Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011 Documentation of Compliance NEXUS POINT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION (Documentation of Compliance) Prepared for: NEXUS POINT LLC 3661 JAGAR LANE Bozeman, MT 59718 Prepared by: 895 Technology Blvd, Suite 203 Bozeman, MT 59718 (406) 586-2062 2022 Table of Contents 1. Surface Water 2. Floodplain 3. Groundwater 4. Geology, Soils, Slopes 5. Vegetation 6. Wildlife 7. Agriculture 8. Agricultural Water User Facilities 9. Water and Sewer 10. Stormwater Management 11. Streets, Roads, and Alleys 12. Non-Municipal Utilities 13. Land Use 14. Parks and Recreation Facilities 15. Neighborhood Center Plan 16. Lighting Plan 17. Miscellaneous. Public lands, hazards, wildlands-urban interface 18. Affordable Housing 19. Subdivision Growth Policy Appendix 1. Surface Water Documents ➢ Wetland 310 Authorization ➢ Wetland Deed Restriction ➢ Wetland Permit Application 3. Groundwater ➢ Groundwater Depth Summary ➢ DNRC Comments 9.Water and Sewer ➢ Sewer and Water Reports 10. Stormwater Management ➢ Stormwater Report 11. Streets, Roads, and Alleys ➢ Traffic Impact Study ➢ Infrastructure Improvement Roadway Sheets 12. A Non-Municipal Utilities ➢ Agency Letter - NWE 14. Parks and Recreation Facilities ➢ Lantern Park Landscape Plans 1 Documentation of Compliance 1. Surface Water a. Mapping. Locate on a plat overlay or sketch map all surface waters and the delineated floodplain which may affect or be affected by the proposed subdivision including: 1. Natural water systems such as natural streams, creeks, stream/ditches, drainages, waterways, gullies, ravines or washes in which water flows either continuously or intermittently and has a definite channel, bed and banks. 2. Artificial water systems such as canals, ditches, ditch/streams, aqueducts, reservoirs, irrigation or drainage systems. Response: The subdivision borders East Catron creek which flows on the East side of the development. Its delineation is shown clearly on the preliminary plat included in this application. This area does not have a FEMA delineation floodplain. The necessary wetland permits have already been approved and are included in this application. b. Description. 1. Describe all surface waters which may affect or be affected by the proposed subdivision including name, approximate size, present use and time of year when water is present. 2. Describe proximity of proposed construction (such as buildings, sewer systems, streets) to surface waters. Response: East Catron Creek runs North-South through the eastern portion of the site. All required permitting was done prior to construction, which has been complete. Therefore, this subdivision will not further affect East Catron Creek. There is a required 50-foot wetland setback from the edge of the wetlands surrounding East Catron Creek. All construction will remain outside of this setback. c. Water body alteration. Describe any existing or proposed streambank or shoreline alterations or any proposed construction or modification of lake beds, watercourses or irrigation ditches. Provide information on location, extent, type and purpose of alteration. Provide a revised floodplain analysis report, in compliance with article 6 of this chapter, as appropriate. Response: Construction through East Catron Creek previously took place. The creek was restored back to adequate and previous conditions. d. Wetlands. If the subdivision contains wetlands, as defined in section 38.700.210 of this chapter, then a delineation of the wetland must be shown on the preliminary and final plats. Response: East Catron Creek is delineated on the preliminary plat. 2 e. Permits. Include copies of any permits listed in section 38.220.020 that have been obtained for the project. Response: All the permits required for construction are included in this preliminary plat application submittal. 1. Surface Water - Wetland 310 Authorization 1. Surface Water - Wetland Deed Restriction 1. Surface Water - Wetland Permit Application Gallatin County Conservation District Board PO Box 569 120 N 5th Street Manhattan, MT 59741 Attention: Mary Hendrix Re: 310 Permit Application to remove and replace a 60-foot culvert, and install culverts for a road and two pedestrian crossing in a relocated tributary of East Catron Creek, Bozeman, Montana, previously permitted under GD-002-13 and GD-028-13 April 5, 2019 Dear Mary: Please find enclosed a copy of a Joint Application for Proposed Work in Montana’s Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, and Other Water Bodies for a 310 permit requested for a culvert removal and replacement for a pedestrian crossing and installation of culverts for a new road crossing and second pedestrian crossing on a relocated tributary to East Catron Creek. The applicant is Greg Gianforte and the land parcels are owned by Greg and Susan Gianforte (G Force 1 Limited Liability – north lot) and HB Land and Construction LLC (south lot). The lots are located west of South 19 Street, south of the Grace Bible Church and Stucky Road, and north of West Graf Street in Bozeman, Montana, within the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Gallatin County. Permit GD-002-13 authorized by the Gallatin County Conservation District on February 22, 2013, permitted the relocation of an unnamed tributary to East Catron. Permit GD-028-2013 authorized the separation of the creek into two reaches with 60 feet of a 27-inch by 44-inch arch concrete culvert that was to provide future road access to the remainder of the lot. The tributary of East Catron was relocated to the west side of South 19th Street in August 2014 for the future expansion of Oracle’s office space. The undeveloped parcel is currently in the process of obtaining City Plat approval. The City is requiring that the road crossing be relocated to conform to the current city street grid. The City is also requiring that two additional pedestrian crossings be installed across the relocated creek. This 310 permit application is a request to remove the existing 60-foot culvert and replace it with a 30-foot culvert for a pedestrian crossing, to install 123 lf of 42-inch RPC culvert for a road crossing, and to install a second 30-foot, 42-inch RCP culvert for a second pedestrian crossing. The enclosed Waters of the US (WUS) Impact Exhibit (Sheet W1.0) shows the impact locations and summarizes the linear footage and square footage of impacts, culvert specs, and fill specs and volumes. The source for the existing UT of East Catron arises at the edge of a cultivated field located on Blackwood Road (see Figure 1.0 – 2011 Google Earth GIS aerial photograph). The creek flows north in a narrow, relatively straight channel to the termination point in a depression wetland located north of Stucky Road, approximately 1.2 miles downstream. There is no downgradient connection to a surface water channel at the termination point. Undeveloped upland pasture separates the edge of the wetland and West Kagy. There is no surface water connection or channel evident between West Kagy Boulevard and Service Drive. A request is being made to the GCD to review whether this waterway currently meets the definition of a perennial stream. Sincerely, Barbara Vaughn Environmental Engineer, MS Cc: Greg and Susan Gianforte David and Susan Barbisan Chris Budeski Enclosures: 310/404 Joint Application Form Adjoiner’s List Waters of the US Impact Exhibit (Sheet W1.0) Attn: Tim McNew US Army Corps of Engineers Helena Regulatory Office 10 West 15th Street, Suite 2200 Helena, Montana 59626-0014 Re: Amendment No. 1 to Permit Number NWO-2012-02528-MTB, Relocated road crossing on re-established East Catron Creek Tributary April 4, 2019 Dear Tim: The application for Standard Permit NWO-2012-02528-MTB was filed originally on February 11, 2013. The application requested authorization to relocate a segment of a tributary of East Catron Creek to the west edge of South 19th Avenue in order to expand an existing commercial development. This submittal is a request to amend the original permit to comply with Bozeman plat approval conditions mandating the relocation of the current road crossing on the creek. The City is also requiring the construction of two pedestrian crossings. The USACE Billings Regulatory office authorized Department of the Army Permit Number NWO-2012- 02528-MTB on July 8, 2013. The stream corridor was reconstructed and revegetated by September 2014. Second year vegetation monitoring results were summarized in a report dated August 31, 2015. The reported results indicated that the planted herbaceous cover and woody species on the relocated riparian corridor met the success criteria by August 2015 as documented in the 2015 monitoring report and as concurred by your site visit in 2014. The parcels, owned by Greg and Susan Gianforte (G Force 1 Limited Liability – Lot 1, Minor Subdivision 235) and HB Land and Construction LLC (Lot 2, Minor Subdivision 235), are located west of South 19th Street, south of the Grace Bible Church and Stucky Road, and north of West Graf Street in Bozeman, Montana. The land is located within the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Gallatin County. Mitigation for the stream relocation included enhancing the sinuosity of the relocated stream by extending the stream length from 1,845 linear feet (lf) to 2,150 lf. The reconstructed wetland fringe was to encompass 0.88 acres, an increase of 0.44 acres from the wetland fringe associated with the historic channel. A single culvert was placed midway on the channel during construction for future road access. The City is requiring that the current road crossing on the East Catron Tributary be relocated and that two pedestrian crossings be constructed. The new road crossing will use 123-foot, 42-inch RCP culvert. The existing 60-foot RCP culvert will be removed and replaced with a 30-foot culvert for the northernmost pedestrian crossing. Disturbed areas will be restored with wetland sod salvaged onsite. A second 30-foot culvert will be installed in the channel for a pedestrian crossing located at the south end of the project. The Waters of the US Impact Exhibit (Sheet W1.0) included with this submittal shows the existing conditions on the relocated East Catron Tributary; the location of the proposed permanent and temporary impact areas; summary tables of each impact area that includes square footage, linear footage, culvert specs, and fill volumes; and the location of the restoration area. Table 1.0 summarizes the requested permit changes for Amendment No.1. Table 1.0 Amendment No.1: Requested Changes to Permit NWO-2012-02528 MTH Year Permit Authorization: July 8, 2013 Amendment #1: April 4, 2019 (Additional Permanent WUS Impacts) Re-established Stream Length 2150 linear feet Reduction of 111 linear feet Established Wetland Acreage 0.88 acres Reduction of 0.04 acres (1754 sf) (above OHWM) Fill Volume 370 cubic yards (abandoned channel) 217.68 cubic yards Stream Debits 11,724.4 Stream Credits 15,050 mitigation credits 14,273 mitigation credits Impacts associated with a sewer line (see Sheet W1.0) installed six feet below the ground surface will temporarily impact six (6) linear feet of waters of the US below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and 205 square feet of wetland above the OHWM. Directional drilling will be used and the disturbed area will be restored to the previous condition. A copy of the stream credit table for the original 2013 permit is included with this submittal. There are no additional opportunities onsite to establish additional waters of the US and/or wetlands. If additional mitigation is necessary, offsite mitigation credits would be purchased from the regional Upper Missouri Mitigation Bank. A Covenant of Dedication protecting the creek corridor and 50-foot watercourse setbacks was recorded with Gallatin County. The changes addressed in Amendment No. 1 request will be included with the recorded information. Please contact my office at 406 581-0655 or at bvaughn@montana.com if you require further information or if you have questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Barbara Vaughn Environmental Engineer, MS Cc: Greg and Susan Gianforte David and Susan Barbisan Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering Enclosures: Waters of the US Impact Exhibit (Sheet W1.0) Mitigation Credit Table Gallatin County Conservation District Board PO Box 569 120 N 5th Street Manhattan, MT 59741 Attention: Mary Hendrix Re: Request for onsite review of downgradient terminus of relocated tributary of East Catron Creek, Bozeman, Montana, previously permitted under GD-002-13 and GD-028-13 April 5, 2019 Dear Mary: An 1845-foot tributary to East Catron Creek was relocated to the west side of South 19th Street, Bozeman, Montana, in September 2014. The 310 permits referenced above authorized the relocation of the tributary and the installation of a culvert for future road access, respectively. The City is currently requiring that the road crossing be relocated. The original culvert will be removed and replaced with a 30-foot culvert for pedestrian access. The new road crossing will require the installation of a 123-foot culvert. A second 30-foot culvert for pedestrian access is also being required. A new 310-404 permit application has been submitted separately from this request. The water source for the relocated tributary of East Catron arises at the edge of a cultivated field located on Blackwood Road (see Figure 1.0 – 2011 Google Earth GIS aerial photograph). The creek flows north in a narrow, relatively straight channel to the termination point in a depression wetland located north of Stucky Road, approximately 1.2 miles downstream. There is no downgradient connection to a surface water channel at the termination point. Undeveloped upland pasture separates the edge of the wetland and West Kagy Boulevard. There is no surface water connection or channel evident between West Kagy Boulevard and Service Drive. A request is being made to the Gallatin Conservation District to review whether this waterway currently meets the definition of a perennial stream. Sincerely, Barbara Vaughn Environmental Engineer, MS Cc: Greg and Susan Gianforte David and Susan Barbisan Chris Budeski 3 2. Floodplain Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 4 3. Groundwater a. Depth. Establish the seasonal minimum and maximum depth to the water table, dates on which these depths were determined, and the location and depth of all known aquifers which may be affected by the proposed subdivision. The high-water table must be determined from tests taken during the period of major concern as specified in writing by the county environmental health department. Specific locations for test holes may also be determined by the county environmental health department. Response: Investigation of groundwater conditions at the site began in May of 2019 and went through June of 2020. Included in this application submittal is the groundwater depth summary logs. b. Steps to avoid degradation. Describe any steps necessary to avoid the degradation of groundwater and groundwater recharge areas. Response: This subdivision will avoid groundwater degradation through the utilization of City sewer and water mains as well as stormwater control measures in accordance with the City of Bozeman design standards. The groundwater recharge areas (opens space and stormwater retention ponds) will avoid being degraded through maintenance provided by the Home Owner’s Association or property owners. Only one groundwater exemption of 10 acre-feet is allowed. The Montana DNRC Water Resources Division was contacted regarding this project and their feedback is provided in this application. 3. Groundwater – Groundwater Depth Summary Nexus Point Groundwater Monitoring Summary *Measured from T.O.P.* Measured GW Measured GW Measured GW Measured GW 1 4955.36 1.67 4953.69 7.46 -5.79 7.83 -6.16 7.60 4947.76 7.59 -5.92 2 0.00 1.6 -1.60 4.94 -4.94 5.45 -5.45 4.98 -4.98 5.10 -5.10 3 0.00 0.90 -0.90 8.22 -8.22 5.04 -5.04 5.61 -5.61 7.77 -7.77 4 0.00 0.99 -0.99 8.66 -8.66 6.00 -6.00 6.14 -6.14 7.93 -7.93 5 0.00 1.17 -1.17 8.83 -8.83 9.21 -9.21 9.09 -9.09 8.87 -8.87 6 0.00 0.86 -0.86 4.35 -4.35 4.79 -4.79 5.51 -5.51 4.53 -4.53 7 0.00 1.45 -1.45 3.71 -3.71 4.86 -4.86 4.74 -4.74 3.89 -3.89 8 0.00 1.44 -1.44 4.38 -4.38 4.81 -4.81 4.94 -4.94 4.50 -4.50 Measured GW Measured GW Measured GW Measured GW 1 4955.36 1.67 4953.69 dry dry dry dry 8.44 -6.77 8.61 -6.94 2 0.00 1.6 -1.60 dry dry dry dry 6.47 -6.47 dry dry 3 0.00 0.90 -0.90 dry dry dry dry 9.50 -9.50 dry dry 4 0.00 0.99 -0.99 dry dry dry dry dry dry dry dry 5 0.00 1.17 -1.17 dry dry dry dry dry dry dry dry 6 0.00 0.86 -0.86 dry dry 6.31 -6.31 dry dry dry dry 7 0.00 1.45 -1.45 dry dry dry dry dry dry 5.49 -5.49 8 0.00 1.44 -1.44 5.75 -5.75 dry dry dry dry dry dry Measured GW Measured GW Measured GW Measured GW 1 4955.36 1.67 4953.69 8.90 4946.46 4955.36 4955.36 4955.36 2 0.00 1.6 -1.60 dry dry dry dry 5.72 -5.72 5.35 -5.35 3 0.00 0.90 -0.90 dry dry dry dry dry dry dry dry 4 0.00 0.99 -0.99 dry dry dry dry dry dry dry dry 5 0.00 1.17 -1.17 dry dry dry dry dry dry dry dry 6 0.00 0.86 -0.86 dry dry dry dry dry dry dry dry 7 0.00 1.45 -1.45 dry dry 5.25 -5.25 5.86 -5.86 6.53 -6.53 8 0.00 1.44 -1.44 dry dry dry dry dry dry dry dry Measured GW Measured GW Measured GW 1 0.00 1.67 -1.67 dry dry dry dry dry dry 2 0.00 1.6 -1.60 5.75 -5.75 5.80 -5.80 4.65 -4.65 3 0.00 0.90 -0.90 dry dry dry dry dry dry 4 0.00 0.99 -0.99 dry dry dry dry dry dry 5 0.00 1.17 -1.17 dry dry dry dry dry dry 6 0.00 0.86 -0.86 dry dry dry dry dry dry 7 0.00 1.45 -1.45 6.74 -6.74 5.90 -5.90 6.50 -6.50 8 0.00 1.44 -1.44 dry dry dry dry dry dry 7/3/2020 7/13/2020Monitoring Well Top of Pipe Elevation Top of Casing to Ground (ft) Grnd Elevation @ Pipe Base 6/26/2020 7/26/2019 5/8/2020 5/15/2020 Monitoring Well Top of Pipe Elevation Top of Casing to Ground (ft) Grnd Elevation @ Pipe Base 5/27/2020 6/5/2020 6/12/2020 6/19/2020 Monitoring Well Top of Pipe Elevation Top of Casing to Ground (ft) Grnd Elevation @ Pipe Base 7/12/2019 5/29/2019 6/14/2019 6/27/2019Monitoring Well Top of Pipe Elevation Top of Casing to Ground (ft) Grnd Elevation @ Pipe Base 5/17/2019 3. Groundwater – DNRC Comments G:\MADISON ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\2018\18-127 Nexus Point\Application\Subdivision\Preliminary Plat\3. Documentation of Compliance\Documentation of Compliance Requirements\3. Groundwater\Agency Letter - DNRC.doc 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203  Bozeman, MT 59718  (406) 586-0262  Fax (406) 586-5740 June 13th, 2022 Montana DNRC Water Resources 2273 Boot Hill Court, Suite 110 Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Nexus Point Subdivision – Preliminary Plat Bozeman, MT Dear Montana DNRC Water Resources, Madison Engineering is soliciting your comments regarding the proposed 11-lot subdivision legally described as Lot 1 of Minor Subdivision 235 B, situate in the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian Montana, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The zoning of the 20-acre property is currently RO Residential-Office District and R5 Residential Mixed-Use High Density District. The property will be divided into 11-lots, and the local streets South 21st Avenue and Arnold Street have already been constructed. Utilities consisting of sewer, water and storm have already been extended throughout the property. As part of the subdivision process, we are soliciting any comments you may have regarding irrigation water usage in the proposed subdivision. Enclosed, please find a copy of a vicinity map and the proposed plat sheet sketch concept for your reference. Please respond at your earliest convenience with any comments or questions to the address provided below, or feel free to contact me directly at 406-586-0262 or austin.m@mad-eng.com. Thank you for your consideration. Previously site plan and infrastructure approval were established for the development and the land is currently under construction. Sincerely, Madison Engineering, Inc. _____________________________ Austin Mirizio enc: Vicinity Map Proposed Plat Sheet Sketch Concept Cc: file VICINITYMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD STE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 PHONE (406) 586-0262 FAX (406) 586-5740 NEXUS POINT LOT 1 MINOR SUB 235 VICINITY MAP SCALE: N.T.S. PROJECT LOCATION 5 4. Geology, Soils, Slopes a. Geologic hazards. Identify geologic hazards affecting the proposed subdivision which could result in property damage or personal injury due to rock falls or slides; landslides, mud or snow; surface subsidence (i.e., settling or sinking); or seismic activity. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. b. Protective measures. Explain what measures will be taken to prevent or materially lessen the danger of future property damage or injury due to any of the hazards referred to in subsection A.4.a of this section. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. c. Unusual features. Provide a statement describing any unusual soil, topographic or geologic conditions on the property which limit the capability for building or excavation using ordinary and reasonable construction techniques. The statement should address conditions such as shallow bedrock, high water table, unstable or expansive soil conditions, and slope. On a map, identify any slopes in excess of 15 percent grade. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. d. Soils map. The subdivision must be overlaid on the county soil survey maps obtained from the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS). The maps are 1:24,000 in scale. These maps may be copied without permission. However, enlargement of these maps could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. Soils were mapped using a minimum delineation of five acres, and these soils reports were intended to alert developers to possible problems and the need for a more detailed on-site investigation. The developer must provide the following soil reports, which can be obtained from the NRCS: 1. The physical properties and engineering indexes for each soil type; 2. Soil limitations for utilities, building and site development, and water features for each soil type; 3. Hydric soils report for each soil type. If hydric soils are present, the developer must provide a wetlands investigation by a certified consultant, per division 38.610; and 4. The developer must provide any special design methods planned to overcome the above limitations. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. e. Cuts and fills. Describe the location and amount of any cut or fill three or more feet in depth. These cuts and fills should be indicated on a plat overlay or sketch map. Where cuts or fills are necessary, describe any plans to prevent erosion and to promote revegetation such as replacement of topsoil and grading. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 6 5. Vegetation a. Vegetation map. On a plat overlay identify critical plant communities such as stream bank or shoreline vegetation; vegetation on steep, unstable slopes; and vegetation on soils highly susceptible to wind or water erosion. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. b. Protective measures. Describe measures to preserve trees and critical plant communities (e.g., design and location of streets, lots and open spaces). Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. c. Noxious weed management and revegetation plan. Noxious weeds must be controlled in all developments as directed by the county weed control district (district) in accordance with the Montana County Noxious Weed Control Act (MCA 7-22-21). The developer must have any noxious weeds identified and their location mapped by a person with experience in weed management and knowledgeable in weed identification. A noxious weed management and revegetation plan approved by the district for control of noxious weeds must be submitted with the preliminary plat application. This plan must ensure the control of noxious weeds upon preliminary plat approval and the revegetation of any land disturbed during the construction of subdivision improvements. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 7 6. Wildlife a. Species. Describe any endangered species or species of concern which use the area affected by the proposed subdivision. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. b. Critical areas. Identify on a plat overlay of the proposed subdivision any known critical, significant or "key" wildlife areas, such as big game winter range, waterfowl nesting areas, habitat for rare or endangered species or wetlands. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. c. Public access. Describe the effects on public access to public lands, trails, hunting or fishin g areas. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. d. Protective measures. Describe any proposed measures to protect or enhance wildlife habitat or to minimize degradation (e.g., keeping building and streets back from shorelines, setting aside wetlands as undeveloped open space). Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. e. Discussion of impact; documentation. The developer must discuss the impact of the proposed development on fish and wildlife with the state department of fish, wildlife and Parks (FWP). With the preliminary plat application, the developer must provide written documentation from FWP that: 1. Verifies that FWP has reviewed the proposed plat; 2. Lists any FWP recommendations; and 3. Outlines any mitigation planned to overcome adverse impacts. