Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 02/17/2016 Picture 001 AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1. Pledge of Allegiance. (6:30 – 6:31 PM) 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (6:31 – 6:32 PM) 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (6:32 – 6:42 PM) 4. *** Consider temporary appointment of Paul Conner as Asst. Zoning Administrator and Assistant Code Officer until annual March appointments. (6:42 – 6:43 PM) 5. Consider temporary appointment of Justin Rabidoux as Second Alternate to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission until annual March appointments. (6:43 – 6:44 PM) 6. Announcements and City Manager’s Report. (6:44 – 6:54 PM) 7. Consent Agenda: (6:54 – 6:56 PM) A. *** Sign Disbursement B. *** Approve Minutes for February 1, and February 8 8. *** Garden Street Recommended Concept for Williston Road Intersections – Ilona Blanchard (6:56 – 7:21 PM) 9. Continued discussion and possible adoption of amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and Official Map ­ Paul Conner (7:21 – 7:51 PM) 10. Review and possibly ratify Tentative Agreement between the City of South Burlington and Local 3671 of the International Association of Fire Fighters AFL-CIO (South Burlington Fire Fighters). Possible executive session to consider a labor relations agreement with employees under 1 V.S.A. §313(a)(1)(B) ­ Tom Hubbard (7:51 – 8:21 PM) 11. ***Review of January Financial Statements – Tom Hubbard (8:21 – 8:26 PM) 12. Other Business: (8:26 – 8:31 PM) A. Items held from the Consent Agenda 13. Adjourn (8:31 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. Cost of development/cost of open space. 3. Airport noise survey 4. Crosswalk issues generally and on Kennedy Drive and Williston Road 5. Evaluate water billing and rate structure Issues that have been discussed by the Council where further action is pending: 1. East Terrace neighborhood conversion of housing into rental units. 2. Street light policy. 3. Committee reorganization. 4. Encouraging litter removal by businesses and the public. 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. 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: Temporary Appointment of Paul Conner as Assistant Zoning Administrator and Assistant Code Officer DATE: February 17, 2016 City Council meeting Staff is requesting temporary authority for Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning, to be able to issue permits. The Department typically has at least two staff members (presently Ray Belair and Cathyann LaRose) authorized annually to issue permits. Due to schedules associated with school vacation week, both Ray and Cathyann will be out of the office for a few days. In order to allow for certain timely permits (house sales, etc.) to be able to proceed without delay and to assure the highest possible level of customer service to our residents and businesses, staff is respectfully requesting that Paul be granted a temporary authority to issue permits. Staff’s recommendation is that the temporary authority be granted until the Council’s annual appointments, which typically take place in early March. Proposed motion: “I move that Paul Conner be appointed as Assistant Zoning Administrator and Assistant Code Officer until the Council’s annual March appointments, pursuant to City Charter, Chapter 13, Section 301(2).” South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 02/18/16 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 2/18/2016 2931 Champlain Water District 53,612.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 1/31/2016 VI-13892 SBWD-310 53,612.00 53,612.00 2/18/2016 2932 Champlain Water District 101,498.01 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 1/31/2016 VI-13888 SBWD-303 190.53 190.53 1/31/2016 VI-13889 JANUARY 101,307.48 101,307.48 2/18/2016 2933 E.J. Prescott, Inc. 1,039.08 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 2/1/2016 VI-13899 5047648 988.32 988.32 1/26/2016 VI-13900 5046568 50.76 50.76 2/18/2016 2934 Ferguson Waterworks #590 1,719.40 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 2/1/2016 VI-13898 0397944 761.48 761.48 2/5/2016 VI-13903 0397917 957.92 957.92 2/18/2016 2935 B. Forsyth 165.86 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 2/10/2016 VI-13902 REFUND 165.86 165.86 2/18/2016 2936 Office Essentials 123.85 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 2/8/2016 VI-13896 32445 13.10 13.10 2/5/2016 VI-13897 32422 110.75 110.75 2/18/2016 2937 Estate Of Mary X. Pappas 34.37 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 2/10/2016 VI-13901 REFUND 34.37 34.37 2/18/2016 2938 City Of South Burlington 271,704.24 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 1/31/2016 VI-13890 JANUARY SEWER 271,704.24 271,704.24 2/18/2016 2939 City Of South Burlington 204,704.77 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 1/31/2016 VI-13891 JANUARY STORMWATER 204,704.77 204,704.77 2/18/2016 2940 Stiles Company Inc. 2,789.90 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 1/25/2016 VI-13894 222335 2,044.90 2,044.90 1/26/2016 VI-13895 222364 745.00 745.00 Printed: February 11, 2016 Page 1 of 2 South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 02/18/16 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 2/18/2016 2941 Ti-Sales Inc. 710.62 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 2/2/2016 VI-13893 INV0060347 710.62 710.62 Total Amount Paid: 638,102.10 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: February 11, 2016 Page 2 of 2 CITY COUNCIL     8 February, 2016  The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, February 8, 2016 at  12:00 PM, in the Champlain Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.  MEMBERS PRESENT:  P. Nowak, Chair, M Emery, C. Shaw  ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager  1. Pledge of Allegiance    2. Agenda Review.  There were no changes to the Agenda  3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda.  There were no comments or questions from the public.  4. Convene as the Liquor Control Board  Ms. Emery moved to convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Board.  Mr. Shaw  seconded the motion.  The motion passed 3‐0.  Mr. Shaw moved to approve the Outside Consumption Permit application for Franny O’s and  the Second Class License for Finelli’s, LLC.  Ms. Emery seconded the motion.  The motion passed  3‐0.  Mr. Shaw moved to adjourn the Liquor Control Board.  Ms. Emery seconded the motion.  The  motion passed 3‐0.  Mr. Shaw then moved to adjourn.  Ms. Emery seconded.  The motion passed 3‐0. The meeting  was adjourned at 12:20 PM.          __________________________, Clerk         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: Preferred alternative for the Williston Road intersections portion of the Garden Street project. Date: February 12, 2016 Background: Last year the Council approved the preferred alternative and typical for Garden Street. One remaining portion of the concept for the project needs to be approved: the Williston Road intersections portion. The completion of the concept (project portions under consideration for approval) includes • a typical section for Midas Drive, • the design of two Williston Road intersections – Midas and White Streets and Patchen and Hinesburg Roads, • the roadway typical between the two intersections. Substantial public outreach was held and analysis conducted. These are documented in the Project Definition Report. This project is also being coordinated with the Williston Road Network Study. Attachments: • Garden Street Resolution and exhibit • Garden Street Project Definition Report Recommendation: Review and vote on attached resolution Additional Consideration: Approved recommendations will be used to develop the project plans. Garden Street Project Definition Report FINAL – Pending City Council Approval Prepared for: City of South Burlington, Vermont 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Prepared by: 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 February 1, 2016 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 Greenman-Pederson 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 Tom DiPietro Deputy Director of Public Works GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 2.1 PROJECT AREA ..................................................................................................................... 3  2.2 REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS, STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ............... 5  PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS/PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP .............................. 9 3.0 3.1 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ................................................................................... 9  3.2 PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP ............................................................................................. 9  PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT ................................................................................... 10 4.0 GARDEN STREET ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 12 5.0 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 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC (SBCC, LLC) MASTER PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 26  5.4 EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................................... 27  5.5 PREFERRED ALIGNMENT AND TYPICAL SECTIONS ......................................................... 31  5.6 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ............................................................................................... 32  WILLISTON ROAD INTERSECTIONS AND MIDAS DRIVE ALTERNATIVES ........................ 33 6.0 6.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 33  6.1.1 Intersection Alternatives ................................................................................ 33 6.1.2 Midas Drive Alternatives ................................................................................ 53  6.2 PROJECT TEAM MEETING TO DEVELOP DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 58  6.3 EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................................... 58  6.4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................... 61  6.4.1 Williston Road Recommendations ............................................................... 61  6.4.2 Midas Drive Connection Recommendations ............................................ 63  6.5 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ............................................................................................... 64  NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................................... 65 7.0 APPENDIX A – EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY ................................................................... A  APPENDIX B – EXCERPTS FROM DRAFT LDR’S AND DRAFT ZONING MAP ................................ B  APPENDIX C – EA RE-EVALUATION MEETING SUMMARY ......................................................... C  APPENDIX D – PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES ......................................................... D  GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT APPENDIX E – PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP NOTES AND BEST IDEAS ...................................... E  APPENDIX F – GARDEN STREET ALTERNATIVES WORKSHOP NOTES .......................................... F  APPENDIX G – CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS FOR THE GARDEN STREET PROJECT ................. G  APPENDIX H – WILLISTON ROAD ALTERNATIVES WORKSHOP NOTES ...................................... H  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Draft City Center Form Based Codes Blocks and Streets 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 Draft Land Development Regulations approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2015 .......................................................................................................... 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 Figure 14 - Alternative 1: This alternative would add on-road bike lanes by narrowing vehicular travel lanes and eliminating the existing green belt between the road and sidewalk ................................................................................. 35  Figure 15 - Typical section for Alternative 1 (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) ........................................................................................... 36  Figure 16 - Alternative 2: This alternative includes the same improvements as Alternative 1 and also includes dedicated left-turn lanes on the Williston Road intersection approaches .................................................................................... 39  Figure 17 - Typical section for Alternative 2 (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) ........................................................................................... 40  Figure 18 - Alternative 3A: This alternative includes the same improvements as Alternative 1 and also includes green belts between the road and sidewalk ........................................................................................................................... 43  Figure 19 - Typical section for Alternative 3A (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) ........................................................................................... 44  Figure 20 - Alternative 3B: This alternative is the same as Alternative 3A except that on-road bike lanes are replaced with an off-road protected bikeway on the south side of the road ...................................................................... 47  Figure 21 - Typical section for Alternative 3B (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) ........................................................................................... 48  Figure 22 - Alternative 4: Two-lane roundabouts at each intersection .............................. 51  GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Figure 23 - Midas Drive looking north toward Williston Road ................................................. 53  Figure 24 - Midas Drive Alternative 1 – Five foot bike lanes with no on-street parking ............................................................................................................................. 55  Figure 25 - Midas Drive Alternative 2 - Ten foot wide protected bikeway with no on-street parking ............................................................................................................ 56  Figure 26 – Midas Drive Alternative 3 - Ten foot wide protected bikeway with on- street parking .................................................................................................................. 57  Figure 27 - Evaluation Matrix for Williston Road Intersections ................................................ 59    GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Executive summary February 1, 2016 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 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 the access drive into 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 From June 2014 – April 2015, the focus of the work was on developing recommendations for Garden Street and the connection to Midas Drive. 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. On April 6, 2015, City Council approved the final recommendations through a resolution for Garden Street typical section and alignment. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Executive summary February 1, 2016 2 After the Garden Street typical section and alignment recommendations were approved by City Council, the project team focused efforts on the Midas Drive to Williston Road connection and improvements to the Williston Road intersections (May 2015 – January 2016). Input had already been gathered in the September 2014 workshop and incorporated into the purpose and need statement. Many alternatives were tested against this statement in the project evaluation matrix. Focused meetings with project stakeholders were held to receive feedback on and further refine the most viable alternatives. In November 2015, the alternatives were presented to the community for consideration and additional input. The final recommendations will be presented to City Council in February for consideration. For Garden Street, the alignment Alternative A1 and typical section Alternative 5 were recommended to best achieve the project goals and reflect key design elements that were identified as being of primary importance to the community. The alignment and typical section alternatives are described in Section 5.0. For Williston Road intersections improvements, Alternative 3B is recommended in the short-term to best improve safety for all users of the intersections and corridor. Other improvements can be phased in over time as properties redevelop to minimize impacts to the current function of adjacent businesses along the corridor. Short-term and long-term improvement recommendations are described in Section 6.0. The next steps for the project are contained in Section 7.0. The recommendations of this study 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. The City has undertaken a concurrent analysis of the Williston Road network from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road to explore transportation improvements that will accommodate the full build- out of City Center. The traffic projections from the analysis were used to develop and analyze the alternatives for the Williston Road intersections. The recommendations from this report, especially as it relates to bicycle facility design, should be considered in the recommendations for the Williston Road network study. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background February 1, 2016 3 BACKGROUND 2.0 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 100% eligible for Tax Increment Financing, a mechanism, which, with the approval of voters, allows future tax revenues on new development inside the Tax Increment Financing District to service debt on related public infrastructure. The purpose of the City Center Tax Increment Financing District is “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 1980s, 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 per the Environmental Assessment for City Center which was federally approved in 2010. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background February 1, 2016 4 Figure 1 – Draft City Center Form Based Codes Blocks and Streets Map. Garden Street project area is outlined in black with light green shading.Project Area GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background February 12, 2016 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 City Council is considering draft Land Development Regulations (LDRs) 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. Relevant sections of the draft LDRs are contained in Appendix B. The proposed changes will be adopted into the LDRs pending approval by the City Council. Street Typologies as defined in the Draft Land Development Regulations The draft Land Development Regulations include a Form Based Code District with various street typologies which provide ranges and 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. The project team used these street typologies as the starting point for developing alternatives. This project carries the streetscape design to a finer level of detail with a greater degree of community/stakeholder involvement, thus, for areas the project covers the Land Development Regulations refer to the plans that come out of the Garden Street project rather than the Street Typologies. Form Based Codes District Pending Land Use Garden Street is anticipated to be generally in a T-4 zone which means two to four story buildings located zero to 20’ from the ROW, except for at Market Street where the west side will be a T-5 zone with two to six 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 alleys to parking located behind buildings. 2. Market Street Reconstruction – The Market Street Reconstruction project is currently in the final design 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. 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 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background February 12, 2016 6 Figure 2 – Typical section for a Support Street as defined in the Draft Land Development Regulations approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2015 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background February 1, 2016 7 including Garden Street. FHWA approved the EA with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2010. 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 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 substantive changes to the Market Street project intent or EA, then the Garden Street project will not require FHWA review and approval. As its design progressed it was concluded that 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. 3. 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 and an upgrade to the Brook culvert that is currently under Market Street. 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. 4. Dumont Park/City Center Park Project – The City has a TIF District park design which will serve the City Center area and adjoining neighborhoods. The City owns an approximately 8-acre parcel (informally known as Dumont Park) south of the TIF District which was acquired with Federal Funds. The design for this area is near completion. The land is adjacent to Tributary 3 and its associated wetlands. The approved concept for the City Center park design envisions a public recreation trail across Tributary 3, as may be donated or acquired, which connects Dumont Park to Garden Street. The approved concept also established the preference for bicycle facilities within the alignment of Garden Street as opposed to behind any future development and adjacent to the Tributary 3 wetland buffer. 5. South Burlington City Center, LLC – South Burlington City Center, LLC (SBCC, LLC) owns a majority of the land surrounding Garden Street proper 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 for the Garden Street project. 6. South Burlington School District – The South Burlington School District initiated a Master Planning and Visioning Process to study the future of schools in South Burlington. This task force unanimously recommended that the Rick Marcotte Central School (RMCS) and property be sold. The School has hired a consultant to better understand the financial implications. The design of Garden Street will need to be coordinated with the School District, or should a new owner occur, with that owner, as the approved concept includes access to this property directly west of the access to Midas Drive. 7. Williston Road Network Transportation Analysis – This study and scoping is being managed by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) on behalf of the City 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 establishment of a downtown. 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 designs 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 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Background February 1, 2016 8 management, increased transit, bicycle and pedestrian usage, access management and accepting more congestion. In this project, the regional traffic model was updated and this was used by the Garden Street team to develop and refine alternatives for the Garden Street project. Strategies developed for the network analysis will take into account the recommendations of this report. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Project Stakeholder Meetings/Public Kickoff Workshop February 1, 2016 9 PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS/PUBLIC KICKOFF 3.0 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 and discussion was held in the vicinity of Williston Road, Midas Drive and Hinesburg Road. 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 Streets  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 Street to Hinesburg Road  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 E. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Purpose and Need Statement February 1, 2016 10 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT 4.0 The Purpose and Need Statement summarizes what a 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 integral to the TIF District project implementation process; 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 multimodal 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 February 1, 2016 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 multimodal 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 Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 12 GARDEN STREET ALTERNATIVES 5.0 From November 2014 – April 2015, the focus of the work was on developing alternatives for Garden Street and the connection to Midas Drive. Various alternatives were developed and tested on how well it satisfied the purpose and need. A robust public process was followed to gather input from the community including citizens, landowners, business owners and local agencies to vet the alternatives. The input received was critical in developing and evaluating alternatives and making final recommendations. On April 6, 2015, City Council approved the final recommendations through a resolution for Garden Street typical section and alignment. 5.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Various alternatives were developed for the roadway alignment and typical section. 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. 5.1.1 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 – Approved Alternative (shown in red) This alternative uses the city-owned ROW through the RMCS property and between the Vermont Federal Credit Union and Midas Muffler properties. A new three-way intersection would be created with Garden Street and Midas Drive which will be offset from the Price Chopper Plaza drive access to Midas Drive. Alignment A1 is the preferred alternative and was approved by the City Council on April 6, 2015. This alignment has 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 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 13 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 does not adequately meet 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 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 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 2016, therefore relocating the pond is not an option. 