HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0981 Shelburne Road (3)PLANNER
658.7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
July 22, 1988
Craig Leiner
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
66 Pearl street
P.O. Box 108
Essex Junction, Vermont 05403
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
868.7958
Re: Traffic Generation from the Larkin/Milot and Pomerleau
properties
Dear Craig:
This letter is in response to Bill Craig's request for us to work
up some traffic generation figures assuming full build -out of the
Larkin/Milot and Pomerleau properties on Shelburne Road. The
Larkin/Milot parcel is approximately 30 acres while the Pomerleau
parcel is approximately 40 acres.
Both parcels are zoned Commercial 1 which permits such uses as
professional offices, retail businesses, hotels, restaurants and
service stations. In the summer of 1985, Pomerleau presented a
plan for a 160,000 square foot shopping center on his parcel. In
October, 1987 Larkin and Milot presented a plan to develop their
property into a 22 lot "business park". Milot told the Planning
Commission that they want to attract interstate banking concerns,
however, he did not rule out the possibility of retail uses.
Based on these previous proposals, I suggest you base your
numbers on some type of retail shopping center use for both
parcels.
Assuming a worst -case build -out, of 30%, 522,700 square feet of
retail space could be developed on the Pomerleau parcel while
392,000 square feet of commercial/retail space could be developed
on the Larkin/Milot parcel. The worst -case estimate for
Pomerleau's parcel is much greater than his actual proposal of
160,000 square feet made in 1985.
Page Z
If you are not opposed, I suggest that you develop traffic
numbers for both the worst -case scenario and the scenario
incorporating Pomerleau's original proposal of 160,000 square
feet. This would give the committee a range of potential traffic
generation from a worst -case build -out to a more realistic build -
out based on what was previously proposed.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
41
oe Weith,
City Planner
JW/mcp
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
July 2, 1986
William Szymanski, City Manager
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Bill:
66 PEARL STREET
P.O. BOX 108
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
802 658-3004
RECEIVED
jut. 1986
MANAGER'S OFFICE
CITY SO. BURLINGTON ll
J
Today we received a copy of the general site plan for the
Shelburne Road Development proposed by Pomerleau Real Estate. We
are in the process of reviewing the traffic impact evaluation,
with particular emphasis on trip generation rates and level of
service analysis. However, I thought it important now to bring
to your attention the fact that the site plan is inconsistent
with two planned public highway improvement projects. The South
Burlington Southern Connector and Laurel Hill Drive extension.
If built as shown on the site plan, it appears this development
would prevent the extension of Laurel Hill Drive to the South
Burlington Southern Connector. Moreover, it appears that the
site plan might encumber right-of-way needed for the connector.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
ail,-,
ARTHUR R. HOGAN, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ARH:bf
cc: Ernie Pomerleau
20 Years of Service to the Municipalities of .. .
Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town
Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond
St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
66 PEARL STREET
P.O. BOX log
ESSEX JUNCTION. VERMONT 05452
602 *W-3004
July 2, 1986
William Szymanski, City Manager
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Bill:
Today we received a copy of the general site plan for the
Shelburne Road Development proposed by Pomerleau Real Estate. We
are in the process of reviewing the traffic impact evaluation,
with particular emphasis on trip generation rates and level of
service analysis. However, I thought it important now to bring
to your attention the fact that the site plan is inconsistent
with two planned public highway improvement projects. The South
Burlington Southern Connector and Laurel Hill Drive extension.
If built as shown on the site plan, it appears this development
would prevent the extension of Laurel Hill Drive to the South
Burlington Southern Connector. Moreover, it appears that the
site plan might encumber right-of-way needed for the connector.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
atllv
ARTHUR R. HOGAN, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ARH:bf
cc: Ernie Pomerleau
70 Years of Service to the Municipalities of...
Bolton Burlington Chorlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town
Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond
St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering & Planning Services
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
(802) 878-3000
TO ! r lSAI") 'S. KGC"►2
/ OF �Dtri (,Ayr. LIA)(s 1,ynl
sO- Ll1Q L1nJG} Una (// v��%U
L [EUTE° OF TUMMU O 1 TUL
DATE 1
JOB NO, 8
?50
ATTENTION
RED �•�')/ )�/�/) ,r_ I
SAI<rL 8 U,02NC-- 'D - (dome10 L -,/l Lk
vu71w UPQ_t_0VG 0
WE ARE SENDING YOU l)� Attached ❑ Under separate cover via____ _the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
jFj. Copy of letter(%) ❑ Change order ❑
COPIES
NO.
DESCRIPTION
J/rr �7D(ATE
'S !�'r-a6P
- Ju
! LZ7 ti g MOT w i T LTLAA1V)11J,&rs.
F cr Cc ! EA id II
3/) 'G�
�/ 07 L- rC ye
U(a.r-jC-A A, L _ tTc_ _PLAID P)QE-7 ,im,f',.)A a
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval
❑ For your use
❑ As requested
)4-- For review and comment
❑ FOR BIDS DUE
REMARKS
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returned for corrections
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return corrected prints
19 _ CI PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
own
s 4,
' r P%(
COPY TO C.!A 16, CL- //,/C wl !=NGL _ 0
SIGNED: ( . 00
PRODUCT242 e/V—as Inc, GMW, Abx OIA71. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once./ /
CSigl A F�L
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
133 State Street, Administration Building
O� Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Poill
November 8, 1985
Mr. Douglas FitzPatrick
FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
Esser: Junction, Vermont 05452
Dear Mr. FitzPatrick:
The Agency has reviewed your firm's report., submitted
on October 25, 1985, entitled "Traffic Impact Evaluation,
Shelburne Road Retail Shopping Center", South Burlington,
Vermont, dated October 1985. The report focuses in detail
on the following two intersections: US 7 with Laurel Hill
Drive and US 7 with K-Mart and Brewer Parkway; but, only
alludes to prob,loms/ improvements at other locations,
such as US 7 with Swift Street.
The following comments are offered relative to this
proposed project.
t, IIJ,Af 'A > ,
1. In general, although the Agency does not completely
agree with all estimated 1985 and 1990 design hour
volumes (DHV's) without the proposed project, as presented
in the report, the volumes do appear to be reasonable.
The Agency does not completely agree with the use
of ITE Land -Use Code 823 for a shopping center with
200,000 - 299,999 gross square feet for the estimation
of generated trips for the proposed project, which
has a gross floor area of 160,000 square feet. ITE
Land -Use Code 822 for a shopping center with 100,000 -
199,999 gross square feet would appear more reasonable
and would result in over 20% more trips during the
P.M. peak hour than the trips used for analysis in
the report.
2. Level of Service (L.O.S.) analyses for US 7 and
Laurel Hill Drive for 1985 and 1990 without the project
indicated L.O.S. 'E; and L.O.S.'F', respectively.
Using the trip rates for ITE Land Use Code 822, the
L.O.S. for the proposed US 7/Project Drive/Laurel
Hill Drive intersection with the project would be
L.O.S. 'C' and L.O.S. 'C', bordering on L.O.S. 'D'
for 1985 and 1990, respectively.
3. Utilizing Planning Critical Movement Analysis
for signalized intersections, the L.O.S. at the US
7/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersection would appear
to be L.O.S. 'B' bordering on L.O.S. 'C' for 1985
and L.O.S. 'C' bordering on L.O.S. 'D' for 1990, without
.�. Douglas
Page: 2
November 8,
FitzPatrick
1985
Novi 115' i985'
3. the proposed project. These levels appear to
be better than what is actually experienced at this
location. With the proposed project, the levels of
service are expected to be L.O.S. 'C' bordering on
L.O.S. 'D' for 1985 and L.O.S. 'D' for 1990. Thus,
with the project, the expected level of service at
this intersection will decrease approximately 1 level
for 1985 and 1990 as compared to L.O.S. without the
project. Again, these L.O.S. indications may be better
than what would actually be experienced.
4. As pointed out in the report, the section of US
7 in the vicinity of the proposed project access does
have a high incidence of accidents and represents
a high accident location. Additional traffic loadings
on US Route 7 without appropriate traffic engineering
improvements may only add to the accident problems.
5. The proposed access and signal layout as presented
in Appendix F of the report appears to be reasonable,
conceptually, except that the slip ramp traffic should
possibly be controlled by YIELD signs rather than
STOP signs as presently indicated by the stop bars
on the layout sheet..
6. On pages 6 and 7 of the report various geometric
improvements are listed as being required to maintain
L.O.S. 'C' on US 7 during 1990 DHV conditions upon
completion of the proposed project. Item 4 addresses
the construction of an interconnecting access directly
linking this project with the existing shopping center
(K-Mart) to the north. This appears to be a very
reasonable improvement which definitely should be
pursued. However, no traffic analyses were provided
to show the benefits of such an improvement at the
intersections of US 7/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway and US
7/Project Drive/Laurel Hill Drive. How much of an
improvement, if any, in the L.O.S. would result?
Also, on the Proposed Site Plan in Appendix A, there
is another access road which appears to run west
of K-Mart and touches down wifth Queen City Park Road.
If this is a proposed access, what would the traffic
impacts (benefits) be relative to intersections on
US Route 7 with this access in place?
7. Items 1 and 2 listed on page 7 of the report address
improvements incorporated in the proposed Burlington
Southern Connector project. As it would appear unlikely
that the latter project would be constructed by 1990,
the developer would be financially responsible for
any improvements cited as necessary to maintain L'.,O.S 'C'
rl \ =TO
. Douglas FitzPatrickrage: 3 �-,��November 8, 1985 L
7. on US 7. Some rights -of -way have been obtain $v 1�
for the Pouthern Connector project, however, them � 5 �985
may be a problem using this land independent of the
Southern Connector project. This matter has been
referred to the Attorney General's office for
consideration.
8. On page 1 of the report reference was made that
"existing geometric deficiencies are a greater factor
in causing traffic congestion than future increased
traffic volumes". Requirement #3 on page 7 of the
report states that existing curb radii at other
intersections and driveways (not identified) should
be increased. Requirement #5 discusses the addition
of a left turn lane at the west approach (K-Mart)
to the US 7/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersection. Again,
it should be pointed out that any of these improvements
would be the financial responsibility of the developer.
The Agency requires that the problem locations must be
identified using appropriate analysis techniques.
In summary, the Agency feels that additional information
is required before a decision can be rendered relative to an
access permit to US 7 for the proposed development. First
of all., field determinations of actual existing L.O.S. at.
the US 7/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway and US 7/Swift Street intersections
at a minimum should be obtained. Other "problem" locations
may have to be addressed. As pointed out on page 5 of your
report, "actual existing levels of service are estimated
to be one or two ranges lower than those calculated, primarily
due to inadequate geometries which significantly slow traffic
flow". Through actual field measurements you should be
able to determine the "inadequate geometries" which are
affecting the level of service on US 7 and associated
streets and driveways and to determine appropriate L.O.S.
Also, of prime importance would be the implementation of
the access between the proposed development and the K-Mart
shopping center. It would appear that this roadway link would
not only be beneficial to US 7 traffic flow by reducing
trips between the two shopping centers, but, would also
appear to be extremely beneficial to both developers by
allowing consumers a safe and easy access to shopping
facilities without having to travel out onto US 7. The
expected reduction in trips should be determined and an
analysis performed to calculate the level of service at the
US 7 intersections -if this link roadway is constructed
between shopping centers. Again, all improvements would
be the financial responsibility of the proposed developer.
If the other access road that is shown on the site plan
is feasible, then a similar analysis should be performed to
determine the impacts/level of service at affected locations.
Douglas FitzPatrick
age: 4
November 8, 1985
wo
�ORPORAiED
(NOVI 1l 5' i985
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning
the above comments.
Sincerely,
J. E. R. Landry
Project Planning Engineer
!/(/,cJQi,o-�•� I L . �il% Diu � ' .
By: Wilson K. Wheatley III
Research and Economics
Engineer
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
The Kiln 0 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000
1AFMt7RAIMIM
T0: Ernie Potnerleau
FROM: Roger Dickinson r2�
DATE: 13 March 1986
RE: Shelburne Road Traffic Study
South Burlington - 8 5 o b ,�,
On February 13th, I met with Will Wheatley of the VAOT concerning the
Shelburne Road traffic study. We reviewed the data which we had collected
since our original report concerning intersection delays, level of set -vice
conditions, and the results of the detailed accident history analysis.
Concerning the intersection delays and level of service calculations, our
field data indicated that the operating level of service during the P.M.
peak hour just before Christmas did not deteriorate below Level of Service
C. Our calculations had indicated the same. Mr. Wheatley, however,
continues to believe that Level of Service conditions are considerably
worse, at Level of Service E and has asked us to expand the field studies
and correlate them with actual traffic volumes. He has also suggested
that we redo the intersection capacity analyses using the 1985 Highway
Capacity Manual methods, which came out shortly after the initial study
was completed.
As a point of interest, in another recently completed traffic study which
we did for the South Burlington Factory Outlet Center, the City requested
that we analyze the Shelburne Road/Swift Street intersection. These
analyses were done using the 1985 HCM methods and resulted in projected
levels of service of L.O.S. E during future DIN conditions. This level of
service improved to L.O.S. B upon completion of the proposed Shelburne
Road modifications associated with the Southern Connector.
We understand from the state that construction of these modifications may
start late this year and will take two years to complete. During this two
year period traffic conditions on Shelburne Road are expected to be
horrendous due to detours and new ramp construction.
The results of the detailed accident analyses confirmed that many
accidents on this portion of Shelburne Road are caused by the numerous
driveways/curb cuts which exist.
What we were not able to document as well as we had hoped, was the impact
of northbound traffic on Shelburne Road turning right onto Swift Street.
Existing volumes in the northbound curb lane at Swift Street are
significantly greater than average; apparently due to traffic bound for
I-89. Again, our recent analyses show that the proposed Shelburne
Road/I-89 interchange modifications will correct this problem.
Our next step is to redo the intersection capacity analyses using the new
1985 HCM methods and to correlate, if necessary, these results with
expanded field delay measurememnts. I expect that we can complete this in
the next week or two and wrap this up.
Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services �
The Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000
19'March 1986
Mr. William K. Wheatley, III
Vermont Agency of Transportation
133 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
BE: Traffic Impact Evaluation -Shelburne Road Retail Shopping Center
U.S. Route 7-South Burlington, Vermont
FILE: 85082
Dear Mr. Wheatley:
In response your letter of November 8, 1985 concerning the
above -referenced traffic impact evaluation, we wish to offer the
following:
1. We have revised the estimated 1985 and 1990 design hour volumes.
The new estimates were prepared using a 2.5% annual growth rate,
compared to a growth rate of 1.9% used in the initial report. In
addition, traffic generation by the proposed Project was
recalculated using ITE Land Use Code 822, and additional traffic
from a proposed 25,000 sq.ft. expansion of the South Burlington
Factory Outlet Center included in the analyses.
2-3. Attached are revised intersection capacity analyses for the
segment of Shelburne Road between Swift Street and the
Project/Laurel Hill Drive intersection. These analyses were
performed using four conditions:
a) 1990 without Project
b) 1990 with Project
c) 1990 w/o Project & w/I-189 interchange modifications
d) 1990 w/Project & I-189 interchange modifications
The latter two conditions apply only to the Shelburne Road/Swift
Street intersection.
These analyses were performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual methodology, and as a result are much more detailed than
the initial analyses. They do, however, confirm that during the
design year of 1990, with this Project, Level of Service C
traffic conditions can be maintained on Shelburne Road at the
K/Mart-Brewer Parkway and Project/Laurel Hill Drive
intersections.
It is apparent, however, that the present Shelburne Road/Swift
Street intersection creates a severe bottleneck for northbound
traffic flow on Shelburne Road. This intersection, as it
presently exists, is over -capacity and operates at Level of
Service E. The resulting traffic congestion affects the two
southerly intersections, and operationally reduces their level of
service to E also.
Design • Inspection a Studies • Permitting
Mr. William K. Wheatley, III
FILE: 85082
19 March 1986
Page Two
ll �
This bottleneck was found to be eliminated by the construction of
proposed modifications to the I-189 interchange at Shelburne
Road. The projected levels of service at the Swift Street
intersection improved to Level of Service B, both with and
without this Project.
At all intersections, 1990 DHV conditions were analyzed using
existing signal timings and cycle lengths. It is our
understanding all signals from Home Avenue south to Baldwin
Avenue will be replaced as part of the I-189 interchange
modifications. This new signal system may allow possible further
improvements in traffic conditions beyond what we can project at
this time.
