HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1175 Shelburne Road (2)r
�=/t -el
RE: L & M Park, Land Use Permit #4C0877
FILE: 88047
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On behalf of the applicants, we hereby certify the copies of
additional information, plans and letters have been forwarded to
the individuals listed below. We assume that this submittal
completes the applicants' obligation to provide additional
information requested by the District Commission and that the
commission can proceed with its findings and issue a Land Use
Permit.
Additional Information:
1. Snow storage plan, 1" = 100'
2. Swimming pool plan, 1" = 40', illustrating ballard lights and
filter washing area
3. Lighting detail sheet for ballard pool lights
4. June 7, 1991 letter from Van Winkle to Borie
RE: pool filtration
5. May 1991 memo from Stuart Slote to District 4 Environmental
Commission
6. May 2, 1991 letter from Green Mountain Power to Greg Rabideau
7. Project sign, details sketch
Forwarded to:
- Louis Borie, District #4 Coordinator
District Environmental Commission:
John Collins
Lynn Whalen
Patricia Tivnan
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
- Chairperson, Board of Selectmen
- Chairperson, City Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
- Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
P.O. Box 108
Essex Junction, Vermont 05453
For your information:
- Gerald Milot
925 AIA
Hillsboro, Florida 33062
- John Larkin
410 Shelburne Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
- James Fayette
1930 Shelburne Road
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
- Thomas Johnson
Vermont National Bank
P.O. Box 804
100 Main Street
Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
Dated at Williston, Vermont, this 7th day_of June,, 1991
F IC4PATR TICX - UIXW E LLYN
4
JoXA— Steele
Specifications See page for Warning: Fixtures must
photometrisics grounded in accordance with
8" Square local codes or the National
Electrical Code. Failure to do
so may result in serious `00%
personal injury.
Specifications
Post Construction —One-piece extruded aluminum, .188"
wall thickness, with heavy cast aluminum twist -lock anchor
base concealed within the post.
Plastic Enclosure —Fabricated from''/4' nominal wall,
optically clear, 100% virgin acrylic with polished seams. Lens
is retained in an unstressed position by internal support
through the reflector assembly.
Top Cap —One-piece deep drawn heavy gauge aluminum,
retained by 2 counter sunk captive socket head fasteners, and
braced at the outer edges by the optical assembly. 3/4' thick
insulation provided above lamp.
Optical Assembly —Precision hydroformed optical louvers
with specular Alzakr" finish, mounted and removable as a one
piece self-contained unit.
Socket —Porcelain with nickel plated lamp grip screw shell,
rated 600 volts. A special 4KV pulse rated socket will be
provided for all H.I.D. fixtures.
36"
Light Can
Haight
t ih••
Anchor Boll
Projection
Concrete Footing By Others
42"
30" or 36"
overall height
available. Consult Kim
representative.
t- 8" Sq. -1
3%" I o o
Conduit Opening 5•
Bolt Circle
0 o Dia.
Gasketing—Fixture is fully gasketed for weathertight
operation.
Wiring —Supplied with high temperature socket leads for field
connection to the prewired ballast components.
Ballast —High power factor for —20"F. starting, factory
mounted to the anchor base, and prewired.
Anchor Bolts —Supplied with four 3/a" x 10" + 2" zinc electro-
plated L hook anchor bolts, each with 2 nuts and washers, and
a rigid pressed board template.
Finish—TGIC Thermoset Polyester Powder -Coat Paint
applied over a chromate conversion coating.
Certification —All H.I.D. fixtures are Underwriters
Laboratories listed for wet locations. Photometric data provided
by an established and certified independent laboratory.
B30-6 Kim Lighting
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 a (802) 878-3000
7 June 1991
District 4 Environmental Commission
c/o Mr. Louis Borie, Coordinator
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vt. 05452
Re: L & M Park,,,Land Use Permit Application No. 4CO877
File:88047
Dear Mr. Borie:
At the request of the District Commission we have conducted
additional research involving the operation and maintenance of
swimming pool filtration systems, and offer the following with
regards to the above referenced project.
The applicants propose to install a 25' x 40' built in
swimming pool, with an adjacent bath house in conjunction with
the multi family pg-rtion of the project. The questions from
the commission during the hearing, were in regard to the
operation of the filtration system, with particular concern
for the backwash. Upon contacting several pool dealers we
would like to summarize the filtration process.
As we understand, backwash of pool filters would occur on a
frequency of once a day to once every two months, depending on
usage. The backwash process can use anywhere from 800 to
1,500 gallons of water for an average pool of the size
proposed by the applicant. Water lost during the backwash
process is pumped back in from an available source, such as a
garden hose or fixed water connection. Since chlorine and
other chemicals are used in the filtration process to keep the
water clear, they are usually administered in recommended
concentrations. The loss of large quantities of "treated"
water and influx of new "fresh" water will require additional
chemicals to keep the concentrations constant. Each time the
pool is backwashed, the chemicals are added whereby driving
the chemical cost up.
In order minimize maintenance and chemical costs pool, dealers
indicate that diatomaceous earth filters are becoming more
popular. We understand that the diatomaceous earth consists
of kieselguhr, the remains of diatoms. The diatoms are
unicellular or colonial algae (bacteria) whose
Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting • Surveying
Mr. Lou Borie
File: 88047
7 June 1991
Page -2-
silicified skeletons are porous. The bacterial skeletons
serve the filtration process by trapping dirt particles and
organics in their pores.
A diatomaceous earth filtration system incorporates a screen
or grid system where the diatoms can collect on. When the
filter needs backwash, the screens are removed and washed off
with a garden hose. After the screens are replaced, new
diatomaceous earth is added to the filter through the pool
skimmer.
This process uses far less water than conventional sand filter
backwash, aid is performed as needed depending on the use of
the pool. The dirty diatomaceous earth is generally thrown
away.
We trust the forgoing narrative adequately addresses the
commissions concerns regarding the pool filtration system. Should
you have any questions or need additional information please
contact us.
Sincerely,
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
I
Charles Van Winkle
cc :L & M Partnership.
FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED
Engineering and Planning Services
STATE OF VERMONT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
120 STAR STREET
MONTPELIER, VT 05620
TEL.: (802) 828-2811
FAX: (802) 828-2342
TO: District 4 Environmental Commission
FROM: Stuart Slote, Energy Engineer
I%Energy Efficiency Division
DATE: May 2, 1991
SUBJECT: Gerald Milot (#4C0877)
After a review of the Gerald Milot proposal, the
Department of Public Service has concluded that Criterion
9(F), Energy Conservation, has been adequately addressed.
Permit conditions should reflect the measures agreed upon by
Greg Rabideau in the phone conversation of today as an
exhibit with regard to Criterion 9(F), Energy Conservation,
in order to enforce the agreements reached between the
Department of Public Service and the applicant.
Greg agreed to the following measures:
1) windows with a minimum R-2.75;
2) door with a minimum R-10;
3) tennis court lights utilizing metal halide lamps;
4) to address the office and retail buildings as"amendments
to the Land Use Permit issued.
SS/
cc: Kurt Janson, Esq., Land Use Attorney, ANR
Greg Rabideau
mform.50
GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATION
GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE • BOX r5n • SO 6URLINGTON. VT OA02 • i5U2) So-4 5i.31
May 2, 1991
Mr. Greg Rabideau
LTH Associates
410 Shelburne Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Greg,
We have reviewed your letter of April 2, 1991, which requests Green
Mountain Power's ability to serve the electric load for the proposed L&M
Park Development located off Shelburne Road in South Burlington, Vermont.
As you know, our comments are required so that a meaningful
assessment can be made under 10VSA Section 6086 (a) (9) (F) and (J).
When load data is not available, Green Mountain Power Corporation
forecasts an average use for each load. It is assumed that none of the
structures will be heated electrically. Reviewing developments in the area
with similar parameters, it is assumed that the 150 condominium units will
have single phase entrarrces of 100 to 150 amps. It is also assumed that the
two commercial office/retail structures of 40,000 and 60,000 square feet will
require 300 kva and 500 kva three phase, 208 Y/120 V service respectively.
This requirement can be supplied from Green Mountain Power's existing
and planned generation sources. If this estimate is not consistant with your
load projections or the requirements of this project change, Green Mountain
Power Corporation should be made aware of the situation for planning
purposes.
We have evaluated the transmission and distribution system that will
be used to serve your project's requirements and have determined that
existing and planned facilities are adequate for that purpose. Accordingly,
Ave do not anticipate that your addition will require distribution or
transmission improvements at this time or accelerate routine system
improvements planned for the near future.
In view of these facts, we conclude that the proposed development will
not put an excessive or uneconomic demand on Green Mountain Power's
facilities.
Mr. Greg Rabideau
May 2, 1991
Page 2
Details concerning service size; scheduling, costs, etc., should be
discussed with F. Angelico of the Colchester District office.
Very truly yours,
r,Y✓ .
I Louis A. Fonte
Director of Engineering
LAF AMTPiPL•PUbid—
cc: F. Angelico
Engineering File (LDA)
P. N. Poirier
M. J. Weedall
ALL- 1-10 g'E- 4� uaTvlZAL-
R1MIECIAl.S A1.1D It-4P12EGTL*'
LI7" Vd / H I CrH FF F ICI FCGR .
FI xTVRes .
INDIVICR;AL
TFh!}J 4F.lT"
• PM h1T c>
M.b.o
. 5ir.iCrt.E
LorwMaJ
N-,,,Nr
rim
C%Ae l ALI_ CoMPi �X
S16vi.1
• GARV�t� F.Evwo+o�
• 4an LF� /�c c E�1lT�
F>F .J E Cr
"TS. -- Two -S �Jc�S R�?1AIcvL42 TD �-tEZPvR1.lE RL�kt�
riz.coJEX:�rT
vl � �-�► w T s,
`It�m()rarid ufit - P I ann i n�
0<!1,hei- 18 1988 ragenda i 1,eiiis
0(, t.l)er• 1 -1 , 1988
page 3
01 ympi.ad cur•r•ently verierat:es 25 trips during the peals period of*
the ad,lacent: street and 2yi3 tr i.ps during a t,vpical a.eekday. Che
proposed addition would add S more trips during the peals period
of the adjacent street and 75 trips during the typical weekda•v.
Mr. Torney of the Olympiad does not. feel the �tc.dition will cause
more traffic in the area because potential. members who are
looking for a facility with a pool, are going across the street.
By adding a pool, Mr. Torney believes they wi.11 attract. members
who would otherwise go across the street.. 1 do riot fully agree
with this. This addition might not cause additional traffic in
the short run, however-, in the long run there will be art
increase. The increase of' fitness club capacity in the area will
eventually result in an increase in traffic as both clubs attract
new members. What we need to consider is whether this addition
substantially increases traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods,
and whether this .increase in traffic substantially impacts these
neighborhoods.
Landscaping: The project requires $7,500 in new landscaping.
The addition will require the removal of 7 existing mature trees.
The landscape plan shows new spirea, cranberry bush, .juniper,
crabapple, hemlock, sugar maple, ash and burning bush. The plan
does not, however, indicate the sizes of the proposed
landscaping. The plan should be revised to show proposed sizes.
Based on adequate sizes, the proposed plan meets the $7,500
requirement.
Other: See Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments.
`t
4) PUBLIC HEARING: L & M BUSINESS PARK, 1175 SHELBURNE ROAD
G. Mi..lot and J. Larkin propose to subdivide the 30 acre Fayette
property into 22 commercial lots. The property is bounded on the
east by commercial uses (Vermont Federal Bank and south
Burlington Chrysler Plymouth) a multi -family residential complex
and Shelburne Road, on the north by the Pomerleau property, on
the west by the railroad tracks and on the south by a private
road (Inn Road). The property is zoned commercial. 1.
The layout of the plan is basically the same as the plan
submitted for Sketch Plan review. Enclosed are the minutes from
Sketch Plan review (10/27/87).
Access: A 60 foot r.o.w. with 30 feet of pavement is shown from
Shelburne Road. the applicant was instructed at Sketch Plan
3
MeIII o ►'rtrrd tint
Oel,ober 18,
0c-t-ober• 1 •1 ,
Page -1
1 SiH� ;.t,��e,rrd�,c i t.frn�s
IyHK
review to provide a 32 footwide pavement, for the streets serving
this subdivision. This has not been done. This main access is
l.ocaLed dir.ect.ly across from McIntosh Dr ve and involves a
relocation of the driveway serving the Larkin apar•LnrenL building.
The driveway to Lhe apartment. will be consolidated with this new
road. The front par•ki.rig lot will be eliminated and riew parking
const.ruc td in Lhe rear with two new driveways from the new road.
These should be consc�.l. i dat ed into one.
Cir•cu.l.ati.on: Two public streets serve these Lots. Both end in
cul- de -sacs. One of the streets ends at the northern property
line abutting the Pomerleau property for future exterision into
that property. 'rhe other ends at the western property line where
the South Burlington Southern Connector is proposed to go.
Agreements should be secured requiring the applicant to pay for
and construct. the necessary improvements for future connections
for both of these cul-de-sacs.
Also, the Planning Commission should take this opportunity to
plan where the connection road on the Pomerleau property will go
and where it, wants the future Laurel Hill Extension to go. The
reason why I bring this up is because Pomerleau Real Estate has
raised several concerns and issues. First, Pomerleau fully
supports providing access across their property from the L & M
project over to k-Mart. However, they would prefer this access
road to be. located east of where L & M proposes the connection.
Therefore, the connection and location of the access road should
be worked out with involvement from both property owners.
Secondly, the location of the future Laurel Hill Extension should
be discussed. Pomerleau does not want it extending straight west
through the middle of their property. They would prefer it to
either go along the southern or northern portion of their
property. If it is decided to go along the southern portion of
their property, they would like the centerline of the right-of-
way to follow the property line, half on their property and half
on Larkin and Milot's property.
Lot Size: The smallest lot is approximately 42,000 square feet
and all lots have at least 120 feet of frontage. The area of
each lot should be indicated on the plan. With the exception of
one lot (lot 18), the lots adjacent to the Central Vermont'
Railroad are very deep with a minimum of 435 feet in depth. -
These lots are in the path of the planned South Burlington
Southern Connector and will lose 165 feet minimum depth if the
connector is built in the originally planned location. Lot 18
extends 230 feet east of the Vermont Railroad r.o.w. If 165 feet
is taken for the Southern Connector, this will leave a lot with
4
1988 agenda i Lams
Or-t (1),>r• 1 4 , 1 988
11:t g c' : i
thou dimensions 6.)' x 350or only 22,750 square feet total.. A
r.o.w. for the Southern Connector should be reserved. Bill
Szymanski Teets rt 100 foot r•.o.w. would be sufficient.
Setbacks: The front. ,yard setback will be 40 feet; back yard is
30 feet; sideyards are 15 feet. A fifty foot. setback is required
on either side of the stream. The stream and 50 foot. setback
should be shown on the plan.
Sewer Capacit.,Y._ I have riot yet calculated the remaining sewer
capacity at the Bartlett Bay treatment plant. I will provide
this information at the meeting. I feel the best approach would
be to grant a maximum sewer allocation for the entire
subdivision. Bill Szymanski has informed me that the Bartlett.
Bay treatment plant will not be expanded for at least 2 .years.
The subdivision would not be able to exceed its maximum
allocation until the plant, is expanded.
Traffic: A traffic study has been completed by Resource Systems
Group. I received the study on Wednesday and have not had a
chance to review it. Craig Leiner has also received a copy and also
has not ,yet reviewed it. I am meeting with Craig on Monday or
Tuesday and will provide comments at the meeting.
Other: See Bill Szymanski's comments.
5) PUBLIC HEARING; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE, C2
DISTRICT
The purpose of this hearing is to consider proposed amendments to
the South Burlington Zoning ordinance in order to correct several
errors in Sections 12.10 and 12.20 of the Commercial 2 District.
Enclosed are the proposed amendments as they were warned.
Currently, the following uses are listed as both permitted and
conditional uses in the C2 District: indoor recreational
facilities; printing, bookbinding, publishing, and engraving;
and, research and testing laboratories. Dick Ward has informed
me that these were intended to be conditional uses and have been
treated that, way in the past.
Section 12.212 "outdoor recreational facilities" is proposed to
be deleted because it is already accounted for in section 12.202
"indoor and outdoor recreational facilities."
5
PLANNING COMMISSION
18 OCTOBER 1988
PAGE 3
Site Plan application of Olympiad Court Associates for con-
struction of a 4700 sq. ft. addition for recreational uses
(new indoor pool) as depicted on a plan entitled "Olympiad
Pool Expansion, South Burlington, Vermont," prepared
Lawrence Atkin Architect Inc, dated 8/12/88 with the follow-
ing stipulations:
1. A $7500, 3-year landscape bond shall be posted prior to
permit. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the
sizes of proposed plantings. The 5 existing shrubs along
Farrell Street shall be relocated elsewhere on the property.
The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City
Planner for approval prior to permit.
2. A plan showing grading in the vicinity of new construction
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and ap-
proval prior to permit.
3. The plan shall be reviewed in 1 year to determine adequacy
of parking, and if the Planning Commission deems parking to
be inadequate, more space shall be added as approved 12y the
Planning Commission at that time
4. A $3,000, 3-year landscaping bond shall be posted prior to
permit.
5. The cost of a sidewalk along the Farrell Street frontage
shall be t into an escrow account prior to permit, for use
later in the city•-
6. The applicant must obtjin the building permit within 6
months or this approval is null and void.
Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Preliminary Plat application of G. Milot and J. Larkin
for subdivision of a 30.5 acre lot into 22 commercial lots,
1175 Shelburne Rd.
Mr. Llewellyn said accesss onto Shelburne Rd. will be
opposite McIntosh Avenue. The smallest lot will be just
under and acre, the largest 1.6 acres. The plan has been
submitted to the Water Dept. and City Manager. The plan is
to tie into the existing 16" main on the west side of the
property and to end at Rt. 7. The Water Dept. doesn't want
to cross Rt. 7. There will be a stub to the Pomerleau pro-
perty. They will use public sewer but the City Manager wants
a private pump station. This will be on lot #18, also with a
stub to the Pomerleau property. The storm water system will
use a retention pond on lot #20. There is an existing drain-
PLANNING COMMISSION
18 OCTOBER 1988
PAGE 4
ageway across the property. Rights -of -way will be 60 ft.
with 32 ft. roads. There will be a sidewalk on one side.
Mr. Maher asked how many lots will be lost if the Southern
Connector goes in. Mr. Milot said they designed the project
so even with the Connector, they will have conforming lots.
He thought they might lose one lot but might combine with
another to make one larger lot. Mr. Weith questioned if lots
would then meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Llewellyn said he
would check.
Mrs. Maher asked Mr. Crowley if Natural Resources is familiar
with the plan. Mr. Crowley asked if this is near the area
where fill from the Burlington Connector is piled. Mr.
Llewellyn said it is west of this property. Mr. Crowley said
there are a lot of very wet pockets on the land, especially
in the area where the cul de sac is. He said he would be
concerned with uses. There might be ground water in the
retention pond as well. Mr. Jacob questioned whether a
geological study might be needed. He suggested the City
Engineer take a good look at the plan to determine this.
Mr. Weith questioned the possibility of combining curb cuts
to the Larkin apartment building. Mr. Llewellyn said there
is a problem of getting fire trucks around the radius. Mr.
Milot said he didn't think there would be enough room on the •
far said of the building either. Mr. Larkin said they would
still need 2 curb cuts. Mr. Milot suggested an internal
sidewalk connecting the 2 parking lots. Mr. Llewellyn noted
they had agreed to an 18-inch subbase on the road.
Traffic: Ms. Pugh noted that Craig Leiner had not yet
reviewed the plan. Mr. Jacob said the Commission would take
no action until Mr. Leiner's report was received. The
applicant said their traffic study parallels the TMS study
which projected traffic loads that would exist in the near
future and what it would take to accommodate those loads and
what the resulting levels of service would be. The appli-
cant's report looked only at projects specifically approved
by the Planning Commission and added in this proposed de-
velopment. They evaluated 2 scenarios: 100% office use and
some office use and retail. They also looked at 100% retail
but rejected it because McIntosh could not handle the
traffic. The study recommends mostly office use with only
some retail. The study assumes improvements on I-189 are
done. It also assumes changes to McIntosh, including a right
turn lane and a signal. The traffic signalization plan would
also be in place. The report also presuppposes completion
of improvements to Bartlett Bay Rd. intersection. Mrs. Maher
noted the last item is at least 5 years from now. Mr. Adler
said that with no improvements, that intersection is at Level
PLANNING COMMISSION
18 OCTOBER 1988
PAGE 5
"E". Mrs. Maher said unless the applicant is willing to pay
for the improvements, the Commission would have to assume
they are not done. Mrs. Maher asked what percent of retail
was assumed in the build -out. Mr. Adler said 20%. They also
assumed full buildout by 1990. With 1000 office use, they
estimate 530 peak hour trips; with a combination of office
and retail, they estimate 750 peak hour trips. With the pro-
posed Laurel Hill development, they estimate 1100 peak hour
trips. 'Mr. Milot proposed the concept of a "trip generation
bank" which would require them to manage uses so as not to
exceed a given number of peak hour trip ends. He said that
Act 250 has allowed this approach. He felt this would allow
the city to get the tax base and would tell Shelburne and
Charlotte they couldn't build if the Shelburne Rd. allotment
of cars was used up. Mr. Burgess noted that the applicant
was asking for almost all the available trip generations left
on Shelburne Rd. Ms. Peacock asked if the applicant would
pay for re -timing the signals. Mr. Adler said yes. Mr.
Jacob said it might make sense to follow this line of
thinking further and suggested the Shelburne Rd. Committee
take a look at it.
Mr. Weith noted the plan does not assume the Pomerleau
property would be developed. Mr. Adler said they had a
problem trying to figure in 1100 trips on this section of
Shelburne Rd. They chose instead to use a backdrop of what
has already been approved. Mr. Milot said if Pomerleau would
use an office development, there is enough availability on
Shelburne Rd. now.
Mr. Jacob asked if thought has been given to extending or
expanding the haul road to run around the back of these pro-
perties. Mr. Crowley said this is a temporary road and it
was agreed to remove it and replant the area. Mr. Milot said
they don't control all the land there but they would still be
open to it as it would allow them greater density. Mr.
Pomerleau said the problem is the road dead ends at Queen
City Park Rd. and dumps all the traffic there. He said the
real issue is whether they could connect to the Southern Con-
nector. Mr. Weith felt more analysis of the Pomerleau site
was needed. Mrs. Maher said they would have to take into
account Imperial Drive as well. She said she would prefer to
see a business park without retail use.
Mrs. Maher moved to continue discussion until the first
available date. Ms. Pugh seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
5. Public Hearing: Amendment to Zoning Regulations to correct
errors regarding permitted and conditional uses in Sections
PLANNER
65&7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
November 18, 1988
Mr, Gerald Milot
P.O. Box 4193
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Re: L&M Business Park, Shelburne Road
Dear Mr. Milot:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
6517958
Enclosed are the October 18, 1988 Planning Commission meeting
minutes. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CN �
Joe Weith,
City Manner
JW/mcp
1 Encl
cc: John Larkin
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
1.
�nittt� +!�icrlituYtnil +dire +. r�ittrtulrnt
_t%_t 4-Dor:ict -'—,'*trect ' <.
nutith 43tu[intitutt, 11er>11011t 11711111
OFFICE OF
JAMES W. GODDETTE. SR.
CHIEF
(802)658-7960
SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
CHIEF JAMBS W. GODDETTE SR.
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 1,1988 AGENDA ITEMS
MONDAY OCTOBER 24,1988
ROBERT ROCHEFORT LOT # 5 MUDDY BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK
PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS
TIME I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT FOR THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT IN GIVEN FIRE PROTECTION.
2. LSM BUSINESS PARK RT.7.SHELBURNE ROAD
PLANS WERE REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE ONLY
PROBLEM I SEE AT THIS TIME IS THE ACCESS FOR THE THREE
(3) STORY APARTMENT IS BEING TAKEN AWAY WHICH WILL
EFFECT OUR OPERATION FROM GIVEN PROPER RESCUE AND
FIRE FIGHTING PROTECTION IF NEEDED.
AS FAR AS THE BUSINESS LOT ARE CONCERNED I DO
NOT SEE A PROBLEM AT THIS TIME WITH THE STREET LAY OUT
OR THE WATER SYSTEM AND HYDRANT LOCATION.
City of South Burlington
WATER DEPARTMENT
403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
TEL. 864-4361
MEMO TO: Joe Weith, City Planner
FROM: Sue Messina, Water Supt.�
DATE: October 28, 1988
RE: L & M Business Park
In order for this project to comply with South Burlington Water
Department Rules and Regulations and to gain final approval, the
following criteria must be met:
1. The waterline must be extended easterly the entire
length of the property line to Route 7 and ended
with a gate valve before the cap.
2. The waterline must also be extended on Street B to
the property line and a gate valve installed before
the cap.
3. Two sets of revised drawings must be submitted to
the Water Department (to date I have not received any
drawings for this project).
No Text
r
7
]()/l8/88
JW
MOTION OF APPROVAL
1 move 1,11e South liur•.I i ngt,on P.larrn i rig Con►mi cis i on r►ppr•ovo the
Prrt?l.iminrrr•;v 111.a,t, apl)l ication of Ger•alcl Mi lot/Jahn Lar•lc in I u
subdivider a 30,5 acre parcel at, 1175 Sh(!lburr)e Road into 22
commercial lots as depicted on a 10 page se.rt, of plans ent i t,lc�d "
L, & M Business Park, South Burl i. ng ton , Vermont " prepared by
Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Ine., page one dated April, 1988 last
revised 10/14/88 with the following stipulat.iorrs:
1. The Final Plat, shall. show building envelopes that meet: a].1
the r•equi red set.baeks.
2. An $18,900, 3-year landscape bond shall be posted prior to
permit. The plan shall be revised prior to Final Plat, to show a
2 1/2 inch minimum caliper for proposed street trees.
3. A sewer a] location of 9,900 gallons per day shall be reserved
for the enti re subdivision (4;30 gpd per lot) . Each 1 ot, wi 1. 1
receive an al location from the total and wall be ob.li.gat:ed to pay
the $2.50 per gaI loin
4. All legal. docuriient.s 1'or• dedication of the streets, rater Arid
sewer .1.i.nes t:,o thc> (,it,y shall b(-r 1)r•e1)ared 1)y the applicant. ind
submi t:ted to the ( i t ,y At. t,orney for review and approval prior to
p e r rr► i t.
5. Plan shall be rev sed prior to Final Plat, to show the
following:
t. of w p B e n t p o Esc tr
T
wi pa ent oun 1-d - acs su ici
b) One curb cut providing access for. the resident.ial
complex.
c) Sizes of each lot.
d) Location of stream and limits of Conservation zone.
U of w'�erot
o .w. _
f) 30 foot wide r.o.w. along the north property line from
the cul-de-sac of street "B" to the property line of San
Remo Realty. This is for a future roadway connecting
street "B" with the access road over the Pomerleau
property.
g) 3 lanes on Street "A" at its intersection with Shelburne
Road.
h) Separate easement for telephone and power outside of the
street r.o.w.
i) Street light plan. Street lights shall be installed at
the same time as the power l.i.nes.
j) Stop sign on street, "B" at the intersection with street
„A„ .
3
1
k) On plan sheet, 7 under Typical )toad Cross Section, the
i'o] Lowing statement, shaI l be el iminated "may be reduced
1.o 12 inches when subgrrade is dry gran►.►lar material. in
Eng i never' s op i it i on. "
6. The sewage pun►pi rig stat ion shall r•emrt i n 1)T• i vale s i nce i t. w
sc�r•ve only this subdivision.
7. The a.pplic;anl, shall contribute it Ieet to l,he Shf,Iburr►e I?oad
improvement, fund. 'Phis fund wi I 1)e deter•n►i n e d by the Ci t.y
Planner, prior to Final Plat based on the expect.ed number• of grips
generated by this project.
Al
8. Fire Ch iel' shall review plar►s prior to
Final Vlat fl
9. Street names shall be submitted to the City 1) anner or
approval and shall be shown on the Final Plat,.
1 0 . The Final. Plat shall be submitted within 12 months or this
approval. is null and void.
4
— �,p � �G�'LG
d,,d ..�
�►' L'��G^Q"yt.rt,.a
D-.-�^ p r/ q
r�..fs ,. w� ��
3 _ laov` wiAAuf �� � �i�,as ir�rc
/1 �c v .� �r 'V
Z:t
(� . T s of v'e �,,-�,,..,,�.�.e -� c,�,�.� -7,f�,e,,., �, f�' �' ray.-,�.�- ��' �r ��•, r
No-
loolee
�i its
too
w � � �/ liG'ya��G�itti*G a� ,�H /C Gt"7/?✓ �!y.�p v�'.sy►�.`� / lfw� � � l!C -PP
Arm�e el i -P
14
kdirr Ai4f 6c, kIlIX
�+ 6Nr k weeFd 414/ 11a1.N %'lcrs 0 �rd✓.G� �n
`1 1. :`1 () I1 \ N U l.,- 1%1
To: So►lth buI.I i ngy I on P I tnn i nri4 Comm i ss i on
from: Joe Weit.11, C.it.N- PJliIIer•
Ile: 1. & M Business Park Traf'f'ic Anal YsIs
Date: 0(,Lol.►e1, 18, 1988
I spoke with Cra.i.g
Leiner of the Re,giorral Planning Commission
and
he indicated that
there was more infor•mat.i.on aricf
verification
1►e
needs before he
can provide his assessment.,
of the above
referenced study.
Appar•ent.ly, Craig spoke with
Norm Marshall
of
Resource S,yst.ems
Group, today. Mr. Marsha 1.1
has agreed
to
provide the necessary
information. Craig told
me that it will
take him about. 2 Week's to review the study once
lie receives
the
additional information.
My major concerns and comments regarding the traffic analysis are
outlined below:
1. The study does not assume that. the Pomer•leau property will be
developed. I do riot understand why this was assumed. From the
City's perspective, I feel. it- is very important that the
cumulative impacts of both these properties be analyzed.
2. The study assumes a design ,year of 1990. Is the applicant
expecting these lots to be fully developed by 1990? If not, I
feel the traffic analysis should be correlated to the ,year in
which the applicant reasonably believes the project to be fully
built out.
3. It is not clear how many trips are expected to be generated
by this project. The information listed in the tables for the
Milot Office Park/McIntosh & Shelburne Road intersection seems to
indicate that 495 trips will be generated during the peak hour.
I.T.F. trip generation rates applied to this project estimate
that significantly more trips will be generated. Why are these
estimates different?
4. Does the analysis assume that the improvements recommended in
the JHK study will be in place?
5. Based on notes contained in the file, I believe the Planning
Commission instructed the applicant to include the intersections
of Sherburne Road/Imperial Drive and Shelburne Road/Allen Road in
this analysis. The analysis does not include these intersections.
Do we want these intersections included?
Based on the above comments and Craig Leiner's failure to
adequately review the study, I recommend we table Preliminary
Plat review until Craig has sufficiently reviewed the document
and has provided his comments to the Planning Commission.
1
RESOURCE
SYSTE`IS
GROIP
MEMORANDUM
To: Craig Leiner
From: Norm Marshall Aw\
Subject: traffic Issues Concerning the Proposed L&M Business Park
Date: September 13, 1988
The proposed L&M Office Park is sited on 30.4 acres in South
Burlington with access from the west to Shelburne Road opposite
McIntosh Avenue. This is a good site for a major driveway. Sight
distances are excellent in both directions. A new signal would be
required, but most of the other intersections in this section of
Shelburne Road are already signalized. With good progressive timing,
one additional signal need not have a major impact on the progression
of through traffic on Shelburne Road.
xOUte 5 sr>ruh
The major traffic constraint on this project is limited capacity for
N.O_ l3oz 110-1
additional through traffic on Shelburne Road. The Shelburne Road
Norwich. Vermont 05055
corridor was studied recently by JHK & Associates.1 JHK & Associates
counted traffic along the corridor in 1986, forecast traffic to the year
Telephone 802/649-1999 1990, and estimated levels of service at the intersections along the
FAX 802/649-5371 corridor. With certain minor improvements plus a major redesign of
the Green Mountain Drive intersection, they concluded that each
intersection along the corridor could operate at level of service C or
better during the 1990 P.M. peak hour of traffic.
Principals: These results indicating only "moderate delays" assumed significant
Thomas J. Adler growth in traffic along Shelburne Road between 1986 and 1990. The
Colin J. High assumed growth included a 15 percent increase in base traffic volumes
Dennis L:NIeadoxvs plus three developments specifically added in. These three
developments were:
1. supermarket and retail development at Laurel Hill Drive (1119
P.M. peak hour trips),
2. restaurant and office at Holmes Road (135 P.M. peak hour trips),
and
3. motel and office at Harbor View Road (187 P.M. peak hour trips).
