The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP-02-59 - Supplemental - 1200 Airport Drivey Government Banking, 90 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 06602 1( 1 , Banknorth IRREVOCABLE TRANSFERABLE LETTER OF CREDIT Vermont Letter of Credit No. 11800132 Date: April 25, 2003 To Beneficiary: City of South Burlington Address: 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Attn.: Planning Office Applicant's Name: City of Burlington Address: 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Attn.: Dear Beneficiary: Brendan Keleher We, Banknorth Vermont, a national banking association having a place of business in Burlington, Vermont (the "Bank") hereby issue, at the request of and for the account of City of Burlington ("Customer"), our Irrevocable Transferable Letter of Credit No. 11800132 ("Letter of Credit") in the amount of One Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and no/100 US Dollars ($101,565.00) in your favor as Beneficiary. This Letter of Credit is issued, presentable and payable at our office located at 111 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont (or such other address as shall be designated by us under written notice to you) and expires with our close of business on April 25, 2006 (the "Expiration Date"). Except when the amount of this Letter of Credit is increased, this Letter of Credit cannot be modified or revoked without the Beneficiary's consent. The term `Beneficiary" includes any successor or assign by operation of law of the named Beneficiary, including without limitation any liquidator, rehabilitator, receiver, or conservator. This Letter of Credit is transferable in whole or in part, to your successor or assigns, which transfer shall be effective upon receipt by the Bank of an executed instrument effecting such transfer or assignment, and the successor, assignee or transferee shall be entitled to all the benefits and rights under this Letter of Credit. We hereby undertake to honor promptly from time to time your properly endorsed and presented sight draft or drafts on us in immediately available funds, for all or any part of this Letter of Credit upon proper presentation of your sight draft indicating our Letter of Credit No. 11800132 drawn on us at our office specified in the first paragraph of this Letter of Credit on or before the Expiration Date or any automatically extended expiry date. All drawings hereunder shall be made by presentation of such draft by you either in person, by telecopier or by overnight courier service to Banknorth Vermont, 111 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401, Attn: Anita Marchessault, Vice President. Presentations by telecopier shall be made by presentation of the draft by telecopier to Banknorth Vermont, (802) 223-1944, Attn: Anita Marchessault, Vice President (or at such other number which may be designated by the Bank by written notice) with original confirmed by overnight delivery. It is understood that each draft submitted via such presentation shall be the sole operative instrument of drawing. If any drawing is made by you hereunder at or prior to 10:00 A.M. New York City time on a Business Day, and provided that the draft presented in connection therewith conforms to the terms and conditions hereof, payment shall be made to you, or to your designee, of the amount specified, in immediately available funds, not later than 11:30 A.M., New York City time, on the same Business Day. If a drawing is made by you hereunder after 10:00 A.M., New York City time, on a Business Day, and provided that the draft presented in connection therewith conforms to the terms and conditions hereof, payment shall be made to you, or to your designee, of the amount specified, in immediately available funds, not later than 11:30 A.M., New York City time, on the succeeding Business Day. If requested by you, payment under this Letter of Credit may be made by deposit of immediately available funds into a designated account that you or your designee maintain with the Bank. As used herein, "Business Day" shall mean any day except (i) a Saturday, a Sunday or any other day on which banking institutions in Vermont (or in the town where draws are to be made) are authorized by law to remain closed or (ii) a day on which the New York Stock Exchange is closed. If a drawing made by you hereunder does not, in any instance, conform to the terms and conditions of this Letter of Credit, the Bank shall give you prompt notice by telephone (promptly confirmed in writing), that the drawing was not effected in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Letter of Credit, stating the reasons therefor and that the Bank will upon your instructions hold any documents at your disposal or return the same to you. Upon being notified that the drawing was not effected in conformity with this Letter of Credit, you may attempt to correct any such nonconforming drawing to the extent that you are entitled to do so. We agree that we shall have no duty or right to inquire as to the basis upon which you have determined to present to us any draft under this Letter of Credit, and proper presentation of such draft shall automatically result in payment to you. All draws hereunder shall bear interest at the rate of 90 day LIBOR plus 100 basis points payable on demand by the Customer. Except as expressly stated herein, this undertaking is not subject to any other agreement, requirement, or qualification. The obligation of the Bank under this Letter of Credit is the individual obligation of the Bank and is in no way contingent upon reimbursement with respect thereto, or upon our ability to perfect any lien, security interest or any other reimbursement. This Letter of Credit is subject to and governed by the Laws of the State of Vermont, including but not limited to the Uniform Commercial Code of Vermont and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1993 Revision, ICC Publication No. 500 (the "UCP"), and in the even of any conflict, the Laws of the State of Vermont will control. If this Letter of Credit expires during an interruption of business as described in Article 17 of the UCP, the Bank specifically agrees to effect payment if this Letter of Credit is drawn against within thirty (30) days after resumption of business. Very truly yours, Banknorth Vermont By: } ' Anita Marchessa Vice President Duly Authorized Officer 318455 v1:2274-00249 LANDSCAPING LETTER OF CREDIT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is executed in triplicate between the City of B\�ington, Vermont Banknorth Vermont w _ V1 I"" -,/7 / 6 3 (hereafter referred to as the "Developer"); Tire -Howard ,-N-.A. of Burlington, Vermont (hereafter referred to as the "BANK"); and the City of South Burlington, Vermont (hereafter referred to as the "Municipality). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Developer has received site plan approval from the Municipality's Development Review Board for the development of property located at Burlington International Airport, South Burlington, Vermont (the "property"), as depicted on set of plans, EC-1 through A-108 submitted to support the Site Plan Review Application dated November 8, 2002 and which includes drawings L-1 through L-4 outlining landscaping plans, with the development project more specifically described as "Burlington International Airport Terminal Roadway and Parking project with plans prepared by Freeman, French & Freeman, Dufresne -Henry and landscape architect Michael Lawrence Associates, and WHEREAS, the development project was approved by Motion of Approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board on February 4, 2003 and the Developer is required by said approval, at its own expense, to complete landscaping of the property in accordance with the plan approved by the Development Review Board; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to establish a mechanism to secure the obligations of the Developer for the work as set forth above; and WHEREAS, the Bank executes this Agreement solely in the capacity of issuer of a Letter of Credit as hereinafter specified; J NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above -stated premises and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: The Developer will, at its own expense, complete all of the landscaping depicted in accordance with the specifications set forth in said site plan and related documents. 2. The Developer shall complete the landscaping set forth in Paragraph 1 no later than three (3) years from the date of Developer's execution of this Agreement. The Developer shall replace or repair any defective or improper landscaping work or materials identified by City's Administrative Officer, or his/her designee, within three (3) years after completion. 4. For the guarantee of the Developer's performance of all requirements herein and hereunder set forth, the Developer has caused the Bank to issue its Irrevocable Letter of Credit in favor of the Municipality, the original of which is attached to the Municipality's copy of this Agreement, and a copy of which is attached to the Developer's copy of this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Developer shall cause the attached Letter of Credit to be renewed annually and at least thirty (30) days before the maturity date thereof. Failure of the Developer to deliver evidence of such renewal satisfactory to the Municipality thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration of said Letter of Credit shall constitute a default of the terms of this Agreement, and shall give rise to certain rights of the Municipality, as described herein. 5. Payment of each draft under the Letter of Credit will be made at sight when presented to the Bank by the Municipality, the payment limited only by the maximum amount of the Letter of Credit. If the Developer shall be in default of the Agreement for seven (7) days because of its failure to provide evidence of renewal of the Letter of Credit, required in Paragraph 4 above, the Municipality shall notify the Developer by certified mail of said default. 2 The Developer shall then, within three (3) business days, provide the Municipality with evidence of renewal of the Letter of Credit or the substitution therefore of a letter of credit of equal amount issued by a bank acceptable to the Municipality. If the Developer fails to secure either renewal of the Letter of Credit or the issuance of a substitute Letter of Credit satisfactory to the Municipality, the Municipality may notify the Bank of such default and request payment under said Letter of Credit. 6. The Developer and the Municipality hereby agree that the sum of One Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five Dollars ($101,565) shall be sufficient to secure the Developer's obligations under this Agreement, but shall not relieve the Developer from the obligation to pay any additional costs, if actual costs exceed the above -stated figure. 7. The Municipality will promptly submit to the Developer a copy of any draft it submits to the Bank. The consent of the Developer to payment of said draft by the Bank to the Municipality under said Letter of Credit is not required. 8. The Municipality shall not file with the Bank a Statement of Default unless it has provided Developer with at least sixty(60) days notice, by certified mail, of its intention to do so. 9. All funds drawn on the Bank by the Municipality pursuant to the Letter of Credit shall be used solely by the Municipality for the purpose of completing landscaping of the property in accordance with the plans referenced in Page 1. Any work contracted for by the Municipality pursuant hereto shall be let on a contractual basis, or on a time and material basis, or shall be performed by the Municipality's own work force and equipment, or shall be accomplished in such other manner as in the judgment of the Municipality shall accomplish the work. l 10. If payments are drawn on the Bank by the Municipality pursuant to said Letter of Credit, and it shall later develop that a portion of the monies drawn are in excess of the Municipality's needs, any such excess amount shall be returned by the Municipality to the Bank, to be credited by said Bank to the Developer. 11. This Agreement and said Letter of Credit shall terminate and shall be of no force and effect upon completion of the three (3) year warranty period as described in Paragraph 3, above. If the Municipality has not delivered any written notice to the Developer of any defective or improper work or materials in the landscaping within the thirty-six (36) month period, or if notice has been given and the defective work or materials have been corrected by the Developer, the Municipality shall forthwith notify the Bank in writing that the Letter of Credit may be canceled, and shall return the original Letter of Credit to the Bank, and both the Developer and the Bank shall be released from all obligations hereunder and under said Letter of Credit. 12. The Bank may not modify the Letter of Credit without first receiving written consent of the Municipality. 13. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the Bank harmless from all claims, causes of action or liability of any kind arising out of this Agreement or the issuance by the Bank of this Letter of Credit, including attorney's fees, as long as the Bank follows the terms and conditions outlined in said Letter of Credit and this Agreement. 14. This Agreement shall be binding on all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. 2 DATED at Sb�� , Vermont, this 64 day of r i 2003. u� n IN THE PRESENCE OF: DEVELOPER CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT BY: i Its Duly Authorized Agent DATED at A Vermont, this day of �111 �0 3 IN THE PRESENCE OF: witness BANK t,,, S-6 1 OS "\d' Vo3 ffeWARD$Aj �. BANKNORTH VERMONT BURLINGTON, VERMONT BY: Its Duly Au t orized Agent DATED at��A��C)lJ, Vermont, thi�,ZE day of20(i. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Witnegs A /'� ness Landscaping Ltr of Credit 2003 MUNICIPALITY CITY OF VERMONT y L crry vF (A. (54alk(otd, uT 5 bATE 13H Dufresne -Henry February 20, 2003 Ray Belair Administrative Officer Department of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Road and Parking Project (TRAP) DR Project #6320011 Dear Mr. Belair: Creating Better Places To Live, Work And Play We have revised the project Site Plans (Sheets SP.N & SP.S) as requested, and have enclosed three (3) copies for your records. These plans now show: 1) The existing waste glycol force main line 2) The new sidewalk on Airport Drive Extension, extending through the two drives 3) The existing and proposed ROW lines Please note that the Findings of Fact and Decision erroneously refers to Site Plan sheet SP.S as "CP.2", and refers to sheet L4 as the "site plan" (Decision and Conditions item 2a & c). Sheet L4 is the Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. All new sidewalks fall under the civil engineering design jurisdiction in this case (and will be bid on under the civil engineering bid package), thus it would be improper for the contractor to use the landscaping plan to build anything related to the sidewalk. Hopefully this relieves any concern of how sheet L4 appears in this respect. Please let us know if this does not fully comply with the requirements for modifications to the Site Plans. Sincerely, DUFRESNE-HENRY Mark C. Smith, P.E. Project Engineer encl. cc: Bob McEwing, BIA Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Verniont 05407 Voice 802-864-0223 Fax 802-864-0165 E-mail sburlL&dufresne-henry corn CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1) Right of way (ROW) is assumed 49.5 ft. and shall be delineated in the field by a licensed surveyor 2) Outside edge of proposed sidewalk shall be 1 foot inside the ROW line 3) Sidewalk shall meet City of South Burlington Public Works requirements 4) Sidewalk shall be 5 feet wide x 5 inch thick portland cement concrete, with 6 inch gravel base 5) Sidewalk grading shall meet requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 6) Topsoil and seed remaining disturbed area. 0 o o 0- ° Install new — match grade of sidewalk existing edge of Install new pavement sidewalk RoW 0 G � (D follow existing curb radius at intersection and match grade of existing sidewalk match locationand grade of _----- — — existing sidewalk Row _---=:- — _ _------r ort Road - NIT ._---- — _ _--- — POW yMy GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 50 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch =50 ft. n Roa a 0 (33 Y Q W 0 V) 0 Q 0 CK 0 CL 0 w M 0 N0 Of d a� BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT November 18, 2003 Mr. Ray Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vt 05403 Dear Ray: The Airport is about to open a portion of the new parking structure in order to accommodate the Thanksgiving and Christmas rush. There is a condition in the So. Burlington Development Review Board approval that requires a sidewalk be constructed along the east side of Airport Drive Extension prior to opening of the garage extension. The following is provided for your information and review; 1. The Airport is currently negotiating with the Cotas who live at 1397 Airport Drive for the purchase of their property. Due to the revised setbacks in that area, the proposed sidewalk will require removal of trees and shrubs on their property. We do not want to do anything to disrupt their property until after the Airport has purchased it and they have moved. 2. The Airport's goal is to purchase the remaining property during the current fiscal year. Upon completion, there will be no properties to be served on this deadend portion of Airport Drive and the lot across the street will be used for overflow parking on a valet basis with no active public parking. 3. The pavement season is about over and the Airport does not want the contractor to construct the sidewalk until Spring/Summer (if it is really needed). Therefore, please consider this letter as a petition for a change in the conditions to eliminate altogether or, at a minimum defer, the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Airport Drive extension. If this condition is waived, the Airport will submit a revised Site Plan outlining this change. Please contact me if you have questions or want to discuss. Sincerely, Robert A. McEwing Planning and Development Cc: JJ Hamilton, Chuck Haftner, JuliBeth Hoover 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Phone: 802.863-2874 (TTY) FAX: (802) 863-1526 c CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802)846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 17, 2003 Robert A. McEwing Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive # I South Burlington, VT 05403 lxli. JIu4VV all Dear Mr. McEwing This is in response to your letter of November 18, 2003. First, I call to your attention condition # 12 of the site plan approval for the parking garage expansion. This condition requires any changes to the approved site plan to be approved by the Development Review Board. Should you wish to apply to the Board for an amendment, you must submit a site plan review application, a $185 filing fee, and revised plans. The earliest the Board could hear your request would be January 6, 2004. Secondly, I don't understand the need to obtain the Cota's permission to construct this sidewalk. The approved plan shows this sidewalk entirely within the City right-of-way. A Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) must be obtained prior to the use of any portion of the parking garage addition. Since the project is not complete, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be required. Section 17.03 (D) of the Land Development Regulations only allows the granting of a temporary C.O. where the project cannot be completed due to "inclement weather that may have prevented final paving or installation of required landscaping." Lastly, I call to your attention condition #6 of the site plan approval. This requires that the Airport construct the missing section of sidewalk along Airport Road prior to the issuance of a C.O. for the parking garage. I hope that the parking garage expansion project will be in a position to receive a temporary C.O. when reauested. Since iokd J.Belair inistrative Officer cc: Chuck Hafter Juli Beth Hoover lio,, i; :083 7:CIP� R in3ton R,rKnrT ��? 8r�-7?6Q Po,0,Fy p, 1 -- BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT November 18, t)08 Mr. Ray Belair City of, South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vt 05403 Dear Ray: The Airport is -about to open a portion of the new parking structure in order to accommodate the Thanksgiving and Christmas rush. There Is a.conditlon In.the So, Burlington Development Review Board approval that requires a, sidewalk be constructed along the east side of Airport Drive Extension prior to opening of the garage extension. The following is provided for your information -and review: 1. The Airport:is currently negotiating with, the Cotas who live at 1397 Airport Drive for the purchase of their property, Due to the revlsed setbacks in that area, the proposed, sidewalk will require removal, oftrees and shrubs on their, property. We da not want to.do anything to disrupt their property until after the Airport has purchased it and they have moved. Z. The Airpprt'$ goal is to purchase the remaining property during the current fiscal year. Upon completion, there will be no properties to.be "served on this deadend pdgion .of Airport Drive and the lot across the stroet will be used for overflow parking on a valet basis with no active public parking. 3. The pavement season is about over and the Airport does not want the contractor to construct the sidewalk until Spring/Summer'(if it is really needed). Therefore,, please conslder this letter as a'petition for a change in -the conditions to eliminate altogether or, at a minimum defer, the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Airport Drive extension. If this condition 'is waived, the Airport will submit a revised Site Plan outlining this change. Please contact me if you have questlons or want to discuss. Sincerely, Robert A. McEwing Planning and Development Cc: ,JJ Hamilton, Chuck Haftner, JuliBeth Hoover 12Dl Aurntr. Drim #1 SoA, Rurlingmin, Vermont OSaC3 Phone- 802-863.2B74 (MI rAx 1E3(l2) 86 i-i 526 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNE"4G & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 February 14, 2003 J. J. Hamilton Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive #1 South Burlington, !T 05402 Dear Mr. Hamilton: Burlington International Airport #SP-02-59 Parking Garage & Terminal Expansion Enclosed is a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision for the above referenced project approved by the DRB on February 4, 2003 (effective February 11, 2003). Please note the conditions of approval including the requirement that a zoning permit be obtained within six (6) months. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Raymond,'Belair Administrative Officer /jmh Enclosure \d rb\sA\SP-02-65.cor.doc Impact Fee Calculation for New Non -Residential Construction A Project Name B Effective Date C Type of use D Type of construction E Value of construction per square foot from Appendix 1 F Total square feet of new construction G Total value of new construction H Above in units of $1,000 I Existing land value J Above in units of $1,000 K Total value of site and improvements after construction L Above in units of$1,000 ROAD IMPACT FEE M Base road impact fee per VTE N Estimated PM peak hour VTEs O Base road impact fee P Credit per $1,000 (Table RD-5) for past payments Q Credit for past payments R Credit per $1,000 (Table RD-6) for future payments S Credit for future payments T Total road impact fee FIRE PROTECTION FEE Estimated post construction value of structure and contents U in units of $1,000 V Base fire protection impact fee Credit per $1,000 of land value (J) for past tax payments W (Table FP-4) X Total credit applicable to project for past tax payments Post -construction value of structure and land excluding Y contents Z Above in units of $1,000 Credit per $1,000 of post -construction value for future tax AA ports (Table FP-5) AB Total credit applicable to project for future tax payments AC Total fire protection impact fee TOTAL ROAD AND FIRE IMPACT FEE ExF G / 1000 Grand list I / 1000 G + I K / 1000 $144.56 MxN JxP LxR O-Q-S H x 1.875 -1 • � $0.87 U x From FP-4 WxJ G + I Y / 1,000 From FP-4 AAxZ V-X-AB Calculation sheets.xls IMPACT & PERMIT FEES WORK SHEET p Zoning Permit @ $.-io/sq+•a--- fGet _ Permit Recording Fee = $10.00 Sewer Impact Fee = bedrooms x // 50 g.p.d. x $4.6o = School Impact Fee (#zzz) = Recreation Impact Fee (#zzo) = Road Impact Fee (#221) = Fire Protection Fee (#203) = Sewer Inspection Fee = Sewer Inspection Recording Fee = Property address $10.00 $I0.00 V TOTALv- C ` � E Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802/863-2874 REQUISITION ORDER Work Order Number s y /_7" F] ROUTINE ❑ URGENT []EMERGENCY No. 13529 RO This is NOT a Purchase Order. For in-house use only. Description of Work: MOM A I Bill Job To: Airfield Xclustrial Administration r4dZIJTMW Garage �i r MATERIALS Quantity Item No. Item Description Price/ea Total Account Code: Requesting Department: Date: ' d b L 1�7v �% DBE Contacts Made: �0 �'7� uCr Competitive Pricing: I /` -z VP tic r CJ j j�, 73 T9 Grand Total: (not including freight) " ' ❑ Freight 01A Reviewed & Accepted By: � Approved By: Comptroller Reviewed & Accepted By: U Approved By: Date Director of Aviation White and Blue -Accounting Pink - Supervisor Yellow - Requester rn� � 2/4/03 MOTION -OF AFFKO-VAL DAM-NGTONLNTEKNA_T__ION&_AIKF_ORT I move the South Burlington Development Review Board approve Site plan application #5F-02-59 of Burlington International Airport and an 1143 vehicle parking garage. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 297,000 Sq. ft. 3 level parking garage addition for 2,075 spaces, 2) reconfigure Surface parking (1,008 spaces total), 3) realign access road, 4) constructing a new 14,461 Sq. ft. elevated pedestrian bridge, 5) constructing a new 4,267 Sq. ft. toll booth canopy, and 6) constructing a 17,000 Sq. ft. two -Story airport terminal addition,1200 Airport Drive, as depicted on a 50 page Set of plans, page one (1) entitled, "Terminal Roadway and Farking Froject Garage, pedestrian Bridge & Terminal Improvements Burlington International Airport 5outh Burlington Vermont", prepared by Freeman French Freeman, Inc., dated 10/25/02, with the following Stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and Stipulations which are not Superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and Shall require approval of the Director of planning & Zoning (hereinafter Director). Three (5) copies of the approved revised piano Shall be submitted to the Director prior to permit ioouance. a. The Site plan (Sheets GF.2 & 5F N) Shall be revised to Show that the area designated for "overflow" parking on the northeast Side of Airport Drive has been revised to be replaced with stormwater treatment facilities. b. The Site plans Shall be revised to provide for covered bicycle Storage. c. The Site plan (Sheet L-4) Shall be revised to: 1) clearly denote the Sidewalk, 2) Show the Sidewalk continuous across the driveway, 3) Show the right- of-way line for the Street, and 4) Show the Sidewalk constructed one (1) foot from the right-of-way. d. The site plans shall be revised to Show the line carrying plane deicer runoff to the Sewage treatment plant. e. The Site plans Shall be revised to indicate that the Airport Drive right-of- way is 66 feet wide, not 80 feet aS Shown. 3. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the 5outh Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the terminal and parking garage expansion will generate 110 additional vehicle trip ends during the F.M. peak hour. 4. Any new exterior lighting shall consist of downcasting shielded fixtures. Any change to approved lights shall require approval of the Director prior to installation. 5. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant shall post a $101,565 landscape bond. The bond shall remain in effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping takes root and has a good chance of surviving. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the missing section of sidewalk along Airport Road. This section of sidewalk shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the parking garage addition. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall submit plans for the construction of this sidewalk which shall be approved by the City Engineer. 7. �� min �I,excegr a height of 35 feet from /, tk+ea�erage- ��-ern ructiongrade. -- 5. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Chief outlined in a letter from the Chief to Juli Beth Hoover, dated 1/3/03. 9. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the 5outh Burlington Water Department outlined in a letter to Brent Rakowski, dated 12/16/02. 10. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 27.302 of the zoning regulations or this approval is null and void. 11. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from the Administrative Officer prior to the use of terminal addition, parking garage addition, pedestrian bridge or new surface parking areas. 12. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the 5outh Burlington Development Review Board. y , i e -, � , . 411, ; ,.V JJA " CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Smith, Dufresne -Henry FAX #: 864-0165 FROM: Janet Hurley, Associate Planner DATE: February 4, 2003 RE: Burlington International Airport Parking Garage Expansion — Staff Comments Mark, please find Ray Belair's comments on the airport application on the following 4 pages of this facsimile. It is item 4 on the agenda tonight. The meeting begins at 7:30 in the City Hall Conference Room. Give us a call if you have questions. WrMairport.mem.doc Page #2 Shape: The Shape of the additions to the free -Standing signs are rectangular. WALL_51GN ComRutatiD-n-ofmaximum: The maximum area allowed for 340 Dorset 5treet iS 130 sq. ft. total for all tenants (please See enclosed Sheet titled Master 5ignage plan for 356,339 and 540 Dorset 5treet). The proposed sign is 19.44 sq. ft. which is under the allowable signage area of 22 sq. ft. Color _5chemell ttter_ 5tyleo-&-Grap-bico: The proposed colors are Burgundy and deep green. The applicant complies with Master 5ignage Permit #DR-02-10, as there are no specific colors or font Style requirements for this property (See enclosed decision dated 10/1/02). Materials: The proposed material i5 a type of exterior plywood/with vinyl letters. Lighting: No lighting of the wall sign. 5ign Location: The proposed sign location is as Shown on the elevations enclosed. Shape: The sign shape is oval, which is consistent with the Master 510nage Permit. RECOMMENDED-CONDITLON5 1) All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval Shall remain in effect. 2) This approval of the proposed Signs is based on the application's compliance with the Master 5ignage Plan approval effective on 10/01/02. The determination of whether or not this application complies with all other requirements contained in the 510n ordinance Shall be made by the Code Officer. 3) Any change or addition to signage at 338-340 Dorset 5treet Shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. 3b) ROBEFT NVONl2A_- 5IGN -_ D_E51GWREY1EW Please See Staff comments from Janet Hurley. 4) _13URUNGTON_INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-7-PAB51NG_-GAKAGEEXFAN510N - 131TE FLAN Page #3 This application was continued from the 1/7/03 meeting (minutes enclosed) to the 1/21/03 meeting. The applicant requested that the discussion to take place at the 1/21/05 meeting be postponed until this meeting. This project consists of amending a previously approved plan for an 85,865 sq. ft. airport terminal and an 1145 vehicle -parking garage. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 297,000 sq. ft. 3-level parking garage addition for 2,075 spaces, 2) reconfigure surface parking (1,008 spaces total), 3) realign access road, 4) constructing a new 14,461 sq. ft. elevated pedestrian bridge, 5) constructing a new 4,267 sq. ft. toll booth canopy, and 6) constructing a 17,000 sq. ft. two (2) story airport terminal addition. This'property located at 1200 Airport Drive lies within the Airport and Airport Industrial Districts. AcceaoZCir_c,ulatio_n: The main terminal and parking garage entrance on Airport Drive, consisting of a 30 foot wide curb cut for ingress only, will not change. A temporary two (2)-lane egress only access drive from the south end of the parking garage will be used during construction. It will be 24 feet wide and be located opposite Patrick 5treet. The main terminal and parking garage exit will be relocated approximately 490 feet to the north, opposite Maryland 5treet. It will have two (2) egress lanes, one for left -turn only and one for right -turn only, separated by a median. A new 16 foot wide ingress only access drive will be constructed along Airport Drive to serve an employee surface lot located at the north end of the expanded parking garage. It will be located approximately 220 feet south of the new exit driveway. The access drive to the park and ride lot opposite White 5treet will not change. One (1) new access drive of 24 feet wide would be added at the north end of Airport Drive to serve the new surface parking lot. This new parking lot is currently being used in violation of the zoning regulations. Sheets CP.2 and 5P N should be revised to show that the area designated for "overflow" parking on the northeast side of Airport Drive has been revised to be replaced with stormwater treatment facilities. Circulation on the site is adequate. Coveragel5etbarks: Due to the vast size of the airport property, building and overall coverages were not calculated. Front yard coverage along Airport Drive is 29.5% (maximum allowed is 30%). Page #4 The parking garage addition, pedestrian bridge, terminal addition and tollbooth canopy will meet Setback requirements. Parking: There are no minimum parking requirements for an airport terminal in the zoning regulations. This proposal will increase the total number of parking spaces from 2214 spaces to 3165 spaces or a 951 Space increase. A bike rack and 41 handicapped spaces will be provided. A total of 38 handicapped spaces are required. The Board at the 1/7/03 meeting asked the applicant to provide covered bicycle storage. The plans have yet to be revised to incorporate this request. Lardocaping: The minimum landscaping requirement, based on building costs, is $101,565 which is being met. The applicant is proposing $151,895 worth of new plantings and related improvements including granite edging, irrigation system, cedar fence and transplanted trees and shrubs. Section 25.108 of the zoning regulations requires that "where new nonresidential uses are adjacent to or within 50 feet from the boundary of a residential District ... a Strip not less than 15 feet shall be maintained as a buffer strip and shall be suitably landscaped with dense evergreen or other OLJitable planting as a screen". The new surface parking area at the north end of Airport Drive on the west side of the street is adjacent to a residential District. The landscaping proposed in the 15 foot buffer strip is now adequate to comply with the zoning regulations. In addition to the plantings, a new six (6) foot high cedar fence 560 feet long is proposed along the zoning district boundary line. Lighting: A point by point lighting plan was submitted in addition to cut sheets for the lights. This information indicates that all exterior lighting will utilize downcasting shielded fixtures and comply with the Performance Standards for direct and indirect glare contained in Appendix B of the zoning regulations. The information submitted with the lighting plan indicates that the average foot candles for the site will not exceed 0.9 (maximum allowed is 3.0). 5idewalk: The plan (sheet L-4) depicting the northerly end of Airport Drive shows a new sidewalk as requested by the City Engineer. This plan should be revised to clearly indicate the sidewalk location, show the sidewalk continuous across the driveway, and show the right-of-way line for the street. -uilding_height: The parking garage addition will exceed the 35 foot height limit by 3' 9" for a total height of 38' 9". This height limit will be exceeded by the installation of an HVAC unit on the top of a stair tower. Page #5 Section 25.113 ( c ) of the zoning regulations allowed the PKI3 to approve a non- residential structure with a height in excess of the limitations ,provided the Board determines that a taller structure: (i) will not affect adversely the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; will not detract from the important scenic views from adjacent public (ii) roadways and other public rights -of -way." In addition to the above criteria, Section 25.113 (d) of the zoning regulations requires that for each foot of additional height above the normal 35 foot maximum, all front and rear setbacks shall be increased by one (1) foot. This requirement cannot be met because the existing parking garage is only 21" further from the setback requirement limit. Staff recommends that the HVAC unit be placed in the location that does not add height above 35 feet. Parking_5tructure Guidelines: The applicant has indicated that the proposed parking garage addition complies with the City's Parking Garage Guidelines, with a few exceptions. Traffic: The applicant submitted a traffic study and a follow up report to address questions raised by Vtrans. This information was provided to the Board members at the 1/7/03 meeting. The traffic study indicates that the parking garage and terminal expansions will generate 110 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. Staff has learned that the Act 250 District Commission will not be imposing any conditions on the Airport relative to traffic. They do not feel that there io a nexus between parking expansion and traffic generation. It is staffs position that conditions relating, to traffic improvements should not be imposed at this time. It is felt that the payment of the full road impact fee applicable to the project (110 trips x $144.56 = $15,901.60) is the most appropriate way to deal with these impacts at this point. The impact fees will be applicable to projects such as improvements to Williston Load and Kennedy Drive that relate to Airport access. Other_: Plans should be revised to indicate that Airport Drive has a 66 foot wide right- of-way not an 80 foot right-of-way. The 80 foot r.o.w. is the planned r.o.w. width. 5) FINAL_PLAT_ - DQUNDAKY_11NE AI?JU5TM1<NT_--I ONWODD_& JAM_-GQLF,ILC City Engineer Comments Development Review Board January 7, 2003 AIRPORT EXPAN51ON AIRPORT DRIVE 1. 5ewer pipe bedding ehall be 3/4 inch crushed Stone only. 2. The line carrying plane deicer runoff to the 5outh Burlington Sewage treatment plant Should be Shown on the piano. It is located just inside the airport fence. 3. The new park and ride parking along Airport Drive where existing houses will be removed Should have a Sidewalk for about 400 feet constructed one foot from property line. The grading plan for that parking area shall be Submitted for review. 4. Airport Drive right-of-way iS 66 feet in width. The planned future right-of-way is 50 feet, 5. Large trees must not be planted on water and 5ewer lines. City Engineer Comments South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for February 4, 2003 AIRPORT TERMINAL EXPAN510N 1200 AIRPORT DRIVE The existing 66 foot Airport Drive r.o.w. must be Shown. The new concrete 5 foot sidewalk shall be constructed one foot from the r.o.w. and across driveway at a uniform grade. There shall be a grassed area between the edge of the road and the concrete sidewalk. SOUL January 3, 2003 Burlington Fire Depit tment 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4110 Douglas S. Brent, Fire Chief Ms. Juli Beth Hoover, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Airport Parking Lot Expansion Dear Juli: I have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of the parking deck expansion project at Burlington International Airport. I have also made a site visit to try to envision the siting of this project. l . Compliance with all requirements of Vermont Labor and Industry Fire Prevention Division codes and standards. 2. Automatic sprinklers and alarm system as required by Vermont Labor and Industry Fire Prevention Division. 3. Fire Department Sprinkler Connection location to be specified by SBFD. 4. Fire Alarm panel and annunciator location to be specified by SBFD. 5. Number and location of fire hydrants to be determined by the South Burlington Water Department. Actual final spotting of said hydrants to be done jointly with SBFD. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and Labor and Industry. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. S' erely, Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief State of Vermont WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND POTABLE WATER SUPPLY PERMIT LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED Environmental Protection Rules Effective August 16, 2002 Case Number: WW-4-1042-3 PIN: EJ96-0386 Landowner: City of Burlington Address: Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive # 1 South Burlington VT 05403 This project, consisting of amending Water Supply and Wastewater System Permit #WW-4-1042 to construct a three story addition to the existing parking garage with the relocation of one fire hydrant on the water main and re -constructing portions of the municipal sewer collection system located off Airport Drive in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above subject to the following conditions. This does not constitute approval under Act 250 case number 4C0331. GENERAL This permit does not relieve the permittee from obtaining all other approvals and permits as may be required from the Act 250 District Environmental Commission, the Department of Labor & Industry — telephone (802) 828-2106 or (802) 879-2300 and local officials prior to proceeding with this project. 2. The project shall be completed as shown on the following plans which have been stamped "approved" by the Wastewater Management Division: Project No. A0229.02, Sheet No. UP.2 "Utility Plan" dated 10-23-02 last revised 12-19-02; Sheet No. UP.3 "Utility Plan" dated 10-23-02 last revised 12-19-02; Sheet No. UPA "Utility Plan" dated 10-23-02 last revised 12-19-02; Sheet No. SSA "Sanitary Sewer Profiles" dated 10-23-02 last revised 12-19-02; and Sheet No. SS.2 "Sanitary Sewer Details" dated 10-23-02 last revised 12-19-02 prepared by Dufresne -Henry. The project shall not deviate from the approved plans in a manner that would change or effect the exterior water supply or wastewater disposal system, building location or the approved use of the building without prior written approval from the Wastewater Management Division. 3. The conditions of this permit shall run with the land and will be binding upon and enforceable against the permittee and all assigns and successors in interest. The permittee shall be responsible for the recording of this permit and the "Notice of Permit Recording" in the South Burlington Land Records within thirty, (30) days of issuance of this permit and prior to the conveyance of any lot subject to the jurisdiction of this permit. Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit W W-4-1042-3 Burlington International Airport Page 2 4. All conditions set forth in Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Permit #WW-4-1042 shall remain in effect except as modified or amended herein. 5. The Wastewater Management Division now reviews the water supply and wastewater disposal systems for all buildings under 10 V.S.A., Chapter 64 — Potable Water Supply and Wastewater System Permit. 6. A copy of the approved plans and this permit shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State of local personnel. WATER SUPPLY & WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 7. The relocation of the fire hydrant is approved provided the installation conforms to the conditions of "Public Water System Permit to Construct" Project #E-0684, WSID #5091 to John J. Hamilton dated March 24, 1997. 8. The project is approved for wastewater disposal by construction and utilization of the wastewater collection system depicted on the approved plans. The Wastewater Management Division shall allow no other method, or location of wastewater disposal without prior review and approval. 9. This permit issued by the Wastewater Management Division shall be valid for the substantially completed potable water supply and wastewater system upon receipt by the Division of a certification from a designer or installer, signed and dated, that states: "I hereby certify that the installation -related information submitted is true and correct and that, in the exercise of my reasonable professional judgment, the potable water supply and wastewater system have been installed in accordance with the permitted design and all permit conditions, were inspected, were properly tested, and have successfully met those performance tests." Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont on January 29, 2003. Christopher Recchia, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By�1�� Emest P. Christianson Regional Engineer C For the Record South Burlington Planning Commission & Select Board Dufresne -Henry Engineering Freeman — French — Freeman Architects Water Supply Division Act 250 District Environmental Commission Department 6f Labor & Industry 13H Dufresne -Henry January 24, 2003 Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Road and Parking Project DH Proiect No. 6320011 Dear Mr. Belair: Creating Better Places To Live, Work And Play Please find enclosed the following items to be included in the project Site Plan Review application: 1) Drawings (rl'copies): a) Passenger terminal modifications & pedestrian bridge plan view (Ground Level and Bridge Level, Sheet A- 104 & 105) b) Passenger Terminal modification and new foot (Bridge Elevations, Sheet A-203) c) Landscaping site plan with revised site grading and a new sidewalk on the east side of Airport Drive Extension (Sheets L-1 thru 4) d) Revised grading plan for the parking area at the end of Airport Drive Extension (Sheet SG.5) 2) Description of the terminal modifications and additions as e-mailed from Alex Halpern, Project Architect. Please note that the area designated for "overflow" parking (for 18 cars) on the northeast side of Airport Drive Extension has been revised to include stormwater treatment features (see enclosed site grading sheet SG.1) and thus no parking is possible in this area. As a result the total number of parking spaces proposed is now 3,165. The airport fence will be relocated to include these stormwater treatment features. I hope these meet your requirements. Sincerely, DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. r7 ^,t Mark Smith, P.E. Project Engineer encl. cc: Bob McEwing, BIA RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 City of So. Burlington Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice 802-864-0223 Fax. 802-864-0165 E-mail sburl a,dufresne-henry com V I S U A L `— O Q 0 ca CZ c CA O a' W0 o cIS N C (0 v� O �Cz a N "= .� Cn m Designer Jonathan Freed Date Jan 7 2003 Scale None Drawing No. 1 of 2 STATISTICS Description Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min i'�PS `=��aclvr��y 2.9 fc 4.7 fc 0.7 fc 6.7:1 4.2:1 i�PS Pa; kis�c; 2.2 fc 9.5 fc 0.4 fc 23.8:1 5.5:1 rpia��e� Pars, �� 2.0 fc 5.2 fc 0.6 fc 8.7:1 3.4:1 F�iiint� 2.6 fc 5.0 fc 0.9 fc 5.6:1 2.9:1 Nei: �ib�t Lta+ 1.4 fc 4.7 fc 0.3 fc 15.7:1 4.7:1 Ne.:° i`�1F_ L�;� 1.5 fc 4.5 fc 0.2 fc 22.5:1 7.4:1 Garage 3.7 fc 16.6 fc 0.3 fc 55.3:1 12.2:1 Site 0.9fc 10.8fc O.Ofc N/A N/A Frsc�r�n� �;�aclrv:�=; 2.6 fc 5.3 fc 0.8 fc 6.6:1 3.2:1 01/26/03 11:19 FAX 802 864 0165 AUFRESINE-IE,'�RY Michael Lowrence Associates Lan&canc Architects / Site Planning Consultana Burli.nton Airport Parkins Garage Landscaping Cost Estimate Jan 24, 2003 ITEM QU UNIT COST SUB -TOT Evergreen Trees 6-7' 43 350/ca 15,050 Evergreen Trees 7-8' 21 4501ea 9,450 Evergreen Shrubs 2-3' 46 125iea 5,7S0 Evergreen Shrubs 5-6' 9 450/ea 4,050 Deciduous Trees 3.5-4" 10 ', 50/ea 7,500 Deciduous Trees 2-2.5" 33 350/ea 11,550 Deciduous Trees 3-3.5" 10 500/ea 5,000 Deciduous Vines 67 35/ea 2,345 Deciduous Shrubs (roses) 24 60/ea 1,440 Granite Edging is 6,000 Irrigation is 28,000 Transplanted Trees 52 200/ea. 10,400 Transplanted Shrubs 21 50/ea 1,100 New Cedar Trees 6-7' 158 100/ea 15,800 New Cedar Fence 560 if 8,500/1s 8,500 TOTAL VALUE OF LANDSCAPING Flowers Compost Soil Amendment 250 cy 0 /"4*M MEMBER American Society Of LandSCaPe Art;hiteC!5 $131,895 1s 20.000 45/cy 11,250 Eight Ur4on 'Lane 1-:5sex Junction, Vermont 05452 P/F 802,878.2778 mikel3wrence0adelphia,met 10002 O1/28/03 11:18 FAX 802 364 0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY ( Z003 l mark smith From: Alex Halpern [ahalpern@fffinc.aomj Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:18 PM To: Marls C. Smith (E-mail) Cc: A0230 Airport; Bob MaEwir,g (E-111411) Subject: North Apron Space Allocation project (ie North Terminal Expansion) Mark, Description of project as requested: This two-story project of approximately 17,000 SF new and 4,500 SF renovated space, endoses the area between the end of the new pedestrian walkway escalators and the north face of the existing terminal building. The building has a maximum height of 35 feet. The first floor of the expansion keeps the existing north entry vestibule, adds an additional baggage carousel and baggage cart drive-thru garage, relocates the existing welcome center kiosk, relocates one existing rental car counter/ office, and adds one new rental car counter/ office. The second floor of the expansion builds over the existing single story car rental offices to provide a corridor to the existing main terminal atrium escalator, mezzanine and pedestrian bridge. This level, with it's floor elevation aligned with that of the majority of the existing terminal building (14'-0" above ground floor) connects and expands the gate 1&2 seating area via a ramped walkway, and relocates the existing north apron access gate. The expansion will also provide a greeting space for gate 182 travelers as well as access to baggage claim, elevated walkways, and the main terminal. The footprint of the project aligns plan accompanying this proposal attempt to although the expansion, is situated to facilitate future extension to the north, to support a future north concourse expansion and security -screening checkpoint Due to regulatory area limitations, the majority of the expansion will be separated from the existing building by a free standing firewa!I with openings to allow pedestrians to flow nearly seamless from existing to new. Exterior facades and interior finishes will be designed of materials and configurations similar to and complementing recent terminal building improvement projects, In short, this project will improve and expand baggage claim, car rental counters, and welcome center on the ground floor, gate seating and greeting area on the second floor, and build over the existing single story portion of the terminal to provide a connecting condor to the terminal's main atrium space. Freeman French Freeman, Inc. The Information bh this massaja is for the sbavo addressee anty. Unauthodzee usa, capymp, or difdrtbuban Is prchNrea. WWw_ffnc.cQm 1/28/2003 01/17/03 12:20 F:kfi 802 864(0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY 1 10001 (, 4 ov- ::T January 17, 2003 Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Creating Better Places To Live, Work Arid Play Post -Its Fax Noie 7671 Date o-1-p P.1B6► To � D ' •� From .A Go,/Dept. S/tt t f ,Z. co, P Plane k Phone k Fax ♦ (� ` 81 Fax N RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Road and Parking Project DH Project No. 6320011 Dear Mr. Belair: On behalf of the Airport we would like to request a continuance of the Development Review Board Site Plan Review hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, January 213t, 2003. Sincerely, DLIFRESNE-HENRY, INC. -oW.4.�ghjc4_ Mark Smith, P.E. Project Engineer encl. cc: Bob McEwing, BIA / 1 ' t jt r DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DOARD 2005 JANUARY 7 PAGE 11 Parlkibg: A total of 10 Spaces are required and 14 Spaces including one (1) handicapped Space and a bike rack will be provided. 1_and5c ina: The minimum landscaping requirement, based on building costs, iS $4800 which is being met. Proposed plantings include White Pine, Viburnum, and Sugar Maple. l.ight�: Exterior lighting will consist of the following: - Nine (9) 100-watt high-pressure sodium lamps with downcaeting Shielded fixtures mounted on 15 foot poles. - Nine (9) 100 watt building mounted high pressure Sodium lamps with downcasting Shielded fixtures. D-umpatter�: A Screened dumpster Storage area iS proposed. TRAF—FJ OVERLAY1D-17J1 K[= Y[EW This property is located in the Traffic Overlay Zone 5 which would allow this property to generate a maximum of 55.9 vehicle trip ends (vte'S) during the P.M. peak hour. ITE estimates the previous retail use to generate 11.7 vte'S. The applicant's traffic Study (See enclosed) estimates that the project will generate 40 vte'S. The traffic Study does not include how much traffic the auto detailing portion of the busineSS would generate. This information iS necessary to determine the additional trip ends to be generated and compliance with the Traffic Overlay District. This property iS located within the 55W which requires projects which convert 15,000 Sq. ft. or more of undeveloped land to developed land to meet certain requirements. This project involves the conversion of approximately 11,000 Sq. ft. of undeveloped land to developed land. The requirements of this Section therefore do not apply. 10) BURLINGTON INTERN TIONAL A1"—O T- RKI _PANG GARAGE E PX_ AN OR---51TE -LAN This project consists of amending a previously approved plan for an 55,565 Sq. ft. airport terminal and an 1145 vehicle -parking garage. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 297,000 Sq. ft. 5-level parking garage addition for 2,075 Spaces, 2) reconfigure Surface parking (1,008 Spaces total), 5) realign access road, 4) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2005 JANUARY 7 PAGE 12 constructing a new 14,461 Sq. ft. elevated pedestrian bridge, and 5) constructing a new 4,267 sq. ft. toll booth canopy. This property located at 1200 Airport Drive lies within the Airport and Airport Industrial Districts. Access/Circulation: The main terminal and parking garage entrance on Airport Drive, consisting of a 30 feet wide curb out for ingress only, will not change. A temporary two (2)-lane egress only access drive from the south end of the parking garage will be used during construction. It will be 24 feet wide and be located opposite Patrick Street. The main terminal and parking garage exit will be relocated approximately 490 feet to the north, opposite Maryland Street. It will have two (2) egress lanes, one for left -turn only and one for right -turn only, Separated by a median. A new 16 ft. wide ingress only access drive will be constructed along Airport Drive to serve an employee Surface lot located at the north end of the expanded parking garage. It will be located approximately 220 feet south of the new exit driveway. The access drive to the park and ride lot opposite White Street will not change. Two (2) new access drives of 24 feet wide each would be added at the north end of Airport Drive to service two (2) new Surface parking lots. These new parking lots are currently being used in violation of the zoning regulations. Circulation on the Site is adequate. OoveraoeL5e a a: Due to the vast Size of the airport property, building and overall coverages were not calculated. Front yard coverage along Airport Drive is 29.3% (maximum allowed is 30%). The parking garage addition, pedestrian bridge and tollbooth canopy will meet setback requirements. Parking: There are no minimum parking requirements for an airport terminal in the zoning regulations. This proposal will increase the total number of parking Spaces from 2214 Spaces to 5155 spaces or a 969 apace increase. A bike rack and 16 handicapped spaces will be provided. A total of 42 handicapped Spaces are required. The plan Should be revised to add 26 handicapped Spaces. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 60ARD 2003 JANUARY 7 PAGE 13 Lan ed Sca_pina: The minimum landscaping requirement, booed on building costs, is $101,565 which is not being met. The applicant is proposing $81,550 worth of new plantings and related improvements including granite edging, irrigation System and transplanted trees and Shrubs. The applicant iS seeking a credit for the $20,000 Shortfall in the form of existing trees to be protected and retained. 5ome of the landscaping that would be lost at the north end of the existing garage was required to be planted aS part of the existing garage's landscaping requirement. These trees and shrubs Should either be transplanted or the value of these plants deducted from the requested credit. Section 25.108 of the zoning regulations requires that "where new nonresidential uses are adjacent to or within 50 feet from the boundary of a Residential District... a Strip not less than 15 feet Shall be maintained aS a buffer strip and Shall be suitably landscaped with dense evergreen or other Suitable planting aS a Screen". The new Surface parking area at the north end of Airport Drive on the west Side of the Street iS adjacent to a Residential District. The landscaping proposed in the 15 foot buffer Strip iS not adequate to comply with the zoning regulations. Some areas have no evergreen plantings & Some of the existing evergreen plantings are on the adjacent residential property. 5taff recommends that the landscaping plan be revised to add a minimum of a Six (6) foot high Solid wood fence and a Substantial amount of evergreen plantings in the 15 foot buffer Strip to Screen this nonresidential area from the adjacent residential property. 5taff also recommends additional plantings along White Street to Screen the parking area from White Street. These plantings Should be Similar to the plantings in front of the parking garage to create a very attractive entrance to the airport area. The landscaping plant Sheet L-1 Should be revised to accurately reflect the fact that there are no houses on the west Side of Airport Drive at the north end of the Street. It Should also be revised to Show the entrance and exit driveways for the employee parking area of the north end of the garage addition. Lighting: A point by point lighting plan was Submitted in addition to cut Sheets for the lights. This information indicates that all exterior lighting will utilize dowrncasting Shielded fixtures and comply with the Performance 5t3n.dards for direct and indirect glare contained in Appendix 8 of the zoning regulations. The applicant Should provide information on the average illumination for the expansion in foot-candles. The zoning regulations have 3 foot-candle maximum. 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2003 JANUARY 7 PAGE 14 Building height: The 3-level parking garage, including the pole lighte on the 3' level, will not exceed the 35 foot height limit for a flat roof Structure. Traffic: The applicant Submitted a traffic impact Study dated October 2002 (See enclosed). The CCMPO and Vtrano are in the proccoo of reviewing this Study (See enclosed memo from CCMPO dated 12/27/02 and a letter from Vtrano dated 12/23/02). Both groups are having on -going discussions with the applicant's engineer to review issues with this study. 5taff recommends that the decision on this application be delayed until the CCMPO and Vtrano are satisfied with the traffic study. 5taff Suggests that this application be continued to the February 18, 2005 meeting. This will allow the parties an opportunity to resolve their differences. Qther: Plamo should be revised to indicate that Airport Drive has a 66 foot wide right- of-way not an 80 foot right-of-way. The 80 foot r.o.w. iS the planned r.o.w. width. The City Engineer iS recommending a sidewalk along Airport Drive at the north end of the street. The applicant Should work with the City Engineer to revise the plans accordingly. 01/03/03 12:54 FAX 302 564 0165 MTRESNE—HENRY Z001 January 3, 2003 Ray Belair Administrative Officer Department of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Creating Better Places To Live, W ork And Play Post -its Fax Note 7671 Dale llslo,5 IWW 7j To From CoJDept /J/ ✓6 Co. 21)v Ptpneg Phone # Fax S © i L p_ Fex RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Road and Parking Project (TRAP) DH Prolect #63200 1 Dear Mr. Belair: Thank you for your continents concerning the referenced project, received by phone on Friday December 271, 2002. In response, please consider the following: 1) Traffic Impacts: On 1219/02 we received preliminary comments addressing the 'Traffic Impact Study for this project from VTrans and the CCMPO, which we responded to on 12/12/02. Amy Gamble of VTrans provided further discussion on 12/23/02 which offers several resolutions to the issues discussed. All these correspondences are attached. These issues are currently being reviewed by the District 4 Environmental Commission and we expect their input on Wednesday January 8t', 2003. All further correspondence and resolutions will be forwarded to the Development Review Board as soon as they are available. The applicant requests that approval be contingent upon this issue's resolution with either VTrans or the CCMPO. The applicant supports a resolution of potential issues with the Williston Road/Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive intersection and the Airport Road/Airport Drive intersections as proposed in Ms. Gamble's 12/23/02 letter, conclusion alternative #2. 2) Expected additional PM trips, as reported in the Traffic Impact Study are: 41 entering and 69 exiting, for a total of 110 trip ends. 3) Landscaping — 46 trees and 475 shrubs which were installed as part of the previous garage project will be disturbed by the garage expansion. It is our understanding from meeting with the City in October 2002, which was intended to specifically discuss landscaping for this project, that these plantings are part of the existing condition and do not require transplanting or replacement, except to the extent that the new project requires screening as normally required under the City's Zoning Ordinance. Those trees or shrubs that the City's arborist and Mike Lawrence thought would survive transplanting are included in the "new installation" list presented in the application. Please note that the value presented for transplanted items does not reflect the increased size of these items which has Engineers Planners Landscape Arc itects Frivirotimental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice 302-94-0223 Fax. 802-864-0165 E-mail. sburl c@i dufresna-hency.corn 01r'03?"03 12:33 FAX 002 004r0103 DUFRESPE-HENRY r @002 1 1 Mr. Ray Belair January 3, 2003 Page 2 of 4 occurred since they were originally planted. 4) Maximum proposed building structure height (top of stair tower) is 35 ft. The height of the proposed light fixtures will be at or below this level. A small air handling unit will be placed on top the stair tower which will exceed the 35 ft maximum by approximately 5 ft. As allowed under section 25.113, paragraph (c) the applicant request consideration of this mechanical unit as an item that meets subparagraphs (i) and (ii). Note that this mechanical unit will not be risible from Airport Drive. 5) Site lighting fixture inventory (not including lighting in, or on the top level of the garage). Tyne Removed/Relocated; New/Relocated: AA 28 8 A 21 24 B 5 35 C 23 4 Total 77 71 6) Conformance with the City's Parking Garage Guidelines: The parking garage complies with City's Parking Garage Guidelines as outlined below. Note that items preceded by a * have a different approach for design than the guidelines suggest: A -Dimensions: 1: Stall dimension (90 degree) is 8'-9" x 18'-0". 2: Min of four spaces provided between columns. 3: Max grade will be 5%. B-Access Circulation: General Standards: 1: Garage will have twro-way traffic for all isles. 2: Max aisle length to cross -over is 400' or less. 3: Design width of cross aisle is 24'-0". 4: Min Ceiling Height exceeds 7 4'. Pedestrian: 1: * Max distance to exit stair does not exceed 300 foot life safety building code requirement. 2: * Max distance to elevator is 460 feet. Additional elevators are not considered useful as the typical user is destined for solely the passenger terminal, not multiple businesses which a typical urban parking garage user may want to access. 3: New plus existing construction will total three elevators. Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 Souch Burlington, Vermont 35407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-mail. sburl@dufresne-henrycom 0 R.O.W ftlx 01/DJiOJ 11:00 FAX 802 404 0100 DUFKEaNE-HENRY J Mr. Ray Belair January 3, 2003 Page 3 of 4 Access Points Lanes: 1: Entrance lanes stack min of three vehicle lengths. 2: Garage has five (5) inbound lanes. 3: *Garage has five (5) exit lanes. Note: while the guidelines suggest 8 lanes may be necessary, adequate vehicle queuing has been considered and provided in the garage, 4: Triple entry lane configuration measures thirty-six (36) feet in width. Ramps: 1: Straight "ramp" grade is 5% or 1:20 which allows for parking on "ramp". 2: N/A, project does not include a circular ramp. 3: Ramp grade is less than 10% and transition length is less than 12 feet. 4: Drive Aisle on ramp is 24'-0". 5-7: N/A 8: "Ramps" are pitched for drainage. C-Lighting: Minimum lighting levels stated in the guidelines will be met. D-Drainage: 1: * Floor drains are provided on 36 ft centers down the north south centerline of the garage, This configuration has performed well in the existing garage. 2: A ventilated griVoil separator will be provided. 3: Minimum floor slope will be 1 °/u- E-Security: 1: Openness and visibility has been maximized and hiding places have been minimized. 2: All levels are in continuous use. 3: One side of each stair tower includes vertical glass the height of the tower. 4: Stair lobbies are exposed to an outside view. 5: Existing security camera system is being extended; ground level pedestrian access. barriers are typical along the perimeter of the garage; glass elevator cabs are not being used. 6: Lighting enhancements are designed at stairs, lobbies, exits; and booths. 7: Stairways are visible from the outside. 8: Design encourages pedestrian flow into and out of garage at stair tower locations. 9: Paint color matches existing. 10: No special needs for security personnel are anticipated. F-Fire Safety: Project is for an open-air parking structure that includes required standpipes. Engineers Planters Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice 802-964-0223 Fax: 802-964-0165 E-mail: sburl®dufreme-henry corn (� •xxw cn nauw �.pn 011,031/03 12:57 FAX 802 864 0165 C� DUFRESNE—HENRY IM004 Mr. Ray Belair January 3. 2003 Page 4 of 4 G-Ventilation: Ventilation will meet the requirements for open parking structures. H-Aesthetics: 1: Project includes landscaping improvements to assist structure aesthetics. 2: No density bonuses or other incentives have been offered by the City of South Burlington. 3: Appearance, Size and Scale have been carefully considered in the design. 4: The parking garage is as efficient as allowed under the guidelines. Great effort has been made in order to make the garage as attractive as possible under these guidelines. No incentives have been offered by the City of South Burlington. 7) Handicap Accessiblc Spaces: There will be at least 27 standard handicap accessible spaces and 6 "van accessible" spaces in the garage, There will be 7 handicap accessible spaces in the employee parking areas, and there will be at least 1 handicap accessible spaces in the FAA lot. No handicap accessible spaces are necessary in the Long Term Overflow or Rental Carwash lots since they are valet style parking areas (not accessible to the public), Thus for the 2,707 total public; FAA spaces in the project area, at least 41 handicap accessible spaces will be provided. I hope this fully addresses you concerns. Sincerely, DUFRESNE-HENRY Mark C. Smith, P.E. Project Engmeer encl. cc: Bob McEwing, BIA Engineers P:anne,s Landscape Architects Emironmentai 5cientiss Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax. 8C2-864-0165 E-maiL sburl@dufresne-henry corn cVIPO kw5b"N' Chittenden County Draft Memo Metropolitan Planning Organization 100 Dorset Street To: Ian MacDougal — Regional Planning Commission Suite 22 From: Susan Smichenko, P.E. South Burlington, VT 05403-6241 Date: 12/9/02 1:22 PM t 802.660.4071 Subject: Burlington International Airport — Terminal Road and Parking f 802.660.4079 Project - Act 250 Permit Application www.ccmpo.org info@ccmpo.org At your request, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the above referenced Act 250 permit application. The study was prepared by Trans/Op Inc. and it is dated October 2002. My review noted discrepancies between the data presented in this report and those detailed in the Ground Access Study of the Burlington International Airport prepared by Resource System Group, Inc. (RSG) (April 2002). Both the existing and projected traffic volumes generated by the airport in the Trans/Op report vary significantly from the volumes presented in the RSG report. Since the access study was prepared for the Chittenden County MPO, with guidance from a Steering Committee (including representatives from the Airport), an explanation as to why such significant differences exist between the two reports is warranted. The Trans/Op report does not reference the RSG report. I have also reviewed the draft comments provided by Amy Gamble of the Vermont Agency of Transportation and concur with her review. Communities working together to meet Chittenden County's transportation needs- DRAFT LETTER From Amy Gamble to Peter Keibel RE: Burlington International Airport Parking Expansion M I have done a preliminary review of the traffic impact study by Trans/Op Inc. dated October 2002, for the subject project. I have two major concerns with the study: 1. The trip generation is based on future 2.5% growth per year, for 5 years. This may or may not be reasonable for the 5 year development scenario, but does not address the potential full impact of doubling the available parking for passengers. It also does not address what the study refers to as "additional demand that has developed since the previous parking expansion." 2. The study does not appear to account for "Other Permitted Development". For example, at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive[US 2 intersection there are about 500 trips permitted Technology Park, and about 300 trips for the BIA South Development Master Plan. Additional Comments/Concerns: Does the weekday PM peak reflect the peak travel time to/from the Airport, and if not, could that be the more important scenario to study? (This is related to the concept of studying shopping centers on Saturday noon, rather than the adjacent street peak hour.) The base traffic volumes, at least at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/ JS 2 intersection appear to be reasonable. (The study gains nearly 150 trips between this intersection and the intersection of Airport Drive/Airport Road, which is not easily explained by intervening drives.) A corridor study for Kennedy Drive was completed by McFarland Johnson in March 2001. This study agrees with the Trans/Op study that the existing LOS at Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 is LOS C. The v/c ratios in the Trans/Op study are above 1.0 for the west approach of the Airport Drive/Airport Road intersection. This has not been addressed by the mitigation proposals in the study. The study did not look at the intersection of US2/Airport Road, which is significantly affected by changes in airport traffic. While parking spaces do not, in and of themselves, create traffic, they may be a good measure of potential trip generation for the airport. .. Pfresne4-Henry December 12, 2002 Mrs. Susan Smichenko, P.E. Seminar Planner CCMPO 30 Kimball Ave, Suite 206 South Burlington, VT 05403-6839 Creating Better Places To Live, Work And Play RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Roads and Parking Project (TRAP) ACT 250 Permit Application Draft Comments DH Project No. 6320011 Dear Susan, Thank you very much for the opportunity to meet, discuss and respond to your initial comments and questions related to this project. In response to your draft memo the following discussion is offered. While we inadvertently did not include reference to the Ground Access Study of the Burlington International Airport (GASBIA), we did consult and confirm data presented in the study. Please see item 1 of the attached memo to Amy Gamble that explains the decision process, which results in the projected growth rate of 2.5 percent. - Regarding differences in projected traffic volumes, this is primarily due to the base counts taken in 1999 versus those conducted by DH in the Fall of 2002. These counts include two significant events that are not included in the. GASBIA data. The effect of Jet Blue's low cost service in the summer of 2000 is not included in traffic counts from 1999. Secondly, the affect of BIA not allowing curbside drop off in front of the terminal has created a pattern of some users circling the airport in some cases many times to avoid using the parking facility or during times when the facility is at capacity. DH conducted a video survey and counted cars during the pm peak to better define the anecdotal evidence. During the survey we found about 6.3 percent of traffic was circulating. While this pattern may vary greatly depending on conditions, it does provide more evidence that recirculating traffic is part of the volume counted in 2002, and not included in the 1999 traffic counts. Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-mail: sburl@dufresne-henry.com Mrs. Susan Smichenko, P.E. December 12, 2002 Page 2 of 2 I hope this and the attached memo help to better explain our logic and thought process related to this unique and complicated area of Chittenden County. If you have any other questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. Christopher S. Pecor, P.E. Project Manager c: Amy Gamble, VTrans — Traffic Research Douglas R. Elliott, VT ANR-DEC Air Quality, Engineering Services Section K:\6320011 (BTV Airport Parking Expansion)\Documents\Correspondence\Letters\smichenko 12-12-02.doc J Prmw M R—W Poor 12/27,09 FRI 10.44 FAX 002 000 4070 CC1%PO t�]002 ®rn2"0-Henrr-Vy Creating Better Places To Live, Work And Play December 12, 2002 Mrs. Susan Smichenko, P.E. Seminar Planner CCMPO 30 Kimball Ave, Suite 206 South Burlington, VT 05403-6839 RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Roads and Parking Project (TRAP) ACT 250 Permit Application Draft Comments DH Project No. 6320011 Dear Susan. Thank you very much for the opportunity to meet, discuss and respond to your initial comments and questions related to this project. In response to your draft memo the following discussion is offered. While we inadvertently did not include reference to the Ground Access Study of the Burlington International Airport (GASBIA.), we did consult and confirm data presented in the study. Please see item 1 of the attached memo to Amy Gamble that explains the decision process, which results in the projected growth rate of 2,5 percent. Regarding differences in projected traffic volumes, this is primarily due to the base counts taken in 1999 versus those conducted by DH in the Fall of 2002. These counts include two significant events that are not included in the. GASBIA data. The effect of Jet Blue's low cost service in the summer of 2000 is not included in traffic counts from 1999. Secondly, the affect of B1A not allowing curbside drop off in front of the terminal has created a pattern of some users circling the airport in some cases many times to avoid using the parking facility or during times when the facility is at capacity. DH conducted a video survey and counted cars during the pm peak to better define the anecdotal evidence. During the survey we found about 6.3 percent of traffic was circulating. While this pattern may vary greatly depending on conditions, it does provide more evidence that recirculating traffic is part of the volume counted in 2002, and not included in the 1999 traffic counts. .. I Ewa- . .. Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environme-ital Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-rnail: sburl@dufrcsne-hcnry.com lE%L7: OE rRI 10.40 F.%X OOL 000 407V CCREM [MOOD Mrs. Susan Smichenko, P.E. December 12, 2002 Page 2 of 2 I hope this and the attached memo help to better explain our logic and thought process related to this unique and complicated area of Chittenden County. If you have any other questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. Christopher S. Pecor, P.E. Project Manager c: .Amy Gamble, VTrans — Traffic Research Douglas R. Elliott, VT ANR-DEC Air Quality, Engineering Services Section K 632WL i (13n' Airport Parking Expansion'Documents',Correspendence\Lctterslsmuhenko 12-12-02_doc Im �! PmleN on Pecyciw Papal C OH Dufresne -Henry Memorandum Creating Better Places To Live, Work And Play To: Amy Gamble � 446 From: Christopher S. Pecor, P.E. & Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. '� Date: December 12, 2002 Subject: BIA response comments 1 a. The future trip generation rate of 2.5 percent for this study was used after careful consideration of potential growth at Burlington International Airport (BIA). The primary reference used was the Ground Access Study of the BIA prepared by Resource System Group, Inc. (RSG) in April 2002. Review of the historical data included in the study provides a variety of sources that could be used to estimate future trip generation. Results are tabulated below: Source Method Growth Rate Per Year 1 GASBIA - Table 3 1995 - 2001 (Regression) 2.5% 2 GASBIA - Table 3 1990 - 2001 (Regression) 1.2 3 - GASBIA - Table 5 1999 - 2010 Forecast 2.6 4 GASBIA - Table 5 2010 - 2020 Forecast 1.5 5 GASBIA - Table 6 2000 - 2020 (Regression) 2.9 6 GASBIA - Table 6 vehicle arrivals 2000 - 2020 (Interpolation) 3.4 Table 1: Trip Generation Methodology A 2.5 percent growth derived from method #1 in Table 3 of the GASBIA study was chosen after the following criteria were carefully considered: • In Table 3 the 1990 - 2001 data represent a longer period and are less conservative than for the period 1995 - 2001. • Because this study period is 2003 to 2008, the estimated growth rate should be closer to 2.6 percent than the 1.5 percent projected for 2010 to 2020. • Historical enplanement data are a common source used by BIA and all airports to prepare master plans and project growth. • Enplanement data shown in the RSG study have been used by DH in previous traffic analyses and are published in information provided by the airport. • Enplanement data are actual counts of all passengers using the facility over time. • The source for the traffic data in Table 6 is based on a traffic count in 1999 and grown by using other assumed growth factors. Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-mail: sburl@dufresne-henry.com lb. Regarding the doubling of public parking, it is important to note that: • The number of spaces permitted in 1997 for all users was 2179. The proposed expansion increases the total spaces to 3183 (46% increase). • The increase can be attributed to two factors, growth from 1997 to 2001 and projected growth from 2001 to 2008. Historical volumes have increased by 20.4% from 1997 to 2001 (Table 3 - GASBIA). Using the growth rate of 2.5 percent, the increase from 2001 to 2008 is 18.9%. Therefore, the growth rate used is 39.3%, which is within 10% of the projected increase of spaces. • Some of he parking being planned for is valet style "bumper to bumper" parking which will only be needed in extreme cases, but is included for the Air Quality permit review. 2. Although Technology Park and the BIA South Development have been permitted, concerns exist about the anticipated level of actual build -out by 2008. Regarding the Technology Park, TransOp was able to attain and analyze the traffic study by Trudell for the seven lots that are included in the Master Permit. The owner indicated that only two of the seven lots have been permitted for construction and due to the economy have been put on hold. He estimated that they are likely to be constructed within the next three years. The remaining five lots are not likely to occur within three years. The likelihood of construction of the BIA South Development within the next five years is not high. Since there is only a Master Permit for Act 250 to date, no actual construction has been approved and there are still some significant water quality issues to address. We went ahead and analyzed the total potential traffic to account for the worst case of traffic expected at this location. As shown in Table 2 the additional trips from the Technology Park and BIA South account for a substantial increase in delay, whereas the increased delay due to the BIA Garage account for only 1.4 seconds. Analysis LOS Delay BIA TRAP (Garage expansion) Only C 30.2 MJ(Kennedy Drive Stud C ? Tech. Park & BIA South Development E 65.8 BIA TRAP, Technology Park & BIA South Development E 67.2 Table 2: Williston Rd/Kennedy DriveJAirport Drive Performance 2008, PM Peak The Trudell study also included an Air -Quality analysis of this intersection which did not result in substantial air quality impacts. The minor increase in delay from this project (BIA TRAP) would suggest another study would not be warranted. Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-mail: sburl@dufresne-henry.com Traffic counts, air traffic arrivals and departures, and a 24 hr / 7 day tube count at the entrance suggest both weekends and weekdays are similarly busy. Weekend traffic does not include the commuter traffic that is a major contributor to Airport Drive, thus our analysis looks at the more significant scenario. 4. The difference in the traffic volumes between the two intersections is mainly due to the discrepancies with the traffic counts that were conducted on different days. See Table 3. The adjustment factors did not reconcile these differences. Ai ort Rd. SA Williston Rd. A Period Volume Date Volume Date Difference AM 732 7-18-01 Wed 561 7-17-01 Tues 171 PM 1152 7-18-01 Wed 1025 7-16-01 on 127 Table 3: Airport Drive Intersections (Raw Count Data) 5. The MJ study may not have included the Technology Park since it appears to have been completed near to the same time period. 6. In Table 16 of the traffic impact study, excessive delays, volume -to -capacity ratios, and queue lengths are evident on the west approach of Airport Road at Airport Drive during the afternoon peak hour for 2003. These data essentially represent the existing or no - build condition without the impact of the proposed growth of activities at the Burlington International Airport. Some mitigation results with the configuration of left -turn and through/right-turn lanes on the west approach. The somewhat improved operational measures are shown in Table 16A for no left-tum lane on the south approach and in Table 17A with this geometric feature in place. Because this west approach has good performance characteristics during the morning peak hour, only the afternoon results are tabulated for both analysis years. The additions of the development traffic generated by Burlington International Airport South Development Master Plan and Technology Park do not alter the warrant analyses for traffic signal control at the unsignalized intersection along Airport Drive. Warrants are generally not satisfied for the low volumes on the side streets. These two developments essentially add traffic only to Airport Drive. 7. Because our office was located at the corner of Airport Drive and Airport Road our staff has good knowledge of the Airport Road/Route 2 intersection and thus would like to offer a discussion of the particular traffic movements there: Traffic turning left from Route 2 on Airport Road have the opportunity to proceed to the signalized intersection if gaps are not available, however due to the signalized intersection delay for this movement is not common. Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-mail: sburl@dufresne-henry.com { { • Traffic from Airport Rd. rarely turns left onto Williston Road because most of the traffic is from Airport Drive which would continue straight to Kennedy or Rt 2 north. Right turns from Airport Road have gaps provided by the Airport Drive/Kennedy Rd. signal. Please note that the project does not add a tremendous amount of traffic to this intersection, as indicated in Table 11 of the report. Analysis of parking spaces may possibly be a useful tool in verifying relative measures of trip generation; however, consumer air travel demand remains as our best tool in measuring future growth. The economy, regional airport access, carrier competition, and airport facility infrastructure are all factors that help define the consumer demand. As noted above, the parking planned for includes existing demand that is not accommodated by the 1997 permitted spaces, and will accommodate the extreme cases when valet parking allows maximum density in the long term lots. In addition, the following tables and data are provided for inclusion in the existing report. Table 16A - Unsignalized performance with added left -turn lane on west approach. 2. Table 17A - Unsignalized performance with added left -turn lanes on west and south approaches. 3. A revised trip distribution diagram for BIA related traffic. Recirculation on the airport driveways and car rental traffic estimates on Airport Road are included to reflect their impact on the travel patterns. 4. Tables 19 & 20 - Showing the proper data source. 5. Revised Capacity analysis worksheet: a) RT 2 & Kennedy/Airport Dr. - all development (Tech Park, BIA So. Dev., BIA TRAP) b) RT 2 & Kennedy/Airport Dr. - all development minus BIA TRAP volumes c) Airport Rd & Airport Dr. with added lane on west approach 6. A graph of the tube counts collected between October 12 and 22, 2002 at the Airport entrance. -end of memo - Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-mail: sburl@dufresne-henry.com TABLE 16A UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Airport Drive and Airport Road South Burlington, Vermont Approach Movement v/c Approach 95-P Intersection Capacity Delay LOS Queue Average LOS (vph) (spv) Length Delay (ft) (spv) 2003 Afternoon Peak Hour DHV with West Approach Left Turn Lane North App. L- 895 0.00 0.0 - 0 South App. L- 995 0.05 1.2 - 4 East App. L- 201 0.08 24.6 C 7 West App. L- 122 0.84 56.9 F 128 TR-500 0.26 - - 26 Intersection 9.4 A 2008 Afternoon Peak Hour DHV with West Approach Left Turn Lane North App. L- 861 0.00 0.0 - 0 South App. L- 944 0.05 1.3 - 4 East App. L- 175 0.10 28.0 D 8 West App. L- 102 1.07 91.2 F 171 TR-462 0.30 - - 31 Intersection 14.3 B 32A TABLE 17A UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Airport Drive and Airport Road South Burlington, Vermont Approach Movement v/c Approach 95-P Intersection 'Capacity Delay LOS Queue Average LOS (vph) (spv) Length Delay (ft) (spv) 2003 Afternoon Peak Hour DHV with West Approach Left Turn Lane and South Approach Left Turn Lane North App. L- 895 0.00 0.0 - 0 South App. L- 995 0.05 0.5 - 4 TR-1700 0.41 - - 0 East App. L- 201 0.08 24.6 C 7 West App. L- 123 0.84 56.2 F 127 TR-500 0.26 - - 26 Intersection 9.0 A 2008 Afternoon Peak Hour DHV with West Approach Left Turn Lane and South Approach Left Turn Lane North App. L- 861 0.00 0.0 - 0 South App. L- 944 0.05 0.5 - 4 TR-1700 0.43 - - 0 East App. L- 175 0.10 28.0 D 8 West App. L- 103 1.06 90.0 F 170 TR-462 0.30 - - 31 Intersection 13.8 B 31A AIRPORT AIRPORT PARKWAY DRIVE EXT. 15.6 N !tL-i 1 t 15. 0.8 0.3 ♦-6.4 WHITE 4-21.6 4-0.8 WHITE ST STREET EXTENSION c ♦I 9. 1 29. 7 ---! 0. 1 �W 1 t � 31.3 22.0 LEDOUX Z.22.0 AIRPORT TERRACE r 6. 3 77. 0 ~-I 00. 0 EXIT > 0 a- �ct -o a PATRICK 6.3 y 37.6 AIRPORT STREET►100.0 ENTRANCE �► 62.4 !t 70.7 62.4 4-4.9 AIRPORT +-7.9 ♦- 0.9 FBO AVCENTER ROAD►8. I �,� 0. 1 ENTRANCE 1 t 1 t 3.0 3.0 62. 7 53.4 WILLISTON 4-8.5 4-25.6 WILLISTON ROAD - 6-3 3 �i26.0 ROAD 1t 28.2 24.5 KENNEDY DRIVE n f �_„ _ Q NOTE: NUMBERS SHOWN ARE PERCENTAGES P�w"�/ N.T. S TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS FOR BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR REFERENCE: TRANSOP, TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR BIA EXPANSION 2003 REVISED 12-12-02, INCLUDES RECIRCULATION AND RENTAL CAR ACTIVITY C Airport Drive and Airport Entrance 0 0 -44-- L 0 0 0 T 0 —0'` R 0 a.m. peak hour - 0715-0815 p.m. peak hour - 1630-1730 Data Source - D-H/02 TABLE 19 TRAFFIC VOLUMES SUMMARY 0 "W 0 —A► 0 2003 DHV Build 277 646 80 392 Airport Dr. R T L 0 215 62 0 511 135 � 1 Y � Airport Entrance 0 0 R 4-- 0 0 T O� 0 0 L � 1 0 80 180 0 392 224 L T R Airport Dr. 1. 215 v 511 260 616 37 t „- 0 0 _--W- 242 359 TABLE 20 TRAFFIC VOLUMES SUMMARY Airport Drive and Airport Entrance 0 0 -l-- L 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 -�" --ib`` R 0 0 a.m, peak hour - 0715-0815 p.m. peak hour - 1630-1730 Data Source - D-H/02 295 690 84 T 413 Airport Dr. R T L 0 226 69 0 538 152 V I 0 84 202 0 413 253 L T R Airport Dr. 226 538 286 666 38 2008 DHV Build t Airport Entrance 'T, 0 0 R -04- -4 — 0 0 T 0 0 Ar- 0 0 L 271 405 r i � 14� l)EVE .oP�9�V Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:lAir108DAR.sy6 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. •.__��_` �12;10,2002 Lane Group F_BL EBT EBR WBL WBT VVBI=i NBL NBT INER ,:;BL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tT+ ' t•t+ �� Vi t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 10 12 11 11 11 Grade (%)* 0% 4% 4% -2% Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 '15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 Frt 0.948 0.969 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3308 0 1583 3068 0 1619 1704 1552 1728 1819 1546 Flt Permitted 0.384 0.100 0.301 0.62-1 Satd. Flow (perm) 705 3308 0 167 3068 0 513 1704 1552 1 135 11819 1546 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 126 50 198 4 Headway Factor 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.03 1.12 1.' 2 ' .03 -1 .0") 1.03 1.03 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 896 1184 729 545 Travel Time (s) 20.4 26.9 16.6 12.4 Volume (vph) 4 896 470 296 541 142 187 128 320 203 28:3 4 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I .()0 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles (4/0) 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 4 896 470 296 541 142 187 128 320 ?03 4- 3 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 4 1:366 0 296 6,33 0 '187 128 3,20 203 2i:3 4 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Perm pn'+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 -8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 El 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 2 2. 0 10.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 40.0 0.0 17.0 47.0 0.0 10-0 23.0 23.0 1 C..O 230 2:3.0 Total Split (%) 11 % 44% 0% 19% 52% 0% 11 `% 26% 26% '11 °i) 26"Xo 261% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 34.0 11.0 41.0 4 0 -17.0 -17.0 4.0 17.'D , 17.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 =.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 - 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2_0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 'Yes Yas Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2..0 .0 3.r .3.0 Recall Mode None None None Nonp None P,1in Min N xne Iv!in M n Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 :.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 42.1 36.0 53.0 51.1 24.0 18.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.40 0.60 0.57 C.27 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.20 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.97 0.97 0.38 0.88 0.37 0.68 0. :9 0.77 0.0 1 Uniform Delay, di 8.0 2.2.3 22.8 11.4 28.5 33.1 '1 i:.8 27.5 36.2 00 Delay 8.8 37.8 58.8 10.4 51.0 :31.0 1 ';.0 :::5.1a 37.5 13 5' LOS A D E B D C 8 C I_I B Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002 .~ Syn;;hro :i R��pert 2008 DHV a.m. peak hour Page 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:\Air? 08DAR.syEi 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/10!2(101. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach Delay 37.8 25.1 27.8 32.5 Approach LOS D C C C 90th %ile Green (s) 4.0 34.0 11.0 41.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 90th %ile. Term Code Max Max Max Hold Max Max Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 111.0 51.0 4.17 '17.0 7 0 4.0 17.0 17.0 70th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Max Max Max Max i1v1ax 50(h %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 11.0 511.0 4.0 '17.0 " TO 4.0 17.0 17.0 50th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Hold Hold Max Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 11.0 51.0 4.0 16.7 16.7 4.0 16.7 13.7 30th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Hold Hold Max Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 11.0 51.0 4.0 12.4 12.4 4.0 12.4 12.4 10th %ile Term Code Skip, Max Max Hold Max Hold Mold Max Gap Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 365 123 91 81 62 57 88 ",5'1 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 #528 #288 167 #', 94 115 121 148 #263 5 Internal Link Dist (ft) 816 1104 649 465 50th Up Block Time (%) 95th Up Block Time (%) Turn Bay Length (ft) 50th Bay Block Time % 95th Bay Block Time % Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 89 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.6 Intersection I-GS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.8% ICU Level of Serv,ce E 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 89.7 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 85.4 # 95th percentile volurne exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. TO s 23 s 17 s I JE 40 05 4 06 .1* 07 +h-r 08 111 s 23 r I E10sl47 _ v --� -_-� Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002�. Synchro 5 Report 2008 DHV a.m. peak 11olir F'age 2 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 . } LL ��Z-O�i►'t c Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:'Air108DPR.sy3 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr.___.__._....__._........__....._...r.......__.....2/10/2002 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NST NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 >� tt+ '� t ^ �' '� ? Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 10 '12 '11 1 1 11 Grade (%)+ 0% 4% 4% Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 . Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 '15 9 Lane Util. Factor -1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 0.970 0.957 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.9950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1728 3351 0 1676 3209 0 1635 1721 '1567 1'145 1837 1561 Fit Permitted 0.103 0.093 0.174 0.533 Satd. Flow (perm) 187 3351 0 164 3209 0 299 1721 1567 979 1837 1561 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 24 55 255 88 Headway Factor 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.03 1.12 1.12 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 896 - 1184 729 545 Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) 41 20.4 902 224 :3 ' 26.9 963 383 548 16.6 352 321 307 12.4 297 88 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.�0 1 00 1.00 1.( 1.00 I.00 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 %, 1 % 2% 2% 2% 11,46 1310 1 °/b 1 % 1 % Adj. Flow (vph) 41 902 224 336 963 383 548 352 32'1 307 297 88 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 1,126 0 336 1346 0 :548 - 352 321 307 297 88 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Perm prri+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 i 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) '10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) '10.0 43.0 0.0 24.0 57.0 0.0 40.0 41.0 41.0 22.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 8% 33% 0% - 181% 44% 0�6 31% 32% 320/1, 170% 18`/0 - 89/b Maximum Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 '17.0 '17.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 :-11.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lac Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Ves Yes Yes "es Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min None Min Nlin Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 45.0 39.0 63.1 55.0 59.0 37.3 37.3 36.8 '19.0 "19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.30 0.49 0.42 0.45 0.9 0.:?9 0.:?8 0.15 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.31 1.10 1.08 0.97 1.08 0.71 0.51 0.80 1.11 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 '19.2 44.4 38.0 35.9 36.9 42.3 7.3 26.8 56.1 0.0 Delay 19.8 92.7 93.4 53.6 86.9 42.5 8.9 32.6 '118.0 9.9 LOS B F F D F D A C F A Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002 � .�.. Swir_hro 5 Report 2008 DHV p.m. peak hour Page 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:1Air108DPR.sv6 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/10/2002 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SE?L S13T SF3R Approach Delay 90.1 61.5 a3.6 y 66.4 Approach LOS F E D 90th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 35.0 35.0 160 17.0 17.0 90th %ileJerm Code Max Max Max Max Max. Max Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 35.0 35.0 160 17.0 17.0 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Mztx Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 3 05. 0 35.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Hold Hold llv1ax Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 35.9 35.o 16.0 17.0 17.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Hold Hold Max 'vlax Max 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 37.0 18.0 61.0 34.0 33." 36.1 149 17.0 11.0 10th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Hold Hold Gap Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 --560 -267 -579 --470 268 38 '168 -285 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 #698 #462 #749 #698 3 13:3 '129 #257 #467 48 Internal Link Dist (ft) 816 1.104 649 465 50th Up Block Time (%) 95th Up Block Time (%) 1 3% '`/° Turn Bay Length (ft) 50th Bay Block Time % 95th Bay Block Time % Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Natural Cycle: 130 7 S O Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.11 Intersection Signal Dela 67.2 Intersection I_OS: E Intersection Capacity Utili ion 110.0% ICU Level. of Service G 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 - 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 01 t 02 T�'T o3 �' o4 -----�--____ 22 s 1 041 s B24 s 1 143 40 s 23:.- I MlQk M7s Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002 Synchro 5 RE. poi-: 2008 DHV p.m. peak hog-r DUFRESSOUT-ST51 1 4 /4 LL. D c V87-0 PM E-,,J r` Al i"Juj x7V 7�1A P tla i_um! e-,S Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:\Air108DAB.sy6 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/11/2002 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tT 0- '� t r t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 10 12 11 11 11 Grade (%) 0% 4% 4% -2% Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.948 0.970 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3308 0 1583 3072 0 1619 1704 1552 1728 1819 1546 Fit Permitted 0.386 0.100 0.307 0.637 Satd. Flow (perm) 709 3308 0 167 3072 0 523 1704 1552 1158 1819 1546 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 126 48 199 4 Headway Factor 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.03 1.12 1.12 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 896 1184 729 545 Travel Time (s) 20.4 26.9 16.6 12.4 Volume (vph) 4 896 470 296 541 138 187 122 320 200 280 4 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 4 896 470 296 541 138 187 122 320 200 280 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 4 1366 0 296 679 0 187 122 320 200 280 4 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 40.0 0.0 17.0 47.0 0.0 10.0 23.0 23.0 10.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 11 % 44% 0% _ 19% 52% 0% 11 % 26% 26% 11 % 26% 26% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 34.0 11.0 41.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.Q 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 42.1 36.0 53.0 51.0 23.9 17.9 17.9 23.9 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.40 0.60 0.57 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.20 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.97 0.96 0.38 0.87 0.36 0.68 0.57 0.77 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 22.2 22.8 11.4 28.5 33.0 12.7 27.4 36.2 0.0 Delay 8.8 37.7 58.6 10.4 49.6 30.9 12.9 25.7 37.1 18.5 LOS A D E B D C B C D B Airport Parking 2002 12:00 am 08/19/2002 Synchro 5 Report 2008 DHV a.m. peak hour Page 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:1Air108DAB.sy6 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/11/2002 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach Delay 37.6 25.1 27.3 32.2 Approach LOS D C C C 90th %ile Green (s) 4.0 34.0 11.0 41.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Hold Max Max Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 11.0 51.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 70th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Max Max Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 11.0 51.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 4.0 17.0 17.0 50th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Hold Hold Max Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 11.0 51.0 4.0 16.5 16.5 4.0 16.5 16.5 30th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Hold Hold Max Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 34.0 11.0 51.0 4.0- 12.2 12.2 4.0 12.2 12.2 10th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Hold Hold Max Gap Gap Stops(vph) 3 1286 282 333 182 103 163 175 257 6 Fuel Used(gal) 0 27 8 10 4 2 4 3 5 0 CO Emmisions (g/hr) 4 1897 547 668 276 142 249 200 330 5 NOx Emmisions (g/hr) 1 369 106 130 54 28 48 39 64 1 VOC Emmisions (g/hr) 1 440 127 155 64 33 58 46 77 1 Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 365 123 90 81 59 56 86 149 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 #528 #288 166 #192 110 121 146 #259 5 Internal Link Dist (ft) 816 1104 649 465 50th Up Block Time (%) 95th Up Block Time (%) Turn Bay Length (ft) 50th Bay Block Time % 95th Bay Block Time % Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 88.9 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service E 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 89.5 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 85.2 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Airport Parking 2002 12:00 am 08/19/2002 Synchro 5 Report 2008 DHV a.m. peak hour Page 2 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:1Air108DAB.sy6 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/11/2002 Splits and Phases: 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 01 I o2 o4 10s 23s 17s E40s 4\ 05 06 1---* 07 08 10SI E23^ 102 47s Airport Parking 2002.12:00 am 08/19/2002 2008 DHV a.m. peak hour DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Synchro 5 Report Page 3 J Lanes, Volumes, Timings A:\Airl08DPB.sy6 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/11/2002 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ti, 0 t if '� t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 10 12 11 11 11 Grade (%) 0% 4% 4% -2% Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.970 0.958 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1728 3351 0 1676 3212 0 1635 1721 1567 1745 1837 1561 Fit Permitted 0.103 0.093 0.174 0.554 Satd. Flow (perm) 187 3351 0 164 3212 0 299 1721 1567 1018 1837 1561 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 24 54 259 81 Headway Factor 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.03 1.12 1.12 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 896 1184 729 545 Travel Time (s) 20.4 26.9 16.6 12.4 Volume (vph) 40 902 224 336 963 377 548 344 321 286 277 81 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Adj. Flow (vph) 40 902 224 336 963 377 548 344 321 286 277 81 Lane Group Flow (vph) 40 1126 0 336 1340 0 548 344 321 286 277 81 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 10.0 43.0 0.0 24.0 57.0 0.0 40.0 43.0 43.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 8% 33% 0% 18% 44% 0% 31 % 33% 33% 15% 18% 18% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 37.0 37.0 14.0 17.0 17.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk.(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 45.0 39.0 63.1 55.0 59.0 39.0 39.0 35.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.30 0.49 0.42 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.30 1.10 1.08 0.96 1.08 0.67 0.49 0.79 1.03 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 19.2 44.4 38.0 35.8 36.9 40.5 6.6 26.8 56.1 0.0 Delay 19.8 92.7 93.4 52.4 86.9 40.6 8.2 32.7 101.9 10.4 LOS B F F D F D A C F B Airport Parking 2002 12:00 am 08/19/2002 Synchro 5 Report 2008 DHV p.m. peak hour Page 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. A:\Air108DPB.sy6 12/11 /2002 t---w --* 4-- IL- 1 t /". 'd Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach Delay 90.2 60.6 52.9 59.7 Approach LOS F E D E 90th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 37.0 37.0 14.0 17.0 17.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 37.0 37.0 14.0 17.0 17.0 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Hold Hold Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 37.0 37.0 14.0 17.0 17.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max . Max Hold Hold Max Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 4.0 37.0 18.0 51.0 34.0 37.0 37.0 14.0 17.0 17.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Max Max Max Max Hold Hold Max Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 37.0 18.0 61.0 34.0 37.0 37.0 14.0 17.0 17.0 10th %ile Term Code Skip Max Max Hold Max Hold Hold Max Max Max Stops(vph) 26 1385 368 1303 619 296 107 249 333 24 Fuel Used(gal) 1 37 12 34 16 6 3 4 9 1 CO Emmisions (g/hr) 41 2570 806 2367 1134 450 206 314 613 45 NOx Emmisions (g/hr) 8 500 157 461 221 87 40 61 119 9 VOC Emmisions (g/hr) ' 9 596 187 549 263 104 48 73 142 11 Dilemma Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 -560 -267 571 -470 254 34 154 -250 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 #698 #462 #742 #698 365 123 #229 #429 46 Internal Link Dist (ft) 816 1104 649 465 50th Up Block Time (%) 95th Up Block Time (%) 13% Turn Bay Length (ft) 50th Bay Block Time % 95th Bay Block Time % Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 130 Actuated Cycle Length: 130 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10 Intersection Signal Delay: 65.8 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.0% ICU Level of Service F 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 130 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Airport,Parking 2002 12:00 am 08/19/2002 Synchro 5 Report 2008 DHV p.m. peak hour Page 2 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. Splits and Phases: 1: Williston Rd. & Airport Dr. A:\Airl08DPB.sy6 12/11 /2002 01 1 02 1 11(- 03 04 20 s 43 s 24 s 43 s 05 06 07 o$ 40 s I M23s I 010k57 s Airport Parking 2002 12:00 am 08/19/2002 2008 DHV p.m. peak hour DUFRESSOUT-ST51 Synchro 5 Report Page 3 4 z4loD L A JE- Ot J W 4PPP4: C1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity ArOlysis A:1,4iriU3DP sy6 2: Airport Rd. & Airport Dr. 12j'10/2002 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR [AE3L NBT NBR '3BL "SBT SER Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0014, 0% Volume (\neh/h) 103 4 126 4 1 12 45 683 8 1 504 63 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 103 4 126 4 1 12 45 6.83 8 1 504 63 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) - Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None None Median storage veh) vC, conflicting volume 1327 1318 536 1442 1346 6£37 567 691 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 16 97 77 " 95 99 97 95 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 122 148 541 79 143 443 995 895 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 103 130 17 736 568 Volume Left 103 0 4 45 1 Volume Right 0 126 12 8 63 cSH 122 500 201 995 895 (, /0 Volume to Capacity 0.84 0.26 0.08 0.05 0.00 -Z 7o Queue Length (ft) 8 26 7 4 0 13?.5' Control Delay (s) 110.2 '14.7 24.6 1.2 0.0 Lane LOS F B C A A Approach Delay (s) 56.9 24.6 1.2 0.0 Approach LOS F C - Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service E Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002 ��•. ~y .. Srchrc _i ReF:ort 2003 DHV p.m. peak hour F't:ge 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis A:`,A.ir108DPR.:3y6 2: Airport Rd. & Airport _ ._12/1012002 jDr. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL P4El' r NbR SBL SB'f SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0°io 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 109 4 133 4 1 13 47 727 8 i 558 70 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 109 4 133 4 1 13 47 727 8 i 558 70 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) vC, conflicting volume 1434 1424 593 1555 1455 731 (328 -73.`i vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 41 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 97 73 94 99 97 95 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 102 128 502 63 122 418 944 8631 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 109 137 18 782 629 Volume Left 109 0 4 47 1 Volume Right 0 133 13 8 70 cSH 102 462 175 944 861 (,3 Volume to Capacity 1.07. 0.30 0.10 0.05 0.00 3 �3 Queue Length (ft) 171 31 8 4 0 .�3 c. Control Delay (s) 185.Z 16.0 28.0 1.3 0.0 Lane LOS F C D A A Approach Delay (s) 91.2 28.0 1.3 0.0 Approach LOS F D Intersection Summary Average Delay 14.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.7% ICU Level of Service E Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002~� �. �~ Synchrc 5 Report 2008 DHV p.m. peak hour Page 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis A:\Air103DP.sv6 2: Airport Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/10/2002 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR S B L SBT SBR Lane Configurations y Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 103 4 126 4 1 12 45 683 8 1 504 63 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' .00 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 103 4 126 4 1 12 45 683 8 1 504 63 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) vC, conflicting volume 1323 1318 536 1442 1346 687 567 P591 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 16 97 77 95 99 97 95 100 - cM capacity (veh/h) 123 148 541 79 143 44� 995 895 Direction, Lane #a` EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 103 130 17 45 691 568 Volume Left 103 0 4 45 0 1 Volume Right 0 126 12 0 8 63 cSH 123 500 201 995 1700 895 Volume to Capacity 0.84 0.26 0.08 0.05 0.41 0.00 Queue Length (ft) 127 26 7 4 0 0 ,S Control Delay (s) 108.6 14.7 24.6 8.8 0.0 0.0 ,,;,j Lane LOS F B C A A Approach Delay (s) 56.2 24.6 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS F . C Intersection Summary _ Average Delay 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service A Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002 �. Synchro 5 Repoit 2003 DHV p.m. peak hour PagE: 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST5-1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis A:1Air'l03DPR.sy6 2: Airport Rd. & Airport Dr. 12/10l2002 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL. SBT ;:13F Lane Configurations `Y Sign Control t Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (ueh/h) 109 4 133 4 1 13 47 727 8 1 558 70 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 109 4 133 4 1 13 47 727 8 1 558 70 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) vC, conflicting volume 1430 1424 593 1555 1455 731 6213 735 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 3.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 97 73 94 99 97 95 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 103 128 502 63 122 418 944 861 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 109 137 18 47 735 62 Volume Left 109 0 4 47 0 1 Volume Right 0 133 13 0 8 70 cSH 103 462 175 944 1700 861_ Volume to Capacity 1.06 0.30 0.10 0.05 0.43 0.00 3( Queue Length (ft) 170 31 8 4 0 0 -L,7 Control Delay (s) 182.9 16.0 28.