HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-18 Public Comment - J. McGowan - WinCo Appealjohn mcgowen
Sun, Nov 25, 3:41 PM (22 hours ago)
To: Shannon@cromwellpllc.com
To whom it may concern,
my name is John McGowen, I have lived and worked in the Bozeman area for 11 years. I am employed at
Safeway in Bozeman, I am the manager of the meat and seafood department, I have functioned in this
capacity for 5 years, prior to this I have been in the retail trades industry for 35 years. Due to the high
cost of living in Bozeman my family and I had to move out of Bozeman and we purchased a house in
Belgrade. Just a little bit about myself, I am 53 years old, married and have 3 children, ages 16,15, and
12. My wife and I both work in Bozeman and make the commute 5-6 times a week, the traffic
congestion in and around the proposed site of Winco is already horrendous! I cannot imagine what it
would be like if this store was built.Sometimes it will take me 15 minutes to complete the less than a
mile portion of this drive from oak street to the interstate, as this is the most direct route I feel it is
absurd to congest it more. My time is valuable and I don't feel that I should have to endure longer
commute times or take an alternate route just because another corporate entity wants to come to town
to take advantage of Bozemans out of control growth.... Consumers have a very generous number of
grocery retailers to chose from in Bozemant feel that I should have to endure longer commute times or
take an alternate route just because another corporate entity wants to come to town to take advantage
of Bozemans out of control growth.... Consumers have a very generous number of grocery retailers to
chose from in Bozemant feel that I should have to endure longer commute times or take an alternate
route just because another corporate entity wants to come to town to take advantage of Bozemans out
of control growth.... Consumers have a very generous number of grocery retailers to chose from in
Bozeman and to add another store is just not necessary. In the 35 years of working in this industry, I
have seen this scenario before, when a new store comes to town they overhire at inflated wages that
entice people to quit their current job which they may have been employed at for many years. When in
reality, after the new market runs incredibly ad pricing to draw in the consumer, that same company will
cut jobs and lower wages for new hires, putting people out of work and affecting lives and quality of life
in and around the Gallatin Valley. I have dedicated my working career to the service trade, I FEAR that
another store in Bozeman will affect my job and my quality of life..... there is the real threat that a large
store such as Winco will cause some retailers to have to cut labor and maybe even shut down because
of the unfair advantage large corporations have in their buying and pricing structures!!!! So please, do
what's right for the workers and people of the Gallatin valley, look out and take care of the people who
already take care of your retail and shopping needs. It would be detrimental to the people of Bozeman
and the surrounding areas if you were to let Winco Corporation be built into Gallatin Valley.
Sincerely, John McGowen,
108 8th street, Belgrade, montana.
From: Griffin Nielsen <GNielsen@BOZEMAN.NET>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:22 AM
To: jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com>
Cc: Greg Sullivan <gsullivan@BOZEMAN.NET>; Courtney Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: RE: Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Jecyn,
Please see my responses to your questions in blue.
Regarding the access on Cattail, page 7, second bulleted point, how were the City access separation
requirements met? Was a relaxation requested?
The proposed access onto Cattail does not meet the City’s access separation requirements for a
collector street. The applicant has requested a relaxation from the separation requirements which has
been approved. Please see the attached request.
Will the outstanding matters indicated in the memo be addressed prior to the review by the Director of
Community Development? See at Items 2 and 4.
My understanding is the director may review the application without the items being fully resolved.
With the review the determination will be made if the items must be resolved before final approval or
can be a condition of site plan approval.
With respect to item 11, will you please clarify whether the applicant will be installing the roundabout at
the intersection of Max Avenue and Cattail Street, as indicted in item 7, or whether an SID will be
formed for those improvements. I gather it may be both.
The applicant is intending to install the roundabout at Max Avenue and Cattail Street with private funds.
No SID has been proposed at this time.
Regards,
City of Bozeman MT
Griffin Nielsen, EIT | Engineering Department
406.582.2280
gnielsen@bozeman.net
From: jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:35 PMTo: Griffin
Nielsen <GNielsen@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Greg Sullivan <gsullivan@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: RE: Gallatin
Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Hello Griffin,
I understand the decision by the Director of Community Development on the WinCo matter to be within
10 days following the close of the public comment, which was published as September 15,2018.
Given that, I would expect that the following have been addressed. May I have on update?
Thank you,
Jecyn,
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: jbremer
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 11:35 AM
To: 'Griffin Nielsen' <GNielsen@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Greg Sullivan (gsullivan@bozeman.net) <gsullivan@bozeman.net>
Subject: FW: Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Hello Griffin,
I have a few questions with respect to the Engineering comments related to the WinCo Site Plan.
Regarding the access on Cattail, page 7, second bulleted point, how were the City access separation
requirements met? Was a relaxation requested?
Will the outstanding matters indicated in the memo be addressed prior to the review by the Director of
Community Development? See at Items 2 and 4.