The developments at Holmes Road and harbor View Road have been
constructed or are under construction. The large supermarket and
retail development at Laurel Hill Drive has not yet been formally
proposed. If this project were not built or were scaled down
1Traffic Systems Management Study: Final Report, Chapter 2 -- The Shelburne Road
Improvement Program. Prepared for the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission by JHK & Associates, July 1987.
r.
Resource )cnls ( irMup
2
L&M office Park
significantly, some portion of the
to this project should be available
Shelburne Road while maintaining
the corridor.
trips assumed by JIIK to be allocated
to other developments along
a level of service C or better across
However, impacts of individual projects must be analyzed carefully as
JHK did a poor job of estimating the impact of developments on other
intersections. It appears that they analyzed the impact of a
development's traffic only at one intersection, and implicitly assurned
that a development had no impact north or south of that intersection
along Shelburne Road. This can be seen in Figure 1 which shows
estimates of the PM peak traffic volumes (sum of all approaches) for six
intersections along Shelburne Road. Four cases are shown:
1. BASE -- JI IK's 1986 count data,
2. +GROWTI-I -- 1986 count data plus 15 percent assumed growth,
3. JHK -- JI-IK's estimates as presented in Figure 8, and
4. RSG -- our own estimates using JHK's assumptions.
As can be seen, the JHK estimates are very close to the +GROWT'H line
except for Laurel Hill Drive and Brewer Parkway. Therefore, it seems
they greatly underestimated the effect of the developments (particularly
the Laurel Hill Drive development) upon traffic along Shelburne Road.
We think that a development the size of the one proposed for Laurel
Hill Drive is too large for a single driveway along Shelburne Road given
the large percentage of signal time that must be allocated to through
traffic. For this reason, we have chosen to analyze the impacts of the
L&M Office Park assuming that the Laurel Hill Drive development would
not be built.
We evaluated two potential build scenarios for the L&M Office Park:
A. 360,000 square feet of office space, and
B. 200,000 square feet of office space combined with 50,000 square
feet of retail space.
Scenario A represents 30 percent coverage for the building lots on the
site; this is the maximum that would be allowed by zoning. Scenario B
represents a mixture of uses with similar traffic impacts to Scenario A.
Figures 2 and 3 show our estimates of 1990 P.M. peak hour volumes at
eleven intersections along Shelburne Road with and without the L&M
Office Park development for Scenarios A and B, respectively. As in
Figure 1, the BASE data are 1986 count data collected by JHK; and as
noted above, our analysis excludes any development at Laurel hill Drive.
The JHK report is ambiguous as to whether the 1986 data and 1990
estimates were intended to represent design hour volumes. The
Resource Sy�,_-ks Group 3 j L&M Office Park
volumes are apparently the highest of several measured volumes during
the fall of 1986. We used the growth methodology used in the JHK
report to estimate volumes at McIntosh Drive for the PM peak hour in
1988. We added two years of growth in base traffic (7.2 percent) to
trips associated with the two developments already totally or partially in
place. The expected net increase would be 1.4.2 percent for the PM
peak hour.
We counted the AM and PM peak -hour traffic volume at the
intersection of McIntosh Avenue with Shelburne Road on Friday July 15,
1988. Turning -movement counts are shown in figures 4 and 5. "Through
traffic volume during the A.M. peak hour was 1.7 percent higher than
that given in the JI-IK & Associates report for 1986, and through traffic
volume observed during the P.M. peals hour was 6.4 percent higher.
Even factoring in a design hour adjustment factor of 1.030 for July 15
derived from the automatic counter on Route 7 in Shelburne, our
estimate of design hour volumes for the intersection of McIntosh
Avenue and Shelburne Road are actually 5.8 percent less than those
predicted using the growth methodology in the JI-IK report. A
complicating factor is the highway construction for the first phase of
the Southern Connector at the intersection of I-189 with Shelburne
Road. This construction could be depressing traffic volumes sornewhat.
However, in the absence of other evidence, we chose to use the
predictions of traffic volumes based on the JHK methodology directly
without adjusting them upwards using a design hour correction.
Using the traffic volumes we estimated using the JHK methodology, we
analyzed nine signalized intersections (including a new signal at
McIntosh Avenue) for the P.M. peak hour in 1990 for three scenarios:
No Build, 360,000 square feet of office (Scenario A), and 200,000 square
feet of office combined with 50,000 square feet of retail (Scenario B).
The results of these analyses are shown in Table 1. As shown the only
problem intersection is Green Mountain Drive and only then if required
improvements are not made.
1990 PM Peak Hr Volume Estimates with Laurel Hill
5000
4500
4000 •��
3500 ❑_��—opt •`
■
3000
SUM OF 2500 ❑\�
APPROACHES ❑
2000
1500
1000
500
0 -i
Brewer Laurel Baldwin McIntosh Holmes Green
Hill Mtn
INTERSECTION
Figure 1
-°- JHK
-'_ +GROWTH
-°- BASE
5000
SUM OF 3000
APPROACHES
2000
1000
0
1990 PM Peak Hr Volume Estimate - Build Scenario A
C A Sw
G Br LH Ba
INTERSECTION
Figure 2
— BUILD
— NO BUILD
— BASE
Mc Ho G M H v \
�F
r
5000
,
SUM OF 3000
APPROACHES
2000
1000
I
1990 PM Peak Hr Volume Estimate - Build Scenario B
C A Sw G Br L H Ba Mc Ho GM H V
INTERSECTION
Figure 3
0:1411111111 7
---- NO BUILD
— BASE
Intersection TLII-lllllb Movement Count
South ljurlington, VCI-11101lt
Shelburne Rd and Mchitosh Ave
AM Peak I-Iou,- (7:30-8:30 AM)
Friday, July 15, 1988
1256
N
12
19
N 0
w
4
Resour('r-'jy.3«„t.) ciu,v
Norwich, Vermont
7
0 ^�
4
14
Intersection TuI-11i11� Movement Count
South Burlington, Vermont
Shelburne Rd and McIntosh Ave
PM Peak Hour (4:00-5:00 PM)
Friday, July 15, 1988
F-+
00
Resource oysium,3 vi ut+l.
Norwich, Vermont
1473
�n
0
00
V
00
v,
J
1506
W
14
T 0
26 >�-
Figure 5
Table 1
Intersection Levels of Service for the Shelburne Road Corridor
During the P.M. Peak Hour in 1990 (without L&M Business Park)
Using by JHK & Associates Assumptions
Signalized Intersection
No Build
Scenario A
Scenario B
Ramp "C"
B
B
B
Ramp 'IF"/Swift Street
B
B
C
Ramp "G"
B
B
B
Brewer Parkway
B
B
C
Laurel Hill Drive
B
B
D
Baldwin Avenue
B
B
B
McIntosh
B
B
Holmes Road
B
B
B
Green Mountain Drive
No Improvements
E
E
F
With Improvements
B
B
B
MEMORANDUM
To: Craig Leiner
From: Norm Marshall A''4\
Subject: Traffic Issues Concerning
Date: September 13, 1988
the Proposed L&M Business Park
The proposed L&M Office Park is sited on 30.4 acres in South
RESOURCE Burlington with access from the west to Shelburne Road opposite
McIntosh Avenue. This is a good site for a major driveway. Sight
S�'STI..�1S distances are excellent in both directions. A new signal would be
GROUT' required, but most of the other intersections in this section of
Shelburne Road are already signalized. With good progressive timing,-�
one additional signal need not have a major impact on the progression
of through traffic on Shelburne Road.
x<xue ; sOL101
The major traffic constraint on this project is limited capacity for
11.0. Box 110.4 additional through traffic on Shelburne Road. The Shelburne Road
Norwich. Vermont 05055
corridor was studied recently by JHK & Associates.I JHK & Associates
counted traffic along the corridor in 1986, forecast traffic to the year
Telephone 802/649 1999 1990, and estimated levels of service at the intersections along the
FAN 802i649-5371 corridor. With certain minor improvements plus a major redesign of
the Green Mountain Drive intersection, they concluded that each
intersection along the corridor could operate at level of service C or
better during the 1990 P.M. peak hour of traffic.
Principals: These results indicating only "moderate delays" assumed significant
Thoinas J. Adler growth in traffic along Shelburne Road between 1986 and 1990. The
Colin J. High assumed growth included a 15 percent increase in base traffic volumes
Dennis L. Meadows plus three developments specifically added in. These three
developments were:
1. supermarket and retail development at Laurel Hill Drive (1119
P.M. peak hour trips),
2. restaurant and office at Holmes Road (135 P.M. peak hour trips),
and
3. motel and office at Harbor View Road (187 P.M. peak hour trips).
The developments at Holmes Road and Harbor View Road have been
constructed or are under construction. The large supermarket and
retail development at Laurel Hill Drive has not yet been formally
proposed. If this project were not built or were scaled down
1Traffic Systems Management Study: Final Report, Chapter 2 -- The Shelburne Road
Improvement Program. Prepared for the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission by JHK & Associates, July 1987.
Resource )Stclils Group 2 ) L&M Office Park
r �a, significantly, some portion of the trips assumed by JI-IK to be allocated
to this prof cct should
I j� o 1 u d be available to other developments along
Shelburne Road while maintaining a level of service C or better across
the corridor.
However, impacts of individual projects must be analyzed carefully as
JI-IK did a poor job of estimating the impact of developments on other
intersections. It appears that they analyzed the impact of a
development's traffic only at one intersection, and implicitly assumed
that a development had no impact north or south of that intersection
along Shelburne Road. 'Phis can be seen in Figure 1 which shows
estimates of the 13M peak traffic volumes (sum of all approaches) for six
intersections along Shelburne Road. Four cases are shown:
1. BASE -- JI IK's 1986 count data,
2. +GROWT-I -- 1986 count data plus 15 percent assumed growth,
3. JHK -- JHK's estimates as presented in Figure 8, and
4. RSG -- our own estimates using JHK's assumptions.
As can be seen, the JHK estimates are very close to the +GROWTH line
except for Laurel Hill Drive and Brewer Parkway. Therefore, it seems
they greatly underestimated the effect of the developments (particularly
the Laurel Hill Drive development) upon traffic along Shelburne Road.
We think that a development the size of the one proposed for Laurel
Hill Drive is too large for a single driveway along Shelburne Road given
the large percentage of signal time that must be allocated to through
traffic. For this reason, we have chosen to analyze the impacts of the
L&M Office Park assuming that the Laurel Hill Drive development would
not be built.
We evaluated two potential build scenarios for the L&M Office Park:
A. 360,000 square feet of office space, and
B. 200,000 square feet of office space combined with 50,000 square
feet of retail space.
Scenario A represents 30 percent coverage for the building lots on the
site; this is the maximum that would be allowed by zoning. Scenario B I' 4411
represents a mixture of uses with similar traffic impacts to Scenario A. ?4rL�e. ?
Figures 2 and 3 show our estimates of 1990 P.M. peak hour volumes at
eleven intersections along Shelburne Road with and without the L&M
Office Park development for Scenarios A and B, respectively. As in
Figure 1, the BASE data are 1986 count data collected by JHK; and as
noted above, our analysis excludes any development at Laurel Hill Drive.
The JHK report is ambiguous as to whether the 1986 data and 1990
estimates were intended to represent design hour volumes. The
Resource Sys«ms Group
L&M Office Park
volumes are apparently the highest of several measured volumes during
the fall of 1986. We used the growth methodology used in the JHK ,
report to estimate volumes at McIntosh Drive for the PM peak hour in
1988. We added two years of growth in base traffic (7.2 percent) to
trips associated with the two developments already totally or partially in ,� U
place. The expected net increase would be 14.2 percent for the PM V,
peak hour. Z
� 0 . ( j rP
We counted the AM and PM peak -hour traffic volume at the
intersection of McIntosh Avenue with Shelburne Road on Friday July 15,
1988. Turning -movement counts are shown in Figures 4 and 5. 'Through
traffic volume during the A.M. peak hour was 1.7 percent higher than
that given in the JHK & Associates report for 1986, and through traffic
volume observed during the P.M. peak hour was 6.4 percent higher.
Even factoring in a design hour adjustment factor of 1.030 for July 15
derived from the automatic counter on Route 7 in Shelburne, our
estimate of design hour volumes for the intersection of McIntosh
Avenue and Shelburne Road are actually 5.8 percent less than those
predicted using the growth methodology in the JHK report. A
complicating factor is the highway construction for the first phase of 7
the Southern Connector at the intersection of I-189 with Shelburne o
Road. This construction could be depressing traffic volumes somewhat.
However, in the absence of other evidence, we chose to use the
predictions of traffic volumes based on the JHK methodology directly 1y, �t
without adjusting them upwards using a design hour correction. rti,.UuA�4•- .
Using the traffic volumes we estimated using the JHK methodology, we
analyzed nine signalized intersections (including a new signal at
McIntosh Avenue) for the P.M. peak hour in 1990 for three scenarios:
No Build, 360,000 square feet of office (Scenario A), and 200,000 square
feet of office combined with 50,000 square feet of retail (Scenario B).
The results of these analyses are shown in Table 1. As shown the only
problem intersection is Green Mountain Drive and only then if required
improvements are not made.
L-*A.JDSGAfF CA,LCLJL.ATjDNS
L I rrL� Lr A F' L /,✓�En/� Tic�/� Co,c��a TA J'uN� t3�1 DE ,
71
swimming, tennis, basketball, baseball, and football, and to
instructional programs and indoor activities. Adequate parking
is necessary and the park should also be a major focal point of
pedestrian tails and bikepaths. The City park serves also as a
neighborhood park for the residences within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of
it. Municipal water and sewer services plus power onsite are
necessary. The rationale behind the City park concept is to
centralize municipal facilities and avoid the inefficiencies
inherent in the policing, maintenance, and general
administration of many scattered sites.
The only true City park in South Burlington, Red Rocks Park, has
benefited the immediate neighborhood and the City by providing
lake access for swimming and instruction programs, picnic areas,
trails, and a natural area. On the other hand, Jaycee Park, a
neighborhood park in size, must serve as a City Park with a wide
range of organized City-wide programs because of the lack of
suitable facilities elsewhere. Parking has become a major
problem at this park, primarily due to the concentration of
activities. This has created conflicts in the neighborhood and
with adjacent commercial enterprises.
4) Regional Parks - These may serve City residents as well as
all other residents of some specifically defined region in which
the City is located. Use may include any of those activities
found in a City Park. In the Winooski Valley Region, the
Winooski Valley Park District is an intermunicipal organization
charged with land acquisition and management for conservation and
recreation purposes. Tables 11 and 12 list the district's
holding and its 5-year acquisition and development program.
5) Pedestrian trails - These are intended primarily for various
forms of passive, nonmotorized recreation such as hiking,
running, cross country skiing, walking, nature study, and
snowshoeing. To serve this purpose, a pedestrian trail network
is designed to follow waterways and buffer areas and to coincide
with property lines and/or utility easements; crossing of roads
or parking lots and routes through intensively developed areas
should be minimized. A trail network is planned to link
residential neighborhoods, public and private parks, school sites
and natural areas, as well as similar networks in abutting towns.
Further, the network should provide a variety of travel routes
and distances between these sites.
Planning for a public pedestrian trail network in the City began
in 1969 and culminated in specific proposals in the 1974
Comprehensive Plan. These proposals have been implemented since
then through site plan and subdivision review; also requests for
critical trail links have been made directly to landowners in -
respective of any development plans. Commitments have been
secured or are being negotiated for some 10 miles of pedestrian
trails. The existing and proposed trail network is shown on Map
2 and described in Table 13.
37
M E `J �_, It A N 1) E: M
5utit h ►iur•►.in.t;1 on 1'lann i_119 < ()mmi_5si_on
E rorn: W_i 1 1 i am .1 . Szymansl< i , (` i I.y Mariager
Re: O(-,l,oher 18 1988 agenda i t.erns
DaI-e: October la, 1988
L) TUDHOPE MARiMt, WELLIS'rON ROAD
1 rite shrill drain toward the south.
2. Display- setback should be noted on the plan.
3. Plan poorly done.
3) OLYMPIAD POOL EXPANSION_,_ FARRELL STREET
1. A plan showing grading in the vicinity of new construction
shall be submitted for review. Grading shall be such that it
does not result in run-off on to the adjacent property to the
north.
2. A sidewalk should be constructed across the Farrell street
frontage.
4) L & M BUSINESS PARK, SHELBURNE ROAD
1. The approximate location of the proposed South Burlington
Connector along the Railroad track should be shown so that Lot
owners are made aware and can plan their buildings accordingly.
Also that street "A" will connect to the connector road when it
is built.
Since the sewage plumping station will only serve this
/development, it shall remain private.
Street "A" at; its intersection with Shelburne Road shall be
at; least 3 lanes wide.
4. The option should be kept open for the extension of street.
"B" to the property to the north.
Telephone and/power shall be separate easements outside of
the street r.o.w.
Me>merr-andum - City Manag(—r.
1)e t cube r• 18 , 1988 agenda i toms
Oc tc�t)t�r 14 , 1988
Pm4e 2
Street lights shall be included in the project and latiout.
submi tt,ed for ..tL�frr civa l .
Industrial -Commercial street widths shall. be 32 feet not. 3t)
as shown.
Traffic signals on Shelburne Road will have to be modified
also stop sign erected on street "B" at intersection of street
A' .
On plan sheet, 7 under Typical Road Cross Section erase "m,-t
be reduced to 12 i ncAhes when subgrade is dr,y granular material in
Engineer's opinion. "
2
I
1 KIPS ALLow&,j
zoNE 4 - 3o 'Td� ,,. fr Lo71 S1ZC _= 30.E ciere — Gov �f s
32y22`/.
V 30 4 l p s 9 9 3 4% l ►��.� H,� �//ok.�
�f�FFiC vTv� y
�C0/eoo 1yel. 04t;cc
Gov, ovv sdn. e>�e-
So� A,
ass✓.s.a. �a 'n /eec,��4
/�J3 GG�2ra�//�7t%1
AO z ilC,,
ll� Urltd C-eheraL 1 me/c-Aanc1r3e alb
41V,7
6 as
x
M E M O R A N D U MAN
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner
Re: October 27, 1987 agenda items
Date: October 23, 1987
2) GREEN ACRES QUARRY, HINESBURG ROAD
I expect to receive a letter from Steve Stitzel addressing the
request for an amendment to the original motion of approval of
the quarry. In sum, he says no action can be taken on this due
to the pending court case. This item should be dismissed.
3) UNIVERSITY MALL, 155 DORSET STREET -
Enclosed is a proposed motion of approval that is intended to
meet the concerns of the Planning Commission including the
distribution of costs for the southbound left turn lane and the
I-89 northbound ramp. Also enclosed is a denial motion requested
by some members of the Planning Commission. Total amounts will
be furnished on Tuesday night.
4); L & M BUSINESS PARK, LARKIN AND MILOT, 1175 SHELBURNE ROAD
Mr. Larkin and Mr. Milot propose to subdivide the 30 acre Fayette
property into 22 commercial lots. The property is zoned
Commercial- o and is located west of Vermont National Bank and
South Burlin ton Chrysler Plymouth and east of the railroad
tracks.
Access: A 60 foot r.o.w. with 30 feet of pavement is shown from
Shelburne Road. The width should be 32 feet since it is a
commercial road. A deceleration lane, signal and 4 lanes at
Route 7 may be needed. It is located directly across from
McIntosh Drive and involves a relocation of the driveway serving
the Larkin apartment building. The driveway to the apartment
will be consolidated with this new road. The front parking lot
will be eliminated and new parking constructed in the rear with
two new driveways from the new road. These should be
consolidated into one.
Circulation: Two public streets serve these lots. Both end in
cul de sacs. The pavement should be 'Ie feet wide. One of the
streets ends at the northern property line abutting the Pomerleau
property for future extension into that property. Street names
should be submitted at preliminary plat.
6ewcv - as 4,g5D - 9 9 o0 3 t &
1
Memorandum - Planning
October 23, 1987
Page 2
Lot Size: The smallest lot is 41,300 square feet and all lots
have at least 120 feet of frontage. The lots adjacent to the
Central Vermont Railroad are very deep with a minimum of 435 feet
in depth. These lots are in the path of the planned South
Burlington Southern Connector and will lose 165 feet minimum
depth if the connector is built in the originally planned loca-
tion.
Public Facilities: Eight inch sewer and water lines serve the
property. The sewer is continued from the sewer easement on the
Farrell property to the south. Another sewer easement crosses
through the property. The water is brought in from Shelburne
Road. Sidewalks are shown on one side of both streets. A
culvert will be constructed to channel the stream under the new
road. A utility pole will be relocated to make way for the new
entrance road. A street lighting plan must be shown at
preliminary plat. A detention pond is shown on one lot to
accommodate drainage. See Bill's memo regarding this.
Setbacks: The front yard setback will be 40 feet; back ,yard is
30 feet; sideyards are 15 feet. A fifty foot setback is required
on either side of the stream.
Other: An abandoned reservoir is shown on two lots. A 20 foot
r.o.w. leads to this from the Farrell property.
A traffic study must be submitted at the time of preliminary plat
application. (21 days prior to public hearing). It should
include the pre and post affect of development on the following
intersect�Moute
:
oute 7/McIntosh/Development intersection;
7/Holmes Road;
e-i- Route 7/Bartlett Bay/Green Mt. Drive;
-' Laurel Hill Drive/Route 7;
e) Route 7/Allen Road; r
v�) Swift Street/Route 7 ;
\) Route7/13aldwin.
vr The Commission should decide if these are appropriate and whether
any others are necessary. The study should also determine what
intersection improvements are needed including signals and decel-
eration lanes.
2
Bl anni nq Commission 10/2`7/87
Paqe 6
Lafleur suggested the words "or equivalent money f,ir additi-ina1
improvements at Another interchange if decided by the City
c oun.= i 1 " .
Mrs. Pt)LA -) ask::ed what the last sentence, "Failure tc, do sc i does
n,it invalidate this permit." Mr. Durgess said if the City does
not fc,11 Iw thrIDUQh and plan these improvements the City will ncit
take back: the Mall building permits. He did not want this
apprc.val tcl obligate the City tc. dci something they didn't want to
dI
The motion carried with Mr. Belter. _Mr. Burgess. Mr. Jacclb and Ms.
P.IACT_, voting for and Mrs. Hurd and Mrs. Maher voting against.
Mrs. Maher said she wanted everyone tc i k::n.=,w her plans; she was
gc.i ng to go as a private citizen to the Act 225C) hearings and
oppose this project.
4. Sketch plan applicatic,n lif Jahn Larkin and Gerry Milotl fcir a
cr-mmercial subdivisic-n �f file ��� acre Fayette property,
located at 1175 Shelburne R,Dad.
Mr. Millet presented a plan showing 22 1-=ts ---,ff Shelburne R.-Dad
behind Vermont National Bank:: on '30 acres cif land. It is a C1
district. The entrance is acr-Dss the street from Mc Int-Dsh Ave.
They would realign the existing parking spaces on John Larkins
property. They will have a 33Ci fc it wide city street that ends in
tw---- CUl-de-sacs. One, ad.jo ninq the Pomerleau prc.perty WC.Uld be
temporary so the street be cIntinued i f that property is
ever developed.
It will be a business park:: rather than a retail center. They have
laid -=-ut lets in a manner to allow them t - put the lets together
if a builder wanted a l ar qer lot. Mrs. Maher asked if it would be
lik::e Blair Park. in Williston. Mr. Milot said the main difference
is his buildings would all have a similar architectUral theme.
There is a drainage swale and a stream thr-Dugh the property. Th(s
IcIts are laid Out Rio all set back::s from natUral area= Can be
maintained and still leave an area large enough f!-r to_tildinq. This
lets were also designed sc, the Southern Ccoinectcir could be built
and not create any lc-ts to small fc-r the building. 'l-s. Hurd
asked if the level � Wiper wc-ul d cc nsi der 1 eavi nq a r i qh- -.:,f-..way for
the Southern Connector. Ilia Said they wc_uld.
Mr. Milot said they WOUld .mbine the Vermont National Bank::': curb
cut with theirs so they wiluld now have Access from ttleir step
light. Mrs. Hurd asked if they had considered doing_ the same
thing with the S.B. Chrysler F'1 ymcuth curb cut. He =_aid they had
c_c onsi dered it but had not spc,k:en tc- them yet. Mrs. Hurd asked how
far apart the lights wcnuld be. Mr. Mil-_-t said apprc.- imately 500
` Planning C:ommi ssi ) 10/27/87 �
Page 7
feet.
Mrs. Lafleur said the roads should be 32 feet wide.
Mr. Milot said many of Mr. Sa ymansk: i ' s suggestions for read
improvements will come cut after the traffic study is done.
Mr. Milot said he had discussions with the state about his paying
South Burlington's share of the Southern Connector. Mr. Jacob
asked what the state had said. Mr. Milot said he had work closely
with Dave Kaufman and he felt the engineering was back: on the
track. The state has agreed to fund the engineering. He said
that if it is going to be built it would be easier to get the
money from the land owners/developers can the read.
Mr- Milot said he felt this would hav& less impact than a mail on
this site. They are hoping to attract interstate banking
concerns. This is a long range project.
Mrs. Hurd noted that this is a C1 zone though and asked if he
planned to allow any commercial uses in i t . Mr. Milot said that
wasn't the plan but they couldn't say for sure. Mrs __Maher asl%ed
if the traffic studies would use the worst case traffic 4_TM"�
.....-_.__......... Mr . Milot asked if they
could sh�_�w their planned impact would be slighty, less -war,
commercial development was there anyway to lock them in to certain
less traffic uses. Mr. Burgess said this was a request for a
subdivision and no approvals would be given for any businesses at
this time. Mrs. Lafleur said while that is true.Act 250 often
gives subdivisions a quota of new trip ends the new developments
would al 1 ow. 1 ne `t
iG.lC �\ Y'k"e'w _)� . J
Mrs. Lafleur asked if this was located on land Wagner and Noyes
would look: at for a drainage plan. Mrs. lafleur said they
wouldn't because it was not in the watershed they have been
studying. She said the City may want t� � look at it anyway because
Of the stream running through it. Mr. Jacob noted there were
really big ravines on the property.
Mr. YnakowsE::i from Natural Resources said there is a drainage way
through there which currently has running water in it and this i,s
a dry time of year.
Mrs. Maher asked if this was: prime agricultural sail. Mr. Milot
said he hadn't found a piece of land yet that wasn't.
Mr. Jacob said the Commission should do a site visit to thi � site
before snow covers it. Mrs. Lafleur said she would sift it up.
Mr. Krassner asked about fill currently being out on the sitp.
Mr. MilOt said that was done without his permission. Mrs. lafleur
B1 anni nq_ Commission 10/27/97
Page £3
said the highway builders had permission to fill � �n F'omer 1 eau' s
property.
Mrs. 'Mc.,V\eIr asked who would do the traffic study. Mr. Milot said
they would like to choose someone whom the Commission trusts.
Mrs. Maher recommended Tom Adler who had done East of Lakes'
study.
Mrs. Hurd said she would encourage combining curb cuts and
possibly getting rid of one of the lights. Mrs. Lafleur noted the
Baldwin light serves the Orchard School and shouldn't be taken
out.
Mr. Jacob said all studies would ins=lode lights. Mr. Milot said
that he wondered if any traffic study' done on Shelburne Road at
this time would be accurate because of the construction going on.
Mrs. Lafleur said they could consult with Mr. Leiner because he
had figures for what projected traffic will be like. Mrs. Lafleur
asked what intersections the commission wanted to study. The
Commission asked for a study of all intersections between 189 and
Allen Road. Mr. Milot asked if he could present a proposal for
build out. . Mr. Jacob said they were going to have to look �k at
worst case scenarios and trip ends.
Mr. Krassner asked if the fill going on was legal. Mr. Mi 1 ot said
they would comply with the law. Mr. Krassner raised the question
about access to the lake. He suggested that if there was any way
the public could get access to the lake it should be made
available. Mr. Jacob said the City always tries to get access to
the lake. Mr. Milot noted the railroad tracks were the biggest
stumbling black:. They rarely allow read to cross their tracks.
All he could do would be to provide the right-of-way.
Mr. Yankowski said he was concerned with the air quality can
Shelburne Road.
(Mr. Jacob declared a five minute break)
ei.terated tk]�3�. the City wanted a worst _ase 1 00
traffic study.
Mr. Milot asked about sewerage capacity at Bartlett Bays plant.
Mrs. Lafleur said this project would take about everything there
was left. She said she would have to check: it carefully but she,
felt there was capacity.
Mr. Milot
said the abandoned reservoir r shown on
the
plans had not
been used
in calculations. It
was all grown up
and
had no wateIt-
in it but
Mr. Fayette did have
a right-of-way to
it.
Mrs.
Lafleur said the level of service of "C" would still have to
r
81 anning Commission 10/27/87
Page 9
be maintained.
Mr- Mi 1 of said they were going to heavily landscape the parking
lot at the Larkin Apartments. They had two curb cuts off the new
street and Mrs. Lafleur was recommending they consolidate to one
curb cut. Mr. Milot said he would look at it for Preliminary
Plat.
Mrs. Lafleur noted the public streets would all have to have
street trees.
5. Sketch plan _a_plication _f Joe Savio of Cousins Construction
for a 4 lot subdivision of the 'Franco property, 150 Airport
Parkway,
Nancy Jankins spoke for Cousins Construction. She said the lot
was 1.7 acres and they wanted to put in 3 new lots for three
duplexes. Mrs. Lafleur noted that once it was subdivided they had
the square footage for a triplex. Mrs. Jankins said they proposed
a 24 foot pavement can a 50 foot right-of-way. She said they
questioned whether they needed sidewalks since they are servicing
only three houses. Mrs. Lafleur said City standards are for a
sixty foot right-of-way with 30 feet of pavement. She felt they
could fit thirty feet of paving and a five foot sidewalk: within a
50 foot right-of-way. Mrs. Lafleur said the whale project hin aes
on whether the Commission was willing to accept a fifty foot
right-of-way and accept the density proposed. Mrs. Maher asked
what Mr. S=ymanski's memo said. Mrs. Lafleur said his concerns
was the cul-de-sac and he recommended it be built to City
standards. Mr. Jacob asked if it was passible to fit a regulation
size cul-de-sac in. Mrs. Jankins said it wasn't. There was much
discussion about different ways to rearrange the lots to get them
in. The consensus of the Commission was that if they created one
less lot (two new lots) they might have room for a City standard
street. Mr. Jacob said he had :a big problem with lot 4 that was
next to the brook.
There was much discussion about whether a private street of this
size would be allowed. Mr. Burgess said he thought it would
depend can the number of units they planned to put on the private
way. Mrs. Lafleur said the ordinance says the Commission ma'
allow a private road of up to three lots. Belter said he fell tht-
C ommi ssi on had to be consistent.
Mrs. Lafleur reiterated that the commission wanted a public_ street
to City standards if there was more than 3 lots.
Everyone agreed that if there were
' °il.'4 l.lnitS COY more on tf'lE!`iE? 1ot•:_
they did not want a private road.
6. Qther business
City of South Burlin(rton
y zn
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
October 14, 1988
Gerald Milot
P.O. Box 4193
Burlington, Vermont 03401
Re: L &c M Business Park
Dear Mr. Mil.ot:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission
meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also
enclosed are Bill Szymansk.i's comments.
Please be.sure someone is present on Tuesday, October 18, 1988 at
7:30 P.M. to represent your request.
Sincerely,
Joe Weith,
City Planner
JW/mcp
Encls
cc: Mr. John Larkin
Mr. Lance Llewellyn
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575
Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, October 18,
1988, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following:
(2-Preliminary Plat application of G. Milot and J. Larkin for a
.lot business park subdivision on a 30.5 acre parcel. The
property is bounded on the north by Merrihew and Pomerleau, and
San Remo Realty, on the east by Shelburne Road and Vermont
National Bank, on the south by J. Larkin and T. Farrell, and on
the west by Central Vermont Railroad, and is located on Shelburne
Road.
2) Amendment to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations to
correct several errors under Sections 12.10 and 12.20 of the
Commercial 2 District. The amendment is to delete Sections
12.110, 12.111, 12.112 and 12.212. The permitted uses listed
under Sections 12.110, 12.111 and 12.112 are also listed as
conditional uses under Section 12.20. These uses were intended
to be conditional uses only. For section 12.212, the conditional
uses listed under this section are already identified under
Section 12.202.
Copies of the application and proposed amendment are available
for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall.
