The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21240 Whole Foods Appeal DocumentsMORRISON SHERWOOD WILSON DEOLA pllp s Robert Farris-Olsen Andree Larose Scott Peterson Anne E. Sherwood John M. Monison Frederick F. Sherwood David K. W. Wilson, Jr. Linda M. Deola Brian J. Miller Attorneys at Law 401 North Last Chance Gulch P.O. Box 557, Helena, Montana 59624'0557 www.mswdlaw.com (406) 442-3261 (406) 443-7294 FAXkwilson@mswdlaw.com June 11,2021 City of Bozeman Dept, of Community Develop. 20 East OUve Street Bozeman, MT 59715 planning@bozeman.net Re: MaUers Appeal of May 28, 2021, Approval of Whole Foods &Pad Site Development To Whom it May Concern: Iam ﬁling this administrative appeal on behalf of the organization Bozeman Matters, Montana not for proﬁt organization. This is an appeal of the Director of Community Development’s May 28, 2021 Findings of Fact and Appeal Provisions Certiﬁcate for the Whole Foods &Site Plan, application 20412, approved on June 1, 2021. Attached to this appeal letter are the following: a Check for $1,688; N1 Noticing Checklist; A1 Development Review Application; Exhibit A. Pursuant to Sec. 38.250.030 and Sec. 38.220.140, Bozeman Matters provides the following required information: 1. Name and Address of Applicant Bozeman Matters^, c/o David K. W. Wilson, Jr., P.O. Box 557, Helena, MT 50624. Bozeman Matters’ address is 3701 Trakker Trail, Suite IB, #17, Bozeman, MT 59718.1 1 2. Legal Description. Street Address, and Proiect Numbet of the Property Involved in the Appeal Legal Description per StapﬂLport S11,T02 S, R05 E., C.O.S. 467A Parcel Ttact 1, Acres 37.42, Less HWRY (IMPS Only -RGG2245 -RGG33539 -RGG42148 - RGG34032 -RGG65797) Street Address per Staff Report: 2905 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Project Number per Staff Report: Application 20412. 3. Description of the Project per Staff Report: Whole Foods &Site Plan Redevelopment. 4. Evidence That Appellant is Aggrieved Person Bozeman Matters, through its members who submitted comments, is an aggrieved person pursuant to 38.700.020 in that it has apersonal and legal interest in the May 28, 2021 ﬁnal decision of the Director of Community Development. The interests of Bozeman Matters are set forth in the “Relevant Comments”, as described in the Staff Report, submitted by counsel for Bozeman Matters, David K. W. Wilson, Jr., as well as commenters and Bozeman Matters members DriskeU and Anderson (mistakenly listed as Andreason.) The issues that Bozeman Matters has an interest in and commented on included trafﬁc and transportation, stormwater and parking, and are set forth in full in the comments cited above. Per Sec. 38.250.030 (B), this appeal is limited to those issue raised by Bozeman Matters during the pubUc comment period. 5. Noticing Requirements The Appellant will provide, mail and post notice as required by Sec. 38.220.420 once the City provides the Notice per Sec. 38.220.420 (D)(3). 6. Appeal Filing Fee The required fee of |1,688 is included. 7. Speciﬁc Grounds and Allegations for the Appeal Bozeman Matters members live or work in Bozeman and are concerned with the explosive and unbridled growth in the community. Bozeman Matters engaged several experts, Greenhght Engineering and HydroSolutions, to review the Whole Foods application, and the review disclosed several shortcomings in the initial application, as noted in the materials attached to my April 21, 2021, Comment letter. Those concerns included concerns about the original Trafﬁc Impact Study (TIS) and concerns related to stormwater. 2 Subsequently, Whole Foods’ consultants provided the City with responses to those reports, Abelin Trafﬁc Sendees’ May 10, 2021 letter to the City regarding trafﬁc issues, and C&H Engineering’s May 7, 2021 letter to the City. The attached Exhibit Aprovides Mr. Nys’June 10, 2021 responses to the Abelin Trafﬁc Services’ response to Mr. Nys’ original submittal, as well as Mr. Nys’ response to the City’s approval criteria. As can be seen, Abelin’s response does not address all the issues raised by Mr. Nys in his original submittal. Mr. Nys’ letter provides adetailed evaluation. In his summary, Mr. Nys states: The TIS contains numerous errors and omissions that result in inconsistency with City of Toyman requirements andj or industry standard. The ATS response letter does little to rectify the issues. The TIS establishes that intersections will not meet the city mobility standard, yet no mitigation is proposed. The TIS relies on trip generation that is not based industry standard or supported by evidence, and results in an under counting of the trips generated by the proposed development. The analysis is not based upon the existing signal timing and the intersection analysis cannot be relied upon. There is evidence that queues at the Main Street! College Street intersection will queue into the proposed roundabout. Nor does the City’s May 28* Staff Report adequately address the shortcomings noted in Mr. Nys’ report. The City acknowledges that the level of service concerns raised by Mr. Nys that levels of service were below LOC Cwere valid, but then granted exceptions to the regulatory requirement that an LOC level of Cmust be achieved. The stated reason for the exceptions is BMC 38.400.060.B.4.a. That requirement states: Level of service standards. All arterial and collector streets and intersections with arterial and collector streets must operate at aminimum level of service "C" unless speciﬁcally exempted by this section. The city determines level of service (LOS) values by using the methods deﬁned by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The review authority may approve adevelopment only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which must be aminimum of 15years following the development application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS. Intersections must have aminimum acceptable LOS of "C" for the intersection as awhole. on a. Exception: If an intersection within the area required to be studied by section 38.220.060.A. 12 does not meet LOS "C" and the intersection has been fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity, then an LOS of less than "C" is acceptable. 3 The City’s position is that improvements slated for FY23 “as part of City Capital Improvement Project SIF 114 Fowler Avenue -Hufﬁne to Oak Street Project” wiU “raise the level of service to aCor better”. But the City provides no evidence that this FY23 project will actually cause the involved intersections to aLOS Cor better. Nor, as afactual matter, have the involved intersections been “fully constructed to (their) maximum land and turning capacity.” For instance, the College-Main intersection could have additional lanes added as Mr. Nys discusses in his June 10* letter. Finally, as noted by Mr. Nys, the City’s decision does not document compliance with the requirements of BMC 38.400.060(B)(4)(b). Upon review of the Staff Report, Whole Foods &Pad Site Plan, location, design, and capacity of stormwater facilities, page 12 of 16, we continue to also have the following concerns regarding stormwater. Groundwater elevations were measured in September 2020 for use in developing the initial stormwater management system design. The month of September is typically aperiod where shallow groundwater elevations are not seasonal high groundwater levels. In general, high groundwater is typically found during the late spring- early summer months in the alluvial sediments beneath the project site. Additionally, the applicant measured groundwater levels in April and May of 2021 which do not necessarily represent seasonal high groundwater levels. The current storm water facilities plan should consider the impact of seasonal high groundwater levels rising into the underground stormwater detention facility. Athumb drive with the appeal material is provided herein. Sincerely, TJMK. W. Wilson, Jr. CUents Sarah Rosenberg, srosenberg@,bo2enian.net Brian Gallick, brian@galliklawﬁrm.com cc: 4 GREENLIGHT ENGINEERING June 10, 2021 David K.W. Wilson, Jr. 401 North Last Chance Gulch P.O. Box 557 Helena, Montana 59624 RE: Response to Abelin Trafﬁc Services Report Mr. Wilson, Greenlight Engineering has been asked to evaluate the transportation related impacts of the proposed Gallatin Valley Mall redevelopment in Bozeman, Montana. We have reviewed the November 2020 "Gallatin Valley Mall Pad Redevelopment Trafﬁc Impact Study" ("TIS"), the May 10, 2021 "Gallatin Valley Mall Pad Redevelopment TIS Comment Responses (COB #20412)" ("response letter") prepared by Abelin Trafﬁc Services ("ATS") and the June 1, 2021 staff report/decision ("decision"). This report responds to the response letter and the decision. We previously submitted an April 10, 2021 detailing the errors and omissions of the TIS. Analysis of city decision In reviewing the decision, it is apparent that the City staff erred in evaluating the transportation related criteria of city code. The city's decision notes in addressing Bozeman Municipal Code ("BMC") 38.400.060: "Public comment was received regarding adequacy of the TIS and compliance with standards after development. The provided TIS identiﬁed the intersection of Hufﬁne/Main Street & College may operate at alevel of service (LOS) of "D" during the PM Peak Hours. The existing intersection of Hufﬁne Lane/Main Street &College Street is considered to be fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity. Per BMC 38.400.060.B.4.a, an exception to the LOS Crequirement is granted. An exception to the LOS Crequirement is also granted under BMC 38.400.060.B.4.a for the intersection of College Street and S23rd Avenue that is also constructed to its maximum lane and turning lane conﬁguration. Per BMC 38.400.060.b.4.b.2 an exception to the LOS Crequirement is also granted for the intersections of Hufﬁne Lane/Main Street and Fowler Avenue and Babcock Street and Fowler Avenue. These intersections are scheduled for reconstruction in FY23 as part of City Capital Improvement Project SIF 114 Fowler Avenue improvements will raise the level of service to Cor better. Any further (re)development on the subject property (Gallatin Valley Mall) may require aTransportation Impact Study." Hufﬁne to Oak Street project. The It is unclear how the City has determined that two of the referenced intersections are "fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity." Theoretically, there is is no maximum lane and turning movement capacity as there are numerous combinations of lanes that could be added that would increase vehicle capacity. Table 6-1 of the City of Bozeman's Transportation Master Plan refers to a performance target of "Maximum road sized capped at 5lanes." This may deﬁne the maximum lane and turning movement capacity. 