4. A detailed accident history analysis was performed, as
requested. The results indicate that the majority of accidents
(particularly rear -end collisions) on this segment of Shelburne
Road occur in the northbound direction. It was also noted,that a
significant number of accidents are caused by left -turning
vehicles exiting from businesses on the east side of Shelburne
Road, whose sight distances are obstructed by queued northbound
vehicles. Improvements in northbound traffic flow associated
with the proposed I-189/Swift Street intersection modifications
should significantly reduce existing accident rates.
5. The method of controlling slip ramp traffic (stop vs. yield) can
be determined upon the final design of the proposed intersection.
6-8. The revised intersection capacity analyses determined that
maintaining Level of Service C on Shelburne Road during the 1990
DHV with this Project will require the following geometric
improvements:
1. Construction of the proposed I-189/Swift Street
interchange modifications.
2. Adding a separate right turn exit lane on Laurel Hill
Drive.
Concerning the potential interconnection between this Project and
the adjoining K-Mart shopping center to the north, we agree that
such an interconnection would be of benefit in reducing traffic
volumes on Shelburne Road. We understand from our Client,
however, that while he also agrees and hopes to implement this
interconnection, he cannot guarantee that the necessary agreement
with the owners of the K-Mart can be worked out.
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
Mr. William K. Wheatley Z
FILE:35032
//� _
19 March 1986
Page Three. ��)
An estimate of the potential volumes of vehicular traffic that
mould use this interconnection was obtained by measuring the
cross -traffic between the Shelburne Road Plaza (Sears) and the
South Burlington Factory Outlet Center on two occasions. It was
observed that an average of 11% of the traffic entering one came
directly from the other. Applying this percentage to this
Project and the K-Mart shopping center, results in a reduction in
the volume of traffic on Shelburne Road between these two centers
during 1990 DHV conditions of up to 115 vehicular trips per hour.
We hope the above, and the attached intersection capacity analyses
results, adequately addresses the concerns and comments of the Agency of
Transportation relative to this Project. Should you have any questions or
if we can be of additional assistance, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLY14 INCORPORATED a
Po_r - - 10J��
Roger Dickinson, P.E.
cc Ernest Pomerleau
RJD:amo
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering & Planning Services
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
z
U 14&-
� L �
r; --► 9 3 S
O R�
"c
IF
0
r<
TOWN:
LOCATION.'
N
NOTE: LABEL APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS ON ARROW
ABOVE.
�R tj"'j
f3
0Lg
93 --► 772
`!5
REMARKS:
iZF—VISCs> 1990 �)�V
u10 'pw0AC-c:
SN a c-e p,ve 'Z-9
I
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering & Planning Services
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
RD.
TOWN:
LOCATION:
NOTE: LABEL APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS ON ARROW
ABOVE.
L �yFS
► Iq7
► 95
REMARKS:
hZCV1SGD P190 DNS/
wq ?- /09 Livi�Er2cWNNGC
il'1��J1FIC/'Ji 1lJrv; � w/ u
'R►Q 0 1 C CT-
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering & Planning Services i
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
S
3c� �
NOTE: LABEL APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS ON ARROW
ABOVE.
REMARKS:
RE�Isc� Iq�U 1aN
w� o Cc
u51NC, n 1/),.5 u/" /ANNLaAL,
GJtvw, la 2n i C VYz ur
I99C)
I�D
FITZPATRICK-LLEWE LLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering & Planning Services
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
U1 J A
TOWN:
LOCATION:
N
NOTE: LABEL APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS ON ARROW
ABOVE.
R
'�— 67
j
Lr��
K 500
. --► 13 3
► IB
FITZPATRICK•LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering & Planning Services
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
I- SNCL3URNc'R'D 1
d
L
s
R
TOWN:
LOCATION:
OR
NOTE: LABEL APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS ON ARROW
ABOVE.
IN
+k- ***** -#, thk*************************************************************,***�
HCM(-1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTIO1.1:3HELBURNE RD. & SWIFT ST. AREA TYPE:NON—CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATION:SO. BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIRE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 REV. DHV W/O PRO,',!, ---CT
ADDITIONAL !Hf"ORNATION:86027
,I--JAL`r'DT : RJ D TODAY' S DATE : 3-18-86
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** INPUT INFORMATION ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KInDTUOr)l [Kin cfll ITuMnl wn PAQTRni chin LIPC�TPN irin
LEFT TURNIf•dC, VOLUME
0
104
5
146
THROUGH VOLuIE
1973
757
93
0
RIGHT TURNI11k:7 VOLUCIE
95
0
0
248
PEDESTRIAN'_:.
0
0
0
0
ARRIVAL TYPE
5
4
3
3
PEAK HOUR Fr -',__TOR
0.90
0.90
0.63
0.63
PERCEr.lT HEAI1',` VEHICLES
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
HU11BER OF
2
2
0
0
GRADE
0.00
0.00
0.00
-•04
THROUGH LANE UTILIZATION FACTOR
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
BASE SATURATION FLOW
1800
1800
1800
1800
NUHBER OF Lrlf, ES
2
2
1
2
PARKING?
N
N
N
N
PARKING HANUEVERS PER HOUR
0
0
0
0
SIGNAL TYPE:
PRE —TIMED
iICLE LENC iTh :
90
NORTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP
i
LAME
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP is i_iNFIGURATION
12
0
0
NUMBER OF Lr,;ES
2
0
0
LANE 1JI DTH
12
0
0
GREEN TIME
50.5
0.0
0.0
SOUTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP >
LANE GROUP !_ONFIGURATION
1
12
0
NUHBER OF LANES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TI11E
13.5
68.5
0.0
EASTBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LAME
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP Cr_NFIGURATION
5
0
0
PLUMBER OF Lf HIES
1
0
0
LANE WIDTH
12
0
0
GREEN TI1IE
13.5
0.0
0.0
WESTBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP C'CiNFIGURATION
2
10
0
NUMBER OF Lr"ihES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
11
11
0
GREEN TIRE
13.5
27.0
0.0
HCN(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTICiP;:SHELBURP•IE RD. & SWIFT ST. AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATION:SO. BURLINGTON
DATE t'ND TIIIE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 REV. DHV W/O PROJECT
ADDITIONAL 1111FORMATION:86027
ANALYST:RJD TODAY'S DATE:3-18-86
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INTERSECTION AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY IS: ****
THE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE IS: OVERSATURATED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
STOPPED DELAY (SEC/VEH)
ADJUSTED LANE GROUP APPROACH
APPROACH LANE GROUP VOLUME V/C DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
1
2757.33
1.39
OVERSATURATED
NORTHEOUND
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
115.56
0.46
27.56 D
SOUTHBOUND
2
841.11
0.67
4.04 A 6.88 B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
155.56
0.60
29.95 D
EASTBOUND
2
0.00
0.00
0.00 29.95 D
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
234.92
1.49
OVERSATURATED
�1ESTB0UND
2
393.65
0.88
35.66 D
0.00
0.00
0.00
f**f**4,4,4,+i,f**************4,**************************************_*********4:*,
x 1 n#*******Iklklk*Ik*i **********Ik***** k***************************** k 8* 4
HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION�:':-:IHELBURNE RD. & SWIFT ST. AREA TYPE:NON—CBD
I11TERSECTIGI`J LOCATION:SO. BURLINGTON
+,-;TE AND TINE PERIOD ANALYZED: 1990 REV. DHV W/ PROJEi T
t;DDITIONAL IJF-ORMATION:85082 & 86027
AljALY'-:-T: RJD TODAY' S DATE:3-18-86
**+• INPUT INFORMATION ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kirN ITl lrSYII 1.Ir. nnI ITI If-1 rll 1— t-/!"•Tr. !".1 —11 ir• 1If—T/'1l'1I
LEFT TURNING ',VOLUME
0
104
5
148
T HROUGH VOLui It_
2184
1028
93
0
RIGHT TURNING VOLUME
95
0
0
248
PEDESTRIANS
0
0
0
0
ARRIVAL TYPE
5
4
3
3
F'EAI•°; HOUR FA( TOR
0.90
0.90
0.63
0.63
FERCENT HEA',,f VEHICLES
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
h,U11BER OF E.U.=,ES
2
2
0
0
GRADE
0.00
0.00
0.00
—.04
THROUGH LANE UTILIZATION
FACTOR
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
EASE SATURATION FLOW
1800
1800
1800
1800
NU11BER OF LAI,IES
2
2
1
2
PARKING?
N
N
N
N
PARKING HANUEVERS PER HOUR
0
0
0
0
,Z')IGNAL TYPE:
PRE—TIIIED
CYCLE LENGTH:
90
NORTHBOUND:
LriNE
GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
3
LANE GROUP C,'-flIFIGURATION
12
0
0
NUMBER OF LAPIES
2
0
0
LANE WIDTH
12
0
0
GREEN TIRE
50.5
0.0
0.0
SOUTHBOUND:
LF;NE
GROUP i
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
D
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
1
12
0
f�JUE-IBER OF LAIJES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN T111E
1 D
68.5
0.0
EASTBOUND:
LANE
GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
5
0
0
NUMBER OF LACdES
1
0
0
LANE WIDTH
12
0
0
GREEN T111E
13.5
0.0
0.0
WESTBOUND:
LANE
GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
2
10
0
NUMBER OF LADIES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
11
11
0
GREEN T111E
13.5
27.0
0.0
1.yyiyyJ, L 1, H.Cr-1 ((y198L5L ,)) S1 GLNLAy Ly.IL yZEJDI,NLTLERSE. INTERSECTION CAPACITY CAPACITYANALYSIS
Lyy,y ,LL y.a, .L1y.L1
INTERSECTIOP:SHELBURNE RD. & SWIFT ST.
AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTER'ECTION
LOCATION:SO.
BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIi1E
PERIOD ANALYZED:1990
REV.
DHV
W/ PROJECT
ADDITITJNAL INFORMAT
ION: 85082
& 86027
�PJAL'fST : RJ D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TODAY' S
DATE : 3-18-86
THE INTERSECTION
AVERAGE
STOPPED DELAY
IS: ****
HE INTERSE,-:TION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
LEVEL OF
SERVICE IS:
OVERSATURATED
STOPPED DELAY (SEC/VEH)
ADJUSTED
LANE GROUP APPROACH
APPROACH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
LANE GROUP
VOLUME
V/C
DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
1
3038.67
1.53
OVERSATURATED
NORTHBOUND
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
115.56
0.46
27.56 D
'=,GUTHBOUPJD
2
1142.22
0.91
11.80 B 13.25 B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
155.56
0.60
29.95 D
EASTBOUND
2
0.00
0.00
0.00 29.95 D
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
234.92
1.49
OVERSATURATED
WESTBOUND
2
393.65
0.88
35.66 D
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
* ****:#.# 4 +.;
***************************************************************4:
k*k*****k*+ +***************************************************************t;
HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTIONd:SHELBURNE RD. & SWIFT ST. AREA TYPE:NON—CBD
INTERSECTIONl LOCATION:SO. BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIIIE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 DHV W/O PROJECT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:W/ I-189 MOD.
ANALYST:RJD TODAY'S DATE:3-18-86
*+* INPUT INFORMATION ***
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
LEFT TURNING VOLUME
0
197
0
148
THROUGH VOLUIi-
1973
1525
0
O
RIGHT TURNIr16 VOLUf'lE
95
0
0
248
PEDESTRI
0
0
0
0
ARRIVAL TYPE
4
4
3
3
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
0.95
0.95
0.63
0.63
PERCENT HEA',.,'( VEHICLES
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.03
NUMBER OF BUSES
2
2
0
0
GRADE
0.00
0.00
0.00
—.04
THROUGH LANE UTILIZATION FACTOR 1.10
1.05
1.00
1.00
BASE SATURATION FLOW
1800
1800
1800
1800
HUMBER OF Lf,kES
3
3
0
2
PARKING'?
N
N
N
N
PARKING MAP•fUl_VERS PER HOUR
0
0
0
0
SIGNAL TYPE:
PRE—TI11ED
11 ,1CLE LENGTH:
90
NORTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
12
0
0
14UHBER OF Lr4NES
3
0
0
LANE WIDTH
12
0
0
GREEN TIME
50.5
0.0
0.0
SOUTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
1
12
0
NUMBER OF LAKES
1
2
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIME
13.5
68.5
0.0
EASTBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
0
0
0
NUMBER OF LANES
0
0
0
LANE WIDTH
0
0
0
GREEN TINE
0.0
0.0
0.0
WESTBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
2
10
0
NUMBER OF LANES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
13
13
0
GREEN TINE
13.5
27.0
0.0
HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECT1003HELBURNE RD. & SWIFT ST. AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATIOW SO. BURLINGTON
DATE AND TILE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 DHV W/O PROJECT
ADDITIONAL IN ORMATION:W/ I-189 MOD.
ANALYST : RJ D TODAY' S DATE : 3-18-86
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INTERSECTION AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY IS: 10.6
THE 1NTERSE&ION LEVEL OF SERVICE IS: B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STOPPED DELAY (SEC/VEH)
ADJUSTED LANE GROUP APPROACH
APPROACH LANE GROUP VOLUME V/C DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
1
2394.53
0.85
12.94
B
NORTHBOUND
2
1461.16
0.69
0.00
8.03
B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
207.37
0.82
41.44
E
SOUTHBOUND
2
1685.53
0.66
3.61
A
7.11
B
3
170.21
0.21
0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
138.89
0.62
34.20
EASTBOUND
2
276.67
0.49
34.20
0.00
C
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
234.92
0.99
70.21
F
WESTBOUND
2
393.65
0.83
30.23
D
45.17
E
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
HCMtl985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTER'=>ECTION:SHELBURNE RD. & SWIFT ST. AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATION:SO. BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIRE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 DHV W/ PROJECT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:W/ I-189 MOD. 85082 86027
ANALYST:RJEi TODAY'S DATE:3-18-86
*4* INPUT INFORMATION ***
-----------------------------------------------
flIn6rlJnnl thin cnl IrLJr�nl IAIn CAcrnnl IAIn I ICcrnnl miri
LEFT TURPiIPIG VOLUME
0
197
0
148
THROUGH VuL, i !E
2184
1796
0
0
RIGHT TURPJIlG VOLUME
95
0
0
248
PEDESTRIAN;:'
0
0
0
0
ARRIVAL T'r'PE
4
4
3
3
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
0.95
0.95
0.63
0.63
PERCENT HEAD,%`r' VEHICLES
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.03
NUI1BER OF B _i __,ES
2
2
0
0
GRADE
0.00
0.00
0.00
-.04
THROUGH LANE UTILIZATION
FACTOR 1.10
1.05
1.00
1.00
BASE SATURAi10N FLOW
1800
1800
1800
1800
NUMBER OF Lri[!ES
3
3
0
2
PARKING?
N
N
N
N
PARKING MANIIEVERS PER HOUR 0
0
0
0
SIGNAL T`,`PE:
PRE -TIMED
CYCLE LENGTH:
90
NORTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3'
LANE GROUP (CINFIGURATION
12
0
0
NUMBER OF LAI'..IES
3
0
0
LANE WIDTH
12
0
0
GREEN TIP'IE
50.5
0.0
0.0
SOUTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LF,NE GROUP
LANE GROUP JDNFIGURATION
1
12
0
NUMBER OF Lm"''IES
1
2
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIRE
13.5
68.5
0.0
EASTBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
0
0
0
NUMBER OF LANES
0
0
0
LANE WIDTH
0
0
0
GREEN TIME
0.0
0.0
0.0
WESTBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
2
10
0
NUMBER OF Lf PIES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
13
13
0
GREEN TIME
13.5
27.0
0.0
HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTI0141:SHELBURNE RD.
& SWIFT ST.
AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATION:SO.
BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 DHV
W/ PROJECT
ADDITIONAL IHFORMATION:W/
I-189 MOD. 85082 86027
ANALYST:RJD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S
DATE:3-18-86
THE INTER,Et=TION AVERAGE STOPPED
DELAY
IS: 12.1
THE INTER'::IECTION LEVEL OF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICE IS:
B
STOPPED DELAY (SEC/VEH)
ADJUSTED
LANE GROUP APPROACH
APPROACH LANE GROUP
VOLUME
V/C
DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
1
2638.84
0.93
16.66 C
NORTHBOUND
1461.16
0.69
0.00 10.73 B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
207.37
0.82
41.44 E
SOUTHBOUND 2
1985.05
0.78
4.87 A 7.73 C
3
170.21
0.21
0.00
-----------------------------------------------------•--------
------- - --- -_
1
138.89
0.62
34.20
EASTBOUND 2
276.67
0.49
34.20 U.i--iO C
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
1
234.92
0.99
70.21 F
WESTBOUND 2
393.65
0.83
30.23 D 45.17 E
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
******kM44k4**#*********•******:********************************�**k#
HCM(-1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION:SHELBURNE RD. & K-MART AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATION:SO. BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 REV. DHV W/0 PROJECT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ANALYsT:RJD TODAY'S DATE:3-18-86
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** INPUT INFORMATION ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ninnri inni inin rani iri in,-�i ikin r-At rnni I►in i 1K1r,
LEFT TURNING VOLUME
196
54
125
24
THROUGH VOLUME
1299
1412
12
12
RIGHT TURNIr,;l, VOLUME
23
154
249
41
PEDESTRIANS
0
0
0
0
ARRIVAL T`' PE
4
4
3
3
PEAK HOUR Fr-,i__,TOR
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.90
PERCENT HEAV'r' VEHICLES
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
NUMBER OF BUSES
2
2
0
0
GRADE
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
THROUGH LANE UTILIZATION
FACTOR
1.05
1.05
1.00
1.00
EASE SATURATION FLOW
1800
1800
1800
1800
NUMBER OF LANES
3
4
2
1
PARKING?
N
N
N
N
PARKING MANUEVERS PER HOUR
0
0
0
0
SIGNAL TYPE:
PRE
-TIMED
CYCLE LENGTH:
90
NORTHBOUND:
LANE
GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
1
12
0
NUMBER OF LANES
1
2
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIME
18.0
56.5
0.0
SOUTHBOUND:
LANE
GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
1
17
9
NUMBER OF Lf-,HES
1
2
1
LANE WIDTH
12
12
12
GREEN TINE
11.0
49.5
49.5
EASTBOUND:
LANE
GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
1
9
0
NUMBER OF LANES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIME
12.0
33.5
0.0
WESTBOUND:
LANE
GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
7
0
0
11UMBER OF Lr;HES
1
0
0
LANE WIDTH
12
0
0
GREEN TIME
12.0
0.0
0.0
HCN(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSEC10h:SHELBURNE RD.
& K-NART
AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION
LOCATIOW SO.
BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIRE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990
REV.
DHV
W/O
PROJECT
ADDITIONAL INFORNATION:
ANALYST:RJD
TODAY'S
DATE:3-18-86
-----------_-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INTERSECTION AVERAGE STOPPED
DELAY
IS: 13.6
THE INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF
SERVICE IS:
B
STOPPED
DELAY
(SEC/VEH)
ADJUSTED
LANE GROUP
APPROACH
APPROACH
LANE GROUP
VOLUME
V/C
DELAY
LOS
DELAY
LOS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
206.32
0.61
27.34
D
NORTHBOUND
2
1461.16
0.69
7.46
B
9.92
B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
56.84
0.28
27.48
D
OUTHBOUND
2
1560.63
0.81
12.88
B
12.65
B
3
170.21
0.21
5.64
B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
138.89
0.62
31.46
D
EASTBOUND
2
276.67
0.49
17.05
C
21.87
C
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
85.56
0.79
48.78
E
WESTBOUND
2
67.78
0.37
34.20
42.34
E
3 0.00 0.00 0.00
i*** *** f 4 + 4• 1 r************** * 4****************** f * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4. +*** i(** k** k*.+# i
HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
at* *. 4•++++*************************************************,**************i
INTERSECTION:SHELBURNE RD. & K—MART AREA TYPE:NON—CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATION:SO. BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIRE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 REV. DHV W/ PROJECT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:85082 & 86027
ANALYST:RJD TODAY'S DATE:3-18-86
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** INPUT INFORMATION ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.innTi inns Min nni 1Tl Inns l.in r A(�Tf .... n 1 Ifs TI1r l nir
LEFT TURNING VOLUI1E
196
54
125
24
THROUGH VOLUME
1510
1683
12
12
RIGHT TURNIt.4G VOLUME
23
154
249
41
PEDESTRIANS
0
0
0
0
ARRIVAL TYPE
4
4
3
3
F'EAK HOUR FACTOR
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.90
PERCENT HEA')Y VEHICLES
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
NUMBER OF BUSES
2
2
0
0
GRADE
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
THROUGH LANE UTILIZATION
FACTOR 1.05
1.05
1.00
1.00
BASE SATURATION FLOW
1800
1800
1800
1800
NUMBER OF LANES
3
4
2
1
PARKING?
N
N
N
N
PARKING MANUEVERS PER HOUR 0
0
0
0
SIGNAL TYPE:
PRE —TIMED
CYCLE LENGTH:
90
NORTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP (CINFIGURATION
1
12
0
NUMBER OF LANES
1
2
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIME
18.0
56.5
0.0
SOUTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
1
17
9
NUMBER OF LhIJES
1
2
1
LANE WIDTH
12
12
12
GREEN TIME
11.0
49.5
49.5
EASTBOUND:
LANE GROUP
1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
1
9
0
NUMBER OF LAI'IES
1
1
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIME
12.0
33.5
0.0
WESTBOUND:
LANE GROUP
i
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP
LANE GROUP CiNFIGURATION
7
0
0
I•JUHBER OF L�, JES
1
0
0
LANE WIDTH
12
0
0
GREEN TIRE
12.0
0.0
0.0
HCN(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * f * * * * * * * * * ****4(r
INTERSECTION:SHELBURNE RD. & K-MART
AREA TYPE:NuN-CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATION:SO.
BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIitE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990
REV.
DHV
W/
PROJECT
ADDITIONAL r:F0RNATION:85082
& 86027
ANALYST:RJD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
TODAY'S
DATE:3-18-86
THE INTER';ECTION AVERAGE
STOPPED DELAY
IS: 17.8
THE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICE IS:
C
STOPPED
DELAY (SEC/VEH)
ADJUSTED
LANE GROUP
APPROACH
APPROACH LANE GROUP
VOLUME
V/C
DELAY
LOS DELAY LOS
1
206.32
0.61
27.34
D
NORTHBOUND
1694.37
0.80
10.12
B 11.99 B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
56.84
0.28
27.48
D
--OUTHBOUND 2
1860.16
0.96
21.66
C 20.52 F
3
170.21
0.21
5.64
B
1
138.89
0.62
31.46
D
EASTBOUND 2
276.67
0.49
17.05
C 21.87 C
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
85.56
0.79
48.78
E
WESTBOUND 2
67.78
0.37
34.20
42.34 E
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
k*******f,r:kk*****k*************************kk*******************k******k:a
HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
IPJTERSECTIOPJ:SHELBURPJE RD.
& LAUREL HILL
DR.
AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION) LOCATION:SO.
BURLINGTON
DATE AND TIIIE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 DHV
W1 PROJECT
ADDITIONAL IIJFORMATION:85082 & 86027
ANALYSE" : RJ D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TODAY' S
DATE : 3-18-86
*i* INPUT INFORMATION
***
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
LEFT TURNING VOLUME
171
115
270
6
THROUGH VOLUME
1370
1534
0
9
RIGHT TURNING VOLUME
18
360
302
61
PEDESTRIANS
0
0
0
0
ARRIVAL TYPE
4
4
3
3
PEAk' HOUR Fr;CTOR
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.90
PERCENT HEAL.', VEHICLES
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.00
NUMBER OF Ei_► _:ES
2
2
0
0
GRADE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
THROUGH LAPJE. UTILIZATION FACTOR
1.05
1.05
1.00
1.00
BASE SATURAI-ION FLOW
1800
1800
1800
1800
NUMBER OF LAI'IES
3
4
3
2
PARKING?
N
N
N
N
PARKING MAP•JUEVERS PER HOUR
0
0
0
0
SIGNAL TYPE:
PRE -TIMED
CYCLE LENGTH:
90
NORTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LAPJE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CC-41FIGURATION
1
12
0
NUMBER OF LA,JES
1
2
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIME
11.0
56.6
0.0
;OUTHBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP LDNFIGURATION
1
12
10
NUMBER OF LA'JES
1
2
1
LANE WIDTH
12
12
12
GREEN TIME
11.0
56.6
80.0
EASTBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP S
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
8
10
0
NUMBER OF LANES
2"
1
0
LANE WIDTH
12
12
0
GREEN TIME
12.4
80.0
0.0
WESTBOUND:
LANE GROUP 1
LANE
GROUP
2
LANE GROUP 3
LANE GROUP CONFIGURATION
5
9
0
PJUMBER OF LAi`JES
1
1
-
0
LANE WIDTH
11
11
0
GREEN TIME
12.4
11.0
0.0
GREEN, PROTECTED PHASE
1.0
0.0
0.0
GREEN, PERMITTED PHASE
12.4
0.0
0.0
HCM(1985) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTIONS:SHELBURNE RD. & LAUREL HILL DR. AREA TYPE:NON-CBD
INTERSECTION LOCATIOW SO. BURLINGTON
DATE AND TlHE PERIOD ANALYZED:1990 DHV W/ PROJECT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:85082 & 86027
ANALYST:RJD TODAY'S DATE:3-18-86
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INTERSECTION AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY IS: 17.4
THE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE IS: C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STOPPED DELAY (SEC/VEH)
ADJUSTED LANE GROUP APPROACH
APPROACH LANE GROUP VOLUME V/C DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
1
180.00
0.88
51.74
E
NORTHBOUND
2
1534.11
0.73
7.85
B
12.46
B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
121.05
0.59
31.66
D
SOUTHBOUND
2
2093.37
1.00
24.08
C
20.83
C
3
397.89
0.30
0.44
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
300.00
0.68
30.84
D
EASTBOUND
2
335.56
0.25
0.56
A
14.85
B
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
16.67
0.15
26.02
D
WESTBOUND
2
67.78
0.37
28.25
D
27.81
D
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
b****#**A+.+;+#***************************************************************+
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
The Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 9 (802) 8
25 March 1986
Mr. Reginald Welch
Utilities Division
Vermont Agency of Transportation
133 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
RE: Traffic Impact Evaluation - Shelburne Road Retail Shopping Center
U.S. Route 7 - South Burlington, Vermont
Dear Mr. Welch:
Enclosed please find the following:
1. "Traffic Impact Evaluation - Shelburne Road Retail Shopping
Center, South Burlington, Vermont", by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn
Incorporated, dated October 1985.
2. Comment letter from Wilson Wheatley, VAOT, to Douglas
FitzPatrick, FLI, dated November 8, 1985, concerning the above
evaluation.
3. Letter from Roger Dickinson, FLI, to Wilson Wheatley, dated March
19, 1986.
4. An updated site plan for the above -referenced Project.
As discussed last Thursday, the above material is being submitted on
behalf of our Client, Mr. Ernest Pomerleau, Pomerleau Real Estate Co.,
P.O. Box 6, Burlington, Vermont 05402.
This Project is still in the preliminary stages and has yet to formally
apply for local and state approvals. We do, however, believe it is
appropriate at this time to request concurrence from the Vermont Agency of
Transportation with the results of the traffic impact evaluation, and
preliminary approval of the proposed access onto Shelburne Road opposite
Laurel Hill Drive.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance,
please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely;
FITZPATRICK-�LXWELLYN INCORPORATED
,I
Rog r Dickinson, P.E.
RJD:amo
cc Ernest Pomerleau
Wilson Wheatley
Design 9 Inspection • Studies 0 Permitting
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
133 State Street, Administration Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
April 30, 1986
Roger J. Dickinson, P.E.
FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc.
The Kiln, 15 Brickyard Road
Essex Junction, VT 05452
L��;a;cx-utrrEurr OWRATED
l I� �'� roc✓
MAY' 2 WW t
RE: So. Burlington, US 7, LS 75+60 LT
Proposed Pamerleau Commercial Dev.
Dear Mr. Dickinson:
We have completed our review of your revised traffic data/
analyses for this project and offer the following comments:
In general, the revised 1985 and 1990 design hour volumes appear
reasonable as does the revised traffic estimated to be generated
by the proposed development.
Conceptually, it would appear that with significant geometric/
traffic engineering improvements along US Route 7 at key intersection
locations, acceptable levels of service/delays could be achieved
with the proposed project.
An interconnect road should be constructed between the proposed
project and the adjoining K-Mart shopping center to the north. This
improvement would provide much needed relief to US Route 7 traffic
conditions and should be mutually advantageous to both developers.
A separate right -turn exit lane would be required on Laurel
Hill Drive.
Detailed construction plans for the proposed access, traffic
signal installations, and any other required improvements must be
submitted to the Agency for review.
Sincerely,
Wayne/ G . Martin
Utilities Engineer
WGM:RW:djd
CC: Ernest Pomerleau, Pomerleau Real Estate
Jane B. Lafleur, So. Burlington Planning Commission
John Wood, DTA #5
Utility Files
::�c-uFrfun� c. Sp8Z
r�OV41 AG�4, P
�`0
NSppRlP
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
133 State Street, Administration Building 1 --
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
May 27, 1986
Roger J. Dickinson, P.E.
FitzPatrick-Llev�ellyn, Inc.
The Kiln, 15 Brickyard Road
Essex Junction, VT 05452
RE: So. Burlington, US 7, LS 75+60 LT
Proposed Pomerleau Commercial Dev.
Dear Mr. Dickinson:
It has been bought to our attention that in the fourth
paragraph of our letter to you dated April 30, 1986, it
appears that we are requiring an interconnect road between
this project and the adjoining K-Mart shopping center. It
is not our intent to require such a road, but rather, to
recammend that efforts be made to provide such an inter-
connection.
Sincerely,
Wayne G. Martin
Utilities Engineer
WGM:RW:dd
CC: Ernest Panerleau, Ponerleau Real Estate
Jane B. Lafleur, So. Burlington Planning Commission
John Wood, DTA #5
Utility File
-ice L
,
'�"" 9 • �- '� _=S•t.�-- .�.. _—��;c-��- �z ����•s� --ems j
w y � �, - .. � .. II _ I - � • ... � 'ill I
. � ��. •.ter
Xx -.
1
� � �� r i
---- I I -
.....
..... �w...,y,��� vet
RETAIL 75,000 soft
;1
MOTEL 200 moons
i
OFFICE- J30,000 w n
RESTAURANT, 3.000 w �•
•� 307, (JvD
l
_tee
- .u..+►'o. �'^+1�..-.�-.� ....•._. •����������������• .. ! ..ram. .w.. ( � +_ .a ji
- r• ___ _._..lY/MN hit• -_.._ di � 2.,��-`a•_J
- -' __. � i ,:jitr.. w!4. _ � s.`" •i-. _ _ 0ouosues..n�uu��o���������u1st
I'
A
,
POMElq-EAU
June 24, 1986
Jane LaFleur
Planning Administrator
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Jane:
Per the Planning Commission's request of last fall, we detained the review
process of our Shelburne Road land to assess what might be possible for
appropriate development on this parcel. It was indicated at that time that
by late spring, the Commission inconjunction with the Regional Planning
Commission would have had an opportunity to review the overall analysis of
development on Route 7. Since the completion of this study is still some-
what in the distance, we are presently at a loss as to how to proceed within
the prescribed guidelines of the Planning Commission. We, as you realize,
have done extensive traffic analysis and engineering review of this area
and would greatly appreciate whatever insight you could provide us on timing
and what the wishes of the Planning Commission are at this time.
I will look forward to your response.
Sincerely yours,
Ernest A. Pomerleau
EAP/nlb
Pomerleau Real Estate Co. P. O. Box 6, 69 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 8021 863-2841
TRAFFIC IMPACT EVALUATION
SHELBURNE ROAD RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT.
OCTOBER 1985
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services * Essex Junction • Vermont
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering & Planning Services
The Kiln - 15 Brickyard Road
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
(802) 878.3000
TO 9R, LgA)F yT ?0/Y) E 1_riR M
! (I'Yl EW LZA rA RSA 1. ZE-�'C_ T ATC 6)MPAN y
�v Bo.1, 6
WE ARE SENDING YOU X Attached ❑ Under separate cover via
❑ Shop drawings
❑ Copy of letter
DATE DG'
JOB NO.
ATTENTION
RE: /� i
� t... U � / \. ��{()V Y�I IX4 F_1 C,
c i �✓At.UA�' n�J
the following items:
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Change order RF—pU)q-!
