Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23- Story Mill Community Park Master Plan - Designs212 Exhibit B: Story Mill Community Park Master Plan Supplemental Materials C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 22, 2016 - 2:54pmF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main StreetAspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60%DesignDevelopment _ MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT ILLUSTRATIVE PLANSIDEWALKPARKINGCOMMUNITY GATHERING LAWNPICNIC PAVILIONSLEDDING HILLMULTIGENERATIONAL PLAYGROUNDOBSERVATORY HILLCLIMBING BOULDERTRAIL BRIDGEPARKINGTRAIL BRIDGEFISHING ACCESSDOG PARKTRAIL GATEWAYHOMESTEAD PAVILIONBIRD BLIND WALKSERVICE DRIVE/ EMERGENCY ACCESS TO SOUTH PARCELACCESSIBLE FISHING PLATFORMMESSY PLAY AND RIVER ACCESSSTORY MILL COMMUNITY CENTERLABYRINTHRESTROOM PARKINGACTIVITY LAWNSPLASH PADFOOD FOREST TRAILPICNIC PAVILIONTEACHING GARDENEAST GRIFFIN DRIVE “PARK ROAD SECTION”EAST GALLATIN RIVERBOZEMAN CREEKBRYANT STREETBOND STREETSTORY MILLHILLSIDE LANESTORY MILL ROADBIRDIE DRIVEGOLD AVENUE BRIDGER CENTER DRIVESTORY MILL SPURBRIDGER DRIVE213 LEGEND COMBINED 100' YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMBINED FLOODPLAIN TREE-EXISTING TREE-PROPOSED NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 30 60 120 1"=60'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:33amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Master Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development NORTH PARCEL MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN PLANT COMMUNITIES MASTER PLAN PLANT COMMUNITIES MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 214 LEGEND COMBINED 100' YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMBINED FLOODPLAIN TREE-EXISTING TREE-PROPOSED NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 40 80 160 1"=80'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:33amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Master Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development SOUTH PARCEL MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 215 NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 15 30 60 1"=30'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:33amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Master Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development PLAYGROUND MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 216 NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 60 120 180 1"=120'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:41amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Phase 2.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development SITE FUTURE PHASE PHASING LEGEND Phase 2 Story Mill Community Center landscape renovation1 Story Mill Community Center trail connection2 Story Mill Community Center pavilion3 Splash Pad4 Medium Pavilion5 Picnic Pad6 East Parking Lot and Drop-Off7 Woonerf Expansion8 Bird Blind9 Small Pavilion10 MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 1 6 6 9 10 217 MATERIALS LEGEND ASPHALT (VEHICULAR) CONCRETE COMPACTED GRAVEL WOOD DECKING SAND PLAY SURFACE EXISTING TRAIL FUTURE PROJECT BY OTHERS MOWED PATH RAISED METAL GRATE ASPHALT (PEDESTRIAN) STONE ON GRADE MATERIALS LEGEND ASPHALT (VEHICULAR) CONCRETE ASPHALT (PEDESTRIAN) NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 30 60 120 1"=60'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:35amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Materials Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development NORTH PARCEL MATERIALS MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 218 MATERIALS LEGEND ASPHALT (VEHICULAR) CONCRETE COMPACTED GRAVEL WOOD DECKING SAND PLAY SURFACE EXISTING TRAIL FUTURE PROJECT BY OTHERS MOWED PATH RAISED METAL GRATE ASPHALT (PEDESTRIAN) STONE ON GRADE NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 40 80 160 1"=80'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:35amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Materials Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development SOUTH PARCEL MATERIALS MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 219 6’ BIOSWALE BIOSWALE PLANTINGCONCRETE BORDER EXTENDED PEDESTRIAN LANE 8’VARIES (SEE PLAN)24’ 2’17’5’VARIES (SEE PLAN) DRIVE LANES ZOOM IN SHOWN LOWER RIGHT C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 22, 2016 - 2:54pmF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main StreetAspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60%DesignDevelopment _ MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 8040200 1”=40’ PARK ROAD “WOONERF” 220 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:40amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Trail Sections.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development TRAIL DETAILS TRAIL SECTIONS MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 1 Emergency & Utility Access - Asphalt 1"= 1'-0" 1.3 8'-0" WIDTH 2% MIN SLOPE NOTES: 1.PATHWAYS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT A MINIMUM DESIGN LOAD OF 25,000 ESAL. 2.A SOIL STERILANT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE SUBGRADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF GRAVEL BASE. 3.A CONSTRUCTION SEAL SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE PAVED SURFACE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINAL ROLLING AT THE RATE OF 0.08 GALLON/SQUARE YARD. 12" WIDE COMPACTED GRAVEL SHOULDER TYPE B ASPHALT PLANT MIX, 2 12" MIN THICKNESS, COMPACTED TO A MIN OF 93% OF MAX DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTMD 2041 1 12" MINUS CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE, 9" MIN THICKNESS, COMPACTED TO A MIN OF 95% OF MAX DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T99 2 Concrete Sidewalk 1" = 1'-0" 1.4 2% Min SLOPE 6'-0" OR 8'-0" WIDTH (VARIES. SEE PLANS) 4" MIN THICKNESS CONCRETE 6" MIN THICKNESS OF 3 4" MINUS COMPACTED CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE UNDISTURBED SOIL 3 Class II Gravel Fines Trail 1"= 1'-0" 1.10 4' TO 8' WIDTH (VARIES. SEE PLANS) 2% MIN SLOPE NOTES: 1.NATURAL FINES SHALL CONSIST OF 80% SAND, 10% SILT, AND 10% CLAY 2.A SOIL STERILANT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE SUBGRADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF GRAVEL BASE. 3.TRAIL WIDTH DEPENDANT ON ADJACENT LANDSCAPE. FINAL LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD. COMPACTED SUBGRADE (SEE NOTE 2) SOIL SEPARATOR FABRIC W/ 6" STAPLES EVERY 36" OC 3" MIN. THICKNESS OF 34" MINUS COMPACTED CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE 3" MIN. THICKNESS OF 38" MINUS COMPACTED GRAVEL (NATURAL FINES) SEE NOTE 1 4 Gravel Fines Multi-Use Trail 1"= 1'-0" 1.11 COMPACTED SUBGRADE LANDSCAPE FABRIC 4" DEPTH 34" MINUS COMPACTED CRUSHED GRAVEL 2" DEPTH DECOMPOSED GRANITE, 14" SIZE OR LESS 6'-0" 7 Decomposed Granite Trail 1" = 1'-0" 1.13 6 Compacted Gravel Trail 1" = 1'-0" 1.14 MAX 1" DEEP COMPACTED DECOMPOSED GRANITE. 5" DEEP COMPACTED 3 4" AGG. SOIL SEPARATOR FABRIC MIN 2% SLOPE 14"x6" STEEL EDGING (TYP) UNDISTURBED SOIL 6" COMPACTED 34" MINUS ROAD MIX MAX 1" OF 3 8" STONE CHIPS 5 Gravel Fines Multi-Use Trail w/ Edging 1" = 1'-0" 1.12 9 Elevated Metal Grate Trail 1"= 1'-0" 1.16 2" DEPTH DECOMPOSED GRANITE, 1 4" SIZE OR LESS COMPACTED SUBGRADE #4 REBAR, 18" DEPTH AND 36" OC TAC WELD TO STEEL EDGING 1 4" NATURAL STEEL EDGING LANDSCAPE FABRIC 4" DEPTH 34" MINUS COMPACTED CRUSHED GRAVEL 6'-0" 4'-4" 5'-0" BATTER ANCHOR W/ TURNBUCKLE ASSEMBLY UNDISTURBED WETLAND SOIL HELICAL PILE ANCHOR SOIL LINE GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE SLEEVE W/ WELDED SADDLE 2"X4" STEEL TRUSS STEEL COMPOSITE GRATE DECKING 4"X4" TREATED TIMBER RAILING 8 Asphalt Trail 1"= 1'-0" 1.15 2% MIN SLOPE 6'-0" WIDTH TYPE B ASPHALT PLANT MIX, 2 12" MIN THICKNESS, COMPACTED TO A MIN OF 93% OF MAX DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTMD 2041 6" MIN THICKNESS OF 3 4" MINUS COMPACTED CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE UNDISTURBED SOIL MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 221 WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN LEGEND SETBACK (Sec. 38.23.100. - Watercourse Setback) RESTORED WETLANDS PRE-RESTORATION WETLANDS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMBINED 100' YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMBINED FLOODPLAIN NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 30 60 120 1"=60'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:40amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Wetland-Floodplain.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development NORTH PARCEL FLOODPLAIN/ WETLAND 1.1 1 2 3 4 1.1 5 7 6 8 9 MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 222 WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN LEGEND SETBACK (Sec. 38.23.100. - Watercourse Setback) RESTORED WETLANDS PRE-RESTORATION WETLANDS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMBINED 100' YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMBINED FLOODPLAIN NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 40 80 160 1"=80'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:40amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Wetland-Floodplain.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development SOUTH PARCEL FLOODPLAIN/ WETLAND 10 14 13 12 10.1 10.1 10.1 15 11 MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 223 VEGETATION LEGEND LAWN FESCUE GARDEN ORNAMENTAL DRIER GRASSLAND MESIC GRASSLAND WET MEADOW / EMERGENT MARSH WOODLAND WATER TREE-EXISTING TREE-PROPOSED RIPARIAN WOODLAND / SHRUBLAND VEGETATION LEGEND LAWN FESCUE GARDEN NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 30 60 120 1"=60'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:39amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Vegetation Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development NORTH PARCEL (2.1 ACRES) (2.57 ACRES) (.35 ACRES) (.27 ACRES) (4.3 ACRES) (2.42 ACRES) (3.15 ACRES) (APPROX. 242) 1.2 ACRES .8 ACRES .1 ACRES 2.36 ACRES 2.47ACRES .68 ACRES .35 ACRES .22 ACRES .77 ACRES 1.13 ACRES .81 ACRES 1.52 ACRES 1.8 ACRES .14 ACRES MASTER PLAN PLANT COMMUNITIES MASTER PLAN PLANT COMMUNITIES PLANT COMMUNITIES MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 224 VEGETATION LEGEND LAWN FESCUE GARDEN ORNAMENTAL DRIER GRASSLAND MESIC GRASSLAND WET MEADOW / EMERGENT MARSH WOODLAND WATER TREE-EXISTING TREE-PROPOSED RIPARIAN WOODLAND / SHRUBLAND NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 40 80 160 1"=80'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:39amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Vegetation Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development SOUTH PARCEL MASTER PLAN PLANT COMMUNITIES MASTER PLAN PLANT COMMUNITIES PLANT COMMUNITIES MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 225 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 22, 2016 - 2:54pmF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main StreetAspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60%DesignDevelopment _ MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT PLANT PALETTE PLANT PALETTE Rocky Mountain Maple Acer glabrum Thinleaf alder Alnus incana Water birch Betula occidentalis Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Skunkbush Rhus trilobata Woods' rose Rosa woodsii Pacific willow Salix lucida Silver buffaloberry Shepherdia argentea Snowberry Symphoricarpos sp. Bebb Willow Salix bebbiana Booth Willow Salix boothii Ninebark Physocarpus malveceus Sandbar Willow Salix exigua Silverberry Eleagnus commutata Northern black currant Ribes oxyacanthoides Boxelder maple Acer negundo Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum Narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Peachleaf willow Salix amygdaloides Black Cottonwood Populus Trichocarpa Quaking Aspen Populus Tremuloides Marsh marigold Caltha leptosepala Shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum Glacier lily Erythonium grandiflorum Woodland strawberry Fragaria vesca Northen bedstraw Galium boreale Richardson's geranium Geranium richardsonii Wild hollyhock Iliamna rivularis Rocky Mt Iris Iris missouriensis Twinflower Linnaea borealis Starry lily of the valley Maianthemum stellatum Lewis monkeyflower Mimulus lewisii Twinflower Linnaea borealis Pink wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia Western groundsel Senecio integerrimus Western meadow rye Thalictrum occidentale Western needlegrass Achnatherum occidentale Richardson's needlegrass Achnatherum richardsonii Oatgrass Danthonia sp Thickspike wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Rough fescue Festuca campestris Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha Basin wildrye Leymus cinereus Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Sandberg's bluegrass Poa secunda Mountain Brome Bromus marginatus Ticklegrass Agrostis scabra Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus Sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Liddon sedge Carex petasata Yarrow Achillea millefolium Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata Indian paintbrush Castilleja sp Pale Paintbrush Castilleja pallescens Little larkspur Delphinium bicolor Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana Sticky geranium Geranium viscossisimum Nine-leaf biscuitroot Lomatium triternatum Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus Crazyweed Oxytropis sp Sulphur penstemon Penstemon confertus Sticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa Prairie cinquefoil Pontentilla gracilis Large-Leaved Avens Geum macropyllum Monkshood Aconitum columbianum Yellow Columbine Aquiligea flavescens Blue Camas Camassia quamash Prairie Gentian Gentiana affinis Field Mint Mentna arvenis Blue Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium montanum Mountain Kittentails Synthyris missourica Many flowered stickseed Hackelia floribunda Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa Western coneflower Rudbekcia occidentalis Shrubby cinquefoil Dasiphora fruticosa Common juniper Juniperus communis Woods' rose Rosa woodsii Snowberry Symphoricarpos sp Black Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Black Hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Mountain Ash Sorbus scopulina White Spirea Spiraea betulifolia Huckleberry Vaccinium globulare Grouse Whortleberry Vaccinium scoparium Kinnickinnick Arctosaphylos uva-uri Saskatoon Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Rocky MT Juniper Juniperus scopulorum Golden Currant Ribes aureum Oregon grape Mahonia repens Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass Koeleria cristata Sandberg's bluegrass Poa secunda Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis Canby's Bluegrass Poa canbyi Sandberg Bluegrass Poa sandbergii Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Squirreltail Bottlebrush Elymus elymoides Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides Needle and Threadgrass Stipa comata Prairie Sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia Red Threeawn Aristida longiseta Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Canadian Wildrye Elumus canadensis Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia Geyer's sedge Carex geyeri Yarrow Achillea millefolium Rosy pussytoes Antennaria microphylla Prairie arnica Arnica sororia Boreal sagewort Artemisia frigida Western sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana Daisy Erigeron sp Cutleaf Fleabane Daisy Erigeron compositus Sulfur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum Buckwheat Erigonum sp Indian blanketflower Gaillardia aristata Boreal bedstraw Galium boreale Prairie smoke Geum triflorum Alumroot Huechera sp Gayfeather Liatris punctata Stoneseed Lithospermum ruderale Early biscuitroot Lomatium macrocarpum Silver lupine Lupinus argenteus Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus Brittle prickly pear Opuntia fragilis Crazyweed Oxytropis sp Fuzzytongue penstemon Penstemon eriantherus Littleflower penstemon Penstemon procerus Alyssum leaf phlox Phlox alyssifolia Hood's phlox Phlor hoodii Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis Prairie crocus Pulsatilla patens Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis Rocky Mtn Bee Plant Cleome serrulata Tufted Milkvetch Astagulus spatulatus Ground Plum Astragalus crassicarpus Wavy-leaved Thistle Cirsium undulatum Plains Coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria Hairy Goldenaster Crysopsis villosa Little Larkspur Delphinium bicolor Pale Purple Coneflower Echinacea angustifolia Blue Flax Linum perenne lewisii Tufted Evening Primrose Oenothera caespitosa Prairie Coneflower Ratibida columnifera Prairie coneflower Rudbeckia occidentalis White Globemallow Sphaeralcea munroana Prince's Plume Stanleya pinnata Hooker's Townsendia (Easter Daisy)Townsendia hookeri Parry's Townsendia Townsendia parryi Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margariteacea Wyoming kittentails Besseya wyomingensis Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia Wild pea Vicia americana Soapwell yucca Yucca glaucaTreesForbsForbsDrier GrasslandRiparian Woodland/ShrublandRiparian Woodland/ShrublandGrassesForbsSedgesShrubsMesic GrasslandGrassesSedgesRocky Mountain Maple Acer glabrumThinleaf alder Alnus incanaWater birch Betula occidentalisBlack hawthorn Crataegus douglasiiRedosier dogwood Cornus sericeaChokecherryPrunus virginianaSkunkbushRhus trilobataWoods' rose Rosa woodsiiPacific willow Salix lucidaSilver buffaloberry Shepherdia argenteaSnowberrySymphoricarpos sp.Bebb Willow Salix bebbianaBooth Willow Salix boothiiNinebarkPhysocarpus malveceusSandbar Willow Salix exiguaSilverberryEleagnus commutataNorthern black currant Ribes oxyacanthoidesBoxelder maple Acer negundoRocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorumNarrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifoliaPlains cottonwood Populus deltoidesDouglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesiiPeachleaf willow Salix amygdaloidesBlack Cottonwood Populus TrichocarpaQuaking Aspen Populus TremuloidesMarsh marigold Caltha leptosepalaShooting star Dodecatheon pulchellumGlacier lily Erythonium grandiflorumWoodland strawberry Fragaria vescaNorthen bedstraw Galium borealeRichardson's geranium Geranium richardsoniiWild hollyhock Iliamna rivularisRocky Mt Iris Iris missouriensisTwinflowerLinnaea borealisStarry lily of the valley Maianthemum stellatumLewis monkeyflower Mimulus lewisiiTwinflowerLinnaea borealis Pink wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia Western groundsel Senecio integerrimus Western meadow rye Thalictrum occidentale Western needlegrass Achnatherum occidentale Richardson's needlegrass Achnatherum richardsonii Oatgrass Danthonia sp Thickspike wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Rough fescue Festuca campestris Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha Basin wildrye Leymus cinereus Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Sandberg's bluegrass Poa secunda Mountain Brome Bromus marginatus Ticklegrass Agrostis scabra Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus Sweetgrass Hierochloe odorata Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Liddon sedge Carex petasata Yarrow Achillea millefolium Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata Indian paintbrush Castilleja sp Pale Paintbrush Castilleja pallescens Little larkspur Delphinium bicolor Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana Sticky geranium Geranium viscossisimum Nine-leaf biscuitroot Lomatium triternatum Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus Crazyweed Oxytropis sp Sulphur penstemon Penstemon confertus Sticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa Prairie cinquefoil Pontentilla gracilis Large-Leaved Avens Geum macropyllum Monkshood Aconitum columbianum Yellow Columbine Aquiligea flavescens Blue Camas Camassia quamash Prairie Gentian Gentiana affinis Field Mint Mentna arvenis Blue Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium montanum Mountain Kittentails Synthyris missourica Many flowered stickseed Hackelia floribunda Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa Western coneflower Rudbekcia occidentalis Shrubby cinquefoil Dasiphora fruticosa Common juniper Juniperus communis Woods' rose Rosa woodsii Snowberry Symphoricarpos sp Black Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Black Hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Mountain Ash Sorbus scopulina White Spirea Spiraea betulifolia Huckleberry Vaccinium globulare Grouse Whortleberry Vaccinium scoparium Kinnickinnick Arctosaphylos uva-uri Saskatoon Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Rocky MT Juniper Juniperus scopulorum Golden Currant Ribes aureum Oregon grape Mahonia repens Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass Koeleria cristata Sandberg's bluegrass Poa secunda Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis Canby's Bluegrass Poa canbyi Sandberg Bluegrass Poa sandbergii Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Squirreltail Bottlebrush Elymus elymoides Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides Needle and Threadgrass Stipa comata Prairie Sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia Red Threeawn Aristida longiseta Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Canadian Wildrye Elumus canadensis Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia Geyer's sedge Carex geyeri Yarrow Achillea millefolium Rosy pussytoes Antennaria microphylla Prairie arnica Arnica sororia Boreal sagewort Artemisia frigida Western sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana Daisy Erigeron sp Cutleaf Fleabane Daisy Erigeron compositus Sulfur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum Buckwheat Erigonum sp Indian blanketflower Gaillardia aristata Boreal bedstraw Galium boreale Prairie smoke Geum triflorum Alumroot Huechera sp Gayfeather Liatris punctata Stoneseed Lithospermum ruderale Early biscuitroot Lomatium macrocarpum Silver lupine Lupinus argenteus Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus Brittle prickly pear Opuntia fragilis Crazyweed Oxytropis sp Fuzzytongue penstemon Penstemon eriantherus Littleflower penstemon Penstemon procerus Alyssum leaf phlox Phlox alyssifolia Hood's phlox Phlor hoodii Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis Prairie crocus Pulsatilla patens Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis Rocky Mtn Bee Plant Cleome serrulata Tufted Milkvetch Astagulus spatulatus Ground Plum Astragalus crassicarpus Wavy-leaved Thistle Cirsium undulatum Plains Coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria Hairy Goldenaster Crysopsis villosa Little Larkspur Delphinium bicolor Pale Purple Coneflower Echinacea angustifolia Blue Flax Linum perenne lewisii Tufted Evening Primrose Oenothera caespitosa Prairie Coneflower Ratibida columnifera Prairie coneflower Rudbeckia occidentalis White Globemallow Sphaeralcea munroana Prince's Plume Stanleya pinnata Hooker's Townsendia (Easter Daisy)Townsendia hookeri Parry's Townsendia Townsendia parryi Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margariteacea Wyoming kittentails Besseya wyomingensis Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia Wild pea Vicia americana Soapwell yucca Yucca glaucaTreesForbsForbsDrier GrasslandRiparian Woodland/ShrublandRiparian Woodland/ShrublandGrassesForbsSedgesShrubsMesic GrasslandGrassesSedgesRocky Mountain Maple Acer glabrumThinleaf alder Alnus incanaWater birch Betula occidentalisBlack hawthorn Crataegus douglasiiRedosier dogwood Cornus sericeaChokecherryPrunus virginianaSkunkbushRhus trilobataWoods' rose Rosa woodsiiPacific willow Salix lucidaSilver buffaloberry Shepherdia argenteaSnowberrySymphoricarpos sp.Bebb Willow Salix bebbianaBooth Willow Salix boothiiNinebarkPhysocarpus