Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BATCH - Supplemental - 0097 Spear Street
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 December 8, 2003 Linda Seavey Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application #SD-03-72 Dear Ms. Seavey: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on 12/2/03 (effective 12/5/03). Please note the conditions of approval, including that the applicant shall submit a final plat application within 12 months of this decision or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Encl. AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WATER QUALITY DIVISION 103 SOUTH MAIN STREET WATERBURY, VERMONT 05671-0408 NOTICE: DRAFT DISCHARGE PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: February 24, 2011 — March 25, 2011 PERMITTEE INFORMATION PERMITTEE NAMES AND ADDRESSES: University of Vermont Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street South Burlington, VT 05405 PERMIT NUMBER: PROJECT ID NUMBER: DISCHARGE INFORMATION NATURE: Treated stormwater VOLUME: As necessary 3753-INDS.A1 EJ74-0001 RECEIVING WATER: Englesby Brook. Catamount Student Housing, LLC 210 College Street, Suite 201 Burlington, VT 05401 EXPIRATION DATE: Five years from issuance date of final permit DESCRIPTION: This is a draft discharge permit proposed for issuance to the University of Vermont for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the Redstone Lofts (On -Campus Independent Student Housing) project, the Track & Athletics Master Plan project, and the Simpson Hall expansion project located on the University of Vermont campus in Burlington, Vermont and South Burlington, Vermont to Englesby Brook. The means of treatment includes a micropool extended detention pond and grass channels. Stormwater Discharge Permit 37S3-INDS.A1 will amend and replace previously authorized Stormwater Discharge Permit 3753-INDS.A for the University of Vermont Catamount Apartments project, the Track & Athletics Master Plan project, and the Simpson Hall expansion project. This permit amendment incorporates a modified project design for the previously permitted Catamount Apartments project (not constructed), and now proposes the Redstone Lofts Oxi-Campus Independent Student Housing) project in its place. The amended permit results in no change to the Previously authorized Track & Athletics Master Plan project and no change to the previously authorized Simpson Hall expansion project. 2 TENTATIVE DETERMINATIONS Tentative determinations regarding effluent limitations and other conditions to be imposed on the pending Vermont permit have been made by the State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VANR). The limitations imposed will assure that the Vermont Water Quality Standards and applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, PL 92-500, as amended, will be met. FURTHER INFORMATION The complete application, proposed permit, and other information are on file and may be inspected at the VANR, Waterbury Office. Copies, obtained by calling (802) 241-3777, will be made at a cost based upon the current Secretary of State Official Fee Schedule for Copying Public Records from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. PUBLIC COMMENTS/PUBLIC HEARINGS Written public comments on the proposed permit are invited and must be received on or before the close of business day (7:45 am - 4:30 pm) March 25, 2011, by the Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division, Building 10 North, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 or send via email to Stormwater@state.vt.us. If sending by mail, the permit number should appear next to the VANR address on the envelope and on the first page of any submitted comments. If sending by e-mail, the permit number should appear on the subject line. All comments received by the above date will be considered in formulation of the final determinations. During the notice period, any person may submit a written request to this office for a public hearing to consider the proposed permit. The request must state the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons why a hearing is warranted. A hearing will be held if there is a significant public interest (including the filing of requests or petitions for such hearing) in holding such a hearing. RIGHTS TO APPEAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL COURT At the conclusion of the public notice period and after consideration of additional information received during the public notice period, the VANR will make a final determination to issue or to deny the permit. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The appellant must attach to the Notice of Appeal the entry fee of $250.00, payable to the state of Vermont. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Court; and must be signed by the appellant or their attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For further information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available on line at www.vermontiudiciga.org. The address for the Environmental Court is 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1, Barre, VT 05641 (Tel. # 802-828-1660). David K. Mears, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT LJ Banknorth 111 Main Street Vermont Date of Issue: May 26, 2004 Burlington, VT 05401 Letter of Credit Number 11101104 BENEFICIARY City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 CUSTOMER University of Vermont and State Agricultural College 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Sir/Madam: Banknorth, N.A., hereby establishes its Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 111001104 in your favor for the account of the Customer University of Vermont State Agricultural College, in the amount of Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($67,500.00) (the "Stated Amount"). We hereby irrevocably authorize you to draw upon us, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, by sight draft, an amount not to exceed the Stated Amount. Any number of partial draws are permitted hereunder, up to the Stated Amount. Signed drafts must be accompanied by the affidavit of the Beneficiary certifying that the Customer failed to pay billings in the amount drawn and a letter advising Bank of uncured notice of violation. Notice of violation. Copies of all such billings must accompany the draft. The Stated Amount shall be permanently reduced by all drafts honored by the Bank hereunder. The effective date of this Letter of Credit shall be 12:01 a.m. local time on May 26, 2004. This Letter of Credit shall expire at 12:01 a.m. local time on June 30, 2008. Demand for payment under this Letter of Credit may be made prior to its expiration at any time during the Bank's business hours, on a day on which the Bank's main office is open to the public for the purpose of carrying on substantially all of its banking functions (a "Business Day"). Any demand for payment and all other communications to the Bank relative to this Letter of Credit shall be in writing and addressed and presented to Commercial Loan Administration Manager, Banknorth, N.A., P. O. Box 1334, 2300 St. George Rd., Williston, VT 05495 (the "Bank Location") and shall make specific reference to this Letter of Credit by number and identification of the Customer. If demand for payment is made and presented by you hereunder at or before 12:00 p.m. local time at the Bank Location on a Business Day, and provided that such demand for payment conforms to the terms and conditions hereof, payment of the amount demanded shall be made to you in immediately available funds on or before the close of business on the third Business Day UVM1110114-Financial Letter A division of Banknorth, N.A. after the Business Day on which demand for payment and presentation of all necessary documents is made. If demand for payment is made and presented by you hereunder after 12:00 p.m. local time at the Bank Location on a Business Day, and provided that such demand for payment conforms to the terms and conditions hereof, payment shall be made to you of the amount demanded in immediately available funds on or before the close of business of the fourth Business Day following the Business Day on which demand for payment and presentation of all necessary documents is made. Drafts drawn hereunder must be marked "Drawn under Banknorth, N.A., Letter of Credit No. 11101104 dated May 26, 2004. We engage with you that the draft(s) drawn hereunder and in compliance with the terms of this credit will be duly honored by us upon delivery of documents specified, if presented at the Bank Location at or before 12:01 a.m. local time, on June 30, 2008. Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, this Letter of Credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision), International Chamber of Commerce Publication Number 500, and any subsequent revisions thereof approved by the International Chamber of Commerce (the "Uniform Customs"). This Letter of Credit shall, as to matters not governed by the Uniform Customs and as to the obligations of Banknorth, N.A., upon presentation of a sight draft, be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Vermont. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full the terms of our undertaking and this undertaking shall not in any way be amended or amplified by reference to any document, instrument or agreement referred to herein (except the Uniform Customs) or in which this Letter of Credit is referred to or to which this Letter of Credit relates and any such reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by reference any such document, instrument or agreement. This Letter of Credit is not transferable or assignable. Sincerely, Banknorth, N.A. By: H. Ellery Per inson Its: Vice President UVM1110114-Financial Letter SITE PLAN LETTER OF CREDIT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is executed in triplicate by and among the UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE (hereinafter referred to as "UVM"), the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON (hereinafter referred to as "MUNICIPALITY"), and BANKNORTH, N.A. (hereinafter referred to as "BANK"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, UVM has received site plan approval from the MUNICIPALITY'S Development Review Board for the development of the Gutterson Parking Garage located off Spear Street in South Burlington, Vermont, as depicted on a site plan entitled "Parking Structure Site Plan C4", revised 12/12/03, prepared by SAS, CEA, Barr & Barr, and Desman Associates. WHEREAS, UVM is required by said approval, at its own expense, to complete certain improvements; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement wish to establish a Letter of Credit to secure the obligations of UVM as set forth in the MUNICIPALITY'S approval; and WHEREAS, the BANK executes this Agreement solely in the capacity of Letter of Credit provider. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. UVM will, at its own expense, complete the approved landscaping described in Final Plat Application #SD03-81 in accordance with the specifications set forth in said site plan and related documents, subject to the terms and conditions of South Burlington Development Review Board approval dated January 26, 2004. 2. UVM shall complete the improvements set forth in Paragraph I no later than June 30, 2005. 3. UVM shall replace or repair any defective or improper work or materials which may be recognized within three (3) years after completion of the improvements set forth in Paragraph 1. For the purpose of this Agreement, "completion" shall be deemed to have occurred when the MUNICIPALITY has inspected and approved the construction of all the improvements required by this Agreement and issued written notice to UVM that the construction is complete. 4. For the guarantee of UVM'S performance of all requirements hereunder set forth, UVM has caused the BANK to issue its Irrevocable Letter of Credit in favor of the MUNICIPALITY, the original of which is attached to the MUNICIPALITY's copy of this Agreement, and a copy of which is attached to UVM's copy of this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, UVM shall cause the attached Letter of Credit to be renewed at least thirty (30) days before the maturity date thereof. Failure of UVM to deliver evidence of such renewal to the MUNICIPALITY thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration of said Letter of Credit shall constitute a default of the terms of this Agreement. 5. Said Irrevocable Letter of Credit provides that the drafts drawn under said credit must be accompanied by a written statement signed by a duly authorized agent of the MUNICIPALITY, that in the judgement of the MUNICIPALITY, UVM is in default under the terms of this Agreement, and that the funds to be drawn by the draft are in payment for, or in anticipation of payment for materials, labor and services required for completion of the improvements identified in Paragraph 1. Payment of each draft will be made at sight when presented to the BANK by the MUNICIPALITY, the payment limited only by the aggregate amounts presented in relationship to the maximum amount of the Letter of Credit. If UVM shall be in default of the Agreement for seven (7) days because of its failure to provide evidence of renewal of the Letter of Credit, required in paragraph 4 above, the MUNICIPALITY shall notify UVM by certified mail of said default. UVM shall then within three (3) business days provide the MUNICIPALITY with evidence of said renewal of the Letter of Credit or the MUNICIPALITY may notify the BANK of such default and request payment under said Letter of Credit. 6. UVM and the MUNICIPALITY hereby agree that the sum of Sixty -Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($67,500.00) shall be sufficient to secure UVM's obligations under this Agreement but shall not relieve UVM from the obligation to pay any additional costs, if actual costs exceed the above -stated cost. 7. The MUNICIPALITY will promptly submit to UVM a copy of any draft it submits to the BANK. The consent of UVM to payment of said draft by the BANK to the MUNICIPALITY under said Letter of Credit shall not be required. 8. The MUNICIPALITY shall not file with the BANK a Statement of Default until ten (10) days after notice has been sent to UVM, by certified mail, setting forth its intention to do so. 9. All funds drawn on the BANK by the MUNICIPALITY pursuant to the Letter of Credit shall be used solely by the MUNICIPALITY for the purpose of completing construction of the improvements identified in Paragraph 1. Any work contracted for by the MUNICIPALITY pursuant hereto shall be let on a contractual basis, or on a time and material basis, or shall be performed by the MUNICIPALITY's own work force and equipment, or shall be accomplished in such other manner as in the judgement of the MUNICIPALITY shall accomplish the work more expeditiously and economically. 10. If payments are drawn on the BANK by the MUNICIPALITY pursuant to said Letter of Credit, and it shall later develop that a portion of the monies drawn are in excess of the MUNICIPALITY's needs, any such excess amount shall be refunded by the MUNICIPALITY to the BANK, to be credited by said BANK to UVM. 11. This Agreement and said Letter of Credit shall terminate and shall be of no force and effect upon completion of the three-year warranty period as described in the above Paragraph 3. If the MUNICIPALITY has not delivered any written notice to UVM of any defective or improper work or materials in the construction of the improvements within the thirty-six (36) month period, or if notice has been given and the defective work or materials have been corrected by UVM, the MUNICIPALITY shall forthwith notify the BANK in writing that the Letter of Credit may be canceled, and shall return the original Letter of Credit to the BANK, and both UVM and the BANK shall be released from all obligations hereunder and under said Letter of Credit. 12. Upon request of UVM, but only at the sole discretion of the MUNICIPALITY, the MUNICIPALITY may agree to reduce the amount of said Letter of Credit required hereunder if the MUNICIPALITY believes that the full amount of said Letter of Credit is no longer necessary to protect its interest, and shall notify the BANK in writing of such reduction in the amount of the Letter of Credit. 13. The BANK may not modify the Letter of Credit without first receiving written consent of the MUNICIPALITY. 14. UVM hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the BANK harmless from all claims, causes of action or liability of any kind arising out of this Agreement or the issuance by BANK of this Letter of Credit, including attorney's fees, as long as the BANK follows the terms and conditions outlined in said Letter of Credit. Dated at , Vermont, this day of dett,, 2004. IN THE PRESENCE OF: L� LZ&a Witness UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE 1ZCU TURAL COLLEGE Bw is duly authorized agent Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this � day of , 2004. IZTHE;SENCE OF: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: Wi ness Its duly authorized agent Dated at _S0&%t-1Cz.-"" , Vermont, this 24a— day of M P l 2004. IN THE PRESENCE OF: BANKNORTH, N.A. By. �ess Its duly auto zed 4agent r Witness 0 I 0 r4�o � State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conervation State Geologist RELAY SERVICES FOR HEARING IMPAIRED 1-800-253-0191 TDD>VoicE 1-800-253-0195 VOICE>TDD April 8, 2004 University of Vermont 109 South Prospect Street Burlington VT 05401 AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Wastewater Management Division Essex Regional Office 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Telephone: (802) 879-5656 RE: WW-4-2097, UVM PARKING GARAGE; Construct a new 3 level parking garage, Spear Street at UVM internal Davis Rd in the City of Burlington & South Burlington, Vermont. Dear Applicant: We received your completed application for the above referenced project on April 6, 2004, including a fee of $37.00 paid by check 4017454. Under the performance standards for this program, we have a maximum of 30 days of "in-house" time to review your application. If we require further information from you to make a decision, the time until we receive it is not included in the in-house performance standards. If you have any questions about the review process, or if you have not received a decision on your application within the 30 in-house days, please contact this office. We have forwarded the information contained in _your application to the Information Specialist for this region. A Project Review Sheet will be sent to you indicating other state agencies and departments you should contact regarding additional permits or approvals you may need under their programs. If you have not already done so, you should also check with town officials about any necessary town permits. For the Division of Wastewater Management Ernestine Chevner Regional Office Coordinator cc: City of Burlington City of South Burlington Civil Engineering Associates Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Rutland/Springfield/St. Johnsbury The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES March 15, 2004 Raymond J. Belair City of South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Gutterson Parking Garage — Final Plat Plan for Recording Dear Ray: Enclosed for recording in the City of South Burlington Land Records is an 18"x24" mylar of the University of Vermont's Final Plat Plan (C4 dated 12/28/01) and an 18"x24" mylar of the survey plat dated June 25, 2003. Also enclosed is a University check for the recording fees in the amount of $22.00. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Linda Seavey, Director Campus Planning Services LS/dv Enclosures Guttersonfinalplatrecordingfee. doc 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Telephone (802) 656-3208, Fax (802) 656-8895 Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Aaion Lmploycr A TRANSMITTAL UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Campus Planning Services Linda Seavey, Director 109 South Prospect Street (Ir Burlington, VT 05405-0016 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX E-Mail: linda.seavey@uvm.edu TO: Ray Belair, South Burlington Planning & Zoning RE: Gutterson Parking Garage WE ARE SENDING YOU: # Pages Dated Description 2 1/27/04 SL-1 Revised Photometrics THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: ✓ For your approval ❑ For review and comment ❑ Per your request ❑ For your use/information ❑ For return REMARKS DATE: 02/26/04 Per Condition 3.a. —The lighting plan shall be revised to indicate the average illumination on the site and shall be in compliance with Appendix A.9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and Condition 3.b.—The lighting plan shall be revised to indicate the indirect illumination levels on the exterior of the property line, which shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2004 Mr. Belair said most developments in the city have some pedestrian connection. Staff is anticipating a development to the north with up to 12 more homes and that project would abut the Orchard neighborhood which is where Orchard School is. The access may eventually provide a way for children to get to the school. Mr. Dinklage cited other paths in the city and noted that had improved conditions for the neighborhoods. Members felt the public hearing should be closed so they can deliberate on this issue. Mr. Kupferman moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Bolton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Belair noted the Board has 45 days in which to make a decision. 4. Public Hearing: Final Plat Application #SD-03-81 of the University of Vermont for a planned unit development consisting of the construction of a 254,100 GFA three -level parking garage (176,400 GFA in South Burlington) to accommodate 1315 parking spaces, 97 Spear Street: Mr. Penniman noted there had been a question of coverage. He said coverage is at 3 8% which is the current condition as well as the coverage after the project. This is 8% over the allowable. He wasn't sure if a waiver was needed for this. Mr. Dinklage noted it is the Board's practice to try to bring things closer to conformity. Mr. Penniman said there is also a question of height. Measuring from the average preconstruction grade brings the height under the maximum allowed. UVM is comfortable with revising the lighting levels. Mr. Penniman said they had thought it made more sense to calculate this from where people will be walking. UVM is also comfortable with Roger Dickinson's letter regarding traffic. Mr. Penniman said it is clear that the project will pull trips out of South Burlington because of the one- way circulation. He showed how this will be signed and enforced. Exiting traffic will be forced to Main Street. The traffic study also indicates that no intersections degrade to less than a "D" level of service. Mr. Dinklage asked the applicant to commit to building what they have shown. Mr. Penniman made that commitment. sm DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2004 Mr. Penniman noted that UVM had a meeting with neighbors and the City Manager last week. The main issue is traffic calming on that part of Spear St. A plan was worked out with neighbors regarding striped crosswalks. UVM is committed to participate in the design and building of those crosswalks. The three crosswalks would be at Quarry Hill, just south of the south drive (where the pedestrian/bikeway is), and on the south side of the northerly entrance drive. Mr. Penniman requested a change in the wording of Stipulation 3d to give UVM time for designing the crosswalks and meeting with neighbors. Stipulation 3d was amended to include the phrase "prior to permit issuance." Mr. Bolton said he would like UVM to work with neighbors on sidewalk issues as well. Ms. Quest asked when the crosswalks would go in. Mr. Penniman said they want to file the plat as soon as possible, so they would put the crosswalks in this season. Ms. Kupersmith said she was concerned with the substantial change in the setback. Mr. Penniman noted it is going to be 60 ft. from the property line, 90 ft. from the center line of Spear St. Ms. Kupersmith was concerned with the impact of this on the neighbors. Mr. Towsley said he lives between the 2 entrances and the trade-off for him that is most important is the reduction in traffic. Mr. Boucher then moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-03-81 of The University of Vermont subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Mr. Bolton seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Miscellaneous application #MS-03-05 of James Carris to encroach into a Class II wetland buffer with a single-family dwelling, 7 Beechwood Lane: Mr. Carris noted he has moved the location of the house which is now not in compliance with the setback. He noted he will own the adjacent property. It was noted that acquiring an adjacent parcel that doesn't meet lot size requirements will result in the two properties being merged. Mr. Belair noted that the DRB can allow a smaller side yard setback. If they move it to 5 ft., they won't have to come back to the Board. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 26, 2004 Linda Seavey Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 Re: Final Subdivision Plat Application #SIB-03-81 Dear Ms. Seavey: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board on January 20, 2004 (effective 1/26/04). Please note the conditions of approval, including that the final plat plans shall be recorded in the South Burlington Land Records within 90 days of this decision (submitted by 4/30/04) or this approval is null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Encl. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD \DRB\sub\uvm\gutterson\final. doe DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 13, 2004 Plans received: December 18, 2003 UVM GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-03-81 Agenda #4 Meeting date: January 20, 2004 Owner/Applicant Architect University of Vermont Smith, Alverez, Sienkiewycz Architects c/o Linda Seavey, Campus Planning Services 117 Saint Paul Street 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Burlington, VT 05405 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc 928 Falls Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Location Map Property Information Tax Parcel 1810-00000-N & 1810-00799-N Volume 3, Page 165 IA-N District ±14.43 acres (in South Burlinaton) • 4 � 1 C O to p Patrick 3 Gymnasium m t t M i �1! fR _ A.�iApproximate LocationV of.Varking Garage Gutterson Ftell� � �9 ` air 1 +,r,•aR1'-! +"fie'.. .. t' f� • •pj P CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\qutterson\final.doc The University of Vermont, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting final plat plan approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a proposed 254,100 sq. ft. parking garage, 176,400 sq. ft. of which falls within the City of South Burlington. The subject property contains approximately 14.43 acres located in South Burlington. The South Burlington portions of the property are located in the Institutional and Agricultural -North (IA-N) District. The Development Review Board (DRB) granted preliminary plat approval for this project on December 2, 2003 (minutes attached). •l. aiW.1 Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 18, 2003 and have the following comments. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Table 1. Dimensional Requirements IA-N Zoning District Required Proposed �l Min. Lot Size 10 acres ±14.43 acres Max. Building Coverage 20% 10.31 % Max. Overall Coverage 40% 38.57% * Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 38.07% ♦ Min. Front Setback 75 ft.-- 60 ft. Min. Side Setback 50 ft. >50 ft. Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. > 50 ft. �l Max. Building Height 35 ft. 34 ft. l zoning compliance ♦ waiver required pursuant to Section 15.02(A)(3) of the Land Development Regulations 4 preexisting noncompliance Setbacks Pursuant to Table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations, all structures in the IA-N District require a 75 ft. front yard setback. The front yard setback of the proposed project is approximately 60 ft., which is not in compliance with the Land Development Regulations. However, pursuant to Section 15.02(A)(3), in conjunction with PUD review, the Development Review Board may allow a new structure up to 5 ft. from any property line. Thus, the Development Review Board may approve this setback encroachment for the proposed project. Front Yard Coverage Section 3.06(H) of the Land Development Regulations prohibits more than 30% of the front setback CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\gutterson\final.doc from being used for driveways and parking, and the balance shall be landscaped. Furthermore, a continuous landscaped strip of 15 ft. in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right-of-way and the balance of the lot. The applicant has stated that the front yard coverage, which is currently 38.07%, will not change as a result of the proposed project. The applicant has received permission from the City Council to use the City's right-of-way along Spear Street for landscaping, but it shall not count towards coverage requirements. Height Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Land Development Regulations, no point of the parking structure shall rise more than 35 ft. above the average preconstruction grade. Staff notes that this standard applies to the portions of the parking structure falling within the City of South Burlington. The applicant submitted a building elevation plan which indicates that the height of the proposed parking structure will be 34 ft., measured from the average pre -construction grade of the site (393') to the top of the lighting fixtures (427'). Traffic For a PUD application, Section 15.12(E)(1) of the Land Development Regulations establishes level of service measures rather than traffic generation measures as limiters to the proposed development. According to Section 15.12(E)(1) of the Land Development Regulations, the nearest signalized intersection, or those intersections specified by the DRB , must maintain a level of service of "D" or better at the peak hour, including the anticipated impact of the proposed development. It is unclear what the current level of service is or what level of service would result from the development of the proposed parking facility. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc. The original traffic study is dated December 2001, but the study was updated in May 2003. On April 1, 2003, during the sketch plan review stage of this project, the DRB passed a motion to invoke technical review of the applicant's traffic study. The City contracted Lamoureux and Dickinson to perform the technical review. Roger Dickinson, of Lamoureux and Dickinson, worked with Resource Systems Group, Inc. throughout the process of developing the traffic study. Roger Dickinson reviewed the traffic study for UVM and provided his comments to Resource Systems Group, Inc. in a memorandum dated November 26, 2003. Resource Systems Group, Inc. responded to Roger Dickinson's concerns in a memorandum dated January 12, 2004 (attached). Roger then provided his final comments on the traffic study in a memorandum dated January 16, 2004 (attached). I. The final plans shall be revised to incorporate the improvements recommended by the Resource System Group, Inc.'s traffic study and Roger Dickinson's technical review of the traffic study, prior to recording of the final plat plans. Institutional & Agricultural District Section 7.01(F)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires properties in the IA-N District west of Spear Street and north of Quarry Hill Road to maintain an undeveloped area for a minimum of 65 ft. between the boundary of an adjacent residential district and any new non-residential CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\qutterson\final. doc structure. The plans show that the proposed parking structure will be approximately 95 ft. from the zoning district boundary, which occurs at the center of the Spear Street right-of-way. However, the DRB may require landscaping or other suitable screening in accordance with Section 3.06 to ensure adequate buffering of non-residential uses from residential uses. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sidewalks & Recreation Paths Section 15.13(M)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires sidewalks and/or recreation paths on both sides of arterial streets at locations to be determined by the DRB. The plans indicate no sidewalk or recreation path exists on either side of Spear Street in the vicinity of the Gutterson parking facility. The applicant has not proposed any sidewalk or recreation path. Staff does not recommend a sidewalk be constructed along Spear Street as part of the proposed project. Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations requires that the PUD meet the standards of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. The City Engineer reviewed and approved the final stormwater plans for the proposed project. 2. Stormwater drainage plans must demonstrate compliance with the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, pursuant to Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. As already indicated water and wastewater services are not proposed. The applicant has submitted a letter from the City of Burlington's Public Works Department stating that the City of Burlington has sufficient water and wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project (attached). Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. Sheets C10 and C11 of the plans contain the applicant's erosion control plan and associated details. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and did not raise any issues with the erosion control plans or details. 3. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc. The original traffic study is dated December 2001, but the study was updated in May 2003. On April 1, 2003, during the sketch plan review stage of this project, the DRB passed a motion to invoke CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\gutterson\fi nal. doc technical review of the applicant's traffic study. The City contracted Lamoureux and Dickinson to perform the technical review. Roger Dickinson, of Lamoureux and Dickinson, worked with Resource Systems Group, Inc. throughout the process of developing the traffic study. Roger Dickinson reviewed the traffic study for UVM and provided his comments to Resource Systems Group, Inc. in a memorandum dated November 26, 2003. Resource Systems Group, Inc. responded to Roger Dickinson's concerns in a memorandum dated January 12, 2004. Roger then provided his final comments on the traffic study in a memorandum dated January 16, 2004. The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. No wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features are present on the site. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Section 7.01(A) of the Land Development Regulations indicates that university -related uses should be integrated "into the City's overall land use pattern through the use of appropriate site planning techniques that promote a beneficial pattern of access, circulation, landscaping, and pedestrian connections between University properties and adjacent neighborhoods." The proposed project meets this standard. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The portions of the site currently covered by the parking lot will be covered by the new parking lot and the proposed parking structure. Some green space within the existing parking lot will be eliminated for the construction of the parking structure. However, open space areas on other portions of the subject property will not be affected. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this requirement is being met. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Fire Chief Doug Brent has indicated that the City of Burlington Fire Department has jurisdiction for emergency response to the subject property. The applicant has submitted a letter from the City of Burlington's Fire Department indicating they have jurisdiction over the proposed structure (attached). Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Stormwater details have been approved by the City Engineer. Landscaping is proposed within the Spear Street right-of-way to screen the parking structure. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Burlington Electric Department stating that the City of Burlington will provide the necessary electrical services to the proposed project (attached). The applicant submitted a lighting point by point plan, which is contained on Sheet SL-1 of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\qutterson\final.doc plans. Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. The lighting plan does not indicate the average illumination at ground level on the site. Staff notes that the area that the proposed lighting plan covers is sufficient for the proposed project. However, the average illumination at ground level must be calculated to ensure it is in compliance with the Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations. 4. The lighting plan shall be revised to indicate the average illumination on the site and shall be in compliance with Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations. The revised lighting plan shall be approved by the Administrative Officer, prior to recording of the final plat plans. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. The lighting plan describes the indirect illumination levels in relation to the "Spear Street corridor, edge of pavement." However, the lighting plans must be revised to indicate the indirect illumination levels in relation to the property line. The illumination levels at ground level on the exterior of the property line shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candies. 5. The lighting plan shall be revised to indicate the indirect illumination levels on the exterior of the property line, which shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles. The revised lighting plan shall be approved by the Administrative Officer, prior to recording of the final plat plans. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The parking area lighting plan must comply with Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan and exterior lighting details for the proposed project, which are in compliance with Appendix D of the Land Development Regulations (attached). The height of poles for the proposed lighting for the parking area is 19' 9" and the height of the poles for the proposed lighting for the pedestrian areas is 12' 0". Both of the proposed heights are in compliance with Section 13.07(B) of the Land Development Regulations. 6. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). In general, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City pursue partnerships to explore the implementation of transportation management techniques as mitigation to potential negative traffic impacts resulting from proposed development. Staff feels that the potential traffic management techniques that arise as a result of the applicant's traffic study's recommendations and the recommendations of the technical review of that traffic study will work towards accomplishing this goal. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\qutterson\final.doc SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed parking facility is part of a much larger site, which includes the University of Vermont athletic complex, student housing, and administrative offices, with existing pedestrian pathways, roadways, landscaping, and parking facilities. Most of the site falls within the City of Burlington. The proposed parking garage would be the only structure within the City of South Burlington on the subject parcel of land. The applicant has indicated that the parking facility would add an additional 550 parking spaces for the site. Staff feels the proposed structure accomplishes a reasonable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure, as the existing buildings on the site are all large. The applicant received permission from the City Council to utilize the Spear Street right-of-way, so adequate planting area is being provided. The plans depict a network of sidewalks extending from the proposed structure to facilitate pedestrian movement. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. The site is already extensively developed and the new parking facility is proposed to be built over existing parking lot along the Spear Street frontage. Staff believes that this is acceptable. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The height of the proposed parking structure will be 34 ft., measured from the average pre - construction grade of the site (393') to the top of the lighting fixtures (427'). Staff feels the proposed parking structure is compatible with the scale and height of the existing buildings on the site, which are all UVM buildings. The proposed structure is not compatible with the existing single-family dwellings on the opposite side of Spear Street, but sufficient landscaping is proposed to mitigate the visual impacts from the proposed structure. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff has already noted that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. It appears that the proposed project will incorporate a diversity of design elements that will offer attractive transitions between the massive brick facade of the adjoining PFG Complex and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 1DRB\sub\uvm\autterson\final.doc parking garage, including brick columns on the parking structure and a mix of deciduous and conifer tree species surrounding the parking facility. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed parking structure takes advantage of the sloped grade of the site to minimize the size of the structure and integrate it with the terrain. In addition, the applicant proposes regrading the easterly tier of exterior parking below existing grade to prevent vehicle headlights from shining onto adjacent residential properties. Again, landscaping and the columnar structure of the parking garage offer an attractive visual alternative to the massive brick fapade of the athletic complex. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The subject site is part of a much larger site containing multiple university offices and facilities. The existing Spear Street curb cuts will be retained. In addition, the applicant will be upgrading University Heights to provide access onto Main Street in Burlington. Interior connections to Prospect Street in Burlington will also be provided. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already indicated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). No solid waste facilities are shown. Staff suggests that the parking structure include small solid waste disposal receptacles in that vicinity of interior staircases and/or pedestrian exits. Dumpster sized solid waste containers are not necessary for the proposed parking facilities. Parking Section 13.01(G)(1) of the Land Development Regulations establishes design requirements for parking spaces. Design guidelines for parking structures are further detailed in Design Guidelines for Parking Structures, dated March 1997. Internal aisles appear to be between 18 and 24 ft. wide. Some parking spaces appear to be at a 70 degree angle to internal aisles. Other spaces appear to be at a 90 degree angle to internal aisles. Stall dimensions are 8.5 ft. wide by 18 ft. deep. This does not comply with the dimensional requirements outlined in Table 13-8 of the Land Development Regulations. However, during the sketch plan review of this project the DRB stated that 8.5' wide parking spaces were acceptable within the proposed parking structure, but that the spaces CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\gutterson\final.doc surrounding the proposed structure need to be 9' wide. However, during the preliminary plat approval of the project, the DRB approved the existing spaces on the exterior of the proposed structure at 8.5' wide. Thus, the DRB has approved all of the spaces relating to the subject project at 8.5' wide. One of the conditions of preliminary approval was that the applicant shall submit a document with the final plat application that describes how the proposed parking facility complies with the standards set forth in the South Burlington Design Guidelines for Parking Structures dated March 1997. Any discrepancies shall be identified and defended in this document, so that the DRB can make an informed decision. The applicant has responded to this condition stating that "the proposed project complies with all applicable guidelines per the South Burlington Design Guidelines for Parking Structures dated March 1997. Staff feels this is sufficient for approval. Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. The plans depict four (4) bicycle parking facilities on each level of the proposed structure. Pursuant to Section 13.01(1) of the Land Development Regulations, 2% of the spaces within the proposed parking facility must be handicapped -accessible and comply with ADA Accessibility Guidelines. The proposed project contains a total of 1,312 parking spaces (765 existing and 550 new), so a total of 27 handicapped -accessible parking spaces shall be provided. Furthermore, one in every eight handicapped -accessible spaces must be van -accessible and signed "van - accessible". The applicant has referred to the University of Vermont "South Campus Master Plan" to fulfill this requirement. On this plan, forty-seven (47) handicapped -accessible parking spaces are depicted, eight (8) of which are van -accessible. Staff notes that Section 13.01(M) of the Land Development Regulations gives the DRB authority to require design elements for parking structures that specifically address safety, security, lighting, landscaping, and visual aesthetics as conditions for approval. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping, and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review, and street tree plantings shall be required for all public streets in a PUD. Landscaping plans are provided on Sheet L-1 of the plans. Section 13.06(B) requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. This Section does not apply to the project because the parking area surrounding the proposed structure is existing. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(4), snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans contain a note that states "snow to be removed and stored at the UVM stormwater treatment facility." Section 13.06(C) of the Land Development Regulations requires landscaping and/or screening whenever two adjacent uses are dissimilar. Furthermore, Section 13.06(C)(3) requires landscaping to be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from parking areas. The adjacent residential uses necessitate such screening along the Spear Street right-of-way. Staff notes that the proposed landscape screening is entirely within the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \DRB\sub\uvm\gutterson\final.doc Spear Street right-of-way. At its meeting on September 15, 2003 the City Council granted the applicant permission to utilize the City's Spear Street right-of-way for landscaping to meet the requirements of Section 13.06(C) of the Land Development Regulations (minutes attached). Staff notes that this approval is solely for the purposes of landscaping and is not to count towards the applicant's coverage requirements for the property. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. Required costs are based on construction costs. Pursuant to Table 13-9 of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed project will require a minimum of $67,500 of landscaping. A landscape budget has been incorporated into the planting schedule on sheet L-1 of the plans. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately $106,400 of landscaping. 7. The applicant shall post a landscape bond for $67, 500, prior to the issuance of the first zoning permit. This bond shall remain in effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of surviving. The City Arborist has approved the most recent landscaping plans and provided comments in a letter dated November 24, 2003 (attached). Other The City Engineer reviewed the plans. His comments, dated January 8, 2004, are attached. 8. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict all property lines, prior to recording of the final plat plans. 9. The plans shall be revised to depict three (3) crosswalks across Spear Street. The design and location of these crosswalks shall be approved by the Director of Public Works, prior to recording of the final plat plans. Staff recommends that the South Burlington DRB approve Final Plat Application #SD-03-81, conditional upon the applicant addressing the numbered items in the "Comments" Section of this report. Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: Linda Seavey, Director of Campus Planning Services Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 14 Morse Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 Tel (802) 878-4450 Fax (802) 878-3135 Email: mail@LDengineering January 16, 2004 Juli Beth Hoover, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Juli Beth, Jody Carriere, P.E. Roger Dickinson, P.E., PTOE Patricia Coburn, P.E. Gail Henderson -King, ASLA Jason Dattilio, L.S. Len Lamoureux, P.E., L.S. Doug Goulette, P.E. Andrew Rowe, P.E. Doug Henson, L.S. Brian Tremback, CPSSc As requested, we have completed our review of the traffic impact analyses prepared by Resource Systems Group (RSG) for The University of Vermont's South Campus Master Plan. The focus of our review was specifically the proposed Gutterson Parking Garage, which is presently being reviewed by the DRB. The documents reviewed by our office include the May 2003 Draft Traffic Impact Study, RSG's October 24`h Memorandum to Susan Smichenko of the CCMPO., and most recently, a Memorandum dated January 12, 2004 from RSG. Comments and concerns from our initial review of the May 2003 Draft Traffic Impact Study were outlined in a Memorandum from our office dated November 26, 2003. Subsequent to that Memorandum, it was also requested that RSG respond to the City Engineer's concern about a left -turn lane being warranted on Spear St. at the Gutterson North Access. The following outlines our conclusions and recommendations relative to the projected traffic impacts of the proposed Gutterson Parking Garage. • Access Alternative #2 actually reduces future turning movements at the Spear Street/Gutterson North intersection. A total of 198 peak hour trip ends are removed from entering and exiting Gutterson and the new parking garage Qanuary 12`h Memorandum, Table 2). Access Alternative #2 also improves future levels of service at the Spear Street/Gutterson North intersection from F to D (May 2003 Traffic Study, Table 11), and will avoid the possible need to install traffic signals at this location. In response to our concern about lane utilization on Main St. and Williston Road, additional analyses were performed at the Main/Spear intersection. The results of those are outlined in the January 12`h Memorandum. We are satisfied with that, however note that the same problem also exists at the Williston Rd./Sheraton/Staples intersection just to the east. Although the overall level of service at the Sheraton intersection is projected to remain at D, we note that the eastbound approach is now projected to operate at level of service F Qanuary 12`h Civil • Transportation • Planning• Landscape Architecture • Soils • Wetlands • Surveying Juh Beth Hoover, AICP January 16, 2004 Page 2 Memorandum, Table 1) vs. D in the original May 2003 study (Table 10). Most of this change is due to the additional eastbound Fletcher Allen traffic which had been omitted in the original analyses at this intersection. It is our opinion that factoring in actual lane utilization characteristics on this eastbound approach would show that it is already operating at F. With respect to the left -turn lane warrants and installing a left -turn lane on Spear Street at the Gutterson North intersection, we concur with RSG's recommendation to monitor actual traffic volumes for a period of three years following the opening of the Gutterson parking garage. We wish to point out, however, that the Harmelink left -turn lane warrant methodology was originally developed for high speed rural highways. High speed in this case means speeds of 40 mph or greater. On this segment of Spear Street, which is located in an urban setting and which has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, there is not any established methodology for examining the need for a left -turn lane. Overall, we believe that installing a left -turn lane at this location would increase speeds and would be generally contrary to traffic calming principles. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the above items further, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Rogreickinson, P.E. Professional Traffic Operation Engineer P:\2002\02-001 \hoover.wpd bVM Gutterson Parking Facility Attachment I PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Vermont is proposing to construct a new parking garage at Patrick-Forbush-Gutterson Athletic Complex of an estimated 254,100 gross square feet. The garage will be located at the north end of the existing parking area called Gutterson parking. The new parking garage facility will be within both the cities of Burlington and South Burlington boundaries. The project team is comprised of Smith-Alvarez-Sienkiewycz Architects, an architectural and landscaping firm based in Burlington, VT; Barr & Barr, Inc., a construction firm in Middlebury, VT; Desman Associates, a parking structure consultant based in Wellesley Hills, MA; Civil Engineering Associates, a civil engineering firm based in Shelburne, VT; Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., based in Colchester, VT; Kirik Engineering, lighting consultant, based in Burlington, VT, and Resource Systems Group, Inc., a traffic consulting firm based in Norwich, VT. The project includes the design and construction of a parking structure to accommodate the 765 existing parking spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of the Patrick Gymnasium. The University proposes to construct parking space widths of 8.5 feet that is consistent with waivers/approval on record. This is intended to minimize impact on open green space across the campus. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, thereby eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of the facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design is expected to utilize the advantages of the tiered parking lot in the area to eliminate the need for extensive ramp construction. The facility will be fully accessible by persons with disabilities on the first two levels. Handicapped spaces will remain at their traditional location proximate to buildings. A key component of the design of the structure provides for future expansion to the south of the facility to meet future parking needs. All utilities and public services, such as, electric, water, sewer, stormwater, fire and police services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University of Vermont. The existing access to Gutterson parking lots from only Spear Street will be changed as follows. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting through Spear Street #1 (refer to South Campus Master Plan, dated 12/12//03). The only exiting allowed to Spear Street will be the eastern most or lower level parking tier (north and south entrances/exits) and the Marsh -Austin -Tupper and Harris -Millis parking lots that have traditionally exited to Spear Street. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. By this routing system, this ensures that there will be less traffic utilizing Spear Street than currently exists, thereby, minimizing the impact of the new facility to the Spear Street neighbors. The lower level will be designed to replace the existing parking spaces and the elevation will be lowered two feet with a retaining wall located along the easterly edge of the existing parking lot to provide improved screening of vehicles and headlights from Spear Street. The topography works with the design to control access and limit traffic to Spear Street. The current circulation for vehicles and parking at the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights, Living/Learning Center, and Harris/Millis Residence Halls will be redirected through University Heights to Main Street, thereby, decreasing the existing condition of traffic accessing University properties in this area from Spear Street. Although in recent years, the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights have utilized Spear Street as its access, historically, the traditional access has always been Main Street. The parking garage will provide a major portion of the new parking needs created by the construction of undergraduate housing at University Heights (196 of the 248) and Catamount Apartments/Redstone Campus (145 of the 377) and general additional parking needs to meet future projected project needs. The exterior lighting of the facility will utilize the University's adopted lighting policies and standards. The pedestrian pole standard is a 12-foot pole (C-12) to the lighting source with a 100-watt, 8-sided, metal halide lamp in University green (pole and hood), which is the same style fixture used in the Main Street Improvement Project. The roadway light pole is a 17-foot pole (C- 17) to the lighting source with a 175-watt metal halide lamp in University green. As an added enhancement to the parking lot area, replacing existing parking lot lighting with the new UVM metal -halide standards (as informally requested by South Burlington planners) will be installed throughout the remaining exterior parking lots. The parking lot lighting is a 175-watt metal halide shoebox-style down light (cutoff fixture) on 20-foot pole in bronze. All site lighting has been located to minimize light pollution and spillage onto adjacent properties. Signage for the new facility will be consistent with the University's exterior signage policies and guidelines for the facility and parking lots, including directional, building identification, and parking lots. To mitigate its presence to the adjacent neighborhood as well as the vehicular view of approaching Spear Street from Main Street, landscape plantings will be strategically located. Campus Planning Services — 12/18/03 Act 250 Proj Desc - Gutterson #2 Final Plat Submission-Gutterson Parking Garage Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval, dated December 2, 2003 Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, as amended by this decision, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised prior to final plat submittal as follows: a. The plans shall be revised to show pre -construction and post -construction front yard coverage information. b. The plans shall be revised to show the average pre -construction grade of the area under the garage footprint and indicate the maximum height of the garage in relation to the average pre -construction grade. c. The plans shall be revised to include detailed stormwater plans for review and approval of the City Engineer. d. The lighting plan shall be revised to show spillage points that are in compliance with Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations. e. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict the location of all proposed lighting. f. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict any existing or proposed sidewalks extending to and from the proposed structure. g. The plans shall be revised to provide bicycle parking facilities for the site. h. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict the size and location of at least 27 handicapped -accessible parking spaces. i. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate the landscape professional who prepared the plans. j. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict snow storage areas on the subject property. 4. The exterior parking spaces that exist on the site today are grandfathered and are approved at 8.5' wide 5. Stormwater drainage plans must demonstrate compliance with the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, pursuant to Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations. 6 The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 7. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utilitv lines, services, and service modifications shall be underqround. UVM UVM concurs. UVM concurs. Attachment III Front yard coverage defined to be: 38.07% No change from pre-existing, not affecting any impervious area. Refer to attached UVM calculation sheet (12/18/03) Refer to A-1 and A-2 (dated 12/12/03) Refer to C-4 through C-11 for further stormwater details. Refer to SL-1 for spillage points. Refer to LD-1, A-1, A-2, E-1,SL-1, and C-4 for the lighting location and the cut sheets for the light fixtures. Refer to new pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) that are shaded on L-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-7. There are four (4) bicycle racks on each level. Refer to C-4. See "South Campus Master Plan" for location of handicapped -accessible parking spaces at the destination facilities that the new parking facility is supporting. There are 39 regular handicapped -parking spaces and 8 van size handicapped spaces for a total of 47. Refer to L-1. Refer to "Overall Watersheds with Snow Storage" C-4 and C-10. UVM concurs Refer to C-4 and "Overall Watersheds" with all site stormwater going to the East Campus Stormwater Facility that is being upgraded to the new 2002 standards. Refer to C-6,C-10,and C-11 for erosion control and grading plan. Refer to Note 18 on C-5. Attachment III Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval UVM Response 8. The applicant shall submit a document with the final plat application that The proposed parking structure complies with all applicable guidelines per the describes how the proposed parking facility complies with the standards set South Burlington Design Guidelines for Parking Structures dated March 1997. forth in the South Burlington Design Guidelines for Parking Structures, dated March 1997. Any discrepancies shall be identified and defended in this document, so that the DRB can make an informed decision. 9. The applicant shall submit a proposed landscape budget pursuant to Section Refer to L-1. Total landscaping budget for this project in the City of South 13.06(G)(3) of the Land Development Regulations with the final plat Burlington is $106,430. application. 10. The applicant shall submit a revised traffic impact study with the final plat Resource Systems Group is responding to all recommendations and outlined by application that includes all of the recommendations outlined in the letter Roger Dickenson. from Roger Dickinson, dated November 26, 2003. In addition, the final plat plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the updated traffic impact study. 11. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the South Burlington Land Development Refer to Final Plat Plan — Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main StreF' Regulations, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Title, with the final South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003. plat submittal, showing the ownership of all property and easements to be dedicated or acquired by the City, and said Certificate of Title shall be approved by the City Attorney. 12. The applicant shall submit a final plat plan application within 12 months of UVM concurs. this decision or this approval is null and void. SBurl Preliminary Plat Conditions -Attachment III-12/18/03 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 DECEMBER 2003 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 December 2003, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair; L. Kupferman, M. Kupersmith, C. Bolton, G. Quimby, R. Farley, M. Boucher Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer, B. Robertson, Associate Planner; L. Seavy, B. Penniman, UVM, B. Cimonetti, B. Bull, J. Cards, L. Bresee, S. Dooley, J. Collins, M. Sinkevich, B. Vaughan, B. Chamberlain, S. Vock, B. Nedde, Ms. Lacosky, B. Bull, P. Tompkins, M. Lords, A. Rowe, B. & C Snyder, D. & B. Belisle, D. Gage, B. Simindinger, S. McClellan, M. Dumont, W. Dodge, P. Valois 1. Other Business: Mr. Belair advised that the city will be putting public notices in Seven Days instead of in the Free Press in order to save money. Seven Days can be found in many places in South Burlington. 2. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Application #SD-03-72 of The University of Vermont for a planned unit development consisting of the construction of a 254,100 GFA three -level parking garage (176,400 GFA in South Burlington) to accommodate 1315 parking spaces, 97 Spear St: Ms. Seavey noted that suggestions made a sketch plan. have been incorporated into this plan. Mr. Penniman said the major issue will be traffic which will be dealt with at Final Plat. Circulation changes have been made based on Board comments. Mr. Penniman began by showing the plan for the lowest level of the garage. The elevation will be dropped down to 385 ft. This matches the first level of surface parking. Headlights will be below what is visible today. They are also making an effort to set the garage back into the hill. Each level of the structure will be approachable independently. In order to reduce the footprint, they have narrowed the aisles and used angled parking in the facility. Outside parking will remain at 90 degrees. Mr. Belair said 8.5 ft. is OK inside but they want 9 ft. outside (Mr. Belair noted the Board does not have the authority to waive this). Mr. Penniman then showed the accesses and exits on the different levels. Mr. Bolton asked if traffic would flow better if outside parking was also angled. Mr. Penniman said they felt it was critical to match aisles and access points. 90 degrees allows 2-way circulation, and angled parking only one way. This would apply around the facility as well. -1— DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 DECEMBER 2003 Mr. Belair said staff will need to know the average pre -construction grade. He didn't feel there would be a problem with this. Mr. Penniman said that they added more brick areas to the facade of the building to address neighbors concerns. Mr. Belair said staff would like something in writing regarding density, number of parking spaces, etc. Mr. Penniman noted that in the past 1300 parking space would have had access to Spear St. That has been cut to about 400. There is also a one-way in at S. Prospect St. Members felt this was a major plus. Mr. Bolton asked what happens to the old Redstone Rd. Mr. Penniman said it stays the same. He said there never was a linkage. Mr. Penniman stressed the importance of the campus shuttle system. He showed the new route after the garage is on line and showed the University Heights area where surface parking will come out and be replaced by a "green." Regarding the Main St. Project, Mr. Penniman noted that the City of Burlington wanted a fixed cycle length. UVM offered to pay for a re -timing plan which they did. The Staples signal was not included in this. UVM bought a new system for Staples to link it to the other system. This was done last month. Mr. Penniman felt that studies done before that will be flawed. He felt the situation is stabilized now. UVM has no problem granting an OK for a Rec Path when there is a design. He noted that Spear St. residents don't want a sidewalk in front of their homes. A local resident asked about landscaping. Mr. Penniman showed the landscaping plan. The sidewalk will be rebuilt with trees added. One area will have a berm with plantings. They will also add new plantings on the islands. A resident asked about lighting. Mr. Penniman said they will replace existing lights with 12 ft. fixtures and employ the UVM standard for lighting. Mr. Bresee suggested signage so people know were there is access and where there is not. Front yard coverage: Mr. Dinklage said the Board is aware that UVM has permission to plant trees in the city right-of-way, but they don't yet have the facts on front yard coverage. Mr. Penniman said there will be no change in coverage. Mr. Dinklage said the Board needs a calculation on this with the hope that together they can get closer to conformity. -2— DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 DECEMBER 2003 Height: Mr. Belair noted that height has to measured to the top of the lights. Mr. Penniman said that will probably be over 35 ft. and will require a waiver. Mr. Penniman noted that UVM had 4 meetings with neighbors and the plan evolved from neighborhood input. Mr. Dinklage suggested the possibility of eliminating a row of parking and pushing the trees back. Ms. Bull asked if parking areas east of the structure will be plowed. Mr. Penniman said they would. Ms. Kupersmith noted the plan includes capability for expansion. She asked why the whole thing isn't being built at once. Mr. Penniman noted that structure could be expanded in front of Guttereson. He stressed there will be less impervious area with the proposed plan. Mr. Kupferman asked about the ditch on Spear St. Mr. Penniman said some of it goes under Spear St to East Terrace. The northerly portion goes to the UVM treatment facility. There will be an upgrading of that facility to the latest standard. In addition, water from these parking lots will go to catch basins and then to that facility. Mr. Belair noted that with angled outside parking they could be in compliance and could get more landscaping in. Mr. Penniman said exiting traffic would then have to go along Spear St. to the Jughandle. Mr. Kupferman said the same issue will come up when there is further development in front of Harris -Mills. The proposed approval motion was amended to delete condition 3c. Mr. Dinklage asked if there is any way for the Board to approve 8-1/2 foot spaces because they are pre-existing. Mr. Belair felt there is. Most members were OK with keeping the existing 8- 1.2 foot parking spaces. The proposed approval motion was amended to delete condition 3h and condition 3m. Ms. Kupersmith was concerned with voting without knowing the facts on front yard coverage. Mr. Dinklage said the applicant was taking the risk that this could be a "showstopper." Mr. Boucher moved to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-03-72 of The University of Vermont subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Bolton opposing. -3— CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS UVM PARKING GARAGE SPEAR STREET 01 /08/2004 Site plans prepared by UVM Architectural Engineering Services dated 10/12/03 are acceptable. 2. Site drainage plans have been reviewed and are acceptable. South Burlington Street department 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802) 658-7961 South Burlington Design Review Board 575 Dorset St South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Board Members: OFFICE 104 LANDFILL RD 11/24/03 I am writing regarding the landscaping for the Gutterson Parking facility at UVM. I have reviewed the most recent planting schedule with the UVM Arborist and agree the plan is acceptable. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist Cc: Ray Belair, Julie Beth Hoover, Bob Peniman, Rose Leland CITY COUNCIL 15 SEPTEMBER 2003 PAGE 2 Mr. Hafter will be attending the International City Manager's Conference in Charlotte, N.C. next week. 4. Consideration of request from UVM for Landscape License Agreement to permit use of Spear St. right-of-way for placement of required landscaping as part of parking garage project: Mr. Penniman noted the request involves a 15 ft. landscape buffer along the property line. It was suggested that there could be a waiver for University property on Spear St. since existing trees are in the right-of-way, and they want to add more in that location. Mr. Penniman showed a plan with the location of the proposed landscaping. Adding 15 ft. of setback would cost a whole row of parking. The proposed license agreement would require that UVM maintain the landscaping. Mr. Sheahan felt the plan makes sense. Mr. Hafter stressed that this agreement is for landscaping only and does not involve coverage requirements or anything else. Mr. Magowan moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a license agreement and hold harmless agreement with respect to placement of final landscaping plan as approved by the Development Review Board. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consideration of approval of FY 04 Municipal Plan Grant Application for development of design guidelines for areas within Commercial-1 District: Mr. Hafter said the application is for $11,000 for design guidelines for Shelburne Rd., I- 189 Intersection, Dorset St./Williston Rd. and Kennedy Drive/Dorset St. Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the application as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of Capital Equipment Note for fire department computer network: Mr. Hafter said the note is for $15,000 at 2% for the first year. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Capital Equipment Note and accompanying resolutions. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. GARDCO PARKING LOT FIXTURE MODEL# (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-1-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-2-3-100MH-120-BRA-CD GARDCO 6" STRAIGHT SQUARE ALUMINUM POLE MODELS (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): SSA6- 0-D1-BRA-PCR rn I MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): SSA6-20-D2-BRA-PCR N. FINISH: BRONZE ANODIZED I BASE COVER lilt ' CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE 00 LO GARDCO PARKING LOT FIXTURE MODEL# (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-1-3-100MH-120-BRA-CD MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-2-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD FINISH: ORONZE ANODIZED I 0 9" 2'-5'p I r5 PARKING AREA LI N0 TO TT O SCALE i" LUMINAIRE MODEL#: 100MH-L70-PC-FC-SE3-QTA/ 120-SFO-GN8TX-LMS12030A LUMEC ROUND ALUMINUM BOTTLENECK POLE POLE: AM6F-10-VP-GN8TX-LMS 12030A POLE HT. IS 10'-0" w w COLOR: UVM STANDARD (DARK GREEN) o COLOR #: GN 8 T X I N cf) O Z_ J ACCESS DOOR BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE tv _. _ PEDESTRIAN LIGHT POLE (TYPE C NOT TO SCALE I trJ rolr>��rRE- -----.- MODEL#: 175MH-L70-PC-FC-SE3-QTA/ 120-SFO-GN8TX-LMS12029A 19 LUMEC ROUND ALUMINUM BOTTLENECK POLE POLE: LMS12029A-15-VP-GN8TX POLE HT. IS 15-0" w tz COLOR: UVM STANDARD (DARK GREEN) o v COLOR#: GN8TX i� V) 0 z J ACCESS DOOR BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE ul ROADWAY LIGHT POLE (,TYPE C17 NOT TO SCALE 0"Ism-w, ATTACHMENT IV. Gutterson Proposed Parking — Front Yard Coverage based on 75' offset fron UVM boundary near Spear St, North to Main and South to Country Club December 18, 2003 By UVM Campus Planning Services ATTACHMENT IV. Gutterson Proposed Parking - Front Yard Coverage based on 75' offset from UVM boundary near Spear St, north to Main and South to Country Club/UVM boundary Existing Conditions With Proposed Garage Total area of site (acres) 4.0722 4.0722 Buildings 0.0000 0.0756 Walkways/Paths 0.0894 0.0894 Roadways 0.1682 0.1682 Parking Lots 1.2925 1.2170 subtotal coverage (acres) 1.5501 1.5501 density(% coverage) 38.07% 38.07% 12/18/2003 By UVNI Campus Planning Services 12/21/2001 FRI 15:23 FAX 8 P63 n466 440411C WOi�S December 21, 2001 Ms_ Linda Seavey UVM - Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Gutterson Parking Garage Ability to Serve Dear Ms. Seavey° Burlington DPW ) Z 002 CITY OF BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 645 Pine Street, Suite A Post Office Box 849 Burlington, VT 05402-0849 802.853.9094 VOX 802.863.0466 FAX $02.863.0450 TTY www dpw.Ci, bUrilil_gtOn,yf. LtS Steven Goodkind, P.E_ DIRECTOR OF PU19LIC WORKS CITY ENGINEER Our office has reviewed your December 20, 2001 letter and the December 21, 2001 letter from Bill Nedde of Krebs & 3,ansing and makes to following determinations on the referenced project: • Burlington has to ability to serve the water, wastewater and stormwater demands for the parking garage. Doing so will not negatively impact the City's infrastructure. Mr. Nedde stated the garage will place a negligible demand on city services. The garage is adjacent to two roads that are owned and maintained by UVM and as such will have no impact on DPW's ability to provide municipal services to the City of Burlington. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, i Justin Rabidou Cc: Bill Nedde An Equal Opportunity Employer This material is available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities. To request an accommodation, please call 802.863.9094 (voice) or 802.863.0450 (TTY). DEC.21.2001 1:40PM YRLINCTON POLICE NO.512 P.2 4q d.�t BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT One North Avenue BurlingLon, Vermont 05401 Alana M. Ennis Telephone (802) 658-2704 Chiof of Polito Fax (802) 865-7287 T.D.D. (802) 658-2700 T.D.D. EMERGENCY 911 December 21, 2001 Linda Seavey, Director, UVM Campus Planning Services Office of University Planning 109 So. Prospect Street Burlington. VT 05405-0016 Dear Ms. Seavey: I have received the plans for the proposed construction of a new parking garage to be located cn the north side of UVM's existing parking areas at Gutterson. As I stated in a previous letter to you in November 2001, Burlington residents have been pursuing ideas to alleviate the housing shortage caused, in part. by a shortage of on -campus housing. It is encouraging to witness a detailed undertaking by the University to alleviate some of the housing congestion by adding 400 beds of student housing on campus in addition to building a new parking structure. This department will continue to work with residents living near and around UVM's campus on the remaining quality of life issues that still remain. We are confident with the University's help, we will prevail in making our neighborhoods livable and peaceful for all residents and students. Since the University has its own full time Police Services Department. I do not anticipate the Gutterson Parking Garage project will have an impact on the Burlington Police Oepartment. If you have any questions or concerns, please fell free to contact me at 658- 2704, extension 271. Very truly yours, BUR N POLICE EPARTMENT Richard P. Long Lieutenant. Uniform Servi s E U R- L TWIM Q 7 0 N 77 585 Pi6e Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 4891 � 802/658-0300 a 802/865-7386 (TTY/Voice) o Fax: 302/865-7400 1 20 f0 UNAVERSITY OF November 1'), 2001 Linda Seavey Director, Caanpus Planning Services University of Vermont 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Re: Ability to new Student Apartment Housing and Gutterson Parking Garage Dear Linda: The Burlington Electric Department (BED) will be able to provide electric service to these projects. However, provisions of electric service to these projects will be contingent on compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Burlington Electric Department and the State of Vermont Public Service Board. BED Energy Services staff will work with you to ensure that the design complies with the Guidelines for Energy Efficient Construction for the City of Burlington Vermont November 13. 2000. In addition, BED is interested in assisting with the identification, analysis and implementation of cost-effective energy efficient design, emerging technologies and alternative energy system options. Please call Loren Doe, Director of Commercial Services, BED at 865-7341 to begin this process. Early involvement by BED and periodic review will expedite the approval process and assure access to available energy efficiency rebates. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 865-7323 Sincerely, BURLINGTON ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Andy Naughton Line Extension Coordinator/ROW cc: John Askew, BED Loren Doe, Energy Servicos 73 M- eqy smo.C---Icy _imayo, ?y" (Pffir-?d CHU �Tjre, �Rzzrs4zzf ,toREERs�- 1 a2 NORTH AVENUE • BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05.401 Fax (802) 658-7665 CITY FIRE MARSHAL FIRE ALARM/SPRINKLER PLAN REVIEW PUBUC INFORMATION 8c EDUCATION INSPECTION SERVICES (802) 864-6923 (802) 864-5577 Linda Seavey Date: 12/05/01 Director, UVM Campus Planning Services 109 So. Prospect St. Burlington, VT. 05405-0016 (iTY) (802) 865-7142 Re: Projected Impact to the Burlington Fire Department from the proposed New Parking Structure at Gutterson Field House Dear Ms. Seavey, The Fire Department has reviewed the project of the listed above. • The required fire alarm systems shall report all activations directly to the fire department. • Emergency response is not expected to have an impact on the departments call volume. • The structure may be required to have installed a supervised automatic sprinkler system Sprinkler systems are designed to control the spread of fire and should not impact the fire department with regard to equipment or personnel. A standpipe system may also be required which shall lower the impact to the department with regard to equipment. • Water supply data for this area is over 12 years old. A report of the current water flows for this area must be completed before a determination can be made as to the availability of adequate water for suppression activities per NFPA 25. Based on the information received by the fire department. The department assesses that there should not be a major impact to the department. . Yours in P-q.blic Safety, Christopher H. Gilbert Assistant Fire Marshal Cc: Mark Eldridge, Director Burlington Planning and Zoning Robert Patnode, Fire Chief Michael Bourdreau, Director, UVM A&E Services Michael Douglass, Ambling Project Manager Julia Nugent, Sasaki Architect Gary Margolis, UVM Police Services Gus Mastro, UVM Physical Plant SMOKE DETECTORS ;AND FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES The �z . 1 �F�lli of T A. h: . DEPARTNIENT OF POLICE SERVICES Gary J. Margolis, Chief of Police November 12, 2001 Linda Seavey, Director Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 Dear Linda, We've reviewed the plans for the new student housing and Gutterson parking garage as requested. We expect to be adequately staffed to provide the requisite police services indicated necessary for approval of these projects. If we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us. Regards, r- -Z� J.. Yar13� Matt` olis, -dD. Chief/Director of Police Services P284 Easr Avenue, Burlinaron, Vermnonr. 0"=05-3!61 I.:s-a R'11.0 Es = 5 - r _ Cenend: (802) 636-3473 • AdminisT---aon: 802) 636-202 ' • Gx (802) 656-8077 Emergency: 91I • T p ine: k802) 656 _PS • Web: ww,,vuvm.edu,1-police 11/12/01 15.14 80265688135 �CE � � N0.016 901 UVM Rescue 284 East Avenue Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 656-4287 To Linda Seavey, Director, Campus Planning Services: 1, Jennifer King, Director of Operations of UVM Rescue, have reviewed the plans for proposed construction on campus and agree to maintain the following commitments as an advanced life support ambulance- 1 _) UVM Rescue will provide EMT and Ambulance response to the new facility as it currently does for the rest of campus. 2.) Should UVM Rescue be on another call, the current arrangement for backup assistance will come from the appropriate ambulance next in line according to the approved District #3 response lid_ Please fecl $ee to contact me with any other questions or concerns regarding this development plan. Sincerely, ! iftrM. Rang Director of Operations 0 l Lamoureux & D9cUnson _-� Consulting Engineers, Inc. 14 Morse Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 Tel (802) 878-4450 Fax (802) 878-3135 Email: mail@LDengineering January 16, 2004 Jody Carriere, P.E. Roger Dickinson, P.E., PTOE Patricia Coburn, P.E. Gail Henderson -King, ASLA Jason Dattilio, L.S. Len Lamoureux, P.E., L.S. Doug Goulette, P.E. Andrew Rowe, P.E. Doug Henson, L.S. Brian Tremback, CPSSc Juli Beth Hoover, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Juh Beth, As requested, we have completed our review of the traffic impact analyses prepared by Resource Systems Group (RSG) for The University of Vermont's South Campus Master Plan. The focus of our review was specifically the proposed Gutterson Parking Garage, which is presently being reviewed by the DRB. The documents reviewed by our office include the May 2003 Draft Traffic Impact Study, RSG's October 24`h Memorandum to Susan Smichenko of the CCMPO., and most recently, a Memorandum dated January 12, 2004 from RSG. Comments and concerns from our initial review of the May 2003 Draft Traffic Impact Study were outlined in a Memorandum from our office dated November 26, 2003. Subsequent to that Memorandum, it was also requested that RSG respond to the City Engineer's concern about a left -turn lane being warranted on Spear St. at the Gutterson North Access. The following outlines our conclusions and recommendations relative to the projected traffic impacts of the proposed Gutterson Parking Garage. • Access Alternative #2 actually reduces future turning movements at the Spear Street/Gutterson North intersection. A total of 198 peak hour trip ends are removed from entering and exiting Gutterson and the new parking garage anua 12t' Memorandum Table 2 . p g g g Q rY ) • Access Alternative #2 also improves future levels of service at the Spear Street/Gutterson North intersection from F to D (May 2003 Traffic Study, Table 11), and will avoid the possible need to install traffic signals at this location. • In response to our concern about lane utilization on Main St. and Williston Road, additional analyses were performed at the Main/Spear intersection. The results of those are outlined in the January 12"' Memorandum. We are satisfied with that, however note that the same problem also exists at the Williston Rd./Sheraton/Staples intersection just to the east. Although the overall level of service at the Sheraton intersection is projected to remain at D, we note that the eastbound approach is now projected to operate at level of service F Qanuary 12`' - ..Civil -Transportation Planning- Landscape Architecture • Soils • Wetlands • Surveying ,p Juli Beth Hoover, AICP January 16, 2004 Page 2 Memorandum, Table 1) vs. D in the original May 2003 study (Table 10). Most of this change is due to the additional eastbound Fletcher Allen traffic which had been omitted in the original analyses at this intersection. It is our opinion that factoring in actual lane utilization characteristics on this eastbound approach would show that it is already operating at F. With respect to the left -turn lane warrants and installing a left -turn lane on Spear Street at the Gutterson North intersection, we concur with RSG's recommendation to monitor actual traffic volumes for a period of three years following the opening of the Gutterson parking garage. We wish to point out, however, that the Harmelink left -turn lane warrant methodology was originally developed for high speed rural highways. High speed in this case means speeds of 40 mph or greater. On this segment of Spear Street, which is located in an urban setting and which has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, there is not any established methodology for examining the need for a left -turn lane. Overall, we believe that installing a left -turn lane at this location would increase speeds and would be generally contrary to traffic calming principles. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the above items further, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Roge ickinson, P.E. Professional Traffic Operations Engineer P:\2002\02-001\hoover.wpd The UNIVERSITY all of VERMONT CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES December 18, 2003 South Burlington Planning Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Attn: Ray Belaire, Zoning Officer RE: UVM Gutterson Parking Facility — UVM Athletic Campus 97 Spear Street Dear Ray The University of Vermont is re -submitting a permit application — Application for Final Subdivision Plat Review for the Gutterson Parking Facility. As you are aware, this project is located in both the cities of South Burlington and Burlington. The University has already completed the City of Burlington process and received a permit for the project in 2002. The University has completed the Preliminary Plat application and hearing process and this Final Plat is in response to those conditions set forth after the Preliminary Plat hearing, December 2, 2003. As a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the University has interpreted the subdivision boundaries to be UVM owned contiguous lands. The subdivision boundaries are bounded by Burlington Country Club to the south, Spear Street to the east, UVM owned property in Burlington to the west, and Main Street to the north. A brief synopsis of the project follows: Gutterson Parking Facility Project — The University is proposing to construct a new parking facility (estimated at 254,100 gross square feet) located on the north end of the existing Gutterson surface parking lots within the boundaries of both the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. The proposed project will accommodate 765 existing spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of Patrick Gymnasium and west of Spear Street. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of the facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design will utilize the advantages of the tiered topography, thereby eliminating the need to build extensive ramp construction. It will be handicapped accessible without the need for elevator systems. All utilities and public services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University, such as electric, water, sewer, storm water, fire and police. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting through Spear Street. The only exiting allowed to Spear Street will be the eastern most level and the Marsh -Austin -Tupper parking lot. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Telephone (802) 656-3208, Fax (802) 656-8895 Lqual Opportunity 1 Affirfnacivc Anion kanpluvcr t1j Refer to Attachment I — UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION for a more complete description of the project. PROJECT PURPOSE: Primarily to meet the needs of the additional parking requirements of the new student housing projects proposed at University Heights and Redstone Campus. Please find attached the Application for Final Subdivision Plat Review and site plans with requisite attachments, including an attachment of the Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval with the references as to which site plan details the requisite information. A final plat application fee was submitted under separate cover on December 1, 2003 in the amount of $510.00. Upon your receipt and review of the attached materials, please provide a written response that your office considers this application complete. Should you have any outstanding issues not addressed in the attached materials, please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely, Linda Seavey UVM Director, Campus Planning Services Cc: Bob Penniman, CATMA Attachments: Application for Final Plat Review — Gutterson Parking Facility Attachment I: UVM — Gutterson Parking Facility Project Description Attachment II: List of Abutters and Addresses Attachment III: Final Plat Submission, Table of Preliminary Plat Approval Attachment IV: Gutterson — Front Yard Coverage Chart and Plan (12/18/03) RSG Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary, May 2003 Building & Site Plan Set, revised and dated 12/12/03 (includes South Campus Master Plan (12/10/03), Overall Watersheds with Snow Storage (12/11/03), L-1,A-1, A-2, E-1, SL-1, C-1 through C-11 (12/12/03) — 5 sets of full size and 1 set of 11 x 17" Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street Plat Plan, dated 6/25/03 Gutterson Cover-sburl Final Plat-12-18 #1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number — SD 03-13 APPLICATION FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): UNIVERSITY of VERMONT 109 Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): Within this subdivison lot there are three records of deeds: • Northern portion — Mary Fletcher Hospital Tract, 1891: • Volume 31, Page 168 in City of Burlington — June 3, 1891 • Volume 3, Pages 165-166 in City of South Burlington — June 23, 1891 • Middle portion — Buell Tract, 1921: • Volume 74, Page 549 in City of Burlington —July 6, 1921 • Southern portion — Brownell Tract, 1923: • Volume 83, Page 570 in City of Burlington — October 24, 1923 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) UNIVERSITY of VERMONT 109 Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) Linda Seavev. UVM Director, Campus Planninq Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 97 Spear Street (changed from 147 Spear Street per Burlington Department of Public Works) 6) TAX PARCEL ID# (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): Number 1810-00000 N and Number 1810-00799 N. 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION' Refer to Attachment 1: UVM — Gutterson Parking Garage Project Description for further details. a) Existing Uses on property (include description and size of each separate use): Same institutional parking. b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Same institutional parking uses to remain along with additional Parking provided by /construction of parkinq decks c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): Existing building footprint square footage is approximately 7,248 SF The proposed parking structure adds 55,988 square footage footprint for a total of 63,236 SF (footprint). All levels of square footage of the proposed parking facility is estimated at a total of 254,100 gross square feet with 176,400 gross square feet within the City of South Burlington. d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): Total height of the facility from average pre - construction grade in the City of South Burlington to the top of the light fixtures is 34 feet. e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): not applicable. f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non - office employees): not applicable g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable; All utilities, such as, electric water, sewer, storm water and public services such as police and fire will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University All electrical and stormwater utility lines will be underground Additionally refer to Burlington municipal letters (Burlington Public Works Burlington Electric Department, Burlington Police Department and Burlington Fire Department) for confirmation of capacity and approval. h) List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc.: Not applicable. 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 1.18 % Proposed 10.31 % This assumes that the existing parking lot is now covered by the new parking structure, thereby reducing the parking lot coverage and increasing the building lot coverage within the subdivision boundaries. The completion of the UVM Athletic Field Improvement project will not change the building coverage at this lot. b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc.): Existing 37.21 % Proposed 38.57 % This represents less than .20 acres of increased lot coverage primarily due to covering the existing parking lot "berms." c) Front yard (along each street): Existing 38.07% Proposed 38.07% There is no change to the buffer green belt between Spear Street and the exterior parking lot to the east of Spear Street as a result of this project and the Athletic Field Improvement Project, Refer to Attachment IV. 9) COST ESTIMATES — Estimated total cost of $9,000,000 with $6,OOu,000 within South Burlington. a) Building (including interior renovations): $ $6,000,000 b) Landscaping: $106,430 for landscape plant materials in the City of South Burlington. This amount excludes replacement lighting ($260,000) to upgrade to the UVM standards for parking lots for the existing surface lot to the south of this facility. c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): All included above 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC — REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): _refer to traffic impact study. b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: — REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: — REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: December 31, 2004 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the final plat application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSSION: I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: I i Complete i I Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date SBurl - Gutterson Final Plat-12-03 #1 - 9/15/03 Attachment II GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE List of all Abutters and Mailing Addresses University owned properties to the north, west, and south. All others are publicly or privately owned Spear Street neighbors that abut UVM properties as follows: Pamela Storey & James Thompson 74 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Marcella Peden, Trustee 82 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Cornelius J. Carr 88 Spear Street South Burlington, Armin Grams 134 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Walter & Nancy Antos, Trustees 140 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Ronald & Radetta Nemcosky 148 Spear Street VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Gerald & Patricia Divincenzo 96 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joann P. Nielson 100 Spear Street South Burlington, VT John Lucas Hauman 156 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington 160 Spear Street 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Garth & Clara Peterson, Trustees 106 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Peter & Sylvia Tousley 112 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Tommy & Monica Devino 168 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Khoi & Catherine Nguyen 170 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Frederick & Patricia Cianci 188 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Rebecca Blodgett 210 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 George Passage, Jr. 220 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dieter Gump, Trustee 226 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Mary & Jan Rozendaal 233 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Elizabeth Orr 234 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Kathie Desautels 238 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Albert & Ruth Reynolds Mitchell & Sonja Hinsdale Burlington Country Club 126 Spear Street 184 Spear Street 568 South Prospect Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington, VT 05401 RESOURCE -RMISYSTEMS GROUP I 1,11 CC-R PO RA Tc0 Draft Traffic Impact Study for the: UVM SOUTH CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Burlington and South Burlington, Vermont Prepated for: The Uiversity of Vermont iMa7 2003 ��? 01cotz Drive, 'Wnice River .:unction, V=rr:ont uSCG, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2001, Resource Systems Group and the University of Vermont (C71 1-1 I) submitted a traffic impact study: Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVNI to the Burlington Development Review Board (DRB). The study analyzed the impacts of a 400-bed student housing project called South Ledge Apartments. In early 2002, the 400-bed project received approval from the DRB. The project has since been reduced from 400 beds to 203 beds and the name of the new development has been changed from South Ledge Apartments to Catamount Apartments. This traffic impact study is intended as a supplement to the previous study. The University of Vermont is proposing to develop the 203-bed apartment complex on land located to the east of the existing Redstone Apartments, which are located on South Prospect Street. The new two building Catamount Apartments complex would be built upon an existing surface parking lot. In addition, UZ-I is planning to construct a traditional dormitory complex with up to 850 beds on University Heights which will replace the existing buildings. This traffic study includes traffic from the dormitor;s in the analysis of future conditions (2009). Concurrently, dJVTvf is proposing to construct a parking garage upon the site of the existing Gutterson Field House surface parking lot. This parking garage will accommodate a portion of the additional parking demand generated by the University Heights dormitories. Up to an additional 550 parking spaces will be provided at the new parking facility. The traffic impacts of the garage are analyzed in both the 2004 and 2009 analysis. In association with these developments, UViVI is proposing to build new roads connecting the Catamount Apartments to University Heights and Spear Street. These new roads will connect South Prospect Street at Redstone Apartments to University Heights at Main Street and to Spear Street at the access to the Gu..ttersori Field House. Two access alternatives for connecting these streets are considered in this traffic�st'�: Access Alternative 1: This plan provides full access. Any vehicle may enter or exit the campus at any one of the three access points (Spear Street adjacent to the Gutterson Garage, South Prospect Street adjacent to the Redstone Campus, and University Heights). Draft: LIVIM South Campus Master Plan Traffic Study — Executive Summary Resource Systems Group, Inc. May 2003 pane 2 n Access Alternative 2: This plan is a more constrained access regimen with the following provisions: o The southerly access drive on South Prospect Street would access an approximately 150-space existing parking lot only. o The northerly access drive on South Prospect Street proximate to the Redstone Apartments would be restricted to one way, enter -only flow. o Access to the second and third level of the proposed Gutterson garage and surface lots (821 spaces) would be gained from Spear Street, University Heights, or South Prospect Street. Egress from the second and third level of the proposed garage and surface lots; however, would be via University Heights only. o Access to the lower level of the proposed Gutters= garage and surface lots (500 spaces), as well as access to adjacent surface parking lots (124 spaces proximate to Harris -Millis and 117 spaces at the MAT lot) would be via Spear Street only. Egress from these parking areas could be via Spear Street or University Heights. This traffic stddy provides an analysis of traffic impacts related to these proposed changes on campus. The impact of these new vehicle trips are evaluated at seven intersections: Main Street and the Sheraton Driveway; Nfain Street and East Avenue; Main Street and Spear Street; • Main Street and University Heights; • Main Street and South Prospect Street; • Spear Street and Gutterson North Driveway and; • South Prospect Street and North Redstone Driveway. Traffic conditions for both access alternatives are estimated for 2004 and 2009. The 2004 traffic impacts include the proposed Catamount Apartments project and the Gutterson Garage project. The proposed Catamount Apartments project and the Gutterson Garage project are estimated to generate 237 P-T\/f peak hour trips. The 2009 analysis includes the impacts from Catamount Apartments, the Gurterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights dormitory complex. The proposed Catamount Apartments, the Gurterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights dormitory comple : are estimated to generate 350 Pad peak hour triu_ s: Catamount Apartments — 41 peak hour vehicles v-_,Ds, Gu—utrson Garage — 163 ceak hour're-icles trips, and U=' ersir Heights Do_m' oies — 33 -Desk hour vehicles nps. A I I Draft: UVM South Campus Master Plan Traffic Study — Executive Summary Resource Systems Group, Inc. May 2003 page 3 Future traffic conditions include growth in background traffic of 2.2% annually, plus additional trips associated with FletcherA.11en Health Care's Renaissance Project. The traffic analysis indicates that projected congestion is more problematic during the PM peak hour. Hence, this study analyzes the PM peak hour conditions. The measures recommended to mitigate traffic congestion and safety impacts are: • Maintain time of day coordinated timings plans for the Main Street corridor. -_ - Prohibit westbound left turns at the intersection of Main Street and University Heights.. Create a comprehensive signage plan to guide eastbound Main Street users onto Interstate 89 at the Jughandle. ' Conduct a roll signal warrant analysis of the intersection of Spear Street with the Gutterson parking facilities after the Catamount Apartments and Gutterson Garage projects are completed, and install a traffic signal if warranted. ' Connect UWi I driveways at South Prospect Street, University Heights, and Spear Street via an internal roadway network subject to an access plan described in this traffic study as Access Alternative 1 or Access Alternative 2. Under either access regimen, the internal street network would be traffic calmed, and open to public use. With these mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the surrounding roadway network. The following mitigation measures are not recommended specifically for the UVlbI project but should be the subject of further discussion with respect to Burlington and South Burlington traffic concerns. • Installing at red light running camera at the intersection of Main Street and East Avenue. Despite recent results showing the effectiveness of this technology, installing such camera is not currently legal in Vermont. • installing a queue detector to detect southbound queues at the intersection of Main and South Prospect. This measure can be effective in improving overall traffic operations, but should be evaluated for its effect on Main Street corridor progression. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number - SD 03-13 APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): UNIVERSITY of VERMONT 109 Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): Within this subdivison lot there are three records of deeds: • Northern portion - Mary Fletcher Hospital Tract, 1891: • Volume 31, Page 168 in City of Burlington -June 3, 1891 • Volume 3, Pages 165-166 in City of South Burlington - June 23, 1891 • Middle portion - Buell Tract, 1921: • Volume 74, Page 549 in City of Burlington -July 6, 1921 • Southern portion - Brownell Tract, 1923: • Volume 83, Page 570 in City of Burlington - October 24, 19-- 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) UNIVERSITY of VERMONT T�, 109 Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) Linda Seavev. UVM Director. Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 97 Spear Street (changed from 147 Spear Street per Burlington Department of Public Works) 6) TAX PARCEL ID# (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): Number 1810-00000 N Number 1810-00799 N. 7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Refer to Attachment I: UVM - Gutterson Parking Garage Project Description for further details. a) Existing Uses on property (include description and size of each separate use): Same institutional parking. b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Same institutional parking uses to remain along with additional parking provided by /construction of parkinq decks. c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): Existing building footprint square footage is approximately 7,248 SF. The proposed parking structure adds 55,988 square footage footprint for a total of 63,236 SF (footprint). All levels of square footage of the proposed parking facility is estimated at a total of 254,100 gross square feet with 176,400 gross square feet within the City of South Burlington. d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): Total building height will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair tower measured from the finished grade of the lower level. All levels will be at the respective current ground levels, utilizing the topography to create a tiered parking garage without extensive ramps. e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): not applicable. f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non - office employees): not applicable g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): As indicated in the protect description, the University is requesting a waiver/variance to construct parking spaces at 8.5 feet wide for long-term parking to maximize utilization of the space and mitigate the use of open space. NOTE: The City of Burlington has accepted this waiver in its permit approval of the project. All utilities, such as, electric, water, sewer, storm water and public services such as, police and fire will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University. All electrical and stormwater utility lines will be underground. Additionally, refer to Burlington municipal letters (Burlington Public Works, Burlington Electric Department, Burlington Police Department and Burlington Fire Department) for confirmation of capacity and approval. h) List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc.: Not applicable. 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 1.18 % Proposed __ 10.31 % This assumes that the existing parking lot is now covered by the new parking structure, thereby reducing the parking lot coverage and increasing the building lot coverage within the subdivision boundaries. The completion of the UVM Athletic Field Improvement project will not change the building coverage at this lot. b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc.): Existing _ 37.21 _% Proposed 38.57 % This represents less than .20 acres of increased lot coverage primarily due to covering the existing parking lot "berms." c) Front yard (along each street): Existing % Proposed % There is no change to the buffer green belt between Spear Street and the exterior parking lot to the east of Spear Street as a result of this project and the Athletic Field Improvement Project. 9) COST ESTIMATES - Estimated total cost of $9,000,000 with $6,000,000 within South Burlington. a) Building (including interior renovations): $ $6,000,000 b) Landscaping: $ 310,000 , includes replacement lighting ($260,000) to upgrade to the UVM standards for parking lots for the existing surface lot to the south of this facility. c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): All included above 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC - REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: - REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: - REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: December 31, 2004 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the final plat application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF AP C _LOB_ SIGNATURE OF PROP R Y OWNER 1Z,_[1 I p3 Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSSION: if � / V0 I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: H"'o"Mplete L Incomplete Lq Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date SBurl - Gutterson Final Plat-#1 ver1 - 9/15/03 The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES December 1, 2003 South Burlington Planning Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Attn: Juli Beth Hoover, Director, Planning & Zoning Department RE: UVM Gutterson Parking Facility — UVM Athletic Campus 97 Spear Street (changed from 147 Spear Street) Dear Juli Beth: The University of Vermont is submitting a permit application — Application for Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat Review for the Gutterson Parking Facility. As you are aware, this project is located in both the cities of South Burlington and Burlington. The University has already completed the City of Burlington process and received a permit for the project in 2002. At that time, the project was put on hold until other issues had been resolved. The University is now ready to complete the permitting process in order to begin construction in anticipation of parking needs given future project plans. As a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the University has interpreted the subdivision boundaries to be UVM owned contiguous lands. The subdivision boundaries are bounded by Burlington Country Club to the south, Spear Street to the east, UVM owned property in Burlington to the west, and Main Street to the north. A brief synopsis of the project follows: Gutterson Parking Facility Project — The University is proposing to construct a new parking facility (estimated at 254,100 gross square feet) located on the north end of the existing Gutterson surface parking lots within the boundaries of both the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. The proposed project will accommodate 765 existing spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of Patrick Gymnasium and west of Spear Street. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of the facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design will utilize the advantages of the tiered topography, thereby eliminating the need to build extensive ramp construction. It will be handicapped accessible on all tiers without the need for elevator systems. All utilities and public services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University, such as electric, water, sewer, storm water, fire and police. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting through Spear Street (refer to Overall Plan Drawing #1, dated 7/18/03). The only exiting allowed to Spear Street will be the eastern most or lower level and the Marsh -Austin -Tupper and Harris -Millis parking lots 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Telephone (802) 656-3208, Fax (802) 656-8895 Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer ej that have traditionally exited to Spear Street. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. Refer to Attachment I — UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION for a more complete description of the project. PROJECT PURPOSE: Primarily to meet the needs of the additional parking requirements of the new student housing projects proposed at University Heights and Redstone Campus. At Sketch Plan Review (April 1, 2003), the Development Review Board authorized the University's traffic consultants, Resource Systems Group, Inc., to meet directly with the City of South Burlington's traffic consultants regarding the amended traffic study. A meeting has been scheduled to present the revised traffic study reflecting the one-way circulation with the City of South Burlington traffic consultants in early October 2003. With this application the University is also requesting: • Conditional use approval; • Waiver to construct the parking space width of 8.5 feet to maximize open space; and • Front 15 feet landscape waiver *. * The South Burlington City Council on 9/15/03 passed a motion authorizing Chuck Hafter, the City Manager, to execute an appropriate landscape license agreement for those plantings within the Spear Street right-of-way and final landscape plan as approved by the Development Review Board. Please find attached the Application for Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat Review and site plans with requisite attachments. Upon your receipt and review of the attached materials, please provide a written response that your office considers this application complete. Should you have any outstanding issues not addressed in the attached materials, please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely, Linda Seavey UVM Director, Campus Planning Services Attachments: South Burlington Final Plat Application Fee - $510.00 Application for Preliminary/Final Plat Review — Gutterson Parking Facility Exhibit A — Final Plat Attachment I: UVM — Gutterson Parking Facility Project Description Attachment II: List of Abutters and Addresses Ability to Serve Letters — BPW, BED, BPD, BFD, UVM Police Services, UVM Rescue University Standard Lighting Cut Sheets (4 pages) Resource Systems Group, Inc. Executive Summary Traffic Study, May 2003 Building & Site Plan Set: - 5 full size sets and 1 set of 11" x 17" Overall Plan - 1, dated 7/18/03 Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street to 233 Spear Street, dated 6/25/03 Ortho Photo Plan — C1A, dated 12/28/01 Horizontal Control Overall Plan — CON1, dated 12/28/01 Horizontal Control Partial Plan — CON2, dated 12/28/01 Existing Conditions & Soil Boring Plan — SB-1, dated 12/28/01 Overall Existing Conditions Plan — C1, dated 12/28/01 Overall Proposed Conditions Plan — C2, dated 12/28/01 Parking Structure Plan — C4, dated 12/28/01 Water and Sewer Details — C5, dated 12/28/01 Sewer and Drainage Details — C6, dated 12/28/01 Drainage and Roadway Details — C7, dated 12/28/01 Specifications — C8, dated 12/28/01 Specifications — C9, dated 12/28/01 Erosion Control Plan — C10, dated 12/28/01 Erosion Control Details/Specifications — C11, dated 12/28/01 Landscape Plan — L-1, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Site Sections — A-2, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Elevations — A-3, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Third Level Plan — A101, dated 1/31/02 Second Level Plan —A102, dated 1/31/02 First Level Plan — A103, dated 1/31/02 Kim Lighting Photometric Plan, dated 1/10/02 Gutterson Cover-sburl Final Plat-12-01-03 EXHIBIT A GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE FINAL PLAT The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. If submitting a final plat amendment, please submit only pertinent information. Please provide (on separate sheet) a list of all abutters to the project property and mailing addresses. • Complete survey of property by a licensed land surveyor drawn to scale (20 ft. is preferred). Refer to Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Name, license number, seal, and contact number of licensed land surveyor & date prepared. Refer to Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Survey data (acreage, property lines, zoning boundaries, watercourse, base flood elevation, etc.). Refer to Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Location of easements, public land, r.o.w.s, sidewalks, and public or private street (w/names). Refer to Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Five foot contours (existing and finished). Refer to Site Plan C-1 and C-4 • Location and size of any existing sewers (including septic tanks) and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdivided. Refer to Site Plan C-1 • Location, names, and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks, and other public open spaces. Refer to Site Plan C-1 and C-4 • Numerical and graphical scale, date last revised, and north arrow. Located on all plans • Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative water supply. Refer to Site Plan on C-1 and C-4 • Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. Not Applicable • Details of storm water facilities in the form of a drainage plan. Refer to Site Plan C-4, will show East Campus Stormwater Treatment & Collection Facility at presentation. • Details of all proposed bridges or culverts. Refer to Site Plan C-4 • Location of temporary markers. Not Applicable • All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and associated conditions. Not Applicable • A list of waivers desired (if any). Parking space waiver — 8.5 ft width and 15' front landscape waiver • Development timetable (including number of phases and start and completion dates). May 2004 — December 2004 (one phase) • A report addressing planned residential/unit development criteria of the Zoning Regulations. Not Applicable • Proposed landscaping schedule (number, variety and size). Refer to Landscape Plan L-1 • Location of abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Attached list to application — Attachment II • Number and location of parking spaces (see Section 26.25 of the Zoning Regulations). Refer to Site Plan A101 • Number and location of handicapped spaces (see Section 26.253(a) of the Zoning Regulations). Refer to Site Plan A101 • Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard. Included in application • Exterior lighting details (cut sheets). All lights should be downcasting and shielded. Refer to attached Kim Lighting Photometric Plan, dated 1/10/02, A-3, and attached cut sheets of University cut off lighting fixtures. Dumpster locations (dumpsters must be screened). Will install suitable receptacles in garage pedestrian entrances. Bicycle rack as required under Section 26.253(b) of the Zoning Regulations. Will place moveable bike racks as needed as part of overall bike rack location plan on -campus. If restaurant is proposed, provide number of seats and square footage of floor area provided for patron use but not containing fixed seats. Not Applicable APPLICATION FEE Final Plat Application $510.00 * Includes $10.00 recording fee. Attachment I UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Vermont is proposing to construct a new parking garage at Patrick-Forbush-Gutterson Athletic Complex of an estimated 254,100 gross square feet. The garage will be located at the north end of the existing parking area called Gutterson parking. The new parking garage facility will be within both the cities of Burlington and South Burlington boundaries. The project team is comprised of Smith-Alvarez-Sienkiewycz Architects, an architectural firm based in Burlington, VT; Barr & Barr, Inc., a construction firm in Middlebury, VT; Desman Associates, a parking structure consultant based in Wellesley Hills, MA; Civil Engineering Associates, a civil engineering firm based in Shelburne, VT; Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., based in Colchester, VT; Kirik Engineering, lighting consultant, based in Burlington, VT, and Resource Systems Group, Inc., a traffic consulting firm based in Norwich, VT. The project includes the design and construction of a parking structure to accommodate the 765 existing parking spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of the Patrick Gymnasium. The University proposes to construct parking space widths of 8.5 feet that is consistent with waivers/variances on record. This is intended to minimize impact on open green space across the campus. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, thereby eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design is expected to utilize the advantages of the tiered parking lot in the area to eliminate the need for extensive ramp construction. The facility will be fully accessible by persons with disabilities on the first two levels. Handicapped spaces will remain at their traditional location proximate to buildings. All utilities and public services, such as, electric, water, sewer, stormwater, fire and police services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University of Vermont. The existing access to Gutterson parking lots from only Spear Street will be changed as follows. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting through Spear Street (refer to Overall Plan Drawing #1, dated 7/18/03). The only exiting allowed to Spear Street will be the eastern most or lower level parking tier (north and south entrances/exits) and the Marsh -Austin -Tupper and Harris -Millis parking lots that have traditionally exited to Spear Street. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. By this routing system, this ensures that there will be less traffic utilizing Spear Street than currently exists, thereby, minimizing the impact of the new facility to the Spear Street neighbors. The lower level will be designed to replace the existing parking spaces and the elevation will be lowered two feet with a retaining wall located along the easterly edge of the existing parking lot to provide improved screening of vehicles and headlights from Spear Street. The topography works with the design to control access and limit traffic to Spear Street. The current circulation for vehicles and parking at the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights, Living/Learning Center, and Harris/Millis Residence Halls will be redirected through University Heights to Main Street, thereby, decreasing the existing condition of traffic accessing University properties in this area from Spear Street. Although in recent years, the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights have utilized Spear Street as its access, historically, the traditional access has always been Main Street. The parking garage will provide a major portion of the new parking needs created by the construction of undergraduate housing at University Heights and general additional parking needs to meet future projected project needs. The exterior lighting of the facility will utilize the University's adopted lighting policies and standards. The pedestrian pole standard is a 12-foot pole (C-12) to the lighting source with a 100-watt, 8-sided, metal halide lamp in University green (pole and hood), which is the same style fixture used in the Main Street Improvement Project. The roadway light pole is a 17-foot pole (C-17) to the lighting source with a 175-watt metal halide lamp in University green. As an added enhancement to the parking lot area, replacing existing parking lot lighting with the new UVM metal -halide standards (as informally requested by South Burlington planners) will be installed throughout the remaining exterior parking lots. The parking lot lighting is a 175- watt metal halide shoebox-style down light (cutoff fixture) on 20-foot pole in bronze. All site lighting has been located to minimize light pollution and spillage onto adjacent properties. Signage for the new facility will be consistent with the University's exterior signage policies and guidelines for the facility and parking lots, including directional, building identification, and parking lots. To mitigate its presence to the adjacent neighborhood as well as the vehicular view of approaching Spear Street from Main Street, landscape plantings will be strategically located. Key component of the design of the structure provides for future expansion to the south of the facility to meet future parking needs. Upon completion of this project, the overall lot coverage within the City of South Burlington will change slightly (.19 acres) primarily by covering the existing "berms" in the tiered parking lots. Campus Planning Services — 12/1/03 Proj Description - Gutterson SBurl-final plat Attachment II GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE List of all Abutters and Mailing Addresses University owned properties to the north, west, and south. All others are publicly or privately owned Spear Street neighbors that abut UVM properties as follows: Pamela Storey & James Thompson 74 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Marcella Peden, Trustee 82 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Cornelius J. Carr 88 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Gerald & Patricia Divincenzo 96 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joann P. Nielson 100 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Garth & Clara Peterson, Trustees 106 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Peter & Sylvia Tousley 112 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Albert & Ruth Reynolds 126 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Armin Grams Frederick & Patricia Cianci 134 Spear Street 188 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Walter & Nancy Antos, Trustees Rebecca Blodgett 140 Spear Street 210 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Ronald & Radetta Nemcosky George Passage, Jr. 148 Spear Street 220 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 John Lucas Hauman Dieter Gump, Trustee 156 Spear Street 226 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington Mary & Jan Rozendaal 160 Spear Street 233 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Tommy & Monica Devino Elizabeth Orr 168 Spear Street 234 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Khoi & Catherine Nguyen Kathie Desautels 170 Spear Street 238 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Mitchell & Sonja Hinsdale Burlington Country Club 184 Spear Street 568 South Prospect Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington, VT 05401 12/2,1/2001 FRI 15:23 FAX 802 8f Y66 Burlington DPW IN02 aA I N G TON 9 Lie C) December 21, 2001 Ms_ Linda Seavey INM - Campus Planning Services. 109 South prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Gutterson Parking Garage Ability to Serve Dear Ms. Seavey: CITY OF BURLINGTON bEPARTIMENT OF PUBL!C WOPKS 645 Pine Street, Suite A Post Office Sox 849 Burlington, VT 05402-064S 802,853.9094 VOX 802.863.0466 FAX $02,863.0450 TTY -.dow Ci burHngton vt us Steven Goodkind, P.E_ DIRECTOR OF PU13LIC WORKS CITY ENGINEER Our office has reviewed your December 20, 2001 letter and the December 21, 2001 letter from Bill Nedde of Krebs & Lansing and makes to following determinations on the referenced project: Burlington has to ability to serve the water, wastewater and stormwater demands for the parking garage_ Doing so will not negatively impact the City's infrastructure. Mr. Nedde stated the garage will place a negligible demand on city services. The garage is adjacent to two roads that are owned and maintained by UVM and as such will have no impact on DPW s ability to provide municipal services to the City of Burlington. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, i � J Justin Rabidou /Aq Cc: BM Nedde An Equal Opportunity Employer This material is available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities. TO request an accommodation, please call 602.863.9094 (voice) or a02.663.0450 (TTr�. '5 5 PP ne Street ^ Burlington, Verniont Ob401-4891 802/658-10300 0 802/86&7386 (TT Y/Voica) o Fax: 802/365-7400 Er,p`.c November 13, 2001Ut:_ Linda Seavey Director, Campus Planning Services University of Vermont 109 South Prospect Street Buriington, VT 05405-0016 Re: Ability to new Student Apartment Housing- and Gutterson Parking Garage Dear Linda: The Burlington Electric Department (BED) will be able to provide electric service -to these projects - However, provisions of electric service to these projects will be contingent on compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Burlington Electric Department and the State of Vermont Public Service Board. BED Energy Services staff will wort: with you to ensure that the design complies with the Guidelines for Energy Efficient Construction for the City of Burlington Vermont. November 13. 2000, In addition. BED is interested in assisting with the identification, analysis and implementation of cost-effective energy efficient design, emerging technologies and alternative energy system' options. Please call Loren Doe, Director of Commercial Services, BED at 865-7.3-341 to begin this process. Early involvement by BED and periodic review will expedite the approval process and assure access to available energy efficiency rebates. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 865-7323. Sincerely, BURLINGTON ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Andy Naiigl�ton J Line Extension Coordinator/ROW cc: John BED Loren Doe- Energy ServiC:3 ,DEC.21.2001 1:40PM BUf )TON POLICE NO.512 P.2 sY�a'4 a`�it3'�I_1Np' +4 ol 9 � Jy4 BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT One North Avenue Burlington, Vermont 05401 Alana M, Ennis Telephone (802) 658-2704 Chief of Pouts Fax (802) 865-7287 T.D.D. (802) 658-2700 T.D,D, EMERGENCY 911 December 21, 2001 Linda Seavey, Director. UVM Campus Planning Services Office of University Planning 1D9 So. Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Dear Ms. Seavey: I have received the plans for the proposed construction of a new parking garage to be located on the -north side of UVM's existing parking areas at Gutterson. As I stated in a previous letter to you in November 2001, Burlington residents have been pursuing ideas to alleviate the housing shortage caused, in part. by a shortage of on -campus housing. It is encouraging to witness a detailed undertaking by the University to alleviate some of the housing congestion by adding 400 beds of student housing on campus in addition to building a new parking structure. This department will continue to work with residents living near and around UVM's campus on the remaining quality of life issues that still remain. we are confident with the University's help, we will prevail in making our neighborhoods livable and peaceful for all residents and students. Since the University has its own full time Police Services Department. I do not anticipate the Gutterson Parking Garage project will have an impact on the Burlington Police Department. If you have any questions or concerns, please fell free to contact me at 658- 2704, extension 271, Very truly yours, BUR T N POLICE EPARTMENT Richard P. Long Lieutenant, Uniform Servi s y�r1GT®- �—�a 3 b 2 a �r 3 , UFti INGTo fY CAR£2R 100 YEARSO l a' NORTH H AVENUE DEPT. � BURLING i ON, VER,� ONT 054101 fax (802) 658 7665 CITY FIRE MARSHAL . (i7Y) (802) 865-7142 FIRE ALARM/SPRINKLER PLAN REVIEW PUSLIC INFORMATION G EDUCATION INSPECTION SERVICES '802) 864 6933 (802) 864-557 Linda Seavey Date: 12/05/01 Director, LVNI Campus Planning Services 109 So. Prospect St. Burlington, VT. 05405-0016 Re: Projected Impact to the Burlington Fire Department from the proposed New Parking Structure at Gutterson Field House Dear 1V1s. Seavey, The Fire Department has reviewed the project of the listed above. • The required fire alarm systems shall report all activations directly to the fire department. • Emergency response is not expected to have an impact on the departments call volume. • The structure may be required to have installed a supervised automatic sprinkler system. Sprinkler systems are designed to control the spread of fire and should not impact the fire department with regard to equipment or personnel. A standpipe system may also be required which shall lower the impact to the department with regard to equipment. • Water supply data for this area is over 12 years old. A report of the current water flows for this area must be completed before a determination can be made as to.the availability of adequate water for suppression activities per NFPA 25. Based on the information received by the fire department. The department assesses that there should not be a major impact to the department. . Yours 'n P�zblic Safety, Christopher I- Gilbert Assistant Fire Marshal Cc: -Mark Aldridge, Director Burlington Planning and Zoning RobertPamode, Fire Chief -Michael Bourdreau, Director, UV14 A&,E Services Lichael Douglass, Ambling Project- Manager Julia -N'ugeni, Sasaka Architect Gary-Margoiis, UVMPolice Services Gus -Mastro, UVMPhysical Plant v1Yi`..XE IDE f L.C;llniRv ANIL—D FR SPRINKi= S S,-`.`d'. LINCE he _ °Y V� 1 DEl VIENT OF POLICE SERVICES Gutsy j. lwargolis, Cnief of ?olice November 12, 2001 Linda.;Seavey, Director Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 Dear Linda, We've reviewed the plans for the new student housing and Gutterson parking garage as requested. We expect to be adequately staffed to provide the requisite police services indicated necessary for approval of these projects. If we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us. Regards, mA j J", Yar,y,,J3 iMa4oli\s, td.D. f Chief/Directo of Police Services =_3- i �Zen, 'zs er_- U:�:-�LGI �v- -� - v . , _ _ ��.Q/ Ci6 2 =C.0 !--an n '8OU2 �� - i; a r'a.� 180_ i;iC--SG-- - n --moo__: v—, J L'•-��� - --= 'geIICr: 91 _ a TiD ! io2, 650 11/12/01 15:14. UVM I CE 8026568895 NO. 016 t;O1 U�cJx-S CUB r i.iVM Rescue 284 East Avenue Ourlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 656-4287 To Linda Seawy, Director, Campus Planning Services:. 1, Jennifer King, Director of Operations of UVM Rescue, have re-vimved the plans for propostd.coustr-uction on campus and agree to maintain the following corn' tm=ts as an advanced life support ambuf ne$_ 1 _) UVM Rescue will provide EMT and Ambulance response to the um facility as it cmrently does for the rest of campus. . 2.) Should UV M Rescbt lac on another call, the current arrangement for backup assistance will came from the appropriate ambulance ne :t in line according to tht approved District #3 response lists_ Pltast frci free to contact me with any other questions or concerns regarding this drvclopn=t plan. Sincerely, J iftr M. King Director of Operarlflns GARDCO PARKING LOT FIXTURE MODEL# (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-1-3-100MH-120-BRA-CD MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-2-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD GARDCO 6" STRAIGHT SQUARE ALUMINUM POLE MODEL (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): SSA6- 0-D1-BRA-PCR MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): SSA6-20-D2-BRA-PCR m FINISH: BRONZE ANODIZED BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE cc PARKING LOT LIGHT NOT TO SCALE GARDCO PARKING LOT FIXTURE MODEL# (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-1-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-2-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD FINIS -I: BRONZE ANODIZED PARKING AREA LIGHT FIXTU NOT TO SCAT F LUMINAIRE MODEL#: 100MH—L70—PC—FC—SE3—QTA/ 120—SFO—GN8TX—LMS12030A LUMEC ROUND ALUMINUM BOTTLENECK POLE POLE: AM6F-10—VP—GN8TX—LMS 12030A POLE HT. IS 10'-0" COLOR: UVM STANDARD (DARK GREEN) COLOR #: GNBTX ACCESS DOOR BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE 2" PEDESTRIAN LIGHT POLE (TYPE C) NOT TO SCALE 0 0 N-j w o f � I = 1 CD t J MODEL#: 175MH—L70—PC—FC—SE3—QTA/ 120—SFO—GN8TX—LMS12029A LLWEC ROUND ALUMINUM BOTTLENECK POLE POLE: LMS12029A-15—VP—GN8TX POLE HT. IS 15'-0" COLOR: UVM STANDARD (DARK GREEN) COLOR: GN8TX ACCESS DOOR BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE O ROADWAY LIGHT POLE(TYPEC17 NOT TO SCALE SOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP INCO-RPORATED Draft Traffic Impact Study for the: UVM SOUTH CAMPUS .MASTER ER PLAN Burlington and South Burlington, Vermont Prepated for: The University of Vermont May 2003 331 ulcott give, `Nhite River Junction, Vermont 05001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2001, Resource Systems Group and the University of Vermont (LTVryi) submitted a traffic impact study: Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UV\,I to the Burlington Development Review Board (DRB). The study analyzed the impacts of a 400-bed student housing project called South Ledge Apartments. In early 2002, the 400-bed project received approval from the DRB. The project has -since been reduced from 400 beds to 203 beds and the name of the new development has been changed from South Ledge Apartments to Catamount Apartments. This traffic impact study is intended as a supplement to the previous study. The University of Vermont is proposing to develop the 203-bed apartment complex on land located to the east of the existing Redstone Apartments, which are located on South Prospect Street. The new two building Catamount Apartments complex would be built upon an existing surface parking lot. In addition, MT&I is planning to construct a traditional dormitory complex with up to 850 beds on University Heights which will replace the existing buildings. This traffic study includes traffic from the dormitories in the analysis of future conditions (2009). Concurrently, ZWM is proposing to construct a parking garage upon the site of the existing Gutterson Field House surface parking lot. This parking garage will accommodate a portion of the additional parking demand generated by the University Heights dormitories. Up to an additional 550 parking spaces will be provided at the new parking facility. The traffic impacts of the garage are analyzed in both the 2004 and 2009 analysis. In association with these developments, UV>VI is proposing to build new roads connecting the Catamount Apartments to University Heights and Spear Street. These new roads will connect South Prospect Street at Redstone Apartments to University Heights at Main Street and to Spear Street at the access to the Gutter-s:on Field House. Two access alternatives for connecting these streets are �r? considered in this traffic 'stur: Access Alternative 1: This plan provides full access. Any vehicle may enter or exit the campus at any one of the three access points (Spear Street adjacent to the Gutterson Garage, South Prospect Street adjacent to the Redstone Campus, and University Heights). M Draft: UVM South Campus Master Plan Traffic Study — Executive Summary May 2003 Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 2 Access Alternative 2: This plan is a more constrained access regimen with the following provisions: o The southerly access drive on South Prospect Street would access an approximately 150-space existing parking lot only. o The northerly access drive on South Prospect Street proximate to the Redstone _Apartments would be restricted to one way, enter -only flow. o Access to the second and third level.of the proposed Gutterson garage and surface lots (821 spaces) would be gained from Spear Street, University Heights, or South Prospect Street. Egress from the second and third level of the proposed garage and surface lots; however, would be via University Heights only. o Access to the lower level of the proposed Gutterson garage and surface lots (500 spaces), as well as access to adjacent surface parking lots (124 spaces proximate to Harris-&fillis and 117 spaces at the MAT lot) would be via Spear Street only. Egress from these parking areas could be via Spear Street or University Heights. This traffic study provides an analysis of traffic impacts related to these proposed changes on campus. The impact of these new vehicle trips are evaluated at seven intersections: ■ plain Street and the Sheraton Driveway; • Main Street and East Avenue; • Main Street and Spear Street; Main Street and University Heights; • Main Street and South Prospect Street; • Spear Street and Gutterson North Driveway and; • South Prospect Street and North Redstone Driveway Traffic conditions for both access alternatives are estimated for 2004 and 2009. The 2004 traffic impacts include the proposed Catamount Apartments project and the Gutterson Garage project. The proposed Catamount Apartments project and the Gutterson Garage project are estimated to generate 237 PM peak hour trips. The 2009 analysis includes the impacts from Catamount Apartments, the Gutterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights dormitory complex. The proposed Catamount Apartments, the Gutterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights dormitory complex are estimated to generate 350 PM peak hour trips: • Catamount Apartments — 41 peak hour vehicles trips, • Gutterson Garage —163 peak hour vehicles trips, and • University Heights Dormitories — 153 peak hour vehicles trips. Draft UVM South Campus Master Plan Traffic Study — Executive Summary Resource Systems Group, Inc. May 2003 page 3 Future traffic conditions include growth in background traffic of 2.2% annually, plus additional trips associated with Fletcher Allen Health Care's Renaissance Project. The traffic analysis indicates that projected congestion is more problematic during the PM peak hour. Hence, this study analyzes the PM peak hour conditions. The measures recommended to mitigate traffic congestion and safety impacts are: • Maintain time of day coordinated timings plans for the Main Street corridor. • Prohibit westbound left turns at the intersection of Main Street and University Heights.. • Create a comprehensive signage plan to guide eastbound Main Street users onto Interstate 89 at the Jughandle. • Conduct a full signal warrant analysis of the intersection of Spear Street with the `•:! Gutterson parking facilities after the Catamount Apartments and Gutterson Garage projects are completed, and install a traffic signal if warranted. • Connect UVTV1 driveways at South Prospect Street, University Heights, and Spear Street via an internal roadway network subject to an access plan described in this traffic study as Access Alternative 1 or Access Alternative 2. Under either access regimen, the internal street network would be traffic calmed, and open to public use. With these mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the surrounding roadway network. The following mitigation measures are not recommended specifically for the UVNf project but should be the subject of further discussion with respect to Burlington and South Burlington traffic concerns. • Installing at red light running camera at the intersection of Main Street and East Avenue. Despite recent results showing the effectiveness of this technology, installing such camera is not currently legal in Vermont. • Installing a queue detector to detect southbound queues at the intersection of Main and South Prospect. This measure can be effective in improving overall traffic operations, but should be evaluated for its effect on Main Street corridor progression. TRANSMITTAL UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Campus Planning Services Linda Seavey, Director 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405-0016 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX E-Mail: linda.seavey@uvm.edu TO: South Burlington Planning & Zoning RE: Gutterson Garage WE ARE SENDING YOU: DATE: 12/01/03 # Pages Uated Uescri tion 11/2 /03 UVM check 08-400977 $510.00 09/16/03 1 Application for Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat Review THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: ❑ For your approval ❑ For review and comment ✓ Per your request ❑ For your use/ information ❑ For return REMARKS Enclosed is an additional UVM check #08-400977 in the amount of $510.00 for Final Plat Application Fee — see attached copy of application letter and copy of original check. ThTe�T�%� �} (�T g9�8 V 1 r 1 � 11RS1r.1rr of VER.,lVI0N 1. CAMPUS PLANNING SERVJ(_'FS September 16, 2003 South Burlington Planning Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Attn: Juli Beth Hoover, Director, Planning & Zoning Departniorif RE: UVM Gutterson Parking Facility — UVM Athletic Campi 13 97 Spear Street (changed from 147 Spear Street) Dear Juli Beth: The University of Vermont is submitting a permit application -- Application for Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat Review for the Guttersoi i F arking Facility. As you are aware, this project is located in both the cities of South Burlington and Burlington. The University has already completed the City of Burlington proc&;s and received a permit for the project in 2002. At that time, the project was put on hold until oth3r issues had been resolved. The University is now ready to complete the permitting proceEs ii order to begin construction in anticipation of parking needs given future project plans. As a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the University has interpreted the subdivision boundaries to be UVM owned contiguous lands. The subdivision boundaries are bounded by Burlington Country Club to the south, Spear Street to the east, U\/M owned property in Burlington to the west, and Main Street to the north. A brief synopsis of the project follows: Gutterson Parking Facility Project — The University s proposing to construct a new parking facility (estimated at 254,100 gross square feet) Iccated on the north end of the existing Gutterson surface parking lots within the boundaries of both the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. The props SE d project will accommodate 765 existing spaces and up to 550 net new parking sp.icEs on the existing surface parking lot east of Patrick Gymnasium and west of Spear Street. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventiiati-.n mechanical systems. The height of the facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade c;f tie lower parking level. The design will utilize the advantages of the tiered topography, thereby eliminating the need to build extensive ramp construction. It will be handicapped accessible on all tiers without the need for elevator systems. All utilities and public services will be provided by the of Burlington and the University, such as electric, water, sewer, storm water, fire and police. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadvrothrough University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting throu(lh Spear Street (refer to Overall Plan Drawing #1, dated 7/18/03). The only exiting allovved to Spear Street will be the eastern most or lower level and the Mars h-Austin-Tupf:er and Harris -Millis parking lots 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT O- 40`•-0016 Telephone (802) 656-3208, Fax (802) 65c,-3ti95 Equal Opportunity i A$irmative Action l mplotlei - � that have traditionally exited to Spear Street. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. Refer to Attachrr ent I — UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION for a more complet) dEscription of the project. PROJECT PURPOSE: Primarily to meet the needs o-' thE. additional parking requirements of the new student housing projects procx)sE.d at University Heights and Redstone Campus. At Sketch Plan Review (April 1, 2003), the Development Revi,;w Board authorized the University's traffic consultants, Resource Systems Group, Inc , to meet directly with the City of South Burlington's traffic consultants regarding the amended :raific study. A meeting has been scheduled to present the revised traffic study reflecting the one-tvay circulation with the City of South Burlington traffic consultants in early October 2003. With this application the University is also requesting: • Conditional use approval; • Waiver to construct the parking space width of 8.5 fee to maximize open space; and • Front 15 feet landscape waiver *. * The South Burlington City Council on 9/15/03 passed a motion authorizing Chuck Halter, the City Manager, to execute an appropriate landscape license agre.ment for those plantings within the Spear Street right-of-way and final landscape plan as app'ovE:d by the Development Review Board. Please find attached the Application for Preliminary/Final Sub, liv lion Plat Review and site plans with requisite attachments. Upon your receipt and review of the attached materials, pleas:) provide a written response that your office considers this application complete. Should you h,:rvE! any outstanding issues not addressed in the attached materials, please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely, W,A Linda Seavey UVM Director, Campus Plann' g Services Attachments: South Burlington Final Plat Application Fee - $510.00 Application for Preliminary/Final Plat Review — Gutterson Parking Facility Exhibit A — Final Plat Attachment is UVM — Gutterson Parking Facility Project Description Attachment II: List of Abutters and Addresses Ability to Serve Letters — BPW, BED, BPD, BFD, UVM F'cl ce Services, UVM Rescue University Standard Lighting Cut Sheets (4 pages) Resource Systems Group, Inc. Executive Summary Tr,iffi: Study, May 2003 Building & Site Plan Set: - 5 full size sets and 1 set of ' -I" x 17" Overall Plan - 1, dated 7/18/03 Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main S :reet to 233 Spear Street, dated 6/25/03 — p(+ �,.�1,�+�, ,.., C. '$ Gtw,,.. Wl� I ! Ortho Photo Plan — CIA, dated 12/28/01 Horizontal Control Overall Plan — CON1, dated 2/28/01 Horizontal Control Partial Plan - CbN2, dated 12/28/01 Existing Conditions & Soil Boring Plan — SB-1, dated 12/28/01 Overall Existing Conditions Plan — C1, dated '12/28/01 Overall Proposed Conditions Plan — C2, dated 12/28/01 Parking Structure Plan — C4, dated 12/28/01. Water and Sewer Details — C5, dated '12/28/0 7 Sewer and Drainage Details — C6, dated 12/28/01 Drainage and Roadway Details — C7, dated 12/23/01 Specifications — C8, dated 12/28/01 Specifications — C9, dated 12/28/01, Erosion Control Plan — C10, dated 12/28/01 Erosion Control 'Detaiis/Specifications -- C11, dated 12/28/01 Landscape Plan — L-1, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Site Sections —A-2, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Elevations — A-3, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Third Level Plan —Al01, dated 1/31/02 Second Level Plan — A102, dated 1/31/02 First Level Plan — Al03, dated 1/31/02 Kim Lighting Photometric Plan, dated 1/10/02 Gutterson Cover-sburl Final Plat-9-16-03 I UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE ACCOUNTS PAYARLF BUlil-INGTON, VERMONT 05405-0160 (802) 656-4192 INVOICE DATE INVOICE NO. PURCHASE VOUCHER INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNTORDER AMOUNT AMOUNT PAID 09/11/03 9/11/3GARAGE 4048700 510.00 510.00 C ELECTRONIC FORM a 1001/REV 3 • . 516 510.00 VENDOR NO. P0000299670 CHECK DATE 09/1_2/03 CHECK NO. 08-389887 DETACH MERE AND KEEP FOR YOUR RECORDS I VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS 'MULTI -TON E SECURITY DOCUMENT CHECK 9ACKGROUN:) AI IE:A CHANGES COLOR GRADUALLY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.. V RSITV, OF VFR'M-6INT MIN ` 08- 189$$7 59-3 AND STATIE A61klCULTUR LOLL GJK 1�6 Burlington; V6e mo* 05405' CHECK NO: . "�/`✓DNLY ' Of S CHECKDATE AMOUNT (9/12/03 ********$510.00 TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ORDER OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET ST 23 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403BANKNORTH VERMONT ./% BURLINGTON. VT 05402 VOID OVER $510.00 �,,,/R'� 7 ✓Treasurer 10038988?", 1:01L6000331: 1109 0LL 493 5119 THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HAS A WHITE REFLECTIVE WATERMARK ON THE BACK, HOLD AT AN ANGLI TIC SEE THE MARK WHEN CHECKNG THE ENDORSEMENT. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT 221 WATERMAN BUILDING 85 SOUTH PROSPECT STREET BURLINGTON, VT 05405-0160 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 RISI G INC. Ft E"Otl it C°f-: SYSTP-los GP(,)V', INC. MEMORANDUM To: Roger Dickinson, P.E. From: Nicole Buck Subject: UVM South Campus Master Plan — Response to Comments Date: 12 January 2004 Copy to: Juli Beth Hoover Robert Penniman Resource Systems Group has prepared the following response to your 26 November 2003 memorandum commenting on our May 2003 Draft South Campus Master Plan Traffic Impact Study. Your comments are listed followed by our response in italics. 1. Figure 4, pg. 10: It is worth noting that two years of AADT data are now available for CTC D099 on I-189 since this figure was originally prepared. The AADT's for both 2001 and 2002 indicate an actual background traffic growth rate of 0.5% for those two years instead of the estimated 1.2%. In updating the 2001 traffic study, we were aware of the lower background trafficgrowth rate in recentyears. However, the more conservative growth rate better reflects significant fluctuations within the past sixyears, parficularybetween 1997 and 1999. 2. Figures 5 & 6, pp 11-12: The estimated 2004 and 2009 no -build traffic volumes shown appear to include only the 2.2% annual background growth. It is not readily apparent to us where Fletcher Alien's Renaissance Project traffic has been added in. The 2004 and 2009 No Build volumes include traffrcgenerated by FAHC's Renaissance Project. Raw volumes were adjusted to reflect the design hour and annualgrowth and then Renaissance Project generated trips were added toyield the No Build volumes. The raw traffic volumes, DHV, and backgroundgrowth adjustments are shown in Appendix B. Figure 1 shows the estimated FAHC traffic for each of the study area intersections. These volumes were added to the adjusted traffic volumes to obtain the 2004 and 2009 No Build traffic volumes shown in Figures S & 6, pp 11-12. 331 OICOtt Drive, Wnite River Junction, Vermont 05001 rEr.802.295.4999 • Fax802.295.1006 • www.raginc.com Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 Figure 1: Estimated FAHC Renaissance Project Traffic page 2 Minor revisions were made to the LOS for the Main Street— .Sheraton and Main Street— East Avenue intersections after reviewing the EAHC Pr ject traffic volumes for this memorandum. Table 1 shows the revised LOS for these intersections. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 3 Table 1: Revised LOS for Access Alternative 2 for the Main Street - Sheraton and Main Street - East Avenue Intersections Intersection Scenario OVERALL LOS Delay Eastbound LOS Delay Westbound LOS Delay Northbound LOS Delay Southbound LOS Delay Main Street/Sheraton 2004 No Build for Access Alternative 2 C 24 C 34 A 9 C 35 D 38 2004 Build for Access Alternative 2 C 27 D 41 A 9 C 35 D 38 2009 No Build for Access Alternative 2 D 45 E 74 A 10 C 35 D 40 2009 Build for Access Alternative 2 D 51 F 85 A 10 C 35 D 40 Main Street/East Avenue 2004 No Build for Access Alternative 2 A 9 A 7 A 5 C 31 - - 2004 Build for Access Alternative 2 A 9 A 7 A 5 C 31 - - 2009 No Build for Access Alternative A 9 A 8 A 5 C 31 2009 Build for Access Alternative 2 A 9 1 A 8 1 A 5 1 c 31 4. Figures 8-11 & Table 5, pp. 17-21: Comparing Access Alternative 1 vs. Access Alternative 2 (Fig. 8 vs. Fig. 10 and Fig. 9 vs. Fig.11), there are large changes in several turning movements, (e.g. the EB LT out of Gutterson North onto Spear St.) which do not make a lot of sense. Similarly, the net changes shown in Table 5 do not match the volumes shown in Fig. 8-11. Because of this, we have not checked the volumes input into the capacity analyses. We would prefer that the foregoing volumes be verified by RSG prior to performing that step. Figurer 8 and 9 (Access Alternative 1) show only trip generation while Figures 10 and 11 (Access Alternative 2) show both trip generation and the redistribution of existing trips due to the new circulation plan. The volumes shown in the Build figures are correct, but, the two sets of figures are not immediately comparable. To clarify this issue, we have separated tip generation and existing trip distribution for both access alternatives (Figure 2 -Figure 9). Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 4 Figure 2: 2004 Trip Generation forAccess Alternative 1 Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 5 Figure 3: 2004 Redistribution of Existing Trips for Access Alternative 1 Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 6 Figure 4: 2009 Trip Generation for Access Alternative 1 Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 Figure 5: 2009 Redistribution of Existing Trips for Access Alternative 11 page 7 1 2009 Existing Trip Redistribution includes trips removed from the existing Universitv Heights Development as well as the trips redistributed because of the network changes. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 8 Figure 6: 2004 Trip Generation for Access Alternative 2 Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 9 Figure 7: 2004 Redistribution of Existing Trips for Access Alternative 2 Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 10 Figure 8: 2009 Trip Generation for Access Alternative 2 Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 Figure 9: 2009 Redistribution of Existing Trips for Access Alternative 21 page 11 12009 Existing Trip Redistribution includes trips removed from the existing University Heights Development as well as the trips redistributed because of the network changes. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 12 Adding the trip generation, existing trip redistribution, and cut through volumes for each year and access alternative results in the net change from the No Build to Build in vehicles during the PM peak hour at each intersection (Table 5 in the report and Table 2 below). I Table 2: Net Change In Vehlcles per PM Peak Hour at Study Area Intersections When Compared to the No Build Intersection 2004 Access Alternative 1 2004 Access Alternative 2 2009 Access Alternative 1 2004 Access Alternative 2 Main and Sheraton* +86 +87 +104 +106 Main and East -29 -24 -14 -9 Main and Spear -176 +30 -186 +46 Man and Uni. Heights +121 +287 +135 +329 Main and S. Prospect +65 +50 +97 +90 Spear and Gutterson -28 -190 -18 -198 S. Prospect and Redstone -25 -124 -17 -120 - rvmi0i i-c vcrnue aisurepanums are due to rounding mmin the calculations Access Alt 1: Full Access Access Alt 2: One -Way Inbound at Gutterson Garage and North Redstone. 5. Cut -Through Traffic, pg 22-26: Table 6 shows four cut -through possibilities. We believe that there is also a fifth; SBR Spear/Gutterson to WBL Prospect/Redstone. This represents a potential cut -through route for traffic exiting Fletcher Allen and UVM onto East Avenue heading southbound towards Shelburne Road. We are also not able to clearly track the trips shown in Fig. 12-15 for the fourth possibility; NBR Prospect/Redstone to Spear. Are those headed left on Spear or right? The figures indicate the latter, which seems illogical. The Chittenden County Travel Demand Model was used to estimate and distribute cut -through trips. The model considers distance, travel speed, and congestion to determine the shortest time between two points. An approximation of the proposed UVM internal roadway network for Access Alternative 1 was constructed in the model. The cut -through percentage was calculated based on the model results. Of the vehicles making a northbound right turn at the South Prospect -Redstone intersection, the model results show one-third (1)making a right turn at University Heights to access points east and two-thirds (2) making a right turn at Spear Street to access points south. Other vehicles making a right turn at the Spear Street --North Gutterson driveway intersection enter the internal UVM road network via the Main Street -University Heights intersection. With no other data available, these results were utilized in our analysis. 1 There is a typographical error in the original Table 5 in the report. The change in vehicles for the 2004 Access Alternative 1 at the Main Street - Spear Street intersection is reported to be -17. It should be reported as -176. Additionally there was a minor 1-3 vehicle cut -through traffic distribution error which affects volumes at the Main Street - University Heights and Spear Street - Gutterson Driveway intersection. Table 1 in this memorandum reflects these corrections. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 13 The volumes shown in Figures 12-1 S in the report do not reflect what was analyzed. Figure 10 and Figure 11 below show the correct cut -through trip distributions forAlternative 1. Cut -through for the fifth alternative described above was not included in the analysis because it was not shown to be stafishealysignificant by the model. Additionally underAccess Alternative 2, which has been chosen as the preferred access alternative, the fifth cut through alternative is not an option because of the proposed internal circulation patterns. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 14 Figure 10: 2004 Alternative 1 Cut -through Traffic Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 15 Figure 11: 2009 Alternative 2 Cut -through Traffic Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 16 6. Congestion Analysis, pp 34-39: We have two major questions concerning the level of service analyses at the major intersections. The first concerns pedestrians crossing at the Main Street / University Heights intersection, and whether or not the analyses take this into account. The second concerns the lane utilization of multiple lanes along the Main Street / Williston Road corridor. For example, the eastbound through lanes at the Main St./Spear St. intersection have been coded in as two exclusive through lanes plus a combined through/right-turn lane. For that coding, the Highway Capacity Manual applies a 0.90 lane utilization factor; which basically says that the volume in any one of the three lanes can vary by ±10%. Our observations of traffic flow along this corridor indicate that this historically has not been the case. This is due to several factors; the large percentage of traffic lining up to get onto I-89 being a major one. It has been our experience that the lane utilization significantly affects actual delays and queue lengths, and recommend that this be reexamined. The LOS analysis at the Main Street — University Heights intersection assumed 10 pedestrian button calls per hour in each direction. To simulate the lane utilization along the eastbound approach at the Main Street - Spear Street, we converted the right lane from a right/through to a right only and analyzed the intersection with only 2 through lanes for the 2004 Build Alternative 2 scenario. This analysis showed a decrease in the eastbound LOS by 2 seconds (from LOS `B"with 15.8 seconds to LOS `B " with 17.8 seconds). The Synchro HCM results are attached to this memorandum. In addition to the analysis described above, we performed a sensitivity analysis to analyze the impact on the lane utilization in the eastbound direction. We analyzed lane utilizations between 0.90 and 0.70 to assess the impact. The analysis shows that the lane utilization does impact LOS for the eastbound approach, however in all cases except 2009 the LOS is "C" or better. Furthermore although lane utilization can have an impact on delay, as congestion increases drivers will tend to utilize the available lanes in more efficient manner therefore increasing the lane utilization factor. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 Table 3: Lane Utilization Sensitivity Analysis page 17 OVERALL Eastbound Westbound Southbound Main Street -Spear Street LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 2004 No Build for Access Alternative 2 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.70 B 20 B 18 B 13 C 26 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.80 B 19 B 16 B 13 C 26 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.90 B 18 B 15 B 13 C 26 2004 Build for Access Alternative 2 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.70 C 21 C 20 B 15 C 26 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.80 B 20 B 17 B 15 C 26 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.90 B 19 B 16 B 15 C 26 2009 No Build for Access Alternative 2 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.70 C 25 C 26 C 20 C 27 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.80 C 23 B 19 C 20 C 27 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.90 C 22 B 17 C 20 C 27 2009 Build for Access Alternative 2 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.70 C 31 D 40 C 23 C 29 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.80 C 25 C 23 C 23 C 29 Lane Utilization Factor = 0.90 C 24 B 20 C 23 C 29 Signal Waffant Analysis, pp 39-40: The MUTCD requires that signal warrants be evaluated using average weekday volumes, not design hour volumes. For this reason, the conclusion that the peak hour volume warrant is satisfied at the Spear St./Gutterson North intersection should be reexamined. It should be noted, that in comparing Table 11 to Table 9, Access Alternative 2 provides very significant level of service benefits at this intersection. We believe that Access Alternative 2 could well avoid the need to signalize this intersection. By doing a DHV signal warrant analysis, we can quickjdetemvine if an intersection requires any additional analysis with respect to signali.Zation witboutgenerating new average weekday volumes. If the intersection meets the DHV signal warrant analysis, we recommend looking at the intersection in more depth which would include using an average meekday peak hour adjustment. If Access Alternative 1 were to be pursued, a formal signal warrant analysis based on average traffic volumes would need to be conducted. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 18 8. Safety Analysis, pg. 40: Our primary concern relative to safety is the lack of any discussion in the traffic study relative to pedestrian movement along Spear Street and/or of crossings at key intersections. While the pedestrian movements generated by UVM are primarily contained within their campus, external movements do occur to and from local shopping destinations in South Burlington, and also clustered around major sporting events at the Gutterson complex. Will the Spear Street corridor study be addressing this issue? Based on our conversation, we understand that this comment is in specific reference to pedestrian crossings at the jug - handle intersections. Both of these intersections currently have pedestrian signal phasing and crosswalk r. Additionally, the findings of fact for the approved Preliminary Plat application state: The applicant has not proposed any sidewalk or recreation path. The Development Review Board does not recommend a sidewalk be constructed along Spear Street as apart of the proposed project. We have chosen not to formally address comment 3, but are pleased that you have agreed with our trip generation methodology and calculations. After the Preliminary Plat Development Review Board Hearing, the question was raised as to whether a left turn lane would be appropriate for the northbound Spear Street approach to the proposed Gutterson Garage. 9. Left Turn Warrant Analysis: Resource Systems Group conducted a left turn warrant analysis at the Spear Street-Gutterson North Driveway intersection using the Harmelink methodology. This analysis was conducted for projected PM peak hour volumes (No Build and Build, 2004 and 2009). The Build scenarios account for traffic shifts projected to result from the proposed new access plan. The left turn warrant analysis shows a northbound left turn lane is warranted in all scenarios. The results are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Left Turn Lane Warrant Results Spear Street - Gutterson North NBL Warranted? PM Peak Hour 2004 No Build Y 2004 Build Y 2009 No Build Y 2009 Build Y We conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the threshold of left turn volume at which the northbound left turn lane is no longer warranted.) As shown in Table 5, the northbound left turn volume would need to be reduced between 1 and 18 vehicles during the PM peak hour depending on the scenario. Table 5 1 All other movement volumes were held constant in this analysis. Response to 26 November 20003 UVM South Campus Master Plan Comments Resource Systems Group, Inc. 12 January 2004 page 19 Table 5: Northbound Left Turn Volume Comparisons Max NBL Volume Estimated If LT Lane Not spear street - Uutterson North NBL Volume Warranted Difference PM Peak Hour 2004 No Build 37 36 1 2004 Build 39 33 6 2009 No Build 40 28 12 2009 Build 43 25 18 The formal design of a northbound left turn lane, including storage length, taper, and centerline shift can be provided Resource Systems Group if requested. Given that the lane warrant is narrowly met, we recommend that this intersection be monitored once per year following the opening of the Gutterson Garage, for a period of 3 years. An engineering report determining the need for a left turn lane based on the then current traffic volumes shall be issued and submitted to the City of South Burlington for their review and consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions. I Better Site Design Checklist DRAFT 2 1/12/04 It is the aim of this checklist to aid designers in thoroughly considering "Better Site Design" (BSD) concepts for development projects and to improve the use of the `BSD" credits outlined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual for new development in impaired waters. Implementation of BSD will help protect streams from pollutants in urban runoff and associated hydrological changes in streams. Completion of this checklist is required in impaired waters. The checklist should be completed as early as possible in the design phase. 1. Natural Area Conservation Credit A stormwater credit is given when natural areas are conserved at development sites, thereby retaining their pre -development hydrologic and water quality characteristics. A simple WQV credit (reduction in the required water quality volume) is granted for all conservation areas protected under the terms of the permit or other locally acceptable means. 1.1. Does the site contain soils with high infiltration capacity or areas in forest cover? 1.2. Can all or a portion of these areas be maintained in a natural vegetative state as a natural area and restricted from development and disturbance for the life of the stormwater permit? If not, explain why? 2. Disconnection of Rooftop Runoff Credit A credit is given when rooftop runoff is "disconnected" and then directed over to a pervious area where it can either infiltrate into the soil or flow over it with sufficient time and velocity to allow for filtering. The credit is typically obtained by grading the site to promote overland flow through vegetated channels or by providing bioretention areas either on -lot or in common areas. 2.1. Can disconnection of rooftops be designed to adequately address the issue of basement seepage? 2.2. Are soils relatively permeable (HSG A and B)? 2.3. In less permeable soils (HSG C and D), can a spreading device such as a french drain, gravel trench or other temporary storage device be used to provide sheetflow over grass surfaces and to compensate for a poor infiltration capability? 2.4 Can rooftops be disconnected in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual? If not, explain why. 2.5 To improve infiltration capability of soils consider augmenting with top soil. (This item is listed only as guidance.) 3. Disconnection of Non -Rooftop Runoff Credit Credit is given for practices that disconnect surface impervious cover runoff by directing it to pervious areas where it is either infiltrated into the soil or filtered (by overland flow). This credit can be obtained by grading the site to promote overland vegetative filtering. 3.1. Are soils relatively permeable (HSGs A and B)? 3.2. In less permeable soils (HSG C and D), can a spreading device such as a french drain, gravel trench or other temporary storage device be used to provide sheetflow over grass surfaces and to compensate for a poor infiltration capability? 3.3 Can areas of surface impervious cover runoff be disconnected in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual? If not, explain why? 4. Stream Buffer Credit This credit is given when a stream buffer effectively treats stormwater runoff. Effective treatment constitutes capturing runoff from pervious and impervious areas adjacent to a stream buffer and treating runoff through the overland flow in a natural buffer. The use of a filter strip is also recommended to treat overland flow in the green space of a development site. 4.1. Are any streams or wetlands present on the site? 4.2. Can a minimum 50-foot buffer be maintained in a natural condition (ungraded, uncompacted and in its natural vegetation) to capture and treat runoff from pervious and impervious areas that are adjacent to the buffer in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual? If not, explain why. 5. Grass Channel Credit Credit may be given when open grass channels are used to reduce the volume of runoff and pollutants during smaller storms (i.e. 0.9 inches and less). 5.1. Will the site be developed as moderate to low density residential (maximum density of 4 du/ac)? (If no, the credit is not applicable.) 5.2. Can grass channels be incorporated into the site design in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual? If not, explain why. 6. Environmentally Sensitive Rural Devlopment Credit This credit is given when a group of environmental site design techniques are applied to lower density or rural residential development. 6.1. Will the site be developed as a low density (minimum of 0.5 dwelling units per acre) residential development? (If no, the credit is not applicable.) 6.2. Can a combination of natural conservation areas, rooftop disconnection, grass channels and stream buffers (if applicable) be applied to the site design in accordance with the requirements in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual? If not explain why. SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT SUBGROUP MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 The Group began by focusing on a draft prepared by Mary Watzin that breaks the Assessment into the Three Phases of Assessment. (See Document Titled Watzin Assessment Outline). Each of the three phases is explained below. The group discussed the components of all three phases of Assessment. Phase I - Impairment Verification The group agreed that the question being addressed in Phase I is do we still need to move forward with a stormwater clean up for the water body? ANR indicated that it was in the process of developing a protocol for verifying impairments that could be used in this process. It was generally agreed that the verification would involve some degree of (1) inventory/fieldwork; (2) a reliability assessment; and (3) an ultimate determination that the impairment is stormwater. If the answer to question # (3) is yes, then you move on to Phase II. The group agreed that this provided enough guidance for ANR to implement Phase I. Phase II — Assessment Designed to Guide Development of Stormwater Management Plan The group agreed that the question being addressed in Phase II is how much reduction of sediment and water is necessary to meet the VWQS. The group generally agreed that Phase II should focus on water and sediment for surrogates for stormwater impairments. The goal is to set targets for water and/or sediment loads to guide stormwater management actions and measure success in restoring waters to compliance with the VWQS. To do this, two main steps must be taken: (1) Choose waters that currently meet VWQS and use sediment and hydrologic conditions in those streams as the goal to meet in impaired streams. These will be called Attainment Reaches; and (2) Determine how to model conditions in Attainment Reaches in order to establish load targets in impaired streams. Attainment Reaches The group engaged in a wide-ranging discussion on how to choose Attainment Reaches. Several people expressed concern about finding appropriate Attainment Reaches to model for sediment and hydrologic conditions in Chittenden County. Mark from EPA indicated that to be effective as part of a clean up plan, the Attainment Reaches have to be used to predict what needs to be done (in terms of load reduction) to meet VWQS. Attainment Reaches must be used as a guide to set targets in order to create a TMDL or to argue that streams should be removed from the 303(d) list. Eric from EPA added that while Attainment Reaches may not fit perfectly as models for impaired streams, you need something to base targets on and the method of using Attainment Reaches has been used elsewhere in the country and it has proved to be a workable approach. After Attainment Reaches are selected and targets are set, adaptive management is used to check accuracy of assumptions that led to the Attainment Reaches that are chosen and targets that have been set. Questions were then directed toward Barry Cahoon about using channel adjustment and geomorphic conditions in choosing Attainment Reaches. Barry indicated that this could be done. However, because of the variability involved with channel adjustment and geomorphic conditions in water bodies there could be a broad range of values for goals or targets for impaired waters to meet. AOT expressed concern that if there is a broad range of values, conservative values would be chosen that would result in greater stormwater management actions (and money spent to implement them) than necessary. EPA indicated that targets should be on the more conservative or aggressive end of the range but individual permits did not have to incorporate specific targets values. Rather a general permit/BMP approach could be applied, like ANR did in the WIP permits, in order to achieve the overall targets and after targets are reached further reductions to meet the initial conservative targets would not be required. Doug Burnham indicated that Attainment Reaches should be similar in form, geology and geography to impaired streams. He also indicated that you should look at elevation slope, habitat and temperature when choosing Attainment Reaches. Some discussion ensued regarding whether geomorphic features should be used to determine the Attainment Reach. However, it was generally agreed upon that geomorphology should be used to set targets or measure success as part of monitoring (Phase III) not as part of choosing the Attainment Reach. It was agreed upon that Attainment Reaches are not expected to be pristine. They should be impacted streams similar to impaired streams. Doug Burnham indicated that there are a limited pool of Attainment Reaches to choose from because based on ANR's biological monitoring there are only between 6-10 streams in Chittenden County that would be candidates for Attainment Reaches. There was some discussion and concern expressed about the whether the amount of sediment and hydrologic data on these 6-10 streams is sufficient to make them viable candidates for Attainment Reaches. EPA indicated that it would be beneficial to have hydrologic and/or sediment data on these streams but it is not essential for them to qualify as Attainment Reaches. Modeling can be used to determine target sediment and hydrologic conditions in the Attainment Reaches. To sum up this part of the discussion the group agreed that the following factors should go into choosing an Attainment Reach: Form Size of the Watershed Habitat Elevation Area Natural Land Cover (wetlands, forest etc.) Slope Substrate Geology Availability of hydrologic data (not essential, but desired) Geography In addition, the group recognized that there may be approximately 6-10 Streams from which to choose from based on the above criteria. Setting Targets The group next discussed the issue of setting sediment and/or hydrologic load targets. ANR recommended that the target be stated in terms of percent of effective impervious cover (EIC). A discussion ensued on whether it was feasible to use percent EIC as a target. EPA indicated that it was possible as long as percent EIC was combined with other factors and a rationale for why this was a proper measure to use to determine compliance with VWQS is provided. Objections were expressed about using percent EIC as a target. Concerns were raised that percent EIC may be a way to measure success in Phase III, but it was not appropriate to use as a target for pollution reduction in Phase II. One issue raised about using percent EIC as a target is how to express percent EIC in terms of quantifiable target loads? No consensus was reached on the issue of using percent EIC as a target and the group agreed to move on to discuss other potential methods of setting targets. Barry questioned whether the Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) could be used to set a target. After some discussion it was agreed upon that RGA is better suited as a monitoring tool to be used in Phase III rather than as a tool to set targets. There was general agreement that the goal is to use a simple model, based on available data to find run off and sediment loading differences between Attainment Reaches and Impairment Streams and get into the implementation phase to begin the process of cleaning up the waters and monitoring the success of the program as soon as possible. The group engaged in a wide-ranging discussion of types of models to be used to set targets. No consensus was reached as to what model(s) to use and how to use it to set targets for load reduction. However, Mary Watzin summarized the discussion as follows: There is general comfortability with using Flow Duration Curves, picking points on the curves with the idea of matching what we see in impaired streams to what we see in Attainment Reaches at these matched points on the curve. Maybe Rating Curves could be used to translate the values derived from this comparison to sediment loads. In addition rainfall runoff could be used to generate the curves. The group indicated that there was general agreement that the above could be used to guide development of targets. Moreover, there was an acknowledgement that these targets would be first cut estimates designed to get us into the implementation cycle and that the assumptions that the targets were based on (and the stormwater actions required) would be checked and adjusted through adaptive management. The group decided to put off a more specific discussion on how to set the sediment targets to the January 131h subgroup meeting when Bruce Cleland from EPA would be at the meeting to provide some guidance. Accordingly, the group decided to spend the remainder of the meeting discussing Phase III. The following is a summary of technical information related to setting targets discussed at the meeting: Must Determine Additional Characteristics Needed to Set a Target RGA—+SED —+ Relative Comparison Model—>Q RGA Scores RF/RO Modeling (Simple) Stage/Q (Model/Meas) --> FDC What is the Metric Output? for the Target FDC RED'NQ Phase III — Assessment Designed to Monitor Implementation and Make Adaptive Management Decisions The group agreed that the question being addressed in Phase III is how do we measure progress and make decisions about whether adjustment in the stormwater management plan (actions) is required to meet VWQS? Mary Watzin described Phase III using the pressure/state/response framework. The group listed the following indicators to be used to measure success as part of Phase III: EIC % Disconnected Sediment in some form — depending upon target load set in Phase II Precipitation Flow (continuous crest/recharge) The group also listed other indicators that MAY be used in Phase III: Substrate PSA Embedeness RGA RHA CEM Biocriteria (Macroinvertebrates/Fish) Qual Algae Other Stressors As the meeting came to a close the group identified the following issues that still must be addressed as part of the Phase III discussion: (1) Sequencing; (2) Milestones and Trigger Points; and (3) What will be Used as a Sediment Measure (based on Phase II). Conclusion There was a consensus among the Assessment Subgroup that significant progress was made at the meeting. The group requested the opportunity to meet on January 13th to continue its work in lieu of the full Docket meeting scheduled for that day. The group also agreed that it made sense to delay drafting of the status report requested by Chair Blythe until after the meeting on January 13th, Jon Groveman indicated he would contact Chair Blythe about allowing the Assessment Subgroup to meet on January 131h but he thought the Chair and the Board would support the request. Jon also indicated he would develop an agenda for the meeting and the agenda should include a discussion of areas of agreement and disagreement to aid in the development of the status report and a discussion of what, if anything can/should be done to address the current stormwater permit problems on an interim basis while ANR develops the stormwater clean up plans and permit program. Rob Moore suggested that members of the group send e-mail summarizing areas of agreement and disagreement and he would organize the responses for a discussion at the Jan 13`h meeting. L 11 i The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT Approximate Colchester FApproximate Watershed Limits i1VM r. Avenue Watershed Limits as per Krebs and Lansing as per Krebs and Lansing North Campus (77.21 acres) , University of Vermont (10.3 acres) �� � _ ( umxTECTuRA a olcrmM gxT�Es 109 SOUTH PROSPECT STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05405-0016 Ja �•• — �� / (802) 656-3291 r t I ` Consultants CIVIL ENGINEEI? -� North Campus Stormwater Treatment ["*.t ;""`0110 Facility for University of Vermont and eBn�Tncrrs.Inrnryonkd n aa..e PP lr ` Flcher Allen Health Care. n��e ale11 e e it o g Approximate location of underground storage chambers._ 4 d} p. — o Approximate Watershed Limits as per Krebs and Lansing o I • ° ' East Campus (72.1 acres) Approximate Maim Street West Wotershed I o �\ Stormwater Treatment Limits as per • Fac�'ity East Campus Webster —Martin, 1995 ¢ r. ems' e o Project (36.5 acres) [] ( Main Street East Stcvmwoter UVM �e t Treatment FacX S , � y STORMWATER J Project No. 1^u Scale ri RECEIVED Drawn by Tio Approximate South _ o Approximate Main Checked Checked Street East Date 12/11/D3 by M± Campus Wotershed Limits _ � � ., , as per Krebs and Lansing s - B Wotershed Limits Crr .. a Revisions (43.1 acres) as per Webster - I II No. Date Martin, 1995 y - (21.1 acres) 1/1 City of So. Burlington - a o� 3�7MOF AREA Approximate Watershed Limits r �W�n� Title Overall as per Krebs and Lansing Watersheds a✓ East Compus (72. 1 acres) � South Campus o � .�• ew � +�' with Snow Storage Stormwater Detention Focility Aft Bar Scale I' = aoo Drawing No. (1991 Student Housing) MASTER.DWG ... 11 I:. PLANTING SCHEDULE VALUE TYPE U 9A41�2_BURLAP BAmim RLAP .F517I6B _-- .AlIDlS17L _ IA y{A ....�.- — WRW _ _ HACXBeRax Izd Md s^a cALIPeR _ Jd dNNBi -!4_._ ppR3YSf0AR)MR18Y9 CKLE 1— S)._..___IBI_ —SAR�ISTPDTIHU PoTTED SPOULS _ ]d 4-0 139— 9 .ddR94.- 3�Nm.— 29 . __. a• _ ,�.M�..=,�a�L._ EXim 1 d1Ae1& _ — �---' 2580W 130DIJ0 ¢XImNO ._II¢WE___.— _-- _TM0 PXImNO ,E)h9T11'9O l __; ___ BXRw 3 _- _ -RXI a--- 6` -11DW 31DW nm -.. 9HR119 axlmNu i eoae sxRun _.— ___.___._ _--- mW -- eom _ WQE .._—_--- R1W00 tlODO IiMIDM IxpOW EXLSTINO ! MAPL¢ 3• __ aXrsiilLl-'�-S MAPLE _,. __IS_-_ _ _-- _ ]mm EZImXa : SxRue 3" eaW ^RIC'ES I9tOViDED RY 66E490N3 ANDHO0.TX fODNTRT LIX DSCAPW PRICES A0.CRETAR 1 CC00.DM0'SO�5P.SSONRSMUtlS AND NBDOP.S RANG¢ MDC¢P0.0M 310 PoRAIRGALLON i0 f12'S1ARA]-f OALI.UN LIED AND BURLAPPED sxaw. COSTS APPROXIMATELY Si+au. PRICE VARICS BY 3 AC`�IANDTOYYP. OF IN¢'IRBP..YI/�NDSCAPINO.ATR¢¢6"INDIAMRYPR I i / GVITERSORI FELD HOUSE ^77777' � I _ 5 Lam. .._� I.- / -I-/ - -�./ B a H. _..�_ -�' 1-4. i._r I. 'i - I � A03.3 0 A \Vv �eosl I -- PROPO D PA KING eTR� m�a CITY LINE BURLINGTON SOUTH BURI_INGTON GlwnPAaXINa wT HXTVRE MOD¢IA181NOLRCONPIOURAIIDN): -LUMINAM � SE)[}TM �19.1-11n tH tlRONTE AYOD12B0 _� )SMH I.]DPCPC MOD¢Lp am.-L. 1IOSW-0NBiXiM11 WnA f b ., • ' I ROIMIND ALUMINUM BOTn.¢NeCK POLE NC9A IS VPOKBTx 9 1 5 YOi6 LAI35 __ MODM.9 IDDUMEcoxnauRAnaNcl � Pb 19-1.3iWMN-IIOURALD . AROCO _ -CULOP'L%VM STANDARD(DARK OREEM ONST% 1IT HTSQLIA0.BAI.UMINUM YOL� COL SO�eId ISING1ECfMPIGURAnON1'. t .R}DI-BRA PCR IINISH. BRON2B AN0012ED ACCESS DOOR BASE LAVE& UAS¢COVBR COtICR¢A BASE --- mxcnaTEeese PlNisxaa,tDe PINISN GRADE A --LUMIXARB WUA-0NSTX-I.N AnNC.SRJ{iTN ROU UALUMBSIIMBOTTL¢NBCXP i PULE. AMM' IIlVP4NMS I10]AAM PoLP xr.0 ui°^ NI �-CC �rt�ON1T%ANDARDfUAIUf (TtB¢NI I MAIA MMINIRD PIXTUR¢ -ACCESSIXIW BAS¢COVEP MODEL P: ^d91MR WAIL IIOtV ¢D-It MH SJW SI 19119"x 3Y J5' 'ONLR¢'1E BASK _fDH1N ONADE (DLOR: BLACN ffYPE C) q, C \-. JA ixlrla` ` l -3u�_ -- -- saxslREC — I VED a SP _ "" t � I I I I �� - ,.L A City of S n � o. Burling - f SIDRWAIJI to ITT i 1-� � ��- „i / I \ RRTANYNG WALL ( __ - CHARCOAL - M! i __ 2F71 4�,-4 SFH 31A 3FH SPP.AR STEEETZ� _ bLA 3FH — — IIN— — 3FN —. —. 'I LA —^_ _. _. _. __- - DRAWING LEGEND 1 <1 1 1 _ } 1 ... _. "..� '•_... f /._ �. PA00.liBD DI4NVOU9 H SITE PLAN - ^.SOd' LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONAL: SMITH ALVAREZ SIENKIEWYCZ ARCHITECTS 1 x'r'v'•�Nti � �Y 1 /1 # STPE LIGHT 1 ¢MmnA wALK I r/ PRUPCBPA WALR PERMIT SET REVISIONS ORAViItIG TRLE LANDSCAPE PLAN ORAWRSG N0. L-1 scue 1• _ Sao• DATE ar.3D, 2oo3 PaarEcr NO. ... ELEVATION TABLE 11'EM ELEVATION HEIGHT RELATWE TO AVERAGE PRE-CONSTRUCTIOI_JC1R_ E AVERAGE PRE -CONSTRUCTION GRADE 393.0' 0 1ST LEVEL PARKING 3S3'.tl -&(Y `J it 2ND LEVEL PARKING 396.0 •3.0' �, 3RD LEVEL PARKING 407'-0" r14.0' HIGHEST POINT OF STRUCTUAEIN 414.0' +21.0' SOUTH BURLINGTON TOP OF LIGHT FIXTURES 427.0' +34.0' U BURLBJGTON 9i SOUTH BURLINGTON W B�) 61 i C�D... f. I r/ I � a Ill c sy=�wIN�W. -- LAN09CAPE BEDS a ' j PRECAST CO`M0.f9E- j _—_BRICKV EER SPANDRELS ITYY.) STAIRN BR ir 1 II^^ NNCRETEAM V U Z U. Ul fn f 1 �rrRANcs.>nnrLevP�-x E-+ z W x))'-p•FAOM CBNTBRLINBOPSP9ARST. , r Q J coco SOUTH BURLINGTON �I BURLINGTON r-'---- USINGSTCONCDORA POR8LND,&LUMNS USENO REDSAND, OKAY PDRT.1O, & LOCAL ��-- CI4 (r 12 i I\ I II) C l 8� i C) GONBGATE MI% W ITN MEDIUM SANDBLAST 6 1 5...,j l 4 1 1 1 ASONNY PIEKS TX VBRMONTBRICK - PRPA'ASTCONCRETEICAP F WNM. RU B MKK ANT QUR B ENU 4ULDR R COURSe EAST ELEVATION_ _ i -2o-a• __.. RECFIVED E9 J 2. `0'03 Citly Of SO. DL,'l Iincgton 1 I I ELEVATION TABLE ITEM ELEVATION HEIGHTRBLATTVB TO AVERAGE PRELONSTRUCii_O_N_GRA_D_E_] AVERAGE PRE -CONSTRUCTION GRADE 3930 0 1ST LEVEL PARKING 383.0 -B.. 2ND LEVEL PARKING 396.0' +3.0' 3RD LEVEL PARKING 407-0" +14.0' HIGHEST POMC OF STRUCTURE IN 414.(Y +21.0' SOUTH BURIJN=N TOP OF LIGHTFOCCURES i 421.0' r� PERMIT SET DRAWING nTU ELEVATIONS DRAWING W. A-2 SCALE: I--20'-0" DATE: OCT. )0, 2V0) - — PR"Cf N0. --. DEM I DRAWN I CMKO. 5 T-T L j j' i -{ .. I, _Ge _ _--- - - I I THIRD LEVEL I ' I I L sin° YA��, III c x. l 1I � THIRD LEVEL I A�A�l A I /rL^- THIRD LEVEL I , i SECOND LEV�PAVEMENTIEL c 4 - ._. - I ,L� TOf�°' t I j i{ I I I I I i � '�� JALINGTONSECOND LEVEL 4i� A31 THIRD I A2 /• VEL ' LE A �� \ A .�� � I I I I I I � V �p V�� e FIRST LEVEL _ A 9e� I 1 - 1VAV&AffN 1 I I I 4a I ' I FIRST LEV E'- T I, I V I.L _- SPEAR - , - ST ,� I 1 I I _ I 1 II I ry � I .-.__ - _ / �_ '', I'I II ___ I - L 1� jl. I • L.j,�-... �. III, i ' I II , ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SCALE: I" - 40' LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE TYPE MANUFACTURER CAT NO. SUGGESTED LAMPS MOUNTING DESCRIPTION A KIM LIGHTING XA//AIR2/iS75MH/ (i) 175 W MH POLE Al KIM LIGHTING &AR2//175MH/ Xx (1) 175W MH POLE A2 KIM LIGHTING IA///AR3/175MH/ xx/xx (1) 175W MH POLE A3 KIM LIGHTING to/AR3/175MH/ xx/xx (1) 175W MH POLE A4 KIM LIGHTING 1A/ARS/175MH/ xx/xx (1) 175W MH POLE B LUMEC 2X-175MH—L70— PCFC—SE3 (1) 175W MH POLE B1 LUMEC 175MH—L70—PCFC —SE3 (1) 175W MH POLE C LUMEC 100—MH—PCFC—SE3 (1) 100W MH POLE W BEGA 2492MH (1) 70W ED-17 WALL BAL-1 U f fl C RfSCEuI —A- .L is ao fr.0.MMiC -iOall>r, (Mo7 R C% O f PERMIT SET RF.VI.SIONS DRAWING TITLE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN DRAWING NO. E1 SCALE: AS NOTED DATE: 12/12/03 PROJEC- NO. 1022 --------------------- �� I }ikk I 1 _ - - d W�nww! a�trsh sa+� iIa'n i,a,I bS°ww �� rn ai�xg kg ,k �k �k ha� ax b akk ��r�t, ek M re uw cs wr ah_A. dk aM k i, en'oNls f, a h A k °p ° - i �} b S,k °Y• 5 4 e L'$S" ,M�,L g 4 n ak U u ok nS. uM d F k S kf k _ d. a "" 04 S e4 aY a °:a 4 { a a ,. 4 M ° 1 -4 tr w .k r F, tz 1 9x f. a4 b t d u: a4o U i ah 1 �. k n nh 4 k ak. ere a6+ car aA aV, a4 e - am..T am nr+ m d' ad k a yk-�-e et ur a , 4 iSr �>q'3'i4 _ __----.-_ 1 & off sv u re a w� c E em u h, I' "q� d n4a ' i,;� ° 4 ' , °;: ae - e, a d nT, ,h us n4, a.m ao a"n .s. „ », ., aro w 4b k Tt aM fw nM w,7, 4 nk Iie S 16 W k M rrv') ad�. I , ak Jr ak ok au az aw n1 nw. +6 °u ad, k ek a3v °w ro, e4 04 ads aw. , + , ° a sk ,r an av a}e ,k nN zk ' h u4 k f 1} ek b kdad u..,� aw ob eh o.0 k ooz ds nk o s :d: eM ed, v ui, c, -a�aiv . ,rye ad, ern vS, a°Z aN , im k a.. ils ,I^ xk k - I ek ak rFz a , ab, od, of 04 d. u, v a, k zY ak v 4 k de ,k ,iz ,o ,m „ ed, ad, adx a4 aS 4 ad ah t ,4 -- - +:, oh xa a4 ob A,.'k ez A ah aM ak am o �L e= akz nu uk aM1e ay k. em 4 oh o6, aw ak _s- au nk ae c.e ea V, r', ek a a6z , uk, a u& o , `i a4 drek ,k eM °« aS ow a ,.: h aE a4 nb coo a4 0« n;, ah, nk aw aro k ah nn ;. a, ,.., ah ak: ah nb a n°� r k �„� ��'- _ � } Il a w � .A � h 4 y w k _ 1 ' , z , da d, ,w `` b 4 n4 ' I:{ ?�^- �° L ii�� ,� ' • ,4, a4 ,b ,a a, ^. t .,. as a4 ,k ek am a. ,w ad, ,m eu a4 a4 :s: a ad, ,r, • ,}, a .W ,AN ,f, 4 •: }I. dt , aM ek ab dx. vg wE, m ah ed, � ` , k ,,. G 1 ax , aw S oG a < In k S a5, a4, en, ,b I...•: ,, ab < :,h„%I-'s"`a ak: M am ra 36 I M a. ek :n ab, ➢' ,: G Ik ,Ss ,k w, nx m aal . n _ 0 4 a4 ae• a,, ak e4 r ., , * a „ ,4 k 4 k u4 ,4 '„ r , . J, aw s4 , z. 4 ,M ➢ E. h - n 4 a tit ah ,es aA, ak o aY ,k n oM al ad, ,n aM au. e., ab . aG e�' , Ib a* ad aM e` 4 k k x4 :dv �k ,M ,ke 3, n z, } ( w )I a 4 7: ', x4 ' a ' t a 1d , us i h . 3e , ,,k 8 ,Ex . ::ki A s, r., ,. , ,de zd, e,¢ v& ,b ! ,7, IN e➢; cba ,tr , a6z � I ,4 04 s+ ak, a4 ,7s ub o uw ,d, 4+ ', xk• a ,Sa , � a6, ad, rM om n om od eh a; b k, , , eb h x 'a ;k,4 ,. , d z3 ak cM1; 4. eL rz o'a ix ek dv r'a °�I°.' ak u, ekI F ,1r k ,M „ z4 , A. d xis v zm - h , a. Ds x4 ,4 ,1, , ei 1 i4 ar u ek mi ek , in vE / e a ,- a e5: ok eSs m, ", ob, ,a, via mb oh ', ul ar ms eh °ks r 4 ,h: ,4 '? `k '' ki ,y Ik ,b ," - ,k .. / W ,a�zL a� zl b �% a v F, ,ie F° J, w W x1r Ik n , k Ie ,k Ii, Ik J¢ 6 M h 3 ,d, Iz ,ar ,., `" ,k ,i, ,N iz II t „bazhl k k 4 , ,• , b r 4 t h .b �,k, a 4 r / ak ok ee. 'r", us a� a, „ °a aG aw 5, ,a A, ! ,N: 2: rk b➢< 5 L h eda z3 ,k . xu x z ,7.. F, ,u :'m } Sb ,iE rm ,n, ¢Sa n r e, k a< _ ,r, ih ,: IS 'n "a ,frs k h .M ,sx ,!, ,!, .S i S: k :Je ,6, 7u b ,S, ,f ,k ,i, ,Ps J, ,1 nh as: p k eSa 0 M ay; k, y Mad eh L b n p -;,r a z ar s, uka k uu t .. nk nk Ja a w , ,k ,k I, a .!, ,k ,a ,M a m ,r ,A A, r# r 4 r e .a x IFa al a k a 4 e aw 4 'I' afi efo a :' f n k a0 aU y v4+ n3+ a'v au :6, :F, Ik z6i „ A o4, A ab IE.: .tc z°e f rk ,ie zh +S, ; ,,, rev ,n :. rM 1 ,6, 4, eix Ik vL ah xN aM ,r'. a of a eS, ,t oo k ak nu a,y af, da vk aM a4, i n., au e1 uw a ox, eta D a>. a4+. ai a"n ak �4 °k o. d �., ,.,, ,.}° c4 i ,4 , m ok ale , , +nfr�'- ,e, , z« z^a - ' , 90 .h rY ah. ,h b ,i. ,,. S :,.. w u :s ,i; .b ds cv d 6 ao+ :o ➢.a ,.+ ea G 'a e k t ? A, ,4 zi, aYr , : ,+ta e« x# ,u n➢a a°i ew eh aia a° II ' ,y, e1^ a• oP: on a4 M ,Fa a.+ " v ,a ken oh h M ,eia :, oh 1, ,« k ,b s, xu r: '+ b :S ,d 2, d, I# im ,8 h z,x d. r .➢ , ✓� ry N M rah e4 J e4 z ak; ;. k 1. „`: - "• ^ , b , , d, ms ziw zz d }, r e ,. ., �\��+ _ ,. u�kA«e \�4 _ yY •, ek e4 a4 ,4 \ -k E k 4 I, .x eh e 4%,zw w as tl ,k xk :� « r� r h n4 a'.. ei y b •�h ,�ie '» p ,x u , y wM Ea rh k #o #, e.. y }° xds :m 3 ,6 ,W 4� zg z.• fin vh �! k J L r. Je xW zL a% M uu: ! I: °M`{I a., iv . ,M .n xh .M )• a. .: i k k` 3 i> m M < e r k an a . ,} „i, Ih 6 a.{ a,: + a. ,,. z :6': 'pa __..� ,• h ,de 3r sw ,h 1 aU oie ux a n to m ::,: (k zk r -as �Fx SO i; zk a ,k :. ,k rY , , zh .e M h iln 'al° z. !h , ,h „ r ,s ,f, ,, ,k r. aM1z e. d u..4:1r zA z}., a!z c n k ,E, ,« �N IW aM af, u, ai eG i�,'k qI/! oa� a4u ua , :o : ,ka\;a, z7a h ,'u\i1a ,:w a ,S:.h 4 <, ,!, Ik L S „ x,. ,!+ z, .Y' : 4, //t/ r4. I' ,I, z4 : }a vY+ zk m h , , IN dz �d, Y Ih IN IF, Ik ,is xu ,f, Js ,k ak'T-u o IN a a+ akz d, °k c,, eW u,. rd IN ah F, a4 oa: a, " . k ,;. , t „s ,d.. L, .. ,6• ,kz J ., ,61 ;S, z« ,m a , ,. , �, ,, • � F, is ..° .d 'zd' ,4 •., z4 r& th ,is z1r zh b h I.M rL ,6 ik 14 aM ok uh uw ak ck '; _ ' --. ,, 4 h ,rt a .m w, re•, �a a, n: r i A, „I W ». «:; :a: r xk :n n ,,:.r b u ,h , Al,.k ,xAa at, . rk ,m d:. ,k r,e ab rh <.k rk, r.W am �.. zE, xF, .i, zb zS, zY, zi Ak zG n a4 ,d� ISz ue i I}, k k IEn sdz :d f } , I k ;r a zn �N ab k ,. sro zk Jx at a ,�I, yP! 4kz a , z6 k z rd ! rm ie Ev Be u 4 , ,F, z6 IM A ,N '� n o .., , ;,. +; , ° v , ew °' °k ➢ ,+ ,. .> `. ,. a ,x ,!a ad, zkiss'ek xb zh zda x6 ,ee I.x .:. rkr zu eh k k aF rh ��7u��u, u° da a .fv ,ro r, 3: zx r'u rS, rn i, >', x:v r r rs zm a, f a4 4 tir. zY, , r is d to }, i i ,6 a5? ' xb e v ,4 ie nh ah a a4 aU H ap da e ah � . ak.. ek e1, b i eta h p, aM a. M .h i rh ,k, a: i e.n <. �.he z z rk, = z4 x6 ,h zh , ? Je ,.4 zi, 5 'o e%, xl, :k ni, e,a :.m 1 'n J. ,b; zi, n ', z!s z, :4 Sa b es eh, k at. ,:.., , n , ,kr. I' ,' ak e a M k ,• ', . ,4 ,w ,d + m ao w ^ LEVEL :.z ,fa d zL z4n ,b h zd, z& h k e, z1, ,4 ,§ a➢r ai, oe a!, ab ,d, ak, °� t ah e4 n aMa4a,, ➢ ND LEU - -_ lv.ae « N 5z E, r z W ,n , °h b ou aia aM S. a4 a4 +M e1, eM nk a4a i., S C 6 ub 4 .s lv .., =S ,b, l. 1 , ws r1+ r5 h z& f- rL i z , z z , z zds , -Z± , aFa xk 4 iv Al h ni:-adrelra4' nW a6:�M. a b aie x e, , x M ; ,s , . .MINT) :.. ak ed+ a4 u k r •, !. 6 M , ab h z 4 r.. , 2r Iv e'. M >k b xk m zk ,d z .r ;, ne.., s Aa e« k .v il, t5a a ,k ,,, h k ,S xl rM sax ki u. 7, b tr ®zfa °d° oM1 dx a4 "ah, eM o ew :i' ab ex ab ^A a4 aM1IaM ,> :(PAVE ,a e4 e.. f a. a! .,e z IN z z ,w r k ?a Z, 4 0 _ _ _ I % ,, eb „a,a< �YA4 ,A a a4 a4 ak ,k t , :. i ah 4^ FsTG SS s ,r< ,H m 4 M el viz , J tx ,h Sa ,S a :'s s. ,h a r, e. es, zb ,. ,.c z. ,k r. t✓ti a x, rb. r rn : . s x a� zM z 1 eL , ,. Jz .'.m . k, � zk a6 , xh ', a6, ', d ,. r zl, ', r.4 z3, ;h ,A, ,k ,k niv� ,FTr aak 0e ak, ab asa oL a#, ,u ,su ,':x t onlay. n u1e ela , v `ek ,N a4 ek, w ,4 as, ,: es. a. k, �,, �.,d ,k to ., ., xh AI w .� ,,, ,w ,4 s: >= n ,i. ::n n >h ,, ea, , ,aa xx r.,. m ,n .�„ „ „ -e ,. �:A, ;, ,n _< , ,k�.. ,d, ., ,t. Ah •. 'r d. 4 xa ,m r a, s, b .w :k ak= aw a „ er a �, �, a» , da ah+ °}, U ebs - ax S}s \ ,'° r, "oS� 01, a+,r a r °k� � zes eA i ^,'� ,,, , ., � ,d, ,. r4. , x :k � .. -zhz. x dr. I tbt r ;E, , x s4 �; zae • xi; n zk zF, zk Br ,m L 1 lu a ah ,k ,M ,f, xh 1 i, h !a 'e o, n4 efi o!a eA o' 'e aSa a+ a r aM ,+ . "w #, a4 , x ap • a a,': d, p ,n :1, �:S � ,k IN IN ni, °'n in ;« vx at eA rM ax v+ 4 +n a • -at b s5r' uvr.3s.da-z x,M e ,f, l\•'a r 9r sr eM s k L b =n \ . �C , 51 ,w ,§ n z , efe Nw Ea- 9 ak , b � r 4 a1° us aM xz° sn �\\ nu Ae ah oa, aL x., c.+ .a az za x,: �it� ,G I za a xSv ... ,.a x rh x za , r idz z ,e x rs .. z � ,d�z ,V, .i, �.. r, zhz ? u rl, :.v, -.a zS r1r :ds fi �e::4 ,b , 6. � i, :Is Ih :h ,6 w k ar , '�, . , `" d.. ' ,. , a4 u 1 ak a ,h \. lu �:, :a: e s xi• =h ,s x4 vw zk ,L 4, z, .., +: ,G. -.k ,n :k 6 4 xk zt II. 6 . E us ah 4, ;ro h :a k e h zr on 5: aG: J, °in.k-akdrs aw °S ea aS. n- nM r.. :. 4!... eSi '. ,r, ! M t , a e n' z w__ -{{ , a ek, ° re. „ ;, :Sx Id, tk ::_ im x. -k . rk .A zW rA ,, .F z4, zk 9x ., zb x.a zk .a, d )a k f. ,i: J. .� 1+ W w ah x!e ,o .4 rsz du v Sr E tS u a 4, 90 f, ek , i, r.4+ un ai aS n4 a's (n cM 'fi' d'u az zk °i °S, aia eM ('�'� 1 - :. +, :1, _ k a ah 4° ,4 Gl, ekI"S a} n A e'u etk +1^ vfi t xk is "\ A 4, zk 4 /, 4 V 1 G eu nX+ an A a4 aN a. !n eh ,4+_ :+ a; a. , e °'w a ,G ra a v,sv os, u. r E ua J, .ir rk . , ,e h zn \k ,d b ,.�.n ztv e6, zu e%, z:: ea ei+ .a, en zk :k J, ,As rd, ix v .b, :d, A S. , „ d, r, w ,i, _, I, z ..b A..., k z , ,h e. ek r. x.M , , M I t ,b n + b a r'w z :. ah ek a4 a4 ,k , aY: rrtE o v : ew Sz \}� „ :- ,N ,ds . .. d, ro 7 k zp al, aN U G�- a 4 ,6' ` 4 In 4 w eM ue J i. 4 a' M erk aw L� , a , I' D :,, :'w ah a m. ;: xL xh 'a of<y vY .s ie ,v A, k A, 1, +a of .4 ab vl �a [�+n �,��� - °•' ", L �A ' T N e c ak n& J y `. , sa + d, A c4 nu :, u, S, ,k :i w 'v :b ;, ;, u+ .h .k ,h b ie zcv 4, Ss zM z'» k zu ➢c ,° t: n, z , zh ziz , sb, h In �a, � ,k , .,fs v w i r da .w e1 a e'n k ze v.:+a. zs zd, r x sr ,6, i zir ,•.rt®z,,e:a..oer;, ar aM "ua,a , _>�a,,:.,:n,� asrpa a; 4 een ad, a h ;% a?w a' a. k ,p ;4 e] . , ,. 0 r ' . :1 + <a. x ,4 4 x. -d. .i z1,4'{� ,dr z , ,b M m ed9 ada ° rc+ ° u4 °}. d, a4a .. ,;, :dz n4 *, a4 a oLl c uo ad, s. ,. , . Aleir 1, x F la ,ar w z; i� a z ab .Ar F§, e1 a I .4 ,k ,4 a4 1 », x. ,k iag ,. / a m M ab. , z , 04 aM '. I., of n4, a , ak. a air-vh- a4 c6. „ + ris�zh 5 y rn- a+' ., . ,k. ak �1, eia 9 , a'n w at ak x. ,a w a r � da a ➢, m I, b+ aw ,Ara ai a ,s aM atx ,d� a t s, a aE , ,a r➢, aw ➢z k aA ai n ad, an c6, afi a4:-emvf"ck' n ah b ,d, 'ww }�° J' , z4 ,b ,4 • -:--1 (. , z#, . ➢ E; I a ,h r. ^Ie r n 6, d+ < >. I, h 4a i h ,L ?f, ,k k , , +4, d u , ie h u 2, ,h (.m Js IA oi, �& n➢x ab a4s }e oA a.X H a eH , al. n¢ ,u w. _-z'1,5,-' _ z. z i, �' eh a 1, ak j, r4, a'e ed:. tl^, zn x lw y ..; , , x:w . ,G ,b ,. °;, ' a a. n ew . is x% i•, � ,`y ,h S, a6 ow a e4 A, iv zM , ,r. +� u: eis a z# , v, zh ,> ., k :w � A �, z:r sh .e,J h! :» , aks .n ,E.. 4 sa e. M I. ,.iz n 5 b u+ b ,r I. is h ,« a 1, : k 4 ;n nz ,% :i, i- � e'n a1, En a" vq ,M �Y : - 'o ak iw , ab ak a>. II ( 14' > : raL ,k „ k.:k uk as 3z im z4 :ia " az , ,.w :: zi' v k xk , w zF z4 x , 3 xw c .wa I„ no , .d. , ,b k ;?« z4 5, , h ala ad'= ,f+ `` q r. r, a. , e+ ,e ;a r c': 4 h xk+ z. Ai, ,, & a6 rh r.. ,k - a } Es v { N , am e y+� ye IK '�' - ,r m• ,k ,A cF'e.a a s .� u � u �} ,a ,f: ,dx w , ea ,Ea ,8; d" ) ,., !z. - , ,s eu .n :e ., , .. h .v 4: ei ;h a ., 4 z +e 4 .v :b � v I; b • y ,)., Y �y Sx ,b xV :h +6 .-•dnh'' 1t , S+ ,M n ,ia ,h 1 ,'d ,III w ;h ,U x c 4s r ,9 k ,h u. Ala4 ., IF. +. ,i, k r s ,Y, zk1 . d1z ah: ,I 4, W 8 ,1, q, • , vza a. or. » on .x abv � „ ., uz ,.0 ,, a , :ro ,f J, „ �uz h k ,h ,k p, ,e i,: „ .S : rk a , xM ., .� rd.. a zk m ,z eM s , h ' - 4 s z - y,«I.-diva ; f, a :a w -1s-ib x 4 ,k � \ , ,k • , aF+ . 24-ok n naw u^ ob. er._ rs .. °,b a•�ai 1 ,m . , '. •.. , ' ;: '. rL k ,. \ \'i\ « w ,n ,M eb ? eh G ds k do vi a4 , b a#, a6 ,1 w am „ , va ada an ad° k n , ,1, I ,➢, � n ..ia s ,d.. . )p' � � 1 " ""'. ad Jw e ,. ' I ,k , b eE, . a ew ° °t " t, °M a a4 ab a ., 4. eb i, 03 '•�" ,w ,b ,a , :Aa . ,m +4 an ,<, ,< d ae rrs av ' :h s ,r :. av aA. z :a to A, a S. , x. x9 s u ,1 ,n , xb , . 4r :. § r + + ,7zzh N I . n ,4 #+ %' n e a°h zk aG „ ab ai, ,r R it, , < ,n ,i, °:W °1; a•a .I:: , a ,^ .� ,a.:^ ,v: , Is � ,t, :4 ,i+ ' , .k ab a r a#, , ek ;, z ?� , z4r . z4. • r, d, i , ,h y .b 1, , xb v ,4 ad a u i lv ,' -4 ,in Jn 1� c, axe e!a eM 4 ,m ,k ,ie .d N x8 z , •, opa eA \ S+ , beke Y z,k k i @.N.) . ,k(RNY.FJ+1 .. :M r ... x. W ,w .I , .b a. , a ,a, ,� s, ,k• , i, , fm x ,s , ,4 • :es a4 :,. a 4 x xh } <4 4 ,s , zk u c ,n k ;� xk, ,}: k, . ,. L, , a is ns b z!r w i� ,,, ,,•'k , ,r ,�n i x,'I: x. , . , ,. ^ : k m ,rc „,. „ m , k ,dx a .6• '� sex a, 4 w �,b ,t, h ,aa , a, m >'. t�, �a4 ed. a axxm, e aw x«,h, ,M .M ,: w,. .. i _ :, s ,ds 7a k iw +z• x >a.. ,- r4 ;, ;h .i, ,1, ew• , :, +a d , P , ,S ti. 1, :4 , 9x ,k �y'x , t Ik n � ' it a :§, w d, Sa ,4 ,! ,}, ,1t a 9 a, eM ox e4 to ab, � z w , . 6 ,w G xM . 1. `-� • n 4 , ,A r r 1 a " ,b • , ,p, . 'x zx xb u 4z , _ 6, +a : , ,k 4 , r. u ,m ? k' ,la a ,w. ,5 d, 1: tr v uz x nu. ,.. z t k 's+� x I w i ,w , _ eia ol,zak a4 w':b e4 aa:n ab rc � � a ,a, �k\ , i ,9 da a}; ,,, .,, . ° , ,k. ,w ,. ,' � ,b e ie le 1, >" _ ,A °§, a,z eb Ss °k a7a s yy h i, , i, ek ,k h w ,a ,x , a n ;,, ,.a ,w k° 3, Iro ,. , ,§ , I ,b c. �:k :x :'a a ,,. , s« :W ,'v. � ,h k ,?s ,k :. ,}I ,i, d • ,$ a�! ,,d ,4_ , ,4 ,h n . da ek e6, kob eS da d, 4x e nH aie aH h aw o4 ,Sx sh :b • :4 ,M k ,d y ,4: z1a ,4 ak D ,;, „ h nk an a'n ' ' a„ aa, �, ax a �' Sr xb a tb a, z4 ,v rb z . ,i,,w ok ,4 f ,4 ,4nk aM cu nS+ au a 4 p rivw.0.-at, "` ak ek ak�ak'ad' am °-AI-"3,�ad,.r'A.'h , n zw y. yI4 .4,I. 1 ♦ xhl Sx ,1, dt , -,, .,;, 3s ,zv ;a a hs . .. >k !, .a. 'm R k v.l;.a iei ?n ,. k o-'n va✓- a< as x xr.: !v ,i ea . a 1. xn a , 'h '^ ,: ,6, „ ,. a od: eM :' sl ,4 ,.. ':: b ,§ G ,k 3+. ,n ',n Aj + zb z 'x 'w ik ek 4 v. ,S, , aM W h ,, s}, °M k, exz ,'n ek ea r!e ab ab a,�olt.-eu- \s.i¢ °p J. effi nk adz eM ea.. q i. e vm ``k x I , ,. ew "„ ,i, �, ,,,, w „e . 4, ,N ,n , ,ds S u„ +2v I , x„ al zh x, z4 AM .x ¢I b v S, al, J, °➢. 6 r 4' e1: e4 a „1•,JY+.:Y+-ve- olz,-x� -ate a , ,a ab+ ah , oM a4 adz .§. aY ak a@. a4 e nh ob ro eM nce: n- w k, ek n ea aG :. p. lea xh z t F �� , ,z •, ,ka .a ,,, .m +b - +,M •i , , c4: „' +a. eM ,k �'.:E�x��,{ g • ak ex, ak 0* a , b a4s �4, ar 5 vu °x, A e4+ als-,,,koa-m.aL u4 oY v3+ ob °k oL om u'�.ebeb"'dre4 4, nb ab, M1 k, es ad , ok. ,Iras as ° k�. ,k ,4 ab a ak Gam rat, a4 ai, , „ ak aw viruh'%„'or ,- ,k ak, k eN Ty,_aM a.n :: e. . I : ,k ,o x - •, 4 ,b :it >h e d' ;, ;1 xw x.. z9 ; ew .x ., ,±, ,k .b ,k Al,g ak aG . •, haw r. ,, . .. -:: ,R b ,L. ,s is ,4 r .:n ,k x .e, zk ,. ,m , : a4 •N ez k o: e ah eb ak, _ __ ,. °h , :..: u s ,M , „ ;o-. fi s wI •- s is ,4i ,e, .. :v+ .1x ,... aw ° f, a> e4 y..da-ms.ircrc+'ak" la °a a, aW 'w '+• tK ed, ek t ad,�_Ck, rks as '_.-- uu h " ,u Oa e4 x1 .`,<. ..x ,'* k pk xk ,G ,° I, ,. a, ,. ,y •s. dz .➢t�e1a , h '. d :4e9. a9 m 4 ak , u. _ad>_9b-,k,- e •. o,i h ,,, °ri , ,4 m , a, ,1a n6+ oS, J A 1a x a .b - .--- _. _ a4 a , , u a ,k a Ja?d'-- z In rn aw ok ° 4 0 .k „ ,.: b v}t-w o ,u ,4 a ,h M"Y£ -y i- ,e, ,s .. , ch ak ,m d aL aid p , r», ,k °- e4 ou a, m, ob as •. �.' _ : ,7, , , h t,�ds I,,i ,N , .,. , , re k ,k ,,, nw i k e1+ M a b on ah °h ar k -i t�, + x, ,e ,. ,. c'n un ao cb a, da a a9, k h z•,�6"..° '..s: w e4 v ai n, k ea ek e, _ e, Jm es re-u, m a1 a➢, eb au, ak +- lw-a'-Fd+' d, at, ad, e4 ak �� 4 G G eb 'r,. d, sa eM ere ah n, ao nw ,,..• a4i ,4 c" oce a+n k em c« h ,4 ,'. zes r. w, ,. v!v rb as ob of e1t� yi,- �- � .o¢- ,.dLw-n","'_^ H a4 k b r k y, aN eo u"m vYlu_a's..e4.. ;h s1+ es ak<"- sa ek ow mx ,d, aM w a4 uy,,y._°kis,:_- 6, is aA am et, d, 11 , l :,. - Gk l ila S. :n ak, ak ar, � ,4 ak ek a, a s. � � k � `h am a� a,4.k G m nd - f a4. d A eke ak M -_. 4 4^ 4 F -%R t�"63.➢L"+-W ,y a a: cew na aw am ace vg � � k ad. a4 ak am II' k >r. � uVi a4� . a[t a - k >k ea. ou A :. ,4-rG- - 'k aM -r°'Ea�-�°➢' b�^ kaoxaxra,ahk wkb °"ha4W w xG •t s ok 4 ! aM h .,,t-ah ay 4 k k h T"[`o a�h y .kz ak eb c aF -_.. _ -...-- ° ,a I I ELECTRICAL SITE LIGHTING SCALE 1" = 30' LIGHT SPILLAGE CONTAINMENT PER APPENDIX ASO(b) OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS NOTEID FOOT CANDLE LEVELS ON GROUND AT SPEAR STREET CORRIDOR, EDGE OF PAVEMENT, MIN - 001 FC MAX. - 008 FG AVG. = 005 FC FOOT CANDLE LEVELS ON GROUND AT NT R OF IDEWALK IN E E S FRONCT OF NEIGHBORS ROPERTIES, MIN. = 0.01 FC MAX. = 0,08 FC AVG. = 0,05 FC NOTE; ABOVE VALUES HAVE DEEM CALCULATED UNDER BARE TREES CONDITIONS: ADDITIONAL SPILLAGE CONTAINMENT IS EXPECTED WHEN FOLIAGE IS PRESENT. RECEIVED a Zv) City Of sty. ealjl ingtOn •r(T�� � wwF''I 1"�ti W a (� O V F+i PERMIT SET REVISIONS DRAWING TITLE SITE LIGHITNG PLAN DRAWING NO. SL-I SCALE: AS NOTED DATE: 12/12/C3 PROJECT NO 102, \ I G m LEGEND ,' jJF� r A k `- _ - `' _ _ _ i ' > I _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ �� _ /i,3i/ r 1 \ • ......_ ._ 7u, ._.. _._..._ EXISTING CONTOUR y� r� U O E_ \` L_ q - - - 1 \ _ - _ • off\ j !% // //%/: l r ��%' f��/ m 336 PROPOSED CONTOUR w w PROPERTY LINE GRAVITY N 1••1< —55 SEWER LINE Q, '•� _._.....,,� I ;/,� ///�,/'�,, /r�r�///.joy/j/�j/ j/,,L,.// _.73 / r —FM FORCE MAIN — W WATER LINE o `•�\ L ,./ /` II' i', r/ /�� �// / /�' i , — ,�/ / r\I — — E UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC U \.1 ..\ / //// r�r ,: III ✓'//,/����,�j�j//�/j�// /.; r \\' \� `-'�' `1J�' ' /i ' — HTW HOT WATER LINE � Z (� _ STM STEAM LINE UJ W r J o — —PBX COMMUNICATIONS LINE Q' W — —ST STORM DRAINAGE LINE � Z V SEWER MANHOLE ,J 11 I /�/ �/ ` % ' % i' // // '/�// ii%'' ' /"✓/j�j, . \ /� // r • \m STORM MANHOLE Q /�/r/✓r/ /r�;;' � / HYDRANT I II I I 1 I -�/ . // /r �. / �// ✓�/i /� /, L,/: /��/ / II o I � 1 � L_. �/r, i,�/ � -� . SHUT-OFF 71 IIII II II III . , % `%//� - o POWER POLE41 ■ CATCH BASIN / 11 - %/r '.:'%///j �';�'� .r//J/%//�/ /©.//�Qj/� / II I 1 ` _ •i _-I LIGHT POLE • rl 'b' T OEQIDUOVS TREE CSIGN - cI a I 1 %� s ✓/ 1f/�/j� Y /�, / . , � / ✓//�//> , q CONIFEROUS TREE I- III ,/':,`. .,/�/ /////r///�/✓,// /" �r�// .�i /,i/j/r/ ��/// U } . /// - / _ _ I ' ,e•; "-.. /EDGE OF WOODS/BRUSH •H Ci DRAINAGE SWALE Sunin r / 0 i r / _ SO• s� �/ FIELD HpUS6 �v \V` vv / • f ���,, �y�A\A ` NAME'- -'�7 - T ' A \Vv v��•.v:�• ��////•• I :-�, - �� % '� // ��'// / .,y���/ 110v 1 I� �---���-�v\VA\ flj/ '°; j:/o, 'vv ���;" r/ 1 1 �,� /�� 0 -T I __ __' r 1 1 �� V 11i 1 ','/ i I I I I • -� 1 , r - /' r �����/�o,: SCAMNWNSo II i �/j;//, ///�/// / f /�< - �Q_-r ._� _ I v v � v;'1,. ;'/i, I / I %; _ __ ,/ / _J � %►was / i' j /" �Q /f I /�_ &v 1/P II ,�� ����, �) I ..-. ) A v A\♦ l\V'hVA. .. _ _ c !i _ .yam ' " '�� ������� I ,� 1 /r -.._- / • ri ALL ' � ! / i-1 \ \ % \ �. III I ,I— �'^ _ , � ' - , I I \ I / / �/ //i/% /��f! z i . � •� - --� I I I I 1 1 I , I ' � I \ .- ,-' _I_' "I HARRIS HALL ^ o �1f � 0�. 0, o r.- �i• /I_,— / //; 1- �I�:1�d� ' ' I \\ '\ �• ,e l 1 11 1 1 { t' 1 -I I- - Y; ��/ 'J_�_\\..` --.� I. °r.�;i , /, jj/%'� /, 1� PERMIT I I I IilI I1I16 �. \\ \ --I ' - I I S= --_- - - 11 1 - \\ \ / .' - � .�• - '---` s/ i/�.._--� //% / II'lll'lll'o SET / I �III111I\•\ \ \ \ .� -+ -�... -I _ - --- __ - - ', I I � _ _ I / ..�r�•�� o l� - �_- - - '�\- \I / \� 1 12/12/03 SAV �10111A\VAC \ I ,\ 0, T ,' / 1 � _1=__ _ _ ..' __." - r ° _ -: - _-� *----- � 11 � o � _--\ '_-- ----- o� • ; III I =--_-==— = — — — _11I I I I �'- �� �, __._.-_ REVISIONS BY 11,'11\;\\� _ - / zl I- / •� - I II I 1 / /r--' /i -+•-: �`\' d....,.c-t:.ie�ML�`� c°'-.r-'I'•C .�_ _ _ - m DRAWING TITLE �dv�!v� 44A� 0 ,_. ---- rGkAPHIC S_CA12, ' -- ; OVERALL v \\ I I - I I ' i' 5 o s __ \/EXISTING i 1 I I - \ --- - ' i CONDITIONS DRAWING N0. I 41\ 11• - I 1 - - si - ---rt ` - _ - - - __ - I\ �' 1 1 i / �.- b �\ / �\' _ . I \ \ \ c I °_� SCALE: 1'.50' �/_ _ ,, 1' \n\_-- -t" DATE 0/28/0 OIL - \ _ . ___ _ _.-_ . ! � \ „• ... m III ' // , DESIGN I DRAMJWWN CN SAV KD. ' /--r.'�+'- ., � � 4 I itl ' ' // / �l/ 1 �,: �.,%'• _ "� . 1\: `i/ , 10.'' _f! 9AV i PERMIT SET NO. IDATE 9Y REVISION'. DRAWING TITLE OVERALL, PROPOSED CIRCULATION PLAN C2 ...� .r►" ,.. �' ��" �:-----""._._. .�''"' "� ' i ' Lj'_" s ��: su o m w., , ._. nd/� / 4. Sr -Al . E__.. .Q „��,� i— �,,; IN � ;1 _ DATE: 111/28/03 PROJECT NO 01300.00 1 1 IDeb � ft. DESIGN DRAWN CH'KD. � 1 ,; SAV MJW SAV P:W utOCADD Projed5\2001W1300\01300C.Awg, 12/152003 3:37:50 PM, Mwen Vam m r O O _ C (A m \ \ \\` --� `--- �\��Avvw� A�Av\VAvv�\v� \\ \ /\\�\N \ \\�\'� .D �� II 1.1 C \wAvV�\V O i M M \ —� AVAV AA- A� \Q\C VA �� 1 : Cn r \\Vv r n vv�v vJ`�y`�vvA�\\� __�:' VAA �• NVvA��\�� I "\ ■■aa■ap■■■a - - - - - a - _ Xm ram_ _a� 1:� 1_ Vie:..,=>?•�...� 4. - =" _; uuu,.■■ ` nn u■ � /aaGai■■■■ a■■n■a+a■■a■an■ ■■i1uYun■nw \ 1. riy >tuaiu■afi■a�uatest \ a •,,�■h■nuuna■upupaaaaaan ■ u4aam ;, r' �� �a 3 ------ ---- � A Gi CJ .. 'Al Or 7' ^` �N U) r _ r Z as ' -_ n m 1 v v I VA W T 1 \ i y V p D SMITH < m : a n, "d ALVAREz BARB & BARR, INC o= z g A m UVM Gutterson Parking Facility sIErIKIEwYcz N - 7� ARCHITECTS BUILDERS CIVIL ENGINEERING DESMAN < Fri Burlington, Vermont ASSOCIATES, INC A 5 S 0 C I A T E S Inv iii 2' Nv let / \ I .•o! v ER$ON FIELD HOUSE % '` ', COMPLEX N±403.2 EW INV fy GUT 1 �' \ s'. I --s-_' Sir e PLUG EXISTINGLEI /u \8" OUTT I 1 . i rNiv °5':.osz I � INv +e•_les.m I � � TRA SITION ...RAISE RIM 1 �' 4 NEW CB 12. 1 �6 1. RA # CUR TO FIN. GRADE r, RIM- C 07 NEW O DMH#1 \� 1, ' i RIM,n405.0 \a faoa.e f ` Nv=aoD o s19 NEW Ht�= ,INV>.Sg5.0 RIM=404,2 1 I I . /i%';�'.•/ /-...^= T PILO E I INV=t386W LIMITS OF PLUG EXISTING t� (MATCH EXIIST) `�. NEW CB#tl, % c 1 v}, \ -I' ' RECONSTRUCTION 1,8' OUTLET ,t }.. NEWCB 10 RIM=407.21 --'."1 _ .-_`.'' II # N�3B i rr (TYP.) C9U �, I INIv=3850- - - -- - I _y�--�}. 1 Z �X- _ `�- I NEW OMH#2 y N Z II 11 i. , .• % -, - II INV=383.2 •" j w'�' L! w W I I UUKUCPRS�"D - �/ 3 _ CURB24" � Z� IS MALL vi a� u Z U 4026 -`- RIM=393 7 B^ HARR z w p -004 A'140T) v e -o Ew SMH#, ¢� J -� LEVEL (EL. 40 i RIM=403.3 I I ¢ (RD LE N n 11 1,307.1 1 v� jcn I - NEW CB, AV ME 1 ,� I .3!�ri j //_ CQ 1 NEW CB#8 - I RIM=402 3 \ II INV-388.5 � _ i " II 8" 1 '_ �"4 •dx NEW TRENCH \\ __.._ RIM 395.8 ,,, -( �pC VI,N��>>1',,ii••�� f _ II LIMITS OF-� TRAN°IiION VI'lu LEVEL=393.7 \\ _--fir !- II r RECONSTRUCTION CURE --�"� `je ETE1 ! NEW .50DMH#3 w•M (TYP.) .-- NEW CB#13- - _, '��-`.. , _ RIM 395 7 \ +\ , INV-379 0 \ r I 4 _ INV=3908 `. \ ✓ \ _ - �1 (- - - _- \ _ , ,,�,,, • .r • RI W 59 I+4- N, ! h ,�- NV-398.8 �\ �-.-- --- BIKC - v=±386 3 i90.0 ( - t T LEVEL 85 (MATCH EXIST) `a J S � 'NEW TRENCH l ^.;. LE RRI�AI=N 2i! ` t ' ! Invz lasso FAIN, IWNGftETkI �j L.� \�� SECOND LEVEL # i l o-T\ NEW OIL $E�ATOR"" 395- + -, _', a �s n ..+ • ' " r _ u_ `.. AND PUM §TATION (PAVEMENT) INV=393.1' mro=a�9 \_,, (SEE DET I y �. •- -. .•� • ,. _W-- N0, ' ,. \ �'... i'S9 INM_33783�0 .,.- _ ... ..... _,�,..',�. • / EC ND L NI BURLINGTON NEW tRENc� � c N cr To IRST LEVEL ss 8° DRAIN #3 �. \ !u. �- 11 TON SECOND LEVEL RIM-395.8 v NEW- RLINO `INV=391.6 - RIM J810 _ m �y�-�•�\ PURL (PAVEMENT) 4 INV a+9.0 I f G a.N sa RIM=383 7 ��,...1I / i i • INV=379 6 I rNiv s s f Iv n RA K _ NEW CB# • 1-4 FIRST �/ L Nv n o RIM-387.4 r4 FRS LEVEL '' �. I - � INV=378,3 ce RETAINING i-.) alu.axe WALL H-3' MAX. INVe2la5.5 l✓.. t�4 J CONCRE"YE) RMW 38H ( ) NEW TRENCH NEW tll#a ( _ a`"+sS50 ` 8' -. A DRAIN #4 (MATCH1.8 INV7E EXIST.) I - RIM=3848 -' i �_ . \ \ 15^ - J _ \ # RELOCATE T LEVEL . \ FIRST INV=3 ��_ .. St NEW iR 5 LIMITS : (PAVEMENT) t ,. _ .� -.. DRAIN #5 `,' ` '` RECON TRUCTION - -...._..-.- ST RIM=384.8 7YP.) - _' .� PERMIT E � I T' �. r, - _ : NEW 9 2(} DMII If ( j j\jvlj j INv-382.1 1 +2" RIM=384.0 NECESSARY +I �� \ LIMITS OF-�, i RACKBIKE INV 3 8.9 _ SET \\ RE§ONSYRUCTION j RACK .'-'- _'_ -- ..s . ---- -•_ - -� SE 1 ' T VELA 1. 5ao.9 FIRS - -.- - SPEAR Ir '' , 1 11 .�.. _ 1 1 �___-•-�-" - ! � � 1 I 1 � . it ; NO. ATI BY REVISIONS DRAWING , �'�... ' I � _ DRAWIN, TITLE 1 I I PARKING 1 _ STRUCTURE SITE 1 11 ,I FkE C E I NOTES: - 1 x" N 1 DRAWING NO. A r -�• T _ 1 I - 1 I , I , I I I. SOUTH BURLINGTON PRE CONSTRUCTION GRADE 30,01, I [j T 1 I I j I j ; a ❑ I I y '+�*''•'r�{ 2. SNOW STORAGE AREA- SNOW TO BE REMOVED AND DEC ` V STORED AT THE UVM STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. ' 1 _ SCALE: 1..=30' 3. ADDITIONAL IMPERWOUSAREA CREATED IN SOUTH DATE: 12/28/01 1 I 1 I I CI Of C� O • Bur ' i 1 l t-) (, IBURLINGTON = 9000 s1 1 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 I J Bu I I I � .. i 1 , 1 1 1.. KD 11 ESSIGN DRAWN A I EFFECTIVE CONCRETE MINIMUM ME FULL J kty�Y "~.. ,4 BEARING AREA (WITHBURIED GATE VALVE LENGTH OF PIPE SUPPORT VALVE & ANCHOR �G s UNDISTURBED UNDISTURBED SOIL VALVE/DEAD END REDUCER SOIL NOTE: PLACE 3 MIL (MIN.) NT% POLYETHYLENE SHEET BETWEEN ALL CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS AND PIPE AND FITTINGS TO PREVENT BOND. ' a lie ` is �-UNDISTURBED ,.\^I ,,� SOIL REED 90', dS 4' tND SOIL TEE SOIL OR 11 1/4' BEND N.T.S. Nil.& MINIMUM AREA OF BEARING SURFACE OF CONIC. THRUST BLOCKS (IN SQUARE PFE'fl Mmmmmmmmmm�rrm®MMMMM® �MMMMMMWMM M�NaLum. i�iF1 3i illii ®' M � F i�FimE�i�®y' MW 0MimMWMMMMMWL% i 4Y�N i1 ®' Mom®®' ®' ®' ®®U®' ®' M-M ME MMU EM THRUST BLOCK DETAILS N.T.S. TOPSOIL, RAKE, UNPAVED,_ PAVED_ 1 SEED & MULCH NOTES: all n o ° a ° 1. Compaction of backfill and bedding shoil be a o ° ° minimum of 90% (95% under roadway surfaces) of maximum dry density determined in the APPROVED BACKFILL standard proctor test (ASTM D698). THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 2. Bedding material shall not be placed on frozen IN 8" LIFTS subgrade. 1O RIGID INSULATION AS 3. Approved backfill shall not contain any stones ✓ REWIRED. USE 1" OF more than 12" in largest dimension (6" in INSULATION FOR EVERY roadways, 2" maximum diameter within 2' of FOOT DEPTH OF PIPING the outside of the pipe), or contain any frozen, Ut2' IS LESS THAN 5'-6" wet, or organic material. D --- PVC SEWER PIPE 4. Trenches shall be completely dewatered prior to - placing of pipe bedding material and kept 6" dewatered during Installation of pipe and backfill. -- THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 5. In trenches with unstable materials, trench <� BEDDING MATERIAL bottom shall first be stabilized by placement of -- filter fabric then crushed stone (3/4" maximum). 6 J:, 6. The sides of trenches 4' or more in depth entered UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the angle of repose as defined by O.S.H.A. standards. TYPICAL SEWER TRENCH DETAIL 7. Bedding material sholl consist of crushed stone, gravel or sand with a maximum size of 3/4". N.T.S. Submit a sample to the Engineer for approval. TOPSOIL, RAKE; SEED & MULCH o „ APPROVED BACKFILL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED z IN 8" LIFTS 2 RIGID INSULATION AS .I REQUIRED. USE 1" m E INSULATION FOR EVERY FOOT DEPTH OF PIPING O_t7 -� IS LESS THAN 5'-6" WATER LINE 6' / THOROUGHLY COMPACTED g BEDDING MATERIAL ��- UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK TYPICAL WATER TRENCH DETAIL N.T.S. NOTES: 1. Compaction of backfill and bedding shall be a minimum of 90% (95% under roadway surfaces) of maximum dry density determined in the standard proctor test (ASTM 0698). 2. Bedding material shall not be placed on frozen subgrade. 3. Approved bockfli shall not contain any stones more than 12" in largest dimension (6" in roadways, 2" maximum diameter within 2' of the outside of the pipe), or contain any frozen, wet, or organic material. 4. Trenches shall be completely dewatered prior to placing of pipe bedding material and kept dewatered during installation of pipe and backfill. 5. In trenches with unstable materials, trench bottom shall first be stabilized by placement of filter fabric then Crushed stone (3/4" maximum). 6. The sides of trenches 4' or more in depth entered by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the angle of repose as defined by O.S.H.A. standards. 7, Bedding material shall consist of crushed stone, gravel or sand with a maximum size of 3/4". Submit a sample to the Engineer for approval. NOTES 1, Utlltise shown do not purport to conetftute or represent all utilities located upon or djv..rt to the surveyed premises. Existing tit ty locotlars are approximate only. The Contractor 0.11 fNd Verfy all unity cwfilct.. All dieweponciw sholl be reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (800-225-4977) prior to any conetrvetion 2. All existing utilities not incorporated into the final deagn shall be -.,.d or abandoned as Indicated on the plans w III ..is by the Engineer. 3. The Contractor shall mointan as -butt plans (with ties) for all underground utilities. Those Plana shall be submitted to the Owns, of the completion of the project. 4. Th. Cont-to, h.11 , &/reetw. all disturbed area. (on or IT the site) as a direct or Indirect result of the construction. 5. All grassed areas shall be maintained unit full Yegetatbn is established. 6. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits. 7. The Contractor shall be responsible for all worse -weary for complete and operable facllitles and utilities. s. Since the building is to be eprI,khvsb, bank flow prevention shall be pm,4ded in accordance with AWWA M14. The Site Contract., snail construct the water Ilse to two feet above the m finished floor See achaNcal plans for ,seer detail 9. The Contractor shall bm't shop drawings far all Items and materials incorporated into the ,ft. work Wark shall not begin on any Item until shop drawing approval Is granted. 10. In addition to the requirements sei in theplena and speclflcafbns, the Contractor shall wnplel. the work m ccordanca with alsel permit conditions, the Burlington Public Works Standards, wd the South Burlington Public Work. Standard. it, The tolerance for finish grades for all pavement, walkways and sawn areas shall be 0.1 feel. 12. Any dswated q necessary for the completion of the site work shell be considered as part of the contract and .hall be the Contractor's responsibility 13. The Contractor shall cowwrote all work within the Spew Street Road R.O.W. with the South Burlington Public works Depwtmen! 14. Exl.ting paysrnent and has sve lump. to be removed .hall be dbpo..d of at an approd oR- .It. location. All pavement cuts shall be made with a Pavement sow. 15. If there ore any conflicts or inconsietencles with the plans or apecificotions, the Contractor .hall contact the Engineer for Yerlfication before work continues an the item In queetion. is. Th. Contractor dwli be responsible for conforming to it OSHA (Stot./Federai) regulations frduding trenching and confined space requirement.. 17. Adjust all rims, VWxw and cover. to finish grade. 1s, All site utilties shall be underground. FLOW MANHOLE WALL MANHOLE OPENING ABOVE LEBARON FRAME & COVER- LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK CLASS B CONCRETE SHELF AND INVERT 8" INE -0" MIN. IDIUS WATER OR SEWER LINE MINIMUM 18" SEPARATION BETWEEN OUTSIDE OF PIPES WATER OR SEWER LINE SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED & SEAL JOINT NOTES: 1, AT CROSSINGS, ONE FULL LENGTH OF WATER/SEWER PIPE SHALL BE LOCATED SO BOTH JOINTS WILL BE AS FAR FROM THE WATER/SEWER AS POSSIBLE. 2. IF THE SEWER MAIN IS OVER THE WATER MAIN, THE FIRST SEWER PIPE JOINTS ON EACH SIDE OF THE WATER MAIN MUST BE CONCRETE ENCASED. SPECIAL STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE WATER AND SEWER PIPES MAY BE REQUIRED. T MAINTAIN THE 1 " SEPARATION, THE SEWER 3. WHERE 1 IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AN E 8 EP MATERIALS SHALL BE WATER MAIN PIPE OR EQUIVALENT AND SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED TO WATER MAIN STANDARDS. 4. WATER MAINS AND SEWER LINES OR MANHOLES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION. THIS DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED EDGE TO EDGE. WATER1SEWER CROSSING DETAIL N.T.S. ALL JOINTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED SMOOTH CUT EXIST. BIT. AND COATED WITH PAVEMENT PRIOR TO PAVING EMULSIFIED ASPHALT EX. BIT, PAVEMENT PRIOR TO PAVING (BOTH SIDES) _0:1 MATCH EX. PAVEMENT MIhl (MIN. 1 1/2" TYPE If 2" TYPE 11) '' NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AT LEAST ONE- V Q ($I L� LI ,D` 1 NEW BIT. CO NC, PAVEMENT MATCH EX. SUBBASE (� 7 (18" MIN. CRUSHED 1i OC U C 0 C`!l WAY TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES DURING WORK WITHIN 2. MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING gpRK WIDiIN THE HIGHWAY R.O.W. SHALL BE o 0 C GRAVEL) (� L , () (,) PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME MANUAL OF Ti PFA7L-,.,,. ..! � R lit}',III,.'-III II '= UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. WITHOUT APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION SIGNING nil-�kr I 11ttl L..Tl_ sail IN PLACE. �_ Ili' I))) !1!iT 3. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE MADE IN SIX (6-) LIFTS AND TO THAN J�, D + 2' TRENCH ll SEE TYPICAL COMPACTED NOT LESS 95% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY ACCORDING TO ASTM EXCAVATION MIN.- TRENCH DETAIL D69e. ill Al 7 4. REPLACE EXISTING ROAD STRIPING AS NECESSARY. 2-6 COURSES OF BRICK FOR ADJUSTMENT. MORTARED ON EXTERIOR SURFACES (12" MAX.) POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE STEPS 0 8" O.C. WATERTIGHT JOINTS USING MASTIC OR RUBBER GASKET COAT EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE MANHOLE WITH A WATERTIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS) CAST IN PLACE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES OR APPROVED EQUAL (TYP. ALL PIPES) USE 3" (MAX.) STUBS AT ALL MANHOLE PIPE CONNECTIONS -CONCRETE FILL TO HIGHEST CROWN OF PIPE - 12" MIN. 6" MIN. CRUSHED STONE BEDDING ELEVATION NOTES 1. INVERTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONLY AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF LEAKAGE TEST. 2. EXTERIOR JOINTS SHALL BE SEALED ONLY AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF LEAKAGE TEST. 3. INTERIOR JOINTS SHALL NOT BE GROUTED. 4. IF DEPTH OF MANHOLE IS 7' OR LESS FROM RIM TO CENTERLINE INVERT, THEN A FLAT TOP SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE CONE SECTION. TYPICAL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE N.T,S. REPLACEMENT OF EXIST. PAVEMENT NITS THRUST BLOCK AWWA HYDRANT, VALVE AND APPURTENANCES AS PER SPECS ADJUSTABLE IRON VALVE BOX W/I.ID MARKED "WATER" �-- FINISH GRADE b REDUCING TEE CONCRETE VALVE SUPPORT NOTES: 1. ALL BRANCH PIPING AND FITTINGS SHALL BE MECHANICAL JOINT. 2. HYDRANTS SHALL BE LABELED "ND", FOR NONDRAINING ON THE BONNET FACING THE ROADWAY. TYPICAL HYDRANT INSTALLATION -- - _ N.T.S. ON of 8) sL w�/aY �.qg V ZU U H X- U WW Z ZU U uJ >Q U PERMIT SET 1 12/12/03 SAV THRUST BLOCK UNDISTURBED SOIL NO. DATE BY REVISIONS DRAWING TrrLE WATER AND SEWER DETAILS DRAWING NO, C5 SCALE: Ar NOTED DATE: 12/28/01 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 TOPSOIL, SEED & .. ° . me-�*�•-"+--n•>--o-.,--�'e�4Lr NOTES: ^^^m 1. Compaction of backfil and bedding shall be a pO s' o° °✓!' minimum of 90% (95% under roadway surfaces) ¢ 4 YiZ%: .;T,'��.3<v of maximum dry density determined in the � standard proctor test (ASTM D698). CONE SECTION OR 4'0- o �, v:. APPROVED BACKFILL TRAFFIC COVER (HEAVY THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 2. Bedding material shall not be placed on frozen DUTY) FOR SHALLOW s o ;��, i; IN 6" LIFTS subgrode. MANHOLES N 3. Approved backflil D�( APPROVED GRANULAR FILL shall not contain any stones < '"� THOROUGHLY COMPACTED more than 12" in largest dimension (6" in fIN 6" LIFTS roadways, 2" maximum diameter within 2' of ' -�. the outside of the pipe), or contain any frozen, wet, or organic material. d o 12" f HOPE STORM DRAIN PIPE 4. Trenches shall be completely dewatered prior to < m \ placing of pipe bedding material and kept y % dewotered during installation of pipe and backflil. o y'; ° ° ° i V •. THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 5. In trenches with unstable materials, trench bottom first ? w BEDDING MATERIAL shall be stabilized b placement of y P filter fabric then N crushed stone (3/4" maximum). a < ✓. ,.,< ✓,/tic<'•a�:; ! ,_ 6. The sides of trenches 4' or more in depth entered < UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the m angle of repose as defined by O.S.H.A. standards. TYPICAL STORM TRENCH DETAIL 7. Bedding material shall consist of crushed stone, gravel or sand with a maximum size of 3/4'. N.T.S. Submit a sample to the Engineer for approval. UNDISTURBED-'� SOIL OR ROCK PRECAST CONCRETE OR POURED IN PLACE BASE SECTION I FRAME & COVER ///---LEBARON FRAME & COVER YPE C OR EQUAL ( LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL TO MEET FINISH GRADE. / ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. ADJUST TO GRADE WITH PRECAST RISER SECTIONS_" 12" MAX.nWATERTIGHT JOINT USING1" MIN. WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET EMERGENCY (SEAL EXTERIOR JOINTS AND CONNECTION LIFT HOLES w/NON SHRINK GROUT) CAST IN PLACE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES OR APPROVED EQUAL UNION (TYP. ALL PIPES) FROM LOWER LEVEL - FLOOR DRAINS 60"0 _.. ,,..,..., ....._ _ 6" SCH 40 PVC PRECAST CONCRETE I I' .I 'l. 8" w/MONOLITHIC BASE 'k PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES �f SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). OIL/GRIT INTERCEPTOR MH W DISCHARGE PUMP — ---- GRIT/OIL SEPARATOR DETAIL N.T,S. 4 -----CONTINUE CABLE IN CONDUIT TO NEAREST GARAGE WALL WHERE A CONTROL PANEL AND VALVE ALARM SHOULD BE MOUNTED. AUDIO & VISUAL ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED /'-2" SCH 40 PVC TO NEW SMH p2 PUMP REQUIREMENTS — POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE Design Flow 25 gpm STEPS 0 8" O.C. Velocity VALVE 2.5 gpe -ALARM FLOAT T.D.H. i-WIDE ANGLE Elevation 11' . MERCURY SWITCH Friction 5' -SET PUMPING CYCLE T.D.H. 16, AT 145 GALLONS —EXPLOSION PROOF PUMP HYDROMATIC SPX50 OR APPROVED EQUAL - 6" MIN. CRUSHED STONE BEDDING LOAD CLASS C GRATE IllWITH LOCK DOWN 6" 61" 6" BEDDING 19 6" CONCRETE BIT. CONIC. 16.4't PAVEMENT RIM ELEV. AS 39.37" A (SEE DETAIL) SHOWN ON PLAN (TYP.) oc t °o° G<°>a o°u o ouvr) c 26 27 28 29 30 Joc>o°o°a° �°v°o°� °< 32.4° 'nOODUO°O°G°O°V°O . n o n o.G o a o ,>o o 0 0 (, o G o J°O°O�O��O�)U�O>O�< POLYDRAIN 260-300 A ° G oa° CRUSHED GRAV.o°oc OR APPROVED , OC°UOOOOVU°400U0 _ ,' EQUAL o of (SEE DETAIL)°°GC c°o�0000000}Joao°off 'o°o°o°a°o 6" Ooc 0o°ooc°o .. ,°o°oao°�Do`?<r°G CATCH BASIN 6" OUTLET POLYDRAIN 610 INV. AS SHOWN •°o°o°o°o°o°or)o°o°o°o°ooG000c)o°o°oor>avooc,)o° , H]oaoc SERIES OR ON PLAN rJ0�0.,0 O LSO OOOC,ODU -•'�,'r�,R-i?, dr$ V O D� O.O R.B Q s 0 0 U�,O.,O O O O C o EQUAL SECTION A —A TRENCH DRAIN DETAIL N.T.S. ELEVATION —LEBARON FRAME & COVER LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. HIGH STRENGTH NON -SHRINK GROUT LEBARON LF248 24" x 24" C.I. GRATE w/3 FLANGED FRAME FINISH GRADE (OR APPROVED EQUAL) RAME ON FULL CONCRETE CURB SET FRAME ON AR BED & SEAL JOINT FULL MORTAR BED SES OF BRICK -- CON TMENT. MORTARED ji.:p �r ...tl,..' PAVEMENTS(1/4"/FT. OR SURFACES (12" MAX.) c _,..__,....-.-.�--.--.-- SLOPE MIN.) _ PROPYLENE MANHOLE 12" LSTEPS S ® 8" O.C. MAX. RTIGHT JOINTS USING IC OR RUBBER GASKET PRECAST CONCRETE 4" x 4" OR 60" 0 w/MONOLITHIC BASE ADJUST TO GRADE WITH EXTERIOR OF ENTIREOLE BRICK (2-6 COURSES) WITH A4„0 RTIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS)MI SEAL w/HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTAR, OR CAST -IN -PLACE HOPE PIPE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES ^� SEAL WITH HYDRAULIC CEMENT °. MORTAR, OR GASKETED FLEXIBLE Goc WATERTIGHT CONNECTION upV"r a0b 12" MIN. 6" MIN. CRUSHED STONE BEDDING TYPICAL STORM MANHOLE N.T.S. EXISTING SEWER C STORM L EXISTING SHELF AND INVERT MANHOLE AND USE RESS SEAL GASKET PROVED EQUAL) FOR TIGHT CONSTRUCTION 'ROPOSED SEWER OR TORM CONNECTION :XISTING CONCRETE SHELF AND FORM NEW INVERT ELEVATION CONNECTION TO EXISTING SEWER/STORM MANHOLE OR C8 N.T.S. G,w.. " ? 2003 WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1" MIN. WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET (SEAL EXTERIOR JOINTS AND LIFT HOLES w/NON SHRINK GROUT) 18" SUMP ' �8" MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL 0 V Z U� wz flip WW Z F- *4 Z ci wo OnJ i n Q U 4-A * PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES rl SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. ,,,0...111 C478 (LATEST EDITION). (} 0 TYPICAL CATCH BASIN • CURB w rti LEBARON LF248 24" x 24" C.I. GRATE w/4 FLANGED FRAME e.-I BITUMINOUS CONCRETE (OR APPROVED EQUAL) 7�1 PAVEMENT Q G O/ U T!J I - SET FRAME ON 12.. FULL MORTAR BED MAX. ADJUST GRADE WITH ^� [] BRICK (2-- 6 COURSES) PRECAST CONCRETE 4" x 4" WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1" w/MONOLITHIC BASE MIN. WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET �y4 LIFT HOLES w/NON SHRINK fGj q " 0 GROUT) > �SEAL w/HYDRAULC CEMENT MORTAR, OR -PLACE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES 18" SUMP MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL * PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). TYPICAL CATCH BASIN N.T.S EXISTING GROUND 12 1 ,EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN TOPSOIL 71""Il"" DITCHES w/PROFILE GRADES II -n1 EXCEEDING 5% STAPLE AS PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. GRASS LINED DITCH N.T.S. PERMIT SET REVISIONS DRAWING TITLE SEWER AND DRAINAGE DETAILS ORAWING NO. C6 DATE: 12/28/01 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 3 3/4" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT: 1 1/2" TYPE III FINISH COURSE 2 t/4" TYPE II BASE COURSE - b LRUS40 GRAVEL 12 CRUSHED GRAVLL SUB -BASE (COARSE) STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL TYPICAL ROADWAY PAVEMENT SECTION w/CURB N.T.S. -OR AS SHOWN TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS ON PLANS CONCRETE PAVEMENT BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS 1 /2" R. g" 1/4' R. CONCRETE PAVEMENT 7 18 I INE CRUSHED GRAVEL COARSE CRUSHED SUB -BASE MATERIAL GRAVEL �— STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL 1. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WITH 1/8" JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2. CURBING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-153 (1/2" SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK). TYPICAL CURB SECTION N.T.S. -OR AS SHOWN TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS ON PLANS CONCRETE PAVEMENT /2" R 6" BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE OR PAVED SIDEWALK ( 1 5" OUC�C COCO �(�o0urc o 0 6 I NI (j HED (,RAVEL 1G�( C04RSE CRUSHED GRAVEL ". I 6- SUB-BASE MATERIAL �— STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL 1. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WITH 1/8" JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2. CURSING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-153 (1/2" SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK). 3. ASPHALT TREATED FELT TO BE USED BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND CONCRETE CURB TOP. CURB w SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S. 3 1/4" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEI 1 1/4" TYPE III FINISH COURSE 2" TYPE It BASE COURSE SEE PLANS Op00('CRUSHED GRAVEL SUBBASE ASO(TppO0 gyp( .<NECESSARY FOR FINISH GRADE C'po EXISTING STRUCTURAL SECTION RECLAIMED OR WITH PAVEMENT REMOVED (GRADE AS .NECESSARY FOR. PAVING) TYPICAL RECONSTRUCTED PAVEMENT SECTION 5' UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS 2 TYPE II BITUMINOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK :%\ 07V �O .,O( COOCOO Jt�gOO CC JOCOCC CV � U�OCCt'O �. 6. 10" GRAVEL SUBBAS 8. UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL BITUMINOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S. 5' WIDE OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" AT CURB CUTS ��Y%\� OC'J OC10000 COU C'O f+O GCOt p�O` JCO OOCOiOJ OOL C`IOV� /�' s. 10" GRAVEL SUBBASE L 6' UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL NOTES: 1. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF PREFORMED JOINT FILLER (1/4 CORK OR BITUMINOUS TYPE) 2. BETWEEN EXPANSION JOINTS THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE DIVIDED AT INTERVALS OF FIVE FEET BY DUMMY JOINTS. TYPICAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL_ N.TS 3 1/4" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT: 1 1/4" TYPE 111 FINISH COURSE 2" TYPE II BASE COURSE SEE PLANS "(UNLESS OTHERWISE -- SHOWN ON PLANS) `.16 UkUSHED GRAVEL (f INE J''-..,, _=_3 O O C J CQU�12 CRUSHED GRAVEL (COAR E) 000 U"U 9., CIUv 4" SUBGRADE—TOPSOIL """'—COMPACTED �� STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL TYPICAL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT SECTION N.T.S. SIDEWALK RAMP -O WITH HEAVY MIN. BROOM FINISH a a TRANSITIO\1 CURB PLAN SIDEWALK RAMP WITH HEAVY BROOM FINISH 5 MIN. a Dd. PLAN SID WALK RAMP -1/2" REVEAL TEXTURED ROADWAY SURFACE ^�. 5.0% MAX. ADJACENT SECTION A -A TO RAMP TEXTURED AUXILIARY RAMP SIDEWALK RAMP AUXILIARY RAMP DIST. AS REQ D. 5'-0" MIN. SIDEWALK TO MEET GRADE OF SIDEWAU( ROUNDING TYP SECTION B-B TYPICAL HANDICAP RAMP DETAILS N. T. S. TOP OF CURB (SEE PLAN FOR TYPE OF CURB) END TRANSITION *OR AS SHOWN SLOPE ON PLANS BEGIN TRANSITION SLOPE FACE OF CURB -T^ —FINISHED GRADE OF ROAD PAVEMENT TRANSITION CURB N.T.S. 3'_T 3' (MAX.) 4' (MIN.) r----r 22'-4" flN B" I GRADE GRAD EXISTING ISH (GRADE 2' CLEAR 1i 94 BARS 0 16- O/C II B ICKFILL WITH FREE DRAINING GRANDLAR MATERIAL I. (MAX.) 4" SOR 35 PERF. PVC 8: 3/4' WASHED STONE WRAPPED W/DRAINAGE FABRIC. (S ACµED ASS 3' CLEAR/4 BARS 0 16" O/C SHOWN 3-10" -ry 2'-6' NOTES. - PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS O 2V O.C. MAX. $4 DOWEL - CONCRETE MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH . 3000p41 0 28 DAYS - REINFORCING STEEL TO BE GRADE 60 OPTIONAL SPLICE RETAINING WALL SECTION 3/4' - 1'-0" fH SETBACK/BATTER (1 1/4" UNIT SETBACK) FINISH _ GRADE CAP BLOCK 6" TOPSOIL SETBACK BATTER /T RETAINED EXISTING WITHINSOIL GRADE: a REQUIREMENT J - - - - - - - - MASONRY _ - Tn BLOCK--- UNITS -FIFIAL GRADE / .II_I 16 EMBEDMENT11_ / / LIMIT OF EXCAVATION LEVELING PAD (COMPACTED I 3' GRANULAR BORROW _ CRUSHED STONE) TYPICAL MASONRY BLOCK RETAINING WALL SECTION — --- N.LS. PERMIT SET REVISIONS DRAWING TITLE DRAINAGE AND ROADWAY DETAILS DRAWING NO. C7 DATE: 12/28/01 PROJECT N0, 01300.00 SECTION 02060 - DEMOLITION PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 UTILITY SERVICES A. Arrange with utility companies and shut off indicated utilities aWWng strudures. B. Diacmnxt and cap indicated utilities before starting demaibon wowtions. C. Identify 1«slim of capped utilities on project record document.. 0. Obtain written approval before Interrupting existing utilities. E. 8 sa Can actions: Provide as nets r t maintain eve o a ypa Y service to occupied axe. F. Notify the Owner at lead 72 hour. In advance of changeover. 1.02 EXPLOSIVES A. Do Pat use eVice... 1.03 POLLUTION CONTROLS A. Control os mum as pwaticable the preod of duet and dirt. B. Observe erviranmental protection regulations. C. Do not allow water usage that results in freezing a Reading. D. 00 1 allow adjacent Improvement, to remain to became soiled by demolition operatlms. END OF SECTION 02060 SECTION 02110 - SITE CLEARING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. So Man Ir l,d- 1. Remove wrf«. da is. 2. Geor site of plant life Oldgross. 3. Remove tree. and Mruba. 4. Remove root system or tree, and shrubs. PART 2 - PRODUCTS Not used. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 PROTECTION A. Protect utilities that remain from damage. B. Protect beet, plant growth, and feet.- designated to remain o. find landscaping. C. Protect bath marks and existing at.clurs ham damage or displacement. D. Use memo nep.to y to prevent dust becoming a nuisuno. to the public, to nlghbare, and to other work being performed an or near the ale. E. Maintain aco.. to the site at all it.- 3.02 CLEARING A. Clear grace required for access to site and execution of Work. B. Ranow bass and M.bs withln marked or Ran. stumps, -to and tap roots and Otherprojxtims 1+ or grater in donate, l0 2'-0' bow the e.awtb surfaces in cut area, and 2'0' below the ..posed wbgr.da In NI arm,. 3,03 REMOVAL A. Ranov. debris, rock, mtl ..traded plant life &am site. B. Th. Cantr«t- Noll coardinat. Wok with the Engines, and Dana h establishing suitable aep withln the property limits far dpwiling debris. rocks and extracted plant Ills. The Contractor shall be responsible for backfilling (capping) and trading all waste sites. 3.04 UTILITIES A. Coadi,ate with utility companies and agencies as required. ENO OF SECTION 02110 SECTION 02210 - SITE EARTHWORK PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. All utility and wbotork excavation (unless corona in other sections of then specification.), removal and stockpile of topeail, stabNlzation fabric, and other miscellaneous and appurtenant woke. 2. Sit. fulln. 3. Roadw.y9pmkhg lot .I-t-1 aactials. 1.02 REFERENCES A. ANSI/ASTM C135 - Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. B. ANSI/ASTM D898 - Standard Teat Method for Loberatory Compaction Characteristics of Soo Using Standard Effort. 1.03 PROTECTION A. Protect bench marks and existing structures. 