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
iaAFFtc 11nFAC C✓AL(.lA� 1v�J
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval
014 For your use
W_As requested
❑ For review and comment
❑ FOR BIDS DUE
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returned for corrections
U
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return corrected prints
19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS wr_ HAV- StAt3Y417 I✓,0 5RiU
415 E:POAi
1l��tLSDn1 ��NEAi�r
'81/ CO2Y OF E 1: �'v 0,C A �SU
StA8())111►/UG TO TANt- LAT1EoQ, A/1ln DAVF J?11Z
COPY TO Li/9A) C4 FLF_alk SOLI i M .bU;eC./Aj_VA% �
/-I✓- S�ITz SIGNED: J?f
PRODUCT 2463 Are es Im. OrOW, Mm 0iaii. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at on
TRAFFIC IMPACT EVALUATION
SHELBURNE ROAD RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT.
OCTOBER 1985
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services • Essex Junction • Vermont
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
The Kiln 0 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000
23 October 1985
' Mr. Ernest Pomerleau
Pomerleau Real Estate Company
P.O. Box 6
Burlington, Vermont 05402
I RE: Traffic Impact Evaluation
South Burlington, Vermont
FILE: 85082
Dear Mr. Pomerleau:
As requested, we have conducted an analysis of the potential traffic
impacts on adjacent streets resulting from the construction of the
Shelburne Road Retail Shopping Center.
Our report concludes that this Project will not create an undue adverse
impact on existing levels of traffic congestion or traffic safety on
adjacent streets or at nearby intersections.
IAe look forward to presenting the results of this evaluation to local and
state officials, at your convenience. Should you have any questions or if
we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
FITZPATRICK-LLENELLYN INCORPORATED
Roger J. Dickinson, P. E.
RJD: amo
Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This Report evaluates potential traffic impacts resulting from the
construction of a proposed retail shopping center, having a gross floor
area of 1b0,000 sq. ft., on the west side of Shelburne Road in South
Burlington.
The impact of this Project on existing (1985) and future (1990) levels of
traffic congestion was evaluated by observing existing traffic flow, and
performing detailed intersection capacity analyses at existing and
proposed intersections. The results of these analyses indicate that
existing geometric deficiencies are a greater factor in causing traffic
congestion than future increased traffic volumes. Rith appropriate
geometric improvements, the analyses concluded that it will be possible to
maintain Level of Service C traffic conditions on Shelburne Road in the
immediate vicinity of this Project during 1990 design hour volumes,
including Project generated traffic.
Traffic safety impacts were assessed by evaluating the number and
locations of accidents which occurred during a five-year period
(1979-1983). Existing accident rates at major intersections within the
study area were found to be above average, with several intersections
being classified as "high" accident locations. The vast majority of these
accidents appear to be associated with the presence of large numbers of
stopping and turning vehicles. Additional traffic generated by this
Project is not anticipated to significantly increase existing accident
rates. Again, needed geometric and signal improvements would improve
traffic safety on Shelburne Road in this area.
Potential impacts of the additional traffic generated by this Project will
also be mitigated by the installation of a needed traffic signal at the
Shelburne Road/Laurel Hill Drive intersection plus the elimination of the
existing Burger King curb cut and access directly onto Shelburne Road.
Examination of long-range plans to improve traffic flow on this portion of
Shelburne Road indicate that the Southern Connector project, as presently
planned, incorporates many of the geometric and traffic signal
improvements needed to improve existing traffic conditions and to maintain
acceptable levels of congestion and safety for the duration of the study
period.
-1 -
INTRODUCTION
Pomerleau Real Estate Company is proposing a retail shopping center on a
40 acre parcel located west of Shelburne Road (U.S. Route 7) and south of
Queen City Park Road in South Burlington, Vermont. In conjunction with
this development, FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated was engaged to
perform a traffic impact evaluation of adjacent streets and intersections.
A preliminary site plan of the proposed shopping center is included as
Appendix A. This plan shows the proposed construction of a supermarket
( gross floor area of b0, 000 sq. ft. ) and other retail shopping stores ( dry
goods - 100,000 sq.ft.). The entire complex is to be an integrated group
of commercial establishments which will be developed and managed as a
unit.
The primary point of access for vehicular traffic will be from Shelburne
Road, at a point directly opposite Laurel Hill Drive. A secondary access
has also been shown, which if constructed, would connect with the existing
shopping center immediately to the north.
Two major areas of concern to local and state officials are addressed
herein: Traffic Congestion and Traffic Safety. The objective of this
Report is to identify potential impacts created by this Project in each of
the above areas of concern for both existing and future traffic
conditions.
For the purpose of this evaluation, the study area was limited to
Shelburne Road (U.S. Route 7) between its intersections with Swift Street
and Baldwin Avenue.
-2-
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Serving a major north -south travel corridor on the Kest side of Vermont,
Shelburne Road (U.S. Route 7) functions as a primary urban arterial
highway. Presently (1985) almost 25,000 vehicles per day travel Shelburne
Road in the immediate vicinity of this Project.
This volume of traffic is accomodated by two lanes in each direction,
separated by a continuous two-way left turn lane. The total roadway width
(curb to curb) equals 60 feet. All major intersections are signalized by
an interconnected signal system extending from Swift Street south to
Baldwin Avenue.
Existing (1985) design hour volumes (DHV) within the study area were
determined from the following traffic counts:
1. Automatic Traffic Recorder Count, Shelburne Road (between Queen
City Park Road and K-Mart), Vermont Agency of Transportation,
April 24 - May 1, 1984.
2. Automatic Traffic Recorder Count, Shelburne Road (between Baldwin
Avenue and McIntosh Avenue), Vermont Agency of Transportation,
April 24 - May 1, 1984.
3. Turning Movement Data - 1983 DHV, Shelburne Road/K-Mart/Brewer
Parkway, Vermont Agency of Transportation.
4. Turning Movement Count, Shelburne Road/Laurel Hill Drive,
FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated, August 14, 1985.
5. Turning Movement Count, Shelburne Road/Burger King,
Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Incorporated, October 1, 1985.
6. Turning Movement Count, Shelburne Road/K-Mart,
Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Incorporated, October 1, 1985.
Where the data was generated prior to 1985, as in sources (1-3), the
volumes were adjusted by applying a growth factor to give 1985 volumes.
The appropriate growth factor for this type of highway was selected from
data developed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
As mentioned above, design hour volumes were developed from the
above -referenced data. The design hour volume is defined as the 30th
highest hourly traffic volume which occurs on an annual basis and is used
as a design parameter in the design of highways, intersections and traffic
control parameters.
Since large projects, such as this one, seldom are completed, fully
occupied and operational within a one year period, traffic volumes are
typically projected to a future design
g year, and conditions also analyzed
for that design year. For this Project, a five-year projection, to 1990,
was utilized.
Once the DHV's and corresponding turning movements of adjacent street
traffic were determined, it was necessary to estimate the volumes and
directional patterns of the additional vehicular traffic which this
Project will generate.
-3-
Additional traffic, which Rill be generated by this Project, Has estimated
using trip generation rates, as outlined in the "ITE Informational Report,
Trip Generation, 3rd Edition". This report outlines results of trip
generation studies for various land -use categories during "average
weekdays" and periods of peak traffic volumes. Land -use category 823,
Retail Shopping Center, 200, 000-299, 999 G. S. F. (G. S. F. = gross square feet
of leaseable area), was used, because its land -use description most
closely matched that of this Project's, and the floor area range matched
the total of this Project's floor area plus that of the adjacent existing
shopping center. It is relevant to note that three separate major retail
shopping centers, having a combined gross floor area of almost 400,000 sq.
ft., presently exist within 1/2 mile of this Project.
TABLE 1
PROJECTED -VEHICULAR -TRIP -VOLUMES
Average Heekday Vehicle Trip Ends 8,096 VPD
A. M. Peak Hour (7: 00-8: 00 a. m. )
Entering 64 VPH
Exiting 32 VPH
TOTAL 96 VPH
P.M. Peak Hour (4: 00-5: 00 p. m. )
Entering 372 VPH
Exiting 396 VPH
TOTAL 768 VPH
The above vehicular trip volumes do not take into account the diversion of
existing traffic from Route 7 into the Project or existing traffic
presently being generated by the Burger King restaurant. Several origin/
destination studies, performed at major shopping centers, have documented
that between 25%-40% of traffic entering and exiting a major retail
shopping center, such as this one, represents existing trips diverted from
adjacent streets. The lower limit of 25% was used in analyzing potential
traffic impacts resulting from this Project.
As indicated in Table 1, traffic generated by this Project will typically
peak on weekdays during the P.M. peak hour, between 4: 00 p.m. and 5: 00
p.m., of adjacent street traffic. The two peak volume conditions,
ocurring simultaneously, will therefore result in the greatest amount of
traffic congestion.
The directional distribution of traffic entering and exiting the Project
during the P.M. peak hour was estimated from existing traffic patterns and
turning movements at the major retail shopping center (K-Mart) and
fast-food restaurant (Burger King) located immediately to the north of
this Project. These patterns indicate that the percentages of
northbound/through/southbound turning movements will be b5%/2%/33% and
-4-
43%/3%/54% for entering and exiting traffic, respectively.
Since traffic flow on an urban street network is typically limited by the
capacity at intersections, potential impacts of this Project on existing
traffic conditions were determined by performing intersection capacity
analyses. P.M. peak hour traffic conditions were analyzed in detail at
two intersections within the study area; Shelburne Road/Project/Laurel
Hill Drive and Shelburne Road/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway. Analyses were
performed for both 1985 and 1990 design hour volumes, and both with and
( without this Project. The methodology used was obtained from the "1a85_
fHighxay_Capacity_Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.". Table 2 below presents the results of these analyses. The
detailed calculations are also enclosed as Appendices B-E.
INTERSECTION
Shelburne Rd./K-Mart/
Brewer Parkway
TABLE_2
DESIGN-HOUR-LEVELS_OF_SERVICE
1985
1990
WITHOUT
WITHOUT
PROJECT
PROJECT_
L. 0. S. B
L_0. S_C
Shelburne Rd. /Project/ L. 0. S. E
Laurel Hill Drive
L. 0. S. A = No delay
L. O. S. B = Short delays
L. O. S. C = Average delays
L. 0. S. F
1985 1990
WITH WITH
PROJECT PROJECT_
L. 0. S. C L_0_S. D
L. 0. S. B L. 0. S. C
L. 0. S. D = Long delay
L. O. S. E = Very long delays
L. 0. S. F = Extreme delays or failure
Urban streets and intersections are generally designed to maintain Level
of Service (L. 0. S. ) C to D during DHV conditions. The above levels of
service have been defined to represent reasonable ranges in the degree of
traffic loading and resulting vehicular delays and average speed on urban
streets and intersections. As indicated above, L.O.S. A represents very
low volumes with ample reserve capacity and no vehicular delays, whereas
L.O.S. F represents a street or intersection at capacity with extremely
long queues and vehicular delays resulting.
The above level of service projections require that intersections and
their connecting roadways be properly designed and free from influence by
any external factors which may adversely impact traffic flow. Our
observations of existing traffic flow on Shelburne Road, within the study
area, indicate that this is not presently the case.
Actual existing levels of service are estimated to be one or two ranges
lower than those calculated, primarily due to inadequate geometries which
significantly slow traffic flow.
For southbound traffic flow, there presently appears to be a bottleneck
located at the Shelburne Road/Queen City Park Road intersection, due to
the proximity of the I-89 exit ramp, and the resulting lack of "weaving"
-5-
space. "Heaving" is defined as a lane -change maneuver where vehicles must
merge into and/or cross another traffic stream. Major conflicts in this
area include vehicles desiring to make right turns onto Queen City Park
Road, left turns onto Lindenwood Drive and Brewer Parkway, right turns
into K-Mart, with other vehicles. The impediment in traffic flow occurs
when, as an example, a vehicle exiting the I-189 ramp desires to make a
left -turn at Brewer Parkway, and cannot cross the stream of traffic. This
vehicle then stops to await an acceptable gap, thereby blocking other
vehicles behind it.
Northbound traffic flow appears to be impeded by the lack of adequate curb
radii for right turning vehicles, particularly at the Swift Street
intersection, where a significant percentage of vehicles turn right.
Because these vehicles must slow to almost a stop in order to turn,
traffic following in the curb lane also must slow, causing queuing to
occur from Swift Street south to Baldwin Avenue during peak traffic
periods.
The much postponed and maligned Southern Connector project includes
proposed modifications to the on and off ramps of I-189, the Swift Street
intersection and the existing traffic signal system from Home Avenue south
to Baldwin Avenue. In addition, Pine Street will be terminated north of
the Southern Connector, thereby eliminating the use of Queen City Park
Road and, indirectly, the K-Mart Shopping Center as a major through
route. Presently, approximately 23-30% of southbound traffic exiting and
45-50% of northbound traffic entering this shopping center to and from
Shelburne Road during the P.M. peak hour represents through traffic taking
a shortcut. The Southern Connector Project will correct the problems
cited above and allow significantly improved traffic flow on Shelburne
Road during peak traffic periods.
Examination of the calculated intersection levels of service, as outlined
in Table 2, indicate that overall traffic flow at the Shelburne
Road/Laurel Hill Drive intersection will be significantly improved by the
installation of a traffic signal at this location.
In addition, it was determined that the existing Shelburne
Road/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersection will operate at one level of
service range lower than the proposed Shelburne Road/Project/Laurel Hill
Drive intersection. This difference is caused by the inclusion of a
second left -turn lane, in addition to a left-turn/straight lane and a
right -turn lane at the proposed Project exit, thereby reducing the sum of
critical volumes at that intersection. If a similar modification could be
made at the K-Mart access, the projected level of service at that
intersection would remain at L.O.S. C during 1990 DHV conditions with this
Project.
To summarize, maintaining Level of Service C traffic conditions on
Shelburne Road during the 1990 DHV upon completion of this Project will
W-C
i require the following geometric improvements:
E
1. Revise the on -off ramps of I-189 as planned by the Southern
Connector project.
2. Add a separate northbound right -turn lane and increase the curb
radii at the Shelburne Road/Swift Street intersection. This
improvement has also been incorporated into the Southern Connector
project.
I Increase existing curb radii at other intersections and driveways
in the immediate vicinity of this Project.
I 4. Construct an interconnecting access directly linking this Project
with the existing shopping center to the north.
5. Add a second left -turn lane at the west approach.(K-Mart) of the
Shelburne Road/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersection.
Appendix F details the lane layout and conceptual design of the proposed
intersection and traffic signal at the new access road to this Project.
-7-
TRAFFIC SAFETY
The safety of vehicular traffic traveling to and from this Project is
largely dependent on the geometric and physical conditions of adjacent
streets and on the presence of adequate traffic control devices.
Existing geometric conditions Rith respect to the horizontal and vertical
alignment of Shelburne Road are excellent. Adequate intersection sight
distances and stopping sight distances exist throughout the study area.
The only geometric deficienceies noted are the inadequate curb radii at
driveways and intersections previously discussed.
A five year (1979-1983) accident history of Shelburne Road in the
immediate vicinity of this Project Ras obtained from the Vermont Agency of
Transportation. These records provide detailed information concerning the
precise location, date, time, weather, cause, type, and the number of
injuries and/or fatalities of each accident.
During the five-year period, 312 accidents occured between McIntosh Avenue
and the I-189 eastbound on -ramp. Of these, 24b occured at intersections
(+/-150 feet). Since a large majority of accidents occured at
intersections, average and critical accident rates for each intersection
were calculated based on the total number of intersections involved and
the total number of intersection -related accidents.
The average accident rate, based on state -Ride data, for a FAP urban
intersection, equals 0.571 accidents per million vehicles. The critical
accident rate, calculated from this average accident rate and the volume
of traffic, Ras determined to be 0.738 accidents per million vehicles,
which is equivalent to 38 accidents occuring at an intersection on this
portion of Shelburne Road during a five-year period. If the actual
accident rate exceeds the critical accident rate, then it can be
reasonably concluded that statistically, the highway segment or
intersection is a "high" accident location.
The actual number of accidents which occured at each intersection during
the five year period is given by Table 3, below.
TABLE-3
FIVE-YEAR -ACCIDENT -HISTORY -AT -SHELBURNE -ROAD -INTERSECTIONS
----------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
INTERSECTION
ACCIDENTS
INJURIES
FATALITIES
Swift Street
47
22
0
Queen City Park Road
53
23
0
Lindenwood Drive
21
6
0
K-Mart/Brewer Parkway
45
13
0
Laurel Hill Drive
33
7
0
Hough Street (closed 1985)
7
4
0
Baldwin Avenue
21
13
0
McIntosh Avenue
19
9
0
W-10
i
The above accident information indicates that the Swift Street Queen City
Park Road, and K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersections appear to be "high"
accident locations. The primary causes of accidents at these locations
include rear end collisions and collisions involving turning movements.
