Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-20-40_500 Old Farm_OBrien Eastview_PP 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SD-20-40 500 Old Farm Road Preliminary Plat Application DATE: July 20, 2021 Development Review Board meeting O’Brien Eastview, LLC has submitted preliminary plat application #SD-20-40 to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on nine (9) lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen (19) commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing single family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road. The Board reviewed the application on February 17, March 16, April 20, May 18, and May 26, 2021. They conducted a field visit on July 6, 2021. The hearing was continued to this, the July 20 meeting, to complete review of two outstanding topics, plus any additional topics the Board feels they need more information on prior to closing this preliminary plat hearing. A) Bicycle/Pedestrian accommodations on Old Farm Road Since the first meeting, the Board has engaged with the applicant in a discussion of pedestrian connectivity between the southern terminus of the project and the Hinesburg Road / Tilley Drive area. The applicant testified on May 18 that they would like to conclude discussion of this connectivity prior to conclusion of the preliminary plat. The applicant’s plans show a recreation path from Kimball Ave to O’Brien Farm Road, a sidewalk from O’Brien Farm Road to Legacy Road, and, based on concerns expressed in previous meetings and outlined herein, “Advisory Bicycle Lanes” south of that point. The applicant’s initial traffic study recommended intersection widening at various project intersections, including Kimball Ave at Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road, Hinesburg Road at Old Farm Road, and signal upgrades at three intersections on Williston Road, two on Kennedy Drive, and one on Kimball Ave. Staff’s recommendation, which neither the Board nor the applicant objected to, was to re-envision the transportation plan for this project to reflect a multimodal approach, taking into consideration the various policy documents summarized below, with the objective of reducing the need for expanded roadways by reducing the portion of trips occurring by motor vehicle. Policy Documents supportive of Multimodal Strategies 1. VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan – November 2020 This study was commissioned by the City and is being used by the Planning Commission and City Council regarding prioritization of transportation system upgrades in the vicinity of the project. It #SD-20-40 2 recommends a shared use path along the entire length of Old Farm Road to meet future demands on the City transportation network. 2. O’Brien Eastview, LLC Development & Phase 2 of Hillside Development – Responses to questions to Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee from the DRB 1/29/2021 City Staff formulated a number of questions for the Bike/Ped committee, including this question: “Staff request committee feedback on the proposed recreation path locations. Are the proposed locations appropriate? Are there any missing? Are there any locations in which there should be lanes instead of or in addition to paths? “ The Committee provided a thorough response, provided in the 2/17 packet for the Board, including the following relevant excerpt: At minimum, there should be a sidewalk on the west side of Old Farm Road down to Hinesburg Road from where the currently proposed sidewalk across from the resident recreation/pool area #SD-20-40 3 ends. As noted below, the Committee would prefer that a shared use path be constructed on the full length of Old Farm Road. 3. Memorandum “Bicycle/Pedestrian connection to Hinesburg Road from the O’Brien Development,” prepared by the South Burlington Bike and Pedestrian Committee, dated May 24, 2021 The South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee reviewed the various options being discussed to provide bike and pedestrian connectivity between the O’Brien development, along Old Farm Road south to Hinesburg Rd. We have listened to and considered the concerns raised by the developers and several residents on Old Farm Road. It is the opinion of the South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee that the best alternative, and the one we are recommending, is to place the shared-use path on the east side of Old Farm Road. Furthermore, we recommend that this section of path starting at Old Meadow Loop be connected down to Hinesburg Road and south to the end of the existing shared-use path in front of Red Barn Deli, at 47 Tilley Drive. The key reasons we support this alternative over the proposed connection from the O’Brien Development to Tilley Drive along a new industrial road are as follows: • The grade along Old Farm Road is more gradual and conducive to walking and biking compared with the Tilley Drive alternative. • The connection along Old Farm Road is significantly more direct, both for residents of the new O’Brien development as well as commuters moving through the area. • We think that walking in and around a residential development should be of paramount concern, and the proposed advisory lanes on this section of Old Farm Road fails to provide a solution for walkers. • It is our understanding that Old Farm Road currently sees significant pedestrian traffic. Our assumption is that increased volumes of drivers and walkers from the new development would only increase what is already a significant safety concern and gap in our pedestrian infrastructure. The alternative path directly east to Tilley Drive does not sufficiently address either of these issues along this section of Old Farm Road. 4. Comprehensive Plan The comprehensive plan includes a number of relevant statements related to transportation system objectives. • Objective 17. Provide a transportation network that complies with Complete Street mandates and maximizes efficiency and safety for all types of users (pedestrians, cyclists, transit, automobiles, trucks, rail, and air). • Objective 20. Reduce the percentage of trips taken by single-occupancy vehicles in the City. • Objective 21. Seek alternative traffic congestion relief measures before existing roadway segments are expanded. 