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 Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 14 This page left intentionally blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 15 Figure 3 - Alignment Alternatives: A1 in red, A2 in purple and A3 in blue GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 16 Figure 4 - Preferred Alignment (Alternative A1) shown in green GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 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 indicate 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 F. 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 and treatment onsite (some will be offsite). Landscaping: In tree boxes and in bioswales between trees. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 18 Figure 5 – Typical Section and Plan Alternative 1 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 19 Figure 6 – Typical Section and Plan Alternative 2 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 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 (ROW), 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 ROW accommodates 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 ROW for this alternative. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 21 Figure 7 – Typical Section Alternative 3 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 22 Figure 8 – Typical Section Alternative 4A GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 23 Figure 9 – Typical Section Alternative 4B GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 24 5.1.3 Gateway Alternatives The City owns a 100’ wide ROW 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’ ROW that the City currently owns. Figure 10 - Gateway Alternative A GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 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. The communities preferred choice was split evenly between the two alternatives. Notes from the stakeholder meetings and voting results and notes from Public Alternatives Workshop are contained in Appendix F. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 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 (i.e. rain gardens) within the ROW. 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 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC (SBCC, LLC) MASTER PLAN The Project Team met with South Burlington Realty Corporation (SBRC) which represents SBCC, LLC on February 11, 2015 to present the preferred alternative. At this meeting, SBRC indicated that they would be willing to consider a wider ROW 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 the SBCC, LLC property. 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 11 and March 18, 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 ROW to accommodate all skill levels of cyclists. (same as Alternatives 3, 4a and 4b). Parking: Both sides of the street, except at 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. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 27 Trees: Approximately every 40 feet between cars and sidewalks (similar to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, provides the most trees and tree canopy). Stormwater Treatment: Potential for biofiltration within the ROW, 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 ROW (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 ROW while fitting in with the SBCC, LLC 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 5.5. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 28 Figure 12 - Typical Section Alternative 5 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 29 Figure 13 - Alternatives Evaluation Matrix GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 30 This Page Left Intentionally Blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 31 5.5 PREFERRED 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 multimodal 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 were identified as primary importance to the community. Alignment Alternative A1 and typical section Alternative 5 were recommended to best achieve the project goals. Alignment A1 (Figure 4) was 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) was recommended over the others because it best enhances multimodal 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 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 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Garden Street Alternatives February 1, 2016 32 recommended at all intersections and at mid-block crossings to provide additional traffic calming, create shorter crosswalks and provide additional space for street 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 associated costs required to provide for these spaces elsewhere, be it in the form of structured parking or the use of otherwise valuable land for surface parking lots. 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. These 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. 5.6 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL On April 6, 2015, City Council approved the recommendations outlined above through a resolution for Garden Street typical section and alignment. The resolution is contained in Appendix G. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 33 WILLISTON ROAD INTERSECTIONS AND MIDAS DRIVE 6.0 ALTERNATIVES After the Garden Street recommendations were approved by City Council, the project team focused efforts on the Midas Drive to Williston Road connection and improvements to the Williston Road intersections (May 2015 – January 2016). A similar public process was undertaken with project stakeholders and the community to gather input that was used to develop and evaluate alternatives. The final recommendations will be presented to City Council in February for consideration. 6.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Various alternatives were developed to improve the safety for all users of the Williston Road intersections and to transition Garden Street to Williston Road via Midas Drive. The alternatives were presented to project stakeholders and the public for input. This input was taken under consideration during development of the final recommendations. 6.1.1 Intersection Alternatives The Project Team developed a number of intersection alternatives for consideration. These incorporated the work of the Williston Road Network Analysis and used the updated traffic models developed in that project. The alternatives focused on improving safety, aesthetics and function of the street for all users. Five of these alternatives were brought forward to the community for input at project stakeholder meetings held in November and December 2015 and at a Public Alternatives Workshop held on November 18, 2015. At the Public Alternatives Workshop, the community had the opportunity to indicate on their first and second choice for the typical sections and provide comments. The alternatives were posted to the City website and made available for further public comment until December 15, 2015. Notes from the stakeholder meetings and voting results and notes from Public Alternatives Workshop are contained in Appendix H. The following summarizes key features of each alternative. All alternatives include realignment of the Midas Drive and White Street intersection, pedestrian improvements at the intersections, some form of bicycle facility and a continuous median between the intersections. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 34 Alternative 1 (Figure 14 and Figure 15) – Adding on-road bike lanes This alternative generally consists of adding on-road bike lanes by narrowing vehicular travel lanes and eliminating the existing green belt between the road and sidewalk. This alternative can be generally constructed within the existing highway ROW but would require significant utility relocations that would require permanent easements. Specific features, benefits and considerations for this alternative are summarized below.  Four 10’ vehicle lanes – The narrower travel lanes would calm traffic.  5’ bike lanes – The bike lanes would provide safer infrastructure for expert and enthused bicyclists over the existing 1’ wide shoulders. A great majority of the bicycling population would not use the bike lanes.  Option for shared-use path or protected bikeway on south side of road – A shared-use path or protected bikeway would separate bicyclists from motor vehicles and would accommodate a much larger population of bicyclists.  4’ wide continuous median between White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg Road – A continuous median would eliminate left-turn conflicts at driveways, reduce crashes and increase motor vehicle mobility along Williston Road.  5’ sidewalks on both sides of road – This is similar to the existing condition.  Green belt is eliminated – Eliminating the green belt would require utility relocations and pedestrians walking immediately adjacent to traffic. There would be no landscaping opportunity along the roadway.  Realignment of White/Midas to form traditional intersection with Williston Road crosswalks – The intersection realignment would eliminate the awkward turning movements from the side streets and potentially reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes. New crosswalks would accommodate pedestrian movements to and from destinations north and south of Williston Road.  Tighter curb radii (the curve at corners) – Smaller curb radii at intersection corners will reduce pedestrian crossing distances and slow turning traffic making a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians.  Updated traffic signals and controllers – The existing traffic signals and controllers would be replaced to optimize signal phasing and timing and maximize intersection capacity. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 35 Figure 14 - Alternative 1: This alternative would add on-road bike lanes by narrowing vehicular travel lanes and eliminating the existing green belt between the road and sidewalk GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 36 Figure 15 - Typical section for Alternative 1 (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 37 Alternative 2 (Figure 16 and Figure 17) – Adding on-road bike lanes and dedicated left-turn lanes This alternative offers many of the same improvements as Alternative 1 with the most significant difference being dedicated left-turn lanes on the Williston Road intersection approaches. Specific features for this alternative are summarized below.  Four 10’ vehicle lanes with dedicated left-turn lanes – The narrower travel lanes would calm traffic. The left-turn lanes would provide for greater through capacity on Williston Road while also allowing for a dedicated protected left-turn phase. Adding the turn- lanes would require additional ROW (82’ total width).  5’ bike lanes – The bike lanes would provide safer infrastructure for expert and enthused bicyclists over the existing 1’ wide shoulders. A great majority of the bicycling population would not use the bike lanes.  Option for shared-use path or protected bikeway on south side of road – A shared-use path or protected bikeway would separate bicyclists from motor vehicles and would accommodate a much larger population of bicyclists.  4’ wide continuous median between White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg Road – A continuous median would eliminate left-turn conflicts at driveways, reduce crashes and increase mobility along Williston Road.  5’ sidewalks on both sides of road – This is similar to the existing condition.  Green belt is eliminated – Eliminating the green belt would require utility relocations and pedestrians walking immediately adjacent to traffic. There would be no landscaping opportunity along the roadway.  Realignment of White/Midas to form traditional intersection with Williston Road crosswalks – The intersection realignment would eliminate the awkward turning movements from the side streets and potentially reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes. New crosswalks would accommodate pedestrian movements to and from destinations north and south of Williston Road.  Tighter curb radii (the curve at corners) –Smaller curb radii at intersection corners will reduce pedestrian crossing distances and slow turning traffic making a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians.  Updated traffic signals and controllers – The existing traffic signals and controllers would be replaced to optimize signal phasing and timing and maximize intersection capacity. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 38 This page left intentionally blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 39 Figure 16 - Alternative 2: This alternative includes the same improvements as Alternative 1 and also includes dedicated left-turn lanes on the Williston Road intersection approaches GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 40 Figure 17 - Typical section for Alternative 2 (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 41 Alternative 3A (Figure 18 and Figure 19) – Adding on-road bike lanes and green belts This alternative offers many of the same improvements as Alternative 1 with the most significant difference being dedicated 6’ wide green belts added between the road and the sidewalk. The green belts would provide space for snow storage and street trees or other landscaping features. Green belts also provide a more inviting environment for pedestrians. Specific features for this alternative are summarized below. While not a requirement to meet the minimum street standards included in the Draft Land Development Regulations, this alternative would provide a street section that more closely resembles the recommended street typology standard for Williston Road than the previous alternatives. Specific features for this alternative are summarized below.  Four 10’ vehicle lanes – The narrower travel lanes would calm traffic.  5’ bike lanes – The bike lanes would provide safer infrastructure for expert and enthused bicyclists over the existing 1’ wide shoulders. A great majority of the bicycling population would not use the bike lanes.  4’ wide continuous median between White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg Road – A continuous median would eliminate left turn conflicts at driveways, reduce crashes and increase motor vehicle mobility along Williston Road.  5’ sidewalks on both sides of road – This is similar to the existing condition.  6’ green belts on both sides of the road – Green belts would provide space for snow storage and street trees or other landscaping features. Adding the green belts would require additional ROW (80’ total width), but would allow the utilities to stay in place – a cost savings.  Realignment of White/Midas to form traditional intersection with Williston Road crosswalks – The intersection realignment would eliminate the awkward turning movements from the side streets and potentially reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes. New crosswalks would accommodate pedestrian movements to and from destinations north and south of Williston Road.  Tighter curb radii (the curve at corners) – Reduced curb radii at intersection corners will reduce pedestrian crossing distances and slow turning traffic making a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians.  Updated traffic signals and controllers – The existing traffic signals and controllers would be replaced to optimize signal phasing and timing and maximize intersection capacity. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 42 This page left intentionally blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 43 Figure 18 - Alternative 3A: This alternative includes the same improvements as Alternative 1 and also includes green belts between the road and sidewalk GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 44 Figure 19 - Typical section for Alternative 3A (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 45 Alternative 3B (Figure 20 and Figure 21) – Adding off-road, protected bikeway and green belts This alternative is the same as Alternative 3A except that a protected bikeway would be on the south side of the road in lieu of on-road bike lanes. The 6’ green belts along with the dedicated, off-road bicycle facility would create a more comfortable environment for a majority of bicyclists. While not a requirement to meet the minimum street standards included in the Draft Land Development Regulations, this alternative would provide a street section that most closely resembles these standards while providing for the greatest number of bicyclists. Specific features for this alternative are summarized below.  Four 10’ vehicle lanes – The narrower travel lanes would calm traffic.  Protected bikeway on south side of road – A shared-use path or protected bikeway would separate bicyclists from motor vehicles and would accommodate a much larger population of bicyclists.  4’ wide continuous median between White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg Road – A continuous median would eliminate left-turn conflicts at driveways, reduce crashes and increase mobility along Williston Road.  5’ sidewalks on both sides of road – This is similar to the existing condition.  6’ green belts on both sides of the road – Green belts would provide space for snow storage and street trees or other landscaping features. Adding the green belts would require additional ROW (80’ total width), but would allow the utilities to stay in place – a cost savings.  Realignment of White/Midas to form traditional intersection with Williston Road crosswalks – The intersection realignment would eliminate the awkward turning movements from the side streets and potentially reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes. New crosswalks would accommodate pedestrian movements to and from destinations north and south of Williston Road.  Tighter curb radii (the curve at corners) –Smaller curb radii at intersection corners will reduce pedestrian crossing distances and slow turning traffic making a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians.  Updated traffic signals and controllers – The existing traffic signals and controllers would be replaced to optimize signal phasing and timing and maximize intersection capacity. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 46 This page left intentionally blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 47 Figure 20 - Alternative 3B: This alternative is the same as Alternative 3A except that on-road bike lanes are replaced with an off-road protected bikeway on the south side of the road GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 48 Figure 21 - Typical section for Alternative 3B (existing roadway section shown underneath for reference) GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 49 Alternative 4 (Figure 22) - Roundabouts This alternative would construct two-lane roundabouts at each intersection with a continuous median between the intersections. This option would likely require roundabouts to be constructed at all signalized intersections throughout the corridor from Hinesburg Road west to Dorset Street sometime in the future. The roundabouts would provide a lower speed environment for motor vehicles and could reduce severity of crashes at the intersections. Due to the volume of traffic during peak periods, roundabouts would be required to be two lanes in width. The roundabouts would require significant property acquisitions to construct and maintain. Specific features for this alternative are summarized below.  Two-lane roundabouts at each intersection – Roundabouts when designed properly reduce speeds through intersections and have the potential to reduce crash severity. The roundabouts would require significant property acquisitions at the intersections.  Option for bike lanes, shared-use path or protected bike lanes on south side – These facilities are not shown in Figure 22, but would need to be provided. Such bicycle facilities would increase ROW impacts between the intersections similar to Alternatives 2, 3A and 3B depending on the type of facility constructed.  4’ wide continuous median between White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg Road – A continuous median would eliminate left-turn conflicts at driveways, reduce crashes and increase motor vehicle mobility along Williston Road.  5’ sidewalks on both sides of road – This is similar to the existing condition.  Green belt is eliminated – Eliminating the green belt requires utility relocations and pedestrians walking immediately adjacent to traffic. There would be no landscaping opportunity along the roadway.  Splitter islands at intersection approaches – Splitter islands reduce pedestrian crossing distances and provide refuge for pedestrians crossing the road. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 50 This page left intentionally blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 51 Figure 22 - Alternative 4: Two-lane roundabouts at each intersection GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 52 This Page Left Intentionally Blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 53 6.1.2 Midas Drive Alternatives Once Garden Street is constructed, Midas Drive will serve as the transition from Garden Street to the Williston Road corridor. Midas Drive currently consists of two eleven foot (11’) travel lanes, an eight foot (8’) wide unmarked parking lane on the east side of the road, five foot (5’) sidewalks on each side of the road with ten foot (10’) wide greenbelts between the curb and the sidewalk. The existing condition can be seen in Figure 23. Figure 23 - Midas Drive looking north toward Williston Road Three alternatives for Midas Drive improvements were prepared and presented to the stakeholders. Common features for all alternatives include ten foot (10’) travel lanes, five foot (5’) sidewalks on each side of the road, green belts of varying width for landscaping and bicycle improvements. The following summarizes key features of each alternative. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 54 Alternative 1 - On-Road Bike Lanes (Figure 24) This alternative consists of adding five (5’) bicycle lanes on each side of the road by restriping the road within its existing curb-to-curb width of thirty feet (30’). It would require eliminating the existing parking along the east side of Midas Drive that is currently used by employees of the adjacent properties. Alternative 2 - Protected Bikeway without On-Street Parking (Figure 25) This alternative consists of adding a ten foot (10’) wide protected bikeway on the east side that is separated from the road by a ten foot (10’) wide green belt. This alternative would also eliminate the existing informal parking along the east side of Midas Drive. Alternative 3 - Protected Bikeway with On-Street Parking (Figure 26) This alternative consists of adding a ten foot (10’) wide protected bikeway on the east side of that is separated from the road by a six foot (6’) wide greenbelt. Narrowing the existing greenbelts by four (4’) on each side of the road allows for an eight foot (8’) on-street parking lane to be added on the east side of the road. Stakeholders at the meeting expressed support for Alternative 3 because it would best accommodate bicyclists while allowing for on-street parking. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 55 Figure 24 - Midas Drive Alternative 1 – Five foot bike lanes with no on-street parking GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 56 Figure 25 - Midas Drive Alternative 2 - Ten foot wide protected bikeway with no on- street parking GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 57 Figure 26 – Midas Drive Alternative 3 - Ten foot wide protected bikeway with on-street parking GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 58 6.2 PROJECT TEAM MEETING TO DEVELOP DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS A Project Team Meeting was held on December 17, 2015, to review the input received from project stakeholders and the public and agree on recommended improvements to bring forward to City Council for approval. The Project Team preferred Alternative 3B because this alternative best satisfied the purpose and need of the project and included many of the key safety improvements for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians 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, improved pedestrian crossings, realignment of White Street and Midas Drive, narrow travel lanes for traffic calming and green belts for landscaping and snow storage. 6.3 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 improves conditions for all roadway users. The Evaluation Matrix is shown in Figure 27. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 59 Figure 27 - Evaluation Matrix for Williston Road Intersections GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 60 This page left intentionally blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 61 6.4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 6.4.1 Williston Road Recommendations While all alternatives would be an improvement over existing conditions, Alternative 3B is recommended over the others because it provides the most inviting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists, improves safety for all users and balances other factors such as impacts to adjacent property owners, maintenance and utility impacts. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not provide green belts for landscaping opportunities, snow storage and more inviting pedestrian environment. The on-road bike lanes for Alternative 3A would only be a marginal improvement for bicyclists because it only accommodates the small percentage of riders who self-identify as experts (studies show this is less than 5% of the population. The roundabouts proposed in Alternative 4 would have significantly negative impacts on the function and value of adjacent properties and would likely require intersections to the west of White Street/Midas Drive to be converted to roundabouts in the future as City Center is established. Alternative 3B (Figure 20 and Figure 21) most closely resembles street standards included in the Draft Land Development Regulations. It would provide off-road bicycle facilities to accommodate a majority of the bicycling population. Green belts would provide for landscaping and pedestrian oriented lighting opportunities, snow storage and a more inviting and attractive environment. Motor vehicle safety and mobility would be improved with the addition of a continuous median and the realignment of the Midas Drive and White Street approaches. The narrower ten foot travel lanes and planted and furnished green belts would calm traffic. Tighter curb radii at the intersections would shorten crossing distances and times for pedestrians. Updated traffic signals and controllers would improve intersection operations. While an off-road bicycle facility is recommended, the location of the bicycle facility (i.e. north or south side of the road, termination point) may need to be adjusted based on the results of the Williston Road Network Study currently underway. Further coordination with the study team is required before moving these recommendations into more detailed design. Specific recommendations for Alternative 3B are grouped into short and long-term improvements that can be made by the City when deemed appropriate. This was done to minimize the impact to the current business operations of the adjacent business and property owners. If the property gets redeveloped, accommodations for the long-term improvements could be requested during Development Review. Short-term Improvements  Four 10’ vehicle lanes – The narrower travel lanes would calm traffic.  Protected bikeway on south side of road – A shared-use path or protected bikeway would separate bicyclists from motor vehicles and would accommodate a much larger population of bicyclists. It is recommended that the total width of the protected bikeway and sidewalk be combined and reduced to 10’ in front of the plaza where Marco’s Pizza is located to minimize the impact to parking in front of the building. This parking is important to the property owner for the function of the businesses that do not have entrances at the rear of the building.  4’ wide continuous median between White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg Road – A continuous median would eliminate left-turn conflicts at driveways, reduce crashes and increase motor vehicle mobility along Williston Road. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 62  5’ sidewalks on both sides of road – This is similar to the existing condition.  6’ green belts on both sides of the road – Green belts would provide space for snow storage and street trees or other landscaping features. Adding the green belts would require additional ROW (80’ total width).  Realignment of White/Midas to form traditional intersection with Williston Road crosswalks – The intersection realignment would eliminate the awkward turning movements from the side streets and potentially reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes. New crosswalks would accommodate pedestrian movements to and from destinations north and south of Williston Road.  Tighter curb radii (the curve at corners) –Smaller curb radii at intersection corners will reduce pedestrian crossing distances and slow turning traffic making a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians. It is recommended that minimum curb radii meet the street standards included in the draft LDR’s.  Updated traffic signals and controllers – The existing traffic signals and controllers would be replaced to optimize signal phasing and timing and maximize intersection capacity.  Reduce Curb Cuts - Curb cuts, especially on the north side of Williston Road, are plentiful and are considered necessary to operations of the current businesses according the property owners. Elimination or consolidation of curb cuts along Williston Road will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles by providing well-defined access points and reducing the number of conflict points along the roadway. Reducing curb cuts will also improve vehicular capacity and mobility through the corridor. o Cairns/Chastenay Parcels - Further exploration with property owners during project design is recommended to consolidate the westernmost access to the Cairns parcel (formerly U-Save Beverage and Delil) with the access to the Chastenay parcel located immediately to the west. Both parcels are located on the north side of Williston Road. o Pomerleau Parcel - Further exploration with the property owner is recommended to close the easternmost exit from the Pomerleau parcel (Price Chopper Plaza). This parcel is located on the south side of Williston Road. Long-term Improvements The following long-term improvements are recommended if and when certain parcels adjacent to the project area are redeveloped to minimize impact on current business operations.  Reduce curb cuts for Jolley Associates – If the gas station on the northwest corner of Patchen Road/Williston Road redevelops, it is recommended that access on Williston Road be consolidated down to one point located as far west from this intersection as possible. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 63  Reduce curb cuts for Swiss Host Motel & Village – If this parcel redevelops, it is recommended that access on Williston Road be consolidated down to one point located east as far from the intersection of Midas and White Street as possible.  Reduce curb cuts for the entire block – If the entire site should be redeveloped according to the proposed Land Development Regulations, access to parking should be off the slower and less heavily traveled streets of White Street and Patchen Road. At a minimum, access should be reduced to one driveway along the corridor.  Increase protected bikeway width in front of Pomerleau Plaza – If this plaza redevelops recommend requesting an increase in width of the protected bikeway and sidewalk on south side of road in front of plaza to 15’ and consolidation or elimination of access points on Williston Road.  Dedicated Left-Turn Lanes - The addition of dedicated left-turn lanes combined with the short-term recommendations of green belts and bicycle/pedestrian facilities would require additional land takings that would have a significant impact to business operations. The short-term recommendations of realigning White Street and Midas Drive, upgrading traffic signal hardware and adjusting signal phasing/timings would improve intersection safety without significant land takings or business operation impact at this time. The addition of dedicated left-turn lanes as illustrated in Alternative 2 could be considered further once significant City Center buildout has occurred. The left-turn lanes have been identified in the Williston Road network study as an alternative to provide additional intersection capacity assuming a full buildout of City Center. As properties redevelop along the corridor, it is recommended that the City require sufficient rights-of- way as part of the Development Review process so that the left-turn lanes could be constructed if necessitated by full City Center buildout and if other improvements recommended in the Williston Road network study are not made. 6.4.2 Midas Drive Connection Recommendations For the Midas Drive connection, Alternative 3 (Figure 26) is recommended because it improves bicycle infrastructure and provides for on-street parking for businesses along the road. All improvements can be made within the existing ROW for Midas Drive. This also provides for the greatest continuity of facilities along the length of the Garden Street project. The recommendations are based on 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. GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 64 6.5 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL Pending GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 65 NEXT STEPS 7.0 The next steps for the project are as follows:  Begin Phase B – Project Design and continue coordination with other projects including Market Street, Dumont Park/City Center Park, SBCC, LLC Master Plan and the Williston Road Corridor Study  Complete environmental permitting  Acquire necessary rights and easements to construct and maintain improvements  Complete bid plans and specifications  Construct improvements GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 66 This page left intentionally blank GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 A APPENDIX A – EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION A.1 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES A.1.1 Bicycle/Pedestrian The roads surrounding City Center and Garden Street currently consist of varying types of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Dorset Street has a 10’ wide path, consisting of a 5’ wide bike path immediately adjacent to a 5’ wide sidewalk, and a 1’ shoulder on both sides of the road for the entire length between Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. The shared-use path crosses many commercial drives and side streets. Dorset Street has very little on-road bicyclist activity due to its narrow shoulders, 35 mph speed limit and traffic volumes. At the Dorset Street/Garden Street intersection, pedestrian crosswalks exist on all approaches. Pedestrian signal heads exist for the Dorset Street crossings only. There are no pedestrian signal heads for the Garden Street and southern University Mall entrance crossings. The Dorset Street pedestrian crossing traffic signal phase is a concurrent crossing phase which means pedestrians are instructed to cross Dorset concurrently while the side street traffic is provided a circular green light. The northern pedestrian crossing is equipped with an ADA-compliant Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) with detectable warning surfaces at the ramps. The southern crossing is not equipped with APS and does not have detectable warning surfaces at the ramps. The detectable warnings do not completely run along the flush edge of the curb, nor are the slopes ADA compliant. Figure A.1 - Northern most pedestrian crossing at Dorset Street looking toward Hannaford Drive A1 Williston Road between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street has no bicycle facilities. A 5’ sidewalk and 1’ shoulder exist on both sides of the road for the entire length between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road. The few bicyclists that travel along Williston Road typically ride on the sidewalk. This stretch of Williston Road also has little on-road bicyclist activity due to the narrow shoulders and traffic volumes. Just east of Hinesburg Road, Williston Road has bike lanes and five foot sidewalks on both sides of the road. At the Midas Drive/White Street intersection, pedestrian crosswalks exist on the Midas Drive and White Street approaches. There are no pedestrian crossing signals at these crosswalks. There are no crosswalks to cross Williston Road at this intersection. White Street has 5’ sidewalks and 11’ travel lanes with 4’ shoulders on both sides of the road between Williston Road and Patchen Road. Shoulders are striped on this stretch of White Street. The sidewalk is separated from the road by curb and a 5’ green belt on the east side and curb and 3’ green belt on the west side. Midas Drive has 5’ sidewalks and 15’ lanes on both sides of the road for its entire length. The sidewalk is separated from the road by a 9’ wide grass strip. Roadway shoulders are unstriped and the eastern shoulder is used for on-street parking. At the Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road intersection, pedestrian crosswalks exist on all approaches. The traffic signal has pedestrian signal heads for four crossing directions. An exclusive pedestrian crossing phase is provided, meaning that vehicles are stopped on all approaches when the pedestrian phase is called upon by a pushbutton actuation on any corner. All pedestrian crossings are equipped with ADA-compliant Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and detectable warning surfaces. Hinesburg Road has a 5’ sidewalk along the west side of the road between Williston Road and Market Street. The roadway shoulders at the intersection approach are approximately 1’ wide. The shoulders widen out to approximately 4’ wide just south of the Price Chopper egress. Patchen Road has a 5’ sidewalk on both sides of the road. Travel lanes are 14’ wide with no striping for shoulders. The sidewalk is separated from the road by a curb and a 3’ wide green belt. A2 Figure A.2 - Midas Drive/White Street intersection operates without crosswalks across Williston Road Figure A.3 – The Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road (looking toward Patchen Road) intersection has ADA compliant crossings on all approaches A3 Figure A.4 – Patchen Road (looking toward Williston Road) has 5' sidewalks on both sides and 14' lane widths Figure A.5 - Midas Drive (looking toward Williston Road) has 5' sidewalks on both sides and 15' lane widths with on-street parking on the eastern side of the road A4 Market Street will have a shared-use path on both sides of the road for the entire length. The width of the paths varies between 8’-6” to 14’-0”. On-road bicyclists will “take the lane” to share the road with motor vehicles as there will be no dedicated bicycle lanes. The intersection of Market Street and Garden Street will be controlled by stop signs on Garden Street (and on Market Street once traffic merits) with crosswalks on all approaches. The construction of bulbouts at the intersection will provide traffic calming and will shorten the crossing distances. Garden Street currently has no on-road bicycle facilities. There is a 10’ wide walkway on the north side of the road in front of Trader Joe’s and Pier One. There is a mid-block crossing with a bulb-out that allows pedestrians to cross over to Healthy Living. The roadway width beyond the intersection approach is 26’ wide with no striped shoulders. There are no marked bicycle facilities on the road. An on-street parking bay for three spaces exists on the north side of the road and is 8’ wide. A green belt and curb separates the road from the sidewalk. The greenbelt is a minimum 10’ wide. The ROW is approximately 62’ wide. Figure A.6 - Garden Street (looking towards Dorset Street) has a wide sidewalk on the north side of the road A.1.2 Roadways and Intersections Garden Street will intersect with three roadways, Dorset Street, Williston Road (US 2), and Market Street. Dorset Street and Williston Road are multi-lane roadways while Market Street is a two lane roadway. The speed limit is 35 MPH through the study area intersections on Williston Road and Dorset Street and 25 MPH on Market Street. The Dorset Street intersections are controlled in a coordinated signal system. A5 Streets intersecting Williston Road are generally signalized. These intersections do not currently operate as a coordinated system. Two of these intersections are included in the study area: Williston Road at White Street and Midas Drive; and Williston Road at Hinesburg Road and Patchen Road. Williston Road at White Street and Midas Drive Through this signalized intersection Williston Road operates with four through lanes, two eastbound and two westbound and no exclusive turning lanes as shown in Figure A.7. The minor streets intersections are offset, that is White Street and Midas Drive are not opposite each other but rather separated by approximately 50 feet and controlled by the same traffic signal. The White Street approach is located farther west and as a single lane operates as a “right turn only” onto Williston Road with an approach angle of about 45 degrees. There are two lanes on the Midas Drive approach including a “right turn only” lane. The Midas Drive approach is also angled slightly to the west. Figure A.7 - Williston Road/White Street/Midas Drive Intersection The traffic signal operation includes three phases. An advance phase provides for left turns into White Street, followed by a phase serving both eastbound and westbound Williston Road during A6 which left turns from shared use( through and left turns ) lanes are permitted. The third phase serves both the White Street and Midas Drive approaches. Left turns and effectively through movements are prohibited from White Street. Right turns on red are allowed from both White Street and Midas Drive. Vehicles turning right on a red signal indication significantly reduce the number of times that Williston Road traffic is stopped at this location. The traffic signals serving Williston Road and Midas Drive are supported by a span wire attached to strain poles. Post mounted signals serve the White Street approach; one on the far side of the intersection and one to the right on the near side at the STOP bar. Per the MUTCD when post mounted signals are used there shall be two positioned on the far side of the intersection; in this regard, this installation does not comply with the MUTCD. Inductive loops in each lane provide vehicle detection. Williston Road at Hinesburg Road and Patchen Road Through this signalized intersection Williston Road operates with four lanes, two eastbound lanes but no left turn allowed onto Patchen Road and two westbound lanes with the left most lane shared for through and left turn movements as shown in Figure A.8. A two lane approach with a dedicated left turn lane on Hinesburg Road from the south and on Patchen Road from the north intersect Williston Road at an angle of approximately 15-20 degrees. Through movements between these streets are able to travel straight the single lane egress roadway on the other side of Williston Road. The intersection angle facilitates left turns and increases the difficulty for right turns. To compensate, the adjacent corner is cut back to facilitate right turns. Figure A.8 - Williston Road/Patchen Road/Hinesburg Road Intersection A7 The traffic signal operates with effectively six phases including an exclusive pedestrian phase. When there are vehicles waiting to turn left from both Hinesburg Road and Patchen Road, an initial phase serves these vehicles, and in whichever direction there is continued left turn demand those lefts and the adjacent through movements are then served. This is followed by through and right turn movements with lefts permitted from both approaches. Westbound Williston Road including left turns onto Hinesburg Road are served by the next phase which is followed by both eastbound and westbound Williston Road approaches. Left turns are prohibited on the eastbound Williston Road approach. The pedestrian phase would be served next if a pushbutton was pressed on any of the intersection corners. The cycle length is 90 seconds not including the pedestrian phase. Inductive loops in each lane provide vehicle detection. The traffic signals at this location are supported by a span wire which in turn is supported by wooden utility poles. There is an emergency preemption system. Pedestrian signal heads and pushbuttons are supported on pedestal posts. Typically there is a single post with pushbuttons for both directions. For ADA compliance there should be separate pushbuttons for each crossing, however, this condition is somewhat mitigated by employing an exclusive pedestrian phasing whereby all crossings are served at the same time. Dorset Street at Garden Street and the University Mall South Access Dorset Street also operates with four through lanes through this signalized intersection. In addition, there is a dedicated left turn lane in both the southbound and northbound directions. The University Mall access and the Garden Street approaches both have two lanes including a mandatory right turn lane and a through/left lane. The traffic signal operation is effectively three-phased with a concurrent pedestrian crossing of Dorset Street. These phases serve the left turns from both directions on Dorset Street with the right turns from the mall provided a right turn arrow and right turns on red from Garden Street. After the northbound left turns are served, the Dorset Street through and right turn movements are served and the southbound left turns are permitted, that is southbound left turns must yield to oncoming traffic. The third phase serves the Garden Street and U-Mall access as well as any pedestrians who have pushed the pushbutton on any of the four corners in order to cross Dorset Street. The traffic signals are supported by mast arms opposite each approach. Pedestrian signals heads and pushbuttons are located on the mast arms south of the intersection. North of the intersection pedestal posts support the Dorset Street pedestrian signal heads and pushbuttons. Inductive loop detection is present in each lane. There is currently no pedestrian phase for crossing Garden Street and the U-Mall access. Emergency preemption receivers are positioned for detecting emergency vehicle signals from the north and south approaches. A8 A.1.3 Traffic Peak hour traffic volumes accounting for full buildout of City Center for the two Williston Road intersections were obtained from the City. These volumes will be used to analyze existing intersection conditions and develop intersection improvement alternatives. Another measurement of traffic volume conditions is daily traffic. Stantec researched daily traffic volume data from VTrans and CCRPC records. Table A.1 provides the obtained daily traffic volume information. Roadway Average Daily Traffic Year/ Source Williston Road 21,900 vpd 2012 VTrans Estimate Dorset Street 13,400 vpd 2009 CCRPC Library Hinesburg Road 10,400 vpd 2012 Vtrans Count Table A.1 - Area Roadway Annual Average Daily Traffic A.1.4 Crash History The crash history for the study area was investigated using the VTrans crash database. VTrans keeps records of crashes by roadway link or segment. Stantec requested, reviewed and compiled VTrans reports for 2009 through 2013. VTrans records indicate 148 crashes over the five-year period at the two Williston Road intersections in the study area. Table A.2 provides a summary of the number of crashes by location, year, type, severity, time of day and road condition. Eighty-four crashes occurred at the Williston Road/White Street/Midas Drive intersection over a five year period including 62 at White Street and 22 at Midas Drive. Overall that is an average of nearly 17 crashes per year. Considering the number of vehicles that pass through the intersection, Stantec computed an average crash rate of 1.76 crashes per million vehicles which is greater than the statewide crash rate of 0.59 crashes per million vehicles where principal arterial streets intersect with major collector streets. This intersection is ranked #53 in priority on the VTrans List of High Crash Locations. Of the 84 crashes, 45% (38 crashes) were rear end type. Eighty eight percent (74 crashes) involved only property damage and 12 percent (10 crashes) involved personal injury. There were no fatalities. Most crashes at the White Street and Midas Drive intersections with Williston Road occurred on dry roads (72 crashes) and during the daytime (73 crashes). Sixty-four crashes occurred at the Williston Road/Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road intersection over the five year period between 2009 and 2013. Annual crashes ranged from 10 to 17 and averaged 13 crashes per year. Considering the traffic volume through the intersection the crash rate is 1.22 crashes per million vehicles which exceeds the statewide average of 0.68 crashes per million vehicles for the intersection of principal arterials. This intersection is ranked #54 in priority on the VTrans List of High Crash Locations. Forty-four percent (28 crashes) were rear end type, twenty eight percent (18 crashes) were angle type and twenty percent (13 crashes) were sideswipes. One was a head on crash and the remainder (4 crashes) are unknown. Ninety one percent were property damage only. Most crashes (approximately 85 percent) occurred on dry road and during the day. A9 Table A.2 - Crash History Summary US Route 2 (Williston Road) Intersection Crashes by Cross Street Item White Street / Midas Drive Hinesburg Rd / Patchen Rd Totals Year 2009 20 17 37 2010 25 10 35 2011 9 12 21 2012 21 12 33 2013 9 13 22 Total 84 64 148 Type Angle 16 18 34 Rear-end 38 28 66 Sideswipe 25 13 38 Head-on 0 1 1 Unknown-other 5 4 9 Total 84 64 148 Severity Property Damage 74 58 132 Personal Injury 10 6 16 Total 84 64 148 Road Condition Dry 72 55 127 Wet 12 6 18 Other 0 3 3 Total 84 64 148 Time Daytime (Light) 73 53 126 Nighttime (Dark) 11 11 22 Total 84 64 148 Crash Rate1 1.76 1.22 Statewide Average Crash Rate1: 0.592 0.682 Source: VTrans, General Yearly Summaries - Crash Listing, January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2013. 