Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLACK OLIVE - ENTIRE DOCUMENTATION BLACK OLIVE Black & Olive, LLC Bozeman, MT SITE PLAN (SP1) 4 OCTOBER 2016 BLACK OLIVE – TABLE OF CONTENTS DATE: October 04, 2016 Documentation index 1. DEM checklist, Response 2. CCOA checklist, Response 3. SP1 checklist, Response 4. Informal Application: 16185, Response. 5. Existing property, Title 6. Existing property, Legal Description 7. Existing building, Photographs 8. Proposed building, Project Matrix 9. Proposed Building, Signage Calculation 10. Construction Route Map 11. Construction Site Staging and temp. waste plan 12. Water, Sewer, Storm Water Engineering Report 13. Traffic Study 14. Storm water Management Permit Form Drawing Index Civil C0.1 CIVIL SPECIFICATIONS C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1.1 CIVIL DEMO PLAN C1.2 CIVIL SITE PLAN C1.3 CIVIL GRADING PLAN C1.4 CIVIL SITE DETAILS Landscape L01.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN L02.01 IRRIGATION PLAN – GROUND LEVEL L03.01 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DETAILS Architecture A00.40 ACCESSIBILITY CODE REQUIREMENTS & PLANS A00.41 ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS AND DETAILS A00.42 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS A00.43 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS A00.44 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS A00.90 VICINITY MAP A01.00 SITE PLAN A01.01 LEVEL 1 PLAN A01.02 LEVEL 2 PLAN A01.03 LEVEL 3 PLAN A01.04 LEVEL 4 PLAN A01.05 LEVEL 5 PLAN A02.01 ROOF LEVEL PLAN A03.01 NORTH & WEST ELEVATION A03.02 SOUTH & EAST ELEVATION Electrical E01.01 LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC E02.01 LIGHTING DETAILS BLACK OLIVE – DEM (DEMOLITION CHECKLIST) NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DEMOLITION CHECKLIST 1. Black & Olive is a 55 unit, 5-story apartment building with a fitness amenity and small retail component at the northwest corner at the first floor. The project has a 1st floor-parking garage along with 3-car share parking stalls along S. Black Ave. The existing building at the northwest corner of S. Black Ave. and E. Olive St. is an office building to be demolished. Current power lines running north-south overhead to be re-located underground, see C1.0, C1.1 and C1.2. 2. See attached existing building photographs, Legal description and Title Commitment – 120 E. Olive. This property is not within a historic district, and is not a contributing historical property. It was built in 1975 and was later remodeled in 2002. 3. See attached existing building photographs. 4. C1.0, C1.1, C1.2, A01.01, A01.02, A01.03, A01.04, A01.05 and A02.01. 5. See C1.0 and C1.1 Entire existing structure to be demolished. 6. N/A. 7. N/A. BLACK OLIVE – CCOA (COMMERCIAL/NONRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUIRED MATERIALS) DATE: October 04, 2016 COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CHECKLIST: - See SP1 submittal for documents listed below. 1. Black Olive is a 55 unit, 5 story apartment building with a fitness amenity and small retail component at the northwest corner at the first floor. The project has a 1st floor parking garage along with 3 car share parking stalls along S. Black Ave. The existing building at the northwest corner of S. Black Ave and E. Olive St. is to be demolished. 2. See attached existing building photographs, Legal Description and Title Commitment – 120 E. Olive 3. See attached existing building photographs. Entire existing building to be demolished. 4. See C1.2, A01.00, A01.01. 5. See A03.01, A03.02. 6. See A03.01, A03.02 and Material Board. 7. See C1.0 and C1.1. 8. N/A. 9. See C1.0 and C1.1 for the extent of existing building to be demolished/removed. Entire existing building to be removed. 10. See A03.01, A03.02 and lighting cut sheets. 11. See A01.01 - A02.01 and Project Matrix, on all Floor Plans. 12. See A01.00, A01.01 and Project Matrix, for all parking calculations and layouts. 13. N/A. Proposed new building to be built in one continuous phase. BLACK OLIVE – SP1 (SITE PLAN CHECKLIST) DATE: October 04, 2016 - See SP1 submittal for documents listed below. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. BLACK OLIVE 2. Black & Olive, LLC. 20 North Tracey Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 3. Name and mailing address of engineer, architect, landscape architect, planner, etc. a. Architect: Johnson Nathan Strohe i. 1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100, Denver, CO 80202 b. Landscape Architect: Design 5 i. 37 E. Main Street, Suite 10, Bozeman, MT 59715. c. Civil Engineer: Stahly Engineering & Associates i. 851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1, Bozeman, MT 59715 4. 202 South Black Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 5. See A00.90 and A01.00 6. See construction route map provided by L.Keeley Construction. SITE PLAN GENERAL: 7. See Civil Plans showing boundary line with dimensions. 8. Provided. 9. Provided. 10. Provided. 11. See Civil Plans and Project Matrix on Architectural FLOOR PLANS. 12. See Project matrix on Architectural FLOOR PLANS. 13. Location, percentage of parcel(s) and total site, and square footage of the following: a. See Project Matrix. b. See Project Matrix. c. See Project Matrix. d. See Project Matrix for open space requirement and breakdown of calculation provided for 55 units. e. Parkland to be provided by cash in-lieu per 38.27.020.A.1. See Project Matrix from parkland requirement calculation for cash in-lieu. f. See A00.90. 14. See Project Matrix. SITE PLAN DETAILS: 15. See Civil Plans. 16. See Civil Plans. 17. See Civil Plans. 18. See Civil Plans. 19. See Civil Plans. 20. See Civil Plans and Architectural Site Plan. Ingress and Egress points onto site for pedestrians are from sidewalks along E. Olive St. and S. Black St. Main entrance into residential building is at the north side of the site by Stair 1 and Elevator Vestibule lobby. Main pedestrian entry points for retail are along same sidewalks and onto Northwest corner of the site. 21. See Civil Plans and Architectural Site Plan. Traffic flow on site is through the north off of E. Olive St into the parking garage. There are 3 car share garages at the west side of the site on from S. Black Ave. 22. See Civil Plans and Architectural Site Plan. Traffic flow off site is through the north off of E. Olive St into the parking garage. There are 3 car share garages at the west side of the site off onto S. Black Ave. 23. See Civil Plans and A01.00, A01.01 for parking stall layouts and parking calculation on Project Matrix. 24. See Civil plans for proposed utility locations. Additional water and sewer design information is provided in the Engineering Report. 25. There are no water courses, wetlands or floodplains on the property. 26. A grading plan is provided in the Civil plans. Additional storm water design information is provided in the Engineering Report. 27. There are no downstream drainage ways that are part of the storm drainage system. 28. There are no rock outcroppings or slopes greater than 15% on the site. 29. The site plan provided with the Civil plans show all sidewalks, driveways and loading areas. Building garage doors have been held back 5’ from sidewalks to reduce pedestrian conflicts. 30. See Civil Plans, A00.40-.44, A01.00, A01.01. 31. See Civil Plans for retaining walls, Architectural Floor Plans/Elevations and Landscape Plans for aesthetic walls/fences. 32. See Construction Route Map for exterior refuse collection during construction. Permanent refuse collection will be located at the trash pad at the north side of the building along E. Olive St. at the east end of the building. It will be screen with wood screening similar to the building wood material. Each floor of the building has a trash chute down into the trash termination room at the 1st floor. The trash containers will be put out onto the trash pad for collection. 33. Site details are provided with the Civil plans. 34. The proposed on-site parking is provided on the ground floor of the building and snow plowing will not be required. Therefore, no snow storage is required or proposed. 35. See Civil Plans and A01.00 for Site Vision Triangles. 36. The site has been previously developed no significant natural areas exist. The Civil plans show existing trees to remain, and to be removed. One boulevard street tree will need to be removed, and one street tree will be added. 37. N/A 38. See A00.90. PARKLAND AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING: 39. Parkland to be provided by cash in-lieu per 38.27.020.A.1. See Project Matrix for Parkland requirement calculation for cash in-lieu. 40. N/A. This project will not be providing Affordable Housing. LIGHTING DETAILS: 41. See Electrical Lighting/Photometric Plan. 42. See Electrical Lighting/Photometric Plan. 43. See Electrical Lighting/Photometric Plan and Lighting Details. BUILDING DESIGN AND SIGNAGE: 44. See A03.01, A03.02 and Material Board. 45. See A03.01, A03.02 for screening information. 46. See A03.01, A03.02 for signage elevations and maximum area calculation per Table 38.28.060, B-3 Zoning District. LANDSCAPE PLAN: 47. See L01.01. Black Olive. 202 South Black Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 48. See L01.01. 49. See L01.01. 50. See L01.01. 51. N/A 52. See L01.01. 53. See L01.01. 54. N/A 55. See Civil Site Plan, Architectural Site Plan and L01.01, for street vision triangles. 56. See L01.01. 57. See L01.01. 58. N/A 59. See L01.01. 60. N/A 61. N/A 62. See L01.01. 63. See L01.01. 64. See L02.01. 65. See L01.01. 66. See L01.01. STREET AND TRAFFIC: 67. The proposed on-site parking is provided on the ground floor of the building and snow plowing will not be required. Therefore, no snow storage is required or proposed OTHER PERMITS: 68. A draft of the stormwater management permit is provided. An executed permit will be provided prior to construction. BLACK OLIVE – INFORMAL APPLICATION: 16185, RESPONSE DATE: October 04, 2016 - See SP1 submittal for documents listed below. 1. Project Location, Design and General Comments: a. Confirmed. b. Confirmed. c. Confirmed. d. This project will not be providing Affordable Housing. e. Provided. RE: Civil Plans. f. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans. g. Building will be maintaining existing building addressing of 202 South Black Avenue. Individual unit addressing, within the building, will be determined by GIS Department at a later date. 2. Development Review Process: a. Confirmed. Re: COA application. b. Confirmed. c. Confirmed. Package also sent to DRB. d. Confirmed. e. Confirmed. 3. Street, Curb & Gutter, Sidewalks: a. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans and Architectural Site and 1st Level Floor Plan. b. Confirmed. c. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans. d. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans. e. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans and A00.40 - A00.44, A01.00, A01.01. 4. Setbacks: a. Confirmed. b. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans for all site setbacks. c. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans for all Utility easements. 5. Height a. Confirmed. RE: A03.01, A03.02 6. Landscaping: a. Confirmed. RE: Landscape plans with calculation of landscape points. b. RE: Landscape Plans for calculation of Landscape points. c. Confirmed. RE: Landscape Plans and A01.01, A03.01 and A03.02 for parking screening. d. Confirmed. RE: Landscape plans for identified landscape species and any non- vegetation options as well. e. Confirmed. RE: Landscape plans for all tree locations and specifications. f. Confirmed. RE: Landscape plans for tree species. g. The project will not use an exempt well for irrigation purposes. The project is minimizing the use of municipal water by limiting the amount of landscaped area, utilizing drought tolerant plant material, and using a high efficiency irrigation system 7. Parkland and Open Space: a. Parkland to be provided by cash in-lieu per 38.27.020.A.1. See Project Matrix for Parkland requirement calculation for cash in-lieu. b. Open space is being provided per Sec. 38.27.020.E.4, Individual unit balconies, min. 6’x6’. RE: Project Matrix for calculations. c. Confirmed. Unit balconies, min. 6’x6’, are being provided. 8. Parking: a. Confirmed. RE: Project Matrix for parking calculations. Also, see Civil Site Plan and A01.01 for parking layout. b. Confirmed. RE: Civil Site Plans for on-street parking, outside of site vision triangles and fire hydrant locations. c. Confirmed. RE: A01.01, A03.01 and A03.02 for parking layout and parking screening. d. Confirmed. RE: A01.01 for parking layout. e. Confirmed. RE: A01.01 for parking layout. f. Confirmed. RE: A01.01 and Landscape plans for all bicycle parking locations. g. Confirmed. RE: A01.01 and Landscape plans for all bicycle parking locations. h. Confirmed. RE: A01.01 and Landscape plans for all bicycle parking locations. i. Confirmed. Parking on site to be concrete. 9. Other Comments: a. Confirmed. RE: Civil Plans for site vision triangles. b. The proposed on-site parking is provided on the ground floor of the building and snow plowing will not be required. Therefore, no snow storage is required or proposed. c. See Construction Route Map for exterior refuse collection during construction. Permanent refuse collection will be located at the trash pad at the north side of the building along E. Olive St. at the east end of the building. It will be screen with wood screening similar to the building wood material. Each floor of the building has a trash chute down into the trash termination room at the 1st floor. The trash containers will be put out onto the trash pad for collection. d. Confirmed. RE: Electrical plans. e. Confirmed. RE: Electrical plans. f. Confirmed. RE: A03.01, A03.02 and Material board. g. Acknowledged. h. Acknowledged. Engineering Comments: 1. The estimate of the peak hour sewer flow is provided in the Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Engineering Report. 2. A hydrant flow test from the nearest hydrant is provided in the Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Engineering Report. 3. The Civil plans show the complete replacement of the existing curb adjacent to the property. 4. A Traffic Impact Analysis is provided with the submittal. 5. The Civil plans show the complete replacement of the existing sidewalks adjacent to the property. 6. The estimate of the proposed new water use is provided in the Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Engineering Report. Pending the Engineering Department’s approval, this estimate will be the basis for the Cash-in-lieu of water rights payment. 7. Vision Triangles are shown on the Site Plan. There are no encroachments other than existing signs and boulevard street trees. 8. The proposed on-site parking is provided on the ground floor of the building and snow plowing will not be required. Therefore, no snow storage is required or proposed. 1 Cordell Pool From:Workman, Dustin <Dustin.Workman@northwestern.com> Sent:Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:42 PM To:Cordell Pool Cc:Andy Holloran (andy@homebasemontana.com) Subject:RE: Black Olive Site Cad Based on the provided site layout, the below described specified easement location would be adequate.  Due to the  existing utility configuration the side and back lot easements are required to keep the existing infrastructure in  service.  There is ample capacity to serve the required load for electric and gas based on the square footage and the  planned use of the building.      Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.  Thanks,     ______________________ Dustin Workman, PE Construction Engineer dustin.workman@northwestern.com O 406-582-4644 C 406-533-8118 F 406-585-9634 121 East Griffin Dr. I Bozeman, Montana 59715     From: Cordell Pool [mailto:cpool@seaeng.com]   Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:19 AM  To: Workman, Dustin <Dustin.Workman@northwestern.com>  Cc: Andy Holloran (andy@homebasemontana.com) <andy@homebasemontana.com>  Subject: RE: Black Olive Site Cad  Dustin:    Please see the attached site plan showing your updated utility routing.  