5. Land Development Regulations The following criterion of the Land Development Regulations have been discussed in previous packets as relevant to this topic. #SD-20-40 4 15.18A(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. As noted above, a multimodal approach reduces the need for expanded vehicular roadways. 15.12M Sidewalks and Recreation Paths (1) Unless otherwise provided in the specific regulations in Article 9 (SEQ) or in the City Center Form Based Codes District, sidewalks and/or recreation paths shall be installed along both sides of arterial streets, along both sides of collector streets in commercial areas, along one side of collector streets in noncommercial areas, and along one side of local streets. The specific location of sidewalks and/or recreation paths shall be determined by the DRB. Acknowledging that this project is utilizing an existing roadway, it remains relevant that were this a new project, the applicant would be required to construct a sidewalk or recreation path along this collector roadway. 10.05 Transit Overlay District (TO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Transit Overlay District to provide for a safe, compact, and efficient land use pattern that supports regular fixed-route transit service, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Certain land uses may be permitted only within the Transit Overlay District, or be permitted outside the District subject to conditions. Other incentives or requirements that complement a multi-modal environment may also be established. The project is located in the Transit Overlay District. Residential use is allowed by right in the transit overlay district. 6. Act 34 – Complete Streets Law As described by the CCRPC, “in 2011, Governor Shumlin signed into law Act 34 which requires the state and all municipalities to consider the needs of all users in all projects and all phases, regardless of funding sources.” This act requires municipalities to include all users when constructing new streets. In light of Act 34, Staff considers it appropriate to advocate for complete streets when reviewing private projects. Site Specific Factors Supporting Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations • The Board and the applicant seem to agree with Staff that Old Farm Road should act as the central feature of the proposed development. • The development will create at least 135 additional homes, and opportunity for outdoor recreation including trails and fields which are likely to draw those from adjoining neighborhoods. The increased traffic on this road will decrease safety for the growing number of pedestrians without such a feature. • The applicant testified that they do not want to provide a shared use path along the entire length of Old Farm Road due to potential visual impacts to existing homes. The entire character of Old Farm Road will be transformed as a result of this neighborhood, and the absence of complimentary infrastructure along the southern portion will be more unexpected than the presence. • A shared use path along the entire length will provide a benefit to the community when the neighborhood is built out. #SD-20-40 5 • As noted by Staff at the field visit on 7/6, there is evidence of current use of Old Farm Road by pedestrians. • Encroachment of private landscaping into the public right of way is inadequate justification for changing how the public way is used. • The Board noted on April 20 that the project does not stand in a vacuum and off-site improvements may be necessary to make the project compatible with it’s setting. • It is the position of the City staff, City committees, and the independent technical review that a shared use path along the entire length of Old Farm Road is an important element of the proposed project. Staff has included two public comment letters which have not previously been provided to the Board in the packet. Recommendations of Staff Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a shared use path on the east side of Old Farm Road. Staff acknowledges, however, the following possible options. • Requirement that a bike/ped facility be designed and provided as part of final plat on east side of old farm road, consisting of one of the following o 10-ft wide asphalt shared use path – recommended alternative o 8-ft wide asphalt shared use path o 5-ft wide concrete sidewalk • Payment in lieu - For project to provide payment for off-site bike/ped facilities for the City to use for projects identified in Tilley Drive network study (see Figure 13 above), which include the applicant’s proposed connection to Tilley Drive, facilities on Hinesburg Road, etc. This option would put it on the City to determine which project best meets the needs of the City that has a nexus to the proposed needs of the neighborhood. Ultimate allocation of funding would be determined by City Council. • “Bicycle Advisory Lane” option presented by the applicant. Staff has reviewed the proposal for advisory lanes with the Director of Public Works, and strongly disagrees with this approach. Old Farm Road is not an appropriate location for such a treatment. Hinesburg Road, State Route 116, is a high to medium speed roadway. Turning from such a roadway onto a road with shared bicycle and vehicular lanes creates a potential safety concern. With either the Old Farm Road or the Payment in Lieu option, Staff notes the Board may wish to consider removing any requirement to construct the bike-ped connector from I/C Road to Tilley Drive. Staff considers the Board should acknowledge the applicant’s strong opposition to constructing a multi-use path south of the project area path because of a desire to not impact uninvolved adjoiners, but nonetheless recommends the Board require the path be constructed. Staff is open to a phased approach