13554 Rogers Road ●Lake Oswego, OR 97035 www.greenlightengineering.com ●503.317.4559 Assuming that the intent is to not construct roads wider than ﬁve lanes, there are numerous lanes and conﬁgurations that can be added to the Hufﬁne/Main Street &College and College Street and S23rd Avenue intersections that would add intersection capacity. Some of these lanes could be constructed on the applicant's property. Further, the decision attempts to grant an exception for "Hufﬁne Lane/Main Street and Fowler Avenue and Babcock Street and Fowler Avenue" per BMC 38.400.060(B)(4)(b). In order for an exception to be granted, the following criteria must be met: "Exception: The review authority may grant awaiver from an LOS of less than "C" at aspeciﬁc intersection if the review authority determines: (1)Granting awaiver for the intersection would not be contrary to public health and safety and is in the public interest; Improvements to the intersection to raise the overall level of service to a"C" or better are currently scheduled for commencement of construction within three years as shown on the most recently adopted Transportation Capital Improvement Plan; All rights-of-way necessary for the required intersection improvements have been obtained by the city or by the Montana Department of Transportation; and The commission has approved aﬁnancing plan for the intersection improvements." (2) (3) (4) The city's decision fails to provide evidence or ﬁndings regarding the four required criteria. With regard to (1), there are no ﬁndings provided in the decision. With regard to (2), neither the application nor the decision provide any evidence that the city project will raise the subject intersections to alevel of service "C" or better. There is no evidence that the necessary right of way has been obtained in response to (3). Lastly, there is no evidence that aﬁnancing plan has been approved for the intersection improvements as required by (4). All of these requirements must be met in order to approve an exception per BMC 38.400.060(B)(4)(b), yet none have been addressed. Response to applicant's response letter In reviewing the applicant's May 10, 2021 response letter and the TIS, there continues to be several signiﬁcant errors and omissions in the TIS not resolved by the response letter. Both the TIS and response letter are unreliable and not compliant with numerous elements of the BMC and/or industry standards. We have the following summarized responses to the applicant's response letter: The TIS provides evidence of unmitigated intersection failures in clear violation of the BMC. The analysis is not based on BMC required analysis methodology. The trip generation (how many vehicle trips the development generates) presented in the TIS signiﬁcantly undercounts trips versus industry standard methodology, artiﬁcially illustrating less development impact. Numerous intersections that were required for study by the BMC were omitted from the TIS. The TIS analysis of the Main Street/College Street is not based in reality and doesn't remotely approximate how the intersection operates. The proposed roundabout solution may worsen conditions at the Main Street/College Street intersection. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2 ATS's summarized responses from their response letter are provided below in bold, italicized, underlined typeface while our detailed responses are provided in regular typeface. The Main Street/Colleae Street intersection will fail regardless of the development: the development should be aooroved anvwav One of the approval criterion of the application from Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.400.060(B)(4) requires: "All arterial and collector streets and intersections with arterial and collector streets shall operate at aminimum level of service "C" unless speciﬁcally exempted by this subsection. Level of service (LOS) values shall be determined by using the methods deﬁned by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Adevelopment shall be approved only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which shall be aminimum of 15 years following the development application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS. Intersections shall have aminimum acceptable LOS of "C" for the intersection as a whole..." In their response letter, ATS provides no argument or evidence that the Main Street/College Street intersection will operate adequately as required by the BMC. Instead, ATS states that "While it may be possible to correct the LOS at this location with some trafﬁc signal timing modiﬁcation as stated in the trafﬁc report, the precise timing improvements which would be required for the coordinated intersections along west Main Street in 2035 are impossible to predict with any certainty and are of little value for this report." The TIS provides evidence that the Main Street/College Street intersection will not operate adequately 15 years following the development application review. The BMC speciﬁcally requires "A development shall be approved only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which shall be aminimum of 15 years following the development application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS." Rather than provide any analysis that illustrates if trafﬁc signal timing will correct the issue, no mitigation is evaluated at all. Perhaps signal timing will correct the issue, perhaps roadway improvements are necessary. However, signal timing changes at this intersection will require signal timing changes and analysis at other intersections as trafﬁc signals along Main Street operate in signal coordination and share acommon cycle length. This is not addressed in the TIS or response letter. The ATS response letter further notes that "The proposed plan to include aroundabout within the site is predicted to improve the overall trafﬁc ﬂow characteristics through the Main Street and College Street intersection and decrease vehicle queues." The roundabout provides no clear beneﬁt to the operations at the Main Street/College Street intersection. In fact, the proposed roundabout could have adetrimental impact on the Main Street/College Street intersection. Currently, at the Gallatin Valley Mall internal intersection north of Main Street/College Street, the intersection is controlled by side street stop signs and inbound ﬂow from Main Street does not have to stop or yield to any exiting vehicles. Under the current conﬁguration, queues could not possibly extend to the Main Street/College Street intersection from this internal intersection due to this inbound free ﬂow condition. The TIS illustrates that queues from the Main Street/College Street intersection will extend into the roundabout. This may cause queues to extend to 3 the Main Street/College Street intersection. This is asituation that is known to be an undesirable condition for aroundabout, yet is proposed anyway. The TIS further notes that "Limiting or eliminating redevelopment within the Gallatin Valley Mall will not prevent or correct the projected 2035 LOS issues at this intersection which will occur throughout this area as predicted by the Bozeman TMP." The applicant has failed to provide evidence that supports the approval of this application as required per BMC 38.400.060(B)(4). The Main Street/College Street intersection clearly fails with no proposed mitigation. The ATS response letter fails to make any arguments or evidence that the Main Street/West approach intersection will operate adequately. The TIS was clear in that this intersection would operate at LOS Fat the opening of the proposed development, again with no proposed mitigation. Trip generation based upon the average rate is acceptable: the oass-bv rate is acceptable: no internal trip generation rate was used; no reductions were used for transit, bicycle or pedestrians ATS states that "The reviewer suggests that alternative methods should have been used to evaluate the projected trip generation for this project..." We disagree with the characterization that the ITE Trip Generation Handbook methodology is an "alternative method." This is the industry standard method for developing trip generation estimates. The TIS is quite clearly not based upon industry standard accepted methodology. ATS notes that "Based on observations all over Montana, ATS has established that in general the observed trip generation for commercial facilities are typically lower than those found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which generally provides rates based on higher density urban areas than exist in most of Montana." ATS provides no data to support this statement. The submission of such observed data into the record of this application may provide compelling evidence but no data is provided to support this claim. The ATS report notes that "Generally, ATS uses these predicted (ﬁtted curve) trip generation rates to provide slightly more conservative results for trafﬁc analysis purposes. In this case we felt that using the ITE equations would signiﬁcantly overestimate the trip generation from the project." The ITE Trip Generation Handbook provides guidance that this data is appropriate for suburban and urban areas like Bozeman based on awide variety of communities across the US. It also instructs how and when to use the average rate versus the ﬁtted curve rate. In this case of this development, the ﬁtted curve rate clearly should have been used, but was not. Lastly, ATS states: "Additionally, it is much more accessible for reviews of the trafﬁc study and the public to view trip generation as aliner (sic; "linear") relationship between development area and trafﬁc generation than using alogarithmic ﬁtted curve to try and understand the relation between development size and total trafﬁc. Using the per ﬂoor area method makes the report more accessible to all readers while providing results with reasonable accuracy for this type of development." It is very simple to explain the average trip generation rate versus the ﬁtted curve rate and it is not a satisfactory explanation for signiﬁcantly undercounting trips as was done as part of the TIS. 4 Additionally, ATS argues that the TIS provided "reasonable accuracy for this type of development." It is unclear how reasonable accuracy is deﬁned and why the type of development is relevant. However, it is clear that the TIS undercounts trips by more than 100 trips per hour. This would not seem to constitute reasonable accuracy. It is possible that due to the lack of accuracy in the trip generation calculations that the City may have scrutinized the study area to agreater degree. ATS has not provided evidence that would aid the reviewer to conclude that the ﬁtted curve rate would "signiﬁcantly overestimate" trip generation. In fact, there is evidence of exactly the opposite in that ATS has failed to adhere to industry standard methodology for no rational reason. ATS reports that "While it could be debated if a44% pass-by rate or a34% is more appropriate for this speciﬁc project, it should be noted that the pass-by rate does not change the projected amount of trafﬁc that will ﬂow into and out of the project site." It is unclear what this debate would be based upon as the ITE Trip Generation Handbook provides no evidence that supports the use of the pass-by rates utilized