The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Dorset StreetSTATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5001 SPOR August 27, 1996 Ray Belair 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Belair: Enclosed, please find the four agreements specific to the South Burlington MEGC 5200(8) project. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 802-828- 2641. Sincerely, Ceven S. Clairmont Special Agreements Administrator Telecommunications Relay Service 1-800-253-0191 Vermont is an Equal Opportunity Employer. +ram RECEIV SPECIAL AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO FINANCE AND MAINTENANCE U L 3 0 1986 FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON MEGC 5200 ( 8 ) CENTRAL FILES I THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2nd day of JUNE 1986, by and between the State of Vermont, represented by its Agency of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the STATE, and the City of So. Burlington by its Councilmen, hereinafter called the CITY. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the said STATE proposes to submit to the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, for approval, an Urban, Federal -Aid Project known as So. Burlington MEGC 5200 (8), which will provide for certain improvements to the highways of said CITY, and further described as follows: Located on Dorset Street from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. This project includes roadway widening to 63' curb - to -curb which consists of 11' travel lanes with partially controlled access resulting from a 15' median or a 4' island with 11' left turn lane, sidewalks, bike paths, traffic signals, lighting, and right turn lanes at Kennedy Drive and from Williston Road to the University Mall (North Entrance). WHEREAS, the CITY desires said improvements of its highway(s) and further desires that the STATE, acting insofar as necessary for the CITY, submit to the Federal Highway Administration, for approval, said Federal - Aid Project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and the mutual covenents and premises hereinafter stated: THE CITY AGREES: 1. That such work shall be done by contract under the supervision of the STATE or its duly authorized representative; 2. To cooperate with the STATE in carrying out this work; 3. That all traffic control equipment, signs and street lighting installed as part of this project and described on the plans will become property of the CITY upon completion and acceptance of the project. Maintenance or provision for maintenance of said equipment shall be the responsibility of the CITY. Signal cycles will not be changed without prior approval of the Agency of Transportation in writing; Agreement for South Burlington MEGC 5200 (8) Page 2 4. That all existing traffic control equipment, signs, lighting, etc., owned by the CITY, which are removed by the contractor and not reused as part of this project shall remain the property of the CITY; 5. That any and all signs, and pavement markings shall be installed by the contractor as shown on the plans and maintained in place thereafter by the CITY in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); 6. To take such steps as may be necessary to accomplish the following work in connection with this project, at no cost to the STATE, except any portions of which are shown on the plans and included in the contract and to be done by the contractor: a. To relocate or cause to be relocated, all existing fire alarm and police communication circuits, as may be necessitated by the construction of this project; b. To cooperate with the STATE and the Utility in the relocation of all interfering utilities not owned by the 4 CITY, such as telephone, electric power lines, gas lines, I water lines, and appurtenances, cable television facilities, etc. Further it is the CITY's responsibility to obtain agreements with affected utility companies concerning for those parts 7paymentjA for costs incurred in moving aerial utility Iof the project ac ities to underground positions. j which are ultimately determined to be non -reimbursable was C. Make any require c ang e e evation of water valve boxes and sanitary manholes, including any incidental I I A-, q �l �� repairs to said manholes; d. Relocate if necessary and also change to the depths required, all water and sanitary sewer pipes, hydrants, and other underground structures, including pipes, mains, leads, connections and services as may be necessitated by the construction of this project; 8. That said improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications as prepared by the Agency of Transportation, in cooperation with the said Federal Highway Administration, and shall be in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation rules and regulations which may now exist or new rules and regulations that the said Federal Highway Administration may promulgate and in accordance with the State of Vermont, Department of Highways, latest edition of the "Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridge Construction, and the Special Provisions included in the Proposal Form and Contract Agreement of this project except as herein provided; -;s Agreement for South Burlington MEGC 5200 (8) Page 3 9. That if the construction of this project is suspended for the winter season, it shall maintain those roadways necessary to public travel, in accordance with the provisions of the latest edition of the "Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction", dated June, 1985, until construction operations are resumed in the spring; 10. That as part of the total cost of construction of this project to be paid by the STATE, the CITY agrees to reimburse the STATE for its portion, including preliminary engineering and rights -of -way. Approximate anticipated funding is as follows: Federal - 95%, STATE - 3%, CITY - 2%. The CITY will make payments for their proportionate share to the STATE, upon receipt of bills submitted by the STATE following completion and acceptance of the project. Underruns and/or overruns in item quantities during construction and possible construction "change orders" may increase or decrease quantities affecting the accepted bid; 11. That upon completion and acceptance of the project, the CITY shall maintain said project in a manner satisfactory to the Agency of Transportation. The CITY shall make ample provisions each year for such maintenance. In this connection attention is invited to Title 19, Sections 101, 931 and 933, V.S.A., listing the duties and responsibilities of Selectmen; 12. To cooperate with the STATE and/or the STATE's Contractor in the maintenance of traffic or detours or both during the construction of this project; 13. If due to the failure of the CITY to meet its obligations and the project is not constructed, all costs incurred by the STATE including preliminary engineering shall be reimbursed in full to the STATE by the CITY. THE STATE AGREES: 1. To furnish to the CITY such engineering and administratuve services which are required to design, prepare contract specifications and bidding documents, advertise for bid, award contracts and inspect the construction of the project. Agreement for South Burlington MEGC 5200 (8) Page 4 THIS AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the STATE and the CITY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first written above. WITNESSES: APP ROVED: ict Transportation istrator DATED,. , A'.�SfSTAV ZTtORNfY GENERAL CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON Councilmen STATE OF VERMONT, represented by its Agency of Transportation i;Cnjgt; Secret h6 :ark AMENDMENT #1 TO FINANCE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON MEGC 5200 (8) THIS AMENDMENT, made this 15th day of November 1989, by and between the State of Vermont, represented by its Agency of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the STATE, and the City of South Burlington, Vermont, acting through its Councilmen, hereinafter called the CITY, is supplemental to the AGREEMENT executed on June 2, 1986, for the SOUTH BURLINGTON MEGC 5200 (8) project. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the STATE and CITY mutually agree that the aforementioned AGREEMENT shall be modified as follows: 1. The project description shall be modified to include the resurfacing of the parking lot between South Burlington High School. and South Burlington Middle School. 2. Under the CITY Agrees: A. Item #5 shall be modified as follows: That any and all. signs (including parking regulatory signs), street lights, traffic signals and pavement markings shall be installed by the Contractor as shown on the plans and maintained in place thereafter by the CITY, at no cost to the STATE, in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Once constructed, no changes shall be made to the parking and/or traffic control features without prior approval of the STATE and the Federal Highway Administration. B. Item #9 shall be modified as follows: The reference to the "Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction", dated June 1985 shall be changed to read, the latest edition of the "Standard Specifications for Construction". C. Item #10 shall be modified by adding the following: The resurfacing of the parking lot between South Burlington High School and South Burlington Middle School shall be non- participating. All costs associated thereof shall be the sole responsibility of the CITY. D. Add Item #14: The CITY shall not permit, now or hereafter any encroach- ments on the rights -of -way now controlled and/or acquired in connection with this project (including but not limited to curb openings) until details showing the proposed encroach- ments have been reviewed and approved by the Councilmen. Utility facilities may be allowed with written permission and when located in conformance with the Utility Accommod- ation Policy of the Vermont Agency of Transportation. This permit shall be in accordance with Section 1111, Title 19, V.S.A. THIS AMENDMENT shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the STATE and CITY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first written above. WITNESSES: CAo'-� (�—z AS TO �All �l AS TO ALL APPROVED: - L' 0"'� DiCirict Transportation Admin. Federal Highway Administration V Audit /A U Qy Dateo -25 ilmen, City of South Burlington STATE OF ONT, esentated By Its gen ran ti Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date:: —s— As`sist�ant `Attoirney Gen4ral r.wrn JUL 1 9 1999 aa=A: t. Division Administrator Cm C =KS OFFICE 0Q 1 Rsceive D D 19,131 2t A-1)6- M Recorded in Vol. I�M—on P=gAz� Of So. Burlington Land Records Attest: Margaret A Picard, City Cleric J � V cc a � o � V ~ U d �• R7 U h� o o _y too _co CU a� m t, ■ m-r4"" C� O AMENDMENT # 1 TO FINANCE AND MAINTENANCE AGREAR E C EIV E FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON MEGC 5200 (8) AUG 0 4 1992 AND MEGC 5200 (14) CENTRAL FILE THIS AMENDMENT, made this of 3r day of `1y 19QU, by and between the State of Vermont, represented by its Agency of Transportation and hereinafter called the STATE, and the City of South Burlington, Vermont, acting through its Legislative Body and hereinafter called the MUNICIPALITY, is supplemental to the AGREEMENT executed on June 2, 1986 for the South Burlington MEGC 5200 (8) Project. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the STATE and MUNICIPALITY mutually agree that the aforemen- tioned AGREEMENT shall be modified as follows: 1. All references to the project number shall be modified by adding the number MEGC 5200 (14). 2. The project description shall be modified to include the neces- sary landscaping and other related site features associated with the road- way construction project. THIS AMENDMENT shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the STATE and MUNICIPALITY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first written above. WITNESSES: C AS TO ALL n AS TO ALL AMENDMENT REVIEWED No Audit Re uired Dated: ��) " 42 By:-� 19F 92-160- //8q CITY OF SOUTH BURLI U / Signatures of egisfative Body STATE OF VERMONT, Represented By Its Agency of Transportation BY: ecretary APPROVED ASIORM Dated: — ' Assistant Attorney General 1 LA AMENDMENT #2 TO FINANCE & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH_ BURLINGTONr,MEGC 5200(8) EA/SUBJOB 520008/100 I !� THIS AMENDMENT, made this 1.9 day of Ur)uO 19961 by and between the State of Vermont, represented by its Agency of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the STATE, and the City of South Burlington, Vermont, acting through its Legislative Body, hereinafter referred to as the MUNICIPALITY, is supplemental to the AGREEMENT executed on June 2, 1986 and AMENDMENT #1 executed on November 15, 1989, for the South Burlington MEGC 5200 (8) project. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the STATE and MUNICIPALITY mutually agree that the June 2, 1986 AGREEMENT and November 15, 1989 AMENDMENT should be modified; NOW, THEREFORE, the June 2, 1986 AGREEMENT and November 15, 1989 AMENDMENT are modified as follows: 1. The South Burlington MEGC 5200 (16) S project shall be covered under the same provisions as the AGREEMENT executed on June 2, 1986 and -; AMENDMENT #1 executed on November 15, 1989, for the South Burlington MEGC 5200 (8) project. a CITY CLERK'S OFFICE '3 Received 19- To i M r,Drded i Vol. M9 on page-39 -3? O Euriington Land Recor •;itESt: �� j Margaret A. Picard, City Cleric �I THIS AMENDMENT, shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the STATE and MUNICIPALITY. AMENDMENT #2 FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON MEGC 5200 (8) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AMENDMENT to be duly executed on the day and year first written above. WITNESSES: f; AS TO ALL AS kO ALL AMENDMENT REVIEWED Il NO AUDIT RE UIRED I by: dated: l z- 27- 95 �j CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON AK", Signatur s of tbgisrar6ody STATE OF VERMONT Agen,Cy, of Transpggation / Secretar)Kof Transportation dated: (% APPROVED AS TO FORM: s ' tant A r ey G6deral dated. HY GLUTTEN & CO. P.O. BOX 4093 BURLINGTON, VT 05406-4093 July 25, 1994 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 370 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Weith, We hereby give the City of South Burlington permission to enter our property at 370 Dorset Street to erect a fence as proposed in the attached drawings. This permission is granted provided that our property is returned to its original state and that the City of South Burlington and/or its agents are properly insured and assume full liability for all property and persons involved. Your concurrence with these conditions can be signified by signing and returning one copy of this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, Hy Glutten & Co. By: Martin Schwartz General Partner We concur with the conditions stated above. City of South Burlington PERMISSION FOR FENCE INSTALLATION Hy Glutten & Co., being the owner(s) of property commonly known and designated as 370 Dorset Street, in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby grants to the City of South Burlington, its agents and assigns, permission to enter onto the property for the purpose of installing a plank rail fence at or near the location shown on the attached drawings. I/we understand that the plank rail fence will be installed entirely within the Dorset Street and San Remo rights -of -way, and that equipment and personnel used during the installation will stay within ten (10) feet of the edge of those rights -of -way. I/we understand that those portions of the property disturbed as a result of the work will be restored to their prior condition. Finally, I/we understand that the work will be done by Stewart's Nursery and Garden Center under contract (MEGC 5200 (14)) to the Vermont Agency of Transportation, which is serving as the City's agent for this project. In accordance with Section 103.11(B) of the Agency's standard contract specifications, the contractor is required to have complete coverage of personal and property damage insurance which will apply to any damage or injury occurring during the installation of the fence. Dated at Sou-* {�- �R�,A[C--,WN Vermont, this day of M3f /12- 1994. Hy Glutten & o. By: Its duly uthorize gent Cu' CIHf ET — — ALL Sibt — 0" x If G41M. ter fi s-Go d Gp.LV. SPIk-ems EAc4 FAiL- WI 15/IC rvPcLV. 1A14S1.11✓� IN �PMDRILL.E=V kF:LAE_ 2" (rIP L 2u� YP (p�uTr >~Nb i GNL`f i 1'_ o tzar P^t- 2z" v t O. C 11 l II Gv_o� u"b t,%"I=-- e� 1I gnu n1 GMss G; !ah! ',,' ll7 1 Ii 11 I �"x s" �t_ T`( P' I Gl�L � L.l� �A►T INN - `'ast So« Mjx -� * LooK IN Fa �fLoT-1 Rd>Dw.4'( � •h n � 8' (T-Y T'• ) {��T�-I• s1pES 2� �'��IUS I ALL. SItES 1'lf C�LV. Nt=tilNo 2" TAP aF I�sT T C." � �" _ �CoUNTER SINK To r u SlbEwaLks FOST T�l - SI bGVJA.LK/ 1'.T. coa Cyr,.,. Golf, I �I I I ►—=ll 1-4 F �---�' Ar >:RI \11 � � 51 bE�/A � k �f'I=N I N 6 s � ADJAC,FNT pAl2kINy t PLA H v RAIL ff = m.l" - lil / MGw STRI P/ N.S. SHVoAF-TY-A�is/ NANTIN r5i P�IKEPhTN �tofLTl+t3ouhlD SGUT}1i�ouN[> ${kE! " ;�� PaK k I N E, (hgvv STRIP i'�%b jRAVEI Eta L-W r- -iRAV ELEI7 L,,k t_- ��f til Mow M�v1aN T- DATUM �,TIZI P TmFl - VERTICAL _ •ij'�EE "':`""��II'I 4 HORIZONTAL r f P I C A[ . a; City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658.7955 August 5, 1994 Mr. Martin Schwartz Hy Glutten & Company P.O. Box 4093 Burlington, Vermont 05406-4093 Re: 370 Dorset Street Dear Mr. Schwartz: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is a standard form used by the State of Vermont to grant the State permission to enter land in order to install a fence. The form has been tailored to meet your concerns regarding restoration of the property to its original condition and provisions for complete coverage of personal and property damage insurance. I hope this form is acceptable to you. Please sign both documents and return one to me. Thank you or your cooperation in this matter. JW/mcp Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Date �i�� 9� pages Z To /y%�/�T%� �SW/3X7 From Gi/�/Tf� Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # _ Fax # $ _ y0 Fax # G3 3z 12 SU2 879 0605 RESN' MIKE MUNSON P0= JUDGE DRVELOPKBNT CORPORATION being the owner(s) of property commonly known and designated as 100 Dorset Street, in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby grants to the City of South Burlington, its agents and assigns, permission to enter onto the property for the purpose of installing a plank rail fence at or near the location designated on sheets 16 and 17 of a set of landscaping plans entitled "State of Vermont, Agency of Transportation, Proposed Improvement, City of South Burlington, County of Chittenden, Dorset Street T.H. No. 5, CL2(FAU)11. I/we understand that the plank rail fence will be installed entirely within the Dorset Street right-of-way, and that equipment and personnel used during the installation will stay within 10 feet of the edge of the right-of-way. I/We further understand that those portions of the property disturbed as a result of the work will be restored t//o"� their prior condition. Dated at l.�� f( r r ♦ Vermont, this 'k day of L, % , 1992. 01 JUDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By: t ly AfA r a agent I:\SON502.lnd Snl'PZF.L & PAGE, P.C. ArmRNMYS AT LAW It, e..TTL'MY r'IYtl'rT Hu6LINWIQN. Y[11MONT64.0. F �r m low / 9"?6-/.3 03 ff- t'/�? Ir r Z NEvV 45 ° C SP ELBO W . 0��1 G E LINE o fsz CGYY/YECT' rr 'cam% we-�oc�s ��'ush INSTALL & MAINT. (P) DORSET LAND CO. INC. SR (T)' DRIVE ) 6 7' = _ = _ = _ = 1—m = - — -- — — — — —-128477— 28'RT. GvR�v Li�E �__r d RIVE (T I iP . /9 1 CZY)497- j;� = 900 'P�.AMA Awe .�2 JAs0N, ps-Y /,/� GLEAMIAe, s sdip r�..��lo.�..��.��,,,r a �r 129+27 ��►isr�ss. T_ ��.�i�a_ ��.' .c-....ice �;...� �.� �.• SR �' �� I I qj LL 8 30 SR (i N IV 20 e +17 iL.J L 1 49'RT. DRIVE (T) (R 11 �T 7' 147/,1'; RANDALL G. MUNSON SO. BURLINGTON REA R, P L ,8177�/YI//YL�CJS �I.YSC..P��= ,:: i97701V GGtAT/t�'YY /287 -4 9 m W 7711 �6.Y �s�♦ .a. , s:v •.��,vv� �r7 e :w�. LL?3 a va SURVE' a. T DRAWN ,ate TRACEI C DEC 2 B 1990 FEAT aRoA S HEFT PERMISSION FOR FENCE INSTALLATION Hy Glutten & Co., being the owner(s) of property commonly known and designated as 370 Dorset Street, in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, hereby grants to the City of South Burlington, its agents and assigns, permission to enter onto the property for the purpose of installing a plank rail fence at or near the location shown on the attached drawings. I/we understand that the plank rail fence will be installed entirely within the Dorset Street and San Remo rights -of -way, and that equipment and personnel used during the installation will stay within ten (10) feet of the edge of those rights -of -way. I/we understand that those portions of the property disturbed as a result of the work will be restored to their prior condition. Finally, I/we understand that the work will be done by Stewart's Nursery and Garden Center under contract (MEGC 5200 (14)) to the Vermont Agency of Transportation, which is serving as the City's agent for this project. In accordance with Section 103.11(B) of the Agency's standard contract specifications, the contractor is required to have complete coverage of personal and property damage insurance which will apply to any damage or injury occurring during the installation of the fence. Dated at Eou—, 14- _� ooei..,! Cc — Vermont, this day of M/�FlZ 1994. Hy Glutten & o. By: Its duly uthorize gent P..., r s', I,-- r "44( ...elr M E M O R A N D U M To: Michael Munson, R.E.S.V. From: Chuck Hafter, South Burlington City Managev.'�- Re: Dorset Street Project - Plank Rail Fence Installation Date: September 20, 1994 The City requests that you coordinate with Bob Brady of VAOT, the installation of a plank rail fence along the frontage of 364-366 Dorset Street (Dorset Street Beverage and South Burlington Realty/Munson Earth Moving). A plank rail fence is needed to prevent cars and trucks from encroaching onto the sidewalk and bicycle path. Pedestrian breaks in the fence should be provided where appropriate. uyiuciV4 1u: •i3 QSUzfzdx t1T September 21 1994 Steven Stitzel, Esq. Scott whitted, Esq. Robert. Mello, Esq. KXAN0 eua 11 uvl rr - - (ent) 8218- 32 6 �•;�, l':,eili��n OIlia Nuil�{ing Re: No. 93-444, Randall G. Munson v. City of So. Burlington, Vt., and State of Vermont Agency of Transportation The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the above -captioned case on September 2, 1994 Pursuant to V.R.A.P. 45(c), I enclose a Copy of the opinion and Entry Order. LA/pb Enclosures Very truly yours, Larry Abbott Deputy Clerk PO"- brand fax transmittal memo M +v e(pag�a ► , 7/7' "L .. ft 'AL-1I M" SEEP. 02 ' 94 (FRI) 10:40 COIAMUNICA:'ION N9;47 PAGE. 1 L L/L 3JYd a3I300 INOM3A b I (iH3; 66 70 :3a 09/02/94 10:43 08028282817 TRANS AAG 0 002 V7. GW'F�112M'S COURT ENTRY ORDER _ C'1LED IN CLERK'S OFFICE SUPRMO COURT DOCKET NO.AL3-444 S 2 1994 MAY TERM, 1994 Randall G. Munson } APPEALED FROM.- V. } Chittenden Superior Court } ) City of South Burlington, ) vermont and State of Vermont j DOCKET NO. S1407-91CnC Agency of Transportation } In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter: The trial court' s order errantinc Summary jUdament to p, aint' f f on Count III of his complaint is reversed: in all other raanecta the decision of thg trial court i-s affirmed. FOR TH COURT: R. Johnsbn, Associate Just r., ing: Frederic W. Allen. Chief Justice nest Gibson I Asso ate Justice John . Dooley, Associate Jus ice L. Morse, Associate Justice SEP. 02 ' 44 lFRTI 7n Al nnVWTHTT rATrnN V..A17 OAP'? n .. I '3JKd `13 [iOO INOW%3A t?'7 [ ( IY3) b6 , 40 'd3S 00/02/94 10:46 08028282817 TRANS AAG Q 003 NOME: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well ae formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers axe requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme Court, 109 state Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in or%ar tm corrections way be made before thin opinion goes to press. VT. corrections COURT FILED IN CL9W8 OFFICE Randall G . Munson No. 93-444 SEP d 2 1994 Supreme court V. On Appeal from Chittenden Superior Court City of South Burlington, Vermont and State of Vermont May Term, 1994 Agency of Transportation Alden T. Bryan, J. (trespass, misrepresentation, condemnation procedure and inverse condemnation complaints) Xatthew 1. ntt, J. (taxpayer challenge complaint) Leslie C. Pratt, South Burlington, for plaintiff -appellant Steven F. Stitzel of Stitzel A Page, P.C., Burlington, for defendant - appellee City of South Burlington Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Scott A. Whitted, Assistant Attorney Genera]., Montpelier, for defendant -appellee State of Vermont Pt3MI(Ts Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Kars and Johnson, JJ. JOMMON, J. Plaintiff sued to enjoin the City of south Burlington from using land acquired by eminent domain for a highway project to provide a right- of-way for bicycle paths. Thu Chittenden Superior Court -found that because the City failed to follow the statutory procedure for condemnation of land for a bicycle path, the City•s condemnation of plaintiff's land for such a path was invalid. The court also ruled that (1) plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief even though the condemnation was invalid, (2) his property had not been inversely condemned, and (3) hn failed to prove a 01ALM as a taxpayer that the City lacked the authority to expend state funds on bicycle paths. we reverse, in part, concluding that the City validly condemned plaintiff's land; and, in all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court. In 1984 the City of South Burlington and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) initiated a project to reconstruct a portion of Dorset 1 09/02/94 10:40 Q8028282817 TRANS AAG Q 004 Street. The project, approximately one mile in length, commenced at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road and extended south to the intersection of Dorset street and Kennedy Drive. The final proposal included plans for bicycle paths on both sides of Dorset Street, with the paths to run between the travel lanes and the sidewalks. Subsequently, the City Council noticed and held a public hearing on the issue of "necessity," and found necessity for the taking. Plaintiff owne property on the east side of Dorant Street containing two buildings, one housing his construction business and the other an unrelated retail business. The City Council issued an order condemning a portion of plaintiff's property for the Dorset Street project and awarded plaintiff $361500 in damages. Plaintiff accepted the award and did not appeal it. This dispute arose when the boundaries of the property were marked for the commencement of construction in May 1991. it was then that plaintiff alleges he became aware that one of his buildinga will stand three feet closer to the vight- of-way than was shown on the project map given to hint. Both buildings are actually the same distance from the right-of-way. On the map, however, the buildings were not depicted as being equidistant from the right-of-way. Instead, one was shown as being three feet farther back from the right-of-way than the other. The result is that both buildings will be set back twenty-two feet, rather than one having a setback of twenty-five feet and the other a setback of twenty-two feet, as the map showed. It is undisputed, however, that the City took no more land than was noticed. Plaintiff argues that if he had known that the setback distance of the one building would be twenty-two rather than twenty-five feet, he would have challenged the necessity of the taking. He also argues that the loan of the three feet and resulting traffic flow problems will cause him damages in the amount of two to three million dollars over the next ten years. To obtain relief, plaintiff coamwnced the present action on July 31, 1991, claiming (1) that because of the City's misrepresentation of the setback distance, he was entitled to equitable relief in the form of a twenty-five foot setback, (2) that 2 SEP. 02 ' 94 (: RI) t 0 ; 4? CONCtTlNICAiI ON No - a7 PAnF. it . ... 1. z 1 7 n '-1 7 Z 09/02/94 10:47 108026282817 TRANS AAG 005 because the city had not complied with the applicable statutory procedure to condemn land for a bicycle path, they condemnation of that land was invalid, (3) as a taxpayer, that the City and State lacked legal authority to condemn the land of plaintiff and others for a bicycle route making the condemnation void, and (4) that he is entitled to damages because his land was inversely condemned. On cross -motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that the condemnation process for the bike path land was void A& initio because the city did not follow the proper statutory condemnation procedures. It ruled in defendants' favor on all other counts and denied plaintiff equitable relief. Thus, the trial court concluded that plaintiff ham title to the island of land that was to be the bicycle path, but which is separated from the rest of his land by the property condemned for the sidewalk. Accordingly, it concluded that plaintiff must refund to the City the money paid for the bicycle path land. The present cross-appoala followed. I. The first issue we address is whether the City may use a portion of land that it acquired for a highway under 19 V.S.A. chapter 7 to develop a bicycle route. Plaintiff argues, and the trial court found, that the taking, insofar as it relates to the bicycle routes, wan void ab initio because 19 V.S.A. S 2307(b) required the city to follow the condemnation procedure sat out in 19 V.S.A. chapter 5 (governing highway condemnation by the State through the AOT) rather than that in chapter 7 (governing highway condemnation by cities and towns) to condemn land for a bicycle route. we disagree. Plaintiff's argument is founded on 19 V.S.A. S 2307(b), which provided that "[i]n the construction . . . of bicycle routes which involves the taking of private lands, the legislative body of a municipality shall follow the procedures outlined in 19 V.S.A. chapter 5 for the taking of private land for highways."' The plain meaning of this statute, plaintiff argues, is clear -- a municipality must follow chapter 5 to condemn land for a bicycle route; it is powerle2a to I This section has since been amended to provide that a municipality may follow the condemnation procedure established in either chapter 5 or chapter 7. 1991, No. 175 (Adj. sass.), S 12 (off. May 15, 1992). , 3 8£P n? ' qL IFRT1 Tn•a9 nnV. MTTTJTeA'rTnM M—A7 9hnv 2 09/02/94 10:47 108028282817 TRANS AAG �OpB Include bike paths within a highway condemnation under 19 V.S.A. eh. 7. Plaintiff'a argument fails because it is not consistent with the statutory schmm at issue and could lead to absurd results. It is a well -established canon of statutory Construction that statutes relating to the same subject matter should be construed together and read in pari materia, if at all possible, StAte , 159 Vt. 198, 201, 617 A.2d 135, 137 (1992). As we stated in in re Shevard, 155 Vt. 356, 584 A.2d 421 (1990), that rule applies with particular relevance to highway law: The statutory scheme on highways is complex, con- stituting all of Title 19 as well as portions of other titles, with many interrelated provisions. . . . (T]o effectuate the legislative intent we "look to the whole statute, the subject matter, its effects and conse- quences, and the treason and spirit of the law." I&L at 357-58, $84 A.2d at 422 (citations omitted). The provisions of 19 V.B.A. chapter 7 and 19 V.S.A. S 2307 can be construed in harmony with each other. Chapter 7 grants municipalities broad powers to lay out highways and to acquire the property required for their construction. on the other hand, 19 V.S.A. S 2307(b) relates, in relevant part, solely to "the constructionof bicycle routes which involves the taking of private lands ." Section 2307(b) does not refer to highway Construction and does not purport to govern the taking of private lands for highway purposes. It applies where the municipality seeks to construct a bicycle route only. It also does not purport to apply when a municipality seeks to construct a highway that incorporates a bicycle route. This interpretation is supported by 19 V.S.A. S 2304, which provided in relevant part that - [b] icycle routes may be incorporated into designs for the construction . of state and town highways."2 Moreover, piaintiff I a proposed interpretation has the potential to lead to absurd results. According to plaintiff, a municipality seeking to build a highway, bicycle route, and sidewalks must follow two separate condemnation procedures. Aside from the duplication in effort and waste of resources involved, the existence of simultaneous but independent procedures could lead to 9 Section 2304 was repealed in 1993. 1993, No. 61, S 24 (eff. June 31 1993). 4 GEF, 02 ' 94 (FRI ) 1 n ; 41 COMMVN 1 CAT T nN N� 47 PAMP R 09/02/94 10:48 IDS028282817 TRANS AAG IM007 inconsistent results. For example, in this case, the municipality might have found itself with a bicycle route without an expanded highway, or a highway and sidewalks where each landowner retained the island of land that was to have been the bicycle route. We avoid interpretations of statutes that lead to absurd results. O'Brien v. Island Corns,, 157 Vt. 135, 139, 596 A.2d 1295, 1297 (2991). Nonetheless, for two reasons, plaintiff argues that the Legislature intended to create separate condemnation procedures. First, plaintiff argues that in 1974, the Legislature considered but rejected a section of a bill that would have provided authority for municipalities to condemn land for bicycle routes using chapter 7. S-49, S 2055, 1973 (Adj. Sege.).' The trial court agreed that the significance or the failure to enact that section of the bill was that -the legislature in 1974 was clearly skeptical about granting condemnation authority to municipalities for establishing bike paths." This inference is based on speculation, not on sound principles of construction. Rejection of an amendment alone does not intrinsically indicate legislative opposition to the substance of the amendment. For example, the Legislature might just as well have believed that adoption of the amendment was unnecessary. See 2A Sutherland, statutory Construction S 48.18 (5th ad. 1992). second, plaintiff argues that the 1992 amendment to 19 V.S.A. S 2307(b), adding the language -or chapter 7," is dispositiae of this case. The trial court interpreted the 1992 amendment as confirming plaintiff's position: The legislature could just as easily have changed the section to provide for only chapter 7 procedures or stated that this change was a codification of existing law. It did neither, which leads us to the conclusion that prior to the latest amendment, chapter 5 was the only proper procedure available to a town or city to condemn land for a bike path. This reasoning is also speculative. The question is what was the Legislature's intent at the time it enacted the statute at issue in this cane. It is not what ' This section was deleted from the bill approved by the House, but it was included by mistake in the bill approved by the senate. The initial codification included this section. Despite its publication, however, S 205S is not valid because the Senate never approved it. See Vt. Const. ch. II, S 6 ("no bill, resolution, or other thing, which shall have been passed by the [senate or House of Representatives], shall have the effect of, or be declared to be, a law, without the concurrence of the other"). 