1 Crashes per million entering vehicles 2 Based on 2008-2012 Statewide Average Crash Rates A10 A.1.5 Transit Facilities The Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) currently has numerous bus routes that service stops along Dorset Street, Williston Road and Hinesburg Road. Routes 1 (Williston), 1E (Williston/Essex) and 1V (Williston Village) provide service from downtown Burlington to the Williston, Essex and Essex Junction via Williston Road. These routes provide service to the west end of Dorset Street as all loop through the University Mall to link to the other routes and return to Williston Road via the southern entrance to the Mall (opposite Garden Street) and Dorset Street. This bus connects City Center to downtown Burlington and combined with Route 12, provides this service every 15 minutes during peak AM and PM hours. Route 12, the South Burlington Circulator, provides service from downtown Burlington or the University Mall to numerous locations within South Burlington including the University Mall, Timberlane, Country Park (Tilley Drive), Technology Park (Community Drive), Burlington International Airport and the Hinesburg Road/Williston Road intersection. The Circulator loops around this service area every ½ hour. Route 46, the 116 Commuter, provides service from Middlebury to downtown Burlington. This route services Dorset Street northbound between Kennedy Drive and Williston Road in the morning around 8 am and Dorset Street southbound in the afternoon around 5 pm. Stops that could potentially be impacted by construction of Garden Street and improvements to the Williston Road intersections include the following and are shown in Figure A.9. The following describes the current stop locations. Arrival times were determined from published CCTA schedules contained in Appendix G. Patchen Road at Williston Road – This stop is located on the northwest corner of this intersection in front of the Short Stop Mobil Station. This stop is for Route 12 with a bus arriving at 9:10 am and 9:40 am. Williston Road at Patchen Road –This is located on Williston Road westbound in front of Hollywood Video, and is approximately 150’ east of Patchen Road. This stop is for Route 1 at 9:21 am and 10:46 am, Route 1E at 9:06 am and 9:46 am and Route 1V at 1:19 pm and 5:19 pm. Williston Road at Citgo – This stop is located on Williston Road eastbound in front of the Citgo station approximately 200’ west of Midas Drive. This stop is for Route 1 at 9:55 am and 10:55 am, 1E at 9:25 am and 10:25 am and Route 1V at 12:40 pm, 4:40 pm and 5:30 pm. Williston Road at Blockbuster – This stop is located on Williston Road eastbound in front of the plaza that is home to Marco’s Pizza, and is approximately 200’ west of Hinesburg Road. This stop is for Route 1 at 9:55 am and 10:55 am, Route 1E at 9:25 am and 10:25 am and Route 1V at 12:40 pm, 4:40 pm and 5:30 pm. A11 Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road – Stops along Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road are not anticipated to be impacted by the project. For all of these stops, the bus stops in the right curb lane, while passengers board or de-board. There are no bus turnouts or shelters. CCTA currently plans to focus service on Market Street, but could service Garden Street in the future depending on demand. Figure A.9 - CCTA bus stop locations along Williston Road A.2 NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES The Revised Environmental Assessment – South Burlington, Market Street Improvements STP 5200(17), May 2010 (EA) summarizes potential impacts of the full buildout of City Center including Garden Street. The EA was reviewed by Stantec in July 2014 to determine more specifically how the Garden Street project will impact resources. There are limited natural resources present within the Garden Street project corridor. The project will likely result in direct wetland impacts that will require authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers. The following summarizes the impacts specific to each resource. The complete summary is contained in Appendix H. Williston Rd @ Citgo Williston Rd @ Blockbuster Patchen Rd @ Williston Rd Williston Rd @ Patchen Rd A12 A.2.1 Farmlands According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey1 for Chittenden County, Vermont, the soils within the Garden Street project corridor are mapped as Adams and Windsor loamy sands, 0-5% slopes; Au Gres fine sandy loam; Duane and Deerfield soils, 0-5% slopes; and Scarboro loam. The Adams and Windsor, Au Gres, and Duane and Deerfield soils are considered Farmland Soils of Statewide Importance. However, based on the Revised Environmental Assessment, the area is considered an “urbanized area” according to the US Census Bureau, so these soils are not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act. A.2.2 Wetlands There are no mapped Vermont Class 2 wetlands within the Garden Street project corridor. However, on site wetland delineations were conducted by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) (formerly Pioneer Environmental Associates) in 2006 and updated in 2012. Based on their findings, there appear to be three wetlands within the Garden Street project corridor. These include wetlands 2012-RS-2, 2012-RS-3, and 2012-RS-7. These three palustrine emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands are considered Vermont Class III wetlands and would not be regulated by ANR based on the August 2010 Vermont Wetland Rules. However, any impacts to these wetlands would require authorization by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). On May 22, 2013, the Corps verified that the currently mapped wetland boundaries are accurate. A.2.3 Surface Water Resources There are no mapped streams within the Garden Street project corridor. On site stream delineations were conducted by VHB (formerly Pioneer Environmental Associates) in 2006 and updated in 2012. A perennial tributary to Potash Brook (Tributary 3, mapped as Stream 2012- SC/TB-1) flows from east to west to the south of the proposed Garden Street project corridor. This tributary was on the 2006 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters, but VDEC has developed a TMDL (total maximum daily load for this stream and it has been removed from the Section 303(d) list. A.2.4 Groundwater According to the Revised Environmental Assessment, the entire study area is considered to have “moderate groundwater potential.” There are no public water sources, private wells, or groundwater sources protection areas within the Garden Street project corridor. A.2.5 Floodplains According to FEMA, there are no Special Flood Hazard Areas within the Garden Street project corridor. There is a 0.2% annual chance flood hazard area associated with Tributary 3 to the south of the corridor. A13 A.2.6 Vegetation and Wildlife The project area provides habitat for various wildlife species common to Vermont’s urbanizing areas such as blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), raccoon (Procyon lotor), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), as well as other species that may travel through the area. The Garden Street project corridor is largely undeveloped but does not provide significant wildlife habitat as it is disturbed, has limited connectivity to other habitat types, and is located in an urbanized setting. A.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species According to the ANR Natural Resources Atlas and the USFWS database, there are no mapped RTE species within the Garden Street project corridor. This site has been disturbed and it is unlikely that any Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species occur within the project corridor. A.2.8 Parks, Recreation and Conservation Land No designated state or town conservation or recreation zones are present within the project corridor. Therefore, the Garden Street project corridor does not include public recreation lands (a Section 4(f) resource) or public lands developed with Land and Water Conservation Funds (a Section 6(f) resource). The South Burlington Recreation Path, the Dumont Recreation Area, Jaycee Park, and the Rick Marcotte Central School (RMCS) are all recreation lands located in the general project vicinity, but these will not be directly affected by the Garden Street project. The City Center Commons development proposal noted in Section 2.2 would require the acquisition of the RMCS property. The acquisition would require approval by the school board and the voters. This property is not subject to the provisions of 4(f) or 6(f) properties. A.2.9 Hazardous Materials Based on a review of the ANR Natural Resources Atlas, there are no active hazardous waste facilities within the Garden Street project corridor. There is an active hazardous waste site on the SE corner of Hinesburg/Williston Road at Gracey’s Store. According to the ANR database, the source of contamination was an underground storage tank. The tank has been removed and the site has ongoing groundwater monitoring. It is considered a LOW priority site with no land use restrictions and no effect on sensitive receptors. A.2.10 Cultural Resources A Phase 1B Archeological Report was completed in May 2009 as part of the EA for Market Street. The study area included the entire City Center area. The anticipated Garden Street alignment crosses through one of two precontact sites identified in the study – Market Street 1 – VDHP Site VT-CH-1062. Shovel tests were conducted in this site and it was concluded that no additional work is required. Locations of off-site stormwater treatment and management will need to be revisited to determine if additional archeological testing is required. The Phase 1B report is contained in Appendix I. A14 A.3 UTILITIES A.3.1 Aerial Utilities There are aerial utilities that run along the south side of US Route 2 (Williston Road) through the intersections of White Street, Midas Drive and VT-116 (Hinesburg Road). These utilities consist of Green Mountain Power, FairPoint, Comcast and Level 3. Aerial utilities are also present along the south side of White Street beginning at Williston Road and passing through the intersection of Patchen Road. The utility owners are consistent with the ones on Williston Road. Aerial utilities along Hinesburg Road run along the west side of the street through the intersections of Market Street and Williston Road, and continue along the west side of Patchen Road through the intersection of White Street. Utility owners on these poles are Green Mountain Power, FairPoint and Comcast. No aerial utilities exist on Market Street, Garden Street or Dorset Street with the exception of a private street lighting system along the south side of Market Street between Dorset Street and Mary Street (Blue Mall parking lot). Contact information for the aerial utilities: Green Mountain Power, Mike Benjamin, benjamine@greenmountainpower.biz FairPoint Communications, Jeff Austin, jaustin@fairpoint.com, 802-951-1533 Comcast, Conrad Ritchie, Conrad_ritchie@cable.comcast.com Level 3, Rich Hamlin, rich.hamlin@level3.com, 802-846-1120 A.3.2 Underground Utilities Underground utilities exist along the north side of Market Street between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road. These utilities consist of Green Mountain Power, Comcast, FairPoint, Vermont Gas, CWD (water and sanitary sewer), as well as the City of South Burlington Public Works storm sewer collection systems. Additional proposed underground utilities will be included in the plans for the reconstruction of Market Street currently being developed. Underground power and communications are also present on the west side of Midas Drive, the west side of Dorset Street and the north side of Garden Street. Gas, water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer exist in these streets as well. Contact information for the underground utilities: Green Mountain Power, Mike Benjamin, benjamine@greenmountainpower.biz FairPoint Communications, Jeff Austin, jaustin@fairpoint.com, 802-951-1533 Comcast, Conrad Ritchie, Conrad_ritchie@cable.comcast.com Level 3, Rich Hamlin, rich.hamlin@level3.com, 802-846-1120 CWD, John Tymecki, johnt@cwd-h2o.org, 802-864-7454 A15 Vermont Gas Systems, Tim Vachereau, tvachereau@vermontgas.com City of South Burlington Public Works, Justin Rabidoux, jrabidoux@sburl.com, 802-658-7961 As part of the Market Street project, the Champlain Water District performed hydrant flow tests to determine available fire flows. This information is contained in Appendix J. A.4 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS Numerous subsurface investigations have been made within the study area. The City of South Burlington completed an investigation to determine subsurface soil types and conditions, pavement design recommendations, and infiltration suitability in July 2013. Many borings and test pits were conducted and groundwater monitoring wells installed with these studies. Groundwater level monitoring is ongoing. These studies are contained in Appendix K. A16 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 B APPENDIX B – EXCERPTS FROM DRAFT LDR’S AND DRAFT ZONING MAP ARTICLE 11 Transect Zone Street Typologies South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11/10/2015 11-1 11 TRANSECT ZONE STREET TYPOLOGIES 11.01 Applicability A. General. This Article provides standards which shall be followed for the construction of new streets and reconstruction of existing streets within the City Center Form Based Codes District and is intended to provide a catalog of preapproved street types. Article 15 contains additional applicable standards. B. Specific Requirements and Modifications. All streets shall be constructed with sidewalks, greenbelts, bike facilities, medians, travel lanes, and on-street parking as specified for each street type, unless an alternative is approved by [ ] the Development Review Board, as specifically authorized within Section 11.06. C. Review Authority. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary within these Land Development Regulation, authority under this Article 11 assigned to the Development Review Board shall be reviewed by Development Review Board. 11.02 Street Types A. Intent and Purpose. The community role and traffic tolerance is the intent and purpose of each street type in South Burlington and should be considered throughout the design process. B. Intended Uses and Activities. Intended uses and activities are the most likely uses of the street as envisioned by the community. The arrangement from left to right shall be the order in which the listed competing uses and activities are weighed and considered in deciding the appropriate street type and aspects of the design of the street. C. Standards. Street Design standards Tables 15-1 – 15.1E and Article 11 of these Regulations specify the street design standards that shall be followed in designing, redesigning, modifying, or reconstructing a street, except as follows: (1) Street, streetscape and any other construction or improvements along or within the existing or proposed right-of-way for Market Street, Garden Street and Midas Drive and for the Williston Road intersections of Midas Street/White Street and Patchen Road/Hinesburg Road shall conform to engineered plans developed by the City and as modified by the Director of Public Works. 11.03 New Streets A. Where a proposed street is required, it shall be constructed in conformance with the applicable street type standards B. Determination of applicable street types. The applicable street type standards for each section of roadway shall be determined as follows: (1) Any street type listed for a specific section of roadway on the Official Zoning Map shall be the applicable street type for the purposes of these regulations. (2) Any street type listed for a specific section of roadway on the Official Map shall be the applicable street type for the purposes of these regulations draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 210 of 372B1 ARTICLE 11 Transect Zone Street Typologies South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11/10/2015 11-2 (3) Where a new street, mew, mid-block lane, or other similar roadway is required or proposed, the Development Review Board shall determine the applicable street type. (a) Any such determination shall be based upon a review of supporting documentation from the applicant (or City, at its discretion) which shall consist, at a minimum, of the following information: (i) A statement of the proposed street type and specific reasons for the choice of proposed street type; (ii) The project traffic volumes, including trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and other relevant information; and, (iii) A statement of compatibility with the present and anticipated improvements to adjacent roadway sections. (b) In makings its determination, the DRB shall consider the following: (i) Only street types listed as “allowable street types” in the relevant Building Envelope Standards shall be eligible; (ii) The intent of the potentially applicable street typologies; (iii) The anticipated adjacent development patterns; (iv) Planned, proposed, or anticipated connections and extensions from existing roads; (v) Facilities needed to accommodate anticipated users, including vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists; (vi) Long range studies, capital plans, the Comprehensive Plan, and related planning & policy documents prepared by or with the City of South Burlington; and (vii) Recommendations from the Public Works and Planning & Zoning Departments 11.04 Existing Streets A. Extension or Substantial Rebuilding. An existing street cannot shall not be extended or substantially rebuilt, as determined by the Development Review Board as applicable, except in conformance with this Article and Article 15. B. Minimum Requirements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in Section 8.09 (D) of these Regulations, whether conforming or non-conforming, shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations. C. Maintenance. Street repairs undertaken as part of an annual operating budget are not subject to meeting the street type standards. draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 211 of 372B2 ARTICLE 11 Transect Zone Street Typologies South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11/10/2015 11-3 11.05 Design Controls A. Design Speed and Design Vehicle. The specified design speed and design vehicle shall be applied as design controls, unless an alternative is approved by the Development Review Board based on site specific considerations. Target speed shall not be used as a design control per se, but should guide decisions within the given range of potential values based on the selected design speed. B. Bikeways. Where another plan or ordinance specifies a higher class of bikeway, said document shall supersede the typology. C. Curb Radii. The physical curb radius may be greater than the specified range, but only if the effective radius remains within the range. Example: where a bump-out or neck-down extends the curb. D. Bus Routes. When the specified design vehicle is smaller than the transit vehicle on street segments occupied by either operating or planned fixed route service, the design vehicle shall be adjusted to match the transit vehicle. However, the design of the curb radii should only be altered at corners affected by routine turning movements by the transit vehicle. E. Wetlands and Conservation Areas. Where any street type crosses a wetland or traverses a conservation area on both sides of the right-of-way, the minimum pavement width of that section of the street may be reduced to 18’. F. Cross Section Graphics. The cross sections depicted for each street type do not specify the required cross section for that street type. The cross section graphics depict a typical envisioned street design based on the dimensional standards. 11.06 Modifications A. General. The Development Review Board may specifically authorize modification of the City’s Roadway standards in the Transect Zone Street Typologies. Any such authorization shall be based upon a review of a specific request from the applicant or the City which shall consist, at a minimum, of the following information: (1) A statement as to the specific design standard or feature for which a modification is requested and a discussion of each proposed feature of the project which does not comply with the standards; (2) The significant reason(s) why the cited standard cannot be achieved; (3) Estimated costs to construct to the standard and to the proposed design (if available); (4) The project traffic volumes, including trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and other relevant information; (5) A statement of compatibility with the present and anticipated improvements to adjacent sections; (6) A review of accident data for the site to determine if the types of accidents occurring are or may be related to the proposed feature; (7) A discussion of practical countermeasures that will be employed to reduce the frequency and severity of future accidents; and, draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 212 of 372B3 ARTICLE 11 Transect Zone Street Typologies South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11/10/2015 11-4 (8) A statement of recommended action, including other mitigating features as appropriate. B. Determination. In makings its determination, the DRB shall consider the following: (1) The purpose of the Transect Zone in which the project is located; (2) The intent of the applicable street typology; (3) The minimum street standards needed to accommodate the stated design vehicle; and, (4) Recommendations from the Department of Public Works, the Fire Department, and the Department of Planning & Zoning as appropriate. Any modification shall represent the least deviation possible from the purpose and intent of the minimum design vehicle standards. draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 213 of 372B4 Symbology & Notes Intended Uses & Activities Pedestrians Bicycling Play Personal Vehicle Traffic Truck & Freight Traffic Free or Metered Parking School Bus Traffic Transit Traffic, Boarding, & Alighting Deliveries Outdoor Dining & Cafés Shopping Postal Service Utilities Rubbish & Recycling 11.07 Street Typologies NOTE: ALL TEXT AND GRAPHICS ON THIS PAGE ARE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 11/10/2015 ARTICLE 11 Transect Zone Street Typologies 11-5 draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 214 of 372B5 Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11/10/2015 ARTICLE 11 STREET TYPES 11-9 Neighborhood Street - Bike Boulevard A (Sidewalk Width) 5’ Min B (Greenbelt Width) 6’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) N/A D (Travel Ln Width) 9’ Min, 10’ Max E (Pavement Width) 28’ Min, 36’ Max F (Street ROW Width) 50’ Min Target Speed 20 to 25 mph Design Speed 25 mph Design Vehicle P (Passenger Car) # Through Lanes 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Not Permitted Median Permitted only as Traffic Control Device or Gateway Min Bicycle Facility Bike Lanes, 5’ On-St Bike Parking See Building Envelope Standards Transit Facilities Not Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Ownership Public or Private Role in Community Bike Boulevards are a special residential street type which is meant to prioritize and to facilitate the movement of bicyclists from neighborhood to neighborhood and from neighborhood to destination. Congestion Tolerance Motor vehicle use primarily for neighborhood residents. F C & D E A ABB NOTE: ALL TEXT AND GRAPHICS ON THIS PAGE ARE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 218 of 372B6 Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11/10/2015 ARTICLE 11 STREET TYPES 11-11 Support Street A (Sidewalk Width) 6’ Min, 16’ Max B (Greenbelt Width) 5’ Min C (Parking Ln Width) 8’ Max † D (Travel Ln Width) 9’ Min, 12’ Max E (Pavement Width) 36’ Min, 66’ Max F (Street ROW Width) 60’ Min Target Speed 15 to 20 mph Design Speed 30 mph Design Vehicle SU-30 (Single Unit Truck) # Through Lanes 1 or 2 Lanes Sidewalk Type Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 5’ Min, 15’ Max One-Way Traffic Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted Median Permitted only as Refuge Island Min Bicycle Facility Shared Lane On-St Bike Parking See Building Envelope Standards Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Parallel or Angled † Ownership Public or Private Role in Community Support Streets are side streets parallel or perpendicular from primary thoroughfares with higher levels of activity (Destination Streets, Commercial Streets, Avenues, or Commercial Boulevards). 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. Greenbelt The greenbelt may consist principally of hardscape elements but must include sufficient access to soil for required trees. F C E A ABB CDD NOTE: ALL TEXT AND GRAPHICS ON THIS PAGE ARE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, † Standard applies only to parallel parking. Dimensional standards contained in Table 13-8 of the LDR shall apply to the design of angled parking.draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 220 of 372B7 Intended Uses & Activities Order of Consideration South Burlington Land Development Regulations DRAFT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11/10/2015 ARTICLE 11 STREET TYPES 11-14 Commercial Boulevard A (Sidewalk Width) 5’ Min, 20’ Max B (Greenbelt Width) 8’ Min, 16’ Max C (Parking Ln Width) Not Permitted D (Travel Ln Width) 11’ Min, 12’ Max E (Pavement Width) 36’ Min, 80’ Max F (Street ROW Width) 80’ Min Target Speed 30 mph Design Speed 35 mph Design Vehicle WB-50 (Semi-trailer) # Through Lanes 2 to 4 Lanes Sidewalk Type Sidewalk Curbing Vertical Faced Curb Curb Radius 15’ Min, 25’ Max One-Way Traffic Not Permitted Center/LeftTurn Ln Permitted only within medians Median Required Min Bicycle Facility Buffered Bike Lane or Cycletrack On-St Bike Parking See Building Envelope Standards Transit Facilities Permitted On-Street Parking Not Permitted Ownserhip Public Role in Community A commercial boulevard is a major thoroughfare meant to provide access to principal commercial concentrations and other predominantly automobile orientated land uses. While Commercial Boulevards serve as conduits for through traffic and as the origin and destination of many motor vehicle trips, they also provide safe and enjoyable accommodations for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips. Congestion Tolerance Moderate delay is acceptable at peak periods; considerable ingress and egress is expected from adjacent land uses. MediansMedians measuring 9’ or more in width shall be planted with street trees at an average spacing of no more than 50’ on center. F E A ABB DDDD NOTE: ALL TEXT AND GRAPHICS ON THIS PAGE ARE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, draftDRAFT FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 12/7/21 AND 12/21/2015 (See cover page) Page 223 of 372B8 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 C APPENDIX C – EA RE-EVALUATION MEETING SUMMARY Subject RE: South Burlington ‐FHWA City Center EA Meeting From DeForge, Ande To 'Justin Rabidoux'; Ilona Blanchard Cc Goyette, Gregory; Bakos, Greg; kenneth.sikora@dot.gov; Paul Conner; Kevin Dorn; Jim Barlow Sent Thursday, May 01, 2014 1:22 PM Attachments Market Street EA ... All, Please see my comment in red below. This comment only applies to Market Street. Ande From:Justin Rabidoux [mailto:jrabidoux@sburl.com] Sent:Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:43 AM To:Ilona Blanchard Cc:Goyette, Gregory; Bakos, Greg; DeForge, Ande; kenneth.sikora@dot.gov; Paul Conner; Kevin Dorn; Jim Barlow Subject:South Burlington - FHWA City Center EA Meeting Hello, On March 6, 2014 the City, represented by staff members Ilona Blanchard and Justin Rabidoux and  Garden Street design consultant Greg Goyette of Stantec, met with Rob Sikora of Federal Highway’s  Vermont office to discuss the City’s existing Environmental Assessment and the planned improvement  projects within the EA study area. Below are the main takeaways from that meeting. 1. A reevaluation of the EA is required before any “major phase” of the project proceeds. In our case  that means ROW and Construction. Depending on impacts the reevual could be few page memo  explaining the changes from the EA or stating there were no changes. We should plan on submitting the  reevual prior to Right‐of‐Way acquisition on Market Street as part of the authorization to proceed. Please see the attached file for the completed re‐evaluation. I am in the process of requesting the ROW  funding. 2. That requirement is based on 23 CFR 771.129(c) which requires reevaluations of EAs every three  years. 