October 1, 1988
Peter L. Jacob
Chairman,
South Burlington
Commission
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLING`ON
Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN
1) Name, address, and phone number of:
a. Owner of record James J. Fayette
1930 Shelburne Road
Shelburne, Vermont 05482 985-2854
b. Applicant John Larkin, 1185 Shelburne Road, _
S. Burlington 864-7444; Gerald Milot 600 Financial Plaza,
Burlington' 658-2000
c. Contact person John Larkin 864-74444
2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including
number of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s).
Road next to Vermont National Bank.-
11 15 SVnei.'bjr ne i c o. � --
3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc)
long term lease -option
4) Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties State of Vermont,
Thomas A Farrell John P. Larkin, San Remo Reality Co.,
Merrihew/Pomerleau Real Estate Co., VT National Bank _
5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements,
covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. 30' drainage easement. sanitary
sewer easement (existing and new) 20' access right-of-way to abandoned-
reser
M
6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities
such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.
1800' of new storm sewers and 1500 of new sanitary sewers
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:
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.
00
(Sic3nnturc) i�> cant or c)ntact jy�rson
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager
Re: October 27, 1987 agenda items
Date: October 23, 1987
4) L & M BUSINESS PARK, SHELBURNE ROAD
1. This exten§ive development should have at least a four lane
entrance on to Shelburne Road. There should also be a
deceleration lane on Shelburne Road. This will have to be
coordinated with the State. A traffic signal most likely will be
warranted.
2. Shelburne Road frontage should include a sidewalk.
3. Cul-de-sacs shall have a pavement width of 30 feet. Main
line streets should have a pavement width of 32 feet in
anticipation of a large volume of large trucks.
4. Water main shall be located between curb and sidewalk not
under sidewalk as shown. Electricity and telephone underground
lines shall be located on opposite side of street in an easement.
5. The westerly cul-de-sac must have a drainage system.
6. The detention basin should be sized to accommodate the street
drainage system and lots draining to those streets. City will
not be responsible for maintenance of the retention pond.
7. The South Burlington Southern Connector is planned to run
along the west side of this development.
5) JOE SAVIO OF KUZIN'S CONSTRUCTION, AIRPORT PARKWAY
Subdivision street is substandard in r.o.w. width, street width
and cul-de-sac that is not standard and difficult to maintain
especially for snow plowing. I would recommend that it be built
to City standards.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
11 DECEMBER 1990
page 4
4. Public Hearing: Final Plat application of John Larkin & Gerald
Milot for construction of a planned commercial development con-
sisting of 150 multi -family residential units, a 40-room hotel,
60,000 sq. ft. of office use, and 40,000 sq. ft. of retail use on
a 33 acre parcel located on Shelburne Rd.
Mr. Rabideau said they will come in to the Commission when com-
mercial uses are found and will discuss parking then. The resi-
dential uses are to the rear of the property. There will be some
underground parking. The units will probably be rental units.
Mr. Craig noted that with regard to the road from Shelburne Rd, to
the temporary cul de sac, the intention was to bring this through
when the Pomerleau land develops. This developer is to bring it
to the property line. Mr. Craig asked how this will be handled.
Mr. Weith said the City Attorney recommends an escrow account.
Mr. Craig said he wants to be sure there is enough money in it in
the future when the road is to be built. Mr. Larkin said he was
willing to build it now. Mr. Burgess noted the right -Of -way is
not fixed now. Mr. Rabideau said there wouldn't be much room to
move the road. Mr. Weith said he would like it left open till it
is known what will happen to the Pomerleau property. Mr. White
said the Pomerleau people would prefer the road not be built. Mr.
Condos recommended the future road be put on the official city
map.
With regard to the hotel, Mrs. Maher asked why the 40 units have
60 bedrooms. She asked if these are really apartments. Mr.
Larkin said he is thinking of "quality suites." He said the hotel
isn't going to be done right away. Mrs. Maher asked if the
kitchens will be removed. Mr. Larkin said not in the front
building. Mrs. Maher felt that made the units apartments. She
asked that the applicant come in when renovation work on the hotel
is to be done.
Mr. Dunn spoke against the project. He felt people would be
opposed if they knew what is planned. He noted the staff report
says 623 peak hour trip ends will be added to Shelburne Rd., and
this is a conservative figure and doesn't include the Pomerleau
property. Even the developers' figures show 2 intersections going
to level "E" and "F" (from "D" and "E"). Mr. Dunn felt the road
has to be fixed first. He felt developers would have more
pressure on the Governor than the ordinary people who drive that
road every day. He cited a recent Supreme Court decision that
said you can't add to a hazardous situation. He felt it was a
queston of what you do first: fix the road or make things worse and
hope the road will be fixed sometime.
PLANNING COMMISSION
11 DECEMBER 1990
page 5
Regarding sewage, Mr. Dunn said he understood the Bartlett Bay
plant is close to capacity and is an old facility with leakage.
Mrs. Maher explained that the Commission is not happy with a
complete commercial/retail plan. She felt this was a compromise.
Mr. Condos noted the City Council has let a contract for
engineering services to study the sewage plant for possible ex-
pansion. Mr. Dunn repeated that it is a question of what comes
first. Mr. Austin agreed with Mr. Dunn and felt Shelburne Rd. is
at capacity and didn't feel the project should be built until
Shelburne Rd. is fixed.
Mr. Weith noted the issue of infringement on a CO Zone is not yet
settled. Also, CCTA recommends a bus shelter in front of the
hotel to be maintained by the property owner. They ask it be put
in now.
Regarding affordable housing, Mr. Dunn said he would like
assurance that some of it stays affordable. Mrs. Maher said the
city does not have a policy in place to do that.
Mr. Weith noted that the developer is willing to fund a TMA
(transportation management assoication) for 18 months ($30,000 for
the first year budget and $40,000 for the second year). They
agree to have it effective co -incident with their Act 250
approval.
Ms__Peacock_moved-the_Planninq_Commission,aUrove_the_Final_Plat
application_of-Gerald _Milot-and -John _Lar.kin _for_construction_of_a
planned -commercial -development _consi'stinq_of_150_multi_family_res-=
identia1_units,_a_4Q=room_hote1,_6�Q OOQ'sq��ft,._of_office_space
and_4aln0Q_s_ft__af_retail_s ace_as_dected_an_a_14_pa e_set_of
laps a e_one_entitledµ_L_&_M_Park Pro osed_Subdiuision_plan,"
eared _b r�P it zpatric k-Llewellyn, - Inc -and -dated -December, _ 199Q
with_the_follawin _sti ulatians� "��� �`
1—The-applicant -shall
_gast_a_$121,1OQ,_3Yrear�landsca inq_band
2rior -to -permit---This—includes_$13y60Q_far_.street_trees_tublic
r-6--wi ._and_$lOZr500_for_site_landscapinq..�'�"
2--The_21an_shall-be-revised_ rior-to-recardinq_to_shows
a_ -The -landscapingµplan,and_schedule -an -sheets _11-and _12_shall
'be_revised_to_indicate-465_grogosed_deciduous/e reen
shrubs_as�indicated_in_a_nate_dated_12/5/9Q_from_,Iohn
Steele_of-Fitz atrick-Llewellyn,-Inca
PLANNING COMMISSION
11 DECEMBER 1990
page 6
b-_The�µlot-shali-beµlocated-outside_of_the
SQ,foot_canservation_zone_alon _the _minor_ stream-aian',the
southern�Chr�sler�Pl�Zmouth��ro�ert�r_line
c,._Bus_shelter_located_in_front_of _the ro osed_hotel_in_a
'location_recommendedz,�XYCCTA_--The'bus_shelter_shall_be
maintainedbv-a-landowners _association�or_applicant.
3._The�ro�osed_sur� ue�Z��lat_shall_kae_reuised��rinr�to�recor�d�_to
indicate_that_the_100-foot-r_o_w�_future_connection_to_Eanrell
2Lo2erLy,t-and_future_connection_to_Pome'rlea'u-property-'willl-be-ir
reuocable_offers_of_dedication- "' '---'
4-_The_areas_of_land_sho_wn_on_theµplat-as-!subjectµtoµagreement_
shall_he_LesolvedLior_to�issuanceof_zonin��permits�__The_a
plicant-shall _ submit _evidence_to-the �Cit�r,PlannerY�rouin��that_the
issues_hav'e_been-resolved-and_that_tbe��Lo ect can _�roceedtas__the
rouedb _the_Commission
5__The_sewage_pumL)inq-station-and-force-main-shall_beµprivately
ownedFand_maintained_ _
6__L al_documents_for_streets _100_foot_right_of—wav-alonq
Central_Vermont-Railroad-property-line,-60_foot-r-oµw-Yto-Earrell
propertyr,_utilities _easements_and_shared-parking-with-the-Vermont
National_Bankx_shallYbe_submitted'toCitttorney_for_aproual
LioL_te_'ermit..
Z-_Bonds-to_cover_construction_of_streets,_sidewalks,__improvements
to_Mcintosh/L&M_Park/Shelburne_&oad_intersectinnsr'sunchranizatian
of_signalsza�,_Shelburne,_Road_from-Allen road_to_I-18r�the""'
closiE 4 f_the_southern_accesstto_uermo'nt_N'ationnal~Bank,
deceleration_lane-into _the_ro jectandother_utilities-in-an
amount_to_be_approuedµb)z4the_City-Engineer-shall_be-posted_ Liar
toopermit -
8—A_Lecreation_fee -of$30.r_OQQ_S$2QQ.,2eLcuniLI-shall -be -pas Led
P—r- ior_to_'ermit- '
9,._Prior_tn_ ermitf_the_applicant_shall_submit_a_letteL_to_the
planner _from_the-VAOT-approvin _ Lo osed_improv'ements,au_Route_7
�i_e µnew si nak_s nchranization-of_signals_from_I_189_to_Allen
Road deceleration _lane ---ImProuementprioL-to
issuance -of _a_certificate_of,accu2an_Sy.,:,
10-_A_sewer-allocation _of _65s325_gpd _is _granted__ -This _assumes
52t0QQ_gj2d_foL_the-residential _pertion -and -12,875_gpd_for'the_com-
PLANNING COMMISSION
11 DECEMBER 1990
page 7
mercial-portion--_Due_to_limited_sewer_capaciLy-at-the-Bartlett
SaZ_Treatment_facilitz,_an1 1 552�gpd-is -available -atµthis�time_
,This,proect-will -be -placed -on ima_waiting,list_far_the_remaining
13,823�pd_until,such_time as-such
determiaed_b�Z_the_Ci.t lanner__:�6,93 ,-d-shall_be-placed-as-�l
---------------
an -the gildµshall he_#3�on this list
11._The_applicant-shall _contribute_$15,995_to-the -Shelburne -Road
Intersection -improvement _Eund_based_an_the_623 peak hour -trip ends
12r_This-project -is -approved _far_341_residential-parking-spaces
and_469__commercial _spaces—This_pr�ect -is -also -approved-ton -a
maximum -peak -hour -trip -end eneration_of _623_trips�As�expressed
_theapplicantthe_commercial_portion-of-theYproectt_including
the_hotel,_is_onl _conce tual_at_this_time___Therefore,-rior-to
issuance _-of _a -build ing -permit -for -any -ddevelYlopment_in_the_cnmmer_
ci�alortion_of_the_�rn ec�the�a plicant_shall_submit_a_revised
final -plat _to_the_Planning-Commission_far_µappcoual---anv-proposed
commercial_ ro ject_shall_fit_within-the,469_total_commercial
par
rkinspaces_and_623_maximum_2eak_hour_ti _end_limit_tincluding
residential_ artionI-as -approved _b -the _Plannin _Commission..
13- -This -approval -is -cant inqenL-upon -the -establishment -of _a_T Lans,
portatian_Management-Assoc iation_kTMAJ-in -accordance _with- the _doc=
ument-entitled __Shelburne_Road_Corridar_Trans artation_Management
Association Final _Draft r-August_1990 -As -expressly -represented
bYthe'applicant wthe_a2plicant_shall_fund_the_first_18_months_ of
the_ ro ased_Shelburne_Road_Carridor_TMA..__As_defined_in_the_abaue
referenced ,document_the_first_18-months _re uiresa�kiudget�of w'�
$50,,oQQ_-_Effectiu�� e_upan,District_Enuironmental_a2proual—of_this
2ro_1SS ,, _th�� e_a2plicant_shall_hire_a. Eagram_coordinator,-provide
workipg�space -with in -the _carridar -and -es Lab 1ish_an_account_far4
the_TMA..__T_ The licant_shall_contribute__(�3Q uQ0_to-the _TMAµ y
said._date_and_an_additional_$2Q 000_one_year_after_that-"The
pr_opos'ed,b lawsshall_be_finalized_after_the_hiring.of-the-TMA
coordinator.
14 --This -appraval_is_conditional_on_a_deuelo meHt _p has in _ lan_of
25_residential_units_per_ ears
15__At_the_time_the_Pomerlea4_ ra ert _is_a raued_far_deuelopment
the_then _owner _of _the_sub ' ect_ ra ert _shall _extend�Ea rette _Rd _ _ta
the -northerly -property-line -in -accordance -with _municipal_standards
and -at -its -own_cost_and_ex ease..__This_obligation_shall_run_with
the -land -and -shall -be _secured_b _a _mart a�e_ar_other-lien -on_the
prayperty-_-zIn_addition _ riar_ta_issuance_nf_a,zoning-per_mit�_the
applicant_shall-past-an_escrow_account_to_secure_furtheL_the_costs
PLANNING COMMISSION
11 DECEMBER 1990
page 7
mercial_ ortion___Due_to_limited_sewer_ca acit _at_the_Bartlett
Sa _Treatment_facilit y,._on1y, -51,552-qpd-is -available _at_this_time.
-This -pro ect_will_be,a2laced_an_a_waiting-list_fer_the_remaininq
13,823o d__until_such_time_as,sufficien't_capacity-is-available-as
determined_b _the_City_Planner___6�938-gpd_shall_be_ laced_as_#1
on_the_list_and_6,885_gpd_shall_be_#3_on_this_list_
11__Thecapplicant-shall_contribute_$15,995_to_the_Shelburne_Road
Intersection _Im Fund -based -on he-62-3-peak-hour-LLip-ends
to�b�enerated_b�z�this_ ra 'ect_
12__This_ ra ect_is_a roved_far_341_residential_parkin��sPaces
and_A6�i_commercial_saces___This_ ro'ect_is_also_approved_far_a
maximum -peak -hour _tr'i_end_ eneration_of_623_tri sAs_ex ressed
� the a licant the commercial_ artion'
_of_the' ro ect includin
the _hotel _____------_
,_is_onl _conce tual_at_this_time___Therefore prior -to
issuanceYaf_a_buildinq-ermit_far_anr-d'evelopment_in_the_commer,
cial_Portion_of_the_ ro-ect _the_a licant_shall_submit_a_revised
final_ lat_to_the_Dlannin _Commission_for_approval___An—Proposed
commercial_ ra'ect_shall_fit_within_t he_d69_total_commercial
arkin _s aces_and_623_maximum_ eak_hour- tri _end_limit_(includ'
residential_ ortion�_a12roved_b _the_Planninq-Comm ission
_
13_-This -approval _is_coY ntingent_upon_the_establishment_of_a_Trans,
TMAl ccor
nrtation_Mana ement_Association_�_in_adance_with_the_doc=
ument-entitled __Shelburne_&oad_Carridor_Transportation_Mana ement
Association _Einal_Draft _Au ust_1990____As_expressly-re resented
b _the_aY"licaat _the_a licant_shall_fund_the_first_18_months_af
the_ ro ased_Shelburne_&oad_Corridar_TMA___As_defined_in_the_above
referenced re
$50,,OQ0___Effectiue_u an_District_Environmental_a~roval_of_this
ro ect,._the_a licant_shal1_hice_a_ ro ram -coo zdinat,ac.-provide
work ing_s ace_within_the_carridor _and_establish_an_account_for
the _TMA___The_a licant_shall_contribute_$3Q t 000-to -the _TMA-by
said -date -and -an _additional_$2Q 000_one_ ear_after_that___The
proposed -b laws_shall_be_finalized_after_the_hirinq -of -the _TMA
coordinator- --~
1Q__This_a raual_is_conditional_an_a_deue�e`nt_phasinq-plan -of
25-residential -units -per _ ear-
15__At_the_time_the_Pomerleau_ rn ert _is_a roued_for-development
the -then -owner -of _the_sub'ect, ro ert _shall_extend_Ea ette_&d__to
the -no rthe ElY__Pro ert -line -in _accardance_with_munici al -standards
and -at -its _own_cost_and._ex ease.__This_obligatipn_shall-run -with
the_land_and,shall_be_secured_bv_a_mort a e_or_other_lien_on_the
--T-2_____. __ _
2r2erty- -_In_additionr_ rior_to_issuance_of_a_zonin �� _q _�ermit�_the
a licant_sha1L ast_an_escrow_account_to_secure_further_the_costs
PLANNING COMMISSION
11 DECEMBER 1990
page 8
nf_the_future_extension_af_Ea ette,Road_tn_the_Pomerleau_ rn ert
_The_amaaatµo'ff_escraw_sha'll_be_determined_b _the_Cit r=min r.-
The,documents-neceessarv_tQn_effact_this_ lan_shall_be-submitted_to
the -City
16—The-private_residential_street_shall_be_fullV_installed_and
paued,aprior-toµissuance-nf-a_certificate_of_occu ancy-
1---AAEElicant_shall_submit_to_the_Citv-Planner_a_list_of_any
chaues,re,4uired-by-Act_2SQ-prior_to_issuance_of_a_zoning-permit-
18.._The_storm_water_retentinn_ ond_shall_remain_in_ rivate_owner=
shi2_and_shall_be_maintained a _landowner ;s_associatian-�'��
19.._Storm_water_inlets_will_be_ad'usted_to_ rade_usin _ recast
concrete_risers- tnot _bricks-and_mortarl_as_manufactured_byr
Griswold- _
20__The_Final_Plat_shall_be_si ned_b _the_Plannin _Commission
chairman_or_clerk_and_recorded_in_the_South_Burlington_land
records-witthin_90Yd�a rs-nr_this_a roual_is_null_and_unid_
Mrs.._Maher_seconded.__The_motion_ assed_4_2_with_Mr.._Sheahan_ab=
stain ing.and_Ms�^Pugh.-and_Mr._austin_o osin
Sketch plan application of University Mall REalty Trust for con-
struction of a 5,000 sq. ft. building for retail use and
incorporation into the University Mall property on Dorset St.
Mr. Koury noted that at the Dorset St, project talks, they agreed
to close 3 curb cuts in the Gleason property. They want to re-
orient them and have them access from the Mall parking lot. They
would remove 4,300 sq. ft. (metal building, house and garage) and
replace them with a 5,000 sq. ft., one story building. They are
trying to maintain the number of parking spaces and not draw on
University Mall parking. They will provide 27 spaces,
Mrs. Maher wanted to know the percentage of compact car sapces and
also wanted to about aisle widths in front of Ames.
Mr. Burgess noted the Planner suggests moving the building closer
to Dorset St, and having more green space up front.
Mrs. Maher noted circulation at the main entrance is a problem.
She also wanted to know if the Commission is being asked to waive
any parking spaces. Mr. Weith said they are.
CITY OF SOUP(! BURY INCION
Suixlivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT
1) Name of Applicant Gerald Milot/John Larkin
2) Mine of Subdivision L & M Business Park
3) Submit Subdivision Fee. $160.00
4) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreage, number of lots or units, type of
land use, gross floor area for c(xamercial or industrial uses):
22 commercial lots on 30 (+/-) acres on the west side of Route 7. 2700
linear feet public roadway with extensions of municipal services.
5) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record,
applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application:
None
6) Nam, address, and phone number of:
a. Engineer FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated, One Wentworth Drive,
Williston, Vermont, 05495, 878-3000
b. Surveyor Donald Hamlin Engineers, P.O. Box 9, Essex Junction, VT 05452
c. AttorrL'y
d. Plat Designer
7) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units,
property lines, applicant's legal interest in the properr.ty, etc., since
sketch plan application:
None
8) List names and nktiling addresses of owners of record of all contiguous
properties: San Remo Realty Company
Thomas Farrell
Central Vermont RR
9) State title,
drawing number, date of
original plus
any
revisions, and
designer(s)
of 'the preliminary maps)
accompanying
this
application:
10) COST 1:ST1MNPIS for Planned Unit Develop-+nents,multi-i.,inily projects, drid
cc iimrci,il and industrial conq:)lexes:
(a) Buildings n/a
(b) Landscaping $12,500
(c) All Other Site Improvements (e.g., curb work)$500,000
11) ESTIMA'ITD TI'A 'FIC for. Planned Unit Developments, multi -family projects,
and camiercial and industrial eo,nplexes (2-way traffic, in plus out):
12)
A.M. Peak hour
P.M. peak hour
Average daily traf f is `� of trucks
Attach four copies, of a preliminary map showing the following inforiiLition:
1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying, title and the nan►e of the city.
2) Name and address of owner of record subdivider and designer of Prelint-
iriary Plat.
3) NLunher of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property
lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas,and other essential exist-
ing physical features.
-2-
4) 'llie names of all sulAivisions immediately adjacent anti the names of
owners of record of adjacent acreage.
5) The location and size of any existing sewers and water ►ruins, culverts
and drainson the property or serving the property to be subdivided.
G) I-rx:ation, n..urKs and widths of existing and proposed streets, private
ways, sidewlilks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks and other public or
privately nr►intained open spaces as well as similar facts regarding
adjacent property.
7) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geolog-
ical Survey datum of existing grades and also of proposed finished grades
where change of existing ground elevation will be five feet or more.
cu►nhlete sur-vUy of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor.
9) Nuwxrical and graphic scale, date and true north arrow.
10) Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative
means of providing water sulx)ly to the proposed subdivision.
11) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal
system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes.
12) If on -site sewage disposal systen► is proposed, location and results of tests
to ascertain subsurface soil, rock and ground water conditions, depth
to ground water unless pity are dry .it depth of five feet; location and
•
results of percolation tests.
13) Provisions for eollectinq and discharging storm drainage in the form of
drainage )clan.
14) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required.
15) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to
locate readily and appraise the basic: layout in the field. Unless an
existing street intersection is, shown, the distance along a street from
one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall
be shown.
16) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use
and the conditions of such dedication or reservation.
13) D0.velormnental tinvtal)l.e (including number of phases, and start and conq)letion
&I tes )
ASAP
the wivexs Applicant desires Urom the requirements of these regulations:
NONE
15) Attach a vicinity nkap showing the following:
1) All existing subdivisions, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent
parcels, toget-lier with the names of. the record owners of all adjacent
parcels of land, namely, Uiose directly abutting or directly across any
street adjoining the pro[.x)sed sulxlivision.
2) Locations, widths and names of existing, filed or proposed streets, curb
cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed sub=
division and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above.
3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an
indicaton of the future probable street system of the remaining portion
of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the
subdivider's entire holding.
(signature) applicant or contact parson
date
°ate
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
October 30, 1987
John Larkin
1185 Shelburne Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: L & M, Fayette Property
Dear Mr. Larkin:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed are the October 27, 1987 Planning Commission minutes.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
J� 6. 44
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
cc: Gerry Milot
South Burlington Lakeshore Association
Bartlett Bay Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
October 26,1987
South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Dear Commission:
The South Burlington Lakeshore Association would like to re-
emphasize that continued development in its neighborhood
negatively impacts the natural resources and environment of
the area.
Development and/or road construction allows pollutants such
as salt and silt to enter streams that lead to Shelburne Bay.
Roadway runoff that includes lubricants, rubber, asbestoses,
etc.m are infringing upon the lake and the nature
refuge/wetland that centers along the railroad corridor.
The lake deterioration is evident. Residents can attest that
the quality of the water has changed significantly in the
past ten years. Algaersilt,weed growth and general muck make
the use of the lake un-appealing for swimming or drinking.
In our opinion, if more restrictive environmental measures
are not instituted the natural resources of our area will be
impacted and our neighborhood character will be destroyed.
We request that the planning commission take necessary
protective measures to preserve our natural barrier along the
railroad tracks, protect our nature refuge along the streams
and wetlands and control development by requiring green area
and less blacktop.
Sincerely,
Bob Irish
President, SBLA
cc City Council
*
�
�
South Burlington Lakeshore Association
Bartlett Bay Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
October 26,1987
South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Dear Commission:
The South Burlington Lakeshore Association would like to re-
emphasize that continued development in its neighborhood
negatively impacts the natural resources and environment of
the area.
Development and/or road construction allows pollutants such
as salt and silt to enter streams that lead to Shelburne Bay.
Roadway runoff that includes lubricants, rubber, asbestoses,
etc.m are infringing upon the lake and the nature
refuge/wetland that centers along the railroad corridor.
The lake deterioration is evident. Residents can attest that
the quality of the water has changed significantly in the
past ten years. Algae,silt,weed growth and general muck make
the use of the lake un-appealing for swimming or drinking.
In our opinion, if more restrictive environmental measures
are not instituted the natural resources of our area will be
impacted and our neighborhood character will be destroyed.
We request that the planning commission take necessary
protective measures to preserve our natural barrier along the
railroad tracks, protect our nature refuge along the streams
and wetlands and control development by requiring green area
and less blacktop.
Sincerely,
`
Bob Irish
President, SBLA
cc City Council
I ul;L-1 I S-7 Li rLc
E
..........
LA)a �ke LQ ct4x� LStk� M,
k c
PLANNER
658-7955
J
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
October 23, 1987
John Larkin '
1185 Shelburne Road
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Re: L & M Associates, 1175 Shelburne Road
Dear Mr. Larkin:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Enclosed are the agenda and my memo to the Planning Commission.
Also enclosed are Bill Szymanslci's and Chief Goddette's comments.
Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, October 27, 1987 to
represent your request.
Sincerely,
Jane B. Lafleur,
City Planner
JBL/mcp
Enc 1 s
cc: Gerry Milot
_
Blanning Commission 10/27/87
Page 6
Lafleur suggested the words "or equivalent money for additional
improvements at another interchange if decided by the City
council".
Mrs. Po# asked what the last sentence, "Failure to do so does
not invAlidate this permit." Mr. Burgess said if the City does
not follow through and plan these improvements the City will not
take back the Mall building permits. He did not want this
approval to obligate the City to do something they didn't want to
do.
The motion carried.with r. Belter, Mr. Burgess, -Mr. Jacob and Ms._
P,i,�.O, voting for and Mrs. Hurd and Mrs. Maher voting against.
Mrs' Maher said she wanted everyone to know her plans; she was
going to go as a private citizen to the Act 250 hearings and
oppose this project.
40 Sketch plan application of J-h L kin and Gerry Milot for a
22 12t commercial subdivision of th2 30_acre Fayette property,
located at 11.75 Shelburne Road.
Mr. Milot presented a plan showing 22 lots off Shelburne Road
behind Vermont National Bank on 30 acres of land. It is a C1
district. The entrance is across the street from McIntosh Ave.
They would realign the existing parking spaces on John Larkins
property. They will have a 30 foot wide city street that ends in
two cul-de-sacs. One, adjo ning the Pomerleau property would be
temporary so the street could be continued if that property is
ever developed.
It will be a business park rather than a retail center. They have
laid out lots in a manner to allow them to put the lots together
if a builder wanted a larger lot. Mrs. Maher asked if it would be
like Blair Park in Williston. Mr. Milot said the main difference
is his buildings would all have a similar architectural theme.
There is a drainage swale and a stream through the property. The
lots are laid out so all set backs from natural areas can be
maintained and still leave an area large enough for building. The
lots were also designed so the Southern Connector could be built
and not create any lots to small for the building, Mrs. Hurd
asked if the developer would consider leaving a right-of-way for -
the Southern Connector. He said they would.
Mr. Milot said they would combine the Vermont National Bank's curb
cut with theirs so they would now have access from their stop
light. Mrs. Hurd asked if they had considered doing the same
thing with the S.B. Chrysler Plymouth curb cut. He said they had
considered it but had not spoken to them yet. Mrs. Hurd asked how
far apart the lights would be. Mr. Milot said appro`imately 500
Planning Commission 10/27/87
Page 7
feet.
Mrs. Lafleur said the reads should be 32 feet wide.
Mr. Milot said many of Mr. Szymansk:i's suggestions for road
improvements will come out after the traffic study is done.
Mr. Milot
South Burlington's
said he had discussions with the state about
his
paying
asked
what
share of the Southern Connector.
the state had
Mr. Jacob
with
Dave
said, Mr. Mi1cat said he
Kaufman and he felt the
had
work:
closely
track.
The
engineering was
state has agreed to fund the
back
on
the
that
if it
engineering.
is going to be built it would be
He
said
money
from
easier
the land owners/developers can the read.
to
get
the
Mr. Mi 1 Ot said he felt this would d hav& less impact than a mail can
this site. They are hoping to attract interstate banking
concerns. This is a long range prc�je,_t,
Mrs. Hurd noted that this is a C1 zone though and asked if he
planned to allow any commercial uses in i t . Mr. Milot said that
wasn't the plan but they couldn't say for sure. Mrs. Maher asked if the traffic studies would use the worst case traffic
situations. Mrs.Lafleur said they would. Mr. Milot asked if they
could show their planned impact would be sl i ghtyl less 14"YN
commercial development was there anyway to lock them in to certain
less traffic uses. Mr. Burgess said this was a request for a
subdivision and no approvals would be given for any businesses at
this time. Mrs. Lafleur said while that is true.Act 250 often
gives subdivisions a quota of new trip (ends the new developments
would d allow. V< 44i:"i nv ct•�fYiUlwC
c:. ,-Q vY4�1:
Mrs. Lafleur asked if this was located on land Wagner and Noyes
would look: at for a drainage plan. Mrs. lafleur said they
wouldn't because it was not in the watershed they have been
studying. She said the City may want to look �k: at it anyway because
of the stream running through it. Mr. Jacob noted there were
really big ravines can the property.
Mr. Ynakowsk:i from Natural Resources said there is a drainage way
through there which currently has running water in it and this
a dry time of year.
Mrs. Maher asked if this was prime agricultural soil. Mr. Milot
said he hadn't found a (•e o piece e p _ f land �i_t that wasn't.
Mr. Jacob said the
before
Commission
should do a site visit
to this site
snow covers
it. Miss.
Lafleur said she would
sift it up.
Mr. Krassner asked
Mr.
about fill
currently being put on
the 5itp.
MilOt said that
was done
without his permission.
`-`-
Mrs. l a f 1 eur
B1 anni ng Commission 10/27/87
Page 8
said the highway builders had permission to fill on Pomerleau's
property.
Mrs. asked who would do the traffic study. Mr. Milot said
they would like to choose someone whom the Commission trusts.
Mrs. Maher recommended Tom Adler who had done East of Lakes'
study.
Mrs. Hurd said she would encourage combining curb cuts and
possibly getting rid of one of the lights. Mrs. Lafleur noted the
Baldwin light serves the Orchard School and shouldn't be taken
out.
Mr. Jacob said all studies would include lights. Mr. Milot said
that he wondered if any traffic study' done on Shelburne Road at
this time would be accurate because of the construction going on.
Mrs. Lafleur said they could consult with Mr. Leiner because he
had figures for whet projected traffic will be like. Mrs. Lafleur
asked whet intersections the commission wanted to study. The
Commission asked for a study of all intersections between 189 and
Allen Road. Mr. Milot asked if he could present a proposal for
build out. Mr. Jacob said they were going t� � have to i look at
worst case scenarios and trip ends.
Mr. fir assner asked if the fill going on was legal. Mr. Milot said
they would comply with the law. Mr. Krasner raised the question
about access to the lake. He suggested that if there was any way
the public could get access to the lake it should be made
available. Mr. Jacob said the City always tries to get access to
the lake. Mr. Milot noted the railroad tracks were the biggest
stumbling block:. They rarely allow road to cross their tracks.
All he could do would be to provide the right•--of-way.
Mr. Yankowski said he was concerned with the air quality on
Shelburne Road.
(Mr. Jacob declared a 'five minute break)
Mrs. Lafleur reiterated that the City wanted a worst case retail
traffic study.
Mr. Milot asked about: sewerage capacity at Bartlett Bay's Plant'
Mrs. Lafleur said this project would take about everything therm
wa left. She said she, would have to check: it carefully but shc,
felt there was capacity.
Mr. Milot
said the: :abandoned
reservoir
shown
on
the plans had not
_:_ n used e d
been
i n calculations.
It was all
grown
up
and had no water"
in it but
Mr. Fayette did have
a right--of-way
to
it.
Mrs. Lafleur said the level of service of "C" would still havu 0,
Planning Commission 10/ :7/87
Page '3
be maintained.