5 09/02/94 10:48 08028262917 BRANS AAG a subsequent Legislature believed the earlier Legislature intended. All that is certain from the 1992 amendment is that the Legislature confirmed that after the effective date of its enactment, multiple-uos projects including a bicycle route could be proposed under chapter 7. There is no bar to amending a law to render clearer and more certain something that was intended, but not unquestionably expressed, in an earlier enaotment. See CAladonian-Record Publishing Co. v. Walton, 154 Vt. 15, 25, 573 A.2d 296, 302 (1990) (sometimes a statute may be amended to exclude possible grounds of misinterpretation). In mum, when reading the statutes in pari materia, it is entirely consistent to construe S 2307(b) to require that municipalities follow 19 V.B.A. chapter 5 when taking private lands solely for bicycle routes, but to allow them to proceed under chapter 7 when the dominant purpose In the laying out of a highway, even if a bicycle route is part of the overall project. Accordingly, the City proceeded properly under 19 V.S.A. chapter 7. Summary judgment in plaintiff's favor an this issue must be reversed. Judgment should be entered in defendants' favor and plaintiff should not be required to refund to the City the money paid for the bicycle path land. II. The second question we must address is whether plaintiff may challenge the project's necessity, enjoin the project, and seek damages under 19 V.S.A. S 740, even though the time for such a challenge has run. The trial court found that plaintiff had an adequate legal remedy to challenge the amount of damages under 19 V.S.A. S 726. We agree. Pursuant to 19 V.S.A. S 740, an aggrieved property owner who is dis- satisfied with the way a highway is laid out, the necessity of the condemnation, or the damages awarded may petition the superior court for relief. The petition must be brought within twenty days after the order of the selectmen in recorded. 19 V.S.A. S 740. Plaintiff's argument is that the twenty -day time limit should not apply in this Case because of the City's misrepresentation regarding the building setback distance. Plaintiff argues that the misrepresentation Invalidated the notice he received and thus his challenge should not be time- 6 BEP_ 09 ' 94 (FRI ) 10,44 Co11QML:N:CATION No : 47 PAGE. A 09/02/94 10:49 08028282817 TRANS MG barred. We affirm because even it plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, plaintiff's S 740 claim was not timely. The trial court found that regardless of the validity of the initial notice to plaintiff, plaintiff indisputably had actual notice of the true boundaries of the taking and the setback in May 1991 when the construction markers were placed on his property. Thus, the court concluded that even if it applied a discovery rule to the limitation period, plaintiff's petition under 5 740 would still be time -barred because it was not filed until August of 1991. plaintiff has not challenged this conclusion. In light of our conclusion that the condmnation is valid and no longer subject to challenge, we need not reach plaintiff's contention that his property was inversely condemned. See Martin v. Port of Seattle, 322 P.2d 340, 542 n.1 (wash. 1964) (inverse condemnation "in the popular description of an action brought against a governmental entity having the power of eminent domain to recover the value of property which has been appropriated in fact, but with no formal exercise of the power"). Similarly, we need not reach plaintiff's claim for trespass damages. Finally, plaintiff appeals the summary judgment award to the City on Plaintiff's taxpayer claim. Plaintiff asserts that the expenditure of public funds on the bicycle route was illegal because the city (1) failed to properly condemn the land, and (2) failed to adhere to 19 V.S.A. 5 2304. Given our holding in part I, plaintiff's first ground is without merit. We also conclude that the trial court properly rejected plaintiff's second ground. Section 2304 provided that "[b]icyele routes may be incorporated into designs for the construction . . . of . . . highways when safe routes do not exist along the proposed corridor and upon" specific findings regarding safety, use, costs, and planning. Plaintiff argues that under S 2304, the AOT should have made the required findings and that because such findings were not made, the Plaintiff also argues an estoppel theory. This argument faile because we agree with the trial court's finding that plaintiff had an adequate legal ren�e y . 7 9E?.02 '94 OTRI) 10:45 COMMUNICATION No;47 PAGE 9 20 09/02/94 10:49 V8028282817 _ TRAYS MG _ 11010 expenditure of funds on the bicycle route is illegal. Contrary to plaintiffIa contention. S 2304 did not mandate that the Am make the required findings. The statute was silent on this subject. Given that it was the municipality that sought to condemn land for this project, it is logical to conclude that the municipality could make the necessary findings. in this case, though the findings were not necessarily in one single document, they were made. Particularly, the City Council found that the proposed designs would improve traffio safety, that the bicycle routes would conform with and support other planned improvements for the area, and that the potential for bicycle use supported the inclusion of a bicycle route on each side of Dorset street. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the city. The trial courtog order grant na summary judgment to 1plaIntiff on G2mnt III of his eomolaint is ,ravorsed, and judgment on this count Le enjered for del ndantel in all other respects, the decision pf the trial court is affirmed. FOR T COURT: j—WsopLate Jus ce S CEP. 02 - 94 (FRI) 10:45 C0I0[LINICATION Na:47 PAGE. 10 k MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Hafter, City Manager FROM: Joe Weith, City Planner RE: Dorset Street Median DATE: February 1, 1994 You asked me to prepare a memo outlining the reasons for installing the median along Dorset Street. While the plans were prepared before my arrival here in South Burlington, I would suspect that the median design was proposed for the following reasons: 1. Traffic safety and efficiency: It has been well documented that medians generally improve both traffic safety and traffic flow. The primary reason for this is the consolidation of left - turning movements to designed median breaks at major intersections. This drastically reduces the number of conflict points and thus increases both vehicular safety and capacity. 2. Pedestrian Amenities: An important component of the Dorset Street improvement project is the provision of pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, bicycle paths and signalized pedestrian crossings. The median design enhances the pedestrian focus by creating an environment more aesthetically pleasing to pedestrians and also by providing a safe "resting area" for pedestrians crossing several lanes of traffic. 3. Aesthetics: The landscaped median greatly improves the aesthetics of the corridor by breaking up a wide expanse of pavement dominated by cars and trucks. As mentioned above, it helps create an environment which is friendlier to pedestrians. Finally, the boulevard design sets a strong tone and character for the City Center. (ch2-1) City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 January 19, 1994 Mr. Lou Borie District Coordinator District #4 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Dorset Street Widening Project Dear Lou: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Chuck Hafter asked me to forward a copy of the enclosed report to you. I believe the enclosed mobile source air pollution analysis is a condition of Act 250 approval for the Dorset Street project. Please contact City Manager, Chuck Hafter, at 658-7953 if you have any questions. S'n erel , e Weith, City Planner 1 Encl. JW/mcp August 9. 1991 Mr. Robert Murphy Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, VT. 05633 RE; So. Burlington Comprehensive Plan - Bikeways Dear Mr. Murphy: Enclosed are excerpts from the 1980 and 1985 South Burlington Comprehensive Plans regarding proposed bicycle paths. Mike Munson of RESV, Inc. asked me to forward this information to you. As indicated, the 1980 Comprehensive Plan identified the need for bikeways throughout the City including bicycle routes, lanes and paths. The Plan included a map entitled "Existing and Proposed Bikeways" which proposes specific locations in the City which would benefit from such facilities. As can be seen, the 1980 map does not specifically identify a bikeway facility along Dorset Street between Williston Road and Kennedy Drive. During the 5 year period between the 1980 and 1985 plans, the City studied this issue further and decided it was important to specifically identify the need for a bicycle path along Dorset Street. As such, the "Existing and Proposed Bikeways Map'' was amended to include a proposed bicycle path along Dorset as can be seen on the enclosed 1985 plan map. ' Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Joe Weith City Planner - cc: Mike Munson, RESV RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP INC. 0 /� %6i A7-j- Mobile Source Air Pollution Analysis of the Dorset Street Corridor DRAFT Prepared for: Norwich, Vermont City of South Burlington November 10, 1993 { .1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1 STUDYOBJECTIVES.........................................................................2 IDENTIFICATION OF HOT -SPOT INTERSECTIONS ........................2 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES.....................3 DESIGN HOUR LEVEL -OF -SERVICE ANALYSES ................4 HOT -SPOT INTERSECTIONS ............................................... 5 AIR QUALITY MODELING RUNS.....................................................5 ANALYSIS TURNING MOVEMENTS...................................5 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY ................................................ 6 EMISSION RATES.................................................................7 AIR POLLUTANT DISPERSION MODELING....................................8 RESULTS........................................................................................... 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................11 INTRODUCTION In February, 1985, the City of South Burlington, in conjunction with the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) applied for an Act 250 permit to widen and improve Dorset Street. The purpose of the application was to "transform the existing undefined, unsafe and somewhat sprawling street into an orderly and well defined urban street"1. The impetus behind this effort was to create a "city center" in what is otherwise a suburban community. In the early 1980's, the City Council of South Burlington began to investigate the possibility of creating a high -density core of development along Dorset Street. This core would be: "a place that concentrates a whole range of activity and energy into a contained area. It is this concentration that creates the dynamic, pedestrian character of an in -town environment."2 On December 10,1987, the VAOT and City of South Burlington were granted approval by the District 4 Environmental Commission to construct two additional travel lanes along Dorset Street from Kennedy Drive to Williston Road. In addition to the widening, other improvements were also permitted, including the construction of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, intersection auxiliary lanes, and conduit to be used for the future signalization of certain existing stop - controlled intersections. The Commission noted in their findings of fact that an indirect source air pollution permit from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) is not required with this project since the projected increase in traffic, with the construction of Corporate Circle to Hinesburg Road, are below the 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) standard. However, VAOT's projected increase of 7,190 vpd by 1997 was forecasted to cause level's of service to drop to "E" at the intersection of Dorset Street with Kennedy Drive, and "F" at the Williston Road and Corporate Way intersections. The Commission found that: "...non -point source air pollution is closely related to traffic flow and is commonly measured in terms of levels of service. Within 20 years traffic flow at both ends of Dorset Street will drop to unacceptable levels of service ... which may, in turn, cause air pollution whether or not the threshold RESOURCE SYSTEMS 1 Findings of Fact, page 3, permit #4C0607-R. GROUP 2 from "City Center: A Planning Study for the Dorset Street Corridor", South Burlington City Council, December 1986. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10,1993 Page 2 number of vehicles exists. Therefore, the Commission will require that the Applicants conduct a traffic study, as described under criterion 5, which also addresses air quality and which will form the basis for evaluating the air quality impacts of new developments." While the traffic concerns of the Act 250 Commission were addressed in two previous studiesl,2, it is clear, given these findings, that the Commission wishes to look at air quality impacts not only of the Dorset Street widening, but also of additional developments that are projected to be built along the corridor. This primarily includes the proposed City Center Development. The intent of this study is to address those concerns regarding the air quality impacts of the Act 250 Commission. STUDY OBJECTIVES This study determines if any intersections along the Dorset Street corridor have the potential to violate air quality standards for CO. Using standard EPA- and Vermont Agency of Natural Resources -approved methods, the worst - case air pollution concentrations along the corridor are estimated using computer models. IDENTIFICATION OF HOT -SPOT INTERSECTIONS A "hot -spot" intersection is a term used by the EPA, which denotes an intersection which has sufficient traffic volume and congestion that it deserves further study to determine if air quality problems may exist. Generally, there is less potential for air quality problems in suburban areas such as Dorset Street, because there are fewer buildings, especially fewer residences, located close to intersection corners, when compared with more highly urbanized areas. The criteria for defining a "hot -spot" intersection is based on its level of service, which is a measure of delays and congestion at an intersection during its peak hour of traffic. Intersection levels of service are graded from "A" to "F", with "A" being an intersection with very low delays, and "F" being a severely congested intersection. Intersections with levels of service of "D" or lower are defined as potential "hot -spots", and therefore warrant further study. To predict levels of service in future years, with changes in road geometry and adjacent land uses, the current and future peak traffic volumes at each intersection along the corridor must be estimated. These estimates are 1JHK Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, May 1988. 2Resource Systems Group, Norwich, Vermont, April,1991. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10,1993 Page 3 available from the previously mentioned traffic studies conducted for the City Center project, and are discussed below. EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Two reports have been prepared to address the traffic impacts of the Dorset Street Widening and City Center development. The first was prepared by JHK & Associates of Alexandria, Virginia in May, 1988. This report looked at the traffic impacts of the City Center development out to the years 1997 and 2002. Using standard site assessment techniques, it concluded that even with improvements, certain intersections would be at level -of -service "E" or "F" with the build -out of the project. The second report was prepared by Resource Systems Group, of Norwich Vermont, in April, 1991. This report analyzed the City Center development using the recently prepared Chittenden County Regional Transportation Demand Model. The model was a subarea -calibrated computer simulation of traffic flows in the region. The results of the analyses showed that under varied sets of Interchange improvements, the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road would have a level -of -service of "D" to "E" by the year 2000, and the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive would have a level -of - service between "B" and "D". These levels -of -service are significantly better than those published by JHK. Tom Adler and Craig Leiner, in a paper to the Institute for Transportation Engineers, explains the difference: "As demonstrated by the City Center analyses, differences in trip assignment and distribution procedures can substantially affect the findings of traffic impact studies. The largest differences in most cases are likely to be in trip assignments. Manual assignment techniques which do not reflect the diversion of both development and background traffic away from congested areas will generally overstate impacts in congested areas and understate impacts in other locations."1 Given that the procedures used to estimate traffic, or "turning movement" volumes for projected land uses in the April, 1991 Resource Systems Group report were considerably more sophisticated and up-to-date than the May 1988 JHK report, the April 1991 report will be used as the basis for all estimating and projecting traffic volumes. The April 1991 report identifies the turning movement volumes for the four signalized intersections along the Dorset Street corridor, which are: A Dorset Street and Williston Road 1 "Traffic Effects of Creating a City Center in a Suburban Community", Thomas Adler & Craig Leiner, from Institute of Transportation Engineers Compendium of Technical Papers, page 145, September, 1991. DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10,1993 Page 4 A Dorset Street and University Mall (North) and Corporate Way A Dorset Street and University Mall (South) A Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive The Act 250 permit also specifies the possible signalization of the intersections of Dorset Street with Dorset Square Mall and San Remo Drive South. However, it is not expected that these intersections will have a level - of -service of "D" or worse given future development, and thus will not be considered in this analysis. For future conditions, the April,1991 report forecasts turning movements for seven different scenarios. these were: A 1995 no -build A 1995 build A 2000 no -build A 2000 build A 2000 build with a partial re -construction of the exit 13 interchange A 2000 build with a full re -construction of the exit 13 interchange A 2000 build with the construction of an interchange at Hinesburg Road (Exit 12A) According to officials familiar with the latter three interchange reconstructions, the first of these (partial re -construction of the northbound ramp of the exit 13 interchange) is most likely to be completed within the next ten years. Therefore, we used traffic volumes for the following scenarios: A 1993 no -build (with Dorset St widening) A 2000 no -build (with Dorset St widening) A 2000 build with partial re -construction of the exit 13 interchange, and Corporate Way extended to Hinesburg Road. DESIGN HOUR LEVEL -OF -SERVICE ANALYSES The task of performing design -hour level of service analyses has already been conducted in the April 1991 study. Table 1 shows the results: RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10,1993 Page 5 Table 1: Design Hour Levels of Service for the Analysis Scenarios 2000 Build w/ Intersection 1989 No Build 2000 No Build Improvements Williston Road B E E U Mall North B B B U Mall South B C D Kennedy D D D i�i7fl&**I;Eel fi0119:ritw* I cim K Intersections with level of service with "D" or worse in any of the analysis years would be required to undergo further analysis. Table 1 identifies three intersections which qualify as "hot -spots". These are the intersections of Dorset Street with Williston Road, University Mall South, and Kennedy Drive. AIR QUALITY MODELING RUNS There are two different carbon monoxide standards, a one -hour concentration, and an eight -hour concentration. Therefore, two traffic scenarios must be modeled, so that CO concentrations can be predicted over each averaging period. Carbon monoxide emitted from vehicles is higher in cold temperatures, so the worst -case scenarios to be modeled are the highest traffic volumes projected to occur during the winter, both hourly and over eight consecutive hours. These scenarios are referred to respectively as the one highest hour (1HH) and the eight highest consecutive hours (8HCH). Generally, these volumes both tend to occur during the pre -Christmas shopping season, which is documented by data collected at permanent counting stations operated by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. ANALYSIS TURNING MOVEMENTS The time periods modeled are the one highest hour (1HH) and the eight highest consecutive hours of the year (8HCH). To be consistent with the April 1991 report, these volumes are estimated using the Chittenden County transportation demand model as shown in Figures 1 through 6 and described above. The 1993 no -build volumes were estimated by factoring up the 1989 volumes proportionately based on the growth of each turning movement between 1989 and 2000. For example, if, in 1989 a turning movement had 89 Holiday Inn Williston Road Mall University Mall South 1S RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP LO Nf- 24 J L 1,460 307 307 51 — 1 1,356-1,014'� 'TrIF CD M CJ Figure 1: One Highest Hour -1993 No Development y Corporate Way o v � T M T (O T L— 16 J L -, 240 1 � r 310—j i N CO M CO 294 J L 449 r— 167 Kennedy / r DrivCD 1 QD161 • N N LO y GJ w North Not to Scale Holiday Inn RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP �- 22 J L 1,526 Williston Road �� 271 53 1 F 1,417— 1,021� i^T � M Figure 2: One Highest Hour - 2000 No Development (� Corporate Way Mall M o0 to v r ti 00 JL ' 1 9 University Mall South B i 193 Dealership —, 0 1F 273 � T N CO c�CM L_ 263 J L 511 214 Kennedy F Drive 1 �9 55ZA� cn N rn w North in Not to Scale 9� 4 1, l Holiday Inn RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP N 1— L— 21 L 1,483 Williston Road r� 285 53 r 1,377 — IF 1,105^M O M T Figure 3: One Highest Hour - 2000 Build W Fr d (� Corporate Way Mall T N O N 14 J L -1 1 University Mall South 288 —� F o281 m00 N co M N 174 J L r 614 1 — 184 Kennedy F Driv N T Ol in North Not to Scale Holiday Inn Williston Road Mall University Mall South RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP o v �— 24 I L 1,274 398 _J r— 398 38 —' 1 1,189-- 975 --1 ti ti co co 'T Figure 4: Eight Highest Hours -1993 No Development v v in Cg Corporate Way v ao o rn v �--17 J L —1 r---1 257 F � 324 —"") �c N �t � NOC�,o 244 J L 309 142 I I F 1�6 20�- CD CD Cn v v T T d Dealership Kennedy Drive North Not to Scale Holiday Inn RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP N Cn 22 1,350 Williston Road 382 40 IF 1,259 1,097 �� Cn ^ c rn v v v it Figure 5: Eight Highest Hours - 2000 No Development f� Corporate Way Mall v cC rn rn ch T LLB r �16 J L --1 University Mall South 244 _J 1 314 - I C,, CO LO CV LO r co T T N J251 L 343 r— 158 Kennedy Drive 1-.96j9� 323 CD to T T a North cn Not to Scale v Holiday Inn 24 I L 1,376 Williston Road 384 39 _J 1,283 —11 F 998 —, LO CO T c v in University Mall South vs RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Figure 6: Eight Highest Hours - 2000 Build (� Corporate Way N G'7 T N Q N CD T �— 17 J I L 1 r-1 268 —, r 3081 I to co m r�- N U.) to Cn r N N L_ 191 J L 396 �- 152 Dealership Kennedy Drive North Not to Scale DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, Novembei vehicles per hour (vph), and in 2000 it had 100 vph, the 1993 volume would c vph. The 1HH is estimated by adjusting the design hour of traffic, which is th 30th highest hour of the year, to the highest hour occurring during the winter, using historical data from the Vermont Agency of Transportation's permanent counting station D2 on Shelburne Road. Other nearby stations are on the Interstate, and these stations generally follows the same patterns as Williston Road. The travel patterns and behavior during the eight highest hours of the day can be estimated from the Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model. The 8HCH volume are estimated using runs of the model for each hour between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM, which represent the hours of the day during which the 8HCH consistently occur, and averaging the resulting hourly volumes. Once traffic volumes from the Travel Demand Model are obtained, they are converted into turning movements using the PIVOT/FRATAR method. Pivoting is a method whereby network -based traffic volumes are adjusted for model calibration error. The method utilized in this report takes each intersection approach and applies the following formula: Approach Vol = Network Model Vol + Ground Count - Network Calibration Vol The baseline turning movement volumes have been generated from VAOT and RSG counts that were recently conducted in this area (Appendix A). Frataring is a method to convert pivoted approach volumes to turning movement volumes using a iterative adjustment procedure. The PIVOT/FRATAR worksheets are shown in Appendix B). INTERSECTION GEOMETRY To conduct air quality modeling at an intersection, certain details of each intersection must be determined: A Lane geometry A Signal timing A Signal phasing A Locations of stop lines A Signal actuation type These parameters will be determined from plans of the intersection, which RESOURCE show the road improvements that will take place as part of this project. Scaled SYSTEMS drawings of each intersection are attached as Figure 7, 8, and 9. GROUP a ill 0 z ED OFA Dorset St r CDz 0 Dorset Street ED ® DORSET STREET AIR QUALITY STUDY Dorset Street and University Mall South Link and Receptor Locations RESOURCE ® SYSTEMS GROUP 0 5 10 meters INC. Norwich, Vermonr 0 10 20 feet Figure 8 Dorset St C5--7- J Z M. Dorset St DORSET STREET AIR QUALITY STUDY Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive ® Link and Receptor locations RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP 0 5 10 meters INC. No�wich, Vermon[ 0 10 20 feet Figure 44 0 Weston Road 6109,11 0NLI I 0t' o Wilistton Road J z 0 r�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rr J Z 0 DORSET STREET AIR DUALITY STUDY Dorset Street and Williston Road Link and Receptor Locations RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP 0 5 10 meters INC. 0 10 20 feet Norwich, Vermonc ngure-7 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10, 1993 Page 7 EMISSION RATES Air pollutant emissions vary considerable with the model year and types of vehicles, the outdoor (ambient) temperature, and whether a vehicle has been running long enough to be warmed up. The EPA has prepared computer models, MOBILE 5a and MOBILE 4.1, which predicts the average CO emissions from vehicles, based on information about the mixture of vehicle types and model year, outdoor temperature, scenario year, and speed of travel. MOBILE5a is used to estimate running emissions, while MOBILE4.1 is used to estimate idling emissions, as per current U.S. EPA guidance. At each intersection, the ANR default assumptions, were used to compute vehicle emission rates. These include: a) 20 percent cold-start/27 percent hot -start for eight hour analysis. b) 50 percent cold-start/10 percent hot -start for peak hour analysis. c) 50 percent cold -start, 50 percent hot -start for shopping mall exits for all time periods. d) 20°F temperature The MOBILE runs were performed for the years 1993 and 2000. In addition, runs for the year 2000 were made assuming that the proposed Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) and Anti -Tampering (ATP) programs for Chittenden County are put into affect. These program is described in detail in the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), "Air Pollution Control in Vermont; Recommendation for Rules: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for Chittenden County (September 1,1993)." The parameters specified in this document are described in Table 2 and detailed in Appendix C: TABLE 2: MOBILE input parameters for I/M and ATP programs Reid Vapor Pressure 11.5 Temperature 20OF Oxygenated Fuels No ox -fuels. Anti -tampering Start year: 1995 program First Model Year: 1975 Last Model Year: 2020 Vehicle Types: LDGV, LDGT 1 Frequency of Inspection: Biennial Compliance Rate: 96% Inspections Performed: Pressure and Purge only 401 1 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10, 1993 Page 8 Vehicle Speeds 5 mph below speed limit for approach links and speed limit for reverse approach links. VMT mix ANR default winter mix: LDGV: 81.1% LDGT1: 14.4% LDGT2: 1.3% HDGV: 2.3% LDDV: 0.0% LDDT: 0.0% HDDV: 0.9% MC: 0.0% Annual Mileage MOBILE defaults. Accumulation Inspection The following or equivalent for 1995 and beyond: Maintenance Program Stringency: 20% Waiver Rate: 3% Compliance Rate: 96% Program Type: Test Only Inspection Frequency: Biennial Subject to Inspection: LDGV, LDGT1 For 1975 and newer vehicles: Test Type: Transient (IM240) Cu oints: 0.8 HC,15.0 CO, 2.0 NOx Reformulated Gas None Region Low altitude (500 feet) Operating Mode 20/27/20 for 8-hour on all public roads 50/50/50 for all periods for mall exits 50/10/50 for peak hour on all public roads AIR POLLUTANT DISPERSION MODELING Dispersion modeling for CO follows the guidelines set forth from U.S. EPA in their "Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections," (November,1992) and ANR guidelines and regulations. These guidelines recommend the use of EPA's CAL3QHC to model dispersion of pollutants from an intersection. CAL3QHC uses information about intersection geometry, traffic volumes, and vehicle emissions along with the physics of dispersion of pollutants in the air, to forecast CO concentrations at receptors located along the roads or approaches at an intersection. The model calculates the concentrations of CO bI, RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10, 1993 Page 9 resulting from the vehicle emissions only. The Vermont ANR recommends that these concentrations be added to background concentrations of CO, to more accurately represent total CO concentrations. The CAL3QHC modeling parameters are summarized in Table 3: TABLE 3: CAL3QHC modeling parameters Wind Speed 1 m/s Wind Directions 36 X 10° increments -Stability Class D 8-hr Persistence Factor Not used Surface Roughness 175 cm at Dorset St/Kennedy & Dorset/Mall 321 cm at Dorset St/Williston Ave Settling Velocity Om/s Deposition Velocity Om/s Mixing Height 868 m Averaging Time 60 min Background Concentration 3 ppm for 1-hour and 1.5 ppm for 8-hour Intersection Geometry From field survey Traffic Volume From model output Emission Rate From MOBILE5a and MOBILE4.1 Source Height Om Mixing Zone For queuing lanes, set equal to lane width. For free -flow links, set equal to lane width plus 3 m on each side. Receptor Locations At 10 meters from the middle of the closest travel lane at head, 50 m and 200 m from head. Link Type Descriptor At- rade RESULTS Tables 4 through 7 shows the results of the CO modeling at each intersection. These results can be compared with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO of 35 parts per million (ppm) for one hour, 9 ppm for eight hours. Detailed nun listings are shown in Appendix D. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10, 1993 Page 10 Table 4: CO Modeling Results for the Eight Highest Consecutive Hours (ppm) Scenario 11993 No Build 2000 No Build 12000 Build Dorset St/Williston Road 10.3 9.3 9.1 Dorset St/University Mall 8.1 7.8 8.2 Dorset St/Kennedy Drive 7.6 7.0 7.1 NAAQS 9.0 9.0 9.0 Table 5: CO Modeling Results for the Eight Highest Consecutive Hours (ppm) with I/M and ATP programs Scenario 11993 No Buildl 12000 No Build 12000 Build Dorset St/Williston Road n/a 7.2 7.0 Dorset St/University Mall n/a 6.0 6.4 Dorset St/Kennedy Drive n/a 5.6 5.6 NAAQS 9.0 9.0 9.0 Table 6: CO Modeling Results for Winter Peak Hour (ppm) Scenario 1993 No Build 2000 No Build 2000 Build Dorset St/Williston Road 17.3 14.8 14.8 Dorset St/University Mall 15.0 13.9 15.1 Dorset St/Kennedy Drive 10.4 9.4 9.8 NAAQS 35.0 35.0 35.0 Table 7: CO Modeling Results for Winter Peak Hour (ppm) with I/M and ATP programs Scenario 11993 No Buildl 12000 No Build 12000 Build Dorset St/Williston Road n/a 12.2 12.3 Dorset St/University Mall n/a 11.6 12.5 Dorset St/Keened Drive n/a 8.0 8.4 NAAQS 35.0 35.0 35.0 As is shown in the above Tables, violations of the NAAQS are demonstrated at Dorset St/Williston Avenue for the eight highest consecutive hours for the 1993 and 2000 no build and build scenarios. However, with the City Center development and associated improvements and additional development region -wide, CO concentrations decrease from 9.3 to 9.1 from the no -build to build scenarios. 1 I/M and ATP programs are not due to become effective until 1995. 2 I/M and ATP programs are not due to become effective until 1995. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10, 1993 Page 11 With the I/M and ATP programs in place, CO concentrations also significantly improve. Eight -hour build concentrations decrease by 23% from 9.1 ppm to 7.0 ppm, for example; a significant improvement in air quality. No violations at any other intersection or any other time period are demonstrated. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Computer modeling to forecast CO concentrations due to road improvements and development along Dorset Street was performed at three intersections in South Burlington. Modeled violations of the eight -hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were found at the intersection of Dorset St/Williston Ave. when the effects of the proposed Chittenden County Inspection Maintenance and Anti -Tampering program were not taken into account. Despite the fact that violations were found, the "build" concentrations were lower than the "no -build" concentrations. Therefore, the development under consideration does not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, as defined by the U.S. EPA and ANR. Under these regulations, sources which are to be permitted in a non -attainment area must show that they do not cause or contribute to violations. Since the existing concentrations are shown to be above the NAAQS, the intersection of Dorset St/Williston Ave. is in modeled non - attainment. However, due to improvements in the road network expected to take place by 2000, such as the partial re -construction of the Exit 13 interchange and Corporate Way extended to Hinesberg Rd., traffic patterns in the area will change such as to improve air quality at the Dorset St/Williston Ave. intersection. The second program that eliminates violations at the intersection is the proposed Inspection Maintenance (I/M) and Anti -Tampering programs (ATP) proposed by the ANR. This program would subject gasoline cars and light trucks to biennial inspections of their emission control systems. Vehicles would be put onto treadmills and tested for CO, hydrocarbon, and oxides of nitrogen emissions. Vehicles that fail the tests would require repairs of any component that contributed to the failure of the test. This program is currently before the Vermont legislature and is expected to be put into place by 1995. In summary, there are three factors that improve air quality at the Dorset St./Williston Ave. intersection even with continued development along Dorset Street. These include: A Partial reconstruction of the Exit 13 interchange. A Extension of Corporate Way to Hinesburg Rd. A Implementation of the proposed I/M & ATP programs. .