With respect to item 11, will you please clarify whether the applicant will be installing the roundabout at
the intersection of Max Avenue and Cattail Street, as indicted in item 7, or whether an SID will be
formed for those improvements. I gather it may be both.
Many thanks,
Jecyn
Jecyn Bremer
Attorney at Law
Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C.
777 East Main, Suite 203
Post Office Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0770
Ph: (406) 404-1728
Email: jbremer@galliklawfirm.com
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy of it from your
computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender.
From: Courtney Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:06 AMTo:
jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com>Cc: Greg Sullivan <gsullivan@BOZEMAN.NET>; Griffin Nielsen
<GNielsen@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: RE: Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application
No. 17429)
Morning Jecyn,
Based on your questions I think you’re looking at a DRC memo that is almost a year old. The last
resubmittal for this project was in August of 2018. Attached within please see the latest site plan and
DRC Memo (dated August 29, 2018). As stated earlier we are at the final stages of site plan review. The
remaining items listed on the DRC memo attached are being completed, at this time, by the Applicant.
I’ve included Griffin Nielson to the email, he is the review Engineer for the project if you have any
specific questions for him.
Many Thanks,
Courtney Johnson, AIA, NCARB
Senior Planner
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
406.582.2289 | cejohnson@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net
On January 4, 2018 the City Commission finally approved changes to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. The changes were effective as of March 31, 2018.
From: jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 7:10 PMTo:
Courtney Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Greg Sullivan <gsullivan@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject:
RE: Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Hello Courtney,
Is the October 3, 2017 DRC memo the most current memo? I thought you indicated as much below. I
finally had a chance to review it and have a few additional questions.
Has the applicant provided the updated traffic impact study, landscaping plan, and stormwater
drainage/treatment grading plan and maintenance plan?
If so, has staff reviewed those and determined them sufficient for review and decision?
Specifically, has staff reviewed the traffic impact study? If so, is staff recommending a roundabout at
Max Avenue and Catron Street? The 2017 memo indicates it may be considered at this location.
Many thanks,
Jecyn
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: Courtney Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 2:05 PMTo:
jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com>Cc: Greg Sullivan <gsullivan@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: RE: Gallatin
Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Hi Jecyn,
Great question. The adequacy determination is made when staff feels that the project is able to meet all
the evaluation criteria. As with most applications, there are a few remaining items that can be left to be
completed during final site plan approval. We ensure those remaining items are listed within a final
memo (basically their final punch list), along with the note saying that they are not currently meeting
standards. This allows the applicant to not be surprised by the final steps remaining for the completion
of the site plan review, all while keeping the project moving forward.
Hope that helps!
Thanks,
Courtney Johnson, AIA, NCARB
Senior Planner
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
406.582.2289 | cejohnson@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net
On January 4, 2018 the City Commission finally approved changes to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. The changes were effective as of March 31, 2018.
From: jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 12:20 PMTo: Courtney
Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Greg Sullivan <gsullivan@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: RE:
Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Hi Courtney,
Thank you for the attached and the link.
I haven’t reviewed the documents in their entirety, but did get as far as the cover letter and the Staff
recommendation, which seem to be in conflict given that the cover letter indicates site plan adequacy
and the Staff recommendation on the next page indicates Staff has found the project does not comply
with City Code requirements and deems the application inadequate for further review. Will you please
clarify?
I’ll review the remainder of the documents.
Thanks again,
Jecyn
Jecyn Bremer
Attorney at Law
Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C.
777 East Main, Suite 203
Post Office Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0770
Ph: (406) 404-1728
Email: jbremer@galliklawfirm.com
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy of it from your
computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender.
From: Courtney Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 11:34
AMTo: jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com>Cc: Greg Sullivan <gsullivan@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: RE:
Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Hi Jecyn,
Attached within is the latest Development Review Committee (DRC) memo and the public notice for the
current site plan application (17585). The concept plan (17429) was the previous application which was
completed in 2017. There is no staff report at this time for this application. After public notice the 10
day administrative review period will start, which will then result in a staff report. Since this project will
be administratively reviewed, there are no associated public hearings.
Please let me know if you have any other questions. If you would like further documentation here is the
link for a records request, which is processed by the City Clerk.
https://www.bozeman.net/government/city-clerk/records-request
Many Thanks,
Courtney Johnson, AIA, NCARB
Senior Planner
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
406.582.2289 | cejohnson@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net
On January 4, 2018 the City Commission finally approved changes to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. The changes were effective as of March 31, 2018.
From: jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 10:15 AMTo: Danielle
Garber <DGarber@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Courtney Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: RE:
Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Good morning,
Noted the article in the paper and, in addition to the information requested below, please also provide a
link to the application. We tried to obtain via the City zoning map website, but that function was not
operable. The schedule of hearings, notice sent out on last Friday, and any staff reports would be
appreciated as well.
I understand the comment deadline is September 15 so would appreciate the information timely.
Thank you,
Jecyn
Jecyn Bremer
Attorney at Law
Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C.