Utility easements will be provided on the south  side of the building (10’) for the gas main, and east side of the building (5’) for the underground electrical line.       Can you reply back with a simple acknowledgement that this plan meets your requirements.      Cordell Pool, PE Project Engineer Stahly Engineering & Associates, Inc 851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1 | Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: (406) 522-9526 | Fax: (406) 522-9528 www.seaeng.com This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Commitment for Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company subject to conditions and stipulations as set forth herein Thank you for choosing Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. As Your Title Company Contact Information: 1925 N. 22nd Avenue Suite 102 Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone:(406) 587-7702 Fax:(406) 587-2891 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. COMMITMENT Commitment Issued By: Order Number: M-18975 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. 1925 N. 22nd Avenue, Suite 102 Suite 102 Bozeman, MT 59718 Escrow Officer:Tammy Redfern Phone:(406)587-7702 Fax:(406)587-2891 Escrow Officer Email:tredfern@montanatitle.com Email Loan Docs To:7001edocs@montanatitle.com Customer Reference: Property Address:120 East Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Dated as of June 28, 2016 Title Officer:Brian Mills Title Officer Email:bmills@montanatitle.com EXPLANATION OF CHARGES 2006 ALTA Standard Owners Policy $895.50 Total Estimated Charges: $895.50 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company In an effort to assure that your transaction goes smoothly, please review the following checklist and contact your escrow officer or title officer if you answer "Yes" to any of the following questions: ●●Will you be using a Power of Attorney? ●●Are any of the parties in title incapacitated or deceased? ●●Has a change in marital status occurred for any of the Principals? ●●Will the property be transferred into a trust, partnership, corporation or limited liability company? ●●Has there been any construction on the property in the last 6 months? Remember, all parties signing documents must have a driver's license or other valid photo ID. It is recommended that all documents be signed in blue ink. Order No:M-18975 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by ________________________________________________________________________________________ Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Florida corporation (“Company”), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate 180 days after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Issued By: Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. 1925 N. 22nd Avenue Bozeman, MT 59718 Agent ID: B25817 __________________________________ Authorized Countersignature Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company CONDITIONS 1.The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2.If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions. 3.Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4.This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5.The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at <http://www.alta.org/>. NOTICE FEDERAL FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN REAL PROPERTY TAX ACT OF 1980 (FIRPTA) Upon the sale of United States real property, by a non-resident alien, foreign corporation, partnership or trust, the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (FIRPTA), and as revised by the Tax Reform Act of 1984 (26 USCA 897 (C)(1)(A)(1) and 26 USCA 1445), Revised by the Path Act of 2015, These changes may be reviewed in full in H.R. 2029, now known as Public Law 114-113. See Section 324 of the law for the full text of FIRPTA changes. Effective February 27, 2016, the amendments to FIRPTA contained in the PATH Act have increased the holdback rate from 10% of gross proceeds to 15% of gross proceeds of the sale, regardless of whether the actual tax due may exceed (or be less than) the amount withheld if ANY of the following conditions are met: 1. If the amount realized (generally the sales price) is $300,000 or less, and the property will be used by the Transferee as a residence (as provided for in the current regulations), no monies need be withheld or remitted to the IRS. 2. If the amount realized exceeds $300,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and the property will be used by the Transferee as a residence, (as provided for in the current regulations) then the withholding rate is 10% on the full amount realized (generally the sales prices) 3. If the amount realized exceeds $1,000,000, then the withholding rate is 15% on the entire amount, regardless of use by the Transferee. The exemption for personal use as a residence does not apply in this scenario. If the purchaser who is required to withhold income tax from the seller fails to do so, the purchaser is subject to fines and penalties as provided under Internal Revenue Code Section 1445. Escrow Holder will, upon written instructions from the purchaser, withhold Federal Income Tax from the seller and will deposit said tax with the Internal Revenue Service, together with IRS Forms 8288 and 8288-A. The fee charged for this service is $25.00 payable to the escrow holder. Order No.: M-18975 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company COMMITMENT - SCHEDULE A 1.Effective Date:June 20, 2016 at 7:30AM 2.Policy or Policies to be Issued: 2006 ALTA Standard Owners Policy Proposed Insured:Liability:Premium: MERCANTILE, LLC $250,000.00 $895.50 Proposed Insured:Liability:Premium: 3.The interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: ATWELL & ASSOCIATES, LLC 5.The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: See Exhibit "A" Attached For Legal Description Inquiries should be directed to: Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. 1925 N. 22nd Avenue Suite 102 Bozeman, MT 59718 Escrow Officer:Tammy Redfern Title Officer:Brian Mills Phone:(406) 587-7702 Fax:(406) 587-2891 Order No.: M-18975 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Exhibit “A” Legal Description THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OF DAWES SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF BLOCK "C" BLACK'S ADDITION TO BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AND FRACTIONAL LOT 17 OF LINDLEY AND GUY'S ADDITION TO BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. [DEED REFERENCE: FILM 51, PAGE 1604] TOGETHER WITH A STRIP OF LAND 8 FEET IN WIDTH ADJOINING THE WEST LINE OF LOT 4 AND A PORTION OF LOT 3, BEING A PORTION OF THAT ALLEY VACATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 896 RECORDED JULY 30, 1970 IN FILM 7, PAGE 1534, RECORDS OF GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. Order No.: M-18975 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company SCHEDULE B - Part I REQUIREMENTS The following requirements must be met and completed to the satisfaction of the Company before its Policy of Title Insurance will be issued: 1.Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. 2. WE FIND NO OPEN MORTGAGES OF RECORD. ESCROW PLEASE CONFIRM BEFORE CLOSING. 3. THIS COMPANY WILL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING TO INSURE A LOAN BY OR A CONVEYANCE FROM THE VESTEE CORPORATION NAMED HEREIN: (A) A COPY OF THE CORPORATION BY-LAWS OR ARTICLES. (B) AN ORIGINAL OR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBJECT TRANSACTION. 4. IF AN OWNER'S TITLE INSURANCE POLICY HAS BEEN ISSUED BY ANY TITLE INSURER WITHIN TWO YEARS A CREDIT MAY BE AVAILABLE TOWARDS THE OWNERS TITLE INSURANCE POLICY FOR THIS TRANSACTION. WE WILL REQUIRE PROOF OF THE AMOUNT INSURED AND PREMIUM PAID. Order No.: M-18975 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company SCHEDULE B - Part II STANDARD EXCEPTIONS Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exception to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the Effective Date but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B.Standard Exceptions (1)Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession, thereof. (2)Easements, liens, encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the Public Records. (3)Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land, and that is not shown by the Public Records (4)Any lien, or right to a lien, imposed by law for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, which lien, or right to a lien, is not shown by the Public Records (5)(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian Treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a),(b),(c) or (d) are shown by the Public Records. (6)Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. (7)Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal or other utilities unless shown as an existing lien by the Public Records. Order No.: M-18975 Montana Title & Escrow, Inc. Policy Issuing Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company SCHEDULE B - Part II SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS At the date hereof, exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: 1. GENERAL TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2016, A LIEN IN THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT, NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE. TAX NOTE: TAXES, SPECIAL AND GENERAL, ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND SERVICE AREAS, FOR THE YEAR 2015. PARCEL NO. RGH6299. 1ST INSTALLMENT:$ 557.43 PAID 2ND INSTALLMENT:$ 557.42 PAID TAX NOTE: CITY TAXES, SPECIAL AND GENERAL, ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND SERVICE AREAS FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016. ACCOUNT NO. 146810.: 1ST INSTALLMENT:$ 48.28 PAID 2ND INSTALLMENT:$ 48.28 PAID 2. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR ANY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, SNOW REMOVAL, SEWER ASSESSMENT OR GARBAGE ASSESSMENT NOT SET FORTH IN THE ASSESSMENT BOOKS OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN. 3. MINERALS OF WHATSOEVER KIND, SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COAL, LIGNITE, OIL, GAS, URANIUM, CLAY, ROCK, SAND AND GRAVEL IN, ON, UNDER AND THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES RELATING THERETO, WHETHER OR NOT APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR LISTED IN SCHEDULE B. THE COMPANY MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE PRESENT OWNERSHIP OF ANY SUCH INTERESTS. 4. TERMS, PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS, AS CONTAINED IN EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WF WESTERN HOLDINGS, LLC AND CHARLES AND AUDREY S. CROMWELL RECORDED OCTOBER 17, 2014, AS DOCUMENT NO. 2494829, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ********************* END OF SCHEDULE B ********************* *** INFORMATIONAL NOTES: THE POLICY TO BE ISSUED CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE. ALL ARBITRABLE MATTERS WHEN THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE IS $2,000,000 OR LESS SHALL BE ARBITRATED AT THE OPTION OF EITHER THE COMPANY OR THE INSURED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE PARTIES. YOU MAY REVIEW A COPY OF THE ARBITRATION RULES AT ~WWW.ALTA.ORG~. IF THE PROPOSED INSURED UNDER THE POLICY TO ISSUE HAS ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE COVERAGE OR EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE COMPANY WILL BE PLEASED TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE TITLE OFFICER NAMED ON SCHEDULE A OF THIS COMMITMENT. PRIVACY POLICY NOTICE Purpose Of This Notice Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through its affiliates, from sharing nonpublic personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of is privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of a persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of: American Guaranty Title Insurance Company Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Montana Title and Escrow Company Placer Title Company National Closing Solutions, Inc.Placer Title Insurance Agency of Utah National Closing Solutions of Alabama, LLC Stewart Title Guaranty Company National Closing Solutions of Arkansas, LLC Stewart Title Insurance Company National Closing Solutions of Maryland, Inc.Westcor Land Title Insurance Company North Idaho Title Insurance Company Wyoming Title and Escrow Company North American Title Insurance Company We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources: Information we receive from you, such as an application or other forms. Information about your transactions we secure from our files, or from our affiliates or others. Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Information we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customers to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements: Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finances, securities and insurance. Nonfinancial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers. We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about you with anyone for any purpose that is not specifically permitted by law. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. BLACK OLIVE – DEM (EXISTING BUILDING) DATE: October 04, 2016 1. North Elevation 2. West Elevation 3. South Elevation 4. East Elevation. CONSTRUCTION ROUTE MAP Construction traffic will use 191/Main Street as the primary route through the City to access the project site. From Main Street drivers shall turn south on S. Wilson Ave to and then east on to E Olive St. due to the availability of traffic signals at Main and Olive. Delivery trucks will utilize the parking line on the south side of Olive along the project site frontage to temporarily park and off load materials and equipment. These parking spots will be blocked for the duration of the project. In addition, the parking spots on S Black along the project site frontage will also be blocked for the duration of the project. After making deliveries or pick-ups, vehicles will merge back on to E Olive St. and head east to S Church Ave, turning north to head back to 191/Main Street. Misc. Notes: The perimeter of the site will be barricaded from the public with a 6' tall temporary chain link fence. Access will be through gates. Construction waste dumpsters will be staged on E Olive St during in the blocked parking spots. Project site, parking lanes closed for construction use at frontage DUMPSTERDUMPSTEROFFICE TRAILERTOILETS6' TALLSCREENED CHAINLINKCONSTRUCTIONFENCEGATEGATEGATEGATETRAFFICCONTROLBARRICADESCRANE • • www.seaeng.com Engineers and Land Surveyors 851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1, Bozeman, MT 59715 | phone: 406-522-8594 | fax: 406-522-9528 YCC Civil 50% DD Narrative Black Olive Apartment Building Water, Sewer, Storm Water Engineering Report September 28, 2016 Prepared for: Black & Olive, LLC Prepared by: Stahly Engineering and Associates Cordell D. Pool, PE – Project Engineer Introduction The Black Olive building is an infill redevelopment of the property located at 202 South Black Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a 2-story (with basement) office/retail building and parking lot. The existing building is currently served by a 1” water service from South Black Avenue and two 4” sanitary services to South Black Avenue. The existing building will be demolished and replaced with a new apartment building. The new building will not have a basement. The proposed building and site improvements are shown on the Civil plans provided with the Site Plan submittal. This Engineering Report supports the design of the water and fire building service lines, sewer service, and storm water mitigation. Civil Specifications and Design Standards The civil specifications for the project will be the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) and the City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS (COB Mods). Construction plans will be developed in accordance with the City of Bozeman Design Standards. Water City water mains exist in South Black Avenue and Olive Street. The water main in South Black Avenue is 14” and the water main in Olive Street is 12”. The existing water service on South Black Avenue will be capped at the