The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubdivision/Site Plan of Development (2) TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM E V R n - ; Application No. : 9-11 Date Received: FEB 24 1999 Action/Public Hearing by: Receipt No. M.H.C. Inc. c/o Mr: Harry Cromwell APPLICANT• ADDRESS: 201 Park Avenue, West Springfield, MA 01089 ` • OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS George E. King ADDRESS: 130 Captain Drive, Westbrook, CT 06498 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor's Map # 5 Parcel # 6&40 ZoneGC & RR NAME, ADDRESS, TEL & FAX # OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: Mr. Christian Alford, Alford Associates, Inc. , P.O. Box 484, Windsor, CT 06095 Tel. (860) 688-7288 Fax (860) 688-3485 THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply) : 1 . Zone Change to (Public Hearing required) X 2. Subdivision/Resubdivision a. _ Subdivision Minor Major b. X Resubdivision X Minor Major (Public Hearing Required) C. _ Conditional Approval d. _ Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required) _3. Special Exception to Article (Public Hearing Required) X4. Site Plan of Development 5. General Plan of Development _6. Earth Filling (Sec. 101 and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 91 (Public Hearing Required) _7. Regulation Amendment: Zoning Subdivision 8. Amendment to Town Plan of Development _9. Temporary and Conditional Permit _10. Other (explain in detail) : ' Owner Georgg E. King/Applic t (See reverse side for additional information) Ks C. f TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CHECKLIST REQUIRED INFORMATION SITLE PLANS APPLICANT—. M.G. (N C PROJECT NAME 41 S 710H,J 1`(TCK 5001 f—VAIZT) This checklist must be si tied by plan preparer (P.E./L.S.) declaring that all required information is provided. Items 1-7 are required for all applications; items 8-11 required where appropriate. Check mark for each item supplied. 1. On each sheet for plans or maps, title block with the following information: V a. Name, address and telephone of applicant. b. Name, address and telephone number of Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. �✓/ c. Name of Development. v' d. Date when drawings were made. •f 2. Key Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet, which can be used as an overlay on Metropolitan District Maps. This map will show the overall design of / the Development and surrounding property within 500 feet. a. Date block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of lot coverage, acreage of tract, number of apartment units, parking requirements, etc. V b. Layout of buildings. c. Layout of streets and parking. d. Lines indicating proposed drainage system with direction arrows. /V/A e. Lines indicating sanitary sewer system with direction arrows. ✓ f. Names of surrounding property owners. P/jA/ g. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas. J h. Driveway cuts on surrounding properties. v/ 3. Architectural Elevations: See attached checklist for Architecture and Design Review. .� 4. Plot Plan: A layout map of the proposed site drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet on either of the following size sheets: (1) 24" x 36" with a 3/4" ruled margin; (2) 18" x 24" with a 1/2" ruled margin, containing the following data: Ja. Distance and bearings of all boundary lines and acreage of site. Iron pins required at all property angle points and shown on map. v b. Proposed streets and street lines with center line station, curve data, and parking spaces. c. Building lines in accordance with zoning regulations. d. Proposed buildings and other structures, including signs, outside lighting, and dumpsters (on concrete pad and screened). e. Easements, noting grantors, grantees, and purpose. ✓/ f. Names of abutting property owners. J g. Monuments will be indicated at corners and angles of all streets and at all points of curvature and tangency. In areas accessible to Metropolitan District Commission points, or other coordinated points, the monumented points within proposed site shall be coordinated. These coordinates shall appear in tabular form on the plot plan. The accessibility of these MDC points shall be determined by the Town Engineer. LAA h. All open space or other common or public land uses shall be indicated. i. A-2 certification; P.E./L.S. Seal. J5. Topographic Map: A map drawn to a scale of 1 inch to 40 feet on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins shall in addition to the requirements of the plot plans show the following: a. All existing and proposed buildings. J b. Curb Lines and pavement width, sidewalks. c. Existing and proposed sanitary sewers. d. Existing and proposed water and gas main systems. ✓ e. Present wooded area indicated by foliage lines. Any individual trees to be saved should be shown. f. Existing and proposed contours shall be shown in not less than two-foot intervals, but in cases of relatively level land, the contours shall be one-foot intervals and spot elevations. g. Regulated wetlands and 100-year floodplain or note that none are present. Jh. Proposed storm drainage system, showing all catch basins, endwalls, manholes, lengths and sizes of pipes. (Maximum distance between catch basins shall be 300 feet and minimum size of storm drain lines shall be 15 inches. tJZA i. Connections of all springs into proposed storm drainage system as needed. �IA j. Location and indications of existing brook channels, and 100-year flood limits. k. A-2 Certification; P.E./L.S. Seal. 6. Landscaping plan: ./ 7. Drainage calculations: - Zero Runoff Increase per attached guidelines. .� 8. Traffic Report: - 2 - N1A 9. Plans and Profiles: A plan and profile of the proposed streets drawn on plan/profile paper of scales 1 inch to 40 feet horizontally, and 1 inch to 4 feet vertically on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins and containing the following: a. Layout of streets in sections coordinated by stations with the profile. b. Street plan showing roadways and drainage. c. Sight line at driveway & street intersections. _ d. Profile of roadway showing existing and finished grades. Roadway profile will show all tangent grade and all vertical curve information. e. Profile will show all catch basins and all drainage lines between catch basins with all invert and top of frame elevations. Drainage lines will be shown and described as to material. f. Where any storm drainage line discharges into an existing brook sufficient profile of this brook will be shown to determine conditions. g. Metropolitan District Commission datum shall be used on all sites accessible to these controls. The Town Engineer shall, based on standard engineering practices, determine the accessibility of these controls. h. Profiles shall show all sanitary sewer lines and manholes, including elevations, sizes, lengths, and slopes of pipes. Top of foundation elevations for building shall be shown. rAA 10. Open Space Site Improvement Plans: For sites which require or include a provision for open spaces, a plan which contains data for site improvement may be required. This map / shall be drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet. 11. Sanitary Report: Where individual sanitary sewage disposal systems are proposed, the final plans shall include a Sanitary Report certified by a Professional Engineer. The report shall demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed individual systems; the report should deal with the area as a whole, discussing the following points: ,/ a. General nature and development of surrounding area. b. Topography and natural drainage pattern. c. Subsurface conditions as shown by subsurface investigation, including soil absorption characteristics, ground water level conditions, ledge rock, and general nature of soil. d. General description of type of development contemplated. e. Detailed description of proposed sanitary sewage disposal facilities, indicating sizes for various ground conditions, materials to be used, and the general layout pattern to be used, etc. Jf. Special precautions that may be necessary to provide proper functioning of the proposed disposal systems. g. map of general area with locations of all tests shown on proposed layout. A h. Flood heights of any nearby streams, brooks, or rivers. - 3 - i. Test results and engineering evaluation per Section 4.13.5. All information required above is included in this application at the time of submission. Z-ZW-T3 PLAN PREPARER .E. L.S. DATE May 17, 1995 - 4 03/02/1999 16:49 8606447280 SOUTH WINDSOR PAGE 02/06 • TOWN OF SOUTH SOR WIND CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED SUBMISSION DOCUMENTS SUBDMSIONS/RESUBDMSIONS APPLICANT M H C PROJECTNAME 5HL K%tJCr A4 jD H5 SoK(J F-tTC41 t3i VD. This checklist must be signed by plan preparer(P.E/L.S) declaring that ail required Information Is provided. Place a check mark for each item supplied. Subdivision Minor Reaular I. PROJECT-PLOT INFORMATION A. General Information ✓ 1. Appl. &owner name, address x x --�L Z. Engineer&land surveyor name, address, license no. &seal x x ✓ 3. Key map at 1" = 1W scale showing location of tract with reference to surrounding properties, streets, municipal boundaries, etc., within SOV. Key map must include: x x ✓ a. Outline of buildings. ✓ b. Layout of streets ✓ c. Surrounding property boundaries-within 500 feet. ✓ d. Names of abutting property owners. e. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas. f. Driveway cuts on abutting properties and any properties across from proposed site 03/02/1999 16:49 8606447280 SOUTH WINDSOR PAGE 03/06 • Subdivision . Minor Reoulpr g. Distance to and name of nearest intersection / street. 4. A schedule of required and provided zoning district requirements including lot area, lot frontage, tot depth,yard setbacks, open space_ . variances granted, etc. x x JS. North arrow and scale. x x 6. Appropriate certification block. x x 7. Date of original drawing and all revisions. x x 8. Name of development x x B. Plot plan at I"= 40'scale an standard 18"x 24`or 24"x 36"sheets with a 1/2' ruled margin containing the following data. Developments which require more than two 24"x 36" sheets may submit the plot plan at 1" = . 100'scale. x x 1. Metes and bounds description showing dimensions, bearings, curve data, length of tangents, radil, arcs, chords, and central angles for all centerilnes and rights-of-way, and centerline curves on streets. Monuments are "pined at comers and angles of all new streets and new street lines, at all points of curvature and tangency, and at critical corners and angles of all new Town open space. Coordinates for monuments shall be in tabular form. x x 2. CGS datum shall be used on all subdivisions accessible to controls. The Town Engineer shall / determine the accessibility of these controls. 3. Lot layout numbers, square footage of all lots, and all lot dimensions. Iron pins are required at all property angle points. No lots shall be divided on 2 / sheets. x x V/ 4. Yard setbacks dimensioned. x x S. Easements, noting grantors, grantees and purpose. x x 03/02/1999 16:49 8606447280 SOUTH WINDSOR PAGE 04/06 � s Subdivision Minor ecLulaa 6. Development phasing, if proposed. x x ✓ 7. Names of abutting property.owners. x x 8. Proposed street names (use approved list of names). x x IJ/A 9. All open space reserved for common or public uses. x x ✓ 10. Appropriate A-2 certification & LS seals. x x II Topographic map at same scale as plot plan containing all data included on the plot plan plus the following: ✓ 1. All existing structures, streets, wetlands and existing watercourses, or other environmentally structs sensitive areas, Including enough data streets x beyond property boundaries to allow a wetlnds reasonable evaluation of the property's fldpin ecological relationship to surrounding areas, 100 yr. floodplain. x ✓ 2. Existing and proposed contours to extend a x sufficient amount beyond subject property, to determine the effects on the property as follows (town mapping): 100` x up to 3% grade: V contour interval / 3% grade'&,over; 2`contour interval V 3. Boundary limits, nature, and extent of wooded areas, specimen trees, and other significant physical features. x x 4. Existing system of drainage of subject site and of any larger tract or basin of which It Is a part(can use Town stormwater x x study). 5. Drainage area map. * - x ✓ 6. Drainage calculations x ✓ 7. Perc test data, preliminary indication of septic system feasibility If individual sanitary * x sewerage systems provided. 03/02/1999 16:49 8606447280 SOUTH WINDSOR PAGE 05/06 Minor 8. Proposed utility infrastructure plans, including sanitary sewer. water, storm water management * X 9. Spot and finished elevations at all property comers, comers of all structures or dwellings, or proposed first floor elevations x x 10. Construction details(per standard specs.) * x 11. Road and paving cross-sections (per, standard specs). * x A 12. Proposed street names. x x 13. Landscape plan and details. x x 14. Site Identifications signs, traffic control signs, and directional signs. * x A 15. sight triangles at new road Intersections. x 16. Sight triangles at driveway entrance x x (where there may be a question).. 17. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattems {less detall necessary l`or preapplications, concept plan, and general plan of development. " * x • Plans and profiles(1"= 40'horizontally and 1" = 4'vertically) showing the following: x iJ A a. Layout of streets in sections coordinated by stations with the profile. x b. Street plan showing roadways, drainage, and partial lot lines x 03/02/1999 16:49 8606447280 SOUTH WINDSOR PAGE 06/06 Subdivision Minor Regular C. Profile of roadway showing existing and finished grades, all tangent grades, and all vertical curve Information x N d. Profile will show all catch basins and all drainage lines between catch basins with all Invert and top of frame elevations. Drainage pipe material to be described. x N 1A e. Typical/critical cross-sections where grading is outside street right-of-way or is at street right- of-way. x 14 f. Where any storm drainage line discharges into an existing brook, sufficient profile of this brook will be shown to determine conditions.' x 12 A g. Profiles shall show all sanitary sewer lines and manholes,. Including pipe material, elevations, sizes, lengths, and slopes of pipes. Top of foundation elevations for habitable buildings shall be shown. * x 15. Traffic report(by traffic engineer) �► /A 15. Open space site improvement plan. * x J 17. Architectural elevations/information per Sect. 4.20 of the zoning regulations * - if required by Town Engineer ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED ABOVE IS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION. Date Plan Preparer(PE/LS) , June 18, 1998 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for BURGER KING RESTAURANT ON JOHN FITCH BOULEVARD i PROPOSED S BY M H C, INC. C Prepared By Traffic Engineering Solutions 193 Lexington Road Glastonbury, Connecticut (860) 657-3579 January 1999 Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................2 Roadways............................................................................................................2 Signalized Intersections.......................................................................................2 Existing Traffic Volumes......................................................................................3 Accidents.............................................................................................................4 Project Generated Traffic .......................................................................................4 CapacityAnalyses...................................................................................................5 SiteAccess..............................................................................................................8 Roadway Improvements by ConnDOT...................................................................9 Conclusions.............................................................................................................9 List of Tables Table 1 Trip Generation 3,000 Square Foot Burger King.................................5 Table 2 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses ............................................7 Table 3 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses with RevisedTimings......................................................................................................7 Table 4 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses.........................................8 C:\BUSINESS\BURGER\REPORT.DOC Introduction M. H. C., Inc. proposes to build a 3,000 square foot Burger King Restaurant on a 2.74 acre site located along the west side of John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) opposite Ellington Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. This report was prepared by Traffic Engineering Solutions to address the traffic impact on roadways and intersections surrounding the project. The analyses completed for this study incorporated trips from the recently approved Output Technologies facility which is presently being constructed along the east side of Ellington Road just south of the 1-291 overpass. The following scope of work was included in this study: ■ Reviewing the Traffic Impact Report prepared for the Output Technologies, Inc. facility proposed for Ellington Road; ■ Making turning movement counts during the midday (11:30 AM to 1:30 PM peak period at the following intersections: 0 John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) at Burnham Street; 0 John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) at Ellington Road; ■ Obtaining the turning movement counts for the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM), and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods from the Output Technologies study at the following intersections: 0 John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) at Burnham Street; 0 John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) at Ellington Road; ■ Obtaining from ConnDOT traffic accident data for the latest three year period for John Fitch Boulevard between Burnham Street and the 1-291 interchange; ■ Obtaining from ConnDOT the traffic signal plans and Closed Loop System timing patterns for the intersections of John Fitch Boulevard at Ellington Road and Burnham Street ■ Obtaining from the Connecticut DOT 24-hour traffic counts for John Fitch Boulevard and Ellington Road in the vicinity of the site; ■ Making visual observations of roadways and land use conditions along John Fitch Boulevard in the vicinity of the site; ■ Determining the number of trips expected to be added to the roadway system by the proposed Burger King Restaurant; ■ Completing morning, midday and afternoon peak hour capacity analyses for the intersections listed above and for the site drive intersection with John Fitch Boulevard to determine existing operating Levels of Service (LOS) and the anticipated LOS for the traffic volumes expected upon completion of the Burger King Restaurant; ■ Completing queuing analyses for the Route 5 southbound approach to the Burnham Street intersection to determine if traffic will back to the site drive; CABUSINESS\BURGER\REPORT.DOC ■ Measuring the sight distance looking toward the left that will be 9 9 available for drivers leaving the site and compare this distances with the Connecticut DOT Guidelines for Intersection Sight Distances for the posted speed limit as well as speeds 5 and 10 miles per hour greater than the posted speed limit; ■ Identifying and recommending improvements, if required, to correct deficiencies found during the study; Existing Conditions A 3,000 square foot Burger King Restaurant with a drive-through window is proposed for a 2.74 acre site located along the west side of John Fitch Boulevard in South Windsor, Connecticut just north of the Town Line with East Hartford. A total of 66 parking spaces, including two handicap spaces, will be provided to serve the needs of the restaurant. The site has approximately 155 feet of frontage along John Fitch Boulevard and is opposite the intersection of Ellington Road with John Fitch Boulevard. The property is presently undeveloped. Access to the site will be provided by a single drive located near the northerly property line of the site opposite Ellington Road. Visual observations were made and traffic counts obtained for the roadways and intersections surrounding the site. Roadways - John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) runs in the north/south direction along the entire length of South Windsor near its westerly end. The roadway continues into East Hartford to the south and East Windsor and beyond to the north. There are two lanes of travel in each direction and additional turn lanes at signalized intersections. A median separates the two directions of travel along John Fitch Boulevard. Southbound Ellington Road intersects John Fitch Boulevard directly opposite the Burger King site. Northbound Ellington Road begins at Burnham Street about 575 feet south of the site. The South Windsor/East Hartford Town Line runs along the northerly side of Burnham Street. About a quarter mile north of the site, there is a full interchange with 1-291. Traffic signals control traffic flow at both sets of ramps at the 1-291 interchange as well as the intersections of Route 5 with Ellington Road and Route 5 at Burnham Street. Land use along John Fitch Boulevard in the vicinity of the site is predominantly commercial, including several gasoline stations with convenience stores, small shopping plazas, restaurants, and a bowling center. The posted speed limit on John Fitch Boulevard is 45 miles per hour. Signalized Intersections John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) at Ellington Road (Route 30) is a signalized 3 legged intersection with Route 5 running north to south and -� Ellington Road running from Southwest to northeast. There are two through lanes in each direction on Route 5 and because there are no turns allowed k from John Fitch Boulevard onto Ellington Road, there are no additional turn lanes at this intersection. Ellington Road is channelized at its intersection C:\BUSINESS\BURGER\REPORT.DOC 2 with Route 5. Right turns from Ellington Road onto Route 5 are STOP controlled and allowed to enter Route 5 when adequate gaps are available. The two left turn lanes from Ellington Road onto Route 5 are controlled by the traffic signal at this intersection. The controller provides three phases including a fixed advance for northbound Route 5, through movements in both directions on Route 5, and the Ellington Road phase. The traffic signals along Route 5 in South Windsor as well as several along Route 5 in East Hartford are included in a ConnDOT Closed Loop Traffic Signal System. The actual timings for each intersection are determined by the timing patterns utilized by the Closed Loop System. John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) at Burnham Street is a four legged signalized intersection. There are two through lanes and an exclusive left turn lane in each direction along John Fitch Boulevard. Additionally, there is an exclusive right turn lane in the northbound direction. Burnham Street has a single lane approaching the intersection from each direction. A semi-quad signal operation is provided at this intersection. The controller allows several combinations of non-conflicting traffic movements to flow at the same time along Route 5. These combinations include north and southbound left turns when vehicles are present in the turn lanes along both approaches. If the left turning volume in one direction is nonexistent or lower than the opposite direction, the heavier left turn is allowed to continue in combination with the through movement along the same approach; once the left turns have been served, the through movements in both directions are allow to proceed. Both Burnham Street approaches are allowed to flow during the same phase. This intersection is also included in the ConnDOT Closed Loop Traffic Signal System for Route 5. Existing Traffic Volumes Twenty-four hour automatic traffic recorder(ATR) counts were obtained from the Connecticut DOT for John Fitch Boulevard and Ellington Road in the vicinity of the site. The ConnDOT counts, made in February 1998, were supplemented by midday (11:30 AM to 1:30 PM) turning movement counts made during December 1998 for this study, and morning and afternoon peak hour Background Traffic Volumes for 1999 obtained from the Output Technologies, Inc. Study at the following intersections: ■ John Fitch Boulevard at Ellington Road; ■ John Fitch Boulevard at Burnham Street; According to the ConnDOT counts, the daily traffic volume is 22,000 vehicles per day (vpd) traveling John Fitch Boulevard just north of the site, and 5,400 vpd on Ellington Road in the vicinity of John Fitch Boulevard. During the morning peak hour there are about 2,000 vehicles traveling John Fitch Boulevard (805 northbound and 1184 southbound)just north of Ellington Road and 467 vehicles turning left from Ellington Road onto John Fitch Boulevard. The peak hour during the midday period has 1,354 vehicles traveling John Fitch Boulevard (655 northbound and 699 southbound) north of Ellington Road and 134 vehicles turning left from Ellington Road onto John Fitch Boulevard. During the afternoon peak hour CAB USINESS\BURGER\REPO RT.DOC 3 2,163 vehicles travel John Fitch Boulevard 914 northbound and 1,249 southbound)just north of Ellington Road and 203.vehicles turning left from Ellington Road onto John Fitch Boulevard. The December 1998 turning movement counts and 1999 Background Traffic Volumes from the Output Technologies Study are included in the appendix to this report. Accidents The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) Bureau of Planning and Research compiles records of accident data reported by investigating police authorities. Accidents which result in death, injury, or property damage in excess of$1,000 are required to be reported. Accident data was obtained for John Fitch Boulevard from just south of Burnham Street to just north of Ellington Road. The accident data covered the latest three-year period for which records are available, October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1997. During the three years covered by the ConnDOT accident data a total of 47 accidents were reported along this section of John Fitch Boulevard, nearly all at the signalized intersection with Burnham Street. More than half (57%) of the accidents were rear-end collisions. The ConnDOT Bureau of Planning and Research also assembles the reported accidents on State roadways and compiles the accidents in a report entitled Traffic Accident Surveillance Report (TASR). The TASR is used to prioritize accident sites statewide. A second list, the Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSSS), is a listing of locations which offer