` DRAFT DORSET STREET AIR STUDY, November 10, 1993 Page 12 If the I/M & ATP programs are not put into place, the above road improvements are sufficient to guarantee that the future development, both region -wide and along Dorset Street, will not cause or contribute to a violation at the Dorset St./Williston Rd. intersection, although these will not eliminate the violation. Furthermore, the I/M & ATP programs are alone sufficient to guarantee that the development region -wide and along Dorset Street will not cause or contribute to a violation at the Dorset St./Williston Rd. intersection, and that no modeled violations of the CO standard will occur at any of the intersections along Dorset St. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP 3 ex t r L, P, t) C- r Lo R o, f. NO Du- &Ar�p J E-,Rt-r No Ont-RAn� Wl T'Vk 0 r% (I 5 Z J3 -To —it �L6 0 -If c Ljo -• 71.,j 5C-C- 217 oice- 3(c- L4- LSZL 3.4 - 45d e. T-H see-P 5c. 4- see. .6 117 — 1 F 6 t-- ij se LT Ll- 4 se— 43 + )),A -4&-. 43 1 ff�mv_,o 4 at U- 14 17- lt./s -T71 AZ CID —0 -JF ZY tot, P. v- A T-4 lz - {"' A _ I"td�f"" F: Yr-- & I N C 07,t--.qJ(0 A t-er-1 .o6 r• O [ IA 7J 1,J . —V+ Tarr -- Z-- L-st t- L n u ed �,j Fi6 A-7-1 - dF --I(= - S�UE�- _f^�oUfc�-� 5feo.P1 ri-io�Flto f -1�-0 s';u-16- i07 l�-II1 z, Las =J)t A'�O LOS - F -- ------------------- -- ---- -- - - - - -- --- ------ - --- - CbW_r-�6� f=,o +O►�l A LgNC- _ G U � - i- � 6... fZ A T�`1r- l�-b - O �+ (`� _ � � •>-(c j J �T--A �-T � L I r- �1 r• !`I^ A I 1 - - �►{ST- I� ?P6 CHI- LI Gc1�J I tl� G �U �) Ql l OJlsl� c E,.__,A P-(o-� 3 4 /0vCrLA6F- .OFl.�`] _ plc2- (VC-H tc (0- IWCAt-;,o.Je--7 (-At3., -r 4-6.q sfC. tit- Iwcrtsp�l� �. Au�,�Gr• Or-l-) iier l - 966 0>, 11, -T-4 t vji,E/- �iP�� 7jf SG� al��a) J DST UF(gYf Iv�tt�E-�o1(• �02 £�r�y Z ►�av£r^ �U STa� y (- L O.S = � S hovry- cmAu(I<4 Lis-.3) to Lvs = E— S L^- 6— /2, �A,.16- CIONF15u2�'�c��/1� LroJ.lu - Cv►.- f--rc�R,ol i1c'�i. 1't�ls Gsac (-T. r►jc,2�-a�rt� ivFi•oy1 -�-�-r— -r�� v� t2E�� ,— �►^-� Gd��' �`t��c i �c7r�► r��= "�►� a ti- �o►^�� -' -1 t- - E o��O_ d F_ C TI N b o Y J. 'rAvC1�' �-tr-.Pios vr2,c; ��1T1 DORSET STREET/UMAL.L. NORTH INTERSECTION YEAR 20G0 WITH CORPORATE WAYS 3 eX1T S PM PEAK HOUR SIGNALS5/TEAPAC - Capacity Analysis Summary - Educational Use Only 02/08/93 17:14: 57 INTERSECTION AVERAGES: DEGREE OF SATURATION . 84 VEHICULAR DELAY 40.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE E-i- SEQUENCE 23 1 PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2 1 PHASE 3 1 PHASE 4 1 + + + 1 A + iF : + + iF} : + +} i i E-1F: V V A A : 1 V 1 1; +++4- l i t tom- 1 ' v V 1 G/C= .092 ; 6/C= _318 1 G/C= .080 : G/C= .358 1 1 G= 9.6 " 1 G= 33.4 " : G= $.4 " 1 G= 37.6 " Y= 4.0 " Y= 4.0 " 1 Y= 4.0 " : Y= 4.0 " C=105 SEC G= 89.0 SEC = 84.8% Y=16.0 SEC = 15.2% PED= .0 SEC = _ O LANE !WIDTH/; G/C 1 SERVICE RATE! ADj L 1 MAXIMUM! 1 GROUP : LANES: REED USED : C (VPH) E :VOLUME; DELAY : S : QUEUE N APPROACH 21.5 C --_------ _-- --- _ - ------ - ._.__------------ ------ 1 TH ; .�J2 ; .24 1 .45 ; I�4t7 1 Ib 6lE3 I4.8 ; B ; 27� 1= 1- ; LT 1 11/1+1 .19 .09 1 74 1 212 : 208 : 56.5 :*E : 278 FT 1 E APPROACH 42.9 E+ TH+RTI 12/1.1 .43 : .36 457 : 632 1 631 1 52.9 '*E 1 590 FT ' LT 12/1+; .32 1 .36 : 367 1 519 : 300 21.9 : C : 280 FT 1 S APPROAC14 52.0 E TH+RT I 22/2 : .37 1 .52 1 945 1 1119 1 1158 1 52.0 :*E : 531 FT W APPROACH 4S.6 E{- ...� 1 TH+RT : 1211 1 .23 : . 48 1 733 : 850 1 9S : 11. 6 : 8 1 75 E=T LT 24/2+ 1 .24 1 .08 1 : 253 1 4.�1 1 56.4 :*E : 166 FT 1 DORSET STREET/UMALL NORTH INTERSECTION 02/08/93 YEAR 2000 WITH CORPORATE WAY 17:14:07 PM PEAK NOM SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - HCM Capacity Analysis Worksheet -- Educational Use On!v A¢ Lane Adi Ad.i Flow Green Lane Vol Crit pr Group Flow Satfl Ratio Ratio Group Ratio Lane ch Mvts Rate Rate V/S S/C Capac V/C Grp -- -- Yoh vohg - - vph - - N- TH 678 3677 .18 .45 1646 .41 N- LT 135* 1747 _08 _09 160 .85 E- TH+RT 631 1762 _36 .36 632 1.00 E- LT 300 1448 .21 .36 519 .58 S- T14+RT 1158 3518 .3a _32 1118 1.04 W- TH+RT 98 1784 .05 _48 849 .12 W- LT 246 3456 .07 .08 275 .89 Cycle Length, C 105 sec Sum(v/s) = .84 Lost Time Per Cycle. L 8.0 sec XC: = .90 SIBNAL85/TEAPAC - HCM Level -of -Service Worksheet -- Educational Use Only Ap Lane Vol Green Cyc Lane Proo Lane Lan pr Group Ratio Ratio Len Delay Group Delay Fact Group Grp Appr Appr ch Mvts V/C E/C C D3 Capac D2 PF Delay LOS Delay LOS - -- -- -- sec sec/v vph sec/v -- ser/v - sec/v - N- TH .41 .45 105 14.9 1646 .10 .72) 10.8 F N- LT .85 .09 i05 35.7 160 21.70 _90 56.5 E -- _ ------- ------------ > 21 _ 5 C E- TH+RT 1.00 .36 105 25.6 67>2 27.30 1.00 52_9 r E- LT .58 .36 105 20.7 519 1.19 i..00 21.9 C 42.9 E+ S- TH+RT 1.04 .32 105 27.7 1118 30.08 .90 52.0 E ------------ ----_ ----- - ----- -> 52 _ 0 E W- TH+RT .12 .48 105 11.6 849 .00 1.00 11_6 H W_ LT _89 _08 105 36.4 275 19.97 1.00 56.4 E - ----------------------------- ---- 43.6 E+ 1NT TOTAL .84 --------- ---" _- _._._ _ _ _ ___ - > 40.4 E-'- 0 DORSET STREET/UMALL NORTH INTERSECTION YEAR 2000 WITH CORPORATE WAYS Z EX 1 T- �� S PM PEAK HOUR SIGNALBS/TcAPAC - Caoacity Analysis Summary - Educational L6e Only 02/09/93 14:'59: 23 INTERSECTION AVERAGES: DEGREE OF SATURATION .85 VEHICULAR DELAY 56.3 LEVEL OF SEIV ICE E SEQUENCE 23 : PHASE 1 PHASE 2 + ; + + + �- aF> ; + V V ' A 1 B/C= .112 1 G/C= -311 G= 13.5 " : G= 3.7.3 Y= 4.0 " : Y= 4.0 " PHASE 3 : PHASE 4 : A *-*** : V +4-++> V G/C= .106 1 G/C= .338 ; 1 G= 12.7 : G= 40.5 " Y= 4. 0 .. Y= 4-0 " ; C=120 SEC G--104.0 SEC = 86. 7 % Y= 16. 0 SEC = 2 3. ir. PED = _ O SEC = . 0% 1 LANE .WIDTH/1 G/C 1 SERVICE RATE: ADJ 1 1 L 1 MAXIMUM : GROUP : LANES. REQD USED 1 C (VPH) E 1 VOLUME : DELAY : S : QUEUE 1 N APPROACH 35.1 D TH : 22/2 : .26 : .46 1 1532 1 1679 1 678 1 12.0 : B : 310 FT LT 1 11/1+1 .26 1 .11 1 1 : 170 : 209 1 110.7 1*F 1 310 FT 1 E APPROACH 61.9 F 1 TH+RT : 12/ 1 1 .45 : .34 : 313 1 596 1 r:,31 1 77.5 :*F : 696 FT : LT 1 12/1+1 _37 1 .34 1 225 : 434 : 7-00 1 29.0 1 D+1 331 FT 1 S APPROACH 65.7 F TH+RT1 22/2 1 .38 1 .31 1 846 : 1093 : 1138 1 63.7 1*F 1 671 FT 1 W APPROACH 70.e F _--- =====- ----- - r-------------- ---- TH+RT1 12/1 1 .29 : .41 711 1 866 : 144 1 13.6 1 B 1 126 F'T 1 1 LT i2/i+1 .31 1 .11 1 1 : 161 : 200 1i2_1 ►*F : 300 FT 1 D13RSET STREEf1UMALL NORTH INTERSECTION YEAR 2000 WITH CORPORATE WAY PM PEAK HOUR 02/09/95 14: 58= ; 3 SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - HCM Caoacitv Analvsis Worksheett- Educational Use Qn1v An Lane Ada Adi Flow Green Lane Vol Cvit or Group Flow Satf 1 Ratio Ratio Grouo Rafi i o Lane ch Mvts Rate Rate V!5 C/C Capac V/C Grp -- -- voh voha --- - vph --- - N- TH 678 3677 .18 .46 1678 .40 N- LT 20e 1747 .12 .11 196 1.06 E- TH+RT 631 1762 .36 .34 595 1.06 +E E- LT 300 1299 .23 .34 439 .69 ----------------------------- S- TH+RT 1158 3318 .33 -31 1093 1.06 W- TH+RT 144 1814 ------------- .08 .48 865 _17 W- LT 200 1785 .11 .11 189 1.06 Cvcla Langth, C 120 sec Sum(v!s) = .92 Lost Time Per Cvcle. L B_O sec Xc = .98 SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - HCM Level -of -Service Worksneet - Educational Use Only Ao Lane Vol Green Cvc Lane Pro4 Lane Lan Pr GrouD Ratio Ratio Len Delay Group Delay Fact Gro= Grp Appr Actor ch Mvts V/C G/C C D1 Capac D2 PF Del.av }OS Delav LOS -- -- -- - sec sec/v vah sec/v -- sec/v - sec/v - N- TH .40 .46 120 16.5 1678 .09 .72 12.0 B N- LT 1.06 .11 120 40.8 196 69.68 1_00 110.7 F - ----------- ---_--------------------> 35.1 D E- TH+RT 1.06 _34 120 31.1 595 46.38 1.00 77.5 F E- LT .68 .34 120 26.0 439 3.00 1.00 129.0 D+ 61 _ 9 F S- TH+RT 1.06 .31 120 32.3 1093 38.44 _90 6.3.7 F W- TH+RT .17 .48 120 13.5 665 .01 1.00 13.6 9 W- LT 1.06 _11 120 41.1 189 70- 96 1_00 112.1 F ----------------------=)--------------- -- ? 70.6 F INT TOTAL .85 - 56_ 3 E D©RSET STREET/UMALL NORTH INTERSECTION YEAR 2000 WITH CQRPORATE WAY & NB ON RAMP � 3 �X t "� L-A N a-S PM PEAK HOUR SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - C.aoacit�e Analvsis Summary - Educational Use Only INTERSECTION AVERAGES: DEGREE OF SATURATION SEQUENCE 23 02/08/93 19s41249 .79 VEHICULAR DELAY 31.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE D+ PHASE 1: PHASE 2: PHASE 3 1 PHASE 4 1 + + + + + *> : + V : V : A : 4.iii A : ,E : 4 i *> : + r-t +} : ++{-+> yE : ++++ ; V V 6/C= .138 1 GIC= .278 : B/C= .0B8 1 G/C= .318 1 : G= 12.4 G= 25_1 1 G= 7.9 : G= 28.7 : i Y= 4.0 : Y= 4.0 " : Y= 4.0 : Y= 4.0 C= 90 SEC G= 74.0 SEC = 82.2% Y 16.0 SEC = 17.67. PED= .0 SEC = _0% --------------- : LANE-! :WIDTH/: G/C : SERVICE RATE.- ADJ : : L MAXIMUM: : GROUP : LANES! REDDD USED : C (VPH) E ; VOL UME : DLLAY i S : QUEUE : N APPROACH 15.8 C+ TN 22/2 1 .22 : .46 1 1631 : 1694 : 679 9.a : S+; 231 PTi LT : 11/1+i .18 : .14 : 126 : 22B 194 1 40.0 :*D 1 211 FT : E APPROACH 38_& D 714+RT: 12/1 ; .37 ; .32 : 432 1 570 4 5-.-55 : 40.0 :*fir : 455 FT : LT 12/1+1 _36 : .32 : 338 1 458 1 412 36.9 : D 350 FT A S APPROACH 4-0.0 D ._--TH+RT:J22/2 1 �.31 ; .2B i S51 i 979 ; 969 1 40.0 1*1) 1 440 FT 1 W APPROACH 30.6 D-d- TH+RT; 12/1 t _ 1B 1 .Akn : Ilat i osv I i1" & L L.%J . " . . . . . . LT 24/2+: . 18 : _ 09 : i : 299 1 241 1 40.0 ?*D 1 138 FT 1 DORSET STREET/UMALL NORTH INTERSECTION YEAR 2000 WITH CORPORATE WAY & N® ON RAMP PM PEAK HOUR SIGNAL85/TEAPAC - HCM Capacity Analysis Worksheet - Educational a An Lane Adi Adj Flow Green Lane Vol Crit Fr Group Fiow Satfl Ratio Ratio Group Ratio Lame ch Mvts Rate Rate V/S G/C Capac V/C Grp -- -- vph vphg voh - - N- TH 679 3677 .is .43 1585 .43 N_ LT 194 1747 .11 .12 216 _90 E- TH+RT 5M 1787 .30 .32 S77 _ 93 E- LT 412 1304 .32 .32 421 .98 S- TH+RT 969 3514 .28 .27 939 1.03 W_ TH{-RT 154 1818 .08 .49 889 .17 W- LT 202 1-785 - .11 - .13 225 .90 Cycle Length. C 100 sec Sum(y/s) = .92 Lost Time Per Cycle, L 8.0 sac Xc = _89 02108193 19:53:00 Use Only SIGNALSS/TEAPAC - HCM Level -of -Service Workshe4c - Educational Use Only AD Lane Vol Green Cyc Lane Prog Lane Lan Pr Group Ratio Ratio Len Delay Group Delay Fact Group Grp Appr Appr ch Mvts V/C G/C C D1 Capac D2 PF Delay LOS Delay LOS --_ _- - -- sec sec/v vph sec/v -- sec/v - sec/v - 100 15.1 1585 .12 .72 11.0 B N- TH .43 .43 N- LT .90 .12 100 32.B 216 24.15 _99 56.4 E ------- - -------- -- ----------------------- > E- TH-+RT .93 .32 100 24.9 577 15.32 1.00 40.2 E-i- E- LT .98 .32 100 25.5 421 28.47 1.00 _9 E S- TH+RT 1.03 .27 100 2B.2 939 31.18 .90 53.4 E W_ TH+RT .17 .49 100 10.8 869 .01 1.00 10.9 B W- LT .90 .13 100 32.7 225 23.73 1.00 56.5 E ------------------- ---------_---_ INT TOTAL' .82 > 21.0 C 46.2 E-f- a.4 E 36.7 D 40.4 E+ 0 DORSET STREET/UMALL NORTH INTERSECTION 02/GB/93 YEAR 2000 WITH CORPORATE WAY & NB ON RAMP � Z Cx jT L.4445S 19:53:50 PM PEAK HERJR SibNAL65/TEAPAC - Capacity Analvsis Summary - Educational Use Only r INTERSECTION AVERAGES: DEGREE OF SATURATION .92 VEHICULAR. DELAY 40.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE E+ SEQUENCE 237 1 PHASE 1 1 PHASE 2: PHASE 3: PHASE 4 + ; + ; A + + + > + <++++; V V : A: A ; v *>; i i > : ++++> - + t V V 1 G/C= .124 ; G/C= _267 1 6/C- .126 1 G/C- .323 1 G= 12.4 " 1 G= 26.7 " 1 G- 12.6 " G= 32.3 " Y= 4.0 " : Y= 4. 0 ' : Y= 4.0 " : Y= 4.0 " C=100 SEC G='84.0 SEC = 84_O% Y=16.0 SEC = 16.07 PED= _O SEC = .0% LANE ;WIDTH/; G/C 1 SERVICE RATE: ADJ 1 ; L 1 MAXIMUM! GROUP : LANES: REG,LD USED 1 C (VPH) E 1 VOLU-iE; .DELAY : S : QUEUE : N APPROACH 21.0 C ------------ == - - ems" - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - TH : 22/2 : .23 1 .43 1 1484 1585 : 679 1 11_0 : B 1 270 FT LT 1111+; .20 ; .12 1 1 : 199 : 194 : 56.4 1*E ; 238 FT E APPROACH 46.2 E-4- TH+RT 1 1211 ; . 3B ; . S2 ; 44Z ; :3/ti =PJ,`] i 44. Z ; h-E-; *U.7 f T ; LT : 12/1+1 .40 ; .32 : EIC2 ; 422 ; 412 53_9 E ; 387 FT S APPROACH 53.4 E - ----- ----- -_-__ TH+RT: 2212 : .32 1 .27 1 769 939 : 969 5._ 4 : *E : 497 FT 1 W APPROACH 36.7 D ---------------- TH+RT1 12/1 1 .23 1 .49 ; 787 1 890 1 154 ; 10.9 : S : 110 FT ; LT ; 12/1+1 .24 1 .13 1, 1 1 207 1 202 1 56.5 !*E 1 246 FT ; DORSET STREET/UMALL NORTH INTERSECTION 02/08/93 YEAR 2000 WITH CORPORATE WAY & NB ON RAMP 19.40:59 PM PEAK HOUR SIGNALS51TEAPAC y HC.M Capacity Analvsis Worksheet - Educational Use Oniv An Lane Adi Adi Flow Green Lane Vol Crit pr Group Flow Satfl Ratio Ratio Group Ratio Lane Ch Mvts Rate Rate V/S G/C Capac V/C Grp - - vph voho -- - vph - - N- TH 679 3677 .18 .46 1694 .40 N- LT 194 1747 .11 .14 241 .61 E- TH+RT 535 1787 .30 .32 569 .94 E- LT 412 1437 .29 .32 457 .90 S- TH+RT 969 3514 .28 .28 979 .99 W- TH+RT 115 1798 .06.,- .45 810 .14 W- LT 241 3456 .07 .09 303 .80 Cvcl a Lanoth . C 90 sec Sum (v/s) = .76 ' Lost Time Per Cycle, L 8.0 sec Kc = .83 SIGNAL851TEAPAC - HCM Level-o+-Service Worksheet - Educational Use Only Ao Lane Vol Green Cyc Lane Prog Lane Lan or Group Ratio Ratio Len Delay Group Delay Fact Group Grp Apor- Appr ch Mvts V/G G/C C D1 Capac D2 PF Delay LOS Delay LOS - - - sac sec/v vph seG/v 5BC/v - sec/v - ---- ----------- N- TH .40 .46 90 12.2 1694 .09 .72 8.8 B+ N- LT .81 .14 90 28.6 241 12.17 .98 40.0 D -- ------- -- -- - -- ----> 15.8 Ca- E- TH-FRT .94 .32 90 22.7 569 17.29 1.00 40.0 D E- LT -90 .32 90 22.3 457 14.59 1.00 36.9 D -------- - > 38.6 D -- -------- -- S- TH+RT .99 .28 90 24.6 979 20.00 .90 4-0.0 D _ -------- -- - _--____> 40. 40. 0 D W- TH+RT .14 .45 90 il.0 810 .01 1.00 11.0 B W- LT _80 .09 90 30.6 303 9.37 1.00 40.0 D --�...------------------ INT TOTAL .79 ------ - -- ------- -> 31.8 D+ — Soy ��.bov►�� '�� - -rvrn s corQ_ Un op-POSpd CA . Ti trtGS Qr 2 r��t I4, V e :� � ci via t.� S i c . T i�iG%' • n -0t �rJ a V i,,.��r� Su��Yac,+4d +�� rvt ,<�a C; alh - v r n G n 5 C{ ia�� Tti: s•nS o rodOT "' 1'Y1'► t� `� my m �,rr�.�, �-< <�. ,� . VSP.o +� �, r� � ��_ � r 4rv, Ono nh c E o w ej pn WeS4.- 'fe, �.ce��. r; �� e'.'Jus t/" rr y Qt1Q, o� �: Qrl l3 �r Wean �Ke �r � i • �vrn VC [Vr1E al'% 'Ct� !";� .i'�4-r1kry 11 j . N E i t._i61 C ) r-rti J I L Rl t-- 0I£ Is M j I t-ts `_'m 9n J I L r4£ o r-goaI J I L. s 61f uc v ti — laapI f �! 1 I r EU l rr 60-1 .N IT O l` Ii^tI/_ Chittenden Cotinty Regional Planning Commission 66 PEARL STREET P O BOX 108 ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05453 802 658-3004 February 10, 1992 Vail 0. Leach, Jr. Planning Division Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05633 Dear Vail: As a follow-up to our brief conversation at the end of the January 29, 1992 MPO meeting, I am writing to confirm that the MPO would strongly endorse implementing the I-89 on -ramp at Interchange 13 as a change order to the current Dorset Street project. We believe tbi 'inproacl- r)iild be most cost-effective. As you will note in the file that Art loaned you, we have prepares,: a preliminary plan and profile, and also have done some operational analysis. We believe the I-89 mainline capacity issue can be resolved over time and suggest proceeding with the programming of the ramp in the meantime. We will be performing additional analysis using "FRESIM" and I suspect this analysis will yield a satis- factory solution. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Craig T. I,; Vne` Transportation Director CTL:bf cc: Bill Cimonetti John Dinklage ,-.Chuck Haf ter Patrick Garahan Serving the Municipalities of. Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Hinesburg Huntington Jericho St. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Essex Junction Essex Town Milton Richmond Westford Williston Winooski THIRD DEPARTMENT STORE UNIVERSITY MALL DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT TRANS/OP INC. P.O. Box 29 Williston, Vermont 05495 December, 1990 1 THIRD DEPARTMENT STORE UNIVERSITY MALL DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT INTRODUCTION In Table 1, a summary of development traffic is presented as comparisons among actual volume counts at the two intersections of University Mall Driveways with Dorset Street on Friday, August 17, 1990, a sale day, and the values used for the land use permit of June 22, 1988. With University Mall traffic adjusted for build -out and with the actual growth that has occurred at Corporate Circle, an excess of development volumes was included in the associated traffic impact analyses for University Mall, because far less development has actually taken place. Therefore, a third department store of 60,000 sq ft could well be accommodated within the permitted development volumes as shown by the total surpluses of vehicles during the afternoon peak hour in Table 2. K TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC SUMMARY University Mall South Burlington, Vermont Item Size Comment p.m. Peak -hour Trips (sq ft) Enter Exit Total University Mall Permitted 308,040 Existing 618 601 1219 6/22/88 155,990 Expansion 512 498 1010 464,030 Total 1130 1099 2229 Volume count 374,030 Sale day 774 892 1666 8/17/90 Build -out 464,030 Sale day 968 1115 2083 Surplus 464,030 Sale day 162 -16 146 Corporate Circle 40-percent 21,060 Retail 76 74 150 allowed 118,483 Office 49 192 241 82,938 Research 8 66 74 - Total 133 332 465 Developed 9600 China Lite 32 19 51 8/17/90 Surplus - - 101 313 414 Summary Surplus 464,030 Sale day 263 297 560 TRANS/OP INC. P.O. Box 29, Route 2A Williston, Vermont 05495 April 9, 1991 Mr. George J. Khouri Vice President Finard & Co. Two Burlington Woods Drive Suite 200 Burlington, MA 01803 Dear Mr. Khouri: (802) 878-5977 The following trips during the afternoon peak hour are estimated for the proposed 60,000-sq ft expansion at University Mall in South Burlington, Vermont. Type Enter Exit Total Driveway total, vph 174 171 365 Passby adjusted, vph 122 134 256 Please advise of any additional information that may be required. Thank you. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk 4 SUMMARY The impacts of project traffic on Dorset Street intersections are less than those conditions presented in the related traffic impact analyses without the completion of the Dorset Street improvement project due to reduced development. As a result, the additional traffic volumes generated by a third department store of 60,000 sq ft at University Mall do not exceed the permitted development volumes for build -out conditions. Because the proposed geometric improvements have been completed at the intersection of Holiday Inn Driveway, Dorset Street, and Williston Road and along Dorset Street between Williston Road and University Mall North Driveway, traffic performances are still not expected to be jeopardized as stated in the TRANS/OP INC. Executive Summary of May 18, 1988. Accordingly, if the third department store opened prior to the infrastructure improvements (Dorset Street), there would be no undue traffic impacts. 4WAy �omK -:�(-v Cf d o vs �z MA-LL Inw• AN VO4 i L ac 07 L0 //6 00-r'eW -4' �*,- = -ory xr do-,,, ,&? :5:eOT44A9ASr -t�,uM $4 t T FtB- 4-91 MON 19:23 OPPENLANDER 8029852765 P.01 TRANS/OP INC. P.O. Box 29, Route 2A Williston, Vermont 05495 FAX MESSAGE FROM! DATE:y'—�-, )gqi (802) 878,5977 'FAX NUMBER t 90 I— 97 9 - 3 ( /0 FAX NUMBER. FQ t - f S ^ 0 6.S CC: COMMENTS;xr � Xd- ��ray` lei l� ;7i I�� )c i S J NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) „Jr-tr.d_ . a If all pages are not received, please call TRANS/OP INC. at (802) 985-2765. F-EB- 4-91 MON 13:23 OPPENLANDER 9029252765 P_02 TRANS/OP INC. P.O. Box 29, Route 2A Williston, Vermont 05495 February 4, 1991 Mr. George J. Khouri Vice President Finard & Company Two Burlington Woods Drive Suite 200 Burlington, MA 01803 Dear Mr. Khouri: (802) 878-5977 In response to the letter of December 14, 1990, from Mr. Craig T. Leiner, traffic performances have been evaluated for the intersection of Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, and I189 Ramps in South Burlington, Vermont, with left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes for the east approach_ of Kennedy bye. Travel demands are expressed as'1996-afternoon design hour volumes in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, without and with the development traffic generated by the 'third department' store at University Mall. The results of the capacity analyses for a signalized intersection are summarized in Table 3. A peak -hour factor of(J10, 95) was selected to account for peaking characteristics associated with 30th highest hour volumes. Phasing sequences are noted in Figure 1, with the north -south and east -west codes indicated by the first and second digits, respectively, overall traffic performances at this location are described as levels —of service 'F' without and with the additional vehicular volumes generated by the 60,000-sq ft department store. However, operational conditions will be enhanced with the additional geometric improvements that are incorporated in the Dorset_Straatt-.-rajeat-------- — Please advise of any additic intersection of Dorset Street, Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E, Vice -President JCO:njk evaluations that may be required at the kedy Drive, and I189 Ramps. Thank you. Ck q. F"EB— 4-91 MON 19:24 OPPENLANDER 8029932765 µ P.O3 Table 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, and 1189 Rempe Westbound 0 644 0 Left 218 0 0 Thru Eastbound 686 453 0 Right 15 West Approach I169 Ramps r North Approach . Dorset Street Southbound Northbou►cl 0 0 945 817 0 0 0 221 322 402 Right Thru Left 0 516 Southbound 199 esign Hour Volumes Without pevelepment Right 0 366 Thru 0 0 396 941 Left 0 179 0 1070 East Approach Kennedy Drive Left Thru Right 0 0 0 27 233 215 0 475 Northbound South Approach - Dorset Street Westbound Eastbound Vehicles per hour by movement a.m. peak hour over p.m. peak hour P.M. - 1630-1730 FwEB- 4-91 MON 13:24 OPPENLANDER 8029B52765 P.04 Table 2 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, and 1189 Rampa e North Approach - DOratt Street Southbound Northbound 41j4 0 0 f Y 989 856 E 0 0 0 235 331 423 Right Thru Left Westbound 0 658 0 Left 230 0 0 Thru Eastbound 698 453 0 Right 15 West Approach 1189 Ramps 0 525 Southbound 1996 Design Hour Velumaq With Development Right 0 388 -t 2 z Thru 0 0 396 963 Left 0 179 0 1091 East Approach Kennedy Drive Left Thru Right 0 0 0 27 236 215 0 480 -+ S Northbound Louth Approach - Dorset Street Westbound Eastbound Vehicles per hour by movement •.M. peak hour over p.m. peak hour P.M. - 1630-1730 PEE— 4-91 MON 13:24 OPPENLANDER 8029852765 P.05 TABLE 3 EVALUATIONS OF GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, and 1189 Ramps South Burlington, Vermont Approach Phasing Average Delay Level of Service Sequence (spv) W/0 -W W/0 W Kennedy Drive - Left -turn, Through, and Right -turn Lanes Dorset St. - North App. 14 75.9 76,4 F F Dorset St. - South App, 10.5 10.4 B B Kennedy Dr, - East App. 55.6 68.7 E F 1189 Ramps - West App, 126.3 145.0 F F Intersection 70.8 79.2 F F Dorset St. - North App. 16 75.9 76.4 F F Dorset St. - South App. 10.5 10,4 B B Kennedy Dr. - East App. 55,7 68.7 E F I189 Ramps - West App, 94,2 107.0 F F Intersection 63.6 70.7 F F ci- FiEB- 4-91 MON 19:25 OPPENLANDER r r 8029852765 P.06 eequerae i t*t <t t t> V ]1 <* i t> i t i i i t SeqW210ft z - " LA" i t t A t t+ Al t+ <<i i +> V V A i * i i t � sequence 6 -Dual Ima+d -.raaa�w�rwa�- as �Ma * A t t + V A North V i + t t Sequanoo 7 - Split t t * A i t IN +f-i•} [*tt> V A cta*> +�-f♦ i i i V sequence 3 - s/w Lw4, <t t *y V A A 0 t *> <+ * *> V itM +i Sequence 5 - Dual tend, NIB Overlap t o t t* A **+ *> <* *> [* t +> V V A ♦ * * 8eglu0 6 — Dual Lead, 81w Overlap t A t * + V A 11 V t V t t* ♦* t Phase types for Feat/Haft movements are same as shown with 90 degree clockwise rotation. Using the PIRMISSIYES command allows left turns shown with soft symbols. Eight turns shown with M+e symbols will be added automatically where exclusive right turn lanes exist. Phase types are combined for both directions to create a sequence code. For example, SEQUENCE 53 would be a Dual lead, worth overlap for the Worth/South movements (1) followed by s Yost lead for the East/west movements (3). Figure 1 Phasing Codes for Traffic Signal M u „ r c •, C U E C4C /t-2 E 1 • WEBSTER-MARTIN, INC. MEMORANDUM y O o Ic 9 0 ., c i —/9 A-0 To: FILE 04-9103 r From: Gary A. Santy PR 0 .-�,• \�`Ofi �� tvr4FC"c a fS, Pc;�' Date: April 8, 1991 ,tc ; rC'_ Subject: CONCEPTUAL STUDY OF 2 LEFT TURN LANES • i ;gyp ��' FROM DORSET STREET ONTO KENNEDY DRIV � C ,, ; g ; r Five concepts have been studied to determine impact on existing and design features for AOT Project MEGC 5200(8) - Dorset Street. Both 3 lane and 4 lane concepts were addressed with the 4-lane approach being the accepted design by the client and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC). Concepts D & E reflect 3-lanes, 'D' as designed by AOT and 'E' as proposed by Tran!kp Inc. These two require only pavement marking modifications, and divisional island modification at the I-189 On -Ramp. Concept 'A' depicts 4-lanes (2 Lt. turn) with widening being accomplished on the west side, maintaining AOT designed storage for the left turn lanes, and utilizing a 15:1 taper to attain this 11' widening. The concept as shown assumes retaining the design of a grass strip (516"), bike path (5'6"), sidewalk (5'0") and a 1' offset to ROW. This concept would require 1,050 s.f. (0.24AC) of additional take from #595 Dorset Street. There will be minor impact on design features such as drainage and Concept 'B' also depicts 4-lanes (2 Lt. turn) with widening being accomplished on the East & West sides by deleting the grass strip (516" x 2 = 11') and adjusting the location of the median island. This concept requires NO additional ROW. There will be minor. impact on design features such as drainage, power, telephone and cable TV, and a more significant impact on underground conduit and street lighting which, as designed by AOT, will exist within the grass strip , /(I,, concept 'C' is essentially the same as Concept 'D except that widening on the east side depicts maintaining the grass strip, bake path and sidewalk as designed by the AOT. The thought behind this being the grass strip would be required for safety on the school property since this side might see more pedestrian -2- April 8, 1991 s�516" of widening would require 1,270 s.f. of additional take from the high school. There will be pact on design features such as drainage and utilities, •a more significant impact on underground conduit and street Biting on the west side. SUMMARY Within concepts A, B, and C, many alternates exist, such as main- taining grass strip on both sides for Concept 'B', deletion of grass strip for Concept 'A', etc. An additional concept has not been shown which would be all widening (11' width) to be done on school property (east side). We feel that this would create too much of a lane shift for a vehicle moving northerly from Dorset Street south of the intersection. For purposes of this study, we have assumed construction limits will be similar, in respect to curb lines, as shown on the AOT design. 098/1515 de147 r. 101 .� TRANS/OP INC. P.O. Box 29, Route 2A Williston, Vermont 05495 (802) 878-5977 FAX MESSAGE TO:�.� FROM Q7aQ�� DATE: 1q., Z19 -- - - 7 FAX NUMBER, ? 7 9 -- -3 % /a FAX NUMBER: CC: COMMENTS! NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) 3 If all pages are not received, please call TRANS/OP INC, at (802) 98,--2765. "M -ir-yl SUN 20:36 OPPENLANDER 8029e52765 P.92 TRANS/OP INC. P.O. Box 29, Route 2A Williston, Vermont 05495 February 19, 1991 (802) 878-5977 Mr, George J. Khouri ` Vice president Finard & Co, Two Burlington Woods Drive Suite 200 Burlington, MA 01803 Dear Mr. Khouri: In response to the request of Mr. Craig T. Leiner, several design alternatives for the ,intersection of Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, and 1189 Ramps have been evaluated in terms of traffic performance for 1996 afternoon design hour volumes. These analyses were performed without and with the development traffic generated by the proposed third department store at University Mall and are summarized in Table 1. Please advise of any additional information that may be required. Thank you, Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk P.09 N _91 SUN 1b:66 OPPENLANDER 2029952765 TABLE 1 EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont and I189 Ramps Alternative Approach Lana No. Average Delay Level, of Service and Use (spv) - W/o w who 1 N 1L;1TR 66.6 71.6 F F (Existing) E 1L;ITR S 1LT;IR w 1L;1TR 2 N 1L;1TR 78.9 89.6 F F E 1L;1T;1R S 1LT;1R w 1L;1TR 3 N 1L;1T;1R 46.5 55.6 E E (VAOT) E 1L;1T;1R S 1LT;1R w 2L;1T;1TR 4 N 2L;1TR 24.8 26.3 C D E 1L;1T;IR S 1LT;IR w 2L;1T;1TR Movement legend: L - left turn. T - through. R - right turn. GTE N 'T/ V15, u Flo s�- F/F C—�I _-__------- -'-_ --__-----_-_-__-'___-'-_--___---.--_-_-__--_.~-_.--_-___----_---_---_-__�---_--' ! ' . ' ^ i ----'� r' ��-------''--' -'---------'--''�----~----''--- -'-' '--'---�------' � /��C / "�_��u�*�� 3�� ^ ------- -- -�-' - -'--...... ......... --------�''---'rx----------'--�-----------'----------------- ---------' --'-- - � � - ' '-__-_-_ ' �� -_-_----_ --_------------___-_-_--__--__-----_'___---_ '_'_-�-_--_-_____-- _-_-- ^ � . . . ^ ^ _L7- -- ct m�d^_-:7. --------r '� -'- ---'----- -'--'----------�---- ----- --'��- ' -- - -- \ . . � `_ � (Q�� ! {`' � �r � , .' �, � , .� �' � I �• � � GSA S � .� STK I `- f ---- -c5F R.�Po's aA t Gc� R-1 N—rC211 , MEO / = S CGn/�= C' 1 / - - - - - - --- - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - -- - --' - - - - - - - - - EX/.5T PC w -M O V I F' I G k _�j -r GEIS t4-9� �_ , -✓ _.� � �\\ � �YQ'y$�� 17�T>t J'��.�i+�lT` �'+�+ � �r'l�Vv �� /Z rr 3 C n i I I ►� I} J �1J 574 7/Cl / C�Y� e pas fir 1 ` 'All 1 ��'1 '- -- ' � 1, �� ,� � ��"' •'. ,, 12 = L-,v t•�/ter[ 1 1 -- 1� C�7 G �. 8 QA A 7 7 MIS ----= - - - -- -�• — - �.� r - ! � ' --- -� � - - � ✓ ---yam_ � ,� w Aev Px* ;POSED C. rrioN M - • x = 1 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- f= EX/57- P� W cao i cArgwp� MCNEIL & MURRAY ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (802) 863-4531 FAX (802) 863-1743 JOSEPH C. McNEIL (1919-1978) JOSEPH E. McNEIL FRANCIS X. MURRAY JOHN T. LEDDY NANCY GOSS SHEAHAN STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE* WILLIAM F. ELLIS LINDA R. LEROY SUSAN H. COMPTON* SUSAN GILFILLAN ('ALSO ADMITTED 1N N.Y.) CERTIFIED MAIL Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Public Notice of Hearina Dear Commission Members: February 1, 1990 OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W.CERNOSIA Enclosed please find a copy of a Public Notice for a hearing to be held on February 22, 1990, which is served upon the Planning Commission pursuant to 19 V.S.A. §709. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, elk William F. Ellis WFE/tmr #9/438 Enclosure PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON The City Council of the City of South Burlington hereby gives notice that a public hearing will be held on February 22, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the South Burlington City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont, to receive testimony from landowners and other interested persons regarding what damages, if any, are due the owners of the following parcels of land along Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington: Current Owner: Veve Associates Property Address: 435 Dorset Street Current Owner: Town Square Associates Property Address: 425 Dorset Street Current Owner: Green Mountain Power Corporation Property Address: Parcel 7 Said parcels were condemned by the City Council of the City of South Burlington by its Order dated February 1, 1988, and recorded in Volume 259 on Pages 469-475 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, and as depicted on Sheets 40 through 55 of a plan entitled, "Proposed Improvements - City of South Burlington - County of Chittenden - Dorset Street - T.H. No. 5 CL. 2 (FAU) Kennedy Drive to Williston Road, Right of Way Plans," Project No. M-EGC 5200(8), dated July 8, 1987, as amended. The City Council of the City of South Burlington hereby gives further notice that at the public hearing on February 22, 1990 it will schedule site inspections to examine the condemned premises. THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING A SURVEY OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES ARE ON FILE FOR INSPECTION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER, CITY HALL, 575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AND MAY BE REVIEWED DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. ANYONE HAVING QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE PROCEEDING MAY CONTACT CHARLES RAFTER, CITY MANAGER, AT THE CITY OFFICES, 658-7953, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Dated this lP day of January, 1990. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON FOR: .Charles Hafter, ity Manager #8/399 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PUBLIC NOTICE MAILING LIST FEBRUARY 22, 1990 HEARING Veve Associates Rafael F. Veve, Jr. P.O. Box 2361 South Burlington, VT 05403 Director of Mortgage Investments National Life Insurance Company One National Life Drive Montpelier, VT 05604 Mortgage Counsel National Life Insurance Company One National Life Drive Montpelier, VT 05604 William H. Bruett, Jr., Esq. Chittenden Trust Company Two Burlington Square Burlington, VT 05401 Fred Martell, President Town Square Associates, Inc. 425 Dorset Street, Unit 33 South Burlington, VT 05403 Conrad Miller Green Mountain Power Corporation P.O. Box 850 South Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Robert E. Patterson, III United States Trust Co., of NY (successor to Chase Manhattan Bank), Trustee 45 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 #8/400 NT AGF STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION > -__ = _ _ - 'r► 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 �I/SppR-�P January 15, 1990 Mr. Gary Santy Webster - Martin, Inc. 1025 Airport Drive South Burlington, Vermont RE: South Burlington, MEGC 5200(8) Dear Gary, We have recently received review comments from the Federal highway Administration on your most recent submittal of the underground utility plans. A copy of their comments are attached with our added comments listed below. 1. The actual calculation for pro rating costs will be done here. Your estimate will be necessary before we begin. 2. I have confirmed with the City that no Fire Alarm is involved. 3. Quantities for these items should be estimated and added to your quantity sheet and estimate. 4. We agree with the addition of a disclaimer note. 5. Relocation of this mail box should be noted as subsidiary to duct installation since it is temporary. 6. We have already identified ares of contamination. You can ignore this comment. 7. If design in this area is changed because of necessity problems we will let you know. We intend to update our plans to reflect changes done for University Mall. We will furnish you updated sheets when finished. 8. Same as Number 6. comment. 9. Add item for Jersey Barrier. Mr. Gary Santy Page 2. 10. I believe enough coordination has been going on so that conflicts have not been designed into this project. A final review will have to be done to confirm this. Sincerely, R. Thomas Page, P.E. Utilities Engineer By: Donald L. Allen Project Supervisor RTP:DA:kf Attachment cc: City of °Stith -Burling-ton Rick Hale, Design South Burlington MEcC-141 5200(8) Comments on Utility Undergrounding-plans I. A distribution of contract lump sum costs (such as clearing and grubbing, field office, testing apparatus, traffic control, etc) will need to be made to the non participating utility costs as non participating items. 2. There is no notation of fire alarm on these plans. If fire alarm facilities exist or are planned, their inclusion in this plan would be advisable. 3. Sheet U-35 - Mote 8 should indicate how the contractor will be paid for this work. Generally, if the bid items for similar work (ex. Bituminous concrete) are in the contract, the work indicated by this note would be paid with the bid items, and would be assumed to be as non .participating items. 