in the TIS. The response letter states that: "It should also be noted that the report used an internal capture rate for the development of 0% and provided no trafﬁc reductions for transit, bicycle or, pedestrian access to the site to heip provide amore conservative estimate within the trafﬁc analysis. While we do not feel that reductions for alternative trip modes would make asigniﬁcant difference in the trafﬁc analysis for the project, the application of these trip modes would likely be more signiﬁcant than any effects from adjusting pass-by rates or using alternative methods of developing estimated trip generation rates." The ITE Trip Generation Handbook states that "...internal capture rates are not applicable and should not be used to estimate trips for shopping centers if using statistics and data for Land Use Code 820." The lack of use of an internal capture rate is by no means conservative when analyzing aShopping Center. Such apractice would not allowed by the Trip Generation Handbook. Including internal capture trips would not make sense to the Shopping Center land use used in the TIS, as internal trips between the various uses within aShopping Center are already considered in the data. It should also be noted the ITE Trip Generation Manual data is based upon automobile trips only and does not account for pedestrian, bicycle or transit trips generated by the development. Including the impact of these trips on the automobile trip generation of the development also does not make sense. As reported in our April 10, 2021 report, the TIS underreports the weekday AM peak hour automobile trip generation by 132 weekday AM peak hour trips and 130 weekday PM peak hour trips. There is nothing in the ATS response that illustrates that the TIS is conservative in it's approach to trip generation. Instead, the TIS illustrates several instances when trip generation was quite plainly performed incorrectly and well outside the bounds of accepted industry practice. The response letter has not resolved any of the issues associated with trip generation. ATS provides no rationale in their response letter regarding the use of weekday PM peak hour data for midday trip generation as addressed in our April 10, 2021 report. 5 ATS provides no rationale in their response regarding the use of aweekday PM peak hour pass-by rate for aweekday AM peak hour pass-by trip analysis as addressed in our April 10, 2021 report. It should be noted that the ITE Trip Generation Handbook provides no methodology that mirrors or supports the trip generation methodology utilized in the TIS. The trip generation utilized in this trafﬁc analysis is far from industry standard in multiple and varied ways. The study area doesn't need to include additional intersections The ATS response letter notes: "The study area used for this anaiysis was selected based on direct discussions with the City of Bozeman planning staff for this speciﬁc project. While additional intersections within this area couid technically be included in the trafﬁc anaiysis, ATS and the City Staff did not believe that analysis for these unrelated intersections was necessary or valuable for this trafﬁc analysis." The BMC requires astudy area that includes "All arterial-arterial, collector-collector and arterial-collector intersections within one-half mile of the site, or as required by the city engineer during the pre¬ application review, concept plan review, or informal project review." Strangely, even though the development will generate 3,535 weekday daily trips, 175 weekday AM peak hour trips, 305 weekday PM peak hour trips, and 334 Saturday peak hour trips, no intersections were analyzed other than two of the three site access points. The TIS notes that "Based on the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations, the developers must study all effected (sic) intersections within 'A mile of aproposed development." As illustrated in our April 10, 2021 report, the TIS evaluates no offsite intersections and ignores the requirement to study applicable intersections within %mile of the site. As noted earlier, the TIS substantially undercounts the trip generation of the proposed development. Even with appropriately accounting for trip generation, the exclusion of nearby intersections from analysis deﬁes logic. This is asigniﬁcant development that has impacts well beyond the project driveways. Additionally, the BMC requires the study area to include "All major drive accesses that intersect collector or arterial streets or roads." The easternmost access to Main Street is excluded from the TIS. The TIS is in violation of the BMC requirements. The existing signal timing was not used in the TIS because the signal timing in the ﬁeld did not replicate existing signal timing In their response letter, ATS offers: "ATS did obtain signal timing information from MDT for the intersection of Main Street and College Street, but three hours of ﬁeld intersection observations and recordings indicated that the MDT timing information did not correlate precisely with the observed trafﬁc signal timings at this location. Therefore, ATS adjusted the timings within the trafﬁc analysis to match the actual ﬁeld conditions and recorded signal timing observations at the intersection." 6 ATS did not include the signal timing sheets they obtained in the TIS or their response letter. However, Greenlight Engineering obtained trafﬁc signal timing sheets from MDT dated March 8, 2021 and provided them in Appendix A. In our review of the signal timing used in the TIS and the actual signal timing, there is very little resemblance between the two. It does not appear that ATS used the MDT signal timing in their analysis at all. Based on my 20+ years of trafﬁc analysis experience, ignoring the existing signal timing in atrafﬁc analysis will result in acompletely inaccurate trafﬁc analysis. What is presented in the TIS is not even close to what is operating in the ﬁeld. In the TIS, yellow times, all red times and pedestrian clearance intervals (don't walk) times are all reported as uniform values that don't meet design guidelines/requirements for signal timing. The signal cycle length used in the TIS is not possible to actually operate in the ﬁeld as the cycle length in the weekday PM peak hour is 120 seconds. The TIS instead relied upon asignal cycle length of 146 seconds. The TIS indicates that the Main Street/College Street intersection does not operate in coordination with other trafﬁc signals when the existing signal timing illustrates that it does. Here is asummary of some of the obvious discrepancies between the existing signal timing and the TIS: Signal Timing Parameter Existing Signal Timing (seconds) Trafﬁc Impact Study (seconds) Weekday PM Peak Hour Cycle Length 120 146 Signal Coordination Coordinated Uncoordinated Phases 1,3,5,7 Yellow Time 3.0 2.0 Phases 2,6 Yellow Time 4.3 2.0 Phases 4,8 Yellow Time 3.6 2.0 Phases 2,6 All Red Time 2.7 1.0 Phase 4,8 All Red Time 3.0 1.0 Phase 2Pedestrian Don't WalkTime 31 11 Phase 4Pedestrian Don't WalkTime 19 11 Phase 6Pedestrian Don't WalkTime 27 11 Phase 8Pedestrian Don't Waik Time 24 11 Almost exclusively, utilizing the factors as presented in the TIS will result in better operations than would actually exist in the real world. 7 We're not aware of methodology or practice that would result in an analyst adjusting these particular factors in order to "correlate" more "precisely with the observed trafﬁc signal timings at this location" or "to match the actual ﬁeld conditions" as suggested in the TIS. Such apractice would result in exactly the opposite. The parameters used in the TIS ensure an inaccurate trafﬁc analysis not based in reality. There would be no way to achieve reliable results with the trafﬁc signal timing utilized in the TIS. The TIS does not provide reliable results of intersection operations at Main Street/College Street nor does it provide reliable queuing results. The TIS microsimulation model was calibrated ATS states that our assertion that the TIS microsimulation was not calibrated "...is not correct. Signal timing and vehicle ﬂow modiﬁcations were made to ensure that the Synchro simulations for delay and vehicle queuing matched the ﬁeld observations." Later, ATS notes that when evaluating the roundabout "The only way to accurately evaluate this is with a microsimulation available in Synchro." First of all, Synchro is not amicrosimulation tool, it is amacroscopic tool. SimTrafﬁc was the microsimulation tool that was utilized in the TIS. There are many parameters within SimTrafﬁc that require asigniﬁcant amount of ﬁeld review and adjustment in SimTrafﬁc to ensure areliable SimTrafﬁc microsimulation model. It is unclear what is meant by "vehicle ﬂow modiﬁcations" as this is not explained in the TIS or response letter. As noted earlier, one of the most basic elements that would go into building areliable macroscopic (like Synchro) or microsimulation model (like SimTrafﬁc) would be to utilize the existing trafﬁc signal timing. It is clear that the TIS did not even take that basic step and there isn't any way, except by pure chance, that the microsimulation model would accurately predict results based on the huge discrepancies between the actual signal timing and what was used in the TIS. There are many elements and steps to the calibration of amicrosimulation model that are not mentioned in the TIS or response letter. Calibration requirements go well beyond the basic signal timing step. We'll note again that per the Federal Flighway Administration regarding microsimulation models that "...without calibration, the analyst has no assurance that the model will correctly predict trafﬁc performance for the project. Calibration is the adjustment of model parameters to improve the model's ability to reproduce local driver behavior and trafﬁc performance characteristics. Calibration is performed on various components of the overall model...The importance of calibration cannot be overemphasized..." The roundabout solution is not perfect, but addresses an existing problem The TIS provides no evidence that "Queuing from the Main Street/College Street intersection into the mall property already occurs regularly causing congestion and safety problems at the intersection" as reported in the ATS response letter. The TIS provides no analysis of existing queuing at the Main Street/College Street intersection or the internal intersection slated for the roundabout. 