the greatest promise of accident reduction resulting from implementation of corrective action. The most recent TASR and SLOSSS cover the period from 1993 to 1995. The intersection of John Fitch Boulevard with Burnham Street is included in the TASR list as having accident rates above normal and is assigned the sequence (priority) number of 1,170 out of 1381 locations included in the SLOSSS list for further review and potential improvements. Project Generated Traffic New trips to the roadway system generated by the proposed 3,000 square foot Burger King Restaurant were determined from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) reference, Trip Generation'. The ITE reference has established mathematical relationships based on studies of various land uses nationwide to determine their trip generation rates. These trip generation relationships have been standardized and published in the Trip Generation reference. The ITE reference contains trip generation information for fast food restaurants with and without drive-through windows. Trip generation estimates were calculated for the proposed 3,000 square foot Burger King Restaurant based on ITE Land Use Code 834— Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window. The following trip generation relationships were used to determine the number of daily, morning, midday, and afternoon Trip Generation Sixth Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. CAB USINESS\BURGER\REPO RT.DOC 4 peak hour trips that would be generated by the proposed Burger King. The results are summarized in Table 1. Average Weekday Trips 496.12 Trips per 1,000 Square Feet Morning Peak Hour 49.86 Trips per 1,000 Square Feet Midday Peak Hour 54.81 Trips per 1,000 Square Feet Afternoon Peak Hour 33.48 Trips per 1,000 Square Feet Table 1 -Trip Generation for 3,000 Square Foot Burger King Trips Entering Trips Leaving Daily 744 744 Morning Peak Hour 76 73 Midday Peak Hour 84 81 Afternoon Peak Hour 52 48 Fast Food Restaurants are highly dependent on traffic traveling the abutting roadways. In the Fifth Edition of Trip Generation ITE provided information indicating that passby trips at Fast Food Restaurants with Drive-Through Windows accounted for 40% to 60% of the site generated trips. ConnDOT allows adjustments for passby trips equal to 10 percent of the traffic on the abutting roadway or 20 percent of the site generated trips, whichever is lower. For this study, no adjustment was made for passby trips to the proposed Burger King Restaurant. Capacity Analyses Capacity Analyses were done to determine the existing and anticipated quality of traffic operations on surrounding intersections and roadways. Letter designations from A to F are used to represent the Levels of Service (LOS) for the traffic operation at each intersection or roadway, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the lowest. Typically, LOS D is considered acceptable by ConnDOT for design peak hour conditions. The Level of Service is determined differently for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections with multi-way STOP, and unsignalized intersections with STOP control on the minor street approaches. For signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections with multi-way STOP control, the analysis considers the operation of all traffic entering the intersection and the LOS is determined for the overall conditions at the intersection. For unsignalized intersections with STOP control on the minor street, the analysis assumes that through and right-turning traffic on the major street is not affected by traffic on the side streets. Hence, the LOS is determined for the movements on the side street and the left-turn movement from the major street onto the side street. Levels of Service are defined by the average delay per vehicle as indicated below. C:\BUSINESS\BURGER\REPORT.DOC 5 Signalized Intersections Level of Service Avg. Delay/Vehicle (in Seconds) LOS A < 5.0 LOS B > 5.0 and < 15.0 LOS C > 15.0 and < 25.0 LOS D > 25.0 and < 40.0 LOS E > 40.0 and < 60.0 LOS F > 60.0 Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Avg. Delay/Vehicle (in Seconds) LOS A < 5.0 LOSB > 5.0 and < 10.0 LOS C > 10.0 and < 20.0 LOS D > 20.0 and < 30.0 LOS E > 30.0 and < 45.0 LOS F > 45.0 Level-of-service capacity analyses were completed for the 1999 Background Traffic Volumes (1998 volumes counted for this study increased by 2% to account for growth in the area and background traffic volumes from the Output Technologies Study), 1999 No-Build, and 1999 Build conditions for the intersections included in this study, and for the year 1999 Build conditions for the site access drive on John Fitch Boulevard. The 1999 No Build traffic volumes were determined by adding the generated trips from the proposed Output Technologies facility to the 1999 Background Traffic Volumes (Output Technologies will add more than 150 left turning vehicles in the southbound direction during the morning peak hour). The 1999 Build conditions were determined by adding the trips generated by Burger King to the 1999 No Build traffic volumes. John Fitch Boulevard is a divided roadway with a raised median in the center. The center median on John Fitch Boulevard and an island proposed for the entrance drive to Burger King will preclude traffic from Ellington Road from entering the site; hence, turns onto and from the site will all be right turns. The signalized intersections of John Fitch Boulevard at Burnham Street and at Ellington Road were analyzed using the timings provided by ConnDOT for the morning, midday and afternoon timing patterns incorporated into the Closed Loop Traffic Signal System. Table 2 indicates that the intersection of John Fitch Boulevard at Burnham Street operates at LOS D for the 1999 Background traffic volumes during the morning peak hour and will operate with one or more approaches being oversaturated during the morning peak hour for the 1999 No-Build conditions which includes traffic from the proposed Output Technologies development. During the afternoon peak hour the intersection operates at LOS C with the southbound left turns operating at LOS E for the 1999 Background traffic volumes. For the 1999 No-Build traffic volumes, the C:IBUSINESSIBURGERIREPORT.DOC 6 intersection will operate at LOS C with the southbound left turn operating P P 9 at LOS F with a V/C ratio of 1.068. The capacity analysis does not allow completion of computations to determine delays and LOS when the V/C ratio is greater than 1.10. During the afternoon peak hour for the Build conditions, the southbound left turn will have a V/C ratio of 1.134, causing the movement to be oversaturated. Minor revisions are recommended for the traffic signal timing at the intersection of John Fitch Boulevard and Burnham Street to allow the intersection to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The oversaturated or near oversaturated conditions are expected with the No-Build traffic volumes and are not related to the proposed Burger King. Table 2: Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1999 Background 1999 No Build 1999 Build Location Peak V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS Hour John Fitch AM .465 9.6 B .466 9.8 B .466 10.0 B Blvd. at Midday .314 7.2 B .314 7.2 B .314 7.4 B Ellington Rd. PM .404 7.2 B .414 7.5 1 B .414 7.7 B John Fitch AM .808 37.3 D Blvd. at Midday .553 12.5 B .553 12.5 B .587 12.7 B Burnham St. PM .798 15.1 C 824 18.6 C NOTES:* Indicates a saturated condition. V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio. LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average stopped delay, in seconds, to all vehicles entering the intersection. Table 3 presents the results of the capacity analyses with the timing revisions. These revisions will allow the intersection to operate at LOS C during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Table 3: Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis with Revised Timings Location Peak V/C Delay LOS Hour John Fitch AM .833 19.8 C Blvd. at Midday N/A N/A N/A Burnham St. PM .845 17.4 C Table 4 shows the results of the analyses for the unsignalized intersection of John Fitch Boulevard at the site drive for the 1999 Build traffic volumes. Table 4 indicates that the drive will operate at LOS C with an average delay of 10.6 seconds per vehicle (threshold between LOS B and LOS C is 10.0 CAB USINESS\BURGER\RE PORT.DOC 7 seconds duringthe morning peak hour and at LOS B during the midday and 9P 9 Y afternoon peak hours. Table 4: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1999 Build Location Peak Hour Delay LOS John Fitch Boulevard Right AM Peak 10.6 C Turn from Burger King Drive John Fitch Boulevard Right Midday 5.0 B Turn from Burger King Drive John Fitch Boulevard Right PM Peak 8.1 B Turn from Burger King Drive Delay= Average stopped delay, in seconds, to all vehicles entering the intersection or to vehicles making the specified turn. Site Access The proposed access drive to the site will be located along the west side of John Fitch Boulevard opposite Ellington Road and approximately 575 feet north of Burnham Street. It is important to provide adequate intersection sight distance (ISD) for vehicles turning from the site drives onto John Fitch Boulevard to assure that they are able to safely enter the flow of traffic. All turns at the site drives will be right turns (both entering and leaving) since John Fitch Boulevard has a median separating the two directions of travel and left turns will not be possible. It is equally important to provide adequate stopping sight distance (SSD) along John Fitch Boulevard for drivers approaching behind vehicles turning from John Fitch Boulevard onto the site to allow them to stop, if necessary, before reaching the turning vehicle. Visual observations and sight distance measurements were made at the location of the site drive along John Fitch Boulevard. The sight distance looking toward the left from the site access drives is to and beyond the interchange with 1-291, a distance greater than 1,000 feet. The posted speed limit along John Fitch Boulevard is 45 miles per hour(mph). The Connecticut DOT presents minimum and desirable standards for intersection sight distances (ISD) in their 1990 Guidelines for Highway Design. For speeds of 55 mph (10 mph greater than the posted speed limit for John Fitch Boulevard) the desirable ISD is 935 feet. The Intersection Sight Distances looking left from the proposed site drives will exceed the desirable ISD for speeds more than 10 mph greater than the posted speed limit for John Fitch Boulevard. ConnDOT also provides upper and lower requirements for Stopping Sight Distances (SSD) in their Highway Design Guidelines. The Stopping Sight Distance is the sight distance needed by drivers C:IBUSINESS\BURGERIREPORT.DOC 8 followingvehicles turning into the site to assure that the can observe g Y turning vehicles in time to slow or stop. The upper limit SSD for 55 mph design speeds (10 mph greater than the posted speed limit) is 550 feet. The SSD available at the proposed site drive is more than 1,000 feet or nearly double the upper limit presented in the ConnDOT guidelines for speeds 10 mph greater than the posted speed limit. The intersection and stopping sight distances available to drivers entering and leaving the Burger King site will be greater than the desirable or upper limits presented in the ConnDOT Guidelines for Highway Design. These sight distances will allow drivers to safely enter and leave Burger King. Roadway Improvements by ConnDOT The Connecticut DOT is preparing plans for relocating the intersection of Ellington Road with John Fitch Boulevard. State Project No. 132-126 will relocate Ellington Road to intersect John Fitch Boulevard opposite the eastbound ramps for 1-291 approximately 1,000 feet north of the existing intersection. The project schedule indicates the Design Completion Date is scheduled for May 2001 and advertising for construction scheduled for July 2001. Construction is expected to be completed by the end of 2002. Conclusions M. H. C., Inc. proposes to build a 3,000 square foot Burger King Restaurant on a 2.74 acre site located along the west side of John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) opposite Ellington Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. New trips to the roadway system were determined from trip generation rates established by the ITE Trip Generation reference. Capacity analyses were done for the intersections of John Fitch Boulevard at Ellington Road and Burnham Street for 1999 Background traffic volumes, 1999 No Build traffic volumes, and the 1999 Build traffic volumes. Additionally, capacity analyses were done for the site access drive along John Fitch Boulevard for the 1999 Build conditions. Timing revisions for the traffic signal at Burnham Street are needed during the morning and afternoon peak periods to address the No Build traffic volumes. These timing revisions will allow the intersection to operate at LOS C during the morning and afternoon peak periods and LOS B during the midday period for the Build traffic volumes (with Burger King). The signalized intersection with Ellington Road presently operates at LOS B during the three periods and will continue at the same very good Level of Service with the Burger King Restaurant. The intersection of John Fitch Boulevard at the site drive was analyzed for the 1999 Build conditions. The turns from the drive will operate at LOS C (near the threshold with LOS B) or better during the morning, midday