777 East Main, Suite 203
Post Office Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0770
Ph: (406) 404-1728
Email: jbremer@galliklawfirm.com
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy of it from your
computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender.
From: jbremer
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 9:48 AM
To: 'Danielle Garber' <DGarber@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Courtney Johnson CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET
Subject: RE: Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review (Application No. 17429)
Good morning Danielle,
This is a follow up to my voicemail this morning regarding the status of the above application. Have a
site plan and/or responses to the concept review comments been submitted? If so, may I have a copy?
Any update would be much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Jecyn
Jecyn Bremer
Attorney at Law
Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C.
777 East Main, Suite 203
Post Office Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0770
Ph: (406) 404-1728
Email: jbremer@galliklawfirm.com
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy of it from your
computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender.
From: Danielle Garber <DGarber@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:24 AMTo:
jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com>Cc: Courtney Johnson <CEJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: RE:
Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review
Hi Jecyn,
Got your message. They are able to submit a site plan, but they will need to provide a narrative response
to each of the concept review comments highlighting how they have addressed the concerns or
requirements in each item. The memo used in this case was illustrating that as it is now proposed, it is
not adequate for further review.
Thanks,
Danielle Garber |Assistant Planner, Community Development
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2272 | E: dmartin@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: jbremer [mailto:jbremer@galliklawfirm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 8:33 AM
To: Danielle Garber <DGarber@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: RE: Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review
Thank you Danielle.
Best,
Jecyn
Jecyn Bremer
Attorney at Law
Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C.
777 East Main, Suite 203
Post Office Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0770
Ph: (406) 404-1728
Email: jbremer@galliklawfirm.com
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy of it from your
computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender.
From: Danielle Garber [mailto:DGarber@BOZEMAN.NET]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 1:16 PM
To: jbremer <jbremer@galliklawfirm.com>
Subject: Gallatin Center Lot 12-B & 12-C Concept Review
Hi Jecyn,
Attached is a copy of the Concept Review Comments for Application No. 17429 Gallatin Center Lot 12-B
& 12-C.
Please let me know should you have any further questions.
Thanks,
Danielle Garber |Assistant Planner, Community Development
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2272 | E: dmartin@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
Attachments area
G R E E N L I G H T E N G I N E E R I N G
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING/TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
November 26, 2018
City of Bozeman City Commission
121 N. Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Honorable Mayor Andrus & Bozeman City Commissioners,
Greenlight Engineering has been asked by attorney Shannon Foley to evaluate the
transportation related impacts of the proposed Gallatin Center Lot 12 development in
Bozeman, Montana. We have reviewed the November 16, 2018 traffic impact study
(“TIS”) prepared by Marvin and Associates and other portions of the written record of the
application to the City of Bozeman. There are a number of aspects of the TIS that have
been omitted or otherwise aren't compliant with city and industry standards.
Executive Summary
•At least two intersections fail to meet City of Bozeman level of service standards
with no mitigation proposed.
•The TIS relies on intersection analysis based on software approximately 20 years
out of date and not upon the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual
as required by city standards.
•The lack of mitigation at the N 19th Avenue/Cattail Street intersection will result
in a northbound left turn queue several hundred feet longer than the queue storage
allows, backing traffic into the through lane of N 19th Avenue possibly resulting in
unmitigated safety issues.
•A 15 year design year based on 2033 or at 15 years from the construction of
mitigation is not addressed. The TIS assumes no growth over a 15 year period
and omits the impact of the Costco expansion.
•The intersection of Catamount Street/27th Avenue was not studied but was
required to be studied per city standards.
•The traffic counts are old and were not adjusted to current traffic conditions.
•The TIS omits the weekday AM peak hour analysis period.
•The TIS relies upon trip generation estimates that are not supported by the Trip
Generation Manual as required or upon the industry standard Trip Generation
Handbook resulting in an underestimation of traffic impacts.
•The TIS relies on inappropriate assumptions for pass-by trip rates, internal trip
capture rates.
13554 Rogers Road ● Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Phone: 503.317.4559 ● www.greenlightengineering.com
Area Intersections Fail to Meet City Mobility Standard
Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.400.060(B)(4) entitled “Level of service standards”
requires the following:
“All arterial and collector streets and intersections with arterial and collector
streets shall operate at a minimum level of service "C" unless specifically
exempted by this subsection. Level of service (LOS) values shall be determined
by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity
Manual. A development shall be approved only if the LOS requirements are met
in the design year, which shall be a minimum of 15 years following the
development application review or construction of mitigation measures if
mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS. Intersections shall have a
minimum acceptable LOS of "C" for the intersection as a whole.
a. Exception: If an intersection within the area required to be studied by section
38.41.060.A.12 does not meet LOS "C" and the intersection has been fully constructed to
its maximum lane and turning movement capacity, then an LOS of less than "C" is
acceptable.
b. Exception: The review authority may grant a waiver from a LOS of less than "C" at a
specific intersection if the review authority determines:
(1) Granting of a waiver from the level of service for the intersection would not
be contrary to public health and safety and is in the public interest;
(2) Improvements to the intersection to raise the overall level of service to a "C"
or better are currently scheduled for commencement of construction within three
years as shown on the most recently adopted transportation capital improvement
plan;
(3) All right-of-way necessary for the required intersection improvements have
been obtained by the city or by the Montana Department of Transportation; and
(4) The commission has approved a financing plan for the intersection
improvements.