Mr. Mi l � �t said they were going to heavily landscape the parking
lot at the Larkin Apartments. They had two curb cuts off the new
street and Mrs. Lafleur was recommending they consolidate to one
curb cut. Mr. Milot said he would look at it for Preliminary
Flat.
Mrs. Lafleur noted the public streets would all have to have
street trees.
5. Sketch plan tion of Joe Savio r� �_r� _ _a l�ica_f _usins Construction
for a 4 lot subdivision of the France o �5 pr_pertY, l�0 Airport
Parkway,
Nancy Jankins spoke for Cousins Construction. She said the lot
was 1.7 acres and they wanted to put in 3 new lets for three
duplexes. Mrs. Lafleur noted that once it was subdivided they had
the square footage for a triples:. Mrs. Jankins said they proposed
a 24 foot pavement on a 50 foot right-of-way. She said they
questioned whether they needed sidewalks since they are servicing
only three houses. Mrs. Lafleur said City standards are for a
sixty foot right--of-way with 0 feet of pavement. She felt they
could fit thirty feet of paving and a five foot sidewalk: within a
50 foot right -cif --way. Mrs. Lafleur said the whale project hin ges
can whether the Commission was willing to accept a fifty foot
right -cif -way and accept the density proposed. Mrs. Maher asked
what Mr. Szymansk:i's memo said. Mrs. Lafleur said his concerns
was the cul-de-sac and he recommended it be built to City
standards. Mr. Jacob asked if it was passible to fit a regulation
size cul-de-sac in. Mrs. Jank:ins said it wasn't. There was much
discussion about different ways to rearrange the lots to get them
in. The consensus of the Commission was that if they created one -
less lot (two new lots) they might have room for a City standard
street. Mr. Jacob said he had a big problem with lot 4 that was
next to the brook.
There was much discussion about whether a private street of this
size would be allowed. Mr. Burgess said he thought it would
depend on the number of units they planned to put on the private
way. Mrs. Lafleur said the or(:j11-ance says the Commission m
allow a private read of up to three lots. Welter said he feli; thc:,
Commission had to be consistent.
Mrs. Lafleur reiterated that the commission wanted a public.-_ street
to City standards if there was more than 3 lots.
Everyone greed that if there were six units or more Can tilf.`se lots
theey did not want a private road.
6. Other business-;
i�,uutb �urfingtvn fire Departnuitit
575 Dorset #treet
—*uutlt Nurlington, 'Vermont 05401
OFFICE OF
JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR.
CHIEF
(802) 658-7960
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: James Goddette, Chief, South Burlington Fire Department
Re: October 27, 1987 agenda items
Date: October 23, 1987
1) L & M BUSINESS PAR SHELBURNE ROAD
Plans reviewed and at this time the only problem I see is with
the hydrant system location. There should be a total of 5
hydrants, one on lot 1 - 5 - 17 - 7 and near lot 10.
2) FRANCO PROPERTY, 150 AIRPORT PARKWAY
Plans reviewed by this department and the following was found
which should be corrected for emergency equipment:
a) New road should be no less than 30' wide.
b) At least one hydrant installed on Airport Parkway and
entrance to new road.
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
Traffic Impact Analysis of L&M Park
South Burlington, Vermont
Prepared for:
],&Iv] Park
Norwich, Vermont I January, 1991
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
Route 5 South
P.O. Box 1104
Norwich, Vermont 05055
Telephone 802/649-1999
FAX 802/649-5371
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Da to
To
February 4, 1991
Donald Allen, Utilities Section
Vermont Agency of Transportation
133 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Project: L&M Park Traffic Stud
We arcs ding you:
attached under separate cover
Copies
Date
Description
1
30 Jan 91
Revised L&M Park Traffic Impact Stud
These are transmitted:
❑ for approval
for your use
❑ as requested
Copy to:
Remarks:
Signed:
❑ for review and comment
for distribution
for other
Lance Llewellyn, Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn
Joe Weith, South Burlington
Craig Leiner, CCRPC
Lucy Gibson/Senior Associate
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
Traffic Impact Analysis of L&M Park
South Burlington, Vermont
Prepared for:
L&M Park
Norwich, Vermont I January, 1991
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The attached report describes the impact that the proposed L&M Park will
have on the traffic conditions along Shelburne Road (US 7) in South Burlington.
Level of service at affected intersections in South Burlington was evaluated, and
L&M Park's innovative mitigation effort, funding the Shelburne Road
Transportation Management Association, is described in detail. Below is a
summary of the report's findings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The L&M Park is to be located on the west side of Shelburne Road, across
from McIntosh Drive. The proposed land uses within L&M Park include 150 new
housing units, renovation of 40 existing efficiency apartments, and mixed use
commercial development of approximately 100,000 square feet.
L&M Park received final site plan approval from the South Burlington
Planning Commission in the fall of 1990, with conditions limiting the number of
peak hour trips generated to 623, and the commitment of L&M Park to fund the
Shelburne Road Transportation Management Association, to offset traffic
impacts to the more congested intersections at the south end of the Shelburne
Road corridor in South Burlington. Also, the intersection of the L&M Park
driveway, McIntosh and Shelburne Road will be improved and signalized when
the project is constructed.
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS
The L&M Park plans to mitigate traffic impacts in its immediate vicinity
through geometric improvements to the intersection of L&M Park and
Shelburne Road. Regional impacts will be mitigated through sponsorship of and
creation of the Shelburne Road Corridor Transportation Management
Association (TMA), following the recommendations of Craig Leiner of the
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission.
TMAs have been successful in other areas where, similar to Shelburne
Road, growth in traffic volume has outpaced investment in public infrastructure.
The purpose of a TMA is to provide a mechanism for working toward travel
demand reduction, particularly during peak travel periods.
Traditionally, the response to congestion has focused primarily upon
increasing highway supply through building new roads and widening existing
RESOURCE roads, for example. Over the past decade, roadway capacity has increased less
SYSTEMS rapidly than traffic volume in most of the nation's metropolitan areas. During
GROUP this period, automotive travel has grown much more rapidly than has
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
L&M PARK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, January, 1991
Page 2
population. At the same time, there is less public funding available for highway
projects, and many communities are resistant to new highways or highway
widening projects.
There is now a national trend towards a more comprehensive approach
where efforts to increase transportation capacity are coupled with efforts to
reduce travel demand, particularly during peak periods. Transportation
Management Associations are a very useful tool in facilitating the public -private
partnerships that will be able to successfully implement travel demand
reduction measures, such as site design to minimize traffic, negotiated demand
management agreements, ride -sharing, alternative work hours, and trip
reduction ordinances.
The programs of the Shelburne Road Corridor Transportation
Management Association will evolve over time in response to the needs of the
community and the organization's membership. It is impossible at this time to
predict the travel demand savings that may result. It is possible that the peak
hour trip reduction could be even greater than the 15% cited by Mr. Leiner.
We believe that the creation of the Shelburne Road Corridor
Transportation Management Association is an important step in addressing
traffic congestion problems in Chittenden County, and that it is an appropriate
mitigation activity by which to address the regional traffic impacts of L&M Park.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Each intersection along Shelburne Road in South Burlington was analyzed
to determine the levels of service that were attained during design (PM peak)
hour conditions. Level of service analysis is a method of determining the
capacity of roads and intersections to serve existing and future traffic volumes.
A level -of -service analysis is a method of computing the average delay or
additional capacity remaining at an intersection, based on intersection
characteristics. The result is a letter grade of "A" through "F", described in
Table 1 below. For peak hour traffic, levels of service "A" through "D" are
considered acceptable.
TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAYS
Level of bervice Vescri
A
Very short delays, Excellent LOS
B
Short delays, Very Good LOS
C
Moderate delays, Good LOS
D
Moderate to long delays, Fair LOS
E
Long delays, Poor LOS
F
Extreme delays, Unacce table LOS
L&M PARK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, January, 1991
Page 3
The most recent VAOT and in-house traffic counts were collected for the
twelve intersections in the study area. Design hour level of service analyses were
conducted for the years 1991 and for 1996, with and without L&M Park traffic.
Traffic was assumed to grow at a rate consistent with past traffic records, and
traffic from other pending and approved but not yet constructed developments
was added.
At all intersections to the north of Green Mountain Drive, where the cross
section of Shelburne Road is four or more lanes, the level of service remains
"C" or higher in all scenarios, with no significant traffic impacts from L&M Park.
The intersections of Green Mountain Drive and Allen Road currently have very
poor levels of service ("F" for 1991), and will therefore are not able to serve
additional traffic well. The Vermont Agency of Transportation plans a road
improvement project for these intersections to begin in 1995, which may not be
completed until 1997, so the effects of these improvements were not considered
in this analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this analysis indicate that Shelburne Road north of Green
Mountain Drive can serve the current and future traffic volumes adequately,
including L&M Park traffic. The Green Mountain Drive and Allen Road
intersections are extremely congested, as traffic demand exceeds the
intersection capacities. Until costly road improvements proposed for this
section of Shelburne Road are constructed, the increase of traffic congestion
from L&M Park traffic at these intersections can be mitigated by starting the
Shelburne Road TMA. L&M Park will increase traffic volumes at these two
intersections by 5% to 6%, while TMA's in areas similar to South Burlington
have typically reduced peak hour demand by 15%. The TMA will reduce overall
traffic demand during the peak hours from business and residences all along the
South Burlington Shelburne Road corridor.
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECTDESCRIPTION........................................................................................................ I
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS ......................................... 2
LEVELOF SERVICE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................4
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS.........................................................................4
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE.......................5
TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS................................................................. 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS.........................................................................15
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Design Hour Volumes on Shelburne Road.............................................6
Figure 2: 1991 No Build Design Hour Volumes........................................................7
Figure 3: Peak Hour Traffic from Approved Developments .............................9
Figure 4: 1996 No Build Design Hour Volumes......................................................10
Figure 5: L&M Park Peak Hour Traffic ...........................................................................11
Figure 6: 1991 Build Design Hour Volumes..............................................................12
Figure 7: 1996 Build Design Hour Volumes..............................................................13
Figure 8: Effective Growth Rates on Shelburne Road...........................................14
Figure 9: 1996 Build Volumes on Shelburne Road Corridor ..........................15
LIST OF TABLES
Table is Level of Service Delays........................................................................................5
Table 2: Traffic Counts on Shelburne Road................................................................6
Table 3: Traffic from Approved and Pending Developments .........................8
Table 4: Trip Generation from L&M Park....................................................................8
Table 5: Level of Service Analysis Results..................................................................16
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the impact that the proposed L&M Park will have on
the traffic conditions along Shelburne Road (US 7) in South Burlington.
Shelburne Road currently serves large volumes of through traffic in addition to
numerous side streets and developments. The impacts of traffic to be generated
by L&M Park was evaluated at all signalized and unsignalized intersections along
Shelburne Road corridor in South Burlington.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The L&M Park is to be located on the west side of Shelburne Road, across
from McIntosh Drive. The proposed land uses within L&M Park include 150 new
housing units (2 and 3 bedroom), renovation of 40 existing efficiency
apartments (net reduction of 27 units), and mixed use commercial development
of approximately 100,000 square feet.
The intersection of the L&M Park driveway, McIntosh and Shelburne Road
will be improved and signalized when the project is constructed. It is also
planned that an existing bank located to the north of L&M Park will use the
project's driveway, reducing a curb cut on Shelburne Road.
L&M Park received final site plan approval from the South Burlington
Planning Commission in the fall of 1990, with the following conditions:
A L&M Park will generate no more than 623 peak hour trips.
AL The intersection of L&M Park, McIntosh Drive and Shelburne Road will
be signalized and improved, as described in level of service results.
A L&M Park will provide funding to start a Transportation Management
Association (TMA) to provide alternative means of reducing peak hour
traffic congestion by reducing demand along the Shelburne Road
corridor. The funding of the TMA was viewed by the town and regional
planning commissions as sufficient mitigation to offset impacts of L&M
Park, particularly at the very congested intersections of Green
Mountain Drive and Allen Road. TMA's and their potential for
reducing congestion along Shelburne Road are discussed in the next
section.
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 2
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS
The L&M Park plans to mitigate traffic impacts in its immediate vicinity
through geometric improvements. These improvements include the
signalization of the intersection of Shelburne Road with Macintosh/L&M Park,
provision of auxiliary lanes, and elimination of an existing curb -cut. Following
the recommendations of Craig Leiner of the Chittenden County Regional
Planning Commission, regional impacts will be mitigated through sponsorship
of and creation of the Shelburne Road Corridor Transportation Management
Association (TMA).
Mr. Leiner has described the purposes and structure of a TMA for the
Shelburne Road Corridor in a memorandum to the South Burlington Planning
Commission. A copy of this memorandum is attached as Appendix 1. He argues
that TMAs have been successful in other areas where, similar to Shelburne Road,
growth in traffic volume has outpaced investment in public infrastructure. The
purpose of a TMA is to provide a mechanism for working toward demand
reduction, particularly during peak travel periods. Specific purposes described
by Mr. Leiner include:
1. To act as a forum for the private and public sectors on
transportation issues as they relate to Shelburne Road.
2 To sponsor studies or plans designed to identify
congestion reduction measures in the corridor.
3. To directly provide, organize or promote services that
benefit the corridor and to provide financial support
for these activities.
4. To educate and inform citizens and lawmakers about
Shelburne Road transportation issues.l
Mr. Leiner summarizes his proposal:
Although long-term experience with TMA's is lacking, an
effective program can achieve reductions in peak hour trips of
up to 15%. For the L&M Site, this would be a reduction of almost
100 peak hour trips (94 trips). If this rate can be achieved
throughout the corridor, it can at least help stabilize the growth
in traffic in the corridor.
A program of this type could be used in lieu of the L&M
developer making the JHK recommended improvements at
Allen Road and U.S. 7 and at Green Mountain Drive/Bartlett's
Bay Road/U.S. 7.2
Traditionally, the response to congestion has focused primarily upon
increasing highway supply through building new roads, widening existing roads,
ILeiner, Craig T, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Memorandum to
RESOURCE South Burlington Planning Commission concerning Transportation Management
SYSTEMS Organization (TMO) proposal for the L&M Park, dated December 28, 1989. (Included as
Appendix 1 of this report).
GROUP 21,einer, 1989.
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 3
making intersection improvements, and so forth. In the larger urban areas, there
have also been efforts to increase the availability of public transit. Over the past
decade, roadway capacity has increased less rapidly than traffic volume in most
of the nation's metropolitan areas. During this period, automotive travel has
grown much more rapidly than has population. Average household size has
declined, but the number of vehicles per household has increased. Where data
are available, it appears that the number of person -trips per household has
increased, and that the average trip length has also increased.) Simultaneously
with these rapid increases in traffic, there has been a reduction in the
availability of public funds for highway projects, and resistance in many
communities to new highways and to highway widening projects.
For these reasons, there is now a national trend towards a more
comprehensive approach where efforts to increase transportation capacity are
coupled with efforts to reduce travel demand, particularly during peak periods.
Transportation demand management (TDM) tools used include growth
management, road pricing, auto restricted zones, parking management, site
design to minimize traffic, negotiated demand management agreements, ride -
sharing, alternative work hours, and trip reduction ordinances.2 These efforts are
receiving increasing attention in both the transportation and planning
communities.3,4
The creation of Transportation Management Associations is a very useful
tool in facilitating the types of public -private partnerships required to
implement these TDM measures. They are a relatively new concept. A recent
survey found a total of 72 TMAs in the U.S., but over half of these were still
organizing, and only 12 were fully operational. However, those with a track
record do show reduced single -auto travel among TMA members' employees
compared to non-member employees.5
Most of the oldest TMAs are in California. One of the oldest and most
successful TMAs in the eastern U.S. is the Greater Princeton Transportation
Management Association. Founded in 1984, it has grown to a membership of 27
of the area's largest businesses, developers, and employers. Projects of this
TMA include shuttle bus services, a ride -sharing program, a flex -time program,
)All these trends are exhibited, for example, in the Seattle area as given in Travel
Characteristics, Seattle Area in 7be Urban Transportation Monitor, September 28, 1990, p 9.
2Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). A ToolboxforAlleuiating Traffic Congestion.
Washington, DC, 1989.
30rski, C. Kenneth, Can Management of Transportation Demand Help Solve Our Growing
Traffic Congestion and Air Pollution Problems? Transportation Quarterly, 44:4 October
1990, p 483-498.
RESOURCE 4Ferguson, Erik. Transportation Demand Management: Planning,Development and
SYSTEMS Implementation, APA Journal (American Planning Association), Autumn 1990, p 442-456.
SDunphy, Robert T. and Ben C. Lin. Transportation Management 7brougb Partnerships.
GROUP The Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC 1990, p. 44.
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 4
and the development of transportation management plans for new
developments.I
The programs of the Shelburne Road Corridor Transportation
Management Association will evolve over time in response to the needs of the
community and the organization's membership. It is impossible at this time to
predict the travel demand savings that may result. It is possible that the peak
hour trip reduction could be even greater than the 15% cited by Mr. Leiner. A
recent review of national experience with travel demand management found
that area -wide programs have achieved reductions approximating 20%, and that
individual employer programs have achieved reductions in excess of 40%.2
We believe that the creation of the Shelburne Road Corridor
Transportation Managment Association is an important step in addressing
traffic congestion problems in Chittenden County, and that it is an appropriate
mitigation activity by which to address the regional traffic impacts of L&M Park.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Each intersection was analyzed to determine the levels of service that were
attained during design hour (thirtieth -highest hour of the year) conditions.
Design hour traffic volumes are generally used to determine the geometric
requirements of roads, as designing roads for absolute peak conditions would
require excessive improvements. Level of service analysis is a method of
determining the adequacy of roads and intersections. There are different
measures of signalized and unsignalized intersections, described separately
below.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The level of service at a signalized intersection is a measure of the average
delay experienced by vehicles at an intersection. A level -of -service analysis is a
method of computing the average delay, based on intersection geometry, the
type of signal phasing and timing, and the traffic volumes using the intersection.
Table 1 shows the level of service, average delay, and a short description of
each level.
IMiddlesex Somerset Mercer Regional Council. Suburban Mobility and Crowtb
Management Initiatives in Central New Jersey: A Report to the Urban Land Institute.
Princeton, NJ, April 4, 1989.
2COMSIS Corporation in association with Harold Katz & Associates. Evaluation of Travel
Demand Management (TDM) Measures to Relieve Congestion. Prepared for Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1990, p 28.
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 5
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAYS
Level of Service Average Delay Description
A
0 to 5 sec
Very short delays, Excellent LOS
B
5 to 15 sec
Short delays, Very Good LOS
C
15 to 25 sec
Moderate delays, Good LOS
D
25 to 40 sec
Moderate to long delays, Fair LOS
E
40 to 60 sec
Long delays, Poor LOS
F
> 60 sec I
Extreme delays, Unacceptable LOS
Normally, level of services of "A" through "D" are acceptable for signalized
intersections during design hour conditions, with "E" being undesirable and "F"
being unacceptable due to severe congestion.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
The level of service at unsignalized intersections is measured as a function
of reserve capacity, which is the number of additional vehicles that could use
the intersection. At an unsignalized "T" intersection, such as Shelburne Road
and Imperial Drive, there are three turning movements that are restricted by
through traffic on Shelburne Road, which are analyzed for level of service. They
are the left turns from the major road (Shelburne Road), and left and right turns
from the minor road (Imperial Drive)
Along Shelburne Road, traffic is continually interrupted by a series of
traffic signals, creating gaps which allow side streets to more easily turn onto
Shelburne Road. Therefore, level of service for the side streets is often much
better than predicted by conventional level of service analysis. To test this,
Resource Systems Group measured the actual average delay experienced by
vehicles entering and exiting Imperial Drive. This allows for comparison of
analysis results to actual measured vehicle delay. The conventional analysis for
the Imperial Drive intersection indicated that the level of service is D for both
the left turns off Shelburne Road, and for Imperial Drive traffic. The average
delay for vehicles was 10 seconds for the left turns off Shelburne Road, and 18
seconds for Imperial Drive traffic. These correspond to levels of service "B"
and "C" respectively. The results of our study are attached in Appendix 2.
TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS
The most recent VAOT and in-house traffic counts were collected, and
several traffic counts were recently conducted to determine traffic volumes on
Shelburne Road. Table 2 shows the locations, times and dates of the counts,
which are attached in Appendix 3.
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 6
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
TABLE 2: TRAFFIC COUNTS ON SHELBURNE ROAD
Intersection
Date
Ramp C/Shelburne
07,09 November 1988
Swift Street/Ramp F/Shelburne
09 January 1991
Ramp G/Shelburne
07,09 November 1988
Brewer Parkway/Shelburne
06 December 1988
Laurel Hill/Shelburne
JHK 1986 DHV
Baldwin Road/Shelburne
15 September 1987
McIntosh/L&M/Shelburne
27 October 1989
Imperial Drive/Shelburne
10 January 1991
Holmes Road/IDX/Shelburne
13 April 1990
Green Mountain Drive/Shelburne
10 January 1991
Harbor View Road/Shelburne
10 January 1991
Allen Road/Shelburne
10 January 1991
Using the traffic counts above, the design hour traffic volumes for the years
1991 were computed by adjusting to the design hour for the year of the count,
using the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) continuous counter
station D2. The volumes were then adjusted to the year 1991 using an annual
growth rate of 1% per year. These calculations are included in Appendix 4.
Traffic volumes along Shelburne Road have grown at an average rate of 1% per
year for the past three years, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the resulting
1991 No -build design hour volumes.
FIGURE 1: DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES ON SHELBURNE ROAD
1700
g 16o0
E
a
>°
1500 -
0
x
1400
Q
1300
1980 1982 1984 19s6 1988 1990
YEAR
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
N
M
r
1
�426
F-548
Ramp C
M
O O
�4r-
N
269
I
L
F
F0
173
Swift Street
N V�
L&M PARK, Januray, 1991
Page 7
12McIntosh
111
6------1 O ,c -
r• 00
N
M V1
I L
Ramp G
236�
196—�
J I
Holmes L
r.
Road125�
N `MC
28-1
L 22
I L
6r14
N
K-Mart Plaza)
� 14 Brewer
Parkway
00
X
I
159 —J
111
Bartlett Bay L
016 4
3 —�
VN 'IV
151 �
~
N �
r
3
32
N
I�cl-�
78 L—
CN
f 65
I
Laurel Hill
L
11
"
vn
C N
00
N
M `d'
L— 55
JI
L
1
� 45
38
Baldwin
2
111
8�
aN
N
M
N
�— 29
F-- 7
Imperial Drive
`O' N
r.
�— 165
1
�— 21
L_ 304
F-76 Green
1 1 r MountainDrive
M 00
N O� N
1 —54
r-13 Harbor
I F View Road
O_ N
-81
F-210
1 1 Allen Road
Q N
8 �
.-r
FIGURE 2: 1991 NO BUILD DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 8
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
To estimate the 1996 design hour volumes, the 1991 volumes were adjusted
by 1% per year for Shelburne Road through traffic, and on side streets where
further growth in traffic is anticipated. Additional growth in traffic from
approved but not yet constructed projects was also added separately. The
following table shows the trips generated by other developments, all of which
are located near the Holmes Road/Shelburne Road intersection, listed on Table
3. Figure 3 shows the traffic from these developments distributed through the
study area. These volumes from other developments are added to the 1996 base
volumes to estimate the 1996 no -build design hour traffic, shown on Figure 4.
TABLE 3: TRAFFIC FROM APPROVED AND PENDING DEVELOPMENTS
Development
Land Use
96 Entering
Peak Hour Trips
Lakewood Commons Expansion
Hotel, Retail
490/6
115
IDX Expansion
Office
16%
129
Multi -Family Housing (18 units)
Residential
67%
15
Total
34%
259
To estimate the traffic volumes after L&M Park is constructed, the peak hour
trips generated by the proposed land uses was estimated. Table 4 shows the land
uses proposed for L&M Park, and the corresponding number of peak hour trips.
TABLE 4: TRIP GENERATION FROM L&M PARK
Land Use
Number of Units
Peak Hour Trips
96 Entering
Residential
150 (net gain of 123)
107 trips
68%
Office
60,000 square feet
129 trips
16%
Retail
40,000 square feet
387 trips
49%
Total
623 trips
45%
These trips generated from L&M Park were distributed in proportion to
existing traffic flow, and are shown in Figure 5. Figures 6 and 7 show the 1991
build and 1996 build design hour traffic volumes that were used in the level of
service analyses.
Figure 8 shows the effective overall growth rates in Shelburne Road traffic at
each intersection between 1991 and 1996. Growth rates for the no build scenario
average about 1.7% per year, and 3.0% per year for the build scenario. Although
the no build effective growth rate is slightly less than 2.1% per year,
recommended by the VAOT, the traffic generated by L&M Park represents a
significant portion of the potential traffic growth. Figure 9 illustrates the traffic
volumes at each intersection, how each component of the traffic growth,
L&M PARK, Januray, 1991
Page 9
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
.01
O N O
Ramp I' JIL
'01
N
G I'
o�o
K-Mart Plaza] I L
0
0
7 —�
Cn
on o
I L
1 0
f6
Ramp C
N
( 0
0
F--3
Swift Street
I�
0
JlLr
0
0 1
McIntosh
o
0�JIB
00�0
t`
0
`c o
L
F-0
N C'"0
IIolmes J
I
L
I2oa 30�
1
28�
L_— 0
0
F— 0 Brewer
Parkway
I
I
I
I
I—
Bartlett Bay
L
rnC
4--j
0
0
L0
F—-2
I L
f— Laurel Hill
N
� 1!l
<—_ 0
I�
F-- 1
0 _� I— Baldwin
0 —�
t`
Imperial Drive
N
L- 00
58
1
54
1
I
I—
IDX
00 00 V11
L— 8
0
0
Green
MountainDrive
or`o
N
L1
r0
Harbor
I— View Road
0
N
�-2
F-o
IAllen Road
N O
FIGURE 3: PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FROM APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
00
M
1.
G I
248—J
0—
209
M
� � M
K-Mart Plaza] I L
159
16
311 ---]
V1 N
I L
L&M PARK, Januray, 1991
Page 10
II rGA18
115
Ramp C
V'\ 00
8
Jl�r6
..
L&M Park
McIntosh
12 I
0
JIB�--282
0
aN
F-184
N
Swift Street
r
I LF-7
-29
00 1-Vr M
�+
Imperial Drive
O M
co c1r)
NT
�— 223
J I
3
Holmes L
F— 75
r.
00
Roa 155—J
IDX
3
56JI1
—�
22
1!1 r4
K l N Cn
°^
6
�cf��
F— 14 Brewer
I 312
Parkway
I
I
8
J I I
Bartlett Ba Y L
— 76
FGreen
m �^
oa
155 —�
Mountain
���
0
N r`
3
Drive
32
+
N GO N
�78
F-66-55
I L
Laurel Hill
F-13 Harbor
N
M
I L
38 — J Baldwin
2 I
Nr N
O�
View Road
M 00 r4 N
�87
F--221
Allen Road
FIGURE 4: 1996 NO BUILD DESIGN HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
L&M PARK TRAFFIC REPORT, Januray, 1991
Page 11
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
ovgo
Ramp f JIB
G
01
Ramp C
0
0
F-7
1 Swift Street
N
N —
0�
9�
N
o�o
L— 0
I 0
L
K-Mart Plaza] 1
�— E
0 J Pa
JIB 16�
rno
1 L r4
I I
Laurel Hill
c)
00
O G\ O
JL— 0
I 0
f -3
0 —J Baldwin
0
1� 1 N N
v�
'r
o
JILF
1
187J McIntosh
1 0 J I 1—
Ln M
r`
r.
1 L
F-0
(� Imperial Drive
0
r.
—13
I
0
Holmes
L
0
Road
10 —J
I DX
0
.0
I
I
L19
0
Bartlett Bay
0 Green
oa
10
Mountain
Drive
0
0 0 0
r`
O� N
1
L
F-0 Harbor
IL
j� View Road
O
15
F-0
Allen Road
O
FIGURE 5: L&M PARK DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
00
rr
r
r.
�426
F--562
00 r"
I B
Ramp F
Ramp G 1
236j
205-----1
�cr o
K-Mart Plaza] I L
159 --�
16
320 -----1
vim• in
V1 N
I L
Ramp C
L 269
0
�180
Swift Street
I�
N
L&M PARK, Januray, 1991
Page 12
r
N N
`C' 00
I L
198�
3
156-------�
co
00
Q N
I L
8
Holmes J
L
r,
Roa 135�
2
28-------
� 22
6
r-
r— 15 Brewer
0"�
Parkway
I
I
I
I—
Bartlett Ba y
L
o
r-
Lr\
oa
16o
3
32
M
L_-78
o
r69
I L
Laurel Hill
4
M
M
55
1
F— 4s IL
38 I Baldwin
2
I
� N N
JMcIntosh
I B
�32
F--7
11 Imperial Drive
r` N
�178
1
F-- 21
1 I � IDX
1 0 o
� N
M
r-.
L 324
8
F— 76 Green
I I F MountainDrive
M
N N
r.
57
F 13 Harbor
I F View Road
V• N
.-r
�86
F210
F Allen Road
FIGURE 6: 1991 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
L&M PARK, Januray, 1991
Page 13
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
�r-00
I I L
G I
248�
218�
0
K-Mart Plaza) I L
1 448
F 596
Ramp C
m
rn
v1
r.
282
0
�192
rSwift Street
$00
00
N
N `C
� v. o0
r. r. <—_
j
IL
1
i
199 McIntosh
2 V
0 4 N
.--�
rn
00
V� N
I
Holmes I
I
L
m
rn
Road165 J
3
56-----�
22
\o
F— 15 Brewer
Parkway
I
L
1
I
�
Bartley tt Bay
N
C\ \0
oa
164 —�
N
3
32 —�
00
�`�
C.,78
r71
I L
Laurel Hill
N
00 K1
IL
38 Baldwin
2
9 o N Vr
NO
1— 32
F7
Imperial Drive
N 1
�— 235
3
F— 75
1 I � IDX
on N m
L 331
8
—76 Green
MountainDrive
m V1
N 1!1 N
N
r.
-59
F-13 Harbor
r View Road
1 —92
F-221
F- Allen Road
FIGURE 7: 1996 BUILD DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES
L&M PARK, Januray, 1991
Page 14
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
F
G
1.5% / 2.5%
Ramp C
1.5% / 2.50 Swift Street
1.6% / 2.8%
L&M Park 1.7% / 3.3% }-c1ntosh
1.8% / 3.301mperial Drive
I Iolmes
— A 1.8% / 3.1
K-Mart Plaza Brewer
1.6% / 2.9% Parkway
Bartlett Bay
1.8% / 3.1%
1.7% / 3.0%
Laurel Hill
1.7% / 3.1%
Baldwin
I DX
Green
untain
Drive
1.7% / 2.9% 11 uv�
View Road
1.7% / 2.9% —
Allen Road
FIGURE 8: EFFECTIVE GROWTH RATES FOR 1991 TO 1996
(No Build % / Build %)
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 15
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
including background growth, traffic from other developments, and L&M Park
traffic, relates to the total 1996 build traffic volumes.
FIGURE 9: 1996 BUILD VOLUMES ON SHELBURNE ROAD CORRIDOR
6000
PER 0 00
a
0
4000
N
V
3000
U
2000
1000-
Y{.f..............
.f:✓.t
. ��l{ZI} �
: W {::
✓'?'•�'': {%••
"v.5
}:•.h. }�• �+f�'
.
,r
'ei?��riiu .•. .
a a s x
a
o
E
E �' E ;? a�
°
❑
i�
as `a
E
o
x
n
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Four scenarios were analyzed to provide reasonable comparisons of the
effects of the development traffic: 1991 (construction year) no build, 1991 build,
1996 (future) no -build and 1996 build conditions. The methodology used to
compute the level of service is from the Highway Capacity Manual. Existing
intersection geometry, signal timing and phasing were used except where noted,
due to planned improvements. Full analysis results are included as Appendix 5.
Graphics of intersection geometry and signal phasings and timings for each
signalized intersection are included as Appendix 6.
The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. Results are
presented for signalized intersections first, with the level of service for the entire
intersection. The unisgnalized results are given separately for the left turns from
the major street (Shelburne Road), and for traffic exiting the side streets.