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C D A A Approach Delay (s) 90.0 28.0 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS F D Intersection Summary Average Delay 13.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1 % ICU Level of Service A Airport Parking 2002 08/19/2002 .._. N Syrcn'o 5 Report 2008 DHV p.m. peak hour 1--'ace 1 DUFRESSOUT-ST51 �� `_ }\� � � ] � . . , \\ \j - \ } _ \ } » `� ` �/ �� ! , � l \; !' `� [ 2} � ! E) (\ /) /! � J � � m E! :� /� (/ ` ^� [\ \\ �! !, � �� E, :i ] ; � .. , ) (\ � � (j }� - {2 (} (\ . ! /) -: !• {} \} � P� !j /) � ] �} (� - [� [, , . ;, E{ /: l .. r, . � |. � (. ;1 �� C! [! (! (\ \) !/ �) \)\\ /� (� _ ` - �\ �� (} /\ \ �i �` �j `! �] \\ \; ) � ^� �] (\ [\ �\ �• !� � bi .! [: \t , \� � � E� ! �] ( } \\ (� � � !\ {) �\ \) � \ � \} \ � � (} � /; [} } �) - �] �\ �� ! r. -) \: [. \! E� \: �� ' ` !� �! !J d �` E: (; §, i [ (j �� °� i �� {j \] �� \ \� \) (] [, k! �: a [] � :, `] �: �� , {• [. E, , ! r; �� - ; {j [\ ;� [. := :; � (; - } !; �l . « _ $ �� _ !, _ - � !( ;) (�} [� ` -� �� -� !; �\ (. :i }) \ } { : ; ) [\ � ` $ \) §) [ ; - \] �\ < `~ . , � � � L: � /} /\ � .� � � �. � _ � � � � � � 12-/23 /`' 2- December 23, 2002 Mr. Peter Keibel, Coordinator District Environmental Commission 4 111 West Street Essex Junction VT 05452 RE: Burlington International Airport Parking Expansion Dear Mr. Keibel: I conducted a preliminary review of the traffic impact study by Trans/Op Inc. dated October 2002, for the subject project. My comments, in form of a draft letter, were given to Dufresne Henry (DH) at a meeting between DH and Susan Smichenko of CCMPO. Since then I have received additional information from Dufresne Henry dated December 12, 2002 in the form of a memo commenting on my preliminary review. The December 12 memo includes and also references considerable additional information from which the traffic volumes were developed. The following is a revised version of my original letter, including my preliminary comments and my subsequent comments based on the December 12 letter, with numbering corresponding to the December 12 memo from Dufresne Henry. (Preliminary) The trip generation is based on future 2.5% growth per year, for 5 years. This may or may not be reasonable for the 5 year development scenario, but does not address the potential full impact of doubling the available parking for passengers. It also does not address what the study refers to as "additional demand that has developed since the previous parking expansion." (New comments) One of my concerns with the new information is the traffic count at the airport entrance. This 11 day tube count was conducted October 12-22, 2002, and 7 of the 11 pm peak hour values shown in the graph are higher than the value used for the 2003 DHV in the study. All of the 11 am peak hour volumes are higher than the 2003 AM volumes used in the study. This leads me to believe that the volumes used at the intersection of Airport Drive and the entrance drive are too low. The previous study conducted for the 1997 parking expansion, written by Trans - Op in January 1997 assumed no growth directly related to the parking expansion. The 2008 DHV volumes in that study are considerably lower than the currently existing volumes at the airport entrance and exit. This points to the limitations of reviewing traffic growth only as it pertains to new structures at the airport. There was no mechanism in place to account for the growth due to adding new carriers such as Jet Blue. Recent news stories say that US Air is expanding its passenger capacity between Burlington and Washington DC by using larger planes. The memo refers to the Ground Access Study (GASBIA), which was written by Resource Systems Group in April 2002. The study looks at long term roadway improvement alternatives to solve access issues in the vicinity of the airport. It does not illuminate specific growth plans at the airport, but assumes modest growth based on historical trends. The Dec 12 memo states that based on the GASBIA study, there has been a 20.4% growth in passenger volumes since 1997, which obviously were not accounted for in the 1997 airport study. Although the regressed growth rate from 1995 to 2001 is 2.5% per year, it should be noted that this includes the big jump in traffic due to Jet Blue, which caused a 14% rise from 2000 to 2001 despite the slowdown in air traffic in late 2001. This indicates that there are two mechanisms for growth — the slow upward trend due to expansion of existing services, and the jumps caused by adding new services. Over a long period of time, it makes sense to lump these two mechanisms together, but over a short period of time, such as the 5 year study period, it may not make sense to assume there will be other such dramatic increases unless the airport has specific plans for increased emplanement. The memo says that the 46% increase in parking is already accounted for by the 20.4% growth that has already happened and the 18% growth that is predicted to occur before 2008, leaving only a small amount of excess capacity that should not be a concern. It seems disingenuous to count the 20.4% as using the new capacity. (If the growth already happened, where are they now?) Surely the 1997 parking expansion included some capacity over the existing, to provide for some growth. The 20.4% growth in emplanement volumes has not been reflected in the VTrans counts on Airport Drive. Our count site D218 is located between the intersection with Airport Rd and the Airport Entrance, and had the same AADT in both 1997 and 2001. I am not sure what to make of this. One possible explanation is capacity constraint — that this particular route to the airport is already experiencing avoidance due to delays, and drivers are using alternative routes, such as White Street and Airport Parkway. While there is some growth in the AADT's on these roads, it does not look like enough to support this hypothesis. 2. (Preliminary) The study does not appear to account for "Other Permitted Development". For example, at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 intersection there are about 500 trips permitted Technology Park, and about 300 trips for the BIA South Development Master Plan. (New comments) It has come to my attention that the BIA South Development Master Plan was not actually permitted, and is therefore not appropriate to consider as OPD. I re -ran the Synchro files given to me by DH. I used the scenario including the Technology Park permitted trips but I subtracted out the BIA South volumes. 1 re -optimized the signal timings and found that the Airport 2008 pm no -build is slightly over capacity, and any additional airport trips make this poor situation worse. (The Technology Park study showed that this intersection could handle the Technology Park trips with a LOS D, but this older study used lower background volumes which were deemed appropriate at the time.) The Kennedy Drive corridor study did not include improvements for the Kennedy/Airport/US2 intersection, but did note that it was likely to fail in the future. There are no current projects on tap to upgrade the intersection. Retiming alone will not solve the problem. DH has pointed out that the Technology Park trips are not likely to all be added to the network in the five year future, so the problem is not immediate. 3. (Preliminary) Does the weekday pm peak represent the critical scenario? Is weekend traffic at the airport high enough to create a need to examine that time period as well? (New comments) The VTrans counter D218 on Airport Drive supports the DH response that a significant portion of the Airport Drive traffic is commuter traffic and that the overall traffic is lower on the weekends. 4. (Preliminary) The base traffic volumes, at least at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 intersection appear to be reasonable. (The study gains nearly 150 trips between this intersection and the intersection of Airport Drive/Airport Road, which is not easily explained by intervening drives.) (New comments) It is common practice when studying a network to perform some balancing between the various sources of information so that the study trips can be followed from one intersection to the next. It is not surprising that turning movement counts taken on different days of the week have different volumes, having seen the fluctuations in the airport entrance counts provided in the December 12 memo. I do not know what attempt was made to account for day of week when the turning movement count data was converted to DHV, only that the study states that the counts were temporally adjusted using D099 (on I-189). D099 would do a good job of reflecting the commuter traffic fluctuations but not the additional variation specific to airport traffic, which according to the airport entrance counts has a much different pattern. 5. (Preliminary) A corridor study for Kennedy Drive was completed by McFarland Johnson in March 2001. This study agrees with the Trans/Op study that the existing LOS at Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 is LOS C. 6. (Preliminary) The v/c ratios in the Trans/Op study are above 1.0 for the west approach of the Airport Drive/Airport Road intersection. This has not been addressed by the mitigation proposals in the study. (New comments) Although the assumed growth due to 2.5% annual growth at the airport does not add major traffic volumes at this intersection within the five year study period, the cumulative impact of the airport on traffic volumes in this vicinity is significant. Approximately 40% of the traffic at the Airport Road/Airport Drive intersection can be attributed to the airport (using the trip distribution and airport enter/exit volumes provided by the consultant.) Thus the argument that problems already exist at the intersection does not really excuse the airport from responsibility. Much of the recent growth in traffic at the airport was never subject to review at the Act 250 level, since the 1997 study for the previous parking expansion did not include any growth in traffic due to the airport itself. The mitigation suggested by the December 12 memo, adding left turn lanes for both EB and NB traffic, does result in improved volume to capacity ratios, but the EB lefts are still over capacity in the 2008 scenario. Another possible mitigation strategy for this intersection is a roundabout. I did a quick analysis using SIDRA that shows a single lane roundabout could work at volumes exceeding the 2008 scenario by 50%, so this could be a long term solution. I do not know if there is available space to build a roundabout at this location. (I also tested an all -way stop strategy, which did not work.) 7. (Preliminary) The study did not look at the intersection of US2/Airport Road, which is significantly affected by changes in airport traffic. (New comments) I am willing to believe that the impact on this intersection is not as significant as I had first assumed. 8. (Preliminary) While parking spaces do not, in and of themselves, create traffic, they may be a good measure of potential trip generation for the airport. (New comments) I agree that there are other factors in the growth of traffic at the airport. However, many of these other factors are not subject to Act 250 review, and have created a disconnect in the review process when trying to account for traffic. If there is existing (latent) demand for parking at the airport, then the new parking spaces could create new trips (from the latent demand) over and above the 2.5% future growth, depending on what those passengers are currently doing instead of parking at the airport. These new (latent demand) trips have not been accounted for in the study. For example, the study does show 6.5% of the trip distribution is circulating traffic, which could be drivers who are unable to park, but there is no "build" distribution showing a diminished circulation percentage. Conclusion: There are three different approaches we could take to resolve the traffic issues discussed above: Proactive: We can attempt to do a better job of looking at the future traffic generation at the airport, including the "latent demand" issue, and growth due to other influences such as changes in enplanement patterns. (What really is the capacity of the airport to generate vehicular traffic, with the existing terminal structures and the proposed parking garage?) We can then identify problem areas and define mitigation strategies. This will allow us to fix the problems before they occur, but does have the disadvantage of trying to define an uncertain future in which not only the airport is involved, but other developments as well. (This is the method we are currently attempting to employ.) 2. Reactive: We can permit this development, and ask that traffic volumes and delay conditions be monitored. Mitigation strategies can be developed as problems occur. This has the advantage of treating actual problems, but means that those problems will exist until the mitigation can be put in place. Thresholds: We can define thresholds that will trigger additional study, and require the airport to monitor traffic volume to see if it meets the thresholds. This has the advantage of catching problems before they occur, and alleviates some of the uncertainty of looking into the future. The challenge will be to develop meaningful thresholds. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I expect that there will be additional discussion between VTrans, Dufresne Henry, and CCMPO prior to the January 23, 2003 hearing date. Sincerely, Amy L. Gamble, PE Traffic Research Engineer Enc. DH Dec 12 memo Cc Mark Smith, Dufresne Henry Susan Schmichenko, CCMPO cctnnP40 Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization At Lip footco, V/ 'i1)4G1S-H� 9 i Draft Memo To: Ian MacDougal — Regional Planning Commission From: Susan Smichenko, P.E. Date: 12/27/02 4:15 PM Subject: Burlington International Airport — Terminal Road and Parking Project - Act 250 Permit Application At your request, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the above referenced Act 250 permit application. The study was prepared by Trans/Op Inc. and it is dated October 2002. My review noted discrepancies between the data presented in this report and those detailed in the Ground Access Study of the Burlington International Airport prepared by Resource System Group, Inc. (RSG) (April 2002). Both the existing and projected traffic volumes generated by the airport in the Trans/Op report vary significantly from the volumes presented in the RSG report. Since the access study was prepared for the Chittenden County MPO, with guidance from a Steering Committee (including representatives from the Airport), an explanation as to why such significant differences exist between the two reports is warranted. The Trans/Op report does not reference the RSG report. I also reviewed the draft comments provided by Amy Gamble of the Vermont Agency of Transportation and concur with her review. On Monday December 9, 2002, Dave Roberts and I met with Joe Oppenlander of Trans/Op Inc. and Chris Pecor of Dufresne -Henry to discuss all of the comments. As a result of that meeting, Dufresne -Henry prepared a response letter and memo dated December 12, 2002. I am currently reviewing this response and will report back to you as soon as possible when I've determined if all of the comments have been adequately addressed. December 23, 2002 Mr. Peter Keibel, Coordinator District Environmental Commission 4 111 West Street Essex Junction VT 05452 RE: Burlington International Airport Parking Expansion Dear Mr. Keibel: I conducted a preliminary review of the traffic impact study by Trans/Op Inc. dated October 2002, for the subject project. My comments, in form of a draft letter, were given to Dufresne Henry (DH) at a meeting between DH and Susan Smichenko of CCMPO. Since then I have received additional information from Dufresne Henry dated December 12, 2002 in the form of a memo commenting on my preliminary review. The December 12 memo includes and also references considerable additional information from which the traffic volumes were developed. The following is a revised version of my original letter, including my preliminary comments and my subsequent comments based on the December 12 letter, with numbering corresponding to the December 12 memo from Dufresne Henry. 1. (Preliminary) The trip generation is based on future 2.5% growth per year, for 5 years. This may or may not be reasonable for the 5 year development scenario, but does not address the potential full impact of doubling the available parking for passengers. It also does not address what the study refers to as "additional demand that has developed since the previous parking expansion." (New comments) One of my concerns with the new information is the traffic count at the airport entrance. This 11 day tube count wa$ conducted October 12-22, 2002, and 7 of the 11 pm peak hour values shown in the graph are higher than the value used for the 2003 DHV in the study. All of the 11 am peak hour volumes are higher than the 2003 AM volumes used in the study. This leads me to believe that the volumes used at the intersection of Airport Drive and the entrance drive are too low. The previous study conducted for the 1997 parking expansion, written by Trans - Op in January 1997 assumed no growth directly related to the parking expansion. The 2008 DHV volumes in that study are considerably lower than the currently existing volumes at the airport entrance and exit. This points to the limitations of reviewing traffic growth only as it pertains to new structures at the airport. There was no mechanism in place to account for the growth due to adding new carriers such as Jet Blue. Recent news stories say that US Air is expanding its passenger capacity between Burlington and Washington DC by using larger planes. The memo refers to the Ground Access Study (GASBIA), which was written by Resource Systems Group in April 2002. The study looks at long term roadway improvement alternatives to solve access issues in the vicinity of the airport. It does not illuminate specific growth plans at the airport, but assumes modest growth based on historical trends. The Dec 12 memo states that based on the GASBIA study, there has been a 20.4% growth in passenger volumes since 1997, which obviously were not accounted for in the 1997 airport study. Although the regressed growth rate from 1995 to 2001 is 2.5% per year, it should be noted that this includes the big jump in traffic due to Jet Blue, which caused a 14% rise from 2000 to 2001 despite the slowdown in air traffic in late 2001. This indicates that there are two mechanisms for growth — the slow upward trend due to expansion of existing services, and the jumps caused by adding new services. Over a long period of time, it makes sense to lump these two mechanisms together, but over a short period of time, such as the 5 year study period, it may not make sense to assume there will be other such dramatic increases unless the airport has specific plans for increased emplanement. The memo says that the 46% increase in parking is already accounted for by the 20.4% growth that has already happened and the 18% growth that is predicted to occur before 2008, leaving only a small amount of excess capacity that should not be a concern. It seems disingenuous to count the 20.4% as using the new capacity. (If the growth already happened, where are they now?) Surely the 1997 parking expansion included some capacity over the existing, to provide for some growth. The 20.4% growth in emplanement volumes has not been reflected in the VTrans counts on Airport Drive. Our count site D218 is located between the intersection with Airport Rd and the Airport Entrance, and hack tPe same AADT in both 1997 and 2001. I am not sure what to make of this. Otq possible explanation is capacity constraint — that this particular route to tl,- airport is already experiencing avoidance due to delays, and drivers are using alternative routes, such as White Street and Airport Parkway. While there is some growth in the AADT's on these roads, it does not look like enough to support this hypothesis. 2. (Preliminary) The study does not appear to account for "Other Permitted Development". For example, at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 intersection there are about 500 trips permitted Technology Park, and about 300 trips for the BIA South Development Master Plan. (New comments) It has come to my attention that the BIA South Development Master Plan was not actually permitted, and is therefore not appropriate to consider as OPD. 1 re -ran the Synchro files -mien to me by DiT 1 used the scenario including the Technology Park permitted trips but 1 subtracted out the BIA South volumes. 1 re -optimized the signal timings and found that the Airport 2008 pm no -build is slightly over capacity, and any additional airport trips make this poor situation worse. (The Technology Park study showed that this intersection could handle the Technology Park trips with a T OS D, but this older study used lower background volumes which were deemed appropriate at the time.) The Kennedy Drive corridor study did not include improvements for the Kennedy/Airport/US2 intersection, but did note that it was likely to fail in the Cut, There are no current projects on tap to upgrade the intersection. Retiming alone will not solve the problem. DH has pointed out that the Technology Park trips are not likely to all be added to the network in the five year fixture, so the problem is not immediate. 3. (Preliminary) Does the weekday pm peak represent the critical scenario-9 is weekend traffic at the airport high enough to create a need to examine that time period as well? (New comments) The VTrans counter D218 on Airport Drive supports the DH response that a significant portion of the AirportArive traffic is commuter traffic and that the overall traffic is lower on the weekends. 4: (Preliminary) The base traffic volumes; at least at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive[LS 2 intersection appear to be reasonable. (The study gains nearly 150 trips between this intersection and the intersection of Airport Drive/Airport Road, which is not easily explained by intervening drives.) (New comments) It is common practice when studying a network to perform some balancing between the various sources of ininrination so that the study trips can he followed from one intersection to the next. it is not surprising that turning movement Counts taken on different days of the week have different volumes, having seen the fluctuations in the airport entrance Counts provided in the December 12 memo. I do not knout what attempt was made to account for day of week when the turning movement count data was converted to DHV, only that the study states that the Counts were temporally adjusted using D099 (on 1-189). D099 would do a good job of reflecting the commuter traffic fluctuations but not the additional variation specific to airport traffic, which according to the airport entrance counts has a much different pattern. 5. (Preliminary) A corridor study for Kennedy Drive was completed by McFarland Johnson in March 2001. This study agrees with the Trans/Op study that the existing LOS at Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 is LOS C: & (Preliminary) The We ratios in the Trans/Op study are above LO for the west approach of the Airport Drive/Airport Road intersection: This has not been addressed by the mitigation proposals in the study. (New comments) Although the assumed growth due to 2.5% annual growth at the airport does not add ma or traffic volumes at this intersection Within the five year study period, the cumui_ative impact of the airport on traffic volumes in this vicinity is significant. Approximately 40% of the traf_fi_c at the Airport Road/Airport Drive intersection can be attributed to the airport (using the trip distribution and airport enterlexit volumes provided by the consultant.) Thus the argument that problems already exist at the intersection does not really excuse the airpoit from responsibility. Much of the recent growth in traf_fi_c, at the airport wag never subject to review at the Act 250 level, since the 1997 study for the previous parking expansion did not include any growth in traff a due to the airport itself The mitigation suggested by the December 12 memo, adding left turn lames for both F-D and NB traffic, does result in improved volume to rapacity ratings but the EB lefts are still over capacity in the 2008 scenario. Another possible mitigation strategy for this intersection is a roundabout. 1 did a quick analysis using SIDR A that shows -a siiale lane roundabout cow work at volumes exceeding the 2008 scenario by 50% gn this Could be a long term solution I do not know if there is available space to build a roundabout at this location. (1 also tested an all -way, stop strategy, which did not work.) ?_ (Preliminary) The study did not look at the intersee ian of US2/Airport Road; which is significantly affected by changes in airport traffic, (New c—orriments) I am willing to believe that the inip ct on this intersection is not as significant as T had first assumed. 8, (Preliminary) While r�r�ing spares do not; in and of themselves, ere -ate traffic; they may, he a good measure of potential trip generation for the airnnrt, (New comments) T agree that there are other factors in the growth of traff,-c at the airpnrt. However, many of these other factors are not subject to Act 250 review, and have created a disconnect in the review process when trying to account for traffic. If there is existing (atent) demand for marking at the airYnrt, then the new Parking spaces could create new trips (from the latent demand) ever and above the 2.5% fixture growth, depending on what those passengers aTe currently doing instead of parking at the airport. These new (latent demand) trips have not been accounted for in the study. For example, the study does show 6.5% of the trim distribution is circulating traffic, which could he drivers who are unable to mark hi it there is no "build" distribution showing a diminished circulatinn percentage. Conclusion: There are three different approaches we could take to resolve the traffic issues discussed above: Proactive: We can attempt to do abetter job of looking at the flit, ire traffic, generation at the airport, including the "latent demand" issue, and growth dile to other infliierices cinch as changes in enpl-anement patterns. (What really is the capacity of the airport to generate vehicular traf-f,-c, with the existing terminal structures and the -reposed Parking garage?) We can then identify problem areas and define mitigation strategies. This will allow us to fix the problems before they occur, but does have the disadvantage of trying to define an uncertain future in which not only the airport is involved, but other developments as well. (This is the method we are currently attempting to employ .) 2. Reactive: We can permit this development, and ask that traffic velumes and delay conditions be monitored. Mitigation strategies can be developed as Problems occur. This has the advantage of treating actual problems, but. means that those problems will exist until the mitigation can he niit in place. 3. Thresholds: We can define thresholds that will trigger additional study, and require the airport to monitor traffic volume to see if it meets the thresholds. This has the advantage of catching problems before they occur, and alleviates some of the uncertainty of looking into the future. The challenge will be to develop meaningful thresholds. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I expect that there will be additional discussion between Wrans, Dufresne Henry, and CCMPO prior to the January 23, 2003 hearing date. Sincerely, Amy L. Gamble, PE Traffic Research Engineer Enc. DH Dec 12 memo Cc Mark Smith, Dufresne Henry Susan Smichenko, CCMPO DEC 1 9 2002 STATE OF VERMONT_��„µ AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTERAGENCY ACT 250 REVIEW COMMITTEE RE: City of Burlington International ) DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL Airport ) COMMISSION # 4 APPLICATION # 4CO331-19 December 16, 2002 Please enter the appearance of the Agency of Natural Resources ("Agency"), State of Vermont, by and through its attorney, Elizabeth Lord, in the above captioned matter. Criterion 1 —Air Pollution The ANR Air Pollution Control Division received an application for an Indirect Source Permit on November 14, 2002. It is anticipated that a draft permit will be issued in several weeks. For further information regarding this permit, please contact Jay Hollingsworth, Environmental Analyst, at 241-2365. Criterion 1 B - Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites The application indicates that approximately 8 acres of land are committed to this project. As of April 2002, projects involving site disturbance (including clearing, grading and excavation) of five or more acres is required to receive approval from the ANR Water Quality Division under the General Permit for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites (commonly referred to as a "Constuction General Permit"). Starting in March 2003, a Construction General Permit will also be required for projects that will result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land. Information regarding the permit process for large construction sites (sites involving five or more acres) can be found at httR;//www.vtwaterquality.org/permitConstructionRunoff,htm) This link contains information on the permit, the application form, and the checklist. Information on small construction sites (projects disturbing between one and five acres) can be found at the Stormwater section of this web page. http:l/www.vtwaterqualaty,orQ/announcements,htm. 3 Application # 4C0331-19 December 16, 2002 2 Questions regarding the Construction General Permit may be directed to Kim Greenwood, Water Quality Engineer with the Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division at 241-3779. Criterion 5 — Traffic The Vermont Agency of Transportation ("VAOT") is currently reviewing the traffic impact study provided by the applicant. The VAOT requests additional time to complete its review. Criterion 9F - Energy Conservation In order to meet the requirements of Criterion 9F, an applicant must demonstrate that the planning and design of the proposed subdivision or development reflects the principles of energy conservation and incorporates the best available technology for efficient use or recovery of energy. The Vermont Department of Public Service ("the Department") reviews Act 250 applications for compliance with Criterion 9F. Christopher Owen, Energy Efficiency Specialist with the Department, has reviewed the proposed parking garage expansion and discussed it with Alex Halpern of Freeman French Freeman, the project architect. The Department endorses the condition in the proposed permit stating: "Energy design and construction shall comply with The 2001 Vermont Guidelines for Energy Efficient Commercial Construction and shall further include custom energy measures referenced in interagency comments by the Department of Public Service if found cost-effective on a life -cycle -cost basis. Any design or equipment features that do not comply with the 2001 Guidelines, or any custom measures not installed, shall be brought promptly to the attention of the Department of Public Service for comment, and to the District Commission for approval, prior to construction." Mr. Haipern said the predominant energy use in the open -walled, multi -story garage will be lighting. Metal halide lamps, which are energy efficient, are used in the original structure and will be used here as well. He said the applicant is evaluating installation of "daylighting controls" that will reduce or turn off artificial lighting near the garage perimeter when adequate daylight exists. No mechanical ventilation is needed for the garage proper, given its open -wall construction, though stairwells may be ventilated. The crossover walkway will have conventional heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and will incorporate a fairly high level of fenestration. Attendant booths, normally prefabricated structures with electric heat, will use small gas heaters instead. At this stage of the design, the project appears reasonably energy efficient. Besides meeting the minimum energy requirements, there may be certain custom energy efficiency measures that make the project better conform with Criterion 9(F) Application # 4C0331-19 December 16, 2002 3 These should be installed if they are cost-effective on a life -cycle -cost basis. Potential custom measures include: -- Pulse -start metal halide lamps (minimum efficacy of 80 lumens/watt.), a more efficient version of conventional metal halide lamps. Daylighting controls in those areas subject to natural lighting should be installed if justified on a life -cycle -cost basis. Lighting power density in the garage should not exceed .3 watts per square foot. Concerning other interior lighting: use of occupancy -based lighting control where feasible and installation of high efficiency fluorescent fixtures in support areas with a lighting power density of less than 1 watt per square foot where possible. Glazing systems with a high "R" value to better retain space heat or air conditioning. The glazing system should have a good "solar heat gain coefficient" (SHGC) to reduce air conditioning demand. —HVAC equipment with a high energy efficiency ratio (EER) rating and condensing natural gas boilers. Demand -controlled ventilation, which reduces HVAC operation during low -activity periods, should be evaluated and installed if cost effective. -- Packaged HVAC equipment that meets Tier 2 minimum efficiency levels. Information at Mtn://www.coalchoice,net/ —Illumination levels in the parking garage not exceeding those recommended in the Lighting Handbook, Ninth Edition, published by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, Figure 22-22, Recommended Maintained Illuminance for Parking Garages. The Department encourages the applicant to continue consulting with energy efficiency staff at Burlington Electric Department and Vermont Gas Systems to help the permitee affirm compliance with the minimum energy requirements and analyze custom energy measures suited to this project. Any questions about these comments may be directed to Chris Owen at the Department, phone (802) 828-4038 or e-mail: chris.owen@state.vt.us. Dated December 16, 2002, at Waterbury, Vermont. Respectfully submitted, State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources By: W:: �L�� Eliza eth Lord, Esq. ANR Planning Division (802) 241-3620 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Andrea McKnight, Administrative Secretary for the Planning Division of the Agency of Natural Resources, sent a copy of the foregoing Comments and Entry of Appearance dated December 16, 2002 regarding File #4C0331-19 by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following: City of Burlington J.J. Hamilton, Director of Aviation Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Mark Smith Dufresne -Henry PO Box 2246 South Burlington, VT 05407 Donna Kinville, City Clerk Chair, City Council/Chair, City Planning Commission City of South Burlington 57 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chair, City Council/Chair, City Planning Commission Board of Airport Commissioners City of Burlington 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Chair. Selectboard/Chair, Planning Commission Town of Williston 7900 Williston Road Williston, VT 05495 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 30 Kimball Ave., Suite 206 South Burlington, VT 05403-6825 Dated December 17, 2002, at Waterbury, Vermont •�// l r� IMM.I - • , y O1l03/03 12:58 FAX 802 864 0105 DUFRE51NE-HENRY Z005 C MIA mod^ eo"rW Draft Memo . Aft&woatw Moaning o pWazoom too Dorsu Suet To: Ian MaeDougal — Regional Planning Commission ,%l`i' 22 From: Susan Smicheako, P.E. south aurfington, Vr 05403.6241 Date: 12/9102 1:22 PM t 809,6W.407' Subject: Burlington International Airport— Terminal Road and Parking f 802.e60.Za Project - Act 250 Permit Application www.ccmpo.org #7ko cmpa.ary At your request, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the above referenced Act 250 permit application. The study was prepared by Trans/Op Inc. and it is dated October 2002. My review noted discrepancies between the data presented in this report and those detailed in the Ground Access Study of the Burlington International Airport prepared by Resource System Group, Inc. (RSG) (Apri12002). Botb the existing and projected traffic volumes generated by the airport in the Traits/Op report vary significantly from the volumes presented in the RSG report. Since the access study was prepared -for the Chittenden County MPO, with guidance frm a Steering Committee (including representatives from the Airport), an explanation as to why such significant differences exist between the two reports is warranted. The Trans) Op report does not reference the RSG report. i I have also reviewed the draft comments provided by Amy Gamble of the Vermont Agency of Transportation and concur with her review. Communities working together to moot Chittenden County's transportation needs 01%03i 03 12:30 YA?L 802 864 0165 DLTRESNE-HENRY @3005 DRAFT LETTER From Amy Gamble to Peter Keibel RE: Burlington international Airport Parking Expansion I have done a preliminary review of the traffic impact study by Trans/Op Inc. dated October 2002, for the subject project. I have two major concerns with the study: The trip generation is based on future 2.5% growth per year, for 5 years. This may or may not be reasonable for the 5 year development scenario, but does not address the potential full impact of doubling the available parking for passengers. It also does not address what the study refers to as "additional demand that has developed since the previous parldng expansion." 2. The study does not appear to account for "Other Permitted Development". For example, at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 intersection there are about 500 trips permitted Technology Park, and about 300 trips for the BIA South Development Master Plan. Additional Comm ents/Conoems: Does the weekday PM peak reflect the peak travel time to/from the Airport, and if not, could that be the more important scenario to study? (This is related to the concept of studying shopping centers on Saturday noon, rather than the adjacent street peak hour.) The base traffic volumes, at least at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 intersection appear to be reasonable. (The study gains nearly 150 trips between this intersection and the intersection of Airport Drive/Airport Road, which is not easily explained by intervening drives.) A corridor study for Kennedy Drive was completed by McFarland Johnson in March 2001. This study agrees with the Trans/Op study that the existing LOS at Kennedy Drive/Airport DrivelUS 2 is LOS C. The v/c ratios in the Trans/Op study are above 1.0 for the west approach of the Airport Drive/Airport Road intersection. This has not been addressed by the mitigation proposals in the study. The study did not look at the intersection of US21Airport Road, which is significantly affected by changes in airport traffic. While parking spaces do not, in and of themselves, create traffic, they may be a good measure of potential trip generation for the airport. 01/03/03 13:25 FAX 802 564 0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY 1 033 /2-1Z3 /O 2 December 23, 2002 Mr. Peter Keibel, Coordinator District Environmental Commission 4 111 West Street Essex Junction VT 05452 RE: Burlington International Airport Parking Expansion Dear Mr. Keibel: I conducted a preliminary review of the traffic impact study by Trans/Op Inc. dated October 2002, for the subject project. My comments, in form of a draft letter, were given to Dufresne Henry (DH) at a meeting between DH and Susan Smichenko of CCNT V0. Since then I have received additional information from Dufresne Henry dated December 12, 2002 in the form of a memo commenting on my preliminary review. The December 12 memo includes and also references considerable additional information from which the traffic volumes were developed. The following is a revised version of my original letter, including my preliminary comments and my subsequent comments based on the December 121etter, with numbering corresponding to the December 12 memo from Dufresne Henry. 1. (Preliminary) The trip generation is based on future 2.5% growth per year, for 5 years. This may or may not be reasonable for the 5 year development scenario, but does not address the potential full impact of doubling the available parking for passengers. It also does not address what the study refers to as "additional demand that has developed since the previous parking expansion." (New comments) One of my concerns with the new information is the traffic count at the airport entrance. This 11 day tube count was conducted October 12-22, 2002, and 7 of the 11 pm peak hour values shown in the graph are higher than the value used for 01/03/n" 13:26 FAX 802 864 0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY [a034 l the 2003 DHV in the study. All of the 11 am peak hour volumes are higher than the 2003 AM volumes used in the study. This leads me to believe that the volumes used at the intersection of Airport Drive and the entrance drive are too low. The previous study conducted for the 1997 parking expansion, written by Trans - Op in January 1997 assumed no growth directly related to the parking expansion. The 2008 DID' volumes in that study are considerably lower than the currently existing volumes at the airport entrance and exit. This points to the limitations of reviewing traffic growth only as it pertains to new structures at the airport. There was no mechanism in place to account for the growth due to adding new carriers such as Jet Blue. Recent news stories say that US Air is expanding its passenger capacity between Burlington and Washington DC by using larger planes. The memo refers to the Ground Access Study (GASBL4), which was written by Resource Systems Group in April 2002. The study looks at long term roadway improvement alternatives to solve access issues in the vicinity of the airport. It does not illuminate specific growth plans at the airport, but assumes modest growth based on historical trends. The Dec 12 memo states that based on the GASBIA study, there has been a 20.4% growth in passenger volumes since 1997, which obviously were not accounted for in the 1997 airport study. Although the regressed growth rate from 1995 to 2001 is 2.5% per year, it should be noted that this includes the big jump in traffic due to Jet Blue, which caused a 14% rise from 2000 to 2001 despite the slowdown in air traffic in late 2001. This indicates that there are two mechanisms for growth — the slow upward trend due to expansion of existing services, and the jumps caused by adding new services. Over a long period of time, it makes sense to lump these two mechanisms together, but over a short period of time, such as the 5 year study period, it may not make sense to assume there will be other such dramatic increases unless the airport has specific plans for increased emplanement. The memo says that the 46% increase in parking is already accounted for by the 20.4% growth that has already happened and the 18% growth that is predicted to occur before 2008, leaving only a small amount of excess capacity that should not be a concern. It seems disingenuous to count the 20.4% as using the new capacity. (If the growth already happened, where are they now?) Surely the 1997 parking expansion included some capacity over the existing, to provide for some growth. The 20.4% growth in emplanement volumes has not been reflected in the VTrans counts on Airport Drive. Our count site D218 is located between the intersection with Airport Rd and the Airport Entrance, and had the same AADT in both 1997 and 2001. I am not sure what to make of this. One possible explanation is capacity constraint — that this particular route to the airport is already 01/03/03 13:27 F?Li 802 564 0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY 91035 1 experiencing avoidance due to delays, and drivers are using alternative routes, such as White Street and Airport Parkway. While there is some growth in the AADT's on these roads, it does not look like enough to support this hypothesis. 2. (Preliminary) The study does not appear to account for "Other Permitted Development". For example, at the Kennedy Drive/Airport DrivelUS 2 intersection there are about 500 trips permitted Technology Park, and about 300 trips for the BIA South Development Master Plan. (New comments) It has come to my attention that the BIA South Development Master Plan was not actually permitted, and is therefore not appropriate to consider as OPD. I re -ran the Synchro files given to me by DH. I used the scenario including the Technology Park permitted trips but I subtracted out the BIA South volumes. I re -optimized the signal timings and found that the Airport 2008 pm no -build is slightly over capacity, and any additional airport trips make this poor situation worse. (The Technology Park study showed that this intersection could handle the Technology Park trips with a LOS D, but this older study used lower background volumes which were deemed appropriate at the tune.) The Kennedy Drive corridor study did not include improvements for the Kennedy/Aiiport/US2 intersection, but did note that it was likely to fail in the future. There are no current projects on tap to upgrade the intersection. Retuning alone will not solve the problem. DH has pointed out that the Technology Park trips are not likely to all be added to the network in the five year future, so the problem is not immediate. 3. (Preliminary) Does the weekday pm peak represent the critical scenario? Is weekend traffic at the airport high enough to create a need to examine that time period as well? (New continents) The Wrans counter D218 on Airport Drive supports the DH response that a significant portion of the Airport Drive traffic is commuter traffic and that the overall traffic is lower on the weekends. 4. (Preliminary) The base traffic volumes, at least at the Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 intersection appear to be reasonable. (The study gains nearly 150 trips between this intersection and the intersection of Airport Drive/Airport Road, which is not easily explained by intervening drives.) - (New comments) 01/03/03 13:28 FAX 802 864 0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY Q036 It is common practice when studying a network to perform some balancing between the various sources of information so that the study trips can be followed from one intersection to the next. It is not surprising that turning movement counts taken on different days of the week have different volumes, having seen the fluctuations in the airport entrance counts provided in the December 12 memo. I do not know what attempt was made to account for day of week when the turning movement count data was converted to DHV, only that the study states that the counts were temporally adjusted using D099 (on I-189). D099 would do a good job of reflecting the commuter traffic fluctuations but not the additional variation specific to airport traffic, which according to the airport entrance counts has a much different pattern. 5. (Preliminary) A corridor study for Kennedy Drive was completed by McFarland Johnson in March 2001. This study agrees with the Trans/Op study that the existing LOS at Kennedy Drive/Airport Drive/US 2 is LOS C. 6. (Preliminary) The v/c ratios in the Trans/Op study are above 1.0 for the west approach of the Airport Drive/Airport Road intersection. This has not been addressed by the mitigation proposals in the study. (New comments) Although the assumed growth due to 2.5% annual growth at the airport does not add major traffic volumes at this intersection within the five year study period, the cumulative impact of the airport on traffic volumes in this vicinity is significant. Approximately 40% of the traffic at the Airport Road/Airport Drive intersection can be attributed to the airport (using the trip distribution and airport enter/exit volumes provided by the consultant.) Thus the argument that problems already exist at the intersection does not really excuse the airport from responsibility. Much of the recent growth in traffic at the airport was never subject to review at the Act 250 level, since the 1997 study for the previous parking expansion did not include any growth in traffic due to the airport itself The mitigation suggested by the December 12 memo, adding left turn lanes for both EB and NB traffic, does result in improved volume to capacity ratios, but the EB lefts are still over capacity in the 2008 scenario. Another possible mitigation strategy for this intersection is a roundabout. I did a quick analysis using SMRA that shows a single lane roundabout could work at volumes exceeding the 2008 scenario by 50%, so this could be a long term solution. I do not know if there is available space to build a roundabout at this location. (I also tested an all -way stop strategy, which did not work.) 7. (Preliminary) The study did not look at the intersection of US2/Airport Road, which is significantly affected by changes in airport traffic. 01l03/03 13:28 FAX 802 364 0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY 0 037 1 (New comments) I am willing to believe that the impact on this intersection is not as significant as I had first assumed. 8. (Preliminary) While parking spaces do not, in and of themselves, create traffic, they may be a good measure of potential trip generation for the airport. (New comments) I agree that there are other factors in the growth of traffic at the airport. However, many of these other factors are not subject to Act 250 review, and have created a disconnect in the review process when trying to account for traffic. If there is existing (latent) demand for parking at the airport, then the new parking spaces could create new trips (from the latent demand) over and above the 2.5% future growth, depending on what those passengers are currently doing instead of parking at the airport. These new (latent demand) trips have not been accounted for in the study. For example, the study does show 6.5% of the trip distribution is circulating traffic, which could be drivers who are unable to park, but there is no "build" distribution showing a diminished circulation percentage. Conclusion: There are three different approaches we could take to resolve the traffic issues discussed above: 1. Proactive: We can attempt to do a better job of looking at the future traffic generation at the airport, including the "latent demand" issue, and growth due to other influences such as changes in enplanement patterns. (What really is the capacity of the airport to generate vehicular traffic, with the existing terminal structures and the proposed parking garage?) We can then identify problem areas and define mitigation strategies. This will allow us to fix the problems before they occur, but does have the disadvantage of trying to define an uncertain future in which not only the airport is involved, but other developments as well. (This is the method we are currently attempting to employ.) 2. Reactive: We can permit this development, and ask that traffic volumes and delay conditions be monitored. Mitigation strategies can be developed as problems occur. This has the advantage of treating actual problems, but means that those problems will exist,until the mitigation can be put in place. Olr 0-30.7 10:00 FAX 802 304 0100 DUFREW(M-HEPit[1 rtssrta-Iienry . December 12, 2002 Mrs. Susan Smicheako, P.B. Seminar Planner COMM 30 Kimball Ave, Suite 206 South Burlington, VT 05403-6839 Creating Better Places To Live, Work And Play RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Roads and Parking Project (TRAP) ACT 250 Permit Application Draft Comments DH Project No.-6320011 Dear Susan, Thank you very much for the opportunity to meet, discuss and respond to your initial comments and questions related to this project. In response to your draft memo the following discussion is offered. While we inadvertently did not include reference to the Ground Access Study of the Burlington International Airport (GASBIA), we did consult and confirm data presented in the study. PIease see item 1 of the attached memo to Amy Gamble that explains the decision process, which results in the projected growth rate of 2.5 percent. - Regarding differences in projected traffic volumes, Phis is primarily due to the base counts taken in 1999 versus those conducted by DH in the Fall of 2002. These counts include two -significant events that are not included in the GASBIA data. The effect of )et Blue's low cost service in the summer of 2000 is not included in traffic counts from 1999. Secondly, the affect of BIA not allowing curbside drop off in front of the terminal has created a pattern of some users circling the airport in some cases many times to avoid using the parking facility or during times when the facility is at capacity. DH conducted a video survey and counted cars'during the pm peak to better define the anecdotal evidence. During the survey we. found about 6.3 percent of traffic was circulating. While this pattern may vary greatly depending on conditions, it does provide more evidence that recirculating traffic is part of the volume counted in 2002, and not included in the 1999 traffic counts. Engineers Pianmrs Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Poet Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-86"165 &mail; sburlC3dufresne-henry.eom 01f043r0a 1a:01 FAX oo2 004 010Z DUFRE3NE-HE:YRY r P005 Mrs. Susan Smichcnko, P.E. December 12, 2002 Page 2 of 2 I hope this and the attached memo help to better explain our logic and thought process related to this unique and complicated area of Chittenden County. If you have any other questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. Christopher S. Pecor, P.E. Project Manager c: Amy Gamble, VTrans — Traffic Research Douglas R. Elliott, VT ANR-DEC Air Quality, Engineering Services Section n.a KM 33220011 (BTV AirportPtldaj ExpansionylMcumuts\Comupoadence\LeMma smchenko 12-12-02.doc 01/03/03 13:31 FAX 802 864/0165 DUFRESNE-HENRY l Thresholds: We can define thresholds that will trigger additional study, and require the airport to monitor traffic volume to see if it meets the thresholds. This has the advantage of catching problems before they occur, and alleviates some of the uncertainty of looking into the future. The challenge will be to develop meaningful thresholds. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I expect that there will be additional discussion between VTrans, Dufresne Henry, and CCMPO prior to the January 23, 2003 hearing date. Sincerely, Amy L. Gamble, PE Traffic Research Engineer Enc. DH Dec 12 memo Cc Mark Smith, Dufresne Henry Susan Schmichenko, CCMPO 12/27/02 FRI 10:43 F.0 802 (660 4078 1 CCIVO tool CCMPO y Chitbndsn County Matropolhan Phoning Organisation M Dorset Stoat Surte 22. South L'+.,rtrngta7, L,I 0540 6247 t 872 660-4917 f XA7 fifiG 40-,0 To: ! Ray Belair — South Burlington Zoning Administrator Co: - A. ..M. _ From: Susan Smjchenko Pages: 11 Date: 12/27/02 9:43 AM Re: 4 BIA Act 250 PermI Application I wwwxcrnpo Org Attached are the 12/12/02 letter from Dufresne -Henry addressed to me and the ,,fr,Wrrrnp" °'g 12(12102 D-H memo to Amy Gamble of VTrans. I am not faxing you the capacity analyses worksheets that were included with the memo to Arny — let nie know if you'd like those as well. Communities working together to meet Chlttenden County's transportation needs l SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT December 16, 2002 Mr. Brent Rakowski Defresne-Henry PO Box 2246 South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Road and Parking Project Dear Brent: 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 864-4361 Fax: (802) 864-0435 We have reviewed the set of plans for the above referenced project dated. Please find my comments below: 1. The South Burlington Water Department shall be notified prior to backfilling to inspect all joints, fittings, main line taps, appurtenances and water line crossings. 