4. Sheet U-36 - The 8" and 4" force mains indicated at station 108 do not show on the profile even though they cross the NET -and GW ducts. We understand that the intent is to shot all existing and planned under- ground utilites only on the cross sections. If that is the case, a disclaimer or -note stating that fact should be included on, each plan sheet to limit conflicts in interpretation. S. Sheet U-38 - An item for the relocation of mailboxes such as indicated in Detail 1 should be included. 6. Sheet U-41 - The potential for encountering petroleum contaminated soils exists right of station 134-136t. ,Has -this been investigated? 7. Sheet U-48 - We understand that necessity for .sow of the work indicated on this sheet has not been granted. Will that affect any of the work here? 8. Sheet U-49 - Saute comment as No. 6 above at station 1 Williston Road (N-lane) left and/or station 169 right. There was a recent widening on Williston Road in this area. Are these plans compatible with that widening? 9. Sheet U-57 - The payment mechanism for Jersey barrier should be indicated with a non participation notation. 10. Conflicts with signals and signs need to be accomodated. MCNEIL & MURRAY ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (802) 863-4531 FAX (802) 863-1743 JOSEPH C. McNEIL (1919-1978) JOSEPH E. McNEIL FRANCIS X. MURRAY JOHN T. LEDDY NANCY GOSS SHEAHAN STEVEN F. STITZEL PATTIR.PAGE* WILLIAM F. ELLIS LINDA R. LEROY SUSAN H COMPTON* SUSAN GILFILLAN (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N Y.) CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Public Notice of Hearing Dear Commission Members: February 13, 1990 L"' 4";j Pori OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W.CERNOSIA Enclosed please find a copy of a Public Notice for a hearing to be held on February 22, 1990, which is served upon the Planning Commission pursuant to 19 V.S.A. §709. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, William F. Ellis WFE/tmr #k9/453 Enclosure PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON The City Council of the City of South Burlington hereby gives notice that a public hearing will be held on March 1, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the South Burlington City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont, to receive testimony from landowners and other interested persons regarding what damages, if any, are due the owners of the following parcels of land along Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington: Current Owner: Property Address: Current Owner: Property Address: Current Owner: Property Address: Evangeline Deslauriers Parcel No. 8 Randall Munson 366 Dorset Street Edgar and Bette Ann Welch 340 Dorset Street Current Owner: William C. and Anna M. Wilson Property Address: 6 Brownell Way Current Owner: Property Address: Current Owner: Property Address: Current Owner: Property Address: Current Owner: Property Address: Lodging North, Inc. Parcel No. 40 AMI - Burlington, Inc. 108 Dorset Street Round Table Investors, Lessor 55 Dorset Street Dorset Land Company, Inc. Parcel No. 62 Said parcels were condemned by the City Council of the City of South Burlington by its Order dated February 1, 1988, and recorded in Volume 259 on Pages 469-475 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, and as depicted on Sheets 40 through 55 of a plan entitled, "Proposed Improvements - City of South Burlington - County of Chittenden - Dorset Street - T.H. No. 5 CL. 2 (FAU) Kennedy Drive to Williston Road, Right of Way Plans," Project No. M-EGC 5200(8), dated July 8, 1987, as amended. The City Council of the City of South Burlington hereby gives further notice that at the public hearing on March 1, 1990 it will schedule site inspections to examine the condemned premises. THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING A SURVEY OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES ARE ON FILE FOR INSPECTION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER, CITY HALL, 575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AND MAY BE REVIEWED DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. ANYONE HAVING QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE PROCEEDING MAY CONTACT CHARLES RAFTER, CITY MANAGER, AT THE CITY OFFICES, 658-7953, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Dated this _,day of January, 1990. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON FOR •L � , FOR: Hafter, City Manager #9/416 I 10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PUBLIC NOTICE MAILING LIST MARCH 1, 1990 HEARING Evangeline DesLauriers c/o Charles DesLauriers Bolton Valley Corporation Bolton Valley, VT 05477 Randall Munson South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vt 05403 William H. Bruett, Jr., Pres. Chittendent Trust Company Two Burlington Square Burlington, VT 05401 Edgar and Bette Ann Welch 340 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Theresa L. Pizzagalli 545 South Prospect Street Burlington, VT 05401 William C. and Anna M. Wilson 6 Brownell Way South Burlington, VT 05403 Lodging North, Inc. c/o Gary N. Farrell 870 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 William H. Chadwick, Pres. Howard Bank, N.A. 111 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 AMI - Burlington, Inc. c/o David Ramsey Edgewood Center 928 South Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Bankeast Savings Bank and Trust Corporation Commercial Loan Division 134 Pleasant Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 S.D. Ireland Construction Co. 100 Grove Street Burlington, VT 05401 Warren Newton Butler Enterprises, Inc. 2100 Glendale Street Winston Salem, NC 27127 Round Table Investors Box 357 Burlington, VT 05401 Chris Bishop Chittenden Trust, Lessee Two Burlington Square Burlington, VT 05401 Dorset Land Company, Inc. c/o Charles DesLauriers Bolton Valley Corporation Bolton Valley, VT 05477 #9/417 MCNEIL & MURRAY M ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 271 SOUTH UNION STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (802) 863-4531 FAX (802) 863-1743 JOSEPH C. McNEIL (1919-1978) JOSEPH E. McNEIL FRANCIS X. MURRAY JOHN T. LEDDY NANCY GOSS SHEAHAN STEVEN F STITZEL PATTI R. PAGE* WILLIAM F. ELLIS LINDA R. LEROY SUSAN H. COMPTON* SUSAN GILFILLAN (*ALSO ADMITTED IN N.Y.) CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Planning Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Public Notice of Hearing Dear Commission Members: February 21, 1990 OF COUNSEL ARTHUR W.CERNOSIA Enclosed please find a copy of a Public Notice for a hearing to be held on March 15, 1990, which is served upon the Planning Commission pursuant to 19 V.S.A. §709. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, V /A/��J // •' j/,J ///jJ Y Y William F. Ellis WFE/tmr #9/464 Enclosure 13 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON The City Council of the City of South Burlington hereby gives notice that a public hearing will be held on March 15, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the South Burlington City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont, to receive testimony from landowners and other interested persons regarding what damages, if any, are due the owners of the following parcels of land along Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington: Current Owner: Vermont Girl Scout Council, Inc. Property Address: 365 Dorset Street Current Owner: Neil F. and Barbara A. Shepard Property Address: 359 Dorset Street Current Owner: Champlain Oil Company, Inc. Property Address: 354-356 Dorset Street Current Owner: Richard C. Landsman Property Address: 341 Dorset Street Current Owner: R.W. Realty Associates Property Address: 222 Dorset Street Current Owner: Investors Management Company, Inc. Property Address: 100 Dorset Street Said parcels were condemned by the City Council of the City of South Burlington by its Order dated February 1, 1988, and recorded in Volume 259 on Pages 469-475 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington, and as depicted on Sheets 40 through 55 of a plan entitled, "Proposed Improvements - City of South Burlington - County of Chittenden - Dorset Street - T.H. 11 No. 5 CL. 2 (FAU) Kennedy Drive to Williston Road, Right of Way Plans," Project No. M-EGC 5200(8), dated July 8, 1987, as amended. The City Council of the City of South Burlington hereby gives further notice that at the public hearing on March 15, 1990 it will schedule site inspections to examine the condemned premises. THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING A SURVEY OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES ARE ON FILE FOR INSPECTION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER, CITY HALL, 575 DORSET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AND MAY BE REVIEWED DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. ANYONE HAVING QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE PROCEEDING MAY CONTACT CHARLES HAFTER, CITY MANAGER, AT THE CITY OFFICES, 658-7953, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Dated this 13 day of February, 1990. #9/450 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON FOR: -. Charles Haft r, City Manager 0 0 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PUBLIC NOTICE MAILING LIST MARCH 15, 1990 HEARING Ms. Jane Crosby Vermont Girl Scout Council, Inc. 79 Allen Martin Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 Mr. Bob Bick Champlain Drug & Alcohol Services, Inc. 45 Clark Street Burlington, VT 05401 William H. Chadwick, Pres. The Howard Bank 111 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 Neil F. & Barbara A. Shepard 2 Pine Meadow Drive Colchester, VT 05446 William H. Bruett, Jr., Pres. Chittenden Trust Company 2 Burlington Square Burlington, VT 05401 Champlain Oil Company, Inc. P.O. Box 2126 South Burlington, VT 05403 William H. George The Vermont Industrial Development Authority Vermont National Bank, Trustee 150 Bank Street Burlington, VT 05401 Richard C. Landsman 4 Rippingale Road Pittsford, NY 14534 Gary and Karen Barrett 9 Woodland Place South Burlington, VT 05403 John C. Fitzpatrick 40 George Street Burlington, VT 05401 R.W. Realty Associates 222 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Lake Buick, Inc. 222 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 J. Peter Judge Investors Management Company, Inc. P.O. Box 515 Williston, VT 05495 Irving Trust Company c/o Irving Financial Centers, Inc. P.O. Box 5300 Burlington, VT 05402 #9/451 WILLOWS CONDOMINIUMS 595 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT SEPTEMBER 25, 1991 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY HALL OFFICES 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 DEAR SIRS: WE OF THE WILLOWS BUSINESS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION DESIRE TO BE PLACED ON RECORD AS TO NOTIFYING THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON OF THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE!! IN LATE AUGUST 1991, OR EARLY SEPTEMBER, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND PREPARATION FOR BURYING THE ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE CABLES, THE SEWAGE LINE FROM OUR BUILDING TO THE CITY MAIN LINE WAS SEVERED BY THE BACKHOE WHILE PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A NEEDED JUNCTION ROOM. THIS MISCALCULATION AS TO THE LINES TRUE POSITION CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THE WORK CREW WAS TOLD ITS POSITION WAS 15 TO 20 FEET SOUTH OF WHERE THEY FOUND IT TO BE. THE BUSINESS UNITS WERE INFORMED OF THE PROBLEM AND THAT THE SEWAGE LINE WOULD BE REESTABLISHED IN ONE TO TWO HOURS. BECAUSE THE CREW AFTER HAVING SEVERED OUR CONDO TO THE MAIN LINE SEWAGE ACCESS, PROCEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE UNDERGROUND CONCRETE ELECTRICAL ROOM, IT BECAME NECESSARY TO ADLIB A PASS -A -ROUND SEWER LINE. { PLEASE SEE ATTACHED ROUGH DIAGRAMS } SHOULD IN THE FUTURE, WE EXPERIENCE ANY SEWAGE PROBLEMS, RELATING TO PASSAGE FROM OUR CONDO LINE TO THE CITY'S MAIN LINE, LET US BE ON RECORD TO STATE THAT THIS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT, BUT THAT OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SINCE THEY CHOSE TO JURY-RIG A FINE OPERATING SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS. WE SHOULD LIKE TO MENTION, THAT WE ARE QUITE PROUD OF THE OVERALL EFFICIENCY AND WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO DATE, BUT WILL BE QUITE RELIEVED ONCE COMPLETION COMES TO AN END. TO DATE OUR INCONVENIENCES HAVE BEEN PROBABLY SOMEWHAT NORMAL FOR SUCH AN UNDERTAKING. 1.-2 HR. LOSS ELECTRICITY - TRUCK HITS POLE 2.LOSS OF RESTROOM USE FOR 2+ HRS SEVERED SEWER PIPE 3. LOSS OF WATER ON 2-3 OCCASIONS, THIS HAS PROVEN TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR DR.GAGE, DR. GUIDULI, DR. EVERHART. 4.THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY NOTIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE IN ADVANCE AS TO PLANNED WORK OR INCONVENIENCE THRUST UPON OUR PATRONS BY THE PROPOSED WORK OF THE DAY. AS WE CLOSE WE REPEAT AGAIN EMPHATICALLY, THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SEWER LINE FROM THE WILLOWS CONDOMINIUMS TO THE CITY SEWER MAIN, IS NOW THE CITY'S OBLIGATION AS THE RESULT OF SOME FREE LANCE ALTERATION, AND THE DECREASING SLOPE OF THE DRAINAGE PIPE INTO THE SEWAGE MAIN. REPECTFULLY WE REMAIN, UNIT 1 . Zf f j �a y` DAVID F. GAGE, D.M.D. UNIT 2 03 a '. UNIT 3 COOPER INSURANCE LIMITED UNIT 4 MERV BROWN UNIT 5 WENDY EVERHART D .S UNIT 6-7 CHAMPLAIN DRV(:,*\ AND SERVICES CC: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY MANAGER SOUTH BURLINGTON ENGINEER SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING SOUTH BURLINGTON PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CLERK N 8 F+ a a ELBOWS ov6 Ft t4ow 4t 'pt va r uNutr,JG ^' ;.q I has m. r %k N ttAoj slow-i W'43r% 4- EL BOWS Panel Seeks More Information Before Ruling or Dorset Street By MIKE DONOGHUE I.. I I pl J Free Press Staff Writer The District 4 Enviromental Commission will ask for further information next month on the proposed wid- ening of Dorset Street in South Burlington to five lanes before it issues a ruling, District Coordinator Michael Zahner said Monday. Zahner said a commission meeting is scheduled tentativly for July 17 at the South Burlington City Hall. Zahner said the exact kinds of information requested will be disclosed, probably today, when the commission makes public its order. Traffic impact is expected to be one of the key issues. Marsha J. Smith, a South Burlington resident and attor- ney, recently petitioned the commission to recess the hearing until after it gets a traffic study on the unrelated proposed expansion of the University Mall. The commission has held six sessions on the proposed Dorset Street widening and tenatively closed the public portion last month. The commission held its second day of hearings on the mall project Monday. Smith maintains the state should provide revised traffic projections based on the current rate of commer- cial growth, including the University Mall. She said a reasonable recess would allow the commission to take judicial note of the mall's traffic study. Smith also said the state Transportation Agency and the city of South Burlington have failed to provide proper landscaping and lighting plans. Smith noted the parties have failed to reach agreement with Green Mountain Power Corp. on the impact on relocation of major power lines. The mall hearing Monday covered several of the undisputed issues under the 10 criteria required for issuance of an Act 250 land -use permit. University Mall wants to expand from about 300,000 square feet to almost 500,000 square feet, according to Edwin C. Granai, mall manager. The mall's proposed expansion would be in two phases. Phase one calls for construction of a 48,000- square-foot Martin's Food store, double the size of the current store at the south end of the parcel. Included are 264 new parking spaces and relocation of the 24,000- square-foot Hilson Home Center. Phase two is for expansion of the mall, including space for a third major department store. The mall hearing will resume in mid -July, John Ewing, commission chairman, said at the end of Mon- day's session. Traffic impact is expected to be a key issue. Mall attorney William Schroeder requested success- fully Monday that the commission require the city of Burlington to provide the names of any proposed expert witnesses by July 1. The city of Burlington was given limited party status in the hearing for four areas = traffic, possible air pollution, growth impact and compliance with regional plan. Assistant City Attorney John L. Franco Jr. was expected to meet with Burlington aldermen in executive session Monday night to discuss possible funding for the j case, including payment for expert witnesses. The mall hopes to begin phase one by late this summer, said George Khouri, vice president for engi- neering and construction for University Mall. Granai said the owners hope to begin phase two next year, about the time phase one is completed. The commisison heard presentations Monday af- ternoon on several issues, including soil, water supply, educational impact and forestry. A letter from the South Burlington Water Depart- ment indicated it would be able to provide the 14,000 gallons of water per day necessary for the mall when the entire project is completed. The site would not be used for forestry, because of the limited amount of pines, Khouri said. It would have limited farming use, although the land is considered prime agricultural, he said. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658.7955 June 25, 1985 Michael Zahner Environmental Board State Office Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Zahner: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 I would like to present some information to the District #4 Environmental Commission to further substantiate my letter of January 25, 1985 to Mr. Arthur Goss that stated the Dorset Street widening project is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This may also clarify some of the information that was presented by Marsha J. Smith and Kevin R. O'Brien in the motion filed under Rule 20. 1) The 1980 Comprhensive Plan specifically delineates the Dorset Street widening as the highest priority street project. (page 54, attached) This is the essential basis for determining this project to be in conformance with the local plan. 2) The "Motion for Supplementary Information Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Environmental Board Rule" specifically claims that the South Burlington Comprehensive Master Plan "requires" a study be done to evaluate the drainage area and surrounding area of this project. Actually, the 1980 Comprehensive Plan states that "the City has not yet undertaken any detailed or comprehensive storm drainage planning. No substantive drainage problems have occurred to date, at least in part because only about 50% of the north and south ends of town have been developed. However, the need for comprehensive, long-range planning will increase as the amount of development and extent of paved surfaces increase." It does not require a study to be done. (see page 68, attached) While I certainly support the consideration of facts or information that improve the Dorset Street project, I think it is important in this case to consider the actual text of the Comprehensive Plan so that iu is not oaken out of context. I have attached the complete Michael Zahner June 25, 1985 Page 2 text of quotations that were abstracted from the 1980 Comprehensive Plan in the motion filed under Rule 20 so that the Commission may consider complete, accurate and factual information, in its deliberations. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg Encls cc: William J. Szymanski Arthur Goss Marsha J. Smith ``t b V '7z) o U1 K t u r 1 VT%T\ 4(?Mt\Q nS\VC -� UM,, 2) Bicycles - Existing and proposed bikeways are shown on reap 4. Implementation should follow these recommendations, listed in order of (from most to least): a) Extend the Spear Street bike lane to Swift Street. ' Ly k if��• b) Construct a cross-town bikeway along Interstate 89 and I89 rights -of -way. c) Plan and implement bikepaths paralleling Williston and Shelbur d) Construct a connecting bikeway through the Prouty Parkway and Mayfair Park neighborhoods. 3) Buses - A new bus route should be encouraged to provide direct servi, between the Williston Road and Shelburne Road sectors of the City without hav i to connect via crowded Burlington routes. 4) Highways - Map 3 shows City streets and their functional classificat: I� The streets, either existing or proposed, are listed in priority order to inst appropriate timing of funding applications or capital budgeting for roadway construction or improvements: a) Upgrade Dorset Street from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. b) Upgrade Williston Road from Interstate 89 to Hinesburg Road. c) Upgrade Williston Road in the vicinity of Gaynes and the Sheraton Inn. d) Develop a new corridor (South Burlington southern connector extension)l from Shelburne Read to the proposed Burlington southern connector. C) Develop a Dorset Street -Hinesburg Road connector. f) Modify the Dorset Street -Kennedy Drive -Interstate 89 interchange. g) Upgrade Hinesburg Road from Kennedy Drive to Williston Road. h) Develop a new corridor from Williston Road to Patchen Road. i) Develop a new corridor from Williston Road to the Dorset Street - Hinesburg Road connector. -54- which of;f'1111.l lt�:• wa:;tt' trc,rr. till' h,L1 t I,-'tt } (an(J '10wr1 of Shelburne) treatn�,, t plants and is also the raw wattl ;uurcc' lot thc' Challplain Water ll.<strict, Perham even more important is the River, which is relied upon by abutting communities for sewage plant outfalls, and for which permission is being sought i to construct the Chace Mill project in Winooski. The progress of this hydro plant must be monitored carefully to assure that the potential of the River for waste assimilation is not jeopardized. Because of State -unposed water quality standards for the Winooski, it has txc:orre apparent the assimilative capacity of the River is limited. E iowc,ver , this 1 i111i t 1141y fx exceeded by the demands of the communities bordering it. Thc. City must actively and diligently participate as the wasteload aliocation Elan for the 1owt.r Wirxx)ski evolves. Storm Drainage The City has not yet undertaken any detailed or comprehensive storm drainage planning. No substantive drainage problems have occurred to date, at least in part because only about 50% of the north and south ends of town have been developed. However, the need for comprehensive, long-range planning will increase as the amount of developient and extent of paved surfaces increase. In addition, coordination with tilt City of Lurlington will be required to proviat proper drainage for the two watt L;.ht_tl:, Ullit attkAddle the 11,unicipal Wundary line. NV tUL , 1 � „ t\ thrtlUgE] l,1111: 1112A I Li Ut loil 11I1t_'t,. E3c'ttcl ctxut.Ln,.ltion l ,,. , I1I Ilk ,'1' �y U_'IIIt \'l'd I,} t_'X- C ll'?nginy lnlfll�'nr nt,_2tE ; t , rU(•tlt�n' Ell �,�:,1,' I 'l l it i i11C E IC_, t r L,_lt1' I ", I; f`k'lItII,., South Bl_Ir1111,jt"rl •'. � 'I, � III U:.t,lt 1�111:,, �IIkJ property for all land uses. Design and specifications are largely governed by types and intensity of land use. Such roads may either have a cul-de-sac or a continuous, low speed configuration. Associated with each functional classification are design and performa",.0 standards that are essential for a variety of planning applications: setbacks, land for future roads, capital budgeting, maintenance of a reasonable "level of service" (a traffic engineering standard for evaluating congestion), review of curb -cut locations, land exactions for road widening,`etc. Map 3 and Table 14 show functional classifications for existing and proposed City roads. Administrative classifications refer to the various jurisdiction of private, local, State, and Federal authorities over funding and access control. The current City street map, the City's general highway map, and the Urban Systems map display these various classifications. Even where jurisdiction overlaps there have been no irreconcilable differences in the area of access control since the City's requirements have usually been more stringent and have been accepted by other agencies. Consequently, the use of these administrative classifications is primarily for budgetary applications. 2) Discussion a) Arterial Roads - The City's existing arterial street network is of vital unportance to the residents of the City and the region for both transportation and commerce. Accamdation of "through" traffic carries a higher priority than access to frontage properties. The general pattern of existing and approved developments on Kennedy Drive and Kimball Avenue epitomizes a reasonable con- figuration of an arterial highway. Along Lute 2 and most of k)uLe 7, where highly fragmented ownership patterns have evolved over many decades, there are extreme conflicts between "to" and "through" traffic. Consequently, even greater congestion in these areas can be reasonably anticipated for the foreseeable future. -51- '171li IVA'lUfJA-L W13'OU1,VE BASL•: The natural resource base of -�()Llth Burlington must be protected. All development must occur, insofar as is reasonably possible, in harmony with tlfe maintenance of natural systems for the citizens of South Burlington. The quality of air we breathe, the water we drink, and the plant and anvnal life that supfy)rt various ecosystems all depend on realistic and vigorous protection of the natural resource base. C 1 ima to The climate of the area is docrlrx1nted in the UVNi Agricultural Lxpei iinent ot.it i,)n publication "Climate of 13urlinyton, Vernx-)nt" (5) . The severity and duration of the winter shorten the construction :;c,a:3on. Careful design and construction of foundations, utility lines, and rc>adwayi, bec(xie necessary to minimize damaye from frost heaving. As the armunt of developnx,nt in the City, increases, special care in design will be re- juired to precipitation. For exaiiple, in- adequate or improper snow �toraq(, tn,pin(;(,:. >n parking and circulation areas in,,i can seriously dairtlyc l ,nc;:,c:apin(;. ,Increased paved surfaces will result in highot volumes and rates of str,)rmwate-r dis.chacye, which must 1,)c acconrK)dated by imprk)v(ti drainageway planning to prevent t)t(rl)!_•rty iaflidye and environmental degradation. 1' lf:,.l I , ,n'(', il. ,l r- ( IL n'1 i 'I •, .i. , haVr' Iti'l'11 1i;li)', tfl,.,t ,ll)lA k;f — 1 _ .:kxA,' ii, i, If; ,ul(1 ,Ir,((u)(I ter' ,, , , . , I t l , , , ' ' f ' i i ' I . I I, • , . I l h . ' 1, ' . t i .. , 1 t , .. , . I'he (aen('f,II to] xx�1,Ipiif(' I,;,', It I II, Illy' • I I t,l( t,,1 111 '•('1�'('I n,l t, I ;.:nn, that y ,tr';r l,Il n I �( j •!u; jl ., f l I l t lllh 1Cx:dt P f1:_, `,,t w,lt( I r•,I,I(r( is currently in agricultural use. South Burlington is enrolled in the and Urban Development flood Hazard prevention program, which delineates this other flood -prone areas in the City. More importantly, this program will i that only flood -proofed structures may be built in flood plains. In additiqn, the City's zoning ordinance and health regulations should preclude the ins of onsite sewage disposal systems in these areas. The swamps, drainageways, and intermittent streams of the City should be protected from diversion obliteration, or deterioration so that they can continue to serve as buffer zones, wildlife habitat and recreation areas, and accept surface runoff. In the older, more intensively developed sections of City, many drainageways have either been culverted or have become so clutter with debris that they serve none of these functions -modest reclamation, mod- ification, and maintenance of these areas is required. In developing areas of the City, clustering and imaginative site planning will minvnize intrusions disturbance, and maintain their essential character and functions. Vegetation Trees, shrubs, and other soil cover are nx)re than aesthetic amenities; they also prevent erosion, improve air quality, provide visual and aural buf and furnish shade and protection from wind. Several remaining large wooded are owned by the City or University of Vernx)nL and maintained essentially in their natural state. Remnants of apple orchards anti hedyerows along property lines and abandoned town roads are historic reminders of the City's agriculti heritage and past land use patterns. As land is subdivided and ceveloped, exi•,tiny vegetation along drain ige and property liner and around buildirxf clu:;ter:, six)uld he ret'rint'd and/or supplemented by new plantings. Conservation (A speculk,11 tree:, or (3n)ves of tr in these areas is justified by the fact th._it iL is impo!>;sible to replant trees larger than 10" or 12" in di<unOtOr. -26- l`DwkeiL re cep 9,e D - �) - t + In Re: Application of City of South Burlington and Vermont Agency of Transportation's Permit Application No. 4C0607 NOW COMES, Marsha J. Smith, hereinafter (Movant) and pursuant to Rule 13 (B) of the Environmental Board Rules requests that the District Environmental Commission #4 recess the hearings in the above -referenced matter because upon the present state of the record, the Applicants have failed to submit sufficient credible evidence to sustain their burden of proof under the following criteria: l(E) streams; 4; 8; 9 (A) ; and 9(K). Additionally, Movant herein requests a recess so as to allow the Applicants to submit revised traffic psoiections for Dorset Street based upon the current rate of commercial growth. It is the position of Movant considering the evidence submitted by Applicants under Criterion 5 that a recess'.for a reasonable amount of time would allow the Commission to take judicial notice of traffic projections and related traffic information which will be presented by the University Mall in connection with its application for an Act 250 Permit is scheduled for hearing on June 5, 1985. Applicants have failed to submit any evidence as to the proposed landscaping and/or illumination plans for the project as required under Criterion 8 and have further failed to reach an agreement with the Green Mountain Power Corporation as to the impact of the project on this public utility for the relocation of power lines or present any evidence as required under Criterion 9 (R) . Moreover, the Applicants have failed to submit evidence under Criterion 1(E) and 4 as to the maintenance of the natural condition of the tributary of the Potash Brook upon completion of previously permitted projects adjacent to the proposed development and further failed to introduce any evidence that the total growth which will result from the development, if approved, will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or the reduction of the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. It is the position of Movant that evidence as to the total growth and rate of growth which will result from the development, if approved, as it relates to Criteria 1 (E) ; 4; and 5 is required pursuant to Criterion 9(A). By granting Movant's request for a recess, the Commission will be able to take judicial notice of the evidence presented by the University Mall, in support of their application for an Act 250 Permit. Of particular interest is evidence which relates to Criteria l(E); 4; and 5 and, by proceeding in this fashion, an unreasonable burden will not be placed upon the Applicants in preparing supplementary information which is necessary to properly evaluate this project under the 10 Environmental Criteria of Act 250. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Movant respectfully requests that the District Environmental Commission #4 recess the hearings in this matter for a reasonable amount of time so as to allow the Applicants the necessary time to submit evidence -2- so as to meet its burden of proof under the aforementioned criteria and further allow for the District Environmental Commission to take judicial notice of evidence and testimony relevant to this project in an independent, yet related, proceeding brought by the University Mall. Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this day Jun Marsha J. Smit i I cc: All Parties -3- ' rIn Re: Application of City of South Burlington and Vermont Agency of Transportation. Permit Application No. 4C0607 ,� • • ► 'ii`15.,7uIr�i�i ► NOW COMES, Marsha J. Smith and Kevin R. O'Brien hereinafter (Movants) and pursuant to Rule 20 of the Environmental Board Rules request that the District Environmental Commission No. 4 require the applicant to submit the following supplementary data in order to adequately evaluate the application under the criteria set forth below. The supplementary data requested herein concerns the current and/or projected use of property adjoining the project site and is necessary in order to adequately evaluate the impact of the project under the criteria set forth in 10 V.S.A. §6088 (a) (1) through (a) (10) . Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. 96088 the applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that in addition to all other applicable criteria, the development or subdivision of lands on or adjacent to the banks of a stream will, whenever, feasible, maintain the natural condition of the stream and will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public or adjoining land owners, [10 V.S.A. §6086 (a)(1)(E)]; and, that the project will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction of the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. [10 V.S.A §6086 (a)(4)]. Additionally, the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that the project is in conformance with a duly adopted local plan. [10 V.S.A. 56086 (a) (10) ] . In addition to the applicant's burden of proof on the aforementioned criteria, the District Environmental Commission, in considering an application, must take into consideration the growth and popluation experienced by the town and region in quesiton and whether or not the proposed development would significantly affect the towA and regioes existing and potential financial capacity to reasonably accommodate both the total growth and the rate of growth otherwise expected for the town and region and the total_ growth and rate of growth which would (a) (9) (A)) . Movants herein are requesting to pursuant to Rule 20 of the Environmental Board Rules, that the District Evironmental Commission require the applicant to submit the supplemental data as outlined below in connection with the above -referenced criteria so that the Commission may adequately evaluate the application under the criteria identified. At the April 10, 1985 hearing, Robert Shattuck of the Vermont Agency of Transporation testified on behalf of the applicants in connection with Criterion l(E). Mr. Shattuck indicated that there would an insignificant impact on the stream which adjoins Movant's, Kevin R. O'Brien's Brookwood Drive home due to the fact that there existed a 234.7 acre drainage area up -stream from the Brookwood Drive residential area. Upon further questions, Mr. Shattuck, however, said that if this land were developed 2 and paved, there would indeed be an additional impact to the stream. Mr. Shattuck was not prepared at that time to determine the magnitude of this impact. Mr. Poger, on behalf of the co -applicant, City of South Burlington, indicated that approximately 60 percent of this 234.7 acre drainage area could be paved as a result of currently planned development. In addition to the development potential for this 234.7 acre parcel, the area immediately to the south is zoned for industrial development. Additionally, University Mall is planning an expansion of the existing mall and an application has been filed with the District Environmental Commission for approval of Phase 1. The development slated for these lands will occupy a substantial portion of the drainage areas referred to by Mr. Shattuck for the stream in question. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the projected use of the drainage areas referred to by Mr. Shattuck is for development and these lands will, therefore, not be available in the future to mitigate the stream impacts associated with the present application. This assumption is further buttressed by Mr. Evans testimony concerning the design criteria for the present project wherein he stated it was designed to accommodate "a rapidly developing commercial area." Applicants have yet to present any data as to the projected use of the 234.7 acre drainage area identified by Mr. Shattuck based upon current zoning ordinances and previously approved commercial development, and accordingly applicants have failed to meet their burden of proof under Criterion 1(E) and further failed to provide 3 the District Environmental Commission with adequate data for the Commission to consider the total growth and rate of growth which will result from the development if approved. Rule 20 of the Environmental Board Rules authorizes the District Enironmental Commission to specifically request supplemental data from an applicant concerning the current or projected use of property adjoining the project site in order to evaluate the project under the criteria set forth in 10 V.S.A. §6086(a)(1) through (a) (10) . Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein Movants respectfully request that the current and future proposed uses for the drainage areas identified by Mr. Shattuck be considered in determining the impact to the stream as a result of the present project. In further support of this motion, Movants direct the District Environmental Commission's attention to page 68 of the City of South Burlington long-range plan which states in pertinent part under the heading of storm drainage ". . . the need for comprehensive, long-range planning will increase as the amount of development and extent of paved surfaces increase." The City's master plan contains the foll ing statment: "the swamps, drainageways, and intermittent streams of the City should be protected from diversion, obliteration or deterioration so they can continue to serve as buffer zones, wildlife habitat and recreation areas, and to accept surface runoff." Since Mr. Evans has testified that the Dorset Street improvements have been 4 designed to accommodate "a rapidly developing commercial area" the City of South Burlington's comprehensive master pl n requires that such a study be done and, accordingly, for the applicant to meet its burden of proof under Criterion 10, Movants respectfully request that the District Environmental Commission pursuant to Rule 20 of the Environmental Board Rules require the applicant to engage a third party engineering firm to thoroughly evaluate the projected use of the 234.7 acre drainage area and surrounding areas to determine what impact there will be on the stream as a result of the future use of the property, so as to insure that the development if approved will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public or adjoining land owners to said stream and will further not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result and further to insure that the development is in comformance with the City of South Burlington master plan. Movants herein also request the District Environmental Commission pursuant to Rule 20 require the applicant to submit supplementary data relevant to Criterion 5. Although the District Environmental Commission by memorandum, dated May 1, 1985 requested that the applicant provide revised traffic projections for Dorset Street based upon the current rate of commercial growth and other similar projects in the state, the applicant failed to produce such information. The May 1,, 1985 memorandum indicated 5 that the Commission was particularly interested in anticipated traffic volumes for Dorset Street and the adequacy of the proposed improvements for vehicular traffic and circulation and pedestrian movement. By letter, dated May 8, 1985, Frank C. Evans on behalf of the co -applicant, Vermont Agency of Transporation advised the Commission as follows, "We are not in the business of making those kinds of traffic forecasts, and do not have the resources (time and manpower) available to do such a study for this project. . . . We don't believe the cost is justifiable for this project." While Movants recognize that the burden of proof under Criterion 5 does not rest with the applicant, Movants request the District Environmental Commission pursuant to Rule 20 of the Environmental Board Rules require the applicant to submit supplementary data as requested in the May 1, 1985 memorandum and reject applicants contention that the cost associated with the preparation of the data is not justifiable -on the ground that applicants have repeatedly stated that the project has been designed accommodate traffic in the year 2007 and have therefore assumed the responsibility of providing the Commission with information as to traffic impacts associated with the anticipated commercial growth which will occur between the present and the design year 2007. It is the position of Movants that this information is necessary under not only Criterion 5, but Criterion 10 of Act 250. Moreover, applicants have the burden of proof under Criterion 10 in demonstrating that the project 6 is in conformance with the City of South Burlington's duly adopted master plan. The City of South Burlington's master plan states in pertinent part under the heading of Transportation: "The improvement and expansion of transportation systems should also proceed in a way that complime.nts the pattern of existing and proposed land uses." The South Burlington master plan adopts the following guideline for transportation planning: "Transportation systems should provide, in as economical a manner as possible, LA`0 convenience and service commensurate with need. Expenditures' for transporation systems should be proportional to present and expected use trends of automobile and various other modes of transportation." Accordingly, in order for applicants to sustain their burden of proof under Criterian 10 information concerning the pattern -of existing and proposed land uses is necessary in support of the present application so that the Commission has adequate data to evaluate the project under Criterion 5 as well as Criterion 10. In further support'of this information the Commission's attention is directed to page 53 of the City of South Burlington's master plan which makes the following reference to the general policy of the City of South Burlington with respect to all roads located in South Burlington: "The ongoing maintenance of data volume base on traffic control equipment, t signs and stiping; 24 hour volume counts; turning movements; A and volume capacity ratios is essential to equitable review of new developments. These factors also affect the cost efficiency 7 and proper timing of new roads or improvements plus maintenance of reasonable level of service." WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein the Movants respectfully request that the District Environmental Commission to pursuant to Rule 20 of the Environmental Board Rules request the applicant to submit the supplementary data as identified herein so as to provide the Commission with adequate information to evaluate the application under the criteria/ fern ed herein. /'N ; 1 rsha J. Smith Rev iA/ R. O'Brien No Text t - V JOSEPH C MCNEIL (1919-1978) JOSEPH E MCNEIL FRANCIS X MURRAY WILLIAM H SORRELL MARSHA J SMITH ROBERT E FLETCHER. JR JOHN T LEDDY NANCY GOSS SHEAHAN MCNEIL, MURRAY" & SORRELL, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 1 1 ST. PAUL STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 March 6, 1985 Katherine M. Vose Environmental Board Coordinator District Environmental Commission #4 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Re: Dorset Street Widening Dear Katherine: TELEPHONE 863-4531 AREA CODE 802 The purpose of this communication is to request Rule 14 (B) party status at the above -referenced Act 250 hearings. I own a home located at 27 Brookwood Drive, South Burlington, Vermont, which is a local City street that intersects with Dorset Street. The widening of Dorset Street as presently proposed will, in my opinion, affect my interests under the following criteria: (1) undue air pollution; (5) unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions; (8) will have an undue adverse affect on my neighborhood; (9) (A) impact of growth in that the widening of Dorset Street is a condition precedent to the expansion of University Mall which if approved will place an undue burden upon the City of South Burlington to accommodate the growth caused by the proposed expansion of University Mall; and (9) (K) development affecting public investments in that the widening of Dorset Street will result in the construction of a five lane highway contiguous with the South Burlington High School, Middle School, recreation program, fire and police station, and City offices, and as such could materially jeopardize or interfere with the function, efficiency and perhaps most importantly the safety of the public's use and enjoyment of or access to these facilities and services. Additionally, my neighborhood was developed with construction financing from the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, and, thus, the widening of Dorset Street affects the public investment in residential subdivision. i �� —f--•'�•--tea. — 5i4es --k4tc \0,06 -s6W U. ml.Q Katherine M. Vose Page Two March 6, 1985 Additionally, I am requesting Rule 14 (B) party status at the above -referenced hearings on the ground that my participation may materially assist the Commission by cross-examining the witnesses and/or offering other evidence relevant to each and every provision of Title 10, Section 6086(a). As noted above, my interest in these proceedings arises due to the fact that I own a single family residence located at 27 Brookwood Drive which will intersect with Dorset Street. I have been actively involved in the public hearings concerning the widening of Dorset Street and several months ago, urged the South Burlington Board of School Commissioners to become involved in the process due to the fact that the proposal will result in the construction of a five lane highway contiguous with the South Burlington High School, Middle School, Public Library, and recreational facilities. Although I, myself, do not have any children, there are several school aged children residing in my neighborhood which will have to cross this five lane highway in order to attend the Middle School or participate in summer recreational activities. Additionally, I utilize the South Burlington Public Library, as well as the South Burlington Recreational facilities and will also be required to cross this five lane highway. I am presently of the opinion that little or no consideration has been given to the impact this proposal will have on the public's use and enjoyment of the Ci ty' s facilities located along Dorset Street including not only the Public Library and recreational facilities, but also the ability of the South Burlington Fire Department to efficiently operate and provide adequate fire protection. Further, to my knowledge, little or no consideration has been given to pedestrian safety issues which are of paramount importance to the parents and residents of my neighborhood whose children will be required to cross five lanes of traffic in order to attend the South Burlington Middle' School. Finally, I have serious questions as to the adequacy of the traffic projections and forecasts which resulted in the design decision to widen Dorset Street to five lanes. As an individual who travels on Dorset Street every single day, I am not convinced that there exists a need to widen Dorset Street to five lanes now, if ever. My fear is that should this proposal be granted an Act 250 Permit and Dorset Street widened to five lanes, intensive development is inevitable due to the fact that several developers have been advised that the widening of Dorset Street is a condition precedent to the commencement of their projects. This approach, while good for developers, creates an artificial need for a five lane highway located immediately adjacent to a large single family residential neighborhood which raw oftc"cuaffrofeD --p�e�cQ�t, - d ty�a PCU�A4 aprwA W oJak a.uuQQ. b� �p �twu. ealmlvu ckl4N• RD ate. rn• -traffic. , - � �. o�^Trafw� �tvcQ�- — c_c,�v►L.� 1.a� � ��'-- ) o'DW V e jL rc�i un� eaA. Q LJ -6--t -Nov .1> A*&S4 -nCh*bL uno;L� w �, �Ojr 0-ndYll, , Itiou�-o �N -t �r c•�o IF " 4 t m, ice AEQ,- 4mt rNtm. e V AA•c6A�y. P s w �'`'�► lid /' ` — e4v,.- too" p Ld-l- 0' Iet- �p� 1.00dlt�a►�s — N,t t�`i oA-Q- cn,cssLo a �a �� l�'e-- Katherine M. Vose Page Three March 6, 1985 was only recently developed with the aid and assistance of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to request that the District Environmental Commission schedule all further hearings on the widening of Dorset Street in the evening so that residents of my neighborhood can attend the hearings. I have been contacted by several of my neighbors who cannot attend the hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 12, because they work during the day, and, accordingly, urge the Commission to give serious consideration to holding the hearings on the widening of Dorset Street in the evening so that these members of my neighborhood may attend. e;y tr my o77 'KA u s, �1 1 Marsha J. it� MJS:lkm J ,2k ` 2�ch,Je.Cs G� ��.a1.r►�. -*,, cVAX, G ad bve c v►eu� '�.°l, '`^ , l�$ (v loci 1n Mr. Lor� •- 17.cs3 �c`v., � s�olEser.. Q"0 quo s.bo�� + a Yn.vou-n� (a.� Lfq-- Slc(A, 6t�fN4 I ONE AGFti STATE OF VERMONT j A(;ENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 titate Street, Administration Building >` Montpelier, Vermont 05602 tiSpOR�P March 6, 1985 Mr. Michael S. Brow Sylvester & Maley, Inc. P.O. Box 1053 Burlington, VT 05401 RECEIVED MAP; AGE ?' UFFICr= CITY SU E.t.1•,LiN ph RE: S. Burlington MEGC 5200(8) Dorset Street Dear Mr. Brow: This will certify that the understandings set forth in your letter of January 29, 1985 are accurate. The land needed for the widening will be accurately depicted on the "Right -of -Way Plans" which will be published in the near future. Just one other comment related to the tone, rather than the substance, of your letter. Please be advised that this project is being developed for the City of South Burlington. The acquisition of property rights for the project is the responsibility of the City. Dorset Street is a city street which is, and will continue to be, the maintenance responsibility of the City. The role of the State is to design the project and administrer the construction contract in a way which will insure eligibility for Federal Funding. Please let me know if additional information is needed. Sincerley, Frank C. Evans Survey and Plans Engineer FCE:mlt cc: W. Szymanski, City Rd -lager for MORTON 5i1PETSflLT RES�pENCE PORTER'S POINT RD RURAL DELIVERY WINOUSKI, VF,RMONT 054 R02 062-4309 O� MORTON HIGHWy y CALCIUM CHLORIDE L7 Th J A ' E:S SE �O'WE elllical corporat. �t✓Mhara _�/I�pn�r=ertyhPld mIon oss OI/p9a lJ/3739-,Sb'/1l + 1-� "An-vo y 0. lc, ckc.re,, '16.3,coc,la.Cr2 - u, 1151 ac Clu.rkALiz � , ca d% . p6Y, f HAROLD C. SYLVESTER ALAN F. SYLVESTER IOHN P. MALEY H.JOSEPH GAMACHE MICHAEL S. BROW RITA B. HOWE January 29, 1985 LAW OFFICES OF SYLVESTER & MALEY, INC. R O. BOX 1053 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 03402-1053 Frank C. Evans Survey $ Plans Engineer Agency of Transportation Administration Building 133 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Re: South Burlington MEGC 5200(8) - Dorset Street Dear Mr. Evans: TEL.802-864-5722 OFFICES AT: 78 PINE STREET The School District officials have asked that I write you in order to summarize their understanding as to the representations and assurances given to them by the State with respect to the above -entitled project. They would like to receive confirmation on each of the following points at your earliest convenience. 1. The widening of Dorset Street, insofar as it involves lands presently owned by the School District of South Burlington, will be done in accordance with sheets 24-27-and sheet 35 of the November 1, 1984 revised Webster & Martin plan. It is the understanding of the School Board that three feet of land will be taken at survey station 111+00. Five feet will be taken at survey station 114+60. Seven feet will be taken at survey station 117+55. Eight feet will be taken at survey station 120+75. Eleven feet will be taken at survey station 125+25, and through to the end of the School's property. It is further the understanding of the School Board that the amount of land taken between the various points identified will be within the parameters set by the various end points. In other words, a relatively straight line will run between survey station 111+00 and survey station 114+60, between stations 114+60 and 117+55, between stations 117+55 and 120+75, and between stations 120+75 and 125+25. 2. Dorset Street is going to be reconstructed to provide five- foot sidewalks and barrier curbs on both sides, five-foot bike lanes on both sides, two eleven -foot wide traffic lanes in each direction, and an eleven -foot wide two-way left turn lane. Frank C. Evans Page 2 January 291, 1985 3. Traffic control signals are to be installed to control the major intersection at Kennedy Drive 750 feet south of the School District's second driveway as depicted on the traffic control plan prepared by Webster & Martin, Inc. for the school frontage on Dorset Street dated November 1, 1984. 4. A pedestrian activated traffic control signal system and crosswalk will be established on Dorset Street. It is the understanding of the School officials that the locations of the signal system and the crosswalk may be moved closer to the intersection with the Middle School exit than is indicated on any of the prior plans. The understanding of the officials is that the precise location of the pedestrian light and crosswalk will be determined at a later date by the School District officials and that the State has indicated a willing- ness to comply with any reasonable request on behalf of the School District as to the location of the crosswalk and pedestrian light. 5. The existing drive off Kennedy Drive for access to the school parking lot adjacent to the football field will be retained. 6. Landscaping is going to be carried out to mitigate the loss of current buffer space between Dorset Street and the school which will minimize the negative aesthetic effect caused by the loss of trees in front of the high school. It is the understanding of the offirinlc _f *u- Ladl the scaping is to be done in accordance+&withIithe landscapelplan prepared by the State of Vermont Agency of Transportation landscape technician Reginald Whitaker and that the State has agreed to pay for such landscaping as needs to be done. As with any landscaping project, notwithstanding the conceptual agreement with the plan, it is possible that some changes may have to be made at some point in the future and the State will be willing to make such changes so long as the requests on the part of the school officials are reasonable. If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding as to the representations and commitments that the State has made to the School District, I would appreciate you signing a copy of this letter and returning it to me for my records or, if you prefer, writing me another letter indicating that the foregoing constitutes an accurate recital of the representations, assurances and commitments made by the State to the School District in connection with this project. Yours truly, Michael S. Brow Frank C. Evans Page 3 January 29, 1985 cc: School Directors Superintendent of Schools STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION By: Frank vans STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 March 6, 1985 Mr. Michael S. Brow Sylvester & Maley, Inc. P.O. Box 1053 Burlington, VT 05401 RE: S. Burlington MEGC 5200(8) Dorset Street Dear Mr. Brow: This will certify that the understandings set forth in your letter of January 29, 1985 are accurate. The land needed for the widening will be accurately depicted on the "Right -of -Way Plans" which will be published in the near future. Just one other comment related to the tone, rather than the substance_, of vn„r letter n,____ L_ --- aicase a advised that this project is being developed for the City of South Burlington. The acquisition of property rights for the project is the responsibility of the City. Dorset Street is a city street which is, and will continue to be, the maintenance responsibility of the City. The role of the State is to design the project and administrer the construction contract in a way which will. insure eligibility for Federal Funding. Please let me know if additional information is needed. Sincerley, Cis Frank C. Evans Survey and Plans Engineer FCE:mlt cc: W. Sz, �manski, City Manager r7► ►r am �� AouC- , act p. s 10, m i 5 ®� D. b-7 Memorandum Next week's agenda items 11/19/82 Page 2 tend to create. Finally, I have asked Attorney Spokes to respond to several general issues pertaining to this situation (see attached letter). I don't think his response materially affects the Ridgewood -Indian Creek issue, but several of his points should be addressed at a work session shortly. 4� Dorset Street' Enclosed are two items: (1) portion of Traffic Engineering Associates' previous report for comparison to the Trans Op report, and (2) a proposed Dorset Street policy. Also, I hope to have some additional comments from Joe Oppen- lander on several requested items prior to Tuesday's meeting. I feel that the current Trans Op report is reasonably consistent with the earlier Traffic Engineeringociates report. The Dorset -Hinesburg connector is a key element of both. Many of the same problem intersections are identified. The major difference is the much greater scope of the Traffic Engineering Associates recommended improvements. This difference can largely be explained by the assumptions on page 5. A higher normal growth was used (2.5% vs. 2.1% per year) as well as a much higher rate of development (e.g. Corporate Circle could have 1,045,440 square feet under the earlier report vs. 556,205 square feet under the more recent one). Also, note that the Traffic Engineering Associates report recommended the third left turning lane,from Dorset Street whereas the Trans Op report felt it would be undesireable. The enclosed Dorset Street policy essentially recommends that an overall framework be established now for providing and paying for street improvements. Within that overall framework, individual developments could be allowed to proceed as long as their additional traffic could be handled by existing or soon -to -be built street improvements. Of course, there must still be reasonable assurances that the improvements will be built. The chances have been greatly improved now that the initial part of the project has been included in the State's five year transportation plan. The City Council must decide whether to seek a local bond vote immediately or whether to tie into the State's timetable (and perhaps hurry it along). In either case, the developers' share of costs can be determined now and the ability of streets to handle additional development traffic can be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Q��pNt AGF�c� O STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building iMontpelier, Vermont 05602 �NSE'OR�P4 January 7, 1983 Mr. David H. Spitz, Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Dear Mr. Spitz: Vermont 05401 As you requested in your letter of December 8, 1982, a review has been completed by Agency personnel of the traffic planning study entitled "Dorset Street Project - South Burlington, Vermont" and prepared by TRANS/OP, INC. for the City of South Burlington. I offer the following comments relative to the Agency's review of this report: 1. In general we agree with the assumptions, analyses, and findings presented in this report. However, based on the Agency's most recent manual vehicular turning movement counts and automatic traffic recorder counts in this area, the traffic volumes for the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive appear to be fairly conservative and may not reflect higher traffic volumes which are generated by the several condominium develop- ments which have recently been constructed off Kennedy Drive and Dorset Street to the south of this intersection. Based on our traffic analysis, the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive appears to operate well below level of service "B" as presented in the traffic study. In 1992, this intersection would not appear to operate at level of service "C", with or without a new on -ramp connector. Further evaluation by the consultant may be necessary for this particular intersection. 2. The addition of an on -ramp connector from Kennedy Drive to I 89 northbound would slightly improve traffic flow conditions along Dorset Street. Reductions in the 1992 afternoon design hour volumes could be in the five to ten percent range. With or without the new on -ramp connector, the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive would operate at less than level of service "C" conditions. 3. Where traffic signal warrants are met, as presented in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices", fully - actuated or semi -actuated traffic signal systems should be installed rather than the conventional fixed -time signal systems. Mr. David H. Spitz, Planner Page 2 January 7, 1982 4. Based on the traffic data presented by TRANS/OP, INC. and the Agency's traffic data pertinent to the Dorset Street project area, right-of-way acquisition for a five -lane street would be appropriate for the entire section of Dorset Street from Williston Road to the intersec ion o rset Street with Kennedy Drive. In 1992, a five -lane street would be required between Williston Road and the intersection of University Mall North Driveway and Corporate Way. A five -lane typical appears to be necessary for the north leg of Dorset Street at the Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive inter- section. Other geometric considerations may also be required at this intersectional location. Further analysis of this intersection should be considered by the consulting engineer. A four -lane street would be required for the rest of Dorset Street. 5. Appropriate traffic monitoring procedures should be established prior to the construction of the proposed developments to monitor the actual impacts from these developments. This monitoring procedure should facilitate the determination of when the fifth lane would be required for the remaining four -lane sections of Dorset Street. If you have any questions concerning the Agency's review of TRANS/OP, INC.'S. traffic report, please contact me. PJG:WKW:gs City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658-7955 April 18, 1985 Mr. Arthur Goss Chief of Design Administration Building Agendy of Transportation State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Goss: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 This letter serves to formally notify you of the City's approval of the University Mall expansion plan. This expansion includes the reconstruction of the northerly entrance/exit driveway on to Dorset Street, the closing of the existing southerly driveway, and a new entrance/exit located just south of the Janes and Jacob Real Estate offices at 205 Dorset Street. Enclosed are copies of those changes. I am formally notifying you of these plans so that the State will not have to amend the Dorset Street widening Act 250 permit when the Mall's construction is completed. The Mall expects to begin these improvements this summer, 1985. I will gladly show you more complete plans if you need them. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg Encls ,9 Ld Or 99 N CDC rc1 :+..; ID � rim. '•. .\ . j 'S��' ,_ co ar b h tJ 9113T�b �d i n, 41, 1 � TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Phone (802) 878-5977 January 19, 1983 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: In regard to the Dorset Street Project, sensitivity analyses were performed for three traffic -volume situations at the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive in addition to the demand loads that were evaluated in the initial study. In the first appraisal, afternoon design hour volumes were forecasted for 1992 travel conditions with local trip generation rates. To extend the range of possible future traffic loadings on this intersection, the following afternoon design levels were developed for performance assess- ment by the technique of critical movement analysis - planning: 1. 1992 design hour volumes with Institute of Transportation Engineers_, (ITE) trip generation rates, - Table 27; 2. 2002 design hour volumes with local trip generation rates - Table 28; and 3. 2002 design hour volumes with ITE trip generation rates - Table 29. Graphical summaries of the vehicular volumes that represent the stipulated design hour (1600 to 1700) are presented in the above -listed tables. Future estimates of existing and developmental volumes were prepared in a manner that is similar to the procedure outlined in the initial project report. A growth factor of 1.19 for existing vehicular volumes was developed for the period from 1992 to 2002. These sensitivity analyses were developed for vehicular volumes without the proposed interstate on -ramp connector. Both critical -movement volumes and levels of service are provided in Tables 30 through 32 for the three levels of demand volumes at the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive. In each tabular summary, intersectional performance is appraised for the appropriate design hour volumes with existing geometric features and traffic controls. Then, relevant modification in pertinent control and/or geometric arrangements is appraised in an attempt to provide level of service 'C' or better at the study location. For practical reasons, supply -oriented traffic improvements are limited to four -phase signal operation and to three approach and two exit lanes on any leg of the inter- section. The following listing denotes the required supply -oriented improve- ments at the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive for the designated planning criteria. • TRANS/OP INC. • - 2 TABLE 27 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY South Burlington, VT DATE _1992 DAY of WEEK Ave. Weekday INTERSECTION Dorset St. and Kennedy Dr.- JOB No. ,R-? 0 Z - 958 742 O m - N 0 O U al cn cr1 N cy) O EASTBOUND ENTERING VOLUME -- TOTAL -- - --- Kennedy Dr. PERCENT TIME of COUNT OF FLOW fternoon DHV with development nd ITE trip rates --- - VEHICLES COUNTED ALL VEHICLES XXX _ TRUCKS (XX) PERCENT TRUCKS % } -:- - TRANS /OP INC. 3 TABLE 28 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY South Burlington, VT _ _DATE__ 2002 DAY of WEEK Ave.- Weekda INTERSECTION Dorset St. and Kennedy Dr, JOB No. SB-2 — EASTBOUND Kennedy Dr. 0 z )UND o, m -- E- o� - 402 326 O Z EN 1-1--RING PERCENT TIME of COUNT V O l_ U ME O_F F LOW --------- ------ - - -- ----- - ----- - - Afternoon DHV with development and___local-triprates-------- -_ _— __-_-- --- VEHICLES COUNTED ------- ------ ---------- ALL VEHICLES XX U--- TRCK-S (X -- -- - -- - -- - - -- -- X PERCENT TRUCKS - - —� TRANS/OP INC. ' 4 TABLE 29 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY South Burlington,_VT __ DATE_2002 _DAY of WEEK Ave.- Weekday INTERSECTION Dorset St. and Kennedy Dr__ JOB No._ SB-2 0 Z :D -1068 841 O m N _ O N Ln 00 r- 00 cYn 1J U1 (/) c!1 N _t CA H O Q EASTBOUND STREET I ENTERING VOLUME TOTAL rNESTBOUND Kennedy Dr. o o Z O' m H cc +0 O Z PERCE-NT TIME of COUNT Afternoon DHV with development -- and ITE trip rates. - -- -- VEHICLES COUNTED ALL --V---EHI---C—LE-S--XXX -- - -- - ---- --- -- - -- ---- ---------- - --- --------- _TRUCKS-------(XX�--- - PERCENT MUCKS % 5 TABLE 30 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vermont Approach Approach DHV Critical Movement (1600-1700) (vph) (vph) 1992 Traffic Conditions With Development And ITE Trip Rates, Two-phase Signal Dorset St. - North App. 958 393 Dorset St. - South App. 292 141 Kennedy Dr. - East App. 760 421 Kennedy Dr. - West App. 673 282 Total 1237 Level of Service D 1992 Traffic Conditions With Development And ITE Trip Rates, Two-phase Signal, Left -straight And Straight -right Lanes On Kennedy Dr. - East Approach, And Left And Straight -right Lanes On Kennedy Dr. - West Approach Dorset St. - North App. 958 393 Dorset St. - South App. 292 141 Kennedy Dr. - East App. 760 270 Kennedy Dr. - West App. 673 282 Total 1086 Level of Service C M. TABLE 31 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vermont Approach Approach DHV Critical Movement (1600-1700) (vph) (vph) 2002 Traffic Conditions With Development And Local Trip Rates, Two-phase Signal Dorset St. - North App. 914 375 Dorset St. - South App. 326 146 Kennedy Dr. - East App. 857 501 Kennedy Dr. - West App. 758 293 Total 1315 Level of Service D 2002 Traffic Conditions With Development And Local Trip Rates, Two-phase Signal, Left -straight And Straight -right Lanes On Kennedy Dr. - East Approach, And Left And Straight -right Lanes On Kennedy Dr. - West Approach Dorset St. - North App. 914 375 Dorset St. - South App. 326 146 Kennedy Dr. - East App. 857 301 Kennedy Dr. - West App. 758 293 Total 1115 Level of Service C 7 TABLE 32 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vermont Approach Approach DHV Critical Movement (1600-1700) (vph) (vph) 2002 Traffic Conditions With Development And ITE Trip Rates, Two-phase Signal Dorset St. - North App. 1068 438 Dorset St. - South App. 340 160 Kennedy Dr. - East App. 887 501 Kennedy Dr. - West App. 784 319 Total 1418 Level of Service E 2002 Traffic Conditions With Development And ITE Trip Rates, Two-phase Signal, Left -straight And Straight -right Lanes On Kennedy Dr. - East Approach, And Left And Straight -right Lanes On Kennedy Dr. - West Approach Dorset St. - North App. 1068 438 Dorset St. - South App. 340 160 Kennedy Dr. - East App. 887 314 Kennedy Dr. - West App. 784 319 Total 1231 Level of Service D M. 1. 1992 afternoon design hour volumes with ITE trip generation rates, Table 30. Level of service 'C' is achievable for these traffic demands with two-phase signal control if the following geometric modifications are implemented at this location. a. Kennedy Drive - East Approach. Lane -usage arrangements are revised for left -straight and straight -right movements. b. Kennedy Drive - West Approach. Left and straight -right lane operations are required for this leg of the intersection. C. Kennedy Drive - West Exit. Two traffic lanes must be provided to accommodate the two lanes of permitted through movement from the east approach of Kennedy Drive and the left and right turns from Dorset Street. These same modifications were proposed in the initial study phase of the Dorset Street Project. 2. 2002 afternoon design hour volumes with local trip generation rates, Table 31. Traffic performance at this intersection is described as 'C' level of service for the vehicular volumes, if the same geometric modifications and signal phasing that were described in the previous section are effected at this intersection. 