malveceusSandbar Willow Salix exiguaSilverberryEleagnus commutataNorthern black currant Ribes oxyacanthoidesBoxelder maple Acer negundoRocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorumNarrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifoliaPlains cottonwood Populus deltoidesDouglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesiiPeachleaf willow Salix amygdaloidesBlack Cottonwood Populus TrichocarpaQuaking Aspen Populus TremuloidesMarsh marigold Caltha leptosepalaShooting star Dodecatheon pulchellumGlacier lily Erythonium grandiflorumWoodland strawberry Fragaria vescaNorthen bedstraw Galium borealeRichardson's geranium Geranium richardsoniiWild hollyhock Iliamna rivularisRocky Mt Iris Iris missouriensisTwinflowerLinnaea borealisStarry lily of the valley Maianthemum stellatumLewis monkeyflower Mimulus lewisiiTwinflowerLinnaea borealisPink wintergreen Pyrola asarifoliaWestern groundsel Senecio integerrimusWestern meadow rye Thalictrum occidentaleWestern needlegrass Achnatherum occidentaleRichardson's needlegrass Achnatherum richardsoniiOatgrassDanthonia spThickspike wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatusRough fescue Festuca campestrisIdaho fescue Festuca idahoensisPrairie junegrass Koeleria macranthaBasin wildrye Leymus cinereusWestern wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithiiSandberg's bluegrass Poa secundaMountain Brome Bromus marginatusTicklegrassAgrostis scabraTufted Hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosaBlue Wildrye Elymus glaucusSweetgrassHierochloe odorataSwitchgrassPanicum virgatumLiddon sedge Carex petasataYarrowAchillea millefoliumArrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittataIndian paintbrush Castilleja spPale Paintbrush Castilleja pallescensLittle larkspur Delphinium bicolorWild strawberry Fragaria virginianaSticky geranium Geranium viscossisimumNine-leaf biscuitroot Lomatium triternatumSilky lupine Lupinus sericeusCrazyweedOxytropis spSulphur penstemon Penstemon confertusSticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosaPrairie cinquefoil Pontentilla gracilisLarge-Leaved Avens Geum macropyllumMonkshoodAconitum columbianumYellow Columbine Aquiligea flavescensBlue Camas Camassia quamashPrairie Gentian Gentiana affinisField Mint Mentna arvenisBlue Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium montanumMountain Kittentails Synthyris missouricaMany flowered stickseed Hackelia floribundaWild bergamot Monarda fistulosaWestern coneflower Rudbekcia occidentalisShrubby cinquefoil Dasiphora fruticosaCommon juniper Juniperus communisWoods' rose Rosa woodsiiSnowberrySymphoricarpos spBlack Elderberry Sambucus racemosaBlack Hawthorn Crataegus douglasiiMountain Ash Sorbus scopulinaWhite Spirea Spiraea betulifoliaHuckleberryVaccinium globulareGrouse Whortleberry Vaccinium scopariumKinnickinnickArctosaphylos uva-uriSaskatoon Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Rocky MT Juniper Juniperus scopulorum Golden Currant Ribes aureum Oregon grape Mahonia repens Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass Koeleria cristata Sandberg's bluegrass Poa secunda Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis Canby's Bluegrass Poa canbyi Sandberg Bluegrass Poa sandbergii Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Squirreltail Bottlebrush Elymus elymoides Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides Needle and Threadgrass Stipa comata Prairie Sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia Red Threeawn Aristida longiseta Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Canadian Wildrye Elumus canadensis Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia Geyer's sedge Carex geyeri Yarrow Achillea millefolium Rosy pussytoes Antennaria microphylla Prairie arnica Arnica sororia Boreal sagewort Artemisia frigida Western sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana Daisy Erigeron sp Cutleaf Fleabane Daisy Erigeron compositus Sulfur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum Buckwheat Erigonum sp Indian blanketflower Gaillardia aristata Boreal bedstraw Galium boreale Prairie smoke Geum triflorum Alumroot Huechera sp Gayfeather Liatris punctata Stoneseed Lithospermum ruderale Early biscuitroot Lomatium macrocarpum Silver lupine Lupinus argenteus Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus Brittle prickly pear Opuntia fragilis Crazyweed Oxytropis sp Fuzzytongue penstemon Penstemon eriantherus Littleflower penstemon Penstemon procerus Alyssum leaf phlox Phlox alyssifolia Hood's phlox Phlor hoodii Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis Prairie crocus Pulsatilla patens Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis Rocky Mtn Bee Plant Cleome serrulata Tufted Milkvetch Astagulus spatulatus Ground Plum Astragalus crassicarpus Wavy-leaved Thistle Cirsium undulatum Plains Coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria Hairy Goldenaster Crysopsis villosa Little Larkspur Delphinium bicolor Pale Purple Coneflower Echinacea angustifolia Blue Flax Linum perenne lewisii Tufted Evening Primrose Oenothera caespitosa Prairie Coneflower Ratibida columnifera Prairie coneflower Rudbeckia occidentalis White Globemallow Sphaeralcea munroana Prince's Plume Stanleya pinnata Hooker's Townsendia (Easter Daisy)Townsendia hookeri Parry's Townsendia Townsendia parryi Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margariteacea Wyoming kittentails Besseya wyomingensis Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia Wild pea Vicia americana Soapwell yucca Yucca glaucaTreesForbsForbsDrier GrasslandRiparian Woodland/ShrublandRiparian Woodland/ShrublandGrassesForbsSedgesShrubsMesic GrasslandGrassesSedgesAmur Maple Acer ginnala Tatarian maple Acer tataricum Autum Brilliance Serviceberry Amelanchier x grandifolia River Birch Betula nigra Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa Quaking Aspen Populus Tremuloides Amur Cherry Prunus Mackii Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Dwarf mountain ash Sorbus scopulina Lilac Syringa Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata Chokeberry Aronia spp Redtwig Dogwood Cornus sericea Silverberry Eleagnus commutata Twinberry Honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata Common Juniper Juniperus communis Lewis's Mock Orange Philadelphus lewisii Dwarf Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius 'nana' Snowberry Symphoricarpos sp Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Western sandcherry Prunus besseyi 'pawnee butte' Dwarf Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low' Birchleaf spirea Spirea betulifolia Yarrow Achillea Green Bishop's Weed Aegopodium podagraria Lady's Mantle Alchemilla mollis Nodding onion Allium cernuum Snowdrops anenome Anenome sylvestris Pussytoes Antennaria microphyla October skies aster Aster oblongofolius Rocky Mt. Columbine Aquilegia caerulea Red Columbine Aquliegia canadensis False Forget-Me-Not Brunnera macrophylla Harebells Campanula rotundifolia Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea Bleeding Heart Dicentra (Lamprocapnos) spectabilis Pineleaf dianthus Dinanthus pinifolius Coneflower Echinacea purpurea Blanketflower Gaillardia aristata Sweet woodruff Gallium odoratum Johnson's Geranium Geranium ibericum 'Johnson's' Prairie smoke Geum trifolum Rocky MT Iris Iris missouriensis Double Shasta Daisy Leucanthemum x superbum 'Aglaia' Blazingstar Liatris spicata 'kobold' Blue flax Linum lewisii Catmint Nepeta Oriental Poppy Papaver orientale Rocky MT penstemon Penstemon stricuts Salvia Salvia nemorosa Dragon's Blood' Sedum Sedum spurium 'Dragon's Blood' Smooth Blue Aster Symphyotrichum laeveShrubsPerennialsTreesOrnamental 226 IRRIGATION LEGEND - NORTH PARCEL SPRAY IRRIGATION - TURF (1.3 ACRES) SPRAY IRRIGATION - HIGH INTENSIVE (2.62 ACRES) SPRAY IRRIGATION - MEDIUM INTENSIVE (3.58 ACRES) SPRAY IRRIGATION - LOW INTENSIVE, ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD (3.71 ACRES) CITY WATER SPIGOTS - TEACHING GARDEN PROPOSED TREE - PERMANENT IRRIGATION (210 TREES) PROPOSED TREE - TEMPORARY IRRIGATION (205 TREES) PROPOSED TREE - TEMPORARY HAND WATERING (19 TREES) SUPPLEMENTAL SPRAY IRRIGATION - LOW LAYING AREA (.72 ACRES) EXISTING TREE - DRIP IRRIGATION (235 TREES) DRIP - ORNAMENTAL PERENNIAL/SHRUB BEDS (.26 ACRES) NO IRRIGATION - APPROX. 8.6 ACRES OF NORTH PARCEL NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 30 60 120 1"=60'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:31amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development NORTH PARCEL IRRIGATION PLAN 1.2 ACRES .1 ACRES PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL #1 PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL #2 PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL #3 PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL #4 MDT RIGHT-OF-WAY MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 227 IRRIGATION LEGEND - COMMUNITY CENTER PARCEL SPRAY IRRIGATION - TURF (.8 ACRES) SPRAY IRRIGATION - MEDIUM INTENSIVE (.72 ACRES) PROPOSED TREE - PERMANENT IRRIGATION (15 TREES) PROPOSED TREE - TEMPORARY IRRIGATION (9 TREES) EXISTING TREE - DRIP IRRIGATION NO IRRIGATION - APPROX. 3.48 ACRES OF COMMUNITY CENTER PARCEL NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 30 60 120 1"=60'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:31amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development COMM. PARCEL .8 ACRES EXISTING IRRIGATION WELL TO REMAIN IRRIGATION PLAN MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 228 IRRIGATION LEGEND - SOUTH PARCEL PROPOSED TREE - TEMPORARY IRRIGATION - HAND WATER (88 TREES) NO IRRIGATION - APPROX. 35 ACRES OF SOUTH PARCEL NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 40 80 160 1"=80'-00" C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 25, 2016 - 11:31amF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60% Design Development SOUTH PARCEL IRRIGATION PLAN MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT 229 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 22, 2016 - 2:54pmF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main StreetAspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60%DesignDevelopment _ MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT MDOT VEHICAL REGULATORY SIGNS ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNS (TBD) REGULATORY SIGN TYPES MUTCD/AASHTO MULTI-USE PATHWAY REGULATORY SIGNS 15 5 PRIMARY ENTRANCE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AMENITY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS/DONOR RECOGNITION MAP KIOSK INFORMATIONAL REGULATORY SIGNS WAYFINDING & IDENTITY SIGN TYPES SECONDARY ENTRANCE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS INTERPRETIVE (NATURE & HISTORY) SIGNAGE WAYFINDING/ INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE PLAN 230 C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS 5404 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E STORY MILLCOMMUNITY PARKBOZEMAN, MTC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Jul 22, 2016 - 2:54pmF:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5404-Story Mill Community Park\D-CAD\02. Sheets\Master Plan Submittal\dw-5404-Irrigation Plan.dwg120 East Main StreetAspen, Colorado 81611-1787 (970)-925-8354 July 26, 2016 MP/CM AA/KC 60%DesignDevelopment _ MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT MDOT VEHICAL REGULATORY SIGNS ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNS (TBD) REGULATORY SIGN TYPES MUTCD/AASHTO MULTI-USE PATHWAY REGULATORY SIGNS 15 5 PRIMARY ENTRANCE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AMENITY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS/DONOR RECOGNITION MAP KIOSK INFORMATIONAL REGULATORY SIGNS WAYFINDING & IDENTITY SIGN TYPES SECONDARY ENTRANCE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS INTERPRETIVE (NATURE & HISTORY) SIGNAGE 5151555REGULATORY SIGNAGE PLAN 231 STORY MILL COMMUNITY PARK Submittal to City of Bozeman Design Review Committee July 26, 2016 The Trust for Public Land, in partnership with the City of Bozeman Parks and Recreation Department, is pleased to present the master plan for Story Mill Community Park for formal Design Review. The design team is led by Design Workshop, in consultation with local firms, Stahly Engineering, Design5, Intrinsik Architecture, and RESPEC Riparian Consulting. This narrative and accompanying maps, provides an overview of the park design as well as addresses specific questions and issues raised during the DRC Informal Review in April 2016. Guiding Principles: Story Mill Community Park is organized around several guiding principles that are summarized below. Throughout this text, the park is commonly segmented into different areas for the purposes of describing the uses and character of the park. These areas are referred to as follows and identified in the attached diagram: the Story Mill Community Center Parcel, the North Parcel, the South Parcel and the Triangle Parcel. NORTH PARCEL SOUTH PARCEL TRIANGLE PARCEL STORY MILL COMMUNITY CENTER PARCEL 232 The addition of the Story Mill Community Center Parcel is new since the project’s informal review. It is the site of the former Boys & Girls Club of Southwest Montana and will be dedicated to the City for use as a Community Center. While this site expands the park’s offerings, it also provides some mutual benefit of sharing existing facilities, such as access, utility tie-ins, parking, water rights for irrigation and indoor facilities. The Story Mill Community Center is anticipated to be used for indoor recreation and meeting space and to host summer programs. The exterior land use of the site will remain largely intact, maintaining the existing playground, using some of the existing lawn for outdoor recreation, and planning for future trail connections. The addition of a pavilion and restroom is also planned for the parcel. The North Parcel, or area north of the East Gallatin River and bordering Bridger Drive will be the most active portion of the park. It will contain a playground, teaching garden, food forest trail, arrival plaza, future splash pad and community gathering space. Mowed and irrigated turf is limited to those areas available for active play. The balance of this portion of the park will be low maintenance native grasses and wildflowers. Parking and other improvements including the playground and teaching garden, are clustered in the western portion of the park in order to take advantage of existing utility tie-ins, the existing entry drive, existing parking and interface with the Story Mill Community Center, thus minimizing construction costs. A future parking lot is also planned for the east side of the site. This will allow parking to be in close proximity of all park elements with access from Bridger Drive. Park entries are aligned with existing streets that also intersect with Bridger Drive. South of East Griffin Drive, the park is envisioned as a nature preserve. Development in this area is limited beyond trails, a Homestead Pavilion, interpretive signage, and blinds for bird viewing. Generally, as you move south through the park, the intensity of use is reduced. An approximately one-acre, fenced off-leash dog park is planned in the south portion of the site on the Triangle Parcel and adjacent to Story Mill Road. This parcel is separated from the South Parcel and previously disturbed. Because of this low intensity of use, East Griffin Drive is not considered to be an essential automobile route for park purposes. As such, a woonerf treatment is suggested so that there will be as little automobile disruption of park use as possible. A woonerf is a concept that incorporates shared space, traffic calming, and slow speeds in a street design that accommodates motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. The woonerf configuration will allow East Griffin to function as a park drive rather than a high speed thoroughfare, while still maintaining east/west connectivity. Vicinity and Overview: The Vicinity Map shows the location of the 60.25-acre Story Mill Community Park within the context of the City of Bozeman (North Parcel – 21.11 Acres; South Parcel – 25.64 Acres; Triangle Parcel – 8.49 Acres; Community Center Parcel – 5.01 Acres). The park is bound on the north by Bridger Drive, on the west by Bozeman Creek and private property, and on the east by the East Gallatin River and Story Mill Road. The park is bisected west to east by East Griffin Drive and the Story Mill Spur Trail connects the South and Triangle Parcels. Circulation: Story Mill Community Park south of East Griffin Drive is envisioned as a low intensity visitor experience in the context of a nature preserve. Visitors to this section of the park are seeking a quiet nature experience in the heart of Bozeman, where birds and wildlife can be observed and the native landscape and view enjoyed. Therefore, automobile access is restricted (except for a small gravel parking lot off of Story Mill Road). Service, fire and emergency access is limited to a twenty-foot-wide alignment with hammerhead turnaround. The alignment will double as a multi-use connector path that runs the length of the parcel from north to south with reinforced shoulders to make up the clearance difference required for emergency and service vehicles. In order to minimize impact on wildlife and intrusion on the landscape, other paths are of four-, six- and eight-foot widths, and where possible, of compacted gravel. Paths of compacted gravel will be designed and detailed in such a way that they are firm and ADA accessible. Trails within the floodplain will be constructed at grade as possible to minimize impacts. Where trail alignments travel through the wetlands and are required to be raised, they will be of a metal grate material to allow plant material to thrive beneath. Trails within the park are anticipated to tie into both the Story Mill Spur Trail in the existing railroad right-of-way and to the new sidewalk along Bridger Drive proposed as part of the anticipated MDT roadway improvement and longer-term, the new Path to the M and Drinking Horse trailheads. 233 One pedestrian bridge over the East Gallatin River is anticipated at the southern end of the property, and one is anticipated just south of where East Griffin Drive crosses the East Gallatin. Park Access Points: Three automobile access points are proposed for the park. The main entry to the west is at the existing entry to the Story Mill Community Center. The second entry aligns with Birdie Drive on the east side of the site. The third is in the Triangle Parcel on Story Mill Road. All three entry points are assumed to be 24 feet wide with curb and gutter and associated green infrastructure techniques to manage stormwater. Park Road (Woonerf): East Griffin Drive is proposed as a park drive which is capable of carrying automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. A seventeen-foot wide travel way is proposed with a two-foot concrete curb on one side and a five-foot wide concrete curb and sidewalk on the other. On either side of this paved section is a bioswale to handle stormwater. The travel way section will be marked with appropriate signage to ensure that motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are all aware that they are on a shared traffic way and entering into a park environment with increased pedestrian and bicycle activity. A separation will be indicated between the drive lane and the pedestrian-way with detectable and reflective pavement markers embedded into the pavement. Speed limits will be posted at 15 miles per hour. Parking: Two main parking lots are proposed for Story Mill Community Park – a west lot of 72 spaces accessed from Bridger Drive at the Story Mill Community Building will provide the main park entrance, and an east lot with future capacity of 50-94 spaces also with access via Bridger Drive. A third, small gravel parking lot of 12 spaces is proposed for access off of Story Mill Road in the location of an existing parking area that has been captured and used by current trail users. Parking spaces are presumed to be 9 by 18 feet in dimension with a 24-foot travel aisle. All lots will be cross-sloped at 1-2% and will provide adequate ADA spaces. The two lots accessed off of Bridger Drive will have curbs on the uphill edge and a curb with scuppers on the downhill edge. The scuppers will open into bioswales of varying widths along the length of the parking lots as shown on the attached plans. The quantity of parking is consistent with the transportation analysis that is included as part of this submission. Habitat Objectives and Plant Species: With the exception of lilacs, which are found as a remnant of the former homestead and trailer park use of the property, the teaching garden and the food forest trail, all plant materials within the park will be native species. Biohabitats, a key member of the consultant team, has identified a set of habitat objectives for the project that are aimed at restoring and replicating native habitats. The restoration of these native habitats will be a key element of the interpretive program of the park. The use of native plant materials will also assist in the park’s water conservation strategy and in creating new habitat for birds and other wildlife. The teaching garden is anticipated to include vegetables, berries, fruit and other food producing plants, as well as ornamental plants and flowers. The food forest trail will contain both native and non-native fruit and berry producing plants along a trail adjacent to the teaching garden. Both the teaching garden and food trail will employ fencing to deter wildlife. More intensive or ornamental planting schemes will be concentrated around the plaza and playground in the North Parcel, including flowering trees, shrubs and perennials. Hearty native plants will be used to achieve a welcoming garden experience. Maintenance strategies will be tied to each vegetative community. Areas of lawn will be more intensely mowed and managed, versus other native plant communities of dry and mesic grasslands and meadows that will be left to grow for much of the year. These areas of intensity of use will also be tied to the irrigation strategy, where more highly trafficked areas receive a greater level of irrigation to withstand the use. The lawn and fescue areas are anticipated to have the most use, maintenance and irrigation, while other new vegetative communities will be designed to blend into the native and restored areas of the site and discourage off-trail use. Wetlands: To date, The Trust for Public Land with the assistance of RESPEC, has been engaged in extensive restoration of the East Gallatin River corridor. The now completed project includes 14-15 acres of wetlands that have been restored or created onsite. It is anticipated that these wetlands will remain and that all park improvements, including trails, will be constructed in such a way to conserve and enhance these wetlands. See Appendix A – Floodplain Impacts. 