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 8 7. Agriculture a. What measures will be taken, if any, to control family pets. Response: Waiver was previously granted in preapplication submittal. b. Fencing of agricultural land. Describe any existing fence lines around the development boundary which protect agricultural lands under an ownership other than of the developer, and describe any measure which will be taken to ensure that the owners of the development will share with the owner of the agricultural lands in the continued maintenance of the fence. Response: Waiver was previously granted in preapplication submittal. 9 8. Agricultural Water User Facilities a. Type, description, ownership and users of facilities per sections 38.360.280 and 38.410.060. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. b. Written documentation demonstrating active use of facilities, for example the delivery of non-potable water supplies for irrigation, conversion to stormwater facilities, or other use. If a facility is not being actively used nor intended to be used in the future, include a written plan for discontinuance including all documentation required pursuant to Montana Law. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. c. Describe any proposed realignment. All realignments must comply with all relevant requirements of Montana law. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal, d. Information from the owner(s) of the facility concerning the proposed use or discontinuance of the facility. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 10 9. Water and Sewer Provide an engineering design report and/or other documentation demonstrating that adequate water distribution systems and capacity, and sewage collection and disposal systems and capacity, exists or will be provided to serve the proposed subdivision consistent with the city's adopted design standards and chapter 40. Response: The City of Bozeman approved the infrastructure plans for water and sewer and provided a letter indicating that adequate capacity exists within the City system to serve the proposed subdivision. The water and sewer infrastructure were completed in 2020 per the approved infrastructure plans. New water and sewer infrastructure is already installed on the site to serve the future development’s residents. As-built drawings were submitted to the City and approved. The sewer main was connected to the existing City of Bozeman system on South 19th Avenue. The water main was connected to the existing City of Bozeman system at the existing stub of Lantern drive and provided future connection at the intersection of Lantern Drive and South 21st Avenue. Water and sewer design reports are included in this submittal. a. Water rights. Describe how the proposed subdivision intends to satisfy section 38.410.130. Provide documentation of all water rights appurtenant to the proposed subdivision; e.g. previous estimates or actual payment-in-lieu of water rights, certified well logs, decrees or adjudications, etc. Response: Cash-in-lieu of water rights are proposed to be paid prior to final plat. b. The information needed to demonstrate proposed compliance with division 38.270. Special care is needed when concurrent construction is proposed. Response: Acknowledged. 9. Water and Sewer –Sewer and Water Report 11 10. Stormwater Management A stormwater management plan meeting the requirements of section 40.04.700 and the city's adopted stormwater master plan. Response: The City of Bozeman approved the infrastructure plans for stormwater, and the stormwater infrastructure was installed in 2020. The previously submitted and approved stormwater report is included in this submittal. 10. Stormwater Management – Stormwater Report Nexus Point Stormwater Design Report Page 1 of 2 NEXUS POINT MASTER SITE PLAN 3747 SOUTH 19TH AVENUE, BOZEMAN, MT STORMWATER DESIGN REPORT A. Introduction The proposed development for the Nexus Point Master Site Plan will be constructed at 3747 South 19th Avenue in Bozeman, MT. The site will be developed in phases consisting of residential and office buildings and associated infrastructure and parking facilities. The infrastructure will be installed for the entire site during Phase 1 of development. The site will contain stormwater infrastructure including curb inlets throughout the site that drain to a stormwater detention basin with underground R Tank chamber system located underneath. Said basin and R Tank system is located in the northwest portion of the site. The following references were used in the preparation of this report: a. COB Design Standards and Specifications Policy, 2004 (DSSP). Addendum #6 b. COB Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) B. Stormwater Management Stormwater from the proposed parking lot areas and roads will be graded to flow into various curb inlets and area drains throughout the site. An underground pipe network consisting of 15- inch to 21-inch diameter Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS) plastic corrugated pipe will carry stormwater to the proposed detention basin with underground R Tank chamber system located underneath. Stormwater will enter the R Tank system first. When the R Tank becomes full, it will overflow into the at-grade detention basin through a 24-inch by 36-inch area drain overflow structure. Stormwater run-off was calculated based on the Rational Method and the detention basin was sized per the City of Bozeman’s design standards for a storm intensity of 10-year frequency and a 2-hour duration. Additionally, the stormwater runoff from the first half inch of rainfall from a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation was calculated by multiplying 0.5 inches by the total impervious area within the site (per Bozeman DSSP II.A.4). The difference between the required detention volume and the volume of the first half inch of rainfall is detained within the detention basin. The volume of the first half inch of rainfall is retained within an underground R Tank chamber system located underneath the detention basin. A summary table of the detention system is provided in Table 1. Nexus Point Stormwater Design Report Page 2 of 2 Property Detention Basin R Tank Side slopes 4:1 (H:V) N/A Water design depth (ft) 1.0 2.17 Freeboard (ft) 1.0 N/A Bottom elevation (ft) 4949.33 4953.0 Storage volume (cf) 3,438 14,577 Number of chambers N/A 2,297 Table 1 Detention basin and R Tank summary C. Gutter and curb inlet adequacy check The gutters and curb inlets located in the streets that received surface flow from the site were checked for capacity. All gutters and standard Neenah Foundry R-3067-L 24-inch by 36-inch curb inlet grates are adequate to handle the runoff from a 25-year storm event. The curb inlets located in low points within the parking lots were check for capacity using a capacity chart provided by Neenah Foundry for the typical R-3067-L inlet grate. See Appendix B for more information. D. Pipe sizing All ADS storm drain pipes were sized to accommodate the 25-year storm event per Bozeman design standards. See Appendix C for more information. Appendices A. Stormwater basin calculations B. Gutter and curb inlet adequacy check C. Pipe sizing calculations D. Stormwater Maintenance Plan E. Drainage Exhibit G:\MADISON ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\2018\18-127 Nexus Point\Storm\STORMWATER MAINTENANCE PLAN.doc STORMWATER MAINTENANCE PLAN Nexus Point Owner’s responsibility for routine inspection and maintenance 1. Keep the inlets of the facilities free of leaves, rocks, and other debris. 2. The storm water basin is to be mowed regularly. During the summer, approximately once every two weeks, the grass is to be mowed and the cuttings are to be promptly removed and disposed of. Unless visibly tainted, dispose of lawn clippings in the same manner as yard waste. Otherwise, bag and take to a sanitary landfill. 3. Re-sod damaged or maintained areas immediately, or use grass plugs from the adjacent up-slope area. 4. See that litter and other debris are removed from inlets, swales, and vegetated and paved areas. 5. Maintenance of the underground systems are as follows: • Minimum required maintenance includes a quarterly inspection during the first year of operation and a yearly inspection thereafter. Utilize inspection ports for inspections. • The inspection ports can be used to pump water into the system and re- suspend accumulated sediment so that is may be pumped out. Flush and pump as inspections deem necessary. • Utilize the adjacent upstream storm sewer manhole or cleanout for removal (vacuuming) of debris from the end of the storm drain at the connection point with the underground chamber. 6. Owner to maintain and fund Operation and Maintenance of stormwater facilities. _______________________________ Steve Moore, Owner’s Representative 12 11. Streets, Roads, and Alleys a. Description. Describe any proposed new public or private streets, roads or alley, or substantial improvements of existing public or private streets, roads or alleys. The developer must demonstrate that the land to be subdivided has access onto a legal street and the future streets will be consistent with the city's adopted design standards, article 34.4, the long range transportation plan, and other relevant standards. Response: The City of Bozeman has approved the infrastructure plans for streets, roads, and alleys. Roadway easements were dedicated with the Site Plan application and the roadways were constructed in 2020. An extension of existing Lantern Drive ties into proposed South 21st Avenue. South 21st Avenue connects to proposed Arnold Street. Arnold street connects existing Discovery Drive to Existing South 19th Avenue. The local public roadway extensions will maintain a 60’ ROW and will be installed per City of Bozeman and MDEQ roadway standards. Upon acceptance of Lantern Drive, South 21st Avenue, and Arnold Street these roads will be maintained by the City of Bozeman. Included in this submittal is the roadway sheets from the approved infrastructure improvements set. All construction activities in the area were required to have adequate dust control and erosion control practices in place during construction. All interior roadways were constructed by the developer and maintained through construction. A traffic impact study was performed by Marvin & Associates for Nexus Point and Graf Street Subdivision and is included in this submittal. b. Bicycle and pedestrian pathways, lanes and routes. Describe bicycle and pedestrian pathways, lanes or routes to be developed with the development. Response: The subdivision has several different pedestrian pathways including a 10’ wide public concrete sidewalk running North-South located on the West end of the site. An 8’ wide gravel trail running North-South located on East end of the site connecting to Lantern Park and existing sidewalk located along South 19th Avenue. c. Access to arterial. Discuss whether any of the individual lots or tracts have access directly to arterial streets or roads, and if so, the reason access was not provided by means of a street within the subdivision and how the access complies with section 38.400.090. Response: No individual lots or tracts have access directly to arterial streets or roads. d. Modification of existing streets, roads or alleys. Explain any proposed closure or modification of existing streets, roads or alleys. Response: Discovery Drive was modified for the intersection of proposed Arnold Street on the west end of the site. Arnold street intersects with the widening of South 19th Avenue on the east end of the site. Lantern Drive was extended to intersect with the proposed South 21st Avenue. 13 Response: There are no proposed alleys located within the subdivision. Adequate dust control and erosion control practices were maintained during construction. f. Pollution and erosion. Explain how street, road and alley maintenance will be provided to meet the department of environmental quality guidelines for prevention of water pollution and erosion and who is proposed to provide the required maintenance. Response: The public roads South 21st Avenue, Arnold Street, and the Lantern Drive extension are dedicated to the City and will be maintained by the City. Interior drive lanes beyond the right of way will be maintained by the homeowner’s association or their respective owners. g. Traffic generation. Discuss how much daily traffic will be generated on existing local and neighborhood streets, roads and alleys, when the subdivision is fully developed, and provide the following information: 1. The report format must be as follows: a. Trip generation, using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual; b. Trip distribution; c. Traffic assignment; d. Capacity analysis; e. Evaluation; and f. Recommended access plan, including access points, modifications, and any mitigation techniques if level of service does not meet level of service standard. 2. The report must include the following information: a. Land use and trip generation in the form of a table of each type of land use, the number of units or square footage, as appropriate, the trip rates used (daily and peak) and resulting trip generation. b. Traffic graphics, which show: i. A.M. peak hour site traffic; ii. P.M. peak hour site traffic; iii. A.M. peak hour total traffic; iv. P.M. peak hour total traffic; and v. Total daily traffic (with site-generated traffic shown separately). c. A.M. and P.M. capacity analysis with an A.M. and P.M. peak-hour capacity analysis provided for: 14 i. All major drive accesses that intersect collector or arterial streets or roads; and ii. 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. d. For two-way stop controlled intersections, analysis of whether the intersection would satisfy signalization warrants if the two-way stop control was removed. Response: Refer to traffic impact study included in submittal. h. Capacity. Indicate the levels of service (before and after development) of existing and proposed streets and roads, including appropriate intersections, to safely handle any increased traffic. Describe any anticipated increased maintenance that will be necessary due to increased traffic and who will pay the cost of maintenance. Response: Refer to traffic impact study included in submittal. i. Traffic calming. Detailed drawings of any proposed traffic calming installations, including locations and turning radius templates. Response: No Traffic calming curb bulbs proposed. j. The information needed to demonstrate proposed compliance with division 38.270. Special care is needed when concurrent construction is proposed. Response: Acknowledged. 11. Streets, Roads & Alleys – Infrastructure Improvements Roadway Sheets LanternDrS. 21st.AveLANTERN DRIVE ALIGNMENT DATADETAIL1C2.0TYPICAL LOCAL ST. ROADWAY SECTIONNEXUS POINT LANTERN DRIVE PLAN & PROFILE BOZEMAN, MTSHEETMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD. STE. 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262NEXUS POINTROADWAYC2.0LANTERN DRIVE PLANLANTERN DRIVE PROFILE1" =0SCALE30'601530DATUMLANTERN DRIVES. 21st AVE. SEE C2.1LANTERN DRIVE ArnoldStS. 21st.AveS 21st AVE. ALIGNMENT DATANEXUS POINT S. 21st AVE. PLAN & PROFILE BOZEMAN, MTSHEETMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD. STE. 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262NEXUS POINTROADWAYC2.1S. 21st AVE. PLANS. 21st AVE. PROFILE1" =0SCALE30'601530DATUMS. 21st. AVE.ARNOLD STREET SEE C2.2 LANTERN LANESEE C2.0 DISCOVERY DRIVE Arnol d St Di s c o v e r y Dr NEXUS POINT ARNOLD STREET PLAN & PROFILE BOZEMAN, MTSHEETMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD. STE. 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262NEXUS POINTROADWAYC2.2MATCH LINE STA 8+00 MATCH LINE STA 8+00 ARNOLD STREET PLANARNOLD STREET PROFILE1" =0SCALE30'601530DATUMARNOLD STREETARNOLD STREETS. 21st AVE. SEE C2.1 DETAIL1C2.2CONCRETE CLASS 1 TRAIL AHEADAHEAD ARNOLD STREET ALIGNMENT DATANEXUS POINT ARNOLD STREET PLAN & PROFILE BOZEMAN, MTSHEETMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD. STE. 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 (406) 586-0262NEXUS POINTROADWAYC2.3MATCH LINE STA 8+00MATCH LINE STA 8+00 ARNOLD STREETS 19th AVEARNOLD STREET PLANARNOLD STREET PROFILE1" =0SCALE30'601530DATUM 11. Streets, Roads, & Alleys – Traffic Impact Study TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REPORT for NEXUS POINT & GRAF STREET APARTMENTS Bozeman, Montana Prepared for Madison Engineering Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 December 3, 2019 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REPORT for NEXUS POINT & GRAF STREET APARTMENTS Bozeman, Montana Prepared for Madison Engineering Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 December 3, 2019 P.T.O.E. # 259 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Streets & Intersections 3 Existing Traffic Volumes 6 Speeds 6 Existing Capacity 8 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 9 Trip Generation 9 Trip Distribution 11 Site Traffic Assignment 14 Traffic Redistribution 16 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 16 Existing Plus Development Traffic Volumes 16 Existing Plus Site Traffic Capacity 18 Future Traffic Assignment 19 Future Traffic Volumes 21 Future Capacity 23 CONCLUSIONS 24 APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC COUNT DATA APPENDIX B – CAPACITY CALCULATIONS ii LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Existing Peak AM & PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 8 Table 2. Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Trip Generation 10 Table 3. Existing Plus Site Peak Am & PM Capacity Analysis Summary 19 Table 4. Future Year 2038 AM & PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 23 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Site Location & Study Intersections 2 Figure 2. 2019 Traffic Volume Counts 7 Figure 3. Initial & Future Trip Distribution 12 Figure 4. Full Development Traffic Volume Assignments on Existing Street System 15 Figure 5. Full Development Traffic Plus Existing Street System Volumes 17 Figure 6. Full Development Traffic Volume Assignments on Future Street System 20 Figure 7. Future Traffic with Study Site Development an All In-process Developments Year 2038 22 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Traffic Impact Study MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 1 INTRODUCTION The following narratives serve as a summary report of operational impacts that could be associated with the proposed Nexus Point and Graf Street Apartments development. The narratives, figures, and appendix encompass all of the intersections that would potentially be impacted by these developments. Since Nexus Point and Graf Street Apartments developments are adjacent to each other and share accesses to the surrounding street system, this traffic impact study (TIS) addresses impacts of both developments combined. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT The Graf Street Apartments development is located in the northwest corner of the S 19th Avenue and Graf Street intersection (see Figure 1). The Nexus Point development is located immediately north of the Graf Street Apartments development and extends north to the Genesis Subdivision, south of Stucky Road. Developed property within the Meadow Creek Subdivision exists on the western boundary of the two developments. The Nexus Point development will accommodate 120 apartments in the first Phase of development and 120 apartments, with approximately 16,000 of office space, in Phase 2 of planned development. The Graf Street Apartments development would accommodate 198 apartments in the initial development phase and 262 apartments in Phase 2, at some future date. When fully occupied, the two properties would have 700 apartments and 16,000 sf of office space. Three internal streets would be constructed as part of the development infrastructure, as shown in Figure 1. The developments would have two main accesses to the street system. One on S 19th Avenue at the future extension of Arnold Street from S 11th Avenue to S 19th Avenue and one on Graf Street. Two minor accesses would be created via local street connections on the west side of the developments. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 2 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 3 This Traffic Impact Study (TIS) addresses potential impacts associated with full development of the Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments developments and includes all arterial and collector street intersections within a 0.5-mile radius of the development. Those intersections Include S 19th Avenue intersections with Kagy Boulevard, Stucky Road, and Graf Street, along with S 11th Avenue, and S 27th Avenue intersections with Graf Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets & Intersections South 19th Avenue is a Principal Arterial north-south oriented roadway that begins at an intersection with Cottonwood Road, approximately 6 miles south of Graf Street, and continues north approximately 4.5 miles to an interchange with Interstate 90. South 19th Avenue has variable pavement widths and varying speed zones along its length. At its intersection with Graf Street, it is approximately 62’ wide and has two southbound through lanes; two northbound through lanes; and auxiliary northbound and southbound left-turn lanes. An extension of Graf Street from S 19th Avenue to S 3rd Avenue along with traffic signal modifications were recently constructed at S 19th Avenue & Graf Street intersection. North of Graf Street, South 19th Avenue transitions to a two lane road section and then transitions back to a wider section at S 19th Avenue’s intersection with Stucky Road, approximately 0.5 miles north of Graf Street. The intersection of Stucky Road and South 19th Avenue is similar to the Graf Street intersection except that there is only one southbound through lane on the departure side of the intersection and there are no curb and gutter sections along South 19th Avenue. The traffic signal at Stucky Road and South 19th Avenue is fully operational and provides two signal phases for the “T” type intersection. A project to extend Campus Boulevard from S 11th Avenue to S 19th Avenue is planned to be constructed in the summer of 2019 as part of the South University MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 4 District Block 5 development. That project will include pavement widening on the east side of S 19th Avenue, which will complete the east side portion of the future 5-lane roadway section and signal modifications will be made to accommodate the addition of the Campus Boulevard extension. Improvements associated with the Nexus Point and Graf Street Apartments development involves construction of the west side of S 19th Avenue from Graf Street north to the end of the adjacent study property. Graf Street and Stucky Road are both classified as Collector streets within the Urban Transportation Plan. They both provide access to residential and institutional developments west of South 19th Avenue. Both of the intersections have two approach lanes at their intersections with South 19th Avenue. Graf Street is approximately 50’ wide and accommodates a single lane of traffic in each direction with bike lanes and parking on both sides of the street. Stucky Road is approximately 40’ wide at its intersection with South 19th Avenue and tapers back to a width of approximately 28’ west of the intersection. Future improvements to Stucky Road are within Bozeman’s CIP and would include widening west of S 19th Avenue. Kagy Boulevard is currently a three lane street with bike lanes in both directions. Kagy Boulevard extends from a termini point just west of S. 19th Avenue, past the MSU campus, to rural areas east of Bozeman. Improvements to Kagy Boulevard are currently under design by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and construction is slated to begin in the year 2021 or 2022. The proposed improvements include a five lane street section with dual lane roundabouts at three intersections east of S 19th Avenue. Design hour traffic was incorporated into planning of the construction project and already includes total development of the Nexus Point & Graf Street developments as well as all other platted and potential developments that could exist in the design year of 2038. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 5 South 11th Avenue extends from a point south of Graf Street, thru the MSU campus, to an intersection with Durston Road. South of Kagy Boulevard, it currently operates with one lane for each direction of travel, a center turn lane, and bikes lanes on either side. At its intersection with Kagy Boulevard, it accommodates a separate left-turn lane and a thru/right-turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches to that intersection have the same lane configuration and the traffic signal utilizes protected/permissive signal phasing for eastbound left-turns on Kagy Boulevard. Graf Street is a collector street that begins approximately one mile west of S 19th Avenue and extends east to its intersection with S 3rd Avenue. The portion of Graf Street between S 19th Avenue and S 11th Avenue was constructed approximately 2-years ago and has two thru traffic lanes and a center turn lane available to accommodate future development along its length. A single lane roundabout controls traffic at its intersection with S 11th Avenue. Arnold Street is an east-west residential street that begins just east of S. 3rd Avenue and terminates at barricades approximately 0.3 miles west of S. 3rd Avenue adjacent to an elementary school. The site improvements for Allison Subdivision would extend Arnold Street from the east to S 11th Avenue. Future development between S 11th Avenue and S 19th Avenue will eventually extend Arnold Street to the west, intersecting S 19th Avenue at the Arnold Street access to the Nexus Point development. S 27th Avenue does not currently exist north of Graf Street, but a portion of it will be constructed as part of the Gran Cielo Subdivision development improvements in the summer of 2019. Future developments north of Gran Cielo will complete a connection between Graf Street and Stucky Road that will eventually became part of the S 27th Avenue collector street. Graf Street will also be extended to the west along the southern boundary of Gran Cielo Subdivision. These improvements will create a new 4-legged intersection. At the present time, the MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 6 intersection of Graf Street and S 27th Avenue has 2-legs and operates as a sharp horizontal curve in the roadway. Existing Traffic Volumes Mio-vision video traffic counters were used to count traffic at all of the potentially impacted intersections in 2018 and 2019 (see Appendix A). Even though 2018 traffic counts for most of the Intersections were available, the extension of S11th Avenue from Graf to Kagy was not open until late summer of 2018, after traffic counts were completed. In comparing the 2019 counts to the 2018 counts, it could be seen that there was a significant traffic shift created by the S 11th Avenue extension, at all of the intersections, with less traffic on Kagy Boulevard and more traffic on Graf Street and S 11th Avenue. All of the counts were balanced to account for variations attributed to different count days and months. Figure 2 illustrates traffic counts that represent the existing (2019) am and PM hour volumes that were used as the baseline for capacity calculations within this study. Also shown in Figure 2, are the Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) volumes that were calculated using the percentage variations that were extracted from earlier 24 hour counting periods. Pedestrian volumes for each intersection having any significant pedestrian activity are also noted in Figure 2. Even though bicycle traffic was noted during the counting periods, it was not significant enough to factor into the analysis. Speeds Speed data was also collected with the electronic counters, specifically on South 19th Avenue north of Graf Street. Appendix B contains the statistical analysis of speed data for that location. It was determined from the speed statistics that the southbound traffic had an 85th percentile speed of approximately 54 miles per hour (mph) which was identical to the 85th percentile speed of 54 mph in the northbound direction. The posted speed limit of 50 mph appears to be in an acceptable range of 85th percentile speeds. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 7 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 8 Existing Capacity Capacity calculations were completed for the four of the study intersections. Table 1 summarizes the results of those calculations using Delay, Level-of- service (LOS), and Vehicle Queue projections as Measures of Effectiveness (MOE). Capacity calculations can be found in Appendix C of this report. All intersections currently operate at LOS “C” or better. Only one intersection approach operates below LOS “C”. The eastbound approach to S 19th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard operate at LOS “D” in the peak am hour. This approach lane only accommodates 33 vehicles during that hour of the day. Delay Max Delay Max Delay Max Delay Max Delay (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Kagy Boulevard & S 19th Avenue AM Hour 47.0 D 1 28.7 C 9 30.9 C 9 28.1 C 15 29.6 C Kagy Boulevard & S 19th Avenue PM Hour 45.8 B 3 20.7 C 6 27.3 C 6 23.3 C 9 24.7 C S19th Avenue & Stucky Road AM Hour 20.5 C 5 18.0 B 8 19.5 B 6 18.9 B S19th Avenue & Stucky Road PM Hour 23.5 C 6 12.3 B 6 30.2 C 14 23.9 C S19th Avenue & Graf Street AM Hour 20.3 C 2 23.3 C 4 18.5 B 5 11.5 B 3 17.7 B S19th Avenue & Graf Street PM Hour 20.9 C 2 23.3 C 4 17.2 B 3 15.9 B 6 17.3 B Graf Street & S 11th Avenue AM Hour 5.1 A 2 5.7 A 2 5.3 A 1 4.3 A 1 5.3 A Graf Street & S 11th Avenue PM Hour 4.5 A 1 3.9 A 1 3.9 A 1 4.3 A 1 4.2 A Intersection Table 1 Existing Peak AM & PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary EB WB Intersection NB SB MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 9 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Trip Generation The proposed development of Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments development includes a mixture of apartments and general office buildings. Approximately 700 apartment units and 16,000 square feet of office space comprise the development plans. The current ITE Trip Generation Report is Edition 10, which has a number of apartment land use codes. After careful review of apartments characteristics, it was determined that ITE Land Use Code 221 “Mid-rise Apartments” would best represent the proposed apartment being planned in the Nexus Point and Graf Street Apartments development. Land Use Code 710 “General Offices” was used for the office buildings in Phase 2 of the Nexus Point development. Table 2, on the following page, summarizes the total vehicular and pedestrian/bike trip generation for this development, based upon the above noted ITE Land Use Codes. The 700 apartment units would generate approximately 3,987 trips on the average weekday. During the peak AM hour, there would be 256 trips and during the peak PM hour there would be 313 trips. Adjustments for trip mode were estimated based on walking distance less than a mile to and from surrounding attractors including the MSU campus. A relatively low estimate of 10% of the trips would be made by bicycle or pedestrian modes. The 10% estimate reflects the 2010 census data for work trips by mode, which indicates that 5% of work trips are by bicycle and 9% are made by walking within the Bozeman urbanized area. The 10% estimate for this study was used instead of 14% because the site would not immediately be surrounded by urban development and would be less likely to generate pedestrian and bicycle trips meeting average conditions in the Bozeman urban area, even though the proximity to the MSU campus would probably encourage higher than average bicycle usage. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 10 No. of Rate Total Total Total Units Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Enter Exit Rate Trips Enter Exit Phase 1 Code 221 Mid-Rise Apartment 120 Apt. Unit 1 653 2 41 11 30 3 53 32 21 Phase 2 Code 221 Mid-Rise Apartment 120 Apt. Unit 1 653 2 41 8 33 3 53 32 21 Code 710 General Offices 16 1,000 S.F.4 179 5 19 16 3 6 10 2 8 1485 101 35 66 116 66 50 Code 221 Mid-Rise Apartment 166 Apt. Unit 1 903 2 56 15 41 3 72 44 28 2388 157 50 107 188 110 78 1 - T = 5.44(X) 4 - Ln(T) = 0.97Ln(X)+2.50 239 16 5 11 19 11 8 119 8 3 5 9 6 3 358 24 8 16 28 17 11 2030 133 42 91 160 93 67Total Development Net Vehicular Trips = Peak AM HourAve. Weekday Peak PM Hour Nexus Point Total Potential Trips = Total Trip Mode and Class Reductions = NEXUS POINT SUBDIVISION GRAF STREET APARTMENTS TOTAL TRIPS BOTH DEVELOPMENTS = Trip Mode & Class Adjustments Internal Capture Within Subdivision Table 2. Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Trip Generation 2 - Ln(T) = 0.98Ln(X)-.98 (26% enter) 5 - T = 1.16(X) (86% enter) 3 - Ln(T) = 0.96Ln(X)-.63 (61% enter) 6 - Ln(T) = 0.95Ln(X)-.36 (16% enter) Pedestrian & Bike Modes In addition, office buildings within the development and a planned community center would have the potential for Internal Capture Trips (ICT), where a portion of the trips would not be external to the development site. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that ICT adjustments are typically evaluated when developments areas range between 100,000 and one million square feet. The combined area of the two study subdivisions is approximately 200,000 square feet and share internal streets and paths. In this case, the mixed use involves a community center which includes services tailored to the needs of the apartment dwellers, such as open space, a pool, and a club house. When considering that the apartments would most likely be occupied by younger age residents, the community center has the potential to attract a substantial number of trips. It was estimated that approximately 5% of the trips would be Internal Capture Trips. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 11 Adjustments for trip mode and classification results in net vehicular trips of 3,389 AWT, 217 trips in the peak AM hour and 266 in the peak PM hour. Overall, the trip generation rates contained herein would produce the maximum vehicular traffic volumes that could be attributed to this development. Trip Distribution The apartment complex within the study site will not be leased exclusively by students or workers at MSU and lacking any kind of projection on how many students and MSU workers will occupy the apartments, the most accurate method of distributing traffic is to mirror travel patterns from adjacent residential developments. Disaggregation of directional movements at surrounding intersections results in a valid and dependable method of determining the relatively travel demand that exists between origins and external destinations. Therefore, trip distribution for this study was based upon existing directional traffic movements at key intersections adjacent to the development site. The calculated trip distribution percentages are shown in Figure 3. Typically trip distribution percentages are shown on key streets within the study boundaries and not extended to intersections external to the study area. What is not shown, in this case, is the distribution of trips north of Kagy Boulevard on S 19th Avenue that actually include trips that go to or come from the campus on Lincoln Street and on College Street. Ten percent of the trips would be destined to MSU on S 11th Avenue and all of the 4% trips on the Campus Boulevard extension would be destined to MSU. All things considered, trips that would appear as traffic on MSU Campus Streets would be approximately 44%. This indicates that the MSU Campus would be a major attraction for trips to and from the site development. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 12 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 13 Travel times to and from areas within the development to and from adjacent street accesses were also considered in modeling of directional routing. Figure 3 presents the overall distribution of site generated trips to and from the existing street system. Approximately 43% of development generated trips would be directed to and from the north/west on S 19th Avenue, with 44% of the trips directed to and from the east/north on Kagy, Campus and Graf Street. Minor attractions south of the site would result only in 8% of the total vehicular trips using S 19th Avenue to and from the site. In the future, when S 27th Avenue connects Graf Street and Stucky Road, approximately 4% of the trips would utilize Graf Street to access Stucky Road. Also, when Arnold Street connects S 19th Avenue and S 11th Avenue, 4% of the trips to and from the north and east would use Arnold Street rather than Campus Boulevard. Figure 3. also includes distribution percentages at key intersections to illustrate distribution overlap conditions that occur specifically along S 19th Avenue north of Graf Street and at the intersection of Graf Street and S 19th Avenue. Without the directional turn percentages shown, it would appear that 68% of the site access traffic would turn left onto S 19th Avenue. In actuality, 11% of the trips would be directed to and from the south and 57% would be directed to and from the north. Site access distributions are based on the least travel time paths from the internal subdivision streets to and from the adjacent streets. All of the site access distributions are based on “Unconstrained” conditions, where intersection delays based on capacity constraints are not considered in traffic distribution. Operational constraints are considered in the final traffic assignment analysis. The intersection of Discovery Drive and Arnold Street would only serve trips with an origin or destination on to Stuckey Road (4% of total) and the only segment of the site development that would benefit from routing through the local streets to Stuckey Road would be a small segment of the northwest corner of the Nexus Subdivision representing about 5% of the total development. The distribution on MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 14 Discovery Lane would then amount to approximately 0.2% trips which would be 6 vehicles on the average weekday and 0.5 vehicles in the peak pm hour. It would be meaningless to include this intersection within the study impact analysis for less than one additional vehicle in the peak pm hour. Site Traffic Assignment Site traffic assignments were completed using the trip generation projections in Table 2 and the trip distribution percentages discussed in a preceding section. The traffic assignment projection is based on the development of Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments with access to S 19th Avenue and Graf Street. It is also assumed that the Campus Boulevard extension west to S 11th Avenue and related improvements to the traffic signal at Stucky Road and S 19th Avenue will be in-place prior to any development within the study site. This assumption is based on knowledge that the project is in the final stages of design and there is a high probability that construction will begin in the year 2020. From our experience with past projects in Bozeman, it is very likely that any significant development within the study site would take 2 to 3 years. If the Campus Boulevard extension is not completed within the next 2 to 3 years, it would likely be due to economic conditions which would also affect the construction schedule of the study development. For these reasons, it is believed that the assumption is valid. If for any reason that the Campus Boulevard extension is not completed prior to full development of the study site, the traffic assignment would only amount to 10 vehicles in the peak pm hour which would not appreciably change any of the study conclusions. The traffic assignments shown in Figure 4 illustrate the peak AM and PM hour site traffic at the key intersections, along with average weekday vehicular site traffic on the street system links. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 15 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 16 Traffic Redistribution Since the proposed development’s internal streets would connect to existing local streets on the site’s western boundary, there is some potential for existing traffic to use Arnold Street to access S 19th Avenue. Travel time calculations were completed to determine shortest routes using Arnold Street instead of Graf Street or Stucky Road. It was determined that the Arnold Street connection to S 19th Avenue would have a slightly longer travel time than the Stucky Road or Graf Street paths to S 19th Avenue. Therefore, the future Arnold Street Connection would not redistribute traffic from developments west of the site property boundaries. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Existing Plus Development Traffic Volumes Figure 5 illustrates the combination of existing AM and PM design hour traffic volumes and site development generated traffic at each of the key study intersections for the Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments development. Also shown in Figure 5 are the resultant AWT volumes and the percentage increases over existing traffic that would be attributable to this development. Graf Street west of S 19th Avenue would have the highest percentage increase of any of the area streets at 49%. Graf Street, east of S 19th Avenue, would have an increase of 23% AWT. S 19th Avenue, north of Arnold Street would have the highest volume increase, which would translate into a 20% increase over existing traffic and 13% north of Stucky Road. Both Graf Street and S 11th Avenue east and north of their intersection would see an increase greater than 10% of existing AWT. All of the other existing streets would have percentage increases less than 10%. It should be noted that normally, traffic impacts on streets that are less than 10% are not considered to be significant because daily traffic variations on any street routinely exceed 10%. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 17 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 18 Existing Plus Site Traffic Capacity Table 3 presents a summary of capacity calculations for existing plus full development site traffic (see Appendix C). Table 3 indicates that almost all of the study intersections would operate at LOS “C” or better during both the AM and PM hour periods, if the Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments developments existed today. The only movements operating below LOS “C” would be the eastbound approach at the intersection of S 19th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard, which would remain at LOS “D” in the peak AM hour and in the peak PM hour, that approach would also be degraded to LOS “D”. Both of the site access would operate at acceptable levels. All movements at the access intersections would be LOS “A” except for the eastbound Arnold Street access which would operate at LOS “B” in the AM hour and LOS “C” in the PM Hour. In comparing Table 3 to Table 1, it can be seen that there are slight variations in the LOS and delay for individual approaches, but the overall intersection operations would not experience LOS changes. Queue lengths would vary within individual lanes, but none of the lanes would experience an increase in vehicle queues exceeding available storage or interfere with access movements adjacent to the intersections. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 19 Delay Max Delay Max Delay Max Delay Max Delay (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Kagy Boulevard & S 19th Avenue AM Hour 47.5 D 1 29.5 C 7 32.6 C 12 32.3 C 14 32.3 C Kagy Boulevard & S 19th Avenue PM Hour 45.7 D 3 21.6 C 7 27.8 C 6 24.4 C 10 25.6 C S19th Avenue & Stucky Road AM Hour 15.0 B 4 25.2 C 1 26.7 C 7 19.9 B 8 22.5 C S19th Avenue & Stucky Road PM Hour 28.1 C 6 33.7 C 1 12.1 B 1 17.4 B 12 18.1 B S19th Avenue & Graf Street AM Hour 20.8 C 3 21.5 C 2 18.5 B 5 11.6 B 3 17.3 B S19th Avenue & Graf Street PM Hour 21.2 C 2 21.7 C 4 17.0 B 3 16.2 B 6 17.6 B Graf Street & S 11th Avenue AM Hour 5.2 A 2 5.9 A 2 5.3 A 1 4.3 A 1 5.4 A Graf Street & S 11th Avenue PM Hour 5.2 A 2 4.4 A 1 4.2 A 1 5.0 A 1 4.8 A S 19TH Avenue & Arnold Street AM 14.3 B 1 8.0 A 0 S 19TH Avenue & Arnold Street PM 17.1 C 1 9.3 A 1 Graf Street & Site Access AM Hour 7.3 A 0 9.9 A 1 Graf Street & Site Access PM Hour 7.6 A 0 10.1 B 1 Intersection Table 3 Existing Plus Site Peak AM & PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary EB WB NB SB Intersection Future Traffic Assignment Figure 6, on the following page, illustrates the AWT and the peak AM and PM hour site traffic assignment based on future trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 3. The traffic volume assignments were also based on the existence of known planned street system connections and improvements in the year 2038. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 20 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 21 Future Traffic Volumes Traffic projections for future conditions were developed by incorporating all of the area’s planned development including all in-process platting and in-fill of platted subdivisions. Various design studies were also input to the projections including the Kagy Boulevard improvements; the Campus Boulevard extension project; the South University District development projects; and the Graf Street and S 3rd Avenue intersection improvement projects. Traffic projections included in those projects included the following known developments: Yellowstone Theological Institute Allison Annex Allison Subdivision South University District Phase 2 Apartments South University District Subdivision Block 5 COS 2661A Boylan Addition Kiefer Property MSU Parking Garage MOR Commercial Lot South Towne Square Bozeman Health Sub Area Zimmer-Nash Property Burkhart Property Meadow Creek Subdivision Gran Cielo Subdivision Figure 7 illustrates the traffic volume projections at all of the study intersections, including the site access intersections with S 19th Avenue and Graf Street. The AWT volumes shown in Figure 7 are substantially higher than existing traffic volumes, with S 19th Avenue north of Kagy Boulevard exceeding 31,000 vehicles per day in the year 2038. These volumes may overstate the future demand on S 19th Avenue somewhat because it was uncertain whether the S 27th Avenue collector street corridor would extend north of Stucky Road by the year 2038. That corridor could relieve traffic demand on S 19th Avenue to some extent and change traffic patterns on S 19th Avenue. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 22 MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 23 Future Capacity Table 4, below, presents a summary of the MOE’s for each intersection and for each approach at each of the intersections. Capacity calculations were not completed for the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and S 19th, since the future improvements are currently under design. Capacity calculations (see Appendix C) indicate that all intersections would operate at LOS “C” or better during both the AM and PM hour periods given year 2038 traffic projections and intersection conditions that will exist in the future. The only exceptions would be the southbound thru movement at S 19th Avenue & Stucky Road, which would operate at LOS “D” during the peak PM hour. The Arnold Street eastbound site approach would operate at LOS “F” during the peak AM and peak PM hours. Queue lengths would vary within individual lanes, but none of the lanes would experience an increase in vehicle queues that would exceed available storage or interfere with access movements. Delay Max Delay Max Delay Max Delay Max Delay (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS Queue (Sec) LOS S19th Avenue & Stucky Road AM Hour 17.2 B 5 33.9 C 3 33.0 C 10 25.6 C 7 28.2 C S19th Avenue & Stucky Road PM Hour 20.8 B 6 32.8 C 3 19.6 B 7 40.0 D 13 31.5 C S19th Avenue & Graf Street AM Hour 26.5 C 6 20.7 C 5 22.1 C 7 16.1 B 6 21.1 C S19th Avenue & Graf Street PM Hour 24.1 C 4 22.7 C 5 17.0 B 4 18.7 B 7 19.5 B Graf Street & S 11th Avenue AM Hour 9.2 A 4 12.8 B 6 10.8 B 3 6.7 A 1 10.4 B Graf Street & S 11th Avenue PM Hour 6.4 A 2 6.1 A 2 4.9 A 1 6.5 A 2 6.2 A S 19TH Avenue & Arnold Street AM 68.5 F 3 24.1 C 1 10.9 B 1 9.5 A 1 S 19TH Avenue & Arnold Street PM 68.5 F 3 24.1 C 1 10.9 B 1 9.5 A 1 Graf Street & Site Access AM Hour 7.6 A 0 12.8 B 1 Graf Street & Site Access PM Hour 8.2 A 0 14.1 B 1 Graf Street & S 27th Avenue Access AM Hour 7.3 A 0 7.5 A 1 9.6 A 1 10.9 B 1 Graf Street & S 27th Avenue PM Hour 7.5 A 0 7.5 A 1 9.5 A 1 11.9 B 1 Intersection Table 4 Future Year 2038 AM & PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 24 CONCLUSIONS The development of the Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments development property, as proposed, would not substantially impact the safety and efficiency of any of the area streets or intersections if it existed at the present time. The eastbound approach on S 19th Avenue, currently operates at LOS “D” in the AM and PM hours. However, the approach volumes are so low on that approach during the peak hour periods that the overall intersection operates at LOS “C” serving the majority of entering traffic. Considering that the Kagy Boulevard and S 19th Avenue intersection will be reconstructed as a part of the MDT project in the next three to four years, actual development in the Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments development would not be advanced sufficiently to impact current operations during that short time period. Future traffic (year 2038) on area streets is projected to increase significantly over current traffic volumes. Even with significant growth, in combination with full development of the Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments development, all of the key intersection would operate at or above LOS “C” and no mitigating measures would be required at the study intersections. At some point prior to the year 2038, alternative control measures may be required at the intersection of Arnold Street and S 19th Avenue. A traffic signal may be warranted by the year 2038. Other measures could be considered such as eliminating left turns from the eastbound and westbound approaches. This would then force site development traffic having a destination north of the site, to use Graf Street, which has more than enough reserve capacity to accommodate the eastbound left turn movement. With the high volume of future traffic projected on S 19th Avenue, MDT may, at some future date, consider a raised median on S 19th Avenue which would then allow elimination of some access movements. However, Arnold Street should operate in an efficient manner during the interim period. MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 N. Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102 Nexus Point & Graf Street Apartments Development Traffic Impact Study Page 25 MDT turn lane warrants were investigated for the southbound right turn movement at the Arnold Street intersection with S 19th Avenue. It was determined that a right turn lane would be warranted for that movements based on the existing plus full development site traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 with the proposed five lane street section. However, the right turn lane would not meet warrants until a point in time after Phase 1 developments are completed and fully occupied. At that point, an evaluation of traffic growth on S 19th Avenue can be reevaluated and a more specific plan could be developed for a traffic signal or roundabout installation. If a future traffic signal or roundabout is constructed, the warrants for an auxiliary right-turn lane would not apply. Thus, provisions should be made for a future traffic signal at the Intersection of S 19th Avenue and Arnold Lane. Appendix A TRAFFIC COUNT DATA Totals Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Entering 6:30 AM 3 16 8520029001569 6:45 AM 6 13 6910153102496 7:00 AM 6 19 8 25 2 0 4 56 0 0 2 16 138 7:15 AM 7 22 22 20 5 0 3 92 1038183 7:30 AM 6 25 28 27 4 3 13 87 2 2 14 17 228 7:45 AM 3 38 37 59 2 2 11 123 2 2 11 28 318 8:00 AM 14 35 61 68 4 2 13 115 1 0 11 17 341 8:15 AM 13 43 24 58 10 6 11 83 3 2 8 11 272 Total Peak Hour = 30 120 148 174 15 7 40 417 6 4 39 70 1070 PHF = 0.78 4:00 PM 14 96 33 31 11 10 3 55 1 7 5 12 278 4:15 PM 9 78 26 22 10 10 2 46 2 2 9 13 229 4:30 PM 9 78 38 23 4 7 2 66 1479248 4:45 PM 12 60 25 23 13 7 5 40 4 1 3 16 209 5:00 PM 15 97 46 33 5 10 3 63 4 1 3 11 291 5:15 PM 22 83 43 29 1 16 9 50 0369271 5:30 PM 28 93 32 29 20 15 3 51 1 4 2 17 295 5:45 PM 18 93 38 27 5 5 4 61 4 4 10 9 278 Total Peak Hour = 83 366 159 118 31 46 19 225 9 12 21 46 1135 PHF = 0.96 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Type Road Classification Totals S 19th Ave Graf St S 19th Ave Graf St Site Code Project Nexus Point & Graf St Apartments TIS Study Name 19th and Graf Start Date 04/03/2019 Start Time 6:30 AM Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Totals 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 1 1 5 12 26 0 2 7 10 6 33 10 113 7:45 AM 3 2 3 11 36 0156144112134 8:00 AM 3 8 8 21 35 0 4 28 23 37 35 8 210 8:15 AM 2 4 7 21 40 6 7 19 25 7 36 10 184 Peak Hour 9 15 23 65 137 6 14 59 64 64 145 40 641 PHF = 0.76 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 7 5 11 5 25 0042719590 5:00 PM 15 10 13 11 17 313111384127 5:15 PM 13 12 15 10 24 205514363139 5:30 PM 7 12 12 10 25 3 2 1 11 8 26 1 118 5:45 PM Peak Hour 42 39 51 36 91 8 3 13 19 40 119 13 474 PHF =0.85 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Type Road Classification Totals S 11th Ave Graf Street S 11th Ave Graf Street Site Code Project Marvin & Associates Study Name 11th & Graf Start Date 02/07/2019 & 02/08/2019 Start Time 7:30 AM Appendix B SPEED STATISTICS SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter) SITE :South 19th Avenue N of Graf DIRECTION:Northbound DATE:8/27/15 TIME:120 Hours SPEED SPEED CUMULATIVE RELATIVE CUMULATIVE VALUE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQ (%) FREQ (%) 0 to 35 35 4217 4217 19.61% 19.61% 36 to 40 40 1245 5462 5.79% 25.40% 41 to 45 45 2631 8093 12.23% 37.63% 46 to 50 50 5819 13912 27.06% 64.69% 51 to 55 55 5204 19116 24.20% 88.88% 56 to 60 60 1967 21083 9.15% 98.03% 61 to 65 65 271 21354 1.26% 99.29% 66 to 70 70 59 21413 0.27% 99.56% 71 to 75 75 43 21456 0.20% 99.76% 76 to 80 80 28 21484 0.13% 99.89% 81 to 85 85 16 21500 0.07% 99.97% 86 to 90 80 7 21507 0.03% 100.00% 0.00% TOTAL VEHICLES =21507 MEAN SPEED =48.34 mph 85TH PERCENTILE =54.20 mph PACE SPEED =46 mph TO 55 mph Number of Vehicles in Pace =11023 % of Total Vehicles in Pace =51.3% RANGE SPEED 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLESSPEED (MILES/HOUR) SIGMOID CURVE SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter) SITE :South 19th Avenue N of Graf DIRECTION:Southbound DATE:8/27/15 TIME:120 Hours SPEED SPEED CUMULATIVE RELATIVE CUMULATIVE VALUE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQ (%) FREQ (%) 0 to 35 35 659 659 3.56% 3.56% 36 to 40 40 2148 2807 11.61% 15.17% 41 to 45 45 5039 7846 27.23% 42.40% 46 to 50 50 5581 13427 30.16% 72.57% 51 to 55 55 3205 16632 17.32% 89.89% 56 to 60 60 1514 18146 8.18% 98.07% 61 to 65 65 259 18405 1.40% 99.47% 66 to 70 70 52 18457 0.28% 99.75% 71 to 75 75 25 18482 0.14% 99.89% 76 to 80 80 12 18494 0.06% 99.95% 81 to 85 85 7 18501 0.04% 99.99% 86 to 90 90 2 18503 0.01% 100.00% TOTAL VEHICLES =18503 MEAN SPEED =48.95 mph 85TH PERCENTILE =53.59 mph PACE SPEED =41 mph TO 50 mph Number of Vehicles in Pace =10620 % of Total Vehicles in Pace =57.4% RANGE SPEED 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLESSPEED (MILES/HOUR) SIGMOID CURVE SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter) SITE :South 19th Avenue N of Graf DIRECTION:Southbound & Northbound DATE:8/27/15 TIME:120 Hours SPEED SPEED CUMULATIVE RELATIVE CUMULATIVE VALUE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQ (%) FREQ (%) 0 to 15 15 4876 4876 12.19% 12.19% 16 to 20 20 3393 8269 8.48% 20.67% 21 to 25 25 7670 15939 19.17% 39.84% 26 to 30 30 11400 27339 28.49% 68.33% 31 to 35 35 8409 35748 21.02% 89.35% 36 to 40 40 3481 39229 8.70% 98.05% 41 to 45 45 530 39759 1.32% 99.37% 46 to 50 50 111 39870 0.28% 99.65% 51 to 55 55 68 39938 0.17% 99.82% 56 to 60 60 40 39978 0.10% 99.92% 61 to 65 65 23 40001 0.06% 99.98% 66 to 70 70 9 40010 0.02% 100.00% TOTAL VEHICLES =40010 750 MEAN SPEED =28.63 mph 85TH PERCENTILE =33.97 mph PACE SPEED =26 mph TO 35 mph Number of Vehicles in Pace =19809 % of Total Vehicles in Pace =49.5% RANGE SPEED 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLESSPEED (MILES/HOUR) SIGMOID CURVE Appendix C-1 EXISTING CAPACITY CALCULATIONS HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2019 R Marvin Peak AM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 4/13/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 AM 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 4 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 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 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 24 0.91 0 7 0.91 0 2 0.91 0 175 0.91 1 25 0.91 1 111 0.91 1 13 0.91 0 595 0.91 2 219 0.91 1 498 0.91 1 301 0.91 2 28 0.91 0 1 1 0 0 --- --- 50 0 0 0 --- --- 100 2 0 0 --- --- 5 1 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTR LTP LTR R L L LTP LTP 0 14.0 3.5 1.5 12.0 3.5 1.5 31.0 4.0 0.0 38.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 115.0 Sec 20.0 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 147 0.019 0.104 L 0.177 47.2 D 47.0 D T 198 0.004 0.104 T 0.040 46.4 D R 168 0.001 0.104 R 0.006 46.2 D WB Lper 203 0.000 0.148 28.7 C * Lpro 218 0.107 0.122 L 0.456 34.7 C T 507 0.014 0.270 T 0.053 31.1 C R 932 0.042 0.583 R 0.072 10.5 B NB Lper 312 0.000 0.383 30.9 C Lpro 487 0.008 0.270 L 0.018 7.4 A * T 1169 0.185 0.330 T 0.559 32.0 C R 527 0.082 0.330 R 0.249 28.2 C SB Lper 170 0.146 0.383 28.1 C * Lpro 482 0.270 0.270 L 0.839 27.7 C TR 1157 0.102 0.330 TR 0.308 28.8 C Intersection: Delay = 29.6sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.70 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.58 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2019 R Marvin Peak AM Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 4/13/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 AM App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 1 3.3 0.0 T 0 / 1 13.1 0.0 R 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 All 6.6 0.0 WB L 6 / 9 3.8 0.0 T 1 / 2 23.7 0.0 R 1 / 3 16.9 0.0 All 10.8 0.0 NB L 0 / 1 15.8 0.0 T 7 / 9 9.9 0.0 R 2 / 4 17.7 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 SB L 10 / 15 6.4 0.0 TR 4 / 7 12.4 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 Intersect. 9.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 24 7 2 175 25 111 13 595 219 498 301 28 1 13 24 2 11 24 2 11 24 3 31 04 3 31 04 3 31 04 4 38 24 4 38 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2019 R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 4/13/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 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 4 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 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 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 64 0.96 0 32 0.96 0 25 0.96 0 274 0.96 1 14 0.96 1 438 0.96 1 5 0.96 0 434 0.96 2 141 0.96 1 350 0.96 1 506 0.96 2 24 0.96 0 20 1 0 0 --- --- 180 0 0 0 --- --- 40 2 0 0 --- --- 5 1 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTR LTP LTR R L L LTP LTP 0 21.0 3.5 1.5 12.0 3.5 1.5 20.0 4.0 0.0 37.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 110.0 Sec 20.0 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 155 0.047 0.109 L 0.432 46.5 D 45.8 D T 207 0.017 0.109 T 0.159 44.6 D R 176 0.003 0.109 R 0.028 43.8 D WB Lper 191 0.000 0.155 20.7 C * Lpro 341 0.159 0.191 L 0.536 28.6 C T 650 0.008 0.345 T 0.023 23.8 C R 916 0.168 0.573 R 0.294 12.1 B NB Lper 225 0.000 0.391 27.3 C Lpro 328 0.003 0.182 L 0.009 11.0 B T 1190 0.128 0.336 T 0.380 27.8 C R 536 0.066 0.336 R 0.196 26.0 C SB Lper 268 0.058 0.391 23.3 C * Lpro 325 0.182 0.182 L 0.616 15.0 B * TR 1184 0.155 0.336 TR 0.462 28.8 C Intersection: Delay = 24.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.66 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2019 R Marvin Peak PM Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 4/13/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 PM App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 2 / 3 3.2 0.0 T 1 / 2 12.6 0.0 R 1 / 1 10.3 0.0 All 7.8 0.0 WB L 5 / 6 5.3 0.0 T 1 / 1 24.9 0.0 R 4 / 6 15.0 0.0 All 14.9 0.0 NB L 0 / 0 21.5 0.0 T 5 / 6 10.2 0.0 R 2 / 3 18.8 0.0 All 11.3 0.0 SB L 6 / 9 8.5 0.0 TR 6 / 8 10.0 0.0 All 9.5 0.0 Intersect. 11.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 64 32 25 274 14 438 5 434 141 350 506 24 1 20 24 2 11 24 2 11 24 3 20 04 3 20 04 3 20 04 4 37 24 4 37 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak AM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 09/16/2017 Case: Stucky & 19th AM 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 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 T 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 R 3 L 3 T 3 T 3 R 3 235 0.91 2 0 0.90 2 27 0.91 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 41 0.91 2 605 0.91 5 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 248 0.91 5 235 0.91 2 5 0 0 0 --- --- 0 0 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 100 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L P LT LT TP 0 27.0 3.5 1.5 8.0 4.0 0.0 30.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 80.0 Sec 11.0 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 597 0.146 0.338 L 0.432 20.7 C 20.5 C R 534 0.015 0.338 R 0.045 17.8 B NB Lper 372 0.000 0.450 18.0 B Lpro 177 0.025 0.100 L 0.082 9.1 A * T 950 0.367 0.525 T 0.700 18.6 B SB T 679 0.151 0.375 T 0.402 20.2 C 19.5 B R 590 0.094 0.375 R 0.251 18.3 B Intersection: Delay = 18.9sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.59 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.51 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak AM Hour Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 09/16/2017 Case: Stucky & 19th AM Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 5 7.8 0.0 R 1 / 1 26.3 0.0 All 12.4 0.0 NB L 1 / 1 10.0 0.0 T 8 / 8 14.1 0.0 All 13.9 0.0 SB T 4 / 6 15.5 0.0 R 1 / 1 21.7 0.0 All 16.6 0.0 Intersect. 14.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 235 27 41 605 248 235 1 26 24 2 8 04 3 30 24 3 30 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: Stucky & 19th 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 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 T 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 R 3 L 3 T 3 T 3 R 3 234 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 29 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 34 0.90 2 345 0.90 5 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 565 0.90 5 242 0.90 2 5 0 0 0 --- --- 0 0 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 80 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only L P LT LT TP 0 28.0 3.5 1.5 8.0 4.0 0.0 36.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 87.0 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 570 0.147 0.322 L 0.456 23.7 C 23.4 C R 509 0.017 0.322 R 0.053 20.4 C NB Lper 134 0.000 0.483 12.3 B * Lpro 163 0.021 0.092 L 0.128 13.4 B T 999 0.212 0.552 T 0.383 12.2 B SB * T 749 0.347 0.414 T 0.838 33.7 C 30.2 C R 651 0.114 0.414 R 0.276 17.9 B Intersection: Delay = 23.9sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.62 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.52 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: Stucky & 19th PM Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 5 / 6 7.0 0.0 R 1 / 2 22.4 0.0 All 11.0 0.0 NB L 0 / 1 15.9 0.0 T 4 / 6 15.5 0.0 All 15.5 0.0 SB T 10 / 14 11.9 0.0 R 1 / 2 21.5 0.0 All 12.8 0.0 Intersect. 13.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 234 29 34 345 565 242 1 27 24 2 8 04 3 36 24 3 36 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak AM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: Graf & 19th AM 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 70 0.91 2 39 0.91 2 4 0.91 2 174 0.91 2 15 0.91 2 7 0.91 2 6 0.91 2 417 0.91 5 40 0.91 2 148 0.91 2 120 0.91 5 30 0.91 2 0 5 0 0 --- --- 5 0 0 0 --- --- 15 5 0 0 --- --- 15 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 13.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 70.0 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 357 0.055 0.257 L 0.216 20.6 C 20.3 C TR 473 0.026 0.257 TR 0.099 19.9 B WB * L 346 0.142 0.257 L 0.552 23.6 C 23.3 C TR 471 0.010 0.257 TR 0.038 19.5 B NB Lper 489 0.000 0.429 18.5 B Lpro 329 0.004 0.186 L 0.009 5.3 A * TR 1168 0.142 0.343 TR 0.415 18.7 B SB Lper 283 0.000 0.429 11.5 B * Lpro 329 0.092 0.186 L 0.266 7.3 A TR 1171 0.043 0.343 TR 0.126 16.0 B Intersection: Delay = 17.7sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.48 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak AM Hour Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: Graf & 19th AM Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 2 / 2 9.1 0.0 TR 1 / 2 15.1 0.0 All 12.3 0.0 WB L 3 / 4 8.4 0.0 TR 1 / 1 19.9 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 NB L 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 TR 3 / 5 13.6 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 17.3 0.0 TR 1 / 3 16.8 0.0 All 17.0 0.0 Intersect. 13.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 70 39 4 174 15 7 6 417 40 148 120 30 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 13 04 2 13 04 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: Graf & 19th 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 46 0.96 2 21 0.96 2 12 0.96 2 46 0.96 2 31 0.96 2 118 0.96 2 9 0.96 2 225 0.96 5 19 0.96 2 159 0.96 2 366 0.96 5 83 0.96 2 5 5 0 0 --- --- 62 0 0 0 --- --- 10 5 0 0 --- --- 20 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 15.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 72.0 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 325 0.037 0.250 L 0.148 21.1 C 20.9 C TR 448 0.016 0.250 TR 0.065 20.6 C WB L 342 0.035 0.250 L 0.140 21.1 C 21.3 C * TR 421 0.053 0.250 TR 0.214 21.5 C NB Lper 291 0.000 0.417 17.2 B Lpro 369 0.005 0.208 L 0.014 5.5 A TR 1139 0.071 0.333 TR 0.213 17.7 B SB Lper 408 0.000 0.417 15.9 B * Lpro 369 0.094 0.208 L 0.214 6.3 A * TR 1131 0.132 0.333 TR 0.395 19.5 B Intersection: Delay = 17.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.35 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.28 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions R Marvin Peak PM Hour Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: Graf & 19th PM Exist App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 2 8.2 0.0 TR 1 / 1 18.2 0.0 All 12.7 0.0 WB L 1 / 2 9.3 0.0 TR 2 / 4 18.9 0.0 All 17.6 0.0 NB L 0 / 1 15.1 0.0 TR 2 / 3 12.9 0.0 All 13.0 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 17.4 0.0 TR 3 / 6 13.9 0.0 All 14.4 0.0 Intersect. 14.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 46 21 12 46 31 118 9 225 19 159 366 83 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 15 04 2 15 04 3 24 24 3 24 24 LANE SUMMARY Site: 1 [Graf & 11th Ave AM Existing] Roundabout with 1-lane approaches and circulating road MUTCD (FHWA 2009) example number: 2B-22 Roundabout Guide (TRB 2010) example number: A-1 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Lane Use and Performance Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueCap.Deg. Satn Lane Util. Average Delay Level of Service Lane Config Lane Length Cap. Adj. Prob. Block.Total HV Veh Dist veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % % South: S 11th Avenue Lane 1 (NB)d 184 2.1 1013 0.182 100 5.3 LOS A 0.8 21.0 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 184 2.1 0.182 5.3 LOS A 0.8 21.0 East: Graf Street Lane 1 (WB)d 278 1.4 1084 0.256 100 5.7 LOS A 1.3 32.4 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 278 1.4 0.256 5.7 LOS A 1.3 32.4 North: S 11th Avenue Lane 1 (SB)d 66 6.0 977 0.067 100 4.3 LOS A 0.3 7.0 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 66 6.0 0.067 4.3 LOS A 0.3 7.0 West: Graf Street Lane 1 (EB)d 332 1.2 1274 0.260 100 5.1 LOS A 1.4 35.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 332 1.2 0.260 5.1 LOS A 1.4 35.5 Intersection 859 1.8 0.260 5.3 LOS A 1.4 35.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES | Processed: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 4:10:36 PM Project: C:\Users\Robert-M\Documents\A PROJECT FOLDERS\18-888 New MSU Dorm TIS\Capacity\Existing\College & 11th AM Exist.sip8 LANE SUMMARY Site: 1 [Graf & 11th Ave PM Existing] Roundabout with 1-lane approaches and circulating road MUTCD (FHWA 2009) example number: 2B-22 Roundabout Guide (TRB 2010) example number: A-1 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Lane Use and Performance Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueCap.Deg. Satn Lane Util. Average Delay Level of Service Lane Config Lane Length Cap. Adj. Prob. Block.Total HV Veh Dist veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % % South: S 11th Avenue Lane 1 (NB)d 45 7.9 1019 0.044 100 3.9 LOS A 0.2 4.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 45 7.9 0.044 3.9 LOS A 0.2 4.5 East: Graf Street Lane 1 (WB)d 162 2.2 1270 0.128 100 3.9 LOS A 0.6 15.0 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 162 2.2 0.128 3.9 LOS A 0.6 15.0 North: S 11th Avenue Lane 1 (SB)d 159 2.2 1162 0.137 100 4.3 LOS A 0.6 15.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 159 2.2 0.137 4.3 LOS A 0.6 15.8 West: Graf Street Lane 1 (EB)d 206 1.7 1197 0.172 100 4.5 LOS A 0.8 20.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 206 1.7 0.172 4.5 LOS A 0.8 20.8 Intersection 572 2.5 0.172 4.2 LOS A 0.8 20.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES | Processed: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 4:17:32 PM Project: C:\Users\Robert-M\Desktop\19-911 Allison Sub TIS\Capacity\Graf & 11th Exist AM.sip8 Appendix C-2 EXISTING PLUS SITE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak AM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 6/9/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 AM 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 4 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 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 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 24 0.91 0 7 0.91 0 3 0.91 0 185 0.91 1 25 0.91 1 111 0.91 1 15 0.91 0 661 0.91 2 245 0.91 1 498 0.91 1 327 0.91 2 28 0.91 0 1 1 0 0 --- --- 50 0 0 0 --- --- 135 2 0 0 --- --- 5 1 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTR LTP LTR R L L LTP LTP 0 14.0 3.5 1.5 12.0 3.5 1.5 32.0 4.0 0.0 38.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 116.0 Sec 20.0 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 145 0.019 0.103 L 0.179 47.7 D 47.5 D T 197 0.004 0.103 T 0.041 46.8 D R 167 0.001 0.103 R 0.012 46.7 D WB Lper 201 0.000 0.147 29.5 C * Lpro 216 0.114 0.121 L 0.487 35.5 D T 503 0.014 0.267 T 0.054 31.6 C R 937 0.042 0.586 R 0.072 10.4 B NB Lper 293 0.000 0.379 32.6 C Lpro 498 0.009 0.276 L 0.020 7.4 A * T 1159 0.205 0.328 T 0.626 33.8 C R 522 0.076 0.328 R 0.232 28.5 C SB Lper 140 0.146 0.379 32.3 C * Lpro 493 0.276 0.276 L 0.864 34.3 C TR 1148 0.110 0.328 TR 0.334 29.5 C Intersection: Delay = 32.3sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.74 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.61 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak AM Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 6/9/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 AM App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 1 2.6 0.0 T 0 / 1 25.0 0.0 R 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 All 7.0 0.0 WB L 6 / 7 3.7 0.0 T 1 / 1 22.4 0.0 R 1 / 2 16.7 0.0 All 10.5 0.0 NB L 0 / 1 24.2 0.0 T 9 / 12 9.0 0.0 R 3 / 5 15.3 0.0 All 9.9 0.0 SB L 10 / 14 6.3 0.0 TR 5 / 8 11.6 0.0 All 8.8 0.0 Intersect. 9.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 24 7 3 185 25 111 15 661 245 498 327 28 1 13 24 2 11 24 2 11 24 3 32 04 3 32 04 3 32 04 4 38 24 4 38 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing 2019 R Marvin Peak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 6/9/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 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 4 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 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 T 3 R 3 L 3 TR 3 64 0.96 0 32 0.96 0 27 0.96 0 299 0.96 1 14 0.96 1 438 0.96 1 6 0.96 0 481 0.96 2 158 0.96 1 350 0.96 1 574 0.96 2 24 0.96 0 20 1 0 0 --- --- 180 0 0 0 --- --- 40 2 0 0 --- --- 5 1 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTR LTP LTR R L L LTP LTP 0 21.0 3.5 1.5 12.0 3.5 1.5 20.0 4.0 0.0 37.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 110.0 Sec 20.0 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 155 0.047 0.109 L 0.432 46.5 D 45.7 D T 207 0.017 0.109 T 0.159 44.6 D R 176 0.004 0.109 R 0.040 43.9 D WB Lper 191 0.000 0.155 21.6 C * Lpro 341 0.174 0.191 L 0.585 29.7 C T 650 0.008 0.345 T 0.023 23.8 C R 916 0.168 0.573 R 0.294 12.1 B NB Lper 194 0.000 0.391 27.8 C Lpro 328 0.003 0.182 L 0.011 11.3 B T 1190 0.142 0.336 T 0.421 28.3 C R 536 0.077 0.336 R 0.229 26.3 C SB Lper 244 0.064 0.391 24.4 C * Lpro 325 0.182 0.182 L 0.641 15.7 B * TR 1185 0.175 0.336 TR 0.522 29.6 C Intersection: Delay = 25.6sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.71 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.58 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing 2019 R Marvin Peak PM Kagy Blvd/S 19th Ave 6/9/19 Case: S 19 KAGY EXIST 2018 PM App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 2 / 3 3.4 0.0 T 1 / 2 15.3 0.0 R 0 / 1 13.1 0.0 All 8.5 0.0 WB L 6 / 7 5.1 0.0 T 1 / 1 25.9 0.0 R 3 / 4 17.9 0.0 All 15.4 0.0 NB L 0 / 0 23.2 0.0 T 5 / 6 11.1 0.0 R 2 / 2 19.3 0.0 All 12.1 0.0 SB L 5 / 9 9.1 0.0 TR 7 / 10 10.0 0.0 All 9.7 0.0 Intersect. 11.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 64 32 27 299 14 438 6 481 158 350 574 24 1 20 24 2 11 24 2 11 24 3 20 04 3 20 04 3 20 04 4 37 24 4 37 24 HCM Analysis Summary S 19th & Stucky Design R Marvin Peak AM Hour Exist Plus Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 6/9/19 Case: 19th & Stucky AM 2028 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 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 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 235 0.91 1 15 0.91 1 30 0.91 1 4 0.91 1 6 0.91 1 22 0.91 1 47 0.91 1 699 0.91 4 8 0.91 1 24 0.91 1 285 0.91 4 235 0.91 1 12 5 0 0 --- --- 15 5 0 0 --- --- 2 5 0 0 --- --- 90 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 R LTP LTP L L LTP LTP 0 12.0 4.0 0.0 12.0 3.5 1.5 8.0 4.0 0.0 21.5 4.0 1.5 Actuated 72.0 Sec 18.5 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 320 0.000 0.236 15.0 B * Lpro 298 0.144 0.167 L 0.417 15.2 B TR 668 0.021 0.389 TR 0.054 13.7 B WB L 229 0.003 0.167 L 0.017 25.1 C 25.2 C * TR 287 0.009 0.167 TR 0.052 25.2 C NB Lper 244 0.000 0.375 26.7 C * Lpro 199 0.029 0.111 L 0.117 11.2 B * TR 1035 0.224 0.299 TR 0.749 27.8 C SB Lper 114 0.000 0.375 19.9 B Lpro 199 0.015 0.111 L 0.083 11.7 B T 546 0.171 0.299 T 0.573 25.7 C R 829 0.100 0.521 R 0.192 9.7 A Intersection: Delay = 22.5sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.55 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.41 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results S 19th & Stucky Design R Marvin Peak AM Hour Exist Plus Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 6/9/19 Case: 19th & Stucky AM 2028 App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 3 / 4 9.5 0.0 TR 1 / 2 23.3 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 WB L 1 / 1 4.6 0.0 TR 0 / 1 17.2 0.0 All 11.1 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 12.4 0.0 TR 5 / 7 11.2 0.0 All 11.2 0.0 SB L 0 / 1 12.4 0.0 T 4 / 8 14.1 0.0 R 1 / 3 21.2 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 Intersect. 