The close proximity of signal systems in this area, inadequate curb radii
and numerous driveways are all contributing factors to this above average
accident rate.
Possible improvements, to reduce this accident rate, include better
synchronization of signals, increasing curb radii at driveways and
intersections, and closing existing curb cuts where possible.
"i
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
|
I h| / \
SwMI-1BUMWM IROAV ---�'-----
| r---) [----1 ;------�---�---- ---1 | -- '--1 /-l/----l[ --------
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES
1985 DHV WITHOUT PROJECT
Unsignalized ,r, Intersection Capacity Calculation Form Ea
Intersxtiort NG. RNG 129 VAML. 14ILL
Location Plan: Counts:
S�cL3tARNE swr�v Doe
r s T 1 Day N✓
A B Time w%0 }�t20JEc I
N Control le -
Prevailing Speed 15 rriPA
Hourly Demand Mi fic Volumes from to m
Approach
A 'T
B
C -,Y�
Movement
Ar —
AR -)t
!
BL I
Br
CL
CM r
Volume
/ 23 5
/ 6
/01
iya6
s
5
pch i.« TA* i I101
5
5
Step I Right Turn from C
Conflicting Flows - MN =
(from Fig. 1)
Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _
Capacity from Fig. 2 -
X Shared Lane - See Step 3
No Shared Lane Demand -
Available Reserve =
Delay A Level of Service (Table 3)
Step 2
Step 3
x
Left Turin tram B
Conflicting Flows = My =
(from Fig. 1)
Critical Gap from Table 2 T. _
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Demand =
Capacity Used
Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 =
Available Reserve -
Delay & Level of Service (table 3)
Left 1Lrn from C
Conflicting Flows - MN =
( from Fig. 1)
Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Adjust for Impedance
No Shared Lane Demand -
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Shared Lane Demand =
Shared Lane with Right Turn
Capacity of Shared Lane =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Overall Evaluation
C. ,—
'A An + Ar -
8' + 1235 - 1X43
5,5 sx
CR = .M
Mr - CR = P,*
0
BL ►r
+ ia3s
515 sx
MNS = Mt = 13 5
100 (BL/M,) - %
PZ - 65%
M, - BL - 13y .N►
LONG T)MPF,C. 9--LA-YS
C,, 1
IAA, + Ar + BL + Br -
T+1a35+10) -0�4= 2770-„
IT 0 sec
fO
MN. XP,=Ma= 7 PC*
CL = .00k
M, - CL = c,M
CR + CL = CRL = ��i ,,.e
(C',+ CL)
Mi. (CR/M') + (CL/M,) 6aZ
M„ _
M„-CAL- LY P.
UCRY WN6 TMEEIG 'DELAYS 0
✓e✓qy CwaC TO
L,O,S, Fes- Fri&,uQE
Critical Movement Analysis: PLANNING
Calculation Form 1
?%tersection SNct.Zuarve ►Rz I IC- tylavtr I'Bncm.,si.A Design Hour 14 8 S —6 Pea ci
Problem Statement .ICT�nm1NE S
0
Step 1. Identify Lane Geometry
Step 4. Left Turn Check
Step 6b. Volume Adjustment for
N
Multiphase Signal overlap
Approach 3 �
I
Approach
1 2 3 4
a. Number of
change intervals 40
Possible Volume Adjusted
Probable Critical Carryover Critical
Phase Volume to next Volume
in vph phase in vph
n, ' I U O 119
d�'
ILI I
I
per hour
b. Left turn capacity —y
on change interval.
A
N
t
in vph
c. G/c
0 o
oo
8. n
Ratio
d. Opposing volume
in vph 6
_ _
Q <
TITr
e. Left turn ,!O O
capacity on
green, in vph
f. Left turnJqO $O
capacity in vph
(b+e)
g. Left turn volume )Oct �.�
I i
in vph
A roach
PP
h. Is volume > capac-
ity (g > 0? N
Step 2. Identify Volumes, in vph
Step S. Assign Lane Volumes,
Step 7. Sum of Critical Volumes
in vph
Approach 3 6
01 3
0� o TH = ) �.4 C)
n n u fJ7
Q � J LT = "'ll
Approach 3
13 �'1
j
620 * '7—
C/ �
_ / 5 / / vph
Step 8. Intersection Level of
Service
L L
�- 67 N
L L
(compare Step 7 with Table 6)
icy
o U
O O
U U
O a" O
3
���JJJ
< <
Q.
a I -7, a a
Step 9. Recalculate
LT = % 1Z
Geometric Change
TH = C� MI
ML
Signal Change
u u u
RT =� �
J
Approach
Volume Change
PPrA oacf 4 tr
Step 3. Identify Phasing
Step 6a. Critical Volumes, in vph
Comments
(two phase signal)
l�J A 3 A 4
LL A) A a
Approach 3 -
i
1331BU
V I Q
Iul
0
a
I�Z
Al s A3 +
B1 B3
A2 A4
B2 B4
pproac
i
APPENDIX C
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES
1990 DHV WITHOUT PROJECT
Unsignalized ,r, Intersection Capacity Calculation Form
Intersection SNGt-81.UQlVC RSJ L AtA q L, 141141
Location Plan: Counts:
Dam 1�t5U
Day
A SAfm�- AS B Time w'o-Pt2wecr
19 8 S 1))4,) W,o 1?ROJCCI Control Si6P s16rJ
C Prevailing Speed _'&` ^^T4
Hourly Demand TndTic Volumes from to m
Approach
A 'T'
B
C �,(�
Movement
Ar AR ,
BL r
Br f
Ct. '\
Ca r'
Volume
! 17 J/l/1561
S
59
pchi%mTw11
Step 1 Right Turn from C
Conflicting Flows - MN =
(from Fig. 1)
Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _
Capacity from Fig. 2 —
'� Shared Lane — See Step 3
No Shared Lane Demand —
Available Reserve -
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Step 2 Left 7unr from B
Conflicting Flows — MN =
(from Fig. 1)
Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Demand =
Capacity Used =
Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Step 3 LeR Turn from C
Conflicting Flows — MN =
(from Fig. 1)
Critical Gap from Table 2 T,
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Adjust for Impedance
No Sham Lane Demand =
Available Reserve —
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Shared Lane Demand =
Shared Lane with Right Turn
Capacity of Shared Lane =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Overall Evaluation
Ca r'
'h Aa + Ar =
+ 1357 = 1366
5.5 sec
Mw=M,= 2O0 PC*
Ca = .M
M, — Ca = ,r„
B,, r
A, + Ar
i"i + i3 _ /3711 ws
5. S xc
/ 9 5
BL— / / l .t*
100 (Br/M,) _ 57 %
P, _ -.a
Ml—BL=lY .ch
LONG l yzarFtc ZEl AYs
C,. 1
'AA, + Ar + BL + Br =
1'Z +11V+ 111 +1568— 53 ..�
7, v sec
MN.
MN. XP:=M,= 5 ,�
CL = rd1
M, —CL=
Ca + C,, = C,n, = 6 `(
_ (CR + Cd
M" (C„/M0 + (CL,/M,)
M„ _ y „�
MI] —CaL-
-!5
FA1 LfAR C
Critical Movement Analysis: PLANNING
Calculation Form 1
intersection 54suauaNs 'Rv) l� M, -4.r 113yz .ce, Design Hour 14g0 46 ?KCg6cT
Problem Statement ��� darn ► �e-c7- S .
IS
Step 1. Identify Lane Geometry
Step 4. Left Turn Check
Step 6b. Volume Adjustment for
Multiphase Signal Overlap
- Approach 3
N
L
U
o Siam AS o
a I Q`iA w4v W10 IMWL"-T 4
n <
Approach 4
Approach
1 2 3 4
a. Number of
change intervals yU --�
per hour
b. Left turn capacity
on change interval, ASV
in vph
c. G/c 13 o/v
d. Optposing volume
in vph
e. Left turn
capacity on 1US U
green, in vph
f. Left turn I $ S $ U
capacity in vph
(b + e) a3
g. Left turn volume l jo
in vph
h. Is volume > capac-
ity (g > 07
Possible Volume Adjusted
Probable- Critical Carryover Critical
Phase Volume to next Volume
in vph phase in vph
A►A a ay , ►3 ►
Step 2. Identify Volumes, in vph
T Approach 3
RT _ I �i 913
1I TH = 136y
u n u
2 � J LT -
Step 5. Assign Lane Volumes,
in vph
Approach 3
)yi
I
Step 7. Sum of Critical Volumes
+ 5 r + I �S �1
_ JU53 vph
Step 8. Intersection Level of
Service
1cm
t L
U U
0
° °
n a
LT= 20 rn TH =� �Id
�- 7y Icj
U U
0 3
° 131� °
n
A a
131 639
(compare Step 7 with Table 6)
0
Step 9. Recalculate
Geometric Change
Signal Change
FIT = 23 �_ = F
ppr- .1c s
Approach
Volume Change
Step 3. Identify Phasing
Step 6a. Critical Volumes, in vph
Comments
^^
(two phase signal)
Approach 3
60.
N
� 5-1
U � U
0 13L o
a a Y
I8�
Al A3 +
B1 B3
A2 . A4 +
82 B4
Approach
APPENDIX D
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES
1985 DHV WITH PROJECT
Critical Movement Analysis: PLANNING
Calculation Form
ntersection _ SNcLausNC 16 / ?omsAu--r;Lk / tAykcL ALL Design Hour wl b60K>
Problem Statement _T(5le-,zm)Ne L.O.S. � Bule6C,Q KIN
Step 1. Identify Lane Geometry
Step 4. Left Turn Check
Step 6b. Volume Adjustment for
N
Multiphase Signal overlap
Approach 3
I I
Approach
1 2 3 4
a. Number of yV
change intervals '—"
Possible Volume Adjusted
Probable Critical Carryover Critical
Phase Volume to next Volume
in vph phase in vph
l
I I I I
per hour
AIA.. iJo2 /47 /US
-
b. Left turn capacity G i
on change interval. ' OU J
d
in vph
c. G/C S
o_ o
a _ n
Ratio
d. Opposing volume �(��(
in vph 66
t I
e. Left turn I I Q
capacity on
green, in vph
f. Left turn
capacity in vph
I
g. Left turn volume
Approach 4
in vph
h. Is volume > capac-
ity (g > f)? Y A)
Step 2. Identify Volumes, in vph
Step S. Assign Lane Volumes,
Step 7. Sum of Critical Volumes
in vph
Approach 3
�) �r RT = R-89
TH = 3 3' 1
it If If
Approach 3
l01
66 7 +JOS + 1 `4 �+ 66
��fC7
- vph
LT
CC�(Z
Step 8. Intersection Level of
667
Service
t N
U L
a
0 a
n
r7 a
L 1� � L
m 05
1 � m
o
IDS
(compare Step 7 with Table 6)
n
CL
_�
aCL
CL
—y `
LT = 114
TH = IQL4_ +I
_ 600
r
141
Step 9. Recalculate
Geometric Change 4V'O 2"oi-i LA vc
Signal Change
RT =6-
pproac J 1- ¢
pproac
Volume Change
Step 3. Identify Phasing
Step 6a. Critical Volumes, in vph
Comments
y A3gy
(two phase signal)
Approach 3
A) Al
W/�//
7 66,6
S L
U U
O �
CL 105_,1 0
n
Q a
t�
ly$
Al -i A3 +
B1 i— B3
A2 r A4
132 134 �_Approach
Critical Movement Analysis: PLANNING
Calculation Form 1
ntersection SHcia LAaN ,-- 12z % k- rYlagi; / 3Ac- ,,/e�Q, Design Hour I9y 5 wl -Flkoj cc, -
Problem Statement 9vr z mlN-- L. U_ S .
Step 1. Identify Lane Geometry
Step 4. Left Turn Check
Step 6b. Volume Adjustment for
Multiphase Signal Overlap
Approach 3
'
Approach
1 2 3 4
a. Number of
change intervals 40 ------ >
Possible Volume Adjusted
Probable Critical Carryover Critical
Phase Volume to neat Volume
in vph phase in vph
t
I i 1
per hour
b. Left pacify
p�aa al q 100 1I �
on clananinterval, -1;—�
change 0
in vph
w
Q
m a
e. aic I3 0b 77
Ratio
o ..a Q
CL
I -- — — a
d. Opposing volume
in vph q6 Qa�9
*
I 1
e. Left turn
capacity on /to 0
green, in vph
f. Lek turn
capacity in vph NO ?U
(b+e)
S. Left turn volume Inq a1�
in vph
Approach 4
It. Is volume > capac-
ity (g > f)? N
Step 2. Identify Volumes, in vph
Step 5. Assign Lane Volumes,
Step 7. Sum of Critical Volumes
in vph
� s O APP►oath 3 RT - I3%
TH=I4V1
u n ity,7
LT
Approach
+
13�a H�
I
74a + , ►72�.p�
_ IU (yf
— vph
Step 8. Intersection Level of
Service
L N
U L
U
q� w
U U
L 6r L
(compare Step 7 with Table 6)
Q n
n
633 a
Step 9. Recalculate
LT = —
TH = 12` Y I th
17X
Geometric Change
Signal Change
RT = a/
pproac ►- cc
pproac
Volume Change
Step 3. Identify Phasing
Step 6a. Critical Volumes, in vph
Comments
n3 �y
(two phase signal)
Approach
I
AIAa
T_
+
U
n�
/ y i
4 N L L
U U
4! �
o
Un
172
At A3 +
B1 B3
A2 +— A4 f
62 B4-Approach
APPENDIX E
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES
1990 DHV WITH PROJECT
Critical Movement Analysis: PLANNING
Calculation Form 1
atersection SNc{.-AuP,&C /6 �PQMSQ(.c,aLk JLi;LAaaL NiUL Design Hour /45o wj PROJECr (1601;)
Problem Statement
Step 1. Identify Lane Geometry
Step 4. Left Turn Check
Step 6b. Volume Adjustment for
Multiphase Signal Overlap
Approach 3
Approach
1 2 3 4
a. Number of
Possible Volume Adjusted
Probable Critical Carryover Critical
Phase Volume to next Volume
in vph phase in vph
_
change intervals q0 "
per hour
Al Al a63 153 (�
b. Left turn capacity SC)
on change interval,
w
$grnE As o
in vph
C.Gic 15O/. --�
Ratio
o .�y,, Q.
as I9$S ENV wl 0J6G1 Q.
d. Opposing volume 7 I a7(,
in vph
Q Q
e. Left turn
capacity on lost p
green, in vph
f. Left turn 191 190
capacity in vph
(b+e)
S. Left turn volume U7 5
in vph
Approach 4
h. Is volume > capac-
ity III> n7 A)
Step 2. Identify Volumes, in vph
Step S. Assign Lane Volumes,
in vph
Step 7. Sum of Critical Volumes
Approach 3
MI�I TH = Iy73
J LT = 11
Approach 3
I
300 I11
73 7 110 + r7 I ) SS
_ /073 vph
Step 8. Intersection Level of
Service
t a
U Q
731)
/L
t 76 L
(compare Step 7 with Table 6)
o
o 0
C Q.
a
CL
< 261 —"� �) a
Step 9. Recalculate
LT = I s 5 >n
I
Geometric Change q0D a nn C i utaC - Ara.' I
TH = 13U5
'�5
Signal Change
RT = I'7 n u n
I.. = F,
pproac -J ►- ¢
Approach
Volume Change
Step 3. Identify Phasing
Step 6a. Critical Volumes, in vph
Comments
_
-� A I A a
(two phase signal)
Approach 3
Tlq3 n y
_1—
737
t L
7i N
U U
O �
IID_J`CIL
`I
a 263 '� a
155
Al A3 +
B1 i-- B3
A2 A4
B2 B4 �,,
f
pprA o-acR d"
Critical Movement Analysis: PLANNING
Calculation Form 1
ntersection - SHct_au►aNc. 14 I k 011,97, 1 �eA Design Hour 14120 TNv ,I PsROJEc,T
Problem Statement wit zimmie, L O. S.