3. If we are not using Federal funds for the Garden Street project, as long its design/construction does  not result in major changes to the Market Street Reconstruction Project’s intent or the EA than our  Garden Street efforts are of little concern to FHWA. Any project in City Center that is not federally  funded is not as much of a concern; i.e. if there are changes in the typical section or shifts in the  EA Re‐evaluation Meeting Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:57 AM NEPA Page 1 C1 alignment of non‐federally funded projects this does not merit a concern as they relate to accumulated  impacts not direct impact of the preferred alternative. 4. Ideally our designs would result in projects that “cause no substantive changes to the project from  the FONSI.”  5. The EA is for the direct and accumulated impacts of the preferred alternative for Market Street. 6. The City stated that the entirety of the two Federal earmarks will be expended on the design and  construction of Market Street. 7. The EA reevual is an internal process between VTrans & FHWA. There is no public hearing. 8. We also discussed whether the EA traffic study would be updated in the re‐evaluation  documentation. If there are new nodes or roadway types or spacing within the study area that would  change the EA traffic evaluation then yes; otherwise, no. If there are any questions or edits please bring them to my attention. Thank you, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 658-7961 jrabidoux@sburl.com www.sburl.com Twitter: twitter.com/sbpubworks Notice ‐Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e‐mail, e‐mail attachments as well as paper copies of  documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or  containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be  inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this  message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. NEPA Page 2 C2 C3 C4 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 D APPENDIX D – PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES Meeting Minutes gg v:\1953\active\195310988\transportation\meetings\notes project stakeholder meetings #1.docx Project Stakeholder Meetings #1 South Burlington Garden Street / 195310988 Date/Time: September 4, 2014 / 9:30 AM Place: City Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street Next Meeting: N/A Attendees: See attached attendance lists Absentees: N/A Distribution: Attendees and Absentees Item: Action: Meeting with Local Businesses (9:30 am)  Street at Dorset Street end is very busy  Parking is good near Pier 1; Pier 1 has never seen their parking lot full.  Garden Street needs to be built – let’s get it done!  Bike & walking access is critical – connections to existing facilities are important  Would like improved bicycle facilities along Dorset. Bike facilities are disconnected through the area.  There are a lot of pedestrians walking between Trader Joes’, Healthy Living, and Pier One. The pedestrian crossing at Garden Street is an issue.  Pedestrian improvements such as crosswalks could be made at the 3-way intersection of two driveways with Garden Street. This area is treacherous for pedestrians.  Deliveries to Pier 1 and customer pick-ups are made at the loading located in the (two lane) driveway parking access at the 3-way intersection  stop sign at end of Garden St should be considered as drivers are in a hurry to turn out of driveways as there are few gaps between cars coming off Dorset.  Healthy Living would like more parking. Most of their customers drive. Please put more parking in. Bike and ped facilities are good but not as important as parking. D1 September 4, 2014 Project Stakeholder Meetings #1 Page 2 of 5 gg v:\1953\active\195310988\transportation\meetings\notes project stakeholder meetings #1.docx  Pier 1 rep sees future of street as being a strolling biking street and that safe bike and pedestrian access is critical to success of City Center.  Providing outlet to Market Street via Garden Street would be great. It would also help customers coming from Williston Road. Meeting with Property Owners (11:00 am)  Irrevocable offer through SB Realty does not line up with Garden Street. It won’t be an issue for SB Realty to replace this and line it up with Garden St.  Road coming through between Midas and the Credit Union is going to be a problem. Contact Civil Engineering Associates (Steve Volk) to get property owner’s recommended line work for a new alignment on Credit Union property. Would prefer to see the road pass between the Credit Union building and the stormwater pond and would like to expand their private parking on the City owned right of way to facilitate development on their site.  Would like White Street to be re-aligned with Midas Drive. Needs to function better for pedestrians and motor vehicles.  Saxon Partners has Zachary’s and Accent Travel under contract.  Stormwater management for Market St is consuming a significant amount of land. Will take significant work to handle Garden Street stormwater.  How will Garden Street impact traffic circulation on Market Street, especially near the school entrance?  What kind of impact would Garden Street have on school operations? White Street/Midas Drive needs to remain 2-way or better for Chamberlain School operations.  Turning White Street into one-way will deviate traffic to the Hinesburg Road intersection. There is a strong preference to keep White Street two-way and re-align with Midas Drive to make this a full functioning intersection.  Turning White Street into one-way will impact customer access to businesses and is not favored.  A lot of traffic comes from the Airport to Patchen/Hinesburg Road. Any changes to these intersections need to be carefully studied. There is a lot of traffic that cuts through the Handy parking lot. D2 September 4, 2014 Project Stakeholder Meetings #1 Page 3 of 5 gg v:\1953\active\195310988\transportation\meetings\notes project stakeholder meetings #1.docx  The median on Williston Road westbound approach should not be extended. Left-turns off of Williston Road into the Handy property are critical to business.  Garden Street will need to accommodate fire trucks.  Between 4-6 pm Williston/Hinesburg is congested, other hours work well. Traffic begins to build at 4. This was refined to 4:30-6 PM.  Traffic and congestion was much worse here 20 years ago.  Cottage Grove is an important connection from Williston Rd to White St.  Should be consideration for left-turns from Williston to Patchen. They are currently prohibited. Realignment with White Street has merit and may be able to help with the left-turn situation. Left- turns at both intersections will be better.  Would like crosswalks across Williston Road at White Street/Midas Drive.  Garden Street needs to be lined up efficiently between HL/Trader Joes and Market Street so that it leaves enough developable space on the south of Garden Street.  Can Garden Street fit between the Credit Union and pond?  Slower traffic along Williston Road helps business. Meeting with Utility Companies (1:00 pm)  Fairpoint – would need dedicated conduits in a shared duct bank. Will need their own pedestals. Three ducts along Garden Street? Will need to firm up once development plan is more known. Pedestals within ROW or terminals inside building. If in the ROW; require easement. If within the building access important.  Burlington Telecom – only requires one 4” conduit along Garden Street and Market Street. Services can connect directly into building without need for above-grade pedestals if necessary.  Comcast – same boat as FP and BT, one 4” conduit running down both streets. Services can connect directly into building without external pedestals. May need some external infrastructure to power runs.  Sovernet – same as other telecom. One 4” conduit running down both streets. Services can connect directly into building without D3 September 4, 2014 Project Stakeholder Meetings #1 Page 4 of 5 gg v:\1953\active\195310988\transportation\meetings\notes project stakeholder meetings #1.docx external pedestals.  Level3, VTel & First Light not present  CWD/South Burlington Water – 10’ away from sewer, not under greenbelt & trees, 5’ from storm drains. Biggest challenge will be to estimate fireflows. Consider two laterals side by side to make them available to the developer. Look into future to determine maximum load and design from there. Would rather not see fire hydrant placement at curb line or adjacent to sidewalk where plows could clip it. Minimum 8” water main and stub out 8” laterals to the ROW line. This will allow for more flexibility to developer. Interconnections with Dorset Street (12”) and Williston Road will enhance flows toward Hinesburg Road (6”). CWD has ability to serve in terms of normal water demand. White Street water main between Williston Road and Patchen was not replaced with the other portions that were replaced recently. If the intersection is re-aligned, it would be an ideal time to replace this line. Noted that the Williston Road main is quite old and should have been replaced with the repaving project. What is the width of Williston Road main?  GMP – Not present  Vermont Gas – Not present  Utility companies will not share pedestals.  Should have spare conduits for new players that come into the City. City should have one or two conduits for themselves.  Equipment in bulidings can be a problem with respect to access to respond to emergencies. Dedicated keyed access to internal building connections would be ideal.  Consider backlotting to service the area. Will be better aesthetically if services/pedestals/transformers were backlotted. City does not have a mechanism to achieve this. Construction of conduit makes the most sense as a duct bank. Would minimize risk of tearing up road during development. Will require easements across private property. Ideally the city would obtain the easement and either enter into a maintenance agreement with the utility companies or turn the easement over to the utility companies. Meeting with Local Agencies (2:30 pm)  VTrans – doesn’t need to be included in future meetings/updates  CCTA – direct access across from southern U-mall access would be great operationally as this is where buses currently exit. CCTA D4 September 4, 2014 Project Stakeholder Meetings #1 Page 5 of 5 gg v:\1953\active\195310988\transportation\meetings\notes project stakeholder meetings #1.docx will provide service along Market Street since density is envisioned to be greater than on Garden Street. A curb radius appropriate for bus service should be considered at the Garden/Market Street intersection if not done already.  CATMA – does not come out to South Burlington yet.  Local Motion – Not in attendance  CCRPC – can Market/Garden intersection be built out as a roundabout in the future? FBC was provided the needed right of way to consider but did not choose to reserve the additional ROW. During the Market Street project outreach meetings, the then property owner rep preferred the gaps produced by a stop sign to the flow of a roundabout. O’Brien/Fletcher Allen development should be considered in the regional model used in traffic analysis.  Include Catma/CCTA/CCRPC etc when alternatives are developed for comments. The meetings adjourned at 4:00 PM The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Greg G. Goyette, P.E. Associate Phone: (802) 497-6403 greg.goyette@stantec.com D5 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 E APPENDIX E – PUBLIC KICKOFF WORKSHOP NOTES AND BEST IDEAS Garden Street Public Workshop  September 10, 2014  Comment Summary    Group #1  STREET WIDTH   Is 60’ enough width?   Garden Street does not need to do everything along its entire length   Garden Street at Healthy Living is narrow and works well for peds.  Cars must be careful and  drive slowly – there are lots of peds.  PEDESTRIANS   There should be frequent bumpouts for pedestrians along Garden Street.   The Atwater Market in Montreal is a good example of a nice mixed‐use area.  Amenities there  like benches, public art, pockets of green, gardens, should be incorporated into Garden Street.   Traffic calming on the street is needed.  MIDAS DRIVE CONNECTION   The connection of Garden Street to Midas Drive should be an attractive curved connection.    CHARACTER OF THE STREET   Public art   Rain Gardens   Gardens, Trees, Sense of Nature   Use water in the area creatively:  stormwater canals?   Center Median?  o Problem with the median is that it is green space for the cars – not usable for people.   Alleys and Mews connecting to Garden Street.  BIKES   Perhaps parking on one side of the street to accommodate bike lanes.   Bike lanes should be separated from cars by a median, like in Montreal.   Provide a separate path along the edge of the wetlands for users not comfortable in traffic, and  a shared lane in Garden Street.   The problem with bikes on a path is that they can’t access uses along the street, like shops.    MIDAS AND WHITE INTERSECTION   Midas and White must be aligned.    o Regular four‐way intersection  o Roundabout?  E1   Group #2  OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE REPORT   Two‐acre central green adjacent to municipal building   Sidewalk cafes – large sidewalks   Events, gardens, hide parking    Linked green spaces  STREETS   Solve problems of multiple users   Netherlands model   Take traffic off Route 2   Many curb cuts – curves  IDEAS   Concert venue   Arboretum   Wetland Boardwalk   Like Lurie Park in Chicago; Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia   The Place needs to be a destination    GROUP #3  CHARACTER OF THE STREET   Streetlamps should be something that looks like it’s been there   Benches   Wonderful space to hand out in    Planting is important; greenway   Accommodating buses   Residential housing   Bike racks   Trash cans   Center green belt   Beautify the wetland area   Provide a bike path     E2 GROUP #4  What’s the 60 ROW width able to accommodate? Seems like the street section is 60’ – and closer to 70’  if the street design is to include bicycles for more than a sharrow.   The key look ‐ feel is largely determined by what’s alongside the street –  the buildings!  Four stories  are anticipated in the T4 zone. Eastwood – Farrell was described as close to that scale and  relationship ‐ although there are a lot of that project’s characteristics that are not desirable at the  ground level.     With the above in mind  ‐ Block size is critical to Garden Street so that the housing development is  dense but very attractive. Strong advocacy for planning those residential blocks – explained that’s  not part of the project’s scope, but that it can/should be developed in coordination with private  development parties.      General discussion about the need to do higher quality development of housing and mixed uses that  are better than Taft’s Corners and other regional examples of planned “Downtowns”.     Garden Street could have a different but complementary character to Market St. and part of that is  adding Residential character:   Less driveways   More landscaped areas     Make really nice “edge” spaces that are where the housing density can look really good and be  appealing to buyers/renters, so pay attention to the edges and the center where buildings and the  streetscape come together.     There should be connections to public open spaces with walking and bikepaths.     For the streetscape and bldg. designs – the look and feel of the commercial uses from Market Street  should wrap around the corner  onto both ends of Garden Street.     The Character of Garden Street – to Williston Road can be one thing, and Market to Dorset Street ‐  another.   E3 Best Ideas  Intersecting pedestrian use and drainages  2‐acre park / activity place with municipal bldgs.  Wrapping Market  Street around corners of Garden Street  Pedestrian paths and alley ways to connect Garden and Market  Addressing challenge of wide street  Sharrows and separated bike path  Rain gardens  Think creatively for Price Chopper parking lot  Road should be a real destination, parking or shuttle system so that people from all over can enjoy this  Garden Street should not be a pass through  Curved streets for traffic calming  Gathering spaces  Attractive stormwater areas / ponds  2‐acre park / gathering spaces  Incorporate residential housing / parks with brownstones / walkable  Attract more residential / make it comfortable and inviting for families near the street  Grid street network – think about connections  Think about alternative routes  Functionality of street needs to be met – peds/bikes/cars, plantings, aesthetically pleasing, should worry  about streetscapes  Should focus on Market to Dorset connection to start – phased construction  Maximize development potential of area  Spread out municipal buildings  Should have a sense of place – what do we want 30‐40 years down the road?    E4 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 F APPENDIX F – GARDEN STREET ALTERNATIVES WORKSHOP NOTES Garden Street Alternatives WorkshopJanuary 15, 2015Voting Results and Comments:Entry Way VotesCommentsAlternative #1 8Symmetry, aesthetics, I like the center aisle with trees, more relaxed entry-wise, symmetry, I like the welcoming appearanceAlternative #2 6Integrates well with stormwater facility and adjacent paths, gives a bit more connection to "green" and "nature" for pedestrians, additional green space is usable and accessible to pedestrians, better buffer for the back of existing building on Midas, more flexible, I prefer that the green space is closer to the other open space areas - gives a better entry - still allows for public art, this will not inevitably be a major entrance to City Center - shouldn't be grandioseTypical Sections 1st Place Votes2nd Place VotesCommentsAlternative #1 3 0 Most available parking for residential and commercial and it is aesthetically appealing, maximum spaceAlternative #2 2 5 I like the separate multi-use path, I like green belt, good amount of parking, attractive, safe and welcoming for families, like separate path to get into nature, like integrated stormwater treatment, green belt, multi-purpose pathAlternative #3 0 5 Efficient use of space, safe for bikes and walkers, okay alternative, encourages biking right within the main street, less parkingAlternative #4A 8 2 Same reasons as 4b, bikeway whole length of street, really think a combo of 4A and 4B would be the best, choosing 4A because of the ease of putting in the bio-retention thingsAlternative #4B 4 4 Cozier, greener street, great for bicyclists - path should go whole length of street, has the most "gardeny" feel, good traffic calming, trees provide good shade, more calming, greater stormwater mitigation, would be great to have an off-site path and the tree bumpouts, suggestion - use "protected bikeway" terminology and not "cycle track"Key comments received during the presentation:This new street and development will be beautiful and will attract bicycles and pedestrians as a destination areaWill the gateway alternatives would provide enough areas for public art?There is no guarantee that a developer will build a separate bicycle path outside of the road ROW. We should get it now within the road ROW.Who will be responsible for maintenance of roadside plantings?Is public works prepared to remove snow in areas of curb extensions / tree planting areas?Concern over street trees being able to survive – reference made to Shelburne Road - the trees are not maintained and are not attractive"Any bicycle facility is better than no bicycle facility” (in reference to a shared-use path outside of the street ROW that the developer may or may not build)Concern that a path located outside of the road ROW would not connect all the way through to Midas Drive and would likely terminate at Market StreetThe lack of dedicated bike facilities on Market Street makes it even more important to provide them on Garden StreetF1 Garden Street Alternatives Workshop Additional Comments received during open public comment period Comment 1 I am pleased that all the configurations shown include accommodations for cyclists and 6 ft. sidewalks for pedestrians. Alternatives 1 and 2 propose an off-street multi-use trail near the wetlands and behind buildings. I reject these configurations because they defeat the concept of cycling venues conveniently adjacent to retail facilities and the front of residential properties. Alternatives 3, 4a and 4b all have satisfactory two way cycle tracks on one side of the street. This provides for good separation from pedestrians and appears to have adequate separation from parked cars. To provide convenience for residents the cycle track should be located on the side of the street with the most housing. Alternative 3 is my first choice because of the following features:  The cycle track is not next to parked cars so fewer people from the vehicles will be crossing the cycle track to the sidewalk.  It provides the most trees at 40 ft. spacing, thus providing a pleasant ambience to the street. Alternative 4b is my second choice given the following considerations:  It provides more parking than Alt 3 which may be desirable for retail businesses.  It still has acceptable tree spacing at 60 ft. Alternative 4a is my third choice:  It does allow more parking and the bump-outs will be traffic calming.  The 80 ft. tree spacing may still be satisfactory. In evaluating Alts 3, 4a & 4b I have not taken into consideration stormwater treatment; perhaps this may be a deciding factor. Midas Drive Connector my preference is Alternative B. The planted garden/stormwater treatment area provides a pleasant area for cyclists and pedestrians. It also provides easier access to this area for maintenance and for viewing. However, will developers object to the additional 26 ft. set back to their construction site? F3 Comment 2  My preference is for Alternative Three. My strong preference is against any alternative that puts a multi-use path "behind buildings." Cyclists are people, and people want to be where the people are, which is in the streetscape. Given that, my preference for Alternative 3 over the other ones that put bike facilities on the street is based on the consistency of the green strips, the greater density of the street trees, and the flexibility that longer stretches of parallel parking provide and the relative ease of plowing them. Comment 3  I think that you should pick 4A because there is a lot of space to play and you can have picnics under the trees. Also you can park on both sides of the road and there’s a bike path and sidewalk. Comments from Dumont Park relevant to Garden Street  Broad support for a cycle track on Garden Street and more minimal east west path in park.  Some people liked the path along the edge of the buffer zone on the City Center site, and others were concerned the site would be developed as parking lot right to the edge of the buffer zone, and would be unattractive.  Liked bikes on road (cycle track) where bikers are going, rather than at backs of buildings. F4 Garden Street Alternatives Workshop with Mrs. Ransom's 2nd Grade Class at Rick Marcotte Central School February 5, 2015 Voting Results and Comments: Typical Sections 1st Place Votes 2nd Place Votes Total Votes Rank Alternative #1 1 6 7 3 Alternative #2 0 0 0 5 Alternative #3 1 0 1 4 Alternative #4A 4 3 7 2 Alternative #4B 6 2 8 1 Comments because there are a lot of spaces for parking Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4A Alternative 4B Because you have a lot of shade because the trees are 80 feet away from other trees I pick this one because the cars can park on each side I like the dotted lines Because it has a lot of trees Because I like the sidewalk next to the road Because the trees are closer because there is a path with scooters, skateboards and bikes I like this one because it is more decorative to me because there is a turn for parking I like 4A because the trees are further the parking is a thick layer because there are not too many parking spaces and there's room for the trees Because the trees are not together and are further away it has more lanes and the trees are apart I like how the trees are spread far apart because the trees are a good distance away because there are more spaces to park cars because it is not blocking the road because it has parking on both sides because it has parking on both sides and has two lanes for skateboards and bikes because the trees aren't too close and there's a place for bikes F5 Meeting Minutes gg c:\users\ggoyette\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\wl4q4ti5\draft notes project stakeholder meetings #4 cr.docx Project Stakeholder Meetings #4 South Burlington Garden Street / 195310988 Date/Time: January 13, 2015 / 11:00 AM Place: City Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street Next Meeting: N/A Attendees: See attached attendance lists Absentees: N/A Distribution: Attendees and Absentees Item: Action: Meeting with Property Owners and Local Businesses (11:00 am)  The alternative with protected bikeway and on-street parking is preferred for Midas Drive. It accommodates all user needs – commercial, pedestrians and bicyclists.  Eliminating parking along Midas Drive is a disadvantage to businesses.  Owners of Al’s French Fries are open to discussing a driveway shift to the south and possible egress out to future development if built on Central School property.  White Street needs to remain a 2-way street.  Would like to see a community snow storage area in City Center. Snow removal currently gets trucked to the waterfront which is expensive and may have impact on lake water quality. A facility located closer to businesses would be beneficial.  Project Team will meet with stakeholders at a later date to discuss intersection alternatives. Meeting with CCTA and CCRPC (1:30 pm)  If the bus were to use Garden Street in the future, it would stop in the travel lane. Pull-off areas are not necessary.  Curb extensions will facilitate bus pickup if it becomes necessary in the future. Curb extensions should be set back 11’ from the centerline (one foot off-set from the curb).  Transit busses will have difficulty with 10’ wide travel lanes if these lanes need to be shared by bicyclists. Protected bikeway option F6 January 13, 2015 Project Stakeholder Meetings #4 Page 2 of 2 gg c:\users\ggoyette\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\wl4q4ti5\draft notes project stakeholder meetings #4 cr.docx is preferred because it would be better to separate bikes from traffic.  