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 16
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
TABLE 5: LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS RESULTS
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
1991 No Build 1991 Build 1996 No Build 1996 I3uild
Ramp C
Swift Street/Ramp F
Ramp G
Brewer Parkway
Baldwin Road
McIntosh/L&M
Holmes Road/IDX
Green Mountain Drive
Allen Street
B
I3
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
I3
C
C
C
C
C
C
—
B
—
I3
B
C
B
B
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
1991 No Build 1991 Build 1996 No Build 1996 Builc
Laurel Hill
McIntosh
Imperial Dr
Harbor View
major lefts
F
F
F
F
minor
F
F
F
F
major lefts
A
—
A
—
minor
F
—
F
—
major lefts
D
E
E
E
minor
E
E
E
F
major lefts
B
B
B
B
minor
D
D
E
E
Each intersection is discussed separately below, and any assumptions on
signalization and future road improvements are described.
RAMP C & SHELBURNE ROAD
This intersection serves traffic exiting I-189, and is projected to operate at a
level of service "B" through all four scenarios. There is adequate capacity at this
intersection to serve substantial growth, should growth of I-189 traffic exceed
projections of 1% per year.
SWIFT S7REET, RAMP F & SHELBURNE ROAD
This intersection serves Swift Street and southbound traffic entering I-189
via Ramp F. It was assumed that Swift Street traffic would also grow at 1% per
year, as this road provides alternative access to Dorset Street, and may therefore
grow more than other side streets. Level of service is projected to be "B" for the
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 17
1991 scenarios and the 1996 no -build scenario. The 1996 build scenario was
found to have level of service "C", which is considered good for design hour
conditions.
RAMP C & SHELBURNE ROAD
This intersection serves traffic exiting Queen City Parkway, and eventually
may serve southbound traffic exiting the southern connector. It is projected to
operate at level of service "B" for all scenarios, with all approaches assumed to
grow at 1% per year.
BREWER PARKWAY & SHELBURNE ROAD
This intersection serves Brewer Parkway on the east side, and a K-Mart on
the west side, which generates a substantial amount of traffic. There are
protected left turns for Shelburne Road in both directions. Because both side
streets are fully developed, the side street traffic was assumed to remain constant
over time, and only Shelburne Road through traffic was adjusted by the 1%
annual growth rate. The level of service was projected to be "B" for both 1991
scenarios, and "C" for the 19% scenarios.
LAUREL HILL & SHELBURNE ROAD
This is an unsignalized intersection serving a residential area. The
computed level of service is "F" both for traffic exiting Laurel Hill, and for
southbound left turning traffic entering Laurel Hill in all scenarios. However, the
traffic flow is interrupted by traffic signals on Shelburne Road, so actual delay is
likely substantially lower, as described in the previous section about unsignalized
level of service.
BALDWIN ROAD & SHELBURNE ROAD
This intersection serves Baldwin Road and an automobile dealer on the
west side of the road. The left turns from Shelburne Road are permitted, with no
protected phase. The level of service for the intersection is "C" for all four
scenarios.
MCINTOSH, L&M PARK 6 SHELBURNE ROAD
This intersection is currently an unsignalized, four way intersection serving
McIntosh on the east side, and Larkin Court on the west side. The level of
RESOURCE service for the 1991 and 1996 no -build scenarios is "F" for the side street traffic,
SYSTEMS and "A" for traffic turning in from Shelburne Road. When the L&M Park is
GROUP constructed, this intersection will be signalized, and a right turn lane into L&M
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 18
Park will be added. Also, a bank just north of Larkin Court on the west side of
Shelburne Road will be connected through to the L&M Park entrance, thereby
eliminating a curb cut on Shelburne Road, and improving level of service for
bank customers. The level of service for the build scenarios in 1991 and 1996 is
"B", indicating a great improvement for side street traffic. This signal will be
installed as per VAOT guidelines, and will be coordinated with existing signals
along the Shelburne Road corridor, so that the signal will not interfere with
progression of traffic through the Shelburne Road signals. Also, the signal will
improve level of service for nearby unsignalized side streets and curb cuts, as it
will provide larger gaps in through traffic.
IMPERIAL DRIVE & SHELBURNE ROAD
The level of service for Imperial Drive traffic is "E" for all scenarios except
for 1996 build, which drops to "F". However, as described in the previous
section, the average vehicle delay at this intersection was measured in the field
and compared favorably to that predicted by the level of service analysis.
Also, the level of service at this intersection will likely actually improve with
L&M Park, as the signal at McIntosh will provide more distinct gaps in traffic,
allowing vehicles to access or exit Imperial Drive more easily. This should offset
any decline in level of service due to L&M Park traffic.
HOLMES ROAD & SHELBURNE ROAD
For the 1991 scenarios, the existing intersection geometry was used,
resulting in a level of service "B" for the no -build, and "C" for the build
scenario. By 1996, this intersection will be improved as part of the Lakewood
Commons master plan, and will have a southbound exclusive left turn lane, with
a protected left turn phase for Shelburne Road in both directions. The level of
service in 1996 was "B" for both scenarios, improved substantially from the
1991 conditions.
GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE & SHELBURNE ROAD
This intersection is projected to operate a level of service "F" for all
scenarios. This intersection occurs just as Shelburne Road is narrowing from a
four lane cross section, at Holmes Road, to a two lane cross section to the south.
It therefore creates a major bottleneck for southbound traffic, with extremely
long queues forming when traffic demand exceeds the intersection capacity. By
1997, this section of Shelburne Road will be widened to four or five lanes.
RESOURCE However, until then, the best way to reduce the occasionally severe traffic
SYSTEMS congestion is to reduce traffic demand during peak hour, an effort to which L&M
GROUP Park will contribute by funding the Shelburne Road TMA.
L&M PARK, January, 1991
Page 19
HARBOR VIEW & SHELBURNE ROAD
This unsignalized intersection operates with level of service D for Harbor
View traffic, and B for Shelburne Road traffic turning left onto Harbor View in
both 1991 scenarios. Harbor View level of service declines to "E" in the 1996
scenarios, and remains "B" for Shelburne Road traffic. Numerous gaps in traffic
are created by the signals to the north and south of this intersection, improving
level of service further.
ALLEN ROAD & SHELBURNE ROAD
The intersection of Allen Road and Shelburne Road is currently operating
at level of service "F", assuming the intersection operates as it was designed. It
remains at level of service "F" through all scenarios. However, observations at
this intersection indicate that it operates as if there was an exclusive southbound
left turn lane, with southbound through traffic passing left -turning traffic on the
right side of the road. When the intersection is analyzed to simulate actual
operation, the level of service is somewhat improved, although it still operates
at level of service "F" for all scenarios. Figure 8 shows the intersection geometry
as it was designed, and how it actually operates.
This intersection will be improved in a large corridor reconstruction
project, which will involve widening Shelburne Road south through this
intersection. This will not be completed until 1996 or 1997, so it was not
considered in this analysis.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of this analysis indicate that Shelburne Road north of Green
Mountain Drive can serve the current and future traffic volumes adequately,
including L&M Park traffic. The Green Mountain Drive intersection is at capacity
with 1991 design hour traffic, but is not scheduled for improvements to begin
until 1995. The Allen Road intersection is extremely congested, as traffic
volumes are equal to the maximum intersection capacity. Until these costly
improvements are constructed, the increase of traffic congestion from L&M Park
traffic at these intersections can be mitigated by starting the Shelburne Road
TMA, which will attempt to reduce overall traffic demand during the peak hours
at these intersections.
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
APPENDIX 1
TMA Memorandum
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
Clhittenden County Regional Planning Commission
66 PEARL STREET
P.O. BOX l08
ESSEX JUNCTION. VERMONT 05453
802 658•3004
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
c/o Joe Weith, City Planner
FROM: Craig T. Leiner C/_j!
RE: Transportation Management Organization (TMO) proposal
for the L&M Park
DATE: December 28, 1989
Introduction
On December 7, 1989 I provided you with written review
comments on the L&M traffic study. Although I found no major
flaws in the traffic study, I believe that conditions on US 7
dictate a higher level of effort. At the hearing on December 12,
I suggested that an innovative approach be developed to
accommodate traffic from the site.
Traffic and site conditions indicate that there is an
opportunity to institute what is known as a Transportation
Management Organization (TMO). I sent Joe Weith material on this
topic, and we met on December 21 to discuss the feasibility of a
TMO for this site and the Pomerleau site. Baned on that meeting,
I agreed to develop a proposal.
Transportation Management Organizations (TMO)
What is a TMO?
A TMO is a private non-profit organization formed so that
employers and developers can collectively address transportation
problems in coordination with local governments. TMOls have
grown rapidly in the past two or three years. East Coast
examples include Princeton (NJ), Stamford (CT), Morris County
(NJ), Hartford (CT), Waltham (MA), plus several in the
Washington, DC -Baltimore area.
... Serving the Municipolities ol...
Bolton Burlington Chorlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town
Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond
CI (:u....... fI.IL..__ r. .. . ..
What does a TMO do?
Typically, TMO's help generate measures to reduce conges-
tion, coordinate area -wide programs (in this case the US 7
corridor) that include promoting transit use (CCTA) and
ridesharing, subscription buses, and parking management. TMO's
provide financial assistance for these programs. A TMO also
serves a forum for communication between local government and the
private sector on transportation issues; TMO's have been known to
help educate legislators and to monitor travel conditions. Most
TMO's hire full-time staff and are funded by membership fees and
assessments.
Each TMO is crafted to deal with specific local conditions.
The Shelburne Road (US 7) Corridor
Why is a TMO needed in this corridor at this time?
Shelburne Road is a heavily traveled multi -lane arterial in
a growing suburban area. The 1988 daily traffic volume near
Brewer Parkway was 31,140. Travel demand continues to grow,
while transportation supply has been constant. One major
improvement - the widening of US 7 - is scheduled for 1999• Low
cost improvements as defined in the JHK study have not been
funded, and prospects for new roads or additional widenings are
not good. Transit service is available, but serves few trips.
The composition of the traffic stream includes work trips, local
shopping trips and through trips.
While transportation investment has lagged, travel demand
has not. The source of this demand lies both within South
Burlington and without. Given the uncertainty associated with
state funding for highway projects, as well as possible community
limits on highway widenings, it seems that if South Burlington is
to grow in an orderly fashion, private sector involvement in new
programs is essential. A TMO will accomplish this.
The Shelburne Road TMO Program
The South Burlington Shelburne Road TMO will.at first
include the developer of the L&M site, and will grow to include
major on -site employers and any residential associations. The
developer will provide seed money to fand operations for the
first eighteen months. Funds for succeeding years will be
provided through employer dues and assessments. Commitments for
funding will be written into leases and covenants, as
appropriate.
The TMO will be expanded to incorporate other developments
in the corridor. A prime candidate is the development on the
Pomerleau site, but other developments are eligible. In fact,
existing businesses should be invited to join; for example, IDX,
Lakewood Commons, and the Factory Outlet Center.
-2-
The charge of the Shelburne Road TMO will be:
1. To act as a forum for the private and public
sectors on transportation issues as they relate to
Shelburne Road.
2. To sponsor studies or plans designed to identify
congestion reduction measures in the corridor.
3. To directly provide, organize or promote services
that benefit the corridor and to provide financial
support for these activities.
4. To educate and inform citizens and lawmakers about
Shelburne Road transportation isssues.
The specific program should be phased in over a three year
period, and be evaluated on an annual basis. The program should
be flexible and should undertake progressively more ambitious
programs.
In the first year the TMO should hire a program coordinator.
This individual should be enthusiastic about the program, and
have experience in marketing or promotion activities. This type
of background is more important than experience in transportation
planning. The City of South Burlington should consider providing
clerical and administrative support to the coordinator.
The co0rdinator's activity will be influenced by the rate
and type of site development. That is, the residential component
will require different actions than the commercial. The
coordinator will contact and meet with every entity that has a
transportation role in the corridor: Chittenden County
Transportation Authority (CCTA), Chittenden County Regional
Planning Commission (CCRPC), Chittenden County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CCMPO), Vermotn Agency of Transportation
(VAOT), Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce (LCRCOC), and
so on. This will provide a basic understanding of what these
organizations can and cannot do.
The TMO will establish a physical presence on -site, through
the establishment of a kiosk or "transportation store" to provide
commute information to tenants and residents.
Then, the coordinator will help institute a system of
transit pass subsidies. The level of subsidy will affect the
level of transit use. Perhaps an initial 100% subsidy for a
rider for six months would be appropriate, with a phased
reduction to 50%.
Site design should, of course, allow for easy bus access.
CCRPC has prepared a site design handbook that includes
guidelines and should be used to evaluate the site.
-3-
Next, the coordinator will assess the demand for shuttle bus
or subscription bus service. This will determine travel patterns
to and from the site, and the level and location of demand.
Depending on the analysis, by the end of the first year, the TMO
will initiate either shuttle bus service to and from'the site to
major employers and commercial centers, or a subscription van
service to locations such as IBM, Lang Farm, the Burlington
central business district, University Mall, and other sites as
appropriate. The difference in operation would be that the
shuttle bus would make several a.m. and p.m. runs, and then be
available during midday for use by on -site employees. Midday
service would be to grocery stores, post offices, banks,
restaurants, fitness centers and nearby malls. Either service
would be subsidized by the TMO, initially at 100%. The
coordinator would aggressively promote this service.
The second year of the program would include developing and
coordinating parking policy, with incentives aimed at reducing
the use of single -occupant cars traveling to and from the site.
Further, the coordinator would assess the need for a ride -sharing
program. If warranted, the coordinator would initiate and
promote this program, and coordinate it with the Burlington
Ridesharing.program. The coordinator will also work with
employers to promote variable work hours (although this sometimes
can be counter -productive for ridesharing programs), and help
institute a guaranteed ride home program for residents and
employees.
The third year of the program would serve to consolidate the
program, continue to administer ridesharing and shuttle bus
program, promote alternate modes of travel, and develop an
aggressive marketing package. The second and third years of the
program should also include monitoring of travel to and from the
site, analysis of program effectiveness and expansion of the TMO
to additional sites.
It would be possible (and desirable) to establish goals for
each year of the program. This could measure transit use,
shuttle bus use, and single -occupant vehicle use. The TMO could
also do a trip generation study at regular intervals and compare
actual trips with expected trips (as calculated by the ITE Trip
Generation Manual) and use this information to help determine
program effectiveness.
-4-
Summary
Although long-term experience with TMO's is lacking, an
effective program can achieve reductions in peak hour trips of up
to 15%. For the L&M site, this would be a reduction of almost
100 peak hour trips (94 trips). If this rate can be achieved
throughout the corridor, it can at least help stabilize the
growth in traffic in the corridor.
A program of this type could be used in lieu of the L&M
developer making the JHK recommended improvements at Allen Road
and U.S. 7 and at Green Mountain Drive/Bartletts Bay Road/U.S. 7.
-5-
APPENDIX 2
Delay Measurement Calculations
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
Unsignalized "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis
vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection:1
Imperial Drive/Route 7 (Shelburne
Road)
Location:
South
Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period:
Actual
Data from January 10, 1991
for comparison
to measured delay
Adjustments
EB WB NB
SB
Speed Limit A/B
35
Base Volumes L
4
70
# of Lanes A/B:
5
Th
1480
1104
Control Type C:
stop
R
43 18
Shared Lanes C?
y
Dev Volumes L
DHV Adjust
1.000
Th
Base Year
1991
R
Analysis Year
1991
Analysis Volumes L
0 4 0
70
Growth/Year
1
Th
0 0 1480
1104
Total Growth
1.000
R
0 43 1 8
0
Add dev?
n
sum
0 47 1498
1174
pce?
1
Minor right large radius?
n
Route 7 NB
is A
<--- B
Minor right accel lane?
n
Route 7 SB
is B
A - >
Major excl. RT lane?
n
Imperial Drive
is C
[_____Targe RT radius into minor?
n
� C
Population >= 250,000?
y
Restricted sight distance?
n
Movement: A-thru A -right B-left B-thru C-left
Volume: 1480 18 70 1104 4
pch: ///////// / / / / / / / / / 70 ///////// 4
Right Turn from Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow: 1489 vph
Critical Gap: 5.2 sec
Capacity (M1): 205 pch
Reserve Capacity: #N/A pch
Service Level: #N/A
Left Turn from Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1498 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
202 pch
Capacity Used:
35 %
Impedance (P2):
0.73
Reserve Capacity:
132 pch
Service Level:
D-long delays
Left Turn from Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow: 2663 vph
Critical Gap: 6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn): 6 2 pch
Capacity (M3): 4 6 pch
Reserve Capacity: #N/A pch
Service Level: #N/A
(Shared Lane) Capacity (M13): 158 pch
Reserve Capacity: 111 pch
Service Level: D-long delay:
C-right
43
43
Print Date: 1 /23/91
Print Time: 12:10 pm
Date: 91 /01 /10
IMPERIAL DRIVE/ROUTE 7
WBI T WBr T NBth T NB T SIB T SBth T
16:0
1 6:1
16:3
1 6:4
17:0
17:1
17:3
Peak Hour
1
1
7
0
274
18
3
0
13
0
214
13
1
0
5
0
300
13
3
0
10
0
262
15
2
0
5
0
326
10
4
0
20
0
250
21
1
0
10
0
291
20
4
0
11
0
260
10
0
0
19
0
444
7
7
0
25
0
263
8
1
0
9
0
367
15
3
0
14
0
285
7
4
0
6
0
274
9
5
0
20
0
252
7
4 0
43 0
1428 52
18 0
70
0 1058 46
4
43
1480
18
70
1104
WB NB SB
% Trucks 0.00% 3.47% 3.92%
Peak Hour 0.6184 0.8177 0.9916
Factor
VEHICLES WAITING AT 15 SECOND INTERVALS
Imperial Shelburne Road
(lefts & ri hts) (lefts
16:00 15 13
16:15 10 8
1 6:30 12 15
16:45 14 5
17:00 22 18
17:15 11 12
17:30 4 7
Peak hour 59 50
Delay per 18.83 sec 10.714 sec
Vehicle
Delay Leve C B
of Service
544
609
638
607 2398
773 2627
701 2719
577 2658
APPENDIX 3
Traffic Count Data
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
COUNT OF BANK ON SHELBURNE ROAD
10/27/89 3:30-5:30pm
A= Rt7 SB
B= Rt7 NB
C= Bank 15 min
SB rt NB If EB If EB rt tot enter exit
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
5
2
1
6
14
7
7
5
1
3
5
14
6
8
5
6
5
2
18
11
7
9
3
6
7
25
12
13
6
6
6
4
22
12
10
9
1
8
4
22
10
12
2
5
5
3
15
7
8
3
2
5
1 1 01
51
5
Peak Hour 29 16
Shelburne Road/Macintosh
10/27/89 3:30-5:30om
3:3C
3:4E
4:OC
4:1 E
4:3C
4:4E
5:OC
5:1 E
peak hour
phf
Adj to DHV
25 17 87 45 42
Rt 7 SB
If T th T rt
Rt 7 NB
If th T rt
Larkin EB
If T rt
Macintosh WI
If rt
15 min
tot
2
188
10
7
174
8
1
2
1
2
395
3
326
14
4
305
9
3
2
2
668
3
295
12
5
284
11
4
2
1
617
4
311
6
1
2
321
10
3
2
2
3
6
671
4
1
338
9
4
3
345
8
5
2
2
3
724
4
293
9
3
3
385
6
1
2
2
1
709
6
301
9
5
1
455
5
2
4
2
2
3
795
1
313
3
1
2
352
10
21
21
1
1
1
689
16 1275
13 9 1566
10 11 5 5
7 2917
0.91
0 86 .....
.. 0.67 0.60 ..
`< 0.917
18 1424
15 10 1749
11 12 6 6
8 3258
2351
2680
2721
2899
2917
Lakewood 3
I
Date: 4/13/90
Route 7/Holmes 15 min hour
NB LT T NBTH T NB RT SB LT SBTH T SB RT T WB LTNBTFWB RT EB LT T EBTH T EB RT total total
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00
5:15
peak hr
4:30-5:30
1
0
285
8
9
6
315
3
5
0
1
0
14
14
1
0
0
2
2
0
270
7
7
9
302
7
4
0
3
2
13
20
0
1
0
2
1
1
274
11
14
8
315
3
9
2
2
0
17
29
0
1
1
8
3
1
301
11
2
18
305
1
4
0
7
0
25
29
0
0
0
4
1
0
281
9
5
11
314
7
1
3
5
1
22
28
0
0
0
9
2
0
304
5
4
19
325
3
3
0
5
0
27
26
0
1
0
6
2
0
321
7
4
10
302
2
4
0
4
0
67
39
0
1
0
4
2
0
307
3
7
12
291
10
2
1
7
0
46
30
0
0
0
9
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
Holmes WB
Holmes EB
71 01
1213
24
20
521
1232 22
101 4
211
1
162
1231 01
21 0
28
1
7
1 1237
1 20
521
12E
14
211
11
162
123
1 2
28
o. 9 y (F
%trucks NB SB EB WB
0.82% 0.89% 0.00% 0.00%
0,(- k
4/14/91
dhv adj = 1.017
6 c111
Easter
0.985
664
649
696
711 2720
697 2753
730 2834
767 2905
727 2921
2921
dhv:
2970
Date: 90/01 / 10
GREEN MOUNTAIN DRWJROUTE 7
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
Peak
113
4 2
0 25
0
58 1 6 0 235 1
18 0 809 43 16 0
45 2 917 35 71 2
117
2
25
59 6 236
18 852 16
47 952 73
EB
WB
m
S8
% Trucks
2.78%
0.66%
4.85%
3.64%
Peak Hour
0.973
0.5972
0.9715
0.9781
Factor
15 Min
498
535
600
553 2186
665 2353
585 2403
509 2312
448 2207
Date: 90/01 /10
ALLEN ROAD/ROUTE 7
WR I T WR r T NB th T NB r T SIB I T SIB th T 15 min Total
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
Peak Hour
163
0
59 4
749
27
71 0
68
1
7
959
23
163
63
1 776
71
75
982
WB NB SIB
% Trucks 1.77% 3.19% 2.84%
Peak Hour 1 0.856 0.958 0.927
Factor
452
445
519 Hour Total
517
1933
477
1958
564
2077
572
2130
477
2090
344
1957
Shelburne Rd/Swift St
South Burlington, Vermont
Wednesday, 1/10/91
4:00
4:15
4:3C
4:45
5:OC
5:15
5:3C
5:45
EB-Swift Road
It t rt t
NB -Shelburne Road
th t rt t
SB-Shelburne Road
If t th t rt t
8
0
14
0
117
3
6
0
36
3
223
67
149
23
18
0
36
0
329
6
29
0
32
0
304
10
163
5
38
0
52
0
342
6
33
0
32
0
267
7
213
2
39
0
44
0
338
11
25
0
48
0
311
8
201
4
37
0
79
0
425
6
45
0
56
0
296
7
212
3
30
0
49
0
471
7
30
0
45
0
280
8
226
6
23
0
51
0
317
6
12
0
54
0
254
8
147
5
29
0
32
0
275
10
24
0
25
0
240
6
149
3
15 min hour
totatota1
649
932
992
1029 3602
1166 4119
1152 4339
877 4224
793 3988
4:301 144 2241 1606 1331 181 1184 8671 4339 4339
5:30 peak
phf= 0.93
%trucks
phf
0.0%1
1.7%
2.0%
0.791
0.91
0.97
Date: 91 /01 /10
HARBOR VIEW/ROUTE 7
WBI T
16:0
16:1
16 :3
16:4
17:0
17:1
17:3
17:4
Peak Hour
WB r T NB th T NB r T SB I T SB th T
2
0
13
0
216
0
6
0
7
0
189
0
5
0
14
0
205
0
11
0
12
0
252
0
3
0
15
0
220
0
6
0
2
0
282
0
1
0
11
0
174
15
7
0
6
0
226
8
3
0
8
0
232
4
2
0
8
0
260
3
3
0
8
0
195
14
3
0
6
0
271
9
1
0
5
0
180
6
3
0
6
0
243
7
2
1
6
0
200
7
3
0
3
0
196
5
10 0
42 0
821 33
18 0
22 0
1039 20
10
42
854
18
22
1059
WB NB SB
Trucks 0.00% 4.67% 2.56%
Peak Hour 0.722 0.965 0.952
433
499
528
448 1908
520 1995
509 2005
451 1928
423 1903
APPENDIX 4
Design Hour Adjustments
RESOURCE
SYSTEII'IVIS
GROUP
LAM PARK TRIP DISTRIBUTION WORKSIIEET
Analysis Year 1996 Base Year 1991
PM Growth Rate 0.01 Gr Factor 1.o62
Miles Trips 622
BASE COUNTS
Ramp C
EB
WB
NB
SB Year/DHV
l
537
1989
t
1314
1698
1.000
r
418
Ramp F/Swift
I
1918]1144
t
].19
r
133
884
7224
Ramp G
I
231
1989
t
1598
1446
1.000
r
192
Brewer
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
159
14
204
31
1989
t
16
6
1388
]214
1.155
r
304
22
14
124
Laurel Hill
WB
NB
SB
58
112
1989
f
1616
1273
1.117
70
22
Baldwin
EB
WB
NB
SB
I
34
40
8
1989
t
2
1
1555
L257
1.117
r
7
49
21
McIntosh
WB
NB
SB
1
11
5
9
16
1989
t
0
0
1566
7275
1.117
r
5
7
10
13
Imperial
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
7
74
1989
t
1493
1313
1.017
r
29
29
Holmes
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
123
21
7
52
1990
t
2
1
1237
1254
1.017
r
28
162
20
14
Green Mtn/BB
WB
NB
SB
1
I17
59
18
45
1991
t
2
6
852
952
1.289
r
25
236
16
73
Harbor View
WB
NB
SB
1
10
22
1991
t
854
1059
1.289
r
42
18
Allen
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
163
75
1991
t
776
982
1.289
r
63
71
DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES FOR 1991
Ramp C
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
0
548
0
0
t
0
0
1340
1732
r
0
426
0
0
Ramp F/Swift
EB
WB
NB
S13
1
0
173
0
217
t
0
0
1926
1420
r
0
269
159
1040
Ramp G
EB
WB
NB
SB
I
236
0
0
0
t
0
0
1630
1475
r
196
0
0
0
Brewer
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
159
14
204
31
t
16
6
1635
1430
r
304
22
14
124
Laurel Hill
EB
WB
NB
SB
0
65
0
125
t
II
0
0
1841
1451
r
0
78
25
0
Baldwin
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
38
45
9
124
t
2
1
1772
1432
r
8
55
23
19
McIntosh
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
12
6
10
18
t
0
0
1784
1453
r
6
8
11
15
Imperial
E13
VGB
NB
S13
1
0
7
0
75
t
0
0
1549
1362
r
0
29
290
Holmes
EB
WB
NB
SB
I
125
21
7
53
t
2
1
1270
1288
r
28
165
20
14
Green Mtn/BB
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
151
76
23
58
t
3
8
1098
1227
r
32
304
21
94
harbor View
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
0
13
0
28
t
0
0
I101
1365
r
0
54
23
0
Allen
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
0
210
0
97
t
0
0
1000
1266
r
0
81
92
0
GROWTH RATE FOR EACH TURNING MOVEMENT
Ramp C
EB
WB
NB
SB
t
1 1.01
I
1
1 1
1.01
1.01
r 4047
1 1.01
1
1
Ramp F/Swift
EB
WB
NB
SB
I
1 1.01
1
1.oi
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
5203 r
1 1.01
1.01
1.01
Ramp G
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
1.01
1
1
1
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
3537 r
1.01
1
1
1
Brewer
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
1 1
1
1
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
3960 r
1 1
1
1
Laurel Hill
EB
',CB
NB
SB
I 1
1
1
f
1 1
1.01
1.01
3585
1 1
1
1
Baldwin
EB
W13
NB
SB
1
1 1
1
1
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
3528 r
I 1
1
1
McIntosh
EB
WB
NB
SB
I
l I
1
]
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
3322 r
1 1
1
1
Imperial
EB
\V13
NB
SB
I
I 1
1
I
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
3052 r
1 1
1
I
Holmes
EB
uB
NB
SB
1
1 1
I
1
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
2996 r
1 1
1
1
Green Mtn/BB
EB
W13
NB
SB
I
1 1
1
1
t
] 1
1.01
1.01
3095 r
1 ]
1
1
Ilarbor View
EB
W'B
NB
SB
f1
1
1.01
1.012584
I 1
1
1
Allen
EB
WB
NB
SB
1
1 1.01
1
1.01
t
1 1
1.01
1.01
2746 r
1 1.01
1.01
I
APPENDIX 5
Levcl-of-Sei-vicc Analyses
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
Signalized Intersection
O erations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Intersection:
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year - 1991
TOTAL LT 0
548
0
0
Final Year = 1991
TOTAL TH 0
0
1340
1 332
Growthlyr 1.01
TOTAL FIT 0
426
0
0
DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total
Growth 1.000
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN = n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Time of Day = Rv1
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT 0
548
0
0
TOTALTH 0
0
1340
1732
TOTALRT 0
426
0
0
Total 0
974
1340
1732
RTOR Sears
Ramp C Shelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd
25
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Sears
0
1
N
0
0
Ramp C
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phf
Sears
0
N
0
3
0.85
Ramp C
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Sears
1t Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn hase
1
EB 2
3
Ramp C
1
2
y
y
n
12 prot
WB 2
1
n
n
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12 perm
NB 2
1
3
Shelburne Rd
1
3
n
y
n
12 perm
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Phase 1 5
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 21
Traffic: Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1115/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:46 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8 5
Shelburne Rd
Timings
5.0 sec
Total Green 71
LOSB
Total Dead l
Cycle Length 8
Ramp C
Sears Overall 36.1 sec
Lane Groups Phase number
12.6 sec LOS D
Sears
LOS B
Shelburne Rd
5.6 sec
Ramp C 1 2
LOS BF
2 2
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Sears
RampC: LT 21 20.3
C 36.1 D
R 21 62.3
F
Shelburne Rd T 50 5.6
B 5.6 B
Shelburne Rd T 50 5.0
B 5.0 B
Average Intersection Delay
12.6 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection
O erations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Intersection:
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM
Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year. 1991
TOTAL LT 0
548
0
0
Final Year = 1991
TOTAL TH 0
0
1340
1732
Growth/yr . 1.01
TOTAL FIT 0
426
0
0
DHV adjust = 1.0o
Development Volumes
Total
Growth a 1.000
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN .
0
15
0
0
0
0
121
46
1
0
0
0
0
Time of Day = Rvl
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
CBD7 n
TOTAL LT 0
562
0
0
TOTAL TH 0
0
1462
1778
TOTAL FIT 0
426
0
0
Total 0
989
1462
1778
%RTOR Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
25 %
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Adl Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nib
Sears
0
1
N
0
0
Ramp C
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
hf
Sears
0
N
0
3
0.85
Ramp C
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Sears
11 Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
EB 2
3
Ramp C
1
2
y
y
n
12 Prot
WB 2
1
1
n
n
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12 perm
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
3
n
y
n
12 perm
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Tim,
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Phase 1
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/15/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:44 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
(Sears
501 21
Shelburne Rd
Timings
5.1 sec
Total Green
71
LOSB
Total Dead
9
Cycle Length
80
Ramp C
Sears Overall 36.2 sec
Lane Groups
Phase number
12.7 sec LOS D
Sears
LOS B
Shelburne Rd
6.2 sec
Ramp C
1
2
LOS B
2
2
Shelburne Rdl1 11
Shelburne Rdl1 11
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach
IRampC LT 21 20.9 C 36.2 D
R 21 62.3 F
Iburne Rd
T
50
6.2
B
6.2 B
Iburne Rd
T
so
5.1
B
5.1 B
verage Intersection Delay
12.7 seconds
verage Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM Peak - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
Sears
WB NB SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Ramp C Shelburne Rd ShelburJend Base Year = 1996
TOTAL LT 0
581
0
Final Year . 1996
TOTALTH 0
0
1471
Growth/yr - 1.01
TOTAL RT 0
448
0
DHV adjust . 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Add dev Y/N - n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Time of Day
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller - actuated
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBE n
TOTAL LT 0
581
0
0
TOTALTH 0
0
1471
1838
TOTAL PIT 0
448
0
0
Total 0
1029
1471
1838
h RTOR Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
25%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
<HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Sears
0
1
N
0
0
Ramp C
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Art Type
phf
Sears
0
N
0
3
0.85
Ramp
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Sears
Il Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn hase
1
EB 2
3
Ramp C
2
y
y
n
12 prot
1
WB 2
1
n
n
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12 perm
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
3
n
y
n
12 perm
SB 2
1
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Phase 1 46
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 25
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:07 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
Gr. Clear. - 8
5
Timings
6.8 sec
Total Green
71
LOS B
Total Dead
9
Ramp C
Cycle Length
80
Sears
Overall
21.9 sec
Lane Groups
Phase number
10.9 sec
LOSC
Sears
LOS B
Shelburne Rd
8.3 sec
Ramp C
1
2
LOS B
2
2
Shelburne Rdli It
Shelburne Rd11 I1
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS
Appr Delay
Approach
C LT
25
16.8
C
21.9
C
R
25
30.4
D
erne Rd T
46
8.3
B
8.3
B
irne Rd T
46
6.8
B
6.8
B
Average Intersection Dela
10.9 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized lnfersecfion O erations Anal sis-Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT 0
581
0
0
Final Year = 1996
TOTALTH 0
0
1471
1838
Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL RT 0
448
0
0
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev Y/N =
0
15
0
0
0
0
122
46
0
0
0
0
Time of Day = FM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT 0
596
0
0
TOTALTH 0
0
1593
1884
TOTAL RT 0
448
0
0
Total 0
1044
1593
1884
RTOR Sears
Ramp C Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
25
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV Adi Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Sears
0
1
N
0
0
Ramp C
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time
Butt
Arr Type
hf
Sears
0
N
0
3
0.85
Ramp C
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Sears
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft tur7he
i
EB 2
3
Ramp C
1
2
y
y
n
12 Prot
WB 2
1
n
n
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12 perm
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
3
n
y
n
12 perm
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems
Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp C
Phase 1 46
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 25
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak)
- Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:08 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8 5
Shelburne Rd
Timings
7.0 sec
Total Green 71
LOSB
Total Dead 9
Cycle Length 80
Ramp C
Sears Overall
22.0 sec
Lane Groups Phase number
11.7 sec
LOSC
Sears
L OS B
Shelburne Rd
10.7 sec
Ramp C 1 2
LOS B
2 2
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Lanes Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Sears
Ramp LT 25
17.0
C 22.0 C
R 25
30.4
D
Shelburne Rd T 46
10.7
B 10.7 B
Shelburne Rd T 46
7.0
8 7.0 8
Average Intersection Delay
11.7 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection O erations Analysis. Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Swill
Street
Location.