234 Infrastructure Water and Sewer: Water and sewer utilities will be provided to the park restroom and an interactive water feature within the playground. City water will also be provided to the teaching garden for watering and irrigation purposes. As shown on the Master Plan, these utilities will be provided by extensions and services from the existing water and sewer mains serving the Story Mill Community Center structure. Due to the lack of habitable structures to the east or south ends of the park, water or sewer service is not proposed to any other locations. Irrigation and Water Supply: Long-term irrigation water supply will be from four (4) on-site wells within the constraints of exempt water rights (<35 gpm and <10af) providing four (4) separate irrigation systems. A fifth well is existing and included on the Story Mill Community Center Parcel and is not anticipated to change from a capacity or land coverage standpoint. It is anticipated that during vegetation establishment, additional irrigation water will be needed which will be provided in the form of two (2) of the four (4) new wells. The intent is to take those two wells off line upon establishment of the native vegetation and use only as needed during times of severe drought. At this time, it is envisioned that some short-term irrigation would be needed for tree establishment, particularly on the South Parcel, to be provided by the City. City water is planned to be used to support the teaching garden with a potable water source. Landscape irrigation will be limited to spray irrigation for approximately 1.3 acres of blue grass lawn in the North Parcel and spray irrigation for higher intensity and medium intensity meadow plantings. Temporary drip irrigation to establish new trees and other plantings will be provided. Water Conservation: Water conservation is a key element of the master plan for Story Mill Community Park. It is anticipated that all plumbing fixtures will be low flow. Although formal LEED or Sustainable Sites certification is not anticipated for the park, it is the intent that water conservation within the park meet the standards of those programs. Storm Drainage: All stormwater within Story Mill Community Park will be mitigated through green stormwater management techniques. In keeping with low impact design standards, stormwater runoff from buildings and parking areas will be retained on site. Stormwater treatment and retention will by primarily mitigated by bioswales (bioretention). At the east parking lot, where the large lawn is located down gradient of bioswales, stormwater runoff from large events (>0.5”) will be allowed to overflow from the bioswales onto graded lawns for infiltration and supplemental irrigation. Bioswales will also be used within the parking arrangement of the west parking area and along E. Griffin Drive. Franchise Utilities Electric, Gas, Communications: The park will be provided with electric service from the existing on-site underground electrical service from Bridger Drive. New underground franchise utilities (electric, gas and communications) will be provided for the restroom. Additional electrical services will be provided for parking lot lighting and vendor hook-ups within the park surrounding the great lawn and in the arrival plaza. An existing underground gas line running through the northern portion of the park will need to be re-routed during park construction. Site Lighting: Site lighting for Story Mill Community Park will meet the standards of the International Dark Sky Association and will meet lighting level requirements of the City. Light levels required are: Average Horizontal Illuminance for Pedestrian Walkways in Maintained Foot-candles, Mixed Vehicle and Pedestrian 1.0 FC, Pedestrian Only 0.5 FC. As a predominantly nature-oriented park, outdoor lighting consistent with city codes is anticipated to be kept to a minimum with security lighting for parking areas, entry ways, and the restroom. Phasing: All park improvements are anticipated to be made at one time with the exception of constructing the full length of park road typology, or woonerf, along E. Griffin Drive and the east parking lot. A splash pad is also anticipated as a future addition. 235 Signage: Signage will be provided to the park and is indicated in the signage master plan. Regulatory signage is anticipated at all automobile entrances to park. Park signage will be provided along Bridger Drive and East Griffin Drive, announcing and indicating the park’s extents. Regulatory signage in the way of rules and regulations will be posted at the parking areas and trail gateways including engry points along the Story Mill Spur Trail, as well as distributed throughout as required. These signs will indicate hours of operation, conduct, and rules for trails, dogs, etc. The balance of signage within the park is informational or interpretive signage. These will include wayfinding markers directing users to facilities and trails, as well as interpretive signs displaying natural and historical information. Maintenance and Operations Park maintenance considerations have been studied by the project consultant, ETM. They will be guiding detailed design for durability of products and materials and efficiency of long-term maintenance. The City Parks Department and Maintenance Superintendent has been and will continue to be included in the coordination of this plan. The Trust for Public Land has committed to contributing $200,000 in privately raised funds for the first few years of maintenance. CITY INFORMAL REVIEW COMMENTS The following responses are to clarify the informal review comments provided by Shawn Kohtz, Development Review Engineer on January 20, 2016: 1. The proposed plan indicates reliance on an existing well to irrigate much of the property. As indicated in the narrative, this is intended to be accomplished within the limits of an exempt well. An analysis of the water demand for irrigation must be provided to demonstrate demands within the exempt well limits. If not within the limits, an alternate water source will need to be identified for irrigation. An irrigation demand analysis is included within the master plan submission. See Appendix B – Irrigation Water Needs. It indicates reliance on two existing water rights to irrigate the property amongst four wells. However, municipal water will be required to meet shortfalls in native plant revegetation and establishment, as well as provide full potable irrigation for the teaching farm, where users will be in contact with the water more frequently. The Master Plan assumes future City of Bozeman sewer line relocation work will make the existing pump and pump location unfeasible to use. Therefore, well and pump locations are indicated in the Irrigation Plan exhibit in the North Parcel with two above the teaching farm and two south of the west plaza. 2. If the City potable water supply is used to supplement irrigation, Section 38.23.180 of the Bozeman Municipal Code requires provision for water rights or cash in lieu (CIL) thereof. The project anticipates the regulations under the Bozeman Municipal Code. 3. Engineering and Public Works are supportive of the proposed “Woonerf” street section on East Griffin Drive. Continued access is maintained to the adjacent properties while recognizing the need to identify the street as a shared transportation system with significant use by pedestrians and bikes. The following items must be included in the proposed “Woonerf” section: a. Some form of separation shall be created between the automotive travel path and the 5-foot concrete walkway to further protect pedestrians when two vehicles are passing one another on the street section. The concrete walkway may be attached to the street section as shown but be separated by a minor barrier such as raised domes or bollards. Alternatively, the walkway may be physically separated from the drive lane. b. The speed limit for East Griffin is indicated as 25 miles-per-hour (mph) in one part of the application and 15 mph in another. The speed limit shall be 15 mph. c. Some form of roadway treatment, such as pavers or concrete, must be installed leading into the “Woonerf” section to signal the transition in the street section from a local street. The proposed street section will require a variance. The woonerf street section has been revised to include separation between vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian modes of travel. A raised and reflective pavement marker, similar to a raised dome, is proposed to provide separation and visually 236 signal a change of user patterns. The pavement markers will be of a material to permit snow removal. A change in road character will be announced on either end with a change of material, as well as park signage. The Master Plan proposes a concrete approach. The speed limit for East Griffin will be 15 mph. A variance will be included with the Site Plan Submission or when the City determines it necessary. 4. The improvements to East Griffin Drive are proposed in Phase II of the project. However, given the proposed park improvements, the “Woonerf” Section may be required in Phase I depending on adjacent development plans. The project team is not aware of any pending adjacent development and maintains the Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposed woonerf sections. The applicant is unable to forecast the appropriateness or applicability of a park-road typology at this time, not knowing future adjacent land uses. The future improvements to East Griffin Drive should occur with the future bridge upgrade to ensure compatibility or road and bridge cross sections. At the time where more development or changes in adjacent land uses are known, the park will contribute to the bridge upgrade. 5. A traffic impact study is required to determine the impacts of the proposed park on the transportation network. More specifically, a. The City’s capital planning map indicates required upgrades to the intersection of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive. The proposed park will have an impact on this intersection and will be required to participate in its upgrade. b. The park will have an impact on Story Mill Road and will be required to participate in that street upgrade. A plan must be developed in conjunction with adjacent development to upgrade these critical transportation network components. The City is currently developing a tool for these types of upgrades known as cash-in-lieu (CIL) of infrastructure, which may be available upon park development. The applicant may contact the City Planning or Engineering Department to obtain details about CIL of infrastructure requirements and status of the program. A traffic impact study has been prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants and is included as a part of this Master Plan submission. See Appendix C – Traffic Impact Assessment. The traffic engineering study was used to determine the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed park development on the surrounding roadway infrastructure. The study was based upon local ordinances and examines the full build-out of the site-generated traffic volumes and the operational analyses of intersections within the study area. • The proposed Story Mill Community Park is estimated to generate a total of approximately 638 daily one-way vehicle trips on a typical weekday without an event scheduled. The project is estimated to generate 41 vehicle trips (28 entering and 13 exiting) during the AM peak hour of the design day, and 99 vehicle trips (55 entering and 44 exiting) during the PM peak hour. • The project would result in an increase in traffic at any given study intersection of up to 95 peak-hour trips (through the Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access intersection). The project would have a minimal impact on the total traffic volumes through the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection (up to 15 peak-hour trips). • The project would increase the ADT on any given roadway segment by up to 528, which occurs along Bridger Drive between Griffin Drive/Rouse Avenue and Bridger Center Drive. The project would increase the ADT on Story Mill Road at a point immediately south of Bridger Drive by approximately 65 ADT. During the AM peak hour, the project is estimated to increase the total two-way traffic volume on Story Mill Road immediately south of Bridger Drive by approximately 4 one-way trips, or one trip every 15 minutes, on average. During the PM peak hour, the project would add approximately 9 one-way trips, which equates to less than one trip every 6 minutes, on average. The project is expected to have a minimal impact on traffic volumes along East Griffin Drive. • All study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. With implementation of the proposed project in 2016, some intersections would degrade by one level during the AM peak hour, although the LOS at all study intersections would remain at an acceptable LOS C or better during this period. In the PM peak hour, the following two intersections would decrease operation from LOS C to LOS D: - Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access - Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road If all approaches on the unsignalized intersection of Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access are required to operate at LOS C or better under Year 2016 conditions with the proposed project, it is recommended that a 237 central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) be constructed along Bridger Drive west of the intersection. This turn lane improvement (along with other improvements, including new sidewalks), is a planned improvement by MDT. With this improvement, an acceptable LOS C would also be provided in the Year 2018. At the Bridger Drive/Story Mill Road intersection, provision of a separate left-turn lane on the northbound Story Mill Road approach to Bridger Drive would improve the LOS at this intersection to an acceptable LOS C with the proposed project. This improvement would require widening the median of Story Mill Road within the vicinity of Bridger Drive, which is consistent with the City’s long-term vision of a 3-lane cross-section along Story Mill Road. Alternatively, provision of a separate right-turn lane on the northbound Story Mill Road approach would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C or better with the project; however, this improvement may not be desired due to right-of-way constraints. Assuming the MDT improvements are completed in 2018, the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection would continue to operate at LOS D. However, widening the Story Mill Road approaches to provide exclusive left-turn lanes would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C with the Story Mill Park Project in 2018. • The traffic volumes with the proposed project in 2016 do not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant criteria at any unsignalized study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The warrant criteria is also not met in 2018. • All study roadway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better with the proposed project in 2016; no roadway LOS deficiencies are identified. • The turn lane warrant analysis has determined left turn lanes are warranted for the following intersections: eastbound at the Bridger Drive/Birdie Drive intersection; and eastbound at the Bridger Drive/Story Mill Road intersection. These left-turn lanes, which are warranted with or without the proposed project, are planned to be installed as a part of the upcoming MDT project. No right-turn lanes are warranted at any of the unsignalized study intersections. • There is potential for local transit service to be provided in the future, but it is determined that it would not materially affect the findings and conclusions of this analysis. 6. The western bridge on East Griffin Drive is identified as a County bridge, which has width and potentially safety limitations. This bridge requires additional discussion with respect to its use in the park and the transition location to the “Woonerf” section. It is assumed that the western bridge on East Griffin Drive bridge will remain in place. The applicant is unable to forecast the appropriateness or applicability of a park-road typology at this time for the section beyond the park’s pedestrian crossing zone identified as Phase 1 due to not knowing future adjacent land uses. The future improvements to East Griffin Drive should occur with the future bridge upgrade to ensure compatibility or road and bridge cross sections. At the time where more development or changes in adjacent land uses are known, the park will contribute to the bridge upgrade. 7. The proposed stormwater facilities through the park and adjacent to the “Woonerf” Section shall be maintained by the City Parks Department. 8. Sewer services located in the project that will not be used shall be abandoned and disconnected per Water and Sewer Department requirements. Sewer services are noted in the master plan as abandoned in place. 9. Sewer mains that will remain in service on the property shall have a minimum 12-foot width all-weather access maintained to all manholes per the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. The Master Plan has orientated a trail along the Bridger Drive frontage that provides accessibility via a 12-food wide path to the approximate location of a planned sewer line manhole. 10. Sewer mains and manholes that will be abandoned shall be abandoned per Water and Sewer Department Requirements. Sewer services are noted in the master plan as abandoned in place and will be done so according to Water and Sewer Department requirements. 11. An existing 18-inch water transmission main is located in the southern portion of the property. Access shall be maintained to all water main valves, and general maintenance access to the main shall be considered with the park design. 238 An access road will be provided along the existing access road running from East Griffin Drive to the homestead site. This alignment will be maintained for emergency access. It will visually look like a trail, but have reinforced edges for driving. Beyond this point, park design will allow the same level of vehicular access to these utilities as is provided today. 12. The applicant is advised that regulatory floodplains and floodways exist for Bozeman Creek and the East Gallatin River. City floodplain regulations are codified in BMC Chapter 38.31 and must be complied with as the park is designed, built, and ultimately occupied for public use. The applicant is further advised that federal and state floodplain rules must be adhered to as well. These rules are respectively found in ARM 36.15 and CFR Title 44, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 60. Floodplain regulations will be followed and are under detailed study by the team at this time. See Appendix A – Floodplain Impacts. 13. With the informal materials provided it appears that a multitude of uses and improvements are proposed to occur within floodplain and floodway areas. To ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, the applicant is requested to provide an exhibit with the Master Park Plan application that clearly delineates the boundary of the 100-year floodplain where the base elevation intersects the existing ground surface. The exhibit must also depict the regulatory floodway extents in their exact location by utilizing digital GIS shapefile information available from the City Floodplain Administrator. A tabulation of uses and improvements proposed within the respective floodplain and floodway areas must be provided with the Master Park Plan. This information will be utilized to identify the proper course of action for the floodplain permitting process. Ecological restoration work on the site preceded the Story Mill Park design phase and was recently completed in May 2016. Those restoration activities required floodplain permitting through the City of Bozeman. An encroachment review, including an engineering no-rise analysis, was prepared to support that permit. A combination of effective FEMA flood hazard information, more detailed information prepared for the ecological restoration phase, and the preliminary Bozeman Creek Flood Study led by Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation were synthesized into what the design team considers “Best Available Flood Hazard Data”. This data is what is shown on Master Plan exhibits. From the ecological restoration no-rise analysis, the proposed conditions modeling (now constructed) for East Gallatin River is considered more detailed than the effective FEMA study. For that reason, RESPEC proposes that information be utilized as the existing conditions from which to base floodplain and floodway impacts from future Story Mill Park improvements. This information for East Gallatin River extends from the confluence with Bozeman Creek upstream to FEMA effective cross section CG. The effective FEMA flood hazard information was used downstream of the confluence with Bozeman Creek to Bridger Drive. LiDAR was collected in 2013 and was used to re-delineate that floodplain and floodway boundary using the regulatory water surface elevations for each cross section, to provide a boundary more accurate than what is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). For Bozeman Creek, the Preliminary Bozeman Creek Flood Restudy, led by Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, was used as Best Available Flood Hazard Data. Since that study began prior to construction of the Bozeman Creek Backwater Slough, the base flood elevations from that study were re-delineated to the design surface. The sources of Best Available Flood Hazard Data that are displayed on Story Mill Park Master Plan exhibits are shown on the enclosed exhibit. As shown on the Master Plan exhibits, multiple uses and improvements are proposed within the floodplain and floodway. The uses and improvements located within the Best Available Flood Hazard Data (floodplain and floodway) have been tabulated. Also provided in that table are the sources of the Best Available Flood Hazard Data, a description of each use and improvement, and a recommended course of action to assess impacts to base flood elevations and floodway encroachments. See Appendix A – Floodplain Impacts. 