1. Identify Lane Geometry
Approach 3
N
L
m
SAME, Al
n 19$5 �HV w� PRGt)Et i n
a a
Q Q
Approach 4
(Step 2. Identify Volumes, in vph
Approach 3
RT= I99
TH=1620
LT = 2_
cc ►— J
N
t t
U U
A �
o °
a a
a a
a Q
LT =
TH =135�1
RT =
H 2 F-
pproac J F- a:
yT A3Ay
Al Aa
'33IB'-I
Al y A3 + B1 83
A2A4 B2 B4
4. Left Turn
a. Number of
change intervals
1 2 3 4
40
per hour
b. Left turn capacity
on change interval,
TO
in vph
c. G/C
Ratio
d. Opposing volume
^C
a
in vph
d�
e. Left turn
capacity on
104 _
green, invph
f. Left turn
capac y in vph
1$Y Flo
g. Left turn volume
Igo 23 51 18q
in vph
h. Is volume > capec-
ity(S>rn
Step S. Assign Lane Volumes,
in vph
Approach 3
I 1
52
V0
� N
cc
7ti r
U °
° l3l 000.
li
a
—� 641 6.169
I
PPA roach 4
I Step 6a. Critical Volumes, &
(two phase signal)
Step 6b. Volume Adjustment for
Multiphase Signal Overlap
Possible Volume Adjusted
Probable Critical Carryover Critical
Phase Volume to next Volume
in vph phase in vph
AIAa a-i I ItO /31-
Step 7. Sum of Critical Volumes
Fs10 131, + 1F9 ._ )
_ 801 vph
Step S. Intersection Level of
Service
(compare Step 7 with Table 6)
I Step 9. Recalculate
Geometric Change
l . Urn - tS/
Signal Change A%2�ACN 1
Volume Change
Comments
4, A'qRonc'a L i f C-
/, /1G " �' S. = C
APPENDIX F
PROPOSED GEOMETRICS & SIGNAL LAYOUT
SHELBURNE ROAD/LAUREL HILL DRIVE/PROJECT
INTERSECTION
'T
/ "= 6o
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
133 State Street, Administration Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
April 30, 1986
Roger J. Dickinson, P.E.
FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc.
The Kiln, 15 Brickyard Road
Essex Junction, VT 05452
RE: So. Burlington, US 7, LS 75+60 LT
Proposed Pamerleau Cam-ercial Dev.
Dear Mr. Dickinson:
We have completed our review of your revised traffic data/
analyses for this project and offer the following co:mients:
In general, the revised 1985 and 1990 design hour volumes appear
reasonable as does the revised traffic estimated to be generated
by the proposed development.
Conceptually, it would appear that with significant geometric/
traffic engineering improvements along US Route 7 at key intersection
locations, acceptable levels of service/delays could be achieved
with the proposed project.
An interconnect road should be constructed between the proposed
project and the adjoining K-Mart shopping center to the north. This
improvement would provide much needed relief to US Route 7 traffic
conditions and should be mutually advantageous to both developers.
A separate right -turn exit lane would be required on Laurel
Hill Drive.
Detailed construction plans for the proposed access, traffic
signal installations, and any other required improvements must be
submitted to the Agency for review.
Sincerely,
Z� 71"
Wayne! G . Martin
Utilities Engineer
WGM:RW:djd
CC: Ernest Pomerleau, Pomerleau Real Estate
Jane B. Lafleur, So. Burlington Planning Carmission
John Wood, DTA ## 5
Utility Files
POMERLEAU
March 26, 1986
Jane LaFleur
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Jane:
As a followup to our proposed development on Shelburne Road, our traffic
engineers have completed their final analysis with their new modeling study
and have submitted it to Mr. Wheatley of the VT Department of Transportation
for his review. As soon as we hear back on his comments, we will finalize
our update and submit to you for further analysis by the consultant which you
have contracted to study this entire question on route 7.
Please let me know of any changes.
Kindest personal regards,
Ernest A. Pomerleau
EAP/nlb
Pomerleau Real Estate Co. P. O. Box 6, 69 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 802/ 863-2841
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
PLANNER
658.7955
December 3, 1985
Peter Clavelle
CEDO Director
Room 32 - City Hall
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Peter:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed are the minutes from past Planning Commission meetings
(August 13, 1985 and November 19, 1985) regarding the Milot
and Pomerleau properties. As you can see, we have not reviewed
any plans yet and, in fact, have formally requested Ernie
Pomerleau to wait until our computerized traffic impact model
is available to evaluate the full traffic impact of this
development. Mr. Pomerleau has agreed to postpone his application
until the Commission is ready.
Clearly, one of our major concerns is the traffic impact. We
have developed an ad hoc committee to study the Shelburne Road
corridor problems and would like a representative from the City
of Burlington to sit on that committee. Perhaps Mark Eldridge
or a member of the Burlington Planning Commission would be
interested. I will send a letter regarding this soon.
Next week, the Planning Commission will be reviewing a proposed
agenda for a meeting with the Burlington officials. I am hopeful
that a dialogue between our two cities will bring issues of common
interest and conflict out into the open. My Planning Commission
has requested that the members of the Burlington Planning Commission
attend any joint meeting we hold. I will be working with Brenda
Torpy to discuss the agenda and possible dates soon.
I will keep you posted on future Commission meetings regarding
these Shelburne Road developments. Please call me if you have
any questions about these projects.
Sincerely,
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
JBF/mcp
Encls
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
Room 32 - City Hall
Burlington, Vermont 05401
(802) 658-9300, Ext, 150
November 26, 1985
Ms. Jane Bechtel Lafleur
City Planner
City of South Burlington
South Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Jane:
Our recent participation in the Act 250 hearings concerning the
proposed University Mall expansion was not particularly well received
by South Burlington officials. Many officials commented that our response
was untimely and suggested that Burlington should have objected long
ago. I continue to be of the opinion that the Act 250 hearings are
the forum to discuss the regional impact of major development projects.
On the other hand, I am sincerely interested in enhancing communications
with South Burlington officials. It is in this spirit that I am, at
this very early stage, expressing my interest in development proposed
on Shelburne Road by Messrs. Pomerleau and Milot.
I recently read in That Paper that Tony Pomerleau had begun discussions
concerning 160,000 square feet of retail space on property on Shelburne
Road. I also understand that Gerald Milot is contemplating a similarly
sized development to the south of this site. Clearly, projects of
this size will have a regional impact.
I would appreciate it if you would advise me of the status of
deliberation concerning these projects. 1 would also appreciate it
if you would send me copies of agendas and minutes of Planning Commission
hearings at which time these projects are discussed.
I thank you for your cooperation and look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerel
f
Peter A. Clavelle
CEDO Director
PAC:vcc
POMERI u
November 26, 1985
Jane Lafleur
City Planner
City of So. Burlington
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Jane:
In response to your correspondence of November 22nd, 1985, we will
respectfully honor your request to postpone our application for a sketch
plan review of our Shelburne Road development.
We obviously would prefer to have a quicker response but in keeping with our
efforts to maintain a very cooperative interaction with your department and
the community, we will abide by the wishes of the commission, and wait the
several months for your review process to be finalized.
I would sincerely appreciate being advised on a periodic basis as to the
status of this review process and would suggest that we meet occasionally
to keep you advised of our evolving plans in hopes that they would develop
into project beneficial for all parties.
I will wait to hear from you.
Kindest personal regards,
Ernest A. Pomerleau
EAP/nl b
Pomerleau Real Estate Co. P. O. Box 6, 69 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 802/ 863-2841
November 22, 1985
Ernest Pomerleau
Pomerleau Real Estate
P.O. Box 6
Burlinqton, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Pomerleau:
The Planning Commission met on Tuesday, November 19 to discuss
the City's traffic standards and the Shelburne Road Corridor
study that is being undertaken by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). It was their unanimous decision to request
that you postpone your application for Sketch Plan review
until a data base can be developed for Shelburne Road. From
this data base, we will plug in the expected traffic projections
and directional distribution of a development to analyze
the impact on selected intersections. This process is ex-
pected to take four to five months.
I£ this request is unacceptable to you, the Planning Commission,
of course, must hear your application. However, it will hire
its own independent consultant to evaluate your study and
conduct any independent traffic analysis. We would expect you
to reimburse the city for the cost of this analysis regardless
of the outcome.
Please be aware of Section 11.504a of. the Zoning Regulations
which allows the Planning Commission members to designate any
intersections that they feel may be affected by a proposed
development. It is the Commission's opinion that the present
traffic problem is so serious and the impact of a large develop-
ment on Shelburne Road may be so great that we would require
proof that your development has no adverse impact on inter-
sections that are already below level C and will not cause
any intersection to fall below level C.
Finally, the Commission has requested that you disclose all
phases of your plan including any development that you would
propose after construction of the so-called South Burlington
Connector. While the plan will be evaluated on your present
proposal the Commission feels it can only make informed and
Ernest Pomerleau
November 22, 1985
Page 2
intelligent decisions if it knows the complete story.
Please call me at your convenience if you wish to discuss
this further.
Sincerely,
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
CC: South Burlington Planning Commission
Jr3L
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
PLANNER
658.7955
October 18, 1985
Ernest A. Pomerleau
Pomerleau Real Estate
P.O. Box 6
69 College Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Pomerleau:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Mary -Barbara Maher asked me to respond to your letter of October
7, 1985 in which you requested our response to your proposal for
160,000 square feet of retail space on Shelburne Road. While we
can not claim to represent the entire seven member Commission,
the following suggestions may be helpful in your planning process.
Clearly, our primary concern is the serious traffic problem on
Shelburne Road and our desire to not aggravate it. In fact, any
development would be expected to improve the traffic flow.
1) Access to Queen City Park Road is essential. While we under-
stand much of this land is rough terrain, it nonetheless would
be a critical feature to lessen the Shelburne Load traffic impact.
It also would begin to lay the ground work for a South Burlington
Southern Connector.
2) We will request a dedication of the land for the proposed
Southern Connector.
3) At a minimum we would expect one access opposite Laurel Hill
Drive with the Burger King access relocated to that internal
location, one access to the Milot-Fayette property and one access
to the Just -Gold K-Mart property.
The need for right turn southbound lanes and traffic signals
must also be investigated.
4) The northbound bottleneck at Swift Street must be resolved.
This seems to require acqu i s i t ion of- add i t i.onl--I:I r i(Ili t-of-way
for a right -turn lane.
5) We prefer to see n innovative larking clleme that is visuall','
attractive from Shelb e Road. 1✓ti7e recommend that parking be placed
at the rear and sides f the huildinq(s) and not in front. The
Ernest A. Pomerleau
October 18, 1985
Page 2
front should be landscaped, and perhaps have pedestrian/shopper
amenties.
6) Finally, you can expect that the Planning Commission will hire
its own traffic consultant from outside the Greater Burlington
area to generate independent recommendations and analyses.
We understand your concern about being proceeding since adjacent
projects are not yet ready to come before the Commission. At the
smae time, we recognize that while your project alone may require
certain traffic, intersection or geometry improvements,(the
bandaid approach),the two projects together may require an even
greater solution such as the Southern Connector. With this in
mind, you should not be surprised if new developments on Shelburne
Road are required to contribute substantially to this project.
I will gladly discuss any of these items with you further. Please
call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
J, L/
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
cc: South Burlington Planninq Commission members
NORM COUNTRY
P ING
Ernest A. Pomerleau
Pomerleau Real Estate
P.O. Box 6
Burlington, Vermont 05402
Dear Mr. Pomerleau,
P.O. Box 333
Winooski, Vermont 05404
(802) 655-3661
November 7, 1985
As you are aware, I have been involved in the planning of your
Shelburne Road project for over two years. During that time period I
became a representative (from Winooski) on the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and later became chairman of that body.
Recently, the northern portion of Shelburne Road in South Burlington
has become one of the MPO's highest priorities, and a study has been ini-
tiated to consider transportation improvements for that area. The extent
of improvements will be affected both by existing traffic and by new
traffic from your development and several other large projects.
So as to actively and objectively participate in the MPO's efforts
on Shelburne Road, I find that I can no longer provide consulting services
for your project. I offer that decision with reluctance, because I support
this development and feel that there are few more suitable locations in
Chittenden County for major commercial uses.
Several parting observations on the traffic impact evaluation
prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn and on the recent correspondence between
you and the City of South Burlington are offered on the following page.
I hope that the Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization, the City of South Burlington, existing property
owners and developers of new projects will be able to work together to
provide the needed improvements for Shelburne Road.
Sincerely,
lea'
David H. Spitz
cc: Jane Bechtel LaFleur
South Burlington Planning Commission
Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Inc.
11/7/85
D.H.S.
Comments on Shelburne Road Traffic Studies
1) It is appropriate to consider both short-range and long-range improve-
ments for the Shelburne Road corridor. Size and phasing of new development
can be tied to the implementation of such improvements.
2) Specific improvements have already been recommended in the (Burlington)
Southern Connector plans, the South Burlington Connector Environmental
Impact Statement and in the Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn "Traffic Impact Evaluation,
Shelburne Road Retail Shopping Center" (page 7). All of these sources
provide relevant input and should be considered.
3) The long-range aspect of the study should at least consider the
following:
a) The length of a potential Shelburne Road bypass, pre-
sumably starting at the Southern Connector/I-189 inter-
section and ending at a point to be determined by existing
and projected land uses and traffic volumes. The point
of intersection with Shelburne Road is a critical point to
be determined at an early date.
b) The width of the study area, preferably limited to the
area between the railroad tracks and Shelburne Road. Any
"Super-7" corridor to the east is too grandiose to be
included in the current study.
c) Design elements of the bypass, particularly number of
lanes and use of at -grade intersections versus separated
crossings.
d) Whether transportation systems management or other tech-
niques could actually preclude the need for a bypass,
with any improvements provided only along the existing
Shelburne Road corridor. My own estimate is that a bypass
is necessary at least for the upper portion of Shelburne
Road in South Burlington.
4) In the short-range, it is clear that some specific improvements can
upgrade current levels of service on Shelburne Road. The benefit to be
provided from such improvements and the extent of new development that
could be accomodated can be evaluated in advance of a complete long-range
study.
Particular attention should be given to widening of the Swift
Street curb radii and/or adding an extra approach lane to ,Swift Street
and I-189. However, I am very skeptical about the benefit from a short
term connection to Queen City Park Road. If such a connection is pro-
vided, the great majority of traffic would still flow back to the busiest
11/7/85
page 2
D.H.S.
portion of Shelburne Road. The long-term connection should be to the
Southern Connector/I-189 corridor, and a Queen City Park Road connector
would be an expensive, short-term solution.
5) The studies should be undertaken under the control of the City
and/or MPO with consulting assistance, as needed, and using available
data and general support from the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
Local developers have offered to contribute financially to the Shelburne
Road studies in order to facilitate their implementation, particularly
short-term evaluations of whether some level of development can be
accomodated by immediate Shelburne Road improvements.
POMERLEAU
November 5, 1985
Jane LaFleur
City Planner
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Jane:
I wish to thank you for the time extended to David and I recently to discuss
our proposed Route 7 project. As a followup to that meeting, I thought it
important to review several of the outstanding issues.
1) As discussed, we still have reservations as to the effectiveness and
economic viability of putting in a simple service road to Queen City Park
road. We feel that the energy and time would be better expended on resolving
the South Burlington connector issue. I would hope that we would some how
be able to phase our portion of the project in such a manner that would permit
a limited amount of construction to take place with the remaining amount subject
to major access improvements. Such an approach, I feel, would act as a very
strong catalyst for adjacent property owners and other developers to participate
in a mutually beneficial solution. Our feeling is that a simple access road
to Queen City Park would not assist any of the traffic movement initially and
knowing the State's engineering approaches to new highways, may find no
particularly advantageous cost savings in a road initially constructed by the
developers. More importantly the vast sums of dollars such an initial road
would cost in our perception would be much better expended leveraging the City's
portion of the eventual connector rather than going to a road which would be
obsolete.
2) With regard to the dedication of land for proposed southern connector,
rather than a pure dedication, it might be beneficial to leverage these parcels
once again against the City's share of the connector.
3) As indicated in the recently submitted traffic survey with the attached
plot plan, the intersection after State review, is a fairly sophisticated one
which incorporates as suggested, the Laurel Hill Drive connection and the
elimination of a curb cut for Burger King onto route 7, in exchange for one
on the new entrance area. We have also expended a great deal of energy in
attempting to come up with a variety of designs that interacts appropriately
with our adjacent property owner's as well.
Pomerleau Real Estate Co. P. O. Box 6, 69 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 802/ 863-2841
Jane LaFleur
Page II
4) With regard to Swift Street, we have received indications from the State
that they are proceeding with a right hand turn lane improvement to this area
in the near future. As mentioned, we will attempt to get confirmation on this
issue.
5) With respect to parking, I am convinced that we can address the primary
concerns of minimizing black top and maximizing berms, landscaping, lighting,
in such a manner as to minimize the adverse impact to the aesthetics that
parking areas create. As discussed, parking in the rear of a retail facility
marks economic disaster and from personal experience with very few exceptions
has never worked effectively. I am convinced that this issue can be worked
out in such a manner as to address the planner's concerns.
