANT FLOW TEST DATAAppendix J GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Appendix K Subsurface Investigation April 2, 2015 K.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Appendix K TO: City Council FROM: Tom Hubbard, DCM RE: Open Space Fund DATE: April 3, 2015 Councilors: This memo is a follow‐up to both the presentation on the Underwood Property and Pat Nowak's suggestion at the last meeting for Councilors to give some thought to ideas moving forward about what might be possible to begin funding some of the projects for this property and other public lands. In anticipation of that, staff has spent some time since the last Council meeting to explore some options and would like to propose the following for your consideration and an item on the agenda for Monday night. Council has heard several times about the need for overdue maintenance on projects for Red Rocks, new recommendations for improvements for both Wheeler and Red Rocks as a result of the Management Plans for these properties, and the recent presentation for possibilities with the Underwood Property. The below recommendations are fairly generalized and largely pulled from the Management Reports for Wheeler and Red Rocks, and the Underwood Vision Framework. Substantial funding would be needed to have an immediate impact and sustained effort to embark upon such improvements which could consist of the following: Repair major areas of trail erosion, install puncheon or bridging on trails where needed, and provide trail stabilization in areas of disrepair. Develop a formal Park Master Plan for Underwood. Complete all accessibility recommendations for these properties as outlined in the ADA report. Design a new plan for parking at Red Rocks, and road to the parking area and accessibility to the beach. Improve beachfront. Address parking and circulation issues at the Wheeler Homestead. Provide for some off‐road parking at Underwood and the initial work on trails to connect to South Pointe. Install appropriate signage and informational kiosks at each of these properties. Restore scenic views at Red Rocks. Define and complete restoration plan for Underwood. Remediate watershed area and test stream hydrology at Wheeler. Targeted removal of invasive species from focus areas identified in management plans and control of further spread in these areas. Complete the pedestrian trail and amenities from Cheesefactory Rd. to the Scott Property. These are some of the potential projects that could be completed. Proper vetting and prioritization should be done by the committees affiliated with these properties, and obtaining exact costs for projects. Possible funding for these projects could come from re‐allocating of one‐half cent of the open space fund, with the other one‐half cent continuing to be used for the purchase of open space land. The City could borrow $1.3 million dollars now at current rates over a period of ten years, and have the annual cost of that loan funded by the one‐half cent at no additional cost to the taxpayers. This would be used for these Natural Area Properties only, not active recreation areas or other projects. Should the Council consider this proposal, the voters would need to approve the re‐allocation as well, which perhaps could be considered during the next public vote. The City is also exploring a potential partnership for expanded services with the Winooski Valley Park District which could involve the management of some of these properties by their organization. Initial discussions with their Management/Board have been favorable to pursuing this further. P:\AutoCADD Projects\2013\13247\1-CADD Files-13247\Dwg\13247-PLAT-BA.dwg, 4/1/2015 9:10:48 AM, tcowan, Nitro PDF Creator (Pro 9)802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.comCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ACEORIGINAL INK on MYLAR - Location Map -NOT to SCALEBA1Black Bay Ventures VIII, LLCandSouth Burlington City Center, Inc.135 & 137 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, VermontBoundary Adjustment Plat for:RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT ______________O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF __________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKTothebestofmyknowledgeandbeliefthisplatdepictstheresultsofasurveyconductedbymeasdescribedin"SurveyNotes"above,baseduponouranalysisoflandrecordsandevidencefoundinthefield.Existingboundariesshownareinsubstantialconformancewiththerecords,exceptasnoted.Thisplatisinsubstantialcompliancewith27VSA1403,"RecordingofLandPlats".Thisstatementvalidonlywhenaccompaniedbymyoriginal