Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Tilley DriveFITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 December 11, 1989 Mr. Jacques J. Landry, Development Manager Pizzagalli Properties P.O. Box 2009 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 RE: Traffic Impact Evaluation - Mountain View Business Park South Burlington, Vermont FILE: 89145 Dear Mr. Landry: As requested, we have evaluated potential traffic impacts resulting from the construction of the above referenced project to be located at the Tilley Farm in South Burlington. The scope of this project is to construct three office buildings, having a total gross floor area of 69,200 square feet, on a 7.8 acre parcel. Access will be via a new common roadway connecting with Hinesburg Road (Vermont Route 116). A location map is included as Appendix A. Three major areas of concern to local and state officials are addressed herein; Traffic Congestion, Traffic Safety and Geometric Improvements. The objective of this evaluation is to identify and assess potential traffic impacts created by this project in each of the above areas of concern, for both existing and future traffic conditions. For this evaluation, the study area includes three intersections in the immediate vicinity of this project: Hinesburg Road & Project Access, Hinesburg Road & Old Farm Road, and Kennedy Drive & Hinesburg Road. TRAFFIC CONGESTION Information regarding existing traffic volumes within the study area was obtained from the following sources: 1. Automatic Traffic Recorder Count, Hinesburg Road - Station D124, Vermont Agency of Transportation, 1998. 2. Turning Movement Count, Kennedy Drive & Hinesburg Road, Vermont Agency of Transportation, July 22, 1988. Design • Inspection • Studies • Permittinq • Survevina r Mr. Jacques C. Landry '"FILE: B9145 December 11, 1989 Page Two 3. Turning Movement Count, Kennedy Drive & Hinesburg Road, FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated, November 2, 1989. 4. Turning Movement Count, Hinesburg Road & Old Farm Road, Vermont Agency of Transportation, July 20 & 22, 1988. The results of the above referenced traffic counts were used to develop 1989 and 1994 design hour volumes at the aforementioned intersections. The calculation of future design hourly volumes (DHV) involves several steps. First, annual average daily volumes (AADT) are projected at an annual background growth rate of 3.5%. DHV's are then determined from future AADT's, using DHV/AADT ratios recommended by the VAOT. The third step, which is applicable to this project because of the magnitude of development which is occurring in the immediate area, is to add already permitted, but not yet constructed, other development -generated traffic to the DHV's. A summary of other development -generated traffic is included as Appendix B. The resulting total constitutes future background traffic volumes. For this evaluation, DHV's for both A.M. and P.M. peak weekday hours were calculated. Once background traffic volumes were determined, it was necessary to estimate the volumes and directional patterns of the additional traffic which will be generated by this project. An estimate of the traffic generation for this project was developed through the use of vehicular trip generation rates from the "ITE Informational Report, Trip Generation, 4th Edition". That report outlines the results of trip generation studies for numerous land -uses. For this project, the applicable land -use category is "General Office Building". Table 1 outlines the projected vehicular trip generation for this project. TABLE 1 PROJECTED VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION Enter Exit Total Average Weekday 523 523 1,046 vte/day A.M. Peak Hour 128 19 147 vte/hour P.M. Peak Hour 23 123 146 vte/hour The directional distribution of project -generated traffic was based on regional origin -destination data. Appendix C illustrates FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jacques C. Landry FILE: 89145 December 11, 1999 Page Three the projected A.M. and P.M. peak hour directional distributions of project -generated traffic. Potential traffic congestion impacts were determined by performing intersection capacity analyses at the three intersections within the study area. The methodology used to determine intersection capacity was obtained from the "Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985". Traffic conditions were analyzed for a number of existing and future development scenarios. By doing so, a better understanding of existing versus future conditions and the impact of this project can be obtained. The intersection capacity analyses also include an assessment of geometric and/or signal timing improvements needed to maintain desirable levels of traffic congestion or to mitigate any adverse impacts specifically created by this project. Levels of traffic congestion are defined by several parameters. For example, signalized intersections use vehicular delay (sec.), arterial highways use average running speed (mph), and unsignalized intersections use reserve capacity (vph). In all cases, those parameters are subdivided into ranges which are then referred to as levels of service. L.O.S. A represents very low loading with ample reserve capacity and no vehicular delays; L.O.S. C represents average conditions; and L.O.S. E represents a street or intersection at capacity, causing long queues and vehicular delays. One last range, L.O.S. F, occurs when traffic volumes exceed the available capacity of an intersection or street. Urban highways and intersections are generally designed to maintain Level of Service D or better during DHV conditions. One notable exception occurs at unsignalized intersections, where Level of Service E is not considered to be unreasonable on minor street approaches. For clarity, the results of the intersection capacity analyses at each of the three intersections are presented separately. Hinesburg Road & Mountain View Business Park This intersection will be newly created specifically to serve this project. It will be stop -sign controlled. Because the majority of the traffic accessing this project is anticipated to travel to and from the north, for the purpose of the capacity analyses only one exit lane on Mountain View was assumed. Additionally, the results of the capacity analyses are not dependent upon the FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Fngineering and Planning Services ,.Mr. Jacques C. Landry FILE: 69145 December 11, 1989 Page Four presence of an exclusive turn lane for southbound left -turns entering Mountain View. The warrants for that turn lane are therefore discussed under Geometric Improvements. The 1989 and 1994 capacity analyses for this intersection include traffic generated by other permitted developments plus this project. Table 2 summarizes the results of the capacity analyses at this intersection. Detailed results are enclosed as Appendix D. TABLE 2 HINESBURG ROAD & MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS Hinesburg Road Mountain SB LT Enter View Exit 1989 1994 1989 1994 A.M. Peak Hour B C C D P.M. Peak Hour (DHV) A A D D The above results indicate that this project will not create adverse levels of traffic congestion at its proposed access onto Hinesburg Road. Hinesburg Road & Old Farm Road Capacity analyses at this intersection were based on stop -sign control and existing geometrics, exclusively. Because this is an existing intersection, however, the applicable development scenarios include: background traffic volumes without this project or build -out of other development, with build -out of other development but without this project, and with build -out of both this project plus other development. Table 3 summarizes the results of the capacity analyses at this intersection. Detailed results are enclosed as Appendix E. Those results indicate that this project will not create adverse levels of traffic congestion at the intersection of Hinesburg Road & Old Farm Road. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jacques C. Landry FILE: 69145 December 11, 1999 Page Five TABLE 3 HINESBURG ROAD & OLD FARM ROAD INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS Hinesburg Road Old Farm SB LT Enter Road Exit 1989 1994 19B9 1994 A.M. Peak Hour Background Growth Only A - C - W/ Other Development A A D D W/ Other Development + Project A A D E P.M. Peak Hour (DHV) Background Growth Only A - C - W/ Other Development A A D E W/ Other Development + Project A A D E Kennedy Drive & Hinesburg Road Future traffic conditions at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road were previously evaluated for the City of South Burlington in a report prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated dated October 21, 1986. The objectives of that evaluation were to determine the cumulative impact of a number of developments which were being proposed along Hinesburg Road and the scope of needed improvements which would be created by those developments. This project was not anticipated at the time of that earlier report. Additionally, most of the developments which were proposed at that time have either been completed or are presently under construction. The capacity analyses at this intersection also project out to a design year of 1994, whereas the original evaluation was based on 1992. In addition to the various development scenarios discussed previously, the capacity analyses at this intersection also include differing scenarios for combinations of geometric and signal timing improvements. Table 4 outlines the existing geometrics and signal conditions at this intersection, together with the previously recommended improvements. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services I1r. Jacques C. Landry FILE: 89145 December 11, 1989 Page Six TABLE 4 KENNEDY DRIVE & HINESBURG ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS & PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Existing Proposed Geometries Northbound Approach 2 Lanes 3 Lanes (LT & R) (L, T & R) Southbound Approach 2 Lanes 2 Lanes (LT & R) (LT & R) Eastbound Approach 2 Lanes 3 Lanes (L & TR) (L, T & R) Westbound Approach 2 Lanes 3 Lanes (L & TR) (L, T & R) Signal Operation Controller Type Two-phase Eight -phase Pre -timed Actuated w/o TOD plans w/ TOD plans Phasing Plan Two-phase Two-phase (N-S & E-W) (N-S & E-W) With other development having already been found to require certain geometric improvements at this intersection, baseline conditions for the 1994 capacity analyses incorporate both, instead of existing geometries and background growth only. Table 5 presents the results of the capacity analyses at this intersection. Detailed results are enclosed as Appendix E. The results of the capacity analyses indicate that even though the overall intersection level of service can be maintained at acceptable levels, specific lane groups and approaches will experience high levels of traffic congestion even without this project. FITZPATRIC K- LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jacques C. Landry FILE: 89145 December 11, 1989 Page Seven TABLE 5 KENNEDY DRIVE & HINESBURG ROAD INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS Approach EB WB NB SB OVERALL 1989 A.M. Peak Hour Existing Conditions Background Growth Only C D D B C W/ Other Development D* E F E E W/ Prev. Recommended Improvements W/ Other Development B C B B B W/ Other Development + Project B C B B B 1994 A.M. Peak Hour W/ Prev. Recommended Improvements W/ Other Development C* C C B B W/ Other Development + Project C* C C* B C 1989 P.M. Peak Hour (DHV) Existing Conditions Background Growth Only D* B C B C W/ Prev. Recommended Improvements W/ Other Development C B C B B W/ Other Development + Project C B D* B C 1994 P.M. Peak Hour (DHV) W/ Prev. Recommended Improvements W/ Other Development D* C* D* B D W/ Other Development + Project D* D* F B D * Left -turns experience level of service E or F. Other potential improvements to provide additional capacity at this intersection were also evaluated. The one additional geometric improvement included an exclusive left -turn lane on the southbound Hinesburg Road approach; making that a three -lane approach similar to the other approaches. Alternate signal timing and phasing plans were also evaluated, particularly to define the best cycle length and left -turn treatment. At this intersection, protected/permitted left -turn phasing on the eastbound, westbound and northbound approaches provided better traffic service than did protected left -turn phasing alone. Table b presents the results FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jacques FILE: e9145 December 11, Page Eight C. Landry 19eg of those additional capacity analyses. Detailed results are enclosed as Appendix G. TABLE 6 KENNEDY DRIVE & HINESBURG ROAD INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES RESULTS WITH ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Approach EB WB NB SB OVERALL 1994 A.M. Peak Hour W/ Other Development B C B C C W/ Other Development + Project B C B C C 1994 P.M. Peak Hour (DHV) W/ Other Development C C B C C W/ Other Development + Project C C B C C The results of the additional capacity analyses, as outlined in Table 6, indicate that the cumulative traffic congestion impact of other already permitted development plus this project can be adequately mitigated by relatively minor additions to previously recommended improvements at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. TRAFFIC SAFETY The safety of vehicular traffic traveling two and from this project is largely dependent on the geometric and physical conditions of existing and proposed streets and intersections, projected traffic volumes, and the presence of adequate traffic control devices. The primary factor affecting traffic safety at the proposed access to this project is the availability of adequate sight distances. Hinesburg Road is posted at a 40 mph speed limit in this immediate area. Based on prevailing off-peak speeds of 45 mph, and a minimum of 7 seconds visibility time of oncoming traffic, the recommended minimum intersection sight distance equals 460 feet. Existing available sight distances Ttom the proposed Mountain View access considerably exceed that distance in both directions. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jacques C. Landry FILE: 89145 December 11, 1989 Page Nine The most recent available five-year (1983-1987) accident history of the segment of Hinesburg Road between the I-89 overpass and Kennedy Drive was also examined. During that period, a total of 7 accidents occurred, resulting in an accident rate of 1.00 accidents per million vehicle miles. In comparison, the statewide average accident rate during the same period on similar urban primary highways equaled 3.86 accidents per million vehicle miles. A similar examination of the accident history at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road was performed. During the same five-year period, 38 accidents occurred at that intersection, resulting in an accident rate of 1.09 accidents per million vehicles. In comparison, the statewide average accident rate at similar intersections equaled 0.57 accidents per million vehicles. Because the actual rate (1.09) at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road exceeded the statewide average (0.57), the critical accident rate was also calculated for that intersection. The critical rate, which is a statistical test of the expected variability in the average rate at a given location, equaled 0.77 accidents per million vehicles. Comparing the actual rate to the critical rate leads to the conclusion that because the former is higher, this intersection is a high accident location. To better understand the possible causes of the poor accident history at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, the types and causes of each accident were tabulated. Of the 38 accidents, 31, or 82%, were either right angle -broadside or rear end collisions. The causes of the 38 accidents were more diverse, however the three highest causes, following too close, stop light violation and failure to yield right-of-way, accounted for 25 accidents, or 66% of the total. These types and causes of accidents are indicative of a high - volume intersection lacking appropriate turning lanes and signal phasing. The signal phasing is important primarily in its treatment of left -turns. As pointed out in the preceding analyses of traffic congestion conditions, improvements in both areas are being necessitated by traffic growth at this intersection. GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS Two specific locations of needed geometric improvements exist within the study area of this evaluation. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jacques C. Landry FILE: 89145 December 11, 1989 Page Ten The first is at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, where the cumulative impact of this project, other already permitted development and background growth necessitates one additional turning lane on the southbound approach of Hinesburg Road. That turning lane is in addition to others which have been previously recommended at this intersection. The second area of needed geometric improvements is at the proposed access to this project; Hinesburg Road and Mountain View. Examination of established warrants for turning lanes at unsignalized intersections was performed for both A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. The results indicate that an exclusive right -turn lane for northbound traffic entering this project is not warranted. They also indicate that an exclusive left -turn lane for southbound traffic entering this project will be warranted. The controlling condition, in this case, is the A.M. peak hour, which will require a storage length of 150 feet. The design of such a left -turn lane will be affected by the proximity of the proposed Mountain View access to both Old Farm Road and the Interstate 89 overpass. To the south, the distance from the centerline of the proposed access to the north end of the bridge structure equals 250 feet. In the opposite direction, the distance from the centerline of the proposed access to the centerline of the Old Farm Road intersection equals 355 feet. It is recommended that the left turn lane be centered on the existing centerline of Hinesburg Road. As such, the required taper length, based on off-peak prevailing speeds of 45 mph in an area posted at 40 mph and a six feet offset, equals 205 feet. That taper length on both ends, plus the 150 feet storage length to the south and the width of the intersection itself, can be accommodated between the Old Farm Road intersection and the Interstate 89 overpass. CONCLUSION This report has evaluated potential traffic impacts resulting from a proposed office complex located on Hinesburg Road in South Burlington. This project will not create unreasonable levels of traffic congestion at any of the three intersections located within the study area of this traffic impact evaluation. At Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, however, the cumulative impact of this project, other already approved development plus background growth FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Mr. Jacques C. Landry ,-FILE: 89145 December 11, 1989 Page Eleven will require additions to previously recommended improvements at that intersection. Those findings are based on updated capacity analyses which project further to the future than previous ones. This project will also require the addition of an exclusive left - turn lane for southbound entering traffic at the location of its proposed access onto Hinesburg Road. Potential traffic safety impacts at this project's proposed access will be minimized by the existence of adequate sight distances and the construction of the above left -turn lane. At the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, the existing poor accident history will be improved by the planned construction of recommended geometric and signal improvements. We wish to thank you for this opportunity to be of service. We remain available to present the results of this evaluation to state and local officials. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of additional assistance, please feel free to contact US. Sincerely FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED li Ro 9� Vr JDickinson P.E. Dickinson, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION MAP FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services D, O II di "1 ro •�� v •jP wej ues Z 1 I 15 l AdSdJd 6 O L 'IS IV1oWlEAI (f tZ "161j1np5 'Gr J 1�� rr, I�f CD Oi J� ��P N L cyrrl fir APPENDIX OTHER DEVELOPMENT —GENERATED TRAFFIC FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services JOB �-q/q5 -�))OtINTIIN (/le / FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED SHEET One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 CALCULATED BY /<j CHECKED BY i77',UC,Q 1)(7vr- i / )fD c- -, 1 OF DATE DATE .......... ........... _ f _». ............ _._._... _._ I_ j ........... _.... �_... 1........ _a.._. . ___' I 1.___.�._ ... _._ ._ I ..._._....._..._ _. _._ __i� I .... ...... __ _. !--._.._.....» � . _.._.....�.... _l.._. ..----- ....t........... _....... .:.............._........ � ...Stt _.1. IT, r7fr��N, _ i' l _ I PI i ........................................ ........... ,..... _....__.._..._..... ..... _...._...._.}j.....__............_. DiN ..__»...i.__....j.._..._. _._._. r.._.......U-� ...._..._..._._ ....._ ....___............�....'._»._.._ L ...;. zUia 2Y!................_..._..�......._.._ _....... �in�6Su�2G_• I. dery 1) v ,e .....ac.........t ...... I •v.a......__.......__.._...__..._.._..._... ► I J�cvc��n� .+.. ,......_.. .U' .._....._!. _ __ 1, _..___.. ,._�:s:...... i __.i.._..._...� ......._..�_._.._.. s ► ! ___.._..._..» - I I ...............___.._..__...__._. _....._..._..__.........».._I__.......I......_............._.........._.. t ... _._i_._..._._........_. I I ..__.__ _.__.. ._.___.. _._..... ! . I .. �._._......�... i }_......._�.. ---_...i__—'._... + j l � _....._._._._......__...........-_ I I __.......�.____ I I I .__.�. i I ' _-................_..._._..._ _..... ............ _ _ ........._. ............._. ._._................_...».................._.........................................1.............i...........» f I...__ .............................} ........... _....... ................................_...._._. ( I I ....»....... _........ ._......... j... _...... i ............. _....._.._...........»........................... ............. .................... ..... _. ......... ....._..._................j. ..... _.__ .._................... ........ _..I.._.:._........»...................._..._..». ........_.... __..... ____.... �� I __.. _._..._.__.:... --. _ _ . ............---........_....... ......................_.._.............�........_.......__...., .. _._.............E.......__......._._....__.........._._.._ E! ... ...._ ...............a �....__. I cl _. ..............__..._.. _..a.._.__.. I ! I "E ,.._ _._.,_.___ ..._. __.�._._._i__...._.. _._..... _.......... __._ .._ ._._.............................. ._. _.._._. ..... _...._ ._ I _....._ I .......-- --........ ...._ .......... .. ........ ;......... _..__ . ........... . _.... ..... .I.... .... .... ._._._I.._.._.....j_._,._....C....... ......... .......... 3.... _...._...,1I' ......,.. ..... _ ..... _..... I ......_._...I...__. !I ....._...... ......... ( ..._.._._. ...... jt ........ �..... _.— ....... ....»_.»......_...1 ._._. ...... _ ..__......I...__._:._..__..i_......_......_..._. i .._...I ............ -$1�u�... I _..... I.._....... I ........ ..........._ I j i ......_' �_._+__�......--t-- : I .!...__......;..__...+...._..! crnv.s I I i i I I I (._._. r.._....... .. ...._--,.._.._. ....._._................ f -- 1....__.........._....1._..__....i.._.... i __ I._ i__ _ I i 1._._ i... :_..i : i I �....._3.�..._ I ..... ....... ....... _.i....._.__.... : _ i i ;..._... ..... ....._ _. ' ... I �_.........� I I �___• I 11 I ».......... ..........._....................,.........._..... I...._............. � 111 I 1. j I I i I - I j ! �. ! �.............I....... , ...., . ..........._ ... _. _.. ...... ..._ ........... ,........ _........ _ ......._..._ .._ ..._ L ,..._...... FlIOOIO2*1®Ys.Of Mm ONIL JOB '69l` S - MOLA )AIi\) UIE,J FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 SHEET NO. OF ` _ CALCULATED BY �J� DATE I I - 00 - O9 CHECKED BY- -SCALE IS 7 DATE 'J1Sit2i�,LA•1Urn)S �- _i....._._...I ........ _... t.............t. ....... ................._. ................... ._...... ... ................_., I ff �....._. __...1._ _..... .. _.fi, ... .....,......._..� _ _....�__ _ ..... _........_!__ ..__ . Ila ...._.a _.._ _� ....._..._.._._....._......1..._...._.i•..._._I.........._.+ _. ........................._....... .... .................__.. I ° ._..._............_......I....._......._...._ ._..i.._...._.I..._....__.._.........I._._......I.._.__.........._.....I--- I... _.... _._.I....___.. _..__.�----'—•I—_--_i—_. _._..._........ .... _........ .............. :......._..... .......... .. .... _ ........ ............. ..._._..... _ _...._ ..............._................. ..............._.__ _......................_.... I I .. . �) :............................_... 33 i. V. V..tl� �.........c7 II ...._.__. 1�1._C...... ki a 1 16 ..._._ _. r_...........>. �7...._..._!ULTI..f.......1.......4�-rvi?>ct7Y._..._°:�2r._._.0?S�._.... ;_.. ... _..i.... _..i_ i f.............. f. ! ... f _.._ ..-_._._.._._......._.._..__.__....._._.._.._.._ ! __... _ _......._ ......................._._...:........ ...............II............... .........._.I .... _............._...............1_...._... ......._........... _..._._ .............. _ _� ._._.... . ! �� ! 11 �_. ` >Q __._._....._._. erJrV _.___:____i•__...___. I VC -..._._ ...__.............._..... .......... .°........ .... �..._........ _...._. _..._ ._...... _._. ..... _ ..._ .._ _ ............t..«_.__._..:.__.....:............. ........ __. ...... . .�.... , ........ .... . 1. t. ...1. L....... _.. .... �........... ................. ............. ............. ... ............ .......... _...._.. I ........ _ ......... _-�__i.._..._.....f _ .......................... .._.._._. ....... _.... ... _...... _ ...............I ............. ............I............. ......_...........��.._.._.. .... ........I................................._....._.._..........................I......_._..._._..................._..._..._.I...._....._.I...._....._J..._............_...... �I I �� ... .. _ I I __ ia I __._.._�..._.._ft._._._.� 1 t __.._ _..._.�.._....... __.... _...... ...__......__......_L........._ .............. _. ...__............. 1. sl...........1. f ; ........._._.....___.....;....._.......,...._...+_._._.._.i...._.__.1.__.......�. ; �_-- ............ .._-.. ... _...................._............_w............ _... __. _ _w _......_._ _.....__..._...__._....I.... �._..._..._.1 ..... _...... I�C>� i_ ' :.. __ _...._ t ... __..... .. _;_..__......._...._....__....__._.............:..m...i ................_t , , I ...................... } i ! L �k �2 )f\) I , _.... } ' ... _... _... +..__...._.1..._._....F._...._...__.. i i.... . .. _ _...1._.._.._... _.. - ....+. .. .... _ -._f _ ....l._ :. I I i- i... ......._- ........... ..... _..:I....:........ �..... ..._...:............._ .... �. ..... I S _ !.......... 3; _ . i_..... I I ........ _+.._...._...L....._._i ! L_ jl - _...I.........._.1.....__._ 1 I 1. i J.._........1........._..+ ;... _.�. ................ i i I ....._...._:.............1........._- I _. ...._......__._.......... v i . .a._ ( I I I _...I_. _.L.._..,—_... __..... __..f...._._._. .... _................ t............. ,.......... ...............I:..._......�............. .._......_. I _ ..— — —._. ........... .......... ..._ E 1 I..... _.!__._.....1..__......! .............._ .......... ;._ ............ ....... :....... ..... � .._...... _. _..._...;.__._.....;.._._..._.._........._._._.._...._.:..._..._... �.... _..'_. ' ;..__._,._.._... a �. _�- L_. ,. __.. __..1._..__.:._ + __._.__ ' ;.._._.__.,.....__._....._._...I...__..._.: ............. ... -- ... t...... _.LN.� t_._.L..�..1.._._._._t.. .......... _........,..__._.._...._ ...................... I _._ ...l.... I _.. °.... j .... _ � _ I +. . _._.. i... __. ........ _.._............... I ..... .....f .............L..._......_�._.._._.i..__....L...•___l......__..'._..____'._.___j..._.._. ; i + I L 1 t....__ _ _..._.._ . — .._..._.�_....._ -- _ r...._....._I. ....._.._......._......__..._._ t.._. : ! _ y _... 6 -- .t. _..._._.:...__...... .........._f.... . _.._..L....._ ..... __..:_._._ ._ __:-._.._ ................:. I ..__.... j ......__._..;..._....._.;..._ 1. ..............i.._ _ .._.._. _..:.... ! I ... ! I_ ..._ + �. ! _..L. I I i .............._..i....................a....s_...........• _..__......... ..,.........._.J.-...._.....t......._. . ....... ...... r• ..._.... .... l ..._.... ...... II : , i� I I i � � I � j APPENDIX C DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT —GENERATED TRAFFIC FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION JOB NAME: MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK JOB NO.: 89145 DATA SOURCE: ITE TRIP GENERATION - 4th EDITION AVERAGE DESCRIPTION SIZE UNITS L.U.C. WEEKDAY GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING 69,700 SA. FT. 710 1,046 TOTALS 1,046 VTE/DAY -- AM PEAK HOUR -- ENTER EXIT TOTAL ------------------- 12B 19 147 ------------------- 120 19 147 VTE/HOUR DATE: 11-02-09 ANALYST: R. DICKINSON -- PM PEAK HOUR -- ENTER EXIT TOTAL 23 123 146 ---------------- 23 123 146 VTE/HOUR FITZPATRICK.LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 (802) 878-3000 JOB SINS SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY OF DATE I ! U -�' D l - DATE I I .......... I ....... . .. .... i .. ..... ... ......... ... .. j _... _ _ .�.` �._.. 3-- ! °I _ — . ..... ,�c�► --..... ........... ........ .... t ,� �. —)t) Li CA 0040 v - .: i -� G c r.l _._. _. o_»� I - I c -- -- I — _ ....... .._.._..I ............ .... __.o !. �FJ_..!.............0 ..................-.........f....._.._t.................. O. ........................... : ... v .. .. �c�c.,e »l_.__...._..._. l f C-� _........j..�..............--_. ' cr ............. _. _.............. ! ........... ............. j..._._ I ... __..__.._. jI _ ...._......_.�......._._.._. 4 ; NCB ......' i .-_--_t._...._. I _... I I .I-�-!G! I , �. _._..... lam _.... I .. _� _._._....__._..._.__........_..._.._._.__:..... ._ _... : 3G .. : I: ... �......._ ..... ! ................ 6.... :;_t.. � ! ' . _.l._...._�.._......__ ..._..........._._._ I _..._......_.......... I I I! ._......_....... _.... _........._ __........... _ _ __ _....__... _...�.._........... _.._.....1..._......:.........._:.._......._: I I .._ _._ }..............»_._... I ! I! _.._._._^ 1 ....... _.. _...._..... .... .................... _............ ....... _.._.._........_.........._..._......._ ......., ! ....................._.-.. ._._..... _ _ :..._ i._......._.. :._. ..... 1... ..... �..__._...!....._.._..�..-- .._.. ._...... . f —.__._.._I....._.__...__._...._......_......._..... ....... .....-_....__ I..__._._._..__..._.»..._.I..»»..__�.............,......_.._.. »_.- , ..1........_�..__! ._._._.I __.:._--,.._.._..l»_._»_.....__...,......__..........._........_.._ I �---- � I .. ........... I ._._.............. � j _ i _.»»._.. ___�.._.._ _ _ _ _»_ .._....._......... _...»_..........__._... ;..........,._ ....................`.............. ............. ..,...... .... �......._... t. ......................... _._ �.._ _.. ......... __....... ....» I ... ! ; ......... If�+ I! I I I I ! F II ------------ I i : , _ II , ! ............. _ _..._..... _._:»- ...:._._._.+ ........... .__......... __..._ . _.:..._ ............._..._._........__...... .... .. 1.._. i l l I I I I I ► I I I fi•WI �, PROOt m, MSS§ Iz, Qft MK 0I411. APPENDIX D INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES HINESBURG ROAD & MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services 1905 HCM: ONSIGNALIZEO INTERSECTIONS Page - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. R. DICKINSON \ DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-09 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ED WD NB Sr-( LEFT -- 4 0 102 THRU -- . 0 776 371 RIGHT -- 15 26 0 NUMBER OF LANES - ES wD NB Sa LANES ! 1 1 . ADJUSTMENT _____________________________________________________________________ FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE _______ __________ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- ________________ --- _________________ _ WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 , N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND�RV'S ___________ VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND _____________ --- --- _____________ --- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 ` NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 ^ 0 .CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ________ ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ___________ ____________ WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 0"00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION .... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 ___________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE TATECAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT ^ v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M Sid R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 4 124 99 > 99 > > 239 > 220 RIGHT 15 383 383 > 383 > MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 127 469 469 469 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 95 > E >C 368 > B 342 B NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..'............'...'' 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET........, MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT ` -- 4 0 102 THRU -- 0 880 407 RIGHT -- 15 26 0 NUMBER OF LANES' _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SD _______ _______ LANES -- 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------- FACTORS Page- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT 'TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS E✓AS'TI�CfUi�ll7 ----- _-- --- -- -•------_-_ ---____.___ WESTDOUND 0.00 G0 20 N NORTHBOUND _.E . 00 90 Cu I,I SOUTHBOUND 2. 00 9i_) 20 hl VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % 'SU TRUCES % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTDOUND 1 0 i NORTH:DOUND 3 1 C SOUTHBOUND. 3 j• �_� CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------------------------------------------------- TADUI_AR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL (Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GA AIINti:iR RIGHTS WB 5.90 5.90 � i . 00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SD 5.20 5.20 0. 00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WD 7.10 7.10 0.00 7. 1�i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAPE OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARk'. --_--- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOU-rvi STREET .... H I NESBURG RD . DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 1 1-02-89 ; 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMAT'ION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page- __________________________________________________________________ ` POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v L( P M SH R SH _____ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ __ MINOR STREET WB LEFT 4 100 76 RIGHT 15 333 333 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 127 416 416 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 76 > 72 > > 195 > 176 >D > 333 > 318 > 416 290 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE,EAST/WEST STREET......... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED..'.............. 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION _____________________________________________________________________ TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ ' `EB WB NO SO LEFT -- 25 0 18 THRU -- 0 561 641 � ` ^ RIGHT -- 98 5 0 NUMBER OF LANES ` EB WB NB SO _______ _______ LANES -- 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS rage- ____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE _______ __________ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- ________________ _________________ __- - WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 . N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION ` AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ___________ _____________ EASTBOUND --- _____________ --- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 . . . NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------- ---------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GA MINOR RIGHTS ________ ___________ ___________ WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING ____________________________________________________________________ INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET'... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT . . CAPACITY AND ' ---------�---------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page- POTEN- ACTUAL- FLOW- T I A L MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph). c <pcph> c = c - v L[ _______ p ________ M _________ ____________ SH ____________ R SH --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 25 131 12B > 128 > 103 > > 321 > 197 >D RIGHT 98 521 521 > 521 > 422 > MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 22 627 627 627 604 - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT 1985 HCM: UNSIBNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... I50000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ......... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS <mm/dd/yy>...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. 1994 PM OHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------- TYRE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYRE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- . EB we ND SE-1 LEFT »- 25 0 J 8 THRU -- 0 617 703 RIGHT -- 9B S 0 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SD LANES -- ! 