and afternoon periods. The available intersection and stopping sight distances will provide drivers the opportunity to safely enter and leave the site. The intersection and stopping sight distances will exceed the desirable or upper sight distances C:\BUSINESS\BURGER\RE PORT.DOC 9 N presented in the Connecticut DOT Guidelines for Highway Design for speeds of 55 miles per hour(10 miles greater than the posted 45 mph speed limit). j Existing roadway conditions in the area are expected to handle the added traffic generated by the 3,000 square foot Burger King Restaurant. No off site improvements are suggested as the proposed Burger King is not j expected to cause unacceptable traffic operations (Levels of Service) or j safety concerns in the area. Traffic signal timing revisions are recommended at the intersection of Burnham Street to address the 1999 No Build (without Burger King) traffic volumes anticipated with completion of other developments in the area. State Project No 132-126 will relocate the Ellington Road intersection with John Fitch Boulevard and allow the intersection of Burnham to revert to the present traffic operations as much of the added traffic from Output Technologies will be diverted to the relocated i intersection. i C:\BUSINESS\BURGER\REPORT.DOC 10 1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES i 1 INTERSECTION DIAGRAM Intersection: John Fitch Blvd Rte5 and Burnham Street Time period: AM Peak John Fitch Blvd Rte5 Volumes 93 SB Total 1651 27 WB Total 1 1 1 < 216 96 < v > 14 1508 129 v- v v Legend [E] [D] [X] = Level of Service " 1 #J = No. of Lanes " DJ = be facto Turn [C] < 1---- 1 v --------------------- Intersection [D] --------------------- 1 --1 > [B] v Burnham Street [D] [C] [B] 35i < > 38 862 125 EB T96a1 7> 1 2 1 54 1025 ---I NB Total v INTERSECTION DIAGRAM Intersection: John Fitch Blvd Rte5 and Burnham Street Time period: Midday John Fitch Blvd Rte5 Volumes "' 83 SB Total 766 10 WB Total 1 1 1 < 193 100 < v > F 22 619 125 v v v Legend [B] [D] [X] = Level of Service #-J = No. of Lanes D—J = De facto Turn [D] < 1 v --------------------- Intersection [B] --------------------- 1 --1-> [C] v Burnham Street [C] [Bl [Bl < > 18^ 18 559 122 EB Total it 40 > 1 2 1 11 699 NB Total v INTERSECTION DIAGRAM Intersection: John Fitch Blvd Rte5 and Burnham Street Time period: PM Peak John Fitch Blvd Rte5 Volumes 106 SB Total 1499 6 WB Total 1 1 1 < 189 77 < v > 52 1292 155 v- v v Legend [B] [E] [X] = Level of Service #—J = No. of Lanes ^ DJ = De facto Turn [D] <-+---- 1 v --------------------- Intersection [C] --------------------- 1 1-> [C] v Burnham Street [C] [B] [B] 52" 63 1024 92 i EB Total 4 76 > 1 2 1 20 1179 —� NB Total v INTERSECTION DIAGRAM Intersection: John Fitch Blvd Rte5 and Ellington Road Time period: AM Peak John- Fitch Blvd Rte5 Volumes 10 SB Total 1184 0 WB Total 2 < 477 467 < v > F_ 0 1184 0 v v Legend [XI = Level of Service #J = No. of Lanes 1 DJ = De facto Turn r- 2 --------------------- v --------------------- Ellington Road 0^ 0 805 0 EB Total 0 0 > 2 0 805 NB Total v r r INTERSECTION DIAGRAM ----------------------------------------------------- ------------ Intersection: John Fitch Blvd Rte5 and Ellington Road Time period: Midday John Fitch Blvd Rte5 Volumes 26 SB Total 711 0 WB Total 2 < 163 137 < v > 0 711 0 v — v Legend [XI = Level of Service #—i = No. of Lanes D-J = De facto Turn r— 2 v r --------------------- --------------------- Ellington Road r r 0^ 0 643 0 i EB Total 0 0 > 2 r 0 643 NB Total v r r INTERSECTION DIAGRAM --------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection: John Fitch Blvd Rte5 and Ellington Road Time period: PM Peak - John Fitch Blvd Rte5 1 Volumes 33 SB Total 1249 0 WB Total 2 < 236 203 < v > 0 1249 0 v v Legend [XI = Level of Service I #--I = No. of Lanes D-J = De facto Turn �- 2 --------------------- v --------------------- Ellington Road 0- 0 914 0 i EB Total 0 0 > 2 0 914 NB Total ' v � SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION i CAPACITY ANALYSES 1999 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC I VOLUMES HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For Microcomputers-In-Transportation --------------- Streets: (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Ellington Road ' Analyst : BAH File Name: 0199MD.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 Midday Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes w/ 2% Background Growth Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R - L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volumes 643 711 137 PHF or PK15 0 .84 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (f t) 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 .0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 7 5 0 Parking N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 6 . 00 6 . 00 5 . 00 ' Prop. Share Prop. Prot . Signal Operations e Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * * Thru ' Right Right Peds Peds SB Left WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right ' WB Right SB Right Green 4 . OA 43 . OP Green 22 . OA Yellow/AR 0 . 0 6 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 2086 3551 .0 .385 0 .587 5 . 7 B 5 .7 B SB T 1945 3619 0 .426 0 .538 7 .3 B 7 .3 B WB L 960 3490 0 .164 0 .275 14 .2 B 14 .2 B Intersection Delay = 7 .2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 11 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .314 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 --___- ---___Center_For-Microcomputers_In_Transportation -_----- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Ellington Road Analyst : BAH File Name: 0199PM.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 PM Peak Comment: 1999 Backgroung Traffic Volumes from Output Technologies Report Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volumes 914 1249 203 PHF or PK15 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (f t) 12 .0 12 .0 11 .0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 6 . 00 6 . 00 5 .00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * * Thru ' Right Right Peds Peds SB Left WB Left ' Thru * Thru Right Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 4 . OA 56 . OP Green 19 . OA Yellow/AR 0 .0 6 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length:. 90- -- -secsPhasecombination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: ' Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS NB T 2483 3725 0 .430 0 . 667 4 .6 A 4 .6 A SB T 2318 3725 0 . 629 0 .622 7 .2 B 7 .2 B WB L 722 3421 0 .323 0 .211 19 .5 C 19 .5 C Intersection Delay = 7 .2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 11 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) ----=-0_404------- --------------------------------------------- ----- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For-Microcomputers-In_Transportation __--_-_- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299AM.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 AM Peak Comment : 1999 Background Traffic Volumes from Output Technologies Report Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ' No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 38 862 125 129 1508 14 35 7 54 96 27 93 PHF or PK15 0 .90 0 .90 0 .95 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 ' Lane W (ft) 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 14 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N ' Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations ' Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * * WB Left ' Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 6 . OA 1 .OA 33 . OP Green 30 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 ' Cycle Length: 90-secs -- - - - - - - Phasecombinationorder_ #1 #2 #3 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: ' Mvmts -Cap --Flow- Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS NB L 118 1770 0 .356 0 . 067 26 .7 D 15 . 8 C T 1449 3725 0 .694 0 .389 15 .9 C R 616 1583 0 .214 0 .389 11 . 9 B SB L 216 1770 0 . 661 0 .122 29 .3 D 54 .4 E TR 1653 3720 1 . 075 0 .444 56 .4 E EB LTR 357 1072 0 .299 0 .333 14 .5 B 14 .5 B WB LTR 443 1328 0 .542 0 .333 16 . 8 C 16 . 8 C Intersection Delay = 37 .3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 14 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 808 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center_For-Microcomputers-In_Transportation --_- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street ' Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299MD.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 Midday Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes w/ 2% Background Growth Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 18 559 122 125 619 22 18 11 11 100 10 83 PHF or PK15 0 .64 0 .90 0 .83 0 .88 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 83 0 . 83 0 . 83 0 .77 0 . 77 0 .77 ' Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 .0 12 . 0 11 . 0 14 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 %- Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N i Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N ' Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 .00 5 .00 5 .00 4 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations ' Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right g Peds eds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 9 . OA 37 .OP Green 18 . OA Yellow/AR 4 .0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 .0 Cycle Length: -80-secs -- - - - Phasecombinationorder_ #1-#2-Phase -------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: ' Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 199 1770 0 .141 0 .112 20 .7 C 8 . 6 B T 1816 3725 0 .359 0 .488 8 .3 B R 772 1583 0 .190 0 .488 7 .5 B SB L 199 1770 0 . 713 0 .112 29 . 8 D 12 . 0 B TR 1807 3707 0 .414 0 .488 8 .6 B EB LTR 260 1157 0 .184 0 .225 16 .2 C 16 .2 C WB LTR 322 1431 0 .773 0 .225 26 .3 D 26 .3 D Intersection Delay = 12 .5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B ' Lost Time/Cycle, L = 14 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .553 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center_For_Microcomputers_In-Transportation _---_-- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name : .0299PM.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 PM Peak Comment : 1999 Background Traffic Volumes from Output Technologies Report Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ' No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 63 1024 92 155 1292 52 52 4 20 77 6 106 PHF or PK15 0 .90 0 .90 0 .95 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 ' Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 .0 14 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N ' Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 ' Prop. Share Prop. Prot . Signal Operations ' Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * WE Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WE Right SB Right Green 10 . OA 45 .OP Green 19 . OA Yellow/AR 4 .0 7 .0 Yellow/AR 5 .0 ' Cycle Length: 90-secs --Phase-combination-order: _-#1-#2-#5-------------- ----------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 197 1770 0 .356 0 .111 24 .4 C 10 .7 B T 1945 3725 0 .614 0 .522 10 .2 B R 827 1583 0 .117 0 .522 7 .1 B SB L 197 1770 0 . 875 0 . 111 47 . 8 E 16 . 8 C TR 1934 3704 0 . 811 0 .522 13 .4 B EB LTR 189 897 0 .444 0 .211 21.1 C 21 .1 C WE LTR 291 1377 0 .726 0 .211 27 .3 D 27 .3 D Intersection Delay = 15 . 1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C ' Lost Time/Cycle, L = 14 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) ----=-0_798 -------------------------------------------- ------------ 1 f SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ' CAPACITY ANALYSES � 1999 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES f 1 I, i HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -----Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ------------------------------------------ Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Ellington Road Analyst : BAH File Name: 0199AMB.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 AM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R - L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volumes 805 1340 470 PHF or PK15 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 6 . 00 6 . 00 5 .00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds SB Left WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 4 . OA 58 . OP Green 17 .OA Yellow/AR 0 . 0 6 .0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 2566 3725 0 .366 0 . 689 3 .8 A 3 . 8 A SB T 2401 3725 0 .651 0 . 644 6 .8 B 6 . 8 B WB L 646 3421 0 .833 0 .189 29 .1 D 29 .1 D Intersection Delay = 9 .8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 11 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .466 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For-Microcomputers In Transportation --------------------------- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Ellington Road Analyst: BAH File Name: 0199PMB.HC9 Area Type : Other 1-4-99 PM Peak Comment: 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volumes 914 1283 229 PHF or PK15 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 .0 11.0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 6 . 00 6 . 00 5 . 00 Pro Prop. Prot . . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds SB Left WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 4 .OA 56 .OP Green 19 . OA Yellow/AR 0 . 