12.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 235 15 30 4 6 22 47 699 8 24 285 235 1 12 04 1 12 04 2 11 24 2 11 24 3 8 04 3 8 04 4 21 24 4 21 24 HCM Analysis Summary S 19th & Stucky R Marvin Peak PM Hour Exist Plus Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: 19th & Stucky PM 2028 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 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 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 T 3 R 3 234 0.96 1 10 0.96 1 33 0.96 1 6 0.96 1 8 0.96 1 39 0.96 1 37 0.96 1 385 0.96 4 8 0.96 1 59 0.96 1 620 0.96 4 242 0.96 1 12 5 0 0 --- --- 20 5 0 0 --- --- 2 5 0 0 --- --- 100 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 R LTP LTP L L LTP LTP 0 8.0 4.0 0.0 10.0 3.5 1.5 6.0 4.0 0.0 42.5 4.0 1.5 Actuated 85.0 Sec 13.5 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 224 0.060 0.176 28.1 C * Lpro 168 0.094 0.094 L 0.622 28.7 C TR 434 0.019 0.259 TR 0.074 23.8 C WB L 161 0.004 0.118 L 0.037 33.3 C 33.7 C TR 196 0.017 0.118 TR 0.143 33.8 C NB Lper 225 0.000 0.565 12.1 B Lpro 126 0.022 0.071 L 0.111 9.9 A TR 1732 0.118 0.500 TR 0.235 12.4 B SB Lper 479 0.000 0.565 17.4 B * Lpro 126 0.034 0.071 L 0.101 6.4 A * T 914 0.354 0.500 T 0.707 21.0 C R 1021 0.093 0.641 R 0.145 6.3 A Intersection: Delay = 18.1sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.64 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results S 19th & Stucky R Marvin Peak PM Hour Exist Plus Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 4/13/19 Case: 19th & Stucky PM 2028 App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 5 / 6 5.9 0.0 TR 0 / 1 25.2 0.0 All 10.2 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 4.5 0.0 TR 1 / 1 19.2 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 NB L 1 / 1 10.1 0.0 TR 2 / 5 16.2 0.0 All 15.7 0.0 SB L 1 / 1 13.4 0.0 T 8 / 12 13.7 0.0 R 1 / 2 22.3 0.0 All 14.5 0.0 Intersect. 13.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 234 10 33 6 8 39 37 385 8 59 620 242 1 8 04 1 8 04 2 9 24 2 9 24 3 6 04 3 6 04 4 42 24 4 42 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SIte R Marvin Peak AM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 6/9/19 Case: Graf & 19th AM 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 87 0.90 2 63 0.90 2 12 0.90 2 7 0.90 2 26 0.90 2 178 0.90 2 9 0.90 2 421 0.90 5 40 0.90 2 160 0.90 2 125 0.90 5 37 0.90 2 5 5 0 0 --- --- 60 0 0 0 --- --- 20 5 0 0 --- --- 15 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 13.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 70.0 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 313 0.080 0.257 L 0.310 21.2 C 20.8 C TR 471 0.043 0.257 TR 0.166 20.2 C WB L 337 0.006 0.257 L 0.024 19.4 B 21.5 C * TR 420 0.098 0.257 TR 0.381 21.6 C NB Lper 478 0.000 0.429 18.5 B Lpro 329 0.006 0.186 L 0.012 5.3 A * TR 1171 0.144 0.343 TR 0.418 18.7 B SB Lper 281 0.000 0.429 11.6 B * Lpro 329 0.101 0.186 L 0.292 7.5 A TR 1164 0.048 0.343 TR 0.140 16.1 B Intersection: Delay = 17.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.44 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.34 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SIte R Marvin Peak AM Hour Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 6/9/19 Case: Graf & 19th AM Exist Plus App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 2 / 3 8.3 0.0 TR 1 / 2 15.8 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 11.6 0.0 TR 1 / 2 20.7 0.0 All 20.5 0.0 NB L 0 / 2 11.5 0.0 TR 3 / 5 13.2 0.0 All 13.2 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 14.5 0.0 TR 1 / 3 16.6 0.0 All 15.8 0.0 Intersect. 14.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 87 63 12 7 26 178 9 421 40 160 125 37 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 13 04 2 13 04 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 5/9/19 Case: Graf & 19th 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 59 0.96 2 38 0.96 2 17 0.96 2 46 0.96 2 56 0.96 2 130 0.96 2 17 0.96 2 230 0.96 5 19 0.96 2 168 0.96 2 369 0.96 5 168 0.96 2 5 5 0 0 --- --- 65 0 0 0 --- --- 5 5 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 15.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 72.0 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 315 0.048 0.250 L 0.194 21.4 C 21.2 C TR 448 0.030 0.250 TR 0.118 20.9 C WB L 335 0.036 0.250 L 0.143 21.1 C 21.7 C * TR 428 0.074 0.250 TR 0.294 22.0 C NB Lper 276 0.000 0.417 17.0 B Lpro 369 0.010 0.208 L 0.028 5.6 A TR 1135 0.075 0.333 TR 0.225 17.8 B SB Lper 400 0.000 0.417 16.2 B * Lpro 369 0.099 0.208 L 0.228 6.4 A * TR 1124 0.141 0.333 TR 0.423 19.8 B Intersection: Delay = 17.6sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.40 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.31 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site R Marvin Peak PM Hour Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 5/9/19 Case: Graf & 19th PM Exist Plus App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 1 / 2 8.6 0.0 TR 1 / 2 14.4 0.0 All 11.8 0.0 WB L 1 / 1 7.8 0.0 TR 3 / 4 17.1 0.0 All 15.9 0.0 NB L 0 / 1 14.6 0.0 TR 2 / 3 14.2 0.0 All 14.2 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 16.7 0.0 TR 4 / 6 14.0 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 Intersect. 14.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 59 38 17 46 56 130 17 230 19 168 369 168 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 15 04 2 15 04 3 24 24 3 24 24 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [Graf & 11th Ave AM Existing Plus Site] Roundabout with 1-lane approaches and circulating road MUTCD (FHWA 2009) example number: 2B-22 Roundabout Guide (TRB 2010) example number: A-1 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: S 11th Avenue 3 L2 87 1.5 0.185 5.3 LOS A 0.8 21.4 0.45 0.34 0.45 24.3 8 T1 79 1.7 0.185 5.3 LOS A 0.8 21.4 0.45 0.34 0.45 23.9 18 R2 20 6.7 0.185 5.5 LOS A 0.8 21.4 0.45 0.34 0.45 23.5 Approach 186 2.1 0.185 5.3 LOS A 0.8 21.4 0.45 0.34 0.45 24.0 East: Graf Street 1 L2 9 14.3 0.263 6.3 LOS A 1.3 33.2 0.45 0.32 0.45 24.8 6 T1 183 0.7 0.263 5.9 LOS A 1.3 33.2 0.45 0.32 0.45 24.2 16 R2 87 1.5 0.263 5.9 LOS A 1.3 33.2 0.45 0.32 0.45 23.6 Approach 279 1.4 0.263 5.9 LOS A 1.3 33.2 0.45 0.32 0.45 24.0 North: S 11th Avenue 7 L2 32 4.2 0.075 4.3 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.40 0.27 0.40 24.8 4 T1 21 6.3 0.075 4.4 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.40 0.27 0.40 24.5 14 R2 21 6.3 0.075 4.4 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.40 0.27 0.40 23.9 Approach 74 5.4 0.075 4.3 LOS A 0.3 7.9 0.40 0.27 0.40 24.4 West: Graf Street 5 L2 74 1.8 0.268 5.2 LOS A 1.5 37.0 0.23 0.10 0.23 24.5 2 T1 183 0.7 0.268 5.2 LOS A 1.5 37.0 0.23 0.10 0.23 24.1 12 R2 86 1.5 0.268 5.2 LOS A 1.5 37.0 0.23 0.10 0.23 23.6 Approach 342 1.2 0.268 5.2 LOS A 1.5 37.0 0.23 0.10 0.23 24.1 All Vehicles 880 1.8 0.268 5.4 LOS A 1.5 37.0 0.36 0.24 0.36 24.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES | Processed: Thursday, May 09, 2019 4:02:50 PM Project: C:\Users\Robert-M\Desktop\19-915 Nexus & Graf Apts TIS\Capacity\Existing Plus\Graf & 11th Exist Plus AM.sip8 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [Graf & 11th Ave PM Existing Plus Site] Roundabout with 1-lane approaches and circulating road MUTCD (FHWA 2009) example number: 2B-22 Roundabout Guide (TRB 2010) example number: A-1 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: S 11th Avenue 3 L2 29 4.0 0.052 4.1 LOS A 0.2 5.4 0.40 0.26 0.40 24.7 8 T1 16 7.1 0.052 4.2 LOS A 0.2 5.4 0.40 0.26 0.40 24.4 18 R2 5 25.0 0.052 4.8 LOS A 0.2 5.4 0.40 0.26 0.40 24.3 Approach 51 7.0 0.052 4.2 LOS A 0.2 5.4 0.40 0.26 0.40 24.6 East: Graf Street 1 L2 44 2.7 0.169 4.4 LOS A 0.8 20.5 0.25 0.12 0.25 24.9 6 T1 154 0.8 0.169 4.3 LOS A 0.8 20.5 0.25 0.12 0.25 24.4 16 R2 11 11.1 0.169 4.6 LOS A 0.8 20.5 0.25 0.12 0.25 24.1 Approach 208 1.7 0.169 4.4 LOS A 0.8 20.5 0.25 0.12 0.25 24.5 North: S 11th Avenue 7 L2 61 1.9 0.180 5.0 LOS A 0.8 21.1 0.40 0.28 0.40 24.5 4 T1 47 2.5 0.180 5.0 LOS A 0.8 21.1 0.40 0.28 0.40 24.1 14 R2 85 1.4 0.180 5.0 LOS A 0.8 21.1 0.40 0.28 0.40 23.5 Approach 193 1.8 0.180 5.0 LOS A 0.8 21.1 0.40 0.28 0.40 24.0 West: Graf Street 5 L2 46 2.6 0.230 5.2 LOS A 1.2 29.1 0.35 0.21 0.35 24.6 2 T1 173 0.7 0.230 5.2 LOS A 1.2 29.1 0.35 0.21 0.35 24.2 12 R2 48 2.4 0.230 5.2 LOS A 1.2 29.1 0.35 0.21 0.35 23.7 Approach 267 1.3 0.230 5.2 LOS A 1.2 29.1 0.35 0.21 0.35 24.2 All Vehicles 719 2.0 0.230 4.8 LOS A 1.2 29.1 0.34 0.21 0.34 24.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES | Processed: Thursday, May 09, 2019 4:05:18 PM Project: C:\Users\Robert-M\Desktop\19-915 Nexus & Graf Apts TIS\Capacity\Existing Plus\Graf & 11th Exist Plus PM.sip8 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection S 19th & Arnold Agency/Co.MArvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 5/9/19 East/West Street Arnold Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street S 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Peak AM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Points & Graf Apartments 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 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration LR L T T TR Volume (veh/h)88 17 0 8 678 305 36 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)6.80 6.90 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)114 9 Capacity, c (veh/h)501 1199 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.9 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)14.3 8.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A Approach Delay (s/veh)14.3 0.1 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/9/2019 4:10:37 PM S19th & Arnold AM Exist Plus.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection S 19th & Arnold Agency/Co.MArvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 5/9/19 East/West Street Arnold Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street S 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Points & Graf Apartments 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 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration LR L T T TR Volume (veh/h)62 12 0 17 411 625 90 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)6.80 6.90 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)80 18 Capacity, c (veh/h)377 848 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.8 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)17.1 9.3 Level of Service (LOS)C A Approach Delay (s/veh)17.1 0.4 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/9/2019 4:12:09 PM S19th & Arnold PM Exist Plus.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Graf & Site Access Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 5/9/19 East/West Street Graf Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed Peak AM Exsiting Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Point & Graf Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h)0 113 52 20 49 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 3.50 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)0 53 Capacity, c (veh/h)1533 794 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.07 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 9.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A Approach Delay (s/veh)0.0 9.9 Approach LOS A Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/9/2019 4:07:16 PM Graf & Site Access AM Exist Plus.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Graf & Site Access Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 5/9/19 East/West Street Graf Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed Peak PM Exsiting Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Point & Graf Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h)0 79 123 51 35 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 3.50 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)0 38 Capacity, c (veh/h)1397 737 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.05 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 10.1 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.0 10.1 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/9/2019 4:08:45 PM Graf & Site Access PM Exist Plus.xtw Appendix C-3 FUTURE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS HCM Analysis Summary S 19th & Stucky R Marvin Peak AM Hour Future Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: 19th & Stucky AM 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 255 0.96 1 50 0.96 1 38 0.96 1 20 0.96 1 30 0.96 1 105 0.96 1 107 0.96 1 934 0.96 4 30 0.96 1 55 0.96 1 478 0.96 4 240 0.96 1 12 5 0 0 --- --- 60 5 0 0 --- --- 5 5 0 0 --- --- 50 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 19.0 4.0 0.0 11.0 3.5 1.5 8.0 4.0 0.0 28.5 4.0 1.5 Actuated 85.0 Sec 18.5 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 197 0.000 0.188 17.2 B * Lpro 399 0.149 0.224 L 0.446 17.6 B TR 713 0.044 0.400 TR 0.111 16.0 B WB L 171 0.016 0.129 L 0.123 32.8 C 33.9 C * TR 220 0.046 0.129 TR 0.355 34.1 C NB Lper 168 0.000 0.400 33.0 C * Lpro 168 0.062 0.094 L 0.330 15.7 B * TR 1159 0.289 0.335 TR 0.862 34.9 C SB Lper 88 0.000 0.400 25.6 C Lpro 168 0.032 0.094 L 0.223 16.7 B TR 1123 0.208 0.335 TR 0.620 26.3 C Intersection: Delay = 28.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.70 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.55 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results S 19th & Stucky R Marvin Peak AM Hour Future Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: 19th & Stucky AM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 5 8.8 0.0 TR 2 / 3 20.8 0.0 All 13.4 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 5.1 0.0 TR 2 / 3 14.1 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 9.4 0.0 TR 9 / 10 10.1 0.0 All 10.1 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 10.4 0.0 TR 6 / 7 11.5 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 Intersect. 11.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 255 50 38 20 30 105 107 934 30 55 478 240 1 19 04 2 10 24 2 10 24 3 8 04 3 8 04 4 28 24 4 28 24 HCM Analysis Summary S 19th & Stucky R Marvin Peak PM Hour 2038 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: 19th & Stucky 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 255 0.96 1 40 0.96 1 50 0.96 1 20 0.96 1 50 0.96 1 65 0.96 1 65 0.96 1 617 0.96 4 60 0.96 1 160 0.96 1 1053 0.96 4 260 0.96 1 15 5 0 0 --- --- 35 5 0 0 --- --- 15 5 0 0 --- --- 50 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 13.0 4.0 0.0 10.0 3.5 1.5 8.0 4.0 0.0 32.0 3.5 1.5 Actuated 81.0 Sec 18.0 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 188 0.000 0.185 20.8 C * Lpro 287 0.149 0.160 L 0.560 21.4 C TR 582 0.045 0.333 TR 0.134 18.9 B WB L 163 0.016 0.123 L 0.129 31.8 C 32.8 C * TR 218 0.047 0.123 TR 0.381 33.1 C NB Lper 93 0.000 0.457 19.6 B Lpro 176 0.038 0.099 L 0.253 16.7 B TR 1357 0.201 0.395 TR 0.508 19.9 B SB Lper 222 0.000 0.457 40.0 D * Lpro 176 0.093 0.099 L 0.420 13.3 B * TR 1349 0.385 0.395 TR 0.976 43.4 D Intersection: Delay = 31.5sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.87 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.67 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results S 19th & Stucky R Marvin Peak PM Hour 2038 Stucky Road/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: 19th & Stucky PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 6 7.6 0.0 TR 1 / 3 22.6 0.0 All 12.8 0.0 WB L 0 / 1 5.6 0.0 TR 2 / 3 12.1 0.0 All 11.7 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 9.3 0.0 TR 5 / 7 13.1 0.0 All 12.8 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 9.3 0.0 TR 10 / 13 10.7 0.0 All 10.6 0.0 Intersect. 11.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 255 40 50 20 50 65 65 617 60 160 1053 260 1 13 04 2 9 24 2 9 24 3 8 04 3 8 04 4 31 24 4 31 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future Plus SIte R Marvin Peak AM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: Graf & 19th AM 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 211 0.92 2 121 0.92 2 48 0.92 2 30 0.92 2 73 0.92 2 302 0.92 2 21 0.92 2 445 0.92 5 90 0.92 2 247 0.92 2 183 0.92 5 82 0.92 2 25 5 0 0 --- --- 150 0 0 0 --- --- 40 5 0 0 --- --- 40 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 24.0 3.5 1.5 13.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 76.0 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 310 0.233 0.316 L 0.739 31.2 C 26.5 C TR 574 0.086 0.316 TR 0.274 19.6 B WB L 385 0.027 0.316 L 0.086 18.3 B 20.7 C TR 529 0.146 0.316 TR 0.461 21.1 C NB Lper 382 0.000 0.395 22.1 C Lpro 303 0.013 0.171 L 0.034 7.5 A * TR 1079 0.157 0.316 TR 0.499 22.8 C SB Lper 225 0.000 0.395 16.1 B * Lpro 303 0.151 0.171 L 0.508 12.8 B TR 1065 0.073 0.316 TR 0.230 19.7 B Intersection: Delay = 21.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.68 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future Plus SIte R Marvin Peak AM Hour Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: Graf & 19th AM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 4 / 6 7.7 0.0 TR 3 / 4 16.7 0.0 All 12.4 0.0 WB L 1 / 2 6.3 0.0 TR 3 / 5 18.2 0.0 All 17.3 0.0 NB L 0 / 1 16.2 0.0 TR 4 / 7 12.0 0.0 All 12.1 0.0 SB L 3 / 4 12.7 0.0 TR 3 / 6 13.1 0.0 All 12.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 211 121 48 30 73 302 21 445 90 247 183 82 1 23 24 1 23 24 2 13 04 2 13 04 3 24 24 3 24 24 HCM Analysis Summary Future Plus Site R Marvin Peak PM Hour Analysis Duration: 15 mins. Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: Graf & 19th 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 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 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) L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 149 0.96 2 56 0.96 2 42 0.96 2 75 0.96 2 90 0.96 2 186 0.96 2 63 0.96 2 350 0.96 5 30 0.96 2 229 0.96 2 491 0.96 5 262 0.96 2 20 5 0 0 --- --- 90 0 0 0 --- --- 15 5 0 0 --- --- 100 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 LTP L L LTP LTP 0 18.0 3.5 1.5 15.0 4.0 0.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 Actuated 72.0 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 271 0.143 0.250 L 0.572 25.5 C 24.1 C TR 445 0.046 0.250 TR 0.182 21.3 C WB L 326 0.060 0.250 L 0.239 21.7 C 22.7 C TR 430 0.113 0.250 TR 0.451 23.1 C NB Lper 184 0.000 0.417 17.0 B Lpro 369 0.037 0.208 L 0.119 6.8 A TR 1138 0.112 0.333 TR 0.335 18.8 B SB Lper 326 0.000 0.417 18.7 B * Lpro 369 0.135 0.208 L 0.344 7.5 A * TR 1114 0.203 0.333 TR 0.610 22.6 C Intersection: Delay = 19.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.61 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.48 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Future Plus Site R Marvin Peak PM Hour Graf Street/S 19th Avenue 5/10/19 Case: Graf & 19th PM Future App Group Lane (veh) Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph) SpeedAverage Period) (% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB L 3 / 4 7.3 0.0 TR 2 / 4 16.9 0.0 All 12.0 0.0 WB L 1 / 2 7.3 0.0 TR 3 / 5 16.2 0.0 All 14.6 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 13.3 0.0 TR 3 / 4 13.7 0.0 All 13.7 0.0 SB L 2 / 6 15.5 0.0 TR 5 / 7 13.2 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 Intersect. 13.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 149 56 42 75 90 186 63 350 30 229 491 262 1 17 24 1 17 24 2 15 04 2 15 04 3 24 24 3 24 24 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [Graf & 11th Ave AM Future] Roundabout with 1-lane approaches and circulating road MUTCD (FHWA 2009) example number: 2B-22 Roundabout Guide (TRB 2010) example number: A-1 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: S 11th Avenue 3 L2 153 0.9 0.449 10.8 LOS B 2.7 69.3 0.70 0.81 0.91 22.9 8 T1 146 0.9 0.449 10.8 LOS B 2.7 69.3 0.70 0.81 0.91 22.5 18 R2 41 3.2 0.449 10.9 LOS B 2.7 69.3 0.70 0.81 0.91 22.1 Approach 339 1.2 0.449 10.8 LOS B 2.7 69.3 0.70 0.81 0.91 22.6 East: Graf Street 1 L2 14 9.1 0.597 13.2 LOS B 5.9 147.6 0.75 0.96 1.15 22.9 6 T1 343 0.4 0.597 12.8 LOS B 5.9 147.6 0.75 0.96 1.15 22.5 16 R2 172 0.8 0.597 12.8 LOS B 5.9 147.6 0.75 0.96 1.15 22.0 Approach 530 0.7 0.597 12.8 LOS B 5.9 147.6 0.75 0.96 1.15 22.3 North: S 11th Avenue 7 L2 80 1.6 0.206 6.7 LOS A 0.9 22.6 0.57 0.53 0.57 23.9 4 T1 41 3.2 0.206 6.8 LOS A 0.9 22.6 0.57 0.53 0.57 23.5 14 R2 43 3.0 0.206 6.7 LOS A 0.9 22.6 0.57 0.53 0.57 23.0 Approach 164 2.4 0.206 6.7 LOS A 0.9 22.6 0.57 0.53 0.57 23.6 West: Graf Street 5 L2 121 1.1 0.538 9.2 LOS A 4.1 102.8 0.49 0.31 0.49 23.5 2 T1 372 0.4 0.538 9.2 LOS A 4.1 102.8 0.49 0.31 0.49 23.1 12 R2 146 0.9 0.538 9.2 LOS A 4.1 102.8 0.49 0.31 0.49 22.6 Approach 639 0.6 0.538 9.2 LOS A 4.1 102.8 0.49 0.31 0.49 23.1 All Vehicles 1674 0.9 0.597 10.4 LOS B 5.9 147.6 0.63 0.64 0.79 22.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES | Processed: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:05:01 PM Project: C:\Users\Robert-M\Desktop\19-915 Nexus & Graf Apts TIS\Capacity\Future\Graf & 11th Future AM.sip8 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1 [Graf & 11th Ave PM Future] Roundabout with 1-lane approaches and circulating road MUTCD (FHWA 2009) example number: 2B-22 Roundabout Guide (TRB 2010) example number: A-1 Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South: S 11th Avenue 3 L2 36 3.2 0.079 4.8 LOS A 0.3 8.1 0.48 0.37 0.48 24.5 8 T1 25 4.8 0.079 4.9 LOS A 0.3 8.1 0.48 0.37 0.48 24.2 18 R2 7 16.7 0.079 5.4 LOS A 0.3 8.1 0.48 0.37 0.48 23.9 Approach 68 5.2 0.079 4.9 LOS A 0.3 8.1 0.48 0.37 0.48 24.3 East: Graf Street 1 L2 19 6.3 0.337 6.3 LOS A 2.0 49.7 0.32 0.18 0.32 24.6 6 T1 276 0.4 0.337 6.1 LOS A 2.0 49.7 0.32 0.18 0.32 24.1 16 R2 119 1.0 0.337 6.1 LOS A 2.0 49.7 0.32 0.18 0.32 23.5 Approach 414 0.9 0.337 6.1 LOS A 2.0 49.7 0.32 0.18 0.32 23.9 North: S 11th Avenue 7 L2 107 1.1 0.277 6.5 LOS A 1.4 34.2 0.52 0.42 0.52 23.9 4 T1 60 2.0 0.277 6.6 LOS A 1.4 34.2 0.52 0.42 0.52 23.6 14 R2 101 1.2 0.277 6.5 LOS A 1.4 34.2 0.52 0.42 0.52 23.0 Approach 268 1.3 0.277 6.5 LOS A 1.4 34.2 0.52 0.42 0.52 23.5 West: Graf Street 5 L2 41 2.9 0.332 6.5 LOS A 1.8 46.4 0.43 0.29 0.43 24.4 2 T1 255 0.5 0.332 6.4 LOS A 1.8 46.4 0.43 0.29 0.43 23.9 12 R2 78 1.5 0.332 6.5 LOS A 1.8 46.4 0.43 0.29 0.43 23.4 Approach 374 0.9 0.332 6.4 LOS A 1.8 46.4 0.43 0.29 0.43 23.9 All Vehicles 1125 1.3 0.337 6.2 LOS A 2.0 49.7 0.41 0.28 0.41 23.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: MARVIN & ASSOCIATES | Processed: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:07:09 PM Project: C:\Users\Robert-M\Desktop\19-915 Nexus & Graf Apts TIS\Capacity\Future\Graf & 11th Future PM.sip8 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection S 19th & Arnold Agency/Co.MArvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 6/10/19 East/West Street Arnold Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street S 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Points & Graf Apartments 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 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)54 4 11 6 6 45 0 17 646 25 0 82 963 79 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.50 6.90 7.50 6.50 6.90 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)75 62 18 89 Capacity, c (veh/h)126 249 624 884 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.25 0.03 0.10 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)3.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)68.5 24.1 10.9 9.5 Level of Service (LOS)F C B A Approach Delay (s/veh)68.5 24.1 0.3 0.7 Approach LOS F C Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/10/2019 4:15:38 PM S19th & Arnold AM Future.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection S 19th & Arnold Agency/Co.MArvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 6/10/19 East/West Street Arnold Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street S 19th Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Points & Graf Apartments 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 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration LTR LTR L T TR L T TR Volume (veh/h)54 4 11 6 6 45 0 17 646 25 0 82 963 79 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.50 6.90 7.50 6.50 6.90 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)75 62 18 89 Capacity, c (veh/h)126 249 624 884 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.25 0.03 0.10 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)3.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)68.5 24.1 10.9 9.5 Level of Service (LOS)F C B A Approach Delay (s/veh)68.5 24.1 0.3 0.7 Approach LOS F C Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/10/2019 4:17:49 PM S19th & Arnold PM Future.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Graf & Site Access Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 5/10/19 East/West Street Graf Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed Peak AM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Point & Graf Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h)3 332 157 20 48 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 3.50 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)3 59 Capacity, c (veh/h)1393 518 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.11 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 12.8 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.1 12.8 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/10/2019 4:19:26 PM Graf & Site Access AM Future.