or creative solutions to construction of this section of the recreation path and recommends the Board to direct the applicant to work with Staff prior to final plat. Further, Staff continues to be willing to meet with neighbors between now and final plat to address site-specific design issues. Staff recommends the applicant be directed to includes this recreation path in the final plat submittal. #SD-20-40 6 B) Traffic Study The applicant has requested the Board make a determination on whether they will require the Kimball Ave intersections to be constructed as roundabouts as part of this preliminary plat decision. The applicant submitted a study entitled “Roundabout Feasibility Analysis,” prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated June 21, 2021 in support of this request. The 17-page analysis provides a discussion of traffic characteristics on Kimball Ave, a description of design considerations, a capacity analysis, a discussion of the roundabout design process, and a preliminary cost estimate. An independent third-party technical reviewer reviewed the analysis and provided a 1-page memo entitled “Review of June 21, 2021 Roundabout Feasibility Analysis for Eastview – O’Brien Home Farm Application,” prepared by BFJ Planning, dated July 12, 2021. Staff recommends the Board review the 1-page memo from BFJ to inform their discussion of whether to require the applicant to modify their design to include roundabouts in lieu of signalized intersections at the intersections of Kimball Ave and Old Farm Road and Kimball Ave and I/C Road. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board conclude discussion of the above two topics and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner RaisedCrosswalk& RRFBOld Farm RoadAdvisory Bicycle LanesPotential Future ConnectionLEGENDPrepared: 4/1/21RecFieldParkParkCommunityCenterDog ParkKe n n e d y D r i v e Kimball AvenueTilley DriveAdvisoryBicycle LanesRaisedCrosswalk& RRFBNew SharedUse PathNew SharedUse PathNew SharedUse PathExisting Shared Use PathBike Connectivity to Be DeterminedDuring Phase 1 Plat PermittingProposed Shared Use PathProposed Advisory Bicycle LaneProposed CrossingChanges to Site PlanNew SharedUse PathGateway Feature(Transition from AdvisoryBike Lane to Shared Use Path)Future StreetConnection(By Others)New SharedUse Path 1 Marla Keene From:Brian Armstrong <barmstrong@kw.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 26, 2021 11:16 AM To:Marla Keene; Cathy Sarvis Iraheta; Douglas Dickey Cc:Paul Conner; Douglas Dickey Subject:EXTERNAL: Re: O'Brien Eastview information         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Marla and Paul,     Thank you again for time this morning and for the candor.    We appreciated the time you have both afforded us.  I look forward to participating in the process from here on out.  As  I ponder our discussion, the one bell that rings loudly with me is the fact that our neighbor was given a variance in the  subdivision for the Red Barn...as it's becoming a welcomed destination for many in the area... I wanted to put in writing  that intentionally or otherwise the variance the town gave is partially responsible for the very traffic they now want to  channel through my front yard.    With that said, I will go on record adamantly opposed to the request and suggest you revisit a southerly path over the  very parties property who was given the variance.  I am prepared to be a vocal opponent to this and dedicate a  substantial amount of capital and court action to oppose it.     I respect our neighbor/s right to develop, yet the variance they requested resulted in traffic that should be channeled on  their land. Karmatically (some polite humor)... I believe that would be the most equitable. The lower tree line along their  property, an area which appears to have a proposed road along it likely would be a better fit and place the burden on  the party who benefited from the past variance.     With respect, care, and candor,        Brian Armstrong   Team Leader & Co-Founder at Keller Williams Vermont  Strong Will Real Estate & Property Management  o : e:  802.488.3494 m: 802.598.3190 barmstrong@kw.com w: allburlingtonhomes.com  a :  68 Randall Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 "Live like you are going to die tomorrow, learn as if you are going to live forever." Gandhi  Consumer Information Disclosure: Prospective Buyers and Sellers: KW Vermont represents both Buyers and Sellers through written agency agreements. Unless KW Vermont and you enter into a written agreement for agency representation, you are a customer and not a client. There is no confidentiality between us until there is a signed brokerage service agreement. Link to disclosure: Click here for Disclosure    1 Marla Keene From:Barbara Neff <babynurseneff@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 6, 2021 10:06 AM To:Marla Keene Cc:Paul Conner Subject:EXTERNAL: Site visit on July 6 at corner of Old Farm Road and Hinesburg Road          This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.      Good morning,  my name is Barbara Neff and I reside at 700 Hinesburg Road(on the corner of Old Farm Road).   I have  spoken to Paul Conner recently and he alerted me to the meeting to take place on this date.  I work full time at the UVM  Medical Center Hospital in the NICU and I will be working extra hours during your meeting time.  As I will not be able to  voice my concerns or desires during your designated meeting time,  I wish to send this email in hopes of being one of  the many voices of concern in your proposed future plans for a community walkway.   I have had to contend with several  pedestrians along with occasional pets walking through  the middle of my yard to gain access to the market or sidewalk  next door.  A path has been mowed through the run‐off area adjacent  to our yard and people have been going through  our yard almost daily.   I wish to object to a proposed future permanent walkway bisecting our yard to gain access to the  market next door.  