8. Protect above or below grade utilities whim are to remain. 1.G4 SUBMITTALS A. Testing laboratory ,parts Indicating that material far bodfill m..I. requkemanta of this Seatian. 8. Rod density test report. of elta fill in plop. C. Fold density test reports far roadway structural section, inplace. D. Stabilization Fabric: Submit copies of monufucluPw's epxiBc.Um. and imlahUm Instructions. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 CRUSHED GRAVEL A. All materials Mall be severed from approved sources This growl shall cm.r t of angular and round fragments of hard durable rock of uniform quality throughout, rtosmably free from ih,A elongated piece.. son disintegrated at.., dirt organic a other objectionable motto. This material shall ,at the tollonng grading requlements: Percent by Weight Slave D.signaton Paaaing Squore Most, Sove Fin. 2' 100 1 i/2' 90 - 100 No. 4 30 - 60 No. 100 0 - 12 No. 200 0 - 6 Coons: 4' 95 - 100 No. 4 25 - 50 No. 1GO 0 - 12 No. 200 0 - 8 2.02 AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE A. Aggregate for .,face tours. Old sh«loan Mall conaial of Clem, hard gravel, crushed gravel a,aruemed stone. It "I be ressamoblm y free hasilt, loan, day or organic matte. It Mall be obtained from approved sources. B. Grading. This material shall be uniformly graded from evens to fine and 0011 meet the requlremomto of the following table: Percent by Weight Slew Designator P... ing Square slash Sieve 1/2' IOD 90 - 100 No. 4 45 - 65 No. 100 0 - 15 No. 200 0 - 12 2.03 COMPACTED FILL/GRANULAR BORROW A. Z. matmid Mall be free of shale clay. er enable matala, debris, and organic ..it.. graded In attorodnce At th ANSI/ASTM C136 within the following limits Percent by Wart Sieve Designation P... Ing Square Mesh Slave 6' 100 3/4' 75 - too No. 4 20 - 100 No. too 0 - 20 No. 200 0 - 12 2.04 GEOTECHNICAL - STABILIZATION FABRIC A. This work shall ..slat of fumiehing and placing an approved etabili, tim fabric on a prepared surface wIkhh the limit. shown an the plane. The boric shall meet. a x...d the folowing Prof i_ 1. Grab tensile strongth (ASTM D-4832) - 200 lbs. 2. Gab tenile slang It- (AST. D-4532) - 1.3. Puncture abagth (ASTM D-4833) - 85 lbs. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 PREPARATION A. Identify nequirM the% levels, contours. and datum. B. Identify known below grade utilities. Stake and me, locations. C. Malntaln and protect existing utilities remaining which pees through mark area. 0. Upon discovery of unknown utility - conceded conditions, disconthu. affected wok; notify Engine.. 3.02 EROSION CONTROL A. Erosion control must be installed prior to beginning any earthwork operations in accordance with Sectian 02150. 3.03 SITE CLEARING A. Gear ortos requkeel for access to site and exauutbn of Work. B. Malntaln a«sae to the site at all firms. C. Remove bean and Mruba withln marked areas. Remove 'lumps, rents and tap roots and the projxtlane 1 1/2' or grouter In dism.ter to 2'-0' below the ex«sated surfcop in cut m.ca and 2'-0' below the exposed wboroda in fill areas. D. Remove debris, rod, and extracted plant life from elta. E, Use means necessary to prevent dust from becoming a nuisance to the public, to nelghbora, old to other work being p.famed an or near the site. 3.04 TOPSOIL EXCAVATION A. Excavate topsail from artoe to be excavated, r*-landscaped Or regraded and stockpile in areas designated on alto or as directed by the Engln.er. B. Maintain the stockpile In a manner which will not obstruct the nalurd flow of drainage. I. Mohtaln stockpile free from debris and boon. 2. Keepthe topeoll damp to Prevent duet and drying Out. 3.05 SUBSOIL EXCAVATION A. Excavate submit from areas to be regraded in accordance with plans 8. Escewte subsoil wauired to accommodate budding foundations, labs on grade, if. etmctures, cd atructian op ... tlms. roads. and parking or C. Grade lap perimeter f excavation to prevent .,fop wota from drohing Into excawtlon. D. Notify engineer of unexpected mub.urfxa conditions and discontinue .Netted work in area until notified to -me work. E. Carat as err ow-a.cawted by err- as directed by the Engineer. e 3.05 DITCHES A. Cut to - accurately to the c,coaxw tlon,, grades, and elelior. shorn. B. Maintain a ,vatlms firms, from detrimental Wantitles of leas veaticka, tram, and other debris unto completion of the work. C. Olpaaa of excavated materials as Mown on the &awing* w directed by the sole Engine.; except do not, in my cove. dspow k motaial, less than inr« fast ham the edge of a ouch. 3.07 ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS AND BERMS A. Wine embankments are to be made n a hillside, the lope of em the original ground on which the bankments or. to be NI mlructed shot' be topped andashed.. the ped d properly dasNl b emsiwcted ep that .averse movement. of the lopes m Pat «mr. B. My excavated rack, ledge, bouldtrs, Old store, except there required In the ametruction of other Rams or .1 iae directed, Mall be .sad in the cm.t-tiOn of embankments A. the extent of the project requirement. end generally b Mall . placed mo ere to farm the ba.e of an bmiment. C Frozen material MaN not be used in the cmalru,tbn of bonkmants. ner shall the embankments - wcceesive layers of the embankments be placed upan frozen material. Placement of material other than rock shall stop when the sustained air temperature, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, prmbib the obtaining of the ,squired cernpoction. If the material Is otherwise acceptable, it shall be stoxkpiled and retervb for future use when its condition le acceptable far use n embankments. 0. When an embankment is to be constructed acre a a swamp, muck, or of unstable soils, the unsuitable material shall be excavated to ream sots of adequate bearing capacity and the embankment begun. Alternative methods, such s use of c stobnizaBM fabric in piece of excavation Old baditll, may be uflitted Only after approval of memo by the Engine.. E. Material being placed in embankments Moll be placed in horizontal layers of uniform thickness across the full width of the embankment, Slumps. trees. rubbish, and other unsuitable material shall net be placed in embankments. F. Embonkm.nl areas Mall be placed In eight -Inch IR.. Effective spreading equipment Mal be used m each layer to obtain uniform thkkmess ale to compaction. Each layer shelf be kept crommed to Mad water to the outside edge of embankment and continuous leveling and manipulating will be required to a..Am uM. m density. The entire area of each layer shall be uniformly compacted to at least the required ma Imum density by u ot mmpactim equipment consisting of raid., compact- or a eombinallan thereof. EariN-moving and other .wipment not specifically rnmufac..an.- far padlon purposes will t be 'dab paclim equipment. G. All fill nvaitm,ld Mal be compacted of a moisture content suitable for obtaining the required tlaelly. In no rnae shall the moisture content In each lays under construction be more than three percent above the optimum metal.. content and Mall be lase than that quantity that well ..us. the embmkmalt to became unstable during camPactim. Ines Mervin other displacement un h SPan9 s, g. a p heavy gt-lA t Mall be anfidaad evidence fa anengineeringrent, and further p of lock of stability material under this requirement, and further or of material a the material Orfxfed Man be stopped or retarded to allow the motaial to stabilize. H. When the ma.hw. content of the malalal In the layer undo contraction 1. lave than the amount nxema-y to Obtain matter M�h ea�a.et E by memonical canpoctlm methods, y pressure distributors o, olh. approved equipment. Water may also be added in exmvefim or borrow plh. The water may be uniformly and thoroughly mcorpaobd Into the moll by dlec, borrowing, Wading, - by other approved methods. This monipuldlon may be omitted for sandm and gravel. When the moist... content of the material i. In excess of Was, percent .Dow optimum moisture content, &y material shall be thoroughly capaoted into the wet material, a ten rsl motaial she' be aerated by l,king, henowrng, blading, rotor, 9. or w•tyother matala anal be defamed until the tohe, im of dried the layer of dried to the required moisture content by evaporation. 3.08 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS A. All bodfill. end nl. .If be compacted in awn ON. (12' maximum) to attain the required densities ere falows: Standard Proctor Location ASTM 0-698 Subgrode (8') and Gavel for Rode, Pmking Lois and Sidewalks 951 Central Embankments 90% 3.09 MAINTENANCE A. At earlhwark should be checked periodically to sea that slope, one inon and good cardoNn. should ANN. or damage from tely tooawid further damage. It e.We develops - the sced omm., the area Mould be evaluated to determine If the seep we unstable coition. Subwrfaca dr.A. a growl mulching may be required to solve .map problwe. Divenlone, berms, and waterways in the land grading area should be cheded to see that they are functioning properly. Proof-, found during the Inpxtlona should be repaired Promptly. END OF SECTION 02210 SECTION 02225 - UTNUTY TRENCHING AND BACKFILLING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Sxtian dude.: 1. Trench, b.dNl, and compact as specified herein Old am ceded for installotie, of underground utilities located 5' outside the buildings, 1.02 QUAUTY ASSURANCE A. 'Use, adequate numbers of skilled workers who as th- ,ghly trained and experienced In the necessary crafts and who we ompletely familiar with the pacified requirements and the methods needed for proper p.f.mance o1 the work of this ...tlon. S. Use equlpment adequate h size, capacity, and numbers to «omedism the walk in a timely mmna. C. Comply with requirements of governmental agencies having jurbdktim. 1.03 REFERENCES A. ANSI/ASTM C136 - Standard Test Method far Sieve Analysis of Fine and Cca,es Aggregates, B. ANSI/ASTM 0698 - Slondod Test Method far Labaotory Compacllm Ch... clertsei.s of Son Using Standard Effort. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 SOIL MATERIALS A. FNI and badfNl materials: 1. FBI m.terbl 1. subject to the more I of the Engineer. Material provided can be removed from ovations on it, or Imported from approved off -site barrow moos. Materials must be predominantly granular, nom-eOrganic matter and llifree from mt oinadelelxkws matter and contain no rocks Or lumps ova 6' in greatest all, Asian 2. Rocks having a dimension greater than 2' Mall not be placed within 2' of the mtside of pipe. 3. Cm-fianloes material used for backfBl: Provide sand free frown organi. material and Other foreign mattes, and as approved by the Engineer. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3,01 SURFACE CONDITIONS A. Examine the area. end condition. under which work of this section will be performed. Carat cmdltioms debimenta to timely and proper completion of the work. Do not proceed until unsatisfactory condition* are corrected. 3.02 PREPARATION A. Identify required Ilnes, levels, centaurs, and datum. 3.03 PROCEDURES A. E.I.ting Utilities: 1 Unless Mown 1. be removed, protect active utility time. shown on the &awings err othenw isa made knn to the Cmbecla Aria to trenmhg. If damaged, repair ar rWlake at no cost to the Own- 2. When .existing underground utilities, which ore not scheduled far removal or aandonment, a, encountered in the excavation, they shal be odequatey suppertol and protected from damage. My damage to utilities Mall be repaled promptly at no additional cost to the Owner. 3. If utility service 1. Inta,pted es a result of wok under this section, immediately .store service by repairing the damaged utility at no additional coat to the Owner. 4. If existing utilities are found to Interfere with the pa nstunt IacRities beh9 constructed under this section, irmAox ay notify the Engineer Old eaeure hs^rvec[ims. 5. D t proceed with diauplim of a rvkor en e penmenl relocation of IRIA.s until -111. instruction. ere received from the Engineer. S. Protection of persons and property., 1 d n a es.bma each art ear heere .a ape m a ere p Wen tip mng of the work, and poet worming lights m property od at. maar a with public g hour 2. .Per to red lights during hours from dusk to dawn each t s and os oth.wiae required. 3. Protect sllities ea, utNttla aoewalks, pavements, and Other facilities trap damage ..used by settlement, Iataol movement, washout, mtl ether hazard. created by cap time under, this section. 4. AN trenching shal be in accordance with Fhe latest OSHA requkanenla. C. Dewotaing: Thor Contractor, at all times, shall conduct ial of operations ee,1, as eve. otlansorl the 1, the vicinity toff excaystar, led, o wted and to Prevent seta from Interfering with the progress old quality of the work. Under no conditions Mdl wets, be allowed to rise In apt trenches oft. pipe has been placed D. Accumulated water, toe, and maw shall be promptly rarromed and disposed of by pumping ar other approved means. Ol.p«al shall be corned aft in a manner whim well mat ax le a hazard to public heath, normuae Injury to public ar private peep cook y, wco or in prorate, or et Public stre,, n cause y inlerrarence In the use of :bests and woad by the Public. Pipes under conalructlm Mall not be used for drainage of excavation. E. Maintain access to adjacent orw. of all time. 3.04 TRENCHING A. Proxi sheeting and sharing revelatory for pAdectiew of the work and fe, the safety of personnel. 1. Sheeting and bracing required for trenches sholl be r cad to the olewtim of the pipe, but no sheeting NI be allowed to be Wiled, removed, a dleturbed below the pipe. S. A trx<h shall be ....voted to the required depth antl to a width suffidenl to allow far pining of the pipe and conp.dion of the bedding and badkf1I material undo and around the pipe. C. The completed trench batten shall be it,, for its full length old width. D. If Indicated an the plan. or dhected by the Engineer, poor founaction material encountered below the normal grade of the pipe bad shall I e removed and rplocad with granules beckMl. E. Where pipe. ore to be placed in embankment fill, the a avetlom Mall be made after the embankment has been ompitted to a height of 3 feat of.. the diameter of the Pipe above the designed grade of the pipe. F. Excavating far appurtenances: 1. Excavate law mmhaee and elms. sbuctures to 0 distm.e .ff c'ent to I.. at local 12' clear bottom outer sud«es and the wnbankment or shoring that may be used to hold and protect the bank.. 2. Over -depth ex awtlon beyond such appurtenances that has not been directed will be considered unauthalzea Fill Ith vend, growl, a, lam concrete as all ... led by the Engineer, antl at he additional cost to the Omer. G. Excavation shal not interfere with normal 45 degree bearing Way of foundations. H. When wittily runs traverse public property or are subject to yyo n sofa' a utility company priadictian, provide dpth, bedding, co and other requirements as set forth by legally comelituled authority having ju-I ictbn. but In no jaw Ian than the depth shown In the Contract Documents, i. Where trenching occurs In sWirg lawn,, snow turf In sections and keep damp. Replace turf upon completion of the backfilling. 3.05 BEDDING A. Pipe Bedding Mes: Prior to laying pipe, bedding material Moll be placed to the limlte of the osm etim and to a depth beneath the pipe ere specified. This mataid shall be either sand. gravel, a er..hed stme and Mall not contain large lump. and stones our a Inch In diameter. As the pipe is laid, bedding material shoal be extended to 6' above the Plpe and leveled along Fhe width of the berm. 3,08 BACKPLUNG A. BadNling Mail not be done in freezing weather, with fee z material., or when material, already placed are frozen. S. Back" material Mall be evenly pread and cornp,cted In lifts not more than 12 inches thick or as approved by the Engineer. Previously placed or new materials shall be mobtaed by Wrinkling, If requked, to .sure prayer bond and compaction. C. Trenmea which hove been Improperly badfilled, enclosed or covered up before it has been approved shall be reopened. Refill and compact as pecife i. or otherwise correct to the approval of the Engines, at no additional cost to the Owner. 0. Tone special! care In becWNll g old bedding operations to not damage pipe old pipe coatings. E. No compacting shall be done when the material Is too wet to be compacted property. At .um times the mark Mall be .Wended until the pr.viauly placed and new material. how dried out wfftaently to per mit proper compectianmad,, w Other precautions on taken as may be nxeesary to Obtain proper compaction. F. Bockfll material Mall be c patted to the following percentages of maximum &y density and the m-place mobture content Mall not be more than 2% above the optimum moisture content, as datermhed by Standard Procter ASTM D698. 1. Around of st-tures, under roadway paving, shoulder and embankments - 9511 1. All other axe - 90%. 3.07 TEST FOR DISPLACEMENT OF SEWERS AND STORMDRNNS A. After the trench hoe been bodfilled to abe. the pipe and sae been cempected as speafled, malt eswers and townlrain to determine whether dlepla .mat has «tarred. 8. A.ally mpxt pipe ;retaliation by fioshing a light belweom manhdes or bottom the locations of the manhaes, by mean. of o flashlight - by wflecltng sunlight with a mirror. C. If the Illuminated interior of the pipe Ilse Mow. poor alignment, displaced pipes, or my other defeat, co wet the defects to the specifb com itlon. Old at no oddillmd cost to the Owner. 0. Altar visual approval of pipe, a 95% mandrel teal must be partomwd. END OF SECTION 02226 SECTION 02513 - BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVING PART I - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section includes'. 1. Beca C.rsee 2. Leveling Course 3. FiIM Course B. Dentrol: ThI. work Mall ...let of one or mere courses of bituminous mixture mnc catteel on ored oJP tian In accordance with thew Specifications andthetype of surloce owing placed, and in conformity with the lines, grade., ihiPM .... and typical one• section, Mown an the plane or established by the Engineer. 1.02 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Use adequate numbers of skilled wakes whoa we thoroughly trained and experienced in the meoessary trans and who are completely familiar with the pecifiaa requirements and the method' needed fa proper performance of the wok of this Section. B. All at let. and installation Mall be in ...won.. with The Asphalt Institute Manuel (MS-4) and the VAOT Standard SpeeiO«lims, 1990. C. Mixing Plant: Confor, to State of Vermont Standards, D. Obtain materials from same sours throughout. 1.03 PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Biluminvu. concrete shall not be placed Wt-- November 1 and May I. Material shall not be placed when the grmular subbase is at at, whom the ah temponalure at the poving mile in the shade and .ray free artificial heat It as follow.: Air Temperature Pavement Degrees Fahrenheit Compacted Depth 40 Degrees or below Gtol. than 1 1/4' 50 Degrees or below Len Than 1 1/4 PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS A. Materials Moll be combined and raced to ..at the H.T.cr la tattled 11 (bete, VAOT.)ache aiype pre (Bap ousts) m 700 bltuminme concrete. B. Gradation: Materials shall be combined and graded to meet competition limlte pecl9ed In VAOT Standard Specification, Section 406,03. for the bass course and finish tour... C. ThI<k.- of Paving fa &ive. and Poking lob Mall be os sewn om the plan., cansislbg of tame course and 0.1sh D. Far pavement ream.1mctlon onto. due to trenching, the depth Of each coupe shall be Increased by 1/2'. Pavement rontan Ncaused by french reopening due to improper placement on -approved placement shall be ptr-AA-d at no additional cost to the Own.. 2.02 TRAFFIC MARKINGS A. Traffic meriting paint to be factory -mixed, meeting the requirements of the VAOT Standard Specifications, Section 708.08. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 INSTALLATION A. Install In wants with VAOT Standard Specifications, Section 406. 3.02 EXAMINATION A. Verify be. condition. under the provisions of Section 02210 - Site Earthwork. B. Verify that compacted granule bees ie dry and repdy to support paving and Imposed load,. C. Verify gradient. and elevation. o1 base are conxt. 3.03 PREPARATION A. Matching Surfaces: When a now pavement Is to match an axieling bituminous pavement far a roadway or trench, the Contract- Mall vertically smooth at the smI.tiAg pevan.mt, over the existing grovel base. The smooth cut shall be thoroughly cleaned and tooted with Emulsified Asphalt. RS-11 pet prior to paving. 3.04 PREPARATION - TACK COAT A. When the bottom course of bituminous concrete pavement Is left over the winter, a, paving le to be made over m e,leling bituminous concrete pavement, the existing surface shall be doomed and Emulsified Asphalt applied before the next coup, I. applied. B. Alto apply to contact wrbo« of curbs. C. Coat sudoess of manhole and catch basin frames with ON to prevent bond with asphalt pavement Do not lad Pact then surfaces. 3.05 PLACING ASPHALT PAVEMENT A. Place to compacted thickness Identified on the plans. B. Canpocl pavement by ruling. Do not diWlace or extrude pavement from position. Hand compact In areas inaccessible to rolling equipment. C. Develop ,cling wiin cm hipasses to achieve awn antl eveth flnism, without raler mark.. 3.06 JOINTS A. Joints between old and new pov.ments or between wcceeaive dayra work Mali be mode so am to Insure a thorough and continuous bond between the old and net mixtures. Whenever the preafi g props. is kter.pted long aough far the mistI to attoln Its initial alobillty, the Dover Moll be rem.wd from the mot and a plot crost.<tM. B. Butt pints ahall be formed by cutting the pavement in A vertical plane at right angles to the cataline where the pavement has a I— .rfxe ere determined by the use of a straight -edge. The butt pint shall be thoroughly a«led with Emulsified Asphalt. Type RS-1, }hat prier to depositing the Paving mixture. C. Longitudinal pinta that have become cad shall be coated with Emulsified Aephall, Type RS-1, before the adjacent mat is placed. If they haw been exposed to traffic, they shall be Out back to a denn vertical edge prior to painting with thou amulslan. D. Unless othawMe dirxled, lwgltudind jolts Mall be offset at least. hen y pint In the Iowa courses of pavemxt. Tran.veres pints shot net be constructed fie r than one foot from the transverse joints constructed In aer Iowa .curk". 3.07 TOLERANCES A. The surface well be bated by the Engineer using a 16 foot at.ighl-edge at Matted location. parallel with the .entomlne. My wHatlans exceeding 3/15 of an Inch bet... any two contact. shall be satisfactorily sin lnct.d. A 10 foot trafght-edge may be used Or, a vertical curve. The straight -edge Mali be provided by the Contractor. B. Scheduled Compacted Thlcknews: Wlthln 1/4 Inch. C. Variation from T.e Elevation: O thin 1/2 inch. 3.00 FIELD OUAUTY CONTROL A. Permit na vehicular traffic an surfaces until thoroughly ,ad and had. 3.09 REPAIR OF SUBSIDENCE A I out pavement settle within an r of Settlement - Should my t. much e e pre pletbn of the Contract, h pavement Mall be to at the Contractor'• expert.. If re Contract., of no falls 10 from much the Dan.,irthann thetly upon Dwna maayys1make mom eto do pah to ..sky and the Contractor Mnll pay the Owner far all as costs h.ned In making such repcks. 3,10 MARKING PAVEMENT FOR PARKING A. Striping - Thoroughly clean the areas to rxelw striping red locate oI1 elripinp oa Indicated an theComtnct Plans. All striping Mall be 4" wide unless oth.r.1- noted. B. MiscdlMeoue - Provide handicapped eymbd, and all other mlxellmeous sign, and symbols os Indicated an the Contract plans. END OF SECTION 02513 SECTION 02515 - CURBS AND WALKS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Concrete Curb. 2. Concrete Sbawalks PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 CONCRETE A. The concrete shall haw a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 poi at 28 days and Mall con farm to the r.WIA.m.At. of Cast-h-Plop Cmcrete. 2.02 ADMIXTURES A. Air -entraining odmixture Mall met or exceed ASTM C260. Air content Mall range from minimum of SF to 7% maximum. 2.03 EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL A. Expansion pint mat - la Man be premadea bituminous Mier conforming to ASTM D994. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 CONCRETE CURBS A. Eacavatim Mal be made to the required depth and the bow motaal upon which the curb is to be set small be compacted to a firm, even wrf«,. Ali soft and unwitoble material shall be reoved d r.placed with suitable material whim shall be manthoroughly compocled. 8. Installation: The curb shall be set so that the front top line Is In close conformity to the line end grade nqulrsd. All pace under the curbing Mal be food and thawgh'y tamped with material meeting the requirements of the malabl for the bed course. C. Con-t. Mixing and Placing: Comp«tim of cmcret. placed In the fame shall be by speding or other approved method.. Forms shall be left In place for 24 hours or until the concrete hat met sufficiently so that they pre be removed without Injury to the curbing. Upon removal of the forms, the verb shall be Immediately rubbed do to o smmlh and nifarm surface but no pleaterim, will be permitted. Far this work, conp,tat and skillful finish- Mall be employed. D. Sections: Curbing Mal be constructed In section, having suniform length of tom feet, unless otherwise ordered. ections Mal be separated by open joints 1/8 inch ,Ida except of ...elan pinta. E. Epan.lm Joints: Expansion joints Mall be formed at the tswls Mown on the plans using a pre -famed .pool.. pint filler hating a thickness of 1/4 Inch cut to conform to thou arose-sectim of the curb. They shall be constructed at 20 foot intervols Or as directed by the Engineer. When the curb is constructed adjacent to or m Crete pavement, ..onion phis MOB be located opposite or at ..Penman pinta in the pavement. F. Backfilling: After the concrete hot eel sufficiently, the spaces in front Old back of the mrb shall be filled to the required elevation with Iowa of not more than Ix Inches of the term, motaial as the bedding and thoroughly tamped. G. The Cmtr«tor shll protect the curb and keep it In alignment unto the campeetion of the contract, Each curb which is damaged at my time pevbus to final acceptance of the work Mall be removed and replaced with watisfoctery curb at the Contracloh ..pens.. lstl.,t' IJ j� tu, VED 3 (U Z W Z WC6 ZW _ Q Z () W Jfn _ �0) U¢ R PERMIT SET DRAWING TITLE SPECIFICATIONS DRAWING NO. C8 SCALE: NONE DATE: 12/28/01 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 102 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS A. E..wtion and Foundation: Excawti- Moll be made to the required depth and to a width th.l wit permit placing of ,adCoune motend and the Inviolation and bracing of the forms. Bad wuee mal.ld Mall be placed to the depth Cold :wham Mown an the plans. When the layer required exceeds six Inches, two laws of approximately equal depth Mali be placed and each toyer thoroughly compact" . that It is hard and unyielding. Tha wetting of bed course material troy be required to obtain the camp.ellor, 8. FiniMMg: The surface Mall be filched with a woody flout. No plastering will be permitted. The edges shall be round" with an edger having a radius of I/4 Inch. The surface of the sidewalk, after the floating and .crowding process Is Completed, Mall be finished with a broom of o type approved by the Engines, drawn awr the Urfa. parallel to the trmawee pinta. Special texturing an sidewalk ramps Mall be instolled In accordance with conetruelm plan details. C. Joint.: Unless otherwise Indicated on the plane or directed by in* Engineer, epanWw pint, Moll be placed awry 20 feel. E.Ima lan joint. ehall be formed round oil pWrtenmces such as manholes, utility pose and other obetmetim, extending Into and through line sidewalk. Pre-frmed pint filler 1 4 ins think sholl b Installs In then / e 4 e pints. Exponeion pint filler of the thickness Indicated Mail be instated between otharsto sidewalks and any flood stm lure such as a build" r brags. This exponsion pint materal .hall extand far the full depth of iM walk. Sol the *,pension Joints, the sleewolk shall be divided t Intervals of fir feet by dummy pints formed by a pntng tool or other acceptable means ae tlhecled to proMds groove appra,kn,taly 1/8 Inch wide and at least 1/3 01 the depth, When the sklo-lk is constructed next to a Concrete -pan - elm, pint materiel shall be plat" betas w sldeolk and curb for the depth of the sidewalk. D. Curing: During the curing period all traffic, both p",strian and vehicular. Mall be e,cluded. Vehicular traffic Mal be .d.ded for such oda0md time as the Engineer may direct. E. 9-1,171 kg: set- the emerete has been Cored to traffic, the apace an each alas of the sldowdl, shall be backlAled to the required elewtlm with suitable material, Mnly compacted and neatly graded. END OF SECTION 02515 SECTION 02700 - WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Sec Non Inoue- 1. Pipe Met.mWe 2. 3 Hydrants 4. Fitting. 5. All other appurtenances nor -wry to compete the water main system as shown on the Contract Plans. 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. Product Data: Submit published data from manufoclurare of products and occeswrie. specified. Indicating complance with requirements to the Engineer ond local municipality. 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. All material. and the Installation procedure shall be In curd.. with the Department of Emvkmment l Caneerwtian, Water Supply Division and Ma applicable construction oranance. of the local municipality PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 GENERAL A. Furnish ell., lees, rdue. ehg teyes, coupling. increasers, crosses, tranoltame and antl Caps of the some type and class of materlet as the conduit, r of materiel homing equal .r superior physical and chemical propene, as leyeltemo the Enghw o. naceesry, to complete the otsr 2.02 DUCTILE IRON WATER PIPE A. Pipe Moil be Tilton Ductile Iran Clan 52 (sizes If Maw w the plena) comforming to current ANSI/AWNA CI51/A21.51 latest revision. Push -an Joint pipe Mall be minimum thickness 0... 52. Push -on port accessories Mall conform to applicable requirements of ANSI/AWWA C111/A21.11. 8, Pipe Moll be cement mortar lined m the "side In acc ordance with ANSI Simi.Uon 14 A21.4 except that the 1 m t lining thkknese shall not be Ins Man one iyht eh (1/8'). A plus tal.anee of ma -eighth Inch (1/8') will be pemittd. C, Pipe hall be giwn on Interior bituminous tooting in .warden. with ANSI Specidwtiem A2t.4 and an -ter(. bil.mhoos coaling of cowl, for or asphalt be- In occordon. with ANSI Spwlficatim A21.51. 2.03 FITTINGS A. Ductile fittings shalt conform to ANSI SPecmwtim A21.10, 350 pound. working pressure, Cast Iron CI... 250 pipe Tlllnte Mall be allowed In I. of ductile iron fltlinge Class 350. Ductile ban compact tilting, conforming to AWWA C153-88 will be allowed in Iles of full body titling.. B. All M.J. fitting, Mall how mega -lug glands far additional Joint restraint. C. B ll, shall cmform to ANSI Speciflwlion A21,10. 2.04 GATE VALVES A. Val.. Mall be manufactured to meat all rea.! eta of AWWA Speeifi--ion C509-87. Valws lwelw Inchon (12') and smaller and] be bubble light, zero leakage at 200 psi walking pressure. Valws Mall haw non -thing $lame, open wnlerdoWwife, and be prowded with a two inch (2') square operating nut with arrow cast In meal to Indicate direction of opening, Each vdw Mall how maker's none, pressure noting one wr inMich maouf-Wred past In Me body. Prior to shipmrt hen the factory, said, wine, shot be teal" by hydrostatic praseue .qua( to twice the specified working pressure. Gate Velum shall be Mueller, Deese or Kennedy unla- atheists, specified by the City of South Burlington Water Dpartmmt 8. Budd valves shall be installed with a .1. box. 2.05 VALVE BOX A. Cast ken New England style alide-tw. flea end me-qu.rtr Inch (5 1/4') shaft. .1 foot (6') trench depth. B, Cow Mall be cast iron, marked 'WATER" and indicating dr..tion of opnning. 2.06 HYDRANTS A. Mueller (Super Can turium en 200/250) or Kennedy (KWA) kf/JI Shoe N 5 1/4 A. 24015 I.M.P, with six feat (6') minimum bury and National Standard (head The Hydrant. Moll how at least 12 inMse between the bottom of the steamy p antl the grout". The Contractor shall ify the hydrant requirements with the 1w 1 water, deportment. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 INSTALLATION PROCEDURES A. Inslallattm of all water lines shall be in accordance with AW"NA C 600 latest revlal- B. All pipe and fitting. Moll be h.pwetl and tested In accordance with the ma,ufocturer'o .peclfiwtima and the aforementioned AWWA Specinmtlaro Th. Contractor Mai furnish fen approve certification from the pipe m an feature that all task. haw been pef. nd with tialaelorY _Iz. PIP. shall net be Installed without the Engineer's approwl. C. Pipe, fittings, and accessories Mail be carefully handed to .kl damage Prior to the date of acceptance tce of the propel work by the Owner, the Contractor shall replace any new pipe or act.... ry found to be d.f..U. at any time, including aft. installation, at no expense to the Owner. D. All pipe Mowing Cracks MM be rejected. If racl ocar in the pipe, the Contracts may, at his own epwse and with the apwl proof the E Vin.e, Cut off the creaked portions It o point .t least 12 from the Visible limits of the rack and use the Bound prom of the pipe. E. NI pipe and fitting. Moll be dear" of all foreign matte and debris prfr to installation and Mall be kept dean until the time of acceptance by the Owner. F. The pipe Mall bei told to cmfrm to the hoes and gr hors Indl-t" an M. draw erg. r 91w by the Engnee. Each adjoiningeandl be so laid a to term a don pint with the not pipe and to Wing the inverts continuously to the required grade. C. At all time, when the pipe hying 1. ;Mt actually In program, the open ands of Me the. dl ba dosed by temporory watertight plugs or by other approved mean.. If water le In the bench who work is rmum4d. the plug inch not be remowtl until all danger of water nteing the pipe has passed The pipe shill be knstdled In tram- and at the ]Me and grd. Mow In the Contract Plana. Any ,10-tion joints Mail be MUI the limits specified by the manufacturer. H, All piping and appurtenances connected to the saulpmenl Mall be entsuppose" w Mal no strain sNJ be knposed an the [net, t, , that piping loud, are not to beutrana eredicthe fie Contractor Mall submit comtlfteotlon of compliance. I. For pressure piping, concrete thesl blocks Mail be installed of all unrM k,ad Illlkp, and other location. a$ indicated an the Contract Plans. Minimum bearing arm shell be ore Mown - the Contrast Rare, Concrete Mail be 2,500 P.N. Condos Mall " be platagainst ..disturbed material and shell not comer Jolnta, bolls r nuts, or Inlerfre with the --I of any Pont. Wooden aide forma Mall be poMded fen thrust blocks. Ma9olugo Mel be used far all retake ponds. J. The cmtroctr shell verify cmducilvity of the existing water servke line that is to be extended to the new building. K. A minimum separation of 18' vrlkd and 10' horizontal Mall be maintained behrean the outside of all toter and . lines ml-a a roman- 1. granted by the Water Supply om.ian, L There Mall be no physical connection bet~ the distribution system and any pipen, pum^ hyoanle, or tank. which am supplied or may be supplied with a water that I. or may be Contaminated, M. The Contractor .hall take 11 rn-sesary pnce,tlons to pawl flotation of the pipe in the trench. N. All trenching safety Mandrda Mall be in cmfommmc. with liw II ppble State and Fedral guidelines. The Contractor shall be solely responsible far any safety citations by State r Federal hpectr.. 3.02 SETTING OF VALVES AND FITTINGS A, Valvn, fittings, plugs, and cape Mall bra et and pined to pipe In the monnw all ,bow fen laying and pining pipe. B. Vdw boxes ore to be installed an oil burled wives. The boxes Mall be cast Iran with a minimum 5 1/4" diameter and long hough to ..tend from the vales to finished grade. The be.. Mall sei the operating nut and stuffing be, of alor the v. Vdw boon shall not transfer leads Into the voles. C. Corn shall be door fkthg and dirt tight with the top of the wear Much with the top of Md e be. on. Covers shall be mark d "WATER' with an amen Indicating the direction of epening. 3.03 DISINFECTION A. Olsinfacti- of Me pipeline shall be directed by the Engineer and costs for all ante,, malrlals, equipment and labor to Perform the required testing shall be at the Conlractar'a exphn-, AWWA Standard C-651 (taint -Wan) shal be used ors a bae1. for the delnfection poce.. All dlW,f-tlW/ testing Mall be ernplat d by an Independent third party unless otherwise approved by the Engineer or loeol munieipolTy. 8. The Engineer all] require as mnimum: 1. Complete fuelling of the p"Mm to rash out all dirt, debris, ate. Mich may haw ac.mulal" in the pipNlne during conetruetlon. 2. Following flushing (tor clean clear water), the Contractor owl odd Chlorine to the entea pipeline volume of water such that the water all haw not Ian than 25 mg/L hee chorine, and let the mixture set fen t leaat 24 houe. 3. Aftr the 24 hour duration, the water In the pipeline sholl be tested far residual Not chloina and must Contain a minimum of 10 mg/L chorine. II ten than 10 mg/L are found, Mr tM disinfection pra.edur. Mall be repeated unit at leant 10 mgA cNoi residual 1. Indicated by test. 4. Upon M,C.msful sampled. of the stile ,bow, the pipeline Mall be flushed again until the Chlorine concentration In the pipNlne Is no higher than that MewNing in the supply system. Aft., this True flushing and before the pipeline is placed in Vic. bwteriel gi-I samples Mall be collected an too eomecuUw day., and submitted to the Vermont Heath Department for analyse. If the Initial dleinfectn fails to produce samples which pass the Vermont State Health Department requirements far potable drinking water, than the - prowMall be r,,wed ,IN satisfactory rewlta we obloked. Upon satisfactory -it. by the Vermont State Health Deportment, the pipe ne may be placed in Service. 3.04 PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTS A. The Controeto Mall fumlah all gauge,, testing plugs, cope and all other nsceseery aqulpmen! and labor to parWm leakage and pressure !eels In -it.. of an approved length. Each wlwd swoon r -knum length of one thousand fast of pipe Mel be teal". The Contractor Mall pr-lde at his own ..pens. any additional tope to the vats, line necessary to perform the pass and leakage test between Ire. All d1,1W`di n/leering Moll Da Completed by an suaprdml third party mina otherwise pprowd by the Engineer to local municipality. B. All water required for testing shill be potable All testing shall be conducted in the presence of the Engineer. C. TM ConUaclr shall make the nweswmy prawelans to top the piw ps a, MO high point to rsin all air and Mail plug fir rnpl IT the test. Hydrants or blowoffs located at high points may be used for air release In lieu of top. If approved by the Engineer. D. For the p,mour. test, the Contracts .It dewy and Mal Win far two houe 1509C of the working preeeure or 200 psi, whimewr is greater. Failure to held within 5 pal of the designated pressure for the two-hour period constitute. a failure of the section tested. E. No pipe kstolatim Moll be accepted If the leakage 1, greater than that determined by the following formula: _ 7, o.e L -33 i �( j WTkhever Is lee L ; 1 S Length of Pipe Testing L AIlea le Leakage in Gcl/Hr D e NrwInol plomeler of Pipe (') P Average Test Pr -.use (psi) N - Number of Joint, in the Pipeline Tested All testing Mail be conducted in eccordmce with AWWA C600 (latest rMsion). F. Shoed any section of pipe fat either the pressure r leakage teat, the Contractor Mall do .wylhing my top.[, locale antltop.[,C,r nedoce the def.tlw pipe, fittings or pint. at no test to the 0 END OF SECTION 02700 SECTION 02725 - DRAINAGE PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section indudes: 1. Drainage pipe and opp,domoncn. 2. Drainage structures. 3. Stan. f111. 8. Related Sections: 1. Section 02225 - Utility Trenching and BaafMin 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. Manufacturer's teemnled data fr: 1. Pipe and life,deramcf.. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Fum1M ell.. teas, red-ng tee., arm. couplings. increasers, crosses, transltims and end caps of the so type and data of material the conduit, or of material having equol or superior ph;ed and chemical prperties as acceptable to the Engineer. 2.02 DRAINAGE PIPE AND PERFORATED PIPE A. If the Contract Plane do at specify , particular type of pipe, at Me Cmtraetoe. Medan, the following mttedda may be used: 1. Poly," Chloride pipe Conforming to ASTM Specification D3034 or F679, `PVC) homerpipe and flttings SDR 35. 4. C-UInterior) mn�ingt thenrequkr-rtHOPE)of ASHTand O M (294 and M-252. J. Ductile iron - CL 52 pipe (e-it- 02700 (2.02 lnbt r) meeting the r,q,ir e,te of AASHTO M-294 and M-252. 2.03 CONCRETE STRUCTURES A. ASTM C478, izod as indicated or ecras nha y to to occwnodab all penetration. 2.04 METAL ACCESSORIES A. Manhcl. from- and cow s: I. Gray cast it,,, ASTM rA48, a, Mown an plans. 2.05 STONE FILL A. Thin specified atone Hit .It meal in. grading requirements oa fallowe: 1. Type I - The Ingest dimension of the store shall wry from 1 Inch to 12 Inches, and at eat 50 percent of the volume of the stone In place Moll how a dim. -loss of 4 Inch-. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3,01 INSPECTION A Examine the r and conditions me. wlikh at- - eystom work Is to be installed and notify the Engineer In writing of conditions detrimental to the proper and timely Completion of the wrp" k. Do not pose"with Mwok e untii nsttisbetry eari how been comacted. 3.02 GENERAL A. When ed.tkg underground utilities, which ors not scheduled for remawl or abandonment, are rC-rt..d in the awtion, they shall be dsquately supported and protected from damage. Any damage to utilitin Mall be repaired promptly at no additional toot to the 0w 103 PREPARATION A. Hand trim a awtiIn (whom. necessary) to required Nowtions. Correct ow-excawlions with fill material. B. The slope. MNI he graded to match the grade as shown on the Plana Whrs required, and ..time Mat be plat" and bockfiled to prevent undermining. C. Remove large at.ea or other hard matte which could damage drainage structures or Impede consistent b-1,flling or aompoett-, 3.04 INSTALLATION OF PIPE A, Pipe Mall be hnelled In accordance with Sectlan 02225 - Ulllily Trenching and Backftling. 3.05 INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES A. Precast compete structures: t Place prat..( eanereta structures and .awe as shown on the Contract Plana 2 I=. manholes occur Ina mm-t. het tops of from- and a Push with finish fe. 3. Provid. rubber joint gasket complying with ASTM C443. 3.06 INSTALLATION OF STONE FILL A. Place stone fill as Mown m Contract Plans. END OF SECTION 02725 SECTION 02730 - SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Gravity Sewer Pipe 2. M-hale Structures and Appurtenance, e. Related Sections: 1. Section 02225 - Utility Trenching and Backfillinq 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. Product Dale. Submit published data kern manufacturers of products and les pwifi". Indicating mpllanee with requirement., 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. AN amitry assay materials and constm.tion of tome Mall be as Mosn In the Contract Plana and Moll meet the requirementh of the State of Vermont Agency of Nelural Resources (Department of Environmental Conservation) and the Public Works Standards and Specifications of the local mu ik"Ity. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 GENERAL A Fuml h ells, tan, reducing lees, syn. Couplings, hreaears, mean, transitl-. and and caps of the wore type and tau of -Re d as the conduit, or of material having equal or superior physical and chemical Properties as ccept a t` the Engineer to provide a complete and po Yeeon. 2.02 PVC GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER PIPE A. PVC wwr pipe shall conform in all respect. to the best svelter, of ASTI Speldflcatlon, 0-3034 or F679, Type PSM P. W"0 Chloride (PVC) Saw., Pipe and Fittings, SORT 35 pip.. AN pipe and fitting. ah.11 be dearly marked as follows: - Manufwterar'. Name and Trodrnok - Nominal Pipe Size (ore worn . tans) Motwid Dma,X Nm 12454-C PVC A- -4 'Type ISM SON 35 PVC Sever Pipe" r PS 46 PVC Sawr Pipe' - Designation ASTM D-3034 or F679 8. Joint. shall be push -In type using a tomek goekat. and Moll conform to ASTM 0-3212. The gaskets Mail be factory kramid. The pipe shell be fumismed In nonMal 13 foot lengths. Sufficient numbers of short lengths and full machine fitting. shall be provided for usaat manhole. and anacliono AI connections will require he use of nufactured fllUnge. Field fw,icot", addle -type connealm. weal not be considered acceptable. 2.03 MANHOLES A. Manholes stall be 48' I.D. precast canrete (unless otherwlw Morn . necem ry to ocwmdate all "hotroliant) with o Cna ithlc ban and shoN conform to the lattal wain of ASTM Specification C478. S. Shelm. Mol be construct" Mill conorete having a minimum comprosiw strength of 3,000 Psi at 28 day,, Inverts for manhda Mall be as shwa In the plan, and delan, and shall be c m tmel , w,in c rate orbrick, as par the local munldp.11t/. standard.. Invrh Moll haw the .act shape of the we, to which they are cmomme ad, and My change h size of direction Moll be gradual and C. All manholesr to be prows" with copelymr pdyprwyl.n. Plastic atop, with .text rNnfacetrrl 12 Inches on center. D. All manholes Mall be provMed with rough, gray, cast Iron manhda hones and town. All iron coatings shill be Ii,,hly dean" and than canted with hot tor before being delivered Forma. and coves shall be LaBarw LC 266. r opprowd equal, and how a minimum weight of 400 pounds E, Precast tier, and bans for manhole. Mall cnform I. ASTM Specifici C-478. The pipe opening in the precast m mhem ,Yet- 0.11 haw o < t-h-place R.W. gewmt or n q.lValrt system farpipe installallw I. approved by the Engineer, Joint, between manhole rle.. Mall be 1 minimum worth flexible gasket or approved equals. 2.04 CLEANOUTS A. Cl. n .ts for gravity .wars and force main. Mall be provided al locatima hdicol d an the plena or a directed by the Engheer. Cle-aut frame and Cowre Mall be of tough gray .at Iron. Costing. Moll be true to pattern and inn from Maw. The being ...iota of demout fram. and ,oven agent cum other Mal be mealtime to give cantinuoua can tact thrmghwt their circumference. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3,01 GENERAL A. Care Mall be ...rallied by the Contactor to -id disrupting the opr.tion of existing sanitary sew. focMtiea without prior written ppr-al of the Engineer. S. When existing undengwnd utilities not smeduled for mmavol or abandonment are ountered In the e.cowtion, they had be ad.quately supported -4 protected from del . My damage to utNllles shall be repaired promptly at no ddltional coat to the Owner, C. Installation of pipe Mall be In accordrce with Section 02225 - Utility Trenching and B--,filing and as p.,If,.d by this section. 3.02 BEDDING FOR PRE A. The baring mal.lal Mall be Moped to fit the pipe for o depth of not la- than 10 percent of its total height and Mall haw rase -tie to -1. the ball. 3.03 LAYING PIPE A. In general, -w pip. Mall be Installed in accordance with the latest del instructions of the monufacturom. B. Tha laying Mall begin at the outlet end and the lower ailment of the pi. Moll be In contact with the Moped bedding throughout its Nil length. Bell or grooved end, of rigid pipe and the circumferential lope of flexible pipe Moll be placed fact 9 upalrwm. C All pipe and f ttinga hall be tarofully e.ammed far defects and no pipe or fitting, Mai be laid which ore spoon to be defactiw, If any defective Ole. 1. dlscowed aRe, laying, Contractor, R Mall be removed and r ploced at the l be seaed befre othey am laies. All dand Mall he ipfit kept,lean until aacepted in the Completed wok. D. The pipe Nall be laid to nonfarm to the lines and gives. Indicated an the drawings or giwn by the Engineer. Each pipe Mal be w laid ors to farm o d.e pint with the next adjoining pipe and to bring the Inwrb cmta.-ey to the required trade. E. The Contractor ,hall take all a-...ry precaution. to prevent flotation of the pipe in the torch. F. When pipe laying le not In program, the open ends of the pipe Mall be dosed with temprary watertight Plugs, If water Is In the torch when work Is rammed, the plug Mall not be rem.wd anti all danger of water ruing the pipe is eliminated. G. Fr fares make, crab reed e. blocking hdl be prodded ore detailed at all bonds defloeting 224 degrees or At the Contractor'. option, retainr glade may be used of bends in Iles of concete blacking. Retainer gland. Mall des be provided at all pinta within three pipe lengths eoah aide of the bonds. H. Frost Protection for Shallow Sewae: Sewers with Its, than fir feet of cow, awr the crown and when approved by the Engine shall be protected against freezing by 1, taliatlW of Strofoo, SM InsulatingMasts Wth a width of three feel. 0ra Inch thiakns.e of Inaulaliw Mail be used for awry tact 4 p death o/ piping I. Ion Ithan five fast. The Meee shall be placed inches oboes the crown of the sen- after compaction of the se Inch INN Immediately .bow Me vow. Care Mall be eachased D the Contract., dump baclifM end cam -It- awr the Strefoom SM sheets. Ths Mace Moll mast the c.W:.Iw .Irength rpuir.ment. of AS1M D16 1-7 end ehM amuf.,wred b Dow 2 3 is as m y Chemical Company, Midland Michigan, or equal. 3.04 GRAVITY SEWER PIPE TESTING A. The Contrmter Mall provide all necessary equipment and Instrumentation requhed far proper Completion of the flushing nd tasting. Quality of water, lest pracedurem, nor method of disposal of at., Mall be approma by the Engime, Prior to testing, flu" with water to romow construction debris. B. All tests shall be made in the presence of the Engineer. PrNlminary bola mode by the Contractor without being observed by the Englnoer will not be accepted. The Engineer owl be nallfled attotal eight hours before any work I. to be Inspected or tested. C. The maximum .awr length to be tested of one time small be that length between any two manhalee. D. Air Testing: Low pessurs air testing sholl be conduct" M occordance with the following procedures: 1. Each and of the test ...tian shall be plugged, capped d braced. Necessary safety precaullIns smell be taken to Pil l blwoutt and pos.51. kfury. 2. An hen Mail be emneeted to o lapped dug used far an all InIeL The how will be ernwted to the as control equipment, hlch ,hall Include Ian. and pronurs gouges. Then shall allow orb to enter the err test line, meniter air pressure in the ewer, shut off air, pnd provide Pressure wdu.UM, and relief. The monitoring pressure gouge ,wall haw a range of 0-10 psi with avloon. of 0.10 pal and accuracy of D.05 pelq. 3. The al, arnpro-or and air supply shall be connected to the test line and the test ..it. filled Wooly, until canstontnsw pre of 4.0 pelt Is maintain". 4, A Prmwwe team `0Pat, shot be molnt.med far at Ira five mkate, to allow, the temperature to etcef ln. A Mack for leaks shall De made and if any r s found, the pro sure Mall I. eleosed and the fitting replaced or replied. 5. After the aliabNft.l. period , the prefoura Maw be doer" to 15 psig and the air supply a.wnn ectod. 6. Measure and recrd the time intrwl for the teal line preassfrom 3,5 7. I theugroundwater table 1. pbow tin alp.. in-. above test pro-,. 0.5 palg far cum loot the groundwater is allow the kwrl of Ma pipe. S. The requirements of Me spwlfi alien Mal be cmeldr" satl.fl d If the lion. required In secondo for the pessure to decrease (ram 15 to 2.5 pounds per equere Inch greater than the om.g. back prmeure of any groundwater that may submerge the pipe Ie not ten than that computed occordMq to the following table: Minimum Test Time far Varlous Pipe Slzn Iw (Inch-) Time (S.8100 Ft.) 8 45 8 75 0 90 12 110 3.06 MANHOLE TESTING A. Monho1- net be tested sop ... tely by one of the following Ise preeedwes: 1. E.Btratim Leakage Test: All pips, and other penings into the manhole Moll be suitably plugged and the p1u9e braced to prowl blowout. Tins manhole Mall then be Ned with water to the top of the wne section. A pal" of time may be permitted if the Cantracla sa wishes, to allow for absorption. At the and of this period, the monhla shall be refilled to the top of the Cane, if necessary, and the measuring firms of at least four houn begun. Al the and of the lest period, the manhole shot be refilled to Me top of Me ere. m ring the volume of water III This our, Mall be canwrted to gallon, par wiled fact depth for 24 hour, The leakage for each manhole shall not exceed ens gallon/verticol fool/day. If leakage e sed. the allowable rote, rpalre Moll be mode as approwd by the Engineer and the manhole retested. If the Contractor N.cta to haUflll prior to testhg, the leafing Moll be at his own rI., are It shell be Incumbent upon the Contractor to determine the reo,an for any faflure of the test. No adjus m.nt In the leakage allowance well be made for unknown causes such - leaking plugs• absorption. ,tc. Il sill be assumed that all lose o watt during the set s It of leaks through the Joints ar through the any slope. .ocasFurthrare, the m. the EnItsMall take any steps cry b ,awe the E manhole that gin water table is bNw Us bottom o/ the manhda hroughoul the test. 2. Voouum Test: This method of testing manholes far Isaiah Im.l., the use of a devlee for doling the lop of the manhole cane section and pumping the air out of the manhole, creating a vacuum and holding this wcuum far a pr... ribed pried of tone. Th, progmel for this test Is as follows: a. All IlRing holes and exterlar, joints Mall be filled and panted with an pproxed non -shrinking mortar. The completed manna. Mail not be boakfwlad prior to looting. Manholes which haw bap bockfnled Mall be excewt" to .open Oro entire exterior Prior to cuum testing or the manhole Mall be tested far leakage by mean. of the axflltrotion "I"" lest. It. All plan and other penings Into the moaide shall to suitably plugged in a manner to prownt displacement. c. A plate with an inflatable rubber ring the size of the lop of the manhole shall be Installed by Inflating the ring with air to pressure adequate to pr.w.l nt leakage of air bamen the rubber ring and the menhde sell. d. Air Mall than be pumped out of the manhole through an opening In the Plat. anti o wcuum le created inside at the manhda eW.1 to 10 Inches of mercury as raved wcuum The removal of air Mail mMwnp be stopped and the test begun. w The manhole Mall pass this tort If the wcuum holds of 10" Hg w drpa me lower than 9' Hg within the following time. Time Depth of 4'm Manhole Minutes Second. 0' - to' 2 0 10' - 15' 2 30 5' - 20' 3 0 20' - 25' 3 30 f. If the wcuum drop ..C.d. 1' Hg during the specified time periods, Me manhda Mall be s..Med and Steps 2 through 5 obow rpaoted until the wcuum holds for the specified time. g. After the manhda posses the "mum lest, it Mall be Dld oekNeasefully so that no leaks re r ted. It the manhole is disturbed In any way during bockfhl, It Mall again be wcuum tested according to Steps 1 through 5 pbow. If the manhole falls the wcuum test, the Contractor Mall test the manhol. using the manhole e,ffltmtiw t.et . h, e Contractor Mall proMds the Engineer sith a written lag of each nrnhale leakage lest r... It. i. Manholae Moll ids lased and ...Ptod air to building manhol. hwrb. 3.05 MANHOLES A. The excavation Mall be to the depth indicated an the plan, or order.d by the Engine., and carefully Moped and graded. B. Manhole section. Moll be precast emerete and shill contemn to the dinnrsime Indicated m the plan. or ordered by the Engh s.. C. Channels, Inverts and floor a rors for se r monhow. shall be canotr-t d of brick and mcrtar ex, al le. Invert* Moll haw the exact shape or the .eve. to ohich they era n"ted and any mange In else or direttlIn sholl be gradual and sea All constmctlm of sewer manholes must be wnl" eat to Insure watertight work. D. The required courses of brick *hall be placed an top of the .ale to Be. Nawtion Indicated an Ms plans or ordered by the Engnsr. Brick Mall as laid In e warmri manner by a competent ma After the bricks cee laid, the pinta on the Inside of the brick masonry Mell be neatly pointed. The plaid. surface of the brick Moll be Cowed sith mr1w o1 the some quality as used for laying the Urloke ee that . roe -ably amwth surf.. I. obtained. E. The cost from fmma shall be -1 as Indicated an the plans In a full matter bed. The grade or cow Mall be property placed h the from,. SECTION 02831 - CHAIN UNK FENCES AND GATES PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. S.0 laim includes I. Fare. Framework, bbrlc and-examades. 2. Excawlim for post bases. 3. Manual gate and related hardware. 1.02 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION A. Chair link fop 6 feet tall hen Finked groat with posts spat" at 10 fast. 1.03 SUBMITTAL A. Provide product data and m-ufacturers 1-tallalian k.weuInt. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS A. MoWWs and compInents Mall conform to CLFMI Product Manual r equal. B. Fabric shall b. CLFMI H.-y Residential a 4e. and posts Mall be Type II rounded with Type II t*rminol. comer, raw, emote and gels Zia o equal. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 FENCE INSTALLATION A. Install Famoam rk, fabric, accessories and gat" In accordance with manufacturer's instructions. 3.92 TOLERANCES A. Maximum wdalim from plumb Mall be no more than 0.25 Inches. B. Maximum offset from true position that$ be an, Inch. C. Compeer-1, shill not Infringe an adjacent Property lines. END OF SECTION 02831 ii U ry2' U V - Q >5� (A U r = U O wen P� d 0U Z XZ W uj W W Z U¢ WU J fO 7 U¢ 0 PERMIT SET DRAWING TITLE SPECIFICATIONS NO. C9 OATS: 12/28/01 PROJECT N0. 0I "D.00 1wi['Y 0i 830 L i ;�.:ilii`jt.iiY'1 I f I I " GUTTERSON FIELD HOUSE b \. I \ PFG COMPLEX _y __n-- U z W I� 4 \ // cc CAT \ N '�, 1 t\ ___ /�� N Zz — S 1�OTEC �- - - _ .� / U � - (HEFT P pi W U __-- -� Q > W - 402.5_ i' S s EL. 404'I I B y i HARRIS HALL U ¢ � w0 LEVEL ( 407') N s W o THIRD LE / ; Q > co AV ME T) ND I r+ EWELL._ ..L. 1RSY L ND LEVEL / SEGO ' ^ SURUINGTON .. • -* ' ss ��...-•-r•-=' GT URON LEVEL SECOND SOUGH OLINENT, ,8 ;3 O 6 FIRST LEVEL \\ 5� FIR CONCRETE) s \ I FIRST LEVEL - \) (PAVEMENT) N, t+"� ,5 Z,. ST _.. _ PERMIT --�_-,�- SET - -, FIRSTLEVEL - -- - -- _ EV ---- ---�- STONE_- ---- snZTo3 SAV (PAVEMENT) _ :.-ram" _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - """Z( /HT ECK DAM STREET 7�7-P _ - �-' _ SPEAR _ - ------ _ ) —�.-—__ - ---�R -- �(7YP.) FENCE-�`" I� ATE REv '--_--e— 1 BY - DRAWING 'ITLE EROSION , PLAN T ....� — '+'_-,,.... �—"•- I i 1� I ' I i I NOTES DRAWI�d^ Nor 1. SDUTHBURLINGTON PRE -CONSTRUCTION GRADE 983.0. CIO i 2. SNOW STORAGE AREA- SNOW TO BE REMOVED AND STORED AT THE UM STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. SCALE: 1"=50' 3. ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUSAREA CREATED IN SOUTH � - GATE: 12/28/01 BURLINGTON - 9=0 PROJECT N0. 01300.00 DESIGN DRAWN CH KD. _ .. I SAV MJW SAV EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS TEMPORARY SEEDING Minimum Minimum PART 1 - GENERAL Kind of Seed Purity Germination Lb./Acre 1.01 SUMMARY PART 1 -GENERAL Ps"'l Rywgre-lie 98% 90% 50 1.01 SUMMARY Kentucky Bluegrass 97% 85% 25 A. The work under thla snit- includes but is not limited to prevlding all labor, equipment and malaluts for the A. Section nd.d.: R.dt.P 95% 80% 5 installation of all requheal s le reacted Orman contra I Furnishing all labor, material. and pulpment to TOTAL . 120 measures complit aall welding required to Provide temporary 7 .02 GENERAL NOTES Protection eg.hist wind or water eraaan. 1.02 GENERAL NOTES 2. Slap. and shall normally be used fa ail Mope work, ally 3:1 a sleeper and shall conform to the fcihnanq table' A. The discharge of sediment laden water from the Project wile Minimum Minimum Is prshblteA. All dle:M1a el wale from masteringA. Adequate wood bad pnopmation. use of quality weed, and Kind of Seed Punt Germ85% Lbe/Aae operations shall i iehage Into a lempaary sedimentation boom timely planting are rokukod to achlew o Race stand of wgelabon to can" erosion. Creeping Red Fescue 96%y B5% 35 Perennial Ryegra.o 98% 90% 30 B. Contractor shall W. be mosponalbie far invotating ..it PART 2 -PRODUCTS Radial, R5% 80% 5 AI % , CI.- 90% 5 maintaining all ernk t cantrai mwesurn until pi is completed. 201 GENERAL Bkeaiafool Trafdl 98% 8 80% 5 C. CIL color shall alNw, limit the If dkWrbance and ending A. Al a minimum, all products shall meet the requirements of TOTAL . 80 ppl"walbn dates to bstwaen May let and Octaba 15th. II The Permanent Seeding Swclbn. B. Then seed mi•Wrs +has ban Gliwred in maw, dean, ceded eon dii an- occurs later than October 15th ontl pHs to May Tat, winter erosion control measures w01 be nacwoary. PART 3 - EXECUTION cant -in., Lobel. and cOntsnts shall conform to .II State and Federal regulation.. Seed ,hall be subject to the Confrddor shall congat witn the Engineer fa additional Ml. specific aster erasion control meoau.sa. 3.m SEEDING CONOTpNS feeling proMsian. of the A ... clotian of Official San Anarts. 0. All stockpile material (topeoll, borrow at,) or I how a A. All .manual grading and all tamporay .....lure', such as C. Ssatl that has become wet, moldy, or otherwise damaged will hay bale albs ou fenu constructed mcontl the eiwnion. dams ail a and groin. needed to event be rejected. ar possible t Seed anal mulct a and se material as won as possible to prewnt wI erosion ontl .Mimmlalim oft .Xa. endNq and rsOup aitdim, should be conWeleE PHor W +•ee1n9. 2.04 MULCH t t an the u hill ode of the disturbed area Low e stockpiles nee e P p N Wring windy material 3.02 SEED AN SEEDING O G A. Mulch moat De fa all seeded areas iha fallowing at ppro i tely to all be covered a walerW approprblelY to asvent .Ind A. Seed and seeding ,in may be wlowtae Oct, the table bola'. matallW mulh•s as accptmlw fa uw �Mone The .election will be based an the time of yea the nedlng 1. Hoy mulch Mee of -ad. and toes. matter at a rate of E. Slope. greats Than 1:3 Mall now erostr ion canal netting is to be mode and the length of tm , men vagwtotim 1. to 90 pounds Pa 1.000 square feet. 2. Wood fblo, applied In a Murry (1/6" a longer) at o I^w1.11M to wtablla. the clap. and reluca the anion afford the protection. The and Mould be spread unNarmly ow the on.Aker esedm0. me .oA should be famed by rats of NO pound+ per 1,000 squaw fast. Potential, instal netting owr outhed pipe+ No that all parts are in Contract with the was and mach Pin moping rolling or pocking. Whom rolling or packing k not 2.05 WATER will wi a stopin 3 o.c. to mwra full banding with wit fwaa(No the 99 should be town lightly by raking, wr di.kn or Ga In A. All wits, used Mall be obtain" Iran fresh walla cuscole F. Instal hay bale Mgrass-Ines wine SO feel n center to B. Plant Selection and Seeding Rates: ontl Mall be free from m)urloua chemical and other into substances harmful to plant life. No water which Is prevent alt hen washing Into ins aoln... ... a^ during brackish wIt be permitted at any time. The Cmtrocta c stim,tion, Hay Was Mall be .ornowd whin vegatdbn i. Per 1000 Per Atte SCE. r 1 Remark. Mall Identify to the Engn•er all amrcee of water al leeel ntaWlMad. �°L1e5 two weaker prior to use The Engineer. at his discretion. G. Control Wet through the application of Calcium civarlae or Annual 40 lbs. 1 Its. Grows quickly, but h of at the may take mples Of the water at me aWrce keen the lank at any time and haw o Ishuratay test the aaanplao fa iota. An average appliwlion of one pound or ca. in Rya,.... short d.rotbn. Use oth chemical of millne ceurent not use chlarlds per aquae yard of ...,ad sea should be appma unmet as lmportont. Seed wady spring and/or which iLadriitracta dall b any waterany so a sapprave y n+idwrad far sod+ treatment no exact number of dull Mall be bantl IN,= Augud 15 and fofrom l t tads. Engineer 9 applkolbns and amconl of "Inalier upon Dad and wwiher cantllUan• It Moll be In Septemaer 15. Cow Me epread ouch manna and by such device, that uniform distribution Ie and win no mere than Y 08 HERBICIDES attained ow the entire area on Mkh It Ie antlered placed. 0.25 inch of at. A. A pro -emergence habbide, elduron (tupawn), shall be PINT 2 -PRODUCTS Paenniol 30 Ibe 0] Ib+. Good cow whip k ten 9a epPllee to the finished tpwll If seeding le to occur prior to June 1. This type of harbickle Is efecti. against Rysgraae lasting Man annual ggerminating .asda - it kith the plants before they amarge 2.01 EROSION CONTROL NETTING and ��r'u.neSead between ture /or to the nil su Iowa. More portion fly, It does fief interfere with Me germination f cad season grosses such A. Job n tting shot] cm i,t of undyed ond unbleached yam 15 ontl mstaaen August 15 and as Kentucky Bluegrass and C-26 Had Fescu,. wownaInto a uniform Open plain w w mash, September i will allow ameeing S. Application: Contracts shall u9, extra care in handling. 2.02 EROSION CONTROL MATTING =out the growing Sidurm, commonly known os "toper ion . sholl be applied Of wan. seed to a "Pin of cap r..mittel .5 nch. the mmutmturie racammended rate. A. µhere raaulred On the plan, a .her. directed by the Enginer, aro6lm the blankets (matting) Mall be North 3,04 MULCHING 2.07 FINAL FERTILIZER les, ontl SC150 fw Ma Amerkon Peen C121 far swapes staDalwtim, a apaavw Baud. A Whae It la mprnctkable to ncapaate Will]- and seetl Into odd soil. the seeded ors. should lam mulched to A. 'Uranita' a "NAmfam' containing 18% nitrogen in a Was 2.03 FILTER FABRIC faalllttil garminallon. r.I.. farm. 3.05 MAINTENANCE PART 3 - EXECUTION A. Nhen liter bbrk ie .quit.. it .0can(arm to ma It A. Igoe shedlnq fan to grow, It may Mead to be re- raWksment, ai Ml,,R 140NS a oppm,lid aWi,olent, tablishad to Provide adequate aosom central. 3.01 PREPARATION 2.04 CALCIUM CHLORIDE B. If aced, mamma a proMwn, they may need to bs, contmead by A. Excmma finish surfaces and gratl•s. Do not start seeding mowing. wok until unsatisfactory cmdillone as car�MealPerform A. Cdtlum hlaltle Mall cm(mrm t0 the r kanente Of AASHTO •Ru M 144. Either regular flake e,ldum hlaida, Type I or PERMANENT SEEDING seeding or, Only after planting d other work affecting ground surface has been completed. !rated flake, past or Other a ruar talcum chloride, Type 2, may be uase. PART I - GENERAL 8, Nally Landscape Architect of 1...t sewn (7) waking days 2.05 WATER 1.01 SUMMARY prior to starting seeding. A. As ender used shall be Gem end Me of IarmWl conle of wart be ow A. Section Includes: C. Prepare orem lmmmediotayy prior to asedbg as falaws: 1. Loosen it fend sus to a mmknum depth of 4. acid., olall all, , "'k de,hipIts. organ. manta and other oflif ,. Organshed 1. Furnishing all labor, matalale, nd equonipmenl to 2. Remove atme. awr 1" in any diameter and stick., roots, a !O the product, plant a the a.latillo menl of vagwWtlon, complete all seeding work as shown the tlrawings and apaeifatl herein rubbish and ntranaoua matter. 3. Ramon axuting cased, and gros.n by puling sr tilling PART 3 - EXECUTION 2. Ewcpt where otherwise Mown a specified the _der. J.OI HAY BRIE CHECK DAM AND INLET PROTECTION Cwtraota'hall seed all cos A... new Contours are Mown on the closings and all areas whare skating 4. Grade araae to be weeded to a smooth, free draining awn surface with a loose, moderately a till lure. Y cm use ground cover has been disturbed by the Cantrmta'a 5. RMm ridges and fill dwal wisicn, ao required to coin. A Bales Mall be placed o r w with do tightly obuttinq perat'"a. 6. Rntam prepaed araae If eroded or disturbed prior to the ji.milt lades. Each lade shall be Imbedded In Ibe wcl 1.02 SUBMITTALS seeding, minmum of 4 nosea Bnlea shall ban "Ounny anhmed In Place by stakes m ror. Ginn through the baleTh s. e flrat stake In each lade shall be drlwn toward the A. Prmhde the fall-Oliq for opprowc prior to d liwy to ma wit.: 3.02 SEEDING CONDITIONS A. Seeding shall not be done when the ground Is frozen, snow prBVlcooly told balw to farce the bah. together. 1. SUPpllerkots '. Cortifof Compliance attesting that Cowed, muddy, or in my other unwtisfoctay cmditian for Ilme. faldlzer and seed meet the requirement. plantng. No ending perattms shall be cmWcted under 8. Bdae shall be r IrM r laced as eroded Once von.uig a, le nalKllmol o ^fie .mthe ban arw no IOncer needed 'p-Ifiied, adorn wwather condition. or ahen oI m lsture condition. (too wet. Or too Gy)aor who sulfide exceed 5 for anion control, they sholl be remow . ±.02 SILT FENCES 2. The Contractor Moll pro do representative pwn -pin far testing and opprowl dales somplas to a NPHunlowable A. Ths sflt fence andl ee constructed M accordance with the public allenNon seryke agency testing laboratory, how testing report sent directly to the Landwap' Architect B. Construction methods shall be those estoblhhed as agronomically cc tape and feasible and which are approved Onstmctlan detail Tha fence MOIL ganeroily lam placed 10 and pay all Cast,Testing shall .part m mephmlcal byi the Engineer. Tee Contractor shall keep oll equipment fnt ham ma taw of the loop, or a, Mown an tea Plane, and chemical (pH soluble edloj andysh shall and vehicular and Ind. ton traffic ON awe shot nave The and, of the I--'"' be Place uphM to farm a CRspat be submitted at least ma moth before any baring is to bow leaded to prevent nceaafw eompactim and damage to ho s.... shp. to Vap all runof/ be done. young plants, Where such Compactim has occurred. me remark the soHcltio make CanB. llullach The set Incas shall b t inepscled paradi,,lly far damage 1.03 SEEDING SEASONS bad;thanraefead and mulchhall sun et with ll an Dante a bulid-u of sedimenh. MI damn fences shall be P g?• hot be repaired or r.plamced. sedlmentt danooit. hall be ram% ea A. Seeding and initial fartllizinq shall be doe bs/ween April 1 the apscifiee materials, at o nlraa expenee to Owner. ham ens fence they d be to tnera Is danger f further a 1 and Jn. 1, between August 15 and Oetaba 15. or as Rat c. Surface and swil water should be drained or diwted from rharo no r of r , permitted. Saeemq shall not be clans during wady wwalsa the site to prevent Gowning a winter killing of the 3.03 RESTORATION a when the ground ie hozen. ex<eseiwly wet, m otherwise plants. A. Now n cOnstruclion k completed in o I- or.o. It N 9 untillA. additl rale. If Seedlaq is done during July a August, odditlanal mulch material may be required by the Engineer. D. All areas and parts of area. which fall to show a uniform Mau ie IpeoeoP manse, rMNOaO and mulhed a+ eland of prose fa, an, mm- whatscew shall be r-.do , specified In the Permanent Seeding ewtbn. PART 2 -PRODUCTS and such areas ontl pans of areas shall be wsded repeated) all araae are cowed with a eethfecfor !h of y Y grow 3.Oa GRASS -LINED DITCHES 2.01 LINE I... I. A. All ditches that are not slang -lined shall be tpwA,d, A. Lima sholl be standard, ground dolomite Ilmestme, E. Watering is considered a neceawry element far establishment waaded, fxlaized and mul.hetl. Any area which show. sign. agricultural grade, CmWIning o minimum of 95% of calcium and sursval. of amebn Moll be rnaeeed immadlotily and mOlntalned until permanent v gatetion I, aatablishad. and magnesium ctirbanotn. 100% shall pass the 10 mach slew: minimum 90% Mh pan the 20 mein lien, minimum 40% F. µnag r has been fed la tom I ywgrop pan temporaryxoson .hall Pon the 100 mein sew. cottrol and has not been eliminated prior to the completion 3.05 MAINTENANCE of the work, such Or-. shall be dhced of least 3 Inches A. AN roam contml mwwroe .that be Inyected wool and 2.02 FERTILIZER deep and ended to permanent gree.es to prevent the ryog ... from rasaetlmg and becoming competitive with and retarding nea,keo Ond/or replaced as nestle. A. FatiLea shall be Commercial grade granular fertillzer. development of the permanent cover. Th. fortilim, .It be doli-,id to the project In 3.02 SEEDING B. MI amaim control measures Moll be Inspected after periods of heavy ran me , w clean .waled contamxa which boa a label filly describing me content', the hemlcal molysa A Lima and fertilizer should be applied prior to a at the .f each nulrlent, the ferin m, grade, the net bulk, time of seeding and Incorporated Into the NOR. Kinds and C. Thor alabllizsd road entrance .hail be to drassetl with P additional .two should the existing stone become clogged the brand and the name and address of the manufacturer, The fatl'zer and labels shall c farm to aorta of time and fertlllzar should be b... d an an euation of wg testa -an a fog last is not q with sediment. all nke tinq State and Federal regulotlanand shall meet A^Wes the following minimum pi urta should be applied: D. Hay or straw m,ten s subjestandd to wind actim Mulch may the Marriott. Ards of the Association of Official Agricultural Agric IWm limestone, 2 two per acre w 100 lbs. pa require anchoring as the weotnx cmdltl,,, warrant. 1, 0 square feel 3.06 WINTER CONSTRUCTION 2.03 GRASS SEED Nitrogen (N), 50 lbs. par acre a 1.1 Ibe. per I.000 square fast A. Minimize disturbance between Octabar and May. A. Provide frets, dwrop w ean, nose -amp, of mn e a grant Phosphate (P205). 100 Ib+, per ase er 2.2 to,. per 1,000 B. AN -,I. central mwaeurn shall be in plan Prier to proportions and minimumpcenlegn of purity, germination gon square feel the ground hnzing, and maximum percentage of ..it .lad as follows' Potash (K20), 100 lbs. per care or 2.2 Ibe. per 1,000 square C. Mulch shall be appXetl to all disturbed arws at .rate 1 Pork antl Mall normally ere used an loam areas. This feet. o/ 90 poundv per 1,000 square /nl. Thor Canlraefa and mi.Wre shall canlorm to the following table: (Note: This is the egulvalant of 500 tbs. per o a of 10- Moll maintain all wren that are mulched u"IN permanent wgetatim can be established. 20-20 tertRlzx or 1,000 tbs. per Its 5-10-10). B. Seed should be wood uniformly by the method most f the wile. Methods include timadcastin and h weadtalon.: g 1. Broadcasting:tof4lbSow seed using mechanical Distribute Notex at a rate of 4 Ibe,/1A00 aquae feet. ahuatl reed evenly ova entire area by +owmq equal quantity tow dkwahOns d right angles to each abler. Rake Need W W I'IWdhby, fine top 1/8" of topsail. rall lightly and wales ith a fine spray. 2 Nulkeri edm,t Mi.n water, u aced, ipproze and pulwnia mulch n water, usnq equipment specifically designed fa hydroseed applicallon. Continue mI.Ing unto Iformly blentled Into homogenous Murry sultable I. hydra Its opplioatbn. Apply Murry unfomly to II a to ban seeded. Rate of aiplwtion as required to obtain specified .sad sowing .to. 3.03 MULCHING A. Mulch materials shall be spread uniformly by hand or machine at a rate of two 50 Th. bass per 1,000 square feet. B. Organic Mulch Anchoring - Straw or hay mulch must be chored knmetlblay after weakling to prevent wind Wowing. 3.04 MAINTENANCE A. The maintenance p«rod shall begin immediately alter ending and what canUnua untA ac."tance. Inspected eriodicall articulor B. All mulches must to❑ y. p after .-it, la Chock for ha ere app More t mal- imou is observed, additional mulch shall be catlond. Net ,amid r In +for i motion . failure. be Inspected oRer o storm din If erMmts or breakage Occur, lope alI net Os necessary ki a to the s e Ins adios should often repo n9 damage alp p take place 'aits ideeal are firmed until , ee Passes Mall not be Canslderetl established until a ground cover s achlewd which la maWre a to Can trot Boil eroson and to sur eewe weather chhe�iimw Where mdoh I. usw In conjunction with - entd pan Ung., nopect periodically throughout the year to datemfne if much Is maintaining cal .rage of the n .urfaca; r.poll der needed. C. Seeding areas Mall be protected and maintained by -wrbq, reseed g, mowing. weeding, rolling, Insect a diesaoe Control ms^oures, re-fertil'Rinq and repair of washouts which am nweanry, C. The Contractor Mal mmit,on all ended orwn untN full wgetatim is established. it l a keep all weeded a .. free from 0. The Contractor she such e p winalit and . at such as stones, cables, , 41 wire, and he shall mow Ot his own expense all Mapes n t e len (gottsr) and lent turf established (ended) in ens following manner. f. 1Lhen grass reaches a Might of h8', men to a height of 3° 2. At least two outings shall he made prior to find) acceptance. E. Following mold g, all peamonxt Seeding gross seas (mowed and unmoved) shall receive a uniform application of Mow release fertilizer hydraulically placed at the rate of 10 pounds per 100 square feet. 3.05 ACCEPTANCE A. Inspection to delermin, acoeptonce of ended moo. wit M made by the Landscape Ambltact, upon Contracts written request. 1. Provide notificdim at least tan (10) waking days Dstore requested inspection data. B. Snd.d aTwas wnl be acceptable pro,ded all Installation and maintenance requirements haw been compiled with and a healthy uniform loan Is established. C. Upan acceptance. the Dana ill " ume mOintManCe. 3,06 WARRANTY A. MI seeded araae will be warts fed for a period of lwelw month, hen data of Own«a� ccep lance. Should any ended was fail to maintain full veg nation, .it., 1... an will be refurbished Until this weaihcatfon i, achieved at the coat of the Contractor. -.U. 11. ROCK FILTER FABRIC TO BE ND An PLACE FILTER FABRIC POST WRAF 10UX OR APPROVED PLACED AROUN TO THE TOP BETWEEN INLET GRATE EQUAL CONCRETE BLONOR.F AND MAINE POST EPAcwD 30' MN • ,. • ,.:. .. .. �.:. �.�.".".�. �.� METAL POST la CONCRETE BLOCKS . • Y1000 10' - PLACED AROUND CATCH BASIN I 2V MIN. �����• voc SCREEN FILTER FABRIC TO BE TAMPED S'QUIPPED. •����■ / O.s' OPENINGS BECKW GRADE AND rAYPED 8' •����• 80.0W GRADE •����• PUCED AROUND CONCRETE BLOCKS STEEL OR WOOD STAKES .'�� �i SEE CHART AT RIGHT �.; Hann daRaENd:. OR Mwo1Ta tok. Da M DETRAE� IATnnI. To cos SILT uitFs AT -1 a UNwORC'1E0 SLOW AND A9 PMA CONTOURS AE POSa&£. CLLOE9 NL rAIED U UxORaECRA ELOPES a mgf/,T[a DMMG COnorl"', NOT N[CESSAWIy R[yRECR9 a TK RNAL Nf. OJR,f M MS a mE u-- a am 1NE 1.11 11E11aK TO AC�IMULAIEO ro HINT DIE NERNT a THE FEN.. RLi fpLE9 AR[ TO B< NNN d, acc nR aLOIs E ETA.KILBR. a ei a1caAPier m erEa�AR-ALL Axe n. ua anal. fi-ALL PLAN CONCRETE BLOCKS STACKED 1 OR 2 LAYERS HIGH PLACED AROUND CATCH BASIN MINWUM 1'. ROC( WE SCREEN PLACED AROUND AN / 0.5' OPENINGS TO THE TOP OF I '- PLACED AROUND CONCRETE BLOCKS CONCRETE BLOCKS .. ,. J:.. n..... , GROUND CROSS-SECTION CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION _ (WRH CONC. BLOCKS) MOCK DOWNSTREAM X 0.26 9L0.2 .a SiRUC1URE OF ROCK MAXIMUM O.aO 0.2O 0.20 a.la trio � uAYJYVY WA M 0 ROCS (men �..._"T6_ Sal 35 33- A 59 NevtaONTa'I WET eE WON. orb m/m OR M1FR M Holt IN[ PWl Y [OU .Loa UK9LOw i IEmm G AIR _ q R4 t uepNLW) B I,� {,. ee suer an er a cduRSE �w o • s ROOr NALIN M� (-a I U. N i.s n.) POOL SET N noun 1 (O.e rl.) PNFCONCE PI W. Means) TROKN Ree r Ei nAaE DowsmaMl smaa sue PORT 9 alAwRAOtAI¢r tEkl wwf leaf L- min ND �... EIEv4a0N or as UPSIREA 91WLTux B � i FLI I. STONE CHECK DAM STRUCTURE N.T.S. RECE!VED "'A City Of So. Budington MINIMI PLACI MIRE METAL STAKE - PLACED AROUND CATCH BASIN SiLT PENCE DETA� N.T.S. Fes, e mil t� (�V PLACE FILTER FABRIC BETWEEN INLET GATE • w�4 AND FRAME I METAL STAKE PLACED CATCH ND O I::��� MIRE SCREEN w/ 0.5' OPENINGS �y d • THAT IS SECURED TO }� METAL STAKES. �k }f, ., ATTACH TO MIRE SCREEN, FILTER FABRIC, MWAFI r� 14ONS OR APPROVED r (rel F EQUAL PLAN HIRE SCREEN / 0.5" OPENINGS ~l THAT IS SECURED TO METAL STAKES. CA I Win (� 11 �U zz -a- W WW Z� 5 Q LU J� Q U .91 1-1 0R APPROVED � EQUAL MINIMUM I'll ROCK k I^ I 1}I SOUND 12' MIN. t1 �'.. 11 WIRE SCN 1 4 T } D GROUND . u V6" PERMIT SET MIN. PLACE 9" MIN. FABRIC TO BE COVER WITH CROSS-SECTION ROCK 2n2/03 sAv CATCH BASIN I INLET PROTECTION (IMTH METAL ST N. �-TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCH OR NETTING NV. I UAtt alT REVISIONS DRAWING TITLE EROSION SILT FENCE OR INSTALLED 0. CONTROL DETAILS DOWNGRADIENT SIDE DRAWING NO. C11 SCALE: AS -NOTE) DA7E_ 72/28/OI 7EMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAIL N.T.S. PROJECT NO. 01300.00 MEMORANDUM To: Juli Beth Hoover, Director of Planning & Zonin City of South Burlington From: Roger Dickinson, P.E., PTOE Re: UVM South Campus Master Plan - Draft Traffic Impact Study Date: November 26, 2003 As requested, we have reviewed the May 2003 Draft Traffic Impact Study prepared by Resource Systems Group (RSG) for The University of Vermont. Our review also includes RSG's October 24th Memorandum to Susan Smichenko of the CCMPO. The following outlines our questions and comments concerning the projected traffic impacts of the South Campus Master Plan. 1. Figure 4, pg. 10: It is worth noting that two years of AADT data are now available for CTC D099 on I-189 since this figure was originally prepared. The AADT's for both 2001 and 2002 indicate an actual background traffic growth rate of 0.5% for those two years instead of the estimated 1.2%. 2. Figures 5 & 6, pp 11-12: The estimated 2004 and 2009 no -build traffic volumes shown appear to include only the 2.2% annual background growth. It is not readily apparent to us where Fletcher Allen's Renaissance Project traffic has been added in. 3. Trip Generation, pg. 13: The pm peak hour trip calculation methodology and resulting estimates appear reasonable. 4. Figures 8-11 & Table 5, pp. 17-21: Comparing Access Alternative 1 vs. Access Alternative 2 (Fig. 8 vs. Fig. 10 and Fig. 9 vs. Fig.11), there are large changes in several turning movements, (e.g. the EB LT out of Gutterson North onto Spear St.) which do not make a lot of sense. Similarly, the net changes shown in Table 5 do not match the volumes shown in Fig. 8-11. Because of this, we have not checked the volumes input into the capacity analyses. We would prefer that the foregoing volumes be verified by RSG prior to performing that step. 5. Cut -Through Traffic, pg 22-26: Table 6 shows four cut -through possibilities. We believe that there is also a fifth; SBR Spear/Gutterson to WBL Prospect/Redstone. This represents a potential cut -through route for traffic exiting Fletcher Allen and UVM onto East Avenue heading southbound towards Shelburne Road. We are also not able to clearly track the trips shown in Fig. 12-15 for the fourth possibility; NBR Prospect/Redstone to Spear. Are those headed left on Spear or right? The figures indicate the latter, which seems illogical. 6. Congestion Analysis, pp 34-39: We have two major questions concerning the level of service analyses at the major intersections. The first concerns pedestrians crossing at the Main Street / University Heights intersection, and whether or not the analyses take this into account. The second concerns the lane utilization of multiple lanes along the Main Street / Williston Road corridor. For example, the eastbound through lanes at the Main St./Spear St. intersection have been coded in as two exclusive through lanes plus a combed through/right-turn lane. For that coding, the Highway Capacity Manual applies a 0.90 lane utilization factor; which basically says that the volume in any one of the three lanes can vary by ±10%. Our Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. r Memorandum November 26, 2003 Page 2 observations of traffic flow along this corridor indicate that this historically has not been the case. This is due to several factors; the large percentage of traffic lining up to get onto I-89 being a major one. It has been our experience that the lane utilization significantly affects actual delays and queue lengths, and recommend that this be reexamined. 7. Signal Warrant Analysis, pp 39-40: The MUTCD requires that signal warrants be evaluated using average weekday volumes, not design hour volumes. For this reason, the conclusion that the peak hour volume warrant is satisfied at the Spear St./Gutterson North intersection should be reexamined. It should be noted, that in comparing Table 11 to Table 9, Access Alternative 2 provides very significant level of service benefits at this intersection. We believe that Access Alternative 2 could well avoid the need to signalize this intersection. 8. Safety Analysis, pg. 40: Our primary concern relative to safety is the lack of any discussion in the traffic study relative to pedestrian movement along Spear Street and/or of crossings at key intersections. While the pedestrian movements generated by UVM are primarily contained within their campus, external movements do occur to and from local shopping destinations in South Burlington, and also clustered around major sporting events at the Gutterson complex. Will the Spear Street corridor study be addressing this issue? P:\2002\02_001 \review memo.wpd Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 0 i. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP INCO-RPORATED ® Draft Traffic Impact Study for the: UVM SOUTH CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Burlington and South Burlington, Vermont Prepared for: The University of Vermont May 2003 331 Olcott Drive, White River Junction, Vermont 06001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2001, Resource Systems Group and the University of Vermont (UVM) submitted a traffic impact study: Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM to the Burlington Development Review Board (DRB). The study analyzed the impacts of a 400-bed student housing project called South Ledge Apartments. In early 2002, the 400-bed project received approval from the DRB. The project has since been reduced from 400 beds to 203 beds and the name of the new development has been changed from South Ledge Apartments to Catamount Apartments. This traffic impact study is intended as a supplement to the previous study. The University of Vermont is proposing to develop the 203-bed apartment complex on land located to the east of the existing Redstone Apartments, which are located on South Prospect Street. The new two building Catamount Apartments complex would be built upon an existing surface parking lot. In addition, UVM is planning to construct a traditional dormitory complex with up to 850 beds on University Heights which will replace the existing buildings. This traffic study includes traffic from the dormitories in the analysis of future conditions (2009). Concurrently, kNM is proposing to construct a parking garage upon the site of the existing Guttersou Field House surface parking lot. This parking garage will accommodate a portion of the additional parking demand generated by the University Heights dormitories. Up to an additional 550 parking spaces will be provided at the new parking facility. The traffic impacts of the garage are analyzed in both the 2004 and 2009 analysis. In association with these developments, UVM is proposing to build new roads connecting the Catamount Apartments to University Heights and Spear Street. These new roads will connect South Prospect Street at Redstone Apartments to University Heights at Main Street and to Spear Street at the access to the Gutter -sari Field House. Two access alternatives for connecting these streets are considered in this traffic�study: ■ Access Alternative 1: This plan provides full access. Any vehicle may enter or exit the campus at any one of the three access points (Spear Street adjacent to the Gutterson Garage, South Prospect Street adjacent to the Redstone Campus, and University Heights). n Draft: UVM South Campus Master Plan Traffic Study — Executive Summary May 2003 Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 2 • Access Alternative 2: This plan is a more constrained access regimen with the following provisions: o The southerly access drive on South Prospect Street would access an approximately j 150-space existing parking lot only. o The northerly access drive on South Prospect Street proximate to the Redstone Apartments would be restricted to one way, enter -only flow. o Access to the second and third level of the proposed Gutterson garage and surface lots (821 spaces) would be gained from Spear Street, University Heights, or South Prospect Street. Egress from the second and third level of the proposed garage and surface lots; however, would be via University Heights only. o Access to the lower level of the proposed Gutterson garage and surface lots (500 spaces), as well as access to adjacent surface parking lots (124 spaces proximate to Harris -Millis and 117 spaces at the MAT lot) would be via Spear Street only. Egress from these parking areas could be via Spear Street or University Heights. This traffic study provides an analysis of traffic impacts related to these proposed changes on campus. The impact of these new vehicle trips are evaluated at seven intersections: ■ Main Street and the Sheraton Driveway; ■ Main Street and East Avenue; ■ Main Street and Spear Street; • Main Street and University Heights; ■ Main Street and South Prospect Street; • Spear Street and Gutterson North Driveway and; ■ South Prospect Street and North Redstone Driveway. Traffic conditions for both access alternatives are estimated for 2004 and 2009. The 2004 traffic impacts include the proposed Catamount Apartments project and the Gutterson Garage project. The proposed Catamount Apartments project and the Gutterson Garage project are estimated to generate 237 PM peak hour trips. The 2009 analysis includes the impacts from Catamount Apartments, the Gutterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights dormitory complex. The proposed Catamount Apartments, the Gutterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights dormitory complex are estimated to generate 350 PM peak hour trips: • Catamount Apartments — 41 peak hour vehicles trips, • Gutterson Garage —163 peak hour vehicles trips, and ■ University Heights Dormitories —153 peak hour vehicles trips. Draft: UVM South Campus Master Plan Traffic Study — Executive Summary Resource Systems Group, Inc. May 2003 page 3 Future traffic conditions include growth in background traffic of 2.2% annually, plus additional trips associated with Fletcher Allen Health Care's Renaissance Project. The traffic analysis indicates that projected congestion is more problematic during the PM peak hour. Hence, this study analyzes the PM peak hour conditions. The measures recommended to mitigate traffic congestion and safety impacts are: ■ Maintain time of day coordinated timings plans for the Main Street corridor. ■ Prohibit westbound left turns at the intersection of Main Street and University Heights. C ■ Create a comprehensive signage plan to guide eastbound Main Street users onto Interstate 89 at the Jughandle. ■ Conduct a full signal warrant analysis of the intersection of Spear Street with the Gutterson parking facilities after the Catamount Apartments and Gutterson Garage projects are completed, and install a traffic signal if warranted. ■ Connect UV1vI driveways at South Prospect Street, University Heights, and Spear Street via an internal roadway network subject to an access plan described in this traffic study as Access Alternative 1 or Access Alternative 2. Under either access regimen, the internal street network would be traffic calmed, and open to public use. With these mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the surrounding roadway network. The following mitigation measures are not recommended specifically for the UVM project but should be the subject of further discussion with respect to Burlington and South Burlington traffic concerns. ■ Installing at red light running camera at the intersection of Main Street and East Avenue. Despite recent results showing the effectiveness of this technology, installing such camera is not currently legal in Vermont. ■ Installing a queue detector to detect southbound queues at the intersection of Main and South Prospect. This measure can be effective in improving overall traffic operations, but should be evaluated for its effect on Main Street corridor progression. /n Mr. Ray Belair Zoning Office City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 August 17,2005 112 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Belair; This letter serves to reiterate our phone conversation of August 15 about my concerns over the lighting at the new UVM parking garage located across from my home on Spear Street. My husband and I have made several requests to UVM that the lighting be altered because it interferes with our home life (ie. shines in our front windows and is quite glaring and disturbing at night). We feel that the lighting chosen is not appropriate for a neighborhood setting. We initiated our conversations with UVM in February, 2005 and got no response until Tuesday, August 16, when the project managers invited us to meet at night outside our house to discuss options. The lighting had been altered in June to include a screen around the beehive, which certainly cuts down on the glare, but is not a final solution in our opinion. On Tuesday UVM proposed painting the screens black to further reduce glare. This was done on %2 of some of the lights closest to the road. Again, it appears this helps to some extent. My concern is that these measures are a band -aid approach to an inappropriate choice of lighting. I asked at the nighttime meeting with UVM whether they could investigate the lighting used at other Burlington parking garage locations that do not have this excessive glare problem, such as the Medical Center parking garage and any of the downtown garages. To date, I have not gotten an answer to my question. Sincerely, Sylvia Tousley 1 Date Post -it," Fax Note 767From To % 7 , Co./Dept. Phone # Phone# ax PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON ENT REV REVIEW IEiiI BOa1AO The South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a Public hearing at the South Burlington City .Hall, 'Con- ference Room, 575 Dor- set Street, South . Bur- lington, Vermont on Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1. Preliminary plat application #SD-03.72 of University of Vermont for a planned unit. develop- ment consisting of the construction of a 254,100 GFA three level parking garage (176,400 GFA in South Burlinggto) to accommodate 1315 parking spaces, 97 Spear St. 2. Final : plat , applf- cation #SD-03-74 of. the ' SnyderGroup, Inc. for a planned unit develop- ment consisting ..of, 31 single family dwellings and one(1) existing r-sing- le family dwelling 'on :.26.8 acres, 1700 Spear St.' 3; Final- plat. appli' cation #SD-03,73: `of A & M Construction Corp: for a planned unit develop - meet consisting of: 1) subdividing a 4.6 acre lot into twoV (2) lots of 1.3 acres (lot #1), and 3.3 . acres (lot #2), and 2) construction , two (2) 2- family dwellings on lot #2, 100 Van Sicklen Rd. 4. Conditional use application #CU-02-17 of RCC. Atlantic, Inc. seek- ing conditional use, ap- proval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review., of the South Burlington Land Deve- lopment regulations. Re- quest . is for permission to allow the replacement of a . 90 foot communica- lions tower with a 100 foot monopole tower, i 2026 Williston Road. " Copies of the ,applica- tions , are available for public , inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. ' John Dinklage. Chairman •South Burlington Deve- lopment Review Board November 15,2003 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP INCORPORATED Traffic Impact Study: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF ON -CAMPUS HOUSING AT UVM Burlington, Vermont Prepared for: The University of Vermont December 2001 331 Olcott Drive, White River Junction, Vermont 05001 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF ON -CAMPUS HOUSING AT UVM Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................3 PROJECTDESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................4 SCOPEOF TRAFFIC STUDY.....................................................................................................................5 EXISTING & FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES..............................................................................................7 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES.......................................................................................8 ESTIMATED 2003 AND 2008 NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES..............................................................8 TRIP GENERATION OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION.........................................................................13 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION...................................................................................................15 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION...................................................................................................19 BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................22 CONGESTIONANALYSIS........................................................................................................................27 ILEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION.........................................................................................................27 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS............................................................................................................27 SAFETY ANALYSIS ........34 .......................................................................................................................... IPROPOSED MITIGATION.........................................................................................................................37 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................38 I I Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page ii Figures Figure1: Project Locations........................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure2: Study Area.................................................................................................................................................... 6 I Figure 3: Design Hour Volumes at Counter D099 on I-189 in South Burlington, 1997-2000...................... 7 Figure 4: 2003 Design Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 5: 2008 Design Hour Traffic Volumes......................................................................................................10 Figure 6: 2003 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................11 Figure 7: 2008 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................12 Figure 8: Average Vehicle Trip Generation of the Existing Gutterson Parking Lot.....................................14 Figure 9: Estimated 2003 AM Peak Hour Trip Generation...............................................................................17 Figure 10: Estimated 2008 AM Peak Hour Trip Generation.............................................................................18 Figure 11: Estimated 2003 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation............................................................................. 20 Figure 12: Estimated 2008 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation........................................................................ ..... 21 Figure13: 2003 AM Build........................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure14: 2008 AM Build........................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure15: 2003 PM Build........................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure16: 2008 PM Build........................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 17: Recent Accidents for the Intersection of Main Street and East Avenue by Time of Day......... 35 Figure 18: Number of Accidents at Main Street and East Avenue by Type and Direction .......................... 36 Tables Table 1: Existing Peak Hour Trips from the Gutterson Parking Lot, Redstone Apartments, and the Livingand Learning Center............................................................................................................................13 Table 2: Trip Generation Rates for the Existing Gutterson Parking Lot, Redstone Apartments, and the Livingand Learning Center............................................................................................................................14 Table 3: ITE Trip Generation Rates Compared with Counts at Similar Existing Residential Facilities on theUVM Campus............................................................................................................................................15 Table 4: AM Peak Hour Trip Generation.............................................................................................................16 Table 5: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation.............................................................................................................. 19 Table 6: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections............................................................... 27 Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page iii J Table 7: Signalized HCM LOS Results for the AM Peak Period...................................................................... 28 Table 8: Unsignalized HCM LOS Results for the AM Peak Period.................................................................28 Table 9: Signalized HCM LOS Results for the Design Hour............................................................................ 29 Table 10: University Heights Capacity Scenarios for the 2008 Build PIVI Peak Period ................................. 30 JTable 11: Synchro Signalized Intersection LOS analysis Results for the 2008 Build PM Peak Hour........ 32 Table 12: 2008 Build P1NI LOS Comparison of Existing Timings vs. Corridor Optimization ..................... 33 ITable 13: Pedestrian Calls per Hour assumed at Study area Intersections for the Coordinated Timing Plan..................................................................................................................................................................... 33 JTable 14: Unsignalized HCM LOS Results for the PM Peak Period............................................................... 34 Table 15: Recent Accident History for Intersections within the Study Area .................................................. 34 ITable 16: LOS Summary Table...............................................................................................................................39 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The University of Vermont is proposing to develop a 400-bed student housing project called South Ledge. South Ledge will be built on the Redstone Campus adjacent to the existing Redstone Apartments. The South Ledge Project will be very similar to the existing Redstone Apartment Complex in its design and in the population it serves. The South Ledge project is proposed to be built on existing surface parking lots on the Redstone Campus, displacing a net total of 146 parking spaces. To accommodate the parking demand from both the South Ledge project and the displaced Redstone Campus parking spaces, a new parking garage is proposed for the existing Gutterson Surface Parking Lot. The new parking garage will be designed to accommodate up to 550 parking spaces. In addition, UVM is planning to construct an 850-bed traditional dormitory complex on the existing University Heights development. This traffic study includes traffic from the dormitories in the analysis of future conditions. 1 This traffic study provides an analysis of traffic impacts related to these proposed changes on campus. The proposed South Ledge housing and the Gutterson Parking Garage expansion is estimated to generate an additional 74 AM peak hour trips and an additional 125 PM peak hour trips. The impact of these new vehicle trips are evaluated at five intersections: ■ Main Street and East Avenue; ■ Main Street and Spear Street; ■ Main Street and University Heights; ■ Main Street and South Prospect Street; and ■ Spear Street and Gutterson North Entrance. Traffic conditions are estimated for 2003 and 2008. The 2003 traffic impacts include the proposed South Ledge project and the Gutterson Garage project. The 2008 analysis includes the impacts from South Ledge, the Gutterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights dormitory complex. The dormitory complex is estimated to generate approximately 110 vehicle trips during both the AM and PM peak hours. Future traffic conditions include growth in background traffic of 2.2% annually, plus additional trips associated with Fletcher Allen Health Care's Renaissance Project. The traffic analysis indicates that projected congestion is more problematic during the PM peak hour. Optimizing the signal timings is seen as the most practical approach for mitigating congestion through the entire corridor. Table ES-1 summarizes the LOS for the design hour including LOS results demonstrating the effectiveness of corridor optimization for the 2008 Build scenario. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 2 Table ES- 1: LOS Summary Table PM Build, 2008 Intersection PM No Build, 2003 PM Build 2003 PM No Build 2008 PM Build 2008 O timized Timings LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Dela Main and East Average Intersection B 14 B 18 B 17 B 19 B 15 Main and Spear Average Intersection C 22 D 39 D 43 D 51 D 43 Main and University Heights Avera a Intersectioni A 5 A 10 B 12 B 15 B 14 Main and S. Prospect 1 Avera a Intersection D 41 1 D 50 E 64 E 63 D 54 In addition to the retiming measure mentioned above, other measures recommended to mitigate traffic congestion and safety impacts are: ■ Develop an interior roadway network between Gutterson and University Heights, which will enable vehicles exiting this portion of campus to choose between Spear Street and University Heights as the access drive to Main Street. • Widen University Heights at its northbound approach to Main Street to two lanes. This should consist of one exclusive left turn lane and one share through -right lane. ■ Prohibit westbound left turns at the intersection of Main Street and University Heights. ■ Improve signage to Interstate 89 at theJughandle. With these mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the surrounding roadway network. I The following mitigation measures are not recommended specifically for the UVM project but should be the subject of further discussion with respect to Burlington and South Burlington traffic concerns. Iz Installing at red light running camera at the intersection of Main Street and East Avenue. Despite recent results showing the effectiveness of this technology, installing such camera is not currently legal in Vermont. I0 Installing a queue detector to detect southbound queues at the intersection of Main and South Prospect. This measure can be effective in improving overall traffic operations, but should be evaluated for its effect on Main Street corridor progression. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 3 INTRODUCTION The University of Vermont (UVM) is proposing to develop a 400-bed apartment complex, to be situated on land located to the east of the existing Redstone Apartments on South Prospect Street in Burlington. The new 4-building apartment complex would be built upon an existing surface parking lot. The apartment development is referred to as the South Ledge Project. Concurrently, UVM is proposing to construct a parking garage upon the site of the existing Gutterson Fieldhouse surface parking lot. This parking garage will accommodate a portion of the additional parking demand generated by the South Ledge Project. Up to an additional 550 parking spaces will be provided at the new parking facility. The South Ledge Project will increase traffic volumes on the local roadway network. However, new vehicle trips will arrive at and depart from the proposed Gutterson parking garage, as opposed to the Redstone Campus. Thus a net reduction in vehicle trips accessing South Prospect Street is projected as a consequence of the two development proposals (apartments and parking garage). This traffic study analyzes the congestion and safety impacts of these two development proposals, and includes: ■ Description of the proposed project; ■ Scope of the traffic study; ■ Estimated new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project (AM and PM peak hours); ■ Projected turning movements at study area intersections (AM and design hours); ■ Projected congestion (level of service) at study area intersections; ■ An analysis of transportation safety within the project area and related roadway network; and ■ A set of recommendations for improving traffic flow and safety. This study relies upon design standards and analysis procedures documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manuall Trip Generation Handbook,2 A Policy on Geometric De ign of Highway and Streets 3 Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide,4 and the Vermont State Design Standards 1 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacit}, ,Manual.• Special Report 209, Washington DC, 2000. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, Sixth Edition, Washington DC, October 1998. 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Washington DC, 1994. 4 VAOT, Planning & Traffic Research Division, Traffic Impact Evaluation: Study and Review Guide. 5 VAOT , Vermont State Standards far Design of Transportation Construction, Deconstruction, Rehabilitation on Freeways, Roads, and Streets, July 1997. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION page 4 The South Ledge housing project is proposed for the property located to the east of the existing Redstone Apartments and to the south and west of the Gutterson Fieldhouse. A total of 400 beds will be housed in four separate buildings. The South Ledge housing complex will be apartment -style residential housing for upper classmen and graduate students, as opposed to traditional university dormitory -style housing for undergraduate students. The South Ledge Project will be constructed upon existing surface parking lots, displacing 296 surface parking spaces. In addition, the South Ledge Project will generate a net new parking demand of 300 spaces (0.75 spaces/bed). Thus, the resulting parking shortfall is estimated to be 596 spaces. To meet this shortfall, two new parking areas will be developed. First, a total of 150 surface lot spaces will be added proximate to the South Ledge apartments. A new 134-space surface parking lot will be developed behind Simpson Hall. This parking lot will be designated Zone 1 parking for students, which means it will be available to all students for a higher cost than the proposed parking structure located adjacent to Guttersoti Fieldhouse. Another 16 spaces will be allocated to handicap and pickup/drop-off adjacent to the apartment buildings. Traffic to and from the 150 spaces would continue to access South Prospect only. As there will be a net reduction of 146 surface parking spaces within the South Prospect Street "travel shed", total site traffic on South Prospect will decrease as a result of these projects. The second parking area is the proposed parking structure to be located upon the existing surface parking lot at Gutterson Fieldhouse. This 3-floor parking structure, providing up to 550 net new spaces, is designed to accommodate the remaining shortfall of 446 spaces (596 — 150 = 446) plus up to an additional 104 parking spaces for future uses. This parking garage will be Zone 2 parking and will be available at a lower cost than the Zone 1 parking facility located adjacent to the housing development. UVM's residential housing master plan also includes the construction of two new residential housing complexes over the next ten years to replace the existing University Heights development and to enable decompression of overcrowded housing on other parts of campus. In addition to the 400-bed South Ledge Project, UVM anticipates the construction of a 500-bed traditional dormitory in 2003 and a 350-bed traditional dormitory in 2008. By the time the residential housing master plan is completed in 2012, a total of 386 additional beds will be provided on campus over the existing inventory. Vehicle trips generated by the dormitory expansion is included in the analysis of 2008 traffic conditions. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed housing developments and the projected year of completion. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM December 2001 Figure 1: Project Locations Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 5 SCOPE OF TRAFFIC STUDY The scope of this traffic study was initially developed in consultation with the Burlington Department of Public Works (Appendix 1). The preliminary scope included a detailed analysis of seven intersections. This initial list of intersections was based on an assumption that these intersections would receive 75 vehicles per hour or more of site -generated traffic. This traffic threshold is the guideline set forth by VTrans for detailed intersection analysis. The scope of the study has been revised based on an analysis of trip generation, and of the subsequent impact on intersections proximate to the developments. The following intersections are addressed in this traffic study: ■ Spear Street and Gutterson North Entrance; ■ Main Street and East Avenue; Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 6 ■ Main Street and Spear Street; 1 Main Street and University Heights; and ■ Main Street and South Prospect Street. The South Ledge Project and the Gutterson parking garage are expected to be completed by the year 2003. Therefore build years of 2003 and 2008 were chosen for the analysis. Figure 2 shows the study area. Figure 2: Study Area %South pect St. East Ave.0 C East Ave. .M jS. Prospect St. Spear St. US Route 2 Williston Rd. } D... f , seuay�nee.9e�e o� Congestion is evaluated for the following traffic scenarios: ■ 2003 No Build, ■ 2003 Build, including traffic from the proposed developments, ■ 2008 No Build, and Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 7 ■ 2008 Build, including traffic from the proposed developments plus traffic from the projected 850-bed dormitory complex to be located on University Heights. All congestion analyses begin with the assumption that no new intersection or roadway capacity will be added. EXISTING & FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Resource Systems Group obtained AM and PM turning movement counts at various intersections in the study area. The raw traffic count data are provided in Appendix 2. We used data from Continuous Traffic Counter D099 located on I-189 in South Burlington in conjunction with Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study & Regression Analysis (VTrans, 2000) and roadway classifications to determine peak hour and annual traffic adjustment factors. Design hours adjustments averaged 10.0% and AM peak hour adjustments averaged 4.0%. Figure 3: Design Hour Volumes at Counter D099 on 1-189 in South Burlington, 1997-2000 4500 4400 4300 4200 E 0 4100 t= 00 4000 S c� 0 3900 3800 3700 3600 1997 1998 1999 2000 Design Hour Volume —l—Percent Growth from Previous Year 0.10 0.08 0.06 m m 0.04 0 0.02 E 0 n 0.00 r= c -0.02 3 0 rs -0.04 0 w IL -0.06 -0.08 -0.10 1 The design hour represents the 30th highest hour of traffic in a year for a particular intersection or roadway segment. In Burlington, the design hour varies depending on location. However, the design hour often occurs during the Piet peak hour. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 8 Figure 3 shows the traffic trend line from 1997 — 2000 at CTC D099. accounting for the increases and declines from year to year, the recent data indicate an average annual growth rate of 2.2%. This growth rate is used to adjust traffic counts to reflect 2003 and 2008 conditions. OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES It is conventional to consider traffic from developments that might affect traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed project. UVM plans to replace the buildings currently located on University Heights with an underclassmen housing development. The project will be a 850-bed traditional dormitory. This project is expected to add a net new 137 beds to the UVM campus by 2008 and 386 beds by 2012. For the purposes of this analysis, vehicle trips associated with the 850 new beds are included in the 2008 analysis to analyze the concentration of traffic flow at University Heights. As this project gets closer to permitting, a separate traffic impact study will be performed to analyze its impact in greater detail. There have been several development proposals in the Burlington/South Burlington area that could have an impact on traffic volumes on the Main Street corridor (e.g. Odell Parkway PUD, Main Street Landing Phase II, and others). However, the impact of these various development proposals on the Main Street corridor, while not negligible, is also not direct. For this reason, we will account for vehicle trips from other permitted, but not yet built, developments, by using the higher background traffic growth rate — 2.2% annually — obtained by using counter D099. The one exception to this is the new traffic anticipated from Fletcher Allen Health Care's Renaissance Project. This new source of traffic is accounted for explicitly within the traffic volumes used in the analysis. ESTIMATED 2003 AND 2008 NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the 2003 and 2008 design hour traffic volumes at study area intersections, respectively. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the 2003 and 2008 AM peak hour no build traffic volumes, respectively. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM December 2001 Figure 4: 2003 Design Hour Traffic Volumes Man StreetAiniversity Huts Man S treeth pith Prospect Street 472 18 129 472 14— 625 1 y �,94 Tr 683 —10 16 \43 n Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 9 Mon S treetlS peer S treet E ntrmc+e Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 Figure 5: 2008 Design Hour Traffic Volumes Man S treetN ravers ity HeiMis Man S heetlS pea S treat E ntraice Man S treet/S oulh Pros pact Street 1 526 6�♦ 44 52I6 4 696 I �216 tr 761 —0 184 430 48 page 10 Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 Figure 6: 2003 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Mdn S treetN rivers ity H eigris Wn S treet4 pacr Street E ntrmce NUn S treet�S cuth Prospect S treat 526 17 135 327 .— 856 j 1 1 ,74 Tr 451 -' 163 241 `2 page 11 Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 12 Figure 7. 2008 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Mcin S treetN rivers ity HaWts Nk1 n S treet5 pea Street Entrance Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 13 TRIP GENERATION OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION Trip generation refers to the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site. Traffic analyses typically focus on trip generation during peak periods. Resource Systems Group performed AM and PM I peak hour traffic counts at the existing 200-bed Redstone apartments on 15 November 2000 and 16 I November 2000 respectively. Resource Systems Group also conducted automatic Traffic Recorder counts at all the entrances and exits to and from the existing Gutterson parking lot and at the entrance to the Living and Learning Center from 18 to 24 September 20011. From these counts we were able to determine the trip generation characteristics for the South Ledge Project and for the University Heights dormitories. Similarly, trip rates have been calculated for the proposed Gutterson garage, based on the 6-day screen -line count to the Gutterson parking lot. Trip rates calculated from the Living and Learning Center are used to determine trips for the projected 2008 dormitory project. Table 1 shows the trip generation rates determined from field counts for the AM and PM peak hours at the Gutterson Parking Lot, Redstone Apartments, and the Living and Learning Center. Table 1: Existing Peak Hour Trips from the Gutterson Parking Lot. Redstone Apartments, and the Living and Learning Center AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit Gutterson Parking Lot 131 87 172 267 Redstone Apartments 8 18 24 16 Living and Learning 36 44 38 37 Figure 8 shows the screenline count data for the Gutterson Parking lot, shoving entering and exiting vehicles by time of day. 1 These automatic traffic recorder counts are referred to as screen -line counts, as they were set up to detect all vehicles entering and exiting the Gutterson area over a 6-day period. Thus, the counters formed a screen -line to the Gutterson area. 1 J 1 1 I Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM December 2001 Figure 8: Average Vehicle Trip Generation of the Existing Gutterson Parking Lotl 200 180 160 140 N 120 0 100 d E 80 z 60 40 20 Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 14 --NA i 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Time of Day Entering Eating Table 2 shows the existing peak hour trips from the Gutterson Parking Lot, Redstone Apartments, and the Living and Learning Center. Table 2: Trip Generation Rates for the Existing Gutterson Parking Lot, Redstone Apartments, and the Living and Learning Center # of Units Gutterson Parking Lot 1021 parking spaces Redstone Apartments 150 parking spaces Living and Learning 566 beds AM Peak Hour Trips per Unit Enter Exit 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.08 PM Peak Hour Trips per Unit Enter Exit 0.17 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.06 1 This graph represents the average of the traffic counts at the entrances and exits from the Gutterson Parking L,ot for the '1'uesdan, Wednesday, and "Thursday that were counted. A total of 1,021 parking spaces were within the count cordon. Over the course of the count the panting lot showed net loss of 72 vehicles. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 15 As a comparison, we have estimated vehicle trip generation rates for other types of housing, based on national data provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition). Table 3 shows the vehicle trip generation rates estimated using the ITE rates for land uses that are partially comparable to the UVM residential uses. Table 3 also compares the ITE estimates with the actual counts conducted at the UVM residential facilities. "Table 3: ITE Trip Generation Rates Compared with Counts at Similar Existing Residential Facilities on the UVM Campusl Total Vehicle Trips (enter +exit) Unit s ITF I I1 Cnde AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dwelling Units (Redstone Apartments) 81 231 Low Rise Condo/Townhouse 19 18 (81 units holding 396 beds) Count at Redstone 26 40 Dwelling Units (Living & Learning Center) 283 232 High Rise Condo/Townhouse 110 95 Count at Living & Learning Center 120 113 Although the ITE land uses are not immediately comparable with the UVM residential facilities, they are comparable to the actual counts, as shown. Best practices suggest that actual counts are preferable to the national data. For this reason, this analysis will use trip generation estimates developed directly from the recent on -campus count data. Since 446 spaces in the proposed Gutterson Parking Garage are to be allocated to Resident Student Parking (146) and to the proposed South Ledge development (300), the trip generation rate for these spaces is based on the trip generation per space estimated from the count for the existing Redstone Apartments. It is important to note that 146 of these spaces are being moved from the South Ledge site, which accesses the roadway network on South Prospect Street, to the Gutterson site. In the process, there will be a reduction in vehicle trips accessing South Prospect Street. The trip generation for the remaining 104 spaces is based on existing Gutterson parking lot trip generation rates. AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Based on the foregoing analysis, Table 4 shows the number of AM peak hour trips generated as a result of the proposed projects. 1 The comparative analysis assumes that there are an average of 2 beds per dwelling unit at the Redstone Apartments, and 2 beds per dwelling unit at the Living & Learning Center. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM December 2001 Table 4: AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Trip Rates # of Units Enter Exit Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 16 Trip Generation Enter Exit Gutterson Parking Spaces 104 parking Allocated to Other Faculty, 0.13 0.09 13 9 Staff and Students spaces Gutterson Parking Spaces 446 parking Allocated to South Ledge and 0.05 0.12 24 54 Redstone Students spaces Displaced Redstone Spaces 146 parking 0.05 0.12 -8 -18 spaces Total 2003 Trip Generation 29 45 2008 University Heights F850 beds 0.06 0.08 54 66 Spaces Total 2008 Trip Generation 83 111 The data in Table 4 show that there will be a net increase in traffic generated by the Gutterson site (enter + exit) of an estimated 100 vehicles during the AM peak hour (13 + 9 + 24 + 54). There will be a reduction of traffic generated by the Redstone campus, and accessing South Prospect Street, of an estimated 26 vehicles during the AM peak hour. Assuming that these two projects are in operation in 2003, the net trip generation will consist of 29 entering vehicles and 45 exiting vehicles during the AM peak hour. Figure 9 shows the distribution of these new vehicle trips for the 2003 AM Peak Hour. M Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 17 Figure 9: Estimated 2003 AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Man S teetAl rnverslty Heights W n S teet5 pea S teet E ntcrce For 2008, the trips generated by the projected University Heights development are included in the analysis. The projected University Heights development will be very similar to the existing Living and Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 18 Learning dormitory. Therefore the Living and Learning Center trip generation rates per bed are used to determine trip generation for the projected University Heights dormitories. The resulting 2008 trip generation estimates are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10: Estimated 2008 AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Mdn S treetAl rivers Ity Neighs Mdn S treetb pea S treet E ntrace M Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 19 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Table 5 shows the number of PI1 peak hour trips generated as a result of the proposed projects. Table 5: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Trip Rates Trip Generation ft of llnitc FntPr Exit Enter Exit Gutterson Parking Spaces 104 parking Allocated to Other Faculty, 0.17 0.26 18 27 Staff and Students spaces Gutterson Parking Spaces 446 parking Allocated to South Ledge and 0.16 0.11 71 48 Redstone Students spaces Displaced Redstone Spaces 146 parking 0.16 0.11 23 16 spaces i otai zuu:3 i rip Generation bb by 2008 University Heights 850 beds 0.07 0.06 58 55 Spacesi I Total 2008 Trip Generation 123 114 Figure 11 shows the trip generation for the 2003 PM peak hour; Figure 12 shows the trip generation for the 2008 PM peak hour. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM IDecember 2001 Figure 11: Estimated 2003 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Man S treet/S Guth Prospect Street I L 7 I (�'� 8 — 9 ` . -9 tr 4/ -3 -3 Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 20 Man S treetM niversity Heights Man S treet/S pea S treet E ntrmoe Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 21 Figure 12: Estimated 2008 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Mdn S treetAJniversity HeiMts Mcin StreetJS pea Sheet E ntrcnce Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS page 22 The following figures show the trip distribution for the 2003 AM Build, 2008 AM Build, 2003 PM Build, and 2008 PM Build scenarios. These numbers reflect the sum of the corresponding No Build scenario plus trip generation. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM December 2001 Figure 13: 2003 AM Build Man S freefroaulh Pros ped S treet 53\ 17 132 327 4 866 ,72 tr 1�233 460 -10 1 7 Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 23 Man S treetAJ rivers ity Heights Mdn S treet/S pea S beet E ntralO Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 Figure 14: 2008 AM Build Mdn S ireet5 Guth Pros ped S treet 608 19 147 36.5 _ 4� 990 Ir ♦ Y 197 tr 630 1765 260 /n Mdn S tr9WAJ Nversity Het gets Mdn S treeth pea S treet E ntra>ce page 24 Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM December 2001 Figure 15: 2003 PM Buiid Man S treet/S oath Pros pecl Street 479 18 121 472 ' 4 634 185 tr 705 —10 161 375 41 Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 25 Min S treetN nivers ity Heights Mdn S treet/S pets S treat E ntrrnce Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 Figure 16: 2008 PM Build Mdn S treetAJNversity HeiMis Wn S treet/S pea Street E ntrcnce page 26 Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 27 CONGESTION ANALYSIS LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as perceived by motorists driving in a traffic stream. LOS is based on the average delay per vehicle. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual defines six grades of LOS at an intersection (Table 6). The delay thresholds for levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because of the driver's expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control conditions. VTrans has a Level of Service Policy that is designated to maintain Level of Service C for the design hour for state maintained highways. However, lower Levels of Service may be acceptable on a case - by -case basis. In urban areas, an LOS of D or better for an intersection overall is typically considered acceptable. Table 6: LOS Criteria for Sianalized and Unsianalized Intersections --Unsignalized-- --Signalized-- LOS Characteristics Total Delay (sec) Total Delay (sec) A Little or no delay <_ 10.0 <_ 10.0 B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0 C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0 D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0 E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0 F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS We performed level of service analyses for the study area intersections using Synchro 2000. These analyses were performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures. For the signalized intersection analysis, signal timings/phasings are based on field observadons.t The LOS results are shown in the following sections. Appendix 3 contains the Synchro and HCS results. Projected LOS for the AM Peak Hour Table 7 shows the signalized HCM LOS results for the AM Peak Period. 1 The time of day timing plans for each signal were obtained for this analysis and compared with field observations to verify that the signals were operating correctly. The field -observed plans are used in the analysis. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 Table 7: Signalized HCM LOS Results for the AM Peak Period page 28 Average Intersection Intersection EB WB NB SB LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Main and East AM No Build, 2003 B 16 A 6 B 12 D 46 AM Build, 2003 B 17 A 6 B 12 D 48 AM No Build, 2008 B 19 A 9 B 14 D 46 AM Build, 2008 B 20 B 11 B 15 D 47 Main and Spear AM No Build, 2003 B 15 A 5 B 12 C 32 AM Build, 2003 B 16 A 5 B 11 D 37 AM No Build, 2008 C 21 A 6 B 20 D 42 AM Build, 2008 C 25 A 6 C 24 D 49 Main and University Heights AM No Build, 2003 A 4 A 2 A 4 D 47 D 47 AM Build, 2003 A 4 A 2 A 4 D 47 D 47 AM No Build, 2008 A 4 A 2 A 4 D 47 D 47 AM Build, 2008 A 6 A 3 A 6 D 45 D 42 Main and S. Prospect AM No Build, 2003 C 30 B 20 B 20 E 63 D 43 AM Build, 2003 C 29 B 20 C 20 E 60 D 43 AM No Build, 2008 C 34 C 22 C 27 E 57 D 48 AM Build, 20081 D 37 C 23 C 31 E 72 D 41 Table 8 below shows the HCM LOS results For the unsignahzed intersection of Spear Street and the northern Gutterson entrance. Table 8: Unsignalized HCM LOS Results for the AM Peak Period Intersection NB Left EB Left LOS DelaV LOS Delay Spear and North Gutterson PM No Build, 2003 A 8 C 19 PM Build, 2003 A 8 C 21 PM No Build, 2008 A 8 C 20 PM Build 2008 A 8 D 25 Projected LOS for the PM Peak Hour Table 9 shows the signalized HCNI LOS results for the design hour. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 Table 9: Signalized HCM LOS Results for the Design Hour page 29 Average Intersection Intersection EB WB NB SB LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Main and East PM No Build, 2003 B 14 A 5 A 4 E 80 PM Build, 2003 B 18 A 9 A 8 E 71 PM No Build, 2008 B 17 B 11 A 9 E 69 PM Build, 2008 B 19 B 11 A 9 E 73 Main and Spear PM No Build, 2003 C 22 B 12 B 15 D 39 PM Build, 2003 D 39 B 15 C 20 E 79 PM No Build, 2008 D 43 B 16 — 29 F 82 PM Build, 2008 D 51 B 16 C 32 F >100' Main and University Heights PM No Build, 2003 A 5 A 5 A 3 D 43 D 42 PM Build, 2003 A 10 B 11 A 7 D 48 D 47 PM No Build, 2008 B 12 B 14 A 9 D 48 D 47 PM Build, 2008 B 15 B 16 B 11 D 48 D 46 Main and S. Prospect PM No Build, 2003 D 41 C 27 B 19 F >100' D 41 PM Build, 2003 D 50 C 33 C 22 E 77 F >100' PM No Build, 20081 E 64 D 36 C 26 F >100' F >100' PM Build 2008 E 63 D 38 1 C 26 F 97 F >100" ' - The Highway Capacity Manual procedures do not accurately model delays in excess of 100 seconds. A discussion of the results follows: Jughandle Intersections The Jughandle intersections are projected to operate overall at LOS C and D for all scenarios. However, coordination of the corridor, discussed below, can improve this performance. Of particular concern within the Jughandle is the limited queuing space between East revenue and Spear Street (approximately 380 feet). In the analysis summarized in Table 9, HCM procedures assume that the 95th percentile queue lengths will not exceed the available storage capacity. This assumption may not 1 hold true under all traffic conditions. The restricted queuing space essentially limits the green time 1 that can be allocated to the minor legs of these intersections. Main and University Heights LOS at University Heights is estimated at LOS B or better for all scenarios. The redevelopment of University Heights creates some interior circulation potential that has been analyzed. Specifically, an interior roadway system linking the Gutterson parking area with University Heights could create new travel efficiencies within the campus and benefit Main Street as well. To test the capacity of University Heights, three scenarios were analyzed for the 2008 Build condition, including the additional traffic flow from the projected 850-bed dormitory project. Scenario 1 assumes only traffic related to the 850-bed dormitory will utilize University Heights. Scenarios 2 and 3 assume that 25% and 50% of traffic between points west and the proposed Gutterson Garage will use University Heightsl. t These traffic scenarios are based on diverting left turning vehicles from the Main/Spear intersection (eastern Jughandle) to the Main/University Heights intersection. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 30 All scenarios assume that westbound left turns from Main Street into University Heights will be prohibited. This is intended to improve Main Street flow and alleviate potential concerns about the safety of this intersection. Table 10 shows the University Heights capacity analysis. Table 10: University Heights Capacity Scenarios for the 2008 Build PM Peak Period Scenario 2- 25% of Scenario 3 - 50 % of Western Directed Western Directed Scenario 1- No Gutterson Traffic Gutterson Traffic Intersection Circulation Changes Uses University Uses Universitv Los Delay LOS Delay LOS Dela Main and East PM Build 2008 B 19 8 18 B 18 Main and Spear PM Build, 2008 D 51 D 47 D 46 Main and University Heights PM Build, 2008 8 15 B 15 B 18 The LOS results for all scenarios are comparable, suggesting that the interior roadway linkage between Gutterson and University Heights can act to spread out exciting left turning traffic from this portion of the UVM campus onto Main Street. Given capacity constraints on Main Street, it makes sense to prohibit westbound left turns from 1 Main Street into University Heights, as part of the overall circulation scheme. Currently there is no exclusive lane for left turning vehicles. The lack of an exclusive left turn lane has two negative traffic consequences. First, the occasional left turning vehicle will interrupt arterial flow on Main Street. Second, left turning vehicles present a safety concern precisely because they are infrequent and often unanticipated by advancing drivers. Prohibiting this turning movement is a simple way to create capacity within the Main Street arterial without severely restricting travel options. Main and Prospect: In our judgment, the results at Main and Prospect do not accurately reflect field conditions. Field observations indicate that this intersection currently operates at LOS F for at least 20 minutes of the PM peak hour. LOS F is indicated by vehicles waiting through multiple cycles J before moving through the intersection, and by chronic queue spillback. Queue spillbacks are a particular concern at the southbound approach, where spillbacks can be observed to interfere with operations at the College/Prospect intersection. Improving operations at the Main/Prospect intersection is challenging due to the geometric constraints and high vehicular and pedestrian demand. It may be advisable to install a queue detector on the southbound approach to the Main/College intersection that can detect spillback before it occurs and signal the controller to shift green time to the southbound movement. This potential mitigation must be analyzed in conjunction with the overall coordination of the corridor. If good peak hour flow can be maintained while allowing for signal preemption during spillback, then this mitigation should be pursued. The proposed projects increase through vehicle trips to the Main/Prospect intersection (eastbound and westbound through traffic). However, due to the overall reduction of parking spaces at the Redstone Campus, the proposed projects result in reducing northbound right turns and westbound left turns. These movements are the most capacity constrained at the Main/Prospect intersection. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 31 Discussion of Highway Capacity Manual Estimation Techniques It is important to point out potential deficiencies in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures that can lead to inaccurate projections of intersection performance. A key problem with the HCM procedures involves modeling actuated signals in networks with significant amounts of vehicle detection, such as the Main Street corridor. The HCM procedures project congestion as if the traffic stream remains steady over the course of the analysis period (15 minutes or an hour). This makes it very difficult to account for changes in demand on particular approaches that might cause the controller to allocate unused green time on a minor leg to the major approach, which is the key objective of actuated operation. The HCM procedures do allow the analyst to estimate actuated green times. However, there are no widely accepted means for doing so. Synchro utilizes a Percentile Delay algorithm to account for the effects of actuation and coordination in a network. This algorithm estimates delay associated with traffic representing the 10th, 30th, 50th, 70th, and 90th percentile traffic streams. The delays for each scenario are calculated and averaged, with each increment representing 20% of the conditions over the period of interest (i.e. the peak hour). This approach explicitly calculates the effects of actuation on intersection performance: under lower minor approach demand, gap out or phase skipping can be modeled causing a subsequent improvement in major arterial movement. Another benefit included in the Synchro approach is the explicit calculation of arrival patterns at each intersection in the coordinated system. Under HCM procedures the analyst estimates the extent of vehicle platooning, and this estimate is inserted into the analysis as one number. Synchro explicitly models vehicle arrivals as a function of when vehicles depart an upstream intersection and of their operating speed within each roadway segment. Given these differences in approaches, it is instructive to compare the results of Table 9 (based on HCM procedures) with the LOS results provided by Synchro. This is provided in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, the results can differ significantly when platooning and actuation are accounted for. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 32 Table 11: Synchro Signalized Intersection LDS Analysis Results for the 2008 Build PM Peak Hour Synchro Average Average Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS Delay LOS Dela Main and East PM No Build, 2003 A 9 B 14 PM Build, 2003 B 11 B 18 PM No Build, 2008 B 11 B 17 PM Build 2008 B 12 B 19 Main and Spear PM No Build, 2003 B 20 C 22 PM Build, 2003 C 34 D 39 PM No Build, 2008 C 35 D 43 PM Build 2008 D 40 D 51 Main and University Heights PM No Build, 2003 A 4 A 5 PM Build, 2003 A 9 A 10 PM No Build, 2008 B 12 B 12 PM Build, 2008 B 16 B 15 Main and S. Prospect PM No Build, 2003 C 28 D 41 PM Build, 2003 C 35 D 50 PM No Build, 2008 D 44 E 64 PM Build, 2008 D 44 E 63 Table 12 shows that Synchro generally estimates better intersection operations than HCM procedures. To reiterate, this is primarily due to Synchro's consideration of varied traffic flow within the peak hour and its ability to explicitly account for the benefits of controller actuation. However, traffic analysis conventions in Vermont indicate that the HCM procedures should be relied upon for this type of study. A coordinated timing plan will alleviate some congestion at the study area intersections under some peak period traffic conditions. Table 12 shows LOS improvements achieved by making minor adjustments to the existing timing plan that are designed to achieve coordination of PM peak hour traffic flow in the corridor. 1 1 Resource Systems Group is developing a corridor -wide timing plan to satisfy permit conditions on the Fletcher AUen Health Care Renaissance project. It is anticipated that the revised corridor timing plans will be implemented in January 2002. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 Table 12: 2008 Build PM LOS Comparison of Existing Timings vs. Corridor Optimization Intersection Existing Timings Optimized Timin s LOS Delay LOS Delay Main and East Average Intersection B 19 B 15 EB 6 11 B 11 WB A 9 A 3 NB E 73 E 64 Main and Spear Average Intersection D 51 D 43 EB B 16 C 24 W B C 32 C 35 SB F >100" E 69 Main and University Heights Average Intersection B 15 B 14 EB B 16 B 15 WB B 11 B 11 NB D 48 D 52 SB D 46 D 49 Main and S. Prospect Average Intersection E 63 D 54 EB D 38 E 57 W B C 26 C 30 NB F 97 E 76 SB F >100' F 81 - The Highway Capacity Manual procedures do not accurately model delays in excess of 100 seconds. page 33 Table 13 suggests that decent coordination can be achieved in the Main Street corridor under 2008 full build traffic conditions. Reductions in overall delay ranging from 1 second per vehicle at University Heights to 9 seconds per vehicle at South Prospect are estimated for each intersection. These reductions are particularly significant when considering the overall traffic flow that would be affected — over 3,500 vehicles per hour for these intersections and up to 5,500 vehicles per hour at the Jughandle intersections. Appendix 4 contains arterial time -space diagrams for Main Street for the 3 circulation scenarios between Gutterson and University Heights (2008 Build traffic conditions). These diagrams depict the so-called bandwidth of traffic under a coordinated timing plan. The coordinated LOS results shown in Table 13 include assumptions for pedestrian crossings of Main Street during the PM peak hour. The specific number of pedestrian calls assumed at each intersection is based on field observations, and are shown in Table 14. Table 13: Pedestrian Calls per Hour Assumed at Study Area Intersections for the Coordinated Timing Plan Intersection Pedestrian Calls per Hour Main/South Prospect 20 Main/University Heights 20 Main/Spear 6 Main/East 5 Table 15 shows the unsignalized HCM LOS results for the PM Peak Period for the Spear Street/Gutterson intersection. This analysis projects significant delays for vehicles exiting the Gutterson lot. The analysis has not assumed that any of the exiting vehicles would be diverted to Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 34 other driveways, which would likely occur under this projected delay. Operations on Spear Street are projected to be relatively free flow. Table 14: Unsignalized HCM LOS Results for the PM Peak Period Intersection NB Left Ea Left LOS Delav LOS Delav Spear and North Gutterson PM No Build, 2003 A 9 F 73 PM Build, 2003 A 9 F >100' PM No Build, 2008 A 9 F >100' PM Build 2008 A 9 F >100' - The Highway Capacity Manual procedures do not accurately model delays in excess of 100 seconds. SAFETY ANALYSIS Crash histories were collected from VTrans (1995 to 1999). The data show that one of the study intersections is a High Accident Locations (HAL) (Appendix 5). Sight distance observations in the field indicated that adequate stopping- and corner sight distances exist for all intersections considered in this study. IIn order to be classified as an HAL, an intersection or road section (0.3 mile section) must meet two conditions: 1) it must have at least 5 accidents over a 5-year period; and 2) the Actual accident rate 1 must exceed the Critical Accident Rate. The Critical Accident Rate represents an average threshold rate for a particular class of roadway or intersection. Table 15 provides a breakdown of the crash data for the study area. Table 15: Recent Accident History for Intersections within the Study Area # of Accidents Main and S. Main and Uni. Main and Uni. Main and Uni. Main and Cause of Accident Prospect Place Terrace Heights Spear Main and East Disregard Traffic Signs I 3 2 4 6 Failed to Yield Right of Way 2 3 1 4 Negligence Made Improper Turn 1 1 Followed Too Closely 3 1 3 4 2 Failure to Keep in Proper Lane Exceeded Speed Limit Other (Improper Action, Weather, etc.) 6 4 1 4 4 9 Total Accidents, 1995-1999 I 14 8 5 11 11 26 Actual Accident Rate 1.009 0,604 0.403 0.803 0.576 1.299 Critical Rate 1.023 1.035 1.053 1.026 0.944 0.933 Actual/Critical Ratio I 0.987 0.583 0.383 0.783 0.610 1.392 Average Rate 0.411 0.411 0.411 0.411 0,411 0.411 The 1995-1999 data show that the Main Street and East Avenue intersection had 28 reported I accidents and has an Actual/Critical ratio exceeding 1.00. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 35 Resource Systems Group analyzed the detailed accident reports for this intersection, which are on file at the Department of Motor Vehicles. This analysis shows that the greatest number of accidents at this intersection occurred during the afternoon off-peak period (12). Figure 17 shows the distribution of accidents throughout the day at the Main/East intersection. The data suggest a relatively even occurrence of accidents throughout the day, with the exception of the 11 AM hour, which had a much higher prevalence of accidents than the other hours of the day. Figure 17. Recent Accidents for the Intersection of Main Street and East Avenue by Time of Day 6 y 4 -- - - a U Q 0 3 — -- CD = 2 Z a a I y Oo Q oP oP oP 0 0 0 oP oQ oQ oQ 0 0 0 0 oQ 0 oQ oQ 0 0 o § 0F oQ oQ oP 0 0 0 0 0 o0 �- �- ,�o ,�:- ,��;- (b. 1- �� �moo. �ti. Time of Day Most of the accidents during the afternoon off-peak period were caused by inattention. The accidents at Main Street and East Avenue fall almost exclusively into two categories: rear -end collisions and accidents after running a red light. The following table displays the number of accidents by type and direction. J Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 36 Figure 18: Number of Accidents at Main Street and East Avenue by Type and Direction 12 10 rear -end ■ ran a red light 2 U eastbound westbound northbound southbound Direction of Traffic Rear -end collisions were concentrated in the early evening period (4:00PM-7:00PM) and the afternoon off-peak period (11:00AM-4:00PM). Most rear -end collisions occurring during peak traffic periods were caused by vehicles following too closely. The midday period saw many rear -end collisions that resulted from driver inattention. .accidents stemming from failing to yield to a red light were spread throughout the day compared to rear -end collisions. During the AM and PM peak periods, inattention was cited as the cause of drivers running the red light. In general there seemed to be no underlying cause for running red lights. It appears that drivers simply chose to ignore the red light and tried to sneak through the intersection. Most accidents, both rear -ends and collisions after running a red light, were heavier for eastbound vehicles (outbound from Burlington during the PM peak) than for westbound vehicles. Eastbound drivers looking for the entrance to 1-89 are factors in some of the accidents. Their search for directions makes them less attentive to the road, and this sometimes results in a collision. Also, the sudden expansion of the road from two eastbound lanes to three at this intersection causes some driver confusion. Additionally, several recent and ongoing construction projects have served as a source of distraction for drivers as they passed through the intersection of Main Street and East Avenue. Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 37 Several safety issues were discussed at our meeting with the Burlington Department of Public Works. The first safety issue discussed was the safety of left turning vehicles from Main Street to the side streets. One element of this concern was the height of bushes along the Main Street median strip, which can block a driver's view. If the bushes are trimmed appropriately, this should not be a significant safety concern. However, if additional traffic is added to University Heights, we recommend prohibiting the Main Street westbound left turn movement. This measure is designed to enhance Main Street arterial flow and improve safety at this intersection. The second issue raised concerned the duration of the pedestrian phase at University Place. Currently during the PM Peak Hour there is 17 seconds of crossing time (Walk plus flashing Don't Walk) provided to pedestrians. The width of the crossing is approximately 75 feet. An average walking speed of 3 mph (4.4 feet per second) requires the full 17 seconds of time allocated. Inadequate crossing time does not appear to be a problem. PROPOSED MITIGATION New traffic generated by the UVM development proposals will travel through several intersections that are already experiencing congestion. The mitigation measures recommended below are designed to alleviate congestion and improve traveler safety within the study area: 1. Implement time of day coordinated timings plans for the Main Street corridor. Develop an interior roadway connection between the Gutterson parking facility and University Heights. The roadway connection should comply with local street standards, using minimum paved widths for travel lanes in order to discourage high-speed travel. Traffic internal to this portion of the UVM campus can select between Spear Street and University Heights to access Main Street. This "driver choice" potential will create efficiencies in distributing site traffic to the local network. 3. Prohibit westbound left turns at the Main/University Heights intersection. This turn prohibition should provide additional capacity to Main Street by enhancing the coordinatability of the arterial. The left turn prohibition should go into effect upon completion of the interior roadway linking Gutterson with University Heights. 4. Expand the University Heights approach to Main Street to include two lanes: one exclusive left turn lane and a shared through -right lane. This improvement should be constructed and in operation upon completion of the interior roadway linking Gutterson with University Heights. 5. Improved signage at the eastbound approach to the Jughandle that informs motorists of upcoming lane assignments to access Interstate 89. This mitigation measure is designed to address a portion of the accidents that occur at the Jughandle intersections. The following mitigation measures are not recommended specifically for the UVM project but should be the subject of further discussion with respect to Burlington and South Burlington traffic concerns. 1. If coordinated timing plans are not compromised, install a queue detector at the southbound approach to the Main/South Prospect intersection. This detector should be tied to the WNY Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 38 Main/Prospect signal controller to provide early detection of queue spillback toward the intersection at College Street. The recommended detection is Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor (RTMS), which can be mounted on a street -side pole and detect multiple lanes simultaneously. This detector can signal to the controller the need to flush the queue. This measure can be effective in improving overall traffic operations, but should be evaluated for its effect on Main Street corridor progression. 2. Install a red light running camera at the eastbound and westbound approaches to the Main Street and East Avenue intersection. This mitigation measure has shown itself to be extremely effective in improving safety at congested intersections in other urban areas. At this point in time, such enforcement cameras are not legal in Vermont. SUMMARY The University of Vermont is proposing to develop a 400-bed student housing project called South Ledge. South Ledge will be built on the Redstone Campus adjacent to the existing Redstone Apartments. The South Ledge Project will be very similar to the existing Redstone Apartment Complex in its design and in the population it serves. The South Ledge project is proposed to be built on existing surface parking lots on the Redstone Campus, displacing 146 parking spaces. To accommodate the parking demand from both the South Ledge project and the displaced Redstone Campus parking spaces, a new parking garage is proposed to be constructed on the existing Gutterson Surface Parking Lot. The new parking garage will be designed to accommodate up to 550 parking spaces. In addition, UVM is planning to construct an 850-bed traditional dormitory complex on the existing University Heights development. This traffic study includes the projected dormitories in the analysis of future traffic conditions. JThis study analyzes the traffic impacts related to these proposed changes on campus. The proposed South Ledge housing and the Gutterson Parking Garage expansion is estimated to generate an additional 74 AM peak hour trips and an additional 125 PM peak hour trips. The impact of these new vehicle trips are evaluated at five intersections: ■ Main Street and East Avenue; ■ Main Street and Spear Street; ■ Main Street and University Heights; ■ Main Street and South Prospect Street; and ■ Spear Street and Gutterson North Entrance. Traffic conditions are estimated for the 2003 and 2008. The 2003 traffic impacts include the proposed South Ledge project and the Gutterson Garage project. The 2008 analysis includes the impacts from South Ledge, the Gutterson Garage, and the projected 850-bed University Heights Traffic Impact Analysis of a Proposed Expansion of On -Campus Housing at UVM Resource Systems Group, Inc. December 2001 page 39 dormitory complex. The dormitory complex is estimated to generate approximately 110 AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips respectively. Future traffic conditions include growth in background traffic of 2.2% annually, plus additional trips associated with Fletcher Allen Health Care's Renaissance Project. The traffic analysis indicates that projected congestion is more problematic during the PM peak hour. Optimizing the signal timings is seen as the most practical approach for mitigating congestion through the entire corridor. Table 16 summarizes the LOS for the design hour including LOS results demonstrating the effectiveness of corridor optimization for the 2008 Build scenario. Table 16: LOS Summary Table PM Build, 2008 Intersection PM No Build 2003 PM Build, 2003 PM No Build, 2008 PM Build, 2008 Optimized Timin s LOS Delay LOS DelaV LOS Delay LOS Dela LOS Delay Main and East Average Intersection B 14 B 18 B 17 B 19 B 15 Main and Spear Average Intersection C 22 D 39 D 43 D 51 D 43 Main and University Heights Average Intersection A 5 A 10 B 12 B 15 B 14 Main and S. Prospect Average Intersection D 41 D 50 E 64 E 63 D 54 In addition to the retuning measure mentioned above, other mitigation measures recommended to mitigate traffic congestion and safety impacts are: ■ Develop an interior roadway network between Gutterson and University Heights, and managing access to University Heights according to the destination of the user. ■ Prohibit westbound left turns at the intersection of Main Street and University Heights. ■ Develop a 2-lane approach on University Heights at its approach to Main Street. ■ Improve signage to Interstate 89 at the intersection of Main Street and East Avenue. With these mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the surrounding roadway network. The following mitigation measures are not recommended specifically for the UVM project but should be the subject of further discussion with respect to Burlington and South Burlington traffic concerns. ■ Installing at red light running camera at the intersection of Main Street and East Avenue. Despite recent results showing the effectiveness of this technology, installing such camera is not currently legal in Vermont. ■ Installing a queue detector to detect southbound queues at the intersection of Main and South Prospect. This measure can be effective in improving overall traffic operations, but should be evaluated for its effect on Main Street corridor progression. APPENDIX 1 TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING LETTER RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM I To: Justin Rabidoux, Carol Duncan J From: Nicole Buck Subject: Scope of Traffic Study, UVM Residential and Gutterson Parking Garage Proposals I Date: 27 September 2001 J Cc: Michael Douglass, Bob Penniman The purpose of this letter is to outline the scope of the traffic study for UVIVI's proposal to develop student housing proximate to the existing Redstone Apartments and Gutterson Fieldhouse (referred to below as the Ambling proposal). The basis for this letter is our 24 September meeting at the Burlington Department of Public `Yorks. This memorandum has the following parts: 1. Project Description 2. Traffic Scenarios Analyzed 3. Other Developments 4. Trip Generation 1 5. Projected Infrastructure Improvements 6. Intersections Analyzed for Congestion J7. Safety Concerns 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Ambling proposal is for the property located to the east of the existing Redstone Apartments and to the south and east of the Gutterson Fieldhouse. A total of 400 beds will be housed in four separate buildings. These buildings will be situated upon existing surface parking lots, displacing 317 surface parking spaces. J The resulting parking shortfall is estimated to be 617 spaces. This consists of the displaced 317 surface spaces, plus an estimated 300-space demand from the new residential complex. To meet this shortfall, two new parking areas will be developed. There will be a total of 155 surface lot spaces added within the Ambling proposal. A 140-space surface parking lot will be development behind Simpson Hall. Traffic to and from this lot would access South Prospect only. This parking lot will be designated Zone 1 parking for students, which means it will be available to all students for a higher 1 331 Olcott Drive, White River Junction, Vermont 05001 TE L 802.295,4999 •. FAX 802.295.1006 ■ www.rsginc.com Project Memorandum Resource Systems Group, Inc. 27 September 2001 page 2 cost than proposed parking structure located adjacent to Gutterson Fieldhouse. The remaining 15 spaces will be allocated to handicap and pickup/drop-off adjacent to the Ambling development. The second parking area is a proposed parking structure located upon the existing surface parking area at Gutterson Fieldhouse. This parking structure will be a 3-floor facility designed to accommodate the remaining shortfall of 462 spaces (617 — 155 = 462). The facility can be designed to provide access to Spear Street and to Main Street via University Heights. The access regimen that is ultimately put in place will depend in large part on the capacity at the Main Street/University Heights intersection versus the Jughandle intersection. 2. TRAFFIC SCENARIOS ANALYZED Based on our discussions, and based on traffic analysis conventions, we will analyze traffic for the following scenarios: ■ 2003 No Build ■ 2003 Build, including traffic from the proposal ■ 2008 No Build ■ 2008 Build, including traffic from the proposal At the suggestion of Amy Gamble from VTrans, we will use Continuous Traffic Counter D099 (located on I-189 in South Burlington) to adjust traffic counts to 2003 and 2008 conditions. D099 reflects a relatively high background growth rate of 2.2% compounded annually. This will be used to account for the majority of other development volumes within the project area. We will analyze traffic conditions and congestion (LOS) for the AM Peak Hour and the Design I Hours. J 3. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS It is conventional to consider traffic from developments that might affect traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed project. UVM plans to replace the buildings currently located on University Heights with an underclassmen housing development. This project is expected to add a net new 137 beds to the UVM campus by 2008 and 386 beds by 2012. For the purposes of this analysis, vehicle trips associated with the 386 net new beds will be included in the 2008 analysis. As this project gets closer to being permitted, we expect another traffic impact study will be preformed to analyze the impact of this project in greater detail. 1 The design hour represents the 30,h highest hour of traffic in a year for a particular intersection or roadway segment. In Burlington, the design hour is usually the hour between 4:30 PNI and 5:30 PM. Project Memorandum 27 September 2001 Resource Systems Group, Inc. page 3 There have been several development proposals in the Burlington/South Burlington area that could have an impact on traffic volumes on Main Street corridor (e.g. Odell Parkway PUD, Fletcher Allen Health Care expansion, Main Street Landing Phase II, and others). We have considered accounting for these additional vehicle trips explicitly. However, the impact of these various development proposals on the Main Street corridor, while not negligible, is also not direct. For this reason, we will account for vehicle trips from other permitted, but not yet built, developments, by using the higher background traffic growth rate — 2.2% annually — obtained by using counter D099. This process was described in Section 2. 4. TRIP GENERATION We have conducted site counts to determine trip generation for the existing 200-bed Redstone 1 Apartments. The trip rates are 0.15 per bed for the AM peak hour and 0.20 per bed for the design hour. We will apply these rates to the proposed 400-bed Ambling project. The new University Heights project is expected to be completed before 2008 and will therefore be included in the 2008 analysis. The new 800-bed University Heights development is expected to be similar to the existing Living and Learning complex located adjacent to the existing University I Heights development. Tube counts of the existing Living and Learning complex have been performed and will be used to determine the trip generation rates of the proposed development. 1 5. PROJECTED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS As discussed in our meeting, Resource Systems Group will begin analyzing the retuning of the Main J Street corridor. If it is determined that the coordinated signal system is necessary to mitigate traffic impacts from the residential proposal, then the capacity analysis will reflect the anticipated signal coordination. If the UVM residential project will be directly impacted by the retiming project, then I this will be discussed in the report; however, it is not expected to have a significant impact on the UVM project. As part of the construction of the structured parking at Gutterson Fieldhouse, a new roadway connecting University Heights with the Patrick Gym drop-off circle and with one floor of the new garage is being contemplated. A management policy will be required that will control vehicle flow to and from the new garage through University Heights. A complete closure of this roadway would mean that all of the vehicles using the garage would need to use Spear Street. Project Memorandum Resource Systems Group, Inc. 27 September 2001 page 4 6. INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED FOR CONGESTION Table 1 shows the intersections that will be analyzed for congestion. Table 1: Intersections Analyzed for Congestion, 2003 Traffic Conditions Intersection Control Main Street and University Heights Signalized Main Street and Prospect Street Signalized Spear Street and Gutterson North Entrance Eastbound Stop Spear Street and Gutterson South Entrance Eastbound Stop Prospect Street and Redstone North Entrance Westbound Stop Prospect Street and Redstone South Entrance Westbound Stop Main Street and the Jug Handle Signalized 7. SAFETY CONCERNS Where were a several safety concerns that were raised at our meeting, which will be included in the traffic impact analysis. The first concern was the visibility of oncoming traffic for left turners through the bushes along Main Street. The second issue raised was the duration of the pedestrian phase at Main Street and University Place and whether it was long enough to actually allow for pedestrian crossings. Thirdly, safety concerns were raised regarding the sight distance of vehicles exiting the southerly Redstone Apartments driveway. Field measurements will be made to determine actual versus recommended sight distances. Field observations of pedestrian crossing times and frequency will also be made. In concert with our development of the coordinated signal timing plan; we will determine an optimal method for integrating pedestrian phases into the overall plan. We will obtain crash data from VTrans and from the UVM campus police. We will analyze the data to determine whether and High Accident Locations currently exist, or whether high numbers of particular types of accidents are tending to occur along Main Street. We will interview an official of the Burlington Police Department to obtain more information on safety and speed along Main Street. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments about this scope. Thank you. RAW TRAFFIC COUNT DATA AM Raw Traffic Count Data EB WB NB SB One -Way Gutterson LT Burlington, VT TH 361 10/10/2001 RT Enter 0 0 0 361 361 Exit 0 0 0 361 361 Trucksl 0.0% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB Gutterson South & Spear LT 3 0 42 0 Burlington, VT TH 0 0 532 164 11/16/2000 RT 3 0 0 13 Enter 6 0 574 177 757 Exit 0 55 535 167 757 Trucksl 0.0% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB Gutterson North and Spear LT 55 0 23 0 Burlington, VT TH 0 0 498 166 11/16/2000 RT 5 0 0 195 942 Enter 60 0 521 361 942 Exit 0 218 553 171 942 Trucksl 3.3% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB Main and Sheraton LT 34 28 10 63 Burlington, VT TH 1178 2132 3 2 10/10/2001 RT 10 176 3 20 3659 Enter 1222 2336 16 85 3659 Exit 1244 2162 213 40 3659 Trucksl 2.7% 1 0.6% AM Raw Traffic Count Data EB WB NB SB Jughandle Y LT 332 Burlington, VT TH 442 10/10/2001 RT 774 Enter 0 332 0 442 774 Exit 0 0 0 774 774 Trucksl 2.7% 1 0.6% EB WB NB SB Main Street -East Street LT 0 0 266 0 Burlington, VT TH 1085 1388 329 0 10/10/2001 RT 0 796 137 0 4001 Enter 1085 2184 732 0 4001 Exit 1222 1654 1125 0 4001 Trucksl 2.7% 1 0.6% 1 2.6% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB Main Street -Spear Street LT 0 0 0 366 Burlington, VT TH 719 1654 0 330 10/10/2001 RT 146 0 0 61 3276 Enter 865 1654 0 757 3276 Exit 1085 1715 0 476 3276 Trucksl 2.7% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB University Heights - Main LT 1 9 19 0 Burlington, VT TH 769 1497 0 11 11/16/2000 RT 8 0 6 0 2320 Enter 778 1506 25 11 2320 Exit 775 1516 1 28 2320 Trucksl 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% EB WB NB SB Main Street/University Terrace LT 0 4 6 0 Burlington, VT TH 870 1493 0 0 10/10/2001 RT 4 0 9 0 2386 Sythesized from enter/exit counts Enter 874 1497 15 0 2386 Exit 879 1499 0 8 2386 Trucksl 0.0% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB Main Street -University Place LT 29 0 0 2 Burlington, VT TH 874 1359 0 0 10/10/01 RT 0 62 0 29 2355 Enter 903 1421 0 31 2355 Exit 876 1388 91 0 2355 Trucksl 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% AM Raw Traffic Count Data EB WB NB SB Main Street -South Prospect Street LT 0 154 0 290 Burlington, VT TH 400 759 144 116 10/10/01 RT 2 464 214 15 2558 Enter 402 1377 358 421 2558 Exit 904 774 608 272 2558 Trucksl 0.0% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB South Prospect - North Redstone LT 2 5 0 22 Burlington, VT TH 0 0 204 118 11/16/00 RT 1 26 3 1 382 Enter 3 31 207 141 382 Exit 25 1 232 124 382 Trucksl 0.0% 1 3.2°a 1 1.0% 1 2.8% PM Raw Traffic Count Data EB WB NB SB Gutterson Entrance Only LT Burlington, VT TH 560 10/9/2001 RT Enter 0 0 0 560 Exit 0 0 0 560 Trucks 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.8% 1 0.5% EB WB NB SB Gutterson South & Spear LT 38 0 11 0 Burlington, VT THF 0 0 243 422 11/15/00 RT 42 0 0 16 Enter 80 0 254 438 Exit 0 27 281 464 Trucks I 0.0°6 1 0.0% 1 0.8 % 1 0.5°/ EB WB NB SB Gutterson North and Spear LT 244 0 8 0 Burlington, VT TH 0 0 264 415 1 1 /15/2000 RT 12 0 0 145 Enter 256 0 272 560 Exit 0 153 508 427 Trucks 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.2% EB WB NB SB Main and Sheraton LT 18 96 62 161 Burlington, VT TH 2O684 1636 0 9 10/9/2001 RT 96 71 21 19 4:30 -5:30 peak Enter 2178 1803 83 189 Exit 2246 1717 89 201 Trucks 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 560 560 772 772 4253 4253 4253 PM Raw Traffic Count Data EB WB NB SB Jughandle Y LT 0 312 0 0 Burlington, VT TH 0 0 0 1291 10/9/2001 RT 0 0 0 0 1603 4:30 -5:30 peak Enter 0 312 0 1291 1603 Exit 0 0 0 1603 1603 EB WB NB SB Main Street East Street LT 0 175 0 Burlington, VT E19 TH5 1206 163 0 10/09/01 RT 619 233 0 4341 Enter 1945 1825 571 0 4341 Exit 2178 1381 782 0 4341 Trucks 1 0.0°% 1 0.0% 1 0.0°% 1 0.0°% EB WB NB SB Main Street -Spear Street LT 0 0 0 733 Burlington, VT TH 1212 1381 0 531 10/09/01 RT 213 0 0 75 4145 Enter 1425 1381 0 1339 4145 Exit 1945 1456 0 744 4145 Trucks 1 0.0°% 1 0.0% 1 0.0°% 1 0.0 EB WB NB SB University Heights - Main LT 6 14 20 0 Burlington, VT TH 1469 1187 1 10 11/15/00 RT 5 4 9 0 2725 Enter 1480 1205 30 10 2725 Exit 1478 1207 11 29 2725 Trucks 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% EB WB NB SB Main Street/University Terrace LT 0 9 10 0 Burlington, VT TH 1471 1178 0 0 10/09/01 RT 13 0 8 0 2689 Sythesized from enter/exit counts Enter 1484 1187 18 0 2689 Exit 1479 1188 0 22 2689 Trucks 1 0.0°% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% EB WB NB SB Main Street -University Place LT 52 0 0 12 Burlington, VT TH 1484 1206 0 0 10/09/01 RT 0 93 0 27 2874 Enter 1536 1299 0 39 2874 Exit 1496 1233 145 0 2874 Trucks 1 0.0% 1 0.0°% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% PM Raw Traffic Count Data EB WB NB SB Main Street -South Prospect Street LT 0 181 0 447 Burlington, VT TH 647 591 150 122 10/09/01 RT 41 447 365 17 3008 Enter 688 1219 515 586 3008 Exit 1459 608 597 344 3008 Trucks 1 0.0 % 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% APPENDIX 3 SYNCHRO AND HCS RESULTS IHCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Lalyst: Janet Choi gency/Co.: Resource Systems Group ate Performed: 12/11/2001 nalysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour No Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington nalysis Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 ast/West Street: Gutterson North orth/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS rajor Street: Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Northbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L Rlolume 8 peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 Lercent Heavy Vehicles 0 edian Type Undivided RT Channelized? Southbound 5 6 T R 1.00 346 605 145 1.00 1.00 1.00 346 605 145 anes 0 1 onfiguration LT Upstream Signal? No nor Street: Approach Movement Volume eak Hour Factor, PHF ourly Flow Rate, HFR ercent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage lared Approach: Exists? Storage T Channelized? anes Configuration Delay, jApproach NB ovement 1 Lane Config LT Westbound 7 8 9 L T R L 1 0 TR Yes Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R 244 12 1.00 1.00 244 12 0 0 0 No 1 1 L R Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 7 8 9 10 11 I L F (vph) 8 244 C(m) (vph) 868 255 IV / C 0.01 0.96 R2 12 456 0.03 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 0.03 9.2 A 16.58 141.0 F HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 Janet Choi Resource Systems Group Phone: E-Mail. Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS 135.0 F Analyst: Janet Choi Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour No Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 0.08 13.1 I B I 1 Volume 8 346 605 145 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I Peak-15 Minute Volume 2 86 151 36 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 346 605 145 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- -- -- I Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 244 12 r Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Peak-15 Minute Volume 61 3 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 244 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Jedian Storage lared Approach: Exists? Storage �T Channelized? anes Configuration No 1 1 L R Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments lovements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Tane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Jalking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ercent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet �2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Through 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Tforksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 hared In volume, major th vehicles: 346 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 lat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 umber of major street through lanes: 1 orksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation ritical ovement Gap Calculation 1 L 4 L 7 L 8 T 9 R 10 L 11 T 12 R (c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 (hv) 0 0 0 (c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 rade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (3, lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 (c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 I2-stage Follow -Up Time Calculations tovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 1 t(f,base) 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 P (HV) 0 t(f) 2.2 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 3.50 0.90 0 3.5 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 V(t) V(l,prot) 3.30 0.90 0.90 0 3.3 1 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) I V prog 60 60 J Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 I Effective Green, g (sec) 20 20 l Cycle Length, C (sec) 60 60 Rp (from table 9-2) 1.000 1.000 I Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.333 0.333 J g(q1) 1.4 1.4 g(q2) 0.1 0.1 g(q) 1.5 1.5 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 1 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 27.211 Smoothing Factor, F 0.094 t Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.080 0.080 J Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 18 18 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 0.0 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result } p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.000 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) 1.000 p(4) p(7) I p(8) 1 p(9) p(10) 1.000 (12) 1.000 4 and 5 fomputation Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R c,x 750 1040 678 s 1700 1700 1700 x 1.000 1.000 1.00 c,u,x 750 1040 678 r,x 868 257 456 plat,x 868 257 456 jTwo-Stage Process J 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 IV (c,x) s 1700 1700 (x) r (c, u, x) (r,x) (plat, x) forksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 onflicting Flows 678 Potential Capacity 456 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ovement Capacity 456 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.97 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Flows 750 Eonflicting otential Capacity 868 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 868 probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 aj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Capacity rotential edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Capacity Povement robability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 IS tep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1040 Potential Capacity 257 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 255 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 11 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: r a y Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1040 Potential Capacity 257 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 IMaj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 ,Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 255 Results for Two -stage process: la y C t 255 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations ,Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 244 12 Movement Capacity (vph) 255 456 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 1C sep 255 456 Volume 244 12 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 1round (Qsep +1) n max C sh ISUM C sep n .0 act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R 1v (vph) 8 244 12 C (m) (vph) 868 255 456 0.01 0.96 0.03 Jv/c 95% queue length 0.03 16.58 0.08 Control Delay 9.2 141.0 13.1 A F B JLOS Approach Delay 135.0 Approach LOS F J Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.99 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 346 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 I s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.99 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.1 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 11 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? 1.00 356 617 196 1.00 1.00 1.00 356 617 196 Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal? No 1 0 TR Yes Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 -9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 301 15 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 301 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (o) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 Lane Config LT L v (vph) 11 301 C(m) (vph) 823 236 v/c 0.01 1.28 V 5oqueue length 0.04 43.00 0.11 ontrol Delay 9.4 578.7 13.6 LOS A F B pproach Delay 551.9 Approach LOS F 1 IHCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 t7�anet Choi Resource Systems Group I hone: Fax: -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: gency/Co.: Resource Systems Group ate Performed: 12/11/2001 nalysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Build ntersection: Spear/Gutterson North urisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington nalysis Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 tast/West Street: Gutterson North orth/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments r ajor Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 11 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 peak-15 Minute Volume 3 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 edian Type Undivided RT Channelized? 356 617 196 1.00 1.00 1.00 89 154 49 356 617 196 anes 0 1 onfiguration LT Upstream Signal? No 1 0 TR Yes inor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R JVolume 301 15 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 F eak-15 Minute Volume 75 4 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 301 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 (Percent Grade (o) 0 0 1.00 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration No 1 1 L R Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments r Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage Prog. Flow vph 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Through 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 L Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to J Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 356 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 I t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 0 0 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 I Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2-stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 (f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 (HV) 0 0 0 (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Porksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) prog 60 60 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Type 3 3 �rrival ffective Green, g (sec) 20 20 Cycle Length, C (sec) 60 60 (from table 9-2) 1.000 1.000 Tp roportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.333 0.333 g(q1) 1.4 1.4 (q2) 0.1 0.1 (q) 1.5 1.5 omputation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) llpha 0.550 eta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 27.211 Factor, F 0.094 imoothing roportion of conflicting flow, f 0.074 0.074 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 17 17 platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Iin uration of blocked period, t(p) 0.0 0.0 roportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 �omputati.on 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 J(5) 0.000 (dom) 0.000 p (subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion nblocked (1) or minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process 1(1) 1.000 p(4) (7) (8) p(9) 1(10) 1.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(11) p(12) 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 813 1093 715 s 1700 1700 17nf Px 1.000 1.000 1.i i V c,u,x 813 1093 715 C r,x 823 239 43,1 C plat,x 823 239 43�. Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) r s 1700 1700 P(X) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C (plat, x) Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations I Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 715 Potential Capacity 434 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 434 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 r Conflicting Flows 813 Potential Capacity 823 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 823 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.98 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 I Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 I Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 conflicting Flows 1093 Potential Capacity 239 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 aj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.99 lovement Capacity 236 �orksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows potential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt povement Capacity robability of Queue free St. art 2 - Second Stage onflicting Flows otential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Lap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity : 11 art 3 - Single Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity redestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity sult for 2 stage process: t robability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 tep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage onflicting Flows otential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor lap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity art 2 - Second Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity Part.3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1093 1 Potential Capacity 239 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.99 Movement Capacity 236 I Results for Two -stage process: a y C t 236 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 301 15 Movement Capacity (vph) 236 434 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 236 434 Volume 301 15 Delay I Q sep J Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R v (vph) 11 301 15 C(m) (vph) 823 236 434 v/c 0.01 1.28 0.03 I 95% queue length 0.04 43.00 0.11 Control Delay 9.4 578.7 13.6 LOS A F B Approach Delay 551.9 Approach LOS F krksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay P (oj ) (il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 (i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 (il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 L* (oj ) (M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes V(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 Movement 2 0.99 356 0 1700 1700 0.98 9.4 1 0.2 Movement 5 1.00 IHCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 Iajor Street: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Inalyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Iate Performed: 12/11/2001 nalysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour No Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington nalysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 fast/West Street: Gutterson North orth/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Northbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L olume 8 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 lercent Heavy Vehicles 0 edian Type Undivided RT Channelized? Study period (hrs): 1.00 Southbound 5 6 T R 310 549 145 1.00 1.00 1.00 310 549 145 �anes 0 1 onfiguration LT Upstream Signal? No inor Street: Approach Westbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R �7o lume eak Hour Factor, PHF ourly Flow Rate, HFR ercent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (�) edian Storage lared Approach: Exists? Storage T Channelized? anes Configuration Delay, fpproach NB ovement 1 Lane Config LT 1 0 TR Yes Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R 244 12 1.00 1.00 244 12 0 0 0 No 1 1 L R Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 7 8 9 10 11 I I L 12 R (vph) 8 244 12 (m) (vph) 911 289 490 v/c 0.01 0.84 0.02 1 95% queue length 0.03 10.94 Control Delay 9.0 73.7 LOS A F Approach Delay Approach LOS HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 Janet Choi Resource Systems Group Phone: E-Mail. Analyst: Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS 0.08 I 12.5 B 70.8 I F Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour No Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 8 310 549 145 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak-15 Minute Volume 2 78 137 36 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 310 549 145 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 I Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 244 12 r 1.00 1.00 61 3 I 244 12 0 0 0 0 dedian Storage ared Approach T Channelized? anes onfiguration Exists? Storage Movements low (ped/hr) Lane Width (ft) alking Speed (ft/sec) ercent Blockage I ,S2 Left -Turn JI Through S5 Left -Turn Through 1 L edestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 No 1 R Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 hared In volume, major th vehicles: 310 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Nat umber of major street through lanes: 1 �orksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 L L L T R L T R 4.1 7.1 6.2 Jt(c,base) t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 0 0 0 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 k(c,g) rade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lt(c,T): 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 I2-stage Follow -Up Time Calculations ,Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 0 0 t(f) 2.2 3.5 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals T R 3.30 0.90 0.90 I 0 3.3 r Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal I Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)L V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9-2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g (q) 60 60 1 1700 1700 3 3 20 20 60 60 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.5 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,protj alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 27.211 Smoothing Factor, F 0.094 Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.086 0.086 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 20 20 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 0.0 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p (2 ) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.000 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U I Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) 1.000 p(4) p(7) P(8) p(9) p(10) 1.000 (11) (12) 1.000 omputation 4 and 5 ingle-Stage Process ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R c,x 694 948 622 s 1700 1700 1700 x 1.000 1.000 1.00 c,u,x 694 948 622 r,x 911 292 490 plat,x 911 292 490 Process rwo-Stage 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 t (c,x) 1700 1700 �(x) (c, u, x) C (r,x) V(plat,x) orksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 onflicting Flows 622 otential Capacity 490 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ovement Capacity 490 robability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 694 �otential Capacity 911 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 911 t robability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 aj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.99 rtep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Capacity ,Potential Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Capacity Povement robability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 948 Potential Capacity 292 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 I Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 289 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance I Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 11 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: r a Y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 r Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity cart 3 - Single Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor aj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity 948 292 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.99 289 esults for Two -stage process: C t 289 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (vph) 244 12 Movement Capacity (vph) 289 490 hared Lane Capacity (vph) orksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R sep 289 490 Volume 244 12 telay sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max Ish UM C sep n 0 act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service tovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config I LT L R Jv (vph) 8 244 12 C(m) (vph) 911 289 490 /c 0.01 0.84 0.02 5% queue length 0.03 10.94 0.08 Control Delay 9.0 73.7 12.5 A F B POS roach Delay 70.8 Approach LOS F Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.99 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 310 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.99 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.0 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I i I HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments 1.00 Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 196 1 Volume 11 317 560 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 317 560 196 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No Yes Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 1 Volume 301 15 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 301 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (o) 0 0 Median Storage I Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No I Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound I Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R v (vph) 11 301 15 C(m) (vph) 864 270 468 v/c 0.01 1.11 0.03 Fedian Storage lared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Vanes 1 1 Configuration L R Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 'Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 alking Speed (ft/sec) Y 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet �S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Through 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 .Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 538 ,Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 NSat umber of major street through lanes: 1 Porksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I L L L T R L T R ]t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 1 3 3 c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 L(ade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.70 0.00 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jt(c,T): 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 I2-stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R I t(f,base) 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 P (HV) 1 t(f) 2.2 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 3.50 0.90 3 3.5 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9-2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g (q) 3.30 0.90 0.90 I 3 3.3 r r Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) 60 60 1700 1700 3 3 20 20 60 60 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.5 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha 0.550 1 beta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 27.211 Smoothing Factor, F 0.094 I Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.148 0.148 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 34 34 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 0.0 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result r p(2) 0.000 P (5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.000 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process 1 1 movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II P(1) 1.000 p(4) P(7) I P(8) 1 P(9) p(10) 1.000 ,p(11) p(12) 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 (Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 IL L L T R L T R V c,x 406 886 298 s 1700 1700 170C IPx 1.000 1.000 1.00 V c,u,x 406 886 298 C r,x 1158 314 739 C plat,x 1158 314 739 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 IV(c,X) s 1700 1700 P (x) P(c, U, X) C (r, x) t(plat, x) rorksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 onflicting Flows 298 Potential Capacity 739 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ovement Capacity 739 robability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 406 totential Capacity 1158 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1158 robability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 aj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor `Conflicting St. 8 11 Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 ovement Capacity robability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 886 Potential Capacity 314 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.98 Movement Capacity 307 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process. a y Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage I Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity art 3 - Single Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity f edestrian Impedance Factor aj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity 886 314 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.98 307 esults for Two -stage process: C t 307 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 101 9 Movement Capacity (vph) 307 739 Phared Lane Capacity (vph) orksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R sep 307 739 Volume 101 9 �elay sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max sh C sep n C act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement Lane Config 1. 1 4 LT 7 8 9 10 L 11 12 R U (vph) 25 101 9 C(m) (vph) 1158 307 739 �/c 0.02 0.33 0.01 5% queue length 0.07 1,45 0.04 Control Delay 8.2 22.4 9.9 A C A POs roach Delay 21.4 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 538 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.97 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.3 CM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12117/2001 Main & South Prospect \\N,cki\nicki c\Projects\\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM03I60DV.sy6 \ En' £BR"'.Wei, .WOT''WBFt:t,'N13E% NBT%"'",tifOR-i -SBL: ,,,SBT''i: 66W one Configurations 1H q ? It A deal F16W(vphpl). 1710 1710 1710 :. 1710 1710 1710 1710 -'1710 1710-. 1710 1710' 1710 ane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12- 12 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 40 40 40 4.0".. 40 4.0: Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 1,00 0 85 1 00 0.85 1.00 O.BB: 11 Pr ofacted 1 00 0 95 7.00 10 1 00 1.00 0 95 1,00 aid Flow(prol) 3077 1593 1676 : 1425 1621 1378 3090 1648 ItPrmitted t.00 095 1,00 1.00 100 1.00 095 1.00 atd: Flow (perm) 3077 1593 1678 1125 /827 1378 3090 1648 Volume (vph) 0 4W 2 172 866 532 0 158 233 327 '32 17 Peak -hour factor, PHFtoo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 dj. Flow(vph) 0 460 -2 172 86fi 532 0 158 233 327 132 17 ane GroupR.. Lv h) -0' 4B2 0 172 866 5320 158 233- 327 149 si0 urn Type Prot pmaov pm+ov Prot rolected Phases 2 1 6 ,7 B 1. 7 `4- Permitted Phases 6 9 4 Actuated Green, G is) i 48.1 15 2 68.3:' 84.0 ,: 10 0 25.2: 15 7 30G7'. Effective Green, g (s) 49.1 16.2 69.3 86.0 12.0 28.2 16.7 32.7 g/C Raho 0 45 ' OAS 0.63' 0.78 " 0,11 0.26 0.15 0.30 rNoted lea Time al 50 5.0 5.0 50 60 5.0 50 6.0 Vehmle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0: Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1373 235 1056 1166 177 353 469 490 /s Ratio Prot 0.15 0.11 c0.52 0.07 c0.10 0.10..c0.11 00g W. Ratio Perm 0.30 0.07 v/c Ratio '034 ,"073 :: 0.82 0.46 0.89 0.66 0.70 0.30 of 198 44B 15.6 4.1 484 36.6 443 29.9 Progression Factor - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4,00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 ,Unit,,,Delay, Increme 1 I Delay. d2 0 1 11 1 7.1 0.3 38 7 4.6 4.5 0.4 Way(s) : 200 56.0 22.7 4.4 871 41.2. 4B.7 30.2 ; Level of Seance B E C A F D D C Approach Delay (s) :. 200 20.1 ;: 59.7 :: 42"A) Approach LOS B C E D liduraection Summer HCM Average Control Delay 29.2 HCM Level o1 Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 110.0 Sum of lost time (a) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utlization 80 2% °...ICU Level of Service D' c Criiical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page I resourwnit-sx51 F- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21' Main & Unl Heights \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM0300DV.sy6 __W -• l 'r - Z 1 ( /- j .`-'ement EBL '.-EBT EBR---WBL WBT�'.y4i�RF'�A°WB[i'1't NBfi�zkFMNL,t SD1/l`-9WP@.` Lana Configurations tl• 4+ 5x' )r 1) Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1710 1710. 1710. 1710 1710 1710. 1710: 1710 1110= 1710 1710 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 1 Total Lost time (a) CO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 one UTA Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 100 rpb ped/blkes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1 00 Ipb pad/b kes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 094 n Loo 1.00 1.00 0,85 100 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 T95 Said. Flow (poll 3180 3184 1486 1207 1449 FII Permitted 0.95 095 0.75 1.00 0.95 aid.. Flow( perm) 3034 - 3026 1174 1207 1449 olume (vph) 1 821 8 9 1612 0 19 0 6 11 0 eak-hourlawitr,.PHF 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00:.; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00- 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 821 8,... 9 1612 ,.0. 19 0 6 11 0 Lana Group FIOW (vph) 0 830 - 0 0 1621 0 19 0 6 11 0 Confl. Pads.(#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type : Perm Perm custom custom rote t d Phases 2 6 .ermined Phases 2 6 _ B 8: 4 clu tad Green, G (s) 90.6 906 7.4 7.4 7.4 ffective Green, g (a) 92.6 92.6 9.4 ' 9.4',. 9,4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.84 0.84 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (a) 6.0 6.0 6 0 ' 6.0.. , e'0 .Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.a 3.0 3.0- 3 0 2547 100 103 124 t//sAatra Par. 0.27 c0.54 c0.02 0.00 001 c Ratio 0.32 0.64 0.19 0.06 009 Uniform Delay, di 1.9 3.0 46.8 46.2 46.4 .: Prdigression Factor I.cc 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 �ncremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 evay (s) 2 2 3. 47.7 46 46.7 al of Service A A A D D D D pproach Delay (a) 2 2 3.5 47.4 46 7 proach LOS A A D D ; iiae2ean do $dime '. iz 1 F HCM Average Control Delay 3.7 HCM Level of Service : A CM Volume c Capacity ratio 0 60 _ dusted CydaLength (s) I 11 0.0 Sum of last fir (s) B.Q lers ct on Capacity Utilization 75 9% ICU Level of Service C Critical Lane Group , I 1 Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 resourwhil-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & Spear Exit ",\Nicks\nicki c\ProjeclsWVM\UVJM\Syncwhro\UVM}AM03BBODV.sy6 Lane Configurations ttt }T "'r Ideal Raw (vphpl) 1900 1900: 1900 1g00, 19,00 ING 1900 1900 1000 1900 1900 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UtlLFactor 091 sl. (195 0881' 1.00 Loo 1.00' Fit 1.00 1.00 0,85 100 1,00 0.85 Fit Protected I.DO 1.00 1.00 0.95 0,95 1.00 Said. Flow (prof) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1616 Fit Permitted 1.00 100 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 _ Said. Flow room) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume (vph) 0 1233 0 0 1660 910 0 0 316 395 164 Peak -hour factor. PHF 1,00 t.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph). 0 1233 0 0 1660- 910 0 0 Me 395 164 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1233 0 0 1660 910 0 0 318 395 164 Heavy Vehicles (%1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% V. 0% 0% 0%. 0% 0y Turn Type Palm Prof Perm Protected Phases 2 : 6.. 3 :., 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green G (a)'- 78,B 788 r'78.8 - 29.2 -: 29.2 29.2 Effective Green, g (a) 80.8 80.8 80.8 31.2 31.2 31.2 Actuated g/C Ratio.' '0.67 0.67' 0.67 0.26 0.26 0.26 µ Clearance Time (a) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5 0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 3493 2431 1914 469 469 420 W. Ratio Prot 0.24 c0.46 0.18 b0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 0. 10 we Ratio ... 0.35 0.68. 0.46 0.60 0,84 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 B.4 11.9 9.4 39.9 42.1 36.6 Progression Factor 0.70 1.00 Loo 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 0.3 0.8 0.2 3.9 12.9 0,13 Delay (s) 6.1 12 7 9.6' 43.8 '. 55.0 37.2 ,. Level of Seance A B A D D D Approach Delay (a) : 6.1 ; 11:5-'. 0.0 47.6 Approach LOS A 0 A D Intersae�bh Sbirilfiary HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4 % ICU Level o1 Service C c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28:.Spear Exit & Spear Enter \\Nlcki\mckl c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM03BODV.sy6 _ Movement NUL N01 ZkIT SRR NFL NCR Lane Configurations tt "i" Ideal Flow(vphpl),-,1,;_: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1'.ilc 1900 Total Lost lime (a) Lane Util. Factor AM Frl Fit Protected Said. Flow (p t) Fit Permitted Said. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 0, 0 0 0 9 D' Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad). Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 Of Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type custom Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (a) Effective Green, 9 (a). Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Exte on (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph).. .1 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm1C'.«ra.:.ks3 ,r<v..�;\':>�»k.,.�:..6r.5.e., ,ari.a>,�.b zus�J„•: v/c Ratio unit..P Progression Factor A .""°,a�i�....r•r'> "a:tatuw,»,.>w.u4". ,s:r5 `r�:,mxw _ .... t v.. a«sw, ,�,R..d, , v. ,.. u., sl tar) (lkjay,' 12 Delay I Level of Semce .. ,..,..,�.�, Approach Delay (a) 0.0 0.0 0,0 Approach LOS: A A A Intere42'p6tySUf nmary4..'.:. HCM Average Control Delay 0.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Lon In (a) 24.0 Sum of losIllme (a) intersection Capacity Utilizaton 0.0 % ICU Level of Service A c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 resourwhil-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main 8 Spear Enter \W/ickAnicki c\Pro(eas\\UUVRAUVM\Synchro\UVMAM03BODV.sy6 ` Mwiemont A. Bi.; 'l:BRi 'WBL W81`. VdRR,;'_97B7_:'"E7BR'3WL2 SWIL SWR Lane Conflgurauona tT �1 i 7r ideal Flow(vphplj INN '> 1900 1900. iWO 1900 1900 1900 INN 1900 1900 .1900 Total Lost time (a) 4G 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ulil. Factor 091 0.95 0.07 1.00 1.00 Fr1 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,85 Fit Protected... 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flaw (Prot) 4951 3539 3433 1770 1583 RtPermitted ` 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 „ Said. Flow (perm) a951 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume 1 0 604 172 0 1977 0 0 0 429 AIN - 70 _ Peak -hour lector. PHF 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Ad). Flow (vph) 0 804 172 0 1977 0 0 0 429 404 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 976 0 0 1977 0 0 0 429 404 70 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (a) 36G 36.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Elf"iNe Green;. g (a) 38.0 36.0 14.0 14,0 14'.0 " Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.23 0.23 0,23 Clearance Time (a) 6.0 6.0 6.0 - 6.0 6.0 " Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3136 -. 2241 _ 801 413 369 y/s Ratio Prot G.20 c0.56 0,12 cO.23 0.04 vPo RM Perm _ v/c Ratio 0.21 0,88 0.54 0,98 019 Uniform Delay, d1 5.0 9.1 - 20.2 22.8 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.96 1,14 1.14 1.57 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 3.4 0.3 25.6 0.1 ,. Delay (a 5.3 11.2 23A 51.7 29.1 Level of Service. A 8 C D C „ Approach Delay (s) 5.3 11.2 00 16.5 Approach LOS A'- B A D t8Iersecdon Sdmiimery HCM Average G hUo1 Delay 1.5,6 HCM Level 01 Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,91 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 60.0 Sum of lost time is) 3..) ,. Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7 % ICLI Level of Sery ce c Critical Lane Group _ Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 resou irtnt-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \WickMicki c\Projects\UVhAUVM\Synchro\UVMAM0380OV.sy6 Moveme tr.',!` ' WBL -3 Lane cnr fig' -cons +1 t} Ideal Flow(vpnpl) '. 1900 1NO 1900 tear) 1900 1900 Total Lost lime is) 4.0 4.0 Lime Utl Factor 1.00 085 FrI 1.00 1.CO Fit Protected ' 0,95 1.00 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 7539 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (Perm) 1770 3539 Volume (vph) 418 0 0 0 0- 1790 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0,92 0.92 OA2 0.92 0,92 Adj. Flow (,,ph) 454 ` 0 0 0 O '...1946 Lane Group Flaw (vph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Turn Type , Protected Phases 8 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green. G (a) 12.0 36.0 EffecUye Green, 9 (a) :14G 38.0 Actuated g/C Farm 0.23 0,63 Clearance Time (a) - 6.0 : 6.0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (,ph). 413 2241 ,. v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 �.._..., ,Is Ratio Perm v/c Ratio '.'.0 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 23.0 9.0 Progression Factor i C0 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 73.9 3.9 Delay (a) 96.9 '2.6 Levalof Service. F B. - Approach Delay (s) 96.9 0.0 128 ApproachLOS F A B „ y, Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.7 HCM Levei'of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 60.0 Sum oI iost time el 8 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 6 resourwhit-sx51 I lHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVMtSynchro\UVMAM03NB0DV. sy(5 1 1 -• e l - t 1 t - `► l -' liwBlt Mf83! •MAR..: N8t .11',_. T'. St3L.- SBT am ane Configurations T r T r "i) T. deal Plow (yphPl),;:.,' 1710 1110 1710 1710 1710; 1710 1710 I'tiri0 1710° 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 :: 4.0 ane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 rt 100 1.00 1.00 085 1.00 aas 1.00 age It Prctected 1.00 095 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 atd. Flow (prof) 3077. 1593 1676. 1425 1621 1378 3090 1648. it Permitted 1.00 095 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 095 1,00 Said. Flow(perm) 3077 1693 1425 1621 1378 3090 1646. Volume (vph) 0 451 2 174 856 526 0 163 241 327 135 17 lector,: PHF 1 00 1 00 1.00 ::. 1.00 1.00 '' 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 ceak-hour l. Flow (vph) 0 451 2 174 856 526 0 163 241 327 135 17 no Group Flow(vph) 0 453 0 174 856 526 0 163 241 327 152: 0 urn Type Prot pm.ov pm+ov Prot rotected Phases. 2 1 6. . 7_ e 1 7 4` Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green; G(s) 48.1 15.2 -.$8.3 84.0 1&0 25.2. 157 30.71 ,Effectve Green, g (s) 49.1 11 69.2 86.0 12.0 21 16,7 32.7 iueted g/C Ratio 0As 0.15 0.63 0.78 0.11 0.26 0.15 0.30' erance Time (s) 50 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 50 60 [Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Tana Grp Cap(vpn) 1373 235 1056 1166 177 353 469 490 v/s Ralro Prot 0.15 0.11 c0,51. 0.07 c0.10 0.10 c0.1.1 0,09 via Ratio Perm 0,30 0.07 1,11 1,74 0,81 (145 1,92 0.68. 0.70 1,31: f m Delay. dt 19 8 44.9 15.4 4.0 48 5 36.9 44.3 29.9 fUne'0Ro Progression Factor 1.00 .. 1m 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 ' 1.00, Incremental Delay, d2 0 1 11 8 6.8 0.3 45 4 5.4 4,5 0.4 Delay (a)-. 19.9 56.7 22.1 4,3 - 93.9 42.2 48 7 30.3 Level of Service S E C A F D D C Approach [)stay is) 19.9 20.o ;: 63.1 n2 9 ADD oath LOS B e E u , IIM9rsectlorf.Sdmirmy. HCM Average Control Delay 29 8 fc;.N Lev, HCM Volume to Capacity 'at'. 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 110.0 Sum of lost time (sit 1? 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.0% ICU Level of Service , c Critical I-ane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21 : Main & Uni Heights \\Nicki\nickl_c\Pro(ects\UVM\UVM\$ynchre\UVMAM03NBODV, sy6 - 7 ~ L *\ ( / i Movamem•, 1ESL. aEDT' EBR :•`WBt. W6r":.WER"; FIE reh4�9k3 N9R � 6W4:'"8N7i '. . Lane Conllgurelions I at Y r j Ideal Flow(vphp0 1710 17f0 1710 1710 17 10: "1710� 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 Wdth 12 I2 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 disLost time (a) 4.9. 4.0... 4.0 4..0. 40 ITL.n., Lone Util. Factor 0.95 0 95 1 00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, pficift es 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.92 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes t.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 0.94 Fill i.W 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 FIt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Flow (prat) 3180 3184 1486 :1207 1449 Fit ISa'd, Permitted 0.95 0.95 0.75 1.00 0 95 Sah, Fiow (perm) 303a 3026 1174. '1207 1449 Vo)uma (vph) t B21 8 9 1598 0 19 0 6 11 0 Ppak•hour facler, PHF 1.00-. 1.00 10o :`1.00. 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 100 1,00:'. Adj. Flow (vph) 1 821 a 9 1598 0 19 0 6 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0- 63G 0 0 1607 0 19 0 6 11 0- Conll. Pees (q/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm,. '. Perm r custom cuslom Protected Phases 2 6 Permined Phases 2 6 '.9 ;a 4 Aclueled Green. G (s) 90.6 90.6 7.4 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, g(s)' 92.6 92.6 9.4 9.4 94 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,84 0.84 0.09 0.09 0,09 Clearance Time Is 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Gap (vph) 'i2554 2547 '100 103 124 /s Ratio Prof v/9: Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.53 : "c0A2 0.00 0'01 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.63 0.19 0,06 0.09 Uniform belay, d1 :': 1.9 2.9 46.8 46.2 46.4 roq essio Fact,, 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 afrom i iDelay 12 01 1.2) 0.9 0.2 03 elay ( 1 20 41 47.7 46.5 467 oval of Service. A A D D D Approach Delay (a) 2.0 4.1 47.4 46.7 Approach LOS : _ A A _ 0 0 f1lteEeacnon-Stanm ,. - ..... CM AverageCgntrol Delay 4.0 HCM Level of Service A CM Volume to Capacity ratio Itntersechon 0.59 dNated Cycle length is) 110.0 "' Sum of lost time (a) 6.0' Capacity Utilization 75.4 % ICU Level of Service C c: Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & Spear Exit \\Nicki\nicki OProjects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM03NBODV. sy6 OV, W8T'•W8ta:.i4BR(F. SBR NEF.Z< 1', itl.Ifflam Lane Configurations TTT }? rr ) 1 r Ideal Flow(vphpl) '1900 1900 -'1900 1900 1900 '1900': 1900 1900 '1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 to 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Lane Dill. Factor :` 0.91 : 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow Prot) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 161 S Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 t,00 0.95 0,95 1.00 . Said. Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume (vph) 0 1240 ,0 0 1663 902 0 0 300 372 155 Peak -hour factor. PHF 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1240 0 0, 1663 902 0 0 300 .372 155 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1240 0 0 1663 902 0 0 300 372 155 Heavy Vehicles(%). 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ..0% G% Turn Type Par. Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6 3. Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G Is) 79A 79.4 79.4 28.6 28.6 28 8 Effective Green, g (c) 81.4 81.4 81.4 30.6 30.6 30.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.26. 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6 0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 0 Lana Grp Cap (vph) 3519 2449 1928 460 460 412 We Ra1lo Poral. 0.24 00.46 0.17 1 v/s Ratio Penn 0,32 0.10 a/c Ratio 0.35 O 6B 0.47 0.65 0.81 0.38 Uniform Delay, di 82 115 9A 39.9 42.0 368 Progression Factor 0,71 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 too Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.5 0.8 3.3 10.1 0.6 Daley (s).. 5.9 13.0 9.9 43.2 52.0 37.4 Level 01 Service A B A D D „ D Approach Delay9 s) 5. 11.9 0.0 46.1 Approach LOS A B A 0 Intersection Summary • ;- ' ': HCM Average C,ntr,i Delay 16.4 ItCM Level of Service U HCM Volume to Capactty rat o 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 120.0 Sum of loss time (s) 6 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.M/ ICU Level of Service C , c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki r,\Pro)ects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM031NSODV.sy6 h t 1 J M1r]atkelt�• � t (VBI:, N8!fi??".,SBt .• BBF€li: N&L, a:Fki .n. . Lane Configurations }T rr Ideal Flow yphp9 1900 1900 _1000 ,jap 1800',1900' _. Total Lost time (a) Lane Util;'Factor ?<;r°+f',ilsrs.„,1'aS",.•r, -.' Frt Fit Protected Said. Flow (prof) F6 Permitted Said. Flow (perm) Volume (vph). 0 0 0 0 0 0: Peak hour taclor, PHF 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 092 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0;._ Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn. Type ouetp9l j: !:.` « • ,tiw.`r' 'e t4h Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases „,,,,,,a„•, �'. • a, •: 1n`,'r,V'e,Ma'� "a'`'1v•• Actuated Green. G (s) Eff-drae Green. 9 (a) Actuated g/C Ratio Dlearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension Is) Lana Grp Cap (vph).. v/s Rafio Prot v/a Ratio Perm a.. a,..,.......... k F. .. ».,,..,,. .«w.w..«:. .., .u. ..,.... .«,,. s...,:z. ..,.,..�z, v/c Ratio ,....... Uniform Delay, d1 .," Jk'. fiN�"' t Wi+a w' AC ,�`dt • 'u'e':m�i pi Progression Factor Dlay, e Delay(aritel Delay (s) Level of Serves, ':'•' - 4, Approach Delay (s) 00 00 00 Approach LOS A A A Interse2Bcn Surnttiery, ,>i1 `= ) HCM Average Control Delay 0.0 HCM Level of Service A , .rr , ,,,. HCM Volume to Capacity ratio •,• •, •A 0,00 Actuated Cycle Length Is) 24.0 Sum of lost time (a) 00 ,,.;x,;m.,3:, Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 Page 4 resourwhit-sx57 rasourwhitsx51 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM03NBOOV.sy6 Afoi/ik+ierK wtE` ''+''EBR: WBL WBT'. Wi3Ki."':NBE' r�fc..sWt2"tsWL ':SWFrfl M, Lane It " Ideal Flow(vphpl) '1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.95 0,97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 '.00 1.00 11.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1..00 0.95 0.95 1,00 Said. Flow (pros) 4956 3539 3433 1773 1583 Fit Permitted "1.00. 1,00s 0.95 095 1.00 Said. Flow (par.) 4956 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume(vph) 0.. 811 165 0 1963. 0 0 0 429 384 : 70 Peak -hour factor. PHF 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.0o '..00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adl. Flow vph): 0 811 165 0 '1963 0 0 0 429 384 70 , Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 976 0 0 '.963 0 0 429 384 7C Turn Type '„Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 360 36.0 12,e ''.2.0 12.3 EHseWe Green, g la) 38.0 38.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 3,63 0.23 023 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 : 6.0'. 6,0 60 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 30 3.0 30 3.0 Lane Grp Cap.(vph) :3139 2241. 801 413369 v/s RatioProt 0.20 c0.55 0.12 c022 3.04 via Ratio Perm - v/c Ratio 0.31 0.88 0.54 093 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 - 5.0 9.1. 242 22.5 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.87 I.'..- 1.14 '._7 morel la_ lDelay, d2 0.1 4.0 •6.4 0.1 Delay (s) 5.1 it 3?_4 y -D C.1 Level of Service A 6 C C Approach Calay ts) 5_7 11.9 n Approach LOS A , B A C €rl�ereerticn Stlrlmmery HCM Average: Control Delay : 14.8 HCM Level. of Service B HCM Volume to Cap -Iv ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle: Length (s) 60.0 Sum ptiost lime (s) 8 Intersection Capacity Uld-l- 92.2". ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group..- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \Wickilnicki_c\Projects\UVMtUVM\SynchrolUVMAM03NBODV.sy6 X t /I /. 4 % NET NER. SWL. SWT-. ."•;""1? Lane Conn g-1 n- 1! A? Ideal Flow (vphpt) ' 900 1900 1900 1000 1900 MD . Total Los; i,me is) 4 40 Larre Lill, Factor 100 0.95 ;.;.. Fit 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected _' 0,95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0,96 Said- Flow (perm) t770 3539 Volume Vph) 418 - 0 0 0 0 1790 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0,92 0A2 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Adj:Flow (vph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Lana Group Flow Nph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Tom. Type Pro(ecled Phases 8 Permitted Phases - Actuated Green, G Is) 12.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 38.0 , Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0,63 Clearance Time. (a) 6.0. 6.0 , Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph).. 413 2241 v/s Ratio Prot ,026 ,C.55 via Ratio Perm , We Ratio 1.10 0.87 Uniform Delay, of 23.0 9.0 Progression Factor 3a 1 ov Incremental Delay. d2 739 4.9 Delay (s) 96.9 139 Level of Service F Approach Delays) 96.9 0.0 13? Approach LOS ,F', A 2 (lensed-, Summary,,: HCM Average Control Delay 20.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume 1. Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 8 a Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.6". ICU Lave of Sary ca D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 Page 6 resourwhit-sx57 resourwhil-sx51 1 1 I IHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12117/2001 7: M81n & SO An Prospect \\Nlcki\nicki \Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08BODV.sy6 MdVemeM 9,6 t- '°ESC: ': EB'C" EBR- WK,`,VMT,; WBR- NBI,'NBT`FNBR S8L"� 8fi"';56F7 Lane Conf guratwns ?A 11 t " T f "i) T. Ideal Flow(yphpl) 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 1/ t2 12 12 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 4,0, 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ult. Factor OAS 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0,97 1.00 Frt i 1;00- 1.00 1 .00':' 0.85 1.00 0.85 1 00 -: 0.98 Fit Protected 1 00 0.95 ' 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 0 95 1.00 Said Flow (prdl) 3077 1593 1676 1425 1621 1378 3090 1648 FII Permnted 1,00 0 95 Loo 1.00 1.00 t.00 0 95 1.00 Said. Flow (Penn) 3077 1593 1676 1425 1621 : 1378 3090 1648 Volume tvph) 0 527 2 197 990 608 0 176 260 365 147 19 Peak -hour factor;: PHF 1.00 1;00 1.00 1,00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 Lo0 1.00 1.00 100 Atli Flow(vph) 0 527 2 197 990 608 - 0 176 260 365 147 19 Len. Group Flow (vph)' 0 529 0 197 890 60B. 0 176 260 365 166 0 Turn Type Prot pm.ov pmaov Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 7 8 1 7 - 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.2 16 0 ' 56.2 84 0 10.0 26.0 17.8 328 Effective Green, g is) 46.2 ITT 6T2 86.0 12.0 29.0 18.8 a4.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.15 pal 0.78 0 11 0.26 0.17 0.32 Comenc. Time (a) 50 50 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 50 6.0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (,ph) 1292 246 1024 1166 177 363 528 521 via Ratio Prot - 0.17 0.12 c0.59 0.09 0.11 0,11 .0.12 0.10" v/s Ratio Perm 0.34 0,08 vlc Ratio 0.41 0.80 0.97 0.52 0.99 0.72 0.69 0.32 nform Delay, dl 223 449 20.3 4.4 49.0 36.8 429 28.6rogression Factor. 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cremental Delay, d2 D 02 168 21.2 0.4 65.7 6.6 39 0.4 elays) 22.6 61.7 41.5 4,8 114.6 43.4 46.0 26:9 Level of Service C E D A F D D C Approach Delay (a) 226. 31.3 72.1 4t'2 Approach LOS C C E D thWmect on Summary. HCM Average Control Delay 36,9 HCM Laval of Service D HCM Volume toCapacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost lime (a) 12.0 IntereecticmCapacity Utilization 89.8% ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Syncnro 5 Report Page I resourwhlt-sx51 F HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Unj Heights \\N ck\n ck ,. P ofacts\UVM\UVM\Synrhro\UVMAM0880DV.sy6 Movement, " 'EBL ;.. EBT' EBR WBL Wilt.' W811i' NB£' NBR',NBR2 `SWL 'S... Lane C tgurahons TT. 4t Y " i Ideal Flow(vphp0 1710 1710 1710 '1710 1710 17t0 1710 1710: 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total Los' time (5) 4.0 4.0 40'.. 4�0 40 Lane Util Factor 0.95 0.95 1,00 0.95 1,00 Flats,/bikes , ped Lop 1:00 1.00' 0.93 1.00 Fipb. ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 097 1.00 195 Frt 1.00 't.0o 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected I.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow (plot) 3176 3182 1494 1218 1462 Perm sled 0 95 0.91 0.75 1.00 0,95 Satd Flow (perm} 3030 2908.. 1180 1218 1462 -` IFit Volume (vph) 1 915 15 37 1796 0 50 0 16 11 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.D0". 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 too Adj. Flow (vph) 1 915 15 37 1796 0 50 0 16 11 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 931 0 0 '1833 0 50 - 0 16 11 '.0 Conti. Peds. (4/hr) 10 IO 10- 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm custom custom Protected Phases 2 6 _ Permitted Phases 2`: 6 0< a 4' Actuated Green, G (s) 81 0 81.0 8 0- 8.0 8.0 EHective Green; 9 (s) : 83.0 83.0:': 10.0. tp-0 100, '. Actuated g/C Ratio 0,82 0.82 0.10 0.10 0 10 Clearance Time (a) `. 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0. 6.0 Vehicle Extens an ls) 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane G p Cap (vph) 2490 2390 117 121 145 v/s Rat o Prot We Ratio Perm " 0.31 c0.63. c0A4 0.01 oxt v/c Ratio 0.37 0.77 0.43 0.13 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1. 'I 2.3 4.3 42.8: 41.5 41.$ Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 Od 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.2 Delay(s1 27 5.9 45.a 42.0 415 L-1 of Service A A D D D Approach Delay Is) 2.7 5.9 44.5 41.5 Approach LOS A A : D/. D IitiM>�reeo "n<Se Life � .. HCM Average Control Delay 5.9 HCM Level of Service A Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 IHCM Actuated Cycle Length (a) 101-0 Sum of lost time (a) 8.0: Inie s ci n Capacity Utilization 102,2 % ICU Level of Seryce F c Critical Lane Group ` I Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 resourwhit-sx51 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & Spear Exit \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\U\VM\UVIIM\Synchro\UVMAMOBBODV.sy6 Lane Configurations t IdeeY Flgw {vpApla" '. 1900 1900 19DO Iwo 1900 1900 Iwo '.1900 1900 1900 IWO Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor . 0.91 ` 0.95 l 1.00 1.00 1.00 , Fit 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0,85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 '.1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Said Flow (prof) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Fit Permitted 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.95 0.95 100 Said Flow (permit 5187 3610 2842 t805 1805 1615 Volume (vph) 0 1387 0 0 1869 1013 0 0 359. 438 182'' Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 t.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1387 0. 0 1669 1013 '0 0 359- 438 182 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1387 0 0 1869 1013 0 0 359 438 182 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% '0% > 0% 0% '. 0% 0% 0% "-0 % 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (a) 76,2 76.2 76.2 31.8 31.8 31.8 Effective Green, g (s) 78.2 78.2 7812 33.8 33.8 33.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.28 0.28 0,211, Clearance Time (a) 60 6.0 6.0 6 0 6 0 6 0 Vehicle Extension is). 3.0 '3.0 3.0 3.0 -.30 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3380 2353 1852 508 508 455 v/s Ratio Prof 0.27 .0.52 0.20 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.36 0,11 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.79 0.55 0.71 0,86 0.40 ' Uniform Delay, dl 9.9 15.1 11A 38.7 40.9 34.9 Progression Factor 1.05. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lo0 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 - 1.9 0.3 4.5 14.0 0,6 Delay (a) 10.8 17.0 11.6 43.1 54.9 35.5 Level of Service 8 B B D D D Approach Delay fa) 10.8 15.1 `0.0 470 Approach LOS e B A D lnt"if,d im Summary HCM Ave,age Control Delay 19.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Cap.oily rate 0.81 Aclualed Cycle Length (s) 120 0 Sum of lost time (s) 80 intersection Capacity Ukllzetlon 82.13% ICU Lave) of Service D +w� c Critical Lane Group ' Basaune Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resaurwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nick) c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08BODV. sy6 t 1 ) 1 /� Moyement NBL NBT 96T SBR NEL NEH Lane Con yuratuns tt I•i" Ideal Flo. yphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 19oo � '02a'ar Total Lost time (a) Lane U9(L, Factor, Fit Fit Protected �'6 • t�r*: saYO,mti fws v..w' wO.;Fa'mlf�V' ',u,ii,�''2 Said Flow (plot) Fit Permitted Said. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 0 0 0. 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 092 0.92 0.92 0,92 092 092 Adj.: Flow(vph) 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 rzu Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type custom. _ ''srd Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green. G (s) Effective Green g(a) k'm yn...'i'^ai� .2.» Actuated grC Ratio Clearance Time (s) .. Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prol .. ., .. , V/s: Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dt„'-`,''y;1 P,.g,..,.n Factor Incrementoi Delay, d2 .. Dale . Y (ej Level. of. Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A' A IhtaYsec11a189mmary HCM Average Control Delay 0.0 $ HCM Level of Service A b HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 ActOeled Cydle LengiFl(s) 24.0;,SUM ld1lost time is) 0,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0 0% fCU Level of Service A < c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synch,. 5 Rapon Page 4 resaurwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \\NNick;\nick; c\Protects\\UUVM\UVM/\Synchro\UVMMAM08BODV.sy6 ` A4cTrepYenE ,'•£$L i`EBT EBR :-W@L 'W01°=-'s•W : N$ `.'."•?;%fBfT.:SVVU S IL SYM`: Lane Configurations W. T+ S) i fir Ideal Flow:(vphpl), : 1900 low 1000. 1900 1900 ` 1900 1900,! f900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost i ma (s) 4.0 4 0 4.0 40 4.0 Lane Ultl Factor ': 0.91 0.95 -: ,; 0,97; 1,00 1.00 _ Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 1,00 0,85 Fit Protected :' 1.00 1.00° "' 0195 0195 i:q0 Said. Flow (prof) 4952 3539 3433 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1..00 1.00 0.95 0.95' ' IM Sold. Flow (perm) 4952 3539 3433 '770 1583 Volume (vph) 0... 910.. 193 0 2227 0 0 0 476 446. 79 ,. Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Ac . Flow (vph) ::. 0 >'. 910 _193 0 2227d 0 0: 0 476 446 79 . Lane Group Flaw (vph) 0 1103 0 0 2227 0 0 0 476 446 79 Turn Type : Prot "'Prot, Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green. G (s) 36.0 36.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 EBectrve Green, g (s) 38.0 38.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Actuated 9/C Ratio 0 63 063 0.23 0,23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0'. 6.0 &0 6.0 , Vehicle Extension ts) 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap Ivor) . 3136 2241'. : 801 413 :. 369 _ We Ratio Prot 0,22 c0.63 0.14 c0.25 0.05 viaRatio Perm v/c Ratio 0.35 099 0.59 1,08 0.21 Uniform Delay, of 5.2 10.9 20.5 23.0 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 a95 1.12 1,13 1.57 Increment.) Delay, d2 0.3 13.4 :0.6 54.3 0.1 Delay (s) 5 5 23,13 23.6 802 29.2 Level of Service:: A C. C F C Approach Delay (s) 55 23.8 0.0 493 Approach LOS.: A C A. - D, HCM Average Control Delay 25.0 HCM Level of Service C _ HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1,02 Actuated Cycle: Length (8) 60.0: Sum of lost tins ) - 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service E c Critical. Lane Group ,. .. Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 rescurwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\NickNnicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08BODV.sy6 'W- Z 'x /. 4 / Movement :.'1"YQtsT. WaW,'NET" Lane Configurations "I tt Ideal Row(vphpl) . _ 1900 1900. 1900 1900... 1900 1900" .,. Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4 0 Lane Uilh. Factor 1,00 , _ 095s For 1.00 1,00 FN Protected 0 95 1.00' •', _ Said Flow (prof) 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95 1..00. Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 Volume (vph) 418 0 0 :0. 0 1790_., .,. ,. Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 454 : 0 0 0: 0 194&'w Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Turn Type :.,M:: r':•.si5::«t«.mt::Sv.`aVa,-+�k ,. Protected Phases 8 6 Permitted Phase. Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 36.0 Eflectiv. Green, g (s): 14.0 r trx Actuated 9/C Ratio 023 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 60- Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0- LaneGrp Cap Nph) r 413 2241. v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.55 vis Ratio Pan. vlc Ratio 1.10 0.87 Uniform Delay, dl 23.0 Progression Factor 1 00 1 00 Incremental Delay, d2 73.9 3.9 _r>av Delay Is) 96 9 12.8 Level of .Service F . $:' Approach Delay (s) 96 9 0.0 12.8 Appr.ach.LOS F:. A B .sexa-a» InlanseSNbn Summary` HCM Average Control Delay 28.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 60.0 ::Sum of lost time (a)A- Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.6% ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group±.. ,<.n. Baseline Synchro 5 Reoon Page 6 resourwhlt-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 2: Main & Uni. Place \\Nicki\nicki c\Projec/ts\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAMOBBODVopl. sy6 Ira'pvement << €! :_ „� : n EeL ;' EIBT: ;wBr+s wBFr�,• sue; "�f3R ..,.., , � �� � .ti t �' ILane Configurations 0 tT. (r Ideal Flow (vphpl) " 1710 171D 1740 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 11 Total Lost time Is) 4.0 4.0. , Lane Util, Factor 1,11 1,11 Frt 1.00 1.00' Fit Protected 7 00 100 Said. Flow (pros) 3185 3185' >...m ....-.., Fft Permitted 1 00 1,00 _w Said: Flow(perm) 31853185 Volume (vph) 0 1225 1968 0 0 0 Peak hour factor, HF P1,00 1,10 1,111 1.00 1:00 111 Flow (vph) 0 1225 1968 0 0 0 IAd( Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1225 1968 0 0 0 Tun Type Perm Fee Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 _2. 6a,:,.�,,,,-,,.,,,y.,-,o.'yr..,,,.`e Free• Actuated Green, G (s) 86.0 850 Effective Green, g (s) BSA 85.0 Actuated g/C Ratio t.00 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension Is) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3185 3185 v/s Ratio Prot 0.38' cO.62 , ws Ratio Perm vlc Ratio ()38 0,12 Delay, cl 00 a IUniform Progression Factor 100 1.00 Incremental Delay f2 04 0.9 Delay (al 04 0.9 Leval of Service A n Approach Delay (5) 0A 0.9 Approach LOS A A� A e.tion Suma ary ' IIdle HCM A erayo 1; bat Delay u. / HUM L-cl rl „vry -v A HCM Volume to Capacity min o.62 Actuated Cycle Lenglh W '?5 0 S,;m .'I tLima �, 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization n.,.n � ICU t-.l r-1-ca B c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page I resourwhlt-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 Y 17 Main & SOear Exit \\N k\ ck c\Prolecl \UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08BOOVopl.sy6 MbGel'rienh: EBLI", EB'G:pEBt ".,, 6VBL <WBr=• WEIR'..=BBC SBR' NEL2 NEL'i,`'N Lane Configurations ++T +f ri" Ideal Flow(vphpl) - 1000 1900 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1000 1500 1900 1900 ILost time(:) 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 Lane Uul. Factor. _ 0.91 0.95 0,88 1.00 1.00 1.00 ITol Frt LGO 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.05 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said Flow (Prot) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 FII Permitted 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume {vph) 0 1367 0 0 1869 1013 0 0 359 438. 182 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1,00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ad) Raw (vph)' 0 1367 0 0 `1869' 1013 '0 0 359 438.. 182 Lane G up Flow (vph) 0 !387 0 0 1869 1013 0 0 359 438 182 Heavy Vehicles (%) 04: 0% 0 % 0% 0% 0%-. 02 0% 0% 0%' 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2-', -. 6' 3 8'. Pa"", 6 8 Actuated Green. G is) 781 78.7 78.7 ' 29.3 29.3 29.3 Eff cl G . g is) 80.7 80.7 803 31.3 31.3 31.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 '0.26 026 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6A 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 30 '"'3.0 3.0- 3,0 3.0 3:0 Lane Grp Cap( vph) 3488 242E 1911 471 471 421 v/s Rado Prot' 011 10:52 0,21 111,24 via Ratio Perm 0.36 0. t 1 via Ratio 0.40 0.77 0.53 0.78 0.93 0.43 Uniform Delay, of 88 13.3 100 40.9 433 36.9 Progression Factor 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.5 0.3 7.2 24.8 0.7 Delays) 6A 14.9 10.3 " 48.4 68.1 37.7�,.,,;4,,,-,', Level of S A B B D E D Delay{3) 64 13.3 0.0 55.1 IApproach Approach LOS A B A E HCM Average Control Delay 19.2 HCM Level of Service 8 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1200, Sum of lost time (s) &0 Intersection Capacity Utlllzetion 82.6% ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 resourwhlt-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\Ntcki\mckl_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08BODVopl.sy6 Nm, OR»<1Bp4i.t.SBtt?9E)R Lane Configurations fA T (i ? it �1 A IdealFlow(vphpt, 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710-. 1710 1710 1710 _. Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total Loot lime (a) 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00.. 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 FIR Protected 1. DO 0.95 100 1.00 1.00 100 0,95 100 Said. Flow (Prot) 3077 1593 1676 1425 1 1621 1378 3090 1648 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.95 t.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0,95 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 3077 1593 1676 1425 1621 1378 3090 164E Volume (vph) 0 527 2 197 990 608 0 176 260 365 147 19 Peakshout factor, PHF. 1.00'. 1.00 1:00 1,o0 1.00 "1.00 1.00 1.E 1.00, 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adl Flow (vph) 0 527 2 197 990 606 0 176 260 365 147 19 Lane an Group Flow (vph) 0 529 0 107 990 608 0 176 260 365 166 0 Turn Type Prot pm- pm.ov Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 7 8 1 7 A Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (a) ". 452 16.0 66,2 84.0 10.0 26.0 We 32,8r. Effective Green, g (s) 46.2 1TO 67.2 86.0 12.0 29.0 18.8 34 8 Actuated g/C Rollo 0.42 0.15 0.61 0.78 0.11 0.26 0.17 0.32 Clearance Time ts) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 61, Vehicle enslon (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.0.. 3.0 3.0 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1292 246 1024 1166 177 363 528 _ 521 ,is Ratlo: Prot o.17 0.12 W.59 0.09 co. 11 0.11' c0.12 0.10- .. v/s Relio Perm 0,34 0.08 _ we Ratio 0.41 0.80 0.97 0.52 0.09 0.72 0.69 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 22.3 44.9 20.3 4.4 49.0 36 8 42.9 28 6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 „ Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 16,8 21.2 0.4 65.7 6 6 3.9 () 4 Delay(:) '. 22.6 61.7. 41.5. 4.6 1146 434 46.8 280' Level 01 Service C E D A F D D _. Approach Delay (a) : 22.6 31.3 72.1 41,2 _ 11, Approach LOS C C E D Inldrxe I Su mnary HCM Avr t a l.o rl of Delay 36.9 14cm L�vul of �, tv ce U HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110 0 Sum of losl time is) 12 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.8o6 ICU Level of Somme U _.. c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 1es0u1whlt-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 19: Main & Unl. Terrace \\Nickl\ntckt c Prolecls\UVWUVM\Synchro\UVMAMOBBOOV of sy6 Movem,a)t FBT "'EBR, "WBL': WBT N81- 1,1811 fail glow Fl nil ,OJ 'JH) 1JC0 '900 1900 1=100 --,y 1 �sl , �l I al e Off, r -tot I OAS ).35 1.00 t 1.00 1.00 0.92 FItP t rted 100 1.00 -0.98 Said. Flow (Prot) 3537 3539 1678 F9 Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.96 Said. Flow (perm) 3537 3373 1678 Volume{vph) 1182 4 4 1841 6 9 Peek -hour lector, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1A0 1.00 Ad): Flow (vphl 1182 4 4. 1841 6 9 "8'd 1 v ; `8° • "^v'w`! Lane Group Flow (vph) 1186 0 0 1845 15 0 Turn Type Parm • Fw •,,.1raa a,.. .. Prolocl ad Phases 2 6 B Permitted to In 5 6. -';.•i „y.v"yi"^. ,'u`'iwmsx Actuated Green, G (a) 61.6 61.6 •a'�,' 1.4 Effective Green, g (a) 63.6 63:6 Actuated g/C Ratio 085 0,85 0.05 Clearance Time (s). 6.0 8.0 6 0V,.,„,="p1^`M°� �3 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap {vph) 2999 2860 76 Wa Ratio Prot 0.34 r,0.01 v/s Ratio Perm c0.55 v/c Ratio 040 0,65 020 Uniform Delay, dl 1.3 1.9 34 5 �•'1",?''c'"'•",7"' Progression Factor 1 00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, i12. Delay (s) OA 1.7 IA 3.0 1,3 , Z 35.8 Level of Service A' A D_,s:�;r`:«„as:.,,v>�.wv"�a Approach Delay () 1 7 30 35 8 Approach LOS A A _ D Inrersa�uanSammarv.,,�1 . "- ,1.. �� HCM Average Control Delay 2.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,62 Actuated Cycle Length (a). 75.0 Sum of lost time (a) 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.694 ICU Level of Service B o ' Critical Lane Group M Saseiine Synchro 5 Report Page 4 resourwhlt-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Uni Heights \\Nick;\nick; c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Syncnro\UVMAM08BODVopl.sy6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter ',\Nicki\n,ckl c\Projects�UVM\UVM\Syncnro\UVMAMosBGDVopt sy6 ,..,.,EBC ;::r EBi :EBp?f§'tNBL WBT'r,`. W$FV',`,:#)1:?"i'tiBPt=;NBA=:?.':=SW `. ..„. Lane Configurations ?A ri? Y it i Ideal Flow(vphpl) '.:1710 1710 1710 1710 1710" 1710 1710. 1710 17t0' 1710 171,,1 ,•_, Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s) 4 0 4:0: 4.0'> 4.0: ; 4.P ... , ,. Lane U1il. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frph,ped/hikas > 100 °:1.00 1.00 o93 1.00 ,.. Flpo. pad/hikes 1.00 1.00 0,97 1.00 0.95 Fit. 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 Stiff, Flow (prot). 3176 3182 1494. " 1218. 1462 Fit Permitted 0.95 0,91 0.75 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow fparm) 3030 ' 2908 180-. 1218 1462 Volume (vph) 1 915 1537 1796 0 50 0 16 11 0 Peek -hour fill PHF 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 100 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 915 15 37 1796 0 50 0 16 ' 1 0 Lane Group Flo(vph) -.. 0 931 ' 0 0 1833i 0 50: 0 16 11 0 Conti Peds. (fti 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type- Perm Perm. custom. 'custom -_--- Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 -. 8• `$ 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 81.0 81.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Effective Green, g Is) 83.0 83.11 10.0 t0.q •,10,0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,82 082 0.10 0.10 0 10 CiearanceTime (s) 60 60:- 6.0' 60 6.0 _ Vehicle Extension is, 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 TO Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2490. 