If bus services Garden Street in the future, consideration needs to be given to riders who need to cross cycle track when entering/exiting the bus. This does not need to be considered for the initial construction. The meetings adjourned at 2:30 PM The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Greg G. Goyette, P.E. Associate Phone: (802) 497-6403 greg.goyette@stantec.com F7 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 G APPENDIX G – CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS FOR THE GARDEN STREET PROJECT G1 G2 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Next Steps February 1, 2016 H APPENDIX H – WILLISTON ROAD ALTERNATIVES WORKSHOP NOTES Audience Comments South Burlington Wiliston Road Intersection Workshop November 18, 2015 EXISTING CONDITIONS  Distance between the crosswalks – people cheat and jaywalk  What is the speed limit? It should be lower than 35 mph  Number of curb cuts is a problem  Bikes on sidewalks are dangerous at intersections and driveways  Street trees would affect speed  How much development is associated with City Center? Is that factored into this analysis? ALTERNATIVE 1  The median east of Hinesburg Road would cause concern for traffic going to Gracies  Are we building bike lanes for a few bikers?  Why do we have the medians? The medians on Shelburne Road have been a problem for the businesses o Traffic flow improves – actually better for some businesses o Medians are safer  Can the medians not be constructed out of concrete? Landscaping instead? ALTERNATIVE 2  Crossing times on Kennedy Drive at the signal lead to wasted time  New HAWK signal experience – can only go half way across at a time.  It seems like there would be a problem with bikes and right turns going east on Wiliston Road.  Problem with jogs in the road that cause a back-up. That is what happens now up at Dorset Street.  There are crosswalk designs that jog and force peds to look at the traffic they are about to cross.  Traffic needs to go slow or it’s not comfortable for peds.  The speed limit is 25 mph by UVM ALTERNATIVE 3A  Will this project include underground utilities?  Is there are off-set next to the curb in this alternative? Yes.  The existing sidewalks are low and have drainage problems. That needs to be fixed.  Asphalt sidewalks are better. The snow melts faster and they are smoother. H1 ALTERNATIVE 4  Will there be pedestrian crossing lights?  Isn’t the Swiss Motel an historical landmark?  What about wheelchairs? How do they cross?  Are there examples of RRFBs used on 2-lane roundabouts?  Capacity improved with roundabouts? Yes.  Concerned about pedestrians using the roundabouts. GENERAL QUESTIONS  What is the safest alternative?  What does the city want?  What alternative may get federal funding? WRAP UP SESSION  Need protected bike Lanes or bicycle facility  Don’t do Road Diet (3-lanes)  Safety for all users is the #1 consideration – would like to have it all, bikes, peds and cars  There are a lot of impatient people on the road. Need traffic calming.  Combination of 2 and 3B is preferred (left-turn lanes and protected bicycles)  Midas/White realignment is a priority PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS  I like option 2 because I think there needs to be a designated left turn lane for traffic heading West on Williston Rd. turning onto Hinesburg Rd. Tony Cairns  Need to maintain curb cuts on Williston Road. Bryan Cairns  Don’t eliminate curb cut at corner of Patchen. Critical to business operation, traffic flow through the site. Bartlett  Maintain curb cuts on Williston Road. Preserve parking in front of building. Ernie Pomerleau ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER MEETING Pro Midas Realignment 1. I like 3A as the first alternative for Midas St and 3B as the second. I will expand on the reasons shortly in another email, but from first glance and review these look the best with the relocation of midas to be a more traditional intersection. Pro Roundabouts 2. It was a good discussion.I still think if u put in 2 RA's you should go ahead and do Dorset/Willston Rd, too. Unfortunately when Kennedy Dr was redesigned I suggested too late to put in a RA at Dorset/116. H2 Anti-Roundabout and On-Road Bike Lanes/Pro Midas Realignment 3. PLEASE no roundabouts!!!! I like the idea of realigning White St. and Midas Dr. then all they would need is a left turn lane in each direction to alleviate traffic back-ups. The left turn lanes would also be a viable alternative at Hinesburg Rd. We don't need a separate bike lane in the road! If there are 5' wide sidewalks on each side of the road there's no reason bikes can't use the sidewalks as long as it's posted that way. That's ample room for both pedestrians and cyclists. That's a busy road... Let's leave it for traffic!!! 4. I support 3a or 3b, but if there were money issues use below to get more space and flexibility. There is a ton of traffic and a huge percentage not due to a Williston Road destination. The solution is for City to push moving forward an additional interchange (Hinesburg Road), such as a north only entrance lane. Less traffic would make ped/bike conversation easier. Recreation Path Committee has a proposal to drop from two lanes to one at white street with a left only to white, left only to Midas a. At Patchen Road have 2 two lanes – straight through and a right turn only, if budget would not allow curb cuts to be moved out. Recommend move to one lane and gives room for bike lane and right turn lane. b. From other direction – should have a right turn only lane in addition to straight through and left turning lane.] c. The two lanes to one lane is very dangerous for bicyclists. Pro Left-Turn Lanes and Midas Re-alignment/Anti-Roundabout 5. Thankfully, Williston Road is no longer part of my daily commute, but on the few times a month when I do venture over that way, I’d prefer Alternative 2 with the left turn lanes. My only thought is that it might make sense (and it looks like there’s room) to add a left turn lane onto Patchen. A “No Left Turn” is a great idea, but it’s usually interpreted as merely a polite suggestion. I really like the reconfiguration of White Street – I’ve seen several near misses of people turning left out of Midas and not staying in their near lane and cutting off the cars turning right from White…and vice versa. Williston Road is too busy not to have turn lanes. The roundabouts alternative would be feasible in light traffic, but during rush hour, I think that the more timid drivers among us would create a cluster. The “racetrack” in Winooski works because there’s distance between the entrances to the roundabout. The tight circles in the Williston Road diagram mean shorter distances and less time to plan your jump into the fray, and the slower traffic, when busy, would potentially mean a solid line of cars in the E-W directions with little opportunity for the side roads to enter. H3 Pro Left Turns and Separate Bike Facilities 6. Reading through the online summary of Williston Road redesign options, I keep coming back to the two major goals that I have for this project. The first concerns having a dedicated lane for left turns. The second is physically separating bicyclists from the roadway. The former is clearly in the best interest of motorists and the latter in the best interest of bicyclists. If we can possibly incorporate both of those concerns into the adopted design, we’ll all be the better for it. Thanks for listening….and for all you do. Pro Separate Bike Facilities 7. Of all of the options, I think 3B offers the most protected option for non motorized traffic, and thus would get the most use. I see that this does not continue to Dorset St, which is obviously a problem. However, it does link Garden St to Williston Rd beyond Hinesburg Rd, which would be a tremendous improvement. Would bicycles be expected to use crosswalks and sidewalk to get to White St and/or Patchen Rd? I currently use Patchen Rd from Hinesburg Rd, which are both relatively wide for confident bikers, and can easily have bike lanes painted. Still not great for less confident bikers, who have to use the sidewalks when north of Williston Rd. I expect younger families to be moving into this area. Thanks for putting this out there online. Pro Form Based Code 8. I know we had this battle a couple years ago about Market Street but the form based code for City Center relies on the interaction of the transects with the building envelop standards and the streetscapes. We developed streetscapes for all of the possible kinds of streets in City Center. The design should be a simple formula for every street including Market Street and Garden Street. Why take the time and energy to design streets in advance? The same is true for Williston Road and White Street. Your approach seems to be making streetscapes by public ad hoc committees. Give form based code time to work and use it for what it does. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Pro Roundabout 9. I pick in order: 4, 2, 1 10. Strongly in favor of the fourth plan, with roundabouts! Roundabouts are empirically better at controlling traffic flow. As a frequent commuter in and around the affected area, improvement is much needed! Thank you for your efforts. Pro Left-Turn Lanes H4 11. My pick is alternative two. I believe the left turn lanes are critical. I also like the bike lanes. Ideally, the bike lanes would be protected, but that option doesn't include left turn lanes. I think alternative two is a good compromise, allowing for good flow of traffic as well as improved bicycle safety. The other traditional alternatives don't have left turn lanes, so they aren't options in my opinion. I wish the roundabout option would work, but it won't. Besides requiring way more right of way, it isn't going to be safer for bicyclists, and two lane roundabouts don't reduce traffic speed, making them very dangerous. See Winooski for issues there. If you can get traffic to slow down before entering the roundabout, it might work, but you would probably have to reduce to one lane and that would make traffic flow a mess. Thanks for allowing people to provide input. Pro Roundabout 12. As a resident of South Burlington, I just wanted to give my brief two cents on the new roadways proposed for White St. And Hinesburgh Rd. I think if the majority of people want to stick with what everyone knows and doesn't want "radical" change, I feel that Option 3A is your best choice. It allows for current and future bike travel, the vehicle travel lanes are wide and the median us ostentatiously large. However, I believe that, in general (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that roundabouts ease traffic congestion and promote greater traffic flow in general. If so, I'd wholeheartedly vote for roundabouts so long as you don't foresee greater congestion (it's already plenty congested at peak times now, as I'm sure you know), allow a non-confusing option for bikers and feel that accidents wouldn't be a major problem, as they were (are?) with Winooski. Thank you for your time and enjoy your weekend Anti-Roundabout 13. Please do not put any roundabouts in. People in Vermont do not know how to use them properly. This will cause a bunch of traffic congestion and most likely accidents. Pro Midas Realignment/Anti-Roundabout 14. I just finished reviewing the Garden Street roadway options and definitely preferred option 2 (left turn lanes) to all the others. I live on Pine Street and come through that area in every direction dozens of times a week. By far the biggest concerns are the off-square angle of approach from White Street and the lack H5 of dedicated left turn lanes. The lack of turn lanes especially result in backups on the through lanes, lots of lane changes and parking lot cutting as I'm sure you know. The off-square White Street entry is self explanatory as far as visibility goes. Good to see changes coming - I'd stay off the rotary ideas though... They seem big, time consuming to build and expensive. I love rotaries personally, but location and expense wise, not for those spots. Thanks for having the plans up, Pro Left-turn lanes/Anti-Roundabout 15. Having looked at the four alternatives presented on the website, I would rank them in the following order: # 2, far and away first, with the possible addition of a left turn lane on eastbound Williston Road at Patchen Rd/Hinesburg Rd. The space is available in the proposed median. # 1 and # 3 are tied for second. # 4 is clearly last. I would like to remove all consideration of any proposal including any roundabouts from further public discussion. Pro Left Turn lanes/anti roundabout 16. As a South Burlington business owner and resident of Burlington for the past eleven years (and SBHS alum), I have driven through the White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg intersections on Williston Road thousands of times. I think the lane changes east of Patchen Rd have had an overall positive impact and I’m encouraged that the City of South Burlington is working on further improvements to Williston Rd. Of the concepts for the above intersections, I feel like the left turn lanes (shown in Alternative 2) would provide the biggest benefit to safety and traffic flow. In my experience, many of the incidents and near-collisions on Williston Rd westbound at Patchen Rd occur when drivers get stuck in the left lane and whip around to go straight. Left turn lanes would keep left turners from disrupting traffic at green lights, and dedicated straight-only lanes alongside the straight/right turn lanes would promote more usage of the center lane. Currently, Williston Rd backs up during rush hour more than it needs to because people stay in the right lane rather than risk getting stuck in the left. I feel strongly that the roundabouts suggested in Alternative 4 would not be a good fit for this area. I’m not a civil engineer, but they look too small to handle rush hour and holiday season traffic at these intersections. I feel like they would lead to avoidance of the area and send more traffic through the H6 neighborhoods, at least for those of us heading west on Williston Rd and cutting down Patchen Rd to get to Winooski or Burlington’s North End. Roundabouts on Williston Road… yikes. Stick with left turn lanes! Thank you for involving the community in this decision. Pro roundabout 17. Having driven and biked in Europe I love roundabouts Pro separate bike facility 18. After having had a chance to review the proposed alternatives for the Garden Street project, I believe that Alternative 3B is the best choice for South Burlington. An implementation where bicycle safety is an express priority is the only sensible choice Pro pedestrian 19. Option 3a offers the best solution for pedestrians, option 4 makes most sense for drivers. Over all I prefer 3A Anti protected bike lane if not extended all the way down Williston Road 20. As a Williston resident who commutes daily by bicycle to the medical center via Williston Road, I would like to weigh in about the proposed changes to the intersections that appeared in Saturday's Free Press. All of the suggestions seemed reasonable, with the exception of the option that puts a two-way protected bike lane on the south side of Williston Road. That would require westbound commuters to cross busy Williston Road twice. The roundabout option is intriguing, although the bicycle facilities are incomplete, so I would deserve judgment until I saw those. I appreciate the thought and effort that is going into this. From a bicyclist perspective, any changes should be considered in context of the plans for Williston Road between White Street and Dorset Street. I hope that similar thought will be given to that. Pro separate bicycle facilities 21. I live in Burlington and work in South Burlington on Community Drive. I bike about 50% of the time, and drive 50% of the time. I want to speak in favor of option 3B. Williston Rd is currently not very hospitable to folks biking due to the high volume of traffic, high auto speeds and lack of protection for cyclists. My opinion is that only created a bike path separated from the road would make people feel safe enough to increase cycling rates. Putting cyclists in-road without any protection H7 will keep the hazardous feel that Williston Rd has today. While I will occasionally brave Williston Rd on my bike, I don't feel safe (and use a combination of roads closer to I-89 on Twin Oaks Drive) and avoid Williston Rd. If South Burlington is serious about treating cyclists as users with equal rights to motorists, only an off- road option will make cyclists feel safe. Pro Roundabout 22. Rotaries please :) Engage more stakeholders 23. What is the timeline for deciding on alternatives for this project compared to the larger Williston corridor? It seems it would be fruitful that once some alternatives are narrowed for this study that its identify if they are feasible for the whole corridor. I am thinking of things like the protected bike lane given the large traffic volumes on this roadway. While they would be my number one priority if I had to choose just one feature as Greg asked the other night. But I would not like to find out that it be proposed in the final alternative and then it would not be feasible for the whole corridor and if built would just be in this section. Is there a way the timing of these two studies could be better aligned so that initial feasibility of what maybe the preferred alternative for this study can be vetted for the whole corridor. I also noted to Greg that it will be important to get the feedback of CCTA on how different infrastructure will work with their service. Not that their response should drive the result but you will want to be aware if any conflict points they may identify with lane widths and adjacent bike facilities. I think we still need to push the envelope towards safety. This road needs to accommodate all users and levels of ability. While we are planning what is best for our community we also need to realize the importance of this facility as a commuter route for residents and non-residents passing through the city. And I think the protected bike lane will be a big improvement towards the safety of this. It also is a big leap forward in providing non-motorized facilities to encourage more bike commuting. I would also like to encourage that Local Motion be engaged to review the alternatives and comment as along with the regional commission they are also a organization that can provide the view of how this fits in serving the needs of connections in the region. Another thing noted the other night is creating a continuous median along the roadway. Similar to the protected bike lane, I would want to know how this idea work in the larger corridor. I think it works on Shelburne road to improve overall traffic flow but that roadway also seems larger to me with setbacks and right of way towards the southern end. Those islands are not present where it becomes H8 "tighter" in development closer to the interstate. So as a public member mentioned I would be curious to know how u-turns will be accommodated. Pro left-turn lanes, pedestrian and bike improvements 24. Alternative 2 seem preferable because the left turn lanes are so effective in maintaining the flow of traffic. That seems the essential and significant difference between the alternatives after a quick review. It seems both plans include wider bike lanes, a big improvement. The functioning of crosswalk signals is also important to bike and pedestrian friendly streets -- some betray a clear car-centric bias with long wait times, short crossing times, and ambiguity regarding pedestrian right-of-way when motorists choose to turn. Intersection design is important, but motorist behavior -- speed, proximity, attitude -- is equally so. Pro-left turn lanes, anti on-road bike lanes 25. I vote for Alternative #2 … I see this as the best solution for moving traffic through this very busy part of Williston Road. I like the idea of bike lanes, but I don’t see that being implemented any time soon on the rest of Williston Road Pro pedestrians and Midas re-alignment 26. Hi Ilona, I think 3b looks like it will have the best pedestrian feel, due to the green belt separation and isolating the bikers from the walkers. I am curious how difficult the right of ways are going to be to secure, so I say lightly, if opt 1 could be done next year, I'd could live with it. I've lived in the Chamberlin neighboorhood for 15 years and the White St intersetion's issues are well known. Access from the North side of town to the South during rush hour, pedestrian crossing from Haircuts Plus to Al's French Fries, and the confusing stay-in-lane coming out of the present Midas Dr would all be improved. However, I do think opt 3b is a much nicer solution. Anti roundabout, pro left-turn lanes and Midas realignment 27. I just wated to give my opinions. 1) I am not a fan of roundabouts, too many people don't know how to use them. Look at Maple Tree Place, you put your life on the line there every day. They are jammed into a too small area due to existing structures. 2) The biggest issue I see in that area is left hand turns. I like the option with left turn lanes but knowing how much traffic there is I don't think the lanes proposed are long enough, especially left turns to Hinesburg Rd. 3) The reconfiguration of the White St, Williston Rd intersection is long overdue. H9 28. Just spoke with Jack Russell – he is hoping this will not be like the last go around on Williston Road. He owns the building next to the Rotisserie and says that it has been difficult keeping renters in the that building due the screeching and other noise from the merging. Any changes which reduce trip ends will reduce the value of retail leases, the assessed value of the land, and the resulting tax revenue which is contrary to the intent of the projects. He also notes that cars are now backed up in two directions to Mary Street (where his office is) whereas they used to just back up towards Burlington now. Need to address Williston Road sections before and after, anti bike lanes 29. Issue with planning this section without addressing sections before & after as this will slow traffic here and make it back up everywhere else. Doesn’t understand why we have a bike lane on the busiest section of road in the street a. Would never let a kid ride on it b. Most dangerous in the state Too many cars to slow down Stopped cars are polluting (idling) Bikers don’t pay for roads Lived here since 1967 – now doesn’t leave house at 8, noon or 5 pm as will not be able to leave driveway and get onto Williston Road as all cars are stopped waiting to get on the interstate. Doesn’t like the swopping of the lanes (at Dorset). Williston Road does not need two turn lanes onto Dorset Street. Pro left turn lanes 30. As someone who drives on Williston Road every day I can say that one of the biggest impediments to smooth traffic flow is people trying to turn left (especially at the Patchen/116 intersection. Therefore I think the best alternative put forth is option 2 with the option for a shared use path. I think separating the bike lanes from general traffic is the most likely way to get people to actually bike along Williston Road. With heavy traffic and inattentive drivers I don't think may bikers are willing to take the chance using bike lanes that are simply separate from cars/trucks/buses by a white line. With a shared use path along that road I H10 would be more likely to ditch my car for my bike (I work at the Merchants Bank building at Kimball/Kennedy). H11 Voting Results and Additional CommentsSouth Burlington Williston Road Intersection WorkshopNovember 18, 2015Voting Results and Comments:Alternative 1st Place Votes2nd Place VotesAlternative #1 0 0Alternative #2 14 10Alternative #3A 0 0Alternative #3B 4 6Alternative #4 1 1Like roundabout, would be 1st or 2nd choice except concerned with pedestrian crossing and potential implementation delay due to more land acquisition requiredAs somebody who drives, this is appealing. However this may not be the best option for bike/ped who are in the interested/concerned category.Atlernative #3A:No good, just encourages motor vehicle trafficAtlernative #2:Want this with protected bike lane, dedicated left/u-turn to get back to business on west sideWant this with off-street biking (2 people)Want this with off-street biking and green belts added (5 people) - merge with #3BProtected bike lanes encourage more cyclingMedians - looks like Dorset, like the consistencyBike lanes should be 2-way on south sideYes! Left-turn pockets combined with #3B and green beltMove this to merge with #3B - protected bike lanes very importantWould want to see design examples to show it could be done in a way that interacts the roadway with the adjacent parcels and not be a thru-wayDefinitely want protected off-street bike corridor on south side;Too dangerous for pedestrians/bikes (2 people)Would like this if I had faith drivers would stop for pedestriansReally not comfortable that pedestrians could get across - do not believe cars would stopAdd protected left from #2 and keep green spaceLike green beltAtlernative #4:Why do you like the Alternative? Other comments?Atlernative #3B:Prefer the safety of the protected bike lane on this high traffic streetOff-street bikingPrefer this for protected bike path but would like the left-turning lanes for cars in #2 incorporated with thisSame as above, Combination of #2 with this designAtlernative #1:No comments receivedH12 1 Memorandum Prepared for: Ilona Blanchard, City of South Burlington Prepared By: Katelin Brewer‐Colie, Complete Streets Project Manager,  Local Motion  Date: December 28, 2015 RE: Garden Street Intersection Alternatives South Burlington Garden Street Intersection Alternatives Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the design alternatives for the Williston  Road intersections at Midas and White Streets and at Hinesburg Road and Patchen Road  related to the Garden Street development process.  Please find our comments and discussion of pros and cons below. We would be happy  to have a follow up discussion to review or clarify information included in this memo. Alternatives 1 & 2 Generally, we find Alternative 1 to be sufficient for short term implementation, but it is not  adequate as a long term, permanent solution to provide bike access in this area.  The text for  both alternatives reads that a multi‐use path or protected bikeway is possible on the south  side of Williston Rd, but this option does not appear on the plans.  These options weren’t  shown on the plans, but rather referenced to reduce the number of graphics presented to the  community.  Alternative 2 is does not provide for safe bike access or connectivity. The left turn  pockets for this alternative do not seem necessary (as they are not part of the other  alternatives) and necessitate significant additional right of way acquisition. A median with a  width of 4’‐14’ median looks like more than is needed as the 10’ travel lanes will work to slow  traffic and reduce crashes.  Agreed that the left‐turn pockets/median would necessitate  significant additional ROW.  