If a proposed walkway is inevitable then it should be connected to the already existing walkway on  the west side of Hinesburg Road with appropriate cross‐walk options in place.  Since there will be a future traffic light  placed at the Tilley Drive site,  the traffic pattern will slow/stop at the Old Farm Road corner to allow for a cross‐walk  option to be placed there.  Possibly moving the entrance to Old Farm Road further to the south of where it is now may  prevent the rather “fast” exits to the road and slow the turning vehicles .  I see several alternate options and possibilities  to gain a safe and pleasant walkway for the increasing pedestrian traffic in our very near future.  I would like it to be  known, that I, Barbara Neff of 700 Hinesburg Road, do Not wish that walkway to be placed in the middle of our family  yard.    As a side note…. I am a Tilley member and my children are the 5th generation to grow up in this farmhouse.   We  have seen countless changes occur at this site in the last 17 years and I am encouraging a change of future plans for the  walkway out of respect for what remains of our home site.  Very sincerely yours,  Barbara Neff  Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: O’Brien Home Farm - Eastview Date: June 21, 2021 From: Roger Dickinson, PE, PTOE Subject: Roundabout Feasibility Analysis As requested, outlined below are the results of our examination of constructing roundabouts instead of traffic signals on Kimball Avenue at the relocated Old Farm Rd and new I/C Road intersections. Eastview’s Proposed Kimball Ave Improvements The Eastview development currently proposes two new intersections on Kimball Avenue. The first is the relocated Old Farm Rd intersection which will form a four-way intersection with the existing driveway to the 20-30 Kimball Ave office complex. The second will be the new I/C Road intersection which will also form a four-way intersection with the INS office building’s existing driveway at 70 Kimball Ave. Both intersections will operate initially under two-way stop-control. New exclusive left-turn lanes are proposed on Kimball Ave at both intersections in order to provide additional capacity and to maintain safe traffic flow. With Kimball Ave being 32 ft wide curb-to-curb, and with Eastview also constructing a new shared-use path along its south side, those left-turn lanes can be pavement-marked using a 11’-10’ 11’ cross-section; thus, not requiring any roadway widening. It is recommended that the Kimball Ave left-turn lanes be installed at the same time each intersection is initially constructed. Eastview’s revised traffic impact assessment1 also recommended providing an exclusive right-turn lane on the I/C Road approach once the Tilley Drive connection is made in order to provide additional capacity for that movement exiting onto Kimball Ave. As Eastview is developed and the I/C Road extended to link with Tilley Drive, it is anticipated future traffic volumes will warrant the installation of traffic signals at both intersections. These signals will be triggered by the proposed development as outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted and in the record for this hearing at Exhibit 014. Importantly, it is not anticipated that the future traffic signals will require any widening of Kimball Ave or further geometric improvements other than those outlined above. Kimball Ave Traffic Characteristics In order to examine the pros and cons of roundabouts vs. traffic signals, it is important to understand existing traffic characteristics. Kimball Ave is an urban major collector roadway linking Kennedy Dr with the Taft Corners/I-89 Exit 12 area in Williston. Kimball Ave, together with Marshall Avenue in Williston, also provides access to numerous commercial and industrial properties in both municipalities. 1 Eastview - O’Brien Home Farm Traffic Impact Assessment, Lamoureux & Dickinson, March 30, 2021 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) most recently performed an automatic traffic recorder count on Kimball Ave just east of Old Farm Rd in early August 2019. The observed average weekday volume in that count was 12,562 vehicles per day (vpd). Figure 1 illustrates the observed weekday hourly volumes. Figure 1 - Kimball Avenue Weekday Traffic Volumes That count also classified the types of vehicles traveling Kimball Ave. The data showed that single-unit trucks/buses make up 7% and that semi-trailer trucks make up 1% of weekday traffic. Those percentages are considerably higher than the statewide average truck percentages on urban major collectors (4.4% single-unit trucks/buses and 0.5% semi-trailer trucks). Table 1 presents the numbers of trucks traveling Kimball Ave on a typical weekday (based on 12,562 vpd). It is important to note that the above are pre-development volumes. These numbers also do not include the additional truck trips associated with the FedEx facility newly built on Community Drive which will increase truck traffic on Kimball Avenue. Table 1 - Kimball Ave Weekday Truck Volumes Truck Type FHWA Vehicle Class Volume (vpd) Single-Rear Axle Straight Trucks & Buses 4 - 5 667 Tandem & Tri-Rear Axle Straight Trucks 6 - 7 147 Short Semi-Trailers (4 axles, WB-40 & WB-50) 8 68 Long Semi-Trailers (5 axles, WB-62 & WB-67) 9 - 10 47 Double Trailers 11 - 13 1 Total 930 It should also be noted that during the permitting process for the FedEx facility, the Development Review Board examined a similar proposal for a roundabout or a traffic signal at the Kimball Ave/ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PMHourly Volume (vph)Hour Begin Friday Monday Tuesday Average Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Gregory Dr/Community Dr intersection (exactly what is being discussed here), with similar traffic conditions. The Board eventually found that: “the revised signal design meets City objectives.”2 Roundabout Design Elements There are six basic roundabout categories used in designing roundabouts, depending on the character of the area and the highways served.3 Both Georges Jacquemart, PE, the City’s consultant, and this writer agree that only single-lane roundabouts should be considered on Kimball Ave; thus, eliminating the two double-lane categories.4 The primary reasons for not considering double-lane roundabouts are their larger size, increased complexity for motorists plus increased difficulty for pedestrians. Figure 2 illustrates the basic design elements of a roundabout. Table 2 lists the single-lane roundabout categories together with their key design elements.5 Figure 2 - Typical Roundabout Table 2 - Typical Roundabout Design Elements 2 See page 4 of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Application SD-19-22 of SunCap Property Group, recorded at Vol 1495. Page 252 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. 