2390: 117 121 t45 v/s Ratio Prat IHoPerm 0.31 c0:63 c0.04 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0 37 0.77 0,43 013 008 Uniform Delay, of 23 4.3 4P.B 41.5 413 , Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2'.. 0.4 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.2 Delay (s) 2.7 5.9 45.3 42.0 41.5 Level oP Service. A A... -.D -D D , Approach Delay (sl 2 7 5.9 44.5 4I.5 Approach LOS A A'. 0 D Infers`fictfon Summatty." - - - HCM Average Control Delay 5.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacityral,o 0.73 ACWated Cycle Lengths) :. toi;0 Sumoflost time : Bo Iniersecilon Capacity Utilization 102.2'b ICU Level of Service F c .'Critical Lane Group' Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \Nicki\nick; c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Syncmro\UVMAMQBBC)DVoot. sy6 Mdvenleht ' E9Gi2 EB1".:Eeff-', =:N18 %. ENAEttX,"-,.'NBL:,'i+1E3R SWG:2 t^91a6E }Stit?F.k.� S^r Lane Configurations +tl� tt ljsj 1j �' Ideal Flaw (vphpl) " " 1900.. 1900 ".1900 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4 0 4.0 40 4 0 Lane WE Factor 0,91..... 0,95 0.97 100 1.Q0",,; Fri 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 FIE Protected : 1.00 1.00 095 095 Said. Flow (prat) 4952 3539 3433 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0,95 1.00 Said Flow ( e• ) 4952 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 910 ::. 193 0 2227 0'.... 0 0 - .47fi 446 79 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) i` 0. 910 193.. 0 2227'. 0 `0 0 476 446,' Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1103 0 0 2227 0 0 0 476 446 79 Turn Type Prot • ?Proti' ' Protected Phases 2 o _ 8 8 Permitted Phases. .. Actuated Green, G is) 37.0 37.0 '. 1.0 11.0 11.0 Effective Green, ..g(s) 39) 39.0 `130 13.0 1310 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (e) 6.0 `. &0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Len. Grp Cap (vph) : 3219 2300 744 384 343 , v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 c0.63 0.14 c0 25 0.05 We Ratio Perm Vic Ratio 'L34 0.97 0,64 1.16 0.22 Uniform Delay, di 4 7 9.9 21423.5 19.4 Progresaian Factor '. ^0 C.99 1.14 1.14 .S Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 8.6 1.6 95.5 C.3 Delay (s) 5.0 18 4 25.9 122: 30.8 Level of Service:: A B C F .0 Approach Delay (a) 5.0 1 B.4 0.0 69..1 Approach LOS A B A E (kEetserIiin Stiptinery^ HCM. Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service 0 , HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0i Sum of lost time is) ': 850 , Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service E d Critical Lane Group , Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 7 l950UlWh14SXS1 t�4weirtan`6 sNBI- NBT.?Ir 68i' .:SIBR�'F�F: N ` Lane Configurations TT jr(r Ideal Flow(vphpl) _ 1900 1900'. 1900 1" 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lone Lill. _Factor„ Fri Flt Protected Said, Flow (prof) Flt Permittetl - Said. Flow (perml Volume (vph) 0 0 : 0 0: 0 9 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Adi Flow (vph) 0 0 0 '0 0 0' Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Turn Type custom Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time is) Vehicle Extension (sl Grp Cap( vph) .... Vane /s Ratio Prot We Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, c1' Progression Factor Incremedtal Delay, d2 Delay (a) Level 01 Service Approach Delay Is) 0.0 J CO Approach LOS - A A A _. Inlersaction Summary L HCM Average Control Dewy 0.0 HCM Lev.I of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 000 Actuated Cycle Length (c) 24.0 Sum of last time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity UI zat on 0 0°; ICU Level of Service A c Critical Lane Group r Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 6 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter& \\Nicki\nick_(;\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08BODVootsy6 r' Z � /► y y! Lane Conf g lions 'i tT Ideal Flow(vphpl) '. 1900 1900 1900' 1900 19-30 1900 Total Lest time is) 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor: 1.00 0.95 Fri 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 _. 1.00 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 3539 FII Permitted` 0.95 " 1i00 Said. Flow 1perml 1770 3539 Volume (vph) -, 426 - 0 0 0 0 597_. Peak -hour factor. PHF 0,92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. . Flow (vph) 463 :0 0 0 0 649 Lane Group Flow (vphl 463 0 0 0 0 649 Turn Type Protected Phases 8 5 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 37.0 Effective Green, g(a)I,:, 13.0 _ 32.13 •• ,,, Actuated g/C Ratio 0,22 165 Cteelence Time (s 6.0 -'. 3,13 Vehicle Extension (s) 10 3.0 Lane Grp Cap lvph) 384 2300 v/s Ratio Poor c0.26 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.21 0.28 Uniform Delay, of -' 235 4.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 114.7 3A " Delays) '38.2 4.6 Level of Seance F _ A Approach Delay (s) 138S 00 4.6 Approach LOS ; F. A Iritentoc11on SuseneirilL :" 1i HCM Average Cpolyd Delay Ea'= HUM Level of racy E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (a) ' 60.0 ", ' ;Sum of Jost time (s) 8 o Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3°4 ICU Level of Seance A c Critical Lane: Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 8 resouiwhil-sx51 1 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 40: Main & Sheraton \\Nicki\nicki_c\Prciects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08BODVopi.sy6 fykivemant ,'+: 1`;?�'�G°-E�.: E6FP.°"41lBL ;Wt3T;''"Nti3R., `;NBL:' NB%r+7i18R�; <: �Bt:":SBF:.ESBR Lane Configurations I 4? r I ?4A .t fir R 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 19W 1900 igoo, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19o0 1900 19o0 Total Lost Ilrne (s) 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.95 0.95 1-.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri I.co 1.00 0.85 1.00 -0.99 1,00 1,00 0.85 :.00 1,00 0.85 / Fit Protected 0.95. 1.00 1.00 0.95 1. 1,00 s0,95 1.00 1,00 0.95 M)o 1,00 I Said Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 5043 1661 1770 1583 1770 1863 1583 Per 0.95 1 00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 IFit Said Flowlpermi '770 3539 '583 201 5043 1475 1770 1583 1770 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 80 1595 14 28 2966 176 12 15 3 63 4 40 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 Ad!, Flow (vph)- - 87 1734 15. 30 3215 191 -13 16 3 68 , . 4 43 Grouc Flow (vph) 87 1734 15 30 3406 0 13 16 3 68 4 43 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm ,Perm Perm Prot Perm ILane P;olected Phases 5 2 6 6 7 4 Pernon,d Phases 2. 6 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 51.2 51.2 42.0 42.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 11 A 11.8 Effective Green, g (a) .. 5.2 53.2 : 53.2 44.0 • 44.0 4.8 4.8 4.6 5.0 1318 13.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,07 0.71 0.71 0.59 0.59 0,06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0,18 0.18 Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) TO 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 IClearance. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 123 2510 1123 118 2959 94 t 13 101 118 343 291 v/s Ratio Purl 0.05 c0 49 co.66 0 01 c0 04 1.00 We Ratio Pam, 0,01- 0.15 0.0t d'00 o:03 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.69 0.01 0,25 1.15 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.58 0.01 0.15 Uniform Delay, dl 34.2 5.2 3.2 7.5' " 15.5 33.1 33.2 32.9 34.0 25.0 25.7 assion Factor , 00 110 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,10 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,01 Incremental Delay, d2 16.9 1.6 0.0 5.1 72.3 0.7 0.6 0A 6.7 0.0 0.2 IPro, Delay (a) 51.1 78 3.2 127 87.8 33A 33.7 33.0 406 25,0 25.9 Level of:S_ice: '0 A: A B F C- C C D 'C C Approach Delay (s) 9.8 H'/ 2 33.7 34.6 Approach LOS A F C C Intereeclion Summery Average ConE Del y 59.5 HCM Laval of Service E IHCM HCM Volume to C p ly 31ie 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length () 75.0 Sum of lost time (a). 12.0 Intersection Capacity UI zalion 91.7% ICU Level of Sery ce E c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report page 9 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\Nicki\nicki c\ProjectS\UVM\UVM\Synchrc\UVMAMOBNBCDV.sy6 Ailcvairibsl� it '�'�L E8'f.' : EBR?''Y48L"' WBT.< »y.,�il�a "•NB1M`��fbR S8L":;"... . Lane Configurations Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1710 1710 17I0 1710 1710 1710 ,1710 1710-1710 1710 171.0 11,10 Lane Width i t 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 4.0. 4.0 4,0 4.0 40 4.0 Lane Util, Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 100 1,00 'oO 097 1,00 Frt 1.00 1,00. 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 „. Fit Protected 1.00 Os5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said Flow (Prot) 3076 1593 1676 1425 1621 1378 3090 1648 , Fit Permuted 1.00 0,95 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Be.. Flo (perm) '' 3076 1593: 1676 1425 1621 1378 3090 :1648 Volume (vph) 0 503 3 194 955 587 0 182 269 365 150 19 Peek -hour factor, PHF 1.00 /00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 503 3 194 955 587 0 182 269 365 150 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 506::.. 0 194.E 955 587 >10 182 3269 365 :. 169 0 Turn Type Prot Par- pm+ov Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 7 8 - :' 1 7 "4 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green. G (s) 46.2- 15.9 57.1 82.0 12.1) 27.9 14.9 31.9 Effective Green, g (a) 47.2 16,9 68.1 84.0 14.0 30.9 15.9 33.9 Actuated g/C Haao 0.43 0.15 :0.62 0,76 0.13 0.28 0.14 0.31 Clearance Time (a) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6 0 5.0 5 0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3 0 :' 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1320 245 l038 1140 206 387 447 " v/s Reim Plot 0.16 0.12. cO.57 0.07 c0.11 0,111 c0 12 3.10 _ v/s Ratio Perm 0.34 - v7o Ratio 028 0 79 0.92 0.51 0,88 0.70 182 J:33 ,. Uniform Delay, di 21.5 44.9 1&S 51 472 :35. 45.6 29 33 Progression Factor :1.00 1,00 "1.00 1.00 1,00 1.0 0 1.cc Incremental Delay 2 '5.9 14.3 0.4 32.9 Delays) 21.6 60.8 :32.8 5.5 80.1 40.7 Er, 6 Level of Service C E C A F D E Approach Delay(c) 21;.fi :;267 56.6::. :481 Approach LOS .- C E D kiteieeetan Sdmmary ..Y HCM Average Contro: Delay 33.6 HCM Level oI o_ ... .. HCM Volume to Capacity. ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost lime (a) i 2.7 Intersecti- Cap.a ty Ut llzatlon -88.1% ICU Level of Service... - D c Critical Lane Grouo Baseline Synch,. 5 Report Page 1 resourwhil-5x51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Unl Hedhts \Wlcki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\synchro\UVMAM08NBODV. sy6 Movement 'ESL EST=,'EBR' W13L ,:WBT 'WBR _. NBL NBR,WRZ, SSWR,„S.YJR :?:: Lane Configurations TT+ 0 M It ) Ideal Flow (vphpl) -1710 1710 171G 1710 1710', 171c `1710 1710' 17W 1710' 1710 , Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 it 11 11 11 11 Total Lost fime'(s). 4.0 4.0 4.0 id 0 4,0 , Lane Uhr Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 a 95 ' 00 Frpb,. ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 :1,00 0.92 1,00 Fipb, pad/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 i.00 0 94 Fd 100 1.o0 1.00 OAS 100 Fit Protected 1,00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 Said Flow (Prot) 3180 3184 1486 1207 1449, Fit Permitted 0.95 0.95 0.75 i.00 0.95 Said. Flow(perm) 3034 3026 1174 : 1207 1449 .,.w, -,;,'':-. Volume (vph) 1 915 8 9 1782 0 19 0 6 11 0 Peek -hour facloSPNF 1.00 100 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 915 8 9 1782 0 19 0 6 11 0 Lane Group Film (vph) 0. 924 0 ' 0 1791 0- 19 0 6 11 Conti Peds. (k/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type ;Perm Perm ,. - custom custom , Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 -:8 : 8 or , Actuated Green, G (s) 90.6 90.6 7.4 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, gi(s) 92.6 91 9.4 9.4 9.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 084 0.84 0,09 0.09 009 Clearance Time (s):. 6.0 6.0 - 6.0 6.0 6,0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (,Ph) 2554 : 2547 100 : 103 124 '.. v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratia Perm- 0 30 d0.59 co'N' : 0:00 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.70 0.19 0.06 0.09 Uniform Delay,:dt Zo 3.4 46.8 46.2 464 „ Progression Factor 1.00 1_0o 1.00 1,00 1 00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 : 0.9 0.9 01.2 0 3. Delay (s) 2.4 4.3 47.7 465 467 Level of Service A A D D D Approach Delay is; 2.4 4.3 47.4 46,7 Approach LOS A A D D. Intetsectroh Buram ' �. HCM Average Control Delay 4.2 HCM Level of Service A , HCM Volume to Capacity ratio ass Actuated Cycle Length (a) 110.0 Sum o1 lost time (s)" : 8.0 Intersection Capacity Ulilization 81,5 % ICU Level It Service D c Critical Lane Group , .... -. Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & Spear Exit \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAMOSNBODV.sy6 ) I i /' S813` r3EL2 ,: NEIL, Lane Configurations +tt }T fir aj ) (r Ideal Flow(vphpi) 1900 1900- 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900-: 1900 1900 Total Lost time (a) 4o 4c 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UtIL Factor. 0.91". ,0,45 0,88 1.00 -1.00 1.00 Fit 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Pot -tad 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow 1pron 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 _ Said. Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 volume:(vph) 0' 1381 0.: 0 1843 1005 0 0 335 -415 172 ,, Peak -hour factor. PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1381 0 0 1843 1005 0 0 - 335. 416 172 „ Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1381 0 0 1843 1005 0 0 335 415 172 Heavy Veholes(%) :0% 0%' "0% 0% '0% 031> 0%. : 0% 0% 0✓ 0% »" Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases - 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated' Green. G (s) 77.2 77.2 77.2 30.8 -3o.8 30.8 Effective Green. g (a) 79.2 79.2 79.2 32.8 32 8 32.8 Actuated gird Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.66 0,27 0,27 0 27' " _n Clearance Time (s) - 6.0 60 6.0 60 60 60.. Vtr i Filtension is) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 •' 3.0 3.0 " Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3423 2383 1676 493 493 441 v/c Ratio Prot 0,27 c0.51 0.19 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.11 via Ratio '.0.40 0.77 0,S4 0.68 ; 0.84 0.39 , , Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 14.2 10.7 38,9 41 2 35 5 Progreuion Factor 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay. d2 0.3 1.6 0.3 3.7 123 06 Delays) 9A 15.8 ild 42.5 535 36.0 ,a Level of Service A B 8 D D D Approach Delays) - 9.4 14.1 0.0... '-463 ., Apia oach LOS A B A D HCM Average Control Delay 18.6 HCM Level of Service 8 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 , ,... Actuated Cycle Length (a) 120.0 Sum of last lime (s) 8,0 Intersection Capacity:Utikzatlon ;, 806°6 ICU Level of: Service D , c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/1712001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAMOBNBODV.sy6 NBL N87 ';SBT °SEt3 NEi NEW Lane Conf g-r ons ?? jrlr Ideas Flow(vphpl) 1900 1901 1900, 190D 1900 1900 ..">. Total Lost time (s) Lane VaL Faci, Fit Fit Prot- 1 d Said Flow (Prot) Fit Permitted23 Said. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 0. 0 0. - 0 0 0Yv�3€%.riu2„i;va..'.«,u'u^�.:.M.=>�,:aaw."«m Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 Adj. Flow:(vph) 0 0 >.0 0 0 Lane Group Flowv,,-i) 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type custom Protected Phases ' Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green G (a) Effective Green, 9 (a) Actuated g/C Rat o Cleereres Time fs)''Ma Vehicle Exie , Lane Grp Cap(vpn,),. v/s Ratio Pro! v/s Ratio.Parm we Ratio Uniform Delay. dt ,... Progres F . - Inoreme al Jai..v r s2 Delay is) Level of Sery a Approa t D, oy l�I ;i 0 -r� �.0 ,A Approach LOSA A '. ? Intesaction Summery 1' HCM Average Control 0= ay L_ ,ai HCM Volume(o Cape , _.I "_ Actuated Cycle length (s) "��:) 1m ofsuima,si Intersection Cape city Ut'I zal-, 0.0°. :CU I.Lvel of S:r�ce 4 c Critical LaneGroup Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 1 --wnll•5x51 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki c\Proiects\UVM\UVM\Syncnro\UVMAM08NBODV.sy6 AAtSyerhanl, „'„ ,EBL.1 S ;'115fti:..W9L,xM19'1<•' :LY9FT-„'N151 NBR"SW[3 .. 9WV`,1SWR Lane Configurations tO TT )) 1( (r Ideal Flow (yphp(), , _ 1900 :' 1900 ;19gfl. 1900 19M 12' W t900, , -1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ulll. Factor:: ; 0 91 '0.95 10.97 1,00 1.00 Fit 0.97 1,00 1,00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected t 00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Bard. Flow (Prot) 4956 3539 3433 1770 1583 Fit Permitted-.' ',: 1,00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Said. Flow Iperm) 4956 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0: 904 1840.2177 0 0 0 .'.476 427 78 Peak -hour factor. PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1 00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 I.00 Ad(. Flow (vph)" 0: 904 184 0 2177 0 -0 0 ^ 476 427 --78 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1088 0 0 2177 0 0 0 476 427 78 Turn Type _. :.,Prat Prot Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (a) 36 0 36.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 EBective Green, 9 (at 38.0 - 38.0 14,0 14.0 -: 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (a) : 6.0 6.0 8.0 6.0- 6,0 , Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap':(vph) 3139 - 2241 801 413 369 v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 c0.62 0.14 c0.24 0,05 W. Felt Perm We Ratio 0.35 0.97 0.59 1.03 0.21 Uniform Delay, d l 5.2 : 10.5 20.5 23.0 16.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.99 1.12 1,13 1.56 In -umiel Delay, d2 0.3 9.6 . 0.6 39-4 0.1 Delay(s) 5.5 20.0 23,6 65.3 29.1 Level'. ofSaivice. A B C E.'-.`C Approach Delays) 5.5 20.0 0.0 42.2 Approach LOS' A ,': B ; `A D _ �te`raeet%t!'Sureimer HCM Average Control Delay r 21.4 HCM Level 01 Service �C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle. Length (a) 60.0 Sum at lost time (at 80 Inver-t- Capacity Urlizefion 90.5% ICU Level of Service E p Critical Lane. Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMAM08NBODV.sy6 A- It 'x /. 4 X, NW6,r1eilk Lane Configurations T? Ideal Flow(vphpl) 19W 1900 1900 1900 -1900 1900 F S.. e. -. Total Lost time (s) 4.0 .- - � 40 . ..... ....�, Lane Upl. Factor 1.00 0.95 , _ .. .: ....., Frt 1,00 1.00 Fit Protected : 0.95 1.00 .., Sold Flow (Prot) 1770 ,.., 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95 Said. Flow(perm) 1770 3539 Volume.(Vph) 418 _;0 0 C:0 01790 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 .. Adj. Flow (vph) 454 0 0 0 0'. 1946 Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Turn. Type Protected Phases 6 6� Permitted Phasea.: Actuated Green, G (a) 12.0 _ 36.0 Effective Green, g (s)' 14.0 >38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,23 0.63 Clearance Time (a). 6.0 : -. 6.0 :. .. . .W. -;. Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 ... _ 3.0 ... ..... Lane Grp Cap (,ph) 413 ,.: 2241 v/a Ratio Prot c0,26 c0.55 Wis Ratio Perm- v/c Ratio 1.10 0.67 Uniform Delay, 11 23.0 9.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 739. 3.9 Delay (a) 96.9 128 Levelo1 Service F B „ Approach Defay(a) 96.9 0.0 12.8 Appraseh LOS F A Iht4(s66114l 51JImmaryr . HCM Average Control Delay 28.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Acivaled Cycle Length (a) 60.0 Sum of lost time (a) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utlliz h- 85.6% ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synch,. S Report Page 5 Page 6 resourwmt-sx51 resourwhil-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7' Main & South Prospect \N,ckhnicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM0360DV.sy6 'F'EBt "EBR 'WBfWBT Lane Cont g rai ens ) } f* } F " T. Idea(FI wEvphpl}_=' „ �7f0 1710 1710 1710 t710 '1710 1710 171' Y710 '1110 1710. 1710, Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 '2 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s)r.. 4.0 4.0 Ad 4.0 1 4,0 4.0 4.0 40. Lane Wit. Factor 7 95 1.00 '.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 a97 1,00 Fri 099 : 1,00 . 1.00 .: 085 1,00 0.85 100 0198 �a Fit Protected '.00 095 1.00 1 20 1 00 1.00 0,96 1.00 Satd Flow (Prot) 3054 1693 1676--. 1425 :. 1621 1378: 3090 1644. Fit Permitted I 06 a 95 '.00 1.00 1 Go 1.00 095 "D Said. Flow (perm) ': 3054 '1593 1676:.. 1425 : 1621 1378. 3090 1644 Volume (vph) 0 705 41 185 634 479 0 '61 375 472 121 18 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 100 1.00 100 1.00 100 100- 100 100: 1.00 im 1.00 Adj- Flow (,ph) 0 705 e, 185 534 479 D 161 375 472 121 18 Lane Group Flow-(vph)' 0 746 (Y 165 634:: 479 0: 161 375 472 :. 139 0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+ov Prot Protected Ph.s.c 2 1 `6- 7 8 :'1 7 4 Permitted Phases 5 8 4 Actuated Green; G (s) 39 2 15,6 538. - 73.8 ;. 11 8 27A 14 0 80_a , Effecive Green, g (s) 40-2 166 6Qa 75.3 13.8 30.4 15.0 32.8 Actuated g/C Ratio `.. b 37 115 0.55 019 : 0,13 0,29 0 14 0 30 , Clearance Time �s) 50 F,0 0 " 0 6 0 5'9 5 0 6-0 on: Vehicle Extension 3 C 30 3:0: 3 0 3,0 3.0 3 0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1116 240 926 382 203 381 421 490 via Ret Prot 0.24 0,12 c0.3B 007 1),10 c0: 15 0. 15 0 08 W. Pan Penn 0 27 0.i2 v7c: Ratio 0 67 0 77 _ _ 0.68' 0,49 - 0,79 :0,98 1 12 : 0.28 Unitorm Delay di �9 3 44 9 17.7 8.0 467 39-6 47.5 29.6 Progr ss on:Factor 100 :. 1,00 1.00:. 1as 1,00 1:.00 L 00 1:00 Incremental Delay, d2 3 2 1h 2 4-1 04 18 8 41.6 81 1 1 Delay (s) :' J2 5 : 59 0 21:9-. 8.4 65.5 81.2 128 6 299 ,. Level of Service ^ E C A E F F C Approach Delay.(s) _:. 32 S _ `222 76.5 __1062 , Approach LOS C E F CtitNisdotiah'5uthnAtw�' . , ., ..` �'-°, HCM Average Control Delay -3 8 HCM Level of Solve a D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio'-. 085_' - Actua(ad Cycle Lengri (s) ' 10.0 Sum of lost time (s) 204 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73 9%..,.. „ICU Leval of Service.:.. G ; c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & East \\Nickdnicki_c\Protects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM03BODV.sy6 Lane Configurations }4p }} jr Idbat Fiow(Vphpl)' 1900 1900 1900 1900- 1900 1900 ': 1900 1900. 1900 1900': i9i Total Lost time (s) 40 4.0 4-0 4.0 4.0 40 Lane Un. Factor 091 : : 095 0'88. 1.00 1.00. 100 , Fri -_a0 '.00 0.85. "Go iDa � 85 Fit Protected 100` f 00 101) 0.95 70,95 1.00 Said. Flow (plot) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1605 '6i5 Fit Permitted 100 '. :: Lo0 1,00 : 095 : 0.95 1.00 . Said. Flow 1perml 5187 3610 2842 1805 1BO5 1615 VOluma:(yph) 0 2045 : 0 0:: 1275 702: 0 :0 203 190. 272 Peak -hour factor. PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 i.CO 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj:: Flow(vph) 0 2045: 0 0 1275 702: G :0: 2Q3 190 272 Lane Grouo Flew (vph} 0 2045 0 0 1275 702 0 0 203 190 272 Heavy:Vehrcles (%1 d% 0%:- 0% 0% 0% 0% u-1. 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Purr .... Protectedacas Ph :2": 6 7 4 ..:: Perm ad Phases. 1 Actuated Green G (s) 82,3 <: 82.3 82.3:_: 1 R 5 18.5 18.5 _.:_ Effective Green. 9 (s) 943 34,3 84.3 20,5 20.5 20 5 Actuated g/C Ratla 070 0.70 0,70: 017 0,17 0.17 Clear. rice Trine(s) 6.0 6.0 60 6.0 60 60 Vehicle Extan i.n (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3644 2536 1997 308 308 75 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.35 : 0 11 - 011 - v/s Ratio 1,." 0.25 0.17 v/c Ratio: 050 0,35. „ 0.66 052 0 99 Unitorm Daisy, at _ _0,56 B.8 8-2 7.1 46 _ 46.1 49 fi Progression Factor 1.00'. 1 00 1'00 1 00 1.00 00 Inc emental Delay, 12 o.6 02 0.1 5-0 3.6 49,8 Delay(u)-. ',.94. 04 :T2 ,... 515 r S.8 994„- Level of Sery ca A A A D D F Approach Delay (s) 9,4, 7.9 , 0.0 706 Approach LOS A A A E IniatsbaitoiSummary_' ''��'€``�`"^sri}` HCM Average Control Delav 17 5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity rat o 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Su '20.0 m of lost time (s) 15 2 Intersection Capacity:Utllzation :,5301a :.,ICU Level oIService B .. Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resoumlit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Unl Heights \\Nicki nicki_c\Projects\\UUVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMMPM03BOOV.sy6 28' 'pastEXit & Speary�Enter \\INicktlnicki_c\Pr/objects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM0380DVsy6 \ .is!ifLtu S' Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphgl). , 1710 11710 1710: 1710 1710'n; 1710 ,4710t 4i)0 „S"(,1�_ t710 „�A' ,n,,..,� € Lane Configurations }t Ideal Flow v h -. 1900 t9.09 jrjr ' 1900 19�0 19pD, •, _1,_s ... ..::. , w..� ..L-= Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s, Total Lost time (3) 40 4,0 - 4.0 4 a , d,(, 4 s Lane Util. Factor a re OIL Factor 0,95 3 95 t 00 0.95 1.00 Fri Frpb, pad/bikes : 1,00 100` 1,00 0.92 1.06 Fit Protected :' ... Flpb ped/b kes 1 00 1.00 097 1.00 0.94 1100 Said Flow (plot) •" ` .- :- Fri Fri Protectec 100 1 00 1.00: 1.00 099 a0.95 07.85 . , ". ;'� Seldermiitted _ . , Flow (Perm Said Flow (plot) 31 a3 3162i 1480 1208 1450; a t yolumalvph) 0 0 0 :0 0 0 Flt Permnleo 0.95 0.92 0.73 1.00 0 95 Peak -hour lector PI -IF 192 0 92 a 92 0.92 C 92 0.92 Sold Flow fpertnt 3023 2932. 1�131 1208 1450, _ `; Adj. Flow (,ph) 0 0 0 -.,:0 0 0 Volume (vph) 6 1739 5- 14 1404 4 20 1 9 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 J 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1:00 1.00 1.00;: 1 00 1,00 1,00 1 00 1,00 1..00 1 Op, ,1-00 „.:,'. Turn.. Type custom . . Adj. Flow(vpn) 6 1739 5 '4 1404 4 2D 1 9 10 0 Protected Phases 2 Le he Group Flow(vph) 0,. 1750 0. 0 1422' 0 21 0 :9 16 `� .A w F< Permitted Phases 6 „r Conti Pads IIt/hrl 10 'a 10 io 10 10 10 10 10 Actuated Green- G (s) Turn Type Perm; Perm custom custom 1"," " .� v 4 iFvu,�.,:a Effective Green, g(a) Protected Phases 2 6 Actuated 9,C Ratio Permitted Phases 2 6 c , 8 4 ur�3„ i Clearance Time Is) Actuated Green, G s) Boy 80.5 7.5 7.5 7 5 Vehicle Exl its on s) Necilver Green,. 9 p) 82.5 82.5. :95 915 9" Lane. Grp Cap (,ph) Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0,09 0.09 0.09 v/s Ratio Prot Clearance Time Is) 6.0 6A 6.0 5.0 5.0 "' ,,,,, „(, v/s Ratio Perm Vehicle Extension (s1 3.0 3.0 3 0 3.0 3.0 we Ratio L'.ine Grp Cap:(vph) . 2257 2199 98 104 11 < ... ,wen Uniform Delay, dF We Ratio Prot .- Proyress Factor _ vFsflallo Parm :i :158 048( eQ:02 0.01 00t :b..e, y,,,,, incremental Delay, d2' Delay v/o R h Uniform Delay, dl 077 82 3 65 6 021 46.8 3.09 46.3 0.08 462 (s) Progression Factor '.90 1,00 1.00 'i.00 1.00 Approach Delay (s) 0 0 10 ' 0 0 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.7 1.1 0.4 03 ;' Approach LOS A A A Delays) '08 7.3 479 466 465 3dtefS9CUdR$47miilE M •. .. ,. :,•; ` r ' Level of Sa v ce - S A D D HCM Average Control Delay 0.0 HCM Lave1 01 Sell. A Approach Delay (s) ;C's 7.3 47.5 46 5 - - HCM Volume to Capacity lot. 7 Approach LOS a B :A D b 0 Actuated Cycle LenglFl_{s) 24.0 .':Sum of lost time (s) r 0,0 Intersect on Ca Vtl zei on J 0°a pea ry IOU Leval 015 rv-a A _ HCM Average Control Delay 17 HCM Level 01 Service : A ; o Crroal Lane Group -1-" - HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Aotueted Cycle Length is) 11G-0 Sum at last time (s) -. 1S b Intersection Cacac ty Utilization 73.7% ICU Level of Service C c.:: Critical Lane; Group Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Page 3 Page 4 resounvhit-sx51 resourwhit•sz51 �iCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 Main & Spear Enter \\Nick\nicki_c\Projects\UVKAUVM\Synchro\UVMPM03BODV Sys 'WBT','W73W Nigh:' NBR':SWL2:, ane Configurations W. tt �) I (r deal Flow (vphpl) -:1900 . 19W 1900 1900 . 1900 . Mo 1900 . 1900 . 1900 Iwo 1900 otal Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lam UN. Factor _ O.gi 0.95 _ 0.97 1.00 - 1'00 Fri 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected - 1-,00 1.00 0.96 0.915 , 1.00 Flow (prof) 4962 3539 3433 1770 1583 (Said Fit Parmilied 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said Flow(perm) 4962 3539 3433 1770 1583 .Volume (vph).. 01271 246 0 1470 0 0 oi.. 888 677 83 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj.. Flow (vph) - 0 1271 246 0 1470 0 0 0 888 677 83 Lane Group Flow (v h) 0 1517 0 0 1470 0 0 0 888 677 83 Type Not Prot ITurn Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 8 Parmilied Phases A. ..led Green, G (s) 33.2 33.2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Eft.c. Green,: 91s) ':352 35.2 22.0 22A 22.0 _ Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0,49 0,31 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (a) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (a) TO 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2426 1730 1049 541 484 Ws Ratio Prot 0,31 c0,42 0.26 c0.38 0.05 V/s Ratro Perm v/c Ratio 0,63 0.85 0.85 1.25 0,17 Uniform Delay, dt 13.5 16.1 23.4 25.o 18.3 Progression Factor 1,00 1.00 1,17 1.Is 1.74 Incremental Delay, d2 1,2 4.1 2.3 118.6 0.1 Delay (s) 14.8 20.2 29.7 148.1 32a Level:1 Semce 8 C C F C Approach Delay (s) 14.8 20.2 0.0 78.5 Approach LOS 8. C A E irNliiiid'o9nn:Blailfiarv" ': '.: Average Control Delay 39.1 HCM Leval of S rvice D HCM Volume to Capa ty ratio 1_00 IHCM Actuated Cycle Length (a) 72.0 Sum of last 1 me (a) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.8a.o ICU Level of Servco D a.. Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchrc 5 Report Page 5 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\NickAnicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM0380DV.sy6 MWemahL , : yygL WBR>' D>�i "N�C°"SW€=5V1IT= � �A4 u> Lane Configurations Ideal Flow(Vphpp) 1900 1900 t900 1900 '900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4li Lane Utti. Factor t(;0 0.95'- �.. u Fri 1.00 '.00 R Protected 0.95 1,00-. Said. Flow(prot) 1770 'S39 FII Permitted 0.95 IM Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 Volume (vph) 418 0 0 0 0 1790 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 ... 0.92 0,92 0,92 Adj Flow (vph) 454 a 0 0 0 '1946 .,. Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Turn Type..: Protected Phases 8 6 Permitted Phasea Actuated Green. G (s) 20.0 33.2 ,a Effectate Green; 9 (s)`-. 22.0 35.2: Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.49 Clearance. Time 6.0 :6.0: 'IAIMYVW?`rltmr;, ;^ Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap: (Vph), . 541 1730 We Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.55 via Re o Perm.. ... ,.. ,,.,,,.. v/c Ratio 0.84 .... .. ......,, , 1,12 Uniform Delay, dt 23.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Inceemental Delay, d2 I i.0 64.4 "5°Y Delay (a) 34.3 82.8 Level of. Servtce C axl.wat ,GH...amk..ak� Approach Delay (s) 74.3 a o 828 Approach LOS C A F HCM Average Control Dewy 73.6 HCM Level of.Sary ce E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 ';2 Actuated Cycle Length (a). 72.o Sum of lost time (a) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization i„ 6"` ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 6 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect k;\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM03NSODV.sy6 \\Nic/ \ ♦ ~- "I -, } /- '- 1, EBL 11'EBT ESP :,: W8L : WBT.'i,WBR' ::NBt:": NBT' Lane Conflgurahons }j, +, } Ideal Raw(yphpl) 1710 1710 1710" 1710 1710 1710 .1710 1710 1710 1710. 1710 1710 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 40 7 4.0 CO 4.o 4.0 4.0 , Lane Util, Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 too 0.97 too Frt. 0.99 1.00 1,00::: 085 1,00' 0.85 1,00 0.98 Fit Protected 100 - 095 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.95 :.00 Said Flow (prof) 3052 1593 1676. 1425 1621 1378 3090 1646 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1,00 fool 0,95 1.00 Said: Flaw (perm) 3052 1593 1676. 1425 - 1621:-- 13783090 1646 Volume (vph) 0 683 43 194 625 472 0 165 385 472 129 18 Peak -hour factor, PHF. I= 1.00 1:00'' 1.00 1.00:I 100 ,1;00; "Too 1.00 1,00 1.00 "1i00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 683 43 194 625 472 0 165 385 472 129 18 Lane Group Flow {vph) 0„ 726 0'' 194 :625.` 472 0: 165 r. 385 '472 147 0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov pm+ov Prot Protected Ph ... s 2 1 6:: 7 e "1 7, '4 -4 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green,. G,(s) 44A 159 65.35. 84.0 10.0-.-25.9 187 =,7 - Effective Green, g (s) 45.4 16.9 3&3 86.0 12o 28.9 19.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 OAS 0.60:. 0.78 0.1.1 : 0.26 , 0.18 0,32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 So 6o Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 30 3.0. 3.0z 3.0' 3.13 3.0 310 , Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1260 245 1010 1166 177 362 553 534 W. Reno Prot 0.24 0.12 .0.37 007 0.10. c0.16 WAS 0.09 , via Ratio Perm 0.26 112 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.79 0.62 0.40 - 0.93 1.06 0.85 0,28 Uniform Delay, d1 24.9 44.9 13.8 2.8 48.6 40.6 43.8 27.6 Progression Factor 1.00. 1,00 1.00':. 100 1,00 1.G: 1.00 1.00 incrememal Delay, d2 1.9 15.9 2a 0.2 48.2 65.1 12.2 0.3 Delay(a) ". 26.8 60.8 16.7 4P' 96.6 1057 55.9 27.8 _ Level of Service C E B A F F E C Approach Delay (y) 26.8 1a,7 103.0 49.3 Approach LOS C B F 0 NRaeseottnu S6ieiMazy . HCM Average Control Delay 41.Or HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ti. 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum .1 lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Sevioe C c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Unit Heights \\Nick;\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMP.M03NBOOV.sy6 - ♦ ! - `Z 1 r P i Mwament EBL> EB'F.:';E>,.?AtgL,fYUEl �tfi`, 4dAE. sNEiPli N8Ei2 .BSMC.1z1'8Vt?R Lane Conlgurations Ideal Flow(vphpt 1710:: 1710 1710 1710 1710 171P`"1jr#0 '-1710 1740'1710 1710 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total Lost time (is) 40 4.0 40 4.0' ,4,0 , Lane Util. Factor 0,95 0.95 1,00 0,95 1,00 Fryb, ped/bike; : 1.00 1 00 1.00 0.93 1.00 ' Fipb, pad/bikes 1.00 1.00 0,97 1.00 0,95 Fri 100 1:00 099 "0.85 100 Fit Protected 1 00 1 .00 0.95 1,00 0.95 Said. Flow (plot) 3163 3182 1483 1212 1455 _ Fit Permitted 0.95 0,92 0.73 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow {perm) 3024 2939 1133 '.'.1212 1455 Volume (vph) 6 1727 5 14 1395 4 20 1 9 10 0 Peak -hour factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00: -1,00 1.00 1.00: 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 Adj. Flow yiph) 6 1727 5 14 1395 4 20 1 9 10 0 Lane Group Flow {vph) 0 1738 0 0 1413 0 :. 21 0 9 10 -0 Cooll. Pad, Uf/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Tum Type _`, Perm Perm custom. custom Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 _ Aclualea Green. G (0 81A 81.Is 7.2 7.2 7.2 EBecllve Green, g (a) 83.8 83.8 ' 9.2 9.2 9 2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,83 0.83 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (a) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3o 3.0 Lane Grp Cap {vph). 2509 2428 103 110 123 We Ratic Prot via Raho Perm, ': o0.57 0.48 col 02: " , 1P 0.01 _. v/c Ratio 0.69 0.58 0.20 0,08 0,08 Uniform Delay, d1 3.4 2,13 42.5 42.0 42 0' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Incremental Delay, 12 16 0.3 10 0.3 0.2 Delays) 5.0 12 43.5 42.4 422 Leval of Service A A D ' 0 p' Approach Delays) 5 0 3.2 43.1 42.2 Approach LOS :' A A D D €ntaraecixaOSumma ,:1 `1= _ ': HCM Average Control Delay 4.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,64 Aclualed Cycle Length (a) 101.0 Bum of lost Time (a), ;; 8 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level _ of Sevice C c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & Spear Exit '.\Nicki\nick; c\Pro;acts\UVM\UVMII\Sync'nnrro\UVMP+M03NBBODV. sy6 Lane Configurations }t} Ideal Ra.(vphpl) 1900 1900 : 1900, 1,BDQ,; ")$7>(t""f ; 1 """f90d: Total Lost time is) 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.0� 4.0 Lane UK Factor _ '0.91'..: '' 095 0.813 1.00 100 1.00 cn - 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1,00 0,85 Ftt:Protected 1,00 1.00. 1.00: : OAS :. 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prof) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Fit Permitted 1,00 1.00- 1.00: 095 0-95 1.00 , Said. Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 '615 Volume. yph) 0 2053. 0 0 1285 691:. 0 0' 185 172 246 , Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Ad(. Flow,(Yph) 0 2061 0 0'. 1285 691` 0 0 185 172 246 Lane Grouo Flow (vph) 0 2053 0 0 1285 691 0 0 185 172 246 Heavy Vehicles (%) : 0% - ' 0% 0% 091. 0% 091. 0% 0 0% :-01/6 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6 3 (e Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green Gis) 92.2 922 92.2 15,8 d5:8 15.81',.,, Effective Green, g (s) 94.2 94.2 94.2 17.8 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,78 0 78 0.78: 0.15 0.15 0 15;r,„, Clearance Time is) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 &0 6.0 Vehicle Extension is) 3.0 3.0' 3.0 8:0:. 3.0 30 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 4072 2834 2231 266 268 240 v/s Rollo Prot c0.40 0.36 0.10. 0..10 .,_. v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.15 We Ratio 0.60 045 0.31 0.69. 0:64 1.02 , Uniform Delay, dl 4.6 4.3 3.7 4B.5 l&1 51.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0A 0.1 0.1 7A 5.2 64.7 Delay (a) 5.0 4.4 3.7 55.9 53.3 115.8 Level of Service A A A E D F Approach Delay (s) ,... 5.0 4.2. „" ,. 779A .. . , Approacn LOS A A A E Iniei's9ctlorr50minaryrl ... .. ........ ...:� a,t z.;ldS;rT"*�M. fY�li HCM Average Control Delay 14.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM. Volume to: Capacity ratio 0.59 , Actuated Cycle Length a) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Ufil zetron , 61 6% ICU Level of Bann.. $ , c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 rescif-M-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter \NickMicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\LVMPM03NBODV.sy6 rl t 1 ) 1 /I Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 1 I 1 resourwhit-ex51 CM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 9: Main & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki_c\Proiects\UVM\UVM1Syncnro\UVMPM03NBODV.sy6 Fivernanc. ,.:':`...t„ o .'ti:I:CiEi•.Yi9k. �t't87�"-4�ii�.. NBti t:3Wt'+�ina5�fi.�F3!Nli �.: = Lana Configurations tti+ tt deal Flaw (vphpl):: '1900 ;"19g0 ' 1900 :: 19W 19GO ➢ 1900'. 19W 1900 1900,'. 190q ' 190fl Total Lost time (s) 40 4.0 - - 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uttl. Factor ,' ] (L91 " 0.95_•s' rI.9T' 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.85 FIE,PrCtected : 1.00 1.00. ['-'.0.95. 0.95 1,00 Fiow (prat) 4971 3539 3433 1770 1583 ISatd FIi:Permitted 100 1.00-. 0.95 0.95 "1.00 Sed. Flow (perm) 4971 3539 3433 1770 1583 Ifturne (yph) 0: 1279 225 0 1470 - 0 0: 0.:..: 888' 621 : ; 83 Peak -hour factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 100 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph):: O 1279 225 0 1470 : 0 0:= 0 888 621 83 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1504 0 0 1470 0 0 0 886 621 ,• „ 83 Type :5 Prof Prat (Turn Protected Ph e 2 6 3 8 8 Permuted Ph sea. Ac1u red Green, G (s) 39 0 39.0 24 0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green „g is) 41.0 41,0 "26.0: 26.0. 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0,55 - 0.35 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (a) 6.0 ad 6.0 6.0 >:.6,0 Extension (s) 30 3.0 3.0 30 30 IVehicle Lane Grp Gap (vph) 2717 MIS 1190 644 549 v/s Ratio Prot 0,30 c0,42 0,26 cO 35 0,05 vle Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.55 0.76 0.75 1,01 0.15 Uniform Delay, of 11.1 13.2- 21.6 24.5. 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.27 1.27 2,06 Inorementai Delay, d2 0.8 1 a 0.9 24.2 0.0 Delay (s) 11,9 14.9 28A 552 34,9 Level of Service -. B B:i C E C Approach Delay (s) 11.9 14.9 0.0 39 2 Approach LOS,-, B B: A. '. D.< IhteEeBctl6r1",BtltYuheky . HC. Average:C'ontrol Delay 22 4 �: HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 086 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 75.0 Sum of lost time (a) 80 Inte ct on Capacity Utilization 81 7°b ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane. Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & `,\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM03NBODV.sy6 A_ Lane Conf g at ons tt West Flow (vphol) Total Lost tame (s) 4 0 4.0 " Lane Utli,,Factar ...' 1,00 .. 096' Fit 1,00 .. 1.00 Fit Protected '- 095 {.00„ , Said Flow (prat) 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 L00' Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 Volume_(vph) 418 0: 0 0.. 0 1790' Paak-hour lector, PHF 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 Adj. Flow (Vph) 454 0;. 0 0:. 0 194 Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Turn Type P tected Phases 8 6 Permitted Phases h ctA Actuated Green, G (s) 240 •, ,� •, 3eo Efieotrve:Gmim, g(a), : 260 41,0: „u,,,, r �. 7•rt Actuated g/C Ratio 0 35 n 0,55 � • Clearance Time (a) 6,0 6.0 , r "•. Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 10 Lane Grp Cap (vph) : 614 1935' v/s Ratio Prot c0 26 c0 55 v/a Ratio Perm vm Ratio 0.74 1.01 Unuorm'Delay d1-. 21.5 17.0: Progression Factor 1,00 1.00 _ Incremental Delay, 12 : 4.7 21:8; Delay (s) 262 v 38.8 Level of Service C D' Approach Delay (s) 26,2 0.0 38.8 Approach. LOS - C A ",D Weirsetabd Simma J}n�yi(St� HCM Average Control Delay 35.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,90 Actuated Cycle Lengths) 75 13 Sum of lost 11m. (s) 80 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85 fi % ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group; Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 Page 6 resourwhlt-sx51 resourwhit-.sz51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\Nick\nicki c\Projects\Uvt^uVM\Synchm\UVMPM08BODV.sye E8L o-BR`-' WBC i.WBT WBR 11((++iFit'. =:SBL 587`=tom Lane Configurations Ideal Flow,yphpf), , , ,17t0 -1710 1710:. 1710 1710 r. 1710 1710 4710 1710 7710 1710 131 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 '2 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time Is) 4.0 4.0 4:0 410 40 4.0 } 0 4,0 Lane Ulil. Factor 0.95 1 00 1,00 1 00 1 00 1.00 3,97 1.00 Fd' , 099 100 1,00 085 1000:85 1.00 0.98 Fit Protected I ad 0,95 1.00 I.00 1 00 1.co 0.95 1.00 Satd. Fiow (pot) : 3054 1593 1676: 1425 1621 '.1378 3090 1644 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.95 1 cc 100 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 5atd. Flaw (perm) -: 3054 :. 1593 1676 1425 1621 137E 3090 :"i Fy114 Volume (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Peak -hour, factor, PHF 100 :: r 00 1.00 `. 1 00 1.00. 1 00: 1`.00 1 00 100 1 00 1 00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)- 6 815 46 212 -723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Lane Group -.Flow: vph) 0... 361 0 212 :723' 546 0: 179 420 526 156 0 Turn Type Piet pm+ov Pon- Prot Protected Phases _ 2 _ 1 61 7 8 4 7 4 , Permitted Phases 6 6 4 Actuated Clean. G (s) - 38.3 16.3 59,6 73,6 12,0 28.3 14.0 31<A „s"�,�,�s Effective Green. g(s) 393 173 606 756 140 31-3 150 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 036 : 046 0,55 069 013 0.28 014 030 Clearance Time s) 5.0 5.a 5-0 5,0 60 5.0 5.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3,0 :3.0 10 10 3.0 10 3t0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1091 251 923 979 206 392 421 493 vie Z,c' Prot 0.28 0,13 n0.43 0.08 0.11 or). 17 c0.17 0 09 v/a Retlo Perm 0 31 0-14 v7C Ratio - 079 : 084 078 356 087 :107 125 Uniform Delay. of 316 450 19.5 67 471 39.4 475 29.8 Pogreealon Factor t 00 1.00 1,00 ' 00 1,00 1_00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 S 8 220 6 6 3 7 29.E 65 9 30 6 44 Delay (a) 37.5 67 1 26.1 9 4 76,9 106:.1 178.1 301 Level 01 Service D E C A E F F Approach Delay (a) 375 25.8 96.7 1443 Approach LOS D C F �eraentlonSutnrsimy. , - HCM Average Control Delay 52.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio::: '.0,95 _ Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1100 Sum of last f me (s) 20-4 Intersection Capacity utilization 822ry ICU Level of Service ;D „-F ;, w,,IN Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page I resourwhibsx5l HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Uni Heights \1Nickdnicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM/\Synchro\UVMMPM09BODV.sy6 Lane Configuration, tT. .T� �' 11 Ideal Fl.wrNPIrial) 1710: 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710-tiij} j7jCt, 570 i710,,;(1j1?, Lana Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total Lost ime 0) 40 .4,0 4.0 4..0 4or" ,�.„i!,C.,,y Lane Ulil- Fedor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0,95 1,00 Filch, pecilbikes . 1.00 1.00 1 00 0.99 1 00"-�,�,a.,, Flpb, pea/bikas "00 1,00 0.97 '.00 0.95 Frf 7'10 1,00 1,00 0.85 1 o0` u„.a .'•Ys, Fit Protected 1 00 1.00 005 '.00 0 95 $or aid. Flow (pr.0 : 3174 3181' 1490 1215 14581, Fit Permitted 0.95 a 86 1 72 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow arm) S 3007 `' 2736 - 1132 1215- Volume (vph) 7 1938 32 1565 4 .is 1 17 io 0 Peak hour factor; PHF 1-,00. 1.00 1.00' 1:00 1.00 1,00. 1.00 1 00 f c() 1,00- i 00 Act Flow(vpl•) 7 1938 32 v6 1565 4 38 ' 17 '0 J Lane Group Flow (vph) 0� ig77 0 0 1595 0 99 0 17 10 :0 Conf( Pads (4/hr) 10 10 10 ;0 10 '0 10 '0 TurnType Perm ';. Par ustom -custom _. . Protected Phases o Perm Ned Ph sea 2 6 8 8 4 -, Actuated Green, G (s) 79.6 '9.6 8.4 3.4 14 Effective Grand, 9 is)... 31.6 81.6 10.4 10.a 10,4 - Actuated g/C Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.09 0,09 J.09 Clearance Time (s) 60 6.0 :6.0 _ 6:0 d0 Vehicle Extension (11 3.0 3.0 30 3.111 3.0 Lane Grp Gap lypn) ;.: 2231 ;. 2029 107 its 138 , v/s Ratio Prot W.Re I. Perm c0 66 0,56: e0.03 : .0,01 0.101 , vic Ratio 0.89 0,79 0,36 0,15 007 (dhrtorm Delay, of 10.7 ; 8.8 1 : 457 40 4 Progra.,s on f-aotor 1.00 1,00 1.00 00 1.00 Ira-gatintal,Dalay, d2 87 21 21 .. 0.F 02 ,r Delay (s) 16,4 10.9 48.6 IF] :5 6 Leval of Santce-:. B : B l0 0 D ,, ... 7 Approach Daley (s) 1 G.4 10.<J 48. i -� Approach LOS ,, B -5: :, D Inleree'ntmn Srlmmary.. u1K,,, RCM Average,. Control Delay 14.5 HCMEr Level of Service, ,- HCM Volume to C pecdy ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle: Length (s) -11(L0 nel'q ,tt.me ') ;: 180 „ Intersection Capacity Ufilization 6?.9°.', ICU Lav I i sa= ce D c Critical Lane' Gregg Baseline Syn o 5 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12117/2001 17: Main & East \\Nickllnicki c\Projects\UVM\UV%Synchro\UVMPM08BCDV.sy6 (u[d"4ergeni . ..,,,.ate• :: &"i''.fBR'., WBti':':..WBT...W6R= SaLl", Lane Conti ratons }Tt Tt "jr I i< Ideal Flow( phpl) `. 1900 IWO: 1900 1900: 1900 1900 19001900 1900 ;°400C iJW Total Lost 6me (sl 4.0 4040 40 4,0 40 Lane Uhl. Factor 0.91'- 095 0,88. 1.00 1,00 1.0011 - -,, Fri 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.005'. - 1.00 1.00. 0.95 0.95 100 Said. Flow (grog) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Fit Permitted 1.00. 100 1.00 095 0.95 100 Said. Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 18M 1615 Volume.(Vph) 0 '2295 0 :p 1443 777 0 0 227 210 300 _ Peek -hour factor, PHI 1.00 1.0o 1,00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 I.00 1,00 Al Flow0 2295:: 0 0 1443 "777 ] 0 227 210 300 _ .(vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2295 0 1443 777 0 0 227 210 200 Heavy Vehicles (%1. 0% 0°ra.". V° 0%. 0%. 0% :0% 0% ' 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases Z.: 6 7 _ 4 4 :<s Permitted Phases - Actuated Green, G (s) ::. 80,9 80.9 30.9 19,9 19.9 19,9 Effective Green, g (s) B2,9 92 9 82-9 21,9 21.9 21 9 Actuated:I Ratio 0.69: 069 0.69 0.1E 0.t3 018 Clearance Time (e) 6.0- 6.0 60 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) F: 30I: 30 >.10 30 3.0 30:,`:3'. Lane Grp Can (vph) 3583 2494 1963 329 329 295 Ws Ratio Pr01 c044 0,40 013 012 �00..19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 We Ratio: '0.64: 0,5E 0.40 0,69 r ?,64 Uniform Delay. d1 10.3 56 7.9 45 9 45.4 49 0 Progt',aesion Factor 1.00 100 t.00 100 1.00 10a,,,,�i Incremental Delay, c2 0.9 7 3 0.1 5.9 4.3 568 Delay (a):. IL2 99 9:0 518 :49.4 10 5. TM Level of Service B A A D D F Approach Delay (e) I L2. 92 0.0 _. 731 Approach LOS B A A E fnlereaction SOMmary, • ,,x%,"q'�O,4{`i�, HCM Average Control Delay 19.0 HCM L_vel of Service B HCM Volume to Capapity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time is) 152 Intersection Capacity Utflintion ,': 69 696 -ICU Level of,Service- c Critical Lane Group - Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODV.sy6 ') 1 1 J Lane Configurations Tt Total Lost time (s) Frt Ftl.Profected a ±..�� ., . - i' Said Flow (Prot) FliPermitted Said Flow (pan.) Peak -hour factor, Pi 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 Lana Group Flow fvph)� 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type eastern Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 6 : - +v V„ Actuated Green G (s)- Eff-Irt. Green, g (a)-. � u Acid led g/C Ratio Cleaance Time O Vehicle Extens nn LaneGrp Cap ivph) .... `" . ". „ , via Ratio Prot We Ratio Perm We Ratio a Progression Factor Incremehtal Dairy, dff'. _ Delay Level of'Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS Z r A A _ _7 intersealfon Sunirda % - HCM Average Control Delay 00 HCM Level of Sorvca A HCM Vauma to Capacity ratio 0.0C Actuated Cycle Length (5) 24,0 Sum of last tiime (s) TO , Intersect on Capaclty ULLIZalion U 096 - ICU Level of Sev re 4 c c:rigical Lana Group; Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 resourwhit-sx51 resourwhit-ex51 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOBBODV.sy6 ane Contiguralions TTA TT *i) 1j tr eel FInW (vphpf),,_ 1900 '1900 1900 1900 190Q 1t900 ; 1900" ;5900' 4900'� 1900 1900s Total Lost time (s) 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 Lane Util Factor : -'0,91 0,95 ': 097 > 1.00 1.00:: _ Frt - 0.98 1,00 1.00 1,00 0.e5 11 Protected LOG 1.00 : 095 0.95 100' add Flow (prof) 4963 3539 3433 1770 1583 It Permitted 1 '1.00 100 095 0.95 1.00' atd Flow (Farm) 4963 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0. 1433 274 : 0 1671 '< 0 : 0 ' 0 977-r. 741 93; Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 LOO 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Ad);.Flow (vph) 0 1403 274: 0 t671.- 0 0- 0 9775s 741 93 ,'. Lane Group Flow (v h) 0 1707 0 0 1671 0 0 0 977 741 93 urn TYPe Prot ot Pr,. rolected Phases 2 6 3 6 8 ermilted Phases Actuated Green. G (s) 33.2 33.2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green; 9 a). ' 35.2 35.2r 22,0 22.0 22.0.: _ Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0,31 0.31 0.31 fearance Time 6.0 6.0 $.0: 60 6.0' ehicle Extension Is) 3 0 3.0 3.0 3 0 3.0 ane Grp Gap ;(yph) 2426 1730 1049 541 484: /s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.47 0.28 c0.42 0,06 via Ratio Perm' v/c Ratio 0.70 0.97 0.93 1,37 0.19 Uniform Delay. dl:,. 14.3 17.6 : 24,3 250 18.4• onac sFtor to 1.00 1 17 1 18 1 81 IPr" ncremental Delay, d2 13 14.3 6.0 170.5 0 t (5) 16 1 32.1 34.5 200 1 33 5 (Delay Level cl Service B C C F C Approach Delay (s) 16.1 32.1 0.0 102.2 Approach LOS ': B ,... C" A.< F „ Control Delay 51.3 Beryl.. HCM Level of Berve D . JHCM HCM Volumeto Capacity ratio 1.12 s Act -ad Cyclalength (s) 72 0 ':.' Sum'of lost time (s) 14 8' Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.9% ICU Level of So,-E c Critical' Lane' Group _ Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODV.sy6 Lane Configurations Ideal Flow(vphplj 1900 1900 1900 , 19M "(1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 40 4.0 Lane U01, Factor 1,00 .... 0.95' Fn 1,00 _ 1.00 Fit Protected 0,95 1,00 Sold. Flow (prof) 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95 1A0 Sold. Flaw (perm) 1770 3539 Volume(vph) +. 418 - 0' 0 -0= 0 179G Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 454 0 0 0 ': 0 1946:: Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 0 0 0 0 1946 Turn Type Protected Phases 8 6 Permitted Phase. Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 33.2 Effective Green, g(s): 22.0 35-2' _ Actuated 9/C Ratio 0,31 0,49 Clearance Time (a) 6.0 6.05. Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 TO Lane Grp Cap (vph). 541 _ 1730'i _ Ws Ratio Pro i c0.26 r.0.55 via Ratio Porm We Ratio 0.64 1,12 Uniform. Delay, di 23.3 18.4' P ogress'an Factor 1 00 1 00 In .mental Delay, d2 : 11.0 64.4 Delay (s) 34 3 82.8 Level of Beryl- C F : Approach Delay (s) 34.3 0.0 62.8 Approach.LOS C :A. _:F InlaraecNi£Sneumma '`�' .: `'', +y,, .�; •. rc- ,>, HCM Average Control Delay 73.6 HCM Level ofService HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 AcluatedCycle Length (s) 72.0 Sum of lost time (s) :' 14 3 , Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.6% ICU Level of Sarvica D c Critical Lane: Group _ Baseline Sync- 6 Report Page 6 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 2: Main & Uni. Place \\Nick\nicki_c\Projects\UVMIUVM\Synch,.\UVMPM08BODV25%.sy6 y - 4, Lane Configurations df TT+ tr Ideal Flow(vphpi) 1710r 1710 17io 1710, Lana Width 12 12 2 12 it 11 Total Lost time ',a) 4.04.0. Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 Fit 1,00 1.00' Fit Protected 1.00 1,00 Saud. Flow (post) 3185 3185 FII Permitted 1.00 1,00 Said Flow (perm) 3185 . 3185 T , Volume (vph) 0 1852 1575 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1-00;: 1,00 IM 1,00 1;00 1,00 Act. Flow (vp'n) 0 1852 1575 0 0 0 Lane Grouo Flow (vph) 0 1852 1575: 0 0 0 Turn Type Penn Free Protected Phases 2 '... 6 - Permitted Phases 2 Free Actuated Green, G(s) _: 101.6 101:6 _ Effective Green, g (a) 1035 iO3_6 Actuated gtC Rabo 0.89 0.89. Clearance Time (a) 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) _ 3.0 : '. 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2845 2845 Ws Rath Prot -'.. c0 58 049 , .:. .. .. ` . ,. :;;..r ..:........... .. via Ratio Perm .,�.�� v/.Rats ,: 0.69 05 Uniform Delay, d1 1.6 1.3 Pro 9resslon Factor 1,00 1,0Q. 'Z,, ,, _ Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.8 _�, Delay (a) 28 2.1. Level of Service A A Approach Delay (s) 22 21; Approach LOS A A A HCM Average Control Delay 2.5 HCM Level at Service A HCM Volumeto Capacity ratio- 0.65 , Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (a) 12�4 Iotersection Capacity UtNcipam, 60 2 / `ICU Cevel of Service;. c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & East \\Nickilnickl c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM0680DV25%.sy6 EST Lane Configurations TTt TT rr 1( Ideal Flow(vphph 19001 1900 ;goo 19GO 1900- 1900 1000, 1900 Iwo 1900, 19370nj,,,� j Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 40 TO 40 4.0 Lane Ulf- Fact., 0 91 095 0,88 1500 1.00 1,00, Fri I.00 1.00 0 35 00 1.00 085 Fit Protected 1,00 1.00 1,00 0.95 095 1.00 Satd Flow (1r 0 5187 3G 10 23I2 i8O5 1506 IUS Fit Permitted.: 1,00 1:00 1.1110 0.95 0.95 1.00 , Said. Flow (pens) 5187 3610 1842 1505 1805 1615 Volume (Vph) :: 0 2295 0 0 ' 1443 777 0 a 227 21 D 300 Peak hour factor PHF 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,05 1.00 '.00 1.00 '..00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph): , 0 2295 :0 0 1443 777 D 0 227 210 300 Len. Group Flow (vph'. 0 2295 a 0 1443 ?77 C 0 227 211 M0 Flsevy Vakifsies (%) 0°0:. Ce 0% 0% ::0% 0% .0% 0%"" 0?0 0°f>>. : 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Per Plaitected Phases 2 6 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Greg" 1a) 71 5 71 5 715 183 18.7 ' 1tf 7 , Effective Green. g (s) -3 5 73.5 73' 20.7 20.7 20.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 1.67 067 :0.19 019 0,19 Clearance Times) 1.0 e.0 6.o 6.0 a e0 Vehicle Extension (a) 30 30 3.0' " 3.0 ' 3.0 3 0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3466 2412 1899 340 340 304 v/s Raho Prot c0 44: 0,40 0,13 0.12 v/s Ratfc Perm C.27 i319 221. 0.66 O:6o 0.41 '; 0.67 O.62 0.99 Uniform Delay, dl '. 0.9 10_1 6.3 475 41.0 145 Prcg,...Ion Factor 0.90 :6 36 OM 1:00 1 00 1.00 increments' Delay d2 0.7 0.9 9.5 u.9 3.3 47.6 Delays) 10.6 4:6 07 46.4 443 ".92.1 Levi of Servlca� 3 A _ A D D F Approach Daiay {s) 10's 3.2 0.0 64A Approach LOS B A .4 igieFiecH.r[ HCM Average Control Delay 15 U HCM Lo ry l 1 e ce 6 HCM Volume to[Capaatyralld: 078. Actuated Cycle Length (a) 110.0 Sum of t time is) 15 8 Intersection Capacity Uillizmkm 69 6°6'.. `ICU Level of Smv- _ 8 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\NickiVlicki_c\Proj..tts\UVM\UVKSynchro\UVMPMOBBOD1V25%.sy6 A�Yovamenth(,Ok„'P';!I,.�(u1.I"tii4, ,F,B't. r'` EBRIv WBL WBT WBR. NBL.riSt.tf . Lana Configurations 4T+ ij } (r 4 F )"I T. Ideal Flow (Vphpl) 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710:,1710 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 it 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time is) : - .4.0 4.0 40 -4.0 '4.0 4.0 7.: 4,0 4.0 Lane Ufil. Factor 0,95 1..00 "DO 100 1.CD 1 00 0.97 1,00 Fri 0.99 1:00 1.00 085 1;00 0.85 I.00 0.98 Fit Protected 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.95 1,30 Said. Fla.(prot) 3054 1593 1676 1425 1621 1378 :30% 1644 Fit Permitted 1 00 0,95 1.00 1.00 1,00 1 00 0.95 1.co Siud. Flow (perm) 3054 1593 1676 .t425 1621 1373 3090 1644 Volume(vph) 0 815 46 212 723 54B 0 '79 420 526 i36 20 Peak -tour factor, PHF 100 . - 1,00 100 :1�00 1 00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 ,....1,00 1.00 1.00 Adl Flow (vph) ) 215 -.6 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Lane: Group Fklw(apii) 0 881 0 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 156 ::0 Turn Type Prot arn- Pon- Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 '3 ''8 1 `:7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 _ 4 Actuated Green, G (s): 31.9 170 53,9 70.9 '13,5 30.5 17.0 35,5 Effective Green, g (s) 32.9 18.0 54.9 72.9 15.5 33.5 18.0 37.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.16 0.50 " 0:66 0,14 0. 30 : 0.16 0 34 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Vehicle: Ext... I..(a)::.. ':3.0 3,0 30 110 '3.o 3.0 :30 30 Lane Grp Cap yph) 913 26': 836 996 228 420 506 563 We Ratio Prot :.0,28 :: 0,1:3 0.43 :.0.09 : 0.11 c0.16 C0:17 . 0,09 v/s Ratio Perm 1,29 0.14.... Vic Ratio 0.94 0,31 ) 66 0,55 0.79 100 :1 04 0 28 Uniform Delay, d 1 17.6 144 c43 9.8 456 382 463 164 progression Factor : 1.00 :'. 1.00 100 1. Do <'1,00 100 -L.00 1 00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.8 `. 7.2 11.6 O6 16.1 43.9 50C 0 3 Delays) yu : 61 6 35 a t0.4 61:8 82.2 - 96.6 26 7 , _ Level of Service E - D B L F F C Approach Delay (s) 56.5 Approach LOS E C c F interkeollon Stnnin`at�!�; ,, ., .. , HCM Average Control Delay 35 : 1 Lever of 6ery ce HCM D HCM Volume to Capacity redo , ..: 0 99 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 110.0 Sun .I lost time ,s/ 25 6 Intersection Capacity Uhfieati.P -: 82 2% ICU Level olj Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 19: Main & Uni, Terrace \\NickMickl_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM0880DV25%.sy6 -► 7 ! - '1 /' Lane Configurations Tj, .TT Y {d@a' I"F(gVi (vphpl), 1900 19(16 "; t900 190f7° 19E70 t$(i0 ,, . ,. , , . „. .- Total Lost time (s) 4.0 40 4.0 Lane 17t (t Factor „0,95 3, •:.. 0.95 1.00 ° . •,' .. `• e. Frt 1 00 1.00 0.94 Fit:Pmtected 100 1.00 097 Said. Flow prod 3535 3539 1703 R pomnuted 100 0.94 097 Said. Flow per- i5,35 3313 1703 Volumo.(vph) 1776 14 10 1592 11 9v 7u, _ P.ak-ho rlactor.PHF :.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Adj Pow (vph) 1776 14 10 1592 11 ,9 Lane Gr p Flow (von) 1790 0 1602 0 Turn.; type ^ Perm ., ... Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phasos 6 Ac:ualed Green, G (s) 94.2 94.2 3.8 Effective Green, 9 (s).:. 1)6.2 -96.2 58 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.87 087 0.35 Clearance Time (s)., 60 :60 6.0 Vehicle Extension to) 3.0 30 -1 0 Lan.; Grp cap (vph): 3092 2397 90 v/s Ratio Prot c0.51 ,. c0.01 via Ratio Perm ` 0.48 - v/o Ratio 0 58 0.55 0.22 Uniform; Delay, of 1 e ': 1.7 49 9 Progression Factor I.co 1.00 1.00, Incremental Delay, d2" 0,8 - 0.8 1.3 - -. Delay (s) 2.6 24 512 - Level of Service A A D Approach Delay is) 2.6 2 4 51.2 Approach LOS A A D iilteisa'ciicn 5umtttary; ' Average Control Delay 2.8 HCM Level of Service A _HCM HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3,56 Actuated Cycle Length is) f 10 0 : Sum oI lost time (s) 6,0 Intersection Capacity Ui I nation 79 5°o ICU Leval of Sir ce A a Critical Lane Group, Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 nuse rWInt.ax51 ,HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Uni Heights \\Nickii\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\\UVM\Synchro\UVVMPMOOBBODV25%sy6 \ Mp4eme� nq ;,,EB&-�". EBRr°-WBL �,WB�':-'N7BR=::7{713C; NBfi NBR�' SNtf. Lane Configurations to dt 'k+ IN 1S Ideal Flow(Vphpi) 1710 1710" 1710 : 1710 1710 1710 1779 t Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 it .,1 11 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4,0' 4:0 4,0 Lane Util Factor 1,11 011 1,10 Og5 1,00 Frph ped/bikes 1.00 1.00'. 1.00 0,96 Fob ped/bikes 1.00 1,00 097 1.00 095 Fit 1,00 1 00 1,00= 0.85 Fit Protected 1 00 1.00 0.95 1.00 095 Seed, Flaw (prat):' " 3173 31 of 1489 1252 Fit Permitted 0.95 0.86 0,72 1.00 0.95 Said Flow (perm) 3007 2740 1132: 1252 1458 `sr. (vph) 7 1936 32 26 1565 4 38 1 17 10 0 IVolume Peak -hour factor;; PHF 100 . 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1 00 Y 00 , Adj. Flow (vph) 7 1938 32 26 1565 4 38 1 17 10 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0< 1977 0 0 1595 0 39 0 17 10 •0 Conti. Pads. (k/hr) 10 10 to 10 10 10 10 10 to Turn Type Perm:., Perm custom. custom Protected Pha as 2 6 Permitted Phases 2Y 6 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 88.2 BB 2 9,2 9.2 92 Effective Green, 9 (a) 90.2 90.2 11.2 11..2 11.2 Actuated 9/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.09 0,09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 6.0' 6.0: 6.0 6.0 60 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 00 3.0 3.0 00 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2211 2077. 117 1111 137 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm : c0 66 0.58 c0,03 0.01 - 0.01 v/c Ratio 087 0,77 0.36 0,14 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 102 8.3 50.6 ',. 495 ' 49.2" Progression Factor 1,00 1.00 1,00 Loo 1.00 Incremental. Delay, d2 4 8 2.14 :2.1 06 0.2 , Delay ( ) 11,1 11,1 12.1 50.1 414 Level of S iwce B B. D D D Approach Delay (s) 15 0 11 1 51.9 494 Approach LOS r B S D D Fdfarsastlon.summajy .. .t�. , :, "•.a - HCM Average: Control Delay 119: HCM Level of Service B - HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 081 Actuated Cycle Length is) : 119.0 Sum olylost time (a) 17:6 Intersection Capacity Ut zotion 3& 8"14 ICU 1 Duel of S'r co D c. Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 Main & Spear Enter ,\N k\ ck c\Pr t \UVM\UVM\Synchro\U/VMPM08BODV25/ sy6 I29: _,-� 4- -z ., r I.r Matiarrfanl . "��, <'E6Li; EB'F, EF�G`St.WBL'Wf3.'f„Wt6Fk °.,; NB&?�NBR,SWt;2;, aVdG �`SWTJ� r Lane Configuration, ttT+ tt £S1S 7 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900. 1900 1900 1900.. 1900 1900 1900 1800 1900 1900 1900. Lost time (s) 40 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 Lane Utii Factor. 0.91 0.95 0.97 1,00 1.00 ITotal Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1 00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0,95 0.95 1000 Said. Rl (Jamt) 4963 3539 3433 1770 1583 Elf Permitted 1.00 LOO 0.95 0,95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 4963 3539 3433 1770 1583 (vph) 0 1433 274 0 1671'- 0 0 0 977 741 93 Peak h u f tor. PHF 1.00 1 00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1,00 1.00 100 1.00 IVolume Ad( Row (vph) 0 '. 1433 274 ` 0 1671 0 f. 0 0 977 741 93 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1707 0 0 1671 0 0 0 977 741 93 Turn Type Prot .,Prot Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 8 Permitted Phases Green G is) 512 51.2 39.0 39,0 39.0 Effective Green g (s) 512 53.2 41-;0 41.0 41:0 IActuated Actuated g/C Ratio 0 48 _ OA8 0.37 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time 60 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 V.hole Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap: (vph) ': 2400 1712 '1280 660. 590 v/s Ratio Prot 0,34 c0.47 0.28 c0.42 0.06 Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.71 0,98 0.76 112 0 16 Iv/s Uniform Delay, dl 224 27.8: 30,2 34.5 23.0' Progress on Factor 1.00 0,71 1.34 1.33 192 incremental Delay, d2 118 15.1 0)9 82.0 pl0 Delay (a) 24.2 34A 41A 108,0 44,2 Level of Service: C. C. :D F 'D pp oa h Delay (s) Approach 24.2 3 8 0.0 68 8 Approach LOS C C: A E , I HCM Average Control Delay 43.2 HCM Level of Service - D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1,04 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 110-0` Sum .1 lost June (a) Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.9% ICU Level of Service E c Critic a4 Lane Group Baseline rasounvhihsx5l Synchro 5 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter \\Nickli\nicki_c\\ProjectslUVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOBBODV25%.sy6 ♦ Lane Configurations tt 6'jr Ideal Floiv(Vphpl) 1900 1900( 1900 1900 1900 1900 , Total Lost time (s) Lane UNk factor Fit Fit Protected Said Flow (p t) Fit Permitted Said Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 0 --0 0 0 0 *,0 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Oe2 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type custom Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 8. Actuated Green, G (s) Effective. Green, g (s). -, Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (a) , Vehicle Extension is) Lane Gpp Cap(vph) v/s Ratio Prot via Ratio PermoibSM Mi-1l11141MI 423%k�`9:�w'we✓krrau4w v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, of ,. Progression Factore Incremental Delay, d2 ' Delay (at LeveloIService . Approach Delay (s) 0.) 0.0 0.0 Approach LOs- , 'A A A thterse-iWianBar�ma '' ' _ :'^ f i �' I (hll I r a i HCM Average Control Delay 0.0 HCM Level 01 Be vice a i a>ur'V�Wt HCM Volume to Capacity,alto 0,00 Actuated Cyclo Length (s) 110 0 Sum of lost tittle (0) Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0°=e ICU Level of Service A c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 6 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVNkSynchro\UVMPM08BODV25%.sy6 Lane Configurations '� tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) `:� 1900 1900'. 1900 1900 Wool 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0_:95 Fit 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0,95 1.00 Sold. Flow (prat) 1770 3539 Fit Psrmitiod 0.95. 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 _ 3539 Volume (vph) 420 0 0 - 0 0 1798... Peak -hour factor PHF 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad) Flow (vph) 457 0- 0 `.❑ 0 /954 Lane Group Flow (vpli) 457 0 0 0 0 1954 Turn.. TYPO Protected Phases 8 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (a) 39.0 51.2 ElteotiveGreen 9 (a) 41.0 532 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 'r 660 '1712 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 no 55 vls. Ratio: Parm v/c Rat o 0.69 1,14 Unitorm Delay, d1 29.2 28 4 Progression Factor 1 00 1 0o Incremental Daley. d2 ` 3.1 71-2 Delay (s) 32.3 99.6 Level: of Service C 1<f Approach Delay (s) 32.3 0.0 99.6 Approach LOS C A F y HCM Average Control Daley 66.8 :HCM Level of Service F , HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated. Cycle Length (a) : 110.0 ':sum of lost time (a) '15,8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86a9l, ICU Level of Service D o Crllipei Lane Group.; Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 8 rescurwhii-sx57 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 40: Main & Sheraton \Wicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVKSynchro\UVMPM0860DV25%.sy6 Lane Configuraiions ?? W. 1 1, Ideal Flow(vphpl): 1900 <1900 19flfI '.1900 1906,"wr �BflO t90Q'` 1;9t1Q ` Total Lost time Is) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uol Factor F 100 ': 0.96 `'"00`"c t06b9#°= „^`,�„ ;, 4C+ 1:Od ",`','F:,��"t3 400 1.00, Fri 100 1.00 0.85 :.00 0.99 1,00- 1.00 0.85 1.00 100 ass Fit Protected 0.95 iio0 100' 095: 1.00 0.95. 095 100. 0.95.. 1.00 1,00 Said Flow (prof) 1770 3539 1583 177D '056 1681 1621 1583 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permilled 0.95-: 100 1.00'. 005 1:00 0.72 072 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1,770 3539 1583 102 5056 1272 1272 1583 ',770 1663 1583 Volume (vph) 18 r.2429 96 118 1975.E 79 .62 0 21.. 161 ; 64 19 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 092 0.92 G 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad}: Fjow(vph) 20.`2640 104:;. 128 2147, 36-: 6-7 9 23 175 59 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 2640 104 128 2233 C 34 33 23 175 5L 21 Turn Type Prot piston P.- Perm Perm' Prom: Perm Protected Phases c 2 6 3 7 a Parm(tted Phases. 2': 6 19 8: 4 Actuated Green, G (a) 1.6 78,7 78.7 71 1 71.1 7.3 7 3 7.3 6 0 19.3 '9.3 EllectNe Green. g. (a) 3.6 ;: 30.7 80.7 73.1 73 1 : 9;3: 9 3 ... 9.3 8 0 21.3 21.3 ACWatea g/C Ratio 1(33 0.73 C.73 C.6fi 166 3.08 0.38 0.06 0.07 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (a) 60.>: 6.0 6.0 60 6,0. 6.0. 6,0 6.0 60 6:0 60 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.D 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 .10 30 Ladle Grp Cap.(vph) 58. 2596 1161 68 ..'3360 108 108 .134 129 .. 361 307 v/sRatoProt 0.01 c07` 0.44 'C,10 0.03 vis Ran. Farm : 007: :ci26 c0.03 003 0.01: 001'. v/c Ratio JJr 1,02 009 188 1.66 11.31 0.31 0,17 36 0_16 0,07 Uniform Delay,.d1 520. 146 4.2 185 11:1 47A 473 46.8 510 26.9 36.2 Progresson Factor D.80 076 0.33 '.00 100 1.Do 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 100 Incremental Delay, d2 29 20.4 0.1 : 447 2 1.1 1.7 t 6 0.6 202.5 0.2 0 3 Delay (a) 44.8 1 1 I65.6 12.149.0 48.9 L7_4 259.5 37_t 36.3 Level of Service--- 0-: C A. F R. D D }D F 'D D Approach Delay is) C0.5 35.7 43.6 185.6 Approach LOS C D- D F Mifer§eclionSummery . HCM Average Control Delay 403 HCM Level cl Son,- D HCMV l.-toc paclyratio ..61 Actuated Cycle Length(ai 110.0 Smooftost time (s) 121) , Irate s clion Capacity Url a Ina 5-1.ic ICU Level f Serve F Critical Lane Group ... Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 9 resourwhit-sx51 1HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\Nick(\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synch,.\UVMPM08BODV50%.sy6 l --,, ! - '\ t /- \- 1 -' Mb"vemAlti " :. ..EBL. .���. OaBR.;"Yyet ., wgT�...,1Vf31cr?i uBT�?taBR%-. SBL -:sBi'1"-1`5BFi Lane ConfigurationsTj, tj T jr { 3jtj j. Ideal Flow(vphpt) IM '1710 1710 1710 1710 _ 1710 1710 1710 1710: 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time, ime (a)I 4.0 '- 4.0 4,0' 4 0 4 0 4.0: 4 0 4:0' Lane U11, Factor 1,11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 0.91 1.00 1 Fri'::: 099 t W 1.00 0.85 100 0.85. 1.00 098: Fit Protected 1 00 0 95 1 00 1 00 100 1 00 0.95 1 00 Said Flow (Prot) 3054 :. 1593 1676. 1425 1621 1378 3090 1644 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.95 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 095 1,00 Sold. Flaw (perm) :. 3054 :: 1593 1676 1425 1621 1378 3090::.: 1644 Volume (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Peak hour faclot; 1.00 1,111 i 00 1,00 1,10:: 1,00 1.00 1,01) 1,00 1 00 1.00 1.00 ,PHF Adj. (vph( 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Lan Group Flow (vph) 0 � : 861 0 212 723': 546 : 0 179 420 526 156 0 Turn Type Prot pm.ov pm+ov Prot Protected Phases- 2 1 p.6 7 a 1 '1 :4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green,.G (a) ` 31.9 - 17,0 53A 70.9 13 5 30.5: t7.0 35r5 Effective Green, g (s) 12.1 18,0 54.9 12.9 15.5 33.5 18.0 37.1 Actuated glC Ratio ' 0.30 0.16 050 0.66 0.14 0.30 0 16 0.3 Clearance Time tat 50 50 50 50 60 5-0 50 60 Vehicle Extansloa(s) 30 3.0 10: 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 913 261 836 996 228 420 506 560 Vt. Re:. Prot '. c0 28 '_ 0.13 0.43 0,09- 0 11 c0.16 .0.17 0,09 v/s Rah. Perm 0.29 0.14 v/p Rel, 0,14 1,11 0.86 1,11 1,71 1,11 1,11 1,11 Uniform Delay, pit 37,6 44 4 24,3 9.8 45.6 38.2 46 0 26 4 Progression Factor t 00 1.00 1.00 1,00 4.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 188 17 2 11 6 0,13 16 1 43.9 50 6 0.3 Delay (s) 56,5 61.6 35.9 10A 61.8 82.2 96.6 26.7 Level of Service E E D S E F F C Approach Delays), ,. 56.5 IQ 7 76.1:: :' 80.6 Approach LOS E C E F fetoreacNonSumTnary��€6i'E�i�lEE165!T9tt;1 HCM Average Cont Delay 53 S HCM Level of Service 0 HCM Volume to: Capacity ratio 0,99 Actuated Cycle Lenglh (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (a) 25.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82 2%' ICU Level of Service D , c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchre 5 Report Page 1 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21 Main & Lint Heights MickiMick, c\Pr leas\UVM\UVM\Syncnro\UVMPMOOBBODV50%.sy6 `E8t''•, El4i WBC- WBr<`WBR, NB Lane Configurations fT• rTT Y i" Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1710' 1710 1710: 1710' 1710• 1710 1710. 1710 171w9 1�'kr':�'�'yb,E,x'r4,uw Lane W dth 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total,Lost I(a) 4A 4.0 `. 4,0. 4.0 Lane Util Factor 0,95 0.95 1 00 0,95 1 00 Frpb, p.ir kes : 1 00 1,00 1..00 0.97 1.00 Flpb, pea/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1,00 0,97 Frf 1.00 1.00 LLD 0.85 100 Fit Protected 1 00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd Fit (Prot); 3167 3185 159 1267 1467 Fit Permitted 1,00 1 00 0.72 1.00 0.95 Said Flow(perm) '. 3167 3185. 1143 1267 /487 Volume (vph) 0 1917 53 0 1485 0 117 1 17 10 0 Paak•hour faclM3 PHF L00 i 00 1,00 •: 1.00 100' 1.00 1.00 1.00 l'O 100`; 1,00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1917 53 0 1485 0 117 1 17 10 0 Lane Group Flow (90) 0 1970 0 : 0 1485j 0 118 0 -17 10 j0 Confl. Pads. nr/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 92.0 82.0 15.4 15A 15�4 f 84.0 84.0: 17.,4: 17.4 17.4 ' 0,71 0.71 0.15 OA5 0,15 610 60: 60 , 6.0 6.0 1L9a. 1W we Ratio Perm `. c0;10' 10,01 001 " v/c Ratio 0 88 0.66 0.71 0.09 0 OS Uniform Delay, o 1 i 13.6 9.6: 49.4 44.0 43 7 Prog es ion Factor 1,11) 1 00 1110 1 rOO 1 00 Incremental Delay, d2 5,4 1.5 izil 0:2 0.1 Delay (S) el y() 190 112 611 44.2 438 Level of Service B B: E D D Approach Delay (a) i9.0 11.2 59.0 43.8 Approach LOS ;, _ B B' `E D Uli6taeattoiF,3liriiin HCM Average Control Delay 17.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 85 Aotuated Cycle Length (a) 119.0: Sum of Ipst time (s) 17<6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86 3% ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17' Maln & East \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Slynchro\UVMPMO♦SBODV50%.sins pr- f"errleol', ... .1.. 1,ESE,�EBT,,", EBR':. WBL WBTla wBRi,•SBt='SBt#<< NEL2,i Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) ' 1900 1900 1900 1906: 1900 1900' 1900 IB00 1900 1900 1900 , Total Lost time (c) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 Lane Util:. Factor 0.91 <: 0,95 0.88I 1.00 '. 1,00 1:00 , Fri 1.0o 1.00 0,85 1,00 1.00 085 Fit: Protected 100 100 t00 0.95 0.95 1.00 " Sold, Flow (prof) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Fit Permitted 1,00. 1.00 1.00 0,95 0.95 1.00 , Said Flow (Perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume {vph( 0'2295 0 0: 1410 817 0 +:0 143 -210 300 Peak hour lector. PHF 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) :0 2295: 0.. 0: 1410 617 0 0 143 210 300' Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2295 0 0 1410 817 0 0 143 210 300 Heevy:Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 076 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%, Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6. 7 '4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated'. Green, G(s).-- 72.1- 72.1 : 72.1 18.1 11 18.1 Effective Green, 9 (s) 74A 74.1 74.1 20. I 20,1 20.1 Actuated g/C Ratio.. 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.18 G. 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 60 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0' 3.0 :3.0 30 d 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 3494 2432 1914 330 330 295 We Ratio Prot' : ti 039 0.08 :0.12 v/s Ran. Par. 0.29 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.66'. 0.58 OAS OA3 0,64 1.02 Uniform Delay, d1 105 96 8.2 399 41.6 450 Ptng,ession Factor 0,88 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0,7 1.0 0.7 0 9 4.0 56 8 Delay (a) 10.0'' 10.6 8:9 40.8 45.6 101 7 Level of Service A B A D D F Approach Delays) 10.0 16.0 0.0 703 Approach LOS A B A E IntarasoNon HCM Average Control Delay 17 6 HCM Level of S v ce B hICM Volume to Capacity rat o 0.73 Actuated Cy le Length (a) 110 0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6%' ICU Level of Service B .... c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resourwnit-.sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter 'aNlckl\nlcki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODV50%sy6 E8T'.-EBR`'��W80WBTNBkL'+"M11BF&SWLZ •1SWL sWR,1'1Art,,. Lana Configuration, TTT• ?f )) I r Ideal Flow (vphpl), :: 1000. 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 : 1900 1900 1900 1600 i90f%Iy °,'.' Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Un, Factor 0.91 0,95 0.97 : 1.00 1.06,CM Fri 0.98 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0 95 0.95 i W0 Sold. Flaw(pro[) 4971 3539 3433 1770 1S83 Fit: Parrnitled 1.00 1.00.. 0.95. 0.95 1.00 Sold. Flow (perm) 4971 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume.(vph) 0' 1433 253 :. 0 4554 : 0 0 0 977 781 91,,'",,,�,,,t° Peak -hour factor PHF 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 Ad).. flow(vph) b 1433 253 0 1554 '0 0 0 977 781 91, Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1686 0 0 1554 0 0 0 977 781 91 Turn Type _ . Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 8 Permitted Phases ,. Actuated Glenn, G (s) 51.2 51.2 39.0 390 39.0 Effective Green g.(a). 53.2 53.2 4tO 41.0 41 Q, Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 OA7 0,37 0,37 Ciesrenca Time (s) : 8:0 6.0 6.0 6.06.0. Vehicle Extension is) 3.0 3A 3.0 3,0 3.0 Lane. Grp Cap (vph). 2404 1712 1280 r 660 590, v/s Ratio Prof 0.34 cO.44 0.28 c0.44 0,06 v/:Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.70 0.91 0.76 1.18 0,15 Uniform Delay, of 22.2" 26.1 30.2 34.5 23.0 Progression Factor 1.00 078 1,34 1,33 1.86 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7- 76 0,9 :875 00". Delays) 23.9 27.9 41.4 133 6 427 Level of Service C. C ,. D <: F D Approach Delay (c) 23.9 27.9 0.0 804 Approach LOS C: C A F , IntarceoifLn summary �; ... .. e I °�TE� 'ems l� 6 HCM Average Control Delay 45.6 �HGM level of 9ernce D ':' ve,,..ua:;,w,„xd`.. HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (a), 110.0 <: Sum of lost time (a) Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9 % ICU Level of Service E c CriticalLane Group, Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 resou- N-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\Nicklnicki_6Projects\UVM\UVKSynchro\UVMPMO6BODV50%.sy6 A Z X / 4 / Lane Configurations sjtt Ideal Flow (vphptg "1900 ''. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1 Qd Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane LIK Factor" 'AO- 095 Frt s.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0,95. Setd Flow (proi) '�770 3539 Fit PermAted 0,95- 100. Said. Fowlperm) t770 3539 Volume ;von) . 420- 0 o 0 0. 1798 Peak- our tact.,, PHF 0.92 092 0.92 0,92 092 0.92 Adj. Flow (,pi 457 0 0- 0 0 1954 , Lane G(ouc Flow (,ph) 0 - 0 7954 T.m Type Protected Phases 8 5 Permitted Phases,„, s„; Actuated Green, G (s) 39.0 51,2 Effective Greent 9 (s) 41,01 512 1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.49 Clesrence Time.(s} 6.0:". 60 ` Vehicle Ezlension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 660 1712 v/a Rate Prot c0.26 c055 We He to Perm v/c Ratio 0.69 1.1,4 Uniform Delay, off 29,21'. 284 Progression Factor 1.00 i.CO IabrementaLDelay, d2 3.1` 712 Delay (s) 32.3 99.6 Level of Service:. C= F Approach Delay (a) 32.3 0.0 99.6 Approach ll C.] A. F .. .. ,,., HCM Average Control Delay ;. 86,6= HCM Level of Sal `F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,95 Actuated Gyula Length (a) t10.0 Sum of lost time {s) nierseotion Capacity Ut l-tion 86.0% ICU Leval of Service D c Crjllcel Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 resourwhiFsx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM06BODV60%.sy6 'uvamalf! ., :EBI.,i�a1`•;T1<BRA;;.Wat�,..wa'1'�1wel�,�.s5sk=;'�s'F_,NeR-'s.:�s�t:°,"sat="Sara ane Configurations }H 1 ? 4 P 11 H deal Flow (vphi , 1710 1710, 1710- 1710 171,0 :1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710'. 1710 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 it 12 12 12 Total Lost time 0); 40 : 40 40- 4.0 40 4.0: 4.0 4.0: Lane U41. Factor 0.95 1.00 1,00 100 1.00 1,00 0,97 1,00 rf 0.99 f 00 1,00 0.85 : 1 00 0.85- 1.00 age Flt Prafecled ' 00 0 95 t 00 1 00 00 1.00 0.95 1 00 ato. Ffow (prof) 3054 - 1593 1676 1425 ;, 1621 1378. 3090 1644 Fit Permitted 1,00 095 1.00 1 00 1 00 1.00 0 95 1.00 Fatrl Flnwfrwmlf ':... 9n54 1593 '1676:. 1425. 1621 :1378:: 3090 1644 Volume (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Peak -hour factor;:, PHF LOOT, 1.00 1= 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00: 1.00 ,:1.00 1.00 Adl. Flow (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Lane Grouo Flow fvoh) 0 : 861 0 212 723:.. 546 0: 179 420 526' 156 '0 Type Prot pm+ov pmwv Prot IT- Protected Phases- 2 1 6. 7 8 1 7 d Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) ':. 31.9 17.0 53.9 r Mg 135. -. 30.5 170 36.$ Effective Green, g (s) 32.9 18.0 54.9 72.9 15.5 33.5 18.0 37.5 g/C Ratio 0.30 0.16 0.50 0,66 0.14 0.30 0.16 0.24 (Actuated Clear- Tme(s) 50 50 5.0 50 60 5.0 50 60 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 913 261 836 996 229 420 506 560 W"; Hat" Prot ,' c0 26 0.13 0.43 0,09 0 11 c0.1.6' c0.17 ': 0.09 _ v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0,14 y/C. Rabp 0,94' 081 0.86 0.55 0,79 1.00 1,04 0.28 , Unit 11,111, d1 376 444 24.3 98 456 38,2 460 211 Progression Factor 1.00 1A0 1.00 ' 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.(f0 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 ' 8 8 17 2 11.6 0.6 16 1 43.9 50.6 03 y Delas) 565 616 359 10.4 61.8. 82.2 96.6 26.7 Level of Service E E D S E F F C Approach Delay(d) .. 51 3o.2: 76.1 80.6 Approach LOS E C E F CM Average Cont cl Delay Acluate'd 53 5 HCM Lev 1 I S D CMume to Capacity ratio 0 99 Cycle Length (s) 110,0 Sun of lost time (s) 25.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization+. 82.24. ICU Love of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 resourwhil-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 & Unl Heights \\N k\ k c\Prot t \11VM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOBBODV60/ y6 ,21:Main M3keM"enk"• 'v ". .:,EaC•"r @19TI = EBRi?i WBL-; Wai'i WBfli.. °NBE�=F NSFp:"NaEt2-'S�F+'`SV1tFio ..,_, Lane Configurations TT. .TT Y jr 1j Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1710 -:: 1710 1710.. 1710 17lo 1710 1710, 1710 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 12 12 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Last hme (s) ` 4 0 4,0' 4.D 4.0 4,0 _. ITotal Lane Util, Factor 0,95 095 1.00 0,95 1.00 Frpb p d/bikes 1,00,1.00 I.00 0.97 1.00 Fipb, ped/bikes 1 00 1.00 0.98 1 00 0,97 Fri 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 I.00 , Fit Protected I.Do 100 0.95 1,00 0.95 Said. Flow (pro,)" ' 1111 1111 1112 12611 1490 -: Permitted 1 00 1.00 0 72 1.00 0.95 IFit Said Flow ( arm) 3165 3185 1144': 1268 1490 Volume (vph) 0 1912 57 0 1470 0 133 1 17 10 0 Po'k-hodr 00 factor,' PHF 1":. 100' 1.00'. 100 1,00 1.00 1.00' 100 1.00 "/.00 100 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1912 57 0 1470 0 133 1 17 10 0 Lane Group Row (vph) 0 .:: 1969 0'; . 0 1470 0 134 0 17 10 9 Conll. Pads. fN/hr) 10 10 10 10 t0 10 10 10 10 Type Perm custom) custom ITurn Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Pheaee 6 8'. 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 81 1 81,1 163 16.3 1(3 Effective Green, g ts) . 83.1 8311:' 18.3 16.3 18,3 Aclualed g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0,15 0.15 0,15 Clearance Time (s) i 6,0 6.0' 5:07 6.0 610 Vehicle Extens on (s) 3.0 3 0 10 3.0 3.0 I Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2210 2224 176 195 229 „ v/s Ratio Prot c0 62 0.46 we ..hePerm .0.12 O.OT 0,01 - v/c Re"' 0.89 0.66 0.76 0.09 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 '_" 14.3 10.1 48.$ 43.2 - 429' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Inciemental Daley, d2 5 9 f.6: 17.5 0.2 O.I Delay (s) 20 3 11 6 65 8 43 4 43 0 Level of Service < I C B:.. E:: D L, t Approach Delay (s) 20.3 11 6 63 2 43.0 h LDS , C 8:: E: D , �Alpproac HCM Average Control Delay 186 �� HCM Level of Service ? 8. -, HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.0 '. ' Sum oflast tittle (a) Intersection Capacity Utilization 86 9% ICU Level of Be,,.. - D c >Cri11ca11-e-Group I Basefine Synchro 5 Report Page 3 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & East \\Nicki\nlckl_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Slynchro\\UVMPM08BOOV60%.sy6 Mm"Rforfar7 „ .. E9TEs EBit,"WSLz- WMT "2'iti^ `2tlt.-`'6BF.il2 -.; P'd}t• Lane Conligu at,ons +tt fT �r 1S tS tr Ideal Floe/ hopli 1900 1900 ` 1900 1900 ; 1900 " f,9IXYj 1900 1900 t900 19o0 1900 „ < , Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 4,0 Lane UtiG f actor P;4t `; ", , '` 0 95 0.88 ' , , , 'Ill '00 1,00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.Do 1.00 0,85 Fit Protected 10o':: 1.00 1:00 0.95 0,95 1.00 Said Flow (prof 5187 3610 2842 1805 1605 1615 Fit Permitted 1,00`. 4.00 1100 0,95 0.95 1,00 Said Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume (vph) 0. 2295'. 0 0< 1410 617 0 0 128 210 300 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2295- 0 0;. 1410 -:817. 0 ,:0 128.:- 210 300 ,. Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2295 0 0 1410 817 0 0 128 210 300 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% OT. 011. 0% 0% 01. 0%..' 0% 0%. 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases - - - 2> 6 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated. Green. G (a): :.72A 72.1 :: 72.1 181 18.1 18.1 ElisionGreen, g (s) 74.1 74.1 74.1 20.1 20.1 20 1 Actuated:g/C Ratio ' 0:67. 067 0.67 0,18 '0.18 0.18 , Clearance Time (s) &0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Exthimel- (s) - 3.0' 3.0 . 3.0 3.0 ' 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3414 2432 1914 330 330 295 v75 Ratio Plot : c0:44 0.39 0.07' 0.12 ,. ve Ratio Perm 0.29 0,19 v/c Ratio 0.66 : 0,58 0.43 0.39 0.64 1.02 ,. Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 9.6 8.2 39.5 41.6 45.0 Progression Factor 0.88 100 1.00 1,00 :1.00 100 1--rental Delay, d2 0.7 1.0 0.7 0 8 4.0 56.8 Daley (s): 9.9: 10.6 8.0 40.3 45.6 1017 , Level 01 Service A B A D D F Approach Daisy.(,,)' 9.9 10.0 0.0 :.. 70,9 „ .. Approach LOS A B A E InlaY�et£tlod Summary � 'rz1 ,, . "I. ^h!t s,ki.6 f d 1 , :. lE t 9'Eii1�' y HCM Average C Irol D y ITS HCM Level .1 Stiry ce 8 HCM Volume 1 (,.pacify ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (c) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization ' 69.6%... ICU Level of:Service '. B c Critical Lane Group Baseline .escurwhit-sx51 Synchro 5 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \\Nick,\ninkj ,\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\I/VMPMOBBODV60%sy6 MaVam®tit,; -,1i EFIL,: E6ti:°,'�?FF.NISEI:,.NJB'p`41XBFt.`NBL''..:NOR"SWL2':Gifvr SWR''•;< Lane Configurations ttT. T? 1) 15 If, Ideal Flow(vpbpl) ':. 1900 1900: 1000 1900. 1900 .1900 1900 1900 1900-. 1000 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UtiL Factor 0.91 0.96' 0.97 1.00 1 00 Fri 0,98 1,00 100 1,00 0 85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 ❑ 95 0.95 1,00 Said Flow Poll 4973 3539 3433 1770 1583 Fit. Permitted 1.00' 100 095" 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 4973 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume(Vph) 0 1433 248 -0 1538 0 0 .0 977 781 91 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1 00 '.DO 1 00 1.00 100 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1,00 1 00 Ad],Flow (vph) 0 1433i 248 0 1538 :0 0 `0 977 781 91 Lone Group Flow (vph) 0 1681 0 0 1538 0 0 0 977 781 91 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 51.2 51.2 39.0 390 39.0 Effective Green, g (a) 53,2- 53.2 41.0 41.0 41 0 Actuated 9/C Ratio 0 48 148 0.37 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 10 30 3.0 3.0 2405: 1112 We. Rat]. Perm /c Ratio 070 090 076 118 015 Uniform Delay, of 1 22.2 25.9 30.2 34.5 23.0 Progression Factor 1 00 0 76 1.34 1 33 1.86 Incremental Delay, d2 : 1.7 7.0 0.9 87.5 0,0 Delay (s) 23.9 26.6 41.4 133.6 427 Level W Service C C , ,.. D :.F D Approach Delays) 23.9 26.6 0.0 80A Approach LOS C':, C A F Tn1grYe8t16n5dmrnary' .. =4, �t 4� �". :,e�.:: .1 HCM Manage C trol Delay 45.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated .Cycle Length (a) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) _ ' 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.4 % ICU Level of Service E c Critical Lane Group : .. Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 4 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\Nicki\nicki c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMo6BODV60M.sy6 r /* 4 Lane Configurations IdealVrow(vphpl) '"igbtt lsliP"�3900. 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 Lan. Uld. Facts, 100s' 096 Fri 1.00 1.00 Rt Protected '0,95 100 _.. Said. Flow (prof) 1770 3539 Fit P—i ted -0.95 L00 _ Said Flow (perm, 1770 3539 Volume (vph) 420 0 0. 0 0 1796 Peak -hour factor PHF 0,92 0.92 1 92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Adj. Flow(vpn)- 457 0.. a 0 —.0 1954 Lana Group Flow (vph) 457 0 0 7 1954 Turn Type Protect.. Ph—s 9 Permitted. Phases Actuated Green. G (5) 390 51 2 Effective Green,: g(s) 4f:0. 532 , Acluatec q,C Ratio 0,37 0.46 Clearance Time.: ts) 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lan Grp Cap (,ph) 660. 1712 vi r1 t o Prot .0 26 c0 55 vla Rat o. Pern1° v/c Ratio 0.69 1-14 Unit— Delay, d1 282 _ 26,4 Procression Factor 1,00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11 712 , Delay (s) 32.3 99.6 Level cif Service i G F- Approach Delay is) 32.3 0.0 99.6 Approach LOS < C'. A F ... ,... HCM Average Control Delay i 66A HCM Level at Serviee e F HCM Volume to Capac ty ratio 0.95 pcwated Cycle Length (aj 110:0 Sum:oi last time (a) Intersection Capacity Utilization 3 6, 0 % ICU Level of Service D m Crittosl Lan.Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 resourwhit-sx5i 1 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODV75%,sy6 �fOV$9ieflk. ,,,. .>: e.H.'EBPai,E�RivVJBL' W9T: 'WBR"•NBL':I NOT"N8R' SBL","SB'F=--:'.$BR Poo Configurations +T. 1S t r t Ir )) T. ,deal Flow(Vphp4), "„ 1710 1710 1710 '1710 1710 1710 "1710 .'1710 1710' 1710 1710: 1710 Lane Width it 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 Tole[Lost time (s) `: 4,0 40 40 : 4.0 :: 40 4.0: 40 4.0': ana Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1,00 1,0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 rt 099 10 1,00 `0.85 100 085: 1.00 098' II Prolected 1 00 0.95 100 1.00 1 00 1 0 095 1 00 aid. Flow (prat) 3054 =1593 1676 `1425 1621 1376 3090 1644'. II Permitted 100 0,95 1,00 1.00 1 00 1.00 195 1 00 Said. Fiow(perm).:. : : 3054 1593 1676'. 1425 1621 1378: 3090 1644 Volume (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 yr,risk-hour lector', PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 s 1.00 1 00 1 00 1,00 1,00 1. 00' 1,00 1.00 1.00 wdl. Flow (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 54fi 0 179 402 526 136 20 ��9ne Group Flow (vph) 0 :B6t 0 212 723 :. 546 0 179 420 526 156: '0 urn Type Prat pm+ov pm+av Prot rotercted Phases: 2 1 8. 7 8 "'.I. 7 C Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, Gl(s) ': 31.9 ::170 53.9>: 70.9 :-iaS 30.5 170 35,6. ,Green g(c) 329 180 549 729 155 335 180 375 ctu ted glC Ratio. 030 '016 0.50-: 066 ;.. 0.14 0,30-' 0,16 03a:' ffl,c leaance Time (s) 50 50 50 50 60 50 50 60 ehicle Extenslo e) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 913 261 636 996 228 420 506 560 via Ratio Prot c0 28 0.13 . 0.43: 0,09 0,11 c0,16 . c0 17 0.09 via Ratio Perm 0,29 0.14 v/oRato 0,94 081 0,86 055 079 100 104 028: Uniform Delay, d 1 37.6 44 4 24,3 9.8 45 6 38,2 46.0 26 4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1 00 1,00 1.00. 1,00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 188 172 116 06 161 439 506 03 Delay (a) 56.5 : 61.6 35.9" 10.4 61.8 82.2 : 96.6 26,7 , Level of Service E E D 8 E F F C Approach Delay (a) 565 302'. : 76.1 Appr ech LOS E C E F td1�`rsaalMnS`umrhoty m HCM Average Control Delay 53 5 HCM Lover of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (a) 25.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization :, 82.2% F ICU Level of Service. - D. , c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 resourwhit-sx51 HSignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 & Uni Heights \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\LIVMPMOBBODV75°6.sy6 121�.M`.,n w Mtiliamen! ". ::; EBL ":E6T"%�BFt XWBL,•4NBY'rt";YVHR -: N94s%NBH'-NBFi�,BNd4;r.'BWf2?,. - Lane C n(g rations Ideal Flow(vphpl). 1710 '1710 1710 r17t0 1710 `. 1710 '1710 1710 1710i 1710 1710'. Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 ii Tataliost time (a) 40 40 40` 40 4.0 ILane Lane Uhl. Factor 0.95 0,95 1,00 0,95 1,00 Frpb, pad/b kiss : : 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 97- 1.00 Flpb pad/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Frt . 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0,85- 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Said Flow (prat) : 3163 3185, 1514. 1269 1492 FitPermitted 1 00 1 00 0.72 1.00 0.95 Sand. Flow perm) I 1163 3185- 1145. 1269. 1492 Volume (vpn) 0 1906 64 0 1446 0 157 1 17 10 0 Peak -hour lacsoi; PHF 1.00 :1 0 1.00 1.0 1.00 '. 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00:. 1.D0 1.00: Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1906 64 0 1446 0 157 1 17 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 :y1970 0s.: 0 1446 j 0 158-: 0 17 10 0' Cod& Pace (Rlhr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm custom:. custom. Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Ph.... 6 8' 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 80.2 80.2 17.2 17.2 17 2 Eli Green, 9:(s) :82.2 82.2 19.2 19.2; 11L .. Actuated g/C Ratio 0,69 0.69 0.16 0.16 0.16 Time (a) :. 6.o $,0 6.0 : 6.0' 60 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 0 3 0 3.0 3 0 3 0 IClearance Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2185 200 185 205 241 v/s Ratio Prot c0 62 0 45 via Ratio Perm do.14,: O'fjf 0,01 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.66 0 B5 0,08 0.04 Uniform Delay, di', 15.1 10,4 46,5:- 424 42.1 a on Factor 1,11 1,11 1,11 1,11 1,11 Incremental Daley: d2 6,6 1.6 29 8 ` 0.2 0.1 IProg Delay () 217 12 0 78 3 42.6 42.2 Level of Service C B- E r ❑ D' Approach Delay (s) 21 7 12.0 74.8 42.2 App/oath LOS .. C r B E D , N919ieeOTld71 stardlynall r Average Control Delay 20.4 HCM Leval of Service C IHCM HCM Volume to Capacity tic 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length O 119.0 Sum of loaTtme (a), 176 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88 1 % IGU Level of Service D c >Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & East `.\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\wUVMPMOBBODV75%.sy6 Mdvemer.t .:-EBL '•rEBT'_^EHitv.WBC;,ytHi. `NF#'T ,�'R�?3+P'Y1„ I+,a•... „ Lane Configurations ttt tt IN r 1j 3j Ideal Flow (Vphpl) :`1900 190 190(y 190 1900, 100' 100 190E 19W 1900t 19GO Total Lost time 40 - 40 40 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util[.. Factor 0.91 0.95 0.88`: 1.00 I'm 1,00' ' •."" Frt 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0 85 F0 Protected 1.00 LOG 1.00 0,95 0.95 1,00 _ Sold Flow (prof) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Fit Parmifled 1,0> : 1.00 1.00' : 0,95 0.95 1.00 Said Flaw (perm) 5187 3610 2542 1805 1805 1615 Volume (vph) 0 2295 0 0` 1410 '817. 0 /_0 104 210 30 Peak -hour factor PHF 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj. ,Flow (vph) 0 2295' 0 0: 1410-- 617 0 0: 104 :210 300 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2295 0 0 1410 817 0 0 104 210 300 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% :'; '0% 0% . 0% 0%: 07. 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6. 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated. Green, G is).. - 72.1 721-7Zi 18.1 18.1 tall Effective Green, g (s) 74.1 74.1 74.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 : 0.67 0.67' 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (a) so 6,0 60 so 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension a) 3.0' 3.0 3.0" 3.0 3.0 3 0: Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3494 2432 1914 330 330 295 We Ratio Prot c0..44 : 0.39 0.06 0,12 ,Is Ratio Perm 0.29 0.19 v/c Ratio ,:0,66 0.58 0,43 0.32 0,64 102 " Uniform Delay, d1 10 5 9.6 8 2 39.0 41.6 45 0 Progression Factor 0.88 ': 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.0 1.00, Incremenal Delay. d2 0.7 1 0 0.7 0.6 4.0 56.8 Delay (a) 9.9 10.6 8.9: 39,5 45.6 101.7 ,.. Level a1 Service A B A D D F Approach. Delays) -9.9 10.0 0.0 -. 72.0 , Approach LOS A B A E Inlgraenticn BumrriaW.t<' s "'' HCM Average Control Delay 17.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Vafume to Capacity taro 073 ,. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110,0 Sum of lost time (a) I5 8 Intersection Capacity. Utilization' 69,6% ICU Lover of Service , B c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \\Nicki\nicki c\Protects\UV"UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOSBODV75%.sy6 told a atir 66L:'EBi.: l W b1VBT. WBR' N81L'€rNaWSWL2, 5WL. M01RI Lane Configurations Ideal Flow fvphpl) 1900 190 ': 1900 1900 `:; 1900 :1900 100. 1900. 1900' .19 0 1Oda, Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.o 4 0 Lane Utlll Factor 091 0.95 007 10 1,00 Fit 0.98 1.00 100 1.00 0 85 Fit Protected 1.0: Loo 0.95 0.95 1 00 , Said. Flow (prot) 4975 3539 3433 1770 1583 Fit. Permitted 1.0 1100 ` ' 0.95 0.95 1.00 " Said. Flow (perm) 4975 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 1433'- 242 0 1515 0'. 0 0. 977 781 91 " Peak -hour factor, PHF i 00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 100 Ad). Flow.(Vph) 0 1433 242 0 1515 '0 0 0 977 761 91 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1675 0 0 Isis 0 0 0 977 781 91 Turn Type. " _ Prat Prot Protected Phases 2 6 3 8 a Permitted Phase. ,.. Actuated Green, G (a) 51.2 51 2 390 39.0 39.0 Effective Green 9 (s) : 53.2 53.2 41.0 41.0 41.0 , Actuated g/C Ratio 048 048 037 0.37 037 Cleft ence Time 60 : 6.0 6.0 6.0 60 " Vehicle Extenslon(a) 3.0 3.0 30 3,0 30 Lane Grp Cep (vph) 2406 1712 1280 660 590' • ""+i v/s Ratio For 0.34 c0.43 0,28 c0.44 0.06 via Ratio Perim v< v/G Ratio 070 088 076 118 015 Uniform Delay, di 22.1 25.6 30.2 34.5 230.,v ; P gressian Factor 1.00 0.73 134 1.33 1.86 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 : 6.2 0.9 87.5 0 0 , e1zd Delay of 23.8 2469 41.4 133.6 42.7 Level of: Service C, C D F Approach Delay (s) 23,8 24.9 0.0 50,4 Approach LOS C C fntefea`difdi1,91ini" � • HCM Average Control Delay- '. 44.9 Hbof Service OWevel D 1 ty„`,iCa HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 110.0 :'Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8 % ICU Level of Service E c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 Page 4 11,11111NI-1111 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12117/2001 38' Spear Enter & \\Nick)\nick) c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOBBODV75%.sy6 Lane C ntg atlons rT lde@4Flow (vphpt) 1900 1990- 1900 41900' '1900 ' ION Total Lost lime (sj 4,0.... ?.0 Lane.Util Factor 1.00 0,95 FIN Protected 095SC. _ 100 Satd Flow (pn,l) 1.770 3539 Fit rPermitted 0.95 . 1 00 Sald Flow (Perm, 1770 3539 Volume (vph) c20 0 0.:: 0 G 179E Peak hour factor, PHF 0,92 0.92 0,92 0,92 7.92 392 AAf. Flow (vph); 157 0 0 .. 0 .. 1954 Lane Group Flow (vph) .157 0 0 6 1954 Turn Type Protected Phases 3 Pprmdted Phases: .. Actuated Green. G (s) 39.0 51.2 Eflective Green, rg (a) 410 53,2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.18 Clearanae Time 6 0.' 60 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 30 Lane Grp Cap(vph) :660 1712 v/s Ratio Prot c0. 26 c0.55 We Rat o Perm .. v/c Ratio 0.69 1.1» Uniform Delay, dl 29.2 284 , Prpgresslon Faclor ':_00 "M Incremental Delay, d2 21 71,2 Delay (sl 72.3... 19. fi Laval at Sernce i'. C.... F Approach Delay (s) 32.3 0.0 99.8 Approach LOS C.. A:: F interaectf8d Summery HCM Average Control Delay 86.8 HCM I?v t Se...cep-F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 A3luated Cycle. Length (a) 110,) Sun ..blast t me (sl is nlersection Capacity Utilization 86.0°6 ICU Le,.!if Srry �e i) c-„ Cn tcal Lane Grcup -. - Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 resourwhit-sx51 IHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect \Nlckl\nicki c\Proiects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08NBODV.sy6 r --- -"' " 1 '- `► 1 Ideal Flow(vphpl)';; , 1710 171G , 1710 :1710 1710 -: 1710 1710: 1710 1710; 1710 17101, 1710 -12 Lane Width 11 11 11- 12 12.., 12 11 11 11 12 12 Total Lost time (s). 4.0 : 4.0 4.0 -; C0 4.0 4;0 4.0 4,0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1,00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 099'100 1.00 0.85 100 0,85 ' 1,00 0.98. It Protected 1.00 095 1.00 1,00 1 00 1.00 0.95 1.00 aid. Flow (Prot) :3052 1593 1676 '. 1425 , t621 1378 3090 1646' it'Perm tted 1 00 0.95 1.00 1 00 1 00 1,00 0.95 1.00 Said Flow (Perm)- `. 3052 - ` 1593 1676 :' 1425 : 1621 13781 3090 ' 1646- Volume (vph) 0 761 48 216 696 526 0 184 430 526 144 20 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 `1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L00 1,00 Flow (vph) 0 761 48 216 696 526 0 184 430 526 144 20 (Adj. Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 809 0' 216 696` 526 0 184 430 526 164' 0 urn Type Prot pr w pm.ov Prot mtected Pt- 2 _ 1 6:. 7 a 1 7 4f Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, :G(a) 38.2 164 59.6- 73.6 '' 12.0 28,4, 14,0 31.0% Effective Green, g (s) 39.2 17.4 60.6 75.6 14.0 31.4 15.0 33.0 g/G Ratio 036 016 0.55 069 013 0.29 0.14 03'0 , IActueted Cleo nce Tima (s) 50 50 5.0 50 60 50 5.0 60 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 30 3.0:: 3.0 30 3.0 30 30'. ILdna Grp Cap(vph) 1088 252 923 979 206 393 421 494 via Ratio Prot :027 014 c0.42-- 007 0.11... cO. 17'c0. 17 0.10; via Ratio Perm 0.30 OA4 vlc$atio 0,74 086 0.75 054 089 109 125 0,33: m Datay, 11 31 1 45 1 19,1 tl 5 47 3 39 3 11,1 29 9 IUnit Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.6 23.8 57 O 6 34.9 73.2 130 6 0.4 Delay (a) ; 35.6 68.9 24.7 9.1 822 112.5: 178.1 , 30.3 Level of Service D E C A F F F C Approach Delay:(s) 1 356 26.6 z 1; 103.4 1430 Approach LOS D C F F IfnCteieacibn.5ummaey HM A on Average Ct of Delay 64 1 HCM Love l of Sery cc E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost ame (s) 20.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization ;5 81 3°i° :: ICU Level 91 Service D'., c Critical Lena Group I Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page t resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 Main & Unl Heights \\Ni k\ ck c\P 1 t \UVM\UVM\Sy chro\UVMPMOSNBODV y6 121: iP56L SSR'I W6k.< INST_d't'aIkF,<N3i>c'.S. N6FIVUll 9Wtsr1'fr 1.,,; Lane Configurations TT. .T? 7r 'f Ideal Raw(vpho). [ 4710 1710 1710.; 1710 1710 1710 1710:: 1710 1710:' 1710 1710 Lane W dih 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4.0 40 4,0: 4.0 - Lane Ubl Factor 0.95 0.95 1 00 095 oo Frph, pad/tikes 100 1, 00 1.00 092 100 Flpc, pad/bikes 1,00 1,00 0.97 1.00 0.94 Fit 1,00 1.00 _ _ 0.99 0.85 1.03 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Said Flow (prof) 1111 1112 ; 1111 1208 1410 Fit Permitted I3010.95 091 0.73 1.00 0.95 Said Flow (perm)'. 6 2896 1131 1206 1450 Volum (vph) 7 1925 6 '6 1556 4 20 1 9 10 0 I1 Freak hour factor PHF 1,00. 1.00 I.00 :` 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i. ,1.00 100 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 1925 6 16 1556 4 20 1 9 10 0 Lana Group Flow (vph) 01 1038 0 :.:: 0 1578 ', () 21 0 , 0. 10 0" Conll Peds (111m) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm custom. custom;. Protected Phases I 2 Perm 6 Permitted Phases: 2 !. 6 8 a 4" I Actuated Green, G (s) 80.5 80,5 75 7.5 7.5 Effective Green y,(.1 ': 82.5 825''. 95' 9.5- 95 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance Tlme (a) : 6.0 6.0 ` 6 0 6.0• 6,0 cla Extension (a) 30 3 0 30 3.0 3 0 IVeh Lane Grp Cep (vph) 2262 2172 98 104 126 Wa Ratio Prot We Ratio Perm -d0.64 0.54_ .0.02 001. 0,01 we Ratio 0A6 0.73 0.21 0.09 0.08 Uniform Delay, d]': - 9.6 7.5 46.8 46.0" 46.2 _ Proq Fa for 1,11) _ 1,11 1,11 1,00 1,01 Incremental Delay, d2 4,5 1.2 1.1 0.4:': 0.3 Delay() 141 88 479 466 465 Level of Servt a S A D 0:: D Approach Delay (a) 14A 8,8 47.5 46.5 Approach LOS ' 8 _. A;. :D': D • Qdo71:5llilitha •. _:: '-i . .? "' Average Control Delay 12 1 HCM Level of Service 8 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 IHCM Actuated Cycle Length a) 110.0 Sum of lost time (a)' ( 18:0 intersection Capacity Utilization 354% ICU Level ofService D c Critical Lane Group ,. - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & East \\Nlcki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOBNBODV.sy6 Ma Niter, tr te .k`BT->'"E.%R <Wgt;,". SN' ,WgRr-., Lane Configurations }Tt tT jr(< Ideal Flow;(Vphp1)" 31900 1900 1900 . 1900 1900 1900' '1900 1900 1900 1900 1900' Total Lost time (a) 4.0 40 4o 4.0 40 „ 4.0 Lane Utll 'Factor 0,91 _:: S. 095 0.88:'. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00.. '. 1.00, 1.00 095 0:95 ,. . 1.00 Said Flow (Prot) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 refs Fit Permitted 1,00. 1.00 4.00: 0.95 (L95 100' Said Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume0 2289' 0:_. 0 1431 :, 766 0 -.0 206 ':192 274 ,(vph) Peak -hour factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Ad).: Flow (vph) 0' 2289 0 0'- 1431 i766 0 0 206 192 274 , Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2289 0 0 1431 766 0 0 206 192 274 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0%:: 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%" Turn Type Perm Prof Perm Protected Phases.. 2• 6 7 .,4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green G (a) 820 820 82.0 18.8 ''1818 18.8 , Effective Green, g (a) 84.0 84.0 84,0 20.8 20.8 20.8 Actuated-g/C Ratio '. 0.70.- 070 _0.70 0.17 0,17 0.17' ". Clearance Time (a) so 6.0 6.0 60 6.0 fi 0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3.0 3.0: 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3631 2527 1989 313 313 290 via Ratio Prot WA4 0.40 : 0.11- : 0.11 _. v/s Ratio Perm 0,27 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.631' 0:57 '0.39 066..0.61 098 , Ul Delay, d1 97 89 7.4 46.3 45.9 494 Prog a ion Factor 1,00 100 1,00 1.00 t.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0 B 0 3 0,1 4.9 3.5 47,3 Delay (a) 10.5 : 9.2 7.5 51.2 49.4 96.7 ' Level of Service B A A D D F Appro..h.Datay:ja, 10.5 8.6 0.0 69.2 _.... Approach LOS B A A E Iritersed o"Summary" HCM Average Control Daly 17 4 HCM L 1 S.-c. B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15 2 Intersection Capacity Utll-fit-. 67.9 % ICU Level of Service : 8 c Critical Lane G Baseline Synchro 5 Reoort Page 2 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 28: Spear Exit & Spear Enter \\NickAm,;ki c\Projects\UVM\IIVM\Synchro\UVMPM08NBODV.sy6 h t l ) J � Lane Configurations T} jr]r Ideal Flow(vphpl), ; 1900 1900 j', 1000 1900. 1900 19001, Total Lost time (s) Lane Wtil.Factor Fit Fit Protected , Said. Flow (prop Fit Permited _ Said. Flow (perm) Volume (vph) 0 0.. 0 0. 0 0 , P k-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Ad). Flow.(Vph) 0 0 - 0 :0. 0 0.1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type custom , Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (a) Effectve Green, 9 (a) , Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (a) ,. Vehicle Extension (a) LanelGrp: Cap (vph) v/a Ratio Prot Ws Ratio Perm ,... Ratio Uniform Ditlsy„dt Progression Factor Incremerlfal QeiaY. 12 Delay (a) . Level ofSernca .:.. ... , Approach Delay(a) co 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A : A A HCM Average Canirol Delay 0.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 24.0 ' " Sum of lost time (a) Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0°6 ICU Level 01 Service A c Critical Lane Group;.. Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synchro 5 Reoort Page 3 Page 4 resourwhit-sx51 resourwhit-sx51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter \\Nicki)nicki_dProjecis\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM0BNBODV. sy6 Movemanty`:E'.i) B'�«�Ei5k8*. iYBL'`' WBT:t ice.; t) Lane Configurations tt I4 )11 1 it Ideal Flow jvphpQ,', "'1900.' W00 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1 « 7 Total Lostt me (a) 4 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lana Lill Factor` ', 091 0.95 0.4,E Vgo t.pvk,�,,, u3k Fri 0,98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected '-. 100 /1.00. 0,95 0.95 Said Flow (pros) 4971 3539 3433 1770 1583 Fit Permdtetl -: 1 00 1.00 0,95 0 95 Said Flaw (perml 4971 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 1426 251. 0... 1037 0 0 0 :977 686 Peak -hour latter. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Atli Flow(vph) 0:. 1426 251 0 1637 0 0 0 -977 686 Len. Group Fluw lvpn) 0 1677 1 0 1637 0 0 J 977 686 92 Turn Type ,. P',,l Prot , Prot.ctea Phases 2 6 3 u 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green. G (a) 33 0 312 2a 20 0 20 0 Effective Green, g (a) 35.2 35.2 22,0 22,0 220 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0,49 J.31 0.31 0.31 C,ia9mnce Tim. (a) 60 6:0 6.0 6() 6-0 Veh le Extensicn Is) 3.0 3.0 J.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 2430 1730 11049 541 484 Ws Ratio Prot 0 34 ,0,46 )28 c139 0.06 Ws Rafo Perm;f v/c Ratio 0.69 0,95 3.93 127 0.19 uniform Delay dl 14.2 17,5 24.3 150 16.4 , Progression Factor ' 00 1.00 1.17 1.id 1,81 Increm.ntal:Delay, d2 1,6 11.3 6:0 126.8 Delay (s) - 15.6 28.8 34.5 155,3 334 Level of Service: 13 C ^: C F :..C, Approach Delay (s) 158 288 00 31 6 Approach LOS :;. B C A F .,, HCM Average: Control Delay :. 42:8 HCM Level of Service : D , HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 AciOated Cycle :.Length is) -. 72.0 Sum of t time (a) 148 , Intersection Capacity UtiliZatiOn 89.9 % ICU Leve D c= Critics( Lane. Group , HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & \\Nicki\nicki_c\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM06NBODV.sy6 A- Z 'W /. (l Ji" 14t iinfenl` .. .....wwvBt �- T" vex �s1 >:x .: gon ' r. -W ng Lane Configurations Ideal Flaw (Vphpl) 1900 19GO' 1960 ' 19M . 1900' •i90 } Total Lost time e) 4.0 4.0 LenivUlk Factor ". 1.00 0,96 _ ,...., .,. .. ... Frt i.00 1.00 Fit Protected 095 1.00 ,.. Said. Flaw (prof) '770 3539 Fit Permitted 095 '1.00 ".. Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 Volume ('Ph) 418 0 0 0 1750 Peak -I,.,,, iacinr PHF 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.91 0-92 Adj.: Flow)vph) 454 ...0 0 0 0 1948 '�i 1g ✓F t''�' _ .". Lane Group Flow ivphl 454 0 0 0 1946 Turn Type Protected Phases 9 Permitted Phasas Actuated Green, C (a) 20.0 33.2 Effective Green. g a) ';; 22.0 35.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 _ Vehicle Extension lsl 3.0 3.0 Lena Grp Cap(vph) -: 541 1730 ,. v/s Ratio Prot c0 26 0. 55 v(s Ratio Perm ,. v/c Ratio 0.84 1.12 Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 18.4 , Progression Factor 00 1 Co Incremental Delay, d2 11.0 64.4 Delay (s) 34.3 92 a Level.ci Service C F _ Approach Delay (s) 34.3 a 0 828 Approach LOS C A '.'F ,. Intersection 3umma '+ :" `":" ..•.., '"> .:" .' HCM. Average Control.Delay 73,6 HCM Level cif Sery co E HCM V.1- to Capacity ratio 1.02 Aetuatod Cycle Length. (a) ,.. 72 0 : Sum of Ios01i1ne (c) 14.8 Intersect on C, pacify Utilization 85 6% lCU Level of Sery oe D c ,gilical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 Page 6 resourwhit-sx51 resourwhit-sx51 I 1 1 II �CM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 7: Main & South Prospect C:\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synrhro\UVMPM08BODV50%.sy6 \ configurations ?H S 4 ? fir`) T. Itlaa1 Fldw (vphpl) 1710 `1710 1710 : ` 1710 = 17,10 _ 1710- 1710 1, ,171V' ;1710? 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 11 Li 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost hrite.(a)' _ 4,0 c 4.0 4:0-: 4.0 4-0, ,, 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uta. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 100 0.97 1.00 Fri 1099 100, 1.00 085 - 1.00 0,85. 1.00 0.98 It Protected 1 00 0 95 100 1 00 1 00 100 0 95 1,00 atd. Fipw(prot) i :3054 1593 1676'. 1425 1621 1378 3090 1644 it Perm tied 1 00 tl95 1.00 t 00 1 00 1.00 0 95 1.00 etif Flow(perin.) -3054 1593. 1676 1425 1621 -1378 30901644 Volume (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Peak•houffactor, PHF 1.00: > 1.00 1:;00 1,00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1 1.00- 1100 1,00 '1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 915 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Lane Group'Flow(v h) 0 861- 9 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 156 0 Turn Type Prot pmaov pm+ov Not Protected Phases 2 1 6 7 8 1 7 '4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green; G (s) 31.9 _ 17.0 $3.97 70.9 13.5 - :30.5 17.0 35.6 Effective Green. g (a) 32.9 18.0 54.9 72 9 15.5 33,5 18.0 37.5 g/C Ratio 0.30 ; 0.16 0.50.' 0,66 0.14 0.30 0.18 0.34 (Actuated Clearance Time (s) SO 50 5.0 50 60 5.0 50 6.0 Vehicle Extension (a) 3.0 3 0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3,0 (Lane Grp Cap (vph) 913 261 836 996 228 420 506 560 w Ratty Pro(: c0 28 0.13 0,43 0.09 0.11 c0.16 c0.17 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.14 b,a Ratio '. 0.94 0.81 0.86- 0.55 0.79: 1.00 1.04: 0.28 ' Uniform Delay, 11 37.6 44.4 24.3 9.8 45.6 38.2 46.0 21A Progress— F clor 100 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 Incremental Dy,d2 188 172 116 06 1&1 43.9 506 0.3 Delays) 56 S -' 61.6 35.9 10.4 61.8 82.2 96.6 26.7 Level of Service E E D 8 E F F C Approech:Delay;a) [[±565 '30.2. 76.1 80.6 Approach LOS E C E F trttereeCtlon Swlmeey ':... :. u. <.'.. e . Average Contra) Delay 53.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM IHCM Volume to CapecUy ratty 009 Actualed Cycle Length (s) 1100 Sum of lost I me (a) 25 6 Intersection: Capacity Utilization 822Pe ,: ICU Level of: Serylce. D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 1 HESOURWHIT-SX51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Uni Hedhts C:\Pmlects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOBBODV50%.sy6 MgvemanL' EBR':" BR-:WIBL- WBTY.,:^+IY$F4a ,N9G+�.=."hi NAlei2`a.eSVyi'.,SW4* -Lane Configurations tl( 0 r (r 11 ideal Flow (vphpi) 1710 1710 1710 1710 1710 :, 1710 1710+ 1710 1710-' 1710 1710, Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 , it 11 11 11 Lost time (s), 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0`. 4,0 Lane Uri, Factor 095 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 ,Total Frpb, pad/bikes 1.00 1,00 1.00 097. 1.00 Flpb. pad/bikes 1 00 1.00 0.98 ' 00 0S7 Fri _ 1.00 1.00 t.00 0185 1.00 Fill Protected 1.00 i.00 0.95 I= 0,95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3167 _ 3185 1510` 1267 1487 Fit Permitted 'Satd. Fla. jper ai, 100 : 3167 1,00 3185 0.72 1143. 1.00 095 1267. t487 Volume 1, 0 1921 53 0 1485 0 '17 1 17 10 0 Peek-hourfacfor PHF 1.00. , 1,00 1,00,.. 1-00 1.00.: 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00.. 1.00 1,00- Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1927 53 0 1485 0 117 1 17 10 0 Lane Group Flow;(vph) 0::`1980 0 C 0 1485 +] 0' 11:18-. 0 - 17 10 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1Turt Type ',Perm custom;, custom Permitted Phase,<. 6 0f 8 4 Actuated Green. G (s) 32 0 82.0 15.4 15.4 15 4 Negri -Greed ;g:(a) 84.0 840 17.4- 17.4 174 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,71 0,71 0.15 0.15 0.I s Clearance Time:(.) :I 6.0 60 ':'. :8.0 -6.0 60 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3 0 Grp Cap (vph) :2236 22481'. 1677 185 217 a Ratio Pat 1a c0.63 0.47 a'Ratio Par. c0.10 0.01.). 0.01 Ratio 0.89 0.66 0,71 0.09 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl `-1317 96 `r 484- 44.0 43.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1,00 incremental Delay,: d2 5.6 1 5 12.8 0 2 0.1 .lay a) 193 112 611 442 438 suet of Service B 8 E D'. D ' pproach Delay (a) 19.3 11.2 590 43 8 Approach LDS _. 8 B-:,: E-. D. Ftit"ez8e 'n.Sumifia HCM Average Control Delay 17.5 - HCM Level al 6ervloe . B Volume to Capac ly ratio 0 85 tualad Cycle Length (a) 119.0 Sum of lost time (a) FCM narsaction Capacity Util zat on 86 6% ICU Level of Sery ce D Crdlcai Lane Group I- Baseline Synchrc 5 Report Page 3 RESOURWHIT-SX51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 17: Main & East C\Proiects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODVSO%.sy6 ., z r- t ti) 9 1 /► MdGerifisnh � ." :. . Lane Configurations TTT TT jrjr Ideal Flow (Vphpl) , ' ' ;1900'" 1900' 1900 1900, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19Fm Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lene'Url. Factor , 0.91 _ -,- '1 ()95 0.88 1.00 1.00 l oo:, Fri 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 100 Im 0.95 0.95 1.00 ' Said Flow (prof) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 F@ Permitted 1.00'. 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1,00' Said Flow (perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume {vph) 0 2295 0 0 1410 817 0 : 0 143 210 300 Peak -hour tactor, PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 22957. 0 - 0. 1410 817 0- 0 143 , . 210 300 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2295 0 0 1410 817 0 0 143 210 300 Heavy Vehicles.(%) '' 0% 0%": 0% 0% 0%' 0% '0% ' 0% 0% - 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Plot Perm Protected Phases : 2 : 6 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green G (a) ':' 7ZI 72:1 72,1 18.1 r. 16.1 16.1 Etlective Green, 9 (a) 74.1 74.1 74.1 20.1 20.1 20 1 Actuated SIC Ratio 0.67 0.67' 0.67 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (a) 6.0 fi 0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 Vehicle Extension (a) ' 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 : 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3494 2432 1914 330 330 295 via .Ratio .Pro( c0.44 0.39 0.08 0.12 ,. v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.19 v/c Ratio. 0,66' 0.58 :0,43' 0.43 0.64 1,02 Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 9.6 8.2 39.9 41.6 45.0 Progressjob Facior: 0.88 1 00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 to 0.7 09 4.0 56 8 Delay (a) 10.0. 10.6 8.9 ' 40 8 45:6 101.7 „ Level of Service A B A D ❑ F Approach Delays) 10.0r 10L0 0.0 70:3 , Approach LOS A B -A E talersectibn Summary' HCM Average Control Delay 17 6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume 1. Capacity ratio 0.73 j Actuated Cycle Length (a) i 10.0 Sum of lest time (a) 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69 6% ICU. Level .1 Service c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 2 RESOUR W HIT-SX51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter C:\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODV50%.sy6 Mcyemem � F =:. EBL : EST,A,ESP ' W ILf WBT ':ii NBC ?INSR'sWL2 ,,$WL ,SWi3 '; ap-1i Lane Configurations }Tj. Tt )I 1I (r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900. 1900 1900. 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900-. 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 Lane Utfl. Factor tl 91' 0,96 0.97 1.00 100 Fri 098 1 00 1 00 100 0 85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0 95 0.95 100 , Said Flow (pros) 4971 3539 3433 1770 1563 Fit Permitted 1.00- 1.00 0,95 ,. 0.95 1.00' ,. Said. Flow (perm) 4971 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 1433 253 0 1564 0 0 -0 977' 781 91 Peek -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1,00 1 00 1,00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 All. Flow (vph) 0 1433: 253 01: 1554 0 0. 0 977 781 91 ,an.Group Flow (vph) 0 i686 0 0 1554 0 0 0 977 781 91 Tnm Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 6 3 - 8 8 Permitted. Phases Actuated Green. G (s) 51.2 51,2 39.0 39.0 39 0 Effective. Green g(a)' 53:2 $3.2 410 41.0 410 Actuated q/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.37 0,37 037 GaarenceTime (a) 6.0 6.0 60 6.0 6.0. Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 30 3 3.0 0 ... Grp. Cap (vph) 2404 - 1712 1280 660 59a . v/a Ratio Prot -0.34 c0 44 0.28 0A4 0,06 v/sl Felid Perm v/c Ratio 0,70 0.91 0.76 1,18 0.15 Uniform Delay, of ' 22.2. 26 1 30.2 ` 34.5 23 0 Progression Factor 1,00 0.78 1.34 1.33 1.86 Incremental Delay, d2. 1.7.. 