Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19078 Application Materials A1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PROJECT IMAGE PROJECT INFORMATION Project name: Project type(s): Description: Street address: Zip code: Zoning: Gross lot area: Block frontage: Number of buildings: Type and Number of dwellings: Non-residential building size(s): (in stories) Non-residential building height(s): Number of parking spaces: Afordable housing (Y/N): Cash in lieu of parkland (Y/N): VICINITY MAP CITY USE ONLY Submittal date: Application fle number: Planner: DRC required (Y/N): Revision Date: Development Review Application A1 Page 1 of 3 Revision Date: 5.16.18 REQUIRED FORMS: Varies by project type, PLS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Full address (with zip code): Phone: Email: 2. APPLICANT Name: Full address (with zip code): Phone: Email: 3. REPRESENTATIVE Name: Full address (with zip code): Phone: Email: 4. SPECIAL DISTRICTS Overlay District: Neighborhood Conservation None Urban Renewal District: Downtown North 7th Avenue Northeast North Park None 5. CERTIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if diferent) for all application types before the submittal will be accepted. The only exception to this is an informal review application that may be signed by the applicant(s) only. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representative’s access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 38.34.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Certifcation of Completion and Compliance – I understand that conditions of approval may be applied to the application and that I will comply with any conditions of approval or make necessary corrections to the application materials in order to comply with municipal code provisions. Statement of Intent to Construct According to the Final Plan – I acknowledge that construction not in compliance with the approved fnal plan may result in delays of occupancy or costs to correct noncompliance. continued on next page Development Review Application A1 Page 2 of 3 Revision Date: 5.16.18 REQUIRED FORMS: Varies by project type, PLS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Signature: Printed Name: Owner Signature: Printed Name: Owner Signature: Printed Name: If signing as a corporation or LLC, please provide the title and position of the individual signing on behalf of the corporation/LLC. Attach separate sheets for additional owner signatures. 6. APPLICATION TYPES Check all that apply, use noted forms. 1. Pre-application Consultation 2. Master Site Plan 3. Site Plan 4. Subdivision pre-application 5. Subdivision preliminary plan 6. Subdivision fnal plan 7. Subdivision exemption 8. Condominium Review 9. PUD concept plan 10. PUD preliminary plan 11. PUD fnal plan 12. Annexation and Initial Zoning 13. Administrative Interpretation Appeal 14. Administrative Project Decision Appeal . Commercial Non-residential COA 16. Historic Neighborhood Conservation Overlay COA 17. Informal Review 18. Zoning Deviation/Departure . Zoning or Subdivision Variance . Conditional Use Permit 21. Special Temporary Use Permit 22. Special Use Permit 23. Regulated Activities in Wetlands 24. Zone Map Amendment (non-Annexation) 25. UDC Text Amendment 26. Growth Policy Amendment 27. Modifcation/Plan Amendment . Extension of Approved Plan . Reasonable Accommodation 30. Comprehensive Sign Plan 31. Other: CONTACT US FORM FORM None INF MSP None SP 19 Z/SVAR PA 20 CUP PP STUP FP SUP SE WR CR ZMA PUDC ZTA PUDP GPA PUDFP MOD ANNX 28 EXT AIA 29 RA APA CSP 15 CCOA NCOA Alfred M. Stif Professional Building 20 East Olive Street 59715 (FED EX and UPS Only) PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 phone 406.582.2260 fax 406.582.2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net Development Review Application A1 Page 3 of 3 Revision Date: 5.16.18 REQUIRED FORMS: Varies by project type, PLS SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT MATRIX GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE HOTEL GROUND LEVEL 15,184 TYPICAL LEVEL X 4 15,087 6TH/ROOF LEVEL 12,771 TOTAL BLDG 88,303 SF LOT SIZE 19,977 SF FAR 4.42 ROOM COUNT ROOM TYPE FLOOR TOTAL 2 3 4 5 6 QUEEN/QUEEN 10 13 13 13 10 59 KING 19 19 19 19 8 84 TOTAL PER FLOOR 29 32 32 32 18 143 GRAND TOTAL 143 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES QUANTITY FACTOR HOTEL ROOM COUNT EMPLOYEES ON MAX SHIFT INDOOR SERVING SPACES BAR/ LOUNGE AT 1ST FLOOR(961SF/60) = 16.02 BAR/ LOUNGE AT 6TH FLOOR(948SF/60) = 15.8 (3000SF REDUCTION) OUTDOOR SERVING SPACES ROOFTOP DECK (1772 SF) (W/ 3000 SF REDUCTION ONLY 681SF REMAIN/120) MEETING/PUBLIC ASSEMBLY SPACES BOARD ROOM (8 SEATS/5) = 1.6 MEETING ROOM (90 SEATS/5) = 18 (MEETING REDUCTION 143GR/4 = 37.5 REDUCTION > 19.6) 157.3 16 0 5.7 0 143 ROOMS 16 EMPLOYEES 961SF 48SF 681SF 8 SEATS 90 SEATS 1.1 1 60 60 120 5 5 SUBTOTAL 178.7 REDUCTIONS - B3 (30%), TRANSIT HUB (10%), PARKING GARAGE (15%) 55% TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES 80.4 =80 SPACES PARKING CALCULATION Using the guidelines described in Section 38.540.010 the proposed design requires 78 parking spaces to be provided. The project will utilize existing surplus at the Bridger Park Downtown Garage located directly across the street. Use of existing parking facility surplus allows the project to maximize valuable ground fl oor area for engaging, pedestrian- oriented uses. A preliminary calculation of the parking requirements and applicable reductions are included in the Project Matrix on this page. A traffi c study will be provided at the time of site plan approval to supplement this requirement. Bicycle parking will also be provided as required. Based on a 10% bike parking requirement, 18 spaces will be provided on the site. These bike racks will be utilized as a point of encouraging activity at the street level, strategically placed to best serve the daily users and visitors. PARKING DEMAND BUILDING DATA MATRIX | AC HOTEL Form CCOA Checklist AC Hotel Prepared 05/21/2019 CHECKLIST ITEMS APPLICANT RESPONSE 1. Project narrative providing a thorough description of what is being proposed including a list of all alterations/changes proposed on the property Refer to Project Narrative 2. If in Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, historical information, such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the proposed changes to the property See attached Owners Policy, Warranty Deed, and Historic Property Records. 3. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered that will clearly express the nature and extend of the changes planned. Except wh ere otherwise recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted. All pictures shall be printed on or attached to 81/2 x 11 paper with the property address, elevation direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information on the proposed changes Refer to Project Narrative under Existing Structure. 4. Sketch plan or Site plan depending on project complexity with north arrow showing property dimensions, location of buildings, parking, driveways, fencing, landscaping, yard/setback locations, location of utilities, access, pedestrian facilities, and locatio n of changes proposed. Suggested scale of 1 inch to 20 feet, but not less than 1 inch to 100 feet. Depending on complexity and extent of changes proposed changes to the site plan shall be clearly depicted on the site plan showing existing conditions or two separate site plans titled existing and proposed Refer to drawing C1.1 - Civil Site Plan 5. Front, rear and side elevations of all buildings, structures, fences and walls with height dimensions and roof pitches if new construction or changes to elevations are proposed. Show existing and proposed changes. Show open stairways and other projections from exterior building walls Refer to Exterior Elevations, drawings A5-1 and A5-2 6. Building elevations shall include proposed exterior building materials, windows and doors including a color and building material palette for all proposed features key ed to the building elevations Refer to Exterior Elevations, drawings A5-1 and A5-2 7. One exhibit or illustration shall include all the internal and external elements of a structure to be removed or altered by a project. All elements to be removed or altered, and to what extent, shall be clearly identified and shall include those elements to be removed and reinstalled. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS. Drawing shows existing structures and items to be removed. 8. For any non-conforming structure, an analysis of demolition to determine whether the threshold for loss of protected non-conforming status per Section 38.32.040.B BMC has been met or surpassed. An analysis will be presented in the DEM Application to be submitted with the City in the coming weeks. 9. For minor fence, screen, storefront or window/door changes or replacements, and other minor changes: pictures ,specifications and other information that will clearly express the proposed changes or alterations to the property Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS. Drawing shows existing structures and items to be removed. 10. Cutsheets or brochure pages for proposed windows, doors, exterior lighting or other detailed alterations if building elevations are not detailed enough to depict features accurately Proposed windows and doors are preliminary for the sake of understanding scale, light penetration, aesthetics, and activating the street frontage. Suppliers and specific models will be selected following Site Plan approval to closely match the units as shown at drawings A5-1 and A5-211. Floor plans showing floor layout including square footage and proposed use for each room and area within the building clearly showing areas to be changed or added to. Suggested scale of ¼ to 1 foot. Refer to drawings A1-1 through A1-4 for plan layouts at each level of the proposed building design. 12. Parking plan and calculation for all uses, if proposed changes to the property require review of parking requirements (e.g. addition of bedrooms to a home, Accessory Dwelling Units, new infill residential construction) Refer to Project Matrix for all calculations. 13. A schedule for the proposed changes to the property if to be phased or if applicable. N/A, proposed as new development DEVIATIONS 14. If the proposal includes a request for a deviation in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay as outlined in Section 38.16.070 BMC and is being processed independent of a site plan application then this application shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce. N/A 15. Either through the site plan requirement above or separate exhibit clearly showing any proposed deviations related to site requirements such as yards/setbacks, lot coverage, or other applicable standards. N/A 16. Either through the building elevation requirement above or separate exhibit clearly show any proposed deviations related to building construction such as height, second story additions, or other applicable standards N/A 17. A deviation narrative shall be added to the project narrative stating which Sections(s) of the Bozeman Municipal Code are proposed for deviation, to what extent and include a response to the following: a. How the modification is more historically appropriate for the building and site in questions and the adjacent properties, as determined in SEction 38.16.050 BMC than would be achieved under a literal enforcement of this chapter (Chapter 38, BMC); b. How the modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses thereof; and c. How the modifications will assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. d. How the requested deviation will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community. If more than one deviation, a response to the criteria shall be provided for each deviation. N/A CCOA Commercial COA Required Materials CCOA Page 1 of 3 Revision Date 1-8-19 Required Forms: A1, N1 (if deviation) Recommended Forms: Presentation of submitted plans and specifications COMMERCIAL/NONRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUIRED MATERIALS APPLICATION SETS One set is required that includes 1 copy of every item below bound or folded into 8½ x 11 or 8½ x 14 sets. If a deviation is proposed and if more than two deviations or deviations of more than 20% are proposed additional sets will be required. Complete and signed development review application form A1 One Plan set that includes all commercial certificate of appropriateness checklist items below unless otherwise provided in another application type Standard application sets required plan sizes: Plans may be 24 x 36 inch or 11 x 17 inch or 8 1/2 x 11 inch in size depending on project type. Larger, more complex projects require larger plans. 1 digital version of all materials (JPEG or PDF) on separate CD-ROM or USB drive. Individual files must be provided at 5MB or less in size. Files shall be named according to naming protocol. Notes: All plans must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½ x 11 inches or larger than 24 x 36 inches. The name of the project must be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Plans that are rolled or not bound into sets will not be accepted. NOTICING MATERIALS Completed and signed property adjoiners certificate form N1and materials if deviation proposed associated with an existing building in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. APPLICATION FEE Base fee $364 If deviation add: $234 per deviation Application types and fees are cumulative. HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION IF IN NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY Date of construction if known: Existing property record form Updated property record form For assistance, see more information through the following link: http://www.bozeman.net/Departments/Community-Development/Historic-Preservation/How-To-s- FAQ-s COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CHECKLIST Certain information shall be provided for review prior to a decision on a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the City to make its determination on the application. Commercial COA Required Materials CCOA Page 2 of 3 Revision Date 1-8-19 Required Forms: A1, N1 (if deviation) Recommended Forms: Required Forms: 1. Project narrative providing a thorough description of what is being proposed including a list of all alterations/changes proposed on the property. 2. If in Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, historical information, such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the proposed changes to the property 3. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered that will clearly express the nature and extend of the changes planned. Except where otherwise recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted. All pictures shall be printed on or attached to 81/2 x 11 paper with the property address, elevation direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information on the proposed changes 4. Sketch plan or Site plan depending on project complexity with north arrow showing property dimensions, location of buildings, parking, driveways, fencing, landscaping, yard/setback locations, location of utilities, access, pedestrian facilities, and location of changes proposed. Suggested scale of 1 inch to 20 feet, but not less than 1 inch to 100 feet. Depending on complexity and extent of changes proposed changes to the site plan shall be clearly depicted on the site plan showing existing conditions or two separate site plans titled existing and proposed 5. Front, rear and side elevations of all buildings, structures, fences and walls with height dimensions and roof pitches if new construction or changes to elevations are proposed. Show existing and proposed changes. Show open stairways and other projections from exterior building walls 6. Building elevations shall include proposed exterior building materials, windows and doors including a color and building material palette for all proposed features keyed to the building elevations 7. One exhibit or illustration shall include all the internal and external elements of a structure to be removed or altered by a project. All elements to be removed or altered, and to what extent, shall be clearly identified and shall include those elements to be removed and reinstalled. 8. For any non-conforming structure, an analysis of demolition to determine whether the threshold for loss of protected non-conforming status per Section 38.32.040.B BMC has been met or surpassed. 9. For minor fence, screen, storefront or window/door changes or replacements, and other minor changes: pictures ,specifications and other information that will clearly express the proposed changes or alterations to the property 10. Cutsheets or brochure pages for proposed windows, doors, exterior lighting or other detailed alterations if building elevations are not detailed enough to depict features accurately 11. Floor plans showing floor layout including square footage and proposed use for each room and area within the building clearly showing areas to be changed or added to. Suggested scale of ¼ to 1 foot. 12. Parking plan and calculation for all uses, if proposed changes to the property require review of parking requirements (e.g. addition of bedrooms to a home, Accessory Dwelling Units, new infill residential construction). 13. A schedule for the proposed changes to the property if to be phased or if applicable. DEVIATIONS If the proposal includes a request for a deviation in the Entryway Corridor Overlay as outlined in Section 38.17.070 BMC the application shall be processed as a site plan application with deviation and this form shall not apply, reference instead forms SP and SP1. 14. If the proposal includes a request for a deviation in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay as outlined in Section 38.16.070 BMC and is being processed independent of a site plan application then this application shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce. 15. Either through the site plan requirement above or separate exhibit clearly showing any proposed deviations related to site requirements such as yards/setbacks, lot coverage, or other applicable standards. 16. Either through the building elevation requirement above or separate exhibit clearly show any proposed deviations related to building construction such as height, second story additions, or other applicable standards. Commercial COA Required Materials CCOA Page 3 of 3 Revision Date 1-8-19 Required Forms: A1, N1 (if deviation) Recommended Forms: Required Forms: 17. A deviation narrative shall be added to the project narrative stating which Section (s) of the Bozeman Municipal Code are proposed for deviation, to what extent and include a response to the following: a. How the modification is more historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the adjacent properties, as determined in Section 38.16.050 BMC than would be achieved under a literal enforcement of this chapter (Chapter 38, BMC); b. How the modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses thereof; and c. How the modifications will assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. d. How the requested deviation will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community. If more than one deviation, a response to the criteria shall be provided for each deviation CONTACT US Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street 59715 (FED EX and UPS Only) PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST CONR COMMENTS , APPLICANT RESPONSE|AC HOTEL !"#$ %&’($("! %)&&* %)&+&%*,* !""#$%!&$$ $ &-*’()*+,+#$ $)*-./0%0/%’%%1*2 ) $-$*+.$)/)0 &*(3 #$* * %*$** *++*1+$#$ $)+ &*4356 *7*1*+*--*8-*)-*9:;<$(=((" %$-*$)(**$-$+ /2%%%1%30+*$4$-++ 5*$*$$$ 2 (*+-’(*++-$$,#$ $*+ &.6#$*$- !-+$7$8 :4$;<>";"<"=4 SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST CONR COMMENTS , APPLICANT RESPONSE|AC HOTEL 9 %%$:$%1$:$ $+8 ($-%"#$$-*:$%%2"#$ $/0 )%!""#$ $--%-$17 $---$-%*!$ ! +$$7$8 /0&"""#$-$+&, -7 &"""%"$$ #$7 ! 7$-,$+7$-* " !# 3 &!""3"..$+$7#$ $+***- +*+$*$+$7$ $%%&"’ ’ **;<7+ *$-#$-$-*/;<:)’ =+ SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST CONR COMMENTS , APPLICANT RESPONSE|AC HOTEL ()* #$ -#$&&""" ’$- $> **+#+ ,"*# ???%*00**+*7*+9:; %6’*)/)0&23""2". )$$-+$*$ *$$ * -*-$$$ $* ( 2 6’*)&!"""%".8 $$"?$9/%" $0"?$-,$$ $- .$## /012. ,$3"*!04 # &6’*)&!""""8 .*$+- $4)@$+#$7 #$-+7$ #$#&%56&&56 )7&6 8$+ !6’*)&!"""3"8 $-*$-4A’ $A$-$-$ -$$-$-$ $# #$+# 4!94 SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST CONR COMMENTS , APPLICANT RESPONSE|AC HOTEL 6’*)&!""%""8 #$$’* -*+-)@’ -***+ *-’4’**)*$- ** $04$## $#0: 5# 0$#$### 6’*)&!%""3"8 $)@#$+ ’$%" $-*-+$$ $ *#$;#< # # -6$- )#$*$$4+$) *-7$-*- )$#$ ##2 $7$ ’$+$-* )( %7 # 3 6’*)&!%"""8 $-$+ $- + +-+$- * $ 66$ #66 7 --*-$-$ .--$-+1- --$-*+*-) **)$;3 $# $#$#=5 >=## SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST CONR COMMENTS , APPLICANT RESPONSE|AC HOTEL # # ) 7 )$$-**/0* 2* $*#?=6 # $-$-$ +$$@ $:-@# $5 # .$$-**$- -+* #7 ## 6’*)&!%"%&"8 $*$)$+$- **$* *#66 # # .*)/08 %B*+-#$,$ *+)@B*A $---**-) $*$ **$$ +B**!C$- $-$-)* $-- 2 $$-++1 +*-/0 +$-**-)<+$ -*-’*D$$* * $ $ +)$-$-$$ *$*-*$ -$/*-*7,%*+2*:*++/-,%*%*@&&,&0’+* *0%+%/&/% *,%1+ /++ ,%1*+*+ + 0%’ * &* 4$;(#";"4"; 0 ’ /*&*,-%20%&&/%%&+%/&*; SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST CONR COMMENTS , APPLICANT RESPONSE|AC HOTEL *-+*1*+*AB1*-*7=- %$+-+$$7* $## /*-*7*1*+*A:*+C -7=->"=<$(=(4## ’%1*2%+ ’*:.($$=-: B’:$$=-!"22&2 ;<:)’=+ <+’*:E.,=-!"2&2"" B’*:.1;#$#$=-!"2&2" !$$-$+#$#$ ++) $-$$4$#$ $’)$’*5* /%*7,%,%*0’+00%,%--**&-**+0,,%1@:%&-- :+-&+-%&-*+,%1*--:@’%,,*&:%1*27&*+*11- 2*’’%1*20’,%)&; SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST © 2018 Google © 2018 Google © 2018 Google 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 on N. Rouse and then West on to W Mendenhall St. due to the availability of traffic signal at Main St. and the ease of truck access on Rouse. Delivery trucks will utilize Tracy Ave. along the project site to temporarily park and off load materials and equip- ment. After making deliveries or pick-up, vehicles will continue North on Tracy Ave. turn onto Beal St. and merge onto Willson Ave. towards Main St. 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 dumpster will be staged on N Tracy Ave. MAIN ST. MENDENHALL ST. LAMME ST.TRACY AVE.WILLSON AVE. ST.N ROUSE AVE.The AC Hotel building is situated with public right-of-way to the west, south, and north property lines. The neighboring east property will not be impacted, nor the air-space beyond the property line encroached upon during the course of construction. This will be possible due to offsets to the structure, cantilevers, and the use of drilled-pier foundation systems. The east wall of the basement parking is offset from the east property line to eliminate the potential for any impacts to the neighboring property during that phase of construction or any potential undermining of the neighboring property. Limited use of sheet-piling may be necessary and will be utilized to ensure that there are no impacts to the neighboring property during excavation and construction of the foundation and basement systems. Above grade, the owner, HomeBase has made specific considerations to preserve the neighboring Element Hotel’s access to air and light from its west-facing windows; this results in additional offset to above-grade walls away from the property line. These offsets above grade will allow room for the construction of the east façade assemblies of the AC Hotel building without necessitating crossing the property line. Due to these considerations, a construction easement should not be necessary with the neighboring property to the east. 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 on N. Rouse and then West on to W Mendenhall St. due to the availability of traffic signal at Main St. and the ease of truck access on Rouse. Delivery trucks will utilize Tracy Ave. along the project site to temporarily park and off load materials and equipment. After making deliveries or pick-up, vehicles will continue North on Tracy Ave. turn onto Beal St. and merge onto Willson Ave. towards Main St. 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 dumpster will be staged on N Tracy Ave. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS AT THE EAST PROPERTY LINE CONSTRUCTION ROUTE MAP CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS | AC HOTEL E. Mendenhall StreetN. Tracy Ave. (Variable Width)Alley (20' Width) Lots 1-5 of Block G, Amended Plat C-1-F 19,977 sf (0.469 ac) 1 2 3 4 5 D C1.1CIVIL SITE PLANPROFESSIONALENGINEERS &SURVEYORSSTRAIGHTAWAY SITE STAHLYENGINEERING& ASSOCIATESHOMEBASEPARTNERS, LLC CRANE OFFICE TRAILER STORAGE & STAGING AREA DURING SITE PREP WORK ANGULAR ROCK ENTRANCE PERIMETER SILT FENCE DUMPSTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD CLOSURES MUST BE COORDINATED WITH STREAMLINE BUS SERVICE TO NOT DISRUPT ESSENTIAL SERVICES. 2. THE STREET VISION TRIANGLE TO BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD ACCORDING TO THE LOCATION IDENTIFIED IN THE CIVIL DRAWINGS. AC HOTEL 19 FEBUARY 2019 SPR SUBMITTAL SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST !"#$%!&’ ( ) DRAWING INDEX |AC HOTEL ( ) • • www.seaeng.com Engineers and Land Surveyors 851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1, Bozeman, MT 59715 | phone: 406-522-8594 | fax: 406-522-9528 AC Hotel Bozeman Site, Water, Sewer, Storm Water Engineering Report February 19, 2019, Site Plan Submittal – Updated May 18, 2019 Prepared for: HomeBase Montana Prepared by: Stahly Engineering and Associates Engineer of Record: Cordell D. Pool, PE Quality Control Reviewer: Zach Lowe, PE Introduction The AC Hotel Bozeman building is an infill redevelopment of the property defined as Lots 1-5 of Block G Amended Plat C-1-F located at the northeast intersection of Mendenhall Street and Tracy Ave. The site is 0.469 acres (19,977 sf) and currently occupied by 4 separate one-story buildings—5 and 15 East Mendenhall St, and 106 and 112 North Tracy Ave. Two of the structures are part of an automotive repair business and the other two structures are single-family homes. The existing buildings are currently served by four (4) 3/4” water services—two from the main in Mendenhall and two from the main in South Black Avenue—and one 4” sanitary service from Mendenhall. The existing buildings will be demolished and replaced with a hotel building. The proposed AC Hotel building will be 6 stories. The building occupies most of the property with a ground level footprint of approximately 15,400 sf and a roof area of 17,165 sf. The ground level floor will be hotel lobby, lounge, and hotel support facilities. The second through sixth levels will have 143 hotel rooms. The sixth level also has an indoor/outdoor lounge area. 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. Site improvements The AC Hotel building occupies most of the property, so site improvements are not extensive. Parking is provided by leased spaces in the Bridger Park garage located directly across Mendenhall, or by other off-site leased property. Pedestrian access to the building will be on the Mendenhall and Tracy frontages and from the alley. The existing sidewalks and curbs adjacent to the building will be replaced after building construction. With this project Tracy Avenue will be widened from 31’ back of curb to 33’ back of curb by moving the east curb along this property back 2’. The widening will Page | 2 transition back to existing width north of the alley. Utility construction in the alley will require replacement of the alley adjacent to the building. Site vision triangles are shown for the intersection of Mendenhall Street and Tracy Avenue. A non-typical solution was required due to unique intersection conditions. Mendenhall is a two-lane one- way street with stop-controlled access from Tracy Street. Two separate site vision triangles are proposed, one for traffic accessing Tracy Avenue, and one for traffic accessing or crossing Mendenhall Street. For traffic accessing Tracy Avenue, a City standard 40’ local street vision triangle is proposed. This is because the 25MPH speed limit on Mendenhall, does not require typical arterial vision. For traffic accessing Mendenhall Street, a City standard vision triangle was not the most appropriate. For this vision triangle, MDT guidelines were used that are more applicable to stop-controlled accesses. This vision triangle requires more site distance along Mendenhall, so stopped vehicles have time to enter the intersection. Franchise utilities will be provided by existing utilities located in the alley. Service lines to the existing buildings will be removed, along with an existing Northwestern Energy pole supporting these services. The removal of the pole will require some existing overhead utility lines to be relocated underground. Also, there is an existing easement for communication facilities on the property adjacent to the alley; however, no utilities exist in this easement. As part of the relocation of existing utility lines, this easement is proposed to be relocated 10’ to the west which allows relocated communication facilities to be outside of the alley right-of way and within the easement. Water City water mains exist in North Tracy Avenue and Mendenhall Street, both are 8” diameter. The existing four water services will be capped at the main, and new fire and water services will be provided from the water main in Tracy Ave. 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. Estimated water fixture counts at this time are 800 water fixture units, equating to a maximum flow rate of 210 gpm. Based on this flow rate, a 4” water service line is proposed with a 3” water meter. 