0 6 .0 Yellow/AR 5 .0 Cycle Length: 90-secs --Phase- -combinationorder_-#1-#2-#5 - -------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts -Cap --Flow- Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS NB T 2483 3725 0 .430 0 . 667 4 .6 A 4 . 6 A SB T 2318 3725 0 .646 0 . 622 7 .4 B 7 .4 B WB L 722 3421 0 .363 0 .211 19 .7 C 19 . 7 C Intersection Delay = 7 .5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 11 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .414 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For-Microcomputers In Transportation Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299AMB.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 AM Peak Comment: 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L - T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 38 862 147 285 1508 14 35 7 54 96 27 93 PHF or PK15 0 .90 0 .90 0 .95 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 .0 14 .0 Grade 0 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 4 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * * WE Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WE Right SB Right Green 6 .OA 1 . OA 33 .OP Green 30 .OA Yellow/AR 4 .0 4 . 0 7 .0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 90secsPhasecombinationorder_ #1 #2 #3 #5 - - -- - - - - - - ----------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 118 1770 0 .356 0 .067 26 .7 D 15 .8 C T 1449 3725 0 .694 0 .389 15 .9 C R 616 1583 0 .252 0 .389 12 .1 B SB L 216 1770 1 .465 0 .122 TR 1653 3720 1 .075 0 .444 56 .4 E EB LTR 357 1072 0 .299 0 .333 14 .5 B 14 .5 B WE LTR 443 1328 0 .542 0 .333 16 . 8 C 16 .8 C Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = (g/C) * (V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For-Microcomputers-In-Transportation --------------- ------------------------------ Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299PMB.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 PM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T- R L T R L T R . ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 63 1024 97 189 1292 52 52 4 20 77 6 106 PHF or PK15 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .95 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 11 .0 14 .0 Grade 0 0 0 0 °s Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 . 00 5 .00 5 . 00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 10 .OA 45 . OP Green 19 .OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 .0 Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 197 1770 0 .356 0 .111 24 .4 C 10 .7 B T 1945 3725 0 . 614 0 .522 10 .2 B R 827 1583 0 .123 0 .522 7 .1 B SB L 197 1770 1 . 068 0 .111 98 .9 F 23 .5 C TR 1934 3704 0 . 811 0 .522 13 .4 B EB LTR 189 897 0 .444 0 .211 21 .1 C 21 .1 C WB LTR 291 1377 0 . 726 0 .211 27 .3 D 27 .3 D Intersection Delay = 18 . 6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 14 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .824 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- i � SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES ' � I � 1999 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For-Microcomputers_In-Transportation -_-_-_--_______ Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Ellington Road Analyst : BAH File Name: 0199AMF.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 AM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volumes 805 1340 76 470 PHF or PK15 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 $ Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 6 .00 6 . 00 3 . 00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds SB Left WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 4 . OA 58 . OP Green 17 . OA Yellow/AR 0 . 0 6 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 90-secs--Phase-combination-order_-#1-#2-#5 - -------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 2566 3725 0 .366 0 . 689 3 . 8 A 3 . 8 A SB TR 2382 3696 0 .694 0 . 644 7 .3 B 7 .3 B WB L 646 3421 0 .833 0 .189 29 .1 D 29 . 1 D Intersection Delay = 10 . 0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 11 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .466 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ------------------------------------------------------------_ ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Ellington Road Analyst: BAH File Name: 0199MDF.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 Midday Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes w/ 2% Background Growth & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volumes 643 711 84 137 PHF or PK15 0 . 84 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 .0 12 . 0 11 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 7 5 2 0 Parking N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 6 . 00 6 . 00 3 . 00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds SB Left WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 4 . OA 43 . OP Green 22 . OA Yellow/AR 0 . 0 6 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 2086 3551 0 .385 0 .587 5 . 7 B 5 . 7 B SB TR 1915 3562 0 .484 0 .538 7 . 6 B 7 . 6 B WB L 960 3490 0 .164 0 .275 14 .2 B 14 .2 B Intersection Delay = 7 .4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 11 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .314 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- j HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For Microcomputers In Transportation -------------- - Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Ellington Road Analyst : BAH File Name: 0199PMF.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 PM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 < 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volumes 914 1283 52 229 PHF or PK15 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 6 . 00 6 .00 3 . 00 5 .00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds SB Left WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 4 . OA 56 . OP Green 19 . OA Yellow/AR 0 . 0 6 .0 Yellow/AR 5 .0 Cycle Length_ 90secsPhasecombination order: #1 #2 #5 - -- - -- - Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 2484 3725 0 .430 0 . 667 4 .6 A 4 . 6 A SB TR 2304 3704 0 . 676 0 . 622 7 . 7 B 7 . 7 B WB L 722 3421 0 .363 0 .211 19 . 7 C 19 . 7 C Intersection Delay = 7 . 7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 11 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .414 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- j HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299AMF.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 AM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T -R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 38 862 147 296 1570 14 35 7 54 96 27 93 PHF or PK15 0 .90 0 .90 0 .95 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 .0 14 .0 Grade 0 0 0 0 t Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 5 .00 5 .00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * * WB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 6 . OA 1 . OA 33 . OP Green 30 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combinationorder: #1 #2 #3 #5 - Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 118 1770 0 .356 0 . 067 26 .7 D 15 .8 C T 1449 3725 0 . 694 0 .389 15 .9 C R 616 1583 0 .252 0 .389 12 .1 B SB L 216 1770 1 .521 0 .122 TR 1653 3720 1 .118 0 .444 EB LTR 357 1072 0 .299 0 .333 14 .5 B 14 .5 B WB LTR 443 1328 0 .542 0 .333 16 . 8 C 16 .8 C Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = (g/C) * (V/c) is greater than one . Calculation of D1 is infeasible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center-For-Microcomputers_In-Transportation ---_------__-__ Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299MDF.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 Midday Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes w/ 2% Background Growth & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 18 559 122 132 688 27 18 11 11 100 10 83 PHF or PK15 0 .64 0 .90 0 . 83 0 .88 0 . 90 0 .90 0 . 83 0 .83 0 . 83 0 . 77 0 .77 0 .77 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 11 .0 14 .0 Grade 0 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 9 .OA 37 . OP Green 18 . OA Yellow/AR 4 .0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 80secsPhasecombination order: #1 #2 #5 - -- - Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------ ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 199 1770 0 .141 0 .112 20 .7 C 8 .6 B T 1816 3725 0 .359 0 .488 8 .3 B R 772 1583 0 .190 0 .488 7 .5 B SB L 199 1770 0 .753 0 . 112 32 .2 D 12 .5 B TR 1806 3704 0 .462 0 .488 8 .9 B EB LTR 260 1157 0 .184 0 .225 16 .2 C 16 .2 C WB LTR 322 1431 0 . 773 0 .225 26 .3 D 26 .3 D Intersection Delay = 12 .7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 14 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .587 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 ------Center-For Microcomputers In Transportation ------- ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name : 0299PMF.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 PM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 63 1024 97 201 1333 47 52 4 20 77 6 106 PHF or PK15 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .95 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 14 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 $ Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 .00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 10 . OA 45 .OP Green 19 .OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 .0 Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 197 1770 0 .356 0 .111 24 .4 C 10 . 7 B T 1946 3725 0 . 614 0 .522 10 .2 B R 827 1583 0 .123 0 .522 7 .1 B SB L 197 1770 1.134 0 . 111 TR 1936 3707 0 . 832 0 .522 14 .0 B EB LTR 189 897 0 .443 0 .211 21 . 1 C 21 .1 C WB LTR 291 1377 0 . 726 0 .211 27 .3 D 27 .3 D Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = (g/C) * (V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ' SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION � CAPACITY ANALYSES � 1999 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (REVISED SIGNAL TIMINGS) f i 1 r HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 -------------Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ---------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299AMR.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 AM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 38 862 147 296 1570 14 35 7 54 96 27 93 PHF or PK15 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .95 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 14 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 Prop. Share Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * * WB Left Thru * * Thru Right * * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 9 . OA 9 . OA 33 . OP Green 19 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 .0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane- Group Adj -Sat -v/c- -g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS NB L 177 1770 0 .237 0 . 100 24 .3 C 15 . 7 C T 1449 3725 0 .694 0 .389 15 . 9 C R 616 1583 0 .252 0 .389 12 .1 B SB L 433 1770 0 . 761 0 .244 25 .7 D 19 . 9 C TR 1984 3720 0 .931 0 .533 18 .9 C EB LTR 228 1082 0 .468 0 .211 21 .2 C 21 .2 C WB LTR 277 1312 0 . 866 0 .211 38 . 6 D 38 . 6 D Intersection Delay = 19 . 8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 14 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 833 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 01-06-1999 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burnham Street Analyst : BAH File Name: 0299PMR.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-4-99 PM Peak Comment : 1999 Traffic Volumes with Output Technologies & Burger King Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 63 1024 97 201 1333 47 52 4 20 77 6 106 PHF or PK15 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .95 0 . 90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 .90 0 .90 0 . 90 0 . 90 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 14 .0 Grade 0 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking N N N N N N N N Bus Stops 0 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 4 .00 5 . 00 5 . 00 4 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 5 .00 5 . 00 5 .00 Prop. Share - Prop. Prot . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 15 .OA 42 . OP Green 17 .OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 7 . 0 Yellow/AR 5 . 0 Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary 1 Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB L 295 1770 0 .237 0 .167 21 .1 C 12 .0 B T 1821 3725 0 . 656 0 .489 11 . 8 B R 774 1583 0 .132 0 .489 8 .1 B SB L 295 1770 0 .756 0 .167 30 .3 D 19 .2 C TR 1812 3707 0 .888 0 .489 17 .6 C EB LTR 164 868 0 .512 0 .189 23 .4 C 23 .4 C WB LTR 261 1380 0 .809 0 .189 34 .2 D 34 .2 D ---Intersection Delay = 17 .4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 14 .0 sec Critical v/c (x) ----=-0_845 ------------ ---------------------------- ------------ r i 1 � UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION t CAPACITY ANALYSES � 1999 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES i 1 1 i 1 1 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1f 0199AM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-6585 Ph: (352) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burger King Drive Major Street Direction . . . NS Length of Time Analyzed. . . 60 (min) Analyst . . . . . . . . . . BAH Date of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 1/6/99 Other Information. . . . . . . . . 