14. For advisory purposes, the applicant should be aware that a floodplain permit will be required prior to Final Site Plan approval for the phase in which work in the floodplain is proposed to occur. An approved floodplain permit is not required to be in place with the Master Park Plan approval. However, the outcome of the floodplain permitting process may affect the Master Park Plan and call for future amendment to the master plan. The applicant is further advised that encroachments into the regulatory floodway must proceed through a detailed engineering analysis performed by a qualified hydraulic engineer to show that the encroachment causes ‘no-rise’ in the base flood elevation. In the event the floodway encroachment does create a rise in the base flood elevation then FEMA must approve a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to floodplain permit approval by the City Floodplain Administrator. A CLOMR can take 6 months to 1 239 year for FEMA to approve depending upon the nature and complexity of the application. Furthermore, any changes to the extents of the regulatory floodway must be approved by FEMA through the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process. The LOMR must be submitted within 6 months after completing work within the floodway that caused changes to the floodway extents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following responses are to clarify the informal review comments provided by Allyson Brekke, Associate Planner on February 26, 2016: Future Application Requirements • Based on the information presented in the informal application materials, it appears a Master Site Plan (MSP) application would be required for the proposed park development. It is recommended that the MSP includes a phasing plan and that a phase 1 Site Plan (SP) application be submitted jointly with the MSP. When preparing proposed phases, keep in mind that grading of sites disturbing more than one-half acre, or movement of more than 100 cubic yards of material, triggers site plan development. Development applications and fee information can be found here: http://www.bozeman.net/ Departments-(1)/Community-Develop/Applications-and-Brochures) • The City Commission must consider the Master Site Plan (subsequent SP would not need to go to Commission). • If a variance(s) required, they would need City Commission action, so it might be wise to have the variances a part of the MSP application so that there is only a need to go to Commission once. • A comprehensive wayfinding signage plan must be submitted with the MSP application. • The Master Park Plan (MPP) will follow the MSP/SP process and be the document that adopts the results of the MSP, and deal with operation and maintenance issues associated with park. A signage plan is included within this MSP application. A variance will be included with the Site Plan Submission or when the City determines it necessary. Park Frontage: • 100% frontage for the park as proposed is not possible and will not necessitate a zoning variance. Make sure the MSP application materials state why the property is unique and unusual to prevent the frontage requirement (history of ownership and development of site, existing conditions such as creek location and existing trail location, etc). The history of parcel aggregation and ownership for Story Mill Community Park has resulted in an odd shaped parcel of land. Story Mill Community Park is fronted by Bridger Drive on the north (1,500 linear feet of frontage), on the south and west by East Griffin Drive (1,695 linear feet of frontage), and Story Mill Road to the east (1,615 linear feet of frontage). The Story Mill Spur Trail in the South Parcel bisects the property for 1,576 linear feet and provides direct pedestrian and bicycle access. The other sides of the property that are not directly fronting on streets are encumbered by the East Gallatin River and Bozeman Creek, wetlands, changes in topography, and adjacent land ownership. Therefore, no new streets are planned to access the site. The entire property is planned with perimeter trails to move bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the property. All parking for the park will be in the form of off-street parking. Parking requirements for park: • Staff would anticipate documentation of the resources used when determining an adequate parking demand for the proposed community park uses to be included within the formal application. LSC Consulting Engineers prepared a parking analysis in order to help with the sizing of the project’s parking lots. See Appendix D – Parking Generation. The parking demand analysis indicates that through the course of the analysis design day, the peak parking demand would be 74 spaces for the entire proposed park. The peak demand would occur during the 4:00 PM hour. The peak parking demand for the community center is estimated to be 37 parking spaces. This peak demand would occur during the 6:00-7:00 PM hours. The peak parking demand for the main park area would be 54 parking spaces and it would occur at about 4:00 PM. About 5 to 10 parking spaces are recommended to be provided at the dog park lot, in order to accommodate the dog park use as well as the other park-related uses in the vicinity of the dog park. In addition, adequate curb space will be needed for drop-off and pick-up activity at the Community Center. Considering the expected number of participants, the overlap of start/stop times and typical length of duration for drop-off and pick-up activity, curb space for up to four vehicles at a time (approximately 100 feet) is recommended. The parking analysis does not include parking for special events, which will depend on size and scheduling. 240 Dog Park • Any City owned dog park needs to be codified when proposed- recommended to discuss further with the City Attorney’s office. A dog park is planned to be included in Story Mill Community Park, and the Parks Department will update the list of off-leash dog parks per city ordinance and provide appropriate signage. Sustainability • Appears to be an opportunity to explore solar options for the property. The project team has been exploring energy efficiency and water wise technologies to improve the overall footprint of the project. Solar Powered lighting systems are the most likely solar technology to be implemented. A solar power irrigation pumping system was explored and determined to be not practical. There is a large cost associated with this, and the ability of the system to pump water at irrigation times and in the quantities required will prohibit solar powered pumps. A solar powered irrigation controller is available, but again may not be feasible due to greater costs. Solar for irrigation would require a substantial amount of arrays. Signage • Plan to include signage explaining requirements for dog leashes for enforcement purposes. • Consider friendly/easy-to-understand signage for emergency contacts. • A comprehensive wayfinding signage plan for the property should be developed, and should include the items included in Section 38.28.070 of the Unified Development Code. A signage plan is included with this master plan submission. It indicates types and locations of wayfinding and signage elements. A comprehensive sign family is being developed and will be submitted along with the Site Plan. Lighting • Consider the level of security lighting on the property - LED lighting can be a low percentage at all times with motion sensors to increase the percentage for safety purposes. LED Light fixtures provide a great opportunity to adjust the light levels throughout the night to keep visitors safe while managing the amount of energy used. Using motion sensors in outdoor application can be beneficial to detect occupancy and adjust light levels accordingly. Motion sensors work well when they are working as designed. Within Montana’s climate, the motion sensors will endure all types of weather and are vulnerable to failing early. We would recommend an option that most LED lights may be provided with a feature called a Dimming Profile. The Dimming Profile has a Mid-Point which is designed to be set at midnight. The light will provide 100% output until 2 hours before the midpoint where it will drop to 50% output. The light will remain at 50% output until 6 hours after the midpoint. Generally, 10pm to 6am the light fixtures will run at 50%. Uniformity is a large portion of designing site lighting and minimizes the contrast and essentially the shadows where a threat may hide. When the light fixtures are all operating at either 100% or 50% in unison the dimming maintains the uniformity of the site lighting design while minimizing the energy used during ‘off’ hours. Landscaping • Please reference the January 20, 2016 memorandum from the Development Review Engineer, Shawn Kohtz, in regards to wells used for irrigation purposes. • Please reference the January 16, 2016 memorandum from the City’s Water Conservation Specialist, Lain Leoniak in regards to recommended water conservation efforts for the park’s landscaping. • Be aware that boulevard trees are required even if bioswales are proposed. Boulevard trees are included in Master Plan submission along East Griffin Drive, but the applicant would like to request that the City consider waiving this requirement along East Griffin Drive due to the abundance of natural vegetation along the river corridor that is wished to be preserved. The park design will plant the same number or more trees within the park to establish canopy cover and create a park aesthetic. Emergency Access • EMT does not respond on bicycles, so the park design should take into consideration access points to the site for emergency vehicles. • Please follow up with Greg Megaard, Deputy Chief of Fire Operations, and Rich McLane, Deputy Chief of Police, about a meeting on site to better discuss and review the needs of emergency access to the site – they can be reached at gmegaard@ bozeman.net and rmclane@bozeman.net. • Consider the level of security lighting on the property - LED lighting can be a low percentage at all times with motion sensors to increase the percentage for safety purposes. 241 An access road will be provided along the existing access road running from East Griffin Drive to the homestead site. This alignment will be maintained for emergency access. It will visually look like a trail, but have reinforced edges for driving. Transportation/Access/Woonerf/Intersection Improvements • Please reference the January 20, 2016 memorandum from the Development Review Engineer, Shawn Kohtz, in regards to transportation impact study requirements, phasing of transportation improvements, transportation access routes and adjacent intersection improvements. Utilities (Stormwater, W/S) • Please reference the January 20, 2016 memorandum from the Development Review Engineer, Shawn Kohtz, in regards to utility service lines (including stormwater and w/s requirements). • Follow up with Northwestern Energy about the potential need to relocate an existing gas line on the property that is in close proximity to the restroom that are proposed – contact Dustin Workman at Northwestern Energy at dustin.workman@ northwestern.com. Modification/Demolition to buildings included in Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District: • The Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District is partially within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Therefore, all proposed demolition to buildings within the historic district must abide by Section 38.16.080 – Demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district. Several historic resources are known to exist within the park boundary, including a group of buildings and features from the middle third of the 20th century that once housed the Vollmer & Sons meat packing plant. The surviving features at the packing plant are listed as contributing resources in the National Register-listed Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District. Nearby, there is a timber-pile railroad trestle dating from the 1910s. The trestle is located outside the historic district boundary, and has not been assessed for National Register eligibility. Since the historic assessment of the Vollmer complex occurred over 20 years ago, work is now underway to prepare an updated assessment of these resources. This work will produce cultural resource site forms that include historic information, brief feature descriptions, and a current baseline evaluation of the National Register eligibility of each feature. This material will provide background information for planning and interpretive purposes, and will be needed in the event that the removal of any of these features is found necessary. If the park development process ultimately calls for the removal of historic features within the Northern Pacific/ Story Mill Historic District, we will request a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the City of Bozeman prior to undertaking the removal. The COA application, governed by Section 83.16.080 of city codes, will document the need for the demolition and the unsuitability of the buildings for reuse, and will include a plan to mitigate the removal of the historic features. 242 Appendices Appendix A - Floodplain Impacts Appendix B - Irrigation Water Needs Appendix C - Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix D - Parking Generation 243 Appendix A - Floodplain Impacts 244 Enclosure 1. Sources of Best Available Flood Hazard Data shown on Story Mill Park Master Plan Exhibits. 245 Enclosure 2Tabulation of Story Mill Park Uses and Improvements Impacts to Floodplains and Floodways on East Gallatin River and Bozeman CreekDate: 6/17/2016By: Matt Johnson, PE, CFMID Name Flooding SourceBest Available Data DescriptionRecommendation1 Bridger Drive Connector Trail East Gallatin River Floodway FEMAThe at‐grade trail follows a berm along the riverbank until a trail prism will be cut into the Bridger Drive embankment. No modeling for at‐grade trails: the proposed modification will not impact the hydraulic calculation in the one‐dimensional modeling platform. 1.1 Bridger Drive Connector Trails East Gallatin River Floodway FEMATwo trails near approach to Boys and Girls Club will likely be elevated to connect to Bridger Drive sidewalk. Elevated trails for accessibility require modeling since filling in floodway. 2 East Gallatin River Trail East Gallatin River Floodway FEMA The at‐grade trail follows a berm along the riverbank.  No modeling, the proposed modification grade will be same as existing condition. 3 Accessible Fishing Platform East Gallatin River Floodway FEMASlightly elevated accessible fishing platform along stream edge at end of at‐grade trail leading from East Gallatin River Trail along berm. Modeling of existing and proposed required if platform, recommend breakaway railing for design.4 Labyrinth East Gallatin River Floodway FEMA Maze‐like shrub plantings Likely no modeling required if no grade changes proposed.5Elevated Trail and North Floodplain Regrading East Gallatin River Floodway RESPECEdge of floodplain may be regraded to a gentler slope between power poles, may extend east of east power pole. Modeling required because grading below BFE is likely6 Pedestrian Beach East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC Pedestrian beach area along East Gallatin River between active channel and restored floodplain. Grading changes along the floodway will require modeling.7 Accessible River Access Platform East Gallatin River Floodway RESPECAccessible platform along stream edge at end of at‐grade trail leading from East Gallatin River Trail along berm. Modeling of existing and proposed required if platform, recommend breakaway railing for design.8 East Griffin Bridge Railing East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC New railing added to East Griffin Bridge No modeling required. Top chord of bridge not controlling backwater height, overflows South Parcel driveway.9 Pedestrian Bridge East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC New pedestrian bridge across East Gallatin River. Bridge approach requires fill in floodway. Modeling required due to fill in floodway.10 South Parcel Trails East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC At‐grade trails and driveway intermittently intersect floodplain boundary. No modeling, the proposed modification grade will be same as existing condition. 10.1 South Parcel Trails East Gallatin River Floodway RESPECTrails likely requiring localized fill through low spots in floodplain boundary. Trail crossing former RR embankment may require drainage culvert. No modeling, the proposed fill is an area of non‐conveyance (backwater).11 Slaughterhouse Bridge Removal East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC Demolition of the Slaughterhouse Bridge on Triangle Parcel.Modeling required due to existence of bridge in model. Recommend continue restored floodplains from upstream.12 Pedestrian Access East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC Non‐accessible pedestrian access between Story Mill Spur Trail and Slaughterhouse Bridge Modeling likely required due to cut into bank within floodway. 13 Pedestrian Bridge East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC New pedestrian bridge across East Gallatin River. Bridge spans floodway. Modeling not required if low chord elev > BFE and abutments and footings will not change bank dimensions and outside floodplain. 14 Triangle Parcel Trail East Gallatin River Floodway RESPEC New trail along existing historic railroad bridge. No modeling since backwater and trail elevated on existing bridge. 15 Slough Bird Blind Bozeman Creek DNRC Bird blind construction at end of trail along perimeter of Bozeman Creek Backwater Slough No modeling required since backwater area, limited fill will not impact BFE.  246 Appendix B - Irrigation Water Needs 247 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER PRECIPATION 30 YEAR  AVERAGE 1.77 2.8 2.8 1.42 1.22 1.26 ET 3.625 4.35 6.2 7.25 7.25 6.2 ADJUSTED IRRIGATION  REQUIRMENTS 1.855 1.55 3.4 5.83 6.03 4.94 PLANT COMMUNITY ACRES SQ FT APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER TURF IRRIGATION Kentucky Bluegrass 1.3 56,550 65,353 54,608 119,784 205,395 212,441 174,039 HIGH INTENSIVE IRRIGATION Fescue 2.62 113,970 131,711 110,055 241,411 413,949 428,150 350,756 MEDIUM INTENSIVE IRRIGATION Woodland, Drier Grassland 3.58 155,730 179,972 150,381 329,867 565,625 585,029 479,278 LOW INTENSIVE IRRIGATION Riparian Woodland/Shrubland, Mesic Grassland 3.71 161,385 186,507 155,841 341,846 586,165 606,273 496,682 SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION Bioswales, Low Laying Native Area 0.72 31,320 36,195 30,244 66,342 113,757 117,660 96,391 DRIP ORNAMENTAL PERENNIAL SHRUBS Ornamental 0.25 10,875 12,568 10,501 23,035 39,499 40,854 33,469 PERMANENT  TREE DRIP IRRIGATION 210 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 12,600 TEMPORARY TREE IRRIGATION 205 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 0.7 APPLICATION EFFICENCY TOTAL GALLONS REQUIRED 446,044 375,571 803,030 1,364,503 1,410,715 1,158,861 TOTAL GALLONS 5,558,724 ACRE FEET 1.37 1.15 2.46 4.19 4.33 3.56 TOTAL ACRE FEET 17.0591 35 RUN HOURS W/ONE WELL 212.4 178.8 382.4 649.8 671.8 551.8 70 RUN HOURS W/TWO WELLS 106.2 89.4 191.2 324.9 335.9 275.9 105 RUN HOURS W/THREE WELLS 70.8 59.6 127.5 216.6 223.9 183.9 140 RUN HOURS W/ FOUR WELLS 53.1 44.7 95.6 162.4 167.9 138.0 IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT PER MONTH IN GALLONS 248 Appendix C - Traffic Impact Analysis 249 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Prepared by Story Mill Community Park Traffic Impact Study Prepared for Design Workshop, Inc. 250 STORY MILL COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Prepared for Design Workshop, Inc. 120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 • 920-4005 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P.O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 • 583-4053 June 10, 2016 LSC #167090 251 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 Project Description .........................................................................................................1 Scope of Study ...............................................................................................................2 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................3 Roadway Characteristics ................................................................................................3 Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................5 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................................................................9 Project Description .........................................................................................................9 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment .............................................................9 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE .......................................................................................................19 Description ...................................................................................................................19 Level of Service Standards ..........................................................................................19 Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................20 Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................................20 5 TRAFFIC IMPACTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................23 Impact on Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................23 Intersection LOS Impacts ............................................................................................24 Signal Warrant Analysis ..............................................................................................25 Roadway LOS Impacts ................................................................................................25 Analysis of the Need for New Turn Lanes ..................................................................25 Recommendations ........................................................................................................27 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................28 APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B: LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS APPENDIX C: INTERSECTION LOS REPORTS APPENDIX D: ROADWAY LOS CRITERIA APPENDIX E: TURN LANE WARRANT CRITERIA LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Story Mill Park Trip Generation ....................................................................................... 10 2 Story Mill Park Trip Distribution ......................................................................................13 3 Story Mill Park TIA – Intersection LOS............................................................................20 252 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page ii Traffic Impact Study 4 Story Mill Park – Roadway LOS .......................................................................................22 5 Story Mill Park – Traffic Volume Impacts ........................................................................23 6 Story Mill Park – Year 2018 PM Peak-Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes .....................26 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Story Mill Park Site Location, Lane Configuration and Intersection Controls .................. 4 2 Story Mill Park AM and PM Peak Hour Existing No Project Volumes ..............................6 3 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ...........................................................................................8 4 Story Mill Park Project Generation AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................14 5 Project Generated Daily Traffic Volumes .........................................................................15 6 AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Story Mill Park ........................................16 7 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes with Story Mill Park .......................................................17 253 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this traffic engineering study is to determine the impacts of the traffic generated by this proposed development on the surrounding roadway infrastructure. This study will determine if mitigation is required to keep the roadways operating safely and at capacity levels acceptable under the current code. This report is based on local ordinances, and provides a complete analysis of the intersections identified for analysis. The existing and existing plus project traffic conditions are analyzed and discussed in detail in the subsequent sections. This report examines the full build-out of the site-generated traffic volumes, as well as the operational analyses of study intersections located within the study area. This report documents the findings and conclusions of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for a proposed site plan for property located in the City of Bozeman, Montana. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes a new community park located south of and adjacent to Bridger Drive (State Route 86) in Bozeman, Montana. The park is proposed to be approximately 60.24 acres in area and is proposed to contain the following amenities: • Community Center (11,760 square feet) • Teaching Garden/Food Forest • Trails • Event Lawn • Amphitheater • Picnic Pavilion • River Access • Playground • Nature Walk • Fishing Access • Dog Park (0.5 acre) Access to the project site is proposed to be provided via two driveways along Bridger Drive and one driveway on Story Mill Road. Specifically, the western driveway forming the south leg of the Bridger Drive/Bridger Center Drive intersection would provide access to the proposed Community Center and park. This driveway currently provides access to the Boys & Girls Club. In addition, a new driveway forming the south leg of the Bridger Drive/Birdie Drive intersection would provide access to the park. The existing driveway located on the south side of Bridger Drive between Bridger Center Drive and Birdie Drive, which served the previous mobile home development, would be removed as a part of the project. Additionally, a driveway located on Story Mill Road (“L” Street) immediately south of the Story Mill Road/Story Mill Spur/L Street intersection would provide access to the proposed dog park, fishing access, and trails. Finally, the project proposes to construct improvements along East Griffin Drive in order to enhance conditions for non-auto travel modes (such as bicyclists and pedestrians). 