6) We have submitted a traffic survey to you for your review and evaluation,
as requested by the Planning Commission in our initial meeting last year.
Hopefully, it will at least give a benchmark from which to work since it
indicates that we should be able to construct a reasonable amount of retail
space without the intersection dropping below a level C. You indicated that
it would be mandatory at this point to have the City contract another outside
traffic engineer to not only review these figures but to do an entire analysis
of the route 7 area as it pertains to our land and the adjacent Fayette/Milot
plot. Obviously, without this study we cannot proceed and if no funds are
available from the City, we as well as I am certain the Milot people, would
be happy to participate in some reasonable manner to expedite this analysis.
7) Additionally, as further discussed, we have contracted with Milot Real
Estate a site planner to review the interactions of our two parcels to better
illustrate to the Planning Commission an effort to appropriately interface
these parcels.
8) We still feel it is important for us to proceed independently although
as indicated above, are doing everything possible to assure the City that
there will be a proper interaction with adjacent property owners in an effort
to provide a well planned sophisticated environment.
Since we are anxious to get further clarification as to how we might best
proceed, we would be happy to provide whatever additional information you
may request. Thank you for your time and consideration. I will look forward
to your response.
Sincerely yours,
Ernest A. Pomerleau
EAP/nlb
POMERLFAU
October 7, 1985
Mary -Barbara Maher
66 Hinesburg Road
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Mary -Barbara:
As an update to the status of our land on Shelburne Road, I thought it
appropriate to write outlining where we are for you and request some insight
into our best approach with the Planning Commission prior to our• next preliminary
meeting with the Board. We have met with Jane Bechtel Lafleur and Dick Ward
who have been very helpful in assisting us to focus on several issues. After
this meeting and others with Jerry Milot, we have been restructuring our
proposed project to better interact with any future plans on the adjacent
property.
Essentially, the following is a synopsis of our situation and our questions
on how to proceed.
1) We have completed an indepth traffic study with respect to our project as
requested illustrating that with appropriate improvements and design, an
additional 160,000 sq.ft. of retail space could be constructed.
Hov., do vie coordinate this re-ort with the Commission to evaluate the status
of this traffic analysis?
2) We have been working for some time on this latest phase of development and
have dramatically scaled it down to accommodate traffic, sewage, and topographical
concerns. In light of the timing of the adjacent property, we would inquire if
it were possible to maintain reasonable autonomy between projects while still
being very sensitive and flexible as to the interaction of the two parcels?
3) We withdrew our recent request to visit with the Board for an update to
allow ourselves an additional opportunity to better assess the adjacent property
plans and to gain other pertinent data. We would greatly appreciate any insight
into the Board's philosophy on this area's development to better address our
approach on this project if possible.
As we both realize any development on Shelburne Road is a very sensitive topic
but we have a unique opportunity to deal --with larger parcels,,and while
Pomerleau Real Estate Co. P. O. Box 6, 69 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 802/ 863-2841
Mary -Barbara Maher
Page II
providing many challenges, I am convinced can be developed in a manner to be
of benefit to the community of South Burlington.
Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. I will await your
response.
Kindest regards,
Ernest A. Pomerelau
cc: Jane Bechtel Lefleur
EAP/nlb
COLIN P. LINDBERG ARCHITECT
120 Lake Street • Burlington, Vermont 05401
802-864-4950 802-863-5790
March 7, 1984
Mr. Dick Ward
Planning Administrator
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Ref: South Burlington Development Park (Pomerleau Property)
Dear Dick:
Enclosed please find an application for preliminary sketch plan together with
four copies of the site plan.
In the application I have included a location map, a completed form for application
of sub -division, a list of all the abutters, a brief outline sheet that reviews
key issues contained in the site plan as well as a site plan at 1" = 100'.
It is my understanding that the planning commission will be meeting in the
evening of March 27th, 1984 and at that time we will be present with additional
aerial photographs and copies of the site plan to review the preliminary issues
that are under consideration.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
L. P.
Colin P. Lindberg,
CPL/jcs
cc: Mr. Ernest Pomerleau
Mr. David Spitz
Mr. Doug Fitzpatrick
No Text
COLIN P. LINDBERG ARCHITECT
120 lake Street • Burlington, Vermont 05401
802-864-4950 802-863-5790
March 7, 1984
South Burlington Development Park - #329
1. Entrance road alignment with Laurel Hill at a signal.
2. Right-of-way for new access road 60'
Right-of-way planned. 150' (connector)
3. Connection to existing parking at K-Mart, Big Boy's and Burger King.
4. Durger King curb cut on Shelburne Road removed.
5. Road planned for future link to connector with on grade intersection.
Access road to southern property connecting to Shelburne Road at
a signal.
6. Initial Functions:
a. 200 room motel
b. 75,000 square feet of retail
C. 30,000 square feet of offices
d. Restaurant
7. Time table, winter review, spring approvals, summer construction.
CPL/jcs
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN
1)- Name, address, and phone number of:
a. Owner of record Antonio B. Pomerleau
b. Applicant Pomerleau Real Estate
c. Contact person Ernest A. Pomerleau
2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including
number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s).
Planned commercial development including such things as a motel,
retail area, and other uses. See Attached Plot Plan.
3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc)
I PSSPP
4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties
Please see attached list
S) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements,
covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.
Per Plot Plan
6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities
such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.
To be engineered
7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or
by the.South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed eub-
division, and include the dates of such actions:
None
8) Sutxmit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information:
1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties.
2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of
record. and (b) proposed subdivision.
3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of
existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and cove-
nants.
4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets,
utilities, and open space.
5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic).
6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property
and surrounding area.
date
Abutters - Pomerleau Property
Property Address
303 & 503 Queen City Park Road
403 Queen City Park Road
533 Queen City Park Road
929 Shelburne Road
977 Shelburne Road
1041 Shelburne Road
1075 Shelburne Road (Cemetery)
1095 Shelburne Road
1175 Shelburne Road
Mailinq Address
Green Mtn. Power Corp.
25 Green Mnt. Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Champlain Water District
PO Box 2085
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Baird Children's Center
1110 Pine Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Justgold Properties
1304 Midland Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10704
Lowell T. & Susan G. Spillane
Tamarack Shores
Shelburne VT 05482
Wesco, Inc.
25 No. Prospect St.
Burlington, VT 05401
City of So. Burlington
575 Dorset St.
So. Burlington, VT 05401
San Remo Realty Co.
PO Box 2009
50 Joy Drive
South Burlington, VT 05401
Fayette Co., Inc.
PO Box 7
Burlington, VT 05401
STATE OF VERMONT
-- p AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
133 State Street, Administration Building
J, Montpelier, Vermont 05602
�,9�SPOR�P�`O
May 27, 1986
Roger J. Dickinson, P.E.
FitzPatrick-Llewellyn, Inc.
The Kiln, 15 Brickyard Road
Essex Junction, VT 05452
RE: So. Burlington, US 7, LS 75+60 LT
Proposed Pomerleau Camercial Dev.
Dear Mr. Dickinson:
It has been bought to our attention that in the fourth
paragraph of our letter to you dated April 30, 1986, it
appears that we are requiring an interconnect road between
this project and the adjoining K-Mart shopping center. It
is not our intent to require such a road, but rather, to
recarmend that efforts be made to provide such an inter-
connection.
Sincerely,
r ta. r_ M-,-+- ; .,
Utilities Engineer
WGM:RW:dd
cc: Ernest Parrerleau, Panerleau Real Estate
Jane B. Lafleur, So. Burlington Planning Carmission
John Wood, DTA #5
Utility File
PLANNER
658 7955
City of Smith Bur11114;tou
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
e
October 18, 1985
Ernest A. Pomerleau
Pomerleau Real Estate
P.O. Box 6
69 College Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dear Mr. Pomerleau:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658.7958
Mary -Barbara Maher asked me to respond to your letter of October
7, 1985 in which you requested our response to your proposal for
160,000 square feet of retail space on Shelburne Road. While we
can not claim to represent the entire seven member Commission,
the following suggestions may be helpful in your planning process.
Clearly, our primary concern is the serious traffic problem on
Shelburne Road and our desire to not aggravate it. In fact, any
development would be expected to improve the traffic flow.
1) Access to Queen City Park Road is essential. While we under-
stand much of this land is rough terrain, it nonetheless would
be a critical feature to lessen the Shelburne I:oad traffic impact.
It also would begin to 'lay the ground work fol a South BUrlingtc�n
Southern Connector.
2) We will request a dedication of the land for the proposed
Southern Connector.
3) At a minimum we would expect one access opposite Laurel. hill
Drive with the Burger King access relocated to that internal
location, one access to the Milot- Fayette prop Lty and onr access;
to the Just -Gold K-Mart property.
The need for right turn southbound lanes inrd traf f is signals
must also be investigated.
4) The northbound bottleneck at Swift Street must 1>r resolved.
'Phis seems to require acquisition of- additic>n,11 I-iyht-of-Way
for a right -turn lane.
5) We prefer to see an innovative Larking ;chemr that i:; visu,111"'
attr-octive from Shelbrune Road. Wo that parkin�.7 he pl'ICOki
at the rear and sides of the hui.ld i n<l (;) and not in f rent . `I'h�
Ernest A. Pc>ir( r t(•,IU
October 18, 1985
Page 2
front should he landscaped, and J)OL-hap.-, have pedestrian/shopper.
amenties.
6) Finally, you can expect that the Planning Commission will hire
its own traffic consultant from outside the Greater Burlington
area to generate independent recommendations and analyses.
We understand your concern about being proceeding since adjacent
projects are not yet ready to come before the Commission. At the
smae time, we recognize that while your project alone may require
certain traffic, intersection or geometry improvements,(the
bandaid approach),the two projects together may require an even
greater solution such as the Southern Connector. With this in
mind, you should not be surprised if new developments on Shelburne
Road are required to contribute substantially to this project.
I will gladly discuss any of these items with you further. Please
call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
cc: South Burlington Planninq Commission members
K
-' �, ,�,��� ►1 C', vt-,-A
LV1
F fl, E L � NIVI'lu �rHk Rw
TRAFFIC IMPACT EVALUATION
PROPOSED
SHELBURNE ROAD RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
OCTOBER 1985
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
The Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction 0 VT 05452
StJM1�AR1(_QND_C01�CLOS�ONS
This Report evaluates potential traffic impacts resulting from the
construction of a proposed retail shopping center, having a gross floor
area of 160,000 sq. ft., on the Rest side of Shelburne Road in South
Burlington.
The impact of this Project on existing (1985) and future (1990) levels of
traffic congestion was evaluated by observing existing traffic flow, and
performing detailed intersection capacity analyses at existing and
proposed intersections. The results of these analyses indicate that
existing geometric deficiencies are a greater factor in causing traffic
congestion than future increased traffic volumes. Rith appropriate
geometric improvements, the analyses concluded that it will be possible to
maintain Level of Service C traffic conditions on Shelburne Road in the
immediate vicinity of this Project during 1990 design hour volumes,
including Project generated traffic.
Traffic safety impacts Here assessed by evaluating the number and
locations of accidents which occurred during a five-year period
(1979-1983). Existing accident rates at major intersections Rithin the
study area Here found to be above average, Rith several intersections
being classified as "high" accident locations. The vast majority of these
accidents appear to be associated with the presence of large numbers of
stopping and turning vehicles. Additional volumes of traffic generated by
this Project is not anticipated to significantly increase existing
accident rates. Again, needed geometric and signal improvements Rould
improve traffic safety on Shelburne Road in this area.
Potential impacts of the additional traffic generated by this Project will
also be mitigated by the installation of a needed traffic signal at the
Shelburne Road/Laurel Rill Drive intersection plus the elimination of the
existing Burger Ring curb cut and access directly onto Shelburne Road.
Examination of long-range plans to improve traffic flow on this portion of
Shelburne Road indicate that the Southern Connector project, as presently
planned, incorporates many of the geometric and traffic signal
improvements needed to improve existing traffic conditions and to maintain
acceptable levels of congestion and safety for the duration of the study
period.
-1-
INTNODQCTION
Pomerleau Real Estate Company is proposing a retail shopping center on a
40 acre parcel located Rest of Shelburne Road (U.S. Route 7) and south of
Queen City Park Road in South Burlington, Vermont. In conjunction with
this development, FitzPatrick-LleRellyn Incorporated was engaged to
perform a traffic impact evaluation of adjacent streets and intersections.
A preliminary site plan of the proposed shopping center is included as
Appendix A. This plan shows the proposed construction of a supermarket
(gross floor area of 60,000 sq. ft.) and other retail shopping stores (dry
goods - 100,000 sq.ft.). The entire complex is to be an integrated group
of commercial establishments which mill be developed and managed as a
unit.
The primary point of access for vehicular traffic Rill be from Shelburne
Road, at a point directly opposite Laurel Hill Drive. A secondary access
has also been shown, which if constructed, would connect with the existing
shopping center immediately to the north.
Two major areas of concern to local and state officials are addressed
herein: Traffic Congestion and Traffic Safety. The objective of this
Report is to identify potential impacts created by this Project in each of
the above areas of concern for both existing and future traffic
conditions.
For the purpose of this evaluation, the study area Has limited to
Shelburne Road (U.S. Route 7) between its intersections Rith Smift Street
and Baldwin Avenue.
-2-
TRAFFIC -CONGESTION
Serving a major north -south travel corridor on the Hest side of Vermont,
Shelburne Road (U.S. Route 7) functions as a primary urban arterial
highway. Presently (1985) almost 25,000 vehicles per day travel Shelburne
Road in the immediate vicinity of this Project.
This volume of traffic is accomodated by two lanes in each direction,
separated by a continuous two-way left turn lane. The total roadway width
(curb to curb) equals 60 feet. All major intersections are signalized by
an interconnected signal system extending from Swift Street south to
Baldwin Avenue.
Existing (1985) design hour volumes (DHV) within the study area were
determined from the following traffic counts:
1. Automatic Traffic Recorder Count, Shelburne Road (between Queen
City Park Road and K-Mart), Vermont Agency of Transportation,
April 24 - May 1, 1984.
2. Automatic Traffic Recorder Count, Shelburne Road (between Baldwin
Avenue and McIntosh Avenue), Vermont Agency of Transportation,
April 24 - May 1, 1984.
3. Turning Movement Data - 1983 DHV, Shelburne Road/K-Mart/Brewer
Parkway, Vermont Agency of Transportation.
4. Turning Movement Count, Shelburne Road/Laurel Hill Drive,
FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated, August 14, 1985.
5. Turning Movement Count, Shelburne Road/Burger King,
Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Incorporated, October 1, 1985.
6. Turning Movement Count, Shelburne Road/K-Mart,
FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated, October 1, 1985.
Ahere the data was generated prior to 1985, as in sources (1-3), the
volumes were adjusted by applying a growth factor to give 1985 volumes.
The appropriate growth factor for this type of highway was selected from
data developed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
As mentioned above, design hour volumes were developed from the
above -referenced data. The design hour volume is defined as the 30th
highest hourly traffic volume which occurs on an annual basis and is used
as a design parameter in the design of highways, intersections and traffic
control parameters.
Since large projects, such as this one, seldom are completed, fully
occupied and operational within a one year period, traffic volumes are
typically projected to a future design year, and conditions also analyzed
for that design year. For this Project, a five-year projection, to 1990,
was utilized.
Once the DHV's and corresponding turning movements of adjacent street
traffic Here determined, it Has necessary to estimate the volumes and
directional patterns of the additional vehicular traffic which this
Project Hill generate.
-3-
The volume of additional traffic which Rill be generated by this Project
was estimated using trip generation rates, as outlined in the "ITE
Informational Report, Trip Generation, 3rd Edition". This report outlines
results of trip generation studies for various land -use categories during
"average weekdays" and periods of peak traffic volumes. Land use category
823, Retail Shopping Center, 200, 000-299, 999 G. S. F. (G. S. F. = gross square
feet of leaseable area), was used, because its land use description most
closely matched that of this Projects, and the floor area range matched
the total of this Project's floor area plus that of the adjacent existing
shopping center. (It should be noted that three separate major retail
shopping centers, having a combined gross floor area of almost 400,000 sq.
ft., presently exist within 1/2 mile of this Project).