3. 2002 afternoon design hour volumes with ITE trip generation rates, Table 32. With the same recommendations that are suggested in the first section, 'D' service level results at this location for the forecasted traffic loadings. Any other geometric and/or signal improvements are ineffective in enhancing intersectional performance ratings and result in increased total critical movements. In addition to the recommended geometric changes, the following lane -usage configurations were implicit in these traffic performance evaluations. 1. Dorset Street - North Approach. Lane designationas are left and straight -right movements for effective traffic flows. 2. Dorset Street - North Exit. Two lanes are required to accommodate the left and right turns from Kennedy Drive on the same signal phase. 3. Dorset Street - South Approach. The present designation of left -straight and right lanes is adequate for the traffic volumes in all studied alternatives. 4. Dorset Street - South Exit. A single lane is satisfactory for accommodating all traffic that exits from this intersection in a southerly direction. 5. Kennedy Drive - East Exit. Two lanes are essential for simultaneous left and right turns from Dorset Street. In all appraisal situations, two-phase signal operation enhances traffic performance at this intersection. For comparative purposes, the evaluation of this intersection by critical movement analysis - planning is summarized in Table 7 of the technical report entitled "Dorset Street Project" for the initial planning parameters. The demand volumes for the situation with no on -ramp connection to 189 from Kennedy Drive are contained in Table 18 of Appendix B, Projected 1992 Design Hour Volumes Without Proposed On -ramp. 0 Please advise of any further analyses that may be desired to evaluate the sensitivities of the traffic planning logic that was developed for the Dorset Street Project. Thank you. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05401 Phone (802) 878-5977 February 17, 1983 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: In the selected sensitivity analyses for the Dorset Street Project, the traffic -diversion logic for the roadway system with the on -ramp connector to I89 was revised to include destinations on Williston Road to the west of Interchange No. 14. The revised 1992 afternoon design hour volumes are presented in Table 30 for the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road. The initial volume pattern for this location and the proposed I89 connection is provided in Table 19 of the original report. Although the net effect of this trip revision amounts to only a 23-vehicle reduction in the left -turn movement from Dorset Street to Williston Road, the level of service for 1992 travel conditions is improved from 'E' to 'D'. Pertinent values of the critical movement analysis - planning are summarized in Table 31. Previous evaluations of traffic performance at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road are listed in Table 3 of the original study report. Please advise of any additional evaluations that may be desired in regard to the proposed on -ramp connector from Kennedy Drive to 189. Thank you. Very truly yours, 5 Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk TRANS/OP INC. 2 TABLE 30 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CIT South Burlin ton VT DATE 1992 DAYof WEEK A INTERSECTION Dorset St. and Williston Rd.. JOB No. SB-2 EASTBOUND Williston Rd. I 3 TABLE 31 INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Dorset Street and Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont Approach Approach DHV Critical Movement (1600-1700) (vph) (vph) Revised 1992 Traffic Conditions With On -ramp, Four -phase Signal Holiday Inn 59 11 Dorset St. 1170 506 Williston Rd. - East App. 1324 185 Williston Rd. - West App. 1824 522 Total Level of Service 1224 D TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Phone (802) 878-5977 November 23, 1982 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: In response to your query, the following explanation is provided to elabo- rate on the logic of traffic assignments to the proposed 189 on -ramp con- nector in the Dorset Street project. Because no origin -and -destination data were available for this study, an approximate procedure was developed to analyze the impact of this contemplated roadway facility on the traffic conditions of Dorset Street during the weekday afternoon peak hour (1600 to 1700) in 1992. Based on a recent turning movement study conducted by the Vermont Agency of Transportation at the I89 interchange with Williston Road, a relative amount equal to 32 percent of the exiting volumes on the west leg of the Dorset Street -Williston Road intersection was destined for travel on the interstate route. This diversion was applied equally to all vehicular volumes on the north, south, and east approaches of the Dorset Street -Williston Road intersection. That is, an allocation of 32 percent for diverted traffic to the interstate was constant without regard to the origin of the approach volumes at this intersection. This diversion factor was then applied to the relevant non -development components of the northbound exit movement on Dorset Street at the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive. The relevant traffic volumes are straight movements from the south approach of Dorset Street and right turns from the east approach of Kennedy Drive. These flow components represent the only northbound Dorset Street movements that would be subject to a 32-percent diversion to the 189 on -ramp connection. No northbound develop- ment volumes are involved in the assignments to I89 at this intersection. The only southbound movements on Dorset Street to utilize the proposed inter- state on -ramp are a diverted proportion of the northbound development traffic for Deslauriers property. This allocation was approximated as 12 percent for a distance diversion curve with some allowance for traffic congestion at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road. Consideration of the pro- portional diversion of non -Dorset Street volumes to the proposed on -ramp con- nector from Kennedy Drive to the northbound section of 189 was beyond the scope of the Dorset Street project. -2- Please advise of any additional details that you may desire in regard to this phase of the transportation planning study for Dorset Street. Very truly yours, r Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO;njk Page 3 PLANNING, ISSION NOVIIMBER 23, 1982 .may not -be exactly what had -,taken place. Mr. -Mona noted that there had been some discussion :about- whether ;.the;indicated boundary line would be the final one. Mr. >' Sidel.responded.that-this.`was the.linethat"they were seeking approval for and any change, to* that would-oome back to the Planning Commission for. permission. Mr. Nona said that if a'rearrangement of the line takes place that it be subject to ..the city planner's discretion as to whether it must cane back or not. Mr. Liggett, Vice President of the'Homeowner's Association of Ridgewood asked that the issue of the road barricade'be tabled until a later meeting because there seem to be a number of issues within the Homeowner's Association that need to be cleared up. He said they would like to come before the Planning Commission with at least a majority. position, ,and thbrefore they request at least a 30 day delay. Mr. Nona questioned whether there would be any new information in another 30 days. Sav Mrs. Maher moved that the final plat application by the Vermont Federal cgs & Loan Association be continued until January 4, 1983 at City Hall at P.M. Mr. Jacob seconded with six voting in favor and Mr. Nona voting against. - Continuation of review cif Dorset Street Traffic Stud Mr. Spitz said that he had just received additional information from Mr. Oppenlander on Saturday trip generation rates to allow ccmparision between the three developers. A few other items of information must still be submitted. Mr. Spitz compared the Dorset Street study to the earlier triangle area report prepared by Bruce Houghton's firm. The earlier report contained some very major improvements and was a bit of a wish list. The projections in that report were very high. For example, it assumed that such areas as Corporate Circle would be 80% developed within ten years at a`30% coverage with two stories. He said that although this was the maximum allowed by zoning, most developments can not approach that coverage because of parking and other requirements. The current report focuses in on Dorset Street and is a refinement of the earlier report. Mrs. Maher asked what the specific differences on Dorset Street were between the two reports. Mr. Spitz responded that the earlier report included 3 left turning.lanes at the Dorset/Williston intersection and several additional lanes at the Dorset/Kennedy intersection. It did not address recommended number of lanes for Dorset Street. Mr. Poger added that the earlier report also suggested two connections from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road lining up with two entrances to University Mall. Mr. Jacob also pointed out that there had been two connections in the Houghton report. Mr. Spitz noted that there were'right-of-way problems with one of the connections between Dorset and Hinesburg Road. As a result, the new study was done with only one connection to see if that was sufficient to handle the flow of traffic through the area. Mr. Nona asked if Mr. Oppelander could explain why the proposed on -ramp from Kennedy Drive to Intersection 89 didn't seem to have much effect. Mrs. Maher asked that the assumptions be explained. Mr. Oppenlander said that since no origin and destination study was available they had to put together their own logic based on a recent Vermont Agency of Transportation Traffic count at interchange number 14. They determined that 32% of the traffic passing through that intersection was entering the interstate during afternoon peak hours. After determing that per- centage, the critical location comes back to Kennedy Drive because those are the only vehicles that can get off to go to the Interstate. The affected movements are the east approach on Kennedy Drive and the south approach on Dorset Street. In determining number of cars that could use the ramp, only non -development traffic is Page 4 PLANNING CCMISSION NMEMBER 23, 1982 °° s'x:irtiltKed:k i�r't7ppetinder:,said he ,addressed';whether any cars were likely to south'rfrom onefi`? :f Ahe',newdevelop menu -;and .use the new, ramp as, a bypass -.to. ,,,;tiie�,Dorset/WiUiiston:T 'intersection'.,. ' He estimated that only , the Delaurier development �aotild `be`;so•.affected'and.`that 12$ of its northbound traffic would instead beccue '`southbound traffic which .would.tuseAhe ramp:, In:response to a question as to why bttier�devel6pment,traffic,would not,use the onramp, Mr. Oppenlander-said that the �Idistance was 'too-:great.`:.'Mr. Spitz"asked if ,.the 32 percent diversion included the ,case,of a car -going from Kennedy -Drive towards Gaynes and using the onramp as a • ..; by' passe . Mr.,r.�Oppenlander.. said it -had not been included, and there might be an additional diversion that hasn't been figured in. Concerning.the Dorset Street approach to Williston Road, Mr. Woolery asked Mr:,,Oppenlander if he was aware of any place that uses three left turning lanes. Mr. Oppenlander said he was not. There was general agreement that three left turning lanes were not desireable. Funding and design for the proposed on ramp were discussed. It was stated that Federal approval would be required; however, the community might be able to pay for it. Mr. Poger said that:the Planning Commission had long set level C as the proper design'standard by which to evaluate new developments. He asked Mr. Oppenlander to comment. Mr. Oppenlander replied that a higher level of service is obviously preferable; however, it has a price tag with many communities cannot afford. Eventually, level of service will deteriorate to D or E until people start to regulate their trips with respect to time. Mr. Nona tented that we wern't atthat point yet. Mr.. Oppenlander pointed out that we were talking about design hour which just referred to the 30th highest hours of the year. Also, certain hours such as midday on Saturday are not as important to be designed for.. He said that'in ten years employeers would have to make much greater use of flex time to preserve traffic carrying capabilities by spreading demand over periods of time. Mr. Poger said that unfortunately the Planning Commission cannot regulate such lerge employers as the Hospital where people come through South Burlington from Burlington. Mr. Mona said he was violently opposed to changing our traffic design standards and letting crowded road conditions dictate what people do. The Planning Commission would be derelict in its duty if it allowed a poorer level of service. The Commission next asked how far the fifth lane on Dorset Street should extend. Mr. Oppenlander answered that it was needed as far as the north entrance to the University Mall and to Corporate Circle. Mr. Spitz suggested extending it a little further to the University Mall and V.L. Properties intersection because it is so close to the first intersection. Beyond that, however, it is 800 feet to the proposed southerly University Mall entrance and the need for a fifth lane hasn't been clearly demonstrated. A Brookwood resident expressed concern about the lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crossing areas. Mr. Poger said that they had not been discussed yet. Mr. Audette commented that sidewalks in certain areas are useless and are a waste of money. He said you would have to buy more land to put a sidewalk on this side and that no people would use it because they all cross where there is access now to the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Mr. Schner said he was embarassed to sit and listen to the Commission consider not putting in the side- walk when they force every developer who comes in with a project to do so. He said that the City must do it the same way as a developer. Mr. Nona said that both view points would be considered. PAGE 5 PLANNING CCMMISSION . : NOVMMA 23, ,:1982 , . c *r3asked',, that,,the�-corset Street,' i revi wed -_:_`. i e w: y - Pn�,, cy. be �. „ Coils d rai ng,, =` Y.srtint,.nwriberda'�,.Mr Nona°dd�ir. want' gi.Tup':the {optioiir.oextendi}y} v , Y t.. x��, 7 _ i • a,V�. :y's`�thefCe the`;extr $OO;eet`to Univer'sit' south,_df' y:Mal�. veway: 011 .. - r�sta'temerit'was`added. : '" •.-"TI1ePln�ri .Comnissi©n''xail+examine; the :need.:£or,.extension `* df':the-fifth'lane,.as,far as1the University, Mall south driveway.as additional,," `' Mr. Mona then suggeslopinent tokedplace ted ': that.. the.;following be;added addedleve . ; ,.::;.' ✓ - as�,,point'. numberi't16); `s; ', •"'Sidewalks should, .be,:provided; on both sides . of .Dorset Street from Villiston:.Road to, Kennedy Drive unless �ideemed. not feasible.".;. In number 2 it was-suggested�'to,change "setting.,a,timetable�,to pursue these improvements",to "setti a, -.timetable for these'i " ng' .dznprovementsy; .; In point .number ,3a) Mr.. Spitz said • ., ;., thefp6rcentage-,shares for.each'developer could -not be.filled in.until Saturday,,;., traffic counts were analyzed'. ,It -,appears that Corporate Circle will be about 45 to 50%,'University Mall will be'about 40-,to 50%, and V.L. Properties -will be : about 10 to 20%. -Mr. Poger_suggested that 2b) be identified as the Corporate Circle/University�Mall north entrance and that 2c) be identified as V.L. Properties/ University Mall center entrance. In point 4c) a question was raised about the reference to future traffic. It was decided to delete this part of the sentence. In point 4f) it was also decided to delete the sentence on a,,possible.reimbursemknt policy. Mr. Mona moved that the Planning Commission transmit the Dorset Street policy to the City Council for their consideration and action. Mr. Belter seconded it and the motion was unanimously approved. Other; business. Mr. Spitz said that at some point he wanted to discuss the items raised in Mr. Spokes' letter concerning review of condominiums. It was decided to schedule -the discussion at a later date. The next Commission's meeting is;j-to . be held on Tuesday, November 30. The only item of business will be the preliminary plat application of V.L. Properties. The meeting was adjorned at 10:15 P.M. Clerk STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 December 15, 1982 Mr. David H. Spitz, Planner City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 8, 1982 and its accompanying Traffic Impact Study of Dorset Street which was prepared by TransOp, Inc. for the City of South Burlington. As you know, preparations are underway to further advance the Dorset Street project within the Agency's Highway Construction Program and submittal of your letter and the City's Dorset Street policy is very timely. A full analysis is underway here at the Agency and you will be advised as soon as possible. Sincerely, Tom Evslin Secretary TE:JERL:gs ONT -AGFtiC STATE OF VERMONT p AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 �,9�SPOFt�P,�`O April 23, 1985 Ms. Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: South Burlington MEX 5200(8) Dear Ms. Bechtel: Thank you for your April 18, 1985 letter informing us concerning City approval of the relocation of the University Mall South Entrance. When available, the following specific information would assist us in incorporating the revision into our plans: 1. Detailed scale drawings of the new entrance. 2. Detailed drawing showing the plans for reconstructing the area presently used for the south entrance; including any curb cuts proposed for that frontage and their use; and the design of the signal system, if any, to remain at that location. 3. Details of the traffic signal system to be installed at the new south entrance; including signal head arrangement, strain pole locations, timing sequences, detector locations, details of interconnect with the north entrance, manner of accommodating Lake Buick driveway, configuration of the signal controller, and illumination, if any. Rather than delay the current Act 250 proceedings, we would prefer to obtain a Land Use Permit based on the design we have submitted. At some future time (much nearer the construction date), we will apply for an amend- ment to the Land Use Permit to cover all significant changes in the plans; including accommodation of all new shopping center entrances. Thank you for your interest in this project. Sincely, Frank C . Evans Acting Chief of Design FCE:sfb cc: W. Szymanski, City Manager No Text January 25, 1985 Arthur Goss Chief of Design Agency of Transportation Administrative Building State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 De a r. Goss: I nderstand that the State needs a letter from the City to comply with Act 250 requirements for the widening of Dorset Street. This is to confirm that the Dorset Street project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of South Burlington. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg ADOf UVej 12/2/82 r' �G; Y Dorset Street Policy I. Improvements for the entire Dorset Street corridor from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive shall be as follows: II. A. Widening of Dorset Street to 5 lanes from Williston Road to University Mall "center" entrance, and widening to 4 lanes from that point to Kennedy Drive. The Planning Commission will examine the need for extension of the 5th lane as far as the University Mall South drive- way as additional development takes place. B. Provision of signalized intersections at all entrances to major develop- ments. C. Upgrading of Dorset/Kennedy intersection. D. Provision of on -ramps from Kennedy Drive to I-89 northbound. E. Provision of sidewalks on both sides of Dorset Street from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive unless deemed not feasible. See Trans Op's November 1982 "Dorset Street Project" report or its successors for further details on the above improvements. The City Council shall determine the City's portion of responsibility for the above improvements. The Planning Commission recommends that the City's reasponsibility shall be as follows: A. Widening of Dorset Street to 4 lanes from University Mall "center" entrance to Kennedy Drive. B. Provision of on -ramp from Kennedy Drive to I-89 northbound. C. Provision of sidewalks. The City Council shall also be responsible for setting a timetable for these improvements. III. Allocation of responsibility for the balance of improvements among anticipated developments shall be as follows: A. Widening of Dorset Street to 5 lanes from Williston Road to University Mall "center" entrance: Corporate Circle, 43%, University Mall, 43%, V.L. Properties, 14%. B. Upgrading of Corporate Circle/University Mall "north" entrance: Corporate Circle. C. Upgrading of V.L. Properties/University Mall "center" entrance: V.L. Properties. D. Upgrading of University Mall "south" entrance: University Mall. E. Upgrading of Dorset/Kennedy intersection: Deslauriers and other future developments. IV. At the time of any specific application for development, the Planning Commission shall determine both the size of development that may take place and the specific contribution to traffic improvements that a de- veloper shall provide. The Planninq Commission shall consider at least A. All calculations shall be based on the most recently available in- formation. Traffic counts, required street and intersection improve- ments, and developers' share of improvements shall be updated as needed. B. Each application shall be reviewed according to the capacity of streets and intersections to accommodate normal traffic growth plus added traffic from this development and other approved developments (unapproved developments shall undergo similar review at the time of their application). C. Full development may be approved if level of service can be maintained with existing road facilities or if required street improvements can be constructed within a specified timetable. D. Developments may be limited or phased if required improvements can not be constructed quickly enough. E. The Planning Commission shall determine a timetable for construction of required street improvements by a developer or for payment of the required share of City -built improvements. F. A developer may choose to construct required improvements above his share in advance of the City's timetable for construction if such improvements are required to achieve adequate level of service. (2) �oN= AG�cNc� STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 133 State Street, Administration Building O� Montpelier, Vermont 05602 � VSPOR�p�` February 4, 1985 Sidney B. Poger, Chairman South Burlington Planning Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: South Burlington MEGC 5200(8) Dear Mr. Poger: In accord with Title 10, V.S.A. Section 6084, I am forwarding a copy of this Agency's application for the Act 250 Permit for improve- ment of a 1.2 mile section of Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington. Sincerely, Arthur Goss Chief Design Enclosures AJG:MJS:sfb No Text February 23, 1983 Paul A. Farrar, Chairman South Burlington City Council City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Patrick J. Garahan, Secretary Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Garahan, The City of South Burlington appreciates the work that has been done to date on the inclusion of two Williston Road and one Dorset Street improvement projects in the State's Five Year Transportation Plan. However, due to the critical importance of the three projects and their relative ease of design and construction we request that the projects be advanced as follows: Project Construction Williston Road at Gaynes 1984 Dorset Street 1985 Williston Road from I-89 to Hinesburg Road 1986 Preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition would have to be advanced accordingly. Please also note that recent City traffic studies indicate that portions of Dorset Street should be widened to five lanes. You have already re- viewed this additional widening and have commented favorably on the concept, and we request that the design and funding for Dorset Street improvements be expanded accordingly. Lastly, we note that planning money ($200,000) for the South Burlington Connector was not included in the most recent version of the five year plan. Patrick J. Garahan, Secretary Vermont Agency cbf Transportation February 23, 1983 Page 2 We understand that this omission was an oversight and that the funds will be reincluded. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincerely, Paul A. Farrar, Chairman South Burlington City Council PAF/mcg cc: Senator Thomas M. Crowley Representative John J. Zampieri Representative Robert L. Walsh Representative Robert Chittenden .Representative David A. Kaufman Comissioner Arthur Rack Chief Highway Engineer Sherman Gage City of t1I11•ii1I 1()I1 r, 575 DORSI i STRELI SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 663 2891 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER WILLIAM 1• SZYMANSKI February 22, 1983 State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street, Administration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Attn: Patrick Garahan, Secretary Dear Mr. Garahan: Our City Council, at their meeting of Frbruary 21, 1983, unanimously approved placing on the ballot at our May 17, 1983 City Elections, an extra appropriation to cover the City's share of the cost of the improvements in the five (5) year Highway Construction Program, mainly the Dorset Street reconstruc- tion and the two (2) Williston Road improvements. The City of South Burlington has a serious traffic and maintenance problem at these locations and your effort in expediting these projects as soon as possible will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yo rs, William J. Szymanski City Manager WJS/b cc: Senator Thomas M. Crowley Representative John J. Zampieri Representative David A. Kaufman Representative Robert L. Walsh Representative Robert Chittenden Commissioner Arthur Rock Chief Highway Engineer Sherman Gage December 8, 1982 Tom Evslin, Secretary Department of Transportation State of Vermont 133 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Evslin, Enclosed is a traffic study on Dorset Street prepared by Professor Oppenlander for the City of South Burlington, We co missioned the study in response to proposals for three major developments on Dorset Street. Our goal was to evaluate how much developmentwe could afford to permit and to determine how much each developer would be asked to contribute to public street improvements. At the time of the study we did not yet know that the State had finally agreed to include the Dorset Street project in its five year plan. The key point in the study that I wish to make you aware of is the suggestion for 5 lanes on at least a portion of Dorset Street. When our applic- ation was first filed a number of years ago, we did not realize the full extent of the growth that would take place. It now appears to be imperative that the 5th lane be constructed at least from Williston Road to University Mall and perhaps as far as Kennedy Drive. Please specifically note the second reccaaendation on page 19 of Oppen- lander's report. After receiving that reccnmendation, City officials decided it would be prudent to extend it a bit further. In the final list of re- commendations for Dorset Street improvements (enclosed), as approved by the Planning Camnission on November 23, 1982, and by the City Council on December 6, 1982, it was decided to extend the 5th lane as far as the University Mall "center" driveway and to consider further extension to the University Mall "south" driveway at a later date. We feel that the addition of the 5th lane is warranted and should be in- cluded in the final project. I would be happy to provide you with any further information that you might need to consider our request. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/Mcg 2 Encls MEMORANDUM to: South Burlington City Council From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Dorset Street Policy Date: 12/2/82 The Planning Commission has unanimously approved the enclosed Dorset Street Policy and has recommended that it be forwarded to you for your consideration and action. Please note that this policy can proceed with or without State in- volvement in the reconstruction of Dorset Street. This policy basically fixes the developers' contributions to any street and intersection improve- ments, and allows approvals to proceed on that basis. The contributions should be made regardless of the City's timetable (with or without State aid) for improving Dorset Street. TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Phone (802) 878-5977 November 22, 1982 Mr. David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Spitz: To account for Saturday travel characteristics in regard to the Dorset Street project, the data presented in Table 25 represent the appropriate Saturday developmental traffic criteria for this transportation planning study. This tabular summary corresponds in format to Table 1 in the initial report. Actual developmental vehicular movements for Saturday conditions are presented in Table 26 in terms of 1992 peak hour of generator volumes. These values relate to the 1992 design hour volumes, that describe average weekday travel, in Table 2. Additional analyses are now being prepared to supplement the analyses that are presented in the traffic report entitled "Dorset Street Project" and dated November 1982. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk Enclosures �<<rN 1 575 DORSEI STRfUl SOUTH HURI INGTON, VERMONT 0401 TEL 863-2891 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGLR WILLIAM 3. SZYMANSKI November 22, 1982 Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates 15 Brickyard Road Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Attn: Stephen Page Re: Dorset Street Widening and Reconstruction Williston Road to Kennedy Drive Dear Steve: This letter is in reference to our recent conversation regarding widening and reconstruction of Dorset Street. As you know this work has be (_,n placed on the State five- year program as an Urban Systems project estimated at 1.9 mill -ion dollars. Dave Spitz checked on this with the Transportation Agency Secretary Tom Evslin, who stated that only the engineering, estimated at 1 million, was in the program, along with the two Williston Road projects which were in, including construction. At the Col�dpil meeting on November 15, 1982, the Council decided to rearrange their priorities to place Dorset Street, first; Williston Road at Gaynes, second and Williston Road from Dorset Street to Hinesburg Road, third. If the legislators approve this program, I am hopeful that these improvements could start no later than in five or six years. If for some reason this work is deleted from the program the City could do it piecemeal over a five or six year period depending, of course,on the amount of funds budgeted. As you know we dial this on White Street, Airport Parkway and more recently on Airport Drive. Very truly yours, William J ) S yianski City Manager WJS/b cc: David Spitz November 22, 1982 Ed Granai University Mall 155 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Ed, Enclosed is a bill for University Mall's portion of payment for Trans Cp's Dorset Street Project report. Mr. Oppenlander will be continuing follow-up work to the original report, but this bill should cover gour portion of the total cost. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mc3 1 Encl. s� . / " 44i� Ad -- �.� 1000, �o a AYA s �dew. aa- i f 2 r _ i MEMORANDUM To: Bill Szymanski and Sonny Audette From: David Spitz Re. Dorset Street Widening Date: 11/17/82 Five lanes will be needed at least as far as the existing southerly entrance to University Mall. If the City builds this portion of road, a 75 foot r-o-w should be sufficient (five 11-foot lanes, two 5-foot sidewalks, and two 5-foot distances between sidewalk and street). Because of possible acquisition dif- ficulties on the east side, the entire 9 foot r-o-w widening should be on the west side. However, if the State builds this portion of road, an 80 foot r-o-w may be required (12-foot lanes instead of 11-foot widths). Additional acquisition above 10 feet on the west side appears excessive (due to encroachment on the Mall's parking lot); therefore the additional 4 or 5 feet of r-o-w width should come from the east side. It may be suggested, though probably not necessary, that 5 lanes be ex- tended as far as University Mall's proposed 3rd entrance approximately across from Lake Buick's southerly entrance (approximately 800 feet south of University Mall's existing southerly entrance). For this section of road, r-o-w acquisition could take place all on the west side (although it would come fairly close to Janes and Jacob and one other building) or it could take place equally on each side (assuming several houses that are very close to the east side of the road are removed as part of the V.L. Properties development). Four lanes will be built along the balance of Dorset Street. A City -built project would require little or no additional r-o-w. However, if the State builds the road it would be desireable to acquire up to 80 feet of r-o-w to allow for future road widening. It is possible to acquire the additional r-o-w on either side. However, because of several residences on the west side, I would recommend that additional r-o-w be split equally on the two sides. PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1982 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 9, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Robert Walsh, Kirk Woolery, John Belter, Mary -Barbara Maher, George Mona, Peter Jacob Others Present David Spitz, Planner; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; City Council members Paul Farrar, Michael Flaherty and Leona Lansing; Judy Hurd, The Other Paper; Gail Simons, Gloria Conant, Theresa Paquette, Jean Clark, Betty & Paul Durrell, Steve Page, Roger Dickinson, Mery Brown, Richard Landsman, Doug Schner, William Schuele, Lowell Krassner, Gloria Aiken, Carl Lisman, Ed Granai, Peter Yankowski Minutes of October 26, 1982 On page 2, at the end of the paragraph which starts "Mrs. Maher said...", the following should be added: "Mr. Poger asked that a right of way be left for combination with the Rye property." Mr. Jacob moved to approve the October 26 minutes as amended and the motion was seconded by Mrs.Maher. The motion carried with Mr. Walsh abstaining. Review of Dorset Street traffic study Mr. Spitz reviewed the reasons this traffic study had been done. He noted that Dr. Oppenlander, who did the report, could not be present tonight, and said he would go over the study. Mr. Spitz noted that the report was based on a number of assumptions. One of these is that, since it does not seem that Corporate Circle has available to it a right of way over Lake Buick property, one connection to Hinesburg Road was evaluated, instead of the two which had previously been considered. The report evaluates how wok the connection between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street works with only one access point to Dorset St. Mr. Woolery came in at this time. Mr. Spitz noted that the study had looked at Saturday peak hour flows, as requested by the Commission, but that those peaks were so close to the average weekday peaks that it would have been duplication to look at them also, so only the weekday peaks were studied as far as improvements needed. Mr. Spitz noted that retail uses generated more Saturday traffic than offices, so later on the difference between a University Mall and a Corporate Circle could be figured out. The study dealt with a maximum width of 5 lanes on Dorset St. Mr. Spitz said the "Planning Parameters" were the main assumptions which go into a report like this. Dr. Oppenlander provided the best estimates he could for the city. He assumed a normal growth rate in traffic of 1.23, or 2% per year and Mr. Spitz was comfortable with that estimate. The study used a design hour volume of the 30th highest hour in the year. To arrive at that figure, average counts were adjusted by 1.08. Page 7 in the report presents the estimated development of the 4 major developments in the area. Mr. Mona felt the addition of the word "additional" on that page after University Mall, 159,130 sq. ft., would be helpful. PLMING COMMISSION 2. NOVEMBER 9. 