254 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 2 Traffic Impact Study SCOPE OF STUDY This traffic engineering study documents the existing and proposed conditions, traffic data, and Level of Service in accordance with the requirements of the City ordinances. The scope of the study was defined by LSC Transportation Consultants and the “TIS Preparation Guidelines” provided in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (Section 10.5). The following intersections were identified for analysis: 1. Bridger Drive/Griffin Drive/Rouse Avenue 2. Bridger Drive/Bridger Center Drive/Site Access 3. Bridger Drive/Birdie Drive 4. Bridger Drive/Story Mill Road 5. Story Mill Road/Griffin Drive In addition, the following roadways were identified for analysis: • Rouse Avenue, South of Griffin Drive • Bridger Drive, Between Griffin Drive and Bridger Center Drive • Bridger Drive, Between Bridger Center Drive and Birdie Drive • Bridger Drive, Between Birdie Drive and Story Mill Road • Bridger Drive, East of Story Mill Road • Griffin Drive, West of Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive • Story Mill Road, North of Bridger Drive • Story Mill Road, South of Bridger Drive The results of this traffic study are used to develop recommendations to mitigate project traffic impacts. This analysis considers two scenarios: 1. Existing (2016) No Project 2. Existing (2016) Plus Project This TIS is prepared for submission to the City. Traffic related issues addressed in this report are consistent with the requirements of the City’s Code of Ordinances Section 38.41.060. The issues are as follows: 1. Existing traffic conditions 2. Site generated traffic volumes and their distribution and assignment 3. Level of Service analysis with and without the project 4. Recommendations for mitigation of traffic impacts 5. Peak-hour signal warrant conditions 255 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 3 Chapter 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing infrastructure and operational traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site were documented. The following discussion presents information regarding the project site, turn volumes, and traffic conditions in the study area. Figure 1 displays the existing roadway lane configurations and traffic controls. ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS The roadways in the vicinity of the site area are State Route (SR) 86 (Rouse Avenue-Bridger Drive), Story Mill Road, Birdie Drive, Bridger Center Drive, East Griffin Drive, Story Mill Spur, and Rouse Avenue. The pertinent information regarding these roadways is described below. SR 86 (Rouse Avenue-Bridger Drive) provides access from downtown Bozeman through the Bridger Canyon to the northeast of the City of Bozeman. Rouse Avenue runs in a north-south direction from downtown Bozeman to north of Interstate 90. Rouse Avenue has a two-lane cross-section through the study area. There is a left-turn lane at the signalized intersection with Griffin Drive, but no other turn lanes are provided. There is a grade separation at Interstate 90 at Rouse Avenue, but there is no direct access to the freeway. The posted speed limit on Rouse Avenue north of Interstate 90 is 35 mph. At the intersection with East Griffin Drive, Rouse Avenue continues to the north as Bridger Drive. Bridger Drive continues to the east and assumes an east-west alignment through the study area. Bridger Drive continues a two-lane cross section through the study area. There are currently no turn pockets provided at intersections. The posted Speed limit on Bridger Drive is 35 mph. East of Story Mill Road, the speed limit increases to 45 mph. SR 86 is classified as an urban minor arterial by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). The City of Bozeman classifies SR 86 as an urban principal arterial. Griffin Drive runs in an east-west alignment between Story Mill Road and North 7th Avenue. West of SR 86, Griffin Drive is classified as an urban minor arterial by the Montana Department of Transportation and as an urban principle arterial by the City of Bozeman. West of SR 86, Griffin Drive has a two-lane cross section with a right-turn lane provided at the signalized intersection with SR 86. The posted speed limit west of SR 86 is 35 mph. East of SR 86, Griffin Drive is considered a local roadway and has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. This section of Griffin Drive has a narrow cross section and traverses two bridges. This portion of Griffin Drive traverses the study area. Part of East Griffin Drive is proposed to be improved in order to better accommodate non-auto modes, such as bicyclists and pedestrians as part of the proposed Story Mill Park project. Story Mill Road is classified as an urban collector by the Montana Department of Transportation and as an urban major collector by the City of Bozeman. Story Mill Road runs in a north-south direction and has a two-lane cross section. North of SR 86, Story Mill Road provides access to residential and rural areas. The posted speed limit on Story Mill Road north of SR 86 is 35 mph. South of SR 86, Story Mill Road connects with L Street, which provides a second grade separation under I-90 on the northeast side of Bozeman connecting to downtown. The posted speed limit on Story Mill Road south of SR 86 is 25 mph. The intersection of Story 256 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 4 Traffic Impact Study SITEBozeman§¨¦90£¤191£¤10UV86rSite01.530.75MilesIFigure 1:Story Mill Park Site Location, Lane Configuration and Intersection Controls4Bridger Dr./Story Mill Rd.1Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr./Griffin Dr.GriffinDr.2Bridger Dr./Bridger Center Dr./Site Access3Bridger Dr./Birdie Dr.5Story Mill Rd./Griffin Dr.23451èéRouse Ave.Site AccessBridger Center Dr.868686Story MillRd.86BridgerDr.Story Mill Rd.GriffinDr.IService Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SAEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user communityBridger Dr.éèBridger Dr.Stop SignTraffic SignalLane ConfigurationLEGENDSite AccessBirdie Dr.ProposedDog Park257 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 5 Mill Road at SR 86 is stop-controlled for both of the Story Mill Road intersection approaches and free for traffic on SR 86. Bridger Center Drive is a short local roadway that extends to the north of SR 86. Bridger Center Drive provides access to industrial park land uses. The Bridger Center Drive approach to the SR 86 is stop-controlled. The south leg of this intersection, which currently provides access to the Boy and Girls Club, would provide access to the proposed project site. Birdie Drive is a local roadway that provides access to residential neighborhoods north of SR 86. There are commercial park type land uses located in the vicinity of the intersection of SR 86/Birdie Drive. The posted speed limit on Birdie Drive is 25 mph. The Birdie Drive approach to the intersection with SR 86 is stop-controlled. A proposed park driveway would form the fourth leg (south leg) of this intersection. Figure 1 shows the project area, study intersections, lane configuration, and intersection controls. EXISTING (2016) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing traffic volume data is the basis for the analysis of the capacity and safety of the roadways. Intersection traffic volumes are estimated for the AM and PM peak hours, and daily traffic volumes are estimated for the study roadway segments. Intersection Traffic Volumes Intersection turning-movement counts were conducted at the Bridger Drive/Rouse Avenue/ Griffin Drive and Bridger Drive/Story Mill Road intersections on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 by Robert Peccia and Associates as a part of the update to the City of Bozeman Transportation Plan. The Bridger Drive/Bridger Center Drive/Site Access and Bridger Drive/Birdie Drive intersections were counted on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, and the Story Mill Road/East Griffin Drive intersection was counted on Wednesday, April 13, 2016 by Stahly Engineering & Associates, Inc as a part of this project. As per the City of Bozeman Transportation Plan, all intersection counts were counted on a regular weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) during a non-holiday week from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM. The count data is contained in Appendix A. MDT provides adjustment factors in order to annualize the traffic counts. These adjustment factors are applied to the count data according to roadway classification, month of the count, and day of week of the count. The resulting AM and PM peak hour intersection turning-movement design volumes are shown in Figure 2. Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes Roadway Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes are provided by MDT. The most recent AADT volumes are from 2014 and are available for the following roadway segments: • Rouse Avenue, South of Griffin Drive • Bridger Drive, Between Griffin Drive and Bridger Center Drive • Griffin Drive, West of Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive • Story Mill Road, South of Bridger Drive 258 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 6 Traffic Impact Study 4Bridger Dr./Story Mill Rd.1Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr./Griffin Dr.GriffinDr.2Bridger Dr./Bridger Center Dr./Site AccessBridgerDr.3Bridger Dr./Birdie Dr.5Story Mill Rd./Griffin Dr.23451Rouse Ave.Site AccessBridger Center Dr.868686BridgerDr.Story MillRd.86BridgerDr.Story Mill Rd.GriffinDr.Service Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SAEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user communityBirdieDr.I00.250.5 seliM521.0139EEE EEE EEEEE E1805571122412113851750EEE EEE EEE0013271160194327608EEE EEE EEEEE E151441194344110583164584891548EE3052 13221251EE EEEE EEEE (163)(328)(373)(1)(2)(0)(7)(192)(9)(159)(173)(1)(234)(1)(9)(8)(9)(4)(474)(10)(28)(0)(16)(13)(42)(3)(29)(0)(342)EE E(437)(5)(4)(231)(18)(44)(11)(33)(150)(99)(21)(10)(16)(274)(7)(3)(54)(77)(10)E148(77)Turning MovementAM Traffic VolumesPM Traffic VolumesLEGENDFigure 2Story Mill Park AM and PM Peak Hour Existing No Project Volumes259 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 7 AADT for the remaining roadway segments is estimated by applying a daily-to-peak hour factor to the two-way peak-hour volumes. This factor is estimated based on the ratio of AADT to the peak-hour volume on known segments. This ratio is then multiplied by the peak-hour volume on the other roadway segments to estimate the AADT on those segments. The resulting roadway segment design volumes are shown in Figure 3. 260 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 8 Traffic Impact Study Figure 3:Existing Daily Traffic VolumesService Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SAEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user communityI00.150.3 seliM570.011,2608,1407,9907,1005,230,01,6407509180,261 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 9 Chapter 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS The proposed development will add traffic to the roadway system. The project location and the size of the project are important elements that need to be considered to determine the impacts of this development on safety and capacity. It is also important to examine how the project will operate with the existing transportation system, estimate how much new traffic will be generated, and predict where traffic generated by the site will be distributed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed community park is approximately 60.24 acres in area and is proposed to contain the following amenities: • Community Center (11,760 square feet) • Teaching Garden/Food Forest • Trails • Event Lawn • Amphitheater • Picnic Pavilion • River Access • Playground • Nature Walk • Fishing Access • Dog Park (0.5 acre) For purposes of this analysis, the project is assumed to be 100% complete under ‘existing plus project’ conditions. The project proponent indicates that special events (lawn events and amphitheater events) and event traffic would be limited to late evenings and weekends. Note that there is an existing Boys and Girls Club at the location of the proposed community center. In order to remain conservative in this analysis, no credit is applied for existing site-generated traffic. TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT Trip Generation The first step in the analysis of future traffic impacts is to prepare an estimate of the number of trips generated by the proposed project. Trip generation is the evaluation of the number of vehicle-trips that will either have an origin or destination at the project site. Daily vehicle trips and peak-hour vehicle trips must be determined in order to analyze the potential impacts from the proposed project development. A summary of trip generation for the proposed project is presented in Table 1. 262 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 10 Traffic Impact Study TABLE 1: Story Mill Park Trip GenerationTrip Generation Rates Project Generated Vehicle Trips at Site AccessITEAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Non-AutoAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDescriptionITE Land Use CodeQuantity UnitDailyIn O ut Total In O ut TotalReduction DailyIn Ou t Total In Out TotalDesign Day Trip GenerationCommunity Park 1Regional Park 41760.24 Acres 4.570.090.060.150.110.150.265% 262 5497815Community Center 2N/AN/A 11.76 KSF -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Community Center Staff 3,4N/AN/A 12 Employees 2.40 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.90 10% 26 10 0 10 0 10 10 - Preschool 5N/A N/A 20Participants1.800.180.000.180.000.000.000% 36 404000 - Day Camps 6N/AN/A 12 Participants 3.60 0.68 0.68 1.35 0.68 0.68 1.35 0% 43 8 8 16 8 8 16 - Activities 7N/A N/A 15Participants3.600.000.000.000.090.090.180% 54 000123 - After school programs 8N/AN/A 20 Participants 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 1.50 0% 42 0 0 0 15 15 30 - Gym Rentals (6-8 PM) 9N/AN/A 30 Participants 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 0% 60 0 0 0 23 0 23 - Gym Rentals (8-10PM)N/A N/A 30Participants2.000.000.000.000.000.000.000% 60 000000 - Facility Rentals 10N/A N/A 20Participants2.000.000.000.000.000.000.000% 40 000000Subtotal Community Center361 22 8 30 47 35 82Dog Park 11N/AN/A 0.5 Acres-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --15 112112Total Design Day Trip Generation638 28 13 41 55 44 99Special Event Trip Generation 12Amphitheater 13N/A N/A 200 Seats 0.800.040.000.040.000.400.400% 160 80808080 - Event Staff 1410 Staff 2.000.250.000.250.000.500.500% 20 303055Event Lawn 13N/AN/A 300 Attendees 0.80 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.40 0.40 0% 240 12 0 12 0 120 120 - Event Staff 1415 Staff 2.000.250.000.250.000.500.500% 30 404088Total Worst-Case Additional Event Traffic (Assumes two concurrent events both ending during PM peak hour) 450 27 0 27 0 213 213NOTE: KSF = 1,000 Square FeetNote 1: Trip generation rates for the proposed Community Park are based on Trip Generation, 9th Edition (ITE, 2012).Note 2: Trip generation for the proposed community center is based on a person-trip analysis for the anticipated uses of the facility listed below.Note 3: Community Center staff are assumed to generate one entering trip during AM peak hour, one exiting trip during PM peak hour, with one third generating an additional round-trip during the day, and 20 percent car pooling.Note 4: Community Center staff is assumed to consist of 6 full-time employees and 6 part-time employees. Part-time employees are assumed to w ork a traditional 8-hour day on days that they work.Note 5: Pre-school parents are assumed to remain on-site for the duration of the program. Twenty percent of participants are assumed to carpool and ten percent are assumed to arrive during AM peak hour.Note 6: Day camp participants are assumed to be dropped-off and picked-up by their parents. Twenty percent of participants are assumed to carpool. Seventy-five percent of participants are assumed to arrive during the AM peak hour and 75 percent of participants are assumed to depart during the PM peak hour.Note 7: Activities participants are assumed to be dropped-off and picked-up by their parents. Twenty percent of participants are assumed to carpool. Ten percent of participants are assumed to depart during the PM peak hour.Note 8: The daily rate reflects that all after school program participants w ill arrive by school bus and be picked-up by parents. It is assumed that 75 percent of participants will depart during the PM peak hour.Note 9: Seventy-five percent of gym participants are assumed to arrive during the PM peak hour.Note 10: Facility rental are assumed to occur evenings after the PM peak hour. Note 11: The trip generation for the proposed Dog Park is estimated based on discussions with the project proponent and use levels anticipated by the City of Bozeman.Note 12: Special Events are assumed to not coincide with design w eekday AM and PM peak hour traffic. Special event trip generation is therefore not included in the intersection LOS analysis and is provided for information purposes.Note 13: A vehicle occupancy of 2.5 persons per vehicle is assumed for amphitheater and event lawn events. This is consistent with other traffic studies for event venues.Note 14: One event staff person is assumed for every 20 event attendees. Staff are assumed to have vehicle occupancy of 1.0.Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Story Mill TIA.xlsx263 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 11 First, trip generation is evaluated for a typical busy summer day (the “design day”) without a special event. Next, the trip generation associated with special events is estimated, based on a worst-case scenario with regards to event traffic. However, for purposes of this analysis, event traffic is not included in the design volumes, as the project proponent indicates that special events (lawn events and amphitheater events) and event traffic would be limited to late evenings and weekends. Trip Generation – Typical Summer Day (Design Day) Information regarding trip generation is generally contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012). However, the trip generation of a park varies substantially depending on the specific uses. The proposed uses in Story Mill Community Park do not fall wholly within any of the park definitions in the Manual. The trip generation analysis is presented in Table 1. As shown, the basis for the trip generation analysis of the proposed park is the “Regional Park” land use defined by ITE. The description that ITE provides for the “Regional Park” land use includes many land uses listed in the park program, such as hiking trails, river access, picnic facilities, and office space. However, the ITE description of “Regional Park” does not necessarily include the use of a free-standing community center with regular staff, activities, and events. The ITE description also does not include any mention of a dog park. Therefore, trips associated with these uses were estimated based upon the number of persons expected to use these facilities, factored to convert person-trips to vehicle trips. Community Center Trip Generation The park program lists the expected uses of the community center, and the expected number of participants for each use. These uses are shown in the table. The daily trip rate for each use assumes one round-trip, meaning two one-way trips (one entering and one exiting), for each participant. The daily trip rates also reflect increased vehicle occupancy for carpooling. For example, many uses are estimated to have a carpool rate of 20 percent. Therefore, the trip rate reflects an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.11 persons per vehicle for uses where carpooling is expected. Additionally, trip rates for facility uses for children below driving age – such as the proposed day camp – reflect that these participants would be dropped off and picked up by an adult who would not remain at the park for the duration of the activity. Each drop-off “trip” and each pick-up “trip” actually generates two one-way trips at the site access points. This results in the potential for each participant to generate up to four one-way trips at the project access. The daily trip rate for the preschool reflects that parents will remain on site for the duration of this program and 20 percent will carpool. The daily trip rate for the after-school programs assumes that the participants will arrive at the site by bus, but will be picked up by parents. Peak-hour trip generation is based on the time-of-day schedule of activities provided by the project proponent. Uses with scheduled start or end times within the adjacent street peak AM and PM periods (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) are estimated to have 75 percent of their participants arrive or depart during the corresponding design peak hour. Uses with a start or end time within an hour of the adjacent street AM and PM peak hours are estimated to have 10 percent of their participants generate a trip during the corresponding peak hour. 264 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 12 Traffic Impact Study Dog Park Trip Generation ITE does not provide standard trip generation statistics for a dog park. As the ITE land use description for “Regional Park” does not mention dog parks in the sites surveyed, the trip generation of the dog park is estimated in addition to the community park use, in order to remain conservative in this analysis. Based on discussions with the project team and the anticipated use levels at the dog park, about 15 daily one-way trips and 2 peak-hour trips in the AM and PM are expected to be generated by this use. Reductions for Non-Auto Trips The standard ITE trip rates are based on vehicle counts at driveways and as such, they reflect a typical level of non-auto travel. Considering the extensive trail system, an additional 5-percent reduction is applied to the “Regional Park” trip generation to reflect trips made to/from the proposed park via non-auto modes. It was reported that approximately 20 percent of the community center employees would bike to work. However, to remain conservative in this analysis and to account for the fact that employee housing location may change over time, a 10 percent non-auto reduction is assumed for community center employees. Also to remain conservative in this analysis, no further non-auto mode reductions are assumed for other proposed uses of the community center and the park. Total Trip Generation on Design Day As shown in Table 1, the proposed Story Mill Community Park is estimated to generate a total of approximately 638 daily one-way vehicle trips on a typical weekday without an event scheduled. The project is estimated to generate 41 vehicle trips (28 entering and 13 exiting) during the AM peak hour of the design day, and 99 vehicle trips (55 entering and 44 exiting) during the PM peak hour. The traffic operations analysis is based on these figures. Trip Generation – Special