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page - PERCENT RIGHT TORN CURB RADIOS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT.TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- - ___ ----------------- _ WESTBOUND 0.00 90 QQ § NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHaOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1 0 0 NORTHBOUND 8 1 0 SOUTI OW » 1 § CRITICAL SAPS -------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT MINOR RIGHTS WD 5.90 5.90 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS SB J.eO 5.20 .0.00 MINOR LEFTS FINAL CRITICAL OA 5.90 5.20 WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TINE OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-� _____________________________________________________________________ ' POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LO� _______ p ________ M _________ ____________ SH R SH ____________ ---- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 25 110 108 > 108 > 83 > [ > 283 > 160 >D RIGHT 98 483 483 > 483 > 385 > l MAJOR STREET SD LEFT 22 586 586 506 563 � IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THEEAST/WEST STREET...... MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..,.. 11-02-89 ; 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.-.. W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT APPENDIX E INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES HINESHURG ROAD & OLD FARM ROAD FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Rage -. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NQRTHZSOOTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 .TIME PERIOD.ANALYZED................. 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... UZ BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYRE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL 'TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------ ED WD ND SB LEFT -- 27 0 e THRu -- 0 605 270 RIGHT -- 7 #a O NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WD ND 5D LANES -- 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS -------------------------------------------------------------------- f'` ge— PE:_RCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE:. GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- ---- __— WESTBOUND 0.00 is i 90 20 N NORTHBOUND —2 , c )i i 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV " S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ------------- --- _--'- ------------- __-- WESTBOUND I. 0 0 NORTHBOUND 1. C) SOUTHBOUND ]. c ) CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL (Table 10 -S) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF MI.NOR RIGHTS ----- ------------- --•—_.----_-_--- W B 5.90 [ MAJOR LEFTS SD 5.20 MINOR LEFTS 6• D 7. 1 l i 7.10 0. 00 IDENTIFYING ------------------------------------------- INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ....... OLD FARM ------------------------•---- RD . NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... !-l.T. NESBURA � RD., DATE AND TIME OF- THE. ANALYSIS ..... 1 1-02-89 ; 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.. „ . Wi BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-'- _____________________________________________________________________ � POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LO[ p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 27 222 221 > 221 > > 248 > 214 RIGHT 7 479 479 > 479 > MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 4 569 569 569 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT ` 194 > [ >C 472 > r 565 1'?85 HCM: UNS I GNAL- I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-! -if � � -iF -Is .lk •3e• -1E• �E •# -!!• .�..�. x .p...JE..�;..H..�..r .�..y�..}c .�. #..�. �r •k• -1(- •3r •k• # -i(• •!!• •h:.k •34• .M• } •ir ih •iE• -iE .Y...K..k..K..� .�..�.:�. y�..p .� .�..�:..K..if• -iE• •i!• i!- .�. •tE• •!': -iE .i!• •}:..Jc..�<. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVEI=?AGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............... „ ....... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15OCi (:) NAME `iF.. THE EAST/ WEST STREET—,-- . , — OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINE:.SBURG F.D. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. R . D I CK I NSON DATE OF 'TH ANAL.YSIS (mm/ Kira/ Yy) ...... ' 11--02—S9 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. 1989 AN DHV OTHER INFORMATION .... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTL.F".S CTI.ON TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTDOUND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUME'S --------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WB NB SD LEFT — 27 0 3 THRIJ -- r i 7:33 :344 RIGHT -- 7 4:3 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WD ND SD LANES --- J. 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS F'age-------------------------------------------------------------------- - PERK-: ENT RIGHT TURN CURES RADIUS (t t) ACCELERATION LANE --- GRADE -I::::- ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND --- _ -- - WEST60UND 0.00 90 Gi i N NORTHBOUND --G . oo 90 eo N SOU•T•HBOI_JND 2.00 9(") e0 ICI VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND --- --- r, ORTE Ir_+uUN D 3 1 SOUTHBOl- ND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . ( Table 10 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT MINOR RIGHTS WE= C . 9i i 5.90 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS 1= I NAI_ CRITICAL GAF ------------ .90 5.20 WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... OLD FARM RD . NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... H I NESBURG RD . DATE AND TIME OR THE ANALYSIS ..... 1 1-0E-89 ; 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION .... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page- ____________ ---- _____________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LO. p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 27 159 158 RIGHT 7 404 404 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 4 486 486 [DENTIFYING INFORMATION > 158 > 131 > [ > 181 > 147 >D > 404 > 397 > l 486 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT ` 482 ^ 1985 HCM; UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ ` AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 . ' AREA POPULATION...............150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. ' � NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------- ___________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT �- 27 0 3 THRU -- 0 748 446 RIGHT -- 7 43 0 ' NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES -- 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FACTORS Page—, PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURD RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LAME GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT 1-URNS L6-lr-'il ROUND ____._ --- --- --- ------------------ _ WESTBOUND C) 90 0 rI NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 114 SOUTi-i.BO ND 2.00 90 20 1\1 VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- ;U TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTDOUND --- --- ------ _-- WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 3 1 SOUTHI OUND 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 1 � i—O) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF MINOR RIGHTS ----------- 6`D 5.9() 5.90 0,0() 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SLR 5.20 5.20 1 0c) 5.20 MINOR LEFTS b' B 7.10 7.10 0 00 7. 10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------•----- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST .STREET....... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... H I NE_SBURG RD . DATE ANI) TIME OF -THE ANALYSIS ..... 1 1-02-89 ; 1989 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION .... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT LENT PROJECT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- P OTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL_ MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAF-ACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v ( pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOi ------------------------------------------------- --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 37 13E 131 > - 131 > 152 > 110 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 4 476 476 476 104 > D D 380 ; B 472 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION - ------ NAME OFTHE -AST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME_ OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME . Or= THE ANALYSIS ..... 1 1-03-S9 : 19e9 AM 0HV OTHER INFORMATION W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT 1985 HCM : , UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page— I §: iF-i(- �•.�..�..�..�..K..�..�..,�..h..{�..r;..�..N. ,v. •3�• iE• •ie• .h..�r..�. # .p..�..;;..�..y..�. # •lf• •lE X• # •iE •k• # # •'�• •k # # i*• -3h •#• —;4• •i(• •J� .i'.• •1!• •!Q• # # ii• # # #'�(• # .?E• # fi..�..�c .�..;,c. x. IDENTIFYING I NFORHA•T I OL,J --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 P,EAk:: HOUR FACTOR ........... . . . . AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..... „ ... OLD FARM RD . NAME OF TT"IEw NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... :.. HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST ..... . ............ R . D I CK I NSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (rim/dd/yy) ...... 1.1-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .............. . .. 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION .... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL I I' TEI SECTION TYPE: T- I NT•f. RSE:CT I ON MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/ SOUTH . CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES E-D WD NTi S1-3 LEFT - - 20 C i 3 THRU _- Ci 808 377 RIGHT _- 9 72 0 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ED WD ND sD L_E-)PdES -- I I I ADJUSTMENT _____________________________________________________________________ FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE __________ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- ________________ --- _________________ _ WESTBOUND 0.00 9c) 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ %SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION � AND RV'S ___________ VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND _____________ --- --- _____________ --- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 � NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------------ _________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED �SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ________ ___________ ____________ WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS . SB 5.20 5.20 0^00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 AM DHV . , OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p _______ ________ M _________ ____________ SH R SH ____________ ----- MINOR STREEl WB LEFT 30 131 130 > 130 > > 150 > RIGHT 8 356 356 > 356 > MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 4 430 430 430 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 100 > E 112 >D 348 > B NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HIMESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT 426 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ AYERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION _____________________________________________________________________ TYPE AND CONTROL v INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SD ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT -- 30 0 3 THRU -- 0 823 479 RIGHT -- 8 72 0 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ ------- LANES -- 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 _____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE __________ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- ________________ --- _________ ________ - WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S ___________ VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES _____________ EASTBOUND --- --- _____________ --- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ ° TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ________ ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ___________ ____________ WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 ().00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph> c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREE' WB LEFT 30 110 110 > 110 > > 128 > RIGHT 8 349 349 > 349 > MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 4 422 422 422 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 80 > E 90 >E 341 > B 418 A NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 AM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR.....''............'. 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ EXISTING DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ IN7ERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NO SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT -- 38 0 7 THRU -- 0 407 458 RIGHT -- 14 43 0 NUMBER OF LANES . _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NO SB ____ _______ _______ _______ LANES -- 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT _____________________________________________________________________ FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE _----- _ __________ FOR RIGHT ________________ TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- --- _________________ _ WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV`S ___________ VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND _____________ --- --- -------------- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 NORTHBOUND 3 1 � 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ________ ___________ ____________ `WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 0^00 5.20 WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ EXISTING DEVELOPMENT - CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Pf:J'1'EN-- ACTUAL FLOW- 'T' I AL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT" v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c= c -- v LOS --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 38 224 22 RIGHT 14 616 616 MAJOR STREET IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 222 > 184 > D 269 > 216 >C 616 > 602 > A on NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET .. „ . „ . OLD FARM RD . NAME OF -'..L.r.I1�' NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... H I NE_SX:<lJRG F� D „ DATE. AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS . „ ... 1 1-02--f.: 9 ; 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION .... W / EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 09 A 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS pages-1.: ,, �..�..�..ff..�..�:.� .u.�. }c. �;..�..�..�..�..�..#. �..�.;'..�..�..p..�..�..�..le• # IF •3�• •i4-.}�. �..�{..�..*..�..�..#..�..�. �..�:..*. �:.k .�..�..j�..�� iE # •iE• •#.• �E it-14• i(• -?F—�• lE.i!• °)f..it••ift-ls.if•: ik, . IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE. RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 4� i PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ......... OLD FARM RD . NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... H I NESBURG RU . NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. ............. R . D I Cis; I tJSOhd DATE OF THE:: ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD D ANALYZED ................. 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION! ... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE:: T—INTERSECTION MA_TOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL. TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES S --------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WD ND SO THE U -- c) 510 603 R I GHT - — 14 43 i NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- ED wo NO SO --------- LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 _____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE _______ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ___ EASTBOUND ----- --- ________________ --- _________________ - WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND --- --- --- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP . ______________ MINOR RIGHTS ________ ___________ ____________ WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.-.'. 11-02-89 ; 1989 PM DHV ' OTHER INFORMATION. ... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH . MINOR STREET WB LEFT 38 147 146 > 146 > 10B > D > 182 > 130 >D RIGHT 14 538 538 > 538 > 524 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 9 631 631 631 622 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELdPMENT 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBUHG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION _____________________________________________________________________ TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NO SB ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT -- 38 0 7 THRU -- 0 616 621 RIGHT -- 14 43 0 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ ` EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ LANES -- 1 1 1 . ~ ' in ADJUSTMENT ___________-_____________________________________`____________ FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE _______ ___ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- ________________ _________________ — WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND —2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ____ % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND _____________ ____________ _ WESTBOUND 1 0 0 NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ ` TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ________ ___________ ____________ WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5'20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING ______________________—______________________________________________ INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER'DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT CAPACITY AND _____________________________________________________________________ LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS , ` _______ p ________ M _________ ____________ SH R SH ____________ ----- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 38 124 122 > 122 > 84 > E > 153 > 101 >D RIGHT 14 473 473 > 473 > 459 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 9 562 562 562 553 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1989 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION,.,..'................ 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...,-'... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST....'............. R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/(Jd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT -- 43 0 8 THRU -- 0 568 660 RIGHT -- 15 49 0 ' NUMBER OF LANES ` EB WB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS _____________________________________________________________________ Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE __________ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ----- --- ________________ --- _________________ - WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % ___________ MOTORCYCLES _____________ EASTBOUND --- -------------- --- --- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 ' CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 0^00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD., DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT - CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE ' RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R Sid _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ---- MINOR STREEl WB LEFT 43 124 123 RIGHT 15 500 500 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 10 589 589 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 123 > 80 > E > 153 > 95 >E > 500 > 485 > A 589 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT 579 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIOMS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.....''.. OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... HINESBURG RD. NAME OF THE ANALYST........'......... R. DICKINSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 11-02-89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT -- 43 � 8 THRU -- 0 666 678 RIGHT -_ 15 49 0 ` NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 _____________________________________________________________________ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE _______ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND __________ ----- --- ________________ --- ------------------- WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -2.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 2.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND _______ --- --- --- WESTBOUND 1 0 0 NORTHBOUND 3 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 3 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ___________ MINOR RIGHTS ________ ____________ WB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS WB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET WB LEFT 43 104 103 > 103 > 60 > E > 128 > 70 >E RIGHT 15 442 442 > 442 > 427 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 10 525 525 525 515 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... OLD FARM RD. NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... HINESBURG RD. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 11-02-89 ; 1994 PM DHV OTHER INFORMATION.... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT APPENDIX F INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES KENNEDY DRIVE & HINESBURG ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS & PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services � ^ 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DlCKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1989 AM DHV COMMENT ....... EXISTING __________________________________________________________________________ DEVELOPMENT ONLY VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 94 34 148 44 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 313 479 326 142 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 37 50 84 220 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T E8 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 N8 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 37.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.700 0.400 22.0 C 16.2 C TR 0.595 0.400 14.5 B WB L 0.129 0.400 10.8 B 25.5 D TR 0.898 0.400 26.4 D NB LT 0.958 0.520 33.0 D 29.1 D R 0.128 0.520 7.0 B SB LT 0.606 0.520 11.7 B 9.7 B R 0.336 __________________________________________________________________________ P.520 8.1 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 21.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.932 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1989 AM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 94 61 195 44 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 313 479 360 162 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 64 50 131 220 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 H 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.994 0.360 81.8 F 31.2 D TR 0.720 0.360 18.6 C WB L 0.303 0.360 13.3 B 42.1 E TR 0.998 0.360 45.4 E NB LT 1.107 0.560 80.3 F 66.2 F R 0.185 0.560 6.2 B SB LT 1.057 0.560 78.4 F 41.4 E R 0.312 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.560 6.8 B lNTERSECTION: Delay = 47.2 (sec/veh) V/C 1 1.064 LOS = E 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1989 AM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT ----------^--------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 94 61 195 44 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 313 479 360 162 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 64 50 131 220 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF REDS RED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.584 0.427 15.8 C 12.6 B T 0.487 0.427 12.2 B R 0.119 0.427 9.9 B WB L 0.224 0.427 10.4 B 15.3 C T 0.745 0.427 16.5 C R 0.093 0.427 9.8 B NB L 0.701 9.493 15.7 C 11.2 B T 0.484 0.493 10.0 B R 0.210 0.493 8.2 B SB LT 0.427 0.493 9.6 B 9.3 B R 0.354 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.493 9.0 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 12.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.721 LOS = 0 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE.. -OTHER ANALYST ... .... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1989 AM DHV ' COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER _________________________________________________ DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT VOLUMES : ------------------------- GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SD LT 94 97 200 44 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 313 479 365 192 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 100 50 136 220 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 O 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.85 20 N 14.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SD LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.584 0.427 15.8 C 12.5 B T 0.487 0.427 12.2 B R 0.187 0.427 10.2 B WB L 0.396 0.427 11.8 B 15.3 C T 0.745 0.427 16.5 C R 0.093 0.427 9.8 B NB L 0.787 0.493 20.8 C 12.8 B T 0.491 0.493 10.0 B R 0.218 0.493 8.2 B SB LT 0.475 0.493 10.0 B 9.5 B R 0.354 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.493 9.0 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 12.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.768 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1994 AM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 111 68 223 52 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 372 569 421 189 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 71 59 147 261 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.90 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.90 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.90 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.90 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 _________________________________________-________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.890 0.427 46.4 E 17.7 C T 0.546 0.427 10.9 B R 0.125 0.427 8.4 B WB L 0.267 0.427 10.7 B 15.8 C T 0.836 0.427 17.2 C R 0.104 0.427 8.3 B NB L 0.902 0.493 34.5 D 15.8 C T 0.535 0.493 8.9 B R 0.222 0.493 7.0 B SB LT 0.520 0.493 9.0 B 8.4 B R 0.396 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.493 7.9 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.897 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1994 AM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 111 104 228 52 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 372 569 426 219 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 107 59 152 261 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.90 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.90 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.90 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.90 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT ' X TH X TH X RT X ^ RT X PD X PD X GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.890 0.427 46.4 E 17.2 C T 0.546 0.427 10.9 B R 0.188 0.427 8.7 B WB L 0.456 0.427 12.6 B 15.8 C T 0.836 0.427 17.2 C R 0.104 0.427 8.3 B NB L 1.022 9.493 65.2 F 24.5 C T 0.541 0.493 8.9 B R 0.230 0.493 7.0 B SB LT 0.569 0.493 9.6 B 8.7 E. R 0.396 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.493 7.9 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 17.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.960 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1989 PM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ __________________________________________________________________________ CQSTWC� orvL-; VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 243 46 92 52 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 570 506 189 269 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 164 83 55 198 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ^ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ____________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 P1--1-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0- 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.951 0.493 44.0 E 29.6 D TR 0.923 0.493 24.8 C WB L 0.295 0.493 8.9 B 13.4 B TR 0.731 0.493 13.7 B NB LT 0.837 0.427 25.5 D 23.0 C R 0.091 -0.427 9.7 B SB LT 0.568 0.427 13.3 B 12.5 B R 0.329 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.427 11.0 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 20.9 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.898 LOS = C o u 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1989 PM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 243 99 133 52 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 570 506 218 308 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 217 83 96 198 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF REDS RED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT x RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.899 0.507 33.0 D 16.1 C T 0.668 0.507 11.8 B R 0.305 0.507 8.3 B WB L 0.729 0.507 22.3 C 12.0 B T 0.593 0.507 10.7 B R 0.117 .0.507 7.4 B NB L 0.796 0.413 29.3 D 16.5 C T 0.313 0.413 11.4 B R 0.164 0.413 10.5 B SB LT 0.578 0.413 13.8 B 13.0 B R 0.340 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.413 11.5 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.853 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1989 PM DHV COMMENT ....... __________________________________________________________________________ W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SD : EB WB NB SD LT 243 105 167 52 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 570 506 248 314 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 223 83 130 198 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20' N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 1:::'H-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SD LT X TH X TH x RT X ^ RT % PD X PD X GREEN 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0- 0.0 0'0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.899 0.507 33.0 D 16.0 C T 0.668 0.507 11.8 B R 0.313 0.507 8.3 B WB L 0.794 0.507 29.1 D 13.1 B T 0.593 0.507 10.7 B R 0.117 D.507 7.4 B NB L 1.050 0.413 87.9 F 34.8 D T 0.356 0.413 11.6 B R 0.222 0.413 10.8 B SB LT 0.622 0.413 14.6 B 13.5 B R __________________________________________________________________________ 0.340 0.413 11.5 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 18.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.966 LOS = C ^ 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1994 PM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 263 103 140 56 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 616 547 233 330 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 230 90 ,100 214 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 _____________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED' BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.(> 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 1.116 0.507 103.7 F 33.5 D T 0.722 0.507 12.9 B R 0.323 0.507 8.4 B WB L 1.019 0.507 88.1 F 21.6 C T 0.641 0.507 11.4 B R 0.126 -0.507 7.4 B NB L 1.039 0.413 89.0 F 34.2 D T 0.335 0.413 11.5 B R 0.171 0.413 10.6 B SB LT 0.630 0.413 14.7 B 13.6 B R 0.368 0.413 11.7 B __________________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION: Delay = 26.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.081 LOS = D ° 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-03-89 TIME .......... 1994 PM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 263 109 174 56 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 616 547 263 336 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 236 90 134 214 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 75.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0, 0.0 0.0 0.0 __________________________________________________________________________ LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 1.116 0.507 103.7 F 33.4 D T 0.722 0.507 12.9 B R 0.332 0.507 8.4 B WB L 1.115 0.507 133.7 F 28.8 D T 0.641 0.507 11.4 B R 0.126 +0.507 7.4 B NB L 1.377 0.413 *09n|\ * * r� T 0.378 0.413 11.8 B R 0.229 0.413 10.9 B SB LT 0.680 0.413 15.8 C 14.4 B R 0.368 0.413 11.7 B _____________________________-____________________________________________ INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 1.233 LOS = * APPENDIX G INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES KENNEDY DRIVE & HINESBURG ROAD WITH ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services * ~ 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-10-89 TIME .......... 1994 AM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 111 68 52 : L 12,0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 `223 TH 372 569 421 189 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 71 59 147 261 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMEN[ FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 85.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 8.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 � 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.209 0.541 7.7 B 11.4 � T 0.552 0.400 13.3 B R 0.100 0.506 7.1 B WB L 0.112 0.541 7.2 B 18.3 C T 0.845 0.400 20.4 C R 0.105 0.400 10.3 B NB L 0.439 T0.388 15.4 C 14.0 `' B T 0.644 0.388 14,9 B R 0.225 0.459 9.0 B SB L 0.659 0.247 33.3 D 17.9 C T 0.456 0.247 18.0 C R 0.523 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.353 14.8 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.664 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-10-89 TIME .......... 1994 AM DHV COMMENT ....... W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT + PROJECT __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 111 104 228 52 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 372 569 426 219 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 107 59 152 261 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV, ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T E8 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 85.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 8.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.209 0.541 7.7 B 11.2 B T 0.552 0.400 13.3 B R 0.150 0.506 7.3 B WB L 0.171 0.541 7.5 B 17.8 C T 0.845 0.400 20.4 C R 0.105 -0.400 10.3 B - NB L 0.456 0.388 15.7 C 14.1 B T 0.651 0.388 15.1 C R 0.233 0.459 9.0 B SB L 0.659 0.247 33.3 D 18.2 C T 0.529 0.247 18.7 C R 0.523 __________________________________________________________________________ 0.353 14.8 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.667 LOS = C o� � ^ 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-08-89 TIME .......... 1994 PM DHV COMMENT ....... __________________________________________________________________________ W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 263 103 140 56 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 616 547 233 330 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 230 90 100 214 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS. PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 __________________________________________________________________________ 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 85.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT . X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 8.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.488 0.541 10.5 B 18.4 C T 0.914 0.400 25.6 D R 0.323 0.506 8.1 B WB L 0.201 0.541 7.7 B 16.3 C T 0.812 0.400 18.9 C R 0.160 0.400 10.6 B NB L 0.296 0.388 13.9 B 11.9 B T 0.356 '0.388 12.0 B R 0.153 0.459 8,7 B SB L 0.393 0.247 21.2 C 23.1 C T 0.797 0.247 25.2 D R __________________________________________________________________________ 0.615 0.247 20.2 C INTERSECTION: Delay = 17.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.724 LOS = C `~ ^ u 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..KENNEDY DRIVE/HINESBURG ROAD AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... R. DICKINSON DATE .......... 11-08-89 TIME .......... 1994 PM DHV COMMENT ....... __________________________________________________________________________ W/ OTHER DEVELOPMENT & PROJECT VOLUMES : ' GEOMETRY ` EB WB ^ NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 263 109 174 56 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 616 547 263 336 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 236 90 134 214 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 __________________________________________________________________________ : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 2 0.95 20 N 17.5 3 NB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SB 1.00 3.00 __________________________________________________________________________ N 0 0 0.95 20 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 85.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 8.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 __________________________________________________________________________ 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5,0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.488 0.541 10.5 B 18.4 C T 0.914 0.400 25.6 D R 0.331 0.506 8.1 B WB L 0.213 0.541 7.8 B 16.2 C T 0.812 0.400 18.9 C R 0.160 0.400 10.6 B NB L 0.369 0.388 14.6 B 12.2 8 T 0.402 ~0.388 12.4 B R 0.205 0.459 8.9 B SB L 0.580 0.247 27.0 D 24.0 C T 0.811 0.247 26.0 D R __________________________________________________________________________ 0.615 0.247 20.2 C INTERSECTION: Delay = 17.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.739 LOS = C Pc 50 Joy Drive, P.O. Box 2009 pizzagalli South Burlington, Vermont 05403-2009 Telephone (802) 658-4100 p r o p_ e r t i e. s___ FAX (802) 865-4469 February 14, 1996 Joe Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe, I just wanted you to know that when I came in the office this morning I did find the staff notes that you had sent to Bob. The envelope was under some other letters and I missed it when going through his mail on Tuesday. As you probably know Bob is on vaca- tion otherwise he would have received that information as you had planned. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you Tuesday night. I am pleased that the matter of the Hinesburg Road subdivi- sion will be brought before the city council shortly and we can then have some direction as to how to proceed with this land. We look forward to hearing from you shortly in this regard. Sincerely, Ronald I. Bouchard cc: Bill Burgess, Planning Commission Chairman Bob Bouchard -� �lZZ,4Cz--sA L(.� MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Hafter, City Manager FROM: Joe Weith, City Planner RE: Pizzagali Development - Hinesburg Road DATE: February 14, 1996 The Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan application by Pizzagali to subdivide a 7.8 acre parcel into 3 commercial lots. The parcel is located on the east side of Hinesburg Road north of and abutting I-89. The plan as proposed conflicts with a proposed interchange ramp as shown on the City's official map. A plan of the proposed subdivision is enclosed. Also enclosed is a plan of the future interchange as it is intended to appear on the official map. The Planning Commission has asked that the Council review the proposal and make a determination as to whether or not the City intends to pursue condemnation of the parcel at this time in order to reserve it for a future interchange ramp. If the Council determines that it is likely to pursue condemnation, then the Commission will most likely deny the application since it is not in compliance with the Official map. By law, the City will have 120 days from the date of denial in which to pursue condemnation. If the City does not pursue condemnation within the 120 day time frame, the application is automatically approved and a building permit must be issued. If the Council determines that the City does not intend to pursue condemnation at this time, then the Commission will most likely approve the application assuming all other standards are met. Please put this issue on an upcoming Council agenda at your earliest convenience. ( ch2-14 ) t \` / a I 1 /-T � Avrt KT� Al cc /TI -Y / 1 1 1 iF \ SITE- VICINITY NAP I IAA ' co ie •/ 1 1 i11n1K YUXIJIIL \\\ 1 / ' +� \ \ 1 \\ 1 IS��p 1 0.0 r i' I M�J Itiwl i i i;•_ 1`\ \F N. I I 1 \ > Ir sAi ` r3.3 ACRES I I t �11 I A'A[I.Rp /OA [pRdllprN RON'I 16/MLL I � _ _ ` K.MM/K WrYfYN Y ILA 0I W IKILTi. rl / I \\\\ ` 1 YRiCNusl /fYlwUfY _7/ !AT © fro/r I I I LOT ® - I.2 ACRES � ` 1 � � 1 I � / J. S ACRES 1 1 1 R! - RdSIDd.KlIL T PER ACRB Y!{dD INIXISTRIAL AND COYYBRCJAL rr•! _ -♦'i, � 1 C/tl - Mf6dRVIT/ON AND OPEN 1 I SPACESUK � -' STATE OF VERMONT - INTERSTATE 89 - NOTES PIZTAOALU INVESTMENT COMPANY P.O. BOX 2009 WI - mm LEGEND SOUTH SURLINCTON VEMONr - 0 SUBDIVISION PLAN MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK HINESBURG ROAD •. "• •" m""� ""'�'� """� " •" M �. v .. ....... �•�•�-_-•••^'••• �r a Kn.., SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT GRAPHIC SCALE _ u.t,.......<.,..,....�.,..a,.......,.........,.�. •. r.r rwu v.r w vwnc suu u mm cru n cm .. a+. r.urw wi.�c .... n.auc _... �....-_�,- - _ • _ a. -a.. -,- ee ..o .. :��y��;- "'. ti:�- S 'ti i`��^� YY A.,I drr AonddL "onto .W � [�Cmsldt .-.. a n 1 PROFILE RAMP D 5 RAMP C 1f.•O RAMP •.P,IW ��� I „q " l f • f • l )POSED RAMP A PROFILE w RAMP A RAMP B ,� ,a ,• ,• ,• „ . ae n a as � �I I I I I I I I�;.� I R CC PROFILE RAMP 8 /TI NF ]1ARN / / / / / ,DO \T y / I XOUSd / 1 1 FORCEMAIN TO EXTEND TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL SEWER / / END C. / PROPOSED "WET TAP" TILLEYRUSSE L ECMER/ „I N/CONNECTION TO EXISTING FI r / WATERLINE 6yA/ � RESIDEiTgIA/ y� I I 1 . I SIZED / C g00 � I PROPOSED \ PUMP STATION 1 P7W o?� D \\ \\ I 1 1 WF BARN 4O" WILLOW / ,.' S bo POND [l \ \ t l \ I i It y9z14 \\ I 11 5" AP➢LE Y APP.Li \YAY r 1 1 1 6" APPLE / PlypPpSE wATERI.j is - to" STEEL SLEEVE ,p.. W N e-A' \ \ 11 LOT 24 I 1 AS REQUIRED UNDER 3.3 ACRES - 11B'/ \i I STATE HIGHWAY / 1 PROPOSED 24' WIDE RAMP FOR INTERSTATE 89. INFORMATION FROM PLAN BY STORCH ENGINEERS. 1 PREPARED FOR CRITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AS PART OF AN INTERSTATE / l INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY. l LOT 1 LOT Q �7/ I 1 `yam _ 1 j 3.3A( �+ / 1.2 ACRES _ 1 / \ I 1 x \ 11 i I S 69'16'SO"£ I/ C — 'MI#D INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL i� I S 90'39'10"E 16Y4e' p+ 248.96' J 1\ zts—is' J/ CIO — CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACES I / NORTH STA 12 E` OF VERMONT — INTERSTATE 89 Souni DATE plY S R7 — RESIDENTIAL, 7 PER ACRE GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET ) I inch - 40 1l. PIZZAGALLI INVESTMENT COMPANY NOTES: P.O. BOX 2009 PASS. 1. TOFOCRAPHY AND BUILDING LOCATIONS A" BASED ON A TOPOCRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED ON I/Bt/i5 SOUTH BURLINGTON• VEMONT 69 X ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON US-G.S. DATUM TAKEN FROM A BEACH MARK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NEW EAGLAND TEL17PNONE PROPERTY LOCATED ACROSS INTERSTATE e9 FROM THE TILLEY PROPERTY. LEGEND SUBDIVISION PLAN BEACH MARK ELEVATION WAS OBTAINED FROM FRED XOZRNER P.L. BURLIAGTOAS VERMONT. t� MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK 9. PROPERTY METES AND BOUNDS ARE TAKEN FROM A PLAN TITLED' "PLAN SNO//AG PROPOSED SUBDf4'ISION OF TILLEY FARM. OLD FARM ROAD. SOUTH BURLIAGTON, VdRMONT" DATED JUNE 1985 (REV. DULY, 1981.). W rKv vr➢RANi HINESBURG ROAD SCALE.' 1" - 200' BY WARREN A. ROBENSTIER LS. O DEnowus fR[F 11 "' SOUTH BURLINCTON, VERMONT 4. LOCATION OF THE EXISTING 24" WATERLINE WAS OBTAINED FROM RECORD DRAIIIAGS AT THE M EDDE o` .ADD. N NEW 6RTE WALE A+OF VE/f� S--Y MRM SId, - 40• CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT OFFICE. O INERITE RDNirhNr — _—marcRrr LwE :�4F':.. F . •'4�'. 6. TEE SITE WILL BE SERVED BY A WATER MAIN EXTENSION FROM THE EXISTING 24" MAIN ALONG HERLY URG ROAD. `N~PPPO y9'yi� Donald L. Homiin RFN 96-510 — ESISTM9 vnr[R LINE 6. THE SITE BE SERVED BY AN EXTENSION OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL SEVERS TO H£ LAID SOUTHERLY ALONG O IRON vwE —v S 3: • ' -'0: No. g260 r: C M XINESHUAC ROAD TO THE SITE 0 NEW SEWER N^'IxoLE. —v— auo°DiED vAiEN LixE u � �•. ?:i; Consulting DtDit� SGL o ]. fX8 PROPOSED ROADWAY AND UTILITIES SHALL BE C0NSTRf1C7ED TOCITY OF SOUTH BURLfNCTON PVBi,IC WORK STANDARDS. — fraSDxC CDxiDUR —S— RRDRDSED SEVER LDEFG/SIFr * •(D��C�� Engineers, Inc. RFX a9«n9 WD -- AL ,le" % We 1/2/96 Ess- Junction, Vermont i PROFILE RAMP C RAMP C zZ PROM RAMP A \ PROPOSED RAMP A PF70F1LE RAMP B RAMP B R.60' PROPOSED RAMP D i I i• i R.60' r • R-to 1 � i• T )POSED RAMP C R-J00' I cc co w z i R-10 R-50' M MIl T0111C !IT! _ R.O. W PROPOSED WIDENING OF AT. 11e 1 II10, R.O.W. •• ___ RAMP A � R.1 1.500. RAMP B zo ° 1. — — 3701 1 I I I —su�E IN FEET e0 e1 e2 eJ el e5 6e e7 PROFILE RAMP B j � Tr' d�Cln� Memorandum - Planning February 13, 1996 agenda items February 9, 1996 Page 5 Traffic: This property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 2 which would allow this property to generate a maximum of 66.6 vehicle trip ends (vte's) during the P.M. peak hour. ITE estimates the existing uses to generate 69.3 vte's which is 2.7 vte's or 4% more vte's than allowed. ITE estimates that the change in use from retail to auto rental will decrease vte's by 2.5 for a total of 66.8 vte's. Sewer: The sewer allocation requested is 120 gpd. The applicant will be required to pay the per gallon fee prior to permit issuance. Lighting: Existing exterior lighting consists of the following: --- seven (7) 400 watt high pressure sodium flood lights. --- one (1) 400 watt mercury vapor flood light. --- one (1) 250 watt mercury vapor light. --- eleven (11) 400 watt mercury vapor lights. No additional lighting proposed. 7) PIZZAGALLI INVESTMENT COMPANY - 3-LOT SUBDIVISION - SKETCH PLAN This project consists of the subdivision of a 7.8 acre parcel into three (3) lots of 1.2 acres (lot #1), 3.3 acres (lot #2) and 3.3 acres ( lot #3) . A sketch plan for this subdivision was reviewed on 1/9/90 and 3/13/90 (minutes enclosed). This property located at 750 Hinesburg Road lies within the IC and CO Districts. It is bounded on the north by a farm, on the west by Hinesburg Road, on the south by I-89 and on the east by undeveloped land. Access: Access to the three (3) lots will be via a new public street. This 60 foot r.o.w. was set aside in 1985 when the Tilley farm received subdivision approval. The City has received an Offer of Irrevocable Dedication for this new street. Lot size/frontage: The minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet will be met by all three (3) lots. The minimum frontage requirement of 120 feet will be met by all three (3) lots. 5 Memorandum - Planning February 13, 1996 agenda items February 9, 1996 Page 6 Interchange ramp: The City's Official Map shows a future I-89 ramp crossing this property. The location of the ramp is intended to be based on the "Storch" report. The location of the ramp on the sketch plan does not coincide with the location of the ramp as shown in the report. The plan should be revised to accurately depict the location of the proposed ramp. It appears that the proposed ramp will render all of lot #1 and a significant portion of lot #2 as undevelopable. The Commission will need to decide whether or not to deny this application since it is not in compliance with the Official Map. Prior to final plat, the applicant and staff should meet with the Council to discuss this issue and get a determination as to whether the Council plans to pursue condemnation of the property if denied. Pedestrian trail: The Recreation Path Committee has reviewed this plan and will have someone at the meeting to discuss their interest in a recreation path/pedestrian trail in this area. They have also submitted a memo (see enclosed). C.O. District: interstate r.o.w. r.o.w. There is a 150 foot C.O. District along the and 50 foot C.O. District along the proposed ramp Sidewalk: The applicant should construct a sidewalk along the property's frontage with Hinesburg Road. A sidewalk or recreation path should be constructed along the new street. Traffic: The traffic impact evaluation presented in 1990 should be updated. Street name: Applicant should propose a different street name. The name proposed, "Mansfield Drive" is too similar to a street in Burlington, "Mansfield Avenue". 8) PIZZAGALLI INVESTMENT COMPANY - 3 OFFICE BUILDINGS - DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct three (3) office buildings within the subdivision. A 2,000 square foot office building on lot #1, a 28,800 square foot office building on lot #2 and a 38,400 square office building on lot #3. C. Memorandum - Planning February 13, 1996 agenda items February 9, 1996 Page 7 Access/circulation: Two (2) driveways are proposed for each of these lots. Pursuant to Section 26.103(a) of the zoning regulations, "unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission there shall be a maximum of one driveway per lot accessing a public street". Staff recommends that the driveway for lot #1 be moved as far east as possible (at least 200 feet) and perhaps a shared driveway with lot #2 could be established. Staff also recommends that a shared driveway be established between lots #2 and 3. There are too many driveways proposed and the applicant should make every effort to combine driveways. Circulation is adequate. Traffic: This property is in Traffic Overlay Zone 5. The proposed office buildings will meet the overlay district requirements. Landscaping: These office buildings will dramatically impact views from the i-89 corridor. The buffer zone should be adequately landscaped to screen parking areas. Staggered berms should be constructed to screen the parking lots on the two (2) western most lots, especially from the view from the southeast. Berms would have no screening effect for the easternmost lot since this lot is well below the grade of I-89. Instead, a dense vegetative screen should be planted. Parking: Adequate parking is proposed for each building. Coverage/setbacks: Building and Front yard coverage information street should be submitted. Setback requirements will be met. overall coverages will be met. for each lot along the proposed Other: The following information should be included on the site plan when site plan approval is requested. --- the C.O. District boundary should be labeled as such (not a buffer). --- proposed landscaping with planting schedule which equals the minimum landscaping requirement. --- zoning boundary between IC and R1 labeled. --- the number of handicapped spaces required under Table 26-1 of the zoning regulations. --- exterior lighting details (cut -sheets) for all proposed exterior lighting including locations. 7 Memorandum - February 13, February 9, Page 8 Planning 1996 agenda items 1996 --- provide bike racks for each building as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. --- show interstate ramp as shown on the City's Official Map (i.e., Storch Report) with corresponding C.O. District. --- provide typical building elevations for buildings on lots #2 and 3 to assure compliance with building height limitations. --- lots should be numbered. --- show screened dumpster locations, if any. N. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658.7955 February 9, 1996 Robert T. Bouchard Pizzagalli Properties P.O. Box 2009 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: 3 Lot Subdivison & Office Buildings, 750 Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Bouchard: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and comments from Fire Chief Wally Possich and myself. Comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski were sent to you at an earlier date. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 13, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. i cere y, c Jo Weith, Ci Planner JW/mcp Encls M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Wallace Possich, South Burlington Fire Chief Re: Plans Reviewed for February 13, 1996 Agenda Date: January 29, 1996 I have reviewed the following site plans and my comments are as follows: 1. Tilley Property Dated 12/13/95 Hinesburg Road Acceptable 2. The "Kennel" Dated 12/18/95 3017 Williston Road Acceptable 3. Mountain View Business Park Dated 12/13/95 Hinesburg Road Acceptable 4. U-Mall Expansion Dated 1/5/96 Dorset Street Project No. 6699.5 Acceptable 5. Wyand & Grunvald to Barone Dated 1/10/96 25 Imperial Drive Project No. 7226 Acceptable 6. Shearer Motor Company, LTD. Dated 12/31/95 1048 Shelburne Road Project No. 9520 Acceptable No Text PLANNING COMMISSION 13 March 1990 page 2 2. Continue sketch plan application of Pizzigalli Investment Company for a 3-lot commercial subdivision of a 7.8 acre parcel on Hinesburg Road Mr. Bouchard presented a plan that showed the site in relation to the proposed interstate ramp. Mr. Weith suggested 2 possible alternatives to tie into the ramp. He noted that Craig Leiner has advised that an interstate ramp can't be tied into a city street but must tie into a state road. Mr. Bouchard felt the ramp could be fit into the 150 ft. setback. Mr. Weith said that Storch Engineering feels the ramp proposal is closer to the proposed buildings than the applicant shows and actually goes through at least one building. He added that he had asked Mr. Leiner about moving the ramp closer to the interstate, but Mr. Leiner felt the sight distance wouldn't allow it to be closer to the bridge. Mr. Bouchard said the ramp across the street is a lot closer to the interstate and perhaps someone could look at it and see if it's possible. Mr. Belter asked if there is someone at the State that the applicant can bring the plans to and get an opinion. He didn't feel it was the Commission's place to design a road. Mrs. Maher stressed that she would never vote to approve a building in the path of what will one day be an interchange. Mr. Bouchard noted there is only one access to the Pizzigalli property and this would make the interstate ramp and the access road very close together. He said Pizzigalli is willing to build the access road as a city road. The right of way has been deeded to the city. Mr. Weith said there is another access to the north with an irrevocable offer of dedication to the city. Mr. Bouchard said there is no way to get from that access to their property. Mrs. Maher felt there are so many unreconciled things that there couldn't be much of a discussion. She suggested the applicant talk with a state engineer. Mr. Weith noted the City Council is very concerned with the issue. Mr. Bouchard said they are willing to work with the city but they have to work within their own financial guidelines to make their project viable. He said they were willing to talk to the state as well. Mr. Weith said he wanted an engineer's opinion on how the ramp would work with the proposed access road. Mr. Burgess asked if the Commission would be willing to consider allowing some parking in the 150 ft. setback area in exchange for moving the building to accommodate the ramp. Mr. Belter said he wouldn't be opposed, but otheer members didn't favor the idea. 4. Site plan a plication of Paul Morwood for conversion of a 1220 sq. ft. building_(including garage) to office use, 333 Dorset St_ PLANNING COMMISSION 9 January 1990 page 2 2. Minutes of 17 October, 7 November, and 14 November 1989 Ms. Pugh moved the Minutes of 17 October be approved as written Mr. Craig seconded. Motion passed 6-0, Mr. Austin abstaining. Mr. Craig moved the Minutes of 7 NOvember be approved as written Mr. Belter seconded. Motion _passed 5-0, Ms. Pu h and Mr. Austin abstaining. Mr. Craig moved the Minutes of 14 November be approved as written Mr. Belter seconded. Motion passed 4-0, Ms. Peacock, Ms. Pugh, and Mr. Austin abstaining. 3. Sketch Plan application of Southsett Partnership, c/o Homestead Design, Inc, for revision of the plat of a 178-unit planned res- idential development, Village at Dorset Park, Swift Street Ex- tension Mr. Hausner first showed the approved plan then noted they want to take lots 37-43 and replace what were to be single family units with condos. This would result in a mix of 63 single family homes and 115 condo units. He said they want to do this based on market feedback. Mrs. Maher noted the Fire Chief's comments that the units are 2 feet too far back. Mr. Hausner felt those units could be moved up if necessary. Mr. Weith suggested the applicant talk with the Chief. Mr. Hausner said the condo units would be 1200 to 1800 sq. ft. There would be no significant change in the total square footage in the project and no change in the bedroom count. All other aspects of the approval would be unchanged. Ms. Pugh asked if parking requirements would change. Mr. Hausner said they would have a net gain of parking spaces. Mr. Marcellino added that the condos would also have 2-car garages and a driveway parking space. Mr. Burgess advised the applicant that the Commission would add to the approval motion stipulations concerning the prohibition of converting garages to living space. The applicant said this would be no problem. 