signature and seal._________________________________________ Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597APPROVEDBYRESOLUTIONOFTHEDEVELOPMENTREVIEWBOARDOFTHECITYOFSOUTHBURLINGTON,VERMONT,ONTHE_____DAYOF___________,20____,SUBJECTTOTHEREQUIREMENTSANDCONDITIONSOFSAIDRESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON- Legend -A."1LotSubdivisionofPropertyBelongingtoJoannaDuboisJenkins",lastrevised11/21/1978,byPalmerCompany,Ltd.MapSlide 124.B."CorporateCircle...SouthBurlingtonRealtyCorp.,PropertyData",datedApril1981, by Webster-Martin, Inc. Not of Record.C."CorporateCircle...SouthBurlingtonRealtyCorp.,SitePlan",datedSeptember1981, by Webster-Martin, Inc. Map Slide 154.D."PlanofPropertyofHarry&CarrieBarrett",datedJuly5,1946,byHoag-Stone& Associates. Map Slide 4.E."EdmundA.&StellaG.ChastenayProperty",datedJanuary1982byW.A.Robenstien. Map Slide 119.F."LandtobePurchasedfromtheMcKenzieEstatebytheVermadaCorp.",circa1968,byunknown. Map Book 80 Page 99.- Referenced Plats -1. Purpose of this survey and plat are to:a.)retracetheexistingboundariesoftwoparcelsoflandconveyedtoBlackbayVenturesVIII,LLCbydeedofMichaelA.Peters,datedOctober25,2013andrecordedinVolume1192Page45oftheSouthBurlingtonLandRecords;b.)todepictthecombiningofthosetwoparcelsintoone;c.)todepictaboundaryagreementbetweensaidBlackbayandSouthBurlingtonCityCenter,Inc.;andd.)todepict the discontinuance of a 5' strip of the Market St. R.O.W.2.ThelinebetweenBlackbayVenturesVII,LLCandSouthBurlingtonCityCenter,Inc.wasshowndifferentlyonrecordedplats.Thenewlineshownisbaseduponanagreementbetweenthetwoparties.- Survey Notes -3.SurveywasperformedduringJanuary2014consistingofaclosed-looptraverseconductedwithanelectronictotalstationinstrument.BearingsshownarefromGridNorth,VermontCoordinateSystemof1983,derivedfromourGPSobservationsonor adjacent to the site.4.Ironpipefoundarelabeledwithinsidediameters.Concretemonumentsfoundare4"squareincross-section.Proposedconcretemonumentsshallbe4"squarewithaluminumdisksstamped "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597".5.UtilitiesshowndonotpurporttoconstituteorrepresentALLutilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises.6.HinesburgRoadwidthdescribedinTownofBurlingtonHighway& Roads Volume 1 Pages 34-35 (1822).PROJECTLOCATIONProposed20'wideeasementtotheCityofSouth Burlington for future recreational path.- Easement Note - SAVSAVMAB1" = 20'13247C1.1LOCATION MAPNSTACEBLACKBAYVENTURES VIII, LLC226 RIDGEFIELD ROADSHELBURNE VT 05482135 HINESBURG ROADSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PROPOSEDCONDITIONSSITE PLAN12 UNITHOUSING PROJECTMARCH 26, 2014GENERAL NOTESZONING REQUIREMENTS:*F.A.R. RATIO INCLUDES ONLY FINISHED AREALEGENDPROJECTLOCATIONCOVERAGECATEGORYBUILDINGTOTALREQUIRED50%80%EXISTING*SETBACKFRONT YARDSIDEYARDSIDEYARDBUILDING HEIGHTPRIMARYPROPOSEDPROPOSEDZONING DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT 35.6%7.7%26.5%72.7%35 32' (ADV.)0-80'5'±9.9±300.0'± 1.0'±20.0'5' ±30.7' ±51.4'FRONT YARD0-80' ±11.7' ±41.7'F.A.R. RATIO0.515600 / 33229 = ±.47*P:\AutoCADD Projects\2013\13247\1-CADD Files-13247\Dwg\13247-SITE.dwg, 1/6/2015 1:37:00 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OFG4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND ISNOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED,OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, INWHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THEPRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVEGUILDG4 DESIGN STUDIOS77 COLLEGE STREET, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 A102802-497-0895BUILDING 1ELEVATIONSBLACKBAYVENTURES VIII, LLC 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of Discontinuance of 5 foot strip along a portion of Market Street DATE: April 6 City Council meeting Overview: Staff, together with property owner David Shenk, are proposing a public-private partnership to enhance a gateway residential project on Market Street in City Center. In exchange for the discontinuance and donation of a five (5)-foot wide strip of land within the City’s right-of-way, Mr. Shenk would enhance a proposed townhouse development through the installation of attractive, usable front porches on each housing unit. The