8 The existing internal mall intersection conﬁguration provides stop control to those drivers exiting the mall and allows inbound trafﬁc from Main Street to ﬂow freely. This control protects queues from backing onto the public road system. However, the TIS plainly illustrates that the Main Street/College Street intersection queues will spill into the proposed roundabout, thereby creating aproblem. The applicant does not dispute that queues from the Main Street/College Street intersection will queue into the roundabout. This situation could certainly result in queues spilling back from the roundabout to the Main Street/College Street intersection, especially during peak holiday months. ATS notes that "the intent of the trafﬁc analysis and simulation was to determine if the roundabout could provide better trafﬁc ﬂow characteristics than the existing intersection conﬁguration." As we have established, the TIS analysis is not reliable in numerous ways. The correction of trip generation issues in the TIS will result in changes to the anticipated queuing. It is not possible to determine, based on the information submitted, that the "roundabout could provide better trafﬁc ﬂow characteristics than the existing intersection conﬁguration." The TIS provides no evidence that the existing intersection conﬁguration causes "congestion" or "safety" issues. While the proposed roundabout may improve operations on-site, the TIS provides evidence that operations may worsen for the public road system via queuing at the roundabout that may extend queues to the Main Street/College Street intersection especially during holiday peaks. It should be noted that the TIS itself identiﬁes: "vehicle queues backing up from the trafﬁc signal at Main Street could potentially stop vehicles within the roundabout and impair the roundabout operations. The worst-case scenario under this condition would be if the roundabout became inoperable due to the southbound vehicle queue at Main Street and vehicles could no longer enter the Mall from the Main Street approach, potentially backing trafﬁc into Main Street, which would be extremely undesirable." Again, we agree this situation would be extremely undesirable and should be avoided at all costs. Acknowledging aproblem, ATS adds in their response letter that "Providing additional lanes near the roundabout could also be of valuable (sic) to ensure that trafﬁc can continue to ﬂow out of the roundabout if and when congestion occurs as suggested within the TIS." It is unclear what this statement is meant to accomplish. The TIS fails to provide any analysis of this suggestion nor provides any suggestion that "additional lanes" would be constructed, nor does the TIS or the applicant provide any conceptual drawing to illustrate this undeﬁned mitigation. As established earlier, the analysis of the Main Street/College Street intersection and the queues generated at the intersection are not reliable for several reasons, so the queue analysis should not be relied upon. The trip generation presented in the TIS is not based upon industry standard and signiﬁcantly more trafﬁc than analyzed will be generated by the proposed development. The trafﬁc impact study is not based upon the current trafﬁc signal timing at the Main Street/College Street intersection. Trafﬁc volumes within the mall were not adjusted for COVID trafﬁc volumes, possibly undercounting future trafﬁc volumes. Lastly, it does not appear that the microsimulation model was calibrated. Consideration should be given to evaluating the peak mall conditions in the context of determining the adequacy of the roundabout solution on-site as this solution may have adetrimental effect on Main 9 Street. No analysis was performed for highest trip generation time period, the holiday season. At a minimum, the Saturday peak hour should be considered, as shopping centers typically generate more trafﬁc during the Saturday peak hour than the weekday PM peak hour. Trafﬁc queuing onto Main Street would be highly undesirable and possibly unsafe. It is likely that the existing internal intersection conﬁguration, which favors trafﬁc entering from Main Street, will not ever queue trafﬁc onto Main Street, while the proposed roundabout could very well create this situation. While the proposed roundabout may improve operations for those within the mall, it may worsen operations for the traveling public creating amore difﬁcult problem to mitigate. A2037 buildout year would not result in signiﬁcantly different results The ATS response letter provides: "The review (sic) felt it necessary to point out the estimated future analysis year for the project should have been 2036 or 2037 instead of the future projection year of 2035 used in the trafﬁc report. While the actual full buildout year of the property is not currently known, doing the projected future analysis of trafﬁc conditions for 2035 vs 2037 would provide nearly identical results." BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) clearly states that "A development shall be approved only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which shall be aminimum of 15 years following the development application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS." Per the BMC, this analysis is required, yet still has not been provided. ATS does not argue that an analysis year of 2037 is incorrect, but instead takes the approach that analyzing for year 2037 is insigniﬁcant over analyzing for year 2035. ATS offers no evidence to support their claim that this is insigniﬁcant. Assuming that the development is constructed and mitigation would be implemented in 2022, the BMC requires an analysis based on the year 2037. The TIS reports that "Historic trafﬁc data was obtained from MDT to review the growth trends on Main Street and College Street. Trafﬁc volumes along these road segments has increased 3% annually over the last ten years." It is important to account for the additional trafﬁc growth that is expected to occur as analyzing for ayear of 2037 would result in an additional six percent (6%) growth on the system. We do not agree that additional 6% trafﬁc is insigniﬁcant. The trafﬁc counts are adequate ATS notes that "The 2018 MDT data remains the best information available for use in this trafﬁc analysis." This intersection data is adequate in addressing the Main Street/College Street intersection except that it omits pedestrian, bicycle, and truck data, which are standard inputs into aHighway Capacity Manuai based analysis. As evidenced by Appendix Aof the TIS, atrafﬁc count was conducted at the internal mall intersection where the roundabout is proposed in October of 2020. No adjustments were made to account for decreased trafﬁc at that intersection in association with the COVID-19 outbreak. Assuming that mall trafﬁc does increase to pre-pandemic levels, the trafﬁc counts at the interior mall intersection likely undercount trafﬁc. It is unusual to not adjust trafﬁc to pre-pandemic levels. 10 The response letter fails to address the lack of evidence of trafﬁc counts conducted at the Main Street/West Approach. The TIS references trafﬁc counts that were collected at the westernmost driveway in September 2020. However, the TIS provides no evidence that these trafﬁc counts were performed. Trafﬁc impact studies typically include the raw trafﬁc count sheets, yet none were included for these two trafﬁc counts. ATS notes that "Bicycle and pedestrian data was not included in the analysis because these values were observed to be very low during the study. Truck trafﬁc was included in the MDT data and used in the LOS analysis." All of the trafﬁc counts that were provided in the TIS failed to include trucks, buses, pedestrians or bicycle volumes. This is unusual. All of these users of the transportation system can have an effect on the intersection operational analysis and are inputs of the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Other Issues In our April 10, 2021 letter, we noted that BMC 38.400.060(B)(4) requires the trafﬁc analysis to be based upon the "...most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual..." The 6“’ edition is the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM"). It is clear that the trafﬁc analysis is not based upon the 6 edition of the HCM. Appendix Cof the TIS very clearly illustrates that at least portions, possibly all, of the analysis are based upon HCM 2010, the previous version of the Highway Capacity Manual, which was phased out in 2016. ATS failed to address this issue in their response letter. th ATS notes that Greenlight Engineering "lacks an overall familiarity with the history of this area, current and projected trafﬁc conditions within Bozeman, and detailed information about the on-the-ground conditions within the study area." Whiie that may be true, none of these critiques are relevant to our review of the TIS. Additionally, the TIS fails to provide information integral to the review of atrafﬁc impact study based on the BMC or industry standard. We are quite familiar with the BMC and have provided numerous references in which the application and TIS fall short of clear and objective requirements. Additionaily, we are very familiar with industry standard and practices and have clearly laid out how the TIS falls well short. ATS further notes that "While some of the ﬁner points of the trafﬁc analysis could be up for debate from an academic perspective, none of the comments or issues presented by the reviewer would make a meaningful impact on the results of the trafﬁc impact analysis prepared for this project." Again, we disagree wholeheartedly with that characterization. We have illustrated how the TIS fails in numerous regards to foilow industry standard practice and comply with the BMC. There are numerous errors and omissions in this TIS that make the TIS unreliable. Corrections to the TIS such that the TIS is compliant with the BMC and industry standard could have wide ranging implications on the outcomes of the TIS. Lastly, ATS notes that "We feel that the original 2020 TIS as presented provides reasonable and accurate information and would be happy to share additional details of the trafﬁc simulation with the City to help clarify the beneﬁts of using aroundabout for this project." We would appreciate the opportunity to review additionai detaiis of the trafﬁc simulation when they are available. II Conclusion The city decision fails to provide evidence or ﬁndings sufﬁcient to establish compliance with transportation related BMC criteria. The TIS contains numerous errors and omissions that result in inconsistency with City of Bozeman requirements and/or industry standard. The ATS response letter does little to rectify the issues. The TIS establishes that intersections will not meet the city mobility standard, yet no mitigation is proposed. The TIS relies on trip generation that is not based on industry standard or supported by evidence, and results in an under counting of the trips generated by the proposed development. The analysis is not based upon the existing signal timing and the intersection analysis cannot be relied upon. There is evidence that queues at the Main Street/College Street intersection will queue Into the proposed roundabout. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-317-4559. Sincerely, -ﬂui. Rick Nys, P.E. Principal Trafﬁc Engineer ★*.