3 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Federal Highway Administration, June 2000, Exhibit 1-6 4 The sixth category is a rural single-lane roundabout. 5 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Exhibit 1-7 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Design Element Mini-Roundabout Urban Compact Urban Single-Lane Recommended Entry Speed 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph Maximum Number of Entering Lanes per Approach 1 1 1 Typical Inscribed Diameter* 45-80 ft 80-100 ft 100-130 ft Splitter Island Treatment Raised, if possible Raised, with crosswalk cut Raised, with crosswalk cut Typical Daily Service Volumes* 10,000 vpd 15,000 vpd 20,000 vpd * Assumes 90° entries and no more than four-legs. Accepted roundabout design practice is to use a 110 ft inscribed diameter as the minimum needed to adequately accommodate WB-62 and WB-676 semi-trailer trucks. Smaller diameter roundabouts are certainly possible, but their central island will need to be designed to be driven over by semi-trailer trucks. As can be seen in Table 2, mini-roundabouts and urban compact roundabouts provide less capacity than urban single-lane roundabouts. In Vermont, comparable examples of heavily traveled urban roundabouts include the intersection of Main St and Cross St in Middlebury and the intersection of VT Routes 7A and 11 in Manchester. Both have an inscribed circle diameter of ±110 ft. The Glens Falls roundabout, which has been cited by Georges Jacquemart, PE, as an example of an urban roundabout, has an inscribed circle diameter of 115 ft. Alignment is another critical roundabout design element. Figure 3 illustrates the three alignment options; offset left, radial and offset right. A roundabout’s alignment is a major factor in how well it will reduce the speed of entering vehicles to the recommended entry speed. In other words, the desired deflection, and corresponding speed reduction, of traffic entering a roundabout is easier to achieve with the offset left alignment. 6 A semi-trailer truck having a 53 ft long trailer is commonly referred to as a WB-67 design vehicle. However, Vermont and other eastern states require that the kingpin distance on 53 ft trailers not exceed 41 ft; effectively changing that vehicle to a WB-62 design vehicle for purposes of analyzing turning paths. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 3 - Roundabout Alignment Options The above roundabout design elements are presented to help readers of this Technical Memorandum understand the background of how these design elements influence the pros and cons of installing roundabouts on Kimball Ave. This memorandum will reference these design elements in the following sections. Roundabout Design Selection Given the above, this memorandum provides analysis of the impacts and feasibility for installing an Urban Single Lane Roundabout, with a 110’ inscribed circle diameter. This design was selected for two main reasons:  Capacity: Given the current traffic volumes on Kimball Avenue and the potential of significant additional development in the area, choosing a design that would exceed the recommended daily volume of 10,000 vpd (Mini-Roundabout) or only allow for a relatively small increase to 15,000 vpd (Urban Compact Roundabout) does not seem prudent.  Truck Turning Movements: It is well known that Kimball Avenue is a heavily traveled truck route. This is documented in the numbers provided above. Given this, providing a roundabout on a high- volume major collector street which would necessitate trucks to drive over its central island does not represent good design. There are inherent safety concerns associated with that, not to mention the disruptions in traffic flow caused by those vehicles. The following sections review the impacts of an Urban Single-Lane Roundabout and the levels of service provided. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Intersection Capacity For roundabouts, the maximum volume of conflicting traffic at its entry points is a critical capacity limitation. The conflicting traffic volume equals the sum of entering traffic and circulating volume at each entry point. Research has shown that the capacity of a single-lane roundabout max’s out at a conflicting volume of 1,300 - 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) at its entry points.7 A good rule of thumb for design purposes is to limit the conflicting volume to 1,100 vph for satisfactory operation during peak periods.8 Table 3 presents the critical conflicting volumes associated with the projected 2032 Eastview Full-Build traffic analysis scenarios. Table 3 - Projected Maximum Conflicting Volumes Peak Hour Critical Entry Point Max. Conflicting Volume (vph) Old Farm Rd I/C Road AM Kimball Ave Eastbound without future connectors with future connectors 1,245 1,117 1,280 1,231 PM Kimball Ave Westbound without future connectors with future connectors 1,619 1,574 1,574 1,502 As outlined above both the AM and PM peak hours will see vehicle volumes in excess of the 1,100 vph design threshold recommended by the New York State Department of Transportation Roundabout Design Unit. That future peak hour traffic volumes on Kimball Ave exceed what a single-lane roundabout is capable of handling is reinforced by the results