HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 02/12/2020Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Meeting Agenda
February 12, 2020 @ 5:30 p.m.
South Burlington City Hall, Champlain Room
575 Dorset Street
1.Welcome and directions on emergency evacuation procedures (5:30 p.m.)
2.Changes or additions to the agenda (5:35 p.m.)
3.Comments from the public not related to the agenda (5:40 p.m.)
4.Consideration of minutes from the previous meeting(s) (5:45 p.m)
5.Updates from the City - Ashley (5:50 p.m. - 15min)
6.Major - Speed Limit Change Discussion - Nic/Bob (6:05 p.m. - 20min)
a.Objective: Define the planned scope and approach for this effort.
7.Major - DRB Topics - Cathy (6:25 p.m. - 25min)
a.Objective: Review & vote on proposal to build a running list of DRB bike/ped-related
projects for ~monthly review by the team.
b.Objective: Review proposal to DRB by applicant for Maplefields development of gas
station and restaurant at corner of Queen City Rd and Shelburne Rd.
8.Major - Present January DPW Meeting summary & actions - Bob (6:50 p.m. - 15min)
a.Objective: Bring team up to speed & get their input on the latest DPW interface
9.Major - Communication & Outreach discussion - Cathy (7:05 p.m. - 15min)
a.Objective: Refine & Define what tools are most appropriate and when to use each.
10.Updates: Ongoing Committee Work (7:20 p.m. - 30min)
a.General updates from committee members (~3-5min per person)
11.Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, March 11, 2020 @ 5:30pm
12.Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, January 8, 2020 @ 5:30 p.m.
South Burlington City Hall, Champlain Room
575 Dorset Street
1.Welcome and directions on emergency evacuation procedures (5:30 p.m.). Started at 5:32
a.Attendees: Ashley, Shawn, Donna, Bill, Bob, Nic, Havaleh, Amanda.
2.Changes or additions to the agenda (5:35 p.m.)
a.No changes
3.Comments from the public not related to the agenda (5:40 p.m.)
a.No public attendance
4.Consideration of minutes from the previous meeting(s) (5:45 p.m.)
a.Bob - update to January minutes to change “shared use” to “Sidewalk” (section 4-20-1-
a).
b.Donna motion to approve January minutes with Changes from Bob
i.Havaleh second
ii.Amanda obstain
5.Updates from the City - Ashley (5:50 p.m. - 15min)
a.Bob - Any updates on when Paul will be presenting the on scoping studies?
i.Ashley - she has no updates from Paul for this meeting.
ii.Shawn - fits in with last meetings discussion of having Amanda and Bob on
Scoping team.
6.Major - White Street Bike Lane Proposal Discussion - Group (6:05 p.m. - 20min)
a.Objective: Review & discuss feedback from public
i.Nic - For public engagement, had plan before public meeting. Provided summary
(found in minutes).
ii.Shawn - ratio of support versus opposition - similar to P4P, which had thousands
of participants and voters.
iii.Bob - how many voted for follow up questions?
1.Nic - 26
iv.Nic - For future: need to link people who live on the street or not, to follow up
questions.
1.Shawn - person who commented about White Street being too narrow,
can assume they drive regularly.
v.Nic - one person who lives on White Street had negative follow-up. Was
concerned about parking on side streets.
vi.Shawn - any further thoughts or comments?
1.Bob - sounds like we should move forward
2.Havaleh- one opposition public member asked how we knew what was
needed - was satisfied it was based on public research study completed
3 years earlier.
3.Nic - followed up on data about speed radar data, but no data was
available.
4.Shawn - collect traffic speed/use data before we make the line changes
to be able to compare to traffic speed/use patterns afterwards
a.Nic - Justin Rabidoux (DPW) said he can put out speed radars to
collect information. Put between intersection of Patchen and
school, at max speed location.
b.What is cost to city? See agenda.
i.From Justin - $250/sign to install including labor.
ii.Bob noted that labor is a fixed cost and not incremental
to DPW budget.
5.Donna - does bike lane signs include “bike lanes” and “bike lanes ends”?
a.Nic - should be followed up with “Bikes may use full lane”
b.Shawn - city should the standards - so bikers and drivers are
seeing consistent signals.
c.Nic - it is important to install bike lane signs. Stencils are
minimal size currently on Airport Parkway.
d.Nic - there are 9 cross streets for parking.
6.Amanda - what is standard for distance between no parking signs?
a.Nic - typically between 250’-300’, but no statutory requirement.
b.Nic can share map he created of signs layout.