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. The City of Bozeman 2017 Water Facility Plan Update did not identify any fire protection limitation in this area of the town. Four (4) fire hydrants are located on the adjacent streets within 300 feet of the building. Furthermore, as part of the 2017 Update, a fire flow test was performed on a hydrant approximately two blocks away at the corner of Villard and North Tracy Ave, and the test results are included with this report. The static water pressure is approximately 137 psi. Two adjacent hydrants were opened simultaneously at a 2.5” diameter nozzle, one flowed at 1601 gpm and the other at 1,744 gpm, for a total flow of 3,345 gpm. These flows resulted in a 25 psi drop at the residual test hydrant, which had a residual pressure of 112 psi. This test indicates that reasonable urban fire flows can be met in this area, even though some water mains are only 6” diameter. Specifically, each of the 4 nearby hydrants could be expected to provide similar flows, resulting in approximately 4,000-6,000 gpm of fire flow available to the AC Hotel building. Additionally, this test indicates that the water system network in this area can provide the anticipated peak domestic demand of the AC Hotel building with very little impact on the system pressures. Page | 3 Estimated water use for the AC Hotel building is provided in Table 1. Estimated water use is based on City water use data for similar Hotels and, specifically, water meter data obtained from the Element Hotel. The Element has a swimming pool, so its water use is likely higher than the AC Hotel. Element Hotel water meter data shows that the highest water use occurs during summer and is equivalent to 93 gpd/room. Average annual water use is 67 gpd/room. Estimated water use for the AC Hotel is 91 gpd/room, since there is not a swimming pool proposed. With this estimate the full occupancy total domestic use is estimated to be approximately 13,000 gallons per day (gpd). Annual water use is less than this value, due to seasonal occupancy variance. Average annual domestic water use is anticipated to be 65 gpd/room, for an average day flow of approximately 9,300 gpd. Due to the urban design, irrigation water use is minimal, only 0.03 acre feet/year. The total annual water use is anticipated to be approximately 10.44 acre feet per year (AF/year). This does not account for the existing water use present at the site, which will be discontinued. Table 1. AC Hotel Estimated Water Use Design Flow Average Annual Flow Hotel Use # Units Gpd/Unit Gpd Gpd/Unit Gpd AF/year Unit 143 91 13,013 65 9,295 10.41 Irrigation Use Gpd (Gal/year) AF/year Total Irrigation 96 9612 0.03 Total Water Use 13,109 10.44 A 6” clay sewer exists in Mendenhall Street. This main is undersized and not in a favorable location and thus will not be used to serve the AC Hotel building. Instead, a new 8” sewer main is proposed to be extended from the existing 10” sewer main at the intersection of Lamme and Tracy to serve the AC Hotel building. The sewer main is proposed to be extended from this intersection, south in Tracy Ave to the alley north of the building and further extended in the alley to serve the building. The main building sewer service size is based on the drainage fixture counts in the building. Estimated drainage fixture counts at this time are 679 drainage fixture units. This requires an 8” service at 1% slope. Additionally, to accommodate hotel food preparation a 1,000-gallon grease interceptor is provided between the building and the alley. Daily wastewater generation is anticipated to be equal to the domestic use of 13,013 gallons per day. Using a peaking factor of 8 (the entire day’s use in 3 hours), the peak hour flow discharging to the sewer is estimated to be 72 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 and alleys. Runoff is then collected in existing curb inlets and transported to a storm drain main in Beall Street. Though antiquated, the existing storm drainage system appears to be functioning adequately. The existing curbs on Tracy Ave adjacent to the property are badly deteriorated and will be replaced with this project. Storm water mitigation is based on the redevelopment low impact design requirement in the City Design Standards to “infiltrate, evapotranspire, or capture for reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5” of rainfall”. Additionally, to reduce impacts to the existing storm drainage infrastructure, the Page | 4 stormwater mitigation will reduce peak flows from larger storm events to below existing values. Due to the existing impervious areas, the most limiting criteria is the capture of the first 0.5” of rainfall. The proposed stormwater mitigation system will capture, retain, and infiltrate the building rooftop runoff and adjacent sidewalk areas for storms up to and exceeding 0.5” of rainfall. The infiltration system will capture rooftop runoff and pipe it to a subsurface chamber/gravel infiltration system within the building footprint. All stormwater piping has been sized to handle the 25-year design event and all sidewalk chases have been sized to handle the 100-year design event. Permeable pavers will be installed along the sidewalk to further reduce stormwater runoff generated from the improved sidewalk areas and mitigate the loss of the grass boulevard. A summary of the stormwater calculations showing the mitigation of the increased stormwater runoff has been provided below in Table 2. Table 2. AC Hotel Storm Water Calculations Site Statistics Land Classification C Existing Area (sf) Post Dev Area (sf) Rooftops 0.9 5,692 17,262 Pavement/Concrete 0.9 6,305 1,093 Gravel 0.75 3,490 0 Permeable Pavers 0.3 0 1,386 Landscape 0.2 4,490 236 Total 19,977 19,977 Weighted Runoff Coeff. (C) 0.72 0.85 Design Storm Information Design Storm 0.5-Inch 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Drainage Area (acres) 0.459 0.459 0.459 0.459 0.459 Drainage Area (sf) 19977 19977 19977 19977 19977 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) NA 3.22 3.83 4.74 5.34 Peak Runoff Rate at Tc (Q = CIA) (cfs) NA 1.06 1.26 1.56 1.75 Runoff Volume (cf) 596 2195 2576 2886 3185 Post Dev 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) NA 3.22 3.83 4.74 5.34 Peak Runoff Rate at Tc (Q = CIA) (cfs) NA 1.25 1.49 1.85 2.08 Runoff Volume (cf) 708 2604 3057 3425 3779 Mitigation Calculations Design Storm 0.5 Inch 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Runoff Volume Increase (cf) 0 409 481 538 594 Mitigation Volume (cf) 2138 2138 2138 2138 2138 Net Runoff Volume Post Mitigation (cf) 0 466 919 1287 1641 % Decrease in Runoff from Existing >100% 79% 64% 55% 48% Page | 5 The proposed chamber system configuration provides a net storage volume of approximately 2,138 cf which exceeds the required storage volume for the 0.5” event of 708 cf. The proposed infiltration system will completely retain runoff from storms up to the 1.51-inch event. In addition to containing the volume of the first 0.5”, the proposed storage also contains the runoff volume increase from pre- existing to post-development in the 10, 25, 50, and 100-year 24-hour events. Since the 0.5” runoff and the runoff volume increase are contained within the retention facility, the post-development runoff is significantly reduced below the pre-development runoff. Any flows generated in storms that exceed the storage volume will be conveyed by concrete chases into the curb and gutter on Tracy Avenue and Mendenhall Street then into the existing storm collection system. The storage volume of this system does not account for expected infiltration during the design storm event. Conveyance capacity of the stormwater system is analyzed with respect to the post development stormwater flows. Rooftop runoff is collected in one of two 8” pipes and then conveyed into the infiltration system. An 8” PVC pipe has a full-flow capacity of 1.58 cfs at the specified 1.5% slope, exceeding the 25-year storm run-off flow rate. For larger storms the remaining storm runoff will be directed to the curb and gutter through two sidewalk chases. The sidewalk chases each have a capacity of 1.39 cfs at the dimensions and grades shown on the plans. The combined capacity of the two sidewalk chases exceeds the runoff flow rate from the 100-year event. Storm Water Maintenance: General Information The proposed storm water conveyance and infiltration facilities will be operated and maintained by the property manager. Storm Water Facilities Maintenance Schedule 1. Site Housekeeping. (Continuously as needed) The main cause of storm water facility damage is poor site housekeeping. Sediment tracked onto pavement can be washed into storm water appurtenances and damage these facilities. Trash can clog conveyance structures, potentially causing property damage. • Keep sidewalk, permeable pavers, and parking areas clean. • Pick up trash. • Restore damaged landscaping in order to prevent sediment runoff. 2. Curb, Sidewalk Chase, and Infiltration System Maintenance. (Quarterly) All storm water conveyance structures can acquire sediment and debris buildup. If this sediment and debris is not periodically removed, it can cause undesired ponding and clogging. These conveyance structures need to be inspected and cleaned if required. • Inspect for sediment or debris in the structures and remove if present. • Inspect infiltration system through inspection ports for sediment accumulation. Sediment depth less than 3” is acceptable. • Check for damage, repair as needed. Page | 6 3. Curb, Sidewalk Chase, and Infiltration System Maintenance. (Long-term) If regular housekeeping and maintenance is not performed adequately, sediment and debris can accumulate in the storm water conveyance structures and infiltration system and clog them beyond repair. • If greater than 3” of sediment is present in infiltration system, hire a contractor with a Jet-Vac chamber cleaning system to remove the sediment from the infiltration system. • If original system performance can be achieved through maintenance, hire a contractor to repair and return conveyance structures and infiltration system to the initial design condition found on City engineering plans. 4. System Monitoring. (Quarterly, except in winter) The storm water facilities shall be inspected quarterly to quickly identify small issues before expensive damage can occur. In addition to regular monitoring, the best time to inspect the performance of storm water facilities is during runoff events. • Observe system during runoff. Look for ponding on permeable pavers or inlet structures. This can indicate a clogged paver infiltration and/or clogged conveyance structure. • Open infiltration system inspection ports within 24-hours of a storm event and look for ponded water in the infiltration system. This can indicate clogged infiltration system. If clogged hire a contractor with a Jet-Vac chamber cleaning system to remove the sediment from the infiltration system. 5. PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (PICP) Inspection & Maintenance Guidelines. Service inspection and maintenance shall include the following activities: • Winter Maintenance: o Ensure snow is not stockpiled on permeable pavement surface. o Ensure only joint aggregate stone (typically # 8, #89 or #9 washed chip stone) is used for traction as needed. Sand should not be used for winter traction. • Normal Maintenance: o Inspect surface for ponding after large rain events. If ponding is observed, identify areas with severe sediment loading and vacuum to remove and replace with new washed joint aggregate (typically # 8, #89, or # 9 washed chip stone). o Note any sediment laden run-off from adjacent areas onto permeable pavement. If needed, correct with erosion control measures. • Annual inspection and maintenance shall include the following activities: o Replenish paver joints with additional aggregate if level is more than ½ in. below chamfer bottoms. o Inspect vegetation around PICP perimeter for cover & soil stability, repair/replant as needed. o Inspect and repair all paver surface deformations (depressions/settlement) exceeding 1/2 in. Page | 7 o Repair paver heights offset by more than 1/4 in. above or below adjacent units or offset by more than 1/8” lippage from paver-to-paver. o Replace cracked paver units impairing surface structural integrity. o Check drains and outfalls (if existing) for free flow of water. Remove any obstructions. o Check observation wells (if existing) to confirm reservoir is draining (based on size of last rain event). o Vacuum surface (typically spring), adjust vacuuming schedule per sediment loading. Once a year sweeping is normal unless excessive silts and fines are present in joints. o Test surface infiltration rate using ASTM C1781. If pavement infiltration rate is < 100 in/hr. employ remedial maintenance procedure utilizing a vacuum sweeper/method to extract affected clogged joints/voids and replace joint/void areas with #8, #89 or #9 washed chip aggregates and retest infiltration rate to confirm reinstated areas exceed 100 in/hr. flow rate. Repeat remedial process as needed to exceed the 100 in/hr. criteria. • Additional Normal Maintenance Notes: o A dry mechanical or regenerative air-type sweeper may be used during dry periods to remove encrusted sediment, leaves, grass clippings, etc. Vacuum or sweeper settings may require adjustments to prevent uptake of aggregate from the paver voids or joints. Leaf blowers or other standard onsite manual methods that are used for standard pavement maintenance may be employed to remove this surface debris. o It is not recommended to utilize a pressure washer to clean joints. o Remove snow with standard plow/snow blowing equipment. o Deicing salt may be used on permeable pavers (proper application and appropriate salt type) but consult property owner or project engineer before usage. In some regions deicing salt use is restricted. Salt use can affect water quality and have environmental impact. PRS410D010-SM4128FS-41SNDH AC HOTEL BOZEMAN SET CCT TO 3000K L100 AC HOTEL BOZEMAN L800 L801 22 261 - K3 AC HOTEL BOZEMAN SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST Development Review Committee, Required Code Corrections Comment 9) Per the storefront requirements for an entry along mendhall, staff deems the proposed Mendenhall entrance to be a primary entrance. The entry does not meet the requirements of 38.530.050.E Articulated Building Entries. Design Elements must be incorporated to clearly defi ne the entrance at a scale proportional to the south-facing facade. Response: Refer to image above and images on the next page for additional design elements added to the south facade to emphasize the Mendenhall entry. Wood-look battens on the South Facade will be continued horizontally parallel to the canopy, over the entry doors connecting the doors to the signage and the major design feature, then vertically next to the doors. By continuing the battens vertically along the storefront the design language used at the primary entry on Tracy is mirrored on Mendenhall. Vertical battens anchoring the AC Hotels signage dominate the south facade - by connecting the Mendenhall entry doors to the battens and signage the prominence of the entry is increased. In accordance with 38.530.050.E Articulated Building Entries the scale of the entry is increased to correspond with the south facade through use of the wood-look battens and creation of a batten canopy. PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN |AC HOTEL MENDENHALL ENTRY Proposed Articulated Entrance at Mendenhall Elevation Vignette at Tracy Entrance SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN |AC HOTEL MENDENHALL ENTRY Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 11/20/2016 Modification Date: 10/11/2014 1:01:27 PM Time: 106 Property Address: number N Tracy Ave Property Address: street Historic Address: Bozeman City/Town: Site Number: Gallatin County Intl: Historic Name: Lloyd M. and Dora Hartley (?) Original Owner Private Current Ownership: Current Property Name: Peter H. & Roberta N. Colvin Owner: 1501 Wildflower Way, Bozeman, MT Owner Address: Phone: Residence Historic Use: Residence Current Use: 1939 Estimated Construction Date: Original Location Date Moved: WGS84UTM Reference 497111 Easting: 5058577 Northing: 12TUTM Zone: Legal Location PM: Montana 2 Township: South 6 Range: East NE 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 7Section Center 50' lot 1,2,3, & W 21' of center 50' lot 4 plat Lots: Original Plat of Bozeman Addition: 1870/1870 Year of Addition: Bozeman, MT 7.5 min. topographic USGS Quad Name: 2014 Date: Block G Blocks 1-3 meter GPS Accuracy: GoogleEarth ProGPS Equipment: 24 NE corner of buildingUTM Location Pt: UTM Reference Site Name 106 N Tracy Ave Property Address InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 National Register of Historic Places NRHP Listing Date: Historic District: 02/18/2015 Date of this document: Scott L. Carpenter Form Prepared by: Address: Daytime Phone: InteResources Planning, Inc. 505 Bond St., Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406-587-9477 Yes NRHP Eligible Recommendation: MT SHPO USE ONLY Eligible for NRHP: □ yes □ no Criteria: □ A □ B □ C □ D Date: Evaluator: Comments: MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 2 Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 3 Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman ARCHITECTYURAL DESCRIPTION See Additional Information Page Residential Property Type: Craftsman Architectural Style: Possible Kit Home If Other, specify: Single-family residence Specific Property Type: unknown Architect:Architectural Firm: StateCity Town unknown Builder/Contractor:Company: StateCity Town Source of Information: Simple Rectangle Architectural Form: Front-gabled Roof Form: Single Stories: Wood frame Materials: Overall Dimensions: 28 feet North - South 52 feet East - West Small covered porch on west façade, small enclosed rear porch on east.Projection InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 Concisely, accurately, and completely describe the property and alterations with dates. Number the buildings and features to correlate with the Site Map. The building is a detached one-story single-family residence following a rectangular plan. The building has a gable roof with ridge line running east west, perpendicular to North Tracy Ave. The façade (on west) is one bay and asymmetrical with gable-roofed front porch, with solid railing on left. Original siding consists of a 5-inch tapered beveled clapboard with metal corner caps. Fixed picture window with 6 lights above is located on right. Other windows are 1/1 double-hung. The gable roof is covered with composition asphalt shingles and features knee braces at the gable ends. Design, construction, and materials resembles residence building immediately to the north on Tracy Ave., and across the street on the east side of Tracy (at the southeast corner of N. Tracy/W. Lamme. Subtle Craftsman details include clapboard siding, enclosed porch railing, low-pitched gable roof lines with knee-bracing, and other features. Concrete. Foundation The gable roof is covered with composition asphalt shingles and features knee braces at the gable ends. Roof Gabled-roof front porch with solid railing is on left side of façade mid-line. Porches/Outbuildings MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 4 Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman with gable-roofed front porch, with solid railing on left. Double-hung wood window with four fixed panes at top is located on right. Other windows are 1/1 double-hung. Fenestration: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 5 Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman The building first appears in the same location and configuration (with front and rear porches on the Bozeman Sanborn Fire Insurance Map dated 1927/rev. 1943 (sheet 15). The Polk City Directory for Bozeman shows the first listing for a building at this address in 1940, with Lloyd M. and Dora W. Hartley as owners (pgs. 70, 175). The building has similarities in design, construction, and materials to the residences at 110, 119, 121, possibly built by the same contractor over a period of time. History of Property: See Additional Information Page InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 See Additional Information PageInformation Sources/Bibliography Sanborn Maps:Structure appears on these Bozeman Sanborn Maps: Nov 1884 Jan 1889 Jul 1890 Nov 1891 Jan 1904 Sep 1912 Sep 1927 XSep 1927/Rev Aug 1943 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 6 Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman City Sewer Hook-up Records City Water Hook-up RecordsDate Date Polk City directory for Bozeman: 1940, pgs. 70, 175; 1942, pgs. 29, 179; 1944, pg. 103; 1950, pg. 111 City Directory Deeds not researched. Deeds Sep 1927/Rev 1957 X Sep 1912/Rev Feb 1921 XSep 1927/Rev 1960 InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 7 Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman National Register of Historic Places NRHP Listing Date: NRHP Eligibility:X Yes No Individually Contributing to Historic District Noncontributing to Historic District Area of Significance: Bozeman Progressive PhasePeriod of Significance: See Additional Information PageStatement of Significance This building qualifies as a contributing element within a potential historic district due to its association with the residential aspect of the Progressive phase of Bozeman's historic/architectural development. This building fits in context with three other similar historic residents in the same block. NRHP Criteria:XA B XC D See Additional Information PageIntegrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association) The historic integrity of this property has been retained due to the survival of original design and materials and continuity of use, setting, and location. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PAGE Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman Façade Photo IRP_B3_115_061514_R0011385_p.jpgExposure/File #: EastFacing: West façadeFeature: View to east from N. Tracy St., at façade of building. Note single gable-end asymmetrical bay with offset gable-roofed porch with square posts and enclosed railings. Note 6/1 fixed window at right. Description: 10/11/2014 1:01:27 PMTime: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman Reference Photo Exposure/File #: Facing: Feature: Description: Time:IRP_B3_IPad Photo 10-11-2014 1.22.51 PM.jpg Southeast Northwest corner, façade, and north elevation View to southeast at northwest corner of building. Gable-end façade is on right, north elevation is left of center. Note small enclosed rear porch room at rear, northeast corner. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD USGS Location Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman Portion of USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Bozeman, MT, 2014, scale 1:24,000 (red square indicates approximate location of property. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD General Location Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman General Location Map Red shape denotes project boundary, red arrow indicates property location. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD Detailed Location Photo-Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman Detailed Location Map Red shape denotes subject property. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD Building Sketch Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 106 N Tracy Ave Bozeman Property/Building Sketch Map InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 3/14/2015 Modification Date: 10/11/2014 11:56:19 AM Time: 15 Property Address: number E Mendenhall St Property Address: street 15 E Mendenhall St Historic Address: Bozeman City/Town: Site Number: Gallatin County Intl: Lloyd Hartley Upholstering Historic Name: Original Owner Private Current Ownership: Current Property Name: Peter H. & Roberta N. Colvin Owner: 1501 Wildflower Way, Bozeman, MT Owner Address: Phone: Upholstery and Cabinet Shop Historic Use: Auto Repair/Storage Current Use: 1928 Estimated Construction Date: Original Location Date Moved: WGS84UTM Reference 497138 Easting: 5058549 Northing: 12TUTM Zone: Legal Location PM: Montana 2 Township: South 6 Range: East NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 7Section East 7' Lot 4, & all Lot 5, Plat C-1-F Lots: Original Plat of Bozeman Addition: 1870/1870 Year of Addition: Bozeman, MT 7.5 min. topographic USGS Quad Name: 2014 Date: Block G Blocks Other GPS Accuracy: GoogleEarth Pro GoogleEarth ProGPS Equipment: 24 Southwest corner of buildingUTM Location Pt: UTM Reference Site Name 15 E Mendenhall Property Address InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 National Register of Historic Places NRHP Listing Date: Historic District: 02/14/2015 Date of this document: Scott L. Carpenter Form Prepared by: Address: Daytime Phone: InteResources Planning, Inc. 505 Bond St., Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406-587-9477 NRHP Eligible Recommendation: MT SHPO USE ONLY Eligible for NRHP: □ yes □ no Criteria: □ A □ B □ C □ D Date: Evaluator: Comments: MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 2 Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 3 Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman ARCHITECTYURAL DESCRIPTION See Additional Information Page Commercial Property Type: OTHER Architectural Style: Simple industrial shop If Other, specify: Specific Property Type: Not known Architect:Architectural Firm: StateCity Town Not known Builder/Contractor:Company: StateCity Town Source of Information: Simple Rectangle Architectural Form: Front-gabled Roof Form: Single Stories: Wood frame Materials: Overall Dimensions: approx. 85 ft. North - South approx. 25 ft. East - West Smaller one-story rectangular projection on north, communicates with building mass on south.Projection InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 Concisely, accurately, and completely describe the property and alterations with dates. Number the buildings and features to correlate with the Site Map. The building is a simple one-story detached commercial shop structure. The building follows a rectangular plan with gable roof The roof's ridge line runs north-south, perpendicular to Mendenhall St. The frame building, built on a concrete foundation, is finished in drop-cove wood siding, most likely original to the building. The front (south) portion of the building is covered in more recent T-111 plywood. The façade on the south side is asymmetrical with entry door on left, with large fixed window above door and large roll-up vehicle access door on right. The roll-up door is a recent addition to the structure, but the opening may be earlier. The east and west walls have original windows consisting of double-hung wood sash 6-over-1 lights and additional multi pane windows. The rear (north) end of building has a smaller wood-frame projection with shed roof attached. Corrugated metal stove pipe is located at northwest corner of original rectangular mass of the building on the south. The east wall of the rear (north) projection appears to be enlarged to the east from the original layout shown on the Sanborn Maps for 1943-1960. The east wall of the north projection is covered in plywood. Concrete foundation. Foundation Gable roof on south with composition asphalt shingles. Rear (north) projects has shed roof. Roof None. Porches/Outbuildings MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 4 Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Original double-hung wood sash 6-over-1 lights and additional multi pane windows on east and west elevations. Single fixed window above entry door on south façade, Fenestration: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 5 Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman The lot is vacant on the 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Bozeman (sheet 15). The 1943 revision of the 1927 Sanborn Map shows the one-story frame building, labeled "Upholst'g & Cabinet Shop", with rear projection (sheet 15). The same building in the same layout and configuration shows on all of the Sanborn maps through the 1960 revision. The 1957/59 revision of the 1927 Sanborn Map labels the same building as a "Plumb'g" shop with wood floor. Sometime aftyer 1960, the building was incorporated by ownership and use as part of the auto service station and repair shop located immediately to the west at 5 E Mendenhall St. The Polk City Directory for Bozeman, 1927, lists no address or building for the address of 15 E Mendenhall St. This confirms the fact that the lot is vacant on the 1927 Sanborn Map. The first city directory to list the address is the 1943 revision of the 1929 Polk (pg 191) that identifies 15 E Mendenhall St as being occupied by Lloyd M. Harley Upholstery. History of Property: See Additional Information Page InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 See Additional Information Page Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Bozeman, MT, 1957 revision of 1927, 1960 revision of 1927 map. Polk City Directory for Bozeman, MT, 1929 (pg 191) Information Sources/Bibliography Sanborn Maps:Structure appears on these Bozeman Sanborn Maps: Nov 1884 Jan 1889 Jul 1890 Nov 1891 Jan 1904 Sep 1912 Sep 1927 XSep 1927/Rev Aug 1943 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 6 Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman City Sewer Hook-up Records City Water Hook-up RecordsDate Date City Directory Deeds not researched. Deeds Sep 1927/Rev 1957 X Sep 1912/Rev Feb 1921 XSep 1927/Rev 1960 InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 7 Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman National Register of Historic Places NRHP Listing Date: NRHP Eligibility: Yes X No Individually Contributing to Historic District Noncontributing to Historic District Area of Significance: Period of Significance: See Additional Information PageStatement of Significance Research of readily available documentary materials indicates that the property has no clear association with persons or events significant to Bozeman's or the area's history. NRHP Criteria:A B C D See Additional Information PageIntegrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association) The building has some recent alterations and does not exhibit any outstanding qualities of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association to justify a high level of historic integrity, in support of any recommendation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Façade Photo IRP_122_021515_02057.jpgExposure/File #: NorthFacing: 15 E Mendenhall StFeature: View to north at façade if building with recent metal clad roll-up door.Description: 10/11/2014 11:56:19Time: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Reference Photo Exposure/File #: Facing: Feature: Description: Time:IRP_122_021515_02058.jpg Northwest 15 E Mendenhall St View to north-northwest at southeast corner of building. Note original 6-over-1 double-hung wood sash window on east elevation, and original drop-cove wood siding (unpainted) at rear end of gable-roofed front portion of building. Note shed-roof of rear projection. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Reference Photo IRP_122_021515_02059.jpgExposure/File #:Time: NortheastFacing: 15 E Mendenhall StFeature: View to northeast at southwest corner of building. Noted original 6-over-1 double-hung wood sash windows on west wall, and partial view of north projection at rear of building (over white pickup). Description: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD USGS Location Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Portion of USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Bozeman, MT, 2014, scale 1:24,000 (red square indicates approximate location of property. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD General Location Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman General Location Map Red shape denotes project boundary, red arrow indicates property location. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD Detailed Location Photo-Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 15 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Detailed Location Map Red shape denotes subject property. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 3/14/2015 Modification Date: 10/11/2014 12:02:55 PM Time: 5 Property Address: number E Mendenhall St Property Address: street 102 N Tracy St and 125 W Mendenhall St Historic Address: Bozeman City/Town: Site Number: Gallatin County Intl: Riddle's Standard Oil Service Station Historic Name: J. Goughnour Original Owner Private Current Ownership: Straightaway Motors Current Property Name: Peter H. & Roberta N. Colvin Owner: 1501 Wildflower Way, Bozeman, MT Owner Address: Phone: Automobile Service Station Historic Use: Automobile Repair Shop Current Use: 1936-1939 Estimated Construction Date: Date Moved: WGS84UTM Reference 497111 Easting: 5058553 Northing: 12TUTM Zone: Legal Location PM: Montana 2 Township: South 6 Range: East NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 7Section S 50' Lots 1, 2, 3 & W 21' of S 50' Lot 4, Plat C-1-F Lots: Original Plat of Bozeman Addition: 1870 Year of Addition: Bozeman, MT 7.5 minute topographic map USGS Quad Name: 2014 Date: Block G Blocks Other GPS Accuracy: GoogleEarth Pro GoogleEarth ProGPS Equipment: 24 Southwest corner of buildingUTM Location Pt: UTM Reference Site Name 5 E Mendenhall Property Address InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 National Register of Historic Places NRHP Listing Date: Historic District: 02/11/2015 Date of this document: Scott L. Carpenter Form Prepared by: Address: Daytime Phone: InteResources Planning, Inc. 505 Bond St., Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406-587-9477 NRHP Eligible Recommendation: MT SHPO USE ONLY Eligible for NRHP: □ yes □ no Criteria: □ A □ B □ C □ D Date: Evaluator: Comments: MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 2 Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 3 Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman ARCHITECTYURAL DESCRIPTION See Additional Information Page Commercial Property Type: 20th Century Modern Architectural Style: Automobile Service Station If Other, specify: Automobile Service Station Specific Property Type: Not known Architect:Architectural Firm: StateCity Town Not known Builder/Contractor:Company: StateCity Town Source of Information: L Plan (Side Facing) Architectural Form: Flat Roof Form: Single Stories: Stucco Materials: Overall Dimensions: approx. 36 ft. North - South approx. 55 ft. East - West Added garage bay to east. Later concrete block addition is attached to north of "L" extension.Projection InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 Concisely, accurately, and completely describe the property and alterations with dates. Number the buildings and features to correlate with the Site Map. The building is a detached one-story commercial auto repair shop (formally gasoline service station). The building follows an "L" shaped plan with rectangular concrete-block garage extension offset on the east. The original part of the building consists of the "L" shaped mass with asymetrical two bay façade with customer entry door centered on the west and a vehicle entry door on the east. The façade (south) is asymmetrical with entry door flanked by two large windows on west and roll up vehicle door on east. The southwest corner of building has a full-height quarter-round corner, and a rounded coping on the top of the parapet wall. A larger concrete block addition is attached to the east side of of the original "L" building and extends full-length to the north, flush with the rear wall of the original building. Original rear projection to north for restrooms and storage, later block addition attached to north of extension. Original service station driveway lights still exist on concrete island where gasoline pumps used to exist. Building is on concrete foundation with concrete floors. Roof is flat behind short parapet walls on front and sides. Concrete foundation with concrete floors. Foundation Flat roof of built-up materials behind short parapet walls at perimeter. Roof Detached shop/storage building at 15 E Mendenhall (recorded as separate historic property) is owned by same property owner and used as storage for current business. Porches/Outbuildings MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 4 Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Fixed wood-framed shop windows on façade and west wall at southwest corner. Glass customer entry door on west bay of façade flanked by two fixed windows. Roll-up doors are recent upgrades from originals. The two fixed windows framing the customer entrance and on the west wall are made of four horizontal panes separated by metal muttons. Sash edges are rounded. Fenestration: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 5 Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman The 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map for Bozeman (sheet 15) shows a rectangular one-story wood-framed residential dwelling on the same lot, facing Tracy Ave with an address of 102 N Tracy Ave. The 1943 revision of the 1927 Sanborn map (sheet 15) shows the original simple "L" shaped "Gas & Oil" service station on the corner lot. The subsequent 1957/59 and 1960 revisions to the 1927 Sanborn Map also show the same "L" shaped service station with notation that it is constructed as wood-frame, which may have had the stucco finish treatment at that time. The additional larger vehicle bay addition to the east, with roll-up door, was added sometime after 1960. The Polk City Directory for Bozeman for 1935 (pg 187) lists the owner of 102 N Tracy Ave as Lloyd M. Hartley (also the owner of the original upholstery and cabinet shop located at 15 E Mendenhall). This 1935 listing for 102 N Tracy most likely refers to the residence on the lot prior to the construction of the service station. The Polk Directory for 1940 (pg 175) lists the address of 102 N Tracy with the owner/occupant as Riddle's Standard Service Station - Gas and Oil. Unfortunately, no Polk directories were published for Bozeman between 1935 and 1940. Hence, it is estimated that the original service station was constructed sometime between 1936 and 1939. Subsequent city directories through the late 1950s indicated the property being a service station under various different names and owners. History of Property: See Additional Information Page InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 See Additional Information Page Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Bozeman, MT, 1927 rev. 1943, 1927 rev. 1957/59, and 1927 rev. 1960. Information Sources/Bibliography Sanborn Maps:Structure appears on these Bozeman Sanborn Maps: Nov 1884 Jan 1889 Jul 1890 Nov 1891 Jan 1904 Sep 1912 Sep 1927 XSep 1927/Rev Aug 1943 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 6 Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman City Sewer Hook-up Records City Water Hook-up RecordsDate Date Polk City Directory for Bozeman, 1940 (pg 175), 1942 (pg 179), 1944 (pg 160), 1947 (pg 245), 1950 (pg 179), and 1956 (pg 262) City Directory Deeds not researched. Deeds Sep 1927/Rev 1957 X Sep 1912/Rev Feb 1921 XSep 1927/Rev 1960 InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PAGE 7 Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman National Register of Historic Places NRHP Listing Date: NRHP Eligibility: Yes X No Individually Contributing to Historic District Noncontributing to Historic District Area of Significance: Period of Significance: See Additional Information PageStatement of Significance Research of readily available documentary materials indicates that the property has no clear association with persons or events significant to Bozeman's or the area's history. NRHP Criteria:A B C D See Additional Information PageIntegrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association) The building has undergone significant recent alterations and does not exhibit any outstanding qualities of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association to justify a high level of historic integrity, in support of any recommendation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Façade Photo IRP_Ref 10-11-2014_ipad.jpgExposure/File #: NorthFacing: 5 E Mendenhall StFeature: View to north at façade of building. Note original single asymmetrical bay on left with single customer entry door flanked by two fixed windows and single vehicle access door to right. Note concrete block addition with single entry door and large vehicle roll-up door on right. Note lamp standards and concrete bases that formed original gasoline pump service island to left. Description: 10/11/2014 12:02:55Time: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Reference Photo Exposure/File #: Facing: Feature: Description: Time:IRP_122-021515_02053.JPG Northeast 5 E Mendenhall St View to northeast at southwest corner of building. Note the difference in construction and surface treatment between the original "L" shaped building mass on the left with the concrete block service bay on the right (east). Note quarter-round corner on stucco, rounded coping at top of wall, and original windows at left. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Reference Photo IRP_122_021515_02056.JPGExposure/File #:Time: NorthwestFacing: 5 E Mendenhall StFeature: View to northwest at southeast corner and south façade of building. Note concrete bases on light standards that originally marked the ends of the former gasoline pump service island. Description: InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD USGS Location Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Portion of USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Bozeman, MT, 2014, scale 1:24,000 (red square indicates approximate location of property. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD General Location Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman General Location Map Red shape denotes project boundary, red arrow indicates property location. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Montana Historic Property Record Bozeman Historic Structures Inventory - 2014 MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD Detailed Location Photo-Map Property Name: Site Number: 24 5 E Mendenhall St Bozeman Detailed Location Map Red shape denotes subject property. InteResources Planning, Inc.505 Bond Street, Suite B Bozeman, MT 59715 406.587.9477 Preliminary CIL Water Rights DeterminationCity of Bozeman | EngineeringUseUse Area Rooms Unit Water Demand Unit Water Demandsq. ft. gal/yr/1,000 sq. ft. gpd/room gal/yr AF/yrHotel (w/Restaurant & Bar)-- 127 -- 100 4,635,500 14.23Office Space (2nd level)17,106 -- 10,000 -- 171,060 0.52IrrigationTBD from Landscaping PlanTotal14.75less CILWR Credit from Annex or Subdivision0.00-0.2714.48Preliminary CILWR Fee - Z18492 MT Hotel CONR @ $6,000/AF86,885$ Estimated Water Volumeless historical annual avg metered useNet Volume for CILWR SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL The applicant is proposing the development of a new building on the corner of E Mendenhall St and N Tracy Ave. The project is planned to include 6 stories of hotel use. Project Address: 5 E Mendenhall St, Bozeman, MT 59715Adjacent Property Addresses (to be combined): 15 E Mendenhall St, 106 N Tracy Ave, 112 N Tracy AveZoning District: B-3 Occupancy Classifications: A-2, A-3, B, R-1 Assembly (A-2, A-3): Hotel Lobby, Rooftop Lounge | Floor 1 & 6 Residential (R-1): Hotel |143 Guestrooms | Floors 2-6 The goal for the AC Hotel project is to redevelop the site currently occupied by Straightaway Motors Auto Repair shop into an elegant and suitably programmed development providing additional hotel rooms to this thriving part of the city. Emphasis is placed on developing a welcoming and inviting corner presence and a sensitively scaled façade that incorporates historic materials with progressive styling. The development, which has been specifically tailored for this site, is designed to address the unique character, scale and experience of the frontages along Tracy and Mendenhall Streets. Both streets are classified as “storefront frontages,” and the building is designed to provide active facades along the sidewalk of both streets with a continuous canopy over the storefront. The primary Hotel Entrance is located in a recess toward the northwest where a drop off area is proposed on Tracy Ave. A secondary entrance off the bar and lounge is located on the Mendenhall street frontage to encourage hotel patrons to connect with downtown. This frontage also steps back at the southeast corner of the site to further break down the scale of the facade. The sixth floor is recessed along Mendenhall to reduce the mass of the building and create a rooftop amenity and lounge for the hotel. The project will utilize existing parking at the Bridger Park Downtown Garage located directly across the street. Use of existing parking facility surplus allows the project to maximize valuable ground floor area for engaging, pedestrian-oriented uses. Lastly, the owner wishes to provide a beautiful addition to downtown Bozeman. The interior of the public spaces and guestrooms will be well-appointed, and equipped with large windows to maximize daylight and an outdoor rooftop terrace, making it a destination for local residents and visitors alike. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT GOALS existing built environmentexisting built environmentexisting built environmentexisting built environmentexisting built environment SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL The intent of AC Hotel’s design is to provide a modern and sophisticated building utilizing cladding materials that build upon the historical palette in Bozeman. This approach embraces and compliments the existing context. Located one block from the heart of mainstreet, this project extends the urban fabric down the Tracy view corridor. The corner of the building is designed to create a sense of place and create a visual node drawing people to the building. This project is organized with the hotel lobby, support spaces and meeting space on the ground fl oor. The hotel guestrooms are located on levels 2-6. Level 6 also features a lounge and roof terrace. The height of the building adheres to the limits of this district, and the development is shaped by a combination of color, material and massing to effectively scale the structure so its presence is appropriate for the surrounding context and pedestrian experience. Fenestration is used to maximize daylight for interior spaces and provide visibility for an active and vibrant restaurant/lounge along the sidewalk on the ground fl oor. Areas of masonry, glass, and wood are appropriately scaled to yield a pleasant pedestrian experience through the use of step backs, recessed balconies, and texture. These same elements relate the building to recent commercial development in the area. The design intends to use a simple massing of planes and boxes to articulate the facade. The top fl oor is stepped back along Mendenhall to provide additional relief for the height of the building along the street facades on the corner. These step backs at the top fl oor will be utilized as a rooftop lounge for the hotel, which will enjoy striking views of the town and mountain range beyond. A dramatic cantilevered roof with a wood-clad canopy at the top of the building unifi es the design, and creates an iconic feature to the design. A wood box on the corner fl anked by generous areas of glass, fl oats above the offi ce level to visually separate the uses of the building. In addition to the building’s aesthetic design features, hotel guests will benefi t from a number of building amenities. Amenities will include an outdoor terrace, lounge, meeting space, fi tness room, and food and beverage options. DESIGN INTENT SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL DESIGN GUIDELINES | SUBCHAPTER 4B A. MASS & SCALE1. Provide density to meet the goals and objectives of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan: With 143 guest rooms on 0.459 acres, the AC Hotel makes good use of its lot area. In compliance with storefront standards, the floor to floor height at level 1 is 15’-0” with large storefront windows to engage the sidewalks. The massing of the building embraces the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan to accommodate contemporary development outside the historic core.2. Innovative development and diversity of design is encouraged: AC Hotel incorporates a varied material palette of brick and aluminum plank siding to relate and contrast the high density Community Core, B-3 zone and respect the lower density residential zones of Bozeman. See the Design Intent and building renderings for more information on the purpose behind the design decisions that were made at the proposed building elevations.3. A new building should exhibit clear order and comprehensive composite on all elevations: AC Hotel establishes a striking grid module that sets the stage for a varied material palette. The relief at the facades are intentionally placed to allow for light penetrations and variety at the face of the building, paying specific attention to how the pedestrian will experience this building from the street level. The mass at the corner of the building distinguishes the entrance and lounge from the rest of building creating prominence at the urban corner in the sight line of Main St.4. Building interface with residential zone properties: AC Hotel’s site is not adjacent to residentially zoned properties, but provides a setback along the south and east elevations to provide a nice relief and respect to the adjacent properties. The design team has crafted a thoughtful approach to the neighboring east property line to eliminate the need for a construction easement and avoid disturbing the existing hotel and their guests. B. BUILDING QUALITY 1. New buildings shall be designed to the level of permanence and quality appropriate for Downtown Bozeman: Given that AC Hotel is a block off Main St, it was important to consider the material context that was shown there. In an effort to deliver quality and timeless building materials, AC Hotel implements brick as its primary material and wood looking plank siding to add contrast. Both materials are tested over time for their permanence. The design embraces an aluminum siding that resembles wood to embrace its durability and ability to withstand the weather. These classic materials promote the permanence and quality that currently exists in historic downtown, with a contemporary edge.2. Sustainable methods and techniques shall be applied to building design but also integrated with site layout and infrastructure design: In a cold weather climate zone, insulation is critical to the maintaining the quality of a building design. The project will use High Performance glass and continuous insulation at the exterior walls as well as batt insulation in the stud cavity to create an efficient building envelope. The current concept for the HVAC system is to use Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Heat Pump system s in the public areas, and each guestroom will have its own high-efficiency, inverter-driven Vertical Packaged Terminal Heat Pump Air Conditioner (VTAC) to allow individual control at each room. The project will utilize LED lighting throughout the project to further reduce energy costs. Water Conserving Plumbing Fixtures will be used where applicable to meet Marriott’s Sustainability Guidelines. Lastly, storm water management procedures will be incorporated with permeable pavers at the pedestrian sidewalks and underground storage chambers. C. BUILDING ROOF FORM 1. Use flat roof lines as the primary roof form: A flat roof is proposed at AC Hotel’s design. This flat roof design blends with the other B3 zoned buildings and expresses a similar language while different materials distinguish the location of the rooftop lounge versus the guestrooms from the ground floor. SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL 2. Use of other roof forms: No other roof forms are used at the proposed building. D. SITE DESIGN 1. Create strong connections between downtown’s sub-districts and between downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods: AC Hotel utilizes a variety of materials and façade relief to create a strong corner at the intersection of N Tracy Ave and E Mendenhall St. This partnered with store frontage at the ground level encourages an interaction with pedestrians bringing the six story building down to a pedestrian level. 2. Public spaces should be made active through programming or utilizing opportunities with adjacent uses that promote vitality and safety: The site plan proposes a myriad of site planning techniques to address the urban nature of the site and provide usable public space available for all pedestrians at the ground floor. Dynamic angles have been utilized at the Mendenhall sidewalk on the south side of the property, while a more orthogonal approach is taken at the Tracy sidewalk to align with the street patterns. Additionally, a variety of paving materials and patterns have been incorporated into the design to distinguish the exterior walking surfaces as you approach the building at each entrance. Monumental art and site furniture have been thoughtfully located to mark the entrances and provide a space for pedestrians to rest. Planters adjacent to the building’s walls soften the glazing and exterior materials at the pedestrian experience. E. PARKING FACILITIES1. Enclosed parking, integrated into individual new buildings as well as additions (if feasible), is preferred whenever possible to surface parking lots: AC Hotel will utilize leased parking spaces from the Bridger Park Downtown Garage to park all hotel guest’s vehicles. 2. Shared parking structures are preferred to surface parking lots. A parking structure should be designed so that it creates a visually attractive and active street edge: No vehicle parking will be provided on site.3. For residential projects, enclosed parking is preferred to surface parking lots: The project is not proposing any residential use. F. SIGNS1. Commercial and Mixed Use projects should include a variety of creative and clear signage: AC Hotel’s main building signage will be along E Mendenhall St, with a sprinkling of signage on other facades. While this portion of the design needs to be further developed the signage provided on the building will comply with provisions required in the City of Bozeman UDC. 2. Residential projects are encouraged to include building identification signage to add to Bozeman’s overall sense of place: No residential use is proposed in the project, but signage will be in line with the existing signage that is present in the B-3 zoning district and community core. 3. All signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and the area in mind. The placement or location of a sign is a critical factor in maintaining the order and integrity of a building. Consistent placement of signs according to building type, size, location and even building materials creates a visual pattern that enhances the streetscape experience: AC Hotel’s building signage compliments the proposed design, while establishing a sense of place visible from the Main Street front at E Mendenhall St. See signage calculation for allowable building signage. G. STREET PATTERNS 1. Alleys: There is an existing alley that borders the site at the north property line. 2. Streetscape: The streetscape on Mendenhall will follow the predominant pattern in the downtown with concrete sidewalks, trees in Neenah foundry tree grates with guards, and historic streetlights with banners. The walking SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL surfaces will be a combination of concrete sidewalks and concrete pavers. The landscape and storm water management will be closely coordinated with the civil engineer.3. Foundation Planting: Planting beds along the building foundation will provide a softer transition for the building to the pedestrian walk. 4. Pattern of street trees: The street trees will be spaced following the City of Bozeman UDC section dictating required street frontage landscaping. H. LANDSCAPE DESIGN 1. The landscape will include planting areas with ornamental grasses, perennials, and shrubs. Required City of Bozeman landscape performance points will be met with a combination of drought tolerant plants, enhanced pedestrian plaza areas, and sculpture. See landscape plans for more information on the design that is being proposed. I. UTILITIES AND SERVICE AREAS 2. Orient service entrances, waste disposal areas and other similar uses toward service lanes away from major streets: Utility rooms have been located on the service alley at the north property line. This location takes advantage of the existing exiting pattern of service areas located off the alley, like is seen in other areas of downtown Bozeman. 3. Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses: Utility service rooms are located off alley for easy access off N Tracy Ave keeping these services away from the pedestrian store frontage. J. SITE FURNITURE 4. Site furniture should be simple in character: Bike racks and benches are used strategically throughout the site to engage and activate the streetscape. These will provide a place of refuge for the public while offering a secure location for guests and/or employees to secure their bikes. Both approaches promote a walkable and bikeable site. SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL Bozeman’s Main Street is a historical treasure of the American west. The varied design of masonry buildings along Main Street make use of different configurations of punched openings on the upper levels and utilize glass storefronts along the ground floor, which invite pedestrians to stop, engage, experience and socialize. The design of this project makes use of these same proven fundamentals used along Main Street and throughout Bozeman. The punched opening facade utilizes punched windows on the upper levels with broad expanses of storefront on the ground floor generates a contrast to the dark masonry. Selective use of natural wood connects the building to Bozeman’s natural setting and adds a layer of sophisticated design, while also offering warmth and natural visual appeal to the facade. Stucco cladding will be used along the alley and interior courtyard with the same careful detailing demonstrated on the public facades. Accent cladding materials, including metal panel, wood soffits, and masonry detailing along the street facades provide a sense of depth, warmth, texture and materiality to the building. MATERIAL CONTEXT MASONRY METAL PANEL VISION GLASS WOOD STUCCO SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL STRAIGHTAWAY MOTORS ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS | 106 N TRACY AVE (TOP IMAGES), 112 N TRACY AVE (BOTTOM IMAGES) IMAGE IMAGE IMAGE EXISTING STRUCTURES SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROJECT NARRATIVE | AC HOTEL This corner-lot infi ll project will engage the street with “Storefront” setbacks and a continuous canopy, continuing the urban-feel along both the Mendenhall and Tracy frontages. The primary Hotel Entrance is located on the northwest corner of the site where a drop off area is proposed on Tracy Ave. A secondary Entrance will be at the south-west corner of the façade. The building façade along Tracy will continue to the alley-setback helping to obscure refuse pickup, and utility connections from pedestrian view. The Mendenhall entry serves the bar and is fl anked by planters, seating, and deocrative wood fi ns mirroring the main hotel entry. In this way the entry is proportionately important to the south facade. The shape of the property and the envisioned recesses along both Mendenhall and Tracy provide opportunities for engaging entrances below a cantilevered overhang as the building progresses from Level 2 upward. This step back along Tracy allows for a drop off area suitable for cars to load and unload without impacting traffi c on the street. The lighting on the site has been design to comply with the applicable provisions. For specifi c details at exterior building lights please see Electrical sheet SL-0.1 and SL-0.2 and reference the product cut sheets provided. These fi xtures comply with the specifi cations as determined by the UDC Section 38.570.010 and their locations have been determined so that their maximum illumination is compliant with standards set in Sec. 38.570.040.G.5. Proof of this is demonstrated on SL-0.0 Photometric Plan in the drawing set. Street lighting has been designed to comply with the provisions set by the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifi cations Policy as required by Sec. 38.570.030. The fi xture has been selected based on the precedent set in the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan to align with the other existing street lights present on E Mendenhall St. SITE IMPROVEMENTS SITE LIGHTING PROJECT START OCT 2018 SPR SUBMIT SITE PLAN REVIEW TO THE CITY FEB 2019 BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW JUNE 2019* CONR SUBMIT CONCEPT REVIEW TO THE CITY OCT 2018 PROJECT COMPLETION OCT 2020* CONSTRUCTION START JULY 2019* PROJECT TIMEFRAME *Timeline is approximate and we will work with the team to develop the appropriate scheduleCity Submission for Review & Approval Owner NamesProperty AddressMailing AddressKILBRIDE DANIEL D & RICHARD L LVG TRUST121 N TRACY AVE, BOZEMAN MT 597152849 WESTWOOD DRKILBRIDE DANIEL D TRUSTEEBILLINGS, MT 591022655KILBRIDE DANIEL D & RICHARD L LVG TRUST119 N TRACY AVE, BOZEMAN MT 597152849 WESTWOOD DRKILBRIDE DANIEL D TRUSTEEBILLINGS, MT 591022655CRAWFORD DAVID J & KRISTI L111 N TRACY AVE, BOZEMAN MT 59715C/O SIXDOT DEVELOPMENT LLC111 N TRACYBOZEMAN, MT 59715COLVIN PETER H & ROBERTA N5 E MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597151501 WILDFLOWER WAYBOZEMAN, MT 597158385COLVIN PETER H & ROBERTA N106 N TRACY AVE, BOZEMAN MT 597151501 WILDFLOWER WAYBOZEMAN, MT 597158385COLVIN PETER H & ROBERTA N112 N TRACY AVE, BOZEMAN MT 597151501 WILDFLOWER WAYBOZEMAN, MT 597158385KENYON NOBLEE LAMME ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 1109BOZEMAN, MT 597711109508 MONTANA LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597159 E LAMME STBOZEMAN, MT 597153614BAYR-NOBEL CLAUDIA5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 449 WILSALL, MT 590860449BLESSING DEBORAH A 5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597152801 NEW MEXICO AVE NW APT 1005 WASHINGTON, DC 200073911PROPERTY ADJOINERS |Noticing Materials PROPERTY ADJOINERS |Noticing Materials BLUEVIEW LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715506 OXFORD DR BOZEMAN, MT 597151788BARNABY WALK & TRCY L. SEDLOCK CO-TRUSTREES5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 5971575 ALEJANDRA AVETHE VS LIVING TRUSTATHERTON, CA 94027BOZEMAN RED LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597152985 TUMBLEWEED DR BOZEMAN, MT 597158721CARMEL CHRISTOPHER F & LEE G5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 5971539 BRAYS ISLAND DR SHELDON, SC 299413003CB HOTEL I LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 5971511010 N DEER DR WOODWAY, WA 980206114CEDAR CLUB INVESTMENTS LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715509 S 22ND AVE BOZEMAN, MT 597186842CIMMIYOTTI CYD5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715120 GAZELLE LN BELGRADE, MT 597147135COLE STEPHEN A & ADRIENNE5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715105 N BEACHWOOD DR LOS ANGELES, CA 900043821CUMMINGS LAUREN J5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597152329 BOYLAN RDBOZEMAN, MT 597151524DAVISON RONA L5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715129 COOK CTBOZEMAN, MT 597158063DOKKEN WADE & SUSI5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597155 W MENDENHALL ST UNIT 521BOZEMAN, MT 597153569EDELBLUT ALBERTINA5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715708 DRY GULCHTOWNSEND, MT 596449782FIAMO LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597158105 E TORTUGA VIEW LNSCOTTSDALE, AZ 852661910 PROPERTY ADJOINERS |Noticing Materials GARSKE DANIEL & SHANA5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 5971517920 N KIMBERLY RDCOLBERT, WA 990059246GETZ BERT A JR5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715225 SHADOWOOD LNNORTHFIELD, IL 600931015GOLDBERG STUART & MINDY5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 161734BIG SKY, MT 597161734HOLLORAN ANDREW D & LAURA G5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597155 W MENDENHALL ST UNIT 410BOZEMAN, MT 597153568HORNE ROBERT5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715340 BIRCH STWINNETKA, IL 600933808H&R FROST LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715713 NW 44TH ST VANCOUVEA, WA 98660KLEINSASSER REXFORD TRUSTEE5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597155 W MENDENHALL ST UNIT 310KLEINSASSER REXFORD LVG TRST DTD 3/14/16BOZEMAN, MT 597153567KRAUSE GARRISON5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597158921 GOLD DUST TRLBOZEMAN, MT 597159326KREMER WESLEY D & KERSTEN L TRUSTEE5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597151 FRANKLIN ST UNIT 2403KREMER WESLEY & KERSTEN FAM TRTBOSTON, MA 021101180DEAN BOULOUKOS5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597155 W MENDENHALL ST UNIT 315BOZEMAN, MT 59715367MARTIN SAMUEL K & BONNIE S TRUSTEE5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597155 W MENDENHALL ST UNIT 318MARTIN SAMUEL K & BONNIE S REV TRTBOZEMAN, MT 597153567 PROPERTY ADJOINERS |Noticing Materials MCGUANE LORAINE BUFFETT5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715234 W BOULDER RDMC LEOD, MT 590528612MIRTO THOMAS & MARY5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715HOUSTON, TX 770071806MODYANOVA NADEZHDA N & LUDMILA V &5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 5267MODYANOV NIKOLAI NBOZEMAN, MT 597175267NANCO MT LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715504 EVENING STAR LNBOZEMAN, MT 597157761OPPORTUNITY BANK5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597155 W MENDENHALL ST STE 101BOZEMAN, MT 597153566OSSORIO FREDERIC E & STACY M5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 160727BIG SKY, MT 597160727PINE JON5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 954BOZEMAN, MT 597710954SHYNE-KALSOW MICHAELA5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597152105 S CYNTHIA ST APT A217MCALLEN, TX 785031202ULRICHS MEGAN R & SCOTT C5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715955 STONEGATE DRBOZEMAN, MT 597152109VIRGINIA COMBS5 WEST MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 1158ENNIS, MT 59729WEBSTER TRUST PROPERTIES LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 597151301 GERVAIS ST STE 805 PROPERTY ADJOINERS |Noticing Materials COLUMBIA, SC 2920133265 WEST LLC5 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 5971520 N TRACY AVEBOZEMAN, MT 597153555PKS INVESTMENTS 2/3INT27 N TRACY AVE, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 1SOUTHSIDE PROPERTY LLC &BOZEMAN, MT 597710001REIDA STEVEN W &PLANALP J ROBERT &KOMMERS JAMES M 1/3 INTERESTETHA HOTEL LLC24 W MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 1795BOZEMAN, MT 59771-1795STEELE DILLINGER14 W LAMME ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 1613BOZEMAN, MT 597711613INTERMODAL COMMERCE CONDO MASTER26 E MENDENHALL ST, BOZEMAN MT 59715PO BOX 1230 BOZEMAN, MT 597711613 SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN | AC HOTEL VIEW FROM N TRACY AVE AND E MENDENHALL ST SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN | AC HOTEL VIEW FROM E MENDENHALL ST LOOKING WEST SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN | AC HOTEL VIEW FROM N TRACY AVE AND ALLEY SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST RC NARRATIVE| AC HOTEL The AC Hotel Bozeman has undergone the following revisions and corrections since the Site Plan application. 1-Mendenhall entry has been emphazised with wood slats similar to the main entry on Tracy. 2-The 6th floor restaurant has changed and the upper kitchen was removed. The parapet was lowered to better align with adjacent buidlings and soften the buidling’s scale. The skylight was removed from the roof of the outdoor bar and large sliding doors have been replaced with traditional swinging doors to the outdoor patio. Square footage of the revised 6th floor restaurant/bar is shown on the plans. 3-The site improvements have been revised to show Tracy Avenue widened from 31’ to 33’ to allow on-street loading zones, and a more conventional streetscape. Additional site lighting has been added with the revised streetscape. 4-The stormwater system has been revised to consist of a single, larger subsurface system on the west side of the building outside of City right-of-way. 5- Mechanical equipment located on lower roof will be screened as shown on roof plan. 6- Due to structural changes, the floor-to-floor heights of all floors have been revised. Exteri- or glazing at the guestrooms has been adjusted as a result. Level 1 storefront glazing as is unaffected. 7- Other minor City required corrections have been made through out the drawing set. These changes are clouded and shown in red on the attached narratives and drawings. SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST RC NARRATIVE| AC HOTEL RC Revision and Correction RC Page 1 of 2 Revision Date 3‐20‐18 Required Forms: PLS REVISION AND CORRECTION SUBMITTAL FORM ADDITIONAL OR REVISED PLANS OR DOCUMENTS FOR AN ACTIVE PROJECT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS COMPLETED FORM. MAILED RE‐SUBMITTALS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM OR THAT DO NOT CONTAIN THE CORRECT NUMBER OF COPIES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. FEES ARE REQUIRED FOR THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS All revisions / correction submittals must contain the following: A completed RC revision/correction submittal form. The same number of copies and sizes and formats (including digital) as required for the initial application. Plans and documents, including digital files must meet plans, specifications and naming protocols. See form PLS. Revised drawings must be updated with a new current date on each revised sheet.Title sheet table of contents/plan schedule must be updated with new dates for each sheet modified. If complete plans sets are updated, retain the original date on sheets that have not been updated or revised. A written narrative that shows an itemized summary of your submittal and description of each change or revision in detail or document. Changes to plans sheets must include sheet and detail numbers. All changes must be clouded or highlighted on each plan set. Legal documents, studies, letters or other documentation must have a clear date of revision on the front page. Fees are required for a third and subsequent submittal of revised/corrected materials. The fee is ¼ of the total original application fee. Re‐submittal of plans must be complete plan sets if individual sheets are modified. No individual sheets will be accepted. RC form must be the first item in all resubmitted sets. INFORMATION Application file #: ______________________________ Application type: ______________________________ Project Name: Contact Name: Phone: Email: Revision and Correction RC Page 2 of 2 Revision Date 3‐20‐18 Required Forms: PLS SUBMITTAL TYPE NEW CHANGE: A revision or change that the applicant has made to a plan that is currently under review that is new and has not been reviewed before. CORRECTION: A correction to the plans that is an applicant response to a correction letter written by the City to the applicant. If both types are being submitted, the written narrative required above listing itemized changes must clearly differentiate between changes and corrections and each must be clearly labeled. Changes to preliminarily approved plans or approved plans are processed under the modification application process, use form MOD for those changes. Re‐submittal of plans must be complete plan sets if individual sheets are modified. No individual sheets will be accepted. CITY USE ONLY CONTACT US Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street 59715 (FED EX and UPS Only) PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 phone 406‐582‐2260 fax 406‐582‐2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net Date received: Checked and received by: Number of sets submitted: Includes digital copy Y/N:: Superion updated? Y/N: Planner/Engineer: DRC Required? Y/N: Date routed to Engineer: If no DRC, date comments due to planner. 10 working days from submittal date typical: SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST SIGNAGE CALCULATIONS | AC HOTEL TABLE: 38.56.0.060 ZONING DISTRICT BUILDING FRONTAGE B-3 SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE 109 147 0 0 MAX. SQFT ALLOWABLE 250/LOT ALLOWABLE SQFT SIGN AREA PER LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE FIRST 25 FEET 2 50 50 0 0 ALLOWABLE SQFT SIGN AREA PER LINEAR FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE > 25 FEET 1.5 126 183 0 0 TOTAL ALLOWED PER FRONTAGE 176 233 TOTAL ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE; NOT MORE THAN 250 SF 250 TOTAL PROPOSED (NOT INCLUDING FUTURE SIGNAGE) 168 32 23 64*49* ALLOWABLE POTENTIAL FUTURE SIGNAGE 82 * Signage on east elevation considered part of allowable in south frontage, and north elevation signage included in the west frontage. GROUND LEVEL TRANSPARENCY SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 820 1102 TRANSPARENT SQUARE FOOTAGE 652 764 PERCENTAGE TRANSPARENT 79%69%0% NOTE: THIS INFORMATION IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS PENDING FURTHER VERIFICATION AND CLIENT, TENANT, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY APPROVALS. NO WARRANTIES OR GUARANTIES OF ANY KIND ARE GIVEN OR IMPLIED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT© 2018SPR SUBMITTALAC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST HOTEL SITEHOTEL SITEE MENDENHALL ST E LAMME ST MAIN ST E BABCOCK ST W BABCOCK ST TRACY AVEWILSON AVEBLACK AVEBOZEMAN AVEPARKING EXISTING ELEMENT HOTEL W LAMME ST W MENDENHALL ST P MOUNTAIN VIEW APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL BLOCK M DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL 5 WEST RESIDENTIAL | MIXED COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING OFFICES CATEYE CAFE RESTAURANT/BAR STARKEY’S AUTHENTIC AMERICAN RESTAURANT/BAR BRIDGER DOWNTOWN GARAGEPUBLIC PARKINGMIXED COMMERCIALRESTAURANT/BAR | SALON | OFFICES | FITNESS SQUIRE HOUSE RESTAURANT/BAR B-3ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ( N,S,E,W) ARE ZONE B-3 LEGEND ZONING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 4 5 6 8 78 9 2 3 1/2 MILE SITE CONTEXT MAP | AC HOTEL Form SP1 Checklist AC Hotel Prepared 05/21/2019 CHECKLIST ITEMS APPLICANT RESPONSE GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Project narrative describing the project type, proposed use scope, size (DU’s, building size, number of buildings, number of total parking spaces) intent, and phasing, if applicable. The narrative must include a response to the City’s conceptual review comments. Refer to the Project Narrative 2. Name of project/development.Form A1 3. Name and mailing address of developer and owner.Form A1 4. Name and mailing address of engineer, architect, landscape architect, planner, etc.Form A1 5. Location of project/development by street address/legal description.Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 6. Location/vicinity map, including area within one-half mile of the site.Refer to Site Context Map 7. A construction route map showing how materials and heavy equipment will travel to and from the site.See Construction Site Management Plan 8. Location, percentage of parcel(s) and total site, and square footage of the following:Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION a. Existing and proposed buildings and structures.Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION b. Driveway circulation and parking areas Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION c. Landscaped areas Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION d. Private open space, provide boundary/ies and dimensions of each space provided (if residential requirement) on plans or separate exhibit. Provide summary total types of dwelling units and total open space required and provided. Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION e. City Parks N/A f. Other public lands (school sites, public access greenway corridors, trail corridors.)N/A SITE PLAN GENERAL 9. Boundary line of property with dimensions. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 10. Date of plan preparation and changes. Refer to the sheet index. 11. North point indicator. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 12. Suggested scale of 1 inch to 20 feet, but not less than 1 inch to 100 feet. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 13. Parcel size(s) in gross acres and square feet. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 14. Estimated total floor area and estimated ratio of floor area to lot size (floor area ratio, FAR), with a breakdown by land use. Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION 15. Total number, type and density per type of dwelling units, and total new and gross residential density and density per residential parcel. The density per parcel must be presented as net residential density per Section 38.42.2020 BMC. Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION SITE PLAN DETAILS The location, identification and dimensions of the following existing and proposed data, onsite and to a distance of 100 feet (200 feet for PUD’s) outside the site boundary, exclusive of public rights-of-way unless otherwise stated. 16. Topographic contours at a minimum interval of 2 feet, or as determined by the Director. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 17. Location of City limit boundaries, and boundaries of Gallatin County’s Bozeman Area Zoning Jurisdiction, within or near the development. Refer to Site Context Map 18. Existing zoning within 200 feet of the site. Refer to Site Context Map 19. Adjacent streets and street rights-of-way to a distance of 150 feet, except for sites adjacent to major arterial streets where the distances shall be 200 feet. The full width of the street including curb, gutter, sidewalk, drive approaches, intersections and street lighting must be shown for both sides of the street. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 20. Block frontages Refer to drawing G0-0 GENERAL INFORMATION 21. On site streets and rights-of-way, including curb gutter, sidewalks and street lights Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN 22. Ingress and egress points. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN 23. Traffic flow on site. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN 24. Traffic flow off site. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN 25. All parking facilities, including circulation aisles, access drives, covered and uncovered bicycle parking and bicycle rack type and detail, compact spaces, ADA accessible spaces and motorcycle parking, on-street parking (delineated by a 24’ long under interrupted space(s) directly adjacent to the project site outside of site vision triangles and hydrant locations) , number of employee and non-employee parking spaces, existing and proposed, and total square footage of each. N/A - No parking provided on the site, See parking calculations 26. Setbacks, building footprint and any proposed encroachments. Any yard or property line encroachments must be clearly shown and be noted with encroachment type e.g. awning, cantilever, lighting, eave, etc. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN 27. Utilities and utility rights of way and easements, including: a. Electric. b. Natural gas. c. Telephone, cable and similar utilities. d. Water. e. Sewer (sanitary, treated effluent and storm). Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN Form SP1 Checklist AC Hotel Prepared 05/21/2019 CHECKLIST ITEMS APPLICANT RESPONSE 28. Surface water, including: a. Ponds, streams and irrigation ditches (include classifications be based upon a determination of the Gallatin Conservation District; note classification of each feature on plans). b Watercourses, water bodies and wetlands (include classifications based upon a determination of the Gallatin Conservation District, Army Corps of Engineers, or Wetland Delineation Report; note classification of each feature on plans). c. Floodplains as designated on the Federal Insurance Rate Map or that may otherwise be identified as lying within a 100 year floodplain through additional floodplain de lineation, engineering analysis, topographic survey or other objective and factual basis. d. A floodplain analysis report in compliance with Article. Not Applicable 29. Grading and drainage plan, including provisions for on -site retention/detention and water quality improvement facilities as required by the Engineering Department, or in compliance with B.M.C. Section 14 storm drainage ordinance and best management practices manual adopted by the City. All surface stormwater facilities must demonstrate compliance with Section 38.23.080 BMC including providing cross sections for each facility. Refer to drawing C1.2 - GRADING and DRAINAGE PLAN 30. All drainageways, streets, arroyos, dry gullies, diversion ditches, spillways, reservoirs, etc. which may be incorporated into the storm drainage system for the property shall be designated: a. The name of the drainageway (where appropriate). b. The downstream conditions (developed available drainageways, etc.). c. Any downstream restrictions. Refer to drawing C1.2 - GRADING and DRAINAGE PLAN 31. Significant rock outcroppings, slopes of greater than 15 percent or other significant topographic features. Not Applicable 32. Sidewalks, walkways, driveways, loading areas and docks, bikeways, including typical details and interrelationships with vehicular circulation system, indicating proposed treatment of points of conflict. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN & C1.3 CIVIL SITE DETAILS 33. Provision for handicapped accessibility, including but not limited to, wheelchair ramps, parking spaces, handrails and curb cuts, including signage and construction details and the applicant’s certification of ADA compliance. A certification block must be provided on the plan sheets. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN & C1.3 CIVIL SITE DETAILS 34. Fences, walls, railings and handrails, including typical details. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN & C1.3 CIVIL SITE DETAILS 35. Permanent trash enclosure and refuse collection areas, including typical details. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN & C1.3 CIVIL SITE DETAILS 36. Construction management plan include exterior construction period material staging, spoils location and construction trash enclosure location(s). A trash container type must be provided and detailed (40 yard roll off, fenced enclosure, etc.). If spoils storage is proposed a timeline for removal must be provided. See sheet A0-3 in Drawing Set 37. Curb, asphalt section and drive approach construction details. Refer to Historic Property Records 38. Location and extent of snow storage areas. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN 39. Location and extent of street vision triangles including adjacent street intersections and all alley and driveway access points. Refer to drawing C1.1 - CIVIL SITE PLAN 40. Unique natural features, significant wildlife areas and vegetative cover, including existing trees and shrubs having a diameter greater than 2.5 inches, by species. Refer to drawing C1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 41. Historic, cultural and archeological resources, describe and map any designated historic structures or districts, and archeological or cultural sites. None 42. Major public facilities, including schools, parks, shared use pathways, trails, etc. within a distance of 200 feet.Refer to Site Context Map PARKLAND AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING 43. If residential, provide the required parkland for the development, including calculations per Chapter 38, Article 27 BMC (Park and Recreation Requirements) in a table format, see table format in the PLS document. N/A 44. If cash in lieu is proposed, a through calculation including the base requirement and any net based upon maximum density, narrative addressing the findings the Commission must make to grant cash in lieu, and the appraisal must be provided to make the request per Section 38.27.030 BMC. N/A 45. If parkland is proposed a park plan shall be submitted consistent with Section 38.41.060.A.16 BMC. Not Applicable 46. Source and amount of parkland credit to be used if previously provided. If from a subdivision confirm amount provided and detailed phase information as required in table format outlined in the PLS document. Not Applicable 47. Describe how the site plan will satisfy any requirements of Section 17.02, BMC (Affordable Housing) which have either been established for that lot(s) through the subdivision process or if no subdivision has previously occurred are applicable to a site plan. The description shall be of adequate detail to clearly identify those lots and dwellings designated as subject to Title 17, Chapter2, BMC compliance requirements and to make the obligations placed on the affected lots and dwellings readily understandable. If affordable housing is not being provided place that statement on the site plan sheets with the site data in item 14. No Affordable Housing, Refer to narrative included in PROJECT NARRATIVE. 48. If affordable housing is provided, or cash in lieu is proposed use form AH. LIGHTING DETAILS 49. Lighting plan and electrical site plan, complete with all structures, parking spaces, building entrances, traffic areas (both vehicular and pedestrian), vegetation that might interfere with lighting, and adjacent uses, containing a layout of all proposed fixtures by location and type. Refer to Sheets: ES-0.1 SITE PHOTOMETRICS 50. A photometric lighting plan that contains a layout of all proposed fixtures by location and type and extends the photometric information to the property boundaries and rights of way. For fueling canopies a second photometric plan is required to specifically analyze the light output underneath the drip line of the fuel canopy. Refer to Sheets: ES-0.1 SITE PHOTOMETRICS 51. Details for all proposed exterior fixtures that are keyed to the fixtures noted in the lighting electrical plan and the photometric lighting plan. The detail must demonstrate compliance with full cut off requirements in Section 38.23.150. Refer to Sheet ES1.2 LIGHT FIXTURES Form SP1 Checklist AC Hotel Prepared 05/21/2019 CHECKLIST ITEMS APPLICANT RESPONSE BUILDING DESIGN AND SIGNAGE 52. Front, rear and side elevations of all buildings, structures, fences and walls with height dimensions and roof pitches. Show open stairways, exterior lighting, awnings and other projections from exterior building walls. Building elevations must include proposed exterior building materials, windows and doors including a color and material palette for all proposed features keyed to the building elevations. Refer to Sheets A5-1 AND A5-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 53. Provide transparency calculation for any elevation that faces a street and is a block frontage. Provide minimum and maximum height of transparency from grade. Provide area of transparency and percentage in relation to total façade. See Transparency calcs in the document package of the submittal. 54. Provide elevations and details of all ground mounted and rooftop mechanical screening. Refer to sheet A1-5 ROOF PLAN. 55. Floor plans that include all floors and roof plan. Annotate/designate uses for all rooms and areas. Seeting/serving area layout required for all restaurants. See sheets A1-1 through A1-4 FLOOR PLANS 56. Exterior signs if applicable. Include building frontage dimension(s) and maximum sign area calculation, provide sign dimensions and square footage of each. Note – The review of signs in conjunction with this application is only review for sign area compliance with Chapter 38, Article 28 BMC (Signs). A sign permit must be obtained from the Building Division prior to erection of any and all signs, addition design guidelines apply for signs within zoning Overlay Districts. See SIGNAGE calcs in the document package of the submittal, Refer to TOC. LANDSCAPE PLAN A separate landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the site plan application unless the required landscape information can be included in a clear and uncluttered manner on a site plan with a scale where one inch equals 20 feet. Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN, L002 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN-LEVEL 2, L500 - LANDSCAPE DETIALS 57. Project name, street address, and lot and block description. Refer to drawing L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 58. Date, scale, north arrow, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of both the property owner and the person preparing the plan. Plan preparer shall be a state registered landscape architect; an individual with a degree in landscape design and two years of professional design experience in the state; or an individual with a degree in a related field (horticulture, botany, plant science, etc.) and at least five years of professional landscape design experience, of which two years have been in the state. Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN, L002 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN-LEVEL 2 59. Location of existing boundary lines and dimensions of the lot. Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 60. Existing and proposed grade that complies with maximum allowable slope and grade. Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 61. Approximate centerlines of existing watercourses, required watercourse setbacks, and the location of any 100-year floodplain; the approximate location of significant drainage features; and the location and size of existing and proposed streets and alleys, utility easements, utility lines, driveways and sidewalks on the lot and/or adjacent to the lot. Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 62. Location of all pavement, curbs, sidewalks and gutters. Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 63. Show location of existing and/or proposed drainage facilities which are to be used for drainage control including proposed landscaping and seeding as required by Section 38.23.080.H BMC Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 64. Location and extent of snow storage areas.Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 65. Location and extent of street vision triangles. Refer to drawings L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 66. Complete landscape legend providing a description of plant materials shown on the plan, including typical symbols, names (common and botanical name), locations, quantities, container or caliper sizes at installation, heights, spread and spacing and identification of drought tolerant and/or native and adapted species. The location and type of all existing trees on the lot over 6 inches in caliper must be specifically indicated. Refer to Drawing L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 67. Size of planting at the time of installation and at maturity. Refer to Drawing L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 68. Complete illustration of landscaping and screening to be provided in or near off -street parking and loading areas, including information as to the amount (in square feet) of landscape area to be provided internal to parking areas and the number and location of required off -street parking and loading spaces. No Landscaping in parking areas; all parking is off site. 69. Street frontage landscaping. Refer to Drawing L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 70. Locations and dimensions of proposed landscape buffer strips, including watercourse buffer zones demonstrating compliance with watercourse setback planting plan requirements per Section 38.23.100 BMC unless previously provided during subdivision review. None 71. Location, height and material of proposed landscape screening and fencing (with berms to be delineated by one foot contours). None 72. An indication of how existing healthy trees (if any) are to be retained and protected from damage during construction. None 73. Size, height, location and material of proposed seating, lighting, planters, sculptures, and water features. Refer to Drawing L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN, L002 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - LEVEL 2 74. A description of proposed watering methods including any use of high efficiency irrigation technologies and best practice, source of irrigation water and estimated amount of water consumption broken down by vegetation type (e.g. turf, shrubs, trees) and total estimated water consumption. Refer to Drawings L600 IRRIGATION SITE PLAN, L601 IRRIGATION SITE PLAN-LEVEL 2, L700 IRRIGATION DETAILS 75. Areas to be irrigated and type of proposed irrigation and the irrigation system design plan. Refer to Drawings L600 IRRIGATION SITE PLAN, L601 IRRIGATION SITE PLAN-LEVEL 2, L700 IRRIGATION DETAILS 76. Tabulation of performance points earned by the plan per Section 38.26.060 BMC.Refer to Drawing L001 - LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN Form SP1 Checklist AC Hotel Prepared 05/21/2019 CHECKLIST ITEMS APPLICANT RESPONSE STREETS AND TRAFFIC 77. Traffic study. Street, traffic, and access information required in Section 38.41.060.A.12 BMC or that the requirement is waived in writing by the Engineering Division prior to application submittal. A traffic study has been provided in the application. See Table of Contents for more information on location of document. WATER AND WATER RIGHTS 78. Water rights information. If cash in lieu is proposed a cash in lieu of water rights calculation and payment amount certified by the Engineering Division. Evaluation of water rights will be assessed and provided to the applicant based on the information provided in this application.79. If water wells are proposed, a letter from the Department of Natural Resources confirming their intent to issue a permit or exemption. N/A DEVIATIONS If the proposal includes a request for a deviation as outlined in Section 38.35.050 BMC the application shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce. N/A 80. Either through the site plan requirement above or separate exhibit clearly show any proposed deviations related to site requirements such as yards/setbacks, lot coverage, parking or other applicable standards. N/A 81. Either through the building elevation requirement above or separate exhibit clearly show any proposed deviations related to building construction such as height, second story additions, or other applicable standards. N/A 82. For deviations in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay a deviation narrative shall be provided stating which Section (s) of the Bozeman Municipal Code are proposed for deviation, to what extent and include a response to the following: a. How the modification is more historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the adjacent properties, as determined in Section 38.16.050 BMC than would be achieved under a literal enforcement of this chapter (Chapter 38, BMC); b. How the modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses thereof; and c. How the modifications will assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. d. How the requested deviation will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community. If more than one deviation a response to the criteria shall be provided for each deviation. N/A 83. For departures, a departure narrative must be provided stating which Section(s) of the Bozeman Municipal Code are proposed for departure, the scope and extent of the plan proposed for departure and a response to the departure criteria. If more than one departure, a summary and response to the criteria must be provided for each departure. N/A If more than one deviation, a response to the criteria shall be provided for each deviation. 1 After recording return to: Straightaway Bozeman Investors, LLC 20 North Tracy Bozeman, MT 59715 DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR AC BY MARRIOTT – BOZEMAN, MT (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT) This DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR AC By Marriott - Bozeman is made this ____ day of ___________, 20____ by Straightaway Bozeman Investors, LLC, a Montana limited liability company with address of 20 North Tracy Ave., Bozeman, Montana (hereinafter referred to as “Declarant”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner in fee simple of the following described lands in Gallatin County, Montana as described in Exhibit A, (the “Property”), upon which Declarant intends to construct a hotel project in accordance with plans approved by the City of Bozeman (the “Project”). NOW THEREFORE, Declarant does hereby establish, dedicate, declare, publish and impose upon the Property the following Protective Covenants which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and be for the benefit and value of the City of Bozeman and Declarant and persons claiming under it, its grantees, successors and assigns. These Protective Covenants shall apply to the entire Property and to all improvements placed or erected thereon and shall have perpetual existence, unless terminated by law or amended as herein provided. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS In connection with construction, maintenance and operation of the Project, the Declarant and all successor owners of the Project are responsible for and shall install, maintain and operate, including but not limited to ensuring and paying all associated financial obligations thereof, the Project stormwater management facilities in accordance with the program and guidelines prepared by Stahly Engineering & Associates, Inc., consisting of three pages, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “B”, for the period of occupancy of the Project. In the event the Project is converted to comply with the Montana Unit Ownership Act (i.e., a condominium), the Association shall assume the obligations stated above. 2 ENFORCEMENT In the event of any violation or threatened violation of these covenants, the City of Bozeman may enforce these Protective Covenants by legal proceedings in a court of law or equity, including the seeking of injunctive relief and damages and attorneys’ fees related to the costs of enforcement. AMENDMENT These Protective Covenants may not be released, abandoned, removed or reduced in any manner during the occupancy of the Project without the written consent and agreement the City of Bozeman Director of Community Development or equivalent City employee. SEVERABILITY A determination of invalidity of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof by judgment, order or decree of a court shall not affect in any manner the other provisions hereof, which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed these Protective Covenants on the date first written above. [signature follows] 3 DECLARANT: Straightaway Bozeman Investors, LLC By: Name: Its: STATE OF __________ ) : ss. County of __________ ) On this ____ day of _____________, 2019 before me appeared ____________ as the ___________________ for Straightaway Bozeman Investors, LLC known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of limited liability company. (SEAL) __________________________________________ Notary Public for the State of _______________ Printed Name: _____________________________ Order No.: M-21511 Policy No.: OP-6-MT1000-6540621 OP-6 2006 ALTA Owner’s Policy EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL I: THE SOUTH FIFTY (50) FEET OF FRACTIONAL LOT ONE (1) AND OF LOTS TWO (2) AND THREE (3) AND THE WEST TWENTY- ONE (21) FEET OF LOT FOUR (4), ALL IN BLOCK "G" OF ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT (1), IN BLOCK "G"; AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF FRACTIONAL LOT ONE (1), THE SAME BEING THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE NORTH, A DISTANCE OF FIFTY (50) FEET; THENCE EAST ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G", A DISTANCE OF EIGHTY-EIGHT (88) FEET; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE NORTH A DISTANCE OF FIFTY (50) FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG WEST MENDENHALL STREET A DISTANCE OF EIGHTY-EIGHT (88) FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALL ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. RESERVING AND EXCEPTING A CERTAIN EASEMENT NOW IN EXISTENCE ACROSS SAID PROPERTY FOR SEWER CONNECTIONS TO MENDENHALL STREET IN SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN, AS THE SAID SEWER IS NOW LAID OUT. ALSO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK "G" OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G" 88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 73.4 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SUCH A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 15 FEET, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CURVE TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF 18 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE, NORTH, WHICH IS 7.55 FEET, MORE OR LESS, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK "G"; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE, NORTH 7.55 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL THAT PART OF LOTS 4 AND 5 IN BLOCK "G" OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 5, THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 4, 35 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 50 FEET, THENCE EAST 35 FEET, THENCE NORTH 50 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY BEING THE NORTH 50 FEET OF LOT 5 AND THE EAST 7 FEET OF NORTH 50 FEET OF LOT 4, ALL IN BLOCK "G" OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. AND THE SOUTH 100 FEET OFF OF LOT 5 AND SOUTH 100 FEET OFF THE EAST 7 FEET OF LOT 4, IN BLOCK "G" OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK "G" THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF EAST MENDENHALL STREET A DISTANCE OF 88 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, THE SAME BEING THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET, THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G", A DISTANCE OF 35 FEET, THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF BLOCK "G", 100 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G", WHICH POINT IS 35 FEET EAST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G", 35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (DEED REFERENCE: FILM 22, PAGE 711) PARCEL II: THE NORTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, AND THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE WEST 21 FEET OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK G OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. (DEED REFERENCE: FILM 89, PAGE 4068) PARCEL III: Order No.: M-21511 Policy No.: OP-6-MT1000-6540621 OP-6 2006 ALTA Owner’s Policy THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 100 FEET OFF OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, AND THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 21 FEET OF LOT 4, IN BLOCK G OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF AND ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. (DEED REFERENCE: FILM 89, PAGE 4068) • • www.seaeng.com Engineers and Land Surveyors 851 Bridger Drive, Suite 1, Bozeman, MT 59715 | phone: 406-522-8594 | fax: 406-522-9528 EXHIBIT B Storm Water Maintenance: General Information The proposed storm water conveyance and infiltration facilities will be operated and maintained by the property manager. Storm Water Facilities Maintenance Schedule 1. Site Housekeeping. (Continuously as needed) The main cause of storm water facility damage is poor site housekeeping. Sediment tracked onto pavement can be washed into storm water appurtenances and damage these facilities. Trash can clog conveyance structures, potentially causing property damage. • Keep sidewalk, permeable pavers, and parking areas clean. • Pick up trash. • Restore damaged landscaping in order to prevent sediment runoff. 2. Curb, Sidewalk Chase, and Infiltration System Maintenance. (Quarterly) All storm water conveyance structures can acquire sediment and debris buildup. If this sediment and debris is not periodically removed, it can cause undesired ponding and clogging. These conveyance structures need to be inspected and cleaned if required. • Inspect for sediment or debris in the structures and remove if present. • Inspect infiltration system through inspection ports for sediment accumulation. Sediment depth less than 3” is acceptable. • Check for damage, repair as needed. 3. Curb, Sidewalk Chase, and Infiltration System Maintenance. (Long-term) If regular housekeeping and maintenance is not performed adequately, sediment and debris can accumulate in the storm water conveyance structures and infiltration system and clog them beyond repair. • If greater than 3” of sediment is present in infiltration system, hire a contractor with a Jet-Vac chamber cleaning system to remove the sediment from the infiltration system. • If original system performance can be achieved through maintenance, hire a contractor to repair and return conveyance structures and infiltration system to the initial design condition found on City engineering plans. 4. System Monitoring. (Quarterly, except in winter) The storm water facilities shall be inspected quarterly to quickly identify small issues before expensive damage can occur. In addition to regular monitoring, the best time to inspect the performance of storm water facilities is during runoff events. Page | 2 • Observe system during runoff. Look for ponding on permeable pavers or inlet structures. This can indicate a clogged paver infiltration and/or clogged conveyance structure. • Open infiltration system inspection ports within 24-hours of a storm event and look for ponded water in the infiltration system. This can indicate clogged infiltration system. If clogged hire a contractor with a Jet-Vac chamber cleaning system to remove the sediment from the infiltration system. 5. PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (PICP) Inspection & Maintenance Guidelines. Service inspection and maintenance shall include the following activities: • Winter Maintenance: o Ensure snow is not stockpiled on permeable pavement surface. o Ensure only joint aggregate stone (typically # 8, #89 or #9 washed chip stone) is used for traction as needed. Sand should not be used for winter traction. • Normal Maintenance: o Inspect surface for ponding after large rain events. If ponding is observed, identify areas with severe sediment loading and vacuum to remove and replace with new washed joint aggregate (typically # 8, #89, or # 9 washed chip stone). o Note any sediment laden run-off from adjacent areas onto permeable pavement. If needed, correct with erosion control measures. • Annual inspection and maintenance shall include the following activities: o Replenish paver joints with additional aggregate if level is more than ½ in. below chamfer bottoms. o Inspect vegetation around PICP perimeter for cover & soil stability, repair/replant as needed. o Inspect and repair all paver surface deformations (depressions/settlement) exceeding 1/2 in. o Repair paver heights offset by more than 1/4 in. above or below adjacent units or offset by more than 1/8” lippage from paver-to-paver. o Replace cracked paver units impairing surface structural integrity. o Check drains and outfalls (if existing) for free flow of water. Remove any obstructions. o Check observation wells (if existing) to confirm reservoir is draining (based on size of last rain event). o Vacuum surface (typically spring), adjust vacuuming schedule per sediment loading. Once a year sweeping is normal unless excessive silts and fines are present in joints. o Test surface infiltration rate using ASTM C1781. If pavement infiltration rate is < 100 in/hr. employ remedial maintenance procedure utilizing a vacuum sweeper/method to extract affected clogged joints/voids and replace joint/void areas with #8, #89 or #9 washed chip aggregates and retest infiltration rate to confirm reinstated areas exceed 100 in/hr. flow rate. Repeat remedial process as needed to exceed the 100 in/hr. criteria. Page | 3 • Additional Normal Maintenance Notes: o A dry mechanical or regenerative air-type sweeper may be used during dry periods to remove encrusted sediment, leaves, grass clippings, etc. Vacuum or sweeper settings may require adjustments to prevent uptake of aggregate from the paver voids or joints. Leaf blowers or other standard onsite manual methods that are used for standard pavement maintenance may be employed to remove this surface debris. o It is not recommended to utilize a pressure washer to clean joints. o Remove snow with standard plow/snow blowing equipment. o Deicing salt may be used on permeable pavers (proper application and appropriate salt type) but consult property owner or project engineer before usage. In some regions deicing salt use is restricted. Salt use can affect water quality and have environmental impact. TABLE OF CONTENTS | AC HOTEL SPR SUBMITTAL AC HOTEL | 5 E MENDENHALL ST DOCUMENTS SUBMISSION DATE 01 00 10 05 03 12 07 08 15 16 17 18 19 A1 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION DRAWING INDEX 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 05-28-2019 TRAFFIC STUDY OWNERS POLICY CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT WARRANTY DEED PROJECT NARRATIVE PROPERTY ADJOINERS CCOA CHECKLIST, RESPONSE SIGNAGE CALCULATION 02 11 06 14 04 13 09 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RESPONSE COMMENTS BUILDING DATA MATRIX PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS SP1 CHECKLIST, RESPONSE SITE CONTEXT MAP N1 - NOTICING MATERIALS CHECKLIST CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN WAIVER OF RIGHT TO PROTEST EXTERIOR LIGHTING CUT SHEETS 20 05-28-2019CASH-IN-LIEU OF WATER RIGHT ASSESSMENT RC NARRATIVE 05-28-2019 05-28-2019MENDENHALL ENTRY EXHIBIT 21 22 05-28-2019STORMWATER MAINTAENANCE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS 23 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for 5 EAST HOTEL DEVELOPMENT Bozeman, Montana Prepared for HomeBase Partners Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102           December 5, 2018  TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for 5 EAST HOTEL DEVELOPMENT Bozeman, Montana Prepared for HomeBase Partners Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102             December 5, 2018  i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Streets & Intersections 3 Traffic Volumes 4 Capacity 7 TRIP GENERATION 10 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 13 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 14 IMPACTS 16 Existing Traffic Volumes 16 Capacity 18 Safety 22 Future Traffic Volumes 22 Future Capacity 22 SITE ACCESS TRAFFIC OOPERATIONS 24 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 APPENDIX A – CAPACITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX B – ITE TRI{ GENERATION RATES ii LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Existing Peak Noon Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 8 Table 2. Existing Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 9 Table 3. 5 East Hotel Development Trip Generation 10 Table 4. Existing Plus Peak Noon Hour Site Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary 20 Table 5. Existing Plus Peak PM Hour Site Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary 21 Table 6. Future Conditions Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 23 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Site Location and Study Intersections 2 Figure 2. Peak Noon Hour Traffic Counts 2017 5 Figure 3. Peak PM Hour Traffic Counts 2017 6 Figure 4. Primary Trip Distribution Percentages 14 Figure 5. Site Traffic Assignment Noon & PM Hour Volumes 15 Figure 6. Existing Plus Site Traffic Peak Noon Hour 17 Figure 7. Existing Plus Site Traffic Peak PM Hour 18 5 East Hotel Development   Traffic Impact Study     5 East Hotel Development TIS page 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes a traffic impact study (TIS) conducted for the proposed 5 East Hotel development project in downtown Bozeman. Marvin & Associates was retained by the developers, HomeBase Montana, 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 accesses. The TIS also provides recommendations regarding the mitigation of any identified impacts. Having reviewed the proposed 5 East Hotel development 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 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 northeast corner of the Mendenhall Street and Tracy Avenue intersection. The site is currently occupied by an old gas station building currently used as an office for used car sales, and two single family residences. The building footprint will occupy the majority of the property and existing buildings would be removed. Land uses surrounding the proposed development include a hotel immediately east, a hotel in the northwest corner of the intersection, an office building in the southwest corner, and the City of Bozeman Parking garage on the south side of Mendenhall street between Tracy and Black Avenues. The downtown bus transfer station is also located on the south side of Mendenhall, in front of the parking garage. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the development with respect to the study area and the ten intersections that were included within this TIS. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The 5 East Hotel development, as proposed, would be a five story building providing 150 hotel rooms. The hotel would be a full services hotel with a lounge and meeting rooms on the ground floor and on the roof top level there would be a public lounge and a fitness center for hotel guests. Parking for hotels guests and 6 full time employees would be accommodated by providing parking spaces within the City of Bozeman parking garage on the south side of Mendenhall Street. Vehicular access to the lobby entrance on Tracy Avenue would be provided by a curb-side pull-out area that would accommodate approximately two vehicles at a time. The City of Bozeman parking garage access is located on Black Avenue south of Mendenhall Street and a number of on -street parking spaces exist within a four block area that could be for short term parking trips. Additional information pertinent to the development’s operation can be found within the Trip Generation section of this report. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets & Intersections Construction of the 5 East Hotel development could possibly impact several intersections within the immediate area of the development. In addition, the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) requires that all intersections between collector and arterial street within a one-half mile radius of the development be evaluated for impacts. Therefore, the following intersections were evaluated within the scope of this TIS: N 7th Avenue & Mendenhall Street N7th Avenue & Main Street Willson Avenue & Main Street Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peach Street & Rouse Avenue Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Rouse Avenue & Main Street Rouse Avenue & Babcock Street Church Avenue & Main Street In addition to the above noted external intersections, intersections of Tracy Avenue and Mendenhall Street could be directly impacted by the development and was included in the impact analysis. As well as the garage access to Black Street. Of the ten study intersections, only three are currently controlled by stop signs on the minor streets. The remaining seven intersections are all controlled by traffic signals. 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. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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 and 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 28’ to 38’. Parking is allowed on both sides of the streets except where intersections and accesses limit sight distance and parking restrictions are applied. Because Tracy Avenue is only 28’ wide adjacent to the development, there is no parking on the east side of the street. 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. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were determined by performing manual intersection counts at some of 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 Rouse Avenue intersections with Peach Street and Rouse Avenue. 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. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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 within the core area of the Central Business District (CBD). In addition to the peak hour intersection turning movement counts, electronic traffic counters were set on local streets for a study completed in 2017. From hourly count summaries, it was found that the peak hour for traffic on the street system usually occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 averaging approximately 9% of the average weekday traffic (AWT). The noon hour is the beginning of the afternoon peak with the average being approximately the same as the peak pm hour 9% of AWT. The noon hour also has the highest combined pedestrian and bicycle volumes at most intersections during the day. Previous traffic counts taken on arterial and collector streets within the CBD indicate 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY that the noon hour volumes are approximately 8.4% of AWT while the peak pm hour is approximately 9.6% of AWT. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Capacity Capacity calculations were conducted for the peak noon and pm hours at all of the study intersections (see Appendix A-1). Tables 1 and 2, on the following pages, summarize the results of capacity calculations for both the noon and pm peak hour periods respectively. 