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Graf & Site Access Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 5/10/19 East/West Street Graf Street Analysis Year 2019 North/South Street Site Access Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Point & Graf Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR LR Volume (veh/h)6 214 365 49 32 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 6.40 6.20 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 3.50 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)7 39 Capacity, c (veh/h)1121 435 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.09 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 14.1 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 14.1 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/10/2019 4:24:57 PM Graf & Site Access PM Future.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection S 27th & Graf St Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 5/10/19 East/West Street Graf Street Analysis Year 2038 North/South Street S 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Peak AM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.85 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Point & Graf St Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)2 65 2 39 16 11 2 14 53 23 2 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.22 2.22 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)2 46 81 32 Capacity, c (veh/h)1565 1504 869 645 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.05 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 7.5 9.6 10.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.2 4.5 9.6 10.9 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/10/2019 4:26:04 PM S 27th Graf AM Future.xtw HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection S 27th & Graf St Agency/Co.Marvin Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 6/10/19 East/West Street Graf Street Analysis Year 2038 North/South Street S 27th Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.85 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Nexus Point & Graf St Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)2 39 2 64 71 26 2 8 37 17 21 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.22 2.22 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)2 75 55 47 Capacity, c (veh/h)1461 1544 855 570 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 7.5 9.5 11.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.4 3.2 9.5 11.9 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2019 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 7.8 Generated: 5/10/2019 4:27:11 PM S 27th Graf PM Future.xtw 15 12. A Non-Municipal Utilities The developer must submit a copy of the subdivision plat to all relevant utility companies. With the preliminary plat, the developer must provide written documentation of the following: a. Affected utilities. Indicate which affected utilities the subdivision plat has been submitted to for review, and include a copy of responses. Response: Northwest Energy has been contacted. Their response is included in this application. b. The developer must provide a written statement from the utility companies that the proposed subdivision can be provided with service. Response: Northwest Energy has been contacted. Their response is included in this application. c. Non-municipal utility locations shall be coordinated with locations of municipal utilities. Response: Northwest Energy was under contract and is currently aware of the current construction and future utility installation for remaining phases. 12. A Non-Municipal Utilities – Agency Letter NWE G:\MADISON ENGINEERING\PROJECTS\2018\18-127 Nexus Point\Application\Subdivision\Preliminary Plat\3. Additional Subdivision Supplements (Documentation of Compliance)\Documentation of Compliance\12. Non-municipal utilities\Agency Letter - NWE.doc 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203 ¨ Bozeman, MT 59718 ¨ (406) 586-0262 ¨ Fax (406) 586-5740 May 27th, 2022 NorthWestern Energy 121 East Griffin Drive P.O. Box 490 Bozeman, MT 59718 RE: 2131 Graf Street Subdivision – Preliminary Plat Bozeman, MT Dear Northwestern Energy, Madison Engineering is soliciting your comments regarding the proposed 11-lot subdivision legally described as Lot 1 of Minor Subdivision 235 B, situate in the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian Montana, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The zoning of the 20-acre property is currently RO Residential-Office District and R5 Residential Mixed-Use High Density District. The property will be divided into 11-lots, and the local streets South 21st Avenue and Arnold Street have already been constructed. Utilities consisting of sewer, water and storm have already been extended throughout the property. As part of the subdivision process, we are soliciting any comments you may have regarding utility installation to serve the proposed subdivision. Please provide us with feedback regarding any concerns with the future subdivision. Enclosed, please find a copy of a vicinity map and the proposed plat sheet sketch concept for your reference. Please respond at your earliest convenience with any comments or questions to the address provided below, or feel free to contact me directly at 406-586-0262 or austin.m@mad-eng.com. Thank you for your consideration. Previously site plan and infrastructure approval were established for the development and the land is currently under construction. Sincerely, Madison Engineering, Inc. _____________________________ Austin Mirizio enc: Vicinity Map Proposed Plat Sheet Sketch Concept Cc: file VICINITYMADISON ENGINEERING 895 TECHNOLOGY BLVD STE 203 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 PHONE (406) 586-0262 FAX (406) 586-5740 NEXUS POINT LOT 1 MINOR SUB 235 VICINITY MAP SCALE: N.T.S. PROJECT LOCATION 16 13. Land Use a. Indicate the proposed use and number of lots or spaces in each: 1. Residential area, single-household; 2. Residential area, multiple-household. Types of multiple-household structures and numbers of each (e.g., two or four unit structures); 3. Condominium (number of units); 4. Recreational vehicle park; 5. Commercial or industrial; and 6. Other (please describe). Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 17 14. Parks and Recreation Facilities The following information must be provided for all land used to meet parkland dedication requirements: a. Park plan. A park plan, including: 1. Site plan with one-foot contour topographic survey for the entire property; showing proposed developer installed improvements on the initial park plan and proposed future improvements on the future park plan, and phasing proposed if any, exact product specifications are not required; 2. Drainage areas; 3. Utilities within, serving, and adjacent to the property; 4. Existing or proposed utility easements within the property; 5. The location of any critical lands (wetlands, riparian areas, streams, etc.) and location of watercourse setbacks and any permits from non-city agencies required to execute the proposed plan; 6. Park conceptual landscaping plan, prepared by a qualified landscape professional in accordance with section 38.220.100 unless the parks department has adopted an alternate plan standard, showing the location and specific types and species of plants, shrubs, trees as well as grass seed mixes and the irrigation system including but not limited to identification of water source, points of connection, mains, laterals, valves, zones, and sprinkler heads; 7. General description of land, including size, terrain, details of location and history, water features, and proposed activities; 8. Trail design and construction showing compliance with adopted city standards and trail classifications; 9. Appropriate sections from the design guidelines for city parks; 10. Cost estimate, installation phasing and responsibility, and maintenance plan tasks and responsibility for custom features or atypical designs; 11. If playground equipment will be provided with initial installation by the subdivider, information including the manufacturer, installation data and specifications, installer, type of fall zone surfacing and age group intended for use; otherwise a general identification of proposed function; 12. Soils information and analysis; 13. A description of how the proposed park plan is consistent with the goals of the city's current long range plan for parks; 18 14. A description of how the proposed park will meet the recreational needs of the residents of the development; 15. The proposed manner of providing irrigation to the park including water source, amount of water expected to be consumed annually, and proposed manner of transfer of water facilities and rights to the city; and 16. A phase I environmental assessment of the area proposed to be transferred to the city or property owner's association. Response: The necessary park and recreation facilities information was submitted, reviewed, and approved with the Nexus Point Site Plan application. Park plans previously submitted and approved are included in this submittal. The site is currently under construction. b. Irrigation information. 1. An irrigation system map generally showing the locations and types of lines, including depth, water source, heads, electric valves, quick couplers, drains and control box; and 2. If a well will be used for irrigation, a certified well log must be submitted showing depth of well, gpm, pump type and size, voltage, water rights, etc. Response: Park plans previously submitted and approved are included in this submittal The site is currently under construction. c. Phasing. If improvements will be phased, a phasing plan must be provided including proposed financing methods and responsibilities. Response: Infrastructure improvements were installed at one time. Buildings are to be phased based on current market and available funding. d. Cash-in-lieu and improvements-in-lieu. If the development includes a proposal for cash-in- lieu or improvements-in-lieu of park a specific justification responding to the review factors established by resolution of the city commission. If improvements-in-lieu are proposed specific costs of proposed improvements and costs to install must be provided. Response: Park plans previously submitted and approved are included in this submittal The site is currently under construction. 14. Parks and Rec – Lantern Park Landscape Plans 8 YD84"W x 78"D x 86" HADACLEARANCESSIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK LAWN LAWNSIDEWALKENTRY MONUMENT SIGN WITH LANTERN- EXACT STYLE TBD BY OWNER PLANTERLAWNLAWN ROCK MULCH, TYP BENCH, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/1 DOG PARK FENCE, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/8 DOG PARK WITH EQUIPMENT INSTALLED ON ARTIFICIAL TURF (TURFNPLAY DESIGNER H TURF OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL). SEE DETAIL LS4.1/9 FOR DOG PARK EQUIPMENT. DOG POT, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/7TRASH RECEPTACLE TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/2 PAVILION- SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BENCH, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/1 TRASH RECEPTACLE TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/2 PLAYGROUND- SEE DETAIL LS4.2/16 SHREDDED RUBBER MULCH OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL HORIZONTAL LADDER-SEE DETAIL LS4.2/14 DOUBLE LOWER BACK TRAINER-SEE DETAIL LS4.2/13 ROCK MULCH, TYP SHREDDED RUBBER MULCH OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL SHREDDED RUBBER MULCH OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL ROCK MULCH, TYP PLANTER PLANTERROCK MULCH, TYP LANDSCAPE BOULDER, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS5.1/7 PULL UP DIP COMBO-SEE DETAIL LS4.2/15 MOW CURB, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/6 MOW CURB, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/6 12" WIDE CURBING-SEE DETAIL LS5.1/9 50' WETLAND SETBACK BENCH, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/1 TRASH RECEPTACLE TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/2 BOULDER CLIMBING STRUCTURE- SEE DETAIL LS4.2/13,14 SHREDDED RUBBER MULCH OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL DOUBLE STRETCH-SEE DETAIL LS4.2/10 PARALLEL BARS-SEE DETAIL LS4.2/11SHREDDED RUBBER MULCH OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL, TYP. ROCK MULCH, TYP LANDSCAPE BOULDER, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS5.1/7 WAVE LADDER-SEE DETAIL LS4.2/12 TABLE TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/3 WETLAND EASEMENT S 00° 30' 31" E 333.33'SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALK PLANTER LAWN PLANTER LAWN LAWN LAWN LAWN SIDEWALK WETLAND BOUNDARY LINE PLANTER SI D E W A L K ROCK MULCH, TYP ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN WITH LANTERN- EXACT STYLE TBD BY OWNER MOW CURB, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/6 ROCK MULCH, TYP TRASH RECEPTACLE TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/2 PAVILION- SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS MOW CURB, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/6 ROCK MULCH, TYP LANDSCAPE BOULDER, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS5.1/7 LARGE BOULDERS FOR SITTING PER OWNER LAWN LOT 2 MINOR SUB 235 ZONING: R4 SHREDDED RUBBER MULCH OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL BIKE RACK, TYP- SEE DETAIL LS4.1/7 S 00° 42' 23" E 923.35' (M)S 00 02 55 E 923.24' (R1)PARK BOUNDARY 30' ZONE 1 SETBACK 20' ZONE 2 SETBACK GRAVEL FINES TRAIL. SEE CIVIL PLANS. UTILITY EASEMENT. OBTAIN ANY PERMITS AS NEEDED TO WORK IN THIS AREA. PARK BOUNDARY SEE ICON APARTMENT HOMES PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA SEE ICON APARTMENT HOMES PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA SEE ICON APARTMENT HOMES PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREASEE ICON APARTMENT HOMES PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA STEEL EDGING-SEE DETAIL LS5.1/11 STEEL EDGING-SEE DETAIL LS5.1/10 GRAVEL FINES TRAIL. SEE CIVIL PLANS. PARK BOUNDARY LINE PARK BOUNDARY LINE SEE NEXUS POINT PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA PARK BOUNDARY LINE PARK BOUNDARY SIGN PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. CONSULT WITH OWNER ON FINAL PLACEMENT. TRAIL TOTEM SIGN PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. CONSULT WITH OWNER ON FINAL PLACEMENT. LIGHTING, TYP. SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS. ANY DISTURBED AREAS TO BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS, RAKED SMOOTH AND RE-SEEDED WITH NATIVE SEED TYPE TO MATCH EXISTING AT RATE PER MANUF. SPECS. OWNER TO FERTILIZE PER MANUF. SPECS AND PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTARY WATER UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED. S 89' 57' 50" W 1222.70' ANY DISTURBED AREAS TO BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS, RAKED SMOOTH AND RE-SEEDED WITH NATIVE SEED TYPE TO MATCH EXISTING AT RATE PER MANUF. SPECS. OWNER TO FERTILIZE PER MANUF. SPECS AND PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTARY WATER UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED. SEE NEXUS POINT PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA SEE NEXUS POINT PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA PARK BOUNDARY SIGN PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. CONSULT WITH OWNER ON FINAL PLACEMENT. FUTURE PHASE LOT 1 MINOR SUB 235 ZONING: RO PARK BOUNDARY SIGN PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. CONSULT WITH OWNER ON FINAL PLACEMENT. PARK BOUNDARY SIGN PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. CONSULT WITH OWNER ON FINAL PLACEMENT.PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE 1.ALL BASE AND SITE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CLIENT, THE ARCHITECT, AND OR CIVIL ENGINEER AND IS THEREFORE ASSUMED TO BE ACCURATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES, PLANT MATERIAL, BUILDINGS, PROPERTY LINES ETC. ON-SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND WILL NEED TO MAKE ON-SITE ADJUSTMENTS AS NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION. BY USE OF THESE PLANS, THE OWNER AND CONTRACTORS AGREE TO HOLD IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP HARMLESS FROM ERRORS IN BASE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ISDG. 2.OWNERS OF EACH PROPERTY TO COORDINATE\ON FINAL LIMIT LINES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF WHAT IS BEING INSTALLED BY EACH OWNER. 3.CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY CORRECT PROPERTY LINES AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO PLAN AS NECESSARY. IN ADDITION, ALL UTILITIES AND/OR EASEMENTS ARE TO BE VERIFIED ON-SITE TO ENSURE NO CONFLICTS EXIST BETWEEN EXISTING UTILITIES, EASEMENTS AND THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. 4.SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADING AND DRAINAGE INFORMATION/DESIGN. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT ALL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE DRAWINGS, DETAILS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER AND IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN WRITTEN FIELD DIRECTIVES FROM IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP STATING PROPER COURSE OF ACTION IF DISCREPANCIES OR ERRORS ARE DISCOVERED PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION. GENERAL NOTES HARDSCAPE NOTES 1.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ANY DRAWINGS, STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS OR CUT-SHEETS OF ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SUCH AS PAVILIONS, PLAYGROUND, EXERCISE EQUIPMENT AND DOGPARK. 2.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SAMPLES OF FINISHES FOR FENCING, PAVERS, SHREDDED RUBBER MULCH SURFACING, ARTIFICIAL TURF, ETC. TO OWNER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3.SEE ARCHITECTS PLANS FOR STONE MATERIAL TO BE USED ON PAVILION COLUMNS. 4.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE IRRIGATION SLEEVING UNDER ALL SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS. SEE IRRIGATION PLANS FOR MORE INFORMATION. 5.SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR ALL LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL NEEDS IN THE PARK. SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR POWER FOR SPRINKLER CONTROLLER AND POWER FOR WELL PUMP. 6.SITE FURNISHINGS, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, EXERCISE EQUIPMENT, DOG PARK EQUIPMENT INCLUDING DOG-I-POT TO BE PROVIDED BY THE OWNER AND BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. SCALE: 0 1"=20'-0" ON 24X36 SHEET 20'20'40'60'THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N. SIDEPLANOVERALL SITELS 1.1 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS APPLICANT: SM ADVISORY GROUP ATTN: STEVE MOORE 3661 JAGAR LANE BOZEMAN, MT. 59718 (406)599-5169 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP C/O CORY WHITING 17 NORTH 470 WEST AMERICAN FORK, UT. 84003 (801)756-5043 PROPERTY OWNER: SM ADVISORY GROUP ATTN: STEVE MOORE 3661 JAGAR LANE BOZEMAN, MT. 59718 (406)599-5169 PROJECT INFORMATION: PROJECT NAME:NEXUS POINT APARTMENTS - PHASE 1 ADDRESS: 3747 S 19TH AVE,BOZEMAN, MT. 59718 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1 MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 235 ZONE: RO "2 BOTANICAL NAME/ COMMON NAME ACER PLATANOIDES 'EMERALD QUEEN' NORWAY MAPLE TILIA CORDATA 'GREENSPIRE' LITTLE LEAF LINDEN PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'CANADA RED' CANADA RED CHOKECHERRY DECIDUOUS TREE LEGEND QTY 9 7 6 SYMBOL MATURE HxW 50'X40' 50'X35' 30'X25' WATER- SMART NO NO YES SIZE 2" CAL. 2" CAL. 2" CAL. BOTANICAL NAME/ COMMON NAME PICEA PUNGENS GLAUCA 'BABY BLUE EYES' BABY BLUE EYES COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE EVERGREEN TREE LEGEND QTY 15 SYMBOL MATURE HXW 18'X8' WATER- SMART NO SIZE 6' TALL BOTANICAL NAME/ COMMON NAME CALAMAGROSTIS ACUTIFLORIA 'HELLO SPRING' FEATHER READ GRASS FESTUCA OVINA GLAUCA 'BOULDER BLUE' BOULDER BLUE FESCUE HEMEROCALLIS X 'ROSY RETURNS'' ROSY RETURNS DAYLILY TURF / BLUEGRASS KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS - MIN. 3 DROUGHT TOLERANT VARIETIES. NATIVE SEED MIX TO MATCH EXISTING. APPLY, SPREAD AND FERTILIZE AT MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED RATE. PERENNIAL & GRASS LEGEND QTY 24 15 31 32,831 SF SYMBOL MATURE HXW 3.5'x3.5' 1'X1' 1'X1.5' -- WATER- SMART YES NO YES -- SIZE 1 GAL. 1 GAL. 1 GAL. SOD BOTANICAL NAME/ COMMON NAME ARONIA MELANOCARPA 'UCONNAM012' PPAF GROUND HOG TM GROUND HOG SPREADING CHOKEBERRY BERBERIS THUNBERGII ATROPURPEA 'CONCORDE' CONCORDE JAPANESE BARBERRY PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS 'SMNPOBLR' GINGER WINE NINEBARK TM PINUS MUGO MUGUS 'SLOWMOUND' SLOWMOUND MUGO PINE RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' GRO-LOW SUMAC RIBES ALPINUM 'GREEN MOUND' GREEN MOUND ALPINE CURRANT ROSA CHAMPLAIN CHAMPLAIN SHRUB ROSE DECIDUOUS SHRUB LEGEND QTY 4 17 2 7 SYMBOL MATURE HXW 6'X6' 3'X3' 3'X8' 4'X4' WATER- SMART YES YES YES NO SIZE 5 GAL. 2 GAL. 5 GAL. 5 GAL. 10 3'X3'YES5 GAL. 16 1.5'X3'NO5 GAL. 637 SF ----SEED 2 2'X4'NO5 GAL. LANDSCAPE BOULDERS TO MATCH DECORATIVE ROCK. SUBMIT SAMPLE TO OWNER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO DELIVERY. BOULDERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE VARIOUS SIZES AS NOTED. 3" DEPTH OF 3/4"-1" DECORATIVE CRUSHED ROCK IN ALL PLANTER AREAS. SUBMIT A SAMPLE OF ROCK TO THE OWNER FOR APPROVAL AFTER AWARD OF CONTRACT. SEE DETAIL: LS5.1/7 & 10 ·COLOR AND TYPE: ANGULAR IN SHAPE. GRAYS, BROWNS, BUFFS IN COLOR. COLOR SHALL COMPLIMENT THE BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. (NO LIMESTONE) ·INSTALL DEWITT 5 OZ. WEED BARRIER FABRIC UNDER ROCK. ·ROCK SHALL BE SCREENED AND DOUBLEWASHED SO AS TO BE FREE OF ALL DIRT, SOIL, ORGANIC MATTER OR OTHER MATERIALS. INERT LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY SIZE 2'X2'X2' 3'X3'X3' 3'X4'X4' 3/4" - 1" 0% 30% 30% PER PLANSNOTSHOWN LANDSCAPE NOTES 1.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING QUANTITIES OF ALL MATERIALS FOR BIDDING AND INSTALLATION PURPOSES. IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST, THE PLAN SHALL DICTATE. 2.PLANT MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANT LEGEND. ANY SUBSTITUTIONS TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND/OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3.NEW AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION TO ENSURE PROPER WATERING OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS. REFER TO IRRIGATION PLANS FOR SPECIFICS. 4.NEW LAWN AREAS TO BE SODDED WITH 100% KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS (MINIMUM OF 3 DIFFERENT DROUGHT TOLERANT VARIETIES). FINE LEVEL ALL AREAS PRIOR TO LAYING SOD. SEE SOD LAYING NOTES FOR MORE INFORMATION 5.CONTRACTOR TO CONSULT WITH THE OWNER ON THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO BIDDING ON HOW TO PROCEED. TOPSOIL TO BE INSTALLED AT THE FOLLOWING DEPTHS: 12" IMPORTED SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL (INCLUDING MIN. 15% HIGH GRADE DECOMPOSED ORGANIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SPREADING) OR 12" OF AMENDED ONSITE TOPSOIL (70% ONSITE, 15% ORGANIC, 15% SOIL CONDITIONER) OR 12" OF ONSITE TOPSOIL AMENDED PER A CURRENT SOILS REPORT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE GROWING CONDITIONS IN ALL NEW PLANTER AREAS . INSTALL 4" DEPTH OF SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL (INCLUDING MIN. 15% HIGH GRADE DECOMPOSED ORGANIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SPREADING) OR ONSITE TOPSOIL PER ABOVE IN ALL NEW LAWN AND NATIVE SEED AREAS. PLANTING PIT BACKFILL MATERIAL IS OK TO BE PER THE SOIL SELECTED ABOVE. 6.PLANTER BEDS TO BE EXCAVATED AS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR TOPSOIL, AMENDMENTS AND MULCH. THE FINISHED GRADE OF LAWN AREAS SHALL BE APPROX. 1" BELOW TOP OF LAWN EDGING, SIDEWALK OR OTHER PAVED AREAS. FINISHED GRADE OF PLANTER AREAS SHALL BE APPROX. 1" BELOW TOP OF CURB, SIDEWALK, OR OTHER PAVED AREA. 7.DEWITT 5 OZ. WEED BARRIER FABRIC TO BE INSTALLED IN ALL ROCK MULCH AREAS. DO NOT INSTALL WEED BARRIER FABRIC UNDER AREAS TO RECEIVE WOOD MULCH. 8.INSTALL PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO THE TOP OF THE FABRIC AFTER INSTALLING PLANTS AND PRIOR TO INSTALLING MULCH. AFTER INSTALLATION OF THE MULCH THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EVENLY BROADCAST A SECOND APPLICATION OF SLOW-RELEASE PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. 9.ROCK MULCH TO BE INSTALLED AT THE FOLLOWING DEPTHS: 3" IN ALL TREE AND SHRUB PLANTER AREAS. PULL MULCH MIN. 3" AWAY FROM BASE OF ALL PERENNIALS AND SHRUBS AND MIN. 6" AWAY FROM ALL TREES. 10.TREES LOCATED IN LAWN AREAS SHALL HAVE A GRASS FREE TREE RING AROUND BASE OF TREE WITH 3" DEPTH OF COLORED WOOD MULCH. THE GRASS FREE RING FOR FLOWERING TREES SHALL BE 4' DIAMETER AND UP TO 6' DIAMETER FOR SHADE TREES WHERE APPROPRIATE. 11.IF HIGH WINDS ARE FREQUENT ON SITE, ALL TREES TO BE STAKED AT TIME OF PLANTING. SEE DETAILS FOR SPECIFICS. REMOVE STAKING WITHIN FIRST YEAR OR WHEN TREE IS ESTABLISHED. 12.SEE ARCHITECT AND CIVIL PLANS FOR ALL BUILDING AND SITE INFORMATION. 18.OBTAIN PERMIT FROM CITY FORESTRY DEPARTMENT BEFORE PLANTING ANY STREET TREES WITHIN BOULEVARD PLANTING STRIP. PLANT PER BOZEMAN CITY FORESTRY STANDARDS AT A MINIMUM. 