of capacity analyses performed using roundabout capacity analysis methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual. Those results are shown in Table 4 together with the results for signalized intersections. Table 4 - Intersection Levels of Service Peak Hour Critical Entry Point Roundabouts Signalized Old Farm Rd I/C Road Old Farm Rd I/C Road AM Kimball Ave Eastbound without future connectors with future connectors D C E D C C C B PM Kimball Ave Westbound without future connectors with future connectors F F F F C C D C 7 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition 8 Modern Roundabout Design, New York State Department of Transportation Roundabout Design Unit Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 7 Consulting Engineers, Inc. As outlined above, the Project is currently proposing signalized intersections which maintain a level of service of D or better for all hours, and which in large part are at a C or better. Importantly, these levels of service are maintained even without the future connections and roadway networks that are outside the control of Applicant. It is of paramount importance to the Applicant that the investment in traffic improvements enable their project to proceed. As outlined above, a single-lane roundabout does not provide sufficient capacity to maintain desired levels of service on Kimball Avenue. Intersection Alignment As noted above, the proposed signalized intersections at the relocated Old Farm Rd and the new I/C Road will not require extensive roadway widening or realignment. Kimball Ave is already sufficiently wide to create the desired left-turn lanes at both intersections by restriping the existing pavement markings. At most, a thin mill and overlay of the existing pavement would eliminate any remnants of the old pavement markings and help the new pavement markings stand out visually. The close proximity of on-site parking and internal driveways at the #20-30 Kimball Ave office complex complicates installing a roundabout serving that office complex and the relocated Old Farm Rd. A radially aligned roundabout having a 110’ inscribed circle diameter is shown in Figure 4. The inscribed circle diameter is shown by the orange circle. The yellow dashed line with a band of hatching on the inside delineates the perimeter of the area needed for the roundabout together with green strips, a sidewalk (north side) and a shared-use path (south side). The radial roundabout shown in Figure 4 is incompatible with the existing internal driveways and parking at the #20-30 Kimball Ave office complex. It would also require acquiring land and/or easements to construct; potentially involving as many as four parcels which have rights to use the existing access onto Kimball Ave. For these reasons, an offset roundabout at this intersection was also examined, and is shown in Figure 5. With the roundabout shown in Figure 5 potentially creating an unacceptable offset right alignment under the design guidelines outlined above, realigning both Kimball Ave approaches to restore a radial alignment will be required. This will involve constructing new approaches on Kimball Ave for 200-250’ on each side of the roundabout. The construction of a roundabout at the relocated Old Farm Road intersection will therefore require the reconstruction of approximately 400-500’ of Kimball Avenue, in addition to the construction of the roundabout itself and associated improvements. Figure 6 illustrates a radial roundabout at the new intersection where the I/C Road will intersect with Kimball Ave directly opposite the existing driveway accessing #70 Kimball Ave (the INS Building). It is notable that this roundabout can be placed without causing significant issues with the existing access at 70 Kimball Avenue, however this placement will again require additional land and/or easements from the #70 Kimball Ave parcel. An offset roundabout would help avoid the need for those easements, but would add the need to relocate and rebuild a portion of Kimball Avenue similar to what is described above at Old Farm Rd. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 8 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 4 - Radial 110’ Ø Roundabout at Relocated Old Farm Rd Figure 5 - Offset 110’ Ø Roundabout at Relocated Old Farm Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 6 - Radial 110’ Ø Roundabout at I/C Road Intersection & Approach Grades Kimball Ave is located on a relatively flat vertical alignment. To the north, the surrounding land is also predominantly flat or gently sloping away from Kimball Ave. To the south, however, is a significant hillside, the top of which on Old Farm Rd is approximately 80 ft higher than Kimball Ave. Conventional intersections, whether signalized or not, are fairly tolerant of moderate grades. Obviously, as roadway grades increase, acceleration and deceleration distances increase, and issues with safe vehicle operation emerge. Roadways having an uphill grade as they approach a conventional intersection will also experience reduced capacity. Roundabouts operate better when constructed on a relatively flat grade. Recommended design practice is to design roundabouts so that the central island is the high point, with drainage being directed to the outside of the roundabout. Both the relocated Old Farm Rd and the new I/C Road will slope down to Kimball Ave at a steep grade. The civil site engineer, Scott Homsted, PE, of Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. has examined the additional grading and earthwork that will be required by roundabouts at these two proposed intersections. His analysis is enclosed in Appendix A. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 10 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Potential Construction Costs The construction costs for installing traffic signals are well documented, and typically can be estimated at about $250,000 per intersection. The installation of left-turn lanes in Kimball Ave will add another $50,000 - $100,000 to that (per intersection), depending on whether any widening or pavement overlays are required. As outlined above, no pavement widening is proposed in this Project and therefore it is expected that the full cost of each new intersection could be as much as $350,000. In comparison, the proposed roundabouts at both the I/C Road and Relocated Old Farm Road have estimated construction costs that are likely to be substantially higher. Estimating these costs would require detailed project plans that would address: traffic control and detouring, work hours (night or day work), utility relocation, roadway relocation, stormwater management and location, site grading, pedestrian infrastructure and locations/type and materials, landscaping, lighting, striping and signage, in addition to all relevant roadway planning standards. The development of these plans in and of itself is something that would be a substantial cost in and of itself. Table 5 outlines the size (inscribed circle diameter) and cost of several roundabout projects where we have been able to ascertain cost from local news sources, including the Glens Falls example. Table 5 - Roundabout Cost Examples Location Diameter Total Project Cost Waterbury, VT (US 2/VT 100) 140' $5,000,000 Burlington, VT (Shelburne St Rotary) $7,777,000 Glens Falls, NY (Centennial Circle) 115' $9,000,000 Hartford, VT (US 5 & Sykes Ave) (2 roundabouts) 105' / 140' $6,829,000 The above roundabout costs are significantly greater than the cost of traffic signals. While adjustments for size and complexity can certainly be made, the average cost for the examples cited above exceeds $5MM per location. At 20% of that, the cost would still be over $1MM and more than three times the cost of the traffic signal alternative. In terms of impacts (cost and convenience), it should also be considered that the roundabouts being discussed would require major construction on Kimball Avenue; resulting in lane closures and/or the construction of detours to facilitate construction. The construction will likely cause a ripple effect on nearby roadways and disrupt traffic in over a large area in both South Burlington and Williston. Conclusions In summary, the above examines major considerations associated with whether to use conventional intersections or roundabouts at Eastview’s two proposed intersections on Kimball Ave. As outlined above, single-lane urban roundabouts have been examined as an alternative to traffic signals. The results of this examination show that single-lane roundabouts would result in significantly greater traffic congestion. In addition, their greater construction cost (and traffic disruption during construction) Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 11 Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be justified. For all of these reasons, the Project has proposed signalization as the preferred method of traffic control at these two new intersections. Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX A Eastview Roundabout Grading Impacts Memo 164 Main Street, Suite 201 | Colchester, Vermont | P: (802) 878-0375 | email@krebsandlansing.com Date: June 10, 2021 To: Andrew Gill From: Scott Homsted Re: Eastview Roundabout Grading Impacts We analyzed the grading impacts of installing roundabouts instead of traffic signals on Kimball Avenue at the relocated Old Farm Road and I/C Road intersections. We identified the following: Relocated Old Farm Road We looked at impacts to the relocated Old Farm Road and adjacent lots using an offset roundabout with a 110’ inscribed circle diameter. The offset roundabout was used to avoid untenable impacts to the #20-30 Kimball Ave office complex. The O’Brien land in the area of the intersection adjacent to Kimball Avenue is a steep slope with grades up to 20%. Because the roundabout will be offset, the center island of the roundabout will need to be located on what is now a steep slope. Grades within the area of the roundabout will be limited to 2% to meet ADA requirements. Therefore, very significant cuts and earth moving, likely including blasting of ledge, will be needed to install the roundabout. The grading impacts from a roundabout extend up the relocated Old Farm Road. The grade for Old Farm Road is required to be no more than 3% within 100’ of the intersection. This section of road is going to be in a cut section regardless of the type of intersection. However, due to the roundabout shifting the intersection south onto the property, the cut section becomes much deeper. A signalized intersection results in the finish grade of the new road being up to 6’ below existing ground. The roundabout intersection results in the finish grade being up to 10’ below existing ground. Importantly, the deeper cut required impacts the road all the way to the O'Brien Farm Road intersection. The current intersection grade at O'Brien Farm Road would not be able to be met without using 250'-300' feet of 10% grade along Old Farm Road, which is not desirable, or even allowed under the current South Burlington road standards. Lots 23 and 26 will also be greatly impacted by a potential roundabout. Because the roundabout radii extend onto these lots, the grading impacts will extend as well, pushing the cut section onto the lots. While buildings on these lots will likely be above the road regardless of intersection type, the extra cut for the road will cause the buildings to be even higher above the road grades. This will affect the aesthetics of the development and make it difficult to achieve the “gateway” effect that both the developer and City are looking for. I/C Road We looked at impacts to the proposed I/C Road and adjacent lots using a radial roundabout with a 110’ inscribed circle diameter. Andrew Gill Roundabout Grading Memo June 10, 2021 PAGE [ 2 ] The O’Brien land in the area of the I/C intersection adjacent to Kimball Avenue is a moderate to steep slope with grades up to 12%. Grades within the area of the roundabout will be limited to 2% to meet ADA requirements. The size of the roundabout pushes the intersection onto project property, causing the new road to start off in more of cut section than a signalized intersection. The grade for the I/C road is also required to be no more than 3% within 100’ of the intersection. Similar to Old Farm Road, the I/C Road is going to be in a cut section regardless of the type of intersection. However, due to the roundabout shifting the intersection south onto the property, the cut section becomes much deeper. A signalized intersection results in the finish grade of the new road being 6-8’ below existing ground. The roundabout intersection results in the finish grade being over 10’ below existing ground in places. Submitted by, Scott Homsted, P.E. #7893 INTERSECTION WITH O'BRIEN FARM ROAD Finish Grade centerline using SIGNALIZED intersection EXISTING KIMBALL AVENUE EDGE OF PAVEMENT 3% 8% 9. 