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 three street approaches, currently operate at or above an acceptable LOS “C” during both peak hour study periods. At the intersection of Babcock and Rouse Avenue the southbound approach operates at LOS “D” in the noon hour and LOS “F” in the peak pm hour with 78.3 seconds per vehicle average delay and a vehicle queue of 6 vehicles. The northbound approach operates at LOS “D 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 Tables 1 and 2, with exception of the Rouse Avenue and Babcock Street intersection. The longest queue observed was three vehicles and the average delay was much less than 78 seconds. The reason for this disparity appears to be the pedestrian crossings on Babcock Street. There were 21 pedestrians crossing during the peak pm hour and the percentage of vehicles on Babcock stopping for pedestrians was near 100%. When vehicles stop on Babcock Street, northbound and southbound vehicles use the interruption in traffic flow to either go straight or make left and right turns. In this case, it is believed that the HCM algorithms understate the actual capacity. The intersection of Rouse Avenue and Peach Street operates with a LOS “D” on the eastbound approach during the noon hour and LOS “F” during the peak PM Hour. In addition, the westbound leg operates at LOS “E” during the peak PM hour. The intersection of Rouse Avenue and Peach Street has been redesigned by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) as a part of the Rouse Avenue reconstructions project and will include a traffic signal with 3 approach lanes on Peach Street and a two-way left-turn lane in the middle of Rouse Avenue. It is expected that construction on that project will occur within the next 2 years. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)27.0 7.3 7.5 LOS C A A V/C Ratio 0.50 0.23 0.27 Queue Length (95%)744 LLTR LTR LTR L R Control Delay (s/veh)9.9 10.1 27.2 21.2 30.8 8.8 LOS A BCCCA V/C Ratio 0.36 0.48 0.64 0.01 0.69 0.30 Queue Length (95%)45 7 0 9 7 LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)16.6 17.7 LOS CC V/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 Queue Length (95%)11 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.3 13.3 30.4 31.5 31.8 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)76354 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.2 17.6 16.7 16.5 17.6 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.13 0.24 Queue Length (95%)6 6246 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)26.7 17.8 8.0 8.1 LOS DCA A V/C Ratio 0.49 0.30 0.02 0.06 Queue Length (95%)3211 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)30.2 12.5 13.3 11.6 14.2 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.34 0.19 0.30 0.12 0.37 Queue Length (95%)52717 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)27.6 27.8 30.0 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.43 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)79634 LTRTL Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 20.0 29.1 LOS A CD V/C Ratio 0.15 0.10 0.44 Queue Length (95%)113 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)12.9 13.5 30.7 27.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.29 0.35 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)6941 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)9.4 10.1 7.4 7.4 LOS A B A A V/C Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 Queue Length (95%)1110 Movement Group NA Parking Garage & Black Avenue Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Peach Street N 7th Avenue & Main Street Movement Group B 0.34 NA LTR Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street 18.2 Intersection OVERALL 17.9B 0.73 NA Mendenhall & Tracy Avenue 7.6 A 0.03 1 OVERALL 13.2 Table 1. Existing Peak Noon Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Movement Group N 7th Avenue & Mendenhall Street Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB OVERALL 16.8 B 0.32 Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Movement Group B B 0.33 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street 20.2C 0.27 Movement Group Church Avenue & Main Street 0.36 OVERALL 26.1C 0.49 Movement Group Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Main Street Movement Group NA Rouse Avenue & Babcock Street OVERALL 15.5 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 9 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.9 7.5 7.4 LOS C A A V/C Ratio 0.62 0.27 0.25 Queue Length (95%)854 L LTR LTR LTR L R Control Delay (s/veh)11.0 10.0 27.3 21.7 26.1 10.5 LOS BB C C C B V/C Ratio 0.36 0.48 0.64 0.01 0.69 0.30 Queue Length (95%)65 10 1 4 5 LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)18.9 17.5 LOS CC V/C Ratio 0.24 0.16 Queue Length (95%)11 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.4 17.1 31.0 28.7 30.1 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.36 0.42 Queue Length (95%)68855 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.2 17.5 18.1 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.20 0.20 0.27 Queue Length (95%)5 7336 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)95.2 37.9 8.8 8.2 LOS FEA A V/C Ratio 0.90 0.64 0.09 0.05 Queue Length (95%)7511 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.7 13.5 14.6 12.8 15.3 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.61 0.25 0.40 0.21 0.44 Queue Length (95%)10 39 39 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.5 29.4 33.2 17.6 15.6 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.60 0.39 0.20 Queue Length (95%)811954 LTRTL Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 31.1 78.3 LOS A DF V/C Ratio 0.19 0.29 0.81 Queue Length (95%)126 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.6 14.6 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.35 0.42 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)5752 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)9.7 9.7 7.5 7.4 LOS A A A A V/C Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 Queue Length (95%)1110 Parking Garage & Black Avenue Movement Group NA Movement Group NA Rouse Avenue & Peach Street Willson Avenue & Babcock Street 20.2C 0.32 Movement Group N 7th Avenue & Mendenhall Street Table 2. Existing Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street 21.1B NA 0.42 SB Intersection OVERALL 14.5B 0.61 Movement Group N 7th Avenue & Main Street Movement Group Mendenhall & Tracy Avenue 1 B 0.61 OVERALL 17.9 LTR 7.3 A 0.02 OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street 17.1B 0.32 Rouse Avenue & Babcock Street Movement Group 27.5C 0.61 Movement Group NA Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 19.6B 0.50 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TRIP GENERATION Table 3 is a trip generation summary for the 5 East Hotel development. Trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Report, 10th Edition were evaluated to determine the land use rates that would be most representative of the proposed development land uses (see Appendix B). Within Table 3, 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 consists of 150 hotel rooms and ITE Land Use Code 210 “Hotel” was used, with the variable “X” being “Number of Rooms”. Appendix B also includes trip rates per “Occupied Room” as a comparison. Calculations were completed for each of the rate variables and it was determined that the Occupied Room rates would produce approximately 1.14 more trips in the peak hour periods per room than the Room rate, if the same 150 rooms were used as the variable “X”. This indicates that the ITE “Occupied Room” rate is based on 86% occupancy. An internet search indicated that the average occupancy rate for full service hotels is approximately 80%. If 80% occupancy is used, the number of occupied rooms would be 120 rooms, which would produce approximately 5% fewer trips in the peak hour periods than if the “Room” rate is used. For that reason, the “Room” rates were used to estimate 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 310 Hotel 150 Rooms 1 1254 2 71 39 32 3 90 46 44 1254 71 39 32 90 46 44 Trip Mode & Class Adjustments Pedestrian Mode (CBD Circulation)188 11 6 5 14 7 7 Internal Capture Within Structure 63 4 1 3 9 6 3 63 4 1 3 9 6 3 1191 67 38 29 81 40 41 1 - T = 8.36(X)2 - T = 0.47 (55% enter)3 - T = 0.60(X) (51% enter) Table 3. 5 East Hotel Trip Generation Total Development Net Vehicular Trips = Peak AM HourAve. Weekday Peak PM Hour Total Potential Trips = Total Trip Mode and Class Reductions = 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 11 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The total development would generate approximately 1264 average weekday trips (AWT) with 71 in the am peak hour of the generator and 90 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. Because of that, the peak am hour rate was used for analysis of noon hour impacts. Thus, there is a possibility that noon hour impacts could be over-estimated within the study analysis. Since the proposed development will be replacing a used car lot and two single family residences, existing trips on the street system could be removed from the surrounding street system. However, the reductions would not be substantial enough to factor into the analysis. 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. In addition, the bus transfer station is literally across the street and could attract a number of external CBD area trips that would otherwise be made by passenger vehicles. Alternate trip mode 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 attractions and mode travel times. For this development it was assumed that 15% of the hotel guest trips would be pedestrian trips on the average weekday and in the noon and pm peak hours. This would result in approximately 188 AWT pedestrian trips with 11 in the am hour and 14 in the pm hour, as shown in Table 3. 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 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 12 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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 this hotel would have dining and drinking facilities along with a fitness center and meeting space, there is a definite possibility that ICT trips could occur within the confines of the building. A modest estimate of 5% ICT trips was assumed for this development which would result in approximately 63 AWT trips with 4 in the am hour and 9 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. In this case, there is no passerby trip potential associated with the hotel development. Table 3 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 mode trips and internal capture trips, the potential trip increase at this site results in 1,191 AWT, with 67 trips in the am (noon) hour and 81 in the pm hour 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 13 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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 5 East Hotel development, a basic area of influence model was used. Since guests at the hotel would not typically reside within the Bozeman area, a large proportion of trips in the noon and pm hours would be arriving and departing from areas external to Bozeman. Thus, transportation facilities such as the Bozeman Airport, I-90, US 191, and Secondary 86 become primary trip producers and attractors. In addition, the Hotel would attract trips to and from local attractions such as: shopping and services in the CBD and on the west end; skiing at Bridger Bowl and Big Sky; Yellowstone Park; along with educational and sporting events at Montana State University. A Gravity type model using the inverse square of the travel time to the center of each attractor was applied to calculate the relative potential of each attraction. Figure 4 on the following page presents the results of the trip distribution model. The overall distribution of trips resulted in approximately 50% of the trips to and from the northwest with 20% on Main Street and 30% on N 7th Avenue accessing I-90 West. Approximately 30% of the trips would be on Main Street, accessing I90 East, with 10% of the trips to the north on Rouse Avenue and 10% to the south on Willson Avenue. Primary trips within the CDB area were distributed along each arterial and collector street within a one-half mile radius of the development site. Because of the one-way street system on Babcock and Mendenhall and the fact that access to the hotel would be at two different locations needed to be considered. Therefore, directional distribution calculations reflected different inbound and outbound least travel time routing. Single direction distribution percentages were calculated and are shown in Figure 4. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 14 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 15 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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. Figure 5 presents results of the vehicular traffic volume assignment analysis for average weekday traffic (AWT) and peak noon and pm hour subdivision development conditions. AWT volumes shown in Figure 5 indicate that Black Avenue would have the highest site generated traffic volumes with approximately 715 AWT south of Mendenhall Avenue. That traffic would access both the hotel lobby pull-out on Tracy Avenue and the Bozeman Parking Garage access. Site pedestrian traffic would be mostly concentrated at the intersection of Mendenhall Street and Tracy Avenue with dispersion of pedestrian traffic in all directions from that location. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 16 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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 Main Street, where site generated traffic would be approximately 23% 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 6 and 7 present the calculated existing plus site traffic volumes that would be associated with development of 5 East Hotel development. It should be noted that traffic volumes for the intersection of Rouse and Babcock are not included in the figures since no site traffic could be assigned to that intersection. The intersection volumes shown in Figures 6 and 7 are used in capacity calculations to determine whether the additional traffic would have noticeable impacts on each intersection’s efficiency. Figures 6 and 7 also indicate the existing plus site traffic volumes at the development’s garage access on Tracy Avenue and the Bozeman Parking Garage access on Black Avenue. The existing Black Avenue garage access volumes were counted during the peak noon and pm hours on a Wednesday in November 2018. It is estimated that the additional site generated traffic could increase entering and exiting garage traffic by approximately 90% over existing conditions. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 17 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 18 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 19 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Capacity Tables 4 and 5 present 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 intersections having movements that operate at LOS “D”, LOS “E”, and LOS “F”. In comparing Tables 4 and 5 to Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that very minor changes in delay and v/c ratios would occur. Some of the vehicle queues would change with vehicle queues increasing in some lanes and vehicle queues decreasing in others. None of the intersections would have any change in the overall LOS or individual movement LOS. This indicates that if the development existed at the present time, there would be no measurable difference in current operations at any of the intersections. The Black Avenue access to the Bozeman Parking Garage would operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak noon and pm hours of operation. 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 20 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)27.2 7.3 7.6 LOS C A A V/C Ratio 0.52 0.23 0.27 Queue Length (95%)745 L LTR LTR LTR L R Control Delay (s/veh)12.4 8.8 27.3 21.2 32.2 8.8 LOS B A CCCA V/C Ratio 0.60 0.30 0.65 0.01 0.72 0.30 Queue Length (95%)56 7 074 LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)17.6 17.9 LOS CC V/C Ratio 0.27 0.24 Queue Length (95%)21 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.4 13.4 30.4 31.5 31.9 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.23 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)55354 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.2 17.6 16.7 16.5 17.6 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.16 0.13 0.24 Queue Length (95%)6 6235 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)26.9 17.8 8.0 8.1 LOS DCA A V/C Ratio 0.49 0.30 0.02 0.06 Queue Length (95%)3211 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)30.3 12.5 13.3 11.6 14.3 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.34 0.19 0.30 0.12 0.37 Queue Length (95%)52728 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)27.8 28.0 30.0 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.45 0.48 0.43 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)810644 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.0 13.6 30.7 27.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.30 0.35 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)5461 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)10.5 9.7 7.5 7.4 LOS B A A A V/C Ratio 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.01 Queue Length (95%)1111 Church Avenue & Main Street 15.5B 0.32 Parking Garage & Black Avenue Movement Group NA Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street 26.3C 0.49 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 16.8B 0.36 Movement Group NA Rouse Avenue & Peach Street Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street 20.2C 0.28 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street 18.3B 0.33 Movement Group OVERALL Mendenhall & Tracy Avenue 7.6 A 0.031 Movement Group OVERALL N 7th Avenue & Main Street 18.1B 0.72 Movement Group LTR NA N 7th Avenue & Mendenhall Street 13.3B 0.35 Table 4. Existing Plus Site Traffic Peak Noon Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Movement Group OVERALL 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 21 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)29.2 7.5 7.4 LOS C A A V/C Ratio 0.64 0.27 0.25 Queue Length (95%)754 LLTR LTR LTR L R Control Delay (s/veh)11.0 10.1 27.5 21.7 26.7 10.5 LOS BB C C C B V/C Ratio 0.44 0.48 0.72 0.02 0.55 0.34 Queue Length (95%)66 11 167 LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)20.2 17.2 LOS CC V/C Ratio 0.28 0.18 Queue Length (95%)21 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.6 17.2 31.1 28.7 30.2 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.38 0.42 0.41 0.36 0.43 Queue Length (95%)77956 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.3 17.5 18.1 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.20 0.19 0.28 Queue Length (95%)6 8267 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)99.8 39.0 8.8 8.3 LOS FEA A V/C Ratio 0.91 0.65 0.09 0.05 Queue Length (95%)7511 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.7 13.5 14.6 12.8 15.3 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.61 0.25 0.40 0.21 0.44 Queue Length (95%)10 3 9 4 10 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.8 29.7 33.2 17.6 15.6 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.51 0.56 0.60 0.39 0.19 Queue Length (95%)914954 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.7 14.7 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.36 0.43 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)7952 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)10.8 10.1 7.5 7.4 LOS BBA A V/C Ratio 0.11 0.03 0.10 0.01 Queue Length (95%)1110 Church Avenue & Main Street 17.1B 0.42 Movement Group NA Parking Garage & Black Avenue Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street 27.7C 0.62 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 19.6B 0.50 Movement Group NA Rouse Avenue & Peach Street Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street 20.3C 0.32 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street 21.2C 0.43 Movement Group OVERALL Mendenhall & Tracy Avenue 7.3 A 0.021 Movement Group OVERALL N 7th Avenue & Main Street 18.2B 0.62 Movement Group LTR NA Movement Group OVERALL N 7th Avenue & Mendenhall Street 14.6B 0.38 Table 5. Existing Plus Site Traffic Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 22 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 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 the minimal volume of site-generated traffic. Auxiliary turn lane warrants were investigated for the Bozeman Parking Garage access and it was determined that none of the auxiliary lane warrants (left or right turn lanes) would be close to being met. 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 2004, 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 fifteen intersections counts taken in 2017 were compared to year 2003 counts at the same intersections and it was determined that the net traffic growth over the past 14 years was approximately 1%, which is incredible considering all of the changes that have occurred in the CBD in the past 14 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 (Figure 7) for analysis of future (year 2033) conditions. Future Capacity Table 6 presents a summary of capacity calculations for future (year 2033) peak pm hour conditions based on existing traffic increases of 5% plus site traffic at each of the intersections. Future capacity 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 23 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY calculations for the year 2033 peak noon hour were not completed since the peak pm hour existing traffic capacity conditions had the highest average vehicle delay at most of the intersections. In comparing Table 6 results to Table 5, one substantial change can be noted. Future capacity calculations at the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Peach Street assumed that the reconstruction and signalization of that intersection would have completed in the year 2020 and the revised intersection control would operate at an overall LOS “B”. The Bozeman Parking Garage access on Black Avenue would operate at LOS “B” in the future. LTR LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)30.0 7.6 7.5 LOS C A A V/C Ratio 0.68 0.28 0.27 Queue Length (95%)854 L LTR LTR LTR L R Control Delay (s/veh)11.9 10.4 29.6 21.3 26.7 10.2 LOS BB C C C B V/C Ratio 0.48 0.51 0.78 0.02 0.57 0.36 Queue Length (95%)66 10 066 LT TR Control Delay (s/veh)22.9 18.3 LOS CC V/C Ratio 0.33 0.20 Queue Length (95%)21 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.9 17.7 32.3 29.2 31.2 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.38 0.47 Queue Length (95%)87677 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.0 19.3 17.4 17.9 18.3 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.31 0.36 0.22 0.21 0.29 Queue Length (95%)6 9457 LTRLTRLTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)26.3 26.4 14.3 25.8 26.5 14.7 8.2 17.3 5.9 21.8 LOS CCBCCBA B A C V/C Ratio 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.51 0.10 0.70 Queue Length (95%)32102228 39 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)30.7 17.4 18.1 16.1 19.0 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.58 0.32 0.45 0.25 0.50 Queue Length (95%)939611 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)30.0 30.4 34.3 17.9 15.7 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.42 0.21 Queue Length (95%)13 13 10 6 5 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)14.0 15.0 33.6 28.4 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.38 0.46 0.42 0.13 Queue Length (95%)8952 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)11.0 10.2 7.6 7.4 LOS BBA A V/C Ratio 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.01 Queue Length (95%)1110 Rouse Avenue & Main Street 18.7B 0.50 Movement Group OVERALL 28.5C 0.65 Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street 21.3C Movement Group NA Bozeman Parking Garage & Black Avenue Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street 17.5B 0.44 0.53 Movement Group OVERALL C 0.34 Willson Avenue & Babcock Street 20.4 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Peach Street Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street 21.7C 0.46 Movement Group OVERALL Mendenhall & Tracy Avenue 7.4 A 0.03 1 Movement Group OVERALL N 7th Avenue & Main Street 19.1B 0.65 Movement Group LTR NA Movement Group OVERALL N 7th Avenue & Mendenhall Street 15.0B 0.40 Table 6. Future Conditions Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection 5 East Hotel Development TIS page 24 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SITE ACCESS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Safety operations related to the Hotel Lobby pull-out garage access on Tracy Avenue would require a clear line of sight from the pull-out lane to on-coming northbound traffic. Tracy Avenue, as a local street, has a 25 mph speed limit. Thus, the minimum stopping sight distance required in both directions would be 155 feet. Since there is no parking on the east side of Tracy Avenue at the present time, there wouldn’t be any sight restrictions created by parked vehicles. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic assignments, and capacity calculations show that the development of the 5 East Hotel development would not have any appreciable impacts on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. Capacity calculations indicate that the only external area intersections that operates at an overall LOS less than “C” are the intersection of Peach Street and Rouse Avenue. The intersection of Peach Street and Rouse Avenue is scheduled for reconstruction within the next few years, which will alleviate any existing or future operational problems associated with safety and efficiency. There are no planned improvements to the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Babcock Street, which currently operates below an acceptable LOS. However, the TIS analysis indicates that none of the site generated traffic would enter that intersection in the noon or pm peak hours on a daily basis. Thus, there would be no measurable impacts to that intersection. All of the remaining intersections would operate at a LOS “C” or better, including the garage accesses associated with this development. APPENDIX A-1 Existing Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak Noon Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. /N7th Avenue 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & Mendenhall 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 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 T 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 LT 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 94 0.96 2 221 0.96 2 226 0.96 2 16 0.96 2 434 0.96 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 530 0.96 2 40 0.96 2 0 5 0 0 --- --- 120 5 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 5 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 LT TP 0 22.0 3.5 1.5 53.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 85.0 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 869 0.130 0.259 LTR 0.504 27.0 C 27.0 C NB LT 2049 0.143 0.624 LT 0.229 7.3 A 7.3 A SB * TR 2186 0.168 0.624 TR 0.269 7.5 A 7.5 A Intersection: Delay = 13.2sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.34 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak Noon Hour /N7th Avenue 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & Mendenhall Noon Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 5 / 7 11.5 0.0 All 11.5 0.0 NB LT 2 / 4 19.1 0.0 All 19.1 0.0 SB TR 3 / 4 19.6 0.0 All 19.6 0.0 Intersect. 15.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 94 221 226 16 434 530 40 1 21 24 2 52 24 2 52 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. /N7th Avenue 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & Mendenhall 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 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 T 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 LT 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 96 0.99 2 273 0.99 2 262 0.99 2 7 0.99 2 549 0.99 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 492 0.99 2 49 0.99 2 0 5 0 0 --- --- 100 5 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 5 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 LT TP 0 22.0 3.5 1.5 53.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 85.0 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 864 0.161 0.259 LTR 0.622 28.9 C 28.9 C NB * LT 2095 0.167 0.624 LT 0.268 7.5 A 7.5 A SB TR 2179 0.155 0.624 TR 0.248 7.4 A 7.4 A Intersection: Delay = 14.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.37 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.33 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour /N7th Avenue 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & Mendenhall PM Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 6 / 8 11.1 0.0 All 11.1 0.0 NB LT 3 / 5 18.1 0.0 All 18.1 0.0 SB TR 2 / 4 18.9 0.0 All 18.9 0.0 Intersect. 14.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 96 273 262 7 549 492 49 1 21 24 2 52 24 2 52 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak Noon Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Business Access 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & 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 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TR 12.0 R 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) L 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LT 3 R 3 315 0.95 2 567 0.95 2 11 0.95 0 0 0.95 0 534 0.95 2 119 0.95 2 0 0.95 0 0 0.95 0 5 0.95 0 271 0.95 2 2 0.95 0 348 0.95 2 2 10 0 0 --- --- 30 4 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 80 2 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP R LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 20.0 3.5 1.5 25.0 3.5 1.5 25.