A waiver granted under this subsection is valid for the initial entitlement period
of the project and applies only to the real property for which the waiver is
granted. A request for the extension of the initial development approval relying
upon an intersection level of service waiver is a material modification to the
application per section 38.01.070.
c. If the review authority does not grant a waiver from the level of service standard under
section 38.24.060.B.4, a subdivider or other site developer may request a variance from
the requirements of this section. If a variance is granted from the requirements of this
section, the variance applies only to the specific development proposal for which it was
granted and shall not be considered evidence for any other development proposal.”
The proposed development will result in intersections operating worse than the city
mobility standard of LOS C. As provided in the TIS, the intersection of Catron
Street/Max Avenue and N 19th Avenue/Cattail Street will fail to meet city mobility
standards. Interestingly, no mitigation is proposed or analyzed at these intersections. For
this reason alone, the application should be denied. Given all of the other issues listed
herein, there may be additional intersections that fail to meet city LOS standards.
2
It does not appear that any exemptions have been granted nor do the intersection failures
meet the criteria for exemptions. The TIS does not discuss any of the criteria for an
exemption nor does the TIS request an exemption for the failures reported in the TIS.
The TIS instead argues that the development's traffic has little impact on those
intersections or they are intersections under the jurisdiction of the Montana Department
of Transportation (“MDT”). The development's relative impact on an intersection is not
relevant to the criteria. It does not appear that MDT has been involved in the review of
this application nor has an exemption to the failure at any intersections been analyzed or
requested.
In the Development Review Committee memorandum dated March 2, 2018 there is
reference to the formation of a special improvement district. Presumably, the purpose of
this district would be to eventually improve the intersections listed. There is no condition
of approval referenced in the Staff report dated September 28, 2018 that requires the
applicant to participate in a special improvement district. It is unclear if this is required.
The DRC memo references improvements at the intersections of Cattail Street/N 27
Avenue, Catron Street/N 27th Avenue, E Valley Center Drive/N 19th Avenue, E Valley
Center Drive/Catron Street, Cattail Street/N 19th Avenue, Max Avenue/Catron Street, and
Max Avenue/Cattail Street. We have been unable to find any description of what
improvements might be provided at any of the intersections except the Max
Avenue/Cattail Street, where a roundabout has been suggested but was analyzed in the
TIS as a signalized intersection. As the TIS does not evaluate any mitigation (including
the proposed roundabout) there is no assurance that the intersections will operate as
required.
If the intent of the special improvement district is to address the LOS requirements stated
above, there is no evidence that it will have that effect. First, there is no analysis of
mitigation at any of the intersections, so there is no evidence of what the improvements
may entail. Second, the analysis is required to be based on an analysis 15 years into the
future of the construction of the mitigation. As there is no timeline proposed for the
construction of any mitigation measures, the code requirements cannot be met. If a
timeline were stated, then the analysis must be based upon 15 years after that mitigation.
Additionally, it would appear that other funds would be necessary in order to construct
the unspecified improvements on the unspecified timeline. Bozeman city code is clear in
its requirements for level of service adequacy and it's not clear that improvements
constructed per the special improvement district can meet those requirements.
None of the study intersections referenced in the TIA have planned projects in the next
three years per the City of Bozeman Capital Plan1.
1https://www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=952
3
The N 19 th Avenue/Cattail Street Intersection Fails City LOS Standards and May
Possibly Be Unsafe
The proposed development has a significant negative effect on the N 19th Avenue/Cattail
Street intersection, which will certainly result in LOS issues and may also result in safety
issues with no proposed mitigation.
First, the intersection will not meet the City of Bozeman mobility standard of LOS C and
will operate with a LOS of E. Under year 2017 conditions, the intersection operates at
LOS D.
Second, the N 19th Avenue/Cattail Street intersection analysis indicates that with the
approval of phase 1 of the development, the northbound left turn at this intersection will
experience 600 feet of queuing. In 2032 with phase 2 in place, there will be 750 feet of
queuing. However, there is only 400 feet of queue storage available. Under year 2017
conditions, the northbound left turn queue is 300 feet. Therefore, the development will
cause a potential safety issue that does not exist today.
Inexplicably, the TIS suggests no mitigation to this situation even though the
development will cause standing queues into the through lane of a state highway with a
posted speed of 40 MPH. These queues could possibly generate safety issues as traffic
will need to shift lanes to avoid these standing queues that are caused by the proposed
development. If proposed, the granting of a waiver from the level of service for the
intersection would certainly be contrary to public health and safety and would not be in
the public interest.