4. Sketch Plan application of Pizzi alli Investment Company for a 3-lot commercial subdivision of a 7.8 acre parcel on Hinesburg Road and discussion of proposed construction of an office building on each lot. Mr. Landry said they plan a 3-lot subdivision on the parcel which PLANNING COMMISSION 9 January 1990 page 3 Pizzigalli owns. The property is located on the east side of Hinesburg Rd. just north of I-89. It is 7.8 acres and the sub- division will result in lots of 1.2, 3.3, and 3.3 acres. There is a 150 foot buffer from I-89 in which no development is allowed. A new access road would service the three lots. Mr. Landry said they are proposing to build a 2,000 sq. ft. office building on lot #1, a 28,000 sq. ft. office building on lot #2, and a 38,000 sq. ft. office building on lot U . Mr. Craig asked how close they would be to the Tilley buildings. Mr. Landry estimated about 300 ft., possibly 100-150 ft. from the Tilley's market. Members asked that when the applicant returns there should be a plan that shows the relation of this property to the Tilley farm, the Interstate and the bridge. Mrs. Maher asked about a reserved right of way to the O'Brien and other properties. This will be looked into. Mr. Craig said he foresaw a problem if the city wants to put a new ramp for I-89 at Hinesburg Rd. He also had a problem with a road right of way that wasn't 60 ft. He noted this could be waived or the applicant could cut 10 ft. from the end of each lot. Mr. Landry said he had spoken with Don Allen of the Agency of Trans- portation who said they have no plans for an Interchange for at least 20 years. Members noted that -plans could change. Mr. Weith suggested seeing if another interchange design could fit with possible alterations to the site plan being proposed. He also noted an alternate access to this site culd be provided in the event the interchange goes in. Mrs. Maher noted the problem is there might then be a building in the way. Members felt another sketch plan hearing was in order with a full map of the area and with right of way details. Mrs. Maher sug- gested having a traffic expert present as well as a comment from Regional Planning on the traffic report. She also wanted a comment from the City Engineer as whether he felt the right of way requirement should be waived. 5. Revised Final Plat application of Heathcote Associates (Factory Outlet Mall) to revise the front parking lot, Shelburne Road Mr. Burgess reviewed the history of the project and resulting parking lot problems. He noted that the original plans for the TJ Maxx addition were inadequate in terms of parking spaces and that the applicant then reduced the size of the proposed TJ Maxx store and acquired more land. It was the revised plan that the Com- mission approved. He also noted there have been previous attempts February 6, 1996 To: Joe Weith,,,��Ciit/tty Planner From: Lou Brese�Secrtary - Recreation Path Committee Re: Mt. View Business Park The Recreation Path Committee met February 5, 1996 and discussed the proposed referenced project. The proposed project is located northeast of the bridge over I-89 on Hinesburg Road. The South Burlington Official Map dated October 10, 1992 shows a planned recreation path going through the proposed project. This path continues east towards Muddy Brook with a northern extension to Kimball Ave. through the "Digital' property. These routes are also in the Alternate Transportation Master Plan for Chittenden County approved by the City Council as potential routes for connecting Williston to South Burlington. An additional idea thatshould be considered is the construction of a Recreation Path instead of a sidewalk on the side of the main road to provide alternate transportation for those working in the area. This concept was approved for the Green Acres project which is located just south of I-89 and east of Hinesburg Rd. It was noted by the Committee that while Hinesburg Road does have significant traffic the Shoulders are wide and it provides adequate space for cyclists who ride frequently. We stand ready to discuss our thoughts with either you or the developer. i - --�•• ao"� E j 4 � � ••• ••• =soapp • • I• E„0 00, 0d • �• • ♦lr� F• 16 • �z 0 lb m�� e p /• • m O ° O • •••• . m C� 4 I I \ • • • • •••• •• • W U� O •••• ��\ i • \ ••o ••••00 0 • SvOO°, • •. Poe W c •• ; \\ I I • > Y P P J ��� • \ �•• .adu�oCC I 1 •, • <� a o �.. • i i 1 /• • m 0 0 x 0 c f 00 It Sugar L„ r f [T- � +: � ( � � • y. ♦ it C .I jNyy♦�•�• • I x i •• ww .0- — At A • I _ • � I • � � • ice• • I • : v a . • '• 1 Timber L'a. • / '��� i •1 •. . a • ••.... .•.a.a...♦ ♦a•,a♦aa.aaaaa ., J :: t ♦ .. • . ♦ . a a a .tea a. i I _�♦....•. a1 ♦. ♦aa•.♦...a ........ .. .. .. ... 1 tt o ... a , r .:.•:..•:. • i •aa • I M E M O R A N D U M To: Applicants/Project/Files P�Zj . From: Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Re: Preliminary Comments, February 13, 1996 agenda items Date: December 22, 1995 PIZZAGALLI INVESTMENT COMPANY - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION - SKETCH PLAN Sketch plan should include the following additional information: --- type of, location, and size of existing and proposed utilities (water and sewer). --- boundaries of the IC, R1 and CO zoning districts. --- show the interstate ramp as shown on the City's Official Map with the corresponding C.O. District. Other comments: --- traffic impact study should be updated. --- the preliminary plat should show the proposed street as a public street constructed to City street standards. PIZZAGALLI INVESTMENT COMPANY - OFFICE BUILDINGS - DISCUSSION The following comments apply to all three (3) lots. The following additional information should be included on the site plan for which site plan approval is being requested. --- front yard coverage information for each lot along the proposed street. --- the C.O. District boundary should be labeled as such (not a buffer). --- proposed landscaping with planting schedule which equals the minimum landscaping requirement. --- zoning boundary between IC and R1 labeled. --- the number of handicapped spaces required under Table 26-1 of the zoning regulations. --- exterior lighting details (cut -sheets) for all proposed exterior lighting including locations. --- show screened dumpster locations, if any. --- provide bike racks for each building as required under Section 26.253(b) of the zoning regulations. --- show interstate ramp as shown on the City's Official Map with corresponding C.O. District. Preliminary February 13, December 22, Page 2 Comments - Planning 1996 agenda items 1995 --- two (2) driveways are proposed for each of these lots. Pursuant to Section 26.103(a) of the zoning regulations, "unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission there shall be a maximum of one driveway per lot accessing a public street". Staff recommends that the driveway for lot #1 be moved as far east as possible and perhaps a shared driveway with lot #2 could be established. Staff also recommends that a shared driveway be established between lots #2 and 3. There are too many driveways proposed and the applicant should make every effort to combine driveways. Other comments: --- provide typical building elevations for buildings on lots #2 and 3 to assure compliance with building height limitations. --- applicant should propose a different street name. The name proposed, "Mansfield Drive", is too similar to a street in Burlington, "Mansfield Avenue". --- submit 11"x 17" reduced site plan. --- lots should be numbered. LEE DIAMOND - INDOOR RECREATION - SITE PLAN --- plan should be revised to show one (1) handicapped space. --- show location of screened dumpster location if one is to be used. --- indicate use, if known, of remainder of building. --- provide estimate of the number of people who would use the facility on a daily basis (for sewer calculation). --- plan does not accurately depict the access to Williston Road. Plan indicates two ( 2 ) driveways to the parking area and there is only one (1) such driveway. Plan should be revised to reflect current site conditions. --- provide details of exterior lights (existing and proposed). --- staff recommends that the westerly curb cut (the one between PJ's and the curb cut to the parking lot) be eliminated. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Reqreation Path Committee From: Raymond J. Belair oning and Planning Assistant Re: 3-Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Date: January 29, 1996 The Planning Commission will be reviewing a subdivision plan and discussing a site plan for office buildings on each of the lots at its February 13, 1996 meeting. Copies of the plans are attached. This proposal would include a new City street which could eventually connect with the Digital access road. M E M O R A N D U M TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Joe Weith, City Planner RE: January 9, 1990 agenda items DATE: January 5, 1990 3) HOMESTEAD DESIGN, VILLAGE AT DORSET PARK Homestead Design, Inc for Southsett Partnership proposes to change the building configuration in the Village at Dorset Park development due to market conditions. Although the number of housing units approved on 6/20/88 (178) will not change, the type will. I mistakenly warned a revised Final Plat hearing for this project for the 1/16/90 meeting. Please disregard that warning. A final plat hearing will be warned as soon as revised engineering drawings are submitted. Seven previously approved single-family lots in the northeastern (rear) corner of the lot will now be used for five multi -family buildings of 4-6 units-ea�ch., (18 units in all). These buildings are of colonial townhouse design and will have 1-2 garages per unit. This action reduces the originally approved single-family units from 70-to 63. The original plan proposed 27 4-unit buildings. The applicant is proposing to convert 21 of these buildings to 21 3-unit buildings and 3 duplex buildings. Because of this and the other change'inthe rear of the development, multi -family units will increase from 108-115. The revised Final Plat shall include engineering drawings and a revised landscaping plan reflecting the new building layout. 4) PIZZAGALLI, 3 LOT SUBDIVISION, HINESBURG ROAD Pizzagalli Investment Co. proposes to subdivide a 7.8 acre parcel into three lots of 1.2, 3.3 and 3.3 acres. The applicant also proposes to construct an office building on each lot. This application is a major subdivision as defined in the subdivision regulations. The proposed office buildingswill be warned as discussions until the subdivision plat is approved at which time the proposed office buildings will be reviewed as formal site plan applications. The parcel is located on the east side of Hinesburg Road and abuts the north side of I-89. The parcel is zoned I-C and is bounded by the Tilley Farm to the north and east, I-89 to the south and Hinesburg Road to the west. The site is currently used as a hayfield and slopes gradually to the east. 3-LOT SUBDIVISION Lot Size/Frontage: Each of the 3 lots meet minimum lot size and frontage requirements. ACCESS: Access is proposed from a new public street running along the north property line. This 60 foot r.o.w. was set aside in 1985 when the Tilley Farm received subdivision approval. This 60 foot r.o.w. should in the future continue over the Tilley and O'Brien parcels and connect with Kimbal Ave. The plan shows one access drive for the western most lot and two drives each for the other two lots. The number of curb cuts serving these three lots should be reduced. I recommend two drives to serve all three lots. Memorandum January 9, 1990 meeting page 2 cont. INTERCHANGE: In 1987, an interchange study was conducted which included a possible interchange at Route 116. Three alternative alignments were prepared for this location. One alternate is no longer possible due to the O'Brien development. The other two alternates conflict with this development. A possible interchange at Hinesburg Road is becoming increasingly important and a decision must be made now on whether land is to be reserved to accommodate it. PLAT RECORDING: There should be a separate subdivision plat for recording which does not show proposed buildings, parking, etc. The plat should include a note indicating the 60 foot r.o.w. will be used to access the three lots and access points for the lots should be indicated. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL: The comprehensive plan proposes a pedestrian trail over this parcel along the I-89 r.o.w. A 20 foot wide easement should be reserved in the 150 foot conservation zone along the r.o.w. boundary. STREET TREES: The plat should show street trees planted at 60 foot intervals. LANDSCAPING: The proposed development will dramatically impact views from the I-89 corridor. The buffer zone should be adequately landscaped to -screen! -parking lots. Staggered berms should be constructed to screen parking lots on the 2 western most lots especially from the view from the southeast. Berms would have no screening affect for the easternmost lot since this lot is well below the grade of I-89. Instead, a dense vegetative screen should be planted. SIDEWALK: The applicant shall contribute $4,066 to the Hinesburg Road sidewalk program based on 234 feet of frontage. SITE PLANS The applicant proposes to construct a one story, 2000 square foot building on the western most lot, a three story, 28,800 square foot building on the middle lot and a 3 story, 38,400 square foot building on the eastern most lot. SETBACKS/COVERAGE: Setback requirements are met on all three lots. Coverage calculations will be provided at the meeting. ACCESS: See comments under subdivision PARKING: The western most lot requires 8 parking spaces, 15 are shown. The middle lot requires 115 spaces, 115 are proposed. The eastern most lot requires 154 spaces, 153 are proposed. LANDSCAPING: Landscaping plans should be submitted. See additional comments under subdivision. SEWER: The three site plans will require a sewer allocation of 4,155 gpd based on an estimate of 277 employees. LIGHTING: All lights shall be down shielding luminaires. This should be indicated on the plan. xaoor-j 660 A ll�::� v.937 F -10-,-q V3/ 3,0,z you � 0 rrlec �N(T) �-- Cl�-� -�l e��( xj EL�t 7-7/ PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 December 22, 1995 Robert T. Bouchard Pizzagalli Properties P.O. Box 2009 South Burlington, Vermont 05403-2009 Re: 3 Lot Subdivision & Office Buildings Dear Mr. Bouchard: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and myself. Comments from Fire Chief Wally Possich will be forwarded as soon as they are available. Please respond to these comments with additional information and/or revised plans no later than Friday, February 2, 1996. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sinc rely, Ray and J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/mcp Encls M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, South Burlington City Engineer Re: February 13, 1996 Agenda Items Date: December 22, 1995 THE KENNEL (BROWN PROPERTY) - WILLISTON ROAD Site plan dated 12/18/95 is acceptable. TILLEY PROPERTY - HINESBURG ROAD 1) The new street when extended easterly will intersect the Digital Road. The Hinesburg Road intersection should be three lanes and Hinesburg Road should include widening for right and left turns. This road is State and permits for these will be required. 2) New street should have a sidewalk. 3) Lots should have shared curb cuts. 4) Power and telephone lines should be outside the street r.o.w. 5) New street shall include street lighting. 6) Concrete curb shall be a depressed type across the driveways. 17 \ ►The foof have to cross Hi r.00bu- Road but i I . IL ac`vn'cr a. vr%c Mi iIL aiiuy ILva aau `v'c �.v �i v.�ca aaiaaa....+ai u.i y a...-- .+... . remain along the east side. This should be looked into. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7955 M E M O R A N D U M 658-7958 TO: So. Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Bill Szymanski, City Engineer RE: 1/9/90 Agenda Items DATE: Jan. 5, 1990 4) MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK, HINESBURG ROAD 1. The 2,000 sq. foot building should be relocated outside of the future ramp right of way. 2. The new street should be limited to two curb cuts. 3. There should be a gravel turnaround at end of new street. 4. The commercial street should include sidewalks and a pavement width of 32 feet. 5. Driveways shall include depressed curbs. 6. Sewage pumping station shall be privately owned and maintained. 7. Power and telephone lines shall be outside of the street right of way. 8. New street shall include street lights. 9. Hinesburg Road intersection should include extra width on Hinesburg Road to accomodate left turns. This should be coordinated with the State. 10. Storm drain pipe shall be concrete or P.V.C. not metal or aluminum. R .SCHMUCKER JEVS AT LAW .LISTON ROAD BOX 2323 BURLINGTON. IONT 05402 OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION Agreement made this �,dayof &fit, 1983, by and between HELEN M. TILLEY (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER") and the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has approved a two lot subdivision of OWNER's land on Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road as shown on a plan entitled "Plan Showing Proposed Sub- division of Tilley Farm, Old Farm Road, South Burlington, Vermont" prepared by Warren A. Robenstien, dated June, 1983; and revised July, 1983; and WHEREAS, said subdivision approval by the Planning Commission required dedication of a roadway extending from the public highway to parcel 2 of the subdivision; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the OWNER and the CITY to reserve a decision of the best location for the high- way until future conveyance or construction of improvements on parcel 2; and WHEREAS, one of the two proposed highways is to be dedicated to the CITY, free and clear of all encumbrances excepting the existing Green Mountain Power Corporation and Champlain Water District easements affecting the right of way designated "Alternate ROW"; and WHEREAS, the OWNER has delivered deeds of conveyance to the CITY for said highways; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City Planning Commission's final approval and in further consideration of �1----- ? A 4 -74 1 PERRY & SCHMUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14W WILLISTON ROAD P O BOX 2323 SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 the sum of One Dollar in lawful money paid by the CITY to the (OWNER and other good and valuable consideration, it is covenanted land agreed as follows: 1. The OWNER herewith delivers to the CITY two Warranty Deeds for the premises described in Exhibit A attached hereto, said delivery being a formal offer of Dedication to the CITY of one highway, to be held by the CITY until the acceptance or rejection of such Offer of Dedication by the council of the CITY. 2. Upon acceptance by the council of the CITY, of one of the offered highways, the Offer of Dedication of the other high- way shall be automatically withdrawn and shall be null and void thereafter. All right, title and interest in the unaccepted highway land shall revert to the OWNER, her heirs, successors, or assigns. To assure fee simple marketable title, upon the request of the owner of parcel 1, the City shall convey by Quit Claim Deed, all of its right, title and interest in and to the unaccepted highway land. Said Quit Claim Deed and any related documents shall be prepared by the owner, her heirs, successors or assigns at no costs'to the City. ?, Thic irrai.mr.ahle offer of Dedication shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all assigns, grantees, successors and/or heirs of the OWNER. IN, ITHE ,P'RESENCE OF— > OWNER ,�/- i•_ - J% HELEN M. TGILLEY Yz' ) )f c4 �¢ i�� yr Jell - 2 - CITY CITY OF SWT URLINGTON STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. �vrE t U?f/ 13URGIIJ6ze Vermont, this day of 3Aug, 1983, personally appeared HELEN M. TILLY and she acknowl- edged this instrument by her, signed and sealed, to be her free act and deed. Before me, Notary Public/ STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. .0 At South Burlington, Vermont, this