main, and two new services (fire and water) will be provided from the water main in Olive Street. The new water service size is based on the plumbing fixture counts in the building and the Uniform Plumbing Code flow rate for this number of fixture counts. The total fixture counts are 700.5 water fixture units, equating to a maximum flow rate of 160.9 gpm. Based on a maximum velocity of 10 ft/sec in the water meter, this flow rate will require a 3” water meter. The service to the building will be a 4” line reducing to a 3” meter in the building. The fire service line size has not been determined yet, but a 6” service is anticipated. The water and fire service lines will be designed by a PE and submitted for review as required by the building permit. Irrigation water supply will be primarily from detained building roof stormwater. There may be some make up water required from the potable system, when stored rainwater is used up. It is estimated that only 20% of the total irrigation needs will need to come from potable water supply. Page | 2 A fire flow test of the existing fire hydrant at the corner of Black and Olive has been conducted by the City and is included with this report. The static water pressure is approximately 128 psi. The hydrant provided a flow of 1802 gpm from one of the 2.5” nozzles. This flow resulted in a 2 psi drop in the hydrant located 1 block to the east. This fire flow test shows that the minimum required fire flow of 1500 gpm at 20 psi residual is met by this hydrant. Also, this test indicates that the water system network in this area can provide the anticipated peak domestic demand of the Black Olive building with very little impact on the system pressures. Water use for the Black Olive building has been estimated based on City of Bozeman engineering standards. The 2015 Wastewater Facility plan measured a wastewater flow rate of 64.4 gallons/day/person for residential uses. This value is an average for all city residential users, and is higher than some new apartment buildings which utilize low-flow fixtures. The estimated water use is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Black Olive Estimated Water Use Domestic Water Use Unit Type (Use) # Units Occupants Gpd/Occupant Gallons/ Day Studio Apartment 16 1 64.4 1030 1-Bedroom Apartment 24 1.25 64.4 1932 2-Bedroom Apartment 15 2 64.4 1932 Leasing Office 1 2 15 30 Retail Space 1 1 500 500 Total Domestic Use 5,424 Total Annual Use (ac ft) 6.08 Irrigation Water Use Irrigation Area (sf) Irrigation Rate (in./year) Gallons conversion Factor Total Annual Water (Gallons) Sod/spray 2,235 29 0.623 40,380 Landscape/drip 7,938 Total Irrigation (gallons) 48,318 Total Irrigation (ac ft) 0.15 % Potable Make-up 20% Potable Irrigation (ac ft) 0.03 Existing Water Use (From last 1-year of billing) Average Flow (gallons/day) 181.7 Total Annual Use (gallons) 66,310 Total Annual Use (ac ft) 0.20 The total new annual water use from the Black Olive building is 6.08+0.03-0.20 = 5.91 ac ft. Page | 3 Sewer A 6” clay sewer exists in South Black Avenue. The existing sewer services are not adequate to serve the new building and will be abandoned. The new sewer service is sized based on drainage fixture units and sizing criteria from the Uniform Plumbing Code. The Black Olive building drainage fixture units are 699. For this number of fixture units, the plumbing code requires a 6” service at a 2% slope. Daily wastewater generation is anticipated to be equal to the domestic use of 5425 gallons per day. Using a peaking factor of 12 (the entire day’s use in 2 hours), the peak hour flow is 45.2 gallons per minute. Storm Water The site is currently developed and has a substantial impervious area. Currently site storm water is directed by surface drainage towards the adjacent streets. Runoff is then collected in existing curb inlets and transported by a storm drain in South Black Avenue. Though antiquated, the existing storm drainage system appears to be functioning adequately. The existing curbs are badly deteriorated and will be replaced with this project. New curb inlets and storm drain laterals will be installed with the curb replacement. Storm water mitigation is based on the requirement in the City Design Standards to “infiltrate, evapotranspire, or capture for reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5” of rainfall”. Additionally, peak flows were analyzed to make sure that runoff generated by the Black Olive building is less than existing flows, ensuring that existing pipe capacity is not exceeded. Due to the existing impervious areas, the most limiting criteria is the capture of the first 0.5” of rainfall. Since the building covers 80% of the lot, roof-top runoff will be captured for reuse. This runoff is relatively clean and can be easily reused. Runoff will be captured by a detention tank located beneath the building, and used to supply the landscape irrigation system. Flows from storms exceeding 0.5” will flow through the tank and discharge to one of the new curb inlets in Olive Street. Storm water calculations are provided in Table 2. This table provides the existing and post development site statistics and resulting runoff coefficients. Design storm information is provided from the 0.5” regulatory storm to the 100-year 24-hour storm. Existing and post development runoff is calculated for each storm event using City of Bozeman standards. The 100-yr post development runoff is used to determine the size of the building storm sewer line. A 10” pipe will convey the 100- year storm, preventing building damage. The existing and post development runoff volumes are compared to determine mitigation volumes for each storm event. Lastly, a detention calculation for the 100-year storm event is determined using City of Bozeman standards. This calculation provides the detention volume required to keep post development flow rates equivalent to existing conditions. Comparing the mitigation volumes and detention volume (highlighted) shows that the 0.5” storm capture requires the largest volume of 638.59 cubic feet, or 4777 gallons. Capture and reuse of this volume will reduce post development runoff flow rates and volumes to less than existing. In order to provide additional storage volume for irrigation reuse, a slightly larger detention tank is proposed. Page | 4 Table 2. Black Olive Storm Water Calculations Site Statisitcs Land Classification Runoff Coefficients Existing Area (sf) Post Dev Area (sf) Rooftops 0.9 3,546 15,238 Pavement 0.9 8,412 0 Sidewalk 0.9 1,419 1,171 Landscape 0.9 5,822 2,790 Total 0.2 19,199 19,199 Weighted Coeff. 0.69 0.80 Design Storm Information Design Storm 0.5-Inch 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Drainage Area (acres) 0.441 0.441 0.441 0.441 0.441 Drainage Area (sf) 19199 19199 19199 19199 19199 Slope (%) 2 2 2 2 2 Time of Concentration (min) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24 Hour Precipitation Volumes (in) 0.50 1.84 2.16 2.42 2.67 Existing Peak Flow Calculations Design Storm 0.5 Inch 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Intensity at Tc (Figure I-2 pg. 29) (in/hr) 0.00 3.22 3.83 4.74 5.34 Peak Runoff Rate at Tc (Q = CIA) (cfs) 0.00 0.98 1.16 1.44 1.62 Runoff Volume (cf) 0.00 2024.57 2376.67 2662.75 2937.82 Post Dev Peak Flow Calculations Design Storm 0.5 Inch 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year New Development (0.5inch) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Intensity at Tc (Figure I-2 pg. 29) (in/hr) 3.22 3.22 3.83 4.74 5.34 Peak Runoff Rate at Tc (Q = CIA) (cfs) 1.13 1.13 1.35 1.67 1.88 Runoff Volume (cf) 638.59 2350.00 2758.70 3090.76 3410.06 Mitigaton Requirements Runoff Increase (cfs) 1.13 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.26 Runoff Increase (cf) 638.59 325.43 382.03 428.02 472.23 Runoff Increase (gallons) 4777 2434 2858 3202 3532 Peak Flow Detention To reduce runoff flows to preconstruction flow rates 100-yr Storm (only largest value shown) Storm Duration Intensity Future Runoff Rate Runoff Volume Release Volume Required Storage (minutes) (in/hr) (cfs) (cf) (cf) (cf) 1440 0.12 0.04 3651.21 3145.58 505.63 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for BLACK OLIVE APARTMENTS Bozeman, Montana Prepared for HomeBase Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102             September 28, 2016  i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Streets & Intersections 3 Traffic Volumes 5 Capacity 8 TRIP GENERATION 10 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 13 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 14 IMPACTS 16 Existing Traffic Volumes 16 Capacity 19 Safety 19 Future Traffic Volumes 21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPENDIX B – CAPACITY CALCULATIONS ii LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 9 Table 2. Black Olive Apartments Development Trip Generation 10 Table 3. Existing Plus Peak Hour Site Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary 20 Table 4. Year 2031 Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 23 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Development Site Location in Downtown Bozeman 2 Figure 2. Noon Hour Traffic Counts September 2016 6 Figure 3. Peak PM Hour Traffic Counts September 2016 7 Figure 4. Site Generated Traffic Volume Assignment 15 Figure 5. Noon Hour Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic Volumes 17 Figure 6. Peak PM Hour Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic Volumes 18 Figure 7. Peak PM Hour Year 2031 Traffic Volume Projections 22 Black Olive Apartments   Traffic Impact Study     Black Olive Apartments TIS page 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes a traffic impact study (TIS) conducted for the proposed Black Olive Apartments development project in downtown Bozeman. Marvin & Associates was retained by Home Base Developers to provide the TIS as required by the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). The primary purpose of this study was to address specific impacts of the new subdivision development on the existing street system within a defined area of influence and at the proposed site access. The TIS also provides recommendations regarding the mitigation of any identified impacts. Having reviewed the proposed Black Olive Apartments site plan, Marvin & Associates completed an extensive analysis of existing conditions, addressed trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment, and evaluated resulting intersection capacity and safety impacts, prior to making recommendations regarding impact mitigation. Methodologies and analysis procedures within this study employ the latest technology and nationally accepted standards for site development and transportation impact assessment. Because of the unique nature of this development and the CBD area in which it would be located, a number of assumptions and qualifications were required in trip generation estimates and traffic assignment analysis. Extensive research into the current literature provided a basis for many of the assumptions utilized within this study. Recommendations made within this report are based on accepted standards and the professional judgment of the author, with consideration of the traveling public’s interests as a primary objective. SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located within downtown Bozeman in the southeast corner of the Black Avenue and Olive Street intersection. The site is currently occupied by a two story office building containing approximately 9,700 square feet floor area with 22 on-site parking spaces on the east and south sides of the building. Land uses surrounding the development site include residential buildings south and east of the development lot and an office building, housing City of Bozeman offices, in the southwest corner of the intersection. An apartment complex is located in the northeast corner of Olive and Black while a parking lot and drive-thru mail boxes for the Main Bozeman post office is located in the northwest corner. The site location with respect to the Downtown Bozeman street system is illustrated in Figure 1. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Black Olive Apartments, as proposed, would be a five story building providing 56 living units on the top four stories with an enclosed 34 car parking garage on the ground level. A fitness center and 1,180 square foot coffee shop would also be located on the ground level. The fitness center would be used exclusively by the building residents, while the coffee shop would be open to the public. In addition to the 34 vehicle parking garage, three spaces on the west side of the building would be reserved for Car Sharing. Car Sharing would be an amenity provided only to the apartment residents. Vehicular access to the building’s garage would be provided from Olive Street, near the east end of the proposed building, approximately mid-block between Black and Bozeman Avenues. Additional parking for the building would be accommodated by on-street parking along Olive Street adjacent to the development property. Additional information pertinent to the development’s operation can be found within the Trip Generation section of this report. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets & Intersections Development of Black Olive Apartments could possibly impact several area intersections within the immediate area of the development. In addition, the BMC requires that all intersections between collector and arterial street within a one-half mile radius of the development be evaluated for impacts. and roadways. Therefore, the following intersections were evaluated within the scope of this TIS: Willson Avenue (minor arterial) & Main Street (arterial) Willson Avenue & W Babcock Street (minor arterial) Willson Avenue & Olive Street (local street) Babcock Street & Black Avenue (local street) Olive Street & Black Avenue Mendenhall Street (minor arterial) & Rouse Avenue (arterial) Main Street & Rouse Avenue Babcock Street & Rouse Avenue Church Avenue (collector) & Main Street Black Olive Apartments TIS page 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Local street intersections were included in the study because they are at locations that would have the highest potential for traffic impacts. Of the nine study intersections, only three are currently controlled by stop signs on the north-south minor streets. The remaining six intersections are all controlled by traffic signals. All of the traffic signals appear to operate with a background signal cycle of 120 seconds. All of the signals on Main Street operate in semi-actuated modes with side street detection while the two signals on Willson and the signal at Mendenhall appear to operate with fixed time intervals. Main Street is approximately 63’ wide through the study area and carries four traffic lanes with parking on both sides. The intersection of Main Street and Rouse is the only intersection with more than two signal phases, which includes a southbound left-turn interval to accommodate the high left- turn traffic volumes. The street width on Babcock varies substantially throughout the study corridor and ranges from 39’ to 62’ from back of curb to back of curb. Babcock carries two eastbound traffic lanes with parking on both sides. Street and curb offsets at intersections, and parking conditions, create sight distance limitations at some stop controlled intersections. Mendenhall Street, which is approximately 41’ wide at its intersection with Rouse, carries two westbound lanes of traffic with parking on both sides of the street. North-south streets within the study area range in width from 31’ to 38’. Parking is limited to one side of the street, in most cases, due to the narrow street sections. Within the core study area, sidewalks are approximately 10’ to 12’ wide and abut building walls, as is typical of most downtown environments. The mixture of vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, delivery truck loading and unloading operations, and high parking utilization uniquely identifies the area as the CBD. In this area, the balance between mobility and access is greatly skewed toward access and slower operating speeds are not only expected, but encouraged. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were determined by performing manual intersection counts at study area intersections during the noon and peak PM hour periods. The noon hour peak was used instead of the am hour period because electronic counters on numerous streets within the CBD area indicated that there is no definitive am peak hour, but there is a substantial peak during the noon hour which is typical of most urban CBD areas. Mio-vision traffic recorder cameras were used for all of the intersections on Main Street and at the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Mendenhall Street. Manual Counts were taken at all of the other study intersections. Due to some variation in count starting and ending periods at some of the intersections, mathematical adjustments were made using electronic count data collected during the same time period. Figure 2 summarizes the existing noon peak hour turning volumes and Figure 3 summaries the peak pm hour turning movement counts. High pedestrian crossing numbers can be seen at most study intersections. In addition to the peak hour intersection turning movement counts, electronic traffic counters were set on Black Avenue, south of Babcock Street, and on Olive Street, east of Black Avenue. Hourly traffic volume summaries for these counters can be found in Appendix A of this report. It was found that the peak hour for traffic on the street system usually occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 with approximately 9.5% of the average weekday traffic (AWT). The noon hour is the beginning of the afternoon peak with approximately 8.4% of AWT. The noon hour also has the highest combined pedestrian and bicycle volumes at most intersections during the day. Appendix A also contains bicycle traffic volumes for the noon and peak pm hour periods at each of the intersections. It was found that the two intersections on Black Avenue had the greatest number of bicyclists. At the Black & Olive intersection, 45 entered in the noon hour and 39 in the peak pm hour. At the Black & Babcock intersection, 43 entered in the noon hour and 57 in the peak pm hour. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Capacity Capacity calculations were conducted for the peak noon and pm hours at all of the study intersections (see Appendix B). Table 1, on the following page, summarizes the results of the capacity calculations for both the noon and pm peak hour periods. Measures in the table include control delay (seconds/vehicle), level of service (LOS), volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, and 95% queue length. The calculation results showed that all approach movements at these intersections, with exception of two street approaches, currently operate at or above an acceptable LOS “C” during both peak hour study periods. The westbound approach at the Intersection of Olive Street and Willson Avenue operates at LOS “D” with 44.1 seconds delay per vehicle in the peak pm hour. The northbound and southbound Rouse Avenue approaches to Babcock Street operate at LOS “D” with average delays slightly above 25 seconds per vehicle in the peak pm hour. The observed operations at all of the study intersections appear to support the theoretical levels of service and calculated vehicle queues shown in Table 1. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 9 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.3 13.3 30.4 31.5 32.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)65355 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.3 17.1 30.5 28.7 30.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.42 Queue Length (95%)77666 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.1 17.5 16.6 16.4 17.6LOSC BBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.23 Queue Length (95%)6 6256LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.1 17.5 18.1 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.27 Queue Length (95%)6 9336 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.7 30.8 13.8 12.9 LOS CCBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.29 0.34 0.26 Queue Length (95%)1465 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.8 44.1 16.5 13.2 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.73 0.51 0.29 Queue Length (95%)210115 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 7.4 12.4 11.9 LOS A A BB V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.27 Queue Length (95%)1012LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.5 14.9 16.8 LOS A A BC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 Queue Length (95%)1113 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)31.1 12.4 13.3 11.6 14.2LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.41 0.18 0.29 0.12 0.36 Queue Length (95%)72727 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.6 13.4 14.5 12.7 15.2 LOS BBBBB V/C Ratio 0.60 0.24 0.39 0.20 0.43 Queue Length (95%)93849 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)27.5 27.7 30.0 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.43 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)68734 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.4 29.3 33.1 17.5 15.6LOSCCCBB V/C Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.39 0.19 Queue Length (95%)9101054 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)12.9 13.5 30.7 27.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)6641LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.6 14.5 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.35 0.42 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)6852 One-Way Flow 13 TR LT 26.0 29.7 NA DD 0.25 0.51 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 26.0C 0.48 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour B Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B OVERALL 17.4B 0.32 Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.1B 0.41 Church Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour OVERALL 27.4C 0.61 Overall LOS B Overall LOS C OVERALL 15.5B SB Movement Group Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour Movement Group Movement Group Willson Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour Movement Group Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 1 17.2NAC 0.09 One-Way Flow TR Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour Movement Group Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Noon Hour Movement Group Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Noon Hour Table 1. Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Movement Group Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour Movement Group Willson Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour Intersection MOE EB WB NB One-Way Flow TR LT One-Way Flow TR LT 1 LT 12.5B 0.20 Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour Movement Group Intersection OVERALL 20.2C 0.27 OVERALL 20.1C C 0.59 OVERALL18.3B 0.33 OVERALL 20.9C 0.42 0.32 OVERALL 17.4B 0.32 OVERALL24.3 Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 17.2 19.3NACCC 0.19 0.3112 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 14.7 22.0 NA BCC 0.15 0.46 13 0.38 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 19.5B 0.49 Black Olive Apartments TIS page 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TRIP GENERATION Table 2 is a trip generation summary for the Black Olive Apartments development. Trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Report, 9th Edition were evaluated to determine the land use rates that would be most representative of the proposed development land uses. Within Table 2, trip generation rates and resulting trip projections for the average weekday and the am and pm peak hours for the development are noted. The proposed development, consisting of 56 apartment units and an 1,180 square foot coffee shop, would generate approximately 844 average weekday trips (AWT) with 93 in the am peak hour of the generator and 83 trips in the peak pm hour of adjacent street traffic. It should be noted that the ITE report does not provide a rate for the noon hour, but the peak am hour of the generator was used in the analysis of noon hour impacts. Thus, there is a possibility that noon hour impacts could be over-estimated within the study analysis. Table 2. Black Olive Apartments Development Trip Generation No. of Rate Total Total Total Units Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Enter Exit Rate Trips Enter Exit New Development Land Uses Code 220 Apartment 56 Apt. Unit 1 372 2 29 6 23 3 35 23 12 Code 936 Coffee/Donut Shop 1.18 1000 sf 4 472 5 64 33 31 6 48 24 24 844 933954 834736 Existing Land Use Trips Code 710 General Office Building 9.7 1000 sf 7 107 8 15 13 2 9 14 2 12 737 782652 694524 Trip Mode & Class Adjustments Pedestrian & Bike Modes Apartments 86 7 1 6 6 4 2 Coffee Shop 109 15 8 7 8 4 4 Internal Capture Within Structure 37 3 1 2 4 3 1 Passerby Traffic - Coffee Shop 130 18 9 9 14 7 7 362 431924 321814 375 35 7 28 37 27 10 1 - T = 6.65(X) 2 - T = 0.51 (20% enter) 3 - T = 0.62(X) (65% enter) 4 - T = 400(X) (Not Provided based on 10% PM) 5 - T = 54.21(X) (51% enter) 6 - T = 40.75(X) (50% enter) 7 - T = 11.03(X) 8 - T = 1.56(X) (88% enter) 9 - T = 1.49(X) (17% enter) Total Development Net Vehicular Trips = Peak AM HourAve. Weekday Peak PM Hour Total Potential Trips = Potential Trip Increase = Total Trip Mode and Class Reductions = Black Olive Apartments TIS page 11 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Since the proposed development will be replacing an existing office building, ITE Trip Generation Report rates were used to estimate the number of trips that could be associated with the existing office building. In this case, the office building would generate approximately 107 AWT with 15 in the am hour and 14 in the peak pm hour. Subtracting existing office building trips from the potential development trips results in the net potential trips of 737 AWT, with 78 trips in the am hour and 69 trips in the pm hour as shown in Table 2. Land use developments typically produce multi-modal trips that include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, in addition to other vehicular trips. When evaluating vehicular impacts, these non- vehicular and transit-related types of trips can often be considered negligible in terms of their potential impacts on site access points. The proposed development, being located within the CBD, which has numerous commercial, retail, entertainment, employment, and dining opportunities within a socially vibrant downtown area, would have enormous potential for alternate trip modes. That potential is magnified further by the relative proximity of the development to the CBD core. Estimates of alternate trip modes can be based on existing transportation modes in the immediate area and/or by examining trip distribution relative to pedestrian and bicycle attractions and mode travel times. For this study, mode split traffic data at two intersections adjacent to the site were collected and the relative proportions of trips by mode were calculated. It was determined that approximately 23% of AWT are pedestrians and bicycles with 30% in the am hour and 16% in the pm hour. This results in approximately 195 AWT (86 apartment trips and 109 coffee shop trips) with 22 in the am hour and 14 in the pm hour, as shown in Table 2. Trip generation potential can be further refined by determining the number of “new” external trips that would appear, as vehicular traffic, at development access points. It is common for developments containing multiple land uses and/or complementary facilities to have trip origins and destinations within the development site boundaries. These trips are part of the total trip generation number, but do not have origins or destinations external to the development site, and as such, do not have an impact on the traffic network external to the development. These types of trips are known as “Internal Capture Trips” (ICT). Because there would be a mix of residential developments and also employees at the coffee shop and the fitness center there is a definite possibility that ICT trips could occur within Black Olive Apartments TIS page 12 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY the confines of the building. The ITE Trip Generation Report provides data and methods to estimate ICT that were used for this study. The ICT methodology resulted in approximately 10% of the residential trips being ICT trips or approximately 37 AWT trips with 3 in the am hour and 4 in the pm hour. Once the number of external vehicle trips is determined, they can be further categorized as primary purpose, diverted link, or passerby purpose trips. Primary purpose trips are trips for which the development is a primary destination from any particular origin. Diverted link trips are trips made to a development as a secondary destination that must be diverted from a path between the origin and primary destination. Passerby trips are also trips made to a development as a secondary destination, but without a diversion from the primary trip path (i.e., a stop on the way home from work). Passerby trips do not represent “new” trips added to the adjacent street system. Thus, site generated passerby trips must be considered as new external trips (movements) at the site approach or approaches, but do not appear as new trips on the adjacent street system. For this development, passerby trips for vehicles could be applied to the coffee shop portion of the development. The ITE report does not have an extensive data base on coffee shops and passerby estimates are sketchy at best. Thus, an extensive literature search was conducted to quantify passerby estimates. From the number of studies accessed, it appeared that the range of passerby trips was between 40% and 89%. In an effort to be conservative, 40% of the external vehicular trips were considered to be passerby trips. This resulted in approximately 130 passerby AWT, with 18 in the am hour and 14 in the pm hour as shown in Table 2. Table 2 presents the final net number of vehicular trips that would be added to the street system within the CBD area of Bozeman. Subtracting the pedestrian and bicycle mode trips, the internal capture trips, and the passerby trips from the potential trip increase at this site results in 375 AWT, with 35 trips in the am (noon) hour and 37 in the pm hour. It should also be noted that because of parking conditions in the CBD area, the passerby trips would actually become pedestrian trips as persons accessing the coffee shop make their way from adjacent parking lots and on-street parking areas. This, would result in vehicle trips to the development site being less than shown in Table 1. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 13 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY One aspect of the site development that has not been quantified is the reduction in vehicular trips that could result from the Car Sharing feature being employed at this site. Three shared vehicles will be made available to the residents of the building. The shared vehicles have the potential to reduce vehicular trips even further. Car sharing is a relatively new phenomenon that has manifested itself by the emergence of a number of new on-line companies that have a vast number of subscribers in the United States, Canada, and Europe. A literature research revealed a number of non-technical studies touting the benefits of Car Sharing. One technical study for Car Sharing within major west coast cities, in particular Vancouver, BC indicated that the approximate reduction in vehicular trips associated with each shared car ranged from 3 to 11 trips. Since data for the development concept being proposed is not available, no reduction in vehicular trips could be applied, but the potential for far fewer vehicular trips than estimated in this study is a very real possibility. TRIP DISTRIBUTION There are various methods available for determining the directional distribution of trips to and from site developments. For developments within a large urbanized area, the TIS is best accomplished through the creation of a computerized transportation model of the urban street system, which includes the proposed development changes. When the creation of a model is not feasible, realistic estimates can be made by determining the distribution of existing traffic volumes on the surrounding street system. The existing distribution can then be applied to newly generated trips, with adjustments made based upon the likely trip origins and destinations associated with the particular development land use or uses. For the Black Olive Apartments development, a basic area of influence model was used. With potential for trip origins and destinations to be made throughout Bozeman and the entire regional area. Large polygon areas were plotted on aerial photos of the Bozeman urban area. The polygon boundaries were defined by direction of access on the entire street system. One of the polygons encompassed an area surrounding the development that represented prime trip attraction for bicycle and pedestrian travel modes. The boundaries of that polygon were based on a 1,400-foot radius, which is the maximum distance that pedestrians will walk, instead of using a motorized vehicle. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 14 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Approximate population and commercial densities were estimated within each of the polygon areas. The percentage densities of each polygon was calculated based on the entire study area and applied to street links accessing the site. A Gravity Equation using the inverse square of the travel time to the center of each polygon was applied to the densities and the relative percentage attraction was calculated. It was determined that approximately 50% of the trips would be attracted to the pedestrian/bicycle polygon. When applied to trip generation attributed to the residential portion of the development, it resulted in approximately 30% of total development trips which was approximately the same as the trip generation assumptions for pedestrian and bicycle modes. Distribution vehicular trips were then calculated by using the remaining polygons using the gravity model. The following vehicular trip distribution percentages were calculated: o North via Rouse Avenue 21% o Southwest via Willson Avenue 25% o West via Olive Street & Babcock Street 4% o West via Main Street 35% o East via Main Street 15% TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The assignment of site traffic to the street system and site access points is dependent upon several factors. Two such factors are external directional distribution and localized operational site conditions such as one-way streets and intersection delays. Directional distribution proportions were determined in the trip distribution analysis to provide access traffic demand estimates. The distribution/assignment estimates represent traffic movements to and from the site that would occur depending on the directions of arrival or departure relative to the chosen access point. The combined calculation of demand and least time accessibility were used to estimate likely movement volumes at each individual intersection. Turning movements at each access point were then calculated through the application of trip distribution to development vehicular trip generation estimates. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 15 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 16 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 4 presents results of the vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume assignment analysis for average weekday traffic (AWT) and peak noon and pm hour subdivision development conditions. AWT volumes shown in Figure 4 indicate that Black Avenue north of Babcock Street would have the highest site generated traffic volumes at approximately 206 AWT. Site pedestrian traffic would be mostly concentrated at the intersections of Olive Street and Babcock Street with Black Avenue, while pedestrians would greatly disperse onto other streets at key intersections farther from the site. IMPACTS Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volume impacts for site developments can often be quantified by determining the change in traffic volumes expected at various points within the surrounding network of roads and streets. Site traffic assignments give an indication of what volume of traffic could potentially be added to the street system during the average weekday (AWT). Yet in almost all cases, it is very difficult to determine AWT on any section of street to within 10% accuracy. Thus, impact analyses on streets with relative percentage increases less than 10% are not normally considered to be significant. In this case, the highest AWT impact on any street would be on Black Avenue north of Black Avenue where site generated traffic would be approximately 3% of existing traffic. While the percent change in AWT can be used to identify general locations where impacts could be significant, it is the volume changes during peak traffic flow periods that provide specific information on the type and location of impacts that could potentially occur. Figures 5 and 6 present the calculated existing plus site traffic volumes that would be associated with development of Black Olive Apartments. The intersection volumes shown in Figures 5 and 6 are used in capacity calculations to determine whether the additional traffic would have noticeable impacts on each intersection’s efficiency. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 17 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 18 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 19 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Capacity Table 3 presents capacity analysis results for potentially impacted intersections using existing plus development generated peak noon and pm hour traffic volumes. All of the potentially impacted intersections would remain at or above an acceptable LOS “C” except for the two intersection that have movements that operate at LOS “D”. In comparing Table 3 to Table 1, it can be seen that only minor changes in delay and v/c ratios would occur. Some of the vehicle queues would change with single vehicles increases in some lanes and single vehicle decreases in others. None of the intersections would have an overall intersection LOS less than “C”. Table 3 also presents the capacity results for the developments garage access midblock on Olive Street. The LOS for the garage access would be “B” with no more than a one vehicle queue on any approach. Safety In terms of accident potential at the study accesses and intersections, any increase in traffic would result in a commensurate increase in exposure, which has the potential to result in a higher number of total accidents at area intersections. However, it is unlikely that accident and/or severity rates would increase as a result of the additional demand created by site-generated traffic. . Black Olive Apartments TIS page 20 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.3 13.4 30.4 31.5 32.0LOSB BCCC V/C Ratio 0.32 0.33 0.22 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)6 5354 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.4 17.2 30.5 28.7 30.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.37 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.42 Queue Length (95%)5 8566LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.1 17.5 16.6 16.4 17.6LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.23 Queue Length (95%)66256 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.1 17.5 18.1 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.27 Queue Length (95%)69336LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.7 31.1 13.8 12.9LOSCCBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.31 0.34 0.26 Queue Length (95%)1565 LTR LTR LTR LTRControl Delay (s/veh)27.8 44.6 16.7 13.2 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.52 0.29 Queue Length (95%)210105 Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 7.5 13.4 12.7 LOS A A BB V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.29 Queue Length (95%)1012LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 7.6 16.2 18.6LOSAACC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 Queue Length (95%)1113 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)31.1 12.4 13.3 11.6 14.2 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.41 0.18 0.30 0.12 0.36 Queue Length (95%)72617LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.6 13.5 14.6 12.8 15.3LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.60 0.25 0.40 0.20 0.44 Queue Length (95%)93839 LTR LTR LTR L TRControl Delay (s/veh)27.5 27.7 30.1 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.44 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)69734 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.4 29.3 33.2 17.6 15.7 LOS CCCBBV/C Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.60 0.39 0.20 Queue Length (95%)10 10 9 4 4 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)12.9 13.5 30.7 27.5LOSBBCC V/C Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)6741 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.6 14.7 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)6752LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 10.5LOSAB V/C Ratio 0.15 0.03 Queue Length (95%)01 LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 11.9 LOS A B V/C Ratio 0.24 0.02 Queue Length (95%)01 Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Movement Group Overall LOS Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Movement Group Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.1B 0.42 14Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 15.5B 0.32 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour 26.5 32.7NA D D C 0.25 0.55 Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Noon Hour 17.5 13.0NA C B B 0.09 0.2111 Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 27.4C 0.61 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 26.1C 0.49 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 19.5B 0.50 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Noon Hour 17.4B 0.38 13 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B Black Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour B Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour C Movement Group Overall LOS 15.2 24.3NA C C 0.17 0.51 Willson Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 18.3B 0.33 One-Way Flow TR LTMovement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 17.9 19.9 NA C C C Table 3. Existing Plus Peak Hour Site Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Movement Group OVERALL 0.25 0.33 12 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 24.6C 0.60 Willson Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour 17.7B 0.33 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 20.1C 0.32 Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 20.2C 0.27 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 21.0C 0.42 Movement Group OVERALL Black Olive Apartments TIS page 21 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Future Traffic Volumes Because the development site is located near the center of the CBD which has fully occupied for many decades, the only significant changes in traffic would occur due to redevelopment of existing properties, increased densities, and land use changes. In 2003 and 2014, Marvin & Associates prepared a TIS for the Arts at City Center project in Downtown Bozeman. That study included extensive traffic counts at almost all downtown intersections as well and electronic counts on key streets. Eight of the nine intersections counts taken in 2016 were compared to year 2013 counts at the same intersections and it was determined that the net traffic growth over the past 13 years was approximately 1%, which is incredible considering all of the changes that have occurred in the CBD in the past 13 years. It appears that some of the growth has been absorbed by increases in pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Given these facts, it appears that future traffic projections based on historic records would be minimal. An assumption was made that an increase of 5% over the next 15-year period would not be unreasonable considering the past trends. Therefore, a 5% increase was applied to the peak pm hour traffic conditions for analysis of future (year 20131) conditions. Figure 7 presents the peak pm hour year 2031 traffic projections at the nine study intersections and at the development’s garage access on Olive Street. Future projections for the year 2031 peak noon hour were not completed since the peak pm hour existing plus site traffic conditions were the only conditions that resulted in any traffic movements operating at less than LOS “C”. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 22 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 23 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Future Capacity Table 4 presents a summary of capacity calculations for future (year 2301) conditions based on the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7. In comparing Table 4 results to Table 3, it can be seen that same intersection approaches at Olive & Willson and at Rouse and Babcock would still be at a LOS less than “C”, except that the southbound approach to Babcock would be at LOS “E”. In addition, the southbound approach on Black Avenue at Babcock Street would operate at LOS “D” with 31.1 seconds of delay per vehicle. With respect to overall intersection LOS, none of the intersections would have a LOS less than “C”. The development garage access would still operate at LOS B” in the year 2031. LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.9 17.9 32.3 29.4 31.2 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.40 0.47 0.44 0.39 0.47 Queue Length (95%)7 8677 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.3 19.5 17.3 18.1 18.4 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.33 0.37 0.21 0.23 0.30 Queue Length (95%)6 11336 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.9 48.8 17.5 13.5 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.10 0.80 0.56 0.31 Queue Length (95%)211115 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 7.6 17.5 23.1 LOS AACC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.60 Queue Length (95%)1114 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)33.8 14.3 16.3 14.4 15.5 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.62 0.25 0.44 0.25 0.38 Queue Length (95%)11 39 57 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)29.8 30.2 34.7 18.0 15.8 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.43 0.21 Queue Length (95%)8101055 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)14.0 15.4 33.6 28.