The left‐turn pockets would improve motor‐vehicle safety at the  intersections.  They would allow for a dedicated protected left‐turn phase at the  intersections.  A dedicated protected left‐turn phase would reduce potential for right‐angle  conflicts commonly associated with left‐turns on these types of roads.      A minimum 4’ median would be required to install necessary roadway signage in the median.   The wider median widths at the intersections would be necessary for proper alignment of  receiving lanes due to the addition of the left‐turn lanes.  In addition, studies have shown  that reducing travel lanes to 10’ does not increase crash frequency on 4‐lane urban arterial  roadways with medians.  The same studies suggest that crash frequency does increase if no  median is provided. Hinesburg/Patchen Rd Intersection Reducing motor vehicle travel lanes to 10’ on Williston Rd will have the beneficial outcome of  H13 2 slowing traffic, as will the reduced curb radii. The sidewalks are also important additions. The  4.5‐ 5’ bike lanes shown on the Williston Rd  cross‐section are not adequate. According to  NACTO, conventional bike lanes should be 6’ minimum when built against a curb.  For a road  with motor vehicle volumes and speeds like Williston Rd,  4.5’ wide bike lanes are not safe for  any bicyclist, no matter what their comfort level. If the curb line is moving out 3’ on either side  to widen the sidewalk, add 6” to the bike lanes to ensure a minimum of 5’.  Alternative 1 was  created to see what we could fit within the existing ROW.  Unfortunately not everything fits  to ideal dimensions and a 4.5’ wide bike lane would result if the City pursued this alternative.   If this alternative was chosen, we would look to widen the bike lanes out to 5’ minimum. Intersection crossing markings should be added for bikes across Williston Rd intersections. New  signal controls should include a leading pedestrian phase/countdown timer.  Agreed, given that  recommendations were still being developed for the Williston Road network study (separate  study), we didn’t detail transitions at this time.  These transitions will be carefully thought  out during the design phase. Midas/White Intersection The Alternative 1 Issues here are mostly related to clear communication and direction  surrounding safe turning to and from the minor streets to and from Williston Rd. Bicyclists need  clear direction about what to do when they get to Williston Rd from Midas St. If a person riding  a bike is turning left onto Williston Rd. or turning left from Williston Rd to Midas Street they  need guidance if they are supposed to use the crosswalk or some other system for turning.   Agreed, given that recommendations were still being developed for the Williston Road  network study (separate study), we didn’t detail transitions at this time.  These transitions  will be carefully thought out during the design phase. At the Midas St/Williston Rd intersection it appears that the physical separation between the 2‐ way protected bike lane and the motor vehicle travel lane at the intersection disappears.  Ideally, there should be a curb or at least a buffer and bollards between the 2‐way bike lanes  and the travel lane.  Agreed, at minimum there would be a curb.  We will also consider  pushing away from the road to provide a buffer between the bike facility and the right‐turn  lane.  This will be more carefully thought out during the design phase. Alternative 3b or Possible Option 3c ‐  Best for the long term  Alternative 3b provides the safest and most connected access for bicycles and for users across  the comfort spectrum of various types of cyclists. The preferred treatment between 3a and 3b  really comes down to consistency of facilities inside and outside the study area.   We will be  coordinating with the Williston Road network study team to make sure recommended  facilities are consistent with those outside of the project area. Alternative 3b (2‐way protected bike lanes) is preferred over on‐street bike lanes as long as that  configuration can continue beyond the study area boundary, and it is not clear that it does.  Continuous and connected facilities that do not stop abruptly are the highest priority for safe  bicycling. If it’s not possible to continue the protected bike lanes as designed outside the study  area than Alternative 3a is preferred. If Alternative 3b is recommended, careful attention must  be paid to cars turning across the bike traffic coming from an unexpected direction. H14 3 If Alternative 3b (2‐way protected bike lanes) is adopted, consider painting accesses green to  alert motorists and bicyclists to a potential high conflict area. For this alternative, I highly  recommend reducing the 6’ greenbelt on either side of Williston Rd to 5’ and increasing the  two‐way protected bike lanes to 12’ which is the most desirable width according to NACTO.   Where the protected bike lanes cross Midas St, make the bike crossing distinctive from the  pedestrian crosswalk so that it clearly communicates to users where they should be. Potential  high conflict areas between bikes and vehicles are often marked in green as shown below.       If 3a is adopted, intersection crossing markings should be added to Williston Rd to help guide  bikes across the intersection and to alert motorists that the bike lane continues through the  intersection.  Agreed, all of these details will be carefully considered during the design phase. Possible Option Alternative 3c: One option that was not put forward is constructing a one‐way  protected bike lane on both sides of Williston Rd. On Alternative 3b it appears that there is 22’  available for greenbelts and bike lanes. Alternative 3b proposes a 10’ two‐way protected bike  lane with 6’ greenbelts on both sides of the street. We would like to propose Alternative 3c,  which would be 6’ protected bike lanes on both sides of Williston Rd, with 5’ greenbelts on  either side.   This would allow for a seamless and low stress transition between bike facilities  available inside the study area and outside the study area on Williston Rd. It could also provide  a more graceful bridge between a short term design (on‐road bike lanes) and a longer term  design (protected bike lanes on both sides).  Thank you for the comment.  We considered this,  but didn’t present this alternative for a few reasons that are related to each other.  One, gas  station operations on the north side of the road prevent further widening to the north.  Two,  the owner of plaza on the south of the road is extremely concerned with losing parking in  front of the building, therefore limiting how much we can shift the road to the south to  accommodate more infrastructure to the north.  Given these tight constraints, the sidewalk  would need to be built immediately adjacent to the protected bike lane on both sides of the  road with no vertical separation between them.  This would cause the combo bike  H15 4 lane/sidewalk to be used more similar to a shared‐use path where bikes would travel in both  directions no matter which side of the road.  Given the number of curb cuts to the north, and  the necessity of these curb cuts for viability of the various property owners along this side of  the road, we didn’t feel comfortable with a facility that would effectively be used as a shared‐ use path. Alternative 4 While roundabouts make a lot of sense from a safety and traffic flow perspective, this  alternative is not a context sensitive solution, because it does not fit with the urban design  concept of an active city center that is being proposed as part of the Garden Street project.  There are also a distinct lack of bicycle facilities and with this alternative. 12’ wide motor  vehicle travel lanes seem unnecessary. One idea to improve it could be to remove the median  island, which doesn’t seem necessary between the splitter islands and reduce the vehicle travel  lanes to 10’ (as is the case on all the other alternatives) and then add 5’ bike lanes to both sides  of Williston Rd. If this is the case, the design needs to clearly communicate with bicyclists about  how to navigate the roundabout. Thanks for the comments.  Although roundabouts offer  many benefits, the roundabouts would require significant impact to existing buildings and  property function at the intersections and therefore will not be recommended as the  preferred alternative.  If roundabouts were preferred, the median island would be necessary  with 10’ travel lanes for reasons cited above.  Bike lanes or a path could be added to both  sides of the road without losing the median but weren’t shown on the graphic at this time.   Thank you for working with us to make Chittenden County a great place to walk and bike! H16 R-2016- RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION APPROVING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES AT WILLISTON ROAD 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 through 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, 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 design options were vetted and culminated in public and additional stakeholder outreach in late winter 2015 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 the submission of online public comments; and WHEREAS, in April 2015 the Council approved an alignment and typical section for Garden Street; and WHEREAS, the project team coordinated with the Williston Road Study project team to model current and projected future traffic patterns, generated alternatives based on public outreach and the draft Form Based Codes District Street Typologies as well as traffic models; and WHEREAS, the City invited adjacent property owners to provide comments on various alternatives individually, hosted a community workshop to discuss preferences for various alternatives, collected comments over several weeks online which was covered in news media, and requested a review by Local Motion; and WHEREAS, all alternatives included a realignment of the Williston Road/White Street/Midas Drive intersection, crosswalks on all four corners of intersections, a center median between White Street and Patchen Road, and narrower turning radii to slow traffic and enhance pedestrian safety, all of which will support safer conditions throughout the section for all modes; and WHEREAS, the community supported alternatives include demonstrated support for three specific design features in no particular order: green belts adjacent to the roadway, turning lanes, and off- road bicycle facilities; and WHEREAS, analysis of the traffic model, with improvements such as a divided median, realignment of the intersection of White Street and adaptive signal control resulted in sufficient vehicular capacity such that turning lanes are not necessary for traffic flow; however they could be potentially in the future as conditions dictate based on future development, traffic flows and the community’s future priorities; and WHEREAS, there would be significant impacts to private property owners due to the width of right-of-way that would be required to install turning lanes; and, WHEREAS, the project team met with the property owners along Midas Drive, and there was general consensus to retain on-street parking while continuing the separated bicycle facility from the Garden Street typical. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council hereby approves the following preferred alternative for the Williston Road intersections and Midas Drive as contained in the report dated February 1, 2016 pages 61 - 63 (6.4 Recommended Improvements) and attached as Exhibit 1 and which include: 1. Alternative 3B as the short term alternative for the Williston Road intersections. 2. That closure or combination of some driveways through proper access management are to be pursued short term with the cooperation of property owners and long term as properties redevelop. 3. That the acquisition of right-of-way and/or the granting of necessary easements to the City be pursued as properties redevelop sufficient to accommodate the projected future right-of-way needs for Williston Road. 4. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative for the Midas Drive connection. APPROVED this _____ day of February, 2016. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Pat Nowak, Chair Chris Shaw, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Clerk Meaghan Emery __________________________________ Tom Chittenden GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 61 6.4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 6.4.1 Williston Road Recommendations While all alternatives would be an improvement over existing conditions, Alternative 3B is recommended over the others because it provides the most inviting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists, improves safety for all users and balances other factors such as impacts to adjacent property owners, maintenance and utility impacts. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not provide green belts for landscaping opportunities, snow storage and more inviting pedestrian environment. The on-road bike lanes for Alternative 3A would only be a marginal improvement for bicyclists because it only accommodates the small percentage of riders who self-identify as experts (studies show this is less than 5% of the population. The roundabouts proposed in Alternative 4 would have significantly negative impacts on the function and value of adjacent properties and would likely require intersections to the west of White Street/Midas Drive to be converted to roundabouts in the future as City Center is established. Alternative 3B (Figure 20 and Figure 21) most closely resembles street standards included in the Draft Land Development Regulations. It would provide off-road bicycle facilities to accommodate a majority of the bicycling population. Green belts would provide for landscaping and pedestrian oriented lighting opportunities, snow storage and a more inviting and attractive environment. Motor vehicle safety and mobility would be improved with the addition of a continuous median and the realignment of the Midas Drive and White Street approaches. The narrower ten foot travel lanes and planted and furnished green belts would calm traffic. Tighter curb radii at the intersections would shorten crossing distances and times for pedestrians. Updated traffic signals and controllers would improve intersection operations. While an off-road bicycle facility is recommended, the location of the bicycle facility (i.e. north or south side of the road, termination point) may need to be adjusted based on the results of the Williston Road Network Study currently underway. Further coordination with the study team is required before moving these recommendations into more detailed design. Specific recommendations for Alternative 3B are grouped into short and long-term improvements that can be made by the City when deemed appropriate. This was done to minimize the impact to the current business operations of the adjacent business and property owners. If the property gets redeveloped, accommodations for the long-term improvements could be requested during Development Review. Short-term Improvements  Four 10’ vehicle lanes – The narrower travel lanes would calm traffic.  Protected bikeway on south side of road – A shared-use path or protected bikeway would separate bicyclists from motor vehicles and would accommodate a much larger population of bicyclists. It is recommended that the total width of the protected bikeway and sidewalk be combined and reduced to 10’ in front of the plaza where Marco’s Pizza is located to minimize the impact to parking in front of the building. This parking is important to the property owner for the function of the businesses that do not have entrances at the rear of the building.  4’ wide continuous median between White/Midas and Patchen/Hinesburg Road – A continuous median would eliminate left-turn conflicts at driveways, reduce crashes and increase motor vehicle mobility along Williston Road. EXHIBIT 1 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 62  5’ sidewalks on both sides of road – This is similar to the existing condition.  6’ green belts on both sides of the road – Green belts would provide space for snow storage and street trees or other landscaping features. Adding the green belts would require additional ROW (80’ total width).  Realignment of White/Midas to form traditional intersection with Williston Road crosswalks – The intersection realignment would eliminate the awkward turning movements from the side streets and potentially reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes. New crosswalks would accommodate pedestrian movements to and from destinations north and south of Williston Road.  Tighter curb radii (the curve at corners) –Smaller curb radii at intersection corners will reduce pedestrian crossing distances and slow turning traffic making a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians. It is recommended that minimum curb radii meet the street standards included in the draft LDR’s.  Updated traffic signals and controllers – The existing traffic signals and controllers would be replaced to optimize signal phasing and timing and maximize intersection capacity.  Reduce Curb Cuts - Curb cuts, especially on the north side of Williston Road, are plentiful and are considered necessary to operations of the current businesses according the property owners. Elimination or consolidation of curb cuts along Williston Road will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles by providing well-defined access points and reducing the number of conflict points along the roadway. Reducing curb cuts will also improve vehicular capacity and mobility through the corridor. o Cairns/Chastenay Parcels - Further exploration with property owners during project design is recommended to consolidate the westernmost access to the Cairns parcel (formerly U-Save Beverage and Delil) with the access to the Chastenay parcel located immediately to the west. Both parcels are located on the north side of Williston Road. o Pomerleau Parcel - Further exploration with the property owner is recommended to close the easternmost exit from the Pomerleau parcel (Price Chopper Plaza). This parcel is located on the south side of Williston Road. Long-term Improvements The following long-term improvements are recommended if and when certain parcels adjacent to the project area are redeveloped to minimize impact on current business operations.  Reduce curb cuts for Jolley Associates – If the gas station on the northwest corner of Patchen Road/Williston Road redevelops, it is recommended that access on Williston Road be consolidated down to one point located as far west from this intersection as possible. EXHIBIT 1 GARDEN STREET PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT Williston road intersections and Midas Drive alternatives February 1, 2016 63  Reduce curb cuts for Swiss Host Motel & Village – If this parcel redevelops, it is recommended that access on Williston Road be consolidated down to one point located east as far from the intersection of Midas and White Street as possible.  Reduce curb cuts for the entire block – If the entire site should be redeveloped according to the proposed Land Development Regulations, access to parking should be off the slower and less heavily traveled streets of White Street and Patchen Road. At a minimum, access should be reduced to one driveway along the corridor.  Increase protected bikeway width in front of Pomerleau Plaza – If this plaza redevelops recommend requesting an increase in width of the protected bikeway and sidewalk on south side of road in front of plaza to 15’ and consolidation or elimination of access points on Williston Road.  Dedicated Left-Turn Lanes - The addition of dedicated left-turn lanes combined with the short-term recommendations of green belts and bicycle/pedestrian facilities would require additional land takings that would have a significant impact to business operations. The short-term recommendations of realigning White Street and Midas Drive, upgrading traffic signal hardware and adjusting signal phasing/timings would improve intersection safety without significant land takings or business operation impact at this time. The addition of dedicated left-turn lanes as illustrated in Alternative 2 could be considered further once significant City Center buildout has occurred. The left-turn lanes have been identified in the Williston Road network study as an alternative to provide additional intersection capacity assuming a full buildout of City Center. As properties redevelop along the corridor, it is recommended that the City require sufficient rights-of- way as part of the Development Review process so that the left-turn lanes could be constructed if necessitated by full City Center buildout and if other improvements recommended in the Williston Road network study are not made. 6.4.2 Midas Drive Connection Recommendations For the Midas Drive connection, Alternative 3 (Figure 26) is recommended because it improves bicycle infrastructure and provides for on-street parking for businesses along the road. All improvements can be made within the existing ROW for Midas Drive. This also provides for the greatest continuity of facilities along the length of the Garden Street project. The recommendations are based on 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. EXHIBIT 1 575 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: Changes to Draft Land Development Regulations and Official Map DATE: February 17, 2016 City Council meeting At the last City Council meeting, Councilors were invited to provide a list of proposed changes to the Draft Land Development Regulations via email to staff. That list was separated into two “buckets” – changes that are related to a proposed amendment presently before the City Council, and other ideas for changes that could be passed along to the Planning Commission for consideration in a future round of amendments. Based on these recommendations, staff has prepared an updated version of the Land Development Regulations and Official Map dated February 17, 2016. They are located on the Planning & Zoning Department page of the City’s Website (www.sburl.com/planning) This revised draft incorporates these amendments as described in the chart on pages 4-5 of this memo. Note also that staff took this opportunity to fix a few typos, etc. in this draft. They are also noted in that listing. All of the changes to the draft LDRs and Official Map are illustrated in a yellow highlight within the document on the website. In a few cases, as you’ll see the chart, staff has communicated with the City Councilor and recommended slightly different language or an alternate consideration. In one case, staff felt it appropriate to give the Council a couple of alternatives following an analysis: Councilor Shaw wrote: 3) Open space credits -- apparently these scale based on individual apt size and not the entire sqf of the project/building -- if the interior is remodeled -- then what? I suspect it's easier to set a lump sum percentage rather than have a sliding scale that is difficult to interpret -- much less re- interpret if changed. Can we err on the side of simplicity and flat rate percentage? 1 2 In assuming this analysis refers to the open space requirements, Staff has analyzed the effect of changing the requirement for open space for residential uses to be based on square footage, rather than number of units. This is reflected in the chart below. If the requirement utilizes the 6% requirement, in most cases we anticipate the required open space to decrease between 8 and 26%. In only one scenario would the effective open space increase. As a second alternative, we have also calculated the effect of adjusting the requirement to 6.5% of residential square footage. While the effective open space still decreases in more than half of the scenarios, the effect is less drastic, somewhere between 4% and 19%. The draft herein includes the 6%. However, staff can easily adjust this to reflect the 6.5% if the Council so directs. The Text within the Full LDRs does not include this change yet, pending Council review of the change. The potential new language, to replace that on Pages 123 and 124 of the 2-17-2016 LDR draft, is on the next page (drafted as 6% but could also be 6.5%). Housing Units in Sample Building Square Footage of Sample Building Min Open Space Using # of Units Method Min Open Space Using 6% of Building Square Footage Method Change in Min Open Space if 6% method is used instead of Per Unit method T5 (5%)65 72000 3900 3600 -8% T4 (6%)65 72000 3900 4320 11% T5 (5%)12 15000 1020 750 -26% T4 (6%)12 15000 1020 900 -12% T3 (6%)12 15000 1200 900 -25% Housing Units in Sample Building Square Footage of Sample Building Min Open Space Using # of Units Method Min Open Space Using 6.5% of Building Square Footage Method Change in Min Open Space if 6.5% method is used instead of Per Unit method T5 (6.5%)65 72000 3900 4680 20% T4 (6.5%)65 72000 3900 4680 20% T5 (6.5%)12 15000 1020 975 -4% T4 (6.5%)12 15000 1020 975 -4% T3 (6.5%)12 15000 1200 975 -19% If changed to 6.5% 2 Transect Zone Residential /Non- Residential Parcel Size Qualifying Open Space Required Additional Restrictions, Requirements, or Allowances Public Realm Requirement T5 Non- Residential All 5% of non-residential building gross floor area May locate qualifying open space off-site or purchase credits Whether on or off site, 100 % must be part of the public realm. Residential All 6% of residential building gross floor area, excluding garage space. May locate qualifying open space off-site pursuant to BES or purchase credits. No public realm requirement for residential component. T4 Non- Residential <20,000 SF 6% of non-residential building gross floor area May locate qualifying open space off-site or purchase credits. Whether on or off site, 75% must be part of the public realm. Non- Residential >20,000 SF 6% of non-residential building gross floor area Qualifying open Space must be located on site. Whether on or off site, 75% must be part of the public realm. Residential All 6% of residential building gross floor area, excluding garage space. Qualifying open Space must be located on site; 50% or more must be commonly accessible to all tenants/residents. No public realm requirement for residential component. T3/T3+ Non- Residential All 6% of non-residential building gross floor area Qualifying open Space must be located on site. Minimum 30% must be part of the public realm. Residential Less than 10 units All 6% of residential building gross floor area, excluding garage space. Qualifying open Space must be located on site. No public realm requirement for residential component. Residential, 10-19 Units All 6% of residential building gross floor area, excluding garage space. Qualifying open Space must be located on site; 25% or more must be commonly accessible to all tenants/residents. No public realm requirement for residential component. Residential, 20 or more Units All 6% of residential building gross floor area, excluding garage space. Qualifying open Space must be located on site; 40% or more must be commonly accessible to all tenants/residents. No public realm requirement for residential component. 