76 09 -87.5 0.0 Delays) 23,9 27.9 41.4 1316 427 Level cl Service C- C 1) F D Approach Daley (s) 219 27.9 0.0 80.4 Approach;LOS C C A F )ilfsissctlPn Summarf�".'; t:el, HCM Average Control Delay 45.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 03 Actuated Cycle Lengths) '_1110 0 7..Sum or lost time (s) 15 5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service E c Critical Lane Group Basal— Syncnro 5 Report Page 4 RESOURWHIT-SX51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & C:\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODVSO%.sy6 Z /* /. (� X, ktmvea+ept, >'WBR z;NEt ",; NER :, s3� <uLaF. >. .., _ ......�;,aR Lane Configurations f� Ideal Flow (vphpi)-;, ,7 1900 '1900 1900 ') 1900 1900,:' 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 40 Lane Uul. Factor i 100 S € 095 Fri, 1,00 1.00 Fit: Protected 0,95. 1,00 S.W. Flow (pro,) 1770 3539 Fit Permdted 1.95.�, 1,00 Sat'. flow )Perm) 1770 3539 Volume,(vph) 420 k. 0 0= 0 0 1798 .. Peak -hour taclor.PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adl:; Flow (vph) 457 : 0 0 S: 0 0 1954 .,.�.�,... Lane Group Flow (vph) 457 0 0.. 0 0 1954 Turn Type .. _...� .. _..,,.,. uv,.. Protected Phases a 6 .., Pakmitted Phases) Actuated Green, G (s) 39.0 _ 51.2 Eff.oWe Green, q (s) 41 0 a S3 2 Actuated gfC Ratio 0,37 0,48 Clearance Time (s) 6 0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (Gph) 660 ;. 7: 1712 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.55 ZRioFarm vlc Ratio 0.69 1.14 Uniform Delay, dt 262 6 28,4 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 Inctemental Delay, d2 3.1 - 71.2 Delay (s) 32.3 99.6 Loyal of Servlc®: C F' ., Approach Delay (s) 32,3 0.0 99.6 Approach LOS C_ A F _. fntereacCrort Sulxim HCM Average Control Delay 86.a : HCM I-:eval of Servtee. F HCM Wu ma to Capacity rat' 0.95 , Actuated CycleLength (a) 110.05 Sum of lost time ntereection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service D c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 RESOURWHIT-SX51 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/1 7/2001 7: Main & South Prospect C:\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOBRODV25%.sy6 - - 'I- -\ t ♦ `► 1 • WSL. WBT €WB .NBC'+. NBT..'•NBR,53C SgrM,eyUR Lane Configurations 4•j. ) T jr T jr )'i A Ideal Flow(vphpr); 1710 1710 1710 :. 1710 1710 1710 17101 1710 1710: 1710 1710 1710 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 12 12 fit 11 11 12 12 12 Total Lost hme.(c). 4.0 4.0 40'r 4,0 4.0 4.0. 4.0 4,0 Lane Util, Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0,97 1.00 Ed , 0.99 1.00 1.00 . 0 85' :". '1.00 0.85: 1,00 0.98 1 Fit Protected 100 1,11 1,111 1,11 1 00 1,00 0,95 1.00 j Said.Flow (Prot): 3054 ':1593 1676 " 1425 1621 1378 2090 1644, P rmrtted 1 QO 0.95 1.00 100 1 00 1.00 0.95 1,00 IFII S...Flaw (perm) 3054 16931676 1425 1621 1378 3090 1644 Volume (vph) 3 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Peak -hour factor,; PHF 100 100 'M 100 :. 1.00 100 1.00 1,00- 1:00 1.00 1.00.. 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 815 46 212 723 546 0 179 420 526 136 20 Group Flows{vph) 0 881 0 212 723: 548 0'I 179 420 526 156 0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov pmw Prot ILane Protected Phases 2 1 6 7 8 1 7' 4 Parmtied Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green;, G (s) 31.9 17.0 $3.9 70.9 13.5 30.5 17 0 35.$ Effective Green, g (c) 32.9 18.0 54.9 72.9 15.5 33.5 18,0 37.5 Actuated g/C Ratio " 0.30 : 0.16 0.50` 0.66 0.14 0.30 0.16 0.34 Ciea eTlme (s) 50 50 5.0 50 60 50 50 60 Vehicle EnI.-on Is) 30 30 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 913 261 836 996 228 420 506 560 v/s]Ratia Prat c0 28 '. 0,13 0.43 ` 0 09 0,11 c0 16' c0. 17 00 v/s Ratio Perm 0,29 0. 14 vio Ratio 094 ,. 081 0.661 0.SS 079 1.00 1,04 0.28 Uniform Delay, dt 37.6 444 24.3 9.8 45.6 38.2 46.0 26.4 Progr ort Factor :. 100 1.11 1,00 100 100 1.00 1,10 1,10 Incremental Delay, d2 188 17.2 11.6 0.6 16,1 43.9 50 6 0.3 Delay (a) 56,5 : 61.6 35,9 10.4 51 e . 82.2. 96.6 26.7 Level of Sary ce E E D B E F F C Approach Delay (s} :; 56 5 30.2 76.1 80:6 Approach LOS E C E F Intersection, SUninlary ` : " 7 .. ' + ^' '!j , •'. ,, ". ...... :: " :, i Av ge Control Delay 111 HCM Lev I Sery ce D IHCM HCM Volume to Capacity raeo 0,99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110 0 Sum of lost time ls) 25.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization :: 82 2% ICU Level of Service 'D, c Critical Lane Group Baseline RESOUR W HIT-SX51 Synchro 5 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 21: Main & Uni Heights C:\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPMOOBBODV25%.sy6 Md`0111hi :: 1=flL'7 BB'Ctt:.&8R':'iW6t:' W8'F":WBR..,'N6�:4': NB6PiN81%2i':'SW6', SWfkC,' Lane Configurations Tj. «ii' jr 1j Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1710 '.1710 - 1710 1710 1710 t' 1710 1710, 1710 171i): 1710 1710 . Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 Total Lost time (sj 4 n 4,1) 4,11 la,41,11 Utl Factor 095 0.95 1,00 0,95 100 ILane Frpb p d/blkes 1400 1.00 1.00 0,96 1.00 Flpb pad/tikes 1 00 1,00 0,98 1,00 096 Frt' i 00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 Fit Protected 1.00 7.o0 0.95 1.00 0.95 Said Flow (prop h 3170 3185 1505 1262 1478 FII Permute. 1.00 too 0,72 1.00 0.95 Said Flow( It,) 3170 3185 1140: ' ':1262 1478 Volum (vph) 0 1927 42 0 1525 0 781 1 17 10 0 Poak hour factmr PHF 1.00 : 1.00 1.00 : 1-00 100' 1.00 t.00. too 1.00 1.00 1,00 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 1927 42 0 1525 0 78 1 17 10 3 Lane Group Flowf(vph) 0 "'1969 0'' 0 1525.y 0 79° 0 171 10 10 Can11. Pads. (8/hr) 10 to 10 10 10 10 10 10 „ 10 Turn Type Perm custom.:: custom; Prole led Ph.... 2 6 PermittedPhases 6 8 8 4 Actuated Green G (s) 84.4 84.4 13.0 13 0 13.0 Effective Green, g is) 86A 86A 15.0 15.0 15 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,73 0.73 0.13 0,13 0,13 Clearance Time (s) :'. 6.0 6.0i 6.0 6.0 6,0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) : 2302 2312 144.. 159 186 v/s Ratio Prot o0 62 048 v/s:Raho Perm c0 07:: 9.01 . 0.Ot v/c Raeo 0,86 0.66 055 0.11 0,05 Undorm Delay, dt 11.8 6.6 48.0: 46:i . 45 B Progression Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 : 43 1.5C -. 4.2 '0.3. 01 Delay (s) 16 1 10.1 53 0 46.4 45,9 Level of Service : 8 B . D D: D Approach Delay (s) 161 10'1 51.9 45,9 Approach LOS 8 B' D: D tnter84Gtipn 9tlmin "I '" mMUM HCM Average Control Delay 14,1 HCM Level of Service =. B` , HCM Volume to Capacity relic 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (a) 119.0 Sum of lost time (a) 17.6: intersection Capac ly Utilization 84 5% ICU Level of Service D c ":Critical Lane Group IBaseline Synchro 5 Report Page 3 RESOUR W HIT-SX51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1211112001 17: Main & East 0.\Projects\UVM\UVt/NSynchro\UVMPMOBBOOV25%.sy6 -► Z r- ~ t '* ) I 1 /- Mavamanl ., ,.. ,. ,.a.,,E :°,. EBR:"W8L=,tNBi`:''ts14> Lane Configurations TT} ?T "r 1j tj jr Ideal Fl.. (vphpi) ' 19oo- 1900f 1900 1900 1900 1909., 1@00 1900 1900 1900 19o0 ' y,,,, Total Lost tme(s) 40 40 40 40 4.0 40 Lane UtIl. Factor 0,911 ': 0 95.: 0.88 1.00 1`.00 1.00 , Frt 1,00 1.00 0A5 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00` 100 100 0.95 '.0.95 1 OQ •, Satd. Flow (prof) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 FIt Permitted 1.00. " 1.00 ':1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said Flow(perm) 5187 3610 2842 1805 1805 1615 Volume (vent 0 2295 0 0 1410 817 0 0 183 : 210 300 Peak -hour factor. PHF I.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Adj. :Flow (vph) 0: 2295: 0 01 1410 - 817 0: 0 183 210 300' Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 2295 0 0 1410 817 0 0 183 210 300 Heavy Vehicle,{%) 0%. 0%. 0% 0% 0%". 0"/e' i0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm For Perm Protected Phaaea. 2: 6 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G'(s): 72.1s 72 1 72.1 18 1 18.1 181 Effective Green, g (s) 74.1 74.1 74A 20.1 20.1 20A Actuated g/C Ratio 0,67' 0.67 :0.67 0.18' . 0.18 0.18' Clearance Tlme (s) 6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle. Extenslonfs)- - 3.0 30 10 30 -30 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3494 2432 1914 330 330 295 Wis Ratio Plot c0.44 0.39 0.10 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.19 We Ratio. :0.66 0.58' .0,43 0.55' 0,64 1.02 Uniform Delay, dl 10.5 9.6 3.2 40.9 41.6 45.0 Progression Factor- 0.99 1:00. 1.00 1,00. 1.00 1.1 Incremental Daley, d2 0.7 1 0 0.7 2 0 40 56.8 Delay (a) 10.0' 10.6:.. 8.9 429 45.6 101,7 "bi',P,`$, Level of Service B B A D D F Approach Delay (s)' 10 0' 10.0 - 0.0. , Approach LOS 8 _ B A E HCM Average Control Delay 17 9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,73 , Actuated Cycle Length (c) 110,0 Sum of lost time (a) 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization fig 6%, ICU Level. of Service B c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synch- 5 Report Page 2 RESOURWHIT-SX51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 29: Main & Spear Enter C\Projects\UVM\UVM\Synchro\UVMPM08BODV2546. sy6 l Mov®meit 'l EBT': E6Ri" WBC ..W13'F".'yNyit... ,NF34`;' NOR 5WL2• SWL SWR.'r:i^; �G€ Lane configurations T+ )I ) r Ideal lFlow{vphpi} 1900 1900' 1900 1900 ,1900 1900 1two 1900 1900 1000 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4A 4.0 40 4.0 Lane: UN. Factor (),Of ,.0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fit 0.98 1.00 1.00 1,00 085 Fit Protected 1,00 1.00 0.95 0,95 1.011 Said Flow Prot) 4967 3539 3433 1770 ,. 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00. 1.00 0.95 0,96 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 4967 3539 3433 1770 1583 Volume:(vph) 0.. 1433 263 0 1594 0 0 0 977 781 91 Peak -hour lector, PHF 1.00 I.00 I 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ad). Flow (vph) 0 1433 263 0 1594 0 0 0 977 781 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 1696 0 0 1594 0 0 0 977 781 91 Tun Type Prat: Prit Protected Pro- 2 6 3 8 a Permitted Phases : '1.+ea0'% Actuated Green, G (a) 51.2 51.2 39.0 39.0 39.0 Effective Green g (s) . . 53.2' 53.2 41.0 41 0 41; =iQN Actuated g/C Ratio 0,48 0.413 0.37 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 60 80 1 Vehicle Ex ansion (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 0 Lane. Grp Cap(vph) 2402 1712 1280 -660 590,777 v/a Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.45 0,28 c0.44 0.06 We Ratio Perm i v/c Ratio 0,71 0.93 0,76 1.18 0,15y Uniform Delay, d1 223 26.7 31 34.5 23. , P gressio Factor 1.00 0.82 1.34 1,33 1.86 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 9.4 0.9 87.5 0,ii, Delay (s) 24 0 31.3 41.4 133.6 42.7 Level of Service C C D ': F •' �, ;),,,,;, Approach Delay(s) 24.0 31.3 0.0 80.4 ApprdecRLOS C.. C A F Intersection 5bmmarys -` ,. '+ +'^ HCM Average C-fird Delay 46.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1,04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.0°6 ICU Level of Service E c Critical Lane Group.: , Baseline RESOUR W H IT-SX51 Synchro 5 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12/17/2001 38: Spear Enter & C:\Projects\UVM\UVM\8ynchro\UVMPM08BODV25%.sy6 Nmr� Lane Configurations Tt Ideal Floyrhphpl), 1900:1go0 .Y900< 1900 Mo igoo, Total Last time (s) 4.0 4,0 Lane U4l. Factor] 100' Fit 1.00 1.00 Fit'.Prof clad 095.' 100' a Ssld Flow (plot) 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95: 100 Tays,+ Said Flaw perm) 1770 3539 Volume (vph) 420:;. 0 0 0 0 1798 Peak -hour !actor PHF 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj, Flow(vph) '.`. 457" 0 0. 0 :0: 1954 _ Lane Group Flow iVon) 457 0 0 0 0 '.954 Turn Type Protected Phases 3 c Permitted Phases Actuated Green. G (a) 39.0 51.2 Effective Green, g is) 41 (3 53 2 Actuated g/C Ratio 3,37 0.48 Clearance Time (a) 6.0':: 8.0 Vehicle Extension is) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 660 1712 _ v/s Ratio Prof c0.26 c0.55 vls Ratio Parm y/cRatio 059 1,14 Ufldorm Delay, F11 292 28.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 31: 712 .slay (a) 22.3 yo �13 Le -I of Sory ca C. F Approach Delay (s) 32.3 0.0 99,6 Approach LOS C: A F EI`Yt�resat'wR 3mnmacy.'`. ` : ,` .,_s,`. " ' t , .,.. ;;.:.. HCM Average Control Delay 888: HCM'. Laval of Service' , HCM Volume to Capacity rah. 0.95 AoWated Cycle Length (c) I16.pi Sum of lost time (a)15 8' Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service D c-: Critical Lane: Group Baseline Synchro 5 Report Page 5 RESOURWHiT-SX51 5% queue length 0.04 30.37 0.10 ontrol Delay 9.2 315.1 12.9 OS A F B pproach Delay 300.8 Fpproach LOS F HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 .Janet Choi Resource Systems Group I hone: -Mail. Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS tnalyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Iate Performed: 12/11/2001 nalysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North uri.sdiction: Burlington/South Burlington nalysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 Nast/West Street: Gutterson North orth/South Street: Spear Street intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ajor Street Movements 1 2 3 4 L T R L Volume 11 PPeak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 }Peak-15 Minute Volume 3 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 edian Type Undivided RT Channelized? 5 6 T R 317 560 196 1.00 1.00 1.00 79 140 49 317 560 196 anes 0 1 onfiguration LT Upstream Signal? No inor Street Movements 7 8 L T Folume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume ]Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 1 1 0 TR Yes 9 10 11 12 R L T R 301 15 1.00 1.00 75 4 301 15 0 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration No 1 1 L R Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments I Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) Lane Width ( f t ) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage Prog Flow vph 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 J 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Through 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 317 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I L L L T R L T R 1 t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 0 0 0 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2-stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 J L L L T R L T R 't(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 IP (HV) 0 0 0 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 orksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals (Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) IV prog 60 60 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Type 3 3 rrrival ffective Green, g (sec) 20 20 Cycle Length, C (sec) 60 60 Rp (from table 9-2) 1.000 1.000 Froportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.333 0.333 g(q1) 1.4 1.4 g(q2) 0.1 0.1 lg(q) 1.5 1.5 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked I Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) '"alpha 0.550 eta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 27.211 moothing Factor, F 0.094 Froportion of conflicting flow, f 0.079 0.079 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 18 18 platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Din uration of blocked period, t(p) 0.0 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 omputation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 �p(5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.000 p(subo) 0.000 (Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion ,unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II jp(l) 1.000 p (4) P(7) 1p(8) p(9) p(10) 1.000 1 p(12) 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 756 997 65u s 1700 1700 1700 Px 1.000 1.000 1. � V c,u,x 756 997 65u1 C r,x 864 273 46 C plat,x 864 273 46 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) r s 1700 1700 P(X) V(c,u,x) 1 C (r, x) C (plat, x) Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 658 Potential Capacity 468 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 468 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 1 Conflicting Flows 756 Potential Capacity 864 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 864 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 I Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.98 1 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 I Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 I Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 onflicting Flows 997 Potential Capacity 273 ,redestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 aj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Map. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.99 ovement Capacity 270 �orksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance tep 3: TH from Minor St. tart 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Cap. Adj. factor due povement Capacity robability of Queue art 2 - Second Stage onflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance ap. Adj. factor due ovement Capacity art 3 - Single Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity edestrian Impedance ap. Adj. factor due Movement Capacity Factor to Impeding mvmnt free St. Factor to Impeding mvmnt Factor to Impeding mvmnt sult for 2 stage process: a t robability of Queue free St. tep 4: LT from Minor St. art 1 - First Stage onflicting Flows otential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Lap. Adj. factor due ovement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage j�onflicting Flows Potential Capacity edestrian Impedance ap. Adj. factor due Movement Capacity Factor to Impeding mvmnt Factor to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 7 11 •: 10 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 997 Potential Capacity 273 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 I Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 1 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.99 Movement Capacity 270 Results for Two -stage process: a y C t 270 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 301 15 Movement Capacity (vph) 270 468 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) I Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 270 468 Volume 301 15 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) I J n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R v (vph) 11 301 15 C(m) (vph) 864 270 468 v/c 0.01 1.11 0.03 95% queue length 0.04 30.37 0.10 Control Delay 9.2 315.1 12.9 LOS A F B Approach Delay 300.8 Approach LOS F t iWorksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0.99 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 317 Iv(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 iP*(oj) 0.98 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 ,d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.1 IHCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: gency/Co.: Resource Systems Group ate Performed: 12/11/2001 nalysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour No Build ntersection: Spear/Gutterson North urisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington nalysis Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North orth/South Street: Spear Street ntersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ajor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 26 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 ercent Heavy Vehicles 1 edian Type Undivided RT Channelized? 593 210 217 1.00 1.00 1.00 593 210 217 anes 0 1 onfiguration LT Upstream Signal? No inor Street: Approach Movement Volume eak Hour Factor, PHF ourly Flow Rate, HFR ercent Heavy Vehicles ercent Grade (%) edian Storage lared Approach: Exists? Storage tT Channelized? anes Configuration pproach ovement Lane Config Westbound 7 8 9 L T R 111 1 0 TR Yes Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R 55 5 1.00 1.00 55 5 3 3 0 No 1 1 L R lay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound 1 4 I 7 8 9 I 10 11 17 (vph) 26 55 C (m) (vph) 1138 276 /c 0.02 0.20 R2 5 720 0.01 95% queue length 0.07 0.74 0.02 Control Delay 8.2 21.3 10.0- LOS A C B Approach Delay 20.3 I Approach LOS C HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 Janet Choi Resource Systems Group Phone: Fax: E-Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour No Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 26 593 210 217 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak-15 Minute Volume 6 148 52 54 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 593 210 217 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 55 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Peak-15 Minute Volume 14 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 1.00 dedian Storage ared Approach T Channelized? anes onfiguration is Exists? Storage 1 L Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 No 1 R Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 alking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ercent Blockage 0 0 0 0 1 2 Left -Turn Through 5 Left -Turn Through Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 hared In volume, major th vehicles: 593 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Nat umber of major street through lanes: 1 porksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation � ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 L L L T R L T R (c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 (c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 1 3 3 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 t(c,g) ade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 (c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 It 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 I2-stage Follow -Up Time Calculations rovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 I P (HV) 1 3 3 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals I r Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot.)� 60 V prog 60 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 20 20 Cycle Length, C (sec) 60 60 Rp (from table 9-2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.333 0.333 g(q1) 1.4 1.4 g(q2) 0.1 0.1 g(q) 1.5 1.5 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 27.211 Smoothing Factor, F 0.094 Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.141 0.141 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 32 32 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 0.0 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result r p (2 ) 0.000 p (5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.000 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U ) Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single -stage Process p(1) 1.000 p (4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) 1.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II �(11) (12) 1.000 4 and 5 �omputation ingle-Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R c,x 427 963 318 1700 1700 1700 x 1.000 1.000 1.00 c,u,x 427 963 318 r,x 1138 282 720 plat,x 1138 282 720 �wo-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 JT(c,x) s 1700 1700 �P (x) ( C, u, x) (r,x) (plat, x) forksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 onflicting Flows 318 Potential Capacity 720 Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 pedestrian ovement Capacity 720 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 Kep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 onflicting Flows 427 otential Capacity 1138 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ovement Capacity 1138 robability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 aj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.96 (Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Povement Capacity robability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 I Conflicting Flows 963 Potential Capacity 282 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.98 I Movement Capacity 276 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 , Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 I Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage I Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor I Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity r art 3 - Single Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity redestrian Impedance Factor aj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Oap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity esults for Two -stage process: C t Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations 963 282 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 276 276 kovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 55 5 Movement Capacity (vph) 276 720 ^phared Lane Capacity (vph) orksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R t sep 276 720 Volume 55 5 pelay �j sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max Psh C sep n C act orksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R 17 (vph) 26 55 5 C(m) (vph) 1138 276 720 0.02 0.20 0.01 �/c 5% queue length 0.07 0.74 0.02 Control Delay 8.2 21.3 10.0+ OS A C B pproach Delay 20.3 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 593 I v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 I p*(oj) 0.96 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 I d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.3 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1.00 Major Street: Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 28 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? 605 212 238 1.00 1.00 1.00 605 212 238 Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R 1 0 TR Yes Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume 101 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 101 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Percent Grade (o) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound I Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R v (vph) 28 101 9 C(m) (vph) 1116 264 708 v/c 0.03 0.38 0.01 I r5% queue length 0.08 1.82 Control Delay 8.3 27.0 LOS A D ,Approach Delay pproach LOS Lanet HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 Choi Resource Systems I �Phone: E-Mail. Group Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Fgency/Co.: Resource Systems Group ate Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North tnalysis urisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Year: 2008 Project ID: 00126 ast/West Street: Gutterson North orth/South Street: Spear Street intersection Orientation: NS Vehicle Volumes r ajor Street Movements 1 2 L T Study period (hrs) and Adjustments 3 4 R L 25.6 D 5 6 T R 1.00 0.04 10.2 B Volume 28 605 212 238 (Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak-15 Minute Volume 7 151 53 60 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 605 212 238 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- -- -- (Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? (Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ,Volume 101 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Minute Volume 25 2 FPeak-15 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 101 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 ,Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data 1 Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Through 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 605 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 1 3 3 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 I Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2-stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 J I L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 (f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 (HV) 1 3 3 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 orksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals omputation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) AV prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) rrival Type ffective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) [p (from table 9-2) roportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) N(q2) ) computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 V(t) V(l,prot) t 1pha eta Travel time, t(a) (sec) tmoothing Factor, F roportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) tin platooned flow, V(c,min) uration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 omputation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result 60 60 1700 1700 3 3 20 20 60 60 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.333 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.5 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) 0.550 0.645 27.211 0.094 0.133 0.133 30 30 1000 1000 0.0 0.0 0.000 (2) 0.000 (5) 0.000 (dom) 0.000 r (subo) 0.000 onstrained or unconstrained? U Proportion ffnblocked (1) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) or minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II Ip(1) p(4) (7) (8) p(9) 1.000 p(11) p(12) 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 L L L T R L T V c,x 450 s 1700 Px 1.000 V c,u,x 450 C r,x 1116 C plat,x 1116 Two -Stage Process 7 8 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P (x) V (c , u, x ) C (r, x) C(plat,x) 992 1700 1.000 992 271 271 70E 70E 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 f 1700 1700 i 1 Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 331 Potential Capacity 708 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 708 I Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 1 Conflicting Flows 450 Potential Capacity 1116 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1116 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.97 Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.96 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 J I Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 I Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 (onflicting Flows 992 Potential Capacity 271 (edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 aj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 ('ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.97 Movement Capacity 264 forksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance tep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 .fart 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows �otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt I ovement Capacity robability of Queue free St. art 2 - Second Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity edestrian. Impedance Factor ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt lovement Capacity Jart 3 - Single Stage onflicting Flows Potential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity Jesult for 2 stage process: a J t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 tep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Jonflicting Flows otential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor lap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt ovement Capacity fart 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity ledestrian Impedance Factor ap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 992 I 271 1.00 1.00 0.96 I 0.97 0.96 0.97 264 Results for Two -stage process: a I y C t 264 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations 12 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T R 9 Volume (vph) 101 Movement Capacity (vph) 264 708 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) I Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches I 12 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T R 708 C sep 264 Volume 101 9 Delay Q Sep 1 1 Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) I L n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service 12 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 Lane Config LT L R 9 v (vph) 28 101 C(m) (vph) 1116 264 708 v/c 0.03 0.38 0.01 95% queue length 0.08 1.82 0.04 Control Delay 8.3 27.0 10.2 LOS A D B I Approach Delay 25.6 Approach LOS D lWorksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.97 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 605 `v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 ,s(i2), P*(oj) 0.96 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.3 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 Id(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.3 IHCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: gency/Co.: Resource Systems Group ate Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period. AM Peak Hour No Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North F urisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington nalysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 Last/West Street: Gutterson North orth/South Street: Spear Street IIntersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ajor Street: Approach Northbound IM Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L Folume 23 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 tedian ercent Heavy Vehicles 1 Type Undivided RT Channelized? Southbound 5 6 T R 532 189 195 1.00 1.00 1.00 532 189 195 Lanes 0 1 Jconfiguration LT Upstream Signal? No inor Street: Approach Movement \Iolume Peak Hour Factor, PHF IHourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage IRT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Westbound 7 8 9 L T R 0 1 0 TR Yes Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R 55 5 1.00 1.00 55 5 3 3 0 No 1 1 L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound ,Approach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R IV (vph) 23 55 5 C(m) (vph) 1180 317 751 IV /c 0.02 0.17 0.01 95% queue length 0.06 0.63 0.02 I Control Delay 8.1 18.7 9.8 LOS A C A Approach Delay 18.0 I Approach LOS C HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 Janet Choi Resource Systems Group Phone: Fax: E-Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour No Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 1.00 Volume 23 532 189 195 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I Peak-15 Minute Volume 6 133 47 49 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 532 189 195 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- -- -- I Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 I Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 55 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Peak-15 Minute Volume 14 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 I edian Storage lared Approach: Exists? Storage T Channelized? anes onfiguration No 1 1 L R Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 �alking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ercent Blockage 0 0 0 0 IUpstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 2 Left -Turn Through 5 Left -Turn 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Through 60 1700 3 20 60 25 1000 Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 hared In volume, major th vehicles: 532 hared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Nat umber of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I L L L T R L T R 1(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 (c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 1 3 3 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 I(c,g) rade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.70 0.00 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 f(c,T): 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2-stage "Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 1 3 3 I t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 1 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog 60 60 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vpn) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 20 20 Cycle Length, C (sec) 60 60 Rp (from table 9-2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.333 0.333 g(q1) 1.4 1.4 g(q2) 0.1 0.1 g(q) 1.5 1.5 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 27.211 Smoothing Factor, F 0.094 Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.156 0.156 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 36 36 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 0.0 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result r p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.000 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p (4) p(7) P(8) p(9) p(10) 1.000 1.000 (11) (12) Computation 4 and 5 LIngle -Stage Process ovement 1.000 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 384 864 286 1700 1700 170C 1.000 1.000 1.00, 384 864 286 r,x 1180 323 751 plat,x 1180 323 751 fwo-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage/2- IV (c, X) s 1700 1700 (x) (c,u,x) C(r,x) (plat, x) orksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 fonflicting Flows 286 Potential Capacity 751 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 ovement Capacity 751 robability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99 tep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 384 totential Capacity 1180 edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1180 of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 rrobability aj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.97 1tep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows otential Capacity edestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 ovement Capacity robability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 ,Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10, Conflicting Flows 864 Potential Capacity 323 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.98 Movement Capacity 317 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity I Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity I Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 I Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 1 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity lPart 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity LPedestrian Impedance Factor aj. L, Min T Impedance factor aj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Fovement Capacity (Results for Two -stage process: y C t Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations 864 323 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.98 317 317 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (vph) 55 5 Movement Capacity (vph) 317 751 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches W -'Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R jC sep 317 751 Volume 55 5 �elay Sep Q Sep +1 found (Qsep +1) n max sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R (vph) 23 55 5 C(m) (vph) 1180 317 751 0.02 0.17 0.01 F/c 5% queue length 0.06 0.63 0.02 Control Delay 8.1 18.7 9.8 A C A pLOS pproach Delay 18.0 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 1Movement 5 p(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 532 I v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 p*(oj) 0.97 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.2 I HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group Date Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North North/South Street: Spear Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? 538 191 215 1.00 1.00 1.00 538 191 215 Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal? No 1 0 TR Yes Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 101 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 101 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 LT I I L 12 R v (vph) 25 101 9 C (m) (vph) 1158 307 739 v/c 0.02 0.33 0.01 F5% queue length 0.07 1.45 0.04 ontrol Delay 8.2 22.4 9.9 LOS A C A pproach Delay 21.4 Approach LOS C IHCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 Janet Choi (Resource Systems 1 IPhone: E-Mail. Group Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: ,Agency/Co.: Resource Systems Group ate Performed: 12/11/2001 Analysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour Build Intersection: Spear/Gutterson North Jurisdiction: Burlington/South Burlington Analysis Year: 2003 Project ID: 00126 East/West Street: Gutterson North Orth/South Street: Spear Street (Intersection Orientation: NS raj or Street Movements Vehicle Volumes 1 2 L T Study period (hrs): 1.00 and Adjustments 3 4 5 6 R L T R Volume 25 538 191 215 ]Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak-15 Minute Volume 6 134 48 54 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 538 191 215 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- -- -- (Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? ]Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No Yes ]Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ]Volume 101 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Minute Volume 25 2 FPeak-15 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 101 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 3 ,Percent Grade (%) 0 0 APPENDIX 4 TIME SPACE DIAGRAM No Text No Text No Text APPENDIX 5 ACCIDENT DATA �P c'7 c'7 N N C-D N O a: w ar> P O W E--I —4 O N CD 0 Page: 1 Time: 03:19 P►14 Accident Reporting System Accident Summary Years of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Report: 1 Date: 10t0112001 -Mik Date No. of `Io. of Seq No. rosrrt 31ari:er MM/0B9YY Tams Wrstbi r Cause of Accident Syr a4 Aetidenl Iml odes Fatalities Dhection AQytre MAOi ST., BLIRLIK GTQIti 305364 Buringtun 0.03 O7iIBN7 10.00 ti10102own Frdlad to Yield Rigbi of Way Hit pedestrian rumaing, calking, standing, playing 1 O NrA 293043 B,ulisielor, 0.05 02i1[95 IIOD Cloud] Jmtetntion Rear -end 0 0 West 294511 Butlingim 009 06177.95 1000 Clear lmllention Nit bicyclist 1 0 North 295821 Bwhar" OU9 10,29t'95 12,00 Cltved, Failed toYield Righlof Way lightanele, bwakide 1 0 South 299345 Bun ingtco 0.419 09MA6 17:00 Clew Failed to Yield Right of Way Angie collision, tsroirsgin sum direetiou 0 0 North 303841 Burling" 0.09 071,17.,97 15:90 Rain Failed to Yield RighlofWay F.iglartngle,Lceadside 1 0 North 30484E Burlington 0.09 10176-97 36:D0 Clew Failed to Yield Right of %Way Right angle, broadside 1 0 So -jib 048 Budingon 0.09 OVD2,38 14:23 Clear DisregltrdedTraffic 5�lpns, Sgnas, RotdMeekisrgs Fight angle, broadside 4 0 Saalh 28f0 Budingics 0.09 t&19198 16:25 Clear Glare Hit bicyclist 2 0 WM S7v, Hurl V--an 0.09 0619,99 18:09 Clear Disrtgn-Jnd Traffic Signs, Signsl3, Rotd Markings Righlangie,,brereMice 3 O North 3W046 Bwlingtou D..15 Ct4r03,97 OL00 Rein Other Improper Atticn Angle eolLoim, laming in appositcdireelian 3 0 Wes1 294987 BurkrWon 0.17 OR'0E,95 0000 Rain Fiiledeo Yield Right of Way Heeim I 0 µ'es1 295140 Burlington 0-17 OR,2&95 1200 Clear Fule7toYield Right ofWay Right rrgk,broadside, 0 0 south 295414 Buriingion 0.17 09r3095 2300 Clear Falure 13 Keep io Paper Lone or Ramming off Road Ckha tvye of rrniltiple vehicle ealsion l 0 Well 297530 BuAinglon 0.11 Ol(k 96 0200 Snow Failed ht Yield Right of%ray Angle cadlisiee. lumirrn in same direction D 0 East 5,113771. Burlington. 0.0 070W97 23:00 Clew ]amtenti3n Anglecdlisicit,taming inepposiledirection 1 0 West 4480 Budingtoa 0.1.7 92AI3.139 22:14 C VAXi,- operuinge Dercokt Frittifateat hear -end 4 8 West _395 8urlingrt� 401.0 090111-99 11:00 CYar L)n-tTx tl Angle u Alisian, hrsnmng in sure direction 2 0 East 293225 Bunliapjoa 1.26 Ob'13,95 08:00 (7tar Glue Hit ?edestrianrrmniug.�ul",stending,playing 1 0 Ea[ 29a677 Hurlitgton /.26 00,'26,95 10.00 Char plait on Improper Tim Head-0rr 0 0 Koto 29WIT Burlington 0.26 07130,95 07:00 Chet Made anlmpreperTom RiaManale,broadside 2 0 Eat 3W364 Burlington 0-26 01r13,97 1109 Clear Failed to Yield Right of Way Hitpodcssuimrunnirg,uWling,smncing,playing 1 0 hbah 6262 Burlingttr, 0.Y4 0710b,99 21:01 Clew- Hit and run Rear -end 4 0 West MM35 Burlington 0.10 Ofi/1897 L200 Cloudy Fnlol In Yield Right of Way Angle eollsien, tarning is tarn! d'sectitc 0 0 But 296613 8111inglctt t133 12JML95 0200 Clear Fallc cd too Closely Rear -end 0 0 Best 390910 Btahngton 0.34 07/11196 0200 CAear improper Candies W1 pedestaian running, Walking, standing, phying 1 0 Ent 3019M Burlingtus 0.34 DL29197 23:00 Clancy Otber Improper Action Rearend 1 0 West 60_% Burlingkm 0.34 0711299 13:45 C*.ear lasibe gam Rear -end 3 0 West 29,959 Budingrm OAT 03/21/96 02:03 Canldy Other Improper Action YehickbaYed into sneaher vehicle 0 0 S'nalh 9971 Burlis.gtmr D.37 ICt'22,99 41:13 Clear Dµ9 Angle:ollisicn, turning in satrte direction ? 0 East 29JU2 Burlington 039 01903195 16:00 -Cloudy Lmpropw Clccsing Hit pcdestri m nuoing.•xalkia& slanding, playing L 0 Fit AmigaVehicle backed inta®mhn vehicle 0 0 West 292923 Bvriinglen 0.41 0YI"5 0:00 Clear railed to Yield Right of Way Riga wrglq broadside l 0 Fast 1295375 Rtslinglca 0.41 090.195 0200 Cloudy Filled to Yield Right of Way Angle collision, turning in sante direction U 0 East 2%225 Bterlingtrst 0.41 1I/ls:95 19.9C Clear Fazltd to Yield RightofWw Right oogle, broadside 0 0 Feast 296135 Burlingsoo OAl 11/21195 20:00 Clew Dissegrded ltaf6e Signs, Signals, Road Markings Hod -on 1 0 Vorlh 2297M Burlington 0.41 01111196 09:00 acw bnptoper Dossiers Hit gretmirian mnnLig, —Ning, standing, playing I 0 South 297193 Burliogttm 0.49 0112496 14:00 Rain Folltmcd too Closely Rear-u,d 1 0 East 299745 Burlington 0.41 W20,96 07:00 Clem Failed toYield Right of'Kny Right angle,broadsidc 1 D West 103346 Burlington 041 10,2096 10:00 Rain Foiled as Yield Right of Way Right angle, Moa9side 2 0 Nest 304333 B,utieglnn 041 09,7.0,9i 18:00, Rein Failed to Yidd RigMof Way IGtbicyelisl 1 0 Fast 365712 BYtlinelott 0.41 1IPA-97, 11-00 Rein Dlherlinpmpet Aaicn Riot engk, Noodside 2 0 fast 1212 Hralingtoo OAL Ofie%98 19-02 Clear Impmper Crmsing Hitbieyellst 2 0 Stvib 3276 Burlington 0.41 10.7C1'98 14-10 Cloudy Inanition Raarcerl 5 0 West rl1 Burlingtom 0.4I. 10.1Z.499 12:32 Clem Failed l3Yield Right ofiWr/ Rigbemgll7hratdsi9e 4 0 South 301903 Burliagtan 0.52 [rW197 12:00 Cloudy -Made an Inepreper Turn Angle cuflisieo, luroigg in eppasile direction 1 0 North 2931:6 Bwlington 0.33 06'21196 16:00 Clear InollmUm Rem-od 3 0 Fast 304211 Huriisglrm 0.53 0t.'24-w 01:05 Rain Otbtr lmproparActim Right angle, broadside a 0 Fast ' 3R4346 Buringlon 053 0412107 22:00 Cteur Made at Improper Turn Right eagle, broadside t 0 Fall 384230 Poutington 053 03^.9-97 01:00 Clear Failed to Yield RigM ofWay Hitldcycl-sl 1 0 North 305404 Btadinpt d 0.53 IV13,9? t1ol) Snout Foiled to Yield Ri& of Way Right angle, hroadside L 0 East 1949 Burling" 0.53 OW '.% 1015 Clear Dperadng Vehicle in Enatie, Rak'_css, Circlets, Negligent Right angle, broadside 3 it East . or Agg7k,,e Manner 2945R9 Burlingem 0.54 07117/95 17:00 Cloudy Inareonat. Rear -end 1 0 Li,t 5551 Burlito" 0.60 0001/99 16:00 Cloudy FaOrd/o Yield Right of Way I ilbicyclist 2 0 Notch. 293278 Buriiroan 0.70 001i?M 21:00 Rain Insdlrilion Rc r-cnd 2 0 West * This Accident occurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This Data should not be used in an AnalyB_s with other Accidents a� the same location. UNK indicates the Locdtion (Mile Markey-; is Unknown. W, ntlasi rgve, fn10-1r&-J5 00 Milepein0, ! 0 0 Page: l Time: 02,59 PVl Seg Nat. room n h N Go N oO N O W R; La. (9 C- O W i� E-+ O N 0 0 Accident Reporting System Accident Summary Yeats of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997,1998, 1999 Report: 1 Date: 10/01/2001 hllle Date No. of pe. or ]larlser M.%VDO.A'y Time 35'eether Cauca or Atc[deni 7yyc el AceWenl Marl rHdltlet 1Nrertiur ] Bndin" 0.00 02•1�.95 1703 Clew Wrathcr Ourrdiliam Angleoollraion,earningin samedireclim. 293277 Burlingrn 0.00 03117.95 0600 Run AisvgwdedTrtdfieSig-,S;gnls,Road Mrrkmga Other "vifmultiplewhielewitisien 294512 Burlington OAD 07r2755 0900 Cloudy lnultentim Rcrr-end 29D155 Burlington 0.00 034 1.96 17 00 Cloudy FOIL,-,ed too Clestiy Rcw-erd 299557 Burlington 0.00 0-MV6 1900 Clear Operating Vehide inEmi-ie, Rcclrlts, CLrcless, Neglipent Angle collision, etming in serve direa0ra W Aggressive Mnrrrrn n8815 Burlington 0.00 05129e96 23 N Rein Failed 10 Yield Right of Wa. Pole (telel4locc, elctxtirnl, «a.l - right side 340590 Burlington O.W 102R196 2200 Cleat Disregarded Trafli� Sig,r4 S:gnas, Road Markings Right anrle, kvaa-hide W3061 Bwlin3san cco 0S•U9197 2000 Clew Ilisregatded Tra i_Sigps, Signali, Rand Markings Sidesw:.pe ferns opposite dirextim W4192 Burliolion 41.00 08r12197 0700 Clear Disregarded Trarfi= Signs, Signals, lived Markings Right angle, broadside 304024 Bw1bWon 0. CO 06117.97 23:00 Clint* DisregnrdedTraflicSigm,Sign als,RosdMarkings Right ang1e,lras3side 1294 Burlinglerr O.CO OwIIi..98 14:10 Clear Follmedtooawcly Rear -end 40W Out-lingsort 0.Ce 0111099 17:14 Clem Imurrltion Angle culUsiar,caninginopposite dire 6w. 4673 Rsciinglrn O.CO 01118'99 22:16 Ruin Older. ltorprcper Avian Right angle, brooldde 2i8T Buctinglat D00 06123199 08:31 Ckw Failed to Yield Right of Way Angle calteim.. tinning in same direction 5094 Itadinghtt 0_00 04,29.79 D8:43 Cleat Follewad too Gosely Rear -end 5%9 Bvdingim 0.00 0}'2l% L0:40 Cl!Or Made=lrrvcVcrTum Angle wllitionrturninginopposite direc6on 2391 Burlingtaa 0.04 ORT."96 17:00 Clear Inauealioa Rear -end 301006 Burlington 0.09 I11A.96 1100 Ratio faded in Yield Right .1 Way Rightangh- be aAside 299930 Burlington 0.12 0110496 7200 Cloudy Followed too Closely Rew<nd 292203 Budicgton 0.15 ilU13195 11:00 Snow Aillcwedtoo clescly Rew-cod 2921.86 Burlington o.15 OVA195 13,:00 Clear )"attention Rear -end 292562 Burlington 0.15 03,V3.'95 1500 Clew Inaltcnta. Rear -tad 2949S3 Burlington 0.15 07 _19l'95 1600 Clear Operating Vdddetn Enatsc. Rind& s,Cwrtei%NegligRt Rear -cad a Aggressive Mariner 29634f OWingim D.15 LVO695 16.90 Clew Fadled toYsldRighlnfWay Attgleca811siv,turning insmrndlrection 3DL334 Gkilingtm D!5 12121/96 11:0D CloyJy Follm d=Closety Rm-cod 301") Bxlnlgton 0:5 011311097 1700 Cloudy Fultaw.ed too Closey Rear -cud 302195 Bulinptan 0.35 03.104097 15:00 Snow Failed to field light of War Angle willskm, turning in eppasite direetion 301253 Bwlinglaw 0.15 OS'25,'97 11:00 Clear Fallow•edlwClosely Roar -ad 7399 Burlington O.)5 12fl U" 2035 Cloudy Followed tea Closely Rex-nd 302191 Bwlingtstt n](i OV19097 13:00 Mudy Fdlowed trn Closely Rew-erd 292328 Burlingtmr 0.20 Ob'2Fs35 19:00 Snow Failed to Yield Right of Way Rip*hl angle, hroadside 29LAi L Burlington _____ _ 031 06r22,135-_.^..U-1� _.. � ._.. --.w�.._ 1.t9?i.ORp....__.._..._..._,-..,._...._.,.___,,._.__._._.....,._.._..,.....,...�lSedr;,etni...,........ _..._..._.. 292128 Burlirgton 0.23 QW)195 D7:00 Swim Failed to Yield Right of Wry Angie wlGsien,bmirtginopposixdrettion 292954 Burlirglen 0.23 02r11c.95 Oceoo Snow Opnali2g Ychiele In Eis itie, Rtekless, Carries, Negligent Res -end a Aggr essiva Miuotr 293734 Bwlirglcn 0.23 06.101195 13:03 Clear FollewedteoClosely Rem -end 't- 296701 Buriinykn 9.23 12117,95 I -.00 Cloafy Operating Vehicle in Pmti , Reckless, Careless, Negligent ?ale (1clephoae, electrical, etc.) - right side or Aggsraiye Maurer 297499 BLAingLat 0.23 OZ'03rSd ] 5.00 Clear Fattened too ClvaeLy Rew<nd 297440 Blalin" - 0.23 OQ.'OR''96 23:00 Snow Failed to Yield Right afWay 13iipedeatrianrunning,welkirsg,elmtding,{laying ft 303290 Burlington 023 09A74-V6 1500 Clem Inathentmn Rear -end t,'303779 Burlington 023 I J.120.196 16:00 Snow Disregarded Traffic Silts, Signals, Rmd Sarkings Right Utg]e, levainide c 303992 Burlingtmt 0.21 ll.21.% 22:00 Clew Disregarded TtalLc Signs, Signals, Reod Mm1ings Angle cdllsictt turning in apposite diectim �30230.2 Burlingrn 0.23 01-28.97 21:00 Clew Otht In4rreper A^..ticn H-od-co Z303142 Burlingin 0.23 05rL',197 14:00 Rain FdlmytdlwClosely Reamed -403902 Burlingln 0.23 O8•tVt97 l6 rc. Leer Other lregrroper Attica Rear -end 7398 Burlisgivn 0.23 12101,199 t::34 Clear Div- prded Traffic Sign, Signals, Road k>rkisgs Right angle, lavedsida BU LLSIOR 0.24 1U11.95 20:00 Rain Tuatsmilon Rwratd 305333 Burlington _• 7--13W- o y ---�-�1 rQIsirpirowAcUm 302797 B-utinalon 0.27 0009.17 03:00 Ckoady Ezrstedai Audaodaed Speed I. raft role (telephrne• dectrieal, r1c)- kft Sid= 3 B�1110CD9[1_ -RA- 13:00 Clem InulmGrn Rcu-cad 'S095 Bsalingtcn 029 0001099 07:10 Clem Inanenlieo L&i'r-"oo"4. 293477 Bodingeoe 0.30 OLV20)195 1100 Clear Inatlortim Hitptdestriannuming,aa'Ja'ng, staudicg, playing 297514 Bm]ingtm 0-10 OV20.56 15:00 Reln IntprcperCruising Hit pedestrianmorning, aa.9ring,Yandin3-ploying 0 a Past 0 0 Peat 1 0 West I 0 Past 0 0 West 1 0 9.resl 1 O West 3 0 West 1 0 Fast 2 o Eau 3 O West 5 0 west 3 0 Well 2 O SOWS 4 0 West 2 0 NIA 3 0 Eau D 0 SM6 t it Fast 2 0 Tart it 0 last D 0 East 0 last L 0 Nccti 4 O East 2 0 East I 0 part L 0 Wesl 6 11 Weil 3 0 Fast 2 0 West 0 Fast 0 0 Wcsl s 0 West 3 0 West O D Fast 1 D Well 1 D west 3 0 Bast 1 0 Souft 6 0 Past 1 0 Eau 2 O Pau 0 0 last 7 0 west a o west 0 0 Eau 0 0 West 3 0 Fast 3 0 Past l 0 Weil l 0 West M This Accident occurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This Data should not be used in an Analysis with other Accidents at the salve location. UNK indicates the Location {Mile Marker) is Unknown. Page: 2 Time: 03:02 PM Accident Reporting System Accident Summary Years of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997,1998, 1999 Report:] Date: 10/01 /2001 Me Date - No. of NO. or sell N Town Marker It1MID11%T Time Weather Cause of Acttdent Type ofAreldmt Inluefes Falalities Hiredkn Route: CS-2 Coutlnued... Q! IL81 Bmlingwa 6.30 0906'95 1429 Rain Fiiltd to Yield Right or Way Hit pedestrian running, walking, slandiag, playing 2 O West 297740 Bo irg 0 *.It 72,'08% 19C0 0em Fu'ledloYield Right of'fty ]lead-m 0 0 ScuCs - 94:377. J3. tingion 6.3t 01.103196 19:00 Rain Failed In Yield Right arAap Righ[angfr, trtvdside 1 0 Eau C 301894,- Burlington ➢AI 01121-97 1D:00 Clam Followed too Closely Other Boviinnment Rear -end Roar L O Far 1113 WF-Bur��--�-�-`- Burington 0.31 _ 6.3171 OW .9.._.____s 6§9 15:21 1L29 Rain - -____._._._._._-_-_.._____.___.._._-.___-..�.._,..__ Other _ _�.�_--------__..r_._ FulestoYieldltighto'F1'op-Y -end }Ltbicyclist 4 4 0 0 Aresl 1Yrs1 Burlirgson 0.36 07103095 1_000 Clear Puled In Yield Right of Way Other type of muYiple sehicle collisica 0 0 Soots Huriirgson 038 071➢8196 1803 Clear FallaneJtoo Closely Rear -end 4 0 Fast 301, B. o goon OAS 10.'07.96 24:00 Clear F31laved to Closely Rear -end Il 0 Wmi 3Of 94 Bulingtou 0.38 01127.97 WOO OW Wars, Rasr<nd 2 0 Fast 30040 Budin" 019 1010697 tt:O3 Cltar FalLowei too Closely - RIM-Ernd 6 0 West 4' 1027 Buiinglas 0_e8 05.10696 I4:55 Clear Followed too CloseLy Rear -end 3 0 West '- 4672 Bmlin tgton 0 30 MOB& WAR -060pImr Clrasr Ro%4Surfiae Condo1cn (we, icy, snw.slush, etc) - Pete{Itlephmte,e,l lri�y rtel - rig5t side 2 0 R'esl �� 293031 Balinglrn 0.42 OOL-D&V5 ]arrsaper C}osstog -- }l"ii pedestnan [usntne, watFir,siandiog, playing t 0 Fast .1., 293242 8urlingtm 043 09-M95 1600 Clem FoItoo.edpotCIov,ly R-nd 0 0 West 2966&I Burlington 0.43 1NIS,'95 23,00 Snow FaW rd tin Closely Fteocdcn t 0 Well ` 299925 Burlington 0.43 08119'96 11:00 Cloudy Rude ere Improper Tun Arne collision turning in same directien 0 tooth 303344 Burlington 0.43 1UU97 16-80 FA]mvd=closely Rear -end ,_-_... 0 0 Bast ur tog[m`- "' ''-''�aT"05'tl _Clow:y_ "-'11 itain Fcllaa+t$[oo Clos .ly `.....-.... - -_... _ __.. Rcar-cod L 0 Wes; 29SO44 Burlingta 0.47 lWOS195 16:00 Clex Lsattenrion Rear -end 0 0 Weal 307959 But licgaon 0,47 WM9697 09:00 Ch_u Folloaxd too Closely Revd L 0 West 292799 Burl[tran 0.49 0V2fi�95 14:00 Ctem Cnkrisn ltciueod 1 0 West 507 Buriire an R48 0212CL" 14:55 Uaknnwn Fctlouedew Closely lt�`odd D D NIA 294054 BurLagtnn 11150 (WOR.'95 10:00 Clear Glme Rem --cod 0 0 West 299513 Bcdirglon DSO C4,12106 11W Rain Exceeded Autltnrired Speed Whit Retr-eod 1 0 West 301062 R-dinglen 0.5] W1.1 6 0:00 clear Exotodkit Atutodzed Speed Limit Retrtnd t 0 Well 862 Bunn en 0.52 OR'➢S,•W 01130 Ckar L3w:fflion __._._.._. ____.._,�.-Rev Rerrtad 0 0 NA 293L90 Bttlirwen D.'"03111:05 03:00 Clear Followed IonOwelY d -- 1 0 West 21W Buiinglcn 0-53 M-11198 19:55 Cloudy Other NOicle(Allogb7xilhit) Sign - left aide 3 0 West 292%7 Burlington 0.M 0ZON5 WOO Clear Disrrgu&dTraftic Signs, S,gnalr, Road }tarkings ltig'u a sglq boadside 0 0 Pau 293861 Burlington 0.54 OieU,95 D100 Clear Other lcsprell a Aclim Angle eo111si,m, turning in same direction 0 0 Past 2433i? Burlinglca 0.54 OS'11@05 MOO Clear DisregurledTtalite Slgrss, Signals, RoOMarkiap Rig':, assglq broadside 0 0 Eau 292776 Burlington 0.54 OW3695 tiros Cloudy Followed too Closely Rcx-od 0 0 West 'C 7_960'_17 Burlington 0.54 11.%'95 1206 Char followed lots Closely Rem -tad D 0 Well 290411 Burlington 0.54 41411&96 17.00 Rain Weather Conditions Rear -end 0 0 East 294449 Burliogton 0.54 0,1, 96 11410 Clear Iollawai too Clewly Oar-tsd 2 0 West 6729 Burlington 0.34 OVUM 2:- 57 Clear Made in laprcpet Turn Rigbl angle, hroakide 6 0 South 28 Burli>" 0.54 09129'99 17,211 Ckar- Drisieg Tao Fut. for Conditions _ - ___Rear-er4 4 0 FAy Bur{ieg7on Q.38 03rt05'97 16:00 snow, I•allrmed too ClcaeLy Rea -end L 0 E?m 304944 Budagton 0.38 L U0Ti97 17:11C Unkni ren lnatlenti® Rea -end 1 0 VW 30096 Ek tiagton 0.65 041D9'91 081K. Clem PaIlort-cdMClosely Ara -end L 0 West 303043 RiAington 0.69 OW LI!96 24:00 Clem Other Improper Arbon Angle wilisian, tnaning in sarssa diraelism O 0 War yns4� @tligglon 069 O's103.97 I5:00 Rain _ _ Etmn9edAuGkcoiudSReedLltnit Rarend 2 O Earl 292259 Burlington 075 OJt99S 12:0N C-ca _ - - lialtenton keaiend i 0 East 293337 Burlinglcvt 0.75 "UN-5 2100 Coudy Failed toY-AdRiedofWay RighLangie,troaisidc o 0 East 297095 Bmlingtrn 035 b7:00 C.Oudy Wesher Conditions Reartnd 2 0 Ens] 297225 BudingDuo 0.15 00-106 MCKn Shaw Followed too Closely Rear -end 0 0 West 300179 Burlington 0.75 a(VO97 11:00 Clear Disr:gudelTsat6eSiMSigtals,Road ifasslaings Right angle,troedsi.ie 0 0 somh 4� Burlingteo 0.75 06/1819B 20.40 RAn Disregarded Traffic Signs, SL W3. Rand Madsines Right angle boadfide 2 0 West 5495 Burlington 0.75 06114.'99 0:03 Clear Disregucl i Traffic Sigre. Signals, Road 1.1rukinas Right angle, trnadcide 4 0 West 56e4 Burlington 0.73 061209 [T35 Clear DisrWrduiTrafficSigns, Signals. Road Markings Arsgtecalrsicn turning inswriedireacfion 2 0 West 401 Bm1iT .nn 0.75 12710.99 ...._ ld,.?5.F--...la!AY--=---------.__.� -._....___.__Followed. tooClosely...:.-...-. �_�._-.� ._... -.. R®rand....,,....__ __a_.,..._...-,.�__�a.-_-.�..._.T_._ 4 0 East 295082 _ Bmiugsars _ YD.811 091093 15-00 tinder,onn Ina whim R--d 1 0 East 2183 Ekdis,gton 0.91 081208 13:4S Clear fnmlcmina Rear-rnd 3 0 Wes 292t83 Peatingian 0.82 MKIl!" 19:110 Cloudy Followed too Clmety Reu-end O O Wes • 292253 Biditigton 0.82 01/0)93 23:00 Clot* Dismgtsded rraidie SiSm. Signals, Road Markings Right engle.lcradsije 4 0 East 293D91 Burlington 0.82 02.12Ii95 09:00 Cimaty Dissegaeded Traffic Sims, Signals, Road'Auldogs Read- 1 0 East * This Accident occurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This Data should not be used in an Analysis with other Accidents at the same location. UNK indicates the Location {Mile Marker) is Unknown. ,--1 0 CV 0 CD Page; 3 Time: 03:04 PM Aille Date Seq No. Toast 3tlaslta h1rwDD1Y3' lime 1L'eatl5tr Accident Reporting System Accident Summary Years of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Report. 1 Data: 10/0 Lr2001 Na. of No. or Cause of Aeeldeat 1'3TC of A-Umt 111junes _Fatnlilies lihi.tlon Route: US-2 Continued _, 293606 Burlingto 0.92 OI 95 17.00 Rain OpaaiIng Dereell re Egzpmem Rear -end I D Watt 295510 Burlingoo 0.82 091195 17:00 linknt5a•� I3isr-garded TratEc Signs. Signals, Road Ma:itings Right angle, broed;idc 3 0 Earl 2962A7 Biv'lingen 0.92 11/13193 23A0 Snow Disregarded TrofFe Signs, Signals, Road tAwkings Right angle, broadside 0 0 South 2966;'.. Biurlingtoo 0.82 12114,'95 220C Snore Other haproper ACticn Rear -end 0 0 Eaw 297236 Bmlin6tcn 0.82 02MV96 11:00 Clew Followed lots Closely Reny -end 0 0 East 2977(A Burlington 0.02 03VU6'96 23:00 Cloudy Failed t0-Yield Right of Way Right angle, hroulside 3 0 EaM 299M Burlington 0.92 07110596 1Itc Clear DisregardedTmfiieSigra.Signals,Road \tarkirgs Right angle, broLdside 1 0 Fast 299259 Burlingtm 0.92 V1196 16:00 Clew Other bnlnoper Ation Rear -end 1 0 R'e51 301 L5 swlingtoo 0.82 12AW96 2PTO Cloudy Other Improper Action RiSM angle, broadside - 1 0 West 307330 Muhngtm 0.92 Oi/L797 11:00 Urtkn twz Failed to YCdd RigM of Way R-tgh =BIB, broadside 0 0 E•asr 303781, Burlington 0.62 07111197 IIAA Clew Fetlme6 too Closely Rear -end 3 0 East 3035n Burlington 0.97 LY30197 II:0C CID,* Followed too Closely lterr-end 1 0 Ear 305575 Burlington 0.82 1214'97 08:00 Suan Weather Conditions Rear-od 1 0 Fast 1761) Burlington 0.82 GNOV90 15:L9 Clear Fo11ow•ed100Closely Retr-eid 3 O Fast 2",7 Burlington 11.82 t11,1098 17:23 Rain FcllowedIngClosely Retr-cad 5 0 East 4799 Burliugton 0.32 03130'99 14:57 City Disregarded TrarOc Signs, Signals, Road\tzrkirgg Rust angle, broadside 3 O East 6562 Burlington 9-82 09116-99 09:30 Rain Failed to Y5Ad Rightol Wry Right angle, hroadsido 2 0 East 740) Burlington 0.82 L21IOV9 'R'" 15:44 Odia Wring Side or Wwwg way lt�l aside, broadside 2 0 VA k,i 29.15a9 Budinglon 0.83 05�1496 On-OnClood3' Failed to Yid.d Right or Way Right angle, broadside 1 0 North (y303249 Durlisginn D83 ON2297 14:00 Cloudy FAlowed/na Closely Reer-esd 0 0 West V t 4 Burlington 0.83 0312419E 13:00 Clear battention Rew-mid 0 0 iNA $63 Durlboon 0.83 W.V0 O9E-1-'e-i23:M Client Weak 7m (Cmr.ruction/1,tatryraatrcn'IhrlityJ Ftigps togle, hroadside n 0 MIA L182 Burli"n 0.83 031311% 18:2.1 Clear _______..,..<__-._.-i_3atlenlion ,. _. ....._.,._.> .,._...._. _.....,.Reefeyd. ,.w-...,. .,.....:„_ 3 0 past 293305 Durliitalon ^'UKK 011l 1/95 l2.W Qzar Followed taaClattly Rear -gad 0 D Wes 303932 Burliglan UM1K EllP% DI:Ot Clear Falit-VAAtep Tree, large - righiside 0 0 West 3052 SouthButirtgtoo o.CO 05MI71% CCU Cear Failed toYiddRigiAo4Way Right u5gle,braadside 2 D N/A 298417 South Bsrtinglar 0.01 0411696 16:00 Rain Failed to Yield Right of Way Rigio Ingle, broadside f D North 301999 South But.ing" 0.01 O'Y11-91 18:00 Cesar Lurienlion Rear -end 0 0 East 305539 Soull, Bnrlinetm D.01 12.119.1Vi L+00 Coudy Made an Improper Turn Right rrglt; broadside 0 0 South 393g South MAineta, 01)1 0106,t98 t5:35 Coudy Followed too Closely Rear -end 4 0 West 6162 SoAhlhollneton 003 OV021999 L2:27 Czar FaikdwYicWRig3htc4Way Rwtrsd 2 0 Eurt 294320 Scsnh Burlingtor 0172 07112-55 LUY- Clear Laatsen4an Roar -end 0 0 Emil 292604 Snrh Burlington O!A 03119195 L100 Cloudy Faikd to Yield Right el Way Right rngle, hroadsilo o 0 Eac1 293203 SoOh Burli-Om 0!)4 03106,95 IMM Clear Opta6ng VChiele in keratin, Reetlea, Careless, Weeligertt Heal -On 1 0 sumh or Aggressim }tanner 2951C4 Soulb Burlingon 0!36 09f15-55 17.00 Clear raUtd to Yield "I of Way Head-0n D it Sank 295783 SouLh Budinptart O:36 III-W-95 1600 Rain Mude an Improper Tani Riglix ugly hrtvdsi3e 0 0 Scum 298116 Smth Burlington 0:36 0511A96 14:00 Otter IneOadlcn Rear -Out O 0 E-t 790937 South Burlington 0.36 OR051196 1100 Rein Followed duo C3asely Rm-c"d 2 0 Easy 301275 SouttBurling<m 0.38 1111196 1500 Cloudy railed 13 Yield Right ofWer Right engk-,taoadsi3c _ O '9-b 301803 South Budingtccs 0.36 01.r3:197 1100 Cloudy railed la Yield Right of Way Right uWley broadside 0 0 Toni 3029Y3 South Burlingean 0.08 OV16197 21:LO Cloudy Other lurproper Action Angle cdlisim, lurning in Sarre direction 0 0 Fzst 303 159 SoutE Burling!® 0,09 95120197 10:00 Clear lnmienhen Rear -end D a West 303 s3 Sout7. Burlbiglon 0.68 07"W197 13:00 Rrnr Failed la Yield Ri;ht of W ay Right urgiq hroadsile 1 0 Krum 304974 SoutI.Burlugluri 0.08 1017519, 13:00 Clear Failedto Yield RightofWay Right "le, broadside 5 0 Ncnm A0195'8 SnurhBurltrgton a.08 10-76-117 10:00 Cleat lnaitentm Right usgle,broadside I a Fast 305zu SouthBurl-vghn 0.08 11101117 15:90 Cloudy Failed toYield Right orWay Right wgle,broadside 1 0 Are,l 652 SauthBurfiroon 0.011 I)VI1193 21:22 Clrrtdy FollonsxdtcoCiosely Rrsr-end 0 0 N1A 367 SouthBurlirgian 0.08 011S'98 20:D5 Clem OlbtrLmpmTerArlica Rtar d 4 0 Fast 1505 South Budiggicn 0.09 0611098 1 / 28 Rain Fzdlod to Yield Right of Way Right Ente, broadside 4 0 NIA 129B South Budin3ten 0.08 Un Ix" 16:09 Rain Foltmxd too Closely Rwertd 3 0 direst 1249 South Buttinglen D.06 OU1 V" 10:53 Clear TmrWr Lane Change Rrar-ertd 4 0 Fast 1161 Soud,B'arbrigicn 0.05 07d091'" 07:40 Rein Dtisistg`rwFast for Conditions Rear -end 5 0 }'Set 1671 South Butinewc 0.08 FAll a-95 13:29 Cleas Failed to Yield Right or way Rnar-411d 3 0 IVA 2299 SouthBYelingirn 0.06 0Al2b" I5:09 Clear Folbixedtoo Closely Rw- d 7 0 West 3167 South 111-linearn 009 105129a9E 17:00 Cloudy Failed Io Yield Right or way Right tngIN broadside 3 0 NIA 3168 South Bviingacn 0.08 1UO2,96 07:26 Goody Poiledio Yield Right or Way Rw-md 3 0 Fast k This Accident occurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This Data should not be used in an Analysis with other Accidents at the salve location. UNK indicates the Location (Mile Mazker) is Unknown. U N E4 e'J c') N 00 N oo N O co h O Page: 4 Time: 03:06 PM Accident Reporting System Accident Summary[ Years of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 1999 Report: 1 Date; I M 112001 Mtk Date xe..af xu,.F _ U Yo. Town Marker nntvonrvl' TLne Weather Catmod Aeddent Type ofAaidtal lnnrles FasaBties D4ueeloo Rome: US-2 Coulltatd ... 3440 . Sarah Burlinpcn 0.C9 I1119.9g 13:06 Cloudy Failed to YteldRig61 or Way Right urg1- broadside 2 0 Soulh SID2 'Saafi Burlington O08 06'12r99 06.20 Clear loauenbcor Roar -cad 4 D ws;. 3649 South Bui ingtoo 0,08 06119-99 14:31 Clear DisregardedTrorrseSigas,Siguils, Road',rarYings Reu-end 6 O East 6559 Samb&Xlingicct 0.08 09Vt7s99 12.5? R:io Failed to Yield X&M of Way Riot angle. broaciside 2 0 South .327 SawhBviingtm O116 12(14,98 07.16 Cloudy Failed to Yield Right of Way Right angle, broadside 3 0 South 293M) South Baiingms 0.11 02.r1695 1700 Cloudy Improper r-cmdng Hit pedrstriwr rassniog. stat'ang, sranditg, playing 1 0 West 29304) Soudi"ingtot 0.11 09.01,95 09.00 Clear Darting Hit bicyclist 1 0 South 1863 South Burlingtcre 0.11 0VIV98 19.20 Clear Fdlowtdsoo Ctnsely Re7rtud 4 0 Wm 29t849 South Burlington 0.13 OUDS95 2L00 Clear Made an Improper Tttm Revend 3 0 Earl 29.999 Scads Burlington 0.13 01/19695 20�00 Claude Improper C-5sing Hit pedestrian rsrmrinL a ayoing, sanding, playing 1 0 Face 294634 Smith Burlington 0.13 0&116195 35:00 Rain tmttcatinn Rear -cad 1 0 Wes 303585 SouthBurliogtnn 0.13 06113197 17:10'a Clear Improper Crossing Hit pedmtrianrurmiug,waking rranding,playing 1 0 Fwl M99 SouthBurlioran 0.13 01r2299 20:06 Cloudy DWI Ctuhhrs(adewaBSmedian,nc)- right side 1 0 EMIL 291188 SauhBwliryprn D.17 O3110-195 13:130 Clear rollowed"Clescly Rea-nd 0 0 East 294796 Sonh Burlington 0.17 0FY21:95 99:00 Clear Inattention Rear -tad 1 0 Vies 865 South Burlington O.78 04127M 17:10 Cloudy Fallowad tin Closely Rear -end 0 O NVA 7402 SouthBsttinglcn 0.23 1206,99 W46 Cbudy Inallentias des-etsd 1 0 East 297456 South Bsr inel n 0.29 02(13196 09:00 Clear Inmornlien Rea -cod 1 0 Wert 3166 South Btoiingsm 0.28 1221198 t8:14 Rain Follosrsxd too Closely Rem -end 2 O East 29260) SeutlsBurlington 0.31 03112y95 1100 Clr Failed to Ycld Right of Woe Sidewipe from same direction 0 0 Fa:t 292789 Scutb Burlington 0.32 040695 19.00 Cloudy w'etdsereccaditiow Oltxr type of tryAliple[chide tnllision !1 0 WM 30)482 Smith Burliogtan 0.37 1011R196 12:00 Clardy htaltencon Rea -end 4 0 Fa-n 303022 South Budd gion 0.37 t 1.D8'96 77:CC' L`tk:nown LTluaper Ctosong flaped-sman running, walking. standing, p1a3vre 1 0 East 297I35 South Burlitgten 0.39 Ot131M 18:00 Clem l7attention Rwtnd 2 0 Fort 301063 SculhBurkromi 0.43 121149E 12:00 Rain Followed too Closely Rear -end 2 0 East 295886 Sasrlh Budinglon DA6 30'28.91 1:00 Rain Iauxntiom Rear -end 0 0 [ant 300446 South Sctiingtcn 0.46 10fil-W. 17:00 Cloudy Inatfmtion Ream d 0 0 East 297 arr5 Starlit Buiinglm 0.47 01127a96 12:00 SI"L Halt (Freezing Rain or Dr3uJe) - Made an Improper Tom Rear -end 3 0 East 3036-10 SouthButington 0.47 12119..93 13:CK, Coudy rotlowedlosaClosely Reu< d 1 0 Eon 6732 South Burlington OA7 O021s99 08:37 Cloudy Follaaed IociCimely Rrear-d 3 0 East 2971 V South Burlington OAS 01a71o76 t19:00 elm Folkwod too Closely Reu-aid 0 0 Easl 304751 Sautk Boning[® 0.48 10.73.97. 11:00 Cloudy Other Improper Acton Rear -arid 1 0 East 29591.9 Soul Burlingtcm 0.49 11Xflt'95 Mkoo Cloudy Other Improper Action Heod-0er 1 0 East 296313 So 1, Butiisgton 0.49 12111.95 3100 Clear Made an Iacyroper Turn Angle -Ilis cni, tarring in opprsile directiess D 0 Wes 297989 South BurRiVan 0.49 ONI V96 19-90 Cleo Failed to Yield Right or Way Angie :.ollisitm, tutting in opposite direction 0 0 Wes 311111,17 Swath Burlirgicn 0.49 1211 V96 17:00 Cloud)• Failed to Vick Right or N'ay Angle collision, tarring in opposite direction 0 0 South 301919 Smith Burlington D.49 (WI- 91 06:00 Clem Folbwed toss Closely Rewr d 0 0 WCv 3C41:40 South6-ittinelrtt 049 0312197 0I:N Clem MregardedTrafroSigngSigtals,RcedMskires Riolwigle•hroa3slde t 0 WCA 317-4911 South Bvtingt- 0.49 3L'MNn 15:00 Rain Inattention Rea -end l 0 East 8A6 SaulhBurlington Od9 O3.'Dd.91 09:31 Clear Failed toMeld Riot ofWay Riot miglgbrcadside 0 0 TWA 1030 Snuth Bmlingim OA9 03'Y®9I 19:59 Cloudy blade an IlroMper Two Right angle, broni;ide c 0 ;t{q 1296 South Burlington CAR 06118.N8 16:24 Qaudy bnpraperGtisiaing Hitbi-list 2 0 M-A 3564 Sa rA Burlington 0.49 12114M8 M. 50 Clear Inslmlim Rear -end 1 0 wor. 6560 SautkBurlinginn 0.49 03s'13r99 19.42 Cloudy Iaa8enlim lydbieyclist 2 0 East 304164 SaslhBudctletun 0.50 09004'97 01-00 Cloudy Monwics Rsar-end 3 0 Wes. 305636 Ssulh Budisgtan D.51 1824.'97 17:00 Cloudy Faller] In Yield Right oF',S'ar Right ange,bcadsxk 3 0 Nat6 161 Samh Burlington 0.51 0t717a98 21:53 Cloudy Made at bmpnspw Turn An_& entli'doo, turning in opposite three im 0 0 -'VA 1032 South Un&rigion 051 0.Cr1 3LI56 15:59 Clear Falk edtoo Closely Reitend 4 0 East 299469 Sauth B'ulington 052 07;711% 11:0) Closdy Failed to Yield Right or Way Right aogk. broadside 2 0 Nods 29%31 South BxIingtoo 052 00.4,% 09:0) Cloy Other Improper Actimr Pok (telephone, 4=trical,ate) - right side 1 a East 296341 SouthlWingtoo O.54 11P.1r95 12:0) Clew Kaerolmpr-.gWTsm Anglecollisicm,au-oinginsamedircetioo 0 0 South M1957 Soauth Burlington 0.54 02/13N7 16:0) Ssoc- Made as tmpraper Tun Rust angle, broadside 1 0 Herbs 46 SOU& Burlington 0.54 111,M99 09:35 Rain Made rm Impraper Tara Righl angle, broadside 2 0 South 3441 SasiaBurlingson 0.54 1t114.'98 1b.It N(6, Made onfinproposTmo Right eagle, broadside 3 0 East 3439 Sootb Burlington O.M tI13S96 ITil6 Cloudy Faiicdm Yield Right or Way Right angle, Ineadslde 4 0 wow. 297906 South Burhogion 0-59 C41M196 11:00 Cloudy Other btsproptr Aclim Raw -arid I 0 Fast 29854I Soush Burlington 0158 0S'16(96 ISM Rain Madean]ntproper l urn Head-on 3 0 East • This Accident occurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This Data should not be used in an Analysis with other Accidents at the saute location. UNK indicates the Location ;Mile Marker) is Unknown. I c'i N tD N CD N O aD w 00 -4 N O as 5 s s-i O N O CD Page: 5 'rime: 03:09 P(vl Accident Reporting System Accident Summary Years of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997,1998, 1999 Report: l Dale: 10/01 /2001 .WMc Date Ka of No. of • Se4lYa. Town Marker D1hf/DD1YY Time weather uoeofAcd eo4 of Accident Ty" o 1' In urles FalaHdes Dlrcdloes Ranar. I1S2 Contlraurd... 47 South Burlington 0.53 011,02)" 14:21 Cloudy rollosaed too Clemely Rear -end 5 0 Earl 'a035 South Burlington on I Gb9'S9 17:39 Cloudy Inallenbon Rearend 3 0 West 29555 SouthBw3ington 0.59 0211fu95 0600 Cloudy Inattention Reared 0 O Ease 1503 Swath Bulington 062 00P1 D'98 15,42 Rain Foll-ed too Closely Rear -and 10 0 E.1 42" South Bsolington 0.62 0113CL-W 1 L44 Cloudy Followed too Cloa ly Rear -end S 0 Easy 1033 Saarh Budinglcvt 063 QN03% 1140 Cloudy Failed to Bold Right of Way Ann& collisicsy turning in saree direction 2 0 Souls 29.714; South Btaiington, 0.64 01'O6'96 J9:00 Cloudy Inauen6on Rear -end 2 0 West 299093 South Raiineorvt 0.64 061B'196 1100 Cloudy - Operating Defective EquipTMA Rau -end 2 0 Ems 296874 South Bratineun 0.62 Ct6'14r96 10:00 Clear Made atTmpropm Tun Rightingk, tcoodside 2 D Weil 301932 South audingkn 0.69 0113U97 15:00 Cloudy Inattention Rcwr d 1 0 East 3.044527 Sout1111WH"gtm 0.6E 09t'2N97 13:C0 Clew rollowed too Ckeely Reartnd 0 0 Eau M65 ScKAh Bmlingtm 0.69 030s34t 1 L59 Snow Failed to YieldRlghtof Way Right an& L-hidc 3 0 Sough 4111 Sorh 11101ingtm 0.69 0111i-99 13:36 Cloudy Follsaed too Closely - Rear -end 6 0 Ew 295907 Soalh Btnlingxn 0.70 IM31195 17:00 Rrin Inatienhan Rear -eats 0 D Ear. 303437 South Budingt. 0.70 O621.97 DIM Cloudy Failed to Yield Right of Way Right m&, bmndside- 1 D We%L 292535 South Burlington 6.71 O V10.95 1100 Clear Failed in, Ysld Right of Way 0tlrs type of oxiliple trhide eol:idm 1 O Wesl 2966 L1 South Burhogtaa 0.71 1 V 95 11M Cloudy Failed an Weld Right of Way Head-on 1 0 Wesl 297233 SouthRmliegma 0.71 OU3)N5 LIM Clean Failed toT:eldRigHofWay Right tngie,broadsfde 0 0 Wen L63t Smnb Burlkgrnn D.7L 042A99 LT33 Clem 0ther'fM-l6fatnrst 1litticyclist - 2 0 1f:A 29SO94 South Burlington 0.11 11!1495 11:00 Snag Made an Improper Turn Right urgk, brcodside 0 0 Eau 299431 South Burlivglnn 0.75 01 96 tT.00 Gcm Failed to Yidd Riot of Way Angle col lislon, turning in opposite direction 3 0 Wesl 299414 Seuthllurlitgtar 0.75 07MI96 20.011 Claudia• Limeded Aud,arirxd Spad Limit Sideswipe fimn apposite direndon 2 D Eau 3566 Scul6 Burlifelen 075 1U14.199 I&16 Rain Dtii4ng Tog Fast for Cmditions; Rear.ead 5 0 East 4110 ScuthDurlinom 0.75 OU1J99 19.06 Cloudy unkaasvn Right urgke k0adside 3 D West 297115 Scuth Buriinglm 077 OLMM96 31.00 Cloudy Evoceded Attthorixed Speed Umlt Rut -end 0 0 Wesl 299372 Scurh Budinglon OTr 07111196 M11112 Clem Made an Improper Turn Angle collision, turning in cppailo direction 2 0 I:ordt 301729 Scath Burlington 0.77 0:110197 07:00 S10%, Made an lmpmper Turn Angle collision,, turning in cppaile direction " 0 O. word, 301714 South Burlington 077 0312R97 14:06 Rain, Failed to Yield Right of Way Angle collision, turning in since direction 1 0 Sauk 305320 SCuth Burlingon 0.77 C121.'tl7 07:GG Clem Nude an improper Turn Right trigie hoadude, O D North 2915T6 South Bulington 0.30 0312D13 14:D0 Cam lmpropci Crossing Hit pedestrian runnine, walling, slondiny, playing L D Fast 29WS ScuthB%Airt on 0.90 OV0095 ]L:00 Rain Faikd IV Yield RightofWay Heedm 2 0 Sundt 297552 Satoh Btslingtcn 0.60 021211AE 15:00 Clear Failed 13 Yield Right of"Wq• Angle colollisionn, turning in opposite direction 0 D Wesl 300398 South Btsling"t 0.00 1Alo&% Is CK. Ckw Falledta Yield Right of Wiry Right Engle t-adside 2 0 West 3D0237 Soidn Burling" 0.10 Me11j*96 18:00 Clear Lmprow Crossing Hil pedestriaa running. walking, standing playing k D Fast 3DG670 Sank Burlington 9.00 111101-W 09:00 Cloudy OperaRag Vehicle in ET00c, Reckless, Carcass. Tcglige .. Right Engle, lnndsi3e k D Nonh cr AggrewiveMmntr 3D2254 SmtW Burlington 0.110 40VOb97 12;00 Clear Glade at foproper Turn Angle er3lkien, turning in Cpp.�ile direction 0 0 Sown 303736 Saud, Balingtsl 0.90 417F1a97 07:0C' Clear Irm lenfion Rear -and 1 0 Wesl 304087 South Burlington 0.00 M2697 12:00 Cloudy Ingrq cr Crossing Hit pedestrian running_ w2m.g, standing. playing 2 D West 6356 Smtlh Burlington 0.80 09A6199 D7:47, Clown• Tailed to Yield Right of VSras• Right angle, lcoodside 2 D East 303014 SouLk Burlisgtmt 0.82 0110131191 22:00 Closey Disregarded Traffic Signs, Sigisls, Road Makings W*A wgle, hvadside 1 D West 290-fi9 South. BMIL11 too 0.84 OLIM-95 15-OD Cloudy Operating Velode in Braude, Aceklms, Cucles,Ntg6gem Other type ormultiple vehicle collision 0 0 Ease car Aggrusiye h4anaur 29.4138 South Burlirrgtcn 094 07001'9i 15.410 Clem Failed at Vidd Riglo of Way Angle usllisico, turning in opposite direction 1 0 East 304898 Soutl,Budioglen 0114 1011 W97 54:00 Clem Failed to Yield Right of Way RWA angle, kaosd_cide 1 0 U� 295576 Saab Burlington 025 10,11719i 12-00 Clem Failed in Yield Rightof Way Right unglr, broadm:lc I D Scsedn 3937 SouthBuclingten 036 09n'11198 19:23 Clem Failed toYwWRightofWay RisMwgic.lm3adside 4 0 Erect 293661 Sault a'rtlinglcsl OS7 OV28195 16:00 Cloudy Othtr hoymperAc6Gn Angle collision, lurniog in same direction 0 D West 294779 Scod, B2r11ingk4t 037 03'16095 12-90 Clear Followed too Cady Rear -cad 1 0 West 295754 Southlkdingern 031 196'24N5 19:00 Rala FailedtoTodd Right ofWay Rear-ead 0 D Ste, 3EL2585 SWthsullnetca 0.87 OVINI97 13:00 Clear Followedtootaosely Rew-tod I D Ern 303747 South Botlingroo e.B7 0711V97 19:00 pear Followed too Closely Rem -card 0 O West 654 SouthZingtoo 0.97 IDY09-91 03:22 Rain Followed Lao Closely Rem -sod 0 0 MIA 2300 South Borlingtm 0.97 1010191 10:09 Cloudy Other Mon-Mccorist HitbieycEm 2 0 East 4497 Souh Burlingwo 0.17 0 .111A 9 15:13 Our Followed IooClwoty Rear -end 5 0 East 6730 South Burlington 0.87 L11114199 11:05 gaudy FaU.d to Yield Right of Way Right angle, toot&idc 2 0 MIA 254r4 Saudi Burl4gton 1.00 08/14,95 07:00 Clear DiFmgudcd Traffic Signs, Signets, Rced Markings Right angle, broadside 0 0 East A This Accident occurred prior to the last Highway hnprovement Project. This Data should not be used in an Aial.yais with other Accidents at the same location. UNK indicates the Location (Mile Marker) is unknown. 00 0 0 19 U W O Page: 6 Accident Reporting System Report: 1 Time: 03:11 PM Accident Summary Date: 10/01/2001 Years of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 &Ule Dale No. of 11o. of _ Seq No. Tory Masker bWD11U YY Tgne Weather Caoseof Accldeut Type of Accident Injuries retalucs Diectlem Rowe: EIS-2 Coodaued - 29443T SouthBudingMn 1.00 0941195 12-00 Clear Made wTroproMTsmt Rightanglgbroadside 1 0 East ?97455 South Burlington 1.03 OL Y% I.Lon Clear Made anlreepmpeiTerm Rigbtmgle, broadside 0 0 Fast 297914 South Beedington I W 07, f96 16-00 Clear Failed to Yield Riglst of Way Right angle, broadside 1 0 9e'eR 297830 South Burlington 1.03 03-I3096 1600 Clear Inattention Sideswipe from opposite direction 0 0 West 298467 South Burlington t_03 01111M 2000 Rim Other bnpcWcr Action Right angle. b c, dsW- 2 0 14011111 101180 SoulftBudington I.03 1h26r96 M00 Snow Made an improperTu Right aregje,bteadsid: 2 0 ?dvch 302960 SouthRudingan 1-03 01i1397 14:00 Rain railedIoYield Right ofWay Right angle,liec ide 3 D Tbuh 14415E South Beutingtme L03 MOM 2L•07 Cloudy Other improper Action Atigie caltisioa, luming•�e same die orlon - 0 0 East 304705 South Budingea» L03 14'21e97 14:00 Cloudy Operalin; Vedaide in Erratic, Redless, Careless. Ae,•gElgen[ Right angle, beneticidc I 0 Went or Aggrmive bfinenw 1102 South Burlington 1.03 0430r9a 1 L•36 Clear Made an lmproper True Right angle, brm&-ide 3 0 NL4 5L04 SuulhRudinglcen [.03 04r116W 16,56 Cloudy palm 40Yield RightofWery Right angle, broadside 2 0 Fast t- 13 F ' 'el Right 'e n 6395 South Burlington F O4 OSt18199 t7.25 Clear Follu&ed too Closely Rem -end 6 0 Wesl 7[41 South Burlington 1.04 107275e9 11:15 Cloudy Ineeposienced Driser Right angle, Ltoadslde 4 0 South 294349 South Burlington 1-06 Ofi-1%95 I8:t1,7 Clear Faikdl9Yield Right ofWay Had -on -3 O North 4791 SmikBurllnWire 1.05 03L.2A99 2005 Clear DWI Tree,large-leftside 1 0 Eva 392059 SouthBurlington 109 02i18,97 IScOO Cloudy Made art)mpvaper Turn Right angle, braadsidle •3 O Sotath 302341 Srvrth Burlington 1-09 03i12.97 13:00 Snow• Exceeded Atahorizesd Speed Limit Rea-ml 2 0 West 6t65 South. Burlington 1.10 08e20099 t2:05 Cloudy "Jai 49Yield Itight*[Way Rear-eirsd 2 0 West 304250 South Burlington 1.11 09.12N7 I7-00 Clear Follcr edlooClosely Rear-sa] O 0 Eta 303355 SoutlaBuelieegwn 1.12 OSr28197 21, 00 Clear OperatingYehidemBrolic,R,ecMew.Carcless,Kegligem Fmhy6rnarl-left side I 0 West mAggrssive Manner 868 South Burlington IA3 64,06.96 15'40 Cloudy Darting 161. pedestrian runniryaaBueeg, sr;irtding, playing 2 0 East 294903 South Bwliagwn I.17 0745,95 t5.1N Cloudy rollowed too Closely Reu4ui 4 D Wren 295726 South BulirWon )A7 10c3L195 [600 Rain, hattWion Rearml 2 D East 299586 South Burlington 1.30 0611&96 08.00 Clear rollorrcd twCkoely Rear-d 2 0 West 300609 South Burlingon 139 11i1296 16-00 Snow Fai3W to Yield Rightafµ'ay RI& able, broadside 1 0 South 302819 South Burlington 1,4E 04r3097 1600 Cloudy Faim to Yield Rightof W'ay Angle collision, turmirg in same direction 1 0 South 4405 South Burlington 1.4E 0311199 1100 Clear Failed [%-Yield Right4way Right aeglq IsFoLdside 2 0 South 299111 South Burlington 1.56 07i1b'96 1100 Clear Mode an Improper 3urn Aggleedlision, turning in opposite direction 2 0 North 2301 South Burlingeon 1.56 (18.3196 1230 Clear Faded ea Yield Right of Way 161 pedestrian naming, walking• standing, plenine 2 0 South 6164 Soude Bralirglun 1.58 0847,99 V:14 Cloudy Failed to Yield Rightof Way Right xT)r, broadside 0 Satoh 292375 South Butlinilon 1.60 OZ28.'95 1400 Snow Lopmper Crnsuog ffit pedestrian mooing, walldrsg, standing. plating 1 0 West 296905 Saah Burlington 1.62 121305 L400 Cloudy )nstteatim Rearrod 0 0 Eat 299524 Synth Burlinglm 1.63 85,70.96 0809 Clear Inttuanim fit bicyclist - 1 0 Somb 303064 ScnthButliaglen 1.64 0510707 1000 Cloudy rollo&ed too Closely Angle eollisiorsturning insmut direction 1 0 Fru 103671 SoahBtu lingloa 1.66 06,'27r97 0700 Clear Inartadim Rcar•end 1 0 Fat 303528 Soup Burltngrm 1.68 071MY7 07:00 Clear Other Nme-Matocia Angle collision, turning in eppomle direction I 0 Batt 5641 Somb Burlington 1.6E 0ni.7.W99 13-24 Clear Inattention Rearcnd 4 0 Eat 293244 Samb Bwlingtoo 1.69 03115'93 09:0D Clear Followed taco Closely Rearcnd 1 0 Weil 294696 Sonih&alington 1.70 08/07/95 07:00 Cloy Inallentim Rearcod 0 0 Eat 2972g0 SovlhBudinglou LAD 11%10396 0890 Clear F&Bcd it, Yie ld Itigh t of W oy Anglecollisio,turninginopposite direction 9 0 East 303172 So,.+Dminglm L71 06UL97 11:00 Rain Disremeled Traffie Signs, Signals, Road ldarkings Anglecollisiat, turning in opposhedirectim 0 Eat 307460 S'aulh Bodiregloa 1.75 03112-97 13:00 Snow Etcxded Aulherized Speed Limit Rear -end 1 0 West t293 Sarah Btatingtcc 1.75 009.01a 11:53 Clear Inmtonk- Rear -end 2 0 West 29391.8 South Bt,dingtoe 1.85 OV341-95 0910 Cloudy lnatten600 Right angle, hiradstde 0 0 South ID29 South Burlingtot. LRS Of,'2098 36:18 Clear Followed No Closely Rear -end 4 D 311A 291431 South Derdingtor. 1.90 01IM" 18:00 cloud] Made in Improper Tarn Angle callisica, turning in, opposite direoiaa 0 0 South 292420 SOmhRudinglor 1.90 gitDL95 16:90 Urknones FuJd 1. Yield light ofWay An&collision, turninginoprimbedirection 0 O Fos[ 295263 South el tinvoir. 1.90 Oa121195 11:00 Clear inattention Rear -end 1. 0 Wes 296193 Soudt l udingtoa 1.90 12t02e95 10:DD Cloudy Dissegerded Traffic Signs, Signals, Read Mailings Right angig h000dside 0 0 Wes 296423 South8udingam, 1.90 17.115195 10:00 Snow Frilled to Yield Right of Wq Other type o4 multiple sehicle oallaion 0 0 Weir 296M SouthBudingrom 1.90 0l.T11196 18:00 Cloudy Dwer&r!Authorized Speed Limit Rear -end 0 0 East . 301560 South Burlington 1.93 OVUM, 211:00 Clardy Paslod 10 Yield Right of Wny Right angle, kood3ide t 0 Merits 303552 SraulbBudingron 1.9) 07.106-W 15:00 Cloudy Made anImpropec7Lrn Rem -end 0 0 limy 304902 Saul6Burlington I43 IV06-77 15:00 Clear -Madcmlrnproper Turn Rie1e[ angle, bedside O 0 North • This Accident occurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This Data should not be used in all Analysis with other Accidents at the same location. UNK indicates the Location (Mile Marker) is Unknown. Page: 2 Time: 03.2I PM Accident Reporting System Accident Summary Years of Data: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Report: I Date: 1010I /2001 HUB Date Ka oC NO, %I _ Sell Town i lxrker is IDINVY 11me Weather CanseofAeddeut _ _ _ 'hpeofAmWent _ Injorl<v _FaM]U4r Dbirm lon $poor. INA1 ST., BURLN GrON Ciandwued _. - IOiO Burlingtam 0.71 032i/96 tto6 slow failed to Yield Right of Way An&ixillislen, Va ingin Sam. dim ion 3 0 8tei 335? Burlingtoo 0.71 Ili'71L1'96 Li:06 Raln Inahenlion Rwtnd ;ntCrs 0+) * This Accident orcurred prior to the last Highway Improvement Project. This Data should not be used in an Analysis with other Accidents at the same location. UNK indicates the Location (Mile marker) is Unknown. Now 1 u urn= J. Peter Judge 1451 Butternut Road Williston, VT 05495 November 9, 2007 John M. Hughes, Provost University of Vermont 348 Waterman Building Burlington, VT 05405 Dear Provost Hughes: On a February morning this year, during a University vacation, I was attending my son's high school track meet in Gutterson Fieldhouse when I drove out of the nearly empty parking lot onto Spear Street on the way to purchase lunch for him. My vehicle was followed by a University police officer off campus and for some distance onto Williston Road, where it was stopped and a Uniform Traffic citation issued for driving the wrong way on a campus driveway. The police officer's demeanor was offensive, and the amount of time taken to issue the ticket was purposely exaggerated. There being no legal foundation for the citation, the matter was dismissed in Vermont Traffic Court on October 1 St. The experience leads to the following conclusions: 1. The campus police department frequently operates outside the law. Campus drives are private property. 2. The campus employees displayed offensive and irrational behavior, including an irritating evening telephone call to my home by Officer Margolis. 3. The University honors in the breach its stipulated agreement with the City of South Burlington regarding vehicular exits onto Spear Street, according to the former Chair of the City Council. 4. The inconvenience to me has been partially compensated by eliminating my family's financial support for the Victory Club. 5. Absent extensive campus and off -campus improvements to the road network, the Gutterson location as a possible alternative for a future sports arena is questionable. When fire and safety considerations are factored in, it would be even more problematic. SAPeter's Correspondence\2007\11-9 HUGHES - Provost, UVM.doc John M. Hughes, Provost November 9, 2007 Page 2 Finally, Officer Collins' appearance in traffic court, with a taser weapon strapped to his waist, and his thuggish comportment last February, gives rise to misgivings regarding the suitability of your police personnel for an academic setting, particularly in view of a recent incident in which a Florida student was assaulted with this type of weapon. Sincerely yours, PJ/mb cc: Erin Miller Heins, Esq. Carl Lisman, Esq. Charles Hafter, Manager, City of South Burlington Vermont Judicial Bureau Thomas Donovan, Chittenden County State's Attorney Gary Margolis, `Chief/Director, UVM Police Services y� SAPeter's Correspondence\2007\11-9 HUGHES - Provost, UVM.doe CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: November 25, 2003 \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\prelim in ary.doc Plans received: September 18, 2003 UVM GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-03-72 Meeting date: December 2, 2003 Owner/Applicant Architect University of Vermont Smith, Alverez, Sienkiewycz Architects c/o Linda Seavey, Campus Planning Services 117 Saint Paul Street 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Burlington, VT 05405 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc 928 Falls Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Location Map P-4. A. Patrick Gymnasium . a qr_ 1 _..3•� t� M Gulterson Field House Am" Property Information Tax Parcel 1810-00000-N & 1810-00799-N Volume 3, Page 165 IA-N District ±14.43 acres (in South Burlinaton) i Xiot qar . . , e. Cim imam G CA a+tft4 to ON, t' -� a y'♦-, ., �. q � yam, � � 41% �W F Approximate Locatbn °� t of narking Garage ; tf9rd ?;r°�:r r ._. wr a ...� CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\qutterson\preliminary PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Vermont, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary plat plan approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a proposed 254,100 sq. ft. parking garage, 176,400 sq. ft. of which falls within the City of South Burlington. The subject property contains approximately 14.43 acres located in South Burlington. The South Burlington portions of the property are located in the Institutional and Agricultural -North (IA-N) District. The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the Development Review Board (DRB) on April 1, 2003 (minutes attached). Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on September 18, 2003 and have the following comments. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Table 1. Dimensional Requirements IA-N Zoning District Required Proposed V Min. Lot Size 10 acres ±14.43 acres 4 Max. BuildingCoverage 20% 10.31 % 4 Max. Overall Coverage 40% 38.57% A Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% ♦ Min. Front Setback 75 ft. _unknown 60 ft. Min. Side Setback 50 ft. >50 ft. �l Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. > 50 ft. AMax. Building Height 40 ft. unknown �1 zoning compliance information needs to be provided ♦ zoning discrepancy Front Yard Coverage Section 3.06(H) of the Land Development Regulations prohibits more than 30% of the front setback from being used for driveways and parking, and the balance shall be landscaped. Furthermore, a continuous landscaped strip of 15 ft. in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right-of-way and the balance of the lot. The applicant has stated that the front yard coverage will not change as a result of the proposed project. The applicant has received permission from the City Council to use the City's right-of-way along Spear Street for landscaping, but it shall not count towards coverage requirements. 1. The applicant shall submit pre -construction and post -construction front yard coverage information with the final plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\preliminary doc Height The applicant has indicated that the height of the proposed parking structure will be 29 ft. to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 ft. to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Land Development Regulations, no point of the parking structure shall rise more than 35 ft. above the average preconstruction grade. Staff notes that this standard applies to the portions of the parking structure falling within the City of South Burlington. The plans, therefore, need to be revised to show the average pre -construction grade of the area under the garage footprint and indicate the maximum height of the garage in relation to the average pre -construction grade. 2. The plans submitted for final plat review shall show the average preconstruction grade of the area under the garage footprint and indicate the maximum height of the garage in relation to the average pre -construction grade. Traffic For a PUD application, Section 15.12(E)(1) of the Land Development Regulations establishes level of service measures rather than traffic generation measures as limiters to the proposed development. According to Section 15.12(E)(1) of the Land Development Regulations, the nearest signalized intersection, or those intersections specified by the DRB , must maintain a level of service of "D" or better at the peak hour, including the anticipated impact of the proposed development. It is unclear what the current level of service is or what level of service would result from the development of the proposed parking facility. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc. During the sketch plan review stage of this project, on April 1, 2003, the DRB passed a motion to invoke technical review of the applicant's traffic study. The City contracted Lamoureux and Dickinson to perform the technical review. Roger Dickinson, of Lamoureux and Dickinson, is currently reviewing the applicant's traffic study and his comments and analysis will be made available at the meeting. Institutional & Agricultural District Section 7.01(F)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires properties in the IA-N District west of Spear Street and north of Quarry Hill Road to maintain an undeveloped area for a minimum of 65 ft. between the boundary of an adjacent residential district and any new non-residential structure. The plans show that the proposed parking structure will be approximately 95 ft. from the zoning district boundary, which occurs at the center of the Spear Street right-of-way. However, the DRB may require landscaping or other suitable screening in accordance with Section 3.06 to ensure adequate buffering of non-residential uses from residential uses. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sidewalks & Recreation Paths Section 15.13(M)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires sidewalks and/or recreation paths on both sides of arterial streets at locations to be determined by the DRB. The plans indicate no sidewalk or recreation path exists on either side of Spear Street in the vicinity of the Gutterson CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\subluvmlgutterson\preliminary. doc parking facility. The applicant has not proposed any sidewalk or recreation path. Staff does not recommend a sidewalk be constructed along Spear Street as part of the proposed project. In a letter dated November 4, 2003, the Recreation Path Committee requested that the applicant provide recreation path easement along Spear Street from the jug handle to the northerly end of the proposed parking facility (attached). 3. The plans shall be revised to depict a recreation path easement from the jug handle to the northerly end of the proposed parking facility along Spear Street, prior to final plat plan submittal. Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations requires that the PUD meet the standards of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and did not have any issues with the preliminary stormwater details. 4. The applicant shall submit detailed stormwater plans with the final plat application for review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. Stormwater drainage plans must demonstrate compliance with the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, pursuant to Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (a) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. As already indicated water and wastewater services are not proposed. The applicant has submitted a letter from the City of Burlington's Public Works Department stating that the City of Burlington has sufficient water and wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project (attached). (b) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. Sheets C10 and C11 of the plans contain the applicant's erosion control plan and associated details. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and did not raise any issues with the erosion control plans or details. 6. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Buffington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Buffington Land Development Regulations. (c) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc. During the sketch plan review stage of this project, on April 1, 2003, the DRB passed a motion to invoke technical review of the applicant's traffic study. The City contracted Lamoureux and Dickinson to perform the technical review. Roger Dickinson, of Lamoureux and Dickinson, is currently reviewing the applicant's traffic study and his comments and analysis will be made available at the meeting. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\subluvm\gutterson\preliminary doc (d) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. No wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features are present on the site (e) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Section 7.01(A) of the Land Development Regulations indicates that university -related uses should be integrated "into the City's overall land use pattern through the use of appropriate site planning techniques that promote a beneficial pattern of access, circulation, landscaping, and pedestrian connections between University properties and a jacent n-ighborhoods_" (� Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The portions of the site currently covered by the parking lot will be covered by the new parking lot and the proposed parking structure. Some green space within the existing parking lot will be eliminated for the construction of the parking structure. However, open space areas on other portions of the subject property will not be affected. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this requirement is being met. (g) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Fire Chief Doug Brent has indicated that the City of Burlington Fire Department has jurisdiction for emergency response to the subject property. The applicant has submitted a letter from the City of Burlington's Fire Department indicating they have jurisdiction over the proposed structure (attached). (h) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Stormwater details have been approved by the City Engineer. Landscaping is proposed within the Spear Street right-of-way to screen the parking structure. Staff has recommended that the DRB require the applicant to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path Committee to provide a recreation easement along Spear Street. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Burlington Electric Department stating that the City of Burlington will provide the necessary electrical services to the proposed project (attached). The applicant submitted a lighting point by point plan Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\qutterson\preliminary doc The lighting plan that the applicant has submitted indicates that the average illumination at ground level is 1.76 foot candles, which meets the requirement. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. The lighting point plan submitted by the applicant does not show spillage points, so staff does not have sufficient information to make a determination on this requirement. 7. The lighting plan shall be revised to show spillage points that are in compliance with Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, prior to final plat plan submittal. (i) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utili ;� and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The parking area lighting plan must comply with Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted exterior lighting details for the proposed project, which are in compliance with Appendix D of the Land Development Regulations (attached). The height of poles for the proposed lighting for the parking area is 19' 9" and the height of the poles for the proposed lighting for the pedestrian areas is 12' 0". Both of the proposed heights are in compliance with Section 13.07(B) of the Land Development Regulations. 8. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict the location of all proposed lighting, prior to final plat plan submittal. 9. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (j) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). In general, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City pursue partnerships to explore the implementation of transportation management techniques as mitigation to potential negative traffic impacts resulting from proposed development. Staff feels that the potential traffic management techniques that arise as a result of the applicant's traffic study's recommendations and the recommendations of the technical review of that traffic study will work towards accomplishing this goal. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed parking facility is part of a much larger site, which includes the University of Vermont athletic complex, student housing, and administrative offices, with existing pedestrian pathways, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\subluvm\gutterson\preliminary doc roadways, landscaping, and parking facilities. Most of the site falls within the City of Burlington. The proposed parking garage would be the only structure within the City of South Burlington on the subject parcel of land. The applicant has indicated that the parking facility would add an additional 550 parking spaces for the site. Staff feels the proposed structure accomplishes a reasonable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure, as the existing buildings on the site are all large. The applicant received permission from the City Council to utilize the Spear Street right-of-way, so adequate planting area is being provided. The plans do not clearly depict existing or proposed sidewalks that will facilitate pedestrian movement to and from the proposed structure. 10. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict any existing or proposed sidewalks extending to and from the proposed structure, prior to final plat plan submittal. (b) Parking shall be iocated to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. The site is already extensively developed and the new parking facility is proposed to be built over existing parking lot along the Spear Street frontage. Staff believes that this is acceptable. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The height of the proposed structure is 32.5 feet from the finished grade of the site. Staff has already stated that the plans shall be revised to indicate that height of the proposed structure from average pre -construction grade. Staff feels the proposed parking structure is compatible with the scale and height of the existing buildings on the site, which are all UVM buildings. The proposed structure is not compatible with the existing single-family dwelling on the opposite side of Spear Street, but sufficient landscaping is proposed to mitigate the visual impacts from the proposed structure. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff has already noted that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. It appears that the proposal will incorporate a diversity of design elements that will offer attractive transitions between the massive brick fapade of the adjoining PFG Complex and the parking garage, including brick columns on the parking structure and a mix of deciduous and conifer tree species surrounding the parking facility. (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ldrb\sub\uvm\gutterson\preliminary doc The proposed parking structure takes advantage of the sloped grade of the site to minimize the size of the structure and integrate it with the terrain. In addition, the applicant proposes regrading the easterly tier of exterior parking below existing grade to prevent vehicle headlights from shining onto adjacent residential properties. Again, landscaping and the columnar structure of the parking garage offer an attractive visual alternative to the massive brick facade of the athletic complex. In addition, to the above aeneral review standards site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The subject site is part of a much larger site containing multiple university offices and facilities. The existing Spear Street curb cuts will be retained. In addition, the applicant will be upgrading University Heights to provide access onto Main Street in Burlington. Interior connections to Prospect Street in Burlington will also be provided. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already indicated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). No solid waste facilities are shown. Staff suggests that the parking structure include small solid waste disposal receptacles in that vicinity of interior staircases and/or pedestrian exits. Dumpster sized solid waste containers are not necessary for the proposed parking facilities. Parking Section 13.01(G)(1) of the Land Development Regulations establishes design requirements for parking spaces. Design guidelines for parking structures are further detailed in Design Guidelines for Parkinq Structures, dated March 1997. Internal aisles appear to be between 18 and 24 ft. wide. Some parking spaces appear to be at a 70 degree angle to internal aisles. Other spaces appear to be at a 90 degree angle to internal aisles. Stall dimensions are not indicated on the plans, but all stall appear to be 8.5 ft. wide by 18 ft. deep. This does not comply with the dimensional requirements outlined in Table 13-8 of the Land Development Regulations. However, during the sketch plan review the DRB and staff stated that 8.5' wide parking spaces were acceptable within the proposed parking structure, but that the spaces surrounding the proposed structure need to b 9' wide. 11. The plans shall be revised to depict the parking spaces surrounding the proposed parking structure striped to 9' wide, prior to final plat plan submittal. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\qutterson\prel im i nary.doc 12. The applicant shall submit a document with the final plat application that describes how the proposed parking facility complies with the standards set forth in the South Burlington Design Guidelines for Parking Structures dated March 1997. Any discrepancies shall be identified and defended in this document, so that the DRB can make an informed decision. Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. The plans do not depict bicycle parking facilities associated with the proposed project 13. The plans shall be revised to indicate bicycle parking facilities for the site, prior to final plat plan submittal. Pursuant to Section 13.01(1) of the Land Development Regulations, 2% of the spaces within the proposed parking facility must be handicapped -accessible and comply with ADA Accessibility Guidelines. The proposed project contains a total fo 1,312 parking spaces (765 existing and 550 new), so a total of 27 handicapped -accessible parking spaces shall be provided. Furthermore, one in every eight handicapped -accessible spaces must be van accessible and signed "van accessible". The plans do not indicate the number, size, or location of accessible spaces, although the applicant has indicated accessible spaces will be located proximate to buildings on the first two levels of the parking facility. 14. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict the size and location of at least 27 handicapped - accessible parking spaces, prior to final plat plan submittal. Staff notes that Section 13.01(M) of the Land Development Regulations gives the DRB authority to require design elements for parking structures that specifically address safety, security, lighting, landscaping, and visual aesthetics as conditions for approval. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping, and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review, and street tree plantings shall be required for all public streets in a PUD. Landscaping plans are provided on Sheet L-1 of the plans. 15. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate the landscape professional who prepared the plan, prior to final plat plan submittal. Section 13.06(B) requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. This Section does not apply to the project because the parking area surrounding the proposed structure is existing. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(4), snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans do not show snow storage areas. 16. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict snow storage areas on the subject property, prior to final plat plan submittal. Section 13.06(C) of the Land Development Regulations requires landscaping and/or screening whenever two adjacent uses are dissimilar. Furthermore, Section 13.06(C)(3) requires landscaping to be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from parking areas. The adjacent residential uses necessitate such screening along the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\preliminary. doc Spear Street right-of-way. Staff notes that the proposed landscape screening is entirely within the Spear Street right-of-way. At its meeting on September 15, 2003 the City Council granted the applicant permission to utilize the City's Spear Street right-of-way for landscaping to meet the requirements of Section 13.06(C) of the Land Development Regulations (minutes attached). Staff notes that this approval is solely for the purposes of landscaping and is not to count towards the applicant's coverage requirements for the property. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. Required costs are based on construction costs. Accordingly, the applicant must submit a proposed landscape budget. 17. The applicant shall submit a proposed landscape budget pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(3) of the Land Development Regulations with the final plat application. The City Arborist has approved the most recent landscaping plans and provided comments in a letter dated November 24, 2003 (attached). Other The City Engineer reviewed the plans. 18. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the City Engineer, as outlined in his comments dated November 30, 2003, prior to final plat plan submittal (attached). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-03-72, conditional upon the numbered items in the "Comments" Section of this report being addressed to the satisfaction of Staff prior to submission of a final plat application. Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: Linda Seavey, Director of Campus Planning Services UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Vermont is proposing to construct a new parking garage at Patrick-Forbush-Gutterson Athletic Complex of an estimated 254,100 gross square feet. The garage will be located at the north end of the existing parking area called Gutterson parking. The new parking garage facility will be within both the cities of Burlington and South Burlington boundaries. The project team is comprised of Smith-Alvarez-Sienkiewycz Architects, an architectural firm based in Burlington, VT; Barr & Barr, Inc., a construction firm in Middlebury, VT; Desman Associates, a parking structure consultant based in Wellesley Hills, MA; Civil Engineering Associates, a civil engineering firm based in Shelburne, VT; Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., based in Colchester, VT; Kirik Engineering, lighting consultant, based in Burlington, VT, and Resource Systems Group, Inc., a traffic consulting firm based in Norwich, VT. The project includes the design and construction of a parking structure to accommodate the 765 existing parking spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of the Patrick Gymnasium. The University proposes to construct parking space widths of 8.5 feet that is consistent with waivers/variances on record. This is intended to minimize impact on open green space across the campus. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, thereby eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design is expected to utilize the advantages of the tiered parking lot in the area to eliminate the need for extensive ramp construction. The facility will be fully accessible by persons with disabilities on the first two levels. Handicapped spaces will remain at their traditional location proximate to buildings. All utilities and public services, such as, electric, water, sewer, stormwater, fire and police services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University of Vermont. The existing access to Gutterson parking lots from only Spear Street will be changed as follows. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting through Spear Street (refer to Overall Plan Drawing #1, dated 7/18/03). The only exiting allowed to Spear Street will be the eastern most or lower level parking tier (north and south entrances/exits) and the Marsh -Austin -Tupper and Harris -Millis parking lots that have traditionally exited to Spear Street. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. By this routing system, this ensures that there will be less traffic utilizing Spear Street than currently exists, thereby, minimizing the impact of the new facility to the Spear Street neighbors. The lower level will be designed to replace the existing parking spaces and the elevation will be lowered two feet with a retaining wall located along the easterly edge of the existing parking lot to provide improved screening of vehicles and headlights from Spear Street. The topography works with the design to control access and limit traffic to Spear Street. The current circulation for vehicles and parking at the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights, Living/Learning Center, and Harris/Millis Residence Halls will be redirected through University Heights to Main Street, thereby, decreasing the existing condition of traffic accessing University properties in this area from Spear Street. Although in recent years, the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights have utilized Spear Street as its access, historically, the traditional access has always been Main Street. The parking garage will provide a major portion of the new parking needs created by the construction of undergraduate housing at University Heights and general additional parking needs to meet future projected project needs. The exterior lighting of the facility will utilize the University's adopted lighting policies and standards. The pedestrian pole standard is a 12-foot pole (C-12) to the lighting source with a 100-watt, 8-sided, metal halide lamp in University green (pole and hood), which is the same style fixture used in the Main Street Improvement Project. The roadway light pole is a 17-foot pole (C-17) to the lighting source with a 175-watt metal halide lamp in University green. As an added enhancement to the parking lot area, replacing existing parking lot lighting with the new UVM metal -halide standards (as informally requested by South Burlington planners) will be installed throughout the remaining exterior parking lots. The parking lot lighting is a 175- watt metal halide shoebox-style down light (cutoff fixture) on 20-foot pole in bronze. All site lighting has been located to minimize light pollution and spillage onto adjacent properties. Signage for the new facility will be consistent with the University's exterior signage policies and guidelines for the facility and parking lots, including directional, building identification, and parking lots. To mitigate its presence to the adjacent neighborhood as well as the vehicular view of approaching Spear Street from Main Street, landscape plantings will be strategically located. Key component of the design of the structure provides for future expansion to the south of the facility to meet future parking needs. Upon completion of this project, the overall lot coverage within the City of South Burlington will change slightly (.19 acres) primarily by covering the existing "berms" in the tiered parking lots. Campus Planning Services — 9/16/03 Proj Description - Gutterson SBurl-final plat I CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS 11/20/03 U.V.M. GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE Spear Street 1. The Spear Street intersections should be widened one lane for left turns. 2. Grit separator pumping station should have an emergency pump connection in it's discharge piping. 3. Recycled crushed concrete may be used for road base. _TC <_ "0: Rav Belair =R®M: Tom Hubbard RE: Recreation Path Committee DATE: November 4, 2003 The Recreation Path Committee reviewed a number of plans at their meeting last evening and a summary of comments is listed below. I believe Lou Bresee will bE present at the meeting this evening. Derek Read, representing Sill Nedde from homestead Design, presented the plan for the Forest Glen Project, adjacent to Indian Creek. The committee encouraged the developer to re -initiate talks with the homeowners Assoc. at Indian Creek for a possible linkage, and to check on the exact location of the existing dedicated easement within the Indian Creek development. The ideal connection would provide a link from Forest Glen, through Indian Creek, providing a loop to Swift Street. If that is not possible now, to provide a means of egress as far south on Dorset Street is preferred. Some concern was expressed about the proposed S' right-of-way, and to recommend this area be paved rather than concrete. Consideration was also given to extending the recreation path connection to the existing Phase III development. The DRB has asked the Rec. Path Committee for a recommendation of 'the proposed development off Imperial Drive. After some discussion, the committee recommended the easement be reserved, not to pave an area at this time, but sufficient to build an 8' path in the future if desired. The committee made several recommendations after viewing some of the proposed plans for development. UVM Parking Garage- recommendation to secure an easement from the jug - handle to the north end of the proposed garage along Spear Street Snyder/O'Brien development off Hinesburg/Kennedy- recommendation to complete the path as proposed to Kennedy Dr. Unsworth- secure the easement along Spear Street frontage, and maintain the pedestrian easement through the property Quarry hill- plan was not available for discussion, but committee would like an update on the recommendations for rec. path easements previously made Farrell- some preliminary discussion was held in regard to this proposed subdivision :/ut /�' ^i1r• � ,II„r,h,;— �y 1 ., T � �,� •,. 1„ �.�J���z_. , ,_.,�1°..�, �`.T-_�...���,r �.T.�i � _,i•r�� hs ,tea._ � _. ,_ T ,T�,.�'��'yi'��_ ? Lz_ =�,� �°I�l.._ � DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2003 PAGE 2 3. 5ketch Plan application #5P-03-13 of the University of Vermont for a Planned Unit Development consisting of a proposed 254,100 oq. ft. parking garage, 176,400 oq. ft. of which falls within the City of South Burlington. The Subject property contains approximately 14.43 acres located on Spear 5t. in South Burlington. Mr. Dinklage Said the major concern would be Screening for residential neighbors. Ms. 5eavy said UVM plans to set up meetings with neighbors to address concerns. Ms. 5eavy indicated that a traffic study would be provided at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Dinklage noted that the DRB would also ask for an independent analysis. Mr. Kupferman asked how the need for this parking structure addresses present UVM conditions. Mr. Penniman said there would be changes that are not specific to this site. There will be 800 new beds at University Heights and additional housing at Redstone. There will also be an access opened up through to Prospect 5treet. The structure is important for special events parking. Mr. Dinklage stressed that the Board will want documentation of all potential uses for this facility. Mr. Boucher asked how construction would work with the hospital construction going on. Mr. Penniman said they hoped the hospital would be finished when UVM starts. They also hope to complete the work in 1 construction season. Mr. Dinklage asked if UVM would still be serving the "satellite needs" such as Fletcher Allen. Mr. Penniman said they anticipate that use would continue. Mr. Penniman .said they tend to stripe for parking at 8-1/2 feet and asked if that was OK. Mr. 5elair said it was OK inside the structure but not outside the structure. Mr. Penniman added that they would also be rebuilding the existing parking lot as part of this project. Mr. Belair said they would need waivers for green space in front. Mr. Belair added the city hoped for an extra 15 ft. of landscaping but that would cost a row of parking. Mr. Dinklage suggested looking at angled parking instead of straight in. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2005 PAGE 3 Mr. Boucher then moved to invoke technical review of traffic at the applicant's expenoe, the scope of which io to be directed by staff. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion paooed unanimously. 4. Site Plan Application #51`-03-06 and Conditional Use Application #CU-03-04 of Goss Dodge, Inc., for a 1200 oq. ft. addition to an accessory structure at 1485 Shelburne Road to be uoed for appearance reconditioning of automobile product. The subject property containo 9.39 acres and fallo within the Commercial 2 Diotrict: Mr. Hoar oaid he would be adding 20 ft. to the backoide of the building. He had no isoueo with staff commento. The water line will be added to the plan. Staff had no other iooueo. Mr. Boucher moved to approve Site Plan Application #512-03-06 and Conditional Uoe Application #CU-03-04 of G000 Dodge, Inc., subject to the recommendations in the staff commento of 1 April 2005. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion paooed unanimously. 5. Revised Final Plat Application #5D-03-14 of Lowe'o Home Centero, Inc., for a one lot, 9 building Planned Unit Development on Shelburne Road. The amendment conoioto of modificationo to the Lowe'o site plan. The oubject property contains 38.47 acreo and io located in the Commercial 1 Diotrict. Portiono of the property aloo fall within the Conoervation and Open 5pace Diotrict and the Traffic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. Southland Enterprises, Inc., io the record owner of the property: Mr. Kupferman otepped down during this application due to a conflict of intereot. Mr. White paid the amendments repreoent changeo in detailo resulting from other hearing proceooeo. The project wao originally approved in 1994-5. The plan aloo calls for some smaller buildingo that will create a otreetocape on Fayette Road and a hotel behind the Chittenden Bank. Ms. Kuperomith asked about traffic. Mr. Dinklage explained how the traffic allocation worko. 6 TO FIN. GRADE t404,8 NEW INV.