2. All water line and appurtenance materials shall conform to the "Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances For All Water Distribution Systems owned by the City of South Burlington, Colchester Fire District #1, and the Village of Jericho." 3. All domestic and fire sprinkler systems that may be connected to the public water system with this project shall be protected according to their degree of hazard, with a backflow prevention assembly. Please contact this department if you require more information on backflow protection devices. 4. Upon completion of the water system construction project, "As-Builts" shall be supplied to the SBWD in the form of one hard copy. 5. This Department shall be notified of any changes that may occur during the permit process with revised, updated hard copy plans for further review. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me. Sincerely, South Burlington Water Department AJayveau Superintendent Cc: Ray Belair Doug Brent Plan Review: Burl Airport Parking 12-02 State of Vermont AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES W Department of Environmental Conservation Wastewater Management Division Department of Fish and Wildlife 111 West Street Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Essex Junction, VT 05452 Department of Environmental Conservation November 27, 2002 City of Burlington Burlington Int'1 Airport 1200 Airport Drive # 1 South Burlington VT 05403 Telephone: (802) 879-5656 Subject WW-4-1042-3 Airport Parking Garage Addition Construct three story addition to parking garage relocation of water & sewer lines, hydrants & stormdrains 1150 gpd inc. located on Airport Drive in South Burlington Ladies & Gentlemen: We have received your application and fee paid by check #EXEMPT on November 19, 2002, which begins the 45 day in-house performance standards for our review. If we require further information from you to make a decision, the time until we receive it is not included in the in- house performance standards. If you have any questions about the review process, or if you have not received a decision on your application within the 45 in-house days, please contact this office. We have forwarded your application to the Information Specialist, who will send you a Project Review Sheet indicating other state departments you should contact about additional permits you may need. If you have not already done so, you should also check with town officials about any necessary town permits. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO SETS OF PLANS STAMPED FINAL. For the Division of Wastewater Management Irene'L. Roberge DEC Regional Office Coord cc: South Burlington Planning Commission Dufresne -Henry Engineering AGENCY OF NATt C1 A 1. RESOURCES (ANR) AND ENVIRONM "TAL BOARD (ACT 250) . ( PROJECT REVIEW SHEET THIS IS NOT A PERMIT TOTAL # DEC PERMITS PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW RESPONSE DATE /� PENDING APPLICATION #_ DISTRICT , 6, or 9_ TOWN ��ni 0,j94,1v�zac/ PIN #_ e1 OWNER OF PROJECT SITEE:�Ty , 6,2GsA/GTa APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE: NAME:(�ze,(/A� NAME: ADDRESS:/aZda D2/'eP`' ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 3-,-,g7y TELEPHONE: Project Name: Based on a written or oral request and/or informatio provided by /F 0A� Pf fi,4 aZz/ �S/�/ received on a project was reviewed on a tract/tracts of land of acres, located on The project is generally described as: l�s�i�-vG�aAll G� � o�� `B7° Ala' � -57�.�� r-/ J)�V,&rS[_ Y y4PP2av �, -��N� 3/4 Z- / N FS '-1 To 2y✓L�r�IS Prior Permits From is O ice: /�llC�-� /% yo`,z�=�; gG'63,3/ PERMITS NEEDED FROM THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION [ Whereby request a jurisdictional opinion from the District Coordinator or Assistant District Coordinator regarding the jurisdiction of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 (Act 250) over the project described above. sus-q-w Awt 73/0,9 -L-andewner/A#enl, Permit Specialist. e) 1. ACT 250: THIS IS A JURISDICTIONAL OPINION BASED UPON AVAILABLE INFORMATION, AND A WRITTEN REQUEST FROM THE ANR PERMIT SPECIALIST, THE LAN DOWNER/AGENT, OR OTHER PERSON. ANY NOTIFIED PARTY OR INTERESTED PERSON AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME MAY APPEAL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD (ACT 250) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS OPINION (10 V.S.A. SEC. 6007(C)). Commercial, residential or municipal project? nux�v as the landowner subdivided before? When/where/# of lots AN ACT 250 PERMIT IS REQUIRED: --�ePES NO; Copies sent to Statutory Parties: YES NO BASIS FO /R ECI 10 �LG �'� Y 4f1✓I .�/ll r�=1��I�G�!�sfi Gi 11,1"41 "l SIGNATURE: DATE: l� GZ - ADDRESS: Environmental Commissions Districts #4, 6 & 9 D' trict Coordinator Telephone: 8 87 -5614 111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 2. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION REGIONAL OFFICE: PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRED '�'e� YES NO Water Supply & Wastewater Disposal Deferral language required in deed Floor Drains to a UIC well REGIONAL ENGINEER ASSIGNED: Ernest Christianson (879-5675), Jessanne Wyman (879-5673), William Zabiloski (879-5672) Dolores LaRiviere (879-2341) §IGNATURE: ATE: l// G ADDRESS: Agency of Natural Resources /LL_—Environmental Assistance Division, Permit Specialist, 802 879-5676 Dept. of Environmental Conservation Wastewater Management Division, Telephone: 802 879-5656 111 West Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 OVER»»»»» THIS IS A PRELIMINARY, NON-1(- 'NG DETERMINATION REGARDING O .t PERMITS WHICH YOU MAY NEED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF r- _ ,JSTRUCTION. PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENTS INDICATED BELOW. 3. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ANR (802-241-3822) Contact: Discharge Permit; pretreatment permits; industrial, municipal _ I� D11 � rg� s Residuals duals Management 3 / 44IR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION, ANR (888 520-4879) Contact: , ice-'U17— C �""" Construction/modification of source Open Burning Wood Chip Burners (>90 HP) _ Furnace Boiler Conversion/installation Industrial Process Air Emissions _ Diesel Engines (>450 bHP) � � 2�t [7 AIbT r G c i vJ� �P1�/ �7a,,eat A.$ , t�K ,6"- — SUPPLY DIVISION, ANR (802-241-3400) (800 823-6500 in VT) Contact: s �Yi� 4oc1 Afe-aczt, s4 �1� C'5.i111lATER New Hydrants >500' of waterline construction Community Water System (CWS) Bottled Water Transient Non -Community water system (TNC) Capacity Review for Non -transient non -community water systems (NTNC) ,,,-240A-5X /�"iNc 51a - Lv -- s -ems WATER QUALITY DIVISION, ANR ? Contact: IMA2 G f4 To River Management (241-3770) Stormwater Permits (state and feder 41-432 Shoreland encroachment (241-3777) Aquatic nuisance control (241-3777) Wetlands (241-3770) Section 401 Water Quality Certificate (241-3770) Stream Alteration (751-0129/879-56311786-5906) Water Withdrawal (241-3770) %� /7- WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ANR Contact: 477 Notification of Regulated Waste Activity (241-3888) Underground Storage Tanks (241-3888) Lined landfills; transfer stations, recycling facilities, drop off (241-3444) Asbestos Disposal (241-3444) Disposal of inert waste, untreated wood & stumps (241-3444) Composting Facilities (241-3444) Waste oil burning (241-3888) Used septic system components/stone 8. FACILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION, ANR Contact: Dam operations (greater than 500,000 cu. ft.)(241-3451) State funded municipal water/sewer extensionslupgrades and Pollution Control Systems (241-3750) 9. POLLUTION PREVENTION & MERCURY DISPOSAL HOTLINE (1-800-974-9559) Contact: SMALL BUSINESS AND MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE Contact: Judy Mirro or John Daly 802 241-3745 RECYCLING HOTLINE (1-800-932-7100) Contact: 10. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE, ANR (802-241-3700) Contact: Nongame & Natural Heritage program (Threatened & Endangered Species) Stream Obstruction Approval DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY (802-828-2106) or District Office_ Construction Permit fire prevention, electrical, plumbing, acces cans Storage of flammable liquids, explosives Plumbing in residences served by public water/sewer with 10 or more customers ies Act) LP Gas Storage Boilers and pressure vessels 12. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (800-439-8550 in VT) (802-863-7221) (Lab 800-660-9997) Contact: Food, lodging, bakeries, food processors Program for asbestos control & lead certification (Phil Cornock) Children's camps Hot Tub Installation & Inspection - Commercial 13. AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES Child care facilities (1-800 649-2642 ) Nursing Homes (241-2345) Contact: Residential care homes (241-2345) (Dept. of Aging & Disabilities Therapeutic Community Residence (241-2345) 14. AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION Contact: Access to state highways (residential, commercial) (828-2653) Junkyards (828-2053) Signs (Travel Information Council) (828-2651) Railroad crossings (828-2710) Development within 500' of a limited access highway (828-2653) Airports and landing strips (828-2833) Construction within state highway right -of way (Utilities, Grading, etc.) (828-2653) 15. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (800 675-9873) Contact: Use/sale of pesticides (828-2431) Slaughter houses, poultry processing (828-2426) Milk processing facilities (828-2433) Animal shelters/pet merchant/livestock dealers (828-2421) Golf courses (828-2431) Weights and measures, Gas Pumps, Scales (828-2436) Green Houses/Nurseries (828-2431) Retail Sales/Milk/Meat/Poultry/Frozen Dessert/Class "C" Pesticides (828-2436) 16. VERMONT ENERGY CODE ASSISTANCE CENTER TOLL FREE 888-373-2255 VT Building Energy Standards 17. DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION (802-828-3211) Historic buildings Archeological sites 18. DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL (1-800-832-2339) Liquor licenses General Info (1-800-642-3134) 19. SECRETARY OF STATE (1-802-828-2386) Business registration Professional Boards (1-800-439-8683) 20. DEPARTMENT OF TAXES (802-828-2561) Business taxes (sales, meals & rooms, amusement machines) DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (802-828-2074) Fuel taxes; commercial vehicle Franchise tax/solid waste LOCAL PERMITS (SEE YOUR TOWN CLERK, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, PLANNING COMMISSION, OR PUBLIC WORKS) 23. FEDERAL PERMITS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 8 Carmichael St.,Suite 205, Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 872-2893 24. OTHER: `I -,,- Sections #3424 above have been completed by Permit Specialist Susan Haitsma Date: 1 may be reached at 879-5676 on WEDS and FRI, or at 476-0196 on MON and THURS, or at 751-0127 on TOES Copies have been mailed to: REVISED 9/20/02 it rr�..,. s, fir_.- A HYDRANT ------------------ i 1 aff o - -4z- a .I• o $ FAA BUILDING ° = r� L NEW PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE NEW SIDEWALK —+—� Fustic OI:;!',1ACJENr 'rG:fiGETs T,5 SHORT TERM GARAGE) LONG TERM 302 :11 OVERFLOW is • OVERFLOW 4 150 CURB PARKA i0 TOTAL OTHER F.A.A. 100 EMPLOYEE 220 CARWASH/RL 6L $50 TOTAL 1,170 • VALET TECH ES WILL BE USED DURING PEAK PERIODS, MAMMUM ® OF SPACES SHOWN. I HYDRANT SITE FLANS SP.N AND SP.S : ROMD= AN Jt,E: (t'!Et-ti•- i I UTILITY POLE OF 'IHE PROJECT AT A I' - 30' SCALE. j GUY ANCHOR 92ECIFIC CONSTRUCTION DETAIL, REFER TO TRUCTION GAS VALVE )CONS� I' . 20' SCALE DRAWING SERIES : ' GATE VALVE - - - -- _ SEVER MANHOLE S— SLI- SI-5 SITE LAYOUT PLANS OR STORM CATCHBASIN SD— SGA-S0.5 SITE GRADING a: _ _ , - CHAINUNK FENCE -o-c EROSION CONTROL PLANS UPA-UP.S UTILITY PLANS - ,MyRE FENCE GROUND ODNTOUR --' - PA/.1-PM.5 PP.VEMENT MARKING PLANS - - - - „- - - - - WATER UNE - - -- - - ; - - - - - SERER LINE STORM DRAIN LINE ---------- n -- -- ------ UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND TV - -- - -- _ .- - -- OVERHEAD WARES F- -- - - - UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL GAS MAIN LDGE OF WOODS GUARD RAIL EROSION SILT FENCE -o—n SOIL BORING LOCATION CONTRACT LIMIT UNE — — UG UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED H 00--00 TRAFFIC FLOW AIRPORT TRMINAL - y - — -- 5 o . _ ___ _ , C �y , B .; �F o T 4• u (LVP ) , HYD -��--•. R ED NEW , — - —-- • ::: ;•may n a W T � ..,,•� y . ,� � 1 ° n •-.. -�- � -� °- - HYDRANT -------------- f o `� ��: HYDRANT c �' "ia':" . a», '+=c: ° ZZ,27, NT Y' a%S`"v '.....l'HYDRANT-'•- NEW GARAGE I,1 0 0 '''i-' a a ,�•a r a» .:�7 aPi; ,a,.r --�•- o --- 'a__ ., .�,`,.�..•° /^�..A� 4�,,,�•.,.- �r S NTRANC -- L;,^';^:''.' s__ ",..,,,...,,.��.` �z n=,� •n' �,. "�.,,•._eci r s o / �c>?; ° a n a ° o T ° l - ""''7 •�v ; d„ •ram ' �a 7 r r "' a \ --I lo � s nr; ~ j o p g==� a o p o a p 2 ra ° Q-- _ •_. Y �s ��'° ` eJ n 1 S T m a, �. �,*•�� 1�e a b s a i tin• ,.., .. , ..�,. � � � ° / �''�, _ �"^^.^^^.�a,w.,.....,mm,.,,....m,..,,..,.�,..,..:`�.�F.:�,..,«.,,,,.r„n,,,,..a,,.," b a a a , -.. ter, :;., ��,," -'---� �r � ,y "••.-•y;l, a 77 u ;y I /( I, . HYDRANT m I ' a HYDRANT AIRWAY r r� \o/' POSE® PAR a h a ARAGE APM ON \ ,. ",>, �.� � x' - �,•F EXISTING PARKING GARAGE -•� ° ', \.�,; � �:`�,� a �'� yr J \ a TEMPORARY GARAGE Wi ° o (DURING CONSTRUCTION q2 Y .�_ _mil :�•r=i5` $ (/,+/+'�/,'///� p n a i�Ri � aS•� ' a /� � � � a 1oQ �i'^.: h n 'dP,i `'ti `so. q'•• �� 3j; a I v [I O%,.rc.-••y_•yI...N — p S4 �;i •. :b 'a:., ,.1 o r �= b a a \�p ii;•.:..rr o - ,<.w:r wy;d................................ w� '� .,,....,.,,... .a .ifi�'•- ::n ........ �YiN Ili - 1 _Y T__ a ° -1-, 3g o0 o°o'-bo-7' ' �L° - -*-._ - -° /"� n,_ •,•., a�` a ;i - \/±ASF :j°1 -— — — 3„ .-�i—,... ..—..n....— — —... Ta- - __ a .ar..... .................. o # a a . �,y, •`.,,,w,i•`.•`.k..: ,... s� �U _ o o op ° _i_ °�� '\. \,' � ;•,'.s�� a•�1`(� : na�: .a r ; a ,ZI' a *° \� �.' •h - a n h O r ti •I '- b O a s a a ° p + C[ a ,�` Ji•I � �� ' `-. /o m -- --- a o o f 0 0 ' �j`-�. nna�� ° o o J--_- --_� (•�_ •-i a o 0 o ___ as b°'�,° `'` ,_ 1•-e•- - as a aT � _ —o- - � - _ i �- 0 0 4 a b l � �} ��- —__� �`__�� n l-�'<�:,' �� - m _� --- '"_tea,,.,,,,ms,_< -a= �:.:,-_- _•- '4 o�,._i- —...� _-�,-,��a b „x a :.»-n,_„ F_—`„«__'---�--•-•- ,•v.b-I -��-•N,m.»wy:=>O — O -:- -'a-- '-____O, _.__I_ ___ 'rs'r=-'-• :-';.�-r-t---,-v-'-�--__`-__— '�"�_'�'11_��_,'U�ri .o..... O ..,I................._ i� ° -._- _--__-___ l° o_-i'n- \__ _ . ..... ___- _ _____________ __ _-_I_ ,..vAIRPORT DRIVE PORT ZONE !o� -_ „ryv_ I �TM xa µ 1 \ •ari, rvgrn. , , mT. »ra»+.,r, ^^ HYDRANT I '1 DH Dufresne -Henry South Burlington, Vermont Tel. (802) 864-0223 Fax (802) 864-0165 www.dufresne-henry.com BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TERMINAL AREA PARKING INVENTORY TERMINAL ROAD AND PARKING PROJECT JANUARY 2003 CAR WASH'' 308 CARS FAA EMPLOYEE 100 CARS I TOTAL # OF PROPOSED PARKING SPACES = 3,183 TOTAL PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE SPACES = 2,707 (grand total less valet /overflow and rental car wash spaces) REQUIRED HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE SPACES = 20+18 = 38 PROVIDED HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE SPACES: 33 IN GARAGE 7 EMPLOYEE PARKING AREAS 1 FAA LOT 41 TOTAL TERMINAL PAS114 N('U'' tLkViNA FAA fAA PASSENGER IERMINAL OH Dufresne -Henry Transmittal Creating Better Places To Live, Work And Play TO: Planning and Zoning Department DATE: 11-20-02 1 JOB NO: 1 6320011 City of South Burlington ATTENTION: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer RE: Burlington International Airport Terminal Road and Parking Project WE ARE SENDING YOU = Shop Drawings = Copy of Letter Attached Under separate cover via the following items Prints Plans Samples Specifications Change Order L xJ other COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION 1 --- Abutters list printed on labels THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: = For Approval Approved as Submitted Resubmit For Your Use Approved as Noted Submit — As requested Returned for Corrections Return _ For Review and Comment Review and Payment =1 FOR BIDS DUE copies for Approval copies for Distribution Corrected Prints PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Ray — The Act250 office called and asked for this — I thought you might also find it useful (hope it's not too late!). Please also note that 2 properties on the list have recently bee acquired by the Airport and have been X'd out. Thanks. COPY TO: JBL, File SIGNED: Mark Smith, Project Engineer Engineers Planners Landscape Architects Environmental Scientists Post Office Box 2246 South Burlington, Vermont 05407 Voice: 802-864-0223 Fax: 802-864-0165 E-mail: sburl@dufresne-henry.com Ca7091S aasel 1 Mih�01ael Bur 1g t Drive So,ointT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Arnold Cota 1396 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. William Dalton 1383 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. John Russell 1161 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Foisy 1261 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. John Cameron 1247 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mrs. Ken Daley 1227 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Ms. Camille Chastenay Box 9400 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Bernard Laplante 1181 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Ms: Joan Brown 1171 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Thomas Corrow 1400 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Howard Loso 1391 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Lemay 1389 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Occupant 1371 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Allen Porter 1257 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Roomey 1237 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Antonio Todisco 1223 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Ms. Deborah Roberts 9400 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Marc Derobertis 1185 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Louie Toulis 1 Upland Road Essex Jct., VT 05452 slagel ssaippv r,,)A 92 Mr. Mrs. Pau and erl 1399 Ai rive So. Bur . gt VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Barry 1387 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Alade Tessier, Jr 1375 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Donald Adams 1265 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Martin Bessette 1253 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Kruger 1233 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Arnold Lagrow 1213 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Occupant 1205 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Harold Ashton 1195 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Occupant 1165 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 0091S aol ale}dwaz ash w,SIaayS paaj gj00WS C';09IS aasel Mr. & Mrs. Harold Ashton 1159 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. George Myers 1151 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Charles LeTourneau 1111 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Occupant 1103 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Adams 1083 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Occupant 1081 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 / slage7 SSaaPPV w AU3J' V a l Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Proulz Mr. & Mrs. Charles Ploof 1155 Airport Drive 1153 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Frances Tilley 1141 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Hamel 1107-1107B Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 1Mr. & Mrs. Robert Doering 1089 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Burton Jaques 285 Lakeshore Drive Colchester, VT 05446 Mr. & Mrs. Scot Renzori 1131 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Deforge 13106 Council Bluff Austin, TX 78727 Mr. & Mrs. Roger Emmons 1085 Airport Drive So. Burlington, VT 05403 Occupant 1079 Airport Drive So. Burlington,,VT 05403 009IS joj a}eldwal ash w.LSIaa4S Paaj 4j00wS Smooth Feed Sheets TM Leo & Robert Dumont 12 Woodlawn Place South Burlington, VT 05403 Thomas & Laurie Piche 218 Airport Parkway South Burlington, VT 05403 Douglas & Lillian White 234 Kirby Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Chambers Leasing PO Box 859 Augusta, ME 04332 Alan Palmer 2169 Dorset Street Shelburne, VT 05482 Lacey's 2000 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Randall Munson 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Use template for 51600 Philip Bowler Gary & Sandra Hall 395 North Street 222 Airport Parkway Burlington, VT 05401 South Burlington, VT 05403 William & Anne Yawney Roger Olson & Kit Zukowski 210 Airport Parkway 206 Airport Parkway South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 John & Arlene Duffy Robert A. Ennis 236 Kirby Road 238 Kirby Road South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 George Brady Griswold Corporation 9 Shamrock Road Industrial Ave. South Burlington, VT 05403 Williston, VT 05495 Pete's RV Center David Desarno 4016 Williston Road National Car Rental South Burlington, VT 05403 1200 Airport Drive #10 South Burlington, VT 05403 Joseph Senesac Leland & Patricia Calkins SSL Corporation 1835 Spear Street 444 So. Union Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05401 Robert & Anne Audette Northern Rent-A-Car, Inc. 41 Peterson Terrace Box 2145 South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington, VT 05401 aAVERY(-,)AAddress Labels Laser 5160® TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EXPANSION 2003 AIRPORT DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT TRANS/OP INC. mik P.O. Box 29 Williston, Vermont 05495 0 I I-October 2002 if I I TRANS/OP INC. P.O. Box 29 Williston, Vermont 05495 October 21, 2002 Mr. Jon B. Leinwohl, P.E. Dufresne -Henry, Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Leinwohl: 802-985-2765 Phone and fax transop@together.net together.net In this study, various analyses were performed for the traffic conditions that occur at selected intersections on Airport Drive in the immediate vicinity of Burlington International Airport in South Burlington, Vermont. Proposed expansions for this commercial site result in an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent for all traffic volumes associated with the airport. Traffic demands were generated for the two intersections that provide ingress to and egress from the airport and for the adjacent intersections of Airport Drive with Kennedy Drive and Williston Road, with Airport Road, and with White Street for the design year of 2008. For three of the four unsignalized intersections, warrants for traffic signals were assessed for average weekday volumes, while 301h highest hour volumes were selected for performance evaluations at all locations. Safety evaluations were performed for that section of Airport Drive that includes Airport Entrance and Exit. In summary, acceptable conditions of traffic performance and safety are anticipated in the study area through the planning year of 2008. Please advise of any additional assistance that may be required in regard to the traffic aspects of this proj ect. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. President 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1 VEHICULAR VOLUMES ......................................... 4 WARRANT EVALUATIONS ....................................... 7 TRAFFIC PERFORMANCES ....................................... 9 SAFETY EVALUATIONS— ..................................... 15 SUMMARY..................................................... 17 APPENDIX A, TRAFFIC SUMMARIES - Intersection of Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road ............................. 18 APPENDIX B, TRAFFIC SUMMARIES - Intersection of Airport Drive and Airport Road.... ...................................... 25 APPENDIX C, TRAFFIC SUMMARIES - Intersection of Airport Drive and Airport Entrance:..............................I.......... 35 APPENDIX D, TRAFFIC SUMMARIES - Intersection of Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street ................................ 40 APPENDIX E, TR.AFFIC SUMMARIES - Intersection of Airport Drive and White Street ............................................. 50 APPENDIX F, LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS .................. 56 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................ 58 iii c' C TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EXPANSION 2003 AIRPORT DRIVE SOUTH BURLNGTON, VERMONT INTRODUCTION Commercial activities, such as an airport, generate vehicular and pedestrian movements throughout their times of operation. Trip generations are influenced by the levels of commercial development, and, as a result, traffic conditions are often affected in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, transportation planning is essential to insure continuing commercial activity with roadway and intersection facilities that provide efficient and safe travel. The purpose of this traffic study was to assess the adequacies of one signalized and four unsignalized intersections, that are in the immediate vicinity of Burlington International Airport, to serve efficiently and safely the travel demands through the planning year of 2008. This airport is located on the east side of Airport Drive at a distance of approximately 2400 ft north of Williston Road in South Burlington, Vermont, and is shown as site (P) on the street map in Figure 1. The five selected study intersections are identified by the indicated letter designations on this same figure: 1. Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road - `A'; 2. Airport Drive and Airport Road - `B'; 3. Airport Drive and Airport Entrance - `C'; 4. Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street - `D'; and S. Airport Drive and White Street - `E'. 1 Figure 1 Locations of Burlington International Airport and Study Intersections in South Burlington, Vermont Airport Road is a collector street with a speed limit of 25 mph and with stop control on the intersecting streets. Vehicular flows at the intersection of Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road are regulated by a fully -actuated traffic signal. At the last location of Airport Drive and White Street, traffic movements are regulated on the north and east approaches by stop signs and on the west approach by a yield sign. The scope of these traffic studies includes the following appraisals: 1. Signal warrants, 2. Special turn -lane warrants, and 3. Intersection performances. In addition, safety evaluations were determined for the portion of Airport Drive that is directly influenced by vehicular movements associated with airport activities. Traffic volumes for the base year of 2003 and the planning year of 2008 were developed from recent turning movement counts provided by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT), the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO), and Dufresne -Henry, Inc. (D-H). A five-year period provides a reasonable interval over which to appraise the traffic requirements for the contemplated expansions at Burlington International Airport. Traffic growth for Burlington International Airport was estimated to be 2.5 percent annually from recent local enplanement trends. The normal increase in travel patterns is approximately 1.06 percent per year along Airport Drive. 3 VEHICULAR VOLUMES Five intersectional situations were studied in these traffic assessments, and Traffic Summaries for each set of evaluations are presented in the following appendices: 1. Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road - Appendix A; 2. Airport Drive and Airport Road - Appendix B; 3. Airport Drive and Airport Entrance - Appendix C; 4. Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street - Appendix D; 5. Airport Drive and White Street - Appendix E. Traffic growth for the anticipated airport expansion begins in 2003 with a planning year of 2008. Vehicular volumes for the analysis periods were adjusted for daily and monthly variations and forecasted to represent the following situations. 