It is unlikely that the intersection analysis takes into account the reduction in capacity at
the intersection with this through lane effectively being used as a storage area for these
very long queues. It is possible that dual northbound left turn lanes at the N 19th
Avenue/Cattail Street may be required in order to adequately serve the proposed
development as a 750 foot long queue is difficult to accommodate with one turn lane
given signal timing constraints. While this issue is illustrated to occur in just the
weekday PM peak hour, it may also present itself during other time periods not evaluated
in the TIS including shoulder hours around the weekday PM peak hour and other peak
periods. It does not appear that MDT has been involved in evaluating this situation thus
far.
TIS Relies Upon Old Methodology and Software
The TIS states that “[t]he study methodology and analysis procedures used in this study
employed the most contemporary of analysis techniques, using nationally accepted
standards in the area of site development and transportation impact assessment.”
4
Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.400.060(B)(4) states that “[t]he city determines
level of service (LOS) values by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of
the Highway Capacity Manual.”
The TIS relies upon the outputs of software called “Sig/Cinema v3.08” and “NetSim” for
the signalized intersection analysis. Since the use of these software are unique in current
practice, one of the developers of the software, William McShane of KLD Associates,
was contacted to obtain more information. To his knowledge, the software was not
updated to reflect changes to the Highway Capacity Manual in the year 2000 and
certainly has not been updated since. He stated “[t]he people who are familiar with the
various versions of Sig/Cinema are no longer with us...I was familiar with it at the
beginning, and actually part of its design. But I did not keep track of the specific updates.
I recall a discussion on whether it was sensible to update it to the HCM 2000 edition and
believe the decision was to not do so. Surely, if it were updated for that edition (which I
doubt), it was not updated for any later version.”
The Highway Capacity Manual is the industry and city standard for intersection capacity
analysis. Since the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, there have been two additional
updates to the Highway Capacity Manual, both the HCM 2010 and HCM 6th Edition.
Therefore, it appears that the use of this software is two to three versions of the HCM out
of date. It appears that the Sig/Cinema v3.08 and NetSim software are both very out of
date and are certainly not current industry and accepted practice. Additionally, the use of
this software in no way complies with city requirements that the methods be based upon
“the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.”
Given the use of software that is not permissible by city code, all of the analysis utilizing
this out of date software should be rejected and reanalyzed with compliant software.
Design Year not Adequately Addressed
Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.400.060(B)(4) states “[t]he review authority may
approve a development only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which
must be a minimum of 15 years following the development application review or
construction of mitigation measures...” In addition to the WinCo Foods building,
additional retail development of 36,000 square feet will be constructed at some
undetermined time period in the future (pg 1 of TIS) with an opening date that is not
provided or estimated. According to the TIS, the WinCo store will open in 2018 while
the opening of the next phase or two are not established.
The TIS relies on an opening year of 2018, which is not feasible to attain this late into
2018. At the earliest, the development could possibly open in 2019. Additionally, the
study analyzes a design year of 2032. The development application is being reviewed in
2018, therefore a minimum design year of 2033 is required in order to be compliant with
38.400.060(B)(4), which requires an analysis of at least 15 years beyond the development
application.
5
In developing the traffic volumes for the 2032 analysis, the TIS assumes only that six
specific developments that are already approved will result in increases in traffic volumes
between now and 2032. The TIS references the following developments:
1.Taco Bell at Catamount Street/E Valley Central Drive
2.Auto Detail Shop at N 27th Avenue/Cattail Street
3.Savannah Condominiums at Savannah Street/Fen Way
4.Cattail Properties Multi-Family at Cattail Street/Blackbird Drive
5.Gallatin Peak Multi-Family south of Warbler Way
6.Opportunity Subdivision at Cattail Street near Max Avenue
Notably missing from this list is the large expansion of Costco to the north at Max
Avenue/Catron Street which was expected to generate approximately 1000 peak hour
trips according to city staff. The large Costco addition is a notable omission that should
not be overlooked. There are possibly other developments that have been omitted from
consideration. The traffic counts were collected in 2016, so any development approved
between 2016 and 2032 if not listed above, is not addressed in the TIS. Given the growth
of this area of Bozeman, the lack of inclusion of other growth over the course of 15 years
is suspect.
Details of these six developments are not provided in the TIA in terms of their impact on
each intersection as would typically be customary and would illustrate the trip loading
upon the study intersections for this project. In addition, as future development activity is
unknown, industry standard would be to assume a regional growth rate or develop future
year volumes based upon a travel demand forecast model that may estimate regional
growth over time. Instead, the TIS assumes that no growth aside from these six
developments will occur between 2016 and 2032, a highly unrealistic scenario.