= t 389.D PLUG E%ISTINI 18. OUTLLFj . DEPRES CURB NEW CBWB— RIM n402.3 INV=388.5 LIMITS OF BKN RECONSTRUCTION TRANSITION (T�) CURB NEW CB/12 RIM=405.0 INV=400.0 `,_`'�•�-�-- LIMITS OF ; L,.`. RECONSTRUCTION TYP. NEW �DMHW2 m1 RIM=403.0 INV=383.2 u, NEW SMHW1 HALL RIM-403.3 RABBIS r~. V-1387.1 • P4 cd I, NEW TRENCH 4..1 DRAIN #1• �'•1 RIMa395.8 INV:393.1 NEW 5.0 DMHW3 RIM:395.7 INV:379.0 . i••1 O W I ZW 3961 O INV=390.0 -- _, _.1. t .. - t t wk o..a._ .....• •'+' i + (WCH-EXIST,) I ` p kEV 'NEW NEW 1REN 6 FIRST L _ �••� ' EC - wv z sewn r. LEVEL DRAIN W2 �%- I eaea�m� (CANS` � W OIL SEPARATOR ON LE RIM=395 + e ce - LL AND PUMP STATION O S (PAVEMENn INV=393.1 : av `m1 e>\ _ •�.r - %.. _ (SEE DETAIL) _ IM 38 0 g S a-1 �+ BURLINGTON f NEW TRENC� \ �. ' /y�•� _ �I DRAIN W3 + NEW CBWIB- ..+S.r�'-^"� _ �•' j•M•I _ BURLINGTON I SECOND LEVEL RIM=395.8 ' RIM=38s.0 SOUTH Nv-3s,s _ I' ' (PAVEMENT) - `. IN NEW DMHWS RIM=383.7 ;IN 21.11e:i�i - INV: 379.6 a s o�, I FIRST LEVEL /, - RETAINING I TCpNCRElE) NEW DMHW6 wu.e»e WALL (H=3' MAX.) _ SSA I�RIIM 3368 NEW TRENCH RNV=778 DMHf DRAIN #4 64. xLIMITS ) ,a_a . _ ,+ •—"'�- ' . - W 8 NV:J81.0 LEVE.NV=82 FI28TEMENT) -NEW TRENCH LMITS0f TeUCRONRELOCATE DRAIN 8St (ypW C8420 H I NMRY V-3 2Al2'RM:30 EC�__... -00 LIMITS OF UCD�IXJ �- 4 ST. T�2 RECONS (TYR NEW INV:38q,9 FIRST LEVEL --- STREET _ — "D DATE a — _ SPEAR — — _-.,,..,,..._ PARKING STRUCTURE --*- - - - ------ SITE PLAN ; - GRAPHIC- SCALE , C4- _ KA is JIM) 12/28/ of RCJECI No. 01300.00 I I I i I 1 I „.SIGN RA'JJN CHKD St,V� MJ�PV' C) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REWEW BOARD Report preparation date: November 25, 2003 \drb\sub\uvm\guttersonlpreliminary. doc Plans received: September 18, 2003 UVW GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-03-72 Meeting date: December 2, 2003 Owner/Applicant Architect University of Vermont Smith, Alverez, Sienkiewycz Architects c/o Linda Seavey, Campus Planning Services 117 Saint Paul Street 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Burlington, VT 05405 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 928 Falls Road Shelburne, VT 05482 11 Location Map a. Gu$erson Field Flouse Property Information Tax Parcel 1810-00000-N & 1810-00799-N Volume 3, Page 165 IA-N District ±14.43 acres (in South Burlington) El CITY OF SOUTH BURLING r JN 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\cjutterson\oreliminary doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Vermont, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary plat plan approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a proposed 254,100 sq. ft. parking garage, 176,400 sq. ft. of which falls within the City of South Burlington. The subject property contains approximately 14.43 acres located in South Burlington. The South Burlington portions of the property are located in the Institutional and Agricultural -North (]A-N) District. The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the Development Review Board (DRB) on April 1, 2003 (minutes attached). Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on September 18, 2003 and have the following comments. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Table 1. Dimensional Requirements IA-N Zoning District Required Pro osed Min. Lot Size 10 acres ±14.43 acres Max. Building Coverage 20% 10.31 % Max. Overall Coverage 40% 38.57% 4 Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 1 unknown ♦ Min. Front Setback 75 ft. 60 ft. Min. Side Setback 50 ft. >50 ft. Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. > 50 ft. 4Max. Building Height 40 ft. unknown zoning compliance 4 information needs to be provided ♦ zoning discrepancy Front Yard Coverage Section 3.06(H) of the Land Development Regulations prohibits more than 30% of the front setback from being used for driveways and parking, and the balance shall be landscaped. Furthermore, a continuous landscaped strip of 15 ft. in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right-of-way and the balance of the lot. The applicant has stated that the front yard coverage will not change as a result of the proposed project. The applicant has received permission from the City Council to use the City's right-of-way along Spear Street for landscaping, but it shall not count towards coverage requirements. 1. The applicant shall submit pre -construction and post -construction front yawl coverage information with the final plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINb 5TON 3 ) DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\subluvm\guttersonlpreliminary doc Height The applicant has indicated that the height of the proposed parking structure will be 29 ft. to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 ft. to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Land Development Regulations, no point of the parking structure shall rise more than 35 ft. above the average preconstruction grade. Staff notes that this standard applies to the portions of the parking structure falling within the City of South Burlington. The plans, therefore, need to be revised to show the average pre -construction grade of the area under the garage footprint and indicate the maximum height of the garage in relation to the average pre -construction grade. 2. The plans submitted for final plat review shall show the average preconstruction grade of the area under the garage footprint and indicate the maximum height of the garage in relation to the average pre -construction grade. Traffic For a PUD application, Section 15.12(E)(1) of the Land Development Regulations establishes level of service measures rather than traffic generation measures as limiters to the proposed development. According to Section 15.12(E)(1) of the Land Development Regulations, the nearest signalized intersection, or those intersections specified by the DRB , must maintain a level of service of "D" or better at the peak hour, including the anticipated impact of the proposed development. It is unclear what the current level of service is or what level of service would result from the development of the proposed parking facility. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc. During the sketch plan review stage of this project, on April 1, 2003, the DRB passed a motion to invoke technical review of the applicant's traffic study. The City contracted Lamoureux and Dickinson to perform the technical review. Roger Dickinson, of Lamoureux and Dickinson, is currently reviewing the applicant's traffic study and his comments and analysis will be made available at the meeting. Institutional & Agricultural District Section 7.01(17)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires properties in the IA-N District west of Spear Street and north of Quarry Hill Road to maintain an undeveloped area for a minimum of 65 ft. between the boundary of an adjacent residential district and any new non-residential structure. The plans show that the proposed parking structure will be approximately 95 ft. from the zoning district boundary, which occurs at the center of the Spear Street right-of-way. However, the DRB may require landscaping or other suitable screening in accordance with Section 3.06 to ensure adequate buffering of non-residential uses from residential uses. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sidewalks & Recreation Paths Section 15.13(M)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires sidewalks and/or recreation paths on both sides of arterial streets at locations to be determined by the DRB. The plans indicate no sidewalk or recreation path exists on either side of Spear Street in the vicinity of the Gutterson CiTY OF SOUTH BURLING i 1 4 � DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ldrb\subluvm\gutterson\oreliminary. doc parking facility. The applicant has not proposed any sidewalk or recreation path. Staff does not recommend a sidewalk be constructed along Spear Street as part of the proposed project. In a letter dated November 4, 2003, the Recreation Path Committee requested that the applicant provide recreation path easement along Spear Street from the jug handle to the northerly end of the proposed parking facility (attached). 3. The plans shall be revised to depict a recreation path easement from the jug handle to the northerly end of the proposed parking facility along Spear Street, prior to final plat plan submittal. Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations requires that the PUD meet the standards of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and did not have any issues with the preliminary stormwater details. 4. The applicant shall submit detailed stonnwater plans with the final plat application for review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. Stormwater drainage plans must demonstrate compliance with the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, pursuant to Section 15. 13(F) of the Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (a) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project As already indicated water and wastewater services are not proposed. The applicant has submitted a letter from the City of Burlington's Public Works Department stating that the City of Burlington has sufficient water and wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project (attached). (b) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. Sheets C10 and C11 of the plans contain the applicant's erosion control plan and associated details. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and did not raise any issues with the erosion control plans or details. 6. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Buffington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Buffington Land Development Regulations. (c) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc. During the sketch plan review stage of this project, on April 1, 2003, the DRB passed a motion to invoke technical review of the applicant's traffic study. The City contracted Lamoureux and Dickinson to perform the technical review. Roger Dickinson, of Lamoureux and Dickinson, is currently reviewing the applicant's traffic study and his comments and analysis will be made available at the meeting. CITY OF SOUTH BURLIA TON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvrn\qutterson\preliminary doc (d) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. No wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features are present on the site. (e) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning districts) in which it is located. Section 7.01(A) of the Land Development Regulations indicates that university -related uses should be integrated "into the City's overall land use pattern through the use of appropriate site planning techniques that promote a beneficial pattern of access, circulation, landscaping, and pedestrian connections between University properties and adjacent neighborhoods." (f) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The portions of the site currently covered by the parking lot will be covered by the new parking lot and the proposed parking structure. Some green space within the existing parking lot will be eliminated for the construction of the parking structure. However, open space areas on other portions of the subject property will not be affected. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this requirement is being met. (g) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Fire Chief Doug Brent has indicated that the City of Burlington Fire Department has jurisdiction for emergency response to the subject property. The applicant has submitted a letter from the City of Burlington's Fire Department indicating they have jurisdiction over the proposed structure (attached). (h) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Stormwater details have been approved by the City Engineer. Landscaping is proposed within the Spear Street right-of-way to screen the parking structure. Staff has recommended that the DRB require the applicant to comply with the requests of the Recreation Path Committee to provide a recreation easement along Spear Street. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Burlington Electric Department stating that the City of Burlington will provide the necessary electrical services to the proposed project (attached). The applicant submitted a lighting point by point plan. Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30' above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. CITY OF SOUTH BURLING, .1N 6 ) DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\guttersonlpreiimi nary. doc The lighting plan that the applicant has submitted indicates that the average illumination at ground level is 1.76 foot candles, which meets the requirement. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. The lighting point plan submitted by the applicant does not show spillage points, so staff does not have sufficient information to make a determination on this requirement. 7. The lighting plan shall be revised to show spillage points that are in compliance with Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, prior to final plat plan submittal. (i) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The parking area lighting plan must comply with Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted exterior lighting details for the proposed project, which are in compliance with Appendix D of the Land Development Regulations (attached). The height of poles for the proposed lighting for the parking area is 19' 9" and the height of the poles for the proposed lighting for the pedestrian areas is 12' 0". Both of the proposed heights are in compliance with Section 13.07(B) of the Land Development Regulations. 8. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict the location of all proposed lighting, prior to final plat plan submittal. 9. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. a) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). In general, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City pursue partnerships to explore the implementation of transportation management techniques as mitigation to potential negative traffic impacts resulting from proposed development. Staff feels that the potential traffic management techniques that arise as a result of the applicant's traffic study's recommendations and the recommendations of the technical review of that traffic study will work towards accomplishing this goal. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movemen4 and adequate parking areas. The proposed parking facility is part of a much larger site, which includes the University of Vermont athletic complex, student housing, and administrative offices, with existing pedestrian pathways, CITY OF SOUTH BURLhwJ TON 7 ) DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ldrb\sub\uvmlgutterson\prelimina!y doc roadways, landscaping, and parking facilities. Most of the site falls within the City of Burlington. The proposed parking garage would be the only structure within the City of South Burlington on the subject parcel of land. The applicant has indicated that the parking facility would add an additional 550 parking spaces for the site. Staff feels the proposed structure accomplishes a reasonable transition from structure to site and from structure to structure, as the existing buildings on the site are all large. The applicant received permission from the City Council to utilize the Spear Street right-of-way, so adequate planting area is being provided. The plans do not clearly depict existing or proposed sidewalks that will facilitate pedestrian movement to and from the proposed structure. 10. The plans shall be revised to dearly depict any existing or proposed sidewalks extending to and from the proposed structure, prior to final plat plan submittal. (b) Parking shaft be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. The site is already extensively developed and the new parking facility is proposed to be built over existing parking lot along the Spear Street frontage. Staff believes that this is acceptable. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The height of the proposed structure is 32.5 feet from the finished grade of the site. Staff has already stated that the plans shall be revised to indicate that height of the proposed structure from average pre -construction grade. Staff feels the proposed parking structure is compatible with the scale and height of the existing buildings on the site, which are all LIVM buildings. The proposed structure is not compatible with the existing single-family dwelling on the opposite side of Spear Street, but sufficient landscaping is proposed to mitigate the visual impacts from the proposed structure. (a) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground Staff has already noted that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. It appears that the proposal will incorporate a diversity of design elements that will offer attractive transitions between the massive brick facade of the adjoining PFG Complex and the parking garage, including brick columns on the parking structure and a mix of deciduous and conifer tree species surrounding the parking facility. (� Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. CITY OF SOUTH BURLING,1 8 ) DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 1drb1subluvmlguttersonlpreli m inary.doc The proposed parking structure takes advantage of the sloped grade of the site to minimize the size of the structure and integrate it with the terrain. In addition, the applicant proposes regrading the easterly tier of exterior parking below existing grade to prevent vehicle headlights from shining onto adjacent residential properties. Again, landscaping and the columnar structure of the parking garage offer an attractive visual alternative to the massive brick fagade of the athletic complex. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The subject site is part of a much larger site containing multiple university offices and facilities. The existing Spear Street curb cuts will be retained. In addition, the applicant will be upgrading University Heights to provide access onto Main Street in Burlington. Interior connections to Prospect Street in Burlington will also be provided. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already indicated that pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). No solid waste facilities are shown. Staff suggests that the parking structure include small solid waste disposal receptacles in that vicinity of interior staircases and/or pedestrian exits. Dumpster sized solid waste containers are not necessary for the proposed parking facilities. Parking Section 13.01(G)(1) of the Land Development Regulations establishes design requirements for parking spaces. Design guidelines for parking structures are further detailed in Design Guidelines for Parking Structures, dated March 1997. Internal aisles appear to be between 18 and 24 ft. wide. Some parking spaces appear to be at a 70 degree angle to internal aisles. Other spaces appear to be at a 90 degree angle to internal aisles. Stall dimensions are not indicated on the plans, but all stall appear to be 8.5 ft. wide by 18 ft. deep. This does not comply with the dimensional requirements outlined in Table 13-8 of the Land Development Regulations. However, during the sketch plan review the DRB and staff stated that 8.5' wide parking spaces were acceptable within the proposed parking structure, but that the spaces surrounding the proposed structure need to b 9' wide. 11. The plans shall be revised to depict the parking spaces surrounding the proposed parking structure striped to 9' wide, prior to final plat plan submittal CITY OF SOUTH BURU,b )TON 9 ) DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Idrb\subluvmlgutterson\preliminary doc 12. The applicant shall submit a document with the final plat application that describes how the proposed parking facility complies with the standards set forth in the South Burlington Design Guidelines for Parking Structures dated March 1997. Any discrepancies shall be identified and defended in this document, so that the DRB can make an informed decision. Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. The plans do not depict bicycle parking facilities associated with the proposed project 13. The plans shall be revised to indicate bicycle parking facilities for the site, prior to final plat plan submittal. Pursuant to Section 13.01(1) of the Land Development Regulations, 2% of the spaces within the proposed parking facility must be handicapped -accessible and comply with ADA Accessibility Guidelines. The proposed project contains a total fo 1,312 parking spaces (765 existing and 550 new), so a total of 27 handicapped -accessible parking spaces shall be provided. Furthermore, one in every eight handicapped -accessible spaces must be van accessible and signed "van accessible". The plans do not indicate the number, size, or location of accessible spaces, although the applicant has indicated accessible spaces will be located proximate to buildings on the first two levels of the parking facility. 14. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict the size and location of at least 27 handicapped - accessible parking spaces, prior to final plat plan submittal. Staff notes that Section 13.01(M) of the Land Development Regulations gives the DRB authority to require design elements for parking structures that specifically address safety, security, lighting, landscaping, and visual aesthetics as conditions for approval. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping, and screening shall be required for ail uses subject to site plan and PUD review, and street tree plantings shall be required for all public streets in a PUD. Landscaping plans are provided on Sheet L-1 of the plans. 15. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate the landscape professional who prepared the plan, prior to final plat plan submittal. Section 13.06(B) requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. This Section does not apply to the project because the parking area surrounding the proposed structure is existing. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(4), snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans do not show snow storage areas. 16. The plans shall be revised to clearly depict snow storage areas on the subject property, prior to final plat plan submittal. Section 13.06(C) of the Land Development Regulations requires landscaping and/or screening whenever two adjacent uses are dissimilar. Furthermore, Section 13.06(C)(3) requires landscaping to be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from parking areas. The adjacent residential uses necessitate such screening along the CITY OF SOUTH BURLING r 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drblsub\uvm\guttersonlpreliminary. doc Spear Street right-of-way. Staff notes that the proposed landscape screening is entirely within the Spear Street right-of-way. At its meeting on September 15, 2003 the City Council granted the applicant permission to utilize the City's Spear Street right-of-way for landscaping to meet the requirements of Section 13.06(C) of the Land Development Regulations (minutes attached). Staff notes that this approval is solely for the purposes of landscaping and is not to count towards the applicant's coverage requirements for the property. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. Required costs are based on construction costs. Accordingly, the applicant must submit a proposed landscape budget. 17. The applicant shall submit a proposed landscape budget pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(3) of the Land Development Regulations with the final plat application. The City Arborist has approved the most recent landscaping plans and provided comments in a letter dated November 24, 2003 (attached). Other The City Engineer reviewed the plans. 18. The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the City Engineer, as outlined in his comments dated November 30, 2003, prior to final plat plan submittal (attached). Staff recommends that the South Burlington Development Review Board approve Preliminary Plat Application ##SD-03-72, conditional upon the numbered items in the "Comments" Section of this report being addressed to the satisfaction of Staff prior to submission of a final plat application. Respectfully submitted, Brian Robertson, Associate Planner Copy to: Linda Seavey, Director of Campus Planning Services UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Vermont is proposing to construct a new parking garage at Patrick-Forbush-Gutterson Athletic Complex of an estimated 254,100 gross square feet. The garage will be located at the north end of the existing parking area called Gutterson parking. The new parking garage facility will be within both the cities of Burlington and South Burlington boundaries. The project team is comprised of Smith-Alvarez-Sienkiewycz Architects, an architectural firm based in Burlington, VT; Barr & Barr, Inc., a construction firm in Middlebury, VT; Desman Associates, a parking structure consultant based in Wellesley Hills, MA; Civil Engineering Associates, a civil engineering firm based in Shelburne, VT; Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., based in Colchester, VT; Kink Engineering, lighting consultant, based in Burlington, VT, and Resource Systems Group, Inc., a traffic consulting firm based in Norwich, VT. The project includes the design and construction of a parking structure to accommodate the 765 existing parking spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of the Patrick Gymnasium. The University proposes to construct parking space widths of 8.5 feet that is consistent with waivers/variances on record. This is intended to minimize impact on open green space across the campus. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, thereby eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design is expected to utilize the advantages of the tiered parking lot in the area to eliminate the need for extensive ramp construction. The facility will be fully accessible by persons with disabilities on the first two levels. Handicapped spaces will remain at their traditional location proximate to buildings. All utilities and public services, such as, electric, water, sewer, stormwater, fire and police services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University of Vermont. The existing access to Gutterson parking lots from only Spear Street will be changed as follows. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting through Spear Street (refer to Overall Plan Drawing #1, dated 7/18/03). The only exiting allowed to Spear Street will be the eastern most or lower level parking tier (north and south entrances/exits) and the Marsh -Austin -Tupper and Harris -Millis parking lots that have traditionally exited to Spear Street. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. By this routing system, this ensures that there will be less traffic utilizing Spear Street than currently exists, thereby, minimizing the impact of the new facility to the Spear Street neighbors. The lower level will be designed to replace the existing parking spaces and the elevation will be lowered two feet with a retaining wall located along the easterly edge of the existing parking lot to provide improved screening of vehicles and headlights from Spear Street. The topography works with the design to control access and limit traffic to Spear Street. The current circulation for vehicles and parking at the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights, Living/Learning Center, and Harris/Millis Residence Halls will be redirected through University Heights to Main Street, thereby, decreasing the existing condition of traffic accessing University properties in this area from Spear Street. Although in recent years, the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights have utilized Spear Street as its access, historically, the traditional access has always been Main Street. The parking garage will provide a major portion of the new parking needs created by the construction of undergraduate housing at University Heights and general additional parking needs to meet future projected project needs. The exterior lighting of the facility will utilize the University's adopted lighting policies and standards. The pedestrian pole standard is a 12=Foot pole (C-12) to the lighting source with a 100-watt, 8-sided, metal halide lamp in University green (pole and hood), which is the same style fixture used in the Main Street Improvement Project. The roadway light pole is a 17-foot pole (C-17) to the lighting source with a 175-watt metal halide lamp in University green. As an added enhancement to the parking lot area, replacing existing parking lot lighting with the new UVM metal -halide standards (as informally requested by South Burlington planners) will be installed throughout the remaining exterior parking lots. The parking lot lighting is a 175- watt metal halide shoebox-style down light (cutoff fixture) on 20-foot pole in bronze. All site lighting has been located to minimize light pollution and spillage onto adjacent properties. Signage for the new facility will be consistent with the University's exterior signage policies and guidelines for the facility and parking lots, including directional, building identification, and parking lots. To mitigate its presence to the adjacent neighborhood as well as the vehicular view of approaching Spear Street from Main Street, landscape plantings will be strategically located. Key component of the design of the structure provides for future expansion to the south of the facility to meet future parking needs. Upon completion of this project, the overall lot coverage within the City of South Burlington will change slightly (.19 acres) primarily by covering the existing "berms" in the tiered parking lots. Campus Planning Services — 9/16/03 Proj Description - Gutterson SBurl-final plat CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS 11/20/03 U.V.M. GUTTERS®N PARKING GARAGE Spear Street 1. The Spear Street intersections should be widened one lane for left turns. 2. Grit separator pumping station should have an emergency pump connection in it's discharge piping. 3. Recycled crushed concrete may be used for road base. :0 OM: Tom Hubbard RE: Recreation Path Committee DATE: November 4., 2003 The Recreation Path Committee reviewed a number of plans at their meeting last evening and a summary of comments is listed below, I believe Lou Bresee will be present at the meeting this evening. Derek Read, representing Bill Nedde from Homestead Design, presented the plan for the Forest Glen Project, adjacent to Indian Creek. The committee encouraged the developer to re -initiate talks with the Homeowners Assoc. at Indian Creek for a possible Nnkage, and to check, on the exact location of the existing dedicated easement within the Indian Creek development. The ideal connection would provide a link'Frorn Forest Glen, through Indian Creek, providing a loop to Swift Street. If that is not possibie now, to provide a means of egress as far south on Dorset Street is preferred. Some concern was expressed about the proposed 5' right-of-way, and to recommend this area be paved rather than concrete. Consideration was also given to extending the recreation path connection to the existing Phase III development. The DRS has asked the Rec. Path Committee for a recommendation of the proposed development off Imperial Drive. After some discussion, the committee recommended the easement be reserved, not to pave an area at this time, but sufficient to build an 8' path in the future if desired. The committee made several recommendations after viewing some of the proposed pians for development. UVM Parking Garage- recommendation to secure an easement from the jug - handle to the north end of the proposed garage along Spear Street Snyder/O'Brien development off Hinesburg/Kennedy- recommendation to complete the path as proposed to Kennedy Dr. Unsworth- secure the easement along Spear Street frontage, and maintain the pedestrian easement through the property Quarry Frill- plan was not available for discussion, but committee would like an update on the recommendations for rec. path easements previously made Farrell- some preliminary discussion was held in regard to this proposed subdivision [J f Ez— a c T South Bourfington Street Dep-ar ni nt 575 CORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERM ONT 054403 TR: (802) 0, 8-79b1 South Burlington Design Review Board 575 Dorset St South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Board Members:' OFFICE 104 LANDFILL RD 11 /24/03 I am writing regarding the landscaping for the Gutterson Parking facility at UVM. I have reviewed the most recent planting schedule with the UVM Arborist and agree the plan is acceptable. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, C. -7 Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist Cc: Ray Belair, Julie Beth Hoover, Bob Peniman, Rose Leland 12/21/2001 FRI 15:23 FAX 802 863 0486 Burlington DPW [a 002 December 21, 2001 Ms_ Linda Seavey UVM - Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, ITT 05401 Re: Gutterson Parking Garage Ability to Serve Dear -Ms. Seavey CITY OF BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 645 Pine Street, Suite A Post Office Sox 849 ftrlington. VT 05402-0645 802.863,9094 VQX 802.863.0456 FAX 802,863,0450 TTY www.dpw.ci, burlingtOn,yt. us Steven Goodkind, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CrrY ENGINEER Our office has reviewed your December 20, 2001 letter and the December 21, 2001 letter from Bill Nedde of Krebs & Lansing and makes to following determinations on the referenced proiect: Burlington has to ability to serve the water, wastewater and stormwater demands for the parking garage. Doing so will not negatively impact the City's infrastructure. Mr. Nedde stated the garage will place a negligible demand on city services. The garage is adjacent to two roads that are owned and maintained by UVM and as such will have no impact on DPW's ability to provide municipal services to the City of Burlington - Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, Justin Rabidou Cc: Bill Nedde An Equal Opportunity Employer This material is available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities. To request an accommodation, please call 802. 863:9094 (voice) or 602. 863, 0450 (TTY). � 71 1 � ~ ( ti Jam_ _ ivz 585 Pine Sireef - Burlington Verrnont 05401-4891 I� a� :1 ? t�,` 802/658-O300 � 802/865-7386 (T^;Noics) a Fax: 3021865-7400 � `' ``�� i tj�(AY —,S' ii `;4, November 13, 2001 Linda Seavey Director, Campus Planning Services University of Vermont 109 South Prospect Street Buriington, VT 05405-06 i 6 Re: Ability to new Student Apartment Housing and Gutterson Parking Garage Dear Linda: The Burlington Electric Department (BED) will be able to provide electric service to these projects. However, provisions of electric service to these projects will be contingent on compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Burlington Electric Department and the State of Vermont Public Service Board. BED Energy Services staff will work with you to ensure that the design complies with the Guidelines for Enemy Efficient Construction for the Citv of Burlington Vermont, November 13.2000. In addition, BED is interested in assisting with the identification, analysis and implementation of cost-effective energy efficient design, emerging technologies and alternative energy system options. Please call Loren Doe, Director of Commercial Ser✓ices, BED at 865-7,341 to begin this process. Early involvement by BED and periodic review will expedite the approval process and assure access to available energy efficiency rebates. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 865-7323. S incere ly, BURLINGTON ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Andy Naijhton Line Extension Coordinator/ROW cc: John Askew, BED Loren Doe, Enerzgy Sei icOs . Mlamy1 SHICIancy _. any �f° r f.? DEC.21.2001 1=40PM BURLINGTON POLICE NO.512 P.2 U pt '4yo1' sa®*,.moo®s` RURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT One North Avenue Buriingi:on, Vermont 05401 Alana M. Ennis Telephone (802) 658-2704 Chiof of Police Fax (802) 865-7287 T.D.D. (802) 658-2700 T.D.D. EMERGENCY 91 1 December 21, 2001 Linda Seavey, Director, UVM Campus Planning Services Office of University Planning 109 So. Prospect Street Burlington VT 05405-0016 Dear Ms. Seavey: I have received the plans for the proposed construction of a new parking garage to be located on the north side of UVM's existing parking areas at Gutterson. As I stated in a previous letter, to you in November 2001, Burlington residents have been pursuing ideas to alleviate the housing shortage caused, in part. by a shortage of on -campus housing. It is encouraging to witness a detailed undertaking by the University to alleviate some of the housing congestion by adding 400 beds of student housing on campus in addition to building a new parking structure. This department will continue to work with residents living near and around UVM's campus on the remaining quality of life issues that still remain. We are confident with the University's help, we will prevail in making our neighborhoods livable and peaceful for all residents and students. Since the University has its own full time Police Services Department. I do not anticipate the Gutterson Parking Garage project will have an 'impact on the Burlington Police Department. If you have any questions or concerns, please fell free to contact me at 658- 2704, extension 271. Very truly yours, BURLjffaZN POLICE EPARTMENT Richard P. Long Lieutenant. Uniform Servi s (z u .af t�' r�F CAREER ? 32 NORTH AVENUi BURLING ION, VERMON ! 05401 100 YEARS Fax (802) 658-7665 CITY FIRE MARSHAL FIRE ALARM/SPRINKLER PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC INFORMATION .G EDUCATION INSPECTION SERVICES (802) 864-69'223 (802) 864-5577 Linda Seavey Date: 12/05/01 Director, UVIVI Campus Planning Services 109 So. Prospect St. Burlington, VT. 05405-0016 �uRLINGro,� FIRE - DEPT. (M (802) 865-7142 Re: Projected Impact to the Burlington Fire Department from the proposed New Parking Structure at Gutterson Field House Dear Ms. Seavey, The Fire Department has reviewed the project of the listed above. • The required fire alarm systems shall report all activations directly to the fire department. • Emergency response is not expected to have an impact on the departments call volume. • The structure may be required to have installed a supervised automatic Sprinkler system Sprinkler systems are designed to control the spread of fire and should not impact the fire department with regard to equipment or personnel. A standpipe system may also be required which shall lower the impact to the department with regard to equipment. • Water supply data for this area is over 12 years old. A report of the current water flows for this area must be completed before a determination can be made as to the availability of adequate water for suppression activities per NFPA 25. Based on the information received by the fire department. The department assesses that there should not be a major impact to the department. . Yours in P>ablic Safety, Christopher H. Gilbert Assistant Fire Marshal Cc: Mark EIdridge, Director Burlington Planning and Zoning Robert Pamode, Fire Chief Michael Bourdreau, Director, UVM A&E Services Michael Douglass, Ambling Project Manager Julia Nugent, Sasaki Architect Gary Margolis, UVM Police Services Gus Mastro, UVM Physical Plaut SMOKE DE -EC. CR5 A' D E RIE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES be 2"wa DEPARTNLNT OF POLICE SERVICES Gary J. !Margolis, Chief of Police November 12, 2001 Linda Seavey, Director Campus Planning Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 Dear Linda, We've reviewed the plans for the new student housing and Gutterson parking garage as requested. We expect to be adequately staffed to provide the requisite police services indicated necessary for approval of these projects. If we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us. Regards, 999 /F t r G-aryJ Magolis, FdD. Chief/Director of Police Services POLICE 234 East avenue, Lurung-con, eimorr 05�05-3461 Generai..80_ 636'-3 3 rnn __ ds ario802656-202i Fax i8= 6; _^ e-~Pncy: 911 = Tip ne: `8C'' 6j i -5- _ 6- :_ S Web: lug r u.uvn.edu/-ponce 1_/I2/Qi 15;14 UVM )ICE 6026568695 l�!0. vU16 ivy' . UVM Rescue 284 East Avenue Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 656-4287 To Linda Seavey, Direetur, Campus planning Services; 1, Jennifer King, Director of Operations of UVM Rescue, have revimed the plans for proposed Construction on catnpus and agree to maintain the following commitments as an advanced life supportzmbuiance: 1-) UVM Rescue will provide EMT and Ambulance response to the new facility as it ccurently does for the rest of campus. 2.) Should UVM Resouc be an another tail, the cunt arrangement for backup assistance will come from The appropriate ambulance ntxxt in line according to tht apFoved District #3 response lists_ please foci free to contact me with any other questions or concerns regarding this development plan, Sincerely, J if=A King Direttor of Ope ntions GARDCO PARKING LOT FIXTURE MODEL# (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-1-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-2-3-100MH-120-BRA-CD GARDCO 6" STRAIGHT SQUARE ALUMINUM POLE MODELS (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): SSA6- 0-D1-BRA-PCR rn I MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): SSA6-20-D2-BRA-PCR 7.1 FINISH: BRONZE ANODIZED 1 BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE GARDCO PARKING LOT FIXTURE MODEL# (SINGLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-1-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD MODEL# (DOUBLE CONFIGURATION): EB-19-2-3-10OMH-120-BRA-CD FINISH: BRONZE ANODIZED 9" 2'-5#0 UPARKING A 5 NOT TO SCALE I LUMINAIRE MODEL#: 100MH-L70-PC-FC-SE3-QTA/ 120-SFO-GN8TX-LMS12030A LUMEC ROUND ALUMINUM BOTTLENECK POLE POLE: AM6F-10-VP-GN8TX-LMS 12030A POLE HT. IS 10'-0" w z COLOR: UVM STANDARD (DARK GREEN) O COLOR #: GNBTX N O Z_ J ACCESS DOOR BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE r- FINISH GRADE m PEDESTRIAN LIGHT POLE (TYPE C NOT TO SCALE Of w z w 00 i� U) 0 z J 0 0 8» 0 CD R0 MODEL#: 175MH-L70-PC-FC-SE3-QTA/ 120-SFO-GN8TX-LMS12029A LUMEC ROUND ALUMINUM BOTTLENECK POLE POLE: LMS12029A-15-VP-GN8TX POLE HT. IS 15'-0" COLOR: UVM STANDARD (DARK GREEN) COLOR#: GNBTX ACCESS DOOR BASE COVER CONCRETE BASE FINISH GRADE WAY LIGHT POLE (TYPE C17 SCALE I CITY COUNCIL 15 SEPTEMBER 2003 PAGE 2 Mr. Hafter will be attending the International City Manager's Conference in Charlotte, N.C. next week. 4. Consideration of request from UVM for Landscape License Agreement to permit use of Spear St. right-of-way for placement of required landscaping as part of parking garage project: Mr. Penniman noted the request involves a 15 ft. landscape buffer along the property line. It was suggested that there could be a waiver for University property on Spear St. since existing trees are in the right-of-way, and they want to add more in that location. Mr. Penniman showed a plan with the location of the proposed landscaping. Adding 15 ft. of setback would costa whole row of parking. The proposed license agreement would require that UVM maintain the landscaping. Mr. Sheahan felt the plan makes sense. Mr. Hafter stressed that this agreement is for landscaping only and does not involve coverage requirements or anything else. Mr. Magowan moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a license agreement and hold harmless agreement with respect to placement of final landscaping plan as approved by the Development Review Board. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consideration of approval of FY 04 Municipal flan Grant Application for development of design guidelines for areas within Commercial -I District: Mr. Hafter said the application is for $11,000 for design guidelines for Shelburne Rd., I- 189 Intersection, Dorset St./Williston Rd. and Kennedy Drive/Dorset St. Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the application as presented. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consideration of Capital Equipment Dote for lire department computer network: Mr. Hafter said the note is for $15,000 at 2% for the first year. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Capital Equipment Note and accompanying resolutions. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 50AKD 1 APKIL 2003 PAGE 2 3. 5ketch Plan application #5P-03-13 of the University of Vermont for a Planned Unit Development consisting of a proposed 254,100 oq. ft. parking garage, 176,400 oq. ft. of which falls within the City of 5outh Burlington. The Subject property contains approximately 14.45 acres located on 5pear 5t. in 5outh Burlington. Mr. Dinklage said the major concern would be Screening for residential neighbors. MS. 5eavy said UVM plans to Oct up meetings with neighbors to address concerns. Ms. 5eavy indicated that a traffic Study would be provided at Preliminary Flat. Mr. Dinklage noted that the DR5 would also ask for an independent analysis. Mr. Kupferman asked how the need for this parking structure addresses present UVM conditions. Mr. Penniman said there would be changes that are not specific to this site. There will be 500 new beds at University Heights and additional housing at Redstone, There will also be an access opened up through to Frospect Street. The structure is important for special events parking. Mr. Dinklage stressed that the 5oard will want documentation of all potential uses for this facility. Mr. 5oucher asked how construction would work with the hospital construction going on. Mr. Penniman said they hoped the hospital would be finished when UVM starts. They also hope to complete the work in 1 construction season. Mr. Dinklage asked if UVM would still be serving the "satellite needs" such as Fletcher Allen. Mr. Fenniman said they anticipate that use would continue. Mr. Fenniman .Said they tend to stripe for parking at 5-1/2 feet and asked if that was OK. Mr. 5el3ir Said it was OK inside the structure but not outside the structure. Mr. Penniman added that they would also be rebuilding the existing parking lot aS part of this project. Mr. 5elair said they would need waivers for green space in front. Mr. 5elair added the city hoped for an extra 15 ft. of landscaping but that would cost a row of parking. Mr. Dinklage suggested looking at angled parking instead of straight in. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 Af RIL 2003 PAGE 3 Mr. Boucher then moved to invoke technical review of traffic at the applicant's expense, the scope of which io to be directed by staff. Mr. Farley Seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Plan Application #5P-03-06 and Conditional Use Application #CU-03-04 of Goss Dodge, Inc., for a 1200 Oq. ft. addition to an accessory structure at 1485 Shelburne Road to be used for appearance reconditioning of automobile product. The subject property contains 9.59 acres and falls within the Commercial 2 District: Mr. Hoar said he would be adding 20 ft. to the backside of the building. He had no issues with staff comments. The water line will be added to the plan. Staff, had no other issues. Mr. Boucher moved to approve Site Plan Application #5P-03-06 and Conditional Use Application #CU-03-04 of Goss Dodge, Inc., subject to the recommendations in the staff comments of 1 April 2003. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Revised Final Plat Application #51)-03-14 of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., for a one lot, 9 building Planned Unit Development on Shelburne Road. The amendment consists of modifications to the Lowe's site plan. The subject property contains 38.47 acres and io located in the Commercial 1 District. Portions of the property also fall within the Conservation and Open Space District and the Traffic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. Southland Enterprises, Inc., io the record owner of the property: Mr. Kupferman stepped down during this application due to a conflict of interest. Mr. White said the amendments represent changes in details resulting from other hearing processes. The project was originally approved in 1994-5. The plan also calls for some smaller buildings that will create a otreetocape on Fayette Road and a hotel behind the Chittenden Bank. Ms. Kuperomith asked about traffic. Mr. Dinklage explained how the traffic allocation works. 1 U ARE FOR NEIV 13, `�YnialY 1 I W i W odI•� V`✓1 C WIDEN EXISTING CORNER 6 AND RECONSTRUCT CURB ,.,I.RADIUS : 50." i P FIELD HOUSE PFG COMPLE)C NEW .NV F (� tao32 `. GUI B • ERSON - PLUG EXISTING V " 18' OUI�LET ` 4 ',...EY cB 'I 0 wl Z V cn -mSE RIM YW FIN. VGRADE J N,EW'-08/9 .5'A DMH 1' ' NEW CBy12:. . �' W I- 1 ... - F ,r. RIM-405.0 .. ��M^^!! (� Q /R _ a389.0- `. RIM 400.7 NEW '#, INV=400.0 �� ZO PLUG EXISTING I .INV-395,0 RIM.404.2 , V W Q 18 GU TL INV-t388:^} I'. - ..-. -: (- ,.,`� . (MATCH ExtsT.)', _ ' -RECONSTRUCTIONV1 �. r • '� _�i- • . L .i �J� NEW CBQ10 ` •� - (TYP.) �Q boa +t! 1•, BEC1N 10 _4 _ t.cI -4027- CURBSIT Nt�. -:, 1 = MH�2 DEPRESS D-� \' L ''r:-\r ` of ` -; CURBJ = ¢- N i �) � _. � tr -��' - "r •,.".r .---I-."r",...--_y ex NEW SMH4T7 - NFw RIM=403.3 RII4=394.0 r au�SS V-3387.1 4 LEVEL 1�V-,38 7. 4 940 -` �L-IIF(P ,��MErT) t (�t �s1 12^ ;8 IH•J 3 0.0 1 // I�• --^�-� / NEW CBge-�'" LW.J I f I i RIM.402.3 .y' _,y �� j, NEW TRENCH41 INV=388.5 ✓ 1}.:om �,._,. DRAIN ° a RIM�395.8 INV�393.1 - - r _ �RETE) �. - w•i (I , e I'•. :_:::. OMITS —A- OF TRANryTION r l l - V RECONSTRUCTION CuRB _ - \ NEW S'0 -�- N OMH/�3 (�) �R ru#13-,: 1 A �'. A - MV-379.0 - I RIM �l ,w , ' NEW'CBIy18 l__'-'-'"i'�.�---- A'� iVI 1 /i / irl : o: 8" VAA �. NEW WH,F2.. RIMe398.8 W .. IN - I _ _.. h x NM'� % �� �_ ...-'-'• (MATCH EXIST.), F �!f J �o CT ' L _ y NEW TRENCH / III//. 1 l Zg�e o� FInGO� Lv+ 'NEWOILSEPARATOR N"1 1 LEv EL RI A�395. 1. I e B --,-,. T +r . - \ \ y�\\ : �� AND PUMP" STATION _ - rZ I SECOND\ _iC- \ j� t (SEE DETAIL) _ - 1 INV 393.1 _ ,� .. B a) -+ ' i r (PAVEMENT) .1T.- w \ \ _ VAIN _ - s n —" \ , g. RIM-3t330� - _ - \ cc t I -- - 70N, � NEW TRENc1� � \ \ \ '�� .:r •- DRAIN f)3 \ CRT_ ss-- �.:.-1 �.`-r "- SECOND LEVEL,AfY 3d3,�0 '- r 11T"rYl)RLIN N S ( - OITO EC IN 3918 INy-379.0 ! �- S1A (PAVEMENT) I : �_ ..� ,� NEWDS �nem rn 1 -, �� tEI_ \ ,;, _ 1..\ ` \ / /. -� e ,..RETAINING). i NEW :. RIJ DMH 8 R,M.:Nee L H�MAX, � (GON[.t.c,�, '�' � \ r � iBvsJess �. 1 (/ NEW -TRENCH RiN=384:'Z aeBe-- i� ` ( ) `. {c1+ w BRAIN 14 : v �n-:.c.�z a \� \ \ \ \' '�,. \, ��- t-`�� 1 , r. MATCH EXIST.._ L��lEL1` 1� INV=382.� ,\ NV 38L0\ �\ it \, �. \` \- \ �. -_.tea Y ✓T 75^S FIRST - - _ - El! TALNCH LIMITS OF RELCI'ATE @RAIN q5 \. '1' RECONSTRUO710N. \ D VIEW CR.120- OM IF V i82.g �' NEG S5.1RY �. _ F I 12 RIM�384,0 F NEW C _ IJMITS 0F _ 4 .AECONSTwucmoN �• ' - .. 1yp) i , INV.380.9 FIRST LEVELS - ERY.�e - -- -- - VEMENT) �\ vats- ... - - - _ _ _ S �3 - PAS g STREET Je �i _ No. DATE- . ..�.. ,.. - REVISION SPFtiR - - _ _ :. { u PARKING SrrE DRAWING TITLE PLAN :. U,. .. - __ .. _ 1 - -' -- o I 1 - DRAWING IJO. , i I ... t GRAPHIC-SCALS - - „ ` C4 I , 1. 1' , i -� - i I _ i ( I - t . SCALE: i "=SG' . yaq - _,..- DATE: 12/28/01 I TI -.: 1 1noCa�Pt•- �- i , I ',( - �� ._ i PROJECT N0. 01300 00 ------------ DESIGN DRAWN I CH'K0. SAV I MJW L SAV MEMORANDUM To: Juli Beth Hoover, Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington From: Roger Dickinson, P.E., PTOE Re: U %TM South Campus Master Plan - Draft Traffic Impact Study Date: November 26, 2003 As requested, we have reviewed the May 2003 Draft Traffic Impact Study prepared by Resource Systems Group (RSG) for The University of Vermont. Our review also includes RSG's October 24th Memorandum to Susan Smichenko of the CCMPO. The following outlines our questions and comments concerning the projected traffic impacts of the South Campus Master Plan. 1. Figure 4, pg. 10: It is worth noting that two years of AADT data are now available for CTC D099 on I-189 since this figure was originally prepared. The AADT's for both 2001 and 2002 indicate an actual background traffic growth rate of 0.5% for those two years instead of the estimated 1.2%. 2. Figures 5 & 6, pp 11-12: The estimated 2004 and 2009 no -build traffic volumes shown appear to include only the 2.2% annual background growth. It is not readily apparent to us where Fletcher Allen's Renaissance Project traffic has been added in. 3. Trip Generation, pg. 13: The pm peak hour trip calculation methodology and resulting estimates appear reasonable. 4. Figures 8-11 & Table 5, pp. 17-21: Comparing Access Alternative 1 vs. Access Alternative 2 (Fig. 8 vs. Fig. 10 and Fig. 9 vs. Fig.11), there are large changes in several turning movements, (e.g. the EB LT out of Gutterson North onto Spear St.) which do not make a lot of sense. Similarly, the net changes shown in Table 5 do not match the volumes shown in Fig. 8-11. Because of this, we have not checked the volumes input into the capacity analyses. We would prefer that the foregoing volumes be verified by RSG prior to performing that step. 5. Cut -Through Traffic, pg 22-26: Table 6 shows four cut -through possibilities. We believe that there is also a fifth; SBR Spear/Gutterson to WBL Prospect/Redstone. This represents a potential cut -through route for traffic exiting Fletcher Allen and UVM onto East Avenue heading southbound towards Shelburne Road. We are also not able to clearly track the trips shown in Fig. 12-15 for the fourth possibility; NBR Prospect/Redstone to Spear. Are those headed left on Spear or right? The figures indicate the latter, which seems illogical. 6. Congestion Analysis, pp 34-39: We have two major questions concerning the level of service analyses at the major intersections. The first concerns pedestrians crossing at the Main Street / University Heights intersection, and whether or not the analyses take this into account. The second concerns the lane utilization of multiple lanes along the Main Street / Williston Road corridor. For example, the eastbound through lanes at the Main St./Spear St. intersection have been coded in as two exclusive through lanes plus a combed through/right-turn lane. For that coding, the Highway Capacity Manual applies a 0.90 lane utilization factor; which basically says that the volume in any one of the three lanes can vary by ±10%. Our Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. C Memorandum November 26, 2003 Page 2 observations of traffic flow along this corridor indicate that this historically has not been the case. This is due to several factors; the large percentage of traffic lining up to get onto I-89 being a major one. It has been our experience that the lane utilization significantly affects actual delays and queue lengths, and recommend that this be reexamined. 7. Signal Warrant Analysis, pp 39-40: The MUTCD requires that signal warrants be evaluated using average weekday volumes, not design hour volumes. For this reason, the conclusion that the peak hour volume warrant is satisfied at the Spear St./Gutterson North intersection should be reexamined. It should be noted, that in comparing Table 11 to Table 9, Access Alternative 2 provides very significant level of service benefits at this intersection. We believe that Access Alternative 2 could well avoid the need to signalize this intersection. 8. Safety Analysis, pg. 40: Our primary concern relative to safety is the lack of any discussion in the traffic study relative to pedestrian movement along Spear Street and/or of crossings at key intersections. While the pedestrian movements generated by UVM are primarily contained within their campus, external movements do occur to and from local shopping destinations in South Burlington, and also clustered around major sporting events at the Gutterson complex. Will the Spear Street corridor study be addressing this issue? P:\2002\02_001 \review memo.wpd Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. q �3-=-- / � , //�//% 111� I� � / � / a/ t \ \.J- � ' \ \ T` �/•- \ / ( -��'' � Q,� a9' /.y ,G� i+i // - /'��//////,.// `\ 1 % /p / _ _ -'�( \ ,�'��. (\�,},�/ dam` o °' '' �t. / _ \�-. .//% ,/ •• ZZ \\\ ` � ��/,�, I11 ,II a�// �� I � �1" __ __ � alp � � r } "`) � ••/, , 11=/:`�=- ' \ '// Lr. !o' 1 i \ � II I�+a - _ _ _ �` _ � I �� - - 1 / o '\ � I / I) , �, • C„) W to i,Q 0 1\ ( / �• o `� gs i -- / i' / / / i' / ' -' ¢C�/I �' JU) rg cd I I crLMTit \\ \ \\��� �� •ate , / _i r , / (lit /`ll o�-` / II t + � \ \ \@ II\III i 1 1 / / _ \ 1 ' // �$I M><.L►S -•� � � , \ r� �, /9 , � \ ♦ \ � \1\\\\ _ II 11 i-_-- `�/ / � I � / \ \ � ' `/ ' \ i` i-l\NVI11\ 1 \' `1_.. T. j '. � �,� / � \ 0.9 �- \.�.-.\-r it � / 1 fi•'w' - ' � I\111111,P _ " =� -=jam l 't, » ---- ; \ �,m...�..c.F••- _- ' , .�� ( ( � I PI1\'\III\\\\ \ i`----- -- --�_ _t ' \ �,• ' '! _ / �-�_y--=- - =-� r - ���� o/ - /� `�\ � o 1 // � �\1\Ii,1\\ \`� � •ir=- -'- - �f I I I ' !� , _ ";ice' r r`-- � \�i 1 i o ,- ' /� \\ I -1/`.` '_9 _--- r Lam' �\Y ��� + g1=CdJDL�VEI` � _ - } � ,If ,n ,_ i � _ _` �'"' oi_w=�-"--- -�- —t-•-- ^-����r-\�-- _--_-o- -_--_'� 11" I I \I d ' I- ��— -•— l _S`, -__I \�=`=i =__ _ = = = _ iII\�\\ FIR3 LEVEL 1' ' ' T� _ — a'-GiFAP�IIE SCI1LEr - - - _ ' 'moo ' N0. DATE By -7` / /, ,\ \\\� / `' J ..► - �_i ' _ - �'' _ _ IIs - DRAWING TITLE ovERALL / r / / II I, \\\� \_ LEVELC f �► r - - - _ y =,;' _ : s - - �-_ — _ ,' - - _ _ - - , , 9 �` - ' t a) .' - \ _ i ' PROPOSED CONDITIONS �� 'r/'�„ --'\\ 1 •�► z- r f g .�6a-a- '�-_�?: STREET - `-. i'_i.� - �`\ -' Igtt' - - '-'' /' PLAN _�_ .. o \ t I�/ I /�.�b, "\ - _� _; \\• 1\\\\\ ( / DRAWING NO. r �o / J% f ii•:,-_=_ -1�..�-sw�`- \ - - _ -�"" 0 0 1 I I^1 • o i I` ` /(/' , / / -o^ \ _ �'4I'w 1+ I I\`\\ ` ' - - (' `' - - - _ - , - _t. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ I, O j1 \ 1 11 - _ _ ,'A, _ - ' J1 _ - •w •/�� _ / \'� r/' ^ ;' �' SCALE: t'-50• -I DATE: 10/28/03 i �� 01\ \\ �\'\ T^'�.••_- I \ 11 \ (� I i 9Nf \�Oh'\I I (P•JQ'' 11 0 ���w\\\__-���� PROJECT NO. 01300.00 o •0 1 - I t /1 / I i • 'r '' f -- `l lj `/ ' 1 \ ` _ - ' i \ ' i DESIGN DRAWN CN KD. 1 i 1 ' , 1 ` ' ' SAV MJW SAV CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number — SD 03-13 APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): UNIVERSITY of VERMONT 109 Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): Within this subdivison lot there are three records of deeds: • Northern portion — Mary Fletcher Hospital Tract, 1891: • Volume 31, Page 168 in City of Burlington — June 3, 1891 • Volume 3, Pages 165-166 in City of South Burlington — June 23, 1891 • Middle portion — Buell Tract, 1921: • Volume 74, Page 549 in City of Burlington — July 6, 1921 • Southern portion — Brownell Tract, 1923: • Volume 83, Page_570 in City of Burlington — October 24, 1923 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) UNIVERSITY of VERMONT 109 Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) Linda Seavev, UVM Director, Camaus Plannina Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 97 Spear Street (changed from 147 Spear Street per Burlington Department of Public Works) TAX PARCEL ID# (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): Number 1810-00000 N and Number 1810-00799 N. 'ROJECT DESCRIPTION: Refer to Attachment I: UVM — Gutterson Parking Garage 'roject Description for further details. a) Existing Uses on property (include description and size of each separate use): Same institutional parking. b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Same institutional parking uses to remain along with additional parking provided _b_y/construction of parking decks. c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): Existing building footprint square footage is approximately 7,248 SF. The proposed parking structure adds 55,988 square footage footprint for a total of 63,236 SF (footprint). All levels of square footage of the proposed parking facility is estimated at a total of 254,100 gross square feet with 176,400 gross square feet within the City of South Burlington. d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): Total building height will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair tower measured from the finished grade of the lower level. All levels will be at the respective current ground levels, utilizing the topography to create a tiered parking garage without extensive ramps. e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): not applicable. f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non - office employees): not applicable g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): As indicated in the project description, the University is requesting a waiver/variance to construct parking spaces at 8.5 feet wide for long-term parking to maximize utilization of the space and mitigate the use of open space. NOTE: The City of Burlington has accepted this waiver in its permit approval of the project. All utilities, such as, electric, water, sewer, storm water and public services such as, police and fire will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University. All electrical and stormwater utility lines will be underground. Additionally, refer to Burlington municipal letters (Burlington Public Works, Burlington Electric Department, Burlington Police Department and Burlington Fire Department) for confirmation of capacity and approval. h) List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc.: Not applicable. 8) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing_ 1.18 ____% Proposed 10.31_._ % This assumes that the existing parking lot is now covered by the new parking structure, thereby reducing the parking lot coverage and increasing the building lot coverage within the subdivision boundaries. The completion of the UVM Athletic Field Improvement project will not change the building coverage at this lot. b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc.): Existing 37.21 % Proposed 38.57 % This represents less than .20 acres of increased lot coverage primarily due to covering the existing parking lot "berms." c) Front yard (along each street): Existing % Proposed % There is no change to the buffer green belt between Spear Street and the exterior parking lot to the east of Spear Street as a result of this project and the Athletic Field Improvement Project. 9) COST ESTIMATES — Estimated total cost of $9,000,000 with $6,000,000 within South Burlington. a) Building (including interior renovations): $ $6,000,000 b) Landscaping: $ 310,000 , includes replacement lighting ($260,000) to upgrade to the UVM standards for parking lots for the existing surface lot to the south of this facility. c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): All included above 10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC — REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out): refer to traffic impact study. 11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: — REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. 12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: -- REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — RESOURCE SYSTEMS Traffic Impact Study, May 2003. 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: December 31, 2004 14) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the final plat application (see Exhibit A). I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSSION: I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: /Complete a ,Incomplete Director of Planning & Zoning or Designee Date SBurl - Gutterson Final Plat-#1 ver1 - 9/15/03 The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES September 16, 2003 South Burlington Planning Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Attn: Juli Beth Hoover, Director, Planning & Zoning Department RE: UVM Gutterson Parking Facility — UVM Athletic Campus 97 Spear Street (changed from 147 Spear Street) Dear Juli Beth: The University of Vermont is submitting a permit application — Application for Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat Review for the Gutterson Parking Facility. As you are aware, this project is located in both the cities of South Burlington and Burlington. The University has already completed the City of Burlington process and received a permit for the project in 2002. At that time, the project was put on hold until other issues had been resolved. The University is now ready to complete the permitting process in order to begin construction in anticipation of parking needs given future project plans. As a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the University has interpreted the subdivision boundaries to be UVM owned contiguous lands. The subdivision boundaries are bounded by Burlington Country Club to the south, Spear Street to the east, UVM owned property in Burlington to the west, and Main Street to the north. A brief synopsis of the project follows: Gutterson Parking Facility Project — The University is proposing to construct a new parking facility (estimated at 254,100 gross square feet) located on the north end of the existing Gutterson surface parking lots within the boundaries of both the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. The proposed project will accommodate 765 existing spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of Patrick Gymnasium and west of Spear Street. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of the facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design will utilize the advantages of the tiered topography, thereby eliminating the need to build extensive ramp construction. It will be handicapped accessible on all tiers without the need for elevator systems. All utilities and public services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University, such as electric, water, sewer, storm water, fire and police. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to Main Street and Spear Street with limited exiting through Spear Street (refer to Overall Plan Drawing #1, dated 7/18/03). The only exiting allowed to Spear Street will be the eastern most or lower level and the Marsh -Austin -Tupper and Harris -Millis parking lots 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Telephone (802) 656-3208, Fax (802) 656-8895 I (ptA ( )pportunit� 7 �fIIim ttiar A,tion Fmph>rci #', that have traditionally exited to Spear Street. All others will have to exit through University Heights Road to Main Street. Refer to Attachment I — UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION for a more complete description of the project. PROJECT PURPOSE: Primarily to meet the needs of the additional parking requirements of the new student housing projects proposed at University Heights and Redstone Campus. At Sketch Plan Review (April 1, 2003), the Development Review Board authorized the University's traffic consultants, Resource Systems Group, Inc., to meet directly with the City of South Burlington's traffic consultants regarding the amended traffic study. A meeting has been scheduled to present the revised traffic study reflecting the one-way circulation with the City of South Burlington traffic consultants in early October 2003. With this application the University is also requesting: • Conditional use approval; • Waiver to construct the parking space width of 8.5 feet to maximize open space; and • Front 15 feet landscape waiver *. * The South Burlington City Council on 9/15/03 passed a motion authorizing Chuck Hafter, the City Manager, to execute an appropriate landscape license agreement for those plantings within the Spear Street right-of-way and final landscape plan as approved by the Development Review Board. Please find attached the Application for Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plat Review and site plans with requisite attachments. Upon your receipt and review of the attached materials, please provide a written response that your office considers this application complete. Should you have any outstanding issues not addressed in the attached materials, please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely, r Linda Seavey UVM Director, Campus Planni' g Services Attachments: South Burlington Final Plat Application Fee - $510.00 Application for Preliminary/Final Plat Review — Gutterson Parking Facility Exhibit A — Final Plat Attachment I: UVM — Gutterson Parking Facility Project Description Attachment ll: List of Abutters and Addresses Ability to Serve Letters — BPW, BED, BPD, BFD, UVM Police Services, UVM Rescue University Standard Lighting Cut Sheets (4 pages) Resource Systems Group, Inc. Executive Summary Traffic Study, May 2003 Building & Site Plan Set: - 5 full size sets and 1 set of 11" x 17" Overall Plan - 1, dated 7/18/03 Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street to 233 Spear Street, dated 6/25/03 Ortho Photo Plan — C1A, dated 12/28/01 Horizontal Control Overall Plan — CON1, dated 12/28/01 Horizontal Control Partial Plan — CON2, dated 12/28/01 Existing Conditions & Soil Boring Plan — SB-1, dated 12/28/01 Overall Existing Conditions Plan — C1, dated 12/28/01 Overall Proposed Conditions Plan — C2, dated 12/28/01 Parking Structure Plan — C4, dated 12/28/01 Water and Sewer Details — C5, dated 12/28/01 Sewer and Drainage Details — C6, dated 12/28/01 Drainage and Roadway Details — C7, dated 12/28/01 Specifications — C8, dated 12/28/01 Specifications — C9, dated 12/28/01 Erosion Control Plan — C10, dated 12/28/01 Erosion Control Details/Specifications — C11, dated 12/28/01 Landscape Plan — L-1, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Site Sections — A-2, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Elevations — A-3, dated 1/31/02 (revised) Third Level Plan — A101, dated 1/31/02 Second Level Plan — A102, dated 1/31/02 First Level Plan — A103, dated 1/31/02 Kim Lighting Photometric Plan, dated 1/10/02 Gutterson Cover-sburl Final Plat-9-16-03 EXHIBIT A GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE FINAL PLAT The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. If submitting a final plat amendment, please submit only pertinent information. Please provide (on separate sheet) a list of all abutters to the project property and mailing addresses. • Complete survey of property by a licensed land surveyor drawn to scale (20 ft. is preferred). Refer to Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Name, license number, seal, and contact number of licensed land surveyor & date prepared. Refer to Burlington/South Burlington Citv Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Survey data (acreage, property lines, zoning boundaries, watercourse, base flood elevation, etc.). Refer to Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Location of easements, public land, r.o.w.s, sidewalks, and public or private street (w/names). Refer to Burlington/South Burlington City Line from Main Street South to 233 Spear Street, dated June 25, 2003 • Five foot contours (existing and finished). Refer to Site Plan C-1 and C-4 • Location and size of any existing sewers (including septic tanks) and water mains, culverts and drains on the property to be subdivided. Refer to Site Plan C-1 • Location, names, and widths of existing and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks, and other public open spaces. Refer to Site Plan C-1 and C-4 • Numerical and graphical scale, date last revised, and north arrow. Located on all plans • Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative water supply. Refer to Site Plan on C-1 and C-4 • Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provisions for on -site disposal of septic wastes. Not Applicable • Details of storm water facilities in the form of a drainage plan. Refer to Site Plan CA will show East Campus Stormwater Treatment & Collection Facility at presentation. • Details of all proposed bridges or culverts. Refer to Site Plan C-4 • Location of temporary markers. Not Applicable • All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and associated conditions. Not Applicable • A list of waivers desired (if any). Parking space waiver — 8.5 ft width and 15' front landscape waiver • Development timetable (including number of phases and start and completion dates). May 2004 — December 2004 (one phase) • A report addressing planned residential/unit development criteria of the Zoning Regulations. Not Applicable • Proposed landscaping schedule (number, variety and size). Refer to Landscape Plan L-1 • Location of abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping. Attached list to application — Attachment II • Number and location of parking spaces (see Section 26.25 of the Zoning Regulations). Refer to Site Plan A101 • Number and location of handicapped spaces (see Section 26.253(a) of the Zoning Regulations). Refer to Site Plan A101 • Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard. Included in application • Exterior lighting details (cut sheets). All lights should be downcasting and shielded. Refer to attached Kim Lighting Photometric Plan, dated 1/10/02, A-3, and attached cut sheets of University cut off lighting fixtures. Dumpster locations (dumpsters must be screened). Will install suitable receptacles in garage pedestrian entrances. Bicycle rack as required under Section 26.253(b) of the Zoning Regulations. Will place moveable bike racks as needed as part of overall bike rack location plan on -campus. If restaurant is proposed, provide number of seats and square footage of floor area provided for patron use but not containing fixed seats. Not Applicable APPLICATION FEE Final Plat Application $510.00 * Includes $10.00 recording fee. Attachment II GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE List of all Abutters and Mailing Addresses University owned properties to the north, west, and south. All others are publicly or privately owned Spear Street neighbors that abut UVM properties as follows: Pamela Storey & James Thompson Armin Grams Frederick & Patricia Cianci 74 Spear Street 134 Spear Street 188 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Marcella Peden, Trustee Walter & Nancy Antos, Trustees Rebecca Blodgett 82 Spear Street 140 Spear Street 210 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Cornelius J. Carr Ronald & Radetta Nemcosky George Passage, Jr. 88 Spear Street 148 Spear Street 220 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Gerald & Patricia Divincenzo John Lucas Hauman Dieter Gump, Trustee 96 Spear Street 156 Spear Street 226 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Joann P. Nielson City of South Burlington Mary & Jan Rozendaal 100 Spear Street 160 Spear Street 233 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Garth & Clara Peterson, Trustees Tommy & Monica Devino Elizabeth Orr 106 Spear Street 168 Spear Street 234 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Peter & Sylvia Tousley Khoi & Catherine Nguyen Kathie Desautels 112 Spear Street 170 Spear Street 238 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Albert & Ruth Reynolds Mitchell & Sonja Hinsdale Burlington Country Club 126 Spear Street 184 Spear Street 568 South Prospect Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Burlington, VT 05401 CITY OF SOUTH � BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONiiNG 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 William H. Nedde III Krebs & Lansing 164 Main Street, Suite 201 Colchester, VT 05446 Re: March -Austin -Tupper Storm Pipe Replacement at UVM Dear Mr. Nedde: This is in response to your letter of August 7, 2003 regarding the above referenced matter. We have reviewed the plan for this pipe replacement with Public Works Director Bruce Hoar and it is our opinion that no permits or approvals are necessary from the City. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ^- Ra��on J., elair Administrative Officer cc: Bruce Hoar KREBS & LANSING Consulting Engineers, Inc. August 7, 2003 Ray Belair City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Marsh -Austin -Tupper Storm Pipe Replacement University of Vermont Dear Ray: 164 Main Street Suite 201 Colchester, VT 05446 Telephone (802) 878-0375 Fax (802) 878-9618 Please find enclosed a rough sketch of a storm pipe upgrade and replacement adjacent to Marsh, Austin & Tupper Residence Halls at the University of Vermont. The University is proposing to complete the work this year and would like a determination from your office that a City permit is not required. This work is very similar to the water line upgrade completed between Main Street and Marsh, Austin & Tupper this spring. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Since 1 L William H. Nedde III WHN/sbh enclosure cc: Bob Vaughan Ken Bean Linda Seavey Bob Penniman 03150:betair I i / I MARSH HALL 4 u9t 0 \ \ \ \m J v I \ ' \ HMCHI \ \ RAn JB9 51 ew CB RLC /nr out 3MJ4 (49'� Naw ----- ti. \ \ 1 \I \ \ I \ \ i w W \ \ \ , Y bQ7ch f �\ 1 17717 4 Jy , •. HMMH� l l f Rim 396f27 / l �' /nr!/n J90.84/ 01 Inv in nqa�? MILLS HALL /J. out 38�30 12' pp43 A / I 'S v? � I \ �95. �8 � !( ?V383Js (12) i i 1 /9VK 0 Jh32P l�4 w)� Removes on — I replace existing } catch basin, HW81 ! New CB HMCBIA Rim 389.5 i I Inv. in 3B5 (30 In v, out AT 0 4 } / fly; '-i-HMSUHC / Rim 393.90 / /n✓. In -W..82 (NW) Inv In JW..82 (SW) l /nv. out JW..82 J I RIM M-W..66 I i %n r. in 377.35 (12 I /iir. in J7391 JO's ! i /,7 : out J7408 (JO-) 12" / I Al v in 37r�4 0 t/— (NEW) I / i Core\o_ nd boot new / ( ' \,penetration HMSMIHB h jt (Tlm J87.46 rp� in 381.88 (W) i to Spear Street /n r in 380.63 (S) i //Tr out J80.63 t� I p I y, f�v Ri�3B2.16 I } { I (! Inv. Tin 377.0J (24 ) Gout I I far. 374 V (JO \ ! { tf { i 0' 30' 60' BAR SCALE 1' = ,To• UNIVERSITY of VERMONT M�1 University of Vermont AIMCARIL 1, ora+�nc sus 64 uWWmSITv HEIGHTS BURl1NCI0N, VERMONNf 05105-0016 (B�) 656-3191 Consultonte GRVII, ENGINEER Bteba ;Iatsin¢Caeultin¢ Eomueere. IWOWOrHted remrefeom men-vcre mernrarrow.mc, r+m.rr the �YYX`(Ylcaay a.. a.. —sue crtrnn s tw.Arw.ao'. — ^r" — cwu.y uavann r.yv . i n snr a..mr n,nr i 7,[ mmv ,eo.r T Mr Project No. 02177.2 Scale +' - 70' Drawn by ME Checked by Mh Date en/w Revisions Drawing Title 720' Stormwater A Improvements Drawing No. ST-1 i CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 May 7, 2003 UVM Campus Planning Department Linda 5eavey 109 Prospect Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Ike: University of Vermont Dear Mo. 5eavey: Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the April 1, 2003 Development Review Board meeting. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. 5incerel :;' Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOAKD 1 APRIL 2003 The 5outh Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 2003, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset 5t. Members Present: J. Dinklage, Chair, R. Farley, G. Quimby, L. Kupferman, M. Boucher, M. KuperSmith Aloo Present: K. Belair, Administrative Officer, 5. Fortier, J. 5chulman, M. 5ienkevich, 5. Penniman, G. Gassen, C. Holehu, L. Bresee, L. 5eavy, A 5enecal, P. O'Leary, D. Hoar, D. White, R. Jess, L. Yankowski Mr. Dinklage opened the meeting by welcoming new Board member Michelle KuperSmith. 1. Review Minutes of 5 November 2002 and 18 March 2003: M5. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 5 November 2002 as written. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion pa55ed 4-0 with Mr. Dinklage and MS. KuperSmith abstaining. Ms. Quimby moved to approve the Minutes of 18 March a5 written. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Kupferman and Ms. KuperSmith abstaining. 2. 5ketch Plan Application #50-03-12 of the University of Vermont for a Planned Unit Development consisting of a proposed 81,400 aq. ft. athletic field with artificial turf, 15,400 Sot. ft. of which falls within the City of South Burlington. The subject property contains approximately 14.43 acres located on 5pear Street in South Burlington. The South Burlington portions of the property are located in the Institutional & Agricultural District: Ms. 5eavy Said UVM would provide all needed information at preliminary plat. They will also Submit a conditional use application for the height of the lights along with details. MS. 5eavy indicated that they do not anticipate any added use of the parking Structure from the athletic field. They will, however, request a landscaping waiver. The City Engineer's comments will be addressed at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Dinklage said the internal connection to University Heights i5 appreciated. No other issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 APRIL 2003 PAGE 2 3. Sketch Plan application #5P-03-13 of the University of Vermont for a Planned Unit Development consisting of a proposed 254,100 15q. ft. parking garage, 176,400 sq. ft. of which falls within the City of South Burlington. The subject property contains approximately 14.43 acres located on Spear St. in South Burlington, Mr. Dinklage said the major concern would be screening for residential neighbors. Me. Seavy said UVM Plano to set up meetings with neighbors to address concerns. Ms. Seavy indicated that a traffic study would be provided at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Dinklage noted that the DRB would also ask for an independent analysis. Mr. Kupferman asked how the need for this parking structure addresses present UVM conditions. Mr. Penniman said there would be changes that are not specific to this site. There will be 800 new beds at University Heights and additional housing at Redstone. There will also be an access opened up through to Prospect Street. The structure is important for special events parking. Mr. Dinklage stressed that the Board will want documentation of all potential uses for this facility. Mr. Boucher asked how construction would work with the hospital construction going on. Mr. Penniman said they hoped the hospital would be finished when UVM starts. They also hope to complete the work in 1 construction season. Mr. Dinklage asked if UVM would still be serving the "satellite needs" such as Fletcher Allen. Mr. Penniman said they anticipate that use would continue. Mr. Penniman .said they tend to stripe for parking at 8-1/2 feet and asked if that was OK. Mr. Belair said it was OK inside the structure but not outside the structure. Mr. Penniman added that they would also be rebuilding the existing parking lot as part of this project. Mr. Belair said they would need waivers for green space in front. Mr. Belair added the city hoped for an extra 15 ft. of landscaping but that would cost a row of parking. Mr. Dinklage suggested looking at angled parking instead of straight in. k' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 AFRIL 2003 PAGE 3 Mr. Boucher then moved to invoke technical review of traffic at the applicant's expense, the scope of which io to be directed by staff, Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Ilan Application #5F-03-06 and Conditional Use Application #CU-03-04 of Goss Dodge, Inc., for a 1200 6q. ft. addition to an accessory structure at 1485 Shelburne Road to be used for appearance reconditioning of automobile product. The subject property contains 9.39 acres and falls within the Commercial 2 District: Mr. Hoar said he would be adding 20 ft. to the backside of the building. He had no issues with staff comments. The water line will be added to the plan. Staff had no other issues. Mr. Boucher moved to approve 5ite flan Application #5F-03-06 and Conditional Use Application #CU-03-04 of Goss Dodge, Inc., subject to the recommendations in the staff comments of 1 April 2005. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Revised Final flat Application #51)-03-14 of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., for a one lot, 9 building Manned Unit Development on 5helburne Road. The amendment consists of modifications to the Lowe's site plan. The subject property contains 38.47 acres and io located in the Commercial 1 District. Portions of the property also fall within the Conservation and Open Space District and the Traffic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. Southland Enterprises, Inc., io the record owner of the property: Mr. Kupferman stepped down during this application due to a conflict of interest. Mr. White said the amendments represent changes in details resulting from other hearing processes. The project was originally approved in 1994-5. The plan also calls for some smaller buildings that will create a streetocape on Fayette Road and a hotel behind the Chittenden Bank. Ms. Kuperomith asked about traffic. Mr. Dinklage explained how the traffic allocation works. 148 Spear Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 May 1.2, 2003 John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Reference: Quarry Hill Development Dear John: RECEIVED MAY 13 2003 City of So. Burlington We live on Spear Street directly across from Gutterson Field House. There has been a lot of talk in the neighborhood concerning the traffic which the referenced development will generate. Our neighborhood association SETNA ( Spear East Terrace Neighborhood Association) steering committee is made up exclusively of East Terrace residents. I feel that they should call the association ETNA since only East Terrace is represented. Concerning the traffic generated by the new development, the ETNA folks would naturally prefer that all ingress/egress be via Spear Street to keep their street a dead end as it is presently. My wife and 1 feel that when new development occurs in our city, the City of South Burlington should complete independent traffic studies as the guiding rule for the ingress/egress traffic rather than let politics and neighborhood lobbying be the rule. if this were the case, the new Quarry Hill Development residents, the Quarry Hill Road residents, the East Terrace residents, the Spear Street residents as well as all motorists who use the affected roads would be treated with fairness. John, will the Development Review Board require or recommend that the City conduct independent traffic studies so that all the affected residents will be treated fairly? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ronald Nemcosky /lam- ca� Radetta Nemeosky South Burlington Street Department SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05403 TEL: (802) 658-7961 South Burlington Design Review Board 575 Dorset St South Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Board Members: OFFICE 104 LANDFILL RD 11 /24/03 I am writing regarding the landscaping for the Gutterson Parking facility at UVM. I have reviewed the most recent planting schedule with the UVM Arborist and agree the plan is acceptable. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, v701 K- Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist Cc: Ray Belair, Julie Beth Hoover, Bob Peniman, Rose Leland MEMO South Burlington Planning & Zoning To: City Council, Chuck Hafter 1116 tchtd— UM 0 n �20 From: Juli Beth Hoover, AICP � " j Director of Planning & Zoning RE: University of Vermont Parking Garage Use of City Right -of -Way for Landscaping and Front Yard Coverage Date: September 9, 2003 cc: Ray Belair On Monday Bob Penniman from UVM will be requesting City Council's assent for the University to utilize the City's right-of-way along Spear Street in its pending application to the Development Review Board for a new parking garage. Under the Land Development Regulations, the new garage must meet the requirement that no more than 30% of the front yard of the affected lot be covered with impervious surfaces. In this case, the Spear Street side of UVM's property is the front yard for zoning purposes. UVM also must meet the minimum landscaping requirement for the garage project based on a percentage of total construction cost. To meet these two requirements, UVM has asked that they be allowed to "count" the City's right-of-way along Spear Street as part of its front yard, so that there is more green space along the road to help meet the coverage limit, and to be allowed to put some of its required landscaping within the right-of-way. Staff and the DRB do not have any problems with this proposal. The limitations on the University's land along Spear Street make it a logical approach to development of the site. The DRB simply needs to know, before it makes its decision on the merits and details of the application, that City Council has cleared the University to incorporate the right-of-way in this manner. ■ ,�� �'Ina— .�� lai 1*T — ` 1, r. •, r. . �� l ��.�+� ►"'mil y - rT uw rev ,v..e, The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT __�--- UVM University of Vermont B GZON ARCHTEenk Gi m s umn oP SO 64 UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS gURmGTON, UUWIT 05405-0016 (802) 656-3291 1 Consultants CIVIL ENGINEER LreM k /mot l>mal�t &WgeaM ]n(,' Wrsted rsa r••• su..r ryo�s-mrJ� sus-sa,e Y 1 ; vim. � ' � %� •(' 1 r�l� � ,:,.r. — -1 • `� • /f//lfll q, � � i � ■ ��'' ►� �� iw ' .F # �" I _ 'II III o ■) ■ I'�I � � 1i � � ■ Jolr lel 71r ' *` �� `i ,I Q ■ it ,*'J � .� � �- s'����/�/� � / � � • .— MIN M- Date 7/18/D3 Revisions No. Date —T—. � Al Drawing Title - Parking Demand Catamount Parking Lot 145 sp es Current On-S Livin&I-aming Replacement 126 spaces University Heights Parking Lot 93 sp es University Heights Catamount/Redstone Apartments 145 spaces Living/Leaming & North Quad 51 spaces Drawing No. Buildings 1-9 99 spaces University Heights @ 0.3/bed 248 spaces South Quad Handicap Parking 7 spaces spaces 40 spaces Total 19 spaces on street Parking — I • i Vaces Subtotalspaces Subtotal 186 spaces Gutterson Structured Parking •. r. Total 519 spaces —Livingdearning 126_spaces -- W{tLr+l iTotal 312 spaces . _ . �, ,.. ':, � � r 4' �i � � ♦ .7 .tea `�.... r •' , 7 Orr 7 7Y'l y�10 , { �y� a T V vNI ! , i v x RICKO£ MPi.451Uh :x. .ts qq _ r C r ,'>r '♦ t'nT , >v..•`�`' a,� s � w. "` ; i^ ,%%` ;'r .,,,. "� *,�. %` rr• FINING e a tSr. 8' ,;;N& ryal 'ti}i+n� �'s4 TSFY .,,J{ � F � ° t "� {♦ 7 A , ON FIELD FIOUS£•+, ., <;QMpLF.X .. n on, ^pig 4 �, �' - r � � T�S,"�'^ � •, _ N nR42iS i M i LtS G�1' ; << '� F _ r � x � •. .._ t �� - Mlp L,o Frlr.. � Al 71 ow , IR 7A x. e m n E!l N , s 4 • ` �r {,r S §.,4 b : x" *' ~ + own - , BURLING40N ., k • �' . �, i :;. t J,. b SOUTH BURhINGT ♦ ling 04 i4.iIs :.F � GRAPHIC ssi tnf: , K NOTES: HORIZONTAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. ON 2-14-02 AND A PLAN OF EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AND THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT RECORDED IN VOLUME 495 PAGES 84-85. COORDINATES ARE BASED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & S.A.C. GRID. I PARKING STRUCTURE SETBACK DISTANCES: NE CORNER TO WESTERLY EDGE OF RIGHT OF WAY 60.19' _ } NE CORNER TO CENTER LINE OF RIGHT OF WAY 93.19' NE CORNER TO CENTER LINE OF PAVEMENT 92.56 SE CORNER TO WESTERLY EDGE OF RIGHT OF WAY 64.79' 1 SE CORNER TO CENTER LINE OF RIGHT OF WAY 97.79' . SE CORNER TO CENTER LINE OF PAVEMENT 96.35' uvM SAC `~ CONTROL POINT MON 118 1 RESAR SET RtISN SIm CONC MON-ii 1 N I=, N 117.2 ORAOE a -12!! 1 �: N /SWi 155 CONTROL POINT M MAGNETIC NAE. SET FLUSHIN PAAEMIENT CITY OF SURLPIOTON EN!1/1STWJSO.1.1 DISK CS-]t _ ���• �' �� W COLIC. MON. (FOUND) AI MN MAPLE TRFE N4IWIC.MON.(FWNDI /OBBJ.100 W CONC. MON (F WNO) E 519i5 MI3 � ��• _ _ „- �� N629116Bp E51717.981 t19S U _ STD CONCONC. MON. IFOUNOI .41133.l E 3186/.13/ GRAPHIC SCALE ( nl FEET I I inch a 250 }L RECE�vED SLR ; .003 City of So. Burlington UU U� w- E W W QW� ZH. CCAyz U Z U 04 JO Ua O .- cC� � �1 �.J pJJ W HORIZONTAL CONTROL OVERALL. PLAN MGM i w. , III ° i - , ._ Kp �a ! „ } e U W1,I i it ` d' / ��/j/ yi` �\Yu xsy✓' t '.,� N C.J ��., cc— i I: I :`.. .._.. F <� / W a j Q + K\� I • f )' r �i 3, !1t '.�,.' � I� '°^7f ?', 'ki ":e°�k` " • ° ( -- , �., �• �� � .- -• ^ V , t„t s �.dr q, II � reel'' Q% s ! ti pvs J. u r i.. CON CLRPOI E E 5tT1,1'$.4114 I , r F y j �e � rt, f—l) rl i i N , it UVM 9AQ O CORNER•OF PROPO ED CORNER O� PR pOS, ��bN 19 GALCU p) _ • — — _ _ 1 � �i , — — $ Cr R �Q , ;I l , _ .. I1'I 5,Q94$.62 PARKING GARAGE ARKI Cy G,�#RAGE , , 'RITM" r 1 E471 0.54 T E 5101 .64,5 UVM SAC �__ CONTROL POINT #2 64.79' S07'44'42" 331' MON 118 �� 1/2" REBAR SET FLUSH _ _ �� - - 2507.14--- �- — . m L ) N 46242.172 330' --- "J,Y ra r ' !' . EXO 8xROL �j#1 O Nd .- - / 2" BELOW GRADE F' E 51268.183 -. _ ��--� �-'.T f „a - - �� 1 I W.GRAi�E`,,. . 16" BEL N 46087.255 - _ - _ _ - T - T I I N 4784� 186 / Il E 51286E - - - r ,,---f '" i I ii " I I 1---=1'1 E 51114 7 '\ / 1 fi fi-----�- -{- -i �----T _------�-- 1 I I \ \ HORIZONTAL T ; I I i i1 L_-� y---� CONTROL `� PARTIAL PLAN iw GRAPHIC SCALE CoN2 I ------_1_-- 1 inch .. IW ft. c c c d c U,, T • / i i o c \ , 1 - II 1, ill' I � !� � '\te�� -- / _.--' `- „ ... - -e.. I ,'�//� xk. i//. •. �,. Z. , ° YI ATRICKGYMNASIUM - - - / - / I . ` 0 1 . -�' '�• ; - . - �'.'b" 41 LIVING i I�/ ,. •' ,` .. "- }._-.— -,fir- _ O � - , I o GUTTERSON FIELD HOUSE \ p C I ° o /o °\ �. HAR • _ - �y -'. � I j �r;'I• _. � // _.- .-....._ _-�-..__.-- -\ I A4r�.I MILLIS HALL 1-. -T• "<- / I . o o ° \ MARSH HALL F'•� 44ARRIS HALLI x \I\,Ilp nv \ ° Al 71lid C LJJ CID 10 - _ 1 ' _ —12 15 24 By I _ 1 -- +_ I -I- a � _ r .. � �"�4 "r _ 7�•+k� o - - N0. DATE REviSiONS 25 / - 0 - _ _. _ i 1 / DRAWING TITLE GRAPHIC $ SCALE', EXISTING .® N• '/ — CONDITIONS _ me / - _ -IE - _ _ - - - - & SOIL STRE _.— — �--" r - — � —Yni sar — _ _ -- BORING PLAN '.\' ,i mar _ 60I FAR IL - _ � I � I n 11 0130 DESIGN DRAWN CN KD. 1� , 0 . - i_..- - .'; ICI / A '-- 1 _ - r• i• � , LL- r v / — w \ / .j cn 4-0 II. / I - pATRIGK G YMNASIUM + �� ° � ++ - \ ' � I A\ ���\ .. � � _ "..--•'� I - - _ - � �._ LIVING ti ITo p y ' I , m ! � � - i '• \ ,."� _ �-- '. lam.^ � �. i / ' ._---- /I c I L _ - m AUSTIN LD `\, O \.. ,o HOUSE! .... �...I . 'r:u �u. '� . O - GUTTERSON FIE1. _ P _ - - - - -.__. \ i \ F GM EX C «,, li 9 / / / -n .-,T-" o b II HALL I U .. j o �. ti III - o 9 r o.. NS I,e + ° HARRIS I MILLIS COMMO _ i , it I ._ - �". , - 1.. __- I .. -_ 1,- \ -_�,�,,.m-.• � _ - -. I i � � MILLIS HALL o a • . _._ - ' MARSH I HALL ool -- - .. HARRIS HALL 9 MM _ W i j- il I d ! I \\ - 1 I \ f o o t�: .,. m /./ N0. REVISIONS DRAWING TITLE GRAPHIC SCALE /' OVERALL EXISTING �\ \• ,P —__' - = — _-- CONDITIONS PLAN t �iocn �R SPEAR ..,�... -- � ° m b ., _ � �. .. . so DRAWING No. / / 1 __=.-� {....=t•'' . ' _ -.a- = _--- __ - O O \ i m 1 o DATE 12/28i Ci ' ' � � - O I\� I ,\ \ -, -- .- PROJECT NO 0 3U0 0„ I I I i 1 �11 /j I -� SAON DRAWiv CH,<D O \ I , - -_ ¢ - III-,' - \ ` _ DESIJ �MJW SA V -fo _ c y a' Q' of I lit , r _ , „ M SS/; 5a / 'i / J. ,.1 �-.✓<%:.. Y +1 N _z \ r ,r t H Er N W , fA r. 1 .1 ` 'l .I �,++--- / �` 2 g ♦� Q r 1. rFO J7 I I I ✓`.: nlit n-- rr r i \ PATRICK GYMNASIUM U - , e° „.,lit . �FF W 1 „ / r / V.1 r< 1 1 ! 1 A lsl IN HA I _,.. I I _.. ' PFG COMP LEX .'il ! ,� m� V1\ r. I ;.R GUI TtRSON F IEIp HOUSL I ,.l 1 i `{ lily .1 r ' _..7- ,:\ RR.v,• �1'�', 4.,. 1'_/ ` 1: l v ,., 1� r.,` r i:'• / /.;- '''C, 7, ' 'I - ISI MIILIS COM MONS ! r �' C7 MILUS HALL�11 1 VV 3 MARSH ViALL l THIRp LEVEL IL T � y.� . - 771 LLI sv ONO LEVEL: _. _ r ,... ... ,� .. BURLINGTON— op, 1 1 --• ' URLINGTON .:_, sAvelc. n - � 1'� 1 - � FIRST LEVEL�- -N0. GRAPHIC SC M� W 1 , I i^• 1 _ F.. . ` l�{.. . ` o . ! REVISIONS \ . = FIRST LEVI i .. - DRAWING TITLE `�o OVERALL 1 i I i•1. _ ,� Ftsr) PROPOSED ao- n CONDITIONS �II I 1 FIRST IEVEI!" F STREET -- — — ` >,�y _.. �`•,� r .;,, ti;p,.. 1 _ :. _ i!�I �I DIsgLWw No. (� SPEAR C2 � I A �14 I'` SCALE —_'—_ I 1 DAIE:_12/28/Ot ,..— . PROJECT NO oiaoo.Do DESIGN DRAWN CH I([I SAV MJW t A' w EFFECTIVE BURIED GATE VALVE l 'x� �\ LENGTHY ONE FULL h` �• BEARING AREA (WIN CONCRETE LENGTH OF PIPE SUPPORT VALVE & ANCHOR PLUG UNDISTURBED l`.;. •.^`•:`.:1 .:,. :•''�'I.•a,.%'•.. UNDSTUI9ED sat VALVE/DEAD END REDUM SOIL TS NOTE: Mil RICE 3 LE (VINE BETWETNYt ALL SHEET \C BETWEEN ALL CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS ANO PIPE AND/df flTTINOS TO PREVENT BOND. - , UNDISTURBED SOIL »ux TEE R-UNOSTURBED SOIL OR 1151/ BI D _ WT-1 MINIMUM AREA OF BEARING SURFACEnOF CONC. THRUST BLOCKS TOPSOIL, SEED & TOPSOIL, SEED & 3" 4" 6 8" 12" SOIL CONDITIONOil SAFE BEARNG LP AD 225' st' & DB. 4S 125' ELB. FIB. W & BB. 45' Dal 1l3' E16. 90' & f16. 43' O6. 3IIS' E19. 90' & Ele. 45' 86. TY5' ELB. 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 L 1.0 0.5 20 2.5 1.5 1.0 4.0 5.5 " 1.3 SOUND SHALE 10.000 V1.21 0.5 1.5 ZO I.0 0.5 &0 AO 2.0 1.0 4.5 6.5 3.5 2.0 0. 14, 7.5 2.0 4.000 0.320751.51.0 3.55.03.01.56.0li 5.02513. I8.10.5.0FINE '000 t.025 3.5 20 1.0 0.S 7.S 40 Z.0 9.0 1& 7.0 3.5 7. 15. S o 2.001) 1.5 SO 7.0 4.0 2.0 O. I5. B.0 4.016. & 14.0 T.O I5.0 SOUND SHALE 1.000 YAxIMUN WATER PRESSURE - 300 PS NOTE: REDUCER BEARNHG AREA - a5' BEND OF LARGER PIPE THRUST BLOCK DETAILS N.T.S. NOTES: 1. Compaction of backfill and bedding shall be a minimum of 90% (95% under roadway surfaces) of maximum dry density determined in the standard proctor test (ASTM D698). o --APPROVED BACKFlLL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 2. Bedding material shelf not be placed on frozen z i IN 8" LIFTS subgrade. o j RIGID INSULATIUSE 1" ON AS REWIRED. OF 3. Approved backfill shall not contain any stones H n INSULATION FOR EVERY more than 12" in largest dimension (6" in Toodwoys, 2" maximum diameter within 2' of FOOT DEPTH OF PIPING the outside of the pipe), or contain any frozen, D 2' IS LESS THAN 5'-6" wet, or organic material. D �- PVC SEWER PIPE 4. Trenches shall be completely dewatered prior to Y 6" 0 placing of pipe bedding material and kept dewatered during installation of pipe and backfill. -7HOROUGFILY COMPACTED 5. In trenches with unstable materials, trench BEDDING MATERIAL bottom shall first be stabilized by placement of filter fabric then crushed stone (3/4" maximum). 6. The sides of trenches 4' or more in depth entered UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the angle of repose as defined by O.S.H.A. standards. TYPICAL SEWER TRENCH DETAIL 7. Bedding material shall -tat of crushed stone. grave' or sand with a m Imam elra at 3/4-. Submit a sample to the Engineer for approval. N. T. S. PAVED �-APPROVED BACKFlLL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 8" LIFTS ' RIGID INSULATION AS REQUIRED USE 1" OF INSULATION FOR EVERY FOOT DEPTH OF PIPING _12'__.__.. IS LESS THAN 5'-6" -© -- WATER LINE y , -THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BEDDING MATERIAL UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK TYPICAL WATER TRENCH DETAIL_ N.T.S. NOTES: 1. Compaction of backfill and bedding shall be a minimum of 90% (95% under roadway surfaces) of maximum dry density determined In the standard proctor test (ASTM D698). 2. Bedding material shall not be pieced on frozen subgrade 3. Approved backfill shall not contain an stones more than 12" in largest dimension (6" in roadways, 2" maximum diameter within 2' of the outside of the pipe), or contain any frozen, wet, or organic material. 4. Trenches shall be completely dewatered prior to placing of pipe bedding material and kept dewatered during installation of pipe and backfill. 5. In trenches with unstable materials, trench bottom shall first be stabilized by placement of filter fabric then crushed stone (3/4" maximum). 6. The sides of trenches 4' or more in depth entered by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the angle of repose as defined by O.S.H.A. standards. 7. Bedding material shall consist of crushed stone, gravel or sand with a maximum size of 3/4". Submit a sample to the Engineer for approval. NOTES 1. Unities sheen do not purport to constitute w represent as uUttise located upon oredi-t to the surveyed premises. Eselin9 uleily lecattans w. alab osehote brd . The Cant -to, ,has had verify al utility conekt,. NI dlewep-le, well be reported to the Engineer. The Cmlracte, Mal oanNct Dig We (800-225-49") prior to any conewction. 2 AN e.isling utilities not incwpwotid into the Mal deslyn Mal be -vad or abandoned as IndicotM on the plans w dkecled by the Engil, e 3. The Contractor all mohtah as -built alone (with ties) for al uaderg-hal uHiltes. Those Plans Mae be suMlitted to the Omer of the -Vieth, of the project. 4. The Contractor Mail rear/restore ill disturbed w.as (an ail th off Ate) as a dkect a,Indkect result of the can.Wm ttoh 5. AN grossed arena has be mahtoined until hill v tallon le setobllMed. B. Maintain oil trees outside of c W,01an Iknits. 7. The Conlracla aholl be ...pa-ible for al eak nKesswy for complete sad operable faeNitlse and uDlitba. e. Since the bullding is to be sprinklered, bock flow prevention shall be prodded In accordance ellh AWNIA M14 the Site Contractor shall eonetruat the wOtw the to two feet above the flnl.b.d floor See mechank f Plana for riser detag 9. The Contre,tw Mal subit Mop dloel.q. for al it-. and ho sks. incorporated Into We Yl. work work anal not begun an any Iben until shop drawing pprowl is granted. 10. In addlllea to the r"Wrament, set In these plan. and .pecificalions, the Cantraclar Mal PION the eak h accordance with all permit caditbne, the Swil,gton Public Works Standards, and the South Burlington PON. Wark. Standard, it, The tax ran far rmtsh prod., for all pavement ealkeays and lawn areas .hill be 0.1 feet. 12. Any dewoleriag necessary fw We completion of the site cork sholl be considered as pat of the -1-1 and eh.N be the Contraclw i rasp -Wilily, 13. The Contractor Mal coordinate al work ellhh the Spec Street Rood R.0 W, eith the South Budhgton Pubic Works Department. 14. E.MUng po-t win tree stumps to be removed Mall be dipo.ed of of an opproved off- Wla locotim. All Pavement ,ot, Mal be mode rIW o powenent sae. 15. If Were We any -Alct, w sisl.naes with the plane or specif attarne, the cmtr ctw Mal cmtecl the Engineer for vsrI%r,tlon before work oanthuess on the Item in Westlm. III. Ths Coatroctw Mal ba re,xirs le far confarmkp to all OSHA (Stale/redara) rpulolions haudhg trenchhg and canfinse opo rsauWwh-1e. 17. Adu.1 all rhos, valves and covers to hniM Wed.. MANHOLE WALL MANHOLE OPENING ABOVE LEBARON FRAME &COVER PLAN LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. WATER OR SEWER LINE MINIMUM 18" SEPARATION BETWEEN OUTSIDE OF PIPES WATER OR SEWER LINE EX. BIT. PAVEMENT (BOTH SIDES) U as NOTES: V) rT} w W 6 1. AT CROSSINGS, ONE FULL LENGTH OFWATER/SEWER PIPE SHALL DE LOCATED ^ 50 BOTH JOINTS WILL BE AS FAR FROM THE WATER/SEWER AS POSSIBLE. M u 2. IF THE SEWER MAIN IS OVER THE WATER MAIN, THE FIRST SEWER PIPE JOINTS O ON EACH SIDE OF THE WATER MAIN MUST BE CONCRETE ENCASED. SPECIAL STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE WATER AND SEWER PIPES MAY BE REWIRED. W 3. WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE 18" SEPARATION, THE SEWER MATERIALS SHALL BE WATER MAIN PIPE OR EQUIVALENT AND SHALL BE fO PRESSURE TESTED TO WATER MAIN STANDARDS. 4. WATER MAINS AND SEWER LINES OR MANHOLES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION. THIS DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED EDGE TO EDGE. WATER/SEWER CROSSING DETAIL N. T.S. ALL JOINTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED AND COATED WITH ASP HALT PHALT PRIOR TO PAVING _ MATCH EX. PAVEMENT MIN• (MIN. 1 1/2" TYPE III 2" TYPE II) 8" NNE NEW BIT, CONC. PAVEMENT IT MATCH E TI�IDyo~E ( L(i (``,) (18" MIN XSUBBASE CRUSH 1. GRAVEL) -, l.. -0" MIN. IDIUS ; SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED & SEAL JOINT 2-6 COURSES OF BRICK o FOR ADJUSTMENT. MORTARED 1= I ON EXTERIOR SURFACES (12" MAX.) POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE -24"- STEPS m e" O.C. It -WATERTIGHT JOINTS USING MASTIC OR RUBBER GASKET K F m 48 --COAT EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE MANHOLE WITH A WATERTIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS) CAST IN PLACE FLEXIBLE MH I" RISE SLEEVES OR APPROVED EQUAL a (TYP. ALL PIPES) in USE 3" (MAX.) STUBS a AT ALL MANHOLE PIPE CONNECTIONS m ,.e CONCRETE FILL TO HIGHEST CROWN OF PIPE i 12" MIN. SOIL OR ROCK 6" MIN. CRUSHED CLASS B CONCRETE- STONE BEDDING SHELF AND INVERT ELEVATION NOTES: 1. INVERTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONLY AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF LEAKAGE TEST. 2. EXTERIOR JOINTS SMALL BE SEALED ONLY AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF LEAKAGE TEST. 3. INTERIOR JOINTS SHALL NOT BE GROUTED. 4. IF DEPTH OF MANHOLE IS 7' OR LESS FROM RIM TO CENTERUNE INVERT, THEN A FIAT TOP SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR ME CONE SECTION. TYPICAL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE N.T.S. SEE TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL NOTES: I. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AT LEAST ONE- WAY TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES DURING WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. 2. MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING WORK MTHIN ME HIGHWAY R.O.W. SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. WITHOUT APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION SIGNING IN PLACE. 3. ALL BACKFlLL SHALL BE MADE IN SIX (6") UFTS AND COMPACTED TO NOT LESS TITAN 95% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY ACCORDING TO ASTM Mom. 4. REPLACE EXISTING ROAD STRN'INC AS NECESSARY. REPLACEMENT OF EXIST. PAVEMENT AWWA HYDRANT, VALVE AND APPURTENANCES AS PER SPECS ADJUSTABLE IRON VALVE BOX W/LID MARKED "WATER" 7- FINISH GRADE THRUS BLOCKT� tj - 6" D.I. to o I TEE UCINaC BLOCK ZV IN Ems., 2 Z W U WW i i )E Z'^' VQ W W ?a U 4 ' CONCRETE VALVE UNDISTURBED SUPPORT SOIL NOTES: NO. DATE 1. ALL BRANCH PIPING AND FITTINGS SHALL BE MECHANICAL JOINT. REVISIONS DRAWING TITLE WATER 2. HYDRANTS SHALL BE LABELED "NO", FOR NONDRAINING ON THE BONNET FACING THE ROADWAY. AND TYPICAL_ HYDRANT INSTALLATION_ N.T.s SEWER DETAILS DRAWING NO. C5 SCALE: DATE: 1 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 1 TOPSOIL, RAKE; SEED h MULCH NOTES: in „o°o �,°, o°oo�oo°OQoc; ° 1. Compaction of beckfill and bedding sholl be o °bn �,p Oo° oo' minimum of 9OX (95% under roadway surfaces) ofoximum dry density determined in the D698). 0 APPROVED BACKFILL standard proctor test (ASTM THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 2. Bedding material shall not be placed on frozen 2 O 6' LIFTS subgrode. io D APPROVED GRANULAR Fill. 3. Approued backfill shall not contain any stones more than 1Y largest dimension (6" in in THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 6" LIFTS 2" maximum diameter within 2' of a the outside of the pipe), or contain any frozen, the outside i' wet, or organic material. HOPE STORM DRAIN PIPE 4, Trenches shall be completely dewaterad prior to 12' \ placing of pipe bedding material and kept dewoterad during installation of pipe and bockfill. THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 5. In trenches with unstable materials, trench j: BEDDING MATERIAL bottom shall first be stabilized by placement of filter fabric then crushed stone (3/4" maximum). • N� "5`� 6. The sides of trenches 4' or more in depth entered ��— UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the angle of repose as defined by O.S.H.A. standards. 7. Bedding material shall consist of crushed alone, TYPICAL STORM TRENCH DETAIL grave ar aand with a maximum size of 3/4". Submit a sample to the Engineer for approval. N.T.S. LEBRON FRAME $ COVER ` LEBARM FRAME h COVER LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL / LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. / ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. LEBARON FRAME h COVER LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE. FINISH GRADE SET FRAME ON FULL _ MORTAR BED B SEAL JOINT CONE SECTION OR 4'e --2-6 COURSES OF BRICK TRAFFIC COVER (HEAVY FOR ADJUSTMENT. MORTARED DUTY) FOR SHALLOW ON EXTERIOR SURFACES (12" MAX.) MANHOLES 724� POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE STEPS O 8" O.C. WATERTIGHT JOINTS USING w •' MASTIC OR RUBBER GASKET � F 48' OR 60' 0 m COAT EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE MANHOLE WITH A WATERTIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS) � = W I MIN HOPE PIPE o I a m 12' SUM SEAL WITH HYDRAULIC CEMENT <•a MORTAR, OR GASKETED FLEXIBLE WATERTIGHT CONNECTION 0 Op0 12' MIN. UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK I 6" MIN. CRUSHED PRECAST CONCRETE OR STONE BEDDING POURED IN PLACE BASE '.. SECTION TYPICAL STORM MANHOLE N.T.S. ADJUST TO GRADE WITH PRECAST RISER SECTIONS 12. MAX. CONTINUE CABLE IN IT WATERTIGHT JOINT USING i' NEMA 4 �TO NEAREST G RAGECWALL IOORJOINGASKET JUNCTION E A CONTROL PANEL AND (SEALWEXTTERIDTH D 4'e ALARM SHOULD BE MOUNTED, AUDIO LET HOLES w/NON SHRINK h VISUAL ALARMS SHALL BE PROVIDED GROUT) GATE VALVE CAST IN PLACE FLEXIBLE MH UNION 2' SON 40 PVC SLEEVES OR APPROVED EQUAL TO NEW SMH 03 (TYP. ALL PIPES) 48' m_ FROM LOWER LEVEL 48'e POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE FLOOR DRAINS STEPS O 6" O.C. _ 6" SCH 40 PVC CHECK VALVE ALARM FLOAT —WIDEof AN 6" MERRCURY SWITCH 12" ITCLL 3,—a' AT 1PUMPING 0 GALLONS 1 WATER 12" PRECAST CONCRETE 6' EXPLOSION PROOF PUMP Pw/MONdJTHIC BASE HYDRDMATIc SPX50 OR APPROVED EQUAL °°°oo°°"PftECAS 000 «..,°oo°°000°o° °°obn00000°°oo,.o<�....... ... <o> �`r°°o�P o 8' MIN. CRUSHED * T MANHOLE STRUCTURES STONE BEDDING SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). OIL/GRIT INTERCEPTOR MH W/ DISCHARGE PUMP GRIT/OIL SEPARATOR DETAIL N.T.S. BEDDING 19 6" CONCRETE LOAD CLASS C 6' 1 6" 81T. CONC. W\ 18.4't CRATE (p422) WITH LOCK DOWN PAVEMENT RIM ELEV. AS A (SEE DETAIL) SHOWN ON PLAN o® �U 26 27 28 29 30 I O°o o° o 0 0 0:•• o a o ; • o 0 0 0 0 o c;, o,, o 0 0 o c o o °;c •°000°a°o°o°ao° '000°°c T` 0 0 0 0 0 0 o,co^ POLYDRAIN 260-300 A o 0 o a ;ooa0000000eoca,., _ - „ 000rCRU9£0 GRAV,o°o� OR APPROVED EQUAL •°o°o°o°oao°o°o''n" a°o' (SEE DETAIL).0 0 0 o a o.0 o 6" o 0 • o 0 0 0 0 o c, o 0 0`0 00000-o,�ooc 0 o a o 0 0 o a o.• o o o a CATCH BASIN • o 0 0 0 0 o a ° o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o°o°o` • o 0 0 o a o 0 0 o a o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o a POLYDRAIN 610 .Po°000°a°o°o°o°o°o°000°o°o°o°n°o°o°o°o°�°o°ooc°r 0 n SERIES OR o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ro o °Oo0 D O O U n O p O 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 o U.. 0 EQUAL 1Tf- I - ELEVATION SECTION A -A TRENCH DRAIN DETAIL — --. N.T.S. �32.4" 8" OUTLET INV. AS SHOWN ON PLAN STORM LINE CORE MANHOLE AND USE S. PRESS SEAL GASKET (OR APPROVED EQUAL) FOR r\\ , I /_ WATERTIGHT CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED SEWER OR STORM CONNECTION for; EXISTING CONCRETE REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SHELF AND INVERT SHELF AND FORM NEW INVERT ELEVATION CONNECTION TO EXISTING SEWER/STORM MANHOLE OR CB N.T.S. HIGH STRENGTH — NON -SHRINK GROUT CONCRETE CURB —) PRECAST CONCRETE w/MONOLITHIC BASE IRON LF248 24' x 24' GRATE w/3 FLANGED FRAME APPROVED EQUAL) -SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED BITUMINOUS CONC. PAVEMENT (1/4"/FT MAX.MA ADJUST TO GRADE WITH BRICK (2-6 COURSES) SEAL w/HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTAR, OR CAST -IN -PLACE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1' - MIN. V40TH FLEXIBLE GASKET (SEAL EXTERIOR JOINTS AND LIFT HOLES w/NON SHRINK GROUT) 18' SUMP • a 6' MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL *PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). TYPICAL CATCH BASIN O CURB N.T.S. LF248 24' x 24" C.I. GRATE w/4 FLANGED FRAME BITUMINOUS CONCRETE T,LFOARON (OR APPROVED EQUAL) PAVEMENT Oil _ SET FRAME ON 12' FULL MORTAR BED MAX. ADJUST TO GRADE WITH • BRICK (2-6 COURSES) PRECAST CONCRETE I, 24' x 24"� WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1' w/MONOUTHIC BASE MIN. WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET LIFT HOLES w/NON SHRINK 4 ' 0 GROUT) SEAL w/HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTAR, OR CAST -IN -PLACE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES ,a• SUMP < 8" MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL °onoo r # PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION). TYPICAL CATCH BASIN N.T.S. EXISTING GROUND EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN DITCHES w/PROFILE GRADES TOPSOIL _"'-' EXCEEDING 53L STAPLE AS PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. GRASS LINED DITCH N. T. S. U Z �M W cD Z_U Z yNUH � E+ a U Lu W ZW H ZU p4 w O J U) Q U •� 0 U 1CC � wJ 03 r4 O In �1 h0 b W DRAWING TITLE SEWER AND DRAINAGE DETAILS DRAWING NO. C6 PROJECT NO, 01300.00 DESIGN DRAWN CN KD. SAV MJW SAV 3 3/4" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT: t //2' TYPE Iil FINISH COURSE 2 i/4" TYPE II BASE COURSE \r 6 CRUSHED GRAM (FINE) 12" CRUSHED GRAVEL SUB -BASE (COAT+�E) 1 STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAI I 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL TYPICAL ROADWAY PAVEMENT SECTION w/CURB N.T.S. TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT -OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS 1/2" R•--\_6 _," i'1/4" R. t FINE CRUSHED ,GRAVEL o � r COARSE CRUSHED GRAVEL. SUB -BASE MATERIAL STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 5DOX OR APPROVED EQUAL 1. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WITH 1/8" JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2. CURBING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 26 AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-153 (1/2` SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK). TYPICAL CURB SECTION N.T.S. -OR AS SHOWN TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS ON PLANS CONCRETE OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT PAVED SIDEWALK 1/2" R. 6" BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT 5" 0 o t FINE CRUSHED GRAVEL COARSE CRUSHED GRAVEL SUB -BASE MATERIAL \/ `- STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL i. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS NTH 1/8" JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2, CURBING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO OESICNATION M-153 (1/2- SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK). 3. ASPHALT TREATED FELT TO BE USED BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND CONCRETE CURB TOP. CURB w/SIDEWALK DETAILDETAIL N.T.S. 3 1/4" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEI 1 1/4" TYPE ill FINISH COURSE 2 TYPE II BASE COURSE 8" CRUSHED GRAVEL Ot I ca �t12 CRUSHED GRAVEL (COARSE) ��—COMPACTED SUBGRADE--- —_ STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 50OX OR APPROVED EQUAL 3 (UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS) 4" TOPSOIL TYPICAL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT SECTION N.T.S. 3 1/4" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEI 1 1 /4" TYPE III FINISH COURSE 2" TYPE II BASE COURSE SEE PLANS �, CRUSHFD GRAVEL SUBBASE AS 7 NECESSARY FOR FINISH GRADE + o -EXISTING STRUCTURAL SECTION. RECLAIMED OR WITH PAVEMENT REMOVED (GRADE AS NECESSARY FOR PAVING) TYPICAL RECONSTRUCTED PAVEMENT SECTION N.T.S. 'ERWSE SHOWN ON PLANS 2" TYPE II BITUMINOUS r72 CRETE SIDEWALK S"1 10" GRAVEL SUBBAS 5" UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL BITUMINOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S. 5' NOE OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" AT CURB CUTS r 0 tU" GRA L SUBBASE 6" UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL NOTES: 1. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF PREFORMED JOINT FILLER (1/4 CORK OR BITUMINOUS TYPE) 2. BETWEEN EXPANSION JOINTS THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE DIVIDED AT INTERVALS OF FIVE FEET BY DUMMY JOINTS. TYPICAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S. SIDEWALK RAMP WITH HEAVY -0` BROOM FINISH SIDEWALK RAMP MIN. M(`�' WITH HEAVY B BROOM FINISH s it > A TRANSITION CURB PLAN PLAN SIDEWALK RAMP -1/2" REVEAL TEXTURED ROADWAY SURFACE ADJACENT TO RAMP SECTION A —A TEXTURED I RY A P jQ WAIJ( RAMP A XI IARY RA P �DIST, AS RED D. 5 -O-O MIN. SIDEWALK ,� TO MEET GRADE , 0 OF SIDEWALK ROUNDING TYP. .. ♦ 1 -p- �� MARS. rrTCIST �1' W r SECTION B—B TYPICAL HANDICAP RAMP DETAILS WE& ^^� ?�4 O TOP OF CURB (SEE PLAN ;:3 O FOR TYPE OF CURB) END TRANSITION r hT *ORAS SHOWN SLOPE ON PLANS —BEGIN TRANSITION SLOPE FACE OF CURB •7"� B -O— -FINISHED GRADE OF ROAD PAVEMENT TRANSITION CURB - N.T.S. 0� r � DRAWING TITLE DRAINAGE AND ROADWAY DETAILS DRAWING NO. 7 C / DATE: 12/Yt1/U1 PROJECT N0. 01300.00 SECTION 02080 - DEMOLITION PART i - GENERAL ,.of UTILITY SERVICES A, A-9e Sith Utility coturpienles and shut off indicated Utilitks'erving a B. Disconnect and cap Indicated utsNies before -tatting demdllien operations. C. Identify twoUan of COPOSO utMlles an project record dowmmta. p. oblda written approval brae Interrupting e.isting utilities. E. S tcal COSUU a: -Ado an necessary to wwXahM ,ervlce to occupied aroos, F, Notify the OwnS, of last 72 hours in adwnce of changeover, 1..02 EXPLOSIVES A. Do not use e0"Yee. 1.,03 POLLUTION CONTROLS f dust and dirt. A. Cmhd at much as practicable the spree of lie Ober SlYkal ntl proleclion reguKlion.- C, Do not sloe water usage that result. In freezing or flooding. D. Do not slaw adiacenl improvemmm le to remain to becae soled by demolition operations. END OF SECTION 02060 SECTION 02110 - SITE CLEARING PART I - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section eincludes, m 1. Rwo s ome debris. 2. Gear its f Plat life old grass. 3. Remove tress and shrubs. 4. Remove rdal art- of trees and shrub.. PART 2 - PRODUCTS Not used. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3,m PROTECTION A. Protect IHIR , that neon., from damage. B. protect tree' plant growth, and belated designated to r.nwm as find lmdocping. C. Protect bench make and existing aWctur frail damage or daplacona-L D. Use enema necessary to prevent oust becoming o nuiemca to the public, to n ghbwa, d to In- k bong Performed anor near ". aH.. E. Maintain access to the site of all lkmee. 302 CLEARING a Clew arom required for access to site and owewlion of Wink. B. Remove tree and shrub. within m rked areas. Remo- sturtlps, root. and tap roofs and other proJxllona I, a' greater in di_.W to 2'-O' be -the eX. -l.d surfacew In cut weed and 2'0' below the ..posed aubgrad. I. fill arae. 3.03 REMOVAL k Remo- debria, rock, and exth cta plant INS ham all.. N, Ill. Engineer B. The Oren.` In eslabllellMtOr lg`wital, a soda .IthM the Property md :omits far 4p0siting debris, rods and ..0-ted Want life. The Canlnclor Mall he reeponaMle for backflling (capping) and waing all ..are sit.., 3.04 UNITIES A. G-dinate with utility companies and -9-dws as rpuired. ENO OF SECTION 02110 SECTION 02210 - SITE EARTHWORK PART i - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A, Saban bxadec: 1. All utility and si .-k axpwtian ("less cored in other .elan, of meow So- ti ). r oval and stork of tmed" atd Y'Uau1 fabric, and other 2. SiM<.Nanaoa. and ppuden"t weak.. te fNKnQ. 3. Roadway/pwkMg lot structural action-. 1,01 REFERENCES A. ANSI/ASTM Ct36 - Stmdwd Test Method fa Skw Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. S. ANSI/ASTM 069a - Standard Test Method far Lebwalary Cmlpaction Characteristics of SIN Using Standard Effort. 1.03 PROTECTION A. Protect bents marks and eA.UY; ,tructurs-. B. Protect above w below 9mde ulsities which ar. to Im-h. 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. Testing laboratory raporte Indipting that material for backfll meet, requk-ntic of this Section. S. Fleld density test reports of Site fill M place. C. Field density tact reparts far roadway structwal Suction, In paw. D. graifieationsFabric Sumnit and installation `ainpletruotan'es If nufatwre ' PART 2 - PROWCTS 2.01 CRUSHED GRAVEL A. AI materaa .It be ed ham pprovea scarce-. This grovel ShON cansi,l of angWOr and round fragment. of hard durable rock or uniform Walif, lMa 0.0, red-onobly tree hoar thin elongated pieces. Soft a' di.t.twoted Stan., dirt, organic other obj- tie . matt«. This material Shall mat the fdlaehg;.d.9 roqukemmfa: Percent by W-*t Save Designation Peeing Square Mesh Slew Fin. 2• 100 90 - 1p0 No. 4 30 - GO No. 100 0 - 12 No. 200 0 - 6 Coons: 4" 95 - 100 No. 4 25 ' 50 No. 100 0 - 12 N. erg 0 - 6 2,02 AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE 0. Aggregate fen suttee course and Madder, Shan consist of clam. hard gravel. cruMed groin ar crushed atone, It Mall b r__,b;y free ham salt, team, day M organic molt.. It Shall be Moit d from approved eau m B. OaIn9. Tnla materal shall be -Ifwmty gradedr tram. ,a lI fine and Ndl meet the requirements of the following table: Percent by WsighI Slew Designation Passing Square Meld Sieve iW 90 - too N. 4 45 - 65 No. 100 0 - IS No. 200 0 - 12 2.D3 COMPACTED FlLL/GRANULAR BORROW A hiw material shall be fred of Mde, clay, frable m.Serd. debris, and organic matter, 9raa In accordance with ANSI/ASTM G,36 e0hin the following U.K.: Percent by Weight Sieve Designation P... in SWare Mesh Sieve 6• 100 3/4' 75 - 100 No. 4 20 - 100 No. too 4 0 - 20 No. 200 0 - 12 2.04 GEOTECHNICAL - STABILIZATION FABRIC A. this lark Moll conobt of furnishing and plocing an apprawd stabg-Han fabric m a prepared Surface within tie IWIS Mown an the plans The fabric shall melt, a exceed the fallowing prpertlec: 1. Grab "l-1. strength (ASM 0-4832) - 200Ib' 2. Orm tensile a OX 3. P..d..eSUmgth(ASYM D-4833) - 85 1bs, PART 3 - EXECUTION 3,01 PREPARATION A. Identify reWlnd Ire-, levels, contours, and datum. B. Idmtify known below grace utilities. Stake and flag to"lima. C. Maintain and protect exatlng ulBllke remaining which pass throng work area. D. Upon disco-ry of unknorn utnily a concerted conditions. disoonlMue affected wank: notify Engineer. 