1. 2003 and 2008 build average weekday volumes for signal warrants; and 2. 2003 and 2008 build 30" highest hour volumes for special turn -lane warrants and performance evaluations. The build volumes for 2003 are almost identical to the no -build situation for that year, although the no -build case was not evaluated in this study. Temporal adjustments were derived from continuous count data collected at the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) Sta. D099 on I89 in the City of South Burlington and from the short count data taken at the VAOT Sta. D218 on Airport Drive in the vicinity of Burlington International Airport. The short-term growth factors were derived from the latter source to account for recent on- C going development activities in the general area of the project and the selected study locations. The adjustment factors to provide average weekday volumes (AWV) and the highest hour volumes (30HV) as the design, hour volumes (DHV), were generated from summary statistics for VAOT Sta. D099. On the two airport driveways, the ratio of DHV to AWV was selected as 1.10. The development volumes on these driveways reflect both normal growth and airport expansion, while these values only represent airport development at the other three intersections. The normal growth factor is included in the forecasting from the base to the design years. In Table 1, a listing by location and appendix is provided for the following sets of traffic summaries. 1. Signal warrant evaluations. 2. 2003-2008 airport expansion traffic. 3. Design hour volumes for 2003 and 2008 build conditions during morning and afternoon peak hours. 4. Special turn -lane evaluations. 5. Traffic performance summaries; a. Intersection statistics. b. Queue lengths. C. Through -lane performance. Trip distributions for this project were developed by the analogy method from the turning movement counts at each study intersection. For both 2003 and 2008, the vehicular volumes are indicative of the build condition for the anticipated growth at the Burlington International Airport. 5 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION APPENDIX TABLE NUMBERS BIA Airport Expansion 2003 South Burlington, Vermont Appendix Signal Traffic Volumes Turn Lane Traffic and Warrants Warrants Performance Location 2003, 2008 Expan. 2003 2008 A Airport Dr., Kennedy Dr., - 4 5 6 - 7, 8, 9 & Williston B Airport Dr. & Airport 10 11 12 13 14,15 16,17 Rd. C Airport Dr. & Airport - 18 19 20 - 21 Entrance D Airport Dr., 22 23 24 25 - 26, 27, 28, 29 Airport Exit & Maryland E Airport Dr. 30 31 32 33 34 & White St. WARRANT EVALUATIONS Signal Warrants To ascertain the acceptable levels of traffic control for the three relevant unsignalized intersections, the average weekday volumes were obtained for the analysis years of 2003 and 2008. These volumes were compared with the warrants for traffic signals as stipulated in the current version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These three comparisons are presented in the respective Tables 10, 22, and 30. Based on the guideline assessments, the minor street volumes for the two analysis years are below the warranting values for signal control at the two intersections of Airport Drive with Airport Road and with White Street. The intersection of Airport Drive and Airport Entrance was not included in these.warrant evaluations, because no side street traffic enters at this location. The present arrangements of intersection control for these three sites are satisfactory for the anticipated travel demands through 11: In the case of the Airport Exit onto Airport Drive, Warrant 3, Peak Hour is realized for the 2003 and 2008 levels of average weekday volumes. Although this warrant is generally applicable where a large number of vehicles are involved over a short time, such as an office complex or a manufacturing plant, this situation is evident on this roadway during the period of 1600-1700. This fact coupled with the calculated large control delays and queue lengths during the afternoon peak hour supports the installation of signal control with operation at least during the afternoon peals 7 period. However, the operation of the toll booths tends to meter the exiting traffic with greater queuing in the parking structure than on Airport Exit at peals times. Additional assessments should be made on these situations after the project has been completed, although the infrastructure (conduits and pull boxes) for signal control at Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street should be considered for installation during the construction phase of the parking garage expansion. Special Turn Lane The guidelines for a left -turn lane at an unsignalized intersection, as adopted by the Vermont Agency of Transportation, are realized on the south approach of Airport Drive at Airport Road for both analysis years. These findings are summarized in Table 14. This geometric need exists for both the base and planning years. A designated left -turn lane is currently in place on the north approach of Airport Drive at Airport Entrance. In addition, the design right -turn volumes on the north approach of Airport Drive at the intersection with Airport Road are below the VAOT guidelines for the provision of a separate right -turn lane. A summary of these evaluations are contained in Table 15. No other location qualified for the determination of any special turn lanes. TRAFFIC PERFORMANCES In Tables 7 to 9, 16,17, 21, 26 to 29, and 34 in the respective appendices of Traffic Summaries, 2003 and 2008 travel patterns are described in terms of design hour volumes and represent `extreme -case' - situations for road -user demands. These volumes were developed from the peak 15-minute values with a peals hour factor of 1.00 to represent peaking characteristics associated with design hour volumes. The capacity procedures, for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, were used with Synchro software to assess traffic performances at the study locations. The time periods analyzed were morning and afternoon peak hours. For a signalized intersection, traffic performance characteristics are described by the following parameters. 1. Level of service and control delay in seconds per vehicle by lane group and total intersection. 2. Volume -to -capacity ratio by lane group and total intersection. 3. Queue length for the 50`h percentile by lane group. The following items represent the performance descriptions for an unsignalized location. 1. Level of service and control delay in seconds per vehicle by critical movement, approach, and total intersection. 2. Volume -to -capacity ratio by critical movement. 3. Queue length for the 95"' percentile by critical movement. These performance measures collectively describe the operating characteristics for each class of intersection. Signal phasing and timing in the performance calculations were developed for demand volumes that represent the 30" highest hour in the analysis years. However, actual phasing and timing values are generally predicated on average weekday volumes in the time period selected for the design of the traffic signal operation. Service levels are qualitative descriptors of traffic conditions and range from `A' for excellent or free flow to `E' for intolerable or unstable flow. Level of service `F' describes that situation when demand volume exceeds calculated capacity. Qualitative and quantitative definitions of performance levels are given in Table 35 of Appendix F, Level of Service Descriptions. Levels of service `B' to `D' or better are often selected as the desired criteria in the design of roadway facilities. In certain cases, traffic operational improvements may be arranged on a cost-effective basis to provide service level `E' or better during those few hours when traffic demands peals in the design year. Conflicting performance assessments may occur at unsignalized intersections, where high control delays are associated with conditions of low volumes, low volume -to -capacity ratios, and/or short queues. Therefore, all measures of effectiveness must be considered in the performance evaluation of an intersection with stop or yield control. At the present time, unacceptable performance at an unsignalized intersection does not constitute a warrant for the installation of traffic signal control. A generic summary of the intersection performance evaluations is given in Table 2. For all scenarios, overall acceptable levels of service are available at the five study intersections with the recommended control improvements throughout the analysis period. Greater details for the 10 TABLE 2 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY BIA Airport Expansion 2003 Appendix and Location A. Airport Dr., Kennedy Dr., & Williston Rd. B. Airport Dr., & Airport Road South Burlington, Vermont Control Overall Level of Service 2003 2008 Build Build a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. Signalized Unsignalized Unsig. w/SA-LT C. Airport Dr. Unsignalized & Airport Entrance , D. Airport Dr., Unsignalized Airport Exit, & Maryland St. Signalized E. Airport Dr. Unsignalized & White St. 11 B C C C A C A E A C A E A A A A A F A F A B A B A ' B B B signalized intersections of Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road and of Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street are documented in Tables 7 and 27 for average control delays, volume -to -capacity ratios and levels of service by lane group and intersection total. In Tables 8 and 28, 50`h-percentile queue lengths by lane group are compared with available storages. For the intersection of Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road, all lane groups in Table 7 operate at `D' levels of service of better for the two peak hours in both analysis years. The through/right- turn lanes on the east and west approaches have the longest average queues of 10 to 11 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour. However, only the east approach lanes involve airport traffic. With signal control at Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street, all lane groups experience `D' service levels or better for all analysis scenarios. Maximum average queuing amounts to 5 or 6 vehicles on the through/left-turn lane in the afternoon peak hour. The queuing requirements on Airport Exit are greatly reduced by signal operation as compared to stop control on the side streets. In all cases, reasonable balances are reported among the various measures of effectiveness for describing intersection performance. The various performance values for unsignalized locations are given, respectively, in Tables 16, 17, 21, 26, and 34 for the intersections of Airport Drive with Airport Road, with Airport Entrance, with Airport Exit and Maryland Street, and with White Street. Acceptable balances exist among the various effectiveness measures for all morning and afternoon levels of traffic volumes in both analysis years. Excellent operational characteristics on Airport Drive are available for travel through the unsignalized intersections. 12 Poor characteristics exist for all performance measures on the west approach of Airport Road at Airport Drive for existing geometric conditions. Insignificant benefits result with the addition of the left -turn lane on the south approach of Airport Drive. However, no signal warrants are satisfied for this intersection. Good overall performance measures are evident for the intersection of Airport Drive with Airport Entrance and with White Street. For the latter location, the east approach which serves as a driveway is assessed with poor delay times but with good volume -to -capacity ratios and- with short queue lengths during the two afternoon analyses. The situation of Airport Exit is markedly improved in terms of delay, level of service, volume -to - capacity ratio, and queue length with the adaptation of an unsignalized intersection to signal operation. The benefits of this control modification is most pronounced for the afternoon peak hour, when the airport exit traffic is at a maximum level. During the afternoon peak hour, high control delays and long queue lengths are noted on Airport Exit for unsignalized operation. Therefore, at the intersection of Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street, traffic signal control is contemplated for the anticipated volume demands. This condition was analyzed for signal operation during morning and afternoon peak hours in both study years. These results are summarized in Tables 27 and 28 with acceptable performance characteristics. 13 Although the unsignalized capacity procedure was applied to the traffic operations at the intersection of Airport Drive and White Street, the method is not strictly applicable to two through streets that intersect with major turning movements. Because no methodology is available to analyze this configuration, the results presented in Table 34 are only to be construed as an approximate evaluation. This intersection does appear to be operating in a reasonably effective manner. Little significance is often attached to the performance measures of unsignalized intersections that do not satisfy a warrant for traffic signal control. At the present time, plans are being studied for the extension of Airport Drive to the north for connection with Airport Parkway. The revised intersection of Airport Drive and White Street will need to be designed to provide acceptable performance measures for future traffic demands. Design queue lengths for the 95"' percentile are given in Tables 16, 17, 21, 26, and 34 for the unsignalized intersections. The tabulated values are reasonably small, and no evidence exists for the potential blocking of any major driveways along Airport Drive. As noted in Table 26 for 2008, the storage requirement for the left -turn lane on Airport Exit should be approximately 36 vehicle lengths or 900 ft to prevent any potential blocking of exit movements from the parking structure. This requirement is reduced to no queue formation with signal operation. To account for the South Burlington scope of study, levels of service and control delays for through movements at signalized intersections are reported in Tables 9 and 29, respectively, for the locations of Airport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road and of Airport Drive, Airport Exit, and Maryland Street. 14 MM SAFETY EVALUATIONS Accident characteristics on Airport Drive were analyzed for a distance of 1800 ft from south of Airport Entrance to north of Airport Exit. Traffic accidents, as presently listed in the State Highway Sorted Accident File for the five-year period from 1996 through 2000, are summarized in Table 3 according to numbers, rates, causes, types, and severities. This section of collector street in an urban area is not currently classified as a high -accident location by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. A general guideline for the indication of a safety problem at an intersection or over a short roadway section is the average occurrence of five or more reported accidents within a 12-month period. The three mishaps that were reported over the five years result in a frequency of 0.60 accidents per year, I which is less than the criterion for an accident-prone situation. Another measure of relative safety is provided by a comparison of actual and critical accident experiences per one -million vehicle miles for the selected roadway section on Airport Drive. In Table 3, the actual rate of 0.69 accidents per one -million vehicle miles is less than the critical rate of 4.10 accidents per one -million vehicle miles. Again, the actual accident experience is below the critical value that is indicative of a safety problem. 11 In general, causes of the reported traffic mishaps are attributable to driver errors. The accidents are not related to any elements of street design and/or traffic control. Two collisions are classified in the severity category of personal injury, while the remaining accident is listed as property -damage - only. Therefore, the study roadway is summarized as a non -accident-prone location. 15 1 TABLE 3 ACCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS Airport Drive between Airport Entrance 1996-2000 and Airport Exit Total accidents 3 Average accidents per year 0.60 Accident rate per 1,000,000 vehicle miles 0.69 Critical rate per 1,000,000 vehicle miles 4.10 Accident causes Inattention 2 Fatigue 1 Accident types Rear end 2 Left road 1 Accident severities Fatal 0 Personal injury 2 Property damage only 1 Conclusion: non -accident-prone location. 16 SUMMARY Traffic analyses were conducted at five intersections on Airport Drive in the immediate vicinity of Burlington International Airport for travel demands in the analysis year of 2003 and 2008. In addition, safety conditions on this collector street were appraised in terms of accident characteristics over the period from 1996 through 2000. All traffic movements that relate to airport activities were increased at the rate of 2.5 percent annually to account for both normal growth and for airport expansion. The rate of 1.06 percent annually represents the normal growth pattern along Airport Drive. The intersection ofAirport Drive, Kennedy Drive, and Williston Road is controlled with fully actuated signal operation, and a warrant for traffic signal installation is met at the location of Airport Drive with Airport Exit and Maryland Street. Operation of signal control during the afternoon peak period should reduce control delays and queue lengths on Airport Exit. The remaining three study sites along Airport Drive provide acceptable levels of service with stop control on the side streets throughout the analysis period. In addition, acceptable balances among the various measures of effectiveness are realized at both signalized and unsignalized intersections that were analyzed in this traffic impact study. As a result of the safety appraisal, the section of Airport Drive in the vicinity of the airport was judged to be a non -accident-prone street. No significant alteration of accident characteristics is anticipated with an increase in airport activities. No adverse conditions on the study section of Airport Drive are contemplated with enhanced levels of operation at Burlington International Airport. Detailed designs of the recommended traffic -control improvements are beyond the scope of this impact study. This aspect of the project development is completed in the design phase and in coordination with the City of South Burlington. 17 I -1'j r" fr„ �'! :�?ii`_ C. s / %. _ .., .'41iJi}Q:,: Meeting Notes Burlingion Airport Parking Garage Site & Landscape Issues Date September 19, 2002 Place: Burlington Airport Present: Mike Lawrence, Dick White, Ron Sweeney, Warren Spinner, Craig Lambert The follwing are issues regarding both the existing landscape and areas to be addressed for the future landscape around the proposed airport parking garage expansion and related site improvements: In order of discussion. 1. M. Lawrence will send copy of meeting notes from today as well as Sept. 4 to D. White, R Sweeney, W. Spinner and C. Lambert. 2. Central Island. Two solutions put forth; First; pave most of the area with unit pavers, leaving a few holes for trees and annuals. Excavate those planted areas to a depth of 2', remove existing soil and replace with a mix of topsoil and intervale compost, install drip irrigation system. Second option; excavate entire area 2', dispose and replace with topsoil/compost mix, grade area with a slight crown in the center, plant hardy trees (Chanticleer Pears), establish mix of lawn and flower beds, install irrigation. In either case, W. Spinner suggested an outline spec. used for the planting beds and tree lawns in the newly constructed Lake St. and Main St. in Burlington requiring new soil 2-3' deep and 10' on either side of the tree. 3. New trees — don't spec. anything over 3" caliper. 4. Keep a mix of trees to avoid monoculture. 5. Keep away from overplanted species in South Burlington, Green Ash and Littleleaf Linden. 6. Utilize gator bags on new trees. r' - 7. Continue to explore the best way to maintain (90%of this work is watering) the newly planted material. Suggestions, don't require the contractor to do long-term maintenance, set aside a budgeted amount and hire someone else to do this work. Traditionally landscape contractors are not good about watering. An irrigation system would solve much of this problem. 8. Before proceeding with transplanting, call dig -safe. 9. Be liberal in choosing to reject stressed material for transplanting, remember tree spade needs to go down 3' or so (utilities), and we've had two dry summers so the plant material is in a weakened condition. It will probably be more cost effective to use new healthy nursery -grown material. Landscape contractors unlikely to provide guarantee on transplants. 10. After plant material list is agreed to, as early as possible, contact nursery wholesaler to locate plants for this job. Avoid contractor `,substitutions' due to regional plant shortages. 11. Have Landscape Architect or owners representative be present to inspect plants before installation. 12. Coordinate transplanting time with General Contractor. 13. Additional work in this contract should include deep root feeding (vertical mulching) of existing trees. Two techniques; 2" augered holes below the drip line filled with vermiculite and compost; air spaded trenches radiating away from trunk filled with the same mix. 14. All present today are willing to meet as a group with South Burlington officials to present a landscape plan that identifies both new plant material as well as methods to guarantee the long term health and viability of the entire landscape. Cc; R. White, R Sweeney, W. Spinner, C. Lambert e-mail; A. Halpern Meeting Notes Burlington Airport Parking Garage Site & Landscape Issues Date September 4, 2002 Place: Burlington Airport Present: Mike Lawrence, Dick White, Ron Sweeney, Bob McEwing The follwing are issues regarding both the existing landscape and areas to be addressed for the future landscape around the proposed airport parking garage expansion and related site improvements: In order of discussion. 1. Mike Lawrence needs plan showing temporary (during construction) vehicle access out of south end of parking garage and any other temporary access drives. We need to see what trees will be effected, and need to be protected, transplanted or removed. 2. Come up with a solution to add more organic material to the soil, in order to retain more rainwater in lawn areas. Existing soil is super -sandy. 3. Explore use of clover in lawn areas. It has stayed green on this site during the driest times while grass has burned. 4. Make sure all new plantings are extremely salt -tolerant. The Airport salts heavily in the winter. Possible tree - Black Locust, volunteers sprouted up on site several years ago and have thrived with little care. Native to area. 5. Review areas on site where snow is dumped from garage. Incorporate new snow dump/storage areas on new plans. Recognize that we'll have additional snow due to the increased size of the garage and less perimeter on the north fagade due to more vehicle lanes. 6. Explore economy of transplanting existing trees needed to make way for construction elsewhere on site with tree spade. Three contractors with spades; Dan Nash, John Lang, Green Mt. Nursery. If feasible, possible storage nursery, or area to hF e, �i;'('.: �.L , . _ _^r�i.. _f `l..�t.:, .7: ...a. _.. Jr✓�-.P=Y11, .� i.. of ._ i�;`iSt. fi h:_ �•i ., r �1: .. �.., " _'— — — ,, ,.�o�l' _'ii'... e?;>wi::: rY; fir. �,J1. heel -in trees is located inside the fence at the end of Airport Drive Extension (Gate4) 7. Design a combination fence and/or vegetative screen for back yards of houses on Dumont Ave. adjacent to proposed parking on Airport Drive Extension, 8. Contact South Burlington to get answers; A. Will we receive credit for additional plantings at the Williston Road/ Airport Drive intersection? B. Credit for sprinkler system in order to maintain landscape? C. Credit for pruning work (some of the big trees need thinning)? D. Credit for landscape lighting? 9. Add vines to both existing and proposed garage. 10. Explore feasibility of adding drought tolerant plants to roof areas. 11. Explore places for decorative landscape lighting (uplights). 12. Propose improvements to plantings at Willliston Rd./Airport Drive. 13. Get latest plans showing proposal for parking at Airport Drive Extension. 14. Review feasibility to install sprinkler system for specific and/or general areas, or add hose bib connections to reduce watering labor (dragging 300-500 ft. of hose.. 15. Consider use of low to mid height evergreens adjacent to flower beds to provide year- round landscape structure. (boulders an additional option) 16. Existing island in drive between Terminal and Garage; Norway Maples have taken a beating due to salt, sandy soils and drought. Need a good solution at the Airport's front door. Possibly, pavers with raised beds for trees /or replacing soil with planting mix containing a high percentage of compost and adding a sprinkler system in this narrow area. 17. Airport maintains a healthy amount of annuals. These are concentrated at key points. We need to study where additional beds will have greatest impact, one area may be near proposed vehicle exit onto Airport Drive. 18. Explore the use of more Rhododendrons. They did not do well along the east side of the Garage just north of the pedestrian bridge (wind, salt, narrow area adjacent to roadway). They may perform better in lawn areas. 19. Note that Common Lilac and Tree Lilac are both doing well. 20. Ask about time of earliest construction needs in regard to transplanting Find out if utilizing hay mulch in late autumn around trees to be transplanted to insulate soil from freezing so trees can be moved during winter months. Is this scheduling feasible. It would be good to get this work out of the way before landscape contractors' busy spring season. J 21. Establish timetable for moving trees offsite. Ideal to move trees once and avoid necessity of heeling -in for summer season. If heeling -in necessary have watering system in place, possibly drip system. 22. Get details on security wall for Administration Building. Are there any security requirements for adjacent landscape materials. 23. Get details for road/greenspace/walk/tarmac on north end of Terminal. Asphalt walks have been easier to maintain and plow for the Airport. Five feet recommended width. 24. Need sidewalk along exit drive to Maryland St./Airport Drive intersection. 25. Large Silver Maple in center of proposed exit drive at Maryland St./Airport Drive. Explore curbed island creating two exit lanes, left and right turn to preserve tree. 26. Check with Warren Spinner and Craig Lambert (Burlington and South Burlington Arborists) about existing plant materials and general ideas to install and maintain a healthy landscape. 27. Remove all trees that are showing signs of severe stress including most of the Norway Maples, Birches, Serviceberries, some Ash and Littleleaf Lindens. 28. Trees that are performing well on the site. Cedar, White Ash, White Spruce (in lawn), Catalpa, Black Locust, Ginko, Box Elder, Horsechestnut, Crimson -leaf Norway Maples (in lawn). 29. American Cranberrybush doing well in certain locations, poorly in others. Evaluate possibility of transplanting those doing poorly and enlarging the clusters in those places that are vigorous. 30. In new design, cluster plantings, then mulch the area to eliminate need for fussy mowing. An example; White Spruces at north end of site near Airport Parkway near Maryland Street are planted on a steep bank that is difficult to mow. Add more White Spruces (including transplants) to create greater density, mulch remaining area to eliminate mowing. 31. Add a single White Ash (third street tree on Airport Drive north of Maryland St intersection to replace missing tree. 32. Remove larger trees that are dead, diseased or dying and stumps that remain from larger trees that have been cut down. 33. Review plantings along east face of parking garage for health