7.Ashley - good to make map to show all street closures during
changeover.
8.Shawn - for city council proposal, they will want to see public feedback,
they will focus on negative. Should have committee response to those
topics ready.
9.Nic - want to wrap up as soon as possible, would like on next city council
agenda.
a.Ashley - any thing they need to review this request, should go
into submittal packet.
i.Nic - only want to go to them once.
ii.Ashley - SBBPC vote tonight to recommend. Then a
draft of the proposal can be made to present to city
council.
iii.Shawn - worth having a conversation with Justin.
Adding to meeting with him the 21st.
iv.Amanda - add that all work on White Street bike lanes
to be completed in “construction season of 2020”.
1.Donna - have Justin suggest a date when it is
possible to complete.
2.Amanda - just take the date out of the proposal
and put season.
v.Shawn - how much time will we get for a presentation?
a.Ashley - probably 20 minutes.
b.Objective: Determine next steps for White Street Bike Lane proposal.
i.Bob motions to proceed with proposal by Nic as presented, to send to city
council. Change date to “when practical”.
1.Amanda second
2.All in favor
ii.Nic & Ashley to create submittal packet to city council for January.
7.Major - Review status of 2019 Annual Goals - Shawn / Project Leads (6:40 p.m. - 20min)
a.Objective: Check-in on progress at midway point in the fiscal year
i.Shawn - we completed 2020 report
1.Only new item to add is White Street bike lane striping project..
ii.CIP input - Complete, no additional work in FY 2021
iii.DPW interface & maintenance
1.New plan to meet quarterly
a.Email between meetings, as needed
2.Bob - trying to figure out a way to get things done and work together
with Justin, to cross things off the list.
a.Bob has updated maintenance schedule workbook in Google
Docs, Shawn is updating line striping workbook.
b.Shawn - we will share meeting agenda and workbooks with rest
of SBBP committee.
i.Workbooks already within SBBPC Google docs folder.
3.P4P priority Projects
a.No updates at this time.
4.Scoping
a.No updates at this time.
5.P4P signs
a.No updates at this time.
6.Rec Path Signage
a.Sub-committee needs to schedule meeting. And then define
next priorities.
7.Communications & Outreach
a.Bob - no updates.
b.Have not published anything in paper
i.Ashley - Cathy working to create article “Share the
road”
8.Mapping
a.Amanda - nothing new to report
b.Amanda - Winter is a good time to review map for updates
needed.
i.Nic - has marked up map with changes.
ii.Donna - how much of existing signage is on map?
1.Amanda - map does not include signs. Map
includes crosswalks, easements, sidewalks.
2.Donna - having information for future
easements is hard to get and important to have.
3.Amanda - we do have history data of easement,
can look at with Paul.
4.Ashley - city is scanning old documents to
review for easements.
a.Question for Paul - how are they
making and recording those
requirements with developers?
9.Bicycle Friendly Community
a.Nic - at crossroads, time crunch for application submittal. Need
to submit in February, next opportunity is in August.
i.Shawn - missing data because need more from Justin,
Paul and schools.
ii.Shawn - Nic can leverage Shawn & Havelah’s help as
needed.
10.Way to Go Schools
a.Donna - We are going through channels to complete
background checks, to be able to volunteer in schools.
b.Meeting scheduled next week with Mary Catherine Graziano @
Local Motion, works with schools.
i.Mary suggested positive incentives for kids not driving
to school.
c.Havaleh - teenagers need prizes for incentive
i.Nic - to go with prizes, need punishment for people who
don’t respond to incentives.
d.Nic - Donna has reached outto see if there are sustainability
clubs, and the like, at schools.
11.Safety
a.Bob - list updated in December
i.Added speed limit information and White Street
ii.7 items that are still on list, include RRFB on poles -
have funding but not the bandwidth to install.
iii.Working on timing for Swift and Spear lights.
iv.Need cooperation from city to get them implemented.
b.Donna - city provided temporary speed tracking to Brand farm
drive area. Who with the city does the evaluation to determine
proper speed?
i.Bob - adding on list to discuss for meeting with Justin on
January 21st.
c.Shawn - speed limits in city is new topic?
i.Bob - added in fall, Nic suggested.
ii.Shawn - want to develop speed limit project plan.
12.DRB Representative
a.Shawn - he hasn’t been to any meetings, asked Cathy for
updates.
b.Bob - Dorset meadows - coming in front of DRB this month.
i.Ashley - upcoming meeting is focused on talking to
applicant about riparian/maintaining wildlife
connectivity.