3.02 EROSON CONTROL A. .ortbak;-Uah. be acctwdanca l with Section 01150 3,03 SITE CLEARING A. Clear arom r.q.k,d for arms to Site and --lion of Weak. B, Maintain scree* to the Site at all time¢. C. Remove trews and Shrubs .ithh m rked area. Rama- atumPS, ,date and lap roat, and other pro)ectlme 1 1/2" a 91ats, In duenet a to 2'-0' below the exc wted surfaces a cut area. and 2'-0' below the wwpoaed subgrode, M NI wear. 0. Remaw debris, rock, and ..hatted Plant lire ham Site. E. Use mean. necdsaw'y to Prweet dust from beaming o nuisance to the public, to nelgbws, and to other Sark bhg Walled an or near the site. 3.04 TOPSOIL EXCAVATION A. Expwte topsoil bath areas 1. be Scannited. re -landscaped regraded and stockpile In areas dim9lared an site w o2 directed by the Engineer. B. Maintain the Mmkpm in o manner whim will not obstruct the atard flow of draim.9. 1. Maintain wlockpm free train debris and troSh. 2. Keep the toppn damp to prevent dual and drying out. 3.05 SUBSOL EXCAVATION A. Expwte Subsoil ham wear to be regraded In aawrdanm with plans. B. Expwte sub *` required to accommodate building foundation., slabs aMade.m Made. sits .6notur, coneWCNan daeoti.n' road' Old pwkMg -root C. Or. ter perhneter of ex-fb to present surface water frail draining into excavation. D. Notify engineer of unexpecI subswfoce condition. and discontinue affected work In era Until no, to repume .pin. E. Correct areas ova-exwwted by .tor as dW tad by he Engineer. 3.06 DITCHES A. Cut accurately o the cl, - ctida,, graded, and eiswtkns Mown. B. MaintaieScowations n free litlerW`i If laoe-fitple on If theveworktc0. train, ana her'Mb C. Dispm, of exported moterids at Mown an the drowMg. or directed by Me soils Engineer. except a not. in MY case, deposit materials Now than three feet horn the edge of a cilch. 3.07 ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS AND BERMS A then embankments are to be mode " a hillside, he alp' of the Original ground an which the-bankmartt, - to lbe an.truct.d shall be s! and = y fll it constructed that ad- arts of the Slope. A, oat occur. B. Any excavated rock, ledge, boulders, and scans, except where rW eked In the crosbuellan of other Ueme or otherwise directed. Mall b. used in U` comiruchan of embankments to he extort of lhs project reWirements and generally Mdl be placed la at to torn the bdow of an embankment. C. Frmm materid ShAI not be Used in the con.haclbn of `f Ne embankments be placed pm flacen mat-W-i- toy - placement of molelol other than rock Moll stop when the "'UM"' air temperolure, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, prohibit. the obtaining of the required compaction. If the material is th-i - acceptable, it shall be ,t" O"'d and served far future Use Men Its condition a .-optabk for I. in embankments. D. When an embankment IS to be constructed artful a a w`oswamp, muck, of unstable hm sods, . unsuitabi. national Shen be axmwled to reach sass f -abate bearing capacity and the embankment begun Aft -tale methods, Such I. use of a stabilimi'M fabric in place o1 ex a -lion and backMl, may be utilized oily after appr I of come by the Engineer. E. M.We d being Woc.d in embankments Shot be placed in horiz.nlal lays of Uniform thickoom saran th6 full wain of he -b.kmen 1, Stumps, trees, rabbi , and oh, unsuitable material Mall not be placed M embmkments. F. Embonkment arwae shall be placed in sight -inch lifts. EHectNe Spread equipment shall he used on each layer to obtain uniform k"I"'. 9 vein to compactim. Each layer Mall be kept yawned to shed water to he autdde edge at ambenkmenl and continues levdin9and manlpuialing wall b required to I.Sure uniform deneily, The entire a of raven lap, Shall be uniformly comsonled - of least lne rwmked mi Imam density by use of wmpoclion equipment consisting of laic , campactw,, o a ombiatim thereof. Earth-movlog mtl old. equipment real specifically "'." hu"d for ornpactim purpose. will not he con.1dered ao campactkn equipment. d Wre content 1 acta atom s G. All fall molSYlal Nal be come iced deneit . M no case suitable lor Mtahing the tin y shall the thanfirr con percent M each layer under construction an be mare than hoe percent shove the optimum moisture II intent and Mall be lam than that quantity that will tau the embankment to became unstable during compaction. " Spanglneas, Movhrq, or other dieW.-Sat Under heavy equipment shall be considered ewderce or an enghnwM9 determination of lack of Stability under Mis re kemmt, and further W.aethelt of material in the wee affected Mall be stopped or ntwded to allow he mMerid to slabllize. H. When the mowture content of hm e aterlal h the toyer under <matrveUon Is leis than the amount necessary to obtain satisfactory compact"" by maTonlcal ago s`cti otnerhadw Soler Malt be added by prmwra approved equipment. Water may der be added in ..-if. a Darrow pals. Tha wale Shall b. uniformly and thoroughly 'ncarporatea into the sod by disc, harrowing, baring. w by oher mpr.wd methods. This manipulalan may b -milted for sands and growl. When the mdsture coolant of he material 1. in excess of three percent above aptim-m moisture content, dry onduSid Mall be Ihor-ply aporat d into the wet material, or Or. wet material MAI be aerated by dlsking, harrowing, blahg. rotary m1.1'. or by other approved methods: w wmpoclion of the w has Sri a to th requlr Ai nod,tu e4conten byl-WItiim. 3.08 COMPACTION REWIREMENTS A, All m bkfllls and fills Shall b-Pacted h awn lifts (12" maximum) to attain the required denallks as fallow. Standard Proctor Location ASTM D-698 Subgrode (8') and Growl for Road., Parking Lot. and Sideedks 95% General Embankments 90% 3.09 MAINTENANCE. A. AI eah.,,k Should be dwe .d perfodimdy to see that slopes ore in good conditon. Any Ails Or damage from erosion and animal bumowM9 sh"Id be .pawed immediately to a -id further damage. If seeps develop an the slpee, he ores Mould be eYolu.t d to deternlne if the seep will cal unstable conditon. Subsurface &oh. or gravel no ulchhg may be '"WIe4 to Sol- Swap problems. Diversions, berm' and waterways W Me and grading area Mould be checked to me hat thor .Y e functlonhg praperiy. Problem, found during the Inspections should be repaired premptly. END OF SECTION 02210 SECTION 02225 - UTILITY TRENCHING AND SACKFIWNG PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section includes: i. Trench, backfdl. and compact - Specified herein and as needed for n.tailatian of underground Utilities located 5' plalde the bustling.. 1.02 DUALITY ASSURANCE A. Um adequole bere of Wined workers who are thwpglly cranto ed and a.perienced in " n "T"'Y crafts and who a er ply familiar with the pacified qulremenit red tin methods needed far proper performance of the walk of this section. e. Use equipment ademate, in size, cpacity, and numbers to accompliM the weak in . thndy manner. C. Comply with regArementa of govern n-tof agencies hating prfediclion. 1.03 REFERENCES A, ANSI/ASTM C136 - Standard Test Method for Slew Andy. of Fine and Cdarwe Aggregates, S. ANSI/ASTM 0698 - StandaM Teat Method for Laboratory Campat'an Chwacterlalks or SST Using Stond-d Effort. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 SOIL MATERIALS A. Fill and backf ll materid-: 1. Fill ..tend is subleat to the approval of the Engineer. Material provided can hw rem.-d hail awtla" an site " Impwta from opprovwd `f""` bxonow ores Materials must be pro l-Oletly grand«, -.Pons'Iw doll free from p"rocs moffer' organic mailer and other deatar"U. m.tter and contain no rock. lumps ova 6' in greatest dimension. 2. Rocks having a dimension grate, Man 2' shall not b placed wlMln 2 Oi the- of pipe. 3. CMaeionlem motwrial uaea Iw boakfW: Provide fund free from organic maLar"1 and other hudgn mail, and as approved by the Engineer. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 SURFACE CONDITIONS A. Examine Me aas and conditions Under which work of this section .sl be pert«"." Carat condltims dehlrtwntal to finally and proper omplalion of the worktte . Do not prod u"s ansdtkfactory conditions are camect.d. 3,02 PREPARATION A. Identify r".j.4 Met, level' cdntwn, and alum. 3,03 PROCEDURES A. Exal"g Ut"N": I. unl... Shown to be romoved, Protect .ctlw utility Knee shown an the d-Ings or otherwise mad Mown to Me Contract` prlof to trenching. If damaged, repair or replace at no cast to the owner. 2, Men S,dsfing underground utilities, wbch are not nterea In for remowl Or mm abandmt. w Um ex"motion, they Shaft be adequately Supported and protects irantda t no additbnd cog`pt tto`l'I O isihdl be repaka prang y a 3. If utility ,stave is Intertupted as a r It of .ark ender his section, knmedletdy rn`®rare -.vice by repold'i, he damo aged utility at Idditlmal cent to the Owns. exlslMg ulnivas are found to interfere wild the permanent f- It.. being amatry fell under this SectioeW4atdy notify he Engineer and secure iotian 5. Do not proceed wild disruption of service w permanent rwlocabn of utsitka anti written instructions we re w. at the Engineer. B. Protactim of =whe and property 1. Barricade open hales antl depressions mcwring as part If the work, and Past wwamg lights an Property ajooent to a win Public accede. 2. Open to wamin9 lights daring hers from dusk to dawn eah ere and as ohenise re Wired. 3. Molal tructuroe. tnitb., oitlewdk,, pavements, and other.. ham damage wuaed by settlemmL lateral movement, w..aml, and other hasards created by operatke order this section. 4. All trenching Mall be in apordance with the latest OSHA r lrements. C. Dowaterin9: The Contractor, at an le.. ends conduct operations a as W Prevent the accumulation of water ice, "hit of -Meted m4 mow in excawUan r in the vk y n with the ar r and to prevent ter from Interfering progress ono .d to is the work. under n after pi. a Mall water b dlowea to rise a open trenches all. Dips has been placed. D. A.-S.I.ted water, iae. and -a. hall be promptly removed d disposed of bypu npIng m other approved mama Disposal Mall be co tried out in a er which will not treat` l hazard to public n r cause Injury to public or pr w e property waric ccal progress, or public aunts. nor ea.. any hte a to m In he use of duser`raed bfarthe drainage of.-Yatans. Old a'coWclan .hall et be E. Maintain access to adjacent orwas at all time. 3,04 TRENCHING A. provlde Meeting and sharing __,y For Protection of the weak and for he Solely of personnel, 1. Sheeting and bracing regdred far benches Mall be old to Me devotion or the pipe, but a Meeting will be dioeed to be pulled, rams-d, a disturbed below he pipe. S. A trench Mall be .--ter to the ,S,,JW d depth and to 0 width Sufficient to slow for Joining of the pipe and compaction of the baddag and mckfill moterld under Old moundhe pipe. C. The completed trench haft- Mall be firm for its fuH 1-90, and width. D. If Indicated an he Wan, or directed by the Engineer, pdar foundation malerlal encountered below the normal grade of the pipe bail Mall be renaved and replaced with granular boddfil. E. inhere pipes we to b placed in embankment fill, he be . been completed to of height It after ame 3 feet plus the dlte`of the pipe above he designed grade of the pipe. F. EamwUo9 for pp.rieloncea: 1. Excowte for monhom, and ,Imnw structures to a distance Sufficient to leave " Iaal 12" clear between "ter Surfaces and the embankment or, Mating that may be used to hold and protect the bank.. 2. , bee`nn directed SIX be acalattlen conaidwedsuch `unwthwized, that Fill has .ith sand, qua-, or Iron concrete as directed by the Engineer, and at no additional curt to the Owner. G, E.ca-rich ndl not interfere with normal 45 degree bearing .Way of t.-daikn,. H. Inhere -ta yerruns bawee public properly or are subject to governm cal a utility company Judedicllon, provide depth, bedding, cover, and other requkamente he ,et forth by legdly cinatlWtad outhaily hadng Jurisdiction. but In no cone lash than the depth Mown in the Contract Do. bL 1. ,we trenching occurs In exiting lawns, p-nne turf h sectime and keep damp. Replace turf uan '"I. I- of the backfinh" 3.05 BEDDING A. Pipe Beddhg An- Prior to ]lying pip' bedding material shall be placed to he limits of he ncawti- and to 0 depth beneath the pipe as permed. This material Man be dher sand, gravel, w crushed acme and Mall not contd- large lumps and stones over one Inch in diameter. A, the heeP .and eJIM9loYeed Materdonglal he wklh`oI Ythe fr�cA,to 6' above 3.06 BACKRLLING A BaWiHfng shah not be time in freezing weather, with bazar material' or tam "aterioa already paced are frozen. e. Sdd fill material Shall be .verily Arad and compete in lift. not more than 12 inches Mick a as approved by the Engineer. Pr.vkudy placed Or haw materials shall be moistened by sprinkling, if r.Wlred. to ehwre Proper band sad campactio. C. Trenches which haw been improporly bakfillea. enclosed or vered up bHwa it he. been approved shall be raop... d. Refill Old compact - p.ciIML Or othewse cared to the approw of the EadneSY, at na addlt'hond art to One Owner. 0. Take spedal care in backfilling and heading peratkns to not damage Pipe and pipe coatings. E. No cornp- Mg Shall be done when the material is too wet to be compacted properly. At Such tines the weak Mall be -Spmded unto the W.M",ly Wacea and new -I.iaa have dried out eufndent" to permit prper canpatbn, a nuoh Other precautions ore taken as may be nasa,ary to obtain or.per, compaction. F. Bo S, moterlel Mall he ca,pactad to the following percentag- of maxim m dry density and the In -pace, moielure content -1 not. be more Man "Ilobo- the pm m tionUoisture content, m de... by Standar0 Proctor ASTM 0698. 1. Mamd all structures, under roadway paving. Shoulder en- W�5" 2, onoomms 3,07 TEST FOR DISPLACEMENT OF SEWERS AND STORMDRNNS A. After the hooch has bath badrfl-bow the to -bothe pipe and has been pmpacted as Specif.d. check sewers and .Lwmdraina to dstem+Ine whether dbplpernent has acwrrea. S. VISION y Irrepect ppe inrtallatkn by flashing a light between manholes a between the locations of the monhdec, by moons of a flashlight or by reflecting Sunlight with a nn C. If the Nlumaaled interior of the pipe line shows pea alignment, d'uplowc ppas, a any other defact., correct he detects to h. pedfad condition, and at no aditiand cast to the Owner. D. After visual approw of Pipe, a 95E mandrel test moat be performed. END OF SECTION 02225 SECTION 02513 - BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. S.<tkn ind.des. 1. Bone Caunm 2. L-SHng Cpurees 3. Faith Course B. General: If,,. win Mall consist of me a, f Dituminms maon lwo. constructed - . Prepsra foun4albn n occordwl« with hefe Specification. ono he type of Surface thick epsswe end typical formlly lianUM showhn`O the Plane ar eetablishm by the Enginearm` "< an 1.02 OAUTY ASSURANCE A. Use adequate numbers of Wlllea warken who are thoroughly trained odd epeNanced In Me necessary crafts and who completely familiar wih he specified rpub.nmh and the lhoda needed far proper perfolmmce of the work of this Section. 8. All ..tend. and Installation Shall that In pcordmce with The A,pWt Institute Manual (MS-4) and the VAOT Standard SP-41-tiara, 1g90. C. Mi.lng Plant: Conform to Slate of Ver-1, Standards. D. Obtain materide ham same source throughout. 1.03 PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Sit-in- concrete Shall not be placed between November 1 and May 1. Material MAI art be placed when fins granular .U....' . wet a when he air temperature at tow posing Its in the Made and away ham aAZISI heat is ice tallow.: Air Temperable Pav -t O.greee Fahrenheit Co npocled Depth 40 Degree. 0, blow Greater hen 1 f/4" 50 Degrwe. 0,below Less than 1 1/4 PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS A. Malarial. shall be combined and graded to .of the criteria as defined In the VAOT Standard Specifications. Dhieion 70 for Type H (base coupe) and Type IN (f nkh course) bllumMpa concrete. B. Gradation: Material- Moll be combM" and graded to meet anpmllion Iknha specked In VAOT Slpald Specification, Section KS.03, for the bow course and finish courw. C. Thickness of paving far crime antl polling lot- shall be os Mown an Me plans, consisting of base course and Mieh 0. Fa pawmwnl recanelru<U.n a e- due to trenching. the depth of each course hall bar haraea by 1/2'. Pavement m.tnctim caused by trench reap ping due to imprope plaament a non-approd placement Mall be parformmd at no additional met ve to the Own e. 2,02 TRAFFIC MARKINGS A. Traffic meshing paint to be aetory-mixed, mathg ins raqukaments of the VAOT Standard Speallcalans, Swclan 709,08. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 INSTALLATION A. Install In .-dence with VAOT Stmdwd Specifications Serum 406. 3.02 EXAMINATION A, Verify base condition, no. the plwi lone of Section 02210 - Site Earthwork. B. Verify that compacted granular base I. dry and ready to support poling and imposed Ilad.. C. Verify gradients and slewtlme of bode are correct. 3.03 PREPARATION A. Matching Surfaces: When a new pavement is to match an ...Mg bltumMp. pavement for a roadway or branch, the Contrlctar Shall vertically emlath out the e.I.I pavement, eve the eaating fillet bone, The smooth cut ,hail be thoroughly d-nea and .-led with EmuMlRed Asphalt. RS-1. just yrkr to posing. 3,04 PREPARATION - TACK COAT A. When he bottom cause of blbminpe concrete Pavement IS I.ft o-r the .Mier, w paving le to b made over an kting bituminme Ian.'et. pavement. the -sting aural Shall be Gana and EmdelfNd Asphalt applied bafwe the next cwroe a applied. B. Me, apply to contact surfaces of curbs. C. Clal -faces of .-hd. and catch blob barren with IN to prevwnl bond eRh asphalt pa-menl, Do not tocN coot these wrf"m. 3.05 PLACING ASPHALTPAVEMENT A. Place to camp"led thickness identified an the Plana. B. Compal t htm enl bi . Hand c pactlain a Inxtrude accces.M. povemm posi c wear !o tilling equipment. C. D.w,p rolling .Ind consecutive poeme to achle- aver and smooth finlsh. wlhml "Ater mark-. 3.06 JOINTS A. Joints between did and new pavement, w between Succom" day, weak Shall be made So as to ina thorough and onti..... bond between he old wW new mixturoa. Whone-r the .Wading err-- Is hterrupted ling enough far the mixture to attain its Initial Stability, the Paver Shah be removed from the mat and a joint con,tructe 1. B. Butt pinta coon be formed by cutting the powwent in a "tic"vemWan. of right angles t as dthe centeriMe wean the paent has a true surface etermMed by he ux of a ,Y,nght-edge. The butt joint shall be lheroughty coatea with Emulsiffed Asphalt, TYp. RS-I, pet Pray to dapasiling the P.-g mixbree. C. Longitudinal Joints that haw become cold Shall be cooled liltplaced.` If 41f�haw Tn:: R-pme� croft 1 they ohdl ent t be cut back to a dean van"al edge prior to Painting with the dmul.1- D. urge.. otherwise directed, longitudinal joint. Shall be offset of islet 6' Ram y W in Me tower course, of pavement. Trenewree pints Mall I b .-=.t.d nearer owmer ens fad, ham he transverse pats constructed in reas 3.07 TOLERANCES A Thrdgg fde ll-edgeill be tested a dilated lout ruill"Aulhe Engineer u'It the® flat ` terlae. MY wrab, ezceeeing3 /16 f on arch between my two c torts Null be tislaclwny el Motwd. A 10 foot straight -edge may be aced an a watiod curl. The straight -edges Mall be provided by the Contractor. S. Scheduled Compacted Thickness: Within 1/4 MM. C. Vaodue, hen True Elewtlon: Within 1/2 Inch. 3,08 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL A. Perron rw vMiWlor traffic an wdacos until thoroughly .oil and hard. 3,09 REPAIR OF SUBSIDENCE A. Settlement - Should my powment Settle within me year of oo ,Pu,Ni of he Contract, Such Pavement Mdl be Pr-Parea at the Contractor's a h,aw- If the Canhatw fade to ke masuch "wad- vernally upon rnotice,t of notice, to 4. so fre W hey and the Cankhtdw shallD , the 0 ner. then the 0ens, only mae Such ear f`aari.0 ice costs In ...d In making Such raw". 3,10 MARKING PAVEMENT FOR PARKING A. Stlii Mg - Thor OUY clean the made to revel- striping and It. all -aping as indicated al the Contract Plms. All striping Nan be 4' wide unless otherwise noted B. MMcelloneaa - provde handicapped symbol. and all other miwellmems %gns and symbol, a, Indicated an the Contract plan.. ENO OF SECTION 02513 SECTION 02515 - CURBS AND WALKS PART t - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section Includes: 1. Concrete Curb. 2, Concrete Sidewalk. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 CONCRETE a 4.000 psi conal'of shall6 dma days and "I conformlo he cequllemenla .1 Coat -In -Place C"CI.W. 2.02 ADMIXTURES 0. Ak-enbaIninq admixture Mall mart w a.."d ASTM C260. Air content S dl range ban minimum of 5% to 75 an.ma m. 2.03 EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL A. Eepamion joint material $hall be pmmolbd blWminous fill. caninrmhg toASTM D994. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 CONCRETE CURBS a ExcawNan e,dl be mode to he required depth and the base materid upon which the curb a to he set Mall be compacted to a firm. a surface. AN Soft wa un,ultoble motedd Ma bbe rend-od e thoroughlyd replaced. with suitable mate"' which B. Ihass r IS fi Th. curbclose confwm`it, ` to the cSo line Old the grade hard erequired. All path under the curbing Mall be fslea and thoroughly tamped with materiel meeting the reauSerhmts of the material for ha bed worse. tion If C. Concrete for Shall be Placing: nWadingmw other approwedtme aced M thethoes, F Mall bo left in place ter 24 h-- w until the crate has Set wlfkiently eo that hey can b removed without Injry to the curdng. Upon removd .f the forma, unifocurb rm `htce but m` plmsitxM9 rubbwAl ba permitlb. For one this eak, mmpetenlnand Wilful 9niMws Mall be -played. D. Sections: Curbing Mall be constructed In section- hating u.W- length of ten feet, unless otherwise mdered. Sections and, .panelon d by pen pint. 1/8 Inch Side ptatpinl` E. E,-W- Joints: Expansion pinta Wall b founn 4xpansiat e Int,,da Mown on the plane using a pr.- a joint BUSY having a thi.Meae of 1/4 Ind, cut to can to the croe.-wct"ThSh n of the curb. ey all b constructed at 20 flat Inlervd. ar as directed by the Engineer. %bon the curb M constructed ad ment to a an concrete pawment, xp$lon pMp pinta Mall be located podta or at expansion pmints In Me pavement. F. Bad filing: After the concrete hat eel Sufficiently, he spaces in front and back of the Curb Shall be fined to the reWked .1-rich with layers of not more than old hchee of h, ham, material a, the bedding and thoroughly tamped. G. The Contract« Mal' woteat he curb and keep It in alignment anlN he <ompletim of Me contract. Each verb which a damaged at any tfine Pro IOU' to and accptmce of h, -ark Moll be rand-d and replaced wih-ki.fatwY Wrb at the Contrdctw'a expends. NrA �u cn U [3] ra IN J r-t Ff U V/LO Well a < r O I DRAWING TITLE SPECIFICATIONS DRAWING NO. C8 SCALE: NONE DATE: 12/28/01 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 3.02 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS wtian on Fandation: Excawibn shill be made to the A. ,war lotto of th end to a width that NI Permit P 9 required dal bed .sort" abon. and the that be -d bracMq of Me fame, Bed course a plarns. shall be placed !o \ha depM and ,eons Mown m the pion". When the layer required exceeds as depth .n ill be six inha0. two IaY•ra at thoroughly atsly wq ep placed and each Myer thoroughly campocled so that it M hard and unyNdng. The wetting f bed tour" material may be required to obtain Me compaction, il eel B. Finishing, The surface shelf n t De M Wi th a wooden Boat Na plowlwng wB be partnilted. The , sell be rounded with an edger having o radius of 1/4 Inch. The surfacee of the sidewalk, are, the floating and "reeding prolov. 1. -pulled, Mill be finished with a broom of a type approved by Me Engineer. dawn over the wrface parallel to the tans"" fools. Specld textudnmshall g on old, raps all be nataNecc d WI aordance with canatuction plan d.taft ill. or do. ted C, .by th Engineer.expdnsbn Jambi w0ll fbe placed evwy 20 feet. Expanslon joint. shall be formed wound al appudenmces staclbna Ws utility des end aria rib such as marsh ear Y P and through the sidewalk. Pre-Iwmed pint xlwdn into 9h 9 he" 'Inds. Installed n t n h Mick Math be P mien / 9 c ..td - pot filler of Ito ldereae" indicated hdl be - wIch . bet."n conor crete e. Thisa and -y flared material mull extend foul the full depth oft thee walklrr joint materall Between the expawia jonla, the sidewalk Mall be divided at interwle of fen fat by dummy joints formed by a j,ntng tod our oth' acceptable moron. as directed to ,.Was gr-vee approximately 1/8 inch wide and at last 1/3 of the daft When the oiaewdk is constructed next to a concrete --i slon joint matwill Mall be placed between sided walk an curb far Me death .11. sidewalk. D. Curing: During the curing period ill hafts, both Pedestrian and vehicular, all De e.d.d.d. Vehndar traffic .hall be e..ltided for wch additional time as the Engineer may direct. E. BackNling: Before the concrete has been opened To lramc, the apce an each side of the sidewalk Mall be to fpsa to the requked eleYmon with suitable material, firmly competed and .-fly graded. END OF SECTION 02515 SECTION 02700 - WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A Section includes: 1. Pipe Matwlalw 2. Hydrants 3. Valens 4. Fitll . _ S. main .,t- .. hown - the Contact Plto atne the writ' 1.02 SUBMITTALS A. Product Dotal: SubmR pdiw- data from m nufsclurws of product. and occ awria specified, ndatngrcompliorce Ito rwqulre,wit. to Me Engineer a d Waal nkipalay, 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. All molwida Old the installation procedure will bs In mcardma wtlh the Department of EnNr-mental Crrwnlm'c.r.ructan ordinals olf the � mdniclyathe l lylrrble PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2,01 GENERAL A. Famish ails, taws. �educingtee odd-dcoupingl th e ame typo d do- oaf "twill ale the calculi. Or of mot." hh0 equal wpwN, p ®ION end chemical Properties a ceptable to the Englne necessary to complete the - r ter -yet-. 2,02 DUCTILE IRON WATER PIPE A. Pipe Mall be IYIm 'oche Iron Clow 52 (slxew whoa on the plane) conlamuing to corrent ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51 latest ravl"Ort Pufh-en joint Pip "hall be mintmum Bit. ... 5'l. PUM-- joint =,.,I" Mall '-I- to applicable requiemsrt. of ANSI/AWWA Cilt/A21.11. 8. pipe Moll be cement mortor lined - the In-M- in awn names with AN Spwltic.tian A21.4 e.cwt that the t lining thkkne" MaH not be b" thm one-eiIgght nch t1/8"). A plus tot- -ro of me -eighth rill be permitted. C. Pipe Mall be glngn an interior bituminous coaling in cwmd with ANSI Spciflcatnn A21.f mtl ch e.lwbr bli-gr-, coating of cod, tar on as It lea.. In ocamana win ANSI Speclflcatim A21.51. 2.o3 FTRNGS A Ductn. Iron fitting. Mill conform to ANSI SO iflalion A21.10, 350 Pounds warmg pressure Gast bon Class 250 Pipe fitting. shall be oHowed In Iteu of ductile iron fittings aa" 350. Ducks Iron compact fitting.ccofortdng to AWWA C153-88 will be allowed In Thou of full body flange. B. All I fittings shall haw mega -lug glonds fen oddtion.I pint ra,tronl, C. Bella Mal conform W ANSI Sped fill A21.10. 2.04 GATE VALVES A. Valves Man be m-ulmwred to math rwg 11-te It AWWA Specification C509-87. Valwa twNw tncha (12") and small- hall be bubble right, two leakoge at 200 psi writhing prewure. Vulva Mall how non -rung Wi open anterclock I _n bahp"-owe caaInin meld fo Ndcate agate "sal g _ dv..i otapenino. wit. .1" Mall e-kaawtre the preaare ran fig Old yen- manufacturedeach salt shill body. Piles to shipment Rom the factory, be tested by hydrostatic on- equal to twice the .pacified working orse... Gate wives shall be Mueller. Dressy or Kw,wy unless otherwise epwified by the. City IF South Burlington Water Department. 8. Burled vd-, .It be installed with a aiw box, 2.05 VALVE BOX A. Cast irm New England style mde-type, f and ar-Wrartw Inch (5 1/4") shaft, six fat (6') tr-ch depth. S. Cow Mai be cast Wan, marked "WATER" and lortletng direct- of opening. 2.06 HYDRANTS KBIA M dorm 200 250 a Ksmed ) / A. Mudlw Su w Censor / ) ( P yy fat 6' N 5 1 4 A, 24015 I.M.P, whh f I. () sines / H rmta thread The Standard I Hydrant. Notional mhlmum bury arud ..It bow at Moat 12 inches between Ue bottom of the stamen cap one the grand The Contact. Mal whydrantrqu.emen le w{th tiro Jowwater wat f the e e r department. PAR 3 T EXECUT ION 3.01 INSTALLATION PROCEDURES A. Iw dfibU n of all wetr lines stall be n attardonee with AWWA C 600 latest revision. B. NI pipe -d fittings Math be nspwted and tested In cord -a with f< fa b._.s sp-111O.nons and the aforementioned AWWA Specifications. The Contractor h.11 fumhh for appro cl c-lificotnn from the pipe manufacturer that ill tests how been Perf.mwd with Matiafactay raMulis Pip. Mall not be Metalled without the En9lnes s approval, sorbs Mall be carefully handled C. Pipe, fittings. and aces th dale of act lance of the Pries to e p la avoid dart" e 9 l work by Me O ou the Contractor Mall MY.placedo any projec 1 Uw at - lime round o b. dew Y son pipe a occe.earY to the Owner. 1 flan at no saw Including ail' instal a lid 0. All pipe .showing cracks Moll be re, . If Araks Occur In ode Pipe, (he may.. at his own axpenw and with the appr.- o the Engneer. toff Me cracked portion, at a Pont at least 12 from the visible limits of the crock and use the nand partial of the pipe. E. MI pipe and fittings Mall be cleared of all foreign matter -d debrla Prior to retaYdion and Man be kept dew onto the time of acceplance by the Own- F. The pipe shall De laid to c-foml to the linen and grads" indicated m the arowngS - 9ingn by the�mn9new. Each pipe Mdl Oc so laid w to farm a clone t with fe next .dinning pipe and to bring the inert. continuously to the rwgunwd grade. G. Al all tines. when the Pip 1-1-9 s not .chaIn progress, lbe open ends of Ube pipe shdi btty . closed by temporary watertight plugs or by .1 w approves means. If saw, is in the tench when work le resumed, the plug Moll not be removed unto of danger of wets anteing the pipe has passed. The pipe Mall be ImMallsa in benches and at the Ile and grade Mown - the Got rat Plan.. My deflwlim Onto Mall ore within the limit. Verified by the manufacturer H. All piping and appurfar"c" connected to the equipment Mall be wPparled sa Ihot a of in wM De Imposed an the equipment. If I equipment ma tbal. n specifications Contractor� 11lubrnllscwtl8catlonme net o of compliance the I. for pressure piping, c--ate fruet blacks Malt be instated at ill anrewaned fittings and other bcation• a indicated - the C-Gott plan.. Mnknum bearing arw Mill he as Mown an In. Contact Plans.. Ca-te .It be 2.Soo pw. Canclate shill be plead ag.k ndefuroed material and Moll not cow jm1w, bdtf or nuts, or iniwf-e with the remowel of any pint. Woada .kb forms all beprovided tinuM blacks, Mpduge shop be used tretailer ea J. The contract- Inch wify canductlNty of tie existing water service line that I. to be -A-Bed to the rise bonding. K. A minimum saaralion of 18. wtical -d to' h-ix-tat .hall be maintained between the -told. of all water and esew Ile. _1_a _lance I. granted by the Wales Suply Divan. L. There shop be no pyslal cmneeli.+ between the dblrbutlen ayalem and any pipe-. P.m'.. hydrants, or tank. Which are uppilwd ar may be wPped with a watw that la, our may be contaminated. I take all nets flood to M. The C anlractw hd necessary prww prev-t flotation of the pipe in the bench. N. All lowering safety standard. end[ be In cm( --ante with dwinwe. Th. rla 41 be wOusy rrte and wpon.ble-dd for any0w safety cil Um. by attar Smte - Fece d twoolors. 3.02 SETTING OF VALVES AND FITTINGS A. Valve., fittingf, plugs, and cop Mdl be t and joined to pipe n the moon- _Ueda ab.w far laying and joining pipe. S. Vdw boxes are to be installed rod ill b,ied wiwa, The boxes Mall be coat Wen with a mintmum 5 1/4" dnmetw and tang anough to extwd Gan the vow to Wished grace. The of the vole"fl Vdw boxes .,Wltlot transfer loads-wal the waiog not Old to the Yaw. C. Covers Mall be close filling and art tight with the top of Me cow fium with the top of the box run. Coven Mall be marked "WATER' with an -ow indicating Me direction of rpming. 3.03 DISINFECTION A, Dientatbn of fe pipeline all mill be directed by if. equipment Imorr to Perform the eer old costs remirwl testing staff land at the Contractors expense AWWA Standard C-651 (latest re Asian) Mall be uoed as a boas for the disinfection process. All dWinfection/ testing Moll be completed by an ind"mdwt thkd party ui -thanks approved by the Engineer or Mcd municipality. B. The Engnew wnl require as mntmum: 1, Complete fluting of the pjpelne to wash out all dirt, s, decor.lc_ which may haw accumulated In the pipeline during commut. tan, 2. Following Burning (to own dear water), the Contractor will odd chlorine to th. -tire pipeline velum. of watw such that Me valet .II haw not leas Him 25 mg/L free chlorine. Old let the mixture set far at last 24 hour. 3. Aftw the 24 hour duration, the Watw in ode pipeline Mal be tested for residua free chlorine and most .-ben o minimum of 10 mg/L chlorine. If I... than 10 ,%e�otw until at least 0 nn9A cliornIn th. disinfection e mlel"ai .. snot be Indicateed ban fall. s 4. U aria .hd ,wrnM- of the steps abow, for pl tlin. Mall be flushed again un0t the chlorine cancwGatbn in the pipeline is no higher than that. powil'mg n the supply system. After fie fna Bushing ono bNore the p Bone M placed in so= boct'iolagtcal aamplee hall be collated on two c-oaatiw day" and submitted to the Vermont Health Department N,-.lyeh, If Be Initial "Snf"U" tan. to produce eaopM- whih pas the Vermont State Heath Department requmemanle for ptable drinking wale, fen the prates. chat be repeated unto sa/bfactory result. ore attained. Up- atisfa<twy results by the Vermont State HeaIM Depadmat,the piipeline may be placed n "Mce. 304 PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTS tin 1 M1unim all g plugs. cope A, The Contractor hill gauges, e and ill oNer n eery equipment and lab. a prfed antl r re testa fi r. mar o an opp o eel leak a length. Each valved awt well . a tw. The lengtCorb bi one Mauwntl feet of Pip shill an tested. The C-Gaclar Mill provide at his own seen" any additional tape to the wet. It.. nwese.y to perform fe prewa end Isakage lest between Wo-, All di* infection/testng Moll be ..nploed by an independent third party uW- onerwlae .proved by the Engineer - local municipality. 8. MI aiw ,-mired far leafing shill . potable testingtestingMal be ewtAuated n the pnsenrw or tMI in. Engineer. C. The Contract. Mall mace the necessary Provsiona to tap the pips at the high Pont to rdeme OR oW and shall plug words aflw canpwtng the teat Hydrants or tNowoffs loafed of high Poi by the be owed for or refa" Itlieu of tap. if appo Engineer. D. For the preaare teat, the Contractor shall dewlap and maintain fa two hours 150% of the working pre»ore or 2GO Poi, whi,h,w is greater. Failure to hold within 5 psi of the doingnoled preowle for the to -her period an.tifut.. a fail,,, of the section tested. fed tf the leak is E. No Pipe than that shell ie act" -ro srmula: b the following t determined 9 ter than the y greater M L= ND((P' �� QS Ylhimew in le" 1 S a Length of Pipe Teeming L = Allowable Leakage 1/4r D Nwonal Diameter of Pip e (`) P Awoge Teat Prawre (pi) N . Number of Jonls in the Pipeline Tat All testing halt be conducted in accordance with AWWA COW (latest rWwsian). F. Should any section of pip (all sii the pressure w Iakage tat the Contractor Mal do ewything nwewwry to I -ate and repair Or ralace the 10-0- pipe, nllinge or pint. at no eat to the Owner. END OF SECTION 02700 SECTION 02725 - DRAINAGE PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Sectl- includes: d a rtenances. 1. Drainage, Pipe - appurtenance- 2. 2. Drainage truclurew 3. st-. MI. a. RMated Sections: 1, Sall- 02225 - Utility Trwi and B-1,filling L02 SUBMITTALS A. Manufactwer's technical data fa: I. Pipe and appurtenances. 2. structure. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2,01 GENERAL REOUIREMENTS A. FuxsN ells. law, w,�nnelti-can and and d cad .1 the wan "t - sae, c lyp d dad If 'wisr dal on the conduit, c of merti. having pool a supa'.r physical and chemical prapstia re acceptable to In. Engnew. 2,02 DRAINAGE PIPE AND PERFORATED PIPE A. If the Contract Plans do not specify a orticulor type of 1 wn materials Option, Me following the Contractor's t 9 PIP•• of op may be owed: I. Polyvinyl Cnlwide pipe caniwmin9 to ASTM Spwdicati5 D3034 . F679, `PVC) sews pips antl fittings SOR 15. 2. C-u9atad Pdyethyt-e Otpe he -d Rttngs (amootn nterior) meeting the requirements of AASRTO M-294 and w 252. 2.02 3, QuakitzmuekngCL 2Pipe (wes the-okikem-t. AASHTO M-294 and M-252. 2.03 CONCRETE STRUCTURES A. ASTM C478, dtal a indicated . as nwaeary to to accanodate all penetration.. 2.04 METAL ACCESSORIES A. Normal. hones and c w a: 1. pay cast Iran. A5TM"AM, as mown -plans. 2.05 STONE FILL A. The specified Stan, fill shot meet the grading remiremeri . fellow.: 1. Type 1 - The impost dimensim of the tm, shill wy Mum. o�heatone ineplacceedshell nave Sa Percent lnea on Ifthe 4 Manse. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 INSPECTION A. Examine the areas and conditions urd- which storm answer work I. to be Instated and nobfy Me Engineer in wri�itrlg of c-d,,_ del,, dal to the Proper and timely omplelion of tiro work. Do not pioc wiU the work until un_Ux ory canditlma haw Crew conrectad. 3.02 GENERAL A. Men existing-dwg-dd utilities. which are not scheduled far own." or chord -rent Me encountered n the awti-, they well be adequatelyIII wupporied and .cleated from ldl or9 no additional orient to Me. wall be repaired promp y 3,03 PREPARATION A, Han Wm exawtion (where race Y) to rwNIwd Nrvalianm. Great eve-exaowUwith F. m. Ml. allow tch the gra" D, Th. the pill. MI'Sericiewd. lend rwwNms way bewplaced o-d bockflllod to prewnt undermining. C, Rem- long. of.. or other hard matter which could damage drainage atr b,... or Impede cansietent b-kit log or comedian. 3.04 INSTALLATION OF PIPE A. Pipe Mall be lolled in accordance with Section 02225 - UtYity T ronq and S.rkfilling. 3.05 INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES A. Precast con crate stwlura: an,e le elructureowre a and cas shown - for Plea Vreca- the Contract Plana. 2. When, manhoes occw n Pavementt eat tape. If Runev and Were Rush bb with finfcom with ASTM C443. 3. Provnr e bust joint gasket pyMg w FILL TONE aria INSTALLATION of s A. Place stag NI as shown - Contact Plana. END OF SECTION 02725 SECTION 02730 - SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS PART I - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section leoud- 1. Gratily Sewer pipe 2. Manhole Structures end Appurten-ce- B. Rai two Sections: 1. Section 02225 -Utility Trenching mA BackfiNin g t.02 SUBMITTALS A Product Data: Submit publimed data from mmufaouren .1 produce end ucce.w-Ma specified, Indicating canPlianca With requirements. 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. All MIKO y "weer malertals and conahuctim or name Mall Mown a be w Mthe Contract Plans and mall meet the requirements of the Slate of Vwmonl Agency of "W" Re c-, (Depwtmat of EnNrcomenlal Conaarwt or) and me Padk Works Standards and Specifications or the local municlpollty. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2A1 GENERAL A, m�.eaa dw..atw awransitinn. and andcouplings. carp rgf the .cm. Cyue mof claws of twlal as the conduit, our of maotwkil aqua a actin 1 mpaie, Phylical and h ermcd Properties as g eplabla to the Eng' meto provitle Dlete and opwable system. 2.02 PVC GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER PIPE A. PVC ""r Pipe shop conform in all taws"' to the let- f AS $peck Ilion' D-3034 on F679, Type PEN Poll If wd Fittillow, SOP pipe�All pip. andfi tinge shall be clearly me35 ad as roilowa: Manufacturer', Nome an Trademark - ba"Y" Pipe Sirs (as Mown an plans) 'let. D.,n.IL 12454-C PVC - Legwd "Tyre PSM SDR 35 PVC Sewer Pipe , PS 46 PVC See. Pipe" Desg .0ce, ASTM D-3034 or F679 B. .binds Mal be push -an tlq oaring slalomwic gawks an Motef rm Theta ASshist e 2fumiMeA in romiindr113bfact lay k.Iwgthe Sufflnennt ambers of Mort length. and full mrmecti RmTtingMI shop in«sat sale Willll r-heeM. use boa and manufactured fittings. Field fabricated, eadde-tyP. annationo wM not be co sle. - acceptable, 2.03 MANHOLES A. Manhole. shall be 4W I.D, precast concrete (odes. shown or lea ry to a amnform e ill edalPenetration.) Wimina m dithlc base and shop coto the latest of ASTM Specification C478. B. Shslv" short b- constructed with co-b. having a minimum eampw.Ion strength of 3.000 pat at 28 day.. Imeri for Mown on the and debate ea Mall be a Wan^ onhd and Mall ci cmaWeled with a -weld nu brick, th pen the Iota mhop, of into Wi-duds. Inverts y or how the exact Nape of the sewir to which they we connected, and our change In size of Airwtim mill be gradual and wren. C. All m-hd" one la be provided with copdpnw polypropylene plastic alas with steal rwnfor-ment 12 Inchon - cats, D. All manhde, Mall be pr-lded with rough. gray, cast beer manM1de homes and cove MI Won losing mall be thoroughly Gamed and then waled with hot tar before being dwiwed. From- and ewe -hot be L.Baron LC 265, or - approved surd. and hew o minimum weight of a0 pound.. E, Pirelli news and bases for monhda shall conform to ASTM Specificolion C-47& The pipe Openng in the Precast manhole system ahall haw o coat-n-Place fle.ibe gasket or an equivdsystem far systefar pipe inatdlation as "-rived by, the Engines. Joints between manhde new- math ne 1 minimum width flen'ole gasket or approved equds. 204 CLEANOUTS A. pan -tan fen grovity seww, -d force ..!no mop be provided at location. indicated - the Waw a as directed by the Engneer. Cie -at frames -a owr. mall be of laugh gwy ast iron. Castings shoat be We to pollen and Ile It_ if .S. Tine bearing surface of de -out Games and rs ogainof each othermill be machined to glw cantnuoua agri throughout their ciramferen- PART 3 - EXECUTON am GENERAL A. Care mall to exwcl"d by the Contractor to awid disrupting the "watt- of exlwng s-it sy "weer f-Nitta .I pout prior wdtlen "proud of the Engineer. B. When existing underground utilities nob scheduled far wh o ail or board -mend are encountered in Me exawllon, they hall eq Its aduatw ely pParted old Protwtw from damage. My derma, to utuillew What be r"abed promptly of - coditbnal coat to the Owrw. C. Installation of Pip Moll be in aa.dance Wirth Seat'- 02225 - UNity Tronching cod BackNlirg and an specified by thb section. 3.G2 BEGGING FOR PIPE A. Th, bedding motwill shall be shaped to fit the Pipe for o depth _-- to rl0 Percent of 11. kW fen low, total height and 3,03 LAYING PIPE A. In nerd, sewer pipe .hall be Iwlalled n a croon.. with the latest detailed natwdions of the mon-MINrw. B. The I.Yill Mg shbegin at the outlet end and the lows, segment of fe pipe shall be in contact with tie moped bedding throughout its full length. Bell or q, ong1 woe of pipes aqw and the circumferential laps of flexible pipe shall be plwed facing ".Mean. C. MI pipe rod fittings stdi be carefully ..amine. for defect, and no Pipe or fittings shall be I'll -Ncb we known to be dwNcUw. If My defective Plane ion dicowed fie loyr% It mall be removed and replaced at the Contract, exown. AN pips and fittings at be cleaned before they se laid and oral be keptmclan -fit accepted in the completed work. D. Th, pipe indicated Pon the dawings Or 9lveube told 'I confarom l by the Engineer.o are tnos and EachEach pi p, be joint with he 04A a laid a to foml o close A odjoinnq piped to Dring the inwta continuously to the rwubed groax E, The Contractor atoll lake ill necessary Precautions to prevent flotation of the pip In the tench. for When pip laying is not in progress, the open ends of the pipe Mall be closed with temporary wat.Oght plugs. If not bee erin lowdt ntiln-11 ndanger of watermentern9 the he piped) la Nlminaled. G. For force main.. cmetals reaction blaekng shall be provided as detailed at ill bends dMecling 22. degrees or At the Controoai option. stain' glade " Da used at bends In lien of concrete blocking. Fielaker glade enall also be pl-l"n at ill jams WiIM1n three Plpe length. each side of the bwds. H. Frost Protection far Shallow Sewers: Sewers with less than five fat of law owr the crown and "Den approve by lns Engineer shall be protected against freexng by nstollatien of Styrofoam SM kwok.ting chests with a width of three feet. One Inch thkho.o. of Insulation hall be used tort say fat depth of piping is lens n- fiw feet. The own of the Meals Offer o placed Mx Mclean abow the u h IIft ImmedblN he sx inc Y m adMn of 1 w after completion Contractor during the crown. Cue Mall De -x the S by the line st drown SM steals. .-'act,- ow dNl an d cam Y BurTh.in bo p ll ni In. _ 9 0,'STM D7 2Mi 1-73an Mall be re -sire at�tuxedgth by DOWenta Chemical Company. Midland, Miohig-,r 01 wquol, 3.04 GRAVITY SEWER PIPE TESTING 0. The Controcl- hall pir Wds ill necessary,quipml and ..bument.N rw,Nued far prop. camplet m of enthe Flushing and testing. Quality of rat'. test proasdurea, n method of dspwal of wall shall he dpprav by the Engln. Prior to teeing. flush wIM wall' to remove =tritctm debris. B. MI lest. hall be made In the pneance of the Engine'. Prslimnary testa made Dy Me Contractor without being obwwv f by the Engineer will not be accepted. The Engineer with be noli0ed at least eight hours before any work Is to be nestled w tsetse. C. The maximum sww' length to be tested at one time shoo be that length between any la mwhde. D. AW Testing: Low Pressure air testng shalt be conducted in sac dace •Ilh the following procedure., tar Each end of the tat swoon shill be Plugged. OOPPea and traced. Necessary safety pew -lions what be taken to prevent blowata and passel. Injury. 2. An air hone Midi be .-Waled to o taped plug used for an air inlet The nose .111 be connected to the Or control equipment, which hall Include wives and aesaure gauge.. These ehdl ailow air in enter the w.w test line. mm8or air Prawre In M. seen", sh.t off air, and provde preswre rwaucibn and milef. TM mariwfthldlviWane of 0.10 pe eandrllaccurory of 005 y a10 psi Old suell to Possicted 3. Th, the test line"and lhs test" section filled slowly until to -alert oowuo of 4.0 Palo h maintained. 4. A prewaure abow 3.0 p.lg hall be maintained for at lapel Nng minutes to allow the tampwoture to etobilixe, A check for leaks shall be made and If any ran tend, the pressure +bell be r.,-.d -4 the lining Wooed or rebeired. 5. After th. sWbillaidi.. Period, me praeuo snail be .dju,ted to 3.5 psig and the air supply a arnaled. 6. Measne and record Me time Interval far the lest line Or eawre to Mop from 3.5 P.19 to 2.5 Paig. 7. It the groundwatw table Ic ,Dow the pip. mwe abow teat pressure, 0.5 prig for each foot the ale y-ndw.tw Is abow the nest of the pipe. 8. fie requirements of H`N "wlNcatlm shill be eeneidered wlleRed it Me time required In "cmtla Ion the pr"wre to decree" from 3.5 to 2.5 ponds per .guar. Inch q-tw th- the .wage bock P....r. of any groundwater that may wbmerge the pipe is not In. to she /Blown table: n that comp uted according 9 Mo p 9 Minimum Test Tine tar Vonbu. PIP Sizse Olamets (1-h-) Tim. (s.181w Ft.) 6 45 8 75 10 11 12 ILO 3.06 MANHOLE TESTING 0. winces shot be tested wproel, by one of Me fdlawng twor Procedures e other solo s Test: AN ap9 r tlon Leakage e Pipes an I. ExiNt a 9 Into Me manhde still be suitably plugged and Me plugs blowal. waned to wnl a• The manhde has then be filed with water to the tap of the cone section. A Period of fine may be Permitted, an. r absor t ea allow ro P If he Cantrac t-.o wrh . to At the and of this the m-hoe Mall be ,,filled ace. i Dr. to the top o/ e cane, 1 nwse.ary, and the maathe time of at last far uoure begin. ig Al the end of Ma test period, the manhoM Mall be refilled la the top of cededThM n Me elum a of water the om0. meow g o t Moll be converted a gall-, per witch fat ..I lor 2{ hen. The Iakage tar each manhde shill oat exceed on.gala/wtkal fall/Boy Ir leakage awPPpr °edlby In. Engineer Old the manhde oledsed. If In. Cwlract. Made to bodfill prior to testing. the testing well be d his own risk, and it Moll be Incforumbent uponmy foNws of the bestactNo adjr tment-I, the the aeon Iakage allowance will be mode for unknown c-se. wch 03 leaking plu93, abso :; etc. It will be aaamw that all loss of water during the tsal Is a wwull of leaks through the fonts or through the concrete. Furlhrmorw, the Contt Contractor Who take any step say re M< En s r to a Engineer hat th e wale table is throughout Me lest. tab often o/ the menode bet ow h 2. Vacuum Teat: This method of testing m-hda for leakage Inx,we the us of a device fen wading the top of the mannde cone section and Pi Me air out of the manhde, tta0ng a wcuum and Molding this vacuum for o prescribed period of lime. The procedure far this teat is as me...: a. NI lifting holes and extent, pinta Mall be filled an4 Anted With an approved wen-Mrnkng o,t.. The completed manhde Mall sat be backfMed prior to testing. Manholes which how been backNlM shill be exawted to expose the on tbe a.twi, Fri. to vwuum testing or tr• o/ the mwhde shall be lasted fa Iakage by mane a.filtrotnn leakage tat. bar All be alulido, plugged Ian olrm-Inelr to pear tda shill deplac.m-l. c. A Plole with an inflatable rubber ring the elxe of fe top or the manhde Mot be installed by Mating the ring rif air to pressure adequate to pre-t leakage of art between the rubber rng an the mwnd- will d. All Mall hsn be pumped out of the manhole through an opening in the plot. u Ul a m M created nelaa I the manhde wqud to 10 inches of mfi an approved w-um gauge. The removal o -11 shill then be stopped and the test begun. ear The rl"", Moll pas fib teat if the W,holds at 10" Hg ar dope no lower thon 9" mg within IN. fallowing time": Time Depth of 4'm Mellow Minutes Swande 0' - 10' 2 0 IV -15' 2 30 1S - 20 3 EO 20' - 25' 3 Hg during the I. If"wified time drop bast Ih 8 1" ode hall be needed and Steps 2 through 5 above repealed until the waum hdas far the speeifsd time q. After the manhole taxN the no lea teal, It Mall be bockNled carefully a that no Iwke ere crated. If the manhole 1. disturbed n any way during ac bkNl, it well agolin be vaaum tested coding to Slepe I through 6 abow. If the anhde fall. the waouum tat. the Cont-bo, stall left Me manhole using the manhole exfilb-tion all. nor The Cantaof faN marinate the En9brow with a writMn trig our ouch manhde leakage teal -H- i. i. Nmhdaa wall le tested and accepted prior to "tiling m-ode inwts. 3.05 MANHOLES A. The excawtlon shall be to the depth Indicated M Me Wane , ardred by the Engine-r, and carefully Moped and graded. B. Marital. sail-s mall be pow.-t c crate an Moll conform to the dbler lone indicated an the plane or clawed by the Engneer. C. Chomslw nwta and Roes areas far sewer -holes hall be cenetucied of brick sod mentor or concrete. Inwts Men hove the exact she" of the sesw to whim they are nwled and any change in .1. or direction well be gradual and ewe. AN construction of esww manholes must be a -toil out to keu watertight work, D. The required c-rise of brick stall he placed - lop a1 th- crele to the sle h.l ndi-fed an the plans Orwdwwd by the Englnww. 86kk Mall be laid in warkm-like s by o competent mon. Aftw the bricks new laid the morm j.inla - w the Imulde of ode brick masonry hall be -UY panted. The outstdill e surface of the brick shbe cowed .Ito of of the -row quai ale used for luring the brick, so that a rears -ably wineeff, surface is obtalnwd. E, The eat Wan Frame mall be set cow ndkoted -the plane a fill molar bed. The yode or cover shall be Prawdy ploosd in the home. AND GATES FENCES SECTION 02831 - CHA IN LINK PART I - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Swum includes 1. Fence Framework, fabric and ocowwwiew. 2. E-chation for pet ban"s. 3. Manuel gate. and ,slated hardware. 1,02 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION A. Chain Ink fence 6 feet tall from finihed grade with poets "aced at 10 feet. 1.03 SUBMITTAL A. ProvWe product eats and manufact dwe Installation Instructions. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS A, Material. and component. Mdl conform to CLFMI Product Manua on equal. B. Fabric Mat be CLFMI Heavy Rewd-lid swum antl past. Mll TSole Type 11 w! With el, II terminal.carnw.. u PART 3 - EXECUTION 3,01 FENCE INSTALLATION A, Install mem,w-k, fabric, accesaalwa and gate, in ove-dance with monure-tureia instuclione 3.02 TOLERANCES A. Maximum -I.Uo from plumb Mall be no mare than 0.25 Mena. B. Maxonum onset hum true posltan all be me finch. C. Component. Mall not lofting. - odjfcat property Ines. END OF SECTION 02831 U TvN^{ 1'•'R W Fe•1 /�F+rrl Ay�rrtt F+4 N u i2 �iU V jy 3 rATp]] W 05 4 w...l w� Cy,Uwvs{ bb ^`VI O W 4_J 0U Z W Z W ())- W LJJ Z ,non Q V WQ J (1) Q DRAWING TITLE SPECIFICATIONS DRAWING NO, C9 SCALE. NONE DATE: 12/28/01 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 u Z'� FA ,-7--- I.. - - 'rim,/" \ , - - F` ///leglei ". AV VON f 00 f= z U\. _— - -' \ /„ _ ,�. "��\ II / // / //��/ I �� � � o \\ 1, � �/ _ - �''i�l j/r//,r. WUjj) ,. 1 �/ /, a nl �� _., _ . _.:.. .ri / /, � j��T•.]+,� /I / M/ I I ,�//�,/// / / ,// / /. GYM, a- I / / MA, NMI MEMO, I p,11,11 � / / / ,% II 111111111 �' /j /////j/� -. 1--. -_-{ '-_. U�`\\f\�\\ i 1 ill 1 /• /�/,- /r _ � III � '� j/ �� / �_ 'V' \ I I'IVIII'l I 11 � I /� 77 I IT" LEVIM LEVEL _u LINE,-, As 'jAwL\ \1 P W�K wo _j U) rill r, 1 0 S /p/g/m, ONOMA -NmG \10 TCN BAMN 7 MEN I I, a�7 (np 0 INLET "A ?Q1, am If ipsp/ DUN a,f F/PFQ KIM f -4- ON mao 7- -kJ7. mg 0 0 T L If MOT SUMDATE Y T WING TITLE NS EROSION CONTROL j uA. W PLAN DRAWING NO. 7. clo V C SECTION 02150 - EROSION CONTROL PART i - GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. Section includes: I. The work under this section includes but Is not limited to providing all labor, equipment and materials for the installation of oil required site related erosion control measures. If not otherwise directed on the plans, erosion control shall be in strict conformity with the latest revision of the "Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites". B. Related sections: 1. Section 02210 - Site Earthwork 2. Section 02936 - Permanent Seeding 1.02 GENERAL NOTES A. The discharge of sediment laden water from the project site s prohibited. All discharged water from dewat-rig operations shalt discharge into a temporary sedimentation basin B. Contractor shall install all erosion control measures ae depicted an plans and details or as recommended by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or Soil Conservation Service, prior to any construction. Contractor sholl also be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all erosion control measures until project is completed. C. Contractor shall also limit the soil disturbance and seeding application dales to between May Tat and October 15th. if soil disturbance occurs later than October 15th and prior to May 1st, winter erosion con Vol measures will be necessary. Contractor shall consult with the Engineer for additional site specific winter erosion control measures. 0. All stockpile material (topsoil, borrow, etc.) will have a hay bale dike or silt fence constructed around the perimeter. Seed and mulch stockpiled material as soon as possible to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation off site. Locate stockpiles on the uphill side of the disturbed areas, if possible. During windy conditions, stockpiled material shall be covered or watered appropriately to prevent wind erosion. E. Slopes greater than 1:3 shall have erosion control netting installed to stabilize the slope and reduce the erosion potential. Install netting over mulched slopes so that all parts ore in contract with the soil and mulch. Pin netting with wire staples 3' O.C. to ensure full bonding with soil surface. F. Install hay bales in grass -lined swales 50 feet on center to prevent silt from washing Into the drainage system during construction. Hay bales shall be removed when vegetation is established. G. Control dust through the application of calcium chloride or water. An average application of one pound of calcium chloride per square yard of exposed area should be considered for each treatment. The exact number of applications and amount of dust controller shall be based upon field and weather conditions. It shall be spread in such manner and by such devices that uniform distribution is attained over the entire area on which it is ordered placed. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 EROSION CONTROL NETTING A. Jute netting shall consist of undyed and unbleached yarn woven into a uniform open plain weave mesh. 2,02 EROSION CONTROL MATTING A. Where required on the plans or where directed by the Engineer, erosion control blankets (matting) shall be North American Green Cl 25 for swales, and SC150 for slope stabilization, or approved equal. 2.03 FILTER FABRIC A. When filter fabric is required, it shall conform to the requirements of Mirafi 500X or approved eqivalent. 2.04 CALCIUM CHLORIDE A. Calcium chloride shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 144. Either regular flake calcium chloride, TWO 1 or concentrated flake, pellet or other granular calcium chloride. Type 2, may be used. 2.05 WATER A. All water used shall be dean and free of harmful amounts of oil, salt, acids, alkalies, sugar, organic matter and other substances injurious to the finished product, plant life or ' the establishment of vegetation. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3,01 HAY BALE CHECK DAM AND INLET PROTECTION A. Bales shall be placed in a row with ends tightly abutting the adjacent bales. Each bale sholf be imbedded in the soil a minimum of 4 inches. Bailee shall be securely anchored In place by stakes or rebars driven through the bales. The first stoke in each bale shall be driven toward the previously laid bole to force the bales together. B. Boles shall be repaired or replaced as needed. Once vegetation is established and the bales are no longer needed for erosion control, they shall be removed. 3.02 SILT FENCES A. The silt fences shall be constructed in accordance with the construction detail. The fence shall generally be placed 10 feet from the toe of the slope or as shown on the plans. The ends of the fence shall be placed uphill to form a horseshoe shape to trap all runoff. B. The sit fences shall be inspected periodically for damage or build-up of sediments. All damaged fences shell be repaired or replaced. Sediment deposits shall be removed from the fence as they build up and be placed in an area where there is no danger of further erosion. 3,03 EROSION MATTING A. Erosion matting shall be placed on oil grass -lined ditches with profile grades exceeding 5.07 and shall be placed and maintained in accordance with the Vermont Agency of Transportation Standard Specifications Sections 654 and 755,07. 3.04 RESTORATION A. As soon as construction is completed in a given area, it shall be topsoiled, seeded, fertilized and mulched as specified In Section 02936 - Permanent Seeding. 3.05 STABILIZED ROAD ENTRANCE A. A stabilized pad of crushed stone located at any point where traffic will be entering or leaving the construction site to or from a public right-of-way or street or as shown on the drawings shall be constructed for the purpose of preventing the tracking of sediment onto public rights -of -way. B. Design Criteria: 1. Use 1.5 to 2.5 Inch stone. 2. Use 8 inch loyer of stone. 3. Stone pad shall be full width of entrance. 4. Minimum length sholl be 50 feet. 3.06 GRASS -LINED DITCHES A. All ditches that are not stone -lined shall be topsoiled, seeded, fertilized and mulched. Any area which shows signs Of erosion shall be reseeded immediately and maintained until permanent vegetation is established. 3.07 MAINTENANCE A. All erosion control measures shall be inspected weekly and repaired and/or replaced as needed, B. All erosion control measures shall be inspected after periods of heavy rain. C. The stabilized road entrance shall be top dressed with additional stone should the existing .lone become clogged with sediment. D. Hay or straw mulch is subject to wind action. Mulch may require anchoring as the weather conditions warrant. 3.05 WINTER CONSTRUCTION A. If, due to the project schedule, construction during the winter months is necessary, the Contractor shall follow the winter construction procedures outlined in the Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites". 1.. Minimize disturbance between October and May. 2. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the ground freezing. 3. Mulch shall be applied to all disturbed areas at a rate of 90 pounds per 1,000 square feet. The Contractor shall maintain all areas that are mulched until permanent vegetation can be established. END OF SECTION 02150 POSTS 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X8' ANGLE 10' 7RENCH, SET POST UPSLOPE !4i7j' NSLOPE. STABILITY SELF CLEA " MIN. I 3, ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO THE WIRE FENCING FILTER AND EXTEND IT TO FABRIC THE TRENCH. I TI Ii1 2. STAPLE THE WARE MESH FENCING TO HARE POSTS. FENCING II' 2. STAPLE THE WARE MESH FENCING TO END POSTS. COMPACTE BACKFILL T w7 SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL N.T.S. CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION N. 1 s. STRAW OR HAY BALES STAKED WITH TWO STAKES PER BALE Ii SW LE BALED HAY OR STRAW BINDING WARE l^Irlr r OR TWINE 4 h f r (ill STAKE PLAN EXCAVATE A TRENCH 4" DEEP AND THE WIDTH OF A BALE BACKFILL AND COMPACT EXCAVATED SOIL ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE BALE. SECTIONS HAY BALE CHECK DAM N. T.S. TEMPORARY SEEDING dr MULCH OR NETTING SILT FENCE OR NAY BALES INSTALLED ON DOWNGRADIENT SIDE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAIL N.T.S. r� DRAWING TITLE EROSION CONTROL DETAILS/ 40 N0. C11 1 PROJECT NO. 01300.00 1 Y I : : 19 yr I \ — �; �.. ,� 1 , �.' \ OYMNASfICS ♦ - ,: .-i' Y'i Ll _ � I z— II \ f �� -- 1 1URRIB HALL ..max I I �..;, U-.. �_ , l :I1 !� 6 _ _ €psi $ f i Ott , �... } i a I � / fi lll�i�'�� I 1 T. \ t I ! }+ �vFuesoaarFn I„a�I.-� ! l % � � l � l � / % � l / l � j l l l i � 1��, �'• _ � _ C i71l i , r , I p M� W 1 : ? «x IL ii trn -- -_ -- - __ - - I AV. MF SPEAR STREETco -- - _-- I DPAWINGII—GEND7 aAwlwmM LANDSCAPE PLAN , f _ ' xY- mnnA.IR.a o.Aww Ho. A•I • � ' PAD FLxI10.UB Rol' 11)0'•I'L' I,, 30DE SPECIES SIZE REMARKS -Ml IM'. M/1'HI0" BAL At SUR P _ HACKBBRRY CA FER B UPDk BUR1AP .. FORSYTHIA A HONRY ,ME X 3',Ol 4W HIGH -_➢0'I BD. _ POTPBD _ BAROGYP IUNIPER OROUNDCOVER 18 14' 9PIIEAD _ _. POTTED _- NT1FD RRRRA.ULAC MIX 3-0'aaY HIpH PCifT® No Text jt%.TH--ELBVATJQN - -_ -- - .-. --.- :-Elel:lt.�MIMTIRKI 0 14 0 i 12 I'l CO cc slim C> - E--77-- -rTTI- 7= - ---- - ------- ELEVARONS A-3 FAST EUVATION /, - �\ \,',' II i (� � � , _ �� � I r � � �I µII /y � �� • I c' II ( I I ' � ' I l u I I 7 I iC„) I �► I, ( J-�, �\ aw �,�,.�' 1 `) l / � ��..\ \ f� I I ' �„ � I I b I II I) IIII II � �r _._ -->J .'`•- �/♦ �- N� ?VZ cr— LLI W �f „, •1 II IIP- -- - - ,.•, ( __. -'IIII -I -- - "'IIII - - - 'I{ ---- ---- � i I �, •� � �� �Q " I U I� O I -- - ' I k C� f Cl I � ; ' ' '` p I - ---- �''I� - - i I -�— - •� � I I i j f� — by : I •• , 1 I — I 0 I I •., °" - - -- - - -� - - - _ III _ �_ I ' _ -1 1 j - I - (, I •s_ ____ —� � __zL___-_ III , _ LI -,._-.._.._ __ � II I �II , , I �—...... _I ifi iI o • • �J tT 9'.iW G,f,.6 Fpl;SE I -. / __-_ // I V�.. it I ,r _ I { Ii ill li l I , ® - i I -I N0. GATE BY • _' .._ -..� / \ •\ y"" - - .,` L.T ._.r I �1 L 1 \ �� I 1 NSI DRAWING T TITLEE +.. Third Level Plan — , DRAWING No TOTAL 1312 SPACES -- - A101 �- � ti� r l \ I I ••a • iiI I p� n L+ EXISTING NET NEW a j h _ ___ __._.. — _.___ t,.:, I'Ii 4 PACES I _ I I� r = 70 PARKING SCALE: AS NOTED 765 _ 550 -- - �, ��� �_ � DATE: o+/ai/oz �.� 55 BAYS I , f j �\ PROJECT N0. ' DESIGN DRAWN CN KD. r DP SB \ \\moo\ ~fir Y. ( O - i _ I i f'J f] cnrvAS•.a / III , I '1 I� I I I ; __� __ �_.J -.I I :2n I - -- - --- _ -loIc .i 17 _ - ,> _ L 1 JI 1 I _ . I .r �I - . • , GU'iF.R90l. iIE�D Nt1li5E �.. I ., � � — I I I/ � f j _..- _- C1lWi 4 48` 1 . < -777 --I I NO DATE I BY REVISIONS DRAWING TITLE Second Level Plan DRAWING NO. A 102 SCALE- AS NOTED DATE: 01/31/02 PROJECT NO. ... DESIGN DRAWN CN KO. TT DP S8 C:\tenp\A103 - First Level Garage Plan - Option 2.owg Fri Fell 01 if: 46: A5 2002 MATT Ilk !'\•�,\4;i ° I 11 � I II - i,\ I I I. t t�-� % • � _ S �_-_--_-.—_. � — ___ t �\ i �� / ° p� I i' I I I I i I - '•--�'- t -_ e_--� \/ I, i I i j I j -- �-� y �\ � -- j •, ° i I i i i J ,`,\�_-� h- ol It A o ---, t I J it , �• ' I i i ram' - i I �•• i ��� i 4. . /I -- 1 1 / - ° I . f. II'P / T — - _ ;I i � , � ' { ; ' I ;- ,- I � r i--�--� � �� � � fi-i der � �-•' -r�-- j--g {•�- -- -�-`-" I, r -t---- ,x �=- -� r N , _ _ g I I i I� I_j z- - I I I• �� l i I , • € I t . HILL \i _i -- — -- — — -.------- — - — I _ _ • t � t � I -�k—_ I r --T1111;111�f1q�1q11q11q111 f 1111 _ ftlffl 1 I� I I I I C I I I I-L II�°� l _I 111�1 Ll`l l I 111.111 , 1 —j .v �. :—LI - Ir I i<� ~ �.1 . \ yam.—.._i • = Ls uo}6uipng -oS jo A4i0 ~ = A D Q m A > m g Y!A F o O 10 UVM Gutterson Parking Facility ALV SMITH AREZ AREZ BARR & BARR, INC 9 z o 9 _ 0.— o 9. m p 0 W SIENK ARCHITECTS EWYCZ BUILDERS o O N m N o W m Burlington, Vermont CIVIL ENGINEERING DESMAN o ASSOCIATES, INC A S S 0 C 1 A T E S ,o i n 1 6leM3r 7 ,• , r, s n.w f— h - i ,�h° to !.. fx--t� /�\ kc @ .. e, "r: 'SA $ a ' °rs to i;✓ �, q; °e i t. i. b i y X a' sq r A __ 2Ki Is 4 ror. 9 e e x3 , - .. t ib A k: y .> .. „ M ti, kx 5,... 5a & x , It 1.5- } x 'i " $a. Lr U<nr !e S{o }* n }e }a } =. 4,0 9s 5.s- }.¢ ., ,iv' e la Sa Y I A. .< Y k.a�a }tl Tn. L,1 t 1e,.1E. n,i'ia-9a 7a .t. t, }e a.e �.,Yp f.e Ra b 14 i.r la:fuii).Lz 1+ ..^ , �}e }• 1e t k _bA"te b k n f 0 i t 'n as is , Aa A Tp I 4 zis V po 7__. cn i rE e SA h A 4 i.z 1. JIT ,t Ca A 0 i WiT!-t KR@ns2rQ/'' F}X7URES t.@ Ag '.� -, '.1 9.,...a is' o. 5G;'s .^ ', , ', -i ,' -9a 9,'aA.}°� y, sGLEa••eo .! t a ra � nab`-� '�e tr, ^ , .a ~,> -ebap •, .: nm �-a-fE ac n, as is hl',. _ tL � kA } 7a _e nA IAA '. - -t15v` tr , ab as i E t aA 1; as -to ne 4c 16 � i - r �►�uornw� tr� a 4F s tr t n to ar �'p a T "5i to w' 1 tB 2a S 'h I - :. ry ) ,e , � a,.le '+ `+,T}76 A` irs t. nst 5 + �'Se ! SinaNs ^�^ rr lNWIliP fe95 Wi GALL Av[. "4a a � � UVM PARKING PROJECT MDI LIGMiIIl6 SALES AGEIMTi �— -- W"y L G TIK "MOATES, M4 .— LAYSON [tt[,PS7496.10 ,[. 01/10/02 APPLICAT IDNS DEPARTMENT c�ULATIm+s an [AELpA OIaNW C[i baa-AW-Sbbb [n I M1l��exoppee46N,Ahanpv. iNEEE aMYpaGP ARE [pt cNSFPTUeL W�MSiMF�� APE Ib1 att[NRA rd! I SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION DEPARTMENT 575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 TEL: (802) 846-4108 • FAX: (802) 846-4101 A �rw.uiy � BRUCE OWEILL, CPRP DIRECTOR THOMAS HUBBARD, CPRP ASS'T DIRECTOR rJr TO: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer FROM: Recreation Path Committee RE: UVM Parking Garage DATE: April 10, 2003 The South Burlington Recreation Path Committee reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed UVM parking garage at its meeting on Monday, April 7, 2003. The committee voted unanimously to recommend that provision be made for a 10 foot wide Recreation Path along the west side of Spear Street to connect the Williston Road/Main Street intersection to the Phase III section of the Recreation Path on Spear Street. Post -it® Fax Note 7671 Date a°ges To From Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # Fax # c Fax # MEMBER: VERMONT RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION #SD-03-13 — University of Vermont Gutterson Parking Facility PUD Tax Map 15 Cubicle 52 DRB 4/1/03 SKETCH PLAN 3127/03 Bill Szymanski City Engineer Comments for 4/1 /03 DRB Meeting UVM Gutterson Parking Facility Spear Street 1. There exist culverts across Spear Street that handle the drainage from a portion of this project. These culverts carry run off easterly between the houses. They should be shown on the plans. Any increase in flow to these culverts will create problems between these houses. 2. Storm water run off from a large part of this project is directed toward the storm sewer system on Williston Road. This system must be checked for capacity. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: March 20, 2003 \drb\sub\uvm\guttersoMsketch.srp.doc Plans received: February 19, 2003 UVM GUTTERSON PARKING GARAGE - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-03-13 Meeting date. April 1, 2003 Owner/Applicant Architect University of Vermont Smith, Alverez, Sienkiewycz Architects c/o Linda Seavey, Campus Planning Services 117 Saint Paul Street 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 Burlington, VT 05405 Engineer Property Information Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Tax Parcel 1810 00000 N 928 Falls Road Volume 3, Page 165 Shelburne, VT 05482 IA District ±14.43 acres (in South Burlinaton) Location Ma CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\sketch.srp.doc The University of Vermont, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting sketch plan approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a proposed 254,100 sq. ft. parking garage, 176,400 sq. ft. of which falls within the City of South Burlington. The subject property contains approximately 14.43 acres located in South Burlington. The South Burlington portions of the property are located in the Institutional and Agricultural (IA) District. A portion of the subject parcel falls within the Traffic Overlay District Zone 1. Associate Planner Janet Hurley and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on February 19, 2003 and have the following comments. Staff has reviewed this sketch plan application according to the proposed Land Development Regulations, which were warned on March 1, 2003, for public hearing on April 7, 2003. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Table 1. Dimensional Requirements 10 Zoning District 11 Required Pro osed Min. Lot Size 3 acres ±14.43 acres Min. Frontage 200 ft. >200 ft. Max. Building Coverage 30% <20% Max. Overall Coverage 50% <40% A Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% unknown Min. Front Setback 20 ft. >20 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. I unknown +Max. Building Height 1 40 ft. zoning compliance 4 information needs to be provided The plans must be revised to provide landscaping within the front yard setback pursuant to Section 3.06(H) of the proposed Land Development Regulations. Alternatively, the applicant must request a waiver from Section 3.06. In addition, the plans must be revised to provide measurements of existing and proposed front yard coverage. Section 3.06(H) of the proposed Land Development Regulations prohibits more than 30% of the front setback from being used for driveways and parking, and the balance shall be landscaped. Furthermore, a continuous landscaped strip of 15 ft. in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right-of-way and the balance of the lot. The applicant has not provided calculations of the existing front yard lot coverage, but has indicated that there will be no change from existing conditions. Currently, there is not a 15 foot landscaped strip between the existing parking lot and the street right-of-way. In fact, the proposal involves retaining parking lot in the same location. In addition, no new landscaping within the front yard setback is proposed (See Sheet L-1). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ldrb\sub\uvm\gutterson\sketch srp doc 2. The plans need to be revised to show the average preconstruction grade of the area under the garage footprint and demarcate a level 35 ft. above such grade. The applicant has indicated that the height of the proposed parking structure will be 29 ft. to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 ft. to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the proposed Land Development Regulations, no point of the parking structure shall rise more than 35 ft. above the average preconstruction grade. Staff notes that this standard applies to the portions of the parking structure falling within the City of South Burlington. The plans, therefore, need to be revised to show the average preconstruction grade of the area under the garage footprint and demarcate a level 35 ft. above such grade. Traffic Overlay District 3. The applicant should provide a traffic analysis addressing existing and proposed traffic conditions for the site and their effects on public streets adjacent to the subject parcel. A portion of the subject property falls within Zone 1 of the Traffic Overlay District, and the parking facility includes an indirect access point within Zone 1 adjacent to Millis Hall. In this zone, a maximum of 15 peak hour vehicle trip ends (vte) per 40,000 sq. ft. of land is permitted pursuant to Section 10(F) of the Land Development Regulations. The South Burlington parcel contains approximately 628,570 sq. ft., which would allow about 235 vte at the PM peak hour of the adjacent high volume roadway (i.e., Williston Road). However, for a PUD application, Section 15.12(E)(1) establishes level of service measures rather than traffic generation measures as limiters to the proposed development. According to Section 15.12(E)(1), the nearest signalized intersection, or those intersections specified by the DRB , must maintain a level of service of "D" or better at the peak hour, including the anticipated impact of the proposed development_ It is unclear what the current level of service is or what level of service would result from the development of the proposed parking facility. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a traffic analysis addressing existing and proposed traffic conditions for the site and their effects on public street adjacent to the subject parcel. Institutional & Agricultural District 4. Concurrent with final plat application, the applicant must apply for conditional use approval from the Development Review Board. Pursuant to Section 7(D) of the Land Development Regulations, a parking facility within the IA District must receive conditional use approval from the DRB. Therefore, concurrent with final plat application, the applicant must apply for conditional use approval. Section 7(F)(1) requires properties in the IA Distdct west of Spear Street and north of Quarry Hill Road maintain an undeveloped area for a minimum of 65 ft. between the boundary of an adjacent residential district and any new non-residential structure. The plans show that the proposed parking structure will be approximately 95 ft. from the zoning district boundary, which occurs at the center of the Spear Street right-of-way. However, the DRB may require landscaping or other suitable screening in accordance with Section 3.06 to ensure adequate buffering of non-residential uses from residential uses. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5. The applicant's preliminary plat application shall comply with the requirements for CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\sketch srp doc preliminary site plan review pursuant to Section 14.05 of the Land Development Regulations. Section 15.05(B) of the proposed Land Development Regulations advises applicants that preliminary PUD applications must include relevant site plan application requirements pursuant to Section 14.05. Article 15.12 of the proposed Land Development Regulations establishes standards for roadways, parking and circulation within PUDs. Staff notes that the street layout will not change as a result of this proposal; however, the applicant is pursuing related improvements of University Heights adjacent to the proposed parking facility. Sidewalks & Recreation Paths 6. Staff recommends that the applicant consider installing sidewalk within the public right-of- way along the east side of Spear Street adjacent to the proposed parking facility. Section 15.13(M)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires sidewalks and/or recreation paths on both sides of arterial street at locations to be determined by the DRB. The plans indicate no sidewalk exists on either side of Spear Street in the vicinity of the Gutterson parking facility. The applicant has not proposed any sidewalk. Staff recommends that the applicant consider installing sidewalk on the east side of Spear Street from 74 Spear Street to the pedestrian path south of 156 Spear Street. Staff notes that any such required improvements must meet the general design installation, and inspection standards set forth in Section 15.14 of the regulations. In addition, pursuant to Section 15.15, the applicant must provide a performance bond to cover the costs of any required sidewalk. 7. The plans must be revised to indicate all electrical lines, which must be underground No water or wastewater services will be required for the new parking facility. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, all electric and outdoor lighting systems must be underground. The sketch plans do not show electrical utility details. 8. The preliminary plat application must include stormwater drainage details, which demonstrate compliance with the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations requires that the PUD meet the standards of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. Stormwater details have not yet been provided, but the applicant has indicated that existing stormwater facilities adjacent to the Sheraton Hotel and Centennial Woods will be utilized to treat stormwater runoff for the parking facility. PUD Review Standards Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the proposed Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (a) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project As already indicated water and wastewater services are not proposed. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\sketch srp doc (b) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In addition to stormwater drainage details, the plans must include acceptable details of erosion control measures to be used during and after construction. Staff notes that the proposal must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the proposed Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the regulations. (c) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. 9. The applicant must submit a traffic analysis, which shall be reviewed by an independent technical consultant at the applicant's expense. The applicant has not yet provided a traffic study. A traffic study must be submitted concurrent with preliminary plat application. Staff recommends that the applicant's traffic analysis be reviewed by an independent technical consultant at the applicant's expense. (d) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. No wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features are present on the site. (e) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Section 7.01(A) indicates that university related uses should be integrated "into the City's overall land use pattern through the use of appropriate site planning techniques that promote a beneficial pattern of access, circulation, landscaping, and pedestrian connections between University properties and adjacent neighborhoods." (f) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The portions of the site currently covered by parking lot, will be covered by new parking lot and the proposed parking structure. Some green space within the existing parking lot will be eliminated for the construction of the parking structure. However, open space areas on other portions of the subject parcel will not be affected. (g) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. 10. The applicant should provide evidence that the Burlington Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plans. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\qutterson\sketch srp doc Fire Chief Doug Brent has indicated that the City of Burlington Fire Department has jurisdiction for emergency response to the subject property. Staff recommends that the applicant provide evidence that the Burlington Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plans. (h) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Stormwater and electrical utility plans are not yet provided. Landscaping is proposed within the Spear Street right-of-way to screen the parking structure. Staff has recommended that the applicant consider installing sidewalk on the east side of the Spear Street right-of-way adjacent to the proposed parking facility. (i) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. 11. The applicant must provide exterior lighting details, which demonstrate compliance with Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations. Utility and lighting plans have not yet been provided. The applicant has indicated that exterior lighting will minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties and comply with the University's adopted lighting policies. Lighting details, including a point by point illumination analysis, should be submitted concurrent with preliminary plat application. The parking area lighting plan must comply with Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations. Q) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). 12. The applicant should provide details of any student resident parking policies, ride sharing, bus voucher, and flexible work scheduling programs that the university has in place or will expand as a result of this proposal In general, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The potential traffic impacts of the proposed parking facility will need to be addressed once a traffic analysis has been conducted. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the city pursue partnerships to explore the implementation of transportation management techniques as mitigation to potential negative traffic impacts resulting from proposed development. Staff recommends that the applicant provide details of any student resident parking policies, ride sharing, bus voucher, and flexible work scheduling programs that the university has in place or will expand as a result of this proposal. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLING7ON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\sketch srp doc The proposed parking facility is part of a much larger site, which includes the University of Vermont athletic complex, student housing, and administrative offices, with existing pedestrian pathways, roadways, landscaping, and parking facilities. Most of the site falls within the City of Burlington. The proposed parking garage would be the only structure within the City of South Burlington on the subject parcel of land. The applicant has indicated that the parking facility would add an additional 550 parking spaces for the site. A traffic analysis has not yet been provided. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. The site is already extensively developed and the new parking facility is proposed to be built over existing parking lot along the Spear Street frontage. Staff believes that this is acceptable. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. Staff has already indicated that the plans should be revised to provide more detail on the height of the proposed structure. Nonetheless, the parking structure appears to be compatible with existing buildings on the site (See Sheet A-2). (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff has already noted that the plans must be revised to include utility details, and that utilities must be underground. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. It appears that the proposal will incorporate a diversity of design elements that will offer attractive transitions between the massive brick facade of the adjoining PFG Complex and the parking garage, including brick columns on the parking structure and a mix of deciduous and conifer tree species surrounding the parking facility. (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed parking structure takes advantage of the sloped grade of the site to minimize the size of the structure and integrate with the terrain. In addition, the applicant proposes regarding the easterly tier of exterior parking below existing grade to prevent vehicle headlights from shining onto adjacent residential properties. Again, landscaping and the columnar structure of the parking garage offer an attractive visual alternative to the massive brick facade of the athletic complex. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ldrb\sub\uvm\gutterson\sketch srp doc arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The subject site is part of a much larger site containing multiple university offices and facilities. The existing Spear Street curb cuts will be retained. In addition, the applicant will be upgrading University Heights to provide access onto Main Street in Burlington. Interior connections to Prospect Street in Burlington will also be provided. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Staff has already indicated that details on utility services to the new structure need to be provided. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). No solid waste facilities are shown. Staff suggests that the parking structure include small solid waste disposal receptacles in that vicinity of interior staircases and/or pedestrian exits. Dumpster sized solid waste containers are not necessary for the proposed parking facilities. Parking 13. The plans must be revised to provide measures of parking angle, curb length, stall depth, and aisle width for all parking. If the dimensions do not meet the requirements established in Appendix A of the regulations, the applicant must request a waiver from these requirements. Furthermore, the parking structure should be designed to comply with the standards set forth in the South Burlington Design Guidelines for Parking Structures dated March 1997. Section 13.01(G)(1) of the Land Development Regulations establishes design requirements for parking spaces. Desgin guidelines for parking structures are further detailed in Design Guidelines for Parking Structures, dated March 1997. Internal aisles appear to be between 18 and 24 ft. wide. Some parking spaces appear to be at a 70 degree angle to internal aisles. Other spaces appear to be at a 90 degree angle to internal aisles. Stall dimensions are not indicated on the plans, but all stall appear to be 8.5 ft. wide by 18 ft. deep. This does not comply with the dimensional requirements outlined in the regulations. 14. The plans must be revised to indicate bicycle parking facilities for the site. Section 13.01(G)(5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for employees, residents, and visitors to the site. The plans should be revised to show parking facilities associated with the site. 15. The plans must be revised to indicate the number size and location of accessible parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 13.01(I), 2% of the spaces within the proposed parking facility must be accessible and comply with ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Furthermore, one in every eight CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\qutterson\sketch srp doc accessible spaces must be van accessible. The plans do not indicate the number, size, or location of accessible spaces, although the applicant has indicated accessible spaces will be located proximate to buildings on the first two levels of the parking facility. Staff notes that Section 13.01(M) of the Land Development Regulations gives the DRB authority to require design elements for parking structures that specifically address safety, security, lighting, landscaping, and visual aesthetics as conditions for approval. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review, and street tree plantings shall be required for all public streets in a PUD. Landscaping plans are provided on Sheet L-1 of the plans. 16. The plans need to be revised to provide more landscaping within the interior of the parking area and indicate the percentage of the parking area that is proposed to be landscaped with trees, shrubs or other plants_ Section 13.06(B) requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Accordingly, the DRB shall consider the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties. Section 13.06(B)(1) requires that at least 10% of the interior of the parking area to be landscaped with trees, shrubs or other plants. Furthermore, at least one deciduous shade tree of 4" caliper at 6" above ground shall be planted for every 3,000 sq. ft. of paved area, or every 10 parking spaces, whichever is greater. Staff notes that most of the landscaping is proposed to be planting outside of the parking area. Accordingly, the plans need to be revised to provide more landscaping within the interior of the parking area and indicate the percentage of the parking area that is proposed to be landscaped with trees, shrubs or other plants. 17. The plans need to be revised to include design specifications for landscape islands throughout the parking facility. The islands must be curbed and include tree, shrub, grass and/or ground cover plantings pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(2) of the Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(2)(a) of the Land Development Regulations, raised planting islands containing trees, shrubs, grasses, and/or ground covers, shall be designed to define major circulation aisles, entrances, and exits. Section 13.06(B)(2)(b) requires the landscape islands to be curbed unless curbless islands are proposed to provide for stormwater runoff into vegetated areas for treatment. The applicant has indicated that stormwater will be collected for off -site treatment. The plans do not include design specifications for landscape islands. 18. The plans must be revised to show snow storage areas. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(4), snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans do not show snow storage areas. 19. The applicant must obtain the approval of the City Council for the proposed landscape screening within the Spear Street right-of-way. Section 13.06(C) requires landscaping and/or screening whenever two adjacent uses are dissimilar. Furthermore, Section 13.06(C)(3) requires landscaping to be designed to minimize erosion and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING \drb\sub\uvm\gutterson\sketch srp doc stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from parking areas. The adjacent residential uses necessitate such screening along the Spear Street right-of-way. Staff notes that the proposed landscape screening is entirely within the Spear Street right-of-way and will require approval from the South Burlington City Council. 20. The applicant must submit a proposed landscape budget pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(2) of the Land Development Regulations. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(2), and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. Required costs are based on construction costs. Accordingly, the applicant must submit a proposed landscape budget. 21. Staff recommends that the plans be revised to address Public Works Arborist Craig Lambert's comments dated March 11, 2003. Public Works Arborist Craig Lambert has reviewed the plans and provided a number of comments (See Appendix A). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant address the numbered items in the "Comments" Section of this report to the satisfaction of Staff prior to submission of a preliminary plat application. Respectfully submitted, 6�w- 44 Janet M. Hurley, Asso Vate Planner Copy to: Linda Seavey, Director of Campus Planning Services APPENDIX A Craig Lambert, Public Works Arborist 3/11/03 Landscape Review UVM Gutterson Parking Facility 147 Spear Street Smith, Alverez, Sienkiewycz Architects A. Hackberries located on the north side of the facility will outgrow the site. Hackberry will have a crown spread of 45-50 ft at maturity, and will be growing into the building. I'd suggest using columnar or fastigeate tree forms such as: 1. European Hornbeam, Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiate' 2. English Oak, Quercus robur 'Fastigiata' 3. Callery Pear, Pyrus calleryana `Cleveland Select', or 'Chanticleer' 4. Japanese Tree Lilac, Syringa reticulata 'Ivory Silk' 5. Gingko, Gingko biloba 'Princeton Sentry' or 'Fastigiata' B. Unless the design intent is for the larch along the east side of the parking lot to eventually replace the existing trees, I'd recommend increasing the spacing to reduce competition as the trees mature. C. A planting detail for trees and shrubs should be included in the landscape plan. Attachment I — February 19, 2003 UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION The University of Vermont is proposing to construct a new parking garage at Patrick-Forbush-Gutterson Athletic Complex of an estimated 254,100 gross square feet. The garage will be located at the north end of the existing parking area called Gutterson parking. The new parking garage facility will be within both the cities of Burlington and South Burlington boundaries. The project team is comprised of Smith-Alvarez-Sienkiewycz Architects, an architectural firm based in Burlington, VT; Barr & Barr, Inc., a construction firm in Middlebury, VT; Desman Associates, a parking structure consultant based in Wellesley Hills, MA; Civil Engineering Associates, a civil engineering firm based in Shelburne, VT; Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., based in Colchester, VT; Kirik Engineering, lighting consultant, based in Burlington, VT, and Resource Systems Group, Inc., a traffic consulting firm based in Norwich, VT. The project includes the design and construction of a parking structure to accommodate the 765 existing parking spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of the Patrick Gymnasium. The University proposes to construct parking space widths of 8'h feet that is consistent with waivers/variances on record. This is intended to minimize impact on open green space across the campus. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, thereby eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design is expected to utilize the advantages of the tiered parking lot in the area to eliminate the need for extensive ramp construction. The facility will be fully accessible by persons with disabilities on the first two levels. Handicapped spaces will remain at their traditional location proximate to buildings. All utilities and public services, such as, electric, water, sewer, stormwater, fire and police services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University of Vermont. Access to and from the new parking garage will have new additional access through University Heights to Main Street to ensure that Spear Street is not negatively impacted by this facility. Access will be northwest through University Heights to Main Street in the City of Burlington. The lower level will be designed to replace the existing parking spaces and the elevation will be lowered two feet with a retaining wall located along the easterly edge of the existing parking lot to provide improved screening of vehicles and headlights from Spear Street. The topography works with the design to control access and limit traffic to Spear Street. The current circulation for vehicles and parking at the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights, Living/Learning Center, and Harris/Millis Residence Halls will be redirected through University Heights to Main Street, thereby, decreasing the existing condition of traffic accessing University properties in this area from Spear Street. Although in recent years, the "back 14 buildings" at University Heights have utilized Spear Street as its access, historically, the traditional access has always been Main Street. The parking garage will provide a major portion of the new parking needs created by the construction of undergraduate housing at University Heights and general additional parking needs to meet future projected project needs. The exterior lighting of the facility will utilize the University's adopted lighting policies and standards. The pedestrian pole standard is a 12-foot pole (C-12) to the lighting source with a 100-watt, 8-sided, metal halide lamp in University green (pole and hood), which is the same style fixture used in the Main Street Improvement Project. The roadway light pole is a 17-foot pole (C-17) to the lighting source with a 175-watt metal halide lamp in University green. As an added enhancement to the parking lot area, replacing existing parking lot lighting with the new UVM metal -halide standards (as informally requested by South Burlington planners) will be installed throughout the remaining exterior parking lots. The parking lot lighting is a 175- watt metal halide shoebox-style down light (cutoff fixture) on 20-foot pole in bronze. All site lighting has been located to minimize light pollution and spillage onto adjacent properties. Signage for the new facility will be consistent with the University's exterior signage policies and guidelines for the facility and parking lots, including directional, building identification, and parking lots. To mitigate its presence to the adjacent neighborhood as well as the vehicular view of approaching Spear Street from Main Street, landscape plantings will be strategically located. Key component of the design of the structure provides for future expansion to the south of the facility to meet future parking needs. Upon completion of this project, the overall lot coverage within the City of South Burlington will change slightly (.19 acres) primarily by covering the existing "berms" in the tiered parking lot. Campus Planning Services — 2/19/03 Proj Description - Gutterson 2-03-final.doc i I IV�M_ i -- ` �� rUNIVERSITY of VERMONT cssssss» csstsss Kusf z ►» m I UVM 4+ University of Vermont CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES =C C109 SOUTH BURLI(GTON. VEWONTo05405-0016 (802) 6- a FAX (817) 65FW BBB5 fAY a a � n o / 4D LeNa in — o ,' 2C Qha In Pla Exit 14 - � SITE Q 0 z ROBINSON PARKWAY • •-e• - Q — ~ ol, - LOCATION MAP INz Q 0 1 �.. - �, , : a\. ��ry w _ - AREA OF CONTIGUOUS a 1 z w 0 > rso"" a UVM LAND IN SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING U — ` DISTRICT: INSTITUTIONAL AND AGRICULTURAL (IA) , \ O PROPOSED GUTTERSON PARKING FACILITY L� O 0 • I (254,100 CSF TOTAL 176,100 CST IN SW (H 8URLMG701) LL__ '7 ��S T� ~ Q n V _ o moo- z — _ C op Q_ > - "o Project No. Scole As NotW (� Drown by Bill J b Checked by Date rESRUARY 19. 2003 Revisions "a - ►, till a f No. Date *' • _ Drawing Title UVM GUTTERSON c PARKING FACILITY OVERVIEW LOCA110N MAP 147 SPEAR STREET ELEV Drawing No. SCALE: 1 " = 200' B 1 ® I W�, ;W W U i•- b,..>! � xFw ^,% a, di .r : M. �at a ' � ::�::. s., „q. _: _ '.,, .r -..: .. >`� :.r ,, e.:'. 'e .,�'A.-. .tk'3 aiY• �p.: ..dz.. .A r. �. ..: : a. .,,. .. .i::K. fi ,. ..: _ :4 _. :.. -:� ,r�,-�' �, .. i n s,:sl"'' K.f:',+a... =•"� 'r 47 i44:t r . . -� .. . r 1- , :. f. . , _.. _ , - � 3+ a ., '+ � 't/:, - �r,Y.kr •�+• ,r,^z, , r , 91t �,1...: ' .� ,., 1. _ r r+i. 09 4' t .: .. .:,,.� ,,, .-♦ art_ r._ ..:,e-tv.�e. ,, `,be: gg � 'om t t. r E , :. X#^A ...i' - . -rR.r' ,..a b ... Ib T S .•;4J • ^k , ar �'C t ir�r .:- .. ;: .:. .E � ... '.. 4.',.< ,...... � ,k : n i •w .. v i., ., r. .: , : »':, �Cr'^' ' w- M1..uk�` •R: �1 xu r -� r{ , .. ,. l � ,. q wr: >;.� .,. Aa A . '..d^'. st J. ,: 't.k >-'i.•i4 ''2p {y :: � :. ♦ . �i r e : „_ :, :;: _ �`S. <, .-, t°a r.{, k ,rk�i�ilt�� 1 - r ,. y ... '" � t s�ppy�Vrt.�. �f �. � .: ',. r-... _ y.;... ,•�... .. .. ^, .i ..+ '� .. fV F�'��� F.i �rr -� , n �40.e • s'�' rios N '}r r:i : , - '1 KL' � v::;�',^�Sr n 4 n i','' •� ' 1 �� :ir 'y, Y r ' NO.L`JN : r� yp ,,gyp ,:<3. i ., i' ... r; ..,. ..,c e.F{ .. , .,,, : ,-.. .:,•.+r $ d .R'• atir,. �k . •�� t?';rc\ n gNiTdnl ., J - ,� ; ..:. v.. , ....:mot•. ,: ,. :: ., ,. � "li 's>n N�, x, Ili Y ' ,.^ ♦ `�-s .�_: 'e';, ..t •,,, I a.w i% �: A. a " . <' „ _. .Jar:. : 4 y. r s ' o Vf "' 4'� 'S , .,_ t.,-r _,. Ji'! .. ..•::.. .X.� .t..r .: ,. ... .L. .. .,. vpt,. r .,. M.' ....-.,,.. '.,. ;., ,. }$rF ,::Y ♦5 �s �• aa.... r ,. a,: �p __ :' :_.- . - ,,. ',+,�„ • p .,. ., ,.r .... .. :.. .. .._ 1' _ � � S:; x ..,fix � ',� ,::, :. �:: J�q,4 Fi I �R E , >` St Syr • ,'': ` , t.rq: - ,Y i .. C J5�'a': yJ'�.,r � `a. ' $• . r+. , ;: 'r'3'.. a `.,R,', a.. -..-..f,. ..... ., .r , a' •x,,. :. -:.. .. .. .«.� t, a..r. 'd ,aA;`/�,' R t :YS„y. x%`f ��. . :::., : .. , -,' .. r:,..,: i. a •t'�,,,.,: .. , t . �.Slgt', ..: '. ,,,:: .. xS� ,P. '! a ;{ lie ., ,_.. '71, n'!4t ;i-..,, : ., .. .. ... ... a ..<�. s....,E.: -... ,.,.- s4t.,: _ bt�i� ,rtr'x r �•;.o._':. „v. y yla'nY �•�.. .v>K� aTV -. u7.., .. ,^n.1' •. r �•A•.a :. S•,. f.i..t•, )�' ":',{. ,,. Yvr Rf .CA e,. � ... ,^. t< :: .'f ,�M • �.. ... Qal:'r• ,� '`� b ;, .,. ;. _. .( kj"xr .,r _,y'• , , .v.. A: 1 .: .: ♦.E.. .'� :Y�. .-'. ,. i:.. A ". SS r.: '^1 �. 1 l' :. ,. ... .. },• ..^ is ., ^, r, _tF<....% ;.. 1 ,.. !^- i . 7,.. '� • , .x, ..:, S� 'kf .i:ot d.,•C=anti .. . ::. „ !: , g e'1"�. 41•hniQ'..,, ,.p��.,,. Y� It z:J: Y: ...1, :•- l.. r :.. ...� .. ., .,,'. N ^..4 � �,' � t :. r.. ., ,. -r 4�z`t . ,.c 4... }.. •,x ,?"• „x..., i'� .. , ,. ,. i '.. , e" �.; - { d.. yE :, b ' -il ;&. , , v1' o . a � .. ., . ,. x. W,as r U ,r. .. 4w, ,, ,.:. bn -. ' �:, ,.. , ..... � .. . , kt x i; :.r •,) r^ g 'A „ :� . ter. , t�.. ''� , . : ltr'" �: � � • :'i', ' _ > � , , „ � r., ,. .. .. J r•.. ,:.. ...., •. - .':,.:.. ^;.' � � "a A. t. , Y C- i;.t€fi, ,'r�.+=,,i • - >r .. :x ', .,. ,� r �' ..: i i r! �•yg, - Y i. ..) :.,. -.�. �. ,..., ... :, 1�. �Rf /,n. .Yrv... 'E'.��,p+�,' Sr., iE ' yrr:.. . ,?+f•` '.. v c ...r." .. .; ! ... „ .. '.t>^•2 :•; !.:.. _ x .>r , ,. K.Y . :jx:' , 4','�-' • :k.:4 .,: .- t ..:....:....... .. . :.. :. ._... . ..r .`�•d,o.r i.: - ,,�i"n. T> Y W ,_..+> a • :::'. q . , l._sr T i'M1 :ET• '4iML•r, n� ?A y1,�).x��. • �'.: 7 w '" ';nd. (. '.,3. r : f .. 't i. ih 4 Sn. : .: .;, A. ,..', :<:••• �x ..r r` N 4,t:.. ..x'Wla F. , ..,,P...:x(4:. P�,'..:...r, ,., ,✓ 'k, :��: ...{. ti •`�j F5 ma .. .. .,. R.. .. ,.:-....,� A�,r� #fir �± ,........ .. .:,-, ., r..:.. .. .. ,,. ar.:r. ,4 .. :M�.. :q. .,.. ! „}.:..: :. .. ...... �: Y'•,-. w'. h ''4 ��k1J.` t\\.i A. gg LA l c P • ;r , 1 T l f ,.. .,w' ... .. ,J 'J :> ryx ., L,"-. „T' 'k' , '....r ,. .v :., ti! ..:. :: ..:. Y T '•,'F• E• (, :,i'u4'.'`.'� >t' _... , .. _ ,J.x , r ..>• a} ,. . .bW r -r y , Sr' t ,..r-... _ .: .. ... 9 J >M •^' .. :. . , , x, ,roNi't „�"n ..;.... .s•s. - ..,,i ..t"J :....:y, . tom:. ,., . "}" n ..Z� :: ,,.. - '.r `� ,.., ... ,:. .... ...1 ..s ,nt'i , 37• � r .z .r .,. x ..: %Y W -.. .: , - r ... .. .... :.,.. '�:' } •,: raLY:> rR , ... • . .., ...r-;...:.. ,i..: .,.,., :. a ,,:AJu. hw :.v-:,a.q.. .. .. :.: .... .. ... �. r e l..i.- ...,_..a,._fir3r. ,.ti.,.iY',,.,..,.L. .�-� .a :,,. t:��___za.. t .,.t.. ..•::.. .:,.•:..�., ....,.._:..,.;,... .. .: : ....,., .....:..._.... ..� .>.,„.z.........:. ...Q .: ... ,.... ... :. ..;�:;... S.., ..... 1,Tfrfr fm.•rf.: .6.,`aCY,,..r,r.rA,:..r. 'W.Y .�.,.,n., . , ._....,.� .....:. q , w .�.,,. 5� .r, J; R,�..i. „.'d. '' g• M..,:',.>.^aF.:•..W_.%.:.`.+•,f.,..e-,,:,.>. .,..,#., f. #y4. ,,. �/a•..'t .:1,,..,y'r,M1,o,, „5,,.t>r...^..rrv:u.M.. .-u'.v.rof. ,$a...-A,.J,xS€;+. 'r..ar_...l ... -:, _;. ..,.,r: �:.. .. _..N,. . r 4.. .a. �`„..�d+ ,, .-....w. . ��, ., .,(.:-., :.'..:.... •l:,-,..:_-_ : -. , ... ., .. ' . .,. 4i . .:- ,.tS .. .,.... ... ,.. , eS�,��I4105 ,+J'•�zs't ', iivYi -'•!' < - ....: . -. k . a v rrm, -.g• .. . � ..:. _ b.2" ,,.,, r:.... .,. ...r %.L: ... .. :_: , .. s:: :Yt. ..•r• k _ �t y r ....... . . :.:...... ,..,.,.,... ..r.? ..h ,_,. _ : .:,. .. .. , :... .., ,,. -. .. a 1�. J% • eti �' ..:: "+4gsw : tr. , .- n, ., a::P ., .. >:. .. _ , r' "�`9 . �4 r:: ! r, rv' �'. • 4 :-� h ,psi .. ,. �•,. :. eV.: t. '. 4 r.,,. . �;., ...... A. .. ...,.. Ok. ..',Y3:... * .: :h . '.,?. _. _.. w�a', .., .i • ' :::: � .. - •�•'1 r ';' . (' r...,Mr. .5. r lC s , 3 41 r " r - k 4 ,..,, .,,. -_ .. ,. ,::. .. : �.. [yr ...: .�� t : 1 e '-...::. ,� ..: :Lr"�-•. ,3-.._,a+.. , 9•'t .ter Y 777.145 .alP :: ..y� r ...: ;. w _:. :,.. .: ....a ,.. .:, ... .,. '.- t.,...h ,fir .. .. -.. •. ✓ ,.4i'•4 s .aa✓ ..o - it .,79' l y -M s :'�c.. .. f p -. • _. :>'-xv$. ...<.... .:. �'s�ii�r:-,y3 ... ,ca . - . r -:, -.:, '. ... -;,.' .. .... :. ..... .. t:.. :.....u,3. -(i., � , 'S;itl�", +,,. .,3,. ,r ,k� ,;. „':<,+..: ,... :• .. ,, ,, ?r•6r„ '� < ra lily u. t I I-11- -- _ I II\'lA � \ �� 1 ` f�� �`-•- � 1 ` S SS S _ _S--"__�_'�_-=-�_______-_ '"- � `S'i� 1 //Iff// I _ df 'I/Ifilll I fill t11\IIIIII / Illlll/ �'11 _ it' / / 1 \ ,r/ 1\ ` ' i �•/ I \ 1 I All NII1A I 1 /�'-• III 1 g`1\MO111 1111111 ♦� SII 7r I ,l//I / �- 1 / I I'll` al'I 1111111 1111 \� \ I l 1\11,�t 1111111 511� � \- \ 111 I I M 'lift IIIIII1 �' fJ SISilail I lPq�f Y ` 01WRO, t ; 11,IIh1111-'L'I' r r I�IIPIAII Illpp 1 Ill t1 l Ila t \ I I f 1 I:I11110 / flIlllhl�l Illlla I 1 1 I t ♦` 1 I{1'1101fll I.Illlldt njllildl yygl ` - _ ill it it iiol 1x ' 11II1n11 1 o In 1 - � III II Illall � 1 \• fill LI / � - 111IIlllgll i t - II \e `'�i'ii/iii \101 o I "Will;II Illla I 111+ '- ' ' 1 IA Illl�ll -1- I 1 •I 111 I � - i// �,�/ / O �I IIII 1 \ NMN 11p11111j11 � +INIII 11j1 _ �AVIf'1I11V T g \ ,S //////// / I111IIt1 /' I 'i411j111'l, P\. II!I�4t11o1 I Ipl \ 11'1 I 41111111 1y+ / /// / ' ' 11►llll11111 Iq I "', I 111111� �\ \ l llf////,� ° I i u'llrYYuldnl 1inN1i1 All 1 1111,11111 YYY illffill lini 111111AI Illi IIIV��I,I �� QII1, \ N"/ ® \ , ,U gnlll4 tlllp, 'III I III'NIIINS\,1 11!1II1l11I IMP ' - I � 'nllllt+la, mall Illl ,'\ / 1 II�IIIII --_-_ • -- ° e II / /--?-��J / \ o I 1 IIIV�� MINI 1 I 1 -` _�- •♦ \ 1, , I. II Ilfl / / III I , � \ v \ \ �� • - -- , If/I • ,1IIfIIhh NnllIt l ,l+ 1111 I' y11IMP - INNIII 1- Ill I P�.uttill nhhl - -,�r , , / r / ! I I11 I I • .-' '. �� \ it o c �\ `1,�y V /I \-\\ � j 1 � `�< \I \I `\ \\�♦\ �\\\\ �a ``\\\0.11 \ $\� lilj �o _ �\ \` � I\ l .� .. /,� \1 I �� -� l � l \ Ill \\ d l i I 1\ 1\ � i I ,�I \ �L,� L � �� \ �-'� � 1 j/ - ♦\ \\\o , l \S\\ vin 1 f l 14, I 1 1 1,1I 771 \` I \',IN I 11 I 1 11111 i-j�-• ` fl\ ll ` \\t• \ \\\.. �\ . 1 1 l 11 111111j , . e�/ \\ I 1, `•\ '\ \ Ili i 1 \ . a`\�� \ `\` \ \ � \ 1 \ .. ` I 1 I •S., 1' / IIIIIIf 1 / \I I L V 111 I ,- �` \ \ `�� �__� `\ \ \ TCy i' 1• I I 1 11 11 I I I I � \ \ : 1 L S{-lj \ \ \ � 1 1 1 •, t _ �� \ � ` � , ..\ \\ \\`\ \ :� `\'.,,'.//'� lr t It 1 ,I r I unll• ; I I ° \i � ' r FJJ t/ I, '' 1 \ 1 — ` _� I III l \ \ \ a \ 1 s•,// \ 1 1 { � I � \ ' I I' '' 1 I I \ ! \ s /. / f /N �i'!i/ 1 I / o It'll I I � Illilll• � `o ° \ --'' I 1 //� I I, I 1 �111�11' \ ® �• o / ! ! I //; Ill, , � lll'1 I '- • ._ _ --.Z /� "\IlJill ll � / 11 /' lllljl '. kT \ III1't' �. 1' 1\ \ /�� ! o \ ♦ I 1 I111 fill •_ � l r / l ( I I 111 l�l\�, C.� :..L \.._I.11 `-__ 111 • � � \ 1 \ I ; l 1 \_ \, l \`�"r I `'•���� \� l 1'Il� + / l I1 III / . . : \ i `\_ ♦-- i' / � 1 � \ \\ r �--'r--�_`♦ I III ® . /// , / II `\ \ r / / II I / ' 1�(� � � I Illif � � \ \• c \\ \ ♦♦. I � i i//%� 1 j r 6 1 \\ ' 11 1 I / r f •/ 1 I I �� \\ / j II \ j \ L \ \ \ \ • • \\ \� - ///I 11 I 1 `♦ B� , \ I I 1 1 \ I I I I � ` II I ice- �--.;`����- 1 �t. \\\ \ \ \• � •S \\\ `\ `. / I I l l \ 9 \ \ I \ I\ 1 1 1 l 1 1 I \ G I / �. *\ ` \\ ♦ \ \``a � � \`\ \ \, \ � \ ♦ ♦ \ 1 \ I11 l el , _ I \>\` `\ \ t� \ \♦ � i j I 1 1\ 1 1 1 I 1 I I \ \\l - \ o �- � / �` /�/\ \I \\ `\\ \ \\ ,,; \ � \ e \ ''1 \` \\ `\ \` / t\ 1 1�\ \\ \`� II\\ \, i il\�, ~ I / 1 � , _� � i '\� ipl /� 4 \r\\ .\ ^\t \`\ / \ `V~ �` \ - \\ `♦ 1 } \Z S w`5s=$� MI� a.. '_ - ALVEREZ INC - log 0 1—, Oar^ a z N 14,7 Spear.StreetARCHrMCTS -Bi3TLDERS y g DES - CIVILENGINEERING _ �� -- •-----��E'Ii�lO-rlt-- FEB 2 0 2003 City of So. Burlington 0 Co W CV7 c W m V co V :O//F M-0— willoo 20-1 i M M. MMMMIN", / / r 1z m 0 -n Cn � n o lv M a) N < w m o 0 � 010 I 1 �_..._ - e - y.� 8 �} # _ E .University of Vermont 109 South prosPw Sf Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802)656-8895 fax .-_ _. ..._ UVM Gutterson Parking Facility 147 Spear Street 'Burlington, Vermont SMIT11 ALVERFZ BARR & BAM INC SiENKMV;YCZ BUMDERS ARCF=CTS T �r7� ,� ,� �� CIVIL ENGINEERING DE�71V1A ASSOCIATES, INC aa.I o-crw r--s-■ .. - F .o Cl) M. W n o rl., CO s C o to c �a m 0 uogBulpng "os io , £OOZ 0 Z 833 j 03-AI031tJ £-d SNOUVARM s�S$e �W•='sue U. W o .14 oNo o C° C a 00 C � 0 a No Text K U a 0 0 o W w Q_ o - 5 55 o g G5 woo Q� a < w o a 2 0 0 p 0" - - - - — -- -- U� MZz _ N E W W LU N j� PFG CmpP ❑ ❑ 12. I-1 _— U _ ffi 0 o- -- - - - - - - - -- •� O o r Cd 0 t 0 a.). • r, rr_ _ _ _ _• __ __ _ _ O,aCd C/� TTM - — ^ rn s j C 1 OnWersity of Vermont 109 South Prospect St _ Burlington, VT 05405 8 (802) 656108 (802) 656-8895 fax _ 9 • WTn SON non HOUSE ..,. • It9 �_ t� a r 0 b — o NO. DATE BY O REVISIONS ffi RECEIVED DRAWING MLE Le ,— � � ,-, � Second Level Plan - 0 FEB 2 0 2003 X!— DRAWING No. ° • >r City of So. Burlington A 102 `\ 0 SCALE: AS NOTED /03 RQIECT NO.' ;.. DESIGN DRAWN CH KD. TT DP SB I - ' ��` Q��a ��%�I 1 IIIII c.l% ■�■ �llll�i< ■ %'% ,� !�� I ��. I I I IIIII I IIIII IIIIIIIU I�Illllli I - ��►�,�,� I 6 I' � IIIIIIIY � O li III �r Il�llll 1 � • I�IIIIIIIIIII�I I IIII � � Illu�l �_� • � �'�)��f� III � � IINN„kiHt � � ° MM 1401 i mlPII I u ml I i1 ��.... �.,,__ �1►_ = .Ill :: I�i,n��.. ���► . IIII �-r%/ ■ ■ 1 III I II'%, % r �� � � ` , ICI ♦ 1 i Z w /y� A Q< Ili UW UU z U �— LLJ xN llJW Z1— � WU � JCn >Q U rt �O.I a L'7 v� `t pq University of Vermont 109 South Prospect St - Burlington, VT 05405 (802)656-3208 (802)656-8895 fax NO. DATE BY A�+yp R C E I v E M, Ns REIASIORECEIVED DRAWING TITLE First Level Plin FEB 2 0 2003 DRAWING NO. City of So. Burlington A 103 .- SCALE. AS NOTED DATE-2/19/03-� PROJECT NO. ... DESIGN DRAWN CN ICD. TT DP SR JCLE, M 0 R. AN - TO: Bruce O'Neill, Re a n epartment Director FROM: Raymond J. Belai rih' istrative Officer DATE: March 25, 2003 RE: UVM Parking Garage Project The Development Review Board will be reviewing a sketch plan request on 4/1/03 from UVM to construct a parking garage on Spear Street (see attached plan). There is currently no Sidewalk along this portion of Spear Street. Would you please review this propoaal with the Recreation Path Committee for their comments and suggestions? so The UNIVERSITY of VERMONT CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES February 19, 2003 South Burlington Planning Department 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Attn: Juli Beth Hoover, Director, Planning & Zoning Department RE: UVM Gutterson Parking Facility — UVM Athletic Campus 147 Spear Street Dear Juli Beth: The University of Vermont is resubmitting a revised permit application — Application for Subdivision Sketch Plan Review for the Gutterson Parking Facility. As you are aware, this project is located in both the cities of South Burlington and Burlington. The University has already completed the City of Burlington process and received a permit for the project in 2002. At that time, the project was put on hold until other issues had been resolved. The University is now ready to complete the permitting process in order to begin construction in anticipation of parking needs given future project plans. As a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the University has interpreted the subdivision boundaries to be UVM owned contiguous lands. The subdivision boundaries are bounded by Burlington Country Club to the south, Spear Street to the east, UVM owned property in Burlington to the west, and Main Street to the north. A brief synopsis of the project follows: Gutterson Parking Facility Project — The University is proposing to construct a new parking facility (estimated at 254,100 gross square feet) located on the north end of the existing Gutterson surface parking lots within the boundaries of both the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. The proposed project will accommodate 765 existing spaces and up to 550 net new parking spaces on the existing surface parking lot east of Patrick Gymnasium and west of Spear Street. The proposed structure will include two elevated levels and a ground level with three open sides for ventilation, eliminating the need for sprinkler and ventilation mechanical systems. The height of the facility will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair towers, measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. The design will utilize the advantages of the tiered topography, thereby eliminating the need to build extensive ramp construction. It will be handicapped accessible on all tiers without the need for elevator systems. All utilities and public services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University, such as electric, water, sewer, storm water, fire and police. Access to and from the project will be balanced between a new roadway through University Heights to 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Telephone (802) 656-3208, Fax (802) 656-8895 Equal Opportunity l AffirmatoAction Ftnploper 0 Main Street and Spear Street. Refer to Attachment I — UVM Gutterson Parking Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION for a more complete description of the project. PROJECT PURPOSE: Primarily to meet the needs of the additional parking requirements of the new student housing projects proposed at University Heights and Redstone Campus. Please find attached the Application for Subdivision Sketch Plan Review and site plans with requisite attachments. Upon your receipt and review of the attached materials, please provide a written response that your office considers this application complete. Should you have any outstanding issues not addressed in the attached materials, please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely, Linda Seavey UVM Director, Campus Planning Services Attachments: Application for Sketch Plan Review — Gutterson Parking Facility Attachment I: UVM — Gutterson Parking Facility Project Description Attachment II: List of Abutters and Addresses Building & Site Plan Set, revised and dated 2/19/03 (includes Bi, C1A, C1, C2, C4, L1, A101, A102, A103, A-2, A-3 — 5 sets of full size and 1 set of 11 17" Gutterson Cover-sburl submittal-2-03-final.doc CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 Permit Number SD- 03 - 13 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW GUTTERSON PARKING FACILITY All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #): UNIVERSITY of VERMONT 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #): Within this subdivison lot there are three records of deeds: • Northern_ portion — Mary Fletcher Hospital Tract, 1891: • Volume 31, Page 168 in City of Burlington — June 3, 1891 • Volume 3, Pages 165-166 in City of South Burlington —June 23, 1891 • Middle portion — Buell Tract, 1921: • Volume 74, Page 549 in City of Burlington — July 6, 1921 • Southern portion — Brownell Tract, 1923: • Volume 83, Page 570 in City of Burlington — October 24, 1923 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) UNIVERSITY of VERMONT 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX 4) APPLICANT"S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) Fee simple. 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) Linda Seavev. UVM Director. Camaus Plannina Services 109 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05405 (802) 656-3208 (802) 656-8895 FAX Page 1 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 147 Spear Street 7) TAX PARCEL ID# (can be obtained at Assessor's Office): Number 1810-00000 N and Number 1810-00799 N. 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Refer to Attachment I: UVM — Gutterson Parking Facility Project Description for further details. a) Existing Uses on property (include description and size of each separate use): Same institutional parking. b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): Same institutional parking uses remain along with additional parking provided by /construction of parking decks. c) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): Existing building footprint square footage is approximately 7,248. The proposed parking structure adds 55,988 footprint square footage for a total of 63,236 SF (footprint). All levels of square footage of proposed parking facility is estimated at a total of 254,100 gross square feet with 176,400 gross square feet within South Burlington. d) Proposed height of building (if applicable): Total building height will be 29 feet to the top of the brick columns and 32.5 feet to the top of the stair tower measured from the finished grade of the lower parking level. e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): not applicable. f) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): As indicated in the project description, the University is requesting a waiver/variance to construct parking spaces at 8 % feet wide for long-term parking to maximize utilization of the space and mitigate the use of open space. NOTE: The City of Burlington has accepted this waiver in its permit approval of the project. All utilities and public services such as , electric, water, sewer, storm water, fire and police services will be provided by the City of Burlington and the University. 9) LOT COVERAGE a) Building: Existing 1.18 % Proposed 10.31 % This assumes that the existing parking lot now covered by the new parking structure, thereby reducing the parking lot coverage and increasing the building lot coverage within the subdivision boundaries. The completion of the Athletic Field Improvement project will not change the building coverage at this lot. b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc.): Existing 37.21 _% Proposed 38.57 % This represents less than .20 acres change to the overall lot coverage and primarily represents covering the existing parking lot "berms." Page 2 c) Front yard (along each street): Existing % Proposed % There is no change to the buffer green belt between Spear Street and the exterior parking lot to the east of Spear Street as a result of this project and the Athletic Artificial Field Improvement. 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.): There are miscellaneous utility easements with the Citv of Burlinaton. The followina aareements in South Burlinaton are: • Phase III Recreation Path License Agreement from UVM to the City of South Burlington, dated September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2024; and • License Agreement from UVM to Champlain Water District for a 30' wide strip of land for a 12" water line. The license covers land in Burlington and South Burlington. 11)PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.): All utilities and public services, such as electric, water, sewer, stormwater, fire and police services will be provided by the Citv of Burlinaton and the Universitv of Vermont. 12) OWNERS OF RECORD OF ALL CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES & MAILING ADDRESSES (this may be provided on a separate attached sheet): See attached list — Attachment II 13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: Projected to be January 1, 2004 14) PLANS AND FEE: Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information listed on Exhibit A attached. Five (5) regular size copies and one reduced copy (11" x 17") of the plans must be submitted. A sketch subdivision application fee is free. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE OF AP C tka4 SIGNATURE OF PROP TY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSSION: 7,11910 I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be. - Complete Ij Incomplete 9 Lt�_ Director of PkdrkiAg 2or4hg or Designee Date SBurl - Gutterson Sketch-2-03-final.doc Page 3 Attachment II UVM Gutterson Parking Facility List of all Abutters and Mailing Addresses University owned properties to the north, west, and south of this subdivision. The following list represents all abutters, including all privately owned Spear Street residential neighbors: Pamela Storey & James Thompson Armin Grams Frederick & Patricia Cianci 74 Spear Street 134 Spear Street 188 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Marcella Peden, Trustee Walter & Nancy Antos, Trustees Rebecca Blodgett 82 Spear Street 140 Spear Street 210 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Cornelius J. Carr Ronald & Radetta Nemcosky George Passage, Jr. 88 Spear Street 148 Spear Street 220 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Gerald & Patricia Divincenzo John Lucas Hauman Dieter Gump, Trustee 96 Spear Street 156 Spear Street 226 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Joann P. Nielson City of South Burlington Mary & Jan Rozendaal 100 Spear Street 160 Spear Street 233 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Garth & Clara Peterson, Trustees Tommy & Monica Devino Elizabeth Orr 106 Spear Street 168 Spear Street 234 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Peter & Sylvia Tousley Khoi & Catherine Nguyen Kathie Desautels 112 Spear Street 170 Spear Street 238 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 Albert & Ruth Reynolds Mitchell & Sonja Hinsdale Burlington Country Club 126 Spear Street 184 Spear Street 239 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington, VT 05403