1999 Traffic Volumes w/ Output Technolo I gies & Burger King AM Pk Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound -L-- T R -L-- T R -L-- T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 0 0 0 2 < 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1880 76 73 PHF .95 .95 .95 ' Grade 0 0 MC' s M 0 SU/RV' s (°s) 0 CV' s (o) 0 PCE' s 1 . 00 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 7 . 00 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 0199AM.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1030 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 416 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 416 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 81 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95$ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) ----- (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ 10 . 6 EB R 77 416 10 .6 0 . 8 C ' Intersection Delay = 0 .4 sec/veh HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1f 0199MD.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-6585 Ph: (352) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burger King Drive Major Street Direction.. . . NS Length of Time Analyzed. . . 60 (min) Analyst . . . . . . . . . . BAH Date of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 1/6/99 Other Information. . . . . . . . . 1999 Traffic Volumes w/ Output Technolo gies & Burger King Midday Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound -L-- T R -L-- T -R-- L T R -L-- T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 0 0 0 2 < 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ' Stop/Yield N N Volumes 814 84 81 PHF . 95 .95 . 95 Grade 0 0 MC' s (o) 0 SU/RV' s M .0 CV' s 00 0 PCE' s 1 . 00 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) -------------------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .50 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 7 .00 3 .40 HCS__Unsignalized-Intersections Release-2 .1f--_-0199MD.HCO-__-_Page_2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection - ----------------------------------------- -------------- Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows : (vph) 472 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 798 Movement Capacity: (pcph)- 798 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 89 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- ' 5 . 0 EB R 85 798 5 . 0 0 .3 B Intersection Delay = 0 .4 sec/veh r HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1f 0199PM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-6585 Ph: (352) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) John Fitch Blvd Rte5 (E-W) Burger King Drive Major Street Direction. . . . NS Length of Time Analyzed. . . 60 (min) Analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BAH ' Date of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 1/6/99 Other Information. . . . . . . . . 1999 Traffic Volumes w/ Output Technolo gies & Burger King PM Pk Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L- -- T -R-- -L-- -T-- R -L-- -T-- R L -T R-- ---- No. Lanes 0 0 0 0 2 < 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1614 52 48 PHF .95 .95 . 95 Grade 0 0 ' MCIs (o) 0 SU/RV1s M 0 CVIs (o) 0 ' PCEIs 1 . 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5 .50 2 . 10 ' Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .50 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 7 .00 3 .40 HCS__Unsignalized-Intersections -_-Release_2_lf_--_0199PM.HCO----_Page-2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 877 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 498 Movement Capacity: (pcph) - 498 ' Prob. of Queue-Free State: -------------------------O_ 90 -- -- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 950 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach ' Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- --------- 8 . 1 EB R 51 498 8 . 1 0 .3 B Intersection Delay = 0 .2 sec/veh i 1 1 Traffic Engineering Solutions,P.C. 193 Lexington Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 (860) 657-3579 January 26, 1999 Harry Cromwell M.H. C.,Inc 201 Park Avenue West Springfield,Massachusetts 01089 Dear Harry: Traffic Engineering Solutions is pleased to submit two(2)copies of the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Burger King Restaurant on John Fitch Boulevard(Route 5)in South Windsor, Connecticut. By copy of this letter we are forwarding thirteen(13)copies of the report to Alford Associates for their use with the Site Plan Application to the Town of South Windsor. If during the review of this information you have any questions,please call me. Very truly yours, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, P.C. Bruce A. Hillson, P.E. Enclosure Cc: Chris Alford w/encl. cAbusinesslburg er4ranhr.doc 1 ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,SR.,P.E.&L.S. ENGINEERS n SURVEYORS m PLANN ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L.S. 200 PIGEON HILL ROAD M P.O. BOX 484 M WINDSOR M CT 06095 M PHONE(860)688-7288 ■ FAX(860)688-3485 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS PREPARED FOR M.H.C., INC. 45 JOHN FITCH BOULEVARD SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. FEBRUARY 10, 1999 WATERSHED ENTERING CB#1 AND CB#2: The watershed above CB#1 and CB#2 is 1.24 acres and includes the rear parking area, as well as a portion of 37 John Fitch Boulevard. The water will enter the propsed retention basin and infiltrate onto the soil. As shown in the attached calculations, the water level in the basin will rise the highest during a storm with a time of concentration of 20 minutes. For storms of shorter durations, the volume of water from the storm is not great enogh to fill the basin. For storms with longer durations, the flow into the basin will infiltrate into the soil at about the same rate as it enters the basin. Infltrators will be installed in the basin to allow infiltration when there is frost in the soil. WATERSHED ENTERING CB#3 AND CB#4: The watershed above CB#3 and CB#4 is 0.55 acres and includes the front portion of the parcel and the roof drain. The drainage from both basins will enter the 8 foot diameter drywell. The drainage will infiltrate into the soil at a rate of 0.56 CFS as shown in the attached diagram. Rainfall with an intensity greater than 1.6 inches per hour will overflow will enter the existing manhole. C31a FT/ EC MEN IME ®■®MINIMMI®O®INIMMEM� ■MIMMMI®IM®MIMMIO ME ■EIMMINIMIN IMINIMIN _ ■EMMINIMIN IMMI IN�� MEN ■OMMINIMINIMINIMINIMIMMI ■MIMMIMIMMIMIMIMIIMMIIMMMM ■MIMMMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMI � ■■IMMI IMMIMINIMINIMIN ■NIMMINIMIMIN ■OMMINIMINIM ■�eMIIMMIIMIM�� i�� FLOW NET DIAGRAM FOR DRYWELL 1111� III ♦ p II p ,♦ � �v.�' �~p•�¢, 'A apOT IIII-11�11_r� a = � ?� X J � 1 1 /NF1t_TRATrv,,j 2AnIU5 = 1 (fir A,REA or 1,,1FIj--rRA i ioAJ - -[<" 16Z= �dy F+z f EP-Coc.A-rlonl RATE .s i n MIN FLOW - FT Mid X gD M�rJ U,S b CF5 IZ,') x x(o sr-C- wA `t^o I)pywf L� A C = > 6 Z. A C .. Calculations for Rate of Infiltration into Basin Percolation rate= 0.5 inches/minute (0.5 in./min.) x(1 ft/12 in.) x(1 min. /60 sec.) x (1 sq. ft.) =0.00069 CFS per 1 square foot When the water level is 45.0, its area is 895 sq. ft. 895 sq. ft. x 0.00069 CFS /sq. ft. =0.62 CFS Similiarly, when the water level is 46.0, its area is 1521 sq. ft. and inflitration= 1.06 CFS, when the water level is 47.0, its area is 2247 sq. ft. and inflitration= 1.56 CFS, when the water level is 48.0, its area is 3074 sq. ft. and inflitration=2.14 CFS, when the water level is 49.0, its area is 4000 sq. ft. and inflitration=2.78 CFS. The infiltrators and lateral infiltration have not been considered. DETENTION BASIN ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR: MHC, INC. 45 JOHN FITCH BOULEVARD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 05-Feb-99 OUTLET CHARACTERISTICS : ---------------------- HEAD IN FEET ABOVE FLOW LINE FLOW OUT IN CFS HEAD FLOW OUT 0 0.0 0. 1 0. 6 1 1. 1 2 1.6 3 2 . 1 4 2. 8 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: --------------------- BOTTOM OF BASIN= 45 . 00 INFILTRATION THROUGH SOIL ELEV. AREA OF CONTOUR VOLUME BELOW CONTOUR 45 895 0 46 1521 1194 47 2247 3066 48 3074 5716 49 4000 9243 50 5028 13747 51 6000 19254 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS : ------------------------- DRAINAGE AREA= 1. 24 RUNOFF COEFF= 0 . 69 TIME OF CONCENTRAT (r' INTENSITY= 5 ANALYSIS FOR 100 YEAR STORM PEAK FLOW IN= 4. 3 SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS : ----------------------- YEAR INTENSIT MAX IN MAX OUT MAX EL. 100 5 .0 4. 28 1. 70 47 .20 50 4. 6 3. 94 1. 65 47 . 10 25 4. 1 3 . 51 1. 50 46.80 10 3.4 2. 91 1. 35 46. 50 2 2 .2 1. 88 1. 00 45 . 90 100 YEAR STORM INTENSITY 5 TOTAL TOTAL WATER TIME Q IN IN OUT STORAGE HEAD Q OUT ELEV 0 0 0 0 51 0 . 0 0.0 45 . 0 4 0.9 103 0 103 0 . 0 0.0 45 .0 8 1. 7 411 0 411 0 . 3 0. 7 45 . 3 12 2 . 6 924 168 756 0. 6 0. 9 45 . 6 16 -3.4 1643 -3'72 1271 1. 0 1. 1 46.0 20 4. 3 2567 636 1931 1. 3 1. 3 46. 3 24 -3 .78 -M-3 -936 2397 -1:-7 -1.-5 _ 46.77 28 3. 3 4379 1284 3095 2. 0 1. 6 47.0 32 -2 .-8 -5U4 366-8 3436 2.1 3:-7 47 .-1 36 2. 3 5708 2064 3644 2 . 2 1.7 47. 2 40 1.8 6191 2472 3719 2. 2 1. 7 47 .-2 44 1. 3 6554 2880 3674 2. 2 1. 7 47.2 48 -D.-8 6796 -328- -3-5-8 '2-1 1. 7 47. 1 52 0 .3 6917 3684 3233 2.0 1. 6 47.0 56 -D.D 6-94 7 4-0 6 8 -8'T9 1.-8 -1.5 46.8 60 0. 0 6947 4428 2519 1. 7 1. 5 46. 7 64 0 -6947 4776 21'71 1:-5 -1.4 46. 5 68 0 6947 5100 1847 1. 3 1.3 46. 3 72 0 694-7 -5400 1-547 1. 1 1.2 46. 1 76 0 6947 5676 1271 1.0 1. 1 46. 0 80 0 6947 5940 1007 0. 8 1.0 45 . 8 84 0 6947 6168 779 0. 6 0.9 45 . 6 88 0 6947 6372 575 0 .4 0.8 45 .4 92 0 6947 6552 395 0 . 3 0. 7 45 . 3 96 0 6947 6720 227 0. 1 0. 6 45 . 1 100 0 6947 6864 83 0 . 0 0.0 45 . 0 104 0 6947 6864 83 0 . 0 0.0 45 . 0 108 0 6947 6864 83 0 . 0 0.0 45 . 0 112 0 6947 6864 83 0 .0 0.0 45 .0 116 0 6947 6864 83 0 .0 0.0 45 . 0 120 0 6947 6864 83 0.-0 0.0 45 . 0 124 0 6947 6864 83 0. 0 0.0 45 . 0 128 0 6947 6864 83 0 .0 0.0 45 .0 132 0 6947 6864 83 0.0 0.0 45 .0 i 136 0 6947 6864 83 0 .0 0.0 45 . 0 25 YEAR STORM INTENSITY 4. 1 TOTAL TOTAL WATER TIME Q IN IN OUT STORAGE HEAD Q OUT ELEV 0 0.0 0 0 42 0. 0 0 . 0 45 .0 4 0. 7 84 0 84 0. 0 0.0 45. 0 8 1.4 337 0 337 0 . 2 0.7 45 .2 12 2 . 1 758 156 602 0. 5 0.8 45 . 5 16 2 .8 1347 348 999 0.-8 "1.0 45 . 8 20 3. 5 2105 576 1529 1. 1 1.2 46. 1 24 3. 1 2897 852 2045 1.4 -1.3 46.4 28 2. 7 3591 1164 2427 1. 6 1.4 46. 6 32 2 . 3 4185 1500 2685 1.7 1.`5 46.7 36 1. 9 4680 1848 2832 1. 8 1. 5 46. 8 40 1.4 5077 2208 2869 1. 8 1.5 46.8 44 1. 0 5374 2568 2806 1. 8 1. 5 46. 8 48 0. 6 5572 2928 2644 1. 7 -1.-5 46. 7 52 0.2 5672 3276 2396 1. 6 1.4 46. 6 i 56 0 . 0 5697 3612 2085 1.4 1.3 46. 4 60 0. 0 5697 3924 1773 1. 3 1. 3 46. 3 64 0 . 0 5697 4224 1473 1. 1 1.2 46. 1 68 0. 0 5697 4500 1197 1.0 1. 1 46. 0 72 0.0 5697 4764 933 0 . 7 0. 9 45 . 7 76 0. 0 5697 4980 717 0. 6 0. 9 45 . 6 80 0.0 5697 -5184 513 0.4 U :8 45 .4 84 0.0 5697 5364 333 0. 2 0. 7 45. 2 -88 0. 0 56-9-7 -552D 177 0 .1 '0.6 45 . 1 92 0.0 5697 5664 33 0 .0 0.0 45 .0 96 0 .0 5697 -5-664 33 0.0 -0.-0 45 .0 100 0.0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0.0 45 .0 1D4 -0 .-0 3-69-7 '5-664 33 0.0 0.0 45 .0 108 0. 0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0.0 45 .0 112 0 .0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0. 0 43 .-0 116 0. 0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0.0 45 . 0 120 0.0 5697 5664 33 .0. 0 0. 0 45 .-0 124 0.0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0.0 45 .0 128 0.0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0.0 45 .0 132 0.0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0.0 45. 0 136 0.0 5697 5664 33 0.0 0.0 45 .0 f 2 YEAR STORM INTENSITY 2. 2 TOTAL TOTAL WATER TIME Q IN IN OUT STORAGE HEAD Q OUT ELEV 0 0.0 0 0 23 0 .0 0 .0 45 .0 4 0.4 45 0 45 0. 0 0.0 45 .0 8 0.8 181 0 181 0 . 1 0.6 45 . 1 12 1. 1 407 144 263 0. 2 0.7 45 . 2 16 1. 5 723 300 423 -0 .3 0 .7 45 . 3 20 1. 9 1129 468 661 0. 5 0.8 45 . 5 24 1. 7 1555 660 895 0 .7 0.9 45 . 7 28 1.4 1927 876 1051 0. 8 1. 0 45 .8 32 1. 2 2246 1104 1142 0.9 1 .0 45.9 36 1. 0 2511 1344 1167 0.9 1.0 45 .9 40 0 . 8 2724 1584 1140 0 .9 1.0 45 .9 44 0. 6 2884 1824 1060 0 . 8 1. 0 45 . 8 48 0. 3 29910 2052 938 0 .7 0 . 9 45 . 7 52 0. 1 3043 2268 775 0. 6 0.9 45 . 6 56 0 . 0 3-05-7 2 472 585 0 .4 0 .-8 45 .4 60 0.0 3057 2652 405 0. 3 0. 7 45 . 3 64 0 . 0 3057 2820 237 0. 1 0. 6 45 . 1 68 0.0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0. 0 45 . 0 72 0.0 3D57 2964 93 0 .0 0.0 45 .0 76 0. 0 3057 2964 93 0. 0 0. 0 45 .0 8,0 0 .0 3037 2964 93 0 .0 b.0 45 .0 84 0. 0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0.0 45.0 88 0.0 3057 2964 93 0 . 0 0 .0 45 .-D 92 0.0 3057 2964 93 0. 0 0.0 45 . 0 96 0.0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0.0 45 .0 100 0.0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0.0 45 . 0 1-04 0.0 3057 2964 93 0 .0 0.0 45 .0 108 0. 0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0.0 45 .0 112 0.0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0.0 45 .0 116 0. 0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0.0 45 .0 120 0.0 3057 2964 93 . 0 .0 0.0 45 . 0 124 0.0 3057 2964 93 0.0 0.0 45 .0 128 -0.0 30-5"1 2964 93 0 .0 9.D 45 . 0 132 0.0 3057 2964 93 0. 0 0.0 45 . 0 13-6 b.0 3-05-7 2964 93 0.0 b.b 45 .9 i A A v DETENTION BASIN ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR: MHC, INC. 45 JOHN FITCH BOULEVARD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 05-Feb-99 OUTLET CHARACTERISTICS: ---------------------- HEAD IN FEET ABOVE FLOW LINE FLOW OUT IN CFS HEAD FLOW OUT 0 0 .0 0. 