13.Interim Zoning
a.Amanda - coming to a close, drafting final report to present to
City Council. Targeting/hoping for February, within 1-2 months.
14.Engagement
a.Havaleh - going to sponsor rides at SOBU night out.
i.Ongoing - school events.
ii.Reach out to Rec Department and LocalMotion for
shared events.
b.Shawn - maybe meet/update quarterly?
c.Donna - name suggestion for bike ride events - “Pump it up” or
“Pump you up”, to get people (and tires) pumped up.
1.Nic - “Slow roll” has appeal.
8.Updates: Ongoing Committee Work (7:00 p.m. - 30min)
a.General updates from committee members (~3-5min per person)
b.See item 7 for sub-committee updates.
c.Donna - Vermont walk/bike summit.
i.Shawn - anyone want to go?
1.Nic - P4P pretty revolutionary and unique, worth sharing.
2.Amanda - worthwhile to present.
3.Shawn - Nic & Amanda to create presentation and submit to event.
d.Nic - now officially on LocalMotion Board of Directors - for 3 years.
9.Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, February 12, 2020 @ 5:30pm
10.Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
a.Adjourned at 6:57pm.
Bike/Ped Staff Update – 2/12/2020
•Scoping Studies: The staff scoping team got together to discuss how to bring a recommendation
to the Committee. We are close, but felt we need Toole to compile all of the information into
one report, which is not how they have provided the most recent information. Pieces of that
project are piecemeal, and we would like it to be presented to us in one report. Once we have
that, the Committee will have an opportunity to take a look. At this point, it will likely be the
March Meeting.
Penny for Paths Projects Updates – 2/12/2020
•Jug Handle Sidewalk: Given the weather, it is more likely that this project will be constructed in
the spring/early summer.
•Allen Road Rec Path: We are still working through the ROW process for the spring easement. I
have provided draft easements to the landowners involved, and they are reviewing the
documents. Once the ROW issue is completed, we can begin discussing construction.
•Airport Parkway Sidewalk & On-Road Bike Lanes: The engineers are meeting with staff in the
next week to discuss the latest plans. I will provide an update on the project plans at the next
meeting.
•South Dorset Street Shared Use Path: The RFQ was released on January 6th and was due January
27th. The Staff Review Team has been looking at the submissions and are working on
determining which consultant to move forward with. If negotiations go well, it’s possible we
could have an agreement for Council approval by their meeting on February 18th. A kickoff
meeting would occur shortly thereafter.
•Underwood Parcel Shared Use Path: The City has signed an Agreement with a firm to design
and engineer Phase 1 elements at Underwood. This includes the shared use path connection,
the formalization of existing trails, a gravel parking area, picnic pavilion/viewing area, possible
pump track, wayfinding, and potential ADA elements. The timeline for this project currently has
a goal of getting construction documents ready by December 2020.
20' FRONT
YARD SETBACK
30' REAR
YARD SETBACK 20' FRONTYARD SETBACK±25.3'10' SIDE
YARD SETBACK
EX. CWD
EASEMENT
EX. COVERS
EX. ELEC.
VAULT.
EX. PLANTER
W/ SIGN
EX. TRAFFIC
LIGHT POLE
OE OE
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
EX. JERSEY
BARRIER (2)
EX. MH#2
RIM=206.8
(SEWER)
EX. MH#1
RIM=207.4
(SEWER)
EX. CB#1
RIM=206.4
EX. CONC. SIDEWALKEX. GAS CANOPY
UEG
40'EASEMENT20'EASEMENT40'
EASEMENT
WWWWWWWWWWWWEX. RETAINING
WALL
GGGGGGGGGGGR.L. VALLEE ACCESS
EASEMENT
7
3
EX.
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RETAIL SALES/
RESTAURANT
VI
F.F. ELEV. = 207.75 GREEN SPACENEW
GREEN
SPACE
204199
EXISTING
STORE
(TO BE
REMOVED)
(1,680 s.f.±)
EXISTING
FUEL
CANOPY & MPD'S
TO REMAIN
EX. SWALE
3.3 CMF
0.3 BG
EX.
PAVEMENT
CMF
FLUSH
1" IPF
1.4 BG
MH
MH
EX.