TIS Does Not Include Weekday AM Peak Hour Analysis
The TIS provides a 2032 analysis of the weekday PM peak hour only. The city requires
both a weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour analysis. Again, at minimum, the TIS
needs to be updated to a 2033 analysis period as described above. Additionally, if
mitigation is proposed, then analysis must be based upon 15 years beyond the
construction of that mitigation.
Required Intersection Not Studied
The intersection of Catamount Street/27th Avenue is not included in TIS although it is
required to be studied according to 38.220.060(A)(12)(f)(2)(c). This section requires the
analysis of “[a]ll arterial-arterial, collector-collector and arterial-collector intersections
within one-half mile of the site, or as required by the city engineer during the pre-
application review, concept plan review, or informal project review.” According to
6
Figure 2.5 of the City of Bozeman Transportation Master Plan2, Catamount Street is a
minor arterial while 27th Avenue is a collector. Additionally, the intersection of
Catamount Street/27th Avenue is within a ½ mile of the site, yet is not studied in the TIS.
TIS is Likely Not Based on Signal Timing in Operation
The TIS states “two traffic signals on N 19th Avenue appear to operate with a common
background signal cycle.” Whether or not these intersections operate with a common
signal cycle is information that is easily attainable from MDT. Based on this statement, it
appears that the TIS is not based upon the existing signal timing along N 19th Avenue. In
spite of this assumption, the TIS assumes different signal cycle lengths for the N 19th
Avenue/Cattail Avenue intersection and N 19th Avenue/Valley Center Drive intersection
throughout the TIS. If these intersections were operating with a common background
signal cycle, they should be analyzed with the same signal cycle length. There are a
number of other important traffic signal timing parameters that were likely not accounted
for including the yellow clearance interval, pedestrian timing, and signal phasing which
were possibly not accounted for and can significantly impact the operations of the
intersection.
Regardless, it is unclear what the analysis is based upon. The TIS establishes that the
development will have a significant impact on the N 19th Avenue/Cattail Street
intersection. The TIS proposes no mitigation to this significant impact even in light of
clearly not meeting city approval criteria. Given the impact to the intersection, it is
imperative that a realistic picture of this intersection be provided and analyzed for
mitigation that is without a doubt necessary to serve this proposed development.
Traffic Counts are Old and Not Adjusted to Current Conditions
The TIS is based upon traffic counts collected in 2016. In addition, those traffic counts
were “balanced an (sic) adjusted to 2017” (TIS, pg 4). No information is provided about
how this balancing and adjusting was completed, so cannot be reviewed. The traffic
counts were not balanced or adjusted to the current 2018 conditions. The TIS was
submitted in 2018 and there is no reason for the TIS not to be based on current
information. Additionally, no turning movement counts are included in the appendix for
review. It is unusual for raw traffic counts to be omitted from a traffic impact analysis.
Essentially, the raw traffic counts form the initial baseline of traffic data needed in
developing the TIS. Without these raw traffic counts, a complete review of the TIS is not
possible.
TIS Relies Upon Old Trip Generation Manual
The TIS relies on the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual although the 10th
Edition of the Trip Generation Manual was published in 2017, over a year before the
submission of the TIS. The TIS assumes a portion of the proposed development is based
2 https://mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/bozeman_tranplan_study.pdf
7
upon the “specialty retail” land use which was eliminated for the 10th Edition of the Trip
Generation Manual and should no longer be used. The closest comparison to the
“specialty retail” use that should be substituted would be “shopping center.” Using the
“shopping center” land use rather than “specialty retail”, the trip generation estimate
would increase by 72 trips in the weekday AM peak hour and 1500 weekday daily trips
over what was estimated in the TIS. The TIS should be updated to be based upon current
industry standard.
The TIS Relies on Unsubstantiated Pedestrian and Bicycle Estimates
The TIS relies on the assumption that 5% of the total WinCo traffic will occur by bicycle
and walking trips and is not supported by evidence. The TIS relies on the assumption
that since there is nearby residential uses that 5% of trips will arrive and depart by foot or
bicycle to the proposed development. The TIS states that pedestrian and bicycle counts
were very low under existing conditions. The area is already comprised of retail and
residential uses, yet apparently, the walking and biking trips are already very low. This
cannot be confirmed as the raw pedestrian and bicycle traffic counts are not included as
part of the TIS. It is unclear why up to 420 daily pedestrian and bicycle trips will be
made with the approval of the development when the existing traffic volumes don't
support that assumption. Given the number of residential units and retail uses already in
the area, hundreds of bicycles and pedestrians would be seen in the area already today
based upon this assumption.
The TIS Utilizes Incorrect Pass-by Rates
The TIS includes assumptions for pass-by trips are based on 33% for discount
supermarket for the weekday daily trips, weekday AM trips and weekday PM peak hour
trips. The current, 3rd edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook provides an average
pass-by rate for discount supermarket for the weekday PM peak hour at only 21%. The
previous, 2nd edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook provided an average pass-by
rate for the weekday PM peak hour of 23%, so it's very unclear where the 33% pass-by
trip reduction comes from. The Trip Generation Handbook provides no estimate for a
weekday daily trip or weekday AM peak hour pass-by rate. Per the Trip Generation
Handbook, analysts should not assume that pass-by rates within the handbook apply to
different time periods, but would instead recommend a study evaluating pass-by trip
generation characteristics of the land use or not utilize a pass-by rate.