1 0. 6 1 1. 1 2 1. 6 3 2 . 1 4 2. 8 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: --------------------- BOTTOM OF BASIN= 45 . 00 INFILTRATION THROUGH SOIL ELEV. AREA OF CONTOUR VOLUME BELOW CONTOUR 45 895 0 46 1521 1194 47 2247 3066 48 3074 5716 49 4000 9243 50 5028 13747 51 6000 19254 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS: ------------------------- DRAINAGE AREA= 1.24 RUNOFF COEFF= 0 . �� TIME OF CONCENTRAT CiD INTENSITY= 6. 6 ANALYSIS FOR 100 YEAR STORM PEAK FLOW IN= 5 . 6 SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS: ----------------------- YEAR INTENSIT MAX IN MAX OUT MAX EL. 100 6. 6 5 . 65 1. 60 47. 00 50 6.0 5 . 13 1. 55 46. 90 25 5 .4 4. 62 1.45 46. 70 10 4. 5 3. 85 1 .30 46.40 2 3 . 0 2 . 57 1 . 00 45 . 90 V DETENTION BASIN ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR: MHC, INC. 45 JOHN FITCH BOULEVARD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 05-Feb-99 OUTLET CHARACTERISTICS: ---------------------- HEAD IN FEET ABOVE FLOW LINE FLOW OUT IN CFS HEAD FLOW OUT 0 0 .0 0. 1 0. 6 1 1 . 1 2 1. 6 3 2. 1 4 2.8 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS : --------------------- BOTTOM OF BASIN= 45 . 00 INFILTRATION THROUGH SOIL ELEV. AREA OF CONTOUR VOLUME BELOW CONTOUR 45 895 0 46 1521 1194 47 2247 3066 48 3074 5716 49 4000 9243 50 5028 13747 51 6000 19254 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS: ------------------------- DRAINAGE AREA= 1.24 RUNOFF COEFF= 0. 69 TIME OF CONCENTRAT 30 INTENSITY= 4 ANALYSIS FOR 100 YEAR STORM PEAK FLOW IN= 3.4 SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS : ----------------------- YEAR INTENSIT MAX IN MAX OUT MAX EL. 100 4. 0 3 .42 1. 65 47 . 10 50 3.7 3. 17 1. 60 47 . 00 25 3 . 3 2 .82 1. 50 46. 80 10 2. 7 2. 31 1. 30 46.40 2 1.7 1 .45 0. 95 45 . 80 a DETENTION BASIN ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR: MHC, INC. 45 JOHN FITCH BOULEVARD, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 05-Feb-99 OUTLET CHARACTERISTICS: ---------------------- HEAD IN FEET ABOVE FLOW LINE FLOW OUT IN CFS HEAD FLOW OUT 0 0 . 0 0. 1 0. 6 1 1. 1 2 1. 6 3 2. 1 4 2. 8 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: --------------------- BOTTOM OF BASIN= 45 . 00 INFILTRATION THROUGH SOIL ELEV. AREA OF CONTOUR VOLUME BELOW CONTOUR 45 895 0 46 1521 1194 47 2247 3066 48 3074 5716 49 4000 9243 50 5028 13747 51 6000 19254 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS: ------------------------- DRAINAGE AREA= 1. 24 RUNOFF COEFF= 0 . 69 TIME OF CONCENTRAT 45 INTENSITY= 3. 2 ANALYSIS FOR 100 YEAR STORM PEAK FLOW IN= 2 . 7 SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS: ----------------------- YEAR INTENSIT MAX IN MAX OUT MAX EL. 100 3.2 2 . 74 1. 60 47 . 00 50 2.8 2. 40 1. 50 46. 80 25 2 . 5 2. 14 1.40 46. 60 10 2. 1 1. 80 1.25 46. 30 2 1.3 1. 11 0 .85 45. 60 r.. • - ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,SR.,P.E.&L.S. ' ENGINEERS Is SURVEYORS ' E ■ WILSON M.ALFORD,JR.,P.E.&L.S. 200 PIGEON HILL ROAD ■ P.O. BOX 484 ■ WINDSOR■ CT 06095 ■ PHONE(860)688-7288 ■ FAX(860)688-3485 rA ON l d �otllli6t014MI 10. DATE L L J WE ARE FORWARDING: PRINT(S) MYLAR(S) SEPIAS) trL p -6 / - �q a , i o . o �� ,Ce e of 7 �E - / 5 U-o . . L3 Co�iES LE/V� Tio / L�9 THIS TRANSMI AL IS BEING MADE: � �►��ES ��U�1 Y �5�o ❑ IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST. ❑ IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST OF ❑ FOR YOUR REVIEW AND COMMENT. ❑ FOR PROCESSING THE AMOUNT DUE FOR THIS ITEM IS: ❑ INCLUDED IN THE ACCOMPANYING INVOICE. ❑ COVERED BY YOUR REMITTING THE AMOUNT OF S ❑ INCLUDED IN OUR INVOICE TO BE SUBMITTED. WE COMMENTAS FOLLOWS: E, Y TRULY YOURS, � � f1l�fl�e� L Fo21� Yl l 6fT PA1gr� PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE: TO: omm Ja, / WE ARE SENDING YOU: O PZC initial plans ff Drainage computations O PZC revised plans 0 Bond estimate request 0 PZC Final plans for review 0 Bond reduction request O PZC Final plans for filing 0 Correspondence 0 IWA/CC plans Other. NO.OF COPIES APPLICATION NUMBER PROJE /APPLICA A THESE ITEMS ARE TRANSMITTED: 03"'For review and comment 0 For your files 9 O For your use D As requested 1 O Other ,r PLEASE RETURN/COMMENT BY: COMMENTS: F E B 2 5 1999 S Copy to: From: Planning Department- 10/98 t OWN Sfq �� OPS ?1)&U&0t O x ?- 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 4,tioSOR-CO AREA CODE 860/644-2511 March 2, 1999 CERTIFIED MAIL Town Clerk Town of East Hartford 740 Main Street East Hartford, CT 06118 Dear Madam/Sir: Re: Notice to Adjoining Municipalities In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes concerning notification to municipalities regarding Planning & Zoning Commission applications that could affect the abutting town, we hereby notify you of the application #99-11 P, Resubdivision and Site Plan of Development submitted by M.H.C., Inc. for a Burger King restaurant. The applicant requests approval to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. fast food restaurant on the westerly side of John Fitch Boulevard and the northerly side of Burnham Street, General Commercial zone. This application is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission on April 6, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall. If you have any question, please feel free to contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 252. Very truly yours, Michele R. Lipe, AICP Assistant Director of Planning South • • Planning Department d :•1� 1 •44 :1 Memo To: Chris Alford,Alford Associates From: Marcia A. Banach,AICP, Director of Planning Date: 03/02/99 Re: Appl.#99-11, Burger King Preliminary comments as follows. Other comments will be forthcoming as staff reviews are completed. 1. The required checklist for subdivision submittals (attached) was not submitted; some of the data required is different from site plan requirements 2. How are buffer requirements of Section 10.4 being met? 0 Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Pla ning FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer DATE: March 4, 1999 RE: Burger King Site Plan — 99-11P We have reviewed the drawings dated February 10, 1999 for the proposed Burger King site plan and have the following comments: Plot Plan I. Existing storm drainage pipes are on the north side of this properly. Are drainage easements already in place? If so they should be shown. If not easements should be proposed and shown. Topographic MaQ 1. We have a concern about the entrance into this site being directly opposite a major intersection. It is recommended that the applicant contact the Connecticut Department of Transportation and ask them to review this site prior to the Town's actions on this application. 2. A note "Install infiltrators only after all site work has been completed" is shown for the retention basin. These units should be placed when the basin is built to avoid erosion after basin is established. 3. An energy dissipater should be placed at the retention basin inlet pipe and a detail should be provided. 4. The retention pond outlet pipe should have a standard detention outlet structure not a flared end and a detail provided. 5. Catch basins 3 and 4 should have trap hoods. 6. Proposed storm pipes at the eastern end of property are indicated as "ADS" these should be ADSN12 or equal. 7. The grease trap is shown with access from the drive thru pavement. Is this pavement sufficient for the type of vehicle that will clean out the grease trap? 8. Was a test pit dug in vicinity of the retention basin and the drywell? Sheet 4 I. Test hole data is shown for Test Pit #4, however its location is not shown. [A-r 6' y�vfi`a-�-map V C' � e_ � - - ;1 ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw, Michael Gantick, Thomas Field, Bill Lanning, John Bond, Ray Favreau, Karl Reichle, Mel Stead, John Collins, Bob Deptula FROM: Marcia A. Banach, AICP, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project: Location: [ Site Plan O Subdiv # Acres a 7 Zone ❑ Industrial 0'6ommercial ❑ Residential # Lots/Units r Water: 01 iblic ❑ Private Well Sewerage: ❑ Public ❑ Septic system(s) Project Description: a 3 � Future Town-owned property involved? ❑ Yes 3-1q`6' ❑ new street(s) ❑ new detention area ❑ new open space/recreation area ❑ active ❑ passive Planning Department notes: Please comment by ` `�/ 9 (feel free to use this form); return to Planning Department. Thank you. bs PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw, Michael Gantick, Thomas Field, Bill Lanning, John Bond, Ray Favreau, Karl Reichle, Mel Stead, John Collins, Bob Deptula FROM: Marcia A. Banach, AICP, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project:/ Location: p' ' i 9 Site Plan O Subdiv # Acres a 7 Zone ❑ Industrial 0-Commercial ❑ Residential # Lots/Units Water: ❑'Public ❑ Private Well Sewerage: 0" blic ❑ Septic system(s) Project Description: Future Town-owned property involved? ❑ Yes 0-N-6, ❑ new street(s) ❑ new detention area ❑ new open space/recreation area ❑ active ❑ passive Planning Department notes: Please comment by ` `�/ 5 07 (feel free to use this form); return to Planning Department. Thank you. s" GO/-7cam,%, South • Planning Department x. :•I •�� 2511 ext.253 Fax:61 •4 :1 Memo To: Chris Alford,Alford Associates From: Michele R.Lipe,AICP,Assistant Director of Planning Date: 03/09/99 Re: Appl.#99-11,Burger King Please find staff comments relating to the above referenced project. Once revisions are made, please submit six sets of plans (including landscaping and architecturals) to the Planning Department. In addition, this application has been scheduled for the Architectural Design and Review Committee on Thursday,March 18, 1999. These meetings start at 5:45 pm and are held in the Sprenkel Room at Town Hall. I have included an ADRC checklist of the items they will be addressing. You should be aware that lighting of the site is likely to come up and you should be prepared to address site lighting(intensity as well as types of fixtures). Planning Department Comments 1. The required checklist for subdivision submittals (attached) was not submitted; some of the data required is different from site plan requirements and must be submitted. 2. How are buffer requirements of Section 10.4 being met? Buffer lines must be shown on the resubdivision plan as well as the site plan. (The buffer line is measured from the property line and the side yard setbacks are measured from where the edge of the buffer line.) Building Department Comments(John Collins) 1. There is no van accessible space shown on the plans (16' with 7' cross). The shared handicap parking spaces are improperly dimensioned(7' of shared space required). 0 Page 1 Town Sanitarian Comments(Bob Deptula) 1. State of Connecticut approval is required because of the amount of discharge from the site. Police Services Comments(Sgt. Tom Field) 1. There is a potential problem with the entrance because of the cut through from Route 30 west bound. If this is eliminated,there should not be any problem. 2. Police Services has a concern if a left turn lane is put in northbound because traffic will still attempt to cut into the southbound lanes. 3. How with the site be lit? There is no lighting information on the drawings. 4. Are there any street lights proposed? 5. Will there be any sidewalks? 0 Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Plaianing FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer DATE: March 4, 1999 RE: Burger King Site Plan — 99-11P We have reviewed the drawings dated February 10, 1999 for the proposed Burger King site plan and have the following comments: Plot Plan 1. Existing storm drainage pipes are on the north side of this property. Are drainage easements already in place? If so they should be shown. If not easements should be proposed and shown. Topographic Map 1. We have a concern about the entrance into this site being directly opposite a major intersection. It is recommended that the applicant contact the Connecticut Department of Transportation and ask them to review this site prior to the Town's actions on this application. 2. A note""Install infiltrators only after all site work has been completed" is shown for the retention basin. These units should be placed when the basin is built to avoid erosion after basin is established. 3. An energy dissipater should be placed at the retention basin inlet pipe and a detail should be provided. 4. The retention pond outlet pipe should have a standard detention outlet structure not a flared end and a detail provided. 5. Catch basins 3 and 4 should have trap hoods. 6. Proposed storm pipes at the eastern end of property are indicated as`BADS" these should be ADSN12 or equal. 7. The grease trap is shown with access from the drive thru pavement. Is this pavement sufficient for the type of vehicle that will clean out the grease trap? 8. Was a test pit dug in vicinity of the retention basin and the drywell? Sheet 4 1. Test hole data is shown for Test Pit #4, however its location is not shown. Sheet 5 1. Detail of drywell does not show any proposed dimensions for the 2" crushed stone around the drywell. 2. Trench detail for the infiltrator chamber is required. Resubdivision Plan 1. Scale of plan provided is 1"— 50'. Town requirements are for plan to be 1" = 40' as a minimum. 2. Proposed iron pins should be identified. 3. "Proposed Right To Drain" note is shown —this is a buried pipe that requires easements be in place. JCl/sfg S:\ENGINEER\Prof.