Events Trip generation for the proposed amphitheater and the proposed event lawn is estimated using a person-trip analysis based on the stated capacity of each of these proposed venues. The daily trip rate assumes one inbound and one outbound trip per seat or attendee with an average vehicle occupancy of 2.5 persons per vehicle. Peak-hour trip generation for event is dependent on the schedule and duration of the event and could vary greatly depending on the type of event. Peak- hour trip generation is estimated at 5 percent of daily trips during the AM peak hour and 50 percent of daily trips during the PM peak hour. This estimation for the PM peak hour is based on a conservative worst-case scenario in which all event attendees would depart from the site during the PM peak hour. Trip generation for both of the event venues also includes trips generated by event staff. A staffing level of one event staff per 20 event attendees is assumed, based upon average employee-to-attendee ratios for convention-type uses. Each staff member is assumed to generate one entering and one exiting trip at the site access on the day of the event. Staff are 265 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 13 conservatively assumed to have a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.0. Approximately 25 percent of staff are assumed to arrive during the AM peak hour and 50 percent of staff are estimated to generate an outbound trip during the PM peak hour. As shown in the lower portion of Table 1, the worst-case scenario of two concurrent special events at the proposed Story Mill Community Park would generate an additional 450 one-way daily vehicle trips, with 27 entering trips during the AM peak hour and 213 exiting trips during the PM peak hour. For purposes of the traffic operational analysis, neither of the proposed event venues are assumed to schedule an event during typical weekday commuter peak hours. As such, the special event trips are not reflected in the intersection and roadway capacity analyses. Trip Distribution and Assignment The distribution of traffic arriving and leaving the project site is identified based upon the distribution of traffic arriving and leaving the project site and is estimated based on population distribution in the City of Bozeman (as reported by the United State Census Bureau on the American Fact Finder website), regional access patterns, existing turning-movement volumes, and the location of complementary land uses within the area. The trip distribution pattern assumed for the Story Mill Park project is shown in Table 2. As shown, the majority of trips (63 percent) are expected to travel to/from Rouse Avenue to the south. The project-generated turning-movement volumes are calculated by applying the distribution to the trip generation. The Story Mill Park peak-hour project-generated intersection turning movements are provided in Figure 4 and the daily project generated traffic volumes are provided in Figure 5. The project-generated volumes are added to the existing turning-movement volumes to create the existing 2016 intersection turning-movement volumes with Story Mill Park, as displayed in Figure 6. The daily traffic volumes with Story Mill Park are displayed in Figure 7. TABLE 2: Story Mill Park Trip Distribution Origin / Destination Distribution Rouse Avenue, South of Griffin Drive 63% Griffin Drive, West of Rouse Avenue 21% Bridger Drive, East of Story Mill Road 5% Story Mill Road, North of Bridger Drive 1% Story Mill Road, South of Griffin Drive 9% Birdie Drive 1% Total 100% Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Story Mill TIA.xlsx 266 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 14 Traffic Impact Study 4Bridger Dr./Story Mill Rd.1Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr./Griffin Dr.GriffinDr.2Bridger Dr./Bridger Center Dr./Site AccessBridgerDr.3Bridger Dr./Birdie Dr.5Story Mill Rd./Griffin Dr.23451Rouse Ave.Site AccessBridger Center Dr.868686Story MillRd.86BridgerDr.Story Mill Rd.GriffinDr.Service Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SAEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user communityBirdieDr.I00.250.5seliM521.00EEE EEE EEEEE E1700000836007EEE EEE EEE0134000004193EEE EEE EEEEE E00010000001031000EE30 0001E EEEEE EEEE (0)(34)(7)(7)(6)(0)(29)(0)(0)(12)(9)(0)(27)(0)(0)(0)(0)(40)(6)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(0)(7)EE E(6)(0)(0)(2)(0)(0)(5)(0)(1)(1)(0)(0)(4)(2)(0)(0)(4)(5)(0)E148(77)Turning MovementAM Traffic VolumesPM Traffic VolumesLEGENDBridger Dr.Site AccessProposedEEEEEE 400104(7)(0)(1)(6)(1)(0)Figure 4Story Mill Park Project Generated AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic VolumesSITE267 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 15 Figure 5:Project Generated Daily Traffic VolumesService Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SAEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user communityI00.150.3 seliM570.0SITE3945282799932,0665134268 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 16 Traffic Impact Study 4Bridger Dr./Story Mill Rd.1Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr./Griffin Dr.GriffinDr.2Bridger Dr./Bridger Center Dr./Site AccessBridgerDr.3Bridger Dr./Birdie Dr.5Story Mill Rd./Griffin Dr.23451Rouse Ave.Site AccessBridger Center Dr.868686Story MillRd.86BridgerDr.Story Mill Rd.GriffinDr.Service Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SAEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user communityBirdieDr.I00.250.5 seliM521.0139EEE EEE EEEEE E1975571123212414451757EE EEEE EEE014331116019432801911EEE EEE EEEEE E151441195344110583164685192548EE3082 13221252EE EEEE EEEE (163)(362)(380)(8)(8)(0)(36)(192)(9)(171)(182)(1)(261)(1)(9)(8)(9)(44)(480)(10)(28)(0)(16)(13)(42)(3)(29)(0)(349)EE E(443)(5)(4)(233)(18)(44)(16)(33)(151)(100)(21)(10)(20)(276)(7)(3)(58)(82)(10)E148(77)Turning MovementAM Traffic VolumesPM Traffic VolumesLEGENDBridger Dr.Site AccessProposedEEEEEE 400104(7)(0)(1)(6)(1)(0)Figure 6AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Story Mill ParkSITE269 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 17 Figure 7:Existing Daily Traffic Volumes with Story Mill ParkService Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SAEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS user communityI00.150.3seliM570.0SITE11,6548,6688,2697,1995,262,01,6468159,314270 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 18 Traffic Impact Study This page left intentionally blank. 271 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 19 Chapter 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION Traffic operations at the study intersections are assessed in terms of Level of Service (LOS) and delay. LOS is a concept that was developed by transportation engineers to quantify the level of operation of intersections and roadways (Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010). LOS measures are classified in grades "A" through "F," indicating the range of operation. LOS "A" signifies the best level of operation, while "F" represents the worst. A detailed description of LOS criteria is provided in Appendix B. For signalized intersections, LOS is primarily measured in terms of average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. LOS at unsignalized intersections is quantified in terms of delay per vehicle for each movement. Unsignalized intersection LOS is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for side-street stop sign-controlled approaches, while signalized intersection LOS is based upon the assessment of volume-to-capacity ratios and control delay. Roundabout LOS is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for the traffic entering the roundabout, and an assessment of the conflicting circulating flow. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS The Level of Service (LOS) standard set forth in the Bozeman Code (Section 38.24.060.B) is as follows: AAll arterial and collector streets and intersections with arterial and collector streets shall operate at a minimum level of service “C” unless specifically exempted by this subsection. Level of service (LOS) values shall be determined by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. A development shall be approved only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which shall be a minimum of 15 years following the development application review of construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS. Intersections shall have a minimum acceptable LOS of “C” for the intersection as a whole. a. Exception: If an intersection within the area required to be studied by section 38. 41.060.A.12 does not meet LOS “C” and the intersection has been fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity, then an LOS of less than “C” is acceptable. b. Exception: The review authority may accept and LOS of less than “C” at a specific intersection if: 1) A variance to allow a lesser LOS was approved not more than two years prior to the date an application for development being reviewed is determined to be adequate for review; 2) The request was made in writing with the application; and 3) The circumstances are in the professional judgment of the review authority substantially the same as when the variance was granted.@ 272 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 20 Traffic Impact Study ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The LOS at the study intersections is evaluated for the peak hours by utilizing the Synchro software (Version 8.0, Trafficware), based upon the procedures presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Federal Highways Administration, 2010). The Synchro output and calculations are provided in Appendix C for further reference. The roadway LOS evaluation is based on methodology and lookup tables provided by the Florida Department of Transportation. FDOT methodologies are determined to be most appropriate for this area, as the methodologies available using the HCM 2010 and HCS would not be applicable to the characteristics of the study roadways. The ADT lookup tables are contained in Appendix D. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Intersection LOS Intersections in the project area were evaluated to determine existing operational conditions for weekday peak-hour conditions. Table 3 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis for Year 2016 conditions. As shown, all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. With implementation of the proposed project in 2016, some intersections would degrade by one level during the AM peak hour, although the LOS at all study intersections would remain at an acceptable LOS C or better during this period. In the PM peak hour, the following two intersections would degrade from LOS C to LOS D: • Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access • Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road TABLE 3: Story Mill Park TIA - Intersection LOS Without Project With Story Mill Park Intersection Delay (sec/veh)LOS Delay (sec/veh)LOS AM Bridger Dr / Rouse Ave / Griffin Drive 1 7.4 A 7.5 A Bridger Dr / Bridger Center Dr / site access 12.2 B 17.2 C Bridger Dr / Birdie Dr 10.5 B 15.6 C Bridger Dr / Story Mill Rd 15.9 C 16.7 C Story Mill Rd / Griffin Dr 9.2 A 9.2 A PM Bridger Dr / Rouse Ave / Griffin Drive 1 7.9 A 8.0 A Bridger Dr / Bridger Center Dr / site access 20.4 C 26.2 D Bridger Dr / Birdie Dr 11.4 B 21.3 C Bridger Dr / Story Mill Rd 22.7 C 25.2 D Story Mill Rd / Griffin Dr 9.0 A 9.0 A Bold indicates that LOS standard has been exceeded. Note: All intersections are side-street stop-controlled, unless otherw ise noted. Note: Delay and LOS are based on most constrained approach for side-street stop-controlled intersections. Note 1: This intersection is signalized. Delay and LOS are reported for the intersection as a w hole. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Story Mill TIA.xlsx 273 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 21 Note that the Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive intersection only exceeds the LOS C standard by approximately 1.2 seconds per vehicle, and the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection only marginally exceeds the LOS C standard (by 0.2 seconds per vehicle). Although the average delays would increase at the remaining study intersections, they would operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour with the project. Roadway LOS The roadway LOS analysis is summarized in Table 4. As shown, all study roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable LOS B, except the segment of Rouse Avenue south of Griffin Drive, which operates at an acceptable LOS C. Implementation of the proposed project in 2016 is not expected to degrade the LOS on any study roadway segment, with the exception of Griffin Drive west of Rouse Avenue, which would degrade from an acceptable LOS B to an acceptable LOS C. As such, no roadway LOS deficiencies are identified with the proposed project. 274 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 22 Traffic Impact Study TABLE 4: Story Mill Park - Roadway LOSRoadwaySegmentCity of Bozeman Functional ClassificationMDT Functional Classification MDT AADTLSC Estimated AADTExisting LOSProject Generated ADTADT With Story Mill ParkWith Project LOSRouse Avenue South of Griffin DrivePrincipal Arterial Minor Arterial 11,260 --C394 11,654 CBridger Drive Between Griffin Drive and Bridger Center Drive Principal Arterial Minor Arterial 8,140 --B528 8,668 BBridger Drive Between Bridger Center Drive and Birdie Drive Principal Arterial Minor Arterial -- 7,990 B279 8,269 BBridger Drive Between Birdie Drive and Story Mill RoadPrincipal Arterial Minor Arterial -- 7,100 B99 7,199 BBridger Drive East of Story Mill RoadPrincipal Arterial Minor Arterial -- 5,230 B32 5,262 BGriffin Drive West of Rouse Avenue/Bridger DriveMinor Arterial Minor Arterial 9,180 --B134 9,314 CStory Mill Road North of Bridger DriveCollector Major Collector -- 1,640 B61,646 BStory Mill Road South of Bridger DriveCollector Major Collector 750--B65815 BSource: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Story Mill TIA.xlsx275 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 23 Chapter 5 TRAFFIC IMPACTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The following potential areas of traffic impacts are considered in this section: • Impact on Traffic Volumes • Intersection Level of Service • Signal Warrant Analysis • Roadway Level of Service • Analysis of the Need for New Turn Lanes Potential mitigation measures are discussed, and recommendations are made. Finally, the conclusions of this study are summarized. IMPACT ON TRAFFIC VOLUMES The project impact on total intersection traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours is shown in Table 5. The largest impact occurs at the Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access intersection, where the total traffic volumes would increase by approximately 38 trips (or 5.6 percent) in the AM peak hour and 95 trips (or 10.2 percent) in the PM peak hour. Note that the project has a minimal impact on the total traffic volumes through the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection, with an increase of less than 2.0 percent. The project impact on roadway daily traffic volumes (ADT) is also estimated. As shown in the lower portion of the table, the biggest increase in ADT occurs on the segment of Bridger Drive TABLE 5: Story Mill Park - Traffic Volume Impacts Total Intersection Entering Volume Existing Project Generated Percent Increase in Traffic Due to Project Intersection AM PM Sum AM PM Sum AM PM Sum Bridger Dr / Rouse Ave / Griffin Drive 1,001 1,286 2,287 34 82 116 3.4% 6.4% 5.1% Bridger Dr / Bridger Center Dr / site access 683 928 1,611 38 95 133 5.6% 10.2% 8.3% Bridger Dr / Birdie Dr 612 853 1,465 13 28 41 2.1% 3.3% 2.8% Bridger Dr / Story Mill Rd 677 906 1,583 5 15 20 0.7% 1.7% 1.3% Story Mill Rd / Griffin Dr 164 161 325 4 9 13 2.4% 5.6% 4.0% Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) Roadway Existing Project Generated Percent Increase in ADT Due to Project Rouse Avenue, South of Griffin Drive 11,260 394 3.5% Bridger Drive, Between Griffin Drive and Bridger Center Drive 8,140 528 6.5% Bridger Drive, Between Bridger Center Drive and Birdie Drive 7,990 279 3.5% Bridger Drive, Between Birdie Drive and Story Mill Road 7,100 99 1.4% Bridger Drive, East of Story Mill Road 5,230 32 0.6% Griffin Drive, West of Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive 9,180 134 1.5% Story Mill Road, North of Bridger Drive 1,640 6 0.4% Story Mill Road, South of Bridger Drive 750 65 8.7% Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Story Mill TIA.xlsx 276 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 24 Traffic Impact Study between Griffin Drive/Rouse Avenue and Bridger Center Drive, with an increase of approximately 528 ADT (or a 6.5 percent increase). Story Mill Road immediately south of Bridger Drive would experience an increase of approximately 65 ADT (or an 8.7 percent increase). During the AM peak hour, the project is estimated to increase the total two-way traffic volume on Story Mill Road immediately south of Bridger Drive by approximately 4 one-way trips, or one trip every 15 minutes, on average. During the PM peak hour, the project would add approximately 9 one-way trips, which equates to less than one trip every 6 minutes, on average. Although the project proposes improvements to a portion of East Griffin Drive in order to enhance conditions for non-auto modes, the project is expected to have a minimal impact on traffic volumes along this roadway. INTERSECTION LOS IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project would cause the following two intersections to degrade from LOS C to LOS D during the PM peak hour: • Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access • Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road Potential intersection LOS mitigation measures are discussed below. No intersection LOS deficiencies are expected during the AM peak hour. Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access Due to the proposed project, the average delay increases by approximately 5.8 seconds on the worst approach. Although provision of a separate right-turn lane on the site driveway approach would improve the LOS for drivers turning right onto Bridger Drive, this would not improve the LOS to an acceptable level. Provision of a central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) along Bridger Drive west of the intersection, which would allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from the site driveway, would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C under ‘existing plus project’ peak-hour conditions. This turn lane improvement is a planned improvement by MDT (along with new sidewalks and other improvements). Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road Due to the proposed project, the average delay increases by approximately 2.5 seconds on the worst approach. Provision of a separate left-turn lane on the northbound Story Mill Road approach would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C or better under ‘existing plus project’ peak-hour conditions. This improvement would require widening the median of Story Mill Road within the vicinity of Bridger Drive, which is consistent with the City’s long-term vision of a 3- lane cross-section along Story Mill Road. Alternatively, provision of a separate right-turn lane on the northbound Story Mill Road approach would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C or better with the project; however, this improvement may not be desirable due to right-of-way constraints. 277 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 25 Year 2018 Intersection LOS The MDT improvements along Bridger Drive are expected to be completed by 2018. In order to estimate Year 2018 intersection volumes, ADT forecasts for Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road were obtained from the traffic model that was recently updated as a part of the City’s Transportation Plan Update project. Based upon a review of the model’s 2014 and 2040 traffic volumes, the average annual growth rates along Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road in the study area are estimated to be approximately 1.3 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively. Applying these growth rates to the 2016 PM peak-hour intersection volumes yields the ‘2018 no project’ PM peak-hour volumes shown in Table 6. Adding the project-generated volumes to those volumes yields the ‘2018 with project’ volumes shown in the lower portion of the table. Note that traffic volumes are not developed for the 2018 AM peak hour, as PM peak-hour conditions represent the worst case. Intersection LOS was evaluated under 2018 conditions at the two intersections expected to operate at LOS D in 2016. Assuming the MDT improvements are complete, the results indicate that the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection would continue to operate at LOS D. However, widening the Story Mill Road approaches to provide exclusive left-turn lanes would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C with the Story Mill Park Project in 2018. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS The peak-hour traffic volumes were reviewed against the signal warrant criteria presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration). The traffic volumes with the proposed project in 2016 do not meet the criteria at any of the unsignalized study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The criteria is also not met in 2018. ROADWAY LOS IMPACTS As all study roadway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better with the proposed project in 2016, no roadway LOS deficiencies are identified. ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR NEW TURN LANES The need for left- and right-turn lanes along a main roadway is evaluated based on the guidelines specified by National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457 “Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide” (Transportation Research Board, 2001). The turn lane warrant criteria charts are included in Appendix E. The need for new turn lanes is evaluated only for side-street stop-controlled intersections, as the need for turn lanes at signalized and roundabout-controlled intersections is determined by level of service. 278 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 26 Traffic Impact Study TABLE 6: Story Mill Park - Year 2018 PM Peak-Hour Intersection Traffic VolumesNorthbound Southbound Eastbound WestboundIntersection Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total2018 No ProjectBridger Dr / Bridger Center Dr / site access 7 0 2 16 0 28 10 486 4 1 383 13 950Bridger Dr / Birdie Dr 000302943449003510875Bridger Dr / Story Mill Rd 12 35 47 5 22 106 154 281 16 18 237 4 9372018 With ProjectBridger Dr / Bridger Center Dr / site access 36 0 8 16 0 28 10 492 44 8 390 13 1,045Bridger Dr / Birdie Dr 701302943455613580903Bridger Dr / Story Mill Rd 17 35 47 5 22 107 155 283 20 18 239 4 952Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and City Transportation Plan model.279 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 27 Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Left-turn lane volume warrants are defined by volume thresholds of opposing traffic versus advancing traffic, as well as the percentage of left-turns on the advancing approach. The warrant chart is attached. The need for new eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes along Bridger Drive was evaluated at the intersections of: • Bridger Center Drive/Site Access • Birdie Drive/Proposed Site Access • Story Mill Road The left-turn lane warrant analysis determined that the following left-turn lanes are warranted: • Eastbound at Birdie Drive both with and without the proposed Story Mill Park project • Eastbound at Story Mill Road both with and without the proposed Story Mill Park project Note that both of these left-turns are warranted during the PM peak hour only. No other left-turn lanes are warranted within the study area. Right-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Right-turn lane warrants are based on a graphical curve of right-turning volumes versus total traffic in the travel lane. The warrant chart is attached. The peak-hour traffic volumes do not meet the right-turn lane warrant at any of the unsignalized study intersections under either of the study scenarios. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made regarding the proposed project: • If all approaches on the unsignalized intersection of Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access are required to operate at LOS C or better under Year 2016 conditions with the proposed project, it is recommended that a central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) be constructed along Bridger Drive west of the intersection. This turn lane improvement (along with other improvements, including new sidewalks), is a planned improvement by MDT. With this improvement, an acceptable LOS C would also be provided in 2018. • Provision of a separate left-turn lane on the northbound Story Mill Road approach to Bridger Drive would improve the LOS at this intersection to an acceptable LOS C or better under ‘existing plus project’ peak-hour conditions. This improvement would require widening the median of Story Mill Road within the vicinity of Bridger Drive, which is consistent with the City’s long-term vision of a 3-lane cross-section along Story Mill Road. Alternatively, provision of a separate right-turn lane on the northbound Story 280 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 28 Traffic Impact Study Mill Road approach would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C or better with the project; however, this improvement may not be desired due to right-of-way constraints. Assuming the MDT improvements are completed in 2018, the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection would continue to operate at LOS D. However, widening the Story Mill Road approaches to provide exclusive left-turn lanes would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C with the Story Mill Park Project in 2018. • The turn lane analysis determined that an eastbound left-turn lane is warranted at the Bridger Drive/Birdie Drive intersection and an eastbound left-turn lane is warranted at the Bridger Drive/Story Mill Road intersection. These left-turn lanes are shown to be warranted with or without the proposed project. • It is noted that there is potential for local transit service to be provided in the future, but it is determined that it would not materially affect the findings and conclusions of this analysis. CONCLUSIONS • The proposed Story Mill Community Park is estimated to generate a total of approximately 638 daily one-way vehicle trips on a typical weekday without an event scheduled. The project is estimated to generate 41 vehicle trips (28 entering and 13 exiting) during the AM peak hour of the design day, and 99 vehicle trips (55 entering and 44 exiting) during the PM peak hour. • The project would result in an increase in traffic at any given study intersection of up to 95 peak-hour trips (through the Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access intersection). The project would have a minimal impact on the total traffic volumes through the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection (up to 15 peak-hour trips). • The project would increase the ADT on any given roadway segment by up to 528, which occurs along Bridger Drive between Griffin Drive/Rouse Avenue and Bridger Center Drive. The project would increase the ADT on Story Mill Road at a point immediately south of Bridger Drive by approximately 65 ADT. During the AM peak hour, the project is estimated to increase the total two-way traffic volume on Story Mill Road immediately south of Bridger Drive by approximately 4 one-way trips, or one trip every 15 minutes, on average. During the PM peak hour, the project would add approximately 9 one-way trips, which equates to less than one trip every 6 minutes, on average. The project is expected to have a minimal impact on traffic volumes along East Griffin Drive. • All study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours. With implementation of the proposed project in 2016, some intersections would degrade by one level during the AM peak hour, although the LOS at all study intersections would remain at an acceptable LOS C or better during this period. In the PM peak hour, the following two intersections would degrade from LOS C to LOS D: 281 Story Mill Park LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Page 29 o Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access o Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road If all approaches on the unsignalized intersection of Bridger Drive / Bridger Center Drive / Site Access are required to operate at LOS C or better under Year 2016 conditions with the proposed project, it is recommended that a central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) be constructed along Bridger Drive west of the intersection. This turn lane improvement (along with other improvements, including new sidewalks), is a planned improvement by MDT. With this improvement, an acceptable LOS C would also be provided in the Year 2018. At the Bridger Drive/Story Mill Road intersection, provision of a separate left-turn lane on the northbound Story Mill Road approach to Bridger Drive would improve the LOS at this intersection to an acceptable LOS C with the proposed project. This improvement would require widening the median of Story Mill Road within the vicinity of Bridger Drive, which is consistent with the City’s long-term vision of a 3-lane cross-section along Story Mill Road. Alternatively, provision of a separate right-turn lane on the northbound Story Mill Road approach would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C or better with the project; however, this improvement may not be desired due to right-of-way constraints. Assuming the MDT improvements are completed in 2018, the Bridger Drive / Story Mill Road intersection would continue to operate at LOS D. However, widening the Story Mill Road approaches to provide exclusive left-turn lanes would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C with the Story Mill Park Project in 2018. • The traffic volumes with the proposed project in 2016 do not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant criteria at any unsignalized study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The warrant criteria is also not met in 2018. • All study roadway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better with the proposed project in 2016; no roadway LOS deficiencies are identified. • The turn lane warrant analysis has determined left turn lanes are warranted for the following intersections: eastbound at the Bridger Drive/Birdie Drive intersection; and eastbound at the Bridger Drive/Story Mill Road intersection. These left-turn lanes, which are warranted with or without the proposed project, are planned to be installed as a part of the upcoming MDT project. No right-turn lanes are warranted at any of the unsignalized study intersections. • There is potential for local transit service to be provided in the future, but it is determined that it would not materially affect the findings and conclusions of this analysis. 282 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Story Mill Park Page 30 Traffic Impact Study This page left intentionally blank. 283 Appendix A TRAFFIC COUNTS 284 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 7:00 AM 15 16 0 0 29 26 12 2 16 1 0 0 117 671 7:15 AM 18 21 0 0 42 18 21 1 16 1 3 0 141 793 7:30 AM 26 23 0 0 42 31 22 4 38 0 1 0 187 896 7:45 AM 44 28 2 0 44 34 29 3 40 1 1 0 226 936 8:00 AM 21 41 0 0 73 35 27 1 36 3 1 1 239 930 8:15 AM 35 44 2 1 55 18 28 0 58 0 3 0 244 8:30 AM 39 46 1 0 34 24 38 1 41 1 2 0 227 8:45 AM 44 27 0 0 56 17 29 2 38 1 6 0 220 Peak-Hour Volume 139 159 5 1 206 111 122 5 175 5 7 1 936 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 4:00 PM 52 44 2 0 35 25 36 4 42 3 2 0 245 973 4:15 PM 41 61 2 0 34 26 29 2 35 0 3 1 234 1,035 4:30 PM 32 43 1 0 48 37 17 2 41 1 1 0 223 1,080 4:45 PM 40 58 4 1 52 27 34 0 49 2 3 1 271 1,092 5:00 PM 37 43 3 0 64 56 25 4 67 4 4 0 307 1,056 5:15 PM 43 75 2 0 50 39 26 3 39 1 1 0 279 5:30 PM 43 47 0 0 46 35 23 2 37 1 1 0 235 5:45 PM 34 60 1 0 34 32 31 0 35 7 1 0 235 Peak-Hour Volume 163 223 9 1 212 157 108 9 192 8 9 1 1,092 10/20/2015 7:00 AM Peak Hour 7:45 AM Bridger Drive / Rouse Avenue Griffin Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 10/20/2015 4:00 PM Peak Hour 4:45 PM Bridger Drive / Rouse Avenue Griffin Drive 285 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 28 0 0 56 0 91 534 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 41 0 0 70 0 116 628 7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 3 10 48 0 0 75 2 139 676 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 18 65 0 1 100 2 188 683 8:00 AM 0 0 0 3 0 5 13 65 0 0 94 5 185 633 8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 7 10 70 0 0 74 2 164 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 76 0 0 59 2 146 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 4 6 63 0 0 62 2 138 Peak-Hour Volume 0 0 0 6 0 19 43 276 0 1 327 11 683 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 4:00 PM 0 0 0 3 0 8 4 86 0 0 82 5 188 753 4:15 PM 0 0 0 4 0 10 5 92 1 0 80 4 196 792 4:30 PM 1 0 0 2 0 8 2 79 3 0 78 3 176 825 4:45 PM 1 2 0 2 0 8 1 105 1 0 72 1 193 906 5:00 PM 1 0 0 8 0 8 2 112 1 0 93 2 227 928 5:15 PM 2 0 1 4 0 5 2 122 3 1 85 4 229 5:30 PM 4 0 1 1 0 9 4 131 0 0 103 4 257 5:45 PM 0 0 0 3 0 6 2 109 0 0 92 3 215 Peak-Hour Volume 7 0 2 16 0 28 10 474 4 1 373 13 928 Bridger Center Drive Bridger Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 4:00 PM Peak Hour 5:00 PM 4/12/2016 7:00 AM Peak Hour 7:45 AM Bridger Center Drive Bridger Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 4/12/2016 286 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 7:00 AM -- -- -- 0 -- 1 1 26 -- -- 47 0 75 471 7:15 AM -- -- -- 0 -- 2 2 37 -- -- 67 0 108 557 7:30 AM -- -- -- 0 -- 9 1 45 -- -- 66 0 121 596 7:45 AM -- -- -- 0 -- 11 4 58 -- -- 94 0 167 612 8:00 AM -- -- -- 0 -- 14 5 58 -- -- 84 0 161 574 8:15 AM -- -- -- 1 -- 6 7 63 -- -- 70 0 147 8:30 AM -- -- -- 0 -- 1 5 72 -- -- 57 2 137 8:45 AM -- -- -- 0 -- 8 3 62 -- -- 56 0 129 Peak-Hour Volume 0 0 0 1 0 32 21 251 0 0 305 2 612 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 4:00 PM -- -- -- 0 -- 8 8 80 -- -- 75 0 171 682 4:15 PM -- -- -- 0 -- 5 8 86 -- -- 76 2 177 721 4:30 PM -- -- -- 1 -- 2 5 78 -- -- 73 0 159 758 4:45 PM -- -- -- 0 -- 3 6 95 -- -- 71 0 175 830 5:00 PM -- -- -- 0 -- 5 8 111 -- -- 86 0 210 853 5:15 PM -- -- -- 1 -- 7 14 111 -- -- 81 0 214 5:30 PM -- -- -- 1 -- 12 13 113 -- -- 92 0 231 5:45 PM -- -- -- 1 -- 5 7 102 -- -- 83 0 198 Peak-Hour Volume 0 0 0 3 0 29 42 437 0 0 342 0 853 Birdie Drive Bridger Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 4:00 PM Peak Hour 5:00 PM 4/12/2016 7:00 AM Peak Hour 7:45 AM Birdie Drive Bridger Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 4/12/2016 287 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 3 19 5 9 0 7 28 0 72 388 7:15 AM 1 2 1 1 3 14 5 23 2 6 29 1 88 480 7:30 AM 3 1 1 0 9 14 9 10 2 2 44 1 96 538 7:45 AM 1 4 2 0 10 19 14 23 1 7 49 2 132 576 8:00 AM 5 3 2 2 5 38 19 21 1 14 53 1 164 574 8:15 AM 0 3 5 1 17 20 14 32 2 17 35 0 146 8:30 AM 1 5 5 1 9 16 14 45 0 3 35 0 134 8:45 AM 0 4 6 0 3 24 19 27 1 6 36 4 130 Peak-Hour Volume 7 15 14 4 41 93 61 121 4 41 172 3 576 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 4:00 PM 3 7 4 1 1 17 22 39 0 1 23 0 118 541 4:15 PM 1 3 9 0 4 10 22 49 3 2 28 2 133 569 4:30 PM 5 6 3 1 2 19 14 36 1 5 36 0 128 612 4:45 PM 0 7 10 1 5 25 23 47 1 2 39 2 162 626 5:00 PM 2 10 13 1 3 22 16 29 4 6 39 1 146 630 5:15 PM 4 7 12 1 6 18 27 48 2 0 49 2 176 5:30 PM 0 10 11 2 5 12 26 36 0 8 31 1 142 5:45 PM 2 6 8 1 7 17 22 53 4 4 42 0 166 Peak-Hour Volume 8 33 44 5 21 69 91 166 10 18 161 4 630 4:00 PM Peak Hour 5:00 PM 10/20/2015 7:00 AM Peak Hour 7:45 AM Story Mill Road Bridger Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 10/20/2015 Story Mill Road Bridger Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 288 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 7:00 AM 2 8 -- -- 9 1 0 -- 0 -- -- -- 20 93 7:15 AM 0 8 -- -- 6 0 0 -- 0 -- -- -- 14 112 7:30 AM 0 4 -- -- 16 0 1 -- 0 -- -- -- 21 149 7:45 AM 0 11 -- -- 20 2 3 -- 2 -- -- -- 38 164 8:00 AM 3 8 -- -- 27 0 1 -- 0 -- -- -- 39 154 8:15 AM 2 15 -- -- 31 1 0 -- 2 -- -- -- 51 8:30 AM 3 14 -- -- 13 2 0 -- 4 -- -- -- 36 8:45 AM 2 7 -- -- 13 2 2 -- 2 -- -- -- 28 Peak-Hour Volume 8480091540 800 0164 Traffic Turning Movement Counts Count Date Start Time Street Name Direction Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 1hr total 4:00 PM 2 12 -- -- 5 3 1 -- 2 -- -- -- 25 116 4:15 PM 3 12 -- -- 8 1 1 -- 0 -- -- -- 25 130 4:30 PM 2 17 -- -- 7 1 0 -- 2 -- -- -- 29 146 4:45 PM 1 18 -- -- 16 0 1 -- 1 -- -- -- 37 161 5:00 PM 2 16 -- -- 13 1 4 -- 3 -- -- -- 39 158 5:15 PM 4 22 -- -- 13 0 0 -- 2 -- -- -- 41 5:30 PM 3 21 -- -- 12 2 2 -- 4 -- -- -- 44 5:45 PM 1 19 -- -- 12 0 0 -- 2 -- -- -- 34 Peak-Hour Volume 10 77 0 0 54 3 7 0 10 0 0 0 161 Story Mill Road Griffin Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 4:00 PM Peak Hour 4:45 PM 4/13/2016 7:00 AM Peak Hour 7:45 AM Story Mill Road Griffin Drive Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 4/13/2016 289 Appendix B LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS 290 DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level of service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations, from A to F, with level of service A representing the best operating conditions and level of service F the worst. Level of Service Definitions In general, the various levels of service are defined as follows for uninterrupted flow facilities: $ Level of service A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent. $ Level of service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior. $ Level of service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. $ Level of Service D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. $ Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to “give way” to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns. $ Level of service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Level of service F is used to describe the operating conditions within the queue, as well as the point of the breakdown. It should be noted, however, that in many cases operating conditions of vehicles or pedestrians discharged from the queue may be quite good. Nevertheless, it is the point at which arrival flow exceeds discharge flow which causes the queue to form, and level of service F is an appropriate designation for such points. 291 Appendix C INTERSECTION LOS REPORTS 292 AM Peak Hour No Project 293 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr & Griffin Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 138 5 175 5 7 1 139 180 5 1 224 121 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 5 182 5 7 1 145 188 5 1 233 126 Adj No. of Lanes 011010110111 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 542 13 461 247 230 24 602 920 24 578 487 414 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.51 0.51 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1442 66 1583 316 1193 126 1774 1806 48 1185 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 149 0 182 13 0 0 145 0 193 1 233 126 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1508 0 1583 1634 0 0 1774 0 1854 1185 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.8 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 2.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.8 1.7 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.38 0.08 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 554 0 461 501 0 0 602 0 944 578 487 414 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.39 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.48 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1125 0 1100 1112 0 0 758 0 1797 1019 1180 1003 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.6 0.0 7.6 8.8 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 3.6 7.3 8.4 7.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.8 0.0 8.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.7 7.3 9.1 8.4 LnGrp LOS A A A A AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 331 13 338 360 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.9 8.8 4.4 8.8 Approach LOS AAAA Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.7 9.2 6.6 11.0 9.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 4.5 3.4 4.8 4.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 1.1 0.1 2.2 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.4 HCM 2010 LOS A 294 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: site access/Bridger Center & Bridger Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 43 276 0 1 327 11 0 0 0 6 0 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 47 303 0 1 359 12 0 0 0 7 0 21 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 371 0 0 303 0 0 776 772 303 766 766 365 Stage 1 - - - - - - 398 398 - 368 368 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 378 374 - 398 398 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1188 - - 1258 - - 315 330 737 320 333 680 Stage 1 - - - - - - 628 603 - 652 621 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 644 618 - 628 603 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1188 - - 1258 - - 294 314 737 308 317 680 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 294 314 - 308 317 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 598 574 - 621 620 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 624 617 - 598 574 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0 0 12.2 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1188 - - 1258 - - 527 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.04 - - 0.001 - - 0.052 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.2 0 - 7.9 0 - 12.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 295 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Bridger Dr & Birdie Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol, veh/h 21 251 305 2 1 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 23 273 332 2 1 35 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 334 0 - 0 651 333 Stage 1 - - - - 333 - Stage 2 - - - - 318 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1225 - - - 433 709 Stage 1 - - - - 726 - Stage 2 - - - - 738 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1225 - - - 423 709 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 423 - Stage 1 - - - - 726 - Stage 2 - - - - 722 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 10.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1225 - - - 695 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - - 0.052 HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - - 10.5 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.2 296 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Story Mill Rd & Bridger Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 83 164 5 41 194 3 8 15 14 4 41 105 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 94 186 6 47 220 3 9 17 16 5 47 119 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 224 0 0 192 0 0 776 695 189 709 696 222 Stage 1 - - - - - - 378 378 - 315 315 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 398 317 - 394 381 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1345 - - 1381 - - 315 366 853 349 365 818 Stage 1 - - - - - - 644 615 - 696 656 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 628 654 - 631 613 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1345 - - 1381 - - 219 324 853 300 323 818 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 219 324 - 300 323 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 594 567 - 642 630 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 477 628 - 554 565 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.6 1.3 15.9 14.3 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 373 1345 - - 1381 - - 558 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 0.07 - - 0.034 - - 0.305 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.9 7.9 0 - 7.7 0 - 14.3 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 1.3 297 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Story Mill Rd & Griffin Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 4 8 8 48 91 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 10 10 60 114 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 197 117 120 0 - 0 Stage 1 117 - - - - - Stage 2 80 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 792 935 1468 - - - Stage 1 908 - - - - - Stage 2 943 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 786 935 1468 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 786 - - - - - Stage 1 908 - - - - - Stage 2 936 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 1.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1468 - 879 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 298 PM Peak Hour No Project 299 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr & Griffin Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 159 9 192 8 9 1 163 328 9 1 234 173 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 179 10 216 9 10 1 183 369 10 1 263 194 Adj No. of Lanes 011010110111 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 550 18 503 250 208 15 579 944 26 525 537 456 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.52 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1492 83 1583 367 972 70 1774 1805 49 1000 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 0 216 20 0 0 183 0 379 1 263 194 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1575 0 1583 1409 0 0 1774 0 1854 1000 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.6 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 3.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.6 3.0 Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.45 0.05 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 567 0 503 473 0 0 579 0 970 525 537 456 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.43 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.49 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1009 0 996 924 0 0 746 0 1583 762 979 832 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.5 0.0 8.2 9.5 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 4.4 7.7 9.0 8.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.9 1.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.9 0.0 8.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 4.6 7.7 9.7 9.4 LnGrp LOS B A A A AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 405 20 562 458 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.8 9.5 5.0 9.6 Approach LOS AAAA Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.9 10.5 7.1 12.8 10.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 16.0 6.