The TIS assumes a pass-by trip rate of 34% for the specialty retail land use of the
subsequent phase(s) of development for the weekday daily, weekday AM and weekday
PM peak hours. The Trip Generation Handbook provides no pass-by trip rate for the
weekday daily, weekday AM or weekday PM peak hour for the “specialty retail” use in
either the current 3rd edition or the previous 2nd edition. The Trip Generation Handbook
provides a weekday PM peak hour pass-by rate for “shopping center” as 34%. Again, per
the Trip Generation Handbook, a study should be conducted for uses not listed and not
8
assumed. There is no pass-by trip rate provided specialty retail for the weekday daily or
weekday AM peak hour in the Trip Generation Handbook.
The Trip Generation Handbook states that in estimating pass-by trips, “[t]he analyst
should start with the average rate listed in the pertinent table and make appropriate
refinements...If national data are not available or if any of the above criteria are not met,
surveys should be conducted at three or more existing developments (proxy sites) that are
similar to the study site.” It is unclear where the pass-by trip rates reported in the TIS are
derived from. It appears that the TIS does not follow the nationally accepted standards
for utilizing pass-by trip rates.
These pass-by trip reductions substantially reduce the estimated impact on the City of
Bozeman street system and do not follow industry standard.
Internal Capture Trips Not Appropriately Estimated
The TIS states that “[i]t is common for developments containing multiple land uses
and/or complementary facilities to have trip origins and destinations within the
development site boundaries...These types of trips are known as 'Internal Capture Trips'
(ICT). Because there would be a mix of commercial development within the commercial
area between Catron Street and Cattail Street, there is clear potential for ICT trips. The
ITE Trip Generation Report provides data and methods to estimate ICT that were used for
this study. The ICT methodology resulted in approximately 28% of the [average
weekday trips] being ICT trips with 10% in the am hour and 20% in the pm hour.”
The TIS provides no information about the other development that exists to the north and
provides no worksheets about how the 28%, 10% and 20% trip capture rates were
developed, which would typically be provided as part of a TIS. However, it appears that
the weekday daily and weekday PM peak hour internal capture rates were derived from
the older, 2nd edition of the Trip Generation Handbook. The weekday AM peak hour
internal trip capture rate does not appear to be based on any data.
The 3rd edition of the Trip Generation Handbook, first published in 2014 and revised in
2017, employs a different methodology for determining the internal capture of a mixed
use development, which the TIS does not follow.
According to the Trip Generation Handbook, a “mixed-use development should consist of
a combination of at least two of the following uses: retail, restaurant, office, residential,
hotel, and cinema/entertainment” (emphasis added). By the ITE definition, the proposed
development and the development to the north is not mixed use development as it is
strictly retail development. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook provides no
methodology for internal capture trips for retail to retail development as it did in the older
2nd edition. There are no retail to retail internal capture rates that are reported in the Trip
Generation Handbook and again, the TIS does not follow industry standard.
9
Trip Distribution Assumes 5% of Traffic Will Route to a Dead End Roadway
Figure 4 of the TIS illustrates that 5% of the site traffic will travel to and from Max
Avenue to the south of Cattail Street. Max Avenue dead ends just south of Cattail Street
and leads to just empty land with no development.
Intersection Safety Not Addressed
The TIS provides a discussion about safety related to sight distance and the need for right
or left turn lanes. However, the TIS provides no evaluation of the existing traffic safety
issues at any of the study intersections, an unusual omission that is typically provided as
part of a TIS. This is especially unusual as the TIS is clear that the proposed
development will result in intersections not meeting minimum city level of service
standards and will result in a substantial, unmitigated queuing issue at the N 19th
Avenue/Cattail Street intersection.
Cattail Street/Max Avenue Roundabout Not Evaluated
Several of the documents in the written record of the application refer to a potential
roundabout at the intersection of Cattail Street/Max Avenue. The TIS provides no
analysis to determine if a roundabout is a solution that will meet city LOS standards.
Additionally, the site plan has not been updated to reflect the inclusion of a roundabout,
which will occupy more space than a typical intersection. The site plan needs to be
updated to reflect the impact of the roundabout, if proposed. The roundabout may have
implications with the on-site circulation.