Council is being asked to consider and initiate the process for this discontinuance and donation. Background: Over the past several months, the City and David Shenk, the owner of a parcel along the south side of Market Street at the intersection of Hinesburg Road, have been collaborating towards the establishment of a high-quality, pedestrian-friendly gateway housing project. Mr. Shenk submitted an application to the Development Review Board in 2014 for the construction of 12 housing units in four (4) buildings. The subject property is long and narrow, with its principal front facing Market Street and its principal rear abutting single-family homes along Iby Street. Due the narrowness of the property, and the space and treatment required to buffer the project from the abutting single family homes along Iby Street, there was little to no room on the subject property for a strong street presence along Market Street. While such a presence (such as front porches) are not required by the Land Development Regulations, they are encouraged. The Development Review Board provided feedback to Mr. Shenk that a stronger street presence would be welcome. In discussions with staff, it was revealed that in this particular section of Market Street, the City’s right-of-way is 10’ wider than that for the rest of the roadway (5’ each side). Staff held a series of 2 internal meetings to discuss the idea making use of this 5’ additional width of the right-of-way on the south side of the street to allow for porches. Based on discussions with staff and the DRB, the applicant’s final submission was revised to include development within a 5’ area owned by the City. The DRB approved this application, conditioned upon the 5’ being approved for discontinuance and transfer by the City Council. Staff analysis: Staff fully supports the concept for a public-private partnership for a number of reasons: • The project is located at principal eastern gateway to City Center • The City is investing significant resources into the reconstruction of Market Street as an attractive, interactive, pedestrian-friendly street • The transfer of 5’ will allow the proposed housing to include 6’ deep porches for each of the housing units, giving the future residents of those townhomes the ability to use this space which will create a sense of activity of the street • The transfer of the 5’ affords the development more space to install attractive fencing and landscaping along the Iby Street side of the project, a request made by many of the neighbors. • As part of the project, Mr. Shenk will install the sub-base for the future city sidewalk along the portion of Market Street in front of the project. Staff has also carefully reviewed the proposal for possible impacts on traffic and the streetscape design for Market Street. The City Manager’s Office, Department of Public Works, and Planning & Zoning Department are all comfortable that the proposed discontinuance will not result in a diminishment of the Market Street design or have a negative effect on future traffic. This is largely due to the unique circumstance that the City’s Right-of-Way in this area is 90’ wide instead of 80’. The discontinuance of the 5’ strip of land on the south side would simply make the ROW line along Market Street a straight line to Hinesburg Road, rather than having an outward jog as it presently has. Possible Motion: Should the City Council be comfortable in proceeding to the next step in the process, the following motion would be appropriate: I move that the City Council, pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 708(a), commence the process of discontinuing a portion of the town highway right-of-way for Market Street (Town Highway No. 228) both by scheduling an examination of the premises on May 18th at 6:30 p.m and a public hearing on the discontinuance to follow at City Hall on May 18th at 7:00 p.m. and by directing the City Attorney or his designee to provide notice of the examination of the premises and public hearing on the discontinuance to all those entitled to notice pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 709. The portion of the right- of-way proposed to be discontinued is a roughly 5’ x 345’ strip of the right-of-way located along the southerly side of Market Street (Town Highway No. 228) extending westerly from Market Street’s intersection with Hinesburg Road (VT Route 116).