★. :R I C H A R D M . \ NYS No. 59700 PE /h £NS'^^- 12 Appendix A Trafﬁc Signal Timing Main Street/College Street P H A S E D I A G R A M - C O L L E G E & M A I N CQ CLP P B i l l i P P B Clk\ h h h 1 ‖H H t QQ CL CL 01 i) A CQ Q_Wir CL i k h h I- T1CDPPBJ J P P B CL CL 05 06 07 08 3/8/2021 4:02:09PMSEPAC ECOMAll Data Intersection Name: Main &College A c c e s s D a t a Intersection Alias: MainCoIlege Channel:Access Code: 9999 Address: 1 1:1200 Baud Revision: 3.55d IPAddress: 192.168.122.643:1200 Baud Phase Initialization Data 8Phase1234567 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Initial 1-lnact 2-Red 1-Inact 1-Inacl 1-lnacl 2-Red 1-Inact 1-Inact 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None P H A S E D A T A Vehical Basic Timines Min Phase Green Passage Maxi Max2 Yellow Red Mise Timings Pedestrian TiminusW a l k W a l k Green Yellow Offset Offset B i k e B i k e Delay Delay Time Mode Green Psg Actuated Ped Alt Ped Flash Ext Rest in W a l k C l r W a l k C l r W a l k P e d C I r W a l k Alt All Phase Data Bank:1 0 O-Advanee 0-Advance O-Advance 0-Advajice 0-Advance O-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance O-Advanee O-Advanee 0-Advance O-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance NoI53.0 15 20 3.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 2253.0 4.3 2.7 0.0 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 7 0 No45500.0 31 0 No 0 3 5 3.0 20 30 3.0 0.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No0 4 7 3.0 30 40 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.(7 19 0 No No00 5 5 3.0 20 30 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 0 0 No 0 No0 6253.0 35 40 4.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0 7 27 0 0 No No0 7 5 3.0 20 30 3.0 2.5 3.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No0 7 3.0 40 45 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 7 24 0 0 No 0 No 90 0.0 0 0.0 000.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 No00.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.(0 0 0 0 No 0 No0 12 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No No00.(0 13 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 No 0 No0 01400.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 15 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 16 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.(0 0 0 0 No 0 No Phase Data Bank:2 I 5 3.0 15 20 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0-Advance O-Advanee 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 No 0 No0 2253.0 45 50 4.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.(7 31 0 0 No 0 No 3 053.0 20 30 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 3.0 30 40 3.6 3.0 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 No No470.0 0.0 7 19 0 0 0 5 5 3.0 20 30 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 6253.0 35 4.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0 7 27 0 0 No No400 7 5 3.0 20 30 3.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 8 7 3.0 40 45 3.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 7 24 0 0 No 0 No 9 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 3.0 0 0-Advance No1000.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 0 O-Advanee O-Advanee 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 12 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No0.0 13 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 14 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No 15 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 No No00 16 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 No No0000 Phase Data Bank: 153 . 0 15 225 3.0 4 5 3 20 3.0 0.0 0-Advance 0-Advance 0.0 0.0 0 No0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 50 4.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 31 0 No 0 No0 Page Iof22 No00-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0353.0 20 30 3.0 0.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 No 0 No30400.0 0.0 0 19473.0 0 0 No 0 No553.0 20 30 0.0 0.0 0 0 No 0 No4.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 27 0 06253.0 35 40 0 0 No 0 No3.0 20 30 3.0 2.5 3.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 075 0 No No3.0 45 0.0 0.0 0 24 0 08740 0 0 0 0 No 0 No900.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No10 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 No00.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 000.0 0 No1200.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 000.0 0 No 0 No1300.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No14000.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 000.0 0 No1500.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No No0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 016 0 Phase Data Bank:4 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0-Advance 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 0,0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 No 0 No153.0 15 20 3.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0 31 0 0 No 0 No2253.0 45 50 4.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 No 0 No353.0 20 30 3.0 0 . 0 0 No473.0 30 40 3.6 3 . 0 3.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 19 0 0 No 0 No553.0 20 30 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 27 0 0 No 0 No6253.0 35 40 4.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0 No753.0 20 30 3.0 2.5 3.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 24 0 0 No 0 No873.0 40 45 0.0 0.0 0 0 No900.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No0 0.0 0 0 0 No 0 No10 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 3.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 No1100.0 0 0 No1200.0 0 0 3.0 0 . 0 3.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 0 No1300.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 No 0 0 0 No 0 No1400.0 0 0 3.0 0 . 0 3.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 No 0 No1500.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 No 0 No1600.0 0 0 0 0 General Conlrol MiscellaneousVehicle Density Timings No Special Sequence Time A d d e d M a x B 4 Initial Initial Redu C a r T i m e B4 To Min Redu Redu Gap Simu Non Dual Car Condit Gap Lock Entr)' Pass Service Out Last Non-Act Veh Fed Recall Response Recall Recall Delay M i n u s O m i t Yel CallPh.Omit Phase Data Bank:1 None Min None None None Min None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 0 Yes No No No No 2 0 010.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 0 Yes Yes No No No 0 0 020.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Yes No 4 030.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 No No No 0 0 Yes No No 0 0 040.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Yes No 0 Yes No No No 6 0 050.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 No 00.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 Yes Yes No No No 0 06 0 Yes No No 8 0 070.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 No No 0.0 0 Yes Yes No No No 0 0 080.0 0 0 0 0 090.0 0 0 0.0 0 No No No No No 0 000 0 No No No 0 0100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 No No 0 No No No No 0 0110.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 No 0 No No No No No 0 0 0120.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 13 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 No No No No No 0 0 000 000000.0 0 No No No No No 0 0140.0 0 0 0 015 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 No No No No No Page 2of22 “T3 'sO OC 0^'●-/» -Ci>K)sOOC'«J«><-/»4i*Wts>05 4 i * U J K )O O 4 i * U ) t s J O ON ?_/i O J K >O OnOQsrrt> &5u>{/)ViOooooo^ bbQ ooo bb ooooooo b b > b b b oooo bbbob oooooo bbbb o ooooo bbbbbb oo bboo o aoo ooo o otNj to ts &5 &s &5 oo oooooo ooooooooooo oo oo o ooooo o oCO0000 3 7T 7T 7T OOOOO●●oo oo ooooooo ooo oooooooooooo ooo ooo oo o 4^Is) ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo o oo oo oooo ooo ooooooo oo oooooooo oooooo o ooooo bbbb oooooooooo ob■pp oooo bbb■ oo oo pppp bbbob o o o o ooooo oo oo oo o ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZoooccococccoco ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZccoooocooccoocoo ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZopccooocoocoocoo z 3333 3333333333cPcccg33333 Pco 3 333occcc cocccoccoortoaocoo ZZZZZZZZ:7 Jg== s ZZZ goo2?zzzzzzzzzz COOCOOOCOC 3333333333 OOOOOOOOOO ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ccooogoocooooooo3333333333333333 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2??I 2I 5' 5 5 5 5' 3 ZZZZZZZZZZ^ZZZeOOCOCCOOCO^OCC^ “------3 = 3g5-35 = 5 - Z 333_> 30000000-^000 33OOOggg 3Ooooooo zzzzzzzzzzzzzzooocooooooocoo ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ oooooooooooooooo z o33333333333333OOOOOOOOOOOOOo oooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo o z zzzzzz?J^z^z;<;zj<:z z o ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZoocoooccooooooco z o ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ooccooccococoo ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ coooooocoocccooc ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZoooooocoococoooo z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzoooooooooooooo ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOO---.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZoooooooooooooooo z ooooooooooooo o OOOOOOOOCOON04i*OK>oooooo OOOCOONO-ﬁ-OtO OOOOOOOOO00O0NO4:^OK)o oo ooooooo o oo oo ooo ooooo o o o ooooooooo oooooooooo oooo oooo ooo oo o 00 00 None None None None 0 No No No No No No No No No No 015 0.0 0 16 0.0 0 0 0 00 . 0 00 . 0 None None00 0 0 Pedestrian Detector Special Detector Phase Assignment Assign Phase Mode Phase Extend Delay Vehical Detector Phase Assignment Assign Phase Mode Phase Extend Delay Assign Phase Mode Phase Extend Delay SwitchSwitch Switch Default Data Default Data SpcDet:2 5 Veh 2 SpcDct:4 7 Veh 0 Spe Det:6 1 Veh 6 SpcDet:8 3 Veh 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Page 4of22 Unit Data General Control Startup Time: Startup State: Red Revert: Auto Fed Clr: Stop TReset: Alt Sequence: Special Seq: I/O Modes: ABC Input(Entry) Modes: 0 ABC Output(0/STS) Modes: 0 Remote Flash Test A=Flash5sec Flash 4.0 sec Input Output lt.ing Respons Selection Ring 1 Ring 2 None None Phase Entrs' Exit Default Data -No Flash1Ring 1 2Ring 2 3None 4None No Default Data -No Flash No 0 0-Standard Dliipiit(Entry) Modes: 2 DOiitput(0/STS) Modes: 0 OverlapsOverlaps ABCDEFGH IJKLMNOP Phase(s) OverlapsStart Green ABCDEFGHl 2468 JKLMNOP Phase(s) OverlapsStop Green Yel C D E F G H I 67 KLMNOPABJ Phase(s)3 OverlapsM i n u s F E D A B C D E E G H I JKLMNO P Phase(s) ABcDEFGHIJKLMNOP 0000000000000 0 0 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.04.04 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.02.02.02 . 