PAVEMENT
EXISTING
BUILDING
CMF
1.0 AG
1" IPF
0.1 BG
DISTRUBED
SIGN
9'±
177'±138'±59'±
126'±126'±125'±125'±138'±APPROXIMATE LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
OF EX. 24" DI
LINDENWO
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
SHELBURNE ROADEXISTING
BUILDING
QUEEN CITY PAR
K
R
O
A
D
208
208207
207
207206
206206
206205205205204204203203203202202202201201201200200200
199199
198198 198
197 197197
196196196196 195195194194194 193193193192192192 191190HANNAFORD DRIVEEXISTING
MOTEL
(TO BE
REMOVED)
(1,315 s.f. ±)EXISTING
MOTEL
(TO BE
REMOVED)
(2,310 s.f. ±)PROPOSED CONNECTION
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY
PROPOSED RETAINING
WALL w/HANDRAIL
(TYPICAL)RE-CONSTRUCT
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
ADDITIONAL GREENSPACE WITH CURB
IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN PAVEMENT
AND SIDEWALK
PROPOSED FUTURE
CONNECTION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UTILITIES
BASED ON A PLAN ENTITLED "
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION WESTWOOD,
MASS. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY"
PREPARED BY BUCK & PIERCE CIVIL
ENGINEERS DATED SEPTEMBER 1974
20'20'22'24'
1
8
34" REBAR
0.3 BG
EXISTING
CANOPY w/
(2) MPD's
WW
W WOE
OE
2
PROPOSED
30" VALVE
PROPOSED
30" VALVE
PROPOSED REALIGNMENT
OF CWD WATER MAIN
- 30" D.I. CLASS 52
PROPOSED CANOPY
EXPANSION w/(1) MPD
VI
EX. RECREATI
O
N
P
A
T
H
EX. PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK MARKING
EX. CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
(±5' WIDE)
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
- REMOVE EXISTING CROSSWALK/
LANDINGS
- ADD NEW CROSSWALK/LANDINGS
AS SHOWN
25'REDUCE EXISTING
ACCESS FROM
72
ADD LANDING FOR NEW
CROSSWALK
- IMPROVE GREEN SPACE
- DETECTABLE WARNING
SURFACE ON LANDING
ADD LANDING FOR NEW
CROSSWALK
- DETECTABLE WARNING
SURFACE ON LANDING
- COORDINATE DESIGN
AND LAYOUT WITH
VTRANS
COORDINATE RELOCATION OR
REPLACEMENT OF PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING CONTROLS/SIGNALS WITH
STATE OF VERMONT & TRAFFIC ENGINEER
EX.
PAVEMENT
EXISTING
STORE
WATER VALVE
(NOT FOUND)
WATER VALVE
(NOT FOUND)STST
STSTST
STSTAPPROXIMATE
LOCATION EX. CB
RIM=192.3±
INV.=184.8±
MATCH EXISTING
PAVEMENT GRADE
(TYP. @ RT 7)
NEW EDGE OF
PAVEMENT/CURB
(MATCH EX. GRADE)
NEW CONCRETE
CURB
PROPOSED RETAINING
WALL w/HANDRAIL
(TYPICAL)
RETAINING WALL
w/ RAILING
D
D
D
REDI-ROCK WALL
PROPOSED
FENCE
SSSSSSSMH
W
W
W
EX.
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
BIKE RACK
SNOW
STORAGE
SNOW
STORAGE
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
STSTSTSTSSSPROPOSED 6" SDR 35 PVC
SEWER CONNECTION w/
OIL/WATER SEP.
- SLOPE @
14"/FT. (MIN.)
PROPOSED 1" TYPE K
COPPER WATER
SERVICE
TO EXISTING
REC. PATH
APPROX. LOCATION
EX. WATER SERVICE LINE
- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
EX. 24" D.I. WATER MAIN
- IN 36"Ø (71' LONG) STEEL
SLEEVE UNDER ROUTE 7
- C.L. SLEEVE ELEVATION
= 198.5±
APPROX. LOCATION
EX. SEWER SERVICE LINE
- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN
APPROX. LOCATION
EX. SEWER SERVICE LINE
- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN
APPROX. LOCATION
EX. WATER SERVICE LINE
- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN
EXISTING
CANOPY
(1,835 s.f.±)8'5'
4'
4'5'E
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
ELECTRICAL SERVICE LOCATION
PROPOSED SEWER
,19
- FIELD VERIFY EXISTING
INVERT
- COORD. w/ENGINEER &
PUBLIC WORKS
,19
INV. =
"NO LEFT TURN"
SIGN
PROTECT/MAINTAIN
EX. UTILITY POLE
- COORD. CURB INSTALLATION
w/UTILITY COMPANIES/VTRANS
WIDEN EXISTING SIDEWALK TO
8 FEET FROM NEW LANDING TO
LINDENWOOD DRIVE
- DETECTABLE WARNING
SURFACE ON LANDING
- COORDINATE DESIGN AND
LAYOUT WITH VTRANS
PHASE II CONSTRUCTION:
ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING OF ROUTE 7 & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
TO LINDENWOOD DRIVE TO BE SCHEDULED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE OF VERMONT
SIGNAL PROJECT "SHELBURNE-SOUTH BURLINGTON
NHG SGNL(51)". (CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FALL
2020 TO SUMMER 2021)
W
APPROXIMATE LOCATION EX.