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Ram F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Base Year . 1991
TOTAL LT 0
176 0
217 Final Year = 1991
TOTALTH 0
0 1988
1443 Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT 0
269 165
1040 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Ramp F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Add dev Y/N = n
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 Time of Day = Rd
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller . actuated
Ramp F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD? n
TOTALLT 0
176 0
217
TOTALTH 0
0 1988
1443
TOTAL FIT 0
269 165
1040
Total 0
444 2153
2700
%RTOR
Ramp F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50 %
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach
Grade %
%HV Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp F
0
1 N
0
0
Swift
0
1 N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2 N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2 N
0
0
Cont Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Art Type
phf
Ramp F
0
N 0
3
0.85
Swift
0
N 0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N 0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N 0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp F
u Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
EB 2
3
Swift
1
2
y
n
y
12 prot
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
3
n
y
y
12
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
t
y
n
n
t 2 prof
SB 2
3
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1965 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Swift Street
Phase 1 41
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 2 14
Phase 3 12
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16191
Phase 5
Print Time 12:27 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
Gr. Clear - 8 5
Timings
7.6 sec
Total Green 67
LOS B
Total Dead 13
Cycle Length 80
Swift
Ramp Overall
23.4 Sec
Lane Groups Phase number
11.3 see
LOSC
Ramp F
LOS B
Shelburne Rd
14.0 sec
Swift 1 2
LOS B
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Shelburne Rd 1 3
2 1.8.3
Ramp F Lanes Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Swift LR 14
23.4
C 23.4 C
Shelburne Rd TR 41
14.0
B 14.0 B
Shelburne Rd L 12
47.1
E 7.6 B
TR 58
4.5
A
Average Intersection Delay
11.3 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection O erations Anal sis-Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne
Rd/Swift
Street
Location:
Shelburne,
Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak) - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year . 1991
TOTAL LT
0
176
0
217
Final Year a 1991
TOTAL TH
0
0
1988
1443
Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT
0
269
165
1040
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total
Growth = 1.000
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN =
0
7
0
0
0
0
122
60
0
0
10
0
Time of Day = Rvt
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT
0
183
0
217
TOTALTH
0
0
2110
1503
TOTAL FIT
0
269
175
1040
Total
0
451
2285
2760
RTOR Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade
%
% HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp F
0
1
N
0
0
Swift
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phf
Ramp F
0
N
0
3
0.85
Swift
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp F
rl Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
EB 2
3
Swift
1
2
y
n
y
12 prot
WB 2
1
3
Shelburne Rd
1
3
n
y
y
12
NB 2
1
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
SB 2
3
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Swift Street
Phase 1 41
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 14
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3 12
Phase 4
Print Date 111 6/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:25 PM
Phase 6
Shelburne Rd
8.2 sec
LOS B
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8 5
Timings
Total Green 67
Total Dead 13
Cvcle Lenath 80
Swift
Ramp F
Overall
23.9 sec Lane Grou
13.6 sec
LOSC Ramp F
LOS B
Shelburne Rd
18.5 sec
Swift 1
LOSC
Shelburne Rd11 11
Shelburne Rd t 3
2 1,8.3
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOST
(Ramp F
wift LR 14 23.9 C 23.9 C
Shelburne Rd TR 41 18.5 C 18.5 C
Rd L 12 47.1 E 8.2 B
TR 58 5.1 B
Average Intersection Dell
13.6 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
A
Signalized trite rsection O erst/ons Analysis. Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne
Rd/Swift
Street
Location:
Shelburne,
Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM
Peak - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
Ram
F
WB NB SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Swift Shelburne Rd ShelburJeR Base Year= 1996
TOTAL LT
0
184
0
Final Year - 1996
TOTALTH
0
0
2086
Growth/yr 1.01
TOTAL RT
0
282
173
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total
Growth = 1.000
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN . n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Time of Day = PM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd
CB( n
TOTAL LT
0
184
0
228
TOTALTH
0
0
2086
1516
TOTAL FIT
0
282
173
1093
Total
0
467
2259
2836
%RTOR Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50 %
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade
%
%HV Adj
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp F
0
1
N
0
0
Swift
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
hf
Ramp F
0
N
0
3
0.85
Swift
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp F
# Lanes
N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width It turn hale
1
ES 2
3
Swift
1
2
y
n
y
12 prof
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
3
n
y
y
12
1
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
It
n
12 prot
SB 2
3
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Swift Street
Group v. 3.32
Phase Green Times
Phase 1 41
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 14
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) . No -Build
Phase 3 12
Phase 4
Print Dale 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:18 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
9.2 sec
LOS B
Swift
Ramp Overall
24.6 set
13.6 see
LOSC
L OS B
Shelburne Rd
17.3 sec
LOSC
Timings
Total Green 67
Total Dead 13
�Cvcle Length 80
Lane Groups Phase number
Ramp F
Swift 1 2
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Shelburne Rd 1 3
2 1,8.3
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOSI
F
ift LR
14
24.6
C 24.6 C
Iburne Rd TR
41
17.3
C 17.3 C
Iburne Rd L
12
55.3
E 9.2 B
TR
58
5.5
B
verage Intersection Delay
13.6 seconds
verage Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection O erations Analysis. Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne
Rd/Swift
Street
Location:
Shelburne,
Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes ES
WB
1B
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year= 1996
TOTAL LT
0
184
0
228
Final Year = 1996
TOTAL TH
0
0
2086
1516
Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT
0
282
1 73
1093
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total
Growth = 1.000
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev Y/N =
0
7
0
0
0
0
122
60
0
0
1 0
0
Time of Day = Rvt
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT
0
192
0
228
TOTALTH
0
0
2209
1576
TOTAL FIT
0
282
183
1093
Total
0
474
2391
2897
RTOR Ramp
F
Swift Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade
%
% HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp F
0
1
N
0
0
Swift
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phf
Ramp F
0
N
0
3
0.85
Swift
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp F
# Lanes
N
LT?
TH?
FIT?
Lane Width eft
1
EB 2
7th
3
Swift
2
y
n
y
12 prof
1
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
3
n
y
y
12
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
SB 2
3
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems
Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Phase 1
41
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Swift Street
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
14
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
12
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:16 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
5
Shelburne Rd
Timings
9.4 sec
Total Green
67
LOS B
Total Dead
13
Cycle Length
80
Swift
Ramp F Overall
25.2 sec
Lane Groups
Phase number
20.8 sec LOS D Ramp F
LOS C
Shelburne Rd
1
2
33.8 sec Swift
LOS D
Shelburne Rdlt 11
Shelburne Rdlt
1,8,3
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOST
F
Swift LR 14 25.2 D 25.2 D
Shelburne Rd TR 41 33.8 D 33.8 D
Shelburne Rd L 12 55.3 E 9.4 B
TR 58 5.8 B
Average Intersection Delay
20.8 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
C
Signalized Intersection O erations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak
- No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
Ramo G
WB
NB SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Base Year - 1991
TOTAL LT 236
0
0
0
Final Year . 1991
TOTALTH 0
0
1630
1475
Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL PIT 196
0
0
0
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
RamoG
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Add dev Y/N = n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Time of Day = F1A
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTALLT 236
0
0
0
TOTALTH 0
0
1630
1475
TOTAL PIT 196
0
0
0
Total 432
0
1630
1475
%RTOR Ram G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
25 %
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp G
0
1
N
0
0
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Bulton?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phf
Ramp G
0
N
0
3
0.85
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp G p Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1 2
y
n
y
12 prof
EB 2
3
1
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
2
n
y
n
12
NS 2
T
Shelburne Rd
2
n
y
n
12
1
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
Phase 1 56
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 15
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/15/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:00 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - F
Shelburne Rd
3.9 sec
LOS A
Ramp Overall
25.0 sec 6.8 sec
LOS C LOS B
Shelburne Rd
4.5 sec
LOS A
Lane Groups
Ramp G
Total Green
Total Dead
Cycle Length
Timings
71
9
80
Phase number
1
2
Shelburne RdJ1 I1
Shelburne Rdl1 It
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
G LR 15 25.0 C 25.0 C
Rd T
56
4.5
A
4.5 A
Rd T
56
3.9
A
3.9 A
Intersection Delay
6.8 seconds
Intersection LOS
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
Location: I
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM
Peak
- Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
P6
S8 Adjustments to Base Vol's
G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year = 1991
TOTAL LT
0
0
0Final
Year = 1991
TOTALTH 0
L7236
0
1630
1475Growth/yr
- 1.01
TOTAL FIT '9
0
0
0
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN =
0
0
0
0
0
0
131
68
9
0
0
0
Time of Day - FM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT 236
0
0
0
TOTALTH 0
0
1761
1543
TOTAL FIT 205
0
0
0
Total 440
0
1761
1543
%RTOR Ram G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
25 %
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp G
0
1
N
0
0
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phf
Ramp G
0
N
0
3
0.85
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp 11 Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1 2
y
n
y
12 prot
EB 2
3
1
WB z
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12
NB 2
F
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
Phase 1 56
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 15,
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/14/91
Phase 5
Print Time 4:46 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
Timings
4.1 sec
Total Green
7/
LOSA
Total Dead
9
Cycle Length
80
Ramp
Overall
Lane Groups
Phase number
25.7 sec
7.2 sec
Ramp G
1
2
LOS D
LOS B
Shelbume Rd
5.1 sec
LOS e
Shelburne Rdlt 11
Shelburne RdII 11
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach
Ramp LR 15 25.7 D 25.7 D
Shelburne Rd T 56 5.1 B 5.1 B
Shelburne Rd T 56 4.1 A 4.1 A
Average Intersection Delay
7.2 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized
Intersect
Local
Traffic Pei
itersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
on: Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
on: Shelburne, Vermont
od: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes
EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd ShelbuJeRd
Base Year -
1996
TOTALLT
248
0
0
Final Year -
1996
TOTALTH
0
0
1781
Growth/yr =
1.01
TOTAL FIT
209
0
0
DHV adjust =
1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth =
1.000
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Add dev YIN =
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Time of Day -
Rv1
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller =
actuated
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD?
n
TOTALLT
248
0
0
0
TOTALTH
0
0
1781
1576
TOTAL FIT209
0
0
0
Total
457
0
1781
1576
%RTOR Ramp G Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
25
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach
Grade %
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp G
0
1
N
0
0
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min
Time Butt
Art Type
hf
Ramp G
0
N
0
3
0.85
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp G
# Lanes N
LT? TH?
RT? Lane Width eft turn phase
1
2
y n
y i 2 prof
EB 2
3
1
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n y
n 12
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n y
n 12
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems
Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
Phase 1 5
Location: Shelburne. Vermont
Phase 2 1
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak)
- No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:31 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8 5
Shelburne Rd
Timings
4.2 sec
Total Green 71
LOSA
Total Dead 9
,Cycle Length 84
Ramp Overall
Lane Groups Phase number
27.4 sec 7.5 sec
Ramp G 1 2
LOS D LOS B
Shelburne Rd
5.2 sec
LOS B
Shelburne Rd t 1
Shelburne Rd 1 t
Lanes Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Ramp G LR 15
27.4
D 27.4 D
Shelburne Rd T 56
5.2
B 5.2 B
Shelburne Rd T 56
4.2
A 4.2 A
Average Intersection Delay
7.5 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis. Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM
Peak
- Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year = 1996
TOTAL LT 248
0
0
0
Final Year = 1996
TOTAL TH 0
0
1 781
1 576
Growth/yr - 1.01
TOTAL FIT 209
0
0
0
DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Ramp G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev Y/N =
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
611
9
0
0
0
Time of Day = Rv1
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Ramo G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT 248
0
0
0
TOTAL TH 0
0
1913
1644
TOTAL FIT 218
0
0
0
Total 466
0
1913
1644
%RTOR Ram G
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
25
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Ramp G
0
1
N
0
0
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
Phf
Ramp G
0
N
0
3
0.85
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Ramp G
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
2
y
n
y
12 prot
EB 2
1
3
1
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
2
n
y
n
12
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 -
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Ramp G
Location: Shelburne. Vermont
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Print Date 1/16/91
Print Time 12:34 PM
Shelburne Rd
4.5 sec
LOS A
Ramp
Overall
28.5 sec
8.4 sec
LOS D
LOS B
Shelburne Rd
6.9 sec
LOS B
ce Systems Group v. 3.32
Phase Green Times
Phase 1
56
Phase 2
15
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
5
Timings
Total Green
71
Total Dead
9
Cycle Length
80
Lane Grou s Phase number
Ramp G 1 2
Shelburne Rdl1 11
Shelburne RdJ1 11
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach
G LR 15 28.5 D 28.5 D
Shelburne Rd T 56 6.9 B 6.9 B
(Shelburne Rd T 56 4.5 A 4.5 A
Average Intersection Delay
8.4 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
8
Signalized Intersection O erafions Anal sls-Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Brewer Parkway/K-Mart
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour PM Peak - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB
Adjustments to Base Vol's
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year .
1991
TOTAL LT
1 59
14
204
31
Final Year -
1991
TOTALTH
16
6
1635
1430
Growth/yr -
1.01
TOTAL FIT
304
22
14
124
DHV adjust -
1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth -
1.000
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN e
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Time of Day a
Rvt
Total Analysis
Volumes
Controller -
actuated
Kmart Brewer
Pkwy
Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
CBD?
n
TOTAL LT
159
14
204
31
TOTALTH
16
6
1635
1430
TOTAL PIT
304
22
14
124
Total
479
42
1853
1585
%RTOR
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50 %
25 %
15 %
50
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach
Grade %
%HV Adj Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Kmart
0
1
N
0
0
Brewer Pkwy
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Cont Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Art Type
phf
Kmart
0
N
0
3
0.85
Brewer Pkwy
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Kmart
k Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft tunpes-
1
1
y
y
n
12
EB 2
1
n
n
y
12
3
Brewer Pkwy
1
i
y
y
y
12 perm
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 Prot
NB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 Prot
SB 2
2
n
y
n
12
3
1
n
n
y
12
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Brewer Parkway/K-Mart
Phase 1 32
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 12
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak)
- No -Build
Phase 3 5
Phase 4 13
Print Date 1 / 1 5/91
Phase 5
Print Time 1:48 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr Clear. - 8 5
Shelburne Rd
Timings
11.6 sec
Total Green 62
LOS B
Total Dead 18
,Cycle Length 80
Brewer Pkwy
Kmart Overall
20.9 sec
Lane Grou s Phase number
28.5 sec 12.9 sec
LOSC
Kmart 1 2
LOS D LOS B
Rd
2 2
JShe'bume
10.9 sec
Brewer Pkwy 1 2
LOS B
Shelburne Rd 1 4
2 1,8,4
Shelburne Rd 1 3
2 1.8.3
3 1,8.3
Lanes Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Kmart LT 12
28.0
D 28.5 D
R 12
29.1
D
Brewer Pkwy LTR 12
20.9
C 20.9 C
Shelburne Rd L 13
33.4
D 10.9 B
TR 50
8.2
B
Shelburne Rd L 5
27.8
D 11.6 B
T 42
11.7
B
R 42
4.6
A
Average Intersection Delay
12.9 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection O orations Anal sis-Version 3.32-Resource Systems Grou
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/F2II31>itsbr(Wc-7
Location:
Shelburne. Vermont
'raffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak
- Build
Bass Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NI3
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelbume Rd
Base Year = 1991
TOTAL LT 159
14
204
31
Final Year = 1991
TOTAL TH 16
6
1635
1430
Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT 304
22
14
124 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Kmart Brewer
Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd kdd dev Y/N =
0
1
16
0
0
0
131
77
16
0
1
0
ime of Day = PM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Kmart Brewer
Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTALLT 159
15
220
31
TOTALTH 16
6
1767
1507
TOTAL FIT 320
22
15
124
Total 495
43
2002
1662
%RTOR Kmart Brewer
Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50%
25%
15%
50
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Kmart
0
1
N
0
0
Brewer Pkwy
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phi
Kmart
0
N
0
3
0.85
Brewer Pkwy
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Kmart
s Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
1
y
y
n
12 perm
EB
1
n
n
y
12
3
Brewer Pkwy
11
y
y
y
12 perm
WB 2
31
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
NB
2
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prot
SB
2
n
y
n
12
3
1
n
n
y
12
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Time
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Brewer Parkway/K•Mart
Phase 1
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/15191
Phase 5
Print Time 1:47 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
13.1 sec
Total Green
LOSB
Total Dead
Cycle Length
Brewer Pkwy
Kmart Overall
21.1 sec
Lane Groups
P
1 2
29.8 sec 14.6 see LOSC
Kmart
LOS D LOS B
2 2
Shelburne Rd
1 2
13.1 sec
Brewer Pkwy
LOS B
Shelburne RdI1 I4
2 1,8.4
Shelburne Rdl1
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS
Kmart LT
12
28.0
D
R
12
31.9
D
Brewer Pkwy LTR
12
21.1
C
21
5
13
imings
62
18
80
number
1,8,3
1.8.3
Appr Delay Approach
29.8 D
21.1 C
Shelburne Rd L 13 38.6 D 13.1 B
TR 50 10.1 B
Shelburne Rd L 5 27.8 D 13.1 B
T 42 13.3 B
R 42 4.6 A
Average Intersection Del;
14.6 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection
O eralions Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Shelburne Rd/Brewer Parkway/K-Mart
Intersection:
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM Peak
- No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Ad(ustments to Base Vol's
KmarI Brewer Plkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT
159
14
213
31
Final Year = 1996
TOTAL TH
16
6
1 786
1533
Growth/yr 1.01
TOTAL FIT
311
22
15
124
DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total
Growth = 1.000
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
She!bume Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev Y/N = n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Time of Day = PM
Total Analysis
Volumes
Controller actuated
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT
159
14
213
31
TOTALTH
16
6
1786
1533
TOTAL FIT
311
22
15
124
Total
486
42
2014
1688
RTOR
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50%
25%
15 %
50
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach
Grade %
%HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Kmart
0
1
N
0
0
Brewer Pkwy
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Cant Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Art Type
pht
Kmart
0
N
0
3
0.85
Brewer Pkwy
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Kmart
>t Lanes N
LT?
TH?
FIT?
Lane Width eft turn hase
1
1
y
y
n
12 perm
EB 2
1
n
n
y
12
3
Brewer Pkwy
1
y
y
y
12 perm
1
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
NB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
SB 2
2
n
y
n
12
3
1
n
n
y
12
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Time
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Brewer Parkway/K-Mart
Phase 1
- Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/17/91
Phase 5
Print Time 2:00 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
13.8 sec
LOS B
Brewer Pkwy
Kmart Overall 21.0 sec
36.2 sec 15.6 sec LOSC
LOS D LOS C
Shelburne Rd
13.0 sec
LOS 0
32
12
5
13
Lane Groups
Kmart
Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd
Timings
Total Green 62
Total Dead 18
Cycle Length 80
Phase number
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
4
1,8,4
Shelburne Rdjt
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS
rt LT
12
28.0
D
R
12
44.2
E
er Pkwy LTR
12
21.0
C
V3
1,8,3
1,8,3
Appr Delay Approach LOS
36.2 D
21.0 C
Rd L 13 35.9 D 13.0 B
TR 50 10.5 B
Shelburne Rd L 5 27.8 D 13.8 8
T 42 14.0 B
R 42 4.6 A
Average Intersection Deli
15.6 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
C
Signalized lntersection D erations Anal sis-Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Brewer Parkway/K-Mart
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
t6
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Kmart Brewer PkwyShelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT 1 59
14
213
31
Final Year - 1996
TOTALTH 16
6
1786
1533
Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT 311
22
15
124
DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total
Growth = 1.000
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN =
0
1
16
0
0
0
132
77
16
0
1
0
Time of Day = Rvl
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CB( n
TOTALLT 159
15
229
31
TOTALTH 16
6
1919
1610
TOTALRT 327
22
16
124
Total 502
43
2164
1765
%RTOR Kmart Brewer Pkwy
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
50%
25%
15%
50%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Kmart
0
1
N
0
0
Brewer Pkwy
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Art Type
phi
Kmart
0
N
0
3
0.85
Brewer Pkwy
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Kmart
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
1
y
y
n
12 perm
EB 2
1
n
n
y
12
3
Brewer Pkwy
1
Y
y
Y
12 perm
1
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prol
NB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
SB 2
2
n
y
n
12
3
1
in
n
y
12
Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Brewer Parkway/K-Mart
Group v. 3.32
Phase Green Times
Phase 1
32
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
12
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
5
Phase 4
13
Print Date 1/17/91
Phase 5
Print Time 1:58 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
Timint
16.7 sec
Total Green
62
LOSC
Total Dead
1
Cycle Length
so
Brewer Pkwy
Kmart
Overall
21.2 sec
Lane Groups
Phase number
1
2
40.8 sec 19.4 sec LOSC Kmart
LOS E LOS C
Shelburne Rd
2
2
1
2
17.7 sec Brewer Pkwy
LOS C
Shelburne RdI1 I4
2 1.8.4
Shelburne Rd 1 3
2 1,8,3
3 1,8,3
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach
Kmart LT
12
28.0
D 40.8 E
R
12
52.8
E
Brewer Pkwy LTR
12
21.2
C 21.2 C
Rd L 13 42.5 E 17.7 C
TR 50 14.9 B
Shelburne Rd L 5 27.8 D 16.7 C
T 42 17.2 C
R 42 4.6 A
Average intersection Deh
19.4 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
Unsignalized -T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: FLaulHill/Route 7(Shelburne Road)
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: M Peak Design Hour: No Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Volumes
Speed Limit AIE
35
a of Lanes A/B:
5
Control Type C:
stop
Shared Lanes C.
y
DHV Adjust
1.000
Base Year
1991
Analysis Year
1991
Growth/Year
1.01
Total Growth
1.000
Add dev?
n
sum
0 143
1866 1576
pce?
1.02
7 NB
is A
Minor right large radius?
Minor right accel lane?
n
n
<--- B
7 SB
Hill
is B A --->
is C
Major excl. FIT lane?
arge FITradius into minor?
n
n
C
Population
lation >= 250,000?
y
Restricted sight distance?
n
tent:
A-thru A -right
B-left B-thru
C-left C-right
e:
1841 25
125 1451
65 78
128 /////1///
66 80
Right Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
1854 vph
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
Capacity (M7):
110 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1 866 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
108 pch
Capacity Used:
119
Impedance (P2):
0.00
Reserve Capacity:
-20 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Left Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
3429 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
0 pch
Capacity (M3):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
NN/A pch
Service Level:
MN/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
-1 4 6 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Print Date:1/15/91
Print Time: 10:50 am
Unslgnallzed "T•• Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 — Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Laurel Hill/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1991 PM Peak Design Hour: Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Analysis Volumes
sL
Speed Limit A/
35
M of Lanes A/B:
5
Control Type C:
stop
Shared Lanes C.
y
DHV Adjust
1.000
Base Year
1991
Analysis Year
1991
Growth/Year
1.01
Total Growth
1.000
Add day?
y
pce?
1.02
Minor right large radius?
n
Route 7 NB
is A
<•-• B
Minor right accel lane?
n
Route 7 SB
is B A --->
Major excl. FIT lane?
n
Laurel Hill
is C
��----
t `arge FIT radius into minor?
n
C I
Population >. 250,000?
y
Restricted sight distance?
n
Movement:
A-thru Aright
B-left B-thru
C-left C-right
Volume:
1990 27
125 1544
69 78
pch:
llllllllllllllllll
128/////////
70 80
Right Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
2003 vph
Print Date: 1115/91
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
Print Time: 10:49
am
Capacity (Ml):
79 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
MN/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
2017 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
76 pch
Capacity Used:
167
Impedance (P2):
0.00
Reserve Capacity:
-51 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Left Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
3673 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
0 pch
Capacity (M3):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
NN/A pch
Service Level:
tN/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
-150 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Unslgnallzed "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: TLaurel Hill/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: th Burlington, VAnalysis Period: 6 PM Peak Des i n Hour: No Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Volumes
Speed Limit A/E
# of Lanes AM:
Control Type C:
Shared Lanes C?
DHV Adjust
Base Year
Analysis Year
Growth/Year
Total Growth
Add dev?
sum
0 145
2038 1687
pce?
7 NB
is A
<--- B
Minor right large radius?
Minor right accel lane?
7 SB
Hill
is 8 A --->
is C
Major excl. RT lane?
Large RT radius into minor?
C
Population — 250,000?
Restricted sight distance?
ienC
A-ihru A -right
B-left B-thru
C-left C-right
e:
2012 26
125 1561
66 78
128 /////////
68 80
Right Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
2025 vph
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
Capacity (Ml):
75 pch
Reserve Capacity:
# N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
2038 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
72 pch
Capacity Used:
177 %
Impedance (P2):
0.00
Reserve Capacity:
-56 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Left Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
3712 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
0 pch
Capacity (M3):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
-148 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
5
stop
y
1.000
1996
1996
1.01
1.000
n
1.02
n
n
y
Print Date:1/16/91
Print Time: 11:17 am
Unslgnallzed "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Laurel Hill/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location:
South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period:
1996 PM Peak Design Hour: Build
Adjustments
35
EB VM M SB
Speed Limit A19
0 66 0
125
Base Volumes L
# of Lanes A/B:
5
Th
0 0 2012
1561
Control Type C:
stop
R
0 78 26
0
Shared Lanes C.
y
0 4 0
0
Dev Volumes L
DHV Adjust
1.000
Th
0 0 150
94
Base Year
1996
R
0 0 2
0
Analysis Year
1996
0 71 0
125
Analysis Volumes L
Growth/Year
1.01
Th
0 0 2162
1655
Total Growth
1.000
R
0 78 28
0
Add dev?
y
sum
0 149
2190 1780
pce?
1.02
Route 7 NB
is A
Minor right large radius?
Minor right accel lane?
n
n
<•-- B
Route 7 SB
is B A --•>
Major excl. RT lane?
n
Laurel Hill
is C
f Large RT radius into minor?
n
C I
Population >. 250,000?
y
Restricted sight distance?
n
Movement:
A-thru A -right
B-left B•thru
Cleft C•righl
Volume:
2162 28
125 1655
71 78
pch:
//////////////////
128////////1
72 80
Right Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
2176 vph
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
Capacity (Ml ):
4 6 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
2190 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
43 pch
Capacity Used:
296 %
Impedance (P2):
0,00
Reserve Capacity:
- 8 5 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Left Turn from
Laurel Hill
Conflicting Flow:
3956 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
0 pch
Capacity (M3):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#NIA
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
-152 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Print Date:1/16/91
Print Time: 11:18 am
Signalized
Intersecti
Locati
Traffic Peri
itersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
n: Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
n: Shelburne, Vermont
d: 1991 Desi n Hour PM Peak - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes ES
We
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year =
1991
TOTAL LT
38
45
9
124
Final Year =
1991
TOTAL TH
2
1
1 772
1 432
Growth/yr
1.01
TOTAL RT
B
55
23
19
DHV adjust =
1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth
1.000
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Add dev Y/N =
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ime of Day =
Rt
Total Analysis
Volumes
Controller =
actuated
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD?
n
TOTALLT
38
45
9
124
TOTAL TH
2
1
1772
1432
TOTAL FIT
6
55
23
t9
Total
48
101
1804
1575
%RTOR
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach
Grade%
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Baldwin
0
1
N
0
0
Baldwin
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
0
N
0
3Baldwin
0
N
0
3
nhBaldwin
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
Lane Groupings
Baldwin
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn
phase
1
1
y
y
y
12
perm
EB 2
3
Baldwin
1
1
y
y
y
12
perm
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12
perm
NB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
t
y
n
n
12
perm
t
SB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems
Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
Phase 1 63
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 8
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak)
- No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1 / 1 5/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:06 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
Gr. Clear, - 8 5
Timings
32.9 sec
Total Green 71
LOS D
Total Dead 9
,Cycle Length 80
Baldwin
Baldwin Overall
32.0 sec
Lane Groups Phase number
22.2 sec 17.2 sec
LOSD
Baldwin 1 2
LOSC LOSC
Shelburne Rd
2.6 sec
Baldwin 1 2
LOS A
Shelburne Rd 1 1
2 1
Shelburne Rd 1 1
2 1
Lanes Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Baldwin LTR 8
22.2
C 22.2 C
Baldwin LTR 8
32.0
D 32.0 D
Shelburne Rd L 63
1.5
A 2.6 A
TR 63
2.6
A
Shelburne Rd L 63
415.9
F 32.9 D
TR 63
1.7
A
Average Intersection Delay
17.2 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
C
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Grou
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
raffic Period: 1991 Design Hour PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB NB SS Adjustments to Base Vol's
Baldwin Shelbume Rd Shelbume Rd Base Year= 1991
TOTAL LT
�i-55
45
9
124 Final Year = 1991
TOTALTH
1
1772
1432 Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL RT
23
1 9 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd4dd dev YIN =
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
151
2
98
0 ime of Day = I M
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD? n
TOTALLT 38
48
10
TOTALTH 2
1
1923
J24
1
TOTAL RT 8
55
26
Total 49
104
1958
1673
%RTOR Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking Buses Nb
Baldwin
0
1
N
0 0
Baldwin
0
1
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Conf Peds/hr
Ped. Button? Min Time Butt
Art Type hf
Baldwin
0
N
0
3 0.85
Baldwin
0
N
0
3 0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.95
Lane Groupings
Baldwin it Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT? Lane Width eft turn
1 /
y
y
y 12 71s-
EB 2
3
Baldwin
11
y
y
y 12 perm
WB 2
31
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n 12 perm
NB
2
n
y
y 12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n 12 perm
SB
2
n
y
y 12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems
Resource Systems Group
Phas
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
Phase 1
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
raffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/14/91
Phase 5
Print Time 4:05 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
31.4 sec
LOS D
Baldwin
Baldwin Overall 33.5 sec
22.2 sec 16.7 sec LOSD
LOS C LOS C
Shelburne Rd
3.1 sec
LOS A
up v. 3.32
een Times
63
8
8 5
Lane Groups
Baldwin
Baldwin
Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
Total Green 71
Total Dead 9
Cycle Len th 80
Phase number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach
LTR a 22.2 C 22.2 C
Baldwin LTR 8 33.5 D 33.5 D
Shelburne Rd L 63 1.5 A 3.1 A
TR 63 3.1 A
Shelburne Rd L 63 415.9 F 31.4 D
TR 63 2.1 A
Average Intersection Delay
16.7 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
C
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
Location:
Shelburne. Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes
EB
we
NB
SB Adjustments to
Base Vol's
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year .
1996
TOTAL LT
38
46
9
124
Final Year -
1996
TOTAL TH
2
1
1940
1 544
Growth/yr -
1.01
TOTAL RT
8
55
24
19
DHV adjust -
1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth -
1.000
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Add dev Y/N =
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ime of Day =
Rvl
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller
actuated
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD?
n
TOTALLT
38
46
9
124
TOTALTH
2
1
1940
1544
TOTAL RT
8
55
24
1 9
Total
48
102
1974
1687
%RTOR
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach
Grade %
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Baldwin
0
1
N
0
0
Baldwin
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Cont Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min
Time Butt
Art Type
Baldwin
0
N
0
3
Baldwin
0
N
0
3
n85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
Lane Groupings
Baldwin
If Lanes N
LT?