0 Trail Green Trail Yellow Trail Red 0 0000000000T(i Preempt 0 0 0 0 0 Phase(s) 91 0 11 Ring 1234567 12 13 14 15 1 6Next PhasePhase Ring 12 3 4 557722 668856 1 33910 12 13 14 15 1 6c112gS |l5cl 4 4 12 3 7 13 4 cj 14 1 25 6 26 7 27 8 2 5 Port 1DataAlternate Sequences No Alternate Sequences Programmed BIU MessagePort Status Basic Addr 40Det Default Data Page 5of22 Signal Driver Ouput Hardware Pins('hannci Control 1-Veh Phase 1 2-Veh Phase 2 3-Veh Phase 3 4-Veh Phase 4 5-Veh Phase 5 6-Veh Phase 6 7-Veh Phase 7 8-Veh Phase 8 18 -Ped Phase 2 20 -Ped Phase 4 22 -Ped Phase 6 24 -Ped Phase 8 33 -Overlap A 34 -Overlap B 35 -Overlap C 36 -Overlap D 17 -Ped Phase 1 19-Ped Phase 3 21 -Ped Phase 5 23 -Ped Phase 7 1-Phase 1RYG 2-Phase 2RYG 3-Phase 3RYG 4-Phase 4RYG 5-Phase 5RYG 6-Phase 6RYG 7-Phase 7RYG 8-Phase 8RYG 10 -Phase 2DPW 12-Phase4DPW 14 -Phase 6DPW 16 -Phase 8DPW 17-Overlap ARYG 18-Overlap BRYG 19 -Overlap CRYG 20 -Overlap DRYG 9-Phase 1DPW 11 -Phase 3DPW 13 -Phase 5DPW 15-Phase 7DPW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dial/Split CycleCoordination Data General C'oordination Data 1201/1 1201/2Operation Mode: l=Aulo Coordination Mode: 0=Peimissive Maxiniun Mode: 0=lnhihit Offset Mode: 0=Beg Gm Koree Mode: l=Cycle Max Dw ell Time: 0 Manual Dial: 1 1201/3Manual Split: 1 Manual Offset: 1 1201/4 1402/1Correetion Mode: 2=Short Way Vield Period: 0 1402/2 1503/1 Page 6of 22 Split Times and Phase Modes Dial 1/Split 1 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. ModePh. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode l=Coordinate l=Coordinate 31 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 72 2 0 = A c t u a t e d 44 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 38 0=Actuated 10 0=Actuated 10 0=Actuated 250 650 1 5 Dial 1/Split 2 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. ModePh. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 24 5 l = C o o r d i n a t e 64 5 I = C o o r d i n a t e 31 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 72 2 0 = A c t u a t e d 44 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 83 8 0 = A c t u a t e d 11 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 51 5 0 = A c t u a t e d Dial 1/Split 3 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. ModePh. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode I15 0=Actuatcd 51 5 0 = A c t u a t e d Dial 1/Split 4 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 246 646 I=Coordinate l=Coordinate 326 721 0=Actuatcd 0=Actuated 43 3 0 = A c t u a t e d 38 0=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 11 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 51 5 0 = A c t u a t e d Dial 2/Split 1 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 24 6 l = C o o r d i n a t e 64 6 l = C o o r d i n a t e 326 721 0=Actuated 0=Actuated 43 3 0 = A c t u a t e d 83 8 0 = A c t u a t e d Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 25 9 l = C o o r d i n a t e 65 9 l = C o o r d i n a t e 11 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 51 5 0 = A c t u a t e d Dial 2/Split 2 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 32 0 0 = A c t u a t e d 72 8 0 = A c t u a t e d 44 6 0 = A c t u a t e d 83 8 0 = A c t u a t e d Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 11 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 51 5 0 = A c t u a t e d Dial 3/Split 1 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 26 2 l = C o o r d i n a t e 66 2 l = C o o r d i n a t e 325 725 0=Actuated 0=Actuated 43 8 0 = A c t u a t e d 38 0=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 11 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 51 5 0 = A c t u a t e d 25 7 l = C o o r d i n a t e 65 7 l = C o o r d i n a t e 32 5 740 0=Actuated 0=Actuated 45 3 0 = A e t u a t e d 83 8 0 = A c t u a t e d T r a f ﬁ c P l a n D a t a Ollsel Time: 1 Rg 2Lag Time: 0 Correction Mode: 0=No Rg4 Lag Time: 0Alternat Sequence: 0 Special Function: 0 Fig 3I.ag Time: 0Plan: 1/1/1 Mode: 0=Nonnal OFTsetTime: 1 Mode: 0=Nomial Alternat Sequence: 0 Special Function: 0 Rg 2l.agTime: 0 Correction Mode: 0=No Rg 3l.ag Time: 0 Rg 4l^ag Time: 0I’lan: 1/2/1 onset Time: 1 Mode: 0=Normal Alternat Sequence: 0 Special Function: 0 Rg 2l.ag Time: 0 Correction Mode: 0=No Rg 4Lag Time: 0Ft.g 3l.agTime: 0Plan: 1/3/1 onset Time: 1 Mode: 0=Normal Alternat Sequence: 0 Special Function: 0 Rg 2l.ag Time: 0 Correction Mode: 0=No Rg 3Lag Time: 0 Rg 4Lag Time: 0Plan: 1/4/1 onset Time: 124 Alternat Sequence: 0 Special Function: 0 Rg 2Lag Time: 0 Correction Mode: 0=No Rg 3Lag Time: 0 Rg 4l.ag Time: 0man: 2/1/1 Mode: 0=Normal OFTsetTime: 124 Alternat Sequence: 0 Special Function: 0 FTg 2l.ag Time: 0 Correction Mode: 0=No Rg 3l.ag Time: 0 Rg 4Lag Time: 0Plan: 2/2/1 Mode: 0=Nonnal onset Time: 140 Mode: 0=Nomial Alternat Sequence: 0 Special Function: 0 Rg 2Lag Time: 0 Correction Mode: 0=No Rg 3l.ag Time: 0 Rg 4l.ag Time: 0Plan: 3/1/1 Local TBC Data Equate Da> s 234 5 6 7 Source DayCycle Zero Reference Hours: 24 Min: 0Start of Daylight Saving M o n t h : 3 W e e k : 2 End of Daylight Saving M o n t h : 11 W e e k : I 7000000 34560002 Page 7of22 T r a f ﬁ c D a t a P H A S E F U N C T I O N 9U)1 34567 ii 12 13 14 15 1 6Event Day Time D/S/0 ﬂash 1 I 9:30 1/3/1 2 11:15 2/2/11 3 16:0 1/4/1 4 19:30 0/0/41 5 2 7:15 1/1/1 11:15 2/1/162 7 2 15:30 3/1/1 8 2 18:0 1/2/1 9 2 20:0 0/0/4 AUX. Events Det. Del. Del. Au.\ Ouputs Diag. Rpl. Multi00 Hour Min. I2 3 D 1 D 2 D 3 D i m m i n g I 2 Speeial Function Outputs 345678 Program DavEvent □□□□□□□□ Default Data -No Special Day(s) or Week(s) Programmed Special Functions Function Special Function 1 SFiSF2^ SF4SF5 SF6SF7 SF8 SF9 SFIO SFll SF12 SF13 SF14 SF15 SF16 X Special Function 2 Special Function 3 Special Function 4 X X X Special Function 5 X Special Function 6 Special Function 7 X X Special Function 8 X Phase Function PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PFI6 Phase 1Max2 X Phase 2Max2 X Phase 3Max2 X Phase 4Max2 X Phase 5Max2 X Phase 6Max2 X Phase 7Max2 X XPhase 8Max2 Page 8of22 Phase Omit PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF16 Phase IPhase Omit X XPhase 2Phase Omit XPhase 3Phase Omit XPhase 4Phase Omit Phase 5Phase Omit X Phase 6Phase Omit X XPhase 7Phase Omit Phase 8Phase Omit X Ped Omit PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PFl 2PFl 3PFl 4PFl 5P F l 6 PFlVeh Pet Coord ReSvc PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF16 Function Phase Recall PF16PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 P F l 5 Phase Min Recall PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF16 Veh Pet Ped Recall PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PFI4 PF15 PF16 Veh Pet Bike Recall PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PFl 2PFl 3PFl 4 P F l 5 P F l 6 Vehicle Function Veh Pet Switch Omit PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF16 Veh Pet Switch Now PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF16 Veh Pet Switch Also PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF16 Overlap Function PFl PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFll PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF16 Dimming Data Default Data -No Dimming Programmed Page 9of22 Lane Deﬂnation Green Inbound Yellow Inbound Red Green Yellow Outbound Outbound L a n e s N a m e Inbound Default Data -Lane Deﬂnation p r o g r a m m i n u t e L a n e P h F u np r o g r a m d a y p r o g r a m h o u r Preemption Data General Preemption Data Flash >Preempt Preempt 1=Preempt 2 Preempt 2>Preempt 3 Preempt 3=Preempt 4 Preempt 4=Preempt 5 Preempt 5=Preempt 6 Select n^etum Dwell Ped Red Green Clear Yel Red Link Preempt Timers De Track&Ba M a x L o c k - B o u n G a l e M i n P e d P m p l D e l E x t D u r C a l l O u t c e E x t G | W C l e a r Ye l R e d G m P e d Ye l Sel Ret Mode to o a. 1N0 0 0 0.0 00000.0 0.0000 000 . 0 0.0 000 . 0 0.0 000.0 0.0 FAut 2N0 00 0 0 0.0 00000.0 0.00 000.0 0.0 FAut 3N0 0 0 0 0 00 . 0 0001 6 4 . 3 3.0 10 0 3.0 0.0 FAut100.0 0.0 4N0 0 0 0 00 . 0 0001 6 4 . 3 3.00 10 0 3.0 0 . 0 10 0 3.0 2 . 5 10 0 3.0 0 . 0 FAut100.0 0.0 5N0 0 0 00 . 0 0001 6 4 . 3 3.000100.0 0.0 FAut 6N0 00 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 16 4.3 3 . 0 00.0 0.0 FAut Preempt 1 Exit Exit Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase phase Calls Preempt 2 Preempt 3 Preempt 4 Exit Exit Phase Phase Calls Preempt 5 Exit Exit Phase Phase Calls Preempt 6 Exit Exit Phase Phase Calls Exit ExitExit Exit 2 Ye s N o 6 Ye s N o 2 Ye s N o 6 Ye s N o 4 Ye s N o Ye s N o 4 Ye s N o 8 Ye s N o Priority Timers P r i o N o n - D e l E x t F r e e F r e e M i n rity Locking ay end Dial Split Green N o L o c k L o c k L o c k o u t o u t out AB Excl-co Phase Svc. Transit OverlapM a x P r e - Green Green Recall Signal Type Blankout No 004 004 004 004 004 004 00 00 00 000 40000 40000 40 40 40 0 0.0 0-None 0.0 0-None 0.0 0-None 0.0 0-None 0.0 0-None 0.0 0-Nonc 0-None,0-No Output O-None.O-No Output O-None.O-No Output 0-None,0-No Output 0-None,0-No Output 0-None,0-No Output No 0-None,0-No Output 0-None,0-No Output 0-None,0-No Output 0-None,0-No Output 0-None,0-No Output 0-None,0-No Output 1 No2 0 No 3No 0 No No 4 0 No4 5No 6No No No Page 10 of 22 Priority Detector Channels Priority Detector 1 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A B C X Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Detector 2 1A 3A 4A 5A 6A B C X2A Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Detector 3 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A B C X Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Detector 4 B C1A2A3A4A5A6A X Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Detector 5 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A B C X Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Detector 6 B C1A2A3A4A5A6A X Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page II of22 Priority Fixed Phases Priority 1 9 1012345678 11 12 13 14 15 16 Co-Phase QJ-Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P r i o r i t y 2 1 2 3 6 8 9 10 11457 12 13 14 15 16 Co-Phase QJ-Phase 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Priority 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Co-Phase QJ-Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P r i o r i t y 4 1 92345678 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Co-Phase QJ-Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P r i o r i t y 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 1145 12 13 14 15 16 Co-Phase QJ-Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 P r i o r i t y 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Co-Phase QJ-Phase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legend:0 1 CO-PHASE QJ-PHASE F A L S E T R U E Page 12 of 22 Priority Bank Priority Priority Bank : 1 Partial Priority 1 Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Ait Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return Ped Wait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 0 False 0 0 0 0-Min 8 9 101234567 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Bank : 2 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk 0 Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 161415 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 Level 0Priority Bank : 3 Partial Priority Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False 00 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 164 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 13 of 22 Priority Bank : 4 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1545 