24" Ø CLASS I D.I. WATER MAIN ±37.0'(PER TAX MAPPING)24'SWCLEAN
OUT
DSM
CJG
PJM
1" = 20'
15104.07
C1.1
2/1/2019
SHELBURNE ROAD
GULF
PROPOSED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED
CONDITIONS
PLAN
A
C
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
E
10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403
P: 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.com
R.L. VALLEE,
INC.
282 SOUTH MAIN STREET
P.O. BOX 192
ST. ALBANS
VERMONT 05478
793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROAD
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT
ZONING DISTRICT: COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 15
NORTH LOT (793 SHELBURNE ROAD)
REQUIRED EXISTING
LOT AREA 40,000 S.F.6)
FRONT SETBACK 20' 0'
SIDE SETBACK 10'25'
REAR SETBACK 30'30'
BUILDING COVERAGE 40%22%
LOT COVERAGE 70%68%
LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 94%
SOUTH LOT (907 SHELBURNE ROAD)
REQUIRED EXISTING
LOT AREA 40,000 S.F.6)
FRONT SETBACK 20'9'
SIDE SETBACK 10'11'
REAR SETBACK 30'59'
BUILDING COVERAGE 40%14%
LOT COVERAGE 70%53%
LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 68%
COMBINED
REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED
LOT AREA 40,000 S.F.6) 6)
FRONT SETBACK 20'0'0'
SIDE SETBACK 10'11'11'
REAR SETBACK 30'30'63'
BUILDING COVERAGE 40%17%15%
LOT COVERAGE 70%58%70%
LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 80% 65%
2/1/19 CJG LOCAL SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL
2/11/19 CJG ADDED PROPOSED GRADING
5/15/19 CJG SITE REVISIONS/CWD REVIEW PLAN
1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATED
UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL
DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG
SAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE A
PRIVATE UTILITY LOCATING FIRM TO LOCATE OWNER OWNED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO
START OF ANY EXCAVATION.
2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED OR
ABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THE
PROJECT.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.
6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE AND
OPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALS
INCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTIL SHOP
DRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.
9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND
ANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.
10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE
0.1 FEET. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ALL EXISTING MANHOLES, COVERS, VALVES, CURB STOPS
AND OTHER ITEMS TO REMAIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO THE NEW FINISH GRADE.
11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWN
AUTHORITIES.
13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.
14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT AN
APPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH A PAVEMENT SAW.
15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ON
THE ITEM IN QUESTION.
16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON PLAN ENTITLED " ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY
BURLINGTON PLAZA" PREPARED BY DUBOIS & KING INC. DATED JANUARY 1997 AND A PLAN
ENTITLED " LADNS OF MARTIN'S FOODS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, INC. - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION"
PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON DATED APRIL 29,2008. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY
SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE. MONUMENTATION RECOVERED IS
CONSISTENT WITH RECORDED DOCUMENTS.
18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICES
INDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOIL TESTING.
19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FOR
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILE
WHERE APPLICABLE.