3 Current Round of amendments "Bucket" Helen Riehle Location in Document Changes 1) page 362 on the landscaping horizontal row:  a) 2nd box add: canopy trees that provide substantial shade to the list Appendix F. Playground  Column. Landscaping  Row. Added: "Shade shall be provided  in consultation with the  Recreation Director." b) 4th box add:  Trees for shade are critical for playground areas."Appendix F. Playground  Column. Landscaping  Row. Added: "Shade shall be provided  in consultation with the  Recreation Director." 2) page 363 again on the horizontal row in the  5th box add: "include canopy trees whose  branches are above the average visual line of sight." Appendix F. Streetfront  Open Space Column.  Landscaping Row.  Added:  Include canopy trees  whose branches are above the  average visual line of sight,  located throughout the space,  with no more than 40 feet  between any two such trees or  between a tree and the street or  parking area.  Chris Shaw 1) the "mew" term ‐‐ hoping we can find a clearer, easier term to understand (suggesting  pathway, walkway, lanewalk, walkside, strollway, mewstroll, amblemew, perambulway...but I  digress...) Article 8 (City Center  FBC), Article 11 (Street  Types), Appendix E  (Open Space) Changed "mew" and "mews" to  Pedestrian Pass per emails with  C. Shaw 2) vinyl as a prohibited material ‐‐ vis‐a‐vis the "tin" buildings (corrugated) on San Remo ‐‐ how  can these be raised and made to look better? Certainly vinyl would be an improvement and  cheap enough ‐‐ some natural materials on first and second floors and then ‐‐ vinyl allowed on  third/fourth/fifth (maybe with required wood/metal accents?) ‐‐ I think we should allow that ‐‐  does it not look good on The Pines and HomeSuites? 3) Open space credits ‐‐ apparently these scale based on individual apt size and not the entire  sqf of the project/building ‐‐ if the interior is remodeled ‐‐ then what? I suspect it's easier to  set a lump sum percentage rather than have a sliding scale that is difficult to interpret ‐‐ much  less re‐interpret if changed. Can we err on the side of simplicity and flat rate percentage? 4) would also like to hear a more complete tracing of how the inclusionary zoning is going to  work and what will happen to funds Meghan Emery 1) Slight modifications to Appendix F: Guidelines for Open Space in City Center (p.362) a) Under Playground: incorporate "tucked between buildings" after "a structure that serves  the recreational needs of children" in the Description; incorporate "canopy trees for shade"  on "Sunlight and Wind" row. Appendix F. Playground  Column. Location &  Access Row. Added "Should be centrally  located and visually accessible  to the greatest extent  practicable" See also note above  regarding addition of trees. b) Under Outdoor Cafe/Restaurant Seating: incorporate "of interesting patterns of plants"  after "planting boxes" on "Landscaping/Design" row. Appendix F. Outdoor  café column,  landscaping row. Added "of interesting patterns  of plants" after "planting boxes" Staff 1) Subsection numbering correction Section 8.04 ‐ subsections 1 + 2 repeat, should read 5 + 6 Section 8.04 2) Spelling correction ‐ "nowithstanding" to "notwithstanding" Section 8.10 C Section 8.10 C 3) Correct section reference in 13.16 (change 13.12 to 13.16)Section 13.16 4) Correct section number 14.05(F)(2)(b) ‐ subsection (iv) is repeated and corrected to (vii) Section 14.05 Compiled a sample of possible results of this change based  on existing percentage. See attached table. Council could  consider change to 5% which would likely decrease  required open space, or consider different required  percentage.  Staff discussed with Councilor Shaw and recommended  that as this was a source of significant discussion at the  FBC Committee, Design Review Committee, and Planning  Commission level, that this recommendation be reviewed  by the Planning Commission for a future possible  amendment. Also, it was confirmed with the architect for  the Homewood Suites that the material used there was  hardy‐plank. Staff to provide at City Council meeting 4 5) Add missing word to Section 14.05(F)(2)(b)(v): "The purpose of this meeting is to give  residents the opportunity to provide input and feedback to the applicant." Section 14.05 6) Remove redundant and grammatically incorrect word from Section 15.12(J): "If it is  reasonably foreseeable possible that the street will be extended beyond the proposed dead  end to connect to new development at some point in the future, the applicant shall provide a  plat showing the street area to be returned to adjacent property owners when the extension  occurs." Section 15.12 7) Overlay Map: Remove symbol for Stormwater Overlay District from the Map. The Overlay  District is already proposed to be removed in this set of amendments, this minor map change  has no effect as the district itself is slated to be removed. Overlay Map 8) Correct typos in Article 11 ‐ Street Types: "it" to "its", corrected spelling of "ownership"Article 11 ‐ Street Type Graphics Future Round of Amendments "Bucket" Helen Riehle 1) view corridors‐‐I mentioned this last Monday 2) concern regarding in‐fill on the big lots of older homes‐‐I think if we go this route, we will  radically change the nature of our current neighborhoods 3) generally the number of trees with large canopies for new streets and in particular parking  lots and some of the envisioned public spaces within the city center are too small Tom Chittenden 1) The only thing that comes to mind is what I raised at the last meeting (and what I raised with  Paul early last month) which has to do with 'clarifying' how and where a wholesale club fits in  our permitted uses across the zones in our city. Meaghan Emery 1) 13.10 A.(1) General requirements for accessory structures and uses (p.72) (a) How to make it possible for families to build a tree house (limited in size, materials, and  use) and not have it count as an accessory structure. (b) Where? How to encourage that residents' need for tranquility and business's need for  public attendance/patronage do not conflict in mixed use areas (such as City Center but also  homes abutting businesses on Williston Rd. or Rte. 7). 5 Expenditure Report-January, 2016 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2016 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid January Total CITY COUNCIL $289,386.05 $129,632.21 44.80% $159,753.84 $302.88 Total ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE $3,723,740.48 $2,043,910.52 54.89% $1,679,829.96 $315,103.60 Total CITY MANAGER $579,821.77 $295,127.06 50.90% $284,694.71 $40,533.44 Total LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, ACTUARY $256,608.60 $230,284.07 89.74% $26,324.53 $41,394.45 Total ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $715,970.75 $290,188.12 40.53% $425,782.63 $104,682.33 Total INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $105,744.15 $72,647.75 68.70% $33,096.40 $11,021.60 Total CITY CLERK $231,661.10 $122,155.12 52.73% $109,505.98 $18,202.15 Total ASSESSING/TAX/FINANCE $238,069.76 $141,443.54 59.41% $96,626.22 $17,197.29 Total PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW $316,139.44 $164,936.97 52.17% $151,202.47 $29,699.49 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $543,700.00 $543,700.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. $7,000,842.10 $4,034,025.36 57.62% $2,966,816.74 $578,137.23 Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $2,492,657.04 $1,409,274.66 56.54% $1,083,382.38 $159,307.54 Total AMBULANCE $715,713.27 $465,854.40 65.09% $249,858.87 $61,897.57 Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $4,626,630.00 $2,485,844.29 53.73% $2,140,785.71 $354,339.55 Total PUBLIC SAFETY $7,835,000.31 $4,360,973.35 55.66% $3,474,026.96 $575,544.66 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $692,489.06 $615,929.00 88.94% $76,560.06 $0.00 Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $2,204,753.91 $1,306,908.77 59.28% $897,845.14 $172,378.26 Total RECREATION ADMINISTRATION $250,384.98 $171,920.66 68.66% $78,464.32 $19,787.67 Total PROGRAMS $48,730.00 $30,803.92 63.21% $17,926.08 $3,399.10 Total FACILITIES $91,017.74 $20,871.79 22.93% $70,145.95 $1,702.10 Total LEISURE ARTS $3,600.00 $1,800.00 50.00% $1,800.00 $0.00 Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $118,300.00 $41,733.90 35.28% $76,566.10 $11,615.75 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $451,707.42 $213,027.84 47.16% $238,679.58 $31,216.18 Total CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE $207,780.79 $131,820.48 63.44% $75,960.31 $18,815.40 Total CULTURE AND RECREATION $1,171,520.93 $611,978.59 52.24% $559,542.34 $86,536.20 Total OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES $668,025.00 $524,576.22 78.53% $143,448.78 $0.00 Total CURRENT PRINCIPAL $796,512.00 $533,589.00 66.99% $262,923.00 $0.00 Total CURRENT INTEREST $784,001.93 $151,740.28 19.35% $632,261.65 $0.00 Total All Funds $21,153,145.24 $12,139,720.57 57.39% $9,013,424.67 $1,412,596.35 Expenditure Report-January, 2016 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2016 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid January Total CITY COUNCIL $289,386.05 $129,632.21 44.80% $159,753.84 $302.88 Total ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE $3,723,740.48 $2,043,910.52 54.89% $1,679,829.96 $315,103.60 Total CITY MANAGER $579,821.77 $295,127.06 50.90% $284,694.71 $40,533.44 Total LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, ACTUARY $256,608.60 $230,284.07 89.74% $26,324.53 $41,394.45 Total ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $715,970.75 $290,188.12 40.53% $425,782.63 $104,682.33 Total INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $105,744.15 $72,647.75 68.70% $33,096.40 $11,021.60 Total CITY CLERK $231,661.10 $122,155.12 52.73% $109,505.98 $18,202.15 Total ASSESSING/TAX/FINANCE $238,069.76 $141,443.54 59.41% $96,626.22 $17,197.29 Total PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW $316,139.44 $164,936.97 52.17% $151,202.47 $29,699.49 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $543,700.00 $543,700.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. $7,000,842.10 $4,034,025.36 57.62% $2,966,816.74 $578,137.23 Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $2,492,657.04 $1,409,274.66 56.54% $1,083,382.38 $159,307.54 Total AMBULANCE $715,713.27 $465,854.40 65.09% $249,858.87 $61,897.57 Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $4,626,630.00 $2,485,844.29 53.73% $2,140,785.71 $354,339.55 Total PUBLIC SAFETY $7,835,000.31 $4,360,973.35 55.66% $3,474,026.96 $575,544.66 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $692,489.06 $615,929.00 88.94% $76,560.06 $0.00 Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $2,204,753.91 $1,306,908.77 59.28% $897,845.14 $172,378.26 Total RECREATION ADMINISTRATION $250,384.98 $171,920.66 68.66% $78,464.32 $19,787.67 Total PROGRAMS $48,730.00 $30,803.92 63.21% $17,926.08 $3,399.10 Total FACILITIES $91,017.74 $20,871.79 22.93% $70,145.95 $1,702.10 Total LEISURE ARTS $3,600.00 $1,800.00 50.00% $1,800.00 $0.00 Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $118,300.00 $41,733.90 35.28% $76,566.10 $11,615.75 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $451,707.42 $213,027.84 47.16% $238,679.58 $31,216.18 Total CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE $207,780.79 $131,820.48 63.44% $75,960.31 $18,815.40 Total CULTURE AND RECREATION $1,171,520.93 $611,978.59 52.24% $559,542.34 $86,536.20 Total OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES $668,025.00 $524,576.22 78.53% $143,448.78 $0.00 Total CURRENT PRINCIPAL $796,512.00 $533,589.00 66.99% $262,923.00 $0.00 Total CURRENT INTEREST $784,001.93 $151,740.28 19.35% $632,261.65 $0.00 Total All Funds $21,153,145.24 $12,139,720.57 57.39% $9,013,424.67 $1,412,596.35 Revenue Report-January, 2016 General Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2016 Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-January Total PROPERTY TAX REVENUE $13,383,284.33 ($8,544,493.19) 63.84% $4,838,791.14 ($42,934.12) Total LOCAL OPTION TAXES $3,661,405.84 ($1,372,047.50) 37.47% $2,289,358.34 $0.00 Total TAX REVENUE $17,044,690.17 ($9,916,540.69) 58.18% $7,128,149.48 ($42,934.12) Total INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX $254,950.00 ($97,964.08) 38.42% $156,985.92 ($2,524.50) Total CITY MANAGER $468,885.26 ($386,706.26) 82.47% $82,179.00 ($5.00) Total CITY CLERK $257,500.00 ($108,450.35) 42.12% $149,049.65 ($17,727.60) Total PLANNING & ZONING $321,700.00 ($188,086.13) 58.47% $133,613.87 ($18,388.06) Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $304,000.00 ($156,391.04) 151.04% $147,608.96 ($34,609.92) Total AMBULANCE $719,000.00 ($441,397.92) 61.39% $277,602.08 ($15,234.98) Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $455,169.34 ($87,698.74) 19.27% $367,470.60 ($9,607.96) Total PUBLIC SAFETY $1,478,169.34 ($685,487.70) 46.37% $792,681.64 ($59,452.86) Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $1,099,065.47 ($816,011.18) 74.25% $283,054.29 ($60,294.26) Total RED ROCKS PARK $4,500.00 ($8,623.00) 191.62% ($4,123.00) $0.00 Total FACILITIES $500.00 ($440.00) 88.00% $60.00 ($190.00) Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $192,000.00 ($74,422.00) 38.76% $117,578.00 ($5,983.00) Total RECREATION $197,000.00 ($83,485.00) 42.38% $113,515.00 ($6,173.00) Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $31,185.00 ($23,024.15) 73.83% $8,160.85 $66.03 Total GENERAL FUND $21,153,145.24 ($12,305,755.54) 58.17% $8,847,389.70 ($207,433.37) Revenue Report-January, 2016 General Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2016 MTD Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-January TAX REVENUE Tax, Current Budget $13,272,284.33 ($8,496,081.41) 64.01% $4,776,202.92 ($42,934.12) VT Payment in Lieu of Tax $40,000.00 ($48,411.78) 121.03% ($8,411.78) $0.00 Taxes, Reappraisal/ACT 60 $71,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $71,000.00 $0.00 Total TAX REVENUE $13,383,284.33 ($8,544,493.19) 63.84% $4,838,791.14 ($42,934.12) LOCAL OPTION TAXES Local Option Tax-Sales $2,683,090.12 ($999,300.23) 37.24% $1,683,789.89 $0.00 Local Option Tax-Rooms/Me $265,657.72 ($372,747.27) 140.31% ($107,089.55) $0.00 Rooms/Meals - Fire Vehicl $352,658.00 $0.00 0.00% $352,658.00 $0.00 Rooms/Meals - P/D Hdqtrs $360,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $360,000.00 $0.00 Total LOCAL OPTION TAXES $3,661,405.84 ($1,372,047.50) 37.47% $2,289,358.34 $0.00 Total TAX REVENUE $17,044,690.17 ($9,916,540.69) 58.18% $7,128,149.48 ($42,934.12) INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX Penalty, Current & Prior $125,000.00 ($73,582.21) 58.87% $51,417.79 $0.00 Interest, Current & Prior $35,000.00 ($23,395.16) 66.84% $11,604.84 ($2,524.50) Abatements/Write-offs $0.00 $2,437.07 100.00% $2,437.07 $0.00 Attorney Fees $2,500.00 ($3,423.78) 136.95% ($923.78) $0.00 Fee to Collect State Educ $76,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $76,000.00 $0.00 Current Use $16,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $16,000.00 $0.00 Per Parcel Payment Traini $450.00 $0.00 0.00% $450.00 $0.00 Total INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX $254,950.00 ($97,964.08) 38.42% $156,985.92 ($2,524.50) CITY MANAGER Administrative Services-W $57,500.00 ($57,500.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Administrative Services-S $134,391.55 ($134,391.55) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Administrative Services-W $150,335.71 ($150,335.71) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From Sewer-Audit & Actuar $6,214.00 ($6,214.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From SW-Audit & Actuary $3,555.00 ($3,555.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Pension Liab Note-WPC $38,675.00 $0.00 0.00% $38,675.00 $0.00 Pension Liab Note-SW $26,510.00 $0.00 0.00% $26,510.00 $0.00 From Water-Audit $2,100.00 ($2,100.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Admin Svc Fee Fund 240 $31,424.00 ($31,424.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From WPC-Payroll, Testing $700.00 ($700.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From SW-Payroll, Testing $480.00 ($480.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 CIGNA/VLCT Insur Rebate $0.00 ($5.00) 100.00% ($5.00) ($5.00) Non-Profit Leases $0.00 ($1.00) 100.00% ($1.00) $0.00 Workers' Comp. Reimburse. $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,000.00 $0.00 Total CITY MANAGER $468,885.26 ($386,706.26) 82.47% $82,179.00 ($5.00) CITY CLERK Recording Fees $145,000.00 ($70,724.00) 48.78% $74,276.00 ($7,928.00) Photocopy Fees $25,000.00 ($13,419.60) 53.68% $11,580.40 ($1,756.25) Photocopies-Vital Records $6,000.00 ($3,159.00) 52.65% $2,841.00 ($468.00) Pet Licenses $28,000.00 ($4,724.00) 16.87% $23,276.00 ($3,378.00) Pet Control Fees $6,000.00 ($645.00) 10.75% $5,355.00 $0.00 Beverage/Cabaret License $7,000.00 ($2,820.00) 40.29% $4,180.00 ($2,635.00) Entertainment Permits $1,500.00 ($125.00) 8.33% $1,375.00 $0.00 Marriage Licenses $1,500.00 ($1,000.00) 66.67% $500.00 ($80.00) Green Mountain Passports $300.00 ($168.00) 56.00% $132.00 $0.00 Motor Vehicle Renewals $1,000.00 ($429.00) 42.90% $571.00 ($15.00) School Reimburse-Election $1,200.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,200.00 $0.00 Interest on Investments $35,000.00 ($11,236.75) 32.11% $23,763.25 ($1,467.35) Total CITY CLERK $257,500.00 ($108,450.35) 42.12% $149,049.65 ($17,727.60) PLANNING Building & Sign Permits $212,500.00 ($123,131.99) 57.94% $89,368.01 ($5,645.36) Bianchi Ruling $8,000.00 ($6,321.00) 79.01% $1,679.00 ($612.00) Zoning and Planning $85,000.00 ($56,023.14) 65.91% $28,976.86 ($11,930.70) Sewer Inspection Fees $0.00 ($2,050.00) 100.00% ($2,050.00) ($200.00) Peddlers' Permits $1,200.00 ($560.00) 46.67% $640.00 $0.00 Market Street Grant $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 Total PLANNING $321,700.00 ($188,086.13) 58.47% $133,613.87 ($18,388.06) FIRE DEPARTMENT Outside Employment $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $4,000.00 $0.00 Fire Inspection Revenue $300,000.00 ($155,156.04) 51.72% $144,843.96 ($33,374.92) Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $304,000.00 ($155,156.04) 51.04% $148,843.96 ($33,374.92) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION Electrical Inspection-Rev $0.00 ($1,235.00) 100.00% ($1,235.00) ($1,235.00) Total ELECTRICAL INSPECTION $0.00 ($1,235.00) 100.00% ($1,235.00) ($1,235.00) AMBULANCE Tax Revenues $155,000.00 ($155,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Ambulance Service Billing $540,000.00 ($266,417.05) 49.34% $273,582.95 ($12,230.81) Williston Billing $18,000.00 ($9,480.51) 52.67% $8,519.49 ($2,054.60) Grand Isle Billing $6,000.00 ($3,450.36) 57.51% $2,549.64 ($799.57) Miscellaneous Income $0.00 ($7,050.00) 100.00% ($7,050.00) ($150.00) Total AMBULANCE $719,000.00 ($441,397.92) 61.39% $277,602.08 ($15,234.98) POLICE DEPARTMENT Vermont District Court $70,000.00 ($30,926.85) 44.18% $39,073.15 ($6,133.00) C.U.S.I. Overtime Grant $0.00 ($3,817.00) 100.00% ($3,817.00) $0.00 Police Reports $7,500.00 ($4,203.00) 56.04% $3,297.00 ($392.00) Criminal Investigations $0.00 ($804.38) 100.00% ($804.38) $0.00 I.C.A.C. $0.00 ($2,085.06) 100.00% ($2,085.06) ($2,085.06) Drug Task Force Grant $93,000.00 ($33,737.30) 36.28% $59,262.70 $0.00 Parking Tickets $0.00 ($270.00) 100.00% ($270.00) ($120.00) Alarm Registrations $10,000.00 ($6,335.00) 63.35% $3,665.00 ($120.00) Alarm Fines $5,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,500.00 $0.00 Off Duty Police $30,000.00 ($4,519.41) 15.06% $25,480.59 ($757.90) Bullet Proof Vest Grant $3,200.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,200.00 $0.00 COPS Grant $37,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $37,500.00 $0.00 Police Impact Fees $75,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $75,000.00 $0.00 3rd Floor Lease Revenue $103,469.34 $0.00 0.00% $103,469.34 $0.00 Miscellaneous - Police $0.00 ($1,000.74) 100.00% ($1,000.74) $0.00 Xfer In-Fund 207 $20,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $20,000.00 $0.00 Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $455,169.34 ($87,698.74) 19.27% $367,470.60 ($9,607.96) HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Road Opening Permits $135,000.00 ($82,041.00) 60.77% $52,959.00 ($585.00) Overweight truck permits $1,700.00 ($225.00) 13.24% $1,475.00 ($60.00) Highway State Aid $212,000.00 ($175,811.17) 82.93% $36,188.83 ($48,734.44) Fuel Pump Surcharge $1,000.00 ($3,347.09) 334.71% ($2,347.09) ($607.38) HazMat Facility Lease $18,800.00 ($16,037.46) 85.31% $2,762.54 $0.00 School Bus Parts Reimbure $32,500.00 ($2,328.04) 7.16% $30,171.96 ($361.55) School gas/diesel reimbur $175,000.00 ($46,918.56) 26.81% $128,081.44 ($8,441.96) School vehicle repair pay $19,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $19,000.00 $0.00 Salary Reimbursement-WPC $280,000.29 ($280,000.29) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 FICA Reimbursement-WPC $21,420.02 ($21,420.02) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Pension Reimbursement-WPC $81,640.00 ($81,640.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Benefits Reimbursement-WP $73,274.65 ($73,274.65) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Salary Reimbursement-SW $5,605.51 ($5,605.51) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Benefits Reimbursement-SW $9,125.00 ($9,125.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Reimburse from Fund 265 $8,000.00 ($8,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Highway Impact Fee-RT 2 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,000.00 $0.00 Hgwy Misc Revenue $20,000.00 ($10,237.39) 51.19% $9,762.61 ($1,503.93) Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $1,099,065.47 ($816,011.18) 74.25% $283,054.29 ($60,294.26) RECREATION RED ROCKS PARK Red Rocks Gate Receipts $4,500.00 ($8,623.00) 191.62% ($4,123.00) $0.00 Total RED ROCKS PARK $4,500.00 ($8,623.00) 191.62% ($4,123.00) $0.00 FACILITIES J/C Park Rentals $500.00 ($440.00) 88.00% $60.00 ($190.00) Total FACILITIES $500.00 ($440.00) 88.00% $60.00 ($190.00) SPECIAL ACTIVITIES Great Escape Ticket Sales $15,000.00 ($5,234.00) 34.89% $9,766.00 $0.00 Aternoon Skiing/Middle Sc $0.00 ($9,355.00) 100.00% ($9,355.00) ($270.00) Afternoon Skiing/Orchard $0.00 $90.00 100.00% $90.00 $325.00 Youth Programs $116,000.00 ($46,067.00) 39.71% $69,933.00 ($3,080.00) Adult Evening Classes $43,000.00 ($13,856.00) 32.22% $29,144.00 ($2,958.00) Recreation Impact Fees $18,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $18,000.00 $0.00 Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $192,000.00 ($74,422.00) 38.76% $117,578.00 ($5,983.00) Total RECREATION $197,000.00 ($83,485.00) 42.38% $113,515.00 ($6,173.00) COMMUNITY LIBRARY Library Lost Books $1,000.00 ($695.20) 69.52% $304.80 $66.03 Fines and Fees $3,200.00 ($2,369.35) 74.04% $830.65 $0.00 Non-Resident Fees $750.00 ($405.00) 54.00% $345.00 $0.00 Blanchette Gift $18,000.00 ($18,100.00) 100.56% ($100.00) $0.00 Libriary Copies and Print $1,500.00 ($1,454.60) 96.97% $45.40 $0.00 Xfer in-Fund 603 $6,735.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,735.00 $0.00 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $31,185.00 ($23,024.15) 73.83% $8,160.85 $66.03 Total GENERAL FUND $21,153,145.24 ############# 58.17% $8,847,389.70 ########## Total All Funds $21,153,145.24 ############# 58.17% $8,847,389.70 ########## Revenue Report-January, 2016 Sewer Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2016 MTD Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-January WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CHARGES FOR SERVICES W.P.C. User Fees $3,371,929.29 ($2,021,319.28) 59.95% $1,350,610.01 ($271,704.24) W.P.C. Truck Charges $100,000.00 ($1,215.00) 1.22% $98,785.00 $0.00 Connection Fees $143,819.30 ($233,677.86) 162.48% ($89,858.56) ($12,408.34) Enviromental Impact $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $50,000.00 $0.00 Total CHARGES FOR SERVICES $3,665,748.59 ($2,256,212.14) 61.55% $1,409,536.45 ($284,112.58) BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS State Revolving Fund $385,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $385,000.00 $0.00 Colchester A/P Pkwy Pmt $742,310.00 $0.00 0.00% $742,310.00 $0.00 GF Note Repay-Solar $13,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $13,000.00 $0.00 Total BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS $1,140,310.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,140,310.00 $0.00 MISCELLANEOUS Miscellaneous Rev.-W.P.C. $10,000.00 ($1,734.18) 17.34% $8,265.82 ($143.72) Total MISCELLANEOUS $10,000.00 ($1,734.18) 17.34% $8,265.82 ($143.72) Total OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $4,816,058.59 ($2,257,946.32) 46.88% $2,558,112.27 ($284,256.30) Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. $4,816,058.59 ($2,257,946.32) 46.88% $2,558,112.27 ($284,256.30) Total All Funds $4,816,058.59 ($2,257,946.32) 46.88% $2,558,112.27 ($284,256.30) Revenue Report-January, 2016 Stormwater Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2016 MTD Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-January S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE Intergovernmental Revenue $0.00 $11,501.26 100.00% $11,501.26 $0.00 S/W User Fees - Water Bil $2,060,549.56 ($1,089,807.09) 52.89% $970,742.47 ($204,704.77) Payment from GF re: GIS $37,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $37,000.00 $0.00 State of VT Fee for Servi $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $50,000.00 $0.00 Land Owner Payments $29,300.00 $0.00 0.00% $29,300.00 $0.00 Homeowner's Assoc Fee $0.00 ($11,535.51) 100.00% ($11,535.51) $0.00 Total S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE $2,176,849.56 ($1,089,841.34) 50.07% $1,087,008.22 ($204,704.77) Total STORM WATER UTILITIES $2,176,849.56 ($1,089,841.34) 50.07% $1,087,008.22 ($204,704.77) Total All Funds $2,176,849.56 ($1,089,841.34) 50.07% $1,087,008.22 ($204,704.77)