1982 Mr. Spits said that page 8 contained assumptions on trip generation rates. The city has national data, but there is a Question as to how cloeeYy,thit fits a specific location, such as Vermont. Dr. Oppenlander took a weeklong count at University Mall and got counts 20-25% lower than the national figures. Mr. Spitz felt that if retail locations were treated in that way, the office locations should be also. Mr. Poger said he would be more comfortable using the national numbers. Mr. Spitz noted that part of the normal growth of traffic was increased traffic from new developments. Wben a new development applies for a permit, it estimates its traffic impact by using both the normal growth, plus its own new traffic, but part of the normal growth is its own traffic, so the new development is counting some cars twice. A figure of 23% was used to factor out that duplication. He noted that the figures on page 10 had not been adjusted yet. Mr. Spitz said that if the signals at the Dorset -Williston intersection were timed correctly, it would operate at level of service C. The city is working on that problem now. A new signal head is needed and there have been some delays with that. Mr. Granai asked about more clearly delineating the Dorset St. lanes so traffic could turn right from Williston Road onto Dorset St. at the same time traffic coming from the other direction was turning left from Williston onto Dorset, but Mr. Spits did not feel that would be safe. Mr. Spitz said there were three solutions to the Dorset -Williston inter- section traffic. One is to add a third left turn lane from Dorset to Williston Rd., a second is to leave it as it is and expect it to always be a bottleneck, and the third is to cut down oh the amount of development allowed. Mr. Flaherty noted that if a third left -turn lane were added, it would flow into two traffic lanes on Williston Road, plus the Interstate on -ramp. If someone got in the wrong lane and did not want to get onto the Interstate, it could cause problems. Mr. Spitz noted that the report called for 5 lanes on Dorset Street between Williston Road and the University Mall north entrance. He said he had felt that 5 lanes would be needed as far as the Mall south entrance. He also was not sure the improvements proposed for the Kennedy Drive intersection with Dorset Street were enough. Mr. Woolery asked whether the city could widen the Interstate exit ramp at -Kennedy Drive. Mr. Mona noted that it did not seem that the Interstate on ramp at that location would help traffic that much, but he added that the report only covered a small area of the city. Mr. Spitz noted that it was possible to use Appendix C to figure out how many cars would such an on ramp. He noted that if the study scope were extended 10 years, the Kennedy Drive intersection would fall out of the "C" level of service range. Mr. Farrar noted that, although the Kennedy Drive Interstate on ramp would not carry a lot of traffic, it might have a reasonable impact on the other end of Dorset Street, and that it might be the best way to improve that intersection. Mr. Spitz noted that the Commission used level of service C. Dr.. Oppenlander recommends level D. Mr. Poger said that so far the Commission had always said it wanted to design for level C. Mr. Poger mentioned phasing commercial development, as the Commission had phased residential development, at the time it had looked as if the city was running out of sever capacity. Air. Spits recommended that, as far as improvements went, the city wider Dorset Street to 4 lanes and do the Kennedy Drive intersection improvements, and that the developers in the area be responsible for adding the 5th Dorset Street land and for the new traffic signals needed. He said more work was needed on how much each developer should PLANNING COMMISSION 3. NOVEMBER 9. 1982 pay relative to the others. Mr.'Jacob said'he would like to ate how this report fit into the Bruce Houghton report. Mr. Poger said he did not feel that V.L,. Proportion' application could be considered now, while U6 Commission -kept an eye on the others, at the same time trying to workout details of who would contribute how such to what improvements. Mr. Mona felt that if the improvements were done as suggested by Mr. Spitz, it would have to be not out formally and sent to the Council for its review. Mr. Poger felt that between preliminary and final plat approval for Y.L., a policy could be written up. Mr. Sehner, representing the Corporate Circle developer, noted that the Houghton report had said that the road between Dorset St. and Hinesburg Road would divert 44-48% of the traffic from the Williston -Dorset intersection. Mr. Spits said he felt the Council should formally tell the Commission whether it agreed with his proposal on how to divide the Dorset Street improvements in concept at least. Mr. Walsh mentioned a commitment before further develop- ment was allowed. He iad not sure he wanted to vote Boa a development until the Council had said it would put the Dorset Street improvements up for a bond issue, or would divert the money from the operating budget to do the work. Mr. Flaherty noted that the cost was so high that money could not be diverted from the opeaating budget to do the work. He added that the last two bond issues on road improvements in the city had been defeated. Mr. Walsh said that if the voters said no to a bond issue, the Commission would have to look carefully at future development. Mr. Poger said that if V.L. went in and the bond issue did not pass, the Commission might then have to deny any more development until funding was in place. Mr. Farrar suggested that that be checked out with the City Attorney. Mr. Poger stated that if the Commission could not provide an adequate level of sorviee,(and it had to define what was an adequate level, then the Commission could not allow development, in the same way it had dealt with the lack of sewer capacity. No felt that if the Commission were wrong on this, the Council would tell it so. Mr. Mona stated that he would not vote on preliminary approval of a project on Dorset Street until there is some clarification on the details and direction the city will be taking. Mr. Walsh shated that feeling. Mr. Poger felt a preliminary plat could be reviewed, while a commitment from the city was being sought. He was not sure about a final plat. Mr. Spitz was directed to draft a policy in line with the recommendations he had made, so the Commission could work on it. Continuation of preliminary plat application by V.L. Properties, Inc., for a 4.4 acre planned commercial development on Dorset Street Mr. Jacob removed himself from this discussion due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Page, representing the developer, said they had not formally worked on a revised plan. He felt that since there were two new Commission members, it might be better to start with a redrawn plan at the next available meeting. Mr. Poger noted that one of the former Commission members had not liked the prppesid plan, with the buildings in a U shape and the parking in front. He woMored-about parking behind the 'buildings, and green space up front. Mr. Page wts"not at all sure that could be done. ftkeduling was discussed. The Commission wanted another meeting to discuss Dorset Street traffic. It was suggested that the V.L. application-,, be heard on the 23rd, but Mr. Page felt traffic should be discussed first, so that 4. P"LLNNING 02 BION NOVEMBEB 9. 1982 discussion eras plibii6d fc ,,tiji�► �25rd, and 'theist L. 4pplicf� do's for the 36th. Mr. Wa9lery,moved ,to,.Q*Mi�nuo -the- RVQIIminary .teat avolication of V.L. Provsrties._ ' ino.. until Nd*okbor 30. at : '3 30 iDa at City hall. Mr. Bolter seconded the motion and all: voted aye. :Br."",ions noted that on the November 22 agenda for the Zoning Board, LTH Associates waa.roquosting a 224 unit community care home. Mr. Pager asked what such a request* ould do to Mr. Larkin's PUD and was told that 'was a graj area. Nursing and coWralesconco-homes are conditional neon in R4 sons, and that is the closest thing in tho ordinance that the proposal comes to. NY. Spits felt it was potentially allowable in a residential PUD because it is listed as &.conditional use in that sons. Mr. Jacob noted that there vero similar projects in Shelburne and he moved ? o,jD1, " 4�obtaiia some informt ion on the use from Shelburne. Mrs. Maher that seoonW °the atotion, which carried with Mr,. Poger abstaining. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pa. Clerk No Text MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission and South Burlington City Council From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 11/5/82 2) Dorset Street Traffic Study Joe.Oppenlander's report is enclosed. However, I am very sorry to say he will be unable to attend Tuesday's meeting as he will be at a conference in New Jersey. In his absence, I will present the basic points of the report, and I hope that any major questions can be aired at the meeting. It is very likely that the discussion will then have to be continued until Oppenlander can more thoroughly explain his assumptions and conclusions. Traffic studies always require a number of assumptions, and this one is no exception. If different values are chosen for such items as (1) normal growth rates, (2) development trip generation rates (3) non -diverted linked trips, and (4) adjustment for development already contained in normal growth, then widely varying traffic projections can result. In order to design cost- effective traffic improvements I have asked Oppenlander to choose middle-of- the-road assumptions rather than conservatively high projections. In most cases I concur with his choices. However, because of several questions a sensitivity analysis will be done shortly to see how adjustments in some critical factors would affect the final results. The bottom line of the report is that in 1992, all of Dorset Street can function adequately except the Dorset/Williston intersection. Option 1, which Oppenlander does not recommend (see page 19) is to add additional approach lanes at the intersection. Option 2 is to cut back some development approvals accord- ing to the percentages listed on page 23. Option 3 is to permit current smaller development proposals but to keep a watchful eye on the latter stages of larger development proposals. Because of the vagueries of traffic projections and the relatively small reductions in development that appear to be needed, my re- commendation would be Option 3. The sensitivity analysis, as described above, will reevaluate whether several additional improvements should be added: (1) extension of 5 lanes to the University Mall south driveway, (2) further upgrading of the Dorset/Kennedy intersection, and (3) inclusion of the on -ramp from Kennedy Drive to I-189. As for cost -sharing of improvements, I will throw out a cut -and -dry approach. The City has already planned to widen Dorset Street to 4 lanes, and it should pay that cost. The developers should pay for the cost of the fifth lane and for all intersection improvements. I have no recommendations yet for who would pay for the on -ramp, if needed. Further calculations are necessary for determining the developers' shares in relation to each other. For capacity purposes, only weekday peak hour has been calculated. For cost allocation purposes, Saturday traffic counts and several other adjustments may have to be considered. e F ^v v q(37°,0tcon) �1M•�(dzw4tU_ UAP No Text WO Ld i © OCPI s ¢ Uee ZIA ' LoA� 9-117 100, ��J 4 Sd,�t C i, S,qx 5 �,s�oka q3 �.�5 54 ,&,, I300'-o-z a t(OO qz,q Zoo C.0 V, 2).57 1. in width. Approval of permanent easements or rights of way 2. shall be in accordance with Section 19.20. 3. 18.110 Any lot held in individual and separate and non-affiliated 4. ownership from surrounding properties in existence on the 5. effective date of these Regulations, may be developed for the 6. purposes permitted in the District in which it is located, 7. even though not conforming to minimum lot size requirements, 8. if such lot is not less than 1/8 acre in area with a minimum 9. width or depth dimension of 40 feet. 10. 18.111 No wall,fence, or shrubbery shall be erected, maintained, or 11. planted on any lot which obstructs or interferes with traffic 12. visibility. In the case of corner lots, the restricted area 13. shall be the triangular area formed by the lot lines along 14. the streets and a line connecting them at points 30 feet from 15. the intersection. No fence or wall shall violate the provisions 16. of 24 VSA, Section 3817. 17. 18.112 Height of Structures 18. a. The maximum height for all structures shall be 35 feet or 19. 22 stories except as may be modified below. 20. b. The Planning Commission may approve an increase in height 21. for a structure up to 40 feet or 3 stories in the Cl, C2, 22. IC, AirI, and R7 districts if it determines that a taller 23. structure (i) will utilize topography and will relate to 24. other existing and proposed structures so as to be aesthetically 25. compatible with the neighborhood, (ii) will not detract from 26. scenic views of adjacent properties or public streets and 27. walkways, and (iii) will allow retention of additional green 28. space that will enhance the appearance of the developed 29. property. (50) I &It y1g, -� To . ,To e, . rrom;. Davi� 5. ke`, AdwfNo e,:4-d - a d /Voi .mot -- ._- anew -- T clwy -/VVS . Z-a4 -6�2, r - stt`e� e f See ©f ve4wts, ,A Nb",er6;7 /�%q/,� I�i5 7`/ y -- 30y a30 sf, �f. °t2 vent Z- 6 acres f}dc�ifio I ai - /.59 /30 s9. fit, oar aPPrat 16, 3 acres, A-tl %/ - 6 3, 60 ,59 �` ee �� f. -9 acres, 540,ply cater. �. V . PryP-rites (al/ oew) -- 5�. tY- - -©4 a�OproX q,9a acra,5. �ll sho��►,�y, Ce e� iC-, Crporafe C�rde (all new) — approx. 3 Acres (exclucin, .s /reet5) -divd4 amok ©f cle. (50°7o)� re:�'f (15 ), anY lV-sea(C? anI ®ger e.. loyee- orieked uses(35�o) �s�� 6u,��y s12e = oArlce, t _4(294 Z8 - s f:. (t 16141 Sa, 4,5/ sy. f-Ii use rd, dc, do?3Vt5fY 1'9- lD Pes f�r�r� rs Properiy . There I's n o cutrenj d�� ent �r p&WI sd _ tlL_e_sf«Q�e tie c olo' . ll usriVe acres olrvict'e� �n some �i'oporrons as Corporate C�%e ,im�f �I url'�� s lie = 0 tali U9 s�- ft /�fail1 a1� 680 sY reseurc4 C/c. M E M O R A N D U M To: Joe Oppenlander From: David Spitz Re: Dorset Street Study Date: 9/21/82 I have enclosed several items for your potential use in the Dorset Street study: 1) Triangle Area Traffic Study, Inventory Data. This report was compiled by Bruce Houghton. 2) Triangle Area Traffic Study, Inventory Data Analysis & Study Recommendations. This report was compiled by David Bogue, an employee of Bruce Houghton. I don't think that the two reports are integrated well. 3) Corporate Circle Traffic Impact Analysis. This report also was done by David Bogue, based on data from the triangle reports. Some of the information could be very useful, such as the estimates of travel patterns. 4) Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed PCD - Dorset Street. This is the copy you previously marked up. 5) Various letters and traffic counts regarding proposed modifications to signalization at the Dorset/Williston intersection. As the Dorset Street study proceeds I can provide additional information on land use projections, as requested. In an attempt to keep costs down, I can provide as much assistance as you wish. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services The Kiln • Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 September 29, 1982 Mr. David Spitz, City Planner City of South Burlington Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401, Re: Dorset Street Traffic Study File: 8236 Dear Mr. Spitz: Outlined below are the comments and suggestions which we have at this time pertaining to the Dorset Street traffic study. The first set of comments pertain primarily to the technical aspects of the study and are keyed to the material discussed at the Planning Commission's work session of September 21, 1982. Planninq Process 1. The traffic volume inventory should be expanded to include turning movement counts at the two intersections of University Mall and Dorset Street. Also, the Vermont Highway Department recently conducted turning movement counts at the intersections of Williston Road and University Mall with Dorset Street on August 26, 1982 (1200-1800 hrs.) and on August 27, 1982 (0700-1200 hrs). The existance of these counts should be brought to the attention of Dr. Oppenlander. 4. The trip distribution analyses for Dorset Street traffic should include at least a superficial evaluation of potential impacts of currently planned highway projects in Chittenden County (the Southern Connector and the Cir- cumferential Highway) and other highway improvements which have been pre- viously considered or recommended in the South Burlington master plan (I-89 interchange at Hinesburg Road, and/or Dorset Street, construction of new arterial streets, etc.) The critical movement analyses of intersections on Dorset Street should be supplemented with a travel time -delay study to pinpoint locations of existing and/or potential bottlenecks and to help verify the results of the critical movement analyses. Planninq and Design Parameters 1. The planning years for this study should be limited to a 10 year period (1982-1992). This will allow ample time for build -out of V.L. Properties, Inc. proposed project and other projects (Corporate Circle & University Mall) to occur. Traffic projections beyond the initial 10 year period would not be relevant to the City's review of the projects involved. Design • Inspection • Studies • Permitting -2- 2. The factors used to assess the effects of normal growth should take into account historic annual traffic growth rates extending back at least 10 years so as not to give undue weight to the large amount of growth which has occurred on Dorset Street and surrounding areas in the last 4-5 years. Projections of normal traffic growth rates should take into consideration, if possible, the effects of people bypassing Dorset Street or altering their schedules as traffic congestion increases. 3. The design level of service during peak traffic periods should be based on the type of street involved as well as the specific design hour used in the analysis. Dorset Street's primary function is no longer an ar- terial street similar to Williston Road or Kennedy Drive, but as a col- lector street for traffic originating and/or terminating at commercial and municipal facilities. Because of this, the City should consider using a design level of service on Dorset Street during the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of Level of Service D, as opposed to the present standard of Level of Service C. 4. The accuracy of traffic projections would be improved if the percentages of diverted and undiverted linked trips could be documented by conducting a survey or interviews at the University Mall or 100 Dorset Street. Similarly, it would be beneficial to use actual trip generation rates determined from existing shopping centers in the Dorset Street area and not national averages. The following comments pertain primarily to certain items which will be considered by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. Since the time element is obviously very important to our client, it would be helpful if these comments could receive some consideration concurrent with the technical aspects of this traffic study. 1. Our client's project (VA. Properties, Inc.) is the only project located on Dorset Street which has a definite scope and construction timetable and is presently before the Planning Commission for preliminary plat approval. It has been demonstrated that this project, in itself, will not adversely affect existing levels of service on Dorset Street and adjacent streets. The small size of this project as measured by the gross floor area relative to other proposed major developments on Dorset Street (Corporate Circle and University Mall) and the project timing should receive consideration in the City's review process. 2. A method or formula to allocate the costs of improving Dorset Street and adjacent intersections between the City and developers should be devel- oped concurrent with the traffic study. The cost allocation method should take into account the fact that the City has been planning to rebuild and widen Dorset Street because of existing deficiencies and not because of projected traffic congestion. 3. We perceive the allocation of traffic capacity to be identical to the allocation of sewer capacity, for which the City developed an allocation system which has provided a reasonable and workable means of allowing continued planned growth. It is our recommendation that the City imple- ment a similar allocation system for traffic capacity which would utilize FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services -3- a long range transportation master plan together with a cost allocation formula and continuing traffic volume monitoring to permit continued growth that is consonant with reasonable performance standards. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to contact us. RJD/l ag cc: Mery Brown Sincerely yours, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES RogeW J. ickinson, P.E. FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services IALL 155 DORSET STREET • SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 • (802) 863-1066 September 29, 1982 David H. Spitz City Ptannen City ob South Burt.tington 575 Dortset Street South Buntington, Vermont 05401 Dean David, Here iz the exVLa set ob wotking pZanz you requested bon Dr. Oppen.tandert. We have rechecked the zquare bootage. The bigurez shown on the p.tanz are corrtect. The contusion arose overt the 254,000 ,sq. bt. shown ar5 "exi,6ting" on the "U.ttimate P.tan." Thi's .cooked .tow at one point because we borgot that Ma,%tin',s old buitding and part ob Hithon',5 o.td buitding no tongert exist a.s "existing buitding.s" in ,the U.ttimate P.tan. In other words in hiz comparative trabbic studiez Dr. Oppentander �s ou.td use 304,230 sq. bt. bar buitding,s that now exti,st, art 463,360 sq. bt. bon bti.P i.ng,s az they wit.t 6ina.tty exist in the Uttimate P"tan. SinceA,ek y, ' i Edwin � Granai Generat Managers CC: Gerard Geant Richard SegaZZ George Khoury, �-64 Graz Pa��i YoA 16so©ov,lo'? ®o _500 cft0I ©?O 16 .58gv Z o 35Q0 ? ram' LX n_..,�� uJt 6'+ ,4 F, f41k q6 3, 360 ,�' Ao,�h) j� 0 �f06F «e 50 %E _ I?A a� X " Y&, I (6!%cfe will f s top Rd. Holiday Inn 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 i 1 I I 1 i I 1 1 1 I I I I l l "r hu(:.'''� f /'� r'ri d IU - L( � 36 V at J- 01 QUM ---------- ----- --"Fz 2it -- -> -- - - � - - - - Aio-000---. - -�'_�--- � Lfo -- — — A�4c we e.q 14 46�-,m AM- MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission and South Burlington City Council From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Joint Meeting Date: 10/8/82 The Planning Commission has contracted for a study to determine how much traffic Dorset Street can accommodate after certain improvements are made. Part of the study is to determine the impact from three major developments currently being proposed. Of course, normal traffic growth will continue in addition to any development traffic. It is clear that the developers will be asked to contribute towards the cost of any Dorset Street improvements. However, the City for years has been planning to improve Dorset Street on its own; and it seems reasonable to expect that the City also will pay a portion of the costs. The purpose of the joint meeting is to discuss the extent of the City Council's commitment towards improving Dorset Street, and to discuss possible procedures and timetables for those improvements. Once the planning study is completed, the Planning Commission should be able to recommend specific improve- ments and developers' responsibilities. However, if the City is to particpate, the City Council should have the final approval of any cost -sharing arrangements. PLANNING COMI'+iISSION Discussion of Dorset St. traffic study 2 :3EFTrJMBER 21, 1982 Mr. Spitz passed out outlines entitled "Dorset Street Project Planning Process" and "Dorset Street Project Planning and Design Parameters" (copies on file with Planner). He then reviewed the history of traffic studies in this area of the city, and said that when the recent V.L. Properties application had come in for a development on Dorset St., the Commission had agreed that the city should do a traffic study. They hired Dr. Oppenlander and that study will be done by November 1. The basic assumptions of the study have been made available to all parties concerned so all can comment on the general concepts. Dr. Oppenlander went through the items on the "Planning Process" outline. Mr. Spitz noted that the city would not use an origin and destination study to see where cars were going, but would use data already available to estimate that information. Dr. Oppenlander said a critical movement analysis would be done at selected intersections. This is a newer method of calculation than the capacity method the city has used before. Mr. Mona asked for some literature on how the new method worked. Dr. Oppenlander said one tended to obtain the same level of service numbers using both methods. Mr. Walsh felt the question of whether 4 lanes could be put down Dorset St. should be addressed. He was told they could, but there might have to be some condemnation. Mr. Poger said that if improvements were suggested which would take care of all the land in that area, he hoped the improvements could be separable, so each developer could pay a certain percentage of them, based on the traffic the development would generate. Mr. Mona asked how many owners of undeveloped land in this area there were and was told there was only 1 large piece of undeveloped land here. He asked that the owner of that land be nctified of these hearings. Mr. Schner, representing Corporate Circle, hoped that Dr. Oppenlander would come in with a plan which would be the best solution for existing and future traffic on Dorset St. Then, if any parts of the plan are done over time or if a developer takes part in it, they will know the incremental cost of improvements. Mr. Poger thought that was exactly what the city was doing here. Mr. Schner noted that Dorset St. developers had a limit as to what they could bear in cost and as to what their fair share was. Mr. Mona said the City Council would fix the costs. Mr. Schner noted that the Council wanted to have a balanced tax base of 50% residential and 50% commercial. If the city does not allow commercial growth to take place because of funding restrictions on 'the municipal end, to meet the demand for commercial development without throwing the demand to the developer, he did not feel that ratio could be maintained. He felt there was a responsibility on the part of the city to fund road improvements and build roads to meet the demands of commercial development. Dr. Oppenlander went through the "Planning and Design Parameters" outline. Mr. Poger said it has been the Commi�6ion's intention to maintain level of service C. The parameters suggest D for the year 2000. Dr. Oppenlander replied that it was assumed that the design would be worn out in 20 years, and that means level D then. Mr. Spitz felt there were some safety margins built in in parameter 7 , and he was not sure the city could stay with level C. Dr. Oppenlander added that as road improvements were made, it encouraged trips and hastened the time when the design situation would be reached. Mr. Mona was not sure the Commission wanted to slip to range D either. Dr. Oppenlander felt that one needed to build what is reasonable, to accomodate a reasonable demand, and then regulate that demand. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 Mr. Spitz noted that the A.m. peak hour would not be evaluated on Dorset St., but the Commission was concerned about mornings on the weekend, when traffic on Dorset St. and Williston Road is very heavy. Mr. Audette suggested that members of the Planning Commission campaign for Dorset St. improvements if and when the issue is ever put up for a bond issue again. Mr. Schner felt the character of Dorset St. had changed in the last 10 years or so with the addition of University Mall, the city offices, fire depart- ment, police department and two schools. He noted that when condominium developments were approved, with services located in this area of the city, Dorset St. tended to turn into an arterial road. He was not sure the traffic was the responsibility of the developer who makes an immediate impact on Dorset St., or the developer who builds housing units on Spear St., for example. He was not sure the burden should fall totally on the Dorset St. developer. Mr. Mona said the City Council would deal with the apportionment of the burden. Representatives of University Mall and Y.L. Properties agreed with Mr. Schner. Other business Mr. Spitz said there would be a joint meeting with the City Council on October 11 and that the developers were invited to come to it. Mr. Spitz said Bill Wessel was requesting an extension on an approval he had obtained from the Commission. The approval expired in May of 1982. Mr. Spitz said there were no changes in circumstances and he saw no reason not to grant the extension. Mr. Poger pointed out that the approval expired 4 months ago and the request should have been made before the expiration. Mr. Brown asked whether the extension would run from the date of expiration, or from this date and Mr. Mona felt it should run from the expiration date. Mr. Woolery arrived at this point. Mr. Walsh suggested having the applicant come in again for re -approval. He felt it was a matter of principle and that if this applicant were allowed to have an automatic re -approval of an expired plan, others might ask the same. Since it is the Commission's intent to extend approvals before expiration, this would reinforce that is the policy. Ms. Maher and Messrs. Belter and Woolery agreed. Mr. Mona noted that on the Zoning Board agenda for next week, #6 concerns Earl's Bike Shop requesting to sell used cars. He £e,t-i strongly that the Commission send a letter to the Board urging them to reject the application. This would be an additional commercial use in a Cl zone, in one of the worst traffic areas of the city. He also felt the activity, which is occurring now, should be stopped. Mr. Walsh felt the letter should include the fact that the Commission feels the situation in that area is serious enough so that they have hired a traffic consultant to do a study and are holding up development in the area. Mr. Mona moved to send such a letter to the Zoning Board and Mr. Walsh seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Rotisserie situation was discussed briefly with Mr. Audette. Mr. Schner asked when the Williston Road -Dorset St. traffic signal would be upgraded and was told the city was working on it. i The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. i Clerk jr r 1_57 HY, f vmi� �vr c� A ree T)p /Avnw w x ��.�"�) Ce xv� po4 J,A 3/ OD C j Vo No Text dow ism At :1 M E M O R A N D U M To: Brian Searles and Sonny Audette From: David Spitz Re: Traffic Counters Date: 9/10/82 Joe Oppenlander will he putting out some traffic counters at three locations on Dorset Street - in front of HoJo's, in front of the High School, and one other as yet undetermined location. The counters will be put down on Saturday, September 10 or Sunday, September 11 and will be there for one week. If anyone in your department notices anything wrong with the tubes on the road, please call Oppenlander at 985-2765. '1'1(llh'F I C IMPACT ANALYSIS NI(Ul'USI:U PLIJ SUUTH IMIL.INUTUN, Vla(MUNT V.I.. ING. Aue,UZA j9d? l'1"Ll'A't ItIC K Ll_LWLL�YN ASSUCIAT" . • LIlUmuUI IIIU Yllu vIJIIIIIIIU :,ul VI/.uJ Ilw1(1111 • UIILI%ydlllI1U,1u • L4ZUAJu11L11u1I • VI 0445L r ~ I. Scope of Study This traffic impact analysis is to evaluate existing roadways and inter- sections which will be affected by the development of a 48,000 sq.ft. planned commercial development (PCD) on Dorset Street in South Burlington, Vermont. The following study area was identified by Mr. David Spitz, Planner, City of South Burlington: 1) Dorset Street -between Williston Road and the entrance to the proposed PCD. 2) Dorset Street -University Mall (south) intersection 3) Dorset Street -University Mall (north) intersection 4) Dorset Street -Williston Road intersection Mr. Spitz also requested that the traffic impact of the proposed Corporate Circle development be included as part of this traffic impact analysis. The following analyses provide the necessary, information to the South Burlington Planning Commission and other reviewing agencies to assess the traffic impacts of the proposed PCD and to determine the scope of required Improvements to the roadways and intersections identified above. 1 FITZPATRICK•LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services II. Iroject Description The proposed planned commercial development (PCD) will be located on a 5-acre parcel of land located east of Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. The location of this project and adjacent commercial developments is shown in the .enclosed location plans;, The present land uses of the project area are a combination of res- idential and commercial uses. The 5 acre parcel represents 5 existing small lots which are being combined in this project. Each of the existing lots presently has its own individual access onto Dorset Street. Approximately 48,000 sq.ft. of floor area is planned to accomodate a variety of commercial and retail uses. Potential uses include �hper- market/food stores, retail stores, sit-down type restaurants, walk-in ,banks, and office space. Access to the proposed PCD will be provided from a single entrance/ - exit located on Dorset Street directly across the Dorset Street -University Mall (south) intersection. 