GENERAL NOTES
UTILITY NOTE:
EXISTING WATER & SEWER SERVICE LINE
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON
AVAILABLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE
TOWN AND OWNER. UTILITY SIZE AND TYPE ARE
UNKNOWN. VERIFICATION OF SERVICE
LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS WILL BE REQUIRED
PRIOR TO START OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
9/27/19 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL
10/21/19 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTS
LOCATION MAP
1" = ±4000'
BURLINGTON
PROJECT
LOCATION
SO. BURLINGTON
EXIT
13
SWIFT ST
BREWER PKWY
LINDENWO
O
D
D
R
QUEEN
CITY
HANNAFORD
DR
7
7
LAUREL HILL
189
89
11/13/19 CJG REVISIONS PER VTRANS COMMENTS
1/03/20 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTS
LEGEND
FM
E
G
ST
S
T
W
207 EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING CURB
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING PAVEMENT
EXISTING GUARD RAIL
EXISTING SWALE
WETLANDS
WETLANDS BUFFER
EXISTING ELECTRIC
EXISTING FORCEMAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING STORM
EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER
EXISTING TELEPHONE
EXISTING WATER
STREAM
TEST PIT
PERCOLATION TEST
PROJECT BENCHMARK
EXISTING WELL
S EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
D EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
EXISTING HYDRANT
EXISTING SHUT OFF
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING GUY WIRE/POLE
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODS
APPROXIMATE SETBACK LINE
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
IRON ROD/PIPE FOUND
CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND
PROPOSED CONTOUR207
PROPOSED CURB
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED ELECTRIC
PROPOSED STORM
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
PROPOSED WATER
D PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED SHUT OFF
PROPOSED SIGN
x206.6 EXISTING SPOT GRADE
PROPOSED SPOT GRADE+207.5
P:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15104.07\1-CADD Files - SB Gulf\Dwg\15104.07 - Site.dwg, 1/13/2020 1:21:28 PM, pmead
Agenda & Notes for DPW / SBBPC Meeting on 1/21/20
Attendees: Justin Rabidoux, Ashley Parker, Bob Britt, Shawn Goddard
Notes from the meeting in blue.
Actions from this meeting:
●Ashley:
○10 - Finalize scoping study plans & present at February bike/ped meeting
●Justin:
○1 - Update Swift/Spear light timing to include an exclusive ped phase.
■ NOTE: Since the meeting it has come to Shawn’s attention that there are similar
timing issues & Right-on-red delays needed at the intersection on Dorset near
the UMall exit by the Sears Auto Center (Garden St, I think).
■ NOTE: Since the meeting it has come to Shawn’s attention that there are similar
timing issues & Right-on-red delays needed at the intersection of White St &
Patchen Rd.
○2 - Order hardware for RRFB modifications & work this into the plan for this calendar
year
○3 - Order/add a sign to Joy Dr stop sign to warn drivers to look left for peds/bikers
○4 - Plan work to remove tree at Noland & Dorset
○4 - Plan work to repair path at Stonehege/Szymanski
○5 - Update bike/ped crossing signage on Swift near Farrell (both directions).
○6 - Finalize plan & schedule work for fencing at Grandview Drive & One Kennedy Drive
on Dorset
○10 - Reach out to VT State contact to get an update on the plan for a crosswalk at Tilley
Dr. across Hinesburg Rd.
○11 - Planning & signage orders to support White St bike lanes (approved by City Council
on 1/21/20). Will need to have pre/post speed evaluation done as well. Hoping that we
can plan & execute early so the striping can be done early in the upcoming striping
season.
●Bob:
○3 - Send Justin recommendations for Joy Dr sign
○9 - Update the rec path maintenance priorities & forward to Justin when completed to
assist in planning for upcoming work season.
●Shawn:
○7 - Work with resident on Proctor Ave sidewalk proposals & bring those before the
committee to discuss for potential add to future CIP projects.
○9 - Update the striping priorities for the upcoming season & forward to Justin when
completed to assist in planning for upcoming work season.
●Bike/Ped Committee:
○8 - Refine our list & develop details around the speed limit question - which streets &
sections, proposed speed limits, etc. Need to have this ready for November when the
new UPWP planning is done for the following year.
1. Swift/Spear intersection
●Safety Concern: The vehicles traveling east on Swift and turning south onto
Spear, can still take a right on red even when the pedestrian walk light is active.
●Question: Can the No Right on Red sign stay lit while the walk signal is lit?
i.The Committee recommends the White Walk Crossing Light and “No
Right on Red” sign be activated just prior to the vehicles traveling west on
Swift are allowed to turn left to go south on Spear Street.
ii.Request is for an exclusive or at least leading ped phase.
iii.Justin agreed that this should/will be done.
2. RRFB modifications to add 2nd RRFB light (on back side)
●Questions: Does DPW anticipate progress on this work to be challenging again in
2020? If so, is it possible for this work to be contracted out (if cost is reasonable)?
i.On the schedule. Justin will need to get the hardware, but doesn’t see an
issue with doing this during this construction season.