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.38 0.48 0.42 0.14 Queue Length (95%)7962 LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 12.4 LOS AB V/C Ratio 0.27 0.02 Queue Length (95%)01 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 21.8C 0.47 Table 4. Year 2031 Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 26.2C 0.65 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 20.6C 0.35 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 16.4 31.1 NA C D C 0.20 0.61 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B 14 Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 28.4C 0.66 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 20.4B 0.51 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour 29.8 41.7 NA D E C 0.30 0.64 Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.6B 0.46 24 Movement Group Overall LOS Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Black Olive Apartments TIS page 24 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic assignments, and capacity calculations show that the development of Black Olive Apartments would not have any appreciable impacts on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. Analysis of downtown intersections for year 2031 conditions indicate that none of the intersections would operate at less than an overall LOS “C”. From our analysis it appears that the development will provide an environment for traffic reduction commensurate with the current trends in the downtown area. The commercial facilities with the residential building and the Car Sharing concept would provide the atmosphere which would reduce motorized vehicular impacts appreciably. It is recommended that garage access be designed to allow sufficient sight distance on Olive Street similar to requirements for mid-block alley approaches. APPENDIX A Traffic Count Volumes Hour9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % ofBeginThursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday Thursday WednesdayWeekday Weekday Thursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday06 6 0.7% 19 19 0.8% 0 25 25 0.8%15 5 0.6% 25 25 1.0% 0 30 30 0.9%21 1 0.1% 15 15 0.6% 0 16 16 0.5%30 0 0.0% 3 3 0.1% 0 3 3 0.1%41 1 0.1% 2 2 0.1% 0 3 3 0.1%50 0 0.0% 1 1 0.0% 0 1 1 0.0%66 6 0.7% 21 21 0.9% 0 27 27 0.8%725 25 3.0% 68 68 2.8% 0 93 93 2.8%860 60 7.3% 121 121 4.9% 0 181 181 5.5%951 51 6.2% 119 119 4.8% 0 170 170 5.2%1041 41 5.0% 131 131 5.3% 0 172 172 5.2%1147 47 5.7% 156 156 6.4% 0 203 203 6.2%1260 60 7.3% 190 190 7.7% 0 250 250 7.6%1366 66 8.0% 208 208 8.5% 0 274 274 8.4%1455 71 63 7.6% 179 195 187 7.6% 234 266 250 7.6%1562 65 64 7.7% 193 201 197 8.0% 255 266 261 7.9%1685 77 81 9.8% 197 212 205 8.3% 282 289 286 8.7%17106 75 91 11.0% 226 234 230 9.4% 332 309 321 9.8%1854 64 59 7.2% 170 171 171 6.9% 224 235 230 7.0%1931 33 32 3.9% 115 136 126 5.1% 146 169 158 4.8%2017 25 21 2.5% 84 102 93 3.8% 101 127 114 3.5%2118 17 18 2.1% 64 77 71 2.9% 82 94 88 2.7%2211 20 16 1.9% 57 74 66 2.7% 68 94 81 2.5%2310 14 12 1.5% 29 37 33 1.3% 39 51 45 1.4%00000Total449 830 824 100.0% 1314 2518 2456 100.0% 1763 3348 3280 100.0%EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BOTH DIRECTIONSOLIVE STREET EAST OF BLACK AVENUE0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%01234567891011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations Hour9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % ofBeginThursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday Thursday WednesdayWeekday Weekday Thursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday06 6 0.4% 2 2 0.3% 0 8 8 0.4%17 7 0.5% 2 2 0.3% 0 9 9 0.4%23 3 0.2% 2 2 0.3% 0 5 5 0.2%31 1 0.1% 1 1 0.1% 0 2 2 0.1%43 3 0.2% 1 1 0.1% 0 4 4 0.2%54 4 0.3% 4 4 0.5% 0 8 8 0.4%614 14 1.0% 15 15 1.9% 0 29 29 1.3%752 52 3.7% 26 26 3.3% 0 78 78 3.5%861 61 4.3% 47 47 6.0% 0 108 108 4.9%986 86 6.0% 41 41 5.2% 0 127 127 5.7%1089 89 6.3% 65 65 8.2% 0 154 154 7.0%11107 107 7.5% 63 63 8.0% 0 170 170 7.7%12126 126 8.9% 58 58 7.4% 0 184 184 8.3%13100 100 7.0% 70 70 8.9% 0 170 170 7.7%14114 114 8.0% 62 62 7.9% 0 176 176 8.0%15179 110 145 10.2% 52 68 60 7.6% 231 178 205 9.3%16158 104 131 9.2% 61 60 61 7.7% 219 164 192 8.7%17165 103 134 9.4% 64 76 70 8.9% 229 179 204 9.2%1878 65 72 5.0% 49 54 52 6.5% 127 119 123 5.6%1947 65 56 3.9% 36 28 32 4.1% 83 93 88 4.0%2041 56 49 3.4% 22 23 23 2.9% 63 79 71 3.2%2122 39 31 2.1% 16 13 15 1.8% 38 52 45 2.0%2210 30 20 1.4% 13 12 13 1.6% 23 42 33 1.5%239 17 13 0.9% 3 8 6 0.7% 12 25 19 0.8%400000Total709 1366 1422 100.0% 316 801 788 100.0% 1025 2163 2210 100.0%SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND BOTH DIRECTIONSBLACK AVENUE SOUTH OF BABCOCK STREET0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%01234567891011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations 2016 EXISTING NOON HOUR BIKE COUNTS000MENDENHALL STREET00000 0000 0000 000000000020000 20000000 02000 0010 01 10 0111 0110 1143 1410 0100 00 30 03000000 0000000 20002031100 0 11 20 6 4000 0101 06000 00 40 00 02 0022 02106 0986 0620 02 60 09 80 06000 4202 0200 0 10 26 6 2036810 262 8 18 8020 49500 04 154 21364 08245 102562 44 90 112080 1228 8 10 516 15CHURCH AVEWillson & Olive Black & OliveWILLSON AVE BLACK AVE ROUSE AVEChurch & MainBABCOCK STREETWillson & Babcock Black & Babcock Rouse & BabcockRouse & MainRouse & MendenhallOLIVE STREETMAIN STREETWillson & Main 2016 EXISTING PM HOUR BIKE COUNTS000MENDENHALL STREET00010 0132 1320 020000006225102 110500 00 01000 0000 00 50 0500 0000 0072 5700 0000 00 20 020100 20 0105102 1162244362 2 19 24 3 3011 0154 1 1101 00 08 00 31 1331 03189 01761 1631 03 181 017 31 13011 0164 1 112 2 16 20 3 3436610 20010 713000 14214 1 1 17 5 1 0 330 12 14 33 18 11 2 1816 3 2 16 13 1 1 15084 2122512 61617 22CHURCH AVEWillson & Olive Black & OliveWILLSON AVE BLACK AVE ROUSE AVEChurch & MainBABCOCK STREETWillson & Babcock Black & Babcock Rouse & BabcockRouse & MainRouse & MendenhallOLIVE STREETMAIN STREETWillson & Main APPENDIX B-1 Existing Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Existing R MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 27 0.97 0 442 0.97 1 79 0.97 0 38 0.97 0 474 0.97 1 21 0.97 0 72 0.97 0 125 0.97 0 42 0.97 0 21 0.97 0 119 0.97 0 29 0.97 0 20 73 0 0 --- 5 5 71 0 0 --- 5 5 110 0 0 --- 5 5 186 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1720 0.185 0.583 LTR 0.317 13.3 B 13.3 B WB * LTR 1699 0.187 0.583 LTR 0.320 13.3 B 13.3 B NB L 331 0.075 0.333 L 0.224 30.4 C 31.1 C TR 522 0.107 0.333 TR 0.320 31.5 C SB * LTR 498 0.114 0.333 LTR 0.341 32.0 C 32.0 C Intersection: Delay = 18.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R MarvinNoon Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 14.3 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 WB LTR 4 / 5 15.8 0.0 All 15.8 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 2.7 0.0 TR 3 / 5 11.6 0.0 All 9.1 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 Intersect. 12.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 27 442 79 38 474 21 72 125 42 21 119 29 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 20 0.95 0 457 0.95 1 100 0.95 0 49 0.95 0 534 0.95 1 22 0.95 0 130 0.95 0 166 0.95 0 40 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 187 0.95 0 23 0.95 0 20 60 0 0 --- 5 5 25 0 0 --- 5 5 86 0 0 --- 5 5 109 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 65.0 3.5 1.5 45.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1613 0.197 0.542 LTR 0.363 16.3 B 16.3 B WB * LTR 1529 0.224 0.542 LTR 0.413 17.1 B 17.1 B NB L 357 0.144 0.375 L 0.384 30.5 C 29.4 C TR 599 0.133 0.375 TR 0.354 28.7 C SB * LTR 579 0.157 0.375 LTR 0.420 30.0 C 30.0 C Intersection: Delay = 20.9sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.42 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 7 14.0 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 7 13.0 0.0 All 13.0 0.0 NB L 4 / 6 2.8 0.0 TR 3 / 6 14.6 0.0 All 9.8 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 6 9.5 0.0 All 9.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 20 457 100 49 534 22 130 166 40 26 187 23 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 23 0.96 1 380 0.96 1 54 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 208 0.96 1 189 0.96 0 65 0.96 0 210 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 10 6 0 0 --- --- 0 33 0 0 --- --- 75 30 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1456 0.133 0.417 LTR 0.320 24.1 C 24.1 C NB T 941 0.115 0.500 T 0.231 17.5 B 17.2 B R 783 0.076 0.500 R 0.152 16.6 B SB L 553 0.062 0.500 L 0.123 16.4 B 17.3 B * T 941 0.116 0.500 T 0.233 17.6 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.27 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.25SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 11.2 0.0 All 11.2 0.0 NB T 4 / 6 14.9 0.0 R 1 / 2 15.5 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 SB L 1 / 5 4.5 0.0 T 4 / 6 12.5 0.0 All 11.1 0.0 Intersect. 12.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 23 380 54 208 189 65 210 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 32 0.95 1 345 0.95 1 51 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 299 0.95 1 217 0.95 0 85 0.95 0 242 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 24 0 0 --- --- 75 32 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1459 0.123 0.417 LTR 0.295 23.8 C 23.8 C NB * T 941 0.167 0.500 T 0.335 19.0 B 18.4 B R 782 0.095 0.500 R 0.191 17.1 B SB L 466 0.096 0.500 L 0.191 17.5 B 17.9 B T 941 0.136 0.500 T 0.271 18.1 B Intersection: Delay = 20.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 11.5 0.0 All 11.5 0.0 NB T 6 / 9 13.4 0.0 R 2 / 3 15.2 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 5.2 0.0 T 4 / 6 14.0 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 345 51 299 217 85 242 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 7 0.92 0 32 0.92 0 6 0.92 0 52 0.92 0 63 0.92 0 47 0.92 0 19 0.92 0 297 0.92 1 11 0.92 0 10 0.92 0 230 0.92 1 16 0.92 0 0 3 0 0 --- --- 20 6 0 0 --- --- 0 3 0 0 --- --- 0 7 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 596 0.028 0.333 LTR 0.084 27.7 C 27.7 C WB * LTR 541 0.095 0.333 LTR 0.285 30.8 C 30.8 C NB * LTR 1063 0.195 0.583 LTR 0.335 13.8 B 13.8 B SB LTR 1070 0.152 0.583 LTR 0.260 12.9 B 12.9 B Intersection: Delay = 17.4sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 1 9.9 0.0 All 9.9 0.0 WB LTR 4 / 4 11.2 0.0 All 11.2 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 13.6 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 14.4 0.0 All 14.4 0.0 Intersect. 13.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 7 32 6 52 63 47 19 297 11 10 230 16 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 5 0.91 0 33 0.91 0 10 0.91 0 156 0.91 0 143 0.91 0 69 0.91 0 31 0.91 0 437 0.91 1 17 0.91 0 5 0.91 0 265 0.91 1 14 0.91 0 0 2 0 0 --- --- 25 6 0 0 --- --- 0 18 0 0 --- --- 0 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 594 0.029 0.333 LTR 0.088 27.8 C 27.8 C WB * LTR 515 0.244 0.333 LTR 0.730 44.1 D 44.1 D NB * LTR 1051 0.296 0.583 LTR 0.507 16.5 B 16.5 B SB LTR 1083 0.168 0.583 LTR 0.287 13.2 B 13.2 B Intersection: Delay = 24.3sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.59 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 2 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 8.3 0.0 All 8.3 0.0 NB LTR 9 / 11 11.5 0.0 All 11.5 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 15.4 0.0 All 15.4 0.0 Intersect. 10.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 33 10 156 143 69 31 437 17 5 265 14 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)59 500 57 49 15 16 88 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)340 70 115 Capacity 365 366 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.31 95% Queue Length 0.7 1.3 Control Delay (s/veh)17.2 19.3 Level of Service (LOS)C C Approach Delay (s/veh)17.2 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:53:27 PM Black Babcock Noon Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)46 548 55 21 38 43 116 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)356 65 177 Capacity 438 385 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.46 95% Queue Length 0.5 2.3 Control Delay (s/veh)14.7 22.0 Level of Service (LOS)B C Approach Delay (s/veh)14.7 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:54:34 PM Black Babcock PM Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)25 57 3 10 158 25 11 20 10 6 32 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)27 11 45 191 Capacity 1334 1507 531 715 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.27 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 7.4 12.4 11.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.4 0.4 12.4 11.9 Approach LOS B B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:48:41 PM Black Olive Noon Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)20 96 3 23 236 33 6 38 9 19 63 138 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)23 26 61 253 Capacity 1212 1463 424 555 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.4 Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.5 14.9 16.8 Level of Service (LOS)A A B C Approach Delay (s/veh)1.5 0.7 14.9 16.8 Approach LOS B C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:44:11 PM Black Olive PM Exist.xtw HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 5 0.96 1 194 0.96 1 63 0.96 1 91 0.96 1 299 0.96 1 10 0.96 1 64 0.96 1 263 0.96 1 135 0.96 1 0 11 0 0 --- --- 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 10 0 0 --- --- 35 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 608 0.138 0.333 LTR 0.414 31.1 C 31.1 C NB L 519 0.107 0.583 L 0.183 12.4 B 13.1 B TR 1091 0.172 0.583 TR 0.294 13.3 B SB L 566 0.069 0.583 L 0.118 11.6 B 13.8 B * TR 1048 0.210 0.583 TR 0.361 14.2 B Intersection: Delay = 17.4sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.38 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.35SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 6 / 7 10.2 0.0 All 10.2 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 4.1 0.0 TR 4 / 7 16.4 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 8.2 0.0 TR 5 / 7 15.6 0.0 All 14.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.2 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 194 63 91 299 10 64 263 135 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 12 0.89 1 210 0.89 1 126 0.89 1 98 0.89 1 365 0.89 1 14 0.89 1 85 0.89 1 330 0.89 1 122 0.89 1 0 22 0 0 --- --- 30 17 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 45 19 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 591 0.201 0.333 LTR 0.604 34.6 C 34.6 C NB L 451 0.142 0.583 L 0.244 13.4 B 14.3 B TR 1090 0.228 0.583 TR 0.391 14.5 B SB L 478 0.117 0.583 L 0.201 12.7 B 14.8 B * TR 1062 0.252 0.583 TR 0.431 15.2 B Intersection: Delay = 19.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.49 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.45SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 8 / 9 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 6.3 0.0 TR 6 / 8 16.3 0.0 All 15.1 0.0 SB L 2 / 4 4.7 0.0 TR 7 / 9 15.6 0.0 All 13.7 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 12 210 126 98 365 14 85 330 122 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 66 0.94 1 326 0.94 1 28 0.94 0 10 0.94 0 445 0.94 1 153 0.94 1 39 0.94 0 179 0.94 1 28 0.94 1 150 0.94 1 53 0.94 0 57 0.94 1 5 80 0 0 --- --- 40 35 0 0 --- --- 5 155 0 0 --- --- 15 88 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1012 0.174 0.400 LTR 0.436 27.5 C 27.5 C WB * LTR 1298 0.186 0.400 LTR 0.465 27.7 C 27.7 C NB * LTR 598 0.149 0.350 LTR 0.426 30.0 C 30.0 C SB Lper 334 0.000 0.392 15.7 B * Lpro 238 0.090 0.133 L 0.280 16.2 B TR 881 0.059 0.517 TR 0.115 14.9 B Intersection: Delay = 26.0sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.48 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.42SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 8 9.6 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 NB LTR 6 / 7 8.4 0.0 All 8.4 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 7.1 0.0 TR 2 / 4 18.0 0.0 All 14.5 0.0 Intersect. 9.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 66 326 28 10 445 153 39 179 28 150 53 57 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 49 0.87 1 371 0.87 1 27 0.87 0 8 0.87 0 486 0.87 1 169 0.87 1 37 0.87 0 256 0.87 1 27 0.87 1 171 0.87 1 103 0.87 0 65 0.87 1 5 75 0 0 --- --- 40 19 0 0 --- --- 5 100 0 0 --- --- 15 72 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1046 0.194 0.400 LTR 0.485 28.4 C 28.4 C WB * LTR 1306 0.219 0.400 LTR 0.548 29.3 C 29.3 C NB * LTR 609 0.208 0.350 LTR 0.594 33.1 C 33.1 C SB Lper 273 0.000 0.392 16.6 B * Lpro 238 0.110 0.133 L 0.386 17.5 B TR 918 0.099 0.517 TR 0.191 15.6 B Intersection: Delay = 27.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.61 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 9 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 10 8.4 0.0 All 8.4 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 5.5 0.0 TR 2 / 4 19.0 0.0 All 13.9 0.0 Intersect. 9.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 49 371 27 8 486 169 37 256 27 171 103 65 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)211 282 17 20 4 55 49 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)405 28 119 Capacity 323 598 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 95% Queue Length 0.3 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh)17.2 12.5 Level of Service (LOS)C B Approach Delay (s/veh)17.2 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:41:02 PM Rouse Babcock Noon Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)272 384 16 42 8 40 88 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)534 57 147 Capacity 227 289 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.51 95% Queue Length 1.0 2.7 Control Delay (s/veh)26.0 29.7 Level of Service (LOS)D D Approach Delay (s/veh)26.0 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:44:21 PM Rouse Babcock PM Exist.xtw HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 21 0.93 0 445 0.93 1 39 0.93 0 28 0.93 0 540 0.93 1 29 0.93 0 48 0.93 0 55 0.93 0 38 0.93 0 6 0.93 0 12 0.93 0 17 0.93 0 5 24 0 0 --- --- 0 16 0 0 --- --- 5 72 0 0 --- --- 0 59 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1874 0.167 0.583 LTR 0.287 12.9 B 12.9 B WB * LTR 1876 0.200 0.583 LTR 0.342 13.5 B 13.5 B NB * LTR 527 0.092 0.333 LTR 0.277 30.7 C 30.7 C SB LTR 552 0.022 0.333 LTR 0.067 27.5 C 27.5 C Intersection: Delay = 15.