TH?
PIT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
1
y
y
y
12 perm
EB 2F
3
Baldwin
1
1
y
y
y
12 perm
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 perm
NB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 perm
SIB
2
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Time
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
Phase 1
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:42 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
31.2 sec
LOS D
Baldwin
Baldwin Overall 32.6 sec
22.2 sec 16.6 sec LOS D
LOS C L OS C
Shelburne Rd
3.2 sec
LOS A
63
8I
Total Green 71
Total Dead 9
Cycle Length 80
Lane Groups Phase number
Baldwin 1 2
Baldwin 1 2
Shelburne Rd 1 1
2 1
Shelburne Rd 1 1
2 1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Baldwin LTR 8 22.2 C 22.2 C
(Baldwin LTR 8 32.6 D 32.6 D
Rd L 63 1.5 A 3.2 A
TR 63 3.2 A
Shelburne Rd L 63 415.9 F 31.2 D
TR 63 2.1 A
Average Intersection Delay
16.6 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
r
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT 38
46
9
124
Final Year = 1996
TOTAL TH 2
1
1940
1544
Growth/yr 1.01
TOTAL PIT 8
55
24
1 9
DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Add dev Y/N =
0
3
1
0
0
0
152
98
1
0
2
0
ime of Day = PM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTALLT 38
49
10
124
TOTALF 2
1
2092
1642
TOTALLT 9
55
26
19
Total 49
105
2129
1785
%RTOR Baldwin
Baldwin Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Baldwin
0
1
N
0
0
Baldwin
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button? Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phi
Baldwin
0
N
0
3
0.85
Baldwin
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
L
N
0
4
0.95
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Baldwin
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn hase
1
1
y
y
y
12 perm
EB 2
3
Baldwin
t
1
y
y
y
12 perm
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 perm
NB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 perm
SB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Baldwin
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Print Date 1/16/91
Print Time 11:43 AM
Shelburne Rd
29.8 sec
LOS D
Baldwin
Baldwin Overall 34.1 sec
22.2 sec 16.5 sec LOS D
LOS C LOS C
Shelburne Rd
4.4 sec
LOS A
fems Group v. 3.32
Phase Green Times
Phase 1
63
Phase 2
8
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear.. 8
5
Timings
Total Green
71
Total Dead
9
Lane Grou1 s Phase
Baldwin 2
Baldwinll
Shelburne Rdl1 ill
1
Shelburne Rd 1 I1
2 1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach
Baldwin LTR 8 22.2 C 22.2 C
I8aldwin LTR 8 34.1 D 34.1 D
Rd L 63 1.5 A 4.4 A
TR 63 4.4 A
Shelburne Rd L 63 415.9 F 29.8 D
TR 63 2.3 A
Average Intersection Delay
16.5 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
C
Unsignalized Four -Way Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM 3.03
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: McIntosh/Larkin Terrace/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Traffic Period: 11991 Design Hour: No Build
Base Volumes
Development
4nalvsis Volumes
12 6 10 18
0 0 1784 1453
6 8 11 15
Adjustments
Speed Limit:
35
of Total TH Lanes:
5
Control Type C:
stop
Control Type D:
stop
Approach Type C:
Itr
Approach Type D:
I t r
A.EB,NB,SB,WB:
1
DHV Adjust:
1
18
13 1806
1485 Base Year:
1991
Analysis Year:
1991
Growth/Year:
1.01
D
Total Growth:
1.000
Add dev?
in
<--- B
A --->
A: ne is EB
pce A:
B:
SB
is WS
pce B:
C:
NB
is NB
pce C:
El
D:
EB
is SB
pce D:
Gap Adjustments
C D
Minor right large radius?
n
n
Population >- 250,000?�
Minor right accel lane?
n
n
Restricted Sight Distance? n
Major excl. FIT lane?
n
n
Large FIT radius into minor?
n
n
Analysis Volumes
Movement: A -left
A-thru A -right
C-left C-thru C-right
Volume: 12
0 6
10 1784 11
pch: 13 ///////// /////////
10 1784 11
Movement: B-left
B-thru B-right
D-left D-thru D-right
Volume: 6
0 8
18 1453 15
pch: 6 ///////// /////////
18 1453 15
Unsignalized Four -Way Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.03
Resource
Systems Group
Intersection: McIntosh/Larkin Terrace/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1991
Design Hour: No Build
Right Turn from: 1H13
Print Date 1/15/91
Conflicting Flow:
3 vph
4 vph Print Tim( 9:16 am
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
5.2 sec
Potential Capacity:
1000 pch
1 000 pch
Capacity Used:
1 %
1
Impedance:
0.99
0.99
Actual Capacity:
1000 pch
1000 pch
Left Turn from: rE
SB
Conflicting Flow:
8 vph
6 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
5.1 sec
Potential Capacity:
1000 pch
1000 pch
Capacity Used:
1 %
1
Impedance:
0.99
1.00
Actual Capacity:
1000 pch
1000 pch
Through from: W8
E13
Conflicting Flow:
28 vph
27 vph
Critical Gap:
6.3 sec
6.3 sec
Potential Capacity:
968 pch
969 pch
Capacity Used:
184 %
150
Impedance:
0.00
0.00
Actual Capacity:
958 pch
959 pch
Left Turn from: M
Conflicting Flow:
1496 vph
1823 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
6.8 sec
Potential Capacity:
96 pch
65 pch
Actual Capacity:
0 pch
0 pch
Reserve Capacity
Level of Service
WB
Left Turn
.1789
#NIA
Through
-1789'
#NIA
Right Turn
-1789'
#NIA
EB
Left Turn
-1480'
#NIA
Through
-1480'
#N/A
Right Turn
1480'
#NIA
N3
Left Turn
987
A -no delays
SB
Left Turn
994
A -no delays
Indicates shared lane
Signalized Intersection Operations Anal sis-Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Mclntosh/L&M Park
Location:
I Shelburne, Vermont
'rallic Period:
1991 Design Hour
PM Peak Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NEI
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
L&M Park
Mclnstosh
Rte 7 NB
Rie 7 SB Base Year. 1991
TOTAL LT 12
6
10
18 Final Year = 1 991
TOTALTH 0
0
1784
1453 Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT 6
8
11
1 5 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth 1.000
L&M Park
Mclnstosh
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB Odd dev YIN =
186
0
154
0
3
1
-31
-26
151
0
0
127 ime of Day = PM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
L&M Park
Mclnstosh
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB CBD? n
TOTALLT 198
6
164
18
TOTALTH 3
1
1753
1427
TOTALRT 156
8
11
142
Total 357
15
1929
1587
q RTOR
L&M Park Mclnstosh
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
25 %
15%
25 %
50
Traffic and
Roadway Conditions
Approach
Grade q
% HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
L&M Park
0
1
N
0
0
Mclnstosh
0
1
N
0
0
Rte 7 NB
0
2
N
0
0
Rte 7 SB
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button? Min Time Butt
Arr Type
hf
L&M Park
0
N
0
3
0.9
Mclnstosh
0
N
0
3
0.9
Rte 7 NB
0
N
0
4
0.95
Rte 7 SB
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
L&M Park
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width elt turn
phase
1
1
y
n
n
12
perm
EB
1
n
y
y
12
3
Mclnstosh
1 I
y
y
y
12
perm
WB 2
31
Rte 7 NB
1
i
y
n
n
12
prof
NB
J3
2
n
y
y
12
Rle 7 SB
1
1
y
n
n
12
prof
SB
2
n
y
n
12
3
1
n
n
y
12
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Mclntosh/L&M Park
Phase 1
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
raffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
Dale 1/14/91
Time 4:27 PM
Rte 7 SB
8.4 sec
LOS B
Mclnstosh
L&M Park Overall 18.9 sec
31.5 sec 12.4 sec LOSC
LOS D LOS B
Rte 7 NB
12.3 sec
LOS B
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
Total Green
Total Dead
Cycle Length
Lane Groups Phase
L&M Park 1 2
2 2
Mclnstosh 1 2
Rle 7 NB 1 3
2 1,8,3
Rte 7 SB 1 4
2 1,8,4
12
10
5
mings
62
18
80
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS
Appr Delay Approach LC
L&M Park
L
12
36.8
D
31.5 D
TR
12
23.2
C
Mclnslosh
LTR
12
18.9
C
18.9 C
File 7 NB
L
10
40.3
E
12.3 B
TR
so
9.8
B
Rte 7 SB
L
5
27.1
D
8.4 B
T
45
8.5
B
R
45
3.9
A
Average Intersection Dek
12.4 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
Unsignalized Four -Way Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM 3.03
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: McIntosh/Larkin Terrace/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour: No Build
EB WB Ida
SB Adjustments
se Volumes L 12 6 11
18 Speed Limit: 35
Th 0 0 1955
1567 # of Total TH Lanes: 5
R 6 8 12
15 Control Type C: stop
Development L
Control Type D: stop
Th
Approach Type C: Itr
R
Approach Type D: fit
nalysis Volumes L 12 6 11
18 A=EB,NB,SB,WB: 1
Th 0 0 1955
1567
R 6 8 12
15 DHV Adjust: 1
18 14 1977
1599 Base Year: 1996
Analysis Year: 1996
Growth/Year: 1.01
D
Total Growth: 1.000
l�
Add dev? n
<--- B
A --->
_^ C r
A: t`8 is EB
pce A: 1.05
B: SB is WB
Pee B: 1.05
C: VJB is NB
pce C: 1
D: F B is SB
pce D: 1
Gap Adjustments
C D
Minor right large radius? n n
Population >= 250.000? y
Minor right accel lane? n n
Restricted Sight Distance? n
Major excl. RT lane? n n
Large RT radius into minor? n n
Analysis Volumes
Movement: A -left A-thru A -right
Cleft C-lhru C-right
Volume: 12 0 6
11 1955 12
pch: 131//////// /////////
11 1955 12
Movement: B-left B-thru B-right
D-left D-thru D-right
Volume: 6 0 8
18 1567 15
pch: 6 ///////// /////////
18 1567 15
Unsignalized Four -Way Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.03
Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
McIntosh/Larkin Terrace/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location:
South Burlington,
Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour:
No Build
Right Turn from:
thB
LB Print Date 1 / 1 6/91
Conflicting Flow:
3 vph
4 vph Print Time 11:24 am
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
5.2 sec
Potential Capacity:
1000 pch
1000 pch
Capacity Used:
1 %
1
Impedance:
0.99
0.99
Actual Capacity:
1000 pch
1000 pch
Left Turn from:
PB
SB
Conflicting Flow:
8 vph
6 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
5 1 sec
Potential Capacity:
1000 pch
1 C00 pch
Capacity Used:
1 %
1
Impedance:
0.99
1.00
Actual Capacity:
1000 pch
1000 pch
Through from:
WB
E13
Conflicting Flow:
29 vph
28 vph
Critical Gap:
6.3 sec
6.3 sec
Potential Capacity:
968 pch
969 pch
Capacity Used:
202 %
162 %
Impedance:
0.00
O.CO
Actual Capacity:
958 pch
959 pch
Left Turn from:
WB
EE3
Conflicting Flow:
1610 vph
1 S^n vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
6.3 sec
Potential Capacity:
82 pch
59 pch
Actual Capacity:
0 pch
0 pch
Reserve Capacity
Level of Service
WB
Left Turn
-1962
MN/A
Through
-1962'
flN/A
Right Turn
-1962'
SN/A
E13
Left Turn
-1594 '
NN!A
Through
-1594'
MN!A
Right Turn
-1 594 '
a N' A
NB
Left Turn
987
A -no d, .: ys
SB
Left Turn
994
A -no delays
Indicates shared lane
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Mclntosh/L&M Park
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Trattic Period:
1996 Design Hour
PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes ES
WB
NB
SB AdJustments to Base Vol's
L&M Park
McIntosh
Ate 7 NB
At 7 SB
Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT 12
6
1 1
1 8
Final Year - 1996
TOTAL TH 0
0
1955
1567
Growth/yr - 1.01
TOTAL AT 6
8
12
151
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
L&M Park
McIntosh
Ate 7 NB
Ate 7 SB Add dev YIN =
187
0
154
0
2
1
-31
-26
150
0
0
12 7
Time of Day = Av1
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
L&M Park
McIntosh
Ate 7 NB
Ate 7 SB
CB( n
TOTAL LT 199
6
165
18
TOTALTH 2
1
1924
1541
TOTAL AT 155
8
12
142
Total 357
15
2100
1701
% RTOR L&M Park
McIntosh
Ate 7 NB
Ate 7 SB
25 %
15%
25%
50
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
L&M Park
0
1
N
0
0
McIntosh
0
1
N
0
0
Ate 7 NB
0
2
N
0
0
Ate 7 SB
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
hf
L&M Park
0
N
0
3
0.9
McIntosh
0
N
0
3
0.9
Ate 7 NB
0
N
0
4
0.95
Ate 7 SB
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
L&M Park
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn hase
1
1
y
n
n
12 perm
EB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
McIntosh
1
1
y
y
y
12 perm
WB 2
3
Ate 7 NB
1
1
y
n
n
12 prot
NB 2
2
n
y
y
12
3
Ate 7 SB
1
1
y
n
n
12 prol
SB 2
2
n
y
n
12
3
1
n
n
Y
12
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/McIntosh/L&M Park
Phase 1
36
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
11
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
10
Phase 4
5
Print Date 1/17/91
Phase 5
Print Time 1:08 PM
Phase 6
Rle 7 SB
9.7 sec
LOS B
McIntosh
L&M Park Overall 19.5 sec
39.0 sec 14.7 sec LOS C
LOS D LOS B
Rle 7 NB
14.9 sec
LOS 8
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
5
Timings
Total Green
62
Total Dead
18
Lane Groups P
L&M Park 1 2
2 2
Mclntosh11 12
Ate 7 NBI1
1,8,3
Ate 7 SB 1 4
2 1,8,4
3 1,8,4
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS
Appr Delay Approach LOS
L&M Park
L
1 1
47.6
E
39.0 D
TR
1 1
25.2
D
McIntosh
LTR
1 1
19.5
C
19.5 C
Ate 7 NB
L
10
40.5
E
14.9 B
TR
51
12.8
B
Ate 7 SB
L
5
27.1
D
9.7 B
T
46
9.9
B
R
46
3.7
A
Average Intersection Delay
14.7 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
8
Unslgnallzed "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 - Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Imperial Drive/Route 7 (Shelburne Road
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1991 PM Peak Design Hour: No Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Analysis Volumes
Speed Limit A/B
35
p of Lanes A/B:
5
Control Type C:
stop
Shared Lanes C.
y
DHV Adjust
1.000
Base Year
1991
Analysis Year
1991
Growth/Year
1.01
Total Growth
1.000
Add dev?
n
sum
Route 7 NB
Route 7 SB
Imperial Drive
Movement:
Volume:
pch:
0 37
is A
is B A -••>
is C
A-thru Aright
1549 29
l//Illlll/ill/l//I
1578 1437 pce? 1.02
Minor right large radius? n
<••• B Minor right accel lane? n
Major excl. FIT lane? n
Large FIT radius into minor? n
C Population >- 250,000? y
Restricted sight distance? n
B-left B-thru C•1011 C•righl
75 1362 7 29
77 l/lllllll 7 30
Right Turn from
Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow:
1563vph
Print Date:1/15/91
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
Print Time: 10:42 am
Capacity (Ml):
183 pch
Reserve Capacity:
bN/A pch
Service Level:
ON/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1578 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
179 pch
Capacity Used:
43
Impedance (P2):
0.66
Reserve Capacity:
102 pch
Service Level:
D-long delays
Left Turn from
Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow:
3001 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
53 pch
Capacity (M3):
35 pch
Reserve Capacity:
MN/A pch
Service Level:
NN/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
100 pch
Reserve Capacity:
63 pch
Service Level:
E-very long delays
Unslgnallzed '-T- Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Imperial Drive/Route 7 (Shelburne Road
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1991 PM Peak Design Hour: Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Analysis Volumes
Speed Limit A
s of Lanes A/B:
Control Type C:
Shared Lanes C.
DHV Adjust
Base Year
Analysis Year
Growth/Year
Total Growth
Add dev?
sum
0 39
1699 1562
pce?
Route 7 NB
is A
Minor right large radius?
Minor right accel lane?
<--- B
Route 7 SB
is B A --->
Major excl. FIT lane?
Imperial Drive
is C
Large RT radius into minor?
C
Population >. 250,000?
Restricted sight distance?
Movement:
A-thru A -right
B-left B-thru
C-lefl C-right
Volume:
1670 29
82 1480
7 32
pch:
//////////////////
83/1///////
7 32
Right Turn from Imperial Drive
35
5
stop
y
1.000
1991
1991
1.01
1,000
y
1.02
n
n
n
n
y
n
Conflicting Flow:
1685 vph Print Date: 111 5/91
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec Print Time: 10:32 am
Capacity (Mt):
150 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
sN/A
Left Turn from Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1699 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
147 pch
Capacity Used:
57
Impedance (P2):
0.52
Reserve Capacity:
63 pch
Service Level:
E-very long delays
Left Turn from Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow:
3246 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
30 pch
Capacity (M3):
16 pch
Reserve Capacity:
aN/A pch
Service Level:
rN/A
(Shared Lane) Capacity (M13):
59 pch
Reserve Capacity:
19 pch
Service Level:
E-verylong delays
Unsignallzed "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource S slams Group
Intersection: Imperial Drive/Route 7 (Shelburne Road
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1996 PM Peak Design Hour: No Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Analysis Volumes
sl
Route 7 NB
Route 7 SB
Imoerial Drive
Movement:
Volume:
pch:
Speed Limit A/
# of Lanes A/B:
Control Type C:
Shared Lanes C.
DHV Adjust
Base Year
Analysis Year
Growth/Year
Total Growth
Add dev?
pce?
Minor right large radius?
s A <••- B Minor right accel lane?
is B A ---> Major excl. RT lane?
is C urge radius into minor?
C Population
lation » 250,000?
Restricted sight distance?
A-thru A -right B-left B-lhru Cleft C•right
1708 31 75 1472 7 29
77/1/////// 1 7 30
Right Turn from
Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow:
1724 vph
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
Capacity (Ml):
141 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1739 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
137 pch
Capacity Used:
56 %
Impedance (P2):
0.53
Reserve Capacity:
60 pch
Service Level:
E-very long delays
Left Turn from
Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow:
3271 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
27 pch
Capacity (M3):
14 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
51 pch
Reserve Capacity:
13 pch
Service Level:
E-very long delays
5
stop
y
1.000
1996
1996
1.01
1.000
n
1.02
n
n
n
n
Print Date: 1/16/91
Print Time: 11:16 am
Unsignallzed "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Imperial Drive/Route 7 (Shelburne Road
Location South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1996 PM Peak Design Hour: Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
T
Dev Volumes
T
Analysis Volumes
T
Speed Limit A/B
35
# of Lanes A/B:
5
Control Type C:
stop
Shared Lanes C.
y
DHV Adjust
1.000
Base Year
1996
Analysis Year
1996
Growth/Year
1.01
Total Growth
1.000
Add dev?
y
sum
0 39
1860 1670
pce?
1.02
Minor right large radius?
n
Route 7 NB
is A
<•-- B
Minor right accel lane?
n
Route 7 SB
is B A --->
Major excl. RT lane?
n
imperial Drive
is C
Large
RT radius into minor?
n
C
Population >= 250,0007
y
Restricted sight distance?
n
Movement:
A-thru A -right
B-left B-thru
C-left C-right
(Volume:
1829 31
82 1589
7 32
pch:
//////////////////
83/////////
7 32
Right Turn from
Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow:
1845 vph
Critical Gap:
5.2 sec
Capacity (Ml):
112 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#NIA pch
Service Level:
#N/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1860 vph
Critical Gap:
5.1 sec
Capacity (M2):
109 pch
Capacity Used:
77 %
Impedance (P2):
0.31
Reserve Capacity:
26 pch
Service Level:
E-very long delays
Left Turn from
Imperial Drive
Conflicting Flow:
3515 vph
Critical Gap:
6.8 sec
Capacity (Mn):
0 pch
Capacity (M3):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#NIA
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
0 pch
Reserve Capacity:
- 4 0 pch
Service Level:
F-extreme delays
Print Date: 1/16/91
Print Time: 11:15 am
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection
Shelburne Rd/Holmes Road/IDX
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Desi n Hour PM Peak - No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB
Adjustments to Base Vol's
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
Base Year .
1991
TOTAL LT
1 25
21
7
53
Final Year .
1991
TOTAL TH
2
1
1270
1 288
Growth/yr
1.01
TOTAL FIT
28
165
20
1 4
DHV adjust .
1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth .
1.000
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB4dd dev Y/N .
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ime of Day =
Rvi
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller
actuated
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
CBD?
n
TOTAL LT
125
21
7
53
TOTAL TH
2
1
1270
1288
TOTALRT
28
165
20
14
Total 156
187
1298
1355
%RTOR Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
25%
50%
25%
25%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Holmes
0
1
N
0
0
IDX
0
1
N
0
0
Rte 7 NB
0
2
N
0
0
Rte 7 SB
0
2
N
0
0
Cont Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Air Type
phi
Holmes
0
N
0
3
0.85
IDX
0
N
0
3
0.85
Rte 7 NB
0
N
0
4
0.95
Rte 7 SB
0
N
0
4
0.95
Lane Groupings
Holmes # Lanes N
LT?
TH?
FIT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
1
y
n
n
12 perm
EB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
IDX
1
1
y
y
n
12 perm
WB 2
1
n
n
y
12
3
Rte 7 NB
1
1
y
n
n
9 perm
NB 21
2
n
y
y
10
3
Rte 7 SB
1
2
y
y
y
15 perm
SB 2
3
4
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Holmes Road/IDX
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Print Date 1/15/91
Print Time 2:17 PM
Rte 7 SB
9.9 sec
LOS B
IDX
Holmes Overall 20.8 sec
39.0 sec 8.6 sec LOSC
LOS D LOS B
Rte 7 NB
2.4 sec
LOSA
ems Group v. 3.32
Phase Green Times
Phase 1 59
Phase 2 12
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 7
n, ri.— - n
Total Green 71
Total Dead 9
Cycle Length —
Lane Groups Phase numbers'
Holmes 1 2
2 2
IDX 1 2
2 2
Rte 7 NB 1 1
2 1
Rte 7 SB 1 1
Lanes
Green Time
Totaf Delay
Group LOS
Appr Delay
Approach LOS
Holmes
L
12
42.9
E
39.0
D
TA
12
19.0
C
IDX
LT
12
19.0
C
20.8
C
R
12
21.2
C
Rte 7 NB
L
59
2.3
A
2.4
A
TR
59
2.5
A
Rte 7 SB
LTR
59
9.9
B
9.9
B
verage Intersection Delay
8.6 seconds
verage Intersection LOS
R
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Holmes Road/IDX
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Holmes
IDX
Rle 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
Base Year -
1991
TOTAL LT
125
21
7
53
Final Year =
1991
TOTALTH
2
1
1270
1288
Growth/yr -
1,01
TOTAL FIT
28
165
20
14
DHV adjust -
1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth -
1.o00
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB Odd dev YIN -
1 0
0
0
5
0
0
99
112
0
13
0
1
ime of Day =
Rv1
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller =
actuated
Holmes
IDX
Rle 7 NB
Rte 7 SB CBD7
n
TOTALLT
135
21
7
57
TOTALTH
2
1
1369
1400
TOTAL FIT
28
178
20
15
Total 165
200
1397
1473
%RTOR Holmes
IDX
Rio 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
25%
501%
25%
25%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Adi
Parking?
Nm Parking Buses Nb
Holmes
0
1
N
0 0
IDX
0
1
N
0 0
Rte 7 NB
0
2
N
0 0
Rio 7 SB
0
2
N
0 0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Art Type Phf
Holmes
0
N
0
3 0.85
IDX
0
N
0
3 0.85
Rte 7 NB
0
N
0
4 0.95
Rte 7 SB
0
N
0
4 0.95
Lane Groupings
Holmes A Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT? Lane Width eft turn ha se
1
1
y
n
n 12 perm
EB 2
1
n
y
y 12
3
IDX
1
1
y
y
n 12 perm
WB 2
1
n
n
y 12
3
Rte 7 NB
1
1
y
n
n 9 perm
NB 2
2
n
y
y 10
3
Rio 7 SB
1
2
y
y
y 15 per
SB 2
1
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems
Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Holmes
Road/IDX
Phase 1 59
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 12
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour
(PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1115/91
Phase 5
Print Time 2:16 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
Rio 7 SB
Timings
38.1 sec
Total Green 71
LOSD
Total Dead 9
C cle Length to
IDX
Holmes
Overall
21.2 sec
Lane Groups Phase number
54.2 sec
22.8 sec
LOSC
Holmes 1 2
LOS E
LOS C
Rio 7 NB
2 2
3.0 sec
IDX 1 2
LOSA
2 2
Rte 7 NB 1 1
2 1
Rte 7 SS 1 1
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Holmes L
12
60.6
F 54.2 E
TR
12
19.0
C
IDX LT
12
19.0
C 21.2 C
R
1 2
21.7
C
Rio 7 NB L
59
2.3
A 3.0 A
TR
59
3.0
A
Rte 7 SB LTR
59
38.1
D 38.1 D
Average Intersection De/a7
22.8 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
C
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Holmes
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour (PM
Peak) - No
-Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
1,B
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Holmes
IDX
Rle 7 NB
Rte 7 SB Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT 30
21
7
52 Final Year a 1996
TOTALTH 2
1
1237
1254 Growth/yr - 1.01
TOTAL FIT 28
162
20
14 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth - 1.000
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB Nod dev YIN = n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ime of Day = PM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller = actuated
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB CBD? n
TOTALLT 30
21
7
52
TOTALTH 2
1
1237
1254
TOTAL RT 28
162
20
14
Total 60
184
1264
1320
% RTOR Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
50%
50%
25%
25%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV Adi
Parking?
Nm Parking Buses Nb
Holmes
0
1
N
0 0
IDX
0
1
N
0 0
Rte 7 NB
0
2
N
0 0
Rte 7 SB
0
2
N
0 0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type hf
Holmes
0
N
0
3 0.85
IDX
0
N
0
3 0.85
Rte 7 NB
0
N
0
4 0.95
Rte 7 SB
0
N
0
4 0.95
Lane Groupings
Holmes
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
FIT? Lane Width eft turn phase
1
1
y
n
n 12 perm
EB 2
1
n
y
y 12
3
IDX
1
1
y
y
n 12 perm
WB 2
1
n
n
y 12
3
Rte 7 NB
1
1
y
n
n 12 prot
NB 2
2
n
y
y 12
3
Rte 7 SB
1
1
y
n
n 12 Prot
SB 2
2
n
y
y 12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems
Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Holmes
Phase 1 39
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 20
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak)
- No -Build
Phase 3 8
Phase 4
Print Date 1116/91
Phase 5
Print Time 12:01 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
Rte 7 SB
Timings
12.4 sec
Total Green 67
LOSB
Total Dead 13
Cycle Length 80
IDX
Holmes
Overall
15.7 sec
Lane Groups Phase number
16.5 sec
11.9 sec
LOSC
Holmes 1 2
LOS C
L OS B
2 2
Rte 7 NB
10.8 sec
IDX 1 2
LOS B
2 2
Rte 7 NB 1 3
2 1
Rie 7 SB 1 3
2 1
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Holmes L
20
17.6
C 16.5 C
TR
20
14.8
B
IDX LT
20
14.8
B 15.7 C
R
20
15.9
C
Rte 7 NB L
8
24.7
C 10.8 B
TR
39
10.7
B
Rte 7 SB L
8
25.8
D 12.4 B
TR
39
11.9
B
Average Intersection Delay
11.9 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection O erations Analysis. Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Holmes
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM
Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SBI Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT 30
21
7
521 Final Year - 1996
TOTAL TH 2
1
1237
12541 Growth/yr - 1.01
TOTAL FIT 28
162
20
1 4 DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth - 1.000
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NS
Rte 7 SB4dd dev Y/N =
10
0
0
5
0
0
99
Ill
�ime
0
1 3
0
1 of D= PM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controlleray - actuated
Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB CBD? n
TOTAL LT 40
21
7
57
TOTALTH 2
1
1336
1365
TOTAL FIT 28
175
20
15
Total 70
197
1363
1437
%RTOR Holmes
IDX
Rte 7 NB
Rte 7 SB
50%
50 %
25 %
25%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade%
%HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking Buses Nb
Holmes
0
1
N
0 0
IDX
0
1
N
0 0
Rte 7 NB
0
2
N
0 0
Rte 7 SB
0
2
N
0 0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type phf
Holmes
0
N
0
3 0.85
IDX
0
N
0
3 0.85
Rte 7 NB
0
N
0
4 0.95
Rte 7 SB
0
N
0
4 0.95
Lane Groupings
Holmes
It Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT? Lane Width eft turn hase
1
1
y
n
n 12 perm
EB 2
1
n
y
y 12
3
IDX
1
1
y
y
n 12 perm
WB 2
1
n
n
y 12
3
Rte 7 NB
1
1
y
n
n 12 prot
NS 2
2
n
y
y 12
3
Rte 7 SB
1
1
y
n
n 12 prof
SB 2
2
n
y
y 12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Holmes
Phase 1 39
Location: Shelburne. Vermont
Phase 2 20
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3 8
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:57 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
Rte 7 SB
Timings
14.4 sec
Total Green 67
LOSB
Total Dead 13
C cle Length 80
IDX
Holmes Overall
15.8 sec
Lane Groups Phase number
16.8 sec 14.1 sec
LOSC
Holmes 1 2
LOS C LOS B
2 2
Rte 7 NB
13.4 sec
IDX 1 2
LOS B
2 2
Rte 7 NB 1 3
2 1
Rte 7 SB 1 3
2 1
Lanes Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Holmes L 20
17.9
C 16.8 C
TR 20
14.8
B
IDX LT 20
14.8
B 15.8 C
R 20
16.0
C
Rte 7 NB L 8
24.7
C 13.4 B
TR 39
13.4
B
Rte 7 SB L 8
26.1
D 14.4 B
TR 39
14.0
B
Average Intersection Delay
14.1 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
B
Signalized Intersection O orations Anal sls-Verslon 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain
Drive/Bartlett
Bay Road
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak
- No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Bart BayRd
Grn Mtn Or
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year - 1991
TOTAL LT 151
76
23
58
Final Year - 1991
TOTAL TH 3
8
1098
1227
Growth/yr - 1.01
TOTAL FIT 32
304
21
94
DHV adjust - 1.00
Development Volumes
Total
Growth = 1.000
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev YIN = n
0
0
0
0
0
00
100
0
0
Time of Day = R0
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT 151
76
23
58
TOTALTH 3
8
1098
1227
TOTAL FIT 32
304
21
94
Total 186
388
1142
1379
% RTOR Bart Bal Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Bart Bay Rd 0
1
N
0
0
Grn Mtn Dr 0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd 0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd 0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
hf
Bart Bay Rd
0
N
0
3
0.9
Grn Mtn Dr
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.98
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.98
Lane Groupings
Bart Bay Rd
# Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Wi777
1
1
y
y
y
EB 2
3
Grn Mtn Dr
1
1
y
y
y
16 perm
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
NB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
SB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain Drive/Bartlett Bay Road
Phase 1 48
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 14
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3 5
Phase 4
Print Date 1/15/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:35 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
Shelburne Rd
Timings
172.9 sec
Total Green
67
LOSF
Total Dead
13
Cycle Length
80
Gm Mtn Dr
Bart Bay Rd
Overall
438.1 sec
Lane Groups
Phase number
2471.5 sec
310.1 sec
LOS F
Bart Bay Rd
1
2
LOS F
LOS F
Shelburne Rd
55.3 sec
Grn Mtn Dr
1
2
LOS E
Shelburne Rdji
1
Shelburne Rd
l 1
2 13
1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOST
Bart Bay Rd LTR 14 2471.5 F 2471.5 F
Grn Mtn Dr LTR 14 438.1 F 438.1 F
Shelburne Rd L 5 27.3 D 55.3 E
TR 48 55.9 E
Rd L 5 32.4 D 172.9 F
TR 48 179.1 F
Intersection Delay
310.1 seconds
Intersection LOS
F
Signalized Intersection
Operations Anal sis-Varsion 3.32-Resource Systems Grou
Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain Drive/Bartlett
Bay Road
Intersection:
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
7
rallic Period:
1991 Design Hour PM Peak
- Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SS Adjustments to Base Vol's
Bart Bay Rd
Gm Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelbume Rd Base Year = 1991
TOTAL LT 151
76
23
58 Final Year = 1991
TOTAL TH 3
8
1098
1227 Growth/yr 1.01
TOTAL FIT 32
304
21
94 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Bart BayRd
Gm Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd add dev Y/N =
10
0
0
0
0
70
A80
0
19
0
ime of Day = PM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Bart BaV Rd
Gm Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd CBD? n
TOTALLT 160
76
23
63
TOTALTH 3
8
1168
1327
TOTAL FIT 32
324
21
102
Total 195
407
1212
1491
% RTOR Bart Bay_Rd
Gm Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parkin Bus::::es Nb
Bart Bay Rd
0
1
N
0 0
Gm Mtn Dr
0
1
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Conl Peds/hr
Ped, Button? Min Time Butt
Art Type phi
Bart Bay Rd
0
N
0
3 0.9
Gm Mtn Dr
0
N
0
3 0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.98
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.98
Lane Groupings
Bart Bay Rd # Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT? Lane Width eft turn phase
1 1
y
y
y 15 perm
EB 2
31
Gm Mtn Dr
1 1
y
y
y 16 perm
WB 2
31
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n 12 prof
NB
1
n
y
y 12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n 12 prot
SB
1
n
y
y 12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v.