3. Joy Drive @ the intersection with Eastwood Drive.
●Safety Concern: Drivers often don’t look left when turning off Joy onto Eastwood
because vehicular traffic is only going through that intersection in one direction.
● We’ve discussed adding a sign for drivers turning left onto Eastwood along the
lines of “Look Left for Bicycles and Pedestrians”.
●Questions: Is this the optimum solution, and if so, is the work scheduled to be
completed in 1H20? If not, what would you recommend be done?
i.Justin/Bob will look for an appropriate sign. He agrees this is easy to do
and is planning to attach the sign to the current stop sign so it’s prominent
to drivers.
ii.Possible options: https://www.roadtrafficsigns.com/Pedestrian-
Sign/Caution-Watch-Pedestrians-Cyclists-Sign/SKU-K-
5886.aspx?engine=googlebase&keyword=Bike+Signs&skuid=K-5886-
AL-12x18-M1&gclid=Cj0KCQiApaXxBRDNARIsAGFdaB-
5b5nO0EnJYLk9b-
G28uhHS8fi3pP4ttIQScBZLbCy3QbH_ZGT7EgaAsIeEALw_wcB
possibly combined with https://www.seton.com/directional-arrow-traffic-
signs-look-left-arrow-l6433.html?utm_campaign=PC-01-
Safety%26FacilitySigns_Safety%26FacilitySignsMediumPriority_Seton_
PLA_NB_C_Google_US&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_
term=&matchtype=&device=c&adgroupid=Opt+%7C%7C++-
+everything+else&keycode=WS0280&gclid=Cj0KCQiApaXxBRDNARI
sAGFdaB-LS6hZ_IRHkMvNeeV-tug7d-
NaeCP2CPNqFia79Ox8YwG2UEITwLMaAnTAEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw
.ds
4. Rec path repair overflow from 2019
● At east-end of Noland Farm Road (path & tree removal)
● At entrance to Stonehedge Drive near Szymanski Park
● Questions: Is this work part of the 2020 maintenance priorities? If not, can it be
added? Do you need anything from Bike/Ped Committee to clarify?
i. Tree will be removed near Noland & Dorset and path repaired this coming
construction season
ii. Repairs at Stonehege/Szymanski will be done this season.
5. Bike crossing signs at Swift & Farrell
● Safety Concern: Previously we discussed adding signs on Swift to indicate bike
crossing, but we never settled on the type of sign. We’d like to review some
options to see what would be most appropriate so this work can be scheduled.
● Some examples: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-
d&q=bicycle+crossing+sign
i. Intersection is signed in both directions, but the signs are old and not
optimum. Justin agrees to move to a new new style combined bike/walker
crossing sign with “Ahead” sign below it.
6. Dorset Street Rec Path @ Grandview Drive & One Kennedy Driveway
● Safety concern: Rec path is close to the road and there’s a short section without a
barrier between the road & path. Cars sometimes pull off onto the rec path to get
past other vehicles.
● Questions: What are the options for mitigating this safety issue? What would you
recommend as the next steps?
i. This is in the CIP - decided to add a fence. If the budget allows Justin may
just replace the existing fence as well. [a smaller section of fencing may be
needed north of the Granview Drive prior to the One Kennedy Driveway
7. Sidewalk at top of Proctor Ave near Rice Memorial High School
● Resident Safety Concern: Asking about installing a new city-owned & maintained
sidewalk on Proctor between Meadow Road and Fairmount Place. The sidewalk
on south side of the road goes to RMHS and there’s a small fence between the
road and the sidewalk. She sees the current setup as unsafe for pedestrians
considering the traffic volume on this stretch of Proctor.
● Question: Does South Burlington maintain this stretch of sidewalk?
● Questions: What, in your opinion are the various options for addressing her
concern considering that RMHS owns the property on both sides of Proctor Ave
between Meadow and Fairmount? Any recommendations?
i. Both sides of upper-Proctor are Rice property, but typically they work
well with the City, so Justin would anticipate that something can be done
here.
ii. Bike/Ped committee can work to develop a proposal.
iii. The more extensive the proposal, the longer timeline will be attached to it
since our 10yr CIP will need to be revised with anything very extensive.
iv. Shawn will work with the resident who raised the concern to get their
input as well.
8. Speed Limit Changes
● The Committee is looking at recommending lower speed limits on some streets in
South Burlington. We wanted to discuss with you to get your thoughts on this and
any concerns you have or recommendations on how to proceed.