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 4 / 6 15.3 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 6 13.1 0.0 All 13.1 0.0 NB LTR 3 / 4 12.8 0.0 All 12.8 0.0 SB LTR 1 / 1 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 21 445 39 28 540 29 48 55 38 6 12 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 29 0.90 0 485 0.90 1 56 0.90 0 46 0.90 0 596 0.90 1 34 0.90 0 67 0.90 0 75 0.90 0 55 0.90 0 18 0.90 0 28 0.90 0 15 0.90 0 5 26 0 0 --- --- 5 11 0 0 --- --- 10 46 0 0 --- --- 0 42 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1811 0.202 0.583 LTR 0.347 13.6 B 13.6 B WB * LTR 1775 0.245 0.583 LTR 0.420 14.5 B 14.5 B NB * LTR 520 0.133 0.333 LTR 0.398 33.0 C 33.0 C SB LTR 538 0.042 0.333 LTR 0.126 28.3 C 28.3 C Intersection: Delay = 17.1sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.41 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 15.0 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 8 14.0 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 NB LTR 4 / 5 10.6 0.0 All 10.6 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 29 485 56 46 596 34 67 75 55 18 28 15 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 APPENDIX B – 2 Existing Plus Site Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site TrafficR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 27 0.97 0 444 0.97 1 79 0.97 0 38 0.97 0 484 0.97 1 21 0.97 0 72 0.97 0 125 0.97 0 42 0.97 0 21 0.97 0 119 0.97 0 29 0.97 0 20 73 0 0 --- 5 5 71 0 0 --- 5 5 110 0 0 --- 5 5 186 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1719 0.186 0.583 LTR 0.318 13.3 B 13.3 B WB * LTR 1701 0.190 0.583 LTR 0.326 13.4 B 13.4 B NB L 331 0.075 0.333 L 0.224 30.4 C 31.1 C TR 522 0.107 0.333 TR 0.320 31.5 C SB * LTR 498 0.114 0.333 LTR 0.341 32.0 C 32.0 C Intersection: Delay = 18.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site TrafficR MarvinNoon Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 15.4 0.0 All 15.4 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 5 14.8 0.0 All 14.8 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 2.7 0.0 TR 3 / 5 11.4 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 4 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 Intersect. 12.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 27 444 79 38 484 21 72 125 42 21 119 29 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 20 0.95 0 466 0.95 1 100 0.95 0 49 0.95 0 544 0.95 1 22 0.95 0 130 0.95 0 166 0.95 0 40 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 187 0.95 0 23 0.95 0 20 60 0 0 --- 5 5 25 0 0 --- 5 5 86 0 0 --- 5 5 109 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 65.0 3.5 1.5 45.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1613 0.200 0.542 LTR 0.369 16.4 B 16.4 B WB * LTR 1529 0.228 0.542 LTR 0.421 17.2 B 17.2 B NB L 357 0.144 0.375 L 0.384 30.5 C 29.4 C TR 599 0.133 0.375 TR 0.354 28.7 C SB * LTR 579 0.157 0.375 LTR 0.420 30.0 C 30.0 C Intersection: Delay = 21.0sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.42 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.39SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 5 15.1 0.0 All 15.1 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 8 12.2 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 NB L 4 / 5 2.9 0.0 TR 3 / 6 13.7 0.0 All 9.5 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 6 9.7 0.0 All 9.7 0.0 Intersect. 11.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 20 466 100 49 544 22 130 166 40 26 187 23 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 23 0.96 1 380 0.96 1 54 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 208 0.96 1 189 0.96 0 65 0.96 0 210 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 10 6 0 0 --- --- 0 33 0 0 --- --- 75 30 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1456 0.133 0.417 LTR 0.320 24.1 C 24.1 C NB T 941 0.115 0.500 T 0.231 17.5 B 17.2 B R 783 0.076 0.500 R 0.152 16.6 B SB L 553 0.062 0.500 L 0.123 16.4 B 17.3 B * T 941 0.116 0.500 T 0.233 17.6 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.27 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.25SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 11.2 0.0 All 11.2 0.0 NB T 4 / 6 14.9 0.0 R 1 / 2 15.5 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 SB L 1 / 5 4.5 0.0 T 4 / 6 12.5 0.0 All 11.1 0.0 Intersect. 12.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 23 380 54 208 189 65 210 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 32 0.95 1 346 0.95 1 51 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 299 0.95 1 217 0.95 0 85 0.95 0 242 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 24 0 0 --- --- 75 32 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1459 0.123 0.417 LTR 0.295 23.8 C 23.8 C NB * T 941 0.167 0.500 T 0.335 19.0 B 18.4 B R 782 0.095 0.500 R 0.191 17.1 B SB L 466 0.096 0.500 L 0.191 17.5 B 17.9 B T 941 0.136 0.500 T 0.271 18.1 B Intersection: Delay = 20.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 11.4 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 NB T 6 / 9 12.2 0.0 R 2 / 3 16.3 0.0 All 12.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 5.2 0.0 T 4 / 6 14.0 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 346 51 299 217 85 242 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 7 0.92 0 32 0.92 0 6 0.92 0 59 0.92 0 64 0.92 0 47 0.92 0 19 0.92 0 297 0.92 1 13 0.92 0 10 0.92 0 230 0.92 1 16 0.92 0 0 3 0 0 --- --- 20 6 0 0 --- --- 0 3 0 0 --- --- 0 7 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 595 0.028 0.333 LTR 0.084 27.7 C 27.7 C WB * LTR 535 0.102 0.333 LTR 0.305 31.1 C 31.1 C NB * LTR 1062 0.197 0.583 LTR 0.337 13.8 B 13.8 B SB LTR 1070 0.152 0.583 LTR 0.260 12.9 B 12.9 B Intersection: Delay = 17.7sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 1 9.9 0.0 All 9.9 0.0 WB LTR 4 / 5 8.8 0.0 All 8.8 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 13.5 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 14.4 0.0 All 14.4 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 7 32 6 59 64 47 19 297 13 10 230 16 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 5 0.91 0 33 0.91 0 10 0.91 0 159 0.91 0 143 0.91 0 69 0.91 0 31 0.91 0 437 0.91 1 24 0.91 0 5 0.91 0 265 0.91 1 14 0.91 0 0 2 0 0 --- --- 25 6 0 0 --- --- 0 18 0 0 --- --- 0 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 594 0.029 0.333 LTR 0.088 27.8 C 27.8 C WB * LTR 514 0.247 0.333 LTR 0.739 44.6 D 44.6 D NB * LTR 1049 0.300 0.583 LTR 0.515 16.7 B 16.7 B SB LTR 1082 0.168 0.583 LTR 0.287 13.2 B 13.2 B Intersection: Delay = 24.6sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.60 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.55SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 2 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 WB LTR 10 / 10 8.2 0.0 All 8.2 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 10 11.9 0.0 All 11.9 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 15.3 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 Intersect. 10.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 33 10 159 143 69 31 437 24 5 265 14 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)59 500 57 59 25 16 90 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)340 92 117 Capacity 371 357 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.33 95% Queue Length 1.0 1.4 Control Delay (s/veh)17.9 19.9 Level of Service (LOS)C C Approach Delay (s/veh)17.9 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:25:43 PM Black Babcock Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)46 548 56 24 42 43 125 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)356 74 187 Capacity 426 369 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.51 95% Queue Length 0.6 2.7 Control Delay (s/veh)15.2 24.3 Level of Service (LOS)C C Approach Delay (s/veh)15.2 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:29:24 PM Black Babcock PM Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)25 59 3 10 166 45 11 20 10 8 32 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)27 11 45 193 Capacity 1282 1462 474 659 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.29 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 7.5 13.4 12.7 Level of Service (LOS)A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.4 0.4 13.4 12.7 Approach LOS B B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:33:13 PM Black Olive Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)20 103 3 23 239 40 6 38 9 20 63 138 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)23 26 61 254 Capacity 1183 1413 382 514 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.49 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.1 0.6 2.7 Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 7.6 16.2 18.6 Level of Service (LOS)A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)1.4 0.7 16.2 18.6 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:47:41 PM Black Olive PM Exist Plus.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 5 0.96 1 194 0.96 1 63 0.96 1 91 0.96 1 305 0.96 1 10 0.96 1 64 0.96 1 265 0.96 1 135 0.96 1 0 11 0 0 --- --- 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 10 0 0 --- --- 35 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 608 0.138 0.333 LTR 0.414 31.1 C 31.1 C NB L 517 0.107 0.583 L 0.184 12.4 B 13.1 B TR 1091 0.175 0.583 TR 0.301 13.3 B SB L 560 0.070 0.583 L 0.120 11.6 B 13.8 B * TR 1048 0.212 0.583 TR 0.363 14.2 B Intersection: Delay = 17.4sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.38 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.35SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 6 / 7 10.2 0.0 All 10.2 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 6.2 0.0 TR 5 / 6 15.2 0.0 All 14.2 0.0 SB L 1 / 1 8.3 0.0 TR 5 / 7 16.0 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 Intersect. 13.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 194 63 91 305 10 64 265 135 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 12 0.89 1 210 0.89 1 126 0.89 1 98 0.89 1 367 0.89 1 14 0.89 1 85 0.89 1 336 0.89 1 122 0.89 1 0 22 0 0 --- --- 30 17 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 45 19 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 591 0.201 0.333 LTR 0.604 34.6 C 34.6 C NB L 446 0.144 0.583 L 0.247 13.5 B 14.4 B TR 1090 0.229 0.583 TR 0.393 14.6 B SB L 477 0.118 0.583 L 0.201 12.8 B 14.9 B * TR 1062 0.255 0.583 TR 0.438 15.3 B Intersection: Delay = 19.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.50 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.46SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 8 / 9 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 6.1 0.0 TR 6 / 8 16.0 0.0 All 14.8 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 5.7 0.0 TR 7 / 9 15.4 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 12 210 126 98 367 14 85 336 122 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 66 0.94 1 326 0.94 1 28 0.94 0 10 0.94 0 445 0.94 1 153 0.94 1 39 0.94 0 185 0.94 1 28 0.94 1 150 0.94 1 55 0.94 0 57 0.94 1 5 80 0 0 --- --- 40 35 0 0 --- --- 5 155 0 0 --- --- 15 88 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1012 0.174 0.400 LTR 0.436 27.5 C 27.5 C WB * LTR 1298 0.186 0.400 LTR 0.465 27.7 C 27.7 C NB * LTR 600 0.153 0.350 LTR 0.437 30.1 C 30.1 C SB Lper 330 0.000 0.392 15.7 B * Lpro 238 0.090 0.133 L 0.282 16.2 B TR 884 0.061 0.517 TR 0.118 14.9 B Intersection: Delay = 26.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.49 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.43SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 9 10.5 0.0 All 10.5 0.0 NB LTR 6 / 7 9.6 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 7.9 0.0 TR 2 / 4 17.6 0.0 All 14.9 0.0 Intersect. 10.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 66 326 28 10 445 153 39 185 28 150 55 57 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 49 0.87 1 371 0.87 1 27 0.87 0 8 0.87 0 486 0.87 1 169 0.87 1 37 0.87 0 258 0.87 1 27 0.87 1 171 0.87 1 109 0.87 0 65 0.87 1 5 75 0 0 --- --- 40 19 0 0 --- --- 5 100 0 0 --- --- 15 72 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1046 0.194 0.400 LTR 0.485 28.4 C 28.4 C WB * LTR 1306 0.219 0.400 LTR 0.548 29.3 C 29.3 C NB * LTR 609 0.210 0.350 LTR 0.599 33.2 C 33.2 C SB Lper 271 0.000 0.392 16.7 B * Lpro 238 0.110 0.133 L 0.387 17.6 B TR 920 0.102 0.517 TR 0.198 15.7 B Intersection: Delay = 27.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.61 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 10 8.6 0.0 All 8.6 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 9.1 0.0 All 9.1 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 9 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 SB L 3 / 4 7.2 0.0 TR 3 / 4 17.3 0.0 All 14.6 0.0 Intersect. 9.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 49 371 27 8 486 169 37 258 27 171 109 65 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)217 286 17 20 4 55 51 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)414 28 122 Capacity 316 569 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.21 95% Queue Length 0.3 0.8 Control Delay (s/veh)17.5 13.0 Level of Service (LOS)C B Approach Delay (s/veh)17.5 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:50:13 PM Rouse Babcock Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)274 390 16 42 8 40 94 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)539 57 154 Capacity 224 279 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.55 95% Queue Length 1.0 3.1 Control Delay (s/veh)26.5 32.7 Level of Service (LOS)D D Approach Delay (s/veh)26.5 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:52:35 PM Rouse Babcock PM Exist Plus.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 21 0.93 0 445 0.93 1 39 0.93 0 29 0.93 0 540 0.93 1 29 0.93 0 48 0.93 0 55 0.93 0 38 0.93 0 6 0.93 0 12 0.93 0 17 0.93 0 5 24 0 0 --- --- 0 16 0 0 --- --- 5 72 0 0 --- --- 0 59 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1874 0.167 0.583 LTR 0.287 12.9 B 12.9 B WB * LTR 1872 0.200 0.583 LTR 0.343 13.5 B 13.5 B NB * LTR 527 0.092 0.333 LTR 0.277 30.7 C 30.7 C SB LTR 552 0.022 0.333 LTR 0.067 27.5 C 27.5 C Intersection: Delay = 15.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 4 / 6 15.9 0.0 All 15.9 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 13.3 0.0 All 13.3 0.0 NB LTR 3 / 4 12.2 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 SB LTR 1 / 1 10.8 0.0 All 10.8 0.0 Intersect. 14.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 21 445 39 29 540 29 48 55 38 6 12 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 29 0.90 0 485 0.90 1 56 0.90 0 50 0.90 0 596 0.90 1 34 0.90 0 67 0.90 0 75 0.90 0 55 0.90 0 18 0.90 0 28 0.90 0 15 0.90 0 5 26 0 0 --- --- 5 11 0 0 --- --- 10 46 0 0 --- --- 0 42 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1810 0.202 0.583 LTR 0.347 13.6 B 13.6 B WB * LTR 1752 0.250 0.583 LTR 0.428 14.7 B 14.7 B NB * LTR 520 0.133 0.333 LTR 0.398 33.0 C 33.0 C SB LTR 538 0.042 0.333 LTR 0.126 28.3 C 28.3 C Intersection: Delay = 17.1sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.42 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 14.7 0.0 All 14.7 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 13.5 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 NB LTR 4 / 5 11.0 0.0 All 11.0 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 Intersect. 13.