TABLE 1
PROJECTED -VEHICULAR -TRIP -VOLUMES
Average Heekday Vehicle Trip Ends 8,096 VPD
A. M. Peak Hour (7: 00-8: 00 a. m. )
Entering 64 VPH
Exiting 32 VPH
TOTAL 96 VPH
P. M. Peak Hour ( 4: 00-5: 00 P. m. )
Entering 372 VPH
Exiting 396 VPH
TOTAL 768 VPH
The above vehicular trip volumes do not take into account the diversion of
existing traffic from Route 7 into the Project or existing traffic
presently being generated by the Burger Ring restaurant. Various traffic
studies have documented that between 25%-40% of traffic entering and
exiting a major retail shopping center, such as this one, represents
existing trips diverted from adjacent streets. The lower limit of 25%
reduction was used in analyzing potential traffic impacts resulting from
this Project.
As indicated in Table 1, traffic generated by this Project will typically
peak on weekdays during the P.M. peak hour, between 4: 00 p.m. and 5: 00
p.m., of adjacent street traffic. The two peak volume conditions,
ocurring simultaneously, will therefore result in the greatest amount of
traffic congestion.
The directional distribution of traffic entering and exiting the Project
during the P. M. peak hour was estimated from existing traffic patterns and
turning movements at the major retail shopping center (K-Mart) and
fast-food restaurant ( Burger Ring) located immediately to the north of
this Project. These patterns indicate that the percentages of
northbound/through/southbound turning movements will be 65%/2%/33% and
43%/3%/54% for entering and exiting traffic, respectively.
-4-
Since traffic flow on an urban street network is typically limited by the
capacity at intersections, potential impacts of this Project on existing
traffic conditions Here determined by performing intersection capacity
analyses. P.M. peak hour traffic conditions Here analyzed in detail at
two intersections within the study area; Shelburne Road/Project/Laurel
Hill Drive and Shelburne Road/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway. Analyses were
performed for both 1985 and 1990 design hour volumes, and both with and
without this Project. The methodology used was obtained from the "1485_
HighHay_Capacity_Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.". Table 2 below presents the results of these analyses.
TABLE 2
DESIGN_H99R_LEVELS-OF_SERV19E
1985
1990
1985
1990
WITHOUT
WITHOUT
WITH
WITH
INTERSECTION
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
Shelburne Rd. /K-Mart/
L. 0. S.
B L. 0. S. C
L. 0. S. C
L. 0. S. D
Brewer Parkway
Shelburne Rd. /Project/
L. 0. S.
E. L. 0. S. F
L. 0. S. B
L. 0. S. C
Laurel Hill Drive
L. 0. S. A = No delay
L. O. S. D = Long
delay
L. O. S. B = Short delays
L. 0. S. E = Very
long delays
L. O. S. C = Average
delays
L. 0. S. F = Extreme delays or
failure
Urban streets and intersections are generally designed to maintain Level
of Service (L. 0. S. ) C to D during DHV conditions. The above levels of
service have been defined to represent reasonable ranges in the degree of
traffic loading and resulting vehicular delays and average speed on urban
streets and intersections. As indicated above, L.O.S. A represents very
low volumes Kith ample reserve capacity and no vehicular delays, whereas
L.O.S. F represents a street or intersection at capacity Kith extremely
long queues and vehicular delays resulting.
The above level of service projections require that intersections and
their connecting roadways be properly designed and free from influence by
any external factors, which may adversely impact traffic flow. Our
observations of existing traffic flow on Shelburne Road, within the study
area, indicate that this is not presently the case.
Actual existing levels of service are estimated to be one or two ranges
lower than those calculated, primarily due to inadequate geometrics which
significantly slow traffic flow.
For south bound traffic flow, there presently appears to be a bottleneck
located at the Shelburne Road/Queen City Park Road intersection, due to
the proximity of the I-89 exit ramp, and the resulting lack of "Heaving"
space. "Weaving" is defined as a lane -change maneuver where vehicles must
-5-
merge into and/or cross another traffic stream. Major conflicts in this
area include vehicles desiring to make right turns onto Queen City Park
Road, left turns onto Lindenwood Drive and Bremer Parkway, right turns
into R-Mart, with other vehicles. The impediment in traffic flow occurs
when, as an example, a vehicle exiting the I-189 ramp desires to make a
left -turn at Brewer Parkway, and cannot cross the stream of traffic. This
vehicle then stops to await an acceptable gap, thereby blocking other
vehicles behind it.
Northbound traffic flow appears to be impeded by the lack of adequate curb
radii for right turning vehicles, particularly at the Swift Street
intersection, where a significant percentage of vehicles turn right.
Because these vehicles must slow to almost a stop in order to turn,
traffic following in the curb lane also must slow, causing queuing to
occur from Swift Street south to Baldwin Avenue during peak traffic
periods.
The much postponed and maligned Southern Connector project includes
proposed modifications to the on and off ramps of I-189, the Swift Street
intersection and the existing traffic signal system from Home Avenue south
to Baldwin Avenue. In addition, Pine Street will be terminated north of
the Southern Connector, thereby eliminating the use of Queen City Park
Road and, indirectly, the K-Mart Shopping Center as a major through
route. Presently, approximately 23-30% of southbound traffic exiting and
45-50% of northbound traffic entering this shopping center to and from
Shelburne Road during the P.N. peak hour represents through traffic taking
a shortcut. The Southern Connector Project Hill correct the problems
cited above and allow significantly improved traffic flow on Shelburne
Road during peak traffic periods.
Examination of the calculated intersection levels of service, as outlined
in Table 2, indicate that overall traffic flow at the Shelburne
Road/Laurel Hill Drive intersection Hill be significantly improved by the
installation of a traffic signal at this location.
In addition, it was determined that the existing Shelburne
Road/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersection Hill operate at one level of
service range lower than the proposed Shelburne Road/Project/Laurel Hill
Drive intersection. This difference is caused by the inclusion of a
second left -turn lane, in addition to a left-turn/straight lane and a
right -turn lane at the proposed Project exit, thereby reducing the sum of
critical volumes at that intersection. If a similar modification could be
made at the R-Mart access, the projected level of service at that
intersection would remain at L.O.S. C during 1990 DHV conditions with this
Project.
To summarize, maintaining Level of Service C traffic conditions on
Shelburne Road during the 1990 DHV upon completion of this Project will
-b-
require the following geometric improvements:
1. Revise the on -off ramps of I-189 as planned by the Southern
Connector project.
2. Add a separate northbound right -turn lane and increase the curb
radii at the Shelburne Road/Swift Street intersection. This
improvement has also been incorporated into the Southern Connector
project.
3. Increase existing curb radii at other intersections and driveways
in the immediate vicinity of this Project.
y. Construct an interconnecting access directly linking this Project
with the existing shopping center to the north.
5. Add a second left -turn lane at the west approach (K-Mart) of the
Shelburne Road/K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersection.
Appendix B details the lane layout and conceptual design of the proposed
intersection and traffic signal at the new access road to this Project.
WAI
TRAFFIC -SAFETY
The safety of vehicular traffic traveling to and from this Project is
largely dependent on the geometric and physical conditions of adjacent
streets and on the presence of adequate traffic control devices.
Existing geometric conditions with respect to the horizontal and vertical
alignment of Shelburne Road are excellent. Adequate intersection sight
distances and stopping sight distances exist throughout the study area.
The only geometric deficienceies noted are the inadequate curb radii at
driveways and intersections previously discussed.
A five year (1979-1983) accident history of Shelburne Road in the
immediate vicinity of this Project was obtained from the Vermont Agency of
Transportation. These records provide detailed information concerning the
precise location, date, time, weather, cause, type, and the number of
injuries and/or fatalities of each accident.
During the five-year period, 312 accidents occured between McIntosh Avenue
and the I-189 eastbound on -ramp. Of these, 246 occured at intersections
(+/-150 feet). Since a large majority of accidents occured at
intersections, average and critical accident rates for each intersection
were calculated based on the total number of intersections involved and
the total number of intersection -related accidents.
The average accident rate, based on state-wide data, for a FAP urban
intersection, equals 0.571 accidents per million vehicles. The critical
accident rate, calculated from this average accident rate and the volume
of traffic, was determined to be 0.738 accidents per million vehicles,
which is equivalent to 38 accidents occuring at an intersection on this
portion of Shelburne Road during a five-year period. If the actual
accident rate exceeds the critical accident rate, then it can be
reasonably concluded that statistically, the highway segment or
intersection is a "high" accident location.
The actual number of accidents which occured at each intersection during
the five year period is given by Table 3, below.
TABLE-3
FIVE-YEAR-ACCIDENT-HISTORY-AT-SHELBURNE-ROAD-INTERSECTIONS
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
INTERSECTION
ACCIDENTS
INJURIES
FATALITIES
Swift Street
47
22
0
Queen City Park Road
53
23
0
Lindenwood Drive
21
6
0
K-Mart/Brewer Parkway
45
13
0
Laurel Hill Drive
33
7
0
Hough Street (closed 1985)
7
4
0
Baldwin Avenue
21
13
0
McIntosh Avenue
19
9
0
-8-
The above accident information indicates that the Swift Street, Queen City
Park Road, and K-Mart/Brewer Parkway intersections appear to be "high"
accident locations. The primary causes of accidents at these locations
include rear end collisions and collisions involving turning movements.
The close proximity of signal systems in this area, inadequate curb radii
and numerous driveways are all contributing factors to this above average
accident rate.
Possible improvements, to reduce.this accident rate, include better
synchronization of signals, increasing curb radii at driveways and
intersections, and closing curb cuts where possible.
-9-
Ira:, It
��
[INA Iff-1
MEMO
To: Jane Bechtel Lafleur
From: Ernest A. Pomerleau
Date: October 2, 1985
Attached is a copy of a letter sent to Mary -Barbara attempting to update
the Board our status. Also would request any clarification that you might
have in assisting us with providing you with additional data prior to
our next meeting to be schedule.
As a side note, we have dramatically altered our plans even since our
meeting with you to better facilitate flow between the various properties
and to show from a master plan perspective the ability for our neighbor's
projects to be incorporated with us if necessary.
Pomerleau Real Estate Co. P. O. Box 6, 69 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 802/ 863-2841
� 6ett4iR 1 J �—
AW,4..Q -ko (D-, C'-e- -
can�ac�n
i
1 ac ceso--
-40k CV\& PTA
B
�.c ,��
-� e��
vs
�o
l�D� OL
sl TIA,—.►
VI�.clox- tuAt 4A.It
-Rows
1 rna� s
� UE z
,� � N\ ---� �� s 1�
1
�CC.1ihtUt i C
x�J1,41
- �lz V-gl\t11�4v 6 0,� 11 -,�-
°lPsa rSn
No Text
COLIN P. LINDBERG ARCHITECT
120 Lake Street • Burlington, Vermont 05401
802-864-4950 802-80-5790
March 7, 1984
Mr. Dick Ward
Planning Administrator
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05401
Ref: South Burlington Development Park (Pomerleau Property)
Dear Dick:
Enclosed please find an application for preliminary sketch plan together with
four copies of the site plan.
In the application I have included a location map, a completed form for application
of sub -division, a list of all the abutters, a brief outline sheet that reviews
key issues contained in the site plan as well as a site plan at V = 100'.
It is my understanding that the planning commission will be meeting in the
evening of March 27th, 1984 and at that time we will be present with additional
aerial photographs and copies of the site plan to review the preliminary issues.
that are under consideration.
Thank you for your assistance,
Sincerely,
L. P.
Colin P. Lindberg,
CPL/jcs
cc: Mr. Ernest Pomerleau
Mr. David Spitz
Mr. Doug Fitzpatrick
No Text
COLIN P. LINDBERG ARCHITECT
120 lake Street • Burlington, Vermont 05401
802.864-4950 802-863-5790
March 7, 1984
South Burlington Development Park - #329
KEY ISSUES
1. Entrance road alignment with Laurel Hill at a signal.
2. Right-of-way for new access road 60'
Right-of-way planned. 150' (connector)
3. Connection to existing parking at K-Mart, Big Boy's and Burger King.
4. Purger King curb cut on Shelburne Road removed.
5. Road planned for future link to connector with on grade intersection.
Access road to southern property connecting to Shelburne Road at
a signal.
6. Initial Functions:
a. 200 room motel
b. 75,000 square feet of retail
C. 30,000 square feet of offices
d. Restaurant
7. Time table, winter review, spring approvals, summer construction.
CPL/jcs
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN
1) Name, address, and phone number of:
a. Owner of record Antonio B . Pomerleau
b. Applicant Pomerleau Real Estate
c. Contact person Ernest A. Pomerleau
2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including
number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). ,
Planned commercial development including such things as a motel,
retail area, and other uses. See Attached Plot Plan.
3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc)
Lessee
4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties
5)
Please see attached list
Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements,
covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.
Per Plot Plan
6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities
such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.
To be engineered
7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or
by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed sub-
division, and include the dates of such actions:
None
8) Submit four copies of a sketch plan showing the following information:
1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties.
2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of
record- and (b) proposed subdivision.
3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of
existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and cove-
nants.
4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets,
utilities, and open space.
5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic).
6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property
and surrounding area.
date
Abutters - Pomerleau Property
Property Address
303 & 503 Queen City Park Road
403 Queen City Park Road
533 Queen City Park Road
929 Shelburne Road
977 Shelburne Road
1041 Shelburne Road
1075 Shelburne Road (Cemetery)
1095 Shelburne Road
1175 Shelburne Road
Mailin4 Address
Green Mtn. Power Corp.
25 Green Mnt. Drive
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Champlain Water District
PO Box 2085
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Baird Children's Center
1110 Pine Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Justgold Properties
1304 Midland Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10704
Lowell T. & Susan G. Spillane
Tamarack Shores
Shelburne VT 05482
Wesco, Inc.
25 No. Prospect St.
Burlington, VT 05401
City of So. Burlington
575 Dorset St.
So. Burlington, VT 05401
San Remo Realty Co.
PO Box 2009
50 Joy Drive
South Burlington, VT 05401
Fayette Co., Inc.
PO Box 7
Burlington, VT 05401
I
y Main,
10.
If
t
s I nY
�•�`^� . 1
� ft
T - �i.v�x -s=- —�" .p ram" _ ' .r.i" , 6�py // I, 'r� G"�� ,_ 1'• �' ' (\J�
.. �' `-t••. :.i. 9 .s i i ss:-:m= .^� •�. `sG j�� -� �s�P�m 7:1� •" t -��I' ' �l, ..jl f}•_'�.J �,' .n11- \7_ .Y..._lJ `4J� •r .\, 1 .� \\ \
• c �' 'tea_ _ -� n41 - }' •I r� ( �� ti''r' ✓ �- ` ,✓
` (J \
�. i .. 11 �•` � �. u . �' _ � - ` '�-• . ��. . -• 7,\ � �--. ' ;
_ \
ry � V '�. t� �� l�v._____ --i `s', 1l .. � ♦ , AMftIf
� , A � ., y.. . � 7 -_ ` \•� r � I , � ..%^ � a ...- l�
i
t
-_.._ --w._"«...,r--�-...,` -n / - - .�'. � @'�•� .'tY ¢;/s`' , h r) s q�a7�=ai �f _ - N,\� ..e' � r �' � iw�- \ ' �r '",
-', - � �' �. > � rJ 1 � � � , a ~ rs* 1. 11 y y.�C,•\ O r t - - � -�: �t ..
• r O J
� y
_ .r
♦ -
w � f•�� y`p
.c
Al
411
'A Kay _
.. � �.... ,, .Y�^ � , � ;`• NETAiL � 15,000 w n
f �� �� • .+ MOTEL � 200 seor•
"Yf
E- __ ; a .'F i ; '�..� ��� OFFICE 30,000 •e In
aft. ,�,� � �; I RESTAURANT o 3,000 >te n
,
I I '�!`T"'"+..�.�..."'_•�"v�,da'+-,._,---�. .,'*' ._ •.. �...................... _.__.� � - _.._ •sv !!-«, _ /
POAAERLEAU
February 4, 1986
Jane Bechtel LaFleur
So. Burlington Planning Office
City Hall
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Dear Jane:
Re: Proposed Shelburne Road Development
Enclosed you will find a copy of our latest plot plan for our Route 7
site. This will supplement the rough plot plan you currently have as
part of our preliminary traffic survey.
We are almost completed with our revised traffic analysis, as requested
by the State Highway Department as a followup to our original study. It
addresses additional questions raised by them. We will forward a copy of
it to you as soon as it is complete.
As always, we are looking forward to the time when we can be formally
heard by the Planning Board. Until then, please let me know if there is
any additional information you may need.
Sincerely,
Dennis F. Pomerleau
cc: E.A. Pomerleau
DFP/nlb
Pomerleau Real Estate Co. P. O. Box 6, 69 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05402 8021 863-2841