day of August; 1983, personally appearedand he/she acknowledged this instrument by him/er, signed and sealed, to be his/her free act and deed and the free act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON. Before me, Notary Public RV & SCHMUCKER TORNEYS AT LAW i0 WILLISTON ROAD P O. BOX 2323 UTH BURLINGTON. /FRMONT 05402 - 3 - I� FORM 911 VERMONT WARRANTY DEED Rev. 5184 TBLAN% REGISTERED U. S PAT OFFICE ` 'LE LAW PRINT. PUBLISHERS. OUTLAND. VT 05701 X.now all Persons hu 04esic "resents �.lt �tf We, Helen M. Tilley, a widow, and Russell R. Tilley, a single person of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantor s, in the consideration of -------------------TEN AND MORE ---------------------------------Dollars paid to our full satisfaction by The City of South Burlington, a municipal corporation of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont Grantee by these presents, do freely 06W. (grant. Srll. Qlntntru Anb Mvnftrat unto the said Grantee The City of South Burlington, a municipal corporation successors and its MY&. and assigns forever, a certain piece of land in South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: A strip of land 60 feet in width extending in an easterly direction from the easterly sideline of Vermont Route 116 (Hinesburg Road) and Old Farm Road, northerly adjacent to a 7.85 acre parcel of land, said strip of land and parcel being shown on a plan entitled "Plan Showing Proposed Subdivision of Tilley Farm, Old Farm Rd., So. Burlington, Vermont" dated June, 1983, revised March, 1985 as recorded in Volume 197 at Page 65 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Being a portion of the land and premises conveyed to Russell R. Tilley by Warranty Deed of Helen M. Tilley dated September 2, 1983 as recorded in Volume 194 at Pages 336-8 of the City of South Burlington Land Records and a portion of the land and premises conveyed to Rollin L. Tilley (now deceased) and Helen M. Tilley by Warranty Deed of Hiram F. and Fanny R. Tilley dated January 10, 1961 as recorded in Volume 56 at Page 287 of said land records. This deed is one of two deeds for the purpose of relocating a roadway to provide access to land of Helen M. Tilley situated easterly of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road. Reference is made to a previous deed from Helen M. Tilley to the City of South Burlington dated September 2, 1983 as re- corded in Volume 199 at Pages 146-7 of said land records which conveys a roadway parcel in part southerly of and in part coincident with the land herein conveyed. This deed is a replacement deed therefore is subject to the terms of the Offer of Irrevocable Dedication dated September 2, 1983 as recorded in Volume 191 at Pages 453-5 of said land. records. Reference is hereby made to the above -mentioned instruments, the record thereof, the references therein made, and their respective records and references, in further aid of this description. Said parcel of land is subject to an easement granted to Pizzagalli Investment Company,which easement terminates upon the acceptance of this land by the City of South Burlington as a public highway. Ln liaue anb to ROO said granted premises, with all the privileges and ap- purtenances therec o the said Grantee The City of South Burlington its successors R&tx and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever; .gnd we the said Grantors Helen M. Tilley and Russell R. Tilley for ourselves and our heirs, executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee The City of South Burlington its successors h` Wand assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents we are the sole owners of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are Yrre Nrom Eaerg Enrumbranrr: except as aforesaid and we hereby engage to Warrant And grfrnd the same against all lawful claims whatever, !ltt Mtttemi 19herrof. We hereunto set our hand and seal this <'_ 9� day of January .4. D. 1986 I � Jre-4eiue of State (Of Vermunt, �Ss. (fauntg Chittenden Helen M. Tilley Russell R. Tilley% .4t � '.:: ; ' ; this 9 �T� day of January -4. D. 196 Helen M. Tilley and Russell R. Tilley personally appeared, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their, free act and deed_, Before me -- .�11 0 0 U) �0� E-2. W U U- U- 0 (n Y Cr w J U 0 U) Notary Public (Title) 0 cc 0 v W a W W U W f o 0: OU W Y LLJ J N It In W Z Y U O J U O Q Z W C) Cr Uj 00 a p Z O t9 Q CL m U w a # LL cn W o 0 � W 0 I N W IL 3 J Q } W Q 0 [r 0 0 0 " w N > 0 Z O] 00 0 z a j m _ D U) �67 -L4 9 0 0/�v ybo�' omela� =- / 5 � - 6 rz--� M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: March 13, 1990 agenda items Date: March 9, 1990 3) 3-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION.HINESBURG ROAD Pizzagalli Investment Company will be present to continue discus- sion on a 3-lot commercial subdivision off Hinesburg Road. My memo for the January 9, 1990 meeting as well as the minutes are enclosed. As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant prepared an area map showing the parcel in question and surrounding properties. This map will be presented at the meeting. I met with Craig Leiner of CCRPC and spoke with Storch Engineers (the authors of the interchange study) to discuss various design options. It was both Craig's and Storch's opinion that the interchange ramp could not be moved further to the south because of sight distance. I suggested the possibility of the ramp connecting to the new City street serving this development at a point east of the development (Sketch B). Craig and Bill szymanski said it is the Fed's policy to only connect interstate ramps to State highways or federal primary roadways (such as Kennedy Drive or Dorset Street). They felt the State and Fed's would be reluctant to connect to a City street. I suggest that the applicant apply for only a 2 lot subdivision (combine the western most lot with the middle lot) and arrange the buildings and parking so that they are not in the area needed for the ramp. The 2000 square foot building which could no longer be built because of the ramp could be added to one or both of the other buildings. The Planning Commission may want to recommend that a variance be granted to allow some parking in the 150 foot conservation zone along the interstate. Some parking could be allowed now in the ramp area since acquiring parking lot is much cheaper than acquiring a building. In 15 - 20 years, if and when an interchange is constructed, the access onto Hinesburg Road would be closed and the alternate access over the Tilley property to the north could be used to access the Pizzagalli lots. The City or State would have to condemn land over the Tilley land to accomplish this rerouted access (see Sketch C). 1 LE —•-) — VV. YWj 4111bawal �E I FbI.Jp Cr� LOT (I Lz ACF-E3 •J G191 IG' 60^ \s/ CJ.r'Y�E L.t,TI...�eY 1.J/F CO,dsTfLUGT P?RTH bE:RN 5O1 0 1. Topography and building locations afe based on a topographic survey performed on 1/21/85. 2. Elevations are based on U, S. G. S. da Cum taken from a bench mark at the northwest corner of the New England Telephone property Iota Ced across Interstate 89 from the Tilley property. Bench mark elevation was obtained from Fred Koerner, P.E. Burlington, Vermont. j. Property metes and bounds are taken from a plan titled: "Plan Showing Proposed Subdivision of Tilley Farm, Old farm Road, South Burlington, Vermont" dated June 1983 (Rev. July, 1983), scale 1"-200' by Warren A. Robenstien, L.S. 4. Location of the existing 24" waterline was obtained from Record Drawings at the Champlain Water District office. 5. ! 'te will be served by a water main extension from the existing 21y along Hinesburg Road. 6. ,ite will be serve8 by an extension of existing municipal sewers 1/1 .aid southerly along Hinesburg Road to this site. - vJ. \ s e,• ,� ie `I 1 �N' -1 ice/ Y O \ \ iEM PORnRY TuR" 6Rou-Jo \ � �NOw �ORC4E 1 I 1 r 69` 16' 56"1, ttiTE-rC'�TATE J�9 1 I � I r, N LOT0\ 3.3 A�CR.ES LOT 02 \ 3.3 FC4E5 , \ I ,.1 70 "�"�' 'O' X �/ Q 70 33 1 \J 332.. 28 IG2-4H p y 1 m �' �UTH Nam. 11I9 � OE ai0' OWNER: Pizzagalli Investment Co. 50 Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 40 LO O d0 60 IL O ' ' v 40 ' i2. I1. 95 5.0— LOTS 2 x (i. Z'J. Ha IzE`y1SE TILE S OWJ F_14 M.G.W. 3.2O.BS f�v. vAVE Wi[7rH � Aov bER+n, M.L.w. DATE j. REVISION Ti,tn+1 lwCa.�•-tD BY M.G.w. Tilley Property Hinesburg Road, So. Burlington, Vt. Topographic Plan SURVEY MRM /� / D'Onaii L',, f= /�/� n CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. [ma J�mctloM1 Vermo„t SCALE 1"-40' DESIGn DATE I /21/85 DRAWN MJH D—. NO. CHECKED MCW/LAL 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record Pizzagalli Investment Company 50 Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 802 b. Applicant Sa e a above,658-4100 co Contact Robert T. Bouchard - Development Manager Pizzagalli Properties (802) 658-4100t Purpose, location, including number use(s). and nature of subdivision or development, of lots, units, or parcels and proposed Pur ose is to gain approval to subdivide a 7.85 acre site into three(3) individual commercial lots arh lot wo�lrl be occun,Fd by one office building. The property is located on the east side of Hinesburg Rd. (Route 116) abutting I-89. Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, Option, etc. Fee simple ownership. Names of owners of record of all contiguous properties Riess_ Ps. ll I Hel n Ti 1 eshlir4c Type Of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. None 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Pro"osiug new street in designated city R.O.W. called Mansfield Drive. Municipal water and sewer services will need to be extended to reach site. 7) Describe any previous action$ taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affects the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: 2-25-86 Planning Commission approves Two (2) lot subdivision for Tilley Farm. 3-4-85 Property is rezoned from R-1 to C-I by City Council. 8) Submit five copies and one reduced copy (8} x 11, 8; x 14 or 11 x 17) of a Sketch plan showing the following information: a) Name and address of the owner of record and applicant. b) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. c) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic) d) Boundaries and area of: 1) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record, and 2) proposed subdivision. e) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. f) Type of, location, and size of existing and proposed streets, structures, utilities, and open space. g) Existing zoning boundaries. h) Existing water courses, wetlands, floodplains, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. i) Location of existing septic systems and wells. j) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. k) All applicable information required for a site plan, as provided in the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, shall be submitted for subdivisions involving a commercial or industrial complex, multi -family project, plaI�L nit development, or planned residential devnt. (Signat re) applicant or contact person Date Pe . * pizzagalli p r o p e r t i e s 50 Joy Drive, P.O. Box 2009 South Burlington, Vermont 05403-2009 Telephone (802) 658-4100 FAX (802) 865-4469 December 13, 1995 Mr. Joseph Weith City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street Cniith Burlingtnn� Vermont Q5403 RE Mountain View Business Park Subdivision Application and Preliminary Site Plan Review Dear Joe: Enclosed please find a subdivision application with five (5) copies of a proposed subdivision plan for a parcel of land owned by Pizzagalli Properties off Hinesburg Road. In addition to the subdivision plan, please also find six (6) copies of the site plan detailing the proposed development of these lots. Per my conversation with Mr. Ray Belair, he noted that submitting a site plan would be helpful should questions come up during the preliminary review process. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sinc e y: Robert T. Bouchard Development Manager enclosures City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 April 17, 1990 Mr. Bob Bouchard Pizzagalli Investment, Inc. 50 Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 3-lot subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Bouchard: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the 3/13/90 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. Sinc .rely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp U -S !3-,��,/Yl�i-p_ 1% � r- �.O ✓�t,(/k�� �� ls-vc�-tag-, ------------ vL , v . w .'s - jo w<- NALwoog Ntvr�a r � 6y G:Z3 Oy T Pr'0Fwxj) 'rJ7 TAP` 0amNiCTION IV Z173rm WATZJUJ" W.T. BARN 10itInwx ro J12T"p To Z=RV MUNICIPAL 6'AFPLE 07'APPfP 6- A,pLF Ja . . . . . . . .. .... AS AlIpCIIRID uNmi, .......... SrATZ NMIVWlr 0 RUSSELLIF TILLEY N AND C . . . . . . . . . . SITE p ( z - /' - I n Burlin, U , It EX T Int of er 14 EXIT '10 18 VICINITY MAP HELEN TILLEY It NIF L '-730 110M "ClrrS OF17CIAL MAP' ... ... Pivrign BY my mAm ioxim AND Puhwnu pMtZD J14' FMZ AAMP POR &TSFIS-TATS 89. All. I I A=lSrAAT, CM511 Of SOUrJ? DUALIAMM �D IXMTIUAI, AND YYIPRCIAL ........ It"CiTMArR��1Z AM OPAW SPAM- ity T.................... . ........... ..... . ............ ....................... .............. .......... ........... ............. .. ........ ... .. ..... .......... . ............ . ................... ............ .... .... .... ....... .... ...... .. ............... . 4 ..... ....... . ........... . ........... .............. ................. ............ ........ .... . ...... ...... .... ..... ..... . ............ ...... ............. LOT. la ....... ........ ..... ........... . ... ............ .... ............. . ........... ... .... ...... ...... . . .......... .... ....... ..... ..... .. ... ........... .. .......... .......... ........ .. ..... ....... ........................... ...... `. ........ ... .......... ...... ........ ...... .... .. .................... ...... .. I ................. ..................... ............ ......... .... .. ..... ..................... ........ ... .... ..... ... A ......... ....... ............ ...... ...... .... .. ........... ...... .... .. ....................... .......... V .................... ............................... ............. ..... .... . .. . .. ....... ........... . ........ .... R7 - RESIAKA77A4 7 P" AIM .... ..... . ........... ............ — ... - 1-* A -'-*-'-'-'.'. . - . � . .. .........F9YE600E — . — -t' 7' NORTH S TA TE OJ" VERMONT INTERSTATE 89 THY �,P OF CONCRETE NlxuNE'T OF — — OISAFA' A10TES - R.'R tDCA' or Re V.. 1MFRTATE 89 111.16 (USCI 14MM) I "POOR, AND BUILDINC LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON A TOPOOPAPRIC SURVEY PERFORMED ON 1/&/W E. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON U.S.G.S. DATUM TAKEN FROM A BENCH MARKAT THE NfRTAIESr CORNER LEGEND TRY NEW —D IZ-P-.X PROPERTY LOCATED ACROSS 1NTSRST11. . FROM — — — REM'H MARE ELEVATION WAS OBTAINED FROM PREP MEEKER P.t. BURLINTFON, VXRMONr. 3. PROPERTY METES AND BOUNDS ARE TAKEN FROM A PLAN TITLE& "PLAN SNOWIAr FROM5ZL'SUBDIVISION .P rlLLEl FARX. ID FARM ROAD, SOUTH --N. VZ�NT- DATED 0 ------ W SCALE I' - =0 BY WARREN A. XPENSTIEN. LS. I. WATION 07 TRY EXISTING 21- I.FTRUAT WAS OBTAINED FROM RM&D DRAWINGS AT THE CRAMPlAIN WATER DISTRICT OFFICE S. ME SITE WILL BE SERVED BY A WATER MAIN EXTENSION FROM THE ZXISTINC 21" MAIN A Jc 1UATSVVx jw D. mrcenc wru¢rODAT RRS S. THE SITE WILL BE SERVED BY AN EXTENSION OF MSTINC MJMCIPAL SEFEAS TO BE LAID SOUTHTRLY ALOW .-- ECAD YO INA, =4 PrZZAGA GRAPHIC SCALE t THE R—OSAT —Y AND U-!TICS SEAAX BE C�—b TO CITY 01 SOUTH — PUBLIC — STAND -OS sour. 100 0 100 200 300 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. LOT (Z) &3 ACIM JAN 0 8 1996 of So. Burlington I 5'KeT<-4 S J k,,y84.,LL Av�- Ns LLD FApm Rom, 4A1 To /ALoLa ���'`-�� Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 66 PEARL STREET P.O. BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 January 23, 1990 802 658-3004 Joseph Weith, Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: This letter is in response to your January 10, 1990 letter to Craig Leiner requesting a technical review of the Mountain View Business Park traffic study prepared by Roger Dickinson. The trip generation estimates contained in the traffic studies were checked and found to be accurate when compared to the ITE_Trip Generation_ Manual, Fourth Edition. A background traffic growth rate of 3.5% was used to estimate future traffic volumes. In the report, Roger references an October 21. 1986 traffic study performed by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn for the City of South Burlington. The October 21 study discusses adding turning lanes on the northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches of Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road. The October 21, 1986 report also discusses a new signal controller, which would replace the existing two-phase, pre -timed controller with an actuated eight - phase signal controller. The new controller is recommended to operate under two-phase operation in the October 1986 report. Review of this traffic study and level of service analysis in the appendices indicates that the southbound approach to the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection also warrants installation of a third turning lane. It would also appear that using a four -phase signal operation which provides for protected or advanced left turns would enhance the operation of this intersection, particularly in the p.m. peak hour. Providing for protected left turns may also alleviate some of the accident problems at this intersection. ... Serving the Municipalities of ... Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski Bolton St. George Burlington Hinesburg Shelburne Joseph Weith -2- January 23, 1990 The Hinesburg Road/Old Farm Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS D in 1994 without the project, and LOS E with the project during the p.m. peak hour. The main area of concern with this project, however, is at the proposed Mountain View access to Hinesburg Road. According to the traffic study, Mountain View Drive would access Hinesburg Road between Old Farm Road and the I-89 underpass which is located approximately 600' to the south of Old Farm Road. Hinesburg Road, at this location, travels around a horizontal curve, and through a slight vertical curve in the roadway. This, coupled with the need for an exclusive southbound left -turn lane from Hinesburg Road into the proposed Mountain View access road, would be an undesirable intersection configuration. .Also, the required 150' left turn lane, coupled with the necessary taper lengths of 205' on either end of the left turn lane total 560' which would fit in the 600' section of roadway, but only marginally. Another issue at this location is the City of South Burlington's consideration of constructing an interchange between Hinesburg Road and I-89. The proposed Mountain View Drive conflicts with the location of proposed Ramp A of the July 1987 Storch Engineers, Interstate Interchange Feasibility Study prepared for the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. I have enclosed a copy of Figure III-5 of the Storch study which shows the configuration of a proposed interchange between Hinesburg Road and I-89. As I see the issues concerning this project, the City of South Burlington may wish to pursue one of the following options: 1. .Ask the developer to consider a project access on Old Farm Road, rather than the proposed Hinesburg Road access point. 