A Westbound Right Turn Lane is Warranted at the Cattail Street/Max Drive
Intersection
The TIS concludes that a westbound right turn lane is not warranted at the Cattail
Street/Site access and Max Drive/Site access intersections. However, the TIS has failed
to analyze the need for a right turn lane at the Cattail Street/Max Drive intersection. It is
understood that a roundabout may be proposed at this time as mitigation for the
intersection impacts. However, the TIS fails to analyze a roundabout solution. Phase 1
of the development will add 109 westbound right turning vehicles, while phase 1 and 2 of
the development will add 147 westbound right turning vehicles in the weekday PM peak
hour. The existing westbound right turning volume is 185 vehicles. Based upon the
“Guidelines for Right-turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways” as
provided in Appendix C of the TIS, the intersection very easily meets the requirements
for a westbound right turn lane.
Cattail Access Issues
The site plan illustrates a site access to Cattail Street that violates the city access spacing
standard of Table 38.400.090-1 which requires access to be spaced 330 feet from the
10
nearest intersection. The proposed site access will serve both heavy vehicles that require
access to the rear of the building as well as all other development related traffic. The
access is not necessary to serve the development and therefore the access should be
denied. There is not a reason to grant the exception to the city standard.
Under existing conditions, heavy vehicles access the rear of the development to the north
of the proposed development via an access to Catron Street. The proposed development
will further extend the drive aisle to connect to this access. Heavy vehicles serving the
proposed development can utilize this existing access without violating city access
spacing standards. The TIS does not analyze a scenario without a driveway to Cattail
Street, but it is very likely that the development can adequately be served by the
remaining five accesses to the public street system without violating the city access
spacing standards.
Conclusion
The TIS contains a number of errors and omissions that result in inconsistency with City
of Bozeman mandated requirements. The TIS establishes that intersections will not meet
the city mobility standard, yet no mitigation is proposed. The TIS relies on software that
has not been updated for approximately 20 years and is not compliant with city
requirements. The TIS does not rely on current industry standard for trip generation
which results in an under counting of the trips generated by the proposed development,
and pass-by trip and internal capture trip rates that are not based upon evidence. The TIS
fails to include a design year analysis of the weekday AM peak hour. The TIS assumes
that there will be no growth (aside from six developments already approved) in the area
from 2017 to 2032. The TIS provides no analysis of the crash history of any intersection.
Perhaps most alarming, the proposed development will have a significant impact on the N
19th Avenue/Cattail Street intersection with no planned mitigation or in depth discussion
about the problems that the development will cause at this intersection, which is expected
to result in queues regularly backing into the through lane of N 19th Avenue, possibly
causing safety problems.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-317-4559.
Sincerely,
Rick Nys, P.E.
Principal Traffic Engineer
11
RICK NYS, P.E.
PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER
PRESIDENT
EDUCATION
BS, CIVIL ENGINEERING
PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
19
LICENSES & CERTIFICATION
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (P.E.):
OREGON, WASHINGTON,
MONTANA
AFFILIATIONS
PAST PRESIDENT, OREGON
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERS
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT (2012-
2013) AND SECRETARY TREASURER
(2011-2012), OREGON INSTITUTE OF
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
CHAIR, LAKE OSWEGO
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
BOARD
SOFTWARE PROFICIENCIES
SYNCHRO, SIMTRAFFIC, HCS,
TRAFFIX, AUTOCAD, AUTOTURN
G R E E N L I G H T E N G I N E E R I N G
T RA F F IC ENGINEERI NG/ TRA NSP OR TA TION P LA NNING
Traffic Analysis & Operations
Rick takes great pride in his firm’s ability to accurately predict the
impacts of a proposed development on the surrounding street
system. Rick has prepared traffic impact studies and traffic
operations analyses for projects ranging from small subdivisions to
large commercial developments . His clients include Taco Bell,
Walgreens, Harper Houf Peterson Righellis, Domaine Serene Winery,
FedEx, Vigil-Agrimis, Metro Regional Government, the City of Portland,
the Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon City School District,
and Pahlisch Homes.
Project Design
Rick has a wide range of experience in traffic engineering design and
design review from simple signing and striping projects to complex
traffic signals and signal systems. Rick is experienced in traffic
control and construction staging needs for multi-phase construction
projects. Rick served on the committee to update the Oregon
Temporary Traffic Control Handbook (OTTCH) and also served on Ore-
gon’s pavement marking subcommittee in review of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Public Agency Work
Greenlight Engineering has worked as a consultant to the City of
Portland, Metro, Oregon State University and ODOT Region 2.
Greenlight Engineering provided traffic engineering services to Metro
supporting the expansion of Blue Lake Park. Greenlight Engineering
recently completed a contract providing on-call traffic engineering
services to ODOT Region 2. Greenlight Engineering has maintained a
long-standing relationship with Oregon State University by serving as
a consultant for statewide traffic safety, pavement marking and
signing issues, reviewing each in over twenty jurisdictions within the
state of Oregon over the past ten years.
Work as Agency Employee
Rick has worked as a public agency employee for 18 years. Rick has
reviewed over a hundred traffic impact studies and understands what
is needed to get a traffic study successfully completed and approved.
Rick also has a thorough understanding of transportation system
development charges and is a valuable asset when questions or
concerns arise about agency processes and entitlements.