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 85.0 Sec 15.0 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 Lper 139 0.000 0.353 10.1 B Lpro 416 0.112 0.235 L 0.359 9.9 A LTRper 711 0.000 0.353 * LTRpro 824 0.211 0.235 LTR 0.481 10.1 B WB * LTR 1018 0.190 0.294 LTR 0.644 27.2 C 27.2 C NB LTR 481 0.003 0.294 LTR 0.010 21.2 C 21.2 C SB * L 411 0.204 0.294 L 0.693 30.8 C 19.9 B R 931 0.178 0.588 R 0.303 8.8 A Intersection: Delay = 17.9sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.73 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.60 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak Noon Hour Main Street/Business Access 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & Main Noon Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 3 / 4 9.0 0.0 LTR 4 / 5 18.0 0.0 All 15.9 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 10.0 0.0 All 10.0 0.0 NB LTR 0 / 0 25.6 0.0 All 25.6 0.0 SB L 4 / 9 11.0 0.0 R 3 / 7 19.1 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 Intersect. 13.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 315 567 11 0 534 119 0 0 5 271 2 348 1 19 24 1 19 24 2 24 24 2 24 24 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Business Access 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & 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 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TR 12.0 R 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) L 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LT 3 R 3 407 0.99 2 508 0.99 2 10 0.99 0 0 0.99 0 684 0.99 2 142 0.99 2 0 0.99 0 3 0.99 0 5 0.99 0 210 0.99 2 0 0.99 0 380 0.99 2 2 7 0 0 --- --- 30 2 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 80 0 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP R LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 28.0 3.5 1.5 25.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 86.0 Sec 15.0 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 Lper 222 0.000 0.384 10.4 B * Lpro 719 0.120 0.209 L 0.437 11.0 B TR 1102 0.280 0.593 TR 0.473 10.0 B WB * LTR 1128 0.232 0.326 LTR 0.713 27.3 C 27.3 C NB LTR 505 0.005 0.291 LTR 0.016 21.7 C 21.7 C SB * LT 407 0.152 0.291 LT 0.521 26.1 C 16.9 B R 884 0.191 0.558 R 0.343 10.5 B Intersection: Delay = 17.9sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.61 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.50 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour Main Street/Business Access 10/26/2017 Case: N 7th & Main PM Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 6 14.0 0.0 TR 5 / 5 15.7 0.0 All 14.5 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 10 9.9 0.0 All 9.9 0.0 NB LTR 0 / 1 21.5 0.0 All 21.5 0.0 SB LT 3 / 4 10.5 0.0 R 3 / 5 17.5 0.0 All 14.6 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 407 508 10 0 684 142 0 3 5 210 0 380 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 27 24 2 27 24 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Mendenhall and Tracy Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 7/27/2018 East/West Street Mendenhall St Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Tracy Avenue Time Analyzed Peak Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development 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 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Volume, V (veh/h)43 463 23 59 35 57 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 6.82 6.52 6.52 6.92 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.21 3.51 4.01 4.01 3.31 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)44 96 89 Capacity, c (veh/h)1445 406 372 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.24 0.24 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.9 0.9 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 16.6 17.7 Level of Service, LOS A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)0.7 16.6 17.7 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 7/27/2018 2:42:00 PMMendenhall & Tracy Noon Exist.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Mendenhall and Tracy Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 7/27/2018 East/West Street Mendenhall St Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Tracy Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.88 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development 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 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Volume, V (veh/h)32 579 33 24 48 36 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 6.82 6.52 6.52 6.92 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.21 3.51 4.01 4.01 3.31 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)36 82 55 Capacity, c (veh/h)1569 341 342 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.16 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.9 0.6 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 18.9 17.5 Level of Service, LOS A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)0.5 18.9 17.5 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 7/27/2018 12:58:07 PMMendenhall & Tracy PM Exist.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Peach Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 7/27/2018 East/West Street Peach Street Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Peak Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)35 56 54 3 49 62 22 271 17 74 250 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)156 123 24 80 Capacity, c (veh/h)318 404 1218 1256 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.30 0.02 0.06 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)2.6 1.3 0.1 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)26.7 17.8 8.0 8.1 Level of Service, LOS D C A A Approach Delay (s/veh)26.7 17.8 0.7 2.0 Approach LOS D C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 7/27/2018 12:51:52 PMRouse & Peach Noon Exist.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Peach Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 7/27/2018 East/West Street Peach Street Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)27 42 68 5 51 102 78 326 14 48 409 52 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 4.11 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.51 4.01 3.31 3.51 4.01 3.31 2.21 2.21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)159 184 91 56 Capacity, c (veh/h)178 285 1035 1167 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.64 0.09 0.05 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)6.7 4.1 0.3 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)95.2 37.9 8.8 8.2 Level of Service, LOS F E A A Approach Delay (s/veh)95.2 37.9 2.5 1.3 Approach LOS F E Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 7/27/2018 12:50:48 PMRouse & Peach PM Exist.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 0 446 0.97 1 79 0.97 0 38 0.97 0 478 0.97 1 21 0.97 0 72 0.97 0 126 0.97 0 42 0.97 0 21 0.97 0 121 0.97 0 25 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 1721 0.186 0.583 LTR 0.319 13.3 B 13.3 B WB * LTR 1699 0.188 0.583 LTR 0.323 13.3 B 13.3 B NB L 332 0.074 0.333 L 0.223 30.4 C 31.1 C TR 522 0.107 0.333 TR 0.322 31.5 C SB * LTR 502 0.112 0.333 LTR 0.335 31.8 C 31.8 C Intersection: Delay = 18.2sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Noon Main Street/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: Willson Main Noon Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 7 15.4 0.0 All 15.4 0.0 WB LTR 4 / 6 15.1 0.0 All 15.1 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 2.9 0.0 TR 3 / 5 11.2 0.0 All 9.1 0.0 SB LTR 3 / 4 10.6 0.0 All 10.6 0.0 Intersect. 13.2 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 27 446 79 38 478 21 72 126 42 21 121 25 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 0 461 0.95 1 101 0.95 0 49 0.95 0 539 0.95 1 22 0.95 0 137 0.95 0 168 0.95 0 40 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 189 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 0.199 0.542 LTR 0.366 16.4 B 16.4 B WB * LTR 1529 0.226 0.542 LTR 0.417 17.1 B 17.1 B NB L 356 0.152 0.375 L 0.404 31.0 C 29.6 C TR 599 0.134 0.375 TR 0.357 28.7 C SB * LTR 579 0.159 0.375 LTR 0.423 30.1 C 30.1 C Intersection: Delay = 21.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.42 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: Willson Main PM Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 14.1 0.0 All 14.1 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 8 12.8 0.0 All 12.8 0.0 NB L 4 / 8 2.6 0.0 TR 3 / 5 15.1 0.0 All 9.5 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 5 9.6 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 Intersect. 11.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 20 461 101 49 539 22 137 168 40 26 189 23 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Babcock St/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 1 383 0.96 1 54 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 211 0.96 1 190 0.96 0 66 0.96 0 212 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 1457 0.134 0.417 LTR 0.322 24.2 C 24.2 C NB T 941 0.117 0.500 T 0.234 17.6 B 17.2 B R 783 0.077 0.500 R 0.153 16.7 B SB L 550 0.063 0.500 L 0.125 16.5 B 17.3 B * T 941 0.117 0.500 T 0.235 17.6 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.27 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.25 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Noon Babcock St/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 11.4 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 NB T 4 / 6 14.2 0.0 R 1 / 2 16.4 0.0 All 14.5 0.0 SB L 1 / 4 6.3 0.0 T 4 / 6 13.2 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 Intersect. 12.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 23 383 54 211 190 66 212 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Babcock St/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 1 348 0.95 1 51 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 302 0.95 1 220 0.95 0 85 0.95 0 244 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 0.124 0.417 LTR 0.297 23.8 C 23.8 C NB * T 941 0.169 0.500 T 0.338 19.0 B 18.4 B R 782 0.098 0.500 R 0.196 17.2 B SB L 463 0.096 0.500 L 0.192 17.5 B 17.9 B T 941 0.137 0.500 T 0.273 18.1 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Peak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave 10/26/17 Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 5 11.6 0.0 All 11.6 0.0 NB T 5 / 7 14.8 0.0 R 1 / 2 15.1 0.0 All 14.8 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 4.8 0.0 T 4 / 6 14.3 0.0 All 12.6 0.0 Intersect. 13.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 348 51 302 220 85 244 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 1 196 0.96 1 5 0.96 1 92 0.96 1 303 0.96 1 10 0.96 1 64 0.96 1 267 0.96 1 136 0.96 1 0 11 0 0 --- --- 2 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 625 0.113 0.333 LTR 0.339 30.2 C 30.2 C NB L 514 0.109 0.583 L 0.187 12.5 B 13.1 B TR 1091 0.174 0.583 TR 0.299 13.3 B SB L 562 0.070 0.583 L 0.119 11.6 B 13.8 B * TR 1048 0.213 0.583 TR 0.365 14.2 B Intersection: Delay = 16.8sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.36 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.33 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Noon Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 5 / 5 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 6.2 0.0 TR 5 / 7 14.9 0.0 All 13.9 0.0 SB L 1 / 1 7.0 0.0 TR 5 / 7 16.4 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 Intersect. 13.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 196 5 92 303 10 64 267 136 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 1 212 0.89 1 126 0.89 1 99 0.89 1 369 0.89 1 14 0.89 1 86 0.89 1 333 0.89 1 124 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 0.202 0.333 LTR 0.607 34.7 C 34.7 C NB L 447 0.145 0.583 L 0.248 13.5 B 14.4 B TR 1090 0.231 0.583 TR 0.395 14.6 B SB L 474 0.119 0.583 L 0.205 12.8 B 14.9 B * TR 1061 0.255 0.583 TR 0.436 15.3 B Intersection: Delay = 19.6sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.50 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.46 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Peak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 9 / 10 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 6.3 0.0 TR 6 / 9 14.6 0.0 All 13.7 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 6.5 0.0 TR 7 / 9 14.8 0.0 All 13.8 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 12 212 126 99 369 14 86 333 124 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 1 330 0.94 1 28 0.94 0 10 0.94 0 449 0.94 1 155 0.94 1 39 0.94 0 181 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 1010 0.176 0.400 LTR 0.441 27.6 C 27.6 C WB * LTR 1297 0.188 0.400 LTR 0.471 27.8 C 27.8 C NB * LTR 599 0.151 0.350 LTR 0.431 30.0 C 30.0 C SB Lper 332 0.000 0.392 15.7 B * Lpro 238 0.090 0.133 L 0.281 16.2 B TR 881 0.059 0.517 TR 0.115 14.9 B Intersection: Delay = 26.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.49 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.43 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Noon Main Street/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 7 7.8 0.0 All 7.8 0.0 WB LTR 8 / 9 8.4 0.0 All 8.4 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 10.3 0.0 All 10.3 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 6.8 0.0 TR 2 / 4 18.0 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 Intersect. 9.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 66 330 28 10 449 155 39 181 28 150 53 57 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 1 374 0.87 1 27 0.87 0 8 0.87 0 490 0.87 1 171 0.87 1 37 0.87 0 258 0.87 1 27 0.87 1 173 0.87 1 105 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 1043 0.196 0.400 LTR 0.490 28.5 C 28.5 C WB * LTR 1305 0.222 0.400 LTR 0.554 29.4 C 29.4 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 0.111 0.133 L 0.391 17.6 B TR 919 0.100 0.517 TR 0.194 15.6 B Intersection: Delay = 27.5sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.61 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave 10/26/17 Case: Rouse Main PM Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 7 / 8 8.0 0.0 All 8.0 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 11 8.1 0.0 All 8.1 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 9 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 6.2 0.0 TR 3 / 4 17.0 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 Intersect. 8.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 49 374 27 8 490 171 37 258 27 173 105 65 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 10/11/17 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, V (veh/h)214 284 17 20 4 55 49 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 6.50 6.90 7.52 6.50 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.21 4.00 3.30 3.51 4.00 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)246 28 119 Capacity, c (veh/h)1594 265 255 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.11 0.47 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.5 0.4 2.3 Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 20.2 30.9 Level of Service, LOS A C D Approach Delay (s/veh)3.3 20.2 30.9 Approach LOS C D Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 11/14/2017 12:56:03 PMRouse Babcock Noon Exist.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Babcock & Rouse Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 10/11/2017 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Existing PM Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description One 11 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, V (veh/h)275 387 16 42 8 40 89 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)2 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 Critical Headway (sec)4.14 6.50 6.90 7.50 6.50 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.22 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)306 56 143 Capacity, c (veh/h)1613 193 177 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.29 0.81 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.7 1.2 5.5 Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 31.1 78.3 Level of Service, LOS A D F Approach Delay (s/veh)3.4 31.1 78.3 Approach LOS D F Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 10/11/2017 4:38:22 PMBabcock & Rouse PM Exist.xtw Pedestrian Level of Service Flow (ped/hr)35 Two-Stage Crossing No Pedestrian Platooning No Conflicting Vehicular Flow (veh/h)754 Average Delay (s)4.4 Level of Service, LOS A Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.3 Generated: 10/11/2017 4:38:22 PM Babcock & Rouse PM Exist.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Church Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 0 449 0.93 1 39 0.93 0 28 0.93 0 545 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 0.169 0.583 LTR 0.290 12.9 B 12.9 B WB * LTR 1876 0.201 0.583 LTR 0.345 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= 0.29 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Noon Main Street/Church Ave 10/26/17 Case: Church Main Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 12.5 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 9 10.6 0.0 All 10.6 0.0 NB LTR 3 / 4 12.3 0.0 All 12.3 0.0 SB LTR 1 / 1 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 Intersect. 11.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 21 449 39 28 545 29 48 55 38 6 12 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Church Ave 10/26/17 Case: 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 0 490 0.90 1 56 0.90 0 46 0.90 0 602 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 0.204 0.583 LTR 0.350 13.6 B 13.6 B WB * LTR 1775 0.247 0.583 LTR 0.424 14.6 B 14.6 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= 0.38 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Church Ave 10/26/17 Case: Church Main PM Existing App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 5 15.3 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 14.4 0.0 All 14.4 0.0 NB LTR 4 / 5 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 29 490 56 46 602 34 67 75 55 18 28 15 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Bozeman Garage & Black Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Bozeman Garage Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Hour Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)4 0 14 9 4 14 42 73 24 10 61 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)18 28 43 10 Capacity, c (veh/h)831 734 1514 1507 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)9.4 10.1 7.4 7.4 Level of Service, LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)9.4 10.1 2.4 0.8 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 1:47:19 PMBozemman Garage Access Noon Exist.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Bozeman Garage & Black Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Bozeman Garage Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Hour Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)8 0 23 4 1 12 24 82 24 8 83 14 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)34 19 27 9 Capacity, c (veh/h)804 781 1495 1483 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)9.7 9.7 7.5 7.4 Level of Service, LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)9.7 9.7 1.5 0.6 Approach LOS A A Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 1:44:09 PMBozemman Garage Access PM Exist.xtw APPENDIX A-2 Existing Plus Site Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak Noon Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. /N7th Avenue 12/3/18 Case: N 7TH & MENDENHALL 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 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 T 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 LT 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 94 0.96 2 221 0.96 2 235 0.96 2 16 0.96 2 434 0.96 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 541 0.96 2 40 0.96 2 0 5 0 0 --- --- 120 5 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 5 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 LT TP 0 22.0 3.5 1.5 53.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 85.0 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 867 0.134 0.259 LTR 0.517 27.2 C 27.2 C NB LT 2048 0.143 0.624 LT 0.229 7.3 A 7.3 A SB * TR 2187 0.171 0.624 TR 0.274 7.6 A 7.6 A Intersection: Delay = 13.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.35 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak Noon Hour /N7th Avenue 12/3/18 Case: N 7TH & MENDENHALL NOON EXIST PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 5 / 7 10.1 0.0 All 10.1 0.0 NB LT 2 / 4 19.2 0.0 All 19.2 0.0 SB TR 3 / 5 18.5 0.0 All 18.5 0.0 Intersect. 14.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 94 221 235 16 434 541 40 1 21 24 2 52 24 2 52 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. /N7th Avenue 12/3/18 Case: N 7TH & MENDENHALL 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 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 T 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 LT 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 96 0.99 2 273 0.99 2 274 0.99 2 7 0.99 2 549 0.99 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 504 0.99 2 49 0.99 2 0 5 0 0 --- --- 100 5 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 5 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 LT TP 0 22.0 3.5 1.5 53.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 85.0 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 862 0.165 0.259 LTR 0.637 29.2 C 29.2 C NB * LT 2094 0.167 0.624 LT 0.268 7.5 A 7.5 A SB TR 2180 0.158 0.624 TR 0.254 7.4 A 7.4 A Intersection: Delay = 14.6sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.38 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.33 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak PM Hour /N7th Avenue 12/3/18 Case: N 7TH & MENDENHALL PM EXIST 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 LT 3 / 5 18.1 0.0 All 18.1 0.0 SB TR 3 / 4 19.1 0.0 All 19.1 0.0 Intersect. 14.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 96 273 274 7 549 504 49 1 21 24 2 52 24 2 52 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak Noon Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Business Access 12/3/18 Case: N 7th & 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 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TR 12.0 R 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) L 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LT 3 R 3 315 0.95 2 575 0.95 2 11 0.95 0 0 0.95 0 540 0.95 2 119 0.95 2 0 0.95 0 0 0.95 0 5 0.95 0 282 0.95 2 2 0.95 0 348 0.95 2 2 10 0 0 --- --- 30 4 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 80 2 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP R LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 20.0 3.5 1.5 25.0 3.5 1.5 25.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 85.0 Sec 15.0 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 Lper 137 0.000 0.353 10.0 B * Lpro 416 0.188 0.235 L 0.600 12.4 B LTRper 1246 0.000 0.353 LTRpro 831 0.174 0.235 LTR 0.296 8.8 A WB * LTR 1018 0.191 0.294 LTR 0.650 27.3 C 27.3 C NB LTR 481 0.003 0.294 LTR 0.010 21.2 C 21.2 C SB * L 411 0.212 0.294 L 0.723 32.2 C 20.8 C R 931 0.178 0.588 R 0.303 8.8 A Intersection: Delay = 18.1sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.72 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.59 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak Noon Hour Main Street/Business Access 12/3/18 Case: N 7th & Main Noon Exist Plus App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 5 9.7 0.0 LTR 4 / 6 18.1 0.0 All 16.2 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 9.8 0.0 All 9.8 0.0 NB LTR 0 / 0 25.6 0.0 All 25.6 0.0 SB L 4 / 7 11.1 0.0 R 3 / 4 21.2 0.0 All 15.6 0.0 Intersect. 13.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 315 575 11 0 540 119 0 0 5 282 2 348 1 19 24 1 19 24 2 24 24 2 24 24 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Business Access 12/3/18 Case: N 7TH & 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 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TR 12.0 R 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) L 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LT 3 R 3 407 0.99 2 516 0.99 2 10 0.99 0 0 0.99 0 692 0.99 2 142 0.99 2 0 0.99 0 3 0.99 0 5 0.99 0 222 0.99 2 0 0.99 0 380 0.99 2 2 7 0 0 --- --- 30 2 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 80 0 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP R LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 28.0 3.5 1.5 25.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 86.0 Sec 15.0 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 Lper 217 0.000 0.384 10.5 B * Lpro 719 0.120 0.209 L 0.439 11.0 B TR 1102 0.285 0.593 TR 0.480 10.1 B WB * LTR 1128 0.234 0.326 LTR 0.720 27.5 C 27.5 C NB LTR 505 0.005 0.291 LTR 0.016 21.7 C 21.7 C SB * LT 407 0.160 0.291 LT 0.550 26.7 C 17.4 B R 884 0.191 0.558 R 0.343 10.5 B Intersection: Delay = 18.2sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.62 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.51 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Hour Main Street/Business Access 12/3/18 Case: N 7TH & MAIN PM EXIST PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 6 14.2 0.0 TR 4 / 6 16.0 0.0 All 14.7 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 11 10.0 0.0 All 10.0 0.0 NB LTR 0 / 1 21.0 0.0 All 21.0 0.0 SB LT 3 / 6 10.2 0.0 R 3 / 7 18.4 0.0 All 14.9 0.0 Intersect. 12.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 407 516 10 0 692 142 0 3 5 222 0 380 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 27 24 2 27 24 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 0 465 0.97 1 79 0.97 0 38 0.97 0 484 0.97 1 21 0.97 0 72 0.97 0 126 0.97 0 42 0.97 0 21 0.97 0 124 0.97 0 25 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 1724 0.192 0.583 LTR 0.329 13.4 B 13.4 B WB LTR 1696 0.191 0.583 LTR 0.327 13.4 B 13.4 B NB L 330 0.075 0.333 L 0.224 30.4 C 31.2 C TR 522 0.107 0.333 TR 0.322 31.5 C SB * LTR 502 0.113 0.333 LTR 0.341 31.9 C 31.9 C Intersection: Delay = 18.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.31 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Main Street/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: WILLSON MAIN NOON EXIST PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 4 / 5 15.7 0.0 All 15.7 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 5 14.9 0.0 All 14.9 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 3.0 0.0 TR 3 / 5 11.3 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 4 9.5 0.0 All 9.5 0.0 Intersect. 13.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 27 465 79 38 484 21 72 126 42 21 124 25 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 0 481 0.95 1 107 0.95 0 49 0.95 0 547 0.95 1 22 0.95 0 137 0.95 0 168 0.95 0 40 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 193 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 0.208 0.542 LTR 0.384 16.6 B 16.6 B WB * LTR 1523 0.230 0.542 LTR 0.424 17.2 B 17.2 B NB L 353 0.153 0.375 L 0.408 31.1 C 29.7 C TR 599 0.134 0.375 TR 0.357 28.7 C SB * LTR 580 0.161 0.375 LTR 0.429 30.2 C 30.2 C Intersection: Delay = 21.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.43 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.39 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: WILLSON MAIN PM EXIST PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 7 13.4 0.0 All 13.4 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 12.7 0.0 All 12.7 0.0 NB L 5 / 9 2.0 0.4 TR 3 / 5 14.3 0.0 All 8.3 0.4 SB LTR 5 / 6 10.8 0.0 All 10.8 0.0 Intersect. 11.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 20 481 107 49 547 22 137 168 40 26 193 23 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Babcock St/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 1 383 0.96 1 54 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 211 0.96 1 194 0.96 0 66 0.96 0 215 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 1457 0.134 0.417 LTR 0.322 24.2 C 24.2 C NB T 941 0.117 0.500 T 0.234 17.6 B 17.3 B R 783 0.079 0.500 R 0.158 16.7 B SB L 550 0.063 0.500 L 0.125 16.5 B 17.4 B * T 941 0.119 0.500 T 0.238 17.6 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.28 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.25 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Babcock St/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: Willson Babcock Noon 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 4 / 6 14.8 0.0 R 1 / 2 16.1 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 SB L 0 / 3 6.8 0.0 T 4 / 5 13.3 0.0 All 12.4 0.0 Intersect. 12.