2. .Ask the Vermont Agency of Transportation to very carefully consider an access permit at the proposed Hinesburg Road access point. 3. Should the project be built, the developer should fund partial improvements at the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Road intersection. This might be done on a per trip basis which incorporates the relative impact of the Mountain View Office Park to other nearby developments that will add traffic to the Hinesburg Road/Kennedy Drive intersection. 4. Any exclusive turn lanes built solely for access to the proposed office park should be funded solely by the developer. Joseph Weith -3- January 23, 1990 5. Consideration should be given to the final site plan of the project and how that relates to the right of way acquisition and construction of an I-89/Hinesburg Road interchange. Sincerely, DANIEL P. WILKINS ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER DPW:bf cc: Pat Brennan John Dinklage 0 R-1000' N S'FH Hf s O G [110.S1E � MI[TOwIG SITE M ET PROPOSED EDG OF PVMY. RT. 118 ♦ 2.01i RAMP R-10' T 0 w zI R=300' R=10' R-50'' m 0aNI.T..IG SITE WIDENING OF RT. 118 2 3 ! 5 8 7 8 0 10 1 1 PROFILE RAMP A . ry PROPOSED RAMP A [R30' I ,� PROPOSED RAMP B 1 I e o z I c z x r I a < I w 3 z 410 MEET PROPOSED EDGE i I OF PVM'T. RT. 118 Eervew.r 00 .200' SSO483' -�° r)30 n3� �° N�o N3cr)� 30 �mm �nZ �o ➢ � r _ (SHEET NO. 096216) I6,000 m N710 OOOFT N 218,000 m a r a, "+s r 1 \ q:�- rook!. R J(j is y, . m • - al 1! . 1' . aw ..." e:?j 2, �4 b 1{.e° Y-, u• a .. _• { ' , r, •x R �^6` , ,,. 9 • „ R ]f _.y yr' . r:"MrM1A f ,' , .,,.`.,�, `� «�:.. ". °.. ',•. , .�[, x.a:s 1 •... +;.__ 3 -' .-. ,1.. f ..r. S ,' •- ' "§� '� Ml`r. ,-*.r� #� 'K'' �i9+,Y•a-..'J'"'�c-4°•"4. IAY, T. e' �i :. ..,,., .. ,: � `:. .:. ,l 'R. ,, d., . y . w ;:. _ , 'w «u., "'yl�. �'y,;!��"'' + 'w " Y ,a r'X+', • ° ,x. aF`� } °, w. ,�. '+ a '. ;1�; ,•s�31..:.' °- .. 3. _ , ::.' -�%u i'^!�".a�,��' }�k;� -♦ !~ ..-.e t " T' v r; '� +6. } r " e „ w, v g r , , , '"'.r-wu»r.,wna,... r n .. f ,..r� , 7' �d t.'�i,C m �e�,4P` f • 1M .r i/ a.' ". ' 1 'l� '' � ar r, _ .' i ., '�. ' waMS •"�4 ., ,� +idly • f'c".'s�,g��a.`+„^.::. ,.,. _.. I ,:;� "�,�.' r,Y ..�wm, rot ..�.,» -..°. <�G�ta.MS.am �' ..-• a, _.�,.,,. _ .. .'wi' ~ 'f•� ♦..s :. `G, r, ! ,•.. ,�, 3 °.J, Y,n"N w 4' 'W +t :'«'«„rn''+', .. ' ,AI .,:,N ,) `� '� Y � F:; �, • yu •"H`�r$� ,� 1 'ke ,• rvO mA} , ... �. qp. i�W' a �a 1i 11) gr fi w 1 4 Y , a,pti." T �` :G" i�,.� Y !! Y AlY F g , ..-w, n.,. � .y.:_. .¢.r � n .. a 'yP.. ,a.�,:e ar !,.. •�� •O6 •.I '�"�• �. „ 4 ,„x. �. ;�,�- + •. •': ° " ��, ,.:;'°fit `. •«:"` 'ray, ,z.�� �� .� .k, �\ '�. r A � ,...: , c�.:: .'' , x ^" �"" '. .a<M+""° t f �w, ,.�v, ..,. « r, • ' , "q~.A k t y � X • ,fin i „ Y , 1 .s 44- „a •x ' '«ark • ,n, r w� *�., $ � ,� 166 �, . ;• �v;, t , y Y ` , e f•z ,Ir,,,y wq ,.' S.�°> e ^�':'. ,• ..:•`m� .4"��` : ,a r .+... A �:. "= ji ,�, � .::'✓ r N '� . ",k?. - i ,w �y r T • t F , . s : - : j �3 d :.:.. .c , $.. ✓-- ^& •.:,.. .1. ,° .._-.,° _. - .._ '- is "' ( r!�'1.. >,.,, ,w .r-,•.t°t .,..,f< °_>_.- ° ., ,, y- a.-, y ,::: ,.r. + e :; �'. 'a d,l, °^c r. t",. .♦. i� +w:- Sw ',+f` .- / Y „� .:. • F. _.....: - n' , :'�. -: -i �. . + -.:: -. g.— City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 February 6, 1990 Jacques Landry 50 Joy Drive BOX 2009 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 3-Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Mr. Landry: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the January 9, 1990 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. Si cere , Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 January 10, 1990 Mr. Craig Leiner Chittenden County Regional Planning P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, Vermont 05453 Re: Mountain View Business Park, Hinesburg Road Dear Craig: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a traffic impact analysis for a proposed project to construct 69,200 square feet of office space on a parcel located on Hinesburg Road immediately north of I-89. The City has asked that you review the technical aspects of the project and provide comments. Please feel free to offer any additional comments or concerns regarding assumed improvements, construction responsi- bility, etc. The applicant will most likely return to the Planning Commission in early to mid February. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate your comments by the end of this month. Please let me know if this is a problem. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp QCrO�1T AGFSTATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION O 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 SpOR'(P January 8, 1990 Mr. Roger Dickinson Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. One Wentworth Drive Williston, Vermont 05495 RE: South Burlington, VT 116, L S 143+55 RT Dear Roger: a �elftw, T y v V 'JAN' We have completed a review of your traffic impact evaluation, for the above referenced project, and agree with your conclusion that a left turn lane will be warranted. We also agree that poor Level of Service will most likely be apparent by 1994 at the intersection of VT 116 and Kennedy Drive. Although you recommend improvements at this intersection, you have not identified who will be responsible for them. The Agency Construction Program does not include any planned improvements at this location. The next step should be development of detailed construction plans for the access and VT 116 improvements. If you have any questions, please call me at 828-2653. Sincerely, R. Thomas Page, PE Utilities Engineer By: Donald L. Allen Project Supervisor RTP:DLA:mw City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 January 24, 1990 Mr. Jack Landry Pizzagalli Investment Company 50 Joy Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: 3-Lot Subdivision, Hinesburg Road Dear Jack: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed for your information are comments from Dan Wilkins of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission regarding the traffic impact analysis for the above referenced project. S' ce ely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp PC pizzagalli p r o n e r t i e s 50 Joy Drive, i . 1. 2009 South Burlington, Vermont 05403-2009 Telephone (802) 658-4100 FAX (802) 865-4469 Joe Wieth City Planner So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Joe: I December 21, 1989 Re: Mountain View Business Park Attached please find 4 copies of the Traffic Study and 4 photos of the rendering for the above mentioned project. Please notify me of the subdivision hearing date. If you require further information, please contact me. Since cques ./;L ndr' y velo ent Manager JJL/kc Attachments is m L( `dam "ov, �x r Ae— loo� z�a—Gr?4L.L I db pe-l-i - OV474- #,K City of South Burlington WATER DEPARTMENT 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL. 864-4361 TO: Joe Weith, City Planner FROM: Bob Gardner, Water Superintendent RE: Site Plan for Proposed Mt. View Business Park DATE: January 3, 1990 I have reviewed this preliminary site plan and offer the following. The numbered notes correspond to the circled numbers on the the site plan. 1. A gate valve needs to be added at the tee that serves the first building. 2. The valve on the service line must be moved back to the tee. 3. A gate valve needs to be added at the tee on this hydrant lateral. 4. The end of the main must be extended to the property line. 5. No service line is shown for this building. 6. The valve on this service line should be moved closer to the hydrant. Approximately 6' after the hydrant. Additionally, before giving final approval, I will need to see specifications for materials, installation, testing and disinfection, typicals details for hydrant and valve installations, and the connection detail for connection of the new 8" main to the existing water system. �utttii i.(ttrtingtnn JRire Department f i% i +Don3et 3trcct 1 �Iitlttt �I'�YIY'�iYlljt�tYi. llicrtnu!Yt n541i (802)658-7960 TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAU JANUARY 9,1990 AGENDA ITEM DATE: THURSDAY JANUARY 4,1990 1. THE VILLAGE AT DORSET PARK HOMESTEAD DESIGN PLANS WERE REVIEWED ON THE CHANGE FORM SINGLE LOTS TO CONDOMINIUMS AND AT THIS TIME THE ONLY PROBLEM I SEE IS THE NEW BUILDINGS ARE TO FAR AWAY FROM THE MAIN ROAD FOR OUR EQUIPMENT. FROM THE CENTER OF THE RIDGE TO 10' FROM THE CURB OR BLACK TOP OF THE ROAD SHOULD BE NO MORE THEN 60'. 2. PIZZAGALLI INVESTMENT CO. MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND THE ONLY CHANGE NEEDED WOULD BE THE LOCATION OF HYDRANTS. nVVr Iv J�L'4t,� I - ry . (It to T0 ( � 0, aj 1� v 5, /90 r -xwz4as- F Y �C&lx ` yvw,;, I Jt t(o M 4 L c7f' Lei 20KY P.:4 ygbp Zso �00 S� la La84bw 1600 cz 46vv 3s r�s`r c 04 ! 330 TY00 Lt1Ya° � 3K3 LPvo -7zo x �r 0 3Y3 YO 7V t lq;16 (e-0v1 `. v 8-0 � ws bvo 514YO rd &Vt i 52,0 -es �z O(L, s5 �'lp di CAV, s CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN address, and phone number oE: A. •r.iner of record Pizzagalli Investment Compaq_ 50 Joy Drive So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 q-)plicant Pizzagalli Investment Company 50 Joy Drive So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 C. �,:ontact person Jacques J. Landry 50 Joy Drive So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 ') :'•.:rpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including -r of lots, units, or parcels and proposed use(s). The location of this parcel is on the east side of Hinesburg Road. The property abuts I-89. We are proposing 3 lots. Each lot will be occupied by one office building. 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simile, option, etc) Owner fee simple 4) -mes of <�.mers of record of all contiguous properties Russ Tilley - 700 Hinesburg Road So Rurl;ngton VT 05403 Helen Tilley - 700 Hinesburg Road, So. Burlington, VT 05403 5) ^Tx rx.isting or proposed encumbrances on property ::ucn as �_,eIT nt_„ nant�, leases: rights of way, etc. None Proposed extension, relocation, or mod ifi(_�ation ot• municipal facilities such as sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. Proposing new street "Mansfield Drive" Sewer to be tied into private line owned by Dan O'Brien 7) Describe any previous actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the South Burlington Planning Commission which affect the proposed subdivision, and include the dates of such actions: On 2-25-86 The South Burlington Planning Commission signed the 2 lot ' subdivision of the Tilley farm Rezoned on March 4, 1985 R-1 to C-I by the Citv council. 8) Submit five copies and one reduced copy (8 1/2 x 11 or 8 1/2 x 14) of a sketch plan showing the following information: 1) Name of owners of record of contiguous properties. 2) Boundaries and area of: (a) all contiguous land belonging to owner of record and (b) proposed subdivision. 3) Existing and proposed layout of property lines; type and location of existing and proposed restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. 4) Type of, location, and approximate size of existing and proposed streets, utilities, and open space. 5) Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). 6) Location map, showing relation of proposed subdivision to adjacent property and surrounding area. date IPM CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD ( name, address, phone # ) (802)658-4100__ Pizzagalli_Investment Company, 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 054Q3 2) APPLICANT ( name, address, phone # > _ _ _ (802)658-4100 Pizzagalli Investment Company, 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 05403 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #)-- Jacques J.,Landr 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 05403 (802)658-4100 4 ) . PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Hinesburg Road Mansfield Drive) -_proposed_ street 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S) Office Buildi 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and * floors, square feet per floor) 2,000 s.f. Office Building, Building Height 14' 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 8 9).LOT COVERAGE: building 1.5 %; landscaped areas 95 % building, parking, outside storage 5 % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 120,000 , Landscaping S 7,500 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) S Parking Lot and Utilities $80,0.00 11 ) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 12-15-90 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) 31 Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday A.M. Peak Hour 4 Vte/Hr. 11-12 noon 12-1p.m. ; 1-2 p.m. 2-3 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. ; 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. P.M. Peak hour 4 Vte/Hr. 13 ) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 14 ) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Monday thruuFriday DATE OF SUBMISSION SIGNATURF,/OF APPLICANT DATE OF NEARING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPI. I CAT ION 1) OWNER 01 IlF(.'01tL) ( name, address, phone # ) (802)658-4100 Pizzagalli Investment Company, 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 05403 2) APPLICANT ( name, address, phone # ) _— (802)658-4100 Pizzagalli Investment Company, 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 05403 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone # ) __ Jacques J._Landjy_—_ 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 05403 (802)658-4100 4 ) . PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Hinesburg Road (Mansfield Drive) ­proposed street 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S) Office Build 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and * floors, square feet per floor) 28,800 s.f. Office Building, 3 Floors, 9,600 s.f./Floor, 38 ft high 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 115 9).LOT COVERAGE: building ____I _%; landscaped areas 59 % building, parking, outside storage 41 % 10 ) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 1, 400 , 000 , Landscaping $ 18,000 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) S Parking Lot Improvements With Utilities 150,000 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 10-1-90 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) 439 Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday A.M. Peak Hour 62 VTE/Hr. 11-12 noon _; 12-1p.m. 1-2 p.m. ; 2-3 3-4 P.M. _— ; 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. _; 6-7 p.m. P.M. Peak Hour 61 VTE/Hr. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 8 a.m. - 5 Vim. _ 14 ) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Monday thru Friday _ ^_ DATE OF SUBMISSION % SIGNATURE ,OF APPLICANT DATE OF HEARING / CITY OF SOUTH BURL I NGTON SITE PLAN APPI. I CAT ION 1) OWNER OF 1?EVORD ( name, address, phone #) (802)658-4100 Pizzagalli Investment Company, 50 Joy Drive, -So _ Burlington, VT 05403 2) APPLICANT ( name, address, phone #) (802)658-4100_ _ _^ Pizzagalli Investment Company, 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 05403 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #) _ _Jacques J. Landry 50 Joy Drive, So. Burlington, VT 05403 (802)658-4100 4). PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Hinesburg Road Mansfield Drive) proposed street 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S) Office Building 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and * floors, square feet per floor) 38,400 s.f. Office Building, 3 Floors, 12,800 s.f./Floor, 38 ft high 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 154 9).LOT COVERAGE: building 9 %; landscaped areas 52 % building, parking, outside storage 48 % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 2,000,000 , Landscaping $ 24,000 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) E Parking Lot Improvements With.Utilities 170,000 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 12-15-90 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) 575 Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday A.M. Peak Hour 81 VTE/Hour 11-12 noon _; 12-1p.m. 1-2 p.m. 2-3- 3-4 P.M. -- ; 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. P.M. Peak Hour 80 VTE/Hour 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Monday thru Friday DATE OF SUBMISSION S I GNATIJRE f' AI P1.1 CXMT DATE OF HEARING / / I F I ,• TE Fi YEEVE._� -U ,.,LG. " --�I •1 ` _ -� _ A�f �.P / ,�(� P_� MMISFIELP DeVE 2-1 � 8 - ---. � - eEr co..r_. e¢�ve � ``-D ' e-G......w swu'e .� i �..ry" •.--�F /;.."O .� \{ EIC I.IENre.T'.f..c w. .. N../ �! p •� f ' ( 1 `� •. � ..�•-_ ' : ,.•w II _ - d ' d y° wc•pN( Kam.) «'�_ ; ,p. � � � e / / of � — �t i UI � , %'— ) I I - •• `...' ''— — I f PMD.w npra¢E+.. t \ • L - .%y .u..D..A. T .1 ,`i`e. F .,fir lj n.. ;o co-c c.+s (TYaI %}9 VICINITY MAP rvq�e3 0 NTS TQTe .T ;Y I e E I I •Ui•fq SfA[e our i o I i l l E N,r......e.arw.rr.. r. PY.n f..ro� - n I •Io L_ G_ £NO T mY. • awpao w.aYen o.. E,. aT��o i¢l.. i...E • ION,.�.,w.n ;'�^uuroin.�.. asri�.�.aN. ' fa�6r.u0Enz •Lr�AE.fT • Y'wwwws�.•�.w.eewul. 4 +ceE+E E•+•mnc eET G •NN.•e., +a.u�u�r tU.I PIK i0 CE �fiT • Ra'YE.'M1 L o-,uo. Wym� mmu 1.ro wvv'e. u mou �_ � �� Ex1eT1. C.l.a7u.J0 �Oy-lOu¢ --- -- •.w V•. ul wruraw eM.e.WYwWiN....�. uw w ePOT E..ev.�Ea.. _ �viE n••.. Y.�...a..rmn. w....Y... : wuc.E¢ w Tw.•.e.M ••rwYMMalro ur elur.o,n: NOTES: ��'• .I S�r•w� mm..�'Ob r+u.ro.uu mn.. w..•r FOA••OA'•O. NO jurIIG JiCIiN11.71 SEEAPLw TRUD uGw Erc c�iuu �ulE vxT. cn�Cw delve � � r .�_cI�[S _. r.-c ..WE ao r,RY no., so. eow�NaroN. rr. flfnsnrm N...0 AW w..A wn ww Ne. PWf nYO. flre,ry rol Mrroaa.aa •.vubea.0 N+*N mNm qm,r dm ue.o.a. e.rol a w.mwn c ro.w mti. • M w ro auv.. a. Pyoroe b rupY lee Y.r. Oe1I•uum Y awuip m.w m.r. TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED, BE AWAREI QIAMOE N Ip.IINe MTFD INM n' OIYNID L NAKN CONSULTND FNpR[ERS. NC rOR NIpPERry INE NE OIfnA LION SEE A ruw T11IE �. rIAR wowNo rAOPosEo suswwsRw a TUEr rAw wo r.w Ro., so. euRENcraN. rr arEo w sr wARPEN RoaENSI iE N. E s. PRZA°AIJ.I INVCSEMFM COMPANY Po. B.. H smle e_.unclen SITE PLAN MOUNTAIN VIEW BUSINESS PARK •O!�vs '� ��.y. G �:Z IIIN1:411IH4 ROAD � fr.un �'Y� YRY •.b `� '••;�u �`� a Eyiyl PC '> pizzagalli p r o p e r t i e s 50 Joy Drive, , .Sox 2009 � � • ' ZZ-®~'1" '�=^ South Burlington, Vermont 05403-2009 J Telephone (802) 658-4100 3 - f f.rI FAX (802) 865-4469 March 21, 1990 Mr. Joe Weith Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Joe: o V^' a! 0' V I a.ti_s This letter shall serve as official notice that Pizzagalli Investment Company has decided to withdraw its application for a three -lot subdivision known as Mountain View Business Park located on Hinesburg Road adjacent to Interstate 89. If you have any questions in this regard, please call me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Ronald I. Bouchard Partner CC: Roger Dickerson Mike Weisel Bob Bouchard VICINITY MAP WTS F ......... 4. A tw L I 1'111� —T� I IT f zo V � / m ca..szme•..yo.. I 7z 9WDM STAKE 61 I I b= NOTES: • P�G.LIN� ENTCOMPANY PO ft� s— . ........ — T SITE PLAN T T-SE-- MOUNTAINVIEW BUSINESS PARK SO. 1-1-T- IS. TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED, BE AWAREI "N�2