19.AFTER EXCAVATION OF LAWN AND PLANTER AREAS HAS OCCURRED AND PRIOR TO PLACING AMENDED TOPSOIL, CROSS RIP OR TILL TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES IN LAWN AREAS AND 6 INCHES IN PLANTER AREAS (EXCEPT WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF TREES TO REMAIN – IF ANY TREES ARE TO REMAIN). 20.TREES OR OTHER SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE FEATURES SHALL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANY UTILITY MAIN OR SERVICE LINES. 21.TREE TRUNKS SHALL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 10 FEET OF LIGHT POLES. 22.PLAY EQUIPMENT TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 23.AFTER EXCAVATION OF LAWN AND PLANTER AREAS HAS OCCURRED AND PRIOR TO PLACING AMENDED TOPSOIL, CROSS RIP OR TILL TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES IN LAWN AREAS AND 6 INCHES IN PLANTER AREAS (EXCEPT WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF TREES TO REMAIN – IF ANY TREES ARE TO REMAIN). 1.LAY SOD WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BEING LIFTED. 2.LAY SOD IN ROWS WITH JOINTS STAGGERED. BUTT SECTIONS CLOSELY WITHOUT OVERLAPPING OR LEAVING GAPS BETWEEN SECTIONS. CUT OUT IRREGULAR OR THIN SECTIONS WITH A SHARP KNIFE. 3.LAY SOD FLUSH WITH ADJOINING EXISTING SODDED OR PAVED SURFACES. 4.AFTER SODDING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ROLL HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREAS IN TWO DIRECTIONS PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER WITH A 150 POUND SOD ROLLER. REPAIR AND RE-ROLL AREAS WITH DEPRESSIONS, LUMPS OR OTHER IRREGULARITIES. HEAVY ROLLING TO CORRECT IRREGULARITIES IN GRADE IS NOT PERMITTED. 5.WATER ALL SODDED AREAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER SOD LAYING TO OBTAIN MOISTURE PENETRATION THROUGH SOD INTO TOP 4" OF TOPSOIL. 6.PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF SODDED AREAS AGAINST TRESPASSING, EROSION AND DAMAGE OF ANY KIND. REMOVE THIS PROTECTION AFTER SODDED AREAS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER. 7.REPLACE DAMAGED AREAS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. SOD LAYING NOTES SCALE: 0 1"=20'-0" ON 24X36 SHEET 20'20'40'60'THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N. SIDEPLANPLANTINGLS 2.1 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXACT LOCATION OF P.O.C. AND WELL- SEE DETAIL LS6.1/9 IRRIGATION, MAINLINE, VALVES, ETC. SHOWN HERE FOR DRAWING CLARITY. LOCATE IN LAWN AREA, TYP. 34" 114" 34"34" 112" 34" 112" 34" 3 4" 1" 114" 34" 112" 2" 1"34" 114" 114" 112" 2" 34" 1" 114" 34" 112" 34" 3 4" 34" 1" 114" 112" 2" 2" 34" 1" 114" 112" 2"2" 34" 34" 34" 2" 34" 34" 34" 34" 34"34"34" 34" 114" 114" 34"1" 1" 34" 114" 114" 112" 112" 34" 34" 114" 114" 112" 112" 34"34" 1" 114" 112" 3 4" 112" 2" 2" 34" 114" 34" 112" 34" 34" 2" 112" 34" 34" 1" 114" 114" 112" 2" 2" 'A' 34" 34" 1" 34" 114"34" 114" 112" 112" 2" 34" 114" 3 4" 112" 2" 112" 34" 34" 1" 114" 34" 112" 112" 2" 34" 114" 34" 114" 114" 2" 114" 1" 34" 1" 114" 112" 34" 34" 114" 114" 112" 34" 34" 112" 2" 112" 34" 34" 34" 114" 114" 34" 3 4" 34" 34" ALLOW THESE HEADS TO SPRAY NATIVE GRASSES. ALLOW THESE HEADS TO SPRAY NATIVE GRASSES. 1" 114" 34" 3 4" 12" POP-UP. PLACE 1.5' AWAY FROM EDGING TO THE EAST. 43" 34" 43" SEE ICON APARTMENT PLANS FOR ADJACENT IRRIGATION. "1 'B' SEE NEXUS POINT PLANS FOR ADJACENT IRRIGATION. 34" 34" 34" 34" 34" 34" 1" 34" 112" 34" 34" 1" 1" 114" 112" 34" 1" 114" 34" 114" 34" 1" 34" 34" 34" 34" 34" 34" 114" 34" 34"34"1" 34"34"114" 34"114" 34" 112" 112" 112" 1" 34" 34" 34" 112" 34" 34" 34" 2" 114"114" 34" 1" 114" 34" 34" 34"114" 34" 34" 34" 3 4" 34" 34" 114" 34" 34" 112" 34" 114"34" 112"34" 112" 112" 34" 34"1" 114" 114" 34" 1" 34"1" 114" 34" 34"114" 112" 112" 34" 34" 114" 34" 114" 114" 34"1" 34" 34" 34" 112" 112" 34" 1" 3 4" 1" 34" 34" 112" 43" 43" "1 114" 2"2 " "2 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXACT LOCATION OF P.O.C. AND WELL- SEE DETAIL LS6.1/9 IRRIGATION NOTES 1.ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY AND/OR COUNTY CODES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY AND PAY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL UTILITIES BLUE STAKED BEFORE DIGGING. ANY DAMAGE TO THE UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE EXPENSE OF CONTRACTOR WITH NO EXTRA COST TO THE OWNER. 3.PROVIDE AN AS-BUILT, REPRODUCIBLE DRAWING TO OWNER SHOWING ALL DRAINS, HEADS, VALVES, AND PIPES. PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS TO MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL FOR WINTERIZATION. SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE BLOWN OUT WITH AN AIR COMPRESSOR EACH FALL. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY USE COMMERCIAL GRADE PRODUCTS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING ACCURATE COUNTS AND QUANTITIES OF ALL IRRIGATION MATERIALS FOR BIDDING AND INSTALLATION PURPOSES. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL BUILD IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE AT A MINIMUM FOR ALL LAWN AREAS. ADJUST FOR CLOSER SPACING IF WINDS ARE PREVALENT. VAN AND/OR U-SERIES NOZZLES SHALL BE USED WHERE NECESSARY TO PROVIDED HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE AND/OR TO MINIMIZE OVER SPRAY ONTO STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND/OR BUILDINGS. 6.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR (L.C.) SHALL PROVIDE AND INSTALL SLEEVES FOR ALL PIPES AND WIRES UNDER PAVEMENT AND SIDEWALKS. SLEEVES SHALL BE 2 SIZES LARGER THAN PIPE INSIDE. ALL WIRE SHALL BE IN SEPARATE SLEEVES (NOT SHOWN). ALL CONTROL WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CLASS 200 PIPE. PLACE JUNCTION BOXES WHERE NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE LONG RUNS OR AT DIRECTIONAL CHANGES AS NECESSARY. 7.ALL SLEEVES INSTALLED SHALL BE DUCT TAPED TO PREVENT DIRT OR OTHER DEBRIS ENTERING PIPE. ALL SLEEVES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY WOOD OR PVC STAKES AND BE SPRAY PAINTED WITH MARKING PAINT. REMOVE STAKES ONCE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS COMPLETE. 8.MAIN LINE SHALL BE 2". LATERAL LINES SHALL BE NO SMALLER THAN 3/4" UNLESS NOTED ON PLAN. PIPES SHALL CARRY NO MORE THAN THE FOLLOWING: 1/2" MAX. 4 GPM, 3/4" PIPE MAX. 8GPM, 1" PIPE MAX. 13GPM, 1-1/4" PIPE MAX. 23GPM, 1-1/2" PIPE MAX. 30GPM, 2" PIPE MAX. 50 GPM. ADJUST LOCATION OF MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINES AS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AVOID PLACING BOULDERS, TREES AND SHRUBS DIRECTLY OVER MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINES. 9.MAIN LINES SHALL BE 18" DEEP MIN. AND LATERAL LINES 12" DEEP MIN. NO ROCK GREATER THAN 3/4" DIAMETER SHALL BE ALLOWED IN TRENCHES. 10.PLACE PIPES, VALVE BOXES AND ALL OTHER SPRINKLER CONSTRUCTION IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. ALL PIPES SHALL BE ON PROPERTY OF OWNER. MODIFY LOCATION OF VALVE BOXES AS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AVOID TREES AND SHRUBS PER PLANTING PLAN. DO NOT LOCATE VALVE BOXES IN LAWN AREAS IF POSSIBLE. 11.AT OWNERS REQUEST AND FOR AN ADDITIONAL FEE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL VISUALLY INSPECT ALL TRENCHES PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MIN. 72 HR. NOTICE BEFORE INSPECTION IS TO BE MADE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESSURE TEST MAINLINE FOR LEAKS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 12.ALL SPRINKLERS SHALL BE ADJUSTED ON-SITE AS NECESSARY TO AVOID ANY WATER SPRAYING ONTO STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND/OR BUILDINGS. 13.ACTUAL INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAY VARY SOMEWHAT FROM PLANS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO ENSURE PROPER COVERAGE OF ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS. 14.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MATCH PRECIPITATION RATES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FOR ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS. 15.INSTALL ALL HEADS 2" AWAY FROM ALL WALKS AND WALLS. VALVE BOXES SHALL BE INSTALLED SQUARED TO AND 6" MIN. AWAY FROM WALKS AND WALLS. 16.DRIP LINES SHALL BE FLEXIBLE AR PVC TUBING BY GPH. FOR DRIP AREAS REQUIRING 0-4 GPM USE 1/2" TUBING. FOR DRIP AREAS REQUIRING 4-8GPM USE 3/4" TUBING AND FOR DRIP AREAS REQUIRING 8-13 GPM USE 1" TUBING. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PLANT QUANTITIES ON EACH DRIP LINE AND SIZE PIPE ACCORDINGLY. 17.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL NETAFIM ON-SURFACE DRIP LINE FOR TREES AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. MODIFY DRIP ZONES AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE COVERAGE TO ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS. 18.POWER TO CONTROLLER AND WELL TO BE PROVIDED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. OWNER TO SPECIFY EXACT LOCATION OF CONTROLLER. CONTROLLER TO BE MOUNTED IN WEATHERPROOF LOCKING WALL MOUNTED OR PEDESTAL CABINET PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE CONTROLLER IS GROUNDED PER LOCAL CODE AND PER MANUFACTURER SPEC. 19.IF THE STATIC PRESSURE AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION EXCEEDS 110 PSI, INSTALL A BRASS PRESSURE REDUCER PER MANUFACTURER SPECS AND ADJUST PRESSURE AS REQUIRED FOR NORMAL OPERATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 20.THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE CONNECTED TO A WELL ON-SITE. THE MAX. FLOW RATE FOR THE WELL SHALL BE 35 GPM. THE WELL PUMP SHALL BE CAPABLE OF PUMPING 35 GPM AT 70-75 PSI AND WILL NEED TO MAINTAIN A MIN OF 45PSI AT FURTHEST ROTOR HEAD FROM THE POINT OF CONNECTION. IF THE PRESSURE AT FURTHEST ROTOR HEAD FALLS BELOW 45PSI, A BOOSTER PUMP OR LARGER HORSE POWER WELL PUMP WILL BE NEEDED. IF A BACKFLOW PREVENTOR IS REQUIRED BY BOZEMAN CITY, THEN THE PRESSURE COMING OUT OF THE WELL HEAD WILL NEED TO BE AT LEAST 85-90 PSI. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM WITH BOZEMAN CITY IF A BACKFLOW PREVENTOR IS REQUIRED OR NOT (PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION). WELL HEAD AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE AN APPROPRIATE SIZED INSULATED ENCLOSURE. 21.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST THE WATER AT THE WELL TO DETERMINE IF A FILTER IS REQUIRED OR NOT FOR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO OPERATE AS DESIGNED. IF A FILTER IS NEEDED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COST TO THE OWNER TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL A FILTER THAT IS CAPABLE OF FILTERING THE WATER PER RAINBIRD AND NETAFIM SPECS FOR THE SPECIFIED EQUIPMENT CALLED OUT IN THE PLANS. 22.ALL HEADS SHALL BE WATER CONSERVING WITH PRESSURE REGULATION. 23.INSTALL THE PRS-D OPTION FOR SPRAY VALVES IF THE STATIC PRESSURE AT SPRAY HEADS EXCEEDS 70 PSI. INSTALL PRS-D FOR ROTOR ZONES IF THE STATIC PRESSURE EXCEEDS 75 PSI. SYMBOL MANUFACTURER-MODEL NUMBER PAT. RD. PSI VALVE ID TAG ZONEVALVE PRESSUREGPM SIZE GPMQ T H TT TQ F DETAILS REMARKSDRIP GPH IRRIGATION LEGEND ------------2.030F DRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT: RAINBIRD XCZ-100-PRB COM NOT SHOWN NOT SHOWN LATERAL LINE: PVC SCH. 40 (SIZE PER PLAN) 'A' RAIN BIRD PESB-PRSD AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVE (SIZE AS NOTED ON PLAN). INSTALL PRS-D OPTION IF REQ. PER SPECS/DETAILS. -- SLEEVE (SIZE TO BE A MIN. OF TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE MAIN, LATERAL) ROUTE WITH MAINLINE 1" RAINBIRD QUICK COUPLER VALVE, MODEL #44LRC. FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM BLOWOUT. COORDINATE WITH ALL TRADES 1.00 1.38 1.98 ----3.82 --25'45 1.40 1.85 2.96 ----5.78 --30'45 Q,T,H,F Q,T,H,F 1.92 2.46 3.81 --------35'45 Q,T,H,F ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED WELL WITH 2" POINT OF CONNECTION. INSTALL WELL HEAD ABOVE GRADE AND SLOPE GRADE AWAY FROM WELL PER CODE. WIRE CHASE, SIZE TO BE TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE WIRE BUNDLE WITHIN, 1" DIA. WC IS THE MINIMUM SIZED ALLOWED.COORDINATE WITH ALL TRADESNOT SHOWN ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED Q,H,F,HE-V 1.3012'.5930 2.37 14 GAUGE SINGLE STRAND SOLID COPPER CONTROL WIRE. INCLUDE 2 EXTRA HOME RUN WIRES FOR FUTURE USE. GPH INC. GPSCV2M DRIP EMITTER ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED-- INSTALL PER LOCAL CODE 10 1 9 12,13,17 2,12,13 9,14,15 8 14,15 14,15 16 SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS4,5 COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION WITH OWNER. FLUSH VALVE: 1/2" PVC BALL VALVE. INSTALL AT END OF ALL DRIP LINES IN 10" ROUND VALVE BOX REFERENCE DETAILS3 DRIP LATERAL: PVC SCH 40, OR STICKY-STRIP PVC HOSE BY GPH. CONTRACTOR SHALL SIZE PIPE PER DETAILS AND SPECS. 2" SCH. 40 PVC MAINLINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ------------5.030FNOT SHOWN --RAINBIRD PC-05 EMITTER WITH DIFFUSER CAP SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS5,6 SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS 14,15 SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS5,6,7,14,15 SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS CONTROLLER: RAINBIRD ESP-LXMEF (SIZE CONTROLLERS AS REQUIRED). LOCATION T.B.D. BY OWNER. INSTALL RAINBIRD RAIN SENSOR. INSTALL PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. Q,H,F,HE-V VAN 1.85.93 3.70 2.661.33 5.32 -- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- 30 30 15' 18' ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED NOT SHOWN DRIPLINE: NETAFIM TLCV26-18 .26/18"F --30 ------------SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS7,18 11 11 11 10 10 ROOT WATERING SYSTEM SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS6 WATER WISE PERENNIALS/GRASSES 1 GPSTCV2M (1GPH) NON WATERWISE PERENNIALS/GRASSES 1 GPSTCV2M (2GPH) ALL WATER WISE SHRUBS 2 GPSTCV2M (1GPH) ALL NON WATER WISE SHRUBS 2 GPSTCV2M (2GPH) TREES IN PLANTERS 3 PC-05 (5GPH) NOTES: 1.EMITTERS LISTED ARE AVAILABLE FROM GPH AND RAINBIRD. 2.INSTALL NETAFIM TLCV IN ADDITION TO PC-05 EMITTERS PER DETAILS ON SHEET LS6.1/7. 3.INSTALL PC-DIFFUSER CAP ON ALL PC-05 EMITTERS. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST QUANTITY OF EMITTERS AND/OR RUNTIMES OF DRIP ZONES AS NECESSARY DURING THE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAND WATER PLANTS AS NECESSARY DURING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT OVER OR UNDER WATERING DOES NOT OCCUR. 4.INSTALL PC-05 EMITTER IN RAINBIRD ROOT WATERING CANISTER. INSTALL (1) RWS PER EACH TREE LOCATED IN LAWN AREAS. PLANT TYPE EMITTER QTY EMITTER TYPE DRIP EMITTER LEGENDRAIN BIRD 1804-PRS-NP POP-UP SPRAY 12 SERIES Q,H,F,HE-V 1.3012'.5930 2.37 --RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS-NP POP-UP SPRAY 15 SERIES RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS-NP POP-UP SPRAY 18 SERIES VAN 1.85.93 3.70 2.661.33 5.32 -- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- 30 30 15' 18' RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS-NP POP-UP SPRAY 8 SERIES Q,H,F,HE-V .528'.2630 1.04 -- RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS-NP POP-UP SPRAY 10 SERIES Q,H,F,HE-V 1.85.93 3.70 ---- ---- -- -- --3010'11 11 ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED RAIN BIRD R-VAN18 1804-P45-NP ROTARY SERIES 45°-270°1.01.50 ----1.51----4513'-18'11 RAIN BIRD 5004-PL-PC,FC-MPR-NP-SS WITH 30 SERIES NOZZLES RAIN BIRD 5004-PL-PC,FC-MPR-NP-SS WITH 25 SERIES NOZZLES RAIN BIRD 5004-PL-PC,FC-MPR-NP-SS WITH 35 SERIES NOZZLES RAIN BIRD R-VAN14 1804-P45-NP ROTARY SERIES* *4" POP-UP UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE ZONE A22. RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS-NP POP-UP SPRAY 15 STRIP SERIES 45°-270°.63.32 1.27 --.94----458'-14' LCS,RCS,SST 30 11 11 ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED ADJUST ARC AS NEEDED 'B' PLANT TYPE # GALLONS # OF PLANTS TOTAL GALLON/YEAR WATER CONSUMPTION NORTH (May-Oct.) PERENNIAL/GRASS WATER WISE PERENNIAL/GRASS NON-WATER WISE SHRUB WATER WISE SHRUB NON-WATER WISE ALL TREES LAWN AREA/NATIVE AREA TOTAL PLANTING : TOTAL WITH LAWN: 1.25 GAL/WEEK 2.5 GAL/WEEK 2.5 GAL/WEEK 5 GAL/WEEK 20 GAL/WEEK 22.5 IN/YEAR 55 15 33 25 37 1,650 900 1,980 3,000 17,760 25,290 33,468 SF 666,969 692,259 SCALE: 0 1"=20'-0" ON 24X36 SHEET 20'20'40'60'THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N.SIDEPLANIRRIGATIONLS 3.1 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS SOUTH PARK AREA BY OTHERS EXPANSION BOARD CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE. 1/2" RADIUS (TYP.) CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE. 1/2" RADIUS (TYP.) 1" CONTROL JOINT DETAIL EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL SCALE: NTS CONTROL & EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL5 ELASTOMERIC SEALANT/ CAULK CONTINUOUS 6" MOWCURB SECTION 1 1/2" = 1'-0"SCALE: NOTES: 1.PROVIDE CONTROL JOINT IN MOWCURB AT 10' INTERVALS, PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 30' ALONG MOWCURB. COBBLE ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH PER PLAN. 6" X 6" CONCRETE MOWCURB WITH SMOOTH FINISH, PER PLANS. NEW TURF, SEE SPECS. AMENDED TOPSOIL PER SPECS (TYP.) 85% COMPACTED BASE UNDER CURBING. 6 1 BENCH DETAIL SCALE: NTS 2 TRASH RECEPTACLE DETAIL SCALE: NTS *COLOR BLACK SUBGRADE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 95%. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROCTOR TESTS FOR ALL AREAS REQUIRING 95% COMPACTION. 4" MIN. DEPTH OF 34" SCREENED AND WASHED GRAVEL BASE, COMPACTED TO 95%. FINISH GRADE NOTE: 1) PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS @ 10'-0" O.C. & EXPANSION JOINTS @ 30'-0" O.C. 4" 4500 PSI 28 DAY STRENGTH CONCRETE SCALE: NTS SIDEWALK DETAIL4 PILOT ROCK PICNIC TABLE SQUARE AND RECTANGLE3 THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N.SIDEDETAILSHARDSCAPELS 4.1 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES CORA BIKE RACK7 SCALE: NTS *COLOR BLACK *COLOR BLACK. PLACE ON CONCRETE PAD IN PLAY AREAS PER DETAIL 4 THIS PAGE BOULDER CLIMBING LAYOUT SCALE: NTS14 PARALLEL BARS SCALE: NTS11 WAVE LADDER SCALE: NTS12 DOUBLE STRETCH SCALE: NTS10 12" CONCRETE CURB- SEE DETAIL 8 THIS SHEET THICKENED CONCRETE SIDEWALK EDGE- SEE DETAIL 9 THIS SHEET THICKENED CONCRETE SIDEWALK EDGE- SEE DETAIL 9 THIS SHEET 12" CONCRETE CURB- SEE DETAIL 8 THIS SHEET INSTALL CLIMBING BOULDERS PER MANUFACTURER SPECS. SEE DETAIL 14 THIS SHEET. CLIMBING BOULDERS13 CLIMBING BOULDERS ARE FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY. OWNER TO SUPPLY BOULDERS. BENCH- SEE DETAIL 1 SHEET LS4.1 TRASH RECEPTACLE- SEE DETAIL 2 SHEET LS4.1 COLOR: SLATE GRAY AND BLACK COLOR: SLATE GRAY AND BLACK COLOR: SLATE GRAY AND BLACK THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N.SIDEDETAILSHARDSCAPELS 4.2 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES NOTE: 1. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS @ 10' O.C. & EXPANSION JOINTS @ 30' O.C. 2. PROVIDE DRAINAGE IN BOTTOM OF PLAY AREA- SEE CIVIL PLANS FOUR #3 REBAR CONTINUOUS CENTERED COMPACT SUBGRADE TO 95% 12" WIDE x 18" TALL CONCRETE CURB W/MEDIUM BROOM FINISH DEWITT 5 OZ. WEED BARRIER FABRIC PLAYGROUND MOW CURB SCALE: NTS SLOPE TO CENTER OF PLAY AREA TURF 4" TOPSOIL DEPTH IN LAWN AREAS 1" RADIUS, TYP. 9 SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% 4" MIN. DEPTH OF 3/4" SCREENED AND WASHED GRAVEL BASE, COMPACTED TO 95% 4" CONCRETE PER CIVIL PLANS AND SPECS. TWO (2) #4 REBAR CONTINUOUS CENTERED SOFFALL OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH TO BE 12". CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL GREATER DEPTH AS NEEDED IF REQUIRED BY PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SELECTED AND PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. NOTE: 1.INSTALL THICKENED SIDEWALK EDGE WHERE SIDEWALK ABUTS PLAY AREA. 2.INSTALL FENCE POST IN THICKENED CONCRETE EDGE WITH EXTENDED FOOTING PER FENCE POST DETAIL 1:1 SLOPE PLAY AREA THICKENED CONCRETE EDGE PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE WITH FABRIC SOCK INSTALLED AT LOW POINT. SEE CIVIL PLANS AND DETAILS. PIPE TO STORM DRAIN PER CIVIL PLANS. DEWITT 5 OZ LANDSCAPE FILTER FABRIC 6" DEPTH MIN. OF COMPACTED DRAIN ROCK. SLOPE SUBGRADE TO DRAIN LINES. SLOPES AND DRAIN LINE LOCATIONS PER CIVIL. SCALE:NTS8 CONCRETE PAD, TYP. SEE DETAIL 4 SHEET LS4.1 FINISHED GRADE PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED SOIL. NOTES:1.SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTER PIT PRIOR TO PLANTING TREE SO AS TO AVOID ANY GLAZING OR HARDENED AREAS THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR ROOTS TO GROW THROUGH. 2.AMENDED SOIL PER SPEC'S TO BE USED IN ALLPLANTER PITS. 3.REMOVE ALL ROCKS LARGER THAN 12" FROMPLANTER PIT AND HAUL ROCK OFF SITE IN LEGAL MANNER. 4.TREES SHALL BE PLANTED SO THAT SOIL HAS SUFFICIENT DRAINAGE. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM PLANTER PIT DRAINAGE TEST IN EACH PLANTING AREA. PITS THAT DO NOT DRAIN MORE THAN 2" IN AN HOUR SHALL BE MODIFIED UNTIL THEY DRAIN PROPERLY. 6.ROCK OR WOOD MULCH SHALL NOT TOUCH ANY PART OF THE TRUNK OF THE TREE, TYP. 7.ROOT FLARE OF TREE SHOULD BE PLACED 1" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE PER EACH 1" OF TREE CALIPER TO A MAXIMUM OF 2". 8.TREES IN BOULEVARDS TO BE PLANTED PER BOZEMAN CITY FORESTRY STANDARDS AT A MIN. ADJUST INSTALLATION AS NEEDED. OBTAIN PERMIT PRIOR TO PLANTING IN BOULEVARDS. ROCK MULCH OR WOOD MULCH PER PLANS. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC ONLY UNDER ROCK MULCH. BACKFILL PER SOIL NOTES/SPECS. WATER BASIN (ONLY REQUIRED IF REQUESTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT). DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING SCALE: NTS 2X ROOT BALL WIDTH 1 ALL STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN OUTSIDE THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL. ARBOR TIE, TYP.STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 60° ANGLES AROUND TREE AS SHOWN PLAN VIEW NOTES: IF TREE STAKING IS REQUIRED, THE FOLLOWING IS RECOMMENDED: 1.ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. ATTACH ARBOR TIE TO TREE AND STAKE. 2.REMOVE ALL WRAPPING MATERIAL FROM ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLANTING. 3.INSTALL THREE STAKES PER TREE, SPACED EVENLY AROUND THE TRUNK 4.REMOVE ALL STAKING AS SOON AS THE TREE IS STABLE. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TREE STAKING AS PART OF THE BASE BID. 6.CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE NURSERY TREE STAKE FROM ROOTBALL AT TIME OF PLANTING (TYP.). ARBOR TIE NAILED TO STAKE. ARBOR TIE. FOLD ENDS OF ARBOR TIE BACK. SECURE TO STAKE WITH 1" GALVANIZED ROOFING NAIL OR USE A KNOT. DECIDUOUS TREE STAKING SCALE: NTS 6'-8' STAKE, TYP. 2"Ø LODGE POLE STAKE, TYP. STAKE TO BE 6'-8' TALL TYP. 2 FINISHED GRADE. PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED SOIL. BACKFILL PER SOIL NOTES/SPECS. WATER BASIN (ONLY REQUIRED IF REQUESTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT). ROCK MULCH OR WOOD MULCH, PER PLANS. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC ONLY UNDER ROCK MULCH. NOTES: 1.SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTER PIT PRIOR TO PLANTING TREE SO AS TO AVOID ANY GLAZING OR HARDENED AREAS THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR ROOTS TO GROW THROUGH. 2.AMENDED EXISTING SOIL PER SPEC'S TO BE USED IN ALL PLANTER PITS. 3.REMOVE ALL ROCKS LARGER THAN 12" FROM PLANTER PIT AND HAUL ROCK OFF SITE IN LEGAL MANNER. 4.TREES SHALL BE PLANTED SO THAT SOIL HAS SUFFICIENT DRAINAGE. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM PLANTER PIT DRAINAGE TEST IN EACH PLANTING AREA. PITS THAT DO NOT DRAIN MORE THAN 2" IN AN HOUR SHALL BE MODIFIED UNTIL THEY DRAIN PROPERLY. 6.MULCH SHALL NOT TOUCH ANY PART OF THE TRUNK OF THE TREE, TYP. 7.ROOT FLARE OF TREE SHOULD BE PLACED 1" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE PER EACH 1" OF TREE CALIPER TO A MAXIMUM OF 2". EVERGREEN PLANTING SCALE: NTS 2X ROOT BALL WIDTH 3 PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED SOIL. PLACE TOP OF ROOTBALL FLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE.WATER BASIN. USE WHEN NECESSARY PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REQUEST. ROCK OR MULCH PER PLANS. MULCH SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANY PART OF THE TRUNK OF THE SHRUB. FINISHED GRADE. BACKFILL PER SOIL NOTES AND SPECS. NOTES: 1.SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTER PIT PRIOR TO PLANTING SHRUB/GRASS SO AS TO AVOID ANY GLAZING OR HARDENED AREAS THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR ROOTS TO GROW THROUGH. 2.IMPORTED & AMENDED TOPSOIL PER SPEC'S TO BE USED IN ALL PLANTER PITS. 3.REMOVE ALL COMPACTED, CLAY OR ROCKY SOILS FROM PIT AND HAUL OFF SITE IN A LEGAL MANNER. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM PLANTER PIT DRAINAGE TEST IN EACH PLANTING AREA. PITS THAT DO NOT DRAIN MORE THAN 2" IN AN HOUR SHALL BE MODIFIED UNTIL THEY DRAIN PROPERLY. SHRUB & ORNAMENTAL GRASS PLANTING SCALE: NTS5 EXISTING SOIL ROCK OR WOOD MULCH PER PLAN. MULCH SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANY PART OF THE PERENNIAL. NOTES: 1.SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTER PIT PRIOR TO PLANTING PERENNIALS SO AS TO AVOID ANY GLAZING OR HARDENED AREAS THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR ROOTS TO GROW THROUGH. 2.REMOVE ALL COMPACTED, CLAY OR ROCKY SOILS FROM PIT AND HAUL OFF SITE IN LEGAL MANNER. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM PLANTER PIT DRAINAGE TEST IN EACH PLANTING AREA. PITS THAT DO NOT DRAIN MORE THAN 2" IN AN HOUR SHALL BE MODIFIED UNTIL THEY DRAIN PROPERLY. 