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 5.3 3.9 5.6 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 1.4 0.1 3.2 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.9 HCM 2010 LOS A 300 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: site access/Bridger Center & Bridger Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 10 474 4 1 373 13 7 0 2 16 0 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 527 4 1 414 14 8 0 2 18 0 31 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 429 0 0 531 0 0 990 982 529 976 977 422 Stage 1 - - - - - - 551 551 - 424 424 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 439 431 - 552 553 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 1036 - - 225 249 550 230 251 632 Stage 1 - - - - - - 519 515 - 608 587 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 597 583 - 518 514 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 1036 - - 211 245 550 226 247 632 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 211 245 - 226 247 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 512 508 - 599 586 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 567 582 - 509 507 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 20.4 15.8 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 244 1130 - - 1036 - - 382 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.01 - - 0.001 - - 0.128 HCM Control Delay (s) 20.4 8.2 0 - 8.5 0 - 15.8 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.4 301 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Bridger Dr & Birdie Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol, veh/h 42 437 342 0 3 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 46 475 372 0 3 32 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 372 0 - 0 938 372 Stage 1 - - - - 372 - Stage 2 - - - - 566 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 - - - 293 674 Stage 1 - - - - 697 - Stage 2 - - - - 568 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 - - - 277 674 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 277 - Stage 1 - - - - 697 - Stage 2 - - - - 538 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 11.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1186 - - - 594 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - - - 0.059 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - - 11.4 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.2 302 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Story Mill Rd & Bridger Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 150 274 16 18 231 4 11 33 44 5 21 99 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 169 308 18 20 260 4 12 37 49 6 24 111 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 264 0 0 326 0 0 1024 958 317 999 965 262 Stage 1 - - - - - - 654 654 - 302 302 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 370 304 - 697 663 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1300 - - 1234 - - 214 257 724 222 255 777 Stage 1 - - - - - - 456 463 - 707 664 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 650 663 - 431 459 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1300 - - 1234 - - 145 212 724 156 210 777 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 145 212 - 156 210 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 383 389 - 595 651 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 527 650 - 306 386 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.8 0.6 22.7 15.5 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 301 1300 - - 1234 - - 482 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.328 0.13 - - 0.016 - - 0.291 HCM Control Delay (s) 22.7 8.2 0 - 8 0 - 15.5 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 0.4 - - 0.1 - - 1.2 303 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Story Mill Rd & Griffin Dr 4/27/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - No Project Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 7 10 10 77 54 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 11 11 85 59 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 168 61 63 0 - 0 Stage 1 61 - - - - - Stage 2 107 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 822 1004 1540 - - - Stage 1 962 - - - - - Stage 2 917 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 816 1004 1540 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 816 - - - - - Stage 1 962 - - - - - Stage 2 911 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1540 - 917 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.02 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 304 AM Peak Hour With Story Mill Park 305 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr & Griffin Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 144 5 175 5 7 1 139 197 5 1 232 124 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 5 182 5 7 1 145 205 5 1 242 129 Adj No. of Lanes 011010110111 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 553 10 462 246 233 25 597 928 23 577 498 424 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.51 0.51 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1510 53 1583 327 1201 127 1774 1811 44 1167 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 155 0 182 13 0 0 145 0 210 1 242 129 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1563 0 1583 1656 0 0 1774 0 1855 1167 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.38 0.08 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 563 0 462 504 0 0 597 0 951 577 498 424 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.00 0.39 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.49 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1120 0 1086 1101 0 0 750 0 1772 993 1163 989 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.7 0.0 7.7 8.9 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 3.6 7.3 8.4 7.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.0 0.0 8.3 8.9 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.8 7.3 9.1 8.3 LnGrp LOS A A A A AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 337 13 355 372 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.0 8.9 4.4 8.9 Approach LOS AAAA Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.9 9.3 6.7 11.3 9.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 16.0 5.0 17.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 4.5 3.4 5.0 2.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 1.2 0.1 2.3 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.5 HCM 2010 LOS A 306 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: site access/Bridger Center & Bridger Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 43 280 19 4 331 11 7 0 1 6 0 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 47 308 21 4 364 12 8 0 1 7 0 21 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 376 0 0 329 0 0 802 798 318 792 802 370 Stage 1 - - - - - - 413 413 - 379 379 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 389 385 - 413 423 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1182 - - 1231 - - 302 319 723 307 317 676 Stage 1 - - - - - - 616 594 - 643 615 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 635 611 - 616 588 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1182 - - 1231 - - 281 302 723 294 300 676 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 281 302 - 294 300 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 586 565 - 611 613 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 613 609 - 585 559 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0.1 17.2 12.4 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 304 1182 - - 1231 - - 515 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 0.04 - - 0.004 - - 0.053 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.2 8.2 0 - 7.9 0 - 12.4 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 307 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Bridger Dr & Birdie Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 21 252 4 1 308 2 4 0 0 1 0 32 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 23 274 4 1 335 2 4 0 0 1 0 35 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 337 0 0 278 0 0 677 661 276 660 662 336 Stage 1 - - - - - - 322 322 - 338 338 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 355 339 - 322 324 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1222 - - 1285 - - 367 383 763 376 382 706 Stage 1 - - - - - - 690 651 - 676 641 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 662 640 - 690 650 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1222 - - 1285 - - 343 374 763 369 373 706 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 343 374 - 369 373 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 675 637 - 661 640 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 629 639 - 675 636 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 15.6 10.5 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 343 1222 - - 1285 - - 687 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 0.019 - - 0.001 - - 0.052 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.6 8 0 - 7.8 0 - 10.5 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 308 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Story Mill Rd & Bridger Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 83 164 6 41 195 3 11 15 14 4 41 105 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 94 186 7 47 222 3 12 17 16 5 47 119 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 225 0 0 193 0 0 777 696 190 711 698 223 Stage 1 - - - - - - 378 378 - 316 316 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 399 318 - 395 382 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1344 - - 1380 - - 314 365 852 348 364 817 Stage 1 - - - - - - 644 615 - 695 655 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 627 654 - 630 613 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1344 - - 1380 - - 218 323 852 299 323 817 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 218 323 - 299 323 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 594 567 - 641 629 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 476 628 - 553 565 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.6 1.3 16.7 14.3 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 353 1344 - - 1380 - - 558 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.07 - - 0.034 - - 0.305 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.7 7.9 0 - 7.7 0 - 14.3 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 1.3 309 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Story Mill Rd & Griffin Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 AM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 4 8 8 51 92 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 10 10 64 115 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 202 118 121 0 - 0 Stage 1 118 - - - - - Stage 2 84 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 787 934 1467 - - - Stage 1 907 - - - - - Stage 2 939 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 781 934 1467 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 781 - - - - - Stage 1 907 - - - - - Stage 2 932 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1467 - 877 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 310 PM Peak Hour With Story Mill Park 311 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Rouse Ave/Bridger Dr & Griffin Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 171 9 192 8 9 1 163 362 9 1 261 182 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 192 10 216 9 10 1 183 407 10 1 293 204 Adj No. of Lanes 011010110111 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 545 17 500 239 200 14 565 963 24 521 565 480 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.53 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1509 79 1583 344 934 67 1774 1810 44 965 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 202 0 216 20 0 0 183 0 417 1 293 204 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1587 0 1583 1346 0 0 1774 0 1855 965 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.1 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 3.4 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.1 3.2 Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.45 0.05 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 562 0 500 453 0 0 565 0 987 521 565 480 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.43 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.52 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 979 0 966 879 0 0 722 0 1532 719 947 805 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.0 0.0 8.5 9.9 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 4.4 7.7 9.1 8.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 1.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.4 0.0 9.1 9.9 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.7 7.7 9.8 9.4 LnGrp LOS B A A A AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 418 20 600 498 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.2 9.9 5.1 9.6 Approach LOS BAAA Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.8 10.7 7.2 13.5 10.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 16.0 6.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 5.4 3.9 6.1 5.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.7 1.5 0.1 3.5 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.0 HCM 2010 LOS A 312 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: site access/Bridger Center & Bridger Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 10 480 44 8 380 13 36 0 8 16 0 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 533 49 9 422 14 40 0 9 18 0 31 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 437 0 0 582 0 0 1043 1034 558 1031 1051 429 Stage 1 - - - - - - 580 580 - 447 447 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 463 454 - 584 604 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 992 - - 207 232 529 211 227 626 Stage 1 - - - - - - 500 500 - 591 573 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 579 569 - 498 488 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 992 - - 193 226 529 203 221 626 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 193 226 - 203 221 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 493 493 - 582 566 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 544 562 - 482 481 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 26.2 16.7 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 218 1123 - - 992 - - 356 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.224 0.01 - - 0.009 - - 0.137 HCM Control Delay (s) 26.2 8.2 0 - 8.7 0 - 16.7 HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0 - - 0 - - 0.5 313 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Bridger Dr & Birdie Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 42 443 6 1 349 0 7 0 1 3 0 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 46 482 7 1 379 0 8 0 1 3 0 32 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 379 0 0 488 0 0 973 958 485 959 961 379 Stage 1 - - - - - - 576 576 - 382 382 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 397 382 - 577 579 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1179 - - 1075 - - 231 257 582 237 256 668 Stage 1 - - - - - - 503 502 - 640 613 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 629 613 - 502 501 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1179 - - 1075 - - 211 243 582 227 242 668 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 211 243 - 227 242 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 476 475 - 605 612 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 599 612 - 474 474 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 21.3 11.8 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 229 1179 - - 1075 - - 565 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.039 - - 0.001 - - 0.062 HCM Control Delay (s) 21.3 8.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 11.8 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2 314 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Story Mill Rd & Bridger Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 5 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 151 276 20 18 233 4 16 33 44 5 21 100 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 170 310 22 20 262 4 18 37 49 6 24 112 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 266 0 0 333 0 0 1033 968 321 1008 976 264 Stage 1 - - - - - - 661 661 - 304 304 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 372 307 - 704 672 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1298 - - 1226 - - 211 254 720 219 251 775 Stage 1 - - - - - - 452 460 - 705 663 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 648 661 - 428 454 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1298 - - 1226 - - 143 209 720 153 207 775 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 143 209 - 153 207 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 379 386 - 591 650 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 524 648 - 302 381 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.8 0.6 25.2 15.6 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 281 1298 - - 1226 - - 479 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.372 0.131 - - 0.016 - - 0.296 HCM Control Delay (s) 25.2 8.2 0 - 8 0 - 15.6 HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 0.5 - - 0.1 - - 1.2 315 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Story Mill Rd & Griffin Dr 5/2/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 6 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 7 10 10 82 58 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 11 11 90 64 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 177 65 67 0 - 0 Stage 1 65 - - - - - Stage 2 112 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 813 999 1535 - - - Stage 1 958 - - - - - Stage 2 913 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 806 999 1535 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 806 - - - - - Stage 1 958 - - - - - Stage 2 906 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1535 - 909 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.021 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 316 AM Peak Hour With Story Mill Park Mitigated 317 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: site access/Bridger Center & Bridger Dr 5/4/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park - MITIGATED Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 10 480 44 8 380 13 36 0 8 16 0 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 533 49 9 422 14 40 0 9 18 0 31 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 437 0 0 582 0 0 1043 1034 558 1031 1051 429 Stage 1 - - - - - - 580 580 - 447 447 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 463 454 - 584 604 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 992 - - 207 232 529 211 227 626 Stage 1 - - - - - - 500 500 - 591 573 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 579 569 - 498 488 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 992 - - 193 226 529 203 221 626 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 322 340 - 203 221 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 493 493 - 582 566 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 544 562 - 482 481 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 17.1 16.7 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 347 1123 - - 992 - - 356 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 0.01 - - 0.009 - - 0.137 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.1 8.2 0 - 8.7 0 - 16.7 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0 - - 0 - - 0.5 318 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Story Mill Rd & Bridger Dr 5/4/2016 Story Mill Park Traffic Analysis 4/12/2016 PM Peak Hour - WITH Story Mill Park - MITIGATED Synchro 8 Report JHB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 151 276 20 18 233 4 16 33 44 5 21 100 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 170 310 22 20 262 4 18 37 49 6 24 112 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 266 0 0 333 0 0 1033 968 321 983 976 264 Stage 1 - - - - - - 661 661 - 304 304 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 372 307 - 679 672 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1298 - - 1226 - - 211 254 720 228 251 775 Stage 1 - - - - - - 452 460 - 705 663 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 648 661 - 441 454 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1298 - - 1226 - - 143 209 720 159 207 775 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 143 209 - 159 207 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 379 386 - 591 650 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 524 648 - 311 381 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.8 0.6 22.4 15.6 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 182 720 1298 - - 1226 - - 481 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.303 0.069 0.131 - - 0.016 - - 0.294 HCM Control Delay (s) 33.1 10.4 8.2 0 - 8 0 - 15.6 HCM Lane LOS D B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 0.2 0.5 - - 0.1 - - 1.2 319 Appendix D ROADWAY LOS CRITERIA 320 2012 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES TABLE 2 Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Transitioning Areas and Areas Over 5,000 Not In Urbanized Areas1 12/18/12 INTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES UNINTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Alter corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) Non-State Signalized Roadways - 10% STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS Class I (40 mph or higher posted speed limit) Lanes Median B C D E 2 Undivided * 14,400 16,200 ** 4 Divided * 34,000 35,500 ** 6 Divided * 52,100 53,500 ** Class II (35 mph or slower posted speed limit) Lanes Median B C D E 2 Undivided * 6,500 13,300 14,200 4 Divided * 9,900 28,800 31,600 6 Divided * 16,000 44,900 47,600 Freeway Adjustments Auxiliary Lanes Present in Both Directions Ramp Metering + 20,000 + 5% FREEWAYS Lanes B C D E 4 44,100 57,600 68,900 71,700 6 65,100 85,600 102,200 111,000 8 85,100 113,700 135,200 150,000 10 106,200 141,700 168,800 189,000 Median & Turn Lane Adjustments Lanes Median Exclusive Left Lanes Exclusive Right Lanes Adjustment Factors 2 Divided Yes No +5% 2 Undivided No No -20% Multi Undivided Yes No -5% Multi Undivided No No -25% – – – Yes + 5% One-Way Facility Adjustment Multiply the corresponding two-directional volumes in this table by 0.6 UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes Median B C D E 2 Undivided 9,200 17,300 24,400 33,300 4 Divided 35,300 49,600 62,900 69,600 6 Divided 52,800 74,500 94,300 104,500 Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments Lanes Median Exclusive left lanes Adjustment factors 2 Divided Yes +5% Multi Undivided Yes -5% Multi Undivided No -25% BICYCLE MODE2 (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/Bicycle Lane Coverage B C D E 0-49% * 2,600 6,100 19,500 50-84% 1,900 5,500 18,400 >19,500 85-100% 7,500 19,500 >19,500 ** PEDESTRIAN MODE2 (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Sidewalk Coverage B C D E 0-49% * * 2,800 9,400 50-84% * 1,600 8,600 15,600 85-100% 3,800 10,500 17,100 >19,500 BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3 (Buses in peak hour in peak direction) Sidewalk Coverage B C D E 0-84% > 5 ≥ 4 ≥ 3 ≥ 2 85-100% > 4 ≥ 3 ≥ 2 ≥ 1 1Values shown are presented as two-way annual average daily volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/truck modes unless specifically stated. This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual and the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. 2 Level of service for the bicycle and pedestrian modes in this table is based on number of motorized vehicles, not number of bicyclists or pedestrians using the facility. 3 Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher traffic flow. * Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. ** Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For the automobile mode, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For the bicycle mode, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. Source: Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.shtm 321 Appendix E TURN LANE WARRANT CRITERIA 322 323 324 Appendix D - Parking Generation 325 326 327 328 329 330