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green 1
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain Drive/Bartlett Bay Road
Phase i
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
rallic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) • Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/14/91
Phase 5
Print Time 4:10 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
267.6 sec
LOS F
Gm Mtn Dr
Bart Bay Rd Overall 542.1 sec
2977.9 sec 406.3 sec LOS F
LOS F LOS F
Shelburne Rd
86.5 sec
LOS F
Tote: Green
Total Dead
Cycle Length
Lane Groups Phase n
Bart Bay Rd 1 12
Gm Mtn Dr 1 2
Shelburne Rd 1
2 1
Shelburne Rd 1
2 1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach
Bart Bay Rd LTR 14 2977.9 F 2977.9 F
Mtn Dr LTR 14 542.1 F 542.1 F
(Shelburne Rd L 5 27.3 D 86.5 F
TR 48 87.7 F
Shelburne Rd L 5 34.2 D 267.6 F
TR 48 277.9 F
48
14
5
67
13
80
Average Intersection Delay
406.3 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
F
Signalized Infersecflon O erations Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain
Drive/Bartlett
Bay Road
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour (PM Peak)
- No -Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB
Ad)ustments to Base Vol's
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year - 1996
TOTAL LT 155
76
23
61
Final Year - 1996
TOTAL TH 3
8
1 182
1357
Growth/yr - 1.01
TOTAL FIT 32
312
21
99
DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth - 1.000
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev Y/N . n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Time of Day = F�1
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTALLT 155
76
23
61
TOTALTH 3
8
1182
1357
TOTAL FIT 32
312
21
99
Total 189
396
1226
1518
%, RTOR Bart Ba Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
is
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Bart Bay Rd
0
1
N
0
0
Grn Mtn Dr
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Cont Peds/hr
Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
Pnf
0
N
0
3
0.9
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.98
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.98
Lane Groupings
Bart Bay Rd
tt Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width eft turn phase
1
y
y
y
15 perm
1
EB 2
3
Grn Mtn Dr
1
1
y
y
y
16 perm
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
NB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
SB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain Drive/Bartlett Bay Road
Group v. 3.32
Phase Green Time
Phase 1
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:51 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr Clear. - 8
Shelburne Rd
296.8 sec
LOS F
Grn Mtn Dr
Bart Bay Rd Overall 477.1 sec
2662.4 sec 387.3 sec LOS F
LOS F LOS F
Shelburne Rd
93.8 sec
LOS F
Lane GroL
Bart Bay Rdr
Grn Mtn Dr 11
48l
14
5
Timings
Green 67
Dead 13
Shelburne Rd
lt2 13
1
Shelburne Rd
lt2 I3
1
Lanes
Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS
Appr Delay
Approach
Bay Rd LTR
14
2662.4
F
2662.4
F
Mtn Dr LTR
1 4
477.1
F
477.1
F
(Shelburne Rd L 5 27.3 D 93.8 F
TR 48 95.1 F
Shelburne Rd L 5 33.5 D 296.8 F
TR 48 307.9 F
verage Intersection Delay
387.3 seconds
verage Intersection LOS
F
Signalized Intersection O erations Ana f sls-Version 3.32-Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain Drive/Bartlett
Bay Road
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM Peak
- Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Min Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year = 1996
TOTAL LT 155
76
23
61
Final Year = 1996
TOTAL TH 3
8
1182
1357
Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT 32
31 2
21
99
DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Add dev Y/N =
10
0
0
5
0
0
70
99
0
19
0
8
Time of Day - FM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Bart Bay Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
CBD? n
TOTAL LT 164
76
23
66
TOTALTH 3
8
1251
1456
TOTAL FIT 32
331
21
107
Total 199
415
1295
1629
% RTOR Bart Bal Rd
Grn Mtn Dr
Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
%HV
Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
Bart Bay Rd
0
1
N
0
0
Grn Mtn Dr
0
1
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr
Ped. Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type
phi
Bart Bay Rd
0
N
0
3
0.9
Grn Mtn Dr
0
N
0
3
0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.98
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4
0.98
Lane Groupings
Bart Bay Rd
If Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width It turn hase
1
t
y
y
y
15 perm
EB 2
3
Grn Mtn Dr
1
y
y
y
16 perm
1
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
n
n
12 prof
NB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
Shelburne Rd
1
t
y
n
n
12 prof
SB 2
1
n
y
y
12
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems
Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Green Mountain Drive/Bartlett
Bay Road
Phase 1
48
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2
14
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
5
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16/91
Phase 5
Print Time 11:54 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
Shelburne Rd
Timings
430.2 sec
Total Green
67
LOS F
Total Dead
1 3
C cle Length
80
Grn Mtn Dr
Bart Bay Rd Overall 586.7 sec
Lane GroUPS
Phase
number
3193.0 sec 507.0 sec LOS F
Bart Bay Rd
1
2
LOS F LOS F
Shelburne Rd
136.1 sec
Grn Mtn Dr
1
2
LOS F
Shelburne Rd11
1
Shelburne Rdlt
2 1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOST
Bart Bay Rd LTR 1 4 3193.0 F 3193.0 F
Mtn Dr LTR
1 4
586.7
F 566.7 F
Iburne Rd L
5
27.3
D 136.1 F
TR
48
138.1
F
Iburne Rd L
5
35.7
D 430.2 F
TR
48
446.9
F
Average Intersection Delay
507.0 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
F
Unslgnalized "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysts vMM3.02 — Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Harbor View Road/Roule 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1991 PM Peak Design Hour: No Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Volumes
Speed Limit A/B
# of Lanes A/B:
Control Type C:
Shared Lanes C?
DHV Adjust
Base Year
Analysis Year
Growth/Year
Total Growth
Add dev?
sum
0 67
1124 1393
pce?
Minor right large radius?
ite 7 NB
is A
<--- B
Minor right accel lane?
ne 7 SB
is B A --->
Major excl. RT lane?
bor View
is C
F_____[arge FIT radius into minor?
C
Population >a 250.000?
Restricted sight distance?
/ement:
A-thru A -right
B-left B-ihru
C-left C-right
ume:
1101 23
28 1365
13 54
29/////////
13 55
Right Turn from
Harbor View
Conflicting Flow:
1 112 vph
Critical Gap:
5.4 sec
Capacity (Ml):
344 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1124 vph
Critical Gap:
4.7 sec
Capacity (M2):
413 pch
Capacity Used:
7
Impedance (P2):
0.95
Reserve Capacity:
384 pch
j
Service Level:
B-short delays
Left Turn from
Harbor View
Conflicting Flow:
2506 vph
Critical Gap:
6.6 sec
Capacity (Mn):
61 pch
Capacity (M3):
58 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
aN/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
177 pch
Reserve Capacity:
109 pch
Service Level:
D-lonq delays
40
2
slop
y
1.000
1991
1991
1.01
1.000
n
1.02
n
n
y
Print Date: 1 /1 5/91
Print Time: 10:46 am
Unslgnalized "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 — Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Harbor View Road/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1991 PM Peak Design Hour: Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Volumes
Speed Limit A/B
a of Lanes AB:
Control Type C:
Shared Lanes C?
DHV Adjust
Base Year
Analysis Year
Growth/Year
Total Growth
Add dev?
sum
0 70
1190 1493
pce?
Route 7 NB
is A
<••- B
Minor right large radius?
Minor right accel lane?
Route 7 SB
is B A --->
Major excl. FIT lane?
Harbor View
is C
� large radius into minor?
—i
C I
Population
lation >= 250,000?
Restricted sight distance?
Movement:
A-lhru Aright
B-left B-thru
Cleft C-right
Volume:
1167 23
30 1463
13 57
och:
//////////////////
31 /////////
13 59
Right Turn from
Harbor View
Conflicting Flow:
1179 vph
Critical Gap:
5.4 sec
Capacity (Ml):
316 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1190 vph
Critical Gap:
4.7 sec
Capacity (M2):
384 pch
Capacity Used:
8
Impedance (P2):
0.94
Reserve Capacity:
353 pch
Service Level:
B-short delays
Left Turn from
Harbor View
Conflicting Flow:
2672 vph
Critical Gap:
6.6 sec
Capacity (1,1n):
62 pch
Capacity (M3):
59 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
#N/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (M13):
175 pch
Reserve Capacity:
103 pch
Service Level:
D-long delays
40
2
stop
y
1.000
1991
1991
1.01
1.000
y
1.02
n
n
y
Print Date: 1/15/91
Print Time: 10:45 am
Unsignallzed "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Harbor View Road/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1996 PM Peak Design Hour: Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Analysis Volumes
51
Route 7 NB
Route 7 SB
Harbor View
Movement:
Volume:
pch:
Speed Limit A/B
40
p of Lanes A/B:
2
Control Type C:
stop
Shared Lanes C.
y
DHV Adjust
1.000
Base Year
1996
Analysis Year
1996
Growth/Year
1.01
Total Growth
1.000
Add dev?
y
pce?
1.05
Minor right large radius?
n
s A
<--- B
Minor right accel lane?
n
is B A --->
is C
large
Major excl. FIT lane?
FITradius into minor?
n
n
C I
Population
lation >= 250,000?
y
Restricted sight distance?
n
A-thru A -right
B-left 8-thru
C-left C-right
1250 23
32 1598
13 59
33 /////////
14 62
Right Turn from
Harbor View
Conflicting Flow:
1261 vph
Critical Gap:
5.4 sec
Capacity (Ml):
283 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
SN/A
Left Turn from
Route 7 S8
Conflicting Flow:
1 273 vph
Critical Gap:
4.7 sec
Capacity (M2):
351 pch
Capacity Used:
10
Impedance (P2):
0.93
Reserve Capacity:
317 pch
Service Level:
B-short delays
Left Turn from
Harbor View
Conflicting Flow:
2891 vph
Critical Gap:
6.6 sec
Capacity (Mn):
58 pch
Capacity (M3):
54 pch
Reserve Capacity:
#N/A pch
Service Level:
NN/A
(Shared Lane)
Capacity (10113):
161 pch
Reserve Capacity:
86 pch
Service Level:
E-verylong de
Print Date: 1116/91
Print Time: 10:45 am
Unsignallzed "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Harbor View Road/Route 7 (Shelburne Road)
Location: South Burlington, Vermont
Analysis Period: 1996 PM Peak Design Hour: No Build
Adjustments
Base Volumes
Dev Volumes
Analysis Volumes
Speed Limit A/
e of Lanes A/B:
Control Type C:
Shared Lanes C.
DHV Adjust
Base Year
Analysis Year
Growth/Year
Total Growth
Add dev?
sum 0 68
1206 1531
pce?
Minor right large radius?
Route 7 NB
is A
<--- B
Minor right accel lane?
Route 7 SB
is B A --->
Major excl. RT lane?
Harbor View
is C
�arge
radius into minor?
C
lation >= 250.000?
Population
Restricted sight distance?
Movement:
A-thru A -right
B-left B-thru
C-left C-right
Volume:
1183 23
30 1501
13 55
pch:
//////////////////
31/////////
14 58
Right Turn from Harbor View
40
2
stop
y
1.000
1996
1996
1.01
1.000
n
1.05
n
n
y
Conflicting Flow:
1195 vph Print Date: 1 /16/91
Critical Gap:
5.4 sec Print Time: 10:43 am
Capacity (Ml):
309 pch
Reserve Capacity:
MN/A pch
Service Level:
MN/A
Left Turn from Route 7 SB
Conflicting Flow:
1206 vph
Critical Gap:
4.7 sec
Capacity (M2):
377 pch
Capacity Used:
8
Impedance (P2):
0.94
Reserve Capacity:
346 pch
Service Level:
B-short delays
Left Turn from Harbor View
Conflicting Flow:
2725 vph
Critical Gap:
6.6 sec
Capacity (Mn):
62 pch
Capacity (M3):
58 pch
Reserve Capacity:
pN/A pch
Service Level:
RNIA
(Shared Lane) Capacity (M13):
171 pch
Reserve Capacity:
99 pch
Service Level:
E-very long _delays
Signalized In.
Intersection
Location
Traffic Period
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
Base Year -
1991
TOTAL LT
0 210
0
97
Final Year .
1991
TOTAL TH
0 0
1000
1266
Growth/yr -
1.01
TOTAL RT
0 81
92
0
DHV adjust =
1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth .
1.000
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd 1dd dev YIN =
n
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
ime of Oay
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller
actuated
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD?
n
TOTAL LT
0 210
0
97
TOTALTH
0 0
1000
1266
TOTAL FIT
0 81
92
0
Total
0 291
1092
1362
%RTOR Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15% 15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach
Allen Rd
Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
Allen Rd
Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
Grade %
%HV Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking
Buses Nb
0
1 N
0
0
0
1 N
0
0
0
2 N
0
0
0
2 N
0
0
Conf Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Art Type
phi
0
N 0
3
0.85
0
N 0
3
0.85
0
N 0
4
0.975
0
N 0
4
0.975
Lane Groupings
9 Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT?
Lane Width It turn
hase
1
EB 2
3
Allen Rd
1 1
y
n
y
14
prot
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
n
y
y
12
perm
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
y
n
16
perm
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Allen Road
Phase 1 62
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 9
Traffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak)
• No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/15/91
Phase 5
Print Time 10:52 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr Clear. .8 5
Shelburne Rd
Timings
205.4 sec
Total Green 71
LOS F
Total Dead 9
Cycle Length 80
Allen Rd
Overall
1032.7 sec
Lane Groups Phase number
224.6 sec
LOS F
LOS F
Shelburne Rd
9.8 sec
Allen Rd 1 2
LOS B
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Lanes Green Time
Total Delay
Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Allen Rd LR 9
1032.7
F 1032.7 F
Shelburne Rd TR 62
9.8
B 9.8 B
Shelburne Rd LT 62
205.4
F 205.4 F
Average intersection Delay
224.6 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
F
Signalized Intersection Operations Analysis. Version 3.32-Resource Systems Grou
Intersection:
Shelbume Rd/Allen Road
Local ion:
I Shelburne, Vermont
'rabic Period:
1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
w8
NB
SS Adjustments to Base Vol's
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rdl Base Year = 1991
TOTAL LT 0
210
0
97 Final Year = 1991
TOTAL TH 0
0
1000
1266 Growth/yr 1.01
TOTAL FIT 0
81
92
0 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth 1.000
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd %dd dev Y/N =
0
0
0
7
0
0
61
91
0
5
0
0 !me DayPM
Total Analysis Volumes
tr
Controller = actuated
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD? n
TOTALLT 0
210
0
104
TOTALTH 0
0
1062
1357
TOTAL RT 0
86
92
0
Total 0
296
1153
1460
%RTOR
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV Ad' Parking?
Nm Parking Buses Nb
0
1
N
0 0
Allen Rd
0
1
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Conf Peds/hr Ped. Button? Min Time Butt
Arr Type phi
0
N
0
3 0.85
Allen Rd 0
N
0
3 0.85
Shelburne Rd 0
N
0
4 0.975
Shelburne Rd 0
N
0
4 0.975
Lane Groupings
p Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT? Lane Width etI turn Vhase
1
EB 2
31
Allen Rd
11
y
n
y 14 prot
WB 2
31
Shelburne Rd
11
n
y
y 12 perm
NB 2
31
Shelburne Rd
11 1
y
y
n 16 perm
SB 2
3►
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems
Group V. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Phase 1
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Allen Road
Location: Shelbume, Vermont
Phase 2
raffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/14/91
Phase 5
Print Time 3:56 PM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8
Shelburne Rd
Ti
473.9 sec.
Total Green
LOS F
Total Deed
Cycle Length
Allen Rd
Overall 1101.8 sec Lane Groups
Phase n
363.8 sec LOS F
LOS F
Shelburne Rd
1
2
14.5 sec Allen Rd
LOS 6
Shelburne Rdll 11
Shelburne Rdli 11
621 9
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOSS
Allen Rd LR 9
Rd TR 62
1101.8 F 1101.8
14.5
Shelburne Rd LT 62 473.9
F
B 14.5 B
F 473.9 F
verage Intersection Delay
363.8 seconds
verage Intersection LOS
F
Signalized lnfersectlon O eraflons Analysis- Version 3.32-Resource Systems Grou
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Allen Road
location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Desi n Hour
PM Peak - No
-Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB AdJustmente to Bess Vol's
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Base Year = 1996
TOTAL LT 0
221
0
106 Final Year = 1996
TOTAL TH 0
0
1075
1392 Growth/yr = 1.01
TOTAL FIT 0
87
96
0 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth = 1.000
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Ndd dev Y/N = n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ime of Day
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD? n
TOTALLT 0
221
0
106
TOTALTH 0
1
0
1075
1392
TOTAL FIT 0
87
96
0
Total 0
308
1172
1498
k RTOR
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd
Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking Buses Nb
0
1
N
0 0
Allen Rd 0
1
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd 0
2
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd 0
2
N
0 0
Conf Pedsrhr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Tr Toe phf
0
N
0
3 0.85
Allen Rd
0
N
0
3 0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.975
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.975
Lane Groupings
A Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT? Lane Width eft turn hase
1
EB 2
3
Allen Rd
1
i
y
n
y 14 prot
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
n
y
y 12 perm
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
y
n 16 perm
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.32
Resource Systems Group
Phase Green Times
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Allen Road
Phase 1 62
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Phase 2 9
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build
Phase 3
Phase 4
Print Date 1/16191
Phase 5
Print Time 11:32 AM
Phase 6
Phase 7
Shelburne Rd
618.4 sec
LOS F
Allen Rd
Overall 1284.0 sec
459.8 see LOS F
LOS F
Shelburne Rd
16.6 sec
LOS C
Gr. Clear. - 8
5
Timings
Total Green
71
Total Dead
9
Cycle Length
80
Lane Groups
Phase number
Allen Rd 1 2
Shelburne Rd 1 1
Shelburne Rd 1 it
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOSS
Rd LR 9 1284.0 F 1284.0 F
IShelburne Rd TR 62 16.6 C 16.6 C
Shelburne Rd LT 62 618.4 F 618.4 F
Average Intersection Delay
459.8 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
F
Signalized Intersection O erat/ons Analysis- Version 3.32•Resource Systems Group
Intersection:
Shelburne Rd/Allen
Road
Location:
Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period:
1996 Design Hour PM Peak - Build
Base Traffic Volumes EB
WB
NB
SB Adjustments to Base Vol's
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd Base Year . 1996
TOTAL LT 0
221
0
106 Final Year = 1996
TOTALTH 0
0
1075
1392 Growth/yr 1.01
TOTAL FIT 0
87
96
0 DHV adjust = 1.00
Development Volumes
Total Growth 1.000
Allen Rd Shelburne
Rd Shelburne Rd1dd dev YIN =
0
0
0
7
0
0
61
90
0
5
0
0 ime of Day = FM
Total Analysis Volumes
Controller actuated
actuated
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd CBD? n
TOTALLT 0
221
0
113
TOTALTH 0
0
1137
1482
TOTAL FIT 0
92
96
0
Total 0
313
1233
1595
RTOR
Allen Rd Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd
15%
15%
Traffic and Roadway Conditions
Approach Grade %
% HV Ad'
Parking?
Nm Parking Buses Nb
0
1
N
0 0
Allen Rd
0
1
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Shelburne Rd
0
2
N
0 0
Cont Peds/hr Ped.
Button?Min Time Butt
Arr Type phf
0
N
0
3 0.85
Allen Rd
0
N
0
3 0.85
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.975
Shelburne Rd
0
N
0
4 0.975
Lane Groupings
11 Lanes N
LT?
TH?
RT? Lane Width eft turn hase
1
EB 2
3
Allen Rd
1
1
y
n
y 14 prof
WB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
n
y
y 12 perm
NB 2
3
Shelburne Rd
1
1
y
y
n 16 perm
SB 2
3
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1986
Resource Systems Group
Intersection: Shelburne Rd/Allen Road
Location: Shelburne, Vermont
Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build
Print Date 1 / 1 619 1
Print Time 11:35 AM
Shelburne Rd
1378.5 sec
LOS F
Allen Rd
Overall
1363.6 sec
855.3 sec
LOS F
L OS F
Shelburne Rd
34.0 sec
LOS D
rrce Systems
Group v. 3.32
Phase Green Times
Phase 1 62
Phase 2 9
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 7
Gr. Clear. - 8 5
Timings
Total Green 71
Total Dead 9
C cle Length 80
Lane Groups
Phase number
Allen Rd
:4
1
2
Shelburne Rd11 11
Shelburne Rd11 I1
Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS
Allen Rd LR
Shelburne Rd TR
Shelburne Rd LT
9 1363.6
F
1363.6 F
62 34.0
D
34.0 D
62 1378.5
F 1378.5 F
Average Intersection Delay
855.3 seconds
Average Intersection LOS
F
APPENDIX 6
Intersection Signal Timing and Phasings
RESOURCE
SYSTEMS
GROUP
RAMP C/SHEILBURNE ROAD
Shelburne
Road
11 ,
ltamP C Scenario: Phase 1 2 Lost Cycle
1991 No Build
21
50
9
80
1991 Build
21
50
9
80
SWIFT STREET/RAMP F/SHELBURNE ROAD
Phase 1
Ramp F
Swift Street
Phase 2
Phase 3
Scenario: Phase 1 2 3 Lost Cvcle
1991 No Build
14
41
12
13
80
1991 Build
14
41
12
13
80
1996 No Build
14
41
12
13
80
1996 Build
14
41
12
13
80
Clearance
Clearance
Clearance
RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP
Norwich, Vermont
RAMP G/SHELBURNE ROAD
Shelburne
Road
11 Scenario: Phase ] 2 Lost Cycle
- -�
Ramp G
,
1�1
,
Phase 1 Clearance
b
o
cz
c
{r
Ramp G
s
Phase 2 Clearance
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
......................
........ ............
.....................
........ ............
a,.
RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP
Norwich, Vermont
1991 No Build
15
56
9
80
1991I3uild
15
56
)
80
1996 No Build
15
56
9
80
199613ui1d
15
56
9
80
BREWER PARKWAY/K-INIART/SHELBURNE ROAD
Scenario: Phase 1 2 3 4 Lost Cvcle
1991 No Build
5
32
13
12
18
80
1991 Build
5
32
13
12
18
80
1996 No Build
5
32
13
12
18
80
1996 Build
1 5
1 32
13
12
18
1 80
Phase 1 Clearance
K-Mart
oBrewer
= Parkway
u
Phase 2 Clearance
Phase 3 Clearance
7 t F-
Phase 4 Clearance
--1
RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP
Norwich, Vermont
BALDWIN/SHELBURNE ROAD
Shelburne
Road
�I
Baldwin Scenario: Phase 7 2 Lost Cycle
South
�� I
Phase 1 Clearance
Chrysler
Baldwin
Clearance
RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP
Norwich, Vermont
Phase 2\y
tiT
1991 No Build
H
63
9
80
1991 Build
H
63
9
80
1996 No Build
8
63
9
80
MCINI'OSH/L&M PARK/SIIELBURNE ROAD
Scenario: Phase 1 2 3 4 Lost Cvcle
1991 No Build
5
35
10
12
18
80
1991 Build
5
35
10
12
18
80
1996 No Build
5
35
10
12
18
80
1996 Build
5
1 35 1
10
12
1 18
1 80
Phase 1 Clearance
L&M Park
c rh
o
Phase 2 Clearance
Phase 3 Clearance
7 t [_ I F
Phase 4 Clcarancc
RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP
Norwich, Vermont
Shelburne
Road
Holmes
Road
I IOLMi S ROAD/Sl1ELBURNE ROAD
1991 Scenarios
lDX Scenario: Phase
1 2 Lost Cvcle
1991 No Build
12
59
9
80
1991 Build
12
59
9
80
Phase 1 Clearance
Holmes
4
IDX
Phase 2 Clearance
RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP
Norwich, Vermont
HOLMES ROAD/IDX/SIIELBURNE ROAD
1996 Scenarios
Scenario: Phase
1 2 3 Lost Cycle
1996 No Build
20
39
8
13
80
1996 Build
20
39
8
13
80
Phase 1 Clearance
Holmes
c M IDX
= o
V)
Phase 2 Clearance
Phase 3
Clearance
RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP
Norwich, Vermont
GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE/SIIELBURNE ROAD
Scenario: Phase 1 2 3 Lost Cycle
1991 No Build 1/1
48
5
13
80
1991 Build
14
48
5
13
80
1996 No Build
14
48
5
13
80
1996 Build
14
48
5
13
80
ALIEN ROAD/SI-IELBURNE ROAD
Shelburne
Road
Scenario: Phase 1 2 Lost Cycle
1991 No Build
9
62
9
80
1991 Build
9
62
9
80
1996 No Build
9
62
9
80
ACT 250 NOTICE
APPLICATION AND HEARING
10 V.S.A., SEC. 6083-6088
Application #4CO877 was filed on March 18, 1991 by Gerald
Milot, P.O. Box 4193, Burlington, Vermont 05402; John
Larkin, 410 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403
and James Fayette, 1930 Shelburne Road, Shelburne, Vermont
05482 for a project described as the construction of a
planned commercial/residential development, to be known as
L & M Park, on 32.73 acres (10+/- acres for the commercial
site and 22+/- acres for the residential site) with
associated roadways, to be served by municipal sewer and
water services, located off Shelburne Road in South
Burlington, Vermont. The proposed residential multi -family
development will consist of 150 units in 7 separate
buildings with a community building, outdoor tennis courts,
swimming pool and maintenance shop. The proposed
commercial development will consist of a 60,000 square foot
office building and a 40,000 square foot retail building,
to be located between the existing Vermont National Bank and
the 40 unit Larkin Terrace Hotel.
This project will be evaluated in accordance with the 10
environmental criteria of 10 V.S.A.,,6086(a). Statutory
parties to this application_are.the.:municipality of
South Burlington, the South Burlington Planning Commission,
the Chittenden County Regonal.Planning Commission, affected
State agencies and any adjacent:Vermont municipality and -
planning commission. Adjoining property -owners may
participate to the extent that the -proposal will have a -
direct effect on the ir..-:property �under-;the 10 criteria.-
Other persons may partici.pate.at„the�discretion of the!
District Commission. If you,wish;,to participate, please
contact -the Coordinator for'::further information before -,the
first hearing or date specified below.
Copies of.the application and plans for this project are
available for inspection by members of the public during
regular working.hours at the -South Burlington Municipal
Offices, the Chittenden-County°Regional Planning Commission,
and the District #4 Environment al.Office.
A public hearing is scheduled for May 2, 1991 at 6:00 p.m.
at the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
Office, 66 Pearl Street, Essex Junction, Vermont. A site
visit is scheduled for 5:00 p.m.
Anyone intending to participate in this hearing must attend
a prehearing conference on April 16, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. at
the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Office.
Dated at Essex Junction, Vermo thi / day of
April, 1991.
By
Louis Borie Y
District #4 Coordinator
111 West Street, Essex Jct. VT
4CO877/eb #879-6563
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I, Louis Borie, District #4 Coordinator of
the Environmental Board, sent a copy of the foregoing ACT 250
NOTICE APP�.,ICATION & HEARING #4C0877 by U. S. Mail, postage paid,
on this i day of April, 1991 to the following:
Gerald Milot
P. O. Box 4193
Burlington, VT 05402
John Larkin
410 Shelburne Road
So. Burlington, VT 05403
James Fayette
1930 Shelburne Road
Shelburne, VT 05482
Margaret Picard, City Clerk
Chairperson, Board of Selectmen
Chairperson, City Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
John Steele, Engineer
Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Inc..
One 'Wentworth Drive
Williston, VT 05495
Chittenden County Regional Plann ng,commission
P. O. Box 108
Essex Jct., VT 05453
Kurt Janson, Land Use Attorney
Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main Street, 2 Center
Waterbury, VT 05676
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
District #4 Environmental Commission:
John Collins
Lynn Whalen
Patricia Tivnan
111 West Street
Essex Jct., VT 05452
William Hall, Environmental Advisor
Thomas Myers, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Brian Chipman, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
ANR, 111 West Street
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Gaylord Hoisington, Dist. Conservationist
Soils Conservation Service
12 Marketplace, Unit 9
Essex Jct., VT 05452
Page 2
Certificate of Service
#4C0877
Tom Bushey, Chairman N.R.C.D.
41 Pond Road
Shelburne, VT 05482
Burlington Free Press
Attn: Classified Ad Section
191 College Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Stuart Slote, Energy Engineer
Department of Public Service
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620
Works In Progress
P. O. Box 1528
Burlington, VT 05402
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS
Ernest Pomerleau & Richard Bushnell
Pomerleau Real Estate Company:
69 College Street
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Jeff Savoie
So. Burlington.Chrysler-Plymouth Inc.-
1095 Shelburne Road.
So. Burlington, VT 05403.
Tom Johnson.
VT National. Bank
P. O. Box 804, 100 Main Street
Brattleboro, VT 05301
Thomas Farrell
25 Hedgerow Drive
Shelburne, VT 05482
Sterns Jenkins, P.E.
Transportation Railway Administrator
133 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05633
Mary Santor, Branch Manager
VT National Bank
117 Shelburne Road
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Dated at Essex Jct., VT, this ' — day of April, 1991.
BY: 4ot"
Louis Borie �jy�1
District #4 oordinator
4C0877/#2
STATE OF VERMONT
AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION
133 State Street, Administration Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
April 9-'1991
Mr. Gerald Milot
Milot Real Estate
Post Office Box 4193
Burlington, Vermont 05406-4193
Re�/ L & M Park
9+80
Dear Mr. Milot,
We have completed a review of your latest traffic study and
plan, for the above referenced project, and offer the following
comments.
Traffic Study
1. Your consultant's traffic volumes for Ramp C of I-189
for 1991 and 1996 are between 50% and 60% lower than our esti-
mates. As a result, the Level of Service drops from B to C. We
consider C to be acceptable.
2 . At 4%,--2'.e Brewer Par],way/K-MMart/ US 7 intersection the
consultant assumes 50% right turn on red for the K-Mart approach.
Because of the high US 7 volumes, we do not agree with this
reduction. However, by deleting the reduction, Level of Service
C can be maintained, which is acceptable.
3. For the unsignalized intersection analysis of the McIn-
tosh Drive/Larkin Terrace/US 7 intersection, it appears that the
consultant has reversed the volumes on the major and minor ap-
proaches making the Level of Service estimates for the minor
approach much worse and vice versa for a major approach.
4. It appears that Warrant #11, Peak Hour Volume, will
definitely be met with the addition of project traffic. As
always, traffic volumes will have to be monitored to determine
when there are sufficient volumes to warrant signal installation.
Vermont is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Gerald Milot
Milot Real Estate
April 9, 1991
Page Two
Site Plan
1. In general, the site plan provided does not have suffi-
cient detail for an in depth review.
2. The southbound taper into the right turn lane must be
100 feet minimum.
3. Until the volumes are agreed to, there is no way of
determining if storage lengths are proper.
4. We recommend -installing all signal heads on the span
wire to avoid trenching side streets.
5. Final design of the signal requires fitting it into the
11 signal progression along Shelburne Road (same cycle length,
appropriate offsets, etc.). The alternative would be for you to
redesign timing and coordination for all the other signals.
Information concerning existing timing can be obtained from
our Traffic & Safety Division, contact Lynn Alden at 828-2695.
If you have any questions, please call me at 828-2653.
Sincerely,
cLc'�
Donald L. Allen
Project Supervisor
Utilities Section
DLA/mw
cc: Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc.
John Larkin, Larkin Realty
City of South Burlington
Lewis Borie, District Environmental Coordinator 4
Lucy Gibson, RSG