6" DEPTH OF AMENDED SOIL PER SPECS. PERENNIAL PLANTING SCALE: NTS PLANT SPACING PER PLAN 6 FINISH GRADE WHERE BOULDER RETAINS GRADE. BOULDER. FINISH GRADE. BOULDER, TYP. FINISH GRADE. GROUP BOULDERS SO AS TO APPEAR NATURAL. CUT FABRIC SO THAT BOULDER CAN REST ON TOP OF FABRIC. DO NOT REMOVE FABRIC FROM UNDER THE BOULDERS. BOULDER PLACEMENT SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1.PLACE ALL BOULDERS SUCH THAT 1/4 OF THE TOTAL MASS OF EACH BOULDER IS BELOW FINISH GRADE. 2.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE ALL BOULDER LOCATION AND ORIENTATION ON SITE. 7 NOTES: IF TREE STAKING IS REQUIRED, THE FOLLOWING IS RECOMMENDED: 1.ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. ATTACH ARBOR TIE TO TREE AND STAKE. 2.REMOVE ALL WRAPPING MATERIAL FROM ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLANTING. 3.INSTALL THREE STAKES PER TREE, SPACED EVENLY AROUND THE TRUNK 4.REMOVE ALL STAKING AS SOON AS THE TREE IS STABLE 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TREE STAKING AS PART OF THE BASE BID. EVERGREEN TREE STAKING SCALE: NTS 6'-8' STAKE, TYP. STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 60° ANGLES AROUND TREE AS SHOWN PLAN VIEW ARBOR TIE NAILED TO STAKE. ARBOR TIE. FOLD ENDS OF ARBOR TIE BACK. SECURE TO STAKE WITH 1" GALVANIZED ROOFING NAIL OR USE A KNOT. ALL STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN OUTSIDE THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL. 2"Ø LODGE POLE STAKE, TYP. STAKE TO BE 6'-8' TALL TYP. ARBOR TIE, TYP. 4 FINISHED SURFACE OF ADJACENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK, CURB, OR OTHER HARDSCAPE ELEMENT PER PLAN. ROCK PER PLANS. SEE LEGEND ON PLANTING PLAN SHEETS FOR TYPES AND DEPTHS. LANDSCAPE WEED BARRIER FABRIC. UNDISTURBED SOIL WEED FABRIC NOTE: INSTALL 6" SOIL STAPLE IN WEED BARRIER FABRIC AT 5' O.C. TRIANGULAR SPACING. INSTALL 6" SOIL STAPLE AT 12" O.C. ALONG ALL WEED BARRIER FABRIC SEAMS. OVERLAP FABRIC MIN. OF 6" AT ALL SEAMS AS SHOWN BELOW. INSTALL SOIL STAPLE 6' O.C. ALONG EDGES & 2 AT EACH CORNER. FINISH GRADE PRIOR TO INSTALLING WEED BARRIER FABRIC AND ROCK. WEED BARRIER FABRIC. SOIL STAPLE AT 12" O.C. ALONG SEAM. ROCK MULCH AND WEED BARRIER FABRIC SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1.ROCK SHALL BE SCREENED & DOUBLE WASHED AND BE FREE OF DEBRIS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. IF ROCK SUPPLIER DOES NOT HAVE A WASH PLANT, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOUBLE WASHING ALL ROCK AND BOULDERS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2.INSTALL ROCK AFTER INSTALLATION OF WEED BARRIER FABRIC AND PLANT MATERIAL. 3.CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT TOP OF WEED BARRIER FABRIC IS FREE OF SOILS AND DEBRIS PRIOR TO PLACING ROCK. 4.BEFORE PLACING WEED BARRIER FABRIC AND ROCK, APPLY A PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO SOIL. AFTER PLACING WEED BARRIER, PLANTS AND ROCK, RAKE ROCK SMOOTH, WET ROCK TO ENTIRE DEPTH, ALLOW TO DRY, THEN APPLY A SECONDARY APPLICATION OF PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO TOP OF ROCK. 5.KEEP TOP OF ROCK 1" BELOW ADJACENT WALKS AND CURBS. 6.DO NOT ALLOW ROCK TO TOUCH THE TRUNK OF ANY PLANT. 7.SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ROCK TYPE AND DEPTH. FINISH GRADE OF ROCK TO BE 1" BELOW TOP OF ADJACENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK, CURB OR OTHER HARDSCAPE ELEMENT PER PLAN. 9 NOTES: 1.ENSURE FINISH GRADE IS 1" BELOW TOP OF CURB, WALK, OR EDGING. CONSULT WITH OWNER FOR PROPER DEPTH. 2.SEE SOD SPEC'S FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SODDING AND SEEDING REQUIREMENTS 3.EDGING OF SOD MOW CURB OR STEEL EDGING (SEE PLAN) WHEN NOT NEXT TO CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR PATH. 4.TURF IS THE MOST HEALTHY AND WATER EFFICIENT WHEN MOWED AT A MIN. HEIGHT OF 212" - 3". CONCRETE CURB, SIDEWALK, PATH OR EDGING - SEE PLAN. SOD BASE OR ROOT AREA. AMENDED SOILS PER SPECS. CROSS RIP OR TILL SUBGRADE PER NOTES. AGGREGATE BASE. (NOT PAST OR UNDER EDGING). SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 85%. SOD LAYING AND EDGE SCALE: NTS8 THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N.SIDEDETAILSPLANTINGLS 5.1 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES STEEL EDGING NTSSCALE: 1/2" x 6" STEEL EDGING TOP OF EDGING TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 1/2" ABOVE SURFACE MATERIAL. NATIVE SEED PER PLANS AND SPECS. COMPACT GRADES TO ADJACENT TO EDGE TO AVOID SETTLING. SPOT WELD. 24" #4 REBAR STAKE OR STAKES PROVIDED BY EDGING MANUFACTURE 10 2" POINT OF CONNECTION SCALE: NTS9 RAINBIRD 44LRC QUICK COUPLER VALVE NOTES: 1.FLUSH ALL PIPING PRIOR TO INSTALLING VALVE. 2.WRAP ALL THREADS WITH TEFLON TAPE. 1.1/2 TO 2 WRAPS MAXIMUM. 3.COMPACT SOILS AROUND VALVE BOX TO 80% OF ORIGINAL DRY DENSITY. 4.INSTALL GEOFABRIC UNDER VALVE BOXES AND TAPE TO PIPE NIPPLES AND VALVE BOX. 5.BOX COLOR - GREEN IN TURF AND TAN IN PLANTER AREAS. 6.IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE BLOWN OUT WITH AIR COMPRESSOR THROUGH THE RPZ AND QUICK COUPLERS BEFORE FREEZING TEMPERATURES OCCUR, TYP. 7.SCH 80 PVC TEE OR ELL'S CAN BE USED ON ALL QUICK COUPLERS EXCEPT AT POINT OF CONNECTION (IF QUICK COUPLER(S) ARE INSTALLED AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION). ALL QUICK COUPLER FITTINGS AND NIPPLES AT P.O.C. QUICK COUPLER(S) TO BE GALVANIZED. VALVE BOX (SIZE AS REQUIRED) WITH EXTENSIONS IF NECESSARY INSTALL TOP OF VALVE BOX 1/2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE IN LAWN AREAS AND FLUSH WITH TOP OF MULCH IN PLANTERS. HEAVY DUTY GALVANIZED FASTENERS (2 REQUIRED) SCH. 80 NIPPLES 3/4" MIN GRAVEL BASE SCH. 80 STREET ELL MANIFOLD SCH. 80 TEE. SCH. 80 ELL AND STREET ELL 30" X 1" GALVANIZED ANGLE IRON STAKE QUICK COUPLER VALVE SCALE: NTS BRICK (1 OF 3). NOT REQUIRED IF RAINBIRD VALVE BOX IS USED. 8 NOTES: 1.INSTALL ROTORS 2"-3" AWAY FROM HARDSCAPE PAVING AND 12" AWAY FROM WALLS, BUILDINGS, FENCES OR OTHER STRUCTURES. 2.ALL ROTORS TO HAVE STAINLESS STEEL RISERS. 3.FOR ROTORS WITH FLOWS LESS THAN 8 GPM, STREET ELLS, TEES AND NIPPLES MAY BE 34" IN SIZE.4.LATERAL LINES SHALL BE KEPT MIN. 12" FROM ALL SIDEWALKS AND CURBS. SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW WITH STAINLESS STEEL RISERS. PVC LATERAL LINE (3) 1" MARLEX STREET ELLS ROTOR POP-UP SPRINKLER FINISH GRADE (3) 1" SCH 40 STREET ELLS COMPACTED SOIL 1" PVC SCHEDULE 80 NIPPLE 12" LONG MIN. NOT TO EXCEED 45 DEG. ANGLE. ROTOR HEAD SCALE: NTS10 1800 PRS PER LEGEND. LATERAL LINE WITH PVC TEE OR ELL. PVC STREET ELL OR MALE BARBED ELBOW. PVC FLEX HOSE OR SWING PIPE. PVC STREET ELL OR MALE BARBED ELBOW. FINISH GRADE. SET HEAD FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE. LAWN POP-UP SPRAY HEAD EDGE OF PAVING . NOTE: 1.USE VAN OR HE VAN NOZZLES AS NEEDED TO KEEP WATER OFF SIDEWALK AND BUILDING. 2.LATERAL LINES SHALL BE KEPT MIN. 12" FROM ALL SIDEWALKS AND CURBS. 3.INSTALL SAM FEATURE FOR SLOPED LAWN AREAS WHERE LOW HEAD DRAINAGE MAY OCCUR. 2-3" MIN. 12" POP-UP SPRAY SCALE: NTS11 SCALE: NTS ROOT WATERING SYSTEM DETAIL SOCK (RWS-SOCK) FOR SANDY SOILS PLANT ROOT BALL NOTES: 1.PLACE (1) R.W.S ON UPHILL SIDE OF TREE AT EDGE OF ROOTBALL FOR ALL TREES IN LAWN AREAS. 2.INSTALL PRODUCT WITH TOP EVEN WITH GROUND SURFACE. 3.ATTACH (1) PC-05 EMITTER TO SWING JOINT INSIDE OF THE CAN. 4.WHEN INSTALLING IN EXTREMELY HARD OR CLAY SOILS, ADD 3/4" (1,9 CM) GRAVEL UNDER AND AROUND THE UNIT TO ALLOW FASTER WATER INFILTRATION AND ROOT PENETRATION. 5.ONCE RWS HAS BEEN INSTALLED FILL THE BASKET WITH PEA GRAVEL BEFORE LOCKING LID. 6.INSTALL RWS-SOCK FOR USE IN SANDY SOILS. FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCH ROOT WATERING SYSTEM: RAIN BIRD RWS SWING ASSEMBLY (INCLUDED) 1/2" MALE NPT INLET (INCLUDED) PVC SCH 40 TEE OR EL PVC LATERAL PIPE 4" WIDE X 36" LONG RIGID BASKET WEAVE CANISTER (INCLUDED) 6 THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N.SIDEDETAILSIRRIGATIONLS 6.1 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES CONDUIT, FITTINGS AND SWEEP ELL OUT TO RAINBIRD RAIN SENSOR. CONDUIT, FITTINGS AND SWEEP ELL TO POWER SUPPLY WALL MOUNTED RAINBIRD CONTROLLER. ADJUST AS NEEDED IF INSTALLED IN PEDESTAL PER BOZEMAN CITY STANDARDS. CONDUIT, FITTINGS AND SWEEP ELL OUT TO ADJACENT LAWN OR PLANTER AREA FOR VALVE CONNECTIONS. NOTES: 1.MOUNT CONTROLLER PER MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL CODES. EXACT LOCATION TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER. GROUND CONTROLLER PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATION AND SPECIFICATIONS. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL GROUND CONTROLLER. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SLEEVING FROM ADJACENT PLANTER AREA TO CONTROLLER LOCATION. 2.CONNECT CONTROLLER TO POWER AND VALVES. 3.REFER TO SPECS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 4.MOUNT SENSOR WITH IN 25 FEET OF CONTROLLER PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. CONTROLLER WITH SENSOR SCALE: NTS1 SCH 80 ACTION UNION (BOTH SIDES) PVC MAINLINE FINISH GRADE. TOP OF MULCH / ROCK ID TAG: PRE-PRINTED. PVC LATERAL PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE (2-INCH LENGTH, HIDDEN) AND PVC SCH. 80 TEE OR ELL. 3-INCH MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4-INCH WASHED GRAVEL VALVE BOX WITH COVER. WATER PROOF CONNECTION: RAIN BIRD SPLICE-1 (1 OF 2) OR DBY/R. 30-INCH LINEAR LENGTH OF WIRE, COILED PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE (TYPICAL, LENGTH AS REQUIRED) PVC SCH 80 ELL. RAIN BIRD 1" XCZ-PRB-100-COM CONTROL ZONE KIT. (INCLUDES 1" BALL VALVE WITH 1" PESB VALVE AND 1" PRESSURE REGULATING (40PSI) BASKET FILTER) 3" MIN. 1" DRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT SCALE: NTS BRICK (1 OF 4). NOT REQUIRED IF RAINBIRD BOX IS USED. 2 FINISH GRADE 1 CUBIC FOOT PEA GRAVEL SUMP VALVE BOX WITH COVER PVC BALL VALVE, SIZE PER LINE. 24" EXTRA LENGTH OF AR 1/2" OR 3/4" TUBING (AVAILABLE THRU GPH PRODUCTS) LINE COILED IN VALVE BOX. INSTALL MISC. FITTINGS AS REQUIRED. DRIP LINE FLUSH CAP SCALE: NTS BRICK (1 OF 4) REQUIRED IF RAINBIRD VALVE BOX IS NOT USED. NOTES: 1.USE IPS WELDON 795 GLUE AND P70 PRIMER PER GPH INC. SPECIFICATIONS. 2.DO NOT INSTALL PIPE, FITTINGS, OR GLUE IN TEMPERATURES BELOW 40 DEGREES. SEE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS FROM MORE INFORMATION. 3 NOTES: 1.EMITTER SPACING SHALL BE BASED ON PLANT SPACING. INSTALL ALL IRRIGATION USING THE COMPONENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE. 2.IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE COMPLETELY INSTALLED PRIOR TO PLANT LAYOUTS. 3.ADJUST IRRIGATION SPACING TO ACCOMMODATE FINAL PLANT LAYOUT. 4.1/2" PVC FLEX HOSE SHALL NOT EXCEED 4GPM, 3/4" PVC FLEX HOSE SHALL NOT EXCEED 8GPM AND 1" PVC FLEX HOSE SHALL NOT EXCEED 13GPM. 5.AT OWNERS DISCRETION, A LESS EXPENSIVE DRIP SYSTEM MAY BE INSTALLED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS, SUBMITTAL CUT SHEETS AND POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS TO OWNER. HOWEVER, THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL CHANGES IN MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES IF DIFFERENT FROM THE PLAN. 6.SMALL EVERGREEN TREES MAY NEED FEWER EMITTERS. CONSULT WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON-SITE PRIOR TO INSTALLING IRRIGATION TO DETERMINE QUANTITY OF EMITTERS. 7.SEE IRRIGATION SHEET FOR DRIP EMITTER LEGEND. 8.USE IPS WELDON 795 GLUE AND P70 PRIMER PER GPH INC. SPECIFICATIONS. 9.DO NOT INSTALL PIPE, FITTINGS, OR GLUE IN TEMPERATURES BELOW 40 DEGREES. SEE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS FROM MORE INFORMATION. PVC SCH 40, OR STICKY-STRIP PVC HOSE BY GPH. SIZE PER PLAN. PVC TEE OR REDUCTION TEE AS NEEDED. SHRUB, PERENNIAL OR GRASS, TYP. SEE PLANTING PLAN AND EMITTER LEGEND. 12 TO 1" FLEXIBLE PVC HOSE MANUFACTURED BY GPH. CONTRACTOR SHALL SIZE PER NOTE #4. SPEC-CHECK PC CHECK VALVE EMITTER, TYP. SCHEDULE 40 CROSS. GLUE FITTING. SCHEDULE 40 TEE. GLUE FITTING. VARIES PER PLAN MAX. 5' GPH DRIP EMITTER PLAN VIEW SCALE: NTS ROOTBALL, TYP. FOR PLANTS REQUIRING ONLY ONE EMITTER, INSTALL THE EMITTER AT THE EDGE OF THE ROOTBALL. FOR PLANTS REQUIRING TWO EMITTERS, INSTALL ONE EMITTER AT THE EDGE OF THE ROOTBALL AND THE OTHER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROOTBALL HALFWAY BETWEEN THE PLANT'S TRUNK AND IT'S EXPECTED MATURE CANOPY. FOR TREES IN PLANTER AREAS SEE DETAIL 7. INSTALL 3 EMITTERS. INSTALL (2) 5GPH EMITTERS AT THE EDGE OF THE ROOTBALL ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE TREE AND THE OTHER 5PGH. EMITTER SPREAD OUT TO PROMOTE FUTURE ROOT GROWTH. EXPECTED MATURE CANOPY, TYP. 5 NOTE: 1.FOR LAYOUT OF MULTIPLE SHRUBS, CONTRACTOR SHALL USE TEE'S AS NECESSARY. 2.USE IPS WELDON 795 GLUE AND P70 PRIMER PER GPH INC. SPECIFICATIONS. 3.DO NOT INSTALL PIPE, FITTINGS, OR GLUE IN TEMPERATURES BELOW 40 DEGREES. SEE MANUFACTURE SPECIFICATIONS FROM MORE INFORMATION. TOP SOIL 60" LONG MAXIMUM14" LONG MINIMUM 1/2" FLEX TUBING DRIP EMITTER WITH FINISH GRADE PLANT OR TREE ROOTBALL 12" GLUEDON MALE ADAPTER FPT BASE PVC SCH. 40 TEE TO SECOND EMITTER MULCH PER PLANS THREADED PVC ADAPTER, SIZE AS REQUIRED.2"12"FOR LAYOUT INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL 5. DRIP EMITTER SCALE: NTS PVC TEE, SIZE AS REQUIRED. FLEXIBLE PVC LATERAL LINE 4 NTSSCALE:4'TYP.NOTES: 1.LAYOUT SHOWN IS TYPICAL. ON SITE MODIFICATIONS WILL BE REQUIRED DUE TO VARYING SIZE OF PLANTER ISLANDS. CONSULT WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON-SITE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH DRIP NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED AND WHAT CONFIGURATION IS APPROPRIATE. 2.INSTALL NETAFIM DRIP TUBING UNDER WEED BARRIER FABRIC. USE THIS DETAIL FOR ALL TREES PLANTED IN COBBLE ROCK AREAS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE CAREFUL NOT TO DAMAGE OR PINCH TUBING WHEN PLACING COBBLE ROCK AND BOULDERS. 3.TREES PLANTED IN LAWN AREAS WILL NOT BE WATERED BY DRIP BUT WILL BE WATERED BY THE LAWN SPRINKLERS. 4.THIS DETAIL IS FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY AND IS NOT TO SCALE. CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL DRIP LINE PER THIS DETAIL OUT TO THE DRIPLINE OF THE TREES MATURE SIZE. 5.FOR LINEAR PLANTERS WITH TREES, INSTALL NETAFIM IN STRAIGHT LINES RATHER THAN A CIRCULAR PATTERN AROUND THE TREE. 6.INSTALL A FLUSH VALVE (NOT SHOWN) AT THE END OF ALL DRIP LINES, PER PLAN.4'TYP.2'-4' 2'-4' TYP. TWO PC-05 DRIP EMITTER AT SURFACE, ATTACH DIRECTLY TO NETAFIM DRIPLINE . MATURE CANOPY OF DECIDUOUS OR EVERGREEN TREE. TRUNK OF TREE. NETAFIM TLCV26-1801 DRIP LINE TUBING WITH FITTINGS. START 12" OUT FROM TRUNK OF TREE THEN SPIRAL OUT FROM TRUNK TO TREES CANOPY ESTIMATED MATURE DIAMETER. ADJUST NETAFIM IN AND AROUND SHRUBS. SCH. 40 PVC LATERAL LINE PER PLAN. SIDEWALK OR OTHER HARDSCAPE MATERIAL (IF ANY), TYP. TREE DRIP WITH PARTIALPLANTING UNDER CANOPY7 WATER SOURCE FROM WELL AND 2" LINE TO STOP AND WASTE VALVE. FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCATION. 2" PVC MAINLINE TO VALVES 1 12" STOP AND WASTE VALVE. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE WATERDRAINS PROPERLY TO PREVENT FREEZING. WELL NOTE: 1. ADD BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE IF REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCES. IF REQUIRED PRESSURE NEEDS TO INCREASE TO 83 PSI MIN. AT WELL HEAD. 2. INSTALL OPTIONAL GATE VALVE AFTER (STOP AND WASTE VALVE) IF DIRECTED BY OWNER. THIS WILL MAKE MAINTENANCE AND WINTERIZATION EASIER AND BETTER. 1" RAINBIRD 44LRC QUICK COUPLER 1 12" FLOW METER (WEATHERTRACK OR OWNER APPROVED EQUAL) GATE VALVE MANUAL DRAIN S&W MV MD GV QC FM 1 12" MASTER VALVE (RAINBIRD PESB OR OWNER APPROVEDEQUAL) PVC MAINLINE. COMPACTED BACKFILL WEED BARRIER FABRIC UNDER ROCK MULCH PER PLANS. 2" DEPTH OF SAND OR ROCK FREE SOIL ON TOP, BOTTOM AND SIDES OF MAINLINE LATERAL PVC LINE TOPSOIL, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS FOR DEPTHS FINISH GRADE ROCK OR WOOD MULCH IN PLANTER AREA, WOOD OR TURF IN LAWN AREA. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS FOR DEPTHS CONTROL WIRE. INSTALL BESIDE & BELOW TOP OF MAINLINE. INSTALL IN CONDUIT WHEN WIRE LEAVES MAINLINE TRENCH. TRENCH SECTION SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1.PROVIDE SLACK IN CONTROL WIRES AT ALL CHANGES IN DIRECTION. 2.MAINLINE DEPTH SHALL BE 18" DEEP EXCEPT UNDER ASPHALT & CONCRETE PAVING AND AT P.O.C. SHALL BE MIN OF 24" & MAX OF 30". INSTALL ADDITIONAL FITTINGS & RESTRAINTS AS REQUIRED. 3.MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINES SHALL BE KEPT MIN. 12" FROM ALL SIDEWALKS AND CURBS. 14 PLAN VIEW WIRE W/O CONDUIT SECTION VIEW TIE A 24-INCH LOOP IN ALL WIRING AT CHANGES OF DIRECTION OF 30° OR GREATER. UNTIE AFTER ALL CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. ALL SOLVENT WELD PLASTIC PIPING TO BE SNAKED IN TRENCH AS SHOWN. RUN WIRING BENEATH AND BESIDE MAINLINE. TAPE AND BUNDLE AT 10-FOOT INTERVALS. NOTES: 1.SLEEVE BELOW ALL HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (WITH CLASS 200 OR SCH. 40 OR SCH. 80 PER SPECS.) TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE OR WIRE BUNDLE WITHIN. 2.FOR PIPE AND WIRE BURIAL DEPTHS, SEE NOTES AND SPECS. 3.NO LINE VOLTAGE WIRING SHALL BE ALLOWED IN IRRIGATION TRENCHES. MAINLINE, LATERAL, AND WIRING IN THE SAME TRENCH MAINLINE PIPE LATERAL PIPE WIRING IN CONDUIT LATERAL LINE MAIN LINE WIRE PIPE, WIRE, AND TRENCH SCALE: NTS15 PVC CAP(TYP.) PAVING PAVING DITCH PVC CAP (TYPICAL) PAINT ENDS PINK AND LABEL AS 'IRR. SLEEVE' CLASS 200 SLEEVES OR GREEN ABS PIPE SIDE BY SIDE NOTE: 1.WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SLEEVE, EXTEND THE SMALLER SLEEVE TO 24-INCHES MINIMUM ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 2.ALL SLEEVES INSTALLED SHALL BE DUCT TAPED TO PREVENT DIRT OR OTHER DEBRIS ENTERING PIPE. ALL SLEEVES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY WOOD OR PVC STAKES AND BE SPRAY PAINTED WITH MARKING PAINT. REMOVE STAKES ONCE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS COMPLETE. 18" MIN 24" MIN. TO FINISH GRADE 24" MIN. 30" MAX. SLEEVING SCALE: NTS16 MANIFOLD PIPING, SIZE PER PLAN) MANIFOLD SEE DETAIL 13 NOTES: 1.MAXIMUM 2 VALVES PER VALVE BOX. 2.MODIFY AS REQUIRED DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE VALVES ARE PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO MAINLINE. 3.USE GREEN BOXES IN LAWN AREAS & TAN BOXES IN PLANTER AREAS. 4.BOXES WITH 2-VALVES SHALL BE A JUMBO SIZED BOX OR BIGGER PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DIRECTION. 5.VALVES SHALL BE ABLE TO BE REMOVED FOR MAINTENANCE WITHOUT HAVING TO REMOVE THE VALVE BOX. 30" LINEAR LENGTH OF WIRE, COILED WATER PROOF CONNECTION (1 OF 2) VALVE BOX WITH COVER: SIZE AS NECESSARY FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCH REMOTE CONTROL VALVE. SEE LEGEND FOR MODEL PVC SCH 80 UNION (LINE SIZE) PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) BRICK (1 OF 4) REQUIRED IF RAINBIRD VALVE BOX IS NOT USED SCH 80 NIPPLE (2" LENGTH, HIDDEN) AND SCH 80 ELL. PVC SCH 80 UNION (PVC COUPLER NOT SHOWN) PVC LATERAL PIPE 3" MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4" MINUS WASHED GRAVEL PVC SCH 80 ELL 3" MIN. PRE-PRINTED CHRISTY VALVE ID TAG, TYP. A1 CONTROL VALVE SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1.THE PRS OPTION FOR CONTROL VALVES CAN BE DELETED IF THE STATIC PRESSURE AT THE VALVE IS LESS THAN 70PSI ON SPRAY ZONES, AND LESS THAN 75PSI ON 5000 SERIES ROTOR ZONES. 2.PRS OPTION IS REQUIRED FOR FALCON ZONES. 17 SCH. 40 PVC COUPLER 30" COILED WIRE RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX MAIN SUPPLY LINE 18" DEEP MINIMUM SCH. 80 ST ELL SCH. 80 PVC "ACTION" UNION 3" DEPTH OF 34" MINUS WASHED GRAVEL LIMIT 2 VALVES PER VALVE BOX SCH. 40 PVC LATERAL LINE 12" DEEP MINIMUM SCH. 80 PVC "ACTION" UNION 12" MAXIMUM FROM CONCRETE WALK OR MOWSTRIP NOTE: 1.ADD PRE-PRINTED CHRISTY I.D. TAGS TO ALL NEW CONTROL VALVES AND CONTROL ZONE KITS. COORDINATE AND LABEL ALL CONTROL WIRE AT CONTROLLER WITH EACH VALVE IN THE FIELD, TYP. 2.VALVES SHALL BE ABLE TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT HAVING TO REMOVE THE VALVE BOX. VALVE ASSEMBLY SCALE: NTS12 LATERAL LINE SCH.40 PVC LATERAL PIPE PER PLAN. SIZE PER PLAN. VALVE & FITTINGS, VALVE BOX PER PLAN. SCH. 80 TEE OR ELBOW. SCH 80 TEE WITH 1" OUTFLOW TO QUICK COUPLER PER PLAN, QUICK COUPLER IN 10" ROUND VALVE BOX. SCHEDULE 80 PVC, TYPICAL (LENGTH & SIZE AS REQ.) SCHEDULE 80 PVC TEE OR ELL, SIZE AS REQUIRED. LATERAL LINE LATERAL LINE NOTES: 1.ALL VALVE MANIFOLD PIPING AND FITTINGS TO BE SCH. 80 FITTINGS, UNLESS THERE IS A DRIP ZONE ALL BY ITSELF IN WHICH CASE THE PIPING SHALL BE SIZED PER THE FLOW OF THE DRIP ZONE. 2.MODIFY MANIFOLD AS NECESSARY DEPENDING ON HOW MANY VALVES ARE IN A CLUSTER. 3.MODIFY AS REQUIRED DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE VALVES ARE PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO MAINLINE. MAINLINE VALVE MANIFOLD SCALE: NTS SEE DETAIL 8 SEE DETAIL 2,12,17 13 3"12"FINISH GRADE Techline COMBINATION TEE MODEL TL075FTEE Techline TUBING 3/4" MIN.TRIPLE SWING JOINT LENGTH AS REQUIRED PVC TEE (SxSxT) OR 90° (SXT) SCH. 40 PVC PIPING NOTE: ·EACH CONNECTION IS CAPABLE OF MAX 10 GPM TECHLINE START CONNECTION (SWING JOINT RISER) SCALE: NTS18 1" MARLEX. 2" CLASS 200 PVC PIPE. 2" YELLOW SNUG CAP. FINISH GRADE. NOTES: 1.INSTALL MANUAL DRAINS IF ISOLATION VALVES ARE REQUESTED BY OWNER. 2.PROVIDE OWNER WITH (2) VALVE KEYS. 3.AT CONTRACTORS DISCRETION, THE MANUAL DRAIN AS WELL AS THE ISOLATION VALVES MAY BE INSTALLED IN (1) 24" DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH A CAST IRON LID. INSTALL MIN. 12" DEPTH OF GRAVEL IN BASE OF 24" DIAMETER SLEEVE 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE MANUAL DRAINS ARE INSTALLED AT THE LOW POINT ENSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 1" BRASS NIPPLE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED). 1" BRASS MANUAL DRAIN VALVE (CURB STOP). FABRIC BARRIER LINER. IRRIGATION MAIN LINE FITTING. IRRIGATION MAIN LINE. 2 CUBIC FOOT OF 3/4" MINUS GRAVEL SUMP. MANUAL DRAIN SCALE: NTS RAINBIRD VALVE BOX WITH COVER. SIZE AS NECESSARY. BRICK (1 OF 4) REQUIRED IF RAINBIRD VALVE BOX IS NOT USED. 19 THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IN-SITE DESIGN GROUP. COPYRIGHT© 2006architects@in-sitedesigngroup.com17 North 470 West American Fork, Utah 84003801.756.5043 www.in-sitedesigngroup.comCITY SUBMITTALTSETAOTNFOMCETIHCRA EPACSDNALDESNECILT Cory B.Whiting# 10629ANA05-14-20BOZEMAN - MONTANALANTERN PARK N.SIDEDETAILSIRRIGATIONLS 6.2 19-114 05-14-20 TGM JES 19 15. Neighborhood Center Plan A neighborhood center plan must be prepared and submitted for all subdivisions containing a neighborhood center. Response: No neighborhood center plan proposed. Previously approved park plan is under construction. 20 16. Lighting Plan The following lighting information must be submitted for all development where lighting is proposed other than within the street right-of-way: a. Proposed fixture locations, types, source of power, and demonstration of compliance with city lighting standards. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. b. When requested by the city, the applicant must also submit a visual-impact plan that demonstrates appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate on-site and off-site glare and to retain the city's character. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. c. Post-approval alterations to lighting plans or intended substitutions for approved lighting must only be made after city review and approval. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 21 17. Miscellaneous. Public lands, hazards, wildlands-urban interface a. Public lands. Describe how the subdivision will affect access to any public lands. Where public lands are adjacent to or within 200 feet of the proposed development, describe present and anticipated uses for those lands (e.g., open space, recreation, etc.), and how public access will be preserved/enhanced. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. b. Hazards. Describe any health or safety hazards on or near the subdivision, such as mining activity or potential subsidence, high pressure gas lines, dilapidated structures or high voltage power lines. Any such conditions must be accurately described and their origin and location identified. List any provisions that will be made to mitigate these hazards. Also describe any on-site or off-site land uses creating a nuisance. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. c. Wildlands-urban interface. Describe the subdivision's location within or proximity to the wildlands-urban interface (WUI) and ember zone designated by the most recent city-adopted hazard mitigation plan. Describe any hazard from the subdivision's proximity to the WUI. List any provisions that will be used to mitigate these hazards and reduce structure ignitability. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 22 18. Affordable Housing Describe how the subdivision will integrate with division 38.380. The description must be of adequate detail to clearly identify those lots complying with division 38.380 requirements and to make the obligations placed on the affected lots readily understandable. a. On all lots intended to comply with division 38.380, the building envelope must be depicted. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal. 23 19. Subdivision Growth Policy A description of how the proposed subdivision advances the adopted growth policy. Response: Waiver was previously granted in the preapplication submittal.