● Streets we have discussed thus far are Dorset, Hinesburg, Swift Street Extension
and Kennedy.
i. Justin relayed that speed limit changes are a big lift. State statute requires
a traffic/engineering study, accident history, etc. to justify the change.
ii. UPWP (Unified program work plan) required.
1. Can have multiple roads in the same request, but budgeting could
be a concern if the request is too big.
iii. Swift St Ext is in the works - neighborhood funded their own traffic study.
iv. Next steps:
1. Committee should work to refine what streets we want to try to
tackle.
2. Hinesburg Rd would have to be approved by the state - City
Council would have to send a letter to request the state do this.
3. Nov/Dec of each year the UPWP plan is developed. Planning
Commission and City Council have to approve (runs through
January).
4. RPC (Regional Planning Commission) staff takes in all the
requests from all agencies & works (Jan-Mar) to get approval to
take action on the proposed projects.
5. UPWP Projects can start in July, but first all groups need to figure
out who does what parts of the projects, so it’s usually October
before projects start in earnest.
9. Striping & Maintenance Priorities
● Would like to discuss our updated priority lists and get your input on the money
available in the current & next fiscal year as well as your thoughts on how much
we can plan to accomplish during this calendar year.
● Our understanding is that there is approximately $6,000 left in the FY 2019-2020
budget and available for striping in the spring through June 30. Please confirm.
i. Confirmed, ~$6k left, but no clear plan yet for what the priorities are for
these funds. Bike/Ped will work to define the striping needs and then we
can determine where the most urgent needs are (may be cross walks, not
fog lines until the new fiscal year)
● Question: Last year we discussed combining our quote with other municipalities
to reduce the contractor cost/mile. Is that an option for the upcoming season?
i. Issue not discussed due to meeting time constraints. Question remains
open
● Question: There are a few sections that were stripped incorrectly last year. Do we
get those fixed by the contractor for free?
i. One in question is Airport Parkway from Kirby to Limekiln - one side was
reported to have been striped at 3’, not 5’. This needs to be confirmed.
Shawn will check this when he does the late-winter review to update the
striping priorities.
ii. Ashley noted that Thomas Chittenden had raised this section as a concern
as well.
● Question: How can we ensure that the contractor restripes with the minimum lane
width (to maximize the bike lane size)?
● Question: There is more “severe” rated cracking in the rec path system. Will
there be sufficient vendor funds to get them fixed in 2020?
i. Didn’t talk extensively, but it’s difficult to thoroughly update all of the
striping/maint needs until the snow has cleared. A copy of the latest
Maintenance Workbook was distributed at the meeting.
ii. Bike/Ped will reach out to Justin once our new striping assessment and
maintenance priorities are completed to develop a plan for the upcoming
maintenance season.
10. Crosswalks
● Safety Concern: Many of these crossings are high priority because crossings
without them are considered dangerous for pedestrians and because the
alternatives are a significant inconvenience.
● Question: Will DPW have the bandwidth to complete the 3 crosswalks currently
in scoping (assuming they’re approved early in the season)?
i. Ashley, Justin, Paul are double checking these studies and hoping they are
finalized soon.
ii. Paul or Ashley will present at February Bike/Ped meeting. The Public will
be invited to comment on the scoping report.
iii. City is working to bring the bike/ped committee in on this process after
the studies are done so we can weigh in on the planning & make our
recommendations.
● Question: If DPW doesn’t have the bandwidth, are there alternative resources
(CCRPC, VTRANS, etc.)?
i. Not necessary
● Question: What are the next steps for trying to get the crosswalk at Tilley Drive?
i. Justin thinks there’s a traffic signal planned to go in at Tilley. State will be
driving that.
ii. Justin will reach out to his contact at the state to see where this is and will
advise the Committee as to the status.
11. White Street Bike Lanes
● Question: Assuming our proposal is passed by the City Council, would DPW be
able to support putting out speed radar to collect speed data prior to striping the
bike lanes and then afterward to see if there was any impact on vehicular speed on
this street?
● Question: The Committee discussed checking speed at two spots – between
Airport Parkway and Airport Dr, as well as between Myers Court and Patchen
Road. What would you recommend to get the best assessment?
i. Justin is good with using the speed radar to help us with this, if the project
is approved.
ii. Typically takes multiple weeks for each location (multiple phases of
monitoring needed to get accurate results).
iii. Justin thinks the center line may need to move, which will have to be
planned out. Nic is planning to measure.