4% 3% 1 0% 2% 3% OFFSET ROUNDABOUT WITH MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 2% 3% SLOPE MAXIMUM GRADE WITHIN 100' OF INTERSECTION 10% GRADE NEEDED FOR 260 FEET TO MATCH GRADE AT O'BRIEN FARM ROAD INTERSECTION Finish Grade centerline using ROUNDABOUT intersection Approximately 6' cut required from existing ground to finished paved surface using SIGNALIZED intersection Approximately 10' cut required from existing ground to finished paved surface using SIGNALIZED intersection HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-4A Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com ROAD PROFILE RELOCATED OLD FARM ROAD with ROUNDABOUT OVERLAY EASTVIEW Finish Grade centerline using SIGNALIZED intersection EXISTING KIMBALL AVENUE EDGE OF PAVEMENT ROUNDABOUT WITH MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 2% 3% SLOPE MAXIMUM GRADE WITHIN 100' OF INTERSECTION 8% MAXIMUM GRADE FOR ROAD DESIGNED AS "COLLECTOR" STREET Finish Grade centerline using ROUNDABOUT intersection Approximately 7' cut required from existing ground to finished paved surface using SIGNALIZED intersection Approximately 12' cut required from existing ground to finished paved surface using SIGNALIZED intersection 8% 2% 3% HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CP-11A Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com ROAD & UTILITY PROFILE I/C ROAD with ROUNDABOUT OVERLAY EASTVIEW RELOCATED OLD FARM ROAD WITH SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION RELOCATED OLD FARM ROAD WITH ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION I/C ROAD WITH SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION I/C ROAD WITH ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION HILLSIDE @ O'BRIEN FARM OWNER AND APPLICANT: ISSUED FOR PERMIT REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INFORMATION: CX-1A Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont O'BRIEN BROTHERS 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 164 Main Street, Suite 201 P: (802) 878-0375 Colchester, Vermont 05446 email@krebsandlansing.com ROUNDABOUT CROSS SECTIONS EASTVIEW MEMORANDUM BUCKHURST FISH & JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494 Date: July 12, 2021 To: Marla Keene, PE, Development Review Planner Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Georges Jacquemart Contact Information: T. 212.353.7477 F. 212.353.7494 E. G.Jacquemart@bfjplanning.com Subject: Review of June 21, 2021 Roundabout Feasibility Analysis for Eastview – O’Brien Home Farm Application The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our review of the June 21, 2021 Memorandum prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc (LDC) in regards to the roundabout feasibility to mitigate impacts of the second phase of the O’Brien Home Farm mixed-use development. In our previous review of the preliminary evaluation we requested a level of service analysis of a single-lane roundabout at the two intersections along Kimball Avenue. The June 21, 2021 Memo by LDC includes this operational analysis, as well as other evaluation criteria. We do accept the level of service F projection for the PM peak hours in Table 4 of the Memo as the key conclusion that single lane roundabouts are not feasible at these locations, however, we would like to obtain a clarification of the source of that calculation. The LDC memo mentions the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. Is that the 2010 HCM or the 2000 HCM? Could the applicant submit the print-out of these calculations? We have also the following secondary comments for general information (we do not expect any responses to these comments): The discussion of the high percentages of truck in the traffic stream should not be a criteria in favor of signalized intersections, since roundabouts can be designed for larger vehicles and we have good examples of roundabouts carrying high percentages of trucks in the US and in Vermont (Brattleboro). In fact, given that the truck percentages are generally highest in the off-peak hours, roundabouts have the advantage of significantly reducing idling, pollutant emissions and fuel consumption during off-peak hours, and if diesel trucks are an important component of those traffic streams the sustainability benefits of roundabouts become significant. In regards to cost comparisons between the two options it is important to not only mention construction costs, but also operational costs, i.e. annual maintenance costs and costs of crashes, especially when one of these costs may be borne by the applicant, and the others are borne by the community. Resiliency in view of severe weather events should also be an evaluation factor. We do not fully agree with all the design criteria between signalized intersections and roundabouts such as the 2% approach limit for roundabouts and 3% for signalized intersections. It should also be noted that some of the planning and design criteria mentioned in the LDC memo referring to the Year 2000 FHWA Roundabout Informational Guide have been superseded by the 2010 Second Edition Guide (NCHRP Report 672). Typical daily service volumes have increased significantly for the various types of roundabouts. Please let us know if you have any questions.