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 23 383 54 211 194 66 215 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Babcock St/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 1 348 0.95 1 51 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 302 0.95 1 224 0.95 0 85 0.95 0 248 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 0.124 0.417 LTR 0.297 23.8 C 23.8 C NB * T 941 0.169 0.500 T 0.338 19.0 B 18.4 B R 782 0.100 0.500 R 0.201 17.3 B SB L 463 0.096 0.500 L 0.192 17.5 B 18.0 B T 941 0.139 0.500 T 0.277 18.1 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: WILLSON BABCOCK PM EXISTING PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 11.7 0.0 All 11.7 0.0 NB T 6 / 8 14.5 0.0 R 1 / 2 15.4 0.0 All 14.6 0.0 SB L 3 / 6 2.2 0.0 T 4 / 7 13.4 0.0 All 9.9 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 348 51 302 224 85 248 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Mendenhall and Tracy Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Mendenhall St Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Tracy Avenue Time Analyzed Peak Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development 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 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Volume, V (veh/h)43 475 23 59 43 57 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 6.82 6.52 6.52 6.92 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.21 3.51 4.01 4.01 3.31 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)44 104 89 Capacity, c (veh/h)1445 390 366 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.27 0.24 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 1.1 0.9 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 17.6 17.9 Level of Service, LOS A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)0.7 17.6 17.9 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 1:55:49 PMMendenhall & Tracy Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Mendenhall and Tracy Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Mendenhall St Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Tracy Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.88 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development 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 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Volume, V (veh/h)32 595 33 24 56 36 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 6.82 6.52 6.52 6.92 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.21 3.51 4.01 4.01 3.31 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)36 91 65 Capacity, c (veh/h)1569 328 360 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.28 0.18 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 1.1 0.6 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 20.2 17.2 Level of Service, LOS A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)0.5 20.2 17.2 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 1:59:24 PMMendenhall & Tracy PM Exist Plus.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Peach Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Peach Street Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Peak Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)35 56 54 3 49 62 22 274 17 72 254 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 4.11 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.51 4.01 3.31 3.51 4.01 3.31 2.21 2.21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)156 123 24 77 Capacity, c (veh/h)317 402 1213 1253 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.30 0.02 0.06 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)2.6 1.3 0.1 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)26.9 17.8 8.0 8.1 Level of Service, LOS D C A A Approach Delay (s/veh)26.9 17.8 0.7 2.0 Approach LOS D C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 2:01:59 PMRouse & Peach Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Peach Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Peach Street Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.86 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)27 42 68 5 51 102 78 330 14 48 413 52 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 4.11 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.51 4.01 3.31 3.51 4.01 3.31 2.21 2.21 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)159 184 91 56 Capacity, c (veh/h)175 281 1031 1162 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.65 0.09 0.05 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)6.8 4.2 0.3 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)99.8 39.0 8.8 8.3 Level of Service, LOS F E A A Approach Delay (s/veh)99.8 39.0 2.4 1.3 Approach LOS F E Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 2:04:04 PMRouse & Peach PM Exist plus.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 1 196 0.96 1 5 0.96 1 92 0.96 1 303 0.96 1 10 0.96 1 64 0.96 1 267 0.96 1 140 0.96 1 0 11 0 0 --- --- 2 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 625 0.113 0.333 LTR 0.339 30.2 C 30.2 C NB L 511 0.110 0.583 L 0.188 12.5 B 13.1 B TR 1091 0.174 0.583 TR 0.299 13.3 B SB L 562 0.070 0.583 L 0.119 11.6 B 13.9 B * TR 1046 0.216 0.583 TR 0.370 14.3 B Intersection: Delay = 16.8sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.36 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.33 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: MENDENHALL ROUSE NOON EXISTING PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 5 / 5 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 6.3 0.0 TR 5 / 7 14.9 0.0 All 13.9 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 5.6 0.0 TR 5 / 8 15.4 0.0 All 14.1 0.0 Intersect. 12.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 196 5 92 303 10 64 267 140 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 1 212 0.89 1 126 0.89 1 99 0.89 1 369 0.89 1 14 0.89 1 86 0.89 1 333 0.89 1 128 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 0.202 0.333 LTR 0.607 34.7 C 34.7 C NB L 444 0.146 0.583 L 0.250 13.5 B 14.4 B TR 1090 0.231 0.583 TR 0.395 14.6 B SB L 474 0.119 0.583 L 0.205 12.8 B 14.9 B * TR 1060 0.257 0.583 TR 0.441 15.3 B Intersection: Delay = 19.6sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.50 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.46 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: MENDENHALL ROUSE PM EXISTING PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 9 / 10 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 5.5 0.0 TR 6 / 9 14.6 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 SB L 1 / 4 5.3 0.0 TR 7 / 10 14.9 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 12 212 126 99 369 14 86 333 128 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 1 339 0.94 1 28 0.94 0 10 0.94 0 461 0.94 1 155 0.94 1 39 0.94 0 181 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 1006 0.181 0.400 LTR 0.452 27.8 C 27.8 C WB * LTR 1298 0.192 0.400 LTR 0.480 28.0 C 28.0 C NB * LTR 599 0.151 0.350 LTR 0.431 30.0 C 30.0 C SB Lper 332 0.000 0.392 15.7 B * Lpro 238 0.090 0.133 L 0.281 16.2 B TR 881 0.059 0.517 TR 0.115 14.9 B Intersection: Delay = 26.3sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.49 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.43 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Main Street/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: ROUSE MAIN NOON EXISTING PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 8 7.9 0.0 All 7.9 0.0 WB LTR 8 / 10 8.8 0.0 All 8.8 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 10.3 0.0 All 10.3 0.0 SB L 2 / 4 6.7 0.0 TR 2 / 4 18.3 0.0 All 14.4 0.0 Intersect. 9.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 66 339 28 10 461 155 39 181 28 150 53 57 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 1 387 0.87 1 27 0.87 0 8 0.87 0 502 0.87 1 171 0.87 1 37 0.87 0 258 0.87 1 27 0.87 1 173 0.87 1 105 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 1039 0.203 0.400 LTR 0.506 28.8 C 28.8 C WB * LTR 1306 0.226 0.400 LTR 0.564 29.7 C 29.7 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 0.111 0.133 L 0.391 17.6 B TR 919 0.100 0.517 TR 0.194 15.6 B Intersection: Delay = 27.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.62 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.55 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: ROUSE MAIN PM EXISTING PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 7 / 9 7.4 0.0 All 7.4 0.0 WB LTR 10 / 14 7.5 0.0 All 7.5 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 9 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 6.2 0.0 TR 3 / 4 16.8 0.0 All 13.4 0.0 Intersect. 8.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 49 387 27 8 502 171 37 258 27 173 105 65 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Church Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 0 458 0.93 1 39 0.93 0 28 0.93 0 557 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 0.172 0.583 LTR 0.295 13.0 B 13.0 B WB * LTR 1877 0.205 0.583 LTR 0.352 13.6 B 13.6 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= 0.30 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Noon Main Street/Church Ave 12/3/18 Case: CHURCH MAIN NOON EXISTING PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 5 15.0 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 6 14.0 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 NB LTR 3 / 4 12.6 0.0 All 12.6 0.0 SB LTR 1 / 1 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 Intersect. 14.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 21 458 39 28 557 29 48 55 38 6 12 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Church Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 0 503 0.90 1 56 0.90 0 46 0.90 0 614 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 0.209 0.583 LTR 0.358 13.7 B 13.7 B WB * LTR 1774 0.252 0.583 LTR 0.431 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= 0.38 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Church Ave 12/3/18 Case: CHURCH MAIN PM EXISTING PLUS App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 7 14.6 0.0 All 14.6 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 9 12.7 0.0 All 12.7 0.0 NB LTR 4 / 5 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 Intersect. 12.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 29 503 56 46 614 34 67 75 55 18 28 15 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Bozeman Garage & Black Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Bozeman Garage Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Hour Exist Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)19 0 29 0 4 14 69 73 24 10 61 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)49 18 70 10 Capacity, c (veh/h)709 785 1499 1507 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.5 9.7 7.5 7.4 Level of Service, LOS B A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.5 9.7 3.3 0.7 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 1:28:16 PMBozemman Garage Access Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Bozeman Garage & Black Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Bozeman Garage Analysis Year 2018 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Hour Exist Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (veh/h)28 0 44 4 1 12 52 82 4 8 83 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)80 19 58 9 Capacity, c (veh/h)703 731 1469 1511 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.8 10.1 7.6 7.4 Level of Service, LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.8 10.1 3.0 0.5 Approach LOS B B Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS7™ TWSC Version 7.4 Generated: 12/3/2018 1:49:34 PMBozemman Garage Access PM Exist Plus.xtw APPENDIX A-3 Future Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. /N7th Avenue 12/3/18 Case: N 7th & Mendenhall 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 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 T 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 LT 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 101 0.99 2 287 0.99 2 287 0.99 2 7 0.99 2 576 0.99 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 528 0.99 2 55 0.99 2 0 5 0 0 --- --- 100 5 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 5 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 LT TP 0 22.0 3.5 1.5 53.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 85.0 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 861 0.175 0.259 LTR 0.675 30.0 C 30.0 C NB * LT 2094 0.175 0.624 LT 0.281 7.6 A 7.6 A SB TR 2177 0.167 0.624 TR 0.268 7.5 A 7.5 A Intersection: Delay = 15.0sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.40 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.35 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Hour /N7th Avenue 12/3/18 Case: N 7th & Mendenhall PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 6 / 8 10.5 0.0 All 10.5 0.0 NB LT 3 / 5 18.6 0.0 All 18.6 0.0 SB TR 3 / 4 18.5 0.0 All 18.5 0.0 Intersect. 14.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 101 287 287 7 576 528 55 1 21 24 2 52 24 2 52 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Business Access 12/3/18 Case: N 7th & 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 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TR 12.0 R 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) L 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LT 3 R 3 427 0.99 2 541 0.99 2 11 0.99 0 0 0.99 0 730 0.99 2 150 0.99 2 0 0.99 0 3 0.99 0 5 0.99 0 233 0.99 2 0 0.99 0 400 0.99 2 2 7 0 0 --- --- 30 2 0 0 --- --- 0 2 0 0 --- --- 80 0 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP R LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 27.0 3.5 1.5 25.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 85.0 Sec 15.0 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 Lper 177 0.000 0.376 11.1 B * Lpro 727 0.126 0.212 L 0.477 11.9 B TR 1093 0.299 0.588 TR 0.508 10.4 B WB * LTR 1100 0.248 0.318 LTR 0.780 29.6 C 29.6 C NB LTR 511 0.005 0.294 LTR 0.016 21.3 C 21.3 C SB * LT 411 0.168 0.294 LT 0.572 26.7 C 17.1 B R 894 0.204 0.565 R 0.361 10.2 B Intersection: Delay = 19.1sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.66 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Hour Main Street/Business Access 12/3/18 Case: N 7th & Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 5 / 6 13.9 0.0 TR 4 / 6 15.5 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 WB LTR 8 / 10 9.1 0.0 All 9.1 0.0 NB LTR 0 / 0 24.1 0.0 All 24.1 0.0 SB LT 3 / 6 10.4 0.0 R 3 / 6 18.0 0.0 All 14.8 0.0 Intersect. 12.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 427 541 11 0 730 150 0 3 5 233 0 400 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 26 24 2 26 24 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Mendenhall and Tracy Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Mendenhall St Analysis Year 2033 North/South Street Tracy Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.88 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development 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 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Volume (veh/h)35 625 35 25 60 38 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 6.82 6.52 6.52 6.92 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.21 3.51 4.01 4.01 3.31 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)40 97 68 Capacity, c (veh/h)1563 297 338 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.33 0.20 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 1.4 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh)7.4 22.9 18.3 Level of Service (LOS)A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)0.5 22.9 18.3 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.7 Generated: 12/4/2018 1:27:42 PM Mendenhall & Tracy PM Future.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Willson Ave 10/3/18 Case: 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 0 504 0.95 1 112 0.95 0 53 0.95 0 574 0.95 1 25 0.95 0 144 0.95 0 181 0.95 0 42 0.95 0 30 0.95 0 203 0.95 0 27 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 1603 0.220 0.542 LTR 0.406 16.9 B 16.9 B WB * LTR 1503 0.245 0.542 LTR 0.453 17.7 B 17.7 B NB L 342 0.167 0.375 L 0.444 32.3 C 30.4 C TR 599 0.144 0.375 TR 0.384 29.2 C SB * LTR 573 0.176 0.375 LTR 0.469 31.2 C 31.2 C Intersection: Delay = 21.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.46 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.42 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Willson Ave 10/3/18 Case: Willson Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 8 13.2 0.0 All 13.2 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 12.7 0.0 All 12.7 0.0 NB L 3 / 6 3.4 0.0 TR 4 / 7 12.5 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 7 9.8 0.0 All 9.8 0.0 Intersect. 11.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 22 504 112 53 574 25 144 181 42 30 203 27 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Babcock St/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 1 365 0.95 1 54 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 320 0.95 1 235 0.95 0 90 0.95 0 260 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 1458 0.131 0.417 LTR 0.313 24.0 C 24.0 C NB * T 941 0.179 0.500 T 0.358 19.3 B 18.7 B R 782 0.107 0.500 R 0.215 17.4 B SB L 447 0.106 0.500 L 0.213 17.9 B 18.2 B T 941 0.146 0.500 T 0.291 18.3 B Intersection: Delay = 20.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.34 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.31 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave 12/3/18 Case: Willson Babcock PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 NB T 7 / 9 13.2 0.0 R 3 / 4 11.2 0.0 All 12.9 0.0 SB L 2 / 5 3.4 0.0 T 4 / 7 12.7 0.0 All 10.8 0.0 Intersect. 11.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 35 365 54 320 235 90 260 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Peach/Rouse 12/3/18 Case: Peach & Rouse Future PM 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 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 R 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) L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 29 0.90 2 45 0.90 2 72 0.90 2 10 0.90 2 55 0.90 2 115 0.90 2 82 0.90 2 370 0.90 4 15 0.90 2 55 0.90 2 470 0.90 4 65 0.90 2 25 5 0 0 --- --- 35 5 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 15 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 LTP R R L L LTP LTP 0 16.0 3.5 1.5 12.0 4.0 1.0 37.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 80.0 Sec 15.0 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 L 265 0.024 0.200 L 0.121 26.3 C 21.7 C T 373 0.027 0.200 T 0.134 26.4 C R 649 0.033 0.412 R 0.080 14.3 B WB L 267 0.008 0.200 L 0.041 25.8 C 19.9 B * T 373 0.033 0.200 T 0.164 26.5 C R 649 0.057 0.412 R 0.137 14.7 B NB Lper 225 0.000 0.525 15.7 B * Lpro 266 0.051 0.150 L 0.185 8.2 A TR 840 0.236 0.463 TR 0.510 17.3 B SB Lper 341 0.000 0.525 20.3 C Lpro 266 0.034 0.150 L 0.100 5.9 A * TR 832 0.321 0.463 TR 0.695 21.8 C Intersection: Delay = 18.7sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.50 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.41 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Peach/Rouse 12/3/18 Case: Peach & Rouse Future PM App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 3 6.5 0.0 T 1 / 2 13.6 0.0 R 1 / 1 16.5 0.0 All 12.0 0.0 WB L 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 T 1 / 2 15.9 0.0 R 1 / 2 15.1 0.0 All 15.5 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 16.5 0.0 TR 5 / 8 13.0 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 16.0 0.0 TR 7 / 9 13.4 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 Intersect. 13.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 29 45 72 10 55 115 82 370 15 55 470 65 1 15 24 1 15 24 2 12 14 2 12 14 2 12 14 2 12 14 3 36 24 3 36 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 10/3/18 Case: 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 0.89 1 224 0.89 1 133 0.89 1 105 0.89 1 388 0.89 1 15 0.89 1 91 0.89 1 349 0.89 1 131 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 45.0 3.5 1.5 65.0 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 666 0.216 0.375 LTR 0.575 30.7 C 30.7 C NB L 374 0.171 0.542 L 0.316 17.4 B 17.9 B TR 1012 0.242 0.542 TR 0.448 18.1 B SB L 404 0.137 0.542 L 0.252 16.1 B 18.5 B * TR 984 0.269 0.542 TR 0.497 19.0 B Intersection: Delay = 21.3sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.53 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.48 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave 10/3/18 Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 8 / 9 10.4 0.0 All 10.4 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 4.4 0.0 TR 8 / 9 12.3 0.0 All 11.3 0.0 SB L 3 / 6 3.0 0.0 TR 8 / 11 13.5 0.0 All 11.3 0.0 Intersect. 11.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 13 224 133 105 388 15 91 349 131 1 44 24 2 64 24 2 64 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 52 0.87 1 406 0.87 1 30 0.87 0 9 0.87 0 527 0.87 1 179 0.87 1 39 0.87 0 272 0.87 1 29 0.87 1 181 0.87 1 110 0.87 0 69 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 999 0.223 0.400 LTR 0.557 30.0 C 30.0 C WB * LTR 1304 0.238 0.400 LTR 0.595 30.4 C 30.4 C NB * LTR 608 0.222 0.350 LTR 0.635 34.3 C 34.3 C SB Lper 260 0.000 0.392 16.9 B * Lpro 238 0.116 0.133 L 0.418 17.9 B TR 917 0.106 0.517 TR 0.205 15.7 B Intersection: Delay = 28.5sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.65 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.58 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave 12/3/18 Case: Rouse Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 8 / 13 6.7 0.0 All 6.7 0.0 WB LTR 10 / 13 7.6 0.0 All 7.6 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 10 9.4 0.0 All 9.4 0.0 SB L 4 / 6 4.7 0.0 TR 3 / 5 21.7 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 Intersect. 8.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 52 406 30 9 527 179 39 272 29 181 110 69 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Main Street/Church Ave 12/3/18 Case: 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 31 0.90 0 527 0.90 1 59 0.90 0 48 0.90 0 645 0.90 1 34 0.90 0 70 0.90 0 79 0.90 0 58 0.90 0 19 0.90 0 30 0.90 0 16 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 1797 0.221 0.583 LTR 0.378 14.0 B 14.0 B WB * LTR 1762 0.265 0.583 LTR 0.455 15.0 B 15.0 B NB * LTR 518 0.141 0.333 LTR 0.423 33.6 C 33.6 C SB LTR 536 0.045 0.333 LTR 0.134 28.4 C 28.4 C Intersection: Delay = 17.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.44 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.41 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future R Marvin Peak PM Main Street/Church Ave 12/3/18 Case: Church Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 8 13.2 0.0 All 13.2 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 9 11.9 0.0 All 11.9 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 5 10.0 0.0 All 10.0 0.0 SB LTR 1 / 2 11.4 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 31 527 59 48 645 34 70 79 58 19 30 16 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Bozeman Garage & Black Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 12/3/18 East/West Street Bozeman Garage Analysis Year 2033 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Hour Future Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description 5 East Development Lanes Major Street: North-South 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 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)28 0 44 4 1 12 52 90 4 8 90 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 6.20 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.10 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.30 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.20 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)80 19 58 9 Capacity, c (veh/h)684 714 1460 1500 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.0 10.2 7.6 7.4 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.0 10.2 2.9 0.5 Approach LOS B B Copyright © 2018 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™ TWSC Version 7.7 Generated: 12/4/2018 1:23:52 PM Bozeman Garage Access PM Future.xtw APPENDIX B ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES MTEMoNTANATritANDEsc 7 Retum RecordedDeed to: Montana Title& Escrow 1925N. 22ndAvenue,Ste.102 Bozeman,MT 59718 Escrow No. M-21511 2615188Page:1 of 2 05/31/201804:57:31PM Fee:$14.00 CharlotteMills-GallatinCounty,MT DEED ||11||11\illlllllllillillllllil\\IIIIllllilllilllllillIlllll\\\illl||lli\ll WARRANTY DEED FOR VALUE RECEIVED,PETER H. COLVIN AND ROBERTA N.COLVIN,AS JOINT TENANTS,theGrantors,do herebygrant,bargain,sell,convey and confirmunto STRAIGHTAWAY BOZEMAN INVESTORS,LLC of20 N.Tracy,Bozeman,MT 59715, theGrantee,thefollowingdescribedpremisesinGallatinCounty,Montana: THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH ISTHE SUBJECT OF THIS WARRANTY DEED IS ATTACHED HERETO MARKED AS EXHIBIT "A" FOR IDENTIFICATION AND BY THIS REFERENCE FULLY AND COMPLETELY INCORPORATED HEREIN. SUBJECT TO allreservationsand restrictionsinpriorconveyancesorinpatentsfrom theUnitedStatesortheStateofMontana;and priorconveyances,existingeasements, encroachmentsand rightsofway ofrecordand thosewhich would be disclosedby an examinationoftheproperty;mineral,oiland gasand royaltyreservations,conveyancesand leasesofrecord;allrealpropertytaxesand assessmentsforthecurrentyearand subsequentyears; and allbuildingand use restrictions,covenants,agreements,requirements,notices,waiversand conditionsofrecord. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD thesaidpremises,withtheirtenements,hereditaments,and appurtenancesuntothesaidGranteeand Grantee'ssuccessorsand assignsforever.And thesaid Grantorsdo herebycovenanttoand withthesaidGranteethattheyaretheowners infeesimple ofsaidpremises;thattheGranteeshallenjoythesame withoutany lawfuldisturbance;thatthe same isfreefrom allencumbrancesexceptthoselimitationssetforthabove;thattheGrantorsand allpersonsacquiringany interestinthesame throughorfrom Grantorswill,on demand,execute and delivertoGranteeany furtherassuranceofthesame thatmay be reasonablyrequired;and thatGrantorswillwarranttotheGranteeallthesaidpropertyagainsteverypersonlawfully claimingthesame. ATED this3/4 day ofMay,2018. Peter .'Colvin Roberta N.Colvin STATE OF MONTANA ) :ss County ofGallatin ) On this 3 day ofMay,2018,beforeme,a Notary PublicfortheStateofMontana, personallyappearedPeterH. Colvin and Roberta 4 Colvin,known tome tobe thepersons whose names aresubscribedtotheabove instrumentand acknowledgedtome thattheyexecuted thesame. 1HEt>,TAMMY REDFERN Notary li for Staeo Montana SEAlhteryPublic TpOTARIq;fortheStateofMontana '1- Residinaat: .SEAL sozeman,Montana -My CommissionExpires: ,no November04,2019 Exhibit"A" PARCEL 1: THE SOUTH FIFTY (50)FEET OF FRACTIONAL LOT ONE (1)AND OF LOTS TWO (2) AND THREE (3)AND THE WEST TWENTY-ONE (21)FEET OF LOT FOUR (4),ALL IN BLOCK "G" OF ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN,GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,TO-WIT:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT (1),IN BLOCK "G";AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF FRACTIONAL LOT ONE (1),THE SAME BEING THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE NORTH,A DISTANCE OF FIFTY (50)FEET; THENCE EAST ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G",A DISTANCE OF EIGHTY-EIGHT (88)FEET;THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE NORTH A DISTANCE OF FIFTY (50)FEET;THENCE WEST ALONG WEST MENDENHALL STREET A DISTANCE OF EIGHTY-EIGHT (88)FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;ALL ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF GALLATIN COUNTY,MONTANA.Reserving and Excepting a Certain EASEMENT now in existence across said property for sewer connections to Mendenhall ANg Street in said City of Bozeman,as the said sewer is now laid out. ALSO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE,SITUATE IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY,MONTANA,TO-WIT:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK "G"OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN;THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G" 88 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 8.17FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 73.4FEET,MORE OR LESS TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT,SUCH A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 15 FEET,THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CURVE TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF 18 FEET, MORE OR LESS,TO A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE,NORTH,WHICH IS 7.55FEET,MORE OR LESS,SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK "G"; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE,NORTH 7.55FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL THAT PART OF LOTS 4 AND 5 IN BLOCK "G"OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN,MONTANA,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 5,THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 4,35 FEET,THENCE SOUTH 50 FEET,THENCE EAST 35 FEET,THENCE NORTH 50 FEET,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY BEING THE NORTH 50 FEET OF LOT 5 AND THE EAST 7 FEET OF NORTH 50 FEET OF LOT 4,ALL IN BLOCK "G"OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN,MONTANA.AND THE SOUTH 100 FEET OFF OF LOT 5 AND SOUTH 100 FEET OFF THE EAST 7 FEET OF LOT 4,IN BLOCK "G"OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN,MONTANA,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK "G"THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF EAST MENDENHALL STREET A DISTANCE OF 88 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1,THE SAME BEING THE EAST LINE OF TRACY AVENUE NORTH,A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET,THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G",A DISTANCE OF 35 FEET,THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF BLOCK "G",100 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G",WHICH POINT IS 35 FEET EAST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING,THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK "G",35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.(DEED REFERENCE: FILM 22,PAGE 711) PARCEL II: THE NORTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 1,2,AND 3,AND THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE WEST 21 FEET OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK G OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY,MONTANA,ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF GALLATIN COUNTY,MONTANA.(DEED REFERENCE:FILM 89,PAGE 4068) PARCEL III: THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 100 FEET OFF OF LOTS 1,2,AND 3,AND THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 21 FEET OF LOT 4,IN BLOCK G OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF BOZEMAN,MONTANA,ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF AND ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF GALLATIN COUNTY,MONTANA.(DEED REFERENCE:FILM 89,PAGE 4068)