2 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services Me t.hodo i ogy Existrng 'traffic Volume:; The trrat'f'ic impacts of the proposed 11CD on roadways and intersections within the study ar-ea were evaluated usinp, the "critical movement analysis" method.1 This method is based on the principle that the uraxlrnum number• of vehicles which can be discharged by a combination of single lanes at an intersection is limited to 1500-1800 vehicles per hour, depending on the characteristics of the intersection. The level of service (i.e. overall operating conditions as characterized by the volume/capacity ratio (V/C ratio) and the length of "stopped delay") at an intersection is deter- mined by the sum total of conflicting traffic movements on a per -lane basis. Presently there are five catagories of level of service, identified as A to E. Level of service A is characterized by a low v/c ratio and little or no delay. At the other end, level of service E represents full utilization of available roadway or, intersection capacity, resulting in congestion and delays. Current planning standards used by the City of South Burlington prefer that level of service C (average traffic flow con- ditions) be maintained at intersections and on roadways. In order to perform critical movement analyses at the three inter- sections within the study area, appropriate design hour traffic volumes were required. Typically, the 30th highest hour, of peak traffic volumes is used as a design volurne. Experience has shown that designing for volumes greater than the 30th highest hour• results in disproportionate incr-eases in highway user costs relative to the bernef'tts gained. Conversely, designing for lower than the 50th highest hour- has been found to increase periods of traffic congestion to unacceptable levels. The peak hours of traffic volumes within the study area have been identified to occur- on weekdays between 4:30-5:30 p.m. with t'ew exceptions.2 This being the case, the 130th peak hour- of tr,if'f ic. volumes can be assumed to closely approximate average weekday P.M. peak hour- trat'f'ic volumes. The 130th peak hour traffic volume has been t'ound, at locations similar to the study area, to be within 4-6% of thu 3ULh-SUth highest peak hour, traffic volume. Review of available information ?,3 Indicated that the most recent available complete turning movement counts conducted within the study area dated back to 1978-1979. BecaU:lhS of residential and commercial development projects which have occurred in South Burlington between 1979-1982, it was decided to update these counts by conducting one -hour traf'f'ic counts at the study intersections during a weekday P.M. peak traffic hour. The results of these turning movement counts are included as Appendix A. The observed P.M. peak hour, tr•al't'rc volumes were found to be greater than previous similar traffic counts and previous estimates of design hour volumes. After evaluation of available data, it was concluded that the observed traffic volumes represented the best approximation of current design hour traffic volumes within the study area.' FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATLS Engineering and Planning Services Projected Future Traffic Volumes Projections of P.M. peak hour traffic volumes which will be generated by the proposed PCD were developed using standard trip generation rates4 for the general catagory of shopping centers. These trip generation rates were modified in the following manner: 1) Trip generation rates vary for different sizes of shopping center and are given in catagories of 0-49,999 sq.f't, (14.7 trip ends/- 1000 sq.ft.) 50,000-99,999 sq.ft, (8.2 trip ends/1000 sq.ft.) 100,000-199,999 sq.ft., (5.0 trip ends/1000 sq.ft.), etc. This project (48,000 sq.ft.+) falls within the limits of the first catagory, however-, because of the closeness to the second catagory, some adjustment of the trip generation rates were felt to be warranted. The trip generation rates given were plotted at the median area for each category and their ults were used to estimate the trip generation rate. A rate of All trip ends/1000 sq.ft. for a 48,000 sq.ft. shopping center, was obtained using this pro- cedure. 2) Evaluation of traffic impacts resulting from regional shopping centers4?5 has documented that not all trip ends to and from such centers are newly generated trips. A certain percentage are already on the roadway and would have passed by the center regard- less, additional vehicles make diversions from existing trips and routes to stop at the center, and finally, the remaining trips ends represent trips made for the sole purpose of shopping at the center. The observed percentages are 25%, 40% and 35% respectively for each catagory. Discussion with Mr. Spitz on this subject resulted in a 250/. reduction in the number of new trips entering the project being deerned reasonable. Projections of P.M. peak hour traffic volumes which will be generated by the proposed PCD were developed using the above. The directional dis- tributions of the PCD generated traffic were estimated based on the observed directional distributions of University Mall traffic. These projections are included as Appendix B. Analyses of future traffic: flow conditions were based on the following: 1) ConstrucLion of the proposed 48,000 sq.ft. PCD without other major developments. 2) Construction of Lh.: pr•opo:;ed PCD and maximum development of Corporate Circle and the cir;socrated construction of a through road between Dorset 'Lreet and Hinesburg- Road report as proposed by Corporate Circle and subsequent diversion of eligible trarfic.f 3) No other increases in Lraffic volumes caused by other development or growth in South IlurlingLon were included. / i It FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services 1V . Impact of Proposed PCD on 'lilt f'I' i c Conditions Within the _study Areri The proposed PCD will be con:>tructed on five; existirg small lots which are being; combined under, this project. Each of the lots present accesses onto Dorset Street with individual drives. 'These drives will be consolidated into one entrance/exit located directly opposite the existing Dorset Street - University Mall (south) entrance. Dorset Street is presently a three lane street (2-northbound, 1-south- bound) across the frontage of the PCD. To the south it is two lane and to the north it is four lane. Present plans of the City of South Burlington are to widen Dorset Street from north of this project south to Kennedy Drive in the near future (within 1-2 years). The intersection of Dorset Street - University Mall (south) is presently an unsignalized intersection. Development of the proposed PCD will result in approximately 490 trip ends in and out of the PCD. Table 1 outlines existing and projected two way traffic volumes on Dorset Street between Williston Road and Kennedy Drive during design hour conditions." I I) FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATLS Engineering and Planning Services 'I•,rl,Icl 1'wc,—W,ry 'I r,tl I'Ic Vulrunc Existing With PCD Dev(� I opnic nl, 1IUY VNI 1-Lyl VPII ,'MY) VPII d_iU? VNI Table 2 outlines the exlst.rnp, and projected levels of service which will result with development of the pr•opo:;ed PCD. 'These levels of service are predicated on widening Dorset Street to four lanes and installation of a traf'f'Lc signal at the proposed intersection. Location Williston (toad Dorset Street Durset Street University Mall (north) Dorset Street University Mill (south) Table "' Comparison of t)verall L..0.S. At Study lntersections EX ;t.rnt!, Conditions C A With Proposed PCD C A A As :shuwn in Table ", dive; I_uprnc•nl ul' the proposed PCD w i I I riot cau:)(' l mger,;d lovr.ls (l• ser•vrc.e at, c,riticil irrLc;r: cc Lion:, withitr the ,Atudy uca_, durrnt_2, dc:,rt;n hour trafl•)c volulnt;:-;.) Minor rmpr ,vc,rncrnts ui thc� t'urrn of :-in iidditional south - bound line and sip;nali:ut.ron ,it the Uur:,c,t. St.rec;l. - Univet•:iity Mall/PCD iril,er- s,uction wi l L be r-equired to ic,e:um11 0d.rtc, the Lricrreasftd design hour• voI uIrles. i b FITLYA-!•RICK-LLLWLLLYN ASSOC IA 1 LS Enyineemig and Plannirig Serv,ccis V. Impact of Corporate Cirlce and Proposed PCD on Traffic Conditions Within the Studv Area. Future traffic volumes and traffic impacts of the proposed Corporate Circle Development have been analysed previously5. This traffic analysis determined that Corporate Circle, with maximum build -out, would generate approximately 2,400 total trip ends during the P.M. peak hour,1500 of which would utilize the Dorset Street access route. Table 3 outlines existing and projected two way design hour volumes at Dorset Street south of Williston Road. The projected traffic volume includes traffic generated by both the proposed PCD and Corporate Circle and includes the impact of constructing a through route between Dorset Street and HInesburg Road. /1 Existing With Proposed PCD & Corporate Circle Table 3 Two-Wav Traffic Volumes -Dorset Street Dorset Street -South 1107 1688 Dorset Street -North 2009 2995 Table 4 outlines existing and projected levels of service resulting from maximum development of Corporate Circle and the proposed PCD. The projected levels of service do not include the effects of any modifications or improvements to existing intersections. Location 'Fable 4 Comparison of Overall L.O.S. at Studv Intersections >> Existing Conditions Williston Road C Dorset Street Dorset Street A & University Mall (north) With Proposed PCD & Corporate Circle E E Dorset Street A C University Mall (south) 7 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services Possible irnprovernents to the two critical intersections and the portion of Dorset Street within the study area were evaluated. These improvements included: 1) Widening Dorset Street to five lanes between Williston Road and the Southern entrance to the University Mall to accomodate mid - block left turning movements. 2) Adding a third left turning at the Dorset Street approach to the Williston Road -Dorset Street intersection for exclusive use by vehicles bound to I-89. Other improvements or modifications to this intersection, particularly to the Williston Road approaches, were not considered to be feasible. 3) Modifying the proposed Dorset Street -University Mall/Corporate Circle intersection to add a second exclusive right turn lane to the Corporate Circle approach. Improvement #1 , widening Dorset Street to five lanes with the middle lane being reserved for left turning movements, will increase the capacity and safety of Dorset Street between Williston Road and the proposed PCD. With the approaches of the three major intersections involved in this portion of Dorset Street being five lanes wide,,widening the mid -block portions to five lanes should not be too difficult. Improvement #2, modifying the existing Dorset Street -Williston Road intersection, when analysed, did not improve the projected level of service during future design hour traffic conditions. Improvement #3, modifying the proposed lane arrangement of the Dorset Street-Unviersity Mall/Corporate Circle intersection, would improve the projected level of service to L.O.S. D during future design hour traffic conditions. 8 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services VI. Conclusion Evaluation of the traffic impacts of the proposed PCD determined that Dorset Street and the three intersections (Dorset Street and Williston Road, Dorset Street and University Mall (north) and Dorset Street and University Mall (south) within the study area have sufficient existing reserve capacity to accomodate, at level of service C or better, the ad- ditional traffic volumes generated by this project, with only minor improvements being required. These improvements include widening Dorset Street to a four lane street at the proposed entrance and installing a traffic signal at the Dorset Street -University Mall (south) intersection. Future growth in the Dorset Street area, including the Corporate Circle project, will place additional demands upon the roadways and inter- sections within the study area. Additional improvements will increase safety and available capacity, however, the analyses performed herein determined that additional major development in this area may result in lowered levels of service on Dorset Street. The word "may" is used since the actual volumes of "new" traffic generated by the proposed PCD and future projects may be less than est- imated and potential changes in traffic patterns within the study area may occur due to construction of alternate routes between Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Hinesburg Road and the construction of the Southern Connector in Burlington. Construction of the proposed PCD is projected to commence within one construction season of receipt of applicable approvals. This const- ruction schedule will allow actual traffic impacts, which result from this project to be measured before other major developments occur in this area. It is our recommendation that as future area, this and other traffic impact analyses actual future traffic patterns and volumes. 0 development occurs in this should be updated to reflect F ITZPATRICK- LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Transportation Research Board, January 1980. 2. "South Burlington Triangle Area Traffic Study", Traffic Engineering Associates, April 1981. 3. Turning Movement Counts - Dorset Street - Williston Road and Dorset Street - Unviersity Mall, Vermont Agency of Transportation, July 10-11, 1978. 4. Trip Genpration, An Informational Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979. 5. "Reductions in Estimates of Traffic Impacts of Regional Shopping Centers", Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, January 1981. 6. "Corporate Circle Traffic Impact Analysis", Traffic Engineering Associates, 1981. 10 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services APPENDICES FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services APPENDIX A Turning Movement Counts Dorset Street & Williston Road and Dorset Street & University Mall FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services ' — ---- 1 liumuullllu aml 1'I,Ai IInU ;.uivluuu- DIR -- - TOT DIR PC - T TOT DIR PC Y -TOT HR ; '3 1630 - — rl - ---- I -- '7__. 1700 Li oi TOT TOT �a PC T TOT DIR -- - DIR PC !T TOT HR 1630 9 6 S - I 1 NORM 3 a 0 1 7r _ _ TOT PC T fOT DIR a6 a37 q s aoG S 21 I ' �mmm - mrm�� In DIR PC T 70T HR 2. y 5 9 a53 �66 5 16,15 a6 i 170o I%jl �U DIR PC T TOT MR _ 6$ 1645 I'700 PC& All passenger cars and 2-axle,4-tiro 6�Ja Ir_u_tT'Medium a�heavetrucks and busses. T 17 DIR PC I T I TOl DIR I PC I T I TOT DIR PC T rOT HR �Hui 0 11 LPA I lilt h 1 l_1 WI 1.1.Y N ASti()l IA I l.S tnUwuuilny di� F'I�niuuU ;;urvl..un qo I PC I T I TOT I DIR I 1 L"�J KAC6; 5iT t NsVCOQ l-J MALI- (nKJR � l� o � yRSo- 15,3o HR T3 -S,3U PCs All passongercars and 1-axio,4-1ir� trNckr Q TOT T s Mod - um and h0av trucks and busses. DIR PC T TOT DIR PC T TOY Hit y: 3- 5 3 0 TOT TOT IIIZVAIRRKIHWLII-YNASSo (IAIU) t115111 iumlitu d11U Pla 11111111 JtllW6tlb MINC TOT Pt T I TOT I DIR f ��MEMR I PC I T I TOT I DIR I 1 110 1 TOT I 1 _136 wottrtl PLACE- a t sS-T. i UNIT rTy /►BALL C�UH�M� _S20 J Y � y -S:3J HR 4:3 -S'30 PCs All passenger cars and 2-axb,4-fire tFks 20 TOT T s Med'um and heavytrucks and busses. DIR PC T TOT DIR PC T TOT HR • l yo Y y-5'3U TOT 140 TOT ivy APPENDIX B Directional Distribution of Traffic Generated By Proposed PCD FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN ASSOCIATES Engineering and Planning Services O L �---► 0 s Englnevr�ng & I'Ia in 1;g Services Ilse Kiii II►icky.lyd Noad I `BSI X lI JNC I ION. V I 05452 J N TURN NO. T0WN' LOCATION. NOTE: LAOEL APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS ON ARR0W ABOVE. 11EMARK• � T urvA 1. '(�I�1Q)Ec`fG9 A 1 I RNFFICr VOliA✓►tiC:T ROCS LAL.T1n1G Fleofyn , `1Y, lao F; PRoaeGl f r ❑ FIELD DATA ❑ AOT PM. ?EH K ti a t wq o f A del A C C� i bT1Q�� 1 ►QA FF I C. Rry o /ten .i .-- - nn fi J September 22, 1982 Ralph Deslauriers, Sr. Bolton Valley Dolton, Vermont,05477 Dear Ralph, The South Burlington Planning Commission has contracted to do a traffic study for Dorset Street from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. The study is in direct response to current or anticipated applications from C©rporate Circle, University Mall, and one other developer. However, the study also could have implications for future development on the approximately 17 acre parcel on Dorset Street owned by your family. The study is being started now. Any questions you may have or input you may want to provide are welcome. Sincerly, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mcg M E M O R A N D U M To: All Interested Parties From: David H. Spitz, South Burlington City Planner Re: Dorset Street Traffic Study Date: 9/16/82 The South Burlington Planning Commission will be holding an initial work session on Tuesday, September 21, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. to discuss the Dorset Street traffic study. Your attendance and participation are encouraged. C TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Phone (802) 878-5977 November 23, 1984 Ms. Jane Bechtel City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Ms. Bechtel: In regard to the intersection complex on Dorset Street at Corporate Way - University Mall North Driveway and at Dorset Square Driveway -University Mall Center Driveway, several options are feasible for the operation of the single four -phase traffic controller. 1. Because little development has taken place in Dorset Square and the right -turn volume is the predominant movement on University Mall Center Driveway, the traffic signal can be removed from operation. Right-of-way is again assigned to Dorset Street with 'STOP' sign control on Dorset Square Driveway and University Mall Center Driveway. The traffic signal heads should not be placed on flashing operation but should be removed or wrapped with cloth. In the past, left turns were prohibited from the approach of University Mall Center Driveway. The turn prohibition should be continued. This traffic control arrangement will suffice until sufficient development has occurred at Dorset Square to generate vehicular volumes that warrant the installation of a traffic signal or until the Dorset Street improvement project has been completed. 2. If the present traffic signal system is to remain with the one four -phase controller operating both locations, then the follow- ing phasing sequences are recommended to clear out the short roadway section between the two intersections. Phase Intersection 1 Intersection 2 Dorset Corporate -Mall Dorset Square -Mall 1 F NB XX < NB XX } SB SB 2 F NB XX X NB XX X SB -s- SB 3 X y t X 1 X WB EB X WB EB 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Jane Bechtel November 23, 1984 Page 2 If this option is selected, then proper timing plans can be developed in accordance with the format for this particular Honeywell controller. 3. In either case, a loop detection delay of 5 to 10 sec should be provided to eliminate the presence of any vehicles that turn 'right on red' or that cross loops while turning from Dorset Street into the east driveways. No doubt, these options should be discussed with Mr. Brian McNeil in regard to the hardware capabilities of the existing controller. Please advise of any additional assistance that may be required in regard to this traffic control situation on Dorset Street. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk I 69� (o - 50 0 1 Ll l�'� ,y off_ - OL r S --------------------u-�--ca-�--�u�--n - _ `� ------ - -- - ------ ----- The annual total amount of Federal Highway Aid to be made available to the states is set by Congress and the funds authorized are "apportioned" among the states according to methods prescribed by law. These 'methods take into consideration, for the Interstate System, the Interstate System costs in Vermont as related to the total Interstate fund needs in the United States. For the other systems, apportionments are based on the factors of road mileage, state population and state area, with an established minimum per- centage. Vermont receives the minimum amount under thin formula. Cooperation The Federal Aid Program is a cooperative one; the states choose the systems of routes for development, select and plan the individual projects, acquire the right-of-way, and award and supervise the construction contracts. The states pay for the work as it progresses and then claim reimbursement from the Federal Government for the Federal Aid share of the cost. The Federal Highway Administration function is that of guidance, approval, and control in each step of the process from planning the highway through the construction phase. In Vermont, coordination with the Federal Highway Administration Montpelier Office is done on a step-by-step, day -today basis. and results in a smoothly operating highway program. Improvements of the relationship between man and his environment, and the preservation of the natural beauty of the country -side, in the imple- mentation of all Federal actions, is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Assurance that the FedeIsl Aid Highway Program meets these comittments is provided through an assessment of the environmental impact of all sections of highway to be improved under the Federal Aid Program. STATE - FEDERAL .RELATIONSHIP FOR VERMONT H IGHWAYS VfRi M AGEWY W 7iiA1'LSPCffi'A'1' OK N-tpeUer, VQ3IIIOrlt STATE -FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP FOR VER14ONT HIGHNATS Organization Road building in Vermont with the use of Federal Aid Highway Funds is a cooperative effort between the State of Vermont and the Federal Government. The State of Vermont is represented by the Vermont Agency of Transportation and the Federal Government by the Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration, which maintains a Division Office in each state, is an operating agency of the Department of Transportation. In Vermont, both the Federal Highway Administration Division Office and the main office of the Agency of Transportation are located in Montpelier. - Federal Aid Systems The Federal Aid Highway Program started modestly in 1916 and has expanded greatly through the intervening years. The roads which are eligible for Federal Aid in each state are divided into systems for administrative and financing purposes. These systems include Interstate, Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systems. The Federal Government does not "own" any of the roads in Vermont except for a few on National Forest Land. The roads are actually owed by the state or by local governments. There are approximately 13,620 miles of public roads in Vermont; 2,606 miles of State Highway, under the juris- diction of the State Transportation Board; and11,014 miles under local jurisdiction. The 3,654 miles with the Federal Aid System include 2.569 miles of State Highway. Financing The Federal Government gives financial aid for the building of new roads and the reconstruction of existing ones, including the cost of planning, design, right-of-way and construction. There is no aid given for maintenance or regulation of highways. While Federal Aid is adminis- tered through the State Agency of Transportation, substantial benefits art realized by local units of government, through the eligibility of local mileages for improvement with Federal Aid. For the Interstate System, the Federal Government pays approximately 90% of the eligible costs, and the State pays the remaining 1OZ.. On Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systems, the Federal share is approximately 75%. The non -Federal portion In provided from State funds (except for Urban System projects where the funding ratio is 75% Federal, 15% State agd,;Ox Local, under Vermont Legislative policy.) While Federal funds participate in right-of-way acquisition for Urban System projects, the cost of rights -of - way for improvements located on Secondary Highways under local jurisdiction, must be borne by municipal government, without Federal reimbursement. Vermont's share of the Federal Highway Program is financed from user taxes (gas tax, motor vehicle purchase and use tax, and motor vehicle registration fees). While the Federal Highway Program was originally financed from general revenues, the Highway Trust Fund was established by the Federal Aid Higbway Act of 1966, to provide a self supporting revenue source, which operates on a pay as you build basis. The principal revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund is the motor fuel tax of four (4) cents per gallon, plus taxes of six (6) cents per gallon on motor oil, ten (10) cents per pound on vehicle tires and and inner tubes, five (5) cents per pound on retread rubber, an annual use tax on heavy vehicles, and a tax on new trucks, busses, trailers and their repair parts. 6 a RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION PROCEDURES IN VERMONT L i d PLEASI, `�WV FOR FURTIII!R I1SF PRITARIJ) FOR INI�010IATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY BY ';IT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION May 1982 A Project Begins The Vermont Agency of Transportation is required by Vermont law, and by Federal law whenever Federal funds participate, to complete studies to determine the need for a highway project. Since Federal funds do participate in nearly every phase of the major portion of our highway program, the acquisition procedures described in this brochure are in conformance with Federal procedures. Generally, these same procedures will be used for projects which are 100% State funded. The Project Develops Studies are made to determine which location will provide maximum service and minimum impact on the people and their environment. Of special concern in determining the location is the displacement of people from their homes, farms and businesses. When the location has been determined, the project is advanced through the various design stages. Acquisition Procedures Real property for right-of-way may be acquired in either one of two ways: 1. By Agreement, without the right to condemn: Used, generally, when construction of a small project can be expedited by reaching agree- ment with the owners to acquire the affected properties. Everything in this brochure is applicable except those portions marked by an asterisk(*). 2. By Agreement, with the right to condemn: Used, generally, on a larger complex project when the Court has granted the State the right to condemn the properties if they cannot be acquired by agreement. Everything in this brochure is applicable. *Public Participation When it is advisable for the State to obtain the right to condemn the property needed for the project, the people have the opportunity to learn the facts and participate in the decision. The location and design of the highway must be right since, once constructed, it is going to be there for a long time. Vermont law provides for holding three public hearings as the project is developed, at which property owners and other parties can appear to obtain information and to voice support or objection: 1. Economic Hearing prescribed by Vermont and Federal Laws: To discuss the tentative location of proposed routes and the economic effect of such location. -1- 2. Title 19 Section 222 Hearing authorized by Vermont law: To discuss the reasons for the selection of the route intended. 3. Necessity Hearing authorized by Vermont law: To establish a reasonable need for the acquisition of certain land and rights within a prescribed area for the construction of a highway project. At this important hearing, a Superior Court will hear all persons who wish to be heard. If the Court finds that a reasonable need exists, a judgement order is issued granting the State the right to acquire the properties by condemnation, if they are not obtained by agreement. Getting Ready to Acquire The Property Administration Section of the Agency of Transportation establishes right-of-way limits, determines ownership of the areas within and outside such limits, determines the fair market value of the portions affected including damages, if any, provides assistance to displaced persons, farms and businesses, manages acquired property and negotiates settlements. All phases of right-of-way work in which Federal funds will participate require Federal authorization before it can proceed. In accordance with Federal. Civil Rights Law, the acquisition of real property will be conducted in such a way and manner as to assure that no person shall, on the ground of age, race, color, sex, or national origin, be denied the benefits to which the person is entitled, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Property Values Determined Your real property will be valued by a qualified appraiser who works in the Property Administration Section of the Agency of Transportation. This value will be determined prior to the initiation of negotiation with you and is accomplished by comparing prices at which properties similar to yours have sold recently. All appraisers are required to receive training, to use acceptable practices and have substantial experience in their profession. You or your representative will be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser on his inspection of your property so that you can point out its particular features. The appraisal is then analyzed by the reviewing appraiser, working independently in the Agency of Transportation, who will inspect the property and interview the owner, if advisable. The reviewer has the responsibility for final approval of the appraisal and your offer will not be less than the approved value. -2- Relocation Assistance Relocation assistance and payments are provided for all occupants of property acquired for Federal -aid highway projects in compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. If you would like a copy of our Relocation Assistance brochure to help answer your questions, please contact the Relocation Assistance Officer assigned to the project or the Chief of Acquisition, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Property Administration Section, 133 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602. Retention of Imvrovements You may be given the opportunity to retain your home or other buildings for removal from the right-of-way and for relocation to another site prior to a specific date. Some buildings are moved easily - some are not. Responsibility for moving the building rests with the owners. If retention of a building is offered, the State will make you an alternate offer equal to the fair market value offer minus the predetermined disposal value of the building. Retention offers are made at the same time as the fair market value offer. Offer to Acquire Every reasonable effort will be made to acquire real property by negotiation. It should be noted that the State's offer is a determination of current fair market value of your property. A qualified Agent of the Agency of Transportation will contact you to make a prompt offer for the full amount it has established and approved as just compensation for the real property to be acquired. A written statement of, and summary of the basis for the amount of the offer, an indentification of the real property and the compensation to be paid for the real property and damages to the remaining real property, if any, will be made separately to each owner. If a partial acquisition leaves you with a remainder which has little value or utility to you, we will offer to acquire that remainder at its fair market value. Every effort will be made to contact each affected property owner either in person or by certified mail. The Agent, in order to give the owner a complete understanding of the project, will explain the project plans, appraisal process, documents, the Vermont Acquisition Procedures brochure, and anything else pertinent to the parcel and project. The fair market value offer and any other applicable offers will be made in writing. If replacement housing is involved a Relocation Assistance Officer will generally be present. Your legal rights will be explained and your questions will be answered then, or at the earliest possible date. Copies of all materials are provided for your use and your opinions are requested. From then on, as many contacts are made as are necessary to answer all the questions and make any necessary revisions in the plans or compensation. -3- N Time to Consider The owner will be given a reasonable time to consider the offer and obtain professional advice or assistance if he so desires. In no event will negotiation be conducted in order to compel an agreement on the price to be paid for the property. A frank discussion of the areas of concern will result in the owner reaching a decision which will save time and money. Agreement Reached When agreement is reached option documents are executed by the owners which specify the real property to be conveyed by Deed, the amount of money to be paid and any undertaking to be performed agreed to during negotiation. *Agreement Not Reached When agreement is not reached, property owners and other persons having a legal and compensable interest in the property to be acquired are entitled to a hearing by the State Transportation Board. At this hearing all persons are heard on the question of proper compensation. Within 30 days after the hearing the Board files its order with the town clerk fixing the compensation to be paid and delivers a copy of its order to each owner or person having an interest, and its check to the owner, payable jointly to all such persons. If the owner or interested person is dissatisfied with the amount of the award, he may, within 90 days after the date the order is filed, institute an appeal to the Superior Court and will be entitled to hearing by the court or a trial by jury if. desired. The judgement of the court may be appealed to the State Supreme Court. Payment When agreement is reached, releases are first obtained from all mortgage and lien holders listed on the option. Then the option is processed for payment with the check made payable jointly to all persons having an interest. The check and the Warranty Deeds are mailed (certified) to the owner. Title passes to the State when the Deed is properly executed and acknowledged. *When agreement is not reached during negotiation or following the Compensation Tearing, payment is made by the Board's condemnation award. The check made payable jointly to all persons having an interest is mailed to the owner. Title passes to the State when the Board's order is filed with the town clerk. Land Gains Sales Tax Vermont statutes require that anyone, including the State of Vermont, who purchases property held by the seller for less than six (6) years must file a Land Gains withholding tax return at the time payment is made, with certain exceptions. In addition, the buyer must withhold and forward to the Vt. Dept. of Taxes, ten -4- percent (10%) of the total sales price attributable to the land acquired. If you have owned your property less than six (6) years, this provision may apply to you and may, therefore, affect your total compensation. This requirement will be explained to you during negotiations. Real Property Taxes The owners of real property acquired in fee for Federal -aid Highway Projects are entitled to receive reimbursement for certain real property taxes incurred. The State will reimburse the pro rata portion of real property taxes paid that are allocable to a period after the date of vesting title in the State or the date of possession by the State, whichever is earlier. Possession The State will not require an owner to give up possession of his real property until the State has paid him the agreed purchase price of an amount not less than the approved estimate of just compensation, or the amount of compensation awarded him by condemnation order of the State Transportation Board. Vacating The State, to the greatest extent practicable, will not require any person lawfully occupying real property to move from a dwelling, or to move his farm operation or business without as least 90 days written notice of the date by which such move is required. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you desire additional information, need any clarification or have any questions concerning the Vermont Acquisition Procedures Program, please write Agency of Transportation, Property Administration Division, State Administration Building, Montpelier, Vermont 05602. or call (802)-828-2618. -5-