-P&Z wetlands Applications\Burger King\Review March 4.doc STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Wi <% TAAMST4[i T March 18, 1999 Robert Deptula,R.S. South Windsor Health Department Town hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Review of Plans for Burger King Restaurant, 45 John Fitch Boulevard, South Windsor Dear Mr_-Zreptula: We have reviewed plans for the installation of the subsurface sewage disposal system for the proposed Burger King Restaurant at 45 John Fitch Boulevard in South Windsor. Plans were prepared by the consulting firm of Alford Associates, Inc. and submitted to this office for review pursuant to Section 19-13-B 103d(c)of the Public Health Code. The plans bear a preparation date of February 10, 1999. These plans were found to be contrary to Public Health Code requirements in a number of areas. We suggest that the design engineer review his submittal relative to the code and to the following concerns that we have before resubmitting revised plans to our office for further review and approval: 1. Our review of the actual water meter data indicates that a safety factor of 1.82 would be more appropriate since the difference between the high and low daily average from the four similar Burger Kings is more than the normal 1.5 safety factor(2.055/1,128= 1.82). Utilizing this safety factor results in a design flow of 3,100 gallons per day(GPD). DESIGN FLOW = 1,706 avg. GPD X 1.82 safety factor=3,100 GPD 2. "Live"signature(not a stamped signature) of Professional Engineer shall be on plans. 3. A deduction of 0.3 SF/LF shall be assigned to the effective leaching credit for galleries when they are placed on a bed of stone. 4. Sewer lines with multiple bends shall have cleanouts to grade at every second bend. Phone: (860) 509-7296 Telephone Device for the Deaf (860) 509-7191 ■ 410 Capitol Avenue - MS # %5EW P.O. Box 340308 Hartford, CT 06134 An Equal Opportunity Emoloyer Robert Deptula,R.S. March 18, 1999 Page 2 5. Plans shall indicate type of piping utilized for sewer line and distribution piping. 6. The septic tank is undersized per health code requirements. The tank must have two compartments and a gas deflector on the outlet baffle. 7. Multiple manhole covers for the septic tank and grease traps shall be indicated on the plans. Manholes shall extend to grade. 8. Two external grease traps are required equaling the combined liquid volume of the design flow. 9. The top of the proposed first gallery row is too high. The gallery top at 48.37 is above the outlet of the septic tank(48.25). Full credit can not be granted for the gallery unless the entire height of the unit is utilized. 10. The wrong application rate was used for calculating the size of the leaching system. It should be: 3,100 GPD/0.8 gal.per sq.ft. = 3,875 soft. required. The proposed system is only 44% of this required size. 11. We recommend that the leaching system be set level. Once the above modifications are made and our other concerns addressed the revised plans can be resubmitted to this office for consideration. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Arthur J. Castellazzo Sanitary Engineer III Environmental Engineering Section 45jfttch.doc cc: Alford Associates,Inc. P.O. Box 484 Windsor, CT 06095 1' 41� I ) IVI I�t 1!; l ii i I{ ---------------- 14-Y 1, AL �I Fula" � r �j �I f I i A SOW N Sr C� O v / _ s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR-CO� � AREA CODE 860/644-2511 9 j® n[ March 24, 19991 cc MAR 2 5 1999 i Certified Mail s ea A* MHC Inc. C/O Mr. Harry Cromwell 201 Park Avenue West Springfield, MA 01089 Dear Madam/Sir: Re: Appl #99-11P, MHC Inc, Burger King At the March 17, 1999 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved appl #99-11 P - MHC Inc. - Conservation Plan permit for the construction of a 3,900 sq. ft. building to be known as Burger King Restaurant, stormwater structures, associated improvements, and the subdivision of land on property located at 45 John Fitch Blvd (Assessor's Map #5, parcel #s 6 and 40) Zone CG and RR. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on March 17, 2004. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 5. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. 6. We recommend a bond in the amount of $1,000 be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures. 7. The applicant shall inspect the drainage system a minimum of two times of year and cleaned accordingly. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION - L� y Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman EAW/pmm Cc: Chief Building Official Planning & Zoning Commission Town Engineer Alford & Assoc. t Burger King Resubdivision and Site Plan PH 4-6-99 l. Request for resubdivision of an 11.4 acre property into two lots, and request for site plan approval for a new Burger King on one of the two lots. The existing property has frontage on King Street and Route 5, and includes land in both the RR and GC zones. The resubdivision would create two lots with the lot boundaries coincident with the zone lines, resulting in a 2.7 acre lot on which the Burger King is proposed. Both lots appear to meet subdivision requirements. The proposed building is about 2900 square feet. Impervious coverage is 32%; 65% allowed. 2. There are 59 parking spaces required; 59 spaces provided. The internal circulation design seems straightforward and functional. Staff are, however, concerned about the location of the proposed curb cut onto Route 5. Some Commissioners may recall that an application for site plan of development for a Burger King on this same site was denied in 1987 due to the hazard of locating a driveway right across from the double-left-turn median opening in Route 5. The issue is that a driveway across from the median opening may tempt drivers to cut across from the left turn they are making onto Rt. 5 southbound, thus making unsafe movements. This proposal has a modified driveway entrance with channeling proposed to discourage inappropriate turning movements; however, Traffic Authority Sgt. Field still has a concern about the driveway opening. The CT Dept of Transportation has final say regarding curb cuts on Route 5; their input has been solicited but not received as yet. We recommend that the hearing be held open to receive that input. 3. Public water is available in Route 5. There are no sewers in this area, so on-site sewage disposal is needed and is subject to approval by both the Town Sanitarian and the CT Dept. of Public Health. The septic system esign is under review by both. 4. There are no wetlands on site. The IWA/CC granted conservation plan approval on March 17 with a $1,000 bond and no unusual approval conditions. 5. The proposed sign is the typical Burger King sign, 10 feet high, 24 square feet, and will be internally lit with white letters. There is also a building sign proposed. The building itself includes a 19' long, 15" high red band around the front half of the top of the building. This band is made of thick plastic and will be internally lit. 6. The landscaping incorporates a variety of buffer plantings required to screen the residential zone from this site. They are also proposing a variety of other landscaping including shade trees, decorative trees, and shrubs close to the building. l-t ��1. �. C. a� 51 '3 7. ADRC reviewed this plan on March 18. The Committee was generally satisfied with the architecture and landscaping for the proposed site. They complimented the applicant for coming in with an original-looking Burger King. However, at the ADRC meeting the applicant indicated they recognized that their lighting levels would be too bright and intended to revisit their lighting proposal, which they have done. The ADRC indicated that the areas of concern for lighting include intensity of lighting level, light glare, and amount of light trespass on abutting properties. They also had the following recommendations: 4 4"" la� �" /t�e��+ter,( W 4� &V� ♦ Additional landscaping should be added to the entrance of the site to provide color to the entrance drive; ♦ The site lighting should be reduced to average abou 3 foot-candles through out the parking area; and, ♦ A sample of the red band should be submitted. 8. The South Windsor Police Dept. reviewed the application and indicated that y` they are concerned about the driveway location unless the Route 5 median is closed at that location. They also expressed concern in the event a northbound left-turn lane is proposed for Route 5 at this median cut, because traffic will still attempt to cut into the southbound lanes. If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests no additional approval modifications other than those already noted. (' F, Sf U - c� 1 3 ay�l &OX il J MEMORANDUM TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer DATE: April 6, 1999 RE: Burger King Site Plan — 99-11P We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 3-31-99 for the proposed Burger King site plan and have the following comments: Topographic Map 1. We have a concern about the entrance into this site being directly opposite a major intersection. It is recommended that the applicant contact the Connecticut Department of Transportation and ask them to review this site prior to the Town's actions on this application. 2. The grease trap is shown with access from the drive thru pavement. Is this pavement sufficient for the type of vehicle that will clean out the grease trap? Sheet 5 1. Detail of concrete flared end is required. Resubdivision Plan (dated 4-1-99) 1. Proposed iron pins should be identified as proposed. JCl/sfg S:\ENGINEER\Prof.-P&Z Wetlands Applications\Burger King\Review April 6.doc STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH QW Srt+E� •-MST April 12, 1999 Robert Deptula,R.S. South Windsor Health Department 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor,CT 06074 RE:Approval of Plans for Burger King Restaurant, 45 John Fitch Boulevard, South Windsor ,ao13 Dear eptula: We have reviewed plans for the installation of the subsurface sewage disposal system for a Burger King Restaurant located at 45 John Fitch Boulevard in South Windsor. Plans were prepared by the consulting firm of Alford Associates and submitted to this office for review pursuant to Section 19-13-B 103d(c)of the Public Health Code. The plans bear a revision date of March 31, 1999. These plans were found to be generally satisfactory and in accordance with the requirements of the Public Health Code. They are hereby APPROVED by this office with the following stipulations and modifications: 1. From water usage records supplied by the applicant,the design flow for this restaurant was set at 2,080 gallons per day(GPD) 2. Plans shall provide minimum slope(1/8"to 1/16"pitch per foot)between the grease traps and between the grease trap and septic tank. 3. Cleanouts to grade are required for all changes in direction greater than 45°on the lines running to and from the grease traps. 4. Grease trap baffles shall extend to 12"above the trap bottom per Technical Standard requirements. 5. Combined total volume of grease traps shall equal at least the daily design flow. Therefore,we recommend a 1,250 gallon trap be installed in series with a 1,000 gallon trap. Phone: (860)509-7296 Telephone Device for the Deaf (860) 509-7191 410 Capitol Avenue - MS# tAj P.O. Box 340308 Hartford, CT 06134 An Ealial Opportunitv Er)1DLOVe)' r Robert Deptula,R.S. April 12, 1999 Page 2 6. Maximum peak daily flow shall be limited to 2,080 GPD. Maximum average daily flow over any three month period shall be limited to 1,385 GPG. With the above stipulations and modifications included,it is our recommendation that the future revised plans be approved by the Director of Health of the South Windsor Health Department. If you have any questions,or you feel that there should be some changes,please contact us. Sincerely, a� Arthur J.Castellazzo Sanitary Engineer III Environmental Engineering Section copy: 'Alford Associates,Inc. P.O.Box 484 Windsor,CT 06095 45jfitch.doc towN aft y ~ 7-0-wn Ole Soadl ?dz�� y 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE•SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786 SOR.Co AREA CODE 860/644-2511 FAX 860/644-3781 Certified Mail May 6, 1999 M.H.C., Inc. c/o Mr. Harry Cromwell 201 Park Avenue West Springfield, MA 01089 Re: Appl #99-11P, Burger King site plan Dear Mr. Cromwell: We regret to advise you that on May 4, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny the above- referenced application for a site plan of development for a fast food restaurant. The Commission cited the traffic configuration of Rte. 5 and the Ellington Rd. intersection and safety concerns related to the median cut and driveway location, and the creation of a hazardous intersection, as reasons for the denial. Sincerely, Walter Mealy, Vice Chairman Planning&Zoning Commission WM/dlw cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal E*40 40 r -�... Q r . � � {{ a �� .•. - ,t�Q'u �t� 4�n:.:. �� t /j t.112F tt -; Y,ry, "•M �� '^�.' � ;/?.: AFC "' S � fi f ti3a'*6*'•._ / / v ' PAINTED TRAFF�'C �''� PROPpSEO No t `ARKON � Gt `TURN'.59N' j PRAPp$ED a "cam ,3 air aw To / Z 1p BROKEN CHDri h ' MONUMENT FOUND " ' } N 352370.67 PROPOSED-7E 635828.0.9 'BURGER KING' GN PROPOSED CKE � r Q 9-BB � ry 0 2 00 o o � o Ab 4 .' a y y M '• , Y i , V k� ssr i I r 4p CL j D W Y M *41441*41 t 16 41 "000000 Y 000 NNII r� r i -• I .................... ..................... t I yt i �•• i 54 -•i � �� i 1 t; If r I a / / I n i CNN ti, — - �• \` �/ 1 (ROUTE d� L fYAdD ii f x - tij e ■ y / ¢-