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Priority Bank: 1 Partial Priority 2 Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Ait Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False 00 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Level 0Priority Bank : 2 Partial Priority Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 0 False 0 0 0 0-Min 8 91234567 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 Priority Bank; 3 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled False Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-Cycle 0 0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1624 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 14 of 22 Priority Bank : 4 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level 0 False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 6 8 9 10457 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Priority Bank : 1 Partial Priority 3 Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled False Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normai 0-Cycle0 0 False 0 0 0 0-Min 8 91234567 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Bank: 2 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk 0 Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 6 8 9 10 11457 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Level 0Priority Bank : 3 Partial Priority Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 15 of 22 Priority Bank : 4 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level 0 False Method Return PedWait PedOverrIde 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Mln 1 2 6 8 9 103457 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Priority Bank : 1 Partial Priority 4 Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverrIde 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 0 False 0 0 0 0-Min 1 6 8 9 1023457 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Bank : 2 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 False 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Bank : 3 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 0 False 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 Page 16 of 22 T3 £0 ■o “0(TQ ■O "□"O §>>o ^>>o i; >>oo i; >>o2.3 3'7 ) - 0 - o m< 0 C D 3 - XO Q . 0 ) ~ §oS8 o ?3O= 71 "D T3 m 37 3 " 0 T J m■3* X 373 "D "0 m ( D C D 3 - XoQ. 0) s o ! S O 3l-i> = 03 CO 55T3 CO CO CD CD ^JD ^^ X - m ●<CO CO CO COoS?8£5E71 55COCO0)S’-D CD l|o£§o!8 o0)ﬁ)0)0)0)ﬁ)ﬁ)(nJ 3 7T m3 3 ^m 33.a.7T 3T 3 X"3 X-ﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ) o*cr O'O' s. ■”T3 73 g, - 0CDCDa3.Q.a to oiooo o oooo oooo oooo oooo oo orp o oZ’ o oZi oﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ)ﬁ) CO CO CO CO(D CD 0 CDooooN)oooo ro oooo to oooo to oooo a oooo w oooo CO oooo CO■n T i ” n “ D - n “ n 7 1 - n T ) “ n^^°“n 71 71 “D 71 5CD -P -Q r - 003 <o fL '< TJ 0 0cB cB ^jn ^o^n C0CO- i — 0 _ H ^ n <L '< -0 i B o ® B^^O^ 0 0O0000 ^^O C0 0 ● Q. ^<<<<S0 0 S X)0 0CO ● ^O5^^'o < 73 c COoooo■1^oooo oooo OOOO 4^r* 0 i — 003£. T3 <co^T3 <<<-s00 0 0003. C Q. = ^-D O O 5 3. c o 3. CO Q. = -a 3. C Q. = 73 oooo cn oooo ooooCJ1 C41 oooo o o o o 3.'<»<'<o o o oooooO)oooo O)oooo o>oooo o> »< OO71 o71 OO71 o71 A0 0 OO71 o71 OO71 O70000k00oooooooo"O oooo ■o oooo %sg CO CO ss CO sss0003333 oooo 00 oooo 00 oooo 00 oooo 03 7 3 T ) 7 3 ^ 2. S. 2. a 7^ ^0(D O3^ 7J 73 73 sg. 2. ® O c o- 73 73 73 ^ 2. 2. 2. a ?i3o0S^ oooo CO oooo C£>oooo CO oooo CD0KQ. O O 3a3<<Q.OOOO 0OOOO OOOO 0 ooooooo o Q.Q.Q.&73 7)73 730002002oooooooooooooooooo Q o Q<<<0 0 0 0 ^2 *2oooooooooooo oooororoto to oo 6 9 oocp cp6z ' < o oooo oooo oz 110P 6zoooooooo'ﬁ I03 oooo 1103 ooooCOCOCO COo 0 0 0 0 0 oooo oooo oooo oooo■u 4^ oooo oooo oooo oooocnCJ1cn cn oooo oooo oooo ooooo>o>o>O) Priority Bank : 4 Partiai Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level 0 False Method Return Ped Wait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Priority Bank: 1 Partial Priority 6 Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk 0 Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return Ped Wait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Level 0Priority Bank : 2 Partial Priority Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level 0 False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False 00 0 0 0-Min 8 9 101234567 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Bank; 3 Partial Priority Level 0 Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq Alt Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False0 Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 False0 0 0 0 0-Min 6 8 9 10 11 12 13123457 14 15 16 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 18 of 22 Level 0Priority Bank : 4 Partial Priority Full Priority Recovery Alt Seq All Seq Enabled Min Walk Freq. Override Ped skip Force full Priority Frequency Freq. Level False Method Return PedWait PedOverride 0 0-Normal 0-CycleFalse0 0 False 0 0 0 0-Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0Exit Call Phase Omit Ped Omit Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Codes:0 X F A L S E [ R U E Priority :Priority :Priority :1 2 3 Priority Bank :1 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :1 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :1 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :2 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank: 2 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :2 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank: 3 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :3 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :3 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :4 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :4 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :4 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority :Priority :Priority :4 5 6 Priority Bank :1 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank: 1 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank: 1 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :2 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :2 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :2 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :3 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank: 3 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :3 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :4 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :4 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Priority Bank :4 Q u e u e P h a s e D e t e c t o r T i m e Default data Page 19 of 22 1 2Priority :Priority Bank Detector 1 Bank Detector 1 4A 5A 6A BPE1A2A 3A PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B Default Data Bank Detector 2 Bank Detector 2 4A 5A 6A BPE1A2A 3A PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B Default Data Bank Detector 3 Bank Detector 3 PE 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A B PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B Default Data Bank Detector Bank Detector 4 4 4A 5A 6A BPE1A2A 3A PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B Default Data 3Priority Priority 4 Bank Detector 1 Bank Detector 1 PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B Bank Detector 2 Bank Detector 2 4A 5A 6A BPE1A 2A 3A Default Data PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B Bank Detector 3 Bank Detector 3 PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B Bank Detector Bank Detector 44 PE 4A 5A 6A B PE 4A 5A 6A B1A 2A 3A Default Data 1A 2A 3A Default Data 5 6PriorityPriority Bank Detector 1 Bank Detector 1 PE 4A 5A 6A B PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B1A 2A 3A Default Data Bank Detector 2Bank Detector 2 5A 6A B PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A BPE1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A Bank Detector 3 Bank Detector 3 5A 6A B PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A BPE1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A Bank Detector Bank Detector 4 4 4A 5A 6A BPE1A 2A 3A Default Data 4A 5A 6A B PE 1A 2A 3A Default Data Preempt 1 Vehical Phases Dwell Pedestrian Phases Dwell Overlaps DwellPh. Track C>xle CyclePh Track Ovip Track Cycle Trail Gm Default DataDefault Data Preempt 2 Default Data \'ehieal Phases Dwell Pedestrian Phases Dwell Overlaps O v l p . Tr a c k D w e l lPh. Track Cycle Ph, Track Cycle Cycle Trail Gm Default Data Default DataDefault Data Page 20 of 22 Preempt 3 ^'chical Phases D«ell Pedestrian Phases Dwell Overlaps O v l p . T r a c k D w e l l C y c l ePh. Track Cycle Ph. Track Cycle Trail Gm No TrailCRedFlash Grr No2Red 5Red Preempt 4 Green Green No Default DataNo \ehical Phases Dwell Pedestrian Phases Dwell Overlaps O v l p . T r a c k D w e l l C y c l ePh. Track Cycle Ph. Track Cycle Trail Gm 1Red 6Red Preempt 5 Green Green ARed Flash Grr No No TrailNo Default DataNo \'ehical Phases P h . T r a c k D w e l l Pedestrian Phases Dwell Overlaps O v l p . T r a c k D w e l l C y c l eCycle Ph. Track Cycle Trail Gm 4Red 7Red Preempt 6 Green Green No Default DataNo Default Data \'ehical Phases Dwell Pedestrian Phases Dwell Oserlaps O v l p . T r a c k D w e l l C y c l ePh. Track C)'cle Ph. Track Cycle Trail Gm 3Red 8Red System/Detectors Data Local Critical Alarms Green Green No BRed Flash Gn No No Trail Default DataNo 1st Phone:Revert to Backup; 15 Remote Flash: No Voltage Monitor: No 2nd Phone:Conllict Flash: No Premption: No Local Free: No Cycle Failure: No Cycle Fault: No Coord Failure: No Local Fash: No Coord Fault: No Special Status 1: No Special Status 2: No Special Status 3: No Special Status 4; No Special Status 5: No Special Status 6: No Trafﬁc Responsive System Detector D e t e c t o r C h a n n e l N a m e Queue 1S y s t e m W e i g h t D e t e c t o r s D e t e c t o r s F a c t o r Q u e u e 2 S y s t e m We i g h t D e t e c t o r s D e t e c t o r s F a c t o r Veh/ Average Occupancy Hr Time(mins) Correction/10 Volume % Min Default DataDefault DataDefault Data Sample Interval:0 Queue: I Input Selection: 0=Average Detector Failed Level :0 Input Selection: 0=Average Detector Failed Level :0 Queue: L e v e l E n t e r L e a v e Dial /Split /Offset Queue: 2 // Default Data \ehieal Detector \’chical Detector Special Detector Diagnostic Value 0 No Erratic D e t e c t o r P r e s e n c e A c t i v i t y C o u n t Diagnostic Value 1 No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count Diagnostic Value 0 No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count MaxMaxMax Default Data -No Diag 1ValuesDefault Data -Diag 0Values Default Data -No Diag 0Valu Pedestrian Detector Pedestrian Detector Special Detector Diagnostic Value 1 No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count Diagnostic Value 0 No Erratic ActiviU' Count Diagnostic Value 1 No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count Max Detector Presence Max Max Default Data -No Diag 0Values Default Data -No Diag IValues Default Data -No Diag 1Values Page 21 of 22 Speed Trap Low Treshold Speed Trap High Treshold Speed Trap Data Speed Trap:Dial/Split/OfTsel // Measurement: D e t e c t o r 1 D e t e c t o r 2 D i s t a n c e :Default Data Default Data V o l u m e D e t e c t o r D a t a Report Interval Volume Controller Detector Detector N u m b e r C h a n n e l 0 Default Data Page 22 of 22 N1MT 13 Community Development NOTICING PROCEDURE Notice is required for certain projects in order for citizens to participate in decision making which affects their interests and provides opportunity to receive information pertinent to an application that would not otherwise be available to the decision maker. The applicant is responsible for posting the project site and mailing anotice per the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Public noticing for comment periods or hearings and associated application information, timing, type, and location is required by law per Section 38.220, BMC. See form N2 Noticing Instructions and Declaration Form on how to notice your project, send mailings, and post on the project site. NOTICING CHECKLIST (NON-CERTIFIED MAILINGS) The following is required materials for applications that do not require certiﬁed mail- Site Plan, Master Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit, Variance, Deviation, First Minor Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Appeals, Zone Map Amendment, Growth Policy Amendment, Annexation. 