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 29 485 56 50 596 34 67 75 55 18 28 15 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Apartment Accees Olive Agency/Co.Marvin& Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/26/2016 East/West Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Aprtment Access Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Aprtments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)73 4 3 193 20 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)215 23 Capacity 1472 672 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.03 95% Queue Length 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 10.5 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.1 10.5 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:30:54 PM Apartment Access Olive Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Apartment Accees Olive Agency/Co.Marvin& Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/26/2016 East/West Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Aprtment Access Time Analyzed Peak PM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Aprtments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)124 17 10 292 10 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)332 12 Capacity 1387 532 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.02 95% Queue Length 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 11.9 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 11.9 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:32:54 PM Apartment Access Olive PM Exist Plus.xtw APPENDIX B-3 Future Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 22 0.95 0 512 0.95 1 110 0.95 0 54 0.95 0 598 0.95 1 24 0.95 0 143 0.95 0 182 0.95 0 44 0.95 0 29 0.95 0 205 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 30 66 0 0 --- 5 5 28 0 0 --- 5 5 94 0 0 --- 5 5 119 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 65.0 3.5 1.5 45.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1606 0.218 0.542 LTR 0.402 16.9 B 16.9 B WB * LTR 1506 0.254 0.542 LTR 0.469 17.9 B 17.9 B NB L 340 0.166 0.375 L 0.444 32.3 C 30.5 C TR 598 0.146 0.375 TR 0.390 29.4 C SB * LTR 574 0.176 0.375 LTR 0.469 31.2 C 31.2 C Intersection: Delay = 21.8sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.47 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.43SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 7 12.3 0.0 All 12.3 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 8 11.6 0.0 All 11.6 0.0 NB L 3 / 6 3.6 0.0 TR 5 / 7 12.4 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 7 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 Intersect. 11.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 22 512 110 54 598 24 143 182 44 29 205 26 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 35 0.95 1 390 0.95 1 56 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 329 0.95 1 238 0.95 0 94 0.95 0 264 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 25 8 0 0 --- --- 0 26 0 0 --- --- 85 35 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1461 0.137 0.417 LTR 0.329 24.3 C 24.3 C NB * T 941 0.184 0.500 T 0.368 19.5 B 18.8 B R 781 0.103 0.500 R 0.206 17.3 B SB L 439 0.113 0.500 L 0.226 18.1 B 18.3 B T 941 0.148 0.500 T 0.295 18.4 B Intersection: Delay = 20.6sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.35 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.32SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 11.6 0.0 All 11.6 0.0 NB T 7 / 11 13.4 0.0 R 2 / 3 14.2 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 3.9 0.0 T 5 / 6 14.7 0.0 All 12.4 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 35 390 56 329 238 94 264 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 6 0.92 0 36 0.92 0 11 0.92 0 175 0.92 0 157 0.92 0 76 0.92 0 34 0.92 0 480 0.92 1 26 0.92 0 6 0.92 0 291 0.92 1 15 0.92 0 0 2 0 0 --- --- 30 6 0 0 --- --- 5 20 0 0 --- --- 0 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 585 0.033 0.333 LTR 0.099 27.9 C 27.9 C WB * LTR 513 0.267 0.333 LTR 0.801 48.8 D 48.8 D NB * LTR 1047 0.324 0.583 LTR 0.556 17.5 B 17.5 B SB LTR 1078 0.183 0.583 LTR 0.314 13.5 B 13.5 B Intersection: Delay = 26.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.65 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.59SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 2 / 2 8.3 0.0 All 8.3 0.0 WB LTR 10 / 11 8.3 0.0 All 8.3 0.0 NB LTR 9 / 11 12.2 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 5 15.0 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 Intersect. 10.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 6 36 11 175 157 76 34 480 26 6 291 15 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)50 602 61 26 46 47 137 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)386 80 203 Capacity 396 334 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.61 95% Queue Length 0.7 3.8 Control Delay (s/veh)16.4 31.1 Level of Service (LOS)C D Approach Delay (s/veh)16.4 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:48:46 PM Black Babcock PM Future.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)22 113 3 25 262 44 7 42 10 32 69 161 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)24 28 66 292 Capacity 1161 1400 354 485 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.60 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.1 0.7 3.9 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 7.6 17.5 23.1 Level of Service (LOS)A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)1.4 0.8 17.5 23.1 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:52:54 PM Black Olive PM Future.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 13 0.90 1 231 0.90 1 138 0.90 1 108 0.90 1 403 0.90 1 15 0.90 1 92 0.90 1 269 0.90 1 134 0.90 1 0 24 0 0 --- --- 35 19 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 50 21 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 42.0 3.5 1.5 68.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 621 0.217 0.350 LTR 0.620 33.8 C 33.8 C NB L 484 0.141 0.567 L 0.248 14.3 B 15.9 B * TR 1059 0.249 0.567 TR 0.439 16.3 B SB L 426 0.136 0.567 L 0.239 14.4 B 15.3 B TR 1022 0.217 0.567 TR 0.384 15.5 B Intersection: Delay = 20.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.51 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.47SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 10 / 11 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 6.8 0.0 TR 8 / 9 13.0 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 SB L 2 / 5 3.6 0.0 TR 5 / 7 16.6 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 Intersect. 11.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 13 231 138 108 403 15 92 269 134 1 41 24 2 67 24 2 67 24 HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 54 0.89 1 404 0.89 1 30 0.89 0 9 0.89 0 534 0.89 1 186 0.89 1 41 0.89 0 283 0.89 1 30 0.89 1 188 0.89 1 120 0.89 0 72 0.89 1 5 83 0 0 --- --- 45 21 0 0 --- --- 5 110 0 0 --- --- 20 79 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 995 0.218 0.400 LTR 0.546 29.8 C 29.8 C WB * LTR 1303 0.236 0.400 LTR 0.589 30.2 C 30.2 C NB * LTR 606 0.226 0.350 LTR 0.647 34.7 C 34.7 C SB Lper 257 0.000 0.392 16.9 B * Lpro 238 0.118 0.133 L 0.426 18.0 B TR 921 0.108 0.517 TR 0.210 15.8 B Intersection: Delay = 28.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.66 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.58SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 7 / 8 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 10 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 5.9 0.0 TR 3 / 5 18.9 0.0 All 14.5 0.0 Intersect. 9.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 54 404 30 9 534 186 41 283 30 188 120 72 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)301 428 18 46 9 44 103 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)572 61 163 Capacity 205 253 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.64 95% Queue Length 1.2 4.0 Control Delay (s/veh)29.8 41.7 Level of Service (LOS)D E Approach Delay (s/veh)29.8 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:56:17 PM Rouse Babcock PM Future.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 32 0.90 0 533 0.90 1 47 0.90 0 55 0.90 0 655 0.90 1 37 0.90 0 74 0.90 0 83 0.90 0 60 0.90 0 20 0.90 0 31 0.90 0 17 0.90 0 5 29 0 0 --- --- 5 12 0 0 --- --- 20 50 0 0 --- --- 0 46 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1784 0.221 0.583 LTR 0.378 14.0 B 14.0 B WB * LTR 1729 0.278 0.583 LTR 0.477 15.4 B 15.4 B NB * LTR 515 0.141 0.333 LTR 0.423 33.6 C 33.6 C SB LTR 533 0.047 0.333 LTR 0.141 28.5 C 28.5 C Intersection: Delay = 17.6sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.46 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.42SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 7 12.9 0.0 All 12.9 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 9 12.1 0.0 All 12.1 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 Intersect. 11.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 533 47 55 655 37 74 83 60 20 31 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Apartment Accees Olive Agency/Co.Marvin& Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/26/2016 East/West Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Aprtment Access Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Aprtments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)136 17 10 321 10 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)364 12 Capacity 1372 502 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.02 95% Queue Length 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 12.4 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 12.4 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:36:14 PM Apartment Access Olive PM Year 2031.xtw All multi-family, commercial, utility, demolition, and paving projects less than one acre are required to submit this application and receive an approval letter before initiating construction activities. The City of Bozeman's agent will review, determine adequacy, inspect, and enforce all provided information. Failure to meet City of Bozeman's requirements will result in violations and enforcement action consistent with the City's Municipal Code and Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). There is no fee associated with this permit. This plan is active upon approval and terminated upon the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 1 – Applicant Information 1. Preparer:Company: Phone: Email: Address: City: State: Zip code: 2. Owner:Company: Phone: Email: Address: City: State: Zip code: 3. Contractor:Company: Phone: Email: Address: City: State: Zip code: Section 2 – Project Information Project Name: Total Land Disturbance: Project Address: Project Type: Section 3 – Project Schedule Start Date: Final Stabilization Date: Section 4 – Site Map 1. Applicant must provide a site map(s) that includes the following: o Project boundary o Direction(s) of stormwater run on and run off o Public and private stormwater infrastructure on or adjacent to site o Material storage area(s) o Equipment staging area(s) o BMPs selected in Section 5 Section 5 – Required Stormwater Controls **Use the City of Bozeman’s Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual to select required controls.** 1.Protect inlets: Inlets receiving site runoff require BMPs that filter stormwater before flowing into underground infrastructure. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map. Approved options include: o Pre-Manufactured Drop Inlet Protection (pg. 13) o Rock Sock Inlet Protection (pg. 13) o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ **Continued on next page** Stormwater Division P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771 (406)582-2270 Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Permit Projects Less than 1 Acre 2.Contain disturbed areas: Project boundaries require BMPs that contain stormwater flowing from disturbed areas. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map. Approved options include: o Silt Fence (pg. 9) o Earthen Berm (pg. 11) o Straw Wattle (pg. 7) o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.Mitigate tracking: Exit points require BMPs that prevent the tracking of debris off-site onto the right-of-way. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map. Approved options include: o Cobble/Cattle Guard Hybrid Track Pad (pg. 15) o Angular Rock Track Pad (pg. 15) o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4.Control concrete waste: Concrete activities require BMPs that allow for the capture and disposal of generated pollutants to prevent environmental contamination. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map. Approved options include: o Reusable or Disposable Product (pg. 22) o Prefabricated Roll-Off (pg. 22) o Below Ground Containment (pg. 23) o Above Ground Containment (pg. 23) o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 5.Contain material stockpiles: Material stockpiles, not already contained within an existing perimeter control, require perimeter BMPs that prevent erosion and displacement of loose material. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map. Approved options include: o Earthen Berm (pg. 11) o Silt Fence (pg. 9) o Straw Wattle (pg. 7) o Cover/Tarp o Existing Perimeter Control BMP (#1) o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ **Continued on next page** 6.Manage dewatering flows: Pumping activities require BMPs that filter water before entering underground infrastructure or waterways. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map Approved options include: o Excavated Area Dewatering Plan (pg. 19) o Well Dewatering Plan (pg. 20) o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 7.Protect post-construction stormwater features: Post-construction stormwater features, such as retention and detention ponds, require BMPs that protect and their silde slopes and bases during and after construction activities. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map. Approved options include: o Crimped Straw Mulch (pg. 24 ) o Rolled Erosion Control Products (pg. 24) o Rip Rapped Inlet and Outlet o Check Dams o Reinforced Fore Bay o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8.Stabilize disturbed areas: Disturbed areas require BMPs that prevent erosion of barren ground. Check all that apply and show location(s) on map. Approved options include: o Surface Roughening (pg. 24) o Crimped Straw Mulch (pg. 24 ) o Wood Mulch( pg. 24) o Rolled Erosion Control Products (pg. 24) o Sod (pg. 24) o Not Applicable (describe):_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ o Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Section 6 – Administrative and Operational Controls 1. Check which of the following will be utilized and show on the map if applicable: o Street Sweeping – Frequency:___________________ o On-Street Parking o Pedestrian and Traffic Control Fencing o Covered Pollutant Storage o Staked Sanitary Facility out of Right-of-Way **Continued on next page** Section 7 - Certifications 1. Applicant agrees to: o Install applicable BMPs before the start of land disturbing activities. Initial: ________ o Keep this permit posted on-site and updated to reflect current site conditions. Initial: _______ o Inspect and maintain all control measures at the end of each workday. Initial: _______ o Contain and dispose of all pollutants generated, such as form oil, oils/greases, fuel, masonry wash water, concrete cutting slurry, asphalt sealant, paint, and all other pollutants hazardous to the environment, by local, state and federal regulations. Initial: _______ o Maintain a spill kit on-site, which includes, at a minimum, absorbent material, cleanup tools, and covered waste container. Initial: _______ Section 8 – Acknowledgment Certificate I certify that I am the Owner or Owner’s Authorized Agent. If acting as an Authorized Agent, I further certify that I am authorized to act as the Owner’s Agent regarding the property at the above-referenced address for the purpose of filing applications for decisions, plans, or review under the City of Bozeman Ordinance #1763 and have full power and authority to perform on behalf of the Owner all acts required to enable the City to process and review such applications. I certify that the information on this application is true and correct and understand that I shall not start this project until this application is approved. I shall comply with the laws of the State of Montana and the Ordinances of the City of Bozeman. ___________________________________ ________________ Signature of Legally Responsible Person Date ___________________________________ ______________________________________ Printed Name Title ANGULAR ROCKENTRANCEPERIMETER SILTFENCEINLET PROTECTIONSTORAGE &STAGING AREADURING DEMO &EXCAVATIONDEMOLITION & EXCAVATION PHASE PERIMETER SILTFENCEINLET PROTECTIONCONSTRUCTION PHASE