1. Completed and signed property adjoiners certiﬁcate form Nl. 2. Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the project site, attached to this checklist. NOTICING CHECKLIST (CERTIFIED MATlINGS) The following is required materials for applications that do require certiﬁed mail- Major and Subsequent Minor Subdivisions. 1. Completed and signed property adjoiners certiﬁcate form Nl. 2. Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the project site and not physically contiguous (touching aboundary) to the subdivision, attached to this checklist. Clearly label list ADJOINER NOT CONTIGUOUS. 3. Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners physically contiguous (touching aboundary) including recorded purchasers under contract for deed to be sent certiﬁed mail attached to this checklist. Clearly label list ADJOINER CONTIGUOUS. PROPERTY OWNER RECORDS Current property owners of record can be found at the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's Ofﬁce in the Gallatin County Courthouse at 311 West Main Street Bozeman, Montana. CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURES / , hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached name and addres^ist of all adjoining property owners (including all condominiu^^qyyn^^^tj^ig_200 feet of the property located at'Z, (a/^^ ^ trijfe and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin County tax records. Ifurther understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project. DateSjgnatu-i CONTACT US phone 406-582-2260 f a x 4 0 6 - 5 8 2 - 2 2 6 3 Alfred M, Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street planning@ bozeman.net www.bozeman.net/planning Bozeman, MT 59715 Revision Date: August 2020Page 1of 1Noticing Checklist June 11, 2021 Property owners within 200’ of 2905 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 1. Babcock Vista LLC, 1276 N15th Ave, Ste 103, Bozeman, MT 59715 2. Bozeman Holdings LLC ,600 SMain St., Butte, MT 59701 3. Dave Stephens, 1730 23rd Ln NE, Dutton, MT 59433 4. KAM LLC, PC Box 1273, Bozeman, MT 59771 5. Myer Levy, 243 Magdalene Way, Apt. A, Bozeman, MT 59718 6. Entropy317 LLC, 680 Walker Meadow Rd., Whiteﬁsh, MT 59937 7. Jack &Barbara Judisch, 230 Slate Rd., Conrad, MT 59425 8. Anthony &Carol Jean Spiegelberg Trust, PO Box 6554, Sheridan, WY 82801 9. Michael &Laura Clark, 279 Magdalene Way, Apt B, Bozeman, MT 59718 10. Gregory &Valerie Tucker Trustees, 5980 WOverland Rd., Meridian, ID 83642 11. Crost Properties LLC, 352 ERiver Rock Rd., Belgrade, MT 59714 12. Aimee Arnaud, 908 Qual Run Rd., Unit D, Bozeman, MT 59718 13. Brent &Kathleen Peyton, 3437 Tschache Ln., Bozeman, MT 59718 14. Outlook Properties LLC, 3119 Western Bluffs Blvd, Billings, MT 59106 15. Ryan John Nelson, 89 Annie Glade, Bozeman, MT 59718 16. Penelope McDougall, 349 Magdalene Way, Apt. C, Bozeman, MT 59718 17. Sandra Sales, 367 Magdalene Way, Apt. A, Bozeman, MT 59718 18. Ronald &Coleen Pack, 95 Indian Creek Rd., Sheridan, MT 59749 19. Robert Kissel, 4651 Troy Ln, La Mesa, CA 91942 Page 1of 2 June 11, 2021 20. Charles &Catherine McKennan, 2910 Donna Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 21. Deborah Hanen, 2904 Donna Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 22.Jontee Ohanesian, 2826 Donna Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 23. Alvin &Karla Taylor, 2820 Donna Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 24. Brett Blackwell, 2814 Donna Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 25. Rory &Lacey Egelus, 2808 Donna Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 26. Sergio Sanchez, 2802 Donna Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 27. Thomas &Peggy Reihman Living Trust, 3320 Sundance Dr., Bozeman, MT 59715 Page 2of 2 A1MT Community Development PROJECT IMAGE VICINITY MAPPROJECT INFORMATION U/^dic ^'(a/ ﬁ ) Q c ^ / S i ^ Project Name: Project Type(s): . Street Address: Legal Description:S’‘F<2 Description of Project: Current Zoning: G r o s s L o t A r e a : _ _ _ . Block Frontage(s): __, Number of Buildings: Type and Number of Dwellings; Building Size(s): Building Height(s): Number of Parking Spaces: Affordable Housing (Y/N): Cash-in-lieu Parkland (Y/N) Departure/Deviation Request (Y/N): SPECIAL DISTRICTS /VAHj None North 7th Avenue □Northeast UNeighborhood Conservation Downtown Overlay District: Urban Renewal District:North Park None Revision Date: June 2020Page 1of 3Development Review Application A I v J i X i PROPERTY OWNER 6l 45 C 1 / Name: AJ>lI I y ^lyz.Full Address: Email: Phone: 3^^^ 5 c/^ -frt 7-^ ^^7■6^ j'ﬁ-(:P' APPLICANT Name: Full Address: Email: Phone: REPRESENTATIVE . COi yt\st\t(aj, <2.at^ ^6(7- 1 CERTIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) 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 adevelopment 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. Iacknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, Iagree to grant City personnel and other review agency representative's access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 38.200.050, BMC). I(We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Certiﬁcation of Completion and Compliance -Iunderstand that conditions of approval may be applied to the application and that Iwill comply with any conditions of approval or make necessary corrections to the application materials in order to comply with municipal code provisions. na Statement of Intent to Construct According to the Final Plan -Iacknowledge that construction not in compliance with the approved ﬁnal plan may result in delays of occupancy or costs to correct noncompliance. Applicant Signature: a a Printed Name: Name: Full Address: Email: Phone: Owner Signature: Printed Name: Representative Signature: Printed Name: Development Review Application Page 2of 3 Revision Date: June 2020 CtVEL^ P R;-v\^VI' APPLICATION TYPE Check all that apply / v An1. Administrative Interpretation Appeal 2. Administrative Project Decision Appeal 3. Annexation and Initial Zoning 4. Commercial/Nonresidential COA r~] 5. Comprehensive Sign Plan r~1 6. Condominium Review Ll 7. Conditional Use Permit 8. Extension to Approved Plan LH 9. Growth Policy Amendment 10. Informal Review 11. Master Site Plan 12. Modiﬁcation/Plan Amendment Jj 13. Neighborhood/Residential COA G14. Pre-application Consultation 15. PUD Concept Plan FORMFORM ij 16. PUD Preliminary Plan 17. PUD Final Plan 18. Reasonable Accommodation 19. Site Plan 20. Special Use Permit iG 21. Special Temporary Use Permit —i 22. Subdivision Exemption n23. Subdivision Pre-Application 24. Subdivision Preliminary Plan 25. Subdivision Final Plat 26. Wetland Review 27. Zone Map Amendment 28. Zone Text Amendment 29. Zoning/Subdivision Variance C3 30. Zoning Deviation/Departure □31. Other: PUDPAIA PUDFPAPA RAANNX SPCCOA SUPCSP STUPCR SECUP PAEXT PPGPA FPINF WRMSP ZMAMOD ZTANCOA Z/SVARNone NonePUDC REQUIRED FORMS Varies by project type APPLICATION FEE Varies by project type CONTACT US phone 406-582-2260 f a x 4 0 6 - 5 8 2 - 2 2 6 3 Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street plan ning@bozeman. net www.bozeman.net/planning Bozeman, MT 59715 Revision Date: June 2020Page 3of 3Development Review Application MT CVACommunity Development Development Review Application COVID-19 Acknowledgment of Application Processing Deiays On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued aProclamation on Declaring aNational Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. On March 12, 2020, the Governor of the State of Montana issued Executive Order No. 2-2020 Declaring aState of Emergency to Exist Within the State of Montana Related to the Communicable Disease COVID-19. The City of Bozeman issued aCOVID-19 emergenoy declaration on March 16, 2020. The City subsequently issued Order ED-05 setting forth public meeting protocols on March 31, 2020 and Order ED-06 closing City facilities to public entry, including the Stiff Professional Building, on March 23, 2020. Order ED-05 states in relevant parts, "In accordance with the Emergency Declaration, public meeting agendas will be limited to only essential matters. ...” It describes notice requirements, the use of videoconferencing or telephonic technology to hold remote hearings, and providing the public an opportunity to participate remotely. Acopy of Order ED- 05 is attached to this form. On March 27, 2020 the Attorney General of the State of Montana issued aletter of guidance to local governments recommending public meetings be held only for essential business, and those public meetings be held remotely. Provisions in the emergency declarations and City of Bozeman Orders may restrict or delay the ability of the City to complete the review and ﬁnally approve certain development review applications. Acknowledgment and signatures This acknowledgement must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) for all application types before the submittal will be accepted and processed. 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 the City’s COVID-19 Emergency Declaration and subsequent Orders issued by the City Manager. Iacknowledge that the City may be delayed in the processing of my application and may not be able to complete the application review within standard time limits due to the constraints present under the emergency orders. I(We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Certiﬁcation of Acknowledgment -Iunderstand that there may be delays in the processing of my application and that it may reach apoint in processing where it may not proceed to ﬁnal approval and that Iwill not hold the City responsible for any delays presented under the emergency order. Applicant Signature: Printed Name; Owner Signature: 4-8-20Page 1of 2